As a longtime ‘unsuscribed’ person from all mails at Foreign Policy Magazine, not only the ‘Security Brief’ newsletter, it was interesting to me to receive an “internal test’ of the ‘Security Brief’ FP mail. What are the possibilities?
1) It was a straightforward snafu of the Foreign Policy web propaganda outlet.
2) Foreign Policy is losing readers and they ‘faked’ an erroneous mail to try and draw former subscribers back.
Both preceding scenarios indicate the ethically challenged Foreign Policy keeps the email addresses of former subscribers in their database. Then, there are these next possibilities:
3) A ‘disgruntled someone’ at Foreign Policy wanted me to see this issue of the ‘Security Brief’ newsletter (the narcissistic option.)
4) Someone else, possibly Britain’s GCHQ electronic spy service wanted me (and possibly a lot of people) to see it (the paranoid option.)
The third possibility (preceding) is straightforward enough; from the Maidan coup to MH-17 shot down by a Ukrainian fighter jet to ‘the Russians did it’ liberal democracies’ intelligence agency (dis)information operations (DNC ‘hack’ & Steele ‘dossier’), this reporter (yours truly) has on some occasions been at the forefront of poking holes in the steady diet of lies we are fed by the deep state’s handmaiden corporate media.
The fourth possibility is so simple as paying attention to one of my software’s security warning; so, rather than copy and paste the University of London SOAS ‘sponsorship’ logo into this post, defeating the ‘https secure’ option, I took a screenshot of the logo from the FP ‘Security Brief’ newsletter and reprocessed it to safely integrate when reconstructing the FP mail here (see below.)
In this post, I have truncated the “internal test” ‘security brief’ newsletter to leave that material most interesting to this reporter; the ‘evil Russians and fake news’ thumbnail (that is the actual fake news.) The short conclusion drawn is below the italicized text.
My letter in reply to Foreign Policy’s “internal test” ‘Security Brief’ newsletter (also forwarded to multiple addresses at London University’s School of Oriental and African Studies or SOAS)
To: [email protected]
Dear Foreign Policy
Re: “INTERNAL TEST: Security Brief: The U.S. Military Has a Civilian Casualties Problem” I wish to inform you, having perused the snafu mail’s content, particularly concerning “getting thoroughly played by Russian intelligence in 2016” fraudulent story, my (soon to posted at this correspondent’s blog, with screenshot of your mail) lampoon titled ’The Scam’ begins:
I am Professor Bwana Ungawa, Director of the communications department at Lord Greystoke Institute of Technology. I am contacting you today regarding my former employ as United States Under Secretary of State for Public Information. My work oversaw the United States Information Agency’s black budget program to buy journalism and certain residual funds in the amount of USD$26 million, deposited in account at London. I was appointed curator of these non-returnable black budget funds for the purpose of lavish expenditures on staff at Foreign Policy Magazine; but to my astonishment a colleague correctly informed myself it is possible to buy a Foreign Policy correspondent for the price of a Banderista hooker from the West of Ukraine or about ten dollars! …*
*the expression ‘Bwana, Ungawa!’ (or Tarzan! Attention!) is taken from the 1940s Johnny Weismuller Tarzan movies. Tarzan author Edgar Rice Burroughs should be the FP ‘London Project’ patron saint of media fiction.
“The history of the great events of this world are scarcely more than a history of crime” -Voltaire
Begin forwarded message:
From: Foreign Policy <[email protected]>
Subject: INTERNAL TEST: Security Brief: The U.S. Military Has a Civilian Casualties Problem
Date: May 8, 2019 at 11:20:57 PM GMT+2
Reply-To: Foreign Policy <[email protected]policy.com>
Good Thursday morning and welcome to Security Brief Plus. Please send questions, tips, and feedback to [email protected]
The Disinformation Beat
What to do. Not a day goes by without a warning about the danger of disinformation for politics and national security, so consider for once a proposal for what to do about it: empower national election commissions to create regulations for campaigning.
In an essay for FP, Arjun Bisen argues that calling on tech companies to regulate speech risks ceding too much power to non-democratic institutions and that a bit of smart regulation could go a long way toward improving the state of political campaigns in an era of disinformation.
Conversations about how to better handle issues of disinformation are also occurring in newsrooms. After getting thoroughly played by Russian intelligence in 2016 and blanketing the airwaves with coverage of emails hacked and leaked by the Kremlin, American newsrooms are doing a bit of soul searching about how to report on hacked documents, CNN reports. There is little evidence of stringent new policies being put in place, but the newsrooms surveyed by CNN say they will treat hacked material with care.
But the media is still struggling to understand exactly what constitutes disinformation, as Poynter reports. A lack of context or false context to apparently true information represents perhaps a greater problem than outright false material.
This email was sent to [redacted]@gmail.com because you are subscribed to FP’s Security Brief newsletter. Want a friend to receive this newsletter? Forward it now. Want to receive other FP newsletters? Manage your FP newsletter preferences.
Foreign Policy magazine is a division of Graham Holdings Company. All contents © 2019 The Slate Group, LLC. All rights reserved. Foreign Policy, 1750 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Suite 200, Washington, DC 20006.
In other words, while referencing the Counterfeit News Network (CNN) & Poynter, Foreign Policy maintains the ‘hacked’ (a lie, these mails were almost certainly leaked from the inside by Seth Rich) DNC mails story should be retroactively looked at not for the mails newsworthy content but for the very fact they were reported on AT ALL (FP appears to have a problem with drawing attention to that content and questions as to the actual source of the leaked mails.) Placing the mails actual content under the authority of a regulatory body determining whether the ‘aura’ surrounding the story is desirable points to possible censorship and related imprisonment and fines for futue reporting outside the scope of the propaganda line.
The other noteworthy item in the ‘snafu’ mail is, London University’s School of Oriental and African Studies (university think tank) sponsoring the purveyor of the authentically fake news promulgated by Foreign Policy. That ‘special relationship’ with ‘Our American Cousin’ (the play Lincoln was watching when John Wilkes Booth shot him at Ford Theater) is going strong; We (Americans) support Britain’s phony Skripal poisoning narrative and Britain supports our (American) (dis)information operation concerning the DNC mails (with the Steele Dossier firmly fixed in the middle, an intelligence operation sponsored by both sides.)
Note: As I was finishing up this piece, Foreign Policy sent an ‘oops!’ mail apologizing for their snafu:
Yesterday, Foreign Policy accidentally sent you an internal email testing a new format for our Security Brief newsletter. We regret the error and have taken steps to ensure it won’t happen again. We value your continued readership and interest.
And since we accidentally gave you a sneak peek, we welcome any feedback you’d care to offer on our new email format! If you’re not currently receiving Security Brief, sign up here, and we’ll be sure you receive the redesigned email
This points to 2) Foreign Policy is losing readers and they ‘faked’ an erroneous mail to try and draw former subscribers back (but also could be cover for 3 or 4)
Meanwhile, the guy in Britain who’s been tearing up the ‘official’ Skripal narrative at:
The ‘alternative Skripal narrative’ at:
A former NATO (Canadian) intelligence officer on ‘the evil Russians did it’ corporate fake news meme at:
And one from the author (yours truly) …