Proofs of UK's anti- Russian Information War

[Phaeton80]

We in the West have been inundated with anti- Russian scaremongering, being massaged into a 'reality' where most or even all propaganda is coming 'from the other side', 'from them' - that is to say, any non- Western entity desginated as 'a threat' in the present geo political chessboard. Yet, we in the West have been trained to accept certain set of beliefs uncritically, whatsmore; we are trained to do so even after having been provenly lied to on several occasions in extremely comparable situations - only to turn around and accept such narratives with equally lacking proof.
 

Quote

indoctrination

noun

mass noun

"The process of teaching a person or group to accept a set of beliefs uncritically."
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/indoctrination

 

..Who amongst you have even questioned the unrealistically swift conclusion of Russia's culpability in the Skripal event or the 'official story' in general, as well as the unbelievably vicious hatchet jobs against anyone in the public eye daring to ask critical questions surrounding the (extremely lacking, highly illogical) Skripal narrative? Who amongst you really scrutinized or even looked at the socalled 'unequivocal proof' surrounding the MH17 event, or actually took the time to objectively check facts surrounding the 'Ukrainian Maidan Revolution', Crimea annexation - or even having the mere ability to imagine what the 'good old' USA would do if a competing political alliance (think Warschau Pact) added Canada to their list of nations..

And ofcourse, such questions are not limited to Russia- linked events, but could be asked in regards to any (mass) projected 'enemy of the West', like we have Syria, Iran, ISIS.. as well as any projected as 'friends of the West' (like we have Saudi Arabia, Israel).. There is no 'good side Vs bad side', no 'good guys or bad guys', reality isnt black & white, cant be compared to the usual Hollywood script - no matter how much the media landscape would have you believe otherwise.

Quote

Inside the Temple of Covert Propaganda: The Integrity Initiative & the UK's Scandalous Information War

Recent hacked documents have revealed an international network of politicians, journalists, academics, researchers and military officers, all engaged in highly deceptive covert propaganda campaigns funded by the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO), NATO, Facebook and hardline national security institutions. 

This “network of networks”, as one document refers to them, centers around an ironically named outfit called the Integrity Initiative. And it is all overseen by a previously unknown England-based think tank registered in Scotland, the Institute for Statecraft, which has operated under a veil of secrecy.
[..]

Source

Read on in part II..

Other sources:

https://www.moonofalabama.org/2018/12/the-strange-mind-of-christopher-nigel-donnelly.html

https://www.moonofalabama.org/2018/11/british-government-behind-secret-anti-russian-disinformation-campaign.html

https://www.ukcolumn.org/article/integrity-initiative-follow-money

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/12/british-security-service-infiltration-the-integrity-initiative-and-the-institute-for-statecraft/

 

[+Hammerclaw]

How disingenuous or naïve. You, yourself, are blathering and propagating  propaganda. Of course no reputable news agency would touch such a story. They're far too jaded by such nonsense and far less gullible than you. 

[Phaeton80]

3 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

How disingenuous or naïve. You, yourself, are blathering and propagating  propaganda. Of course no reputable news agency would touch such a story. They're far too jaded by such nonsense and far less gullible than you. 

Quite the emotionally laden response there.

Anyway, thanks for your valuable, constructive input. Oh and have fun with those 'reputable news agencies' you speak of..

 

[Essan]

So who'd even heard of the Integrity Institute, let alone read any of their reports, before they were publicised by the article the OP quotes?

If I didn't know better I'd say that was the whole point ......      But I think I'll stick to Russia Today, thanks  

[stevewinn]

@Phaeton80 do you know what the irony is, you've given up complex "real world" and built a simpler "fake world" run by corporations and kept stable by politicians, No longer believing in 'real world' events and inherent dangers you now believe the danger is here and can only come from within because after all the only ones who can cause us danger are those who protect us. the mindset you've developed is thanks to Western dominance of the political order.

 

[Phaeton80]

16 minutes ago, stevewinn said:

@Phaeton80 do you know what the irony is, you've given up complex "real world" and built a simpler "fake world" run by corporations and kept stable by politicians, No longer believing in 'real world' events and inherent dangers you now believe the danger is here and can only come from within because after all the only ones who can cause us danger are those who protect us. the mindset you've developed is thanks to Western dominance of the political order.

