It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Kingdom of Heaven: WW3 Propaganda?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 4 2005 @ 04:38 PM
link   
In the 1950's, there was an author named William Guy Carr who wrote some great books. One was called "Pawns in the Game" and in this book, Carr speaks of the Illuminati plan to foment a third world war between Christians/Jews and Muslims. After both of these religions had decimated each other in war, he said the Illuminati would then introdue their world-religion. You can read more about this prophecy at www.threeworldwars.com...

Any Mason worth his salt will pounce on discussions like this and point out that the letter from Pike to Mazzini does not exist and so the whole planned WW3 thing is a hoax and a farce, as are the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion. They will preach endlessly that no such conspiracy exists.

Yet here we are, facing a world war between Muslims and Jews and Christians in a nuclear age.

Now we have this big hollywood production by Ridley Scott called "Kingdom of Heaven" which is supposedly about the Christians who wanted to conquer Jerusalem and ended up getting beat by the Islamic conqueror Saladin. I am wondering if anyone thinks this is particularly convenient that a major global blockbuster is being released at a time in history when such a movie is bound to become a touchstone for hatred.

Are we being herded toward a war between Muslims, Jews and Christians? Is this movie another signpost on that road? No crusade-themed movies for years and now we get a massive one at a time when the US is engaged in war right next to Jerusalem and the word 'crusader' has been thrown around a lot. I'm just curious to know if anyone else sees the timing of this movie release as particularly strange.

[Please keep this thread focused on the media and it's ability to create anger and hatred in us. Please do not argue about Islam (or Masons) in this thread.]


[edit on 4-5-2005 by smallpeeps]




posted on May, 4 2005 @ 04:49 PM
link   
Well it sells, a lot of people... well I don't know what exactly I am trying to say, other than pride can be desctructive. I mean really why should we care what happened way back then? We should care enough never to repeat such things, but most people don't care at all, hell most people know absolutely nothing about history. "It's 2005 why should I care about the holocaust" Saw that one on mtv over at my friend clints....



oh man just got a funny icq from a good friend


[16:51] Zombie-Monk: yeah, well, you watch...they'll twist the movie
[16:51] Zombie-Monk: probably ends with richard the lionhearted saving an abused baby from saladin's tent and then naming him ariel sharon


that made me crack up really. I just wonder how accurate the movie is ya know. I agree with you though it certainly seems to be heading that way, atleast if you watch the news, fox, cnn, it seems like christian values vs Islamic.

Where is MC Stephen Hawking when I need him to save us from the fundamentalist?

[edit on 4-5-2005 by Lysergic]



posted on May, 4 2005 @ 10:46 PM
link   
Stephen Hawking Stole my Woman.

He's for real, yo.



posted on May, 4 2005 @ 11:34 PM
link   
Peter Jackson is as much to blame for the resurrection of the epic format as anyone else.

Maybe crud action flicks from Hollywood have the purpose of selling bums on seats and merchandising and future licensing, and there is not the inflammatory purpose in them that is imagined.

Not many will see the movie, and of those who see it, the only ones who could leave predisposed to hate those of another faith would be those who had xenophobia and hatred in them already.

Television, mind you, is another thing altogether, being the babysitter and preferred drug of a lazy populace.



posted on May, 5 2005 @ 12:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by smallpeeps
In the 1950's, there was an author named William Guy Carr who wrote some great books. One was called "Pawns in the Game" and in this book, Carr speaks of the Illuminati plan to foment a third world war between Christians/Jews and Muslims. After both of these religions had decimated each other in war, he said the Illuminati would then introdue their world-religion. You can read more about this prophecy at www.threeworldwars.com...

Any Mason worth his salt will pounce on discussions like this and point out that the letter from Pike to Mazzini does not exist and so the whole planned WW3 thing is a hoax and a farce, as are the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion. They will preach endlessly that no such conspiracy exists.

Yet here we are, facing a world war between Muslims and Jews and Christians in a nuclear age.

Now we have this big hollywood production by Ridley Scott called "Kingdom of Heaven" which is supposedly about the Christians who wanted to conquer Jerusalem and ended up getting beat by the Islamic conqueror Saladin. I am wondering if anyone thinks this is particularly convenient that a major global blockbuster is being released at a time in history when such a movie is bound to become a touchstone for hatred.

