Steven Spielberg's become unendurable

It was recently reported that the would-be legendary Hollywood filmmaker Spielberg has been funding anti-Israel movements through the institutions he founded, and worse, it looks like he himself has indicated where he really stands, almost 3 years after October 7, 2023:

When Steven Spielberg created the Righteous Persons Foundation with some of the profits from Schindler’s List, he wanted to educate people about the Holocaust and build up Jewish life in America. “I could not accept any money from ‘Schindler’s List’ — if it even made any money. It was blood money, and needed to be put back into the Jewish community.”

“My parents didn’t keep kosher and we mainly observed all the holidays when my grandparents stayed with us,” the filmmaker said at the time. “I knew I was missing a great deal of my natural heritage, and as I became conscious of it, I began racing to catch up.”

The race has long since gone the other way.

The last time the Righteous Persons Foundation, named after the rescuers of Holocaust survivors, funded Holocaust programs was in 2021. Most of its funding now goes to radical social justice groups including anti-Israel organizations like those protesting Israel.

Since 2021, Spielberg’s foundation has provided $650,000 to T’ruah, an anti-Israel hate group which took part in the Manhattan street blocking and whose CEO celebrated the move and gleefully posted photos of attendees falsely accusing Israel of “ethnic cleansing”.

“We have to keep up the pressure,” urged T’ruah CEO Jill Jacobs, who had accused Israeli officials of “incitement to genocide”, and demanded an end to further Israeli attacks on Hamas. Jacobs had blasted American Jews for speaking about “Oct. 7 and the plight of the hostages without once mentioning the unbearable death toll among Palestinians” because of what she claimed was their fear of wealthy Jewish donors.

Jacobs and T’ruah had even falsely accused Israel of “war crimes” by assassinating Hezbollah leaders. “Israel, too, has already committed war crimes in Lebanon, including by exploding the beepers and walkie talkies of hundreds of Hezbollah members,” Jacobs argued.

Within a year, Spielberg had gone from funding Holocaust survivors to funding those accusing Israel of a new Holocaust while enabling Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran to perpetrate a new one.

He already let the mask slip when he produced Munich in 2005, which was co-scripted by the anti-Israeli playright Tony Kushner, who's worked with him on at least a few other projects. In doing so, Spielberg effectively hollowed out Schindler's List, and at this point, I'm wondering if I can have my money back. As noted further along:

The Righteous Persons Foundation also provided $1.2 million to ‘Bend the Arc’, a radical group originally headed by an anti-Israel protester, which has close ties to anti-Israel protest groups.

I don't think Spielberg's ever made any serious effort to address the Armenian Holocaust during WW1, if at all, and no doubt, because that was perpetrated by the Religion of Peace. He's yet another ill-informed leftist, and towards the end of this article, it's also noted, horrifically enough, that:

A year later, in remarks at the University of Southern California, which was honoring him for setting up the USC Shoah Foundation, the filmmaker briefly addressed the issue, warning about rising antisemitism including “the machinery of extremism is being used on college campuses”, which some of the groups he’s funding have been protecting, while also claiming that it’s “happening alongside anti-Muslim, Arab, and Sikh discrimination.”

Spielberg then appeared to denounce both Israel and Hamas, arguing that, “we can rage against the heinous acts committed by the terrorists of October 7th and also decry the killing of innocent women and children in Gaza.”

Notice how he seems to be trying to cover his tracks by adding the Sikh religion to his shoddy lecture. Despite that, I don't think he gives a damn about followers of the Sikh faith, nor does he care about Arab/Muslim women who fell victim to violence perpetrated by Muslim men. And if followers of the Religion of Peace attacked Sikh adherents, as was the case in 1947, Spielberg would have nothing to say about even that. To think that I once thought he was one of the finest filmmakers, and then he destroyed everything by following the instructions of those who thought he should "grow up" as a storyteller, as though the adventure fare he was first known for was somehow not good enough. Then again, even if he hadn't abandoned fantasy-style filmmaking, chances are he would've lost his way eventually, and his so-called adaptation of War of the Worlds was simply unbearable.

Spielberg's not the only leftist Jew who's taken repellent positions. There's also actor Mandy Patinkin, who's sided with Zohran Mamdani. Perhaps this could explain why Patinkin was a co-star in Alien Nation from 1988, which was quite the leftist propaganda vehicle for a science fiction film. There's some role Patinkin had in years past that, if they're good movies, they'll have to be taken with a grain of salt for now. And back to Spielberg, I am done with his filmmaking resume, which decidedly began to collapse in the past 2 decades or so. No decent person should finance his institutions, that's for sure.

110th year since the Armenian Genocide by Turkey's Islamic Ottoman empire

This year marks the 110th since Turkey committed the Armenian Genocide during WW1, a horrifying history that Turkey and even Azerbaijan still won't clearly acknowledge and definitely haven't apologized for:

April 24 marked the 110th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide, during which up to 1.5 million Armenians were killed by the Ottman Empire.

Tensions always rise between the Armenians and the modern Turkish government at this time of year, and many Armenians are now taking time during the day to reflect on Azerbaijan’s ethnic cleansing of Armenians from the Nagorno-Karabakh region in late 2023.

