I noticed a very interesting trend in recent days.

Kenneth “Russians bombed the last hospital in Aleppo” Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch:

Trump spends Day One denying the photographic evidence. His inauguration crowd (left) versus Obama's in 2009 (right) https://t.co/y626lRVNnW pic.twitter.com/bhT0NbBiM5 — Kenneth Roth (@KenRoth) January 22, 2017

Julia “people who disagree with me are cattle” Ioffe, professional Soviet refugee and Ivanka Trump’s secret admirer:

"The claim that this is the largest ever is ludicrous on its face.” https://t.co/s25J5kb0QY — Julia Ioffe (@juliaioffe) January 22, 2017

The New York Times:

Comparing the crowds at Donald Trump’s and Barack Obama’s inaugurations https://t.co/U4dIVzCKbH pic.twitter.com/zf8hxVDMpO — The New York Times (@nytimes) January 20, 2017

It’s like they’re all working from the same script: Nobody came out to support the Kremlin puppet Trump, while a true “march of the millions” came out against him.

There’s just one problem: It’s all #FAKENEWS.

And it’s not like a new invention or anything. To the contrary, its been a staple of the color revolution handbook from the Arab world to Ukraine and Russia – which has now made its way to America.

For instance, back during the 2012 protests against the Kremlin, the single biggest demonstration was actually *in support of* Putin – the Anti-Orange Meeting at Poklonnaya Gora, February 4th.

But you’d have never learned that from the Western media:

Whereas the opposition’s 100,000+ attendance figures are mostly taken at face value, the same favour is rarely extended to pro-Kremlin ones, on the few occasions they are mentioned at all. For instance, the Anti-Orange Meeting on February 4 at Poklonnaya had a densely packed crowd about 200-300 meters wide, and stretching more than half a kilometer into the distance; according to calculations by the geodesic engineer Nikolai Pomeshchenko, there were around 80,000 people there. But the most quoted figure in the Western press was 20,000, which Patrick Armstrong tracked down to a single AP article which was shamelessly copied by outlets as diverse as The Guardian, FOX, and Salon. Does this photo look like 20,000 to you? Who are you going to believe, AP or your lying eyes? (But I guess that’s still marginally better than Le Parisien, which tried to pass off Poklonnaya as an anti-Putin rally). In contrast, there is a distinct lack of any critical questioning of figures issued by the opposition. Again, let’s ask Pomeshchenko: Using spatio-mathematical methods, he estimated opposition protests of 60,000 on December 10 (at Bolotnaya), 56,000+ on December 24 (at Prospekt Sakharova), and 62,000 on February 4 (again, at Bolotnaya). They are intuitively reliable, being halfway between the estimates of the police and the opposition, both of which have a dog in the fight.

There are a variety of ways to “delegitimize” a globalist-disapproved politician using the crowd numbers game. The tried and true method is just understating attendance at meetings in his support, such as by emphasizing photos taken from unflattering angles, or early in the morning before the main mass of people had shown up. Meetings and protests against him should of course be amped up as much as possible (though within reason; you don’t want to be too blatant about it, especially now that you’ve so conveniently sown the “fake news” meme).

More “advanced” methods, which we might well see in the not too distance future, is to photograph concentrations of nearby buses or other mass transit vehicles as “proof” that the bad guy’s supporters, who are all brainwashed alcoholics anyway (substitute with “opiate addicts” for the Trump Edition), were all transported in on pain of losing their jobs. Extra points if this is projection of your own behavior!

That the globalists would adopt the same dirty tricks against Trump, apart from demonstrating that they are really SEETHING MAD at this turn of events, also hints are something interesting.

And by “hints” I mean it has Soros’ grubby claws all over it.

Let’s have a Muslim feminist from the New York Times, someone far less deplorable than myself, flesh out this outrageous conspiracy theory:

The Guardian has touted the “Women’s March on Washington” as a “spontaneous” action for women’s rights. Another liberal media outlet, Vox, talks about the “huge, spontaneous groundswell” behind the march. On its website, organizers of the march are promoting their work as “a grassroots effort” with “independent” organizers. Even my local yoga studio, Beloved Yoga, is renting a bus and offering seats for $35. The march’s manifesto says magnificently, “The Rise of the Woman = The Rise of the Nation.” It’s an idea that I, a liberal feminist, would embrace. But I know — and most of America knows — that the organizers of the march haven’t put into their manifesto: the march really isn’t a “women’s march.” It’s a march for women who are anti-Trump. … By my draft research, which I’m opening up for crowd-sourcing on GoogleDocs, Soros has funded, or has close relationships with, at least 56 of the march’s “partners,” including “key partners” Planned Parenthood, which opposes Trump’s anti-abortion policy, and the National Resource Defense Council, which opposes Trump’s environmental policies. The other Soros ties with “Women’s March” organizations include the partisan MoveOn.org (which was fiercely pro-Clinton), the National Action Network (which has a former executive director lauded by Obama senior advisor Valerie Jarrett as “a leader of tomorrow” as a march co-chair and another official as “the head of logistics”). Other Soros grantees who are “partners” in the march are the American Civil Liberties Union, Center for Constitutional Rights, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. March organizers and the organizations identified here haven’t yet returned queries for comment.

It’s a very, very familiar script that has at long last made its way back to its original homeland.