Is Trump Really A Russian Agent? (Part 2)

January 21, 2018

Continuation of Part 1:

  • If Russia wanted to ruin America, they would have hacked Hillary into office.

Be it on the domestic front, or in regards to foreign policy, I claim that Trump’s (and by extension Republican) policies are designed to increase United States’ wealth, security and ability to expanse Western values throughout the world.

Let’s do the following exercise – imagine you are a country that hates America and you want to destroy it. Naturally, you make friends with its bitter enemies, foment every situation that can weaken America and drain its money, and attempt to swing public opinion regarding its image on all diplomatic fronts, all the while rapidly modernizing your own military in case the aforementioned results in inevitable confrontation. Now, there are two presidential candidates, (no names necessary, let’s minimize our bias) one of whom has repeatedly sworn that strengthening the military – increasing active duty personnel, building new aircraft carriers, modernizing nuclear arsenal, strengthening ties with proven American allies and acting against its enemies – is one of his goals while the other one states that his national security priorities include climate change, women’s empowerment, eliminating income inequality and fighting discrimination as well as continuing the predecessor’s diplomatic approach, which constituted appeasement of America’s bitter enemies at all costs.  Which candidate would you rather win? Democrats want us to believe that given these options, an American adversary would go out of its way to have the latter candidate lose. Because G-d forbid they spend billions of dollars constructing bathrooms for every of the 31 genders (as of 2016) and battle racial discrimination in the country where there already are “Special taskforces on Native American inclusivity” in almost every university, or even worse, what if they bankroll the entire world’s transition to cleaner production and renewable energy as part of their well thought out battle strategy against climate change! After all, Obama was really successful with that and thanks to his majestic diplomatic skills he managed to convince many countries to take American money and promise to build something in the next 5 to 10 years. Bravo indeed!

But I digress…

Let’s compare the immigration policy of these two candidates. One wants to have a secure border, accountability, legal consequences for those who violate American laws and prevent an influx of people lying about their true situation and abusing the refugee status (especially from countries linked to strong terrorism support among the population). The other is leaning towards open borders (come over without being checked), rewarding with residency those who violated American immigration and taxation laws, and shipping over thousands of people from war-ridden and terrorism rampant regions, whose identities can’t be verified due to a lack of any data, especially when terrorist groups have threatened numerous times to send over their affiliates to commit horrible acts on American soil! Again, Democrats want us to believe that bitter rivals of America would go out of their way to have the latter candidate lose! Are you damn serious?

Finally let’s compare the economic policies of these candidates. One wants to lower taxes for those who produce wealth, convince big companies to bring their factories back to the US, reduce welfare handouts to able adults and push them toward finding work, stop wasting money on organizations that do nothing for America’s benefit (such as UNESCO, among many others). The other wants to increase taxes on the rich (read “those who produce wealth”) and use the money to decrease inequality (read “increase welfare handouts”) as well as increase America’s important role in solving the world’s problems” (read “mindlessly bankrolling other countries and organizations”). To anyone who is remotely familiar with the history of Detroit, the most consistently Democratic voting city in the US – a once prosperous automotive capital of America with 1.6 million inhabitants, where the policies of taking from the rich and giving to the poor have been consistently implemented for the  past 50 years, but now is a horror city with 707 thousand inhabitants, the highest murder rate in the United States, 70 thousand abandoned houses and where roughly half of the adult population is functionally illiterate. The populist trash regarding “taking from the rich and redistributing it among the poor” sounds like a threat of destruction! And again, Democrats want us to believe that America’s rivals want the latter candidate to lose! Are they for real? Sadly, they are.

  • Facebook and Twitter influence fragile American minds.

It is hard to overestimate how much consolidated effort went (and still goes) into investigating the alleged advantage President Trump gained as a result of Russian activity on Facebook and Twitter. There is almost no human left in this country who hasn’t heard about how Russian posts tricked innocent, gullible masses into voting Trump into office with their “fake news.” Yes, liberals complain about fake news… oh the irony. Anyhow, this wave of media hysteria completely engulfed the minds of every societal strata and persisted as the hottest conversation topic for months in a row. The left has spent millions upon millions upon many more millions of dollars following every possible lead in their pursuit of explaining how a 70-30 sure-to-win candidate of favorable gender – who also was a continuator of the Kenyan demigod’s legacy – could lose, if not as a result of an elaborate scam by a foreign power! Let’s see what facts these blinded-by-rage investigators have uncovered and how they kindly interpret them for us.

The progressive heroes of investigative journalism have discovered the existence of so-called “Kremlin bots” – a group of people whose work is to post pro-Putin and anti-anti-Putin commentaries on the Russian internet as well as dispense “dislikes” to the opposition’s YouTube videos to prevent them from getting onto the “Trending” list.  This investigative breakthrough is indeed commendable, and its merits are only slightly diminished by the fact that every single Russian with internet access knew about their existence since 2014, they are discussed on radio shows over there on a daily basis, and there is sufficient information regarding their activities to provide material for several PhD dissertations.

