Just saw this today, will work up a little review, post here later tonight.

I recommend this. It's worthy of inclusion in the "They Live" genre, movies in which a cover story is peeled to reveal an unwholesome, jewy reality. In this case the peelee, so to speak, is a jew named Stephen Glass. A natural-born fiction writer posing as a political analyst. Turns out 27 of the 41 pieces the young slugger typed for The New Republic were jewed out of thin air. Watching the jew squirm as the honest Aryans track him to his liar's lair is a pleasure.

Released in 2004.

Two articles about Glass fiasco:

http://slate.msn.com/id/2088948/
http://slate.msn.com/id/2074/

Great! I saw the movie recently and look forward to your review.

Stephen Glass has a novel about a Washington reporter who is a pathological liar. It's 'fiction.' Heh.

http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/2004bLinder112804mrShatteredGlas.htm

Movie Review: 'Shattered Glass'
by Alex Linder

28 November 2004

"Stop pitching, Steve. It's over." And with that, lying jew Stephen Glass (right) is expelled from the offices of The New Republic, in whose pages he planted 27 bogus stories. That's 27 out of 41, and this with a battery of senior editors, copy editors, and lawyers going over his every word multiple times!

Jew Glass's behavior and expulsion is a perfect microcosm of the experience of jews among Aryans. The jews lie, cheat and steal, cry, whine, plead when they get caught, and finally wind up getting booted out on their ass. "Shattered Glass" isn't an action feature like "They Live," or a sci-fi thriller like "The Invasion of the Body Snatchers," but it pursues the same object: the dramatic extraction of what is from what seems. This is a perfect trainer movie for WN investigators because in the chutzpathetic behavior and unmanly deportment of jew Glass we have a window into his entire rotten, duplicitous, wheedling, whining, conspiring, expostulating race. Through a glass clearly we are shown, not told, everything we need to know about jews.

Jews are essentially nodes on a global criminal network, call it Interstein. Each comes equipped with a bag of excuses, and a black book of Crimbergs and Bailsteins to reroute 'round danger should the jig be uppin', and links disabled. Deceit and manipulation are second nature to the jews. The Aryan misses this at the cost of his society, then his existence. There are very few sectors of our society not shot through with jews spinning lies for profit.
From the race-realist point of view, what is a detail in the movie is actually one of its most telling points, namely that when the fact-checking heat came down, and jew Glass was forced to document his sources, he was able to rely upon his brother at Stanford (!) to sustain his mirage. At the drop of a dime, jew/Stanford was willing to help jew/D.C. by calling up editor Lane and pretending to be George Simms, president of Jukt Micronics, a company Glass invented as part of a kewl story about a teen hacker hired at a seven-figure salary to secure a company whose computers he'd invaded. Spinning illusions out of dust; making a living from the air - these are jewish specialities. These black arts are much admired among Semites. Without truth or honor going for them, the jews are left with a sort of crooked loyalty. However, that crooked loyalty may be enough, given jewish predominance in our society. It is the odd Glass that gets broken. The vast majority remain intact and in place, and the media they produce a funhouse in which everything is distorted out of all shape, but always to their benefit.
Lane-the-Aryan vs. Glass-the-Jew; or, When Objectivity Meets Subjectivity
If you don't recall the Glass caper from a few years ago, read these two links to refresh your memory.

The New Republic belongs to Martin Peretz, a jew. It's a standard jew organ, liberal, anti-racist, except when it comes to Israel, where it's hyperracist. The day-to-day editorial business during the late nineties was run by goy Michael Kelly, who was fired and gave way to goy Charles Lane. Kelly was popular with the staff of twentysomething writers, and jew Glass used Lane's stiffish relationship with the Kelly-loyal staff to smear Lane's motives when he began the Aryan detective work to reveal the jewish crime.

Charles Lane (left) is the quintessential honest Aryan, slow to anger, slow to doubt. Glass is the jew. Quick to draw sympathy, entertain, draw women, hyperemotional. Lying, lying, lying, blaming sources as lie after lie disintegrates upon inspection, not above a final ploy of hinting that he's suicidal when Lane finally fires him. Never, really, taking responsibility for anything. Hell, trying to profit from his lies to the very end. In real life Stephen Glass finished law school at Georgetown and returned to New York, where he wrote a novel, The Fabulist, about himself. This be chutzpah, and the jew must make the most of it. "Sell every lie three times," as the jewish writers say. Did you damage the reputation of a century-old institution with your fabrications? Well, don't stop, Hyman, until you've wrung every last drop of profit from your imposture.

