Home » Satire » A Take from Last Night’s Oscar Awards You May have Missed…

A Take from Last Night’s Oscar Awards You May have Missed…

aw

By Greg Felton

(THE SCENE: WTFN’s Los Angeles studios. The set is bedecked with the usual movie posters, still photographs and various objets de cinéma. Host Lance Boyle is in his usual club chair. The opening theme music dies down.)

lb

LANCE BOYLE: (to camera) “Welcome to the ninth Oscar edition of The Cutting Room, the first under the new Trumpian regime. To read from the screeching from both sides of the right-wing of the political spectrum, we might as well redefine the calendar as BT and AT—Before Trump and After Trump. Whether one thinks that the last election marked a break with the past or is the inevitable result of 30-plus years of corporatism, one thing will always be a constant in our lives—movies—and where there are movies, there are award shows. Tonight we look at the best Hollywood had to offer in 2016, (camera pulls back into a two-shot. Miriam Kale is now seated across from Lance Boyle.) Miriam, welcome back.”

mk

MIRIAM KALE: “Thanks, Lance. A lot of my friends would agree with your BT/AT calendar because they wailed that Trump’s victory marked the beginning of the end of U.S. democracy. However, I found this reaction bizarre because American democracy ended at least as far back as 2001. The USA PATRIOT Act eviscerated civil liberties, and under the supposedly liberal Barack Obama the surveillance state was ratcheted up, the drone program was widely expanded and police forces became ever more militarized. Hillary Clinton represented this anti-democratic ‘Deep State’ establishment and was a war criminal to boot, which meant she was unelectable. Trump was really the only viable choice because the Democratic Party threw the election by sabotaging Bernie Sanders’s nomination. If people want to blame someone for Trump’s election, they need to blame the Democrats! But enough about politics; let’s talk movies!”

BOYLE: “Where do you want to start?”

KALE: “Where else?—with my pick for the Leni Riefenstahl Award for Best Holocaust Propaganda.”

BOYLE: “Ah, yes—The Leni; your favourite category.”

KALE: “This year, the winner is exemplary. Never before has a Leni nominee showed the connection between the Holocaust® and Holocaust® propaganda so clearly. I think you know which film I’m talking about. Go on: open the envelope.” (She hands it to him.)

envel

BOYLE: “Ah yes. I thought so, but there have been many films that have defended the six-million figure and sanctified Auschwitz. What makes this film so remarkable?”

KALE: “It exploits a real event to perpetuate a false history. Let me give you the context. The film is concerned with the infamous 2000 libel trial between historian David Irving and Holocaust® professor Deborah Lipstadt. In 1993, Lipstadt wrote Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory, a book in which she accused Irving of being a ‘Holocaust® denier’.

“In the opening scene, Irving interrupts one of Lipstadt’s 1994 lectures and waves $1,000, saying he’ll give it to anybody who can produce any written evidence that Hitler ordered the Holocaust®. Lipstadt bombastically claims she’ll debate the Holocaust® with anyone but not with someone who denies it. Now, if she had evidence it occurred, it should be a simple matter to dispatch someone like Irving, but the fact that she refused to debate him gave credibility to Irving’s assertion that Hitler never ordered the Holocaust®.

“By the way, the film got this scene wrong. Irving’s actual words were: “I have here a thousand dollars for you [Lipstadt] if you can produce to this audience, now or at any time in the future, this document about which you have just lied to them.”

BOYLE: “He was referring to what Lipstadt claimed happened at the Jan. 20, 1942, Wannsee Conference, right?”

KALE: “Yes, but Lipstadt never produced any documents. In fact, nobody has. Lipstadt’s refusal to account to Irving for her claims and her ad hominem attack upon him, led Irving to sue for libel.”

BOYLE: “As I recall, Irving lost.”

KALE: “Yes, and no. Lipstadt was found to have libeled Irving on four counts, but not on a fifth. Therefore, Mr . Justice Charles Gray concluded that Irving did not suffer damage to his reputation, despite the libels, so he lost his suit.”

