The GRIZZLY STEPPE – Russian Malicious Cyber Activity released jointly by FBI and DHS on December 29, 2016 was an update on another propaganda piece — the Joint Statement from DHS and ODNI on Election Security, published by the Obama administration on October 7 to aid Hillary and other fellow democrats in the elections.
The social media component of the alleged “Russian activities in the 2016 elections” was non-existent. The IRA, a.k.a. the “troll farm” in Russia, allegedly bought ads for about $100k; this is chump change and not even worthy of a government operation. Most of it has been spent on Facebook, and most ads ran AFTER the 2016 elections. Continue reading Imaginary Social Media Component of Imaginary Russian Meddling→
Hillary presidential campaign chairwoman Donna Brazile’s book Hacks: The Inside Story of the Break-ins and Breakdowns That Put Donald Trump in the White House can be retold in one sentence:
The Russians have hacked the elections and poisoned my dog Chip.
Nevertheless, the book reveals some information concealed by Hillary and the DNC loyalists in FBI.
In August, seeing CrowdStrike’s helplessness, the DNC invited real cyber security people to form a competent network security team that the book calls the Hacker House, or HH. This contradicts the DNC official story that CrowdStrike was doing a fabulous job.
HH found out that the DNC network was unprotected, and that anybody could have hacked into it
HH informed DNC and Hillary’s campaign leadership of this fact and spent most of its time training DNC networking administrators
HH was asked, but refused to support allegations that the DNC network had been penetrated by “Russians.” HH also had run-ins with CrowdStrike.
The DNC, Hillary, and the Obama administration disregarded and suppressed this information. They continued their electoral campaign strategy: worsening relations with Russia, accusing Trump of collusion with Putin, and using the FBI, CIA, DHS, and ODNI to sabotage Trump’s campaign. During the transition period, John Brennan and other Obama/Clinton loyalists used false allegations of the “Russian hacking” to attempt something like a coup d’état. The coup was not a complete failure – the angry Democrats have nearly wrestled control of the DOJ away from the elected president.
Jeffrey Carr is a cybersecurity expert, and one of few open skeptics of the narrative that the leaked DNC and/or DCCC internal documents came from hacking by Russia. Few remarkable quotes from his posts, mostly from 2016-2017.
“There’s a cost to being too critical. One infosec company threatened to sue a researcher if he didn’t make substantive changes to a published paper that was critical of their report. Many employers don’t allow their employees to express controversial opinions that could hurt the company’s business or reputation. And if the company or organization that you’re critical of has influential connections in Washington D.C., your professional reputation may suffer as well.” Continue reading Jeffrey Carr, the “Russian Hacking” Skeptic→
The “assessment” that the Russian government hacked the DNC and leaked its emails was wrong. It’s almost impossible to attribute a network breach to a sophisticated hackers group.
When #CrowdStrike and FireEye started making the fraudulent attribution on cyber security events, many other companies followed. The Obama regime has corrupted and dumbed down the DHS, DNI, and FBI. They bought this fraud, and then added some.
In 2016, Hillary and the DNC were deceived by CrowdStrike into believing that Russia was behind the leaks of their emails that shouldn’t have been written in the first place. Together with Obama they forced that deception on the FBI and intelligence. Then they blamed Russia for their election defeat!
Most successful network security breaches are conducted by criminal hackers, many of whom are based or originate from Russia and Eastern Europe. Most unsuccessful attempts are conducted by amateurs. Organizations should protect their networks, rather than blame nation states.
Even the New York Times admitted that Obama holdovers had committed crimes, probably including espionage, sedition, sabotage, obstruction of justice, and/or subornation of perjury in the transitional period. From the NYT March 1, 2017:
As Inauguration Day approached, Obama White House officials grew convinced that the intelligence was damning and that they needed to ensure that as many people as possible inside government could see it, even if people without security clearances could not. Some officials began asking specific questions at intelligence briefings, knowing the answers would be archived and could be easily unearthed by investigators — including the Senate Intelligence Committee, which in early January announced an inquiry into Russian efforts to influence the election.
