The burden, after the hoax of Russiagate, is on The New York Times to prove that its reporting on Russia is not fraudulent, is not a forgery, is not an anti-Russian variation on the anti-Semitic theme of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.  Accordingly, today's story about Russian trolling of the Women's March (against Trump) and the pushback against Linda Sarsour for her anti-Semitism for purpose of causing chaos (NYT forgot the sowing discord part) is facially not believable.  (Since when have Russians made anti-Semites uncomfortable?)

September 19, the lead story in The New York Times carried this headline in the print edition: "Trolls in Russia Schemed to Divide Women's March."

(The online title is "How Russian Trolls Helped Keep the Women's March Out of Lock Step."  Do we need further evidence that the Times demands no deviation from the party line it hands down — daily?)

According to the Times article, by Ellen Barry, the week after the January 21, 2017 Women's March — described as "a mobilization against President Donald J. Trump" — teams assigned by the Russian government, operating "at bland desks in St. Petersburg ...

 test[ed] out social media messages critical of the Women's March movement."  (Ms. Barry's article does not provide information about how she knew that the teams worked at "bland desks."  Or is that a play on the alias "Bob Bland"?  See that name below.)

The article indicates that the Russian effort focused on Linda Sarsour, "a Palestinian American activist" who served as one of four co-chairs of the march:

Over the eighteen months that followed, Russian troll factories and its military intelligence service put a sustained effort into discrediting the movement by circulating damning, often fabricated, narratives around Ms. Sarsour, whose activism made her a lightning rod for Mr. Trump's base and also for his most ardent opposition.  (Emphasis added.)

The Kremlin wanted to bring President Trump's opposition into the ranks of his base?

Taking note of Ms. Barry's euphemistic reference to the "activism" of Ms. Sarsour, this observer googled this phrase, "Linda Sarsour anti-Israel activist," and came up with a "Forward" link reporting that the Joe Biden campaign disavowed Ms. Sarsour after she spoke at an event at the 2020 Democratic National Convention.

Sarsour, an anti-Zionist who supports the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement against Israel, received criticism when she led the Women's March due to her past ties to the antisemitic Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan.

Republicans quickly jumped on Sarsour's virtual presence at the DNC.

"It is outrageous that the Democratic National Committee would allow Linda Sarsour to represent their party to American voters," Republican Jewish Coalition executive director Matt Brooks said in a statement. "Sarsour's blatant anti-Semitism finally made her so treif that the radical Women's March organization had to force her out of her leadership role, but she's still kosher for the Democrat Party."

How long do we have to wait for the Times to describe the Biden campaign,  in distancing itself from Ms. Sarsour, in 2020, as a gullible swallower of Russian trolling?

But wait.  Ms. Barry goes on, at page A12, to acknowledge that the Women's March was "[a] fractious coalition to begin with," in view of "its co-chairs' association with Louis Farrakhan, the Nation of Islam leader, who is widely condemned for his antisemitic statements."  Ms. Barry continued, "When this surfaced progressive groups distanced themselves from Ms. Sarsour and her fellow co-chairs, Carmen Perez, Tamika Mallory, and Bob Bland, and some called for them to step down."  Bob Bland's real name is Mari Lynn Foulger.  In addition to being n activist, she is a fashion designer and, in 2019, distanced herself from the Women's March movement.  Ms. Perez, Ms. Sarsour, and Ms. Mallory have no problem with Louis Farrakhan, apparently.  See this Atlantic piece on Ms. Mallory's refusal to condemn Farrakhan.

The Barry story proceeds over most of six columns on pages A12 and A13 and includes references to concern about the anti-Semitism of Linda Sarsour, but arguably enough been recited here to now wonder: was the January 21, 2017 global Women's March movement the result of the alleged Russian plot to sow chaos and discord in the United States — as, in 1903, anti-Semites forged a Jewish plot to sow chaos and discord to gain world domination?

The Times includes this legend in a small box on page A12 (italics in original):

Democracy Challenged

This series is part of an ongoing examination

by the Times. of challenges to democratic norms

in the United States and around the world.

Ms. Barry noted before the midway point in her "the Russians are still coming; the Russians are still coming" piece, "Many people know the story about how the Women's March fractured, leaving scars on the American left" — to be charged against Russian interference more than six and a half years after the fact?  Occam's razor suggests that we take a look at the calendar, realize that there are less than two months until the midterm elections, and that the Times is straining mightily to revive the idea of a Russian bogeyman.  For what purpose?  To divert attention from the left's goal of ending our two-party system, replacing it with Stalinist hegemony.  And The New York Times accuses conservative populists of threatening the spirit of American liberty?  What arrant nonsense.  What despicable propaganda.  What a Big Lie. 

Image: Adam Jones via Flickr (cropped).