ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2017 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Saturday, July 01, 2017

3 = 17

The Associated Press is Fake News:
In stories published April 6, June 2, June 26 and June 29, The Associated Press reported that all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies have agreed that Russia tried to influence the 2016 election to benefit Donald Trump. That assessment was based on information collected by three agencies - the FBI, CIA and National Security Agency - and published by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, which represents all U.S. intelligence agencies. Not all 17 intelligence agencies were involved in reaching the assessment.
Well, someone ELSE said the other 14 agencies agreed, right? And the media wonders why they are held in such contempt.

Labels: , ,

59 Comments:

Blogger Thucydides July 01, 2017 4:54 PM  

This story is completely nonsensical on its face, since the Russians would have benefitted from having their bought and paid for candidate Hillary win the election.

Her long history of corruption, exposure of classified materials on the illegal server, "Pay to play" at the State department and so on made her ridiculously easy to blackmail or pressure. If the Russians had bought into the Legacy media's assessment that she was guaranteed to be elected, they may have been lazy and not realized that President Trump wold be the winner instead. Putin must be furious.

Opposing the God Emperor's reign with these sorts of stories lies more in trying to maintain their hold on power and influence, and preventing the light of day shining in on the machinations of the political, academic, bureaucratic and media classes than anything else.

Blogger Michael Maier July 01, 2017 4:54 PM  

The FBI was J. Edgar's hit squad. The CIA murdered a sitting president. The NSA steals information from every human on the planet.

Why anyone believes or trust ANY of them is baffling.

Blogger Chris McCullough July 01, 2017 4:59 PM  

The best part is how all their narrative points seem to be collapsing all at once

Anonymous rienzi July 01, 2017 5:19 PM  

"17" intelligence agencies. Well if the Dept. of Education can have its own SWAT team, why not it's own intelligence agency? Agent 007, licensed to teach.

Anonymous Steve July 01, 2017 5:19 PM  

Maybe the evidence Russia hacked the election is hiding out with Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

Anonymous andon July 01, 2017 5:23 PM  

@ #5 - where's 8-ball when you need him?

Blogger Mr.MantraMan July 01, 2017 5:37 PM  

So someone bought some Russian server space, and we pay billions for this?

Blogger justaguy July 01, 2017 5:38 PM  

of course, somehow the agencies involved reached the conclusion that the Russians intended to benefit Trump?#@%^

How could such a stretch come about and not be absolutely laughed off coverage-- how could the agencies even know the
Russian's intent absent some type of high-level humin? Nothing even indicates that conclusion-- so propaganda.

Next-- the agencies didn't even get to evaluate the data first-hand but received a report from someone else? Maybe we need to cut all 17 agencies by 95% if this is the type of work they do.

Blogger roughcoat July 01, 2017 5:38 PM  

Michael Maier wrote:The FBI was J. Edgar's hit squad. The CIA murdered a sitting president. The NSA steals information from every human on the planet.

Why anyone believes or trust ANY of them is baffling.


That's what decades of glorification in entertainment media gets you.

Blogger Arthur Isaac July 01, 2017 6:08 PM  

0bama and Co. burned Putin. Hillary included. Now they are projecting their relationship onto Trump. I won't give them credit for an original thought. I'm starting to think it's deep state v deeper state.

Anonymous Weak July 01, 2017 6:14 PM  

@5 I thought we knew about Iraq's WMD because we had the sales receipts.

Anonymous BBGKB July 01, 2017 6:17 PM  

So someone bought some Russian server space, and we pay billions for this?

I have offered space under my bed on AirBNB

Blogger DeploraBard July 01, 2017 6:51 PM  

3 = all in theoretical SJW Cuckulus.

Blogger Francis Parker Yockey July 01, 2017 6:56 PM  

"That assessment was based on information collected by three agencies - the FBI, CIA and National Security Agency - and published by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, which represents all U.S. intelligence agencies."

