Icarus: The Fall of Russiagate

The ‘’Soirée of Deception’’ was a tantalizing evening... for the smallest ever U.S television audience. 

The populace has started to recognize the duplicitous nature of the prized soirée; it is an evening where entertainment drives the masses into a reverie that seemingly blinds any reflections about the propagandistic rituals that have continued to appear, subliminally, throughout the years. This year, it all fell into place and was the impetus for its subsequent deluge. What's remarkable about this drop in viewers, is the correlation to the desperate attempts in the revival of Russiagate as a stagnating theory. It is just that, a theory, until Mueller gives the all-honourable stamp clearly identifying collusion between President Donald Trump and the Russian government. What can be derived from the given state of affairs, are the propaganda techniques that have continued to leave a deep, psychological rewiring of Western, but more notably US society. 

As I theorized in my very first post, the demonization mechanism of Russia is one deeply rooted in historical, cultural and societal factors. 

This is best illustrated by a multi-circular form where the inner circle represents all those influences affecting reasonable judgement and the subliminal assumptions acting as forces swaying judgements towards a given direction. When you are in the inner ring, you are placed in a position where your critical thinking has diminished to such an extent where any information presented involving a given subject (e.g. Russia) is held as the ultimate truth.  When there is an unconditional assumption that Russia is associated with negativity, it is easier to believe in influences from the outer circle, which protects and reinforces the inner one. The sudden revelation about alleged state-sponsored doping is what applies to this case. 

The significant drop in viewers is noteworthy, but as a representative correlation as to why this is; it was not because of a sudden, startling recognition of propaganda practices that affected the viewership. Namely, it was the partisan politics of the United States that should be identified as the main culprit in this case. Many Republicans, as a continuation of last year's event, chose to boycott the Oscars in protest of limousine liberals. The associative nature of limousine liberals was a principal cause for concern; the gathering of this represented demographic under one evening, and the deemed deceitful hypocrisy of those liberals from the point of view of Republicans watching from afar, was powerful. In addition to the increasing divide in the political sphere, it was a strong contributor to this rift. Furthermore, we have tremors from the ''#MeToo'' movement, having dominated US headlines since October of last year where a large proportion of women decided to bring out the big 'NO'. 

It should be noted that, even though the palpable loss in viewership was due to these inner political and social scuffles, there is still reason to celebrate the overall loss in viewers for reasons well beyond the stage of spectacle politics. That's not to say that the propagandist nature of Black Panther isn't important, it is, but it casts a large shadow over the more dangerous subliminal messages. Especially when those subliminal messages spin and misconstrue ideas of terrorism and heroism, together with the subsequent demonization of a country that the mainstream media is pushing to go to war with. 

As I predicted the night before the Academy Awards, the Oscar for Best Documentary Feature was going to be decided between Last Men in Aleppo and Icarus. I outlined the nature of their propaganda serving two different parties of interests, but both ultimately falling in line with the foreign policy objectives of the United States. Sequentially, it was Icarus that was deemed worthy of the prestigious prize, a supposed ''champion of truth''. To remind the reader, firstly, about the Last Men in Aleppo. It was a rejuvenation of the White Helmets in light of the prolonged war effort in Syria by the US and its allies; by upholding the notion of a ''noble, life-saving'' force that has staged, faked and propagandized events of their actions - it does so under the cloak of terrorism, barbarism and more substantive actions of destabilizing Syria as a nation. Icarus, however, contributes to a cause that serves in the interests of Russiagate; the discreditation of Russia as a nation.

As mentioned in my previous post; the documentary was principally founded on the testimony of one person and his circle of shady athletic associates and has more than enough controversy to be considered a work of fiction. The documentary itself fails to mention the unstable nature of Grigory Rodchenkov's character: according to Russian Cross-Country Skiing Federation chief Yelena Valbe (having worked with him for many years), he is mentally unhealthy and had tried to commit suicide by stabbing himself with a knife. 

She also noted the history of WADA-saviour and its promises that would keep keep him as head of the anti-doping lab, even surrounding the controversy of his sister's drug scandal. What's more interesting is that she theorized that he had been turned while working in Canada and that special services had gotten to him, plausibly taking advantage of this apparent vulnerability. It's a tenable theory considering his mental illness. A video was posted where Rodchenkov suffers from a mental breakdown has since also been posted and Mr. Rodchenkov confirms the incident: 

The paramedics that saved his life later placed him under medical supervision and he was diagnosed with schizotypal personality disorder. We can therefore conclude that Rodchenkov is, indeed, a character unfit for true testimony, after all - the claims presented are dipped in flamboyancy and could easily belong on the set of a Hollywood movie, which incidentally is what it has turned into. Despite the controversy surrounding his character, his testimony was presented as the ultimate truth in Fogel's documentary movie. This is where things get interesting. 

