Friday, January 6, 2023

The Spies Who Loved Twitter

 From FBI to DNI the DNI to "OGA," the full thread on Twitter and its intelligence partners

Twitter Files Thread: The Spies Who Loved Twitter

Matt Taibbi
Dec 25, 2022

1. THREAD: The Twitter Files

TWITTER AND "OTHER GOVERNMENT AGENCIES"

2. After weeks of “Twitter Files” reports, the FBI issued a statement Wednesday. It didn’t refute allegations. Instead, it decried “conspiracy theorists” publishing “misinformation,” whose “sole aim” is to “discredit the agency.”

3.    They must think us unambitious, if our “sole aim” is to discredit the FBI. After all, a whole range of government agencies discredit themselves in the #TwitterFiles. Why stop with one?

4. The files show the FBI acting as doorman to a vast program of social media surveillance and censorship, encompassing agencies across the federal government – from the State Department to the Pentagon to the CIA.

5. The operation is far bigger than the reported 80 members of the Foreign Influence Task Force (FITF), which also facilitates requests from a wide array of smaller actors - from local cops to media to state government.

6.  Thousands upon thousands of official “reports” flowed through the FITF and the FBI’s San Francisco field office.

7. On June 29th, 2020, San Francisco FBI agent Elvis Chan wrote to pair of Twitter execs asking if he could invite an “OGA” to an upcoming NGO-sponsored conference:

8. OGA, or “Other Government Organization,” is often a euphemism for CIA, and according to multiple former intelligence officials and contractors.

9. Chuckles one: “They use it to seem mysterious to outsiders.”

10. “Other Government Agency (the place where I worked for 27 years),” says retired CIA officer Ray McGovern.

11. It was an open secret at Twitter that one of its executives was ex-CIA, which is why Chan referred to that executive’s “former employer.”

12. The first Twitter executive abandons all pretense to stealth and emails that the employee “used to work for the CIA, so that is Elvis’s question.”

13. Senior legal executive Stacia Cardille, who had good op-sec by Twitter standards, replies, “I know” and “I thought my silence was understood.”

14. Cardille then passes on conference details to recently-hired ex-FBI lawyer Jim Baker.

15. “I invited the FBI and the CIA virtually will attend too,” Cardille says to Baker, casually adding: “No need for you to attend.”

16 . The government was in constant contact not just with Twitter but with virtually every major tech firm.

17. These included Facebook, Microsoft, Verizon, Reddit, even Pinterest, and many others.

18. One of the most common forums was a regular meeting of the multi-agency Foreign Influence Task Force (FITF), attended by spates of executives, FBI personnel, and – nearly always – one or two attendees marked “OGA.”

19. The FITF meeting agendas virtually always included, at or near the beginning, an “OGA briefing,” usually about foreign matters (hold that thought).

20. Despite its official remit being “Foreign Influence,” the FITF and the SF FBI office became conduit for mountains of domestic moderation requests, from state governments, even local police:

21. Many requests arrived via Teleporter, a one-way platform in which many communications were timed to vanish:

22. Especially as the election approached in 2020, the FITF/FBI overwhelmed Twitter with requests, sending spreadsheets with hundreds of accounts:

23. Email after email came from the San Francisco office heading into the election, often adorned with an Excel attachment:

24. There were so many government requests, Twitter employees had to improvise a system for prioritizing/triaging them:

25. The FBI was clearly tailoring searches to Twitter’s policies. FBI requests were almost always phrased as “possible terms of service violation” somewhere, even in the subject line:

26. Twitter executives noticed the FBI appeared to be assigning personnel to look for Twitter violations.

27. “They have some folks in the Baltimore field office and at HQ that are just doing keyword searches for violations. This is probably the 10th request I have dealt with in the last 5 days,” remarked Cardille.

28. Even ex-FBI lawyer Jim Baker agreed: “Odd that they are searching for violations of our policies.”

29. Although so much of this activity was domestic, “Foreign meddling” had been the ostensible justification for expanded moderation since platforms like Twitter were dragged to the Hill by the Senate in 2017:

30. Yet behind the scenes, Twitter executives struggled against government claims of foreign interference, on their platform and others:

31. The #TwitterFiles show execs under constant pressure to validate theories of foreign influence – and unable to find evidence for key assertions.

32. “Found no links to Russia,” says one analyst, but suggests he could “brainstorm” to “find a stronger connection.”

33. “Extremely tenuous circumstantial chance of being related,” says another.

34. “No real matches using the info,” says former Trust and Safety chief Yoel Roth in another case, noting some links were “clearly Russian,” but another was a “house rental in South Carolina?”

35. In another case, Roth concludes a series of Venezuelan pro-Maduro accounts are unrelated to Russia’s Internet Research Agency, because they’re too high-volume:

36. The Venezuelans “were extremely high-volume tweeters… pretty uncharacteristic of a lot of the other IRA activity,” Roth says.

37. In a key email, news that the State Department is making a wobbly public assertion of Russian influence leads an exec – the same one with the “OGA” past - to make a damning admission:

38. “Due to a lack of technical evidence on our end, I've generally left it be, waiting for more evidence,” he says. “Our window on that is closing, given that government partners are becoming more aggressive on attribution.”

Translation: the “more aggressive” “government partners” had closed Twitter’s “window” of independence.

39. “Other Government Agencies” ended up sharing intelligence through the FBI and FITF not just with Twitter, but with Yahoo!, Twitch, Clouldfare, LinkedIn, even Wikimedia:

40. CIA whistleblower John Kiriakou believes these reports found in the #TwitterFiles are written by his former agency.

41. “Looks right on to me,” Kiriakou says, noting that “what was cut off above [the “tearline”] was the originating CIA office and all the copied offices.”

These reports are far more factually controversial than domestic counterparts.

42. One intel report lists accounts tied to “Ukraine ‘neo-Nazi’ Propaganda.’” This includes assertions that Joe Biden helped orchestrate a coup in 2014 and “put his son on the board of Burisma.”

43. Another report asserts a list of accounts accusing the “Biden administration” of “corruption” in vaccine distribution are part of a Russian influence campaign:

44. Often intelligence comes in the form of brief reports, followed by long lists of accounts deemed to be pro-Maduro, pro-Cuba, pro-Russia, etc: This batch contained over 1000 accounts sentenced to the digital beyond:

45. One report says a site “documenting purported rights abuses committed by Ukrainians” is directed by Russian agents:

46. Intel about the origin of these accounts might be true. But so might the information in them – about neo-Nazis, or rights abuses in Donbas, etc.

47, This is a difficult speech dilemma. Should the government be allowed to try to prevent Americans (and others) from seeing pro-Maduro or anti-Ukrainian accounts?

48. Often intel reports are just long lists of newspapers, tweets or YouTube videos guilty of “anti-Ukraine narratives”:

49. Sometimes - not always -Twitter and YouTube blocked the accounts. But now we know for sure what Roth meant by “the Bureau (and by extension the IC).”

50. The line between “misinformation” and “distorting propaganda” is thin. Are we comfortable with so many companies receiving so many reports from a “more aggressive” government?

51. The CIA declined to comment on the nature of its relationship to tech companies like Twitter. Watch @bariweiss, @shellenbergerMD, @lhfang, and this space for more, on issues ranging from Covid-19 to Twitter's relationship to congress, and more.


The US Democrats are a party of war !

Democrats position themselves as the party of virtue, cloaking their support for the war industry in moral language stretching back to Korea and Vietnam, when President Ngo Dinh Diem was as lionized as Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

Chris Hedges: Democrats Are a Party of War
By Chris Hedges
ScheerPost
Dec 26, 2022

All the wars they support and fund are “good” wars. All the enemies they fight, the latest being Russia’s Vladimir Putin and China’s Xi Jinping, are incarnations of evil. The photo of a beaming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Vice President Kamala Harris holding up a signed Ukrainian battle flag behind Zelensky as he addressed Congress last Wednesday was another example of the Democratic Party’s abject subservience to the war machine.

The Democrats, especially with the presidency of Bill Clinton, became shills not only for corporate America but for the weapons manufacturers and the Pentagon. No weapons system is too costly. No war, no matter how disastrous, goes unfunded. No military budget is too big, including the $858 billion in military spending allocated for the current fiscal year, an increase of $45 billion above what the Biden administration requested.

The historian Arnold Toynbee cited unchecked militarism as the fatal disease of empires, arguing that they ultimately commit suicide. 

There once was a wing of the Democratic Party that questioned and stood up to the war industry: Senators J. William Fulbright, George McGovern, Gene McCarthy, Mike Gravel, William Proxmire and House member Dennis Kucinich. But that opposition evaporated along with the antiwar movement.

When 30 members of the party’s progressive caucus recently issued a call for Biden to negotiate with Putin, they were forced by the party leadership and a warmongering media to back down and rescind their letter. Not that any of them, with the exception of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, have voted against the billions of dollars in weaponry sent to Ukraine or the bloated military budget. Rashida Tlaib voted present.

