Tuesday, December 30, 2014

Who Was Behind the Cyberattack on Sony?

Who Was Behind the Cyberattack on Sony?

by GREGORY ELICH



The cyberattack on Sony Pictures unleashed a torrent of alarmist media reports, evoking the image of North Korean perfidy. Within a month, the FBI issued a statement declaring the North Korean government “responsible for these actions.” Amid the media frenzy, several senators and congresspersons called for tough action. Arizona Senator John McCain blustered, “It’s a new form of warfare that we’re involved in, and we need to react and react vigorously.” President Barack Obama announced his administration planned to review the possibility of placing North Korea on the list of states sponsoring terrorism, a move that would further tighten the already harsh sanctions on North Korea. “They caused a lot of damage, and we will respond,” Obama warned darkly. “We will respond proportionally, and we’ll respond in a place and time and manner that we choose.”

In the rush to judgment, few were asking for evidence, and none was provided. Computer security analysts, however, were vocal in their skepticism.

In its statement, the FBI offered only a few comments to back its attribution of North Korean responsibility. “Technical analysis of the data deletion malware used in the attack revealed links to other malware that the FBI knows North Korean actors previously developed,” it reported, including “similarities in specific lines of code, encryption algorithms, data deletion methods, and compromised networks.” The FBI went on to mention that the IP addresses used in the Sony hack were associated with “known North Korean infrastructure.” Tools used in the attack “have similarities to a cyberattack in March of last year against South Korean banks and media outlets, which was carried out by North Korea.”

The major problem with the evidence offered by the FBI is that it is self-referential, all of it pointing back to the 2013 attack on South Korean banks and media that was carried out by the DarkSeoul gang. At that time, without supplying any supporting evidence, the United States accused North Korea of being behind DarkSeoul. In effect, the FBI argues that because the U.S. spread the rumor of North Korean involvement in the earlier attack, and some of the code is related, this proves that North Korea is also responsible for the Sony hack. One rumor points to another rumor as ‘proof,’ rendering the argument meaningless.

The logical fallacies are many. To date, no investigation has uncovered the identity of DarkSeoul, and nothing is known about the group. The linking of DarkSeoul to North Korea is purely speculative. “One point that can’t be said enough,” emphasizes Risk Based Security, “is that ‘attribution is hard’ given the nature of computer intrusions and how hard it is to ultimately trace an attack back to a given individual or group. Past attacks on Sony have not been solved, even years later. The idea that a mere two weeks into the investigation and there is positive attribution, enough to call this an act of war, seems dangerous and questionable.”

Consider some of the other flaws in the FBI’s statement. The IP addresses that were hard-coded in the malware used in the Sony hack belonged to servers located in Thailand, Poland, Italy, Bolivia, Singapore, Cypress, and the United States. The FBI implies that only the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK – the formal name for North Korea) could have used these servers. The Thai port is a proxy that is commonly used in sending spam and malware. The same is true of the Polish and Italian servers. All of the servers used in the Sony attack have been previously compromised and are among the many computers that are widely known and used by hackers and spam distributors. Anyone with the knowhow can use them.

Whether or not these machines were used is another matter. Hackers often use proxy machines with phony IP addresses to mislead investigators. No hackers use their own computers to launch an attack. Vulnerable systems are hijacked in order to route traffic. For the FBI to point to IP addresses either reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of cybersecurity or a cynical attempt to deliberately mislead the public.

The Sony hack also bears similarities with the 2012 Shamoon cyberattack on computers belonging to Saudi Aramco. Those responsible for that attack have never been identified either, although the United States accused Iran without providing any evidence. Using the FBI’s logic, one could just as easily argue that the Sony hack was the work of Iran. One groundless accusation is used to buttress another. As evidentiary matter, it is worthless. It should also be recalled that in 1998, the United States blamed Iraq for the Solar Sunrise hack into Defense Department computers, only for it be ultimately revealed that it was the act of a few teenagers.

Nor do the similarities in code between the Sony hack and the earlier Shamoon and DarkSeoul attacks indicate a shared responsibility. Malware is freely available on the black market. Hackers operate by purchasing or borrowing, and then tweaking commonly available software, including both illegal and legal components. Code is shared among hackers on forums, and malware is assembled by linking various elements together.

One of the components used in the Sony cyberattack was the RawDisk library from EldoS, a commercial application that allows direct access to Windows hardware bypassing security. Anyone can legally purchase this software. There is nothing to tie it to the DPRK.

“There’s a lot of malware that’s shared between different groups, and all malware is built on top of older malware,” reports Brian Martin of Risk Based Security. “They’re also built on top of hacking tools. For example, you’ll find lots of malware that uses pieces of code from popular tools like Nmap. Does that mean that the guy who wrote Nmap is a malware author? No. Does it mean he works for North Korea? No.”

Robert Graham of Errata Security regards the evidence offered by the FBI as “complete nonsense. It sounds like they’ve decided on a conclusion and are trying to make the evidence fit.” Graham adds: “There is nothing unique in the software. We know that hackers share malware on forums. Every hacker in the world has all the source code available.”

Trojan-Destover, the malware used in the Sony cyberattack, included at least six components utilized earlier by Shamoon and DarkSeoul. “Even in such damaging scenarios, the cyber attacker’s tools are reused,” points out Sariel Moshe of CyActive. “For them, if it worked once, tweak it a bit and it will work again. The attack on Sony demonstrates quite clearly that this method works quite well.” Indeed, while Shamoon and DarkSeoul are the most commonly mentioned predecessors to the Sony hack, it is thought that this software has been used on several occasions in the past against multiple targets.

The software utilized in the Sony cyberattack is atypical for a nation state. “It’s a night and day difference in quality,” says Craig Williams of Cisco’s Talos Security Intelligence and Research Group. “The code is simplistic, not very complex, and not very obfuscated.”

Four files used in the attack were compiled on a machine set to the Korean language. That fact proves nothing, notes computer security analyst Chris Davis. “That is pretty weak evidence. I could compile malware code that used Afrikaans and where the timestamp matched JoBerg in about five seconds.” Any reasonably competent hacker would change the language setting in order to misdirect investigators. Had North Korean conducted this attack, it certainly would have taken the basic step of changing the language setting on the machine used to compile code.

What about North Korean resentment over Sony Picture’s tasteless lowbrow comedy, The Interview, which portrays the assassination of DPRK leader Kim Jong-un? It is doubtful that Americans would find themselves any more amused by a foreign comedy on the subject of killing a U.S. president than the North Koreans are by The Interview.

Among the emails leaked by the cyberattack on Sony was a message from Bruce Bennett of the Rand Corporation. Bennett was a consultant on the film and opposed toning down the film’s ending. “I have been clear that the assassination of Kim Jong-un is the most likely path to a collapse of the North Korean government,” he wrote, adding that DVD leaks of the film into North Korea “will start some real thinking.” In another message, Sony CEO Michael Lynton responded: “Bruce – Spoke to someone very senior in State (confidentially). He agreed with everything you have been saying. Everything.” Lynton was also communicating with Robert King, U.S. Special Envoy for North Korean Human Rights Issues in regard to the film.

The Western media portray North Korean reaction to The Interview as overly sensitive and irrational, while U.S. officials and a Rand Corporation consultant saw the film as having the potential to inspire the real-life assassination of Kim Jong-un. The scene of Kim’s assassination was not intended merely for so-called ‘entertainment.’

The mass media raced to attribute the Sony hack to the DPRK, based on its reaction to the Sony film. A closer look at the cyberattack reveals a more likely culprit, however. The group taking responsibility for the hack calls itself ‘Guardians of Peace’, and in one of the malware files the alternate name of ‘God’sApstls’ is also used. In the initial attack, no reference was made to the film, nor was it mentioned in subsequent emails the attackers sent to Sony. Instead, the hackers attempted to extort money: “Monetary compensation we want. Pay the damage, or Sony Pictures will be bombarded as whole.”

In an interview with CSO Online, a person represented as belonging to Guardians of Peace said the group is “an international organization…not under the direction of any state,” and included members from several nations. “Our aim is not at the film The Interview as Sony Pictures suggests,” the hacker wrote, but mentioned that the release of a film that had the potential of threatening peace was an example of the “greed of Sony Pictures.”

