The Resistance Reports
March 11, 2017
For quite a long time now, bits and pieces of Putin & his surrogates and proxies and Trump’s surrogates and proxies connection in various ways, with much of that looks like break major American laws, in what is known today as the “Russia Gate” been building up. But for the last two weeks, the news on “Russia Gate” has hit fever pitch with many concrete results, such as Flynn resignation and Sessions recuse, and a few serious investigation at Congress and about 65% of Americans wanting an independent inquiry.
Trump as usual, when the heat bears on him on an issue, would attempt to divert attention away by making big news, and here, there are several such as Obamacare replacement and Muslin Ban 2.0 EO and other and Trump will also attempt to water down the specific accusations, with conspiracy theory, such as with Obama phone tapping him, & look at Trump he loves using conspiracy theory, meaning is this not why he hired Bannon, that when Bannon was at Breitbart, it was filled with conspiracy.
When things goes bad, Trump will also manage the news, by attacking the press or not talk to the press, and go to his supporters on Twitter. Trump will also try to control those involved in oversight, & here, there are many examples, such as the Florida Bondi case.
Well, on “Russia Gate” Trump has tried all of that but the story just getting bigger and bigger and more and more news and information. So the latest, is a major conspiracy theory that says CIA, used malware, to pose as Russian hacking America and so it is the CIA’s fault, and part of the thory is that the CIA is part of a “Deep State” that trying take Trump down.
And so Trump is innocent. An who came up with this idea? Well, probably someone somewhere then Trump & Julian got on it & Nigel, the UK politician close to Trump, just went to see Julian a few days ago.
One report on this is from Politicus USA that reported: “Sean Hannity Asks WikiLeaks to Help Blame Russian Hacking on the CIA” (source http://www.politicususa.com/2017/03/10/hannity-wikileaks-blame-russian-hacking-cia.html)
Politicus USA Reported”
“In which Sean Hannity looks for a way to blame Americans for an attack on America that was carried out by Russia.” If only it ended with delusion. These people masquerade as American super-patriots but being pro-Trump is not the same as being pro-American. The Constitution trumps personal loyalty to Trump. Yet you only have to look at their tweets to see just how deep the crazy goes, and to understand how the conspiracy theory feeding cycle works between Fox News and Donald Trump: As Guantanamo prosecutor Col. Morris Davis puts it, “You can count on @FoxNews to give you the war criminal perspective on right and wrong” when they trot out Dr. James Mitchell, the architect of post-9/11 torture, to say:“What we need to do is relentlessly hunt these folks down because…they’re placing American lives at risk.” Let’s not hunt down the Russians infiltrating our administration, however, let alone those asking WikiLeaks to help destroy our own intelligence agencies. Never that. Trump named Fox News as his “state TV” but at this point, it is difficult to say whether Fox News serves Donald Trump or Vladimir Putin, or indeed, if there is any difference.”
Washington Post also reported: The dangerous and irresistible GOP conspiracy theory that explains away Trump’s Russia problem https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/03/10/the-dangerous-and-irresistible-gop-conspiracy-theory-that-explains-away-trumps-russia-problem/
Daiy Kos also reported: Trump supporters are ready to destroy the CIA and absolve Russia by adopting crazy conspiracy theory http://www.dailykos.com/story/2017/3/10/1642182/-Trump-supporters-are-ready-to-destroy-the-CIA-and-absolve-Russia-by-adopting-crazy-conspiracy-theory
New Yor Time also reported: The Truth About the WikiLeaks C.I.A. Cache https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/09/opinion/the-truth-about-the-wikileaks-cia-cache.html
So what is going on, apart from the technical & logical “Political Game” going on. Well, conspiracy Theory are story with minute chance maybe true, built various ways into massive story & often from selling the story to cure big “Cognitive Dissonance” problems.
And a great many of Trump supporters including the GOP are having a “Great Big Massive” cognitive dissonance problem with the “Russian Gate” situation, because, the Russian Hack of the election, is just a part of the much bigger issue, meaning Trump 30 years of business with Russia and again the than the entire Putin & his surrogates and proxies and Trump’s surrogates and proxies connection in various ways, with much of that looks like break major American laws.
