The American Color Revolution Doctrine – How the US Overthrows Governments Around the World

Please make sure these dispatches reach as many readers as possible. Share with kin, friends and workmates and ask them to do likewise.


TheRevolutionReport

[wpavefrszresizer]


FEATURED IMAGE: The results of Kiev's "Maidan" revolution. And what was soon to come was infinitely worse. 


Aug 12, 2024
For years the US infiltrated and took control over Bangladesh's media, education system, and political networks, exercising increasing levels of control over the country and its politics, resulting in the successful overthrow of the government. Street protests featured violent extremists defended by the US government as "abused" by the government despite a history of terrorism and crimes against humanity. Muhammad Yunus, now heading the interim government, had been a long-term US backed asset, a US State Department Fulbright scholar, having received multiple "medals" from the US government, the Nobel Peace Prize, as well as having approached the US government to intervene in Bangladesh's politics on his behalf, according to Wikileaks. The inability of Bangladesh to uproot US interference resulted in the eventual destabilization of the country, serving as an example of how important it is for nations to protect their information space, education systems, and political networks.


References:
Voice of America Bangladesh Politician Faces Discipline Over Threat Against US Envoy (November 15, 2023):
https://www.voanews.com/a/bangladesh...

BBC Bangladesh PM blames political foes for violence (July 23, 2024): https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c72... VOA (republishing AP) Bangladesh bans JamaateIslami party following violent protests that left more than 200 dead (): https://www.voanews.com/a/bangladesh...
US State Department 2023 Report on International Religious Freedom: Bangladesh: https://www.state.gov/reports/2023re...
The Guardian US campaign behind the turmoil in Kiev (November 2004): https://www.theguardian.com/world/200...
NYT U.S. Groups Helped Nurture Arab Uprisings (April 2011): https://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/15/wo... Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation (FSB) Unified List of Recognized Terrorist Organizations: http://www.fsb.ru/fsb/npd/terror.htm
Time Magazine Bangladesh Protesters Pitch Nobel Laureate Muhammad Yunus to Lead Interim Government (August 6, 2024): https://time.com/7008183/bangladeshm...
Fulbright Muhammad Yunus: https://www.fulbrightprogram.org/muha...
Yunus Centre Professor Yunus among 16 Recipients of Presidential Medal of Freedom (2009): https://www.muhammadyunus.org/post/41...
Yunus Centre Dr. Muhammad Yunus, first American Muslim recipient of Congressional Gold Medal (2013): https://www.muhammadyunus.org/post/11...
Wikileaks NOBEL PRIZE WINNER DR. MUHAMMAD YUNUS CONSIDERS ENTERING BANGLADESH POLITICS (2007): https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/07...
Wikileaks NOBEL LAUREATE REQUESTS USG HELP ON GRAMEEN BANK RULES (2009): https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/09...


Where to Find My Work:

Website: https://landdestroyer.blogspot.com
Telegram: https://t.me/brianlovethailand
Twitter:
  / brianjberletic  
Odysee (YouTube alternative):
https://odysee.com/@LandDestroyer:8
Rumble (YouTube alternative):
https://rumble.com/c/c1459863
Weibo:
https://weibo.com/u/7726044004 ไบรอัน แฟนคลับ
(Facebook):
  / brianthaifanclub  
Line Group:
https://lin.ee/JIxTpKe
Gab:
https://gab.com/BrianBerletic
VK (Facebook alternative):
https://vk.com/brianberletic


How to Support my Work (and thank you!):
Buy Me A Coffee:
https://www.buymeacoffee.com/TheNewAtlas
Patreon:
  / landdestroyer  
PromptPay: 0851547235
Cryptocurrency Donations:
Ethereum (ETH): 0xee6ed93c3adc474450011e9af22939a0b9b312c7

BitCoin (BTC): 1AfGnbmHxA6cy9YKUSxysXvpJPyecpBKrr
Monero (XMR): 845TCXx3pchSBXuDL7FHG679gbWD2wkHS6MJxuq7jFVsVFj7T6xsry747uhhGZUdkaRXbbrMfo5c8RnGfzGZ13KxQUdHVLR


[t4bticker id=”6″]


window.addEventListener("sfsi_functions_loaded", function() { if (typeof sfsi_widget_set == "function") { sfsi_widget_set(); } });


Print this article

The views expressed herein are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of The Greanville Post.

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons AttributionNonCommercial 4.0 International License • 
ALL CAPTIONS AND PULL QUOTES BY THE EDITORS NOT THE AUTHORS




The German mainstream is collapsing

Please make sure these dispatches reach as many readers as possible. Share with kin, friends and workmates and ask them to do likewise.


Thomas Fazi


Resize text-+=

The German mainstream is collapsing

Fazi notes that a new left-right populist spectrum is emerging in Germany, but the phenom is not seen just in Germany, but hroughout the collective West, including, quite possibly, the United States.



