“They’re gonna steal Georgia ! ! !” They ‘have to’ steal it—here’s why. | SOTN: Alternative News, Analysis & Commentary
More from BK
More from News
I'm hesitating to read or listen to this for fear it oversimplifies. I worked for about a year @NYPDnews on this. We learned a LOT. Most of the $320 million I estimate was lost by New Yorkers on Cyber-enabled scams in 2019 began with voice calls to set the hook...
Looking through our empirical data, we see that scam calls dominate the world of Cyber-enabled (which doesn't include ransomware or network intrusion/takeover, but does include crime that leverages a digital channel for some aspect of the attack).
We found that NYPD officers, when empowered to combat this kind of crime with training and tools, were champing at the bit to get out there and fight it. They all know the scams are out there - many told us of family members who'd fallen victim - but they felt powerless to act...
I personally blame the Feds, who over the past two decades have worked hard to make all "Cybercrime" seem (a) mysterious and sophisticated to the extent that (b) only the Feds could combat it, through tools like the IC3 survey. That tool is actually quite ineffective.
As I said at RSA2020, for Cyber-enabled scams, IC3's survey is the place where good leads go to die. For example, in 2018 around zero point three three percent of cases reported to it were ultimately investigated by a task force. They're just snowed under. https://t.co/IxjM6t0cfm
Looking through our empirical data, we see that scam calls dominate the world of Cyber-enabled (which doesn't include ransomware or network intrusion/takeover, but does include crime that leverages a digital channel for some aspect of the attack).
We found that NYPD officers, when empowered to combat this kind of crime with training and tools, were champing at the bit to get out there and fight it. They all know the scams are out there - many told us of family members who'd fallen victim - but they felt powerless to act...
I personally blame the Feds, who over the past two decades have worked hard to make all "Cybercrime" seem (a) mysterious and sophisticated to the extent that (b) only the Feds could combat it, through tools like the IC3 survey. That tool is actually quite ineffective.
As I said at RSA2020, for Cyber-enabled scams, IC3's survey is the place where good leads go to die. For example, in 2018 around zero point three three percent of cases reported to it were ultimately investigated by a task force. They're just snowed under. https://t.co/IxjM6t0cfm
Setting the record straight for the dishonest media, far left actors and the grifting right, please feel free to share this post on their fake news threads:
1. This is NOT Nick Fuentes. Nick was not inside the Capitol building nor Nancy Pelosi’s office
2. Nick was wearing a suit the entire time.
3. Nick has never called for the killing of any state legislators during his show.
These are all mass lies and disinformation being put out there to slander his good name, get him deplatformed and perhaps try to get LEO’s to visit
We take all misinformation and slander very seriously. It’s one thing for a casual troll but it’s another when you threatened the ability of one to earn a living and to incriminate an innocent man. It’s disgusting and everyone involved should be ashamed.
We are looking to means to hold these actors accountable for their slanderous, and dangerous actions.
https://t.co/ESW2YPf0UG
This article is false and misleading. Nick was not in the capitol in Nancy Pelosi's office.
Remove this falsehood immediately.
1. This is NOT Nick Fuentes. Nick was not inside the Capitol building nor Nancy Pelosi’s office
2. Nick was wearing a suit the entire time.
3. Nick has never called for the killing of any state legislators during his show.
These are all mass lies and disinformation being put out there to slander his good name, get him deplatformed and perhaps try to get LEO’s to visit
We take all misinformation and slander very seriously. It’s one thing for a casual troll but it’s another when you threatened the ability of one to earn a living and to incriminate an innocent man. It’s disgusting and everyone involved should be ashamed.
We are looking to means to hold these actors accountable for their slanderous, and dangerous actions.
https://t.co/ESW2YPf0UG
This article is false and misleading. Nick was not in the capitol in Nancy Pelosi's office.
Remove this falsehood immediately.
You May Also Like
I just finished Eric Adler's The Battle of the Classics, and wanted to say something about Joel Christiansen's review linked below. I am not sure what motivates the review (I speculate a bit below), but it gives a very misleading impression of the book. 1/x
The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x
Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x
The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x
It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x
As someone\u2019s who\u2019s read the book, this review strikes me as tremendously unfair. It mostly faults Adler for not writing the book the reviewer wishes he had! https://t.co/pqpt5Ziivj
— Teresa M. Bejan (@tmbejan) January 12, 2021
The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x
Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x
The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x
It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x
