Oh it's simple, don't ya know- anything that goes against the Corporate MSM is clearly divisive Russian propaganda, pushed onto us by those pesky ruskies! Anything critical of the Establishment Neocon/Neolib narrative is clearly Russian psyops...whether it comes from the Left or the Right.

Basically, anything not spoon fed by the MSM and our designated Corporate "leaders" must be Russian propaganda, because why else would anyone want to undermine the Neocon/Neolib war machine that has been in solid control for at least 40 years?

The ironic part is that there actually is a foreign country that routinely manipulates the US government and MSM and it isn't Russia.

This country wouldn't happen to border Syria, Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, and the Mediterranean, now would it?

It just might.

Would it also happen to be a country that is illegally occupying another country, while holding them captive on their own land?

I just unexpectedly laughed so hard I farted a little, and had to check my shorts.

Oh come on bradok...are you really going to blame the Palestinians for this?

LOL...thank you for that one :D

Fuxing hamas!

Porque no los dos?

Why not Russia too? Is Russia seen as such a weak and ineffectual country that it’s considered beyond the bounds of believability that they might have agents/programs in place to mess with the US? Weren’t there some found not that long ago working in the US, like Anya Chapman?

How many American kids have been killed or maimed fighting Russia's wars for them? How many Russian-American dual citizens do we have in Congress? What is the Russian equivalent of AIPAC?

I could easily make the joke answer to your third question and say Trump, Rohrbacher, Manafort, Flynn, and potentially Nunes. But still, none of what you’re asking is proof of Russia’s innocence. The Empire State Building is tall, but that doesn’t mean Shaq isn’t also tall. I’m using that as an analogy to say just because Israel is deeply embedded doesn’t mean Russia isn’t or isn’t attempting to influence things too.

I could easily make the joke answer to your third question and say Trump, Rohrbacher, Manafort, Flynn, and potentially Nunes.

It would be a joke because nobody in the Trump administration has a fraction of the influence that AIPAC does.

But still, none of what you’re asking is proof of Russia’s innocence.

Russia is inconsequential to the manipulation of the US government or MSM, particularly when compared to Israel's pervasive influence.

proof of Russia’s innocence.

That's not how this works...

Wow...you're right...it's pretty simple.

Various variations on "Russia was framed for _________" or "the US did it too"

It's just another way to paint the users of this sub in a certain way to create dysinfo and character assasinate us.

I've long been a follower of Putin and there are people here that don't support him or are at least skeptical about him. But the point is people in this sub have very different opinions. The shills are seeking to paint us all as crazy Trump supporters or Russian shills. Aleister, if you haven't seen it I advice you to read the list of shill tactics from the guys at r/correctingconspiracy.

Your entire post is a Russian talking point, comrade. My previous sentence is probably a Russian talking point too.

The actual talking points vary, but generally statements aligned with the goals outlined in Aleksandr Dugin's book Foundations of Geopolitics, should be scrutinized.

Russia should use its special services within the borders of the United States to fuel instability and separatism, for instance, provoke "Afro-American racists". Russia should "introduce geopolitical disorder into internal American activity, encouraging all kinds of separatism and ethnic, social and racial conflicts, actively supporting all dissident movements – extremist, racist, and sectarian groups, thus destabilizing internal political processes in the U.S. It would also make sense simultaneously to support isolationist tendencies in American politics."

EDIT: Also

1. Iran is a key ally. The book uses the term "Moscow-Tehran axis"

2. The United Kingdom should be cut off from Europe

3. Russia should offer China help "in a southern direction – Indochina (except Vietnam), the Philippines, Indonesia, Australia" as geopolitical compensation.

4. Ukraine should be annexed by Russia.

5. Russia needs to create "geopolitical shocks" within Turkey.

6. Rejection of the "rational-individualistic West"

7. Sophisticated program of subversion, destabilization, and disinformation spearheaded by the Russian special services

• Rejection of the "rational-individualistic West" is an instance of cultural subversion.

Western cultures (America and much of Western Europe) are based on the concept of individualism, as opposed to collectivism. Less of a tribe mentality, the individual is what is important. Whereas Russia is more Dogmatically-Collectivist.

• Sophisticated program of subversion, destabilization, and disinformation spearheaded by the Russian special services

This is harder to actually hit on the head when describing, but generally it just means that to accomplish their goals Russian Agents have to employ new methods of spreading their message, but basically it means that they have to focus on cultural, economic, technological and philosophical warfare as opposed to actual warfare.

1st True, and that is a result of Dugins personal philosophy, the following is from a comment I made ~10 months ago

He is also the father of "The 4th Political Theory", which isn't as heavily embraced by the Russian Oligarchy, but is still utilized in their destabilization efforts. Essentially the Idea is that Moderates and Centrist policies are stupid, and the Far Left and the Far Right should be supported whenever possible. The problem this creates is that without Centrism and Compromise you can't govern.

Individualism is very much aligned with centrist and libertarian ideology. Once you get to Far right and Far left Collectivism becomes more prominent.

Ayn Rand's Objectivism is a good example of Rational-Individualism philosophy.

2nd The ultimate goal is the establishment of A Eurasian Empire based on the fundamental principle of the common enemy: the rejection of Atlanticism, strategic control of the USA, and the refusal to allow (Classical) liberal values to dominate; with Russia as the primary global super power.

Individualism also segregated people, look at a city like new York. Everyone lives close to each other, packed into buildings, but people don't know each other. It takes away the village/community needed to raise children, we just give them to the state to program with mountains of irrelevant information.

