Paul Rigby

There's already a thread there, Paul, in the form of an exhaustive book-length analysis of its contents. I'm just about to add to it.

A recent example, this one with reference to Japan's fascists: July 28, 2023 Washington Post Still Covers Up U.S. War Crimes And Use Of Biological Weapons The Washington Post is still covering up U.S. war crimes. https://www.moonofalabama.org/2023/07/washington-post-still-covers-up-us-war-crimes-and-use-of-biological-weapons.html#more Seiichi Morimura, who exposed Japanese atrocities in WWII, dies at 90 His book about Unit 731, a secret biological warfare branch of the Imperial Army, helped force Japan to confront its wartime past The obituary says: Morimura's book sold astonishingly well even when it was unusual to confronted people in Japan with the imperial crimes of their nation. Unit 731 was at its time only comparable to some Nazi doctors who widely experimented on humans: Several thousand people, and maybe many more, were experimented to death by the unit. When the second world war was over Unit 731 members were supposed to be put on trial for the war crimes they had committed. The U.S. military stopped that as it had planned to use what Unit 731 had learned for its own wars: There is no further mentioning of this in the rest of the Washington Post obit. The reader is left hanging without learning if those U.S. government claims of 'Cold War propaganda' were true or false. The U.S. did of course do what had been alleged. Documents were released that proved it. The U.S. had done much more. The Post also repeats false U.S. claims that the Japanese government had hindered war crime trials against the units members: It was the U.S. government, not the Japanese one, which gave immunity to Unit 731 members. It even paid them high amounts for their knowledge: 40 million yen today are the equivalent of $284,000. Nicer to have than not to have ... The U.S. military used the knowledge gained from Unit 731 to developed a number of biological weapons and to test them, allegedly also on humans. It even used those weapons, like Unit 731, during the war against North Korea and China. As Jeffrey Kaye, who has long studied the case, writes: By repeating the U.S. government false claims of 'Cold War propaganda', by not correcting it and by repeating false U.S. statements which accuse the Japanese government of hindering the war crime trials, the Washington Post is covering up the U.S. war crimes that were based on the experiments Unit 731 had made.

David Atlee Phillips would doubtless endorse your answer: https://youtu.be/5Ocfr2VdcpU?t=357 And the fictional CIA senior figure who gets the final word in Three Days of the Condor: https://youtu.be/vZNnDiDSUiI?t=165 Were the American people informed of the reality of the CIA's operations in the late 1940s and throughout the decade that followed? I'd love to see your list of the literature on that subject up to the Bay of Pigs.

No, Ben, at root, it was the question of empire: Two views on Pax Americana: JOHN J. McCLOY, letter to fellow Philadelphian George Wharton Pepper: "In the light of what has happened, I would take a chance on this country using its strength tyrannously…We need, if you will, a Pax Americana," (Kai Bird. The Chairman: John J. McCloy: The Making of the American Establishment (NY: Simon & Schuster, 1992), p.661) JOHN F. KENNEDY, speech delivered at the American University in Washington, June 10th, 1963: "What kind of peace do I mean and what kind of peace do we seek? NOT a Pax Americana enforced on the world by weapons of war…"

