NEW CLEAR PICTURE:
AS SEEN ON TV
AS SEEN ON TV
Forty years ago today, in the midst of a Cold War, the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons entered into force, becoming the cornerstone of the world’s efforts to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons.
As the Nuclear Threat Initiative writes: "Upon the breakup of the Soviet Union, Ukraine inherited the third largest nuclear weapons stockpile in the world after the Russian Federation and the United States. However, in the January 1994 Trilateral Statement, Ukraine committed to full disarmament. Kiev joined the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) as a non-nuclear weapon state in 1994, acceded to the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START I), and having transferred all of its nuclear warheads to Russia for elimination, became nuclear-weapon-free in 1996."
Forty years later we are in the midst of a campaign of disinformation from Russia and here in the United States with regard to the militant moves of Russia towards Crimea and Ukraine.
Today, Liz Wahl, the now-former correspondent for the Washington, D.C.-based news agency Russia Today, resigned on the air because she said that she "personally cannot be part of a network funded by the Russian government that whitewashes the actions of Putin."
This happened after well-known RT personality Abby Martin condemned Putin’s incursion into Crimea.
What is so ironic and peculiar about all this is that the majority of the commentary coming from the American mainstream media about the Russian military action in Ukraine involves condemning exactly what they routinely advocate and which the U.S. itself routinely does.
Is this a moment where the media is realizing that it is providing whitewash for governments and not keeping them honest about what they are doing? How is it that the media can be such a force for spewing out cold war rhetoric and ratcheting up the hubris and hypocrisy of both sides in this crisis?
We need to take some time and listen to what the media wants us to react to in this situation. It is becoming quite aggravating to hear the American media being enthusiastic about illegal and unprompted U.S. interventions in other sovereign states; however, now we are seeing new-found contempt for invasions now that they are being done by Russia.
What is with the double standard? I am beginning to believe that it has a lot to do with predictive programming and the ever present fear of what a Russian attack means with regards to the potential of a nuclear threat to the world.
I could be wrong, but I had an epiphany as I was listening to all of the hypocrisy spewing out of both Russia today and the American mainstream narrative.
There are times when things happen in the world that give you pause, and as you contemplate how fast they escalate you wonder if you are in the middle of an 'Outer Limits' or 'Twilight Zone' episode.
American invasions and occupations of nations halfway around the world are okay with the media and with many Americans. The encroachment of the European Union also seems to be okay with the media and by a lot of Americans even though Europeans are warning Americans of the E.U.’s trappings.
The media now decries Russian interference in a part of a country right on its border and why? I believe it has a lot to do with predictive programming and how there still seems to be this fear of what the escalation may entail.
It could lead to nuclear war. It is a precursor of World War III, or the eventual conquest of neighboring countries in an all out quest for the Russian Empire.
All fair speculation based in what took years to program into the average American.
We have spoken at length about predictive programming and how at times it is necessary to review what has been presented to us on television and movies and try to figure out how what was once hypothetical reverse causality becomes a curious part of déjà vu.
I know that sounds a bit odd and it may the point where we leap into points of paranoia but the grooming process of the indefinable enemy has always been with us in films and TV shows.
The 1980’s was a time where the programming of "trust no one" went way beyond the conditioning of shows like 'The X-Files' later in 1990’s. The conditioning process of "trust, but verify" became the norm and there was always an enemy that was either Middle Eastern or Russian.
As we can see, that programming has worked quite well and - believe it or not - while I have been analyzing propaganda from the 80's, there has always been the Middle Eastern vilification; however, the Russians have always been the suspected villain that would make a nuclear move against the United States, even without the Communist rhetoric that was prevalent during the 1950’s, 60’s and 70’s.
The phantoms of Nazism, Communism and even the memories of McCarthyism have left an indelible mark on us. The Cold War relics serving under Obama and the cryptocracy have become successful in their way of giving the Ukrainian crisis a Communist taint even after its alleged demise in 1991.
