Majorityrights News > Category: War of Discourse

Western Spring, “Jez Turner at the JTMM – Talks of Three Essential Truths!”, 27 July 2017:

Jez Turner was the fifth guest speaker at the recent John Tyndall Memorial Meeting and in his speech he examines whether we have the ability or the time to awaken our people to the dangers that beset us? He goes on to develop his theme by presenting what he sees as three essential truths about which we should be aware; the truth of race; the truth of power and the truth about the agenda.

ez ends his speech by talking about the dedication, determination and resilience exhibited by most nationalists, qualities that John Tyndall epitomised, devoting as he did, his entire life to our cause.

Rob Goldstone, left, shown in contact with Trump prior to his son’s meeting with Goldstone that promised high level Russian dirt on Hillary Clinton.

Oh, Wait. Maybe It Was Collusion.

New York Times, Op-Ed Contributors JOHN SIPHER and STEVE HALL, August 2, 2017:

Did the Trump campaign collude with Russian agents trying to manipulate the course of the 2016 election? Some analysts have argued that the media has made too much of the collusion narrative; that Jared Kushner and Donald Trump Jr.’s meeting with Kremlin-linked Russians last year was probably innocent (if ill-advised); or that Russian operatives probably meant for the meeting to be discovered because they were not trying to recruit Mr. Kushner and Mr. Trump as agents, but mainly trying to undermine the American political system.

We disagree with these arguments. We like to think of ourselves as fair-minded and knowledgeable, having between us many years of experience with the C.I.A. dealing with Russian intelligence services. It is our view not only that the Russian government was running some sort of intelligence operation involving the Trump campaign, but also that it is impossible to rule out the possibility of collusion between the two.

The original plan drawn up by the Russian intelligence services was probably multilayered. They could have begun an operation intended to disrupt the presidential campaign, as well as an effort to recruit insiders to help them over time — the two are not mutually exclusive. It is the nature of Russian covert actions (or as the Russians would call them, “active measures”) to adapt over time, providing opportunities for other actions that extend beyond the original intent.

It is entirely plausible, for example, that the original Russian hack of the Democratic National Committee’s computer servers was an effort simply to collect intelligence and get an idea of the plans of the Democratic Party and its presidential candidate. Once derogatory information emerged from that operation, the Russians might then have seen an opportunity for a campaign to influence or disrupt the election. When Donald Trump Jr. responded “I love it” to proffers from a Kremlin-linked intermediary to provide derogatory information obtained by Russia on Hillary Clinton, the Russians might well have thought that they had found an inside source, an ally, a potential agent of influence on the election.

The goal of the Russian spy game is to nudge a person to step over the line into an increasingly conspiratorial relationship. First, for a Russian intelligence recruitment operation to work, they would have had some sense that Donald Trump Jr. was a promising target. Next, as the Russians often do, they made a “soft” approach, setting the bait for their target via the June email sent by Rob Goldstone, a British publicist, on behalf of a Russian pop star, Emin Agalarov.

They then employed a cover story — adoptions — to make it believable to the outside world that there was nothing amiss with the proposed meetings. They bolstered this idea by using cutouts, nonofficial Russians, for the actual meeting, enabling the Trump team to claim — truthfully — that there were no Russian government employees at the meeting and that it was just former business contacts of the Trump empire who were present.

When the Trump associates failed to do the right thing by informing the F.B.I., the Russians probably understood that they could take the next step toward a more conspiratorial relationship. They knew what bait to use and had a plan to reel in the fish once it bit.

While we don’t know for sure whether the email solicitation was part of an intelligence ploy, there are some clues. A month after the June meeting at Trump Tower, WikiLeaks, a veritable Russian front, released a dump of stolen D.N.C. emails. The candidate and campaign surrogates increasingly mouthed talking points that seemed taken directly from Russian propaganda outlets, such as that there had been a terrorist attack on a Turkish military base, when no such attack had occurred. Also, at this time United States intelligence reportedly received indications from European intelligence counterparts about odd meetings between Russians and Trump campaign representatives overseas.

Of course, to determine whether collusion occurred, we would have to know whether the Trump campaign continued to meet with Russian representatives subsequent to the June meeting. The early “courting” stage is almost always somewhat open and discoverable. Only after the Russian intelligence officer develops a level of control can the relationship be moved out of the public eye. John Brennan, the former director of the C.I.A., recently testified, “Frequently, people who go along a treasonous path do not know they are on a treasonous path until it is too late.”