Even that is an overstatement. That "assessment" of the evidence supporting the Russia conspiracy theory was based on the heads of the CIA, FBI, and NSA all agreeing, essentially, that "We all trust CrowdStrike. Dmitri Alperovitch would never lie to us, or make a mistake."

Dmitri Alperovitch is, of course, the founder and head of CrowdStrike, the company that actually had access to the DNC server. Don't forget, no US Law enforcement agency or intelligence agency was given direct access to the DNC server or Podesta's devices. Comey asked the DNC for access, they basically said "F%#k off," and he said "OK, sorry to bother you."

All of the allegations that claim to cite any sort of forensic evidence are simply assertions that important intelligence officials believe Alperovitch's claims, so we should, too. Alperovitch, of course, is an actual Russian hacker, who moved to the US at the age of 16 or so. His company, CrowdStrike, was founded during the Obama administration (2009 or 10), and has close ties to the DNC, Obama, and the Clintons (and got initial funding from Google).

CrowdStrike is ostensibly in the "cybersecurity" business, but its actual role seems to be more selling "hacking attribution," in the same way that the SPLC sells ""hate group" attribution," or the White Helmets sell "Assad war crime attribution." When "anonymous, highly-placed sources claim that..." simply doesn't have enough gravitas, the media need to have an "independent," "objective" source for this kind of thing.

CrowdStrike's past claims have been notable for drama and striking graphics, but a little weak on that whole "documentation" concept.

https://medium.com/@jeffreycarr/the-gru-ukraine-artillery-hack-that-may-never-have-happened-820960bbb02d

https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/danger-close-fancy-bear-tracking-ukrainian-field-artillery-units/

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-03-24/what-crowdstrike-firm-hired-dnc-has-ties-hillary-clinton-ukrainian-billionaire-and-g

It's interesting to note that CrowdStrike, despite its central role in the Russia conspiracy theory, has gotten relatively little publicity. Alperovitch? Almost none. It almost seems as if it might be a good idea to have Alperovitch testify under oath as to his findings. The House Intelligence Committee apparently thought so:

"Last month, CrowdStrike's co-founder Dmitri Alperovitch and its president Shawn Henry turned down an invitation to testify before the House Intelligence Committee about Russian interference in the U.S. election.

'They declined the invitation, so we're communicating with them about speaking to us privately,' said Jack Langer, a spokesperson for House Intelligence Committee chairman Devin Nunes."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4376628/New-questions-claim-Russia-hacked-election.html

Hey, if he "declined the invitation," what can they do? Apparently Congress does not have the power to issue subpoenas. Who knew?

Anonymous davidd July 01, 2017 6:58 PM  

molyneaux did a good report on this.

the 3 agencies found nothing conclusive, which means there was no evidence, just hypothesis. the "investigators" in each agency were hand picked.

it really is a nothing burger.

Anonymous andon July 01, 2017 7:03 PM  

@ #14 - thx, good info

Blogger Jack Ward July 01, 2017 7:19 PM  

@14 declined an invitation?
I thought that if a Congressional committee wanted you there, you came. Or, the guys with dark glasses, earplugs and lots of guns would come get you. WTF?

Anonymous Avalanche July 01, 2017 7:31 PM  

@4 "Agent 007, licensed to teach."

Any govt agent today might be licensed to teach, but willing and/or able? Not-so-much.

Anonymous Gen. Kong July 01, 2017 7:51 PM  

Ah, so I see. So it was a "Russian" hacker who hasn't been in Russia for decades. This Dmitri Alperovitch appears to have some very interesting (((connections))), especially for a Russian. Smells like gefiltefisch. Betcha he's true (((Russian))) through and through. As VD noted some time back: Every. Single. Time.

Blogger tuberman July 01, 2017 8:03 PM  

slightly O.T. but related

How the Trump Team is getting under Merkel's and the rest of the EU's skin.

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2017/07/01/angela-merkel-reflects-fear-and-loathing-amid-eu-elites/#more-135164

Anonymous Rocklea July 01, 2017 8:05 PM  

These retractions are disquieting, a reaction or a change in strategy? They know no browny points will be won.

Blogger Francis Parker Yockey July 01, 2017 8:59 PM  

@16 andon
"@ #14 - thx, good info"

You're welcome. Came across some reference to it, and started digging. It's worth reading up on. The whole "Ukrainian artillery app hack" claim in particular is almost comically inept. It's hard to conceive of a benign explanation for why Alperovitch has been kept so far in the background, with the official narrative resting on appeals to authority/ vague but confident assertions from intelligence chiefs. It really looks as if the point is to maintain plausible deniability for everyone involved.


@17 Jack Ward
"@14 declined an invitation?
I thought that if a Congressional committee wanted you there, you came. Or, the guys with dark glasses, earplugs and lots of guns would come get you. WTF?"

I guess it depends who you are. They didn't really try very hard, did they? If I were cynical, I might suspect that the problem is that, once they issued a subpoena, the Justice Department would be happy to enforce it. Unlike when Obama was President, and people like Holder, Lerner, or Hillary's IT guy, blew off Congressional subpoenas. The establishment GOP types could just shrug, and say "Hey, what are we supposed to do, send the Sergeant-at-arms after him? Our hands are tied." Now they have to be more careful.

@19 Gen. Kong
"Ah, so I see. So it was a "Russian" hacker who hasn't been in Russia for decades. This Dmitri Alperovitch appears to have some very interesting (((connections))), especially for a Russian. Smells like gefiltefisch. Betcha he's true (((Russian))) through and through. As VD noted some time back: Every. Single. Time."

It's likely, of course. I just couldn't find any clear documentation of tribal membership. Also, it can be entertaining to meme him as part of the whole Russia conspiracy. "Dmitri Alperovitch is a Russian double agent working for Putin, and the right wing media is covering it up! That's why the investigation isn't getting anywhere."

Anonymous 5343 Kinds of Deplorable July 01, 2017 9:03 PM  

If there really are 17 U.S. intelligence agencies, they need to lose 15 of them pronto.

Blogger Phillip George July 01, 2017 9:11 PM  

Mueller was in charge of the FBI during 911.

That's all you need to know.

He has been brought in to help the current situation

Jumpers Remembered.
....... they were normal human beings going to work trusting in institutions like the one that gave you this report.

Colin Powell at the UN with evidence of WMD.

ME destabilized, Europe destroyed, Transgender toilets enabled.

I’ve had a lot of conversations with humans over the years.“ James Comey.

Just get rid of humans. The finale. [C.S. Lewis remembered for "The Abolition of Man]

Blogger James Dixon July 01, 2017 9:17 PM  

> Maybe we need to cut all 17 agencies by 95% if this is the type of work they do.

That would be a good start, yes.

Blogger Lazarus July 01, 2017 9:25 PM  

It sounds like Dmitri Alperovitch is the Yakov Smirnoff of intelligence.

Blogger Dirk Manly July 01, 2017 9:58 PM  

@22


It's likely, of course. I just couldn't find any clear documentation of tribal membership. Also, it can be entertaining to meme him as part of the whole Russia conspiracy. "Dmitri Alperovitch is a Russian double agent working for Putin, and the right wing media is covering it up! That's why the investigation isn't getting anywhere."


No.. Absolutely not. that would be absolutely poop-for-brains RETARDED, as it would breathe actual life into this entire "Russian's Hacked the Election" idiocy -- juast as it's finally dead and getting buried.

Tactical guru, you are not.
Strategic mastermind, even less.

Blogger Wanda Sherratt July 01, 2017 10:37 PM  

We happened to be rewatching ABC News election night coverage (thank you, YouTube!) and this "17 agencies" claim was asserted that night. It surprised me, because I'd just been reading about this yesterday. Hillary Clinton made the claim about these 17 agencies back in October: "“We have 17, 17 intelligence agencies, civilian and military who have all concluded that these espionage attacks, these cyber attacks, come from the highest levels of the Kremlin. And they are designed to influence our election. I find that deeply disturbing,” Clinton said during Wednesday's presidential debate in Las Vegas."

