«If you have to be persuaded, reminded, pressured, lied to, incentivized, coerced, bullied, socially shamed, guilt-tripped, threatened, punished and criminalized … If all of this is considered necessary to gain your compliance — you can be absolutely certain that what is being promoted is not in your best interest.»Ian Watson
Was this ransomware?
How did the ransomware attack happen?Source: Rackspace
The investigation is ongoing and will take time to complete. Alongside our internal security team, we have engaged a leading cyber defense firm to investigate. The investigation is ongoing and is in its early stages.
There is no ransomware attack. Technically speaking, it’s not possible for ransomware to perform an attack. If you get infected by ransomware, you’re at fault. You’re the one to blame for. Why?
- You missed to install updates, when they where released.
- You do not have your infrastructure hardened as it should.
- You rely on or use software which is outdated/unsupported or is a piece of crap, which should not be used at all.
- You did not hire professionals — for whatever reason; most likely because they are not willing to work for low wages.
- You have no idea about the technology you use or even how it works. Still you insist on using it.
- You open unknown attachments in mails from unknown sources.
- You think you’re talking to Microsoft when getting a call from India with someone telling you to download this and execute that. And then you just do it.
- You’re the one who actively installs malware on you computer and then run around screaming that someone broke into your system.
Do you see the problem now? It’s not ransomware. Never. It’s you and only you.
On 27.09.2022, a so-called “state actor” blew up the Nordstream 1 and Nordstream 2 gas pipelines simultaneously in three places. Gas can no longer flow through the Baltic Sea from Russia to Germany for the foreseeable future. It is unknown if and when gas will be able to flow through the Baltic Sea again.
In normal times, a – any – government would declare immediate crisis mode if the country’s existence-critical energy infrastructure was destroyed with an act of terrorism. But one does not really have the impression that our “rulers” and media attach more importance to this unheard-of, history-making, war-ground-displaying, act of terrorism than to the short-term low level of the Rhine last August.
Imagine, for example, the hysteria that would dominate news coverage in the U.S. for weeks if two gas pipelines had blown up in the Gulf of Mexico. Followed by the wiping out of a country that had nothing to do with it but is on the list of bad guys.
In Germany, however, this event, which threatens the very existence of the country, only barely makes it onto the front pages. No rush to the toilet paper because gas really can’t come across the Baltic Sea now, no cry for clarification, no call for immediate action, no demand for retribution. The media devote less space to the – I repeat: state-threatening – terrorist attack than to an alleged hate speech incident at a rainbow parade in Hinterscheißleiten. The indispensable statements of various position holders in the EU and Germany seem suspiciously contrived, the indignation almost artificial and forced. There is no comparison to the obsessive, bipolar hammering of concern by Baerbock, Von der Leyen and their ilk over the Russian military operation in Ukraine.
If you don’t see panic and outrage, it’s because there is no panic and outrage. Which brings us to the heart of the matter: Our government, this government, does not feel panic and indignation because it expected and wanted the attack. Before I explain why the planning and execution of the blast itself must be formally the responsibility of NATO, it is necessary to explain why the government, this government, benefits from the terrorist attack. Personally, politically. To the detriment of Germany.
One descends, whether one likes it or not, into that stinking shithole in which sociopaths, narcissists, political amateurs and geopolitical non-entities like Scholz, Habeck & Co. (Scholzbek for short) thrive, and indulge themselves daily in their own personal perverted logic of maintaining power, while being presented to the outside world, with media support, as if they were “governing”.
Sooner or later, Scholzbek would have had to give in to domestic political pressure and open Nordstream 2. Gas prices are too high, German industry is already taking irreparable damage, and the mood among the people is foreseeably reaching boiling point. The voices became louder and louder for, and the arguments in the weaker against the opening of NS 2.
Scholzbek had a real problem: an opening would be a loss of face that would endanger his office, since large parts of the green base actually dream of being able to free Germany immediately and completely from fossil fuels. Moreover, Scholzbek would also have had to refuse a tough order from the U.S., because for our ally, one of his most important foreign policy goals is to prevent Nordstream 2 from going into operation forever.
This requires courage that no chancellor has had since Gerhard Schröder. Scholzbek likes to threaten Germans whose opinions he doesn’t like with the cudgel of “defensible democracy,” but he doesn’t have the guts to say no to the United States. And Scholzbek doesn’t need that ass anymore. With the terrorist act, he was freed from the predicament of not being able to please the Germans and the USA at the same time. Because he, Scholzbek, even if he wanted to, cannot open Nordstream 2 now.