COLD WAR, COLUMN, COMMENTARY, CUBA, INDONESIA, IRAN, MEDIA, SECRECY, SURVEILLANCE, U.S., UNTIL THIS DAY--HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVES ON THE NEWS The US Press, Spooks & the Church Committee July 25, 2023e Nineteen fifty-three was a peculiar year for The Washington Post to question the C.I.A.’s drift into activist intrigues, writes Patrick Lawrence in this excerpt from his forthcoming book, Journalists and Their Shadows. Indonesian President Achmed Sukarno and Cuban leader Fidel Castro in 1960, Havana. (Wikimedia Commons, Public domain) By Patrick Lawrence Special to Consortium News On Jan. 9, 1953, The Washington Post published an editorial we can read all these years later as a murmur amid silence. “Choice or Chance” was a blunt worry about what the C.I.A., 5 years old at this time, was getting up to. Was the agency to analyze information it gathered or that had come to it — a matter of chance — or was it actively and covertly to execute interventions of its own choosing? The agency hardly invented clandestine operations, coups, assassinations, disinformation campaigns, election fixing, bribery in high places, false flags and the like. But it was elaborating and institutionalizing such intrigues, and they were coming to define America’s Cold War conduct. The Washington Post stood with the objectors — at least it did on page 20 of that winter Friday’s editions. The agency’s activities were “incompatible with a democracy,” Washington’s local paper protested. They risked an unwanted war. Reform was in order. Once again to be noted: The conflict the Post aired concerned method. The Cold War’s taxonomy and Washington’s division of the world into adversarial blocs lay beyond question. As interesting as the Post’s editorial was the dead quiet that followed. Nothing more was published on the topic. Eight months later, the Post obfuscated the C.I.A.’s role in the coup that toppled the Mossadegh government in Iran; a year after that came the coup that brought down the democratically elected government of Jacobo Árbenz in Guatemala, and the C.I.A.’s role in it was once again illegible. Operating with little inhibition, the agency would later plot to plant an exploding cigar in Castro’s humidor and make a pornographic film with a look-alike actor impersonating Sukarno, Indonesia’s too-independent president (later deposed in a C.I.A.–cultivated coup). American readers and viewers knew next to nothing of all such operations, as intended. Nor did they seem to want to. Citizens were willingly transformed into consumers. A national somnambulance had set in. CIA director Allen Dulles on the cover of Time magazine, 1953. (Boris Artzybasheff, Public domain, Wikimedia Commons) Nineteen fifty-three was a peculiar year for the Post to question the C.I.A.’s drift into activist intrigues. Allen Dulles took over as the agency’s director less than a month after the Post editorial appeared. Dulles put Frank Wisner, a former OSS man, in charge of the agency’s “black operations.” [The Office of Strategic Services was the C.I.A.’s predecessor.] This included making maximum use of the press by compromising its ranks — not least its high command. Journalists were recruited to serve as agents, agents were trained sufficiently to pose as journalists, not infrequently with the blessings of publishers and network presidents. Wisner called his operation “my mighty Wurlitzer” after those turn-of-the-century contraptions that performed musical magic at the strike of a key. The more alert reporters, correspondents, and editors had long suspected there were C.I.A. operatives in their midst. There was no evidence of this, and, then as now, one did not name a name without any. A silence worthy of a Catholic chapel prevailed for two decades after Wisner set his machine in motion. When this was finally broken, it was as a pebble tossed into a pond produces ever-larger ripples. Jack Anderson, the iconoclastic columnist, revealed in the autumn of 1973, just as I was crossing the marble floor at The News [the New York Daily News, my first employer], that a Hearst Newspapers reporter had spied on Democratic presidential candidates in the service of the Nixon campaign. At the time Anderson published, Seymour Frieden was a Hearst correspondent in London. Not quite in passing but nearly, Anderson also reported that Frieden tacitly acknowledged working for the C.I.A. The pebble was tossed. The ripples grew slowly at first. Colby’s ‘Limited Hangout’ William Colby, the recently named director of the C.I.A., responded with a standard agency maneuver: When news is going to break against you, disclose the minimum, bury the rest, and maintain control of what we now call “the narrative.” Among the spooks this was and remains known as a “limited hangout.” Colby “leaked” to a Washington Star–News reporter named Oswald Johnston. Johnston’s piece was fronted on Nov. 30, 1973. “The Central Intelligence Agency,” it began, “has some three dozen American journalists working abroad on its payroll as undercover informants, some of them full-time agents, the Star-News has learned.” Johnston followed this four-square lead just as Colby had wished. “Colby is understood to have ordered the termination of this handful of journalist-agents,” he wrote further down in his report, adding — and this is the truly delightful part — Johnston broke a big story, Johnston was a patsy. This was the agency’s “tradecraft” in action. Once again, the rest of the press let Johnston’s revelations sink without further investigation. But Colby’s gambit was on the way to failing, as was the press’s see-no-evil pose. C.I.A. Director William Colby, at left, briefing President Gerald Ford and his senior advisers. (David Hume Kennerly, U.S. National Archives and Records Administration, Public domain) A year after the Johnston piece appeared, Stuart Loory, a former Los Angeles Times correspondent and then a journalism professor at The Ohio State University, published a piece in the Columbia Journalism Review that stands as the first extensive exploration of relations between the C.I.A. and the press. Another year later, the C.I.A. found itself where it never wanted to be: in the public eye, visible. Even before it was over, 1975 was known as “the Year of Intelligence.” In January, President Gerald Ford commissioned a committee to investigate the C.I.A.’s illegal breaches. Soon after Ford named his experts, among them none other than Ronald Reagan, the Senate and House convened their own committees to look into the C.I.A.’s doings abroad and at home. The Church Committee, so named for Frank Church, an Idaho Democrat who headed the Senate inquiry, was the committee that