At intelligence agencies, there was a push to process as much raw intelligence as possible into analyses, and to keep the reports at a relatively low classification level to ensure as wide a readership as possible across the government — and, in some cases, among European allies. Continue reading Crimes of DNC Loyalists in DOJ and Intelligence→
NBC News employing Shawn Henry, a CrowdStrike top officer and former executive assistant to FBI Director Robert Mueller, as a cyber security consultant
$300M investments by Google and Silicon Valley VCs
Today, that creates an impression that CrowdStrike is a respectable entity. But when it was invited by the DNC to take care of a suspected breach in 2016, it could not be mistaken for one. CrowdStrike was a four year old upstart hardly noticeable in the crowded market for cyber-security products and services of the kind it provided. The weakness of its product could not be compensated by its excellent PR, but strong ties to Obama’s FBI helped.
Update. The controlling legal precedent seems to be the following quote from the Supreme Court Decision:
“To determine whether an actor’s conduct possesses “sufficient communicative elements to bring the First Amendment into play,” the Supreme Court has asked whether “[a]n intent to convey a particularized message was present and [whether] the likelihood was great that the message would be understood by those who viewed it.””
Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397, 404 (1989) (quoting Spence v. Washington, 418 U.S. 405, 410-11 (1974) (per curiam)).
When Google eliminates climate realist or conservative websites from its top search results, the “message” is certainly not understood by those who view it. Further, this is the main purpose of this conduct – to suppress speech without other people understanding that. Google also flatly denies that it conveys any message in its search results. It claims impartiality and attempts to provide “the most useful and relevant” search results. Thus, intentional distortion of the search results by Google does not even bring the First Amendment into play. It is really fraud, not speech.
Google Search is a commercial service that Google provides to its users. Google must provide this service in good faith and in accordance with other applicable laws. Google search is service, not “speech.” Continue reading Google Search Fraud→
I read the testimonies of Google, Facebook, and Twitter executives before the Senate Commerce Committee on Combating the Spread of Extremist Propaganda (January 17, 2018), and I would advise you not to trust them very much. Under the pretext of fighting “extremist propaganda” (a vague term, probably selected to conceal partisan differences on what constitutes extremist propaganda) Google and Twitter suppress speech dissenting from leftist orthodoxy. For example, Google has demonetized some PragerU videos on a range of topics and is being sued by them. I have been banned from Google AdWords and Twitter Ads for speech opposing climate alarmism.
“Two and a half years ago, I said that net neutrality was ‘Obamacare for the Internet.’ At the time, the Obama administration, in its typically deceptive manner, had conflated net neutrality — a worthy idea, as originally defined, to protect an open internet — with reclassifying the internet as a public utility under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934, a burdensome, behemoth of a law that gives all sorts of authority to the government …” – Senator Ted Cruz, May 1, 2017
The Oregon Petition against climate alarmism has been signed by 31,000+ scientists and experts in the natural sciences, including more than 9,000 PhD holders, and all signatures have been verified. Spicy allegations about petition distribution, signing, and the verification procedures spread by the enviros, leftists, Google, and the former mainstream media, are false. The following email from Dr. Art Robinson is published here with his permission.
Pretty much everything people think they know about Wikipedia they heard from Wikipedia itself. Wikipedia has become a cesspool of information that cannot be trusted as facts. Amazingly, Wikipedia functions as a combination of tyranny, chaos, and opacity. Anybody can write anything in it (chaos) as long as what’s written is in harmony with the far-left politics of its San Francisco management (tyranny). But even in totalitarian countries the citizens know their rulers. The portraits of Stalin and Mao hung in every public place of the countries they ruled. This isn’t so in Wikipedia. The highest Wikipedia hierarchs (Stewards and ArbCom members) are totally anonymous and hidden behind usernames like Ks0stm. Wikipedia belongs to the Wikimedia Foundation. The Wikimedia Foundation’s Board currently consists of eight members (1). At least one of them (María Sefidari Huici, Spain) was appointed in open violation of the publicly posted bylaws. The only publicly known person on the board is Jimmy Wales, the founder. Other respected directors resigned or were pushed out years ago. Only two among the seven board members are American citizens. According to Wikipedia, it holds elections of its functionaries and power brokers but the election process is under control of a few (or even one) persons. These kingmakers are also anonymous. Most of the popularity and income (in small donations) is derived by Wikipedia’s relations with Google, which gives Wikipedia abnormally high prominence in its organic search results. However, the widely held opinion that Wikipedia is reliable on non-controversial subjects is wrong because Wikipedia regularly presents leftist opinions as non-controversial facts, making it hard to detect that a subject is in fact controversial.
