The Jews vs. John Galliano

The Jews vs. John Galliano

by

R.E. Prindle

How’s This For Blonde?

The great European Affaire Galliano has not yet ended.  A little over a hundred years ago the great Affaire Dreyfus raged through France setting the country at loggerheads.  In the great Jewish war against Europe the Dreyfus Affaire established the Jews as a semi-autonomous culture within France.  One wonders what the Galliano Affaire is meant to achieve.  Perhaps only redressing Dreyfus by inflicting a humiliation on a Franco-English hairdress… uh, I mean Fashionista.

The Jews have already forced through a French law making it a criminal offense to utter a single word of criticism about themselves.  Perhaps the Galliano Affaire was provoked to show that no star is bright enough to escape retribution for the least, the very least, of utterances spoken in obscurity, almost one might say, a dream, while the persecuted is so draconically punished out of all proportion to the imagined offense that anyone with even a shred of ‘anti-Semitism’ in their heart will be cowed into submission.

Thus, while Galliano escaped any punishment at the hands of the French court save being criminalized, the Affaire is being reopened on the issue of whether Galliano can be allowed to be rehabilitated to the rank of a mere human being.  He has been excommunicated if not outlawed.  One would consider this as subject for the opera buffe, a comic opera, if it weren’t so serious for Galliano and actually the future of France as an independent country and not a satrapy of Israel.

Thus the July 2013 issue of Vanity Fair features what must be a 10K word article supposedly pleading for Galliano’s readmission to the human race and possible reinstatement to gainful employ.  The article is written by one Ingrid Sischy, an assimilationist Jew.  Naturally a Jew would be selected to reintroduce Galliano to humanity.  I don’t know what Vanity Fair pays for very long articles, possibly 10 to 25K or even more, but the Jews continue to profit from the Affaire to the exclusion of Aryans.  Twenty-five thousand might be pocket change in those circles but still, it does fill the tank.

Apparently the enormity of a drugged out, drunken Galliano’s response to harassment as a poofter by a Jewish woman in a Paris street bar is such that two years after the verdict the wound is still fresh in the hides of Jews that even the Chief Rabbi of France, Gilles Bernheim, another assimilationist Jew going by his first name, is still smoldering.  P. 121:

Ingrid Sischy

Quote:

Not everyone has believed it to be appropriate to have Galliano in their midst.  Gilles Bernheim, the chief rabbi of France, rejected requests to meet with him.

Unquote.

But, to be fair and balanced, same page:

Quote:

On the other hand, Rabbi Barry Marcus, [another assimilator] of Central Synagogue, one of London’s oldest Orthodox synagogues, has begun a dialogue with Galliano.  The designer attended a service one Saturday morning…wearing a tallith and kipa.

Unquote:

So, just as Dreyfus returned from Devil’s Island, Galliano is being drawn back from limbo.  Apparently a tit for tat.  Marcus is holding out a warming hand to the sinner to raise him from his degraded depths:

Quote:

As a Jew and a rabbi, if anybody makes a mistake- and we all make mistakes- built into Judaism is the concept of giving a person another chance, or forgiving.  So much of who we are and how we operate as human beings is built on that very principle.

Unquote.

Well, gosh, yes.  Magnanimity is just so Jewish.  One can’t be more holy than the Jews.  Such magnanimity is seldom seen on the planet other than in Judaism.    But let’s look at Galliano’s so-called crime and its circumstances.  Miss Sischy begins her article with this dramatic paragraph:

Quote:

May as well face the worst of it right away, so here it is:  The transcript of a cell phone video of an encounter at La Perle, a bar in Paris’ Marais district, which stunned the fashion world, and millions of people outside that world, with its mix of inexcusable anti-Semitism, childish bile, and outrageous obscenity.  The video was first posted on the Web site of the British tabloid The Sun on February 28, 2011, and immediately went viral:

Woman:  “Are you blond?”

Man:  “No, but I love Hitler.  People like you would be dead today.  Your mothers, your forefathers, would be fucking gassed, and fucking dead.”

Woman:  “Oh my god!  Do you have a problem?”

Man:  “With you?  You’re ugly.”

Woman:  “With all people.  You don’t want peace?  You don’t want peace in the world?”

