Russia Today Forced to Register Under Foreign Agents Act

By Brandon Martinez

Russian propaganda channel RT has finally registered under FARA, a US law requiring companies to identify themselves as agents of foreign governments.

RT is clearly little more than Putin’s personal tool to propagandize the West into his personality cult. RT’s Western-based pundits are whining about the US government pressuring RT to register under FARA, hubristically complaining about “freedom of speech” being suppressed.

These are the same traitorous pundits who vigorously cheer on the Putin dictatorship (as well as other tyrannies like Venezuela, Iran and North Korea) which has monopolized virtually all Russian media under Kremlin control, forcibly shutting down or taking over numerous stations that weren’t towing the Kremlin’s line. That’s in addition to assassinations of journalists critical of Putin, like Anna Politkovskaya and others from Novaya Gazeta. Neither were any of these hypocrites complaining when, in 2014, Russia blocked Voice of America from broadcasting in Russia on grounds that it is “subversive propaganda”. The LA Times reported on that:

The Russian government has cut off broadcasts of Voice of America after a leading state media figure denounced the U.S. government-funded radio as “spam on our frequencies.”

VOA’s contract with the Russian media oversight agency wasn’t renewed after it expired at the end of March because the Kremlin could no longer tolerate “its subversive, sanctimonious, self-serving propaganda,” the Voice of Russia said in its account of the cutoff.

A 2014 US embassy statement on the lack of media freedom in Russia noted that:

“In the last year, the Russian Government has passed laws imposing unprecedented censorship and restrictions on media and online publications,” the embassy statement said. “In the past few months alone it has blocked independent websites and blogs; turned the respected news wire service RIA Novosti into a propaganda service; denied visas and accreditation to foreign professional journalists; and forced leadership changes at several media outlets simply because those outlets dared to challenge the Kremlin’s extremist policies.

One pundit lamenting RT’s new status as a foreign agent was Marcus Papadopoulos, who is very likely a Russian active measures agent directly in the pay of the Kremlin. Papadopoulos is a run-of-the-mill Marxist apologist for every Third World dictatorship under the sun who has developed a special affection for the Putin and Assad regimes. This lousy traitor appears regularly on RT to parrot the Kremlin’s script. Jeremy Corbyn caused a scandal by recently dining with Papadopoulos. Corbyn, the radical leftist leader of the British Labour Party, is notorious for his own affections for Putin and apologism for Islamist terrorists in the UK whose actions he blames on “racism.” Essentially, Corbyn wants to coddle terrorists so they don’t attack British civilians.

Papadopoulous and the whole pro-Putin brigade of Western pundits are loserish opportunists who use RT to build their alt-media brands while RT uses them to forward Russia’s expansionist foreign policy in Eastern Europe and the Middle East.

It’s amazing how both the alt-left and alt-right push the same line on Russia, and even North Korea, touting these despotic tyrannies as our saviours or at least our friends. That shows clearly how Kremlin money has bought off elements of both the far-left and far-right, using them as useful idiots for Dugin’s satanic Eurasianist agenda to Bolshevize half of Europe.

About Brandon Martinez

A prolific writer, historian and social commentator, Brandon Martinez is a 21st century counter-cultural heretic and rebel intellectual for the new European Reconquista.

