Specific Hollywood Propaganda Promoting Bush Agenda and Its Leakage

The Passion of the Christ, The Patriot (2000), etc. Mel Gibson is a poster child for the propaganda of Hollywood & Washington D.C. He has taken on the role of Hollywood propaganda maker for the Christian conservative Republicans. First of all, isn't it strange that prior to being elected the Bush administration already has plans to invade Iraq and that in the same year they were running for election the Patriot was released?



The release date of The Patriot was 6/28/00, just five months before election. Now here a few samplings of the current backlash from his latest film The Passion of the Christ, Air Force Cadet Discriminated because of Religion.

Also, the Passion of the Christ was released for viewing at a theater near you on February 25, 2004. (8 months prior to Nov 2)


Coincidence? It's up to you to decide and express your thoughts.


The release date of the Patriot was June 28, 2000 during the turbulent election race and the release date for the Passion of the Christ was February 25, 2004 during the start-up of the turbulent elections race.

Are Christian Conservatives using secret societal connections to pull strings in Hollywood and elsewhere to promote their propaganda?




[edit on 20-4-2005 by Enigmatic_Messiah]

[edit on 20-4-2005 by Enigmatic_Messiah]
The Bush campaign portrays Bush as a fierce Patriot of America and a man of deep faith in the campaigns, and they seek the media to approve of this deep conviction of faith.
At the same time we have films portraying that style of life, in the patriot is a man who committed sins of war and is troubled by those atrocity's he committed in war but knows he must protect his faith & way of life through that type of destruction again. He is a distorted version of the campaign's portrayal of Governor Bush. (2000)

And so on.....its propaganda.

[edit on 20-4-2005 by Enigmatic_Messiah]

[edit on 20-4-2005 by Enigmatic_Messiah]

How was The Passion of the Christ Bush propaganda? It was a fairly accurate portrayal of the last days of Christ as told by the New Testament gospels. I don't see how this could possibly be construed as modern political propaganda.

I don't see any conspiracy here, either.

So, the movies came out before the election?

One could argue that Michael Moore's movie F 9/11 came out before the election, too. Not to mention other DVDs that came out last summer, not pro-Bush like [url=http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0403910/]Bush's Brain[/ing]

Or is it only propaganda when the conservative Hollywood stars do it

[edit on 20-4-2005 by DontTreadOnMe]

I don't really see how The Patriot would only help out the conservatives either. And I haven't seen The Passion of the Christ, but I don't think that it has political underlayings either. Could you give some more basis on this then just release dates and election dates?

Originally posted by djohnsto77
How was The Passion of the Christ Bush propaganda? It was a fairly accurate portrayal of the last days of Christ as told by the New Testament gospels. I don't see how this could possibly be construed as modern political propaganda.

Ok. I probably didn't explain it as articulately as others could.


November 2nd is the day of elections.


Is it coincidence or not that the release date of the Patriot was June 28, 2000 just 5 months prior to the November 2nd elections and during a heated campaign? Furthermore on the Passion of the Christ being released February 28, 2004.

IMO, it is concise planning to propagandize people into voting based on their assumption that President Bush is a similiar based on the propaganda.

The Bush campaign portrays Bush as a fierce Patriot of America and a man of deep faith in the campaigns, and they seek the media to approve of this deep conviction of faith.
At the same time we have films portraying that style of life, in the patriot is a man who committed sins of war and is troubled by those atrocity's he committed in war but knows he must protect his faith & way of life through that type of destruction again. He is a distorted version of the campaign's portrayal of Governor Bush. (2000)

And so on.....its propaganda.

[edit on 20-4-2005 by Enigmatic_Messiah]

So basically you think no religious or patriotic movies should released within a year of a presidential election because it could possibly help the Republicans.

Your very thesis is quite telling. Remember John Kerry claimed to be both a patriot and a Christian. Are you saying the Democrats are liars when they make such claims?

Gibson has been doing this war movie thing for many years now. It started with Braveheart, then The Patriot, then We Were Soldiers. All 3 of which, in my opinion, were fantastic movies. It takes a little while to make a movie, and after it's been edited, they usually sit on them for about a year to get the hype going (from what I understand). To make a Revolutionary War movie as propaganda and release it near an incumbent's attempt at reelection would be, if anything, used against the sitting administration. They were rebelling against the current leadership (Brittian), not fighting for them (that might be an interesting movie...Revolutionary War flick which is told from a patriotic Brittish soldier's perspective).

