Tag Archives: propaganda

Sci-Tech

In The Future Cyberwar Will Be Primary Theater For Superpowers

Leave a comment

Cybersecurity expert explains how virtual wars are fought

With the Russia-Ukraine war in full swing, cybersecurity experts point to a cyber front that had been forming online long before Russian troops crossed the border. Even in the months leading up to the outbreak of war, Ukrainian websites were attacked and altered to display threatening messages about the coming invasion.

“In response to Russian warfare actions, the hacking collective Anonymous launched a series of attacks against Russia, with the country’s state media being the main target. So we can see cyber warfare in action with new types of malware flooding both countries, thousands of sites crashing under DDoS (distributed denial-of-service) attacks, and hacktivism thriving on both sides of barricades,” Daniel Markuson, a cybersecurity expert at NordVPN, says.

The methods of cyberwarfare

In the past decade, the amount of time people spend online has risen drastically. Research by NordVPN has shown that Americans spend around 21 years of their lives online. With our life so dependent on the internet, cyber wars can cause very real damage. Some of the goals online “soldiers” are trying to pursue include:

  • Sabotage and terrorism

The intent of many cyber warfare actions is to sabotage and cause indiscriminate damage. From taking a site offline with a DDoS attack to defacing webpages with political messages, cyber terrorists launch multiple operations every year. One event that had the most impact happened in Turkey when Iranian hackers managed to knock out the power grid for around twelve hours, affecting more than 40 million people.

  • Espionage

While cyber espionage also occurs between corporations, with competitors vying for patents and sensitive information, it’s an essential strategy for governments engaging in covert warfare. Chinese intelligence services are regularly named as the culprits in such operations, although they consistently deny the accusations.

  • Civilian activism (hacktivism)

The growing trend of hacktivism has seen civilian cyber activists take on governments and authorities around the world. One example of hacktivism is Anonymous, a group that has claimed responsibility for assaults on government agencies in the US. In 2022, Anonymous began a targeted cyber campaign against Russia after it invaded Ukraine in an attempt to disrupt government systems and combat Russian propaganda.

  • Propaganda and disinformation

In 2020, 81 countries were found to have used some form of social media manipulation. This type of manipulation was usually ordered by government agencies, political parties, or politicians. Such campaigns, which largely involve the spread of fake news, tended to focus on three key goals – distract or divert conversations away from important issues, increase polarization between religious, political, or social groups, and suppress fundamental human rights, such as the right to freedom of expression or freedom of information.

The future of cyber warfare

“Governments, corporations, and the public need to understand this emerging landscape and protect themselves by taking care of their physical security as well as cybersecurity. From the mass cyberattacks of 2008’s Russo-Georgian War to the cyber onslaught faced by Ukraine today, this is the new battleground for both civil and international conflicts,” Daniel Markuson says.

Markuson predicts that in the future, cyber war will become the primary theater of war for global superpowers. He also thinks that terrorist cells may focus their efforts on targeting civilian infrastructure and other high-risk networks: terrorists would be even harder to detect and could launch attacks anywhere in the world. Lastly, Markuson thinks that activism will become more virtual and allow citizens to hold large governmental authorities to account.

A regular person can’t do much to fight in a cyber war or to protect themselves from the consequences.

However, educating yourself, paying attention to the reliability of sources of information, and maintaining a critical attitude  to everything you read online could help  increase your awareness and feel less affected by propaganda.  For the Silo, Darija Grobova.

Culture

UK Style Convictions For Online Posts Possible In Canada

Leave a comment
Several individuals in the UK have been sentenced to prison for posts they made online as authorities crack down on recent protests that led to race-motivated crimes.
The laws that were used for the arrests in the UK compare as strikingly similar to Canadian laws dealing with online speech, including both existing legislation and the proposed Bill C-63.
Why It Matters: Bill C-63, which has received second reading, significantly changes the laws governing online content in Canada.

