Information Wars 353


Long term readers will recall the Philip Cross Affair. A Wikipedia Editor named “Philip Cross” was relentlessly conducting a propaganda operation. It had two prongs; the first was continually to denigrate the Wikipedia entry of all public figures who opposed military intervention in the Middle East, removing positive information and adding mainstream media slurs in real time as they were made. The second and less noted prong was to big up the Wikpedia entries of right wing mainstream media figures, removing negative information and adding a positive spin.

Wikipedia eventually banned “Philip Cross” from making edits related to UK political figures.

The incredible thing about “Philip Cross” was that he never took a single day off. From 29 August 2013 to 14 May 2018 “Philip Cross” edited Wikipedia every day, including Christmas days, for 1,721 days. I can claim to be the person who first brought the “Philip Cross” operation to a wide audience, and here are my series of articles on the subject:

Is GCHQ Embedded in Wikipedia?

The Philip Cross Affair

Emma Barnett: A Classic “Philip Cross” Wikipedia Operation

The “Philip Cross” MSM Promotion Operation Part 3

Philip Cross Madness Part IV

Le Mesurier Gets Cross

If you are new to this, I really do commend that series as a fascinating glimpse into the information wars that lie behind what you read on the internet. The BBC World Service even made a radio programme about Philip Cross.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/w3csws6q

Being the BBC it downplays the affair in a number of ways – crucially, it gives several examples to show that Philip Cross’s edits are harmless, and not a single example of his thousands of vicious edits, such as his editing my Wikipedia entry to call my wife a stripper.

The BBC also disingenuously claim that the fact that Cross edited Paul Dacre’s entry shows he did not only edit anti-war figures. They fail to point out that that his edits to Paul Dacre were all designed to glorify Dacre, the Daily Mail’s editor until recently, whereas his edits of anti-war figures were designed to do the opposite.

But the BBC report does correctly state that the “Philip Cross operation” turns out to be an organised neo-con group operating behind the persona of Philip Cross, who is a real vulnerable person with health issues. George Galloway correctly says he was given information from a concerned close relative of Cross who believes he is being exploited. I can confirm that is true. I was also given the opportunity to meet the close relative but I declined as I saw no point in duplicating the effort and causing further stress.

Galloway believes this was a paid operation. It appeared to have very close links to the Times newspaper and to the Euston Manifesto group. James Harding, Times editor, had his page lovingly edited 118 times by the “Philip Cross” operation, largely to remove or rebut criticisms.

James Harding is of course currently editor of Tortoise magazine.

So who were the editors working behind the group name of “Philip Cross”?

For me, the most fascinating and insufficiently explored avenue of the Philip Cross affair was the question of his Twitter followers. “Philip Cross” had a twitter account which never did anything interesting. He simply retweeted articles by right wing journalists; that was the majority of his output. Very occasionally he would add a one line comment. There was nothing remotely original or interesting, even to a person who shared the right wing views of the “Philip Cross” persona, until the operation was exposed.

Yet this extremely dull twitter account by this obscure unwell man, which never tweeted anything original or witty, had among its 200 followers a collection of establishment figures and, most notably mainstream media journalists. Why on earth would Tristram Hunt and James le Mesurier of white helmet jihadis fame find it worthwhile to follow this obscure account? Above all, why did a whole slew of MSM “journalists” follow an account of no original interest at all?

There is no other possible conclusion than that these figures were aware of the “Philip Cross” operation when it was still apparently nothing but an extremely obscure man who liked obsessively editing Wikipedia and retweeting Nick Cohen and David Aaronovitch (his most frequent tweets). My intuition is – and this is not fact, but a working hypothesis that fits known facts to date – that the many MSM journalists who were, for no apparent reason, following the obscure “Philip Cross” twitter account, were not merely au fait with, but a part of, the Wikipedia editing operation that hid behind “Philip Cross” and his IP address.

So here are those MSM followers of the “Philip Cross” twitter account as noted by me on 21 May 2018. Note Dani Garavelli.

DANI GARAVELLI. I had quite forgotten until reminded by Leftworks. Once reminded, I recall that I was getting fed up typing up names and almost left her off as a nobody, writing for a publication nobody reads any more. I am glad I did not.

So why was Dani Garavelli one of “Philip Cross”‘s devoted Twitter followers from when the “Philip Cross” operation was still secret?

Garavelli was recently commissioned by James Harding (remember him above?) for Tortoise Magazine to write a hit piece with the aim of destroying Alex Salmond’s reputation by appealing to the #Metoo movement, evoking sympathy for the accusers and restating prosecution evidence while simply ignoring defence evidence.

Alex Salmond was of course an opponent of NATO bombing of Serbia and has been a staunch and outspoken opponent of UK military intervention in the Middle East. So who was editing negatively his Wikipedia profile? “Philip Cross” of course.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you the British Establishment. Like a circle within a circle, like a wheel within a wheel, a never ending propaganda operation to control the population.

