Blog powered by Typepad

« The Tories best hope - 'Jezza'! | Main | Your Monday Funnies: 22.1.18 »

Sunday, 21 January 2018


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

David, you're beginning to get an idea what asymmetric warfare is, though you're still probably sure it doesn't exist. Social engineering is only one technique, more straightforward hacks have been used for years:

The Dukes are the group that hacked the DNC.

You can track Russian bots and trolls that attempt to influence American politics on Twitter here:

Ask young Mr. Gamble if he is among the many who have possession of Hillary's "lost" emails.

It would be enlightening if you could tell us exactly how the Ruskies managed to influence the election. I remember reading about all the howling that they had paid for 50k USD in Facebook ads. Really? I don't recall seeing any but then, they may have been subliminal.


How could you have differentiated an ad placed by Russians and one placed by anyone else? They certainly didn't advertise that they were Russians attempting to confuse American voters. Facebook didn't admit the ads existed until late in the campaign. Even Fox News covered the story, though others did it better:

No one is claiming the Russian interference determined the outcome of the election. However, the Rooskies and others are not dumb and are carrying out a sophisticated campaign that will build on past success. There's also plenty of evidence they have interfered in British politics.

David (& Timbo perhaps),

From your first link David,

"He used his access to steal and post online personal details of Officer Darren Wilson who shot and killed black teenager Michael Brown in Ferguson Missouri."

The kid (were the lad to be illegally in the US and Mexican I'd employ the word "child"!) may've inadvertently fried some bigger fish!

In "Collusion 1.0" Mr. Schiff, the Democrat Poobah on the Congress Intel Committee, told all us US pleebs that The Russians "hacked the elections" by first purchasing $24,000 worth of Facebook ads targeting audiences in Ferguson and Baltimore Maryland.

And the targeted audiences dutifully rioted (maybe in North Carolina too 'cause very near election night that's where the riots were going on). All that rioting going on and being livestreamed by CNN's Don Lemon et al, in my humble opinion, probably had a hand in detracting from Hillary's electoral "take."

Maybe it wasn't the Russians at all "hacked the [US] elections" but rather, a kid from Leicestershire?

May not matter though over on my side of the pond though David a'cause the Democrats, the media, and Bob has us all now at Collusion 3.0 wherein the story is that "The Russians gifted the National Rifle Association $30 million to hack the election!"


I wonder now whether news of the Leicestershire Bandit's travails at the bar influenced the Dems timing of the Gubmint Shutdown?


I haven't mentioned either the NRA or "collusion". It's interesting that both the far left and right want to deny the Russian interference for their own reasons. Maybe there's something to that horseshoe theory after all, but it probably has more to do with people just not wanting to believe they can be tricked.


You're familiar perhaps with how problematic (as Clapper and Brennan emphatically insisted prior to June of 2016) anyway, how problematic the process of "attribution" is? Or was I guess pre-Trump?

If it'll help Bob let me just spell it out, Yes there was Russian Interference. And Chinese and North Korean and Saudi and Iranian and Ukrainian and the list goes on.

Or so it has been alleged so far. No Court, has been publicly presented Evidence that have I seen anywhere! I will admit that, so far, there have been alot of Ham Sandwiches got indicted in Grand Juries but even there all that's been alleged is Lying to the FBI and (in Manafort's case) Failing to Register as a Foreign Agent.

If Bob, you've got a link to what we'd recognize as a Jury-rendered-Conviction (preferably in a pdf format) I'd certainly appreciate your posting such. But until such time I at any rate, reserve judgement.


I haven't used the word "collusion" because, as you say, there's no proof of it. More importantly, though, there is no such formal charge as collusion. The word is being used as a distraction.

Agreed Bob. So too I'd observe, as yet there's been no proof of anything.

Criminal at any rate - that the audiences are "distracted"?

Well to switch metaphors I'd suggest that, were the audiences racecar drivers seeking which class of motorsports we'd all qualify for, that'd be, demolition derby. All driving Peterbilts!