View all posts by Brandon Martinez →

19 Comments on “Russia Today Forced to Register Under Foreign Agents Act”

  1. Demonization of dictatorships or monarchies implies that liberal internationalism is correct and neoconservative regime change is somehow good. Prior to the 20th century, most societies on the planet were traditional monarchies, military juntas, one party states or oligarchies. In France and Britain, in the old days suffrage was restricted to the educated, opulent tax paying members of society. So these egalitarian democracies in the Western Europe and North America are quite new, recently forged, not that long existing as the masses think. There are always other ways of organizing society than egalitarian liberal democracy. Why should Russia, Iran or Syria have the same system of government as USA or Britain do? Neither Iran nor Syria nor Russia ever in their history had such system. They developed no such political traditions. It might not be possible for any of them to be like Britain or USA. Besides democracies like Libya and Iraq are failed states. Rulers like Assad or Saddam Hussein were far more lenient and benevolent for Christians than democratically elected islamist regimes. It should be remembered that the first democratic revolution in the Middle East was the Young Turk revolution, which had a side effect in the genocide of the indigenous Greek, Armenian, Assyrian christian communities of Anatolia and Syria. The democrats in the Middle East have the tendency to be more murderous than the monarchs or the dictators. Most societies on the planet are low trust societies, which might require some sort of authoritarian rule to ensure law, order and security.

    1. No it doesn’t. It just implies that the media mouthpieces of these dictatorships are total hypocrites when they criticize the West for what is much worse under those regimes. Your argument is that dictatorships should never be criticized simply because that’s how most societies were organized 500 years ago? So why then condemn the authoritarianism of Marxists who seek to put “anti-Semites” and “racists” in jail for their speech, if authoritarianism is what you prefer?

      Head over to North Korea or China if you prefer to be a slave to a one-party dictatorship, thrown in a gulag or killed for voicing an opinion that doesn’t conform with their state cult.

    2. Moreover, you contradict yourself in touting Baathist dictatorships as a better alternative to Islamists, as if Islamists are “democratic”. If you side with authoritarianism then Islamist monarchies like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, etc., are your best bet, being the least democratic states in the world. Baathism is similar in its authoritarianism but without the religious bent. So why would you condemn authoritarian Islamists while praising authoritarian Baathists? And why all the sudden concern for “minorities” like Christians in the ME when you’re opposed to minority pandering in the West? Shows the reverse arguments you use when promoting foreign regimes: you use liberal arguments to pump up these Baathists vs. the illiberal Islamists while promoting the opposite for the West. So you’re opposed to the West imposing liberal philosophies abroad yet you praise Baathists on liberal grounds (they’re more tolerant of minorities) and condemn Islamists on the basis that they’re illiberal towards religious minorities. Get your story straight.

  2. Saudi Arabia and Qatar were for the Arab spring, not against them. The royal family of Qatar promoted every single democratic revolution in the Middle East. The Muslim Brotherhood are the democratic islamists financed by Qatar. Al Jazeera is for democracy, except when in Qatar. Support for christian communities in the Middle East is not a liberal issue, but a practical question of justice. The Greek, Armenian, Assyrian christians are indigenous populations which have been in Turkey, Syria and Iraq for hundreds or thousands of years. The muslims in European countries are recent economic migrants. Why should migrants be taken in if the christian populations of the Middle East are being driven out or massacred? Most liberals or leftists do not say anything about these christians, only people like Dewinter, Strache, Le Pen or Farage raise this issue.

    1. What the hell does it matter how Islamists come to power? Once they’re in they elect to establish total theocracies based on religious law. That’s not “democracy,” so your claim that Islamists are bad because they’re “democratic” is totally stupid. The Assad pushers use liberal arguments to defend him: that he’s “tolerant” of minorities and oversaw a multicultural, pluralist Syria. It’s totally comical to see rightists supporting Assad on those grounds while they would sneer at such policies in the West. The Assad cult is just another fad adopted by brainwashed pro-Russian wing of the right. It’s basically them watching RT and parroting its narrative. They tout Assad simply because he’s a puppet of Russia. Why do you care about Middle Eastern Christians? Do you defend Black and Hispanic Christians in the same way? Should we welcome Black and Hispanic Christians into Europe?