USA Today then defended this claim against Trump's rejection of it this way: "But Clinton is correct. On Oct. 7, the Department of Homeland Security and Office of the Director of National Intelligence issued a joint statement on behalf of the U.S. Intelligence Community. The USIC is made up of 16 agencies, in addition to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence."

https://tinyurl.com/mlj593g

Pretty smooth, eh?

Blogger Cail Corishev July 01, 2017 10:37 PM  

I thought that if a Congressional committee wanted you there, you came. Or, the guys with dark glasses, earplugs and lots of guns would come get you. WTF?

That's because we're used to it being the other way around, with Democrat committees inviting Republicans to testify, and Republicans promptly showing up because to do otherwise would be ungentlemanly.

If they want to question members of the Clinton/Obama crime syndicate, they'll need to send subpoenas and then probably extradition demands, not invitations.

Blogger J A Baker July 01, 2017 10:56 PM  

MAGA!

Anonymous Deadmau5 Patton July 01, 2017 11:50 PM  

Awkwardly admitting to lying.

After months of alt-righter's calling this out, they finally admit they were lying at the end of June?

Why now?

Blogger Francis Parker Yockey July 02, 2017 12:00 AM  

@27 Dirk Manly
"@22

No.. Absolutely not. that would be absolutely poop-for-brains RETARDED, as it would breathe actual life into this entire "Russian's Hacked the Election" idiocy -- juast as it's finally dead and getting buried"

Don't get your panties in a wad. You don't understand how trolling works, do you? It's OK, a lot of people don't. No need to feel bad.

Blogger Cail Corishev July 02, 2017 12:05 AM  

Why now?

Can't say for sure, but let's consider:

CNN is getting killed right now for being Fake News (more than we knew), hoist on the petard of their own video testimony.

The president isn't letting up, continuing to kick them while they're down and hammering other Fake News media by implication.

AP and other outlets have to figure they're no more leak-proof than CNN, so any day now one of their own chiefs could show up on Project Veritas.

So a bit of preemptive ass-covering on something where they clearly overreached and/or were used (willingly) by the Clinton campaign might be in order. If they correct the record voluntarily now, they can put their own spin on it that they were misled by the way the intelligence services presented it, or some nonsense like that.

Anonymous Genocide libertarians July 02, 2017 12:06 AM  

Congressman Justin Amash (R-MI) was the only Republican to vote against Kate’s Law, a law that would impose harsher penalties on deported aliens who try to return to the United States...

Congressman Amash became one of the Republican lawmakers to discuss impeaching President Donald Trump.

Amash, asked if the details of the Comey memo were true, said, “Yes,” that he would support impeachment if they were true....

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/06/30/rep-justin-amash-only-republican-to-vote-against-kates-law/

Anonymous An Extremely Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than A Basket Of Twenty Deplorable Cents July 02, 2017 1:00 AM  

@29
If they want to question members of the Clinton/Obama crime syndicate, they'll need to send subpoenas and then probably extradition demands, not invitations.

Waco rules work for me. Work for me just fine.

Blogger ((( bob kek mando ))) - ( Communists murdered +100 Million trying to genocide the Bourgeois. suffering a Marxist to live is a Crime Against Humanity ) July 02, 2017 1:23 AM  

4. rienzi July 01, 2017 5:19 PM
Agent 007, licensed to teach.



why worry about killing people one at a time when you can kill their minds by the gross?

Anonymous Daniel H July 02, 2017 2:54 AM  

What are we doing with 17 intelligence agencies, that's what I want to know. The the Nazis have even this many? Did the Soviet Union have even this many?

Blogger Dirk Manly July 02, 2017 2:57 AM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Dirk Manly July 02, 2017 2:57 AM  

@32

I don't think you know what trolling is.

