Mel Gibson:
Braveheart not!




Hello, and welcome back to American Dissident Voices. I’m Erich Gliebe.  

Last week, we discussed the ongoing Israeli-Hezbollah conflict and I mentioned, in particular, the share of the blame that must be shouldered by the U.S. government through its treasonous support of a foreign power to the detriment of its own citizens. And, I'm not the only one who is appalled by America's unflinching support of Israel in this most recent of Arab-Jew wars.

When the conflict began about three weeks ago, President Bush -- by criticizing Hezbollah and anyone who supported that group -- gave his wholehearted support to Israel. While every Arab nation in the Middle East and all of Europe were calling for an immediate cease-fire, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice dutifully carried out her orders to NOT to agree to promote any toning-down of hostilities until the Israelis had had enough time to clear out southern Lebanon to their satisfaction.

That clearing-out has not quite gone as Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and his tag-along George Bush had planned. Apparently, Hezbollah has stored up more rockets than was originally thought, and the Arab fighters have proven themselves to be daring and brave opponents.

Increasing the intensity of the Israeli airstrikes and ground assaults did little good. Besides the standard fare of "militant strongholds," the Jews have hit a few targets that brought international condemnation, most notably the bombing of a three-story building in the Lebanese village of Qana, which resulted in the deaths of 34 children and 12 women. International observers have been worried since the beginning about a possible humanitarian crisis in Lebanon, and the Israeli airstrikes on bridges, roads, and the rest of the Lebanese infrastructure haven't made any friends for the Jews in that regard.

The big issue now is whether or not a UN peacekeeping force will be dispatched to southern Lebanon. If that force is assembled, it is my guess that it will have its hands full in a futile attempt to stamp out the fires of Hezbollah's resistance. After all, Hezbollah is an organization that has some experience in guerilla tactics, and a UN peacekeeping force in southern Lebanon will only provide a better opportunity for them to practice. In short, the region would become another Iraq and -- given the subservience of the U.S. government towards Israel -- I'm willing to bet that American troops would make up the bulk of that force.

Let's hope that doesn't happen. As I said last week, once we have cut the feeding tubes to Israel, that nation can do whatever it wants to do in the Middle East. But as things stand today, those who are upset about Israeli aggression in the Middle East are just as mad at the U.S. as they are at the Rogue State itself. Their anger is entirely justified.

Reports are coming in from all parts of the world at the outrage directed -- not just toward Israel -- but also toward the U.S. government. Understandably, the suffering Lebanese are angered at the United States. Sunni and Shiite Muslims, who have been waging war against each other in the power vacuum of Iraq, have found themselves on common ground in their resentment toward the U.S. response to the war in Lebanon. All of Europe snorts and rolls its eyes at the very word "American." And recently in Seattle, Washington -- in the good ol' USA -- a Muslim of Pakistani descent opened fire on a group of Jews, killing one and wounding five others.

Now, over and above the reprehensible conduct of the Israelis in Lebanon over the past few weeks, widespread resentment against the Jews has been simmering below the surface in the U.S. and Europe for decades. This resentment has been given a name by the Jewish media: anti-Semitism. And despite the fact that both Jews and the Arabic peoples are all Semites, the media masters have conditioned us that "anti-Semitism" and "anti-Jewish" mean the same thing. For the average American, it never crosses his mind that "anti-Semitism" could equally well mean "anti-Arab." Considering the true meaning of the term, the Jews -- in being such haters of the Semitic Arabs -- are probably the most anti-Semitic race in all history.

Anyway, as I said before, there is widespread bitterness among average people toward the Jews. Actually, I guess it's not so much bitterness as it is suspicion. Most Americans believe that there is something suspect about the Jews. There is something different about them; something that doesn't quite ring true. It's not necessarily that most Americans dislike Jews; they know Jews are special -- mainly because the Jewish media and the churches keep telling them so -- but they don't know WHY Jews are special.

This suspicion is kept largely under cover, mainly because most Americans are too busy thinking about ballgames and television to worry about the role of the Jews in world affairs. And, due to a lack of good information and a flood of misinformation, most of those who DO pay attention to world affairs don't really know what to think about the Jews. As a result, the topic of "the Jews" rarely comes up in conversation, and with good reason. After all, we've seen what happens to people who cross the Jews, from the ancient Egyptians to the German National Socialists to the White racialists of today.

But every so often, some prominent person will let slip some truth about the Jews or their activities. For instance, take the late actor Marlon Brando, who is probably best known among young or middle-aged Americans today for his role as a crime boss in the 1972 film The Godfather. In a 1979 interview with Playboy magazine, Brando commented that Hollywood Jews make sure that movies always give favorable impressions of the Chosen People.

"You've seen every single race besmirched, but you never saw an unfavorable image of the Kike because the Jews were ever so watchful for that. They never allowed it to be shown on screen."

Brando slipped again during an April 1996 interview with Larry King. He said:

"Hollywood is run by Jews; it is owned by Jews,"

Not that Brando was a dyed-in-the-wool White racist, at least in the modern sense of the term. For many years, he was active on behalf of American Indians, turning down the 1972 Academy Award for Best Actor in protest of what he felt was the negative depiction of American Indians by Hollywood. Of his two wives, one was Mexican and another was from Tahiti, and there is substantial evidence that Brando was a part-time, active homosexual. Anyway, for all of his other faults, Brando is one man who was in a position to know about what was going on in Hollywood.