And here we are only talking about the law, again there are other critical issues, such as America’s foreign policy, where there is more than Trump’s business interest in Russia and his bromance with Putin, where ever that comes from and also, of course, there is the “Dossier” indicating, at the very east, Putin has dirt on Trump.
A conspiracy theory is an explanation of an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy without warrant, generally one involving an illegal or harmful act carried out by government or other powerful actors. Conspiracy theories often produce hypotheses that contradict the prevailing understanding of history or simple facts. The term is a derogatory one.
According to the political scientist Michael Barkun, conspiracy theories rely on the view that the universe is governed by design, and embody three principles: nothing happens by accident, nothing is as it seems, and everything is connected.:3–4 Another common feature is that conspiracy theories evolve to incorporate whatever evidence exists against them, so that they become, as Barkun writes, a closed system that is unfalsifiable, and therefore “a matter of faith rather than proof”.:7:10
People formulate conspiracy theories to explain, for example, power relations in social groups and the perceived existence of evil forces.[a] Conspiracy theories have chiefly psychological or socio-political origins. Proposed psychological origins include projection; the personal need to explain “a significant event [with] a significant cause;” and the product of various kinds and stages of thought disorder, such as paranoid disposition, ranging in severity to diagnosable mental illnesses. Some people prefer socio-political explanations over the insecurity of encountering random, unpredictable, or otherwise inexplicable events. Some philosophers have argued that belief in conspiracy theories can be rational.[verification needed]
The Oxford English Dictionary defines conspiracy theory as “the theory that an event or phenomenon occurs as a result of a conspiracy between interested parties; spec. a belief that some covert but influential agency (typically political in motivation and oppressive in intent) is responsible for an unexplained event”, and cites a 1909 article in The American Historical Review as the earliest usage example. As a neutral term, “conspiracy” is derived from Latin con- (“with, together”) and spirare (“to breathe”).
According to John Ayto’s 20th century words, the phrase conspiracy theory was originally a neutral term and only acquired a pejorative connotation in the mid 1960s, implying that the advocate of the theory has a paranoid tendency to imagine the influence of some powerful, malicious, covert agency in events. According to Florida State University professor Lance deHaven-Smith’s 2013 book Conspiracy Theory in America, the phrase conspiracy theory was deployed in the 1960s by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to discredit John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories. However, according to Robert Blaskiewicz, assistant professor of critical thinking at Stockton University and skeptical activist, such claims have existed “since at least 1997”, but due to having recently been promoted by deHaven-Smith, “conspiracy theorists have begun citing this work as an authority”. Blaskiewicz researched the use of the term conspiracy theory and found that it has always been a disparaging term, having been used to describe “extreme hypothesis” and implausible speculation as long ago as 1870.
In psychology, cognitive dissonance is the mental stress (discomfort) experienced by a person who simultaneously holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values; when performing an action that contradicts existing beliefs, ideas, or values; or when confronted with new information that contradicts existing beliefs, ideas, and values.
Leon Festinger‘s 1957 theory of cognitive dissonance focuses on how human beings strive for internal consistency. A person who experiences inconsistency tends to become psychologically uncomfortable, and so is motivated to try to reduce the cognitive dissonance occurring, and actively avoids situations and information likely to increase the psychological discomfort.
Cognitive Dissonance Theory is founded upon the presumption that people seek psychological consistency between their expectations and the reality of life. To function by that expectation of existential consistency, people practise the process of dissonance reduction in order to continually align their cognitions with the actions of functioning in the real world. The creation and establishment of consistency allows the lessening of mental stress and consequent psychological distress; therefore, a person can act to reduce cognitive dissonance by change with, justification against, or indifference to the contradiction inducing the mental stress. As such, people reduce their cognitive dissonance in four ways:
- Change the behavior or the cognition (“I’ll eat no more of this doughnut.”)
- Justify the behavior or the cognition, by changing the conflicting cognition (“I’m allowed to cheat my diet every once in a while.”)
