By Danny C. | DCPeriodical | 10/21/19 |
In the third 2012 presidential debate, Democratic incumbent Barack Obama won points over with viewers when he quipped to Republican hopeful Mitt Romney, ‘I’m glad that you recognize that al Qaeda’s a threat, because a few months ago when you were asked “what’s the biggest geopolitical threat facing America,” you said, “Russia.” And the 1980’s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back,’ and I laughed, and I laughed.
Ironically, not so long after that debate the biggest campaign of Russian-fear-based propaganda since Joe McCarthy began, and predominantly from the very party Obama belonged to.
Allow me to elaborate with some examples.
Donald Trump beat Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election. The Democrats and the media that serves them maintained Trump was a Russian asset working for Putin, who, they claimed, rigged the election through social media.
Bernie Sanders should have beaten Hillary Clinton in the 2016 Democratic primaries, but was cheated by the Democratic National Committee (DNC) out of his deserved and earned spot. Bernie was constantly Russia-smeared during his campaign, even being grilled by Anderson Cooper after a debate about his honeymoon in Moscow in 1988, when actually his trip there was on official government business.
In the same respect, Democratic National Committee member, Bob Mulholland, claimed one of Bernie’s top supporters, grassroots activist Selina Vickers, was a Russian spy.
Later, a top propagandist mouthpiece for the Dems named Louise Mensch accused Bernie of being a witting Russian agent.
And what about Jill Stein? She ran as a third part candidate in 2016. Stein had attended a banquet in Moscow in which Putin also attended. Team-Hillary was able to spin that into a narrative of Stein being a Russian asset tasked with detracting voters from Clinton. Hillary herself blatantly said days ago from me writing this that ‘Jill Stein is a Russian asset.’
Republican candidate Roy Moore was dubbed a ‘Russia-preferred candidate’ during his run for the US senate in 2017. As usual, without fact checking, the media picked it up and ran with it.
Democratic congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard was a vice chairperson for the DNC during the 2016 election. But when she found out they and Clinton were cheating to rig the primaries away from Bernie Sanders, Gabbard very publicly cited foul play and resigned her position to support him. Gabbard is also quite outspoken about ending the wars Clinton has championed for almost two decades. So guess what Tulsi Gabbard is? Well, according to Hillary Clinton, she’s a Russian asset.
The fact of the matter is, out all the alleged cells of Russia, only one person had a mountain of evidence waged against him—Donald Trump. The rest of the accused have had no evidence presented at all, just baseless assertions.
What’s more, the evidence against Trump came from a dossier funded by Clinton and the DNC, and it turned out to be garbage. In the end, a three year investigation took place to link Trump to Russia that cost American taxpayers $32 million. It found no solid evidence. Trump remained president.
In fact, every time the media has smeared someone for being a Russian asset, it’s been exposed to have come from more than dubious sources.
Take for example Roy Moore. Just like with Gabbard, Trump, Sanders, and Stein, it was alleged online Russian social media bots were influencing American voters from Moscow to rig the election in his favor. That is, until it was exposed that the cybersecurity firm New Knowledge, who was tasked with policing the internet against these ‘Russian bots’, was actually creating them themselves.
Jill Stein was investigated by a Senate committee for her visit to Moscow, which they alleged Putin paid for. In that investigation it was proven Stein paid for her trip by herself. She provided receipts. Not only that, it was also shown she’d attended the dinner to challenge Putin to his face on Russia’s use of military force in the Middle East. It was a peace mission. Nothing more. Proven outright. What’s more, she was on a European diplomatic tour. Russia was only one of the stops.
Are we starting to see a pattern here?
Calling someone a ‘Russian asset’ is a tactic known as red-baiting, and it falls under a number of logical fallacy columns—’poisoning the well,’ ‘information pollution,’ and the ‘Nuremberg defense’ to name a few. To put it simply, it’s character assassination.
This tactic was popular in the forties and fifties, or, during the height of the second ‘Red Scare.’ While American media was busy terrifying the public into thinking communists were hiding under their beds, all it took to destroy a political opponent was to accuse them of being a Soviet spy, or in other words, a Russian, and they would be blacklisted.
This tactic held strong for many years, until a senator named Joseph McCarthy went on a four year rampage, accusing, not least of which, 205 State Department workers of being assets of the Politburo. After that he went after the CIA and FBI, which he was also convinced were full of commies.
Eventually McCarthy’s insanity was seen for what it was worth when 36 days of his go-nowhere hearings were televised. America, then at least, had the intellect to see through McCarthy’s nonsense tactics and he was completely discredited, both in the private and public eye.
