The New Russophobia 2

BBC: ITS THE RUSSIAN APOCALYPSE! No, really! Would the objective BBC lie to you?

Western MSM is a caricature of real news. The dissemination of mass idiocy. Truly.

BBC - How do you STOP the Russkies?

Quote:

Once again, Russia is being featured as Dr. Evil Incarnate, the villain that regularly plays opposite peace-loving NATO nations, in a BBC program that has Moscow initiating an invasion on Latvia followed up with a nuclear strike on Britain.

And just in time for the military-industrial shopping season.

This last comment refers to the "timely" discussion of 100 Billion to be spent on "aging" nuclear submarines. What's interesting about Latvia is that is has become a kind of imitation Israeli-style apartheid state, with ethnic Russians treated like sub-humans.

I do like the Kremlin's immediate response, however. lol.

Quote:

"Unfortunately, our colleagues from the BBC have lately resorted to making public products, of quite low-quality. Therefore, we haven't always been in a hurry to familiarize ourselves with them," Russian presidential press secretary Dmitry Peskov told reporters when asked whether the Kremlin has stayed up late to catch the film.

"It's simply not worth the time it takes to watch," Peskov said.

Bwa ha ha ha! Bwa ha ha ha!

NDPP wrote:

And in Canada too, we have been so stuffed with similar media 'public products of quite low-quality' that even our so-called progressive class and left has become infected, toxic and automatic in its Russophobia.  This hot-button is now available, hot and ready for the PTB to marshall their pawns and ready them for battle on behalf of the empire of chaos and its grotesqueries like Israel or Ukraine.

If, or when it heats up in the ME, there is now a good possibility that Canada won't be in one of the front row seats. Like as in a bomber that gets shot down by the Russians. That's got a lot to do with the US being so pissed off or the Conservatives being so pissed off. Nobody really cares why the NDP'ers are pissed off.

And ya know, that is too bad from my POV. You can figure out why if you like. Or don't.

Putin - Putout!

Quote:

Slovenian comic and showman Klemen Slakonja has made a Eurovision parody song in which he mocks Vladimir Putin.
"When I play chess be quiet - or eat my Pussy Riot!" - would the song have any chance of winning Eurovision with these lines?

Water is wet and Russia is bad.

Why do Russians even exist? Shouldn't they just all die in a pool of their own blood? Can't we just bomb them? Why not??

Supplemental: the website, Russian Universe,  celebrates 3 years. There is a set of links relating to Essential Reading, Through the Looking Glass (Western Media Coverage of Russia), and so on. You'll learn what Klyukvification is (cranberry-ization is the literal translation. But the term has little to do with fresh fruit.), Some good, if brief, reading.

3 Years of Russian Universe.

Crussialism is a new, interesting term developed by the author. It refers to the eternal collapse of Russia, ever falling apart, much worse off than we are in the West, always rotting away.I quote at length.

Quote:

In Western mainstream political discourse there’s one concept that remains no matter what. The eternal return of this concept can be witnessed in news programmes, talk shows, newspapers and films over and over again. I’m talking here about the ‘Fall of Russia’. The Eternal Fall.

The idea of Russia as a country in terminal state has a long history behind it. The image of Russia as a ‘collossus on clay legs’ was popular way before the 1917 coup, then after the Soviet Union was established, then after the fall of the USSR in 1991, then – during the Yeltsin’s turbulent 90s and finally – fast-forward to Putin’s Russia of nowadays.

Don’t get it twisted – Russia has many serious economic and social problems. I know it much better than any BBCNN ‘Russia watcher’ because I’m a common Russian living in Russia, so I see the signs of crisis every day. But ‘crisis’ doesn’t mean it will necessarily result in a revolution/regime change (we had enough), and even the latter isn’t equal to ‘collapse’.

Thus, these real Russia’s problems do exist and they serve as the realistic basis for the mythology of ‘imminent Russian collapse’. This Western ‘collapsophilia’ can be referred to as crussialism (from crush + Russia + [certain amount of] realism). Crushialism has been an inseparable part of Western master discourse of Russia for years, just like, for example, Russian mainstream media recently exploits the migrant crisis in Europe. The plot is simple: ‘we’ are not as f*cked as ‘we’ are – look – ‘they’ have so many problems in Russia/Europe. If we adopt this collapsophilic vision, then Russia is in the mode of Eternal Fall, yet it is always reintepreting itself and coming back to normal like nevalyashka (Russian for roly-poly toy).

