Russian documents reveal desire to sow racial discord — and violence — in the U.S.
The revelations come as U.S. intelligence agencies have warned of probable Russian meddling in the 2020 election.



New evidence suggests Russia tried to sow unrest in the U.S. beyond the 2020 election
MAY 20, 201901:43
May 20, 2019, 6:54 PM EDT
By Richard Engel, Kate Benyon-Tinker and Kennett Werner
LONDON — Russians who were linked to interference in the 2016 U.S. election discussed ambitious plans to stoke unrest and even violence inside the U.S. as recently as 2018, according to documents reviewed by NBC News.

The documents — communications between associates of Yevgeny Prigozhin, a Kremlin-linked oligarch indicted by special counsel Robert Mueller for previous influence operations against the U.S. — laid out a new plot to manipulate and radicalize African Americans. The plans show that Prigozhin’s circle has sought to exploit racial tensions well beyond Russia’s social media and misinformation efforts tied to the 2016 election.

The documents were obtained through the Dossier Center, a London-based investigative project funded by Russian opposition figure Mikhail Khodorkovsky. NBC News has not independently verified the materials, but forensic analysis by the Dossier Center appeared to substantiate the communications.

One document said that President Donald Trump’s election had “deepened conflicts in American society” and suggested that, if successful, the influence project would “undermine the country’s territorial integrity and military and economic potential.”

The revelations come as U.S. intelligence agencies have warned of probable Russian meddling in the 2020 election.


The documents contained proposals for several ways to further exacerbate racial discord in the future, including a suggestion to recruit African Americans and transport them to camps in Africa “for combat prep and training in sabotage.” Those recruits would then be sent back to America to foment violence and work to establish a pan-African state in the South, particularly in South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana.

There is no indication that the plan — which is light on details — was ever put into action, but it offers a fresh example of the mindset around Russian efforts to sow discord in the U.S.

The blueprint, entitled “Development Strategy of a Pan-African State on U.S. Territory,” floated the idea of enlisting poor, formerly incarcerated African Americans “who have experience in organized crime groups” as well as members of “radical black movements for participation in civil disobedience actions.”

The goal was to “destabilize the internal situation in the U.S.”

Frank Figliuzzi, a former assistant director of counterintelligence at the FBI and an NBC News contributor, who reviewed the documents, said that they offer a warning to the U.S.

“Regardless of whether or not these plans are an amateurish thought experiment, the fact that these people are talking about doing this should disturb Americans of all stripes,” Figliuzzi said.

“The unfortunate reality is that we’re seeing an adversary that will consider virtually anything to get what it wants, and if it means violence or splitting America along racial lines or eroding our trust in institutions, they’ll do it.”

Some of the documents appear to have been sent by Dzheykhun “Jay” Aslanov, an employee of the Internet Research Agency, the St. Petersburg-based troll farm that played a key role in the 2016 Russian meddling campaign. Aslanov was one of 13 Russians indicted by Mueller in February 2018 for his role with the IRA.

Recommended

OPINION
IQ rates are dropping in many developed countries and that doesn't bode well for humanity

OPINION
Trump's Iran threats part of a troubling — and ineffective — foreign policy pattern
The plan was shared with Mikhail Potepkin, a Russian businessman, who then circulated it more widely, according to communications reviewed by NBC News.

Both Aslanov and Potepkin have been linked to Prigozhin, a Russian catering magnate often described as “Putin’s chef.” Prigozhin was also indicted by Mueller for funding the IRA. Widely perceived as a Kremlin operative, he has been connected to a shadowy mercenary outfit known as the Wagner Group, whose guns-for-hire are reported to have been involved in Russian military operations in Syria and Eastern Ukraine, according to U.S. military officials.

The Mueller report exposed how Russian trolls, employed by associates of Prigozhin, deliberately inflamed racial tensions by spreading false and incendiary stories to African Americans via social media. Among the objectives was to suppress black turnout in the 2016 U.S. election.

Another of the newly obtained documents is a map of the U.S. overlaid with information about African American population size in seven southern states. Also included are the number of subscribers to websites and social media accounts that were set up by Russian trolls at the IRA to spread race-baiting rhetoric, the latter of which were later removed by the social media companies.

Image: A map of the U.S. overlaid with information about African-American population size in seven southern states that was part of a cache of documents found in communications from Russians linked to U.S. election interference.A map of the U.S. overlaid with information about African-American population size in seven southern states that was part of a cache of documents found in communications from Russians linked to U.S. election interference.The Dossier Center
Rep. Val Demings, D-Fla., who was briefed on the documents, said they highlight how ongoing racial issues in the U.S. can be used in misinformation efforts.

“Russia understands how critical the African American vote is to determining the outcome of elections,” said Demings, who sits on the House Intelligence Committee. “And because we have not effectively dealt with racism as a country ourselves, I believe we've made ourselves vulnerable to foreign powers like Russia to continue to try to undermine.”

The documents also discuss how to expand Russia’s clout on the African continent and win business there, from arms sales to mining contracts. They outline propaganda efforts to target Africans and stir up negative opinions about Europe and the U.S.

Cooking up elaborate interference schemes is standard practice within Prigozhin’s circle, according to Andrei Soldatov, an expert on Russian intelligence and author of “The Red Web,” a book on Russian information warfare.

“This is typical of the way Prigozhin and his team operate,” Soldatov said. “They come up with pitches, some of them very ambitious. They discuss many possible ideas and then send the pitches to the Kremlin to be authorized or rejected. It’s their modus operandi.”

The idea of African American statehood has an intellectual precedent in Russia. During the early 20th century, communists in America proposed forming a “black-belt nation” in the South. Some party members traveled to the Soviet Union for training.

“Even though these kinds of initiatives from the Russians aren’t new to us, what is new is the rapidity with which they can get this message out on social media and saturate the American consumer with these kinds of thoughts,” said Figliuzzi, the former FBI official. “That puts the Russian initiative on steroids and should scare all of us.”

Image: Richard Engel
Richard Engel
Richard Engel has been NBC News' chief foreign correspondent since 2008.

Kate Benyon-Tinker
Kate Benyon-Tinker is a senior producer for NBC News, based in London.

Kennett Werner
Kennett Werner is a reporter for NBC News.
America has imported more warlord theocracy from Afghanistan than it has exported democracy.

which would scare the already existing militia/terror group into escalating violence.

First is that Trump and the Russians truly do not care about what happens with the division that they're spreading. The russians want to see division of any kind and republicans are willing to give it to them. Second was that the plans on creating a pan african nation in the south is the reemergence of old NOI goals just like all of this moorish science temple shit all over instagram and reparations talk on twitter is bringing up distractions to the urgency of the current moment.

And yeah, training radicals and felons to fight a guerilla war is some next level crazy.

America has imported more warlord theocracy from Afghanistan than it has exported democracy.

yeah the wildest part to me in the fire next time was when baldwin was talking about how the klan and noi worked together toward common goals.

i dunno if i'd categorize reparations discussion as a "distraction" per se but yes i think it's politically unproductive at this moment. that said, any time is better than no time to discuss it, and it might lead to some milder egalitarian effort.

he lays it out in disturbingly realistic scenarios

for both the right and left. Urban and rural

https://thebulwark.com/its-time-to-stop-talking-about-a-national-divorce/

Share on Twitter Share via email Print
Loose talk about breaking up the United States has become increasingly common. While quixotic secession campaigns for California or Texas are more amusing than threatening, there seems to be something different about the right-wing movement for a “peaceful separation” or “national divorce.” If you look closely, there’s an undercurrent carrying the threat of political violence. Or even full-scale civil war.

“It’s Time For The United States To Divorce Before Things Get Dangerous,” the Federalist’s Jesse Kelly argues. Citing deep cultural divides on religion, gun rights, and immigration, Kelly warns that “sooner or later, the left-wing rage mob will start coming for the careers (and lives) of any normal American who sees things differently.”

Trump supporters face genocide or ruin, he writes in “America Is Over, But I Won’t See It Go Without An Epic Fight.” In that essay, Kelly asks readers to imagine themselves as native Lakota tribesmen who must choose between life on a reservation—“in the liberal utopian nightmare of 57 genders and government control over everything”—or glorious, doomed resistance: as the Lakota who fights back and holds his enemy’s scalp in his hands.

