967 words
American actress-director-producer Jodie Foster has come under fire for not throwing her friend, Academy Award-winning actor-director Mel Gibson, under the bus. The two have known each other since they met on the set of Maverick (1994).
Gibson has been systematically hounded and maligned since he made the Christian motion picture The Passion of the Christ (2004). It grossed $611,899,420 worldwide and $370,782,930 in the US alone, surpassing every motion picture Gibson had starred in previously. (He directed, but did not star in, the movie.) In the US it became the eighth (at the time) highest-grossing film in history, and the highest-grossing R-rated film ever. The Passion was nominated for three Academy Awards and won a People’s Choice Award.
Obviously, Hollywood is not motivated solely by profits. More important is the propagation of specific forms of racism, religious bigotry, and political correctness—in other words, social control.
When Jews socially suppress a viewpoint, they attack—viciously—anyone associated with the ideas being marginalized. An essential element for success is the ostracism associated with the witch hunt. Everyone must revile the victim in the most demeaning manner imaginable, withholding support or comfort of any kind.
The motivation is two-fold: out of hatred and vengeance to hurt the Christian, white, anti-Communist, Arab, or other victim to the maximum extent possible, and, at the same time, to teach others that they must not dream of leaving the playpen in which they’ve been confined.
Escaping the Playpen
In clear contravention of this charge, Jodie Foster recently directed a motion picture starring Gibson, The Beaver (2011), in which she co-stars. According to the Hollywood Reporter, casting Gibson “‘was a challenge for distribution,'” Foster acknowledges. ‘They wanted an anchor as well’ — a key reason she cast herself in the co-starring role.”
So the actress put herself and her career on the line. The Jewish threat is palpable, and everyone knows it: “She still has decades of productive work, and it matters. So it’s heartbreaking that this second [the first was obsessive fan John Hinckley’s shooting of President Reagan] intersection with a public maelstrom might get in the way.”
A curious accident occurred on the set of The Beaver, when Gibson was required to hit himself with a prop lamp: “‘It was a very big, emotional scene, the last thing we shoot in the entire movie,’ Foster notes. ‘Our prop department messed up and didn’t score the fake lamp properly; half of it was real, and when he smacked his head, it just — whoosh! — blood was gushing everywhere.'”
In a May 2011 interview with Guy Raz, the Jewish host of National Public Radio’s Weekend All Things Considered, Foster was questioned about her decision to support Gibson after everyone else had abandoned him. She said, echoing similar statements in previous interviews over the years:
As far as walking away from someone who’s struggling, I mean, if you love somebody, and you know them, and they have proven themselves as a friend over and over again in your life, and they’re somebody who’s really a member of your family, when someone’s struggling, you don’t walk away from them. You stand by them. I’m not interested in running away from him. The Mel Gibson that I know, that I’ve experienced, and that I know intimately — and I think I can probably say you don’t know — is an extraordinary man. And no one can take that away.
This way of thinking and acting was very characteristic of our people in the pre-totalitarian era. Of course, it was never universal, but it happened at every level of society far more often than you’d dream by observing today’s population.
Such integrity requires true moral and social courage. It is more impressive by far than mere reckless physical behavior associated with extreme sports or contemporary military or police duty, which huge numbers of people engage in regularly without difficulty (indeed, they seek it out—it’s fun).
Distinguished Background
Foster is a member of that curious set of Hollywood figures who come from privileged backgrounds: John Lodge, Katherine Hepburn, Humphrey Bogart, Otto Kruger, director Robert Aldrich.
She attended a French-language prep school, the Lycée Français de Los Angeles, and since her teens has frequently lived and worked in France. She reportedly speaks French without an accent, and dubs herself in the French-language versions of most of her films. A magna cum laude graduate of Yale, she is a descendant of Mayflower passengers John and Priscilla Alden and William and Alice Mullins. (Only her father’s genealogy is provided online; her Bronx-born mother’s, née Almond, is not.)