Once Garavelli’s execrable article was published by Tortoise (interestingly for free access by a magazine whose business model allegedly rests on its fierce paywall), the propaganda deluge online to hype it from MSM journalists and from UK government trolls was immense. Interestingly there was a third element – a whole raft of young paid employees of the SNP and a slew of similar wannabe SNP careerists. A fascinating amount of entryist penetration of the SNP has been exposed in this process.

It became obvious the political destruction of Alex Salmond is a major objective of the UK state, worth the potential burning of hitherto hidden assets. I paid close attention because the same forces were leveled against me in a hate storm for pointing out the very obvious deficiencies in the Garavelli article, facilitating a very successful online pushback by ordinary folk. That will be a subject to discuss another day.

With grateful thanks to those who donated or subscribed to make this reporting possible.

This article is entirely free to reproduce and publish, including in translation, and I very much hope people will do so actively. Truth shall set us free.

——————————————

Unlike our adversaries including the Integrity Initiative, the 77th Brigade, Bellingcat, the Atlantic Council and hundreds of other warmongering propaganda operations, this blog has no source of state, corporate or institutional finance whatsoever. It runs entirely on voluntary subscriptions from its readers – many of whom do not necessarily agree with the every article, but welcome the alternative voice, insider information and debate.

Subscriptions to keep this blog going are gratefully received.

Choose subscription amount from dropdown box:

Recurring Donations



 

Paypal address for one-off donations: [email protected]

Alternatively:

Account name
MURRAY CJ
Account number 3 2 1 5 0 9 6 2
Sort code 6 0 – 4 0 – 0 5
IBAN GB98NWBK60400532150962
BIC NWBKGB2L
Bank address Natwest, PO Box 414, 38 Strand, London, WC2H 5JB

Subscriptions are still preferred to donations as I can’t run the blog without some certainty of future income, but I understand why some people prefer not to commit to that.


353 thoughts on “Information Wars

1 2 3
  • Caratacus

    Thank you again, Craig, for bringing this matter to our attention once more. I regard myself as relatively ‘savvy’ when it comes to the venal nature of the State – and then you produce a short essay which exposes my previous level of ignorance. Deeply grateful.

    • michael norton

      One of the things, that I have noticed, say, over the last couple of years, is the very greatly reduced amount of news.
      This has reduced even further during the covid-19 pandemic.

      But why have we had less news, for the last few years?
      It is almost as if “They” do not want us to learn anything unless it is what “They” want us to learn, “They” are attempting to dumb us down.

      Is parliament now closed?
      Where is the accountability?

      • N_

        One of the things, that I have noticed, say, over the last couple of years, is the very greatly reduced amount of news.

        Yes indeed. A typical article on a mainstream British “news” site nowadays contains misspelled muck by a semi-educated middle-class “writer” in his 20s or 30s who doesn’t know the apostrophe rule after words ending in ‘s’ (and wouldn’t understand it if you told him) – a guy who has no shame about writing in public that he found something on his Instagram or his Twitter “feed” (the word “feed” bolstering his self-image as a fellow with his finger firmly on the pulse, like a City trader surrounded by screens) – and who finishes by repeating some other old rubbish he found somewhere he doesn’t remember (or perhaps he made it up, but who cares?) which he sources to “experts” just as his editor told him to. The number of references to “experts” in a typical newspaper nowadays is sky high; to Facebook and Twitter, even higher.

        But why have we had less news, for the last few years?

        In an environment of across the board deskilling both inside and outside the workplace, they have been dumbing the world down ready for a cull, which has already started.

        No, wait! There’s a special “new kind of vaccine” called “mRNA” being fast-developed (insert references to expensive brands of university here), which (unlike other antiviral vaccines) will enable the bodies of its victims recipients to produce copies of the virus which, mark you, won’t be dangerous because they’ll have had all their killy functions magically oh-so-scientifically switched off.

        This will probably be what they force people to be injected with within a few weeks, as the price of being allowed out of their homes.

        Do we hope that plan all goes well, boys and girls?

        A new kind of vaccine will encourage the body to replicate special “helpy” forms of Covid-19. And in response to this eunuch army of “helpers” the body will then ooze with antibodies. That’s the idea. We’ll all live happily ever after. Sounds convincing, huh?

        A day in June or July will be called VC19 day. Vera Lynn will be there. Her and the royal family. The Women’s Institute will bake cakes and the Royal British Legion will organise processions.

        And of course the harvest! Oh it will be such a bumper harvest this autumn. The workforce in the fields will be twice what it usually is! And all the labour will be voluntary too! The birth rate? Up it will go! Screw for Britain!

        The truth is somewhat different. Paramedics are already being told not to attend elderly people in care homes who have a dry cough and a high temperature. Previously they would take them to A&E. Now they’ve been ordered only to show up to collect their corpses.