“It’s alarming that the bill [C-63] enables individuals to anonymously file complaints with the Canadian Human Rights Commission against those they deem to be posting hate speech. If found guilty, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal can impose fines of up to $70,000 cad and issue takedown orders for the content in question.

“If the courts believe you are likely to commit a ‘hate crime’ or disseminate ‘hate propaganda’ (not defined), you can be placed under house arrest and your ability to communicate with others restricted.” revolver.news

Via eurocanadians.ca/ The People’s Choice by Sean Adl-Tabatabai: The Trudeau government has introduced a potentially Orwellian new law called the Online Harms Bill C-63, which will give police the power to retroactively search the Internet for ‘hate speech’ violations and arrest offenders, even if the offence occurred before the law existed. This new bill is aimed at safeguarding the masses from so-called “hate speech”.

Revolver.news reports: The real shocker in this bill is the alarming retroactive aspect.

Essentially, whatever you’ve said in the past can now be weaponized against you by today’s draconian standards. Historian Dr. Muriel Blaive has weighed in on this draconian law, labeling it outright “mad.” She points out how it literally spits in the face of all Western legal traditions, especially the one about only being punished if you infringed on a law that was valid at the time of committing a crime.

Dr. Mureil Blaive-Historian & Researcher Institute for the Study of Totalitarian Regimes.

The Canadian law proposal is outright mad. It is retroactive, which goes against all our Western legal tradition, according to which you can be punished only if you infringed a law that was valid at the time when you committed a crime: “And it isn’t just stuff you’ve posted after the new law comes into force you can get into trouble for – oh, no – but anything you’ve posted, ever, dating back to the dawn of the internet. In other words, it’s a gold-embossed invitation to offence archaeologists to do their worst, with the prospect of a $20,000 cad reward if they hit paydirt. The only way to protect yourself is to go through all your social media accounts and painstakingly delete anything remotely controversial you’ve ever said.”

“Although, that won’t protect you from another clause in the bill – and this is where it trips over into as yet unimagined dystopian territory. If the courts believe you are likely to commit a ‘hate crime’ or disseminate ‘hate propaganda’ (not defined), you can be placed under house arrest and your ability to communicate with others restricted. That is, a court can force you to wear an ankle bracelet, prevent you using any of your communication devices and then instruct you not to leave the house. If the court believes there’s a risk you may get drunk or high and start tweeting under the influence – although how is unclear, given you can’t use your phone or a PC – it can order you to submit regular urine samples to the authorities. Anyone who refuses to comply with these diktats can be sent to prison.”

By externalizing the defense of free speech to the right and extreme right and by endorsing repression, the liberal left is playing a very dangerous game here. For those of us who are NOT on the right and extreme right, this is rather disheartening… The left is actually shooting itself in the foot and will come back whining, ‘amazed’ that ordinary people are so ‘ungrateful.’ Indeed it seems to have forgotten that the rule of law implies to solve disagreements in the voting booth rather than by silencing those who disagree with us. How can it hope to get the support of the public for this insanity?

An online X user recently shared that his wife wrote a letter to every Canadian MP concerning this chilling bill, and only one MP responded. He posted MP Rachel Thomas’s reply, which many are now calling one of the most insightful and well-crafted summaries on this alarming issue.

theMitchio:

My wife wrote to all Canadian MP’s about our opposition to the Online Harms Bill C-63. MP Rachael Thomas of Lethbridge is the only one who wrote back … It is the best written summary of issues I have seen yet. Long, but here it is…

“Thank you for writing to me regarding Bill C-63, the Liberal’s latest rendition of their online harms legislation.

While the federal government has touted this bill as an initiative to protect children, it does little to accomplish this noble cause, and a great deal to inhibit freedom of speech. Permit me to outline the bill in more detail.

There are four key parts to the bill: Part 1 creates the Online Harms Act; Part 2 amends the Criminal Code; Part 3 amends the Canadian Human Rights Act, and Part 4 amends An Act respecting the mandatory reporting of Internet child pornography by persons who provide an Internet service. I will focus on the first three parts of the bill in the rest of the letter.

Part 1: The bureaucratic arm will consist of three entities: the Digital Safety Commission, Digital Safety Ombudsperson, and Digital Safety Office. These new offices are made up almost entirely of Cabinet appointees and are given powers to receive and investigate complaints concerning harmful content, collect data, and develop more regulations. The Chairperson of the Digital Safety Commission would be voted on by Parliament. The Digital Safety Commission may investigate complaints and hold hearings regarding violations of the Act. The commission may act with the power of the federal court and may authorize any person to investigate compliance and non-compliance.

Penalties for violating an order of the commission or hindering anyone they authorize depend on whether a regulated service or individual commits the violation. The maximum penalty for a violation is not more than 8% of the gross global revenue of the person that is believed to have committed the violation or $25 million, whichever is greater. Cabinet and the Digital Safety Commission can make further regulations concerning the Commission’s powers and financial enforcement (fines).

Setting up a bureaucratic arm will do little-to-nothing to protect children. The last thing our system can handle right now is a stack of new complaints. It can’t even handle the existing ones.

Part 2: Bill C-63 creates a new hate crime offence that will make any offence under the Criminal Code, or any Act of Parliament, an indictable offence and punishable to life in prison if the offence was motivated by hatred. A definition of ‘hatred’ is introduced in s. 319(7), which is defined to mean ‘the emotion that involves detestation or vilification and that is stronger than disdain or dislike.’ s. 319 (8) includes the clarification that the communication of a statement does not incite or promote hatred, for the purposes of this section, solely because it discredits, humiliates, hurts or offends.

Furthermore, the bill increases the punishment for an offence in s. 318 (1), advocating genocide, to imprisonment for life. The current punishment is up to 5 years. The bill also increases the punishments for offences in s. 319 (public incitement of hatred, wilful promotion of hatred, wilful promotion of antisemitism) from up to 2 years to not more than 5 years.

Alarmingly, a peace bond is created for ‘fear of hate propaganda offence or hate crime.’ This will allow a person to seek a court-ordered peace bond if they reasonably fear that someone will commit a hate propaganda offence or hate crime against them in the future. If you’ve watched the movie “Minority Report” you know how scary this is.

Part 3: The bill reinstates Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, which empowers officials at the Canadian Human Rights Commission and Canadian Human Rights Tribunal to make subjective determinations as to what forms of expression constitute hate speech, and they may also decide on remedies including fines. This will allow any individual or group in Canada to file complaints with the Canadian Human Rights Commission against users who post ‘hate speech’ online, with an accused facing fines of up to $50,000.

The legislation defines hate speech as content that is “likely to foment detestation or vilification of an individual or group of individuals on the basis of such a prohibited ground.” In other words, the content doesn’t necessarily have to directly express vilification; it only needs to be assessed as “likely to” vilify someone by a human rights tribunal. Section 13 is a punitive regime that lacks procedural safeguards and rights of the accused that exist in criminal law. Truth is no defence, and the standard of proof that will apply to Section 13 is “balance of probabilities,” not “beyond reasonable doubt,” as exists in a criminal case.

As you have rightly pointed out, Parts 2 and 3 of this bill are a direct attack on freedom of speech and will have a significant chilling effect as people fear the possibility of house arrest or life in prison. Margaret Atwood has gone so far as to say that C-63 invites the possibility of revenge accusations and the risk of “thoughtcrime.”

Furthermore, its alarming that the bill enables individuals to anonymously file complaints with the Canadian Human Rights Commission against those they deem to be posting hate speech. If found guilty, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal can impose fines of up to $70,000 and issue takedown orders for the content in question. Additionally, the tribunal is granted the authority to shield the identities of complainants and prohibit defendants from disclosing this information if uncovered. In essence, accusers of hate speech will have their identities safeguarded, while those accused face significant financial penalties.

Common-sense Conservatives believe that we should criminalize and enforce laws against sexually victimizing a child or revictimizing a survivor online, bullying a child online, inducing a child to harm themselves or inciting violence. Criminal bans on intimate content communicated without consent, including deepfakes, must be enforced and expanded. Conservatives believe that these serious acts should be criminalized, investigated by police, tried in court, and punished with jail, not pushed off to a new bureaucratic entity that does nothing to prevent crimes and provides no justice to victims. We will bring forward changes to the Criminal Code that will actually protect children without infringing on free speech.

Thank you again for writing to me, and please accept my best wishes.

Warmest regards,

Rachael Thomas
Member of Parliament for Lethbridge”

https://twitter.com/theMitchio/status/1781296423096508791?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1781296423096508791%7Ctwgr%5Ebf03932a9029c261939ea0d9a9ff9324defb9051%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eurocanadians.ca%2F2024%2F05%2Fcanada-to-imprison-anyone-who-has-ever-posted-hate-speech-online
Reviews

How to Avoid a PhD (Penalty for Hardworking Dummies): Debunking the Meritocracy Myth

Leave a comment

To All Who Will Say, “It Has Nothing to Do with Me”

This book is a profound research work that exposes corruption, censorship, and corporate tyranny in the purported democratic system of the US. Hammond reveals the subversive role of the mainstream media in deceiving the public and manufacturing consent for perpetual wars, individual responsibility for institutional failures, and social injustice presented as a meritocracy. At the same time, argues Hammond, the incessant propaganda conditions the public to accept the denial of basic human rights such as healthcare, living wages, and higher education as undeserved luxuries.

According to the author, through sophisticated mechanisms, the People Relations industry constantly disseminates the illusion of freedom and democracy and inculcates the myth. Hammond offers a brief history of media corruption through consolidation of ownership, currently reduced to five giant corporations. The author opens the first chapter with a short analysis of the classic 5 filters of mass media detailed in Herman and Chomsky’s 1988 Manufacturing Consent. Although Chomsky’s revelation is widely popular as every dissident’s bible, less known is that the authors dedicated the book to an Australian writer, Alex Carey, whom they consider a pioneer in the field of propaganda.

According to Carey, people in the US have been subjected to an unparalleled, extensive, three-quarters century-long propaganda effort, designed to expand corporate rights by undermining democracy. Hammond traces the roots of propaganda back to the 1920s, when the founder of the People Relations field, Edward Bernays, initiated his mass psychological campaigns to win public opinion. Bernay’s successes include influencing women to smoke and promoting foreign intervention in Latin American countries at the behest of corporations, later known as Banana Republics.

During that time, leading intellectuals such as Bernays and Walter Lippmann freely used the term “propaganda” as an indoctrination tool and promulgated the idea of manipulating the public.

Bernay’s 1928 book titled Propaganda, was a literal manual for the ruling intelligentsia. According to Bernays, the masses should be unaware of the source of their influencers, while the audience is overwhelmed with carefully selected images and rhetoric by unknown agents. Another source used by Hammond is George Orwell’s unpublished preface titled “The Freedom of the Press” to his 1945 Animal Farm. A curious little-known fact is that Orwell had a hard time publishing the book in democratic Britain, and took him five years to find a publisher. Moreover, the preface, in which he explains the phenomenon of self-censorship and how in Western democracies it is done in a very subtle way in contrast with dictatorships where the censoring is open. Perhaps because of this analogy, the preface is still not published within the book, although could be found separately on the Internet.

Tamara Hammond’s book extensively analyzes the current media status with emphasis on alternative media in the context of the rising censorship practiced by the owners of social media networks. According to the author, from Google to Facebook to X (nee Twitter) tne giant networks are obedient purveyors of the ruling oligarchy that transcends national borders. Hammond warns that we are being conditioned to accept a neo-feudal technocratic dictatorship based on fearmongering and deception. Much of the book is dedicated to educating the audience about the real dissidents in media and academia who fight against wars and corruption, and to liberate imprisoned journalists like Julian Assange.

The epilogue features an allegorical tale about the slippery slope of corruption and the mechanisms of power that overwhelm even the most noble minds. Available for order on Amazon.

Politics

Handling of Trump Mar-a-Lago Raid Breeding Distrust in Law Enforcement: Expert

Leave a comment

Unless trust is restored, the FBI’s Mar-a-Lago raid may begin the “collapse” of U.S. law enforcement, according to police expert Michael Letts.

Over the past few years, the FBI has acted politically often enough that many Americans now struggle to trust it, Letts said. He runs In-Vest USA, a nonprofit that provides bulletproof vests to police departments.

Without explanations, acts such as the Mar-a-Lago raid create distrust between local and federal law enforcement, he said. They also create civilian distrust for law enforcement in general.

“Mar-a-Lago is just another nail in the coffin,” he said.

U.S. law enforcement runs on trust, according to Letts. Without trust, the system collapses into “Third-World status,” where police serve power instead of enforcing the law.

“Then, you have coup d’états, you have overthrows, riots. And then, whatever power happens to win at that particular day tries to solidify. The forces that it controls run out and eliminate everybody that’s not on their bandwagon,” he said.

Lack of Transparency in Politically Sensitive Case

The FBI made several decisions at Mar-a-Lago that could catastrophically damage trust in law enforcement, Letts said.

First, the raid itself shouldn’t have happened, he said.

Presidents often take many documents with them when they leave the White House. Often, staff accidentally pack at least a few secret documents by mistake. Most of the time, the federal government doesn’t punish this mistake, according to Letts.

Trump’s predecessor, former President Barack Obama, turned over 30 million documents to the National Archives.

“More often than not, they look at and realize [the document] no longer needs to be classified anymore,” he said.

But the FBI raided Trump’s home for the documents.

The FBI also refused to let Trump’s lawyer observe the search. Without someone else present, law enforcement could potentially plant fake evidence or steal a suspect’s property, Letts said. This has led many to now wonder whether the FBI demanded secrecy for alleged misconduct.

“They should have never provided fodder to the American people to have these kinds of questions,” he said.

Finally, FBI and DOJ leaders have failed to provide the public with a clear explanation as to why the raid had to happen.

Epoch Times Photo
In-Vest USA CEO Michael Letts. (Image courtesy of In-Vest USA)

Although the government released the warrant and receipt for property taken, these things didn’t provide enough of an answer, Letts said.

Since then, reports have been spreading about an internal FBI and Department of Homeland Security bulletin, leaked in part by CNN, NBC, and CBS, of an increase in bomb threats made online to law enforcement and officials following the Mar-a-Lago raid.

If the government truly wants to calm the situation, it needs to provide a full explanation, according to Letts.

“We need straight and direct answers,” he said. “We need congressional leadership. It needs to be a bipartisan effort.”

Trust: Cornerstone of the American System

The distrust from the FBI raid doesn’t only affect politics, Letts said. It also affects the inner workings of law enforcement.

Law enforcement agencies have to cooperate to do their work, he said. Federal and state police often join forces for investigations.

In these investigations, trust is crucial, according to Letts. If the FBI and local police don’t trust each other, they can’t cooperate.

Even law enforcement on drug dealing will fall apart if the FBI and police don’t trust each other, he said. If the FBI targets conservative politicians today, it might target anyone tomorrow.

“Is there something else behind the scenes? You’re willing to lie on FISA reports to courts. Are you willing to lie about this?” he asked.

The FBI’s Mar-a-Lago raid will also cause the public to distrust state and local police, as most of the time, the public doesn’t see the difference between local police, state police, and federal law enforcement, according to Letts.

“If anybody’s wearing a badge—sheriff, deputy, city police—they all get mixed into the same boat,” he said. “And now they all get vilified.”

In the past few years, law enforcement’s trust foundations have been weakened from a number of events, Letts said. Some media outlets have villainized them for alleged racism, which the police deny, during deaths in custody, while some city councils have cut their budgets. Officers faced immense pressure from all angles during the COVID-19 pandemic. Many police officers have resigned; few are recruited.

“They’re having to pull extra shifts. They’re at the highest stress rates. I mean, look at their divorce rates. They have some of the lowest morale we’ve ever seen in history,” he said of the police.

At some point, the “thin blue line” will snap, according to Letts.

“Who will they call when somebody is banging on their door to try to break in?” he asked.

We hope you enjoy our coverage! As you are visiting us today, we’d like to ask you one question —  How much do you think news media outlets actually impact your life? …Probably more than you realize. For the Silo/Epoch Times, Jackson Elliott.

Featured image: Protesters gather in front of the Federal Building in Los Angeles on Aug. 13, 2022, to voice anger over FBI’s Mar-a-Lago raid. (Linda Jiang/The Epoch Times)

Culture

World War One Trenches Crisscrossed Western Front Over One Hundred Years Ago

2 Comments

About one hundred years ago, millions were involved in war – a war later to be known as the War to End All Wars. It was a global conflict of brutality, propaganda and technological advance — a war of survival and humanity and courage.

Trench warfare forced soldiers to adapt to new technology and new techniques in order to survive – something my grandsons and I learned on a recent visit to the Canadian War Museum.

The helmet, the respirator and the Lee Enfield rifle were all introduced in 1916. The helmet was in response to shrapnel artillery shells. The respirator provided some defense against chlorine and phosgene gas. The Lee-Enfield bolt-action, magazine-fed, repeating rifle replaced the unsuitable and much hated Ross Rifle.

One hundred years ago, thousands of miles of trenches crisscrossed the western front.  Between the opposing trench systems lay No Man’s Land — a battered killing zone across which soldiers had to move in order to attack.

Howitzers were used to pound trenches and targets at the enemy’s rear. The eight-inch Howitzer could fire an enormous high-explosive, 200-pound shell up to seven miles.  The trajectory of fire was very high, with the shell plunging downward to deliver a devastating explosion.

Nieuport 17 image courtesy of airpowerworld.info
Nieuport 17 image courtesy of airpowerworld.info

Shrapnel shells were designed to burst in the air, producing a cone–shaped whirl of deadly metal. Soldiers suffered horrific wounds as pieces of shrapnel ricocheted inside the body, causing further internal damage and gaping exit wounds.

The Creeping Barrage was a key to victory on the Western front. This moving wall of artillery fire forced the enemy to remain under cover, unable to fire on the attacking infantry as they moved across No Man’s Land.

Control of the air was essential for victory on the ground. Canadians played a key role in the British air services as fighter and reconnaissance pilots, aerial observers, mechanics and flight instructors. The Nieuport 17, introduced in 1916, featured a powerful engine and a synchronized Vickers machine gun. It became one of the best allied fighter planes of the war.

Improvements in combat surgery and new techniques like blood transfusions meant almost 90 per cent of all wounded soldiers who received medical treatment survived.

Doctors learned to treat the terrible wounds of modern warfare, and served in the front lines or within range of enemy artillery. Causalities were so heavy that more than half of all Canadian physicians served overseas to meet the demand.

Canadian nurses were trained medical professionals, but nothing could have prepared them for the horror of battlefield wounds — more than 3,000 served in the Canadian Army medical corps. Their wartime service assisted women to receive greater recognition within the medical profession.

To pay for the enormous cost to equip our personnel overseas, the federal government imposed a business profits tax in 1916, and an income tax for individuals in 1917. Proposed as a temporary emergency measure, the income tax became permanent.

And, almost every city and town across Ontario and the country launched campaigns to raise money. Women worked without pay to provide countless supplies and gifts, including warm clothing, bandages and food.

To quote a popular phrase of the time, everyone was encouraged to, “Do your bit,” in support of soldiers and winning the war.

A century has passed, and we remember the tremendous impact of the War to End All Wars. For the Silo, Haldimand-Norfolk MPP Toby Barrett.