Category Archives: History

Keep Saying “Honey Trap”. Man is But a Fly.

A woman wrote “honey-trap” about a man and a woman in 1859, and in her sentence a man falls for a woman like a fly, ahem, flies into honey. Can you blame the fly? Of course.

The Oxford English Dictionary gives the earliest known use of the phrase to Elizabeth Sheppard, the English novelist who wrote Charles Auchester. It is on page 126 of the second volume of Almost a Heroine, where a man talks about a woman:

I am no fantastic fool, intoxicated by her like a fly fallen into a honey-trap. I will tell you, I know her so well as this. She is perfectly unworldly, but she is also vain of being so; and only so far is she vain at all; her fascinations and her passionate sweetness she is alike unconscious of.

Her meaning is simple. A man says he sees a woman clearly. Falling for her would be the honey-trap, and the man who falls is the fly and the fool.

John le Carré used the phrase 115 years later in Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, where an intelligence service sets the honey as a trap and a woman is the bait, almost exactly as Sheppard had phrased it. He later wrote in an introduction to the novel that he invented honey-trap along with lamplighter, scalphunter and babysitter. Time magazine printed a glossary of his words and called him “their inventor”, and the dictionaries agree with him. Merriam-Webster dates the first known use to 1974, and Dictionary.com gives 1970 to 1975 and names le Carré. The OED is the only one that prints Sheppard’s line. It lists her under insect traps and starts the seduction meaning in 1974, so it still credits him.

All of these dictionaries cover English only. Writers in Hebrew, Greek, Latin and Chinese used honey for a lure more than a thousand years before Sheppard or le Carré. Spies use tactics that already work, because inventing one is expensive and likely to fail. To call spy novels the source of this tactic is like saying a journalist invented the news.

Origin Meaning
5th century BC, Chinese The state of Yue sends the beauty Xi Shi to the king of Wu. Chinese calls this 美人計, the beautiful person stratagem, the thirty-first of the Thirty-Six Stratagems.
Hebrew, Proverbs 5:3-4 The lips of the strange woman drip honey (נֹפֶת), and in the end she is bitter as wormwood and sharp as a two-edged sword.
1st century BC, Greek Strabo, Geography 12.3.18: the Heptacometae leave bowls of toxic honey in the road. Pompey’s soldiers eat it and three maniples are killed.
1st century BC, Latin Lucretius: doctors put honey on the rim of the cup so that children drink the wormwood.
8th century, Chinese 口蜜腹劍, honey in the mouth and a sword in the belly. The phrase describes Li Linfu, a male chancellor of the Tang court (Zizhi Tongjian, volume 215).
1624, French Francis de Sales: a spoonful of honey catches more flies than a hundred barrels of vinegar (de la Rivière, Vie, page 584).
1666, Italian and English Torriano: honey gets more flies than vinegar (Italian Proverbs, page 149).
1859, English Sheppard: a man who falls for a woman is a fly in a honey-trap.
1974, English Le Carré: a honey trap is a spy operation.

The Chinese examples matter here more than an English dictionary because of the news. Fast Company reports that U.S. intelligence identified the woman in the Jensen Huang story as a Chinese spy. You can see above exactly for how long Chinese has named the stratagem after the beauty and uses honey for a deceitful man.

The Fast Company column is by Laëtitia Vitaud, and most of it is standard stuff. She argues that 1970s spy novel usage turns a powerful man into the helpless victim of a scheming woman. I mean we’re talking about 1970s spy novels, right? Have you read my post called James Bond Movies Are “Fascist Pig” Glorification?

Then she traces that idea all the way (fast reverse) to Genesis, where Adam blames Eve. Her report is technically accurate that it is English dictionaries who credit le Carré with making the phrase popular. The dictionaries start the phrase with the spy novelist and then credit him for it. Self-proving hypothesis. But her question is more about whether a 63-year-old chief executive officer in total command is as helpless as a bear near honey. Helpless? It’s a bear.