mattered. Its final report arrived in six volumes in April 1976, the Year of Intelligence proving a long one. This was a critical moment for America’s Cold War edifice — or it could have been, I had better put it. The Church Committee was to be the first concerted attempt to exert political control over an agency that had long since, as we say now, “gone rogue.” In this, Church and his investigative staff held the making of history in their hands. They could have deprived those asserting America’s global hegemony one of their most essential institutions, and they would have decisively cut media’s ties with it. As things turned out, the Church Committee’s failure is wherein the history resides. In the breach, those directing the undertaking elected to obfuscate the obfuscators. Ties of all sorts to journalists of all sorts were among the programs the C.I.A. was most vigorously determined to keep in the shadows. The agency’s elisions, untruths, and arms-folded refusals to cooperate with Senate investigators must count as a model for all aspiring stonewallers. In due course, the Church Committee found itself drawn into prolonged negotiations with Colby and other senior C.I.A. officials it never should have entered upon. There were other indicators that failure was on the way. The committee had spent too much time on assassination plots and agency exotica to give the question of press complicity the attention it warranted. Church, who for a time nursed dreams of a run for the presidency, did not want his name on an investigation that would make a faux-patriotic agency protecting national security look as objectionable as it was. The final “findings” found little to find. No one from the press was called to testify — no correspondents, no editors, none of those at the top of the major dailies or the broadcasters. A year after the committee released its six volumes, Carl Bernstein of Watergate fame elicited in eight words all that needed saying about the 16 months of Capitol Hill drama. Faced with the prospect of forcing the C.I.A. to sever all covert ties with the press, a senator Bernstein did not name remarked, “We just weren’t ready to take that step.” Bernstein Reveals Press Penetration Carl Bernstein, 2007. (Larry D. Moore, CC BY-SA 3.0) It was Bernstein who unwrapped the story. In a 25,000–word piece published in Rolling Stone on October 10, 1977, the ex–Post reporter led readers into a vast universe of connections, co-optation, and collusion. It wasn’t “some three dozen journalists operating as agents.” It was more than 400. All the names were there: the Times, The Post, CBS, ABC, NBC, Newsweek, TIME, the wires. Those cooperating ran to the top: William Paley (CBS), Arthur Hays and C. L. Sulzberger (the Times), the Alsop brothers (the New York Herald Tribune, later The Washington Post). Arthur Hays Sulzberger, The Times’ publisher, had a signed a secrecy agreement with the C.I.A. and gave his tacit approval to correspondents who wanted to work for the agency. Seymour Hersh and I. F. Stone, two exemplary independent journalists at this time, had also reported on the C.I.A.’s numerous illegal programs, known in-house as “the family jewels.” It was Hersh who, in December 1974, broke the story of the agency’s extravagant spying operations focused on antiwar activists and other dissidents — a 7,000–word piece that prefigured the Church Committee by a month and five days. But Bernstein’s mastery of detail on the agency’s penetration of the press — too profuse to recount but briefly — remains nonpareil. Most of it derived from C.I.A. files and interviews with agency offiC.I.A.ls and the journalists the Church Committee never asked to testify. In what coverage there was of the decades of deceit, the press did its best to convey the impression it was the unscrupulously sullied innocent. Most of those involved professed to know nothing about all the consensual compromises. Some were proudly patriotic. “I’ve done things for them when I thought they were the right thing to do,” Joe Alsop told Bernstein. “I call it doing my duty as a citizen.” But lapsed memories, lies, and blurred lines were the prevalent responses. While a C.I.A. officer described C. L. Sulzberger as “very eager” to cooperate with the agency, Cy told Bernstein he “would never get caught near the spook business.” Working for the agency and never getting caught working for it seem to have been two different things in Cy’s mind. The Church Committee left various marks on the record. Some relationships between Langley and the media were broken off as the committee shut up shop. Things were not so openly and incautiously corrupt as they had been pre–Church. This was also the beginning of a long decline in mainstream media’s credibility, which, to be honest, I consider a healthy thing. The Wurlitzer Plays On But the Senate investigation stands in hindsight as an early example of that political event we now know too well: It was spectacle. This was how all sides wished it to be. The Wurlitzer’s volume was turned down. But as that anonymous senator said so simply, nobody ever intended to unplug it. It would be supremely naïve to assume the Wurlitzer does not play in our time, leaving us to live with the Church Committee’s purposeful failing, as we must count it. The agency’s immunity from all oversight is now inviolable. What Capitol Hill committee now would dare to hold hearings such as those that gave the Year of Intelligence its name? Langley’s ties to the press are a closed book. Wikipedia, the alternative encyclopedia with its own objectionable relations with intelligence, as we speak carries this sentence in its entry on the Cold War programs: “By the time the Church Committee Report was completed, all C.I.A. contacts with accredited journalists had been dropped.” This is patently, demonstrably false. I recount very briefly the evil that supposedly passed. This is the foundation on which many American myths rest. The press and broadcasters still crouch behind this one. Patrick Lawrence, a correspondent abroad for many years, chiefly for the International Herald Tribune, is a columnist, essayist, lecturer and author of the forthcoming Journalists and Their Shadows. Other books include Time No Longer: Americans After the American Century. His Twitter account, @thefloutist, has been permanently censored. His web site is Patrick Lawrence. Support his work via his Patreon site. His web site is Patrick Lawrence. Support his work via his Patreon site. This article is an extract from Lawrence’s Journalists and Their Shadows, forthcoming from Clarity Press. The views expressed are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of Consortium News.