BOYLE: “One could say Irving lost his suit before it started. Merely being accused of being a ‘Holocaust® denier’ is enough to destroy anyone’s reputation, so even if Irving had proven that Lipstadt lied about him, the judge would still have rejected his claim.”

KALE: “That’s why this film is so quintessentially Leni-esque! The prejudice against Irving was insurmountable. The fix was in. As The Guardian reported: ‘[The judge] said he found that Irving was “an active Holocaust denier; that he was anti-Semitic and racist and that he associated with right-wing extremists who promoted neo-Nazism.” ’ Here is Gray in his own words:

Having considered the various arguments advanced by Irving to assail the effect of the convergent evidence relied on by the defendants, it is my conclusion that no objective, fair-minded historian would have serious cause to doubt that there were gas chambers at Auschwitz and that they were operated on a substantial scale to kill hundreds of thousands of Jews.

BOYLE: “I understand that the trial moves to Auschwitz to address Irving’s claim there were no gas chambers. What was Irving’s evidence?”

KALE: “Essentially the lack of evidence. The Nazis allegedly dropped Zyklon B pellets through rooftop openings in the buildings, but no such openings existed. Irving’s catchphrase was ‘No holes; no holocaust.’ By casting doubt on the existence of the gas chambers, Irving cast doubt on the 6 million, so the existence of gas chambers had to be defended.

BOYLE: “How do we know they didn’t exist?”

Continued here

36 thoughts on “A Take from Last Night’s Oscar Awards You May have Missed…

  1. Actually, Greg Bacon the number of Holocaust(R) movies exceeds 180, but sheer quantity of film and expenditure do not add up to truth. The divinity of Jesus is similarly fabricated, yet it is portrayed in hundreds upon hundreds of books, films and works of art. Your response is understandable, but it is as non-responsive as the argument that the 9/11 attacks could not have been carried out by the U.S. and Israel because an operation of that size could not be kept secret. If you want to argue against a proposition you cannot appeal to its consequent, which must necessarily be true if the proposition is also true. I ask that you evaluate my evidence, and only upon that decide for yourself.

    • Greg Bacon, I believe, was engaging in a bit of sarcasm. He has posted comments here for a long time, and I can tell you he doesn’t believe in the official 9/11 story any more than he believes the official holocaust story. But let me respond briefly, Greg, to your comment about Jesus. In your satire about the Oscars, one of your characters makes the following comment: “Because of Netanyahu and others like him, the image of ‘Jew as victim’ has given way to one of ‘Jew as monster’.” One of the most fascinating things, to me, about Jesus is that he was born into this tribe of “monsters,” and yet managed to formulate and espouse the teachings that he did. But in addition to his teachings about the value of being peacemakers, Jesus also denounced his fellow Jews as liars, hypocrites and murderers, and the target of these criticisms were not solely “Jewish leaders.” On the contrary, the scriptures make clear he was speaking of more than just a finite group of corrupt leaders. Then, as today, the “good Jews” seem to have been only a small minority. (A very precious minority, but small nonetheless.) Additionally, Jesus also told parables, such as the Good Samaritan story, that severely undercut the ideology of Jews as “chosen.” Hardly any wonder that a sizeable number ended up calling for his crucifixion. Now here we are 2000 years later–with a “Jewish state” carrying out war crimes, establishing illegal settlements, and creating havoc and chaos through the entire Middle East. When Israel was established in 1948, Jews were perceived as victims. Today, nearly 70 years later, they are coming to be viewed as “monsters” by increasing numbers of people. And in the process, people are looking at the gospel narratives, and particularly Jesus’ conflict with the Pharisees, in an entirely new light. The story is being vindicated. Maybe it’s all a massive, peculiar coincidence. The other possibility is there is a divine hand at work somewhere.