This weekend’s regional elections in Saxony and Thuringia have revealed significant shifts in the German political landscape, reflecting a country grappling with multiple crises. Although these were only regional elections, their outcomes carry national implications, particularly given the participation of nearly three-quarters of the five-million electorate. Here are the main takeaways:

The political mainstream has collapsed

The main opposition party, the centre-right CDU, maintained its dominant position in Saxony by a tiny margin. But the party now faces a choice: change or continue to shed votes to the AfD. The CDU’s involvement in centrist coalitions, driven by the necessity of excluding the AfD, has diluted its political identity. Also quite paradoxically, the rise of the AfD has been fuelled precisely by the migration policies of former CDU chancellor Angela Merkel.

The CDU now finds itself weakened, unable to form coalitions without compromising its traditional stances, and without striking alliances that would have been unthinkable a few years ago, such as with the newly formed left-populist Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance (BSW) — an option that is currently being explored by both parties. Incredibly, the BSW is now the third-largest party in both states — an impressive feat for a party that was launched just a few months ago.

For a deep dive into the Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance, and how her blend of old-school leftist economics, pro-peace and anti-NATO foreign policy, and conservative cultural outlook is redefining populism — and upending German politics — see this recent article of mine. (It is reproduced as an addendum below.—Ed)

The transplantation of the FRG’s economic order into the former GDR was the most brutal neoliberal shock therapy ever implemented in a European country...The first instrument of this shock therapy was monetary integration, which involved the former GDR’s adoption of the West-German mark, which was highly overvalued relative to the fundamentals of the East-German economy.

Migration and war: the central issues

The vote has confirmed that migration remains the “mother of all domestic policy problems”. The inability to manage migration effectively has eroded public trust in traditional parties. The AfD’s success can be attributed largely to its hardline stance on immigration, a position that has gained traction even among former left-wing voters who now support the Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance. This development suggests that migration will dominate the upcoming federal elections, turning them into a de facto referendum on Germany’s immigration policies. But opposition to war and to the government’s belligerent approach to the Russia-Ukraine crisis clearly also played a role, especially among young people. Sahra Wagenknecht, in particular, has put opposition to NATO and to the deployment US long-range missiles on German territory, and the question of détente with Russia, at the centre of her party’s platform. 

A new left-right populist spectrum  

The most interesting takeaway from the elections is probably the emergence of a new, and unique in the European panorama, left-right populist spectrum, in the form of the AfD and the BSW, which collectively make up almost 50 percent of the votes. This underscores that dissatisfaction with the established parties is even larger than what right-populists parties alone are able to capture: a lesson for other countries as well. For now the BSW has ruled out forming regional coalition governments with the AfD, which is understandable from a tactical standpoint: many disaffected voters from the centre and the left are turning to the BSW precisely because it is not the AfD. But in the future the mood might shift: if the establishment refuses to respond to popular concerns, the demand for a left-right populist front could grow. Meanwhile, the fact that both ends of the political spectrum are converging on similar migration policies suggests that this issue may hopefully be approached more pragmatically, rather than through the lens of morality.

An increasingly divided country

One cannot understand the populist uprising sweeping eastern Germany without understanding the economic, social and political trauma that reunification — or better, the East’s annexation by the West — was for many eastern Germans, and how this legacy continues to this day. As I recently wrote in Compact:

The transplantation of the FRG’s economic order into the former GDR was the most brutal neoliberal shock therapy ever implemented in a European country.

The first instrument of this shock therapy was monetary integration, which involved the former GDR’s adoption of the West-German mark, which was highly overvalued relative to the fundamentals of the East-German economy. This shattered the profitability of East-German firms, which quickly became insolvent, resulting in the immediate collapse of GDP and a sharp rise in unemployment. Most ominously, it kicked off what one study described as a “dramatic process of de-industrialization”.  

The second instrument was the mass privatization of state-owned firms, houses, and land by the infamous Treuhandanstalt, a West-German government-controlled trust agency that took control of almost all the assets of the former GDR with the aim of privatizing them as quickly as possible. By 1992, more than 80 percent of firms had already been privatized or closed. The overwhelming majority of the firms were sold to West German investors and companies—at bargain prices, of course. 

In other words, virtually the entire economy of the former socialist state passed into the hands of West-German capitalists.

[This is reflected in] the stark economic disparities that persist between West and East Germany more than three decades after reunification, when the territories of the GDR were incorporated into the FRG in 1990. The states that make up the former East Germany generally have lower GDP per capita and wages, higher unemployment and poverty rates, and poorer infrastructure and public services than those in the West. In 2017, net national income per capita in East Germany was still only 73 percent of what it was in West Germany. 

A wake-up call

In conclusion, the recent regional elections serve as a wake-up call for Germany. They highlight the urgent need for political realignment and the dangers of ignoring the concerns of significant portions of the electorate. The implications extend beyond Germany, affecting its role in the European Union and the broader geopolitical landscape.

This is a longer version of an article that appeared in UnHerd.

Thanks for reading. Putting out high-quality journalism requires constant research, most of which goes unpaid, so if you appreciate my writing please consider upgrading to a paid subscription if you haven’t already. Aside from a fuzzy feeling inside of you, you’ll get access to exclusive articles and commentary.