Even intelligence professionals who respect one another and who understand the Russians can and often do disagree. On the Trump collusion question, the difference of opinion comes down to this: Would the Russians use someone like Mr. Goldstone to approach the Trump campaign? Our friend and former colleague Daniel Hoffman argued in this paper that this is unlikely — that the Russians would have relied on trained agents. We respectfully disagree. We believe that the Russians might well have used Mr. Goldstone. We also believe the Russians would have seen very little downside to trying to recruit someone on the Trump team — a big fish. If the fish bit and they were able to reel it in, the email from Mr. Goldstone could remain hidden and, since it was from an acquaintance, would be deniable if found. (Exactly what the Trump team is doing now.)

If the fish didn’t take the bait, the Russians would always have had the option to weaponize the information later to embarrass the Trump team. In addition, if the Russians’ first objective was chaos and disruption, the best way to accomplish that would have been to have someone on the inside helping. It is unlikely that the Russians would not use all the traditional espionage tools available to them.

However, perhaps the most telling piece of information may be the most obvious. Donald Trump himself made numerous statements in support of Russia, Russian intelligence and WikiLeaks during the campaign. At the same time, Mr. Trump and his team have gone out of their way to hide contacts with Russians and lied to the public about it. Likewise, Mr. Trump has attacked those people and institutions that could get to the bottom of the affair. He fired his F.B.I. director James Comey, criticized and bullied his attorney general and deputy attorney general, denigrated the F.B.I. and the C.I.A., and assails the news media, labeling anything he dislikes “fake news.” Innocent people don’t tend to behave this way.

The overall Russian intent is clear: disruption of the United States political system and society, a goal that in the Russian view was best served by a Trump presidency. What remains to be determined is whether the Russians also attempted to suborn members of the Trump team in an effort to gain their cooperation. This is why the investigation by the special counsel, Robert Mueller, is so important. It is why the F.B.I. counterintelligence investigation, also quietly progressing in the background, is critical. Because while a Russian disruption operation is certainly plausible, it is not inconsistent with a much darker Russian goal: gaining an insider ally at the highest levels of the United States government.

In short, and regrettably, collusion is not off the table.

John Sipher (@john_sipher), a former chief of station for the C.I.A., worked for over 27 years in Russia, Europe and Asia and now writes for The Cipher Brief and works for CrossLead, a consulting company. Steve Hall (@StevenLHall1) is a former C.I.A. chief of Russian operations and a CNN national security analyst.

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook and Twitter (@NYTopinion), and sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter.

In Tanstaafl’s latest theoretical fail:

The White Race and its Discontents:

He proffers:

1) “A civilization and its culture are racial constructs – the bottom up, grass-roots instincts of the masses largely modulated and moderated by the elite.”

This is a desperate and lame attempt to ignore the better understanding of social consructionism that I have had to explain time and again, because right wingers cannot adjust to the fact that they are reacting to a misrepresentation of the term.

They refuse to deploy the exercise of trying the word “mere” before “social construct” and observing that if you need that word, then it is Cartesian and not a concept that you would apply to something substantive like race.

The White race as a social construct - not merely, but substantively - already IS from the ground up and that, as a social construct, is a MUCH better way to look at it than the way that Tanstaafl says is THE way to look at the matter, i.e., that “civilization and culture are racial constructs” - that doesn’t even make logical sense (coming from a man who accused me of having poor logic): If he is emphasizing, as he does, the causal and deterministic aspect of our inheritance then why call it a “racial construct”?  ..call it a byproduct, perhaps..

But he won’t go with a proper understanding of social constructionism because he is beholden to his reactionary audience.

It is better to allow for our individual agency and contributions by talking in terms of social construct - it emphasizes our social responsibility, interdependence, degree of independence and most importantly, our people as central outlook and framework, not our subhuman nature.

Tanstaafl does not do this because he continually tries to suck Hitler to life again, desperately trying to make his subhuman ideology relevant again.

Social constructionism, properly understood, not only begins with the proper outlook, from our people, but does so in such a way that already begins with instinct and unconscious doings - we talk in terms of the agentive capacity to attribute how things count when they are on the more causative side of the spectrum. But they are never, mere constructs.