Rule #1... it does NOT involve blowing plausible life into the enemy's lie.

If you want to troll them, you go to the utterly implausible, that makes their lie even more ridiculous, not seeking to create some sort of plausibility for their lie.

Ob sheesh: SHEESH!

Blogger Ingot9455 July 02, 2017 3:02 AM  

@37 Previous Presidents/Congress/Military discovered that getting your intelligence from other people didn't work out so good, and so they started their own intelligence agencies to have some semblance of control over information coming in.

Blogger Freddy July 02, 2017 3:43 AM  

Thanks Lee Stranahan.

Blogger Desillusionerad July 02, 2017 4:23 AM  

The 17 "intelligence" agencies include the coast guard, DEA, the energy departments security division - all known for their cyber capabilities...

Blogger Johnny July 02, 2017 4:45 AM  

Francis Parker Yockey wrote:Also, it can be entertaining to meme him as part of the whole Russia conspiracy. "Dmitri Alperovitch is a Russian double agent working for Putin, and the right wing media is covering it up! That's why the investigation isn't getting anywhere."

I like it as original thinking, but otherwise lets not be giving those people ideas.

Blogger Noah B The Savage Gardener July 02, 2017 5:04 AM  

The media meltdown is just getting started.

It's a rambling screed extolling free speech, while viciously condemning speech they don't like. Basically, the left has been fighting people who refused to defend themselves for so long that they're clueless as to what to do when they meet meaningful resistance. It's a great time to be alive.

And imagine their horror when they eventually discover that free speech, as they understand the concept, isn't something we care about at all.

Blogger Happy LP9 July 02, 2017 5:18 AM  

The dates listed indicate a time of (4) learning or education or matriculation for the media to learn from their brazen to bizarre acts of swear-bearing and other epic blunders since Muh Russia meme and nazi meme all failed.

consumercomplaints@fcc.gov

Recall COMCAST NBC IS MSNBC OR whatever, I detest it all, I read (kindle broken, LP brokenhearted), wont allow a phone or a cable tv in my home;

Since 2015, I archived, emailed and noted to the FCC and comcastNBC all their blunders to calls for violence to live swearing on tv like its a new norm

ComcastKey_ESL@cable.comcast.com
consumercomplaints@fcc.gov

Blogger Happy LP9 July 02, 2017 5:38 AM  

44 enjoy your comments, Yeah Lindy to Dowd are unhinged invective type set personalities. I pray 7/2 is peaceful summery day, no antifa, no nullsense

Blogger J A Baker July 02, 2017 5:54 AM  

The James O'Keef videos pretty much summed up the motivation for keeping the Russia narrative going and that was for the ratings. Sarah Huckabee recently called out MSM in a press briefing with the fact that MSM has spent approximately 353 minutes insulting Trump and pushing the fake Russia collusion narrative while giving very little airtime to much else, and although MSM hates to admit it, Trump's presidency is the best thing to happen to them for decades. Trumps tweets about Morning Joe for instance might be interpreted as rather cryptic. In the first tweet he mentioned low ratings of the show. Then in a later tweet after saying he stopped watching the show, he said that he decided to watch again. After those initial tweets about Joe and Mika, the following Morning Joe show went from just another show to an event, I would bet that CNN add space for that show on that day at least doubled in price.

Trump has worked in television for almost 2 decades, he has a close relationship with the Mcmahons of WWE, and he has a history with tabloid news. He knows how to create and sell controversy. Trump is a president that many people in this country love to hate. Myself not included. But if you look at the sponsors of many of these MSM ne s shows, a lot of them are companies that Trump has brought to the table to try and get them to invest in US more and to create more jobs for the American people. By creating controversy which Trump has done, and perhaps even establishing this WWE type rivalry between himself and the MSM millions of people who either love or hate him are tuning into these news shows and are of course being exposed to their sponsors and going out and giving these sponsors business which in turns motivates these companies to invest and creat jobs. Trump said he was gonna by to MAGA, he told us he was going to bring back jobs and fix the economy, could it be that these manufactured controversies and rivalries are one way in which he is doing that?

