Are You More Pepsi or Coca-Cola?

This question is meant to anger your attention while also delving into Cold War history.

And yeah, we are going to discuss Pepsi, so please allow me to ask you a serious question:

Did you know that roughly 35 years ago, Pepsi possessed the world’s sixth largest naval fleet? Pepsi had enough weapons at that point in history to wage war on anyone who dared to oppose it.

But first, let us go in order.

How it all started

In 1959, then-US President Dwight Eisenhower decided to send a group of American cultural icons to the Soviet Union as part of a charity tour, i.e. the US and the USSR agreed to stage cultural exhibitions in their respective countries to highlight their respective lifestyles and achievements.

Among them was Donald Kendall, vice president of Pepsi, who had a bright idea: why not introduce the Soviets to the sweet taste of capitalism by offering them free Pepsi samples?

The American exhibition in Moscow included a model American house in which Vice President Richard Nixon and Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev engaged in a heated dispute over capitalism and communism known as the “kitchen debate.”

They were comparing the advantages of communism and capitalism while analysing the latest technologies and consumer products for the American people. A Pepsi vending machine was one of the exhibition’s highlights.

It was a hot July day, and the talk was tight because everyone was thirsty.

The Pepsi vending machine was one of the show’s highlights, and Donald M. Kendall, the company’s vice president of marketing at the time, provided refreshments in the form of a glass of Pepsi.

The photo that Kendall took of Khrushchev sipping Pepsi went viral in the US media and became the most successful Pepsi campaign ever.

The Soviet premier reportedly said, “This is very refreshing,” and loved it so much that he asked for another.

Since this was the first time a Soviet leader had ever sampled an American product in public, it was a historic occasion.

How Pepsi was introduced to the Soviet Union

The Soviet market was mostly blocked to Western products; therefore, Pepsi took advantage of this chance to penetrate it.

In 1972, Pepsi made history as the first foreign consumer product to be sold in the USSR, following years of negotiations.

But there was a catch: Pepsi was unable to accept Soviet rubbles as payment since they were worthless outside of the USSR and could not be exchanged for other currencies.

Pepsi struck a deal with the Soviet Union to resolve this matter: in exchange for rubbles, Pepsi would obtain Stolichnayaya vodka, which it would thereafter market in the US and other nations.

Both sides benefited from this agreement, which allowed Pepsi to increase sales in the Soviet Union and gave Stolichnayaya access to new markets.

Significant 1989 events

But by 1989, circumstances had altered. Once the USSR invaded Afghanistan, the US placed sanctions on Soviet goods, including vodka.

As a result, Pepsi was unable to continue selling Stolichnaya in its primary market.

Pepsi needed to renegotiate the terms of its deal with the USSR since it was about to expire.

Donald Kendall, the CEO of Pepsi at the time, came to Moscow to meet with Soviet officials. Kendall had personally mediated the agreement with Khrushchev thirty years before.

The Soviets were unwilling to give him the hard currency he demanded—$3 billion for his syrup.

Rather, they put out a novel suggestion: they would provide Pepsi with a fleet of navy ships that they could not afford to maintain or needed.

Pepsi ruled by waves

After accepting this offer, Kendall went on to acquire 17 destroyers, cruisers, frigates, and submarines.

This surpassed the fleets of nations like Australia and Spain to make Pepsi’s the sixth largest in the world at the time, according to some estimates.

Naturally, Pepsi has no plans to maintain or use these vessels. With a rapid $3 million profit, he sold them to a Swedish scrap metal company.

After that, Kendall made a joke about having “Disarmed the USSR faster than Reagan.”

Brutal truth

Although the tale of Pepsi’s military takeover is intriguing, it is untrue to state that the soft drink giant became a naval powerhouse because of the agreement.

When Pepsi purchased the decommissioned Soviet warships, they were not equipped for combat. They were in different states and had retired from active duty.

Pepsi had more expertise selling snacks and soft drinks than planning military operations, therefore it was obvious that the business could not deploy the ships for military purposes.

Even though this historical occurrence is funny, it’s vital to remember that selling surplus military hardware is not unusual.

These devices have been bought by numerous nations for a variety of uses, such as film projects or museum exhibits.

What the end of the Cold War signifies for us

Although Pepsi’s seafaring journey was brief, it had a significant historical impact.

It demonstrated how a soft drink manufacturer can participate in global politics and diplomacy as well as how trade can unite people despite ideological divides and foster mutual gain.

He also demonstrated how unusual problems can be solved creatively to overcome obstacles that appear insurmountable.

One of the odder incidents of the Cold War was Pepsi’s acquisition of the Navy, but it also represented the realities and events of the time.

According to Kendall, “We disarm them financially.”

They were disarming—of metals that were not needed.

“Qu’ils mangent de la brioche”
“Let them eat cake”

She married at the age of 14 and was 19 when she and her husband, Louis XVI, ascended to the French throne.

She was worshipped and challenged, dragged through the mud, and elevated to the heavens, lived in a palace, and died on the guillotine.

This is the story of Marie Antoinette, France’s final ruler, an egotistical waste of time, and a victim of disinformation/misinformation.

Court life in Austria

Marie Antoinette was born in Vienna on November 2, 1755, as the 15th child and 11th daughter of Empress Maria Theresa and Holy Roman Emperor Franz I Stephen. A court official described Antoinette as “a small but perfectly healthy Archduchess.”

Her sisters married in royal courts around Europe. To preserve the Austrian-French alliance, they proposed to King Louis XV of France that his grandson marry one of Maria Theresa’s daughters.

The older sisters, Johanna Gabriel, and Marie Joseph, were scheduled to marry first, but they died of smallpox, so it was Marie Antoinette’s turn.

Following lengthy negotiations, the French king declared Marie Antoinette to marry his grandson in 1769.

When the marriage contract was finalised, Maria Theresa learned that her daughter was unfamiliar with French culture or language. As a result, a huge number of tutors were assigned to prepare Marie Antoinette for her future as Queen of France.

Versailles

Marie Antoinette headed out for France with an entourage and fourteen carriages. At the French-German border, she was asked to hand over all of her belongings, including clothing, servants, and friends, as a symbolic act of renunciation of her Austrian identity.

After many negotiations, she was granted permission to keep the dog.

They dressed her in French costume and took her to Strasbourg, where she was honoured in a grand ceremony. They left for Versailles after a few days.

At Versailles, King Louis XV of France and other members of the royal family greeted Marie. Louis XVI, a shy young man, was to become her future husband and the heir to the French kingdom. He was her senior by one year.

A spectacular wedding with a thousand guests was held in the legendary “Gallery of Mirrors” at Versailles. Marie Antoinette was given a large diamond collection before to her marriage.

The newlyweds were then led to the matrimonial bed, which had been blessed by the Archbishop of Reims. The young couple’s marriage, however, was not consummated that evening or for many years afterwards.

For seven years, the marriage was not consummated

The couple’s most crucial task after marriage was to bear an heir to the kingdom. During the early years of her reign, Marie Antoinette was mostly despised and blamed for this.

Specifically, the couple did not marry even seven years after their wedding, for which Maria was fully responsible. When we put things into perspective, it’s not so strange.

When Marie Antoinette arrived at the French court, she was just 15 years old, and Louis was 16. Both were still in their twenties when they were tasked with reconciling the world’s two superpowers.

Madame de Bari, King Louis XV’s mistress, was also hostile to Louis XVI, the young heir to the throne. Di Bari was a courtesan who rose through the ranks to become a lady of the nobility. Di Bari tried several plots and intrigues to turn King Louis XV against Marie Antoinette, but after the king’s death, she was exiled from the court.

Court life in France

Marie Antoinette’s daily life was not extremely interesting. Every morning, the maids helped her get out of bed and dressed. She was depressed and missing the Austrian court, which was her home.

When Marie Antoinette initially arrived at the French court, her origins were mocked, and she was usually viewed as a simpleton.

Versailles was a court where absurd customs and rumours were utilised to distract inhabitants from the real difficulties.

To fit in, Marie Antoinette began to spend an increasing amount of time selecting fabrics for gorgeous gowns, styling her signature hairstyle, and gambling. New problems arose just when the other courtiers began to accept her for it.

She was uninterested in politics, which irritated the Austrian court because she was meant to increase Austrian influence at the French court, but she did nothing.

