Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
A whoring female evangelical clergy member of the so-called Prosperity Gospel comes up with yet another Biblical comparison for Trump, this time with a woman. She sits on Trump's committee of clergy, as part of the propaganda machine, that feeds on the ignorant. Ironically, in this case White robs from her poor black congregants. Thank Yahweh for the First Amendment, and pass the ammunition.

My Baptist missionary aunt and uncle were whorified by the Prosperity Gospel. And, I am acquainted with a man, an almost ordained Pentecostal minister, who studied with Jim Bakker when the latter got out of prison.

...
Instead, she made an extended comparison of the president to the biblical figure Esther on Bakker’s show Monday in an interview that at times sounded more like an impassioned sermon. Like Esther, White said, Trump is a come-from-nowhere figure elevated to leadership against all odds in order to do God’s will. She described Trump as a generous, humble man of “character and integrity” and vouched repeatedly for the state of his soul. “He surrounds himself with Christians, and he is a Christian,” she told Bakker, about a man who’s been widely reported as being irreligious for most of his life, prompting applause from the studio audience. “He loves prayer.”
[I'll bet he prays for golden showers and the trickle down theory. :rolleyes: rs]

White didn’t need to convince Bakker’s audience that a flawed man can be redeemed to do the Lord's work; the Bakker himself went through a high-profile sex scandal in the 1980s and later spent time in jail for mail and wire fraud before returning to ministry. White’s case for Trump’s divine mission was based not on his character, but on the future of the Supreme Court and other judicial appointments. To White, Trump is doing exactly what conservative Christians elected him to do. She called the appointment of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court a “miracle” and spoke fervently about future court appointments. “We’ve got 130 vacancies in the lower courts, and he is appointing exactly what we asked for. ... We wanted originalists; we want constitutionalists,” she said. “Right now, we’re scaring the literal hell out of demonic spirits by me saying this right now,” she added, indicating she sensed her words were summoning opposition from dark forces.

In a damning investigative piece written for the now-shuttered conservative site Heat Street, Jillian Melchior reported this spring on her dubious record as a televangelist and pastor. White’s church outside Orlando, Florida, attracts an almost exclusively black audience, many of whom have low incomes and little savings. That doesn’t stop White from asking for what they have. White asked congregants to donate up to a month’s salary as a one-time special offering to mark the beginning of the year. At her previous church, White often asked congregants to donate jewelry and other valuables, which White would later sift through herself and pluck out valuable items, according to another pastor interviewed by Melchior. That church filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy several years after White left.

...
But critics are skeptical that Trump would tolerate criticism from his religious advisers, given his apparent inability to accept criticism from anyone else. “What is Trump doing with them if he’s not listening to them?” Bryan McGraw, a political scientist at evangelical Wheaton College, said by email. “Using them as props in his White House Reality TV Show.” As long as Trump is able and willing to make conservative judicial picks, it appears White has no temptation to critique the man she believes has been installed by God to the hall of power—and who has brought her right along with him.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_facto..._charlottesville_on_jim_bakker_s_tv_show.html
 

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
CNN has obtained the Letter of Intent document detailing the proposed terms of Trump's proposed tower project in Moscow, which he lied about having any such involvements at the time, this during the campaign. No reason is ever provided for why the deal appeared to fall through, but you can be assured it fell through because of political optics. The article ignores all the other Russian money that otherwise comes to Trump via condo sales, rent and such paid for his other global and domestic properties. I guess Trump is not so unconcerned as other politicians are after all.

...
In his statement to Congress, Cohen said that "the Trump Tower Moscow proposal was not related in any way to Mr. Trump's presidential campaign" and that "the decision to pursue the proposal initially, and later to abandon it, was unrelated to the Donald J. Trump for President Campaign."