You killed him, won the day, carved off the top of his skull, and now you’re standing over him victorious on the now-quiet field of battle, with a quiet breeze blowing through your hair. Your adrenaline is still pumping with that primal feeling of victory and the elation of having survived when others didn’t.

“Be the Lakota,” Kelly concludes.

This is just a bit from an aspiring TV pundit, right? Merely a winking step-across-the-line for clicks and attention?

Over the weekend, Iowa Rep. Steve King (last seen losing his committee assignments over white nationalist-friendly comments) shared a meme joking that the right would win the next civil war because his supporters are stockpiling ammunition while the other side obsesses about gender and bathrooms.

Such discussions aren’t limited to fringe outlets or marginalized congressmen. National Review’s Victor Davis Hanson takes the likelihood of violent conflict almost as a given. “How, when, and why has the United States now arrived at the brink of a veritable civil war?” he asks. “We are now nearing a point comparable to 1860, and perhaps past 1968.”

Maybe Hanson is just being hyperbolic and we should take him seriously, and not literally, when he says that the divisions of 2018 are comparable to the divisions of 1860? After all, Hanson’s list of grievances—displacement from a globalized economy, cultural and campus radicalism, immigration, and the legacy of Barack Obama—is familiar enough, and reasonable arguments can be had about all of them. And one of his solutions—“we need to develop a new racial sense that we are so intermarried and assimilated that cardboard racial cutouts are irrelevant”—seems much less arduous than any of the pathways out of the antebellum years. Hanson’s view, while it gives a frisson of danger, would probably disappoint the white nationalists who see civil strife as both necessary and desirable.

The president, of course, has long indicated his support for political violence, threatening protesters with beatings at his rallies and approving the assault of a journalist by a congressional candidate. But last week, Trump took that openness to violence in a new direction, suggesting he could unleash the police, military, and “Bikers for Trump” on “the left.”


Daniel Dale
✔
@ddale8
Trump to Breitbart on how the left plays tough: "I have the support of the police, the support of the military, the support of the Bikers for Trump — I have the tough people, but they don’t play it tough — until they go to a certain point and then it would be very bad, very bad."

13.2K
10:10 AM - Mar 14, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
11.9K people are talking about this

America has imported more warlord theocracy from Afghanistan than it has exported democracy.

Like, people forgot about when KGB agents were pretending to be the Ku Klux Klan to disrupt the 1984 Olympics in Los Angeles. I was a kid but still remember that being all over the news.

Why would the real KKK care about the Olympics?

Yet today you have dumbass Americans dickriding Vladimir Putin to spite Obama smh.

Americans are so fat, dumb, and happy that they'll never get it. Russia will never, ever, EVER, forgive America for winning the Cold War. The humiliation of the Soviet Union collapsing. Capitalism outlasting Communism. They will never forgive the United States for that.

Russia's inferiority complex toward America is so deep-rooted it's almost pathological.

FOH with this goof ass shit.
Literal Nazism was funded by American corps in the 30s.
But Russia!!!!

I am critical of the framing of the piece but Im not as critical of the report that it is describing.

America has imported more warlord theocracy from Afghanistan than it has exported democracy.

come come clean and tell what they did to get him re-elected and it would actually HELP them sow more discord.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

America has imported more warlord theocracy from Afghanistan than it has exported democracy.

within the US funding the education and uplifting of "black" men and communities is all that needs to be done.

China is more likely to be a threat in that respect than Russia

Headlines like this are nothing but sensational fear and anxiety mongering

Do people even remember WHY the US was always at odds with Russia? Their agenda was one that many of our Black heroes used for liberation. This propaganda around the Russia scapegoat when the real Red scare is gerrymandering, political corruption, and a faux two party system.

Nvmd, but "Russia"

>the real Red scare is gerrymandering, political
>corruption, and a faux two party system.

Russian communists used to have an economic agenda that mirrored the agenda of the formerly enslaved but in the 90s that entire agenda shifted with the fall of communism. Russia is just as much a promoter of cronyism and market based capitalism as america is now. That is why falling for russian propaganda is so dangerous for black people. The putinistas have no desire to move an agenda forward that mirrors the desires of paul robeson, lucy parsons, web dubois or george padmore.


America has imported more warlord theocracy from Afghanistan than it has exported democracy.

some Boris and Natashia Bulwinkle conspiracy theory us so wild to me. All the while the MSM is implying that Democrats were robbed in 2016 because Blacks believed Russian bots on Facebook is so asinine. And just intellectually lazy. Oil us the basis of all of the world war agenda right now. If people would see that our government is fully activated in agendas against our own interests we may at least be able to start having the right conversations. Instead, alas, Uncle Joe is being pushed at the frontrunner smh

whats so hard to believe about russians aiding the republican effort to keep black away from the polls?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/steve-bannon-cambridge-analytica-2016-election-black-vote-trump-culture-war-a8355396.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/17/us/politics/russia-2016-influence-campaign.html
https://www.wsj.com/articles/russians-took-aim-at-black-voters-to-boost-trump-reports-to-senate-find-11545066563

you got a lot of DNC fan boys beating that drum, basically saying they did everything right but russia fucked it up. that's absolutely not true and it diminishes the accountability of everyone in the party.

My whole point is that it is not the best idea for black radicals to engage with online disinformation campaigns and political distractions from anonymous sources. Ironic that I say this as anonymously online.



America has imported more warlord theocracy from Afghanistan than it has exported democracy.

Anyone dumb enough to be swayed by FB to not vote is probably someone who would find ANY reason not to vote.

Like ManC said above. It’s just a way to deflect from the shit the DNC did wrong.

this is about radicalizing people who are already on edge or distracting them with irrelevant issues.

America has imported more warlord theocracy from Afghanistan than it has exported democracy.

Not poverty?
Not Police murders?
Not the Rise of white nationalism?
Not Gentrification/housing crises?
FB ads?
Ok.

Not sure if you noticed

America has imported more warlord theocracy from Afghanistan than it has exported democracy.

Yall goofy as hell to think that FB ads are more "radicalizing" than the Erik Garner killing.

America has imported more warlord theocracy from Afghanistan than it has exported democracy.

Asking because you seem defensive yet I’m not really hearing any other examples

using wikileaks to undermine the party most black people vote for, manipulating youtube algorithms to promote white nationalism and crazy ass conspiracies, helping to install the white nationalist in chief...

America has imported more warlord theocracy from Afghanistan than it has exported democracy.

the exposure was?
FOH

Like I said prior, if "Russia" had a tape of Zimmerman and Trayvon that showed the entire encounter would people not want it released because "Russia"? Its so backwards.

And release it on stormfront

America has imported more warlord theocracy from Afghanistan than it has exported democracy.

were being negotiated with Trump's team before the Democratic National Convention) were published in March of 2016. The 2nd round was released during the DNC to EVERYONE. They even still had time to name another nominee that didn't have the mess of the leaks or the Comey letter and THEY still decided to push the flawed candidate. That would make Democrats the most complicit party of this proposed Russia conspiracy. They had the power to do otherwise WITH information at EVERY turn.

or not?

America has imported more warlord theocracy from Afghanistan than it has exported democracy.

It has been shown time and time again just from the meta data that the transfer speeds of the downloads in question suggest that they were copied LOCALLY to a device. As in some on premise for the DNC connected a storage drive and copied them over. That drive was then given to WikiLeaks, who then verified the source and documents and then released them. More evidence points to this being the case than it does that Russians "hacked" DNC servers or e-mail, which the DNC has not even allowed to this day for the FBI to forensically examine. You would think if Russia had the power and technology to hack into such critical and sensitive information that the DNC would do everything they could to have their hardware examined to find out who did it, how they did it, and to prevent it from happening again. None of that has happened. For a supposed technological breach, the only evidence has pointed to IN PERSON CONVERSATIONS and WILLFUL COMMUNICATIONS - that somehow influenced people to vote against their conscious.

I do agree that there was a bombardment of influence and propaganda in the 2016 election, but that was more at the hand of the MSM and the Democratic Party. they benefitted most from Trump as a candidate, and they miscalculated the apathy that their fear based agenda would generate, and it backfired and they LOST.

In my humble opinion, of course.

A white nationalist at the same time. Exposing the Democratic leadership and coordinating with the trump campaign to time the release of the emails is not something an ally of black people would do.

