Crucifying Mel Gibson

Jurriaan Maessen
June 14, 2012

Every so often we are painfully reminded that, yes, an effort is underway- conspicuous because of the concerted nature of the attacks- designed to undermine the few who tell the ancient tale of freedom for a change… and that to audiences worldwide.

Actor and director Mel Gibson, under fire by the entire mainstream media a few years back for alleged misdoings, has now been carefully targeted in yet another psyop. This time with the welcome help of a disgruntled screenwriter who just happens to, oops, present a letter he wrote after his screenplay for Gibson’s work in progress was rejected both by the director and Warner Bros. And oops, it just happens Gibson is again being portrayed as a cartoon-like anti-Semite. Now it just happens that the lone filmmaker in Hollywood – effectively fighting tyranny with such outstanding works as Braveheart, The Passion of the Christ and Apocalypto — is now being scrutinized in the extreme by both low-grade tabloids and self-professed “serious” magazines and organizations.

Recently the Anti-Defamation League, known for its blind and biased allegations, has once again decided to go after Mel Gibson, even after repeated and fruitless attempts to bring him down in the past. It seems like any smear against the actor and director, irrespective of its nature and origins, sets off the engine behind the League to once again launch an attack. This time it’s the amazingly dubious letter and “damning” tape recording released by screenwriter Joe Eszterhas. Even if we forget for a moment Gibson was taped at his own house without him knowing it, and we hear nothing damning in these recordings, the fact that the League is turning to such a dubious source to reenact its past smears is the tell-tale sign of an organization determined to ruin a career. It’s always fun to watch Jackie Mason on the subject:

Even before the official release of The Passion of the Christ in 2004, national director of the ADL Abraham Foxman described Gibson as “the portrait of an anti-Semite.”

Probably conscious that his bias was perhaps a bit too obvious, Foxman the very next day doubled back and said: “I’m not ready to say he’s an anti-Semite”- after which he spitted out a last splash of venom, saying that Gibson “entertains views that can only be described as anti-Semitic.” In November 2003, he repeated the slurs directed at Gibson: “I think he’s infected”, Foxman then said, “seriously infected, with some very, very serious anti-Semitic views.” Later, Foxman- again- backtracked on the anti-Semitic accusation, telling Diane Sawyer that, no, Gibson is not an anti-Semite and, no, The Passion of the Christ is not an anti-Semitic movie.

Yes… well no.. well yes…well no. Foxman can keep this word-game going for an astounding amount of time. Foxman has continued his smears in the years after 2004, openly calling for Gibson to be censured. “In his heyday,” Foxman said in 2008, “he (Gibson) was No. 1 in Hollywood, the most sought-after star, the people’s choice, the icon. Then he revealed himself as an anti-Semite, and look where he is today. That’s the beauty of America.”

After the latest “incident” with Eszterhas (not an incident really- “weak smear” is more accurate) Foxman repeated his strange and estranging comments. Foxman:

“Had these allegations been made against any other actor, we would be skeptical, and certainly one could chalk them up to the words of a disgruntled screenwriter whose script was rejected. But with Mel Gibson, they follow a distinct pattern of anti-Semitic conduct…. The latest revelations would be surprising if not for the fact that it fits nicely into a pattern of a serial offender, a serial hater, and a serial bigot.”

The ADL’s preoccupation with individuals who do their utmost to compose stories that transcend all this nasty nothingness is a thing to be marveled at. We can do nothing but stare silently at the Anti-Defamation League busying itself with attacking truth tellers, while they say nothing about globalists openly calling for global governance and worldwide population reduction. And yes, that includes Israeli citizens. The ADL prides itself in “fighting extremists” such as Alex Jones, but remains eerily silent when it comes to real extremism, such as- say- mass death being openly announced. It is true, the issues we cover here are quite extreme. If that makes those reporting on them extremist conspiracy theorists intent on blowing up a federal buildings- well, let’s round up all those who investigate anything, drive them into camps, and warm up the oven. After all, they might be domestic terrorists.

Take for example a 2009 publication issued by the EU-chapter of the Club of Rome titled ‘The Crisis, Global Governance and the Road to Copenhagen’ (click to find out whether this issue is a conspiracy theory or no). In this newsletter put out under auspices of His Royal Highness Prince Philip of Belgium (Saxe-Coburg-Gotha), the statement reads:

“The recent events should generate the required lucidity to undertake for the 30 years to come a collective and reasonable management and allocation of natural resources. (…). They should lead to the mutualisation of the planet resources with sound global governance; (…). Otherwise there is a significant risk that humanity will fulfil Malthus’ theories, where “natural” adjustment (in form of famine, disease, epidemic, natural catastrophes, war…) would put back the world population in line with the available resources.”

Very extremist. Very bigoted.

