TV Shows Homeland, Blacklist, American Odyssey are State Propaganda

56  2015-10-30 by 911bodysnatchers322

For the last couple of months, I've enjoyed watching Homeland, The Blacklist, and American Odyssey. But I've watched them with a critical eye for what messages they are trying to convince me to accept as true.


Homeland

Homeland is a show starring actors-par-excellence Claire Danes and Mandy Patinkin, as loose-cannon, experienced CIA agent Carrie Matheson and her veteran CIA mentor, Saul Berenstane respectively. Danes is "bipolar", a fact she hides from the CIA. As a person with bpd, I can say Danes depiction of bipolar is quite extreme and includes a high degree psychosis. My point is, whatever it is, she's also a psychopath who has no respect for political, social or moral boundaries.

And just so you know I'm not the only one who thinks Homeland is propaganda:

In the very beginning of the series, she's hired her private contractors to surreptitiously enter a decorated war hero's home and bugging it and hiding cameras all over the house. Having been given a dying man's intel that this person was a 'manchurian candidate', she illegally monitors him for months and yet never finds anything that can stick.

In her desperation to prove Brody is a terrorist, she seduces him, has sex with him in a cabin and tries to fool him into revelation and then shoot him. But he discovers the gun, and her plot. Awkward!

She spirals into some kind of bipolar mania and falls apart, crashes Brody's house and terrorizes his family and becomes "the unmedicated, unhinged CIA ex-mistress".

It turns out later, she was right all along, as war hero Brody was found to be a terrorist who was 'flipped' by psychological torture by some al queda mastermind trope * Abu Nazir* in afghani-wherever-stan, and was planning on blowing up many us leaders including cia folks when they were all in a room together. You see, he's not really such a bad guy though because we got to see him teaching Abu Nazirs son, and Brody was there when the US dropped a bomb on him, so it's justified or so they would have us think.

Brody and Carrie later get back together following a deal with the CIA (awww). Brody is later set up to be a double agent to catch Nazir, but he is caught and hanged as Carrie watches. Carrie is pregnant with this 'good man at heart''s baby.

Now this is interesting. First of all: the show says several things:

1) Psychopaths are allowed if they do a good job 2) The illegal ends justify the means 3) We ought care about the struggles between Israel and Arabs more, for some reason 4) Terror is a real threat in the US 5) Terror is a threat from our own people 6) Terror can impregnate you if you are a stupid fucking unmedicated moron

Sorry for the spoilers but it's been a few years. This was all Homeland season 1/2/3. In season 4, Carrie the psychopath becomes "the Drone Queen" and just murders people throughout the middle east constantly from a cowardly control room. She is absolutely the one for the job. She is 100% blameless. At this point, I'm actually really scared the the US is turning into nazi germany with this kind of 'programming'.

Carrie's Jewish mentor Saul, who perennially bails her out of her messes, her fake testimonies in congress, becomes the head of the CIA. Learnings:

  1. If you lie hard enough, if you cover your tracks hard enough, you become the Dark Lord
  2. The network protects its own, even if it fucks up, a lot lot lot

Season 5 takes place in Berlin, Germany, where Carrie has left CIA to 'make amends' by working with a private security firm. She's abandoned her child in her sister's care back in the US. She's lied to her lawyer boyfriend and her close associate Quinn, another CIA contractor ("Hit man") is running around shooting people to death. He gets an encoded letter with the vic's name, shoots them, gets money. He and Saul run this business out of a PO box. Saul targets Carrie because he believes she's the source of a substantial CIA leak that caused a severance of ties between US and Germany.

Quinn reveals the strategy of no strategy and islamaphobia, queuing the viewer that he should just 'stay calm and believe in the spectacle'.