Her main error for me is the one sentence: “The term comes from spy fiction.” No. That’s wrong. The earliest known phrasing of woman being the honey trap for men is Sheppard’s.

But the bigger fault is that her sentence leaves out a woman. A column about sexism repeats the error printed in dictionaries and credits a spy fiction that came 115 years after a woman printed it first.

It also costs Vitaud her best evidence for her own case about the phrase. She wants the press to stop saying “honey trap”. Sheppard’s version in fact shows a better fix.

We can celebrate Sheppard. Say honey trap as she did.

In 1859 the man who falls is a “fantastic fool”, and he is responsible for where he lands. In 1974 he becomes the target of an operation, and the man who made that change claimed the invention. Vitaud’s question about the bear has had an answer since 1859. Man is but a fly, a fool who flies into a trap.

Guide to NVIDIA CEO Spy Mistress Scandal

The evidence of a honeypot begs who or what was it for.

The NVIDIA espionage case has produced at least two answers, which I see floating around already. The spy wanted the GPU engineering secrets, or the spy wanted to steer the CEO deeper into circular financing that inflates the AI bubble that pops and takes the American economy down with it. Both answers assume the CEO is a victim, someone who is influenced from an outside agent. A little Soviet history tells us why that assumption fails.

The KGB built an entire apparatus to move people in a predictable direction. Its internal dictionary, smuggled out by the archivist Vasili Mitrokhin and published as the KGB Lexicon, defines the agent of influence as a recruited asset who uses his official or public position, on instruction, to shift policy and opinion. The dictionary sets him apart from the confidential contact, who is cultivated without knowing it. Every term in the book assumes a target who isn’t moving on their own, and thus has to be nudged. Oleg Kalugin, who ran those operations in Washington, told CNN in a 1998 interview that subversion rather than collection was the heart and soul of Soviet intelligence.

The efforts focused on those in the West who pushed back, to breach integrity (shift their thoughts) more than confidentiality (leak secrets).

The honeypot doctrine historically points away from CEOs, instead of directly at them. Markus Wolf’s HVA ran the Romeo program against Bonn for three decades, and the CIA’s own account of it says the targets were lonely government secretaries, chosen because the method was cheap and the women held the files. The chancellor had opinions. The secretary had the documents. Sexpionage went where the paper was. A CEO who learns his own products from slide decks is the wrong end (pun not intended) of that building.

There also was a raw material rule. A 1983 State Department study of Soviet forgeries put it like this: the lever lies in the prejudices of the deceived. The handler gives precise direction and a tempo to a tendency that already was present. A confidence builder and an accelerant.

Huang supplies his own direction and his own tempo.

It’s all public, at max confidence and speed. Heck, I’ve even reported the NVIDIA pipeline into Russian drones bombing civilians during sanctions. This is not the kind of CEO who needs a spy in his bedroom to convince him of helping the bad guys.

He has argued for years that NVIDIA should sell China everything short of its newest line. In October 2025, three months after the administration granted export licenses on a revenue-sharing arrangement, NVIDIA committed $25 million to the White House ballroom and asked that the gift stay anonymous. In May 2026 Huang was left off the delegation to Beijing. Trump called him and picked him up in Alaska on the way to Xi, and Reuters reported that same week that Commerce had already cleared H200 sales to about ten Chinese firms.

That was the same spring Secretary of State Rubio oversaw a classified memo warning the White House that Huang was in a close relationship with Alice Huang, a Chinese citizen whom US officials had concluded was recruited by the Ministry of State Security. The warning was blaring like a bullhorn. Huang kept his seat, perhaps even because of it. A counterintelligence flag on the loudest opponent of export controls changed nothing, because his position was aligned with the administration’s position. An agent of influence recruited to produce that outcome would have been paid for nothing. And that’s not how agents roll.