As I say, Lane, at least in the movie, is the quintessential Aryan. Scrupulous, honest, slow, careful. Such a contrast to the eely, oily, teary jew, he's. The beautiful part of this movie is that this lying jew doesn't get away with it. He gets nailed. The Lane mill grinds slow but it grinds fein, so to speak. The righteous Aryan leader finally puts his foot down and crushes the jewsnake. The women cry and moan, but in the end, they come around. They see that in his coldness and his carefulness and his judgment - Lane was right. Justice not mercy rules the day - very unusual these days. You will see the obvious parallel to our political situation today, where jew-conditioned white women import/sleep with niggers/other women, and everything goes to hell. The jew draws the women to revolt, tells them they're equals of men, with just as much capacity for violence, reasoned thought, and leadership. They aren't. But many of them, hearing uniform message of the school-government-media machine, exposed to nothing else, buy it. We all see and must live with the results.

It never occurs to Lane that someone would make up stories out of whole cloth. But when he's contacted by Adam Penenberg of Forbes Digital, it slowly dawns on him that something is deeply wrong about the Glass story mentioned above. The company, Jukt Micronics, can't be located. Neither can the teen hacker. Neither can the kid's agent, nor the convention at which he was hailed as a superstar, be documented. But the jew doesn't give up or give the truth up easily. He's got lies to cover lies. As each layer is peeled, a new one presents itself. He's got excuses, explanations, and extenuations for everything. And the whining and expostulation and attempted guilt-tripping are unbelievable. A jew is an animal that seems to have all the defenses of the animal kingdom at its disposal: the tears of woman, the bloating of the pufferfish, the squirting of the squid, the quills of the porcupine.
"Are you mad at me?" Glass says throughout the picture, trying to deflect Lane's request for notes and contact information. He's continually trying to turn an objective question of evidence into a subjective question of motivation, exactly the way the ADL tries to turn debate over crime from a focus on objective data to subjective feelings about motives. And for the same reason: to hide the guilty party; in his case himself; in the ADL's case, organized jewry, which is responsible for the "civil rights" that loosed black criminals on a formerly safely segregated nation.

The cold, logical, masculine application of feminine wiles, deceit, and manipulation seems to be the working M.O. of the jewish race, from Glass right on up. Glass instinctively exhibits behavior scientifically turned into strategy by ADL. The Aryan finds the jew hard to understand because Aryans follow a different pattern. When we lie, the vast majority of us, we know we're doing a shitty thing; that we're destroying trust, and tearing away the basis of communal life. When the pressure gets great enough, or our remorse overwhelms our conscience, we admit to it. JEWS AREN'T LIKE THAT. There ought to be a name given the fallacy of assuming that people that look more or like us think like we do. Jews don't. They are a different species. They do not feel ashamed of lying, they PRIDE THEMSELVES ON THEIR ABILITY TO LIE. Remember what Monica Lewinsky said, when her lies about her mess with Clinton were revealed. Lying was "what you did. It was how you got through life." Think about the implications of that for a second. The jews don't see lying as a desperate last resort. They see it as an essential tool in making their way through our world. The jews sort of look like us, and they move among us, but they are something very, very different.

How did he get away with it?

Jew Glass really wormed his way in with the staff, particularly the women. As he says at the start, in the world of cutthroat self-importance that is Washington journalism, the littlest bit of humility and respect for others stands out. Glass was the youngest staffer, and the most entertaining. Where others wrote drab policy pieces, he uncovered scintillating tales of excess or corruption. He charmed the other staff members personally - by paying attention to them. This works with everybody, but with women in particular. There's a parallel here in that just as Aryans have difficulty recognizing jews aren't Aryans, women have difficulty recognizing men aren't women. People assume others think like they do, but they don't, whether for race or sex or some other reason. In any case, getting others to like him was a definite skill Glass possessed, and it was an important minor reason he got away with his charade for so long.