The latest big-name personality to bring the concept of "the Jews" into the public spotlight is the popular Hollywood actor and director Mel Gibson. If you haven't heard already, Gibson was stopped by the Los Angeles police last week and arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol. During the arrest, Gibson swore repeatedly, threatened the arresting officers, and then launched into a drunken tirade about the Jews. Besides describing Jews in language I won't repeat here, Gibson made the statement:

"The Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world."

The Jewish response was immediate and predictable.

This isn't the first time Gibson has had a run-in with the Jews. He was widely criticized for directing the 2004 film The Passion of the Christ, the content of which many Jews viewed as being much too critical of Jews in general. As it was, Gibson agreed to nix the part of the film in which a crowd of Jews accepts responsibility for the death of Jesus by affirming to Pontius Pilate,

"His blood be on us and our children."

Gibson commented about the Jews' demand that he cut that section of the film:

"I wanted it in. My brother said I was wimping out if I didn't include it. But, man, if I included that in there, they'd be coming after me at my house. They'd come to kill me."

In addition, Gibson's father, Hutton, made the news a few years ago by making statements about much of the so-called "Holocaust" being merely exaggeration, and thus -- I would add -- totally false. The younger Gibson has refused to condemn the opinions of his father.

And having been married to the same woman for over 20 years and in being the father of seven children, Gibson has also come under fire from the gay community -- and, of course, their Jewish allies -- as being homophobic.

Now, despite Mel Gibson's apologies following this recent incident, you can bet that that won't be enough to satisfy angry Jews. Abraham Foxman, national director of the Jewish organization the Anti-Defamation League, already has called Gibson's retraction "unremorseful and insufficient."

With Gibson already backing down from his statement, be sure to look for larger displays of his contrition in the near future. Don't be surprised within the next year if Mel Gibson is flying all around the country giving speeches on the horrors of the so-called "Holocaust" to large audiences of both children and adults. Unfortunately for Gibson, not even that gesture would temper the anger of the Jews. That's because Jews never forgive.

Now, suppose for a minute that Mel Gibson had made his statement, "The Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world," NOT while drunk, but rather while sober. Suppose the time and place had NOT been 2:30 a.m. in the back of a police cruiser, but rather at a 10 a.m. press conference at a plush Los Angeles hotel. Suppose he had NOT made his statement wild-eyed and agitated, but rather clear-eyed and with a straight face.

And suppose he had issued a statement later -- NOT one that retracted his earlier remarks -- but rather one that elaborated on them. Gibson's actual retraction included the following statement:

"I acted like a person completely out of control when I was arrested and said things that I do not believe to be true and which are despicable."

Instead of saying that, suppose Gibson had said:

"My earlier statement was a bit of an overgeneralization. What I really meant -- and what I should have said -- is that, relative to their numbers, the Jews have played a disproportionate role in igniting and promoting many of America's wars over the last century. For example, by bringing America into World War I on the side of Britain in return for Britain giving them a chunk of Palestine, the Jews helped get America into the war. FDR's advisors -- such as the Jew Henry Morgenthau -- manipulated him into getting the U.S. into World War II on the side of the Soviet menace and against anti-Communist Germany. America's wars in the Middle East in the last two decades have been promoted by Jews on the behalf of Israel. Again, I apologize for being imprecise in my last statement."

Had Gibson said and done THAT, who knows what would have happened? It might have given ordinary Whites some cause for thought, rather than cause for them to smile and nod their heads in agreement while the radio talk shows mockingly run Gibson through the ringer. Had Gibson been prepared to follow his statement with facts about Jewish domination of the American media, as well as that media's promotion of everything from homosexuality and race-mixing to materialism and open borders, it might have done Western civilization a world of good.

American Whites are interested to know what controversial statements Mel Gibson makes, just because he's Mel Gibson. He's acted in one blockbuster movie after another and directed several others. Gibson is extremely popular and has been turning heads for years. This is the guy who, in 1985 at the age of 29, was named People magazine's "Sexiest Man Alive." And in 2004, Forbes magazine tabbed him as the world's most powerful celebrity. So if Mel Gibson had avoided the booze, dispensed with the profanity-laced outburst, made his statement, and then stood behind it... now THAT would have made a splash.

If Gibson had stood tall and taken the heat, his film career would have been over. It's true enough that it might be over for him now, even with his words of repentance. But, unlike most of us, Gibson is wealthy enough and popular enough that he could probably have insulated himself against the worst of the Jewish backlash. I would hope that his investment income is enough to live on, and in time he might find that he has the funds to finance his own film company, separate from the Jews in Hollywood.

While we're doing our best today to change the world, we White racialists are still waiting for one popular and powerful White man to wake up one morning, realize that he's White, and decide to do something to ensure that our people survive and flourish. An actor/director like Mel Gibson. A pro athlete like Peyton Manning or Tom Brady. A corporate giant like Bill Gates.

Popular and wealthy Whites who spend a lot of time in the spotlight have a lot to lose if they suddenly began advocating on behalf of their people, but that expense is minimal compared to what will be lost if our race goes into the ashcan of history.

So the rest of us racialists will just keep moving ahead as best we can, whether or not any Whites from among the rich and famous join in the fray. I'm not going to deny that we could use their help, so as to ensure that we can get our race back on the path to White self-determination. Every White person that ever WAS could use their help, so as to ensure that their sacrifices down through the ages weren't wasted. And every White child that will ever BE could use their help, so as to ensure that the spark of our people is the driving force for the building of a better world.

I'm Erich Gliebe, and thanks for being with me again today.