In an interview with Vulture, there's an interesting note that was discovered by Max Blumenthal which shows an evoked interest by various US senator members that were interested in this story to come out. 

Why this explicit interest from these senators? Let's examine their histories starting with the Democrats. 

Mark Warner - Democratic party. He's the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee. Warner was discovered having extensive contact with a lobbyist for a Russian oligarch and, over leaked text messages, it shows that Warner attempted to contact the author of a 2016 dossier alleging illicit ties between Trump and the Kremlin. He has also admitted that the Russiagate investigation was the most serious undertaking of his public life. I wonder why he would want to discredit Russia through this documentary? After all, character assassination and sports sanctions have long been used as psychological warfare to, not only destroy the morale of the target population, but in this case it supports the notion that the ''fish rots from the head'' and by propagandizing the notion that Russia is ''corrupt to the core'', it furthers his interests on Russiagate. 

Dianne Feinstein - Democratic party. She's famous for her surprise release of the testimony on the Trump-Russia dossier (Fusion GPS transcript). Even more famous for her bizzare explanation regarding the testimony itself. She stated to being pressured, by an unknown party and admitted that she released the testimony without thinking of the legal and national security ramifications. The dossier would serve as an attack on Trump and an unsubstantiated dossier with ''explosive'' claims on his alleged collusion. From this, it's also possible to see why she would want for this documentary to be released. 

Let's move on to the republicans with a ''keen interest'' in this documentary. 

Lindsey Graham - Republican party. The ''moderate Republican'' as described by Tea party opponents, is perhaps not moderate at all. Being part of the infamous ''Three Amigos'' gang, together with John McCain and Joe Liebermann, he supported interventionist policy following the 9/11 attacks. He's responsible for pushing intervention in Iraq, Libya, Yemen and is a ''strong, unapologetic supporter of Israel''. In 2013, he was quoted as wanting the US to ''drive the Russian economy to the ground''. Being part of the warhawk family, it's also possible to understand where his interests lie in the release of this documentary. 

Marco Rubio - Republican party. A staunch supporter of the military intervention in both Iraq and Libya with Hillary Clinton, voicing support for the Yemeni rebels and tougher sanctions against Iran. He co-drafted the bill that would punish Russian meddling in future US elections being ''extremely confident'' in the special counsel's investigation and continues to argue that Russian interference is an ongoing threat for future U.S. elections. 

_______________________________________________________________

Such is the state of interest in advancing the character assassination of Russia through the ''systematic doping allegations''.  Even though there is a balance of representation in terms of affiliation to political party, this is an example of bipartisanship politics; they all have reason to be on the side that wishes to discredit Russia through the documentary that is based on the testimony of a mentally unstable man. It's easier to uphold the notion of Russiagate when Russia, as a nation, is discredited as being corrupt to the core. The process of making a documentary starts from a hypothesis that, if deemed to be true, will ensure the success of the documentary itself. By presenting Russia in a corrupt light would ultimately accredit their own claims that Russiagate really is a plausible theory. By the life-long indoctrinating process, forming a large part of the inner circle theory, the populace would accept these allegations as the truth. Garnering further beliefs in this theory, in that sense, will be easier. 

I believed that it was a contest between Last Men in Aleppo and Icarus and, behind-the-curtains, it most likely was. Winning or not is not of crucial importance in this case. For those that have forgotten; The ''White Helmets'' movie about the same subject, won a best documentary (short) Oscar in 2016. It would've simply been too obvious, had Last Men in Aleppo won this year. From a psychological standpoint, by not winning, the movie could've garnered even more awareness as those that saw the documentary would feel that some huge ''injustice'' happened and would ultimately cause more of a stir - some might become activists in promoting this movie, others will recommend it to their friends to support it. There are plenty of reasons for it. 

Instead, there was a decision to direct the propaganda effort to a failing, stagnating theory that desperately needed revival. Despite the Oscars' deluge, it is worrying that millions are still being betrayed in this prized soirée of deception. 

Drago Victorien is an unpaid liar / media swindler, trading propaganda on the black market.