Category Archives: Energy

How Racist is Elon Musk?

Update August 3, 2024: This new cartoon is so spot on, it’s like The Onion’s Stan Kelly has been reading my blog.

Update November 30, 2023: Elon Musk, after being widely condemned for obvious antisemitism, uses his Swastika platform (formerly known as Twitter) to affirm and spread violent white nationalism.

Source: Twitter

Here’s the key to decode the above racist references:

  • GM (good morning) = “we are elites, early and will survive because superior race”
  • WP (hand signal) = white power
  • Sad Frog = racism and hate
  • Attire = “…superiority of the Greco-Roman world, modern white claims to Greco-Roman heritage, and the belief that the European Middle Ages present an idyllic and homogeneously white time and place that, according to adherents, should be used as a model for the US’s conversion into a white ethno-state.”
Source: Twitter

Update April 14, 2022: Elon Musk says he can organize enough money to buy Twitter in order to take it private (decreasing accountability and transparency) and then promote harmful content using a policy he calls:

Healthy free speech is when someone says something you don’t like.

This policy of Musk is hypocritical, logically false and historically backwards.

He himself regularly violates basic principles of healthy speech (as a documented serial liar). Instead he allegedly seeks outsized control to prevent accountability for words used, the literal opposite of healthy speech. He appears to not care about health of anyone or anything.

For a simple and obvious example, he can’t even attempt to buy Twitter without showing his true hand. He right now failing at the most basic transparency requirements while grousing falsely he cares a lot about society having transparency:

…lawsuit alleges that by March 14, Musk’s stake in Twitter had reached a 5% threshold that required him to publicly disclose his holdings under U.S. securities law by March 24. Musk didn’t make the required disclosure until April 4.

Replace the word “tweets” with “stocks” in Musk’s attempt to attack Twitter in his takeover bid and notice how he confesses to being a threat to society:

…having it be unclear who’s making what changes to who, to where, having [stocks] sort of mysteriously be promoted and demoted with no insight into what’s going on … I think this can be quite dangerous.

Dangerous? Here’s what’s dangerous:

Elon Musk’s plan for Twitter suggests the site will expand abusive epithets and threats of violence online, especially targeting women of color (as I’ve explained elsewhere). Twitter will transform from implicit white nationalism into more explicit hate and violence.

Source: Twitter

In case you don’t recognize it, that is Musk replying to the extremist right-wing Bee account, which was classified by Twitter as hate speech. Musk is showing support for stinging attacks from the Bee. Now, back to the question of whether he is racist, in context of whether a racist would try hard to buy Twitter just to ensure hate groups pushing “something you don’t like” will escape accountability.


As I wrote recently, asking “how racist” is really a search for evidence of someone being anti-racist.

When we ask how vulnerable software is, it would sound wrong for someone to defend themselves with “how dare you call software vulnerable”. Software has flaws, so we constantly look for evidence that flaws are being identified and remediated. It’s basic hygiene.

Likewise, when we ask how racist someone is, the response desired should come as some kind of evidence that racism is being acknowledged and removed wherever it may exist.

On that risk management note, I so far have found zero evidence of Elon Musk working in any capacity to be anti-racist, despite copious evidence of him being accused of racism.

Here’s a quick review of an infamous racism lawsuit:

  • Psychology Today: “We don’t know anything about Mr. Musk’s feelings about Black people regarding the case. [Tesla] indirectly gave organizational support to individual prejudice and bigotry; Tesla was engaged in racism.”
  • Jalopnik: “Elon Musk’s Alleged Response To Tesla Racism Complaints: ‘Be Thick-Skinned And Accept Apology'”
  • Tesla’s official statement directly contradicting its advice to staff to stop fighting for things they believe in: “At Tesla, we would rather pay ten times the settlement demand in legal fees and fight to the ends of the Earth than give in…”

Both evidence of racism and self-contradictory logic set the tone.

Telling Black workers they must be “thick-skinned” and stop fighting against racism, while stating that Tesla will always be thin-skinned and never stop fighting against people accusing them of racism… is exactly the opposite of anti-racism.

Elon Musk is South African, which is important here. Consider for example that he has posted classic white supremacist memes such as this one.

Anyone familiar with African history would recognize this for what it is, a racist attack on Black liberation theology.

This tweet was at the height of tension in America about Black Lives Matter (BLM). Spreading a racist extremist right-wing meme puts Elon Musk very squarely on the wrong side of history.