Leni Riefenstahl Film Project
Foster has also been attacked for her desire to produce a motion picture about the life of legendary German filmmaker Leni Riefenstahl (Triumph of the Will, Olympia). The project never got off the ground, however, and appears to be dead: “‘I’ve never been able to crack it, really,’ she says. ‘I just was never able to get the scripts in the shape they needed to be.’ She shrugs, trying not to let it weigh on her. But the sense of loss is there and perhaps always will be.”
It’s not absolutely clear that Foster intended to make a sympathetic or even objective picture about Riefenstahl, although one assumes so. Her co-producer on the project, Gabriele Bacher, told a journalist in 2007 that the film would not be a “whitewash” of the controversial filmmaker.
Ordinarily, the Jewish path would be clear at this point. They would proceed to make Foster’s life hell, threatening her career, until she recanted and joined the mob hurling stones at Gibson.
Will Foster’s lesbianism protect her? In the Jewish imperium, Gentile homosexuals do not have carte blanche to think, do, or say whatever they please, but they have more freedom than heterosexuals.
Time will tell.
19 comments
Is this a witch-hunt directed to everyone involved with Mel Gibson? I see Jodie Foster as a film director making movies in Europe. I hope she will be greatly appreciated here.
Jodie Foster strikes me as someone wanting to create cinematic works beneficial to our cause. She seems to be acutely aware of the oppressive, media power of Hollywood. I think it’s time for her to fully delve into her own treasure of possibilities free from restraint.
I’m fairly certain (by instinct only) that Ms. Foster is concerned for our ‘World Eury’ (a term created by Stan Hess). Like all of us: she may be sensing the current, evolutionary pressures of our white demise world wide.
Or should I say ‘devolutionary’ pressures?
With style and tact, Ms. Foster could lead the ‘Media Way’ in addressing and inspiring our ‘World Eury’. If she chooses to take such a path, I wish her well.
@ “Jodie Foster strikes me as someone wanting to create cinematic works beneficial to our cause.”
Really? What about The Brave One (2007 film), starring JF, where her beloved boyfriend is a Negro?
I don’t follow Hollywood.
I’ve heard about her role in that film. However, her association with Mel Gibson suggests (to say the least) a different arena of awareness and ‘considerations of sorts’. Such is pure speculation on my part.
We can only hope for an entry (her entry) into something better in our favour. Departing from Hollywood is her only ticket to creative freedom. Mr. Gibson is ‘somewhat’ symbolic of that.
En fin: for now, I’ll continue to hold that she may be a proud, but closet Euro centrist.
Edgardus, I hope you are right. But the love that such adorable white woman professed to the Negro really bothered me. In real life, miscegenation is a sin that cannot be forgiven, and the message of these kinds of films is, basically, that miscegenation is cool.
Indeed, such a film may have misled many of our white women, who are the carriers of European existence. At this moment in white history: either our women (as well as Jodie Foster) come to realise the pressures of our demise or perish.
Nota bene: this kind of realisation has the power to displace the opposition and all of its socially engineered messages.
This realisation may be assisted by the upcoming collapse of our fractional, reserve system of monetary deceit. That is to say, the contemporary (anti-White) social and cultural order will come into question.
Thanks.
Sailer is honest about why no pro-white movement is allowed in the US:
http://www.vdare.com/sailer/110515_white_identity.htm
Jodie Foster no doubt understands the score regarding the loathsome and foul Hollywood Jews. By taking up for Mel Gibson, she is taking a real chance with her career. Although her lesbianism and political liberalism (I’m guessing) might give her some leeway, I’m sure Jewry is watching her every move.
“When Jews socially suppress a viewpoint, they attack—viciously—anyone associated with the ideas being marginalized. An essential element for success is the ostracism associated with the witch hunt. Everyone must revile the victim in the most demeaning manner imaginable, withholding support or comfort of any kind.”
This is very reminiscent of the destruction of Joe McCarthy (see http://www.kevinalfredstrom.com/2009/07/the-destruction-of-joe-mccarthy/ and “Blacklisted by History” by M. Stanton Evans) and more recently the destruction of Joseph Sobran (See “Death of a Giant” at http://www.dcdave.com/poet15/101003b.htm)
It is reminiscent of Joseph McCarthy and Joe Sobran–and many others. You’re right.
