Thursday, September 20, 2012

“Julian the apostate” – first amongst equals – or - who can we blame next.

We at the CH team mightn’t be the brightest bulbs in the lightshow but it struck us the other day that someone will have to be blamed for causing all this recent violence at so many diverse locations around the world.

See –

Someone somewhere out there in ‘mainstream’ journoland pointed out that merely making a movie (surely) couldn’t cause all that much strife.

Tell that one to Goebbels or Leni Riefenstahl.
(Yep. We know that the smarmies jeer at anyone mentioning dear old Uncle Adi – but what the hell.)

But if you think about it for a few seconds it becomes obvious that the act of film making follows the boring old cause and effect principle.
People generally decide not to make a movie about some topic no-one wants to watch.
No way Jose!
(This is why we chose to cite “Triumph of the Will” as a pure example of propaganda that people DID want to watch.)

They (the movie makers) periodically have these ‘meetings’.
Actually, little more than an excuse to snort numerous lines of coke and scarf whatever else is available while they work out how to suck as much investment funding as possible over the next year or five with the least effort on their part.
Now, despite the profoundly flawed motivation behind these little soirees they have produced some miracles in outcome.

No-one could deny that, say, “Little Big Man” or “Billy Jack” were parables condemning the brutalities being perpetrated by the establishment and through analogy the activities of the ‘military/industrial complex’ in those undeclared wars against noble socialist opponents in South East Asia, South America, and for that matter just about everywhere in the last century.
On the other hand all those John Wayne propaganda movies usually presented as the second feature caused much confusion in the minds of youth.
(Second feature? Yep. Back then you got to watch TWO movies for your money per viewing session. Mind you the second movie was usually crap.)

Anyway, the point being that movies as a medium of propaganda don’t necessarily have to be particularly ‘good movies’ – just persuasive.
(Otherwise how the hell could dear old John Wayne have ever made a living in the movies?)
Nonetheless they must possess a recognizable, often simplistic theme usually conveying the message through repetition; the establishment, then reinforcement of a few simple social values while maybe also creating some handy stereotypes and taboos.
All in all good propaganda produces a societal tension through inciting a predictably artificial mix of ideological/political values impinging upon those aversion responses induced amongst the target audience.

If the individual might be leery of the message – then peer group pressure might sway the gullible toward the intended response.
In any case time and inertia are on the side of the propagandist.
Any filmmaker is going to be pellucidly aware that a movie about a religious subject tends to be taken either as propaganda or mortal insult by those viewers of a pious persuasion who disagree with the content.

Given that good propaganda usually results in outcomes perceived as positive by the stakeholders it is difficult to understand what was being attempted by those film makers who so recently offended Islam.

Unless, of course they –
  • intended to cause worldwide mayhem and loss of life,
  • were working under orders and the show misfired,
  • were profoundly clueless, or,
  • didn’t give a stuff about the consequences,
  • matched all the above and a few more that are so bloody obvious that mentioning ‘em would be overkill.

It is significant that the US secretary of state condemns, then denies her administration’s involvement with this filmshow and an actress cannot convince their courts to remove the show from publication.

It all becomes clear in the mind.
Something emerging from the USofA is identified as a focus; a motivation for violence and insurgency – yet somehow cannot stop its dissemination? - “the message reiterated by US officials throughout the crisis: that the "disgusting" film was not made by the US government, but that there is never any justification for violence.”  - US diplomat rejected outright rumors that Stevens had said in the weeks before his death that he was on an Al Qaeda hit list.” - “It would have little to no effect because other websites are showing the film," Reynolds said. "It would be a moot point”.

Now, Mr. Assange has been accused of endangering lives through public disclosure of documents provided to Wikileaks.
His being treated with a certain lack of procedural fairness lately pales into insignificance compared to the violence meted out to US ambassadorial staff allegedly as a result of that movie.

Yet his liberty has been effectively denied for too long now even if his alleged crime of having a bonk while suffering a condom blowout was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

So, in comparison, what will the seppos cook up to ‘deal with’ these troublesome movie makers – or will ‘the truth’ protect them from any form of censure?

What truth?
Well, if anyone believes the Moslem world cares about a movie they are wrong.
What they care about is how and where the US conducts business. They also care about what sort of business the US engages in on their respective patches.
It seems to upset ‘em that the US can’t even get it right even when it has the monopoly.

Maybe Islam isn’t annoyed about that movie other than as a symbol demonstrating what that country thinks of most of the rest of this world.
It is just about the last straw.

A spot more reading -  - closed after 646 comments

No comments:

Post a Comment