It is interesting how all the yellow jackets, the maga folks, and the brexiters are all brutes easily influenced by nepharious forces against their own good. Especially when others manipulate their sometimes violent primitive tendencies.
It is interesting that all opposition to the predominant narrative really should be better informed, and listen to the ones that know better.
for the first time
So do you think that nations don't intervene covertly in other nations? What about the US in Iran (1953) or Chile (60s)? And so why is it so improbable that Russia is doing it?
And recall the study by Prof. Igor Panarin (former KGB analyst) predicting that the US will fragment. Maybe it's more like a game plan.
I think that what the OP is saying is that it's way too easy to always blame it on someone else when actually it's the voters' responsibility. We are definitely influenced by media, however, ultimately it's up to us to decide who to vote for, so it's our responsibility. Ignoring it doesn't make us less accountable.
There is an argument that this view is too simplistic and that the trade situation is complicated; but it seems a lot more plausible than a Russian conspiracy to ... do something.
There is always some level of background interference by foreign nations (as an Australian I shudder to think how much influence the US must have over Australia's politics in practice) but typically it would be cheaper to buy off or otherwise influence entrenched politicians rather than try to influence popular votes. I expect the Russians can figure that out too.
Why don't you just say what you bloody well mean, so we can discuss it properly, instead of making these lofty implications that don't pin you down to anything?
But yes, I get that this was a concern for Brexit supporters. I'm just arguing that Russia exploited it.
Since when is "Europe is gonna be islamized by refugees" a legitimate concern? It's not backed by facts in any way! The point is these "concerns" are fabricated outright or massively exaggerated by propaganda. Which is to a huge part a fault of Facebook as they failed to curb abuse.
And the US do much direct and violent interventions in lots of foreign countries. This is bread and butter for international politics. The western mainstream media now pretend to have an outcry now that such tactics are befalling themselves, which is really ironic.
Sure. There was always a single village moron (in German: Dorftrottel, no idea how to translate it) but he was ignored by society. Now, however, all the village morons worldwide are connected - and can claim massive followings and reach capability on social media. This is the key difference.
> but there are always some basis behind it, e.g. job loss and wage stagnation due to globalization etc.
Back in ye olde times, people went off, went on strikes and went after the employers to gain their rights and higher wages. Thanks to the propaganda, now they go after migrants, Muslims, Jews, PoC, whatever - but the capitalist elites get left alone. Which coincides with the funding for many right-wing organizations coming from very wealthy individuals (e.g. Koch, Mercer, or in Germany August von Finck).
> And the US do much direct and violent interventions in lots of foreign countries.
Sure, but that's a bit of whataboutism. I don't really like many of the things that the US have done (especially historically), but that does not excuse the stuff that China and Russia do.
However, that doesn’t mean the movements of dissent is caused by this. They could be, or they could be a symptom of the problems not solved by a long term malfunctioning Democratic system. And the malfunctioning could be some other more major political ideology.
So he's recreated the KGB.[0]
0) https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/09/21/putin-has-finally-reinc...
Edit: That is, I think that it's personal, for him. A matter of honor.
https://www.google.co.nz/amp/s/www.rbth.com/document/5aa678c...
Russian Foreign Intelligence Service is still separated from FSB/KGB.
edit: wording. Definitely not a russian intelligence agent :)
Nowadays it seems to lack some of the professionality of former times and sometimes looks more like hobby projects of Kremlin figures and Oligarchs to curry some favour.
Tradition, local competency, low cost and risk due to social platforms and online news make it a good fit for present day Russia.
I wouldn't say it's in opposition to globalism or always blamed on Russia. I'd rephrase it as, "It is interesting how any movement in opposition to [what the most vocal want] is caused by [election fraud] and [uninformed voters]." It's actually not that interesting though, it's an attempt to rationalize dissonance. Often based on facts with little evidence of effect. Such facts are uncovered, easily in most cases, by those searching to find them which is why the problems only appear to apply to the victors.
