Connect with us

International

Why You Shouldn’t Fret Much Over Russian Election Interference

Published

9 minute read

From The Rattler

By J.D. Tuccille

Governments are always screwing with other countries politics. It’s often ineffective.

If you missed the news, Russians are interfering in American politics again. If you missed history, Russians are always interfering in other countries’ politics—and so is everybody else, including the U.S. Screwing around with foreign elections is a popular sport for the world’s regimes, though it’s not clear that websites, bogus social media accounts, and funds funneled to a political-commentary network will return more bang for Putin’s rubles than did past social media shenanigans.

Russia, Again

“The Justice Department today announced the ongoing seizure of 32 internet domains used in Russian government-directed foreign malign influence campaigns colloquially referred to as ‘Doppelganger,’ in violation of U.S. money laundering and criminal trademark laws,” according to a September 4 government press release. “In conjunction with the domain seizures, the U.S. Treasury Department announced the designation of 10 individuals and two entities as part of a coordinated response to Russia’s malign influence efforts targeting the 2024 U.S. presidential election.”

The indictment specified “the defendants, have deployed nearly $10 million, laundered through a network of foreign shell entities, to covertly fund and direct U.S. Company-I [which] publishes English-language videos on multiple social media channels, including TikTok, Instagram, X, and YouTube.”

“Many of the videos published by U.S. Company-I contain commentary on events and issues in the United States, such as immigration, inflation, and other topics related to domestic and foreign policy,” adds the indictment. “While the views expressed in the videos are not uniform, the subject matter and content of the videos are often consistent with the Government of Russia’s interest in amplifying U.S. domestic divisions in order to weaken U.S. opposition to core Government of Russia interests, such as its ongoing war in Ukraine.”

Based on details in the indictment, Company-1 has been identified as Tenet Media (since shuttered), which managed a stable of right-wing pundits including Lauren Southern, Tim Pool, Taylor Hansen, Matt Christiansen, Dave Rubin, and Benny Johnson. The company promoted, the indictment says, “nearly 2,000 videos that have garnered more than 16 million views on YouTube alone.”

Very nefarious, right? Well, maybe not. While Tenet founder Lauren Chen has gone quiet and lost her gig with Blaze TV and channels on YouTube, Tenet’s contributors seem baffled by the whole thing.

“The Culture War Podcast was licensed by Tenet Media, it existed well before any license agreement with Tenet and it will continue to exist after any such agreement expires,” insists Tim Pool. “Never at any point did anyone other than I have full editorial control of the show.”

Benny Johnson also says, “I am the only person who ever had editorial control of my program.”

Translated Russian documents outlining a “guerilla media campaign in the United States” caution their intended audience that “in the United States there are no pro-Russian and/or pro-Putin mainstream politicians or sufficiently large numbers of influencers and voters. There is no point of justifying Russia and no one to justify it to.” The campaign was meant to exploit “the high level of polarization of American society” by paying commentators to say things they were already saying.

It’s not clear they got a lot of mileage from that program.

Not a Lot of Bang for the Ruble

“Numbers like those might sound impressive,” independent journalist Ken Klippenstein wrote of the Tenet pundits drawing 16 million YouTube views after receiving $10 million. “But my Twitter analytics informs me that over the past year, my posts garnered 463 million views. So Russia’s dastardly scheme reached a small fraction of the people my dumbass posts do.”

That’s typical for foreign meddling in our already messy domestic politics.

“It would appear unlikely that the Russian foreign influence campaign on Twitter could have had much more than a relatively minor influence on individual-level attitudes and voting behavior,” concluded a 2023 analysis of Russian interference in the 2016 election published in the journal Nature Communications. The authors added, “we did not detect any meaningful relationships between exposure to posts from Russian foreign influence accounts and changes in respondents’ attitudes on the issues, political polarization, or voting behavior.”

In 2020, foreign influencers worked against each other, including supposed allies in the latest Axis of Evil. A 2021 report from the government’s National Intelligence Council, which reports to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), found “Russian President Putin authorized, and a range of Russian government organizations conducted, influence operations aimed at denigrating President Biden’s candidacy and the Democratic Party” while “Iran carried out a multi-pronged covert influence campaign intended to undercut former President Trump’s reelection prospects.” Also meddling were forces including “Lebanese Hizballah, Cuba, and Venezuela.”

