Brokeback Mountain - Understanding Propaganda

[Eileen_T]

Bella3502:

Eileen T??? Where are you? This sounds off topic…

I agree.

The topic is propaganda, not homosexual marriage or relationships. The discussion is whether or not Brokeback Mountain is a movie that uses propaganda to “influence opinions, beliefs and emotions” in order to change the way people regard homosexuality.

I have seen a gradual evolution over the last 10-15 years, of the portrayal of homosexuals in television and movies. We have become conditioned to accepting innocuous types like Will in ‘Will and Grace’.

Brokeback Mountain takes it one step further with the homosexual characters in the movie being ‘real men’ - the epitome of the American Hero - cowboys.

Kirk and Madsen’s “After the Ball - How America will conquer its fear and hatred of Gays in the 90s.” explicitly states their goal.

It isn’t enough that antigay bigots should become confused about us, or even indifferent to us–we are safest, in the long run, if we can actually make them like us. Conversion aims at just this.

Please don’t confuse Conversion with political Subversion. The word ‘subversion’ has a nasty ring, of which the American people are inordinately afraid–and on their guard against. Yet, ironically, by Conversion we actually mean something far more profoundly threatening to the American Way of Life, without which no truly sweeping social change can occur. We mean conversion of the average American’s emotions, mind, and will, through a planned psychological attack, in the form of propaganda fed to the nation via the media. We mean ‘subverting’ the mechanism of prejudice to our own ends–using the very processes that made America hate us to turn their hatred into warm regard–whether they like it or not.

Put briefly, if Desensitization lets the watch run down, and Jamming throws sand in the works, Conversion reverses the spring so that the hands run backward.

Conversion makes use of Associative Conditioning, much as Jamming does–indeed, in practice the two processes overlap-- but far more ambitiously. In Conversion, the bigot, who holds a very negative stereotypic picture, is repeatedly exposed to literal picture/label pairs, in magazines, and on billboards and TV, of gay- explicitly labeled as such!–who not only don’t look like his picture of a homosexual, but are carefully selected to look either like the bigot and his friends, or like any one of his other stereotypes of all-right guys-- the kind of people he already likes and ` admires. This image must, of necessity, be carefully tailored to be free of absolutely every element of the widely held stereotypes of how ‘faggots’ look, dress, and sound. He–or she–must not be too well or fashionably dressed; must not be too handsome–that is, mustn’t look like a model–or well groomed. The image must be that of an icon of normality–a good beginning would be to take a long look at Coors beer and Three Musketeers candy commercials. Subsequent ads can branch out from that solid basis to include really adorable, athletic teenagers, kindly grandmothers, avuncular policemen, ad infinitem.

 

[Gnosis]

originally posted by estebob:

I didnt attack anything-I stated the facts. I am not denying Homosexuals anything. Their disordered behavior is what denies them marriage-not the law. And no law is going to change that.

Yes, you stated the “facts”, but I think I demonstrated in my post that, while these may be facts in the purely statistical sense (though you provided no source), we can not take that information and apply in a meaninful way in a broader context. It is just simply far too soon and there are too many other factors that comprimise the implications of these statistics. There is much more to statistical analysis than the numbers. To say “look, only 1 % of homosexuals have taken advantage of same- sex marriage laws” and then proceed to say that this proves homosexuals don’t want to be monogomous is a very erroneous conclusion to make at this time because you are just blatantly ignoring other complex factors involved.

However, if you wish to ignore these factors and isolate the statistics from their context to serve your position, I suppose you will see into it what your beliefs dictate you to see.

 

[Eileen_T]

Gnosis:

originally posted by estebob:

Yes, you stated the “facts”, but I think I demonstrated in my post that, while these may be facts in the purely statistical sense (though you provided no source), we can not take that information and apply in a meaninful way in a broader context. It is just simply far too soon and there are too many other factors that comprimise the implications of these statistics. There is much more to statistical analysis than the numbers. To say “look, only 1 % of homosexuals have taken advantage of same- sex marriage laws” and then proceed to say that this proves homosexuals don’t want to be monogomous is a very erroneous conclusion to make at this time because you are just blatantly ignoring other complex factors involved.

However, if you wish to ignore these factors and isolate the statistics from their context to serve your position, I suppose you will see into it what your beliefs dictate you to see.

Since you are off topic, perhaps you would like to start your own thread. This is about propaganda in the media.