America has imported more warlord theocracy from Afghanistan than it has exported democracy.

Putin
or
Biden/Clinton?

I ain't saying Russia is an ally.
I'm saying on the list of shit Black people need to be concerned about, "they" are waaaaaaaaay down there with "Beyonce's kids not really being hers".

There are clear, obvious & direct lines between BOTH politcal parties and racist/white nationalist individuals and policies.
We supposed to not examine that shit, and fall in line cuz of some completely unsubstantiated fuckshit about Russia?
FOH.

Was to say that Putin and his global crime syndicate are not the same as communist Russia

America has imported more warlord theocracy from Afghanistan than it has exported democracy.

who's done more damage to Black America:
Russia
Or
The Clintons?

And Russia ain't been communist in decades.
The Soviet Union went away loooooong time ago.

I've asked this question around here dozens of times, and I still haven't gotten a straight answer from anybody. What was in those emails that was worthy of even a news story, let alone a race-shifting scandal?

It was a press-manufactured scandal (triggered, apparently, by intentional Russian espionage). The press had what they thought was exciting news, they drew clicks (and claimed their usual false-equivalence "balance") with "Some are saying..." headlines with no underlying story.

There was nothing of substance in those emails. They were just fodder for mindless wishful speculation.

That is BS, I have personally replied to you before on this exact question. Just off the top of my head:

- there are e-mails with coordination to direct powers in state and local government during the primary to influence manipulation of the number of open poll places, hours of operation, and number of voting machines.

- the flip flop of inner-Clinton campaign communication showing her "public/private" positions which came back to bite her when she was all but saying that the "concessions" she made during the Convention weren't really going to change her platform or agenda.

- the willful propping up of Trump from party insiders as they knew that would be the best favorable matchup with Clinton because she was so unpopular.

And that's just a start. However, if the e-mails are so innocuous and had no bearing then how did their release harm her campaign? Aside for the obvious juxtaposition that she was under scrutiny for having a hackable private e-mail server, which she had to defend as a prudent decision, only to then turn around a cry victim that she was allegedly hacked - I have yet to see how people reconcile that sequence of events and the Comey outcome and have it ring true to them, but you would be able to explain that one better than me.

and her critiques
Discuss at length at how to silence/dismiss BLM/Black activists when approached by them
Discuss plans with cable news heads to promote Trump as the leading Republican candidate because he'd be easier to beat
Discuss the business model of the Clinton foundation, which is literally bribery
among many, many, MANY other things.

Wikkileaks is amazing, and you should dig around in it

>and her critiques
>Discuss at length at how to silence/dismiss BLM/Black
>activists when approached by them
>Discuss plans with cable news heads to promote Trump as the
>leading Republican candidate because he'd be easier to beat
>Discuss the business model of the Clinton foundation, which is
>literally bribery

LOL, "literally bribery." I haven't the foggiest idea what you're talking about, but I'm pretty certain it isn't "literally bribery."

>among many, many, MANY other things.
>
>Wikkileaks is amazing, and you should dig around in it

You share that opinion with the President. And Russian propagandists. Good for you.

of the entire election?

That's objectively false.
Yall really dont read shit.

>That is BS, I have personally replied to you before on this
>exact question. Just off the top of my head:
>
>- there are e-mails with coordination to direct powers in
>state and local government during the primary to influence
>manipulation of the number of open poll places, hours of
>operation, and number of voting machines.

Care to cite any? I remember chatter about this from TYT-types, but it never went anywhere.

>- the flip flop of inner-Clinton campaign communication
>showing her "public/private" positions which came back to bite
>her when she was all but saying that the "concessions" she
>made during the Convention weren't really going to change her
>platform or agenda.

Wait, so the scandalous reveal is that she was a smart politician who, like any other, knows how to make persuasive and nuanced statements?

If you think Bernie Sanders didn't have "private" positions that occasionally conflicted with his "public" positions, you're fooling yourself.

>- the willful propping up of Trump from party insiders as they
>knew that would be the best favorable matchup with Clinton
>because she was so unpopular.

I don't know how you think they were able to "prop up" anybody in the Republican race. (Maybe it's an extension of the powers they also don't have, to prop up someone in the Democratic race.) But anyway, what does this have to do with ANYTHING in the Democratic primary?

>And that's just a start. However, if the e-mails are so
>innocuous and had no bearing then how did their release harm
>her campaign?

Because the press used it to drive a salacious, though ultimately empty, scandal. Also key in this is that certain supposedly progressive people were misled (in part by Russian propaganda) into thinking there was evidence of corruption in these emails.

>Aside for the obvious juxtaposition that she was
>under scrutiny for having a hackable private e-mail server,
>which she had to defend as a prudent decision, only to then
>turn around a cry victim that she was allegedly hacked

She was not hacked, by the way. The DNC is an independent organization. Podesta's account was Gmail. Both of these were results of phishing scams, not any inherent server vulnerability.

> - I
>have yet to see how people reconcile that sequence of events
>and the Comey outcome and have it ring true to them, but you
>would be able to explain that one better than me.

I don't know what you're asking at this point. Maybe your conspiracy theories are tying you in knots.

>>That is BS, I have personally replied to you before on this
>>exact question. Just off the top of my head:
>>
>>- there are e-mails with coordination to direct powers in
>>state and local government during the primary to influence
>>manipulation of the number of open poll places, hours of
>>operation, and number of voting machines.
>
>Care to cite any? I remember chatter about this from
>TYT-types, but it never went anywhere.

Back in 2016 I pointed you to an exact e-mail exchange between a Clinton campaign agent being asked to reach out to a governor in Connecticut I believe it was to specifically request that they reduce the number of polling places from 400 some odd location down to 30 the help make it more difficult for persons to cast their votes. The exchange essentially when that they had an inside with the governor and should be able to make something happen. There was even a linked article afterwards about the public outcry the day after about the public upset that there were closures and odd hours. THAT ran true to me too because that happened to me in NYC too where I was redirected and then told to use a provisional ballot because my name wasn't on the list (though I had voted in NYC since 2012 with no issues).

>>- the flip flop of inner-Clinton campaign communication
>>showing her "public/private" positions which came back to
>bite
>>her when she was all but saying that the "concessions" she
>>made during the Convention weren't really going to change
>her
>>platform or agenda.
>
>Wait, so the scandalous reveal is that she was a smart
>politician who, like any other, knows how to make persuasive
>and nuanced statements?

The scandalous reveal was specifically about the money for speeches, and her having to tell people paying her that they should not worry because things said in her stances would never happen. Seeing her money from Pharma and Wall Street, and then coming out and being ADAMANTLY against $15 and hour and M4A (two of the most popular agenda issues today) show her political compromise.

>If you think Bernie Sanders didn't have "private" positions
>that occasionally conflicted with his "public" positions,
>you're fooling yourself.

I am not a child. I know it exist. But I rather his concessions than hers if for no other reason than he has decades of a voting and public record aligned with my own thoughts as opposed to hers.

>>- the willful propping up of Trump from party insiders as
>they
>>knew that would be the best favorable matchup with Clinton
>>because she was so unpopular.
>
>I don't know how you think they were able to "prop up" anybody
>in the Republican race. (Maybe it's an extension of the powers
>they also don't have, to prop up someone in the Democratic
>race.) But anyway, what does this have to do with ANYTHING in
>the Democratic primary?

That was easily the Main Stream Media. ATT/Time Warner were a HUGE contributor to her campaign as she was going to help massage the anti trust to help them merge. Giving those ties, plus Boeing and MS/NBC and her pro war stance, it was a match made in heaven. On the night Sanders pulled 20,000 people to a rally in the BRONX on 2 hours notice I came home to CNN and MSNBC not talking about it at all and having a camera fixed on Trump's empty podium. They elevated Trump as a candidate specifically to have him oppose Clinton in the general as the more favorable candidate.

>>And that's just a start. However, if the e-mails are so
>>innocuous and had no bearing then how did their release harm
>>her campaign?
>
>Because the press used it to drive a salacious, though
>ultimately empty, scandal. Also key in this is that certain
>supposedly progressive people were misled (in part by Russian
>propaganda) into thinking there was evidence of corruption in
>these emails.

I definitely agree that the press used it for view$, but my point is the same people claiming hacks are the same ones giving her a pass for being hackable. Just saying.

>>Aside for the obvious juxtaposition that she was
>>under scrutiny for having a hackable private e-mail server,
>>which she had to defend as a prudent decision, only to then
>>turn around a cry victim that she was allegedly hacked
>
>She was not hacked, by the way. The DNC is an independent
>organization. Podesta's account was Gmail. Both of these were
>results of phishing scams, not any inherent server
>vulnerability.

Correct.

>> - I
>>have yet to see how people reconcile that sequence of events
>>and the Comey outcome and have it ring true to them, but you
>>would be able to explain that one better than me.
>
>I don't know what you're asking at this point. Maybe your
>conspiracy theories are tying you in knots.

I was asking how people are saying "Russia hacked her" vs Comey's decision that she was "hackable" but said people are willing to allow the latter and not the former. I haven't been able to grasp how people forgive action that could lead to the thing they feel broke the election. Just pointing out that none of the backlash has come back on her for making herself and her time as SOS that vulnerable, though we agree that they/she were NOT hacked. It was a local download then turned over to WikiLeaks for auditing and later publishing.

Everything else around Russia can just be chalked up to international affairs at this point because the US does the same shit and puts citizens in a situation to be victimized when it isn't even representative of our overall agenda.

Did Black people not vote because of the Wikileaks?

I think we voted in high numbers... it was white women who fucked us over.

Did folks really think we would get an Obama turnout with Hillary fucking Clinton? We did our part. This whole Black people didn’t vote due to FB is bullshit. Focus on all those white folks who flipped to Trump or didn’t vote because they hate the Clintons.

Green New Deal based progressive platform. Did Russia tell me to do that?

2020, 3 of the top 4 candidates have some form of a more progressive platform including a Green New Deal.....is that Russia too if I decide to vote for any of them?

than you did about climate or economics.

I'm sure there were a lot of influences that led you to that silly, irrational position. So all we can really say is that Russian propaganda was one of those influences.

Who knows, maybe you didn't even see any of the propaganda designed to lead you to that position. Maybe you came to that dumb conclusion all by yourself.

hit their 5% of the popular vote to receive national funds. That was the only chance of getting anything substantial out of 2016.

Secondly, I did it from New York state, so it was little risk that Clinton was going to lose based on that voting base. If Clinton lost NY of all states there would be a MUCH bigger issue with her as an overall candidate. I even asked for Hillary supporters to still vote for her but on the Working Families Party line to show that they wanted to hold her accountable to actual policy implementation. I was not a Hillary hater.

Thirdly, many people who voted (or didn't vote) PLEADED with the DNC to make real changes to their platform even in Sanders' loss. They instead stood firm that Hillary "got more votes", and therefore didn't need to bend to the side of the party that was behind Sanders. They also basically said they would make up for my vote by picking up moderates, Republicans, and independents who wouldn't dare vote for Trump. To quote MY Senator Chuck Schumer, "for every blue vote we lose we'll pick up another 2 or 3".

All that to say that THEY DID NOT WANT MY VOTE NOR WISH TO DO ANYTHING TO OBTAIN IT. And 2016's results have shown that to be a horrid strategy on their part. Honestly they would have rather lose to Trump than lose to Progressivism. Trump was never the enemy, which is why they nominated the person that he could beat. They cared more about protecting the 1% and status quo, and 3 years later their mea culpa has been "Russia did it".

I'm ready to not vote for bs in 2020 as well. Perhaps if they want votes they should EARN them. That's what a Democracy is supposed to be. They could even implement rank choice voting if they were afraid of spoilers but they thrive off of the false choice of the 2 party system. Not going to fall it.

The fact that she chose Tim Kaine was an added fuck you to people who see the urgency of this moment in American history and wonder why white liberals are so ambivalent towards more hardline antiracist, redistributive policies.

You could have lived through just the 00s and seen the Republicans were not going to compromise with weak ass democrats, but we all lived through the obama presidency and witnessed their level of duplicitousness, treason, and hate for the American people.

America has imported more warlord theocracy from Afghanistan than it has exported democracy.

"Pro life" states and Hillary wanted a "I'm With Her" platform with a VP who basically was anti abortion personally, but not politically. It's a position I can respect for someone to not let their personal affairs interfere with their politics, BUT the reason he got the shoulder tap for the VP position is because he had to step down as DNC chair and nominate Debbie WS to run the DNC to help lay the ground work for the 2016 primary to shove Hillary to the nomination. He wasn't made VP as any strategic ticket nor as a decision echoed from the base. People are acting like Bernie turned down being VP as if that wasn't already the battered deal to have Kaine. It was so transparent, but speak on facts and people call it a conspiracy.

It's almost as if the thought process had been fed to you intentionally.

>hit their 5% of the popular vote to receive national funds.
>That was the only chance of getting anything substantial out
>of 2016.

Something substantial, meaning: splitting the progressive vote in general elections for the next fifty years, instead of just the next 5 years. Some substantial change is substantial for the worse.

In a majority-rule, first-past-the-post system (as laid out in the constitution), third parties can ONLY split their votes in a self-defeating way.

I told myself that line about national funding when I voted for Nader in 2000. It was nonsense then and it's nonsense now.


>Secondly, I did it from New York state, so it was little risk
>that Clinton was going to lose based on that voting base.

Perhaps I was confusing you with that other dude who voted Stein in Michigan. If you were in NY, then it's true that your vote itself was irrelevant. However the opinions you spread, undermining the only electable progressive party, do nothing but harm to your claimed progressive interests.

>If
>Clinton lost NY of all states there would be a MUCH bigger
>issue with her as an overall candidate. I even asked for
>Hillary supporters to still vote for her but on the Working
>Families Party line to show that they wanted to hold her
>accountable to actual policy implementation. I was not a
>Hillary hater.

LOL, this is funny. I know you.

>Thirdly, many people who voted (or didn't vote) PLEADED with
>the DNC to make real changes to their platform even in
>Sanders' loss.

THEY DID. I don't know where you got this impression that they didn't change the platform, but all the mainstream reporting at the time held that they were making huge concessions to Sanders's positions, and even Sanders himself said it was the most progressive platform in Democratic party history.

It's all kind of irrelevant anyway. The party platform is not a legally binding document. It really doesn't mean anything after the convention is over. I don't know why those Sanders supporters were pleading in the first place.


>They instead stood firm that Hillary "got more
>votes", and therefore didn't need to bend to the side of the
>party that was behind Sanders. They also basically said they
>would make up for my vote by picking up moderates,
>Republicans, and independents who wouldn't dare vote for
>Trump. To quote MY Senator Chuck Schumer, "for every blue vote
>we lose we'll pick up another 2 or 3".

Still very true.

>All that to say that THEY DID NOT WANT MY VOTE NOR WISH TO DO
>ANYTHING TO OBTAIN IT. And 2016's results have shown that to
>be a horrid strategy on their part.

That's a specious argument. Just because we lost a close race after some of the self-described "progressives" got mad doesn't mean we wouldn't have lost by more if we'd given up on the centrists and the independents.

>Honestly they would have
>rather lose to Trump than lose to Progressivism. Trump was
>never the enemy, which is why they nominated the person that
>he could beat.

LOL, you still think Bernie Sanders could have won a general election.

>They cared more about protecting the 1% and
>status quo, and 3 years later their mea culpa has been "Russia
>did it".

That's a strawman argument. Just because we state, with plenty of evidence, that Russia ran a propaganda campaign that influenced public opinion, does not mean that that was the only reason we lost the race.

Another reason was that some people who call themselves progressives have no discipline and no sense of what their actual goals are and how to obtain them.

And then there's just the fact that the party in power has a natural disadvantage after an eight-year term. And then there was the mountains of free media for Trump. And then there was the willingness of the press to trumpet unimportant stories (emails, etc) to claim that they're putting a check on the candidate that they were convinced would win.

There were a lot of reasons we lost in 2016. Your personal decisions are very low on that list, but that doesn't make them any less irrational.

>I'm ready to not vote for bs in 2020 as well. Perhaps if they
>want votes they should EARN them. That's what a Democracy is
>supposed to be. They could even implement rank choice voting

I hope you know that they can't do that (for general elections) without a constitutional amendment. And I hope you know that a constitutional amendment is laughable for the foreseeable future.

