U.S. accuses Russia of sophisticated influence campaigns against U.S. voters

[Hans Blaster]

But what choice are people given but to violate FARA, if FARA is made unavailable to them via sanctions?

Is the expectation that all pro-Russian viewpoints be suppressed entirely?

"You have to register if you want to espouse this viewpoint"
"But you can't register if you're operating in a country where this viewpoint is more prevalent"

How is that not suppressing speech? (which, by the DOJ's own guidelines, FARA isn't supposed to be doing)

The Russians and other nations have ambassadors, embassy staff, and (registered) paid lobbyists. Sneaky, hidden lobbyists and propagandists are the violation.

You probably should be interested in that...because it explains a lot of things.

If there was a facet or aspect of a debate that explained why half the country, overnight, went from an near-absolutist "non-interventionism" position to a "we'd be on board with cutting a blank check for Country A to fight against Country B" position, I'd be curious as to why.

I've heard certain members of the left argue against sending weapons and aid into other foreign conflicts, for reasons far less compelling than the ones surrounding this conflict.

This is about Russian election interference, not partisan whataboutism.

When a group goes from "Ron Paul" to "Lindsey Graham", overnight, on the topic of interventionism, we should all be curious as to why such a radical transformation happened.

Or as the Russians call him: РОН ПОЛ

"Fun" fact. The Russians charged yesterday with violating sanctions were Dimitri Simes and his wife. Simes was a foreign policy advisor to the 2016 Rand Paul presidential campaign.

 

[childeye 2]

The Russians and other nations have ambassadors, embassy staff, and (registered) paid lobbyists. Sneaky, hidden lobbyists and propagandists are the violation.

This is about Russian election interference, not partisan whataboutism.

Or as the Russians call him: РОН ПОЛ

"Fun" fact. The Russians charged yesterday with violating sanctions were Dimitri Simes and his wife. Simes was a foreign policy advisor to the 2016 Rand Paul presidential campaign.

I seem to recall far right political philosopher Aleksandr Dugin once stating about twenty years ago that the Republicans in America would be open to Russian political propaganda, but the Democrats would not because the Democrats in America were too liberal minded.

He suggested that Republicans could be manipulated into destabilizing America's government through causing division, because they were the more authoritarian and would also be susceptible to the normalizing of racism through a sanitized description of preserving multiculturalism. His sentiments even indicate that he believes the Russian orthodox is the true church and that it's Russia's destiny to rule.

I don't remember where I read that exactly, but there are those that believe Putin's plans in Ukraine are just the first step in what they describe as Dugin's plan to supplant liberal democratic influence in Europe and create a new world order with Russia as the major superpower.

Aleksandr Dugin: The far-right theorist behind Putin's plan

In 2017, 60 Minutes spoke with the Russian political philosopher Aleksandr Dugin, who for decades has called for the annexation of Ukraine.

www.cbsnews.com

Foreign policy analysts have since looked to Dugin for a more fulsome understanding of Putin's goal in Ukraine. Specifically, they turn to Dugin's magnum opus, a 1997 book called The Foundations of Geopolitics: The Geopolitical Future of Russia.

Published a quarter-century ago, Dugin's book prescribes that for Russia to rebuild its power globally, it would need to use disinformation, destabilization — and annexation. One of the targets for Russian annexation, he wrote, should be Ukraine. In Dugin's mind, an independent Ukraine stands in the way of Russia becoming a transcontinental superpower.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Foreign policy analysts have since looked to Dugin for a more fulsome understanding of Putin's goal in Ukraine. Specifically, they turn to Dugin's magnum opus, a 1997 book called The Foundations of Geopolitics: The Geopolitical Future of Russia.

Apparently, cbsnews doesn't know the meaning of the word fulsome.

 

[childeye 2]

Apparently, cbsnews doesn't know the meaning of the word fulsome.

Wow, I didn't catch that. You display a well traversed analytical skill. Do you do a lot of reading/writing?

 

[Tinker Grey]

Wow, I didn't catch that. You display a well traversed analytical skill. Do you do a lot of reading/writing?

I'm just a nerd.

 

[childeye 2]

I'm just a nerd.

The reason I say is because you recognized the old school meaning of the term, which is seldom used anymore.

 

[Gene2memE]

Apparently, cbsnews doesn't know the meaning of the word fulsome.

Folsome in this context is fine. It would mean of greater scale or more comprehensive. It's a less common usage, maybe verging on archaic, but still perfectly cromulent.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Folsome in this context is fine. It would mean of greater scale or more comprehensive. It's a less common usage, maybe verging on archaic, but still perfectly cromulent.

Interesting. Re-checking, I found etymonline saying something similar, but it would seem that that meaning hasn't really been used that way for 6 centuries. None of the first page of dictionary definition searches suggests this usage.

I thing cbs just screwed up.

ETA: Re-reading, I guess you're right, but most dictionary definitions still disagree with what it should mean. The link I'm providing suggests that since the 60s, the meaning has kind of reverted. I find it telling however that dictionaries don't seem to be on board. I am a descriptivist rather than a prescriptivist, but dictionaries aren't describing the usage that way.

Nevertheless, here's the link that indicates that I'm at least a bit wrong: fulsome | Etymology of fulsome by etymonline

 

[Gene2memE]

Interesting. Re-checking, I found etymonline saying something similar, but it would seem that that meaning hasn't really been used that way for 6 centuries. None of the first page of dictionary definition searches suggests this usage.

I thing cbs just screwed up.

ETA: Re-reading, I guess you're right, but most dictionary definitions still disagree with what it should mean. The link I'm providing suggests that since the 60s, the meaning has kind of reverted. I find it telling however that dictionaries don't seem to be on board. I am a descriptivist rather than a prescriptivist, but dictionaries aren't describing the usage that way.

Nevertheless, here's the link that indicates that I'm at least a bit wrong: fulsome | Etymology of fulsome by etymonline

It might be a regional thing.

I'm Australian, and the usage of fulsome I've grown up with was always something like 'of greater scale' or 'more complete' or 'encompassing'.

The more common online usage, which is usually 'oily', 'insincere', or 'false praise', seems to be mostly a North American usage.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I seem to recall far right political philosopher Aleksandr Dugin once stating about twenty years ago that the Republicans in America would be open to Russian political propaganda, but the Democrats would not because the Democrats in America were too liberal minded.

He suggested that Republicans could be manipulated into destabilizing America's government through causing division, because they were the more authoritarian and would also be susceptible to the normalizing of racism through a sanitized description of preserving multiculturalism. His sentiments even indicate that he believes the Russian orthodox is the true church and that it's Russia's destiny to rule.

I think people (in general) are more susceptible to whatever propaganda happens to suit their existing worldview.

While I think his "political philosophy" has points worth considering (not as in "let's do what he says", but rather his observations)
In terms of "causing division", what's more likely to cause division?

The status quo that the majority of people are used to and desensitized to? Or radical change?

In that regard, I'd disagree with his theory. I think whichever faction is pushing the more radical changes (whether it be good change or bad change) are the ones more capable of creating social division than authoritarian viewpoints (that are in the name of preserving the status quo)

Just as a simplistic example:

If one politician declared "21 is too young to consume alcohol, I think the drinking age should be 30" vs. an authoritarian candidate who said "no, it's going to stay at age 21, and anyone who disagrees is going to feel my political wrath with every political lever I can pull". The former is still likely to be more "divisive" as the "authoritarian approach" the latter is espousing, is still in the name of arrangement that most people were used to and comfortable with. (right or wrong)

A "authoritarian clinging to the status quo" is still going to be less divisive than the prospect of radical change. Thus the reason why the "touch left of center vs. touch right of center" elections are the ones that end up being the least contentious. Because nobody's really all that worried about things changing all that much. Thus the reason nobody was bickering all that much during Clinton V. Dole.

 

[Hazelelponi]

"The U.S. Department of Justice on Wednesday said it disrupted Russian-directed foreign malign influence campaigns it referred to as “Doppelganger,” that sought to spread Russian government propaganda.

The effort was meant to reduce international support for Ukraine, bolster pro-Russian policies, and influence voters in the U.S. and elsewhere, the Justice Department said."

https://www.npr.org/2024/09/04/nx-s1-5100329/us-russia-election-interference-bots-2024

So is this a lot like the Chinese spies being a gateway to American politicians and directing American political policy or is this somehow different?

