The Hawaiian bobtail squid has bioluminescent bacteria.
The Hawaiian bobtail squid has bioluminescent bacteria.
ResearcherZero • March 27, 2026 8:38 PM
Come with us… let market forces lead you to salvation.
Everything that Pete Hesgeth has said about Iran, was more or less said by Donald Rumsfeld in regard to the invasion of Iraq. American plans to dominate the Gulf and strategy papers to achieve this, have been drawn by think tanks and implemented since Regan.
It has not mattered who has been in government, or which party, each and every nation in the Middle East on the list of those seen as crucial to US dominance has seen invasion, regime change and conflict in line with goals outlined by the Project of for the New American Century (PNAC) and the think tanks before and after them. Project 2025 for example, or the Clean Break report (A New Strategy for Securing the Realm) – which was produced by a study group headed by Richard Perle (on behalf of Benjamin Netanyahu).
Similar national security strategy papers such as George W Bush’s paper of September 2002, have been drawn up since 1940. However, the planning time on how to manage a country after it has been invaded, has significantly been reduced from the two years the United States took to develop management policy prior to invading Germany.
Bush’s administration provided only 50 days to the team who would manage Iraq before invading. Bush provided that team with no staff, offices in a long-unoccupied building devoid of any equipment and no input or assistance from the administration regarding what strategy Bush and his pals would pursue in Iraq. Nor were there any plans on cleaning up depleted uranium from armor piercing rounds and other hazardous material unleashed by the war. (I’m not hinting at any lack of adequate planning there, then, here or now.) 😐
“THE great struggles of the twentieth century between liberty and totalitarianism ended with a decisive victory for the forces of freedom — and a single sustainable model for national success: freedom, democracy, and free enterprise. In the twenty-first century…”
‘https://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/20/politics/full-text-bushs-national-security-strategy.html
Come with us
Everyone raise your hands
Together in celebration
Because we’ve got the perfect plan
We’re one big connected nation…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SsLWsWGkqjM&t=1408s
Come with us
ResearcherZero • March 27, 2026 9:00 PM
The vast majority of the older generations did not wake up to what was going on until the price of oil went up. They spent the last few years complaining about young people protesting against war. Most of the TV networks, including news programming and other commentary, toed the line, like the buildup and subsequent invasion of Iraq, all over again.
Or perhaps they were also asleep at the wheel?
And so this is song, is for the networks.
Stop sh-ting on the window screen of life…
Biologist • March 27, 2026 10:22 PM
Ah, the synergy!
Lots of examples in nature of different forms of life coexisting for their mutual benefit.
Would be great if human politics could emulate that…
Winter • March 28, 2026 5:24 AM
@ResearcherZero
Everything that Pete Hesgeth has said about Iran, was more or less said by Donald Rumsfeld in regard to the invasion of Iraq. American plans to dominate the Gulf and strategy papers to achieve this, have been drawn by think tanks and implemented since Regan.
The power of the American empire was built upon the control of oil in the world. The financial links between the dollar and oil were a central part of this power play.
That is one reason American politics doesn’t want to go sustainable. With sustainable energy, there is no American empire.
Unless, they succeed in getting everyone hooked on US AI and cloud infrastructure.
Clive Robinson • March 28, 2026 6:21 AM
@ ALL,
I hate articles like this,
The Firewall Isn’t Blind — It Just Needs to See Inside the Session
For decades, the firewall was the most trusted enforcement point in enterprise security. Every packet crossed it. Every policy lived on it. If you wanted to secure the network, you started there.
“The firewall sees a connection. It doesn’t see a ChatGPT prompt containing customer PII. It doesn’t see a browser extension silently harvesting credentials. It doesn’t see the SaaS file-sharing that just moved sensitive data outside the organization’s control.
This is the visibility gap that defines enterprise security in 2026.“
https://thehackernews.com/expert-insights/2026/03/the-firewall-isnt-blind-it-just-needs.html
The author then goes on to say,
“The mechanics are straightforward. The firewall continues to operate as it always has. The added layer intercepts and inspects session-level traffic — browser activity, SaaS interactions, AI tool usage, file transfers — and applies security policy at that layer. From the user’s perspective, nothing changes. From the security team’s perspective, the firewall they already manage now has visibility it previously lacked.“
Two things to note,
1, It breaks other security models.
2, It’s not even a one eyed man in the kingdom of the blind.
The first issue is significantly bad as history shows us from early warfare all the way through to modern cyber security / warfare.
“Any security bypass for one, is a bypass for all.”
But the second issue I’ve highlighted of,
“the firewall they already manage now has visibility it previously lacked”
Is effectively an “empty promise” known from the work of Claude Shannon and Gus Simmons.
As I’ve pointed out over and over that whilst computers can do statistical correlation and find a limited subset of “effects”, they can not do the next step which is reason out the “causes”.
Especially when it can be shown that you can always easily hide things from any tool observing a “communications channel”.
And this is never going to change no matter how much Human or Artificial Intelligence you throw at the problem…
Not understanding this will very much lead to “worse security” not better…
Winter • March 28, 2026 8:51 AM
The Mad Red Hatter fails again!
Here’s how the US is suffering its biggest ever military defeat
https://www.thenational.scot/politics/25976363.us-suffering-biggest-ever-military-defeat/
According to the Royal United Services Institute for Defence and Security, Israel has fired 80% of its Arrow 2 and Arrow 3 interceptors and more than half of its David’s Sling missiles. The US is believed to have used up 60% of its THAAD missiles to protect its Gulf allies.
Meanwhile, The New York Times reports that many of the 13 military bases used by the US in the region “are all but uninhabitable” thanks to Iranian attacks. That is information which has been notably suppressed by the US administration.
Meanwhile, the Financial Times tells us that few of Iran’s advanced missiles have been used – and explains that this may be because it is keeping them back for “when adversaries run short of interceptors”.
The Regan administration gave us the Saving&Loans crisis
The GW Bush administration gave us the 2008 global financial meltdown
The Mad Red Hatter finally succeeds in bringing down the USA empire.
Clive Robinson • March 28, 2026 10:13 AM
@ Winter,
I suspect that the journalist has read directly or indirectly this blog 😉
Because it’s just “reboiling” what has been already said here.
Especially about attacking desalination plants and keeping the more interesting weapons back.
One side effect of the shortage of not just US Missiles is the THAAD systems radar emitters…
South Korea has found they “don’t own” those US Systems they paid a lot of money for… The US is dismanteling them at the point of a political gun and shipping them off to Israeli and Saudi locations…
As I said a while ago all that nonsense that the MAFIA Don Boss was going on about Europe having to spend 5% of GDP on weapons, was actually the US trying to force Europe to “arm the US” for a war campaign of terror it’s been planing.
The problem is both France and Italy and increasingly others are say “Don’t buy over priced and actually worthless US Weapons systems, for them to point them at your own head” or take them away… Instead invest in Europe and other nations about the same size and technical sophistication to build up blocks to rival the Super Powers with the unwritten subtext that the Shetland pony with a quiff is going to start WWIII as revenge etc.
Subscribe to comments on this entry
Sidebar photo of Bruce Schneier by Joe MacInnis.
Stalking in 2C • March 27, 2026 5:52 PM
Yo Kenny, what u stalkin’ me 4 again 2day in 2C man?
I don’t sell no kr@ck 4 da CIA no moar man. K?
dONt b no Schmuck, k.
Facts Only
The Hawaiian bobtail squid hosts bioluminescent bacteria.
U.S. foreign policy strategies for Middle East dominance have been outlined in documents like the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) and Project 2025.
The Bush administration provided only 50 days of preparation for post-invasion Iraq management, with no staff or resources allocated.
The U.S. has reportedly used 60% of its THAAD missiles to protect Gulf allies, while Israel has expended 80% of its Arrow 2 and Arrow 3 interceptors.
Iranian attacks have rendered many U.S. military bases in the region "all but uninhabitable."
South Korea's THAAD systems are being dismantled and relocated to Israel and Saudi Arabia.
A cybersecurity article critiques modern firewalls for lacking session-level visibility, proposing an additional inspection layer.
The critique argues that increased visibility does not guarantee better security due to limitations in causal reasoning.
Historical parallels are drawn between U.S. interventions in Iraq and potential future conflicts with Iran.
The discussion includes references to economic crises linked to past administrations, such as the S&L crisis under Reagan and the 2008 financial meltdown under Bush.
The conversation suggests a shift in U.S. strategic focus from oil to AI and cloud infrastructure as potential new domains of control.
Commentary includes skepticism about mainstream media's role in shaping public perception of U.S. military actions.
Executive Summary
Full Take
The strongest version of this narrative presents a coherent critique of U.S. foreign policy as a continuous, bipartisan project of regional dominance, supported by historical documents and recent military developments. It highlights the strategic depletion of missile defenses and the potential for Iran to exploit these vulnerabilities, framing this as a systemic failure of U.S. planning. The cybersecurity discussion adds a layer of technical skepticism, arguing that visibility alone does not solve security gaps—a valid point rooted in information theory.
However, the narrative also employs patterns of distortion and false framing. The repeated emphasis on U.S. failures without proportional context (e.g., omitting Iranian aggression or regional allies' roles) risks exaggeration to absurdity (ARC-0024). The comparison of current events to past interventions, while historically grounded, leans toward a motte-and-bailey retreat (ARC-0043), where broad claims about U.S. imperialism are made but specifics are selectively presented. The emotional tone—particularly in the commentary about media complicity—verges on weaponized anger (ARC-0018), though it stops short of outright rage bait.
Root causes include the assumption that U.S. policy is driven solely by resource control, ignoring other geopolitical factors like alliance commitments or ideological conflicts. The paradigm echoes Cold War-era containment strategies, repurposed for a post-oil world. Implications for human agency are stark: if the narrative is correct, ordinary citizens bear the costs of elite-driven conflicts, while benefits accrue to defense contractors and political actors. Second-order consequences could include accelerated regional arms races or erosion of trust in U.S. security guarantees.
Bridge questions: How would U.S. strategy differ if oil were not a factor? What evidence would disprove the claim that missile depletion is a systemic failure rather than a tactical misstep? What perspectives from regional actors (e.g., Saudi Arabia, Iran) are missing here?
Counterstrike scan: A coordinated influence campaign would amplify the narrative of U.S. decline, selectively cite missile shortages, and omit countervailing evidence (e.g., Iranian proxy attacks). The actual content aligns partially but lacks the hallmarks of a full playbook—no clear call to action or coordinated amplification. The critique remains within bounds of legitimate debate, though its framing is strategically skewed.
Patterns detected: ARC-0024 Ambiguity, ARC-0043 Motte-and-Bailey, ARC-0018 Weaponized Anger