Originally published on October 29, 2017. Minor updates on April 13, 2018.
“Does it make sense, for example, that someone researching “Republican platform” should be presented only the official text of the platform and seven left-leaning results highly critical of that platform, with zero results supporting it?”
“… we would expect top ranked search results to have more external links compared to lower ranked search results. Instead, pages demonstrating a left or far left political slant made it into the top results with significantly fewer external links compared to pages rated balanced. Pages with a right-leaning slant needed significantly more links to make it into the top results.”
“According to recent Google findings, online search is the resource that 87% of the population turns to first when a question arises. Online search plays a particularly prominent role in the democratic process during election season. During the 2012 election cycle, a survey of persuadable voters revealed that 49% get their news about campaigns and the election online, largely through search engines like Google, and that these voters generally trust the information they find online. Top search results are broadly perceived as being the most accurate and authoritative by members of the public with the first five search results accounting for an estimated 67% of all clicks and the first three results alone accounting for over 55% of all clicks. In their 2015 study, Robert Epstein and Ronald Robertson concluded that the order of search results can have a big impact on voter behavior — and in the event of a close election, this effect could even be profound enough to determine the outcome of the election.”
Contrary to its claims that Trending stories were selected automatically, Facebook used a team of hand-picked leftist journos that routinely suppressed “conservative” news. Facebook denies that but its Guidelines had an obvious effect: a very aggressive filtering out of conservative news.
Gizmodo, May 9, 2016: Former Facebook Workers: We Routinely Suppressed Conservative News (1)
Facebook workers routinely suppressed news stories of interest to conservative readers from the social network’s influential “trending” news section, according to a former journalist who worked on the project. This individual says that workers prevented stories about the right-wing CPAC gathering, Mitt Romney, Rand Paul, and other conservative topics from appearing in the highly-influential section, even though they were organically trending among the site’s users.Continue reading Facebook Filtered out Conservatives for Years→
The main organization behind the malicious smear campaign that fraudulently uses the phrase “net neutrality” is Free Press, a revolutionary Marxist group. Robert W. McChesney, a founder of Free Press, sounds like Lenin. From his 2014 article Sharp Left Turn for the Media Reform Movement (emphasis is mine):
“In subsequent years the U.S. media reform movement blossomed, led primarily by a group I co-founded, Free Press. On a number of major issues … Free Press led the charge in Washington, DC. The thinking behind the group and the movement was to have one foot in the battles of the day as they were being fought in the capital, while having another foot doing organizing in the field, with the idea of expanding popular awareness and involvement in the movement. We realized that for most people the range of media policy outcomes then countenanced in Washington seemed abstract or inconsequential. We needed to capture their imagination with bold and radical proposals. The strategy was to create an army for structural media reform …” Continue reading You Won’t Believe Who’s Behind “Battle for the Net”→
It’s no secret that formerly respectable and mainstream media outlets have become fake news purveyors. Whatever it is that drove journalists to lie and manipulate, the evidence exists to prove their intent to deceive.
Much like television commercials and print advertisements, news stories are written to sell the reader something. Many times, what the news outlets are selling is politically motivated. On almost any given topic they choose to cover, they’ve been seen to cherry pick quotes that are in line with their interests and agendas, to omit relevant information that may harm their stand on something, and to use language that falsely imputes guilt on Republicans and conservatives.
“Given that this was Earth Day weekend, with a March for Science passing right past our building on Saturday afternoon, I think this is more than coincidence.”