        GPs have been doing their bit for the national effort too, by sending out “Do Not Resuscitate” forms for ill people to fill out, telling them to concentrate on the “benefits” such as that their relatives won’t have to suffer the inconvenience of phoning 999 if they fall ill. Fall ill and die! Don’t cause your “loved ones” and “the NHS” a problem!

        Why not include undertakers’ phone numbers on the forms? C’mon, GPs, you’re missing a chance to get some referral fees. Your colleagues will take the piss out of you on the ski slopes.

        In many places on the internet there is an ongoing crackdown against those who’ve noticed this…

      • SA

        There is plenty of news if you look for it. British news outlets have a very inward looking aspect of reporting. Their concerns are British news and then the rest of the five eyes. But if you can get France 24, which you can on the internet, you get really good discussions about topical subjects and analysis of third world matters much more than in our media.
        Yes it seems that in this time of crisis parliament is shut and there is no scrutiny of the government to speak of. There is no accountability and laws are being passed by the supreme commander from ITU or now probably from home.

        • jrkrideau

          I also read the South China Morning Post, RT, RFI, Der Spiegel and CBC.

          Interesting differences in news covered and opinions expressed.

          • Coldish

            There are often articles worth reading in Haaretz (English online version) and in the Süddeutsche Zeitung.

        • Paul Barbara

          @ SA April 11, 2020 at 16:23
          Indeed, it’s working out so well for the PTB it’s almost as though they planned the whole thing, perish the thought….
          If the timing had been just a little bit off, bang would have gone BoJo’s December election (imagine a General Election during Lockdown).

          • michael norton

            How cynical Paul
            but you do have a very good point, how wonderfully, it all interlocks
            to give us Lock-Down.

    • RogerDodger

      Quite so. Furthermore one has to wonder, that for every scurrying beetle brought to light by the likes of Craig Murray, how many more still lurk hidden beneath the stones?

      Has Private Eye ever taken an interest in the Philip Cross affair?

      • Caratacus

        @Roger – ref: Private Eye .. don’t know. I susbscribed to PE for years but began to lose interest a while ago and finally cancelled my subscription in 2018 after over forty-odd years. I think it never really recovered after Mrs. Hislop’s little boy took over and, with the death of Paul Foot in 2004, it lost its best investigative journalist. The likelihood of PE looking, let alone reporting on, the Cross affair is probably slim.

        • Leftworks

          Private Eye has just published a vicious attack on journalist Neil Clark. You may recall that when Craig was sued by Jake Wallis Simons and the case was settled, Craig donated the residual crowd funds to Neil Clark’s fund for pursuit of his harassment and defamation case against journalist Oliver Kamm.

          Mr Clark and Mr Kamm very recently settled out of court and simultaneously published a joint statement on their respective Twitter feeds. Reading between the lines of that statement, it is as clear as daylight that Mr Kamm had to make very considerable concessions to Mr Clark, including: deleting a large number of tweets and blog postings, admitting that his accusations could not be substantiated, apologising for them, and undertaking to leave Mr Clark alone in the future.

          Clark, by contrast, also had to acknowledge that he caused and apologise for causing Kamm distress, and leave him alone, but – and this is very important – the statement makes it clear that he did so arising from, and in response to, Kamm’s various public shenanigans about him.

          The Private Eye article is biased in Kamm’s favour almost beyond belief. Neil Clark has now launched another crowd fund in order to be able to sue Private Eye for defamation and force corrections.

          Long time readers of Craig’s blog will be aware that Philip Cross is intimately tied to Oliver Kamm, at the lowest in the sense that, before his ban, he acted as a gatekeeper of Mr Kamm’s Wikipedia account and also Wikipedia edited almost everyone and everything that Mr Kamm tweeted about. In particular, he displayed a violent dislike of Neil Clark both on Wikipedia and on his own blog and Twitter feed. Neil Clark made plain for several years that he believed Philip Cross at least to be a proxy for Oliver Kamm, if not a pseudonym. So Private Eye has recently displayed a considerable tie to the whole Kamm-Cross-Clark nexus.

        • Squeeth

          I lost interest in the 80s and never really trusted Hyslop after seeing his public school shit of the year act on HIGNFY. The eye would use Cross’s edits as proof that someone was a rottah.

          Try this for “satire”

          https://www.private-eye.co.uk/columnists

          Postcard from Beijing
          From Our Own Correspondent: “A pandemic might have been a great opportunity for China and the west’s top brains to set aside their differences and find a vaccine. It was only in January that a consortium of our researchers published a draft genome of the coronavirus, and health experts such as Jeremy Farrar at the UK’s Wellcome Trust hailed a ‘potentially really important moment in global public health’. But since then the exchange of research has fallen foul of dreary politicking: cue a trade between tags about the ‘Chinese virus’ and weirder still conspiracies peddled by officials here about the origin of coronavirus…”

    • bevin

      HMG. I suspect that all these groups are actually financed by the state. Or at least supervised and organised by persons on the people’s payroll. Nothing much has changed in the 201 years since William Hone’s The Political House that Jack Built was published.