This sort of sounds like a cost-effective means of funding U.S. elections—just let foreign intelligence operations pay for them. But the ODNI report cautioned these schemes “undermine public confidence in the electoral process and US institutions, and sow division and exacerbate societal tensions in the US.” Which means getting us upset and pointing fingers about foreign interference is a goal of these schemes.

The same can almost certainly be said when U.S. agencies join the fun.

Election Interference Is a Game the U.S. Also Plays

“I was alarmed in 2016 by how policymakers and commentators frequently described Russian interference in our election as unprecedented,” according to the Wilson Center’s David Shimer, who wrote Rigged (2020) on the topic. “Many former CIA officers told me in interviews that they viewed the ’48 operation in Italy as the agency at its best. And in the aftermath of that operation, as the CIA’s chief internal historian put it to me, the agency and the KGB went toe to toe in elections all over the world.”

The National Endowment for Democracy, founded by Congress in 1983, is “dedicated to fostering the growth of a wide range of democratic institutions abroad, including political parties, trade unions, free markets and business organizations.” It does so through “grants to support the projects of non-governmental groups abroad.” I find the NED and its goals less troublesome than those of Russians funding U.S. political pundits, but I bet lots of people elsewhere disagree. Fundamentally, it’s all part of the same international contest to screw with the internal debates of allies and adversaries alike.

So, take reports of Russian interference in American elections with a grain of salt, knowing that Putin is paying Americans to say what they already believe, and the U.S. does the same in other countries. Importantly, none of that interference prevents you from making your own decisions.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Censorship Industrial Complex

Australian woman fired, dragged before tribunal for saying only women can breastfeed

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By David James

Sussex argued that males who take drugs to lactate should not be experimenting on children, describing it is a “dangerous fetish.”

In yet another blow to free speech in Australia, Jasmine Sussex, a Victorian breastfeeding expert, is being taken to the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal for saying that only females can breastfeed their babies.

Sussex argued that males who take drugs to lactate should not be experimenting on children, describing it is a “dangerous fetish.”

Her tweets about an Australian male breastfeeding his infant with a cocktail of lactose-inducing drugs was removed by X (formerly Twitter) for Australian users, although it remained visible to overseas users. The move came after requests from a “government entity or law enforcement agency”, according to Twitter. Sussex was told she had “broken the law” although it was not made clear what law that was.

Sussex was also sacked from the Australian Breastfeeding Association (ABA) for refusing to use gender neutral language. She is one of seven counsellors to be formally investigated by the ABA leadership and one of five to be sacked.

The complaint against Sussex is being brought by Queenslander Jennifer Buckley in Queensland’s Civil and Administrative Tribunal. Buckley was born male and later identified as a woman and “transitioned.” Buckley acted after a transgender parent complained to the Queensland Human Rights Commission.

Buckley reportedly biologically fathered a baby through IVF and is raising the child with his wife. He posted on social media about taking hormones to grow breasts, explaining: “For the past six weeks I have been taking a drug called domperidone to increase prolactin in an attempt to be able to produce breast milk so that I can have the experience of breastfeeding.”

The case is not just about suppressing a person’s right to say what most would consider to be a statement of the obvious. It raises fundamental questions about how the law is to be crafted and applied.

A legal system depends on clear semantics, the definition of words. The potential confusion that can be created by not having a clear understanding of a person’s sex was exposed in the hearing for US Supreme Court applicant Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson. Asked to define what a “woman” is, Jackson replied: “I can’t,” adding that she was not a biologist.

This definitional problem has been cynically fudged by mixing up the words “gender” and “sex.” It is claimed that there are 72 genders, by implication turning the question of physical sex into a matter of identity and personal psychology. There are presumably only two sexes.

That is the kind of rhetorical move made by Buckley, who said Sussex’s comments were “hurtful” because he was looking to have “the experience of breastfeeding.” This is analogous to saying that gender differences should be reduced to matters of personal perception, not observable physical characteristics.

In that sense, Sussex and Buckley are talking past each other; the words they use do not have the same meaning. Sussex is saying that objectively only “women” can lactate naturally. It is true that with drug assistance it is possible for “men” to mimic breast feeding to a limited degree. But that is artificial. It is not natural breast feeding. Sussex, who is an experienced consultant on breast feeding, also warns there may be medical issues with “male” breastfeeding that need further examination.

Buckley is arguing that her/his personal experience (of breastfeeding) is what matters and that anyone who questions that is infringing on his rights. He wants to be understood as a “woman” who was a “man”, although he reportedly still possesses male characteristics, such as being able to father a child. This is possible because he feels that way, it is how he “identifies”. But the fact that he has to undergo drug treatment indicates that in a physical sense he is a “man”.