Thomas Fazi

Website: thomasfazi.net
Twitter: @battleforeurope 

Latest book: The Covid Consensus: The Global Assault on Democracy and the Poor—A Critique from the Left (co-authored with Toby Green)



Addendum
Who’s afraid of Sahra Wagenknecht? Germany's 'left-conservative' has redefined populism

Sahra Wagenknecht

Sahra Wagenknecht: her inteligent political formula may actually represent salvation for Germany and the continent—if the US-aligned satrap establishment will allow.

AUGUST 31, 2024

Few would have predicted that Germany, long known for having the continent’s most boring politics, would become the epicentre of Europe’s new populist revolt — let alone one coming from both the Right and the Left. And yet, that is exactly what is happening.

In the recent European elections, as amply expected, the Right-populist Alternative for Germany (AfD) party overtook the centre-left SPD for the first time, becoming the country’s second-largest party after the centre-right CDU/CSU alliance. Meanwhile, the two major parties between them gained less than 45% of the votes — down from 70% just 20 years ago. It was the biggest collapse of the German political mainstream since reunification.

More than anything, the elections revealed that post-reunification Germany remains neatly divided along its former border: while western Germans are also signalling growing dissatisfaction with the current SPD-Greens-FDP coalition, but remaining within the bounds of mainstream politics, eastern Germans are revolting against the political establishment itself.

Thus, with state elections taking place in three eastern states over the next month — in Saxony and Thuringia this weekend, and in Brandenburg on September 22 — it’s no wonder the German centre is bracing itself for collapse. But while it’s a foregone conclusion that the AfD will make massive gains, with the party leading the polls in two of the three states, the real surprise may prove to be, once again, Sahra Wagenknecht’s new party, which is currently polling between 11% and 19%.

For now, Wagenknecht has ruled out forming regional coalition governments with the AfD, as well as with any party that supports arms deliveries to Ukraine (which means most mainstream parties). But her mere presence on the ballot will further erode support for the ruling coalition — and make it very hard, if not impossible, for the latter to form centrist coalition governments at the state level.

The Wagenknecht phenomenon is fascinating — and unique — for several reasons. Not only has she managed to establish the BSW as one of the country’s major political forces in a matter of months, but she’s also running on a platform that is unique in the Western political panorama, at least among electorally relevant parties. Though Wagenknecht tends to avoid framing her party in tired Left-Right terms, its platform can best be described as left-conservative.

In short, this means it mixes demands that would once have been associated with the socialist-labour Left — interventionist and redistributive government policies to regulate capitalist market forces, higher pensions and minimum wages, generous welfare and social security policies, taxes on wealth — with positions that today would be characterised as culturally conservative: first and foremost, a recognition of the importance of preserving and fostering traditions, stability, security and a sense of community.

Flailing Germany is the future of Europe

This inevitably entails more restrictive immigration policies and a rejection of the multiculturalist dogma, in which minorities refuse to recognise the superiority of common rules, threatening social cohesion. As the party’s founding text reads: “Immigration and the coexistence of different cultures can be enriching. However, this only applies as long as the influx remains limited to a level that does not overburden our country and its infrastructure, and as long as integration is actively promoted and successful.” What this looks like in practice became clear in 2015, when Wagenknecht strongly criticised then-Chancellor Angela Merkel’s decision to allow in hundreds of thousands of asylum seekers, invoking the mantra “Wir schaffen das!” (“We can do it!”). A year later, after a series of terror attacks perpetrated by migrants, Wagenknecht released a statement that read: “The reception and integration of a large number of refugees and immigrants is associated with considerable problems and is more difficult than Merkel’s frivolous ‘We can do it!’.”

More recently, following a fatal knife attack in Mannheim, Wagenknecht again lashed out at the government’s immigration policies: “We basically financed [the migrant attacker’s] radicalisation as well. He lived off us, off the money of the citizens.” Her focus on benefits here is crucial. For Wagenknecht, the promotion of social cohesion, including by restricting immigration flows, shouldn’t just be seen as a positive end in and of itself, such as for reasons of public safety, but also as a precondition for the pursuit of economically redistributive policies, and even of democracy itself. Only a political community defined by a collective identity — a demos — is capable of committing itself to a democratic discourse and to a related decision-making process, and of generating the affective ties and bonds of solidarity that are needed to legitimise and sustain redistributive policies between classes and/or regions. Simply put, if there is no demos, there can be no effective democracy, let alone a social democracy.

This is also why Wagenknecht places a strong emphasis on the importance of national sovereignty, and is highly critical of the European Union: not only because the EU is fundamentally anti-democratic and prone to oligarchic capture [actually captured ab initio by the globalist oligarchy.—Ed] , but because it cannot be otherwise, given that today the nation-state remains the main source of people’s collective identity and sense of belonging, and therefore the only territorial institution (or at least the largest) through which it is possible to organise democracy and achieve social balance. As she has said: “The call for ‘an end to the nation-state’ is ultimately a call for ‘an end to democracy and the welfare state’”.