    • Gimberline

      “Phillip Cross” was hard at work on the opcw wikipedia article at the start of the year, ensuring the Douma report scandal was written out of history. I wasn’t even looking for him, but there “he” was.

    • Alwi

      They’ll be smarter now, and use a plethora of separate accounts to do their dirty work.

  • Greg Park

    Fair play to the BBC for even investigating. But strangely enough their programme did not mention the plethora of well-known hacks who follow Cross’s paltry twitter offerings, by far the most intriguing and telling aspect of the story.

    As regards Alex Salmond, it is obvious why he is being targeted by neocons even after having been acquitted (instead of the vulnerable actual leadership of the Scottish independence movement, whose attempted fit-up has collapsed in humiliating fashion.) What is far less obvious is why Salmond wanted to be succeeded by an open admirer of sundry war criminals.

  • Geoff

    I’m confused though by why all these MSM ‘names’ followed the Cross account. Even though his account was unknown at large prior to being exposed, surely it was always a matter of time? Why wouldn’t the journalists use a more anonymous second account to link up in this manner?

    I don’t use twitter (nor facebook nor any other social media of this ilk) so I may be missing a vital clue due to my ignorance of how it works, but surely it would have been safer and easier for them to have anonymity within this cult-like looking group

    • Leftworks

      Something which is not too well known is that Philip Cross follows (or did: his tweets are currently protected, so who knows if it is still true), and is followed by, a particular Twitter account which is locked to almost the entirety of Twitter but follows thousands of Twitter users in its own right. This shielded account follows, as far as I have been able to discover, every prominent left wing activist on Twitter whose Wikipedia page has been edited by Philip Cross. It follows me, too. It has made tens of thousands of comments to its very tiny number of followers. Many of those comments, which of course I cannot see, have come immediately after I have posted something on Twitter that might reasonably be thought to interest Philip Cross or his favourite journalists.

      It would be interesting to know who its tiny number of followers are. I am working on that. It is purely speculation, but I would not be surprised if this account were a cut out for people who don’t want it widely known that they are too interested in Philip Cross’s tweets.

      (NB No, I am not going to name the account, so please do not ask. Thank you.)

      • Leftworks

        I have to correct that. I can’t quite recall if the account was identified as being followed by Philip Cross. There are other indications about the account that link it with Mr Cross. There’s no doubt, however, that the account followed Mr Cross, if the reverse is not certain.

      • N_

        That other account that you won’t name sounds like a mechanism that the Philip Cross unit uses on Twitter to ensure they receive the info they want, real-time.

        It’s a total mistake for radical critics of injustice and exploitation who want to influence and connect with people who worth influencing and connecting with to devote any substantial amount of time to Twitter or Facebook. F*ck those places, and f*ck those who use them.

      • Giyane

        Left works

        Two contacts , WWF and Global Tennis Community have parked and clamped themselves to my viber account.
        I can’t get rid of them , and I also can’t get rid of people’s ugly mugs or over muscley photos in their WhatsApp profiles.

        It’s a bit like dog owners who allow their little darlings to slobber over me. How generous . Seriously though, do these intruders use these platforms to gain access to my mobile info?

    • Courtenay+Barnett

      Geoff,

      ” Why wouldn’t the journalists use a more anonymous second account to link up in this manner?”

      Because they are not true journalists of integrity and that is the nature of the MSM.

      • Geoff

        Well no, I don’t think a single reader of this blog would link “MSM journalist” and “integrity”, certainly not me, but it’s not really a question of that which puzzles me. It’s more a common sense thing.

        surely they wouldn’t want to all be identifiably linked in such a small club. Or maybe they would? i just don’t understand why

        • Courtenay+Barnett

          Geoff,
          ” surely they wouldn’t want to all be identifiably linked in such a small club. Or maybe they would? i just don’t understand why”

          I doubt that the ‘ MSM folks’ ( who call themselves ‘journalists’) – shall we call them that – were not seeking to be obviously linked to be in pursuit of one perverse agenda. I even doubt that they even gave any serious and/or careful thought to what the implications were of debasing their assigned professional task of being chroniclers of truth would be.

          More to the point – there seems to be a group of ‘ MSM folks’ who simply prostitute themselves and their expressed and printed ideas to the establishment. Prostitutes do it from the street corner; they do it in the MSM. Craig Murray has exposed this fact.

          Seems as simple as that to me.

          • Geoff

            well I attempted to respond with a simple ‘eh?’ but this was moderated and asked me to articulate my confusion in more detail. I’m not sure what else to articulate but I’m really unclear what the accusation refers to. I don’t believe I’ve made any claim at all, just asked a question.

            I don’t know how a question can be a lie. Thus I am stumped in totality at what i’m being accused of. Hence “Eh?”

            Is that articulated sufficiently, moderators?