So, on the 30th of October 2016, The New York Times comes out with yet another scary article with a catchy title, “Russian Influence Reached 126 Million Through Facebook Alone,” where respected readers are notified that during the election season these “Kremlin bots” posted a mindboggling 80,000 pieces of content on American Facebook pages and that some other group attempted to infiltrate accounts of politicians. Just follow the narrative – Trump election fraud, alleged Russian influence, Russian-paid employees posting thousands of pieces of content, Hillary’s email breach and Russian military hackers, hundreds of millions of people influenced as a result… Wow, that sounds impressive, right?! Even better is that all the aforementioned is easily seen in the name of the article and topic sentences of its paragraphs without any need to read further – much less to research the matter! What for? You are busy people, after all, and New York Times correspondents kindly chewed everything for you already… better spend your time doing something productive like protesting the Trump/Pence regime somewhere, or taking the knee in some public place.

The truth is, of course, that this narrative is false and is created exclusively for the propagandistic purpose of feeding the hatred of President Trump. Unlike Russian state media, Iranian News Agency or Al Jazeera, this New York Times article doesn’t present the reader with outright outrageous lies, but rather alludes to necessary conclusions which in truth do not necessarily follow out of presented facts. Articles such as this often contain within them truthful information capable of refuting the proclaimed narrative, but are usually present only for the sake of plausible deniability if accusations of ill intent are ever to come up.  This technique does not work on a careful reader, but it works very well on masses who are thirsty for justification of their “righteous hate,” people who are not capable of analyzing material themselves – and are therefore used to relying on someone else to do this work for them – and people who simply do not read beyond the headlines. Believe me, these categories cover a pretty large chunk of leftist electorate. Now let’s actually look at this article.

There is absolutely nothing implicating President Trump in the fact that 80,000 messages were produced by a Kremlin-affiliated service. First of all, it was established that the majority of those messages had absolutely nothing to do with praising Trump. Truth is that they were written under the guise of Black Lives Matter activists aimed at strengthening the protest movement in hopes to cause havoc, damage, and generate a persistent flammable internal conflict within the US. In other words, they were as anti-Republican as it gets. Russian linked people were simply trying to maximize the damage to the US utilizing existent social unrest, which is consistent with the hypothesis we put forth in Part 1 of this blog. They also posted under the guise of hardline American nationalists, further aggravating those who were deluded enough to perceive that they live in a country with racist and brutal police who would indiscriminately shoot innocent, unarmed, and harmless blacks in the middle of the day for the heck of it, provoking them into further destructive actions and vandalism. The New York times conveniently forgot to mention this.

80,000 posts? Billions of posts are created on Facebook every single day. Between 2015 and 2017 Facebook saw 11 trillion – that’s 11,000,000,000,000, posts – of which 80,000 constitutes 0.00000073%. To their credit, the 11 trillion number was present in the article, but the insignificance of 80 thousand compared to it wasn’t sufficiently emphasized. Do you think this Russian influence would seem less threatening if, instead of the 80,000 number, a 0.00000073% was used? But their goal is to increase the hysteria of their target audience; therefore, 80,000 is much more preferable.

I won’t even go deep into debunking the 126 million number that the article uses in its title and highlights in bold letters. This number is so far from the actual number of people who saw any of the Russian posts that it’s just sad. These people tell us that 0.00000073% of total posts reached (and influenced!!!) roughly every third American. The statistical monstrosity of an assumption that this article happily transmits to its “respected readers” of course does not mention how the 126 million number was calculated. You see, if such a post appeared in a certain feed, then the number of visitors to that feed were counted as those who viewed the post; if someone reposted such a post, all friends and those who had access to that person’s wall were counted as those who viewed it; if such a post was placed on a public wall or some other area with public access, then all those who accessed that space were counted as those who viewed this post; if the same group of people read the post numerous times, they were counted as distinct people who viewed the post for every time they read it. Given that information, do you start understanding how far the 126 million number actually is from the real count? This journalism and their attempt to present impartiality is laughable, to say the least…


To conclude, there is so much more to be said about why the notion that President Trump’s election was in part due to Russia’s interference, but the scope of angles through which this question can be analyzed by far exceeds the appropriate length of this blog. You don’t need it either. Those who are to approach this question with due impartiality will easily be able to figure everything out for themselves. One thing is clear, however – the Left, in their pursuit of a post-modernist, Marxist vision of this country’s future, will utilize every shred of nonsense at their disposal to damage the President, his supporters, and everyone who does not want to be complacent with their impositions of suicidal policies onto the Western world. But we are not going to surrender, instead we will counter attack on every front! We’ll happily talk about how in the upcoming blogs.

Thank you kindly for your time and interest.

If you enjoyed this read, please feel free to share it. A reference to our site is all we are asking for.

Spread the word:

FacebookTwitterGoogle PlusPinterest