2) To illustrate how it is that Tanstaafl can’t get over his wish to try to redeem Hitler and make him relevant again: in the context of Trump’s speech in Poland, Tan tries the old, “they’re going to call you a Nazi anyway.”

No they aren’t - especially not if you apply agency as a social constructionist. It’s easier as a Pole, perhaps, to say I/we had nothing to do with Nazism; but it is not that hard for subsequent generations of Germans to reject the attribution of Nazism either.

3) In another example of how he wants to apply natural causality and tie our hands to passivity in regard to how the Jews say things count, Tan cites the infamous Susan Sontag quote - “White people are the cancer of the earth”  - in its full context; relishing the opportunity to attack one of my most cherished observations on behalf of our European people - i.e. that the Hippies were about midtdasein, Being amidst our people for White males as opposed to say, the endless war mongering of Hitler or the corporations and their draft into Vietnam - by saying that Sontag was endorsing the “freak-out” in order to promote sheer insubordination to older generations.

Well, that is how (((Sontag))) might try to say the hippies counted, that is NOT how we should say they counted. For us the rebellion of midtdasein against sheer war mongering could not have been a more relevant and authentic motive.

....tasked with out-Koshering other goyim alum and to put the hit on them gangster style for being in/convenient goyim to the kosher mob. From our point of view, we can be glad that Bannon’s (((Paleocon))) misdirection into his (((Neo-Reaction))) is being throttled by a more distinctly (thereby didactic) Kosher and neo-liberal effort.

Scaramucci blanks like a hootchi.

First, some commentary on the situation by Kumiko:

Death match, Maxine Waters versus Steven Mnuchin.

A number of Cernovich’s people are getting subpoena’d now too.

He’s on Twitter this morning saying he’s worried he’ll be next.

All the FVEY accounts are indicating “LOL we’re coming for all of you.”

The collapse is going to be good fun.

Why would Cernovich be subpoena’d?

Because Putin, quite seriously.

It’s encouraging that this has started to bleed into the Alt-Lite.

Since they thought that everyone had forgotten about them.

It forms part of the logic of why we have actively tried to keep our audience from falling into that garbage when it started up.

All of these people will go down with the ship, because that’s how it works.

The only way to not get taken down is to just not be there.

“I’m just a blogger, surely I can be a grey vector of Active Measures and be left alone, right?”

Yeah no.

The only they were going to escape would have been if Trump had swiftly crushed the entire US intelligence community within a few months of entering office.

But these fluffy guys didn’t think about that, and Trump was incompetent, so now it’s all catching up to them.

There’s still chances for them to squirm out, if Trump starts a firing spree before Graham’s bill passes.

But it’s looking like they won’t make it.

Trump is behind schedule, since he fired Priebus today, but then he realized that Scaramucci doesn’t care about anything and wants to actually fight Bannon.

So they are wasting precious time because Trump didn’t realize that Scaramucci only wanted to enter the White House so he could destroy Priebus and Bannon.

....because they screwed him in a business deal back n 2016.

Now he’s coming back pure ITALIAN BOSS.

...and now they are all falling over each other to try to ‘calm that down’... wasting precious time.

That’s why you see Raheem Kassam and Cernovich now trying to rally the base against Scaramucci “or it’s all over” according Kassam.

If you want to be rid of Bannon’s Neo-Reactionary misdirection into counter-Jihad Paleoconservatism, you have to love the hit Salabucci is putting on him.

Salabucci is just there to kill two guys.

He’s just some guy Trump knew from some business thing, who used to also go on Fox News and give financial commentary.

He spent the whole electoral cycle accusing Trump of being a protectionist bastard, until he realized Trump could be induced to make it worth his while; so he quietly went pro-Trump, sold off his business, and then asked to join the Trump admin.

That’s when Priebus and Bannon blocked him, saying he was on an agenda, and so it meant Scaramucci had divested himself for no reason. At this stage I assume he decided to go for the revenge plot, and this may be it.

So he becomes a factor in the chaos. ...since Trump is an idiot and brought him in despite the fact that he was a time bomb.

That’s why Sean Spicer resigned, since he refused to work under Scaramucci, since he knew Scaramucci is there to wreck things.

Then Scaramucci immediately came in and destroyed Priebus as Spicer likely predicted, lol.