Hannity Visibly Frustrated As RFK Jr. Dismantles Ukraine Talking Points BY TYLER DURDEN WEDNESDAY, JUL 26, 2023 - 09:40 PM https://www.zerohedge.com/political/hannity-visibly-frustrated-rfk-jr-dismantles-ukraine-talking-points With Tucker Carlson out at Fox, what remains are the usual neocon "talk radio personalities" drawing large viewership at the network, namely Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, and some other lesser names. While long advancing conservative domestic policies and fighting the "culture wars", their foreign policy messaging really hasn't changed in decades—having more in common with George W. Bush, Hillary Clinton, Tom Cotton, or even Barack Obama. So when someone with the 'outsider' views of the fiercely independent Democratic presidential candidate Robert Kennedy Jr squares up against someone like Hannity (who for years has donned a CIA pin while on air) in a one-on-one interview, fireworks ensue. That's exactly what happened when the issue of Ukraine became a focal point during a town hall event Tuesday. It also didn't take long for RFK Jr. to win over the crowd. Hannity wasn't happy that RFK was "blaming America's role in this" for the Ukraine crisis... Kennedy Jr. focused his comments on exposing NATO's role in pushing Moscow into a corner, given its historic expansion east and turning Ukraine into a proxy, but Hannity sought to interrupt him multiple times "Because of our pushing the Ukraine into the war—" RFK had begun, before the Fox host interrupted with, "We pushed them into it or did Putin invade?" According to the response: Kennedy then harped on the clearly documented history of NATO expansion east, and further highlighted that Ukraine is undergoing NATO militarization right on Russia's border. There was also this moment: He also emphasized that Russia is going to do anything not to lose. "It would be like us losing a war to Mexico," RFK Jr. said. "They are not going to lose the war." Hannity is not used to handling foreign policy arguments which break free of the narrow MSM parameters and establishment group think dialectic.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cia-director-william-burns-biden-cabinet/