The main reason Glass succeeded was that he fed the editors pieces that appeared to document their biases. He proved what they "knew" without having actual factual evidence of, so they let their guard down. When he presented them with "Spring Breakdown," a piece purporting to document orgies among young conservatives at a Republican convention, they never thought to question it, because all good liberals know that Republicans are evil white men who quaff and whore behind a facade of hypocritical moralizing. All Glass did was pretend to document in the real world the stereotypes ubiquitous on tv. He knew who he was writing for, and he knew what they wanted to hear, and he knew that if they heard it, they would never think twice. With a novelist's verisimilitude of plausible names and quotations, Glass set the hook and reeled the suckers in. It really was chutzpah at its finest. It takes balls to simply make up a story, fill it with fictional people, companies, and events. And keep mum through phalanxes of legal/editorial reviewers, through publication, through attempts by honest reporters to unveil the truth. Only bit by bit did jew Glass cede the increasingly obvious. Oy, a different construction might have been put. Oy, a copy editor changed a line. Oy, a source may have been mistaken. Oy, the phone number is not for the source himself, but for the source of the source. Oy, why are you mad at me? Oy, isn't the duty of the editor to defend his reporters? Oy, you fired me? Oy, oy, oy, what going to do am I? Oy, alone I can't be. Oy, drive me to the airport, or oy'll not be responsible for my actions.

There truly is nothing like a jew. Watching Lane's reaction as he finally realizes, Jesus Christ, this isn't one story, this little shmuck has probably been feeding us bullshit from day one, and may well have wrecked the magazine, and seeing him go in and just tell the rich 'n' jewy Glass to back away from the computer, and don't touch anything, just get out of the building -- no one watching this from a WN perspective can fail to see the parallel. Jew Glass is the jewish race, and the mess he made of The New Republic and its reputation is precisely the mess the jewish race is making of America and hers. AND THE SAME EXPULSION IS INDICATED. Only this time, to avoid recurrences, letz make it vertical. You know, jew Glass's chutzpah was so brazen, and so obviously impossible to pull off over the long term, it truly does suggest an almost genetic compulsion to overreach, as others have indeed said of the jews. And that is good news for WN, because it simply means that we honest men are in the position of Charles Lane, and simply need to keep chugging along, alerting more and more honest Aryans to the truth about Big Hymie.

A third reason Glass succeeded was because his lies were Big rather than small. He didn't gussy up a story about Microsoft with some quotes from anonymous sources, he made up companies and peoples and events out of thin air. Apparently this didn't raise a single flag anywhere in the review process. A voiceover spells out that process in detail, and it is impressive. Basically, an issue of The New Republic is fact-checked and copy-edited and lawyer-reviewed multiple times. But not a single person ever doubted that Jukt Micronics existed.

Men drive off mental maps of the way the world works. They see the world in stereotypes. A few of the intelligent ones are able to accept fresh input conflicting with their world view, but not many. If you feed men data that reinforce their assumptions, they listen. If you point out where they're wrong, they turn off.

I've done a minor bit of Glassing myself, although not precisely in the same way, and not to any criminal end, merely to make some political points I thought could not be made any other way in the organ in question. I described this in the postscript to my article on media control.

I quote:


P.S. A funny little coda on TAS. I many times bitterly contrasted myself with Tyrrell. His aim was to get published in The Washington Post, mine was to get published in the The American Spectator. I finally achieved my aim, in a backhanded way, back in August 1997. Traveling through Texas, I stopped at a newsstand and came across my letter to the editor. Not the longer, fiery one I'd sent under my name, but this one:

A couple thoughts regarding "Is Liberalism Kosher?" by Joseph Shattan. First, if anti-Semitism is the "socialism of fools," then, per Abrams, we can say that socialism is the Judaism of fools. And if Jews define their religion by their politics -- what Shattan calls "secular liberalism," but what the rest of the world knows as socialism -- then conservatism is by definition "anti-Semitic." Don't think so? Ask yourself: Is the term applied carefully and rigorously to a select group of deserving people -- or is it simply a catch-all smear for anyone on the right? As a conservative, I have been called a "self-hating" Jew and, believe it or not, an "anti-Semite" often enough to realize that the association of "right-wing" and "anti-Semitic" is more or less instinctive among my (mostly secular) co-religionists. It has always amused me, sourly, that you can find a ream of articles anytime the "Christian right-wing extremists" attempt to "take over" a school district in Podunk, Virginia, but nary a word on the religiously leftist Jewish cabal surrounding the president of the United States. No, say the ACLU Jews, we must be ever-vigilant lest religion be mixed with politics in the form of a créche on a public lawn or the commandments in a courtroom. But if half of the most important advisers surrounding the president pray daily to the god of Social Justice (what most people would call Theft), we ignore it lest we be blackened as "anti-Semites." My personal opinion is that by making an identity of our religion and the politics that has done so much to destroy this great country, we Jews are setting ourselves up in a very dangerous way.

