Tag Archives: lies

They never said it…

Ever notice how people will use certain phrases to preface an opinion or statement, and when they do you can almost predict what will follow?

Most people know this example:


Here’s one you’ll get from conspiracy theorists:

“Here’s something the mainstream media doesn’t want you to know about…(TOTALLY BULLSHIT CLAIM OR CLAIM THAT IS REAL BUT THE “MAINSTREAM MEDIA” REPORTED IT EXTENSIVELY)”

This one’s limited to certain political circles but it’s still a good example:


Lastly one of my favorites from regime supporting Russians:


Well readers, I believe I’ve found a new one, and it goes like this- when a Russian politician or diplomat begins a sentence with “We never said…” rest assured that they almost certainly said exactly the thing they claimed they never said, or they may have even gone further. Thus far I only have two examples, but they are major ones and these people are getting so predictable that we should probably look forward to hearing more.

The first example came from Putin, at his yearly press conference last December. At the previous year’s press conference Ukrainian journalist Roman Tsymbaliuk asked Putin how many soldiers and mercenaries he’d sent to Ukraine. Putin flat out denied everything, though implicitly admitted the existence of “volunteers” who supposedly couldn’t be called mercenaries because they were not being paid. The latter is bullshit on both counts; they certainly are paid one way or another, and even if they were not paid any sort of salary they’d still rightly be called mercenaries. This year Putin made what amounted to an admission, with the following quote:

“We never said there were not people there who carried out certain tasks including in the military sphere.”

In fact Putin and many others had made this claim and gone even further, denying that they were organizing, financing, and arming the “rebellion” in the Donbas in any way. The only thing they would admit to was sending “humanitarian aid.”

Recently we got another example of “We never said,” this time from the Russian foreign ministry on the topic of Syria. Special thanks goes to Twitter user and geo-locator Reggae Mortis for catching these lies and making these pictures:



The fact is that the Kremlin and its media have continually spread the talking point that the “moderate rebels” are a Western-concocted myth and that the opposition to Assad consists of radical Islamists, first Al Qaeda and then ISIS. However, at times when they need to point out what a great power Russia supposedly is, they will allude to their cooperation with those very same moderate rebels who supposedly don’t exist in an attempt to show the West that they should cooperate with Russia.

I think we can expect more of this in the future. Western leaders will accuse Russia over something they are obviously doing, Russian leaders will feign total bafflement, asking for proof long after plenty of proof has been provided, and then later they will make an admission prefaced by “We never said…(THING THAT THEY CERTAINLY SAID NUMEROUS TIMES).” The worst thing about this tactic is that it actually tacks on another massive lie onto the one in question. If Putin had admitted to some kind of military personnel in the Donbas, serving in a military sphere, he wouldn’t have been lying then, and the “We never said we didn’t have…” statement wouldn’t have been a lie either.

Here we have an interesting difference between politicians from functioning democracies and the Kremlin. In the former, there’s this concept of credibility; you want your lies to sound believable. Or, even better, you lie by omission by using really obtuse or contrived language. This isn’t necessarily good per se, but when you hear this you know that they are lying or otherwise distorting the truth and more importantly, you know that they know it. They care about making it difficult or impossible to debunk their lies. In that way they show some respect for your intelligence.

With the Kremlin (and no doubt a lot of other similar regimes in the world), this concern for credibility doesn’t exist. In fact, looking at Kremlin media it would seem there is no concept of credibility at all. For example, Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov recently expressed a very creative interpretation of the Budapest Memorandum, the 1994 agreement which guaranteed Ukrainian territorial integrity in return for Ukraine giving up its nuclear weapons (yeah, they had those). The problem with this is that the full text of the Budapest Memorandum is available online for anyone to see, and it’s not particularly ambiguous. Indeed, the article I linked to above notes this as well:

“What does it say about the mendacity of Russian diplomacy and its contempt for international opinion when the foreign minister says something that can be proven wrong with less than 30 seconds of Google fact-checking?”

I’ll answer that question. It says they live in a fantasy realm. They are disconnected from reality, from the very concept of reality, and therefore any attempt to negotiate with them in good faith is really pointless unless you take this into account. Otherwise you’ll constantly find yourself being dumbfounded as they tell you they never said something they actually did say, sometimes word for word, numerous times.







Merry Christmas! Your present: Pro-Kremlin Op-ed Template

Recently in the process of writing an article I was overtaken by morbid curiosity and actually started reading some Sputnik articles. Then I became even more masochistic, and I went over to look at RT’s Op-Edge section. I’ve noticed that nearly every story you run across can essentially fit into one of a few categories. You have your stories about what a great leader Putin is, and how the West is unjustly demonizing him. Then you’ve got your stories about how the Western media lies about Russia all the time. Then there are a lot of stories about how the EU is bound to collapse any moment, just like it has been poised to do for at least a decade now according to doomsayers. Lastly, there are stories about how the US has fucked up the Middle East. At least there’s some truth to those, though it’s usually coming from a ridiculously one-sided, hypocritical position.

After subjecting myself to reading a few of these, I decided to make a special template that you can use to make your own pro-Kremlin op-ed piece. Simply fill the gaps with timely details where necessary.

The Western media lies about _____________

Recently the Western media has been crowing hysterically about something Putin or Russia did. Of course they would say that- the Western media always lies about Putin and Russia. Obviously their whole “story” is nothing but information warfare and totally untrue.

We know their claims are untrue because they are contradicted by official statements from the Russian government, which denies them completely. Also, here are some opinions from people we labeled as “political analysts” and other Russian state-owned media which also contradict the claims made by whatever we are arbitrarily dubbing “the Western media.”

Of course if their claims were true, they would still be justified because the US did something like this one time, and that was bad. Putin’s actions are no different than that example, except that it is morally right when Russia does it whereas the US was still morally wrong for doing the same thing.

Also I have to wonder why the Western media even covered this, while not covering this long list of other things that don’t involve Russia. Could it be they have a deliberate agenda to accuse Russia of things she did not do, or if she did them, things that were totally justified?

Here I’m going to pick out the most ridiculous Western commentator I can find, and then I’m going to take his most inflammatory, idiotic comment about Russia or Putin. I’m going to easily debunk this low-hanging fruit, then I’m going to insinuate that his or her opinion represents the entire Western media consensus as a whole, even though a casual Google search would reveal plenty of differing opinions among what I arbitrarily label the Western or mainstream media.

Here’s an example of an article I found in the same “Western media” which supports my point of view. I’m going to focus on this and use this to vindicate my claims, totally oblivious to the fact that if my “information war” claims were true, this kind of diversity of opinion shouldn’t exist in the Western media. I’m also going to ignore the obvious fact that I’m more than happy to cite Western media and believe it so long as it appears to be supporting my point of view.

Now here’s where I explain the reasons why the Western media is constantly lying about Russia. Of course I’ll attribute it to the information war, which certainly exists as dozens of countries and their public and private media are directly manipulated against Russia by the United States. But that’s not the only factor.

The truth is that many Western journalists don’t know much about this subject, unlike me. In order to show my expertise, here are some random historical facts or some things I got verbatim from some Russian “geopolitical analyst,” which incidentally show no special insight into the topic in question, nor do they suggest that I have any more background in the subject than the Western journalists I’m attacking.

Now I’m going to go off on a tangent about some pet cause of mine, and in the process I’m going to praise Putin for his wise leadership compared to my own leaders, whom I can’t stand. I’m going to advance a false dichotomy whereby I label anyone who doesn’t agree with me and my slavish devotion to Putin as a “neocon” or “warmongerer.”

Lastly, here’s an oblivious paragraph where I again decry the mass of organizations I’ve arbitrarily lumped together as the Western media, and then hilariously lecture them on the importance of ethics and independence in journalism. I will bristle at the idea that someone might label me a paid Putin propagandist, simply because I’m paid by the Russian government and I constantly write fawning praise of Vladimir Putin while always taking the Kremlin’s side in any foreign policy dispute.



America Without BS

So I was browsing the headlines of Yahoo News and found this. Note the headline, which reads:
Massachusetts Father Mad Just Because Public School Teaches ‘There Is No God But Allah.’ Now this would be a flagrant violation of the 1st Amendment, were it not for the fact that the slightest examination of the article and its accompanying photo reveal that the school did not in fact “teach there is no God but Allah.”  In other words, Massachusetts father is an idiot, and the Daily Caller is apparently staffed by ignorant morons.

If one watches Fox New, there’s always some manufactured controversy about how Christians are supposedly persecuted because some atheist group forced their local school board to follow the pesky Constitution. In nearly all these cases, anyone with a gram of reasoning capability can easily surmise that the same people claiming persecution would blow their stacks if a Muslim group came into their kids’ school and put up a picture of the Kaaba or some other equivalent to the things Christians always want to see in public schools.  Just take a look at this video and tell me you don’t think these people would shit bricks if Muslims wanted to put up their own religious plaque in their local school.

This case in Massachusetts would seem to vindicate this claim, except in this case it wasn’t a matter of Muslims trying to bring Islam into the school. The article’s author goes to great lengths to conceal the fact that the passage in question, which is pretty unambiguous in spite of their attempt to crop out as much context as possible, clearly refers to the beliefs of Muslims, using part of the adhan or call to prayer as a summation of that belief. It could have been more concisely presented in the shahada, the Muslim statement of faith which anyone wishing to convert to Islam must pronounce: “I bear witness that there is no God but Allah(God), and Muhammed is his servant and prophet.”  In any case, it is clear from the photo in the story that the book in question does not “teach Islam,” but rather it is a history book explaining the beliefs of Muslims.

It is clear beyond any shadow of doubt that efforts were made either by the author or the editor to conceal the true nature of what happened at this school. The author ignorantly says the book’s passages about Mohammed are “rah-rah,” as in supportive of Mohammed, and that the book claims the pagan Meccans used to kill baby girls before they converted to Islam after the Muslims conquered that city. Well I’m very sorry, Daily Caller, but those claims about Mohammed reported by the history book in question are indeed true, including the claim about female infanticide. Infanticide was commonly practiced in many European cultures, along with human sacrifice, until the spread of Christianity in many places. The story about Mecca becoming a corrupt and lawless place until Islam took over is essentially true and agreed upon by all scholars in the field. Of course in reality, Islam has failed to fully eliminate many pre-Islamic practices all over the world, and in many cases it has been twisted to justify such tribal or traditional practices. The fact that Islam was overwhelmingly positive for the Arab peoples is beyond debate, however.

As for the question of a pro-Islamic slant, this is simply nonsense.  Mohammed, much like Jesus, was a reformer. He appears in a decaying society with a new message and originally the effect is very positive. Of course eventually Islam, like Christianity, turned into the religion of a state and later an empire. That’s when the spiritual doctrine gets shackled to the needs of the ruling class.  In any case, I doubt this father would have been angered by a historical passage which read thus: “During the reign of Tiberius, a man named Jesus of Nazareth preached a message of peace, charity, and a personal connection to God. After being crucified, Jesus’ followers claimed he rose from the dead, and that his sacrifice on Earth would bring eternal life to anyone who believed in him. This belief can be seen in the Biblical passage John 3:16…”

This is not teaching Christianity. This is teaching about Christianity. Ditto for that history book text on Islam.  So what we have here is a deliberate attempt to create a scandal where one does not exist. The lie begins with the headline. It’s basically “Dog bites man” when in fact nobody got bitten at all. Just something to keep in mind when we criticize the Russian press I guess.