Incidentally, Patrick Armstrong, a retired (USSR and Russian) analyst for the Canadian government, is getting more attention as an amusing, but sober-minded observer of all things Russian. He recently wrote a highly amusing piece, commented upon approvingly by no less than Peter Lavelle of Crosstalk (RT flagship program), in which he compared the endlessly bellicose NATO to an alcoholic who has a few the morning after another fiasco and failed state, forgets everything he did, and gambles everything on the next war that will solve all problems.That got a few chuckles.

Patrick Armstrong: NATO, Alcoholism, and Homer Simpson

Quote:

NATO is a geopolitical alcoholic: last night's binge is the need for this morning's hair of the dog which lays the foundation for tonight's bender. Every weekend is a lost weekend for NATO.

Cheers. Drink up, O Angels of Death.

I'm not posting the bulk of the comical and idiotic Russophobic/Putinphobic items around the Panama Papers. But the following is just too amusing to leave alone.

The Guardian even had a yellowed photo or two of the Russian President for extra emphasis.

Putin bad. Understand?

Yeah, thanks Magoo. People can go there if they want more details: guilt by association, innuendo, etc.

I understand Putin is responsible for the bad weather we've been having. Bastard.

Putin is the bogey man.

Vladimir Putin, President of Russia, is the bogey man. You can sell anything using this terrible villain as your backdrop.

Quote:

Today, consumers across the Western hemisphere are daily subjected to an Orwellian 'Two Minute Hate', where Vladimir Putin - substituting for Oceania's much-reviled Emmanuel Goldstein - is portrayed as a brutal dictator hell-bent on restoring Russia's lost empire. The drugged-up and dumbed-down audience swallows the propagandist's Happy Meal and then asks for seconds.

Does anything good ever happen In Russia?

Certainly not!

Quote:

If you relied on the Western media to inform you about Russia, you could be forgiven for believing that it’s a joyless hellhole. The kind of place Tom Waits and Nick Cave would design if given a blank canvas....

To answer the American boy’s question. Yes, lots of good things happen in Russia. This week, for example, the Vostochnny Cosmodrome opened in the Far East region. This is especially noteworthy considering Russia is the only country currently capable of launching a human being into space.

Naturally, Western media focused on the maiden launch being delayed for 24 hours, due to safety concerns, rather than the event itself. Presumably, they'd have preferred if the rocket had exploded on the platform. That would have garnered zillions of clicks. Even then, The Guardian claimed the Russian space industry was in "crisis."

Don't worry though; the UK's intergalactic enterprises are doing great. Even though they don't exist.

Bwa ha ha ha

Quote:

Some hacks also highlighted a corruption scandal which hampered construction, without seeming to know anything about it. In fact, if they’d bothered to cover the story properly, they’d have realized the sordid affair was greeted with relish in the Far East. You see, as a result, two families which have raped and pillaged the region for years have had their domination broken. One faction is already imprisoned and the other under house arrest.

Russia - bad! Next question. Because Russophobia is the gift that just keeps on giving...

Maria Zakharova, official rep of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation (gently) mocks US Sec of State John Kerry for his endless calls with Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, to the tune of "My Heart's in the Highlands" by Robbie Burns ...

Мария Захарова

Quote:

«His heart is in Moscow.His heart is not there.

His heart is in Moscow, a chasing a bear.

Chasing not a grizzly, but a kremlinese.

His heart is in Moscow wherever John is»

Robbie Burns: My Heart's in the Highlands

Of all the countries with regimes characterized by feverish Russophobia, none, perhaps, are as into their "two-minute hate" (Orwell) of all things Russian as the Baltic regimes of Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia.

But this latest really takes the cake.

Latvia Decides Putin Is Weaponizing Names - Bans Russian Names for New Babies

Sadly, I'm not kidding. It really is that bad. The Latvian regime could care less that 40% of the population are ethnically Russian.

