From Russia, With Love--Part 2

Over a week after the controlled dissent Russia Today event, various idiots on Facebook are claiming the Ukrainian protesters are Nazis or anti-semites or some such...(bit ironic as most of the sheeple pushing these memes push a hella mucho anti-semite conspiracy crap):

Oh I see; the west plan to continue with their hypocrisy in complete disregard of the fact that 90% of Crimea wish to secede from the illegally imposed government of Ukraine.

The newly "created" ultra nationalist government of Ukraine wishes to marginalise/victimise ethnic Russians of which the territory of Crimea is predominately made up of. So it is not only the "will of the people" which is normally enough to make any newly forged country legal, it is arguably to prevent a new harsh and deadly reality of a government coming to power which is going to oppress them.

These so called leaders that now say "ILLEGAL" to this vote by a territory's people are so obviously puppets of western corporate and military interests and obviously don't give a flying fk about the safety or the desire of the people of Crimea. Shame on all of you...

Is there any source to these claims?

-90% of Crimea want to secede
-the Ukraine government is "illegally imposed"  
-the Ukraine government is newly "created" and ultra nationalist
-they want to marginalize/victimise Russians

It is doubtful.  Real journalists are getting sick of this disinformation rubbish:

Kiev's protesters: Ukraine uprising was no neo-Nazi power-grab
 
As life returns to normal in Kiev, Luke Harding encounters frustration over Russian claims of a fascist coup 

Luke Harding

The Guardian, Thursday 13 March 2014 16.14 EDT

The Kremlin describes last month's uprising in next-door Ukraine as an illegitimate fascist coup. It says dark rightwing forces have taken over the government, forcing Moscow to "protect" Ukraine's ethnic Russian minority. The local government in Crimea is preparing for a referendum on Sunday which could lead to Russia annexing the region. Yanukovych, meanwhile, has fled to Russia.
Schilling, however, was an unlikely fascist. A father of two daughters, he and his wife Anna had lived in Italy. They had four grandchildren. Moreover, he was Jewish.

Oops.  Not that it's possible to be Jewish and support fascist; that is the purpose of "alibi Jews" promoting anti semitism.  But in this case, it is very unlikely given more compelling reasons for the uprising:

" With Ukraine on the brink of invasion and division, most people in Kiev blame the country's troubles on the former president. "This is Yanukovych's fault," Zhenia, a pensioner, said, surveying the battleground in Institutska Street, where many were gunned down. She was crying.
Nearby, visitors bowed before makeshift brick shrines, some decorated with gas masks and helmets. Others crossed themselves. One child's drawing said: "Eternal glory to the heroes".
According to those who took part in it, the uprising was a broad-based grassroots movement, launched by people fed up with Yanukovych and involving all sections of society. Some demonstrators were indeed nationalists. Others were liberals, socialists and libertarians. There were Christians and atheists. There were workers from the provinces, as well as IT geeks from Kiev more at home with MacBooks than molotovs.
Its victims were a diverse bunch. The first was an ethnic Armenian; another Russian."

Even Russians involved.  Of course Russians are some of the experts on exaclty how corrupt--and manipulative--Russia can be.

"Yanukovych had just announced that he was dumping Ukraine's preparations to sign an association agreement with the European Union."

 Oh, that dastardly European Union!  And now we come to the crux of why  the Tin Foil brigade is being mobilized to defend Russian propaganda:  To fight those New World Order Illumiati Jews.

A brief scanning of the timeline on Wikipedia will show only a delusional fool can insist on believing Russia is only acting to defend ethnic Russians from "oppression ":

On February 24, 2014, Russian Special Forces^[38][39] without insignia arrived^[40] on the Crimean peninsula in Ukraine. They seized control of the Crimea region.^[41]

Russian authorities disputed that the forces were Russian military.[42

If they're there to protect ethnic Russians, then why was Russia slow to admit to the action?

Putin Says Those Aren't Russian Forces In Crimea
 --
Russian soldiers have not occupied government buildings and surrounded Ukrainian military bases on the Crimean Peninsula, Russian President Vladimir Putin insisted Tuesday during a news conference near Moscow at which he gave an account of recent events that contradicts reports from the ground.
Instead, he told reporters that the heavily armed men are "local self-defense forces."
What's more, anything Russia has done, Putin said without offering specifics, has been part of a "humanitarian mission" to protect ethnic Russians in Crimea.
--
In Kiev, Kerry seemed surprised by a reporter's question about Putin's remarks earlier Tuesday.
"He really denied there are troops in Crimea?" he asked, interrupting the question.

