Just have to ask

Why isn’t anyone in Hollywood making movies about the abuses the terrorists within Iraq perpetrate against Americans and Iraqis? How honest is it to take one incident involving Americans and then to build a Riefenstahl-esque propaganda film about it, when you have hundreds, perhaps thousands, of incidents in which Islamists have engaged in mass execution style killings of bound Iraqis, civilian bombings, beheadings, kidnappings, child burnings, etc? Or what about the little matter of Hussein killing hundreds of thousands of his own citizens, as well as leaving many others to the tender mercies of his clinically sadist sons?

Why am I asking stupid questions? De Palma, who is an anti-militaristic one trick pony, made a propaganda film that is playing well before a credulous audience that never hears the truth anyway. (On this last point, see Bruce Bawer’s While Europe Slept: How Radical Islam is Destroying the West from Within, which gives a detailed description of anti-American government control over the press.) Shame on him. Shame on them.

Aw, forget that too. They have no shame, only hate and cultural self-loathing.

UPDATE: Thoughtful summary from the Confederate Yankee about De Palma’s anti-American propaganda.

Be Sociable, Share!
  • GPC

    Same reason the msm won’t show any of the islamo-fascist atrocities. They are afraid that showing the truth would arouse the American public into full war fury, and nobody wants to ride that beast.

    I get the feeling that our lilliputian leadership is self-handicapping Gulliver. I say, if you fight a war you must fight to win. That doesn’t necessarily mean blood-lust, it just means there is no substitute for victory however it is achieved.

  • GPC

    An Addendum:

    The De Palmas of the world are in the business of undermining morale. That’s dangerous.

    The belief that you can fight while sapping morale and win in spite of onerous self-imposed restrictions belies a sense of complacency, smugness, and superiority. Never underestimate your enemy.

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com/ ymarsakar

    Part of increasing morale so that people continue to fight wars is to make sure that all the bad stuff the enemy is doing is produced and widely disseminated. However, the Left doesn’t believe that liberty is worth fighting for. They don’t think the Islamic Jihad is worth dying for, either, but the point is is that the Left believes that far more people will die and kill for liberty than the non-Global ideology of Al Qaeda. (in their view)

    So the enemy of nihilists is liberty. Liberty, that which motivates people to fight and thus causes wars. Wars then cause suffering, poverty, etc. The Left must end wars, you see, so they must end liberty and any hint that liberty might be worth fighting for. Thus any notion that the absence of liberty is “bad” and “horrible” would be simply a faux paus, Book.

  • swampacreage

    Pulp fiction Y ? Which actor character would you like to be ? Or do you see yourself as more the writer/director/producer(bigshot)? Your great at creating whoppers !

  • http://thoughtyoudneverask.blogspot.com/ Zabrina

    Found this very interesting article on the backstory in Hollywood during the last century, and this summary may give you some answers to your question about the current Hollywood philosophy, its direct legacy. As an old movie and Hollywood history buff, I know you’ll appreciate this, Book:

    http://www.reason.com/news/show/27732.html

  • zhombre

    You make a movie about atrocities committed by Islamic fascists and you are accused of jingoism, warmongering, and fomenting hatred of Muslims, and that’s for openers; you are branded a dread neo-con, and may wind up being the object of a fatwa issued by some bloody-minded little iman. On the other hand, you make a movie about atrocities committed by American soldiers and you are lionized at Cannes and Venice, your career is resuscitated, and your status in Hollywood moves up several notches. For people who are otherwise unmoored except for attachment to status, ego, applause and money, the choice is fairly simple.

  • Danny Lemieux

    Great piece, Zabrina.

  • Mike Devx

    DePalma is honest. He publicly states that his main reason for making this movie is to stop the war. Under Saddam, rapes by his execrable psychopathic son Uday were nearly a daily occurrence. To DePalma, normally a moral relativist, such fairness is in this case unimportant.

    I see this all the time. Leftists claim that moral relativism is extremely important, that cultural relativism is critical. Then they hold the U.S. (and Israel) to an impossibly high standard, while excusing in every way the actions of others. I hve this debate endlessly with a leftist friend of mine, who says he is only interested in what “our side” is doing and cares not a whit about what others are doing. He still claims he is being consistent and fair despite this incredible one-sidedness. I cannot understand it.

    The DePalma movie is pure, blatant propaganda. Thanks for the warning, Book.

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com/ ymarsakar

    Saddam’s existence didn’t cause wars. The US’s existence causes many many wars. Thus Saddam>US

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com/ ymarsakar

    There is nothing wrong with propaganda per say. What is wrong is that the US has no counter-propaganda.

  • http://bookwormroom.wordpress.com/ Bookworm

    You’re right, Zabrina (comment #5), that is a great article.

  • Mike Devx

    Y’s point in #10 is significant to me. Why are conservatives terrible propagandists?

    I’m using this definition of propaganda: “Ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one’s cause or to damage an opposing cause.” Notice that “lies” is not in the description. Propaganda often involves lies, but it doesn’t *have* to.

    In particular, there ought to be a vibrant “art-house” cinema movement of conservative movies. Yet there isn’t.

    One of the better SF books in recent years was “Ilium” by Dan Simmons set a few thousand years into the future. Chapter 31 of this massive book is a small, five-page gem of phantasmagorical horror set in Jerusalem that brings home with a force the power of the insanity of Islamic hatred for Jews. The artistry of those pages stunned me. THAT is propaganda, and good propaganda.

    Spoilers: In the less well-written sequel, Olympos, Simmons’ backstory posits a future where a Global Caliphate comes into existence; a Khanate stretches forth across northern Asia and subsumes the EU, and these two final major powers battle it out. The Caliphate releases a Rubicon virus targetting Jews for destruction, but instead it wipes out 98% of all humanity. The Caliphate mass-produces waves of androids to kill Jews, but they end up targeting all humans. And finally, when the Khanate is nearly triumphal, the Caliphate attempts to destroy the world with quantum-technology bombs. (ie, If I can’t have it, then no one will.) The Khanate, on the other hand, is guilty mostly of wretched excess. The books are set two thousand years after all these events. Those aspects of the complex future history form a powerful indictment of Islamic radicalism that is effective propaganda; some may call it Islamophobic if they wish to. I don’t.

    We need more of it. And we need it in the visual arts, for mass consumption.

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com/ ymarsakar

    I’m using a more broader and neutral definition. The Art of Propaganda as the art of convincing people that what you say is true or simply making them think something is true because you wanted them to believe it was true. Very similar to how I view the Art and Science of War, which shouldn’t be surprising given that I studied propaganda and warfare side by side.

    Notice that “lies” is not in the description. Propaganda often involves lies, but it doesn’t *have* to.

    i would agree with that, certainly.

    Y’s point in #10 is significant to me. Why are conservatives terrible propagandists?

    I think it is linked with the same reason why the Soviets were much better at spycraft, tradecraft, and human intelligence than we were. In the Cold War, the US advantage was with SigInt, signals intelligence, given the greater technological advancement of America in the electronics and code breaking fields. American and British code breaking history in WWII were essentially without equal. The Soviets did well in human intelligence because the ability to manipulate human beings comes from a darker and less prosperous sphere of experience. An experience in which families waited in bread lines and faced the stark reality of starvation every day and every year. Such experiences produce good and hardy spies, Mike, if only because those spies know that nothing is free and therefore to survive you must be capable of doing anything. Assassination, sabotage, espionage, etc are little prices to pay for victory. As with environmental protection, only the rich can afford clean hands and ethics. Rich and wealthy folks such as Americans.

    The wealthier America grew, the less well adept at spying the US became. It got to the point where they even forbid the CIA to take on any human agents willing to work for America. The Soviets welcomed that, I assure you.

    To get to the point, the reason why the Left is better at propaganda than conservatives is because the Left is far more cynical, ruthless, and unethical than conservatives. Propaganda is used often for destabilization operations which cannot be replaced by active force of arms. Meaning, propaganda is a weapon favored by the weak, the weak that cannot accomplish their objectives with force. Of course they do not often stay weak if they succede. Hitler and the Iranian Revolution are just two examples of propaganda in the service of revolutionary causes. Successful revolutionary causes, mind you.

    The best propagandists on the side of the US are not Americans. They are folks like Hirsi Ali, Mike. Why? Because Hirsi Ali did not grow up in a rich and wealthy country, protected by an ethical and loyal military. They were never empowered with the force of arms and legal rights that Americans are. Therefore such people had to learn to use propaganda and other means to survive. These “other means” are based upon subterfuge and cleverness, rather than brute strength. That is why they are often very well spoken and self-educated. They have a burning desire for something more than what they were given at birth. This burning desire allows them to think outside the box.

    Bush is not a Hirsi Ali nor an Arnold, thus he is not good at propaganda for he has never needed subterfuge to acquire what he needed. He was born with status, if not power. One reason why the Left hates him so. For Bush is just like the Left, born from wealth and given the mandate of making sure that the lower classes are kept in perpetual slavery to the rich. Yet Bush like Kennedy sought to lift up the masses and give them a higher standard to live for. The Left could not stand that. For if everyone became wealthy, who would the Left use for their propaganda and sabotage operations?

  • Pingback: Hollywood and Communism « Sake White()