Backlash against Black Lives Matter includes branding it as Marxist.

Allegedly Musk launched his racist meme attacking Marx after being deeply offended by The Topical tweet by the Onion.

It’s hard to see the connection back to The Onion that Musk is trying to make in his attack tweet. Meanwhile the always on-target Onion doubled down.

Source: Twitter

Consider that the meme used by Musk is in fact from a long-time white supremacist topic, not just some awkward moment from 2020. It’s not just something related to Musk’s hatred of free assembly by Black Lives and free speech by The Onion, it’s more an exposure of his racist upbringing.

Here’s another example, to prove the point further. From the 1920s through the 1980s a major talking point of white nationalists (e.g. Prime Minister Hertzog) in South Africa was population decline (e.g. “replacement theory” or “swamping”) despite the country at the time experiencing a population surge.

And yet Musk is known for spreading the exact same fraudulent racist trope in 2022.

Source: Twitter

“Drain the swamp” was a South African racist concept of the 1920s meant to prevent non-whites from having any power. They had watched racist American President Wilson do exactly that in the 1910s, not to mention the racist Governor Stanford of California doing it even earlier. This is what Musk is basically tweeting.

Let me explain just how racist it looks for Musk, a white South African, to spread racist talking points as well as falsely label anti-racism as some kind of activism.

In the crucial first decade of African freedom from colonialism the leaders of Algeria (Ahmed Ben Bella), Egypt (Gamal Abdel Nasser), Ghana (Kwame Nkrumah), Guinea (Ahmed Sékou Touré), Kenya (Tom Mboya) and Tanzania (Julius Nyerere) all displayed a very public affinity for principles of socialism.

In other words Black post-colonial movements very logically moved public sentiment towards everyone sharing in the benefits of labor regardless of color or race, even before rising to democratic themes of liberation from oppression (U.S. Army: De oppresso liber).

South African whites reacted to this with insecurity cults that aimed to refute Black liberation by labeling anti-racism as radicalism or political extremism (fallacy of white genocide).

PsyOp: Rhodesian Woman Crying
Propaganda Poster of racist Rhodesia equating black self-determination to communism, falsely characterizing its goal as the infliction of disease on white women and children.

These dangerously wrong propaganda tactics, which Elon Musk regularly witnessed in his apartheid childhood, are being repurposed by him through his anti-Black rhetoric to criticize anti-racism.

White nationalists of South Africa even tried to manipulate newspapers to frame themselves as victims in a thinly-veiled attempt at criminalizing a necessary and humane act of anti-racism (e.g. Black Lives Matter). They censored criticism of white “success” (e.g. denied racist oppression, despite power and wealth being oriented solely on being white).

This is exactly why Elon Musk wants to buy Twitter, to repeat such mistakes of history and censor criticism of ill-gotten racist power.

South Africa’s overtly racist and white police state also explicitly courted the United States at this time by claiming white nationalism was a logical defense against Marxism — denying freedom, independence and self-determination of Blacks as a “capitalist” or “business” model of wealth accumulation (e.g. from President Nixon to Harvard).

If you know basic African history, especially South Africa’s violent racist “anti-Marxist” oppression methods, then you perhaps now see Elon Musk was normalizing racism in a post that uses a mix of Black “slang” appropriation with a phrase suggesting someone unfit for work.

Elon Musk’s “gib me dat for free” during Black Lives Matter protests seems akin to a racist defensive sentiment celebrating the white police officers who opened fire on unarmed protestors in 1960. In other words it should bring to mind today what exactly Elon Musk thinks about the sixty-nine South Africans were killed and 186 wounded in Sharpeville, with most shot in the back by police.

Criminalizing the assembly and speech of Blacks, because they called for fairness and liberation from obvious racist oppression, was racism encoded by calling it defense against Communism.

Succeeding the Sharpeville incident, a meeting convened by the South African Communist Party (SACP) in December 1960 in Emmarentia, Johannesburg, aimed to discern the way forward in light of the African National Congress’ (ANC) ban and the imposition of a state of emergency. Among those who attended were Mandela, Sisulu, Govan Mbeki, Mhlaba, Kotane and a number of other ANC and SACP members. Those attending congruently agreed that the agenda of non-violence would have to be replaced by armed resistance in the form of the establishment of military units…

That was followed by the 1960 “Unlawful Organizations Act“, which amended the 1956 “Riotous Assemblies Act”, which all was preceded by the far more obviously named 1950 “Suppression of Communism Act”.