Jeff Sokol
Gettysburg, Pennsylvania

Why did my ruse work? Why did TAS print my letter? Because it fit the editors' biases, preconceptions, and hopes. They want to believe: 1) jews are getting more conservative, especially the younger ones (Gettysburg is a college town in rural Pennsylvania; not likely jew would be from there unless a college student); 2) their magazine is popular with the hip young crowd (especially jews; Jeff is not a name an older jew is likely to possess); 3) it is only safe to point out the damage jews do under cover of jewish name, thereby indemnifying the publisher against charges of anti-Semitism. And so, the nonexistent personage "Jeff Sokol" furthering a number of editorial desires, the letter gets printed.

Most of what you read, White man, is vetted in just such a way. Very, very few men can stand facts that tell against their biases. Very, very few men can stand personal criticism. Therefore, while many speak in favor of free speech, few practice it. Like morality itself, free speech is an aesthetic ideal, upheld by a minority of Aryans and by virtually no other group. In the Propasphere, everyman comes to think and reason and act like the jew, over time, because of the universal and inescapable conditioning by the media. Everything and everyone becomes an instrument of calculation or utility; valued only for its or his ability to make our dream-world into reality, of no interest in itself. The jews have all the answers. Nothing rebutting their lies is acknowledged as valid, let alone considered as potentially true.

Keeping perspective...

But let's keep some perspective. Plowing too deep to see over the furrow was what got the TNR editors in trouble in the first place. Too wrapped up in meaningless politics, too cut off from the world of computers and commerce, they were snookered by a wayward jewlet. Let us be wiser than they were. Let us see the Glass imbroglio for what it's worth.

Glass's main mistake was mixing genres. He should have been writing novels or tv scripts. It is perfectly fine to make up lies about young conservatives and White males in those quarters. TNR promotes exactly the same fictions Hollywood does, but follows different conventions with regard to facts. The dollar stuff is wrong, but the nickel and dime stuff better be right. Mistakes in the small stuff might lead readers to suspect mistakes in the big stuff, and that cannot be allowed.

Perhaps publications need logic editors more than fact-checkers. It's one thing to misspell, say, Abigail Thernstrom, in a review of her and hubby's work about the racial intelligence gap. It's a nice thing to get right; it should be gotten right; but nothing important changes if it be got wrong. But where's the logic editor to point out that neither reviewed book nor reviewer adduced the genetic IQ differential between blacks and whites as a cause of the test-scores gap? Or pointed out that this is something that all the money and cultural-change and special programs in the world can do nothing about? There's no such thing as a logic editor I've ever heard of. The duty seems to fall somewhere under general editing. So the ship may be headed to Bermuda by way of Nome, Alaska, but the table linen will be neatly arranged.

It is certainly not to absolve jew Glass that I observe that in our New Jew Dark Age of cultural decline, nigger worship, and widespread disinformation, Glass's fictions are among the least damaging The New Republic committed to print. Our entire media create and sustain myths that wreck nations, and woe to the Aryan David who lifts stone to shatter that glass Goliath. But go rent this movie anyway; you'll enjoy seeing a jew get his comeuppance, even if the Aryans who deliver it remain in the grip of deeper and truly destructive jewish myths.