        • Stonky

          They don’t care any more. In recent years, and even more so in the last couple of years, it has become clear to the MSM that as long as they are all singing from the same songsheet they can quite literally say whatever they like. They can lie their way from dawn to dusk on any subject under the sun – Skripals, Douma, Salmond, you name it – but they control the media megaphone and there is nobody to provide a challenge to their version.

          People like Craig do a sterling job, but the truth is that in real terms, his views are heard by a tiny number of people. What does it matter if these journalists all publicly follow “Philip Cross”? Who is going to challenge them on it or call them to account? (Not the BBC obviously) Why should they care if we know about it? What can we do about it? Nothing.

  • bj

    My intuition is – and this is not fact, but a working hypothesis that fits known facts to date – that the many MSM journalists who were, for no apparent reason, following the obscure “Philip Cross” twitter account, were not merely au fait with, but a part of, the Wikipedia editing operation that hid behind “Philip Cross” and his IP address.

    This is exactly my hypothesis as I laid out in the comment section of one of your articles on P.C.

  • Reliably

    The BBC piece was not to investigate but to try to diminish the PC situation. At the time, it was a very weird thing to have come on the radio, you were wondering why they felt they have to present this piece and then – at the end – if it was all a lot of nothing about a truly vulnerable person, why did the Beeb feel they had to drag this vulnerable person into public eye and the archives of the BBC?

    I was under the impression that the PC Twitter followers list was linked to a particular agency that reps media people. This would be SOP in that trade – you’re a client and that puts you on various lists and social media platforms. This makes it easier to promote you through their ‘likes’ network, etc.

    • N_

      I wish more people would feel vomit rising in their stomachs and throats when they think of worlds that are basically completely dominated by advertising, like most of the internet, all smeared with concepts such as “user experience” and “social influencing”.

    • Bayleaf

      In my experience, the BBC rarely lead on stories of this nature and will only touch one once it has become sufficiently mainstream that they have little choice other than to join in, Often they will then try to “frame” the issue, with techniques such as employing a limited hangout or attempting to misdirect. All in the interests of “balance”, of course.

      That is not to say that the Beeb don’t lead on stories — even important ones — since even a state propaganda organ needs to earn some credibility, but when matters of state are concerned we should be under no illusions as to where their true allegiance lies.

      • michael norton

        In 2014 the police searched the home Cliff Richard with the BBC keenly watching and broadcasting.
        The BBC was criticised for its coverage of the fishing expedition on Cliff Richard.

  • Jack

    Craig you said “Wikipedia eventually banned “Philip Cross” from making edits related to UK political figures.”
    How do you know that, I dont believe Wikipedia works like that but I might be wrong?

    • Leftworks

      Craig Murray is correct. Philip Cross was referred to the Arbitration Committee of Wikipedia after detailed complaints by a number of Wikipedia editors. The decision of the Arbitration Committee was as follows:

      1. Philip Cross is warned to avoid editing topics with which he has a conflict of interest. Further, he is warned that his off-wiki behavior may lead to further sanctions to the extent it adversely impacts the English Wikipedia.

      2. Philip Cross is indefinitely topic banned from edits relating to post-1978 British politics, broadly construed. This restriction may be first appealed after six months have elapsed, and every six months thereafter. This sanction supersedes the community sanction applied in May 2018.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/BLP_issues_on_British_politics_articles/Proposed_decision#Philip_Cross_warned

      Point 2 was modified afterwards to become slightly more restrictive, I believe. The “community sanction” referred to, if I recall correctly, was a complete ban on Mr Cross editing George Galloway’s Wikipedia page.

  • Mary

    Craig refers to James Harding a few times. He is one of these three outed by Electronic Intifada. The other two being James Purnell and Ceri Thomas. Purnell is now Director, Radio & Education at the BBC and controls the budgets.. Thomas, having been a former editor of BBC’s Radio 4 Today and BBC One’s Panorama, has moved to Oxford University. He is their Director of Public Affairs (PR) and Communications. Nice little number there.

    https://electronicintifada.net/content/apologists-israel-take-top-posts-bbc/12395

    Amena Saleem was the author. She was with the Palestine Solidarity Campaign but I haven’t heard of her lately. People get tired of the continual attacks from the usual suspects.

    • wonky

      Wherever there’s Wikipedia, there are operators.
      In Germany, these operators are connected to Integrity Initiative, ‘Atlantic’ think tanks, the ‘Skeptiker’/GWUP/Psiram groups, Bertelsmann/Arvato, Amadeu Antonio, ECFR, etc..
      The slurs are the same as in UK and US, “antisemite” and “conspiracy loon” being the most prominent.
      They are ALWAYS pro-NATO, pro-Likud, pro-war, post-privacy pro-surveillance (for everyone except them), anti-cash, pro-(shadow)banks etc.. the full neoliberal, neocon, fascist bouquet you’d expect.
      All political parties with a chance to pass the 5% threshold have been infiltrated. Trickster democracy for a demos tricked.

      Expect all the above people and orgs pushing mandatory vaccinations 24/7 next.
      (And prepare accordingly.)

