OK, more housekeeping ahead of putting this account up on blocks.

#BurnNotice - search for that coming from my account, you'll learn some things about troubles in late 2020.

But this is going to be pretty meta, it's about what goes a #BurnNotice and why.

We've used the #BurnNotice tag in the past to denote an entity that is in need of special attention. That practice dates back to 2011/2012 and lapsed some time ago.

This is a more traditional sort of #BurnNotice

Let's put some bounds on this. Those in a #BurnNotice are NOT:

1) people I dislike

2) people I think are competitors in some fashion

3) "feds", whatever you people mean by this undefined term.

4) informants. Got a list of those, too, it's handled differently.
The #BurnNotice is more focused on people who present as if they might be working for Erik Prince:

Or maybe they work for Tiger Swan:

One of the great faults of grassroots activists is that they think everything is tied to whatever bad actor most recently got immolated. Examples of entities that got roasted include:

HBGary Federal

Gamma Group

Hacking Team
The point here is that there are always corporate and nation state actors in the mix. Their presence is unavoidable, but that doesn't mean that YOU have to get infiltrated and have your time and energy wasted.
That being said, lets examine some primo examples current as of late 2020.

I can think of no better example than "Cody Webb".
The above tweet is a LIE. I know there is an actual person associated with the set of tactics and targets associated with the "Cody Webb" persona. Why does this one get a burn notice?
When I first encountered Cody, he was forever stirring shit in Talib Kweli's timeline. TK is suspended now, but he used to really dish it to right wing loons.

Cody was working on a GINORMOUS RESEARCH PAPER ZOMG at the time.
We had a phone call. He claimed to be a Navy vet, a sub nuclear power plant guy. That's a good cover story, unless, like me, your best friend from highschool was a helmsman on the same class of boat. Having an old boss who was chief petty officer on a Thresher class helped, too.
So in response to inquiries about his experience aboard a nuclear powered submarine, he couldn't change the topic fast enough.

This, by itself, is not disqualifying. Another veteran showed up, tank mechanic, didn't want to talk much about this. His DD214 was fine.
Next, he claims where he lives the only internet access he has is via hotspot. Those are great for non-attribution without a warrant or a drawn out civil process. I have a cell phone on my desk right now that provides this, when I feel the need.
I know two people who legit run hotspot only. One is in Ireland, the other in South Africa. It's not out of the realm of possibility, but it is a bit unusual in the U.S., particular for someone constantly active online.
Third thing that was fishy. The GINORMOUS RESEARCH PAPER. He couldn't explain what he was doing or why. Another case of bad luck - take a look at how many research papers are in my SlideShare. Anything posted there, I've read.

Contributing to this "research" was, for Cody, like a salesman's appeal to a higher authority. Things that didn't make sense for the mark (ie YOU) would be explained as being associated with the research effort.
First @LibbyInPhilly got a look at Cody's GINORMOUS RESEARCH PAPER. She's a product of Drexel University's psych program, where they read and write A LOT.

Her judgment was that it would not pass IRB requirements.

Someone else finally helped Cody with the writing and I saw the final product. It's a confession of recruiting individuals into various sub-groups, then inducing them to engage in infighting.

Precisely the sort of thing Erik Prince pays people to do.
So maybe "Cody Webb" is one of THOSE people.

The other explanation is that he's somewhere on the psychopathy spectrum and he does things like this to service the psychopath's need to "put one over" on victims.
I had intended to cover a couple different cases, but this is getting kinda long.

Spotting someone doing this is HARD. I spoke to him. I had specialized knowledge (submarines, peer reviewed research), I had a similarly skilled peer (Libby) also find him to be "off".
And then I watched him from a distance for about two years, while signs of him doing the same things I'd seen up close continued to surface.

If he's not a paid plant, I'm OK with putting this out now, because he's in the other category - someone who is always going to fuck you.
Recently he's gotten into a mode of trying to discredit Libby. Her work is good - you can see some of it actually published here:

Cody has also been all about interfering with the stuff that Libby, Kirtaner, and I are doing. Take the article about 8kun operator Jim Watkins trafficking child pornography as an example.

The pain for Watkins was the first, then there was some suffering for Parler. Next to get time in the barrel will be the person who did the legend for the Q persona, and then ONAforums operator Josh Moon.

You might not like any one of Libby, Kirtaner, or I ...
But given the role those entities play in dragging this country towards civil conflict, if you're not setting aside whatever personal grudges you have and just staying out of the way, YOU ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM.

And that will be assumed to be intentional on your part.
So there you have it. #BurnNotice for a persona (not proven to be a person) whose methods are either those of a paid disruption artist (he's here nonstop) or someone with a character disorder *who would certainly be a tool of such actors*.
Didn't realize how many column inches would be required to explain why I arrived at a certain view regarding the Cody Webb persona. That's enough for now, I'll have to do some more #BurnNotice work later this month.

@threadreaderapp unroll

More from For later read

Wow, Morgan McSweeney again, Rachel Riley, SFFN, Center for Countering Digital Hate, Imran Ahmed, JLM, BoD, Angela Eagle, Tracy-Ann Oberman, Lisa Nandy, Steve Reed, Jon Cruddas, Trevor Chinn, Martin Taylor, Lord Ian Austin and Mark Lewis. #LabourLeaks #StarmerOut 24 tweet🧵

Morgan McSweeney, Keir Starmer’s chief of staff, launched the organisation that now runs SFFN.
The CEO Imran Ahmed worked closely with a number of Labour figures involved in the campaign to remove Jeremy as leader.

Rachel Riley is listed as patron.

SFFN claims that it has been “a project of the Center For Countering Digital Hate” since 4 May 2020. The relationship between the two organisations, however, appears to date back far longer. And crucially, CCDH is linked to a number of figures on the Labour right. #LabourLeaks

Center for Countering Digital Hate registered at Companies House on 19 Oct 2018, the organisation’s only director was Morgan McSweeney – Labour leader Keir Starmer’s chief of staff. McSweeney was also the campaign manager for Liz Kendall’s leadership bid. #LabourLeaks #StarmerOut

Sir Keir - along with his chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney - held his first meeting with the Jewish Labour Movement (JLM). Deliberately used the “anti-Semitism” crisis as a pretext to vilify and then expel a leading pro-Corbyn activist in Brighton and Hove
There is some valuable analysis in this report, but on the defense front this report is deeply flawed. There are other sections of value in report but, candidly, I don't think it helps us think through critical question of Taiwan defense issues in clear & well-grounded way. 1/

Normally as it might seem churlish to be so critical, but @cfr is so high-profile & the co-authors so distinguished I think it’s key to be clear. If not, people - including in Beijing - could get the wrong idea & this report could do real harm if influential on defense issues. 2/

BLUF: The defense discussion in this report does not engage at the depth needed to add to this critical debate. Accordingly conclusions in report are ill-founded - & in key parts harmful/misleading, esp that US shldnt be prepared defend Taiwan directly (alongside own efforts). 3/

The root of the problem is that report doesn't engage w the real debate on TWN defense issues or, frankly, the facts as knowable in public. Perhaps the most direct proof of this: The citations. There is nothing in the citations to @DeptofDefense China Military Power Report...4/

Nor to vast majority of leading informed sources on this like Ochmanek, the @RANDCorporation Scorecard, @CNAS, etc. This is esp salient b/c co-authors by their own admission have v little insight into contemporary military issues. & both last served in govt in Bush 43. 5/

You May Also Like