 

Thats an interesting theory which I will reflect on Steve, for which I thank you. You know whats funny is that all this negative, condemning feedback ('naive', 'maintaining a simpler fake world') is given based on the main OP statements / implications that:

- the West is just as active in propaganda efforts as our perceived (mass promoted / hyped) enemies are;

- the Western population has repeatedly (uncritically, 'in good faith') accepted narratives which are inundated with said propaganda while being blissfully unaware and / or lethargic to that fact;

- the Western population even does so after it is proven they were blatantly lied to in similar scenario's;

- there is no 'good side', no 'bad / evil side', reality is more nuanced.

See what I mean? There's a certain sense of comedy in responding to these points with labelling the author as being 'naive', or constructing 'a simpler fake world'. But thats probably my confirmation bias, cognitive dissonance acting up again.

Edited January 19, 2019 by Phaeton80

[RoofGardener]

I dunno Phaeton80... your whole premis appears to be based on a series of conspiracy-theory websites. (one of which, the cyberwarfare one, is showing Error404 when you click on your links). 

I've read your post three times now, and I STILL have NO idea of what it is that you're suggesting ? 

[bmk1245]

Phaeton80, have you seen Russian media? You will find there anglophobia, USphobia, ukrainophobia, latvophobia, estonophobia, francophobia, hollandophobia, croatophobia, etc etc etc every single day.

[Phaeton80]

12 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

I dunno Phaeton80... your whole premis appears to be based on a series of conspiracy-theory websites. (one of which, the cyberwarfare one, is showing Error404 when you click on your links). 

I've read your post three times now, and I STILL have NO idea of what it is that you're suggesting ? 

Really, even after the bullit point summary of (intended) OP points. Remarkable Gardner, remarkable.

Whats also remarkable, is that you seem to pride yourself in labelling any source that doesnt support, or re- enforce mainstream narratives, 'a conspracy theory website'.

I would pose that in this 21st century of ours, the only remaining 'real investigative journalism' can be found not in the main / massive media outlets, but in the smaller, independent media sources. Which is not to say 'unequivocal ready made truth' is sold there, what I am saying is that a near objective truth could be gleaned from them and others if the observer is able to think critically / objectively and, ofcourse, intelligently.

[RoofGardener]

You post contained no bullet points, Phaeton80. Just vague rambling comments about the Skripal affair, MH370 and the Ukraine. 

 

Well.. fine Phaeton80... if you want to mine the lunacy websites, knock yourself out.  

Edited January 19, 2019 by RoofGardener

[stevewinn]

@Phaeton80 you love a good conspiracy nothing wrong with that. but realise in looking for conformation that confirms you are correct, then the internet will provide it.

Im looking for conformation that all Cancers are curable, the Internet provides me with the fact that is indeed true. - but we know in real life its not true, but i believe, so it must be a conspiracy, "they" (doctors) who look after us are keeping it from us. Why? because cancer drugs cost thousands of pounds, and if the secret is exposed the pharma companies would lose billions.

sometimes what you believe and what's true is not the same thing.

[bmk1245]

15 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

You post contained no bullet points, Phaeton80. Just vague rambling comments about the Skripal affair, MH370 and the Ukraine. 

 

Well.. fine Phaeton80... if you want to mine the lunacy websites, knock yourself out.  

I'd suggest Phaeton80 to move to Russia, not to Moscow, but somewhere else, outside 100km from Moscowbad.

[Phaeton80]

12 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

You post contained no bullet points, Phaeton80. Just vague rambling comments about the Skripal affair, MH370 and the Ukraine. 

 

Well.. fine Phaeton80... if you want to mine the lunacy websites, knock yourself out.  

Erm.. yeah.

Quote

Thats an interesting theory which I will reflect on Steve, for which I thank you. You know whats funny is that all this negative, condemning feedback ('naive', 'maintaining a simpler fake world') is given based on the main OP statements / implications that:

- the West is just as active in propaganda efforts as our perceived (mass promoted / hyped) enemies are;

- the Western population has repeatedly (uncritically, 'in good faith') accepted narratives which are inundated with said propaganda while being blissfully unaware and / or lethargic to that fact;

- the Western population even does so after it is proven they were blatantly lied to in similar scenario's;

- there is no 'good side', no 'bad / evil side', reality is more nuanced.

There is nothing vague about the OP contents, and as it stands none of you falling over eachother to refute / lament this thread has even remotely adressed the actual content, referred to or otherwise. The only reactions thusfar dont go any further than labelling the OP author as 'naive', constructing 'false simplified realities', or reading into 'a conspracy theory' and or implying OP of being a conspracy theorist.

In fact, the reactions thusfar do nothing but underwrite what was posed in thesame OP, it seems.

[bmk1245]

4 minutes ago, stevewinn said:

@Phaeton80 you love a good conspiracy nothing wrong with that. but realise in looking for conformation that confirms you are correct, then the internet will provide it.

Im looking for conformation that all Cancers are curable, the Internet provides me with the fact that is indeed true. - but we know in real life its not true, but i believe, so it must be a conspiracy, "they" (doctors) who look after us are keeping it from us. Why? because cancer drugs cost thousands of pounds, and if the secret is exposed the pharma companies would lose billions.

sometimes what you believe and what's true is not the same thing.

(bolded)

Heck, Russians discovered new ways to fight car accidents... wait for it... with religious processions!

[RoofGardener]

9 minutes ago, Phaeton80 said:

Erm.. yeah.

There is nothing vague about the OP contents, and as it stands none of you falling over eachother to refute / lament this thread has even remotely adressed the actual content, referred to or otherwise. The only reactions thusfar dont go any further than labelling the OP author as 'naive', constructing 'false simplified realities', or reading into 'a conspracy theory' and or implying OP of being a conspracy theorist.

In fact, the reactions thusfar do nothing but underwrite what was posed in thesame OP, it seems.

Possibly because we can't actually detect any content ? 

If the post was intended to suggest that the British security services engage in counter-propaganda on the internet, and even attempt to penetrate Russian computer systems, then.. gosh...yes. But I don't think many people in the UK would find that either surprising, or reprehensible. 

Edited January 19, 2019 by RoofGardener

[bmk1245]

Really, Phaeton80, move to Russia from rotten Holland, I beg you.

[Phaeton80]

3 hours ago, bmk1245 said:

Really, Phaeton80, move to Russia from rotten Holland, I beg you.

Oh thats original; the old 'if you dont like it here, you can GT*O'. To claim the West is just as apt in seeding propaganda to further its aspirations, for rational, non conditioned adult individuals, does in no shape way or form imply such an individual 'wants to live in Russia', or even thinks 'Russia is good'. But leave it to the usual suspects to do just that, in response to OP claims of Western population being conditioned to behave in exactly such a way, no less.

Get some sense of rational, behave like an adult for once, I beg you.

[Phaeton80]

4 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

Possibly because we can't actually detect any content ? 

If the post was intended to suggest that the British security services engage in counter-propaganda on the internet, and even attempt to penetrate Russian computer systems, then.. gosh...yes. But I don't think many people in the UK would find that either surprising, or reprehensible. 

 

Now I dont know if your age is playing up here, but it seems to me there are some very clear points in the OP, which were repeated in a subsequent post, and reposted a second time for you personally. In addition, the OP contains several links forwarding to some articles with clearcut, easy to understand, straightforward, verifiable facts / information.

This, Gardener, is what is known as 'content', and what the OP 'intended to suggest' has, again, been made abundantly clear.

[Phaeton80]

4 hours ago, stevewinn said:

@Phaeton80 you love a good conspiracy nothing wrong with that. but realise in looking for conformation that confirms you are correct, then the internet will provide it.

Im looking for conformation that all Cancers are curable, the Internet provides me with the fact that is indeed true. - but we know in real life its not true, but i believe, so it must be a conspiracy, "they" (doctors) who look after us are keeping it from us. Why? because cancer drugs cost thousands of pounds, and if the secret is exposed the pharma companies would lose billions.

sometimes what you believe and what's true is not the same thing.

Yes, confirmation bias, I am aware of that concept. So tell me Steve, what exactly is the conspiracy theory I am adhering to - looking for confirmation for - in this thread, in your eyes? Why, if we take the Skripal event for instance, would accepting the official story not fall under that 'conspiracy theory' category, but questioning it - pointing out different unhealthy aspects / anomalies, not resorting to blaming any side - does? This alone should garner some food for thought.

Realizing the West is just as passionate and apt in disseminating propaganda like the projected enemies are lamented for enmasse does in no way equate confirmation bias. Yet, to react to someone pointing this out attempting to label him 'a conspiracy theorist', or 'someone who likes a good conspiracy theory', or someone seeking out only such information that confirms his paradigm.. Instead of actually adressing the content and discussing the veracity, level- and implications of Western propaganda efforts past & present.. well, that would indicate a certain discomfort in regards to the subject at hand; spurring such a person on to not give it the light of day, not take it too serious.. Which, in turn, is (a form of) conditioning.. I would think.

