Agitpropr – Agitatsiya Propaganda or “Agitation and Propaganda” – refers to international, vigirous promulgation of Communist ideas. The term originated in Soviet Russia where it referred to popular media with an explicitly political message in favor of communism. Origin of the term was in Communist Party’s Department for Agitation and Propaganda, which was part of the committees of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. Agitation referred to work among people who were not Communists, and propaganda was political work among the party members. Russian agitprop explained the ideology and policies of the Communist Party and attempted to persuade the general public to support and join the party and share its ideals.
This is precisely what the Western mainstream media do. They promote Marxist-Progressive ideas and ideology, and do not allow facts and truth to get in the way. Nowhere is this more obvious than in their anti-Trump campaign, which was based around three lies.
First lie was that Donald Trump is a Russian agent. Of course, Democrats knew this was a lie as early as 2016., when Hilary Clinton first used it against Trump. But the mainstream media never allow facts to get in the way of a good libel, and only in autumn of 2020. did some of the media admit that the story was a lie.
Second lie was that Joe Biden’s son was innocent. This was something which all the media admitted after the elections. But their first reaction was to attempt to censor it. Major social netwoks blocked this text, as well as the institutions which had shared it. Only a month after Biden had gotten elected did media start writing about Biden Jr. being investigated for tax evasion. The only reason they did confirm it at all was that Joseph and Hunter Biden admitted it.
Third lie was that pro-Trump states had more COVID-related deaths than those opposed to him. But in the end, it turned out that the states of New York and New Yersey had falsified their accounts, and that these two – heavily Democratic – states have the highest number of dead per capita.
Of course, it is not just about Donald Trump – and it is not always intentional either. Much like the myth of the inefficient, incompetent Holy Roman Empire or Byzantine Empire, unconscious biases dominate modern thinking. This is especially true in the West, and doubly so among the Western progressives. Things such as democracy, tolerance, human rights and so on are deeply enshrined in Western liberal thought.
Russia is being treated as a neo-Soviet autocracy for not conforming to the Western political and ideological ideals. Assuming for a moment that the accusation is true, is the West really in a position to complain? Western political and ideological tyranny may not be as obvious and direct as Soviet one was, but that makes it no less extant. Most of what we see today in the West is nothing but adaptation of Communism. “Hate speech” is little more than Communist “verbal delict” given a nicer skirt. “Human rights” exist, but only for certain “protected groups” – everyone else can go suck a rock. “Tolerance” is there, but not for the “intolerant” – i.e. anyone disagreeing with the Progressive ideology.
There is a contrast between the “closed” Soviet Russia and “wide open” United States. The narrative is that Putin’s Russia forbids foreign scholars and international organizations, does not allow independent media or independent nonprofit groups. By contrast, United States allow wide Russian influence.
But this again is a false narrative, and almost the same as was pressed against Croatia in 1990s. Key difference between United States and Russia is that Russia is on defensive. International organizations, independent media and independent nonprofit groups are not really independent. All of them are in service of the same class of banksters and plutocratic tyrants, who use them to subvert countries to their will and install Marxist-Progressive ideology. Russia indeed does have low tolerance for the opposition – but the West has none. There is literally no opposition in the United States, or – with few exceptions – anywhere within Europe. Even the lukewarm, controlled opposition such as UKIP was slandered repeatedly, and true opposition simply is not allowed to exist. Where, by luck, it does exist – as in Hungary and other Central European states of the Visegrad group – it is forced to adopt extreme measures merely to defend itself and its people from constant attacks by the Marxist globalist establishment.
And Russia, while autocratic, is nowhere as much as the states controlled by the Western Progressivism or other Marxist ideologies. Russian autocracy calls back to Tsarist times, when the state was respectful of individual and collective rights, established social and political boundaries, and when the Church, nationality and self-governing institutions served as informal constraints on Tsar’s power far more effectively than elections constrain modern-day Cathedral, or even just formal national governments.
Likewise, West rejects the notion that a regime that does not pretend to be democratic can be legitimate. According to the narrative, legitimacy is only granted through (fake) elections between two or more candidates (all of whom are, of course, controlled by the deep state and influenced by the Cathedral). A ruler such as Franz Joseph could not therefore have been legitimate, regardless of the widespread popular support. But in reality, such regimes can have widespread popular support, and thus be fully legitimate. Conversely, there are multiple ways in which an elected government can be illegitimate.
Western media spent time running a propaganda campaign against first Moamer Gadafi and then Bashir al-Assad. Holocaust was used to deny logic and provide emotional fuel for support of intervention in Syria. But as was quickly proven first in Iraq and then in Lybia, any alternative to al-Assad would be far worse. As CODOH notes, “Assad’s opponents include men who are notorious for eating the liver of their slain opponents, destroying important ancient cultural monuments, enslaving non-Muslim women, and committing mass murders based on religious sectarianism”. Assad is guilty of everything, while his opponents and the West itself are exenorated. Yet fostering of religious extremism – a charge levied against Assad – was long a tool of the Western imperialism in the area. Promotion of Islamism was used to subdue any expression of nationalism or national consciousness. But this was never even mentioned in any mainstream media, while attacks against Assad mounted.
It was said that Assad’s forces systematically tortured and killed civilians in Aleppo, and attempted to destroy the city. Usage of the parachute-deployed barrel bombs appears to have been a deliberate choice to allow civilians to escape the blast area. Americans even admitted that civilian casualties are a fact of life in such situations, but in keeping with their time-honoured tradition of double standards, the West never applied this fact to treatment of either Croatian forces in the Operation Storm, or to treatment of Assad’s forces in Syria – both of which had to fight with far more primitive technology than what US and Western powers in general have available. Croatia was guilty because it destroyed the multiethnic “dream” of Yugoslavia, Assad was guilty of resisting the West – and that’s it. Truth and facts do not matter, only ideology does.
Assad’s regime had sought chemical weapons as an inexpensive way of countering Israeli nukes, as did other Arab states. And in all cases, West responded in the same way, accusing the Arab regimes of gassing their own people. In this way, a simple good versus evil narrative could be created. Yet as usual, the truth is different. No evidence had been found of Assad’s forces using chemical weapons, but the evidence of anti-Assad forces using them is plenty. One example is cited below:
Theodore Postol, a professor of technology and national security at MIT, reviewed the UN photos with a group of his colleagues and concluded that the large calibre rocket was an improvised munition that was very likely manufactured locally. He told me that it was ‘something you could produce in a modestly capable machine shop’. The rocket in the photos, he added, fails to match the specifications of a similar but smaller rocket known to be in the Syrian arsenal. The New York Times, again relying on data in the UN report, also analysed the flight path of two of the spent rockets that were believed to have carried sarin, and concluded that the angle of descent ‘pointed directly’ to their being fired from a Syrian army base more than nine kilometres from the landing zone. Postol, who has served as the scientific adviser to the chief of naval operations in the Pentagon, said that the assertions in the Times and elsewhere ‘were not based on actual observations’. He concluded that the flight path analyses in particular were, as he put it in an email, ‘totally nuts’ because a thorough study demonstrated that the range of the improvised rockets was ‘unlikely’ to be more than two kilometres. (S. Hersh, “Whose Sarin?”, London Review of Books, 19 November 2013)
Fake gassing incidents were used to pull US back into anti-Assad posture a few days after Trump administration announced that it had no interest in regime change in Syria. This included the gassing attack at Khain Sheikhoun, where improvised gas device used by rebels was presented as an evidence of usage of gas weapons by the Assad regime. Al-Assad was also accused of building an “industrial killing center” – a clear invocation of Nazi death camps such as Auschwitz-Birkenau. Photos by “Caesar” were used to support this narrative – which is obviously ridiculous, as a photograph can easily be misrepresented and misinterpreted even if it is not staged or falsified to begin with. But the Holocaust narrative is today used to justify all kinds of agression – from ideological to physical aggression.
Yet Caesar was a long-term anti-Assad activist, from 2011. or even before. Comittee that was supposed to check and validate Caesar’s evidence merely rubber-stamped it through, without bothering to do any research. And it was comprised by war crimes prosecutors, who are almost invariably politically motivated and controlled, and also psychologically predisposed against people seen as war criminals as well as in favour of intervention. Yet nearly half of Caesar’s photos show the opposite of what was alleged. Fact is, photographs of unidentified corpses and stories told by alleged witnesses do not constitute proof of systematic killing.
These are but few examples of how mainstream media serve the political agenda. If one is interested in more examples, he or she needs but read through this blog and compare it to reporting by the mainstream media.