And is now attacking Bannon, claiming that “I’m here to serve America, unlike Bannon who is here to suck his own dick.”

Anyway, yeah, this is why day to day politics can be fun.

On the other side, Trump just ruined his senate majority.

In the process of trying to pass the Obamacare repeal, Trump threatened to economically attack Alaska if Murkowski wouldn’t vote ‘Yes.’

In reaction, Murkowski doubled down on opposing Trump, and voted ‘no.’

So Pence entered the chamber again to try to break the tie.

But then Collins and MCCAIN defected too.

....and the whole chamber erupted as McCain tilted his chin up.

...and the whole fucking thing imploded.

So now Trump is in a position where he is just getting nothing done.

That’s what Kumiko had to say. Here’s what The New Nationalist has to say. They consider themselves “Third Position,” which means that they have some things right - like an eye on the J.Q. and some right wing perfidy. However, they remain insufficiently emancipated from the right wing and are unstable as a result, resorting to some wild speculation where socialization would be corrective.

The New Nationalist, “Move Over Trump, There’s a New Sheriff in Town: Mad Tony ‘The Mooch’ Scaramucci”, 28 July 2017:

Trumpian apologists are doing cartwheels and backflips trying to explain away the bizarre behavior of the administration’s latest “communication director,” one Anthony Scaramucci, also known as “The Mooch.” Sean Spicer was a piker compared to this character. Predictably, The Mooch, 53, is a Goldman Sachs alum and hedge fund manager who boasts “29 years on Wall Street.” He is a member of the nefarious Council on Foreign Relations and, on June 19, became senior VP and chief strategy officer for the U.S. Export-Import Bank.

During his first week on the job as Trump’s chief mouthpiece, Scaramucci engaged the president’s drama squad in a WWWF-style brahaha, culminating in an interview during which he declared, “I’m not Steve Bannon. I’m not trying to suck my own cock. I’m not trying to build my own brand off the fucking strength of the president. I’m here to serve the country.” Classy.

In another rambling interview, The Mooch vowed to hunt down the White House leakers. He suggested that embattled White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus would be fired if he leaks and said he was incensed that Priebus “cock-blocked” him for six months from getting a position in Trump’s administration. He also called Priebus “a fucking paranoid schizophrenic” and seemed to imply that some White House staffers may have committed a felony by leaking sensitive financial information about Scaramucci, even though his financial disclosure form was publicly available. It is also interesting that The Mooch had nothing bad to say about globalists Jared Kushner, Gary Cohn and Dina Powell during his rant.

Sampling of the Mooch’s claims:

         
          The 6 most unusual quotes from Anthony Scaramucci’s CNN interview

No sensible leader would turn such a man loose. No sensible leader would be undercutting his own attorney general six months into his presidency. His Secretary of State Tillerson is rumored to have had enough. There is every indication that the Trumpian executive branch is ungovernable; and worse, governed by tweet. Just about anybody within the sistema will distance themselves soon enough. Former media supporter Breibart is playing a role by doing exactly that.

It is just a matter of time before steps are taken to remove him. The New Nationalist (TNN) theorizes the trigger will be a market swoon, possibly triggered by a faux pas from “Red Queen” Donald himself. This happens after the cognescenti are convinced the rigged “markets” are bulletproof against Trumpian buffoonery and skullduggery. But alas, that will prove not to be the case.

This further reinforces our post-election theory regarding Trump mafioso and oligarch-like appointments. This is a devious and traitorous Trojan Horse operation designed to deliberately take what’s left of the American system down. This is the end game of a multi-generation national demolition project.

Trump’s role is as closer of that project. Unfortunately, few understand that, even his among his opponents. In fact, his Democratic opponents like Hillary and Obama are in on it. Readers need to jettison the erroneous Hanlon’s Razor, which says, “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.” There is true evil and malice at loose in the world and they operate at the highest level.

Although at this juncture this feels like watching red paint dry, it’s anything but. This crisis phase, when it erupts, should last about six weeks, ending in total breakdown and chaos. The moving parts, such as a summer of urban turmoil (Baltimore and Ferguson multiplied) are in place. The neo-feudal plans of the Crime Syndicate and their international bankster bosses are in place. The police state and Gulag system have been tested and are in place. Human harvesting implementation was test run in Haiti and is in place. Human terrain intelligence for every person in America, if not the world, is in place, locked, loaded.

