portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reposts united states

anti-racism | human & civil rights

Jewish Groups Calls 'The Passion' An Act Of Terrorism

WASHINGTON D.C. (Capitol Press) - A prominent Jewish organization has denounced Mel Gibson's "The Passion" as an act of terrorism and can prove the movie violates the Patriot Act.
Jews Against Anti-Semitism, a recently formed Washington D.C. based defense league for Jews, has issued a press release pointing out sections of U.S. law which are being violated by Mel Gibson's film.

"Clearly there are laws on the books which have outlawed the inciting of riots or acts civil disobedience which endanger human life. Mel Gibson's movie will incite violence against Jews and put the lives of million of Jews in danger" said Rabbi David Feldman, a spokes person for Jews Against Anti-Semitism.

According to Rabbi Feldman "Under Section 802 of the 2001 USA Patriot Act, any crime which endangers human life is defined as an act of domestic terrorism. Mel Gibson's incitement of anti-Semitism is a civil disobedience crime which endangers human life and under the Patriot Act "The Passion" is an act of domestic terrorism"

The USA Patriot Act was signed into law by President George W. Bush shortly after the September 11th terrorist attacks in New York and Washington D.C. in order to protect Americans from terrorism.

"We are hereby calling on Attorney General John Ashcroft, the Department of Justice, Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge and the Department of Homeland Security to arrest Mel Gibson as a terrorist, confiscate all prints of "the Passion", confiscate all materials related to the film as "terrorist paraphernalia" and shut down every terrorist hate site on the internet supporting the film" said Rabbi Feldman.

The Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security have yet to respond to the inquiries made by Capitol Press regarding this story.

Source: http://rense.com/general49/jewi.htm
Well, it's a ridiculous claim and 27.Feb.2004 13:27


story, and I hardly believe it. But you posting this to this site is pretty well guaranteed to incite jew blaming and more anti-semitism, in the familiar guise of anti-zionism. The whole thing deserves a measured response, not more inciteful crud.

Stop Fascism! already outed the story as bogus. 27.Feb.2004 13:39


And that's not a Zionist friendly website. How do you explain that Stop Fascism! did not fall for it, given your assumption that anti-Zionists are anti-Semites?

Fact is, some anti-Semites are pro-Zionists (many Nazis loved the ideas of sending Jews to Palestine) and most anti-Zionists are not anti-Semites.

didn't mean to imply that 27.Feb.2004 13:48


all anti-zionists are anti-semites, although it frequently seems so on this site

Zionists and neo-Nazis actively work together 27.Feb.2004 13:52


Both ideologies are racist and are separatist. here's a story about Zionists and neo-Nazis working together in France for common goals; the racist scapegoating of Arab/Muslims;

By the way, Zionists and Jews are completely different. If you are a Zionist, you have turned your back on the Holy Torah. How come so many anti-Zionists are Jews, "first commentor"?

The sites of Jews who strongly oppose Zionism;



"The entire existence of the tumei regime [the Zionist "State"] is in opposition to our holy Torah in a manner that has not been precedent... and anyone who possesses even a thought that there is necessity for [the existence of] their "State", this constitutes acquiescence to idol worship without a doubt... and there is no doubt in my mind that we would already be in the period after the Messiah's arrival if not for this tzureh [Zionism] prevalent in the world."
-- Grand Rabbi Joel Teitelbaum

"The Zionists have attacked the center point of Judaism."
-- Rabbi V. Soloveichik

Gibson is a sicko 27.Feb.2004 14:11


While I agree that accusing Mel Gibson of terrorism is pretty bogus, I want to bring the discussion back to the topic at hand, namely the Passion of the Christ.

I for one have no plans on seeing this overly hyped and apparently repulsive film. For those of you interested in decent Jesus movies, "The Gospel According to St. Matthew" by gay atheist Italian Pier Paolo Pasolini is a brilliant film that was made in post-WWII Italy with poor villagers acting in the film, which was shot in war-torn and decrepit towns and villages.

Gibson's movie not only focuses on a very small part of Jesus' gospel (basically only on his death, which I would argue is not as important as his teachings) but also is representative of his own ultra-wacko right-wing religion.

While I'm not one to cry anti-semitism at every turn, given Gibson's religious beliefs, which draw from Catolicism of antiquity, and given the fact that his father is a major player in proving the Holocaust didn't happen, I think it's reasonable to interpret scenes in which crowds of Jews with rotten teeth spit on Jesus as unnecessary and offensive.