But it was being negotiated during a critical time for Trump. Up in the polls, but with months to go before the first votes were cast in Iowa, Trump was trying to maintain the lead and knock out his GOP competition, and defy the widely-held conventional wisdom that he couldn't actually win the nomination. ...
http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/08/politics/document-trump-tower-moscow/index.html
 

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
The following 20 minute clip adds more meat to the bone of the mystery meeting on the Seychelles Islands attended by Erik Prince. This ties the connected people together with Steve Bannon, as well, and stems from the names unmasked from telephone conversations. Oddly, Maddow did not link all this to Prince's proposal to privatize the efforts in Afghanistan, thus removing it from the Globalist domain, and into the capito-(inter)nationalist domain. BTW, if one ignores the 'inter' in 'internationalist', then this conveniently fits the Biblical notion of the 'nations' (under one god).

The clip is focused on the shenanigans of traitor, Michael Flynn, and his business dealing with such as the Russians, whom Flynn was trying to grease a multi-nuclear power plant deal between the Russians and the Saudis, among other things. This Russian involvement in all these dealings at the Seychelles and at Trump Tower, seems to bolster my speculation that the Russians were to be cut in on the Afghanistan project to extract the trillion dollars of minerals (not to forget all the opium grown there) for Prince's private corporation running the show.

Prince's Afghanistan deal appears to be on hold, with Agent Orange going for a redeployment of government troops there -- which is doomed to continuing failure. I'm guessing the hold was due to the administration understanding that they are in big legal jeopardy, and thus will have to wait for the official dictatorship to commence.

It all begs the deeper question of why all of this ever got so far in the first place. Even Russian politicians have taken to crowing that American intelligence was asleep at the wheel. Well, maybe they were purposely snoozing just like Hillary did during her campaign, where she overrode her staff's attempts to formulate a workable message. Now, Trump has not 'locked her up', and Obama was born in the USA, he's making deals (DACA, debt ceiling, etc.) with the Democrats, and Bannon is out to destroy the Republicans in Trump's way.

 
Last edited:

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
Trump makes his best deal ... ever!!!

WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—In his most stunning deal yet with Democratic leaders, Donald Trump agreed on Friday to be impeached by the end of 2017.

Emerging from an Oval Office meeting with Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, a beaming Trump touted the deal for his imminent removal from office.

“Chuck and Nancy and I got a deal done on impeachment,” Trump said. “It was a good deal and it was a fast deal.”

Trump said that the Democrats had convinced him that agreeing to be impeached would make him soar in popularity. “People are going to love me for doing this,” Trump said. “They’re going to love it on all the channels.” ...

https://www.newyorker.com/humor/bor...l-with-democrats-trump-agrees-to-be-impeached

April Fools
 

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
But the meeting at Trump Tower was only about Russian orphans being adopted.

The Russian lawyer who met with President Donald Trump's son, son-in-law, and campaign manager in June 2016 was representing a client under scrutiny in an ongoing criminal investigation related to a money-laundering case opened in 2013 by former US Attorney Preet Bharara.

Natalia Veselnitskaya, a Russian prosecutor
[lawyer - not prosecutor - rs] with ties to the Kremlin, was representing the real-estate company Prevezon Holdings in a civil suit filed by the US government in the Southern District of New York when she visited Trump Tower on June 9, 2016.

Prevezon, which is owned by the son of a powerful Russian government official, was part of a parallel criminal investigation, according to court documents filed late last year. A person familiar with the matter told Business Insider that the criminal case was ongoing, corroborating a Bloomberg report published earlier Friday.

The criminal investigation had not yet been disclosed when Attorney General Jeff Sessions fired Bharara in March,
and there was no mention of it when the civil case was settled in May for $5.9 million. [May 2017 - rs]

...
A spokesman for the US attorney's office told Business Insider at the time that the settlement saved taxpayers the expense of a trial. The representative said the settlement was for "many multiples more" than the amount in fraud proceeds the government alleged were laundered through the New York real-estate purchases. He characterized it as a "very good outcome" for the government.