The End, Linkin Park’s Chester Bennington

When false opposition forces you to imagine lyrics/text different than theirs and supply protest lyrics authentic to your interests:

Back in the days before Internet, decades before in fact, we young folks didn’t have much outlet for protest via the media - TV, movies, newspapers and magazines, book publishing (((all controlled))). Music, concerts and festivals were ostensible outlets of protest expression - and even they were so (((controlled))) by pervasive liberalism that I had to change lyrics in my head to de-liberalize them and make them properly aligned to my grievances. Neil Young’s “Alabama” is a classic example of a song that had righteous passion totally misdirected into liberalism. Lynard Skynard noticed it in their song “Sweet Home Alabama”, citing Young and his song “Alabama” directly for criticism. But it wasn’t only they who objected and I could not relate to their southern patriotism either. No, I had my own protest lyrics in mind - lyrics, wouldn’t you know, that I can’t even spell out today, this protest remains so forbidden by the powers-that-be and their do-gooders mulatto supremacist gate keepers: it goes to show HOW FAR we have NOT come in some ways - ridiculously, you can’t even say the N word:

“Alabama”, Neil Young - Lyrics

Oh Alabama N-lover
Banjos playing
through the broken glass
Windows down in Alabama.
See the old folks
tied in white ropes
Hear the banjo.
Don’t it take you down home?

Alabama N-lover, you got
the weight on your shoulders
That’s breaking your back.
Your Cadillac
has got a wheel in the ditch
And a wheel on the track

Oh Alabama N-lover.
Can I see you
and shake your hand.
Make friends down in Alabama.
I’m from a new land
I come to you
and see all this ruin
What are you doing Alabama N-lover?
You got the rest of the union
to help you along
What’s going wrong?

Neil did a bit better with the lyrics to “Southern Man”, particularly in the last stanza, although I don’t think Neil was looking at it from the same angle that I have… that’s my imagination supplying the protest angle once again.

Southern Man, Neil Young – Lyrics
Southern man
Better keep your head
Don’t forget
What your good book said
Southern change
Gonna come at last
Now your crosses
Are burning fast
Southern man

I saw cotton
And I saw black
Tall white mansions
And little shacks.
Southern man
When will you
Pay them back?
I heard screamin’
And bullwhips cracking
How long? How long?

Southern man
Better keep your head
Don’t forget
What your good book said
Southern change
Gonna come at last
Now your crosses
Are burning fast
Southern man

Lily Belle,
Your hair is golden brown
I’ve seen your black man
Comin’ round
Swear by God
I’m gonna cut him down!
I heard screamin’
And bullwhips cracking
How long? How long?

Neil Young’s politics are well off the mark; no need to belabor that, but I’d like to caution that anybody trafficking in the emotion of sadness as much as Neil Young has is promoting a neutering kind of propaganda in that very sadness - it’s better to veer in the direction of anger.

Now, a primary outlet for rebellion against political tyranny has been largely co-opted again, this time it is the (((alternative-k*ke er, alternative-right))) that’s doing much of the co-opting.

And unfortunately, they are putting their (((brand))) on to some intelligent text, you might say, protest lyrics text.

I feel the same yearning as co-opted passions and thoughtful consideration could be deployed for our authentic protest, and not for the (((alternative-k*ke))), when I read Melissa Meszaros’ article about the suicide of Linkin Park frontman, Chester Bennington.

The strikeouts of “alt-rights” and “the left” in one place are strictly my wish and of course not how Melissa wrote the article - as she did, in order to brand it for the (((Alt-Right))). In one place I have to comment where, typical of right wing misguidance, the negative significance and anti stance she registers for the homosexual issue is disproportionate. Everything else remains as she has written it.

Melissa Meszaros

Alt-Right, “What The Alt-Right Can Learn From The Death Of Chester Bennington, 24 July 2017:

Linkin Park touched the millennial generation’s frustrations with modern society like no other band could. For this reason, it’s worth spending a few moments looking into the life of frontman Chester Bennington and seeing what we can learn after his suicide.

Sexually molested from the age of seven, divorced parents, a steady cocktail of drugs from the age of eleven, with alcoholism and depression entering later on — these are the things that framed the childhood of Linkin Park’s frontman Chester Bennington.