Ah, a non denial, denial:  "We didn't do it, but if we are doing it, it's because of a noble cause."
The idea that Russia is "protecting " anyone, is right out of Putin's mouth:

A statement from the Kremlin said Putin emphasized to Obama the existence of “real threats” to the life and health of Russian citizens and compatriots who are in Ukrainian territory. The statement indicated that Russia might send its troops not only to the Crimea but also to predominantly ethnic Russian regions of eastern Ukraine.
“Vladimir Putin emphasized that, in the case of a further spread in violence in eastern regions (of Ukraine) and Crimea, Russia maintains the right to protect its interests and the Russian-speaking population that lives there,” the Kremlin statement said.

Obama even diplomatically  pretends he thinks Putin is not lying, and offers a saner solution:

Obama told Putin that he would support sending international monitors to Ukraine to help protect ethnic Russians.

From the DUH files.    

Comments in the Guardian article get quite fiesty and on point regarding the blatant propaganda:

Polvilho BlikSnyman

14 March 2014 9:48am

I'm also starting to suspect that Russia is pulling a Koch brothers stunt.

Oh, they've been doing it for years. Witness the comments below the line on any of the recent articles about Russia's homophobic legislation.

I really don't understand what they're trying to achieve. NO ONE takes any notice of the bottom half of the internet.

Do they send a report back to the FSB "We have successfully infiltrated a small cohort of bored office workers and shut-ins with our propaganda. Victory to Mother Russia!".

Substitute "small cohort of bored office workers and shut-ins" with washed up "truthers" on Facebook pinning for the glory days, and they nailed it fair and square.

That veteran webwarriors from the "Truth" movement are pushing Putin's propaganda is depressing, but not unexpected.  Russia Today embracing "truther" stories almost from day one was always suspect.   I personally believe the people who run Russian Today also know the "truth" movement is a fraud.  But maybe they think they're demoralizing the USA by having conspiracy bobble heads claim the US government is run by Jews?  

If so, they didn't understand exactly how fringe the "truth" movement is.  If Russia Today had reached market penetration no later than 2004, maybe 2006, things might have been different.  Hell,they might have done some good by sheer force of "dumb luck", by say promoting the Feal Good foundation.   

But RT didn't get traction pushing "truther"/Ron Paul news until 2009, and the writing was already on the wall for the "truth" movement.  Any potential critical mass of Americans to manipulate to undermine the presidency or American politics to the tune of Russian propaganda had long since left by 2007-2008.

One last thing:  I'll just put this here:

Russia Today Drops All Pretense Of Editorial Independence, Publishes Pro-Putin Propaganda

When Russia Today launched in 2005, its operators insisted that despite being funded by the Russian government, the news outlet would function independently of Moscow. The channel even rebranded to simply RT in 2009 to avoid being seen as an entirely Russian news network.

 On Wednesday, however, RT seemingly dropped all pretense of being editorially independent, by praising Russian President Vladimir Putin’s highly controversial annexation of Crimea.

This can't end well.

From Russia With Love

For the record, I have no strong opinion about Abby Martin's motives.  She could be what she appears: a naive idealist sucked into the conspiracy/Patriot movement honestly believing she's part of a progressive movement. This happened to a friend of mine; they(various Patriot sympathizing "truth" groups) pulled out all the stops to convince him he was "on to something".
However it doesn't speak well of Martin's judgement or investigative skills.  She can't have it both ways:  She can't claim to be so informed to have uncovered the government conspiracy of the century and, at the same time,  be completely oblivious that all the sources for this claim originate from fringe right propaganda.

In the wake of the Crimean situation, an Russia Today  journalist speaks out.  But are things what they seem?

