It's time for an alt media reset

What's the point of alt media if it's as obtuse and needlessly divisive as CNN?

If they can do it, we can too!

This is a blog post I’ve been meaning to write for a long time. Recent events have compelled me to sit down and finally type it.

This will be a long and at times possibly vexatious blog post, but I promise you that if you read until the end, there is a message of hope, and a blueprint for a brighter tomorrow, at least on the internet. So please stay with me…

There is a fun new meme spreading across “pro-Russia” Telegram channels, and certain corners of Twitter: “Russia is withdrawing from the WHO! It’s finally happening!”

The source for this exciting viral claim is a Politico article titled, “Russia takes first steps to withdraw from WTO, WHO.” It is dated May 18, 2022.

I am not sure if the people who shared this article were aware that it was more than a year old. Possibly they knew, but nonetheless thought it was somehow still relevant to Moscow’s relationship with the World Health Organization.

If that was their assumption, I’m saddened to report they were very wrong.

First, if anyone actually took the time to read this article (it seems almost nobody did), they would have quickly discovered that it was not detailing an initiative from the Kremlin, or the Health Ministry, or the Foreign Ministry. Politico reported on comments made by State Duma Deputy Speaker Pyotr Tolstoy, who announced he was exploring options, at the legislative level, which could potentially lead to Russia’s withdrawal from the WHO and the WTO.

Absolutely nothing of substance came from this announcement, as this blog reported in excruciating detail more than a year ago. And, after following this story very closely, I continued to provide regular updates about Moscow’s abusive, suicidal relationship with Dr. Tedros.

I will refresh your memory:

• April 18, 2022: Will Russia dump the WHO? (My blog post about Tolstoy’s original statements about wanting Russia to withdraw from the WHO, published a full month before Politico’s report. I also detailed a grassroots campaign, launched by patriotic Russians, to pressure Moscow on this issue.)

• May 19, 2022: Lavrov to Tedros: Russia still likes you (THIS IS AN IMPORTANT ONE. In this article, we learn that the Russia government scoffed at the idea of leaving the WHO. The Health Ministry issued a statement saying “cooperation with the WHO is effective and mutually beneficial”, and in a call with Tedros, Sergei Lavrov “confirmed Russia’s support for the central role of the WHO.”)

• June 20, 2022: Israeli Pfizer shill, Tedros, pharma executives & Kremlin goons discuss “increasing Russian public trust” in clot-shots (Dr. Tedros, via Zoom, attended a panel discussion at the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum, which discussed fun topics such as “the trend of creating next-generation vaccines, with the prospect of using vaccine platforms in other areas of medicine”, and how to increase “Russian public trust in and awareness of the positive effects of vaccination.”)

• June 20, 2022: Russia & the WHO: Friends with benefits (Moscow was still sucking up to the WHO, even after this esteemed global health organization passed a resolution condemning Russia for “causing a serious impediment to the health of the population of Ukraine, as well as having regional and wider than regional health impacts.”)

• February 3, 2023: Russia's health minister is a WHO-loving schizo (Self-explanatory. He is, and I explained why.)

• May 30, 2023: Moscow’s WHO masochism (Detailing Moscow’s mostly disastrous performance at the 76th World Health Assembly in Geneva.)

• June 9, 2023: The Russians vs. the WHO: Good news, finally? (In this article I highlighted another grassroots effort to persuade Moscow to withdraw from the WHO.)

I skipped over about 10 other blog posts highlighting how Moscow was still happily cooperating with the WHO, even though that’s a crazy thing to do.

If you are interested in Putin’s personal statements and views about the WHO, I wrote about this topic in August 2022. In the same month, I published a very detailed report about the ways in which the SMO had changed (well, mostly had not changed) Moscow’s attitude towards various nefarious global organizations and agendas. It included a section on the World Health Organization.

As for the claim Russia was/is preparing to leave the World Trade Organization: I’ve seen no concrete evidence of this. On the contrary, Moscow has repeatedly stated it has no such intentions.