Modern historians look upon the events of 1915-1916 as the first of several genocidal events in the 20th Century, while Turkey disputes the allegation that its Ottoman predecessors were attempting to systematically eliminate the Armenian people, as Nazi Germany would later treat the Jews, or the Hutus of Rwanda would treat the Tutsis.

[...] There were numerous international witnesses to these atrocities, including foreign reporters and military officers. Modern Turkish politicians are generally willing to admit that Armenian civilians were killed and abused in great numbers, but they insist there is no documented proof that the Ottoman government was deliberately trying to exterminate the entire Armenian people.

The Armenians say the Ottomans wanted to eliminate them because they were an inconvenient Christian people standing in the way of the Young Turks’ vision for a mighty Turkic empire that would stretch from the Caucasus all the way to China.

[...] Many Armenians today accuse Azerbaijan of ethnic cleansing – eliminating a people by forcibly relocating them, rather than murdering them all – after its military conquest of the disputed Nagorno-Karabakh region in 2023.

Nagorno-Karabakh is a swath of territory that fell inside the borders of Azerbaijan after the collapse of the Soviet Union, but most of its inhabitants were ethnic Armenians, who had dwelled in the area they called the “Republic of Artsakh” for centuries, ever since the height of the greater Armenian kingdom.

If the aforementioned Hen Mazzig were really concerned about forced relocation, he would've taken up topics like this, and thrown his support behind the community that really needs backing, here being Armenia's. Instead, he took the side of the savages.

Writing at the Christian Post last Sunday, religious freedom advocate David Curry urged the U.S. government to hold Azerbaijan accountable for abusing Armenians and other Christians, including the ethnic and religious cleansing of Nagorno-Karabakh.

The above columnist is absolutely correct. And it's vital to note that Armenia's current premier has to shoulder blame for much of what's befallen the country lately:

Some in the Armenian diaspora have criticized the government of Armenia for stepping back from its efforts to get the other nations of the world to formally recognize the 1915 genocide, in part because the government believes it is making diplomatic progress with Turkey and Azerbaijan.

In March, Armenian President Nikol Pashinyan told Turkish reporters that obtaining international recognition of the Armenian Genocide “is not among our foreign policy priorities today.” He hinted that insisting on recognition of the event was an obstacle to signing a treaty with Azerbaijan or normalizing relations with Turkey.

So not only did he allow Azerbaijan to take over Arsakh without a genuine fight, he's also selling out on the issue of recognition of a serious issue. This too is very chilling, and Pashinyan doesn't deserve to be a politician.

Here's some more history (via The Daily Wire) of some of the most obscene incidents during tragedy:

While the death toll is in dispute, photographs from the era document some mass killings. Some show Ottoman soldiers posing with severed heads, others with them standing amid skulls in the dirt. The victims are reported to have died in mass burnings and by drowning, torture, gas, poison, disease and starvation. Children were reported to have been loaded into boats, taken out to sea and thrown overboard. Rape, too, was frequently reported.

Just one more reason it's a disgrace anybody lets countries governed by the Religion of Peace off the hook. Of course, CNN is still making things worse by using that line "death toll in dispute". It is most definitely not.

The Armenian Genocide and Culturist Sensibilities

This week the House of Representatives debated a resolution that would have given official recognition to the attempted genocide of Armenians at the hands of Turks. Speaking through Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the Obama administration said it “strongly opposes” the designation of the massacres as genocide. Obama’s strong opposition tells us a lot about truth claims and Obama’s lack of culturist sensibilities.

President Obama says he does not want to offend Turkey. The fact that he does not care if he offends Armenia lays implicit in this declaration. Thus President Obama is bending truth to accommodate raw power relations. As such he could be said to be making policy based on an objective analysis of the situation.

Unfortunately, the world is made of subjective interpretations. As the controversy suggests, everyone has a side in this debate and the outcomes have political implications. President Obama admitted as much when he went to Egypt and Turkey and apologized for alleged western crimes in the Islamic world.

Being generous, we could accept that President Obama’s hopes lie in mutual revelation of sins leading to forgiveness and international understanding; open dialogue from this view could lead to the end of nations taking sides. However, his unwillingness to discuss Islamic sins and eagerness to discuss western ones, shows an imbalance in this generous narrative. Unfortunately, it shows a willingness to completely buy into the Muslim narrative.

Whether you denounce the American bases in Iraq or Islamic attacks upon India, we can agree that the non-Islamic world and the Islamic world are in competition. When we take a “human rights” perspective and deny sides exist, we end up pouring money into enemy nations, such as Afghanistan, in the name of nation building and supporting Islamic nations, such as Kosovo, in the western sphere. We end up taking the Turk’s side as easily as we take the Armenian’s side.

In foreign policy we should side with our friends and understand that some folks are our foes. Armenia, as a Christian nation, falls within the sphere of western related powers. We should back them. In terms of narrative, it would run against our values to never admit wrong. However, to only admit to our faults and deny Islamic nations’ crimes, feeds into a narrative whereby attacking us is justified and adopting our values is corrupt.

A culturist approach assumes that sides and competition exist. It also recognizes narrative’s great impact on public and international opinion, and the geo-political implications such narratives have. As such a culturist approach would have us singing our virtues overseas and condemning the Armenian genocide in the strongest terms possible.

www.culturism.us