John McCain has been the most colorful critic against a hypothetical “Red Russia” and still acts as if they are a Communist country. I can’t help but wonder what it would be like if he were president in this Ukrainian crisis. He has been quoted in several outings as saying that things like diplomacy are the most overrated aspect of international relationships.
In 2007, still pushing the war hawk agenda, John McCain said about Russian President Putin: "We all know that Putin is creating us trouble in many parts of the world. And when I looked at Putin's eyes I saw 3 letters: a 'K', a 'G' and a 'B.'" This sounded like it was taken from a bad movie script or one of those old Jack Webb 'Red Nightmare' TV shows.
I would hope that we as Americans are more sophisticated to not buy into the nonsensical words about a very serious situation happening in our world. However, seven years later, the nonsensical McCarthyist phrasing and wording still is bought by Americans that feel that there should be some punishment doled out to Putin because Fox News, CNN or MSNBC says so. It is like there is this unwritten eternal vigilance that is possessed by the Cold War relics and warhawks that seems to be outdated and preposterous.
Another curious alarmist warhawk is Senator Lindsay Graham. He is another cold war superstar whose rhetoric belongs in a 1950’s State Department scare movie like 'Invasion U.S.A.'. There is a scene in a bar where a loud mouth congressman says that all he does is speak the “voice of the people.” The congressman in the film says that with all the letters he gets the biggest concern is Communism. “Yes they want Communism destroyed wherever it rears its ugly head,” that was 1952 and still there seems to be this underlying concern about Communism and finger pointing at a Marxist President both American and Russian.
Still, Graham is good for a sound bite that sounds more outrageous than any conspiracy theorist can muster. Lindsay Graham tweeted that he believes that the President’s handling of the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi is the reasons for the Russian actions with regards to the Ukraine crisis, saying that that it somehow emboldened the Russians to attack.
Someone in the mainstream media has to somehow shake these fossils and tell them that it is wise to realize that perhaps President Putin’s movements in Crimea are motivated by strategic decisions based on opportunities that have been provided because of the fall of former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych.
With all of the speculation regarding Russia’s motives and endless posturing over what’s in Ukraine’s best interest by Russia, the Western European Union and the United States - the perspectives of those that matter most, those of actual Ukrainians, seem to get lost along the way.
The radical views are being heard loud and clear, and as much as people are tired of hearing that the United states have sided with the radicals, the deals with the devil are not helping Ukrainians that are fiercely seeking independence.
Due to much of the TV and movie predictive programming of the 1980’s, it is easy for people like John Kerry, John McCain and Lindsay Graham to literally walk out of a movie script or a Tom Clancy novel to deliver what has been programmed into people from Hollywood about what happens in Warsaw pact countries.
For example in September of 2013, CBS News reported that Lindsay Graham warned South Carolinians about the threat of a “terrorist nuclear attack.” If you recall Graham said that a lack of military action in Syria could result in a nuclear “bombing” in Charleston, South Carolina.
In the meantime, it was also reported internationally that on the same day a nuclear warhead was transferred from Texas to South Carolina without an authorized signature. Did Graham get intel on this from a high-level source about a plot and decided to blow the whistle - or was it a script that was provided by a TV show or movie?
A 1983 made-for-TV movie coincidentally creates the basic framework for the alarmist report. The TV movie 'Special Bulletin' is a sort of reality-based real-time TV show that features an American TV crew covering a dock workers strike. Eventually, there is a crisis as the TV crew finds itself "caught in the middle of a firefight between the U.S. Coast Guard and the crew of a tugboat sitting at a dock in Charleston, South Carolina. The coast guardsmen surrender and are taken hostage, as are the reporter and cameraman.
The reporter is asked to televise a statement by the terrorists calling for delivery to them of every nuclear trigger device at the U.S. Naval Base in Charleston. Without these triggers, nuclear weapons on the naval warships and nuclear-powered submarines based at Charleston cannot be used. The terrorists reveal that they have constructed their own nuclear device—one roughly equivalent to the bomb dropped on Nagasaki in 1945. Their device is set to detonate within 24 hours if their demand is not met, and has anti-tampering devices that will set it off if any attempt is made to move or disarm it.
At first the government chooses to ignore or underplay the story..."
However after a lengthy debate on how to evacuate the city of course announcements cause panic but the evacuation is successful.
The end result of all of the banter and newsroom tension in the film is chilling.
However, this is set in the 1980’s and Lindsay Graham is either reflecting on a bit of predictive programming or we most certainly are in danger of some sort of nuclear threat that he left dangling. The cloud of uncertainty was most certainly something that was felt during the Cold War. From the old films of 'Duck and Cover', to civil defense warning and black and yellow triangles and rectangles seen on fallout shelter signs we were constantly reminded that at anytime the bomb or any nuclear device could be triggered in the United States.
When I was in Argentina, I remember that we were told of a major motion picture that would be released in theaters about the aftermath of nuclear attack. There were fliers and all sorts of meetings that were held in neighborhoods on how to react to the film, “The Day After.”
The four-hour movie was shown in theaters in South America and aired edited in the United States on ABC-TV. The film was so effective that ABC had to set up 1-800 numbers for people who needed to calm down and discuss how frightened they were.
Nicholas Meyer, the man who directed the film, developed flu symptoms while working on the film. The symptoms worsened and he was immediately asked to see a doctor. The doctors could find no reason for his malady. It was later determined that Meyer was suffering from depression. Meyer later commented that he supposed that the day to day exposure to death due to nuclear destruction took its toll on his psyche.
In the 1980’s our biggest enemy was Soviet Russia and so the film definitely included an attack on American interests in Europe, however when the final nuclear launches were shown in the film many people were angry over the ambiguity over show fired their missiles first.
Even producers at ABC were angry over the film’s ambiguous “who shot first” premise. Who attacked first: the U.S.S.R. or the United States? Nicholas Meyer wanted the answer to remain ambiguous so as to focus on the horrors of nuclear destruction, rather than to create an "good versus evil" mentality; rather the evil of the film should remain nuclear weapons in general as opposed to one government over another.
In fact, there is a scene in the film where actor Stephen Furst, playing the part of Aldo, listens to a broadcast of the President and in anger says “Who fired first?” The unanimous reply from the people in the fallout shelter is familiar one now: “What difference does it make?!”
IMDB says: "The US Department of Defense would only co-operate with the film's production on condition that it be made clear in the story that the Soviets, and not the United States, launched their missiles first."
Also, according to the Internet Movie Database, "The original air date (on ABC) was November 20, 1983. Over 100 million Americans were estimated to have viewed the program. Still rated as the most watched ever TV movie on US television as of December, 2012 (not including miniseries), it was watched by 38.55 million households or 46.0% with a Neilsen share of 62%."
Now, as we observe the anniversary of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, it may be necessary to stop everything and say that while it is all understandable to fear the possibility of a nuclear flashpoint couldn’t American journalists be so bold as to quit or point out that much of what they are reporting and much of the propaganda we have been saturated with over the years has tainted the way we see how other countries handle their crises?
Can we handle them any better and are the punishments we cook up for Presidents like Putin effective?
I think that perhaps it would be a miracle if there were members of the glitterati seen on TV that could expose just how ugly imperialism truly is. It would be interesting to see someone take the bold move and expose how the governments of Russia, the European Union and the United states are blatantly conspiring against the interests of Ukrainians that want independence.
We can send drones all over the world to kill people including Americans that will never see a trial and yet we can teach Russia a good lesson in what can be done with the problems in Ukraine.
When we can see on TV a truly free press calling out the hypocrisy of it all, perhaps I will take it all seriously. Until then, we still have many movies and TV shows to choose from. All of which can program us into the old 'good guy, bad guy' Wild West diplomacy that our government hopes you will believe in.
After all, they have a New World Order to tend to and they need your support.