Blogger Cail Corishev July 02, 2017 6:57 AM  

Ratings are/were the motivator only up to a point. Any network could have gotten a huge boost in ratings by becoming the sole pro-Trump network. That would have set it apart from the pack (including Fox) and made it the daily destination of 60 million Trump voters, at least.

No network did that, and no network will try it even now, because their deeper motive was/is globalism, leftism, and attacking the Trump campaign/administration in defense of those.

Blogger J A Baker July 02, 2017 7:15 AM  

@ Cail, I agree with you up to a point, and perhaps this relationship Trump has with MSM is a love hate one, most certainly I believe it is. But we do have a a convenient narrative the Globalism vs Sovereignty narrative which makes for all kinds of controversies. Globalism is a brand, and so is Nationalism. A question we must ask ourselves is how much of the conflict between the two opposing sides has been manufactured for financial gain if nothing else. That's why I'm often wary of new characters in the Alt-Rigjt movement who will pull a PR stunt and then try and sell me a book etc...

But would a pro Trump network really be doing so well in ratings? It would probably pull in a steady base of viewers, but you can't expect that everyone who voted for Trump would tune in regularly to a Trump echo chamber. But controversy and conflict sells. Just imagine if you will if Hillary had won, the ratings for MSM would have remained stagnant and we would have had another four years of boring and controlled press coverage just like we got with Obama, but in fact, Fox News might get slightly better ratings and perhaps Alternative news shows like Alex Jones would do better as well. Alex Jones has said that a Hillary win would have been better for his business and perhaps it may have been better for all sorts of Alternatove media as well because they would have a villain which is what MSM has now. People love to hate, it's sad but true. So, what we have now in Trumps presidency with manufactured controversies is actually mutually beneficial to all media, and it is actually good for the economy too, I know it sounds crazy and a bit deceptive, but it seems at least to me some what plausible.

Blogger Cail Corishev July 02, 2017 7:31 AM  

you can't expect that everyone who voted for Trump would tune in regularly to a Trump echo chamber.

No, but it wouldn't have to get them all, because all the other networks divide up everyone else. Look how well Fox did, just being the "not as liberal as the rest" network for a while.

Megyn Kelly's new audience on NBC is smaller than some family reunions. (It'd be bigger if she just paid people $50 each out of her enormous salary.) Imagine the viewers she'd attract if she started having on people like Ann Coulter and giving them a friendly stage, or just a fair hearing. Think she'll do that?

I'm not saying it's a no-brainer; I'm saying they won't even consider it, won't even try to lean a little that way to boost their ratings by appealing to an under-served audience, and that's because of ideology. They were fine, some of them, with giving Trump airtime early in the campaign when they didn't think he had a chance; but once they realized he did, it became anti-Trump all day every day.

Blogger J A Baker July 02, 2017 7:45 AM  

@Cail, True, MSM does its best to censor dissent. I'm surprised Megyn's Alex Jones hit piece was even allowed to air. Although Alex is a very unique position where the hit piece actually helped him by affirming his claims of media bias. But Megyn Kelly did take a lot of heat for that interview. I would love to see Coultur and Kelly go head to head, yes that would get a lot of ratings, but the fact remains as you said that the MSM would never allow Ann to come across as anything but hateful and crazy with a very edited hit piece. Which reminds me, I happened to listen to a clip on YouTube of Bill Orielly and Glenn Beck discussing the Megyn Kelly Alex Jones interview, and they were actually comparing Alex Jones with Osama Binladden and Charles Manson, it reminded me why I don't listen to Beck, I just wanted to get Bills take on it. I don't think Bill ever like Trump, I think he was jealous of Trump The during the whole campaign.