For two weeks following the cyberattack, the media harped on the subject of North Korean culpability. Only after that point did the Guardians of Peace (GOP) make its first public reference to The Interview, denying any connection with the DPRK. Yet another week passed before the GOP denounced the movie and threatened to attack theaters showing the film.

It appears that the narrative of North Korean involvement repeated ad nauseam by the media and the U.S. government presented a gift to the hackers too tempting to pass up. The GOP played to the dominant theme and succeeded in solidifying the tendency to blame the DPRK, with the effect of ensuring that no investigation would pursue the group.

For its part, the Obama Administration chose to seize the opportunity to bolster its anti-North Korea policy in preference over tracking down the culprits.

There are strong indications that the cyberattack involved one or more disgruntled Sony employees or ex-employees, probably working together with experienced hackers. The malware used against Sony had been modified to include hard-coded file paths and server names. System administrator user names and passwords were also hard-coded. Only someone having full access with system administrator privileges to Sony’s computer network could have obtained this information.

The GOP could have hacked into the Sony system months beforehand in order to gather that data. But it is more likely that someone with knowledge of Sony’s network configuration provided the information. Arguing against the possibility that critical information had been siphoned beforehand through a hack, cybersecurity expert Hemanshu Nigam observes, “If terabytes of data left the Sony networks, their network detection systems would have noticed easily. It would also take months for a hacker to figure out the topography of the Sony networks to know where critical assets are stored and to have access to the decryption keys needed to open up the screeners that have been leaked.”

The most likely motivation for the attack was revenge on the part of current or former Sony employees. “My money is on a disgruntled (possibly ex) employee of Sony,” Marc Rogers of CloudFlare wrote. “Whoever did this is in it for the revenge. The info and access they had could have easily been used to cash out, yet, instead, they are making every effort to burn Sony down. Just think what they could have done with passwords to all of Sony’s financial accounts.”

Nation states never conduct such noisy hacking operations. Their goal is to quietly infiltrate a system and obtain information without detection. Sony had no data that would have been of interest to a nation state. Computer security blogger The Grugq wrote, “I can’t see the DPRK putting this sort of valuable resource onto what is essentially a petty attack against a company that has no strategic value.”

It would have been reckless for a North Korean team to draw attention to itself. Cybersecurity specialist Chris Davis says, “All the activity that was reported screams Script Kiddie to me. Not advanced state-sponsored attack.” Davis adds, “Well, the stupid skeleton pic they splashed on all the screens on the workstations inside Sony…is not something a state-sponsored attack would do…Would ANY self-respecting state-sponsored actor use something as dumb as that?” The consensus among cybersecurity experts is clear, Davis argues. “The prevalent theory I am seeing in the closed security mailing lists is an internet group of laid off Sony employees.”

Following his cybersecurity firm’s investigation, Kurt Stammberger of Norse echoes that view. “Sony was not just hacked. This is a company that was essentially nuked from the inside. We are very confident that this was not an attack master-minded by North Korea and that insiders were key to the implementation of one of the most devastating attacks in history.”

“What is striking here is how well they knew to exploit Sony’s vulnerabilities,” reports Nimrod Kozlovski of JVP Labs. “The malware itself is not creative or new; there are plenty of actors that could have manifested this particular attack.” The hackers “knew more about the company, Sony, and its vulnerabilities than they knew, or needed to know, about hacking.”

As an indication of the hacker’s real motivation, it should be noted that the first communications focused on a different issue than the Sony film. The content of an email sent by the GOP to the IDG News Service refers to Sony’s restructuring, in which thousands of employees lost their jobs: “Sony and Sony Pictures have made terrible racial discrimination and human rights violation, indiscriminate tyranny and restructuring in recent years. It has brought damage to a lot of people, some of whom are among us. Nowadays, Sony Pictures is about to prey on the weak with a plan of another indiscriminate restructuring for their own benefits. This became a decisive motive for our action.” In an email to The Verge, the GOP wrote, “We want equality. Sony doesn’t…We worked with other staff with similar interests to get in.”

Seeking to diffuse tensions, North Korea proposed to conduct a joint investigation with the United States into the Sony cyberattack. Predictably, the United States quickly rebuffed the offer. National Security Council spokesman Mark Stroh arrogantly responded, “If the North Korean government wants to help, they can admit their culpability and compensate Sony for the damages this attack caused.” North Korea can hardly be expected to accept blame for an act it did not commit. But getting to the truth of the matter was the farthest thing from the Obama Administration’s mind. Similarly, U.S. officials are ignoring requests from cybersecurity experts to be allowed to analyze the Destover code. “They’re worried we’ll prove them wrong,” Robert Graham concludes.

The Obama Administration’s outrage over the Sony attack contains more than a small measure of hypocrisy. It was the United States that launched the Stuxnet attack that destroyed many of Iran’s nuclear centrifuges. According to a Washington Post article published in 2013, the United States conducted 231 cyber operations throughout the world two years before. The National Security Agency, as is now well known, regularly hacks into computer networks, scooping up vast amounts of data. The GENIE program, the Post reported, was projected to have broken into and installed implants in 85,000 computers by the end of 2013. It was reported that GENIE’s next phase would implement an automated system that could install “potentially millions of implants” for gathering data “and active attack.” According to former deputy of defense secretary William J. Lynn III, “The policy debate has moved so that offensive options are more prominent now.”

Contrast the mild treatment the media gave to the recent large-scale hacks into Target, Home Depot and JP Morgan, in which millions of credit cards and personal information were stolen, with the coverage of the cyberattack on Sony Pictures. It is impossible to avoid the conclusion that political considerations are driving the media furor over the latter case.

After six years in office, the Obama Administration has yet to engage in dialogue or diplomacy with North Korea. It prefers to maintain a wall of hostility, blocking any prospect of progress or understanding between the two nations.

Already, North Korean websites have been targeted by persistent denial of service operations. Whether the attacks were launched by a U.S. government cyber team or independent hackers inspired by media reports is not known. In any case, President Obama has already promised to take unspecified action against the DPRK. Actual responsibility for the Sony attack is irrelevant. Backed by media cheerleading, U.S officials are using the cyberattack as a pretext to ratchet up pressure on North Korea. Any action the Obama Administration takes is likely to trigger a response, and we could enter a dangerous feedback loop of action/counteraction.

Gregory Elich is on the Board of Directors of the Jasenovac Research Institute and the Advisory Board of the Korea Policy Institute. He is a member of the Committee to Defend Democracy in South Korea and a columnist for Voice of the People. He is also one of the co-authors of Killing Democracy: CIA and Pentagon Operations in the Post-Soviet Period, published in the Russian language.

Gregory Elich is on the Board of Directors of the Jasenovac Research Institute and the Advisory Board of the Korea Policy Institute. He is a member of the Committee to Defend Democracy in South Korea and a columnist for Voice of the People. He is also one of the co-authors ofKilling Democracy: CIA and Pentagon Operations in the Post-Soviet Period, published in the Russian language.


Wednesday, December 24, 2014

Nana's Christmas Rant "Christmas & the New Age Movement"

Nana's Christmas Rant

xmas traffic accident





Well, the holiday season is upon us and here we go again. I must admit that 2014 was one hell of a year for everybody on Planet Earth. We got mass extinctions of animals and humans, executions of guilty and innocent, carnage, disease, plummeting gas prices along with Pres. Obama's approval ratings, terrorists so nondescript that they weren't sure what to call them, more wars and occupation that you can shake a stick at, scandals of the seedy kind, and various weather anomalies that boggle the mind. It has been a war of truth and lies and truth and more lies and confusion to boot with the common phrase being, "I don't know what to believe anymore."

The so-called alternative media has stuck its fingers into the corporate pie and are now mouthing so much disinfo you have to take out your ouji board to determine who is moving things around. We have had so many false flag announcements about the coming apocalypse it makes your head spin, as the checkerboard trails cross the skies, the denials of Mon"santan"o, the cover-ups on Mars, the loose change falling of Tower 7 and 3d Holograms you can cuddle with. I mean, we have practically seen it all except the missing MH370.

We have had a herd of celebs take their last breaths and mourn the lost of a woman who openly proclaim Michelle Obama as a tranny! There is so much more that I could list here but it would detract from my original reason for this post.

I guess I have a bone to pick with the so-called NEW AGERS! I don't understand  how they can continue to persist in the most commercialized cycle of insanity that hits this planet every year moving into the so-called New Year. Now, I am not pointing a finger at ALL of them, so let me just say MOST OF THEM!

All year round we get the love and light spew. We get the "we are awakening" or the "awakening is upon us" or the "Guardian Forces" and the "Ashtar Command" are helping us, or even we are "moving into the 4-5th dimensions." How do we do all that and still celebrate Christmas?

Channelers Alert! 


If you are channeling, and particularly if you are channeling "Jesus" or Sanada as some call him, how in the world do you celebrate Christmas? Do you mean to tell me that he is not telling you the truth about this holiday? Do you mean to tell me that he is encouraging you to go out and purchase a tree and various other odds and ends so that you can celebrate his birth? Did he not tell you the true story, the whole shebang, the real deal about all this? If he did not, then who, pray tell are you channeling?

I have subscribed to various "Love and Light" blogs and websites. I have also subscribed to various UFO stuff on the internet. So I thought the above picture was quite apropos for my rant today. Seriously, as Mr. Claus is traversing through the inner and outer planes surely, even he knows the TRUTH ABOUT CHRISTMAS. He has to be multi-dimensional to be in all those places around the world at one time, wouldn't you think? How come ain't nobody channeling Santa Claus?? He is real, right?

But I digress. My real rant is how unnerving it is to receive "Season's Greetings", "Merry Christmas" etc., etc., etc. from these so-called "New Agers". Don't they know that it's all a hoax, at best and quite fabricated? If they are contacting "Ancient Aliens" and/or "Mary" haven't they been told that this is a bunch of boulderdash to just grab people's money?

Well, I am seriously questioning these folks now. It was bad enough that they had folks running helter-skelter over 2012. But here we are 2 years later and they have not deterred in their participation in this horrendous disinformation campaign called Christmas. As spiritual beings, they should know the truth and as beings of integrity, they should live by it. Otherwise, these 50 million channelers are just in it for the money. What other reason could there be? They have to be politically correct and keep in touch with their constituency. That is, if they step too far away from the status quo, they may lose their bread and butter, fine cars and nice houses and expensive seminars that they invite folks to come to to ASCEND.

THIS ASCENSION THING MUST BE A CROCK OF BS!


If people are truly ascending, channeling and talking to ET's how can they participate in this massive disinfo campaign and call themselves true leaders of the movement? I am beginning to seriously question the authenticity of the so-called ASCENSION movement when I see ASCENDED MASTERS, not pulling the coat tail of their followers and telling them to stay away from the tripe. Or, do these so-called ASCENDED MASTERS have a hidden agenda? It just makes you wonder. Where are they during the times when we are sold a huge hypnotic bill of goods, that keeps us treading for another year and/or lifetime, trying to keep our heads above water on a Prison Planet such as this one. If these folks are willing to defy all logic and participate in this scheme of disenfranchisement, then it certainly makes anything they say after the said, 'New Year' holiday, dubious and base.

These people, have played on the heart strings of the masses for decades if not longer than that. I assume the so-called NEW AGE movement has been going on for more than 50 years from checking out the print date on many of these materials. These folks have been giving information about the Sun, the moon, the stars, the galaxies, the other worlds, the other worldlies, the inner earth, magnetosphere, the comets, asteroids and errantly massive dustballs and light/space ships, orbs, etc. and they have not come to the conclusion that Christmas is disinfo. How is that possible?


Maybe I will answer my own question....

They are not really channeling anything. 
They are not channeling beings of high integrity.
They are not listening to whomever they are channeling.
They are reticent to change things in their personal lives for fear of losses.
They don't want to upset the boat.
They are liars.
They are all frauds.

Believe me, I am inclined to believe all of the above but most inclined to believe the last one. If these folks are truly contacting these entities and they are not adjusting their lifestyles accordingly then something is really and truly wrong with the so-called NEW AGE movement.

Sony Propaganda

The Mighty Wurlitzer Plays On
Sony Propaganda
by BILL BLUNDEN

A few days ago both the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal cited anonymous officials who claimed that North Korea was responsible for the recent cyberattack on Sony. These agenda-setting elements of the press conveyed the information without question, despite the fact that the evidence provided has been (as journalist Kim Zetter put it) flimsy. Contemplating the corresponding headlines is instructive.

As I wrote in the Times back in September of 2014, sophisticated anti-forensic technology is actively being developed by both American intelligence services and private sector companies. To think that other countries aren’t doing the same is naive. False flag attacks are standard spy tradecraft.

Furthermore high ranking, ostensibly credible, national security officers like Keith Alexander, James Clapper, and John Brennan have demonstrated the tendency to lie to the American public. Not small innocent lies but rather colossal brazen lies. Lies regarding essential constitutional rights. Why, pray tell, should we trust what we’ve been told by officials?

Your author contacted Zetter to offer the proverbial high-five and she voiced her frustration about the utter lack of skepticism by reporters like Sanger and Perlroth. Blind acceptance is part of the miracle of modern propaganda. As Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman described in their classic text Manufacturing Consent the large multinational corporations that constitute the mainstream press are able to frame debate and control the acceptable boundaries of public discourse by leveraging an apparatus which burns through literally hundreds of billions of dollars each year.

Of course this isn’t the only instance in which the stalwarts of the corporate media have botched their job as society’s watchdogs. Anyone following what’s happening over in Ukraine will also notice an astounding groupthink on behalf of the press corp. What’s painted as Russian expansion is really a NATO expansion. Putin is responding to Western incursion. Even an establishment figure like Henry Kissinger admits as much (and when a guy like Kissinger starts making sense it’s a sign that something is seriously amiss).


Asia Pacific

U.S. Said to Find North Korea Ordered Cyberattack on Sony


North Korean Role in Sony Hack Presents Quandary for U.S.

All of this underscores the role of modern propaganda as an incredible tool of social control, a textbook application of the science of coercion. The public is so distracted with celebrity gossip, mindless entertainment, wildly inflated alleged national security threats, and empty consumption that they fail to recognize the unraveling of our social fabric. Officials hyperventilate over an obscure contingent of jihadists while disregarding far greater, but less spectacular, threats.

Sadly the countervailing ideologies and organizations that served to keep capitalism in check in the aftermath of World War II have dwindled. Hence the plutocrats who funded the neoliberal revolution have a captive audience and they’re free to kick and beat the rest of us with relative impunity, while sanctioned policies like Quantitative Easing and offshoring allow them to swallow up nearly all economic gains.

And to think that former NSA director Keith Alexander had the audacity to claim that Chinese cyber espionage entailed the greatest transfer of wealth in history? Never mind the trillions spent on the self-perpetuating military conflict in the Middle East.

As inequality grows and the global climate becomes less habitable, the immiseration of the average Joe will inevitably lead to mobilization. The ruling class is well aware of what happened to French aristocrats in the eighteenth century. To save themselves from a similar fate they will switch the cogs of the Mighty Wurlitzer into high gear to give voice to popular discontent and subsequently co-opt emerging movements. That’s how fascism normally works. Mass interception will also be employed to identify activists and independent thinkers who see through the deluge of clever propaganda. Likewise a militarized police force guided by programs like Garden Plot will be waiting in the wings as a last resort.

When this juncture is reached, where a critical mass of people are angry enough to take action, the likelihood of a positive outcome will depend in part upon people acquiring access to alternative sources of accurate information. In this way organizations can foster accountability and properly apply the sustained pressure necessary to alter large systems. Looking out over a media landscape flooded by corporate money and an endless series of murky deep-pocketed foundations, a modest reader–funded outfit in Petrolia, California, is an encouraging sign: Season’s Greetings CounterPunch.

Bill Blunden is an independent investigator whose current areas of inquiry include information security, anti-forensics, and institutional analysis. He is the author of several books, including The Rootkit Arsenal and Behold a Pale Farce: Cyberwar, Threat Inflation, and the Malware-Industrial Complex. Bill is the lead investigator at Below Gotham Labs.




Sony Propaganda » CounterPunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names

Anti-Police Organizing in the Wake of Ismaaiyl Brinsley’s Death

Anti-Police Organizing in the Wake of Ismaaiyl Brinsley’s Death

by MICHELLE MATISONS

Cop Killer Ismaaiyl Brinsley Had Pocket Full of $100 Bills – But No Job or Home


Remember how the 9/11 attack led people to cancel or pull back from anti-globalization protests?  It appears a similar dynamic could be at work as a shocking event challenges and divides a growing and effective movement making serious headway.  Like anti-globalization protests before it, the anti-police brutality/ policing movement is going through its own birth pangs as the tactics debate (when is property violence appropriate?) and issues such as how to foreground anti-black racism (#BlackLivesMatter vs. #AllLivesMatter) have taken center stage in the multifaceted and large scale resistance efforts underway.

Saturday, December 20th, was a big day for movement news.  While Minnesota’s Mall of America protest had people occupying space in the US’s largest mall to demand an end to police violence, half way across the country in Brooklyn, two police officers were shot and killed by a young black man who had ostensibly posted on social media before the shootings about his intention to “put wings on pigs”, citing revenge for the deaths of Brown and Garner as motive.  The accused shooter, Ismaaiyl Brinsley, shot himself dead on a nearby subway platform after shooting the officers.  As of Sunday afternoon, there is little information and much speculation about the accused murderer’s life (including that the murders were part of a counter-intelligence plot to discredit the movement and justify extreme force).  Much is uncertain, but it’s certain that the NYPD is already using this to suppress protest, repress entire communities, and further foment divisive public relations–especially with NYC Mayor deBlasio.  How can recent police union behavior and statements be considered anything but a naked admission of a police force’s own extra-legal/ paramilitary ambitions?

At this writing we do know a few things for certain: the corporate state’s policing apparatus will do everything in its power to use this event as a further call to arms against protesting U.S. residents and communities of color.  They will attempt not only to discredit a growing direct action-based movement, but also to aggressively attack protest groups and individuals they have been trying to get their hands on anyway.  If Ismaaiyl Brinsley had been arrested  and charged with the killing of two police officers in Bedford-Stuyvesant, Brooklyn, clearly the anti-policing movement would be having very different debates and discussions.  Now, in his death, many people righteously struggle to contextualize his motives or opportunistically use his actions for their own political reasons.

Not that probing Brinsley’s motives is entirely irrelevant–he shot a woman, possibly an ex-girlfriend, before the officers, for example– but the movement can hurt itself by participating in the posthumous quasi-legalistic media charade of “nailing down” his motives or state of mind.  (This activity already inculcates participants in the state’s judgmental logic of condemnation/ exoneration–echoing media character assassinations of murder by police victims like Brown and Martin.)   What if he was acting in concert with counter-intelligence forces? What if Mao’s little red book was in Brinsley’s pocket?  What if he was an active member of a local Cop Watch group?  What if he was a well-known local homeless man struggling with mental illness and addiction?

Initial activist reactions offer a range of responses: some grapple with the delicate issue of expressing compassion about the shooter’s life, death, and family; some timidly, or not so timidly, tiptoe around self-defense concepts and a deep understanding of the extreme nature of “revolutionary suicide”; some routinely denounce Brinsley’s actions–acting as guardians of the “real non-violent movement” against  “unstable violent outsiders”; some have decided that was a police action he got entangled in.  Then there’s those (new to the issue white activists, I am talking to you) who may have been active and supportive of the anti-police brutality movement, but will use this as an excuse to pull back.  (Controversial events function as a movement’s filtering process, losing people who are too challenged to keep fighting and were just waiting for a chance to fold anyway.)

If there’s anything I am reminded of by this event, it’s the power of social movements, and anti-racist struggles in particular.  For me, there is a connection between the cop murders and the movement.  Before you jump down my throat insisting that I am “feeding the cops’ ideology” by saying this–hear me out, please, and don’t take my statements out of context.  Since the drug war and mass incarceration/ deportation practices, many black and brown lives have been destroyed.  You don’t have to be a front lines long term activist to have strong opinions about policing and institutional racism in America, and feel hopeless in the face of it, too.  Frustration and anger is woven into the everyday fabric of people’s lives, and this includes individual consciousness, rhetoric, and self-understanding.  Add to this an endless flow of social media, news commentary, and live feeds of protests and demonstrations all over the U.S.  Some people may not be able to attend protests for various reasons (work, childcare, transportation, not living close to one, or a shy demeanor) but social media offers a strong way to feel emotionally connected to events since Ferguson began.

This access and ability to connect is both reason for the movement’s effectiveness and a reason to prepare for more controversial actions taken up by individuals in the name of Michael Brown, Eric Garner, or against violent police generally. (And then there’s always police counterinsurgency activities…)  In a large, multifaceted, international movement such that the Hands Up, Don’t Shoot!/ anti-policing movement has become, no one can ultimately judge who’s a protestor or a non-protestor, who cares or doesn’t care, about “the issues”. (Who has an authentic political consciousness gauge and where can I get one?) We can only state if we support certain actions as part of strategies our organizations or ideologies endorse.

I believe, from what I understand about Brinsley’s biographical facts and his presumed state of mind before the murders, he understood himself as a target of racist policing.  Go figure: young, black, and male in the U.S. A. But, As Dr. Johanna Fernandez wrote in CounterPunch, he could have also been acting in concert with authorities to execute a state plot to discredit the movement.  We will never know the facts here, and it shouldn’t deflect from our understanding of institutionalized racism, anyway.

Whether or not Brinsley acted alone or in concert with the state, his life had a truly tragic end.  If we admit understanding or empathy with people espousing extreme tactics — even cop murder — to express oppositional feelings, are we only throwing the police state, and its rabid NYPD, another reason for street level preemptive attack? (As if it ever needed a reason.  We’ve clearly seen over the decades, if the state doesn’t have a reason to justify aggression it’ll make one up.)  What about attempts to understand how social pressures like racist policing and mass incarceration damage people–like Ismaaiyl Brinsley? If we deny a careful consideration of the incalculable impacts movements can have, which include tapping into very real frustrations/ psychological dynamics leading individuals to act alone or as police agents, we sacrifice any potential unity than can be derived in a process of self-reflection and greater political awareness. Collective analysis may not lead to the unity of a shared position, but it could lead to an “agree to disagree” unity or a commitment to explore unpopular perspectives.  Something beyond simple condemnation or exultation is called for here.

It’s a daunting situation and the corporate state wins again if we play into the terms of engagement it always sets by the very nature of its power.  If Ismaaiyl Brinsley had survived and faced his accusers in court, we would see the movement split around “just” court procedures and outcomes.  Some would want him evaluated to qualify for mental health rehabilitation services, some would want him routinely punished, and some would call for his freedom, with an understanding his actions were committed under extreme duress due to the pernicious police state apparatus (a kind of “black rage” defense– if you will.)  From the looks of his social media posts, he knew he was probably going to die Saturday.

I shudder to think about what the state would do to Brinsley, and how the movement would split around his “just” punishment and desirable “rehabilitation.” (How are we going to rehabilitate psychotic racist police?  Any ideas?)  We would have to painfully endure a real trial of the Left’s anti-policing/ abolitionist positions. Instead, we are left to grapple with three dead bodies, many unanswered questions, and a big question mark about our ability to buoy the turbulence of building and sustaining a mass movement, focused specifically on the deep and festering wound of racist police violence, in the age of social media activism.
 
 
On Tuesday police Commissioner William Bratton said Ismaaiyl was carrying $100 bills in his pocket.
But he had no job or home.
The Yeshiva World reported:

If we are going to posthumously speculate on Ismaaiyl Brinsley’s life, dare I suggest we use the very commitment to institutional analysis and human compassion that has served as a foundation of the Hands Up, Don’t Shoot!/ anti-policing movement–and previous anti-racist movements– since its inception?  As the saying goes, let’s “keep our eyes on the prize.”

Michelle Renee Matisons, Ph.D. has  written for Counterpunch, Black Agenda Report, Z Magazine, Mint News Press, the NJ Decarcerator, Rethinking Schools, Alternet, and other publications. She can be reached at michrenee@gmail.com.

Anti-Police Organizing in the Wake of Ismaaiyl Brinsley’s Death » CounterPunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names

Friday, December 12, 2014

Undercover Cop Pulls Gun and Threatens Oakland Police Brutality Protesters | Alternet

Hysterical!

LOL, these assholes, sorry my bad language, but if they are trying to have an American Spring, they are really doing it all wrong. That stuff worked in the Middle East. 