- Justify the behavior or the cognition by adding new cognitions (“I’ll spend thirty extra minutes at the gymnasium to work off the doughnut.”)
- Ignore or deny information that conflicts with existing beliefs (“This doughnut is not a high-sugar food.”)
Likewise, a study titled The Psychology of Prejudice reported that people facilitate functioning in the real world by employing human categories (sex and gender, age, and race, etc.) with which to manage their social interactions with other human beings, and that integral to the categorization is a scheme of stereotypes (social attitudes) about each category of person, which include prejudices—the generalized negative beliefs, ideals, and values held about the category of person causing the cognitive dissonance—in a given social interaction.
There are four theoretic paradigms of cognitive dissonance, the mental stress suffered by men and women when exposed to contradictory information that is inconsistent with their prior beliefs, ideas, or values; (i) Belief Disconfirmation, (ii) Induced Compliance, (iii) Free Choice, and (iv) Effort Justification; which respectively explain: what happens after a person acts inconsistently, relative to his or her prior intellectual perspectives; what happens after a person makes decisions; and what are the effects upon a person who has expended much effort to achieve a goal. Common to each paradigm of cognitive-dissonance theory is the tenet: People invested to a given perspective shall—when confronted with disconfirming evidence—expend great effort to justify retaining their challenged perspective.
Washington Post Reports:
The dangerous and irresistible GOP conspiracy theory that explains away Trump’s Russia problem https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/03/10/the-dangerous-and-irresistible-gop-conspiracy-theory-that-explains-away-trumps-russia-problem/
The best/worst thing about conspiracy theories is that they only need to rely on a shred of evidence, but they can instantly confirm all of your preconceived notions. Such is the case with a new conspiracy theory making the rounds among conservative talkers. It’s the idea that the CIA has made it appear as though the 2016 election hacking was conducted by Russians even though it wasn’t — or even that the CIA hacked the Democrats itself. The theory is based off that big WikiLeaks dump of purported CIA hacking documents, which suggested a program that was able to “misdirect attribution” of cyberattacks. Sean Hannity hinted at it Thursday:
As did Ann Coulter: And here’s what Rush Limbaugh said earlier this week, after WikiLeaks documents first came out: Apparently the CIA has the ability to mimic Russian hackers. In other words, the CIA has the ability to hack anybody they want and make it look like the Russians are doing it or make it look like the [Chinese communists] are doing it or make it look like the Israelis are doing it.They have the ability to do this. They have the ability to mask and mock various other state actors and make it look like — so I think because of everything that we’re learning here, the danger that Donald Trump has faced ever since he won the election is greater than we’ve ever known. And it is obvious to me that this whole business — well, I say obvious, I’m leaning toward being near certain that this entire pretext of Trump working with the Russians to affect the outcome of the election, folks — it is so ridiculous. The program described here is called “UMBRAGE,” according to the documents released by WikiLeaks, which say the program “collects and maintains a substantial library of attack techniques ‘stolen’ from malware produced in other states.”
Hannity, Coulter and Limbaugh are kind of dancing around it here, but the subtext is clear: This could explain why all that intelligence is pointing to the Russians — because the CIA made it appear so. Of course, this theory is also based on nothing more than an alleged CIA capability. And that’s an alleged capability being pushed by someone with a clear interest in making it look like Russia wasn’t involved in the hacking. WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has long denied working with Russia to release the Democrats’ hacked emails, so he’s clearly got an agenda here. Harvard fellow Ben Buchanan threw a wet blanket on this theory Thursday in The Washington Post, saying the evidence pointing to Russia goes well beyond what this capability would explain: “The reality of attributing cyber attacks is more complex than the conspiracy theories suggest. Instead of undercutting the attribution of previous hacks, a closer look at UMBRAGE and its limits underscores the strength of the evidence in the DNC hack investigation.”