Finally, Gibson as a sicko, or at least a sado-masochist. I heard some interesting commentary on NPR about how many of Gibson's other films also feature gross violence/death/"sacrifice", etc. Think Gladiator in which being drawn and quartered is glorified, or Patriot, which I didn't see but which I understand has a similar ending.

Gibson is therefore not only drawing on his extremist religious beliefs and his family ties to his anti-semetic Holocaust-disbeliever father but on his own obsession with glorifying death and sacrifice, which is disturbing, especially when he employs it to make some kind of religious statement.

"Dire Wolf", watch out for Rense 27.Feb.2004 14:11


Jeff Rense's site is full of unsubstantiated, sensationalized and just plain false information. his site is not reliable: always double- and triple-confirm anything sourced from there.

to * 27.Feb.2004 14:46

Mel Gibson wasn't in 'Gladiator'

that was Russell Crowe.

but here's something funnier:

The National Enqueerer 27 Feb 2004 18:25 GMT

Mel always had a thing for tough guys. This new movie will delight those of you into the leather scene. Jesus knew how to please his daddy.

Mel showing Jesus some real passion. Don't you just love Christian movies!

beware 27.Feb.2004 15:02

Dire Wolf

Thx for your comment, I will not post anything from his site again until it is triple-confirmed. But I do have to say something to the comment entitled Gibson is a sicko, say want you want no problem but you have some fact's mistaken on Mel's dad Hutton Gibson. quote:

"While I'm not one to cry anti-semitism at every turn, given Gibson's religious beliefs, which draw from Catolicism of antiquity, and given the fact that his father is a major player in proving the Holocaust didn't happen, I think it's reasonable to interpret scenes in which crowds of Jews with rotten teeth spit on Jesus as unnecessary and offensive."

Hutton Gibson has never said, "the Holocaust didn't happen" to speak up for him, all he has said were the numbers are inaccurate of Jewish victim's killed during that time. If you do some research you will find what he say's is true. I have heard Hutton Gibson speak a few times on radio interview's and he will speak about the numbers being wrong, he has stated his dislike for Hitler & the Nazis, in no way would he support anything of the sort. He thinks of dubya the same way he does of the Nazis, he knows very well of the New World Orders agenda, he is disgusted with all of it.

I suggest that if you get the chance to catch him on an interview, you will be impressed with Huttons extreme intelligence.

here is what Hoffman says about the movie 27.Feb.2004 18:37

repostings for THINKERS

Dedicated to Freedom of the Press, Investigative Reporting and Revisionist History

Subscribe:  HoffmanWire-subscribe@topica.com

Michael A. Hoffman II, Editor

Feb. 26, 2003

Movie Review: The Passion of the Christ


Reviewed by Michael A. Hoffman II

"The Passion of the Christ" directed by Mel Gibson; written by Benedict
Fitzgerald and Gibson; director of photography, Caleb Deschanel;
produced by Gibson, Bruce Davey and Stephen McEveety. Released by Icon
Productions and Newmarket Films. In Aramaic and Latin, with English
subtitles. Running time: 120 minutes. Rated R.

We live in the age of Judaic supremacy. In such an age Judaics cry
"Holocaust!" when they stub their toe on a fire hydrant and Mel Gibson's
"The Passion of the Christ" is that fire-hydrant. The Zionists of our
time are accustomed to calling the shots -- in the White House, the
European Union, the Vatican, in American finance and education. The
silver screen has been their bailiwick since the original gentile
inventors and pioneers like Thomas Edison and D.W. Griffith were elbowed
out of the way by quondam glove merchants, furriers and sons of ragmen
such as Louis B. Mayer, Samuel Goldwyn and Kirk Douglas. Years ago this
sorry fact was denied, but in our Age of Judaic Supremacy the moguls can
afford to celebrate their dominion with a certain amount of public

The gang, the crowd, the cartel, the crime syndicate--call them what you
will--are accustomed to having the goyim work in the motion picture
industry at their sufferance. Into that totalitarian fiefdom enters Mel
Gibson, seeking to expiate on screen for various sins he feels he has
committed in the past. He chooses for his expiation a movie about Jesus
Christ's trial, torment and execution. By so doing, he trespasses on the
sole proprietorship of the high caste that predetermines how Christ,
Pilate and Caiaphas will be portrayed in the approved manner.