The British learned all this back in 1963. John Profumo shared Christine Keeler with a Soviet naval attache, and Lord Denning’s inquiry found no breach of security from the connection. Profumo fell anyway, because he lied to the House of Commons about the affair. The spy story was the sideshow. The integrity failure ended the man without a single secret changing hands.

Washington already has a China story, too. Katrina Leung was one of the FBI’s highest paid assets and an 18-year intimate partner of her handler, Special Agent James J. Smith, while she passed material to Beijing. The Justice Department Inspector General found in 2006 that the FBI did little or nothing about the counterintelligence warnings that piled up during those years. The warnings were there. Leung was apparently more useful to the FBI as a source than as a suspect. Smith hid the affair, and the Bureau left him in charge of the one asset who could expose it. The memo circulating in spring 2026 about Huang and Megaspeed is a two-decade old rehash more than a novelty.

NVIDIA’s own words on Sunday kill some of the speculation. Huang’s message to employees admits the affair, apologizes to his wife and children, and says he will cooperate with the board. It names no woman, no company and no chip. The national security concerns get one sentence about loving his country. The board’s statement, as reported by the Times, said the company had no reason to believe that either national security or NVIDIA secrets were compromised. A collection operation looks exactly like that from the inside. Nothing is missing from a box that was never targeted for opening, and the man who owns the box has confessed to everything except what was in it.

The target was the supply chain.

Alice Huang was a senior executive at Megaspeed, a Singapore company that became NVIDIA’s largest buyer in Southeast Asia and that the Commerce Department and Singapore police were investigating in October 2025 over whether its chips moved on into China. NVIDIA says it checked and found the chips where they belonged. Either way, a CEO close to a procurement channel is worth having for allocation, for customer intelligence, and for early warning on enforcement. That is the commercial side of collection, which needs no influence at all. It’s like saying a woman working for candy stores is having an affair with the candy maker. The secrets are the delivery schedules.

The precedent is well-worn in history. Between 1982 and 1984 Toshiba Machine and Norway’s Kongsberg Vaapenfabrikk sold nine-axis propeller milling machines and their controllers to the Soviet Union on false export papers naming a civilian end user. Because what Russian civilian doesn’t need ultra-quiet submarine propellers? Reagan called it in 1987 a serious diversion that served the Soviet program of underwater warfare. The buyers worked through a KGB-linked trading organisation. The sellers worked for the contract. The same year the Toshiba deal was signed, a KGB colonel named Vetrov handed the French thousands of documents from Directorate T, the service built to acquire Western technology, exposing more than 200 Line X officers in Western capitals. Line X ran on willing sellers and front companies. Greed did the recruiting. A honeypot would have been an unnecessary expense, and the Soviets weren’t going to waste money on that.

The exhaustion lesson is the icing on this anti-American cake. Reagan’s NSDD-75 of January 1983 made sustained pressure on the Soviet economy explicit US policy, with the stated expectation of no near-term improvement in relations. The Soviet Union was running out of runway fast because of corrupted overspend. The Chinese Communist Party spent the following decades studying how that happened, and the lesson it drew is to let the other side spend itself out against a shadow. The history-savvy Chinese have no reason to push Huang into circular financing that he already loves. He couldn’t be pressed more there. China watches, it buys what it knows will be released to it, and it stays out of the way.

The circulating answers I’ve seen for the honeypot story share an important assumption, that a CEO is a victim being externally influenced. But we all see very openly how Huang already was moving on its own, and the administration was moving with him, and the only place a Chinese service had any job to do at all was minding their supply chain that his company kept insisting was clean.

This Day in History: X Posts About 2026 Midterms Echo 1937 Nazi Germany

One figure on the poster held gold coins in one hand and a whip in the other, with a map of the Soviet Union under his arm. The Deutsches Historisches Museum catalogues him as a Jew who embodies Western capitalism and Soviet Bolshevism at the same time. That one figure is the story from 8 November 1937. Twenty rooms beyond the poster were setup by Nazis to sell a lie.