Importantly, the conspiracy theory also involves accusing the country’s intelligence apparatus of conspiring against the president of the United States — a scandal that, if true, would be without parallel in American history. But that democracy-shaking potential scandal is kind of beside the point for these talking heads; what’s more important to them is that this theory has the benefit of, in one fell swoop, explaining away the myriad pieces of evidence pointing toward Russia hacking to interfere in the 2016 election. Keeping up with politics is easy now. And don’t be surprised if this catches on and furthers skepticism of the intelligence community’s conclusions. Today’s Republican Party is a very receptive audience for this kind of theory; polls continue to show the GOP is skeptical not only that Russia worked to help Trump — as the intelligence community has said — but that it was even behind the hacking. A Quinnipiac poll in January showed 64 percent of Republicans said Russia didn’t attempt to influence the 2016 election through hacking, with just 29 percent agreeing with that basic conclusion of the intelligence community. And among that small group that thought Russia at least was behind the hacking, less than half believed it was a concerted effort to benefit Trump. So basically just 1 in 8 Republicans agreed with the idea that Russia hacked to help Trump. After that poll was conducted, Trump finally seemed to acknowledge it was Russia that did the hacking. But a Q poll conducted later that month still showed huge skepticism. Just 15 percent of Republicans agreed that “the Russian government interfered with the 2016 presidential election.” And an NBC News-Wall Street Journal poll showed just 22 percent thought Russia interfered. Given Trump’s inclination toward such conspiracy theories and the GOP base’s long-standing tendency to side with him — and against the intelligence community’s assessments — it’s doubtful we’ve heard the last of this
Daily Kos Reports:
Trump supporters are ready to destroy the CIA and absolve Russia by adopting crazy conspiracy theory http://www.dailykos.com/story/2017/3/10/1642182/-Trump-supporters-are-ready-to-destroy-the-CIA-and-absolve-Russia-by-adopting-crazy-conspiracy-theory
Donald Trump believes crazy conspiracy theories. He believes that Barack Obama is a Kenyan-born Muslim. He believes that millions of illegal voters were responsible for his big popular vote loss. He thinks Ted Cruz’s father helped to kill JFK. He believes there is a secret deep state conducting a “soft coup” against his regime, that thousands of Muslims danced in New Jersey following 9/11, and of course that President Obama tapped his phones to listen in on his secret plans. And those are just the conspiracy theories Trump has admitted to in public. Has anyone asked him about the moon landings? Nazi bases under the North Pole? Santa Claus?
It shouldn’t be surprising that Trump supporters are just as prone to wacko conspiracy theories as their leader. And now the alt-wrong is embracing a theory that says Russia never hacked the DNC … because America did it. It didn’t take even 48 hours for an online conspiracy theory to make its way from the reply section of the WikiLeaks Twitter account to the prime-time airwaves on Fox News and top conservative radio programs. Here’s the start of the crazy train. A single tweet from a Glenn Greenwald, Julian Assange fan. And while the speed of light may seem quickish, the speed of conspiracy is much, much higher. Now “conservatives” (which means whatever Trump says it means) are ready to absolve the Russians and blast those minions of the terrible deep state CIA. No. I don’t. Seriously. I don’t. This whole thing is like finding Lizzie Borden standing over her parents with a bloody hatchet, then having someone call out “say, doesn’t that George Washington fellow also have one of those?” But … evidence, logic, the next thing you’ll be expecting of Republicans is a belief in science. The theory spread so fast conservative radio giant Rush Limbaugh had time to tout it on his show on March 7, when he denied Trump had any Russian campaign ties to Russia. “The CIA has the ability to hack anybody they want and make it look like the Russians are doing it or make it look like the ChiComs are doing it or make it look like the Israelis are doing it,” Limbaugh said, using a slang
term for Chinese communists. It’s wonderful how competent/incompetent the CIA is depending on how they’re needed to fit the theory of the moment. The CIA says Russia did it. It could be some fat kid in a basement, what does the CIA know? The CIA could have done it themselves. Yes, they are well known to be all powerful.
It’s not just Trump supporters inside America who love this theory. It was picked up by Russian state-sponsored English media outlets like Sputnik, which gleefully mocked “evidence-free” accusations that Russia hacked the election, linking to tweets “chock-full of sarcasm and memes” about the CIA’s capabilities. And how do we know when a conspiracy theory has reached full, tossing a thousand seeds into the winds of madness, flower? It breached fully into the mainstream when Fox News host Sean Hannity floated the idea on Wednesday, first on his radio show, then on his Twitter account. “The CIA, according to these WikiLeaks leaks, uses stolen malware to attribute cyberattacks to nations like Russia,” Hannity told radio listeners. “In other words, what they’re saying is the CIA can actually blame Russia for an attack on an American, because they’ll put their fingerprints all over the attack. Meanwhile it came from within.”
Now Sean Hannity has taken his Twitter account private, meaning that only those he’s given permission can participate in his online lobster boil. Because while the CIA can magic-hack any server in the world, they absolutely can’t get past Sean’s Twitter security. Hannity has lined up some of the world’s greatest experts to discuss the issue. Retired Army Lietenant Colonel Anthony Schaffer, a torture advocate who has floated Benghazi and 9-11 conspiracy theories in
the past, took it a step further, claiming he had unnamed sources described the conspiracy to him. “Sean, we did it. Not me, but our guys, former members of NSA, retired intelligence officers used these tools to break in there and get the information out. That’s what the Democrats don’t want to talk about because it doesn’t fit their narrative,” Shaffer said. Anthony Schaffer would be the “Able Danger” guy—the guy who said his secret team had uncovered the 9/11 hijackers before the attack, but wasn’t allowed to tell anyone because of silly bureaucratic concerns. What did an investigation of Schaffer’s claims determine? In December 2006, a sixteen-month investigation by the US Senate Intelligence Committee concluded “Able Danger did not identify Mohamed Atta or any other 9/11 hijacker at any time prior to September 11, 2001”, and dismissed other assertions that have fueled 9/11 conspiracy theories. That makes Schaffer the perfect go-to guy on this new theory. He’s also managed to concoct a theory that kept Congress going in loops for a year and a half. That’s valuable job experience. “You’re telling me this whole Russian story that the media has been running with for months and months and months — that it was our people that did it, and they put the fingerprints of the Russians on it?” Hannity asked. “That’s right,” Shaffer said. The next step is inevitable. Just keep your eye on Trump’s twitter feed … if he doesn’t take it private.
The New York Times Report:
The Truth About the WikiLeaks C.I.A. Cache https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/09/opinion/the-truth-about-the-wikileaks-cia-cache.html
On Tuesday morning, WikiLeaks released an enormous cache of documents that it claimed detailed “C.I.A. hacking tools.” Immediately afterward, it posted two startling tweets asserting that “C.I.A. hacker malware” posed a threat to journalists and others who require secure communication by infecting iPhone and Android devices and “bypassing” encrypted message apps such as Signal and WhatsApp. This appeared to be a bombshell. Signal is considered the gold standard for secure communication. WhatsApp has a billion users. The C.I.A., it seemed, had the capacity to conduct sweeping surveillance on what we had previously assumed were our safest and most private digital conversations. In their haste to post articles about the release, almost all the leading news organizations took the WikiLeaks tweets at face value. Their initial accounts mentioned Signal, WhatsApp and other encrypted apps by name, and described them as “bypassed” or otherwise compromised by the C.I.A.’s cyberspying tools. Yet on closer inspection, this turned out to be misleading. Neither Signal nor WhatsApp, for example, appears by name in any of the alleged C.I.A. files in the cache. (Using automated tools to search the whole database, as security researchers subsequently did, turned up no hits.) More important, the hacking methods described in the documents do not, in fact, include the ability to bypass such encrypted apps — at least not in the sense of “bypass” that had seemed so alarming. Indeed, if anything, the C.I.A. documents in the cache confirm the strength of encryption technologies.
What had gone wrong? There were two culprits: an honest (if careless) misunderstanding about technology on the part of th e press; and yet another shrewd misinformation campaign orchestrated by WikiLeaks.Let’s start with the technology. In the aftermath of Edward J. Snowden’s revelations about potential mass surveillance, there has been a sharp increase in the use of these “end to end” encryption apps, which render even the company that owns the app or phone essentially unable to read or hear the communications between the two “end” users. Given that entities like Signal and WhatsApp cannot get access to the content of these conversations, even in response to a warrant — WhatsApp keeps logs of who talked to whom, Signal doesn’t do even that — intelligence agencies have been looking to develop techniques for hacking into individual phones. Th at way, they could see the encrypted communications just as individual users of the apps would.These techniques are what the leaked cache revealed. Security experts I spoke with, however, stressed that these techniques appear to be mostly known methods — some of them learned from academic and other open conferences — and that there were no big surprises or unexpected wizardry.
In other words, the cache reminds us that if your phone is hacked, the Signal or WhatsApp messages on it are not secure. This should not come as a surprise. If an intelligence agency, or a nosy sibling, can get you to install, say, a “key logger” on your phone, either one can bypass the encrypted communication app. But so can someone looking over your shoulder while you use your phone. That is about the vulnerability of your device. It has nothing to do with the security of the apps. If anything in the WikiLeaks revelations is a bombshell, it is just how strong these encrypted apps appear to be. Since it doesn’t have a means of easy mass surveillance of such apps, the C.I.A. seems to have had to turn its attention to the harder and often high-risk task of breaking into individual devices one by one. Which brings us to WikiLeaks’ misinformation campaign. An accurate tweet accompanying the cache would have said something like, “If the C.I.A. goes after your specific phone and hacks it, the agency can look at its content.” But that, of course, wouldn’t have caused alarm and defeatism about the prospects of secure conversations. We’ve seen WikiLeaks do this before. Last July, right after the attempted coup in Turkey, WikiLeaks promised, with much fanfare, to release emails belonging to Turkey’s ruling Justice and Development Party. What WikiLeaks ultimately released, however, was nothing but mundane mailing lists of tens of thousands of ordinary people who discussed politics online. Back then, too, the ruse worked: Many Western journalists had hyped these non-leaks.
WikiLeaks seems to have a playbook for its disinformation campaigns. The first step is to dump many documents at once — rather than allowing journalists to scrutinize them and absorb their significance before publication. The second step is to sensationalize the material with misleading news releases and tweets. The third step is to sit back and watch as the news media unwittingly promotes the WikiLeaks agenda under the auspices of independent reporting. The media, to its credit, eventually sorts things out — as it has belatedly started to do with the supposed C.I.A. cache. But by then, the initial burst of misinformation has spread. On social media in particular, the spin and distortion continues unabated. This time around, for example, there are widespread claims on social media that these leaked documents show that it was the C.I.A. that hacked the Democratic National Committee, and that it framed Russia for the hack. (The documents in the cache reveal nothing of the sort.) As with most misinformation campaigns, the dust that is kicked up obscures concerns over a real issue. Device and information insecurity, overzealous surveillance by governments — these are real concerns that call for real attention. Yes, we need to have extensive and thoughtful discussion of these topics. But that’s not what the WikiLeaks misinformation campaign has given us. Zeynep Tufekci, an associate professor at the School of Information and Library Science at the University of North Carolina, is the author of the forthcoming “Twitter and Tear Gas: The Power and Fragility of Networked Protest” and a contributing opinion writer.
To Read More Conspiracy Theory:
- 1 Usage of the term
- 2 Examples
- 3 Conspiracy vs. conspiracy theory
- 4 Psychology
- 5 Types
- 6 Conspiracism as a world view
- 7 Prevalence
- 8 Psychological origins
- 9 Socio-political origins
- 10 Viability of conspiracy theories
- 11 Political use
- 12 See also
- 13 Notes
- 14 References
- 15 Further reading
- 16 External links
To Read More on Cognitive Dissonance
- 1 Relations among cognitions
- 2 Reducing dissonance
- 3 Paradigms
- 4 Examples
- 5 Applications
- 6 Alternative paradigms
- 7 Neuroscience findings
- 8 Modeling in neural networks
- 9 See also
- 10 References
- 11 Further reading
- 12 External links