And we all know that any theory promoted by NYT immediately becomes true science, approved by pundits, as opposed to any theory promoted by Pravda or RT, which immediately becomes “state sponsored conspiracy theory.” - Vladimir Golstein

"HOBBS: That’s an excellent point. I keep on wondering about liberal press. Any nonsense that occurs in the world: hacking, doping in sports, change in the weather, interference in democratic elections. It is always Russia’s and Putin’s fault. It is as if the whole liberal press has turned Ukrainian. But have anyone tried to do the same with western leaders? Have you seen how English fans mistreated Denmark team during their semifinal game? Pointing a laser beam at Denmark goalie, or booing Danish national anthem. The crimes of that nature could never happen without an explicit order from 10 Downing Street. And why is the final played in Wembley and not Rome? Johnson had to bribe a lot of people to get that.

ALICE: Well, what you are doing, Hobbs, is promoting conspiracy theory. And we all know that any theory promoted by NYT immediately becomes true science, approved by pundits, as opposed to any theory promoted by Pravda or RT, which immediately becomes “state sponsored conspiracy theory.” That’s why enlightened people read NYT, and you’ll never find there a theory that Boris Johnson had ordered the laser beam on Denmark goalie, as opposed to any Russian action, which obviously, can never happened without Putin’s order. We all know that Russians are inherently passive, forever scared people who lack private initiative. They just sit there in their mud huts waiting for the order from the government. Exactly, like the dogs who wait for the whistle from their owner. " - Vladimir Golstein

"The statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception”
- Mark Twain, from The Mysterious Stranger and Other Stories.


It's the Russians, stupid. (url)

A 1930s New York Times article explains the Russians are agitating Africans and Americans of African origin at a time when the colonial powers inclusing the US were doing some of the worst things imaginable in Africa. But, the Russians...

The FBI Considered 'It's a Wonderful Life' to Be Communist Propaganda

It’s a Wonderful Life is a staple of the holiday season in the United States, but it was once considered un-American by the government.

The Atlantic Magazine


"Invasion"? Really?

Apparently there's some question in some peoples minds whether Crime asked to rejoin Russia after Kiev was sacked and Chevron obtained fracking rights to all of Ukraine or did Russia Annex Crimea without single shot being fired.

Apparently walked in and and were told they're part of Russia now and nobody there ever complained. Pre-Internet this might have actually been possible.


Demonizing Russia for fun and profit

Some people believe Hillary Clinton lost the 2014 US Presidential election because during the democratic primary she improperly diverted resources away from Bernie Sanders in violation of Article 4 Section 5 of the DNC bylaws, because of his position to devolve corporatism within the Democratic party and subsequently America while others believe she lost the Election because a Russia somehow manipulated the vote.

Proof of the former is not lacking, but nearly a year after the allegations of Russian tampering the evidence that's been asserted to exist proving this is still noticeably absent.

The Democratic National Committee began asserting "Russian hackers broke into the DNC email server and stole Clinton email" by my watch, eleven minutes after Clinton's email appeared on Wikileaks. After months of daily "Russians hacked the DNC" article in the media by the hundreds, a congressional committee was convened to investigate this. This committee wrapped up a week and a day ago and the conclusion is reached was there's "no conclusion".

They made it up, plain and simple.




Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Dead high as a kite.

Summary: Uk accuses Russians of using a Russian nerve gas on a Russian double agent in Britain. Protocol dictates samples be goven of the suspected poison to the UN for testing which was not forthcoming. Weeks later, sampled delivered to Geneva turns out to be a hallucinogen used by the CIA during "Men who stare at goats" era. The Swiss company that identified it knows this because they're the ons that made it for the CIA.

Russia confirms US drone was shot down over Iranian airspace

JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Russia has military intelligence that shows that a U.S. drone was in Iranian air space when it was shot down by Iran last week, Nikolai Patrushev, Secretary of Russia’s Security Council, said on Tuesday.

Speaking at a briefing for journalists in Jerusalem, Patrushev said evidence presented by the United States alleging Iran was behind attacks on ships in the Gulf of Oman was poor quality and unprofessional.

Russia wants to extend nuke arms treaty; US wants to tear it up and escalate

WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. and Russia on Friday rejected each other’s proposals for potentially salvaging the last remaining legal constraint on their strategic nuclear forces. President Vladimir Putin called for an unconditional extension of the soon-to-expire New START treaty, and the White House called that a “non-starter.”

Adding an edginess to the diplomatic clash, President Donald Trump’s national security adviser, Robert O’Brien, suggested the Russians rethink their stance “before a costly arms race ensues.” Administration officials have previously alluded to building up nuclear forces if the treaty is abandoned, although the Pentagon has its hands full paying for a one-for-one replacement of older nuclear weapons.

