Here are the WaPo pictures.

I was unable to post the Anon leak. See this link.

http://pastebin.com/MPpT7xaf

From the Washington Post

From the Washington Post

From the Washington Post

The Mathematics of Repression and Exploitation

by Michael Novick, Anti-Racist Action/People Against Racist Terror

The New York Times late last year ran an

interesting series about mathematics -- "Me,

Myself and Math" -- how numbers appear in and

affect our lives, by a mathematician, Steven

Strogatz, skillful at explaining abstract ideas

in concrete ways. The whole series is well worth

reading and following up on the source material he cites.

I want to suss out some key points that he

glosses over too quickly in a couple of the

pieces. They touch on issues of probability,

weighted averages, and of scale that show how

flawed "common sense" can sometimes be without the study of reality.

There are other segments too, such as

"catastrophe" theory, that he relates to the

outbreak of uprisings like the Arab Spring, and

to sudden economic disjunctures where government

policies seem to have little or negative effect,

and the economy drops precipitously or stagnates.

Those are also worth study and analysis, but I'll

stick with two points here. One is some insight

into 'networks' that suggest a counter-insurgency

strategy that is probably already well along, and

the other is the difficulty of getting people to

grasp just HOW unequal economic inequality really is.

The first requires a longish excerpt from

Strogatz's writing, which starts out about social

networking, and gets to the juicy point in a footnote. Here's the link:



Me, Myself and Math September 17, 2012, 9:00 pm

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/17/friends-you-can-count-on/#postComment

59 Comments

Friends You Can Count On

By STEVEN STROGATZ

>You spend your time tweeting, friending, liking,

>poking, and in the few minutes left, cultivating

>friends in the flesh. Yet sadly, despite all

>your efforts, you probably have fewer friends

>than most of your friends have. But don't

>despair --­ the same is true for almost all of us.

>Our friends are typically more popular than we are.

>

>Don't believe it? Consider these results from a

>colossal recent study of Facebook by Johan

>Ugander, Brian Karrer, Lars Backstrom and

>Cameron Marlow. (Disclosure: Ugander is a

>student at Cornell, and I'm on his doctoral

>committee.) They examined all of Facebook's

>active users, which at the time included 721

>million people ­-- about 10 percent of the world's

>population ­-- with 69 billion friendships among

>them. First, the researchers looked at how users

>stacked up against their circle of friends. They

>found that a user's friend count was less than

>the average friend count of his or her friends,

>93 percent of the time. Next, they measured

>averages across Facebook as a whole, and found

>that users had an average of 190 friends, while

>their friends averaged 635 friends of their own.

>

>Studies of offline social networks show the same

>trend. It has nothing to do with personalities;

>it follows from basic arithmetic. For any

>network where some people have more friends than

>others, it's a theorem that the average number

>of friends of friends is always greater than the

>average number of friends of individuals.

>

>This phenomenon has been called the friendship paradox.

...

>

>Like many of math's beautiful ideas, the

>friendship paradox has led to exciting practical

>applications unforeseen by its discoverers. It

>recently inspired an early-warning system for

>detecting outbreaks of infectious diseases.

>

>In a study conducted at Harvard during the H1N1

>flu pandemic of 2009, the network scientists

>Nicholas Christakis and James Fowler monitored

>the flu status of a large cohort of random

>undergraduates and (here's the clever part) a

>subset of friends they named. Remarkably, the

>friends behaved like sentinels --­ they got sick

>about two weeks earlier than the random

>undergraduates, presumably because they were

>more highly connected within the social network

>at large, just as one would have expected from

>the friendship paradox. In other settings, a

>two-week lead time like this could be very

>useful to public health officials planning a

>response to contagion before it strikes the masses.

>...

Then here's the footnote:

>Besides suggesting a strategy for detecting

>infection, the friendship paradox suggests a

>strategy for combating it. The idea is to

>immunize the friends of random nodes, rather

>than the nodes themselves. See R. Cohen, S.

>Havlin, and D. ben-Avraham,

>"http://polymer.bu.edu/%7Ehes/networks/chb03.pdf>

>Efficient immunization strategies for computer networks

>and populations," Physical Review Letters, Vol.