Are we being herded toward a war between Muslims, Jews and Christians? Is this movie another signpost on that road? No crusade-themed movies for years and now we get a massive one at a time when the US is engaged in war right next to Jerusalem and the word 'crusader' has been thrown around a lot. I'm just curious to know if anyone else sees the timing of this movie release as particularly strange.

[Please keep this thread focused on the media and it's ability to create anger and hatred in us. Please do not argue about Islam (or Masons) in this thread.]


[edit on 4-5-2005 by smallpeeps]


ok so what if they made a movie about the hate of christians and muslims or islams whatever it doesnt matter when the movie was made because that hate has been going on for thousands of years everyone knows about it now cause of technology and constant news but its been happening and its going to happen no matter what even if you make a movie about it or not. with what you made me understand if i make a movie about the alamo and show santa anna beating the us then o now thats gonna create hate and start a war anyways point being is that a long time ago before mass media people still killed and fought and died by the hundreds of thousands so whats the big deal a movie o no the sky is falling. who cares about movies when there are more important things in the world like american idol



posted on May, 5 2005 @ 12:09 AM
link   
^^^^^^
I don't know what it matters but you be on global ignore-i-a!


dually noted sir!

(arrows pointing down)

[edit on 5-5-2005 by Lysergic]



posted on May, 5 2005 @ 12:12 AM
link   
Also noticed.

BTW, Lysergic, my son, some of the uninitiated may think you are talking about me and not the bigworm.

Out of such trivial incidents can arise great Crusades!

But if you cut a worm in half, it makes two worms.




posted on May, 5 2005 @ 12:37 AM
link   
i don't think there is any need for a hollywood movie to forment any hatred. You don't want to hear about anything else except in the direction that you want this discussion to take, but the fact is that this hatred by radicals is a very long one in our history. Unless you believe that the radical Muslims are also watching their own Hollywood style movies which incites hatred against non-Muslims. This has been happening for a long time...way before Hollywood ever existed, and i doubt most Americans will get off their couches to go to war with radical Muslims because of a historical movie.



posted on May, 5 2005 @ 12:37 AM
link   
Well perhaps to ome extent. The big media thing right now is christian fundamentalism. Look how quickly the media missed a long period in Iraq over schiavo. Also, mel Gibsons, "Passion of the Christ", was a blockbuster. ButIt seems like there is always a cycle. Right now one of the big things are mid-evil battle type movies, started by TLOR series. Then came "King Aurthur" which I found to be one of the best movies i had seen in a long time, Also "Alexander", which was the worst movie of all time, hands down.

I don't think it is intended to promote a WW3, but it's just the trend right now. Meaning that's where the money is.

BTW I am going to see it this weekend, the catapult battles looks awesome and I'm a sucker for these flicks



posted on May, 5 2005 @ 01:06 AM
link   

MaskedAvatar Said: Not many will see the movie, and of those who see it, the only ones who could leave predisposed to hate those of another faith would be those who had xenophobia and hatred in them already.

Television, mind you, is another thing altogether, being the babysitter and preferred drug of a lazy populace.

Yes, if the movie is the same type of bloated turd that Hollywood excels at producing then it won't matter much, however the difference between movies and TV is that movies are international. America's biggest export is media, and blockbuster epics like this get lots of play in international theatres. I agree somewhat about those who are already predisposed to hate, but you can't say that when the world sees us making movies like this, it doesn't affect their view of the US even further.

No argument here about TV though. You're right about it being far more effective at moving the sheep.


Muaddib Said:You don't want to hear about anything else except in the direction that you want this discussion to take, but the fact is that this hatred by radicals is a very long one in our history. Unless you believe that the radical Muslims are also watching their own Hollywood style movies which incites hatred against non-Muslims. This has been happening for a long time...way before Hollywood ever existed, and i doubt most Americans will get off their couches to go to war with radical Muslims because of a historical movie.

Well I don't "want" the discussion to take a direction except one that's constructive. I don't necessarily believe this movie is designed to get Western audiences to become militant haters of Islam. They're already well on their way toward that. I'm more concerned with the total effect that this movie might have on the world's perception of the US. I guess it's pretty bad already.