The opposition to the perpetual funding of the war in Ukraine has come primarily from Republicans, 11 in the Senate and 57 in the House, several, such as Marjorie Taylor Greene, unhinged conspiracy theorists. Only nine Republicans in the House joined the Democrats in supporting the $1.7 trillion spending bill needed to prevent the government from shutting down, which included approval of $847 billion for the military.

The total is boosted to $858 billion when factoring in accounts that don’t fall under the Armed Services committees’ jurisdiction. In the Senate, 29 Republicans opposed the spending bill. The Democrats, including nearly all 100 members of the House Congressional Progressive Caucus, lined up dutifully for endless war.

This lust for war is dangerous, pushing us into a potential war with Russia and, perhaps later, with China — each a nuclear power. It is also economically ruinous. The monopolization of capital by the military has driven U.S. debt to over $30 trillion, $6 trillion more than the U.S. GDP of $24 trillion. Servicing this debt costs $300 billion a year.

The U.S. spends more on the military than the next nine countries, including China and Russia, combined. Congress is also on track to provide an extra $21.7 billion to the Pentagon — above the already expanded annual budget — to resupply Ukraine.

“But those contracts are just the leading edge of what is shaping up to be a big new defense buildup,” The New York Times reported. “Military spending next year is on track to reach its highest level in inflation-adjusted terms since the peaks in the costs of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars between 2008 and 2011, and the second highest in inflation-adjusted terms since World War II — a level that is more than the budgets for the next 10 largest cabinet agencies combined.”

Surrender

The Democratic Party, which, under the Clinton administration aggressively courted corporate donors, has surrendered its willingness to challenge, however tepidly, the war industry.

“As soon as the Democratic Party made a determination, it could have been 35 or 40 years ago, that they were going to take corporate contributions, that wiped out any distinction between the two parties,” Dennis Kucinich said when I interviewed him on my show for The Real News Network. “Because in Washington, he or she who pays the piper plays the tune. That’s what’s happened. There isn’t that much of a difference in terms of the two parties when it comes to war.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b079rbpYIzU

In his 1970 book The Pentagon Propaganda Machine, Fulbright describes how the Pentagon and the arms industry pour millions into shaping public opinion through public relations campaigns, Defense Department films, control over Hollywood and domination of the commercial media. Military analysts on cable news are universally former military and intelligence officials who sit on boards or work as consultants to defense industries, a fact they rarely disclose to the public.

Barry R. McCaffrey, a retired four-star army general and military analyst for NBC News, was also an employee of Defense Solutions, a military sales and project management firm. He, like most of these shills for war, personally profited from the sales of the weapons systems and expansion of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

On the eve of every congressional vote on the Pentagon budget, lobbyists from businesses tied to the war industry meet with Congress members and their staff to push them to vote for the budget to protect jobs in their district or state. This pressure, coupled with the mantra amplified by the media that opposition to profligate war funding is unpatriotic, keeps elected officials in bondage. These politicians also depend on the lavish donations from the weapons manufacturers to fund their campaigns.

Seymour Melman, in his book Pentagon Capitalism, documented the way militarized societies destroy their domestic economies. Billions are spent on the research and development of weapons systems while renewable energy technologies languish. Universities are flooded with military-related grants while they struggle to find money for environmental studies and the humanities.

Bridges, roads, levees, rail, ports, electric grids, sewage treatment plants and drinking water infrastructures are structurally deficient and antiquated. Schools are in disrepair and lack sufficient teachers and staff. Unable to stem the COVID-19 pandemic, the for-profit health care industry forces families, including those with insurance, into bankruptcy. Domestic manufacturing, especially with the offshoring of jobs to China, Vietnam, Mexico and other nations, collapses. Families are drowning in personal debt, with 63 percent of Americans living paycheck to paycheck. The poor, the mentally ill, the sick and the unemployed are abandoned.

Melman, who coined the term “permanent war economy,” noted that since the end of the Second World War, the federal government has spent more than half its discretionary budget on past, current and future military operations. It is the largest single sustaining activity of the government. The military-industrial establishment is nothing more than gilded corporate welfare.

Military systems are sold before they are produced. Military industries are permitted to charge the federal government for huge cost overruns.

Massive profits are guaranteed. For example, this November, the Army awarded Raytheon Technologies alone more than $2 billion in contracts, on top of over $190 million awarded in August, to deliver missile systems to expand or replenish weapons sent to Ukraine.

Despite a depressed market for most other businesses, stock prices of Lockheed and Northrop Grumman have risen by more than 36 and 50 percent this year.

Militarizing Tech Giants

Tech giants, including Amazon, which supplies surveillance and facial recognition software to the police and F.B.I., have been absorbed into the permanent war economy. Amazon, Google, Microsoft and Oracle were awarded multibillion-dollar cloud computing contracts for the Joint Warfighting Cloud Capability and are eligible to receive $9 billion in Pentagon contracts to provide the military with “globally available cloud services across all security domains and classification levels, from the strategic level to the tactical edge,” through mid-2028.

Foreign aid is given to countries such as Israel, with more than $150 billion in bilateral assistance since its founding in 1948, or Egypt, which has received over $80 billion since 1978 — aid that requires foreign governments to buy weapons systems from the U.S. The U.S. public funds the research, development and building of weapons systems and purchases them for foreign governments.

Such a  circular system mocks the idea of a free-market economy. These weapons soon become obsolete and are replaced by updated and usually more costly weapons systems. It is, in economic terms, a dead end. It sustains nothing but the permanent war economy.

“The truth of the matter is that we’re in a heavily militarized society driven by greed, lust for profit, and wars are being created just to keep fueling that,” Kucinich told me.

In 2014, the U.S. backed a coup in Ukraine that installed a government that included neo-Nazis and was antagonistic to Russia. The coup triggered a civil war when the ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine, the Donbass, sought to secede from the country, resulting in over 14,000 people dead and nearly 150,000 displaced, before Russia invaded in February.

The Russian invasion of Ukraine, according to Jacques Baud, a former NATO security advisor who also worked for Swiss intelligence, was instigated by the escalation of Ukraine’s war on the Donbass. It also followed the Biden administration’s rejection of proposals sent by the Kremlin in late 2021, which might have averted Russia’s invasion the following year.

This invasion has led to widespread U.S. and E.U. sanctions on Russia, which have boomeranged onto Europe. Inflation ravages Europe with the sharp curtailment of shipments of Russian oil and gas. Industry, especially in Germany, is crippled.  In most of Europe, it is a winter of shortages, spiraling prices and misery.

“This whole thing is blowing up in the face of the West,” Kucinich warned. “We forced Russia to pivot to Asia, as well as Brazil, India, China, South Africa and Saudi Arabia. There’s a whole new world being formed. The catalyst of it is the misjudgment that occurred about Ukraine and the effort to try to control Ukraine in 2014 that most people aren’t aware of.”

By not opposing a Democratic Party whose primary business is war, liberals become the sterile, defeated dreamers in Fyodor Dostoevsky’s Notes from the Underground. A former convict, Dostoevsky did not fear evil. He feared a society that no longer had the moral fortitude to confront evil. And war, to steal a line from my latest book, is the greatest evil.

- - -
Chris Hedges is a Pulitzer Prize–winning journalist who was a foreign correspondent for 15 years for The New York Times, where he served as the Middle East bureau chief and Balkan bureau chief for the paper. He previously worked overseas for The Dallas Morning News, The Christian Science Monitor and NPR.  He is the host of show “The Chris Hedges Report.”

Author’s Note to Readers: There is now no way left for me to continue to write a weekly column for ScheerPost and produce my weekly television show without your help. The walls are closing in, with startling rapidity, on independent journalism, with the elites, including the Democratic Party elites, clamoring for more and more censorship. Bob Scheer, who runs ScheerPost on a shoestring budget, and I will not waiver in our commitment to independent and honest journalism, and we will never put ScheerPost behind a paywall, charge a subscription for it, sell your data or accept advertising. Please, if you can, sign up at chrishedges.substack.com so I can continue to post my Monday column on ScheerPost and produce my weekly television show, The Chris Hedges Report.

The most insane piece of vaccine propaganda ever seen

Recapping two very strange years and the brighter future that awaits

What Was the Most Insane Piece of Vaccine Propaganda You've Seen?

A Midwestern Doctor
Jan 1, 2023

Cultures periodically find themselves in collective psychoses. Some like Tulip mania (where tulip flowers became the most valuable commodity in existence) in retrospect are rather comical, while others like the Salem witch trials and the earlier medieval witch hunts are quite horrifying.

The idea of burning of witches alive has permeated quite deeply into the collective consciousness of our culture. My medical practice tends to draw critical thinkers who question narratives, and quite a few female patients have told me they remember (e.g., due to a past life regression) that they had been a witch who was burned at the stake for their heretical beliefs.

The subject of witch hunts has been on my mind recently after I discovered one of the world’s leading vaccine proponents who advocates for campaigns for censoring any questions of the narrative is a fan of a priest who oversaw the Salem Witch Trials. This admiration was a result of that priest also being one of the first (and hated) proponents of mandatory vaccination.

I have a friend who had a spiritual awakening that allowed him to survive the Rwandan Genocide (one of the best contemporary examples of how bloodthirsty humans can become) while everyone around him died. Another colleague who has been fighting the mandates recently spoke with a survivor of the Rwandan genocide who left him with a very powerful message: the killing didn’t really start until the government got behind it and let everyone know it was ok to butcher their neighbors.

One of the things that has been so concerning about the pandemic has been the government stepping across that critical line to encourage violence against its own citizens (which the mainstream media has been all too happy to egg on).

Most recently, we had the World Health Organization put this out:

These types of actions are completely unacceptable in any type of Democratic society. A few of us were inspired to spend the holidays crafting responses to it, since if these lies go unchecked, they can lead to very bad things very quickly, like those observed in the totalitarian regimes of the 20th century.

One of the best ways to combat evil is through comedy. Fortunately, when societies become sufficiently insane, you don’t have to do anything besides highlight is already being said (one well-known Twitter account came to prominence for doing just that), and the insanity is often widely recognized after it has passed.

One of my favorite examples where this is now widely recognized was the medical professions attitudes towards smoking, which has gone from something they aggressively promoted for their sponsors to something they resolutely oppose.

Tess shared a few other classic examples here.

There were a few red flags with COVID-19 that informed me the vaccines would turn into a disaster. One was that their publicity campaign was the most aggressive public relations effort I had seen in my lifetime — every single stop that could be pulled out to sell a product was. This suggested that widespread public resistance would mount against their use once the adverse reactions became apparent, that mandates would be necessary to vaccinate the rest of the population, and that those mandates would be justified by the percentage of the population which had already been vaccinated due to falling for the previous PR campaign.

Because of this, I decided to collect some of the most memorable pieces of propaganda, so that once the gross malfeasance that allowed the vaccines to be approved became known, like the previous smoking example, they could serve as a lesson to future generations being targeted by similar predatory business practices.

Trashy Advertisements

Because the government spent at least a billion dollars to promote these vaccines across every media platform, it was inevitable some pretty trashy promotions would occur. One of the most well known examples was from this late night talk show.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSkFyNVtNh8

Stephen Colbert sadly was not the only one to create trashy musicals to promote these poisons:

As you would imagine, music videos were also created:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oH6dCTtgxbY

“This ain’t eugenics, uh uh, no way”….I don’t even know what to say here.

There were also a few more professionally made produced music videos aimed at marketing the vaccines as the miraculous solution to everything we had just been put through.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5OA1bo1h9g

The entertainment industry did everything they could to promote the vaccines, so not surprisingly, celebrities also got on the bandwagon:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7TarriXFME

Benefit concerts to help vaccinate the world were also conducted.

Some of the most trashy campaigns (which fortunately raised more concerns about the vaccines than it persuaded to take them) were the vaccine lotteries seen across the country.

Another trashy campaign came from the Mayor of Chicago:

Joints for jabs also briefly became a national phenomena:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WpxTPw5S90

The story above can be found here.


Sleazy Advertising:

Sex sells, so it was not surprising human relationships would be targeted throughout the pandemic.

Health authorities around the world also gave far more ridiculous advice throughout the pandemic regarding social distancing during physical intimacy, that to this day, I am still a bit in disbelief they promoted.

I’m almost sad I never got this message for Valentine’s day.

One of the many of vaccine side effects I’ve repeatedly come across is erectile dysfunction which I believe is a result of the micro-clotting they cause.

This really happened. Others were even more direct:

Vaccination Instead of Health

Years ago, I read a book that argued all successful ideologies must market themselves with messages that were universally persuasive. The two messages that fulfill that criteria are:

•You are special.

•Everything that is wrong with your life is not your fault.

I generally agree with that author’s argument, although as the previous section shows, you can also make the case that a sexual or financial appeal comes close to being a universal persuasion. Everyone I’ve spoken to believes around 90% of the population is susceptible to universal persuasions (the 3-10% that prioritize thinking critically instead want things that make sense and feel genuine).

Note: One of the sad thing I’ve observed with people in medicine, and particularly within public health is that their focus of reality becomes so narrowed that mass vaccination (and similar interventions like water fluoridation) are seen as the sole determinants of health. Because of this, I often see these people continually freaking out over vaccine hesitancy and quite literally loosing sleep at night over the small numbers of people who are not vaccinated (this frustration existed long before COVID-19 at a time when far fewer people questioned vaccination).

Throughout COVID-19, vaccinated people were made to feel like they were superior to everyone else, and all personal responsibility (e.g., having a healthy lifestyle) that was known to reduce your risk of COVID-19 was thrown out the window for the belief you could magically solve every problem in your life by having someone else simply give you a vaccine

Peter Hotez recently provided what I believe may be the most widely recognized illustrations of this mentality in history (it was seen by millions of people):

Sadly, Peter is not alone in this regard, and many others share his beliefs. The best example I know of came from the Hawaii’s government:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOdo3ZrDFeg


Note: Keiki is Hawaiian for children.

Sadly, this same ignorance could be seen all the way across the nation:

“I want you to look at this [burger] and think of [it] when you think of vaccination. Yumm…vaccination…I’m getting a very good feeling about vaccination.”

One reader shared that New Zealand used free KFC to promote the vaccines (with the campaign being targeted to the native Maori population):

After I saw this I could not help but be reminded of a previous breast cancer promotion (there was also one done for fracking drill bits):

There was also the infamous Krispy Kreme promotion. I felt it was particularly noteworthy because I believe the only thing all members of the political spectrum were in agreement about COVID-19 was it being more dangerous for obese diabetics.

I was truly amazed at how far the media went to promote this campaign:

Or the immune system:

This was another great excuses for the vaccines failing (which I must note, was known would happen from the start of the campaign).

The FDA’s unscientific advertisements were not limited to vaccines. While working with industry to protect the market for these vaccines, the FDA also made other nonsensical claims like rebranding ivermectin as a horse dewormer:

In the same way industry and government will lie about health to sell their products, it is also very common new diseases will be created out of thin air (this is termed disease branding and sadly is much more common than you might realize, especially in psychiatry). One of the most comical examples I saw was the attempt to create this alleged condition:

A common marketing strategy is to make people want what they can’t have, and I assumed this campaign was aimed at reinforcing that (remember, when the vaccines were rolled out, they were deliberately made only available to certain groups so everyone felt left out until it was their turn).

Targeting Children

Virtually ever cult always targets children because it is well known that if you convert someone at a young age (when they lack the critical thinking to resist common brainwashing tactics) they are converted for life, which is always necessary for the long-term viability of the institution.

These advertisements become quite surreal when you see them be targeted to children (if you have any doubts, read “Elmo’s” tweet about it).

It still amazes me public health officials do not recognize needing boosters means your vaccination program has failed...

This was probably the saddest example I saw throughout the pandemic:

The most criminal example however was Pfizer’s advertising for children to be in their vaccine trials. For example, consider the case of Maddie de Garay, who was permanently disabled in the Pfizer trial for kids, had her injury documented as stomach pain, and then was kicked to the curb by Pfizer rather than receive the report that was promised.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGuEnHJzT-c

Note: Superheroes were also used to incentivize children to vaccinate in other settings.

Holiday Festivities:

Since nothing was off limits, the holidays were also targeted and I heard more stories than I can count of people being banned from Thanksgiving or Christmas because they did not want to be vaccinated (I can’t recall another time where a government campaign targeted our critical social bonds like this).

Australia lead the charge in isolating the unvaccinated from society. Not surprisingly, their chief public health officer likewise advised against having unvaccinated family members at Christmas.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_JB8IEPqd1o

Stanford, for example, really pushed this immoral narrative.

This campaign was particularly egregious because everyone knew the vaccines did not protect against transmission (so it was irrelevant if a relative was unvaccinated). Sadly, our public officials intentionally lied about that so that they could have another argument to justify their unlawful mandates.

Near the start of the marketing campaign, Fauci helped feed into this hysteria by “vaccinating” Santa so Christmas could be saved:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YEil6VTzXdc


Note: Santa is probably one of the most socially distanced individuals on the planet.

One of the most upsetting vaccine promotions I came across echoing this theme came about a year later:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djfKXwlisZI

Conclusion:

A classic marketing strategy is to create a need and then market a product as the solution to that need. Throughout the pandemic, it was clear the purpose of the lockdowns and social distancing was to create the “need” for vaccines, and the advertisements here should reflect how much work was done to sway those who did not initially succumb to that planted need.

If I had to pick the single most absurd message I saw throughout the pandemic, it would be the one Igor Chudov discovered:

The first runner up was the Fauci song, which was widely promoted in the media at the time it happened:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9sJ-d33a-FA

The other runner up was Biden stating:

"Let me be clear: If you're in a state where hurricanes often strike — like Florida or the Gulf Coast or into Texas — a vital part of preparing for hurricane season is to get vaccinated now.

A reader also offered an excellent contender:

Fortunately, while the last two years have been quite depressing, more and more signs are showing that mass psychosis is breaking. Almost everyone, despite Peter Hotez’s best efforts, has avoided the boosters, and according to the most recent survey, the majority of the population is concerned about the safety of these vaccines (a significant portion also doubts their efficacy). Once that psychosis breaks, it is critical to preserve these examples as reminders for the next generation so history does not repeat itself and the same cons can be pulled again.

One of the things that bothers me immensely about this is that because the messaging all of these people provided aligned with the vested interests, they could lie or spread as much misinformation as much as they wanted without any accountability (Hotez for example has been trotted out as an expert throughout COVID-19, tries to censor all “misinformation” and has had made an endless number of erroneous doom and gloom pronouncements on national television). Conversely, I feel that if, while presenting my differing narrative, if I were to state 1% of the lies many of these people have said I would not have the readership I have (as I’d be rightfully viewed as someone who is untrustworthy) and many outside parties would be eagerly jumping on those errors.

This is probably the most offensive disinformation I came across as its consequences were disastrous for many (e.g., I know many elderly individuals who died from the vaccines and unnecessary the school closures were devastating to our children).

A key theme I have been trying to highlight here is that the traditional model of governance where leaders decide (often questionable) policies and then shove them down the public’s throat with propaganda no longer works. In the past, this could be done because there was a monopoly in the media which made it possible for an absurd message like the ones shown above to be distributed throughout the populace while no competing narrative could see the light of day.

The internet has upended that equation because there are far too many people who will create competing narratives at almost no cost (whereas the traditional propaganda model is expensive), and the internet naturally selects for the most compelling arguments to be seen. For example, a few of the messages I came up with off the top of my head that were put together in my free time have now been seen by millions of people. Regardless of how much money is spent, government and industry can never compete with millions of citizens looking for ways to spread the truth online.

Over the last few years, I, and others, have come to believe we are witnessing the death spiral of the traditional propaganda model (which, as is commonly seen in failing totalitarian states, is defaulting to more absurd lies to maintain its “authority” that only further weaken the public’s trust). I cannot see any way out of this as the COVID-19 vaccine campaign’s lies were so egregious they destroyed much of the longstanding credibility our institutions had (the only other option, destroying the internet entirely, is no longer viable because too much of our economy is intertwined with it).

The authors who initially proposed that we are nearing the end of propaganda believe the only remaining option is for our government to follow the alternative model envisioned a century ago:

Instead of having a qualified leadership govern the country as it pleased, we need to develop an educated citizenry who can understand the complex problems our country faces. The populace, then of their own accord, must be convinced the policies our leadership chooses make sense and agree to follow them of their own free will. I believe this is the shift our species will go in, and we can accelerate it by having each of us do our part to help develop an informed public (I also suspect Elon Musk’s recognition of this reality led him to buy Twitter so it could be used for that purpose).

At this point, I am very hopeful for where things will go over the next few years but simultaneous recognize the previous regime that depended upon censorship and control will continue to struggle harder and harder until it is forced to accept that the times have changed.

Thank you so much for all of your support over the last year. I am still in awe of how fast this substack has taken off and I hope I can continue to reciprocate that support to each of you as we move into 2023. Please let me know in the comments if you believe there are any important vaccine promotions I forgot to highlight (I will add them in) and which your favorite example was. I also hope you have a New Year’s Resolution planned that is a bit better than Hawaii’s example shown above!

Difference in attitudes : China vs America

We are being led in our anti-China hysteria by the United States which is not concerned that China will attack us, or even the United States, but is concerned that its world hegemony is being challenged.

China has neither the intent nor the capability to attack us

By John Menadue
Jan 2, 2023

A repost from November 11, 2022

That is why the US is persistently goading China into conflict and possible war. And we follow along. As Jack Waterford put it from a US official, the US sees us as an ‘easy lay’.

What the United States really resents about China is that it is successful after almost two centuries of poverty and humiliation.

China has certainly changed but the problem is the US refuses to change and accept the fact that it’s no longer the  sole hegemon.

And the recent US election will not change anything in that regard with both the major parties having a common view about the ‘China threat’ and heavily influenced if not controlled by the military/industrial complex supported by a compliant media. We follow like a patsy.

The United States is by any measure the most aggressive and violent country in the world and will not accept a multi-polar world where countries large and small can live in peace together. The US has a dogmatic and self- righteous view that it is ‘exceptional’, a ‘chosen people’ and should set global rules for everyone.

It parrots endlessly about ‘ a rules based international order’. That is really code for US hegemony and domination. And to top up its cynicism, the US then cherry picks the rules that it decides to support.

The only military risk that we face from China is if we continue as a proxy for the US in its endless wars. The US is a dangerous ally, as Malcom Fraser put it.

With the complicity of our Ministers, senior public officials and journalists our national sovereignty is being seriously eroded. Our military is being fused with the US. We employ retired US military people in our Department of Defence. In Five Eyes our intelligence agencies take in the dirty washing of the CIA.

None of our Prime Ministers stand up for Australia in relations with the US like Gough Whitlam did fifty years ago.

In the 19th and 20th Century we were drawn into United Kingdom’s Imperial wars. We are now drawn into the United State’s imperial wars. We allow others to control our thinking and behaviour.

Our ‘leaders’, think Richard Marles, have been on an American drip feed for so long they have an instinctive Washington mind set.

As China reasserts its historic world role there is no doubt that Chinese influence and footprint is growing in our region but there is no evidence whatsoever that we are under military threat from China. Yet the assumed military threat from China guides almost everything the Albanese Government does and says on strategic and defence matters. And our captured journalist join the anti China throng.

Scott Morrison and Peter Dutton must be delighted to find themselves mimicked by Anthony Albanese and Richard Marles.

China has neither the intent nor the capability to attack us. But as a settler society we remain fearful of our region with echoes of the yellow peril and White Australia.

China does not have a history of military aggression beyond the defence of its own borders. It has only one foreign base in Djibouti, mainly for anti-piracy purposes.

In contrast, the US has over 800 overseas bases including in Guam, Diego Garcia, ROK and Japan that ring China. The US fleet, with our support, regularly patrols off the China coast.

The US would have hysterics if Chinese vessels patrolled off the Californian coast and the Florida Keys. Or if China had B-52 type aircraft based in Mexico!

Not surprisingly, China is determined that it must have the military capability to defend its homeland. However, it does not project its military power around the globe as does the US.

China has not been engaged in military activity for the past forty years. In that time, the US has overthrown numerous governments and illegally invaded many countries.

China has a large and diverse population in areas such as Xinjiang, Tibet, Hong Kong, and Taiwan. It has land borders with fourteen other countries. Not surprisingly China focuses on domestic issues and the protection of its borders.

If China was an imperial power, it would have swallowed up Mongolia, a democratic, mineral rich state which is more than twice the size of Ukraine.

Japan is the only country that has threatened Australia. China never has. Japan occupied large parts of China in WWII and was responsible for the deaths of over 20 million Chinese people. Careless of its aggressive history Japan is again leading the anti-China frenzy in QUAD.

In recent weeks Pearls and Irritations has carried many articles about the ‘China threat’.

See below some brief comments from these articles and links to the full articles.

Jocelyn Chey

A genuine threat to Australia’s basic security interests would demand preparedness for war. Threats can be either military or non-military, but only a military threat will lead to war. Australia, like every other country, has problems and disputes with other countries, and economic difficulties and natural disasters that require humanitarian solutions. These non-military threats, even if defence forces are called in to help, should not be treated as military threats. I argue that there is no military threat from China.

Joseph Camilleri

Since 1949 China has engaged in few combat operations outside its borders. The most significant of these was the push back against US and UN forces in the Korean war (1950-53), the brief war against India in 1962, and another brief war against Vietnam in 1979. It is now well over forty years since China has been at war. By contrast, the United States has repeatedly embarked on military interventions across the globe. In the course of the 20th century, it has participated in 38 armed conflicts, or one every three years, and since 2000 it has engaged in at least 11 wars, the equivalent of one every two years.

David Goodman

Fear of China is of course not new in Australia. It was a driver of Federation at the end of the 19th Century and the first act of the new Federal Parliament was long recognised as ‘The White Australia Policy.’

Geoff Miller

It is almost impossible to imagine any realistic circumstances, short of general war in the Asia-Pacific, under which China would launch a military attack on Australia. Certainly, in the context of expanding its influence in the region, China is approaching some countries, in the South Pacific in particular, that we have become used to thinking of as “ours”, but that should act as a spur for us to pay them more attention rather than anything else. The basic fact is that China has become the major resident power in the Asia-Pacific region and is, and will remain, active in it, and we simply have to accept and get used to that.

Iyanatul Islam

Forcing Asian countries, to choose between the USA and China is unlikely to work. Even close Asian allies of the US have shown that they prefer to go their own way in geopolitics.

Colin Mackerras

China only very rarely sends troops outside its borders for war and virtually never for conquest. In contemporary times, it has not initiated a war since 1979, when it imposed a very short punitive war against Vietnam. But let’s note that in that war, Chinese troops made no attempt to seize the Vietnamese capital or change its government. This is in sharp contrast to American behaviour. Some scholars have developed the idea of the “American tributary system”. But it is very different from the essentially peaceful Chinese counterpart. It designates the system of alliances and partnerships (tributaries) through which the United States attempts to control the world. Unlike China, it sends its troops constantly to control the state ideologies of other countries and their system of government. It claims to be equal, but in fact it is based on domination and the maintenance of hegemony.

Cavan Hogue

Who has a motive? No country is interested in invading Australia although there is a widespread assumption that China is hostile. Chinese hostility arises from our alliance with the USA which the Chinese see as a threat to their predominance just as the US sees China as a threat to its position as number one world power. If China and the USA went to war, China would then, but only then, have a motive to attack Australia and would certainly do so if only to take out American assets like Pine Gap, the Northwest Cape, Amberly and perhaps Darwin where US marines are based. It would have the capability to do this with missiles against virtually unprotected targets.

Teow Loon Ti

I have never felt that China was an enemy to Australia. In fact, I have always sensed that the idea of China as an enemy is a manufactured idea, and a convenient tool, to serve a range of needs ranging from Australia’s own domestic politics; insecurity as a Western nation adrift in an Asian region; an attempt to help maintain US hegemony in Asia in order to serve our security needs; a psychological need to be Deputy Sheriff to the US in Asia; fear that an authoritarian state will grow to dominate the region against the accepted status quo of Western domination; perhaps even the spectre of a Yellow Peril. Seemingly unable to deal with all these challenges alone, we put our trust in the US to stand alongside us in a show of strength. In doing so, we have effectively put our welfare, present and future, in the hands of the US. To please the Americans, we have taken their enemies as our enemies and often put ourselves forward in anticipation of their needs.

Kishore Mahbubani

America’s behaviour during its period of emergence as a great power conforms to the historical norm. China’s behaviour so far, defies the norm. Of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council (who represent the great powers), only one has not fought a war in 40 years; China. Indeed, China has not even fired a bullet across its borders since a naval skirmish with Vietnam in 1989. The recent fighting between Chinese and Indian soldiers was brutal and savage. However, both sides adhered to their agreement not to use their firearms. Article VI of this agreement, signed in 1996, states, “Neither side shall open fire, cause bio-degradation, use hazardous chemicals, conduct blast operations or hunt with guns or explosives within two kilometers from the line of actual control.” The strategic discipline shown by Chinese and Indian soldiers is commendable.

Geoff Raby

China is Prometheus Bound, or a constrained superpower. China is constrained by its history, geography but, most importantly, by its resource base. Historically, China is still an empire with vast unresolved territorial issues inside its borders – Xinjiang, Tibet, Taiwan and now more recently Hong Kong. These unsettled areas from Beijing’s perspective threaten China’s territorial integrity. Fragmentation of the empire is a constant anxiety which commands the bulk of China’s security resources. Over the ten years to 2020, expenditure on internal security grew faster than on external security, that is the military to defend the country. Geographically, China has some 22,000 kilometres of land borders to defend with 14 countries on its borders. It has been in dispute and sometimes armed conflict with many of these since the PRC’s founding. In addition, China has ongoing maritime disputes with Japan.

Greg Clark

China relies on something called soft power discovered by the Chinese long before the rest of us. Convinced of the attractiveness of its culture it long believed it can automatically draw people to its side without force of arms…


- - -
John Menadue is the Founder and Editor in Chief of Pearls and Irritations. He was formerly Secretary of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet under Gough Whitlam and Malcolm Fraser, Ambassador to Japan, Secretary of the Department of Immigration and CEO of Qantas.

Friday, December 9, 2022

The big FIFA Soccer World Cup talking points

There is much to unpack after the first couple of weeks in Qatar

Silent protests, controversial goals, and shock exits: The big World Cup talking points
RT : 8 Dec, 2022

With the FIFA World Cup on a brief hiatus before the quarterfinals kick off on Friday, an opportunity has been afforded to take stock of the various narratives, scandals, and moments of magic which have grabbed the headlines over the past couple of weeks in Qatar.

The tournament, thus far at least, has provided more than its fair share of shocks, stunning goals, and even the apparent downfall of one of football’s most famous names.

After the dust settled on the group stage and the round-of-16 matches, we break down some of the major talking points from football’s biggest showpiece.   

Germany’s ‘One Love’ armband row

A culture clash between ultra-conservative Islamic hosts Qatar and the swathes of visiting teams from more ‘progressive’ countries across Europe and the rest of the world was always going to provoke some attention – and it certainly did in the opening days of the tournament.

Much of the lead-up to the World Cup was dominated by allegations of the human rights abuses of migrant workers in Qatar, as well as the treatment of LGBT individuals in a country where homosexuality remains illegal.

And football, a sport which rarely meets a topical social justice cause it doesn’t like, reacted in much the same way it did throughout the initial phase of the ‘Black Lives Matter’ movement: by some high-profile players signaling their virtues with rainbow-colored armbands designed to show solidarity to the cause.

FIFA had their own armband messages planned, and threatened sanctions for any players who displayed unauthorized apparel – leading to the now-infamous image of German players holding their hands over their mouths in a team photograph ahead of their opening match against Japan, in protest at being ‘silenced’.

Germany subsequently failed to advance past the group stage for the second World Cup in succession – something which was met with glee among some Qataris, as they highlighted in retaliation what they saw as German moral hypocrisy related to how former star Mesut Ozil was treated when announcing his retirement in 2018.

Some observers, meanwhile, suggested that Germany should perhaps have focused more on the football than off-the-field affairs.

Shock results

The aforementioned German capitulation, during which they were shocked by two late Japan goals in an opening 2-1 defeat which hastened their exit from Doha, wasn’t the only upset to take place in the first days of the tournament.

Argentina, who are among the sportsbooks’ picks to win the entire tournament, were stunned in their first match by a Saudi Arabia team which defied the odds to claim a 2-1 win against the South American champions.

There were similar sob stories in the broadsheets in Belgium after the world’s second-ranked team signaled the end of their so-called ‘Golden Generation’ by failing to emerge from their group after picking up just one win – and suffering a 2-0 humbling by Morocco along the way.

Elsewhere, Australia surprised most by pipping Tunisia and Denmark to second spot in Group D, while Japan’s win against Spain was also a harbinger of things to come ahead of the Spaniards’ shock ousting from the knockout stages by Morocco this week.

And that’s before we even mention Cameroon’s 1-0 win against an already-qualified Brazil in their final group-stage game.

Ghana, meanwhile, scored a measure of revenge as they got to witness a Luis Suarez-led Uruguay being eliminated in hugely dramatic fashion – more than 12 years after Suarez’s handball in their World Cup clash in South Africa helped deprive Ghana of a first-ever semifinal appearance for an African team.

The Uruguayans were denied a knockout spot in Qatar thanks to last-gasp drama elsewhere on the final day in Group H, where a late goal for South Korea earned them a 2-1 win over Portugal, propelling them into the last 16 at the expense of the South Americans.

The final day drama in Group E – where at one stage both Spain and Germany were set to go out – was remarkable, as was the denouement to Group C, where Poland pipped Mexico to a knockout spot by virtue of a marginally superior goal difference. 

While not necessarily shocking, this World Cup has also provided a significant helping of popcorn moments – Serbia’s 3-3 classic with Cameroon springs to mind, as does South Korea’s 3-2 defeat at the hands of Ghana, and the Ghanaians’ own 3-2 loss to Portugal.

The hosts’ awful record

There have been some abject performances in Qatar, and sadly for the hosts, they produced three of them. Indeed, Qatar’s decade-long strategy to ready itself for the biggest month of its football history fell flat in terms of its own performances on the pitch.

One goal scored, seven conceded. Three defeats. The worst record of a World Cup host in the history of the tournament.

Still, if the goal was to popularize and modernize the sport in a nation which doesn’t hold strong traditions in football, then it can probably be considered something of a success.

But after spending upwards of a reported $200 billion to develop the various infrastructure (much to the chagrin of the previously mentioned human rights groups), and a 12-year strategy designed to identify and train Qatari football talent, getting a least a draw would have been nice.

Money can buy a lot of things, but apparently not success at the top table of international football.

The downfall of Ronaldo?

Qatar is set to be a World Cup swansong for football’s most famous name: Cristiano Ronaldo. But the tournament came at a strange time in the career of the presently unemployed star.

He arrived in Qatar on the back of a tell-all interview with the UK’s agitator-in-chief, Piers Morgan, which hastened his exit at Manchester United – and likely cost him a substantial part of his legacy at a club whose fans have previously sung his name until their vocal cords gave out.

But at least the crumbling of that relationship could be adequately ignored for a few weeks in the dry desert heat. Right? Well, maybe not.

Ronaldo was, as the script dictated, selected for Portugal’s opening matches by coach Fernando Santos – but the drop-off in form which had afflicted his final days at Manchester United had transplanted to his national side, with the Portuguese great largely ineffective throughout.

A dose of typical Ronaldo impetuousness when he was hooked off by Santos an hour into Portugal’s group game with South Korea was enough for him to be dropped to the substitutes’ bench for their round-of-16 annihilation of Switzerland on Tuesday.

And what was worse for him was that his replacement, the 21-year-old Goncalo Ramos, scored a hat-trick. It has been a bad few weeks for the Ronaldo brand – but if the rumors of a big-money contract offer from a Saudi Arabian team are to be believed, his earning power looks set to increase in direct contrast to that of his playing abilities.

Japanese VAR drama

It just wouldn’t be modern football if there wasn’t a little drama from the VAR room. After its introduction at the World Cup in Russia four-and-a-half years ago, VAR has become the Marmite of football officiating: either you love it, or you hate it.

Japan, we expect, fall into the former category after forensic analysis of a controversial late goal in their 2-1 win against Spain appeared to show that the ball had somewhat miraculously stayed in the field of play before it was crossed for Ao Tanaka to poke home into an empty net.

Spain (and the ousted Germany) will likely be more than aggrieved at the outcome of the inquest into whether or not the goal should have stood. In the end, the Spanish only have themselves to blame for their subsequent penalty shootout exit at the hands of Morocco, while the Germans’ problems ran much deeper than being dumped out by a moment of VAR contention.

As for the neutrals? You can’t buy that type of drama and – rightly or wrongly – many were glued to their television screens when the fate of an entire footballing nation in a four-year World Cup cycle falls upon the evidence of a CSI-style investigation.

Political football


If sport is essentially a vehicle for drama or scandal, this World Cup has faithfully delivered. The build-up to the event was dominated by allegations of Qatari wrongdoing, then you had the various armband rows and subsequent FIFA interjections.

But it hasn’t stopped there. Headlines were made on the eve of the tournament after Qatar’s sudden about-face when it came to serving alcohol near or inside stadiums.

Then we had the politically-charged tensions between Serbian and Swiss players spilling out onto the pitch and the sidelines, which was exacerbated by Swiss player Granit Xhaka aiming a dig as his Serbian opponents on the subs’ bench.

Serbia, meanwhile, were placed under FIFA investigation after hanging a flag depicting Kosovo in their dressing room prior to their defeat by Brazil.

The USA also ignited a potential political firestorm when the US Soccer Federation displayed an Iranian flag on social media which didn’t feature the emblem of the Islamic Republic ahead of their group-stage fixture.

Iran threatened action with FIFA against the USA, while the Americans said that the measure was taken in solidarity with the ongoing human rights protests in the country. US coach Gregg Berhalter apologized, and the correct Iranian flag was later used by US soccer’s social media accounts. A single goal from Christian Pulisic settled the match, if not the issue.

Russia, absent from this World Cup following their FIFA ban, were also in focus despite not being in Qatar after Cameroon player Gael Ondoua was seen wearing boots depicting both the Cameroon and Russian flags.

Ondoua spent many of his formative years in Russia and credits the country with being fundamental to his footballing apprenticeship. He has pledged to sell the boots to raise money for charity in Russia in the days following the World Cup.

And if Russia’s football team aren’t in Qatar, the country’s cultural reach was apparent by the playing of Russian folk songs ‘Kalinka’ and ‘Katyusha’, which could be heard at various points throughout the tournament as played by local bands to whip up the atmosphere.

Potential winners

Back to the football. With just eight teams remaining, it is beginning to become clearer as to who might lift the famous trophy on December 18.

The South American duo of Brazil and Argentina look to be in imperious form, the latter of whom are looking to claim world football’s biggest prize as a parting gift to Lionel Messi on the occasion of his final World Cup: an accolade which would place him neck-and-neck with Diego Maradona in the country’s list of immortal sports heroes.

Typically, Messi has produced some moments of magic in Qatar, and shackling him will be key if the Netherlands stand any chance of progressing from their quarterfinal clash.

Brazil’s challenge, meanwhile, remains undaunted despite accusations of disrespect due to their dancing celebrations throughout the 4-1 drubbing of South Korea in the last 16.

The Samba boys have turned on the style with some scintillating football and sensational goals – not least from Richarlison – while Neymar also appears to be free from injury again. Brazil face 2018 finalists Croatia in their quarterfinal, with Luka Modric and Co. looking steady if unspectacular thus far in Qatar.

Defending champions France, and their talisman Kylian Mbappe, look every inch contenders once more, with the Paris Saint-Germain forward leading the race for the Golden Boot on five goals. Les Bleus face cross-channel rivals England in their last-eight clash.

Even England, always the bridesmaids in situations such as this, appear in with a shout of ending their 50-year famine with a trophy after running up big scorelines against Iran and Senegal.

Portugal certainly can’t be ruled out, not least after setting the rest on notice with their demolition of the notoriously stubborn Swiss.

The Portuguese quarterfinal clash with surprise package Morocco – whose defense has been as tight as they come in Qatar – should be intriguing, while the support for the North Africans has been fervent in Qatar and far beyond.

Merkel has admitted deception over Minsk peace deal

Negotiating in bad faith? Well, that is how Native Americans, or Iranians (for example) were fooled.

This admission just goes to prove that the western powers do not bargain in good faith just as we suspected all along with the Minsk agreement. What I find shocking is the hypocrisy they show when they accuse others of doing the very same thing an with no proof and the knowledge of what they have done. Nations need to be ruled by honorable governments and not by a cabal of liars who with great fanfare make deals with no intention of enforcing. In this case buying time means they wanted this war and planned it all along and the fault lies with them not Russia. The lives of ethnic Russians and the state sponsored slaughter in Ukraine was acceptable to them, what monsters. No matter how hard they try the truth comes out, the problem is the people never hold them accountable. They need to fire up the Nuremberg courts again and convict these bad actors who have cost so many lives already and who knows how many more?

This also means that Merkel (along with others) is directly responsible for the murder of 14,500+ Russian speaking Ukrainians.

Merkel has admitted deception over Minsk peace deal – Russia
The former German chancellor has disclosed that the accords were meant to ‘give time’ for Ukraine to strengthen its military

RT, 8 Dec, 2022

Former German Chancellor Angela Merkel has confirmed her government’s duplicity regarding the conflict in Ukraine by confirming that the 2014 ceasefire agreement was meant to give Kiev time to build up its military, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova has said.

In an interview with Zeit magazine published on Wednesday, Merkel said that the Minsk protocol brokered by Germany and France was “an attempt to give Ukraine time,” which it used to “become stronger” as evidenced on the battlefield now. She was referring to the first of the two documents known collectively as the “Minsk agreements” that were designed to help Kiev reconcile with rebels in the east, who had rejected the outcome of an armed coup in the capital in 2014.

Berlin and “by extension, the West” never intended to implement the Minsk agreements, Zakharova concluded based on Merkel’s remarks.

The US and its allies “simulated supporting the UN Security Council resolution” which endorsed the roadmap to peace while pumping weapons into Ukraine and “ignored all crimes committed by the Kiev regime … for the sake of a decisive strike against Russia,” she explained in a social media post on Thursday.

In the Zeit interview, Merkel stated that Russia “could easily have overrun” Ukrainian troops in 2015, adding that she doubted that “NATO countries could have done as much then as they do now”. The second part of the Minsk agreements was signed in February 2015 amid a military defeat suffered by Ukrainian troops, which attempted to quash the Donbass militias.

Merkel’s description of the accords coincides with that made by former Ukrainian President Pyotr Poroshenko, during whose tenure they were signed. Domestically, in August 2015, he stated that the peace deal was a ruse to give his government time for a military buildup. He said the same thing to Western audiences in June this year.

Russia sent troops into Ukraine in late February, citing Kiev’s failure to implement the Minsk protocols, under which the regions of Donetsk and Lugansk would have been given special status within the Ukrainian state. The Kremlin recognized the Donbass republics as independent states, which have since voted to join Russia alongside Kherson and Zaporozhye regions.

Russia also demanded that Ukraine officially declare itself a neutral country that will never join any Western military bloc. Kiev insists the Russian offensive was completely unprovoked.

Merkel’s ‘confession’ may be grounds for tribunal – Moscow
The former chancellor gave evidence that the West had orchestrated hostilities in Ukraine, the Russian Foreign Ministry says
RT : 8 Dec, 2022

A confession by former German chancellor Angela Merkel about the Minsk peace agreements could be used as evidence in a tribunal involving Western politicians responsible for provoking the Ukraine conflict between Moscow and Kiev, the Russian Foreign Ministry warned on Thursday.

The deal, brokered by Germany and France, was supposed to be a roadmap for peace in the war-torn country. Russian President Vladimir Putin has said that his country's current military offensive was prompted by the failure to implement the terms of the accords.

The former German leader admitted in an interview with Die Zeit on Wednesday that the actual purpose of the Minsk agreements was to give Ukraine time to prepare for a military confrontation with Russia.

“They talk a lot about legal assessments of what is happening around Ukraine, certain tribunals and so on in all sorts of ways,” Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said during a media briefing on Thursday. “But this is a specific reason for a tribunal.”

She claimed that Merkel’s comments were nothing short of the testimony of a person who had openly admitted that everything done between 2014 and 2015 was meant to “distract the international community from real issues, play for time, pump up the Kiev regime with weapons, and escalate the issue into a large-scale conflict,” Zakharova added.

She said Merkel’s statements “horrifyingly” reveal that the West uses “forgery as a method of action,” and resorts to “machinations, manipulation and all kinds of distortions of truth, law and rights imaginable.”

The spokeswoman claimed that the West had known well in 2015, when it spent hours negotiating the second part of the Minsk accords, that it would never even attempt to fulfill any part of the agreements and would instead pump weapons into Kiev.

“They did not feel sorry for anyone: women, children, the civilian population of Donbass or the whole of Ukraine. They needed a conflict and they were ready for it back then, in 2015,” Zakharova said.

Earlier this month, a number of Western officials called for the creation of a special UN-backed court to investigate alleged war crimes committed by Russia during its ongoing military campaign in Ukraine.

The Kremlin has said the West has no legal or moral right to set up any courts to investigate or prosecute Russia over the conflict, which Moscow claims was ultimately provoked by the US and its allies.

Global Spyware Industry spiraled out of control

The market for commercial spyware — which allows governments to invade mobile phones and vacuum up data — is booming. Even the US government is using it.

How the Global Spyware Industry Spiraled Out of Control

By Mark Mazzetti, Ronen Bergman and Matina Stevis-Gridneff
The New York Times, Dec. 8, 2022

The Biden administration took a public stand last year against the abuse of spyware to target human rights activists, dissidents and journalists: It blacklisted the most notorious maker of the hacking tools, the Israeli firm NSO Group.

But the global industry for commercial spyware — which allows governments to invade mobile phones and vacuum up data — continues to boom. Even the U.S. government is using it.

The Drug Enforcement Administration is secretly deploying spyware from a different Israeli firm, according to five people familiar with the agency’s operations, in the first confirmed use of commercial spyware by the federal government.

At the same time, the use of spyware continues to proliferate around the world, with new firms — which employ former Israeli cyberintelligence veterans, some of whom worked for NSO — stepping in to fill the void left by the blacklisting. With this next generation of firms, technology that once was in the hands of a small number of nations is now ubiquitous — transforming the landscape of government spying.

One firm, selling a hacking tool called Predator and run by a former Israeli general from offices in Greece, is at the center of a political scandal in Athens over the spyware’s use against politicians and journalists.

After questions from The New York Times, the Greek government admitted that it gave the company, Intellexa, licenses to sell Predator to at least one country with a history of repression, Madagascar. The Times has also obtained a business proposal that Intellexa made to sell its products to Ukraine, which turned down the sales pitch.

Predator was found to have been used in another dozen countries since 2021, illustrating the continued demand among governments and the lack of robust international efforts to limit the use of such tools.

The Times investigation is based on an examination of thousands of pages of documents — including sealed court documents in Cyprus, classified parliamentary testimonies in Greece and a secret Israeli military police investigation — as well as interviews with more than two dozen government and judicial officials, law enforcement agents, business executives and hacking victims in five countries.

The most sophisticated spyware tools — like NSO’s Pegasus — have “zero-click” technology, meaning they can stealthily and remotely extract everything from a target’s mobile phone, without the user having to click on a malicious link to give Pegasus remote access. They can also turn the mobile phone into a tracking and secret recording device, allowing the phone to spy on its owner. But hacking tools without zero-click capability, which are considerably cheaper, also have a significant market.

Commercial spyware has been used by intelligence services and police forces to hack phones used by drug networks and terrorist groups.

But it has also been abused by numerous authoritarian regimes and democracies to spy on political opponents and journalists. This has led governments to a sometimes tortured rationale for their use — including an emerging White House position that the justification for using these powerful weapons depends in part on who is using them and against whom.

The Biden administration is trying to impose some degree of order to the global chaos, but in this environment, the United States has played both arsonist and firefighter. Besides the D.E.A.’s use of spyware — in this case, a tool called Graphite, made by the Israeli firm Paragon — the C.I.A. during the Trump administration purchased Pegasus for the government of Djibouti, which used the hacking tool for at least a year. And F.B.I. officials made a push in late 2020 and the first half of 2021 to deploy Pegasus in their own criminal investigations before the bureau ultimately abandoned the idea.

In a statement to The Times, the Drug Enforcement Administration said that “the men and women of the D.E.A. are using every lawful investigative tool available to pursue the foreign-based cartels and individuals operating around the world responsible for the drug-poisoning deaths of 107,622 Americans last year.”

Steven Feldstein, an expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington, has documented the use of spyware by at least 73 countries.

“The penalties against NSO and its ilk are important,” he said. “But in reality, other vendors are stepping in. And there’s no sign it’s going away.”

The Biden Presidency

Here’s where the president stands after the midterm elections.

  •     A New Primary Calendar: President Biden’s push to reorder the early presidential nominating states is likely to reward candidates who connect with the party’s most loyal voters.
  •     A Defining Issue: The shape of Russia’s war in Ukraine, and its effects on global markets, in the months and years to come could determine Mr. Biden’s political fate.
  •     Beating the Odds: Mr. Biden had the best midterms of any president in 20 years, but he still faces the sobering reality of a Republican-controlled House for the next two years.
  •     2024 Questions: Mr. Biden feels buoyant after the better-than-expected midterms, but as he turns 80, he confronts a decision on whether to run again that has some Democrats uncomfortable.

Arsonist and Firefighter

For more than a decade, NSO sold Pegasus to spy services and law enforcement agencies around the world. The Israeli government required the company to secure licenses before exporting its spyware to a particular law enforcement or intelligence agency.

This allowed the Israeli government to gain diplomatic leverage over countries eager to purchase Pegasus, such as Mexico, India and Saudi Arabia. But a mountain of evidence about the abuse of Pegasus piled up.

The Biden administration took action: A year ago, it placed NSO and another Israeli firm, Candiru, on a Commerce Department blacklist — banning American companies from doing business with the hacking firms. In October, the White House warned of the dangers of spyware in its national security strategy outline, which said the administration would fight the “illegitimate use of technology, including commercial spyware and surveillance technology, and we will stand against digital authoritarianism.”

The administration is coordinating an investigation into what countries have used Pegasus or any other spyware tools against American officials overseas.

Congress is working on a bipartisan bill requiring the director of national intelligence to produce an assessment of the counterintelligence risks to the United States posed by foreign commercial spyware. The bill would also give the director of national intelligence the authority to ban the use of spyware by any intelligence agency. The White House is working on an executive order with other restrictions on the use of spyware.

But there are exceptions. The White House is allowing the D.E.A. to continue its use of Graphite, the hacking tool made by Israel-based Paragon, for its operations against drug cartels.

A senior White House official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the White House executive order being prepared would target spyware that posed “counterintelligence and security risks” or had been used improperly by foreign governments. If any such evidence emerged against Paragon, the official said, the White House expects that the government would terminate its contract with the company.

“The administration has been clear that it will not use investigative tools that have been used by foreign governments or persons to target the U.S. government and our personnel, or to target civil society, suppress dissent or enable human rights abuses,” the official said. “We expect all departments and agencies to act consistent with this policy.”

Similar to Pegasus, the NSO tool, Graphite spyware can invade the mobile phone of its target and extract its contents. But unlike Pegasus, which collects data stored inside the phone itself, Graphite primarily collects data from the cloud, after data is backed up from the phone. This can make it more difficult to discover the hack and theft of information, according to cybersecurity experts.

An official with the Drug Enforcement Administration said Graphite had been used only outside the United States, for the agency’s operations against drug traffickers. The agency did not respond to questions about whether Graphite had been used against any Americans living abroad or to questions about how the agency handled information about American citizens — messages, phone contacts or other information — that the agency obtained when using Graphite against its targets.

D.E.A. officials met in 2014 with NSO about purchasing Pegasus for its operations, a meeting reported earlier by Vice News, but the agency decided against purchasing the spyware.

Paragon’s sales are regulated by the Israeli government, which approved the sale of Graphite to the United States, according to an official aware of Israel’s defense export licensing agreements.

The company was founded just three years ago by Ehud Schneorson, a former commander of Unit 8200, Israel’s equivalent of the National Security Agency. Little public information is available about the company; it has no website. Most of the company’s executives are Israeli intelligence veterans, some of whom worked for NSO, according to two former Unit 8200 officers and a senior Israeli official.

Ehud Barak, the former Israeli prime minister, sits on the company’s board, and American money helps finance its operations. Battery Ventures, a Boston-based fund, lists Paragon as one of the companies in which it invests. A representative for Paragon declined to comment.

Even as the U.S. government purchases and deploys Israeli-made spyware with one hand, the Biden administration’s move to rein in the commercial spyware industry with the other has frayed relations with Israel.

Israeli officials have pushed to get NSO and Candiru removed from the Commerce Department blacklist to no avail.

Amir Eshel, the director general of the Israeli Defense Ministry, said Israeli officials had been trying to find out the U.S. government’s red lines on commercial spyware.

Despite these efforts, Mr. Eshel said, “senior government officials are not ready to answer us, address the issue or explain their point of view.”

The Biden administration’s move to blacklist NSO and Candiru has had a financial impact. To prevent the blacklisting of other companies, Israel’s Defense Ministry has imposed tougher restrictions on the local cybersecurity industry, including by reducing the number of countries to which those companies can potentially sell their products to 37 from 110, according to two senior Israeli officials and an Israeli tech company executive. With fewer countries available as potential buyers, many Israeli spyware companies, most famously NSO, have taken a severe financial hit. Three others have gone bankrupt.

This new landscape, however, provided new opportunities for others to seize.

Predator Emerges

Tal Dilian did just that.

A former general in Israeli military intelligence, Mr. Dilian was forced to retire from the Israeli Defense Forces in 2003 after an internal investigation raised suspicions that he had been involved in funds mismanagement, according to three people who were senior officers in

military intelligence. He eventually moved to Cyprus, a European Union island nation that has become a favored destination in recent years for surveillance firms and cyber-intelligence experts.

In 2008 in Cyprus, Mr. Dilian co-founded Circles, a company that used an Israeli-perfected snooping technology known as Signaling System 7.

He sold it off and went on to set up other companies selling surveillance products. He prided himself on recruiting the best hackers, including former spyware experts from the Israeli military’s most elite cyber-intelligence unit.

Mr. Dilian did not respond to requests for an interview or to written questions submitted to him directly and through his lawyers in Cyprus and Israel.

For several years after the sale of Circles, Cyprus was good to Mr. Dilian. Then, in 2019, he gave an interview to Forbes from a surveillance

van driving through the Cypriot city of Larnaca. He gave a mock demonstration of the van’s ability to hack any nearby phone and steal WhatsApp and text messages from unsuspecting targets.

Asked about human rights abuses committed when using his products, Mr. Dilian told Forbes that “we work with the good guys.” He added, “And sometimes the good guys don’t behave.”

Cypriot authorities soon issued a request for his arrest through Interpol, the global police agency, for illegal surveillance. His lawyer ultimately succeeded in settling the episode with a 1 million euro ($1 million) fine paid through Mr. Dilian’s company, but he was no longer welcome to do business in Cyprus, several Cypriot officials involved in the case said.

Mr. Dilian wasn’t done. He decamped to Athens and set up Intellexa there in 2020, which is when he began to aggressively market his new spyware product, Predator.

Predator requires the targeted user to click on a link to infect the user’s phone, whereas Pegasus infects the phone without any action from the target. That means Predator requires more creativity to entice already wary targets to click.

Predator infections come in the form of carefully crafted, personalized instant messages and infected links mimicking established websites.  

Once the phone is infected, the spyware has many of the same snooping capabilities of Pegasus, according to experts. An investigation into Predator by Meta listed about 300 such sites that experts had found were used for Predator infections.

From spring 2020, Intellexa operated from offices along the Greek capital’s Riviera, its southern coastline favored by surfing digital nomads and international sports stars. According to confidential employment records reviewed by The Times as well as staff LinkedIn profiles, the company hired at least eight Israelis, several of whom had a background in the country’s intelligence services.

Mr. Eshel, whose ministry oversees export licenses for spyware, said he had little power to control what Mr. Dilian or other former Israeli intelligence operatives did once they set up businesses outside Israel.

“It certainly disturbs me that a veteran of our intelligence and cyber units, who employs other former senior officials, operates around the world without any oversight,” he said.

Intellexa also looked out for opportunities that used to be in NSO’s domain. Ukraine had previously tried to acquire Pegasus, but the effort failed after the Israeli government blocked NSO from selling to Ukraine out of concern that doing so would harm Israel’s relationship with Russia.

Intellexa swooped in. The Times obtained a copy of a nine-page Intellexa pitch for Predator to a Ukrainian intelligence agency last year, the first

full such commercial spyware proposal to be made public. The document, dated February 2021, brags about the capabilities of Predator and even offers a 24/7 help line.

For 13.6 million euros ($14.3 million) for the first year, Intellexa offered Ukraine a basic package of 20 simultaneous infections with Predator and a “magazine” of 400 hacks of domestic numbers, as well as training and a round-the-clock help center. If Ukraine wanted to use Predator on non-Ukrainian numbers, the price would go by an extra 3.5 million euros.

Ukraine rejected the pitch, a person familiar with the matter said. Ukraine’s reasons for passing on Predator are unclear, but that did not appear to dissuade Intellexa or Mr. Dilian. Freed from the strictures of Israeli government regulation and running with virtually no oversight in Athens, the company expanded its clientele.

Meta, as well as the University of Toronto’s Citizen Lab, a cybersecurity watchdog organization, detected Predator in Armenia, Egypt, Greece, Indonesia, Madagascar, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Serbia, Colombia, Ivory Coast, Vietnam, the Philippines and Germany. These locations were determined through internet scans for servers known to be associated with the spyware.

A Greek Drama

Over the past few months, Predator has also roiled public life in Greece, where it was found to have been used against journalists and opposition figures. The Greek government has repeatedly described the spyware as illegal and said it had nothing to do with it.

Despite the denunciations, Greece admitted to backing Intellexa and its spyware in a vital way: by licensing the company to export Predator to Madagascar, whose government has a history of cracking down on dissent.

Alexandros Papaioannou, the spokesman for the Greek Foreign Ministry, confirmed that a division of the ministry issued two export licenses to Intellexa on Nov. 15, 2021. In a hint of the pressure the country is under, Mr. Papaioannou said the ministry’s inspector general had begun an internal investigation after reports in the local press about the company. European Union legislation treats spyware as a potential weapon and calls for authorities to grant export licenses after due diligence to prevent its abuse.

Just off the coast of East Africa, Madagascar is the world’s fourth-poorest nation. It struggles with corruption, especially in the mining and oil industries that bring in billions a year for corporations. Malagasy officials did not comment.

In Greece, Predator is also at the center of a domestic political maelstrom.

The saga began in April, when the Greek outlet Inside Story reported that Predator had been used to infect the phone of a local investigative reporter. The University of Toronto’s Citizen Lab forensically found the infection. Two opposition politicians soon confirmed that they, too, had been targeted, each with forensic evidence to back the claims.

All three suspect that the Greek state ordered their surveillance and have filed lawsuits. Thanasis Koukakis, an investigative reporter, has sued Mr. Dilian and his Intellexa associates.

The conservative prime minister, Kyriakos Mitsotakis, has denied ordering surveillance using Predator and maintains that the Greek government does not own the spyware.  Lawmakers are debating — and are expected to approve —  legislation that would impose a two-year minimum prison sentence for the sale, use or distribution of commercial spyware.

Fallout from the spyware scandal caused Mr. Mitsotakis’s nephew, who had political oversight of the national intelligence service, to resign  in August, although he denies any role in it. Around the same time, the prime minister fired the national intelligence chief.

The same month, Intellexa dismissed most of its Athens-based staff.

In November, Mr. Mitsotakis admitted that somebody is running covert operations using Predator inside Greece — he just does not know whom.

“To be clear, I never claimed — and the government has never claimed — that there were no hacks and no forces using the Predator software,” he said, adding: “There’s illegal spyware all over Europe.”

Mark Mazzetti is a Washington investigative correspondent, and a two-time Pulitzer Prize winner. He is the author of "The Way of the Knife: the C.I.A, a Secret Army, and a War at the Ends of the Earth."  @MarkMazzettiNYT

Ronen Bergman is a staff writer for The New York Times Magazine, based in Tel Aviv. His latest book is “Rise and Kill First: The Secret History of Israel’s Targeted Assassinations,” published by Random House.

Matina Stevis-Gridneff is the Brussels bureau chief for The New York Times, covering the European Union. She joined The Times after covering East Africa and previously Europe for The Wall Street Journal. @MatinaStevis