They have a stereotyped set of approaches they use over and over again against those they hate.
I will try to look at your long article about James Forrestal’s death. Years ago John Demjanjuk’s Israeli attorney likewise took a highly suspicious “leap” out of a window and was killed.
Apparently General Patton’s death is also highly suspicious, according to Robert K. Wilcox’s Target: Patton: The Plot to Assassinate General George S. Patton (Regnery, 2008).
There is a lengthy article by Paul Westman on Dov Eitan’s death in National Vanguard, nos. 121 and 122. It includes this comment: “To the Orthodox Jew, the idea of stoning to death as a punishment is not grotesque and primitive, as it is to us–in fact, it is specifically sanctioned in Jewish law for certain offenses. Jewish texts explicitly include dropping the victim from a great height as a technique of ‘stoning.'”
Incidentally, I remember browsing through Shmuel Bolozky’s 501 Hebrew Verbs in the foreign language section of a bookstore. The frequency of certain types of verbs reinforced my impression that the Jews are a remarkably aggressive, vindictive, and legalistic people.
I don’t understand why these people,if they are so sincere,simply do not start a (pro-White) film industry of their own.A film industry that produces positive, culturally and morally uplifting films for people of European descent instead of the degenerate, anti-Withe filth of Jewish Hollywood.Of course the combined power of all the Jews will try everything to obstruct that and in the beginning it will be difficult in terms of money,facilities,production and distribution,but Jeez-are not all these things creations of the White man himself?If the Jew refuses to procure them,can the White man not re-create them?It is all probably due to fear of the Jews and fear of loss of income.What we need is some courageous White people who will create EURY-WOOD instead Hollywood.(“Eury”,a new term ,formed analogous to Jewry, denoting all the peoples of European descent collectively).
All women are not bad, then. This reminds me of French writer Colette during the affaire of the Prix Goncourt 1953. Saint-Loup was the pen name of French writer Marc Augier. Marc Augier was accused of collaboration with the German during WWII and therefore banned from France and from its literary life. Upon returning to France in 1953 he published under his pseudo a book titled La Nuit commence au Cap Horn (excellent novel by the way) which gained immediate public acclaim and was voted Prix Goncourt for that year… Until the diary le Figaro revealed the true name of the author. Immediately all members of the jury bare Colette withdrew their vote and the Prix Goncourt went to a lucky and unworthy unknown as is generally the case.
Thank you for bringing Marc Augier to our attention. It’s amazing how much you can read and know and still have blank spots about individuals and events you’d think you would have heard of.
Philippe Régniez,
As you’ve mentioned Saint-Loup, I must ask you if you’ve read his posthumously published book, Hitler ou Juda? Of course, to ask the question of the title is to answer it–Hitler, bien sûr!–but this brilliantly written and highly provocative book is worth reading, even if you’re familiar with the subjects it addresses. One can see why Saint-Loup was either unable or reluctant to have it published in the land of Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité. (Like many books published under the ancien régime, Hitler ou Juda? bears a false imprimatur, and it lacks the details of the publisher and the printer that one usually finds in French books, details which might be required by French law.)
No, I haven’t and shall look for it. Thank you.
There is a fair number of very good French writers that has fallen into obligatory oblivion for having chosen the wrong camp during WWII, or for having chosen no camp at all. This is true until today.
The cultural scene has been completely reshaped during the so-called “épuration” and the job was completed when de Gaule gave education and culture to the communists.
As a result the French literary scene has been a disaster since then.
The mere mention of Robert Brasillach, probably the leading French intellectual at the time, immediately sends you to the gallows in company of Hitler and a few others.
Philippe Régniez,
You can get Saint-Loup’s Hitler ou Juda? via Akribeia (http://www.akribeia.fr/). This book isn’t listed on their website, but it is listed in their print catalogue. I’m sure you’ll like this book.
Many thanks.
Comments are closed.
If you have a Subscriber access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.