The Reign and the Coronation

After King Louis XV died, Louis Auguste was crowned King of France, and Marie Antoinette succeeded him as Queen of France.

At the time of the coronation, bread was in short supply in Paris.

The credited to Marie Antoinette line “If they have no bread, let them eat cakes” (French: “S’ils n’ont plus de pain, qu’ils mangent de la brioche.”) is misquoted in this context.

That is not anything Marie Antoinette is known to have said.

When she learnt of the bread shortage, she observed, “It is certain that the people treated us well in spite of their own misfortune.” We must work harder than ever before to assure their happiness.”

They were greeted warmly by the crowd, and the young queen was magnificently dressed.

It was revealed after the coronation that she had little political influence over her husband. While Louis squandered money on futile wars, all eyes were on Marie Antoinette and her creations, as well as her gambling.

When she became queen, she began to cry because she was worried about why she didn’t have children. Marie Antoinette disliked boredom, thus the topics of discussion in her circle had to be far from worldly or intellectual in nature.

Serious discussions were not permitted in that circle, and the other courtiers felt cut off from the queen’s restricted company.

She quickly began disguising herself and attending Parisian opera balls. This is how she is said to pay her secret boyfriends visits. She started spending a lot more money because she didn’t know how much it was worth.

She mostly spent her money on clothes, diamonds, and video games.

Motherhood

Things began to calm down when Marie Antoinette became pregnant for the first time.

Many people were disappointed when Maria gave birth to the girl Maria Theresa Charlotte seven years after the wedding. Louis, who had a health condition that made sex difficult for him, was the reason the couple did not marry for years.

Of course, Antoinette bore the brunt of the blame at the moment, with claims flying around Paris that she was in a relationship with several other men and so uninterested in Louis, and later that her children were not Louis’s either.

According to royal custom, the newborn was referred to as “Madame Royale,” the appellation given to the eldest daughter of French kings. Because “a son belongs to the state, and a daughter belongs to her,” Marie Antoinette was especially fond of her daughter.

After Madame Royal, three more children were born: a daughter named Sophie Beatriz and two sons, Louis Joseph, the heir to the throne, and Louis Charles, Duke of Normandy (Louis XVII).

Marie Antoinette’s luxury dwindled as she aged. She got involved in philanthropic work and dedicated her life to assisting children. After she hit thirty, she stopped buying valuable stones and began dressing more conservatively and modestly. She matured into a more measured and modest individual.

The revolution’s “night before”

The royal family suffered two major personal setbacks. Sophie Beatriz, the royal couple’s youngest daughter, died before turning one year old, and soon after, Crown Prince Louis Joseph, the eldest son, had a fatal case of tuberculosis and died.

The French government was severely in debt as a result of costly wars and inefficient taxation. The monarch convened a gathering of nobles to discuss the problem and potential solutions. However, the nobility were unable to come up with a solution. The king then called an assembly of the estates in May 1789. The assembly of estates was the primary organisation that represented the French people.

The ultra-monarchist elites of Versailles feared the assembly of the estates.

On July 11, 1789, the queen and the king’s brother, Count d’Artois, persuaded the king to sack the reformist minister and reorganise the administration because they feared the reformists in the assembly of estates were plotting the monarchy’s demise.

The new prime minister, Baron de Bretaille, became close to the queen. The Baron de Bretay was a royalist and a devoted Catholic. Many Parisians openly revolted, fearing that this was the beginning of the king’s takeover. Some army members supported the crowd, while others did not.

July 14th is Bastille Day

A large crowd marched towards Paris’s Bastille jail, a symbol of regal power. They gained control of the prison on July 14, 1789. They lynched two MPs who supported the king and the prison warden. That was the beginning of the French Revolution.

The royal court was in disarray, and many courtiers fled. However, Louis XVI chose to remain at Versailles.

Versailles’ demise

On October 5, 1789, Paris was notified that the monarch was stockpiling all of the grain. A hungry and agitated throng descended on Versailles. During a brief meeting, the queen begged the king once more to leave Versailles. The king declined once more.

The mob slaughtered the king’s guard, which was made up of Swiss mercenaries, after breaking into the palace in the early hours of the morning.

When a mob attacked the queen’s quarters. A large crowd gathered in the castle courtyard demanded that the queen emerge onto the balcony.

She arrived in a nightgown with two children. The queen stood alone on the balcony in front of the crowd for ten minutes.

She then bowed and returned. The crowd screamed “Long live the queen” after being moved by the queen’s bravery.

Monarchy with a constitution

A well-known constitutional assembly member secretly met with Marie Antoinette in an attempt to restore full royal authority, but the talks failed.

With the decision to revoke the privileges of the Catholic Church in 1790, any hope of a compromise between the king and the revolutionaries vanished. By 1791, both the monarch and queen had concluded that the republic would ruin France. They decided to flee to Montmedier, a royalist bastion in eastern France, where they planned to rally supporters.

However, the king was taken prisoner at Varen. The local rebels returned the king to Paris in the Tuileries castle. This exemplified the monarch’s and royal family’s resistance to the Republic.

Following that, Marie Antoinette attempted to preserve the monarchy by secretly negotiating with the head of the legislative group of constitutional monarchists.

The monarchy was declared illegal by the National Convention on September 21, 1792, after the republicans had held the king on August 13, 1792. The royal family was then transported to a stronghold to prevent the king from being liberated later. Following that, violence erupted in Paris.

On December 11, 1792, King Louis XVI was judged guilty of treason and sentenced to death on January 17, 1793. On January 21, 1793, he was executed by guillotine.

The Guillotine and the Prison

Marie Antoinette never seemed to recover from the king’s death. When the guards roused Marie Antoinette up at two a.m. on August 2, 1793, she refused to get dressed. Her daughter was taken away from her and she was brought to the Concierge prison. “Widow Capet” was her given name.

From so on, she was known as Antoinette Capet, or Prisoner No. 280, rather than Marie Antoinette. Marie Antoinette was placed under intensive monitoring after her failed escape.

The trial took place on October 14, 1793. The prosecution called forty witnesses. Marie Antoinette was found guilty of treason and sentenced to death on October 15, 1793. The following day, October 16, she was executed by guillotine.

On October 16, 1793, the guards arrived at her cell early, cut her hair, and shackled her hands behind her back. They drove her through the streets of Paris for an hour until they arrived at Revolution Square, the location of the guillotine.

“Now is the moment, madam, to arm yourself with courage,” the priest who was with her murmured in hushed tones as she climbed out of the car and observed the guillotine.

“Courage?,”

Marie Antoinette chuckled as she turned to face him. My fearlessness will not abandon me when my problems are resolved.

According to folklore, her final words were “Excuse me, sir,” as she stumbled over the executioner’s foot.

Marie Antoinette was executed by guillotine at 12:15 p.m.

Conclusion

As a result, one of history’s most misunderstood ladies died at the hands of the guillotine, having nothing.

She was left without her family, her children, whom she loves beyond all else, contaminated by her husband’s lies and incompetence.

We did not begin to perceive her life from the perspective of a young lady entering the unknown, whose life was governed by men whose incompetence eventually led to her death, until many years later.

She is only one example of how difficult it was to be a woman in a world controlled by males, even in the best of conditions.

“Age cannot wither her, nor custom stale Her infinite variety. Other women cloy The appetites they feed, but she makes hungry Where most she satisfies; for vilest things Become themselves in her, that the holy priests Bless her when she is riggish.”
William Shakespeare

 

Cleopatra, the Enchanting Egyptian Queen, Who Was She?

When she was very young, she realised that sex is the route to power and the kingdom.

Despite her “disastrous” looks, her speech and views enthralled. The majority of people knew who she was, especially because of her ageless beauty, but many were oblivious of her intelligence and ability to influence others around her in order to achieve her own goals.

Her signature scent was jasmine oil, which she used to anoint her chest and hair, as well as bathe her ships’ sails in.

Cleopatra VII was an empress of the Roman Empire. With her political and romantic qualities, Egypt’s final ruler influenced the history of Egypt and the entire Roman Empire.

Cleopatra, the attractive, clever, and sadly misfortuned ruler of Egypt, was obsessed with collecting wealth and power.

Despite her ulterior motives and selfishness, Cleopatra harboured a secret belief in real love, which is why she periodically acted impulsively.

