The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
CIA-Backed Insurgency in Virginia
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

From the NYT:

In Virginia, Women Form an Insurgency to Try to Topple Republican Dave Brat

By Michael Tackett
Aug. 9, 2018

MIDLOTHIAN, Va. — The Liberal Women of Chesterfield County did not exist when Representative Dave Brat, propelled by Tea Party-infused energy, shocked the Republican establishment in 2014 and defeated the House majority leader, Eric Cantor, in a primary triumph here that presaged even greater political upheaval two years later. …

A race that was once considered solidly in the Republican camp is now rated a tossup, and the Liberal Women of Chesterfield County are stirring women to come out in such great numbers that the Democratic nominee, Abigail Spanberger, a well-credentialed former C.I.A. officer, may make history of a different sort in a district that has been deeply Republican for decades.

In Russia, old KGB agents took over the country under Putin. Do you ever get the impression, when surveying recently recruited Democratic candidates, that the CIA alumni association intends to do something similar to the USA?

One difference might be that my impression is that the KGB, given the Soviet Union’s severe economic disadvantage, had to be somewhat competent to stay in the game, while the CIA seems to have a track record of ineptitude.

From World Socialist Web Site:

The CIA Democrats: Part one
By Patrick Martin
7 March 2018

An extraordinary number of former intelligence and military operatives from the CIA, Pentagon, National Security Council and State Department are seeking nomination as Democratic candidates for Congress in the 2018 midterm elections. The potential influx of military-intelligence personnel into the legislature has no precedent in US political history.

I presume a whole bunch of ex-officers got elected to Congress in 1946, like Kennedy and Nixon. But it is a pretty interesting phenomenon. The notion that the successful KGB takeover of Russia might be serving as an inspiration to CIA folks doesn’t seem to have come up much, though.

 
Hide 286 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. The Democratic Party is betting heavily on CIA agents (and other intelligence operatives):

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/daily-202/2017/10/18/daily-202-ex-cia-officers-running-for-congress-as-democrats/59e6b25b30fb041a74e75de5/?noredirect=on

    Because democracy is best left in the hands of secret, unaccountable government officials who specialize in subverting governments.

    • Replies: @Another Canadian
    @Mr. Anon

    Make the C.I.A. Great Again?

    , @SunBakedSuburb
    @Mr. Anon

    The CIA underwent an ideological sea change during the Clinton presidency (in which the foul Queen Hillary ruled behind the curtain like Lady Macbeth). As the Cheney Regency kicked-in after the false-flag 9/11 attack, I cheered this liberal sect within the CIA while they served as an oppositional force against the plans of Cheney and his long-time comrade Donald Rumsfeld. This Agency liberal sect, as represented in present day by Peter Strzok and John Brennan, now reveals itself to be agents of the kind of totalitarian leftism that sours my stomach.

    , @Dmon
    @Mr. Anon

    The CIA wants to make sure that Americans don't meddle in their elections.

  2. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/campaigns/abigail-spanberger-the-former-cia-officer-challenging-rep-dave-brat
    Before her time at the CIA, Spanberger working on money laundering and narcotics cases for the U.S. Postal Inspection Service. In both positions, Spanberger talks about working under Democratic and Republican presidencies, touting an ability to work with both sides. It’s experience she’s hoping resonates with voters who are tired of the polarization in Congress. Spanberger’s “level-headed” pitch is a far cry from Brat’s defiant, sometimes hostile relationship with his own party’s House leadership.

    *** She was prolly a lawyer who never left her CIA office in the DC region. She is presentable so may win.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    @Clyde


    Spanberger’s “level-headed” pitch is a far cry from Brat’s defiant, sometimes hostile relationship with his own party’s House leadership.
     
    I expect my GOP Congressman to be in a hostile relationship with his own party's leadership; if he isn't, he isn't doing his job, as far as I'm concerned.
    , @The Wild Geese Howard
    @Clyde

    I quite enjoyed the photo of her campaign HQ painting that is a straight rip off of Hokusai:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Wave_off_Kanagawa

  3. “the CIA seems to have a track record of historic ineptitude”

    That has not been my impression at all.

    • Disagree: JohnnyWalker123
    • Replies: @Southron
    @Lot

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Intelligence_Agency#Failures_in_intelligence_analysis

    Please find the section "Failures ..." and the following several sections, especially "Abuses ..." in the article referred to above, as counterexamples.

    As a fundamental principle of intelligence, the public's knowledge almost entirely consists of the organization's failures. Successes are only treated in historical texts two generations after the fact, if at all.

    Replies: @dr kill, @Jack D, @Lot

    , @Cagey Beast
    @Lot

    The CIA has a reputation for being evil and incompetent and people are afraid of them. Not a winning combination for someone running for office.

    Replies: @Prof. Woland

    , @Achmed E. Newman
    @Lot

    You would think the imminent fall of the USSR and the East Bloc, America's arch-enemies for 40 years already at the time, and probably the only legitimate purpose in having the CIA around*, would have been something the "intelligence" agencies would have been up on. You'd be wrong. Pretty much half the countries in Latin America are proof of the stupidity of the CIA, or at least the management.

    The CIA have been the biggest bunch of fuck-ups the world has seen, and any agency without the power to blackmail as they have, and without that almost unlimited black budget, would have not lasted in this world.

    .
    .

    * besides the fact that they were GOING TO stay around, no matter what any President and Congress were going to say about it.

    Replies: @Marat

    , @Peter Akuleyev
    @Lot

    What I have heard from State Department types is that the CIA guys stationed at embassies abroad had almost unlimited financial resources at their disposal, were arrogant and had no obvious “deliverables” to meet. Half of them seem to be living in their own fantasy worlds. The Russians had more limited resources and were held accountable for results, and were thus much more disciplined. OTOH, the CIA is Mormon dominated which keeps it fairly honest and morally conservative.

    Replies: @Cagey Beast, @theMann, @Desiderius, @S. Anonyia, @Twinkie, @Anon, @Bill jones

    , @Federalist
    @Lot

    Weapons of mass destruction.

    , @Prester John
    @Lot

    The CIA has a history of not being able to get out of its own way. In some respects this is comforting and in other respects disturbing. Read Derek Leebert's "The Fifty Year Wound" which should be subtitled "How America Won the Cold War Despite the CIA" which details among other things CIA activities on the domestic front--which by law was supposed to be off limits to them but evidently that train immediately left the station.

    , @James Forrestal
    @Lot


    “the CIA seems to have a track record of historic ineptitude”

    That has not been my impression at all.
     

    The narrative of the CIA as an organization that is largely involved in espionage (often successfully) and covert operations/ dirty tricks (often unsuccessfully) seems to get promoted quite a bit -- Castro and exploding cigars, anyone? The issue of CIA involvement in propaganda/ disinformation (especially domestically) is... much less prominent.

    What relationship (if any) this narrative has to the truth is difficult to judge from the outside.

    This is a kind of interesting anecdote, though:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7uLA2p2IZE&feature=youtu.be&t=26

    "About a month after I was elected governor, I was requested into the basement of the Capitol, to be interviewed by 23 members of the CIA."
    ....

    "Then they started questioning me, and it was all about how I got elected."

    OK, but that's Jesse Ventura -- ex pro wrestler, "conspiracy theorist," a bit of a nut. The overly-dramatic music doesn't help, either. Sounds a little... implausible. Though his success was rather unusual -- he was the Reform Party candidate, and defeated both major party candidates, while spending much less than either of them.

    Minnesota Public Radio:

    "CIA Spokesman George Little confirmed the event today in a written statement, but he offered few details.
    Little said that "on occasion CIA officers meet with senior state government officials, as they did in this case, to discuss issues of mutual interest." "
    [MPR didn't link to a primary source for the CIA spokesman's statement, which is kind of annoying, but not really atypical for a legacy media outlet.]

    https://www.mprnews.org/story/2008/01/03/jessecia

    Huh. That's a little odd. So the CIA gets interested when elections don't go as... planned?

    , @J.Ross
    @Lot

    Don't spend the fifty cents all in one place.

    , @Tarheel American
    @Lot

    Then your perception is not based on reality.

  4. There really does seem to be a military versus CIA dimension to current partisan conflict. Amusingly, it mirrors Kruschev’s battle with Beria as shown in The Death of Stalin.

    It is also reflected in the disagreements between West and East Coast Straussians who, contra many theories on this site, tend to move their positions to accommodate reality as that is a key part of their ideology. This explains their coherence with dominant trends much better than them exerting nefarious control.

    None of this is a formal conflict, though perhaps more so on the CIA side which is naturally better suited to such stuff. Then again, it is easy to notice that many feminine women join organisations like the CIA, in part, because they like to be around military men but also enjoy having elegant fingernails.

    Of course, both are moderate forces within their respective parties. They fraternise too much not to be.

    We are at a turning point in history, where everything gets shaken up. The nationalist side is worse positioned by not having much heft in the key influencing industries of the media and academia. The globalist side is worse positioned by being dragged along into lunacy by that very influence.

    Controlling the Kool-Aid makes you the don of the festivities, until you drink too much of it and embarrass yourself.

    I don’t think that the above observations are particularly useful but it is interesting to note that at historical turning points, when the previous consensus is breaking, it is very often the military and security services that are able to step into the cracks.

    I suppose the most practical point is that if you want your side to win then you need to move as fast as you can to neutralise all of their sources of individual power. Legalism be damned. The public eventually bore of any administration so you need to make sure you have colonised the opposing side before they are given their turn to have a crack at colonising you.

    Institutional capture is particularly powerful in this scenario as the type of ambitious and competent people who staff them have a way of aligning themselves to the whatever the direction of flow is meant to be.

    The Trump administration appears to be a rather belated recognition of these facts. An impromptu and unlikely reaction by a side that had almost lost mostly because it had refused to recognise that there even was a fight. I assume that there were some outrageous provocations that finally managed to wake them from their slumber.

    With Big Tech openly joining up with Big Media and Big Education, the globalist side has not stayed still. Perhaps the greatest difficulty is that the nationalist side is constrained by its own ideology from even neutralising those organisational weapons, nevermind capturing them.

    Furthermore, outcompeting them on a fair free market playing field isn’t a great option as the globalist side is not limited by those rules itself. Globalist censorship efforts are outsourced to places like Britain, where minority grievance mongering parliamentarians harangued Big Tech into a more globalist shape.

    This is why a realist perspective is important. Principles are great, until sticking to them is the very thing that prohibits you from effectively defending them.

    The nationalist-minded administration has a finite if unknowable time period to bring the media, academia and tech into line, and it needs to find a way to do it without looking horrifically hypocritical. That, or other actors need to do it for them; but there’s no obvious alternative to the institutional power of the state.

    • Agree: Harry Baldwin
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    @Tyrion 2

    Great general comment, Tyrion 2.


    Principles are great, until sticking to them is the very thing that prohibits you from effectively defending them.
     
    Indeed, that's what it comes down to. As with the back-and-forth Commies/miliary Juntas down in Latin America, the good people trying to fight or oust the Commies can not do so using the old law-and-order, as the Commies just use it against them (see exhibit A - Charlottesville, Virginia). After that, it always seems to be the army coming in to clean house, but using war tactics and going far beyond "due process" when doing so.
    , @Tiny Duck
    @Tyrion 2

    Your side will fail midrabky because it has no People of Color

    Replies: @Tyrion 2

    , @Alec Leamas
    @Tyrion 2

    My belief is that at least some large part of the coup d'etat against Trump was a desire to keep General Flynn away from the levers of power. As a consequence he was the first to be taken out. He knew the CIA's number - they would at the very least suffer a loss of influence and prestige with former DIA head Flynn in Trump's ear. At the worst (from the Agency's point of view) the hacks, failures and clock punchers could get outed and taken care of by the new Administration.

    I think that perhaps Trump surrounding himself with Marine Corps Generals was a message to the so-called "Intelligence Community." There's still a Marine Corps barracks in the heart of DC, after all.

    Replies: @Hunsdon, @The Wild Geese Howard

    , @Sean
    @Tyrion 2


    Furthermore, out competing them on a fair free market playing field isn’t a great option as the globalist side is not limited by those rules itself
     
    The number one one concern of the CIA is foreign countries gaining in power relative to America. The Deep State of America predicated its Globalism on America coming out on top in liberalized Global trade. No one is is favour of rules they cannot win under .

    This is why a realist perspective is important. Principles are great, until sticking to them is the very thing that prohibits you from effectively defending them.
     
    True, and the Deep State has begun to realise that China has an advantage under American principles. An instance of this was when Gina Haspel addressed the issue of China’s “overt and illicit efforts to steal” U.S. technology.

    The Old Guard at the CIA did not see the danger of China, and the Chinese, one might add, did not see the danger of Trump. The head of Chinese intelligence is being sacked. After hearing about Russia tipping the balance for Trump, I suspect Xi was wondering why nothing had been done by his espionage service to help Clinton. The institutional power of the state exists to maintain the state over-against other states, and the CIA disagreements with itself on how to do that are probably as so often in these cases between the young and the older functionaries. The school of thought that China on globalism is not the threat to United States primacy consists of superannuated Cold Warriors no longer at the agency.

    Replies: @Tyrion 2, @Sam Malone

    , @Hunsdon
    @Tyrion 2

    Excellent comment, Tyrion 2.

    "Don't get high on your own supply."

    , @Anonymous
    @Tyrion 2

    Interesting points. Ever since Valerie Plame posed for Vanity Fair I've been skeptical of the female spook trope-- it seems like the perfect not-actually-risky-but-badass-seeming high status GS-14 career that suburban college girls infest. OTOH I can see how it would appeal to a certain kind of "Zero Dark Thirty" idealistic/aggressive smart woman who couldn't hack it in the private sector (for all the complex reasons entailed by that--to the distaff bureaucrat it's just a lot less friendly than the Potomac demimonde). Also if my own observations from school comport with trends in foreign language specialization, the female students seem to be taking it over.

  5. >seems to have a track record of historic ineptitude

    It is rare that I see you in need of an editor, Mr. Sailer. Please remove the redundant “historic” in the above phrase; I in turn request that this comment be deleted when it has served its purpose.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    @Southron

    Historic as in worst in history.

    The historic refers to the severity of the ineptitude, not the record itself.

  6. Every CIA person I see on TV is a globalist and a Leftist (rare exceptions prove the rule). Has this always been true or were the intelligence agencies taken over by the Left in the last 20 years?

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @RichardTaylor

    William F. Buckley's CIA buddy Miles Copeland, father of the drummer of The Police, said the CIA was always quite liberal in a couple of pieces in National Review in the 70s.

    Replies: @Desiderius, @Cagey Beast, @RichardTaylor, @JudyBlumeSussman, @SunBakedSuburb, @PV van der Byl

    , @El Dato
    @RichardTaylor

    I do think this is just another example of Public Choice Theory and/or Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy.

    If you are an upwardly mobile guy in a tax-funded outfit that deals with spook stuff, you will try to get your wedge in.

    You WILL find problems to solve, if necessary CAUSE problems that can then be solved, preferably ad infinitum and bigger than the previous problem. You will submit outrageous project plans that, in the general feverish atmosphere of an office building full of people shielded from base reality by soporific memos, HVAC, cheap cantine fodder and contraceptives, seem to be Good Ideas.

    Many dead people will be left in your wake, but you don't care, your new suburban house is comfortable to live in in middle age.

    Replies: @Desiderius

    , @Hibernian
    @RichardTaylor

    In WW2 CIA predecessor OSS knowingly used Communist agents; had something to do with the fact we were fighting the Nazis and allied with the Soviets.

    Replies: @Harry Baldwin

    , @TTSSYF
    @RichardTaylor

    I had an interview with the CIA several years ago and did some reading up on it in preparation. My impression is that they've always leaned Left, which surprised me at the time, and still sort of does.

    , @JohnnyWalker123
    @RichardTaylor

    This seems like a more recent occurrence.

    In the run up to the Iraq War, George Bush referenced a document that demonstrated Iraq was attempting to buy nuclear weapons-grade uranium from Africa. The document also supposedly demonstrated Iraq had trained one of the 9/11 terrorist masterminds. It later turned out that the document was forged by the CIA and the Whitehouse.

    Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Ron Suskind recorded a very senior-level CIA official admitting that the CIA was involved in the forgery. Phillip Giraldi (a former CIA officer who frequently writes for Unz.com) confirmed this allegation.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8F8S31tBBoM

    Recently declassified documents show that back in the 1960s, the CIA planned to conduct “acts of terrorism” on U.S. cities and military assets. The CIA then planned to blame the terrorist attacks on Cuba, which would’ve justified an invasion. This plan (“Operation Northwoods”) never happened because President Kennedy came out strongly against it.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyA-sCE18hY

    Then there was the 1980 October surprise. During the 1980 presidential election, Governor Ronald Reagan and HW Bush (with the assistance of the CIA) secretly negotiated with Iran to delay the release of the American hostages being held by Iranian militants. Jimmy Carter ended up losing the 1980 election, mostly due to his inability to secure the release of the hostages. Minutes after the newly elected Reagan finished his inaugural address and assumed the presidency, Iran released the hostages back home to America. The Reagan administration (with the assistance of the CIA and Israel) then illegally provided arms to Iran, without informing the public or Congress. Google “Iran-Contra” to learn more.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ruf5CynbPJo

    Here's a good documentary about how the CIA smuggled cocaine into the U.S. and used the profits to fund the Contras. Reagan, HW Bush, and Clinton all aided this during their respective administrations.

    Watch below from 5:35-8:50.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7gW7QwevFI

    So, no, not "liberal." At least not until the Obama years.

    Liberals actually hated the CIA back in the 60s, 70s, and 80s. These days, they've learned to love the CIA. Rather odd.

    Replies: @JohnnyWalker123, @Prester John

  7. One difference might be that my impression is that the KGB, owing to the Soviet Union’s economic disadvantage, had to be somewhat competent to stay in the game, the CIA seems to have a track record of historic ineptitude.

    In the 1990s CIA backed gangsters took part in the Pillage of Russia. Now the CIA takes part in the Pillage of America every year. No economic understanding is required when you squeeze $1 trillion or more out of the taxpayers every year.

  8. @Lot
    "the CIA seems to have a track record of historic ineptitude"

    That has not been my impression at all.

    Replies: @Southron, @Cagey Beast, @Achmed E. Newman, @Peter Akuleyev, @Federalist, @Prester John, @James Forrestal, @J.Ross, @Tarheel American

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Intelligence_Agency#Failures_in_intelligence_analysis

    Please find the section “Failures …” and the following several sections, especially “Abuses …” in the article referred to above, as counterexamples.

    As a fundamental principle of intelligence, the public’s knowledge almost entirely consists of the organization’s failures. Successes are only treated in historical texts two generations after the fact, if at all.

    • Replies: @dr kill
    @Southron

    I can hope for silent success in the intelligence industry, but I feel the failures are much greater than the triumphs. I'm just thinking of the First Gulf War, Bay of Pigs, Pearl Harbor, Berlin Wall.
    It's possible correct relevant information was presented to our elected officials in a timely manner and was mishandled, but, as recently demonstrated, the intelligence community is not shy about protecting their own and deflecting and assigning blame to others.
    I would like to be wrong.

    Replies: @ben tillman, @Anonymous

    , @Jack D
    @Southron


    Successes are only treated in historical texts two generations after the fact, if at all.
     
    This is a convenient excuse - we can only tell you about the CIA's handful of failures and not their thousands of successes that we can't tell you about because they are secret.

    It's also complete BS. The US government leaks like a sieve and Washington is full of self promoters. If there is any success, you will be reading about it in the NYTimes or WaPo with "anonymous" sources.

    When you look at the known failures, you see what a crowd of jokers and alcoholics and amateurs the CIA is staffed with. If these clowns achieve any success it would be purely by accident.

    But, fortunately, it makes little difference. Espionage is always just a sideshow - it is rarely decisive. If victory in the Cold War had depended on espionage, the Russians would have beaten us 10 to 1. But in the end it was not the decisive factor. Stealing the nuclear secrets might have sped up the Soviet nuclear program by a couple of years but they would have figured it out on their own anyway - they had plenty of 1st rate scientists.

    Replies: @Alec Leamas, @Mr. Anon

    , @Lot
    @Southron

    I favor a policy of blind loyalty to the military and the various quasi-military agencies like the CIA.

    While they perhaps are imperfect, they are our guys.

    The "failures" of the CIA, to the extent they are real, are not the CIA's fault, but that of the president and his administration at the time.

    http://www.lovethispic.com/uploaded_images/175402-Proud-To-Be-An-American.jpg

    Replies: @Mr. Anon, @Desiderius, @James Forrestal

  9. @Lot
    "the CIA seems to have a track record of historic ineptitude"

    That has not been my impression at all.

    Replies: @Southron, @Cagey Beast, @Achmed E. Newman, @Peter Akuleyev, @Federalist, @Prester John, @James Forrestal, @J.Ross, @Tarheel American

    The CIA has a reputation for being evil and incompetent and people are afraid of them. Not a winning combination for someone running for office.

    • Replies: @Prof. Woland
    @Cagey Beast

    Thanks to the recent attempted coup d'etat lead by the CIA and the publicity surrounding it, the CIA has seriously tarnished up their image as being the agency that stayed out of domestic politics. They just could not 'resist' eating the apple from the domestic-internet tree of knowledge and are now out cast.

    These CIA analysis's seem to portray themselves as clean cut white button downed types "just the facts" mam but won't be able to escape what Obama and their senior management did. I don't know if they are appearing in the Democrat party now to ward off Trump or the more vibrant elements emerging withing the Democratic party but they will be very hard to trust by either wing. Either they were complicit or they were ignorant of the worst scandal in American history but either way, having worked for the CIA won't look as good on the resume as it once would have.

  10. CIA is not monolithic. DO has a different culture than DI. And each has factions. Add political appointee, and you have a lot of cooks.

  11. “… the CIA seems to have a track record of historic ineptitude.”

    They got Kennedy … well, if you believe a few other pages here at UR, that success would be attributable to one of the intel agencies of our bestest friend and ally.

    • Replies: @Detective Club
    @The Alarmist

    After the Bay of Pigs fiasco (April, 1961), President Kennedy supposedly said that he would pick apart the CIA and scatter its pieces to the four winds. In November of 1963, Kennedy's brains were scattered to the winds in Dallas.
    https://youtu.be/r6PcVCqg3tg
    Dave Brat had better put a food-taster on his campaign payroll double quick and make sure that all metal detectors at his rallies are in working order.

  12. The KGB had a huge advantage. They took the creme of the creme of each generation of young Soviets. To be selected by the KGB was a huge honor and was the road to wealth and power. The CIA, on the other hand, had to compete with investment banks and save-the-world startups. I interviewed with the agency after college, and unlike other potential employers the CIA did interviews off campus so they didn’t have to deal with, well, the KGB’s useful idiots.

    Didn’t follow up because they wanted to send me to third world shitholes where you can get VD from the water and where they’ll hang you from your scrotum if they suspect you’re working for the CIA. There were companies willing to pay a lot more money for a lot less inconvenience. My idea of world travel is Germany and France, not Kenya and Guatemala.

    Plus, no License To Kill. That was a big disappointment.

    • LOL: TTSSYF
    • Replies: @Anonym
    @tsotha

    Didn’t follow up because they wanted to send me to third world shitholes where you can get VD from the water and where they’ll hang you from your scrotum if they suspect you’re working for the CIA. There were companies willing to pay a lot more money for a lot less inconvenience. My idea of world travel is Germany and France, not Kenya and Guatemala.

    VD from the water eh? Yeah, I was visiting some third world s***hole a couple weeks back and wouldn't you know, I contracted VD from the water. Honest!

    Replies: @europeasant

    , @Achmed E. Newman
    @tsotha

    Isotha, I had a friend who had an interview with the CIA long ago just after college graduation. He only wanted to get on there so he could carry a gun legally. I don't think that fact sat too well with the interviewers, once they figured it out. It's OK, it's OK, he's making about 1/2 million bucks a year now as a doctor.

    BTW, what Anonym said. I dunno though, I've heard people say "don't drink the water at a whorehouse - you'll get VD." There may be something to it.

    , @Stan d Mute
    @tsotha


    I interviewed with the agency after college, and unlike other potential employers the CIA did interviews off campus
     
    I had a phone interview with them and they used a cover company based in Chicongo with a 312 area code.

    Plus, no License To Kill. That was a big disappointment.
     
    Depends on where you’re posted. That was my sole reason for interest as a young and very jacked up man. I also had extended family connections (one assassinated in Turkey, the other lost a kid in Laos) plus my dad did some sketchy SigInt work for Army “Intelligence” (oxymoronic as hell eh?) in Germany.

    What struck me then (and now) was the contrast between CIA & FBI. CIA had a one page application form asking just basic name, DOB, SSN, etc. FBI had a bound booklet asking for things like names and addresses of elementary school teachers, photos of neighbors, etc. Color me unsurprised at recent relevations of FBI incompetence. Anybody who thinks FedGov (esp NSA, NGA/NGIS, CIA, etc) doesn’t already know everything about you is pretty naive. We all have a file in NSA’s Utah Data Center being crunched and hashed by Palantir big data apps.

    Replies: @Mr. Anon

    , @Cato
    @tsotha

    The analysis side of the CIA is one of the prime places to be employed in the Federal bureaucracy. Smart people, mostly ivy league, but often with odd academic preparations (for example, the China analysts sometimes don't speak Chinese). It's been an innovative place in terms of filtering information from large numbers of people into final reports used for decision making.

    The operations side is kind of invitation-only, and, according to what I've been told, "mental toughness" is the prime qualification for employment.

  13. @RichardTaylor
    Every CIA person I see on TV is a globalist and a Leftist (rare exceptions prove the rule). Has this always been true or were the intelligence agencies taken over by the Left in the last 20 years?

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @El Dato, @Hibernian, @TTSSYF, @JohnnyWalker123

    William F. Buckley’s CIA buddy Miles Copeland, father of the drummer of The Police, said the CIA was always quite liberal in a couple of pieces in National Review in the 70s.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    @Steve Sailer

    Moldbug’s parents were of that milieu. His most notorious line = America is a Communist country. According to him, the Alger Hiss/Kim Philby types saw the Soviet Union as their junior partner.

    Anyway, the “intern” was probably more important than the “Com” and the class that started and runs the CIA is all the way “intern.”

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_International

    Replies: @Le Autiste Corv, @Cagey Beast, @Hibernian, @LondonBob, @Desiderius, @James Forrestal

    , @Cagey Beast
    @Steve Sailer

    Well, by now we've all heard Gloria Steinem on the topic.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HRUEqyZ7p8

    Funny, "gloria steinem cia" popped up as second option when I typed in her name. We're collectively putting together the pieces of our map of the postwar years.

    , @RichardTaylor
    @Steve Sailer


    William F. Buckley’s CIA buddy Miles Copeland, father of the drummer of The Police, said the CIA was always quite liberal in a couple of pieces in National Review in the 70s.
     
    Now that is fascinating and needs to be explored. Most of us had the notion that the CIA was a hard Right organization. Which it obviously wasn't.
    , @JudyBlumeSussman
    @Steve Sailer

    Didn't the CIA fund opinion magazines from far-left to center to far-right, as long as they maintained an anti-Communist line?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_influence_on_public_opinion#Subsidies_of_non-government_groups

    , @SunBakedSuburb
    @Steve Sailer

    Liberal as in internationalist. The Allen Dulles cabal -- James Jesus Angleton, Frank Wisner, David Atlee Phillips, Cord Meyer, Richard Helms -- whose influence within the CIA remained dominant until the mid 1970s, were right-wing corporatists.

    , @PV van der Byl
    @Steve Sailer

    Charles McCarry, enormously popular spy novelist and decade-long undercover operative of the real life CIA, had the following to say in a magazine interview:



    CM: I don’t remember saying that. Some of it by inadvertence at least. I never met a stupid person in the agency. Or an assassin. Or a Republican.

    RB: No Republicans? [laughs] Are you serious?

    CM: I’m serious. They were, at least in the operations side where I was, there were wall-to-wall knee-jerk liberals. And they were befuddled that the left outside the agency regarded them as some sort of right-wing threat. Because they were the absolute opposite, in their own politics.
     
    https://themorningnews.org/article/birnbaum-v.-charles-mccarry

    Replies: @J.Ross, @fnn

  14. This is extremely odd. Only a few years ago it was an article of faith among Democrats that the CIA and other intelligence agencies were and always would be agents of evil. Kind of the way ICE is portrayed today.

    Now a stint in the CIA is a bonus for a Democratic candidate.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @Logan

    Democrats are always afraid of being accused of being unpatriotic or pacifist. Half the reason that Johnson pursued the war in Vietnam is that he didn't want to be accused by the Republicans of being "soft on Communism" (ironically, today's Democrats accuse Trump of being "soft on the Russians").

    The Democrat's shortcut for neutralizing these charges is by running people who have a military or CIA background. They are just as leftist as any other Democrat (and vote with Pelosi once they are in office) but the credential is supposed to insulate them with the voters. You see it mentioned over and over in their campaign literature and commercials as a selling point.

    Replies: @RichardTaylor, @Desiderius, @istevefan

    , @Federalist
    @Logan

    The Left/Democrats hated the CIA when the Soviet Union controlled much of Eastern and Central Europe all the way into Germany and had a massive military force poised to overrun Western Europe. But that was when leftist Democrats were generally hostile to America's anti-communist foreign policy and were in some cases spying on behalf of the USSR.

    But now Russia has shrunk by losing the old Soviet satellite states and large parts of the old Soviet Union, most of which are downright hostile to Russia (e.g., Poland, Ukraine). Russia's population is less than half of the U.S. population. Its economy and military spending are dwarfed by America's. But the CIA is part of the deep state and Russia is more evil than the Soviet Union of the Cold War. No, Russia is not bent on worldwide communist domination. But Putin doesn't support the gay rights agenda or something like that and so Russia is evil. Even worse, Russia caused Hillary to lose the election and caused Trump (literally Hitler) to win. Remember that Russia "hacked the election." Oh wait, I don't think we are supposed to say "hacked the election" anymore. It's "collusion" now. "Hacked the election" sounds too much like actually changing votes and Russia's not very technologically advanced. And "collusion" sounds a lot better than saying that Russia rigged the election by buying some Facebook ads.

    Replies: @Stan d Mute

    , @Lugash
    @Logan

    The NSA, CIA, FBI and top ranks of the military have all been captured by International Poz. Comey made FBI recruits kneel at the feet of MLK's statue, Hayden boasted of the NSA being comprised of internationalists etc.

    But you're right, the shift has been amazing.

    , @Svigor
    @Logan

    From baby-killers to saviors in one news cycle.

    , @Anonymous
    @Logan

    The Sanders, Ocasio-Cortez wing of the Democratic Party, where a lot of the young energy of the party is today, still holds similar attitudes. And they want to divert money away from the military and intelligence and towards social programs. I suspect these CIA candidates are running to counter the anti military-intelligence complex and democratic socialist wing of the Dems.

    , @Millennial
    @Logan

    Yeah, it's pretty hilarious watching leftist Baby Boomers spout off about the Pentagon Papers, CIA totally not in Laos/Cambodia, J. Edgar Hoover shenanigans, CIA did JFK-RFK-MLK theories, CIA-Pinochet hijinks, Iran Contra, and so on, and then see them convinced that Trump must be colluding with Russia because CIA/FBI said so.

  15. the CIA seems to have a track record of historic ineptitude

    CIA ineptitude + woman = clusterfark

  16. @Southron
    >seems to have a track record of historic ineptitude

    It is rare that I see you in need of an editor, Mr. Sailer. Please remove the redundant "historic" in the above phrase; I in turn request that this comment be deleted when it has served its purpose.

    Replies: @Desiderius

    Historic as in worst in history.

    The historic refers to the severity of the ineptitude, not the record itself.

  17. @Steve Sailer
    @RichardTaylor

    William F. Buckley's CIA buddy Miles Copeland, father of the drummer of The Police, said the CIA was always quite liberal in a couple of pieces in National Review in the 70s.

    Replies: @Desiderius, @Cagey Beast, @RichardTaylor, @JudyBlumeSussman, @SunBakedSuburb, @PV van der Byl

    Moldbug’s parents were of that milieu. His most notorious line = America is a Communist country. According to him, the Alger Hiss/Kim Philby types saw the Soviet Union as their junior partner.

    Anyway, the “intern” was probably more important than the “Com” and the class that started and runs the CIA is all the way “intern.”

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_International

    • Replies: @Le Autiste Corv
    @Desiderius

    How much is this a continuation of Anglo-American Atlanticist cosmopolitanism and even older strains of Whiggish Messianism, arc of History, etc. ?

    The marriage of bourgeois professionals and economic elites and various causes du jour, as well as contempt for what Derbyshire calls the wrong sort of whites, goes back to the 19th-century in the US and England.

    And contra my namesake, the anti-Catholicism of the WASPs was probably more class than cultural. The same people who despised the Irish also did Southern poor whites.

    John Brown's backers, Horace Greeley, etc.

    Replies: @Millennial

    , @Cagey Beast
    @Desiderius

    His most notorious line = America is a Communist country.

    Well, to be more precise, the American Republic is a close cousin to the old Soviet Union. It's really the American Third or even Forth Republic, if one were keeping score in the French style.

    According to him, the Alger Hiss/Kim Philby types saw the Soviet Union as their junior partner.

    When seen from the first third of the 20th century, this makes perfect sense. The managerial revolution split into roughly two teams around the time the Rockefeller Foundation was founded and the Bolshevik Revolution kicked off. Nevertheless, the two branches kept in touch. The CIA is rooted in the Rockefeller/Fabian branch.

    , @Hibernian
    @Desiderius

    Did at least the more radical among them see Washington as Moscow's junior partner? (And I think only the most radical would do what Philby, Hiss, and the Rosenbergs did.)

    Replies: @Desiderius

    , @LondonBob
    @Desiderius

    Is that how (((Moldbug))) explains Communist spying in America, suppose it makes as much sense as blaming Wasps for Freudianism, the Frankfurt School, Boasian Anthropology and the 65 immigration act.

    Replies: @Desiderius

    , @Desiderius
    @Desiderius

    The horse's mouth:

    http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2013/09/technology-communism-and-brown-scare.html

    I understand that Moldbug isn't popular here (or anywhere for that matter), but it seems to have aged well.

    Replies: @Antlitz Grollheim

    , @James Forrestal
    @Desiderius


    Moldbug’s parents were of that milieu. His most notorious line = America is a Communist country. According to him, the Alger Hiss/Kim Philby types saw the Soviet Union as their junior partner.
     
    Yeah, this can be a very useful perspective. For an illustration, just look at FDR's fair-haired boy, Alger Hiss. His career -- before and after he was convicted of perjury and served a prison term for lying about his involvement in Soviet espionage -- included stints at: the State Department, the United Nations (he founded it), clerking for Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr, the Justice Department, some Senate Committees, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and (of course) Harvard Law. And he was a member of the CFR, of course. He somehow missed working for the NYT, though. Not bad for a Communist traitor.

    Compare to an anti-Communist, populist patriot like McCarthy. He ended up destroyed for his attempts to reveal Communists in positions of power. By those (supposedly non-existent) Communists, apparently.

    Walter Duranty received the Pulitzer Prize for his work in glorifying the USSR and Communism generally, and covering up the Holodomor specifically. It's still hanging on the wall at the Sulzberger Blog today. Only 2 journalists reported the truth about the Holodomor in any mainstream publication while it was going on: Malcolm Muggeridge and Gareth Jones. Both were shunned professionally after their heretical work was published, and Jones was murdered a year or so later by Communist agents.

    Samuel Dickstein, who founded the committee that later became HUAC, was a Soviet agent on the NKVD payroll throughout the 1930s. In addition to his work on the committee persecuting anti-Communists, he also arranged visas, and even citizenship, for a number of Soviet agents. He's still got a street named after him in NYC today.

    Etc.

    It's tough to really appreciate this kind of thing looking back from the far side of the narrative shift, though. A corollary to this that the Cold War didn't really start because of Communism -- it was almost a split within Communism over the issue of world government. Stalin opposed it, and wanted "socialism in one country." That's even harder to see, though.

    Communism was always based out of NYC -- the source of the venture capital. The USSR was just a startup that hit it big.
  18. @RichardTaylor
    Every CIA person I see on TV is a globalist and a Leftist (rare exceptions prove the rule). Has this always been true or were the intelligence agencies taken over by the Left in the last 20 years?

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @El Dato, @Hibernian, @TTSSYF, @JohnnyWalker123

    I do think this is just another example of Public Choice Theory and/or Pournelle’s Iron Law of Bureaucracy.

    If you are an upwardly mobile guy in a tax-funded outfit that deals with spook stuff, you will try to get your wedge in.

    You WILL find problems to solve, if necessary CAUSE problems that can then be solved, preferably ad infinitum and bigger than the previous problem. You will submit outrageous project plans that, in the general feverish atmosphere of an office building full of people shielded from base reality by soporific memos, HVAC, cheap cantine fodder and contraceptives, seem to be Good Ideas.

    Many dead people will be left in your wake, but you don’t care, your new suburban house is comfortable to live in in middle age.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    @El Dato

    “general feverish atmosphere”

    cf. Eric Garland et al.

  19. @Southron
    @Lot

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Intelligence_Agency#Failures_in_intelligence_analysis

    Please find the section "Failures ..." and the following several sections, especially "Abuses ..." in the article referred to above, as counterexamples.

    As a fundamental principle of intelligence, the public's knowledge almost entirely consists of the organization's failures. Successes are only treated in historical texts two generations after the fact, if at all.

    Replies: @dr kill, @Jack D, @Lot

    I can hope for silent success in the intelligence industry, but I feel the failures are much greater than the triumphs. I’m just thinking of the First Gulf War, Bay of Pigs, Pearl Harbor, Berlin Wall.
    It’s possible correct relevant information was presented to our elected officials in a timely manner and was mishandled, but, as recently demonstrated, the intelligence community is not shy about protecting their own and deflecting and assigning blame to others.
    I would like to be wrong.

    • Replies: @ben tillman
    @dr kill

    Pearl Harbor was not an intelligence failure.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    , @Anonymous
    @dr kill


    I can hope for silent success in the intelligence industry, but I feel the failures are much greater than the triumphs. I’m just thinking of the First Gulf War, Bay of Pigs, Pearl Harbor, Berlin Wall.
     
    The key failure in the First Gulf War was in the State Department. Why did they give Saddam permission to invade? The most charitable explanation I can think of is that all eyes were on Russia at the time and nobody was paying attention to the Middle East.

    Replies: @J.Ross

  20. @Desiderius
    @Steve Sailer

    Moldbug’s parents were of that milieu. His most notorious line = America is a Communist country. According to him, the Alger Hiss/Kim Philby types saw the Soviet Union as their junior partner.

    Anyway, the “intern” was probably more important than the “Com” and the class that started and runs the CIA is all the way “intern.”

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_International

    Replies: @Le Autiste Corv, @Cagey Beast, @Hibernian, @LondonBob, @Desiderius, @James Forrestal

    How much is this a continuation of Anglo-American Atlanticist cosmopolitanism and even older strains of Whiggish Messianism, arc of History, etc. ?

    The marriage of bourgeois professionals and economic elites and various causes du jour, as well as contempt for what Derbyshire calls the wrong sort of whites, goes back to the 19th-century in the US and England.

    And contra my namesake, the anti-Catholicism of the WASPs was probably more class than cultural. The same people who despised the Irish also did Southern poor whites.

    John Brown’s backers, Horace Greeley, etc.

    • Agree: Hibernian
    • Replies: @Millennial
    @Le Autiste Corv

    Contempt for the "wrong sort" of their own kind married to a cosmopolitan outlook is classically aristocratic, through and through - it goes back quite a long time.

    In the 17th-18th century, WASP Whig hatred of Catholics was the nationalist position of English "deplorables" - Catholic being essentially synonymous with "tyrannical corrupt foreigner" in English politics. And yes, "poor whites" of the Ulster Scot variety were fanatically anti-Catholic as well.

    19th century American anti-Catholicism was the last vestige of the old Whig mentality.

    Horace Greeley and Brown's backers hating both? Greeley was extremely supportive of Irish Catholic immigration. He was also pretty friendly to the South - he had supported peaceful "secesh" and after the war spoke against the abuses and corruption of Northern occupation.
    One of Brown's "Secret Six" helped free Jeff Davis after the war.

  21. @Steve Sailer
    @RichardTaylor

    William F. Buckley's CIA buddy Miles Copeland, father of the drummer of The Police, said the CIA was always quite liberal in a couple of pieces in National Review in the 70s.

    Replies: @Desiderius, @Cagey Beast, @RichardTaylor, @JudyBlumeSussman, @SunBakedSuburb, @PV van der Byl

    Well, by now we’ve all heard Gloria Steinem on the topic.

    Funny, “gloria steinem cia” popped up as second option when I typed in her name. We’re collectively putting together the pieces of our map of the postwar years.

  22. @Lot
    "the CIA seems to have a track record of historic ineptitude"

    That has not been my impression at all.

    Replies: @Southron, @Cagey Beast, @Achmed E. Newman, @Peter Akuleyev, @Federalist, @Prester John, @James Forrestal, @J.Ross, @Tarheel American

    You would think the imminent fall of the USSR and the East Bloc, America’s arch-enemies for 40 years already at the time, and probably the only legitimate purpose in having the CIA around*, would have been something the “intelligence” agencies would have been up on. You’d be wrong. Pretty much half the countries in Latin America are proof of the stupidity of the CIA, or at least the management.

    The CIA have been the biggest bunch of fuck-ups the world has seen, and any agency without the power to blackmail as they have, and without that almost unlimited black budget, would have not lasted in this world.

    .
    .

    * besides the fact that they were GOING TO stay around, no matter what any President and Congress were going to say about it.

    • Replies: @Marat
    @Achmed E. Newman

    Not to mention the shenanigans in Africa, especially in the 70s

  23. @tsotha
    The KGB had a huge advantage. They took the creme of the creme of each generation of young Soviets. To be selected by the KGB was a huge honor and was the road to wealth and power. The CIA, on the other hand, had to compete with investment banks and save-the-world startups. I interviewed with the agency after college, and unlike other potential employers the CIA did interviews off campus so they didn't have to deal with, well, the KGB's useful idiots.

    Didn't follow up because they wanted to send me to third world shitholes where you can get VD from the water and where they'll hang you from your scrotum if they suspect you're working for the CIA. There were companies willing to pay a lot more money for a lot less inconvenience. My idea of world travel is Germany and France, not Kenya and Guatemala.

    Plus, no License To Kill. That was a big disappointment.

    Replies: @Anonym, @Achmed E. Newman, @Stan d Mute, @Cato

    Didn’t follow up because they wanted to send me to third world shitholes where you can get VD from the water and where they’ll hang you from your scrotum if they suspect you’re working for the CIA. There were companies willing to pay a lot more money for a lot less inconvenience. My idea of world travel is Germany and France, not Kenya and Guatemala.

    VD from the water eh? Yeah, I was visiting some third world s***hole a couple weeks back and wouldn’t you know, I contracted VD from the water. Honest!

    • Replies: @europeasant
    @Anonym

    "I contracted VD from the water. Honest!"

    WTF! I contracted my VD from a dirty toilet seat. And that was in the states.

  24. Bring lawyers, guns, and money:

    • Replies: @PV van der Byl
    @Achmed E. Newman

    Many thanks for this delightful highwater mark of the late 1970s (my undergraduate years)!

    And Warren was no weanie. His father was this Los Angeles gangster:

    http://mafia.wikia.com/wiki/Willie_Zevon

    And Warren's mother was a Mormon girl.

    Only in America!

  25. Send lawyers, guns, and money:

    • Replies: @Ganderson
    @Achmed E. Newman

    He was just an innocent bystander, but somehow he got stuck!

    , @Hunsdon
    @Achmed E. Newman

    Once upon a time, when I was in Mongolia, working on a USAID subcontract to privatize the state cashmere company, I almost got into a fistfight with another subcontractor over that album. (He said it was a greatest hits album.)

    Replies: @Autochthon

  26. @Mr. Anon
    The Democratic Party is betting heavily on CIA agents (and other intelligence operatives):

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/daily-202/2017/10/18/daily-202-ex-cia-officers-running-for-congress-as-democrats/59e6b25b30fb041a74e75de5/?noredirect=on

    Because democracy is best left in the hands of secret, unaccountable government officials who specialize in subverting governments.

    Replies: @Another Canadian, @SunBakedSuburb, @Dmon

    Make the C.I.A. Great Again?

  27. @Tyrion 2
    There really does seem to be a military versus CIA dimension to current partisan conflict. Amusingly, it mirrors Kruschev's battle with Beria as shown in The Death of Stalin.

    It is also reflected in the disagreements between West and East Coast Straussians who, contra many theories on this site, tend to move their positions to accommodate reality as that is a key part of their ideology. This explains their coherence with dominant trends much better than them exerting nefarious control.

    None of this is a formal conflict, though perhaps more so on the CIA side which is naturally better suited to such stuff. Then again, it is easy to notice that many feminine women join organisations like the CIA, in part, because they like to be around military men but also enjoy having elegant fingernails.

    Of course, both are moderate forces within their respective parties. They fraternise too much not to be.

    We are at a turning point in history, where everything gets shaken up. The nationalist side is worse positioned by not having much heft in the key influencing industries of the media and academia. The globalist side is worse positioned by being dragged along into lunacy by that very influence.

    Controlling the Kool-Aid makes you the don of the festivities, until you drink too much of it and embarrass yourself.

    I don't think that the above observations are particularly useful but it is interesting to note that at historical turning points, when the previous consensus is breaking, it is very often the military and security services that are able to step into the cracks.

    I suppose the most practical point is that if you want your side to win then you need to move as fast as you can to neutralise all of their sources of individual power. Legalism be damned. The public eventually bore of any administration so you need to make sure you have colonised the opposing side before they are given their turn to have a crack at colonising you.

    Institutional capture is particularly powerful in this scenario as the type of ambitious and competent people who staff them have a way of aligning themselves to the whatever the direction of flow is meant to be.

    The Trump administration appears to be a rather belated recognition of these facts. An impromptu and unlikely reaction by a side that had almost lost mostly because it had refused to recognise that there even was a fight. I assume that there were some outrageous provocations that finally managed to wake them from their slumber.

    With Big Tech openly joining up with Big Media and Big Education, the globalist side has not stayed still. Perhaps the greatest difficulty is that the nationalist side is constrained by its own ideology from even neutralising those organisational weapons, nevermind capturing them.

    Furthermore, outcompeting them on a fair free market playing field isn't a great option as the globalist side is not limited by those rules itself. Globalist censorship efforts are outsourced to places like Britain, where minority grievance mongering parliamentarians harangued Big Tech into a more globalist shape.

    This is why a realist perspective is important. Principles are great, until sticking to them is the very thing that prohibits you from effectively defending them.

    The nationalist-minded administration has a finite if unknowable time period to bring the media, academia and tech into line, and it needs to find a way to do it without looking horrifically hypocritical. That, or other actors need to do it for them; but there's no obvious alternative to the institutional power of the state.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @Tiny Duck, @Alec Leamas, @Sean, @Hunsdon, @Anonymous

    Great general comment, Tyrion 2.

    Principles are great, until sticking to them is the very thing that prohibits you from effectively defending them.

    Indeed, that’s what it comes down to. As with the back-and-forth Commies/miliary Juntas down in Latin America, the good people trying to fight or oust the Commies can not do so using the old law-and-order, as the Commies just use it against them (see exhibit A – Charlottesville, Virginia). After that, it always seems to be the army coming in to clean house, but using war tactics and going far beyond “due process” when doing so.

  28. OT:

    > Syria “kills children” in False Flag Operation: Poor Babies Must Be Defended With Smart and new Raytheon Products (“Customer Success Is Our Mission”)
    > Saudi Arabia kills children in Green Flag Operation: Mumble Mumble Regret Something

    Originally appeared on The American Conservative.

    The U.S. response to the massacre of dozens of children and other civilians earlier today was predictably feeble:

    The U.S. State Department called on Thursday for the Saudi-led coalition to investigate reported air strikes in Yemen that killed dozens of people, including children.

    “We are certainly concerned about the reports that there was an attack that resulted in the deaths of civilians. We call on the Saudi-led coalition to conduct a thorough and transparent investigation into the incident,” State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert told a press briefing.

  29. @Lot
    "the CIA seems to have a track record of historic ineptitude"

    That has not been my impression at all.

    Replies: @Southron, @Cagey Beast, @Achmed E. Newman, @Peter Akuleyev, @Federalist, @Prester John, @James Forrestal, @J.Ross, @Tarheel American

    What I have heard from State Department types is that the CIA guys stationed at embassies abroad had almost unlimited financial resources at their disposal, were arrogant and had no obvious “deliverables” to meet. Half of them seem to be living in their own fantasy worlds. The Russians had more limited resources and were held accountable for results, and were thus much more disciplined. OTOH, the CIA is Mormon dominated which keeps it fairly honest and morally conservative.

    • Replies: @Cagey Beast
    @Peter Akuleyev

    OTOH, the CIA is Mormon dominated which keeps it fairly honest and morally conservative.

    On the other hand, Mormonism (ie White Rastafarianism) teaches that America has a unique task in God's plan. That's problematic, to put it mildly.

    Replies: @Anonymous

    , @theMann
    @Peter Akuleyev

    I am sorry, but how many of you have ever been around any number of Mormons for any length of time?

    The notion that Mormons would somehow keep an organization honest is so hilariously wrong that I hardly know where to begin. In any case, there is a reason why they congregate to Federal Bureaucracies, and it sure as hell isn't because they are honest or conservative. More the "one set of rules for us, another for everybody else" rule that defines any successful cult.

    Replies: @Charles Pewitt

    , @Desiderius
    @Peter Akuleyev

    I believe that’s the FBI with the Mormons. The wave Trump, Orban et al. Are riding is the Posrmodern skepticism of universals, so any gung ho Christianish sect is going to have an initial aversion to it which can be exploited by the unscrupulous.

    Replies: @Corn, @The Man From K Street

    , @S. Anonyia
    @Peter Akuleyev

    I always heard the FBI was dominated by Mormons. CIA is more dominated by adventurous neoliberals and people who took democratic peace theory way too seriously in their Ivy League Poli Sci classes.

    With Mormon over-representation in intelligence agencies, I think it's mainly because they don't question authorities or orders due to their cultish upbringing. And they are fit, clean-cut, reasonably intelligent.

    But honest? Hah! Las Vegas is half run by Mormons. They call outsiders "gentiles."

    However I will say my opinion of them changed somewhat after visiting Utah. I'd never be at home there but they've really made a lovely place.

    Replies: @Anonymous

    , @Twinkie
    @Peter Akuleyev


    heard from State Department types is that the CIA guys
     
    Because foreign service officers are objective observers and have no chips on their shoulders at all.

    Replies: @The Wild Geese Howard

    , @Anon
    @Peter Akuleyev

    One of my favorite historians in a certain field was, until recently, the CIA station chief in a Latin-American country. It's quite obviously from his massive books backed with high-quality research that he had a lot of free time on his hands. His regular job must have been pretty quiet and rather boring.

    , @Bill jones
    @Peter Akuleyev

    The CIA drug trade from the war on Korea on has provided them limitless cash.

  30. @The Alarmist

    "... the CIA seems to have a track record of historic ineptitude."
     
    They got Kennedy ... well, if you believe a few other pages here at UR, that success would be attributable to one of the intel agencies of our bestest friend and ally.

    Replies: @Detective Club

    After the Bay of Pigs fiasco (April, 1961), President Kennedy supposedly said that he would pick apart the CIA and scatter its pieces to the four winds. In November of 1963, Kennedy’s brains were scattered to the winds in Dallas.

    Dave Brat had better put a food-taster on his campaign payroll double quick and make sure that all metal detectors at his rallies are in working order.

  31. @Desiderius
    @Steve Sailer

    Moldbug’s parents were of that milieu. His most notorious line = America is a Communist country. According to him, the Alger Hiss/Kim Philby types saw the Soviet Union as their junior partner.

    Anyway, the “intern” was probably more important than the “Com” and the class that started and runs the CIA is all the way “intern.”

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_International

    Replies: @Le Autiste Corv, @Cagey Beast, @Hibernian, @LondonBob, @Desiderius, @James Forrestal

    His most notorious line = America is a Communist country.

    Well, to be more precise, the American Republic is a close cousin to the old Soviet Union. It’s really the American Third or even Forth Republic, if one were keeping score in the French style.

    According to him, the Alger Hiss/Kim Philby types saw the Soviet Union as their junior partner.

    When seen from the first third of the 20th century, this makes perfect sense. The managerial revolution split into roughly two teams around the time the Rockefeller Foundation was founded and the Bolshevik Revolution kicked off. Nevertheless, the two branches kept in touch. The CIA is rooted in the Rockefeller/Fabian branch.

  32. @tsotha
    The KGB had a huge advantage. They took the creme of the creme of each generation of young Soviets. To be selected by the KGB was a huge honor and was the road to wealth and power. The CIA, on the other hand, had to compete with investment banks and save-the-world startups. I interviewed with the agency after college, and unlike other potential employers the CIA did interviews off campus so they didn't have to deal with, well, the KGB's useful idiots.