Saul is cock gobbling with some Israeli Mossad person, and the viewer just has to sit there and take all this bullshit about ISIS, Syrian refugees and it's more of the same, unreal warped nonsense that MSM is giving us daily. But this time, it goes something like this: Zion guy: "But Saul, we've been good friends in the past" Saul: "We are still your friends, bubby". Zion guy: "Yes but not like in the past (WINK)". (Implying Saul was a mossad double agent in the past)

Learnings:

  1. CIA goes where it wants and kills people in cold blood
  2. CIA will kill its own rather than seek clarification of actions
  3. Corrollary to #2, if you become no more use of CIA you are a liability and so they have motivation to kill you ("you never really leave")
  4. Carrie is a terrible parent who abandoned her child. She makes a video when she thinks she'll die from being hunted, saying "I didn't abandon you I love you" and bawls
  5. In trying to determine who is out to kill her, she goes unmedicated ("super powers activated"), holes herself up in the room and does her strange analysis, only to come to the conclusion that it's 'Bad Karma'--it's all of them...they're all out to get me because I've done such bad in the world.

Now #5 would look like a confession from the establishment, what it actually is is a misdirection, trying to send the viewer--who by this point if you are still watching, identifies with Carrie--the message that it's our fault for creating this middle east mess. That it's failures of policy, or failures of geopolitics, etc. It misses the fact that politicians made a choice and we have to live with it. It's psychological abuse to manufacture a type of catholic like worldview where we are supposed to take the blame, not the 911 perpetrators, politicians and sympathizers actually responsible.


The Blacklist

The role of notorious Raymond Reddington--ex-spook on the lam for decades as an independent contractor / hit man at the top of the CIA's most wanted list--is probably the best role James Spader has played. In a strange turn of events, Reddington turns himself into the CIA on the condition he can only speak with a newly hatched CIA agent Elizabeth Keen, a person with whom he has a poorly-understood relationship going back to her partially confabulated 'amnesiatic' childhood.

The show consists of a story arc of 'catching the cabal' (essentially the illuminati), through episodic whimsy of Reddington scratching off names from his Blacklist. This television series is incredibly subversive and manages to sneak a lot of interesting anti-state, anti-establishment ideas to the viewer, which is great.

Halfway through the first season, there's this "attractive?" (canot tell if...) Mossad lady that--through her inattention, not impressed, tough no nonsense girl attitude--seduces the doting, silly, affable, somewhat socially awkward (of course) Turkish CIA IT genius of the group. She becomes a tacit installation among their ranks. Puzzling. Eventually it sinks in that a Mossad agent is embedded (pun intended) with the CIA.

There is an element of a cautionary tale to be had here: it could be a trojan horse--not just the mossad agent but the show generally. Again, as with homeland, this is a show that depicts people breaking rules and pushing boundaries. The trojan horse is Reddington himself. By setting him up as a 'criminal working with the CIA', what they have effectively done is provide a mechanism (CONTRACTORS) for intelligence agencies to break the law in order to get their totally necessary work accomplished.

It also denigrates the rule of law, and the protections that the law affords, by showing how "stifling to our processes of catching terrorists and criminals the US bureaucratic system can be". In other words, it sets up those "nefarious citizens' rights and liberty protecting laws" as something negative, something that "enables crime and terror". In this type of narrative, it psychologically sends the message to the viewer that it's "ok to break the rules in the name of fighting terror".

To which I say, "bullshit".

But dammit it's a really really good show. Recommended nonetheless. I find Reddington, wholly delightful.


American Odyssey

Sergeant Odelle Ballard was the only surviving soldier of a missle / drone strike following stumbling upon encrypted files on a USB drive that prove an american coropration called SOC is secretly funding terrorists. She is hunted by private contractors.

This show was too subversive and was not surprisingly canceled after one season.


We dont' know what happened to Odelle, but we assume she used securedrop and wikileaks, blew the whole thing open on Alex Jones, and then was the subject of a week of FOX news controversy, following an incident in which she called the ladies of the View a bunch of idiotic, stupid twats. Also, her revelations lead to reinvestigation of 9/11, the Bush's are hanged without trial, congress is burned and Sanders, Charlie Sheen and Dwayne the Rock Johnson for some reason are set up as tricameral presidents of Neomerica.


EDIT:

UPDATE:

Saul: "Simple answer's usually the correct one." "Nothing simple about Israel sabotaging one of our operations"

More of the same....

30 comments

Mr Robot is the opposite though, warming people of the upcoming bank holiday and shiz

Agreed. It's my favorite show of all time. I watched the whole first season by binging. Then days later did it again. Then again 2 weeks later like a little kid with a star wars vhs. I'm use linux ever day, by no means an expert, but was pleased to see real hacking and the use of metasploit

Odyssey was excellent, in my view - much more interesting than Homeland which still pushes the laughable notion that the CIA are the good guys.

Odyssey covered issues like the covert US funding of Islamic terrorists, and a corrupt US military using drones to deliberately kill US soldiers who had found evidence of this.

I agree with you completely. I was mad that they killed it off. I was more interested in the storyline of how she was going to be a whistleblower and not get killed...clearly they were going the snowden route with this.

Regardless of all the intent just want to say the that Spader in the Blacklist was an amazing choice. No one else could deliver half of lines he has to recite seriously. The cheese is too thick.

Completely agreed. He's the best bad-good-guy that ever was. I love it when he's got a gun on an innocent and he can just charm them with some kind of disarming thing like, well aren't your russian tea sets just lovely.

| I find Reddington, wholly delightful.

I read that in Spader's voice :)

Succeeded :)

Yeah I never understood the injection of the mossad agent into 'the blacklist' but then again... it figures in the bigger picture.

I enjoy the show overall even though the propaganda is delivered via shovel in some episodes.

I would never and have never watched Homeland.

The Blacklist, so much truth and such an amazing show. Love it! And Spader, nobody could truly do it better than him.

Agents of S.h.i.e.l.d too

I figured.

So I got half way through the pilot and thought, 'blek'. People say I should try again, but the whole idea of a secretive set of authoritarian fascist superheroes running the world (so triggered by this!) is exactly the opposite of what I want to watch general. But I should, just to expand the thesis of 'our country falling to ultrafascism'. It's the whole 'authority worship' thing, and the fact that if you criticize the military, you're an 'liberal asshole' or 'antipatriot' or something. It's this black/white thinking that the agit-technicians drag you into, even though you're criticizing the corrupt politicians that take us into needless wars instead of the honorable boots on the ground who have endured hardship to protect us when it's legitimate. I think it's horrid to turn a noble soldiership into something ruinous like needless war that causes only more war. SHIELD and the like only act as a confirmation bias to legitimize people's warped justifications for the cultural hegemony of perpetual war.

The idea that being a hero requires a special ability is also kind of a bad message--that heros are unique and you don't get to be one.. Heros are born every day, when someone defies social pressure and their instincts of self preservation by helping someone being raped in an alley or by saving someone from a burning building.

Ummm. Elizabeth Keen, Raymond Reddington etc are in the FBI, the CIA director is the bad guy. Please at least have your fiction facts straight.

I know this. What did I say? That they were cia? Oops sorry. I wrote as fast as i could because realized it was getting long.

I shoudl just say in some branch of the ministry of secrecy

No worriea

lo;

I wouldn't say "propaganda" as in state sponsored, but they do serve their role.

Much like how 24 served to "justify" torture.

There is a market for these series, and interest in exploiting it. Of course there is always embedded interest (social engineering) being delivered simultaneously. But these might be more of studio-producer, writer, director agenda, than somethung setup by Washington.

America's social engineering machine has been on "autopilot" for decades only on rare occasions necessitating direct "adjustments" (eg HUAC, WoT, etc..)

Hollywood and the tv studios and the series and scripts they fund to be written and made are no accident. The fact 24 legitimises torture is no accident, for instance. See: Obamas visits to Hollywood etc. It would be great to get a whistleblower screenwriter but they would never work again.

It's unfortunate that a surprising number of people aren't that bothered by the use of torture - even if they're told that it's ineffective (the inhumanity should be obvious.) Basically, some people think hurting miscellaneous middle-eastern people is a good thing because of past grievances, mixed with a bit of Islam-hatred. Too many are self-professed Christians, too.

I agree, and I would also add to that that there is so much gun violence and murder on regular television shows that it's just like a game now. You watch these shows and it's just good guys or bad guys, just 'bang' killing people dead like it's nothing, in nearly every episode. I was watching Arrow the other day, and some 'corrupt cops' dressed in swat outfits kill 2 police officers for 'being at the wrong place at the wrong time'. The writers of these shows claim it 'makes it easier to write'---'no loose ends to deal with', but it's extremely intellectually lazy if it's not purposefully insidious.

If you were to show someone from the 70s a 2000's tv show they'd think we've all become psychopathic... that we have no respect for human life anymore. We'd just shrug, glibly, "c'mon man, it's just television".

Yes, 24 is a perfect example of what I"m describing. It's actually the original series that started warping people's minds.

I would say the only real neutral shows that depict reality of policing is "the wire" and "the shield". The former shows how good cops fail to catch bad guys, the latter shows how bad cops fail to be caught by the good guys.

Loved both shows but surely (hopefully) The Shield was a picture of the worst of the worst. But who knows eh, scary isn't it? All I know is keep your dealings with cops to an absolute minimum and understand that "Ive done nothing wrong" will not save you.

Well, I wanted to agree with you / that stance years ago, but Homeland took a very different tone with season 4 and 5. Follow that link starting with Quinn, and that my friend is how propaganda works. It's disgusting. It's spycopathic.[sic]

Scratch that I'll make it easy for you https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vApBZlaePec

After season 1 Obama said his favorite show was homeland, I took that as a message to the show to start toeing the fucking line and its been downhill ever since. By season 3 they were my pick for the emmy's, the category? Best propaganda

Very interesting observation.

They are state sponsored though

I think people are overreacting to have any governmental body as the 'heroes' of a show on principle, which is a bit hasty. Basically every show tends to favor the good parts of its heroes and downplay the worse bits - whether those heroes are law enforcement or drug kingpins. Even bad actions can be treated as relatively good just on account of it being done by the heroes. E.g. House is a complete asshole of a doctor, and he would never get a job, but he is the show's protagonist and that means he's usually right, usually the smartest guy in the room, and he can get away with anything. I doubt anyone's going to argue that House is propaganda for hospitals.

Law enforcement is a really classic and obvious 'hero' role to the point that it's become a cliché - there's obvious good guys, obvious bad guys, and a real-world organization that deals with the fallout. That's how you get cops on the screen, and CSI's, NCIS, the CIA and FBI, etc. These shows all share a similar structure, which favors the protagonists. They are treated as straight-laced ideals of their societal function. You'll usually see these core people have issues with authority, because they are the heroes and bureaucracy gets in the way of things for them. That's why they're painted in a positive light, too - it's to get the public on their side. They're basically superhero stories in which the superpowers are detective work and running gun battles.

You could all all this social engineering - but I think the bigger contributor is that the media hones in on what appeals, and for a lot of people moral narratives scratch an itch. In the real world, justice isn't tidy - not all the good guys get rewarded, not all the bad guys get punished, sometimes you can make all the right choices and still get messed up, and sometimes crime pays. On TV, the world can be more just - everyone gets their due, in the end. That's tapping into an idea so old that basically all religions incorporated it, in one way or another. Because it works.

You can't really blame the media for making bank off of popular ideas and established concepts - even if it's not terribly original. At the end of the day, they're a business - artistic appeal is secondary to mass appeal.

I do wish they'd move on to beat some new horse to death. A few cop shows are fine, but when everyone starts doing it, it gets tiring. Maybe there should be a comeback of spaceship shows, like the 90's. Those were pretty stellar, and they had some good ideas.

I wonder if people would conclude that was propaganda for NASA? ;)

What you are getting at is a feedback loop model for television. That it's not state propaganda but just 'writers who are influenced by popular culture creating more of the self-confirming sameness because it's what sells'. Kind of like a cultural mirror machine. That it's all part of the 'spectacle', a kind of 'there is no one at the helm', and 'these things are just emergent phenomenological effects of hypervigilant, self-aware culture in an otherwise chaotic environment'

I agree with you / that in large part, like say 75% of what you are saying is very likely reality. A type of self-reinforcing status quo / feedback loop because of tighly coupled syndication through layers of mixed media.

But we know that in the mainstream news media, all their narrative is vetted by higherups. The bobble heads like Chris Matthews really don't control what they are saying. This has been exposed so many times. There is incredible political and financial pressure for them to tightly control narratives. What this means is, there is a legitimate 'trickle down' effect into other forms of public work.

We also know there are cia agents that work directly in hollywood as 'content and messaging' 'industry liaisons', some purport matt damon and ben afleck to be agents embedded for this purpose, given the corpus of their work and the messaging they send. We know how they use leverage to be able to convince these news orgs to run certain stories or with a certain angle on existing stories. We know how they create 'spin' and how they act as 'spin doctors' (film wag the dog is a good intro to this).

When I am watching a show and my spider sense goes off that I'm being 'taught a lesson' or 'indoctrinated into a way of thinking' especially about giving tacit complicity for more war, that's my queue that I should pay attention, or something that is trying to convince me that I should be afraid of something I shouldn't be otherwise, or something that has me hate someone I shouldn't hate otherwise. These are all messages I get from TV and they've got me convinced that something is slipped into the show like a cyanide capsule.

Because as a beginning screenwriter myself, I would never put a piece of trash like that in my work--it denigrates the work and every creative writer is well aware of the fact that they are creating culture in the process.

I have no doubt that military and government organizations keep an eye on what kind of information is relayed about them - and they'll step in if it goes too far into what they consider the wrong direction. I don't really see that as strange in principle, because corporations and public individuals would also have an issue with portrayals that they consider problematic.

I suppose we expect the government & military to take more punches than the average joe or corporation X, but in reality they tend to react rather more hastily instead, probably because being too thorough is less likely to lead to disaster than not doing enough. I don't envy that kind of balancing act. Also, /r/conspiracy represents mostly a group who believes the government does vastly too much, but that's not representative of either the larger population or either dominant political party, whatever they might say in their brochures. Overreaction is preferable to failing to react from such a view, especially in the wake of 9/11.

I subscribe to the 'most conspiracies can be attributed more to human nature or the chaos of society than to deliberate malice' school of thought.

History would strongly disagree with you and I say this with all due respect: you really need to read more about conspiracies before you go around with that opinion. It turns out, so many have been proven as historical fact that it's actually appalling and shameful. Often times, we refuse to believe these things because they cause us legitimate psychological pain, to think that a government that we assume to be something that keeps us safe is doing the opposite. It's like a stranger coming up to you and saying that your best friend betrayed you. It's hard to take, so you immediately reject it. This is a kind of mind control, one in which people control their own minds to shield themselves from unpleasant truths. I told a vietnam officer gulf of tonkin event didn't happen and this was revealed by robert mcnamara the us sec of defense under lbj and he flat out refused it and would not investigate further. To be clear--the whole reason for US going to war in vietnam was stimulated by an event that came out later to have never happened. A false flag--capitalized upon albeit not premeditated to our knowledge.

Conspiracies have happened, and it turns out--contrary to the lazy and proved incorrect opinion of the majority--they are easy to cover up, even for decades. Do you know about the Safari Club? Well neither did anyone until recently. We don't have time to discuss this in detail but if you are interested at all, just go to /r/conspiracy and say "I don't believe in conspiracies, prove them to me using primarily wikipedia and wikileaks because I'm lazy", you'll get an education in alternative history with far more credible sources than the other side that thinks, "there's no one at the helm" "we're all a global village and things just happen and it's chaos with emergent behaviors". Also helpful 'society of the spectacle by guy debord'

I didn't say no conspiracies happen ever, I just meant that conspiracy forums tend to overestimate how many there are, vastly exaggerate their scope, and often attribute malice where none need exist. I think these are the same pitfalls that everyone is vulnerable to, but they're more pronounced here. I think any conspiracy which has to appeal to some secretive cabal of shadow leaders to exist is not particularly strong, for example.

By the way, I don't think it's a big surprise that the US government and the Jews are prime targets for conspiracies - a certain type of conspiracy theory appeals to people here, and supply meets demand. Surely people must see that. The sub's quite adamant that mainstream media can never be trusted - but I'm not sure how anonymous internet users are supposed to be trustworthy, or obscure sources that can't be checked.

You could call it a conspiracy theory about conspiracy theorists, if you will. Metaconspiracy?