Is this like Canadians, Germans, and French adding their two cents about our elections daily or is this somehow more nefarious?

Is it more nefarious because Russia is the enemy chosen by the Democratic party or or or or or....?!?!?

Look, everyone and their brother is trying to influence US elections - a good example is this very thread - and I'm pretty sure someone living in a poor part of New York who is dealing with their neighborhoods being overrun by violent illegal aliens and food they can't afford to buy isn't voting for Trump because Russia makes a donation to a media company who did their own research and printed what was true...

I'm pretty sure they will simply be voting for the candidate that offers the best policies for their own needs and values ,- and it's not like people can't pull up a chair and find out about the candidates straight from the horses mouths.

The left treating Americans like they are too stupid to breathe is really tiresome.

 

[childeye 2]

I think people (in general) are more susceptible to whatever propaganda happens to suit their existing worldview.

While I think his "political philosophy" has points worth considering (not as in "let's do what he says", but rather his observations)
In terms of "causing division", what's more likely to cause division?

The status quo that the majority of people are used to and desensitized to? Or radical change?

In that regard, I'd disagree with his theory. I think whichever faction is pushing the more radical changes (whether it be good change or bad change) are the ones more capable of creating social division than authoritarian viewpoints (that are in the name of preserving the status quo)

Just as a simplistic example:

If one politician declared "21 is too young to consume alcohol, I think the drinking age should be 30" vs. an authoritarian candidate who said "no, it's going to stay at age 21, and anyone who disagrees is going to feel my political wrath with every political lever I can pull". The former is still likely to be more "divisive" as the "authoritarian approach" the latter is espousing, is still in the name of arrangement that most people were used to and comfortable with. (right or wrong)

A "authoritarian clinging to the status quo" is still going to be less divisive than the prospect of radical change. Thus the reason why the "touch left of center vs. touch right of center" elections are the ones that end up being the least contentious. Because nobody's really all that worried about things changing all that much. Thus the reason nobody was bickering all that much during Clinton V. Dole.

First of all, I believe I understand some of your thinking. I think you're saying that either a liberal or authoritarian can cause division depending on the status quo and how radical the change. I would agree with that.

But I note that since the term "divisive" should be qualified as bad/a negative, so also the "radical change" should also be qualified as bad/a negative. It complicates the matter to state the "radical change" could be good change or bad change, or right or wrong. You could simply say radical change is bad because it can be divisive whether you're an authoritarian or liberal.

And FWIW, your example is not accurate, because by definition, the politician wanting to raise the legal drinking age from 21 to 30 years of age would qualify as the authoritarian, not the liberal.

But let us not get off track. The focus should be on the fact that division caused through the spreading of disinformation is always an absolute negative/bad. Because the issue here is why it's the authoritarian mindset that is susceptible to Russian propaganda and liberal mindsets are not.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

The focus should be on the fact that division caused through the spreading of disinformation is always an absolute negative/bad. Because the issue here is why it's the authoritarian mindset that is susceptible to Russian propaganda and liberal mindsets are not.

From my understanding of the articles referenced, the "social division" and disinformation were two separate facets.

For instance, the examples one article mentioned were the fact that the content creators were putting a lot of focus on the trans debate and highlighting stories about crime carried out by migrant gangs.

Those weren't disinformation, they were real stories, they were just capitalizing on topics that the public was already divided over.

As far as your last part (which I think was framed as an inquisitive)
"Because the issue here is why it's the authoritarian mindset that is susceptible to Russian propaganda and liberal mindsets are not."

I think my previous explanation fits. People will always be more susceptible to propaganda and disinformation when it's within a framework that nicely fits in with the rest of their worldviews. In this particular instance, the propaganda fits somewhat neatly within the worldview of the GOP circa 2024 via bias confirmation. They feel that their guy got robbed (via a combination of coordinated media attacks, and a concerted effort by the establishment to change the rules to ensure he lost, and they feel the democrats are responsible for that), it's not shocking that propaganda in the theme of "democrats are trying to do XYZ" or "here's some bad stuff about the democratic front-running" is being more readily entertained (without the requisite level of scrutiny) is having a certain appeal and not having to clear a particularly high-bar in their eyes to be be readily accepted.