For example, on March 27, 2023, almost a full year after Tolstoy advocated for withdrawing from this organization, a representative from the Russian Foreign Ministry said:

The Russian Federation, as a member of the EAEU, is obliged to comply with the rules of the WTO, and withdrawal from it would deprive us of a number of advantages related to protecting the common market of the union from imports that are sensitive to our economy. Moscow is exploring all options for participating in multilateral trade, analyzing the balance of benefits and costs of full membership in the WTO.

At the same time, we proceed from the fact that there are reasons to remain in the organization as a full member in order to maintain stable ties with developing states that are ready to continue cooperation on an equal basis and with mutual consideration of interests.

Well, maybe that’s a good reason to remain in the WTO. But it’s certainly not Moscow expressing its intentions to leave it.

It’s also worth noting that Moscow and Beijing have issued joint statements over the past year reinforcing their mutual belief that the WTO plays an integral part in creating the multipolar world order.

In February 2022, Russia and China pledged to “support and defend the multilateral trading system based on the central role of the World Trade Organization.”

During Xi’s much-celebrated visit to Moscow in March of this year, the two nations signed a document stating: “The parties intend to strengthen … dialogue on the WTO agenda, including its reform in order to increase the role of the WTO in global economic governance.”

It would be accurate to say Moscow and Beijing seek reforms making the WTO more amiable to their own visions for the global economy, but that’s totally different than Russia leaving the organization.

Actually, this episode reminds me a lot of that completely weird article that went viral, which claimed Putin was liquidating scientists and officials responsible for Russia’s COVID vaccines.

After I typed up a short “rebuttal” to this pure insanity, I received several messages chiding me for making it seem as if a huge number of people would believe such a ridiculous fairy tale. The problem is, a huge number of people did believe it. This raises very interesting questions.

Just to be clear: I do not blame Westerners for believing Moscow—despite all evidence to the contrary—was preparing to leave the WHO or the WTO. This misconception is 100% the fault of “alternative media”, which continues to ignore or misrepresent Moscow’s position on genetic vaccines, digitalization, SDGs, CBDCs, carbon credits, etc.—to sum up, the globalist agenda that is making life miserable for everyone, all over the world.

Which brings us to some recent comments made by Tom Luongo, curator of Gold, Goats, ‘N Guns.

Tom was very excited about Politico’s more-than-one-year-old report.

“So, about that ‘Putin is a closet Mother WEFer’ narrative put out by 6th columnists,” he triumphantly tweeted on June 17.

source: Twitter

All of the problems with “pro-Russia” punditry, helpfully condensed into one tweet.

Does Tom know that Russia’s so-called “6th columnists” (patriots from across the ideological spectrum who have been lobbying Moscow for years to abandon its globalist, neoliberal ways) hate the WHO, and are the ones leading the charge inside Russia against this murderous, global “health” cabal? Some of these Russians support Putin, and are hoping their president will see the light. Luongo either doesn’t understand who these people are and what they stand for, or he is knowingly misrepresenting their views.

Allow me to rephrase Mr. Luongo’s tweet: “Ha-ha! Russians who are working tirelessly to convince their government to withdraw from the WHO must be so angry, now that Putin is ‘taking the first steps’ towards leaving the WHO, even though I am citing an article that is more than a year old, which doesn’t mention Putin, and only serves as a painful reminder that his government doesn’t want to leave the WHO.”

Tom got everything upside down. Every word of his tweet represents the opposite of reality.

Second point: Like many other Western pundits who are allergic to even mild criticisms of Putin, Mr. Luongo has a habit of deploying strawman arguments to dismiss completely valid criticisms of the Russian government, which continues to pursue many policies that are indistinguishable from the technocratic schemes promoted by the World Economic Forum.

WARNING: If you have the audacity to question why Russia is basically mimicking what everyone else is doing, this means you think Putin is a WEF puppet, and gets his orders directly from Schwab via email each morning (or something; Putin doesn’t use email, just FYI). This is what Luongo apparently meant by “closet Mother WEFer”.

It’s true that some people (internet lurkers as well as pundits) believe Putin was a WEF Young Global Leader, and is still in close cahoots with Schwab—and not without good reason: Russia’s president was the keynote speaker at Davos 2021 (theme: “The Great Reset”). Putin used the occasion to advocate for “expanding the scale of [COVID] testing and vaccinations”. He also argued central banks should play a “key role” in ensuring “sustainable” post-pandemic economic growth. These sorts of statements are a bit worrying, no matter who says them.