    Didn't follow up because they wanted to send me to third world shitholes where you can get VD from the water and where they'll hang you from your scrotum if they suspect you're working for the CIA. There were companies willing to pay a lot more money for a lot less inconvenience. My idea of world travel is Germany and France, not Kenya and Guatemala.

    Plus, no License To Kill. That was a big disappointment.

    Replies: @Anonym, @Achmed E. Newman, @Stan d Mute, @Cato

    Isotha, I had a friend who had an interview with the CIA long ago just after college graduation. He only wanted to get on there so he could carry a gun legally. I don’t think that fact sat too well with the interviewers, once they figured it out. It’s OK, it’s OK, he’s making about 1/2 million bucks a year now as a doctor.

    BTW, what Anonym said. I dunno though, I’ve heard people say “don’t drink the water at a whorehouse – you’ll get VD.” There may be something to it.

  33. @RichardTaylor
    Every CIA person I see on TV is a globalist and a Leftist (rare exceptions prove the rule). Has this always been true or were the intelligence agencies taken over by the Left in the last 20 years?

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @El Dato, @Hibernian, @TTSSYF, @JohnnyWalker123

    In WW2 CIA predecessor OSS knowingly used Communist agents; had something to do with the fact we were fighting the Nazis and allied with the Soviets.

    • Agree: ben tillman
    • Replies: @Harry Baldwin
    @Hibernian

    Also, the main group really willing to fight German occupying troops seems to have been the communists.

    Replies: @JMcG

  34. @Peter Akuleyev
    @Lot

    What I have heard from State Department types is that the CIA guys stationed at embassies abroad had almost unlimited financial resources at their disposal, were arrogant and had no obvious “deliverables” to meet. Half of them seem to be living in their own fantasy worlds. The Russians had more limited resources and were held accountable for results, and were thus much more disciplined. OTOH, the CIA is Mormon dominated which keeps it fairly honest and morally conservative.

    Replies: @Cagey Beast, @theMann, @Desiderius, @S. Anonyia, @Twinkie, @Anon, @Bill jones

    OTOH, the CIA is Mormon dominated which keeps it fairly honest and morally conservative.

    On the other hand, Mormonism (ie White Rastafarianism) teaches that America has a unique task in God’s plan. That’s problematic, to put it mildly.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Cagey Beast

    Any people who do not see themselves as having divine purpose in some way will perish.

    Replies: @Cagey Beast

  35. Anon[123] • Disclaimer says:

    “The Trump administration appears to be a rather belated recognition of these facts.”

    Firing Sessions would be a good start if they want to fight back. He’s useless. Unfortunately, Trump has staffed his administration with incompetent sycophants, so it’s difficult to fight back without resorting to extreme measures like a total overhaul.

    I recognized this problem immediately after Trump’s election and thought Trump would be wise to organize a first strike:

    break up big tech monopolies using anti-trust regulations, clandestinely encourage the EU to sanction Google in order to weaken them, break up big media companies, push out Paul Ryan from the House, push for a return to 90s era FCC regulations limiting ownership of local media and newspapers to drive legacy media circulation down even further, lead a public smear campaign of the intelligence services by declassifying and releasing embarrassing details/inflammatory secret operations they don’t want made public to undermine their public trust, use private detectives to dig up and release dirt on enemies like Harvey Weinstein and democrat campaign donors, sick the DOJ after antifa, revoke security clearances for all retired government personnel…plus a massive firing spree of government workers, starting with everyone hired or promoted at CIA/NSA/FBI/DOD by Obama or anyone who is a known associate of any NeverTrumper, including all neocons; Trump could justify a military purge using the Fat Leonard scandal – sell it as an anti-corruption effort.

    I also would be stealthily withdrawing American troops – carefully curated – from certain global locations and restationing them in D.C. for activation, should that become necessary (his own insurance policy), while also moving potentially disloyal elements farther away to the Asian theater.

    He could additionally undermine cable news and the big tech democrat companies by pushing for a massive increase in public broadcast spending, specifically focusing on having the government build a free speech alternative to YouTube and Google. This would greatly diminish their ability to control the narrative, if not outright bankrupt YouTube considering their enormous operating expenses. And cable customers would only continue “cutting the cord” away from MSNBC and CNN in such an event, tanking their ratings in the process. This could easily be sold as an effort to stop fake news: provide consumers with well-funded alternatives – an American BBC. Who could be against that?

    Too bad Trump isn’t really capable of any of this, though (same for low IQ “muh free market” conservatards). That’s his weakness – one of MANY. He is a Caesar not able to see the plotters closing in. Amazingly, Trump foolishly played into their hands by approving merger after merger, all because he wanted to be Mr. Businessman, CEO. Sad. His tariff thing has definitely helped out with the public, but he should have been focusing on institutional control, instead, not engaging in social media popularity contests.

    • Replies: @Tyrion 2
    @Anon

    Your list amounts to one man instigating and implementing an instantaneous full scale revolution off the back of a very narrow Presidential victory.

    To put it extremely mildly, I don't think the conditions for such an action to be a success were in place.

    Also, Jeff Sessions is probably the crucial Trump ally in government and always has been. He is quiet and diligent and I would advise anyone criticising him from a nationalist perspective to be a little more humble.

    Replies: @The Man From K Street

    , @prusmc
    @Anon

    Could not agree more. His first mistake: announcing he would not pursue any legal action or even an investigation of HRC. No good deed goes unpunished. For a while, I thought he was on the right track when T. REX starting retiring and reduction in force removing state department personnel, sadly, that didn't last, if it even got started.

    The removal of security clearances for retirees and former government employees is a no brainer.
    Probably the best private detectives in the world work out of NYC; PDJT has undoubtably used some in the past. Why are democrats seldom found to have skeletons in the closet when Republicans can have sealed diverse and other documents quickly brought to attention? Because they have a continued and well financed opposition research program.
    The commentator lists many of the tools available to the President without passing new legislation. AT most it might require Executive Orders but more likely just directives using existing authority could start the action.
    I suspect that he may have been a bit naive about the enemies around him or, maybe, he really knew and realized the amount of insubordination that was practiced with impunity by his disloyal work force. SO why initiate efforts ordained to failure.

    On the 100th year after end of fighting in World War 1, a sad and rejected President will review a military parade. Then with the liberal sweep of Congress, the SHTF will begin full bore and PDJT will realize that he once had a fighting chance but pissed it away. We are the losers as much as him. I never expect to have another chance to cast a vote for him again.

    Replies: @Anonymous

    , @Anonym
    @Anon

    I wouldn't be scheduling many motorcades with your presidential plan.

  36. @Desiderius
    @Steve Sailer

    Moldbug’s parents were of that milieu. His most notorious line = America is a Communist country. According to him, the Alger Hiss/Kim Philby types saw the Soviet Union as their junior partner.

    Anyway, the “intern” was probably more important than the “Com” and the class that started and runs the CIA is all the way “intern.”

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_International

    Replies: @Le Autiste Corv, @Cagey Beast, @Hibernian, @LondonBob, @Desiderius, @James Forrestal

    Did at least the more radical among them see Washington as Moscow’s junior partner? (And I think only the most radical would do what Philby, Hiss, and the Rosenbergs did.)

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    @Hibernian

    Well, that’s the conventional McCarthyite way of thinking of them as “Soviet spies.” Maybe one reason they and their descendants had such contempt for McCarthy is that they thought/knew he had the whole thing backwards.

    Wall Street bankrolling the Bolsheviks, etc.

    Replies: @Cagey Beast, @Desiderius

  37. Trump was all set to release the remaining CLASSIFIED Kennedy records, which are still TOP SECRET, more than 50 years after the assassination in Dallas. The CIA advised him not to do so for health reasons : to wit, Trump’s.

    • Disagree: Tyrion 2
  38. My mom (former NGO exec director) and her husband (former high level Fed bureaucrat) retired to that region from DC area. Their whole social circle is people like themselves…affluent former DC liberals. They are very active in local politics.

    • Replies: @ThreeCranes
    @Anon

    "Their whole social circle is people like themselves…affluent former DC liberals. They are very active in local politics."

    And therein lies the solution. Since they aggregate in certain areas that are agreeable to others of their stripe, then to enjoy life, the outdoors, sun, blue skies and freedom from meddling, just relocate to some wholesome, outback area far removed from their pernicious influence. America is a big country and they haven't yet succeeded in infilling it with browns and blacks. "Hit em where they ain't."

  39. @RichardTaylor
    Every CIA person I see on TV is a globalist and a Leftist (rare exceptions prove the rule). Has this always been true or were the intelligence agencies taken over by the Left in the last 20 years?

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @El Dato, @Hibernian, @TTSSYF, @JohnnyWalker123

    I had an interview with the CIA several years ago and did some reading up on it in preparation. My impression is that they’ve always leaned Left, which surprised me at the time, and still sort of does.

  40. I suppose I should really visit Virginia soon before what little is left of the old cavalier state is gone.

  41. @Desiderius
    @Steve Sailer

    Moldbug’s parents were of that milieu. His most notorious line = America is a Communist country. According to him, the Alger Hiss/Kim Philby types saw the Soviet Union as their junior partner.

    Anyway, the “intern” was probably more important than the “Com” and the class that started and runs the CIA is all the way “intern.”

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_International

    Replies: @Le Autiste Corv, @Cagey Beast, @Hibernian, @LondonBob, @Desiderius, @James Forrestal

    Is that how (((Moldbug))) explains Communist spying in America, suppose it makes as much sense as blaming Wasps for Freudianism, the Frankfurt School, Boasian Anthropology and the 65 immigration act.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    @LondonBob

    That’s where the demand for all that nonsense was/is coming from, as I can attest from the inside.

    Replies: @fnn

  42. Anon[316] • Disclaimer says:

    “The CIA have been the biggest bunch of fuck-ups the world has seen.”

    Both the CIA and the NSA are extremely adept at technical analysis, probably above GCHQ in my opinion. You’d be shocked if I told you what they could do. Russian FSB doesn’t even use computers anymore for their most sensitive work; they had to go back to using typewriters. How embarrassing for them.

    Their weakness, however, is the human aspect of the equation. Long neglected and now hampered by political correctness, it has withered since the end of the Cold War – but somewhat better since 9/11. They are kept in business in that regard because most of their opponents just happen to be morons. Your average terrorist isn’t too bright. God help the country if some devious genius ever gets it into his head to cause trouble. Those types, even with the surveillance state, could be a serious problem before they are taken down (i.e. a guy like Stephen Paddock but with a chemistry degree).

    • Replies: @Corn
    @Anon

    “Russian FSB doesn’t even use computers anymore for their most sensitive work; they had to go back to using typewriters. ”

    Given all the hacking that goes on nowadays is using typewriters an embarrassment or good security?

  43. The conspiratorial minded looks at this stuff as part of a grand Hollywood style plot to run the country from a secret bunker. In reality, it reflects the rot in the political system. Just look at the plot to subvert the last election. It’s not exactly an all-star cast or a flawlessly executed plan. They failed at the very basics of intelligence work.

    The reason is the FBI and CIA are staffed with careerist toadies lacking any real talent or experience. They just know how to climb the greasy pole of politics within a pointless bureaucracy.

    This is also why the tech giants are doing what they please. They have no fear of the US government. They see the rot. The pols are easily bought and the regulatory agencies are staffed with morons. What’s the government going to do if our tech overlords decide to shut down all dissident web sites? We know the answer. Nothing. That theory has been tested and now the great purge is upon us.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @The Z Blog

    "Just look at the plot to subvert the last election. It’s not exactly an all-star cast or a flawlessly executed plan. They failed at the very basics of intelligence work."

    Indeed, it would appear Trump's team has really messed up.

    "The reason is the FBI and CIA are staffed with careerist toadies lacking any real talent or experience. They just know how to climb the greasy pole of politics within a pointless bureaucracy."

    Another egregious lie. Are you ever going to admit that Martin Luther (95 Theses) was NOT a pedophile as you claim? Very telling that you are avoiding offering evidence to your assertion.

    "What’s the government going to do if our tech overlords decide to shut down all dissident web sites? We know the answer. Nothing. That theory has been tested and now the great purge is upon us."

    Except there is a response. Next time, do your homework.

    http://voxday.blogspot.com/2018/08/the-futility-of-social-media-bans.html

  44. Graham Greene’s ‘Our Man in Havana’ dealt with an intelligence agent creating intelligence to maintain his lavish budget. Nothing new under the sun.

  45. @Anon
    "The Trump administration appears to be a rather belated recognition of these facts."

    Firing Sessions would be a good start if they want to fight back. He's useless. Unfortunately, Trump has staffed his administration with incompetent sycophants, so it's difficult to fight back without resorting to extreme measures like a total overhaul.

    I recognized this problem immediately after Trump's election and thought Trump would be wise to organize a first strike:

    break up big tech monopolies using anti-trust regulations, clandestinely encourage the EU to sanction Google in order to weaken them, break up big media companies, push out Paul Ryan from the House, push for a return to 90s era FCC regulations limiting ownership of local media and newspapers to drive legacy media circulation down even further, lead a public smear campaign of the intelligence services by declassifying and releasing embarrassing details/inflammatory secret operations they don't want made public to undermine their public trust, use private detectives to dig up and release dirt on enemies like Harvey Weinstein and democrat campaign donors, sick the DOJ after antifa, revoke security clearances for all retired government personnel...plus a massive firing spree of government workers, starting with everyone hired or promoted at CIA/NSA/FBI/DOD by Obama or anyone who is a known associate of any NeverTrumper, including all neocons; Trump could justify a military purge using the Fat Leonard scandal - sell it as an anti-corruption effort.

    I also would be stealthily withdrawing American troops - carefully curated - from certain global locations and restationing them in D.C. for activation, should that become necessary (his own insurance policy), while also moving potentially disloyal elements farther away to the Asian theater.

    He could additionally undermine cable news and the big tech democrat companies by pushing for a massive increase in public broadcast spending, specifically focusing on having the government build a free speech alternative to YouTube and Google. This would greatly diminish their ability to control the narrative, if not outright bankrupt YouTube considering their enormous operating expenses. And cable customers would only continue "cutting the cord" away from MSNBC and CNN in such an event, tanking their ratings in the process. This could easily be sold as an effort to stop fake news: provide consumers with well-funded alternatives - an American BBC. Who could be against that?

    Too bad Trump isn't really capable of any of this, though (same for low IQ "muh free market" conservatards). That's his weakness - one of MANY. He is a Caesar not able to see the plotters closing in. Amazingly, Trump foolishly played into their hands by approving merger after merger, all because he wanted to be Mr. Businessman, CEO. Sad. His tariff thing has definitely helped out with the public, but he should have been focusing on institutional control, instead, not engaging in social media popularity contests.

    Replies: @Tyrion 2, @prusmc, @Anonym

    Your list amounts to one man instigating and implementing an instantaneous full scale revolution off the back of a very narrow Presidential victory.

    To put it extremely mildly, I don’t think the conditions for such an action to be a success were in place.

    Also, Jeff Sessions is probably the crucial Trump ally in government and always has been. He is quiet and diligent and I would advise anyone criticising him from a nationalist perspective to be a little more humble.

    • Replies: @The Man From K Street
    @Tyrion 2


    Your list amounts to one man instigating and implementing an instantaneous full scale revolution off the back of a very narrow Presidential victory.
     
    Lenin and the Bolsheviks didn't see their tepid victories in 1917 elections to the Constituent Assembly as much of a bar to their instigating and implementing full scale revolution. And if that's too leftist for you, consider that the Whigs who consolidated power after the Hanoverian accession in 1715 and shut out the opposition completely for decades would not have won a single election 1700-1750 if they had been decided by the actual number of votes vs. rotten boroughs.
    No revolutionary in history has ever acted from a landslide electoral mandate.

    Replies: @ben tillman

  46. @Steve Sailer
    @RichardTaylor

    William F. Buckley's CIA buddy Miles Copeland, father of the drummer of The Police, said the CIA was always quite liberal in a couple of pieces in National Review in the 70s.

    Replies: @Desiderius, @Cagey Beast, @RichardTaylor, @JudyBlumeSussman, @SunBakedSuburb, @PV van der Byl

    William F. Buckley’s CIA buddy Miles Copeland, father of the drummer of The Police, said the CIA was always quite liberal in a couple of pieces in National Review in the 70s.

    Now that is fascinating and needs to be explored. Most of us had the notion that the CIA was a hard Right organization. Which it obviously wasn’t.

  47. One of the nasty consequences of letting women into the Military Academies:The Democratic Party is running Women Vets…US Military Academy graduates…..who flew fighter jets and helicopters in combat in the Gulf Wars to “protect” us so that we can be voted into a racial minority by Greater India in NJ….think Mikie Sherril….And she ain’t the only one.

  48. I’ve posted this video clip here before but it merits reviewing. At 18:48 and especially 24:30 we get some pure, unfiltered American radicalism. It’s managerial radicalism of the same sort that seems to guide the CIA and its domestic political allies.

    The American line of thinking seems to have been, that to prevent a repeat of the Bolshevik Revolution in South Vietnam, the Americans had to get some people to kill the Czar and his family first, before anyone else could.

    In the same way, Gaddafi, Saddam, Assad and Mubarak have to be toppled and/or killed before radical Islamists do it. Official America believes strongly in the therapeutic power of revolutions but they also believe they can do them better than the locals. Maybe they’ll bring some of that proactive thinking back home? Maybe ex-CIA Congressmen will decide some of the leadership in the local Chamber of Commerce are going to have to be killed if that airport expansion is going to get done? Who knows with these people?

    • Replies: @Hunsdon
    @Cagey Beast

    How does the old joke go? The one place immune to an American coup is America, because there is no US embassy there.

  49. Rothenberg / Gonzalez identifies 13 congressional races as ‘toss-ups’. This isn’t one of them. The only ‘toss-up’ in Virginia is the seat of Republican temporizer Barbara Comstock in NoVa. Brat’s seat is rated ‘lean Republican’. (Rothenberg has five classifications: ‘toss-up’, ’tilt’, ‘lean’, ‘likely’, and ‘safe’).

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    @Art Deco


    Rothenberg / Gonzalez identifies 13 congressional races as ‘toss-ups’. This isn’t one of them. The only ‘toss-up’ in Virginia is the seat of Republican temporizer Barbara Comstock in NoVa. Brat’s seat is rated ‘lean Republican’. (Rothenberg has five classifications: ‘toss-up’, ’tilt’, ‘lean’, ‘likely’, and ‘safe’).
     
    And who are Rothenberg / Gonzalez that I should care? Oh, they are the guys that published this:

    Clinton Tightens Grip on Presidential Victory

    by Nathan L. Gonzales October 14, 2016 · 3:29 PM EDT

    http://www.insideelections.com/news/article/clinton-tightens-grip-on-presidential-victory
     
    They also claim to be "non partisan". Yeah, sure they are.
  50. @Lot
    "the CIA seems to have a track record of historic ineptitude"

    That has not been my impression at all.

    Replies: @Southron, @Cagey Beast, @Achmed E. Newman, @Peter Akuleyev, @Federalist, @Prester John, @James Forrestal, @J.Ross, @Tarheel American

    Weapons of mass destruction.

  51. Meanwhile LULZ in Germany:

    Beatings, harassment & bullying: Germany’s anti-Semitic hate crimes soar by 10%

    According to the figures released, there were 401 offences between January and June this year

    So 73 hate crimes more per year.

    In April, a Jewish man wearing a kippah was allegedly struck with a belt around 10 times by a Syrian 18-year-old. The latter denied the attack, which occurred in an affluent area of Berlin, was anti-Semitic.

    It prompted condemnation by German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who said: “The fight against such anti-Semitic acts must be won, the reputation of our state is at stake, and we are committed to it with all our strength.”

    In March, a father reported that his daughter was told she deserved to be beaten and killed when she admitted to a Muslim student she did not believe in Allah.

    Another student was allegedly bullied at a prestigious high school in Berlin in December.

    21st century news can only read with a Synthwave background music.

  52. Anonymous[234] • Disclaimer says:

    One difference might be that my impression is that the KGB, given the Soviet Union’s severe economic disadvantage, had to be somewhat competent to stay in the game, while the CIA seems to have a track record of ineptitude.

    I’ve always wondered what the heavy hitters in international espionage (Israel, China, Russia, maybe others) think of the US “intelligence community.” My guess is that they’re held in similar regard to the US military: well funded but poorly led and generally incompetent.

  53. @Logan
    This is extremely odd. Only a few years ago it was an article of faith among Democrats that the CIA and other intelligence agencies were and always would be agents of evil. Kind of the way ICE is portrayed today.

    Now a stint in the CIA is a bonus for a Democratic candidate.

    Replies: @Jack D, @Federalist, @Lugash, @Svigor, @Anonymous, @Millennial

    Democrats are always afraid of being accused of being unpatriotic or pacifist. Half the reason that Johnson pursued the war in Vietnam is that he didn’t want to be accused by the Republicans of being “soft on Communism” (ironically, today’s Democrats accuse Trump of being “soft on the Russians”).

    The Democrat’s shortcut for neutralizing these charges is by running people who have a military or CIA background. They are just as leftist as any other Democrat (and vote with Pelosi once they are in office) but the credential is supposed to insulate them with the voters. You see it mentioned over and over in their campaign literature and commercials as a selling point.

    • Replies: @RichardTaylor
    @Jack D


    Half the reason that Johnson pursued the war in Vietnam is that he didn’t want to be accused by the Republicans of being “soft on Communism” (ironically, today’s Democrats accuse Trump of being “soft on the Russians”).
     
    Cowboys and Cossacks have a lot in common. Instead of talking about bragging about how tough Trump is being on Russia, actual, legal American citizens need to state the truth: We want friendly relations with Russia.

    The alternative is extinction. As they used to say, a nuclear bomb can ruin your day.

    , @Desiderius
    @Jack D

    Kerry reported for duty. Lot of good it did him. They’d have, and have had, better luck just being themselves.

    Replies: @Alec Leamas

    , @istevefan
    @Jack D


    The Democrat’s shortcut for neutralizing these charges is by running people who have a military or CIA background. They are just as leftist as any other Democrat (and vote with Pelosi once they are in office) but the credential is supposed to insulate them with the voters. You see it mentioned over and over in their campaign literature and commercials as a selling point.
     
    This is exactly what the Missouri Democrats did with Jason Kander in the 2016 Senate election. They did a commercial showing Kander assembling an M-16 while blindfolded to show off his army bona fides, That was supposed to make rubes like me think he was A-OK. It almost worked. While Trump carried MO by 500K votes, Blunt only beat Kander by 87K.

    Replies: @Svigor

  54. @Tyrion 2
    There really does seem to be a military versus CIA dimension to current partisan conflict. Amusingly, it mirrors Kruschev's battle with Beria as shown in The Death of Stalin.

    It is also reflected in the disagreements between West and East Coast Straussians who, contra many theories on this site, tend to move their positions to accommodate reality as that is a key part of their ideology. This explains their coherence with dominant trends much better than them exerting nefarious control.

    None of this is a formal conflict, though perhaps more so on the CIA side which is naturally better suited to such stuff. Then again, it is easy to notice that many feminine women join organisations like the CIA, in part, because they like to be around military men but also enjoy having elegant fingernails.

    Of course, both are moderate forces within their respective parties. They fraternise too much not to be.

    We are at a turning point in history, where everything gets shaken up. The nationalist side is worse positioned by not having much heft in the key influencing industries of the media and academia. The globalist side is worse positioned by being dragged along into lunacy by that very influence.

    Controlling the Kool-Aid makes you the don of the festivities, until you drink too much of it and embarrass yourself.

    I don't think that the above observations are particularly useful but it is interesting to note that at historical turning points, when the previous consensus is breaking, it is very often the military and security services that are able to step into the cracks.

    I suppose the most practical point is that if you want your side to win then you need to move as fast as you can to neutralise all of their sources of individual power. Legalism be damned. The public eventually bore of any administration so you need to make sure you have colonised the opposing side before they are given their turn to have a crack at colonising you.

    Institutional capture is particularly powerful in this scenario as the type of ambitious and competent people who staff them have a way of aligning themselves to the whatever the direction of flow is meant to be.

    The Trump administration appears to be a rather belated recognition of these facts. An impromptu and unlikely reaction by a side that had almost lost mostly because it had refused to recognise that there even was a fight. I assume that there were some outrageous provocations that finally managed to wake them from their slumber.

    With Big Tech openly joining up with Big Media and Big Education, the globalist side has not stayed still. Perhaps the greatest difficulty is that the nationalist side is constrained by its own ideology from even neutralising those organisational weapons, nevermind capturing them.

    Furthermore, outcompeting them on a fair free market playing field isn't a great option as the globalist side is not limited by those rules itself. Globalist censorship efforts are outsourced to places like Britain, where minority grievance mongering parliamentarians harangued Big Tech into a more globalist shape.

    This is why a realist perspective is important. Principles are great, until sticking to them is the very thing that prohibits you from effectively defending them.

    The nationalist-minded administration has a finite if unknowable time period to bring the media, academia and tech into line, and it needs to find a way to do it without looking horrifically hypocritical. That, or other actors need to do it for them; but there's no obvious alternative to the institutional power of the state.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @Tiny Duck, @Alec Leamas, @Sean, @Hunsdon, @Anonymous

    Your side will fail midrabky because it has no People of Color

    • Replies: @Tyrion 2
    @Tiny Duck

    Is there a more parochial term than "people of colour"?

  55. Meh… Read through Spanberger’s issues page on her campaign web site:

    https://abigailspanberger.com/issues/

    Vacuous goals with absolutely no strategies to achieve them. The Free Lunch/Free War bleatings of yet another Empty Suit. I.e., Spanberger will fit right in on Capitol Hill.

  56. @Jack D
    @Logan

    Democrats are always afraid of being accused of being unpatriotic or pacifist. Half the reason that Johnson pursued the war in Vietnam is that he didn't want to be accused by the Republicans of being "soft on Communism" (ironically, today's Democrats accuse Trump of being "soft on the Russians").

    The Democrat's shortcut for neutralizing these charges is by running people who have a military or CIA background. They are just as leftist as any other Democrat (and vote with Pelosi once they are in office) but the credential is supposed to insulate them with the voters. You see it mentioned over and over in their campaign literature and commercials as a selling point.

    Replies: @RichardTaylor, @Desiderius, @istevefan

    Half the reason that Johnson pursued the war in Vietnam is that he didn’t want to be accused by the Republicans of being “soft on Communism” (ironically, today’s Democrats accuse Trump of being “soft on the Russians”).

    Cowboys and Cossacks have a lot in common. Instead of talking about bragging about how tough Trump is being on Russia, actual, legal American citizens need to state the truth: We want friendly relations with Russia.