“Der ewige Jude” opened in the library building of the Deutsches Museum in Munich as a “Große politische Schau”, with speeches by Goebbels and Streicher. It ran to 31 January 1938 and counted 412,000 visitors. The touring version reached Vienna, Berlin, Bremen, Dresden and Magdeburg before closing in June 1939. The Reichspropaganda-Amt and the Gauleitung München-Oberbayern built it with the Anti-Komintern and the party’s research institutes on the “Judenfrage”, a list recorded in Rosemarie Burgstaller’s entry in the Historisches Lexikon Bayerns. The Stadtarchiv München holds the press photographs of the rooms.

The sequence of rooms

Room one showed photographs of Rudolf Hilferding, Karl Radek and the actress Elisabeth Bergner, enlarged facial features and three wax heads. The wall text asserted typical Jewish features and explained their absence as camouflage. A Jew who looked German was a Jew in disguise.

Room two presented the Talmud and the Schulchan Aruch. The party journal “Mitteilungen über die Judenfrage” summarised the room: these law books with their thousands of paragraphs of hatred for non-Jews are for Jews what religion is for other peoples. Judaism was a hostile code wearing the costume of a faith.

A forty-metre hall followed, with a film of ritual slaughter running on a loop at the entrance and guided tours drawing the line to ritual murder.

Then the exhibition changed century. A Weimar film section with its own cinema. A mock shopping street with windows for fashion, music, literature and art, labelled as Jewish decay. A culture room under the title “Sodom und Gomorra” with Arthur Schnitzler, Franz Werfel, Max Reinhardt, Josephine Baker and Yehudi Menuhin. Seven or eight rooms of photomontage on Walther Rathenau, Georg Bernhard, Magnus Hirschfeld and Sigmund Freud, with walls built to lean inward over the visitor. A Bolshevism section of ruined cities and corpses copied from the Anti-Komintern shows. Two rooms of Freemasonry with coffins and skulls. An “Ehrenhalle” with the Nuremberg Laws in marble, and a last room presenting camps and expulsion as the solution.

The first rooms indicted the Jew as an archaic tribe with a bloody cult and a book of hatred in place of religion. The later rooms indicted the Jew as the author of modern sexuality, psychoanalysis, the theatre, the press, the department store and the Soviet state. Nazi usage called that second charge Kulturbolschewismus. The exhibition charged Jews with being too religious and with dissolving everyone else’s religion, and it placed the two charges in consecutive rooms. Room one had already supplied the rule that made both charges hold: the visible Jew was the enemy, and the invisible Jew was the enemy hiding. The same preference for the legible Jew survived the regime, which is why postwar Germany honours Chug Chaluzi for religious motives that German-Jewish society of the 1920s had treated as a mark against them.

From rooms to Xcrements

The Global Project Against Hate and Extremism has compiled the timestamped reactions of Christian nationalist figures and Project 2025 coalition partners to the midterm results, from the evening of 3 November to the morning of 5 November 2026. Read against the Munich floor plan, the compilation sorts itself by room.

Munich, 1937 X, 3 to 5 November 2026
Room 2: Talmud in place of religion. Long hall: ritual slaughter on a loop Partridge: divine judgment for “Pandering to Anti-Christ Israel”
Culture room “Sodom und Gomorra”: Schnitzler, Reinhardt, Baker. Photomontage rooms: Hirschfeld, Freud Webbon: Jews vote for “sexual perversion, and abortion”
Bolshevism section: ruined cities Metaxas: “Islam and Marxism”. Driscoll: a “counterfeit trinity”
Poster: coins in one hand, whip in the other, Soviet map under the arm Torba: the “Hinjew alliance”. Webbon: Jews caused the Iran war, Jews voted Democrat
Room 1: absence of Jewish features explained as camouflage Webbon: Jews appointed as “captains of the team”; “They hate you”
Last room: camps and expulsion as the solution Torba: “The time for voting is over.” Webbon: “I have a list.”

Joel Webbon, a Texas pastor, wrote at 12:41 a.m. on 4 November that Jews in the White House had talked Trump into the Iran war and that Zionists were the biggest threat to his side’s future. At 8:15 a.m. he wrote, “An entire war for Israel. Jews still voted Democrat.” Eleven minutes later he answered an exit poll showing Jewish voters at 67 percent for Democrats with “They hate you, your children, and your country.” At 11:18 p.m. he wrote that Jews vote for open borders, “demographic erasure, sexual perversion, and abortion.” One author, one day, with Jews as the war party of a foreign state and as the solvent of Christian order. Protection had been extended and loyalty assumed. A vote cast as citizens was received as treason.

Dale Partridge listed “Pandering to Anti-Christ Israel” first among the reasons for divine judgment. Andrew Torba of Gab wrote that those who bless Israel had been blessed with a landslide defeat and called the night a rejection of the “Hinjew alliance.” Eric Metaxas named Islam and Marxism as an existential enemy on the scale of the Revolution and the Civil War. Mark Driscoll named abortion, Marxism and Islam as a counterfeit trinity. The Bolshevism section in Munich showed ruined cities. The 2026 version adds a mosque.

Torba posted “The time for voting is over” at 10:32 p.m. on election night. Webbon promised the following evening that his side would win “with or without a majority vote,” and that morning had posted “I have a list. I will not forget.”

Hans von Spakovsky, a Heritage Foundation alumnus who chairs a Project 2025 coalition member, wrote the morning after the election that the closest historical analogy was the 1932 German vote that made the Nazi party the largest in the Reichstag, and he meant the Democrats.

The Munich exhibition had a fixed grammar of Nazism. The Jew is their enemy as both the visible stranger and as the invisible insider, as the keeper of an archaic law and as the destroyer of other peoples’ faith.

The grammar acquires new names but nothing else. The timestamps in the GPAHE compilation show a 2026 regurgitation of 1937 Nazism was complete within forty hours of the polls closing.

Death by Petard Award: “The Claude app by anthropics is requesting updated permissions”

In the Roman Republic, as Polybius wrote, a sentry’s “watchword” was written on a wooden tablet, and then passed hand to hand up each street of the camp with witnesses at every handoff. Clever, no? Every tablet had to be back with the tribune before dark. A missing tablet was easily traced to the specific relay team, under a specific unit leader. A sentry who was found asleep was tried by the tribunes and punished severely. Polybius says the watches held because the penalty was certain, and the fault was accurately assigned. The severity is the part that usually sticks with people, because it shocks the senses. But accuracy and certainty is what actually made it work. And on that note, the certainty is the part that is easiest to replicate today.

When you look at GitHub today, you have to wonder if nobody in the whole organization studied any history. The user interface hands each installation admin a tablet that represents everything, and therefore nothing: the whole camp may as well be charged with whatever happens, meaning nobody reliably will be held to account.

Take for example how an “application permission” email will be sent from GitHub.

What? Who? Where?

Let’s have a look at one example: “[GitHub] Claude is requesting updated permissions” seems to be going around right now.

A GitHub App, Claude, installed on your account is requesting updated permissions.

Visit https://github.com/settings/installations/ to review and accept or ignore these permissions.

You may choose to ignore this request. If you do, Claude will retain its current permissions.

You can view pending requests by viewing your Apps settings page.
https://github.com/settings/installations

If you run into problems, please contact support by visiting: https://support.github.com/contact?tags=dotcom-integrations

Thanks,
Your friends at GitHub

With friends like these, who needs Romans?

Eight permissions are in the GitHub interface, with a vendor badge and reference and one sentence of explanation for the lot. This particular vendor, should you be bothered to look, has published research on approval fatigue, the exact failure this design produces. The request for updated permissions is nearly impossible to untangle. Five scopes are new. Three are upgrades from read to write. And the “developer note” at the bottom says: “Allow the Claude Apps to automatically create repositories when desired.” That sentence explains one scope. The other seven get… nothing.

GitHub sends this kind of email automatically whenever an app’s permission manifest is changed. GitHub’s documentation says the installer may approve or decline. A declined app keeps its old permissions and keeps doing what it did; whatever needs the new scopes fails, and the installer is told only that it “may not function as expected.” The choice is all or none, with uncertainty pressed firmly onto the none side.

The eight, as they appeared:

  • Administration, read
  • Merge queues, read
  • Repository creation, read and write
  • Webhooks, read and write
  • Commit statuses, read
  • Actions, upgraded from read to read and write
  • Checks, upgraded from read to read and write
  • Organization members, read

Anthropic publishes material on just two of them. The enterprise-server setup guide says webhook write creates a hook on a plugin marketplace repository when automatic sync is turned on, and organization member read checks a connecting user’s role when an installation is linked. The plugin support article confirms the webhook purpose.

The remaining six? Pound sand.

This is the second such email from Anthropic alone this year. In March the app asked for Checks write, with Administration and Merge queues read alongside, and a user filed an issue saying the first thing they assumed was a credential leak. Anyone who declined in March sees those same scopes again in November, stacked on top of the new ones, because GitHub shows the gap between what an installation approved and what the manifest now asks for.

Reasonable assumption, which opens Pandora’s box of operator confusion and fatigue from poor authentication prompt hygiene.

The explanation in that thread was based on text that was said to be from Claude itself. In May a GitHub organisation admin opened a community discussion after the same app sent the same kind of request, asking for per-scope approval, and documented that revoking a single scope after approval requires uninstalling the app, and reinstalling presents the same bundle again.

Just for some perspective, Cursor sent the same email to its users ahead of a review feature. AWS did too in 2024.

This is not a good look for the industry, especially as we know how to do this better.

As I already mentioned, Anthropic has itself published notes on what’s wrong with what Anthropic is doing to its users. In its engineering post on Claude Code auto mode, Anthropic reports that users approve 93% of permission prompts, and that over time this produces approval fatigue, where people stop reading what they approve.

I said as much about this topic in the book I co-wrote in 2012 about cloud security threats. I mean, nothing here is a surprise or new to anyone who has even a few years of real security experience.

Anthropic built classifiers to intercept threats inside the terminal. Meanwhile, it sent the GitHub version of a bad prompt design to every installation admin. The GitHub prompt is through email, completely outside any classifier or sandbox. And then the approval is account-wide and sticky.

If you are already thinking about phishing surface, well done. GMO Flatt Security reported to Anthropic in January that anyone can register a GitHub App, install it on a repository they control, and use its token to open issues on any public repository. Registering an app named Claude with a similar icon and sending this template is kids play. Every email Anthropic sends with a one-line note is pushing the kind of fatigue on its installers that greases them to click through a fake one.

Ok Anthropic, let’s get real. You know the risks. You know the harms. You know better.

You published all this yourself. Does the left hand know what the right is doing?

A vendor that measures approval fatigue in one of their products as a bad thing and manufactures it in another of their products… has a governance failure. Anthropic publishing the harm research and then setting it off under its own installers is evidence the company needs some serious security leadership reconfiguration.

Customers’ repositories deserve better than a sapper blown up by his own charge.

The fix is clear and cheap, which is what makes this a governance (and history education!) failure rather than an engineering one. A changelog entry per scope, published before the manifest changes, stating which feature uses it and what stops working when it is declined. The email links to it.

Done.

Beyond that, one app per capability. Code review, cloud sessions, security scanning and plugin sync carry different scopes. An installer who turned on one should approve the scopes for one. If the tablet has everything and everyone on it, it effectively has nothing and nobody to hold accountable.