Some quotes:

The New Republic:

"When Russia Today anchor Abby Martin ended a broadcast of her media analysis show “Breaking the Set” by looking sternly toward the camera and condemning Russian intervention in Crimea, many expressed amazement that this shiny-haired insurgent was bucking the Kremlin party line. Huffpo UK described the tirade as “spectacularly off-message.” Glenn Greenwald, to no one’s surprise, praised Martin’s bravery. And Martin’s speech did indeed sound quite remarkable, especially amid the blinkered unreality of RT’s overall coverage of Ukraine (which Newsweek has called a “Cold War theme park, without the breadlines.”) As her segment came to a close, Martin gravely said: “Just because I work here, for RT, doesn't mean I don't have editorial independence and I can’t stress enough how strongly I am against any state intervention in a sovereign nation’s affairs. What Russia did is wrong.”

The outburst was not exactly surprising. Martin has always been something of a rabble-rouser and a speaker of truth-to-power, though historically her specialty has been tearing down American political and cultural institutions. She grew up on the west coast and created a 9/11 truther group in San Diego. RT first found her through Occupy Oakland, when she was covering the crackdowns there as a citizen journalist. She worked for a bit as an Occupy correspondent, and then got called to DC to interview for an anchor job. (As she has described her initial reaction to the job interview: “There’s no fucking way in hell I’m moving to DC…lobbyist douchebag central.”) She has a stated affinity for psychedelic drugs. Things she has said on air since joining RT include “Fuck the media, fuck the candidates, fuck the corporatocracy,” and ads for her show feature her smashing a TV set with a sledgehammer. And it's also unsurprising, of course, to think that RT would have relished Martin’s Crimea comments as a neat little opportunity to point out its own openness to dissent."

"But the most telling part of Martin’s rant on Russia Today was its aftermath, during which RT’s image management seemed to go off the rails. The Telegraph reported that RT executives told the UK’s Channel 4 that Martin had been “misled by American media.” Meanwhile RT released a statement yesterday praising itself vis a vis Martin's behavior: “Contrary to the popular opinion, RT doesn’t beat its journalists into submission, and they are free to express their own opinions, not just in private but on the air.” The statement then added: “In her comment Ms. Martin also noted that she does not possess a deep knowledge of reality of the situation in Crimea. As such we'll be sending her to Crimea to give her an opportunity to make up her own mind from the epicenter of the story.” But alas Martin hadn't heard about her employer’s generous offer until the media reported it, and promptly replied on her Twitter feed that she would not in fact be going to Crimea. This whole murkiness of message helps explain why RT’s public perception as a Kremlin-managed monolith is off-base: much of RT's programming is less a well-oiled Russian propaganda machine than a defensive, shapeshifting retort to the Western media—less focused on a coherent foreign policy agenda than on asserting itself as an alternative to American cable news, its ideological chorus so miscellaneous that it somehow includes both Abby Martin and Larry King. "

Or reality is more complicated:

Tablet:

RT Anchor’s Riff Not as ‘Rogue’ As It Seems
How Abby Martin’s on-air jab at Russian intervention in Crimea helps Putin

By James Kirchick |March 4, 2014

 Yesterday, Abby Martin, a host on the Kremlin-funded television network RT (formerly known as Russia Today), used the end of her program to voice opposition to Russia’s occupation of Ukraine’s Crimea region. “Just because I work here at RT doesn’t mean I don’t have any editorial independence. I cannot express how strongly I am against any state intervention in a sovereign nation’s affairs,” Martin said. “What Russia did is wrong.”

"And so, on the face of it, Martin’s dissent from RT’s party line was a breath of fresh air, earning her plaudits across the internet. “For all the self-celebrating American journalists and political commentators: was there even a single U.S. television host who said anything comparable to this in the lead-up to, or the early stages of, the U.S. invasion of Iraq?” asked Glenn Greenwald, a frequent presence on the network. The Huffington Post praised Martin as “going spectacularly rogue.” Some have drawn comparisons to my own brief appearance on RT last August, when, invited to talk about the sentencing of Wikileaks leaker Chelsea Manning, I instead launched into a two-minute tirade against the Kremlin’s homophobic witch-hunt, which got me booted off air."

Highlighting mine.   Ask why wasn't Martin booted off the air.  The probable reasons can't be good.