  3. Factions within Islamists believe in democracy, other factions do not. The Muslim Brotherhood officially does encourage democracy in it’s party program, the Young Turk Party believed in democracy, and Erdogan believes in democracy. Black or Hispanic Christians need no activism, they already got it. Middle Eastern Christians are to a large extent descendants of Greeks, Armenians, Assyrian. The first white people with civilization. Turkey, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq were historically multicultural and diverse. European societies were not that way historically. Assad compared to the other rulers in the region is a decent man. How many Greek, Armenian, Assyrian christians are around in democratic Turkey? (Turkey is a western country by the way, a NATO member, EU candidate and stuff like that) The indigenous Christians in Turkey got genocided in the 20th century. There were more Christians around in Iraq before 2003 than now with Iraqi freedom and democracy. Reality is more complex than the standard neocon/libtard line “democracy is always good, dictatorship is always bad”.

    1. What’s your point? You tried to degrade democracy by linking it to Islamists in an effort to say dictatorship is better, yet Islamists believe in a total authoritarian theocracy. If anything they would only use democratic means to attain power and then dissolve the democracy. So, if you fancy authoritarian systems, then it makes no sense to rag on Islamists. You should be praising Saudi Arabia as a great example of authoritarian monarchy.

      Erdogan is a dictator who silences all his critics and opponents, and jails all his opposition. If he were a genuine “democrat,” he wouldn’t be doing any of that. I didn’t claim democracy is always better than dictatorship and it’s not necessarily a question of democracy that we’re talking about. You could have a different system like a Republic that has more libertarian laws on things like free speech than an actual democracy that has hate speech laws. Voting a party into power does not mean it won’t turn out to implement authoritarian laws. Democracy is not synonymous with freedom. There are democracies that are very strong on law and order. So the idea that only a dictatorship can provide stability, law and order is bogus. But at least with a democracy there’s a pretence of freedom of speech and the press, a fair trial in a court of law,etc., whereas in a dictatorship you’re basically screwed and have no options if the dictator decides to come for you.

      Middle Eastern Christians are by and large not white. There are small remnants of whites in the mideast but it’s negligible. In any case they’ve been so heavily Arabized culturally speaking that they’re not really part of our people anymore. If you want to do a social justice crusade for Christians in the Middle East then be my guest.

      Your fetish for Assad is misplaced. Assad is just a run-of-the-mill Arab dictator running a clan-based system. He’s nothing special and nothing worth cheering for. In any case his issues in Syria have nothing to do with us and we shouldn’t care about that Semitic squabble. If you think your life would be better under Assad than in the West then you should go there. These whites fetishizing on Assad are the same as white converts to Islam who join ISIS. They’re lost souls looking for a cause and have lost touch with their own people.

  4. Finally a correct move. RT is anti-American trash, has always been. Showing baby pic of thug Trayvon Martin to rally the blacks against the police was far from it’s lowest moves. Apology of Stalin, hysterical use of inflammatory terms like “racism/fascism/supremacy” etc.- no low is too low for RT. Their motto is “let’s show all the ugliness in American – and only American – society.” No wonder Dugin loves it. Next should be Telesur/PressTV and the like. PressTV is pure Islamo-Communism.

  5. Brandon casually calls Iran evil, haha, you know it’s one thing to have an epiphany at 22 and start advocating the opposite of what you did just before. I don’t think this second time around that can work in any way for you, bro. I have been stating for months now, that it was but a matter of time till you start lumping Iran in with other western enemies
    What most alternative recipients don’t understand is that in the alternative media pundits support a side such as the west by not criticizing it and then questioning the patriotism of those who show empathy for the bankers declared enemies
    No, you don’t get a pass. You are too intelligent to get away with this obvious left-right food fight you advocate that at the same time ignores the real enemy. and no, you can’t make up for that by in another time and place, criticizing the real enemy for street cred. Alex Jones has even been known to occasionally blame Jews. It’s a shame, the ppl could use a real talent such as yourself but you were never one with “the people” were you

    1. Iran’s national chant is, “Death to America”. But we’re supposed to embrace them as our friends while they root and pray diligently for the West’s downfall? I think you should put on your hijab and move to Iran, ya retarded Sabbath Kaffir. You’re part of the pro-Muslim kook brigade, but you’re not even willing to go fight for the Muslims who own you. Rather, you just shill for them on your kooked out tabloid. Sad fool!

    2. Brendan O’Connell (who is now apparently missing from kikernet) puts forth an interesting argument in his March, 2017 video: “IS THE IRANIAN REVOLUTION A FRAUD?”

      https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jN8NGTpNtFQ

      Brendan lived and sought political assylum in Iran and according to his story found the “Islamic Republic” strangely unwilling to delve into what many of us consider primary Jew awareness material. More cryptos? You decide. But the cozy relationship between Russia and the State of Israel, Putin and Netanyahu, implies a compromise exists with Iran, which seems very much like a client state to Russia.

      “Roman” here is, as his name implies, a shill for the emergent Eurasian bloc of totalitarian supposed ethno-states, united under the new “Holy Roman Emperor”, Putin. He will receive that title after he annexes Europe to save the “White Race” from “Jihadists”. Pope Francis (designated one of the top 50 Jews in the world by the Jewish Forward), a Jesuit and a Freemason will coronate Putin, and give him the title of “King of Jerusalem” as well, a title previously held by Holy Roman Emperors.

      “Roman” is just here to troll and proselytize for the JWO.

  6. Iran has some historical reasons to dislike the west, in particular Britain tried to take control of Iranian natural resources multiple times. Well, Paul Julius Reuter and British Petroleum tried to grab those resources. There used to be a time before 1980 when there was no such chant in Iran. The Iranian Shah liked most americans and europeans for great civilization and culture. Valid reason too, but this author also hates authoritarians, which include the Iranian Shah, who used his intelligence agency SAVAK to crush troublemakers for monarchist regime. But surely the Iranian monarchy was better. For the author that is still bad regime, it rejected democracy! (Any traditionalist monarchy would do so). For sure enlightened authoritarians such as HIM Muhammed Reza Pahlavi are better than islamist clerics. But the author contradicts himself, one cannot have all things at once and instead politics is art of picking the lesser evil or the least bad. If Iranian Shah used extreme police brutality against any rioters and had his secret police SAVAK assasinate as many opponents as possible instead of attempting compromise, there would have never been an elected clerical Islamist regime in Iran. But for the author an authoritarian secular regime with secret police would still be somehow bad.

    1. And the Persian empire conquered and killed millions. Should the victims of Persian imperialism chant “death to Iran” today? Moreover, the Shah and Ayatollahs murdered thousands of their own citizens to shore up their rule, so why are Iranians not chanting for the deaths of their own leaders who have killed more Iranians than the West ever has?

      You whine about British Petroleum taking Iran’s resources yet then praise the Shah who allowed them to do it. You are just full of contradictions.

      Yes I don’t randomly cheer for authoritarians just for the hell of it. Seems to me that you worship anything and anyone that has power. If authoritarianism is always good then you might as well root for Antifa to take power in America and install their Bolshevik dictatorship.

      So why are you so anti-American and anti-Western? America and the West manage to maintain dominance in the world, yet you just rag on the West. If power is what you worship than you should be pro-American and pro-West. Shows that you’re really just an anti-Western shill cheering on any dictatorship that thumbs its nose at the West.

  7. What? In truth Antifa could be anarchists or democratic party supporters. Many in government are not against them. Much of the media is not against antifa. What revolution? They already have some power. The Shah began to criticize Britain later for stealing resources. There are videos of that. He was powerless initially or needed some support from Britain for something. Reuter and British Petroleum grabbed those resources long before him. The Shah was a complex, contradictory man. But he was decent at heart, he was a secular, progressive authoritarian leader. He tried to modernize Iran by decree within a few years. Give him kudos for being daring. I am not anti-american nor anto-european, just happen to be anti-liberal and skeptical of democracy. It is wiser to accept Iranians and Middle Eastern societies as they are and not want them to become liberal like the modern west is. The historical trend is that political discourse in the Middle East was always violent. Turkey is a democracy with regular elections, but it also had frequent coups, assassinations and secret police prisons. It is an impossible demand for Turkey, Iran, Iraq or Syria to have same kind of political tendencies as Western Europe, Canada or USA have now. And are those contemporary western political tendencies always a good thing for the average American or British man? It would be positive for USA and Britain to stay white, but that might mean less liberalism, not more. Domination of liberal ideology lead to gay marriage, open borders, extreme feminism, low birthrates and degenerate modern art. Middle Easterners are low trust societies where authoritarianism is a necessary feature for law, order, security. Preservation of secularism in Turkey, Egypt and Iran required intervention of army and secret police. The minute the clamping down by army and secret police weakened, islamists crept into power through democratic elections. Their political trends are unique and different. Better to accept them as they are.

    1. You support authoritarianism of all stripes, so it’s only logical you would cheer for leftist authoritarians as well, which you do in places like North Korea and Venezuela.

      You again contradict yourself by praising the Shah, who was essentially a liberal (socially speaking) by middle eastern standards. You’re against liberalism for the West but support “secular, progressive” dictatorships in the mid-east that make their countries more Westernized and in line with Western liberal standards towards women, gays, minorities, etc. Moreover, the Islamists in Iran came to power in a violent revolution/coup, not by voting. So your “Islamists are democrats” line is bunk. Even if they were, how does that prove anything one way or another about the system of democracy, which was invented by Greeks not Muslims. This is so dumb.

      I don’t really care about the middle east so it doesn’t matter to me that all those countries are despotic hell-holes. I don’t want to physically “change” them but I may criticize them from time to time if I feel like it.

      You’re just a dictator-bootlicker waving virtual pom poms.

    2. Lmao, Roman. Accept Middle Eastern societies? I was sensing that you might be an Islamophile and you’re probably the same person I’m suspecting from earlier who was talking about how whites should take in non-whites to ‘make up’ for their own low birth-rates and demographic declines.

      In case you weren’t aware, about half of Muslims in the West support Sharia law. You can also find many Muslim countries where much higher numbers of Muslims support Sharia law, like Pakistan, for example. Well, Sharia law is not compatible with non-Muslim societies, to say the least. Throughout the history of Islam, they’ve had major problems with every non-Muslim culture they’ve come into contact with. This means Buddhists, Pagans, Hindus, Zoroastrians, Yazidis, Sikhs, Christians; amongst others. Even within Islam there are so many conflicts and these go far beyond the simple Sunni and Shia conflicts because under both of those branches, there are all kinds of different sects who disagree with and fight with one another. Christianity was a major religion in the Middle East before Islam came along. It isn’t any more and it’s actually getting close to being on the verge of extinction in the ME. Living as a Christian in a Muslim country means you’re a second class citizen or worse. Sharia law means you don’t abide by the host cultures’/nations’ laws, but by your own laws. They really don’t give a shit about non-Muslims laws. Islamophiles just can’t seem to bring themselves to understand simple shit like this. Even in Iran today there are independence parties as well as ex-Muslims who want nothing to do with Islam and they want to go back to the way they were before they were conquered by Arab Muslims. Gotta be very careful about criticizing the ruling regime and Islam though because Islam is not about accepting criticism.

      Yeah, ANTIFA could be anarchists until they get the kind of government/ruling system they want in power. They can be “democratic”? I think we’re using different definitions of what ‘democratic’ means, but what they’re really about is the empowerment of the proletariat (“minoritaaay” groups) and the disempowerment of the bourgeois.

  8. Quoting the LA Times? Really? Makes sense, because there’s nothing in this article that I couldn’t have read in their one of their editorials. Why don’t you go write for them, you’ll have a more receptive audience.

    Traitorous, indeed! Traitorous to what? No Russian ever called me deplorable.

    1. I take it the Russian troll handbook instructs you to make ad hominem attacks on sources rather than addressing the actual information or arguments presented. So no Russian called you deplorable and this proves what exactly? No Chinaman ever insulted me so I should love and support the Chinese government now?

      Come up with something better next time. This is just pathetic.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *