#Why are you racist? Why are you straight up pro-slavery? Why do you exist? Why can't you just be BenBen?

[cluescorner]

Me, during Al Haitham’s world quest: *Sigh*. I miss my wife, Al Haitham. I miss her a lot. 

Al Haitham: *Laughs* 

Me, going back to the Tanit camp halfway through his quest to stand next to Jeht and pretend that I’m her girlfriend now: I’ll be back. 

[thats-a-lot-of-cortisol]

I’ve been seeing (and sharing) some things about certain prophets and scriptures and such. So I’m going to share my unsolicited opinion about this. I’ll preface by saying that I’m not Black and don’t pretend to know the full extent of the harm from the racism in the Church. I’m coming at this from what I’ve heard and learned and studied; if I say something inaccurate, please let me know!

 I’ll make it as organized as I can. It’s gonna be long so it’ll be under the cut.

First of all, I know that we’re told to listen to the prophet’s voice. D&C 21:4-5 says:

Wherefore, meaning the church, thou shalt give heed to all of [Joseph Smith’s] words and commandments which he shall give unto you as he receiveth them, walking in all holiness before me;

For his word ye shall receive, as if from mine own mouth, in all patience and faith.

(Brackets added by me).

This says that we need to heed the voices of the leaders of the Church because they’re mouthpieces of the Lord. It also says that we need to have patience and faith. To me, this means that sometimes they’ll say things we disagree with. This is often looked at as “oh you need to pray and learn to be okay with the doctrine”, which is the case sometimes! But sometimes, to me, this also means “you need to pray and figure things out for yourself, keeping the faith when your leaders decide to spread their opinions instead of or alongside doctrine”. It’s odd to me that we say that our leaders are imperfect but then refuse to truly admit when a previous leader (you know the one, though there were plenty more) were, in a word, wrong. Brigham Young was an imperfect person who supported slavery and took away Black mens’ rights to hold the priesthood. He did some awful things! And guess what? He was wrong. Ezra Taft Benson said that Martin Luther King was a communist. Guess what? He was wrong. Saying that someone was a prophet and brought forth doctrine and saying that they had wrong/harmful opinions are not mutually exclusive. We readily criticize Joseph Smith for being bad at money but we have a hard time criticizing Brigham Young for being racist and pro-slavery. Honestly, I consider Young to be worse in that regard, so I’m not sure why we’ve refused to acknowledge it for so long. A couple other people who are held up as religious leaders who did the Lord’s work include:

-Martin Luther, who was antisemitic for a large part of his life and died holding those views.

-Paul, who was sexist. (I’m not going to get into the debate about whether or not the verses in question were actually his words because I’m not very knowledgeable on the topic, but they are attributed to him as of when I’m writing this so that’s what I’m going with).

Paul is well loved and respected by Christians, at least from what I’ve seen. Martin Luther was a crucial part of the Reformation. We say that those views are outdated and harmful despite the fact that those men were “a product of their time”. In the secular sphere, we say this about Confederate generals and slaveholders. We recognize the culture they grew up around but critique their views anyway because we know better now. On top of that, cultures are never monolithic, so not everyone’s going to have the same views. Heck, Martin Luther wasn’t antisemitic at first. “Their time” included people who weren’t sexist or racist or antisemitic or any other bad “-ist”. Their time period isn’t an excuse.

So why are we allowing it to be an excuse with our leaders? Joseph Smith, the first prophet of the Lord’s Church in the latter-days, was anti-slavery! He appointed Black men to the priesthood! Some examples: Elijah Abel was the first Black man to be called to the Seventy. He went on three missions. He was ordained to the priesthood! Joseph T. Ball was a branch president! He was also ordained to the priesthood. I said it earlier and I’ll say it again: Brigham Young took the blessings of holding the priesthood away from Black men. This goes directly against what Joseph Smith, one of the first to hold the priesthood in the Restored Church, did. And this stance was held up by other racist leaders until 1978.

Our leaders through the years have claimed to have been praying for an answer about this, and I’m sure they were, but they didn’t receive the go-ahead to lift the ban. I commonly hear people justifying this by saying that such a radical stance would have killed the Church because the world wasn’t ready for it. But there were plenty of anti-slavery churches who actively helped and protected slaves and free Black people at that time and afterwards. So to me, the logic doesn’t add up, and it’s never sat right with me.

But here’s the thing: we know that the Restoration is a process. We know that we learn and grow “line by line, precept by precept” as we are willing to apply what we are taught. You can pray for whatever you want, but if you’re not truly open to the answer you won’t get it. I’m sure many of us have had those times where we say that we’re open to whatever the answer is but we aren’t yet; I know I have. I, personally, think that that’s what happened. The apostles and prophets weren’t truly ready. And guess what it took? It took them realizing that a community of Saints in Brazil (if I remember correctly) who wouldn’t be able to go into the temple being built in their area raised money to build it anyway. 

In a similar vein, we know that some of the teachings used to justify those views are false.

-”Mark of Cain”: used to say that Black people were unworthy of temple covenants because they’re descendants of Cain. This is false and dehumanizing.

-”Valor in Heaven”: this is the belief that people who aren’t white are that way because they were “less than faithful” during the war in heaven. This is false. A lot of things have grey areas, but I feel like this is pretty straight forward: either you ended up on the Savior’s side in the pre-existence or you didn’t. Everyone reading this in a physical body ended up on the Savior’s side. I, personally, don’t think Heavenly Father would quantify it, either. Is someone who joined the Church later in life any less qualified for the Celestial Kingdom? What about someone who doesn’t accept the gospel until the afterlife, but gets all of the saving ordinances by proxy? Do they get stuck in a Kingdom lower than what they actually should get? “Valor in Heaven” flies in the face of our teachings and is dehumanizing.

-The Lamanites’ curse: this was a specific situation that applied to a specific group of people. Quick note: I’m wrestling with these verses myself, but this is where I’m at with them right now. This is definitely “gospel according to Jean” territory, partly because I’m not sure how often recent leaders have discussed it: we’ve been avoiding the topic all together for a while now.

It didn’t make their culture monolithic. Both they and the Nephites went through phases of righteousness and unrighteousness. The main issue was that the Nephites (who started out righteous) were actively being killed by the Lamanites. The curse was a way to tell them apart, yes, but it would have been the same whether it was “the Lamanites will have blonde hair” or “the Nephites will be dark” (to use the terminology in the Book of Mormon). Also, what does Jacob tell the Nephites in Jacob 3? One, to “revile against them no more because of the darkness of their skins” (verse 9) and two, that they were more righteous than the Nephites were at that time. Jacob gives a couple reasons for this: firstly, they loved their wives and didn’t cheat on them or participate in polygamy that wasn’t given the go-ahead by the Lord (this is what the Nephites were doing). Secondly, the hatred they felt towards the Nephites was passed down by their fathers. Their fathers were Laman and Lemuel, who actively tried to murder their brothers and even their father, and taught their children to do the same to their cousins. The Lamanites hated the Nephites because they were taught that Nephi stole the brass plates (which held genealogy and doctrine) and tried to take the right to rule from his older brothers. I, at least, can understand the logic of that, even if it’s not really what happened according to the Book of Mormon. They were acting on what they knew. It was a lasting blood feud between family, not “oh one group is Not White so they’re bad”. This, besides the fact that the Lehites hailed from Jerusalem. So, Middle Eastern. Also, “filthiness”, from what I can tell, was used as another way to say “unrighteousness”. It’s not that they were literally “dirtier”, as I think many people take it to mean.

When one group was righteous and the other one wasn’t, the righteous group sent missionaries to the other. We use it to justify racism and slavery. There’s also the fact that sometimes the scriptures say that the Lord caused something to happen when really it was more that He let it happen. He didn’t actually harden the Pharaoh’s heart, He just didn’t violate the Pharaoh’s agency to un-harden it. I wonder if the “curse” was something similar.

So all that to say: we should absolutely hold Brigham Young, Ezra Taft Benson, and the others accountable for the harm they did. They were human! And humans are never just good. It’s okay to say “we recognize that these men furthered the Restoration, but they also did and said awful things that are not acceptable.” That’s not disrespecting their roles as prophets, seers, and revelators, it’s ensuring that we don’t conflate their opinions with doctrine. Is it so hard to apologize? To not ignore the pain this caused? But until us and our leaders both start actively working to undo the racism inherent in the system, we’re not going to get anywhere.

[unproduciblesmackdown]

speaking of how anger can be as necessary as any other feeling, can be an appropriate and healthy emotional response, and can be entirely positive, and yet some people will say that anger is always wrong / to be avoided

i shouldve bookmarked it because of course i forget where i found it or who posted it, but yesterday on twitter someone had started a thread talking about how they for years tried to suppress their own anger and avoid conflict whenever they could because they had it pushed on them so strongly from a religious (christian) angle that anger was just like straight up a sin. and then they were asking about other people’s experiences with considering a broad emotional area being off-limits or inexpressible because other ppl were telling them it wasn’t an option. / having an emotional reaction of theirs just being ignored or condemned because frustration or whatever is a sign of not being good enough in whatever way

anyways it reminded me abt the whole christian approach to never expressing anger in the whole misinterpreted “turn the other cheek” thing....its kind of wild the way really christian concepts and ideas can be embedded in these nonreligious aspects of society, and considered to be a “common sense” type of perspective rather than a christian-informed one, and often involves societal/historical factors that altered US christianity which turned around to contribute right back into social/historical spheres...

like, how some kind of puritan-adjacent Moral Living agenda thought up by some dude back in the day and obsessed with asceticism & lack of self-indulgent comforts & definitely-no-masturbation as part of a Health Initiative that was sort of like this US-wheat centric cult. and today we have the breakfast cereal aisle largely in thanks to this one guy and his take on religion

or how the concept of Hard Work has been taken on by industrialized capitalism (especially post-wwii and its never-since-dropped Moral Necessity of time-efficiency above all else) to justify poverty (they deserve it) and worker exploitation (they also deserve it or they’re just lazy and thus deserve even worse poverty) and racism (they deserve it! or should just Hard Work their way out of it!) and sexism (women are paid less because they dont do men’s Hard Work! stay at home moms dont do real Hard Work! working moms arent Working Hard enough if their family work cuts back on the time and attention and energy they can give their paid job) and classism (if you cant Work Hard enough to escape poverty then you deserve the poverty) and ableism (if you cant do the same Hard Work of any other abled person then why are you alive tbh :/) and racist & anti muslim anti immigration (uhhh they both Work Too Hard and keep white people from getting in their Hard Work and also don’t don’t Work Hard Enough & steal from white people’s Hard Work) and you see how it goes........everything

and this whole concept comes from the protestant values of early colonizers......they believed very much in the necessity of the religious value of labor and suffering and self-denial and sort of grim survival and all. harken back to the wheat-worshipping cold-baths don’t-spank-it Cereal Dude.

and then there’s how US christianity was deliberately altered to not only accommodate the idea of a morally acceptable institution of chattel slavery, but to also actually promote it as morally necessary. it censored bible readings of pro-abolitionist passages & censored anyone who would preach against slavery. i think the whole still-existent branch of “southern baptist” churches was created post-abolition as a white refusal to drop the pro-slavery religious stance? and then there’s the ways that white christianity still had to justify segregation to itself, and all the other forms and practices of racism, up to today, and which i should be aware of more concrete examples of how this manifested historically. but like it sure does like continue man

anyways tldr protestant values and perspectives are often conflated with universal/“common sense” ones or outright pushed as core/necessary “american” values, and that’s an important factor to take into consideration when thinking about like, anything, because it’s so far reaching in influence that it’s probably a part of anything you look far enough into. like, again, the cereal guy. no wheaties if not for puritans. would we have chex mix in a universe where the vvitch couldnt be made because what are pilgrims? you crucify one guy and suddenly cheerios are possible because of one weirdo two millenia down the line.

anyways. there’s a lot of factors stemming from christianity that can go beyond technical religious beliefs/practices. seeing as i just complained about how anyone imposing a requirement to completely suppress any feeling or expression of anger is at best, unhealthy, and at worst, unhealthy AND abusive, it seems relevant to take into account people invoking arguments (especially to kids or anyone else over whom they have authority) about anger being an actual Sin. jesus was getting p.o’d all the time, not only about that classic temple shit but also when people interrupted his nap or when he was denied snackage. and that “turn the other cheek” bit was about NOT letting people hit/exploit you. theres no argument for needing to not express anger in order to be properly christian. and the suppression of necessary, justified anger can be used to sustain and support a ton of fucked up and violent and unethical practices then and now so fuck that in all its forms tbh

[mirceakitsune]

To those who think they have enslaved me today

Congratulations humanity: Today (20 January 2021) the American circus known as the inauguration of tooootally legit president Joe Biden took place. Behind tanks and military walls, Biden committed the political equivalent of masturbation by inaugurating himself to himself... with a little help from a few "important" people who were also there, but since they all wore Covidist masks my brain could only make out the NPC ID's rather than names and traits distinguishing them as individuals. A bunch of flags were shoved into the ground where millions of people would normally sit: The citizens by and for which he was allegedly elected couldn't be there for his inauguration, partly after it was discovered they're not citizens at all but mobs of insurrectionists who are invading their own selves! The empty streets and barbwire fences holding that pesky population back did a great job portraying the inauguration of a president voted by the majority... you could clearly see how loved by the people and legitimately elected he was! My only regret is that Lady Gaga was involved in this spectacle: They should have brought in 50 Cent or Justin Bieber, which would have done an even better job portraying the seriousness of the event and the lucidity of the people who rule us. Biden himself broke a new record, being able to read a speech from his laptop for 10 minutes straight without ever stopping and asking "wait... where am I, who are you people".

At this point the ones who radicalized society and sparked a silent civil war are close to gaining absolute power and becoming an American CCP. I'm well aware of what their next step is: They will harass and terrorize everyone who doesn't bow to their ideology and way of life, by painting them as racist Nazi extremists or a danger in other ways, inoculating systematic fear toward them to the masses. That's how over the past years the Democrat party turned most Americans against its political opponents: Obsessively associating Trump with hate while creating a cult of social justice worship which infiltrated every fiber of society. People happily bought it, even most beings I know are affected by this without even realizing something is up. The ruling elite now has a system of radicalization that works perfectly, ready to be used to program the remote-controlled masses against anyone on command.

As of 2020 the existing system is backed by an imaginary deadly pandemic, which now has an imaginary vaccine to accompany it. The infamous virus story was used to double down on what was started using social (in)justice over the last 4 years, further radicalizing people through fear using a new excuse via a secondary system. This one's more convenient since while you can't tell who is a Trump or Biden supporter just by looking at their face, those of us who don't dress up in cult uniforms (A.K.A. wear a mask) can be easily identified as ideological enemies and targeted for dissent... obviously under the cover of esoteric microscopic shenanigans used to proclaim invisible danger, it's definitely not an ideological dangers they truly fear. We're now divided between those who worship COVID-19 (or rather fear of it) and those who are fighting against ruthless slavery and savage efforts to take our lives away from us. We're about to be divided between "the plagued" and "the vaccinated" soon; I have no doubt that those of us who won't respond to the advances of the medical rapists chasing us with syringes are in for a new wave of persecution, applied brutally and systematically in hope of making us break, until we choose to let ourselves be injected with whatever poison those psychopaths created in their labs.

Now do you think it's just pro Trump people, or those who refuse to wear the muzzle made of cloth, who they will come after in the end? To every niche community who is reading this... furries, bronies, vore, etc... never forget those words: Their system will turn on you too! Once they're seen as an obstacle, they'll infiltrate those communities to "correct" them next... or if they can't or it's not worth it, they'll use fear to convince the majority they're evil and must be exterminated for the greater good. What the hell do you think I kept trying to prevent!? Do you imagine their "great empire" of obedient and socially responsible workers has any place for those like us in it?! Look at what Furaffinity, a furry art site that was infiltrated by Antifa and has its TOS written by its extremists, is now doing to artists who draw not just "socially unjust porn" but even stuff like political art under the lie of fighting hate! No... it's not "just them", no community or individual is safe from their control I assure you.

Many of us will resist until the end: They can put 100 Bidens in power... they are nothing to me, they ceased impressing me long ago; My mind has been prepared since an early age for dealing with this sort of thing, I'm a veteran when it comes to this shit! I lived the last years of my childhood waiting to be kidnapped and taken to a reeducation clinic by everyone around me, where I expected to be tied up and subjected to electroshock conversion "therapy" to have my identity erased. Especially once I realized in what danger I was for imagining thoughts forbidden to people under the age of 18 from my young age... were society able to read my mind and notice, I would have been locked away in a mental institute and injected with drugs until I'd be a vegetable today. But I was smart enough to stay silent and escape, they couldn't access my thoughts to know who I am. The same people who couldn't "purge" my identity when I was young are now back in a far more hideous and demented form, coming after us even as adults to do the same thing: Reprogram us to be ideal members of the glorious society they have planned.

All humanity had to do was simple: Put an end to all doctrines and create a neutral and disinterested government, leading to a world that would keep its nose to the pavement and not care about any social issues any more. Why do you think I supported Trump... because I have any love for that conservative fool? I sided with him because he was going to maintain a safe ignorance... no morals, no empathy, no more being forcefully "protected" by disgusting strangers who allegedly care for you or know better than you, no laws censoring people under the pretext of fighting harm, everyone kept in ignorance so we could be safe from their feelings and assumptions. That's why I waited for the army to arrest Biden today and hold a military trial instead of that silly inauguration... sadly they received a new order, he was allowed to carry on with his sham inauguration for reasons beyond me. Now I have a new desire: I'd like to see Trump arrested! For failing to contain the moral plague enslaving society and destroying our freedom, after he promised us the deep state and its social justice would be exposed live for the world to see what they did. He failed to contain humanity's stupid values and protect us from morality... he is of no use to me either, he could not bring us true freedom.

Just one question for the actual tyrant lovers, who will soon flock and regroup under Biden in their attempt to amalgamate us into their responsible world: How's living the socially responsible life really going? Do you enjoy your slavery? Your blind dedication to "muh fellow man"? This self-sacrifice bullshit, a life free of any joy in the name of safety and protection? You have what you wanted: A world where any dream of being happy is demonized because it's dangerous, where certain thoughts are carefully restricted to certain people, where you're the slaves of "experts" who will inform you what you think and feel without you even having to bother to checking your own mind! How long until it will be YOU that breaks? How much servitude can you take before you too will have had it? Or maybe you're so dedicated that you'll slave away until the end... never snapping, not stopping to wonder how sad and boring this life is and how pointless any sacrifice. What would happen if you knew the technology to give you a perfect and safe life exists, while all significant issues society still faces today are man made, most of the time intentionally? I see more violence and crime on the news: People are finally going nuts and losing it, from being locked up and having masks forced onto their faces! How much until it's finally enough, how much pain must they accumulate, how much damage must they cause, how much until the mainstream finally admits it drove everyone there by forcing its madness on us?

I know they want to see me suffer for resisting them, all their governments and secret services do. But the fun thing is, their followers are suffering far more in the end! For I am the one still sitting here up on my throne, from which they couldn't take me down and make me "socially responsible adult" like them nor involve me in their scary fantasies. I live in the real world: A world that has no issues other than some poverty, where racism is a thing of the ancient past and a joke to worry about today, where viruses are a microscopic fantasy... a modern life where anyone can do whatever the hell they want! Just what we would all have if only everyone simply minded their own business and didn't make a big deal about anything. Now that's reality... the reality they renounced in order to worship fear, for no reason other than getting sick of being too happy! I'm laughing at their burden and all the efforts they make for nothing, fighting against things that don't exist... a burden they could let go of anytime, if only they refused to keep accepting all them responsibilities and demand it. How does it feel like to be the fools in the end, just when you thought I was your victim forever? Because while you pull that mask tightly on your little face to protect "your fellow man" from something that's all in your mind, I piss on it all and still live life freely and happily, the life you allowed taken away from you for no reason! Do you hate me for outsmarting you? I definitely don't mind if you do: Hate is all I have left to feed on in a world like this. And I enjoy it even more knowing no one will ever know nor even be able to comprehend the true reasons why I do this.

[nedsecondline]

Jenna Abrams, Russia’s Clown Troll Princess, Duped the Mainstream Media and the World

Jenna Abrams had a lot of enemies on Twitter, but she was a very good friend to viral content writers across the world.

Her opinions about everything from manspreading on the subway to Rachel Dolezal to ballistic missiles still linger on news sites all over the web.

One website devoted an entire article to Abrams’ tweet about Kim Kardashian’s clothes. The story was titled “This Tweeter’s PERFECT Response to Kim K’s Naked Selfie Will Crack You Up.”

“Thank goodness, then, that there are people like Twitter user Jenna Abrams to come to the celebrity’s wardrobe-lacking aide,” reads a Brit & Co. article from March of 2016.

Those same users who followed @Jenn_Abrams for her perfect Kim Kardashian jokes would be blasted with her shoddily punctuated ideas on slavery and segregation just one month later.

“To those people, who hate the Confederate flag. Did you know that the flag and the war wasn’t about slavery, it was all about money,” Abrams’ account tweeted in April of last year.

The tweet went viral, earning heaps of ridicule from journalists, historians, and celebrities alike, then calls for support from far-right users coming to her defense.

That was the plan all along.

Congressional investigators working with social-media companies have since confirmed that Abrams wasn’t who she said she was.

Her account was the creation of employees at the Internet Research Agency, or the Russian government-funded “troll farm,” in St. Petersburg.

Jenna Abrams, the freewheeling American blogger who believed in a return to segregation and said that many of America’s problems stemmed from PC culture run amok, did not exist.

But Abrams got very real attention from almost any national news outlet you can think of, according to a Daily Beast analysis of her online footprint.

Get The Beast In Your Inbox!

Daily Digest

Start and finish your day with the top stories from The Daily Beast.

Cheat Sheet

A speedy, smart summary of all the news you need to know (and nothing you don't).

Subscribe

Thank You!

You are now subscribed to the Daily Digest and Cheat Sheet. We will not share your email with anyone for any reason.

Abrams, who at one point boasted nearly 70,000 Twitter followers, was featured in articles written by Bustle, U.S. News and World Report, USA Today, several local Fox affiliates, InfoWars, BET, Yahoo Sports, Sky News, IJR, Breitbart, The Washington Post, Mashable, New York Daily News, Quartz, Dallas News, France24, HuffPost, The Daily Caller, The Telegraph, CNN, the BBC, Gizmodo, The Independent, The Daily Dot, The Observer, Business Insider, The National Post, Refinery29, The Times of India, BuzzFeed, The Daily Mail, The New York Times, and, of course, Russia Today and Sputnik.

Many of these stories had nothing to do with Russia—or politics at all. Instead, stretching back to 2014, Abrams’ account built up an image of a straight-talking, no-nonsense, viral-tweet-writing young American woman. She was featured in articles as diverse as “the 15 funniest tweets this week” to “#FeministAMovie Proves Why Twitter Can’t Have Nice Things.” Then, once she built her following, she would push divisive views on immigration, segregation, and Donald Trump, especially as the 2016 election loomed.

Abrams’ pervasiveness in American news outlets shows just how much impact Russia’s troll farm had on American discourse in the run-up to the 2016 election—and illustrates how Russian talking points can seep into American mainstream media without even a single dollar spent on advertising.

***

Remnants from some of Abrams’ most elaborate conspiracies and xenophobic opinions still remain in replies from celebrities sparring with—or agreeing with—her account.

Roseanne Barr responded to one of Abrams’ tweets on Feb. 2, 2016, to call a common enemy “pro-pedophile.” Abrams’ tweet earlier in the day about a Saudi Arabian Starbucks went viral, meriting pickup from The Telegraph and Russia Today, and even a response from Starbucks’ corporate Twitter account.

Barr elaborated in a tweet later in the month, saying “dems repubs libertarians indies greens, black white yellow red-all religions” are “#PEDOPHILES.”

Even Michael McFaul, the former U.S. ambassador to Russia and an expert in Russian propaganda, got into a number of Twitter spats with Abrams. McFaul responded to Abrams’ posts in 10 separate months between February of 2015 and August of 2016.

Before they knew the account was run by paid disinformation agents, Abrams’ ahistorical slavery revisionism irked journalists and historians alike.

Al Letson, the host of the Center for Investigative Reporting’s Reveal podcast, received over 65,000 retweets and 153,000 likes when he refuted Abrams’ incorrect Civil War claim.

“It’s much easier to say the Civil War was about money, when your ancestors weren’t the currency,” said Letson, whose tweet is still pinned to the top of his Twitter page.

Historian Kevin Kruse’s quote-tweet of Abrams accrued over 41,000 retweets.

“No, the Civil War was about slavery,” he wrote. “Sincerely, Historians.”

“I responded to the tweet because it echoed an argument I’ve heard many times: that the Civil War was somehow not about slavery, even when the seceding states and the Confederate government made it quite clear, in their own words at the time, that it was entirely about slavery,” Kruse told The Daily Beast.

That argument was echoed once again just this past week, as White House Chief of Staff John Kelly claimed the Civil War was only fought because of “the lack of an ability to compromise.”

Kruse said both Kelly’s thoughts, and the Kremlin-funded viral tweet that preceded it on Abrams’ account, “are deeply at odds with the historical record.”

“The Confederate statues across the South that [Kelly] and others in this administration now defend were a vital part of the ‘Lost Cause’ myth constructed in the early 20th century to obscure the basic truths about the Civil War,” he said.

***

While the the typical image of a Russian troll may be a hastily put together Twitter account blaring out non-stop political messages, Abrams’ account went to great lengths to simulate a real, American person who existed outside of Twitter fights and amplifying racist disinformation.

Her Twitter account was created back in 2014. She had a personal website, a Medium page, her own Gmail, and even a GoFundMe page.

When The Daily Beast attempted to email Jenna’s email address, [email protected] (“Yes, there are 3 Ns,” her Twitter bio read), an automatic reply from Google stated that the “account that you tried to reach is disabled.” Google refused to comment when asked if the company had pulled the account for its ties to the Kremlin troll farm.

One of Abrams’ earliest media mentions came well before the 2016 election, in a June 2015 BBC article that aggregated Twitter users’ feelings about women choosing not to shave their armpits. Later that year, British newspaper The Telegraph picked up one of her Twitter jokes about punctuation.

But in the run-up to Election Day, Abrams’ account, and the people who were in control of it, became much more political.

In September 2016, Abrams wrote a now-removed Medium post titled “Why do we need to get back to segregation.”

“Humanity has gone full circle. Never mind how many activists of any color died to get rid of segregation, and fought for inclusion, black people want it back. 100% free people made their choice, and their choice is segregation,” Abrams wrote.

She also posted a summary of former FBI Director James Comey’s public testimony, writing “Comey admitted Hillary is a liar,” plus a picture of black and green olives, mocking the Black Lives Matter movement. CNN subsequently picked up the photo.

This sort of content seemed to become Abrams’ niche, and it tended to accrue the most replies and shares.

Abrams’ Confederate flag tweet was one of her most viewed posts, with a slew of journalists, commentators, and other high-profile Twitter users catapulting Abrams’ rhetoric to new heights. Even if those users were attempting to engage or argue against Abrams’ views, they likely did not know that, in fact, these were manufactured opinions of a Russian manipulation factory.

When Abrams joined in with an anti-Clinton hashtag, The Washington Post included her tweet in its own coverage. One outlet used an image of a terrorist attack sourced from Abrams’ Twitter feed.

As The Daily Beast reported on Wednesday, Michael Flynn Jr. retweeted Abrams at least once to his 30,000+ followers shortly before the election.

Still, Abrams went to great lengths to tell most people that she was not a Trump supporter, just a real person with an email address who wanted Americans to send her a message.

“Calm down, I’m not pro-Trump. I am pro-common sense,” Abrams’ biography read on Twitter. “Any offers/ideas/questions?”

***

The Twitter user Ironghazi couldn’t remember what Jenna Abrams wrote in April that made him pose as a news reporter so he could call her a “dumbass moron,” but he knows whoever wrote it was pretty vacant.

“If she got the ‘Hi, I’m Ironghazi from (CBS News)’ treatment, she must’ve been [a moron],” he told The Daily Beast.

It was Abrams’ Civil War tweet that prompted this reply from Ironghazi, which racked up over 1,000 retweets and 5,600 likes:

“Hi Jenn, I’m a reporter with CBS News and I’m doing a story on dumbass morons,” it reads. “Do you mind if I feature your tweet and avatar?”

Ironghazi, who declined to give his real name for this story because “when you make people mad online, they tend to try to find you for some reason,” is a notorious Twitter troll in his own right. In his most viral tweet, he shrank every continent with Photoshop to make them fit inside a map of the USA so he could illustrate “just how vast our great nation is.”

In other words, one of Twitter’s most infamous American trolls had been out-trolled by a state-sponsored Russian influence operation.

Now, over a year later, he says he didn’t suspect a thing. From one troll to another, Ironghazi thought Jenna Abrams, the sometimes funny, often stupid, always angry American, was a natural.

“The key to being a good troll is being just stupid enough to be believable, keeping in mind that the ultimate goal is making people mad online,” he said. “To that end, this Jed Abraham account succeeded.” He then clarified that the misspelling of Abrams’ name was intentional.

[deniscollins]

Few in St. Louis Knew Confederate Memorial Existed. Now, Many Want It Gone.

If you were a business executive advising the mayor of St. Louise, who is considering spending $130,000 to remove a 32-foot-tall granite column honoring Confederate soldiers, which argument would you support: (1) remove the statue because it honors traitors to the union and racists, or (2) allow the statue to remain as it represents soldiers who died defending their state’s pre-Civil War history? Why? What are the ethics underlying your decision?

The angry, divisive fight over public symbols of the Confederacy has swept through Columbia, S.C., Birmingham, Ala., and New Orleans. This week, the debate made its way some 600 miles north, up the Mississippi River, to St. Louis, the home of a Confederate memorial many residents did not know was in their midst.

Here in a graceful public park stands this city’s own grand monument to the Confederacy, a 32-foot-tall granite column adorned with an angel and bronze sculpture of a stoic group of figures. It rises in a thicket of trees, next to a trail teeming with runners, bicyclists and wanderers.

Many residents said that until very recently, they had no idea that the 103-year-old memorial honored Confederate soldiers.

“Not till they started making all that hoopla over it,” said Larry Randall, 54, who was setting off on a bike ride one afternoon this week in front of the memorial.

“I’ve been coming out here for years. I never paid it no mind.”

Mr. Randall, who is African-American, said he understood why some people are now calling for it to be removed. “If it’s causing problems, then they should get rid of it. Or maybe just polish the words off,” he said. “I could give a hoot.”

This monument has emerged from obscurity in the last few weeks, as four prominent memorials to the Confederacy and its aftermath in New Orleans were pulled down amid protests. The debate has rippled across the South. On Wednesday, Gov. Kay Ivey of Alabama signed a measure that blocked the “relocation, removal, alteration, renaming or other disturbance” of “architecturally significant” monuments that have been on public property for at least 40 years.

In Hampton, Ga., a museum said on its Facebook page that it would close next week after a county official asked that it remove all Confederate flags from its building.

Here, a vocal group of activists has turned its attention to this city’s Confederate Memorial, arguing that it, too, should be carted away, out of its prominent place in Forest Park, one of the most beloved public spaces in St. Louis.

The antimonument activists have a powerful lineup of city officials on their side, including Lyda Krewson, the newly elected mayor of St. Louis, who said that she favored removing the Confederate Memorial from the park permanently.

“My own opinion is that it is hurtful,” Ms. Krewson, who is white, said in an interview on Thursday. “It reveres something that, you know, we’re not proud of.”

Tishaura O. Jones, the city treasurer, started a GoFundMe page to raise money for the monument’s removal. In about a week, she has gathered more than $11,000.

She passes the memorial during her weekly drive to the grocery store, usually with her 9-year-old son in tow. “What I’m trying to do is set the record straight,” she said. “The Confederates, in my opinion, were traitors. And in this country, we honor patriots.”

Other St. Louisans are resisting the move, arguing that removing it would be tantamount to blotting out the history of the Civil War. Some have said that the enormous monument is too heavy and expensive to move, particularly when it doesn’t have an obvious new home. Still others say that the monument has rarely attracted attention for more than a century — why should St. Louis be caught up in a debate that, in their view, belongs to the Deep South?

“My first choice would be that everyone forget it was there, like before,” said George Stair, 77, who paused at the monument on an evening walk with his wife, Jane Yu, who agreed that it should stay.

Mr. Stair gazed at the sculpture. “I feel like it’s O.K. to honor ordinary soldiers,” he said. “People went to Vietnam even though they didn’t agree with it.”

Missouri, once a slave state, was torn between North and South during the Civil War, a border state where families and neighbors sympathized with warring sides and were often pitted against one another.

“It was a divided state, which explains why we have so many of these problems here today,” said Mark L. Trout, the executive director of the Missouri Civil War Museum outside St. Louis. (Mr. Trout said his museum would be happy to accept the memorial as a gift, though he did not have a place for it to be displayed at the moment.)

Divisions over the Confederate Memorial turned especially sharp this week, when demonstrators calling for its removal gathered in the park on Tuesday evening. They were joined by a handful of counter-protesters, men who told reporters that they were from outside St. Louis and who carried a Confederate flag.

One opponent of the statue, Amy Maxwell, said that people from both groups were carrying handguns, and at one point someone snatched the Confederate flag and ran off, instigating a chase from the pro-monument group.

Sometime during the night, the monument was spray-painted in blue with the phrases “This is treason” and “Black lives matter.” Workers were seen on Wednesday morning removing the words.

Out for a run on Wednesday, Ms. Maxwell, a 22-year-old student at Saint Louis University, paused in front of the memorial, stepped around the metal barriers and spat on it.

Ms. Maxwell, who is white, said she planned to demonstrate every week until it is removed. “It would be nice to have some black abolitionists memorialized in this city.”

Dorothy Bohnenkamp, 51, a psychotherapist who was born and raised in St. Louis, was taking her usual run in the park on Wednesday, directly past the memorial.

She said she had rarely given the monument a thought until recently, when it appeared in the news, and was not cheering for its removal.

“Personally, I don’t see where it represents anything specifically related to racism,” Ms. Bohnenkamp, who is black, said. “So they take it down. What does that represent? It’s still the same history.”

Ms. Krewson, the mayor, said she would like to act quickly, drawing up a plan for removal within the next three weeks. She has seen cost estimates of close to $130,000, and envisions using a mix of public and private money for the project.

For now, the memorial has become an object of curiosity in the park. Passers-by stopped to inspect the monument, snapped cellphone pictures and traced their fingers over the worn and stained surface.

Ayana Parker, 12, was exercising with her mother, Shalonda Bolden, in the park when they paused to read the lettering on the memorial.

“It’s nice that it’s honoring soldiers,” Ayana said. Her mother gently explained that the memorial was honoring Confederate soldiers in particular.

“It’s for the people who wanted to keep slavery?” Ayana said, her eyes returning to the monument. She grew quiet. “Oh.”

Ms. Bolden said she didn’t believe the memorial should be destroyed. “They should put it in a museum so people can get an explanation of what it is,” she said. “It just shouldn’t be here.”