Thing about it is this shit is super obvious and only fool people who want to be fooled
yeah, these people are itching to validate their opinions about minorities and Russia is only too happy to serve up nonsense for them
Thing about it is this shit is super obvious and only fool people who want to be fooled
yeah, these people are itching to validate their opinions about minorities and Russia is only too happy to serve up nonsense for them
It's so easy to destabilize western society by abusing social media to divide people, it's kinda incredible.
Something seriously has to change.
I have a hotep cousin that used to share shit from that account all the time (I ended up blocking him last year).
That's interesting. Twitter is full of obviously fake Black Lives Matter and Antifa accounts that talk about killing white people, but I would have thought they were run by our own alt-right **** rather than actual Russian agents
We already know he's a Russian finger puppet
That's interesting. Twitter is full of obviously fake Black Lives Matter and Antifa accounts that talk about killing white people, but I would have thought they were run by our own alt-right dipshits rather than actual Russian agents
Nah. Russia was an utter mess at the time. T]he way I see it, there's some payback for the meddling in Russian affairs that happened after the fall of the Soviet Union compounded with actual politics.
It shouldn't be shocking that this Time cover is floated around pro-Putin circles as "well, they had it coming anyway"*. Which is understandable, really. Putin was deputy chief of Yeltsin's Presidential Staff during that era and later became director of the FSB, so he was witness to the utter decay of the system and probably resents the way Russia went from being a superpower to being manhandled**. He's probably getting his pound of flesh while making sure to rebuild Russia's old sphere of influence.
*surprisingly enough (or not), you can even find it over RT in an article about Colbert of all things.
**it also explains a lot about his utter distaste towards the Clintons.
лмао
I'm not saying it is the cause nor the excuse (although I can see how this could be taken as such, it was poorly worded). His drive is to rebuild the previous area of influence and keep himself in power. But Putin, despite being a very rational man, knows to hold a grudge and he has a few against the Clintons. So the more misery the merrier.This post is really ignorant of basic history and domestic Bloc politics in the fall of the Soviet Union, up to the rise of Putin and the Russian transition back towards dictatorship. I'd suggest reading or getting a cliff notes of Garry Kasparov's 2015, Winter is Coming.
The Kremlin is not meddling in American politics as some sort of revenge act for American "meddling" in the post-Soviet Union, and Putin's interest in influencing elections in the UK, France, Germany, Ukraine, Georgia, and all over Europe and North America, is not some sort of quid pro quo for Yeltzin being selected President or Chairman of RSFSR. Putin, despite his faults as a dictator, mass murderer, and Russian domestic terrorist, is not stupid and does not act out of revenge or spite, he makes calculated decisions to shift power towards himself, and the accidental byproduct, Russia.
I am really starting to wonder as to how much of the discord going on in this country is directly related to the Kremlin. If you were going to bring down the US, this is exactly how you would do it.
I saw a fascinating Twitter thread by someone who dissected a Russian troll account and you could see all the signs pointing to it being run by someone at a troll farm. Stuff like grammar/spelling mistakes, inconsistent backstory, even down to when they tweeted (an 8-hour time frame that perfectly aligned with a 9-5 job in Moscow). It was very obvious, once it's all put together. And yet, this account had thousands of legitimate followers.
It is crazy the amount of misinformation that is being pushed by Russia.
Putin's input on the matter was unnecessary. Fox and rightwing media were already painting them as terrorists and tried to pin vigilante killings of police on BLM.I was legitimately wondering why folks I know to lean fairly conservative were considering BLM to be violent. Now I know where they're getting this from.
I was legitimately wondering why folks I know to lean fairly conservative were considering BLM to be violent. Now I know where they're getting this from.
I think that's fake. Read somewhere it was just a troll account taking the piss.
Do you have a link to that thread?
those people had already decided that it was violent and would have gotten their opinions validated from somewhere
Blacktivist, sounds like something some white guy in Russia came up with alright
It was from a while ago and I don't think I fav'd it, lemme see if I can find it...