This movie got greenlit while the Iraq war was already in full tilt. Doesn't that sound a little irresponsible? They could have picked from any of a thousand battle/epic pictures but they pick one about the crusades. Is it really so innocent?


[edit on 5-5-2005 by smallpeeps]



posted on May, 5 2005 @ 03:10 AM
link   
IMO while Ridley Scott knows how to make a movie (Blade Runner,Gladiator, Black Hawk Down,etc.) I'm not sure what his intentions are with KOH.
I think if his aims were to incite muslims/christians he would of chosen a historic epic based on, say, mongol ruler Hulagu Khan whose mother(Sorghaghtani Beki) was a (Nestorian) christian and who systematically almost wiped Islam off the face of the Earth(Christianity was next). Heck, the muslim mamluks had to ally with the crusaders just to defeat a remnant mongol force at Ain Jalut. But who knows what really lurks in Scotts mind, maybe smallpeeps is on to something.



posted on May, 8 2005 @ 03:01 PM
link   
I saw the Movie last night. It is a Gladiator-LOTR's mix clearly meant to be a blockbuster and sell on the general market.

Can I see how crazy fundamentalists of all stripes will use it to fuel their own hatreds, prejudices and resentments? Absolutely.

But having said that. the message of the movie again and again is that Jerusalem and the Kingdom of Heaven are "Kingdoms of Conscience" and all the "good" characters preach peace and tolerance between the religions/peoples. The "bad" characters want war and violence. If you want an extreme, overstated case: for WWIII agitprop this is more All Quiet on the Western Front than it is Triumph of the Will



posted on May, 8 2005 @ 03:37 PM
link   

If you want an extreme, overstated case: for WWIII agitprop this is more All Quiet on the Western Front than it is Triumph of the Will

I couldn't have said it better myself. I saw it last night (figured I was obligated since I posted this) and it was pretty tepid.

The "message" of the movie was a peaceful one, based on the idea that Jerusalem should be shared by those who adore it. The idea that Jerusalem is valuable at all, is taken a priori. Personally I don't see what all the fuss is about, and a movie about this inflated valuation of real estate (to the point where men disembowel each other over it) would have been more entertaining.

There was a distinct chuckle that ran through the audience in a particular scene. I won't ruin the laugh, but it has to do with the subject of religious conversion. Overall the movie is tedious and hollow. The character of Saladin was cool but he came across to me as an arab stereotype. I loved the Saracens. Those guys looked like tough mama-jammas.

In any case, if this was meant to be propaganda, it will fail simply because so few people will see it.



[edit on 8-5-2005 by smallpeeps]



posted on May, 10 2005 @ 10:35 PM
link   
Kingdom of Heaven
After watching the movie I had this sudden feeling that Bailleons father was Will Farrell.

Hitchikers guide to galaxy
Also that Ford Perfect from Hitchikers guide to the galaxy I thought for a good 30 minutes was Tom Cruise.



posted on May, 10 2005 @ 11:05 PM
link   
kingdom of heaven wwIII propaganda?? hardly

saladin wasnt really an arab sterotype(SP) he got fed up with what that french guy and his bitch were doing. i.e. raiding unarmed arab caravans, killing inocent arabs, and basically pissing off saladin to the point where he has had enough. if you noticed saladin and the king of jeruslem seemed to respect each other.

if anything itll piss off the fundamentalist christians. showing that it was the crusaders who brought on the invasion of jeruslem, showing that some christians were war mongers.

saladin was showed as a man at his wits end.

the lord who brought on the war was a french man, so can we blame the third crusade on the french?

good story. loved it



[edit on 5-10-2005 by KrazyIvan]



posted on May, 10 2005 @ 11:53 PM
link   

saladin was showed as a man at his wits end.

Yeah, the more I think about it, the more I loved this guy's performance. Saladin was awesome in this movie.



posted on May, 11 2005 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by smallpeeps

saladin was showed as a man at his wits end.

Yeah, the more I think about it, the more I loved this guy's performance. Saladin was awesome in this movie.



he was

Balin, Barron of Ibilin "What is Jeruselm worth?"

Saladin while walking back to his army "Nothing"

Balin seems slighty annoyed

Sadalin halts and turns around "Everything"



freaking bad ass!



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join