  2. Greg Bacon, your conclusion is understandable but wrong. There have been more than 180 Holocaust-themed films, but quantity does not equal accuracy. A lie told once or 180 times is still a lie, so saying “it must be true” based in no discussion of the material or criticism is empty. Regarding WHY the same story would be told over and over, you need look no further than any religion or cult. The Holocaust (R) is told this way to beat the world into submission, to tell the lie so often it will be mistaken for fact. The Holocaust (R) is not a historical event; it is the founding myth of a bloody political religion. Since no myth can withstand scrutiny and survive, the Holocaust (R) must be preached like holy writ. This is why those who investigate the matter are persecuted.

    The “6 million” Holocaust (R) is not true. If you wish to assert otherwise, please deal with the evidence.

    (P.S. This is a fair, rational response and deserves to be posted.)

  3. Good article,there is alot of hypocrisy in Hollywood and alot of Jewish probaganda, the word holocaust is like foghorn and when it is said No one can get a word in ,free speech is denied,Oh and another hypocrisy is the award that went to that white helmets documentary, thats very well done to award the Al Qeada PR department funded by US/UK tax money,i hope Tulsi Gabbard succedes ending this Outrage ,and now hollywood awards head chopping terrorists the Oscar,Al Nusra who has committed a holocaust on christians in Syria ,and this Holocaust is rearly mentioned in MSM,i still remember John McCain refusing to meet persecuting Syrian Christians and went into a angry fit when challenged on the mythical plucky r good rebels(al qeada) and the horrific acts of violence perpetrated on christians,there is No Hollywood film to document their genocide..

  4. Indeed, Richard. I was hasty. I see that Greg Bacon was being facetious. My eyes glossed over the text too quickly. The Jew-as-monster comment refers to Zionist Jews, not Yiddish Jews. I do not think it useful to superimpose Jesus on the issue, because the cause of the Holocaust (R) is political, not religious, and the Romans, not the Jews were responsible for Jesus’s death.

    • Some things become clearer when we take the long view, although occasionally the opposite can be the case as well. At any rate, you wrote a terrific satire on the Oscars.

    • interesting greg felton
      you take the jew view regarding which jew is monster and re who responsible for death of Jesus
      zionist jew, yiddish jew, torah jew, talmudic jew, atheist jew, family jew, jew for jesus, alcoholic jew, sportsman jew, joker jew
      jew is jew is jew
      how would the ’cause of the holocaust(R)’ be political if the holo is a lie and ahistorical, a myth

      i certainly apologize ahead if my eyes glossed over your comment too quickly and i totally misunderstand comment

      now i must go wash my eyes. too much jew for one keyboarding session

      • What a stupid post! For the record, Jews did not kill Jesus; the Romans did. There is no evidence to the contrary. I think you are too full of anti-Jewish animus to think clearly. There is no such thing as a “Jew view.”

      • Technically speaking, Greg, the Romans hammered the nails, but there is much more to the story than that.

      • In fact, there isn’t. Jews did not kill Jesus. If you’re trying to argue that the Jewish authorities killed him, you are reading into the biblical account if his death what you want to see. If you read Mark, Mathew, Luke and John in that order you see a gradual mutation of the propaganda: the Romans get better treatment and the Jews come off worse.

        At any rate, Jesus is not relevant to my satire. We can leave biblical analysis to another tine.

      • Whether Jesus is relevant to your satire or not, you are the one who initially brought him up–in your February 28 comment in response to Greg Bacon: “The divinity of Jesus is similarly fabricated…” No one had even mentioned Jesus up to that point. If you choose to view the gospels as “propaganda” that is certainly your prerogative, but if you went to a Jewish website and deliberately insulted the Old Testament, or to a Muslim website and made insulting remarks about the Quran, I’m guessing there are those who would question your sense of etiquette.