Unable to overcome his traumas and subsequent addictions, he chose to use them as a painful source of inspiration in his lyrics. His suicide is unfortunate, especially for his children and wife, and whether we listened personally to the band or not as we were growing up, Linkin Park held a central position representing the millennial generation’s frustrations with life and all the associated mental effects relating to the increase of broken homes and fragmenting communities. The band spoke of problems most of us experienced as teenagers, back when we were confused and distrustful of the direction our supposedly fantastic and free society was heading. Now, as adults in the Alt-Right, with infinitely more resources and knowledge at our fingertips, we are dedicated to overcoming and fixing these issues within ourselves and our societies. But still, for many of us, Linkin Park was the herald awakening millions of teens to the realization that the world is messed-up and it was time to prepare for a long battle. For this reason, I believe it’s worth spending a few moments looking into Bennington’s life of inescapable addiction and seeing what we in the Alt-Right can learn from it.

For me, I remember Linkin Park being the most popular band in my freshman year of high school in Central New Jersey. It was the last year I’d spend in the United States before moving to Hungary with my parents. My friends would carry around the Hybrid Theory CD and hold it reverently during recess while talking about the lyrics. We’d sit with crossed-legs in a circle in the shady corner of a grassy lot while spawns of diversity hollered and beat each other on the nearby basketball courts.

I only got into the band later, for a few months when my father was in the hospital in Hungary, dying from terminal lung cancer. The music is not positive and it does not remind me of a good place. Rather, I envision a constant delirious struggle with myself, getting caught in a loop over thinking various problems and feeling uncertain of ever being able to overcome the odds and live in peace. These are the very thought processes Chester Bennington described himself dealing with, in an interview with 102.7 KIISFM radio in February of this year. After a while, I realized the music was keeping me from moving past my own issues, so I grew out of it.

When it comes to Bennington himself, there are three things worth highlighting. First, there is the molestation by an older male friend. In his own words, Bennington described:

“It escalated from a touchy, curious, ‘what does this thing do’ into full-on, crazy violations. I was getting beaten up and being forced to do things I didn’t want to do. It destroyed my self-confidence. I didn’t want people to think I was gay or that I was lying. It was a horrible experience.”

READ MORE...

Tara can be an epoch figure for White sovereignty, will be in all likelihood; but she needs to be wary of furthering enemy interests, their tandem YKW/right-wing coalition, by coddling their plants (((e.g., Lauren Southern))) and inadvertently advancing their agenda through the Alt-Lite/ the Alt-Right - the (((co-option)))/reaction paradigm they seek to control.

The web connecting the Trump administration to Russia

From Secretary of State Rex Tillerson to former campaign director Paul Manafort, President Donald Trump’s allies have business and personal connections to Russia. As Congress and the FBI look into Russia’s involvement with the 2016 election, those connect (Natalie Fertig and Patrick Gleason McClatchy).

McClatchy DC, “Trump-Russia investigators probe Jared Kushner-run digital operation”, 12 July 2017:

WASHINGTON

Investigators at the House and Senate Intelligence committees and the Justice Department are examining whether the Trump campaign’s digital operation – overseen by Jared Kushner – helped guide Russia’s sophisticated voter targeting and fake news attacks on Hillary Clinton in 2016.

Congressional and Justice Department investigators are focusing on whether Trump’s campaign pointed Russian cyber operatives to certain voting jurisdictions in key states – areas where Trump’s digital team and Republican operatives were spotting unexpected weakness in voter support for Hillary Clinton, according to several people familiar with the parallel inquiries.

Also under scrutiny is the question of whether Trump associates or campaign aides had any role in assisting the Russians in publicly releasing thousands of emails, hacked from the accounts of top Democrats, at turning points in the presidential race, mainly through the London-based transparency web site WikiLeaks.

Rep. Adam Schiff of California, ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, told McClatchy he wants to know whether Russia’s “fake or damaging news stories” were “coordinated in any way in terms of targeting or in terms of timing or in terms of any other measure … with the (Trump) campaign.”

By Election Day, an automated Kremlin cyberattack of unprecedented scale and sophistication had delivered critical and phony news about the Democratic presidential nominee to the Twitter and Facebook accounts of millions of voters. Some investigators suspect the Russians targeted voters in swing states, even in key precincts.

