Hacker News Reader

Comment by asabjorn | Hacker News Reader

It is interesting how any movement in opposition to globalism is caused by Russia, and any opponent of the progressivism pushing for this is obviously an racist/sexist/bigot.

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.

View on HN

It's not interesting at all. It's the the mundane politics of everyday normal foreign relations as countries try to get a leg up and interfere in each other's processes. Maybe the only thing that's interesting is that for the first time, it's happening to the rich western former colonial powers. The chickens have finally come home to roost.

  for the first time

I think the russian meddling stuff is largely a bs scapegoat and even I know the KGB was up to this stuff for the entire cold war. See the classic interview from KGB defector Yuri Bezmenov where he claims that the majority of KGB efforts were dedicated to "demoralization" not spying.

Demoralization and destabilization are their goals with respect to meddling though. See my rather long reply to parent in this thread.

You're arguing against a strawman.

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 am just observing. It’s very impressive for Russia to be the essential force behind all major opposition movements that apparently are not rooted in legitimate concerns.

It isn't so impressive or surprising if you observe that a KGB man is in charge of Russia and the three letter agencies in America tasked with countering him have been tied up with other tasks since the the eleventh of september 2001 for some reason.

And not just a "KGB man". Much of Putin's family died in the siege of Leningrad. And, as his key assistant, he watched Yeltsin sink into alcoholism and depression, as the Soviet Union fell apart, and Russia was humiliated.

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.

Agreed. To add to your points, Putin’s grandfather was a cook for Lenin and Stalin. Speculation: He grew up hearing about these ‘”heros”.

https://www.google.co.nz/amp/s/www.rbth.com/document/5aa678c...

Also, see this for context: https://www.rferl.org/a/putin-s-a-solid-man-declassified-mem...

Yeltsin had sunk into bottle before Putin came in his sight in 1996.

Russian Foreign Intelligence Service is still separated from FSB/KGB.

edit: wording. Definitely not a russian intelligence agent :)

As I said elsewhere: Yes, the KGB defector Yuri [1] in 1984 said as much that there is manipulation. He describes a slow distruption they started of America by infiltrating the education system. This attacks the weakness of a democracy, which is the fact that it’s run by people for the behest of itself as a system and does not answer to an estate that would otherwise check its malfunctioning.

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.

[1] https://youtu.be/bX3EZCVj2XA

I didn't say "essential force". And I didn't deny "legitimate concerns". If your goal is sowing chaos, you gotta build from those legitimate concerns.

> If your goal is sowing chaos, you gotta build from those legitimate concerns.

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.

Yeah but exaggerated rhetoric has existed for millenniums and is an inherent part of how human societies work. Also the rhetoric might be exaggerated but there are always some basis behind it, e.g. job loss and wage stagnation due to globalization etc. Sure we need to counter it in a civilized society, but pinning it all on Russia using such absolutist terms is just laughable.

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.

> Yeah but exaggerated rhetoric has existed for millenniums and is an inherent part of how human societies work.

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.

I was trying to be accommodating. But yes, "existing" would have been more accurate.

You are not "just observing", you are creating straw positions and then being extremely disingenuous about it, to the point of outright trolling.

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?

The problem is if the people of England is correct in the assertion that it has given away too much Democratic power to unelected political bodies, and I am not the one to answer that. I am just saying dismissing their concerns seem a bit unproductive.

Well, the EU government isn't really "unelected". It's just indirectly elected. Before 1913, for example, US state legislatures elected their state's senators. As I understand it, the original goal was to insulate senators somewhat from populist influence.

But yes, I get that this was a concern for Brexit supporters. I'm just arguing that Russia exploited it.

You sound like either a troll or a PR agent. Not sure most HN readers who should be capable of thinking on their own would take you seriously though.

Again, nobody is really claiming they are an "essential force", only that they are a factor. Quit straw-manning.

It's not really that surprising considering Russia has a century long supremacy in this area: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_measures

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.

You don't need to be a professor to know that sooner or later anything will fragment or "reshape" itself. Just learn the last 2000 years of history.

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.

Occam's Razor suggests that the people who voted for Brexit didn't think that they were receiving net benefits from the EU. I'm pretty sure the net financial transfer is Britain sends more money to the EU than they get back, so it is easy to see why a tax-paying voter might feel that way.

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.

Its actually a tiny amount < £200 for me and I am well above the uk median wage - every one gets a yearly break down of where there tax gets spent

> It is interesting how any movement in opposition to globalism is caused by 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.

Everything seems to be going as planned.

"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.

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

Yes, the KGB defector Yuri [1] said as much. He describes a slow distruption they started of America by infiltrating the education system. This attacks the weakness of a democracy, which is the fact that it’s run by people for the behest of itself as a system and does not answer to an estate that would otherwise check its malfunctioning.

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.

[1] https://youtu.be/bX3EZCVj2XA

That's conspiracy theory nonsense.

Yuri was a real KGB defector, and the interview is from 1984 which is way before the effects we see today. Watch the whole thing here [1], and read the sometimes a bit offensive book on it by a CIA case officer [2].

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...

What else do you expect from Russia or any other country that tries to overpower the others? It's just like nature, when the lion takes over the group and he is constantly challenged.

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.

That's not particularly productive thinking: should we test buildings by bombing them - if they fall over, they didn't deserve to tower so high?

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.

Ctrl-F "racis"/"sexis" yields no results. That didn't stop you from triggering the persecution complex and going "waa, can't even disagree, they'll call you a bigot".

Please, don't buy into that divisive rhetoric.

We all know the rhetoric used against the brexiters, and what I stated is representative of that.

Source?

## source who voted for brexit

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/

Not sure what you're trying to say here. Sounds just like rehashing the what the mainstream western media have been drumming to tedium. If you genuinely believe that everything including Brexit and Donald trump is "caused" by Russia it's you that need to be much "better informed". If not then you're deliberately trying to deflect the focus just like what the Democrats and in general the mainstream media have been doing for all these years.

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?

You need to pay more attention... he is being sarcastic. That's exactly his point - people are wrong to believe the media and blame everything on Russia.

> 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.

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.

It's not that interesting. Manipulation was targeted at people more susceptible to it.

I expect that most racism/sexism/bigotry generally comes from prior manipulation too.

How do you know that other more major political stories is not the real product of manipulation [1] and these opposition movements are a symptom of problems not solved by a malfunctioning Democratic system?

[1] https://youtu.be/bX3EZCVj2XA

They could be, but there is a much lower threshold to manipulate people who are close-minded. Almost everyone I've encountered who repeats racially charged headlines is LESS likely to have much personal experience with the people they feel so strongly about, even to the point of avoiding encounters with those people.

Close minded means you are not open to new impulses.If they are close minded they by definition is bound by something old which should make them harder to manipulate.

A person that does the creative arts is generally very open minded.

My country was recently victim of a "hacker"-attack. Personal accounts of politicians were compromised. Everyone and their cats pointed their fingers at Russia.

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?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com