Category Archives: History

British Town Paper Recounts How a Local Chap Was the Spy Who Started the Spanish Civil War

With typical cheeky tone of the independent local publisher, Inside Croyden tells of a spook who served British policy to inject Franco into position for European fascism to spread.

Franco had been exiled to the Canaries by the elected government of the Spanish Republic, who didn’t trust him – with good reason, as it turned out. Once airlifted to Morocco [secretly by a British spy named Pollard], the general took command of Spain’s elite Army of Africa and launched a fascist-backed military uprising that sparked the Spanish Civil War. […]

[Britain’s subsequent public] policy of “non-intervention” was meant to look even-handed. In reality it meant that the Spanish Republic couldn’t buy arms to defend itself, while Germany’s Hitler and Italy’s Mussolini did all they could to help Franco.

After Guernica, Major Pollard had a letter published in The Times in which he said that targeting the town was “perfectly legitimate”, because it was claimed to be a centre of small arms manufacture, one which supplied weapons to terrorists.

In the same letter, Pollard said that the Basques who supported the Spanish Republic were “simply reaping what they have sown”.

In the years after the war, Pollard and his pilot, Cecil Bebb, were personally decorated by Franco, awarding them fascist Spain’s highest military honour, the Imperial Order of the Yoke and Arrows.

The list of other recipients of that same award is a rogues’ gallery of war criminals, from Hitler to Himmler and from Mussolini to Von Rippentrop.

Pollard and Bebb flew from Croyden airport, thus the “local” aspect to the story.

The Pollard and Bebb would be an interesting name for a London public house, perhaps one that could be used to attract and infiltrate groups today attempting to be fascist.

It sounds better than the Musk and Thiel, anyway…

Much like Elon Musk, Major Pollard apparently was known for being deeply racist and a fascist sympathizer, let alone a horrible mess to work with.

His superiors considered that whilst there were ‘certain jobs’ at which Pollard could ‘do well’ these skills were overshadowed by his reputation for being at best ‘most indiscreet’ and, when combined with money and drink, ‘definitely unreliable.’ His further involvement in [WWII] was therefore deemed ‘fatal’.

On a related note, that paper’s fascinating local retelling of how British elites gleefully helped Franco and Hitler take power allegedly has been censored by Facebook.

Tesla Deaths Rise in Stark Contrast to “vehicles with lowest driver death rates”

First, you have to wonder just how many more people must die (as dutifully reported by TeslaDeaths.com) before Tesla is properly banned from public roads?

Tesla Deaths Per Year

Source: TeslaDeaths.com

Remember, the Ford Pinto had killed around 25 people (as told by Ford) when the entire country had to shift into gear in order to regulate against safety design negligence by car makers.

Front doors jam shut preventing escape or rescue from a burning car? That sounds just like a Tesla! How are they legal?

I mean do we expect a market to somehow adjust itself today such that people stop owning Tesla, as well as stop riding in and around them? I have doubts about such consumer self-correction as I still weekly read news from grieving families who say, too late, they never understood the real risk of their loved ones being burned alive, hit head-on or run over by Tesla.

And on this tragic note about the exploding number of deaths in defective cars, which seem to only be stopped with regulation, Tesla has many shockingly old safety design defects. Consider for comparison an assorted list of high safety models, from far better engineered brands.

  • Acura MDX four-wheel-drive
  • Audi Q5 four-wheel-drive
  • Chevrolet Traverse four-wheel-drive
  • Lexus RX 350 four-wheel-drive
  • Mercedes-Benz E-Class sedan four-wheel-drive
  • Porsche Macan
  • Subaru Ascent
  • Toyota C-HR
  • Volvo XC60 four-wheel-drive

There are even more options than these, because it’s apparently easy to post better safety results than the high-priced low-quality “luxury” Tesla. This reference is only to show many cars achieve extremely low death rates in the latest real world results (NHTSA Fatality Analysis Reporting System). In other words, no Tesla achieves what others can.

Source: IIHS

The IIHS emphasizes another angle on the data as well. They say marketing of the technology has as much to do with high death tolls as the designs themselves, or perhaps even more impact.

The explanation may lie in the image of the vehicles. Luxury cars are associated with ease and comfort. In contrast, the [most deaths] on this list are associated with [dangerous behavior suggestions that] influence how they’re driven. […] Marketing for the Dodge Charger HEMI, for example, focuses on its “ground-shaking” power, its acceleration “bolting off the line” and its “racing-inspired” high-performance brakes, while the Chevrolet Camaro promises buyers the ability to “dominate on the daily” with an “extreme track performance package” and the Ford Mustang offers “adrenaline chasers” the power to “keep ahead of the pack.”

Tesla’s infamously thoughtless “appetite for destruction” strangely isn’t mentioned in this paragraph, even though the brand is regularly posting dangerous behavior suggestions… such as their CEO boasting to customers that “accidents probably won’t happen” when they drive drunk or fall asleep at the wheel.

The latest NHTSA formal defect investigation letter to Tesla that the company must stop false advertising of “driverless” capabilities seems to fit. Tesla might be the most causal relationship of all, given repeated fraudulent safety statements leading directly to high death rates. I’d still argue Tesla engineering defects are a significant factor, however. No other brand has been reporting multiple cases of everyone inside being burned to death (again and again), for one obvious example, given the notorious “death trap” design defect that seals Tesla doors shut after a crash.

Are you driving the deadliest car in the world?

To put it another way, in 1971 a new agency (NHTSA) was pushing the first major safety regulations, against the desires of a hugely popular racist president Nixon. The “pro business” President expressed a list of clear disdains:

  1. Environmental protection (“fighting a delaying action”)
  2. Consumer advocacy (“Naderism”)
  3. Safety regulations (“greatly exaggerated”)
  4. “Environmentalists and consumerism people” who he claimed were “enemies of the system”

Most tellingly, Nixon dehumanized people if they were concerned with the environment, literally calling them animals and a threat:

…we can’t have a completely safe society or safe highways or safe cars and pollution-free and so forth. Or we could have, go back and live like a bunch of damned animals. […] They’re not one damn bit interested in safety or clean air. What they’re interested in is destroying the system.

He went even further to turn his comments racist and target Native Americans, as if to build a “white man” argument against environmental progress:

You see, what it is, too, is that we are, we are now becoming obsessed with the idea that … progress … industrialization, ipso facto, is bad. The great life is to have it like when the Indians were here. You know how the Indians lived? Dirty, filthy, horrible.

And so does anyone really think that the Tesla and Trump Whitehouse will reveal anything different than Ford and Nixon did with the Pinto? Hint: Ralph Nader refers to Tesla as manslaughter.

Transcripts reveal for historians how Nixon fundamentally sided with industry over public safety and environmental concerns, viewing regulation as an attack on business rather than an innovation engine for protection of people. He acted to delay critical safety requirements (like airbags) after meeting with car executives, proving himself to be a corrupt (ultimately criminal) President who dangerously prioritized big corporate short-term interests over sustainable investments and public safety.

Related: Tesla topped iSeeCars list of most dangerous car brands

The Weight of Knowledge in Times of Strife: Revisiting Virgil’s Famous Line

After thirty years of prowling the data centers of Silicon Valley and watching countless digital conflicts unfold across our bleeding world, I find myself returning, time and again, to that damned line from Virgil: “Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas.” Blessed is the one who can know the causes of things.

Hah! If only it were that simple, eh?

You see, what most of us who studied at the London School of Economics miss — as we scurry around with this motto emblazoned on our umbrellas, shirts or scarves — is an exquisite irony of it all. Virgil penned this phrase in his “Georgics” around 29 BC, when the dust of civil war barely had settled on Roman soil. The suffering was still raw, so to speak.

Let’s dissect Book II, lines 490-492 properly:

Felix qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas
Atque metus omnes, et inexorabile fatum
Subjecit pedibus, strepitumque Acherontis avari

Happy is the one able to understand the causes of things, and who casts beneath their feet all fear, inexorable fate, and the roaring depths of river Acheron

The full passage speaks not just of understanding, but of overcoming fear, of putting one foot in front of the other despite an inexorable fate. Having spent decades studying the poetry of civil wars — from Spain to Syria, from the American South to the killing fields of Cambodia — I can tell you this: such knowledge rarely brings forth Virgil’s promised serenity.

Dryden’s attempt in 1697 at a translation — “Happy the Man, who, studying Nature’s Laws, / Thro’ known Effects can trace the secret Cause” — tones it down somewhat, doesn’t it? Makes it all sound rather scientific, almost cheerful. But there’s a cruelty still there, lurking beneath the surface.

When I think of our school’s motto, I can’t help but remember the poets I’ve studied — men and women who wrote amidst their own civil conflicts. They knew the causes all too well, didn’t they? And yet did that knowledge bring anyone any peace? Consider that Virgil himself was writing in the aftermath of Rome’s own devastating civil wars. He knew, perhaps better than most, that understanding the causes of things doesn’t necessarily make us “felix” — fortunate or happy.

The later adaptation — “Felix, qui potest rerum cognoscere causas” — shifts our view to the present tense, making it more immediate, more urgent. But I prefer the original’s past tense. It carries the weight of history, the burden of hindsight that I studied at LSE. It reminds us that true knowledge comes late, always too late.

And what of that final line about the “roaring depths of river Acheron“? The river of those who suffer the most, lost souls hungry to corrupt or disappear ever more to be like them. How many civil war poets have stood at its metaphorical banks, documenting the endless appetite of conflict?

Some of my fellow graduates of LSE might disagree, but I’ve always found it somewhat amusing that we have this as our motto. In my more cynical moments (of which there are many, I assure you), I wonder if it was chosen precisely because of an inherent contradiction to navigate — an impossible promise that gaining understanding will bring the world happiness.

After all these years of study and work in the guts of Big Tech, of parsing through verses written in blood and desperation, I’ve come to believe that Virgil wasn’t making a statement of fact, but rather expressing a desperate hope. A hope that somewhere, somehow, someone might truly understand and find peace in that understanding.

But then again, what do I know? I’m just an old cybersecurity executive who’s spent too many years reading poetry written by those who saw their worlds tear themselves apart.

Failed White Ethnostate Was the Blueprint for Twitter Takeover

There’s a predictable path from Tesla’s killing-machines to Twitter’s destruction, one I warned about in 2016. That’s why I would say there’s crucial historical context missing from this late-to-the-party Atlantic article about Twitter’s transformation into an authoritarian platform. Here’s their seemingly provocative headline:

Musk’s Twitter Is the Blueprint for a MAGA Government: Fire everyone. Turn it into a personal political weapon. Let chaos reign.

Except, these warning signs were visible long before Twitter’s acquisition. In 2016 I presented a BSidesLV Keynote called “Great Disasters of Machine Learning,” analyzing how automated systems become tools of authoritarian control. The patterns were already clear in Tesla’s operations, showing striking parallels to historical examples of technological authoritarianism.

The Lesson of Rhodesia

Consider the history of a self-governing British colony that became an unrecognized state in southern Africa (now Zimbabwe), which has secretly been driving a lot of online trolls today. The abrupt collapse of Rhodesia stemmed from elitist minority rule systematically disenfranchising a majority population based on their race. When Ian Smith’s government unilaterally declared independence in 1965, it was presented as a “necessary” administrative action to maintain white “order” and white “efficiency” to prevent societal decay.

Sound familiar? As the Atlantic notes:

Musk’s argument for gutting Twitter was that the company was so overstaffed that it was running out of money and had only “four months to live.” Musk cut so close to the bone that there were genuine concerns among employees I spoke with at the time that the site might crash during big news events, or fall into a state of disrepair.

“Authorimation” Pattern Called Out in 2016

Great Disasters of Machine Learning: Predicting Titanic Events in Our Oceans of Math

My keynote presentation at the Las Vegas security conference highlighted three key warning signs that predicted this slide towards tech authoritarianism:

  1. Hiding and Rebranding Failures: Tesla’s nine-day delay in reporting a fatal autopilot crash—while vehicle parts were still being recovered weeks later—demonstrated how authoritarian systems conceal their failures. As the Atlantic observes about Twitter/X:

    Small-scale disruptions aside, the site has mostly functioned during elections, World Cups, Super Bowls, and world-historic news events. But Musk’s cuts have not spared the platform from deep financial hardship.

  2. Automated Unaccountability: I coined the term “authorimation” – authority through automation – to describe how tech platforms avoid accountability while maintaining control. The Atlantic notes this pattern continuing:

    Their silence on Musk’s clear bias coupled with their admiration for his activism suggest that what they really value is the way that Musk was able to seize a popular communication platform and turn it into something that they can control and wield against their political enemies.

  3. Technology as a Mask for Political Control: Just as Rhodesia’s government used administrative language to mask apartheid, today’s tech authoritarians use technical jargon to obscure power grabs. The Atlantic highlights this in Ramaswamy’s proposal:

    Ramaswamy was talking with Ezra Klein about the potential for tens of thousands of government workers to lose their job should Donald Trump be reelected. This would be a healthy development, he argued.

The “Killing Machine” Warning

My 2016 “killing machine” warning wasn’t just about Tesla’s vehicle safety—it revealed how automated systems amplify power imbalances while operators deny responsibility. Back then, discussing Tesla’s risks made people deeply uncomfortable, even as Musk himself repeatedly boasted “people will die” as a badge of honor.

Claims of “90% accuracy” in ML systems masked devastating failures, just as today’s “necessary” cuts conceal the systematic dismantling of democratic institutions. Musk reframed these failures as stepping stones toward his deceptively branded “Mars Technocracy” or “Occupy Mars”—a white nationalist state in technological disguise.

As the Atlantic concludes:

Trump, however, has made no effort to disguise the vindictive goals of his next administration and how he plans, in the words of the New York Times columnist Jamelle Bouie, to “merge the office of the presidency with himself” and “rebuild it as an instrument of his will, wielded for his friends and against his enemies.”

The fifteen years of Rhodesia’s “bush war” wasn’t a business failure any more than Twitter’s transformation is about efficiency. Labeling either as mere administrative or business challenges obscures the truth: these are calculated attempts to exploit unregulated technology, creating bureaucratic loopholes that enable authoritarian control while denying human costs.

Trust and Digital Ethics

Dismissing Twitter as a business failure echoes attempts to frame IKEA’s slave labor as simply an aggressive low-cost furniture strategy.

While it’s encouraging to see digital ethics finally entering mainstream discourse, some of us flagged these dangers when Musk first eyed Twitter—well after his “driverless” fraud immediately claimed lives in 2016… yet was cruelly allowed to continue the killing.

The more Tesla the more tragic death, unlike any other car brand. Without fraud, there would be no Tesla. Source: Tesladeaths.com

Now, finally, others are recognizing the national security threats lurking within “unicorn” technology companies funded by foreign adversaries (e.g. why I deleted my Facebook account in 2009). A stark warning about “big data” safety that I presented as “The Fourth V” at BSidesLV in 2012, has come true in the worst ways.

2024 U.S. Presidential election headlines indicate major integrity breaches in online platforms have been facilitating a rise of dangerous extremism

What have I more recently presented? I just met with a war history professor on why Tesla’s CEO accepts billions from Russia while amassing thousands of VBIED drones near Berlin. Perhaps academia will finally formalize the public safety warnings that some of us deep within the industry have raised for at least a decade.