>91, No. 24 (2003), 247901. Using computer

>simulations, the authors find that this approach

>is much more effective than random immunization

>at halting an epidemic. The technique achieves

>herd [Note from MN: baa-baa-baa] immunity when

>around 20 to 40 percent of the friend population

>is immunized, as opposed to the 80 or 90 percent

>coverage needed when the population at large is immunized.

>

>And in a chilling final sentence, they suggest

>that their strategy might also be relevant to

>dismantling terrorist networks: "Our findings

>suggest that an efficient way to disintegrate

>the network is to focus more on removing

>individuals whose name is obtained from another member of the network."

You can be sure if some mathematicians have

thought of this, the state has been applying it

in strategic game-playing and in

counter-insurgency practice in the real world for

some time. This applies to both the

"dis-integrating networks" strategy, for trying

to dismantle potentially threatening groups, and

to the "immunization" strategy, since state

planners always see the spread of resistant

cultures and oppositional ideas as infectious,

and not just on the level of a verbal analogy.

The state always tries to introduce ideological

"killed viruses," safely bourgeois versions of

liberation movements and theories, in order to

inoculate people who could be "infected" by

revolutionary struggles and ideologies. That's

why we have seen bourgeois feminism, business

trade unionism, reactionary nationalism even

among oppressed nations, reformist communists,

"national socialism" (nazism) and even so-called

"national anarchism," gangsta rap, ad infinitum

and ad nauseum. How did the liberation efforts of

LGBTQ people get sidetracked into "gays in the

military" and "marriage equality"? These

pseudo-movements and denatured struggles are

designed to prevent the spread of authentically

revolutionary approaches to women's liberation,

decolonization, social-ecological maintenance of

the commons, and the expropriation of the expropriators.

The question is whether would-be or actual

insurgent networks can apply this more

sophisticated analysis and its tactical

application to strengthening our own networks or

our fledgling resistance. Can we use it to figure

out how to undercut support for the state and the

corporations among key constituencies, just as

they are using it to try to throttle our

movements? How can we apply it to understanding

and dismantling the real terrorist networks of

economic hit-men, CIA-trained torturers, and

other political or uniformed operatives of the

national security state and the corporate

string-pullers and shot-callers? How can we use

it to find ways to strengthen the mental and

spiritual immune systems of our communities,

especially of our youth, against the seductive,

infectious offers of the Empire? Those questions

are for us to answer. The NY Times is not going to provide solutions to them.

What follows is from another piece in the NY

Times series, about the differences of scale

involved in the solar system, or the subatomic

system, or other large (economic) systems: linear

vs. logarithmic variation, and powers of 10. It

illustrates why people don't really "get" exactly

how "unequal" the US colonial capitalist system really is.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/15/visualizing-vastness/#more-134791

>A contentious example, especially in this

>election season, is inequality. The distribution

>of wealth in the United States spans at least 10

>powers of 10, ranging from people whose net

>worth is measured in tens of billions of

>dollars, to those with barely a dollar to their

>names. This disparity dwarfs even the six powers

>of 10 in the solar system [between the size of

>the sun and the planets, or between the orbits

>of the inner and outer planets]. As such, the

>distribution is extremely difficult to depict on

>a single graph, at least on the standard kinds

>of plots with linear axes, which is why you never see it displayed on one page.

>

>Depending on your politics, you may think that

>wealth inequality is a problem to be solved, or

>irrelevant, or an encouraging sign of a free

>society. But whether you believe we need more

>inequality or less, I think we can all agree

>that it would be helpful to understand the

>actual distribution. Unfortunately its multi-scale character confounds us.

>

>This is clear from the work of Michael I. Norton

>and Dan Ariely. In 2005 they surveyed a

>representative sample of more than 5,500

>Americans ­ men and women, rich and poor,

>conservative and liberal, young and old ­ and

>asked them two questions: How much wealth

>inequality is there in America? And how much should there be, ideally?