"The United Kingdom should be cut off from Europe.[9]"
"Ukraine should be annexed by Russia because "Ukraine as a state has no geopolitical meaning, no particular cultural import or universal significance, no geographic uniqueness, no ethnic exclusiveness, its certain territorial ambitions represents an enormous danger for all of Eurasia and, without resolving the Ukrainian problem, it is in general senseless to speak about continental politics". Ukraine should not be allowed to remain independent, unless it is cordon sanitaire, which would be inadmissible.[9]"
"Russia needs to create "geopolitical shocks" within Turkey. These can be achieved by employing Kurds, Armenians and other minorities.[9]"
"Russia should manipulate Japanese politics by offering the Kuril Islands to Japan and provoking anti-Americanism.[9]"
"Russia should use its special services within the borders of the United States to fuel instability and separatism, for instance, provoke "Afro-American racists". Russia should "introduce geopolitical disorder into internal American activity, encouraging all kinds of separatism and ethnic, social and racial conflicts, actively supporting all dissident movements – extremist, racist, and sectarian groups, thus destabilizing internal political processes in the U.S. It would also make sense simultaneously to support isolationist tendencies in American politics".[9]"
From "Foundations of Geopolitics" by Alexandr Dugin. Putin has repeatedly cited his works and the book is used as a textbook by the Russian military.
However, that doesn’t mean the movements of dissent is caused by this. They could be, or they could be a symptom of the problems not solved by a long term malfunctioning Democratic system.
Then take both with a bit of a grain of salt, but think what it would mean if both that seem to support each other’s assertion just told partially the truth.
[1] https://youtu.be/y3qkf3bajd4
[2] https://www.amazon.com/Willing-Accomplices-Influence-Politic...
Now, if someone challenges you and you are easily defeated, then it means you don't deserve to be the leader. If our leadership is failing, then so be it, they don't deserve to rule the world.
Blaming brexit on Russia is new to me, albeit not surprising.
Brexit was a timed event destined to happen for the simple reason that Germany France and Great Britain cannot rule at the same time. They never could and they never will.
And Great Britain for one reason or the other found itself behind, they were unable to do push their supremacy over Germany and France. Either you leave or you knee, or you fight. They were unable to force other powerful countries to make them do what they wished, as they had done in the last 6 centuries before.
The world would be a lot better if a country that detects weakness in another didn't immediately look to exploit this. We can say it's human nature but when we start to talk about 'deserving' an outcome, we start to talk about the world like it's dogfighting.
Please, don't buy into that divisive rhetoric.
Repudiation of the story that the leavers feel economically left behind [1]. Some Leavers certainly felt economically left behind, but many did not. Research has since shown that three groups were key to the Brexit vote:
- Left Behind Leavers, who were working-class, struggling financially, almost never had a degree, were in their forties or fifties and most of whom did not identify with the main parties or supported the UK Independence Party.
- Blue-Collar Pensioners, who were also working-class but retired, and so less likely to be struggling financially and tended to vote for Conservative.
- Affluent Eurosceptics, who were much less likely to identify as working-class, more affluent, more likely to have a degree and tended to vote Conservative.
While we hear much about the first two groups we have heard very little about the third, and only the first would support the predominant narrative to some degree.
[1] http://natcen.ac.uk/our-research/research/understanding-the-...
## source dismissive attitudes to brexit claims
Some sources on it being dismissed as nostalgia:
[4] http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2016/05/brexit...
[5] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/07/buildi...
Some source on it being dismissed as empire 2.0:
[6] http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/775399/empire-2-uk-improve-...
Many of the other points about how Brexit voters are portrayed vs reality is listed here [2] and [3].
## other articles on the topic
More expansive analysis can be found in:
[7] https://areomagazine.com/2017/04/21/eurocentrism-remainers-a...
[8] https://quillette.com/2018/08/03/britains-populist-revolt/
Also, the US have probably engaged in far more foreign inferences which are much more direct and violent than these events where Russia had a (shadowy) share. Ironic that now the western world are in uproar now that they are subject to some of their own classic tactics eh?