But Prevezon described the settlement as proof that the company had done nothing wrong, and a spokesman said the company's legal team considered the offer from prosecutors "too good to refuse." ...

http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-tower-meeting-russia-money-laundering-investigation-2017-9
 

CplCam

Member
Trump made his first official visit as president and it was to the CIA to tell them how much he loves and respects them. He gave one of his trademark rambling stream of consciousness speeches and it seemed strangely well received by an audience full of supposed professional spies. He ended by telling them that he'd need a bigger room next time and "maybe it'd be built by people who know how to build and we won't have all these columns, you understand that?" (I don't, I'm not a spy but I can only assume he's alluding to freemasons and the Romanesque "architecture" of America.) The whole thing just seemed strange but maybe that's just how things are going to be now in the age of Trump: strange.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/vide...7c507a-e01c-11e6-8902-610fe486791c_video.html

While still cryptic and bizarre this speech given way back on Trump's first day in office does seem to mesh with Richard's Samsonian typology hypothesis. The three concrete things Trump is able to tell the CIA in his rambling ten minute speech are that: he loves and respects them, they may have another "occasion" to get the oil from the enemies du jour, and that someone may have to remove the columns from their building...

Hmm.
 

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
Yes, and in his speech he got in trouble for dishonoring the dead CIA heroes by tooting his own trumpet. This seems rather like Samson's attending the wedding feast for his Philistine wife and creating so much chaos.
 

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
http://postflaviana.org/community/index.php?posts/8713/

The above is my separate new thread about Trump Making Canada Great Instead coming from an article discussing the impact being made in Canada because of Trump's antics. It touches on issues such white nationalism and again begs the question to such people as how it is even possible for multicultural, cosmopolitan cities to thrive in the first place - given their various notions of why they cannot.
 

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
Not feeling well lately, and running out of things to watch, I decided to start binge-watching the series 30 Rock, of which I had only watched intermittently when it was being broadcast. At the beginning of episode 4 in the first season, Liz Lemon (the Tina Fey character) tries to undistract her team of writers by announcing that Donald Trump had been eaten by a lion ... in the International Space Station. Of course, this was doubly funny to me considering my prior linking Trump to Samson, and that we should take the whole Samson narrative as mostly fictive, propagandic hype - about a caricature hero. In this case, the outcome is reversed for the lion. On other threads here has been discussed whether or not some apocalyptic savior from space is being announced to the gullible.

I think we need to change this Donald Trump joke... because Donald Trump was eaten by a lion this morning... on the International Space Station... Anyone listening? - Liz

The writers were distracted by the revealing apparel of the office intern, and weren't able to come back to reality until Liz sends the intern out to fetch her some cappuccino. Trump's base, and even many establishment Republicans, still seem to be in a hypnotic daze, while Trump has not (yet .. or ever?) done much of anything to the Democrats.


Wanting to post ... something ... after Trump has announced that we are in the "calm before the storm" (what kind of storm?), the thought came to me that maybe there might be some more to this 30 Rock business related to Trump. Sure enough. The show predicts the "Mexico Wall" and the MAGA theme. See the short video in the following link.

...
30 Rock also got a lot of mileage out of Jack Donaghy’s enthusiasm for the Republican party. Having premiered during the waning, unpopular years of the George W. Bush administration, Jack’s stubborn loyalty to his party was great fodder. On a few instances in particular, Jack’s unhinged support for the GOP ended up predicting another unhinged GOP representative: Donald Trump. As was pointed out by Mic.com, 30 Rock made multiple mentions of specific Trump platforms, both in season 2. ...

https://decider.com/2016/07/29/30-rock-inspiration-for-donald-trump/

It's also interesting that the fictive weekly TV show (TGS) being produced within 30 Rock itself appears to be loosely modeled on SNL, and thus Alec Baldwin provides a common thread between the real show and the fictional one. Baldwin's character, Jack Donaghy, was a GE corporate executive, in charge of microwave oven programming, who was put in charge of programming for NBC. The small overlap in the jobs is rather evocative for Trump's apparent inability to master the leap between running a corrupt family business and running a massive democratic government enterprise.