“Local news reports that UAH police have classified this as a ‘random shooting’. So, the seven Belgian 5.7 millimeter bullets which hit windows and bricks around John Christy’s office from 70 yards away were apparently deemed to be ‘random’ occurrence.”
Listed below are 15 lies in this NYT article . This is after the article was corrected on March 4, 2017, two days after it was originally published.
The article’s title is: “Top Trump Advisers Are Split on Paris Agreement on Climate Change”
Lie #1. Trump advisors are not split on the Paris agreement. The U.S. is not a part of the Paris agreement because this agreement has not been ratified by the Senate. All parties of the Paris agreement knew that Obama’s signature did not bind the U.S. Whether the Trump administration repudiates or just ignores that agreement is hairsplitting. Besides, having different opinions is normal. Only Obama’s administration was a single-opinion government. Next: Continue reading How many Lies can one New York Times Article Contain?→
The so-called “climate science” is completely upside down. The anthropogenic release of carbon dioxide (CO2) is beneficial for humans and nature. Approximately 15% of the world’s agricultural production is due to the elevated amount of CO2 in the air (see reference ). The small and slow warming, which is expected from CO2 release, is also beneficial for humans and nature. (There was steep warming probably due to solar activity increase in the 80’s and 90’s but no warming in the last 19 years.) The claims that “climate change” is to blame for all the world’s disasters are nothing but myths. I cannot go into details in this short post, but the science matters were mostly settled in the 1983 Nierenberg Report with the most un-alarming conclusions. After that, the genuine scientific research and observations suggested that there’s even less concern to be had about potential harm and actually more benefits. For example, it was found that increase of CO2 concentration in the air not only enhances plant growth but decreases plant water demand . The politics of climate alarmism (conceived by the United Nations politicians) gave birth to the perverted “climate science,” not other way around. Continue reading “Climate Science” is Upside Down (recap)→
“In 1966, [Barbara] Ward gave a lecture, Space Ship Earth, in which she argued that mankind’s survival depended on developing a government of the world. The longevity of China’s government, Mao being the latest dynasty, demonstrated that world government was possible. If two thousand years of rule can work for twenty-five per cent of the world’s population, ‘we can hardly argue that the task of government becomes a priori impossible simply because the remaining three-quarters are added’, Ward argued.” (Kindle Locations 1744-1748)
June 2, 2017 (four months from today) will be the 25 year anniversary of the Heidelberg Appeal. This historical document signed by more than 4,000 distinguished scientists, including 70 Nobel Laureates, was released in the beginning of the infamous “Earth Summit” (Rio de Janeiro, 1992) to oppose environmental obscurantism, including climate alarmism. Among other things, the Heidelberg Appeal said:
We want to make our full contribution to the preservation of our common heritage, the Earth.
We are, however, worried at the dawn of the twenty-first century, at the emergence of an irrational ideology which is opposed to scientific and industrial progress and impedes economic and social development.
We contend that a Natural State, sometimes idealized by movements with a tendency to look toward the past, does not exist and has probably never existed …
We intend to assert science’s responsibility and duties toward society as a whole.
We do, however, forewarn the authorities in charge of our planet’s destiny against decisions which are supported by pseudoscientific arguments of false and nonrelevant date.
The greatest evils which stalk our Earth are ignorance and oppression, and not Science, Technology, and Industry …
Apparently, producers and editors of the leftstream TV channels lost ability to distinguish fiction from reality. Such TV genres as reality shows, environmentalist propaganda, and the liberal drivel in general blend reality and fiction in various ways. Combined with echoes of academic postmodern contructivist theories, this leads to the current post-truth reporting. Alternatively, the leftstream TV expresses contempt to its viewers. Whatever the cause, the fictional character “Bill Nye the Science Guy” has been presented as a real scientist on ABC, CBS, MSNBC, and CNN.
If you watch news on any of these channels, these might be fake news. New York Times has called this actor “the science guy” as well. Bill Nye receive BS in mechanical engineering in 1977 and worked as an engineer for some years after that. By 1993 his engineering gig was over. He has been an actor and a “TV personality” for the last 20 – 25 years. He can be called a former engineer, if it helps.