>if they were afraid of spoilers but they thrive off of the
>false choice of the 2 party system. Not going to fall it.

The parties did not form the 2-party system. The constitution formed it through the stipulation that a winning candidate needs a majority of electors. The parties were formed as an imperfect but optimal response to that system.

I know it's unsatisfying to be mad at math, especially math that we're powerless to change. But it's reality.

>It's almost as if the thought process had been fed to you
>intentionally.

Nah, much more thought went into how I voted, and trust I was conflicted even up to placing my actual vote, but chose that I could not reward a party with my consensual vote when I saw all of the fuckery they implemented. Experiencing it in NYC was just different. In my office alone there were about 14 people who participated in the Primary and were ready for vote for the first time. My supervisor was a Trumper AFTER Sanders lost the primary, and he wasn't able to vote in the primary because the morning of he went to his polling place to vote before work only to be told that his site wouldn't be opened until 8AM. And this was in upstate New York, red territories, NOT the blue city parts. That again feels intentional because Clinton could NOT have a close victory or loss in NY of all places. Remember this is the same week that DeBlahsio said Hillary had it in the bag AFTER 200,000 voters in Brooklyn alone had their names wiped off of voter registries, and where Sanders had 4 25,000+ rallies in NYC 2 days before the election with NO mainstream media attention. SMH still makes me mad even thinking back on it.

>>hit their 5% of the popular vote to receive national funds.
>>That was the only chance of getting anything substantial out
>>of 2016.
>
>Something substantial, meaning: splitting the progressive vote
>in general elections for the next fifty years, instead of just
>the next 5 years. Some substantial change is substantial for
>the worse.

If that is the risk, the TRUE risk, then the party should not be making that concession and decision in THEIR interest, but against their constituency. Clinton as the candidate was completed manufactured, and once shown to be outdated they could not concede because there were too many special interests in play to suspend her election - again. (Most of the war for oil actions would have been in place in 2008 had she not lost then, imo).

>In a majority-rule, first-past-the-post system (as laid out in
>the constitution), third parties can ONLY split their votes in
>a self-defeating way.
>
>I told myself that line about national funding when I voted
>for Nader in 2000. It was nonsense then and it's nonsense now.

I call BS on that Nader logic. I didn't even get to vote in that election. Wasn't old enough until 2004 and saw Bush get reelected even with all our enthusiasm to get him out of there. That came down to "blue no matter who" mentality as well. Hell, in 2000 more Democrats voted for Bush than ones that voted for Nader. We have to be in a democracy based in actual politics and not just blue vs red.

>
>>Secondly, I did it from New York state, so it was little
>risk
>>that Clinton was going to lose based on that voting base.
>
>Perhaps I was confusing you with that other dude who voted
>Stein in Michigan. If you were in NY, then it's true that your
>vote itself was irrelevant. However the opinions you spread,
>undermining the only electable progressive party, do nothing
>but harm to your claimed progressive interests.

Honestly we are so backwards that we have to fight for thinking and conversations before we can even jump into politics. People aren't even asking the right questions here. It happened again during the Local and State elections. But AOC has been a bright spot and has followed the Sanders model and had success.

>>If
>>Clinton lost NY of all states there would be a MUCH bigger
>>issue with her as an overall candidate. I even asked for
>>Hillary supporters to still vote for her but on the Working
>>Families Party line to show that they wanted to hold her
>>accountable to actual policy implementation. I was not a
>>Hillary hater.
>
>LOL, this is funny. I know you.

Haha no worries, if we cross paths there is no hate.


>>Thirdly, many people who voted (or didn't vote) PLEADED with
>>the DNC to make real changes to their platform even in
>>Sanders' loss.
>
>THEY DID. I don't know where you got this impression that they
>didn't change the platform, but all the mainstream reporting
>at the time held that they were making huge concessions to
>Sanders's positions, and even Sanders himself said it was the
>most progressive platform in Democratic party history.

To be fair, that was low hanging fruit, and not entirely genuine. He had to say that, and it was "more" progressive than what Hillary had before his influence, but still fell short on ISSUES that people cared about. A lot of it was window dressing, and just "vote for me and you'll see" but that is very different from having a record that would turn out progressives and independents.

>It's all kind of irrelevant anyway. The party platform is not
>a legally binding document. It really doesn't mean anything
>after the convention is over. I don't know why those Sanders
>supporters were pleading in the first place.

We were pleading because we knew Hillary could be President of the Democratic Party, but not of the United States. The rest of the electorate that didn't get to participate in the primaries but would weigh in for the general are DECIDEDLY not Democrats. To nominate the most Democrat of all Democrats with scandals in tow would a supreme miscalculation, and it cherry bombed the electorate, especially in the way they handle the Convention and aftermath of Wikileaks.

>
>>They instead stood firm that Hillary "got more
>>votes", and therefore didn't need to bend to the side of the
>>party that was behind Sanders. They also basically said they
>>would make up for my vote by picking up moderates,
>>Republicans, and independents who wouldn't dare vote for
>>Trump. To quote MY Senator Chuck Schumer, "for every blue
>vote
>>we lose we'll pick up another 2 or 3".
>
>Still very true.

And fair of them to do, but it backfired and had consequences.

>>All that to say that THEY DID NOT WANT MY VOTE NOR WISH TO
>DO
>>ANYTHING TO OBTAIN IT. And 2016's results have shown that to
>>be a horrid strategy on their part.
>
>That's a specious argument. Just because we lost a close race
>after some of the self-described "progressives" got mad
>doesn't mean we wouldn't have lost by more if we'd given up on
>the centrists and the independents.

That is fair. It is my opinion though that Trump didn't win. Apathy won. He came in 2nd, and Clinton 3rd. If we actually talk about issues again I hope they prevail.

>>Honestly they would have
>>rather lose to Trump than lose to Progressivism. Trump was
>>never the enemy, which is why they nominated the person that
>>he could beat.
>
>LOL, you still think Bernie Sanders could have won a general
>election.

Well I thought Hillary wasn't going to win, so consider me batting .500. We will see this go round.

>>They cared more about protecting the 1% and
>>status quo, and 3 years later their mea culpa has been
>"Russia
>>did it".
>
>That's a strawman argument. Just because we state, with plenty
>of evidence, that Russia ran a propaganda campaign that
>influenced public opinion, does not mean that that was the
>only reason we lost the race.
>
>Another reason was that some people who call themselves
>progressives have no discipline and no sense of what their
>actual goals are and how to obtain them.

I disagree, 3 years later I can still explain why I voted Sanders. Most Clinton supporters I have spoken to over the years (including my own mom) have expressed a lot of regret. We are able to talk though because there are still policies we are able to galvanize around. A party of substance that fights for issues is true progressivism.

>And then there's just the fact that the party in power has a
>natural disadvantage after an eight-year term. And then there
>was the mountains of free media for Trump. And then there was
>the willingness of the press to trumpet unimportant stories
>(emails, etc) to claim that they're putting a check on the
>candidate that they were convinced would win.
>
>There were a lot of reasons we lost in 2016. Your personal
>decisions are very low on that list, but that doesn't make
>them any less irrational.

I think that is false, but if so then the best chance for that to happen would have been with an outsider housed within your party! Haha to double down on the party negative rather than embrace the country's urge for change was a terrible miscalculation.

>>I'm ready to not vote for bs in 2020 as well. Perhaps if
>they
>>want votes they should EARN them. That's what a Democracy is
>>supposed to be. They could even implement rank choice voting
>
>I hope you know that they can't do that (for general
>elections) without a constitutional amendment. And I hope you
>know that a constitutional amendment is laughable for the
>foreseeable future.

Well in an country that considers a living wage and health care laughable yeah I'm not holding my breath. There is only one candidate talking about systemic change, and not just individual iconography. But we'll see.

>>if they were afraid of spoilers but they thrive off of the
>>false choice of the 2 party system. Not going to fall it.
>
>The parties did not form the 2-party system. The constitution
>formed it through the stipulation that a winning candidate
>needs a majority of electors. The parties were formed as an
>imperfect but optimal response to that system.
>
>I know it's unsatisfying to be mad at math, especially math
>that we're powerless to change. But it's reality.
>

Yeah, but we have a constitution and an amendment process. That is literally the thing that is supposed to make the US different from every other country. When you empower people you can make this country whatever you want. When you instead have a Congress bent on telling people what they can't have who do they really represent? I am much more skeptical of a government that scandalizes, gaslights, and represses me than of a boogieman country that is supposed to me more of a threat to me than that.

