Re: [CTRL] DEBATE: COMMUNISM VS. FASCISM
-Caveat Lector- Dear FLW, The US is starting. Look at the dictators in South America having their secret police trained at U.S. Army's School of the Americas, renamed in 2001 the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation or WHINSEC. There is Vietnam. There is Oklahoma City Bombing. And there is 911. Yours, Ole Gerstrom - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, July 23, 2004 2:13 PM Subject: Re: [CTRL] DEBATE: COMMUNISM VS. FASCISM > -Caveat Lector- > > > We keep track of the figures. One and two could be you and me. > > Yours, Ole Gerstrom, Copenhagen, Denmark > > Did Stalin murder more millions then Hitler's millions of victims? > > Perhaps but only because Ole Uncle Joe was in power longer. > > How many innocents has the US killed these past 100 years?? > flw > > www.ctrl.org > DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER > == > CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic > screeds are unwelcomed. Substanceâ?"not soap-boxingâ?"please! These are > sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'â?"with its many half-truths, mis- > directions and outright fraudsâ?"is used politically by different groups with > major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. > That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and > always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no > credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. > > Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. > > Archives Available at: > > http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ > http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl > > To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: > SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: > SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Om > www.ctrl.org DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substanceânot soap-boxingâplease! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'âwith its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright fraudsâis used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
Re: [CTRL] DEBATE: COMMUNISM VS. FASCISM
-Caveat Lector- > We keep track of the figures. One and two could be you and me. > Yours, Ole Gerstrom, Copenhagen, Denmark Did Stalin murder more millions then Hitler's millions of victims? Perhaps but only because Ole Uncle Joe was in power longer. How many innocents has the US killed these past 100 years?? flw www.ctrl.org DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substanceânot soap-boxingâplease! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'âwith its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright fraudsâis used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
Re: [CTRL] DEBATE: COMMUNISM VS. FASCISM...DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED GOVTS
-Caveat Lector- Dear FLW, This is a study of comparative totalitarianisme. It will also include Bushisme. We keep track of the figures. One and two could be you and me. Yours, Ole Gerstrom, Copenhagen, Denmark - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2004 7:52 PM Subject: Re: [CTRL] DEBATE: COMMUNISM VS. FASCISM...DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED GOVTS > -Caveat Lector- > > > The Gulags received 20 millions, who were starved and forced to work hard > > under extremely cruel conditions. Millions died. > > All this is even worse than fascism. > > Yours, Ole Gerstrom, Denmark > > Arguing over what is worse - Nazism or Communism, Hitler or Stalin is idiotic. > > They are both totalitarian statism and totalitarian statism is the enemy - > regardless of the criminal in charge. > > Millions here - millions there, soon the numbers become numbing and keeping > score is absurd. > flw > > www.ctrl.org > DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER > == > CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic > screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are > sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis- > directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with > major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. > That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and > always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no > credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. > > Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. > > Archives Available at: > > http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ > http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl > > To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: > SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: > SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Om > www.ctrl.org DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
Re: [CTRL] DEBATE: COMMUNISM VS. FASCISM...DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED GOVTS
-Caveat Lector- > The Gulags received 20 millions, who were starved and forced to work hard > under extremely cruel conditions. Millions died. > All this is even worse than fascism. > Yours, Ole Gerstrom, Denmark Arguing over what is worse - Nazism or Communism, Hitler or Stalin is idiotic. They are both totalitarian statism and totalitarian statism is the enemy - regardless of the criminal in charge. Millions here - millions there, soon the numbers become numbing and keeping score is absurd. flw www.ctrl.org DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
Re: [CTRL] DEBATE: COMMUNISM VS. FASCISM...DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED GOVTS
-Caveat Lector- At a Sovjet work place, just a sceptical remark about the system could be punished by death. In The Sovjet Union, they had KZ-camps alerady from 1919. Here children could also be executed. Hunger and starvation was used to control the masses. The Gulags received 20 millions, who were starved and forced to work hard under extremely cruel conditions. Millions died. All this is even worse than fascism. Yours, Ole Gerstrom, Denmark - Original Message - From: "A. Bpyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2004 2:15 PM Subject: [CTRL] DEBATE: COMMUNISM VS. FASCISM...DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED GOVTS > -Caveat Lector- > > Reply from E. Murray: > > Subject: DEBATE: COMMUNISM VS. FASCISM...DIAMETRICALLY > OPPOSED GOVTS > > I believe you are still spouting a mess of > dis-information. Hitler would turn over in his grave > if he heard you say this, as he detested Stalin, they > were bitter enemies. > > Hitler was highly successful for nearly two years in > invading and taking over Russia (1941-1943) during > WWII. About five million Russian soldiers died in > this invasion, not to speak of the numbers of millions > of common people dead; Hitler's command was to kill > Jews first, then other Russians. > > Stalin was not a dictator...after Lenin died of a > botched medical operation (1928), Stalin became the > top dog and was known as "General Secretary" for about > ten years, then as "Commander in Chief." The term > dictator is one you are using, applied from the > outside, not by Russians or their military ever. > Hitler was known as a "dictator"...this is only a > Fascist term, not a Communistic one. > > Communism in Russia included the "state" taking over > farms and industries...the "kalaks" farmers would up > loosing their farms to "collectives" which Stalin > established (1930s). But the point was that the > Politburo & Central Committee, was HUGE...that it > owned all the property & the public...Stalin was > governing a massive governmental body. This is part of > the Communist system...massive govt body. Fascism is > not like this, it is rule by a SMALL elite group, > there is NO "Politburo"...no, not at all. Fascists do > not take over property, Hitler did demand that Germans > serve in the military however. As far as "socialism" > there are have been many, many different degrees of > socialism, and different definitions by govts. There > are many different levels of the use of > socialism...Hitler's use of this term could have meant > anything really, it was a term used to support his > demands that people have a deep abiding support a > nationalistic attitude towards the Fascism. Small > programs adopted by govts could consitute the use of > this term...that does not mean the country is adopting > Communism. Marx's use of this term was more sweeping, > huge, but nowdays its definition has much flexibility > and does not imply the adoption of communism. In > Russia it apparently DID imply the use of full bore > Communism. Its definitions vary, depending up who is > using it. > > These forms of govts ARE diametrically > opposed...Stalin hated Hitler so much that he executed > 30,000 of his OWN army in 1937 for having sympathies > with Germany, Fascism. Many Russians did not > apparently LIKE Jewish rule or the Jewish govt...some > of them actually sided with Fascists, who obviously > wanted Jews annihilated. > > Your take on "socialism" needs far more research. > Your assumption that there is anything in common > between Communism and Fascism is simply bullshit. > Fascists murder, when they can, Communists. > Communists do likewise. Never the twain shall meet. > Socialism is simply a "general catch phrase" for govt- > sponsored public programs. > > E Murray > > > > --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > -Caveat Lector- > > > > > Using the term "Commu-Nazi," which I assume means > > > "Communist-Nazi" is an erroneous. double noun. > > These > > > two political systems are diametrically opposed to > > > each other, opposites. They do not merge, like > > oil > > > and water. The oil is Communism, the main > > doctrine of > > > which was co-authored by K. Marx, a German Jew. > > > Communism is a political system championed by > > many, if > > > not most, Jews. Communism = Judaism = oil. > > > > Nonsense. > > > > One of the founders of Fascism, Mussolini was a > > dedicated Socialist who wanted > > Socialism t
Re: [CTRL] DEBATE: COMMUNISM VS. FASCISM...DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED GOVTS
-Caveat Lector- > Your take on "socialism" needs far more research. > Your assumption that there is anything in common > between Communism and Fascism is simply bullshit. > Fascists murder, when they can, Communists. > Communists do likewise. Never the twain shall meet. > Socialism is simply a "general catch phrase" for govt- > sponsored public programs. > E Murray I suggest you study some political History. Communism, Socialism, National Socialism, Fascism - all are totalatarian statist entities. The One True Party is paramount. You clearly know nothing of Nazi philosophy to claim that the Nazi Party did not control all aspects of German society, including private property, etc. According to Nazi doctrine, the party embodied the State and the People. The Party controlled ALL aspects of government and property through the Party. Anyone with any power or authority, whether they "owned" property or not - was a servant of the Party. Under German law passed after Hitler and the Nazis took complete power, the Party WAS the State and the State had ultimate authority over everything if it furthered the interest of the German people. Only the Nazi Party decided what "furthered the interest of the German People. The Fuhrer was the ulimate source of all authority in the party, the state and the people. The Nazis permitted many owners of capital to remain nominally in charge of assets although many were replaced by loyal party members. The capitalists left in place were completely subject to party dictates through Nazi /State law. Many of these capitalists needed no coercion. Many gladly joined the party and followed its rule. In return the party permitted them to amass profit - as long as they were loyal party members and were subservient to the Party. In the Leninist system, the new ruling Communist Bureaucratic class also were permitted to amass the perks of power. The Nazis co-opted and absorbed the old elite. The Communists substituted a new elite. The Nazis were more practical then the Leninists. The Nazis had the benefit of the Leninist failures.The Nazis realized it is not efficient to substitute new ignorant greed for old competent greed. All aspects of German life were controlled by the party - academia, the sciences, professions, manufacturing, the Army, religious institutions, etc. Do your research before you spout foolish opinions. Communism = Nazism = Socialism = Statism. flw www.ctrl.org DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
[CTRL] DEBATE: COMMUNISM VS. FASCISM...DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED GOVTS
-Caveat Lector- Reply from E. Murray: Subject: DEBATE: COMMUNISM VS. FASCISM...DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED GOVTS I believe you are still spouting a mess of dis-information. Hitler would turn over in his grave if he heard you say this, as he detested Stalin, they were bitter enemies. Hitler was highly successful for nearly two years in invading and taking over Russia (1941-1943) during WWII. About five million Russian soldiers died in this invasion, not to speak of the numbers of millions of common people dead; Hitler's command was to kill Jews first, then other Russians. Stalin was not a dictator...after Lenin died of a botched medical operation (1928), Stalin became the top dog and was known as "General Secretary" for about ten years, then as "Commander in Chief." The term dictator is one you are using, applied from the outside, not by Russians or their military ever. Hitler was known as a "dictator"...this is only a Fascist term, not a Communistic one. Communism in Russia included the "state" taking over farms and industries...the "kalaks" farmers would up loosing their farms to "collectives" which Stalin established (1930s). But the point was that the Politburo & Central Committee, was HUGE...that it owned all the property & the public...Stalin was governing a massive governmental body. This is part of the Communist system...massive govt body. Fascism is not like this, it is rule by a SMALL elite group, there is NO "Politburo"...no, not at all. Fascists do not take over property, Hitler did demand that Germans serve in the military however. As far as "socialism" there are have been many, many different degrees of socialism, and different definitions by govts. There are many different levels of the use of socialism...Hitler's use of this term could have meant anything really, it was a term used to support his demands that people have a deep abiding support a nationalistic attitude towards the Fascism. Small programs adopted by govts could consitute the use of this term...that does not mean the country is adopting Communism. Marx's use of this term was more sweeping, huge, but nowdays its definition has much flexibility and does not imply the adoption of communism. In Russia it apparently DID imply the use of full bore Communism. Its definitions vary, depending up who is using it. These forms of govts ARE diametrically opposed...Stalin hated Hitler so much that he executed 30,000 of his OWN army in 1937 for having sympathies with Germany, Fascism. Many Russians did not apparently LIKE Jewish rule or the Jewish govt...some of them actually sided with Fascists, who obviously wanted Jews annihilated. Your take on "socialism" needs far more research. Your assumption that there is anything in common between Communism and Fascism is simply bullshit. Fascists murder, when they can, Communists. Communists do likewise. Never the twain shall meet. Socialism is simply a "general catch phrase" for govt- sponsored public programs. E Murray --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > -Caveat Lector- > > > Using the term "Commu-Nazi," which I assume means > > "Communist-Nazi" is an erroneous. double noun. > These > > two political systems are diametrically opposed to > > each other, opposites. They do not merge, like > oil > > and water. The oil is Communism, the main > doctrine of > > which was co-authored by K. Marx, a German Jew. > > Communism is a political system championed by > many, if > > not most, Jews. Communism = Judaism = oil. > > Nonsense. > > One of the founders of Fascism, Mussolini was a > dedicated Socialist who wanted > Socialism taken to a 'higher level' by advocating > 'Fascism'. Both systems are > Collectivist. Both are based on all encompassing > Statism. > > The Nazis (National SOCIALISTS) considered their > system reformed socialism. > The Hitler Gang saw how the Lenin Gang almost failed > because they displaced > the old elite with a new, inexperienced elite. > Fascism and Nazism were more > efficient then Socialism because they co-opted the > existing elite into their > ranks rather then immediate and wholesale > displacement. > > In both systems The Party is paramount in all > things. By forcing the old > elite to join the Party, the Nazis totally > controlled all power levers of > society. > > The good ole US of A is now a Corporate > Socio-Fascist State. > > This working model establishes a coercive > partnership and synerigistic > relationship between the corporate and political > power structure. A merger of > all ruling elements into one master interest group. > It takes the Leninist / Nazi > modelone step further. > > The U.S. exists under the One True Party. A hidden > party - one > that all corporate and political elite belong, > including the power structure of > the fake front parties - the RepubliKrats and > DemiKans. > flw > > www.ctrl.org > DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER > == > CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. > Proselytizing propagandic > screeds are
Re: [CTRL] "Debate or CIA Propaganda?" by Carla Binion
-Caveat Lector-
DRIVEL
-
On Wed, 10 Jan 2001 17:21:32 EST "Samantha L." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> -Caveat Lector-
>
> Debate or CIA Propaganda?
> By Carla Binion
>
> What is the difference between propaganda and honest debate? Honest
> debate
> depends on fact and reason, and its goal is to disclose factual
> information.
> When politicians or media pundits mischaracterize their opponents'
> arguments,
> they show contempt for fact and reason. The information they pass
> along to
> the public becomes misleading disinformation, or propaganda. Some
> members of
> the mainstream media and certain politicians have used misleading
> arguments
> when it comes to Bush's John Ashcroft nomination. However, this
> kind of
> deception is nothing new.
>
> Before we focus on the Bush team's twisting of facts regarding the
> Ashcroft
> nomination, here is an example of earlier political and media
> propaganda. In
> "Unreliable Sources" (Lyle Stuart:Carol Publishing Group, 1992)
> journalists
> Norman Solomon and Martin A. Lee write about the Reagan's
> administration's
> public-opinion-shaping Office of Public Diplomacy (OPD.) The OPD
> worked to
> influence the American people's opinion of Reagan's foreign policy.
>
> Solomon and Lee report that the Office of Public Diplomacy was part
> of the
> State Department, but "actually took its marching orders from the
> National
> Security Council and indirectly from the CIA." In 1982, Congressman
> David
> Bonior expressed concern about Reagan's Nicaraguan policies and
> spoke on the
> House floor about, "a highly orchestrated propaganda effort by the
> administration which unfortunately the media of this country to a
> very large
> degree is buying hook, line and sinker."
>
> According to Solomon and Lee, "A senior U. S. official described OPD
> as 'a
> vast psychological warfare operation of the kind the military
> conducts to
> influence a population in enemy territory' -- only in this case the
> target
> was the American people." In other words, you, Mr. and Ms. America,
> were the
> stated targets of an NSA and CIA-ordered psy-op to convince you to
> support
> the Reagan policies.
>
> To promote grassroots support for Reagan's foreign policy, the
> Office of
> Public Diplomacy recruited a team of psy-ops specialists from Fort
> Bragg,
> North Carolina. Solomon and Lee report that OPD planted stories in
> the press
> and coached journalists. A March 13, 1985, White House memo to
> White House
> Communications Director Pat Buchanan used the term "White Propaganda
> Operation" when it referred to several examples of the OPD project.
>
> Solomon and Lee write that the OPD helped NBC's Fred Francis with a
> positive
> piece on the contras for NBC Nightly News; helped write a Wall
> Street Journal
> column on "the Nicaraguan arms build-up;" wrote op-ed columns for
> contra
> leaders to sign; and prepared to leak a State Department
> anti-Sandinista
> cable. OPD said to Buchanan, "Do not be surprised if this cable
> somehow hits
> the evening news."
>
> The Office of Public Diplomacy tried to intimidate dissenting
> members of the
> press, according to Solomon and Lee. In a secret State Department
> memo, a
> Professor John Guilmartin was described as an OPD "consultant."
>
> Guilmartin wrote a pro-White House op-ed piece for The Wall Street
> Journal,
> pretending to be an independent citizen. Later in the Journal,
> Clifford
> Kraus and Robert Greenberger rebutted some of Guilmartin's
> assertions. OPD
> chief, Otto Reich sent an angry letter claiming the Journal's
> independent
> rebuttal was "an echo of Sandinista propaganda." Actually Reich was
> echoing
> Reagan administration propaganda, note Solomon and Lee.
>
> Otto Reich once referred to National Public Radio (NPR) as the
> "little Havana
> on the Potomac," according to the authors. He visited the office
> after NPR
> aired a report unfavorable to the contras. According to NPR
employees, Reich
> claimed that he had convinced other media editors to change their
> reporting
> and said he had a team monitoring all NPR programs. Solomon and Lee
> report
> that an NPR staffer saw Reich's comments as a "calculated attempt to
> intimidate."
>
> Journalist Robert Parry ("Fooling America," William Morrow and
> Company, 1992)
> writes that in April 1994, Otto Reich went to CBS after Reagan
> complained
> about the network's Central America coverage. According to Parry,
> Secretary
> of State George Schultz sent Reagan a memo saying Reich had spent an
> hour
> complaining to the CBS correspondent and spent two hours with his
> Washington
> bureau chief "to point out flaws in the information."
>
> How do the propaganda efforts of the Reagan administration relate to
> current
> events? George W. Bush has not even been inaugurated, and already
> his
> spokesmen are mischaracterizing Bush's political opponents and using
> misleading arguments regarding opposition to Bush's cabinet
> nomin
Re: [CTRL] "Debate or CIA Propaganda?" by Carla Binion
-Caveat Lector-
Debate or CIA Propaganda?
By Carla Binion
What is the difference between propaganda and honest debate? Honest debate
depends on fact and reason, and its goal is to disclose factual information.
When politicians or media pundits mischaracterize their opponents' arguments,
they show contempt for fact and reason. The information they pass along to
the public becomes misleading disinformation, or propaganda. Some members of
the mainstream media and certain politicians have used misleading arguments
when it comes to Bush's John Ashcroft nomination. However, this kind of
deception is nothing new.
Before we focus on the Bush team's twisting of facts regarding the Ashcroft
nomination, here is an example of earlier political and media propaganda. In
"Unreliable Sources" (Lyle Stuart:Carol Publishing Group, 1992) journalists
Norman Solomon and Martin A. Lee write about the Reagan's administration's
public-opinion-shaping Office of Public Diplomacy (OPD.) The OPD worked to
influence the American people's opinion of Reagan's foreign policy.
Solomon and Lee report that the Office of Public Diplomacy was part of the
State Department, but "actually took its marching orders from the National
Security Council and indirectly from the CIA." In 1982, Congressman David
Bonior expressed concern about Reagan's Nicaraguan policies and spoke on the
House floor about, "a highly orchestrated propaganda effort by the
administration which unfortunately the media of this country to a very large
degree is buying hook, line and sinker."
According to Solomon and Lee, "A senior U. S. official described OPD as 'a
vast psychological warfare operation of the kind the military conducts to
influence a population in enemy territory' -- only in this case the target
was the American people." In other words, you, Mr. and Ms. America, were the
stated targets of an NSA and CIA-ordered psy-op to convince you to support
the Reagan policies.
To promote grassroots support for Reagan's foreign policy, the Office of
Public Diplomacy recruited a team of psy-ops specialists from Fort Bragg,
North Carolina. Solomon and Lee report that OPD planted stories in the press
and coached journalists. A March 13, 1985, White House memo to White House
Communications Director Pat Buchanan used the term "White Propaganda
Operation" when it referred to several examples of the OPD project.
Solomon and Lee write that the OPD helped NBC's Fred Francis with a positive
piece on the contras for NBC Nightly News; helped write a Wall Street Journal
column on "the Nicaraguan arms build-up;" wrote op-ed columns for contra
leaders to sign; and prepared to leak a State Department anti-Sandinista
cable. OPD said to Buchanan, "Do not be surprised if this cable somehow hits
the evening news."
The Office of Public Diplomacy tried to intimidate dissenting members of the
press, according to Solomon and Lee. In a secret State Department memo, a
Professor John Guilmartin was described as an OPD "consultant."
Guilmartin wrote a pro-White House op-ed piece for The Wall Street Journal,
pretending to be an independent citizen. Later in the Journal, Clifford
Kraus and Robert Greenberger rebutted some of Guilmartin's assertions. OPD
chief, Otto Reich sent an angry letter claiming the Journal's independent
rebuttal was "an echo of Sandinista propaganda." Actually Reich was echoing
Reagan administration propaganda, note Solomon and Lee.
Otto Reich once referred to National Public Radio (NPR) as the "little Havana
on the Potomac," according to the authors. He visited the office after NPR
aired a report unfavorable to the contras. According to NPR employees, Reich
claimed that he had convinced other media editors to change their reporting
and said he had a team monitoring all NPR programs. Solomon and Lee report
that an NPR staffer saw Reich's comments as a "calculated attempt to
intimidate."
Journalist Robert Parry ("Fooling America," William Morrow and Company, 1992)
writes that in April 1994, Otto Reich went to CBS after Reagan complained
about the network's Central America coverage. According to Parry, Secretary
of State George Schultz sent Reagan a memo saying Reich had spent an hour
complaining to the CBS correspondent and spent two hours with his Washington
bureau chief "to point out flaws in the information."
How do the propaganda efforts of the Reagan administration relate to current
events? George W. Bush has not even been inaugurated, and already his
spokesmen are mischaracterizing Bush's political opponents and using
misleading arguments regarding opposition to Bush's cabinet nominations.
Many members of the mainstream media, especially on various cable TV
networks, parrot the Bush team line.
Last night on a number of cable networks, Bush mouthpieces repeated the idea
that opponents of Ashcroft's nomination are exclusively members of the "far
left." For example, on Fox Network's Hannity and Colmes program, Former
Attorney General Ed Meese s
[CTRL] Debate rages over Lyme treatment
-Caveat Lector- Debate rages over Lyme treatment Doctors, patients divided on therapy for tick-borne disease By Linda Carroll SPECIAL TO MSNBC PHILADELPHIA. Nov. 1 - Demonstrators invaded the normally staid and studious atmosphere of a national medical meeting here Wednesday, carrying placards and doling out leaflets intended to refute the teachings of a prominent Lyme disease expert. Post your views on MSNBC's Health Bulletin Board THE FOCUS of their ire was Dr. Alan Steere, a renowned rheumatologist who originally linked the disease with tick bites and named it after the town in Connecticut where it was discovered. Steere has become a lightning rod for angry patients who feel that his prominence has given his opinion more weight in the ongoing medical debate over whether Lyme is over- or under-treated. He, along with many physicians, supports a short-term course of antibiotics while other doctors disagree, saying that patients may need months, sometimes years, of treatment. Live chat today at 6 p.m. E.T. At the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology, dozens of patients gathered around the front door of the conference center, where they could catch doctors drifting out for lunch. They said they were holding a "teach-out" to counter what Steere told rheumatologists inside the building in a morning session in which he had promised to teach "How to treat and diagnose Lyme disease." Steere is a researcher at the Tufts University School of Medicine in Boston. ONGOING DEBATE The demonstration is the latest salvo in an unusually acrimonious academic argument. Patients say they are caught in the middle, that they have trouble getting proper care and that insurance companies are loathe to pay the high price of long-term intravenous antibiotic therapy when leading experts like Steere say that such treatments are completely unnecessary. Early signs of Lyme disease . Headache . Neck stiffness . Fever . Muscle and joint pain . Fatigue . Forgetfulness . Bull's-eye rash Patients are particularly incensed by Steere's involvement in the malpractice investigation of Dr. Joseph Natole of Saginaw, Mich., who had been treating Lyme patients with intravenous antibiotics. Steere testified against the Michigan doctor, and Natole lost his medical license for six months. Patients decided to fight back, by protesting against Steere when he makes public appearances and by filing complaints against him in his home state of Massachusetts. One of the Lyme support groups has been encouraging disgruntled Steere patients to file complaints with the state's medical board. Thus far, the medical board has received more than 50 complaint letters concerning Steere, according to the Massachusetts Lyme Disease Coalition. As the patient groups have become increasingly vocal, Steere has become more reclusive. He has refused press interviews, including interview requests for this article. Outside the meeting, patients talked about why they were targeting Steere in particular. "He has been the most public," said Susan MacNamee, 43, of Perkasie, Pa. "He's the most well known. He even discovered it. So doctors believe what he says." Others suggested that Steere's vocal opposition to long-term antibiotics have led insurance companies to refuse payment for these treatments. "When he stands up and says we all are cured after four weeks of antibiotics, we can't get treatment," says Gail Wallin, 50, of Holland, Pa. PHYSICIANS ON BOTH SIDES OF DEBATE Doctors, for the most part, hurried by the protestors, ignoring their promises to "tell the truth about Lyme disease." Some physicians, like Dr. H. Paul Lasky, stopped to spar with the protestors, attempting to convince them that Steere's analysis of the disease is right. Advertisement Lasky, a physician in private practice in Cornwall, N.Y., believes that the patients who believe they have chronic Lyme disease have simply been duped by the companies selling intravenous therapy. But a Swiss doctor who stopped to talk was perplexed by all the furor. There is no controversy over Lyme disease in Europe, said Dr. Fritz Hasler, a physician in private practice in Chur, Switzerland. Doctors simply treat patients with antibiotics until they get better, Hasler said. Hasler said he attended Steere's presentation earlier in the day. "He gave a very good talk about the American view," Hasler said. "He made it clear that he thinks in Europe we may have different patient populations." http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substancenot soap-boxingplease! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright fraudsis used politically by different groups with major and minor e
[CTRL] Debate Window Sizes (fwd)
-Caveat Lector- They are always 'messing with our minds"! Subject: [CTRL] Debate Window Sizes (fwd) > > -- Forwarded message -- > Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 14:23:15 -0700 > From: Ray Heizer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Debate Window Sizes > > > I've forgotten the thread name which raised this point, but I > _did_ record the debate (FoxNews channel) and finally got around > to looking at the question of the relative window sizes of Gore > and Bush when they were side-by-side. > > I do not know if all channels got the same feed, but at least the > feed that came via FoxNews had a noticably larger window size for > Gore ... specifically about 11% wider (i.e. 88 vs 79 mm (+/- 1mm) > on my small screen TV here on my desk). > > There is a single pixel dead center at the top of my screen. This > provides another way to look at it. The Gore window extends to > within about 3 pixels of the centerline and the Bush window > extends to within about 12 pixels of the centerline. > > The veritcal heights of the two windows are identical. > > --end-- > > -- Forwarded message -- > Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 14:19:23 -0700 > From: Scott Jordan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Ray Heizer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: RE: Debate Window Sizes > > Ray, > > Thanks for the quantitation. > > The original qualitative commentary was in the thread where we > aired our impression that Gore had consumed way more than his > fair share of airtime, what with all his interruptions and > gimme-another-turns. Not to mention his sighs and groans and > other Goreasmic histrionics, which inserted his smarmy self into > Bush's timeslots. > > It was my impression while watching that Gore's pane was about > 10% or so wider. A Freeper went and measured it and came up with > 10%, jibing quite well with your 11%. Might depend on the > network, but now there's no doubt: Gore was allowed to dominate > the *screen* too, and this is not due to his pushiness, this is > entirely the director's doing, real-time. > > --Scott J. > > --end-- > > On Thu, 5 Oct 2000, Scott Jordan wrote: > > > Lookie here: > > > > http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a39dd0486638c.htm "Britt > > Hume, main news anchor for Fox News just stated that > > [paraphrased] 'an analysis of CNN news coverage of the > > debates reveals they showed Gore's image larger than Bush..' > > > > There's another FR thread referenced too. > > > > --Scott > > > http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substancenot soap-boxingplease! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright fraudsis used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html">Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED] http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
[CTRL] Debate Window Sizes (fwd)
-Caveat Lector- -- Forwarded message -- Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 14:23:15 -0700 From: Ray Heizer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Debate Window Sizes I've forgotten the thread name which raised this point, but I _did_ record the debate (FoxNews channel) and finally got around to looking at the question of the relative window sizes of Gore and Bush when they were side-by-side. I do not know if all channels got the same feed, but at least the feed that came via FoxNews had a noticably larger window size for Gore ... specifically about 11% wider (i.e. 88 vs 79 mm (+/- 1mm) on my small screen TV here on my desk). There is a single pixel dead center at the top of my screen. This provides another way to look at it. The Gore window extends to within about 3 pixels of the centerline and the Bush window extends to within about 12 pixels of the centerline. The veritcal heights of the two windows are identical. --end-- -- Forwarded message -- Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 14:19:23 -0700 From: Scott Jordan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Ray Heizer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: Debate Window Sizes Ray, Thanks for the quantitation. The original qualitative commentary was in the thread where we aired our impression that Gore had consumed way more than his fair share of airtime, what with all his interruptions and gimme-another-turns. Not to mention his sighs and groans and other Goreasmic histrionics, which inserted his smarmy self into Bush's timeslots. It was my impression while watching that Gore's pane was about 10% or so wider. A Freeper went and measured it and came up with 10%, jibing quite well with your 11%. Might depend on the network, but now there's no doubt: Gore was allowed to dominate the *screen* too, and this is not due to his pushiness, this is entirely the director's doing, real-time. --Scott J. --end-- On Thu, 5 Oct 2000, Scott Jordan wrote: > Lookie here: > > http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a39dd0486638c.htm "Britt > Hume, main news anchor for Fox News just stated that > [paraphrased] 'an analysis of CNN news coverage of the > debates reveals they showed Gore's image larger than Bush..' > > There's another FR thread referenced too. > > --Scott = Kadosh, Kadosh, Kadosh, YHVH, TZEVAOT FROM THE DESK OF:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> *Mike Spitzer* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> The Best Way To Destroy Enemies Is To Change Them To Friends Shalom, A Salaam Aleikum, and to all, A Good Day. = http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substancenot soap-boxingplease! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright fraudsis used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html">Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED] http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
[CTRL] Debate Widens Over Effective Way To Secure Los Alamos Nuclear Site (fwd)
-Caveat Lector- http://www.ctrl.org/"> -Cui Bono?- March 15, 2000--The Wall Street Journal Politics & Policy Debate Widens Over Effective Way To Secure Los Alamos Nuclear Site By JOHN J. FIALKA Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL LOS ALAMOS, N.M. -- In the midnight darkness of April 12, 1997, a secret war game was played out in a canyon here that illustrated the weakness of one of the most heavily guarded places at this nuclear- weapons laboratory. A small team of elite Army Special Forces commandos, playing the role of terrorists, surprised and quickly overwhelmed the lab's guard force. Running among the dozen buildings in the compound -- protected by guard towers, a high fence topped with razor wire and electronic motion detectors -- the invaders reached the simulated objective of the game: enough nuclear material to make an atom bomb. While public attention has been focused on allegations of spying of nuclear-weapons secrets from Los Alamos, the exercise provides a vivid example of a lesser-known security nightmare. There is a growing internal debate over how to protect the Department of Energy lab's aging facilities against the theft of its rich stock of atomic-bomb materials. In the 1997 test, the final line of defense in the facility, known as Technical Area 18, were the canisters containing portable amounts of plutonium and highly enriched uranium that are regularly handled here. They were purposely made too heavy for an attacker to run off with. The "terrorists" ran off with some anyway, wheeling the material into the woods using equipment the defenders hadn't anticipated -- a garden cart. Though the Energy Department says it has moved to shore up safeguards, the exercise that some agency security planners soberly refer to as "Garden Cart" is a reminder of the challenges. The department spends $700 million a year for security, but the job of defending some of the agency's most sensitive installations is becoming more risky and expensive as Cold War-era buildings age and as urban sprawl makes facilities more accessible. A public road now runs alongside TA-18, which was picked for its remoteness in 1944. The road must be closed each time technicians hold dangerous "criticality" experiments using remote controls to generate radiation from chain reactions. The 1997 mock invasion succeeded despite months of guard training and dozens of computerized battle simulations showing that newly beefed-up defenders of the facility would win. "The exercise had a very bad outcome, and they learned," says Houston "Terry" Hawkins, the lab official who oversees TA-18 and antiterrorist-related activities. Gen. Eugene Habiger, the Energy Department's new director of security operations, has visited TA-18 twice and finds it "very difficult to defend" because it sits on the floor of a canyon surrounded by high, unguarded foothills. After a department analysis showed the security requirements of TA-18 absorbed $18 million a year to protect $3 million to $5 million of research, Gen. Habiger began pushing a two-year-old plan to move TA-18 to a fortress-like complex in Nevada. (The lab maintains research and security costs at TA-18 are about the same: $12 million each.) The department spent $100 million to build the Nevada complex, called the Device Assembly Facility, in the early 1990s as a secure place for the final assembly of nuclear weapons to be tested at the site. Since the U.S. abandoned such testing in 1992, the complex sits largely unused. Gen. Habiger and other security planners argue that its state-of-the-art defenses and its flat, remote location -- where outsiders can be seen coming for miles -- would make the job of protecting TA-18 less stressful and much cheaper. But the department is still weighing the move. "There are very critical programs in that facility," says Ernest Moniz, undersecretary of energy. "We just can't afford to turn them off for a few years." Also, the TA-18's skilled technicians are among the handful of people in the world who know how to handle nuclear weapons materials safely, and some aren't anxious to move. Mr. Hawkins adds that if a nuclear weapon is damaged in transit or if a terrorist group brandishes a nuclear weapon, the U.S. response teams will be guided by the technicians here. The exact configuration of uranium or plutonium used in nuclear weapons determines whether it is safe to handle. To figure out how a weapon disfigured in an accident or a makeshift terrorist weapon should be dealt with, the experts in TA-18 would use their assortment of different-size pieces of the sensitive metals to model it. "When you get the wrong shape, that thing goes tick-tick-tick-tick-tick," explains Mr. Hawkins, referring to a Geiger counter. "We want to make sure that doesn't happen." In scientific terms, putting the metals in the wrong shape initiates a chain reaction that could emit a lethal burst of radiation to people nearby. The experts here call it "going criti
[CTRL] Debate
-Caveat Lector- http://www.ctrl.org/"> -Cui Bono?- McCain won the debate by a fair margin, IMO. He made some good points regarding differences between his more fiscally-responsible tax plan which actually pays down the National Debt (as opposed to the Social Security Debt in Bush's plan), his more substantial and meaningful campaign reform, and his, total commitment to a moratorium on the Internet Tax. Bush looked better than before, which is not saying much, but he waffeled on the main issues above (like a traditional polititian), and more importently perhaps, he can't even pronounce nuclear (he says, 'nucular', as in "I am in charge of the 'nucular weapons'). Did Bush go to school in Texas? Or Washington, DC? Either way, he has a problem, or perhaps several, which may include some inherited inbred (blueblood) genes, and the speech and communication challenges of his CIA dad. Not to mention the 'other genes'. But I say too much. On that note, Keyes talked too much, and regardless, so what? He has no chance of winning the nomination based on the polls and the fact that he tries to position himself slightly to the left of Pat Buchanan. Many Democrats and Independents strongly support McCain, including many votors here in California where an unprecedented number of Democrats and Independents have registered as Republicans in order to vote for McCain delegates. I have been amazed talking to a few 'liberals' who support McCain and have been surprised at the level of awareness of the shenanigans of the 'Bush Clan'. Regards, Steve Steve - RECOMMENDED BOOKS http://www.bmvs.com/sites/anomalous/books/recommend.asp RECOMMENDED VIDEOS http://www.bmvs.com/sites/anomalous/videos/recommend.asp ANOMALOUS IMAGES WEBSITE http://www.anomalous-images.com http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot soap-boxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright fraudsis used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
[CTRL] Debate flares over MS 'Spy Key'
Debate flares over MS 'Spy Key' by James Glave 3:00 a.m. 4.Sep.99.PDT Questions lingered Friday over whether or not security experts overreacted to a scientist's charge that Microsoft built a backdoor in Windows for a US spy agency to enter. Microsoft vehemently denied the claims of Andrew Fernandes, chief scientist for security software company Cryptonym. "It is a non-story," Microsoft Windows NT security product manager Scott Culp told Wired News. "We don't leave backdoors in any products." See also: MS Denies Windows 'Spy Key' In an early Friday statement posted to his company's Web site, Fernandes had claimed that Microsoft had granted the National Security Agency secret access to the core security of most major Windows operating systems. He made his claims after discovering the name of a key that grants access to the highest level of Windows data-scrambling software code, without the user's permission. The key is named _NSAKEY. The charges seemed to confirm the worst fears of many, and Internet mailing lists erupted early Friday in a Krakatoa of anti-Microsoft sentiment. "Windows is compromised!! Microsoft is in bed with the Federal Government," wrote one poster to a mailing list addressing privacy and crypto issues. The climate was certainly primed for hysteria. Last week, experts uncovered a major flaw in the way Microsoft implements the Java computer language. The company had barely addressed that problem when a gaping hole exposed the private email of potentially millions of Hotmail members -- perhaps the most widespread security incident in the Web history. Microsoft dismissed Friday's charges as nonsense. The company said that the key was named after the spy agency merely to reflect the fact that it had passed a technical review that the agency requires of all security software intended for export. But Fernandes stood his ground. "Some of the things [Microsoft said] make sense, some of them don't," he said. The _NSAKEY is one of two such keys buried deep in the cryptography source code of most Windows operating systems. In other reports, Microsoft said that the _NSAKEY is still a Microsoft-controlled key that will serve as a backup in the event that the first key is compromised. That just doesn't make sense, Fernandes said. "If they lost the first key which is the equivalent to them losing the Windows source code, then that would be okay, they could just start using the backup key." "But if all of Windows was compromised [by a hacker], they would have to reissue all of Windows and overwrite [the second key] on top of all copies of Windows out there, which can happen, but it's unlikely." "Their story only kind of makes sense," he added. "If that is in fact true, it means their crypto protocol is poor, there is no other word for it." Crypto expert Marc Briceno did have another word for it: "feeble." "I must say I do not believe Microsoft's present explanation that the presence of the _NSAKEY corresponds to standard practices in software development," said Marc Briceno, director of the Smartcard Developer Association. "There is no technical reason for Microsoft to include a second security module verification key in their operating system ... to mark the passing of export requirements," Briceno said. But a respected independent Windows NT security consultant said that in the wake of Microsoft's denials, the NSA backdoor allegations amount to conspiracy theories. "There's a bunch of somewhat understandable furor going on over the idea that the NSA might have a backdoor to Windows," wrote Russ Cooper, moderator of the NTBugtraq Windows security resource. "Unfortunately, however, all of this is based on a variable name," he added. Anyone who programs knows that variables might get named anything for a variety of reasons." He said the lion's share of individuals overreacting to the claims are freedom fighters and privacy advocates. "Unfortunately they have a loud voice," he said. "I don't think they are representative of the average person, the real people that populate the Net," he said. "We give away all kinds of things, every day, that sacrifice our privacy. These privacy advocates, I'd put them in the category of the Michigan Militia, the Ruby Ridge folks." But John Gilmore, a co-founder of the Electronic Freedom Foundation, said that the case was far from clear. Gilmore quoted Microsoft's Scott Culp, who said in a previous Wired News story that the _NSAKEY was only in place "to ensure that we and our cryptographic partners comply with United States crypto export regulations." Gilmore said that the crypto community has always wondered what exactly the deal was between NSA and Microsoft that allows the company to plug strong crypto into software that is sold worldwide. Culp's response was "disingenuous