 

[RoofGardener]

38 minutes ago, Phaeton80 said:

 

Now I dont know if your age is playing up here, but it seems to me there are some very clear points in the OP, which were repeated in a subsequent post, and reposted a second time for you personally. In addition, the OP contains several links forwarding to some articles with clearcut, easy to understand, straightforward, verifiable facts / information.

This, Gardener, is what is known as 'content', and what the OP 'intended to suggest' has, again, been made abundantly clear.

Phaeton, the text of your post merely makes reference to Skirpel, MH17 and the Ukraine, with dark hints that the accepted stories on these events are somehow false. your links point to websites with gibberish conspiracy theories.

It's all smoke, mirrors and hints. Why not actually write out what you REALLY mean to say, rather than hiding it behind insinuation ? 

[Tatetopa]

5 hours ago, Phaeton80 said:

Whats also remarkable, is that you seem to pride yourself in labelling any source that doesnt support, or re- enforce mainstream narratives, 'a conspracy theory website'.

I am not endorsing Phaeton80's sources or viewpoint necessarily but I do notice an awful symmetry in the fact that many of his detractors are first in line to criticize the mainstream media and get their information from alternative right sites that love to hawk a profitable conspiracy.  It is not out of the question that Western powers use the same methods to discredit Russia. 

That doesn't say that Russia is the good guy in this.  Although when first confronted by the idea of Russia meddling in US elections, many conservatives poo-pooed the idea and even went so far as to say: :So what ,we do it too."  Even our President thinks Russia is innocent because Vladimir Putin said so.  The propaganda-gate swings both ways.

 

[RoofGardener]

16 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

I am not endorsing Phaeton80's sources or viewpoint necessarily but I do notice an awful symmetry in the fact that many of his detractors are first in line to criticize the mainstream media and get their information from alternative right sites that love to hawk a profitable conspiracy.  It is not out of the question that Western powers use the same methods to discredit Russia. 

That doesn't say that Russia is the good guy in this.  Although when first confronted by the idea of Russia meddling in US elections, many conservatives poo-pooed the idea and even went so far as to say: :So what ,we do it too."  Even our President thinks Russia is innocent because Vladimir Putin said so.  The propaganda-gate swings both ways.

 

Perhaps Tatetopa, perhaps. I just found the OP confusing, however. 

[Tatetopa]

18 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

Perhaps Tatetopa, perhaps. I just found the OP confusing, however. 

Can't disagree with that.

[bmk1245]

2 hours ago, Phaeton80 said:

Oh thats original; the old 'if you dont like it here, you can GT*O'. To claim the West is just as apt in seeding propaganda to further its aspirations, for rational, non conditioned adult individuals, does in no shape way or form imply such an individual 'wants to live in Russia', or even thinks 'Russia is good'. But leave it to the usual suspects to do just that, in response to OP claims of Western population being conditioned to behave in exactly such a way, no less.

Get some sense of rational, behave like an adult for once, I beg you.

Move to Russia, I beg you!!! You will have fun riding on the crap (literally) @5 mins

 

[Phaeton80]

15 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

Phaeton, the text of your post merely makes reference to Skirpel, MH17 and the Ukraine, with dark hints that the accepted stories on these events are somehow false. your links point to websites with gibberish conspiracy theories.

It's all smoke, mirrors and hints. Why not actually write out what you REALLY mean to say, rather than hiding it behind insinuation ? 

..With hints that the generally accepted stories are very possibly (partly) false, and very possibly against our combined interests, yes; that is a scenario this thread advises to seriously consider. (Yeah I know, shocking, right? 'Conspiracy theory nonsense', 'why dont you go live in Russia' and all that).

To which I continue to ask who amongst you have actually taken any real effort to objectively / critically review the material from both sides regarding these events. I would suspect very few of us actually have or would, which ties in with one of the bullitized points I provided (for those that were 'confused' about the OP).

Please be so kind as to point out which gibberish conspiracy theory you speak of here is linked in this thread, put up or shut up. The linked material is all based on fact, and is by no means 'a conspiracy theory'.

Heres a crazy idea; react to actual content instead of throwing around disqualifying terms against the author or the supplied links for a change why not. It might take some time to get used to, but you might actually grow to like it..