And this isn't about you. It's about people who are more impressionable than you, feeling more alienated than you, and have a looser grip on reality than you. The Greens are clearly a legitimate political party.

America has imported more warlord theocracy from Afghanistan than it has exported democracy.

actively working to surpress the black vote through policies and gerrymandering since at LEAST 1968.
History didn't fucking start with the election of Donald Trump, bruh

America has imported more warlord theocracy from Afghanistan than it has exported democracy.

But you are all in on the oil and gas industry, one party rule conspiracy theory.

America has imported more warlord theocracy from Afghanistan than it has exported democracy.

They are battling over oil reserves in the arctic right now. I'm not saying his conspiracy doesn't exist, but he is trying to say that mine some childish fantasy.

America has imported more warlord theocracy from Afghanistan than it has exported democracy.

... "A Beautiful Struggle"
https://m.facebook.com/jamelabullock
Www.reverbnation.com/jamela

MELa
Musically.Entertaining.Lyrically.Alluring.

like the KKK and various Pan-African movements have tried to do for several decades. hasn't pulled a lot of weight. you can tell this went nowhere and they should stick to what they do successfully like keeping people away from the polls and flooding twitter with garbage.

in other other countries arming and supporting dissident or oppressed groups in hopes of destabilizing the government?

Russia has an interesting history in terms of supporting darker nations against their Eurasian counterparts.

Russians helped the Union in the Civil War.

“Doesn’t matter, it’s more serious because it’s happening to us”

Shit ain’t new... we just didn’t like the results this time around

I bet they're still pissed about that. We should apologize and stop fucking with other countries and maybe, after a couple more decades of trying to get even, they'll stop fucking with us.

edit: I think it's worth considering that, having finished making ourselves into the giant swinging dick of the cosmos, that maybe we could solve problems by trying to repair past mistakes and then acting right.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/07/the-us-has-a-long-history-of-election-meddling/565538/

could they manipulate for the election?

Bama, SC, GA, Miss, Louisiana... none of those states are flipping anytime soon

GA is the closest but I still think it’s further off than we want to admit.

pennsylvania, michigan, and wisconsin are the primary concerns

America has imported more warlord theocracy from Afghanistan than it has exported democracy.

didn't campaign in at all.
Hmmmmmmmm.....

She sent Chelsea.

Folks just reaching and making shit up.

Both things can be a problem at the same time and their interests can align, without having overt communication. That shit still doesn't benefit Black people

America has imported more warlord theocracy from Afghanistan than it has exported democracy.

just so happened to overlap with Russian disinfo campaigns in those same states.
Convenient.

Just like the DNC leaks that showed wild corruption, malfeseance and negligence by the party toward pretty much everyone, but especially Black people, is a problem, because Russia.
But NOT THE ACTUAL CONTENT.
Let's ignore THAT, and focus on HOW it happened, but not what's in it.

AWFULLY convenient.

Black people are actively pushing for their own political needs following the failure of Obama, and the Dems post-trump.
But we're supposed to stop pushing the party leftward, and pursuing our interests, because Russia. Fall in line and support whatever sack of shit the Dems send our way.

HELLA convenient.

people need to remember that and never forget it. we've been supporting this
lifestyle and we don't even know what it is.

>Black people are actively pushing for their own political
>needs following the failure of Obama, and the Dems post-trump.
>
>But we're supposed to stop pushing the party leftward, and
>pursuing our interests, because Russia. Fall in line and
>support whatever sack of shit the Dems send our way.
>
>HELLA convenient.
>

That’s some lazy ass right wing internet bullshit.

You realize when the KLK was spawned?

The fuck.

Edit: sorry I had to add. What in theeee fuck. Now please, the KKK was formed when white men on both sides didn’t want us to vote, breath, live, talk, etc. in the South as everyone used to vote Dem down south. Now most of those folks offspring vote GOP down south.

Shit. I thought only white racist typed that shit. You white?

f*ck both of these parties

Being nudged by Russian sock puppets towards Jill Stein shouldn't be any more embarrassing than being nudged by Jill Stein towards Jill Stein

Why was 2016 different than 2012? Why didn't Russia tell me to vote for her over Obama in 2012? Or did some other propaganda apparatus tell us that Obama would be in our best interest?

Knowing what we know now, if more people had voted for their issues and not out of fear (which is was Clinton's campaign was reduced to) I think at minimum the Green Party would have gotten their 5% of the popular vote.

Instead we have Trump, and a democratic party posing as the "Resistance" when the only thing they are resisting are their highly popular progressive candidates. And finding ways to oppose them and primary them instead of elevating them for real change.

*shrugs* but that's why I'm not a #themocrat anymore, cause they aint me.

Look at this shit.
Mufuckas won't challenge the people who actually voted for Trump tho.
Or the party who ran a shitty campaign with no platform from a shitty candidate.
Shit is deranged bruh

so they focus on the 2% that Hillary lost by.

Or do you think you are too smart or aware for that to work on you?

this is not just about elections but the manipulation of events and ideas on a daily basis in a news environment that is based off of celebrities, twitter hashtags, cable news opinion panels, reddit memes, and cell phone videos. Meanwhile local print journalism is dying because of social media companies soaking up all the ad dollars and media concentration is accelerating.

America has imported more warlord theocracy from Afghanistan than it has exported democracy.

America has imported more warlord theocracy from Afghanistan than it has exported democracy.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/social-media-is-a-tool-of-the-cia-seriously/

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-facebook-encryption-exclusive/u-s-government-seeks-facebook-help-to-wiretap-messenger-sources-idUSKBN1L226D

https://billmoyers.com/story/media-consolidation-should-anyone-care/

http://fortune.com/longform/media-company-ownership-consolidation/

America has imported more warlord theocracy from Afghanistan than it has exported democracy.

unless you just fall off the grid and detach from society altogether.

By another Obama type candidate?

Hell yeah.

If the Russians propped up a Stacy Abrams type I could definitely be influenced because of my Blackness

Wait. I guess if I was younger and there was a Charlottesville type thing going down I could be influenced to go beat up some assholes. Then again I can’t really see myself fighting over politics unless it was some Jim Crow type movement on the rise

that can be exploited somewhat

but I think the people who tend to approach topics/issues/candidates in absolutes that they absolutely *need* to be be right about the thing theyre so dug in on are more ripe for stuff like this

is the easiest kind of person to sucker.

We're fooled into things every single day. That's what advertising is.

it's their whole deal

>is the easiest kind of person to sucker.

Many of them are/feel alienated due to their identity, upbringing, poor life choices, inability to control their environment, etc. and end up finding themselves caught up in political movements and religious affiliations that can push them dangerously close to vigilantism. Most of them are more focused on building communities rather than destroying them but the goal for white supremacists and egomaniacal populists is to build up just enough of a following to intimidate through violence.

America has imported more warlord theocracy from Afghanistan than it has exported democracy.

I almost got caught by a fake Twitter story a few days ago. It was pretty small-time as far as things go on a subject I'm not super familiar with (it was about the Brexit guy in the UK getting milkshaked,) but there was a solid few minutes where I thoroughly believed what I was seeing. It was only when I looked at the replies that I got more suspicious.

How many things do you see in a day, though? You're not always going to click around and make sure THIS THING is definitely true. If even 0.5% of the things you see on a daily basis are completely made up and you believe them, that adds up over time. It's way too easy to get fooled.

but on a large scale. Like voting. Are you getting tricked into not voting at all?

I definitely know more than a few “I don’t vote because America” woke types but they are usually fake deep.

On an individual level, that means you wouldn't change your vote.

But on a national level, where entire elections hinge on small-single-digit margins, it can be very significant and can throw entire elections.

Little things add up when employed on a massive scale.

i mean, maybe now lol

This whole discussion is really insufficiently theorized. We're being influenced constantly, by a universe of interests that are networked together in unseen and unpredictable ways. I saw something today about how the pistachio lobby was all foaming for war/sanctions on Iran because they're our biggest pistachio competition. Fucking delicious pistachios pressing us into destructive, horrifying foreign war.