Quote:

If the world has a problem with Russia weaponizing everything, then the Balts have another one in addition: banning everything Russian. Be it the Russian language, Russian TV, or the refusal to medically treat a disabled girl because she didn't understand Latvian. Now the Balts have another brilliant idea — just ban Russian names entirely

Geez. I wonder if this will get the silent treatment in the Western MSM?

Answer: more than likely. Because freedom.

A good piece at the Off Guardian (a satirical site that, VERY SUCCESSFULLY, lampoons the idiocy of The Guardian. Criticizing The Guardian's Russophobia - in particular - is rather like shooting fish in a barrel. Embarrassingly easy. But The Guardian makes it that way.)

Deconstructing Russophobia by Catherine Brown

Quote:

I know no Russian who has any knowledge of Russia’s representation in Britain who is not strongly critical of it. I too am depressed by it, specifically because I think that it is intellectually and morally demeaning, and counter-productive to a dangerous degree....

What I will try to do is describe a few of the ways in which what I consider to be a false image is constructed, and the factors favouring the survival of this image – in the hope that if my description of those processes rings true, then it may influence your responses to the media’s representations henceforth. Finally, I will consider the practical effects of the media’s image of Russia.

The means of its creation are the usual suspects in cases of bias: distortion of fact through exaggeration, understatement, and fabrication; false inferences; inconsistent application of standards; and misuse of language.

The author concludes:

Quote:

Russophobia is composed of ignorance, a failure of scepticism and reasoning, pride, hypocrisy, condescension and churlishness, turned to the service of the military-industrial complex and NATO. It supports a one-sided Cold War against a country which is only just getting on its feet after collapse, is primarily focused on improving the living conditions of its people, wants war nowhere, and has no desire to be our enemy unless forced to defend itself. I wish it well.

wheels finally come off The Guardian’s Russophobia

offguardian quoting The Guardian wrote:

Senior government officials fear the violence unleashed by Russian hooligans at Euro 2016 was sanctioned by the Kremlin and are investigating links with Vladimir Putin’s regime.

As they note in the offguardian piece, there is no need to deconstruct this shite. A superficial examination is all that it takes to expose the ridiculousness of such claims.

Maybe the Guardian can have a little Sunday piece on how Vladimir Putin is really a space alien put here by evil-doers from Planet Rigel-7. Because, yes, it is that bad ... so why not? Some idiots will lap it up. And that's the main thing, after all ...

Quote:

The Latvian regime could care less that 40% of the population are ethnically Russian.

It's true.  Latvia was a former colony of the USSR.  Those Russian settlers have rights too!!!

Do you mean the thing that you said or the thing that I said?  Or both?

The Magnitsky Act — Behind the Scenes: Why Was This Film Banned in Europe?

Quote:

Nekrasov’s film, The Magnitsky Act — Behind the Scenes, has caused great controversy by presenting a side of the story of Sergei Magnitsky seldom heard in the West. Nekrasov has been known for most of his career as a fierce critic of the Russian government, and was embraced by the pro-Western opposition. This has all dramatically changed with the release of The Magnitsky Act. Nekrasov attempted to screen the film in several European countries, but the film was blocked.

The official story in the mainstream media about Sergei Magnitsky goes something like this: Magnitsky was a courageous lawyer, who uncovered huge government fraud that implicated members of the Russian government. He was imprisoned on trumped up charges, beaten and tortured in prison, and finally died as a result of this abuse and medical neglect about a year into his pretrial detention. However, Nekrasov’s film challenges this narrative. It argues that in fact Magnitsky may have been Browder’s accomplice in one of the largest cases of tax fraud in Russian history. Browder, with the help of his accountant Magnitsky, may have falsely claimed that they had taken a loss on what was in fact a tremendously profitable investment. In doing so, they may have been able to claim a tax rebate of $230 million.

The controversy over Magnitsky’s death has had serious implications for U.S.-Russia relations. In the context of growing hostility towards Russia as their geopolitical interests came increasingly into conflict, the U.S. Congress passed a law in 2012 called the Magnitsky Act (from which the film takes its title). This law imposed sanctions on a wide range of Russian officials the U.S. government accuses of being involved in Magnitsky’s death.

It wasn't banned. Two screenings were cancelled - one at the European Parliament because of complaints, and ARTE put it on hold because it was warned it would be liable for broadcasting factual errors.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jun/10/controversial-film-russia-...

http://www.rferl.org/content/magnitsky-film-on-hold-european-tv-channel-...

It was screened in Washington two weeks ago.

http://www.the-american-interest.com/2016/06/14/russias-big-lie/

And had its pubic world premiere in Norway last weekend, sponsored in part by Norwegian PEN, and the Freedom of Speech Foundation.

http://www.nfi.no/english/news/the-magnitsky-act-behind-the-scenes-will-...

6079_Smith_W wrote:

What is your problem contrarianna? Did I say I thought it was a good thing they cancelled the screening and airing?....

Your posting, as usual, was designed to support your anti-Russian agenda  as well as slipping in a link to Orlov's pro-Browder, "the film's a Moscow conspiracy" piece:

Quote:

Russia’s Big Lie:A new Russian documentary about the Magnitsky case takes tried and true propaganda methods to a new level in its attempts to sway the U.S. government.

The "problem", and hypocrisy, is yours not mine:

Your obvious selection of weasel wording (see previous post) to studiously avoid the origin of the "blocking-not-banning":  billionaire Browder's use of libel law as a means of intimidation against free speech, an issue which elsewhere you found worthy of starting a thread about.

You were more convincing when you openly supported Nazi militias in the Ukraine.

Scuse me contrarianna, but my name is not Polly, and I am not your talking parrot. If I don't say things the way you think I should, too bad. But if there is any question about whether I think this film should be seen, you might consider the fact that the article I did post would not have been written if the author had not been able to attend that screening in Washington. 

The attempts to prevent it have been covered in the media without resorting to lies about nonexistent bans. 

As for the rest of it, if I had a dollar for every time some dolt on here called me a Nazi supporter I'd have my mortgage paid off by now. 

You have a problem with that comment? Surely you don't think people should face criminal charges simply for their political beliefs if they have committed no crime.

I can see why they'd want to focus on the best fighting unit, and the one based on the front line. But if you want to talk contradictions, there are fascists on both sides of that confict, and both sides have committed atrocities. 

Actually it is just contrarianna recalling a previous occasion of contrarianna calling me a Nazi apologist because I pointed out the Ukrainian government was not associated with the commemorations of ww2 soldiers.

And I expect if contrarianna was  reading to hear my point rather than reading to look for attempted smears it should have been clear I was not defending neonazism, but rather the difficult position that government was in. 

We can get back to talking about Russia anytime you want. 

Mmmm...

It is actually quite clear if you care to go back and read it.

Let's cut to the chase here, kropotkin. We all know we have differences of opinion on some of this, and I am not surprised some people read their own shit into stuff, and aren't too concerned about accuracy (strangely enough, the reason why I spoke about that sputnik article in the first place).

I don't actually care what any of you think of me personally or my opinions. But if  anyone here has anything serious  to say - and an accusation of defending nazism is serious - instead of some baseless smear, do your homework.

Digging back to repeat stuff that has no more validity now than it did two years ago is really lame. Even ikosmos cheerleading from the sidelines doesn't give it any more weight. Sorry.

Where do I claim objectivity?

I just said precisely the opposite - that we have differences of opinion, so it is no surprise that we are adversarial on some of these issues.

I just posted an article entitled "Russia's Big Lie". Do I need to explain the rhetorical point? Does it sound like fence-sitting?

And I also just pointed out that that article would not have been possible if the film had been prevented from being screened, and that they are two separate issues.

Do you want me to explain that distinction to you?

My point is that it serves no one's case here if points of fact are ignored in people's haste to push their own opinion. Like a banning that did not happen, or recognizing what was actually a complex and difficult situation in 2014.

And in a similar vein, if some people here have an assumption the onus is on them to ask for clarification and check their facts before they make an accusation.

We are all pretty used to the term Nazi being thrown around here with little regard for what it actually means, but  if you are going to make an claim someone is defending Nazism with no clear evidence, other that what you think someone meant, you can expect to have it called out as bullshit.

Of course, if some here want to hijack their own thread from its topic so they can play junior Star Chamber, I don't really care, though I don't promise to stick around for the fun.

Frankly, if this was a serious concern why are you bothering to argue with me rather than taking it to the people who really have the power to do something about it.

Or not, if it is baseless.