Imagine a movie based on the true story of a “rising star” reporter who invented his feature stories but passed them off as true.
Imagine he scammed a half-dozen magazines that took themselves very seriously, like The New Republic, The New Yorker and Rolling Stone.
Would the reporter’s religious background and sexual orientation be pertinent to understanding his character? What if this con artist were a WASP heterosexual from the Midwest but they portrayed him as a Jewish homosexual? In a movie about basic honesty, would that be honest? Wouldn’t that suggest prejudice?
“Shattered Glass,” a critically acclaimed movie made in 2003, is based on Stephen Glass,a Jewish homosexual who was a writer with The New Republic in the mid 90’s. He is portrayed by a WASP actor, Hayden Christensen, as a Midwest WASP heterosexual.
We live in an era of “identity politics.” Obama is the first “Black” President. His Administration has many homosexuals. Sonia Sottomayer is the first “Latina” Supreme Court Judge. A hidden hand is pushing minorities to the fore. But when minorities screw up; oh well, suddenly their minority status is airbrushed and they belong to the majority.
Minorities are good; the heterosexual WASP majority is bad.
The movie goes out of its way to portray this gay reporter as a heterosexual. The women on the New Republic staff swoon over him. In one scene, he remarks that he must stop complimenting females on their accessories or they will think he is gay.
The Glass character comes from the Highland Park area of Chicago. Although this seems to be a Jewish enclave, it is portrayed as old WASP establishment. There are recurring scenes where Glass is lecturing a journalism class at his old high school. The worshipful girl students, the doting teacher, the prominent American flag, are all distinctly Gentile.
However the movie dropped one clue that raised my suspicions. Glass says he has to attend law school because “where I come from, you’re nobody unless you’re a doctor or a lawyer.” That sounded very familiar so I watched an extensive interview with Glass from “Sixty Minutes” and sure enough…he is not only Jewish but gay.
Because the movie refuses to acknowledge Glass’s real identity, it doesn’t go beyond relating how his hoax unravelled. There is no probing of his character and motives. As a result, the movie is about half-as-good as it should be.
Glass’s minority identity may explain why his ruse wasn’t discovered earlier; why he was a “star”; and why he was “protected” for so long by colleagues and editors.
America is about half-as-good as it should be because it can’t confront other Jewish or gay whoppers for fear of being politically incorrect. For example, Larry Silverstein should be asked why World Trade Centre Building Seven just happened to be wired for demolition on Sept. 11, 2001, and was demolished, but the twin towers weren’t?
A gay activist whopper that has the potential to destroy millions of lives is the notion that homosexuality is a normal lifestyle choice and not a developmental disorder.
I believe that the majority of Jews like myself and gays are honest and decent people. But if we remain silent about the subversive activities of certain Jewish or gay figures, we compromise ourselves.
Prejudice is another word for experience. We can’t help but notice that a disproportionate share of the world’s liars are either gay or Jewish or both. The reasons for this are complex. It may have something to do with both groups feeling unjustly excluded from society and believing therefore anything goes.
In “After The Ball: How America Will Conquer Its hatred & Fear of Gays in the 90’s,” gay activists Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen say, “a surprisingly high percentage” of pathological liars and con men are gay. This results from a natural habit of self-concealment, and leads to a stubborn self-deception about one’s own gayness and its implication.” (pp. 276 ff)
The Jewish proclivity to lie may have something to do with a Cabalistic belief that reality can be socially defined. The lack of belief in the immortality of the soul may be another factor. This is a complex issue.
The upshot is that the more Hollywood portrays Jewish or gay behaviour as if it were American mainstream behaviour, the sooner it will be.
I have never seen Christianity portrayed in a truly favorable light in a Hollywood movie. Only once have I seen a Jew portrayed in an negative light. (In “The Upside of Anger” (2005) a Jewish radio producer is exploiting a young woman sexually. )I can’t remember seeing a homosexual portrayed negatively. No group is perfect, not even “a persecuted minority.”
Every day Hollywood presents negative or banal Jewish behavior in a positive light as American behavior. In “I Love You Man,” masculine behavior is defined by two Jews who are aren’t identified as such. They masturbate and play music in a garage but they don’t hunt, build things or engage in physical sports. In Judd Apatow’s movies, the characters are Jews who mostly behave in a repulsive manner. Yet, they are not identified as Jews and their behavior is presented as endearing.
Americans have been under psychological attack for some time. Political correctness is a trick. Whether or not we are Jewish or gay, we need to identify, differentiate and discuss the positive and negative aspects of Jewish and gay behavior.
We must confront the mass media’s devious hate campaign against America’s heterosexual Christian majority if we expect to survive.
This article can be found permanently archived at: