NATO’s War Against RT, by Declan Hayes

This article posits NATO’s censorship of Russia Today (RT) as a key part of its genocidal campaign of full spectrum dominance. In surveying RT’s critics and competitors, it concludes with the sniggering, slothful pool of journalists that fester in the sterile confines of Joe Biden’s White House

NATO campaign is genocidal because it includes the obliteration of all things Russian, even the Russian language, whose global philological importance, along with Russian writers, cannot be over-stated. NATO’s campaign is a war of extermination for full spectrum dominance because it seeks to emasculate and pigeon hole Russia so that she is nothing more than an unregulated quarry from which NATO can extract all it needs. By ending our discourse at the White House, we show that this cancer percolates right up to Joe Biden, the brain dead head of the NATO Frankenstein.

By factoring itself around RT, the article sheds light on NATO’s wider feet of clay not only against all things Russian but all of humanity as well. Though it is, of course, my own personal opinion, I share it with it those these talented Trotskyites who warn against Germany’s quest for Russia’s evisceration by eventual nuclear obliteration as well as all those fair minded Britons who were swayed by trade union leader Mick Lynch getting the best of all of the media shills NATO threw at him.

The Rise and Fall of RT

To get a whiff of NATO’s cat calls against RT, we first begin with a 2017 article from The Guardian, where Tim Dowling recounts his week long Cavalry watching Larry King, Nigel Farage and the arch anti Christ, Vladimir Putin, on RT. In criticizing RT’s choice of presenters, Dowling, who obviously has no idea how the BBC or the Guardian’s HR Depts work, suggests nepotism is at play and, as in his criticisms of RT’s eclectic topics, Dowling must have no concept whatsoever of how any editing room works.

Having flopped in his opening gambit, Dowling then criticizes RT for covering “the Middle East, European infighting and social injustice in the U.S.” rather than “Russia, communism, snow and poverty”; RT, per Dowling, just does not know its place.

Although Dowling claims RT’s “overarching narrative is a tale of the west’s unrelenting decline”, all current economic indicators suggest that is the case and that Biden’s concocted “Putin Price Hike” should be a source of concern to all independent media.

Though Dowling is astounded RT made a fuss about Russian athletes being banned from the South Korean Winter Olympics because “BBC Radio 4 lunchtime news … didn’t mention the doping scandal at all”, it now seems RT had a much better finger on NATO’s vindictive pulse than did the state controlled BBC Radio 4. The same applies to Dowling smirking over Russia’s influence in America’s Presidential elections, where Dowling again comes across as an uninformed, pouting prat.

Although Dowling’s claims that many of RT’s contributors are relative nonentities, much the same could be said about British TV and the BBC’s complicity in marginalizing critics like George Galloway and Jeremy Corbyn. Although Dowling, in true patronizing Guardian style, back peddles on this to give some of RT’s presenters a patronizing pat on the head, the main message remains: RT is not quite kosher, not quite cricket and certainly not up there with the BBC, the Guardian or any other NATO controlled media.

Dowling then wheels out some nonentity called Misha Glenny, who cuts to the heart of the matter by whinging “The annoying thing about RT is that some of the reporting is very good and genuine” and is, therefore, miles above that of the BBC, whose forte seems to be comedy reruns, soap operas, croquet and what knickers the Royal Family happen to wear on any given day.

Dowling, oblivious of BBC salaries, then goes on to complain that RT over pays its staff and that the regulatory bodies of Britain and the U.S. loathe and fear it. Having smeared RT’s work force, Dowling then briefly turns his guns on RT’s viewers, but far too quickly turns to its content, which is not sufficiently Russophobic for Dowling, who finishes up with the bald and biased statement that British is simply better.

Although Kaitlyn Tiffany, writing in The Atlantic, pretends to lament that “for a reporter, [it] is frustrating RT America “has been all but erased from the internet”, she quickly amends her fib by saying RT was “weird” and the loss of “the thousands of hours of programming that RT filmed and broadcast over the past 12 years” is no great loss as this “weird” “channel was staffed by has-beens, oddballs, and extremely young people—which is to say, by American journalists who might have had a hard time finding work at other outlets, or who were mad at CNN and The New York Times, or who harbored an interest in conspiracy theories of one sort or another”.

Tiffany goes on to claim that “you’ll just have to take my word” that “the news that RT America produced wasn’t merely (or wasn’t always) tinged with an anti-U.S. ideology. It also had a wild, shameless inconsistency.” Although Tiffany can’t explain why we should take her word for anything, it seems she just didn’t like RT being a voice in the wilderness, never mind in the room. Maybe not enough about the Queen’s knickers or Joe Biden’s bed pan for this distressed damsel? Who is to know, as she does not tell.

Tiffany then regurgitates Dowling’s unfounded tropes before citing Mona Elswah, a researcher at NATO’s Oxford Internet Institute, who claims that RT gave platforms to conspiracy theories (sic) in an effort to undermine NATO’s own media, which has a major credibility problem quite independently of any criticism that might emanate from RT. As Tiffany blabbers on, she justifies NATO’s campaign against RT by proclaiming that RT “is not a major loss, because most of RT America’s content was quite bad.”

So there you have it. Those media channels NATO censor “are not a great loss” just as those civilians NATO slaughter “are not a great loss”, according to this reptile.

The far right New York Times posits if Russia’s RT Network: Is It More BBC or K.G.B.?, the BBC being a British state media outlet founded by MI5, Britain’s equivalent of the Soviet Union’s long defunct KGB. Steven Erlanger, the NYT’s hitman, plods through the same old tropes the Guardian’s hack also relied on before confessing “if there is any unifying character to RT, it is a deep skepticism of Western and American narratives of the world and a fundamental defensiveness about Russia and Mr. Putin”.

Instead of exploring why NATO’s narrative is so loathed and why all of NATO’s many targets, Russia included, need defending, Erlanger hauls in the Atlantic Council’s Ben Nimmo, one of NATO’s go-to colorful clowns, who long believed Partisan Girl was an inanimate Russian bot and who has zero credibility outside of NATO’s echo chambers.

Though the NYT grumbles that “viewers find it difficult to discern exactly what is journalism and what is propaganda, what may be fake news and what is real but presented with a strong slant”, much the same applies to NATO’s own media outlets, which are saturated with countless fake news press briefings from Clown Prince Zelensky that masquerade as news.

Though Erlanger criticizes RT for highlighting British complicity in “human rights violations in Bahrain”, and for showcasing the “liberation of Palmyra [from NATO’s ISIS proxies] by the Syrian Army with the support of the Russian Air Force,” it is because RT should be commended and not condemned for such coverage that RT is preferred over the NYT by discerning audiences. The fact that is beyond the NYT’s ken is one of countless reasons why the NYT is an obese NATO rag and RT is not.

Although the NYT then rubbishes some of RT’s other content, RT is, to its credit, relatively free of the celebrity culture columns that drown much of NATO’s own media in oceans of sludge. RT, at least, has opinions, whether erroneous or not, just as the Daily Telegraph and the Times had before they became the McDonalds and Kentucky Fried Chickens of the media world.

Although the NYT then gives RT a paragraph to defend itself, the last half of the hit piece is wall to wall attacks on RT and NATO’s efforts to defend our crime ridden Garden of Eden from the Luciferian talking snake that is RT.

The Columbia Journalism Review also casts its eagle eye RT’s way when it complained that “the Kremlin’s propaganda outlet has an identity crisis” because “Russia Today featured fringe-dwelling ‘experts’, broadcast bombastic speeches by Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez; and ran out-of-nowhere reports on the homeless in America.”

After denigrating RT’s staff as over paid greenhorns, the CJR makes the important point that RT’s budget is as nothing compared to the BBC’s or Al Jazeera’s and it uses the Georgian/Ossetian war to show how RT punched above it weight by airing footage and testimony NATO suppressed. The CJR’s criticisms of RT’s self censorship would, of course, be more effective if it was juxtaposed with the all pervading self censorship of NATO’s own media. The same applies to “another criticism often leveled at RT .. that in striving to bring the West an alternate point of view, it is forced to talk to marginal, offensive, and often irrelevant figures who can take positions bordering on the absurd.” But the BBC and similar NATO outlets have their critics and state subsidized spare wheels in abundance and, outside of their gardening correspondents, they, to me, are a much bigger headache than RT’s maverick gadflies. The discerning customer simply surfs the Net, skips the NYT and the BBC and goes to RT or wherever they might find information worth the effort.

When the CJR praises “Western journalists working in Russia who see RT not as journalism from the other side’s trenches, but as nothing more than Kremlin propaganda”, it gives NATO’s game away as, according to this Rockerfeller funded, self styled intellectual leader in the rapidly changing world of journalism, NATO’s Russian based journalists see themselves, as the CJR and their NATO handlers regard them, as front line warriors, taking NATO’s genocidal wars of extermination behind enemy lines into the belly of the Russian beast.

This same theme continues through the rest of this narcissistic article which credits notorious war criminal Hillary Clinton with mollifying, if not quite taming, the RT beast which the Russian born Russophobe, Julia Ioffe, assures us, should really be put down like the rabid bear that it really is.

The BBC’s Olga Smirnova is another Russophonic Russophobe worth mentioning in dispatches and not only for how she worships Melinda Gates and Ursula von der Leyen of plagiarized thesis fame. Although Smirnova “first dipped her toe into journalism in [MI5 saturated] Northern Ireland,” Smirnova has most recently concentrated on attacking Russian media for the BBC which sponsored her to do this excuse for a thesis, entitled Russian TV: Contesting European Values (76.92% plagiarism rate), which mirrors the prattling of NATO’s Rand GroupCNNForeign Policy, the CIA’s Middle East InstituteNATO’s Defense (sic) College, and even a bunch of Omaha students U.S. STRATCOM’s Deterrence and Assurance Academic Alliance took under their wing to disseminate this same Russophobia as their first career step in joining Team CIA. Talk about singing from the same NATO hymn sheet!

Media Mega Wars

Jimmy Dore makes the point that NATO’s mass media deplatforms almost all dissidents and not just the narcissists, grifters and crackpots NATO inflates as straw men and women in its attacks on RT and similar targets. Even supposedly independent outlets like UnHerd are pressurized to allow Vice explain to us that Ukraine’s Nazis are good guys who just get a bad press (and lousy tattoos).

This leaves us with the question as to where we can find NATO approved truth in the news. Luckily, having our back covered is, which is funded by the German Marshall Fund’s Black Sea Trust for Regional Cooperation, which partners with EuvsDisinfo – the flagship project of the European External Action Service’s East StratCom Task Force which is a member of the Open Information Partnership (OIP), along with its Georgian sub-office, which, in turn, is controlled by the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) of the Poynter Institute, which is bankrolled by Craig Newmark, who also bankrolls Barak Obama and Joe Biden, and which is one of the very many reasons I have no confidence in any of their interlinked, NATO controlled networks.

But summarily dismissing their labyrinthine webs of controlled fact checkers brings us back again to the question as to where we can find NATO approved truth in the news. Luckily, NATO really does have our back. Forbes informs us that the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, the BBC, the Economist, the New Yorker, AP, Reuters, Bloomberg News, Foreign Affairs, the Atlantic and Politico should be our go to informational fixes. Investopedia, meanwhile, tells us that the worlds top ten news companies are Comcast ($200 bn market cap), Thompson Reuters ($48.5 bn), Warner ($45.2 bn), Paramount ($22.1 bn), Naspers ($21.8 bn), Fox ($19.1 bn), NewsCorp ($10.4 bn), IACI ($7.8 bn), Nexstar ($7.1 bn), and the New York Times ($5.8 bn).

As all of these entities and their smaller clones have essentially the same pro NATO, pro war mantra, there is absolutely no way they will regard Donbas’ Alley of Angels as anything more than lambs fit for the slaughter. Sure, if one wants an informative review of a book on Elizabethan architecture, then one should consult the Economist, which has been an apologist for imperial conquest since it first advocated for Irish genocide in the 1840s. The New York Times offers itself, like a clapped out hooker fallen on hard times, for €30 a month (€40 for its cooking subscription). If you subscribe, that is what you get, a euro a day’s worth of guff, nothing more and probably a lot less.

If you want the full story, without Putin’s paw marks all over it, then trade the black king for the white, the black hat for the shining light who leads the Free World. Get thee to the White House to be briefed. Unless you are an African like Simon Ateba, who is deliberately ignored at such briefings and is deplatformed by NATO’s Stripe online payment program for having the temerity to demand the same parity of esteem non-Africans get.

Maybe things will change in the White House as Karine Jean-Pierre, an affable, black Haitian American LGBTQIA+ takes the reins as White House press secretary. Although Karine ticks all of the right social inclusion boxes and her (preferred pronouns unknown) live in girlfriend, CNN heavyweight Suzanne Malveaux, with whom she (preferred pronouns unknown) has an adopted daughter, identifies as black (even though different members of her [preferred pronouns unknown] family identify as white, biracial, and/or black), Houston, we still have a problem. Karine seems totally out of her (preferred pronouns unknown) depth, even for the soft ball questions the racially segregated Press Gallery are allowed throw at her (preferred pronouns unknown).

But that is why we need Russia Today, the untamed field slaves, the unbowed Gaels beyond the Pale as opposed to the mollycoddled White House slaves, whose job it is to cover Biden’s incontinent ass and enthral us with bawdy tales of what lingerie are currently in vogue with the Beltway’s cross dressing set.

If RT should eventually lose all of its billion plus audience, it can rest assured that NATO’s mass media companies will fare even worse as, outside of their gardening, flower arranging and cooking tips they shed ever more substance by the day, whereas China’s CGTN, RT’s heir apparent has it, and growing audiences, in abundance. NATO, in short, may stifle the RT messenger but, thanks to China and others, they have no hope this side of hell of ever stifling RT’s message.

Source: Strategic Culture