Personally, I’m not comfortable with calling Putin a WEF puppet, mostly because this label is a bit vague, and I’m not sure what it entails, or how this “puppet system” functions. I would say the same about any world leader who has documented ties to Davos, or a long personal history with Schwab (which would include Putin, by the way).

Also: I don’t think Putin was a Young Global Leader (I explained why here), but I also think this is a red herring, as this hotly debated topic deflects from a far more important question: Is Moscow taking active measures to extricate itself from the Great Reset agenda, which is wrapping its slimy tentacles around our pale blue landfill, Earth? I would argue no, not really. I laid out my case in a piece I wrote for Unlimited Hangout in July 2022. The article only makes passing references to Putin (he’s mentioned seven times in total, including in a photo caption).

But, at the end of the day, Putin is still the president of the Russian Federation, and he’s ultimately responsible for Russia’s trajectory. Probably many poor decisions are made without Putin’s direct input, but as they say in Russia, “the ruble stops with him”. For example, it would be absolutely wrong to claim Putin was the mastermind behind Sputnik V and coercive injection decrees, but he is far from blameless, as I documented in a multi-part series.

I only bring this up because, when writing about Russia-related things, I am sometimes assaulted by pointed and devastating interrogations, such as: “You think CBDCs, cattle-tags, genetic injections, and various other space lizard projects are bad for Russia? What, you think Putin is Schwab’s lapdog or something?!?!”

No sir, I just don’t like clot-shots and cattle-tags. And I have no idea what is going on inside Putin’s noodle, or what he does behind closed doors (smoke hookah?). Do you know? Personally, I prefer to focus my energies on more concrete, tangible subjects—things that anyone with an internet connection can double-check and confirm for themselves.

Which brings us to another regrettable tweet by Mr. Luongo. (Sorry, I promise this blog post has a wholesome, constructive message—we’re almost there.)

His first tweet (the one that was the polar opposite of reality) received a fair bit of attention. One kindly Twitter user, who appears to be a cherished Slavsquat reader (hello, friend!), shared one of my links with Mr. Luongo, expressing hope that Moscow will renounce its love for PCR tests, gene therapies, and other unpleasant things.

Tom responded by calling your humble correspondent a “total 5th columnist”, who says nothing of value. Well, I’ve repeatedly acknowledged that bloggers are the lowest form of human life, but this 5th columnist stuff, Tom—c’mon, now.

source: Twitter

There are two things I want to address here, the second thing being by far the most important.

First, the less important thing: Even though I have written about this repeatedly—to the point where I’m sure you are all sick of it—I need to respond to this notion that Edward Slavsquat’s top secret mission is to present Russia as being Bad.

(Side note: While I object to this tweeter’s characterization of my work, I want to say thank you to him/her for reading my blog. Obviously I encourage this individual to consider many different views, and make up their own mind about what the heck is happening in Russia.)

Back to the first thing: Actually, this blog (mostly) documents policies that are harmful to the Russian people, as well as Russia’s national security. Whenever possible, I also highlight efforts being taken to reverse these troubling developments.

But sometimes I also share stories about getting drunk and meeting Russia’s #1 chess player (which has been freed from its initial paywall, so you should read it). You never know what you’re going to get here at E. Slavsquat.

Russia & mystical acceptance of things-as-they-are

It’s true this blog could not be described as “pro-Kremlin” or “pro-Russian government”—but I don’t know why that would be a bad thing in “independent alternative media”?

Honestly, I thought the entire point of “alt media” was to hold all governments of the world to the same standards (something Western mainstream media definitely doesn’t do)? Or am I mistaken?

So, for example, if the United States government is pushing unproven, dangerous genetic injections on its citizenry, surely we should also call attention to the fact that the Russian government is doing the exact same thing? This seems very logical to me, especially if people believe the Russian government isn’t doing this—which is a widely held view, and also incorrect.

Sputnik V: What you're not being told

Edward Slavsquat is “pro-Russia” in the truest sense of the word: It critically examines events in Russia, raising awareness about issues that Russians are upset about—issues that are very similar, if not identical, to the issues that are probably haunting you, inside your own country.

There really shouldn’t be anything controversial about any of this, and if you think this blog is unfairly critical of the foul things that the Russian government does on a regular basis, you should see what Russian alt media, and about 10,000 Russian Telegram channels, publish.

The mere fact that alt media in the West bears almost zero resemblance to alt media in Russia should, in an ideal world, encourage disaffected Westerners to rethink what being “pro-Russia” means. That’s just my opinion, though.

Everyone I don't agree with is a 6th columnist

Anyway, at the end of the day, I’m simply relaying what patriotic, concerned citizens of the Russian Federation are saying about their own country. Is that a crime? (Yes, of course.)

Seriously, friends: Why should it upset people to know what Russians, inside Russia, are saying about Russia? Is it because these Russians are all devious 6th columnists, working tirelessly to undermine the unimpeachable virtue of the Russian State? Or maybe it is for other reasons, reasons that might be uncomfortable for some people to come to terms with?

That is my response to those who say this blog is “anti-Russia”—but obviously, this is not specifically directed at that very nice person on Twitter, and again, thank you sir/madam for reading my blog, and at least “hearing me out”. That means a lot to me.

NOW FOR THE MOST IMPORTANT THING

Actually, I have deceived you. The most important thing I wanted to say is divided into two sub-things. Let’s start with the less important of the two important sub-things.

Mr. Luongo has been flinging poo at me, on a semi-regular basis, since April 2022—when, together with Iain Davis and Matthew Ehret, we participated in a panel discussion, “Russia & the Great Reset - Resistance or Complicity?”, moderated by OffGuardian and Unlimited Hangout. (You can watch the debate here.)

Although this Zoom-talk could have been more constructive, it was mostly civil, and was an admirable attempt at open, good-faith discussion about contentious issues that have created deep divisions in alternative media.

Tom basically nuked the good vibes within hours of the video being published.

In his write-up of the debate, Luongo announced that your correspondent, and Mr. Davis, were idiots for disagreeing with him:

In my opinion, they are the worst kind of useful idiots in a time like this, allowing their personal biases and, frankly, neuroses to dominate their public work which, in the end, does nothing more than carry water for the very people they are so completely afraid of.

Well, you are welcome to your opinion, Tom.

But, if you want my opinion, it’s probably imprudent to accuse others of useful idiocy, when you have been promoting Sputnik V as a 5D wonder drug—and backing up this bold theory by citing an RT op-ed, written by a WEF Young Global Leader, who is also the main financer of Russia’s “flagship” genetic injection. I’m not sure if it’s physically possible to be more usefully naïve than that.

In a September 2020 podcast, Tom argued Sputnik V was “based on [the Gamaleya Center’s] safe and effective vaccines for MERS and Ebola”.

The barely tested genetic injection, developed in cooperation with AstraZeneca, “represents a threat to the plans of The Davos Crowd to effect a Great Reset on the world through economic and social destruction,” Luongo argued.

How did Tom arrive at this conclusion?

He cited an RT op-ed written by Kirill Dmitriev, a WEF Young Global Leader (Class of 2009) and head of the Russian Direct Investment Fund, which financed Sputnik V and is also invested in AstraZeneca’s clot-shot.

source: Tomluongo.me

The excellent, unbiased source that Luongo cited; Dmitriev’s WEF profile (which has not been removed)

It might not shock you to learn that Dmitriev’s RT op-ed was puerile garbage, and by extension, Luongo’s deep thoughts about Sputnik V were based on fairy tales.

I knew about Tom’s hot takes about Sputnik V long before we had our April 2022 chitchat, but I didn’t bring them up, because I do my best to be gentlemanly, even though I am a blogger. I suppose Luongo calculated he had the moral and intellectual high ground. Bless him.

Unfortunately, Tom has continued to shill Sputnik V, but whatever. (One example would be his appearance on Convo Couch. The relevant comments begin at around the 46-minute mark.)

Anyway, before our Zoom talk, I never had any issues with Luongo, which I think is rather revealing. Why would talking about Russia and the Great Reset send him into such a rage, to the point where he felt the need to resort to personal attacks? I don’t understand this.