Russia’s operation used computer commands knowns as “bots” to collect and dramatically heighten the reach of negative or fabricated news about Clinton, including a story in the final days of the campaign accusing her of running a pedophile ring at a Washington pizzeria.

One source familiar with Justice’s criminal probe said investigators doubt Russian operatives controlling the so-called robotic cyber commands that fetched and distributed fake news stories could have independently “known where to specifically target … to which high-impact states and districts in those states.”

All of the sources spoke on condition of anonymity because the investigation, led by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, is confidential.

Top Democrats on the committees investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election have signaled the same.

Schiff said he wants the House panel to determine whether Trump aides helped Russia time its cyberattacks or target certain voters and whether there was “any exchange of information, any financial support funneled to organizations that were doing this kind of work.”

Trump son-in-law Kushner, now a senior adviser to the president and the only current White House aide known to be deemed a “person of interest” in the Justice Department investigation, appears to be under the microscope in several respects. His real estate finances and December meetings with Russia’s ambassador and the head of a sanctioned, state-controlled bank are also being examined.

Kushner’s “role as a possible cut-out or conduit for Moscow’s influence operations in the elections,” including his niche overseeing the digital operations, will be closely looked at, said the source knowledgeable about the Justice Department inquiry.

Kushner joined Donald Trump Jr. and Trump campaign Chairman Paul Manafort at a newly disclosed June 2016 meeting with a Russian lawyer at Trump Tower in New York.. The meeting, revealed by The New York Times, followed emails in which Trump Jr. was told the lawyer for the Russian government would provide him with incriminating information on Clinton and he replied “If it’s what you say I love it.”

That disclosure could only serve to heighten interest in whether there was digital collaboration.

Mike Carpenter, who in January left a senior Pentagon post where he worked on Russia matters, also has suspicions about collaboration between the campaign and Russia’s cyber operatives.

“There appears to have been significant cooperation between Russia’s online propaganda machine and individuals in the United States who were knowledgeable about where to target the disinformation,” he said, without naming any American suspects.

Trump has repeatedly repudiated or equivocated about the finding of four key intelligence agencies – the FBI, CIA, National Security Agency and the Directorate of National Intelligence – that Russian cyber operatives meddled with the U.S. election.

Last Friday, during their first face-to-face meeting, Trump questioned Putin about Russia’s role in the election meddling and Putin denied culpability, said Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, who was present. Trump then said the two countries should find ways to move forward in their relationship, Tillerson said.

A Russian official who was at the meeting said the two sides agreed to form a working group to address cybersecurity, including interference in other countries’ internal affairs. However, Trump backtracked Sunday night, saying in a tweet that he doesn’t believe such an effort can happen.

As more has been learned about the breadth of the Russian cyber onslaught, congressional Democrats have shown growing resolve to demand that the Republican-controlled intelligence committees fully investigate ways in which Trump associates may have conspired with the Russians.

READ MORE...

On the Significance of the Neo in Neo-Reaction - when Jewish victimology turns attention to Jews as the victimizers, Jewish exceptionalism is invoked as “Neo” - “As long as I can remember I’ve been a ‘Neo’-Something: A Neo-Marxist, a Neo-Trotskyist, a Neo-Liberal, a Neo-Conservative and in religion, always, Neo-Orthodox, even while I was a Neo-Trotskyist and a Neo-Marxist….I’m going to end up a Neo, just Neo, that’s all.”

Intersectionality: Jewish ordering and exceptionalism in victimology - the “Neo-exceptions” of victimology in the age of treason:

Tanstaafl usually provides incisive insight into Jewish machinations. As he does here in his observation of “intersectionality”, recognizing that to be the point at which Jewish victimology turns attention back to them as the victimizers - which then requires their interests to propose their exceptionalism to the rule - a rule which might be wiggled-out-of as they don themselves “neo” this or that.

Tan’s incisiveness can, however, cut off important “ambiguities” - “ambiguities” that provide means for learning, creativity and agency in the realm of praxis - Tan accuses me of “jargon” for this word, which outlines the interactivity of the social world and its impossibility to predict 1000% for the human capacity for reflexive agency in responses; e.g., I was surprised by Tan when he wanted me to clearly understand that he had “no problem with Hitler.” I expected him to change that, to observe problems, at least some problems with Hitler’s worldview after a reading on his former network of the chapter in Table-Talk, viz., where Hitler discusses his opinion of Ukrainians, the subservient role he saw for those not killed in resistance to his aspiration for aggrandizement of their land. Tan had, after all, objected to Carolyn’s insulting support of Hitler’s disparagement.