In short, Sahra Wagenknecht is anything but your typical Western Leftist. Now, this is partly to do with the fact that she was born on the other side of the Iron Curtain, in former East Germany in 1969. She became interested in philosophy and Marxist economics as a teenager, but the end of the socialist GDR, in 1989, was, according to her biographer Christian Schneider, “the moment in time when the politician Wagenknecht was born”. She experienced it as a “unique horror”: like many East Germans, she believed in a reformed socialism, not in embracing West Germany’s capitalist path.

 

In short, Sahra Wagenknecht is anything but your typical Western Leftist.

That same year she joined the East German communist party, shortly before the fall of the Berlin Wall, and then, following reunification, became one of the leading figures of the party’s successor, the Party of Democratic Socialism (PDS). Even back then, she stood out as being both more radical and more conservative than her communist peers. “There was now this young woman who desperately wanted to go back to the old days” of the GDR, as one former leader of the PDS put it.

When, in 2007, the PDS merged with a splinter of the SPD to give birth to Die Linke (The Left), Wagenknecht quickly emerged as one of the party’s leading voices — and the face of the German radical Left. Die Linke’s support rocketed to 12% of the vote in 2009’s elections to the Bundestag, and remained close to there for nearly a decade. Wagenknecht also became a key figure in the German parliament, serving as parliamentary co-chairwoman of her party from 2015 to 2019 and as leader of the opposition (against Chancellor Angela Merkel’s grand coalition) until 2017. It was there that she earned a reputation for her powerful rhetoric and ability to challenge mainstream political narratives.

Her relationship with Die Linke, however, grew increasingly strained over the years: while the party became captured by the kind of “progressive neoliberalism” that has infected, to one degree or another, all Western Left-wing parties, Wagenknecht remained true to her old-school socialist roots. Her views on immigration and other issues — which would once have been completely non-controversial in socialist circles — were quickly becoming anathema on the Left. Eventually, in November 2019, Wagenknecht announced her resignation as parliamentary leader, citing burnout. Two years later, in the federal elections, Die Linkegarnered less than 5% of ballots and lost nearly half its seats — its worst result ever. For Wagenknecht, this was not a surprise.

Will East Germans ever feel at home?

For Wagenknecht, this new movement’s authoritarian shade became clear during the pandemic. Unlike virtually all her colleagues — and most of the German Left — Wagenknecht became a sharp critic of the government’s “endless lockdowns” and coercive mass vaccination programme (she refused to take the vaccine herself). Since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Wagenknecht has also emerged as the most vocal critic of Germany’s military support for Ukraine and the sanctions regime. This escalated her rift with Die Linke, which voted in favour of economic sanctions against Russia.

At that point, their break-up became inevitable — and finally, late last year, Wagenknecht announced the launch of her new party. The choice led to the unravelling of Die Linke, which was forced to dissolve its parliamentary faction, and has now virtually disappeared from the political map, receiving only 2.7% of the votes in June’s European elections.

Since the launch of BSW, Wagenknecht has put the question of détente with Russia at the centre of her party’s platform. On several occasions, she has highlighted how Germany’s subordination to the US-Nato proxy war strategy in Ukraine, and refusal to engage in diplomatic talks with Russia, is self-defeating from an economic as well as a geopolitical standpoint. Not only is the oil and gas embargo against Russia the main reason for Germany’s collapsing economy, but the government is, she told the Bundestag, “negligently playing with the security and in the worst case the lives of millions of people in Germany”. More recently, she has strongly condemned the government’s plan to deploy US long-range missiles on German territory and, perhaps most dramatically, challenged the omerta surrounding the Nord Stream attack. Indeed, following recent revelations about the German government’s possible cover-up of Ukrainian involvement, she called for a public inquiry, saying that, “should German authorities have known in advance about the attack plan on Nord Stream 1 and 2, then we would have the scandal of the century in German politics”.

It’s important to note that Wagenknecht views opposition to the proxy war against Russia as part of a much deeper rethinking of Germany’s geopolitical strategy. Its aim, as Wolfgang Streeck has written, is to “free it from the geostrategic grip of the United States, guided by German national survival interests instead of Nibelungentreue, or loyalty, to America’s claim to global political domination”. This necessarily entails re-establishing long-term political and economic relations with Russia, which could potentially lay the groundwork for a new Eurasian security architecture, and even a Eurasian community of states and economies.

Elsewhere, Wagenknecht has criticised the government’s “green” and gender-affirming policies, arguing that “Germany’s energy supply cannot currently be ensured by renewable energies alone”, and voting against a bill passed by the German parliament earlier this year to make it easier to change one’s legal gender. “Your law turns parents and children into guinea pigs for an ideology that only benefits the pharmaceutical lobby,” she said.

Germany's authoritarian turn

If that seems blunt, that’s because it is. But taken together, Wagenknecht’s old-school leftist economics, pro-peace and anti-Nato foreign policy, and conservative cultural outlook is resonating with voters. And as a result, she now finds herself in the crosshairs of both the establishment and her populist competitors. Indeed, on the Right in particular, the common criticism levelled at her is that, by drawing voters away from the AfD, she is weakening and dividing Germany’s populist front.