http://whitealert.com/shattered_glass.htm
* *
Shattered Glass
reviewed December 1, 2004
*
Somehow I missed both the original story which broke in 1998 and this Billy Ray movie that was released in 2003.* Never being a reader of The New Republic (TNR), a magazine traditionally leftist but now much more neocon, jew Stephen Glass was not a name at all familiar to me.* However, after reading Alex Linder’s excellent review on VNN, I eagerly rented the DVD and was well rewarded.* Alex used his review as more or less of a springboard for his thoughts about archetypical jews and especially about those plying their crafts in the media they so dominate.*
*
“Shattered Glass,” of course, refers to the broken career of the pathological liar Stephen Glass, who fabricated at least 24 of the 41 stories he wrote for TNR between 1995 and 1998.* This movie, which feels much more like a drama than a documentary, is somewhat unique among caper movies, because we do not feel any empathy here with the jew deceiver.* In films such as “The Great Imposter” and “Catch Me If You Can” we tend to root for the rogue to get away with his deceptions, because he is clever and basically not hurting anyone.* Stephen Glass, however, nearly destroyed the careers of many people, people who had misplaced their trust in him.* He also nearly caused the magazine to fold and most certainly did much to erode the credibility of a profession already on shaky ground.
*
The performances in this film are uniformly excellent, with Hayden Christensen – although not a jew in real life – perfectly portraying the alternating arrogance, ingratiation, and ultimately phony contrition so typical of the race.* His face shows no sense of shame as he looks directly into his editor’s eyes as he tells the most outrageous and bald-faced lies to cover his previous lies.* What is more incredible is how he was able to fool so many people for so long, especially his editors and colleagues at a major American opinion journal.* But, as we have seen in the more recent Jayson Blair case with the New York Times, this gullibility can infect publications much bigger than TNR.* As a matter of fact, I was sort of stunned to read during the film’s opening credits that TNR had a writing and editorial staff of only 15 and that their median age was only 26 – incredibly small and youthful for a national journal self-promoted as “the official in-flight magazine of Air Force One, read by all the movers and shakers in D.C.”* Glass at 24 was the youngest and he was already an associate editor.
*
Yes, part of this gullibility can be pinned on ideological bias, the willingness to believe anything that supports one’s preconceived ideas, such as Glass’s fake reporting of drunken orgies at a Young Republican convention.* But there is also, I believe, another point that this movie’s director wishes to make:*that is about trust.* Fact checking, as this movie so well demonstrates, is not an exact science, and there is a certain point where journalists rely on a mutual trust, an Aryan value that the jew exploits to his advantage.* Jews can ingratiate themselves to fellow workers and customers when it benefits them, and Glass was a master of flattery.* Whenever a friend tries to tell me how nice certain jews are, I usually reply that of course jews will be nice to you if you have something they want.* It's either your money or your personal services, never your genuine friendship.
*
Glass’s adversary, newly appointed editor Charles “Chuck” Lane, is equally well-played by Peter Sarsgaard.* Initially loyal to and trusting of his employee, Lane is nevertheless dogged in pursuit of the truth and his strong suspicions.* In all fairness, however, Lane himself credits the uncovering of this scam to journalistic rival Forbes Online’s Adam Penenberg (sounds jewish), who did the initial investigation of the “Hacker” story.* Lane is a straight shooter who wants to establish the facts beyond any reasonable doubt, and so he gives Glass enough rope to hang himself.* Incredibly, though, he is never able to extract a complete confession as is his goal.* No, in the end Glass impersonates the victim and even “apologizes,” but never admits to moral guilt.* His response when caught red-handed is to whine and make excuses – even threaten suicide – and ultimately “go into therapy” for five years.* Typically jewish response.
*
I would strongly recommend renting the DVD version of this film, because it has Steve Croft’s very revealing 60 Minutes interview with the real Stephen Glass and Chuck Lane.* There is also some excellent commentary by both writer/director Ray and Lane himself, who actually assisted in the production of the film.* Lane is not nearly as Aryan-looking as Sarsgaard in the film, and the thought crossed my mind that he himself could possibly be jewish.* (I couldn’t verify his ethnicity, but after all, noted attorney and JFK assassination investigator Mark Lane is a jew as was a veteran character actor also named Charles Lane.)* Nevertheless, Lane sounds as straightforwardly Aryan on the DVD commentary as was his character in the film.* Glass, in person, is just as much of a weasel – if not more so with his kinky black hair – than the slimy, slippery jew portrayed by Christensen.
*
I also learned from the 60 Minutes interview that Glass, far from facing serious criminal charges and impoverishing civil liability suits, has actually fallen into this sordid sewer and come up smelling like a rose -- as only a jew could do, I might add.* Although he is no longer working in journalism, we are told that he has finished law school and passed the bar exam (although there is some question if he will be allowed to practice law).* He has also recently published a novel, The Fabulist, based on his own prevaricating career, and reportedly received a six-figure advance for this book.* What chutzpah!*
*
So that, I’m afraid, is “the rest of the story.”
*

*
* *

http://whitealert.com/shattered_glass.htm

Shattered Glass
reviewed December 1, 2004

Somehow I missed both the original story which broke in 1998 and this Billy Ray movie that was released in 2003.* Never being a reader of The New Republic (TNR), a magazine traditionally leftist but now much more neocon, jew Stephen Glass was not a name at all familiar to me.* However, after reading Alex Linder’s excellent review on VNN, I eagerly rented the DVD and was well rewarded.* Alex used his review as more or less of a springboard for his thoughts about archetypical jews and especially about those plying their crafts in the media they so dominate.