And then there is this:

...
We’re ashamed that we hadn’t already noticed this: Donald Trump and Jenna Maroney, Jane Krakowski’s delusional 30 Rock character, are basically the same person. Thankfully the Donald Maroney Tumblr account has entered the world to prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt. Pretty much any Jenna Maroney quote is equally plausible as something Trump would say. The shameless self-absorption? The unwitting egotism? The overpowering arrogance? The other words that mean the same thing? They are both entirely defined by it, and it can be pretty funny as long as they’re just TV characters and not would-be politicians running for a fairly important position. If you need proof, check out these examples, and then head over to the Donald Maroney Tumblr for far, far more.

https://www.pastemagazine.com/artic...-donald-trump-and-30-rocks-jenna-maroney.html

Also, we should keep in mind Trump's incestuous relationship with NBC, as the star of the moronic 'fake' reality show The Apprentice.
 
Last edited:

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
One of the curious questions about the whole Russian election hacking phenomenon is what exactly were the national security folks doing about this, before the election? The following is a breaking piece, one year later, that the natsec boys did announce that the Russian hacking was going on. Besides that hurricane Matthew was storming up the East Coast, within hours after the announcement is made, the Billy Bush tape is released and the Podesta emails are released by Wikileaks. These two matters drown out the Russian hacking story.

It leaves me asking, however, whether the natsec boys perhaps protested a little too quietly, and they can then easily blame the news media for being distracted.

A 32 minute video:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/64-hours...blew-rules-american-politics-2-162827162.html

On the same subject (13 minutes):

Now, we also have a former Ted Cruz staffer claiming that they were robo-trolled on social media every time they went on interviews trashing Trump, but never when they did so against other Republican primary candidates:

7 minutes
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Let's assume for the moment that it's true that the Russians sought to influence the election on Trump's behalf. Maybe they were even using dirty tricks such as robo-trolling, buying ads on Facebook, or making donations to Wikileaks to help them disseminate information.

Is there anything that's even illegal about that?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Agents_Registration_Act

In 1966 the Act was amended and narrowed to emphasize agents actually working with foreign powers who sought economic or political advantage by influencing governmental decision-making. The amendments shifted the focus of the law from propaganda to political lobbying and narrowed the meaning of "foreign agent".... From that moment on, an organization (or person) could only be placed in the FARA database if the government proved that it (or he or she) was acting "at the order, request, or under the direction or control, of a foreign principal" and proved that it (or he or she) was engaged "in political activities for or in the interests of such foreign principal," including by "represent[ing] the interests of such foreign principal before any agency or official of the Government of the United States."...

This increased the government's burden of proof; since 1966 there have been no successful criminal prosecutions under the FARA act....
If indeed the Russians did hack the DNC servers, that would presumably be some sort of crime as hacking per se. But if (as seems most likely) it was some disgruntled staffer that released the information, and/or a false flag hacking operation, then there's no reason the Russians couldn't distribute the material.

Any sort of law that purports to prevent the Russians from publishing their views to the American public, obviously would have huge chilling effects on 1st amendment freedoms. Because who could ever prove that they weren't acting on behalf of the Russians, when expressing any opinion that the Russians might see as favorable to their cause?

Of course that's really where this is going. It's an argument from the Democrats, that they should be able to shut down any form of progressive politics that they don't endorse.

If the Democrats were really concerned that Trump is some sort of Russian sleeper agent (as well they should be), then they would focus more on the actual business ties between Trump and the Russians.
 

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
In the context of believing that most all American presidential elections, at least since 1900, are generally rigged, I think all of this including the Russian business is likely one big psy-op.

Is there anything that's even illegal about that?

I'm not sure that FARA speaks to the actual mechanics of political campaigns and elections, as opposed to lobbying elected politicians by foreign agents. I'm not certain what the exact laws are, but I believe it is indeed illegal for any candidate to accept foreign assistence, either directly with money, or indirectly with information that would otherwise need to be compensated. Of course, we interfere in other coutries elections all the time, and the Russians are notorious for interferring with their neighbors elections.
If indeed the Russians did hack the DNC servers, that would presumably be some sort of crime as hacking per se. But if (as seems most likely) it was some disgruntled staffer that released the information, and/or a false flag hacking operation, then there's no reason the Russians couldn't distribute the material.
I still dispute this contention about Rich, in that it seems just as likely, or more likely, that he was killed by the Trumprussians.

But in any case, all this goes to just why Trump is so hypersensitive about his legitimacy as President, with his once rosy treatment of Russia and Putin over our 'allies', and such as the timing of his statements that something big was about to be released (and then it did) - and that he wished the "Russians would find all those emails" (and they already did). Not to mention that he lost the popular vote and the issue of gerrymandering.

Any sort of law that purports to prevent the Russians from publishing their views to the American public, obviously would have huge chilling effects on 1st amendment freedoms. Because who could ever prove that they weren't acting on behalf of the Russians, when expressing any opinion that the Russians might see as favorable to their cause?
"Publishing their views?"

If they were the Russians' views then why are they hiding behind American skirts to push their propaganda. This is the face that the viewers of the Facebook propaganda saw. There were no disclaimers such as is required on American political ads as to who paid for this crap. Of course, most of that is not really 'political' as the ads are meant to inflame the fears and biases of targeted voters and never have to mention any candidate.

Facebook and the like have created a monster in the new Wild West. One isn't allowed to yell fire in a packed theater, yet you're saying that it is OK for foreigners to influence our elections to their advantage? I thought Donald Trump was all about MAGA, not MARA. But who knows, maybe Putin is a kind wizard?

Of course that's really where this is going. It's an argument from the Democrats, that they should be able to shut down any form of progressive politics that they don't endorse.
I don't understand this? Are you saying that either Trump or Putin is progressive in any respect? Or what?

If the Democrats were really concerned that Trump is some sort of Russian sleeper agent (as well they should be), then they would focus more on the actual business ties between Trump and the Russians.
The congressional investigations have a different focus for a reason. Supposedly it is Mueller who is tasked with criminal issues - that related to such business ties.

What is rather funny now is the claim of Trump that he had no business ties with the Russians, and as he said this (during the campaign) he was still actively pursuing the possibility of a huge development in Moscow. A baubble which had been dangled out to him for years, and required Putin's approval. If nothing else, with Trump actually winning the election, all that had to be put on ice.

BTW, just read that Paul Manafort got his JD from Georgetown U.
 
Last edited:

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
I'm not certain what the exact laws are, but I believe it is indeed illegal for any candidate to accept foreign assistence, either directly with money, or indirectly with information that would otherwise need to be compensated.

I believe you're probably correct that it would be illegal for a candidate or his PAC's to directly accept such assistance. But I still don't see where is the law against making Facebook posts, or making donations to Wikileaks, or even buying Facebook ads that don't claim to be posted by the candidate or his authorized representatives.

If they were the Russians' views then why are they hiding behind American skirts to push their propaganda. This is the face that the viewers of the Facebook propaganda saw. There were no disclaimers such as is required on American political ads as to who paid for this crap.

How much do we know about these alleged Facebook ads? I thought that Facebook hadn't released any details.

More often, the argument is that sources like Wikileaks are effectively Russian propaganda. I think I've seen Paul Craig Roberts, Alex Jones and 'The Saker' swept up in this sort of dragnet, without any evidence that they're under control of the Russians.

Are you saying that either Trump or Putin is progressive in any respect? Or what?

Trump did successfully campaign on a populist basis, promising jobs and hope to his base. But I wouldn't exactly call it progressive, considering the nationalist and racist aspect.

Putin also seems to be rather popular among a broad cross-section of Russians, most of whom obviously aren't oligarchs. I don't think he's actually done much to re-distribute his wealth and his cronies, but the mystique of these neo-Julian types is always hard to fathom. And Putin is also admired to some extent by PCR and 'The Saker'. They, in turn, both seem quite progressive, at least compared to the typical mainstream neocon reading material we're all so accustomed to.

The WSWS never has anything nice to say about Putin or Trump. But they do talk about Trotsky, who is obviously even more Russian influenced that Trump. So they'll be swept up in the dragnet too. They've already had their Google search traffic cut off.
 