Man:  “Not with people that are ugly.”

Woman:  “Where are you from?”

Man:  “Your asshole.”

Unquote.

If the above is accurate there is no mention of Jews whatever.  Apparently the subject of world peace as a non-sequitur is uppermost in the woman’s mind not Judaism.  For the people who gave us Lenny Bruce to complain about obscenity is obscenity itself.  The Jews who were responsible for breaking down the barriers of bad language now complain because someone  follows their example.  There is no mention of Jews so there can be no anti-Semitism in the above quote.

As to the woman asking ‘Are you blond?’ that would imply that the first part of the conversation has been omitted.  We are at a loss as to who first initiated the exchange or how provocative it may have been.  ‘Are you blond?’ is either a taunt or a sexual invitation.

There is also a question as to how Galliano would have known the woman was Jewish. It is true that the Mastermind of All Time, Albert Einstein said that he could tell a Jew at sight from a mile away but few Aryans can.  Since the woman wouldn’t have appeared to Jewish to a besotted, drugged out poofter like Galliano then I have to assume that she announced that she was Jewish.

While Galliano may be highly regarded as a fashion designer by Fashionistas, I see him a comic costumier and in the video I saw he was amusingly at his best.  An obvious poofter even to the untrained eye.  Was the woman mocking his sexuality.  I’m afraid we may never know now as that evidence has been deleted.  As this incident was an obvious set up, and I do know set ups, I suspect the Jews themselves were the obvious culprit creating a faux ‘anti-Semitic incident as is their wont.

How outraged did they really think those millions were?  And if millions were outraged, which is questionable, how many other millions, myself included, merely laughed and said:  ‘Here they go again?’  I mean, this isn’t the first time the trick has been tried, or the second, or third, or….

The court itself didn’t take the accusation seriously.  Their own investigation undoubtedly revealed that there was a great deal of provocation and misrepresentation.  Of course, the idiotic self-serving law is on the book.  Galliano wasn’t even adequately represented which is suspicious in itself.  But, as a law had been ‘violated’ I suppose the court was obligated to adjudicate it.

While it was possible to give Galliano jail time as well as a mega fine the court chose to impose no sentence while fining him only minimally and then suspending it.  I’m sure there is Freudian significance to the number but not being French it is beyond my ken.  This may be interpreted as a slap in the face to both this particular law and the Jews.  Both are absurd and somebody other than Galliano should be ashamed and shamed.

One is forced to believe the incident was merely a publicity stunt a la the Dreyfus Affaire to obtain not only a semi-autonomous status but a full autonomy above and superior to the French state and people- in effect a coup, a seizure of government so to speak.

While it isn’t possible for the Jews in the US to recreate their French position they have at least grouped themselves with all sub-cultures in the US against the dominant culture with their Anti-Aryan Hate Laws.  The US Constitution makes their progress a trifle more complicated but as part of their global plan they are only a step or two from autonomy above the US government.

It is time for a big anti-Semitic plot to be discovered in the US now.  From where it will come, who  the designated villain will be is unknown.  John Rocker?  He’s already been used up.  Who then?  Where?  When?

Oy Vey, What Next?

Blackface Barry

Keep On Truckin’, Multi-cults.

by

R.E. Prindle

http://www.thelocal.de/national/20110915-37617.html

Getting Along With The Mulit-cults

     Boy, these times are never boring.  First the Galliano farce in France and now we have a fiasco in Germany.  Both over nothing.

     Let’s start from the sixties mantra ‘nothing is sacred’, there are no sacred cows.  In those days the Left was satirizing poltical figures in a scurrilous manner and calling it humor.  Today a good political joke satirizing a Left poltician is considered by them scandalous and more importantly ‘offensive.’  It seems that a bumper sticker saying ‘Fuck LBJ’ wasn’t offensive but a really funny German billboard by comedian Martin Sonneborn picturing himself in blackface with the slogan -Ich bin ein Obama- is.

     The usual overly sensitive suspects say:

     …the latest (billboard) is upsetting to some because of the racial connotations of blackface theatre, (i.e. minstrel shows) which was widespread (read: ubiquitous) in America in the 19th and early 20th centuries.  Based on ugly stereotypes, blackface consisted of white permformers painting themselves black for degrading minstrel shows.  It quickly died out in the United States after the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s.