I hadn't heard of Jordan Peterson before either, but I watched his interview with Cathy Newman and it is a masterclass in how to deal with a lefty feminist "interviewer". Newman's favourite line of questioning is "So, what you're saying is..." and Professor Peterson replies each time with unfailing good humour "No, I'm not saying that at all...." It's half an hour of excellent and satisfying entertainment.

David, I can assure you, and Mayfly would back me up, that Prof. Peterson's lectures and interviews on youtube are well worth listening to.

I shall give them a try, Whiters, not least because I would definitely not wish to upset the redoubtable Miss Mayfly!

Well David should you experience difficulties locating videos of the "Whiters referenced" I suggest hit your archives! July of last year, of the 3rd - Miss Mayfly's "Ah JK - you have mentioned Jordan Peterson, the only sane man in Canada."

I'd go into further detail David as you've admonished me recently except that, by linking I'm kinda skittish with certain things.

As my Cowboy Pal Baxter Black might put it, "I'll skirt right up to the edge of trodding common sense but, no further!"

"I would definitely not wish to upset the redoubtable Miss Mayfly!"
Me neither!

Now look you two, just because I'm an old battle axe, a thorn between two roses, I will hold no truck with being spoken about behind my back :-). What is it they say, "To be spoken of badly is better than not being spoken of at all?"

You should watch the YouTube vidoes which deal specifically with certain subjects though - I find his entire lectures a bit rambling. I believe there are some titles like "Every Woman needs to know this" and there was one about a suicide which was in fact very funny. Also, "Roughly speaking" is a great taster :-).

David, I think that Dr Peterson is not very keen on Dawkins, so that should make you happy. He certainly argues for the values of Christian beliefs and explains WHY, more importantly (not just for the shaping of our society, but for the ideas of chaos vs order, Yin and Yang and why an omnipotent god should have allowed the devil into the garden of Paradise in the first place).

Finally, Cathy Newman was put up and told to have certain view points. She did her job admirably, she said everything Dr Peterson could have wanted AND he was allowed to reply. Her problem was that his answers were not what she wanted and therefore she tried to dismiss them and make them say something else. She failed. And then some people have committed a cardinal sin of holding a different view point which is of course "attacking" and "misogynistic" so here come the police. And now his followers will be dismissed as alt right and horrible people and we're right back to where we started. This is why he would like to do the interview again, but from her moment of understanding. That moment, where she stopped speaking and he said "Gotcha". Because actually she was intelligent enough to understand that he said something worth thinking about and I believe she would have been a brilliant interviewer after that.

With respect, Mayfly, I think you're describing what you wanted to see rather than what actually happened. You say that Cathy Newman was "put up and told to have certain view points". How do you know? What she said was entirely in character with what she always says (even from my limited following of her). "AND he was allowed to reply". Ha! Constant interruptions and putting words in his mouth. I don't accept for a moment that Newman was playing devil's advocate - she was expressing her core beliefs and could not handle it when they were exposed to rational analysis and demolition.

Ah, I was reminded of many an interview I have seen of people like Milo and others where as soon as they opened their mouth, someone stepped in. They literally said two words before it was overridden by the interviewer and frustratingly, they would sit back and let them speak instead. So you'd hear Milo start a sentence like, "The Gender pay gap is not real" and you'd hear the interviewer join in so all you could hear is "the Gender pay gap" "is an enormous problem in today's society" and then the interviewer would continue as though that was the point being made. Even if Milo continued, the conversation would just flow on. I think if people listened enough to this interview, they could actually make out what Peterson was saying, and there was important information there. Peterson himself denies that Cathy holds those views - maybe he's wrong, but she did get floored evetually.

I might listen to some other interviews that she has, but since she was unable to argue her points, she is either stupid or she is not really a believer herself. Maybe she only realises now. Then again, I sometimes have a hard time believing some stuff I see on the internet/telly (example : google "SJW fired from job". That has to be fake, surely?) so you may be right.

These interviews are meant to be argumentative, full of robust speech and interruptions. It's click bait, it's controversial, it has to grab views. I certainly felt it went better than a Katie Hopkins interview, lol

Another instance of those coincidence thingies David?

Now its the National Review reading D&N?

The comments to this entry are closed.