The U.S. has now cemented an important foreign policy goal with an act of terrorism and at the same time freed Scholzbek from a predicament. As a third objective, the U.S., traditionally a sore loser, has taken revenge on Russia with an act of terrorism for the humiliation it suffers daily in the proxy war in Ukraine. Now to NATO.
I will spare you and myself a long treatise on why only one state actor can be considered responsible for the terrorist attack. Everyone knows it and I will leave it at a bullet point list. The terrorist attack on Nordstream 1 and Nordstream 2
- cannot be technically prepared and carried out by an underground combo without various secret services being aware of it in detail,
- requires military equipment that you can’t get in an outdoor store,
- requires massive quantities and quality of military explosives,
- requires military logistics to place explosives and equipment,
- requires the know-how to detonate the explosives simultaneously or to provide them with timed detonators, which you can’t order at Conrad Elektronik,
- requires precise knowledge of the pipeline route,
- requires the ability to hide and escape during preparation and execution (very difficult) or to carry out the crime undisturbed (very easy), because the whole thing is carried out from the base of a Corvette under, for example, a Polish, Swedish or American flag.
Since the terrorist attack constitutes a cause of war, only a supranational organization can formally assume responsibility. There remains a residual risk that details will become public. If convicted, a single country would become the permanent pariah of the international community, would be diplomatically ostracized, and would face reparation claims as a sponsor of terror. An attack by NATO could, if necessary, be portrayed as an internal “conspiracy”. An unauthorized action by individual actors, so-called “rogue actors”. No loss of face for the USA, because it would be innocent.
Moreover, did Germany want to declare war on NATO? So to itself? Or to withdraw beforehand and then declare war on the rest? Absurd. In this sense, a NATO country blew up the pipelines of a NATO ally, an important action among friends, so to speak, “just business, nothing personal,” as they say on the other side of the Atlantic.
That NATO has practice in explosive attacks, shooting down aircraft and bombing civilian infrastructure has been known at least since the attack on Serbia. The organization can draw on in-house expertise that the “defense alliance” has accumulated in many successfully destabilized crisis areas.
No. This only proves that someone says that Scholzbek was allegedly warned by the USA. A well-planned terrorist attack is always flanked by equally well-planned propaganda measures. Whether this warning was given, by whom to whom in what form – is completely irrelevant to the facts of the case. Since the CIA does not disclose its sources and the press agency also quotes only anonymous sources, the reference to the warning is irrelevant.
Whoever wants to destroy Nordstream 2 must also destroy Nordstream 1. A selective attack on Nordstream 2 would look like an attack on Germany. Destroying both pipelines can be portrayed as an attack on Russian infrastructure. Apart from that, the U.S. has no disadvantage from destroying both pipelines.
The further course of the Nordstream terror saga is clear. An international investigation commission under the leadership of Denmark and/or Sweden with defined participation of other “affected parties”, for example certain Baltic Sea riparian states (of course under exclusion of Russia) – will present a result after months of industrious investigations and evidence gathering, which will be something like: “We do not know exactly, but according to the information available to us, it can only have been Russia”.
The investigation will be conducted in camera (to “protect” the investigation team or to allow the team to “work undisturbed”). Even the “pieces of evidence” – except perhaps wooden models of fragments of the blown-up pipeline – will be withheld from the public (“protection from inspection of our special investigation methods”, “national security” and the like). The result report will first, in order to live up to the claim of the most brutally thorough reappraisal, state that even the most idiotic hypotheses were investigated (with the sole purpose of rejecting them over many pages – see the widely discussed possibility of a meteorite impact (!) in the investigation of the causes of the crash of MH-17) – in order to then come to the politically predetermined conclusion.
As with all reports, the Western press will “frame” the arbitrary, alogical political conclusion of the report as proof of Russia’s guilt, missing (or suppressed) evidence or beam-bending dialectics in reasoning or not. All other explanations are relegated to the realm of conspiracy theories.
Entertaining but “in the big picture” immaterial are details on who exactly ordered the terrorist attack, who planned it, and who pressed the button (or set the timer) to detonate it: The explosive charges may have been set by a Ukrainian version of Navy Seals, then detonated by a Finnish, Polish, Estonian cruiser/fishing boat, the planning may have been done in Bristol by a special operation called “Nogas4EU” headed by a U.S. NATO general flown in from Hawaii especially for the purpose in June. All just freely made up by me, but not really disprovable or provable.
Expect an avalanche of such factoids, theories, hypotheses, explanations and conspiracy stories (also scattered by Western intelligence agencies) in the coming weeks and months. This expected avalanche of news has only one purpose: to wear you down and distract you from the essential under a constant fire of lies.
And the essential is: NATO did it. The USA ordered it. The German government wanted it. And you know it now, too.
It is fortunate that Germany now has a foreign minister with a background in international law. She knows her stuff and can spout such clunkers as:
Putin is trampling on international law.Source: Annalena Baerbock
It might have been even better if they had had someone older who still remembers the Kosovo referendum. And that Putin said at that time: Don’t do this, or someone will take this as a precedent and use it against you.
Funnily enough, that was under the last Green foreign minister in Germany, Joschka Fischer. One would think that Baerbock would at least have known the landmines that her party comrades left her.
President Vladimir Putin on Wednesday ordered Russia’s first mobilisation since World War Two and backed a plan to annex swathes of Ukraine, warning the West he was not bluffing when he said he’d be ready to use nuclear weapons to defend Russia.
In the biggest escalation of the Ukraine war since Moscow’s Feb. 24 invasion, Putin explicitly raised the spectre of a nuclear conflict, approved a plan to annex a chunk of Ukraine the size of Hungary, and called up 300,000 reservists.
“If the territorial integrity of our country is threatened, we will without doubt use all available means to protect Russia and our people – this is not a bluff,” Putin said in a televised address to the nation.Source: Reuters
It is only a small step from a special operation to a tangible war.
At the end of February 2020, the global village began to shake on its foundations. The world was presented with a foreboding crisis, the consequences of which were incalculable. In a matter of weeks, everyone was gripped by the story of a virus—a story that was undoubtedly based on facts. But on which ones? We caught a first glimpse of “the facts” via footage from China. A virus forced the Chinese government to take the most draconian measures. Entire cities were quarantined, new hospitals were built hastily, and individuals in white suits disinfected public spaces. Here and there, rumors emerged that the totalitarian Chinese government was overreacting and that the new virus was no worse than the flu. Opposite opinions were also floating around: that it must be much worse than it looked, because otherwise no government would take such radical measures. At that point, everything still felt far removed from our shores and we assumed that the story did not allow us to gauge the full extent of the facts.Source: Mattias Desmet
It’s a pity that the intelligent ones, who take responsibility for themselves and their actions, are unfortunately outnumbered. Or to put it in simple language: There are too many idiots and smug assholes!
Until now, the 1950s were considered the bourgeois era par excellence in the history of the Federal Republic of Germany. This image must now be corrected. Since the turn of the millennium, this country has turned out to be a haven of stupidity and intolerance par excellence. Freedom of expression lies trampled on the ground, the moralizers of the mainstream, in cooperation with so-called fact-checkers, mercilessly brush aside anything that does not suit the gender apologists. The culture of discussion is nothing more than a jarring relic of times long past. The linguistic confusion of good and evil, as Niet Che (little joke) called it, has long been nesting in the heads of our politicians, eagerly transported by the airheads in the editorial offices of our “quality media” and from there into the brains of the silent and denouncing majority of the population, who submits to the crazy Corona measures as uncomplainingly as to the anti-Russian propaganda roller with which the “war fatigue” of the Germans (Foreign Minister Baerbock) is to be counteracted.
At Ballermann on Majorca, the epicenter of petty-bourgeois pleasure-seeking, where the level of popular amusement corresponds to the height of a beach sandal, the straw drinkers from Germany are currently bawling their summer hit 2022: LAYLA. Lyrics excerpt pleasing? Here you go:
Neulich in der Stadt stand da ein Mann
Er schaute mich sehr glücklich an
„Hey, komm mal her“, sagte er zu mir
Ich hab’ ‘nen Puff und meine Puffmama heißt Layla
Sie ist schöner, jünger, geiler
Dann war es auch um mich geschehen
Das wollte ich aus der Nähe sehen
Ich ging in den Laden und schon stand sie da
Geile Figur, blondes Haar
Er hat ‘nen Puff und seine Puffmama heißt Layla
Sie ist schöner, jünger, geiler
In the meantime, LAYLA has become the focus of our guardians of morals. SEXISM! is being shouted everywhere, so loudly that even Kalle Lauterbach can hardly make himself heard with his tirades of fear. And that’s saying something in view of the subjects who tend to be compliant. The threatening gas shortages, galloping inflation, the chancellor’s cum ex-affair, the warmongering of our unspeakable government and all the other threatening scenarios facing us – all this has made LAYLA (more beautiful, younger, hornier) fade loosely into the background of the people’s consciousness. Could actually suit the Scholzens, Habecks and Lindners. Especially since the voluntary self-control (censorship) of our moral guardians, does everything to cover the attention to the self-inflicted problems of a ridiculously stubborn traffic light coalition. At least until the winter, in which a large part of the population has to pay for their disastrous policies literally freezing and cold. The playing of LAYLA has meanwhile been banned at several folk festivals (in Düsseldorf and Würzburg, among others), the ZDF television garden refuses to play this song, as do numerous other stations, which gives the popularity of this song another big boost.
Let’s look back to the stuffy 1950s, when Herbert Wehner (SPD) and Franz Josef Strauß (CDU) fought their speech battles in the Bundestag, when there were still respectable heads in all parties who were not afraid to defend their different positions passionately and intelligently in public against the die-hards. Kurt Schumacher and Carlo Schmidt (SPD) should be mentioned, Karl-Hermann Flach, Thomas Dehler and Hildegard Hamm-Brücher (FDP), Willy Brandt and Helmut Schmidt (Schmidt-Schnauze, both SPD), of course, and Eugen Gerstenmeier (CDU). I’m sure I’ve forgotten a few who also deserve to be mentioned. They all contributed to this country’s successive emergence from the shadow of National Socialism by the end of the 1960s in order to breathe life into parliamentary democracy. The high point of this development was Willy Brandt’s promise in his government declaration of October 28, 1969, when he announced domestic reforms and a new Ostpolitik. The core message of his speech, however, was “WE WANT TO DARE MORE DEMOCRACY!” What is left of it is currently being demonstrated by the Russian-phobic Scholz-SPD in cooperation with the Oliv Greens under Habeck and Baerbock and Lindner’s wedding FDP.
But that’s another topic. I actually wanted to talk about a hit that also revolved around Laila (this time with an “I” instead of a “Y”). It came out when Konrad Adenauer’s party stuck up posters during the election campaign on which the caricature of a scowling Red Army soldier stared over the horizon. Underneath was the line: “All roads of Marxism lead to Moscow! That’s why CDU.” The song, performed by Bruno Majcherek & the Regento Stars, was played up and down the radio stations of the young Federal Republic at the time without being censored. Here is an excerpt from the lyrics of this “sexist” ballad, which was easily put up with in the stale Germany of bygone days:
In the magical bright tropical night
in front of the women’s shelter in Algiers
a dark eye has smiled at
the poor pale legionnaire
And the eye made him great
in front of the women’s shelter in Algiers
and it sounds a hot love song
dying, tired and soft
Laila, tonight I must see you again.
Laila, see your slender limbs again.
just this one night choose me
kiss me and torture me
for I love only you
You can do it! One would like to call out to the gender apologists of our day. It is possible. At any rate, you don’t have to avert this damage from the German people, you political worms in Berlin, not this one. But others do.
It was clear from the beginning that NATO could not win the war in Ukraine against the Russian army. How so? NATO has lost e.g. in Afghanistan against an opponent WITHOUT an army! So how should it be possible to defeat a country WITH an army? NATO cannot even do its core business. War. It is a troop of duds, which is so incapable to assess a situation militarily correctly, that one must ask oneself, for what does this armament club spend billions for weapons since decades? That is money wasted. NATO “wins” only in the movies. In real life, this military alliance is a troop of morons who are too stupid to recognize when an opponent is vastly superior to them.
I am curious to see how long it will take for Julian Assange to suddenly and unexpectedly pass away in one of the US prisons.
In October 2014, then-US Vice President Joseph Biden boasted in a lecture at the Harvard Kennedy School in Cambridge, Massachusetts: “We gave Putin a simple choice: ‘Respect the sovereignty of Ukraine or you will face the consequences.” By that time, the coup in Kiev that the US had been preparing for a long time – in defiance of Ukraine’s sovereignty – had already taken place, the civil war in eastern Ukraine had begun, and US President Barack Obama was pressuring leading European politicians against Russia with tough impose sanctions.Read more …