“Shattered Glass,” of course, refers to the broken career of the pathological liar Stephen Glass, who fabricated at least 24 of the 41 stories he wrote for TNR between 1995 and 1998.* This movie, which feels much more like a drama than a documentary, is somewhat unique among caper movies, because we do not feel any empathy here with the jew deceiver.* In films such as “The Great Imposter” and “Catch Me If You Can” we tend to root for the rogue to get away with his deceptions, because he is clever and basically not hurting anyone.* Stephen Glass, however, nearly destroyed the careers of many people, people who had misplaced their trust in him.* He also nearly caused the magazine to fold and most certainly did much to erode the credibility of a profession already on shaky ground.

The performances in this film are uniformly excellent, with Hayden Christensen – although not a jew in real life – perfectly portraying the alternating arrogance, ingratiation, and ultimately phony contrition so typical of the race.* His face shows no sense of shame as he looks directly into his editor’s eyes as he tells the most outrageous and bald-faced lies to cover his previous lies.* What is more incredible is how he was able to fool so many people for so long, especially his editors and colleagues at a major American opinion journal.* But, as we have seen in the more recent Jayson Blair case with the New York Times, this gullibility can infect publications much bigger than TNR.* As a matter of fact, I was sort of stunned to read during the film’s opening credits that TNR had a writing and editorial staff of only 15 and that their median age was only 26 – incredibly small and youthful for a national journal self-promoted as “the official in-flight magazine of Air Force One, read by all the movers and shakers in D.C.”* Glass at 24 was the youngest and he was already an associate editor.

Yes, part of this gullibility can be pinned on ideological bias, the willingness to believe anything that supports one’s preconceived ideas, such as Glass’s fake reporting of drunken orgies at a Young Republican convention.* But there is also, I believe, another point that this movie’s director wishes to make:*that is about trust.* Fact checking, as this movie so well demonstrates, is not an exact science, and there is a certain point where journalists rely on a mutual trust, an Aryan value that the jew exploits to his advantage.* Jews can ingratiate themselves to fellow workers and customers when it benefits them, and Glass was a master of flattery.* Whenever a friend tries to tell me how nice certain jews are, I usually reply that of course jews will be nice to you if you have something they want.* It's either your money or your personal services, never your genuine friendship.

Glass’s adversary, newly appointed editor Charles “Chuck” Lane, is equally well-played by Peter Sarsgaard.* Initially loyal to and trusting of his employee, Lane is nevertheless dogged in pursuit of the truth and his strong suspicions.* In all fairness, however, Lane himself credits the uncovering of this scam to journalistic rival Forbes Online’s Adam Penenberg (sounds jewish), who did the initial investigation of the “Hacker” story.* Lane is a straight shooter who wants to establish the facts beyond any reasonable doubt, and so he gives Glass enough rope to hang himself.* Incredibly, though, he is never able to extract a complete confession as is his goal.* No, in the end Glass impersonates the victim and even “apologizes,” but never admits to moral guilt.* His response when caught red-handed is to whine and make excuses – even threaten suicide – and ultimately “go into therapy” for five years.* Typically jewish response.

I would strongly recommend renting the DVD version of this film, because it has Steve Croft’s very revealing 60 Minutes interview with the real Stephen Glass and Chuck Lane.* There is also some excellent commentary by both writer/director Ray and Lane himself, who actually assisted in the production of the film.* Lane is not nearly as Aryan-looking as Sarsgaard in the film, and the thought crossed my mind that he himself could possibly be jewish.* (I couldn’t verify his ethnicity, but after all, noted attorney and JFK assassination investigator Mark Lane is a jew as was a veteran character actor also named Charles Lane.)* Nevertheless, Lane sounds as straightforwardly Aryan on the DVD commentary as was his character in the film.* Glass, in person, is just as much of a weasel – if not more so with his kinky black hair – than the slimy, slippery jew portrayed by Christensen.

I also learned from the 60 Minutes interview that Glass, far from facing serious criminal charges and impoverishing civil liability suits, has actually fallen into this sordid sewer and come up smelling like a rose -- as only a jew could do, I might add.* Although he is no longer working in journalism, we are told that he has finished law school and passed the bar exam (although there is some question if he will be allowed to practice law).* He has also recently published a novel, The Fabulist, based on his own prevaricating career, and reportedly received a six-figure advance for this book.* What chutzpah!*

So that, I’m afraid, is “the rest of the story.”

RICH BROOKS

It can't be overemphasized:

- jew Glass never really apologized or took responsibility...at all
- jew Glass's jew brother was willing to help him carry off his scam

Has any jew anywhere at any time in history ever apologized for anything? For non-tactical reasons? I can't think of a single example.