      • I appreciate the comment, but if you compare the earliest accounts of Jesus’s life (the Gnostic Gospels of Timothy, Philip etc.) with the official version that has been handed down to us there are clearly two versions of who if what Jesus was. The civil war between the Trinitarian Arians and the Unitarian Athanasians that led to the Council of Nicea show a definite political struggle.

        The nature of Jesus had to be asserted by a political authority to stabilize the church.

        I meant no offence and am sorry if I caused any. I merely stated what the historical record showed.

      • I’m glad you appreciate the comment, Greg. The “but” you add doesn’t really bolster your argument or address the fact that you were the one who initially brought up the topic of Jesus. I personally believe the Gnostics were present very early on in the history of Christianity, possibly as early as mid first century. The Gospel of Thomas (I assume you are talking about Thomas, not Timothy) has 114 sayings attributed to Jesus, many of which parallel passages from the canonized gospels. For instance, you could compare Thomas’ saying number 26 with Matthew 7:3, or Thomas 113 with Luke 17:20-21. While Thomas depicts a Jesus who was a bit more prone to proverbs and aphorisms, I don’t see any great difference in terms of “who if what” (sic) Jesus was. As for disputes which took place in the church some two or more centuries after Jesus’ death, you are kind of digressing and getting off on a tangent.

      • I admit I brought up Jesus, which I obviously should not have since the thread has now gone off topic. I was merely stating an analogy to show how certain interest groups defend a belief and to take issue both with 5 dancing shlomo’s unfair, blanket condemnation of Jews and your assertion that Jews were responsible for Jesus’s death.

        The term “Jew as monster” can only realistically be applied to Zionist Jews, who stem from the same fascistic source as the Nazis did. The biblical Jews were indeed hostile to Jesus, but they cannot be called monsters, as you asserted. They saw Jesus as a threat to the political status quo, and in this regard Jesus has much in common with the way the Meccans viewed Mohammed.

        I only brought up the Nicene Council and the gnostics (yes, Thomas) to show that there were different interpretations and to defend my statement that the nature of Jesus was asserted.

        At least I hope we can agree that the holocaust(R) is more a religious event than a historical one.

      • I do agree that the holocaust has become a religion. I also agree that it is a mistake–and a very major one–to equate all Jews with Zionist Jews, although because of the enormous power the Zionists hold and the chaotic state of the world at present, people are inevitably going to do that. Where we will have to agree to disagree is on the subject of Jesus. That Jews called for his crucifixion is not my assertion; it is the assertion of the gospel writers, and I’m inclined to believe it’s a fairly accurate portrayal of what happened.

  5. 5 Dancing Shlomos comment is amusing and on point as ususal.In this world there are jewish elites like Bill Cristol and the Kagans who push a violent imperial US agenda and you have Netanyahu and his buddies who want a religoius ethnos state which is supported by many Jews, also there is many anecdotal stories of the every day Israelis jews acting in a discriminatory and violent ways towards Palistinians,are all jews bad, of course not, but few a willing to challenge this Jewish imperialism..

    • How is 5 dancing shlomos amusing, much less on point? He conflates politics with religion, contrary to what I wrote, and drags Jesus into it. In fact he made a collosal error by claiming Jews are monolithic. Also, his comment is off topic.

  6. greg felton

    jew as monster applies to jew. zionism just part of torah: from a diseased belief system comes diseased minds.
    reread mamilla pool by Israel Shamir something about 614 ad and jew actions. non zionist I think and monsters.
    pretty sure, according to their own words anyway, israelis do not think of themselves as zionists but as jews. every one a monster.
    then there are the russian/sov union jews – monsters and not zionist.

    and the monsters participating in the spanish civil war to k*ll, k*ll, k*ll the church did so as jews not zionists.
    and the porno jews use porno perversions, in their own words, to attack christianity, not as zionists but as jews. monsters to anyone outside jew mind.

    read jew as jew and you find jew monster not zionist monster.
    read talmud. volumes by monsters expressing monstrous ideas. the monsters birthed by the torah, a monstrous book with a monster as its god.

    there is a jew view
    and you dance, wiggle, and shape shift like a jew

    • Sorry: You’re just an anti-Jewish bigot. You MAY NOT generalize over all Jews, just as people cannot generalize over all Christians becausae of the likes of John Hagee and Jerry Falwell. You need to read Gild Atzmon’s “The Wandering Who”.