     How many errors can one paragraph contain?  Blackface had been discontinued early in the twentieth century, the 60s Civil Rights Movement having nothing to do with it.

     Blacking up was what all minstrel performers did whether Black or White and there were many Black performers.  A very famous Black minstrel, Bert Williams, was crushed when blacking up was discontinued.  It seems that he and other Black minstrels thought blacking up concealed the issue of race making them equal with the White players thus rather than finding the minstrel shows degrading they thought they were fine.  But then…the facts…oh well, what do Liberals care about facts?

     And more to the point no politician is sacrosanct; they wouldn’t be politicians if they were and that includes Black and all other multi-cult politicians.  Stand up and identify yourselves multi-cults.  The billboard is a joke based on JFK’s gaffe during his Berlin speech of the early sixties when seeking to show solidarity with the Germans he said:  Ich bin ein Berliner, which drew screams of laughter because a Berliner was some kind of donut so what JFK said was:  I am a donut.   That was accurate of course, but an unintentional admission.

     By blacking himself up I suppose Martin Sonneborn is joking that by putting on burnt cork and saying I am an Obama he’s saying that that is all it takes but a donut is easier to figure out than an Obama.

     In any event in this diverse multi-cultural world it’s time for the multi-cults to develop a sense of humor.  If you’re going to be offended do as the rest of us do when you offend us, which is quite often.  We just laugh and keep on keepin’ on.  Do the same, keep on truckin’ multi-cults.

Inside Galliano’s Guilty Verdict

 

John Galliano And The Disgrace Of France

by

R.E. Prindle

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/09/08/john-galliano-guilty-of-anti-semitism-and-racist-rants.html

     As anti-climatic as it is John Galliano was sentenced of 9/8/11 for the heinous crime of saying, sotto voce, ‘I love Hitler.’  Has France gone insane.  Did the judge watch the video taken of a private citizen sitting in a bar having an exchange  with a purportedly Jewish person who remained off camera while continuing the exchange rather than shutting up and moving away?

     This was an exchange of apparent insults apparently initiated by the Jews.  The Jewish party or parties seem to have been seated two tables away from Galliano so as not to be in the picture.   One camera is in front of Galliano filming him which is an invasion of his privacy and should not have been allowed as evidence.  The filmer did not have permission.  Another camera  is several feet behind the close in shooter but he still makes no effort to include the Jewish party in the picture.  We don’t really know who they are.  This must therefore be intentional and the incident is a frame up.

     Galliano is obviously responding to an insult that must have been initiated by the Jewish party.  It is apparent that a conversation or exchange of comments ensued since Galliano is responding.  Therefore as trouble makers they have no complaint and should have no sanctity except for this moronic French law under which this idiot Philip Virgitti is apparently entitled to sue for nearly half a million dollars because he alleges, it is not on the video, that Galliano called him ‘a fucking Asiatic bastard.’  Now, ask yourself, why would Galliano, who is sitting there placidly with his hands crossed in his lap, neither threatening nor agitated, speaking very calmly, volunteer an insult to another boozer sitting two tables away?  What word does Mr. Virgitti object to anyway- bastard, Asiatic or fucker?  How can the French be so insane as to make a provoked comment like that a crime potentially worth a half million dollars?

     Tracy MacNicoll of the provocative Daily Beast/Newsweek has no trouble empathizing with Signor Virgitti.  She appears scandalized that France didn’t revive to guillotine to deal with this ‘anti-Semitic’ crisis.  One can only suppose that Senor Virgitti is irreparably scarred for his remaining days by being called a ‘fucking Asiatic bastard.’   If that is all Mr. Virgiti has been called in his life he may consider himself fortunate indeed; he should have roamed the schoolyards I’ve traversed, he would have heard some truly astonishing name calling.  I was in the Navy too where I learned a whole bunch of new insults.  I think Senor Virgitti is at fault here- he probably got his just due.

     I might direct a few choice words here toward the Daily Beast/Newsweek but as they’re losing readers daily while managing to stay afloat in a flood of red ink they might see me as a profit center and initiate a suit.  Lord forbid their feelings should be hurt by being reminded that what they publish is trash.

Ideological Conflicts

Ideological Conflicts

by

R.E. Prindle

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/07/06/dominique-strauss-kahn-case-the-maid-fights-back.html

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/07/06/dominique-strauss-kahn-case-the-maid-fights-back.html

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/07/06/the-impossible-timeline-in-dominique-strauss-kahn-case.html

     In following what is turning out to be a fairly remarkable Strauss-Kahn affaire there appears to be a strong contrast between stated ideological goals and actual practices.

     While one can’t trust any details that have been reported one thing is clear: the maid, whose name and picture are withheld, formerly reported to be a hardworking single African mom from the poorest village in the poorest country in the world, Guinea.  Herself being so poor as to be almost unbelievable and therefore, one presumes incapable of being guilty of even a traffic infraction although having been new to New York from the jungles of Guinea.  As we now learn she was not only not that poor but actually well off by Guinean standards which are the only standards that apply while admittingly being the very lowest standards in the world.  Still she was apparently well off, having status,  by Guinea’s admittedly deplorable level that she is now being accused of lying to the US Immigration authorities and hence subject to removal to, one assumes, any country that will take her.

     In addition she is now accused of ‘asylum fraud.’  Surely one of the most common offenses ever committed and not worthy of more than a tut tut.  She, we are now told fraudulently claimed that:

     Among other things, the complaint stated that the house she shared with her husband was destroyed by the police and soldiers acting on the behalf of the regime, and that she and her husband were beaten by them.

     In her statement, she attributed the beatings to the couple’s opposition to the regime.  She stated that during her husband’s incarceration, he was tortured, deprived of medical treatment and eventually died of maltreatment.  Following his death, according to her, she began to denounce the regime and finally fled the country in fear for her life.

     Well, all right.  Apparently the powers that be find such conduct by the Guinean ‘regime’ reprehensible while believing that regime changes are in order such as in Liberia, Libya, Egypt and other places, but not China and, say, France, the US, GB and places like that.

     While espousing the highest ideals for the poorest of the poor our own governments (I’m US) deprive us of all rights to determine out own future.  They sent all our jobs to China, Mexico and elsewhere.  We are compelled against our wills to accept the foulest sexual practices as normal and have them taught to our children.  We are compelled against our wills to accept dissimilar immigration  and what not.  We do object.  If we object we can, like Edgar J. Steele, be thrown into prison not unlike this poorest of the poor women of Guinea.  Steele is not poor and he lives in one of the richest countries where he enjoys all White Skin Privileges.  That alone surely makes him a bastard although not necessarily a criminal.

     Our own President, Barry Obama, has labeled his own dissenters to his regime Domestic Terrorists not too unlike the regime of Guinea.  Ask Edgar J. Steele. We are commanded to express certain opinions while at the same time  denied the use of certain strictly censored words.  If we violate those commands we are subject to fines and/or imprisonment.  Witness poor John Galliano in France.  He was essentially fined several tens of millions of dollars and faces a prison sentence for merely having exchanged  words with a certain privileged class of people.

     Strauss Kahn is apparently able to pull strings very effectively thus being able to weasel his way out of his situation even though his accuser has suffered discrimination, so-called, they were accepted customs in Guinea, all her very poor life.  I mean, my god, she was a woman, and you know what that means.  Edgar J. Steele, who committed no crime at all, whiles his life away in prison.

     So, tell me, what is the difference between Mubarak and Obama and the rest of them?  With these   new stringent ideological standards aren’t  they guilty of crimes against their dissident minorities?  Don’t they deny us our human rights to self-determination?  Or are certain regimes exempt from the rules they are imposing on others?  China, the US, Canada, GB, France etc. etc. etc.

     The question is, can the rule makers live up to their own ideals?  How do we think of Libya for instance?  Do the supposed crimes of one regime dealing with their dissident minorities cancel out the real crimes of the other?

     You tell me.

John Galliano, France And The Jews

John Galliano, France And The Jews

by

R.E. Prindle

http://nymag.com/daily/fashion/2011/06/gallianos_lawyers_will_claim_a.html?mid=375032&rid=422571533

     One is embarrassed for John Galliano whose trial was held this week.  One wonders at his ‘defense’ attorney, Aurelian Hamelle’s, defense:  I was temporarily insane from drug use, can’t remember anything, and I am not responsible for my actions.  The man is dangerous.  Hitler should have tried that one and seen how far it got him.  ‘I wasn’t responsible for my actions; it was the amphetamines and acute anxiety, I don’t remember a thing but I would like to sincerely apologize to the Jews. Please forgive me.’  Instead the poor schlub shot himself.  John, did you hear that?

     Forget this 34,000 dollar fine.  The fine is an insult to add to the injury of tens of millions of dollars lost income over the next five years or so not to mention that John will never work again.  Apparently the whole fashion industry is in Jewish hands.  After the pound of flesh the fine is merely coming back for an extra two ounces in baksheesh.  Over here in the United States the Jews say they fervently believe in freedom of speech.  I always thought that applied to all Jews but in France I guess the Jews think differently.  I sure hope their attitude doesn’t spread to the US.  With the freedom of speech which our Jews fervently believe in it would still have cost John all those lost revenues and his future but he wouldn’t be insulted by the 34,000 dollar fine.

     But France, what can you say about France where Sarkozy is calling for a law compelling White woman to mate with Africans.  Consider this:

     And for a more light hearted take on the trial, Simon Doonan [whoever he is] weighs in on Slate, recalling all the Jews who helped him in his career in fashion:

“I suspect that John Galliano could, were he thus inclined, tell a story very similar to mine.  Now that he is (fingers crossed) sober, I hope he can sincerely acknowledge how much of his success he owes to the kindness and support of Jewish mitzvahs, machers, schmatta kings, fashionistas and, most imprortantly customers.  Newsflash, WASPs don’t shop!”

     I might suggest to Simon Doonan that he watch his mouth, sober or not.  WASP is a derogatory term referring to Americans of English descent.  Perhaps Mr. Doonan, is a Catholic, gets his jollies defaming Protestants rather than Jews, I don’t know.

      As he seems to live in a world populated entirely by Jews one is amazed that he would even know what a WASP is.  He certainly couldn’t have any experience with us.  Or does he mean WASPs are inconsequential because according to him we don’t shop but Catholics, Jews, Moslems and others of the poor benighted heathens do.

     While the French have amply provided absurd remedies for insulting Jews and other ‘minorities’ they seem to have made it open season on WASPs.  One would have to question the French sense of justice, not to mention the Jews, since Mr. Doonan seems to be speaking in their name.

     I have no doubt that Galiano was set up and provoked.  As strange as it may seem that five Israelis set up cameras to film the planes hitting the WTC which implies advance knowledge not only was a filmer present to photo Galliano at close range but there was a photographer behind him filming both he and Galliano but not the complainants.   How likely is that?

     Aurelian Hamelle, Galliano’s lawyer, should have his ticket lifted for not noting the obvious unless he’s in collusion with certain people.  Whatever respect I may have had for Galliano has vanished, gone like twenty million dollars.  Not guilty is the only reasonable plea.  Hitler would have understood.

John Galliano And The Death Of France

John Galliano And The Death Of France

by

R.E. Prndle

Careless Love

     I think there is more to the John Galliano Affaire than meets the eye  There appears to be an attempt to completely bankrupt and discredit him.  There’s a plot here that Balzac could do justice to.  I would recommend that John read Cesar Birotteau.

     Let’s look at Galliano’s ex-lawyer who happens to be Jewish and knows the law.  Galliano says the lawyer mismanaged three million francs, Euros, dollars, whatever.  Three million, still an adequate sum in these days of billions and trillions.   The lawyer naturally denies it yet celebrity money managers are notorious for appropriating their clients wealth.  (Hey, you and I don’t need more than a handshake, do we?)  Thus it is a more than reasonable assumption that Galliano is right and the lawyer guilty.

     Now, in the hands of Balzac Galliano becomes suspicious of the lawyer which the lawyer being able to read body language and other signs as lawyers are trained to do knows that Galliano suspects him finding it necessary to forestall him.  Galliano who has not been particularly discreet in voicing his opinions of Jews and his infatuation with Hitler while being near to a drunk gives the devious lawyer his opening.

     The lawyer gets some nice Jewish girls to sit near Galliano in a bar to provoke him into lauding Hitler and denigrating Jews, otherwise known as anti-Semitism.   In France denigrating Jews is nearly a capital crime.  It doesn’t merit the death sentence at present but that will probably be changed soon.  At the same time the lawyer has a photographer with a snappy digital camera recording sight and sound dog Galliano’s footsteps to get indiscretions on tape.  Galliano obliges and this insignficant incident in a bar is given the Lizzie Borden touch.  They should be singing ballads about this before June.

     France is a draconian country.  The penalties being imposed which includes complete bankruptcy are cruel and unusual punishment as we would think in the US.  Galliano within vitually moments of these videos being released is first fired from his prestigious job at Dior and, get this, his own company.  He now has no income but is foolishly incurring expenses  He now, having fired his old lawyer has to hire a new one.  Another major cash outlay.  It convicted as it seems almost certain he will be assessed a fine of tens of thousands of Euros and given a prison sentence of six months and possibly more.

     He will come out of prison, if he does, a completely discredited man with no employment possibilities.  He can’t do anything else so we’ll next see him at the corner station pumping gas.

     The time in prison, as Balzac would tell it, gives the Jewish lawyer plenty of time to cover his tracks while Galliano now completely broke doesn’t have the money necessary to sue the lawyer. John is SOL.  Balzac didn’t put it in these words but Paris is a tough cold city.

     France apparently no longer believes in the revolutionary slogan: Liberty, Equality, Fraternity.  Screw that old fashioned stuff.  Jews are now the new royalty as much above the law as any Louis XIV ever was.  L’etat c’est nous.  (Hope I got that right.)

     And all this for an indiscreet, inconsequential word or two amongst fellow drunks  in a bar.  There is something wrong here, isn’t there?  Shabby, shabby, shabby.

     France, oh France, hang your head in shame.

The End.

John Galliano, Semitism And Anti-Semitism

John Galliano, Semitism And Anti-Semitism

by

R.E. Prindle

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-05-12/john-galliano-trial-set-for-june-22/?cid=hp:beastoriginalsL8

     The absurdity of the John Galliano case appalls me.  I watched the video provided by the Daily Beast. I’m not interested in the legality of it.  Galliano appeared to be responding in an argument.  He was being talked to.  Of course he should have known better than to argue with Jews.  They are best let alone.  The video was cropped to show only his remarks which were as temperate as they could possibly be and were out of context.  Whether he had been first taunted can’t be known from the video.  As a celebrity he was and is a target.

At the very most he can be accused of no more than being too frank.  Why someone videotaped this situation isn’t clear but we have an obvious setup.  Galliano is also accused of having said at some time:  I love Hitler.  Well, he’s a homosexual and Hitler is very attractive to the homosexual mind.  The confession has improbably been construed as ‘anti-Semitic.’

In the first place there is no probable cause for giving Jews any special legal protection not granted to the entire population.  In the second place while the very name Hitler may be horrific to the Jews, Haman is no less horrific and there is no ban on Haman’s name.  Both Hitler and Haman are historical figures.  That is a reality that cannot be denied.

If Galliano chooses to find Hitler lovable that is no cause for offence in anybody although they may disagree as to Hitler’s lovability.  If Jews wish to be offended then that is a Jewish problem with which society should not be concerned.  They should see their shrinks.

We are talking ancient history friends and neighbors.  I’m Global and very OK.  Haman is a little more ancient than Hitler but if you will notice both situations were identical and are now off the radar screen.  It is possible though not probable that something is wrong with everyone except the Jews.  I don’t think the whole world is wrong so if the Jews make everyone dislike them then maybe Jews should examine their behavior, ask themselves what does Semitism mean that is so antipathetic to everyone else in the world.

I don’t mean to be rude but Sigmund Freud reduced these problems to obvious psychological causes.  He called it Group Psychology.   The answer, like it or not, lies in Group Psychology, engineering sanity, to paraphrase Edward Bernays.  Examine your Weltanschauung and you will find that the true cause of  ‘anti-Semitism’ is your own attitude.

Is that too harsh an evaluation?

Leave guys like Galliano alone.  He was polite in stating the obvious, drunk or not.  Study your Freud and let people be and they will let you be.

Thank you for your attention.  Love ya all.

Mel Gibson, John Galliano And Loose Lips

Mel Gibson, John Galliano And Loose Lips

by

R.E. Prindle

Fashionista John

This John Galliano brouhaha in France is just getting embarrassing.  I mean, c’mon people, what constitutes anii-Semitism, as if anyone cares?  I mean, is anti-Semitism serious, frivolous or just an excuse for someone to destroy someone else’s reputation while completely ruining his life.  Giving him a criminal record, for Christ’s sake.    I mean, people, I’m almost embarrassed to be part of this so-called civilization.

Good gosh, let’s take Mel Gibson for instance.  A drunk to be sure, and since I quit drinking I can condemn drinking heartily.  As you know though, Mel, I hope I’m not being overly familiar,  made this movie about Jesus the Christ.  Now, everybody knows making Jesus movies if forbidden in Hollywood which prefers Moses movies, so Mel’s movie not only doesn’t fail but moves him up into billionnaire status.  So then the Jews want to get him, hurt him bad.

Alright.  Mel is driving under the influence, and pretty far under too, we are told, so a cop stops him, perhaps for driving as Mel Gibson.   The cop, then, for whatever irrelevant reason, that is, unrelated to driving while under the influence, writes on his citation that Mel said that Jews are responsible for all the wars.  This is a question of fact- true or false?  Where’s the anti-Semitism?  Where does anti-Semitism come in and if it does where’s the harm?  If it was said the only guy who heard him was the cop.  This citation got filed, one of ten thousand or so, and the next thing we hear is someone retrieved the ticket and actually read it in detail.  This person was so astonished at what the cop wrote that Mel said that he turned a copy over the ADL or some other ‘responsible’ agency.  Strange enough don’t you think?  So then this innocuous statement heard only by the cop at three o’ clock in the morning becomes a cause celebre and the Jews demand that no one ever go see one of Mel’s movies again.  And they don’t let up.  So obviously anti-Semitism is not serious but merely a tool to try to destroy someone.

Now, let us move on to John Galliano, the world’s worst dresser.  I don’t know how this guy got a fashion job.  John was sitting in a restaurant and gratuitously, without provocation we are led to believe, made anti-Semitic remarks to a patron he didn’t know sitting at a nearby table.  Sounds reasonble doesn’t it?  John is a very peculiar looking fellow, dressing very badly, so it is possible the woman, a Ms. Bloch, may have made a loud derogatory remark perhaps referring to John’s sexuality, but I wasn’t there so I can’t say for sure.  The accusation then was merely Ms. Bloch’s assertion, only that and nothing more.  The only witness says that Galliano said nothing anti-Semitic.  Later reports indicate that Geraldine Bloch said that John said that she had an ‘ugly Jewish face’.  This may be a matter of fact or a statement of opinion, we don’t know, or at least I don’t, as no picture of Ms. Bloch has been forthcoming.   Let me say though that a face can be both ugly and Jewish.  Perhaps Ms. Bloch’s vanity was insulted and Mr. Galliano just said ugly face which is not actionable so Ms. Bloch, Gerry, inserted Jewish so as to file legal charges at John which at 6 mos. imprisonment and a $25,000 fine is nothing to sneeze at for maybe saying Jewish or maybe not.  It’s going to cost him a fortune to defend himself in court too.  Gerry sure knows how to hurt a guy.  John, I don’t care how ugly they are keep it to yourself.  It would have been safer to merely belch in Gerry’s face.

But, like all these things, it doesn’t stop there.  It turns out that Dior fir whom John is chief couturier is financing John’s couture line that just happens to be losing money.  So, Dior promptly fired John, their leading designer since the nineties, after this unproven accusation was made.  I presume that at this point, then, John’s contract with Dior is null and void as John has been brought up on a moral’s charge.

So, c’mon now, how serious is anti-Semitism?  It’s just a tool to injure people.  I mean, you don’t need proof.  Everyone should accuse everyone else of an anti-Semitic slur and flood the courts with zillions of cases.  That would be fun to watch, wouldn’t it, people?  Then Ms. Portman could be really proud as punch that she’s Jewish.