This act, “after being rushed through both houses of Parliament” (Riley 1991: 69), “was introduced to enable the banning of the African National Congress and the Pan African Congress” (Dyzenhaus 1991: 45).

Thus we can see how Marxism has been embroiled in racism, used as a means to call Black people lazy and stupid, unable to think for themselves or self-rule.

Anti-Communist propaganda even has gone so far as to suggest Blacks could not have developed minds and instead were like puppets of a Soviet or Chinese playbook.

That particular reference from South African history matters here too because Elon Musk also has delivered an odd depiction of Chinese.

Elon Musk lamented the “entitled” and “complacent” character of people in the United States, and lauded the “smart” and “hard working people” of China…

Presumably Musk has a particular form of cognitive blindness such that he doesn’t see a contradiction in overtly praising Asian communism, while claiming to be a critic of Black sounding communism.

The blindness is likely best explained as… racism.

Elon Musk heaped praise on China’s economic development late Wednesday night as the Communist Party celebrated its 100th anniversary in power.

To be fair, Communism being lauded by the Chinese has little to nothing to do with Black leaders who show an affinity for socialism.

Universal healthcare, fire departments, police, public utilities like sewer and water, state pensions, education, public transportation and general “safety nets” all seem to be socialist concepts selfishly taken for granted by Elon Musk.

This is one of the confounding aspects of those who claim to support public-safety initiatives such as the police (when operated as a socialist concept of care) while saying they hate socialism.

And conversely, socialists who say they hate the sordid history and politics of America’s attempt at police (an anti-public concept to perpetuate slavery) prove that it’s not a simple calculus.

The bottom line when talking about Marxism versus socialism is that it was the unification of Germany in the 1870s that brought significant improvement in the country’s economy because… it was driven by widespread socialism.

Marx was an extremist within a huge movement and certainly not the most influential or important voice, although he makes an easy target.

German people demanded a unified state to extend benefits to everyone, beyond just the wealth-accumulating selfish “gentry”; they rejected kings, lords and men who acted and thought very much like Elon Musk.

The German Chancellor Bismarck initially reacted to the disturbances and public grievance with a ban on unification (union) movements. Ring any bells, given South Africa banned union movements?

Bismarck pushed out an “Anti-Socialist Law of 1878” to stop people in Germany from assembling and speaking. Nonetheless, just like in South Africa 100 years later the socialist affinity within democratic voters grew anyway, shifting debate into formal government chambers (where it was better heard and processed).

It was clear centuries apart that sentiment of social good was deeply influential to German workers.

Bismarck shrewdly calculated he could absorb power from huge blocks of voters and thus maneuver ahead of their party by implementing things they called for and taking credit himself.

1883, with the passage of the Health Insurance Law, Bismarck made Germany into a welfare state—all to stymie the socialists. The law was the first national system in the world, Steinberg says. Both employers and employees paid into insurance funds, and the German government verified workers’ enrollment by comparing employer records with fund membership lists, threatening employers of uninsured workers with fines.

Stymie the socialists by being socialist. It seems odd today where people struggle to get on one page, yet Bismarck was a leader from a different era who apparently acted on what he thought made sense for his country (or perhaps more to the point made sense for him as inalienable from country leadership) and tossed aside labels.

Bismarck didn’t care what the program—Krankenversicherungsgesetz—was called or how it was described, as long as citizens knew that the state—his state—coined the idea. “Call it socialism or whatever you like,” Bismarck said during the 1881 Reichstag public policy and budget debates. “It is the same to me.”

The unmistakable benefits of socialism clearly made Germany prosper and powerful, similar to how it would soon after help fuel massive economic prosperity and growth in America and all of Europe.

“…a key part of the Industrial Revolution that’s overlooked is that once workers got paid in cash once a week or every few weeks, they had cash that could be spent on what we would call health insurance.” …as the population grew in cities, coverage boomed. In 1885, the enrollment was 4.3 million Germans; by 1913, that number had jumped to 13.6 million. And this came with a number of surprising repercussions.

Socialism meant very quickly that far fewer Germans emigrated away from factories, as they stayed for benefits unique to socialism like sick days at home and compensation for accidents. In other words, fewer workers fell out of work and into poverty, which reduced the cost of productivity. Industrial output increased as did quality of life.