There's no back or bottom to jewish rottenness. Sometimes the rottenness is brought to light, and a spot is cleaned up, but if you cut open any social abscess, just like a certain Austrian said, you find a jewish maggot eating away.

I would love to know, for example, what jew Glass's Stanford brother is up to, and whether or not he's been arrested yet. The jew doesn't feel bad about his scams, he feels bad they didn't work, and takes their exposure as signal it's time to move on to the next.

It's not that there aren't Aryan scammers, it's that among jews, scamming is the rule, and something culturally celebrated. The Israelis are proud of their brazen lying and their ability to scam even their own system.

This movie does benefit from having an attractive white cast, but in reality weren't they all a bunch of beady eyed, hooked nosed jews? Chuck Lane, the 'Aryan' editor, is shown on the DVD and he is some kind of Muk-Muk or Pedro multicult. Hank Azaria would have been a good choice to play Lane.

Here's a Glass piece, I don't know if it is made up but it sounds like it.

SAVANNAH POSTCARD: SHALOM Y'ALL
By Stephen Glass
Every Sunday evening, after a long and trying day of missionary work here, Jim Johansen drives 300 miles to Atlanta, where he lives. Along the way, he applies to himself the regimen he has developed over the years to restore body and soul after a tough stint on the conversion trail. He drives first to one of Savannah's Krispy Chic restaurants and orders the Better Deal Bucket, which consists of ten deep-fried drumsticks, plus a large side of mashed potatoes, although Johansen skips the potatoes. He puts the bucket on the car seat next to him, and, as he drives, he works his way through it, drumstick by drumstick. He doesn't gollup his food. He doesn't even allow himself the first drumstick until he has merged onto I-16, the road that connects Savannah to Macon, halfway to Atlanta. In between drumsticks and throughout the day, he smokes non-filtered Camel cigarettes, a great many of them.

In 1991, when Johansen was trying to convert Buddhists, he averaged two packs of cigarettes each Sunday and five drumsticks on the drive home from Savannah to Atlanta. In 1992 and 1993, when he was trying to convert the "miscellaneous," as he calls members of the smaller and more exotic sects, he increased his intake to seven drumsticks and a wing, and four packs. Now he is trying to convert Savannah's Jews, and, on each Sunday drive, he goes through a full Better Deal load of ten drumsticks. As for Camels, he claims to be up to a terrifying six and a half packs a day. The effects show. Johansen looks like Orville Redenbacher gone portly, and his white beard is stained nicotine yellow all around the rim of his mouth.

"It's hard work converting Jews, and that makes me hungry," Johansen says. He speaks in staccato bursts between puffs on his cigarette. Lighting a fresh cigarette off the butt of one that is guttering to its last gasp, he ruminates on the challenge. "Yep, they may be the hardest [puff]. They're harder than anyone [puff]. Harder than the Chinese [puff]. And the Chinese were hard." He shakes his head. "After these ten legs [puff] ten legs! [puff] I'm still [puff] still hungry."

Eight years ago, Johansen retired from his job as a bookkeeper at a car dealership and turned his attention to God's work--converting the heathen to his Baptist faith. Every weekend for three years he has traveled throughout Georgia, looking for convertible souls. He has tried his hand at apostates of all stripes; once he even took a shot at a family of Zoroastrians. It was all tough work, but not impossible. Then, in June, the Southern Baptist Convention--the executive body of the largest branch of American Protestantism--voted to proselytize among Jews, making national headlines. The resolution rejected the approach of other Christian denominations that had decided to seek a dialogue with Jews rather than trying to convert them. Breaking with this, the Baptists mounted the most aggressive effort to convert Southern Jews that anybody can remember in years.

"Even if they don't want to hear it, we have to tell them about Jesus," says Savannah's Southside Baptist Church pastor Allan Bosson, in comments laced with New Testament citations. "They are going to Hell, and we have to stop that." Thus did Jim Johansen find himself obliged to give up his Buddhists and atheists for Jews, and thus did he become a ten-drumstick, six-pack-a-day man. "My doctor tells me this and that are not good for my health," Johansen says while exhaling smoke through his nose. "But at least my soul is cleaner."

It has been a long time since American Christianity has tried, in any organized way, to convert American Jews. Ever since 1928, when the liberal theologian Reinhold Niebuhr declared what amounted to a detente with Judaism, the major Protestant denominations have mostly adopted a live-and-let-live approach. Perhaps the reason is that Jews have proven themselves to be such difficult converts. The last serious Southern Baptist attempt at mass conversions of Jews petered out in the late 1980s when the man in charge of it basically gave up. He began teaching dual-covenant theology, which argues that Jews are not heathen at all, but are the only population that may reject belief in Christ as the Messiah and still be saved, because they enjoy a special, pre-Jesus covenant with God.

