Read on Twitter
. @PRIMONUTMEG blocked me.
Please retweet this to tell Primo they've fallen for a CIA psy-op designed to hyperventilate about Russiagate and take attention from real issues of human survival like climate change.
This Russiagate nonsense has gone on too long. #PrimoGate
Please retweet this to tell Primo they've fallen for a CIA psy-op designed to hyperventilate about Russiagate and take attention from real issues of human survival like climate change.
This Russiagate nonsense has gone on too long. #PrimoGate
See, what's going on is that a lot of leftist media is being absolutely relentless against Green candidate Howie Hawkins for supposed Russiagate support.
To the point where even a mention of Howie's name gets the thread flooded with "He's a Russiagater!" comments. #PrimoGate
To the point where even a mention of Howie's name gets the thread flooded with "He's a Russiagater!" comments. #PrimoGate
This started with a PN interview Hawkins did last year where he was asked about Russiagate & he said the Mueller Report was "serious" & Trump should be impeached. He went on to say it was a distraction like the article below reiterated a few weeks later. https://howiehawkins.us/the-russiagate-obsession-is-mass-distraction/
Hawkins briefly cited why Trump should be impeached, and most of it had nothing to do with Russiagate -- for racist landlord policies, for fraud, for obstruction of justice, and more.
But he then stated it was a distraction from existential threats like climate change.
But he then stated it was a distraction from existential threats like climate change.
The rest of the 1 hr plus interview has a lot of good stuff in it, about the Green New Deal, about Hawkins' philosophical influences (like Kropotkin & Bookchin), and other policies.
But nearly every commentator including Primo zeroed in on the couple minutes of Russiagate talk.
But nearly every commentator including Primo zeroed in on the couple minutes of Russiagate talk.
For a long time, Primo shared that clip with "RUSSIAGATER!" or some variant as the clickbait. It was sensationalized.
Other folks saw those couple of minutes and took it at face value, without the rest of the interview where he calls it a distraction and talks other issues.
Other folks saw those couple of minutes and took it at face value, without the rest of the interview where he calls it a distraction and talks other issues.
As a result, many other leftist commentators picked up the sensationalized headline and went off on it. Jimmy Dore for example called Hawkins "the death of the Green Party" & railed against Russiagate in another clickbait video that had little to do with what Howie actually said.
The legitimate complaints against Russiagate being propaganda & often used to smear anyone not in line with the Democratic Party narrative quickly gave way to another, perhaps more insidious propaganda line:
That Hawkins was a Russiagater & colluding with the CIA talking points.
That Hawkins was a Russiagater & colluding with the CIA talking points.
Now when Hawkins comes up in social media threads, random people come out of the woodwork to tell you that Hawkins is a Russiagater and they'll never support him.
Regardless what you were talking about, they turn the thread into something about Russiagate.
Regardless what you were talking about, they turn the thread into something about Russiagate.
Seems a bit suspicious that when attempting to talk about policies and issues that the discussion always gets derailed by Russiagate hysteria, huh?
The leftist Russiagate witch hunt has created its own Russiagate-gate, or #PrimoGate.
Nothing exists but Russiagate.
The leftist Russiagate witch hunt has created its own Russiagate-gate, or #PrimoGate.
Nothing exists but Russiagate.
I think the left, in it's zeal to "prove" it is independent from the Democratic Party, has ironically fallen to its own propaganda machine. Rather than questioning what Russiagate means and whether Hawkins really supports it, it has become a parroted "deal-breaker" talking point.
So let's first briefly say what Russiagate is about. There's two aspects to it in my view.
The first is Trump's "collusion" with Russia to get elected, and whether he's an "agent" for Putin's wishes.
The second is that anyone that criticized Clinton/DNC was suddenly an "agent".
The first is Trump's "collusion" with Russia to get elected, and whether he's an "agent" for Putin's wishes.
The second is that anyone that criticized Clinton/DNC was suddenly an "agent".
The second one was clearly Russiagate weaponized to attack anyone the DNC did not like, and that includes Green Party candidate Jill Stein. It was designed to spread fear & doubt and take votes away from Greens, and it probably succeeded.
Stein did no favors for herself when she went to a meeting in Russia -- the famous picture of her at the table near Putin.
This was an international conference and diplomats from many countries were there. It wasn't improper at all. To do diplomacy, you've gotta talk to people.
This was an international conference and diplomats from many countries were there. It wasn't improper at all. To do diplomacy, you've gotta talk to people.
However, the photo could easily be shared without context and so dominated media and allowed Russiagate weaponization.
Hawkins had actually advised her NOT to go to the event because he was worried Russia would dominate the news over the speech on peace she planned to give.
Hawkins had actually advised her NOT to go to the event because he was worried Russia would dominate the news over the speech on peace she planned to give.
Hawkins wasn't wrong about this. He anticipated Russia would be used to attack Greens, and he was unfortunately very right. But it happened, and so he was very vocal against the attacks and defended Stein and the Greens from the Russia narrative.
Now, back to the first point. It's pretty clear Trump isn't an "agent" -- he's had some very public disagreements and arguments with Putin, including militarily.
So the main issue here is "collusion". What does that mean?
So the main issue here is "collusion". What does that mean?
This is tricky to define and understand. But it seems true that Trump and his sons and associates met with various Russian officials. Why? Because it's LEGAL!
Russians -- and any country -- can be lobbyists, they just have to register to do so. https://apnews.com/dceed1008d8f45afb314aca65797762a
Russians -- and any country -- can be lobbyists, they just have to register to do so. https://apnews.com/dceed1008d8f45afb314aca65797762a
Presidential campaigns meet with foreign lobbyists and diplomats pretty regularly. That in itself is not unusual. And shouldn't be, at least in terms of diplomacy, because you literally cannot do diplomacy if you aren't talking with them.
The question is: was it more than that?
The question is: was it more than that?
That's where it gets more complicated and the Mueller Report comes into play. But basically the accusation is that Trump received "dirt" on Clinton and DNC in the form of hacked emails that were later released via Wikileaks.
But the report stops short of saying criminal charges.
But the report stops short of saying criminal charges.
It's a point of contention of course how accurate that story is. Did Russia hack the emails from the DNC? Did they offer them to Trump?
Considering Trump's public statements it's not unreasonable to think he'd be *interested* in the dirt. Doesn't make him an "agent" though.
Considering Trump's public statements it's not unreasonable to think he'd be *interested* in the dirt. Doesn't make him an "agent" though.
And so in context Hawkins' response looks something like this:
Trump probably wanted dirt. Russia probably hacked US because US hacks Russia and all sorts of other countries, it's what spies do. But regardless, with all of Trump's other problems, he should be impeached.
Trump probably wanted dirt. Russia probably hacked US because US hacks Russia and all sorts of other countries, it's what spies do. But regardless, with all of Trump's other problems, he should be impeached.
And that's it. A comment that it doesn't look good, and with all the other problems, Trump should be impeached and we should move on beyond the Russia distraction to real issues.
Is that the same as a hysterical Democrat screaming that everyone is an "agent"? I don't think so.
Is that the same as a hysterical Democrat screaming that everyone is an "agent"? I don't think so.
But ironically, the narrative has become twisted into screaming that Hawkins and anyone that supports him is a CIA/DNC "agent" spreading propaganda.
It's not healthy for debate because it derails all debate. It's group-think. It's exactly what they accuse DNC of doing.
It's not healthy for debate because it derails all debate. It's group-think. It's exactly what they accuse DNC of doing.
And much like the Democrats' story about Russia keeps growing into this massive collusion conspiracy with Trump, the claims against Hawkins have grown into this collusion conspiracy to get him elected and restrict real competition in the Green Party debate.
About a year ago, the Green Party adopted -- for the first time -- some simple rules to be formally "recognized" by the national party as a presidential candidate. The idea was to recognize "serious" campaigns that were ready for a grueling national campaign in 2020.
2020 was going to be difficult on Greens no matter what because of the anti-Trump fervor. And presidential campaigns are hard to get on the ballot in all 50 states. So there was a need to set some rules for candidates to follow in the footsteps of Stein's well organized campaign.
After some debate some simple rules were set -- raise $5000 and get support of 100 Green Party members nationwide. That's it.
Many elections for city council require more than 100 signatures to get on the ballot, and more than $5000 to campaign successfully. This is nothing.
Many elections for city council require more than 100 signatures to get on the ballot, and more than $5000 to campaign successfully. This is nothing.
Nothing for a national election, anyway. Presidential campaigns should be prepared to fundraise WAY more than that, and manage WAY more volunteers than 100. But this was just a small starting point.
Candidates were told the rules and had months to work toward it.
Candidates were told the rules and had months to work toward it.
The Green Party held several debates with all declared candidates -- so like 6-8 candidates -- prior to the cutoff point when the national party would only include recognized candidates.
Several of those candidates took the time to rail on Hawkins rather than campaign.
Several of those candidates took the time to rail on Hawkins rather than campaign.
As the deadline got closer, candidates started complaining that the process was unfair and that Howie was given an "advantage". I at first was very concerned to hear this and inquired about it myself.
But the complaints were largely nothing, in my view.
But the complaints were largely nothing, in my view.
The recognition rules don't seem unreasonable, and they had more than enough time to get recognition. In fact, they can still be recognized TODAY if they worked on it, but most of them never tried to fundraise or collect signatures. It's basic work.
Primo Nutmeg is pushing this thing real hard where presidential rules have a rule that roughly says the Green candidate can't be a member of another party.
To me its clear it means that the person needs to be an actual Green and not just some random person that applied.
To me its clear it means that the person needs to be an actual Green and not just some random person that applied.
Instead they've jumped all over this rule as supposedly meaning Hawkins doesn't qualify because he's also a member of Socialist Party, Solidarity, and other groups.
I think that's an unfair & incorrect interpretation. Does a rule that would exclude a party co-founder make sense?
I think that's an unfair & incorrect interpretation. Does a rule that would exclude a party co-founder make sense?
Hawkins has been a Green Party member since it was founded. He's kept side memberships in other groups to grow solidarity and has stated one goal of his campaign is leftist unity -- bringing folks like the Socialist Party into alliance with Greens. But he's always been a Green.
To me, the rule is meant to prevent someone registered, say, PSL from running as a Green despite never being a member before & maybe not knowing our values and platform. Makes sense.
What doesn't make sense is trying to exclude a party co-founder on a supposed technicality.
What doesn't make sense is trying to exclude a party co-founder on a supposed technicality.
This is basically what the presidential committee decided on the rules, that Hawkins was a Green member and it didn't violate the rules to be in other organizations too. Again, makes sense.
But they've taken that ruling to signify "collusion" with Hawkins campaign.
But they've taken that ruling to signify "collusion" with Hawkins campaign.
Greens in various party offices have expressed support for Hawkins, and that's been used as further "collusion" evidence despite the fact that none of these officers have any power over the primary process. And some support other candidates, but that's never brought up.
Some of those Green Party officers are pretty adamently against Hawkins -- not even for Russiagate reasons, but actually because they oppose Hawkins' explicitly *eco-socialist* platform.
While I think the party overall is trending toward socialism, there are some reactionaries.
While I think the party overall is trending toward socialism, there are some reactionaries.
I've seen people argue on the national mailing list and in social media against socialism, saying thing like they'll "never" let the Greens be a socialist party -- and then using strawmen attacks trying to link Hawkins' socialism to Stalin, etc. Typical "red scare" hysteria.
And so ironically we come full circle, where many of Hawkins' detractors in the party actually oppose him because of their own anti-communist "red scare" hysteria.
It's personally starting to feel to me like Russiagate has been a "useful tool" used by folks that actually oppose the eco-socialist stances and critiques he holds.
They can't directly attack the Green New Deal because it's popular. So they have to use other methods.
They can't directly attack the Green New Deal because it's popular. So they have to use other methods.
You scream "Russiagater!" non-stop and that sullies his name and takes attention off of the Green New Deal and other policies. How many of them know Hawkins's healthcare plan? How many know his community policing plan? Those aren't discussed. It's all Russia.
And so reactionaries in the party would rather destroy themselves with Russiagate nonsense than let Hawkins make the party more explicitly socialist.
The left commentators would rather demonize Hawkins over Russiagate than actually organize outside of the Democrats.
The left commentators would rather demonize Hawkins over Russiagate than actually organize outside of the Democrats.
Russiagate is a giant distraction from the real issues at hand. Climate crisis, social injustice, and more. And the desperate need to build new institutions outside of the Democratic Party.
How many commentators are in the trenches? Or do they just comment?
How many commentators are in the trenches? Or do they just comment?