*heads to Google*
Didn't think I'd be able to turn it up since Googling stuff on Twitter is nearly impossible. But here it is! https://twitter.com/BarryGsGhost/status/895840586661593088 (The Storify version might be easier to read: https://storify.com/BarryGsGhost/russia-is-attacking-on-2-fronts)
Be sure to check out this thread too. It's where I found the link to the previous thread. https://twitter.com/conspirator0/status/900158639884955648
I'm still reading through this but this is the single most comprehensive twitter thread I've ever seen.
Awesome find!
Edit: Was going good until the Mensch props at the end. Close enough
at this point who isnt russian on twitter?
at this point who isnt russian on twitter?
I'm starting to wonder if I'm Russian
This post deserves more love.лмао
The sad thing about this is that these Russian goverment trolls are sowing discontent by merely playing an exaggerated role of a black activist. That's it. They aren't lying when they share police beatings or invitations to rallies. They're weaponizing facts. How do you fight against that?
Idk that's still a lotta filth being directed this wayJust destroy all social media.
If you don't have the dedication to stick it out waiting for your GAF account to get approved, you don't deserve to post.
You don't fight. It's that simple.
We need to stop treating everyone like they're our enemy and engage them with discussions/debates in good faith. According to a Pew poll on race conducted in February of this year, "87% agree that Our country should do whatever is necessary to make sure that everyone has an equal opportunity to succeed. It's difficult to see that because we spend so much of our time slinging mud and so little of it trying to understand different points of view. A little civility can go a long way.
Think of it like a street fight where the trolls happen to be the spectators cheering both parties on - the trolls lose if those two fighters can get past their differences without throwing a single punch. Much like this fight.
Whoops.
That reminds me...That's interesting. Twitter is full of obviously fake Black Lives Matter and Antifa accounts that talk about killing white people, but I would have thought they were run by our own alt-right dipshits rather than actual Russian agents
People need to ask why appeals to racism works so well, not just in America but world wide
You don't fight. It's that simple.
We need to stop treating everyone like they're our enemy and engage them with discussions/debates in good faith. According to a Pew poll on race conducted in February of this year, "87% agree that Our country should do whatever is necessary to make sure that everyone has an equal opportunity to succeed. It's difficult to see that because we spend so much of our time slinging mud and so little of it trying to understand different points of view. A little civility can go a long way.
Think of it like a street fight where the trolls happen to be the spectators cheering both parties on - the trolls lose if those two fighters can get past their differences without throwing a single punch. Much like this fight.
I've seen this before, some kind of poster on some chat infastructure who is pretending to be black. Usually post in places of black interest, sometimes places studying history, research etc. Its funny, depending on where they go they don't always have the intelligence to combat counters to their antics so they will get so mad that they will slip up and reveal they are playing a role, then when called out they pretend like that isn't the case (without even editing the slip up). They really need smarter people for these things.
Read some Carl Jung.
It taps into the shadow complex which is linked to the enemy/stranger archetype, present in the subconscious of every human being.
Being afraid of strangers has been an evolutionnary advantage. But later on it can become a tool to manipulate masses by fear and make them do horrible things. It is easy to link the stranger archetype to anyone who is different than you - easy to manipulate the human brain into thinking those "other" people are dangerous or the source of all problems.
Funny seeing these people try to sneak into Black Twitter.
"Hello fellow negros, how about Chicago and black on black crime?"
"I'm black and blah blah blah."
"Blacks like me."
Like bruh... You're profile pic is black, does saying your black or using the word blacks going to trick black twitter?
I'm not defending this at all, but aren't you the guy that posted about how the Jacobites were all black in the Hotep thread then told people to research more, in a library of all places, when challenged on it?
I personally didn't say that all Jacobites were black, I said that (from what I've researched) a majority of Gaelic speakers were black and were natives in that land (right now a bit over 1% of the population in Ireland can speak it).
Actually I probably should have expounded in explaining that there seemed to have been two groups of people in that area who lived separated for the most part, but definitely had influences on each others cultures.
There are some old books talking about it; specifically three more that I'm personally aware of including a journal of a man describing the color of people in that area that could speak it, that was a really good one I should have mentioned but its not on the computer I'm currently using so I'd have to find it again.
. Beyond that I had found that there was some kind of notice in the US of a runaway black slave who's only notifying trait was that he could only speak Gaelic.
Some black historians seem to have been researching similar things as well finding out gospel music and the like had Gaelic origins. He had also apparently found the runaway Gaelic slave piece too.The article has the person drawing slightly different conclusion than me, but that's only because I've probably been reading other documentation he hadn't run into.
I also believe you will find more value talking with your elderly relatives (that might have documentation or even unshakable memories and information passed down to them), than you may find a historian that has no relation to you and doesn't particularity benefit to accurately documenting or recording it.
But back to your main point, the Jacobite book I had recently read, that was fresh in my memory at that point and I could quickly give a title of that book showing native blacks in those areas in positions that a slave couldn't be in.
. I've a lot of old books, some physical some on the computer so it takes me time to find references, easiest one to get to prove I wasn't just spewing out hearsay.
Well first of all the Jacobite in question, that of the '45, were Scottish not Irish. As an Irish speaker myself I can guarantee you that more than 1% of Irish people speak it. It's required in schools, so a great number of people speak it at least to an intermediate level. Moreover they were not black, in fact I would be somewhat surprised if there was a single black person who lived in the highlands circa 1745, certainly there are no records of any being integrated into the clan system.
Who the Highlanders and Lowlanders? The Highlanders of the mainland vs the isles? There were probably some black people in the Lowlands, perhaps a few hundred? The Lowlanders were overwhelmingly on the side of the government in the '45 though, again I'd be highly surprised, though it is possible, if a single black person fought on the side of the Jacobites.
There was one book that you posted from the 20th century. That's not a good source. I've read many many documents from that period in Scotland. Not a one has ever mentioned a black person that resided in Scotland, though I'm sure some did live in the Lowlands. The Lowlander literati will occasionally mention black people in the colonies and in Africa.
I don't have time to read that article right now, but it's quite well know that some of the Scottish-Gaelic, not Irish, speakers evangelized among the slave populations in America. Supposedly it was the first recorded, I usually dislike this claim but I'd have to look into this specific case, European language taught to slaves in the British Americas. Though I rather doubt that because the SPCK was from the 18th century. There are certainly records of slaves singing hymns in Gaelic. What you're doing is taking a piece of information, decoupling it from its obvious context, and brandying it about as if it means that you are correct when it doesn't mean suggest your thesis even stripped of its context.
I am a historian of 18th century Britain who I focuses on Scotland. Generally speaking academic historians absolutely benefit from accurately portraying history, it's literally our job, and falsifying evidence is a big deal. Also no one has living relatives from 1745 so "unshakable memories", and you'll find that memories are anything but unshakable, of modern people aren't important here.
Also this is a massive cop out. You're claiming to have access to sources that just say you are correct without giving anyone else any access to them except for the one in this last thread that was quite easily debunked. The implication is, don't trust those idiot lying historians go find magical sources that tell you what you want to believe. And this is the root problem for me, it's fundamentally incredibly undermining to historians and their work generally. It's the same approach southerners use to justify their lost cause nonsense.
Maybe there were a few, though I am incredibly skeptical because it's exactly the sort of thing Lowlanders and English people would have commented on, but it would not have been very many at all. Moreover, the English and, to a lesser extent, the Lowlanders tended to compare Irish people with black people, though I don't think I've ever seen them do this with highlanders for reasons I'd assume relate to the fact that Highland lords were well respected members of British society. Perhaps that's where some of the confusion came form. But honestly at some level someone would have had to intentionally misread the sources to come to that conclusion.
Anyway, feel free to post the book, even though I feel like it's probably the one from the last thread.
"Lots of old books" is meaningless and sounds like a vague appeal to archival authority without having to bother with the whole issue of citation and thus having a good source.
Look I'm really not trying to be rude, but as a historian of eighteenth-century Scotland this is rather infuriating. Rather ironically considering another post of yours in this thread, there isn't any content here. There isn't any information behind your claim other than some random book from the twentieth century.
those people had already decided that it was violent and would have gotten their opinions validated from somewhere
You should probably do more research
It means you should probably do your own research, travel, talk to natives of other regions or at the least go to libraries more often.