So why is Russia getting in on the parade and sliding their interests into US politics more of a problem than pistachios?

Or, if that question doesn't work: how would we feel if a foreign country influenced our election toward a result which was actually good?

>Or, if that question doesn't work: how would we feel if a
>foreign country influenced our election toward a result which
>was actually good?

I've been debating in my head a what if scenario where Russia was able to fuck with our elections in 2004, but had successfully been able to manipulate Bush into abandoning his plans for Iraq. Is that a trade-off I would be willing to accept?

Can't say. On the surface, I would say yes. But I don't know what other consequences there could've been.

>I've been debating in my head a what if scenario where Russia
>was able to fuck with our elections in 2004, but had
>successfully been able to manipulate Bush into abandoning his
>plans for Iraq. Is that a trade-off I would be willing to
>accept?

This is part of my issue below where I think our revulsion toward the idea of "influence" demonstrates some serious naivety about the origin of any of our firmly held beliefs. Accepting the fact that none of what we think is purely pressed in our own unfettered mental palace and moving then toward saying some types of influence are bad and others aren't can be fine, but I don't see a reason why the source of the influence should be the deciding factor - particularly when the desired end of that influence is often at least as easy to parse out.

The end of the Iraq War would have been a better result for every single human being on earth, except for ghoulish war profiteers and their servants in office. *Any* outside influence that could have led to that outcome would have been welcomed. And this isn't even purely an ends-justify-the-means position either, since both the ends and the means are justified in the same way that every political moment is: through power. Ethics haven't ever had anything to do with it.

For more present-tense example, I'm pretty sure Iran has an opinion on Trump2020 and if they believe matter of influencing Americans is as simple as opening some fake accounts on facebook and arguing with boomers in the comments on local news articles, they're definitely going to do it. And I hope they succeed. Nobody needs another endless, made-up middle eastern war.

FB and social media is just the newest latest.

I don't think that the rise of far right bullshit and the rise of social media adoption are entirely coincidental. I wouldn't attribute all the bullshit to socials, but it's been incredibly disruptive to journalism, commerce, communication... not all for the good.

Its looking more and more like an incredibly powerful tool for political manipulation.

>I don't think that the rise of far right bullshit and the
>rise of social media adoption are entirely coincidental. I
>wouldn't attribute all the bullshit to socials, but it's been
>incredibly disruptive to journalism, commerce,
>communication... not all for the good.
>
>Its looking more and more like an incredibly powerful tool for
>political manipulation.

He's gobbling up all the other social networks thereby creating a monopoly on all things social media, which is bad for the majority of us in and of itself -- but on top of that he outright refuses to proactively and adequately address the issues of data leaks and political manipulation. So that dude is hella complicit.

According to this guy, he was able to use a small amount of ad microtargeting to increase Democrat turnout like 3% and suppress moderate and conservative Republican turnout by like 4%.

He just focused on a small area, so it's hard to know whether it was truly that effective. But it shows that it can possibly make a big difference especially in close races

https://www.npr.org/2019/05/24/726536757/episode-915-how-to-meddle-in-an-election

Curious to know his tactics.

I'll probably have a good return next year too cause my income has gone up again.

However, I still would trade it for:

- M4A
- $15 Minimum Wage
- Campaign Finance Reform
- Tuition Free Public Colleges and Universities
- Protection of Abortion
- Anti-Interventionalism
- Consensus on Green New Deal

for starters.

Just saying even with the influence of more money in my pocket I still would rather see a country that works for everybody with less income inequality and disparity. For ME to feel like I'm screaming at seniors and youths to help them get more social security and paid education through college is really exhausting when going against a media machine that calls everything socialist except for corporate subsidies.

I can definitely be influenced though, hopefully by things of substance.

>RE: You know what's wild? My tax returns this year were GREAT.
>I'll probably have a good return next year too cause my
>income has gone up again.
>
>However, I still would trade it for:
>
>- M4A
>- $15 Minimum Wage
>- Campaign Finance Reform
>- Tuition Free Public Colleges and Universities
>- Protection of Abortion
>- Anti-Interventionalism
>- Consensus on Green New Deal
>
>for starters.

I have this exact discussion fairly often with my more conservative or moderate friends. The dumber ones will play the "why don't you just give all your money to (poor people/minorities/gay people/whoever) if you care so much ?" card. The smarter ones will play that same card but with slightly more nuance and intelligence.

Either way it's like uhhh no, idiots, that's not how it works. But I will always vote "against" my own interests if that vote is for the greater good overall, and the person receiving my vote seems to mirror my general principles and morals. For example, all of the things you listed above +more. The point is that everyone should be contributing to the greater good, and if so we'd all be better off in the longterm. Hence why "against" is in quotes above. Cause IMO even if in the short term I'm taking money out of my own pocket to contribute to these social programs, it will benefit me and EVERYONE in the longterm rather than just ... me and other white people.


>Just saying even with the influence of more money in my pocket
>I still would rather see a country that works for everybody
>with less income inequality and disparity. For ME to feel like
>I'm screaming at seniors and youths to help them get more
>social security and paid education through college is really
>exhausting when going against a media machine that calls
>everything socialist except for corporate subsidies.
>
>I can definitely be influenced though, hopefully by things of
>substance.

You can still be influenced even if you are prepared for this stuff.

There is no "freedom from", only "freedom to".

not you, but just in general, something I keep seeing on the internet is a similar sentient of "fuck that shit, I could NEVER be influenced by social media, I'm too smart"

to which I angrily think


MOTHERFUCKER WE SPENT HALF A TRILLION DOLLARS ON ADVERTISING LAST YEAR.

you think it's a coincidence google and facebook are the biggest companies in the world? They are advertising platforms first and foremost.

products and consumerism are ingrained into contemporary american culture, it's not an adhesive bandage, its a bandaid. It's not a tissue, it's a kleenex

yet still...
"fuck that shit, I could NEVER be influenced by social media, I'm too smart"

spin the globe another way. Representation.
Men, women, groups of people, classes, races, cohorts, fans, etc mirror presented images/self images in media. Identify is built and maintained by the images we produce and contain.

yet still...
"fuck that shit, I could NEVER be influenced by social media, I'm too smart"

https://medium.com/@IAMEIdentity/the-facebook-data-mining-scandal-what-happened-82154855aeca
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook%E2%80%93Cambridge_Analytica_data_scandal

The data breach that allowed access to 10s of millions of FB user data, which was sold off and used in-part to "influence" the 2016 election, and well as other things most-likely.

I wish people weren’t so quick to brush this stuff off likes it’s nothing. Facebook basically took everything about you and sold it to people who used it to fuck with your heads, it’s actually pretty messed up.

but they aren’t the only ones

I recently read a story about our phones navigation info being sold to advertisers.

A lot of folks love google echos and Alexa. That bitch stay listening to our convos.

I work for a cyber security company and it’s crazy to see folks talk about Ring, Nest, Google, FB and how unstable they are and all the info they gather. But folks still have these devices.

I know FB went a step further but we only know it because they got caught. Why would anyone believe these other companies aren’t selling our data?

I don’t trust any of them, but there is a difference between using your data to sell you stuff and using your data to incite violence. Facebook knew what was happening and they looked the other way. We should have more laws regulating this stuff.

My thing tho is whatever tool is out there can be manipulated for evil.

and I feel like FB is being blamed for Trumpsters being shitty and using it to do shitty things.

I don’t trust none of these apps even tho I use some of them.

.
.

“It was the evidence from science and history that prompted me to abandon my atheism and become a Christian.” — Lee Strobel, The Case for Christ

>

>

Leaked documents reveal Russian effort to exert influence in Africa
Illustration: Guardian Design
Exclusive: Kremlin ally Yevgeny Prigozhin leading push to turn continent into strategic hub, documents show

by Luke Harding and Jason Burke

Tue 11 Jun 2019 07.30 EDT Last modified on Tue 11 Jun 2019 12.05 EDT
Shares
686
Russia is seeking to bolster its presence in at least 13 countries across Africa by building relations with existing rulers, striking military deals, and grooming a new generation of “leaders” and undercover “agents”, leaked documents reveal.

