One of the first rules of a smear or distraction campaign is that it doesn’t have to make sense. It just has to concur with what everyone’s saying. Just like the Russian hacking conspiracy. It also has to fit the narrative. In boxing there is a term called ‘working the blind side and keeping them (your opponent) busy. It’s a good metaphor in this instance. Since Brexit in the UK and Trump winning the presidency many are now becoming familiar with the concept.
Nearly two years into the #Russiagate scandal, accusing people of being in league with Putin has become an almost daily feature of news coverage.
On Brexit, in December 2016 Labour MP Ben Bradshaw said “Moscow’s likely interference in the vote would fit a pattern of meddling in other nations’ affairs, following the CIA’s accusation that Russian hackers tried to influence the recent US elections.
Speaking in the Commons debate on Aleppo, Mr Bradshaw also claimed that the huge flows of migrants into Europe had been deliberately encouraged by Russia to destabilise the EU.
He said: “I don’t think we have even begun to wake up to what Russia is doing when it comes to cyber warfare.”
It all sounds very sinister
Then there was the US election (even though there is scant evidence of this.) This is from Breitbart in December 2016 .
There is actually no new information leading the CIA to its conclusion.The New York Times reports: “… it was an analysis of what many believe is overwhelming circumstantial evidence — evidence that others feel does not support firm judgments” In other words, someone only decided after Trump won that the accusation was worth making .
The FBI and CIA cannot agree on motivesThe CIA is not making public claims that Russia hacked the election.Despite left-wing “fake news,” there is no evidence Russian hackers actually distorted the voting process.
The most that the CIA is alleging is that the Russians may have helped hack of the Democratic National Committee emails, as well as (possibly) the emails of Hillary Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta.
There is zero evidence Russian hackers messed with voting. Ironically, Green Party candidate Jill Stein’s recount has eliminated any doubt about the integrity of the results.
Julian Assange and Wikileaks have vigorously denied that the Russians were involved in Wikileaks’ disclosures.
The accepted explanation for the “Russian hacking” story is that it is “fake news” that suits the left-wing media. It is not unknown for Russia to use false propaganda to affect public opinion in foreign countries. Nor is it unknown for the U.S. media to use bias, “fake news,” and outright lies to shift public opinion in this country. The current focus on Russian “hacking,” based on no new evidence
But still the story persists.
This ‘Russians are under the bed’ insanity has progressed to the point where an anti-Russian documentary won an Oscar and host Jimmy Kimmel proudly declared, “At least we know Putin isn’t rigging this competition!”
Now, in the UK, an ex KGB spy has been poisoned along with his daughter in Salisbury. While I have no reason, yet, to suspect anything other than what has been circulated on the news networks, the suspected cause seems convenient.
These are still early days, but MSM in the UK is already ramping things up. SPY chiefs have briefed Theresa May that Russia is the prime suspect for the attack on Sergei Skripal, using a rare and almost untraceable poison on him. Preliminary toxicology tests by military scientists at secret research centre Porton Down ruled out nuclear material or a nerve agent.
But last night they were still unable to “definitively” identify the poison, suspecting it to be a hybrid of thallium. Its wide-ranging symptoms are often suggestive of other illnesses, and it also has the added bonus of being very hard to trace – meaning Porton Down experts may not know for sure what was administered to the colonel for weeks, or possibly ever.
The British government intends a ‘robust’ response if evidence emerges of Russian state involvement in the incident. Summoned to Parliament for an urgent question from Tom Tugendhat, the Foreign Secretary said:
‘Although it would be wrong to prejudge the investigation, I can reassure the House that, should evidence emerge that implies state responsibility, Her Majesty’s Government will respond appropriately and robustly…’
Labour MP Emily Thornberry asked how Britain might continue to pull its weight on sanctions once it has left the European Union. Boris replied that ‘with our American friends, (democrats?) we are making the case that it is time to bring the Russians firmly to heel. There is no doubt that there is a great deal of anxiety about what is now happening’.
This begs the question, anxiety from whom and from which quarter?
Johnson further argued that Britain has had the most robust responses to Russia over the past few years, including ‘consistently’ arguing for the extension of sanctions. He closed by saying ‘to governments around the world that no attempt to take innocent life on UK soil will go either unsanctioned or unpunished’, and later described Russia as a ‘malign and disruptive force’.
The Russian Foreign Ministry’s spokeswoman Maria Zakharova told the Russia’s Govorit Moskva radio station as she commented on the British Foreign Secretary’s words. “This is just some sort of insufferable absurdity,” and “Such statements by the head of a Foreign Office are just absurdity.”
Zakharova went on to criticize Johnson for rushing to implicate Russia in the incident before the investigators voiced any clear conclusions concerning the nature of the incident, disregarding all “legal procedures, investigation and respect for laws.”
“How can a person, who is engaged in foreign policy and has nothing to do with law enforcement, make such statements? What is the basis of all this?” she wondered rhetorically.
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov dubbed the poisoning a “tragic situation” but insisted about it: “We don’t have any information”.
He also mocked campaigners for pointing the finger of blame at the Russian government, saying: “It didn’t take them long.” The accusatory finger was pointed at everyone’s favourite bogeyman a little too quickly.
If we leave aside all the sabre rattling, this has all the hallmarks of obfuscation. We saw it when Trump got elected, we saw it when the UK voted to leave the EU. And now we are seeing it as the prospect of the UK walking away with ‘no deal’ and being free to strike trade agreements under WTO terms. The deep state, whoever they may be, seem intent on pushing this congruous narrative. And as people begin to wake up to it and become more discerning the push will become more insistent.
Why do they want to ‘keep us so busy’ and ‘work the blind side’ I wonder?
Author page https://t.co/o9naCq00BB