 

[Aquarius]

estesbob:

So we are free to sin at will under the assumption that the Church is going to change the rules? The idea that Homosexual behavior will some day be accepted by the Church becaiuse of a flap over what constitued usury several hundred years ago is nonsense. I would cretainly not put my immortal soul on the line based on such a straw man.

I will have to hand it to you however-you have deftly changed the subject. Easier to mock Church teachings than adhere to them.

When the pope addresses the whole church and says an action is immoral, I’d hardly call that a flap over what constituted usury. I’d say it shows the Church changed it’s moral teachings to keep up with the times.

This is not mockery of Christian teachings. It’s an example of changing teachings. I’d say it is an important issue.

 

[Eileen_T]

Kirk and Madsen initiated,( in their words), a “carefully planned and calculated, public relations propaganda campaign.” …. “To one extent or another, the separability and manipulability of any verbal label is the basis for all abstract principles underlying our proposed campaign.” (p. 129)

In establishing these strategies… “we can hope (our ambition is) to re-shape American Law and society”. And in turn the rest of western culture.

Brokeback Mountain is just the latest step in the propaganda campaign.

 

[Aquarius]

Eileen T:

Kirk and Madsen initiated,( in their words), a “carefully planned and calculated, public relations propaganda campaign.” …. “To one extent or another, the separability and manipulability of any verbal label is the basis for all abstract principles underlying our proposed campaign.” (p. 129)

In establishing these strategies… “we can hope (our ambition is) to re-shape American Law and society”. And in turn the rest of western culture.

Brokeback Mountain is just the latest step in the propaganda campaign.

Keep in mind that truth can be a very important element in a propaganda campaign.

 

[Eileen_T]

Aquarius:

Keep in mind that truth can be a very important element in a propaganda campaign.

And lies.

Commenting upon the media ad campaign Kirk and Madsen stated…" It makes no difference that the ads are lies; not to us, because we’re using them to ethically good effect." (p.154)

In other words, they advocated lying if that is what it took to bring about the desired change in people’s attitudes.

Kirk and Madsen stress that in any ad campaign details of homosexual practices must be kept low profile.

“…common practices such as anal-oral sex, anal sex, fisting and anonymous sex - that is to say what homosexuals actually do and with how many they do it - must never be a topic.”

First you get in the door, by being as similar as possible; then, and only then - when little difference [sexual orientation] is finally accepted - can you start dragging in your other peculiarities, one by one.

Our campaign should not demand direct support for homosexual practices, but should instead take anti-discrimination as its theme"

 

[estesbob]

Aquarius:

Keep in mind that truth can be a very important element in a propaganda campaign.

Yes and the truth is homosexual behavior is a mortal sin. Anyone or any movie that promotes or condones it as an acceptable behavior is complicit in that sin. Sometimes the Truth hurts.

 

[Eileen_T]

Another effective propaganda movie was ‘Philadelphia’ where the AIDS afflicted gay man played by Tom Hanks was rejected by the ‘bigots’ in the law firm.

Joseph Goebbels was an extremely intelligent man. That’s how he managed to win over the German people to accept the extermination of the Jews. He knew just what buttons to push

“The essence of propaganda consists in winning people over to an idea so sincerely, so vitally, that in the end they succumb to it utterly and can never escape from it.”

Kirk and Madsen come a close second.

 

[Libero]

Yes and the truth is homosexual behavior is a mortal sin. Anyone or any movie that promotes or condones it as an acceptable behavior is complicit in that sin. Sometimes the Truth hurts.

Thats your truth, that is (supposedly) God’s truth, thats is Christianities truth. It is not the truth of an atheist or an agnostic. Realistically the only reasons for condemning homosexuality is due to Gods apparent dislike of it, that is where it all stems from.

Thus, really, one can see why the “truth” has very little say in the matter.

 

[estesbob]

Libero:

Thats your truth, that is (supposedly) God’s truth, thats is Christianities truth. It is not the truth of an atheist or an agnostic. Realistically the only reasons for condemning homosexuality is due to Gods apparent dislike of it, that is where it all stems from.

Thus, really, one can see why the “truth” has very little say in the matter.

You are posting in a CATHOLIC forum. Are you suprised that people here actually ACCEPT Catholic teaching?? And the Truth is the Truth whether you or the agnostic or atheist accept it or not. You ignore it at your won risk.

 

[Libero]

You are posting in a CATHOLIC forum. Are you suprised that people here actually ACCEPT Catholic teaching?? And the Truth is the Truth whether you or the agnostic or atheist accept it or not. You ignore it at your won risk.