  7. did I forget those wonderful, loving, and non zionist holidays of purim and passover and any one for matzos? fresh, young blood.

    • At the same time, 5-D, let’s not forget that there are good Jews. They are a small minority, but we don’t want to shut the door on them.

      • My question is not silly. You made a claim (“small minority”), which I dispute. Your retort “fewer than 10?” seems to demonstrate that you think there almost no “good Jews”. In fact. 100s of thousands of Jews openly condemn Israel and even equate it with Nazi Germany.

        Of all sectors of US society, Jews represent a growing opposition to Zionism and support for BDS. Netanyahu doesn’t even care if he alienates US Jews.

        So, I take issue with “small” minority. I wanted some idea of what you meant. The question was and is fair.

      • You think fewer than 10 is an underestimate (which it is–I was being facetious), while I think hundreds of thousands is an overestimate, but neither of us knows the exact number. So that’s one reason it’s a silly question. Another reason is that your comments are starting to take on an air of repetition. I have already agreed with you that not all Jews are Zionists, yet you go on hammering this same point. Are you trying to convince me or yourself? The third reason is you seem to have an ax to grind, something that has been evident since you first showed up here dropping comments about the story of Jesus being “fabricated.” The tone of your two-word comment, “How small?” seems to resonate with this same sort of attitude. Are you imagining that this exchange is going to develop into a positive dialogue? If that is what you truly are wishing and hoping for, then you need to put down the ax.

    • Just because JUDAISM is bloody and has psychotic rituals does NOT means every Jew does. You can no more derive Jewish behaviour from violent passages in Torah than you can derive anti-Muslim stereotypes from the Qur’an.

  8. Richard, you are being sensitive and defensive. I am not “hammering” anything. I just wanted a clarification on what you meant by “small “.Have you not seen the throngs of religious Jews protesting Israel? If you think I’m wielding an ax you are reading into my comments something that isn’t there.

    • You were grinding an ax in your satire just as you have been grinding an ax in your comments–and of course axes come in handy at times. On occasion I even use them myself. Several comments back in this thread, however, we had more or less agreed to disagree on certain topics. Here are your exact words: “It seemed to me that you did imply the Jews had a hand in the crucifixion. Thank you for clarifying. Let us leave it at that.” You posted that on Monday at 1:51 p.m. Later that same day, at 4:11 p.m. you engaged in name calling (against 5 Dancing Shlomos) and were once again hammering your point: “Sorry: You’re just an anti-Jewish bigot. You MAY NOT generalize over all Jews, just as people cannot generalize over all Christians because of the likes of John Hagee and Jerry Falwell. You need to read Gild Atzmon’s “The Wandering Who”.” And not more than three minutes after that you posted your “How small?” comment–this coming less than three hours after you had posted the words, “Let us leave it at that.” To be honest with you, I am not all that keen on continuing this discussion, and would suggest that we indeed just “leave it at that.” I really have better things to do with my time than bicker with someone over the Internet.

  9. The Hollywood elite maybe finally getting it their polical views are irrelevant, though wise words from actor Mark Wahlberg ,when he said Hollywood lives in a bubble,and also his scorn was useful,”they may buy your CD s’ ,but you don’t put food on the table”,Meryl Streep is a deluded misinformed idiot,and Robert de Niro,got confused with one of his fictional gangster roles when he attacked Trump.I love movies but Hollywood should Not confuse fiction with reality,for if the light of reality was shone on Hollywood,people would know that most would be acyors don’t make it and if they do then some may of compromised themselves in someway,also many would be starlettes end up in porn,FACT..

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s