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
I believe you're probably correct that it would be illegal for a candidate or his PAC's to directly accept such assistance. But I still don't see where is the law against making Facebook posts, or issuing Facebook posts, or even buying Facebook ads that don't claim to be posted by the candidate or his authorized representatives.
It's the Wild West Jerry.

Facebook is now a global platform where anything goes, and the Russians have figured out how to leverage this as the ultimate propaganda weapon. The issue here isn't so much as whether there are or are not laws, but whether there wascoordinationn between the Trump campaign and the Russians, which definately is illegal. The timeline and such as the stated purpose of the emails for the Trump Tower meeting say yes.

How much do we know about these alleged Facebook ads? I thought that Facebook hadn't released any details.
We know that they were demographically microtargeted, and that they reached about 10 million persons right before the election.

Trump did successfully campaign on a populist basis, promising jobs and hope to his base. But I wouldn't exactly call it progressive, considering the nationalist and racist aspect.
So, I still don't understand your comment about the Dems sabotaging progressives by any of this. BTW, there are some who suggest that Sanders and Stein were put up to sabotage Hillary. Stein even went to Russia and sat at the same RT banquet table with Putin and General Flynn. Why would Putin give a damn about supporting Stein?

Well, at least Trump hints he might have to get us universal health care, after he finishes off sabotaging the establishment Republicans that is.
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
So, I still don't understand your comment about the Dems sabotaging progressives by any of this.

Maybe this will help?

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/09/29/pers-s29.html

The McCarthyite witch-hunts of the 1950s are viewed, among all thinking people, as one of the most shameful episodes in the history of the United States. The term “McCarthyism” is synonymous with false allegations, intimidation and character assassination to serve the most reactionary political aims.

Now, seven decades later, a new period of political witch-hunting has begun, spearheaded by the Democratic Party and the media outlets principally associated with it, the New York Times and the Washington Post. Political dissent is being associated with treason. The notorious phrase of the McCarthyites, “Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?” is in the process of being revived and revised: “Are you now, or have you ever been, a critic of the US government?” If the answer is "yes," that is tantamount to an admission that you are a stooge, if not an agent, of Russia and the devil-like Vladimir Putin.

Associated with allegations of “fake news” and “conspiracy theories,” the new McCarthyism is itself one of the greatest fake news conspiracy theories ever hatched. It began with the claim that Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 presidential election due to the intervention of the Russian government. These charges, which have been building steadily since the election, have entered a new stage, with virtually daily articles in the Times and the Post seeking to attribute political and social opposition within the United States to the nefarious operations of Vladimir Putin.

“People familiar with the covert influence campaign,” the Washington Postreported Monday, say Russia sought to promote “African American rights groups, including Black Lives Matter.” Russian agents likewise helped promote support for “N.F.L. players who do not stand for the national anthem,” spreading hashtags such as “#boycottnfl” and “#takeaknee,” the Times declared Thursday.

The Post explicitly drew parallels to the allegations by the FBI and other intelligence agencies that the civil rights movement of the 1960s expressed not legitimate social grievances, but the activities of communist spies and agitators. “Much like the online ads discovered by Facebook,” writes the Post, “messages spread by Soviet-era operatives were meant to look as though they were written by bona fide political activists in the United States, thereby disguising the involvement of an adversarial foreign power.”
 

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
Wow, I'm failing to see the McCarthy equivalence, or the logical merit of this construction.

The Russians are engaging in a campaign of sowing disunity, irregardless of political divide, both in the US and elsewhere. All this in support of the view that they consider pan-nationalism to their advantage. Hence their romance with Xian evangelicals, the race nationalists, the NRA, etc.. This is a cheap way for them to level the playing field, and so far, it seems to be working.

I see no evidence that Putin is less 'devil-like' than Agent Orange. And why would the socialists take this position?
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
I'm having trouble understanding what you're not seeing, or where is the lack of logical merit.

Then: Soviet Russia accused of interfering in US politics, and promoting communism.
Now: Russia accused of interfering in US politics, and promoting populism and dissension.