As to the Passion being Bush propaganda, I'm guessing you're coming to this conclusion due to Bush's faith. Yet, Kerry tried to get elected on the faith ticket, too. Religion and politics do not go hand in hand. You can be a very religious Democrat, and an athiestic, even anti-religious Republican. Both sides have been, over the past few decades, setting up this idea that, if you're a christian, you're a Republican, and if you're enlightened, you're a Democrat. Heh, but do you buy into that propaganda?

The classic example is "Casablanca" (1942), written and produced as America descended into WWII. Humphrey Bogart starred as a cynical, heartbroken expatriate who ultimately chooses to back the allied war effort -- and give up a reunion with his lost love -- in the film's climax.

It wasn't the only war-time film. John Wayne took up the cause in films like "The Fighting Seabees" (1944). Future president Ronald Reagan starred in a string of WWII films with titles such as "The Rear Gunner" (1943), "Jap Zero" (1943), "For God and Country" (1943), and "Target Tokyo" (1945).

Frank Capra directed a "Why We Fight" U.S. government series; and cartoons like "Der Fueher's Face" (1943), featuring Donald Duck, and "Russian Rhapsody" (1944), featuring Bugs Bunny, brought patriotic content to that audience.

[edit on 20-4-2005 by Enigmatic_Messiah]

Originally posted by junglejake
As to the Passion being Bush propaganda, I'm guessing you're coming to this conclusion due to Bush's faith. Yet, Kerry tried to get elected on the faith ticket, too. Religion and politics do not go hand in hand. You can be a very religious Democrat, and an athiestic, even anti-religious Republican. Both sides have been, over the past few decades, setting up this idea that, if you're a christian, you're a Republican, and if you're enlightened, you're a Democrat. Heh, but do you buy into that propaganda?

I try not to, but I can imagine other people buying into it. Especially when Kerry is denied worship in a Catholic church for his stance on abortion and stem-cell research.

This is also interesting:
archives.cnn.com...

I'm sorry Enigmatic_Messiah but saying that George W. Bush or the Republicans have control over Hollywood is like saying NOW is in control of the Roman Catholic Church. It's ridiculous.

Quick question that may seem off topic, but either isn't or won't be, depending on if y'all can make the connections or not.

Are Michael Moore's films propaganda?

Originally posted by djohnsto77
I'm sorry Enigmatic_Messiah but saying that George W. Bush or the Republicans have control over Hollywood is like saying NOW is in control of the Roman Catholic Church. It's ridiculous.

I never said they have control over Hollywood. I said, IMO Mel Gibson's movies are propaganda and are suspiciously tied into elections. Quote me if I said Republicans have control of Hollywood, please.

Originally posted by junglejake
Are Michael Moore's films propaganda?

Yes, but most political documentaries are.

[edit on 21-4-2005 by Enigmatic_Messiah]

Originally posted by Enigmatic_Messiah

Originally posted by junglejake
Are Michael Moore's films propaganda?

Yes, but most political documentaries are.

[edit on 21-4-2005 by Enigmatic_Messiah]

Have you ever seen a movie which isn't a political documentary which is propaganda for the Left?

so that makes his ok? Most of hollywood is anti bush so IF mel gibson wanted to promote bush like the millions of other hollywood people were promoting their candidates WHO CARES. micheal moore said on Jay leno that he put out F 9/11 in june or july in order to help john kerry. i wish i could find the quote. I saw it myself on tv though. People use propoganda.
But like the others have asked why is it only wrong when republicans do it?

Kind Regards,
Digital Grl


p.s The catholic church wont give Bush communion either since he isnt catholic. Bush is protestant.

[edit on 10/01/2004 by DigitalGrl]

Originally posted by Enigmatic_Messiah
I never said they have control over Hollywood. I said, IMO Mel Gibson's movies are propaganda and are suspiciously tied into elections. Quote me if I said Republicans have control of Hollywood, please.

No you didn't say that, but that link you gave earlier kind of implied it.

Does everyone understand propaganda here? Ok, maybe I should stat subtle propaganda! IT IS SUBTLE PROPAGANDA! Who am I debating?

Everyone who does not understand what I am alluding to, QUIT POSTING!

Also, THIS THREAD IS NOT ABOUT MICHEAL MOORE!!!!!

Originally posted by DigitalGrl
p.s The catholic church wont give Bush communion either since he isnt catholic. Bush is protestant.
[edit on 10/01/2004 by DigitalGrl]

Geez, you must think I am a real dumb dumb? The reason I referenced the refusal of some people in the catholic church denying John Kerry his communion is because it was widely reported in the media, thus giving the opposite view from the portrayel Bush represents.

Ahh......I feel as though you are being condescending with that remark?