Yet the evidence for this is somewhat shaky. Rather, opinion polls show that the emergence of the BSW does not seem to have overly affected the AfD, which continues to maintain a 30% vote share in several eastern German states and 20% nationally. In fact, according to a recent study by the Hans Böckler Foundation, the BSW is actually drawing voters mostly from the centre and the Left — Die Linke and the SPD — rather than the AfD. The BSW’s staunchly Left-wing economic agenda, which puts it at odds with the neoliberal economic policy of the AfD, would appear to be key here: the study shows that the BSW draws support mainly from socially marginalised and low-income groups — traditionally, the classic target group of social-democratic parties. It also explains why she enjoys much stronger support in eastern Germany, which has significantly lower GDP per capita and wages, and higher unemployment and poverty rates than western Germany.

This suggests that Wagenknecht’s left-conservative agenda is filling a political space that was previously vacant, hoovering up German voters who are disillusioned with mainstream politics, and even very critical of immigration, but nonetheless feel uncomfortable voting for a party that has undeniably xenophobic or racist traits. The BSW, by contrast, represents a much more palatable “non-extremist” option for these would-be populist voters. This is further confirmed by the fact that, despite its tough stance on immigration, the BSW appears to be winning over an above-average number of voters from migrant backgrounds, a demographic that has traditionally voted for centre-left parties. In short, the evidence suggests that Wagenknecht is actually broadening the populist front rather than simply crowding out the existing populist pool.

It is this, along with the fact that Wagenknecht is among the top three most popular politicians in Germany, that explains why the establishment has decided to go on the attack. In recent weeks, the media there has launched a relentless campaign against Wagenknecht and the BSW, predictably focused on claims that she is a “Russian propagandist” — or “Vladimir Putinova”, as one article called her. Even more desperately, some have attempted to paint Wagenknecht, a literal communist, as a “far-Right extremist”. Only this week, Politico, which is owned by German media titan Axel Springer, unironically asked: “Is Germany’s rising superstar so far-Left she’s far-Right?”

The answer, of course, is a boring nein. And no doubt a far more interesting question will be thrown up by this weekend’s results: with a general election scheduled for next year, has Germany finally found a politician capable of breaking through its ideological wall?


Thomas Fazi is an UnHerd columnist and translator. His latest book is The Covid Consensus, co-authored with Toby Green.


SELECT COMMENT
Gpcus

2 hrs ago

"Uno spettro si aggira per l'Europa: lo spettro del populismo destro-sinistro. Tutte i leader della vecchia Europa si sono coalizzati in una sacra caccia alle streghe contro questo spettro: da Mario Draghi a Ursula Von der Layen, da Macron a Scholz, liberali francesi e centristi tedeschi"... non si vedeva tanta agitazione nelle nostre elites politico-accademico-mediatiche dai moti del 1848 e la stesura del Manifesto, ahahaha!
 


Lili News 029
  • In cynicism and power, the US propaganda machine easily surpasses Orwells Ministry of Truth.
  • Now the fight against anti-semitism is being weaponised as a new sanctimonious McCarthyism.
  • Unless opposed, neither justice nor our Constitutional right to Free Speech will survive this assault.


window.addEventListener("sfsi_functions_loaded", function() { if (typeof sfsi_widget_set == "function") { sfsi_widget_set(); } });


Print this article

The views expressed herein are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of The Greanville Post.

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License • 
ALL CAPTIONS AND PULL QUOTES BY THE EDITORS NOT THE AUTHORS




AI SURVEILLANCE AS A TOOL OF STATE REPRESSION

Please make sure these dispatches reach as many readers as possible. Share with kin, friends and workmates and ask them to do likewise.




Resize text-+=

AI Hitachi surveillance system

AI Hitachi surveillance system, one of many


AI SURVEILLANCE AS A TOOL OF STATE REPRESSION


AI technology poses a significant threat to communities that are struggling for liberation. The technology is used to create large surveillance networks accessible to police, military, and private companies. Frequently this technology is installed without the consent or knowledge of the people it surveils. In the United States, AI technology is used to surveil Black and Brown communities and target people for arrest. Abroad it is used for bombing campaigns and genocide.

In August 2023, a GPS tracker was found on a vehicle registered to one of the codefendants known as the Traverse City 3, a trio of queer activists. On September 5, 2023, this same codefendant was indicted on RICO charges related to the movement to Stop Cop City in Atlanta, GA, along with 60 other people. Months later, the State charged the Traverse City 3 with multiple felonies, accusing them of participating in a demonstration at the offices of EOTECH in Traverse City, MI in July 2023. These cases are nothing more than attempts by the State to suppress dissent, a clear example of the State’s use of military and surveillance technology to repress political movements.

The warrants for the arrest of the Traverse City 3 were issued based on the tracked locations of cars registered in defendants’ names. The prosecution is using data obtained from Flock Cameras, which use AI technology to read license plates, collect data on physical car details such as bumper stickers, and allow government agencies to quickly locate a car in locations more than 100 miles apart. After spending over $100,000 in additional security the week after the protest, EOTECH collaborated with the police. The police worked with Flock Safety to track cars registered in the defendants’ names and issue arrest warrants, claiming a connection with the protest at EOTECH. Just as the weapons technology developed by EOTECH is used to do imperialist violence across the globe, surveillance technologies are used to suppress protest here in the so-called United States.