But Martin’s comments, while certainly a departure from the stale Kremlin talking points offered 24/7 on RT, were hardly as rogue as they might initially seem. Martin couched her criticism of Russian policy by stating that “the coverage I’ve seen of Ukraine has been truly disappointing from all sides of the media spectrum, and ripe with disinformation,” implying that the objectively more accurate reporting of Western outlets are somehow on par with her own network’s blatantly skewed coverage.
“Above all my heart goes out to the Ukrainian people, who are now wedged as pawns in the middle of a global power chess game. They’re the real losers here,” she added. Again, this frames the Ukraine crisis as being equally the fault of Russia and the West, when, from the start, the situation has been instigated and inflamed solely by Moscow. There are no EU or NATO tanks occupying Ukrainian soil. 

 Highlighting mine.  Still wondering?

Those praising Martin would do well to acquaint themselves with the entirety of her work. Before being hired by RT, Martin was a prominent voice in the 9/11 conspiracy movement, which seems to be a job qualification for RT given the amount of airtime it gives to fringe views. In a 2008 video of a 9/11 Truth Movement protest, Martin can be seen stating that the attacks were an “inside job.” She knows this, she said, because, “I’ve researched it for three years and every single thing that I uncover solidifies my belief that it was an inside job and that our government was complicit in what happened.” On her program, she regularly gives air to outrageous conspiracy theories, including the notion that water fluoridation is a pernicious government plot to poison unsuspecting American citizens, an old bugbear of the extreme right-wing John Birch Society. She has also accused Israel of using “Hitler’s methods … to maintain a Jewish majority.”

 Last February, Martin devoted a segment to the history of American “false flag” operations. The term is a favorite of conspiracy theorists, who employ it to describe hostile acts carried out by rogue states and terrorists groups, which are, they claim, really the work democratic governments seeking a pretext for infringements on civil liberties, war, and other acts of imperialist aggression. Beginning with the 1898 sinking of the USS Maine, which ignited the Spanish-American War, up through the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin incident, Martin, quoting from a website titled, “Israel Did 911,” characterized false-flags as “when a government uses an elite special forces operations cadre to attack that nation-state while falsely bearing the flag of another country or group.”

There is no excuse for a supposedly well informed journalist to be quoting the anti-Semite website Rediscover911.com as a credible source. The link is now a 404, but is still in wayback.  Screen with quote below:

This article, with the quote in question, was also posted by Holocaust denier Fetzer on his website:

http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/05/real-reasons-nation-states-institute.html

Only two other blogs have it:

http:// conspiracy-theory-secrets.com/uncategorized/global-watch-weekly-report/

http://hatonn.blogspot.com/2012_09_01_archive.html

See, the 911 "truth" front is a very, very small club now the hordes of duped leftists have drifted away and the fringe right roots are exposed.  At this time it shouldn't take much investigation skills to realize the conspiracy is a fraud.  Either Martin read it herself and didn't notice the lunacy of her source, or, more likely, someone forwarded the quote and she used it without further investigation, which at the least is sloppy.  But then this is the same person who remains  in deep denial about Ron Paul writing his racists newletters and making money off them for years.

It would be wrong to conclude that, because it hasn’t publicly reprimanded or fired her for her recent comments, RT is proving itself to be an objective purveyor of credible news and information. “Contrary to the popular opinion, RT doesn’t beat its journalists into submission, and they are free to express their own opinions, not just in private but on the air,” the channel said in response to Martin’s broadcast. They should tell that to William Dunbar, a former RT journalist who resigned after he was prevented by the network’s management from reporting on the Russian military’s deliberate bombing of civilian targets during the 2008 Georgia War. “On any issue where there is a Kremlin line, RT is sure to toe it,” Dunbar said.

Indeed, far from damaging the propaganda efforts of the Russian government, Martin’s momentary act of nonconformity plays right into the Kremlin’s hands. RT will now be able to hold up her 60-second departure from the official script as evidence of its editorial independence, as further proof of its vital role as a “counter-hegemonic” news source in a world inundated by corrupt and corporate “Anglo-Saxon media.” Think of Martin as the puppet opposition in a dictatorship, created and sustained by the powers that be as a façade of democracy with which to dazzle credulous Western observers, a practice that Putin has himself perfected.

As a general observation, Russia Today was a match made in heaven between post Gorbachev cynical Russian power brokers and the collective of fringe interests represented by von Mises, Cato, Ron Paul and Larouche.  A foreign news outlet with apparent neutrality was a perfect platform to push conspiracy garbage with a veneer of credibility.   It's exactly the same schtick with PressTv, right down to targeting an English speaking audience.

Even FOX news won't host the Holocaust Denying Duo Fetzer and Barrett anymore, so it was inventive of the "consortium" to find a mainstream appearing megaphone, complete with their own photogenic bobble head.

Russian interests might be bankrolling some of these activities.  One website in particular, otherwise dead, has overwhelming Russian traffic:

    04:28:53    IE 9.0
Win7
    Russian Federation Flag    Saint Petersburg,
Saint Petersburg City,
Russian Federation    Net For Dedicated Client (31.184.238.21)
 wtc-xxxxxxxx.xxxxxxxx
        19:26:44    IE 9.0
Win7
    Russian Federation Flag    Saint Petersburg,
Saint Petersburg City,
Russian Federation    Net For Dedicated Client (31.184.238.21)
 wtcdemolition.xxxxxxx
        19:26:34    IE 9.0
Win7
    Russian Federation Flag    Saint Petersburg,
Saint Petersburg City,
Russian Federation    Net For Dedicated Client (31.184.238.21)
 wtc-xxxxxxxx.xxxxxxx
        16:21:02    IE 9.0
Win7
    Russian Federation Flag    Saint Petersburg,
Saint Petersburg City,
Russian Federation    Net For Dedicated Client (31.184.238.21)
 wtc-xxxxxxxx.xxxxxxx
       16:20:59    IE 9.0
Win7
    Russian Federation Flag    Saint Petersburg,
Saint Petersburg City,
Russian Federation    Net For Dedicated Client (31.184.238.21)
 wtcdemolition.xxxxxxx
        07:57:02    IE 9.0
Win7
    Russian Federation Flag    Russian Federation    Donekoservice Ltd (91.201.64.16)
 wtc-xxxxxxxx.xxxxxxx
        07:56:56    IE 9.0
Win7
    Russian Federation Flag    Russian Federation    Donekoservice Ltd (91.201.64.16)
 wtc-xxxxxxxx.xxxxxxx
        05:04:57    IE 9.0
Win7
    Russian Federation Flag    Saint Petersburg,
Saint Petersburg City,
Russian Federation    Net For Dedicated Client (31.184.238.21)
 wtc-xxxxxxxx.xxxxxxx
        05:04:53    IE 9.0
Win7
    Russian Federation Flag    Saint Petersburg,
Saint Petersburg City,
Russian Federation    Net For Dedicated Client (31.184.238.21)
 wtc-xxxxxxxx.xxxxxxx
        04:50:30    IE 9.0
Win7
    Russian Federation Flag    Saint Petersburg,
Saint Petersburg City,
Russian Federation    Net For Dedicated Client (31.184.238.11)
 wtc-xxxxxxxx.xxxxxxx

[And this is one of many reasons I know, not suspect, but know, it was all a scam.   INTERPOL won't be happy if it involves money.]

If, as I suspect, donations are drying up to support the "truther" con, and some parties are looking for foreign sources of funding, the "consortium" might be biting off more than it can chew.  Tarpley, Fetzer, David Duke, Ron Paul, etc and other fringe drama queens are amateurs compared to Russian politicians and the Russian mafia.  The only one of the scammers I'd lay money on to hold his own is Larouche, and that's just because he's nuts with an army of cultists at his back.   The rest are used to bluffing and blustering with bullshit, usually using the Internet. 

The Russians don't roll that way.  Anyone involved with Putin's propaganda machine, needs to think twice about what they're getting into:
 http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/oct/09/mafia-state-luke-harding-review

As Luke Harding's book on his own years in Moscow captures well, life in Russia has not changed much: random inconveniences, bizarre coincidences and maddening interventions leave one confused. Did I really fail to lock the office? Why are there cigarette butts in my loo? Why does my phone battery go flat all the time? Am I going mad – or are they really out to get me?
The incidents mostly comprise petty vandalism, silly stunts (someone left a sex manual in his bedroom) and phones that play back your previous conversation.

[BTW?  This is the sort of rubbish the fringe "truther" creeps pull when they want someone to think "agents" are out to get them, to hide the fact it's a con.  But, unlike the Russian mafia, the creeps have no state protection. They just hope no one figures it out.  Oops. ]

More examples of journalists beaten in Russia:

Russian Journalists, Fighting Graft, Pay in Blood
Beaten Russian Editor Is Told to Say It’s His Fault

Martin is being played.

None of this can end well.