I totally agree, it is interesting! Here is some required reading on the subject: https://apps.npr.org/documents/document.html?id=5011321-Khus... It's the federal criminal complaint against Elena Khusyaynova[1] which details her activities at the Internet Research Agency and other Russian psyops sites:
> The Conspiracy has a strategic goal, which continues to this day, to sow division and discord in the US. political system, including by creating social and political polarization, undermining faith in democratic institutions, and influencing US. elections, including the upcoming 2018 midterm election. The Conspiracy has sought to conduct What it called internally "information warfare against the United States of America" through fictitious U.S. personas on social media platforms and other Internet-based media.
> Members of the Conspiracy, posing as US. persons, operated fictitious social media personas, pages, and groups designed to attract U.S. audiences and to address divisive US. political and social issues or advocate for the election or electoral defeat of particular candidates. These personas, groups, and pages falsely claimed to be controlled by US. activists when, in fact, they were controlled by members of the Conspiracy.
---
> any opponent of the progressivism pushing for this is obviously an racist/sexist/bigot.
There's an interesting bit that relates to this:
> Members of the Conspiracy were directed to create political intensity through supporting radical groups, users dissatisfied with [the] social and economic situation and oppositional social movements. The Conspiracy also sought, in the words of one member of the Conspiracy, to "effectively aggravate the conflict between minorities and the rest of the population."
The document goes into great detail about the specific tactics employed. I strongly suggest you (and everyone else) read it in full.
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elena_Khusyaynova
---
Edit: One more interesting thing from the complaint is this bit:
> Conspiracy's effort to sow discord in the US political system, members of the Conspiracy used social media and other internet platforms to inflame passions on a wide variety of topics, including immigration, gun control and the Second Amendment, the Confederate flag, race relations, LGBT issues, the Women's March, and the NFL national anthem debate. Members of the Conspiracy took advantage of specific events in the United States to anchor their themes, including the shootings of church members in Charleston, South Carolina, and concert attendees in Las Vegas, Nevada; the Charlottesville "Unite the Right" rally and associated Violence; police shootings of African-American men; as well as the personnel and policy decisions of the current US. administration.
What I find especially interesting is how well this passage (in addition to other descriptions given throughout the complaint) seems to describe your own HN post history, almost to a T! I just read through your entire (relatively short) post history and as best as I can tell, you have exactly one post which neither directly relates to one of the above subjects nor is nakedly inflammatory political rhetoric. Specifically you seem to have particular affinities for:
* Race relations: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18803533
* Women's issues: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18763486
* Specific (politically charged) events: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18888092
* LGBT issues: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18904507
Interesting indeed, my friend. Interesting indeed.
I expect that most racism/sexism/bigotry generally comes from prior manipulation too.
A person that does the creative arts is generally very open minded.
In the end it was a younger pupil and far too many people used their surname as password.
I doubt that a significant part of the population are reiterating Kremlin-propaganda.
It seems to be a hysterical Red Scare 2.0, just from a different political side, that is just as opportunistic.
If you always see Putin in your dreams, I doubt you should point a finger on people and diagnose any form of manipulation.
There are certainly some bots, but I doubt Russia is represented disproportionally. Just the language barrier alone would lessen their numbers significantly. It often just serves as a convenient excuse for political defeat.
Putin is totalitarian dick. Why not just leave it at that instead of accusing people of asserting his will?
So the US managed to destabilize the Soviet Union. Threats from NATO and strategic nuclear weapons forced the Soviets to spend so much on defense that the civilian economy was destroyed. And yes, corruption and incompetence also played a huge role. Add saturation with VoA messages about the US consumer economy, and the Soviet Union collapsed. And more recently, they messed with Georgia, and finally engineered Ukraine independence. Not to mention Syria.
Russia has also sought to destabilize Western Europe and the US. For a long time, it was mainly messages about the communist paradise. And in the 60s, promoting protest against the Vietnam war, and pushing isolationism.
But then, in the late 80s, the message shifted to distrusting government, conspiracy theories, etc. I mean, look at RT! And more recently, basically the alt-right, with its overt racist overtones.