NOW FOR THE TRULY #1 MOST IMPORTANT THING

As I mentioned above, Luongo has a meltdown whenever my name is mentioned on his Twitter feed. Of course, he never actually addresses anything I write—he just says I’m a “5th columnist” or a “neocon” (good heavens), or something equally asinine, and begs people not to read my blog, which is very “libertarian” of him.

On a less civilized blog, this is the part of the article where I would type something high-testosterone, such as: “I’d like to see Tom say these things to my face!”

The only problem is that I’m fairly certain Mr. Luongo is taller than five-feet-six-inches, which means a physical altercation, even if it could be arranged, would most likely not go in my favor. However, I am quick on my feet, and I also bite, so I might have chances.

But even if I were able to bite Luongo into submission in the third round—which is a big if—what would it solve? What would it prove? How would this help heal these deep internet wounds, which are symptomatic of a much larger problem tormenting the alt media ecosystem?

Must we persist with this regrettable state of affairs, Tom?

So I have a different proposal.

Tom: When you think I have my facts wrong, contact me and let me know. When writing a story on a certain subject, it is very easy to overlook a certain nuance, or miss some important nugget of information. Actually, it’s almost unavoidable.

(By the way: I think a lot of Russia-related reporting in alt media falls victim to this problem. It’s not so much that alt media pundits and websites knowingly lie, but rather that their analyses and conclusions are drawn from a very narrow pool of sources, and these sources very rarely provide a full picture of what is actually going on inside Russia. To help remedy this problem, I have tried, again and again, to encourage people to diversify their Russia news diet. Read widely! Consult various self-described experts! Weigh the facts and available evidence, and make up your own mind!)

In return for this valuable service you could provide me, Tom, I will let you know if I think you might have missed some vital information, which might contradict or raise questions about your own assessment of Russia-related current events.

This is what I tried to do when I contacted you, Tom, via email and Twitter, about your claim that Russia had “pegged” the ruble to gold (and then later, that the ruble was “soft-pegged” to precious metals). In response, you wrote me a rather puzzling and rude message, and then blocked me.

Well, I admit I didn’t like that very much. And so I wrote a blog post pointing out that your claims (which were made by others as well) were not accurate. My article also included a short video that poked fun at you. No offense, but I think you deserved it.

However, I am willing to unpublish this article (even though it is entirely accurate), and I will even delete the YouTube video, if my above proposal is attractive to you. I will do this unilaterally—you don’t have to remove any of your uncouth tweets about me, or any other public statements attacking my character or motives.

Surely we can just exchange ideas and viewpoints in a amicable manner in hopes of helping us both better understand Russia and the insane world we live in?

I think this arrangement would have wonderful benefits for both of us, and would honor the spirit of independent journalism, blogging, and internet commentary.

But more importantly: It would be great if the entire alt media ecosystem could follow our example, and work together—regardless of our different views, opinions, or worldviews—to try to get at the Truth, who is a very fickle mistress. She’s very elusive, and annoyingly cryptic, and it’s a lot easier to figure her out when we can engage in good-faith dialogue, as part of a never-ending process to decode her innumerous riddles.

Wouldn’t this be a lot more helpful and beneficial for everyone, especially our readers, viewers, listeners, etc.—people who are trying to broaden their info-horizons and figure out what the heck is going on?

I would say yes, definitely.

I hope Tom will consider this offer carefully, and obviously I extend this modest proposal to all internet pundits, everywhere, regardless of any past unpleasantries. And if I slighted you in the past (which is possible), I am sincerely sorry, because what did this accomplish? Probably nothing.

If you are an internet writer, podcaster, editor of a news outlet, etc., and this blog post resonates with you—even if we don’t see eye-to-eye on certain issues—I would be delighted to engage in fruitful cooperation. My contact information is available on this blog’s About page.

—Riley

NOTE TO MY CHERISHED AND VERY ASTUTE COMMENTERS: I will not look kindly upon malicious comments that exacerbate the unfortunate state of affairs I just typed about. Please try to be thoughtful with your comments. I hope I am making myself clear. Thank you for reading, I like you. — Riley

Also, don’t forget about the SUMMER OF BLOG-LOVE SUB SPECIAL! $38 for 12 months of profound blog content. Saying no to that would frankly be irresponsible.