You need, I think, to consider RT's agenda, and the message, the narrative, the Russian government is trying to promote.
RT has two broad aims -- first, to promote particular Russian foreign policy objectives, and second to discredit liberal democracy and the rule of law as cynical myths promulgated by corrupt "globalists" and their puppets.
The overall message is "Everyone's in it for themselves, and western politicians are no exception. They're just as bad as their Russian counterparts, if not worse, and complaints about human rights abuses and corruption in Russia are nothing but hypocritical propaganda by an equally corrupt liberal and cosmopolitan elite."
When it comes to the US, Russia has, it seems to me, several goals.
First, the Kremlin wants to weaken US power and influence, and undermine the whole post-war Western alliance, and anything they can do to re-elect Trump obviously helps that no end.
They also want to disrupt the elections as much as possible, to discredit the whole democratic process, so will do all they can do to disrupt the campaigns, with Democrats fighting amongst themselves, by amplifying conflicts within the Democrats to depress the Democratic vote.
This not only helps to re-elect Trump, their favoured candidate, but also helps discredit the whole idea of liberal democracy as a model that other countries might follow (and, to be fair, the US at present is hardly much of an advertisement for the system at the international level).
So, to my mind, the "activist reformer" who is considering an offer from RT needs consider it even more carefully than she or he might when considering an offer from Fox or OANN, asking him- or herself why, exactly, the station wants to broadcast and amplify their views and how it intends to use them to support Putin's goal of a greater Eurasian federation dominated by Russia.
To my mind, there are plenty of other platforms and media the "activist reformer" can use to promote his or her views where they won't be co-opted to suit the agenda of Russian fascism and a greater Eurasia, so they should use them.
They should avoid RT just as they should avoid Fox, and for similar, but even more urgent reasons. I had dealings with Putin and people like him back in St P thirty years ago, and those guys are very scary indeed. They're extremely smart, completely amoral and ruthless, and as far as they're concerned, if you take their money, you're theirs.
Best not to have nothing to do with them, really -- one of the reasons I got out of Russia when I did is that, had I not, then whatever I thought of the matter, people to whom no sane person wants to be indebted would have thought I owed them some favours, and they're not people you want to have coming to collect, they really aren't.
I appreciate your response, but you are not answering the fundamental question about where the line is between "disinformation" as described in that piece and patriotic dissent, honest critiques of our system. It's not about RT, really, it's much bigger than RT. Anyone who has the temerity to criticize the one party that is supposedly supposed to be working on behalf of the people to do better is tarred as useful idiot of the Russians because of Trump. Any notion of actually holding these leaders - especially those who have been there the longest and those who happen to also be black - is just "being divisive," as opposed to advocacy for real people's causes with the only major group with whom they would have any hope of negotiation.
It is a given that Putin is a nasty guy and I take it pretty much as a given that you're right that you don't want to deal with them if they think they own you. But I will also say that the unfortunate objective truth of this portion is not wrong:
The overall message is "Everyone's in it for themselves, and western politicians are no exception. They're just as bad as their Russian counterparts, if not worse, and complaints about human rights abuses and corruption in Russia are nothing but hypocritical propaganda by an equally corrupt liberal and cosmopolitan elite."
That would be objectively true when it comes to much of US foreign policy. Libya, Syria, much of the Middle East and all of Latin America would likely tend to agree. It would be somewhat different when it comes to domestic policy, but after a couple of weeks of broad-daylight lynchings and the murder of a black EMT in her own home following decades of little accountability for police shootings, ON TOP OF the abysmal response to a pandemic that has seen black and brown deaths at double the rate of everyone else and treating black and brown lives as expendable sacrifices, it's not as easy to draw distinctions.
But this is much bigger than that. It's on full display here; if you don't agree you must be from "the RT forums." That's just scared party loyalist bullshit.
For the past three years, anyone that has threatened to withhold their vote in exchange for policy has been painted as a "Russian bot trying to divide us." This image of the spoiled, white, male "Bernie Bro" and people under the influence of Russians have been scapegoated to explain Hillary Clinton's loss instead of taking a hard look at why people who voted twice for Obama would either leave the top block blank, vote for Trump, vote third-party (still a valid option in a democracy) or not vote at all.
It's a convenient lie, weaponizing sexism and some racism, considering that the demographics of who doesn't vote is largely people of color, who are poor or working class. It's made dissenting people of color invisible. Democrats and their media apparatchiks - many of whom are black, because blacks are the spine of the Democratic Party's voting base - have been pushing this lie instead of pushing for material changes that would bring the actual people who don't vote out to vote. There has been no accountability, and party loyalists keep it that way, acting reflexively to defend the party instead of pushing it to do better, as we have just seen illustrated in the response to Charlamagne tha God. It's been a very educational exercise in seeing the limitations of white guilt. When sellout Clyburn pushed Biden and waves of blacks voted for him, we were chided to respect their choices because they're black and they earned the right to express their choices. But now when people like Charlamagne and Diddy come to Biden with receipts, demanding policy commitments, they are told that they're being divisive and should just shut up, because Trump. Whataboutism...
This is rich:
Whataboutism is not a valid arguement.
Whataboutism is the only argument why people squash dissent and push Biden, you use it regularly. Pick one side of your face and stick with it.
People like Angela Rye and Joy Reid had the nerve to get on TV to call the people behind the American Descendants of Slaves (ADOS) movement Russian bots because they wanted to give their votes to people who would materially improve the lives of their people and would withhold it otherwise. That's just smart politics; why would you give your vote away for nothing? And people like Brian did that here, calling them a hate group because they encourage people to not vote,
ignoring the context of the demand that came with the vote and describing it as if it were not voting for the sake of not voting.
One of the few shreds of power people have in this corporatocracy is the vote, and it's the only way to hold politicians accountable. If you are not willing to withhold your vote, you incentivize being ignored. But because of the Republican bogeyman, for decades, we are told to hold our nose and vote for the lesser evil to the point where now we have Biden on, who has a hard time communicating and is otherwise is stuck in the 90s, a symbol of the institutional racism of our system. And he's running the exact same playbook as 2016, campaigning on morals when he's so bought and corrupt. If it wasn't for covid, he would be losing in a landslide. So people try to shame others for not voting or not voting the way they like, instead of demanding better from the candidate and the party instead. That's so deranged, it's no wonder we have such a demented candidate out there now. It's not even about Bernie. If this is the guy you're putting up, make him and the party worth voting for! And not just to vote against some bogeyman. But no... instead, people prefer to squash dissent rather than engage the ideas on their merits and act accordingly.
Where is the line between patriotic dissent, to move the party in a more favorable direction, and "disinformation"? You can't on the one hand be all friendly with black activists and yet pull this Russia bullshit when black people speak up to demand more. I can't see touting friendships with activists when you put people in power who have no priority in this lifetime let alone the next four years to move the needle on healthcare, propping up the immoral two-tiered blowjob to the insurance companies that we have. Dissent is extremely patriotic, otherwise we would still be under the English crown.
www.theguardian.com
www.evernote.com