  • David Matthews

    “were not merely au fait with, but a part of, the Wikipedia editing operation that hid behind “Philip Cross” and his IP address.”

    The first part of that hypothesis sounds likely. Less likely that there was any involvement with a particular ip address and indeed the average internet user will not have a static (unchangeable) ip address, rather a temporary lease on a randomly selected ip address from a block “owned” by one of orange, O2, sky, vodacom etc.

    Excuse my ignorance of wikipedia and social media in general as I mostly avoid using it, but what would prevent the real “PC” from making edits both from home and from his local library or coffee establishment?

    Another thing this investigation reveals is that the undoubtedly existing “PC” cabal are more ignorant than I. Otherwise they would have had a pool of wikipedia accounts rather than using just “PC”‘s, and thus better hide their activities.

    • N_

      the average internet user will not have a static (unchangeable) ip address

      Indeed. But there are a few governments in the world that have sophisticated cyber tech departments.

      • N_

        What I meant to say wasn’t that. It’s not suspicious that a person has a static IP address. But when you have a psyops unit consisting of 20+ operatives (not counting controllers and technical support) all using the same static IP address traceable to one vulnerable person OR all using “dynamically” changing addresses that hop around within a small range of addresses consistent with the way that that one vulnerable person connects to the internet, then I suspect the unit is using some serious cyber kit enabling the faking of tracks, even if in this case they got caught.

        • SunTzu

          As it happens, IP spoofing, i.e. pretending your stuff comes from any IP address you wish, is these days very simple. Just DuckDuckGo it as ” IP spoofing “, where may be Windows, Mac, Linux, Android, whatever.
          Which is why IDing people on the basis of their IP address is as impossible as using a photo in the Photoshop era indeed.
          PsyOps dept. use preferably other techniques to deceive, as subtle hints leading the beginner analyst to believe that English is not their native language, simulating usage of embedded non-Western scripts, etc.

    • Bayleaf

      Is it possible for us to see the originating IP address? I can’t see a way.

      There would be nothing to stop an organised group sharing the same IP address, either using a (non-encrypted) proxy or a VPN, either of which could run on a virtual private server (VPS). It would make sense to do so.

      • Clark

        No you can’t see the IP addresses of edits by any User who is logged in; you see their username instead.

        But sometimes if you’re lucky you find an edit by a User who wasn’t logged in, and it’s possible from the edit content to infer that it’s very probably the same person.

        • Bayleaf

          @Clark

          In the case of “Philip Cross”, have you found anything to infer which IP address(es) “he” was using?

          • Clark

            The short answer is no.

            I once spotted a series of edits by a username, but one in the sequence was an IP address. I don’t remember which username, nor which Wikipedia article.

            Maybe it would be better if Wikipedia always displayed IP addresses, even of editors who are logged in.

  • Merkin Scot

    More grist for the mill. That’s my Easter weekend sorted out now. Thanks, Craig.

  • Tatyana

    Is there any way to see if Philip Cross made corrections to articles about Churchill, Hastings Lionel Ismay, Jonathan Walker and his book “Operation Unthinkable”?
    This whole Philip Cross affair, combined with far-fetched russophobia, looks like a continuation of that old dream of the United States and Britain to destroy the Russians, after Hitler failed to.

  • Steve+Hayes

    Wikipedia is, of course, an instrument of propaganda for the finance and corporate capitalists. William Connolley like Cross has been massively prolific on Wikipedia. However, his area of concern has been the pushing of the Anthropogenic Global Warming propaganda.

    • Mightydrunken

      Sorry to say that anthropogenic global warming is real and William Connolley is real. He just doesn’t suffer fools gladly.

    • wonky

      ..and what’s more “anthropogenic” than weather modification through large-scale geo-engineering programs?

  • Good friday

    You first posted about Philip Cross in 2016. In what sense was the affair secret in 2018 when you noted down that list of twitter followers?

    I think it would be much more pertinent to establish when exactly these journalists and other establishment figures followed him. If it was before you and others had posted about him then that is concerning. But if not, it seems that the journalists at least could claim they were simply following one part of a brewing news story.

    • craig Post author

      When I first posted about Philip Cross in 2016 it got zero traction. It certainly did not inspire a whole set of MSM journalists – and a particular set who despise everything I stand for – to start following Philip Cross to check the story out. They were all following Philip Cross from before the story got big in 2018, which I checked at the time I published the names. You ignore the fact that every single one of these journalists demonstably promotes the neo-con worldview and shares the peculiar political attitudes, and choice of enemies, of the Philip Cross operation.

    • ronan1882

      That probably also explains the Integrity Initiative’s UK cluster of journalists: conscientious professionals following a brewing news story.
      We’re lucky to have such dedicated pursuers of truth.

      • bevin

        And extraordinarily lucky that their dedication does not cost them anything. One’s heart thrills at the thought that these simple truth tellers are being rewarded out of the public purse for their work.

        • Mayeaux Wren

          Tut Tut, I think it’s poor of you to bring up the public purse given the paltry nature of the sums involved. Adjustment for inflation notwithstanding, it was small potatoes then and it’s small potatoes now.

          “You could get a journalist cheaper than a good call girl, for a couple hundred dollars a month.” – CIA operative discussing with Philip Graham, editor Washington Post, on the availability and prices of journalists willing to peddle CIA propaganda and cover stories. “Katherine The Great,” by Deborah Davis (New York: Sheridan Square Press, 1991)

          Clearly journos and other operatives will know to ignore Bevin’s negativity, proud in the knowledge that they are paragons of cost effective value for money – not unlike the sense of satisfaction a cheap prostitute would possess when pooh-poohing lazy expensive prostitutes.

          Cheap prostitutes of the press! We salute you! Hold your inexpensive heads up high!

  • SA

    Brilliant piece of research and journalism.
    It seems to me from that list of followers (subscribers) of Philip Cross that this was a cartel of cross politics journalists spread out on main media in order to echo certain views. Never has this been so blatantly exposed as here. Congratulations.

  • Republicofscotland

    “Interestingly there was a third element – a whole raft of young paid employees of the SNP and a slew of similar wannabe SNP careerists. A fascinating amount of entryist penetration of the SNP has been exposed in this process.”

    I think some folk are keenly aware that the Fourth Estate serves power, those that wish change, or question or oppose it, feel their wrath, through their printed or digital words. We should expect no less from the establishment.

    I do hope Salmond returns to the fray of Scottish independence, as for the SNP they need a good clear out, they’ve become complacent and Machiavellian in some areas.

  • M.J.

    I guess such things ought to be exposed. 1721 days, or the best part of 5 years, daily without a break sounds like a lot of organised commitment, or a job someone needs not to lose! I wonder who paid whom and how much.

  • Rohan

    Terrific connecting of the dots, Craig… makes your work so admirable and satisfying to read. I don’t know how people can get any satisfaction out of internalizing anything less than the best, most honest reporting, such as yours (and surprisingly many other non-mainstream voices).

  • gyges01

    Hi All

    You must remember our pal Crass Sunstein (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cass_Sunstein) who wrote,

    “Because those who hold conspiracy theories typically suffer from a crippled epistemology, in accordance with which it is rational to hold such theories, the best response consists in cognitive infiltration of extremist groups. Various policy dilemmas, such as the question whether it is better for government to rebut conspiracy theories or to ignore them, are explored in this light.”

    doi:10.2139/ssrn.1084585 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1084585 which he published twenty years ago.

    If you have a crippled epistemology (in Crass’ not so ‘umble opinion) you will be cognitively infiltrated.

  • james

    great article craig… keep up the really great work as it is much appreciated.. Dani Garavelli is clearly another paid shill for the empire….

  • Robert

    I can’t get my head round what a sophisticated organisation would call attention to itself by always using the same “Philip Cross” name. It’s the use of the same name which makes it easy for us to see what’s going on.

  • Willie

    And a thank you from me too Craig.

    We all suspect interference propaganda from the hostile state but few of us know the true extent of it. This article lays a little bit more of the dark operation open to public view.

    Only through exposing what is going on, only by educating people to the reality of life under the British yoke of so called freedom, will we ever achieve our aims of a free democratic country. And it can be done and the dark state knows it.

    We need more people like you Craig. Capable and able to support getting the truth out there so that folks can truly see what is going on.

    • Tatyana

      Willie, I noticed that propaganda is not fake news, but a negative assessment of the incoming (true) news.
      For example, when beautiful jazz music from the USA appeared in the post-USSR, there was a common negative saying on this subject: “Сегодня он играет джаз, а завтра родину продаст” – * “today he plays jazz, and tomorrow he will sell his homeland” *.
      I am observing the same thing now in some Western media re. news from Russia. E.g. recently there was news about the supply of Russian medical equipment to the United States and the americans commented on it with the words “f*ck you, Russia.”
      Propaganda, in essence, is teaching citizens to never accept anything from a “hostile state” positively. Propaganda comes from inside, and not from an external enemy at all.

      • SA

        Tatyana
        Jazz music did not first appear in Russia after the end of the Soviet Union. It appeared in the 1920s when even the great Dmitry Shostakovich composed some Jazz music of which this famous valse comes from,
        https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYhZVqODYsI
        But of course soon after Lenin died and Stalin took over there were severe restrictions and Jazz or any foreign influence on music were banned as formalism.

        • Tatyana

          Thanks for the clarification,SA. Although the meaning of my post is different, but partially it is about emotions.

          I am sensitive to most art forms. I believe that images captured in art are like a dictionary of human emotions. It’s proven fact, that the part of the information that is difficult to express in words or mathematical formulas – namely modality and human feelings – this can be expressed by the methods of art and the other side of communication will understand. Art is something global, something that is common to all human beings in the world.
          Art is the dictionary, yes, just like the dictionary we use it. We illustrate our ideas with quotations from literature, cinema, music, painting etc, to make our feelings clearer.