EOTECH manufactures holographic sights for guns—which are widely used by US police forces and all branches of the military—and has contracts with the US military as well as federal and police agencies. Public contract data showed that from 2001 to 2016, EOTECH was paid $24 million for their products. EOTECH gun sights are also used by domestic federal agencies such as the FBI. The widespread use of their technology indicates that EOTECH has likely directly contributed to both colonial military operations abroad as well violent police repression in the US.

Flock Safety, founded in Atlanta, manufactures multiple pieces of surveillance technology: automated license plate readers (ALPRs), gunfire locator systems, and video surveillance cameras. Their ALPR system was the first to create a nationwide database of surveilled license plate information. Identifying data collected by their video surveillance systems is sent to a searchable, national database. According to a February 2023 report from the University of Michigan, this information can be stored indefinitely, and there is little to no regulation at the federal, state, or local levels around who can access it, for how long, or why. Like other AI surveillance technology, Flock ALPRs are sometimes inaccurate and have misread license plates, leading to the targeting and violent arrest of individuals unrelated to particular crimes. By creating a large, indefinite nationwide database of sometimes faulty license plate data, they have created a tool of mass surveillance, where police and state agents can track the comings and goings of people through 4,000 cities and 42 states and manufacture justification for repression and arrest.

Flock has sought to install their cameras throughout the United States, with and without the approval of local governments. Their surveillance technology, while popular with police, has been controversial as people speak out against the proliferation of police surveillance. In 2022, the City Council of Ypsilanti, MI described Flock cameras as an “invasion of privacy.” Despite protests by local people and the city government, the cameras were still installed at entry and exit points to the city. Police and state agencies are not the only entities with access to the Flock database, as private individuals and businesses can also make accounts to access the database. People who are tracked are not able to find out which agencies, businesses, or individuals accessed their information.

More broadly, AI surveillance technology is a growing concern for activists locally and abroad. Security cameras generate huge amounts of data difficult for humans to review and sift through, but AI can be used to look through large amounts of data and generate patterns that are then used by state agencies. In the case of Flock Safety, this data is used to create a so-called vehicle fingerprint, which police can then use to search for vehicle locations across cities, states, and multiple years of data. Another example of this is the Statewide Network of Agency Photos (SNAP), a database developed by Michigan State University, which collected state ID photos from 1998-99 onwards, and fed them through AI facial recognition software. This was done without the knowledge or consent of the public. Facial recognition technology has been shown to misidentify people, especially Black and Brown people. Police departments that use AI surveillance technology do so by collaborating with private companies like Flock Safety, often in secret and without public consent or legislative regulation.

Repression tactics of colonial states are seen first against the most marginalized people living within those states. In the United States, we can look to Project Greenlight in Detroit, MI. This surveillance project was started in 2016, claiming to be an effort to reduce crime. Initially, the city installed cameras in eight or nine gas stations. Since then, cameras have been placed in over 700 businesses including medical facilities and laundromats. This surveillance generates significant amounts of video data of people living in Detroit, a majority Black city. Detroit police reportedly use mobile devices to scan people and track them in real time. People who live near Project Greenlight installations are subjected to the constant green flashing of the light indicating nearby surveillance technology. This technology has not increased safety for people living in Detroit, rather they are subjected to frequent surveillance and police violence as a result of Project Greenlight.

Colonial states outside the United States have also implemented AI surveillance. Studying these surveillance measures and the connections between them is necessary because just as each struggle for liberation is intertwined, the tools for repression are shared between nation-states to curb dissent and expand surveillance.

US police forces are known to exchange tactics and training with foreign militaries, such as the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF). In Palestine, Israeli government created a facial recognition database of Palestinians in occupied Hebron. This constant surveillance is psychologically disturbing to people experiencing it and can be used to track people, arrest them, and even prevent them from entering the very neighborhoods they live in.

The Israeli military is also using a piece of AI technology called Gospel in their ongoing genocide of Gaza. It claims that Gospel identifies so-called “targets” within Gaza. The technology produces large volumes of “targets” which are then submitted to analysts within the military to attack. Of course, the euphemism “targets” represents real places and people. While using this technology, Israel has bombed hospitals, schools, and refugee camps. In response to broad international outcry against this genocide, Israel claims they are only targeting the Hamas resistance fighters, but, they say, civilian death is simply unavoidable. Medical experts estimate that the Israeli military has killed 186,000 Palestinian people during the invasion and bombing of Gaza. This includes more than 14,000 children, with at least 21,000 children missing. Within this context, the genocide is one of the first known large-scale uses of AI technology for targeting by a military. By claiming to use Gospel to identify “targets,” the Israeli government has used AI technology to help manufacture consent for indiscriminate bombing of Palestinian people as part of the ongoing genocide. Throughout the genocide, the United States has sent billions of dollars in weapons and monetary aid for weapons purchases to Israel. The United States and other countries are now looking into using AI military targeting software. If Gaza is any indicator, the results will likely be extremely violent and deadly.

The case in Traverse City, MI represents just one example of a collaboration between private companies and government agencies to repress activists using AI surveillance. Through this case, we see an escalation of state repression in line with other escalations, such as the use of RICO and domestic terrorism charges against music festival attendees in Atlanta, widespread police violence against protestors in the 2020 Uprisings, and violent repression of pro-Palestine student encampments this Spring. In this context, it is important to understand how this technology is currently being used and how it might be used for future repression.

In the face of severe repression, communities have always found ways to resist, to support and protect themselves against government violence. By understanding this technology and its role in surveillance, communities can build strategies for keeping each other safe. The increase in violent state oppression means learning from one another, and connecting the dots between repression tactics is only becoming more crucial. From Traverse City to Atlanta, Puerto Rico to Sudan to Palestine, an end to all occupying states and liberation to the land.

Support the defense of the Traverse City 3 by donating here.


 


Lili News 029
  • In cynicism and power, the US propaganda machine easily surpasses Orwells Ministry of Truth.
  • Now the fight against anti-semitism is being weaponised as a new sanctimonious McCarthyism.
  • Unless opposed, neither justice nor our Constitutional right to Free Speech will survive this assault.


window.addEventListener("sfsi_functions_loaded", function() { if (typeof sfsi_widget_set == "function") { sfsi_widget_set(); } });


Print this article

The views expressed herein are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of The Greanville Post.

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License • 
ALL CAPTIONS AND PULL QUOTES BY THE EDITORS NOT THE AUTHORS




Larry C. Johnson: The US is Failing on Two Fronts?

Please make sure these dispatches reach as many readers as possible. Share with kin, friends and workmates and ask them to do likewise.


DIALOGUE WORKS
with
Larry C. Johnson

Resize text-+=


Larry C. Johnson: The US is Failing on Two Fronts?
 

PLUS: Special Addendum



Larry C. Johnson: Israel vs Iran Showdown? Russia's Plan to Crush Ukraine's Army

 
 
 


Lili News 029
  • In cynicism and power, the US propaganda machine easily surpasses Orwells Ministry of Truth.
  • Now the fight against anti-semitism is being weaponised as a new sanctimonious McCarthyism.
  • Unless opposed, neither justice nor our Constitutional right to Free Speech will survive this assault.


window.addEventListener("sfsi_functions_loaded", function() { if (typeof sfsi_widget_set == "function") { sfsi_widget_set(); } });


Print this article

The views expressed herein are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of The Greanville Post.

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License • 
ALL CAPTIONS AND PULL QUOTES BY THE EDITORS NOT THE AUTHORS




Why AI ‘misinformation’ algorithms and research are mostly expensive garbage

Please make sure these dispatches reach as many readers as possible. Share with kin, friends and workmates and ask them to do likewise.


By Norman Fenton
WHERE ARE THE NUMBERS?
RECOMMENDED BY GODFREE ROBERTS


Resize text-+=

Why AI 'misinformation' algorithms and research are mostly expensive garbage



The Hunter Biden laptop story is just one of many stories which were deemed by the Main Stream Media (and most academics) to be 'misinformation' but which were subsequently revealed as true. Indeed Mark Zuckerberg has now admitted that Facebook (Meta), along with the other big tech companies, were pressured into censoring the story before the 2020 US election and also subsequently pressured by the Biden/Harris administration to censor stories about Covid which were wrongly classified as misinformation.

 

The problem is that the same kind of people who decided what was and was not misinformation (generally people on the political Left*) were also the ones who were funded to produce AI algorithms to 'learn':

b) what new claims were 'misinformation'.

Between 2016 and 2022, I attended many research seminars in the UK on using AI and Machine Learning to 'combat misinformation and disinfomation'. From 2020, the example of Hunter Biden's laptop was often used as a key 'learning' example, so algorithms classified it as 'misinformation' with subclassifications like 'Russian propaganda' or 'conspiracy theory'.

adamant that such videos were misinformation 'cheap tricks'.


Biden kissing little girls

But the academics presenting these Trump, Biden, and other political, examples ridiculed anybody who dared question the reliability of the self-appointed oracles who determined what was and was not misinformation. At one major conference taking place on zoom I posted in the chat: "Is anybody who does not hate Trump welcome in this meeting". The answer was "No. Trump supporters are not welcome and if you are one you should leave now". Sadly, most academics do not believe in freedom of thought, let alone freedom of expression when it comes to any views that challenge the 'progressive' narrative on anything.

In addition to the Biden and Trump related 'misinformation' stories which turned out to be true, there were also multiple examples of covid related stories (such as those claiming very low fatality rates and lack of effectiveness and safety of the vaccines) classified as misinformation that also turned out to be true. In all these cases anybody pushing these stories was classified as a 'spreader of misinformation', 'conspiracy theorist' etc. And it is these kinds of assumptions which drive how the AI ‘misinformation’ algorithms that were developed and implemented by organisations like Facebook and Twitter worked.

Let me give a simplified example The algorithms generally start with a database of statements which are pre-classified as either ‘misinformation’ (even though many of which turned out to be true), or ‘not misinformation’ (even though many of which turned out to be false). For example, the following were classified as misinformation:

  • “Hunter Biden left a laptop with evidence of his criminal behaviour in a repair shop”

  • “The covid vaccines can cause serious injury and death”

The converse of any statement classified as ‘misinformation’ was classified as 'not misinformation'.

A subset of these statements are used to “train” the algorithm and others to “test” the algorithm.

So, suppose the laptop statement is one of those used to train the algorithm and the vaccine statement is one of those used to test the algorithm. Then, because the laptop statement is classified as misinformation, the algorithm learns that people who repost or like a tweet with the laptop statement are ‘misinformation spreaders’. Based on other posts these people make, the algorithm might additionally classify them as, for example, 'far right'. The algorithm is likely to find that some people already classified as 'far right' or 'misinformation spreader' – or people they are connected to - also post a statement like “The covid vaccines can cause serious injury and death”. In that case the algorithm will have ‘learnt’ that this statement is most likely misinformation. And, hey presto, since it gives the ‘correct’ classification to the ‘test’ statement, the algorithm is ‘validated’.

Moreover, when presented with a new test statement such as “The covid vaccines do not stop infection from covid” (which was also pre-classified as ‘misinformation’) the algorithm will also ‘correctly learn’ that this is ‘misinformation’ because it has already 'learnt' that the statement “The covid vaccines can cause serious injury and death” is misinformation and that people who claimed the latter statement- or people connected with them - also claimed the former statement.

The way I have outlined how the AI process is designed to detect 'misinformation', is also the way that 'world leading misinformation experts' set up their experiment to "profile" the "personality type" that is susceptible to misinformation. The same methods are also now used to profile and monitor people that the academic 'experts' claim are 'far right' or racist.

Hence, an enormous amount of research was (and is still) spent on developing 'clever' algorithms which simply censor the truth online or promote lies. Much of the funding for this research is justified on the grounds that 'misinformation' is now one of the greatest threats to international security. Indeed, in Jan 2024 the Word Economic Forum declared that "misinformation and disinformation were the biggest short term global risks". European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen also declared that “misinformation and disinformation are greater threats to the global business community than war and climate change”. In the UK alone, the Government has provided many hundreds of millions of pounds of funding to numerous University research labs working on misinformation. In March 2024 the Turing Institute alone (which has several dedicated teams working on this and closely related areas) was awarded £100 million of extra Government funding - it had already received some £700 million since its inception in 2015. Somewhat ironically, the UK HM Government 2023 National Risk Register includes as a chronic risk:

Yet it continues to prioritise research funding in AI to combat this increased risk of 'harmful misinformation and disinformation'!

As Mike Benz has made clear in his recent work and interviews (backed up with detailed evidence), almost all of the funding for the Universities/research institutes world wide doing this kind of work, along with the 'fact checkers' that use it, comes from the US State Dept, NATO and the British Foreign Office who, in the wake of the Brexit vote and Trump election in 2016, were determined to stop the rise of 'populism' everywhere. It is this objective which has driven the mad AI race to censor the internet. Look at this video in which Mike Benz walks us through an event that took place in 2019:



it was hosted by the Atlantic Council (a NATO front organisation) to train journalists from mainstream organisations all around the world on how to 'counter misinformation'. Note how they make it clear that 'misinformation' includes for them 'malinformation' which they define as information that is true but, but which might harm their own narrative. They explain how to muzzle such 'malinformation’, especially from the (then) President Trump's social media posts in advance of the 2020 election. Despite claims that this did not happen (and indeed any such claims were themselves classified as misinformation) the journalists involved in this subsequently boasted very publicly that they not only did it but that it prevented Trump's re-election in 2020.


TIME mag

Update: Two highly relevant articles from colleagues:


* Note: Due to the prevailing instigated confusion in the political culture of the United States, what media, politicians and the public in general call "the left" is not the left by any criteria—definitional, economic, historical, or even cultural—but simply US corporatist interventionist liberals (usually Democrats), and an aggregation of fake leftist groups such as the establishment-supported anti-communist "breadtubers," anarchists, and other hard to classify currents objectively collaborating with the system.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Norman Fenton, PhD (with Martin Neil) are pioneers in exposing the flawed science and statistics behind the COVID-19 event. Their book Fighting Goliath, is available on Amazon. 


Lili News 029
  • In cynicism and power, the US propaganda machine easily surpasses Orwells Ministry of Truth.
  • Now the fight against anti-semitism is being weaponised as a new sanctimonious McCarthyism.
  • Unless opposed, neither justice nor our Constitutional right to Free Speech will survive this assault.


window.addEventListener("sfsi_functions_loaded", function() { if (typeof sfsi_widget_set == "function") { sfsi_widget_set(); } });


Print this article

The views expressed herein are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of The Greanville Post.

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License • 
ALL CAPTIONS AND PULL QUOTES BY THE EDITORS NOT THE AUTHORS