In law, there is always a preference for physical evidence over what people say they are thinking or feeling. The latter is often changeable and difficult to demonstrate; it is poor quality evidence. There should also be an insistence on having an unambiguous understanding of the meaning of words.

On that basis Sussex, who is being represented by the Human Rights Law Alliance, should be able to defend herself effectively. But there is little reason to have confidence in the Australian legal system. It has shown itself to be highly susceptible to politics. The bullying of people who say things once thought to be self-evident may yet continue.

Continue Reading

International

Lawmakers call for changes at Secret Service after second assassination attempt

Published on

From The Center Square

By 

“If Trump had a full USSS security detail following J13, the shooter at Mar-a-Lago wouldn’t have gone unnoticed for 12 hours”

U.S. lawmakers are calling for changes in how the U.S. Secret Service protects former President Donald Trump after a second assassination attempt Sunday.

Ryan Wesley Routh, 58, was able to hide outside a golf course where Trump was golfing. Authorities say Routh pointed the barrel of an assault-style rifle through a chain-link fence toward the golf course, was spotted by an agent, who fired at Routh. The suspect was soon arrested after fleeing the scene.

Routh reportedly waited for 12 hours outside the golf course but was only spotted just in time, raising ongoing concerns about the Secret Service’s work and Trump’s safety.

“If Trump had a full USSS security detail following J13, the shooter at Mar-a-Lago wouldn’t have gone unnoticed for 12 hours,” U.S. Rep. Pat Fallon, R-Texas, wrote on X, formerly known as Twitter, one of several lawmakers to call for an increase to Trump’s security detail.

The near-miss encounter comes just two months after Trump was nearly fatally shot July 13 in Butler County, Pennsylvania, when a shooter was able to get on a rooftop overlooking the former president’s position and fired several shots. Trump was grazed in his ear, one rally attendee was killed and two others were wounded. The Secret Service’s handling of that incident – from allowing the shooter to get a direct line of sight to the poor pre-planning to the nearly nonexistent communication with local officers – was widely criticized across the political spectrum and led to the resignation of the agency’s head.

U.S. Sen. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., called for Trump to receive the same protection as President Joe Biden, given the circumstances.

“While we are still awaiting more details about this horrific event, I am thankful that the perpetrator was unsuccessful and the Secret Service agent acted swiftly to ensure that the former president is safe,” Blackburn said in a statement. “But one thing is abundantly clear: within the span of a mere two months, there have been two assassination attempts against a major presidential candidate and former president in the United States of America. It is unfathomable and unacceptable that this incident occurred.”

A coalition of Senators sent a letter to Acting Secret Service Director Ronald Rowe calling on him to allocate more resources to Trump.

Previous Trump requests for more security have reportedly been rejected.

Since Trump is not currently president, he does not receive as large of a team of agents as Biden. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas told Congress after the first assassination attempt that Trump’s threat-level status would be increased.

Security experts have echoed that concern. Chris Ragone, owner of Virginia-based Executive Security Concepts who has worked with the Secret Service on presidential security in the past, told The Center Square that if a full presidential-level team of Secret Service agents had been assigned to Trump, they would have found the suspect much faster.

“If they were taking this threat serious… the entire perimeter should have been checked, and they would have found this guy,” Ragone told The Center Square. “You know, if he had parked his car 30 minutes before and got out, OK, but we now know that guy was there for 12 hours, which means there were no resources that checked that entire perimeter. And that’s always the first thing we do is check a perimeter and lock it down.

“I think it wasn’t noticed it because it was a manpower issue,” he added.

As The Center Square previously reported, President Joe Biden told reporters that the U.S. Secret Service “needs more help” though he failed to give specifics when asked.

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, called on Vice President Kamala Harris to support presidential-level security for Trump as well.

“Two attempted assassinations in 64 days, two failures by Secret Service for having woefully insufficient personnel,” Cruz said on his show, “The Verdict” Monday. “If President Trump wins in November, less than two months away, he will instantly get full presidential Secret Service protection on Election Day. Given that fact, and given the threats and the failures we have seen, the only reasonable and rational thing to do is assign President Trump right now, a full presidential detail that includes the perimeter coverage so that you can’t get a sniper that close, and if Joe Biden doesn’t do it, and by the way, if Kamala Harris had any sense at all, she would join in the call to do this.”

Continue Reading

Trending

X