Because Gibson shows, for a few on-screen moments, the villainy of the
Chief Priest Caiaphas, and the existential angst of Pilate, "The Passion
of the Christ" has been adduced as only slightly less bigoted than the
Nazi movie, "Ewige Jude." The goyim see the smoke of this customary
Judaic hyperbole and assume that Gibson has lit some kind of fire that
illuminates the Gospel Truth about Jesus.

Would that it were so. The fact is, there are only three incentives for
seeing this movie: 1. Watching Pilate rehabilitated and restored to his
rightful New Testament role as a ruler who sought to avoid Christ's
execution. 2. Witnessing for a few moments the rare sight of the chief
priests depicted as vengeful and reprehensible. 3. To satisfy one's
curiosity concerning the hoopla and hype surrounding the movie. With
regard to the first two incentives, these scenes represent approximately
ten or fifteen minutes of footage out of a total of 120 minutes.

Political Correctness

Even Gibson's portrayal of the Sadducees and Pharisees is not without
compromises with political correctness. Caiaphas and his priestly
entourage, for example, are shown as saddened by the scenes of Jesus'
torture by laughing Roman soldiers. The leaders of the Jews take no
pleasure in Christ's torment, unlike the Roman soldiers.

One of the most egregious betrayals in the film is when Christ, from the
Cross, is shown asking for forgiveness for his Judaic tormentors,
"because they know not what they do." But this forgiveness can only
pertain to the Romans, since only they were ignorant of the spiritual
contests of the Jews. But Gibson makes it patent that Jesus is
beseeching God's forgiveness for Caiaphas as well, in spite of Christ
saying to Pilate, speaking of Caiaphas,"He that delivered me unto thee
hath the greater sin" (John 19: 10-11).

But if Caiaphas did not know what he was doing, as Gibson implies, and
Caiaphas was ignorant of the fact that Jesus was the Messiah, how then
did Caiaphas transgress by demanding Jesus' death? If the high priests
didn't know what they were doing and truly believed Christ to be an
impostor, then they were only being faithful to the law of God in
requiring that He be put to death, and thus, the founders of Judaism are
vindicated. We observe Gibson's confection of a new theology, which he
expanded in his conversation with Diane Sawyer on national television,
with the unscriptural proposition that "we're-all-equally-guilty."

Jesus had said of the high priests, the Pharisees and Sadducees, that
they were the murderers of the prophets and responsible for the spilling
of all the righteous blood since Abel, and were damned to hell: "Ye
serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of
hell? Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and
scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them
shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to
city: That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the
earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zechariah son
of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar." (Matthew

In I Thessalonians 2: 14-15, Paul decreed they were deicides, "contrary
to all men" and "under wrath." How are they then forgiven on the basis
of "not knowing what they do"? Why does Gibson seek to conflate the
chief priests with the Romans and absolve them all, when Jesus did not?

When Gibson first came under fire from Zionists, he shot a new scene and
inserted it into the movie, a scene of Jesus preaching forgiveness for
one'e enemies. Gibson has stated in interviews that he did this so that
viewers would understand that Jesus was advising forgiveness for the
Pharisees and chief priests, but there is no Biblical warrant for this
novel interpretation. Jesus clearly stated that the Pharisees and
Sadducees were "the children of hell." How could my forgiveness or your
forgiveness spare them from their fate? Jesus was preaching to us a
about forgiving our own enemies, those who steal our merchandise or
punch us in the nose. To extrapolate an authority or mandate for humans
to forgive God's enemies is an imposture.

As part of his political correctness, Gibson sought to imply that Jesus
was requesting that we forgive His sworn ideological foes who, after His
death, committed the heinous oral "traditions of the elders" to writing,
and founded the antichrist religion of Judaism. They should be forgiven
for this? Who among us may usurp the role of God and forgive these
counterfeiters of the religion of Israel? This is bogus and reveals the
extent of either Gibson's woeful theological confusion, or his futile
attempt to appease the commissars of Hollywood.

Political correctness comes to the fore again when the crowd of Jews
screams "Crucify him!" Well, I surmised that's what they were screaming,
because Gibson did not allow subtitles for that historic, spine-tingling
scene from the New Testament. The Jews scream in Aramaic and we must
guess what it is they are saying. A monumental icon of the Passion story
is thereby vitiated.