Her life was filled with romantic dramas and secrets, but she was also willing to go to any length to protect her people and ensure their prosperity.

Cleopatra’s Struggle for The Throne

Cleopatra is one of the few well-known monarchs who had a substantial impact on world history. She was a Ptolemaic dynasty monarch of Greek origin and one of the few to study Egyptian.

She was also highly renowned for her intelligence. She was one of the few Egyptian rulers who could speak Egyptian, had a solid education, and could communicate in other languages. She liked to hang around with academics and was knowledgeable in astronomy, philosophy, and mathematics.

Despite scheming and turbulence during her rise to power, she remained on the throne for 22 years. Her reign began with some upheaval as she co-ruled Egypt with her younger brother, who was also her husband. She did, however, eventually establish herself as the independent ruler who makes all choices.

Cleopatra, the child of Ptolemy XII and Cleopatra, was born in 70 BC, and their dynasty was known for having related wives.

During the Ptolemaic dynasty, it was common for brothers and sisters to marry.

Women controlled Egypt as equals to their husbands and had greater education. Cleopatra, for example, was a skilled orator who studied rhetoric, philosophy, and other arts.

Cleopatra was only 17 years old when she came to share the throne with her brother. The brother was only twelve years old at the time. Egyptian law compelled him to marry his brother in order for them to share power as co-rulers. She complied, but there was soon an open power battle between the two. Conflicts were exacerbated by famine, floods, and substantial economic concerns.

Cleopatra was forced to flee Egypt after failing to depose her brother from power. She took refuge in Syria, where she amassed her own armed forces in order to gain the power she craved. She returned to Egypt in 48 BC to confront and dethrone her brother.

Cleopatra’s first love was Julius Caesar

At the same time, Rome was in the grip of a civil war, and the struggle for the crown between Julius Caesar and Pompey proved terrible for the Roman Republic. Pompey fled to Egypt, but Ptolemy, Cleopatra’s brother, had him killed.

Julius Caesar had no knowledge Pompey had been slain; he had followed him to Egypt with the intention of murdering him, but fate had led him to the site where he first met Cleopatra, who captivated him.

Cleopatra considered Caesar as both her protector and a stepping stone to the throne.

Ptolemy’s army was quickly defeated on the Nile River, and Ptolemy himself was killed while fleeing.

As a result, Cleopatra rose to the throne and became Egypt’s ruler.

Cleopatra and Caesar had a son named Caesarion, and Cleopatra travelled to Rome with Caesar. Caesar was killed in Rome in 44 BC. Cleopatra returned to Egypt.

Following her return, she named her son Caesarion as her co-ruler, whom Gaius Julius Caesar refused to recognise as his illegitimate child but whom everyone knew was Caesar’s offspring.

Her authority in Egypt at the time was supposed to reconstruct the state, establish temples, and spark a great intellectual revival. Famine and an epidemic ravaged Egypt a year later, and Cleopatra needed a strong ally by her side to help her hold power in such difficult conditions.

Then her new lover appears on the scene.

The passionate love of Cleopatra and Mark Antony

When Mark Antony came to power in Rome, he sent envoys to Cleopatra, asking her to come to Rome to be investigated and to confirm her loyalty to Rome.

She made the decision to go to Rome, and she did so magnificently. She planned to demonstrate all of Egypt’s beauty, wealth, and splendour to Mark Antony, so she arrived in Rome in luxury. Antoni was attracted by her beauty and charisma and fell in love with her right away.

Despite the fact that Antony already had a valid wife in Rome, Antony and Cleopatra married.

Their romance lasted a long time and produced three children, and the terrible conclusion revealed their love to everyone.

As Mark gave over sections of the empire to Cleopatra and her family (Crete, Cyprus, Cyrene, Palestine, and Tarsus), the Roman Senate became enraged. Cleopatra and Mark Antony had twins, Alexander Helios (Sun) and Cleopatra Selene (Moon). Cleopatra Selene was crowned queen of Cyrenaica and Crete, while Alexander Helios was named king of the Seleucid Empire. Ptolemy Philadelphos, the son of Cleopatra and Mark Antony, was appointed king of Syria and Asia Minor at the age of two.

After divorcing his Roman wife Octavia, Mark Antony was obliged to disclose his affair with Cleopatra. His displeasure at his acts reached a climax when he had Cleopatra’s name etched on Roman coins. Octavian declared war on Egypt, and the Egyptian army was defeated on the Greek shore in the classic battle of Actium in 31 BC.

Cleopatra and Antony reached an arrangement in which Cleopatra provided Mark Antony with military and financial support in order for him to become ruler of Rome, and he promised to return to her the parts of Egypt that were under Roman authority. They joined forces to fight Octavian, culminating in a legendary sea battle.

They took part in a great sea battle along Greece’s western coast in 31 BC. In that fight, the Egyptians, who couldn’t compete with the Roman army, received the short end of the stick. Antony and Cleopatra fled to Egypt.

After a while, Antony learned that Cleopatra had died.

Antony reacted to the news by committing suicide with a knife since the notion of life without his wife was too much for him. The news was false, but Cleopatra died soon after: after learning of her husband’s death, she committed herself by biting a snake.

As a result, the Egyptians believe she attained immortality.

She died on August 12, 30 BC, and was buried alongside Mark Antony. She was Egypt’s last ruler, and the kingdom became a Roman province after her death.

She proved that a woman can be both strong and alluring, and that she should and can attain her objectives, whether they are those of power, love, family, the perfect eyeliner, or all of the above.

“I have not spent a day without loving you; I have not spent a night without clasping you in my arms; I have not drunk a cup of tea without cursing the glory and ambition which keep me from the heart of my very being. In the midst of my activities, whether at the head of my troops or inspecting the camps, my adorable Josephine stands alone in my heart, she occupies my mind and fills my thoughts.”

 

This is a love letter from Napoleon to his beloved Josephine, whom he truly loved till the end, despite his numerous lovers, affairs, and divorce.

The first point of interaction

Napoleon was only 26 years old when he met Josephine, a young widow with two children, in 1795. Her husband, a French viscount, had been sentenced to death by guillotine the previous year.

She was the girlfriend of several well-known politicians, and she was the companion of Paul Barras, who wanted to marry his expensive mistress with Napoleon since he couldn’t sustain two mistresses.

She was ideal for the young General Bonaparte, who wanted to marry an affluent, mature, and serious aristocrat at the time, he stated.

And Josephine met every need. Napoleon fell in love unintentionally the first time they met at a party. Her charisma, intelligence, and impeccable taste drew him over. She, on the other hand, disliked him.

But Josephine, who was rather extravagant and lived a luxury lifestyle, couldn’t afford to give up the way of life she and her children had become accustomed to. Out of curiosity, she agreed to his courtship and married him right immediately.

Marriage for the sake of convenience

Neither her nor his families were in favour of the marriage. She was older, she already had two children, it was doubtful whether she would be able to give birth, and she had a reputation as a lady with questionable morals who was prone to changing boyfriends on a regular basis.

Despite this, she had a certain social standing, was well-liked by others, and was skilled at forming alliances and making contacts with those in positions of power.

Her friends considered Napoleon to be a lesser commander with little money who was constantly on the battlefield.

Napoleon had to travel quickly after his marriage since he was in love and wanted to be constantly with his bride.

He wrote her letters every day, full of adoration, love, and good words, and she responded that he loves her from afar. She continued to live a promiscuous life of sexual encounters, looking for reasons to join him.

 

“Because you weren’t writing to your husband….” Oh, my darling, that ‘Vous’ and those four days made me miss my previous apathy… My spirit is heavy; my heart is bound, and my fantasies disgust me…You love me less now, but you’ll get over it. Say it; I’ll know how to be worthy of this catastrophe when you no longer love me. Farewell, wife, anguish, joy, hope, and the beating heart of my being, whom I love and fear, and who inspires in me delicate sentiments that draw me near to Nature as well as passionate impulses as volcanic as Etna.”

 

He made love fast and hard

He felt upset and decided to leave her after discovering how she behaves while he is away, and he was the last to learn it.

He did not choose to divorce her, but he did choose to overlook his adulterous wife. Even so, the fickle Josephine was not happy.

It wasn’t until then that she began to miss him. She stopped cheating on him and decided to devote herself completely to him, making herself available to him at all times.

Even though he still loved her, he began to distance himself and began dating someone else at that moment.