Seen to this day as “a massive success” the concepts of German socialism are logical for any democracy to adopt and promote.

Between 1884 and the end of the century, blue collar worker mortality rates fell 8.9 percent, they write in a recent study. “Surprisingly, the insurance was able to reduce infectious disease mortality in the absence of effective medication for many of the prevailing infectious diseases.”

Again, I have to emphasize that Musk is wrongly promoting Marxism as a success model; he tweets his love to Chinese Communists, falsely calling their system the best. Yet he attacks Blacks by mislabeling them as Communists.

If Musk had posted a picture of Marx next to Asian speech patterns would it be any better? No. He is being racist in either case, pushing a race-based narrative that Asians are hard working and Blacks are lazy.

This sad repeat of South African history by a South African should give enough context to explain why Elon Musk is pro-Marxism while spreading traditional racist white supremacist memes about Marx that target Blacks by appropriating their speech/style.

What Musk really seems to want to say is he’s against unification (against a United States, against a unified Germany) where workers have prospered from democracy.

Tesla prefers top-down, centrally-planned dictatorships where a small group of elites can stop democracy from protecting people who work at Tesla.

To prove the point once more, Elon Musk recently doubled down on an extemist right-wing meme yet again favoring a racist tone in a comment about the Ukraine war.

Four huge problems with this:

First, predictably his defenders invoked “white savior” logic similar to South African apartheid (or pre-unification, pre-socialist, Germany), claiming a billionaire should be protected from criticism (encouraged to cover up misconduct) simply by claiming to be charitable towards the needy.

Second, Musk would not be helping Ukraine if the country was not predominantly white. It’s no coincidence allegations stand that Tesla’s “majority-Black departments are called the ‘plantation,’ ‘ghetto’ & ‘slave ship.'”

Third, war is no joke. This is like arguing because his employees are paid well they should tolerate him causing trauma and abuse. A Black war blast victim was tormented with rocket warning sounds while trying to work at Tesla.

Fourth, Musk dramatically increased his business deals with Russia since 2020. Buying a Tesla literally can mean buying from Russia.

And while Musk might be confused or careless, throwing words around without any intent to actually stand by what he says, it doesn’t anywhere rise up to demonstrate anti-racism. In 2018 Musk (who allegedly has a degree in economics) claimed he is socialist and Marx was a capitalist.

Shortly thereafter Musk proved to be even more confused. He tried to attack socialism for allowing people to shift “from most productive to least productive” (e.g. pay money into insurance and use it when sick).

Greatest good defined by who? That sounds like a recipe for dictatorship, inverse to democratic socialism. In fact, Musk is using phrases that are very similar to Hitler’s speech in 1938 right after Kristallnacht.

Let me put it like this, the word on the street is Elon Musk thought Nazi was spelled with a T, which is why he put it on the hood of his cars.

Elon Musk often sounds a lot like Hitler. Click to enlarge. Source: Twitter (Hitler Speech December 28, 1938)

The influential German socialist philosopher Lasalle wrote a letter to Bismark in 1863 warning of exactly what Musk (and Hitler) promote.

…how true it is the working class feels an inclination towards a dictatorship, if it can first be rightly persuaded that the dictatorship will be exercised in its interests…

To be clear Lasalle advocated a monarchist social-democracy, a partnership proven successful in countries like UK, Sweden, Denmark, Holland, etc. as I’ve written about before with regard to causes of “stress revolution“.

Musk thus appears to be advocating a form of “national socialism” (Nazism), which reminds me very much of Peter Thiel’s present proto-Nazi fantasy of monopolism despite decades-old proofs against it by E.A.G. Robinson in 1948:

The great merit of the capitalist system, it has been said, is that it succeeds in using the nastiest motives of nasty people for the ultimate benefit of society.

Musk furthermore openly flirts with themes of Nazism, such as the Onion joke insinuating a Black American President has a secret affinity for it.

Again, I have to emphasize I am looking for evidence of anti-racism, yet only finding more and more evidence of racism in among evidence of consistently extremist right-wing sentiments.

Ending up discovering that Tesla tried to run PR that it was helping Ukraine while also quietly driving new deals with the dictatorship in Russia as it invaded Ukraine, seems only fitting.

I doubt Wired will pick up this blog post about Elon Musk’s racism in the same way as the last time, but I do hope someone someday can find and publish evidence of his anti-racism. His silence is deafening.

More to the point, Musk himself tried to argue that if there is no significant counter-protest to support a government against small groups of fringe extremists (e.g. if anti-racism doesn’t show up) then it should be taken as some kind of proof that fringe extremists have more legitimacy than a government!

Carl Sagan warned the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence, to put it mildly why Musk sounds so dumb. However, also don’t forget Musk’s flip-flopping is frequently anti-science and he is admitting to the world here that his complete lack of protest against racism is his way of saying he’s not opposed.

At the end of the day there has been one lonely statement claiming he is “stating the extremely obvious” that he thinks speech should be censored.

Source: Twitter

Is it obvious? Then why does he never state anywhere that he would protest or even censor racism? Where has he come out strongly opposed to racism and racist comments, if somehow he found the courage to protest the vague “abusive epithets”?

There are copious statements where Elon Musk says clearly free speech means zero filters of any kind. For the man with a constantly open mic who argues speech should be censored only when it serves his own purposes, and who throws words around with abandon and appears to fire off comments without thought, it’s highly curious Musk NEVER pushes anything even close to being anti-racism.

All-Women Cycling Teams in 1896

The Petaluma Historian has posted a fascinating look at the face of cycling a century ago.

On July 4, 1896, Petaluma found itself anointed the new “bicycling Mecca” of the West Coast, as a reported 6,000 people turned out at the city’s new Wheelman Park for the annual divisional meet of the League of American Wheelmen.

Among the 18 Northern California teams competing were two comprised entirely of women—San Francisco’s Alpha Cycling Club and Petaluma’s own “women of the wheel,” the Mercury Cyclists.

The story has many amusing turns and quotes. This one might be my favorite.

As the Mercury Cyclists and other wheelwomen took to their steel steeds, they ran into some cultural speed bumps from conservative Victorians, who wanted to know where they were riding to.

When the question was put to women’s rights activist Elizabeth Cady Stanton by American Wheelman magazine, she succinctly replied: “To suffrage.”

Colonial Pipeline PR Reacts to Post About Bob Jones

Already I have heard from a Colonial Pipeline PR firm in Washington DC about my blog post yesterday pondering an overt promotion of Bob Jones University in a press release supposedly about security.

I was told on the phone by Sara Sendek, Senior Director, Crisis Communications (and former Nevada communications director of the Republican National Committee, former press secretary of Ron Johnson), “you think someone is racist because they went to Bob Jones”.

This wasn’t a fair depiction of my thoughts, but it’s expected.

It’s like being told that I think something is vulnerable when I ask why it has Log4j in its manifest. What is the meaning of Log4j when you see it?

Seeing Log4j might not be proof today that someone is vulnerable, but the burden is upon those with Log4j to demonstrate they have closed gaps by being anti-vulnerability. Code is never completely free of vulnerabilities (e.g. can be misleading to say something is not vulnerable), so we really just want know whether someone is committed to fight against serious flaws, including in their own code.

Even more to the point, everyone treated Log4j differently before 2022 so any claims today from the past are colored by what we think now relative to safety.

I therefore actually that think someone has invited a burden of proof to demonstrate they are anti-racist when their Bob Jones degree from 2000 is being promoted by a PR firm; trying to get people to notice Bob Jones in a promotional piece invites integrity assessments.

Again, the question always should not be about whether someone is racist or not, but whether they are anti-racist as Ijeoma Oluo wrote in 2019.

The beauty of anti-racism is that you don’t have to pretend to be free of racism to be an anti-racist. Anti-racism is the commitment to fight racism wherever you find it, including in yourself. And it’s the only way forward.

Bob Jones University very clearly existed as an attack on integrity since it was created by racists to perpetuate racism. Bob Jones took their case all the way to the Supreme Court arguing that claims of “faith” should allow them to avoid fixing their obvious racism (in other words invoking “God” as a loophole to avoid compliance with U.S. public safety laws).

The PR firm representative said she had hoped to explain to me how a PR statement works so that I wouldn’t react to the meaning of the words used in it, to which I replied that my blog post asks why the obvious racist meaning to Bob Jones didn’t block it from being included in a release.

When I was told by the PR firm that everyone has their academic background listed in an unmistakable “that’s the way we do things around here” tone, I asked whether they gave the CISO an option to not list Bob Jones.

Would she release vulnerable code to production just because that has been the way things were done before?

Did the CISO consent to having this specific information shared?

She refused to answer.

Colonial Pipeline Spills Details on First CISO

Update March 1: Colonial Pipeline PR Reacts


Let me begin by saying the first ever chief information security officer (CISO) hire anywhere ever was a PR invention of Wall Street back in 1994.

This position was officially rolled out in a news campaign by Citicorp in order to offset panic when they disclosed their security breach.

From a computer terminal in his apartment in St. Petersburg, Russia, a Russian software engineer broke into a Citibank computer system in New York and with several accomplices stole more than $10 million by wiring it to accounts around the world, according to court documents and the U.S. attorney’s office. Citibank said all but $400,000 of the stolen funds have been recovered. Six hacking suspects have been arrested, including the engineer, Vladimir Levin, who is being held in Britain and is fighting extradition to the United States.

Citicorp sounded bullish talking about law enforcement and government actions. Yet they were far more subdued about technology and management changes made, phrasing it in papers like this.

…the bank has upgraded it security since discovering the intrusions in June, 1994.

The bank upgraded.

Behind closed doors, meanwhile, Citicorp customers were being invited to meet with a chief of security, someone who had been running JPMorgan security since 1985; and he was recruited without being told that they were going to drop the whole thing on his lap, along with a blank check.

You can imagine how easy it was for someone with a decade of experience and a blank check on his desk to give people future leaning statements about how he intends to fix anything and everything.

Thus in terms of history a CISO title is mostly a political act of creating a rug for things to be swept under, which runs tightly coupled to the marketing side of the business. In that sense it’s not unlike other C-level roles, however it has the important distinction of being tied to externally established public policy (safety).

Remember that phrase.

Now fast forward to this week…a somewhat related announcement is that Colonial Pipeline hired their first ever CISO, nearly a year after disclosing a massive mishandling of security.

Allow me to rewind the Colonial breach just a little so that we can end on an interesting footnote about an important detail in their CISO announcement text.

Colonial, an awkward name for a power company to say the least, was founded 60 years ago in 1962 as a joint venture of nine oil companies (political extremist Koch Industries today holding the largest stake).

About four years ago Colonial received at least one scathing 90 page audit report for its rather typical American energy habit of running a “patchwork of poorly connected and secured systems”, as reported later by the Associated Press (AP).

We found glaring deficiencies and big problems. I mean an eighth-grader could have hacked into that system.

The AP also buried its lede in reporting that Colonial’s chief information officer (CIO) Marie Mouchet sat on the advisory board of the firm that Colonial hired to be an “independent” security auditor. Mouchet is non-technical, with a background that reads like decades of evading regulations.

Mouchet began her career with Southern Company in 1981 as an assistant analyst for the company’s rate and economic services division. She progressed through positions of increasing responsibility before being named supervisor of regulatory research in 1986. A year later, she became supervisor of market intelligence and was later named as manager of market intelligence in 1988. In 1990, Mouchet was named assistant to the vice president of public relations. She transferred to Southern Company’s Georgia Power subsidiary in 1992 to serve as a senior regulatory affairs representative.

Assistant to the VP of PR and lobbyist is who Colonial hired to be their CIO? And she was in charge of security too? Predictable disaster.

When asked about the conflict of interest with a CIO on the board of an outside firm auditing the information systems, the firm said it didn’t pay Mouchet to advise them. Talk about missing the point.

Hint. Hint. Corruption. Bias.

Unlike electrical utilities, the pipeline industry is not subject to mandatory cybersecurity standards…

Uh-oh. So the industry with no security standards or established public policy has this giant company that hires a anti-government lobbyist to be their CIO overseeing security?

We should also keep in mind that the risks here go far beyond information security and into a lack of basic standards of care about humanity.

Smallwood’s study was not a cybersecurity audit. It focused on ensuring smooth operations… He cited, for example, Colonial’s inability to locate a particular maintenance document. “You’re supposed to be able to find it within 15 minutes. It took them three weeks.” Locating such a document could be crucial in responding to an accident or keeping up-to-date pipeline inspection records to prevent leaks, Smallwood said. Colonial experienced one of the worst gasoline spills in U.S. history last August, contaminating a nature preserve north of Charlotte . After it was discovered by two teenagers, the spill’s severity was not immediately clear as Colonial’s initial reports indicated a far lower volume. North Carolina environmental regulators angrily called the company’s failure to promptly provide reliable data unacceptable.

Let’s be honest. One of the worst gasoline spills in U.S. history was discovered by some kids and completely mishandled by Colonial, a classic hacking story with a terrible ending.

…two teenagers riding their ATVs through the woods in Huntersville, North Carolina, noticed a strange liquid bubbling from the earth. They stopped to take a look. The pair, who soon informed their local fire department, had no clue of the scale of the disaster they were looking at. And thanks to the craftiness of Colonial Pipeline, the rest of the country wouldn’t, either. […] Instantaneously, it became one of the largest nontanker spills in modern American history. And even with the 1,600 pages of documentation, there was still a great deal of missing information. […] Colonial has been here before. The company also holds the record for largest gas spill in the neighboring state of South Carolina [in 1996] pleaded guilty to criminal negligence and coughed up over $50 million

So many important questions went unanswered.

Colonial initially estimated the spill at about 60,000 gallons, but that proved to be way off. In January, it raised that to about 1.2 million gallons. As of this week, Colonial has recovered 1.225 million gallons of gasoline. And there’s still more in the ground.

That was truly serious breach in 2020 (that nobody heard about, despite being a repeat of 1996) and in retrospect the environmental catastrophes offer very accurate and ominous foreshadowing in cyber security.

You may recall instead the far more public outcry in May of 2021, when Colonial tripped over their clown shoes into a basic ransomware attack.

It’s what allegedly prompted them to make a highly political decision to shutdown 5,500-miles of pipeline (nearly half the fuel supply on the East Coast of the U.S.) and donate 75 Bitcoin ($4.5m) as ransom to the “DarkSide” Russian cartel.

That ransom payment was widely criticized not least of all because the decryption key it produced was too slow to be useful, especially relative to Colonial’s own restore process from its backups. This complete failure of common sense came after long-time advice from the FBI to never pay the ransom.

The FBI does not advocate paying a ransom, in part because it does not guarantee an organization will regain access to its data.

Colonial would have been far better served giving $5m to the FBI to investigate Russians, instead of to the Russians. Except there’s at least two problems with the logic of such a company helping the federal government to help protect Americans.

First, the ultra-right political organization Koch Industries is the majority holder in Colonial and paid nearly $100K to Devin Nunes to undermine FBI investigations into Russian crimes.

[Nunes argued] the FBI’s process was not a good-faith attempt to investigate Russian influence; rather, the memo says, it was a politically motivated operation to spy on someone affiliated with the [Koch funded] campaign.

Seems unlikely that those running Colonial were going to be cooperating with the U.S. government when their wealth comes largely from fighting with the U.S. government.

Second, Koch is the name derived from Fred Koch who made his fortunes in the Soviet Union building oil refineries for Stalin (1929 to 1931) and then in Nazi Germany for Hitler. This family has consistently aligned with both foreign and domestic anti-American hate groups.

You know what else looks bad? Financing the publication of Holocaust denial literature over the course of several decades. Which is exactly what Charles Koch did between the 1960s and the 1980s. […] Fred hired a dogmatic Third Reich sympathizer to nanny his sons at home [who today run Koch Industries]. […] In 1977, Charles Koch founded the libertarian Cato Institute think tank, and brought in his brother David Koch as a shareholder. […] Barnes, who called Jews “swindlers of the crematoria” who “derive billions of marks from non-existent, mythical and imaginary cadavers,” had died back in 1968. But the Cato Institute resurrected his work and published it again anyway.

Speaking of resurrecting work, their father Fred Koch returned to Russia in 1956 to continue his business ties there, while becoming a founding member of the notorious American hate group known as John Birch Society.

The main thesis of Birchers tends to be they fear government is going to steal a god-given privilege from white men, while claiming they don’t believe in the very things that they say they are losing. It’s really fascism, a modern variation of the more latent “let white men rule” KKK platform of the 1868 Presidential campaign.

And speaking of notorious hate groups, I couldn’t help but notice this line promoted by Colonial in their otherwise fluffy CISO announcement:

[Colonial’s new CISO] Tice earned a Bachelor of Science degree in Information Systems Management in 2000 from Bob Jones University in Greenville, South Carolina.

Graduating in 2000 from Bob Jones “garbage” University is not something to be proud of or mention in public… unless maybe you’re trying to impress Koch Industries or their Cato Institute?