I AM A CATHOLIC. And I am also very aware that I am posting in a Catholic forum, yet, that said, if you wish to claim that it is a truth, then I shall agree, but add that it is a truth that is no longer recognised due to atheism and agnosticism.

 

[fix]

Aquarius:

I think the pope disagreed.

]Encyclical of Pope Benedict XIV promulgated on 1 November 1745./I]
"*I. The nature of the sin called usury has its proper place and origin in a loan contract. **This financial contract between consenting parties demands, by its very nature, that one return to another only as much as he has received. ***The sin rests on the fact that sometimes the creditor desires more than he has given. Therefore he contends some gain is owed him beyond that which he loaned, but any gain which exceeds the amount he gave is illicit and usurious.

“II. One cannot condone the sin of usury by arguing that the gain is not great or excessive, but rather moderate or small; neither can it be condoned by arguing that the borrower is rich; nor even by arguing that the **money **borrowed is not left idle, but is spent usefully, either to increase one’s fortune, to purchase new estates, or to engage in business transactions.”

I do not want to veer too far off topic, but that encyclical also said this:

We do not deny that at times together with the loan contract certain other titles - which are not at all intrinsic to the contract - may run parallel with it. From these other titles, entirely just and legitimate reasons arise to demand something over and above the amount due on the contract. Nor is it denied that it is very often possible for someone, by means of contracts differing entirely from loans, to spend and invest money legitimately either to provide oneself with an annual income or to engage in legitimate trade and business. From these types of contracts honest gain may be made.21

Those who claims the Church changed it teaching would not be able to find any inconsistency between this teaching and the Scholastic tradition. Benedict XIV condemns usury, but approves legitimate extrinsic titles and partnerships…
geocities.com/frcoulter/usury/index.html

Please see his book as it explains things very well.

 

[ezra1892]

estesbob:

I am quoting the Cathecism of our Church

**2358 **The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

**2359 **Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

You seriously err when you condone the homosexual lifestyle. You are condong griveous sin and in doing you make yourself implict in that sin.

Remember when the Church killed people for not accepting the heliocentic theory? The Church isn’t always right…Homosexuality isnt a disorder…

 

[estesbob]

Libero:

I AM A CATHOLIC. And I am also very aware that I am posting in a Catholic forum, yet, that said, if you wish to claim that it is a truth, then I shall agree, but add that it is a truth that is no longer recognised due to atheism and agnosticism.

Which means it is our DUTY as Catholics to proclaim this TRUTH far and wide-especially to out Homosexual bretheren. We must respect them, we must not disciminate against them BUT we must, for their own good, proclaim to them that are puting their immortal soul in jeapordy by their behavior.

 

[Libero]

Which means it is our DUTY as Catholics to proclaim this TRUTH far and wide-especially to out Homosexual bretheren. We must respect them, we must not disciminate against them BUT we must, for their own good, proclaim to them that are puting their immortal soul in jeapordy by their behavior.

Yeah, I’m not that sort of Catholic, they respect my views, and I shall respect theirs. I do not want to force religion upon anyone, it should always be a choice.

 

[fix]

ezra1892:

Remember when the Church killed people for not accepting the heliocentic theory? The Church isn’t always right…Homosexuality isnt a disorder…

The Church is always right when She speaks on faith and morals as She speaks as Christ.

Homosexual inclination is objectively disordered because it is not ordered toward the good as designed by God.

Please show me where the Church taught we should kill people as a matter of faith and morals.

 

[estesbob]

Libero:

Yeah, I’m not that sort of Catholic, they respect my views, and I shall respect theirs. I do not want to force religion upon anyone, it should always be a choice.

The you do your Church and your Homosexual friends a serious disservice. You are letting friendship overide the TRUTH.

 

[estesbob]

ezra1892:

Remember when the Church killed people for not accepting the heliocentic theory? The Church isn’t always right…Homosexuality isnt a disorder…

Actually they didnt. And if you are referning to the Gallelio trial I suggest you do a little more research on what it was really about. The issue at hand was not the so much the Copernican theory(after all Copernicus was a Catholic Priest who’s research was supportd by the Church) as it was about the percieved mocking of the Pope as a simpleton is Gallelios book on Heiocentricism

 

[Libero]

The you do your Church and your Homosexual friends a serious disservice. You are letting friendship overide the TRUTH.

I am not perfect, and therefore feel a great amount of unease at pointing out others sin and flaws. I can direct them to the bible, but that is all, I would much rather show the love of Christ to all, than to judge them.

Whatever their eternal destiny is, it is between them and God, I am sure that God is a more qualified judge than I.