          • SA

            Sorry didn’t mean to be pedantic, just a plug for one of my favourite composers😀.

  • AlexT

    Fascinating stuff – truly

    Reminds me why I have a make a donation as long as it is permissible.

  • Brendan

    Philip Cross is just a puppet in Wikipedia. His boss Jimmy Wales is 100% Blairite and doesn’t hide it
    https://wikipediocracy.com/2015/06/01/how-jimmy-wales-rode-tony-blairs-coattails/
    https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cherie_Blair_Jimmy_Wales_Allan_Warren.JPG

    Jimmy Wales joined other celebrities in an anti-Corbyn open letter, “Concerns about antisemitism mean we cannot vote Labour” https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/nov/14/concerns-about-antisemitism-mean-we-cannot-vote-labour

  • John

    Wonder if the changes could be word analysed for technique, word use etc and related to people via articles they may have written… and so potentially identify them…

    • Leftworks

      That method of analysis is called stylometry, and it can, and has, been done, and the results of comparative stylometric analysis carried out on certain of Philip Cross’s writings are breathtaking. They are not yet public. But Neil Clark has referred to them obliquely in a couple of articles he has authored.

      When public, these results are going to fling a large and spectacularly ugly cat among the pigeons.

      [ Mod: Indeed. Similar methods have been used here since 2018 to identify known trolls and sockpuppet identities. We repel them on a regular basis, initially several times a day but now only a couple of times a week – except for an extraordinary surge during the Alex Salmond trial. The results are very interesting indeed. Unfortunately, giving more details could compromise the defences; ultimately, it’s Craig’s call. ]

      • Tatyana

        Leftworks
        You have already made some intriguing statements in this comment thread. Now I can’t wait to find out.
        For several days I’ve been tormented by the question of whether Alex Salmond and Jeremy Corbin have cats, too, as all good people must have 🙂
        Now, to my insomnia the fault of your fishing hook will be added. This is heartless!

        • Tatyana

          I’m so sorry to cause trouble to good people by possible misuse of the english words by me. Please read the word ‘cat’ as ‘kitten’, ‘couse I mean a domestic pet.
          And the name is not Corbin, but Sir Jeremy Bernard Corbyn.

          • J Galt

            My partner and I have five of the little nuisances, that must make us very good indeed!

          • Tatyana

            J Galt, that makes you five times better people than me 🙂 I am only thinking about whether my small dwelling can accommodate the second.
            Respect!

          • nevermind

            Two ofmypast cats got killed by tbeir curiosity for turning car wheels. Sincethen I have repented from owning anothet moggy.

            Today a stonemason friend of mine toldme ofhis lockdown exploits. He is exercising at night by walking to hislocal station, with his cat following him. He talks to het and they both check out the last train to London every night. He is on thespectrum and talks to his cat. After sitting down, watching the last, at present largely empty train, they bothgo for a two hour walk, stopping in the towns ancient churchburial ground, purelyfor the cats entertainment/hunting and then proceed for home.
            He is thebeststonemason I know and his work is gracing royal abodes.
            Its all about felines and asa gardener I resent the neighboursmoggiesrelieving themselves in my seedbeds. Grrrr.

  • canda

    Some observations that may bear no relevance;
    —————

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Dacre
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Aaronovitch
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Harding_(journalist)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Kamm

    —————–

    Aside from the Oxbridge links to this group of spooks above, they all seem to be individually connected to Hampstead, North London through childhood/parents/grandparents. All seem to be connected to the Jewish community? Did someone (leftwork?) mention they located Cross in the Leicester or Leicester-shire area?

    Craig: ”The incredible thing about “Philip Cross” was that he never took a single day off. From 29 August 2013 to 14 May 2018 “Philip Cross” edited Wikipedia every day, including Christmas days, for 1,721 days.”

    It is not ‘incredible’ at all. He has severe Asperger’s, which makes his 24/7/365 obsessive online behaviour pretty easy to understand. What is interesting is that Cross edits his personal wikipedia page on the 28th June 2012 to advertise his twitter handle and email. (Was this when he gained more business (an uptick) maintaining wikipedia profiles? More editing work?)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Philip_Cross&diff=499771640&oldid=498663605

    changed to just contact through twitter only in May 2013

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Philip_Cross&diff=next&oldid=529149258

    Can data be correlated between Crosses increase in wikipedia work/editing from those dates on wards and when specific twitter people began following him?

  • Ian+Brotherhood

    It appears that ‘Philip Cross’ is a hapless version of Winston Smith.
    ‘What? Someone’s been operating a memory-hole on our watch? It must have been him!’
    Truly fucking horrendous.
    Have just linked this piece to Wings. Hope it gets the attention it deserves.
    Greetings Craig, from sunny Ayrshire, as aye!
    🙂

1 2 3

Comments are closed.