But there are examples of where anti-authoritarians end up being susceptible to various forms of propaganda...
For instance, if you look at other forms of disinformation and propaganda, like the people who readily bought into 9/11 falsehoods and misinformation surrounding that topic, it certainly wasn't the authoritarian types who were the backbone of the "9/11 truther" movement. Quite the opposite, it was a combination of "people who hated George Bush" and "anti-government Alex Jones types"


"This story is a perfect example of this thing/person I've been talking about, so it validates my anger about it" is always going to lower a person's "scrutiny bar" when evaluating it.

A much less-significant example would be the Jussie Smolliet story. Obviously everyone accepts that as total nonsense now. But at the time, there were some people (and bona fide news outlets for that matter) that were willing to run with it, with very little due dilligence and fact-checking, due to the fact that it conformed to a particular viewpoint.

 

[Hazelelponi]

Warn, sure...that's fine. However, it sounds like it's more than just a warning.

The two RT employees, Kostiantyn Kalashnikov, 31, and Elena Afanasyeva, 27, have been charged with conspiracy to commit money laundering and conspiracy to violate the Foreign Agents Registration Act.

"The American people are entitled to know when a foreign power is attempting to exploit our country's free exchange of ideas in order to send around its own propaganda," Attorney General Merrick Garland said Wednesday.

The two indictments come as the U.S. has been increasingly warning about Russia’s efforts to influence U.S. voters through a variety of efforts.

In a statement on its website ahead of the charges, RT dismissed the findings, joking that their responses included comments like “Ha!” and “2016 called and it wants its clichés back.”

Garland made clear to reporters that he was not amused.

"I'm sure that was much funnier in the original Russian, but for us, it's not funny," Garland said. "This is deadly serious and we are going to treat it accordingly."



Per the other article:
According to the indictment, RT has funneled nearly $10 million into the project, with the goal of “amplifying domestic division” in the U.S.

RT was sanctioned and forced to cease operations in the U.S. and Canada following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022.

It would seem like a "you're not allowed to hear the other side's narratives" is an inverse (but equal) form of public manipulation.

They allowed Al Jazeera America to operate without sanctions despite that being a media company ran out of a country that we know to be giving safe haven to bona fide terrorists and definitely having a certain bias on specific issues.

Al Jazeera employees were actually holding hostages themselves in Gaza. And yes, they operate with no oversight whatever here to spread Qatari propaganda.

Who's also donated billions to our Ivy League universities and spread propaganda to the next generation in those institutions plus funding the pro-hamas pro-genocide crowd to protest our government and our institutions and turn American children into Nazis.

Why is Qatar is Flooding American Universities with Money?

The tiny Middle Eastern petro-state is sending billions of dollars to Ivy Leagues and other top schools. What does it want?

airmail.news

Top US universities received $8 BILLION in Arab funding

According to a report by the Executive Director of the American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise, Universities received over $8 Billion in the last 35 years from Arab countries.

www.dailymail.co.uk

But hey, who's talking... Nothing to see here

In fact, who's talking about the Pakistani man with ties to Iran who was recently arrested arranging hit men to kill President Trump complete with a protest crowd for distraction.

https://apnews.com/article/iran-pakistan-murderforhire-trump-justice-department-5a3abe0895ae7c2be14f89fc4e49bc53

Or the Iranian hacking of Trump's headquarters.

U.S. confirms Trump campaign claim it was breached by Iranian hackers

The FBI, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence said Iran was behind attempts this year to hack the presidential campaigns of both political parties.

www.nbcnews.com

Or in fact who's talking about the fatwa on Trump's head...

Access Restricted

I mean, trying to kill a candidate and hacking same said candidates is real election interference - at the highest level.

When we get into China and the Democrats we can safety say Russia funding people to do what they are going to do anyway - just in higher quality - is likely the very least of our concerns.

 

[childeye 2]

From my understanding of the articles referenced, the "social division" and disinformation were two separate facets.

For instance, the examples one article mentioned were the fact that the content creators were putting a lot of focus on the trans debate and highlighting stories about crime carried out by migrant gangs.

Those weren't disinformation, they were real stories, they were just capitalizing on topics that the public was already divided over.