The mission to increase Russian influence on the continent is being led by Yevgeny Prigozhin, a businessman based in St Petersburg who is a close ally of the Russian president, Vladimir Putin. One aim is to “strong-arm” the US and the former colonial powers the UK and France out of the region. Another is to see off “pro-western” uprisings, the documents say.

In 2018 the US special counsel Robert Mueller indicted Prigozhin, who is known as “Putin’s chef” because of his Kremlin catering contracts. According to Mueller, his troll factory ran an extensive social media campaign in 2016 to help elect Donald Trump. The Wagner group – a private military contractor linked to Prigozhin – has supplied mercenaries to fight in Ukraine and Syria.

The documents show the scale of Prigozhin-linked recent operations in Africa, and Moscow’s ambition to turn the region into a strategic hub. Multiple firms linked to the oligarch, including Wagner, are known by employees as the “Company”. Its activities are coordinated with senior officials inside Russia’s foreign and defence ministries, the documents suggest.

Yevgeny Prigozhin in Vladivostok in 2016
Facebook Twitter Pinterest Yevgeny Prigozhin in Vladivostok in 2016. Photograph: Mikhail Svetlov/Getty Images
Putin showed little interest in Africa in the 2000s. But western sanctions imposed in 2014 over the annexation of Crimea have driven Moscow to seek new geopolitical friends and business opportunities.

Russia has a military presence and peacekeeping mission in Central African Republic. CAR is described as “strategically important” and a “buffer zone between the Muslim north and Christian south”. It allows Moscow to expand “across the continent”, and Russian companies to strike lucrative mineral deals, the documents say.

On 24 May the Kremlin announced it was dispatching a team of army specialists to the neighbouring Democratic Republic of the Congo. According to Dmitry Peskov, Putin’s press spokesman, they will service Russian-made military equipment. So far Moscow has signed military cooperation deals with about 20 African states.

Five days later the Kremlin said it would host the first ever Russia-Africa summit in October in the Black Sea resort of Sochi. Putin and Egypt’s president, Abdel Fatah al-Sisi, will chair the event. About 50 African leaders are due to attend. The aim is to foster political, economic and cultural cooperation.

Advertisement

The leaked documents were obtained by the Dossier Center, an investigative unit based in London. The centre is funded by Mikhail Khodorkovsky, the Russian businessman and exiled Kremlin critic.

Prigozhin has been approached for comment. He has previously denied any links to the troll factory and has said of Wagner that it does not exist. Putin has previously said that entities linked to Prigozhin do not constitute the Russian state.

Congolese soldiers in Beni
Facebook Twitter Pinterest
Congolese soldiers on patrol in Beni, North Kivu province, DRC. Russia says it sent specialists to the country last month. Photograph: Hugh Kinsella Cunningham/EPA
A map from December 2018 seen by the Guardian shows the level of cooperation between the “Company” and African governments, country by country. Symbols indicate military, political and economic ties, police training, media and humanitarian projects, and “rivalry with France”. Five is the highest level; one is the lowest.

The closest relations are with CAR, Sudan and Madagascar – all put at five. Libya, Zimbabwe and South Africa are listed as four, according to the map, with South Sudan at three, and DRC, Chad and Zambia at two.

Other documents cite Uganda, Equatorial Guinea and Mali as “countries where we plan to work”. Libya and Ethiopia are flagged as nations “where cooperation is possible”. The Kremlin has recently stepped up its ground operation in Libya. Last November the Libyan commander Khalifa Haftar travelled to Moscow and met the defence minister, Sergei Shoigu. Prigozhin was spotted at the talks. Egypt is described as “traditionally supportive”.


The graphic gives an overview of “Company” activities and achievements. It claims credit in CAR for getting of rid of politicians who are “orientated to France”, including national assembly representatives and the foreign minister. This appears to be Charles-Armel Doubane, sacked in December. It has “strengthened” the army and set up newspapers and a radio station. Russia is an “83% friend”, it says.

In Madagascar the new president, Andry Rajoelina, won election with “the Company’s support”, the map says. Russia “produced and distributed the island’s biggest newspaper, with 2 million copies a month”, it adds. Rajoelina denies receiving assistance.

Another key territory is Sudan. Last year Russian specialists drew up a programme of political and economic reform, designed to keep President Omar al-Bashir in power. It included a plan to smear anti-government protesters, apparently copy-pasted from tactics used at home against the anti-Putin opposition. (One memo mistakenly says “Russia” instead of “Sudan”.)

One ploy was to use fake news and videos to portray demonstrators in Khartoum and other Sudanese cities as “anti-Islam”, “pro-Israel” and “pro-LGBT”. The government was told to increase the price of newsprint – to make it harder for critics to get their message out – and to discover “foreigners” at anti-government rallies.

In a leaked letter Prigozhin wrote to Bashir complaining that the president had not actually followed through on the advice. Prigozhin mentioned “lack of activity” by the Sudanese government and its “extremely cautious position”.

The military deposed Bashir in April in a coup. Last week Sudan’s Rapid Support Forces opened fire on pro-democracy protesters, killing over a hundred. The Russian advisers had urged Sudan’s military council to suppress the activists with “minimal but acceptable loss of life”, one former regime source told CNN.

Sudan security forces are deployed around Khartoum’s army headquarters on 3 June.
Facebook Twitter Pinterest
Sudan security forces are deployed around Khartoum’s army headquarters on 3 June. Photograph: Ashraf Shazly/AFP/Getty Images
Advertisement

Meanwhile, Moscow is keen to exploit a long-running territorial dispute in Comoros, the documents say. France directly controls one out of four of the Indian Ocean islands, Mayotte. In 2018 Prigozhin employees flew to Comoros via Belarus. Their objective was to test if “political technologies” might be used to inflame the row between Paris and the Comoros government.

Other suggestions in the documents include trans-African road and rail-building schemes. A railway could be built linking Dakar in Senegal with Port Sudan in Sudan, along the “old hajj route”. A separate 2,300-mile (3,700km) toll road was proposed connecting Port Sudan with Douala in Cameroon. Neither has so far happened.

A plan to revive “pan-African consciousness” appears closely modelled on the idea of Russkiy Mir, or Russian world. The concept has become fashionable under Putin and signifies Russian power and culture extended beyond current borders.


Documents suggest Russian plan to sway South Africa election
Read more
One working paper is titled “African world”. It calls for a developing “African self-identity”. It recommends collecting a database of Africans living in the US and Europe, which might be used to groom “future leaders” and “agents of influence”. The eventual goal is a “loyal chain of representatives across African territory”, the March 2018 paper says.

More immediate practical measures include setting up Russian-controlled non-governmental organisations in African states and organising local meetings.

It is unclear how many Prigozhin initiatives have actually gone forward. There is evidence that media projects mentioned in the documents are now up and running – albeit with marginal impact. They include a website, Africa Daily Voice, with its HQ in Morocco, and a French-language news service, Afrique Panorama, based in Madagascar’s capital Antananarivo.

Russian operatives also offer thoughts on global politics. One policy paper, titled “Russian influence in Africa”, says Moscow needs to find “reliable partners among African states” and should establish military bases.
America has imported more warlord theocracy from Afghanistan than it has exported democracy.

None of this is any worse than how the US conducts its foreign policy, and outside of the propaganda campaign and consequent (according to the article) violence in Sudan, most of it sounded pretty conventional.

If the argument here is that it's well past time for the west to leave African nations alone, I'm right on board. If it's that imperialism is only bad when Russia does it, then pass.

was all about.

is to follow up on this discussion. I saw that the guardian wrote an article following up on the documents the Dossier Center stole from one of Putin's people in the original article.

Regarding the actual contents, my opinion doesn't mean much, but I am very concerned about political stability on the continent. I want to know what the international powers are currently doing and what they are seeking to do. I personally want Africans to have wealth, stability, justice, and an end to neo-colonialism. I don't know how Africans may feel like they will best achieve these goals but I want to know what the international vultures seek to do.

America has imported more warlord theocracy from Afghanistan than it has exported democracy.

In that case, just re-direct my complaint toward the article itself. It's a nasty little piece of propaganda disguised as journalism, and I'm much more concerned about what will happen if people take stuff like this seriously than Russia selectively telling Americans true things about our country.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jun/11/leaked-documents-reveal-russian-effort-to-exert-influence-in-africa

America has imported more warlord theocracy from Afghanistan than it has exported democracy.