Then: Russia accused of stealing secret plans to US nuclear weapons.
Now: Russia accused of stealing DNC emails.

Then: A witch hunt for American accomplices of the Soviets.
Now: A witch hunt for American accomplices of the Russians.

Then: A chilling effect on free speech. Journalists, producers, actors blacklisted.
Now: A chilling effect on free speech. WSWS and other progressive websites get blacklisted from Google search results. No one knows yet how far this will go.

So what's the big difference? This time the Russians are succeeding at exerting much greater influence, because of the reach of Internet social media, and the ease at which they can get cheap and effective results? Or is it that American society has deteriorated to the point where it's an easy target for such mischief?
 

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
Then: A witch hunt for American accomplices of the Soviets.
Now: A witch hunt for American accomplices of the Russians.
Are you merely pointing out that there is investigation of such claims, and thus the parallel? Why are you calling this a witch hunt, if Trump was indeed getting active assistance from any foreign entity.

So what's the big difference?
Oh yes, we have a parallel situation, especially if one considers the USSR and Putin as controlled opposition in the global chessgame. Putin even worked for the KGB.

Here's some on the likes of what the Russian's have done on Facebook (and they have been sponsoring the California secession movement too, even giving its leader offices in Moscow).

Building on a Business Insider article that identified 'Heart of Texas' as one of the 470 Facebook accounts created by the Kremlin-linked Internet Research Agency, CNN reports operatives behind the group worked to inflame anti-Muslim sentiment, push conspiracy theories, and encourage secession.

Independent reporter Casey Michel, who tracked the Heart of Texas page, has posted screenshots of its content.

'Heart of Texas' had 249,000 likes before it was shut down in September. A corresponding Twitter account - @ItsTimeToSecede - is suspended now too.

In May 2016, 'Heart of Texas' called for and promoted the protest of an Islamic Center library in Houston wrongly identified as having received public funding. While turnout was fairly small, the demonstration is evidence of how Russian influence can move from the web into the real world.

https://investigaterussia.org/media/2017-10-05/inflammatory-heart-texas-facebook-page-run-russians
Or is it that American society has deteriorated to the point where it's an easy target for such mischief?
Neither Jerry. This is simply the nature of human shepherding. The 'patriots' are fat, dumb, and happy that Trump is in bed with Putin.
 
Last edited:

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Why are you calling this a witch hunt,

The McCarthy era was rightly called a "witch hunt" because it caught many innocent people along with the few actual Soviet agents. And because it was all based on guilt by association.

Oh yes, we have a parallel situation, especially if one considers the USSR and Putin as controlled opposition in the global chessgame.

If in fact the Russians are "controlled opposition" then why should we be more upset about them, vs. the DNC and all the rest of the alphabet soup that are also "controlled opposition"?

'Heart of Texas' had 249,000 likes before it was shut down in September.

The assumption here is that Texans and Californians are malleable, sheep-like creatures who are unable to decide on their own whether they would like to support secession movements. They only get organized when the Russian sheepdogs and/or shepherds appear on the scene to herd them in this direction. But it seems to me that the adjective "sheeple" applies more towards those who complacently accept the status quo, as opposed to those who join opposition movements such as this. Even if we, from our high perch, consider that secessionism is misguided.

So now we have a Texan secession movement that's been temporarily shut down and purged of its allegedly Russian leadership. What happens next? Are those 250,000 secessionist Texans just going to shrug their shoulders and say, "Ooops, I've been a dupe of the Russian controlled opposition and I guess I'd better get back in line and pay my taxes"? Or is the USG going to have to resort to increasingly repressive measures to keep Texans in line?

Do you have an opinion about the Catalan secessionist movement? An estimated 80% of the Catalonian population is backing secession at this point. Are they all sheepish dupes of foreign powers? Did the central Spanish government do the right thing, to send in the police to smash the fingers of young female voters?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ms-police-broke-fingers-one-one.html?ITO=1490
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Is it possible that we're getting into arguing two sides of a false dialectic, when really we should be resuming our above-it-all, evenhanded perspective?
 
Top