The first half of the following is solid work: https://www.bitchute.com/video/yIskEfo4mfKO/

In one fell swoop, a sentence ruined and a sound proposition rendered unintentionally hilarious. Tremendous.

CLUSTERxxxx NATION – BLOG July 21, 2023 The Downfall of Blobism “If it weren’t for double standards, the Democrats would have no standards at all.” — Jeff Childers of the Coffee and Covid blog https://kunstler.com/clusterxxxx-nation/the-downfall-of-blobism/ You might not know it these lazy, hazy, muggy days of midsummer, but things are getting pretty wildly out-of-hand in our republic. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. blew up the Democratic Party yesterday in the House Subcommittee on Weaponization of Government hearing, acting like a normal human while being set upon by a flock of harpies desperately screeching “Russia, Russia, Russia,” as if that means anything anymore. He branded them as worse than the McCarthyites of the 1950s, rebuked their insane scurrilities supporting censorship, and left them in a state of exhausted disgrace. It happens that he is running for the nomination of that very party knocking itself out to destroy him. To win that prize he would have to put a thousand top Democrats through some grueling act of repentance and contrition — and then you’ve got to ask yourself: who would even want to win the support of such vile creatures as Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Jerrold Nadler, and Adam Schiff, let alone be associated with them in the same club? Elsewhere around the scene this week, we have the ever more degenerate antics of the FBI on view as whistleblowers pour out of the woodwork disclosing the rot behind Director Chris Wray and his boss AG Merrick Garland. This Deep State Blob of turpitude has been growing and festering with so many overlapping cover-ups that they’ve run out of rugs to sweep their crimes under. The massive moneygrubbing misdeeds of Hillary Clinton from Skolkovo and Uranium One beat a direct path through the Ukraine coup of 2014, to RussiaGate, to the Biden Family’s global influence-peddling operation and every mendacious act in-between including the FISA falsehoods, the J-6 entrapment caper, hundreds of malicious and deceitful prosecutions, the Covid-19 fraud, the censorship and medical tyranny, and God-knows how many ensuing deaths from a poisonous vaccine… and now, a brain-dead government trifling with nuclear war. And whose brilliant idea was it, anyway, to install this disgusting and incompetent grifter, “Joe Biden,” as our head-of-state? They surely knew well before 2019 that his bag-man son was rooting out bribes in Ukraine, China, and elsewhere, at the same time he was consorting with whores and trafficked children while destroying his brain with crack and downing a fifth of vodka a day. And you’re telling me that the CIA and FBI did not know about any of this, even before October 2019 when Hunter’s laptop stuffed with graphic evidence fell into their hands? If they didn’t know any of this, then what’s the point of having an intel community? My guess is that it was Barack Obama’s idea to stick “Joe Biden” in the White House in the vain effort to use this captive criminal to stave off any accounting for the aforesaid villainies that occurred during Mr. Obama’s two terms. The mission was originally Hillary Clinton’s — she had plenty at stake herself — but she botched the job in 2016 and allowed the Golden Golem of Greatness to slip into power. It is amazing to look back and see how the mighty Blob congealed after that election — like a giant rogue macrophage — to surround and eliminate Mr. Trump, who apparently did not know for many months what he was up against: the entire permanent bureaucracy. Obviously, the Blob only partly succeeded in deactivating Mr. Trump, who has worked sedulously since 2021 to marshal about half the country militantly against the Blob and Blobism, while he still suffers one rear-guard legal affront after another. Trouble is, the Blob itself has become an immune disorder for the polity known as the USA, and now threatens to destroy everything the country stands for and all the stuff deployed on the landscape from sea to shining sea, if the hypersonic nukes fly. These are dangerous weeks ahead. The pedal’s on the metal… the rubber’s meeting the road, and we seem to be watching a Thelma and Louise type denouement writ large. The Blob itself, with the Democratic Party at its nucleus, and evil organelles Mitch McConnell, Lindsey Graham, and their like floating in the endoplasmic reticulum, has gone insane trying to protect its Precious, liberalism’s sacred bowling trophy, Barack Obama, from scrutiny. To call Mr. Obama to account, of course, would be viewed as the ultimate act of American “racism,” a place too many will not go. So, he may evade responsibility until he (and the rest of us) are gone and history catches up with him. But is there any doubt now that “Joe Biden” must go, and as soon as possible? Surely there is enough evidence to mount an impeachment in the House, and rev it up as expeditiously as the Democrats revved up their two Trump impeachments. An impeachment would, of course, force a trial in the Senate. It is probably the one news event that The New York Times, The Washington Post, and CNN can’t run and hide from — as they have been hiding from this week’s whistleblower hearings and Mr. Kennedy’s sturdy performance against the House censorship activists. In a Senate trial, the rot will finally be laid out before the people to judge, whether the Senate can bring itself to convict “JB” or not. Anyway, it will end this president’s pretense of running for reelection, and on the off-chance he’s convicted, his pardon powers do not extend to that particular extraordinary Senate proceeding. And then we can see about Ms. Harris. The modern Democrat Party is an electoral fiction comprising the dead, the ruling elite, and the warfare state Edmund Burke

