Category Archives: Security

History, Poetry, Security

Steal the Goose, Go to Jail. Steal the Goose Concept, Start a Corporation.

Leave a comment

An old English protest verse exposes the unfair asymmetry of “Enclosure” laws by describing a goose.

They hang the man and flog the woman
That steal the goose from off the common,
But let the greater villain loose
That steals the common from the goose.

The law demands that we atone
When we take things we do not own,
But leaves the lords and ladies fine
Who take things that are yours and mine.

The person who takes a goose meets the full weight of the criminal law. The person who takes the common on which the goose was fed receives an Act of Parliament for the trouble. Petty theft is a hanging offense, while grand theft is a civic act.

The lines are anonymous, probably by design to protect those who recognize the meaning. They came during the “enclosure-era”, first printed in The Tickler in 1821.

The target of rhyme is the philosopher Locke. His Second Treatise grounds property in labor, where a man acquires a parcel by his work being recognized among the common stock. Enclosure reversed the rights. The labor that converted a common right into a private title was simply the drafting of a statute, while the men who performed the labor saw their result called someone else’s property.

The same integrity challenge, in the same decades, was the abolitionist debate on slavery. Somerset secured his freedom from slavery in 1772, and then Parliament abolished the trade in 1807 and the institution itself in 1833. In the UK. America did the opposite. The Somerset ruling of 1772 and Dunmore’s promise of freedom in 1775 turned the slavery-promoting southern colonies into radical militant resistance to freedom under the crown. An American federal ban on slave imports took effect in 1808, meaning state-sanctioned domestic rape treating rapid human offspring as a property boom. In December 1835 President Jackson asked Congress to inspect mail to protect “property” by censoring abolitionist publications. When the bill failed, his postmasters suppressed thought regardless, and mobs were setup to torture and kill Americans caught with abolitionist content. Lovejoy was shot to death in 1837 while defending his fourth printing machine from being destroyed.

Both abolition and enclosure shared a mechanism. The law decided what may be owned and therefore what would count as theft. Property in persons was being ended, with a Civil War even, yet it was being taken up in the commons. Human ownership was fought at high expense out of existence, while another ownership was being simply legislated into it.

The radical tradition understood. Thomas Spence built his programme on the theft of the common, and Marx would later file enclosure under primitive accumulation, the system’s founding expropriation conducted as if just law. The anonymous poem had offered the same conclusion a century earlier, and with greater economy.

Theft was, and still is, defined by who is authorized to hold the pen that writes the law. Enclosure is an old term now, barely recognized. Today it most often means elites filing a patent, or scraping data. In other words, AI.

History, Security

This Day in History: 1876 Custer Assault on Women and Children is Destroyed at Little Big Horn

1 Comment

Today in America we remember how Custer’s men didn’t make a stand, and instead collapsed and scattered into chaos when they were confronted by American Native warriors along the Little Bighorn River in southeastern Montana Territory.

If Custer stood for anything, it was the Epstein-like kidnapping of young girls to “force surrender” as blackmail. On this day, when he marched on the Lakota, they sent warriors to confront him. History now records this as five companies of his men quickly killed as they fell into chaos and disarray when challenged. The American Native people defended their vulnerable children from a wicked man and his poorly led soldiers.

Unfortunately, like with Epstein, America spent many years ignoring the stories of the women and children who were in danger. The Lakota and Cheyenne were telling the story exactly as it happened. President Grant blamed Custer publicly in the New York Herald on September 2, 1876, calling the defeat a sacrifice of troops brought on by Custer himself, wholly unnecessary. Custer was described back then how Donald Trump is called out today. Sheridan was critical of him too. And yet, pop-culture of America rebuilt the erratic, impulsive, predator into a martyr, a reputation his widow defended for six decades while the mainstream media spun unnecessary and shameful rout into heroic “stand”. Only recently have historians been able to confirm what been said by the American Natives was correct.

Related: over a dozen US bases were severely damaged in the Iran War while Pete Hegseth ranted from a bully pulpit that America now dominated the skies, and that Iran had been totally neutralized. Even today Iran continues to launch attacks on American bases. Hegseth’s chaos has created a reputation of poorly led, poorly defended, “sitting ducks” of the Middle East. Apparently, the Custer mentality hasn’t disappeared yet.

Errors in the Letters

I’ve also been asked to take a look at the 150th-anniversary piece in Letters from an American, which is clearly sympathetic to the Lakota. While it’s the right tone, it’s badly sourced on the facts. Here is what really stood out to me:

The claim The record
Custer led the thousand-man Black Hills expedition in 1875 and returned reporting gold. Wrong year. That expedition was 1874. Custer left Fort Abraham Lincoln in July 1874 and gold was reported in August. The 1875 column into the hills was a Jenney-Newton scientific survey sent to confirm the strike. Custer did not lead that.
Crook planned the three-pronged converging attack. Crook commanded only one, so that was actually Terry. It matters to get this right because it also begs why Custer had been put in prison and demoted to a subordinate. The converging-column plan came from Sheridan’s Division of the Missouri, directed by Terry. He, with Custer under him, came from the east, Gibbon from the west. Crook commanded only the southern column out of Wyoming.
The Great Sioux Reservation ran from the Missouri River west to the Big Horn Mountains. Too big. The 1868 reservation ended at the western edge of Dakota Territory. The Powder River and Bighorn country beyond it was unceded territory, a separate legal category. That line mattered because it defined who could be labeled “hostile” for hunting off-reservation.
The only survivor of the battle was a horse, Comanche. This is mythology of the human trafficking predators, to invoke sympathy for their defeat. Seven of the regiment’s twelve companies survived under Reno and Benteen on the bluffs. Comanche was the best-known surviving horse from Custer’s own wing, not the only one, spun as disinformation into a sole-survivor legend.
Custer lost his entire command. Again, mythology, to erase the actual chaos, leadership collapse and retreat. Custer’s wing of five companies, around 210 men, was destroyed. There were seven other companies of the 7th Cavalry who survived.
The 1865 to 1868 fighting is now known as the Lakota War. A bit of a waffle, as other names are known. The standard name for the 1866 to 1868 war is Red Cloud’s War. The Great Sioux War is 1876 to 1877.
The Lakotas lost about 40. There’s a range, which is why the topic gets revisited for science to improve. Native dead are estimated from roughly 30 to over 100. The figure is uncertain, and 40 is the low end.

Historiography in the Letters

Now lets move from the errors individually, to the overall pattern. In the Letters piece, I can see someone retelling a battle from the losing predator’s side of the field, and undermining a proper framing for the victorious defender.

The biggest indicator is the use of the Comanche survival legend to inflate the “all was lost” fraud. The sole-survivor legend is the most familiar piece of Little Bighorn folklore and it is also well-known for being the least accurate. A historian reproducing mythology as a settled fact marks a synthesis drawn from a disinformation canon rather than the scientifically corrected record.

The reservation boundary error is another example. Pushing the western line out to the Big Horn Mountains erases the line between reservation and unceded land. That line is the entire legal basis for calling Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse the hostile ones, when it is in fact the exact opposite. The mistake is akin to Epstein victims being shamed for being in the wrong place, rather than starting from the moral foundation regarding men who capture women and children for blackmail.

The method in the piece has a deeper problem. It quotes Sitting Bull as if to give context, or invoke sympathy. And yet it narrates fighting through Custer’s eyes instead, with him dividing his command where troops are surrounded and killed to the last man. That is the white man’s method of retelling, where it both gets asserted as fact and also unverifiable because “nobody survived” to correct it. The actual evidence is completely missing from the assertion. However, this is long settled as wrong. After a 1983 fire cleared brush from the battlefield, Douglas Scott and Richard Fox reconstructed the fight from cartridge cases and confirmed what the Lakota and Cheyenne had described all along. The Custer companies had held formation, then broke apart when challenged. A single charge overran them and the survivors died fighting in the chaos of their own making. While the author waves a flag to honor the Lakota and Cheyenne with quotations, the text subtly disagrees and overrules them. The actual history, a detailed examination of battlefield evidence, has popped the Custer myth. This piece tries to inflate it again.

Disinformation research tells us that a quote can give the impression of a position, while it is in fact inverted by the frame built around it. Imagine a picture of a pipe that says “this is not a pipe”. Put “warning: always keep your hands on the wheel” in a car’s manual, yet spread social media commentary about driverless being real, and the warning is useless, evaporated. The words of the warning are there, yet it is the negation that carries all the meaning. That’s a sad reality in The Letters piece, which quotes Sitting Bull and then works hard to erase him and what he’s saying. The quotation is overruled with disinformation. Whether or not the author planned it, that is a method seen plainly in the text.

The sole-survivor fraud was built to be uncheckable, which is how it survived all the checks. The myth said every witness in the war of extermination was dead, so only the predator side could tell the story. That was a lie twice over. The Lakota and Cheyenne had told it accurately from the start, and white audiences refused to hear them for a century due to the Libby Custer white supremacist propaganda machine.

…someone without much of a conscience couldn’t feel very good about it, unless you’re Custer, who glorifies everything. … He is operating from the 17th century cavalier point of view where presence glorifies the act. Washita was a terrible, brutal attack on a basically friendly village of Cheyenne, and in his portrayal, it was his small band against this huge group of Indians where, in actuality, it was not quite as one-sided as that, and really was a pointless military campaign. But Custer, with the help of his wife, Libby, who was a great writer, would elevate this to a story of Western imperial vanguard into the West.

Even Grant had said as much, a sitting president today regarded as the greatest American general in history, and yet even his expert voice didn’t hold back the “imperial vanguard” myth makers promoting genocide.

As an important side-note, Grant had been politically attacked by Custer in March and April of 1876. Custer had testified before the Clymer Committee with sensationalized hearsay about Belknap, a man who had already resigned. Sherman told Custer to see Grant to make peace, and Grant refused him three times and then had him arrested in Chicago by early May. This is why command of the Dakota Column went to Terry while Custer was held under detention.

Grant was hammered by the press siding with Custer, against his expert judgment, to restore Custer and let him march a “hero” into danger. Grant relented in early May, with the crucial condition that Custer only ride under Terry (see table above). Custer thus rode into Little Bighorn as a subordinate to Terry, already relieved and arrested on Grant’s order.

By June, Custer was making erratic, aggressive choices as if trying to make a political point. He had been eyeing the Democratic nomination for the 1876 election, with the convention set in St. Louis for the week after the victory he expected in Montana. He refused to let his men rest, refused the offered Gatling guns, and refused reinforcements. He weakened his own chances as a story-telling bravado tactic. From hearsay aimed at a sitting president, to his own public humiliation, to a daylight raid to seize and kill women and children, he was a man throwing caution aside to turn his lack of judgment into a run for the presidency.

The figure in the White House today is what Custer hoped to become by riding massacre as campaign material: a publicity-built brand whose ambition runs ahead of his judgment, whose cruelty is recast as strength, and whose myth is managed for him. Custer at least rode into the battle he started. The “bone spurs” draft-dodger in the White House has only ever been coddled into control.

The Lakota were right about Custer. Grant was right about Custer. These are the highest-quality sources that should have defined the Custer story from the beginning. And yet, Libby Custer kept the lies going instead. What finally forced the American culture to see truth was evidence documented, the field full of cartridge cases proving military experts were right all along. Not Custer’s wife. The excavated battlefield was physical evidence that the disgraced Custer had dissolved into a rout, not even close to being a stand. It proved the erratic, racist, predator of women and children was always the aggressor, and certainly no martyr.

The propagandists had banked on erasure of their targets forever. They had not anticipated the burn down and field evidence. With ground truth repeating what better men and witnesses had told the world all along, finally the myth of Custer closed. And yet, as we see with The Letters, the shameless mythology still appears.

Food, History, Security

Supreme Court: Bayer’s Monsanto Capture of EPA Shields Mass Harm

Leave a comment
Cuyahoga River burns in 1952. At least twenty years of disasters were suffered before the American government created an agency to find fault.

The early 1970s had some logic. Rivers were burning, air was unbreathable, pesticides like DDT were moving through whole ecosystems. Meanwhile, American tort law crawled case by case. Common-law suits could not regulate the rampant abuse of the public by a continental chemical economy, let alone a foreign one. An agency, however, could set standards before harm. That was the promise of the EPA when it landed: expert protection at scale, faster and broader than a jury in one county.

EPA was built under President Nixon to deliver a remedy the courts were too slow and scattered to provide.

Today, the EPA has been inverted into a blocking function.

Bayer has spent the last decade fighting more than 100,000 lawsuits filed by people who developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma they blamed on exposure to the glyphosate weedkillers, and the company has paid out billions of dollars in jury awards and settlements. All of the cases include allegations that the company failed to warn that glyphosate could cause cancer.

Bayer maintains that its products don’t cause cancer, and also asserts that under the Fifra the EPA is the key authority for determining if its product necessitated a cancer warning. The EPA has not required such a warning and has taken the position that glyphosate is “unlikely” to be carcinogenic, so the company cannot be held liable for failing to warn, according to Bayer’s argument.

In the Thursday ruling, the supreme court upheld this argument.

The evidence the agency set aside is overwhelmingly strong. In 2015 the WHO’s cancer agency classified glyphosate a probable human carcinogen, on limited human evidence, sufficient animal evidence, and strong evidence of genotoxicity. IARC, Group 2A. A 2019 Berkeley meta-analysis pooled the 2018 Agricultural Health Study with five case-control studies and found non-Hodgkin lymphoma raised 41 percent in the highest-exposed, a meta-relative risk of 1.41. Zhang et al. Three of its authors had served on the EPA’s own glyphosate advisory panel. The Agricultural Health Study itself, the cohort Bayer leans on, reported elevated acute myeloid leukemia at the top of the exposure range, significant under a twenty-year lag. Andreotti et al. In 2025 the Ramazzini Institute exposed rats from prenatal life and recorded dose-related leukemia deaths down to the European acceptable daily intake, and Europe’s chemical agency has reopened the classification. Panzacchi et al. Four lines of evidence that all point in a single, strong direction.

However, two political shifts happened since President Nixon to enable the Supreme Court’s stupidity.

First, the industry aggressively worked to occupy the agency, staffing it, funding the science it reviews, setting the terms of what counts as proof, completely breaching independence and integrity.

Second, the court practiced a binary judgment, where passive agency absence of action was ruled as active agency judgment against action. When the EPA has not yet acted, the preemption doctrine reads that the silence is a considered federal decision and displaces every active state remedy that would disagree with passivity.

Perhaps states that fight the Trump centralization regime should be called the Free States.

The flawed premise is that a single federal warning flag suppressed should shut down all other warning flags, which makes the federal flag the easy target for corporate capture and suppression. This court has ratified this vulnerability explicitly, which makes these judges complicit in the preventable mass harm that follows from the corporate capture of agency.

Judges made a choice to enable public harm. They had the evidence, the jurisdiction, the dissent in front of them, and they chose preemption to increase preventable suffering and deaths. That is an act, on the record, with names. Kavanaugh wrote it, and six others signed. Elie Wiesel indicted them all decades ago. Silence is the choice, documented, by people with the power to rule otherwise. Complicity attaches to the actor who chose death for profit.

While a state court sided with Durnell and awarded him more than $1 million in damages, Monsanto—now Bayer—appealed the ruling to the Supreme Court, arguing that federal law should override state law. The Supreme Court agreed…. Shares of Bayer jumped by more than 16% after the court’s ruling came out Thursday morning.

The dissent was Jackson and Gorsuch, who not only said the majority misread FIFRA, they argued Monsanto could comply with both federal and state law by ending Roundup sales. A simple compliance path existed. There was never an impossibility to claim.

Cipollone in 1992 cut tobacco claims on a federal labeling statute. Riegel in 2008 turned on a different mechanism, the FDA’s own premarket approval. Congress wrote the cigarette warning into statute. The FDA granted the device its approval. The EPA withheld the glyphosate warning. Three federal moves created corporate immunity from documented harm. The shield for profit on suffering was widened with each case. It once required an express command. Now it just takes an agency to do nothing, which means America runs fail-unsafe.

Corporations cause mass suffering on the principle that an agency hasn’t made a warning. It’s like requiring deny lists, instead of allow lists, for things that cause the most harms in history. The court treats absence of a warning as an explicit federal command that no state may evaluate no matter how overwhelming the evidence of failure. In February 2026 Monsanto announced a proposed nationwide class settlement for Roundup non-Hodgkin lymphoma claims, which it described as one element of a multi-pronged strategy to suppress claims against it.

Captured process, legalizing death caused by its captors, invokes some other history about suppressed chemical warnings by the same company as in courts today. Bayer was a founding member of IG Farben, the chemical combine that produced poison gas and supplied the Zyklon B delivered in “Red Cross” vehicles to be used in the death camp “showers”.

The crematorium is a big building with a wide chimney and 15 ovens. Under a garden there are two enormous cellars. One is where people undress and the other is the death chamber. People enter it naked and once about 3,000 are inside it is locked and they are gassed. After six or seven minutes of suffering they die,” he wrote.

He described how the Germans had installed pipes to make the gas chamber look like a shower room.

“The gas canisters were always delivered in a German Red Cross vehicle with two SS men. They then dropped the gas through openings – and half an hour later our work began. We dragged the bodies of those innocent women and children to the lift, which took them to the ovens.”

The Nazi victims never saw a warning label, by design, and neither do the Americans suffering from German chemicals killing them today.

Zyklon B canister. The same hydrogen-cyanide fumigant was used on Mexican border crossers at the El Paso delousing plants from 1917, under Woodrow Wilson, who ran on “America First.” The chemist Gerhard Peters recommended Zyklon B for the camps’ disinfection chambers and illustrated his case with photographs of the El Paso delousing chambers. Hitler, who admired American race laws and based “Lebensraum” genocide on U.S. “westward expansion”, named his command train “Amerika.” A camp within Auschwitz was called Mexico. IG Farben held 42.5 percent of Degesch, the distributor.

The Allies broke IG Farben apart after the war. The German company Bayer was refounded in 1951 and bought Monsanto in 2018. Some have depicted the brand reputation simply, as this:

Source: Unknown

Security

The National Academies Launders Mythos: “Implications of AI for Cybersecurity”

2 Comments

In April “The Boy That Cried Mythos” caught Anthropic collapsing its own credibility. In June “Mythos dressed up in a coat, should be called Opus with a moat” caught it again.

Anthropic wants to play God, feed on claims only they can verify, which is to say it feeds beliefs based on lies. If that sounds harsh, think about how the God of cycling Lance Armstrong treated anyone who suggested he was doping. He sure got a lot of medals for “livewrong“.

Source: Flickr

Now the Mythos lies have spilled their way into a venue claiming to use a formal review process. A new National Academies document (NASEM) freshly launders vendor marketing without any explanation.

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2026. Implications of AI for Cybersecurity: A Rapid Expert Consultation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

This should help clarify, for those who are wondering if we are dealing with a Lance Armstrong of LLMs.

NASEM Laundry (June 2026) Prior Evidence
Figure 1 plots Mythos at 83.1% on CyberGym as settled capability, sourced to “Wang et al. 2025” The 83.1% has been repeatedly proven false. It’s a self-reported number by Anthropic. AISLE proved detection reproduced in 8 of 8 open-weight models, even at $0.11 per million tokens, Cisco proved outcome is model-independent
Restricted Glasswing access presented as responsible handling of uniquely capable model The danger warnings are self-serving FUD marketing. Model uniqueness repeatedly disproven. Mythos emailed out of its sandbox only after being instructed to try, showed no sign of altering its weights, and Opus 4.6 finds the same or better flaws
Vulnerability discovery framed as a breakthrough enabling novel risk The flagship FreeBSD CVE-2026-4747 is a 2007 patch in training data, opposite of novel. It was a curated recovery from a backlog of delayed fixes, which any model does.
Benchmark score offered as capability evidence Of 23,019 reported findings, 1,752 were human-checked and 75 had fixes shown. The 90.6% accuracy applies to humans doing the work, not the machine output
Concedes open models approach frontier, advantage short-lived GLM 5.1 reproduced findings on the IronCurtain harness, and clearbluejar recovered CVE-2026-4747 on two open-weight models on a single consumer GPU. Discovery is provable as an orchestration problem, making the frontier-model unnecessary.
Expansion to roughly 150 organizations across more than 15 countries, including NATO and ENISA, read as demand Manufactured scarcity is a vendor marketing trick. The June 2 expansion followed a June 1 confidential IPO filing near a one-trillion-dollar valuation, committing access and capital ahead of the promised verification, and several trialing firms are Anthropic investors
Field evidence in the figure The curl maintainers reported no change to their workflow, and Mozilla’s headline of 271 Firefox vulnerabilities reconciles to just three versus the advisory
Mythos claims rest on anthropic.com/glasswing, the FT relay, and a benchmark the cited authors never ran on Mythos No reproduction steps accompanied the launch blog, the system card, or the Glasswing update, and a result validated only against the system that produced it is not independent confirmation
Published June 2026, capability stated as established Anthropic’s own promised report is due around July 6, 2026, and the prudent posture is to treat the unproven vendor capability as unproven

This matters because it’s turning into policy. Anthropic owes a verified CVE list with reproduction steps on July 6. Until that report arrives and survives independent review, everything resting on the Mythos claim, the consultation included, launders a mythical claim being hidden from inspection.

The Information now calls Mythos a model with “powerful cybersecurity capabilities” and attaches no qualifier, no analysis. It is not called a vendor claim, it is not called a vendor self-reporting. It gets stated as fact, in the same paragraph that uses it as precedent for OpenAI.

The premise that others are following Anthropic’s similar course rests entirely on accepting a vendor capability claim that is never verified. A marketing department fabricates a story and then American policy is being built on top of it?

When the printing press first spread, it mass-produced witch-hunting manuals that marked women for death as agents of the devil, the Malleus Maleficarum above all, known today as the witch hunts. The danger of accelerated printed letters was real, because the highly self-serving claims about threats were not. The actual Anthropic risk is that Anthropic states the risk, without any inherited system of science to keep it honest.