People here have seen them do it over there, so now they are very suspicious and are ready with easy social media access to tell all. 

What part of retarded do they not understand? Even switching sides is retarded. LOL, now they can go from breaking the law to keeping the law, when they were just seen tearing up shit??? I'm sorry, but sometimes 4 letter words says it all!!


Undercover Cop Pulls Gun and Threatens Oakland Police Brutality Protesters | Alternet



(Editor's Note: This report has been updated with new developments at 8.30 PM PST on Thursday).
A white undercover California Highway Patrol (CHP) detective pulled a gun and threatened protesters at Wednesday night’s march to end racist policing and police brutality in Oakland, California.
He was seen losing his cool and pointing the gun at protesters and a photographer before other uniformed police arrived to arrest a black protester, as can be seen on numerous videos of the incident on the Twitter feeds, #berkeleyprotest and #oaklandprotest.
The incident was photographed and posted to storify.com and #oaklandprotest, where it quickly went viral. These Twitter feeds have been documenting the ongoing East Bay protests following the two grand jury decisions in Ferguson, Missouri and New York City, in which white officers who killed unarmed black men escaped facing charges.
Late Thursday, the Los Angeles Times extensively quoted California Highway Patrol Chief Avery Browne discussing the incident, where Browne concluded that "no one has provided any evidence that the officers were inappropriate in what they did."
Browne recounted his chronology of the event. He said the gun-pointing detective was one of several undercover cops posing as demonstrators at Wednesday's march in Oakland. He the detective said a fellow undercover officer had been "attacked" by protesters. He said the detective who pulled the gun told him, "Chief, I didn't know if I was going to make it out of this thing alive."
That line of defense--that a police officer is entitled to use deadly force while doing his job if he fears for his life--is the standard in law that absolves police officers from facing charges for harm caused by excessive force. That was seen as the legal linchpin that allowed two grand juries to exonerate the white officers who killed Michael Brown in Ferguson and Eric Garner in Staten Island.
The protests across the country demand, among other things, that this standard protecting police who lose control and use excessive force must be changed. They say, as the LA Times' report indicates, that police who too quickly rely on deadly weapons know that they can say those magic words--they feared for their lives--and escape accountability.
The CHP Browne made another telling admission to the LA TImes, saying that many undercover officers were spooked by protesters who recognized that they were cops and called them out in front of other protesters. The Times wrote:
"The CHP and other law enforcement agencies have been using plainclothes officers to observe and gather information about the protests, and Browne said tensions have risen among officers as several protesters have posted pictures of themselves on social media claiming to be armed with handguns, rocks and explosive devices.
"Despite Wednesday's incident, Browne said he will continue to deploy plainclothes officers to gather intelligence from protesters. Officers have also been creating Twitter accounts, on which they don't identify themselves as police, in order to monitor planned demonstrations."
This video, posted by WeCopWatch on YouTube on Thursday, identified two other undercover Oakland police officers who posed as protesters and were unmasked by marchers. However, there is nothing in that exchange that can be described as threatening.
The Oakland incident comes after police in nearby Berkeley rioted this past Saturday night, lunging into the crowd and using smoke bombs, nightsticks and tear gas to disperse a crowd of several hundred protesters. That confrontation led the Berkeley police to reconsider their tactics during protests on the following nights.
But as the protest marchers crossed into other police jurisdictions, closing several interstate highways, other police agencies, such as the California Highway Patrol, said they would respond forcefully.
This latest development shows that police are not changing their use of excessive force as the protesters have been demanding. It is a sobering reminder of how entrenched police policies and practices are, which is one reason that the protests are continuing.
 Steven Rosenfeld covers national political issues for AlterNet, including America's retirement crisis, democracy and voting rights, and campaigns and elections. He is the author of "Count My Vote: A Citizen's Guide to Voting" (AlterNet Books, 2008).

Sunday, November 30, 2014

My Dream - House of Fraser

"cum per rerum naturam factum negantis probatio nulla sit"
The proof lies upon him who affirms, not upon him who denies.


Okay, I know that you all think I am crazy because I am always talking about what I dreamed, yada, yada, yada. But I am going to tell this dream!

I am somewhere, I can't exactly tell where it is. Maybe a store, a mall, a hotel lobby it seemed to be a combination of all there. And this young man come into the lobby wearing a clearly oversized sear sucker suit.
http://crujonessociety.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/seersucker.jpg
He looked a little bit like this dude in the picture but a little slimmer and the suit was from back in the day and clearly too large for him. He must have thought that I had something to say about it but actually, I remember those suits and thought it quite interesting that anyone would be wearing them now.
He walks over to me and volunteered this information.
"You know, this is one of Bill Cosby's old suits. He let me have it. He is much taller than I am so the pants are a little long, but he wore this a while back. It's a Fraser Men's suit."
I respond, "Really, I didn't know that."
"Yes, Fraser wanted Cosby to wear their suits, it was an endorsement kind of thing."
"No kidding."
"Yep, but after a while Cosby wanted to wear more stylish suits. Fraser suits became more stylish over time. But then Cosby didn't want their endorsement any more, he wanted to wear what he wanted to wear."
By now this young man is fashionably dressed in a very nice suit that was form fitting and more tailored than the old model sear sucker suits were.

 "I can see that." I respond
"Well, that's what put Cosby in trouble. He was going against the agreement. You know, the agreement was that things will keep quiet as long as he wore Fraser suits. You think that's crazy don't you, that something as simple as an endorsement will cause the downfall of a person in the industry, right?"
"Well, yeah, who would think that something like that would hurt anyone. You should be able to say yes or no to an endorsement, correct?"
"Nope, not in the industry, you don't say no to an endorsement. You take the endorsement and keep it moving.
It came out a few years ago, and Cosby made some kind of arrangement with them and things blew over. It came out again and again, Cosby made an arrangement and it died down, but this time, well as you can see, it has gone viral and Cosby is in deep trouble.
This is how it happens. Cosby is at a party, something like this, a gathering or something and there are folks all around. He is dressed rather fashionably and there are young girls all over the place.
One young lady is standing directly in front of him. In fact, she is standing very close to him. Nice looking young lady, I might add.
Cosby puts his hands on the young lady's waist like so." He is now demonstrating using me as the young lady in his story.
"One thing leads to another and the young lady and Cosby end up doing what that kind of thing leads to. They go off and no one says anything, but everyone knows cause they are doing it too. You look around and folks are all coupled off with other folks, and ain't nobody married to them folks cause it ain't that kind of party.
There are also watchers here. They keep the tabs on all the things that are going on. If any of these folks step out of line, well you know what happens. It just was Cosby's turn to go down."
I am incredulous of this story and I quickly remove his hands from around my waist.
"Dude, you got to be making this up, right?"
"Not at all, I ain't making it up, I am telling you what happened to Cosby and what happens to a lot of them folks if they don't tow the line. It's just that simple. In fact, it wasn't just girls."
Here he shows me a picture of Cosby kissing a man. It looked like it may have even been him but I couldn't really make it out in the dream as the face of the other guy was positioned such that it was not discernible.
"Aww, come on dude, Cosby was messing with men too! You must be kidding me, or you are straight up lying."
"Okay, you can believe what you want to believe, but I am not lying, it's the truth, that's all I got to say."

I woke up before I could ask this dude why he was telling me all this. I decide to look it up, Frazier men's suits, believing that my dream wouldn't actually give me the name of something that was really real, I mean even I doubt my dreams sometimes. No matter how many times they show me stuff, information, I just go, okay… But that has been my history with my dreams, I get names and places and stories that turn out to be true. So I look it up and found out that there actually is a line of men's suits call Frazier, the spelling is FRASER. Not only that, these suits are mad in the UK called House of Fraser http://www.houseoffraser.co.uk/Suits+Tailoring/S213,default,sc.html.


Okay, let me start by saying this shocked me! And then I did a little research on this company.

Well, I wasn't able to find a direct connection of his endorsements, but I find the endorsements he did make quite interesting.

What does Bill Cosby endorse?
According to our research engine:
Bill Cosby's major endorsements are reported to include:
Jell-O
Kodak
Ford
Coca-Cola
E. F. Hutton
Walt Disney World
Texas Instruments
Pasted from http://celebrities.findthebest.com/q/149/926/What-does-Bill-Cosby-endorse

In this article:
BILL COSBY, CELEBRITY FASHION, COSBY, MAURY LEVY, MAURY Z. LEVY,PLAYBOY, PLAYBOY INTERVIEW, THE COSBY SHOW
Bill Cosby: The Playboy Fashion Guide Interview
In Playboy magazine and the Playboy Guides (1979-1989) on September 2, 2009 at 4:06 pm
I found that Cosby's tailor who has made all his suits and fitted him so well for the I Spy series is named Cy Mann and his business is called Cy Mann Clothier, LTD, however it has since been taken over by Sarto Sebastian, and the company is now called Sebastian Tailor… http://www.sartosebastian.com/.

http://www.sartosebastian.com/.
I don't know what happened at this point to Cy Mann or why his business is no longer operating. I couldn't find any connection to the House of Fraser or even why Sarto Sebastian took over the Cy Mann Clothier, Ltd. It was a long day with lots of other information but no direct link. I would read the above listed article because it describes Cosby's propensity towards style and grace in his wardrobe of suits, even though lately he has been dressing more casually. I can only surmise that the dream is telling something about that but not quite sure of the connection to that and this current avalanche of a scandal.



 House of Fraser China deal = http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/retailandconsumer/10744393/House-of-Fraser-Chinese-tycoon-agrees-deal-to-buy-89pc.html
Current CEO John King = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Fraser
• Chinese conglomerate acquires 89% stake in House of Fraser
www.thedrum.com/.../chinese-retailer-acquires-89-stake-house-fraser-48...
• Apr 13, 2014 - House of Fraser executive chairman Don McCarthy will step down from his ... “Since we took the company private in 2006, John King and his team ... closely with [CEO} John King and his management team to enhance the ...

How House of Fraser reclaimed the High Street by (gasp!) listening to its customers
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2645567/How-House-Fraser-reclaimed-High-Street-gasp-listening-customers.html#ixzz3KTzoXDoc 
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Last month’s Bafta TV awards saw Judi Dench and Helen Mirren take a back seat as another name stepped into the limelight.
After years of High Street obscurity, the department store House of Fraser staged an almost complete red-carpet takeover.
Sophie Ellis-Bextor, Amber le Bon, Susanna Reid and Kate Garraway, among others, all wore beautiful swishing floor-length bejewelled gowns sold by the store. It was a fashion coup that, overnight, propelled House of Fraser back into middle-class consciousness.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2645567/How-House-Fraser-reclaimed-High-Street-gasp-listening-customers.html#ixzz3KU01F400
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
In 1959, High Street department store group House of Fraser bought Harrods.

Bitter feud

Mr Al Fayed bought Harrods with his brother in 1985
 In 1985 the store returned to private ownership when Egypt-born Mr Al Fayed and his brother Ali bought House of Fraser for £615m, snatching it from mining conglomerate Lonrho.
Mr Al Fayed bought Harrods with his brother in 1985
The takeover bid was bitterly fought as Mr Al Fayed had previously served on Lonrho's board but left nine months later after a disagreement.
Lonrho's director, the late Tiny Rowland, took his campaign against the takeover to the Department of Trade who duly held an inquiry.
The subsequent report, issued in 1990, concluded that the Al Fayeds had lied about their background and their wealth.
"We are satisfied that the image they created between November 1984 and March 1985 of their wealthy Egyptian ancestors was completely bogus."
The public feud between the businessmen appeared to reach reconciliation in 1993 however Mr Rowland later accused Mr Al Fayed of breaking into a safety deposit box held at the store.
This dispute was later settled with Mr Rowland's wife after his death.
Pasted from http://www.bbc.com/news/10103783

4 Strange, Yet Effective Celebrity Car Endorsements
Mark Frost | Nov 05, 2014 | 0 comments
http://www.automoblog.net/2014/11/05/strange-celebrity-car-endorsements/


Economists Kerwin Charles, Erik Hurst, and Nikolai Roussanov have taken up this rather sensitive question in a recent unpublished study, "Conspicuous Consumption and Race." Using data from the Consumer Expenditure Survey for 1986-2002, they find that blacks and Hispanics indeed spend more than whites with comparable incomes on what the authors classify as "visible goods" (clothes, cars, and jewelry). A lot more, in fact—up to an additional 30 percent. The authors provide evidence, however, that this is not because of some inherent weakness on the part of blacks and Hispanics. The disparity, they suggest, is related to the way that all people—black, Hispanic, and white—strive for social status within their respective communities.
Pasted from http://www.slate.com/articles/business/the_dismal_science/2008/01/cos_and_effect.html>

Big Cosby Endorsements
Criticism[edit]
In 1973, The Village Voice writer Terry Guerin suggested the actor was past his prime. Among the reasons, "making spokesman commercials for such established heels as White Owl cigars and Pan American airlines. He has evolved into a kind of self-parodying sap, the kind of flagrant, perpetual parader Sammy Davis has always been."[62]
"The Noble Cos," a 1986 satirical editorial by Edward Sorel forThe Nation, was written as if told by Cosby himself. It echoed the suggestions of other authors that Cosby has become out-of-touch with lower-class African Americans.[63] Cosby said "So this buddy says, 'I didn't mind your commercials for Jello, Del Monte, Ford cars ... Ideal Toys, or Coca-Cola, although Coke does do business in South Africa ... But, Bill, why do commercials for those crooks at E. F. Hutton?' My buddy didn't understand my commercials improve race relations. Y'see, by showing that a black man can be just as money-hungry as a white man ... I'm proving that all men are brothers."[64]
To magazine Black Enterprise in 1981, Cosby has defended his numerous endorsements thusly:
In this business, many of us are well paid but we are not all that wealthy. You may read 'X-number of dollar goes to so and so,' but remember, everybody takes a cut--the lawyer, the agent, the publicist. If a company comes along and says 'We'd like you to talk about how much you enjoy wearing this warm-up suit,' and the money is right, I'm going to do it. Jell-O was a dessert in my house when I was a kid. My mom served Del Monte fruit cocktail when I was growing up. They want to pay me to say I eat these products, well, I eat them. I came out of a lower economic area, and this is money. This is a business ... show business. A great deal of our careers depends on keeping ourselves in the public eye. I think performers should take advantage of commercial offers if they're satisfied with the product.[3]
Pasted from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Cosby_in_advertising

Bill Cosby had a vile temper, punched out comic Tommy Smothers and was a hard-partying philanderer caught in a love child scandal that almost cost him his marriage, reveals new book

By CAROLINE HOWE FOR MAILONLINE
PUBLISHED: 11:48 EST, 16 September 2014 | UPDATED: 13:30 EST, 16 September 2014
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2757889/Bill-Cosby-vile-temper-punched-comic-Tommy-Smothers-hard-partying-philanderer-caught-love-child-scandal-cost-marriage-reveals-new-book.html#ixzz3KUi42mtm 


For Bill Cosby, No Escape From the Damage to His Legacy
Pasted from http://variety.com/2014/tv/columns/for-bill-cosby-no-escape-from-the-damage-to-his-legacy-1201360402/

Then after a day of researching on the web I found this little piece that came out November 20, 2014. I had not heard of it and was quite surprised to find it as it related to what was told to me in my dream.

Kirk Cameron.

Another rape allegation has surfaced against famed comedian and actor, Bill Cosby. This time it is from another familiar 80s face: Kirk Cameron.
Pasted from http://www.celebtricity.com/kirk-cameron-files-sex-abuse-charges-on-bill-cosby/

I Spy
"After being appointed Knights Commander of the Most Noble Order of the Scimitar by an Arab king, Alexander Scott jokes to Kelly Robinson, "Well, you just wait till the boys at the Mystic Knights of the Sea lodge hall get a hold of this one." While not a direct Masonic reference, it illustrates the prevalence of unconscious Masonic fictionalization. Episode: Sparrowhawk. First aired: October 26, 1966. Robert Culp, Bill Cosby. Three F Productions, Sheldon Lenard."
Pasted from https://www.freemasonry.bcy.ca/fiction/obscurities.html



2011 Cosby quote "I don't feel the need to wear a suit"






But Nana Had Her Dreams!

"Ten years ago there was no social media to speak of, which meant the allegations failed to make their way into the public consciousness. That had all changed by this September, when journalist Mark Whitaker published a biography, Cosby: His Life and Times, which controversially omitted the allegations of sexual assault against its subject. The following month, comedian Hannibal Buress described Cosby as a "rapist" during a stand-up set in Philadelphia; the clip went viral. Inspired by the response to Buress's routine, Bowman penned her account for the Washington Post, and the story ballooned."
Pasted from http://www.frasercoastchronicle.com.au/news/bill-cosby-rape-allegations-explained/2461714/
"Some notable living memberz are Hank Aaron (once Major League Baseball Homerun king); Tom Bradley (tv personality); Dennis Archor (once mayor of Detroit); Elvin Big 'E' Hayes (NBA Basketball great); Bill Cosby; Jesse Jackson; Earl Graves, Jr. (Black Enterprise); Douglass Wilder (Governor of Virginia); Lynn Swann (NFL Hall-of-Famer), Kweisi Mfume (once head of NAACP), and David Dinkins (once mayor of New York City), to name a few."
Pasted from http://daghettotymz.com/rkyvz/articles/bouleseries/boule1-3roster/boule1/boulept1.html

Hollywood’s sexual predator problem explodes

By Michelle Malkin  •  May 7, 2014 01:28 AM
Creators Syndicate
Copyright 2014
"The same industry that sanctimoniously convenes anti-bullying summits with the Obama White House and falsely accuses conservatives of waging a “war on women” has allowed countless children to be stalked, groomed, beaten, molested and raped on casting couches, in movie trailers, and at drug- and alcohol-drenched parties by Tinseltown predators. The alleged child rape scandal exposed by Egan does not exist in a vacuum:
–Last year, child actor Corey Feldman sounded the alarm on rampant pedophilia in a brave, scathing memoir. He recounted how his best friend and co-star, the late Corey Haim, was sodomized by an older male on the set of their hit film “Lucas.” The boys, fed cocaine by a string of predators, attended parties with Hollywood talent manager and child actors’ repMarty Weiss. Now a registered sex offender, Weiss pleaded no contest in 2012 to lewd acts on a child under the age of 14. The victim, another young child actor, alleged Weiss sexually assaulted him between 30 and 40 times from the age of 11."
If all of these sickos had been Catholic priests, college fraternity members or charter school teachers, we wouldn’t have heard the end of it. Perhaps the social justice awareness-raisers in the Hollywood left should take a break from pointing fingers at everyone else — and put a stop to the monsters in their own midst.
Pasted from  http://michellemalkin.com/2014/05/07/hollywoods-sexual-predator-problem-explodes/

TY BURR | COMMENTARY
Why did we ignore Bill Cosby allegations for so long?
Pasted from http://www.bostonglobe.com/arts/theater-art/2014/11/20/bill-cosby-conundrum-why-did-look-away-long/2YTejl6WfvRkiIIzP5ZMyN/story.html


CHARACTER FLAW
11.20.14
Newsflash: Bill Cosby Is Not Cliff Huxtable
TV Land has canceled The Cosby Show reruns. Is this a mature expression of understandable judgment, or a bid to erase history while conflating fiction and reality?
Pasted from http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/11/20/newsflash-bill-cosby-is-not-cliff-huxtable.html


BILL COSBY, CELEBRITY FASHION, COSBY, MAURY LEVY, MAURY Z. LEVY,PLAYBOY, PLAYBOY INTERVIEW, THE COSBY SHOW
Bill Cosby: The Playboy Fashion Guide Interview
In Playboy magazine and the Playboy Guides (1979-1989) on September 2, 2009 at 4:06 pm
Pasted from http://mauryzlevy.wordpress.com/2009/09/02/bill-cosby-the-playboy-fashion-guide-interview/

I’m Starting to Wonder if There’s Anyone Bill Cosby  Hasn’t Raped


Bill Cosby To Rape Victim Andrea Constand: "Tell Your Mom You Orgasmed So She Thinks It's Consensual" (Video) {F}

Bill Cosby's fall from grace has been swift and hard. He was once one of the most beloved and respected figures in Hollywood.
Now all he may be remembered for is drugging and raping countless women. Does he deserve worldwide shame? Without question he does. Can his image be rehabilitated? That's highly unlikely.
A 2005 deposition given in a civil suit filed by alleged victim Andrea Constand, paints a picture of a man who is depraved and appears to have no regrets for his actions.

Andrea Constand

Following their encounter, Cosby reportedly told the young woman to "to tell her mom she had an orgasm during sex, to make her mother believe the sex was consensual," TMZ reports.
The former Jello pudding spokesperson also admitted to giving Constand drugs.
The case was eventually settled out of court in 2006.

A deposition from a 2005 lawsuit has Bill Cosby acknowledging using his fame and drugs to prey upon women
  • The deposition is from a lawsuit filed by Andrea Constand, who accused the comedian of drugging and molesting her 
  • Cosby, 78, denied sexually assaulting the victim, whom he also calls a liar, and other women
  • He also discussed paying off victims through his agent so 'Mrs Cosby' wouldn't find out
  • This deposition could change the stance of several people who have supported Cosby throughout the sexual assault allegations 
Never-before-seen excerpts of a Bill Cosby deposition from 2005 show the formerly beloved entertainer explaining in his own words how he used his fame, fortune and drugs to prey on vulnerable women - and paid them off to keep his wife from finding out.
Interviewed in a Philadelphia hotel over four days by a lawyer acting on behalf of then-30-year-old Temple University employee Andrea Constand, Cosby admitted to lying to his doctor about a bad back to get powerful sedatives which he then gave to women before sex.



NB COMMENTARY:


I have been doing some ground work on this thing with Bill Cosby. I am not sure about what you have said here, except to say, that maybe you just don't understand much about PTSD. There is no umbrella knee jerk reaction that all who suffer this can be given. So the idea that they would have come forward years ago discounts the way that they are dealing with their trauma or not dealing with it.

While people aged 18 or 19 may be legally considered adults and able to fight in wars they are not physically and mentally mature. In fact, some folks take a long time to become mentally mature for that matter.
In the Hollyweird  business there are all types of scenarios and we all know that wine, women, sex and drugs are a big part of it. Do I have to prove that? Is it hearsay? Yes. By whom? The Hollyweirdos themselves through various venues.

At 18-19 years old, you have been given bucket loads of what it's like to live high of the hog in Hollyweird. The stars parade before you and you want to be a part of the glamorous life they all seem to enjoy. But they are not privy to the backroom deals, compromises and adulterating things they will have to do to make it to the"Big Top." The adults around them do, they have heard the stories and seen the movies of the real life downfall of these trend setters. These adults warn their children in many cases. At 18 or 19 who listens to adults? Especially if you have determined that adults have no clue about what is happening in the real world outside of their bedrooms.

How many of these young people, 40 years ago are taught about what "rape" really is? How many of them come from broken homes? How many of them come from poverty and are looking for a way out? How many of them are already accustomed to the life style and know their lines? How many of them think that "giving" your body in exchange for a chance is part of what comes with getting ahead? And finally, how many of them realized they were raped after the statute of limitations? Seriously....... how many women right now, realize they are being raped by their husbands/boyfriends when they say "NO" and are ignored?

All I am saying is that, in certain instances, particularly Hollyweird , it's not considered rape, it's consider to be what you do, what is done to you, and what you see happening around you.

In essence, many, many people do this in Hollyweird  and even more people turn their heads the other way, or simply participate. It's the way of the world in Hollyweird .

Sometimes, the stars are bribed and intimidated into uncompromising situations and they too are victims of the greed and vileness of their handlers. Everybody in Hollyweird  is handled by someone. It's not right, but it is a weird normalcy. Who in Hollyweird is complaining about the sex trafficking and prostitution and drug rings that go on? Few if any. And when they do, well they become profoundly targeted. I say profoundly because they are all targeted. It's show business and it's about the money, fame and notoriety, the glamour and the luxuries, the high life and the status, the conspicuous consumption.

Again, how many of them equated it to rape at that young age? How many of them were raped before they got to Hollyweird? How many of them realized  very late that their rage, insecurities, depressions, suicidal tendencies, anxieties, paranoia, etc. had anything to do with their history of being abused by an authority figure, someone they trusted?

I am a Mental Health professional, and in my experience, I have seen it happen over and over again, where the memory of the traumatic situation is erased, skewed or purposely forgotten, and they ain't even trying to get into Hollyweird. There is no other pressure around them but family and friends. Now couple that with family, friends and other celebrities who will come down hard on you for even insinuating such a thing about Bill Cosby.

He wasn't "America's dad"during the initial alleged incidences, but if you know the pathology, many times, once it is not reported or if reported denied, then it becomes an addiction when it first started off as just sick.

And, HELLO!!! on your Cosby wasn't powerful back then, you can't be serious? He was outlandishly powerful with many firsts in this country for any black man during those times. And he had money!!!! Imagine, here we had a culture that would lynch a black man in a heart beat for looking at a white woman, let alone raping her, and he was accepted into the White Aristocracy!! Yep, he was powerful alright, more than you could ever know, unless you are a Black man/woman in America. Black people didn't just come of age without a struggle or slippery dancing to get into the door. Believe me, he was big in the eyes of many people across racial lines and to have him mentor you or help you get ahead was a great honor! Why? Because he was powerful.

So, in conclusion, I appreciate your perspective on this in that it inspired me to write down mine. Whether the media tries and convicts him or not, is irrelevant. Whether he says yeah, I did it or not is also irrelevant. What is most needed is the rape culture being put on blast, especially in how it is played out in Hollyweird, religious institutions, sports and politics. Powerful people are taking advantage of women, men and children across the board. If nothing else, that needs to be addressed. This episode will encourage more disclosure and education on how folks are supposed to act. Whether it changes the complexion of the lifestyle of the rich and famous remains to be seen, but it's a step in the right direction and an important hurdle towards the healing. In these situations, all parties are victims!

 After all is said and done, this photo and the comment below sounds quite eery.


Thursday, November 27, 2014

Activist Post: We Are the Enemy: Is This the Lesson of Ferguson?


We Are the Enemy: Is This the Lesson of Ferguson?


John W. Whitehead
Activist Post






If you dress police officers up as soldiers and you put them in military vehicles and you give them military weapons, they adopt a warrior mentality. We fight wars against enemies, and the enemies are the people who live in our cities — particularly in communities of color. -- Thomas Nolan, criminology professor and former police officer.



Ferguson matters because it provides us with a foretaste of what is to come. It is the shot across the bow, so to speak, a warning that this is how we will all be treated if we do not tread cautiously in challenging the police state, and it won’t matter whether we’re black or white, rich or poor, Republican or Democrat. In the eyes of the corporate state, we are all the enemy.

This is the lesson of Ferguson.

Remember that in the wake of the shooting, Ferguson police officers clad in body armor, their faces covered with masks, equipped with assault rifles and snipers and riding armored vehicles, showed up in force to deal with protesters. Describing that show of force by police in Ferguson, Senator Claire McCaskill, Democrat of Missouri, stated, “This was a military force, and they were facing down an enemy.”

Yes, we are the enemy. As I point out in my book A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, since those first towers fell on 9/11, the American people have been treated like enemy combatants, to be spied on, tracked, scanned, frisked, searched, subjected to all manner of intrusions, intimidated, invaded, raided, manhandled, censored, silenced, shot at, locked up, and denied due process.

There was a moment of hope after Ferguson that perhaps things might change. Perhaps the balance would be restored between the citizenry and their supposed guardians, the police. Perhaps our elected officials would take our side for a change and oppose the militarization of the police. Perhaps warfare would take a backseat to more pressing national concerns.

That hope was short-lived.

It wasn’t long before the media moved on to other, more titillating stories. The disappearance of a University of Virginia college student and the search for her alleged abductor, the weeks-long man-hunt for an accused cop killer, the Republican electoral upset, a Rolling Stone expose on gang rapes at fraternity parties, Obama’s immigration amnesty plan, and the rape charges against Bill Cosby are just a few of the stories that have dominated the news cycle since the Ferguson standoff between police and protesters.

It wasn’t long before the American public, easily acclimated to news of government wrongdoing (case in point: the national yawn over the NSA’s ongoing domestic surveillance), ceased to be shocked, outraged or alarmed by reports of police shootings. In fact, the issue was nowhere to be found in this year’s run-up to Election Day, which was largely devoid of any pressing matters of national concern.

And with nary a hiccup, the police state marched steadily forth. In fact, aided and abetted by the citizenry’s short attention span, its easily distracted nature, and its desensitization to anything that occupies the news cycle for too long, it has been business as usual in terms of police shootings, the amassing of military weapons, and the government’s sanctioning of police misconduct. Most recently, Ohio police shot and killed a 12-year-old boy who was seen waving a toy gun at a playground.

Rubbing salt in our wounds, in the wake of Ferguson, police agencies not only continued to ramp up their military arsenals but have used them whenever possible. In fact, in anticipation of the grand jury’s ruling, St. Louis police actually purchased more equipment for its officers, including “civil disobedience equipment.”

Just a few weeks after the Ferguson showdown, law enforcement agencies took part in an $11 million manhunt in Pennsylvania for alleged cop killer Eric Frein. Without batting an eye, the news media switched from outraged “shock” over the military arsenal employed by police in Ferguson to respectful “awe” of the 48-day operation that cost taxpayers $1.4 million per week in order to carry out a round-the-clock dragnet search of an area with a 5-mile-radius.

The Frein operation brought together 1,000 officers from local, state and federal law enforcement, as well as SWAT teams and cutting edge military equipment (high-powered rifles, body armor, infrared sensors, armored trucks, helicopters and unmanned, silent surveillance blimps) — some of the very same weapons and tactics employed in Ferguson and, a year earlier, in Boston in the wake of the marathon bombing.

The manhunt was a well-timed, perfectly choreographed exercise in why Americans should welcome the police state: for our safety, of course, and to save the lives of police officers.

Opposed to any attempt to demilitarize America’s police forces, the Dept. of Homeland Security has been chanting this safety mantra in testimony before Congress: Remember 9/11. Remember Boston. Remember how unsafe the world was before police were equipped with automatic weapons, heavily armored trucks, night-vision goggles, and aircraft donated by the DHS.



Contrary to DHS rhetoric, however, militarized police — twitchy over perceived dangers, hyped up on their authority, and protected by their agencies, the legislatures and the courts — have actually made communities less safe at a time when violent crime is at an all-time low and lumberjacks, fishermen, airline pilots, roofers, construction workers, trash collectors, electricians and truck drivers all have a higher risk of on-the-job fatalities than police officers.

Moreover, as Senator Tom Coburn points out, the militarization of America’s police forces has actually “created some problems that wouldn’t have been there otherwise.” Among those problems: a rise in the use of SWAT team raids for routine law enforcement activities (averaging 80,000 a year), a rise in the use and abuse of asset forfeiture laws by police agencies, a profit-driven incentive to criminalize lawful activities and treat Americans as suspects, and a transformation of the nation’s citizenry into suspects.

Ferguson provided us with an opportunity to engage in a much-needed national dialogue over how police are trained, what authority they are given, what weaponry they are provided, and how they treat those whom they are entrusted with protecting.

Caught up in our personal politics, prejudices and class warfare, we have failed to answer that call. In so doing, we have played right into the hands of all those corporations who profit from turning America into a battlefield by selling the government mine-resistant vehicles, assault rifles, grenade launchers, and drones.

As long as we remain steeped in ignorance, there will be no reform.

As long as we remain divided by our irrational fear of each other, there will be no overhaul in the nation’s law enforcement system or institution of an oversight process whereby communities can ensure that local police departments are acting in accordance with their wishes and values.

And as long as we remain distracted by misguided loyalties to military operatives who are paid to play the part of the government’s henchmen, there will be no saving us when the events of Ferguson unfold in our own backyards.

When all is said and done, it doesn’t matter whose “side” you’re on as far as what transpired in Ferguson, whether you believe that Michael Brown was a victim or that Darren Wilson was justified in shooting first and asking questions later.

What matters is that we not allow politics and deep-rooted prejudices of any sort to divert our efforts to restore some level of safety, sanity and constitutional balance to the role that police officers play in our communities. If we fail to do so, we will have done a disservice to ourselves and every man, woman and child in this country who have become casualties of the American police state.

Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute where this article first appeared. He is the author of A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State and The Change Manifesto.