Typically in this post also then, we should look-out for some blind spots in Tan’s analysis for his tacit identification with a right-wing perspective, particularly Nazi apologetics.

The wish to vindicate Hitler can make for an over-focus, even if slightly, on Jews as the problem. If Jews were THAT much of the problem, virtually the only problem, then Hitler is apparently, largely vindicated for his “minor indiscretions”. It is not that there should not be strong focus on on the J.Q. But it becomes an “over-focus” when in that incisive focus it parses-out and does not afford discussion of our part, our agency - where any sort of ambiguity is not allowed-for as it does not follow the “logic” of the J.Q. (us or them) - as was the case where Tan’s logic accused someone like me of trying to distract, minimize or malign those who focus on the J.Q. Whereas I am, in fact, merely calling for the need to also examine the part some of our people play (as if we don’t know that Jews like Alana Mercer try to focus singularly on that side of the equation) in our situation, with Jews and otherwise.

When Tan seeks to vindicate Hitler and unburden guilt and agency among his community of sympathizers - by suggesting rather that I am minimizing the J.Q., the singularly paramount issue, a life and death struggle against Jewish interests, as he expresses it - Tan is pushing Whites in the direction of repeating the same mistake, of headlong and disastrous reaction for wont of sufficiently deep and broad epistemic preparation - a necessary grounding especially in the praxis of European ethno-national coordination (which the motive of Hitler vindication precludes). 

Furthermore, by not allowing for the “ambiguity” of praxis he performs an additional disservice by going along with a Jewish default on left and right - i.e., where they can’t get you to cop to being a right winger or an alt-righter, they want you to say, as Tan does, “left and right is not a useful distinction.” Tan adds cleverly, I am a “White winger.”

While he has criticized Lawrence Auster for making liberalism the problem and not Jews, his overly precise focus has bi-passed the fact that liberalism is the problem in the sense that liberalism unfolds characteristically, in reality, as license against group classificatory interests - a consequent in reality especially given the manicheanism of Jewish interests which exaggerate and instigate that liberal prerogative indeed; though liberalism as it follows consequently of insufficient account to our interests is still the manifest problem, even if Auster complains about it, even if instigated by Auster’s fellow YKW: And particularly if liberalism is hidden beneath titular conservatism, as in neo-conservatism or paleoconservatism, or the mistakenly presumed conservatism of Christianity - as any sort of conservatism that they propose will be under their Noahide control; thus not conservative of our sovereign classificatory interests.

Worse, Tan says that Gottfried wants to blame liberalism as well - and so he does, but even more so does Gottfried want to blame and vilify “The Left” - the unionized accountability to social classification - and to position White identity against it - and has, in the form of the Alternative-Right - everybody is blaming “the left” as a result of the language game Gottfried set in motion. And while it is not always correct to play “opposite day”, in this case, it is - we should be asking why Gottfried et al. want us to do that? What is wrong about a White Right - Alt-Right or otherwise? Even more significantly, what is correct about a White Left perspective such that Gottfried et al. do not want us to identify with it?

I do believe that Tan’s blind spots stem from his starting point in defense of his partial German heritage, partly from his STEM-nerd background as well, which has been overly-reinforced against the helpful ambiguities of praxis by right-wing reactionary communities in The US. Thus, he will gain dubious support, for example by fellow Hitler apologist Wolf Wall Street - who will call Tan “the greatest epistemologist in White Nationalism”. When in fact, epistemology is one of Tanstaafl’s blind spots and weak points.

That doesn’t mean that most of what Tan has to say isn’t good - it is. His amplification of the matter of crypsis is an important contribution. But incisive, good and significant as his citing “anti-racism as a Jewish construct” is, it hardly renders insignificant my observation that “anti-racism is Cartesian, it is prejudice, it is not innocent, it is hurting and killing people.” His statement can be seen as a focus on the major pathogen afflicting European peoples, while my statement focuses on the fundamental element of our systemic immuno-deficiency.