Aside from that, he adored and cared for her children and didn’t want to be without Josephine’s ability to persuade others of what was best for him. She was also good at it.

In his letters, he remained sensitive: “I’m well. You have my love and my yearning. In my opinion, there is only one woman in the world. My lone love, Josephine, is gentle, eccentric, and prone to rage, but she battles and handles everything with such elegance because she is so interesting.”

He was a passionate and brutal lover. Napoleon could love like a firefighter putting out a fire, according to Josephine. However, she made so much noise while having fun that her yells usually scared half the court.

He never ceased caring about her.

Napoleon and Josephine divorced five years after she became Empress. The cause was that she did not bear a child and leave an heir. Josephine found the explanation difficult to take, but she agreed to let Napoleon marry a younger woman who could bear him an heir. However, the ex-couple maintained a friendly relationship.

Her infertility is supposed to be the only thing standing between them. He gave Josephine and her children his whole attention until the end.

She was granted permission to use the castle at Malmaison, which is not far from Paris, and she began producing roses there. There were up to 250 different types of roses in her garden.

 

“I want to see you!” he wrote to her a few months after the divorce. I’ll be in Malmaison at the end of the month because I’m dying to see you!”

 

He didn’t stop writing her love messages. He recognised at the end of his life that his new wife, the Austrian princess Matthias Louise, was helpful since she bore him a son, but Josephine filled his life with true love and was his unwavering support in everything.

When she died, he wept for days.

Josephine died of pneumonia four years after her divorce, allegedly as a result of a cold she caught while strolling around the Malmaison gardens with Russian Emperor Alexander I.

Napoleon was exiled to the island of Elbi in the same month that she died, and he learned of her death while still fighting for his life. Napoleon then allegedly secluded himself in a room for two days, refusing to come out.

The final words he whispered on his deathbed were “Josephine.”

He wore the violets she gave him as a necklace around his neck until his death.

LOVE

The fate of Muammar Gaddafi, Libya’s former leader, is known; he died on October 20, 2011, but that is another story.

The former first lady, Safia Farkas Gaddafi, has long been “under the radar” of the media.

Her life story, on the other hand, is intriguing and may have a relation to my own country. As you are all aware, I was born in Croatia, one of the former Yugoslav republics.

Origin

There are two contradicting claims concerning Muammar Gaddafi’s widow’s origins.

Safija Farkas Gaddafi is of Croatian or Hungarian heritage, according to one account, and her family is from Mostar, Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Farkas is a common Hungarian name that means “wolf,” and Safiya’s grandfather was allegedly Ivan Farkas, a minor Hungarian official stationed in Mostar during the Austro-Hungarian empire.

She is a Bosnian Croat from Mostar, where she met her future husband while he was studying at a Yugoslav military facility in the years leading up to his coup in Libya in 1969.

Another theory states that the former Libyan first lady is from the Barasa tribe in eastern Libya, was born in Baida, and trained as a nurse. She met Libya’s leader, Muammar Gaddafi, while he was hospitalised and being treated for appendicitis in 1970, thanks to her job.

The following year, she married him for the second time. Gaddafi and Safia have seven children (six males and one girl) and have adopted two.

20 tonnes of gold and $30 billion in bank deposits

Safia did not make an impression at the start of the marriage. Farkash was chosen vice president of the African First Ladies Organisation during an African Union leaders’ meeting in Sharm al-Sheikh in 2008, despite the fact that she was not there and has never engaged in its operations.

She just began making more public appearances after 2009. She prepared a party to commemorate the anniversary of her husband’s 1969 revolution, and she attended the graduation of female police students in 2010.

The media focused on her wealth and the extravagant lifestyle she led with her husband.

For years, it was rumoured that she had 20 tonnes of gold and her own jet. She was the owner of the airline “Burak Air,” which operated out of Mitiga International Airport. Despite the fact that this company competed with the Libyan national carrier, she worked under her husband’s permission.

The International Coalition Against War Criminals, based in France, estimated Gaddafi’s wealth to reach 80 billion dollars in 1992, while Safia had up to 30 billion dollars.

So, how about right now?

Safia’s current financial situation is unknown, but her accounts were once suspended. During the Libyan war, a UN ruling barred Libyan and Gaddafi assets, and the governments of the United Kingdom and France later approved a second mining embargo that froze 18 billion pounds of Safia Farkas’ assets.

Furthermore, in March 2012, the UAE Central Bank ordered all banks and financial institutions in the country to freeze the accounts of Safia Farkas and other high-ranking Gaddafi regime officials.

After escaping Libya and spending practically the whole civil war there, exile Safia settled in Algeria with her daughter Aisha and sons Muhammad and Hannibal.

As the battle for Tripoli drew to a close, the Gaddafi family was forced to flee to Algeria from their fortified bastion.

As the Battle for Tripoli neared its conclusion in mid-August, the family was forced to flee their fortified property. At the time, Algerian authorities refuted the reports.

On August 27, 2011, the Egyptian news agency Mena reported that six armoured Mercedes-Benz limousines carrying Libyan rebels were seen crossing the border in the southwestern Libyan city of Ghadames towards Algeria. Gaddafi was not among them; it was later confirmed.

On August 29, Algerian authorities formally confirmed that Safia had entered the country early that day with her daughter Ayesha and sons Muhammad and Hannibal.

According to an Algerian Foreign Ministry spokesman, all of the convoy’s passengers had arrived in Algiers and were not named on any of the ICC’s warrants for potential war crimes prosecution.

The family had arrived in a Mercedes and a bus at a Sahara desert entry point. According to unconfirmed accounts, there were “many children” at the event, but Gaddafi was not among them.

The Algerian government then informed the leader of the Libyan National Transitional Council, who had not formally requested their return, that the group had been given humanitarian admission.

They left their Algerian refuge in October 2012 to fly to Oman, where they were granted political asylum.

Rumours

There were rumours that she was in Germany at one point, but this was never confirmed.

Rumours reportedly spread that she had purchased a home in Makarska, a small Croatian seaside town, and planned to settle there.

In 2013, the widow of Muammar Gaddafi, Libya’s deposed leader, requested assistance from the UN and the EU in identifying her husband’s and son Mutassim’s remains. Furthermore, Safia urged that the African Union investigate Gaddafi’s and their son’s deaths. Gaddafi and his son were seized and executed by revolutionary soldiers on October 20, 2011. Their bodies were discovered in the Misurata harbour after being buried at an unidentified location.

In April 2016, the Tripoli administration granted her permission to re-enter Libya.

The truth regarding Muammar Gaddafi’s widow’s roots will remain unknown, but what “connects” Safia and me, according to one story, is that we are both from Croatia, albeit through Hungarian heritage.

And who knows, maybe I’ll run into her on Makarska’s waterfront next summer.

With the rise of social media and an increasingly interconnected world, the internet has become a double-edged sword, offering countless opportunities for communication, commerce, and information sharing, but also providing fertile ground for scammers to exploit unsuspecting victims.

Australia, like many other countries, is no stranger to the scourge of online scams, but what’s surprising is the array of unexpected ways in which Australians are falling victim to these malicious actors – and how they are unknowingly feeding the beast.

Close to 75 per cent of scams are carried out by information the victims have supplied to the scammer themselves. And as platforms such as Instagram and TikTok explode in popularity, more and more people (primarily young adults) are pretty well handing the keys to their intellectual property over to scammers by unknowingly revealing personal information.

Many Instagram users are doing the exact same thing – with people flashing their overseas holidays and giving scammers a clear view into the fact that they aren’t at home or even in their home country.

The tactics employed by scammers are evolving and with the rise of AI – this will only make it harder for individuals to spot the warning signs. I’m going to discuss the ways Australians are being targeted that you have probably never thought of and what we can do to protect ourselves from falling into these deceptive traps now and into 2024.

TikTok & Take

As the algorithm favours people getting more personal on social media, there has been a massive spike in Instagram and TikTok personalities and alike showcasing all aspects of their lives on their public feeds – from talking to a camera while walking around the house or uploading a dance trend with the exterior of their home in full view.

Many wouldn’t realise scammers are harnessing this content looking for clues, personal information in the background or even trying to hone in on the exact address and movements of these characters – some making huge wealth on the platform. Australians need to get more aware of what they are posting online and how it might attract scammers – check your backgrounds excessively and make sure you’re not giving anything away.

The Crowdsourcing Criminals

With identity theft, a range of doors open for scammers – one that is seeing major prominence is the ‘GoFundMe’ fraudsters who use fake identities or create stories to source millions of dollars fraudulently.

A recent example out of the USA saw a woman face three years in prison for her part in raising close to $600,000 for a made-up homeless good samaritan that she wanted to support.

Stories like this pop up all the time and it pays to use your intuition when it comes to these fundraisers and do your background research to confirm the legitimacy of the fundraiser.

Fake Job Offers: Promises of Prosperity

Time and time again in my work, I hear tragic stories of people falling victim to the promise of a well-paying job. Not only that, but as a migrant myself – many people looking for a fresh start in Australia are some of the prime targets for these types of scams.

More scammers in 2023 are opting to pose as potential employers, offering fake job opportunities that require an upfront payment or asking someone to share a range of personal details – often leading to identity theft or financial losses.

Research is your best friend when it comes to protecting yourself from these scams in 2024 and never pay money upfront for employment opportunities. Legitimate employers will never ask for your personal or financial information before hiring.

Investment Schemes: A Mirage of Wealth

With the rise of more financial-related podcasts, books and content, more Australians are investing their hard-earned money in a range of different platforms in pursuit of growing their money quickly.

With this in mind and again with the rise of AI, we can see a spike in investment scams on the 2024 horizon.

Scammers entice victims with promises of high returns, but they have no intention of delivering. These schemes often lead to significant financial losses and shattered dreams.

Be sceptical of investment schemes that promise unrealistic returns, and never invest money you can’t afford to lose.

My top tip to stay scam-safe as we move into 2024 is to really use your imagination and try to ‘think like a scammer’ when posting anything online.

Using your intuition and being untrustworthy are two critical skills when it comes to protecting yourself online. My number one saying is ‘if it is too good to be true, it probably is!’. Do your research. While it may be challenging to completely eliminate the risk of online scams, awareness, caution, and scepticism can go a long way when it comes to falling prey to deceptive schemes.

Educate yourself and your loved ones and report any suspicious activities to the relevant authorities. By staying informed and cautious, we can reduce the opportunities for scammers and collectively work towards a safer online environment for all Australians.

Whether it is done in the name of patriotism or treason, it is wrong.

The British aristocracy that spied for the Soviets

The “Cambridge Five,” arguably the best Cold War espionage outfit, compromised top officials in Western agencies to collect the most sensitive data from them, which they then sent directly to the KGB.

“Deny everything. Never acknowledge anything, not even when they wave proof in your face.”

This is the first and most important lesson that any top spy must learn in order to survive the service. In this way, Kim Philby, the Cold War’s greatest double agent, taught Stasi intelligence in East Berlin.

There are stories of intricate Cold War espionage networks that occasionally sound fabricated. However, few of those stories have the creativity and frightening potential that this one does.

Cambridge’s Five. They were not faceless bureaucrats buried deep within the federal government. These men belonged to the British aristocracy and had attended the University of Cambridge, one of the world’s most prestigious educational institutions.

As students in the 1930s, they formed friendships and ideas that would eventually take them down a path of deception, between the allure of communism and the frightening shadow of fascism.

Tensions in a Cold War-era world

During the interwar years, there was a lot of upheaval and change. Following World War I, Europe was traumatised by the conflict, dealing with the rise of new political ideas and the breakup of empires.

Despite its victory, the United Kingdom was not immune to the continent’s social and economic turmoil.

As unemployment rose and financial hardships exacerbated following the Great Depression, many people began to question the viability of capitalist democracies.

Intellectual circles provided a fertile ground for these waves of discontent, and universities evolved into centres of political discourse and debate.

The nation’s intellectual elite congregated at Cambridge University, where an exceptionally heated ideological battle raged. The institution had long been a bastion of tradition and conventional wisdom, but the 1930s saw the rise of left-wing student organisations, particularly communist sympathisers.

Despite the grim undertones of Stalin’s purges, others saw the Soviet Union as a light of hope against the rise of fascism in Europe, as personified by Mussolini’s Italy and Hitler’s Germany.

How they were hired

Even as the political situation outside its gates became more volatile, young minds were being shaped and influenced in the venerable halls of Cambridge University. Certain groups found communism especially alluring because it evoked ideals of a perfect society based on equality and the common good.

Many people, particularly the Cambridge Five, saw this worldview as a protective shield against the impending authoritarian storm.

However, their radicalisation was more than just a mental endeavour. It was deeply personal, driven by camaraderie in covert meetings and discussion groups, friendships, mentorship, and a sense of shared purpose.

In this situation, the Soviet intelligence agency saw an opportunity. The NKVD, which preceded the KGB, saw potential in these disillusioned young men not just based on their opinions, but also on the future leadership roles they were anticipated to hold.

The hiring process was careful and private. The Soviet officials, who were experts at psychological manipulation, used the young men’s combination of idealism and ambition. They were given the opportunity to actively combat the rise of fascism and develop communism, joining forces with something bigger than themselves.

For example, Kim Philby (about whom I previously wrote) was introduced to the field of espionage by a fellow communist sympathiser, and everything fell into place from there.

Through introductions and recommendations, a group was formed one by one. Every member is progressively meticulously assimilated into the group, believing that their concealed actions are not simply acts of disobedience, but rather an important contribution to a good cause.

What Exactly Were the Cambridge Five?

Philby, Kim
Kim Philby was the most important of them all. Sharp-witted and charismatic, Philby quickly rose through the ranks of the British intelligence agency, eventually gaining a senior position in MI6.

He was one of the KGB’s most valuable assets because of his position, which allowed him to offer the Soviets a wealth of essential information.

Beyond his espionage activities, Philby’s secret life demonstrated his considerable aptitude for deception, as he maintained close contacts with many in the intelligence establishment, including those entrusted to find Soviet spies.

Mr. Donald Maclean
Then there was Donald Maclean, a man as committed to the Communist cause as Philby. McLean acquired access to nuclear and diplomatic secrets while working in the British Foreign Office.

During his tenure, he gently conveyed this intelligence to the Soviet Union, which had a direct impact on the geopolitical landscape of the early Cold War.

Burgess, Guy
Maclean’s friendship with Guy Burgess, another prominent ring member, complicated their espionage efforts.

Burgess appeared to be an unusual option for a spy due to his colourful personality and casual attitude.

Nonetheless, his work at the Foreign Office and then the British Embassy in Washington allowed him to provide critical intelligence to the Soviets on a regular basis, demonstrating the Cambridge network’s effectiveness.

Mr. Anthony Blunt
Anthony Blunt was an equally essential member of the group, even if his contributions were sometimes overshadowed by those of his contemporaries. Blunt was a well-known art historian whose covert operations contradicted his academic pursuits. He was a liaison between MI5 and MI6 in the United Kingdom, giving him access to many intelligence secrets.

Blunt definitely succeeded for many years in advancing Soviet objectives until confessing decades later in exchange for security.

Why did I begin my story with four plus one?

Because the stories about these spies were so widely spread in the early 1990s, the discovery of the fifth member of the group did not fit into anyone’s script.

Anthony Blunt, in particular, had a talent for spying and was drawn to John Cairncross.

Cairncross, John
The Cambridge Five’s story is completed by John Cairncross. Despite being marginalised in popular narratives on occasion, Cairncross made an important contribution.

During WWII, he worked at the code-breaking laboratory Bletchley Park and later in many government ministries, providing the Soviets with a diverse range of intelligence.

What details and secrets did they discover?

The revealed intelligence, which encompassed everything from nuclear research to war preparations, transformed the geopolitical landscape and immensely assisted the Soviet Union in its ambition for global dominance.

Kim Philby maintained an unrivalled position within MI6. He was based in Washington at the onset of the Cold War and had access to the inner workings of the Western intelligence system.

In this capacity, he was able to continue a steady supply of intelligence to Moscow while alluding to suspicion from other spies. Philby specifically briefed the Russians about Operation VALUABLE, a plan to incite an anti-communist revolt in Albania.

His timely intelligence enabled the Soviets and their allies to neutralise the project, ensuring its devastating collapse.

Donald Maclean made significant contributions in a different field. Maclean’s position in the Foreign Office provided him access to the most highly classified nuclear weapons information in the Western world. Subtly, he informed the Soviets about the atomic bomb and, later, US nuclear policy.