Today, it seems, McCarthy’s spirit has been revived.
But the game has changed these days. Now we have better technology, social media, global interaction on a minute to minute basis. Neo-red-baiting takes advantage of this.
Take for instance the latest smears of Tulsi Gabbard and Jill Stein. When Hillary Clinton called them Russian assets an instant backlash ignited, mostly due to Gabbard and Stein’s shared tenacity to not back down and answer back with animosity. So the smear was shifted.
Now the Clinton proxy machine (the western media, the DNC, and their army of fanatics on social media, or bots, or both) is trying to sell the narrative that Stein and Gabbard may not be willing assets of Russia, but are playing into the hands of the Russians by going against the grain when it comes to some of the DNC’s stances—ie. maintaining their numerous imperialist wars. They say by holding these opinions, which they claim coincide with Russian initiatives, they’re helping the Russians invade American democracy.
Here we have to really look at what’s going on, and why, because this is a dangerous manipulation tactic being waged on the American voter.
Essentially what is being said here is, ‘if you’re against the any of the DNC’s platforms, you’re a traitor to the country.’ This is the antithesis of free speech, and an affront to democracy as a whole. This, put quite frankly, is fascism.
What’s interesting is how many Democrats within Clinton’s circle have actually been tied to underhanded Russian collusion.
Hillary Clinton, for example, accepted donations to her private foundation—while sitting as Secretary of State—from a Russian oligarch named Viktor Vekselberg.
After Hillary returned from a trip to Russia, Bill Clinton then flew out to meet with Vekselberg and perform a speech for half a million dollars in Moscow. He ended up spending most of the day at Vladimir Putin’s house.
Also on Bill’s list of people to meet was Arkady Dvorkovich, an official of the Russian government-connected energy company Rosatom, which soon after these Clinton visits struck a deal with the Obama administration to buy a large percentage of America’s uranium reserves by acquiring the mining company Uranium One. This same company, it should be pointed out, was later proven to have Russian agents taking part in racketeering, extortion, and bribery schemes within the US.
And that company sold to the Russians, Uranium One, well, aside from its interests donating a reported $145 million to the Clinton’s foundation, it was represented by a lobbying firm owned by John Podesta, an Obama adviser and Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign chairman.
So to put it mildly, Hillary Clinton and the people in her circle are the last people, by far, who should ever be waging the Russian asset accusation at anyone. Yet they scream it from the rooftops at all who stand in their way.
Now, that all being said, in fairness, let’s not forget the other side of the aisle. Conservatives use basically the same tactics when it comes to labeling people in their way as socialists and communists, too. They’ve been doing it since the 1800’s, back when William Jennings Bryan was labelled both a ‘socialist’ and ‘communist’ by his rivals in both of his presidential bids.
Nixon’s rise to political fame, for another example, depended solely on labeling his opponents ‘communists,’ such as Democratic Congresswoman Helen Gahagan Douglas, who he regularly referred to as ‘the Pink Lady’ during his senate run against her in 1950.
Just the same, according to recently deceased right wing vampire David Koch, Obama was a dangerous socialist, and was doing everything in his power to turn the country into the Soviet Union before he left office.
During that same period two Republican congressmen, Spencer Bachus and Allen West stated they had recorded collections of many names of Democratic representatives who were secret communists.
Still today this occurs. According to Donald Trump, the Democratic Party is planning on changing its name to the ‘Socialist Party.’ His speeches routinely consist of socialist red-baiting that get his crowds in an uproar, not unlike the fervor at a Hitler rally when he was bashing the Soviets. Fox News and right wing psuedo-intellectuals like Ben Shapiro do nothing but further this unwarranted fear in their viewership.
Case in point, red-baiting is rife in American politics. It would do the American consumer of ‘news’ well to realize that the red-baiting going on these days is nothing more than a dirty trick being played on them—at the expense of their very freedom and ability to trust their neighbor.
There is a web of establishment types out there—politicians, strategists, cybersecurity firms, media outlets, etc.—working to destroy opponents of the status quo through modern day McCarthyism, lying and defaming their fellow Americans in an attempt to keep their blood-soaked hands clutched tight to the levers of power. But, and this is the good news, they can only hold on as long as you let them, through parroting their lies, helping to spread their smears, and acquiescing to their assertions without demanding sufficient evidence. My advice is: don’t do that.
Always be skeptical. Always look objectively. Always demand evidence. See this neo-red-baiting for what it truly is: xenophobic propaganda.
Like what you read? As independent media, continuation of this periodical is only possible through the kind support of our readers. Become a patron by donating here, or you can show your support by simply clicking one of the share buttons at the top or bottom of this article.