Joe Biden's war on Russia

10 Ways to Call Something Russian Disinformation Without Evidence

The principles of American Newspeak, vol. 1

A quick list of the creative methods seen lately of saying, “We don’t know, but we know!”:

1) Our spooks say it looks like the work of their spooks.
ie, A group of 50 “former senior intelligence officials” wrote a letter as soon as the Post story came out. Their most-quoted line was that the Post story has “all the classic hallmarks of a Russian information operation.”

2) It was prophesied.
ie The Washington Post needed four reporters — Shane Harris, Ellen Nakashima, Greg Miller, and Josh Dawsey — to tell us that “four former officials familiar with the matter” spoke of a long-ago report that the would-be source of the Post emails, Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani, had been “interacting with people tied to Russian intelligence” in Ukraine.

3) Authorities are investigating if it might be Russian disinformation.
ie “The FBI is probing a possible disinformation campaign,” announced USA Today, citing the omnipresent “person familiar with the matter.” Officially, of course, Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe said “Hunter Biden’s laptop is not part of some Russian disinformation campaign,” to which FBI spokesperson Jill C. Tyson officially said the bureau had “nothing to add at this time.”

4 Even if it isn’t a Russian influence operation, we should act like it is.
Ie. Johns Hopkins “Professor of Strategic Studies” Thomas Rid came up with the most elegant construction in a Washington Post editorial, stating bluntly: “We must treat the Hunter Biden leaks as if they were a foreign intelligence operation — even if they probably aren’t.”

5 The Biden campaign says it’s Russian disinformation (even though they can’t say for sure it’s disinformation at all).
Ie. The press has elicited from the Biden campaign a few limited, often contradictory comments about what is and isn’t true in the New York Post story. For instance, the campaign’s chief communications officer Andrew Bates said about allegations Joe Biden met with Burisma executive Vadym Pozharski, “We have reviewed Joe Biden's official schedules from the time and no meeting, as alleged by the New York Post, ever took place.”

In the same article, reporters noted, “Biden’s campaign would not rule out the possibility that the former VP had some kind of informal interaction with Pozharskyi.” So no meeting took place (although we’re not saying no meeting took place).

6 Accuse anyone who asks questions about the story of being in league with Russia.
Ie. Matthew Dowd of ABC snapped, “Lordy, you ask someone about an article that has already been proven false and having Russia propaganda as its basis? I would suggest taking a look in the mirror.”

7 Adam Schiff says it is!
ie. In March of 2017, he told Chuck Todd, “I can’t get into the particulars, but there is more than circumstantial evidence now” that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russian government to interfere with the 2016 election. He would continue making statements like this for nearly two years, until information was declassified showing that Schiff early on had been told in secret testimony, by people like the aforementioned Clapper, “I never saw any direct empirical evidence that the Trump campaign or someone in it was plotting/conspiring with the Russians to meddle with the election.”

8 This reminds us of that other time!
Ie. One of the first reactions by press was to note how the release of the Burisma emails reminded them of 2016, when “Russian hackers and WikiLeaks injected stolen emails from the Hillary Clinton campaign into the closing weeks of the presidential race.”

The New York Times went so far as to say it had spoken with “U.S. intelligence analysts” who “contacted several people with knowledge of the Burisma hack,” claiming they’d heard “chatter” that stolen Burisma emails would be released as part of an “October surprise.”

9 Just say it!
Ie. One of the beautiful things about the post-evidence era in media is that pundits can simply say things willy-nilly, provided it’s the right thing. David Corn and Mother Jones, who this time four years ago were publishing some of the first pebbles from the towering Matterhorn of bullshit that was the Steele dossier, ran a headline proclaiming, “Giuliani and the New York Post are pushing Russian disinformation.” Trudy Rubin of the Philadelphia Inquirer declared the Post story “reads as if it came straight from Russian propaganda playbook 101.” Ken Dilanian of NBC employed a creative double-negative, noting that Ratcliffe’s statement “didn’t say the FBI has ruled out the possibility of foreign involvement.”

10 Everyone quote everyone else!
Ie. The “50 former senior intelligence officials” letter cited “media reports” that “say that the FBI has now opened an investigation into Russian involvement.” They cited the USA Today story that cited the “person familiar with the matter” in making that claim, adding that, “according to the Washington Post, citing four sources, U.S. intelligence agencies warned the White House last year that Giuliani was the target of an influence operation.”

The Washington Post in the person of professor Rid then turned around and cited the 50 former intelligence officials, while David Corn cited Rid in warning the whole story was “highly suspicious behavior,” especially against the “backdrop of 2016,” and so on.

In other words, this is a story about media commentators citing intelligence sources who in turn are citing media commentators citing intelligence sources.

1947 IAWL: The FBI Considered 'It's a Wonderful Life' to Be Communist Propaganda

2019 Iran: Russia confirms US drone was shot down over Iranian airspace

2020 Start: Russia wants to extend nuke arms treaty; US wants to tear it up and escalate

disinformation: 10 Ways to Call Something Russian Disinformation Without Evidence