In many fields, governments have a monopoly on the support of scientific research….
…, the powers that be invent the narrative independently of the views of even cooperating scientists. It is, in this sense, that the science becomes irrelevant. This was certainly the case in the first half of the twentieth century, where we just have to look at Lysenkoism  in the former Soviet Union, Social Darwinism, and Eugenics throughout the western world , as well as, in the 1960s, the unfounded demonization of DDT . Each phenomenon led to millions of deaths. And, in each case, the scientific community was essentially paralyzed, if not actually complicit. …
“One would think it would be possible to present a coherent argument and discussion in a small book (154 pages plus 17 pages of introduction and preface), but Stephen Schneider fails.”
“As best I can tell, Schneider is trying to endorse both the study of the Earth as a system and the integrated assessment of potential damage from possible global warming. Schneider’s prejudice is revealed when he presents the Paul Ehrlich-John Holdren formula, I=PAT: Environmental Impact equals Population times Affluence per capita times Technology used. This is in the part of the introduction where Schneider introduces population, affluence and technology as “the enemy”. Here he also informs us that an altered climate is a “damaged climate.”Continue reading Brilliant Richard Lindzen, more links→
Do you still believe that climate alarmism is a grassroots movement? Do you still believe it is based on science, or possibly exaggerated or misunderstood science? No, it is a centralized command & control structure with aspirations to become a “global governance” (they shy away from the phrase “global government”). Read what they say and think again.
*** James Gustave Speth [Chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality in the Executive Office of the President, 1979-1981], Peter Haas. 2013. Global Environmental Governance: Foundations of Contemporary Environmental Studies:
The challenge of the global environment is fundamentally one of effective governance—global environmental governance.
Climate Alarmism can be compared to the HIV virus. After entering a society, it attacks the main defense of the society against itself and similar threats – the scientific enterprise. After the scientific enterprise was weakened enough, the society becomes defenseless against any pathogenic agenda, alleging scientific justification. Climate Alarmism brings with it a number of such agendas, from shutting down the national energy infrastructure to banning free speech to submitting to the UN. America became infected in 1992 through Al Gore and Timothy Wirth.
Sometimes the obsession for control of the climate got a bit out of hand, as in the Aztec state, where the local scientific/religious establishment of the year 1500 had long since announced that the debate was over and that at least 20,000 human sacrifices a year were needed to keep the sun moving, the rain falling, and to stop climate change. Continue reading William Happer’s 2009 Senate Statement→
Global Warming: How to approach the science.
Richard Lindzen. Testimony at House Subcommittee on Science and Technology hearing on A Rational Discussion of Climate Change: the Science, the Evidence, the Response. November 17, 2010. Selected quotes, emphasis is mine.
“In my long experience with the issue of global warming, I’ve come to realize that the vast majority of laymen including policymakers do not actually know what the scientific debate is about. In this testimony, I will try to clarify this. Some of you may, for example, be surprised to hear that the debate is not about whether it is warming or not or even about whether man is contributing some portion of whatever is happening. I’ll explain this in this testimony. Unfortunately, some part of the confusion is explicitly due to members of the scientific community whose role as partisans has dominated any other role they may be playing.”
“I have been involved in climate and climate related research for over thirty years during which time I have held professorships at the University of Chicago, Harvard University and MIT. I am a member of the National Academy of Sciences, and the author or coauthor of over 200 papers and books. I have also been a participant in the proceedings of the IPCC (the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). The questions I wish to address are the following: What can we agree on and what are the implications of this agreement? What are the critical areas of disagreement? What is the origin of popular perceptions? I hope it will become clear that the designation, ‘skeptic,’ simply confuses an issue where popular perceptions are based in significant measure on misuse of language as well as misunderstanding of science. Indeed, the identification of some scientists as ‘skeptics’ permits others to appear ‘mainstream’ while denying views held by the so-called ‘skeptics’ even when these views represent the predominant views of the field.”