Another politically correct Gibson vignette has one of the Roman
soldiers swear contemptuously at Simon, the man who helped Jesus carry
His Cross, "Come, you Jew!" Obviously the Roman soldier was intended as
a stand-in for a German SS trooper, and Simon was substituting for some
Khazar in the Warsaw ghetto, the intent being to "combat anti-Semitism."
Gibson confirmed the intent of this scene in an interview with Bill
O'Reilly of the Fox TV channel
( http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,112436,00.html). In that interview
he also nullified the good he had done in portraying Pilate fairly in
his movie, by telling O'Reilly that Pilate was "a monster."

Almost all of the Israelites in the movie are either played by Italian
actors who look like Khazars or by actual Khazars. Peter has a big nose
and Mary, the Mother of Christ, the subject of so many portraits of
tender pulchritude by the Renaissance painters of serenity and light,
resembles a gypsy fortune-teller. Obviously Gibson imagines that today's
Khazars, who run around calling themselves "Jews" are genetically the
same nation that peopled Jerusalem 2,000 years ago. I don't think so.
Gibson is not afraid to have the devil personified by a Nordic-looking
woman, however, there being no powerful Nordic Anti-Defamation League to

"The Passion of the Christ" starts with Christ's agony in the garden.
Here Gibson portrays Jesus as a blubbering, effeminate cry-baby,
exhibiting no manly characteristics until the very end of the scene,
when he stomps on a demonic snake.

With a couple of exceptions, actor Jim Caviezel is not convincing in the
role of Christ. He lacks the authority, the presence, the inherent
spirit. When he speaks to Caiaphas or Pilate he seems like a weak,
perhaps demented man who is without a spark of command or divinity about

The Process Advances: Gorefest of the Defeated Jesus

The violence in the movie is dehumanizing. It is not opposed to, but
part of, the hyper-violence of the modern media. As part of the
alchemical processing of humanity by the Cryptocracy, the entertainment
industry has become ever more violent. Each successive film must surpass
the previous entry in terms of gore and bloodshed, or risk leaving the
insatiable audience drowsy and distracted. For this reason, Gibson has
to out-Herod Herod and blast us out of our seats with an unprecedented
level of bloodshed. This movie is a veritable blood freakout. Western
Europeans have typically not obsessed about blood, but blood is known to
be a documented fascination for Talmudic Judaics and those spiritualized
Judaics who wear the habiliments of gentiles.

In the 1940s and 50s, the highest cinematic artistry consisted in the
suggestion of violence, not its actual full-fledged realization, and
there lies the authentic artistic norm of western civilization. Gibson's
movie violates those norms. There is nothing traditional about "The
Passion of the Christ." It is revolutionary cinema; Antonin Artaud would
have recognized it as the "theater of cruelty." Gibson's flick would
have been denigrated as strictly infra dig fifty years ago.

"The Passion of the Christ" does not represent a restoration of a
hallowed vision or a return to a venerated tradition, but rather a
revolutionary departure from the cinematic canon of John Ford, the early
Alfred Hitchcock and Elia Kazan. Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" is
the next stage in the devolutionary process from Videodrome to Matrix to
Kill Bill. It exhibits a morbid sado-masochist obsession that borders on

Appeal to Satanists

The movie quotes from Isaiah 53:5: "By His wounds we are healed." But
this film is a negation of that prophecy, since the wounds of Christ are
never allowed to heal. The victorious Christianity of Vivaldi and Bach,
Raphael and Da Vinci, is nowhere to be seen. Instead, we are shown a
relentless series of images of a defeated Christ. I can envision "The
Passion of the Christ" being shown at Satanic get-togethers where for an
hour or more, the diabolists cheer and giggle at scene after scene of
the relentless beating, whipping and torture of Christ.

Indeed, in Stanley Kubrick's 1971 movie, "A Clockwork Orange," the
anti-hero, Alex, a rapist and murderer, fantasizes that he is a grinning
Roman soldier deriving ecstasy from flogging Jesus. Kubrick's footage of
these cruel fantasy sequences, wallowing in technicolor sadism directed
at the person of Jesus, were the only footage of this type extant, until
Gibson's film debuted.

As part of its Jesus-on-steroids ambiance, the movie relies heavily on
melodramatic, Exorcist-like music, computer-generated sound effects and
slow motion camera work, which gives "The Passion of the Christ," a
feverish, psychedelic quality that detracts from, rather than enhances,
our lucidity.

On the rare occasion when Gibson departs from this digital overkill to
show us the Last Supper and the Sermon on the Mount, crafting the peace
and stillness of a divine milieu, Caviezel does appear Christ-like, does
seem to possess a certain authority and the scenes work beautifully,
with cinematographer Caleb Deschanel coming close to his aim of
imitating the painterly quality of a Carvaggio portrait. But if you
blink you'll miss these fleeting moments of authentic hagiography and
insight into the nature of the Christ. We are all-too soon whisked back
to the ponderously telegraphed, digitally enhanced abattoir.

"Dangers of anti-Semitism"

"Dangers of anti-Semitism" as a result of this film? How so, when nearly
everyone in it is shown to be equally culpable, with only the Nordic
Romans and the Nordic Satan serving as the standout paradigm of evil.
Moreover, I know of no movie critic, no Catholic bishop, no Protestant
TV preacher who ever worked themselves into a lather over the
possibility that one of the hundreds of "Holocaust" movies that have
been churned out over the last four decades would result in persecution
and hate being directed at Germans. In the case of the Germans and the
"Holocaust" movies that denigrate them, it is always a matter of, "Too
bad if the truth hurts."

I don't sucker in for any special pleading for the Zionists on this
count. They should learn to take their lumps like everyone else. They've
dished it out to the Arabs and the Germans on TV and in movies for years
with shameless impunity, and hardly anyone in the Establishment has ever
raised a whimper of protest.

The racket being raised about Gibson's movie is just the usual Judaic
paranoia over the slightest deviation from their anti-Roman, anti-Christ
dogma; part and parcel of their religious fanatic mentality. If in the
weeks and months ahead we learn that Gibson has been boycotted by
Hollywood, or attacked by some other means, it will not be due to the
fact that he is a genuine enemy of Judaism or Zionism. Indeed, the
gentile shills for those murderous ideologies, from Pat Robertson to Cal
Thomas, are full of praise for Mel and his movie.

Rather, if Gibson is targeted, he will be targeted because the least
deviation from the Judaic party line cannot be tolerated, but must be
publicly punished as a warning to other, perhaps far more daring,
would-be rebels and dissenters. Gibson is not an enemy of Churchianity
or the Vatican. He shares their reductionist, universalist theology. But
he has exhibited an iota of independence in his portrayals of Caiaphas
and Pilate, and even this tiny bit of autonomy is a stone in the shoe of
such Hollywoodberg capos as Jeffrey Katenzenberg and Stephen Spielberg.

But for us to become embroiled in rivalries between two wings of the
same dialectical synthesis, is a waste of time and energy. It causes us
to derogate substance and elevate tinsel, to mistake the chimera for the

The fact is, we've been had. "The Passion of the Christ" is an
over-rated, politically-correct bore (unless gore is your bag). Gibson
must be one seriously troubled soul to have made this mess. His movie
will appeal to Biblically-illiterate "Christians," the Marquis de Sade
set, and to the staff and management of Icon productions, who will
realize a handsome return on their investment.

Witnessing this gorefest's immense popularity among the churched, I can
only wonder at the degraded state of Christendom in 2004.

This review is posted online at:


Tell a friend!


The HOFFMAN WIRE is a public service of Independent History and Research, Box 849, Coeur d'Alene, Idaho 83816 USA

You people are scary. 27.Feb.2004 19:05


Hello Nazi Germany. I'm glad I'm not Jewish, with you freaks around.

this is nazi germany 27.Feb.2004 19:20

and here's the proof


Don't download unless you want to be a lot more scared of the gestapo which already exists in this country.

hey '+' 27.Feb.2004 22:10


Portland, Oregon August 22, 2002
Scared Yet?
Scared Yet?

Dire Wolf 28.Feb.2004 02:39

ha ha

Yeah man, I liked that article about the 'trash island' the size of central europe that was just "discovered" between california and hawaii.

excellent, eloquently presented review 04.Apr.2004 15:02

HPB hbradish@hotmail.com

The "Gorefest of the Defeated Christ" was obviously written by a very intelligent man who no doubt, would, in a debate, trash 99% of all reading his review. Most of whom would handicap themselves through their mental conclusions automatically induced by his name and status as a, well, whatever you say.