>

>Norton and Ariely found that people on both

>sides of the political spectrum grossly

>underestimated the extent of inequality. The

>typical respondent believed that the top 20

>percent owned 59 percent of the nation's wealth,

>much less than the 84 percent the top quintile

>actually owned (at the time of the survey).

>Respondents also thought the two quintiles at

>the bottom ­ the poorest 40 percent ­ [together]

>owned 10 percent of the nation's wealth, when

>the reality was that their two slices totaled

>0.3 percent of the American pie, the two nearly invisible slivers in the chart.

>



>

>

>Yet surprisingly, when asked to describe the

>ideal distribution they'd like to see,

>respondents of all ages, classes, genders and

>party affiliations agreed. They'd all prefer a

>distribution much less extreme than the status

>quo: the top quintile would hold about 32

>percent of the wealth, while the poorest quintile would have over 10 percent.

>

>It's nice we can all agree about something for

>once, even if it happens to be a more equal

>distribution of wealth than exists in any

>country on Earth . and probably in our solar system."

I am highly doubtful whether really "we all

agree" about "liking" a less-unequal wealth

distribution as somehow "ideal," in which the

richest would still have 50% plus

disproportionality in their wealth, and the

poorest a 50% negative disproportionality. But

that's not the main point. There are some

interesting things to consider about the

proportions and proportional differences of the

REAL, current wealth distribution among the

"quintiles" (one-fifths of the U.S. population,

20%) in terms of WEALTH (not income).

The bottom 20% essentially have nothing, in US

terms, and the next 20% has next to nothing

(although it's twice as much as the bottom 20%).

That means 40% of the U.S. population has nothing

or next to nothing, so little it barely registers

on the pie chart, even combined together.

However, the next quintile up, the "middle" 20%,

has more than 12 times as much as the bottom 40%

combined. And there's your "lower middle class"

-- objectively with not much, and a

disproportionately very small share of the total

wealth, but looking down and seeing a vast gap,

and feeling, relatively speaking, pretty good

about where they are in comparison, and worried

about falling into that abyss of deprivation.

Looking up, they see the next higher 20%, doing

only about 3 times better than they are, and

maybe within reach if they're lucky. Just pick

the right stocks or get the right stock options,

buy the right home, "get in on the ground floor"

of an IPO (initial public offering of stock).

The next higher quintile, the second-wealthiest

20%, is the "upper middle class." Even that

privileged group still has less than its

proportionate share of the total wealth (which

under conditions of equality, or wealth

proportional to numbers, would be 20% of the

wealth for each 20% of the population). The

second-richest 20% still has only about half its

"share" of the national wealth. Also, they have

only about 3 times more than the "lower middle

class" quintile below them, and are aware of the

vast disparities (both between themselves and the

richest 20% above them and between themselves and

the bottom 40% below them). That's why the upper

middle class feels economically aggrieved, like

"they are barely keeping up," and are at least as

fearful of a class fall as the lower middle class

below them. It's also why "the 99%" (or even "the 80%") never unites.

It would be useful to translate the percentages

into dollar figures of actual accumulated wealth.

In not exactly congruent figures from 2009 (about

4 years later, and in the depths of the Great

Recession), wikipedia gives the following figures:

"Wealth is unevenly distributed, with the

wealthiest 25% of US households owning 87% of the

[personal] wealth in the United States, which was .2 trillion in 2009."

"Including human capital such as skills, the

United Nations estimated the total wealth of the

United States in 2008 to be 8 trillion."

The UN may monetize our skills and "human

capital" but in the real capitalist world, the

rest of us can't do so except by selling our labor to the capitalists.

The trillion dollar cash value total of

assets (residences and land, stock and bond

portfolios, and other personal possessions) minus

liabilities (debt and other obligations) is

roughly in line with IRS estimates of total

personal wealth. Let's say trillion for ease

of calculation of a rough estimate dollar figure.

That means the top 20% have .25 trillion in

total wealth combined, the next 20% about .52

trillion, the middle quintile holds about

trillion in total. Those three together account

for roughly .75 trillion of our estimated

trillion, so below that level, the "trillions" disappear, precipitously.

The next lowest quintile (that's about 63 million

people) together hold about 0,000,000 (one

hundred million dollars) in total wealth. That's

a little over .50 each (per capita, total

dollar wealth for the group divided by the total

number of people in the group).

And for the poorest fifth or 20% of the U.S.

population, that's "six bits" -- 75 cents per

person in "total personal wealth." For those of

you too young to remember, "two bits" (25 cents)

was the price of a shave and a haircut in the

"da-dada-da-da-boom-boom" ditty and car horn

sound.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shave_and_a_Haircut.

The "bits" come from the same source as the

pirate expression "pieces of eight" (8 to a dollar or peso).

That's right, the individual "personal wealth" on

average of 40% of the U.S. population is a buck

and half max, half of that for half of them.

Remember we're talking assets minus liabilities

here. People might have some cash in their

pockets, or even "own" a house, but they owe as

much or even more than they make or own in a

year. As the 7 dwarfs used to sing, "I owe, I owe, so off to work I go."

And that's not even talking about the billions

of people elsewhere on the planet who get by on

a dollar a day, or 50 cents a day, or less.

What usually "goes without saying," but

shouldn't, is the racial and colonial component

of all this. Wikipedia acknowledges the racial

disparity in wealth, which it attributes mostly

to home ownership differentials. But of course

the multi-generational consequences of chattel

slavery, genocide, colonization and racial

oppression, persist and actually deepen and grow

wider over time. In good times, better off groups

add more to their wealth. In bad times, less well

off groups lose more of their wealth. Government

programs to ameliorate these problems usually

incorporate a racial bias (as the GI Bill

benefits after World War II and the Korean War

favored white GIs). Land the US stole from Native

people was given away to white homesteaders. The

US Department of Agriculture eliminated thousands

of Black subsistence farmers with the stroke of a

pen in favor of policy definitions and subsidies

for corporate agribusiness, swiftly resulting in the

the physical dispossession of many Black farmers

from their land.



Government programs to enforce

compliance usually disproportionately punish and

repress Black, Brown, Asian and indigenous people

(as the war on crime, the war on drugs and the

resulting mass incarceration do).

The reality of these economic inequalities, which

are understood better by those on the top of the

pyramid and see the whole picture, explain why

the state and the corporations are happy to

divert us with electronic "friends" so they can

gather more data about our every move and desire,

and why they are quick to apply the insights

gained about how people network and associate,

for the purposes of more effective intelligence

gathering on and disruption of networks that might breed resistance.

Since they have recently acknowledged that they have

been going through a FISA court for at least 7 years to

keep track of who EVERYONE in the U.S. is talking to

on the phone and for how long, do you imagine they are

not tracking every "friend" you have and who the "friends

of your friends" are, when they can do it without even a

"by-your-leave" from Facebook or FISA?

Everyone who imagines that these economic and

social disparities, and the wars, prisons and

exploitation-enforcement mechanisms that cause

them and maintain them, will be eliminated

through rational persuasion or moral suasion, raise your hand.

And if you can't honestly say that appeals to

reason or conscience will prevail upon those who

have leached and continue to leach all this vast

wealth from the land and people at the expense of

the planet and its inhabitants, then you need to

get with a strategy and approach that will

prevail, before physical and cultural genocide and ecocide proceed any further.

I couldn't help but notice (after thoroughly dox'ing Michael _and his past_ but that doesn't directly relate to this issue) that in these news stories, the word "israel" never appears anywhere.

and yet :

"The NSA sub-contracts the vast majority of its work to Israeli high-tech firms bristling with "former" Israeli military intelligence agents, AMDOCS and Verint.

"Together, Verint and Amdocs form part of the backbone of the government's domestic intelligence surveillance technology. Both companies are based in Israel – having arisen to prominence from that country's cornering of the information technology market – and are heavily funded by the Israeli government, with connections to the Israeli military and Israeli intelligence (both companies have a long history of board memberships dominated by current and former Israeli military and intelligence officers). Verint is considered the world leader in "electronic interception" and hence an ideal private sector candidate for wiretap outsourcing. Amdocs is the world's largest billing service for telecommunications, with some .8 billion in revenues in 2007, offices worldwide, and clients that include the top 25 phone companies in the United States that together handle 90 percent of all call traffic among US residents. The companies' operations, sources suggest, have been infiltrated by freelance spies exploiting encrypted trapdoors in Verint/Amdocs technology and gathering data on Americans for transfer to Israeli intelligence and other willing customers (particularly organized crime)...



On October 14, 2008, James Bamford talked about some of the shocking research in his new book on Democracy Now!, with Amy Goodman;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hI_k9Xt00YE

"Tomer Ben Dor (mentioned above), another Israeli of interest to the DEA, was an employee of Nice-Systems Ltd., an Israeli company specializing in systems and solutions for detecting, locating, monitoring, evaluating and analyzing voice communications and other transmissions from a variety of sources--activities commonly known as wiretapping and electronic eavesdropping. Nice-Systems’ U.S. subsidiary, Nice Systems Inc., is located in Rutherford, New Jersey, adjacent to East Rutherford where five members of the Israeli New Jersey group were arrested on September 11. When Mr. Ben Dor was interrogated by the INS at the DFW Airport in May 2001, an inspection of his bags revealed a printout containing a reference to a file entitled “DEA Groups.”

One member of the Israeli DEA Groups, Michal Gal, who was arrested in Irving, Texas,18 was released on a ,000 cash bond posted by Ophir Baer, an employee of Amdocs, Inc. an Israeli telecommunications firm with operations in the United States. The Amdocs employee described Mr. Gal as a “relative”.



"The large Israeli firm NICE, like Verint and Narus, is also a major eavesdropper in the U.S., and like the other two, it keeps its government and commercial client list very secret. A key member of the Wiretappers' Ball, it was formed in 1986 by seven veterans of Unit 8200, according to the company's founder, Benny Levin. "We were seven people from the Unit," he said, "we all worked on a project for more than four years, we knew each other very well. We had very good complementary skills." Like a page out of Orwell, all their high-tech bugging systems are called "Nice". Nice Perform, for example, "provides voice content analysis with features such as: word spotting, emotion detection, talk pattern analysis, and state-of-the-art visualization techniques." Nice Universe "captures voice, email, chat, screen activity, and essential call details." Nice Log offers "audio compression technology that performs continuous recordings of up to thousands of analog and digital telephone lines and radio channels." And Nice VoIP "can use both packet sniffing and active recording methods for recording VoIP sessions (both by telephone and internet)."*





NSA Domestic Spying Began Before 9/11



The NSA's domestic spying operation began no later than February, 2001;

"Within eleven (11) days of the onset of the Bush administration, and at least seven (7) months prior to the attacks of September 11, 2001, defendant ATT began development of a center for monitoring long distance calls and internet transmissions and other digital information for the exclusive use of the NSA.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I won't go into his past, the current conflict he's engaged in with GOLDEN DAWN (they're neo-nazis after all) and the thin line between wealthy 'fair weather (underground) activists' (terrorists?) and moles, but leaving israel out of this very old issue of spying on americans, when they're actually at the center of it, reeks of the age old tactic of distracting by omission.



Any serious investigation of the spying scandal would HAVE to talk about israel. But israel is nowhere to be found in the above fluff pieces. And if you google Michael's full name, you'll very quickly find out WHY israel isn't mentioned. (I won't bother posting those details here since it would be regarded as a 'hit piece')

That was information I didn't know.

I am hearing all these companies saying they don't know about this NSA thing. It's interesting.

I don't think the Zionist book was written by the same Michael Novick who does PART and the Turning the Tide paper. You can email him and ask.

His newspaper, Turning the Tide, has always sided with Palestine against Israel. I don't ever recall reading anything sympathetic with Israel.

I suspect the reason why he doesn't know about companies in Israel doing internet surveillance is because he doesn't know that much about internet surveillance. As far as I know, he's not doing a lot of research on surveillance in general.

Golden Dawn says he's a Jewish Communist, but he's really more of a Jewish Anarcho Communist, and I don't think he's that Jewish, mostly by ethnicity. I think he's an atheist. They also say he's wealthy, but he's not. He has a condo in the Baldwin Hills foothills, though I talked to him and I think he might have a small apartment now. He's a middle class retired teacher. He might actually have money stashed, and a decent pension, because of his job.

When you're relying on fascist doxing, you really need to take things with a grain of salt.

Is how he completely left israel out of the spying scandal when israel is actually at the center of it, and this information has been known for at least 12 years.

Fox even did a 4-part series on it.

As far as GOLDEN DAWN's feud with him, I do exectly that - take whatever they have to say about him in context of what they are and what they've been doing (I checked them out too) However he was in the weather underground which was considered a terrorist organization.

I was going to say -

I noticed an interview he did on free radio olympia.

He would never get airtime on any of my stations.

His article wasn't about the spying scandal. He wrote it before this all happened, and posted it probably because he thinks it's relevant.

I think when it comes to issues about Israel, he would be touchy about fanning the flames of anti-semitism. I can understand that. He protests against anti-semites and Holocaust deniers. Nobody wants to encourage potential racism against their own group. There are always personal political reasons, and probably other social reasons as well. However, you have to consider that he does publish a newspaper that has opposed Israeli apartheid and, I suspect, the state of Israel.

With TTT the articles are often about an analysis centered on the idea that we live in a settler colonial state. I don't what he's written in regard to Israel as a settler colonial state, but I seem to recall him saying it was, in person.

As far as the Weathermen connection - he was in the Weather Underground, an organization that opposed the US government. They were called a terrorist organization by the government. They bombed several buildings, but never killed anyone. A number of different organizations were branded as "terrorist" in the 1960s.

http://www.zoominfo.com/#!search/profile/person?personId=353144097&targetid=profile

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_Underground

Weatherman first organized in 1969 as a faction of Students for a Democratic Society (SDS)

The group conducted a campaign of bombings through the mid-1970s

In 1970 the group issued a "Declaration of a State of War" against the United States government.

The bombing attacks mostly targeted government buildings, along with several banks.

On July 23, 1970, a Detroit federal grand jury indicted 13 Weathermen members in a national bombing conspiracy, along with several unnamed co-conspirators. Ten of the thirteen already had outstanding federal warrants.

While planning the bombing of a U.S. military non-commissioned officers' dance at Fort Dix, New Jersey in what Brian Flanagan said had been intended to be "the most horrific hit the United States government had ever suffered on its territory", there was an explosion in a Greenwich Village safe house -

Diana Oughton, Ted Gold, and Terry Robbins _died in the explosion_

He was in a radical organization, and continues to operate one, and forms coalitions with other radical left organizations.

I'm not seeing how that's some kind of slam against him, at least on this site. If anything, it's probably built his credibility in the anarchist scene. I saw a similar note about him on the DIYZine site, which is a peace punk anarchist site.

He's also been an effective organizer against racism, bringing together elements from across the spectrum, even reaching people who don't necessarily agree with him.

Also, I don't know how he is affliated with NYC IMC. They may have published some of his articles. But so has LA IMC. Cayce did an interview with him many years ago for this site.

Here's an oldie but a goodie about him on this site. http://la.indymedia.org/news/2001/09/9782.php 12 years ago!

Those three people were WU people who were planning a bombing, and the bomb went off in their apartment, killing the would-be bombers.

There's even a wikipedia article about it. What a trip.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenwich_Village_townhouse_explosion

because it stopped them from bombing the dance, where _in their own words_ they intended to kill a bunch of people. They killed themselves first..

I noticed there's only 23 _live_ IMC's in CONUS now.

United states:

Atlanta, Big muddy, Boston, Buffalo, Chicago, Colorado, Columbus, Dc, Hawaii, La, Miami, Minneapolis/st. paul, New mexico, Nyc, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Portland, Rochester, Rogue valley, San francisco bay area, Santa cruz ca, United states, Urbana-champaign.

According to the Outlaw. Mirrorserver.

http://2zyakjq2hvtbg6qd.onion/cm/www.indymedia.org/



I also noticed the bitcast with the most listeners under the your streaming directory, is a right-wing nut, who produces shows that directly oppose the values/charter of the IMC network.

..and that slaptech cookie.. naughty naughty ;)