By revising its own nuclear plans, the USSR was able to level the playing field in the extremely competitive nuclear arms race.

Despite his troubled personal life, Guy Burgess was a valuable source of diplomatic intelligence for the Soviets.

While working in the British Embassy in Washington, D.C., he supplied the Soviet leadership with an intimate perspective of Western diplomatic attitudes and methods by passing along critical documents pertaining to Anglo-American negotiations.

Meanwhile, Anthony Blunt’s acts were less visible but no less powerful. Because of his position as a liaison between British intelligence services, he was able to obtain a wide range of secrets.

Up the years, he has passed up hundreds of documents ranging from MI5 operations to British agent identities.

John Cairncross, stationed at Bletchley Park, had access to Ultra Secret, which included deciphering the German Enigma codes, as one of the most valuable resources available to the Allies.

During the pivotal Battle of Kursk in 1943, he assisted the Soviets by giving them with critical pieces of this decrypted intelligence.

What prompted their discovery?

Regardless of how diligent the Cambridge Five were, the nature of espionage meant that the potential of detection was always present.

By the early 1950s, cracks in their protective shroud of secrecy began to emerge, thanks in part to Western counterintelligence efforts and the testimony of Eastern Bloc defectors. The intelligence community began to piece together a picture of severe betrayal within their ranks.

The defection of Igor Guzenko, a Soviet codebreaker in Canada (the guy who initiated the “Cold War,” about whom I previously wrote), sowed the first seeds of suspicion. Despite the fact that Guzenko did not provide direct evidence in regard to the Cambridge Five, his revelations about broad Soviet espionage operations in the West prompted intelligence organisations to reassess and scrutinise their operations.

As the investigations advanced, the web that surrounded the Cambridge network became tighter.

Donald Maclean was among the first to be probed since his profession allowed him to have access to nuclear secrets. By 1951, MI5 was on the verge of demonstrating his treason. As the noose tightened, the Soviets arranged Maclean’s escape with Philby’s help.

In an unexpected change of events, Guy Burgess, who was neither under suspicion nor planning to defect at the time, joined McLean, ostensibly to aid him. Burgess’ abrupt departure, paired with McLean’s, added to the mystery and raised further concerns.

Because of his strong relationship with Burgess and his respected position in MI6, Philby was definitely suspect. Despite being “cleared” in a cursory investigation, his reputation in the intelligence community has suffered. Philby opted to desert to the Soviet Union, where he would spend the rest of his life, as new evidence emerged and another session of severe interrogation.

Anthony Blunt’s presentation was longer and more detailed. Blunt was exposed as a spy in 1964 after American defector Michael Straight provided evidence. Blunt confessed in exchange for immunity from prosecution in a secret bargain to avoid public humiliation. He didn’t come out publicly until 1979, which startled many British establishment figures.

Despite being probed several times throughout the 1960s, John Cairncross only admitted to his espionage activities in 1964. His public exposure was delayed, as was Blunt’s, and his participation became well-recognised in the 1990s.

Their influence on the remainder of the Cold War

The idea that members of the nation’s elite, educated at its most prestigious institutions, might turn against their own country startled the establishment.

Western intelligence organisations, particularly Britain’s MI5 and MI6, were badly shocked by the Cambridge Five’s treachery.

Their impact has been felt in political corridors, intelligence services, and the broader social fabric, altering people’s notions of loyalty, trust, and the weakness of democratic systems.

It was emphasised how critical it was to examine internal security measures, screening methods, and recruitment practises as soon as possible.

Politically, the UK’s public relations suffered significantly as a result of the defection and the subsequent revelations.

They presented an establishment riddled with flaws that allowed ideological infiltration, as well as showing clear flaws in the nation’s intelligence system.

After Kim Philby, Guy Burgess, Donald McLean, Anthony Blunt, and John Cairncross, all screening agent procedures failed. There is still no open discussion on the damage they caused to their country.

The British MI-5 and MI-6 kept the 400-page record about them hidden for fifty years, maybe out of embarrassment or fear of the repercussions. They worked extremely hard to keep their operations covert, particularly from America, which they also dealt heavy blows to.

The lessons learned from their story are still pertinent to discussions about intelligence, national security, and the complexities of international combat today.

Facts, in my opinion, don’t matter much these days and can be readily countered with a simple “what is it” query.

There are distractions for practically every topic, including the need to fix the economy, combat climate change, alleviate refugee misery, and cope with war.

The “simpler” past, in which the world was divided into two ideologically opposed camps expressing instantly recognisable ideals of modernity and government, has long passed. Naturally, Cold War propagandists twisted the facts to sell their ideas.

However, the facts were respected. As we enter the “post-truth era,” it appears that disseminating misinformation is the only game in town.

Is it correct or incorrect? The fight against misinformation

Today, it is clear to all of us that spreading false information is a low-cost, simple, and highly mobile tactic that is difficult to detect.

Certain techniques and methods may appear to be unique.

Understanding the methodologies, on the other hand, provides insight into their potential efficacy and explains why a competitor could employ unique strategies in the realm of information operations.

Competing disinformation attempts will harm the economy, business, and life if effective mitigation measures are not put in place.

There is no vaccine that can protect against incorrect information.

Nonetheless, historical lessons provide insight and encouragement for countering the expansion of hostile information operations.

I previously covered this topic in the post “Misinformation vs. Disinformation: Differences” where I observed that because the information environment is constantly changing, it can be difficult to distinguish between what is true and what is untrue. This is especially true for the numerous types of information that may be accessible on the internet, such as incorrect and misleading information.

But first, let’s go back to the beginning of the counter-disinformation campaign: the Cold War.

Most CIA covert operations used misinformation tactics as a common approach, and the Soviet Union elevated the practise to an art form during the Cold War.

Journalist for Agents

During the Cold War, journalists were used as influence brokers.

A foreign journalist would manufacture reports favouring the opposition, either because they were paid to do so or because they despised a regime that had harmed their family.

Using the media to influence a country’s political system is a standard intelligence operation; the Russians, Americans, British, and French have all done it, and everyone does it.

That’s how things used to be done.

Cold War propaganda was essentially “truth campaigns” or struggles for people’s hearts and minds centred on a simple binary decision.

On the one hand, Americans applauded democracy and the free market while portraying totalitarian communist authority as a threat to all forms of freedom. In contrast, the Soviets emphasised social justice while emphasising the disastrous consequences of capitalism-induced inequality.

Journalists had an important role in this.

The effectiveness of both American and Soviet propaganda, however, was predicated on relative truth: for example, it could not be contested that individual freedom was poorly recognised in the Soviet bloc.

Poverty and homelessness were other visible consequences of capitalism’s shortcomings. Effective Soviet and American propaganda did not require the development of new facts, but rather a focus on the most convenient ones.

Disinformation happens when a government plants a false report in a newspaper while concealing the authorship. When it publicly presents false “alternative facts,” this is disinformation.

Strategy and tactics for disinformation

While disinformation is receiving a lot of attention in the media right now, it can be difficult to define.

It is best defined as the deliberate dissemination of incorrect, misleading, or distracting information. To be effective, it must be untraceable to a government, which usually necessitates the cooperation of a clandestine intelligence outfit.

It is distinct from propaganda, which is designed to persuade, and misinformation, which is false or misleading information distributed freely and publicly by a government.

Disinformation has been employed in warfare for a long time.

On the other side, it experienced unprecedented institutionalisation in the twentieth century.

In Soviet Russia, the Bolsheviks expanded on the deception methods used against them by their tsarist predecessors. Following that, the Bolsheviks used deception in their political war against both internal and external ideological opponents.

The foreign intelligence branch of the Soviet secret police, the Cheka, later renamed the KGB, had a disinformation unit from the start.

During World War II, Soviet Russia and the other major warring nations used deception in their military endeavours.

Following the dissolution of the wartime Grand Alliance, its members — the United Kingdom, the United States, and the Soviet Union – used deceit as part of their respective ideologically driven Cold War grand designs in the postwar years.

Although Kremlin misinformation tactics were similar to Western deception efforts throughout the Cold War, they differed in scope, breadth, and type. British and American intelligence used disinformation to aid clandestine operations tactically.