President Bob Jones III said Wednesday [March 2000] he wanted to show that nothing had changed about his views on Catholicism [by calling it a cult]… “Unfortunately they still treat Catholic bashing as an intramural sport,” Patrick Scully, spokesman for the New York-based Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, said Wednesday. Scully says Jones “has an absolute right to teach this type of garbage, but we have the right to shine the light of truth on it.”

I’ll say it again, graduating in 2000 from Bob Jones “garbage” University is not something to be proud of especially when talking about safety and security.

There was a tradition in the hate-filled Jones family, apparently similar to the Koch family, that became the fundamental ethos of their education system.

Jones was not only a purveyor of fine painting but also of the hoariest anti-Catholic tropes, calling the church of Rome “a satanic counterfeit,” for example, and “drunk with the blood of the saints.”

Bob Jones University thus is perhaps best known for overt acts of hate, such as the fact that exactly zero black students were admitted to this “deep South” school between 1926 and 1971… by design!

…the 76-year-old Jones—who was born five years after the completion of Reconstruction and who was the son of a Confederate soldier—took to the airwaves on Easter Sunday [in 1960] to make his case from Scripture about why [Civil Rights for Black Americans] was not something to be welcomed and celebrated but rather to be rejected and condemned. After the address aired, Jones had the talk transcribed and printed as a booklet, which became the school’s primary statement on race and integration throughout the 1960s and 1970s, and into the 1980s.

Why were Blacks finally admitted in 1971? The school’s founder had died three years earlier.

Even then, the school strictly prohibited Blacks socializing with whites, actually requiring all Black students to be married to a Black person before they could “mix” with whites.

The racist school fought hard to continue promoting hate, attempting to falsely litigate that integrity failures should be protected under the Constitution (Bob Jones University v. United States (461 U.S. 574)[1983]).

Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, writing for the eight-justice majority, found that … the government’s purpose of eliminating discrimination in education was so fundamental to public policy that it overrode Bob Jones University’s religious convictions.

Such hate-driven litigation to promote racism ended with the Supreme Court declaring Bob Jones University a place of worship that is “contrary to established public policy” and thus technically the opposite of “charitable”.

One more time, graduating in 2000 from Bob Jones “garbage” University is not something to be proud of especially when talking about safety and security.

Only in 2008 (!) did Bob Jones University weaken its hate, by claiming their racism was due to them being “victims” of the American culture of racism that they fostered.

I swear I am not making any of this up.

For almost two centuries American Christianity, including BJU in its early stages, was characterized by the segregationist ethos of American culture. Consequently, for far too long, we allowed institutional policies regarding race to be shaped more directly by that ethos than by the principles and precepts of the Scriptures. We conformed to the culture…

These wealthy white men claiming to be “victims” of racism had used their huge endowments and giant legal teams to fight bitterly all the way to the Supreme Court to preserve and expand racism.

To be fair, they did also then finally confess to the system of education at Bob Jones University lacking integrity, being intentionally hurtful.

…failed to accurately represent the Lord and to fulfill the commandment to love others as ourselves…we allowed institutional policies to remain in place that were racially hurtful.

And this is exactly how America remains extremely racist, despite believing that it is not racist.

Psychologists refer to this kind of broad bias in perception as “motivated cognition” — that is, most Americans want to live in a society that is more racially equal, and so they engage in mental actions that ignore, discount or downplay contradictory evidence to maintain coherence between belief and reality.

I am imagining Colonial to someday soon announce that they allowed institutional policies to remain in place that were hurtful, because they were victims of an American culture of weak security practices (one that they fought hard to promote).

Colonial believed it was operating safely, despite copious evidence allegedly proving the opposite. It seems like they even hired people to compromise or otherwise taint external reports and block regulation rather than make significant changes to documented unsafe practices.

See now why it seems weird as a PR exercise to announce a CISO has been appointed with a degree from a school dedicated to increasing harm by operating “contrary to established public policy”?

Why did Colonial take so many years to hire someone technically qualified and capable in security. Were the Koch brothers holding the line, insisting on someone who would reject basic concepts of public safety let alone justice?

And then why list Bob Jones on any announcement related to leadership or integrity? That just doesn’t make sense. Had Colonial not mentioned it, this blog post probably never would have been written to ponder why a CISO is being promoted as a Bob Jones believer.

And thus it all begs the question of whether this CISO is someone who can take to heart the poorly-worded mea culpa of his school in an attempt to change, in some way using a blank check in order to stop Colonial from being intentionally hurtful in the ways he was taught (no longer transferring large cash donations to fascists, even those in Russia).