Theresa's troll factory smears Putin by association with antisemitic Anglo nutjobs

[Mycroft]

Originally Posted by Childlike Empress

...Includes direct connection to Pablo Miller, Sergei Skripal's handler and fellow Salisbury citizen. And Christopher Steele pal.

Tee hee, according to that writer, the big bad boogey-man Pablo Miller uses a hotmail e-mail account.

[Childlike Empress]

Well, nobody claimed that these people are intelligent, only intelligence. While we're at crude "accusing the other side of doing what we do" operations, and because some of the "slower" parrots here still throw the terms around, from b's latest:

Originally Posted by b

[...] [Institute for Statecraft Expert Team member Mark] Galeotti is the infamous inventor of the 'Gerasimov doctrine' and of the propaganda about Russia's alleged 'hybrid' warfare. In February 2013 the Russian General Valery Gerasimov, then Russia’s chief of the General Staff, published a paper that analysed the way the 'west' is waging a new type of war by mixing propaganda, proxy armies and military force into one unified operation.

Galeotti claimed that Gerasimov's analysis of 'western' operations was a new Russian doctrine of 'hybrid war'. He invented the term 'Gerasimov doctrine' which then took off in the propaganda realm. In February 2016 the U.S. Army Military Review published a longer analysis of Gerasimov's paper that debunked the nonsense (pdf). It concluded:

Gerasimov’s article is not proposing a new Russian way of warfare or a hybrid war, as has been stated in the West.

But anti-Russian propagandist repeated Galeotti's nonsense over and over. Only in March 2018, five years after Galeotti invented the 'Germasimov doctrine' and two years after he was thoroughly debunked, he finally recanted:

Everywhere, you’ll find scholars, pundits, and policymakers talking about the threat the “Gerasimov doctrine” — named after Russia’s chief of the general staff — poses to the West. It’s a new way of war, “an expanded theory of modern warfare,” or even “a vision of total warfare.”

There’s one small problem. It doesn’t exist. And the longer we pretend it does, the longer we misunderstand the — real, but different — challenge Russia poses.

I feel I can say that because, to my immense chagrin, I created this term, which has since acquired a destructive life of its own, lumbering clumsily into the world to spread fear and loathing in its wake.

The Institute for Statecraft's "Specialist in Russian strategic thinking", an expert of disinformation and hybrid warfare, created a non-existing Russian doctrine out of hot air and used it to press for anti-Russian measures. Like Ben Nimmo he is an aptly example of the quality of the Institute's experts and work. [...]

[Myriad]

Originally Posted by Childlike Empress

You are not funny. Which is offensive. In reality, people like me, who understand that the propaganda apparatus "the 'West" has built up is ridiculous, do for free what said apparatus is accusing "the other side" of doing professionally. Namely exposing the spin put on things by the mighty Wurlitzer. In reality, there's a crumbling Empire with unlimited amounts of cash in a situation where any truth shined on it is dangerous This news item is just one of the more and more frequent that come in and your lame, frightened post is just more evidence of. Ahem.

Wow. Nurse, let's get some more novocaine in here, in case I hit that nerve again.

Of course there's a crumbling empire. There's also more than one opportunistic scavenger helping it along. None is morally superior to the others. Propaganda is still propaganda, trolling is still trolling, and lies are still lies.

[Childlike Empress]

Instead of reporting about these issues, the repulsive clowns at BBC have now found another thing the leader of the free world has "weaponized" ... wait for it, Myriad: houmour!

Originally Posted by state-sponsored propagandists citing state-sponsored propagandists

Ben Nimmo, an Atlantic Council researcher [and former Institute for Statecraft "expert"] on Russian disinformation, told the BBC that attempts to create funny memes were part of the strategy as "disinformation for the information age".

[Childlike Empress]

Now this has been kind of discussed in the parliament. From today, both "Daily Record":

Tory minister 'misled Parliament' over Government-funded infowars attack on Jeremy Corbyn
Minister's flimsy defence of infowars attack on Jeremy Corbyn as embarrassing as Tory leadership farce

Originally Posted by John Ferguson

The organisation – run by military intelligence experts – is now being probed by the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator (OSCR).

Labour want a full independent investigation and the Tories claim they are reviewing its social media policies.

As you saw if you took a look at the leak, "anonymous" threatens to publish more if not that, a full independent investigation, will be conducted.

[Abooga]

Originally Posted by Mycroft

Yet when you read the actual documents they cite, the documents don't support their claims.

This document:

https://www.pdf-archive.com/2018/12/...nformation.pdf

Is a proposal to counter Russian disinformation and it outlines all the steps one would want to take to counter an organized disinformation campaign. Moon of Alabama (and similar sources) portrays it as its own disinformation campaign without citing any additional evidence necessary to make that jump.

Nowhere in that document is it suggested that they put out disinformation on their own to counter Russian disinformation.

When you consider that Moon of Alabama is very likely part of that very same Russian propaganda campaign they want to counter, its "analysis" becomes laughable.

So again, what you’re “exposing” is nothing more than the UK taking some steps to counter what we know the Russians are doing, only adding an alarmist and sinister spin to it.

I don´t really have the time nor means to investigate piece by piece the activities of the organisation in question. I rely on comments by blogs of independent journalists etc. and the picture they paint is of an active disinformation campaign, creating fake news etc. For example it is claimed that they created a false story about Assange:
https://twitter.com/AssangeLegal/sta...542548482?s=19
Is that true? Can someone with more free time than me check it?

If the organisation´s aim was to counter disinformation, it should be devoted to transparency, they would have no need for secrecy about their activities, and would welcome any exposition, they would no doubt produce a good catalogue of countered fake news that they´ve somehow challenged, the corrected wikipedia pages, whatever. Instead they seem to be reacting with concern and trying draw a blanket over it. Which looks suspicious to me.

[Mycroft]

Originally Posted by Abooga

I don´t really have the time nor means to investigate piece by piece the activities of the organisation in question. I rely on comments by blogs of independent journalists etc. and the picture they paint is of an active disinformation campaign, creating fake news etc. For example it is claimed that they created a false story about Assange:
https://twitter.com/AssangeLegal/sta...542548482?s=19
Is that true? Can someone with more free time than me check it?

If the organisation´s aim was to counter disinformation, it should be devoted to transparency, they would have no need for secrecy about their activities, and would welcome any exposition, they would no doubt produce a good catalogue of countered fake news that they´ve somehow challenged, the corrected wikipedia pages, whatever. Instead they seem to be reacting with concern and trying draw a blanket over it. Which looks suspicious to me.

Well, the woman who can be reached @assange.com and who links to the website justice 4 assange dot com has an obvious and declared bias towards Assange. This means she's going to be encouraging people to believe conspiracy theories where the UK government and the US government are the nefarious bad-guys.

[Mycroft]

In related news, Russia's troll army has been issuing anti-Mueller propaganda.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...D=ansmsnnews11

Surprise? No.

[Myriad]

Originally Posted by Mycroft

In related news, Russia's troll army has been issuing anti-Mueller propaganda.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...D=ansmsnnews11

Surprise? No.

But... but... there's a guy with a blog who says that's all nonsense!

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Childlike Empress

I am. You just can't see it.

Well it's nice of you to admit it now. It'll help with your credibility later on.

[Abooga]

Originally Posted by Mycroft

Well, the woman who can be reached @assange.com and who links to the website justice 4 assange dot com has an obvious and declared bias towards Assange. This means she's going to be encouraging people to believe conspiracy theories where the UK government and the US government are the nefarious bad-guys.

Ad hominems aside, what do you think about the second part of my post, that you didn´t address, why should a "counter-disinformation" organisation try to keep their activities secret? Unless they were engaging in disinformation themselves... It´s a genuine question.

[Lambchops]

This has to be the worst russian troll ever.

It's like they're not even trying anymore.

[Childlike Empress]

Originally Posted by Lambchops

This has to be the worst russian troll ever.

It's like they're not even trying anymore.

A so-called "Integrity Initiative" propaganda operation which uses British Tax Payer money to smear British politicians and meddle in affairs of "Western" countries is a "Russian Troll"? Pretty creative, aren't we?

[Lambchops]

Lol.

And how is Siberia this time of year? Must be pretty cold, right? Make sure you bundle up in some nice warm clothes.

Also; watch out for roaming packs of wolves.

[caveman1917]

Originally Posted by Mycroft

In related news, Russia's troll army has been issuing anti-Mueller propaganda.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...D=ansmsnnews11

Surprise? No.

Some random dude says so? Well then it has to be true... There's a war on for your minds sheeple!!1!1!11!!!

[caveman1917]

Originally Posted by Myriad

But... but... there's a guy with a blog who says that's all nonsense!

You seem to be misunderstanding the purpose of this forum. Some random dude claiming, without any evidence whatsoever, that secret groups of nefarious government conspirators are waging a war on your mind is what we call a conspiracy theorist. The "guy with a blog" who debunks it is what we call a skeptic. Can you guess what this forum is supposed to be about?

[Abooga]

It´s very difficult to know the truth in these kind of issues, where the waters are muddled, from all sides. I don´t blindly trust "a guy with a blog" but I don´t trust mainstream media either, when history shows that it has been repeatedly used to spread lies. Luckily there is a few tricks we can use in order to get a glimpse of what may be at the bottom of things. For example, in this (and in most cases) when you see that one side is opposing transparency and trying to obfuscate, you have something. This "Integrity initiative" is clearly not tasked with "countering disinformation" if they were they´d simply come clear and show what they do and how they do it. Only a few journalists and politicians seem to be the only ones trying to make this public and are faced with media silence and baseless accusations of being "at the service of Russians". To be honest, what this does to me is just strenghthening the image I have mainstream media being dishonest and just a propaganda tool.

[caveman1917]

Originally Posted by Abooga

It´s very difficult to know the truth in these kind of issues, where the waters are muddled, from all sides. I don´t blindly trust "a guy with a blog" but I don´t trust mainstream media either, when history shows that it has been repeatedly used to spread lies.

You shouldn't trust anyone, and definitely not blindly, this has nothing to do with trust. The only question is: What is the evidence?

Quote:

Luckily there is a few tricks we can use in order to get a glimpse of what may be at the bottom of things. For example, in this (and in most cases) when you see that one side is opposing transparency and trying to obfuscate, you have something.

A not-so-reliable heuristic, better would be checking previous instances of these conspiracy theories and asking "What was the evidence back then?"

Quote:

This "Integrity initiative" is clearly not tasked with "countering disinformation" if they were they´d simply come clear and show what they do and how they do it. Only a few journalists and politicians seem to be the only ones trying to make this public and are faced with media silence and baseless accusations of being "at the service of Russians". To be honest, what this does to me is just strenghthening the image I have mainstream media being dishonest and just a propaganda tool.

Why on Earth would you even bother reading/watching mainstream media? Or any general media for that matter?

[Abooga]

Originally Posted by caveman1917

You shouldn't trust anyone, and definitely not blindly, this has nothing to do with trust. The only question is: What is the evidence?

This seems to be the original leak:
https://www.cyberguerrilla.org/blog/...r-against-all/

An MP has requested an inquiry:
https://sputniknews.com/europe/20181...amson-inquiry/
Perhaps more will be known in the future.

Originally Posted by caveman1917

A not-so-reliable heuristic, better would be checking previous instances of these conspiracy theories and asking "What was the evidence back then?"

The flat dismissal of conspiracy theories is almost as stupid as the unskeptical belief in them, IMO. I stand by my heuristic, similar to the one that predicts the legitimacy and general goodness of a regime by looking at its regard towards free speech.

Originally Posted by caveman1917

Why on Earth would you even bother reading/watching mainstream media? Or any general media for that matter?

What do you mean? I´m not claiming everything on mainstream media are lies, just that it is heavily controlled and biased. Recognising those biases is interesting, and necessary. Alternative media has even more limitations and can be even less reliable...

[caveman1917]

Originally Posted by Abooga

This seems to be the original leak:
https://www.cyberguerrilla.org/blog/...r-against-all/

Yep, exactly, it's the evidence that matters.

Quote:

An MP has requested an inquiry:
https://sputniknews.com/europe/20181...amson-inquiry/

Irrelevant, other than to substantiate the authenticity of the evidence.

Quote:

Perhaps more will be known in the future.

But so much more could be known right now, you could go look up earlier instances of such back-and-forth claims - I'm sure it's not the first time such claims were made - and ask yourself the same question: "What was the evidence back then?" It's not hard to get more data right now so why just throw your hands in the air because a single heuristic - and not even a particularly reliable one at that - fails to give you more information at the present?

Quote:

The flat dismissal of conspiracy theories is almost as stupid as the unskeptical belief in them, IMO.

What makes you think I'm flatly dismissing conspiracy theories? On the contrary, I'm probably one of the few people here who doesn't hold CE's belief that the Bush administration did 9/11 against her. As far as I see it it's not like they wouldn't do it or anything so my priors are 50/50, and there's no evidence for or against so my posteriors are also 50/50 so I consider the ones who go "Bush didn't do it" equally wrong as the ones who go "Bush did do it." I was mostly just having a laugh at self-declared skeptics who will both flatly dismiss conspiracy theories about Western governments and unskeptically believe them about non-Western governments.

Quote:

I stand by my heuristic, similar to the one that predicts the legitimacy and general goodness of a regime by looking at its regard towards free speech.

I think your heuristic doesn't constitute evidence but merely an impetus for further research, just because one side is opposing transparency and trying to obfuscate doesn't mean they did it. It would set off one's "smell" but it wouldn't constitute evidence as such. Your other heuristic seems meaningless and not even relevant to the subject at hand.

Quote:

What do you mean? I´m not claiming everything on mainstream media are lies, just that it is heavily controlled and biased. Recognising those biases is interesting, and necessary. Alternative media has even more limitations and can be even less reliable...

Exactly my point, odds are that reading mainstream or alternative media actually makes you less informed so what's the point of engaging in the activity? This is the age of the internet, you can construct your own information filter on subjects which interest you, there's no need to rely on unreliable and biased filters (aka media).

[Mycroft]

Originally Posted by Abooga

Ad hominems aside...

What?

I'm sorry, I took you at your word that your issue was lack of time.

Towards the lack of time issue, it's good to be aware your source is partisan. That doesn't automatically make her wrong, it just means that if you want a ballanced understanding, you should choose instead non-partisan sources or failing that, at least also look at sources with different biases to become aware of opposing viewpoints.

If you were being disengenuous and really meant, "I think this partisan has the right of it but I'm too damn lazy to search for evidence so let's reverse the burden of proof and you prove her wrong instead..." then I wasn't volunteering to do your research for you. If you're too busy to make your argument then you don't make your argument. Simple.

Originally Posted by Abooga

..what do you think about the second part of my post, that you didn´t address, why should a "counter-disinformation" organisation try to keep their activities secret?

Is that what they did? I don't see evidence of that.

A lot of journalism isn't necessarily uncovering secrets. A lot of it is taking publicly available information and just representing it in a forum people typically go to for information.

Originally Posted by Abooga

Unless they were engaging in disinformation themselves... It´s a genuine question.

JAQing questions can seem genuine from the point of view of the person JAQing off.

[Abooga]

Originally Posted by caveman1917

But so much more could be known right now, you could go look up earlier instances of such back-and-forth claims - I'm sure it's not the first time such claims were made - and ask yourself the same question: "What was the evidence back then?" It's not hard to get more data right now so why just throw your hands in the air because a single heuristic - and not even a particularly reliable one at that - fails to give you more information at the present?[...]

Judging from previous leaks and government denials which have subsequently been proven to be true, I wouldn´t be surprised at all if the suspicions of this being a shady organisation engaging in "infowars" were true.

And I don´t know why you say the heuristic is not reliable, we have here an organistation that claims to be engaging in fighting disinformation, how would you do that as a democratic government funded organisation if not through exposure and transparency? Unless by "fighting disinformation" they mean fighting disinformation by spreading contrary disinformation or some such doublespeak.

Originally Posted by caveman1917

I think your heuristic doesn't constitute evidence but merely an impetus for further research.[...]

Me too. I never claimed it to be evidence. But it makes me curious, I find the media´s silence quite telling, so I decided to post here, see what the local skeptic snipers´ opinion.

Originally Posted by caveman1917

Exactly my point, odds are that reading mainstream or alternative media actually makes you less informed so what's the point of engaging in the activity? This is the age of the internet, you can construct your own information filter on subjects which interest you, there's no need to rely on unreliable and biased filters (aka media).

I´d love to know how to construct my own "information filter that doesn´t rely on media". How do you do that? Do you have your own civilian spy agency or something?

[caveman1917]

Originally Posted by Abooga

Judging from previous leaks and government denials which have subsequently been proven to be true, I wouldn´t be surprised at all if the suspicions of this being a shady organisation engaging in "infowars" were true.

Neither would I.

Quote:

And I don´t know why you say the heuristic is not reliable, we have here an organistation that claims to be engaging in fighting disinformation, how would you do that as a democratic government funded organisation if not through exposure and transparency? Unless by "fighting disinformation" they mean fighting disinformation by spreading contrary disinformation or some such doublespeak.

Because military intelligence is in a position where it's possible they'd "legitimately" keep some things a secret and "legitimately" also keep that a secret. Hence the CIA's "neither confirm nor deny" thing, it's the least informative position. Sure, it may set off your senses, but if it were reliable then it would be evidence rather than just a heuristic.

Quote:

Me too. I never claimed it to be evidence. But it makes me curious, I find the media´s silence quite telling, so I decided to post here, see what the local skeptic snipers´ opinion.

Why are you asking for opinion rather than evidence and/or argument?

Quote:

I´d love to know how to construct my own "information filter that doesn´t rely on media". How do you do that? Do you have your own civilian spy agency or something?

For every subject there is a set of academic journals and blogs (academic or otherwise, or similar sources like social media accounts) which, combined, provides a significantly higher filter quality for said subject than any general media, mainstream or otherwise. Such a set can be (approximately) constructed by combining most such sources and then dropping sources that are of low quality as evidence appears contradicting them, until you are left with a minimal but informative set which contains all relevant perspectives.

[JoeMorgue]

I know it's not true but in my head "Troll Factory" is literal and it's this conveyor belt in a factory full of steam and sparks and bunch of guys working at stations assembling actual internet trolls and I don't want anyone to tell me differently.

[caveman1917]

Originally Posted by Mycroft

Towards the lack of time issue, it's good to be aware your source is partisan. That doesn't automatically make her wrong, it just means that if you want a ballanced understanding, you should choose instead non-partisan sources

Can you give a non-partisan source? The only non-partisan source I've seen is the one Abooga linked to, the one with the leaked documents, which is obviously non-partisan since it does nothing but assert the data.

Quote:

or failing that, at least also look at sources with different biases to become aware of opposing viewpoints.

Well, we've had examples of sources biased from both partisan camps, MSN for the Western camp in your post and SputnikNews for the Russian camp in Abooga's post.

[Abooga]

Originally Posted by Mycroft

What?

I'm sorry, I took you at your word that your issue was lack of time.

It is. I´ll see if this Christmas Holidays I´ll get some time to read about Syrian and Ukranian war, Assange etc. media biases, that many of these alternative journalists often mention in relation to this issue. At the moment I can´t. It´s a lot of reading.

Originally Posted by Mycroft

Towards the lack of time issue, it's good to be aware your source is partisan. That doesn't automatically make her wrong, it just means that if you want a ballanced understanding, you should choose instead non-partisan sources or failing that, at least also look at sources with different biases to become aware of opposing viewpoints.

Everyone knows that, it´s just that your only reply to the issue raised by the source I quoted was pointing out its partisanship, with no comment about whether the content might be right or not. And the thing is that this particular partisanship would be warranted if the claims were right, and Assange were really a hero smeared by Evil Western Empire or whatever, so your mention of it would beg the question. That´s what we´d be engaging on in this thread, whether Assange and all these alternative media outlets are right or not...

Originally Posted by Mycroft

If you were being disengenuous and really meant, "I think this partisan has the right of it but I'm too damn lazy to search for evidence so let's reverse the burden of proof and you prove her wrong instead..." then I wasn't volunteering to do your research for you. If you're too busy to make your argument then you don't make your argument. Simple.

This is not a scientific paper but a public forum and I don´t necessarily have to engage in proofs all the time, I can also present interesting information, leads, links, related to the OP and see where they take us. If you don´t want to contribute please don´t add waffle to the thread just saying that you won´t do it. Waste of space.

Originally Posted by Mycroft

Is that what they did? I don't see evidence of that.[...]

Have a read:
https://www.mintpressnews.com/the-in...on-war/253014/

They don´t seem to welcome journalists very effusively. And as far as I know they haven´t offered a clear, transparent and comprehensive explanation about their activities either. Failure of communication or secrecy? As I say, secrecy should not be warranted if they engage in what they say they do...

[Abooga]

https://twitter.com/MElmaazi/status/...575465985?s=19

They even shut the door at an elected Labour MP that tried to visit them.

Note this comment by "quicktoes":

"Brave of you to fight your way through the mass of TV cameras, photographers, & international msm reporters camped outside.

......oh wait"

[Abooga]

Originally Posted by caveman1917

For every subject there is a set of academic journals and blogs (academic or otherwise, or similar sources like social media accounts) which, combined, provides a significantly higher filter quality for said subject than any general media, mainstream or otherwise. Such a set can be (approximately) constructed by combining most such sources and then dropping sources that are of low quality as evidence appears contradicting them, until you are left with a minimal but informative set which contains all relevant perspectives.

I´d love to see an example of such distillation about this subject for example. how would you do such thing avoiding all media?

[caveman1917]

Here's the full data dump. The earlier Scribd links seem to have been taken offline.

[Mycroft]

Originally Posted by caveman1917

Some random dude says so? Well then it has to be true... There's a war on for your minds sheeple!!1!1!11!!!

How does a senate report become a "random dude"?

[caveman1917]

Originally Posted by Abooga

I´d love to see an example of such distillation about this subject for example. how would you do such thing avoiding all media?

It's not about avoiding media on principle but about not relying on them as sources. They however sometimes link to their own sources, for example I'm guessing you got the source for the actual leaks through a link in some media report. So you'd still use media in that way, not as their own sources but as a way to build up your list of sources.

Then I'd add all the sources that have been linked to in this thread, then check all of those for links to their sources and add all those as well, and keep recursing like that until you've got them all.

Then check the comments on the sources you have (most will have the ability for people to comment on them) especially the primary ones. For example you find this comment on the primary source with the leaked documents:

Quote:

Dear Anonymous,

Many thanks for making this material publicly available.

Can you also provide the datestamps of the original files from which the PDFs were prepared, as this is helpful to our research?

Prof. Piers Robinson

So you google Prof. Piers Robinson which will then lead you to more sources to include. At that point, when you found actual academic researchers in the subject, you might also consider sending them an email asking for links to good sources.

When all that has been exhausted you top off your list by doing a couple of google searches, just search for terms related to the subject and see what results you get. You then do the same with google scholar and other academic search engines. By the end you should have a decent list of sources you can start distilling down.

[caveman1917]

Originally Posted by Mycroft

How does a senate report become a "random dude"?

You didn't link to a senate report. But even if you had, sources which are 1) partisan and 2) evidence-free are the lowest tier, they're simply useless and no better than "a random dude says so." I find it peculiar how you can read my statements above about how evidence is all that matters, and your own statements about using non-partisan sources, but then don't understand that a source which fails both of those conditions get rejected.

[Childlike Empress]

Originally Posted by caveman1917

You didn't link to a senate report. But even if you had, sources which are 1) partisan and 2) evidence-free are the lowest tier, they're simply useless and no better than "a random dude says so." I find it peculiar how you can read my statements above about how evidence is all that matters, and your own statements about using non-partisan sources, but then don't understand that a source which fails both of those conditions get rejected.

If you want a really good laugh check out the link in his signature.

[Abooga]

Originally Posted by Childlike Empress

If you want a really good laugh check out the link in his signature.

What´s that "German Marshall Fund" ? I´ve heard of the "Marshall Plan", but this is not the same thing, is it? It looks strangely similar to the "Integrity Initiative". Mycroft? Would you be so kind to explain?

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Theresa's Troll Factory sounds like a good name for the Cabinet

[Childlike Empress]

Originally Posted by Abooga

What´s that "German Marshall Fund" ? I´ve heard of the "Marshall Plan", but this is not the same thing, is it? It looks strangely similar to the "Integrity Initiative". Mycroft? Would you be so kind to explain?

They like to omit that their full name is "German Marshall Fund of the United States". It has historically been financed by some German money, but today it's just another US "think" tank that wants to take care that Europe stays under US hegemony. Fueling russophobia is always a welcome tool for that, even if it's so laughably stoopit as the stuff Mycroft promotes.

[Abooga]

Originally Posted by Childlike Empress

They like to omit that their full name is "German Marshall Fund of the United States". It has historically been financed by some German money, but today it's just another US "think" tank that wants to take care that Europe stays under US hegemony. Fueling russophobia is always a welcome tool for that, even if it's so laughably stoopit as the stuff Mycroft promotes.

So another opaque organisation similar to the "Integrity Initiative" then, whose pretended aims are to "fight disinformation" but who do it in such obscure unaccounted ways that they look that they are up to no good. So far nobody has given be an answer to what I keep asking, if these organisations are fighting disinformation, wouldn´t they embrace transparency and full disclosure of their work?

[Childlike Empress]

Originally Posted by Abooga

So another opaque organisation similar to the "Integrity Initiative" then, whose pretended aims are to "fight disinformation" but who do it in such obscure unaccounted ways that they look that they are up to no good. So far nobody has given be an answer to what I keep asking, if these organisations are fighting disinformation, wouldn´t they embrace transparency and full disclosure of their work?

Nah, you can't compare those two. First the GMF doesn't use tax payer money to do government propaganda, and second it's not secretive at all. Look at the "advisory council" and find usual suspect deep state goons like Michael Chertoff prominently. They have decades of open activity with prominent speakers behind them.

What's laughable is that they give their name for this complete nonsense website. Check their methodology page and then look at the "dashboard" again. It's just completely untransparent gibberish where they likely just put in what they don't like and want to blame on "Putin" at any given moment. An insult to intelligence, and I don't mean spooks this time.

[Childlike Empress]

Work in progress summary on what is known about the "Integrity Initiative":

http://syriapropagandamedia.org/work...ity-initiative

[Her Dark Star]

Institute for Statecraft is a small academic group, public website here https://www.statecraft.org.uk/about-us
On the surface there's absolutely nothing of special note about them, they publish fairly obscure papers and don't appear to have any terribly wide-reaching capability, however since the accusation that they were involved in smearing the opposition the Foreign Office (who provides some of their funding) has started an investigation into their activities:
https://www.parliament.uk/business/n...or-statecraft/

At the moment there doesn't appear to be much evidence to support the claim, but maybe they'll find something.