The Kremlin used disinformation to achieve a geopolitical goal: to destabilise the society of its “Main Adversary,” the United States, and to disrupt relations between it and other Western nations. It did so to defend its strategic interests from perceived US and NATO aggression.

In response, Western intelligence agencies used covert, unrecognised propaganda to widen schisms in Soviet and Eastern Bloc groups.

However, unlike Soviet intelligence in the West, these intelligence organisations were unable to undertake information warfare behind the Iron Curtain since they were police nations with no press or expression freedom.

Thus, there was a fundamental gap between Soviet and Western deceit during the Cold War.

Furthermore, Soviet “political warfare” at home was extended into international disinformation campaigns against Western nations, with the former Soviet Bloc populace serving as the primary targets of Soviet active measures.

During the Cold War, Western governments did not use deception as effectively against their own citizens.

Are Cold War reprisal measures still effective in the digital age?

The digital revolution of today constitutes the most significant transformation in the history of ideas being transferred since the creation of the printing press in the fifteenth century, which created decades of social turmoil and contributed to civil wars in both Europe and the New World.

Perhaps it is too early to predict how social media will affect society in the future.

Never before has so much information been made available to so many people as a result of the internet. 90% of the world’s data was created in the two years before 2018.

The exceptional and exponential data surge has altered both the distribution and consumption of information. As a result, it is tempting to conclude that the history of misinformation from pre-digital times does not apply to the present.

Nonetheless, the history of deceit throughout the Cold War provides useful insights.

In every aspect of our life, we draw lessons from the past, including what went well and poorly, as well as any lessons that might be applied to the present. On a daily level, we use history in this way.

“Actionable measures”

During the Cold War, the KGB utilised a range of “active measures” to try to influence world events. They were covert, aggressive weapons of Soviet foreign policy, aimed to destabilise international relations, disparage Soviet enemies, and sway foreign governments’ policies in favour of Soviet programmes and aims.

Active measures included a variety of covert operations such as manipulating the media, forming fictitious groups, fabricating documents, conducting influence operations (via bribery, blackmail, and defamation of opponents), and carrying out “special actions” with varying degrees of violence.

To put it plainly, they participated in what Moscow called “political warfare.”

The KGB & GRU are focused on active measure

Service A, a unique section inside his overseas (previously “First Chief”) Directorate, was in charge of them. In the 1950s, Service A was given its own Directorate, or Department, within the KGB in acknowledgement of its importance.

KGB political officers stationed abroad were expected to dedicate around 25% of their time to active measures, indicating the importance placed on them by the “Centre,” the KGB headquarters in Moscow.

Following that, the KGB emphasised the importance of proactive measures even more.

President Putin, a former KGB officer skilled with Soviet active measures, has updated the old KGB craft’s harmonics for the current digital era.

However, since the Cold War’s conclusion, the information environment that Russia and other countries use to distribute false information has evolved dramatically.

Lies are spreading faster than they have ever before in history. Real groups are no longer required to propagate misleading information, as they were during the Cold War; instead, fictional Twitter and Facebook pages are the new front for misinformation.

Worse, when it comes to new technology, people in Western countries appear to be more likely to believe factually incorrect information, garbage, on the internet.

Unlike during the Cold War, any effective effort to combat misinformation in today’s climate will require the incorporation of technology and social media corporations, as they have provided platforms for the spread of misinformation.

Disinformation poses fundamental concerns for civilisations such as factual accuracy, which will require societal efforts and extensive education to overcome rather than spies and their covert weapons.

In the age of social media and the internet, it appears that asking questions and expressing disagreements has become commonplace.

It is difficult to imagine any facts or concepts that can be debated without causing harm. Beliefs are now absolute, but facts are no longer.

As a result, the stakes are higher for everyone who believes that the world is not flat.

Fortunately, they remain the majority.

Since the entire world has been affected by weather events characterised by high temperatures on one side and heavy precipitation on the other, lunacy has reigned among conspiracy theorists, and many of them talk about “climate weapons” and “climate terrorism” that can harm the planet, people, or specific countries.

Such weapons development has been ongoing for decades, and these projects have consumed enormous funds, hinting that they still exist as endeavours.

But where do you draw the line between fantasy, science, and fact?

Is the administration trying to hide something?

Some people talk about “weather cannons,” as if anybody can build them to produce showers or droughts, while others talk seriously about “climate attacks” or “geophysical weapons,” even if there is no evidence that everything that happens in the atmosphere is caused by the employment of such weapons. There were few instances that stick out.

The Popeye Project

So far, it is safe to say that the weather has only been changed once with the intention of causing military and political harm to the enemy.

The American army carried out “Operation Popeye” in Vietnam from 1967 until 1972.

Military transport planes sprinkled silver iodide between the clouds during the rainy season, causing more rain to fall.

In 1966, neighbouring Laos developed this technology, which was later used in combat against the Viet Cong.

“Operation Popeye” was a top-secret weather modification attempt at the time that resulted in the monsoon period being extended by 30 to 45 days on average with considerable rainfall in targeted locations.

Truck traffic was suspended because of the continual rain, and the operation was declared a success. The CIA and then-Secretary of State Henry Kissinger decided on a chemical weather manipulation programme in Southeast Asia without consulting the United Nations.

Dr. Donald Hornig, the US President’s approved science and technology adviser and a former member of the nuclear weapons development team, started the whole thing with a simple experiment.

Rain-soaked segments of the Viet Cong army’s communication and logistical lines, as well as parts of the tunnels used by Vietnamese combatants for supplies and movement.

The operation’s short-term impact, which could not have a major impact on the course of the war, was its failure. Ordinary bulldozers were far less expensive and more efficient for the same “job.”

Unlike other conspiracy theories, none of this was concealed.

Scientists have been investigating active disturbance and its influence on the climate since the 1930s. Only the Americans chose to “try it in practise” after finding silver iodide’s activity in 1946.

The Cold War

During the Cold War, but also before it, the USSR conducted extensive research in this area and was far ahead of other countries, if not militarily, then economically.

Techniques to avoid hail formation, for example, were created and are currently used in agriculture in the Caucasus, Moldova, and Central Asia, particularly to safeguard grapes and cotton.

Such military initiatives were developed by Soviet researchers in order to impair the electronic and optical tracking equipment of the time due to adverse weather.

Simply defined, these devices were created with the intention of “blinding” the opponent by dispersing particles in the atmosphere that formed “impermeable curtains,” such as opaque crystalline fog.

Alternatively, they manipulated the environment and improved atmospheric conditions to allow their own radio waves to flow more freely.

Finally, because it was learned how fog crystallises at freezing temperatures and how to reduce the threat to civil aviation in the far north, the result was economic.

“Stormfury” is a TV Show

However, all of the above is a scientific and technological routine that most conspiracy theorists are disinterested in.

Dealing with typhoons, on the other hand, is already far more exciting. Few people realise that this was attempted by both sides of the Cold War at the same time.

The Americans tested on their own country because typhoons are often there and no one paid notice, and the Soviet Union worked on research and testing with Cuba and Vietnam.

The Americans believed that it was sufficient to destroy any piece of the cloud in certain locations, modify the cloud’s energy balance, and change the path and direction of the typhoon.

The goal for US scientists was not to launch a “strike” on certain foggy areas but to calculate precisely which way the storm would turn next.

The project proved impractical even with the Pentagon’s supercomputers at the time, and the “Stormfury” programme was gradually phased out after 1980. However, some amateurs and enthusiasts were so captivated by Hollywood that they achieved “great results” there.

In the Soviet Union, people thought differently.

They wanted to find the typhoon’s “weak points” so they could change its direction and strength. Using this approach, Soviet scientists advanced and discovered how to shape typhoon forms, giving them some control over them.

However, that is only one of the Soviet Union’s achievements, and the typhoon offers no remedy.

The key concern, as it was in the United States during “Operation Popeye,” was expense.

It takes unfathomable amounts of energy to create a typhoon powerful enough to demolish a big modern metropolis for military purposes. Such technology is simply not available now.

That’s the end of the narrative.  Or ?!

Is the government hiding something?

Prior to the 1980s, the world was entertained by a wide range of hoaxes perpetrated by the governments and secret agencies of the Soviet Union, the United States, and a few other countries, including the United Kingdom, Canada, and South Africa. Psychics, super-soldiers, and “racial plagues” in South Africa, which were supposed to be viruses that only plagued the Zulu tribe, were among them. “Alien intelligence” and weapons such as ion, seismic, and climate change should never be mentioned.

The turning point was a new wave of scientific and technological developments, and most of the “exotic programmes” were gradually forgotten.

Many years later, both Russia and George W. Bush were deemed responsible for the devastation caused by Hurricane “Katarina” in Louisiana. Barack Obama was blamed with “ordering” Hurricane Sandy just a week before the election. According to one version, Governor Schwarzenegger ordered California to go through a drought so that the wealthiest state in the country could get federal subsidies. Americans may have started “sending” hurricanes to Panama and Nicaragua as early as 1969.

Former Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad should be added to this list because he openly blamed Washington for the country’s thirty-year drought. Ironically, a heavy rainstorm hit Tehran just as he finished his speech.

HAARP

The majority of theories continue to centre on the American HAARP system, a huge high-frequency antenna system built in Alaska in 1997.

The US Defence Advanced Study Projects Agency (DARPA), which assists the US in understanding anything unknown, has officially directed it to do a study on the ionosphere and atmosphere.

Nonetheless, the research has produced no helpful results and is prohibitively expensive.

The US Air Force shuttered the Alaska centre in 2014, stating that they will instead develop other techniques for ionospheric research and monitoring, however they did not specify which.

DARPA cancelled the remaining programme and assistance offered to the facility that summer and the entire complex was transferred to the University of Alaska a year later and no longer performs military responsibilities.

In any case, conspiracy theorists continue to blame the complex’s antennae for the advent of unusual diseases, accidents, and disasters.

There are two other comparable molecules with much less energy. They are in northern Norway, near Tromso and Longyearbyen.

The secrecy of these facilities has given rise to numerous rumours. A forerunner to the HAARP facility was also decommissioned in the same city in Alaska in 2009, and another is being rebuilt in Puerto Rico.

Russia has two ionospheric research facilities, but they utilise significantly less energy than those in Norway. Both are operational.

The “Sura” project in the Nizhny Novgorod region appears “scary” in the same way that HAARP does, and another is under construction at the Siberian Physical and Technical Institute in Tomsk.

Finally, climatic weapons could be considered “urban legends” comparable to the American “Bogeyman” or “War of Mutants in the Moscow Subway.”

This is not to argue that having an active influence on the atmosphere is impossible.

To be serious, advanced countries have sophisticated environmental monitoring systems in place.

There are not only atmospheric and submarine activities, but also seismic activities, but using such weapons is simply impossible since it makes no sense to generate challenges and expenses that outweigh the influence of such technologies on the battlefield.

Conspiracy theories will always exist, but the most important thing to remember is to investigate while also knowing the measure.

“Everything supernatural is actually natural, it just hasn’t been explained yet,” Nikola Tesla famously said.

Gaddafi’s Amazons: Strict training, no sex

Muammar Gaddafi’s female bodyguards were known as the Revolutionary nuns. In Europe, they were known as Amazons, and in North Africa, they were known as Haris al-Has.

Their aim was to protect Libya’s leader at all costs.

For years, Colonel Muammar Gaddafi of Libya was surrounded by forty made-up and fashion-decorated virgins who kept an eye on him and maintained his personal safety.

The Colonel was scared for his life and was guarded by a “gang” of attractive and well-trained female bodyguards for decades. Forty girls were in charge of his security.

Despite having graduated from Gaddafi’s elite women’s military institution in Tripoli in 1979, they all seem ready for the catwalk with their camouflage, high heels, and designer eyewear.

That academy came to symbolise “women’s liberation” for Libyan women.

Gaddafi is said to have rationalised his decision by declaring, “I promised my mother that I would improve the position of women in Libya.”

Gaddafi had previously been protected by East German secret services. The majority of his bodyguards came from Poland, Germany, and Bulgaria.

The Academy of Sciences

Although it was impossible for outsiders to gain access to this military institution, evidence gradually emerged that demonstrates how rigors the training programme is: rising up at 4:30 a.m., exercising for 90 minutes, and then attending classes focused on assault and defence strategies.

The three-year training programme covers all aspect of the military programme.

Hand-to-hand combat, rocket-guided grenade launching, and aeroplane piloting were among the abilities taught to pupils at the Academy.

The female bodyguards all renounced marriage and sex in order to defend Gaddafi till his death.

During the 1998 Islamic extremist attack, one of them carried out the oath when she threw herself at Gaddafi’s commander. Aisha was her name. A hail of bullets killed her and injured two other female bodyguards.

He was apparently convinced that female assassins would shoot more powerfully, although he never explained why he chose only female bodyguards.

Furthermore, he believed that a combative, well-trained woman, like women in other Arab countries, would be able to protect herself in order not to fall victim—that is, become easy prey.

Their camouflaged clothing, high heels, and sunglasses belied their true identities, as they were all trained assassins who had completed their training at Tripoli’s elite women’s military academy.

Before they could begin bodyguard training, every female bodyguard had to be a virgin. If they pass the training and are individually selected for duty by the colonel, they must commit to celibacy.

They were all skilled with firearms and cold weapons, as well as martial arts.

They were intended to be combat-ready for formal gatherings, yet while wearing military uniforms, they were allowed to wear jewellery, high heels, and makeup.

Many close to him, however, claimed that the colonel just preferred the company of young women.

Libyan ladies during Muammar Gaddafi’s reign

In 1975, Gaddafi published the Green Book, a small pamphlet detailing his political ideas. Throughout his presidency, teachers used his works in the classroom, and his quotations could be found all around Libya.

One of the chapters was about women and their place in society.

Although men and women are born equal, Gaddafi believes there are intrinsic differences between the sexes. As a result, they have distinct and specific functions in everyday life.

The Libyan leader went on to remark that while women have the right to work, their appearance should be tailored to them rather than the other way around.

Despite stating this in the Green Book, Libya’s leader was emphatic that “women should be trained to fight, so that they do not become easy prey for their enemies.” Having female bodyguards, he believes, is a step towards women’s liberation.

Under Gaddafi’s rule, women were permitted to attend colleges and universities. They could also work as engineers, doctors, nurses, or police officers.

At the time of his death in 2011, more than half of the university’s students were female.

“Revolutionary nuns” at work

In 1981, the Revolutionary Nuns made their global premiere in Syria. During the trip, Gaddafi met with Syria’s then-president, Hafez al-Assad.

In 1998, a mob of fanatics rushed Gaddafi’s limousine in Derna, Libya.

In an attempt to save the Libyan leader’s life, one of his bodyguards was killed; seven others were also injured.

Aisha, the Revolutionary Nuns’ main security officer at the time, was the female bodyguard who saved his life.

In November 2006, Gaddafi and about 200 heavily armed bodyguards arrived at Abuja International Airport in Nigeria. When airport security refused to let them enter because they were armed, Gaddafi became enraged.

Following a brief clash between security and bodyguards, Libya’s enraged leader prepared to march to the capital. The intervention of Nigeria’s president at the time, Olusegun Obasanjo, only made matters worse.

Gaddafi arrived in Italy in June 2009, escorted by approximately 300 bodyguards.

He slept in a huge Bedouin tent in a central Rome Park during his vacation.

Is it also conceivable that Gaddafi was the first to identify today’s global trend, which is the increased discretion required of female bodyguards?

Gaddafi’s Amazons were dubbed “The Amazons who dress in Kalashnikovs like Gucci accessories.” They sparked debate in the West because they were well-trained, handsome intelligence operatives who were also fashion oriented.

These were ladies who could knock you off your feet. And not only metaphorically!

The media labelled Gaddafi the “Libyan Hugh Hefner,” accusing him of discrimination since he is surrounded by attractive girls; on the other side, some believed that the Gaddafi regime’s decision to assign female bodyguards reflected its current views on gender equality.

Controversies

The vast majority of women who served in the Revolutionary Guard were barred from seeing their families or spouses.

In 2001, a Libyan psychologist began researching the Revolutionary Guard’s recruitment process. Only eight ladies testified because they were afraid to testify. They were afraid that fundamentalists and family members would assassinate them.

Despite the fact that many women considered Gaddafi as a liberator of women, numerous women accused the Libyan leader of sexual assault and abuse after his death.

Many women claimed that they were approached for sexual favours or coerced into joining the unit in order to be picked.

They testified that Gaddafi and a few other members of the leader’s close circle sexually attacked them.