A recent example of how eyewitness film footage to a shooting’s immediate aftermath was edited to protect one element of the British deep state’s deadliest resources (in this instance, the Metropolitan Police’s CO19 armed unit) - and officialdom pretended not to notice: Examination of Witness B’s tampered mobile phone footage – the edit is calculated to have been at least 4 seconds - begins at 14 mins 55 seconds: https://youtu.be/9_xzmOpGypY?t=895 Orville Nix’s unqualified endorsement of the copy of the film returned to him: I love the idea the plotters were not interested in controlling photographic imagery of the assassination. Has anyone told them? Henry Dashiell Burroughs, AP B&W still photographer, rode in Camera Car #2 in motorcade: 10/14/98 letter to Vince Palamara---"I was a member of the White House pool aboard Air Force One when we arrived with JFK in Dallas on that fateful day. We, the pool, were dismayed to find our pool car shoved back to about #11 position in the motorcade. We protested, but it was too late.” https://www.whokilledjfk.net/motorcade_occupants.htm https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/58524123/henry-dashiell-burroughs

Dwight L Chapin endorses this message.

Good to be reminded of Oglesby's piece. Also well worth a look is Barbara Morris Freed's chapter on Flight 553 within the Steve Weissman-edited anthology Big Brother and the Holding Company: The World Behind Watergate (Ramparts Press, 1974): https://archive.org/details/bigbrotherholdi00weis/page/n5/mode/2up

https://bidenlaptopreport.marcopolousa.org/report_viewer/index.html#p=1 Horrifying

https://www.scottritterextra.com/p/it-is-time-for-america-to-declare It is time for America to declare its independence from the CIA SCOTT RITTER JUL 4, 2023 The CIA prides itself on being called the clandestine service. Webster’s Dictionary defines the term clandestine (an adjective) to mean “kept secret or done secretively, especially because illicit.” I was therefore quite surprised when, on July 1, 2023, during a lecture delivered to the Ditchley Foundation in the United Kingdom, William Burns, the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), declared that “Disaffection with the war [Russia’s ongoing Special Military Operation in Ukraine] will continue to gnaw away at the Russian leadership, beneath the steady diet of state propaganda and practiced repression. That disaffection creates a once-in-a-generation opportunity for us at CIA, at our core a human intelligence service.” Not too clandestine there, Mr. Director. My experience with human intelligence collection, while dated, is sufficient to know that the less you speak about it, the better your results will be. But Burns’ statement was not the first time that the agency he heads has gone public regarding its desire to exploit what it assessed to be the disaffection with the war in Ukraine among military officers and oligarchs who have been impacted by the war. Back in November 2022, David Marlowe, the CIA’s Deputy Director for Operations, told an audience at George Mason University that the CIA “was open for business,” actively looking for “Russians who are as disgusted with [Putin’s actions in invading Ukraine] as we are.” It's not just that Burns and Marlowe have gone public with the who, what, where, and why of the CIA’s desire to recruit new Russian spies—they violated every maxim in the intelligence business by emphasizing the “how,” in particular the CIA’s new recruitment tactic of trolling for spies online, using social media platforms such as Telegram to reach out to prospective agents and provide them with a self-described “secure” means of contacting a CIA case officer, who would be only too pleased to process their application. During my time as an intelligence professional, I was involved—peripherally and directly—in the recruitment, running, and debriefing of several human intelligence assets (i.e., spies.) One thing that every operation that I was involved in had in common was the absolute requirement for intimate person-to-person contact between the agent and his handlers. From the time of its funding, the CIA had used a process known as MICE (Money, Ideology, Coercion or Compromise, Ego) to encapsulate their approach to understanding the fundamental question of “why do people spy?” The case of Aldrich Ames, a CIA officer who betrayed some of the CIA’s most sensitive secrets to the Soviet Union in the 1980’s and ‘90’s, prompted the CIA to take a more sophisticated look at what would motivate a person to betray their country and/or cause. Borrowing from the principles of psychology used to describe the ideal “weapons of mass influence,” the CIA switched from MICE to RASCLS (Reciprocation, Authority, Scarcity, Commitment and Consistency, Liking, and Social Proof) to best capture the complexities of the human condition when called upon to spy. All of these relate, directly or indirectly, to the absolute requirement of person-to-person, or human-to-human, connectivity, something the internet, for all of its utility, is lacking. For all of you want-to-be spies out there, let me remind you of one simple fact—the CIA sucks at human intelligence, especially when it comes to Russia. What few good spies they manage to pull into their stable (Oleg Penkovsky, of Cuban Missile Crisis fame, and Adolf Tolkachev, the so-called “billion dollar spy”) were walk-ins—volunteers who recruited the CIA, as opposed to the other way around, and both were ultimately arrested and executed because of security lapses on the part of the CIA (i.e., allowing their identities to be known by persons who betrayed them to the Russians). If anything, the CIA has gotten worse at recruiting and running Russian agents since the collapse of the Soviet Union. The CIA’s “best” Russian spy, whose information former CIA Director John Brennan used to convince Barack Obama that the Russians were actively supporting Donald Trump in the 2016 Presidential election, turned out to be a double agent fed by to the CIA by the Russians. Moreover, the CIA’s Moscow Station, once the premier assignment for career spies, atrophied in the lax era of the 1990’s, when it practically ran the Russian President (Boris Yeltsin) as an agent, and therefore didn’t really need to work to get Russia to comply with American national security priorities. The CIA suffered a series of embarrassing intelligence failures which resulted in the Moscow Station being gutted when the case officers assigned there were rounded up repeatedly by their Russian counterparts as they tried in vain to recruit and manage their Russian agents, most if not all of whom were likewise compromised and arrested. The inability of the CIA to gain any traction using the traditional methodologies of spy craft involving human assets led the agency to reexamine its practices. Of particular concern were the cumbersome and risky processes involved in making physical contact with an agent in hostile territory such as Moscow, where Russian counterintelligence officers monitored the CIA officer’s every move. Meetings such as these required expert execution of what is known in the intelligence business as “tradecraft,” a skill set which, if not exercised regularly, rapidly atrophies, and dies. The post-9/11 global war on terror, with its heavy demand on using local populations to gather intelligence on embedded terrorist cells, served as an incubator of innovation, especially among US military human intelligence collectors who used this kind of information on a tactical level. A special internet-based communications system was devised which allowed human assets to contact their American military handlers with time sensitive information. CIA paramilitary operatives piggy-backed on to this communication means, and soon it was being used by the CIA’s case officers to manage the communications for agent networks that had been recruited over the course of decades in places like Iran, China, and Russia. In October 2021, however, the top counterintelligence officials in the US intelligence community warned every CIA station and base around the world that this system had been compromised, resulting in dozens of agents being arrested and executed. The communications system was computer-based, involving internet communications. While the US counterintelligence community initially focused on someone from within compromising the system to a hostile foreign intelligence agency, in the end it was determined that the intelligence service of Iran simply used its understanding of how the internet system worked to reverse engineer the connectivity between the CIA and its agents. And now the CIA wants to use the internet yet again as the principal vehicle for attracting a new generation of spies. Not to fear, the CIA notes: its new internet communications scheme is based upon the dark web, using “onion routing,” or Tor, software. Left unsaid is the fact that the FBI and CIA have been “uncloaking” Tor users for more than a decade by using de-anonymizing techniques. What is good for the goose is good for the gander, and anyone who doesn’t believe Russian computer security agencies lack the expertise to do the same are delusional. In short, the system the CIA is proposing to use as its “flagship” approach toward recruiting human agents inside Russia is, literally, a death trap. But, then again, the CIA sucks at human intelligence, especially inside Russia. Burns knows this. So does Marlowe. So should any Russian thinking about using Telegram or Tor to contact the CIA. Which leads me to believe that the announcement by the CIA is little more than a PR campaign designed to distract Congress away from the fact that the CIA has been wrong on Russia across the board, from the impact of economic sanctions to the capabilities of the Russian armed forces, and everything in between. In short, the CIA is running a psychological operation against the American people and those whom we elect to represent us, yet another lie in a string of lies dating back to the agency’s birth in 1947 that adds credence to the increasing calls for its dissolution. Today is Independence Day. Perhaps there isn’t a better way to express our love of nation than expunging the cancerous growth that is the CIA from the American body. We, the people, stand for truth and justice. The CIA is built on a foundation of lies and deceit. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., who is challenging Joe Biden to be the candidate of the Democratic Party in the 2024 presidential election, is on to something—it is time to abolish this American abomination. Happy Independence Day, America.

I was quite wrong about the senile militaristic grifter most recently observed wandering dreamily through the TV studio. As a number of Biden’s bootlickers have pointed out, he must be mentally fit enough for the job – he didn’t fall over: As for being a Rupert’s People person, I cheerfully confess: PS Yet more rank deep-state dreck from you on RFK, Jr : “Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. earlier characterized the Koch brothers as “war criminals” for their alleged damage to the environment.” Source: https://redstate.com/diary/davenj1/2014/10/03/koch-vs-kennedy-n227373

For any newcomers to the subject, a short introduction to the evolution of RFK assassination research over the past half-century The Second Gun by Ted Charach (1973) Theodore Charack : R.F.K. and the second gun (KPFK, 2 April 1975): Firing Line with William F. Buckley Jr.: Who Killed Bobby Kennedy? with Allard K. Lowenstein (April 1975) The Second Dallas by Massimo Mazzucco (2018) Lisa Pease – Truth Behind RFK assassination (RFK assassination interviews #3, 2022) Pease's A Lie Too Big To Fail deserves a first-rate documentary

The towering genius of Bidenescu strikes again, as duly noted by that notorious arm of Rupert Murdoch known as, er, The Grauniad: Hehehe!

A truly terrifying prospectus:

Victoria Nuland on Yatsenyuk as "our guy," as she decides who will rule post-coup Ukraine, 2014 ARSENIY YATSENYUK HAS HUGE EPIPHANY ABOUT UKRAINE - IT'S A GENOCIDAL National Socialist REGIME - TOO LATE, June 2023 https://www.bitchute.com/video/8YRQXb0TRlBF/ An Indian view of Victoria Nuland as an "agent of destruction"

A truncated version, but not by much.

Useful Idiots: