Details found in the U.S. ODNI reader under “Counterintelligence in WWII”

First, the Japanese are alerted by Nazis that their Ambassador’s code messages are being monitored by the U.S. and “drastic steps should be taken” in response.

From: Berlin (Oshima) 3 May 1941
To: Tokyo (Matsuoka) #482

STAAMAA called me this day (evening?) and stating that this request was to be kept strictly secret, he said that Germany maintains a fairly reliable intelligence organization abroad (or in the U.S.?), and accordingly to information obtained from the above-mentioned organization it is quite (or fairly?) reliably established that the U.S. government is reading Ambassador Nomura’s code messages, and then asked that drastic steps should be taken regarding this matter.

What did he mean by Germany having a “fairly reliable intelligence organization abroad (or in the U.S.)?” A big hint came in September of 1941.

In May 1940, a shortwave radio transmitting station operated by FBI agents on Long Island established contact with the German shortwave station abroad. This radio station served as a main channel of communications between German spies in New York City and their superiors in Germany for 16 months. During this time, the FBI’s radio station transmitted over 300 messages to Germany and received 200 messages from Germany. The successful prosecution of the 33 German agents in New York demonstrates Sebold’s success as a counterespionage agent against Nazi spies in the United States. Of those arrested on charges of espionage, 19 pleaded guilty. The 14 men who entered pleas of not guilty were brought to trial in Federal District Court, Brooklyn, New York, on September 3, 1941, and they were all found guilty by a jury on December 13, 1941.

Of course December 13 was barely a week after the December 7, 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor.

Second, this is all somewhat of an important backdrop to the communication in November from Ambassador Nomura to Tokyo about overthrowing the U.S. government by fueling the “America First” platform of sedition (as illustrated by Dr. Seuss)

From: Washington (Nomura) 12 November 1941
To: Tokyo #1077.

ROOSEVELT has the full support of the government, the military, and the Congress and is tantamount to a dictator (on the 10th, the Times Herald said in an editorial that ROOSEVELT is a dictator in no way less than HITLER or STALIN). The people, however, most certainly do not support ROOSEVELT. During the last two or three weeks this has been particularly evident. Let us look into some concrete examples: According to reliable reports the leaders of the America First Committee are secretly endeavoring with all their ingenuity to impeach ROOSEVELT. The stronger government pressure against it becomes, the more belligerent does this committee grow, and it may well be that the time will come when they will resort to force. The pressure of the government against the America First Committee is also becoming fierce. On October 30 in New York, there was a meeting of this committee, but they could not make any radio broadcasts. ROOSEVELT’s own life is in grave danger. On that night in Madison Square Garden, the immense crowd totally 8,000 filled the building to overflowing.

Yes, the Japanese really said Roosevelt is “a dictator in no way less than Hitler or Stalin” and predicted he might be killed by terrorists from the “America First” campaign backed by Hitler.

This of course begs the question of how different was Stalin’s relationship with Hitler than Roosevelt or Churchill for that matter.

After all, why would Hitler relentlessly use military intelligence to attack Roosevelt instead of doing infamous dictatorship deals where Stalin was so eager to please?

Two versions of World War II were always available, because the Soviet Union fought on both sides of the war. From 1939 to 1941 the Soviet Union was a German ally, fighting in the eastern theatre and supplying Germany with the minerals, oil and food needed to make war against Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, and most importantly France and Britain. During this stage of the war Stalin was eager to please Hitler, and in general fulfilled not only obligations of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact and the Treaty on Borders and Friendship but also specific requests of his German ally.

Third, “America First” became synonymous during WWII with sedition. There was little debate remaining on this matter as the courts prosecuted its membership.

Trying to work for Hitler while the country was at war with him made the definition of sedition hard to argue.

LaGuardia, as Mayor of NYC during WWII, for example ordered unrepentant Nazis out of the police.

In case the Drew name isn’t familiar, it was a high-profile news story at the time of a policeman connected with nine people conspiring to commit sedition (e.g. “America First”).

Dr. Seuss again illustrated the problem of the connections.

Even during the war, “America First” threatened political outbreaks based in anti-Semitic violence and demanded the president be replaced with a “true ‘nationalist'”.

Yet again, Dr. Seuss illustrated the problem.

Food for thought given people today seem to forget history and wonder aloud how “America First” could be anything but sedition.

A white woman posts a racist comment on LinkedIn. The target of the attack posts the comment in plain view for review, as his profile is experiencing a lot of harassment and hate speech.

Such obvious hate speech as a violation of the site terms and is reported as such. What happens next?

To be clear here, any student of basic history knows the racism this comment is delivering.

Such a “go back” attack method, even one masked as “there’s always X physical location” is unquestionable hate speech. It fails the most basic test.

Probable Cause Found Against Duval Circuit Judge… accused of telling his staff attorney in a private conversation that African Americans should get back on a ship and go back to Africa.

Clearly it is NOT actually talking about any location because it’s an encoded threat targeting someone’s place in society (e.g. racism).

The comment isn’t removed, however. Instead a “GR” operating the LinkedIn Help account responds publicly to the target of the attack with a comment saying “Racism has no place on LinkedIn”.

GR appears also to be asking for help, as if the post and comment are in doubt or they can’t discover on their own with the already provided details.

I find this a strange response since it takes me less than a minute to find the original post and the comment.

Then as a test of the GR claim, and to confirm what others already have stated (they filed a report and were denied) I file a report of racism and immediately get this response from LinkedIn.

How can LinkedIn not rule as such? This “go to” attack has no value other than incitement and harm, obviously used as targeted harassment by a white woman.

As you may recall, I recently wrote up a post on obvious disinformation accounts being coddled by LinkedIn.

Let’s now take a closer look at the account sending this racist attack.

She “likes” a tone-deaf and racist comment one day prior, fraudulently claiming “There is no such thing as racism”

Saying there is no racism is like someone saying they are happy to ignore the racism because THEY don’t benefit from ending racism. It’s an incredibly selfish and hateful perspective, a form of extreme “individualism”, based on falsehoods that cruelly disregard the well-documented pain and suffering of others.

She also “likes” a comment that white people had ancestors who were “prisoners of the South in the Civil War” claiming “no need to thank them, that is what we do for fellow Americans”

That’s some deeply encoded racism.

I’ll unpack it here simply. A white man posts that if your ancestors were slaves, don’t ask for anything (reparations) because you should (like him) accept bondage under tyranny as a form of service/servitude to “fellow Americans”.

See the problem?

And the line “even Native Americans” could be considered American is especially bizarre given the offending account purports to be a retired “Advocate for Native Americans”.

With advocates like these, who needs enemies?

She also “likes” an obviously fraudulent comment that white people who had the privilege and choice to immigrate to America are somehow an equivalent to people violently forced into slavery.

It literally starts by trying to paint white immigrants as the real victims in America because they might be crucified for saying something incredibly stupid as though it “has to be said”.

This comment also peddles the racist trope that whites have no responsibility for the systemic racism they benefit from by ignoring.

We could go on and on, yet it’s safe to say if you post a racist comment denigrating blacks this Robin Geesman account will be ready to pile on before posting her own racist opinion.

Her comment is far more clumsy and obvious than the other racists, but it appears that she had been liking all the racism as a kind of wind-up before posting her own over-the-top racism.

This is in effect what a mob of white racists looks like, collectively attacking a LinkedIn profile within LinkedIn.

Perhaps most insightful, however, is that her profile otherwise is being filled with lots of generic themes of respect for others. It reminds me how Nazis would talk up the need for respect and order while practicing the exact opposite — constant destruction of respect and order.

Obviously she intends her stream of constant pleas for safe spaces only towards people she thinks look like her, as if black people must not be allowed to participate, have a voice or otherwise make her feel uncomfortable.

Some of her most recent “likes”:

• NO AMOUNT OF MONEY CAN COMPENSATE FOR A TOXIC WORK ENVIRONMENT
• Could it be that #politicians want us at each other’s throats? Could it be they’re afraid to admit that a majority of citizens, on the right and left, have lost faith in the system? Could it be they’d rather we fight amongst ourselves than challenge entrenched power structures? Crazy questions, I know … but you gotta wonder.
• It’s okay to have an opinion. It’s okay to disagree with someone’s opinion. It’s not okay to humiliate them because they don’t think the same way you do. Show some respect. Society needs more of that.

Any “go back to X” comment is a gross violation of her own “liked” principles here, as she tried to humiliate someone based on race after they said something she disagreed with.

She showed zero respect.

The cognitive blindness is palpable. And to top it all off, it is no surprise that alongside her “safe space” memes comes a lot of military and police worship as well.

To put it another way, we see here a pretty obviously racist profile on LinkedIn. It confirms an obvious racist comment and its likes of other racist comments are all consistent with a “professional” presence of entering other people’s space to be racist without consequence.

LinkedIn claims to prohibit racism yet formally disagrees with removing it when obvious racism is flagged; they easily can be found protecting white insecurity groups sending racist harassment messages in a “professional” space, but why?

Is it trying to become more like Facebook?

Not only is the robot that drives Facebook (and other platforms) biased in favor of inflammatory content, but the company has clumsily intervened to bias it further.

Food for thought, given that LinkeIn under the Microsoft umbrella formally announced joining the voluntary EU code on hate speech:

Microsoft-owned LinkedIn has committed to doing more to quickly purge illegal hate speech from its platform in the European Union by formally signing up to a self-regulatory initiative that seeks to tackle the issue through a voluntary Code of Conduct.

In statement today, the European Commission announced that the professional social network has joined the EU’s Code of Conduct on Countering Illegal Hate Speech Online, with justice commissioner, Didier Reynders, welcoming LinkedIn’s (albeit tardy) participation, and adding in a statement that the code “is and will remain an important tool in the fight against hate speech, including within the framework established by digital services legislation”.

Indeed, the head of trust and safety at LinkedIn (Paul Rockwell) publicly “describes the company as explicitly ‘anti-racist'”.

Is there a clear case of violation here?