Skip to main content
CLOWNS ARE CREEPY
THE HUFFINGTON POST IS A CONDUIT OF ANTI-RUSSIAN PROPAGANDA

In a sign of the times, we see the undisputed fact that journalists again whip up the flames of anti-Russian hatred in order to advance a domestic political cause.

One Ryan Clayton, the president of something called Americans Take Action, admits that he, as a Huffington Post journalist, attended the Conservative Political Action Committee Conference of 2017, distributed Russian flags with the legend TRUMP on them, in order that Clayton himself could publish a false news social media posts to the effect that CPAC attendees, and by extension the Trump Administration, are Russian enthusiasts.  Here is one those flags:




While Clayton makes the pious assertion that he was "making a point", of course he does nothing of the kind.  What his prank is a classic act of propagandistic "agiprop distraction".  His actions deftly changes the subject from whether "the Russians hacked the election" (whatever that could mean), to the assumption that the election was indeed "hacked" and that Trump and his supporters are somehow happy about it.

That this the anti-Russian story is a gateway to Orwellian xenophobic hatred is too obvious for sober comment.

What I find interesting in this story is that:

1.  The Democratic Party activists have no substance with which to work against the Trump administration.  Heaven knows there are many actual policies, policies which I would hazard to say are unpopular, but instead the entire Democratic Party apparatus is betting the farm on a transparently preposterous notion that "The Russians Did It".

and

2.  Usually when the frontline troops of Democratic Party media are caught saying something stupid, dishonest, or cheeky, the response is always the same Al Franken and Jon Stewart commonplace of:  "Hey, it is only political humor, stop complaining.  Lighten up.  It's just a joke."  That statement has always meant that, by their own estimation, they are not serious people, but clowns telling "jokes".

In this case, however, Clayton & Company, show their "chemtrails" level of thought by doubling down with a series of unfounded assertions about how Trump is the Emmanuel Goldstein of his generation, selling out to the menacing Eurasian hordes.  Clayton's post-mortem in the Huffington Post on all this, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/why-we-trolled-trump-with-russian-flags-at-cpac_us_58b4eceee4b02f3f81e44beb, he serves some very weak tea, then flies into the rage of an activist:

At this point, we should be calling him Benedict Donald, in reference to one of the USA’s first and most notorious traitors....Reagan must be spinning in his grave while the next generation of the GOP hands the White House off to the “Evil Empire.” Eisenhower didn’t defeat fascism around the world so that today’s conservatives could sell us out to foreign authoritarians. Lincoln didn’t save the union so that modern day Republicans could auction our nation’s future off to a foreign nation.
Now we see why Clayton uses "funny" things like literal false flags.  If he and his pals only published screed claiming literal treason, their empty charges would have all the effect of 2016's social media claim that Trump is literally Hitler!  Really, who has the patience for any of that?  It is one thing for a writer to feel deeply that a president is dangerous.  It can be salutary for the indignant express themselves, but all this has limits.  Going beyond carefully stated boundaries leads to polluting the issues and hurting one's stated cause.

Gentle readers, in conclusion we do indeed see in the childish actions of Clayton clear indications that, on the Russian Front anyway, the Democrats got nothin' on Trump.  We also see clearly that social media and "mainstream media" Nineteen Eighty-Four xenophobic tricks are still the standard.

Post Script:  The Huffington Post does not pay its writers, so how does Ryan Clayton and his band make a living?  Who, specifically, pays them?  There is a donation page on their website, but surely that could not both feed and clothe Clayton and pay for all those nifty Russian Flags.  It's not like this Clayton guy is just another blogger in his pajamas, like some people I know.

======================


Here are two reports on this prank by The Hill and by The Atlantic.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/321138-two-progressive-activists-were-behind-trump-russian-flag-prankhttps://

www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/02/false-flag-operation-at-cpac/517842/

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

BOOK REVIEW:  2024: A Graphic Novel by Ted Rall (2001 NBM Publishing) CAPTION:  (Left) Frederick Theodore "Ted" Rall (b. 1963), (Right) the graphic novel 2024. [This is an old book review of mine published in a terrible college newspaper. I happen, however, to like this book and my exposition of it.] 2024: A Graphic Novel by Ted Rall (2001 NBM Publishing) Five Full Stars of Insight into Orwell and Our Times This outstanding book brings out a forgotten side of the Orwellian nightmare, that is how it is not so much state terror or surveillance that gives us irratio nal and vicious governments as the unthinking and narrow time horizon of the captives. At bottom the citizens of idiotic systems allow the rulers to rule. The Orwellian slogans of this book are: ASSUMPTIONS PERMIT IMAGINATION ,  KNOWLEDGE IS IMPOSSIBLE ,  and  EXPLOITATION IS BENEVOLENCE .  These mind-killing notions all flow from Nineteen Eighty-Four 's theme of "2+...
Bertrand Russell and George Orwell review of russell’s  power: a new social analysis George Orwell,  with an Introduction by  Peter Stone First published in 1938,  Power: A New Social Analysis  is one of the few books by Russell dealing with political affairs that did not focus on questions of war and peace. Alongside a handful of other works – notably  Human Society in Ethics and Politics  (1954) – it also represents one of his few attempts to talk about politics in a systematic and theoretical way. And like  Human Society ,  Power  is generally not judged a success in terms of its theoretical ambitions. “In the course of this book,” Russell writes in the first chapter of  Power , “I shall be concerned to prove that the fundamental concept in social science is Power, in the same sense in which Energy is the fundamental concept in physics.” Few would say that Russell fulfilled this ambition. He was always more successfu...

CTR Episode 1 - Winston