The new Baptist effort in Savannah began with what some hoped would prove to be quiet, modern efficiency--a telemarketing program. One day this July, many Jews in Savannah whose last names began with a "C" received phone calls inviting them to a speech about "the Chosen People and Jesus, their Messiah." The calls produced few tangible gains, however. Only about ten Jews even turned up for the speech. Soon after, "S"'s were invited to a "spiritual, cultural fair." Similar results: few Jews showed and none seemed interested in converting.

But worse lay in store for the Baptist effort. As the conversion-by-phone-book drive continued, it produced an unanticipated and, to the Baptists, distressing consequence. The city's small and suddenly beleaguered Jewish population decided to break with an anti-proselytizing tradition dating back millennia. Four months ago, Savannah's Jews launched a convert-to-Judaism counter-campaign against Savannah's Baptists.

Rabbi Bernie Elzer of Temple Mickve Israel, America's third-oldest synagogue, is the quarterback for this new offense. During the summer, Elzer holds Friday night services at a congregant's home. Wide-eyed and wide-mouthed, Elzer--who used to lead a New Jersey synagogue--is a blend of the North and South: efficient hospitality. He rapidly greets all newcomers with a cheery "Shalom, y'all," inquires about their background and introduces them to the group. Half Northern transplants, half native Savannians, they share a potluck dinner of bagels and fried chicken, rugalah and cobbler.

After a strong sermon warning that too many Jews have been leaving the faith, Elzer explains his strategy for fighting back. First, he called Bosson to ask for a list of his congregants and to suggest that Southside's members might be interested in hearing the Jewish "side of the story." Not surprisingly, Bosson refused. So Elzer proposed Plan B: buying ad space in The Savannah Morning News. "There are people out there who are hungry for spiritual understanding," the rabbi explains. "We should reach out to them. I promise you it will be a tasteful ad. Let's just call it an invitation."

Many of Elzer's congregants are skeptical of Plan B, and the question of whether it is right and wise to mount a serious counter-missionary effort remains a matter of hot debate among Savannah's Jews. Some fear opening up a "free agency system" of religion. Potential converts, they say, will simply choose the faith that offers the sweetest deal--the most perks and the easiest entry. These objectors fear Jewish missionaries will debase Judaism in trying to boost the faith, in what one congregrant calls "a race to the bottom." "For the Baptists, you only have to say you believe in Christ and, poof, you're in," says Jerome, an elderly Jew who refused to give his last name, lest he provoke evangelicals to call him at home. "If we want to get the unreligious, we're going to have to drop a lot of the prerequisites."

"I believe in truth in advertising," adds a dour older man who also won't give his name. "So what's the ad going to say? That it takes a lot of studying to convert, and when you finally become Jewish, your kids will have no friends and you'll be miserable? That's not going to work very well." Elzer insists the synagogue will run only vague ads that invite people to attend a ceremony or a class, or to meet with a rabbi. Those who seem serious about converting will be made aware of the risks involved. In the meantime, Elzer hasn't yet taken out any ads--he's still building support.

Now, the entire situation seems to be pretty close to a stalemate. While neither side speaks in hard data, the actual numbers of converts won by Baptists or Jews appears to be close to nil. James Sibley, who leads the Baptist conversion effort from Dallas, acknowledges that Jewish backlash nationwide has so far frustrated the attempt. What is more, the experience has not been pleasant. Sibley claims he has received death threats and refuses to have his picture taken by newspapers.

In Savannah, there is some muttering of escalation. The potential counter-campaign has some evanglicals worried. Billy Carthen, a Baptist who lives in a neighboring county, says just hearing about the ad makes his "ears burn." If Mickve Israel advertises, Carthen says, he and his friends will up the ante: they'll begin leafleting outside synagogues during Shabbot. And, certainly, Jim Johansen is not about to back down. When I asked him about the concept of dual-covenant theology, he was in a rush, anxious to get on the road and back to his chicken, but he stopped long enough to dismiss the idea. "Dual bullology," he said. "That's what I call it. God doesn't talk [puff] out of two sides [puff] of his mouth [puff, cough, wave cigarette in the air]. What's that mean? Right and wrong are both right? Go ahead, tell that to God. I dare you."

(Copyright 1996, The New Republic)