First and foremost, it is common to begin the process of spreading disinformation by first creating a strawman logical fallacy to argue about, and this usually incorporates actual stories. It's a means to sow divisions over real events that don't actually exist. It's relatively easy to trick the mind into believing that transgenderism and migrant crime are a source of division. My daddy can beat up your daddy is a simple way to manipulate feelings. Moreover, the increased amplification of such stories stokes fear by making them out to be larger issues than what they actually are.

As far as your last part (which I think was framed as an inquisitive)
"Because the issue here is why it's the authoritarian mindset that is susceptible to Russian propaganda and liberal mindsets are not."

I think my previous explanation fits. People will always be more susceptible to propaganda and disinformation when it's within a framework that nicely fits in with the rest of their worldviews. In this particular instance, the propaganda fits somewhat neatly within the worldview of the GOP circa 2024 via bias confirmation.

I agree that for many people, their foundation of reasoning, which we might call a "world view", leaves them open to propaganda via confirmation bias. But I think the main difference between those who lean more authoritarian minded compared to those who are liberal minded, is that authoritarians operate more out of the negative prejudice. That's why Dugin said Republicans would be susceptible to a sanitized description of "racism" described as preserving "multiculturalism".

I note that a positive prejudice towards others does not violate love others as you would want to be loved, while negative prejudice does. Hence grace through faith towards others is reasonable while distrust through cynicism towards others is unreasonable.

But there are example of where anti-authoritarians end up being susceptible to various forms of propagana...
For instance, if you look at other forms of disinformation and propaganda, for example, the people who readily bought into 9/11 falsehoods and misinformation surrounding that topic, it certainly wasn't the authoritarian types who were the backbone of the "9/11 truther" movement. Quite the opposite, it was a combination of "people who hated George Bush" and "anti-government Alex Jones types"

There are many "theories" about what happened on 9-11, and I imagine some of that may be based on misinformation. But that doesn't equate to deliberate attempts to sow disinformation and propaganda. The original coalition of those seeking the truth of what happened on 9-11 was formed by the families of the actual victims, not anti-authoritarians or people who hated George Bush, or who are anti-government. Alex Jones is a person that profits by entertaining conspiracy theories.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I agree that, for some people, their foundation of reasoning, which you call a "world view", leaves them open to propaganda via confirmation bias. But I think the main difference between those who are more authoritarian minded and those who are liberal minded is that authoritarians operate more out of a negative prejudice. That's why Dugin said Republicans would be susceptible to a sanitized description of "racism" described as preserving "multiculturalism".

But my point was, is that due to any sort of attitude one way or the other pertaining to "authoritarianism"? Or was that just an acknowledgement of other "already existing" traits, and falsely attributing it to a different trait?

Couldn't one just as easily say that progressives (who are more liberal-minded would be more susceptible to a sanitized version of collectivist economic models? (which are also authoritarian, and which also operate off of negative prejudices about business owners and people with money)

It seems like there's a number of confounding factors a play here with regards to why propaganda aimed and getting people whipped up into a frenzy about transgender people could be effective. (apart from attitudes on authoritarianism)

There are many "theories" about what happened on 9-11, and I imagine some of that may be based on misinformation. But that doesn't equate to deliberate attempts to sow disinformation and propaganda. The original coalition of those seeking the truth of what happened on 9-11 was formed by the families of the actual victims, not anti-authoritarians or people who hated George Bush, or who are anti-government.

To be clear, when I was talking about the "truther" movement, I wasn't talking the people on the 9/11 commission wanting answer for how such a huge breakdown in operational intelligence could occur, I was referring to the people who thought "Fahrenheit 9/11" and "Loose Change" were legitimate unbiased documentary materials.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/09/10/false-toxic-sept-11-conspiracy-theories-are-still-widespread-today/

Michael Moore was deliberately disseminating misleading, contextually lacking (and sometimes, downright false) for propaganda purposes. That was the MO of all of his "documentaries". "The US, as a whole, is terrible, these other countries are better, but Republicans are even more terrible than Democrats"

Nearly half of a main political party ending up with the belief that their own president was "in on" the largest terrorist attack on our soil wasn't merely the result of some casual misinformation in passing. That only happens with disinformation and propaganda.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Al Jazeera employees were actually holding hostages themselves in Gaza. And yes, they operate with no oversight whatever here to spread Qatari propaganda.

1. The "RT indictment" charges two RT *employees* not the organization itself.
2. Nothing about this claim indicates that Al Jazeera itself is ordering that participation of employees to hold hostages. (I am accepting your claim provisionally.)
3. If the hostages aren't Americans, then it isn't a violation of US law, so the US DOJ won't charge it. Most awful things that happen outside the US are not chargeable US crimes.
4. Al Jazeera broadcasts openly and the funding is known. If Al Jazeera was secretly paying bloggers to write "independent" content to influence US elections, opinion, or policy, then their employees can and should be similarly charged.
5. No one from RT has been charged with creating and broadcasting under the "RT" label.

Who's also donated billions to our Ivy League universities and spread propaganda to the next generation in those institutions plus funding the pro-hamas pro-genocide crowd to protest our government and our institutions and turn American children into Nazis.

Why is Qatar is Flooding American Universities with Money?

The tiny Middle Eastern petro-state is sending billions of dollars to Ivy Leagues and other top schools. What does it want?

airmail.news

Top US universities received $8 BILLION in Arab funding

According to a report by the Executive Director of the American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise, Universities received over $8 Billion in the last 35 years from Arab countries.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Many nations and foreign nationals have donated money to support cultural studies and centers at US (and other nation's) universities. These are not generally illegal. Congress has looked into China's network of "Confucious Institutes" and may consider banning them. If your sources are correct, then a similar examination of similar things from Gulf oil states is in order.

But hey, who's talking... Nothing to see here

Plenty has been seen.

In fact, who's talking about the Pakistani man with ties to Iran who was recently arrested arranging hit men to kill President Trump complete with a protest crowd for distraction.

https://apnews.com/article/iran-pakistan-murderforhire-trump-justice-department-5a3abe0895ae7c2be14f89fc4e49bc53

What's you point? Foreign actors attack the US or US citizens and get charged.

Or the Iranian hacking of Trump's headquarters.

U.S. confirms Trump campaign claim it was breached by Iranian hackers

The FBI, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence said Iran was behind attempts this year to hack the presidential campaigns of both political parties.

www.nbcnews.com

Investigations take time. Charges take time and specific evidence to bring. The US has the goods on the RT employees. It may in the future or may not have the evidence to arrest the Iranian hackers. (Or revealing the identities of the hackers in a charging document might compromise intelligence collection by the US or a US ally. There are many reasons not to charge when the charged will almost certainly never be arrested because they have the protection of a hostile government.)

Or in fact who's talking about the fatwa on Trump's head...

Access Restricted

Don't the Iranian hardline mullahs put toothless death threats on people they don't like all the time?

I mean, trying to kill a candidate and hacking same said candidates is real election interference - at the highest level.


When we get into China and the Democrats we can safety say Russia funding people to do what they are going to do anyway - just in higher quality - is likely the very least of our concerns.

The DOJ does charge Chinese hackers:

Seven Hackers Associated with Chinese Government Charged with Computer Intrusions Targeting Perceived Critics of China and U.S. Businesses and Politicians

in 2024, and in 2020:

Seven International Cyber Defendants, Including “Apt41” Actors, Charged In Connection With Computer Intrusion Campaigns Against More Than 100 Victims Globally

and spies:


Chinese agent case in New York is a 'classic' Beijing spy effort, experts say

US charges Chinese dissident with allegedly spying for Beijing

U.S. Citizen and Four Chinese Intelligence Officers Charged with Spying on Prominent Dissidents, Human Rights Leaders and Pro-Democracy Activists

(and those spy cases were all in the last 6 months). There is even a whole wikipedia page about Chinese spies charged by the US:

List of Chinese spy cases in the United States - Wikipedia

 

[Hazelelponi]

Don't the Iranian hardline mullahs put toothless death threats on people they don't like all the time?

Yes but western borders didn't used to be wide open to people who are happy to kill the civilians who have fatwas on their heads for the reward money...

Britain right now is getting worse because many people there have fled the same people entering western countries freely now, and so now they are having to live in hiding within the country, hiding from the Islamists who know who they are.

If we keep our borders open here in America too long people with fatwas will start being attacked and/or killed here too.

That's the problem, bad Muslims come to western countries to escape death, western countries invite terrorists in, bad former Muslims are attacked and/or die.

Trump is just one more but the money must be good... He's in everyone's cross hairs literally.

As far as the journalist holding hostages:

It was just one of Al Jazeera's journalists. He wrote a couple articles for them but the last year or two (i forget how long now, he was mainly just the media liaison for Hamas.

Al Jazeera had his bio up as a contributor and staff member until the news broke that he had hostages.

At that point they wiped his bio and did a hard distance from him. I was surprised they did it so strongly. I never expected them to wipe his bio like that... Lol.

So yes, al Jazeera has tried to distance themselves from employing a terrorist.

 

[childeye 2]

But my point was, is that due to any sort of attitude one way or the other pertaining to "authoritarianism"? Or was that just an acknowledgement of other "already existing" traits, and falsely attributing it to a different trait?

I would say Dugin's philosophies are based on prejudice to begin with, so that should be taken into account when analyzing his thoughts. He would view authoritarians in America as equal to liberals in Russia, so his meaning of authoritarian leans heavily autocratic Nationalism with messianic overtones. What's more telling is that he specifically mentioned using disinformation, destabilization, and annexation of lands to achieve power.

Couldn't one just as easily say that progressives (who are more liberal-minded would be more susceptible to a sanitized version of collectivist economic models? (which are also authoritarian, and which also operate off of negative prejudices about business owners and people with money)

Of course it could easily be said, but is it factually true?

It seems like there's a number of confounding factors a play here with regards to why propaganda aimed and getting people whipped up into a frenzy about transgender people could be effective. (apart from attitudes on authoritarianism)

Well, one technique of propaganda is to form strawman arguments to intentionally project that there is division about certain issues when in reality there isn't.

To be clear, when I was talking about the "truther" movement, I wasn't talking the people on the 9/11 commission wanting answer for how such a huge breakdown in operational intelligence could occur, I was referring to the people who thought "Fahrenheit 9/11" and "Loose Change" were legitimate unbiased documentary materials.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/09/10/false-toxic-sept-11-conspiracy-theories-are-still-widespread-today/

Michael Moore was deliberately disseminating misleading, contextually lacking (and sometimes, downright false) for propaganda purposes. That was the MO of all of his "documentaries". "The US, as a whole, is terrible, these other countries are better, but Republicans are even more terrible than Democrats"

Nearly half of a main political party ending up with the belief that their own president was "in on" the largest terrorist attack on our soil wasn't merely the result of some casual misinformation in passing. That only happens with disinformation and propaganda.

My experience is that people both republican and democrat wanted answers, and there are still unanswered questions in the final official report which are still unresolved. But the topic here is Russian disinformation.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Yes but western borders didn't used to be wide open to people who are happy to kill the civilians who have fatwas on their heads for the reward money...

Britain right now is getting worse because many people there have fled the same people entering western countries freely now, and so now they are having to live in hiding within the country, hiding from the Islamists who know who they are.

If we keep our borders open here in America too long people with fatwas will start being attacked and/or killed here too.

Most of this is just weak anti-immigrant stuff to justify the "what-about-fatwas" distraction from the thread's topic of Russian interference and has no real connection to the thread.

That's the problem, bad Muslims come to western countries to escape death, western countries invite terrorists in, bad former Muslims are attacked and/or die.

And a bunch of anti-Muslim stuff. SMH.

Trump is just one more but the money must be good... He's in everyone's cross hairs literally.

Just that one guy the USSS let get to close.

As far as the journalist holding hostages:

It was just one of Al Jazeera's journalists. He wrote a couple articles for them but the last year or two (i forget how long now, he was mainly just the media liaison for Hamas.

Al Jazeera had his bio up as a contributor and staff member until the news broke that he had hostages.

At that point they wiped his bio and did a hard distance from him. I was surprised they did it so strongly. I never expected them to wipe his bio like that... Lol.

So yes, al Jazeera has tried to distance themselves from employing a terrorist.

A media company finds out one of its contributors is up to very bad stuff an they cut ties immediately. How not unusual of them. No different than "The Blaze" (Glenn Beck's company) firing the founder of the Russian front company the next day. None at all.