I'm not saying that being anti-liberal is a Russian talking point. You asked what the end goal of the destabilization effort was. Dugin who I'm drawing all these goals from, wants to establish western hegemony under Russia, with Europe and America vassalized as tributaries culturally similar to Russia by eradicating cultural liberalism. And the foundations of geopolitics, which he wrote in the late 90's, is his manifesto for accomplishing that.

Canada and the EU create their own refugee crisis or work against the US Constitution by railing against the 1st and 2nd amendments, they are foreign influences working to make America a weaker nation.

So it's Canada you should fear? Russia is a benevolent force for good of course.

Is it possible that there are other people, perhaps a whole lot of them, that have never given Russia a second thought, but still don't want liberal values to dominate?

What values would you like to dominate?

they are foreign influences working to make America a weaker nation.

I certainly said no such thing and your implication is silly.

Why did you contradict what you just typed?

[removed]

I’ll give that a shot, though I’d prefer more context(like a link to where it’s used) before I can be absolutely sure I’m giving you the answer you want.

Basically I’d say what people might be referring to as a “Russian talking point” would be comments that deflect away from or defend Russia(the Kremlin) when the topic of killing journalists, hacking sensitive foreign systems, the supposed troll farm, Litvinenko, or any criticism of Russia comes up. Posts that deflect blame or suspicion away from Russia would likely fall into this category also. It’s a way of trying to win an argument not by the strength of your own counter, but by making your opponent’s argument seem weak.

It’s a common tactic used by many different people in different cases. I get a variation on it all the time when I post my doubts about Pizzagate; I get asked why I’m defending pedophiles, why I’m using shill tactics, muddying the waters, and a host of other things that are meant not to refute any points I make or answer questions I might raise, but instead to attack me instead of the argument.

Answering the last bit. Not a single thing... unless you subscribe to the conspiracy theory that PG was heavily pushed leading up to the election as a method of attacking the Clinton campaign and the DNC in general. In that case you might be of the mindset, assuming you also subscribe to the Russian sanctioned support of Trump’s campaign/attacking Hillary conspiracy theory, that Russian trolls/bots may have pushed PG as a topic in order to further the attack against the DNC. They wouldn’t be the entire force behind it, but the right comment chains at the right time might go a long way to making people feel it’s real so they believe it better.

But, saying that, I want to clearly state that I’m not taking a stance on all of that in this post. I just wanted to share other perspectives on that since you asked how someone could relate them. I only used PG as an anecdotal example, an analogy really, to try and make what I was saying a little easier to understand if the rest of the post wasn’t as easily understood. I could have used people posting to defend the efficacy of vaccines being called “Big Pharma propaganda”, or climate change denial comments being called “Big Oil/Koch talkings points”. The PG thing was just an example I was fairly familiar with, so that’s why I used it.

Oh, someone anti-PG would likely not be referred to as Russian. Quite the opposite, as you suggested. It’s just the phrases “Russian talking point” or “Russian propaganda” have both implied and inferred connotations, but are ultimately lazy debate methods intended to attack the comment/commenter without actually addressing the content/context. Calling a comment a Russian talking point is a more polite way of calling someone a shill, at least in my opinion. Not Rule 10 levels of crassness, but similar in intent.

I think when the terms are used, context is very important. They can be used dismissively or antagonistically, but they can also be used as part of a valid argument if there’s more to it.

Think of how often you hear, especially lately it seems, people use the phrase MSM talking point as a way to dismiss an argument or doubt. It’s often done with the same general intent as the phrases you’re interesting in, but it can also be used as part of a very good argument or defense.

Context is always important, but you obviously get that.

Thanks, A. I would really appreciate some input on this, too.

Warning warning warning....it has been determined that this site disseminates disinformation.

Before going further we suggest these Wikipedia pages for your perusal to protect you from propaganda.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_in_post-Soviet_Russia

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brainwashing

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimacy_(political)

Thank you citizen for doing your part in combating the Russian menace.

Please take the time to fill out the survey so that we may better assist you in finding the truth.

All rights reserved...known side effects include but are not limited to - constant drooling, tourettes-like speech, pounding migraines, depression, anxiety, high blood pressure, skin conditions, loose bladder, constipation, coma, near death experiences, far death experiences and actual death experiences. .

All Russia has to do to the United States masses is reveal the truth to them: That the United States is the world's bully on the global stage and is in fact the "bad guy" that has meddled globally for decades, toppled democratically elected leaders and funded rebels and has conducted assassinations and coups. That the United States is an increasing police state and the corporations and rich and elite control the politicians and what laws are made. That the system is rigged.

The trick now is to put the genie back in the bottle and refix the curtain back across the Wizard of Oz. How? By claiming that these truths are mere Russian propaganda seeking to divide the United States. Listen to the mainstream media and don't think critically.

If the stark truth makes the United States crumble then it was never on a good foundation to begin with.

It's just bullshit scapegoating. Anyone who stands in opposition to the empire must get branded as a traitor, and the flavor du jour is "Russian" at the moment.

This country wouldn't happen to border Syria, Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, and the Mediterranean, now would it?

Porque no los dos?

Why not Russia too? Is Russia seen as such a weak and ineffectual country that it’s considered beyond the bounds of believability that they might have agents/programs in place to mess with the US? Weren’t there some found not that long ago working in the US, like Anya Chapman?