The Imitation Game Propoganda
My wife and I went to see The Imitation Game last night, and were expecting to see a riveting historical thriller about a World War II code breaker.
I did not expect to see yet another hit piece against those who believe homosexual behavior is destructive to those who practice it. But I shouldn't have been surprised. I'd say one of every two or three of these fine cinematic works these days seems to feel obliged to contain some promotion of homosexualism.
Before remarking on that, the film was engaging but quite a bit melodramatic far too often. It had a fine depiction of the difficult problem of what to do with information you don't want the enemy to know you have. After the main character, Alan Turing, and his team of code breakers discovered the secret to the Nazi's code, they realized they could not use their intercepted knowledge of their military activity to keep the Nazi's from doing all kinds of horrible things.
They could only use so much of it. The reason is simple. Once the Nazi's find they have the secret to the code, they would simply rearrange their coding and all the work the code breakers had done would be wasted. This presented them with a fascinating situation: they were effectively playing God with what happened to people in the war. By trying to keep the effects of what they knew to a minimum, that means they were, to some extent, deciding who lives and who dies.
During the movie it was revealed there was a Soviet spy among the code breakers, and towards the end not only does Turing find out who it is, but he finds the British government itself had planted him there. The official in charge said it was necessary, and that government really is merely a "conspiracy of lies."
Indeed.
A striking truth because so many have this conception that government is this pristinely honest endeavor, and seem to be shellshocked when presented with information that demonstrates government must do disinformation on a regular basis if it is to do its job effectively.
The irony is part of that disinformation campaign was the one directed at the audience in the theater last night regarding homosexualism. Already a reader may wonder why I use the term "homosexualism." It is simply because society has already been indoctrinated with the "proper" language about these things, language that is designed to force concession to the belief paradigm desired. Even the word "homosexual" is being excised in favor of "gay" or the hopefully more innocuous "LGBT."
Sure enough just about every stereotypical element of the homosexualist crusade was highlighted. To wit: "Homosexually-minded people ... are naturally that way and should be excused. ...should not have to think they're not normal. ...are tormented by their perceived difference. ...are emotionally scarred by all the bullying they endure. ...who commit suicide do so because of the protracted oppression by those around them. ...will always have endure things like chemical castration if those who argue against it have their way. ...are wonderful people who do things like save 14 million lives as Alan Turing did, so leave them alone..." And on and on and on, you know what those things are.
Getting into it too much is quite an endeavor, too long for this, but as I think through this I wonder what people would say if you replaced "homosexual" or even "gay" or "LGBT" with the term "exhibitionist," you know, someone who shows others their genitalia for sexual arousal. Sometimes just called a flasher, or for these purposes exhibitionist, this is the person who's sexual proclivity is just that he or she reveal their privates to get aroused.
There are indeed laws against this in many states, I think they are in every one of them. The punishment can indeed by prison, and many of them must register as sex offenders.
My point is this, what does the homosexualist (someone who thinks homosexual behavior is just fine and may even actively promote it) say about that person? If he/she says that's fine, the exhibitionist should be free to do what he/she wants, that's simply who he/she is, I would commend him for his/her honest consistency. The problem with this is that how far can one go being this consistent? What about voyeurism? What about bigamy? What about public sexual intercourse? What about...?
You see, wherever the homosexualist draws the line, he/she too becomes the intolerant bigoted narrow-minded Neanderthal whom movies like The Imitation Game censures.
"Please, ___ (fill in the blank with any kind of "sexual identity" one wants to champion, for this example lets just use the mild "exhibitionist") ... Please, exhibitionists are naturally that way and should be excused. Exhibitionists should not have to think he or she is not normal. And so on... Go ahead, put the word exhibitionists in each place they had The Imitation Game propaganda displayed in that paragraph just above there, and see if it still works.
The homosexualist may very well say, "But wait, homosexuality is different from exhibitionism, which should not be acceptable." But guess what?
That's exactly what those favoring sexual health say. They are saying homosexual behavior should not be accepted because it is different from normal healthy sexual behavior. What, I thought homosexualists were tolerant! They sure aren't very tolerant of the exhibitionist, now, are they!
There is indeed so much about this to add here, but it'll have to be for another time. I will say that I really don't think homosexualists truly know what a genuine follower of Christ's position is on this. I don't think for a second Alan Turing was introduced to a genuine follower of Christ who could share with him truth and grace together.
I think they only know the Catholicist's position, and that is part of the tragedy, it really is.
My latest home page piece gets into some of the dynamics of the World's clever disinformation campaign.
I did not expect to see yet another hit piece against those who believe homosexual behavior is destructive to those who practice it. But I shouldn't have been surprised. I'd say one of every two or three of these fine cinematic works these days seems to feel obliged to contain some promotion of homosexualism.
Before remarking on that, the film was engaging but quite a bit melodramatic far too often. It had a fine depiction of the difficult problem of what to do with information you don't want the enemy to know you have. After the main character, Alan Turing, and his team of code breakers discovered the secret to the Nazi's code, they realized they could not use their intercepted knowledge of their military activity to keep the Nazi's from doing all kinds of horrible things.
They could only use so much of it. The reason is simple. Once the Nazi's find they have the secret to the code, they would simply rearrange their coding and all the work the code breakers had done would be wasted. This presented them with a fascinating situation: they were effectively playing God with what happened to people in the war. By trying to keep the effects of what they knew to a minimum, that means they were, to some extent, deciding who lives and who dies.
During the movie it was revealed there was a Soviet spy among the code breakers, and towards the end not only does Turing find out who it is, but he finds the British government itself had planted him there. The official in charge said it was necessary, and that government really is merely a "conspiracy of lies."
Indeed.
A striking truth because so many have this conception that government is this pristinely honest endeavor, and seem to be shellshocked when presented with information that demonstrates government must do disinformation on a regular basis if it is to do its job effectively.
The irony is part of that disinformation campaign was the one directed at the audience in the theater last night regarding homosexualism. Already a reader may wonder why I use the term "homosexualism." It is simply because society has already been indoctrinated with the "proper" language about these things, language that is designed to force concession to the belief paradigm desired. Even the word "homosexual" is being excised in favor of "gay" or the hopefully more innocuous "LGBT."
Sure enough just about every stereotypical element of the homosexualist crusade was highlighted. To wit: "Homosexually-minded people ... are naturally that way and should be excused. ...should not have to think they're not normal. ...are tormented by their perceived difference. ...are emotionally scarred by all the bullying they endure. ...who commit suicide do so because of the protracted oppression by those around them. ...will always have endure things like chemical castration if those who argue against it have their way. ...are wonderful people who do things like save 14 million lives as Alan Turing did, so leave them alone..." And on and on and on, you know what those things are.
Getting into it too much is quite an endeavor, too long for this, but as I think through this I wonder what people would say if you replaced "homosexual" or even "gay" or "LGBT" with the term "exhibitionist," you know, someone who shows others their genitalia for sexual arousal. Sometimes just called a flasher, or for these purposes exhibitionist, this is the person who's sexual proclivity is just that he or she reveal their privates to get aroused.
There are indeed laws against this in many states, I think they are in every one of them. The punishment can indeed by prison, and many of them must register as sex offenders.
My point is this, what does the homosexualist (someone who thinks homosexual behavior is just fine and may even actively promote it) say about that person? If he/she says that's fine, the exhibitionist should be free to do what he/she wants, that's simply who he/she is, I would commend him for his/her honest consistency. The problem with this is that how far can one go being this consistent? What about voyeurism? What about bigamy? What about public sexual intercourse? What about...?
You see, wherever the homosexualist draws the line, he/she too becomes the intolerant bigoted narrow-minded Neanderthal whom movies like The Imitation Game censures.
"Please, ___ (fill in the blank with any kind of "sexual identity" one wants to champion, for this example lets just use the mild "exhibitionist") ... Please, exhibitionists are naturally that way and should be excused. Exhibitionists should not have to think he or she is not normal. And so on... Go ahead, put the word exhibitionists in each place they had The Imitation Game propaganda displayed in that paragraph just above there, and see if it still works.
The homosexualist may very well say, "But wait, homosexuality is different from exhibitionism, which should not be acceptable." But guess what?
That's exactly what those favoring sexual health say. They are saying homosexual behavior should not be accepted because it is different from normal healthy sexual behavior. What, I thought homosexualists were tolerant! They sure aren't very tolerant of the exhibitionist, now, are they!
There is indeed so much about this to add here, but it'll have to be for another time. I will say that I really don't think homosexualists truly know what a genuine follower of Christ's position is on this. I don't think for a second Alan Turing was introduced to a genuine follower of Christ who could share with him truth and grace together.
I think they only know the Catholicist's position, and that is part of the tragedy, it really is.
My latest home page piece gets into some of the dynamics of the World's clever disinformation campaign.
Comments
Post a Comment