Blogger Johnny July 02, 2017 7:55 AM  

I get irritated by people who don't see the bias in the press because for me it is so self evident. They push the liberal thing too much, there are too many outlets. If it bleeds it leads; but only if it fits the narrative. And they are only going after Trump for the bucks? Give me a break, the New York Times is downsizing. Guess their big anti Trump thing wasn't a great money earner.

And by the way, the sitcoms. Cosby got a family friendly one and was hugely successful. His star power is what pushed it through. Despite the profit potential of a family friendly show, all traditional families are portrayed as deeply flawed. What, you think there is money in insulting the audience? And a lot of them do insult the audience.

It is the lefty bias. Us vs them, the elite, who should be running everything in there opinion. So they do what they can to keep the "us" down with harassment and deprecation.

Blogger J A Baker July 02, 2017 8:01 AM  

I believe ultimately that Globalism is inevitable, Trump's presidency will only delay it perhaps long enough so that we won't see it realized in our lifetimes, there will be other delays as well that will come I'm sure but the globalists will not stop, and as a Christian I believe that globalism is a part of prophecy.

Blogger J A Baker July 02, 2017 8:23 AM  

But I don't mean that we should be defeatists, we all have our part to play, and Globalism though inevitable should be resisted at every turn, and though globalism is inevitable and part of end times prophecy, don't forget that it is also written that we win in the end.

Blogger J A Baker July 02, 2017 9:26 AM  

Oh and check out Trumps latest tweet from 5 mins ago.

Anonymous Avalanche July 02, 2017 10:00 AM  

My friend answers:

No one ever mentions the item that should be the very first issue:

The US has openly and blatantly tried to influence the elections in Russia for years.

Why, then, should anyone be surprised if the Russians tried to influence ours?

Maybe if the US followed the wise and sensible policy of isolationism and non-interference in other countries around the globe, other countries might reciprocate.

(To which I added: NOT just in Russia -- the U.S. interfering in other country's elections seems to be one of "our" fundamental choices!)

Blogger Snidely Whiplash July 02, 2017 11:44 AM  

Noah B The Savage Gardener wrote:And imagine their horror when they eventually discover that free speech, as they understand the concept, isn't something we care about at all.
"Free speech as they understand the concept" is "Shut up and believe what we say."

@J A Baker
"Ratings are the excuse they make to themselves for their behavior. They know they are being bad journalists, violating every standard they ever thought they believed in. Rather than acknowledging they are hacks and shills, propaganda agents for the state and the Clinton mafia, and that everything their enemies say about them is true, they pretend to be cynical whore, just in it for the clicks.

Blogger J A Baker July 02, 2017 11:50 AM  

Snidely I agree they're not all actors, most of them are exactly as you just described.

Blogger Francis Parker Yockey July 02, 2017 12:46 PM  

@39 Dirk Manly
@32

"I don't think you know what trolling is.

Rule #1... it does NOT involve blowing plausible life into the enemy's lie.

If you want to troll them, you go to the utterly implausible, that makes their lie even more ridiculous, not seeking to create some sort of plausibility for their lie.

Ob sheesh: SHEESH!"

Your emotional incontinence seems to be interfering with the limited powers of reason that you (presumably) possess.

Allow me to assist you. That's not a free for troll, that's (obviously) a response to articles/ comments promoting the Russia conspiracy theory. Think it through a little further. How do leftists respond to that one? Do the smarter ones want Dmitri Alperovitch to get publicity? Will some of the dumber ones bite, or at least be confused? What is the outcome if they believe it? More attention directed at Alperovitch-- which is bad for the narrative.

Think it through a little further: there is no rational, empirically-based response to that troll that does not involve either explaining who Alperovitch is, and what his role is in the conspiracy narrative. The other alternative is to dismiss it as a "Russia conspiracy theory." Win/ win. I've actually gotten several "Shut. It. Down." responses to that one from leftist shills. As in literally "Don't mention him."

Perhaps googling "agree and amplify" might assist you in achieving greater understanding as well.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts