Russia's troll army?

Stefan Leahu

New Member
As far as the russian trolls fueling conspiracy theories worldwide, I'm inclined to say yes. Of course, that's just done to muddy up the waters and as an exercise to see how many people are gullible to what kind of conspiracy theories. . I think BBC ran a report as well.

Thing is, as far as I can tell in Romania (eastern Europe), the facebook groups for flat earth, mud flood and other stuff like that seem to be organized and 'curated' by a handful of people and they have sprung up in a relatively short window of time of at most a few months. When you try debunking in those groups, it becomes clear early on that those guys are different from the usual tinfoil crowd. You can actually have logical discussions going in the group, but those guys will try to steer them away either using technobabble, or by starting the mudslinging to the point that it becomes a flame war and under no circumstance do they ever engage in scientific debunking. When approached by PM, they do not respond, which is very different from the 'normal' ones which are actually very passionate about discussing their pet theories. On the same part, you can have discussions that get way out of hand with insults, and no one gets banned, but you will almost instantly get banned for posting cold hard evidence that directly contradicts their narrative. Their time online is also dubious. It takes hours to days to get responses from the regular people. These guys never miss a posting, except if it's very late at night or something like that.

That's not necessarily to say that we're dealing with THE russian trolls, except that, as a former communist country, we have a long history of Russia trying to meddle in our politics and society and at the very least the leading Socialist Party (former communists) has a troll team, so it's hard to see how this may not be Russian interference.


Senior Member
Seems like they had a (t)roll in pushing the Seth Rich conspiracy as well...


Senior Member

Mick West

Staff member
Zerohedge picked this up back in February:

It is commentary trying to brand the Democrats as still being the kkk party, pointing at people like George Wallace and the distribution of the congressional vote on the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

It seems odd to me that a financial news outlet would engage in this kind of muck-raking distortion of history unless it has some other agenda.
Rational Wiki suggests that Zero Hedge is part of the problem:


Rational Wiki suggests that Zero Hedge is part of the problem:
Not going to bother "debunking" the specific claims within the article itself? Just 3rd party ad hominem from rational wiki... "zerohedge is a batshit insane..." Personally, I couldn't debunk the article either. :/ it seems grounded in: dates, names, places and facts in general.


Senior Member
It wasn't the facts included that made the article bunk. It was the omission of 5-decades of facts in order to manufacture a conclusion that is bunk. It completely ignored the schism in the Democrat party that started at the 1948 convention and came to a boil in 1964 and ultimately resulted in >90% of the "George Wallaces" leaving the party by the 1980s. My question about why a financial periodical would re-post a political hit piece still stands.

Related Articles