“Many measures”, the pamphlet reads, “leading to solutions of these problems are known and the Club of Rome has long been advocating for many of them: geo-engineering, zero waste & zero carbon policies, energy taxes, de-growth of consumption in many areas…”

I better stop quoting the Club of Rome. Doing so might constitute a dangerous and extremist conspiracy theory.

In their witch-hunt for extremism, why doesn’t the ADL go after the White House, the UN, the Counsel on Foreign relations- as well as the annual Bilderberg conferences while they’re at it. Enough extremism there to keep you busy till rapture.

Please also don’t forget to pay a visit to the former president of the European Commission Jacques Delors who on September 7, 1992, gave a speech to the Royal Institute of International Affairs titled ‘The European Community and the New World Order’ in which he speaks of “world government”, “transferring sovereignty” and a “worldwide single market”.

“I would add”, stated Delors, “and I will not go into detail- that economic integration, unless it is backed by a strong political will, will not in itself produce stronger international institutions or help create world government.”

In searching for extremism it will also be worthwhile paying a visit to John P. Holdren’s office. You will probably find a copy of his book Ecoscience there. Have him read back the book to you and ask him to elaborate.

If the Anti-Defamation league is serious about its claim to go after extremism, it would be wise to stop attempting to hang Gibson and other truth-tellers from the highest tree. If the League loves fighting extremism, as it claims, it would have a field day going after the New World Order.

There is a reason that Gibson is being crucified. His works are prime examples of how storytelling at its core signifies both the story itself and serves to illustrate the age-old, everlasting struggle against tight-gripped tyranny. Two giant forces, both measureless and complex in their endless expressions, are “slugging it out”, as Gibson told a startled automaton- Diane Sawyer- who stuttered her way through the interview, frowning a lot while nervously glancing over her notes.

Now the establishment media once again jumped at the opportunity to revive its smear-campaign against Gibson, redeploying their media tricksters and gadgets in an attempt to discredit him. Notice it’s always the same old nonsensical sewer-tactics employed. Puny smears by puny minds. And just like previous attacks, this one seems to be designed to hinder Gibson doing his important work.

Why important? As we have seen, every film flowing from Gibson’s hands turns out to be crucial storytelling exposing in all of its layers the eternal fight against tyranny. When Braveheart (a powerful tribute to one man in the face of tremendous evil) was released, expectations for future projects were high. The films after that exceeded those expectations.

Just like in the previous attacks, the mainstream media again denounces Mel Gibson for so-called “anti-Semitism”. During the last “controversy” self-declared “voice of the left” Arianna Huffington in 2009 even argued for a revival of non-existent “Hollywood values” and, in the same breath, for Gibson to be burned at the stake:

“(…) Now is the time”, screamed Huffington, “for Hollywood to show what those values really are by making Gibson pay the price for his bigotry and intolerance.”

Just like in the days of J. Edgar Hoover, when every important person, both inside and outside Hollywood, had the dubious honor of blackmail-space reserved in the FBI-director’s desk, the arrows have now been let loose on Gibson, not for anything he might have done mind you, but rather with the aim of stopping the man from capturing audiences around the world with any more works. In other words: the current “controversy” serves nothing more than to hinder the filmmaker from simply doing his job. In an age where many filmmakers, royally sniffing it up in the bathroom, are producing predictive programming to audiences everywhere, the crusade launched against Gibson should raise all thinking people’s eyebrows.

Remember the Playboy-interview from July of 1995, where Gibson identified the power behind the throne with stunning accuracy. With the conversation turning to then-president of the United States, Bill Clinton, Gibson suggested that he was obviously groomed for the job early on in his career (an admitted fact).

“Do you really believe that?”, asked the surprised interviewer (he shouldn’t be), to which Gibson replied:

“I really believe that. He was a Rhodes scholar, right? Just like Bob Hawke. Do you know what a Rhodes scholar is? Cecil Rhodes established the Rhodes scholarship for those young men and women who want to strive for a new world order. Have you heard that before? George Bush? CIA? Really, it’s Marxism, but it just doesn’t call itself that. Karl had the right idea, but he was too forward about saying what it was. Get power but don’t admit to it. Do it by stealth. There’s a whole trend of Rhodes scholars who will be politicians around the world.”

Put aback by Gibson’s words, the interviewer retreaded into a kind of retardedness (popping up more and more these days); a sort of dream-like nothingness that hangs on people’s heads, like a hat- and then, aware of the tape recorder, the reporter retreats into the mantra of the numb when confronted with an outburst of sudden truth:

“This certainly sounds like a paranoid sense of world history. You must be quite an assassination buff.”

Gibson: “Oh, f***. A lot of these guys pulled a boner. There’s something to do with the Federal Reserve that Lincoln did, Kennedy did and Reagan tried. I can’t remember what it was, my dad told me about it. Everyone who did this particular thing that would have fixed the economy got undone. Anyway, I’ll end up dead if I keep talking s***.”

Not dead, thank God. Although the New World Order is pulling all the stops to make sure his career will be.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s