I don't know the UK situation well, but it's pretty clear that Russia promoted Brexit to destabilize the EU, and so NATO.
> And in the 60s, promoting protest against the Vietnam war
This really takes the biscuit. Opposition to war is not evidence of a Russian plot, it is evidence of common sense. Without even considering if the Vietnam war made a lick of sense, any healthy democracy should at a minimum have some protests when it engages in a war of aggression.
> But then, in the late 80s, the message shifted to distrusting government, conspiracy theories, etc.
I don't think this affects your main point, but irony here is that "Russian Influence" is clearly a conspiracy theory. It might turn out true, as a number of conspiracy theories do, but still. Maybe the Russians have got to you :P
So I'm not arguing that the Soviets created the antiwar opposition. But they clearly helped it develop. As I understand it, the main actors were domestic US communists, who were encouraged to join the movement, help train and organize, and so on. I was there, and I was part of it.
About Russian-influence conspiracy theory, have you actually watched RT very much? They've been trolling disgruntled Americans for almost 15 years. As subversive as VoA ever was, they've been total straight shooters compared with RT.
This is also what I say to the Americans who insist Trump doesn't represent America because Clinton won the popular vote. Yeah, technically correct, but it doesn't really change how I view the American people.
Reading the history of American foreign policy, it’s difficult to see it otherwise. It’s one long list of screwing other countries to serve the interests of the American people. That list contains a lot of bungled operations so the goals weren’t achieved some of the time. America has had 0 issues propping up brutal, venal, self-serving dictators if it meant benefit to America. Examples include Iran, Iraq, Cuba, Chile, Pakistan, Egypt, Afghanistan. These are the ones I can name off hand.
At the same time, American leaders are quick to get on their high horse talking about the values of democracy. Talk is cheap though.
Even after all that, our view of America dropped precipitously with the election of Donald Trump. I think it’s safe to say that a democracy elects people who embody the electorate. You know what Trump is like. That’s how we think of you (as a whole) right now. However, as a great man once said “some, I assume, are good people”.
If you’d like to learn more about the misadventures of America in the Middle East in particular check out The Silk Roads by Peter Frankopan. The last few chapters cover the 20th and 21st centuries.
I think these are good examples. I agree. Though don't I don't agree with your overall assessment.
America elect representatives (not leaders) and it seems overwhelmingly to be the case that its representatives haven't been in control of its own government. The accountability structure broke and this has been going on for decades (probably since JFK) or perhaps even earlier.
America gives more foreign aid and has more immigration than all other countries combined. Its constitution is the longest standing foundational document in the world and genuinely (at least on paper) gives the people liberty and justice for all. America changes at a very rapid pace given its emphasis on liberty and immigration.
I think America is overwhelmingly a force for good in the world despite its rogue out of control agencies doing very bad things. Even so I deeply respect America as a nation. Given the age and the huge amount of power that has been consolidated its going through some inevitable problems. I think the American people are resilient and have the character to get through these times.
The American State is run by the American Government in accordance with the wishes of the American People. That's the definition of Democracy, which the American Government has trumpeted for at least 80 years, perhaps more.
The foreign policy of the American Government is chosen by American Leaders in a way that benefits the American People while also keeping the Leaders in power. If there is a conflict between the two goals, the latter goal takes precedence. Again, that is a feature of Democracy that America trumpets.
When that foreign policy goes to shit and causes misery to the rest of the world, the world blames the American Government and the American People, who represent the United States of America.
All of this is blindingly obvious.
I'm Russian.
> sorry if it hurts
You aren't.
I'm really not interested in nitpicking beyond that. Talk to someone else or go elsewhere if you are.
Many people do erroneously call the US a democracy, but that doesn't make it correct or irrelevant.
https://techcrunch.com/2017/11/01/russian-facebook-ad-spend/
1. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/may/29/george-soro...
2. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/04/obama-eu-britain-brex...
Acknowledge that. Blaming the Russians to avoid having to face the uncomfortable truth is only going to hurt you in the long run. Avoid that while you still can.
Of particular interest is where the massive pile of cash that funded the Leave campaign actually came from.