    The alternative is extinction. As they used to say, a nuclear bomb can ruin your day.

  57. @Southron
    @Lot

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Intelligence_Agency#Failures_in_intelligence_analysis

    Please find the section "Failures ..." and the following several sections, especially "Abuses ..." in the article referred to above, as counterexamples.

    As a fundamental principle of intelligence, the public's knowledge almost entirely consists of the organization's failures. Successes are only treated in historical texts two generations after the fact, if at all.

    Replies: @dr kill, @Jack D, @Lot

    Successes are only treated in historical texts two generations after the fact, if at all.

    This is a convenient excuse – we can only tell you about the CIA’s handful of failures and not their thousands of successes that we can’t tell you about because they are secret.

    It’s also complete BS. The US government leaks like a sieve and Washington is full of self promoters. If there is any success, you will be reading about it in the NYTimes or WaPo with “anonymous” sources.

    When you look at the known failures, you see what a crowd of jokers and alcoholics and amateurs the CIA is staffed with. If these clowns achieve any success it would be purely by accident.

    But, fortunately, it makes little difference. Espionage is always just a sideshow – it is rarely decisive. If victory in the Cold War had depended on espionage, the Russians would have beaten us 10 to 1. But in the end it was not the decisive factor. Stealing the nuclear secrets might have sped up the Soviet nuclear program by a couple of years but they would have figured it out on their own anyway – they had plenty of 1st rate scientists.

    • Agree: dfordoom
    • Replies: @Alec Leamas
    @Jack D


    When you look at the known failures, you see what a crowd of jokers and alcoholics and amateurs the CIA is staffed with. If these clowns achieve any success it would be purely by accident.
     
    I think as iSteve and others have pointed out the culture of the CIA from its beginning favored breeding - being born to a family of a certain sort and attending a handful of elite educational institutions. There may have been a time when this arguably yielded a cultured man a cut above others with greater aptitude for clandestine service or intelligence gathering and analysis, one doubts that this is any longer the case in fact. The decline of the CIA probably tracks the decline of other elite institutions, particularly the Ivy League Universities from which it has historically recruited.

    And it's not difficult to see how an institution historically drawing from elite institutions the scope of which is secret operations of the government with only thin, pro forma oversight by the elected branches of government devolves into an institution with a culture and disposition that is fundamentally anti-democratic. Noting its failures and incompetence or threatening to reign in its excesses is met with indignation and secret retribution. It's easy and tempting for the CIA to guard its power and influence by turning its experience in subverting governments upon its own.

    Replies: @Svigor

    , @Mr. Anon
    @Jack D

    Good points. Well said.

  58. @Achmed E. Newman
    Send lawyers, guns, and money:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lP5Xv7QqXiM

    Replies: @Ganderson, @Hunsdon

    He was just an innocent bystander, but somehow he got stuck!

  59. @Anon
    "The Trump administration appears to be a rather belated recognition of these facts."

    Firing Sessions would be a good start if they want to fight back. He's useless. Unfortunately, Trump has staffed his administration with incompetent sycophants, so it's difficult to fight back without resorting to extreme measures like a total overhaul.

    I recognized this problem immediately after Trump's election and thought Trump would be wise to organize a first strike:

    break up big tech monopolies using anti-trust regulations, clandestinely encourage the EU to sanction Google in order to weaken them, break up big media companies, push out Paul Ryan from the House, push for a return to 90s era FCC regulations limiting ownership of local media and newspapers to drive legacy media circulation down even further, lead a public smear campaign of the intelligence services by declassifying and releasing embarrassing details/inflammatory secret operations they don't want made public to undermine their public trust, use private detectives to dig up and release dirt on enemies like Harvey Weinstein and democrat campaign donors, sick the DOJ after antifa, revoke security clearances for all retired government personnel...plus a massive firing spree of government workers, starting with everyone hired or promoted at CIA/NSA/FBI/DOD by Obama or anyone who is a known associate of any NeverTrumper, including all neocons; Trump could justify a military purge using the Fat Leonard scandal - sell it as an anti-corruption effort.

    I also would be stealthily withdrawing American troops - carefully curated - from certain global locations and restationing them in D.C. for activation, should that become necessary (his own insurance policy), while also moving potentially disloyal elements farther away to the Asian theater.

    He could additionally undermine cable news and the big tech democrat companies by pushing for a massive increase in public broadcast spending, specifically focusing on having the government build a free speech alternative to YouTube and Google. This would greatly diminish their ability to control the narrative, if not outright bankrupt YouTube considering their enormous operating expenses. And cable customers would only continue "cutting the cord" away from MSNBC and CNN in such an event, tanking their ratings in the process. This could easily be sold as an effort to stop fake news: provide consumers with well-funded alternatives - an American BBC. Who could be against that?

    Too bad Trump isn't really capable of any of this, though (same for low IQ "muh free market" conservatards). That's his weakness - one of MANY. He is a Caesar not able to see the plotters closing in. Amazingly, Trump foolishly played into their hands by approving merger after merger, all because he wanted to be Mr. Businessman, CEO. Sad. His tariff thing has definitely helped out with the public, but he should have been focusing on institutional control, instead, not engaging in social media popularity contests.

    Replies: @Tyrion 2, @prusmc, @Anonym

    Could not agree more. His first mistake: announcing he would not pursue any legal action or even an investigation of HRC. No good deed goes unpunished. For a while, I thought he was on the right track when T. REX starting retiring and reduction in force removing state department personnel, sadly, that didn’t last, if it even got started.

    The removal of security clearances for retirees and former government employees is a no brainer.
    Probably the best private detectives in the world work out of NYC; PDJT has undoubtably used some in the past. Why are democrats seldom found to have skeletons in the closet when Republicans can have sealed diverse and other documents quickly brought to attention? Because they have a continued and well financed opposition research program.
    The commentator lists many of the tools available to the President without passing new legislation. AT most it might require Executive Orders but more likely just directives using existing authority could start the action.
    I suspect that he may have been a bit naive about the enemies around him or, maybe, he really knew and realized the amount of insubordination that was practiced with impunity by his disloyal work force. SO why initiate efforts ordained to failure.

    On the 100th year after end of fighting in World War 1, a sad and rejected President will review a military parade. Then with the liberal sweep of Congress, the SHTF will begin full bore and PDJT will realize that he once had a fighting chance but pissed it away. We are the losers as much as him. I never expect to have another chance to cast a vote for him again.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @prusmc


    Could not agree more. His first mistake: announcing he would not pursue any legal action or even an investigation of HRC.
     
    Until 2015, Trump and the Clintons were friends, and he was involved in the affairs of their foundation. This is too close for comfort. He can't go after them without risk to himself.
  60. @Tyrion 2
    There really does seem to be a military versus CIA dimension to current partisan conflict. Amusingly, it mirrors Kruschev's battle with Beria as shown in The Death of Stalin.

    It is also reflected in the disagreements between West and East Coast Straussians who, contra many theories on this site, tend to move their positions to accommodate reality as that is a key part of their ideology. This explains their coherence with dominant trends much better than them exerting nefarious control.

    None of this is a formal conflict, though perhaps more so on the CIA side which is naturally better suited to such stuff. Then again, it is easy to notice that many feminine women join organisations like the CIA, in part, because they like to be around military men but also enjoy having elegant fingernails.

    Of course, both are moderate forces within their respective parties. They fraternise too much not to be.

    We are at a turning point in history, where everything gets shaken up. The nationalist side is worse positioned by not having much heft in the key influencing industries of the media and academia. The globalist side is worse positioned by being dragged along into lunacy by that very influence.

    Controlling the Kool-Aid makes you the don of the festivities, until you drink too much of it and embarrass yourself.

    I don't think that the above observations are particularly useful but it is interesting to note that at historical turning points, when the previous consensus is breaking, it is very often the military and security services that are able to step into the cracks.

    I suppose the most practical point is that if you want your side to win then you need to move as fast as you can to neutralise all of their sources of individual power. Legalism be damned. The public eventually bore of any administration so you need to make sure you have colonised the opposing side before they are given their turn to have a crack at colonising you.

    Institutional capture is particularly powerful in this scenario as the type of ambitious and competent people who staff them have a way of aligning themselves to the whatever the direction of flow is meant to be.

    The Trump administration appears to be a rather belated recognition of these facts. An impromptu and unlikely reaction by a side that had almost lost mostly because it had refused to recognise that there even was a fight. I assume that there were some outrageous provocations that finally managed to wake them from their slumber.

    With Big Tech openly joining up with Big Media and Big Education, the globalist side has not stayed still. Perhaps the greatest difficulty is that the nationalist side is constrained by its own ideology from even neutralising those organisational weapons, nevermind capturing them.

    Furthermore, outcompeting them on a fair free market playing field isn't a great option as the globalist side is not limited by those rules itself. Globalist censorship efforts are outsourced to places like Britain, where minority grievance mongering parliamentarians harangued Big Tech into a more globalist shape.

    This is why a realist perspective is important. Principles are great, until sticking to them is the very thing that prohibits you from effectively defending them.

    The nationalist-minded administration has a finite if unknowable time period to bring the media, academia and tech into line, and it needs to find a way to do it without looking horrifically hypocritical. That, or other actors need to do it for them; but there's no obvious alternative to the institutional power of the state.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @Tiny Duck, @Alec Leamas, @Sean, @Hunsdon, @Anonymous

    My belief is that at least some large part of the coup d’etat against Trump was a desire to keep General Flynn away from the levers of power. As a consequence he was the first to be taken out. He knew the CIA’s number – they would at the very least suffer a loss of influence and prestige with former DIA head Flynn in Trump’s ear. At the worst (from the Agency’s point of view) the hacks, failures and clock punchers could get outed and taken care of by the new Administration.

    I think that perhaps Trump surrounding himself with Marine Corps Generals was a message to the so-called “Intelligence Community.” There’s still a Marine Corps barracks in the heart of DC, after all.

    • Replies: @Hunsdon
    @Alec Leamas

    The first thing I said when Mattis was announced as SecDef was, literally, "Coup insurance."

    Replies: @Jack Hanson

    , @The Wild Geese Howard
    @Alec Leamas


    There’s still a Marine Corps barracks in the heart of DC, after all
     
    Let's hope that there are a couple detachments of Marine Spec Ops at that barracks.

    I also hope that DJT has retained a private, well-vetted, well-paid security team with lots of serious, intelligent, patriotic individuals who are well-respected and well-known in the Spec Ops community.
  61. @Peter Akuleyev
    @Lot

    What I have heard from State Department types is that the CIA guys stationed at embassies abroad had almost unlimited financial resources at their disposal, were arrogant and had no obvious “deliverables” to meet. Half of them seem to be living in their own fantasy worlds. The Russians had more limited resources and were held accountable for results, and were thus much more disciplined. OTOH, the CIA is Mormon dominated which keeps it fairly honest and morally conservative.

    Replies: @Cagey Beast, @theMann, @Desiderius, @S. Anonyia, @Twinkie, @Anon, @Bill jones

    I am sorry, but how many of you have ever been around any number of Mormons for any length of time?

    The notion that Mormons would somehow keep an organization honest is so hilariously wrong that I hardly know where to begin. In any case, there is a reason why they congregate to Federal Bureaucracies, and it sure as hell isn’t because they are honest or conservative. More the “one set of rules for us, another for everybody else” rule that defines any successful cult.

    • Agree: Stan d Mute
    • Replies: @Charles Pewitt
    @theMann

    I wrote this about Corrupt Mormon Mammonites in August 2017:

    Roberta McCain, mother of John McCain, was not too impressed by Mitt Romney’s efforts to save the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympics from Mormon money-grubbers who were robbing and looting to their Mammonite heart’s content.

    What I am suggesting is corrupt Mormons were taking advantage of business opportunities provided by the 2002 Olympics to enrich themselves. Mitt Romney was brought in as a “cleaner” to bring some decency and honor back to the business of the Salt Lake City Olympics.

    Roberta McCain says this of Mitt Romney and the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympics:

    “And as far as this Salt Lake City thing, he’s a Mormon, and the Mormons of Salt Lake City that caused that scandal, and to clean that up…”

    https://youtu.be/8sK_xVZ9F_w

  62. @Hibernian
    @Desiderius

    Did at least the more radical among them see Washington as Moscow's junior partner? (And I think only the most radical would do what Philby, Hiss, and the Rosenbergs did.)

    Replies: @Desiderius

    Well, that’s the conventional McCarthyite way of thinking of them as “Soviet spies.” Maybe one reason they and their descendants had such contempt for McCarthy is that they thought/knew he had the whole thing backwards.

    Wall Street bankrolling the Bolsheviks, etc.

    • Replies: @Cagey Beast
    @Desiderius

    Another way of looking at the so-called Red Scare purges carried out by Truman, and only later extended and publicised by McCarthy, is that they were an internal struggle within Americanism.

    In the same way the East Bloc saw anti-Titoist, anti-Trotskyite and anti-Zionist purges, Truman and McCarthy were taking out domestic ideological rivals by accusing them of having foreign loyalties. Similarly, Trump's MAGA movement is being accused of deviationism and of betraying the American revolution by conspiring with an enemy power. The difference is that Hiss was guilty while Trump is not. That rarely stops the show trials from happening though.

    , @Desiderius
    @Desiderius

    The quote from the Moldbug link:


    Historically, the subversion narrative of classical anticommunism is ridiculous as applied after 1989; generally wrong as applied after 1945; accurate in a sense between 1933 and 1945, but still generally misleading. (Alger Hiss is not Aldrich Ames; broadly speaking, the Americans involved with the Soviet security apparatus during the FDR period, including most likely FDR himself, saw themselves, correctly, as the senior rather than junior partners in the relationship - and considered their actions, though technically unlawful, unofficially authorized and the highest form of patriotism in spirit.)
     
    Also a correction: Moldbug's claim is that America is a communist country (small c) and explains why that distinction is important.

    Replies: @Sean

  63. One difference might be that my impression is that the KGB, given the Soviet Union’s severe economic disadvantage, had to be somewhat competent to stay in the game, while the CIA seems to have a track record of ineptitude.

    Also, KGB was high prestige in USSR where there was no private sector opportunity. In America, government employment is last refuge of retards and scoundrels.

  64. @El Dato
    @RichardTaylor

    I do think this is just another example of Public Choice Theory and/or Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy.

    If you are an upwardly mobile guy in a tax-funded outfit that deals with spook stuff, you will try to get your wedge in.

    You WILL find problems to solve, if necessary CAUSE problems that can then be solved, preferably ad infinitum and bigger than the previous problem. You will submit outrageous project plans that, in the general feverish atmosphere of an office building full of people shielded from base reality by soporific memos, HVAC, cheap cantine fodder and contraceptives, seem to be Good Ideas.

    Many dead people will be left in your wake, but you don't care, your new suburban house is comfortable to live in in middle age.

    Replies: @Desiderius

    “general feverish atmosphere”

    cf. Eric Garland et al.

  65. @Jack D
    @Logan

    Democrats are always afraid of being accused of being unpatriotic or pacifist. Half the reason that Johnson pursued the war in Vietnam is that he didn't want to be accused by the Republicans of being "soft on Communism" (ironically, today's Democrats accuse Trump of being "soft on the Russians").

    The Democrat's shortcut for neutralizing these charges is by running people who have a military or CIA background. They are just as leftist as any other Democrat (and vote with Pelosi once they are in office) but the credential is supposed to insulate them with the voters. You see it mentioned over and over in their campaign literature and commercials as a selling point.

    Replies: @RichardTaylor, @Desiderius, @istevefan

    Kerry reported for duty. Lot of good it did him. They’d have, and have had, better luck just being themselves.

    • Replies: @Alec Leamas
    @Desiderius


    Kerry reported for duty. Lot of good it did him. They’d have, and have had, better luck just being themselves.
     
    Kerry was viewed as a cynical operator who used his military experience in Vietnam for self-promotion and domestic political gain, it having served as the basis of his entrance into public life (in the sense that he slandered his fellow fighting men before Congress). Veterans were highly critical of Kerry and his behavior long before he became a contender for the Democratic Party's nomination for President in 2004.

    Democrats have actually been quite successful from time to time engaging in a bit of "cross-dressing" for elections (to use Buchanan's phrase). Several cycles ago in my District we were saddled with a Democrat Army JAG Officer claiming to be a "Blue Dog Democrat" who did manage to get elected for two consecutive terms during which he broke with his Clinton-aligned benefactors/puppetmasters to become an early endorser of Mr. Obama while voting with Pelosi and the far left of the Democratic Party. After two cycles people figured out what he was and got rid of him but the damage was done (ACA).

    It just seems like every ten years or so "moderate" Republicans and conservative leaning swing voters forget that Democrats are Democrats and pride themselves on not being lockstep GOP voters and wind up getting burned.

    We're still dealing with 2006 "Blue Dog" and alleged "conservative" Democratic Senatorial class members like Casey, Tester, McCaskill etc. on their second cycle - the six year terms really seem to insulate them from accountability.

    Replies: @Desiderius, @Berty

  66. @Jack D
    @Southron


    Successes are only treated in historical texts two generations after the fact, if at all.
     
    This is a convenient excuse - we can only tell you about the CIA's handful of failures and not their thousands of successes that we can't tell you about because they are secret.

    It's also complete BS. The US government leaks like a sieve and Washington is full of self promoters. If there is any success, you will be reading about it in the NYTimes or WaPo with "anonymous" sources.

    When you look at the known failures, you see what a crowd of jokers and alcoholics and amateurs the CIA is staffed with. If these clowns achieve any success it would be purely by accident.

    But, fortunately, it makes little difference. Espionage is always just a sideshow - it is rarely decisive. If victory in the Cold War had depended on espionage, the Russians would have beaten us 10 to 1. But in the end it was not the decisive factor. Stealing the nuclear secrets might have sped up the Soviet nuclear program by a couple of years but they would have figured it out on their own anyway - they had plenty of 1st rate scientists.

    Replies: @Alec Leamas, @Mr. Anon

    When you look at the known failures, you see what a crowd of jokers and alcoholics and amateurs the CIA is staffed with. If these clowns achieve any success it would be purely by accident.

    I think as iSteve and others have pointed out the culture of the CIA from its beginning favored breeding – being born to a family of a certain sort and attending a handful of elite educational institutions. There may have been a time when this arguably yielded a cultured man a cut above others with greater aptitude for clandestine service or intelligence gathering and analysis, one doubts that this is any longer the case in fact. The decline of the CIA probably tracks the decline of other elite institutions, particularly the Ivy League Universities from which it has historically recruited.

    And it’s not difficult to see how an institution historically drawing from elite institutions the scope of which is secret operations of the government with only thin, pro forma oversight by the elected branches of government devolves into an institution with a culture and disposition that is fundamentally anti-democratic. Noting its failures and incompetence or threatening to reign in its excesses is met with indignation and secret retribution. It’s easy and tempting for the CIA to guard its power and influence by turning its experience in subverting governments upon its own.

    • Agree: Desiderius
    • Replies: @Svigor
    @Alec Leamas


    I think as iSteve and others have pointed out the culture of the CIA from its beginning favored breeding – being born to a family of a certain sort and attending a handful of elite educational institutions. There may have been a time when this arguably yielded a cultured man a cut above others with greater aptitude for clandestine service or intelligence gathering and analysis, one doubts that this is any longer the case in fact. The decline of the CIA probably tracks the decline of other elite institutions, particularly the Ivy League Universities from which it has historically recruited.
     
    My guess is the pedigree thing was more about loyalty than competence. Much harder for Soviets to gin up and infiltrate a phony 10th-generation American than a phony 2nd-generation American. Much easier for the 2nd-generation American to be raised with alien notions, too.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Anon

  67. Anon[136] • Disclaimer says:

    “Your list amounts to one man instigating and implementing an instantaneous full scale revolution off the back of a very narrow Presidential victory. To put it extremely mildly, I don’t think the conditions for such an action to be a success were in place.”

    Says who? Strong men make the conditions with the power they are granted. Adolf Hitler didn’t win a majority of the vote, and the American revolution was fought with only a third of the public supporting it. Most of the short list I provided is eminently doable in one form or another. It wasn’t done either because Trump doesn’t want to or lacks the competence (probably both). If I were Trump, you’d be watching my coronation on television about now.

    “one man instigating and implementing an instantaneous full scale revolution”

    *cough, Hugo Chavez…it’s not as hard as you think; and I never said anything about anything being “instantaneous.” That was just something you put in your comment to discredit mine via strawman because you couldn’t generate a proper rebuttal.

    “Also, Jeff Sessions is probably the crucial Trump ally in government and always has been. He is quiet and diligent and I would advise anyone criticising him from a nationalist perspective to be a little more humble.”

    He’s a weak man who has let Trump’s most ardent enemies encircle him. He’s spent the better part of his tenure trying to make the non-issue of marijuana illegal again.

    “To put it extremely mildly, I don’t think the conditions for such an action to be a success were in place.”

    Don’t cross the Rubicon Caesar. The conditions aren’t in place yet.

    • Replies: @Tyrion 2
    @Anon


    Don’t cross the Rubicon Caesar. The conditions aren’t in place yet
     
    Ceasar crossed the Rubicon with his Gaul conquering favourite legion at his back. He had also...actually conquered Gaul and served as Consul before.

    Hitler had been building a private army and alternate state for a decade. Germany was also in a generally revolutionary mood.

    Trump is forming up his "troops" while in office. A country where the biggest vote is "I couldn't be bothered to turn up" probably isn't going to all be grabbing pitchforks just yet.

    Replies: @JudyBlumeSussman, @Lot

    , @ben tillman
    @Anon


    Says who? Strong men make the conditions with the power they are granted. Adolf Hitler didn’t win a majority of the vote, and the American revolution was fought with only a third of the public supporting it.
     
    Hitler already had a paramilitary force at his disposal, and the military sure as hell wasn't going to support the SPD or KPD over Hitler. Moreover, Hitler got his greatest share of the vote form the lower-middle class and the upper class, from which military officers were drawn. Finally, the forces aligned against were extremely disorganized by modern standards because of the difference in communications technology.

    The Americans were fighting an enemy that had to cross an ocean to engage. And think about the communication issues in that war.

    Be serious.

    Replies: @J.Ross

    , @Anon
    @Anon

    I think an important point about Sessions that gets missed is that he's a careerist beta male whose first priority has always been looking after himself. When the alphas start warring, he ducks and tries to ride out the storm. He's too fearful to get into a fight, and he doesn't have the anger necessary to start one.

    Replies: @Sean

  68. @Peter Akuleyev
    @Lot

    What I have heard from State Department types is that the CIA guys stationed at embassies abroad had almost unlimited financial resources at their disposal, were arrogant and had no obvious “deliverables” to meet. Half of them seem to be living in their own fantasy worlds. The Russians had more limited resources and were held accountable for results, and were thus much more disciplined. OTOH, the CIA is Mormon dominated which keeps it fairly honest and morally conservative.

    Replies: @Cagey Beast, @theMann, @Desiderius, @S. Anonyia, @Twinkie, @Anon, @Bill jones

    I believe that’s the FBI with the Mormons. The wave Trump, Orban et al. Are riding is the Posrmodern skepticism of universals, so any gung ho Christianish sect is going to have an initial aversion to it which can be exploited by the unscrupulous.

    • Replies: @Corn
    @Desiderius

    Right. IIRC (traditionally at least) the FBI was disproportionately Catholic and Mormon, the CIA WASP, and the State Department Jewish.

    Replies: @Lot

    , @The Man From K Street
    @Desiderius


    IIRC (traditionally at least) the FBI was disproportionately Catholic and Mormon, the CIA WASP, and the State Department Jewish
     
    No, the previous commenter was right when he said there is more than one faction in the CIA and one of them is Mormon. The agency heavily recruits among them, obviously, since they come with built-in language training and living overseas experience from missionary work. The late-90s pop star Jewel was approached to work with the CIA before her singing career took off, for example.

    The WASP contingent at the CIA is mostly long gone, and there are quite a lot of Jewish women now--e.g. Elissa Slotkin the former agent running for Congress this year from Macomb County in Michigan. Another previous commenter was right when he said a lot of CIA women like being around military types without actually getting into uniform themselves--a lot of them end up being wife #2s for colonels and Navy captains retiring or just about to retire on full pensions.
  69. @Desiderius
    @Hibernian

    Well, that’s the conventional McCarthyite way of thinking of them as “Soviet spies.” Maybe one reason they and their descendants had such contempt for McCarthy is that they thought/knew he had the whole thing backwards.

    Wall Street bankrolling the Bolsheviks, etc.

    Replies: @Cagey Beast, @Desiderius

    Another way of looking at the so-called Red Scare purges carried out by Truman, and only later extended and publicised by McCarthy, is that they were an internal struggle within Americanism.

    In the same way the East Bloc saw anti-Titoist, anti-Trotskyite and anti-Zionist purges, Truman and McCarthy were taking out domestic ideological rivals by accusing them of having foreign loyalties. Similarly, Trump’s MAGA movement is being accused of deviationism and of betraying the American revolution by conspiring with an enemy power. The difference is that Hiss was guilty while Trump is not. That rarely stops the show trials from happening though.

  70. The KGB were always the éminence grise within the Soviet state, which they protected not only from its external enemies but also from its own internal weaknesses and contradictions. They were the master statesmen with a long institutional history of political experience. They were the best of their side.

    The CIA, by contrast, represents the acme of American arrogance and cluelessness. They are the most confirmed, most artificial product of the bubble-reality that the West has become. Thus, they seem to themselves and their admirers to be exceptionally competent and tuned in, but really they are the most delusional of all.

    The two agencies could not be more different, and while rule by the FSB has been generally good for Russia, rule by the CIA would be disastrous for America.

    The only thing that America has roughly comparable to the role played by the KGB is its small remaining handful of relatively unPOZ’d ops managers spread throughout industry, finance and government. They are the only ones who must struggle to produce real-world results while at the same time containing the fallout from Cultural Marxist ideology without running too far afoul of the party line. A grizzled old KGB hand would have found himself in precisely the same position. The problem is that our éminence grises aren’t very united as a class or institution, and have little political heft.

    The wonder of Donald Trump was that he originally seemed to be a representative of this group who miraculously made it to the corridors of power. Unfortunately, subsequent events have shown him to be very much the globalist wannabe. He is not our Putin but our Gorbachev.

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    @Intelligent Dasein

    You make a lot of good points but I wonder what nineties dance disc jockey "Moby" would put in if he could read you.

  71. @Logan
    This is extremely odd. Only a few years ago it was an article of faith among Democrats that the CIA and other intelligence agencies were and always would be agents of evil. Kind of the way ICE is portrayed today.

    Now a stint in the CIA is a bonus for a Democratic candidate.

    Replies: @Jack D, @Federalist, @Lugash, @Svigor, @Anonymous, @Millennial

    The Left/Democrats hated the CIA when the Soviet Union controlled much of Eastern and Central Europe all the way into Germany and had a massive military force poised to overrun Western Europe. But that was when leftist Democrats were generally hostile to America’s anti-communist foreign policy and were in some cases spying on behalf of the USSR.

    But now Russia has shrunk by losing the old Soviet satellite states and large parts of the old Soviet Union, most of which are downright hostile to Russia (e.g., Poland, Ukraine). Russia’s population is less than half of the U.S. population. Its economy and military spending are dwarfed by America’s. But the CIA is part of the deep state and Russia is more evil than the Soviet Union of the Cold War. No, Russia is not bent on worldwide communist domination. But Putin doesn’t support the gay rights agenda or something like that and so Russia is evil. Even worse, Russia caused Hillary to lose the election and caused Trump (literally Hitler) to win. Remember that Russia “hacked the election.” Oh wait, I don’t think we are supposed to say “hacked the election” anymore. It’s “collusion” now. “Hacked the election” sounds too much like actually changing votes and Russia’s not very technologically advanced. And “collusion” sounds a lot better than saying that Russia rigged the election by buying some Facebook ads.

    • Replies: @Stan d Mute
    @Federalist


    And “collusion” sounds a lot better than saying that Russia rigged the election by buying some Facebook ads.
     
    Collusion also has the overwhelming advantage that probably less than .5% of Americans know the meaning of the word in a general sense (let alone a legal definition) while sounding pretty bad. What’s are the emoji addled semi-literate masses to think? It’s like “collision” with a “u” right? Horrifying! “Trump colluded our Democracy into Russia!”
  72. @Desiderius
    @Jack D

    Kerry reported for duty. Lot of good it did him. They’d have, and have had, better luck just being themselves.

    Replies: @Alec Leamas

    Kerry reported for duty. Lot of good it did him. They’d have, and have had, better luck just being themselves.

    Kerry was viewed as a cynical operator who used his military experience in Vietnam for self-promotion and domestic political gain, it having served as the basis of his entrance into public life (in the sense that he slandered his fellow fighting men before Congress). Veterans were highly critical of Kerry and his behavior long before he became a contender for the Democratic Party’s nomination for President in 2004.

    Democrats have actually been quite successful from time to time engaging in a bit of “cross-dressing” for elections (to use Buchanan’s phrase). Several cycles ago in my District we were saddled with a Democrat Army JAG Officer claiming to be a “Blue Dog Democrat” who did manage to get elected for two consecutive terms during which he broke with his Clinton-aligned benefactors/puppetmasters to become an early endorser of Mr. Obama while voting with Pelosi and the far left of the Democratic Party. After two cycles people figured out what he was and got rid of him but the damage was done (ACA).

    It just seems like every ten years or so “moderate” Republicans and conservative leaning swing voters forget that Democrats are Democrats and pride themselves on not being lockstep GOP voters and wind up getting burned.

    We’re still dealing with 2006 “Blue Dog” and alleged “conservative” Democratic Senatorial class members like Casey, Tester, McCaskill etc. on their second cycle – the six year terms really seem to insulate them from accountability.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    @Alec Leamas

    Of course on one level you're right, but I think you're overestimating the extent to which such behavior is actually cross-dressing. The unstated assumption is that the military/intelligence bureaucracies are naturally conservative/moderate. I think we're becoming painfully aware that that is no longer true.

    Replies: @Svigor

    , @Berty
    @Alec Leamas

    KY06 is a perfect example of this. It overwhemlingly voted for Trump but some woman named Amy McGrath is running and the race is apparently a tossup. I doubt she'll win in the end but this shouldn't even be a race.

  73. @Desiderius
    @Steve Sailer

    Moldbug’s parents were of that milieu. His most notorious line = America is a Communist country. According to him, the Alger Hiss/Kim Philby types saw the Soviet Union as their junior partner.

    Anyway, the “intern” was probably more important than the “Com” and the class that started and runs the CIA is all the way “intern.”

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_International

    Replies: @Le Autiste Corv, @Cagey Beast, @Hibernian, @LondonBob, @Desiderius, @James Forrestal

    The horse’s mouth:

    http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2013/09/technology-communism-and-brown-scare.html

    I understand that Moldbug isn’t popular here (or anywhere for that matter), but it seems to have aged well.

    • Replies: @Antlitz Grollheim
    @Desiderius

    I don't think he's unpopular so much as people don't bother to slog through his stuff. I've only seen his ideas confirmed in the years since reading him, including his good sense to cloak everything in ketman and leave the stage definitively instead of becoming a symbol for the media.

    The problem is, if we took his advice and became passivists, we wouldn't have anything to talk about.

  74. @Desiderius
    @Hibernian

    Well, that’s the conventional McCarthyite way of thinking of them as “Soviet spies.” Maybe one reason they and their descendants had such contempt for McCarthy is that they thought/knew he had the whole thing backwards.

    Wall Street bankrolling the Bolsheviks, etc.

    Replies: @Cagey Beast, @Desiderius

    The quote from the Moldbug link:

    Historically, the subversion narrative of classical anticommunism is ridiculous as applied after 1989; generally wrong as applied after 1945; accurate in a sense between 1933 and 1945, but still generally misleading. (Alger Hiss is not Aldrich Ames; broadly speaking, the Americans involved with the Soviet security apparatus during the FDR period, including most likely FDR himself, saw themselves, correctly, as the senior rather than junior partners in the relationship – and considered their actions, though technically unlawful, unofficially authorized and the highest form of patriotism in spirit.)

    Also a correction: Moldbug’s claim is that America is a communist country (small c) and explains why that distinction is important.

    • Replies: @Sean
    @Desiderius

    No one seriously thought Russia could overtake the US. The war in Vietnam was the greatest force for subversion and it was mainly the work of China, as was Korea. It has been China all along.

    Replies: @Desiderius, @Anonymous

  75. @Tyrion 2
    There really does seem to be a military versus CIA dimension to current partisan conflict. Amusingly, it mirrors Kruschev's battle with Beria as shown in The Death of Stalin.

    It is also reflected in the disagreements between West and East Coast Straussians who, contra many theories on this site, tend to move their positions to accommodate reality as that is a key part of their ideology. This explains their coherence with dominant trends much better than them exerting nefarious control.

    None of this is a formal conflict, though perhaps more so on the CIA side which is naturally better suited to such stuff. Then again, it is easy to notice that many feminine women join organisations like the CIA, in part, because they like to be around military men but also enjoy having elegant fingernails.

    Of course, both are moderate forces within their respective parties. They fraternise too much not to be.

    We are at a turning point in history, where everything gets shaken up. The nationalist side is worse positioned by not having much heft in the key influencing industries of the media and academia. The globalist side is worse positioned by being dragged along into lunacy by that very influence.

    Controlling the Kool-Aid makes you the don of the festivities, until you drink too much of it and embarrass yourself.

    I don't think that the above observations are particularly useful but it is interesting to note that at historical turning points, when the previous consensus is breaking, it is very often the military and security services that are able to step into the cracks.

    I suppose the most practical point is that if you want your side to win then you need to move as fast as you can to neutralise all of their sources of individual power. Legalism be damned. The public eventually bore of any administration so you need to make sure you have colonised the opposing side before they are given their turn to have a crack at colonising you.

    Institutional capture is particularly powerful in this scenario as the type of ambitious and competent people who staff them have a way of aligning themselves to the whatever the direction of flow is meant to be.

    The Trump administration appears to be a rather belated recognition of these facts. An impromptu and unlikely reaction by a side that had almost lost mostly because it had refused to recognise that there even was a fight. I assume that there were some outrageous provocations that finally managed to wake them from their slumber.

    With Big Tech openly joining up with Big Media and Big Education, the globalist side has not stayed still. Perhaps the greatest difficulty is that the nationalist side is constrained by its own ideology from even neutralising those organisational weapons, nevermind capturing them.

    Furthermore, outcompeting them on a fair free market playing field isn't a great option as the globalist side is not limited by those rules itself. Globalist censorship efforts are outsourced to places like Britain, where minority grievance mongering parliamentarians harangued Big Tech into a more globalist shape.

    This is why a realist perspective is important. Principles are great, until sticking to them is the very thing that prohibits you from effectively defending them.

    The nationalist-minded administration has a finite if unknowable time period to bring the media, academia and tech into line, and it needs to find a way to do it without looking horrifically hypocritical. That, or other actors need to do it for them; but there's no obvious alternative to the institutional power of the state.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @Tiny Duck, @Alec Leamas, @Sean, @Hunsdon, @Anonymous

    Furthermore, out competing them on a fair free market playing field isn’t a great option as the globalist side is not limited by those rules itself

    The number one one concern of the CIA is foreign countries gaining in power relative to America. The Deep State of America predicated its Globalism on America coming out on top in liberalized Global trade. No one is is favour of rules they cannot win under .

    This is why a realist perspective is important. Principles are great, until sticking to them is the very thing that prohibits you from effectively defending them.

    True, and the Deep State has begun to realise that China has an advantage under American principles. An instance of this was when Gina Haspel addressed the issue of China’s “overt and illicit efforts to steal” U.S. technology.

    The Old Guard at the CIA did not see the danger of China, and the Chinese, one might add, did not see the danger of Trump. The head of Chinese intelligence is being sacked. After hearing about Russia tipping the balance for Trump, I suspect Xi was wondering why nothing had been done by his espionage service to help Clinton. The institutional power of the state exists to maintain the state over-against other states, and the CIA disagreements with itself on how to do that are probably as so often in these cases between the young and the older functionaries. The school of thought that China on globalism is not the threat to United States primacy consists of superannuated Cold Warriors no longer at the agency.

    • Replies: @Tyrion 2
    @Sean


    The number one one concern of the CIA is foreign countries gaining in power relative to America. The Deep State of America predicated its Globalism on America coming out on top in liberalized Global trade. No one is is favour of rules they cannot win under .
     
    Plenty of people cut off their nose to spite their face. The British Empire was built on other nations doing precisely that.

    The school of thought that China on globalism is not the threat to United States primacy consists of superannuated Cold Warriors no longer at the agency.
     
    With the Feinstein Chinese spying scandal and the previous OPM hack among others, it is pretty clear that the Chinese are well-embedded in the globalist side of the American divide.

    The question is what is the CIA and their mostly globalist fellows going to do about it?

    More H1B visas? More alienation of Russia? More favourable trade terms for China? Import more ethnic division to the States that the more coherent 95% Han nation can later divide and rule?

    I suppose embarassing them over Xinjiang is a start, but this farcical Russia investigation has got to go; swiftly followed by reversing the gradual deconstruction of the American nation.

    Below replacement fertility rates combined with clear demographic replacement immigration rates are not going to cut it as China pulls out of lesser developed nation status.

    If the CIA think they're smart for embarrassing China over Xinjiang, it won't take long for China to realise how easy it is to sow division in hyper-diverse USA. Only a steady nationalist course will block this.

    Globalism as a tool for hegemony doesn't work against nationalist near peer competitors. It is an expansive but weak stance that relies on having an incredibly strong position. Huge, dense and coherent China will break its flimsy thin layer apart.
    , @Sam Malone
    @Sean


    No one is is favour of rules they cannot win under .
     
    White people are.
  76. @Desiderius
    @Desiderius

    The quote from the Moldbug link:


    Historically, the subversion narrative of classical anticommunism is ridiculous as applied after 1989; generally wrong as applied after 1945; accurate in a sense between 1933 and 1945, but still generally misleading. (Alger Hiss is not Aldrich Ames; broadly speaking, the Americans involved with the Soviet security apparatus during the FDR period, including most likely FDR himself, saw themselves, correctly, as the senior rather than junior partners in the relationship - and considered their actions, though technically unlawful, unofficially authorized and the highest form of patriotism in spirit.)
     
    Also a correction: Moldbug's claim is that America is a communist country (small c) and explains why that distinction is important.

    Replies: @Sean

    No one seriously thought Russia could overtake the US. The war in Vietnam was the greatest force for subversion and it was mainly the work of China, as was Korea. It has been China all along.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    @Sean

    That should obvious at this point. It took Nixon-level savvy to see it then.

    , @Anonymous
    @Sean

    Paul Samuelson's famous "Economics" textbook, one of the most widely used college textbooks of all time, and the best selling American college textbook for 30 years until the 80s, repeatedly predicted that the Soviet economy would overtake the American economy:

    https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2010/01/soviet-growth-american-textbooks.html


    In the 1961 edition of his famous textbook of economic principles, Paul Samuelson wrote that GNP in the Soviet Union was about half that in the United States but the Soviet Union was growing faster. As a result, one could comfortably forecast that Soviet GNP would exceed that of the United States by as early as 1984 or perhaps by as late as 1997 and in any event Soviet GNP would greatly catch-up to U.S. GNP. A poor forecast–but it gets worse because in subsequent editions Samuelson presented the same analysis again and again except the overtaking time was always pushed further into the future so by 1980 the dates were 2002 to 2012. In subsequent editions, Samuelson provided no acknowledgment of his past failure to predict and little commentary beyond remarks about “bad weather” in the Soviet Union (see Levy and Peart for more details).
     

    Replies: @Jack D, @Sean, @Desiderius

  77. @Alec Leamas
    @Desiderius


    Kerry reported for duty. Lot of good it did him. They’d have, and have had, better luck just being themselves.
     
    Kerry was viewed as a cynical operator who used his military experience in Vietnam for self-promotion and domestic political gain, it having served as the basis of his entrance into public life (in the sense that he slandered his fellow fighting men before Congress). Veterans were highly critical of Kerry and his behavior long before he became a contender for the Democratic Party's nomination for President in 2004.

    Democrats have actually been quite successful from time to time engaging in a bit of "cross-dressing" for elections (to use Buchanan's phrase). Several cycles ago in my District we were saddled with a Democrat Army JAG Officer claiming to be a "Blue Dog Democrat" who did manage to get elected for two consecutive terms during which he broke with his Clinton-aligned benefactors/puppetmasters to become an early endorser of Mr. Obama while voting with Pelosi and the far left of the Democratic Party. After two cycles people figured out what he was and got rid of him but the damage was done (ACA).

    It just seems like every ten years or so "moderate" Republicans and conservative leaning swing voters forget that Democrats are Democrats and pride themselves on not being lockstep GOP voters and wind up getting burned.

    We're still dealing with 2006 "Blue Dog" and alleged "conservative" Democratic Senatorial class members like Casey, Tester, McCaskill etc. on their second cycle - the six year terms really seem to insulate them from accountability.

    Replies: @Desiderius, @Berty

    Of course on one level you’re right, but I think you’re overestimating the extent to which such behavior is actually cross-dressing. The unstated assumption is that the military/intelligence bureaucracies are naturally conservative/moderate. I think we’re becoming painfully aware that that is no longer true.

    • Replies: @Svigor
    @Desiderius


    Of course on one level you’re right, but I think you’re overestimating the extent to which such behavior is actually cross-dressing. The unstated assumption is that the military/intelligence bureaucracies are naturally conservative/moderate. I think we’re becoming painfully aware that that is no longer true.
     
    Fortunately, insofar as mil/intel are effective bureaucracies, it is true.
  78. Except CIA Democrats are actually true believers in socialism, unlike Putin and other former KGB assets. Will the USA turn into an American version of the USSR?

  79. If this ex-CIA lady had a chance to win, this piece won’t help. Deep State/ CIA is toxic to republican base and will cause outsiders to want to donate to a previously unknown VA district.

    The other side really does break into touchdown dances too early.

  80. @Lot
    "the CIA seems to have a track record of historic ineptitude"

    That has not been my impression at all.

    Replies: @Southron, @Cagey Beast, @Achmed E. Newman, @Peter Akuleyev, @Federalist, @Prester John, @James Forrestal, @J.Ross, @Tarheel American

    The CIA has a history of not being able to get out of its own way. In some respects this is comforting and in other respects disturbing. Read Derek Leebert’s “The Fifty Year Wound” which should be subtitled “How America Won the Cold War Despite the CIA” which details among other things CIA activities on the domestic front–which by law was supposed to be off limits to them but evidently that train immediately left the station.

  81. Just a tad OT but: Any news on the Seth Rich front?

    • Replies: @Clyde
    @Prester John


    Just a tad OT but: Any news on the Seth Rich front?
     
    Various websites that have been making a big fuss about Seth Rich are being sued by a few powerful Democrat law firms for "hassling" the Seth Rich family. Obvious that this is deep pockets trying to put of business the shallow pockets on our side. iirc Gateway Pundit is one.
  82. istevefan says:
    @Jack D
    @Logan

    Democrats are always afraid of being accused of being unpatriotic or pacifist. Half the reason that Johnson pursued the war in Vietnam is that he didn't want to be accused by the Republicans of being "soft on Communism" (ironically, today's Democrats accuse Trump of being "soft on the Russians").

    The Democrat's shortcut for neutralizing these charges is by running people who have a military or CIA background. They are just as leftist as any other Democrat (and vote with Pelosi once they are in office) but the credential is supposed to insulate them with the voters. You see it mentioned over and over in their campaign literature and commercials as a selling point.

    Replies: @RichardTaylor, @Desiderius, @istevefan

    The Democrat’s shortcut for neutralizing these charges is by running people who have a military or CIA background. They are just as leftist as any other Democrat (and vote with Pelosi once they are in office) but the credential is supposed to insulate them with the voters. You see it mentioned over and over in their campaign literature and commercials as a selling point.

    This is exactly what the Missouri Democrats did with Jason Kander in the 2016 Senate election. They did a commercial showing Kander assembling an M-16 while blindfolded to show off his army bona fides, That was supposed to make rubes like me think he was A-OK. It almost worked. While Trump carried MO by 500K votes, Blunt only beat Kander by 87K.

    • Replies: @Svigor
    @istevefan


    This is exactly what the Missouri Democrats did with Jason Kander in the 2016 Senate election. They did a commercial showing Kander assembling an M-16 while blindfolded to show off his army bona fides
     
    Movies and TV present this as if it were some kind of L-eet activity, but modern firearms are designed by geniuses, to be used by idiots. I can disassemble and reassemble my 9 with my eyes closed in like a minute. Because it's got like four parts (part groups, really). The AR platform is sorta in the middle, designed before this golden age of weapons that are super-simple to take down, in the sense that you can get your jimmy stuck in your zipper if you're not careful, but doing it blindfolded is not a big deal at all. It just means you've done it a lot (it probably took me a half-dozen times with my 9 before I realized I could do it with my eyes closed).

    Replies: @istevefan

  83. OFF TOPIC

    Trump Won A Lot Of Votes From Americans Of Italian Ancestry.

    Trump utilized the German Strategy to defeat Hillary Clinton.

    The German Strategy is to win the votes of the Anglo-Celts in the South in combination with the votes of German Americans in the Great Lakes states.

    Trump also was helped tremendously by the votes of Americans with Italian ancestry in states such as Pennsylvania and Florida.

    Italians In Italy Want The Mass Immigration Invasion Stopped.

    ITALY FOR THE ITALIANS!

  84. @Anon
    My mom (former NGO exec director) and her husband (former high level Fed bureaucrat) retired to that region from DC area. Their whole social circle is people like themselves...affluent former DC liberals. They are very active in local politics.

    Replies: @ThreeCranes

    “Their whole social circle is people like themselves…affluent former DC liberals. They are very active in local politics.”

    And therein lies the solution. Since they aggregate in certain areas that are agreeable to others of their stripe, then to enjoy life, the outdoors, sun, blue skies and freedom from meddling, just relocate to some wholesome, outback area far removed from their pernicious influence. America is a big country and they haven’t yet succeeded in infilling it with browns and blacks. “Hit em where they ain’t.”

  85. Q says:

    Isn’t it telling that they all run as Democrats? Liberal = incompetent + corrupt. That pretty much sums up the CIA, as well as the FBI, DNC, and the rest of our government institutions.

    The CIA needs to be put on trial for all the crimes they have committed against humanity since its inception in 1947. How many brutal dictators have they propped up, revolutions and wars have they started? Pretty much every single mass unrest and war in the world since WWII have their imprints on it. They gave us Al Qaeda, Al Nusra and strengthened ISIS. These scumbags live to meddle in all other countries’ affairs. Their job is to ensure the world never sees peace, or they’d be out of a job.

    Ron Paul is right. We ought to take a sledgehammer to the CIA and smash it to smithereens. God help us all if any of these uber meddlesome and corrupt former CIA gets elected to congress. We’ll be going to war against everybody and his mother.

  86. Doesn’t this website also have lots of ex-int agents as writers? Pot to kettle: black, black, black.

    • Replies: @Hunsdon
    @anony-mouse

    People like Ray McGovern, Phil Giraldi and VIPS, you mean? Agents who have at some quite considerable risk to their reputations, their economic success and (perhaps) their lives to oppose official skullduggery and nincompoopery? Why yes, mouse, this site does have some former intel agents writing for it.

    Replies: @Art Deco

    , @Svigor
    @anony-mouse

    Don't Jews produce a lot of ethnic supremacists and racists? Isn't Israel basically National Socialist? Pot to kettle Jews, pot to kettle.

    , @Mr. Anon
    @anony-mouse


    Doesn’t this website also have lots of ex-int agents as writers?
     
    It possibly has some current ones as commenters.
  87. @tsotha
    The KGB had a huge advantage. They took the creme of the creme of each generation of young Soviets. To be selected by the KGB was a huge honor and was the road to wealth and power. The CIA, on the other hand, had to compete with investment banks and save-the-world startups. I interviewed with the agency after college, and unlike other potential employers the CIA did interviews off campus so they didn't have to deal with, well, the KGB's useful idiots.

    Didn't follow up because they wanted to send me to third world shitholes where you can get VD from the water and where they'll hang you from your scrotum if they suspect you're working for the CIA. There were companies willing to pay a lot more money for a lot less inconvenience. My idea of world travel is Germany and France, not Kenya and Guatemala.

    Plus, no License To Kill. That was a big disappointment.

    Replies: @Anonym, @Achmed E. Newman, @Stan d Mute, @Cato

    I interviewed with the agency after college, and unlike other potential employers the CIA did interviews off campus

    I had a phone interview with them and they used a cover company based in Chicongo with a 312 area code.

    Plus, no License To Kill. That was a big disappointment.

    Depends on where you’re posted. That was my sole reason for interest as a young and very jacked up man. I also had extended family connections (one assassinated in Turkey, the other lost a kid in Laos) plus my dad did some sketchy SigInt work for Army “Intelligence” (oxymoronic as hell eh?) in Germany.

    What struck me then (and now) was the contrast between CIA & FBI. CIA had a one page application form asking just basic name, DOB, SSN, etc. FBI had a bound booklet asking for things like names and addresses of elementary school teachers, photos of neighbors, etc. Color me unsurprised at recent relevations of FBI incompetence. Anybody who thinks FedGov (esp NSA, NGA/NGIS, CIA, etc) doesn’t already know everything about you is pretty naive. We all have a file in NSA’s Utah Data Center being crunched and hashed by Palantir big data apps.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    @Stan d Mute

    Spying is big business nowadays. As the Snowden affair revealed, there are lots of private contractors with their fingers in the pie. It really ought to be MIIC - Military Intelligence Industrial Complex (or perhaps MIIFDC - Military Intelligence Industrial Finance Diplomacy Complex).

    Lockheed-Martin is known as a big defence contractor, but a lot of its business is now in intelligence and surveillance.

    Citizens of a constitutional republic might well wonder why an intelligence agency has its own venture capital firm:

    In-Q-Tel

  88. The CIA and FBI are quite active in the gun control movement–well, “retired” agents of both, for the most part. The sudden stardom of David Hogg, son of a retired FBI agent, provides an example.

    Ed Wells, a 25-year veteran of the Directorate of Plans of the Central Intelligence Agency, helped found Handgun Control, Inc and the National Coalition to Ban Handguns after his retirement.

    From a 1990s article, “Gun Control and the Plot for a Fascist Police State in America,” by David Hammer:

    Wells offers a thin-sounding motivation for his shift into this highly emotional fight: “It was more of a question of wanting to do something in the public service area. Having sort of a determination not to seek a nine-to-five job when I got out of the Agency, and a desire to stay around Washington, really probably not much more than that.”

    Wells was not the only CIA-linked man involved in creating the gun control lobby. Former CIA chief William Colby, who decimated the CIA’s counterintelligence capability with his 1975 sacking of James Jesus Angleton and many of his staff, threw open his house for gun control fundraising parties and today serves on the board of the National Coalition to Ban Handguns. (More recently, Colby has been openly hobnobbing with the KGB in joint CIA-KGB meetings in California to discuss “joint strategies” to fight terrorism.

    Colby was hardly impelled into the gun control movement by some longstanding commitment to curb violence. He had been, after all, the chief overseer of the bloody Operation Phoenix program which assassinated over 50,000 Vietnamese. Later, (after `”retirement,” of course), he would be the lawyer for the infamous Australia-based gun-and-drug running Nugan Hand Bank.

    Nor does the list of CIA supporters of gun control end with Wells and Colby. HCI spokesman Greg Risch recently laughed a bit nervously when asked if the “spooks” (CIA agents) were supporting HCI, then said, “Sure there are a lot of CIA people in it,” adding that there are quite a few `”ex-CIA who donate to us.”

  89. @dr kill
    @Southron

    I can hope for silent success in the intelligence industry, but I feel the failures are much greater than the triumphs. I'm just thinking of the First Gulf War, Bay of Pigs, Pearl Harbor, Berlin Wall.
    It's possible correct relevant information was presented to our elected officials in a timely manner and was mishandled, but, as recently demonstrated, the intelligence community is not shy about protecting their own and deflecting and assigning blame to others.
    I would like to be wrong.

    Replies: @ben tillman, @Anonymous

    Pearl Harbor was not an intelligence failure.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @ben tillman


    Pearl Harbor was not an intelligence failure.
     
    If anything, it was an intelligence success. Feature, not bug.


    How FDR kept a straight face during that broadcast, I don't know. Maybe his polio was a feature there, too.

    Replies: @europeasant, @Art Deco, @ben tillman

  90. 9/11 was a massive intelligence and defense failure, the greatest of the Post-War period. No one from the CIA, NSA, FBI, FAA, DoD, DIA was fired, no one was even demoted! Instead we rewarded them with vastly increased budgets and powers. The lesson is not a good one.

  91. Hillary was Bill’s CYA agent.

    As Scott Adams called them, the perp and the cleanup crew.

  92. @Tyrion 2
    There really does seem to be a military versus CIA dimension to current partisan conflict. Amusingly, it mirrors Kruschev's battle with Beria as shown in The Death of Stalin.

    It is also reflected in the disagreements between West and East Coast Straussians who, contra many theories on this site, tend to move their positions to accommodate reality as that is a key part of their ideology. This explains their coherence with dominant trends much better than them exerting nefarious control.

    None of this is a formal conflict, though perhaps more so on the CIA side which is naturally better suited to such stuff. Then again, it is easy to notice that many feminine women join organisations like the CIA, in part, because they like to be around military men but also enjoy having elegant fingernails.

    Of course, both are moderate forces within their respective parties. They fraternise too much not to be.

    We are at a turning point in history, where everything gets shaken up. The nationalist side is worse positioned by not having much heft in the key influencing industries of the media and academia. The globalist side is worse positioned by being dragged along into lunacy by that very influence.

    Controlling the Kool-Aid makes you the don of the festivities, until you drink too much of it and embarrass yourself.

    I don't think that the above observations are particularly useful but it is interesting to note that at historical turning points, when the previous consensus is breaking, it is very often the military and security services that are able to step into the cracks.

    I suppose the most practical point is that if you want your side to win then you need to move as fast as you can to neutralise all of their sources of individual power. Legalism be damned. The public eventually bore of any administration so you need to make sure you have colonised the opposing side before they are given their turn to have a crack at colonising you.

    Institutional capture is particularly powerful in this scenario as the type of ambitious and competent people who staff them have a way of aligning themselves to the whatever the direction of flow is meant to be.

    The Trump administration appears to be a rather belated recognition of these facts. An impromptu and unlikely reaction by a side that had almost lost mostly because it had refused to recognise that there even was a fight. I assume that there were some outrageous provocations that finally managed to wake them from their slumber.

    With Big Tech openly joining up with Big Media and Big Education, the globalist side has not stayed still. Perhaps the greatest difficulty is that the nationalist side is constrained by its own ideology from even neutralising those organisational weapons, nevermind capturing them.

    Furthermore, outcompeting them on a fair free market playing field isn't a great option as the globalist side is not limited by those rules itself. Globalist censorship efforts are outsourced to places like Britain, where minority grievance mongering parliamentarians harangued Big Tech into a more globalist shape.

    This is why a realist perspective is important. Principles are great, until sticking to them is the very thing that prohibits you from effectively defending them.

    The nationalist-minded administration has a finite if unknowable time period to bring the media, academia and tech into line, and it needs to find a way to do it without looking horrifically hypocritical. That, or other actors need to do it for them; but there's no obvious alternative to the institutional power of the state.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @Tiny Duck, @Alec Leamas, @Sean, @Hunsdon, @Anonymous

    Excellent comment, Tyrion 2.

    “Don’t get high on your own supply.”

  93. @Desiderius
    @Peter Akuleyev

    I believe that’s the FBI with the Mormons. The wave Trump, Orban et al. Are riding is the Posrmodern skepticism of universals, so any gung ho Christianish sect is going to have an initial aversion to it which can be exploited by the unscrupulous.

    Replies: @Corn, @The Man From K Street

    Right. IIRC (traditionally at least) the FBI was disproportionately Catholic and Mormon, the CIA WASP, and the State Department Jewish.

    • Replies: @Lot
    @Corn

    Relatively true. But almost every part of the FedGov and NatSec complex is disproportionately Jewish and Mormon. Exceptions are things like the postal service and infantry.

    I always mail my taxes to IRS facilities in Utah!

    Replies: @Twinkie

  94. @Achmed E. Newman
    Send lawyers, guns, and money:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lP5Xv7QqXiM

    Replies: @Ganderson, @Hunsdon

    Once upon a time, when I was in Mongolia, working on a USAID subcontract to privatize the state cashmere company, I almost got into a fistfight with another subcontractor over that album. (He said it was a greatest hits album.)

    • Replies: @Autochthon
    @Hunsdon

    This comment (assumed true) easily intimates the zaniest adventure ever. It could be seamlessly inserted into Mike Myers' inspired monologues detailing Dr. Evil's history. Tell me please at least some of the cashmere was made into thneeds....

  95. @Alec Leamas
    @Tyrion 2

    My belief is that at least some large part of the coup d'etat against Trump was a desire to keep General Flynn away from the levers of power. As a consequence he was the first to be taken out. He knew the CIA's number - they would at the very least suffer a loss of influence and prestige with former DIA head Flynn in Trump's ear. At the worst (from the Agency's point of view) the hacks, failures and clock punchers could get outed and taken care of by the new Administration.

    I think that perhaps Trump surrounding himself with Marine Corps Generals was a message to the so-called "Intelligence Community." There's still a Marine Corps barracks in the heart of DC, after all.

    Replies: @Hunsdon, @The Wild Geese Howard

    The first thing I said when Mattis was announced as SecDef was, literally, “Coup insurance.”

    • Replies: @Jack Hanson
    @Hunsdon

    As I've said, Mattis is half of his coup insurance. DHS with over a divison's worth of LE is the other half.

    Also look at the people demanding that if Trump had just went nuts from get go, it would have all worked out, so sayeth a Target middle manage. The Most Self Important Commentariat in the World, indeed.

    Replies: @Jack Hanson

  96. @Anonym
    @tsotha

    Didn’t follow up because they wanted to send me to third world shitholes where you can get VD from the water and where they’ll hang you from your scrotum if they suspect you’re working for the CIA. There were companies willing to pay a lot more money for a lot less inconvenience. My idea of world travel is Germany and France, not Kenya and Guatemala.

    VD from the water eh? Yeah, I was visiting some third world s***hole a couple weeks back and wouldn't you know, I contracted VD from the water. Honest!

    Replies: @europeasant

    “I contracted VD from the water. Honest!”

    WTF! I contracted my VD from a dirty toilet seat. And that was in the states.

  97. @anony-mouse
    Doesn't this website also have lots of ex-int agents as writers? Pot to kettle: black, black, black.

    Replies: @Hunsdon, @Svigor, @Mr. Anon

    People like Ray McGovern, Phil Giraldi and VIPS, you mean? Agents who have at some quite considerable risk to their reputations, their economic success and (perhaps) their lives to oppose official skullduggery and nincompoopery? Why yes, mouse, this site does have some former intel agents writing for it.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    @Hunsdon

    Mr. Giraldi is ignored by everyone but Wick Allison and Ron Unz because all the rent-free space in Mr. Giraldi's head is entirely taken up by fanciful Jew-devils. He's got one adversary, and he sees that man every morning in the mirror while shaving.

    Replies: @Mr. Anon, @Svigor, @Svigor

  98. @ben tillman
    @dr kill

    Pearl Harbor was not an intelligence failure.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    Pearl Harbor was not an intelligence failure.

    If anything, it was an intelligence success. Feature, not bug.

    How FDR kept a straight face during that broadcast, I don’t know. Maybe his polio was a feature there, too.

    • Agree: ben tillman
    • Replies: @europeasant
    @Reg Cæsar

    In this book that I just finished reading "The Wolf in the Kremlin, Lazar Kaganovich" it is claimed that Stalin knew of the upcoming attack on Pearl Harbor. He did not notify FDR for some reason or other that I forget. Maybe he was upset that the USA did not immediately attack Germany on the mainland instead the USA chose to invade North Africa. He was pretty pissed off.
    Also he only went to war with Japan after it was mostly settled between USA and Japan as a payback for USA's late entry into Europe. He figured 'let them bloody each up a bit' as a payback to the USA.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Reg Cæsar

    , @Art Deco
    @Reg Cæsar

    How FDR kept a straight face during that broadcast, I don’t know.

    You don't know because you're operating under the assumption that your historical fantasies are real.

    Replies: @Mr. Anon, @Reg Cæsar, @Anonym

    , @ben tillman
    @Reg Cæsar

    Right. Stinnett's book convinced me that FDR knew and sent instructions ("expect sabotage") intended to maximize the damage.

  99. @Cagey Beast
    @Lot

    The CIA has a reputation for being evil and incompetent and people are afraid of them. Not a winning combination for someone running for office.

    Replies: @Prof. Woland

    Thanks to the recent attempted coup d’etat lead by the CIA and the publicity surrounding it, the CIA has seriously tarnished up their image as being the agency that stayed out of domestic politics. They just could not ‘resist’ eating the apple from the domestic-internet tree of knowledge and are now out cast.

    These CIA analysis’s seem to portray themselves as clean cut white button downed types “just the facts” mam but won’t be able to escape what Obama and their senior management did. I don’t know if they are appearing in the Democrat party now to ward off Trump or the more vibrant elements emerging withing the Democratic party but they will be very hard to trust by either wing. Either they were complicit or they were ignorant of the worst scandal in American history but either way, having worked for the CIA won’t look as good on the resume as it once would have.

  100. @Steve Sailer
    @RichardTaylor

    William F. Buckley's CIA buddy Miles Copeland, father of the drummer of The Police, said the CIA was always quite liberal in a couple of pieces in National Review in the 70s.

    Replies: @Desiderius, @Cagey Beast, @RichardTaylor, @JudyBlumeSussman, @SunBakedSuburb, @PV van der Byl

    Didn’t the CIA fund opinion magazines from far-left to center to far-right, as long as they maintained an anti-Communist line?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_influence_on_public_opinion#Subsidies_of_non-government_groups

  101. @Tyrion 2
    @Anon

    Your list amounts to one man instigating and implementing an instantaneous full scale revolution off the back of a very narrow Presidential victory.

    To put it extremely mildly, I don't think the conditions for such an action to be a success were in place.

    Also, Jeff Sessions is probably the crucial Trump ally in government and always has been. He is quiet and diligent and I would advise anyone criticising him from a nationalist perspective to be a little more humble.

    Replies: @The Man From K Street

    Your list amounts to one man instigating and implementing an instantaneous full scale revolution off the back of a very narrow Presidential victory.

    Lenin and the Bolsheviks didn’t see their tepid victories in 1917 elections to the Constituent Assembly as much of a bar to their instigating and implementing full scale revolution. And if that’s too leftist for you, consider that the Whigs who consolidated power after the Hanoverian accession in 1715 and shut out the opposition completely for decades would not have won a single election 1700-1750 if they had been decided by the actual number of votes vs. rotten boroughs.
    No revolutionary in history has ever acted from a landslide electoral mandate.

    • Replies: @ben tillman
    @The Man From K Street


    Lenin and the Bolsheviks didn’t see their tepid victories in 1917 elections to the Constituent Assembly as much of a bar to their instigating and implementing full scale revolution.
     
    Tyrion 2 was right. Note that word "Bolsheviks" -- it's plural!

    "Trump" is singular. All those things that were suggested would require allies. Lots of them, and ones with their own powerful networks at that.

    Replies: @Tyrion 2

  102. @theMann
    @Peter Akuleyev

    I am sorry, but how many of you have ever been around any number of Mormons for any length of time?

    The notion that Mormons would somehow keep an organization honest is so hilariously wrong that I hardly know where to begin. In any case, there is a reason why they congregate to Federal Bureaucracies, and it sure as hell isn't because they are honest or conservative. More the "one set of rules for us, another for everybody else" rule that defines any successful cult.

    Replies: @Charles Pewitt

    I wrote this about Corrupt Mormon Mammonites in August 2017:

    Roberta McCain, mother of John McCain, was not too impressed by Mitt Romney’s efforts to save the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympics from Mormon money-grubbers who were robbing and looting to their Mammonite heart’s content.

    What I am suggesting is corrupt Mormons were taking advantage of business opportunities provided by the 2002 Olympics to enrich themselves. Mitt Romney was brought in as a “cleaner” to bring some decency and honor back to the business of the Salt Lake City Olympics.

    Roberta McCain says this of Mitt Romney and the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympics:

    “And as far as this Salt Lake City thing, he’s a Mormon, and the Mormons of Salt Lake City that caused that scandal, and to clean that up…”

  103. Jack Hanson says:
    @Hunsdon
    @Alec Leamas

    The first thing I said when Mattis was announced as SecDef was, literally, "Coup insurance."

    Replies: @Jack Hanson

    As I’ve said, Mattis is half of his coup insurance. DHS with over a divison’s worth of LE is the other half.

    Also look at the people demanding that if Trump had just went nuts from get go, it would have all worked out, so sayeth a Target middle manage. The Most Self Important Commentariat in the World, indeed.

    • Replies: @Jack Hanson
    @Jack Hanson

    This reads more like YEAR OF THE WOMEN standard schlock that gets predicted and never materializes.

  104. @Jack Hanson
    @Hunsdon

    As I've said, Mattis is half of his coup insurance. DHS with over a divison's worth of LE is the other half.

    Also look at the people demanding that if Trump had just went nuts from get go, it would have all worked out, so sayeth a Target middle manage. The Most Self Important Commentariat in the World, indeed.

    Replies: @Jack Hanson

    This reads more like YEAR OF THE WOMEN standard schlock that gets predicted and never materializes.

  105. @Reg Cæsar
    @ben tillman


    Pearl Harbor was not an intelligence failure.
     
    If anything, it was an intelligence success. Feature, not bug.


    How FDR kept a straight face during that broadcast, I don't know. Maybe his polio was a feature there, too.

    Replies: @europeasant, @Art Deco, @ben tillman

    In this book that I just finished reading “The Wolf in the Kremlin, Lazar Kaganovich” it is claimed that Stalin knew of the upcoming attack on Pearl Harbor. He did not notify FDR for some reason or other that I forget. Maybe he was upset that the USA did not immediately attack Germany on the mainland instead the USA chose to invade North Africa. He was pretty pissed off.
    Also he only went to war with Japan after it was mostly settled between USA and Japan as a payback for USA’s late entry into Europe. He figured ‘let them bloody each up a bit’ as a payback to the USA.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @europeasant


    it is claimed that Stalin knew of the upcoming attack on Pearl Harbor.
     
    How did Stalin know about Pearl Harbor?

    IIRC, it was widely known by various intelligence services that the Japanese were about to enter the war, but exactly who/where they were going to attack was uncertain.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @J.Ross

    , @Reg Cæsar
    @europeasant


    Maybe he was upset that the USA did not immediately attack Germany on the mainland instead the USA chose to invade North Africa.
     
    Which direction does time run where you live? Or did Stalin have his own Rasputin, telling him in 1941 who we'd invade in 1943?
  106. Anonymous[333] • Disclaimer says:

    As someone on the paleo-rit, there are liberal former CIA officers I wouldn’t fear. Phil Giraldi, Ray McGovern, Michael Scheuer, et al. There are quite a few hardcore true liberals whom I not only don’t fear but I believe are the most principled and open to reason (Max Blumenthal, Caitlin Johnstone, Yasha Levine, Stephen Cohen, Glenn Greenwald, et al.). In this Trump era principled liberals are as rare as honest conservatives (Rand Paul), but I as a conservative feel it is my duty to read and support such honest liberals in addition to those dwindling honest conservatives.

  107. @Mr. Anon
    The Democratic Party is betting heavily on CIA agents (and other intelligence operatives):

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/daily-202/2017/10/18/daily-202-ex-cia-officers-running-for-congress-as-democrats/59e6b25b30fb041a74e75de5/?noredirect=on

    Because democracy is best left in the hands of secret, unaccountable government officials who specialize in subverting governments.

    Replies: @Another Canadian, @SunBakedSuburb, @Dmon

    The CIA underwent an ideological sea change during the Clinton presidency (in which the foul Queen Hillary ruled behind the curtain like Lady Macbeth). As the Cheney Regency kicked-in after the false-flag 9/11 attack, I cheered this liberal sect within the CIA while they served as an oppositional force against the plans of Cheney and his long-time comrade Donald Rumsfeld. This Agency liberal sect, as represented in present day by Peter Strzok and John Brennan, now reveals itself to be agents of the kind of totalitarian leftism that sours my stomach.

  108. @Sean
    @Tyrion 2


    Furthermore, out competing them on a fair free market playing field isn’t a great option as the globalist side is not limited by those rules itself
     
    The number one one concern of the CIA is foreign countries gaining in power relative to America. The Deep State of America predicated its Globalism on America coming out on top in liberalized Global trade. No one is is favour of rules they cannot win under .

    This is why a realist perspective is important. Principles are great, until sticking to them is the very thing that prohibits you from effectively defending them.
     
    True, and the Deep State has begun to realise that China has an advantage under American principles. An instance of this was when Gina Haspel addressed the issue of China’s “overt and illicit efforts to steal” U.S. technology.

    The Old Guard at the CIA did not see the danger of China, and the Chinese, one might add, did not see the danger of Trump. The head of Chinese intelligence is being sacked. After hearing about Russia tipping the balance for Trump, I suspect Xi was wondering why nothing had been done by his espionage service to help Clinton. The institutional power of the state exists to maintain the state over-against other states, and the CIA disagreements with itself on how to do that are probably as so often in these cases between the young and the older functionaries. The school of thought that China on globalism is not the threat to United States primacy consists of superannuated Cold Warriors no longer at the agency.

    Replies: @Tyrion 2, @Sam Malone

    The number one one concern of the CIA is foreign countries gaining in power relative to America. The Deep State of America predicated its Globalism on America coming out on top in liberalized Global trade. No one is is favour of rules they cannot win under .

    Plenty of people cut off their nose to spite their face. The British Empire was built on other nations doing precisely that.

    The school of thought that China on globalism is not the threat to United States primacy consists of superannuated Cold Warriors no longer at the agency.

    With the Feinstein Chinese spying scandal and the previous OPM hack among others, it is pretty clear that the Chinese are well-embedded in the globalist side of the American divide.

    The question is what is the CIA and their mostly globalist fellows going to do about it?

    More H1B visas? More alienation of Russia? More favourable trade terms for China? Import more ethnic division to the States that the more coherent 95% Han nation can later divide and rule?

    I suppose embarassing them over Xinjiang is a start, but this farcical Russia investigation has got to go; swiftly followed by reversing the gradual deconstruction of the American nation.

    Below replacement fertility rates combined with clear demographic replacement immigration rates are not going to cut it as China pulls out of lesser developed nation status.

    If the CIA think they’re smart for embarrassing China over Xinjiang, it won’t take long for China to realise how easy it is to sow division in hyper-diverse USA. Only a steady nationalist course will block this.

    Globalism as a tool for hegemony doesn’t work against nationalist near peer competitors. It is an expansive but weak stance that relies on having an incredibly strong position. Huge, dense and coherent China will break its flimsy thin layer apart.

  109. @Logan
    This is extremely odd. Only a few years ago it was an article of faith among Democrats that the CIA and other intelligence agencies were and always would be agents of evil. Kind of the way ICE is portrayed today.

    Now a stint in the CIA is a bonus for a Democratic candidate.

    Replies: @Jack D, @Federalist, @Lugash, @Svigor, @Anonymous, @Millennial

    The NSA, CIA, FBI and top ranks of the military have all been captured by International Poz. Comey made FBI recruits kneel at the feet of MLK’s statue, Hayden boasted of the NSA being comprised of internationalists etc.

    But you’re right, the shift has been amazing.

  110. @Peter Akuleyev
    @Lot

    What I have heard from State Department types is that the CIA guys stationed at embassies abroad had almost unlimited financial resources at their disposal, were arrogant and had no obvious “deliverables” to meet. Half of them seem to be living in their own fantasy worlds. The Russians had more limited resources and were held accountable for results, and were thus much more disciplined. OTOH, the CIA is Mormon dominated which keeps it fairly honest and morally conservative.

    Replies: @Cagey Beast, @theMann, @Desiderius, @S. Anonyia, @Twinkie, @Anon, @Bill jones

    I always heard the FBI was dominated by Mormons. CIA is more dominated by adventurous neoliberals and people who took democratic peace theory way too seriously in their Ivy League Poli Sci classes.

    With Mormon over-representation in intelligence agencies, I think it’s mainly because they don’t question authorities or orders due to their cultish upbringing. And they are fit, clean-cut, reasonably intelligent.

    But honest? Hah! Las Vegas is half run by Mormons. They call outsiders “gentiles.”

    However I will say my opinion of them changed somewhat after visiting Utah. I’d never be at home there but they’ve really made a lovely place.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @S. Anonyia

    SLC is safe for gentiles but stay out of Provo after dark.

  111. So the deep state is doubling down on the Egg McMuffin — I mean Evan McMullin — strategy that worked so well in 2016?

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    @WowJustWow


    So the deep state is doubling down on the Egg McMuffin — I mean Evan McMullin — strategy that worked so well in 2016?
     
    They learned from their failure with Langley Candidate 1.0, Egg McMuffin - a transparently weird closeted homosexual who looked like, as someone on the web once put it, "a penis wearing a suit". This time they're rolling out Langley Candidate 2.0: smiling soccer-mom.
  112. @Steve Sailer
    @RichardTaylor

    William F. Buckley's CIA buddy Miles Copeland, father of the drummer of The Police, said the CIA was always quite liberal in a couple of pieces in National Review in the 70s.

    Replies: @Desiderius, @Cagey Beast, @RichardTaylor, @JudyBlumeSussman, @SunBakedSuburb, @PV van der Byl

    Liberal as in internationalist. The Allen Dulles cabal — James Jesus Angleton, Frank Wisner, David Atlee Phillips, Cord Meyer, Richard Helms — whose influence within the CIA remained dominant until the mid 1970s, were right-wing corporatists.

  113. @Anon
    "Your list amounts to one man instigating and implementing an instantaneous full scale revolution off the back of a very narrow Presidential victory. To put it extremely mildly, I don’t think the conditions for such an action to be a success were in place."

    Says who? Strong men make the conditions with the power they are granted. Adolf Hitler didn't win a majority of the vote, and the American revolution was fought with only a third of the public supporting it. Most of the short list I provided is eminently doable in one form or another. It wasn't done either because Trump doesn't want to or lacks the competence (probably both). If I were Trump, you'd be watching my coronation on television about now.

    "one man instigating and implementing an instantaneous full scale revolution"

    *cough, Hugo Chavez...it's not as hard as you think; and I never said anything about anything being "instantaneous." That was just something you put in your comment to discredit mine via strawman because you couldn't generate a proper rebuttal.

    "Also, Jeff Sessions is probably the crucial Trump ally in government and always has been. He is quiet and diligent and I would advise anyone criticising him from a nationalist perspective to be a little more humble."

    He's a weak man who has let Trump's most ardent enemies encircle him. He's spent the better part of his tenure trying to make the non-issue of marijuana illegal again.

    "To put it extremely mildly, I don’t think the conditions for such an action to be a success were in place."

    Don't cross the Rubicon Caesar. The conditions aren't in place yet.

    Replies: @Tyrion 2, @ben tillman, @Anon

    Don’t cross the Rubicon Caesar. The conditions aren’t in place yet

    Ceasar crossed the Rubicon with his Gaul conquering favourite legion at his back. He had also…actually conquered Gaul and served as Consul before.

    Hitler had been building a private army and alternate state for a decade. Germany was also in a generally revolutionary mood.

    Trump is forming up his “troops” while in office. A country where the biggest vote is “I couldn’t be bothered to turn up” probably isn’t going to all be grabbing pitchforks just yet.

    • Replies: @JudyBlumeSussman
    @Tyrion 2


    Trump is forming up his “troops” while in office.
     
    He really isn't. But that's OK, we didn't vote for him thinking that he would lay the foundation for Trumpism to prosper beyond his term. That's not his style, to establish institutions.

    'The Trump Organization' was always an aspirational moniker. Instead, Trump wins by whining and whining and winning and winning.

    That leaves the foundation-building to us.

    , @Lot
    @Tyrion 2

    Caesar and little say in his timing, as his enemies had united and were getting ready to strike. His ability to keep his troops loyal after extending their service and putting them to battle against the poor but valiant Gauls and Germans again and again was also likely running low. He owed them the land in Italy he promised so often.

  114. @Hibernian
    @RichardTaylor

    In WW2 CIA predecessor OSS knowingly used Communist agents; had something to do with the fact we were fighting the Nazis and allied with the Soviets.

    Replies: @Harry Baldwin

    Also, the main group really willing to fight German occupying troops seems to have been the communists.

    • Replies: @JMcG
    @Harry Baldwin

    After Barbarossa anyway. Before that they had no problem with the Germans.

  115. @Mr. Anon
    The Democratic Party is betting heavily on CIA agents (and other intelligence operatives):

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/daily-202/2017/10/18/daily-202-ex-cia-officers-running-for-congress-as-democrats/59e6b25b30fb041a74e75de5/?noredirect=on

    Because democracy is best left in the hands of secret, unaccountable government officials who specialize in subverting governments.

    Replies: @Another Canadian, @SunBakedSuburb, @Dmon

    The CIA wants to make sure that Americans don’t meddle in their elections.

  116. One difference might be that my impression is that the KGB, given the Soviet Union’s severe economic disadvantage, had to be somewhat competent to stay in the game, while the CIA seems to have a track record of ineptitude.

    Not just the general poverty of the USSR, but also how all power was centralized in Moscow, around the security apparatus. KGB was the Big League. The KGB is how the Soviets got almost all of their “innovation” – by stealing it from the West.

  117. @Logan
    This is extremely odd. Only a few years ago it was an article of faith among Democrats that the CIA and other intelligence agencies were and always would be agents of evil. Kind of the way ICE is portrayed today.

    Now a stint in the CIA is a bonus for a Democratic candidate.

    Replies: @Jack D, @Federalist, @Lugash, @Svigor, @Anonymous, @Millennial

    From baby-killers to saviors in one news cycle.

  118. https://twitter.com/basbnp/status/1028263337623212032

    Retro-blackening of Britain.

    Sports and Pop music dictate celebrity that defines the Face of a Nation. Blacks dominate in sports and pop, so even Brit history must be ret-conned into black.

  119. @Alec Leamas
    @Jack D


    When you look at the known failures, you see what a crowd of jokers and alcoholics and amateurs the CIA is staffed with. If these clowns achieve any success it would be purely by accident.
     
    I think as iSteve and others have pointed out the culture of the CIA from its beginning favored breeding - being born to a family of a certain sort and attending a handful of elite educational institutions. There may have been a time when this arguably yielded a cultured man a cut above others with greater aptitude for clandestine service or intelligence gathering and analysis, one doubts that this is any longer the case in fact. The decline of the CIA probably tracks the decline of other elite institutions, particularly the Ivy League Universities from which it has historically recruited.

    And it's not difficult to see how an institution historically drawing from elite institutions the scope of which is secret operations of the government with only thin, pro forma oversight by the elected branches of government devolves into an institution with a culture and disposition that is fundamentally anti-democratic. Noting its failures and incompetence or threatening to reign in its excesses is met with indignation and secret retribution. It's easy and tempting for the CIA to guard its power and influence by turning its experience in subverting governments upon its own.

    Replies: @Svigor

    I think as iSteve and others have pointed out the culture of the CIA from its beginning favored breeding – being born to a family of a certain sort and attending a handful of elite educational institutions. There may have been a time when this arguably yielded a cultured man a cut above others with greater aptitude for clandestine service or intelligence gathering and analysis, one doubts that this is any longer the case in fact. The decline of the CIA probably tracks the decline of other elite institutions, particularly the Ivy League Universities from which it has historically recruited.

    My guess is the pedigree thing was more about loyalty than competence. Much harder for Soviets to gin up and infiltrate a phony 10th-generation American than a phony 2nd-generation American. Much easier for the 2nd-generation American to be raised with alien notions, too.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @Svigor

    Los Alamos was hugely successful at building an atomic bomb due to cosmopolitan meritocracy, but hugely unsuccessful at hanging on to its secrets due to cosmopolitan meritocracy, e.g., Klaus Fuchs, Ted Hall, and the Rosenberg connection.

    , @Anon
    @Svigor


    My guess is the pedigree thing was more about loyalty than competence.
     
    And it worked marvelously; Alger Hiss and Kim Philby (on the Anglo side of the Pond) were very loyal indeed-- the only question was: "To whom?".

    Okay, I'm kidding a bit, but I get your point.
  120. Brat is likely toast. White middle class and upper class women scream for Open Borders and no ICE every day. White middle and upper class women are the natural and eternal enemy of the average White man and some White female via officer running against Brat is symbolic.

    White women are the core of globalism and open borders.

  121. @Hunsdon
    @anony-mouse

    People like Ray McGovern, Phil Giraldi and VIPS, you mean? Agents who have at some quite considerable risk to their reputations, their economic success and (perhaps) their lives to oppose official skullduggery and nincompoopery? Why yes, mouse, this site does have some former intel agents writing for it.

    Replies: @Art Deco

    Mr. Giraldi is ignored by everyone but Wick Allison and Ron Unz because all the rent-free space in Mr. Giraldi’s head is entirely taken up by fanciful Jew-devils. He’s got one adversary, and he sees that man every morning in the mirror while shaving.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    @Art Deco


    Mr. Giraldi is ignored by everyone but Wick Allison and Ron Unz because all the rent-free space in Mr. Giraldi’s head is entirely taken up by fanciful Jew-devils. He’s got one adversary, and he sees that man every morning in the mirror while shaving.
     
    Whereas everybody simply considers you to be a supercilious and useless clown. I don't see anybody hiring you to write at their website, and your own website is an echoing cave.
    , @Svigor
    @Art Deco

    Jews crack Palestinian skulls but act like specializing in Jew-crit is some unique form of madness.

    , @Svigor
    @Art Deco

    Criticizing Whites is like the Jewish national sport. A few uppity goys reciprocate, so here you are to defame them; entirely consistent with your Tribe's obsessions.

  122. @Reg Cæsar
    @ben tillman


    Pearl Harbor was not an intelligence failure.
     
    If anything, it was an intelligence success. Feature, not bug.


    How FDR kept a straight face during that broadcast, I don't know. Maybe his polio was a feature there, too.

    Replies: @europeasant, @Art Deco, @ben tillman

    How FDR kept a straight face during that broadcast, I don’t know.

    You don’t know because you’re operating under the assumption that your historical fantasies are real.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    @Art Deco


    You don’t know because you’re operating under the assumption that your historical fantasies are real.
     
    As you seem to operate under the assumption that your comments are of any interest to anyone here. You'd think it would be obvious to you by now that they aren't.
    , @Reg Cæsar
    @Art Deco


    You don’t know because you’re operating under the assumption that your historical fantasies are real.
     
    I didn't say he knew. Only that his tears were mock. Pearl Harbor gave him exactly what he wanted.

    Replies: @Flip, @Desiderius

    , @Anonym
    @Art Deco

    I guess Rear Admiral Robert Theobald was a fantasist too.

  123. Anon[238] • Disclaimer says:

    It looks like the DNC party officials who recruited all these CIA people were the Clintonista wing, still trying to hang onto the Donk party power. By the way, how many of these CIA candidates are white? I’m willing to bet 99 to 100% of them.

    I’m predicting a massive Donk plunge in votes for these candidates. A lot of lefties kneejerk-blame the CIA for everything from poverty to tooth decay, and they’ve been doing this for decades, and no way are they going to vote for some CIA employee, ex- or otherwise. The habit of hating the CIA is too ingrained in old leftist circles. The cognitive dissonance will make their heads explode. Adding in candidates with a military-industrial background may go over with left-wing Jewish media, but left-wing women and Green Party-leaning types won’t be impressed. In sum, these candidates are going to flop with a lot traditional leftists.

    Secondly, the ‘new insurgency’ among the Democrats which wants to see candidates of color is going to look at all these white people and say, NO WAY. Obama got blacks to turn out. Some white person from the CIA that blacks and Hispanics have never heard of isn’t going to do it. Inner-city blacks and Hispanics understand the patronage system that gives them preference in big cities isn’t going to work unless the pols are black or Hispanic like themselves, because the tribe always helps out people from the tribe first.

    The Donks won’t vote for Republicans, but they won’t vote for white, CIA-military people either. I predict 1) massive lack of Dem voter turnout this fall, and 2) a larger-than-usual vote for the Greens and other 3rd party candidates on the ballot this November, with the left-wing splitting the Donk vote so thoroughly that it may cause GOP wins in districts which the GOP doesn’t win. Getting as many lefties on the ballot as we can is a winning strategy for us. Divide and conquer, and all that.

    I almost feel sorry for the Donks. They have the choice of voting for a Republican or a Donk that’s a CIA-military guy. If I were a Democrat, I’d be howling about having all my principles being betrayed by my party. Some of these CIA-military plants (though still Trump-haters) are likely to be more conservative than the Republican candidate who’s running, although they’re hiding it from the voters.

    Look for Democratic party registration to plunge, and the amount of voters registered Independent to surge this coming election.

  124. @Corn
    @Desiderius

    Right. IIRC (traditionally at least) the FBI was disproportionately Catholic and Mormon, the CIA WASP, and the State Department Jewish.

    Replies: @Lot

    Relatively true. But almost every part of the FedGov and NatSec complex is disproportionately Jewish and Mormon. Exceptions are things like the postal service and infantry.

    I always mail my taxes to IRS facilities in Utah!

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @Lot


    FedGov and NatSec complex is disproportionately Jewish and Mormon.
     
    Which one of those people can pass polygraph...

    Replies: @Lot

  125. @Achmed E. Newman
    @Lot

    You would think the imminent fall of the USSR and the East Bloc, America's arch-enemies for 40 years already at the time, and probably the only legitimate purpose in having the CIA around*, would have been something the "intelligence" agencies would have been up on. You'd be wrong. Pretty much half the countries in Latin America are proof of the stupidity of the CIA, or at least the management.

    The CIA have been the biggest bunch of fuck-ups the world has seen, and any agency without the power to blackmail as they have, and without that almost unlimited black budget, would have not lasted in this world.

    .
    .

    * besides the fact that they were GOING TO stay around, no matter what any President and Congress were going to say about it.

    Replies: @Marat

    Not to mention the shenanigans in Africa, especially in the 70s

  126. @Desiderius
    @Alec Leamas

    Of course on one level you're right, but I think you're overestimating the extent to which such behavior is actually cross-dressing. The unstated assumption is that the military/intelligence bureaucracies are naturally conservative/moderate. I think we're becoming painfully aware that that is no longer true.

    Replies: @Svigor

    Of course on one level you’re right, but I think you’re overestimating the extent to which such behavior is actually cross-dressing. The unstated assumption is that the military/intelligence bureaucracies are naturally conservative/moderate. I think we’re becoming painfully aware that that is no longer true.

    Fortunately, insofar as mil/intel are effective bureaucracies, it is true.

  127. @istevefan
    @Jack D


    The Democrat’s shortcut for neutralizing these charges is by running people who have a military or CIA background. They are just as leftist as any other Democrat (and vote with Pelosi once they are in office) but the credential is supposed to insulate them with the voters. You see it mentioned over and over in their campaign literature and commercials as a selling point.
     
    This is exactly what the Missouri Democrats did with Jason Kander in the 2016 Senate election. They did a commercial showing Kander assembling an M-16 while blindfolded to show off his army bona fides, That was supposed to make rubes like me think he was A-OK. It almost worked. While Trump carried MO by 500K votes, Blunt only beat Kander by 87K.

    Replies: @Svigor

    This is exactly what the Missouri Democrats did with Jason Kander in the 2016 Senate election. They did a commercial showing Kander assembling an M-16 while blindfolded to show off his army bona fides

    Movies and TV present this as if it were some kind of L-eet activity, but modern firearms are designed by geniuses, to be used by idiots. I can disassemble and reassemble my 9 with my eyes closed in like a minute. Because it’s got like four parts (part groups, really). The AR platform is sorta in the middle, designed before this golden age of weapons that are super-simple to take down, in the sense that you can get your jimmy stuck in your zipper if you’re not careful, but doing it blindfolded is not a big deal at all. It just means you’ve done it a lot (it probably took me a half-dozen times with my 9 before I realized I could do it with my eyes closed).

    • Replies: @istevefan
    @Svigor

    I was in the infantry so I know all about disassembling and reassembling an M-16. However, watch that video again and pay attention at the 24 second mark. He seems to be struggling to pull the charging handle.

    The reason I noticed this is because when we did the manual of arms one of the weapon drills was "inspection arms". To properly perform this drill you have to hold the weapon in front of you with your forearms pretty much at chest level. Then while holding the weapon with your left hand on the front hand guard, you have to pull the charging handle with your right hand to show the inspector the weapon is empty.

    It sounds easy. However, the hard part is that you must remain rigid and upright. You must remain like a statue. So you learn how to charge the weapon without your body quivering as though it is taking all your strength to pull the handle. Jason doesn't seem to be able to do this.

  128. @Clyde
    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/campaigns/abigail-spanberger-the-former-cia-officer-challenging-rep-dave-brat
    Before her time at the CIA, Spanberger working on money laundering and narcotics cases for the U.S. Postal Inspection Service. In both positions, Spanberger talks about working under Democratic and Republican presidencies, touting an ability to work with both sides. It’s experience she’s hoping resonates with voters who are tired of the polarization in Congress. Spanberger's "level-headed" pitch is a far cry from Brat's defiant, sometimes hostile relationship with his own party's House leadership.

    *** She was prolly a lawyer who never left her CIA office in the DC region. She is presentable so may win.

    Replies: @Mr. Anon, @The Wild Geese Howard

    Spanberger’s “level-headed” pitch is a far cry from Brat’s defiant, sometimes hostile relationship with his own party’s House leadership.

    I expect my GOP Congressman to be in a hostile relationship with his own party’s leadership; if he isn’t, he isn’t doing his job, as far as I’m concerned.

  129. @anony-mouse
    Doesn't this website also have lots of ex-int agents as writers? Pot to kettle: black, black, black.

    Replies: @Hunsdon, @Svigor, @Mr. Anon

    Don’t Jews produce a lot of ethnic supremacists and racists? Isn’t Israel basically National Socialist? Pot to kettle Jews, pot to kettle.

  130. Where are the ex-CIA officials running as Republicans? Did Obama appoint these activists to our intelligence services or do they precede him?

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @Song For the Deaf


    Where are the ex-CIA officials running as Republicans?
     
    They are not foolish enough to run for elected office. They are in business earning lots of money.
  131. @Art Deco
    @Hunsdon

    Mr. Giraldi is ignored by everyone but Wick Allison and Ron Unz because all the rent-free space in Mr. Giraldi's head is entirely taken up by fanciful Jew-devils. He's got one adversary, and he sees that man every morning in the mirror while shaving.

    Replies: @Mr. Anon, @Svigor, @Svigor

    Mr. Giraldi is ignored by everyone but Wick Allison and Ron Unz because all the rent-free space in Mr. Giraldi’s head is entirely taken up by fanciful Jew-devils. He’s got one adversary, and he sees that man every morning in the mirror while shaving.

    Whereas everybody simply considers you to be a supercilious and useless clown. I don’t see anybody hiring you to write at their website, and your own website is an echoing cave.

  132. @Southron
    @Lot

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Intelligence_Agency#Failures_in_intelligence_analysis

    Please find the section "Failures ..." and the following several sections, especially "Abuses ..." in the article referred to above, as counterexamples.

    As a fundamental principle of intelligence, the public's knowledge almost entirely consists of the organization's failures. Successes are only treated in historical texts two generations after the fact, if at all.

    Replies: @dr kill, @Jack D, @Lot

    I favor a policy of blind loyalty to the military and the various quasi-military agencies like the CIA.

    While they perhaps are imperfect, they are our guys.

    The “failures” of the CIA, to the extent they are real, are not the CIA’s fault, but that of the president and his administration at the time.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    @Lot


    I favor a policy of blind loyalty to the military and the various quasi-military agencies like the CIA.

    While they perhaps are imperfect, they are our guys.
     
    I'm sure many germans felt the same about the Wehrmacht and the SS.

    Didn't work out too well for them or anyone else.

    "I'm proud to be an American, where at least I know I'm free".
     
    I'm a lot less free now than I was when I first heard that song in 1988, so I say it's bulls**t. I hate that song; it represents the worst kind of lumpen-patriotism and a lot of what went wrong with country music. When I first heard it played at a 4th of July event, was my first inkling that this country was on the down-slope. Give me Kate Smith singing "God Bless America" over that putrid noise by Lee Greenwood, anyday.
    , @Desiderius
    @Lot

    The problem is that the Greenwood lovers are on the outs. If our party minders are reading along, you may well get singled out for the worst treatment rather than being credited for your loyalty.

    , @James Forrestal
    @Lot

    In a lot of ways, it makes more sense to lump CIA with State than with military.

  133. @Peter Akuleyev
    @Lot

    What I have heard from State Department types is that the CIA guys stationed at embassies abroad had almost unlimited financial resources at their disposal, were arrogant and had no obvious “deliverables” to meet. Half of them seem to be living in their own fantasy worlds. The Russians had more limited resources and were held accountable for results, and were thus much more disciplined. OTOH, the CIA is Mormon dominated which keeps it fairly honest and morally conservative.

    Replies: @Cagey Beast, @theMann, @Desiderius, @S. Anonyia, @Twinkie, @Anon, @Bill jones

    heard from State Department types is that the CIA guys

    Because foreign service officers are objective observers and have no chips on their shoulders at all.

    • Replies: @The Wild Geese Howard
    @Twinkie


    Because foreign service officers are objective observers and have no chips on their shoulders at all
     
    In my experience the diplomatic corps are a bunch of taxpayer funded drunks trapped in the belief that Dulles, VA is the apotheosis of Western civilization, and the entire world should conform to its norms.

    They exist solely for drunken soirees, shopping trips to Europe, and using the embassy as a platform to push the globalist economic and social program.

    Replies: @Twinkie

  134. @Jack D
    @Southron


    Successes are only treated in historical texts two generations after the fact, if at all.
     
    This is a convenient excuse - we can only tell you about the CIA's handful of failures and not their thousands of successes that we can't tell you about because they are secret.

    It's also complete BS. The US government leaks like a sieve and Washington is full of self promoters. If there is any success, you will be reading about it in the NYTimes or WaPo with "anonymous" sources.

    When you look at the known failures, you see what a crowd of jokers and alcoholics and amateurs the CIA is staffed with. If these clowns achieve any success it would be purely by accident.

    But, fortunately, it makes little difference. Espionage is always just a sideshow - it is rarely decisive. If victory in the Cold War had depended on espionage, the Russians would have beaten us 10 to 1. But in the end it was not the decisive factor. Stealing the nuclear secrets might have sped up the Soviet nuclear program by a couple of years but they would have figured it out on their own anyway - they had plenty of 1st rate scientists.

    Replies: @Alec Leamas, @Mr. Anon

    Good points. Well said.

  135. @Sean
    @Desiderius

    No one seriously thought Russia could overtake the US. The war in Vietnam was the greatest force for subversion and it was mainly the work of China, as was Korea. It has been China all along.

    Replies: @Desiderius, @Anonymous

    That should obvious at this point. It took Nixon-level savvy to see it then.

  136. @Art Deco
    @Reg Cæsar

    How FDR kept a straight face during that broadcast, I don’t know.

    You don't know because you're operating under the assumption that your historical fantasies are real.

    Replies: @Mr. Anon, @Reg Cæsar, @Anonym

    You don’t know because you’re operating under the assumption that your historical fantasies are real.

    As you seem to operate under the assumption that your comments are of any interest to anyone here. You’d think it would be obvious to you by now that they aren’t.

  137. Anon[238] • Disclaimer says:
    @Peter Akuleyev
    @Lot

    What I have heard from State Department types is that the CIA guys stationed at embassies abroad had almost unlimited financial resources at their disposal, were arrogant and had no obvious “deliverables” to meet. Half of them seem to be living in their own fantasy worlds. The Russians had more limited resources and were held accountable for results, and were thus much more disciplined. OTOH, the CIA is Mormon dominated which keeps it fairly honest and morally conservative.

    Replies: @Cagey Beast, @theMann, @Desiderius, @S. Anonyia, @Twinkie, @Anon, @Bill jones

    One of my favorite historians in a certain field was, until recently, the CIA station chief in a Latin-American country. It’s quite obviously from his massive books backed with high-quality research that he had a lot of free time on his hands. His regular job must have been pretty quiet and rather boring.

  138. @Desiderius
    @Desiderius

    The horse's mouth:

    http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2013/09/technology-communism-and-brown-scare.html

    I understand that Moldbug isn't popular here (or anywhere for that matter), but it seems to have aged well.

    Replies: @Antlitz Grollheim

    I don’t think he’s unpopular so much as people don’t bother to slog through his stuff. I’ve only seen his ideas confirmed in the years since reading him, including his good sense to cloak everything in ketman and leave the stage definitively instead of becoming a symbol for the media.

    The problem is, if we took his advice and became passivists, we wouldn’t have anything to talk about.

  139. @Lot
    @Corn

    Relatively true. But almost every part of the FedGov and NatSec complex is disproportionately Jewish and Mormon. Exceptions are things like the postal service and infantry.

    I always mail my taxes to IRS facilities in Utah!

    Replies: @Twinkie

    FedGov and NatSec complex is disproportionately Jewish and Mormon.

    Which one of those people can pass polygraph…

    • Replies: @Lot
    @Twinkie

    Polygraph?

    Did both your grandfathers fight for the United States, in WWII and Korea?

    Yes.


    Did you patrilineal ancestor, whose name and Y chromosome you bear, join and fight with United States Army in 1861-1865?

    Yes.

    Replies: @Svigor, @Twinkie

  140. @Tyrion 2
    @Anon


    Don’t cross the Rubicon Caesar. The conditions aren’t in place yet
     
    Ceasar crossed the Rubicon with his Gaul conquering favourite legion at his back. He had also...actually conquered Gaul and served as Consul before.

    Hitler had been building a private army and alternate state for a decade. Germany was also in a generally revolutionary mood.

    Trump is forming up his "troops" while in office. A country where the biggest vote is "I couldn't be bothered to turn up" probably isn't going to all be grabbing pitchforks just yet.

    Replies: @JudyBlumeSussman, @Lot

    Trump is forming up his “troops” while in office.

    He really isn’t. But that’s OK, we didn’t vote for him thinking that he would lay the foundation for Trumpism to prosper beyond his term. That’s not his style, to establish institutions.

    ‘The Trump Organization’ was always an aspirational moniker. Instead, Trump wins by whining and whining and winning and winning.

    That leaves the foundation-building to us.

  141. @WowJustWow
    So the deep state is doubling down on the Egg McMuffin -- I mean Evan McMullin -- strategy that worked so well in 2016?

    Replies: @Mr. Anon

    So the deep state is doubling down on the Egg McMuffin — I mean Evan McMullin — strategy that worked so well in 2016?

    They learned from their failure with Langley Candidate 1.0, Egg McMuffin – a transparently weird closeted homosexual who looked like, as someone on the web once put it, “a penis wearing a suit”. This time they’re rolling out Langley Candidate 2.0: smiling soccer-mom.

  142. @anony-mouse
    Doesn't this website also have lots of ex-int agents as writers? Pot to kettle: black, black, black.

    Replies: @Hunsdon, @Svigor, @Mr. Anon

    Doesn’t this website also have lots of ex-int agents as writers?

    It possibly has some current ones as commenters.

  143. @Art Deco
    Rothenberg / Gonzalez identifies 13 congressional races as 'toss-ups'. This isn't one of them. The only 'toss-up' in Virginia is the seat of Republican temporizer Barbara Comstock in NoVa. Brat's seat is rated 'lean Republican'. (Rothenberg has five classifications: 'toss-up', 'tilt', 'lean', 'likely', and 'safe').

    Replies: @Mr. Anon

    Rothenberg / Gonzalez identifies 13 congressional races as ‘toss-ups’. This isn’t one of them. The only ‘toss-up’ in Virginia is the seat of Republican temporizer Barbara Comstock in NoVa. Brat’s seat is rated ‘lean Republican’. (Rothenberg has five classifications: ‘toss-up’, ’tilt’, ‘lean’, ‘likely’, and ‘safe’).

    And who are Rothenberg / Gonzalez that I should care? Oh, they are the guys that published this:

    Clinton Tightens Grip on Presidential Victory

    by Nathan L. Gonzales October 14, 2016 · 3:29 PM EDT

    http://www.insideelections.com/news/article/clinton-tightens-grip-on-presidential-victory

    They also claim to be “non partisan”. Yeah, sure they are.

  144. @Federalist
    @Logan

    The Left/Democrats hated the CIA when the Soviet Union controlled much of Eastern and Central Europe all the way into Germany and had a massive military force poised to overrun Western Europe. But that was when leftist Democrats were generally hostile to America's anti-communist foreign policy and were in some cases spying on behalf of the USSR.

    But now Russia has shrunk by losing the old Soviet satellite states and large parts of the old Soviet Union, most of which are downright hostile to Russia (e.g., Poland, Ukraine). Russia's population is less than half of the U.S. population. Its economy and military spending are dwarfed by America's. But the CIA is part of the deep state and Russia is more evil than the Soviet Union of the Cold War. No, Russia is not bent on worldwide communist domination. But Putin doesn't support the gay rights agenda or something like that and so Russia is evil. Even worse, Russia caused Hillary to lose the election and caused Trump (literally Hitler) to win. Remember that Russia "hacked the election." Oh wait, I don't think we are supposed to say "hacked the election" anymore. It's "collusion" now. "Hacked the election" sounds too much like actually changing votes and Russia's not very technologically advanced. And "collusion" sounds a lot better than saying that Russia rigged the election by buying some Facebook ads.

    Replies: @Stan d Mute

    And “collusion” sounds a lot better than saying that Russia rigged the election by buying some Facebook ads.

    Collusion also has the overwhelming advantage that probably less than .5% of Americans know the meaning of the word in a general sense (let alone a legal definition) while sounding pretty bad. What’s are the emoji addled semi-literate masses to think? It’s like “collision” with a “u” right? Horrifying! “Trump colluded our Democracy into Russia!”

  145. Anonymous[418] • Disclaimer says:

    Putin sure seems different than our candyass know-nothing effete globalist CIA twerps.

    But then I remember that the KGB defector comrade J said that of course he’d never met Putin professionally since he (Tretyakov) was an elite officer in the inner circle while Putin was a backwater hick thug who never could have made it to the top levels of the KGB.

  146. @Lot
    @Southron

    I favor a policy of blind loyalty to the military and the various quasi-military agencies like the CIA.

    While they perhaps are imperfect, they are our guys.

    The "failures" of the CIA, to the extent they are real, are not the CIA's fault, but that of the president and his administration at the time.

    http://www.lovethispic.com/uploaded_images/175402-Proud-To-Be-An-American.jpg

    Replies: @Mr. Anon, @Desiderius, @James Forrestal

    I favor a policy of blind loyalty to the military and the various quasi-military agencies like the CIA.

    While they perhaps are imperfect, they are our guys.

    I’m sure many germans felt the same about the Wehrmacht and the SS.

    Didn’t work out too well for them or anyone else.

    “I’m proud to be an American, where at least I know I’m free”.

    I’m a lot less free now than I was when I first heard that song in 1988, so I say it’s bulls**t. I hate that song; it represents the worst kind of lumpen-patriotism and a lot of what went wrong with country music. When I first heard it played at a 4th of July event, was my first inkling that this country was on the down-slope. Give me Kate Smith singing “God Bless America” over that putrid noise by Lee Greenwood, anyday.

  147. @Twinkie
    @Lot


    FedGov and NatSec complex is disproportionately Jewish and Mormon.
     
    Which one of those people can pass polygraph...

    Replies: @Lot

    Polygraph?

    Did both your grandfathers fight for the United States, in WWII and Korea?

    Yes.

    Did you patrilineal ancestor, whose name and Y chromosome you bear, join and fight with United States Army in 1861-1865?

    Yes.

    • Replies: @Svigor
    @Lot

    Yeah Korea's pretty much the last American war in which the Jewish participation rate wasn't shameful.


    Did you patrilineal ancestor, whose name and Y chromosome you bear, join and fight with United States Army in 1861-1865?
     
    He helped kill White Americans in a war America lost, yay.

    So the South could go on to be overruled by the North in their resistance to pretty much every piece of shitlib of legislation to come down the pike, yippee.

    , @Twinkie
    @Lot

    None of that matters if the individual himself is degenerate. He won’t pass. The reason Mormons and Jews are overrepresented in government are different and they are also overrepresented in different parts. Putting the the two together is obfuscation.

  148. Anonymous[276] • Disclaimer says:
    @Logan
    This is extremely odd. Only a few years ago it was an article of faith among Democrats that the CIA and other intelligence agencies were and always would be agents of evil. Kind of the way ICE is portrayed today.

    Now a stint in the CIA is a bonus for a Democratic candidate.

    Replies: @Jack D, @Federalist, @Lugash, @Svigor, @Anonymous, @Millennial

    The Sanders, Ocasio-Cortez wing of the Democratic Party, where a lot of the young energy of the party is today, still holds similar attitudes. And they want to divert money away from the military and intelligence and towards social programs. I suspect these CIA candidates are running to counter the anti military-intelligence complex and democratic socialist wing of the Dems.

  149. @Stan d Mute
    @tsotha


    I interviewed with the agency after college, and unlike other potential employers the CIA did interviews off campus
     
    I had a phone interview with them and they used a cover company based in Chicongo with a 312 area code.

    Plus, no License To Kill. That was a big disappointment.
     
    Depends on where you’re posted. That was my sole reason for interest as a young and very jacked up man. I also had extended family connections (one assassinated in Turkey, the other lost a kid in Laos) plus my dad did some sketchy SigInt work for Army “Intelligence” (oxymoronic as hell eh?) in Germany.

    What struck me then (and now) was the contrast between CIA & FBI. CIA had a one page application form asking just basic name, DOB, SSN, etc. FBI had a bound booklet asking for things like names and addresses of elementary school teachers, photos of neighbors, etc. Color me unsurprised at recent relevations of FBI incompetence. Anybody who thinks FedGov (esp NSA, NGA/NGIS, CIA, etc) doesn’t already know everything about you is pretty naive. We all have a file in NSA’s Utah Data Center being crunched and hashed by Palantir big data apps.

    Replies: @Mr. Anon

    Spying is big business nowadays. As the Snowden affair revealed, there are lots of private contractors with their fingers in the pie. It really ought to be MIIC – Military Intelligence Industrial Complex (or perhaps MIIFDC – Military Intelligence Industrial Finance Diplomacy Complex).

    Lockheed-Martin is known as a big defence contractor, but a lot of its business is now in intelligence and surveillance.

    Citizens of a constitutional republic might well wonder why an intelligence agency has its own venture capital firm:

    In-Q-Tel

  150. @Alec Leamas
    @Desiderius


    Kerry reported for duty. Lot of good it did him. They’d have, and have had, better luck just being themselves.
     
    Kerry was viewed as a cynical operator who used his military experience in Vietnam for self-promotion and domestic political gain, it having served as the basis of his entrance into public life (in the sense that he slandered his fellow fighting men before Congress). Veterans were highly critical of Kerry and his behavior long before he became a contender for the Democratic Party's nomination for President in 2004.

    Democrats have actually been quite successful from time to time engaging in a bit of "cross-dressing" for elections (to use Buchanan's phrase). Several cycles ago in my District we were saddled with a Democrat Army JAG Officer claiming to be a "Blue Dog Democrat" who did manage to get elected for two consecutive terms during which he broke with his Clinton-aligned benefactors/puppetmasters to become an early endorser of Mr. Obama while voting with Pelosi and the far left of the Democratic Party. After two cycles people figured out what he was and got rid of him but the damage was done (ACA).

    It just seems like every ten years or so "moderate" Republicans and conservative leaning swing voters forget that Democrats are Democrats and pride themselves on not being lockstep GOP voters and wind up getting burned.

    We're still dealing with 2006 "Blue Dog" and alleged "conservative" Democratic Senatorial class members like Casey, Tester, McCaskill etc. on their second cycle - the six year terms really seem to insulate them from accountability.

    Replies: @Desiderius, @Berty

    KY06 is a perfect example of this. It overwhemlingly voted for Trump but some woman named Amy McGrath is running and the race is apparently a tossup. I doubt she’ll win in the end but this shouldn’t even be a race.

  151. @Art Deco
    @Hunsdon

    Mr. Giraldi is ignored by everyone but Wick Allison and Ron Unz because all the rent-free space in Mr. Giraldi's head is entirely taken up by fanciful Jew-devils. He's got one adversary, and he sees that man every morning in the mirror while shaving.

    Replies: @Mr. Anon, @Svigor, @Svigor

    Jews crack Palestinian skulls but act like specializing in Jew-crit is some unique form of madness.

  152. @Lot
    @Twinkie

    Polygraph?

    Did both your grandfathers fight for the United States, in WWII and Korea?

    Yes.


    Did you patrilineal ancestor, whose name and Y chromosome you bear, join and fight with United States Army in 1861-1865?

    Yes.

    Replies: @Svigor, @Twinkie

    Yeah Korea’s pretty much the last American war in which the Jewish participation rate wasn’t shameful.

    Did you patrilineal ancestor, whose name and Y chromosome you bear, join and fight with United States Army in 1861-1865?

    He helped kill White Americans in a war America lost, yay.

    So the South could go on to be overruled by the North in their resistance to pretty much every piece of shitlib of legislation to come down the pike, yippee.

  153. @Art Deco
    @Hunsdon

    Mr. Giraldi is ignored by everyone but Wick Allison and Ron Unz because all the rent-free space in Mr. Giraldi's head is entirely taken up by fanciful Jew-devils. He's got one adversary, and he sees that man every morning in the mirror while shaving.

    Replies: @Mr. Anon, @Svigor, @Svigor

    Criticizing Whites is like the Jewish national sport. A few uppity goys reciprocate, so here you are to defame them; entirely consistent with your Tribe’s obsessions.

  154. @Tyrion 2
    @Anon


    Don’t cross the Rubicon Caesar. The conditions aren’t in place yet
     
    Ceasar crossed the Rubicon with his Gaul conquering favourite legion at his back. He had also...actually conquered Gaul and served as Consul before.

    Hitler had been building a private army and alternate state for a decade. Germany was also in a generally revolutionary mood.

    Trump is forming up his "troops" while in office. A country where the biggest vote is "I couldn't be bothered to turn up" probably isn't going to all be grabbing pitchforks just yet.

    Replies: @JudyBlumeSussman, @Lot

    Caesar and little say in his timing, as his enemies had united and were getting ready to strike. His ability to keep his troops loyal after extending their service and putting them to battle against the poor but valiant Gauls and Germans again and again was also likely running low. He owed them the land in Italy he promised so often.

  155. Anonymous[276] • Disclaimer says:
    @Sean
    @Desiderius

    No one seriously thought Russia could overtake the US. The war in Vietnam was the greatest force for subversion and it was mainly the work of China, as was Korea. It has been China all along.

    Replies: @Desiderius, @Anonymous

    Paul Samuelson’s famous “Economics” textbook, one of the most widely used college textbooks of all time, and the best selling American college textbook for 30 years until the 80s, repeatedly predicted that the Soviet economy would overtake the American economy:

    https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2010/01/soviet-growth-american-textbooks.html

    In the 1961 edition of his famous textbook of economic principles, Paul Samuelson wrote that GNP in the Soviet Union was about half that in the United States but the Soviet Union was growing faster. As a result, one could comfortably forecast that Soviet GNP would exceed that of the United States by as early as 1984 or perhaps by as late as 1997 and in any event Soviet GNP would greatly catch-up to U.S. GNP. A poor forecast–but it gets worse because in subsequent editions Samuelson presented the same analysis again and again except the overtaking time was always pushed further into the future so by 1980 the dates were 2002 to 2012. In subsequent editions, Samuelson provided no acknowledgment of his past failure to predict and little commentary beyond remarks about “bad weather” in the Soviet Union (see Levy and Peart for more details).

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @Anonymous

    In my honors economics class at Penn in the late '70s, we were taken to see Larry Klein's shop, the respected Wharton Econometric Forecasting Associates (WEFA). Klein was a Nobel Prize winner who had pioneered computer modeling of economies - just like you could forecast the weather given temperature, pressure and wind direction inputs at a number of locations, you could forecast the economic future given various data inputs. (He had also joined the Communist Party in the '40s). WEFA had contracts with big corporations and Wall St. firms who wanted predictions on whether the economy would grow or shrink in the coming year, etc.

    Any Larry didn't come out but one of his deputies did - I no longer remember the guys name. And he proceeded to give us the same exact speech. He brought out a graph and it showed that the Soviet economy was growing at X%/year and the American economy was growing at Y%/year (a slower rate) so eventually the more steeply sloped Soviet line would cross the American line. QED - it was just math.

    Apparently it didn't occur to these guys that the Soviets would publish phony statistics.

    Replies: @J.Ross

    , @Sean
    @Anonymous


    https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/csi-studies/studies/97unclass/soviet.html

    " the divergence was over whether "those things" were possible in an economy that was growing at an average of nearly 2 percent a year. The CIA argued that this was possible because GNP merely measured gross output without regard to use, quality, or contribution to welfare; it included, for example, the military production and raw quantities of wasteful output. (US calculations of its own GNP as an indication of the public welfare recently have come in for similar criticism.) [...] Given the nature of the analytic problem posed by the Soviet system, the analysts preparing the numbers anticipated that some of their numbers would be open to question.[...] Such examinations would also illuminate the fact that GNP calculations include production of unsold goods as well as spending on defense and other government projects that may not directly benefit households. These conditions were particularly manifest in the wasteful construction projects and unsold inventories of Communist countries.

    An objective examination would also provide an opportunity to confront the "counter-intuitiveness" argument with certain realities such as: (a) the population of the Soviet Union exceeded the combined populations of West Germany and Japan by an amount greater than the combined populations of France, the Netherlands, and Belgium; (b) the Soviet GNP included production for what was probably the world's largest military establishment; (c) material extraction in the Soviet Union was the highest of any single nation; and (d) the principal problem with the Soviet economy was not its size but its distortions--not simply how large the GNP was but its composition and how it was distributed.
     

    For all their protestations, I think because they were accused of boosting the USSR Brokenspectre-style, the CIA are going to lowball estimates of China . Also, the max growth projection for China would be seen as too politically Trump-friendly within the CIA right now.
    , @Desiderius
    @Anonymous

    My Comparative Economics professor at Manchester U (UK) was teaching us that the East German economy was superior to the West in the spring of 1990 (!). Backed up by the assigned text of course.

    Luckily we had a five week spring break where we could go see how ridiculous this was first hand while picking up a piece of the crumbling Berlin Wall.

  156. @Desiderius
    @Peter Akuleyev

    I believe that’s the FBI with the Mormons. The wave Trump, Orban et al. Are riding is the Posrmodern skepticism of universals, so any gung ho Christianish sect is going to have an initial aversion to it which can be exploited by the unscrupulous.

    Replies: @Corn, @The Man From K Street

    IIRC (traditionally at least) the FBI was disproportionately Catholic and Mormon, the CIA WASP, and the State Department Jewish

    No, the previous commenter was right when he said there is more than one faction in the CIA and one of them is Mormon. The agency heavily recruits among them, obviously, since they come with built-in language training and living overseas experience from missionary work. The late-90s pop star Jewel was approached to work with the CIA before her singing career took off, for example.

    The WASP contingent at the CIA is mostly long gone, and there are quite a lot of Jewish women now–e.g. Elissa Slotkin the former agent running for Congress this year from Macomb County in Michigan. Another previous commenter was right when he said a lot of CIA women like being around military types without actually getting into uniform themselves–a lot of them end up being wife #2s for colonels and Navy captains retiring or just about to retire on full pensions.

  157. @Lot
    @Southron

    I favor a policy of blind loyalty to the military and the various quasi-military agencies like the CIA.

    While they perhaps are imperfect, they are our guys.

    The "failures" of the CIA, to the extent they are real, are not the CIA's fault, but that of the president and his administration at the time.

    http://www.lovethispic.com/uploaded_images/175402-Proud-To-Be-An-American.jpg

    Replies: @Mr. Anon, @Desiderius, @James Forrestal

    The problem is that the Greenwood lovers are on the outs. If our party minders are reading along, you may well get singled out for the worst treatment rather than being credited for your loyalty.

  158. @Prester John
    Just a tad OT but: Any news on the Seth Rich front?

    Replies: @Clyde

    Just a tad OT but: Any news on the Seth Rich front?

    Various websites that have been making a big fuss about Seth Rich are being sued by a few powerful Democrat law firms for “hassling” the Seth Rich family. Obvious that this is deep pockets trying to put of business the shallow pockets on our side. iirc Gateway Pundit is one.

  159. @Steve Sailer
    @RichardTaylor

    William F. Buckley's CIA buddy Miles Copeland, father of the drummer of The Police, said the CIA was always quite liberal in a couple of pieces in National Review in the 70s.

    Replies: @Desiderius, @Cagey Beast, @RichardTaylor, @JudyBlumeSussman, @SunBakedSuburb, @PV van der Byl

    Charles McCarry, enormously popular spy novelist and decade-long undercover operative of the real life CIA, had the following to say in a magazine interview:

    CM: I don’t remember saying that. Some of it by inadvertence at least. I never met a stupid person in the agency. Or an assassin. Or a Republican.

    RB: No Republicans? [laughs] Are you serious?

    CM: I’m serious. They were, at least in the operations side where I was, there were wall-to-wall knee-jerk liberals. And they were befuddled that the left outside the agency regarded them as some sort of right-wing threat. Because they were the absolute opposite, in their own politics.

    https://themorningnews.org/article/birnbaum-v.-charles-mccarry

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    @PV van der Byl

    >Charlie McCarry never met a stupid CIA officer
    In fairness he worked there long before Egghead McMuffin took selfies with ISIS.

    Replies: @PV van der Byl

    , @fnn
    @PV van der Byl

    The movie, The President's Analyst (1967) portrayed a CIA made of hip liberals, in stark contrast to the FBI of J. Edgar Hoover.

    Replies: @PV van der Byl

  160. @Clyde
    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/campaigns/abigail-spanberger-the-former-cia-officer-challenging-rep-dave-brat
    Before her time at the CIA, Spanberger working on money laundering and narcotics cases for the U.S. Postal Inspection Service. In both positions, Spanberger talks about working under Democratic and Republican presidencies, touting an ability to work with both sides. It’s experience she’s hoping resonates with voters who are tired of the polarization in Congress. Spanberger's "level-headed" pitch is a far cry from Brat's defiant, sometimes hostile relationship with his own party's House leadership.

    *** She was prolly a lawyer who never left her CIA office in the DC region. She is presentable so may win.

    Replies: @Mr. Anon, @The Wild Geese Howard

    I quite enjoyed the photo of her campaign HQ painting that is a straight rip off of Hokusai:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Wave_off_Kanagawa

  161. the Democratic nominee, Abigail Spanberger, a well-credentialed former C.I.A. officer

    Prepare for Spanberger syndrome.

  162. @Art Deco
    @Reg Cæsar

    How FDR kept a straight face during that broadcast, I don’t know.

    You don't know because you're operating under the assumption that your historical fantasies are real.

    Replies: @Mr. Anon, @Reg Cæsar, @Anonym

    You don’t know because you’re operating under the assumption that your historical fantasies are real.

    I didn’t say he knew. Only that his tears were mock. Pearl Harbor gave him exactly what he wanted.

    • Replies: @Flip
    @Reg Cæsar

    https://www.usni.org/magazines/navalhistory/1999-06/advance-warning-red-cross-connection

    , @Desiderius
    @Reg Cæsar

    In his shoes I could appreciate the strategic implications while still mourning the victims/my country’s and my own wounded pride.

  163. The CIA, its predecessor OSS, its ancestral MI-6 and its cousin agency Mossad are criminal organizations for which “intelligence gathering” serves as a front for scouting out the most profitable racketeering activity to engage in at the lowest possible risk to themselves and their privileged few corporate overlords.

  164. @Alec Leamas
    @Tyrion 2

    My belief is that at least some large part of the coup d'etat against Trump was a desire to keep General Flynn away from the levers of power. As a consequence he was the first to be taken out. He knew the CIA's number - they would at the very least suffer a loss of influence and prestige with former DIA head Flynn in Trump's ear. At the worst (from the Agency's point of view) the hacks, failures and clock punchers could get outed and taken care of by the new Administration.

    I think that perhaps Trump surrounding himself with Marine Corps Generals was a message to the so-called "Intelligence Community." There's still a Marine Corps barracks in the heart of DC, after all.

    Replies: @Hunsdon, @The Wild Geese Howard

    There’s still a Marine Corps barracks in the heart of DC, after all

    Let’s hope that there are a couple detachments of Marine Spec Ops at that barracks.

    I also hope that DJT has retained a private, well-vetted, well-paid security team with lots of serious, intelligent, patriotic individuals who are well-respected and well-known in the Spec Ops community.

  165. @Lot
    "the CIA seems to have a track record of historic ineptitude"

    That has not been my impression at all.

    Replies: @Southron, @Cagey Beast, @Achmed E. Newman, @Peter Akuleyev, @Federalist, @Prester John, @James Forrestal, @J.Ross, @Tarheel American

    “the CIA seems to have a track record of historic ineptitude”

    That has not been my impression at all.

    The narrative of the CIA as an organization that is largely involved in espionage (often successfully) and covert operations/ dirty tricks (often unsuccessfully) seems to get promoted quite a bit — Castro and exploding cigars, anyone? The issue of CIA involvement in propaganda/ disinformation (especially domestically) is… much less prominent.

    What relationship (if any) this narrative has to the truth is difficult to judge from the outside.

    This is a kind of interesting anecdote, though:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7uLA2p2IZE&feature=youtu.be&t=26

    “About a month after I was elected governor, I was requested into the basement of the Capitol, to be interviewed by 23 members of the CIA.”
    ….

    “Then they started questioning me, and it was all about how I got elected.”

    OK, but that’s Jesse Ventura — ex pro wrestler, “conspiracy theorist,” a bit of a nut. The overly-dramatic music doesn’t help, either. Sounds a little… implausible. Though his success was rather unusual — he was the Reform Party candidate, and defeated both major party candidates, while spending much less than either of them.

    Minnesota Public Radio:

    “CIA Spokesman George Little confirmed the event today in a written statement, but he offered few details.
    Little said that “on occasion CIA officers meet with senior state government officials, as they did in this case, to discuss issues of mutual interest.” ”
    [MPR didn’t link to a primary source for the CIA spokesman’s statement, which is kind of annoying, but not really atypical for a legacy media outlet.]

    https://www.mprnews.org/story/2008/01/03/jessecia

    Huh. That’s a little odd. So the CIA gets interested when elections don’t go as… planned?

  166. @Le Autiste Corv
    @Desiderius

    How much is this a continuation of Anglo-American Atlanticist cosmopolitanism and even older strains of Whiggish Messianism, arc of History, etc. ?

    The marriage of bourgeois professionals and economic elites and various causes du jour, as well as contempt for what Derbyshire calls the wrong sort of whites, goes back to the 19th-century in the US and England.

    And contra my namesake, the anti-Catholicism of the WASPs was probably more class than cultural. The same people who despised the Irish also did Southern poor whites.

    John Brown's backers, Horace Greeley, etc.

    Replies: @Millennial

    Contempt for the “wrong sort” of their own kind married to a cosmopolitan outlook is classically aristocratic, through and through – it goes back quite a long time.

    In the 17th-18th century, WASP Whig hatred of Catholics was the nationalist position of English “deplorables” – Catholic being essentially synonymous with “tyrannical corrupt foreigner” in English politics. And yes, “poor whites” of the Ulster Scot variety were fanatically anti-Catholic as well.

    19th century American anti-Catholicism was the last vestige of the old Whig mentality.

    Horace Greeley and Brown’s backers hating both? Greeley was extremely supportive of Irish Catholic immigration. He was also pretty friendly to the South – he had supported peaceful “secesh” and after the war spoke against the abuses and corruption of Northern occupation.
    One of Brown’s “Secret Six” helped free Jeff Davis after the war.

  167. @Lot
    @Southron

    I favor a policy of blind loyalty to the military and the various quasi-military agencies like the CIA.

    While they perhaps are imperfect, they are our guys.

    The "failures" of the CIA, to the extent they are real, are not the CIA's fault, but that of the president and his administration at the time.

    http://www.lovethispic.com/uploaded_images/175402-Proud-To-Be-An-American.jpg

    Replies: @Mr. Anon, @Desiderius, @James Forrestal

    In a lot of ways, it makes more sense to lump CIA with State than with military.

  168. @Twinkie
    @Peter Akuleyev


    heard from State Department types is that the CIA guys
     
    Because foreign service officers are objective observers and have no chips on their shoulders at all.

    Replies: @The Wild Geese Howard

    Because foreign service officers are objective observers and have no chips on their shoulders at all

    In my experience the diplomatic corps are a bunch of taxpayer funded drunks trapped in the belief that Dulles, VA is the apotheosis of Western civilization, and the entire world should conform to its norms.

    They exist solely for drunken soirees, shopping trips to Europe, and using the embassy as a platform to push the globalist economic and social program.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @The Wild Geese Howard


    In my experience the diplomatic corps are a bunch of taxpayer funded drunks trapped in the belief that Dulles, VA is the apotheosis of Western civilization, and the entire world should conform to its norms.
     
    I am going to disagree with you a little. A lot of foreign service officers might "permanently" live in Dulles, VA*, but they hanker to go back overseas as soon as they are "home." Why? Because, overseas, they receive the lifestyle to which they feel they are entitled as elites. People who otherwise live in townhomes in Dulles will frequently command a driver, a maid, and (by local standards) a luxurious apartment or house in many less affluent parts of the world. They are also treated with respect as VIPs by the locals. It's a hard pill to swallow to come back home from all that to a modest abode in Dulles where they are merely a part of the lower middle class and become "nobodies."

    *Dulles is, of course, not a real municipality, but an ill-defined place name of convenience.

    So, once home, they will desperately insert their overseas assignments (usually no more exciting than punching visas) in every conversation in an effort to convince you that they are actually world-traveling elites and that they did, in fact, hobnob with local elites overseas, what with their children attending the same local "international" schools with the children of the said elites (of course, now they have to go to a public school in Sterling or Herndon with Hispanic and Indian children).

    At least CIA (DO) officers who served overseas have the decency to be reticent about their time out of the country. : )
  169. … it’ll be built by somebody that knows how to build and we won’t have columns. You understand that? We’d get rid of the columns.

    -Donald J. Trump, first post-inaugural speech

  170. @Logan
    This is extremely odd. Only a few years ago it was an article of faith among Democrats that the CIA and other intelligence agencies were and always would be agents of evil. Kind of the way ICE is portrayed today.

    Now a stint in the CIA is a bonus for a Democratic candidate.

    Replies: @Jack D, @Federalist, @Lugash, @Svigor, @Anonymous, @Millennial

    Yeah, it’s pretty hilarious watching leftist Baby Boomers spout off about the Pentagon Papers, CIA totally not in Laos/Cambodia, J. Edgar Hoover shenanigans, CIA did JFK-RFK-MLK theories, CIA-Pinochet hijinks, Iran Contra, and so on, and then see them convinced that Trump must be colluding with Russia because CIA/FBI said so.

  171. Anonymous[408] • Disclaimer says:
    @dr kill
    @Southron

    I can hope for silent success in the intelligence industry, but I feel the failures are much greater than the triumphs. I'm just thinking of the First Gulf War, Bay of Pigs, Pearl Harbor, Berlin Wall.
    It's possible correct relevant information was presented to our elected officials in a timely manner and was mishandled, but, as recently demonstrated, the intelligence community is not shy about protecting their own and deflecting and assigning blame to others.
    I would like to be wrong.

    Replies: @ben tillman, @Anonymous

    I can hope for silent success in the intelligence industry, but I feel the failures are much greater than the triumphs. I’m just thinking of the First Gulf War, Bay of Pigs, Pearl Harbor, Berlin Wall.

    The key failure in the First Gulf War was in the State Department. Why did they give Saddam permission to invade? The most charitable explanation I can think of is that all eyes were on Russia at the time and nobody was paying attention to the Middle East.

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    @Anonymous

    There was a huge discussion, now forgotten, that went roughly like this:
    Our only mistake in Vietnam was in allowing the public disapproval to reach a critical size; therefore, we can return to an aggressive foreign policy if we keep interventions small and brief. (You can see the party-spanning deep state following this through the Clinton years thanks to groundwork laid by GHWB).
    A small bad guy is needed to demonstrate that we can get in there, and get right back out, as world police, and not as Westmoreland talking about more and more reinforcements.
    Panama was the trial run and Iraq was the rebirth of banana wars. It wasn't about Saddam or Russia at all, as always it was about us.

    Replies: @Lot

  172. @Desiderius
    @Steve Sailer

    Moldbug’s parents were of that milieu. His most notorious line = America is a Communist country. According to him, the Alger Hiss/Kim Philby types saw the Soviet Union as their junior partner.

    Anyway, the “intern” was probably more important than the “Com” and the class that started and runs the CIA is all the way “intern.”

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_International

    Replies: @Le Autiste Corv, @Cagey Beast, @Hibernian, @LondonBob, @Desiderius, @James Forrestal

    Moldbug’s parents were of that milieu. His most notorious line = America is a Communist country. According to him, the Alger Hiss/Kim Philby types saw the Soviet Union as their junior partner.

    Yeah, this can be a very useful perspective. For an illustration, just look at FDR’s fair-haired boy, Alger Hiss. His career — before and after he was convicted of perjury and served a prison term for lying about his involvement in Soviet espionage — included stints at: the State Department, the United Nations (he founded it), clerking for Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr, the Justice Department, some Senate Committees, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and (of course) Harvard Law. And he was a member of the CFR, of course. He somehow missed working for the NYT, though. Not bad for a Communist traitor.

    Compare to an anti-Communist, populist patriot like McCarthy. He ended up destroyed for his attempts to reveal Communists in positions of power. By those (supposedly non-existent) Communists, apparently.

    Walter Duranty received the Pulitzer Prize for his work in glorifying the USSR and Communism generally, and covering up the Holodomor specifically. It’s still hanging on the wall at the Sulzberger Blog today. Only 2 journalists reported the truth about the Holodomor in any mainstream publication while it was going on: Malcolm Muggeridge and Gareth Jones. Both were shunned professionally after their heretical work was published, and Jones was murdered a year or so later by Communist agents.

    Samuel Dickstein, who founded the committee that later became HUAC, was a Soviet agent on the NKVD payroll throughout the 1930s. In addition to his work on the committee persecuting anti-Communists, he also arranged visas, and even citizenship, for a number of Soviet agents. He’s still got a street named after him in NYC today.

    Etc.

    It’s tough to really appreciate this kind of thing looking back from the far side of the narrative shift, though. A corollary to this that the Cold War didn’t really start because of Communism — it was almost a split within Communism over the issue of world government. Stalin opposed it, and wanted “socialism in one country.” That’s even harder to see, though.

    Communism was always based out of NYC — the source of the venture capital. The USSR was just a startup that hit it big.

  173. Speaking of collusion, we have this latest development at the Boston Globe:

    “Free, Independent” Boston Paper Urges Collusive National Media ‘War’ Against Trump
    https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-08-11/free-independent-boston-paper-urges-collusive-national-media-war-against-trump

    And who is spearheading this effort at the Boston Globe?

    Marjorie Pritchard

    Who’s she? Well, this is who she is:

    http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/11/emails-boston-globe-coordinated-how-to-maximize-hillarys-presence/

    Yeah, a free, independent journalist who coordinates her publications with a political campaign to achieve a partisan, political effect.

    I have an idea for a term we could use for those publications. That term is Fake News.

    Never any self-awareness, ever.

  174. Anonymous[408] • Disclaimer says:
    @prusmc
    @Anon

    Could not agree more. His first mistake: announcing he would not pursue any legal action or even an investigation of HRC. No good deed goes unpunished. For a while, I thought he was on the right track when T. REX starting retiring and reduction in force removing state department personnel, sadly, that didn't last, if it even got started.

    The removal of security clearances for retirees and former government employees is a no brainer.
    Probably the best private detectives in the world work out of NYC; PDJT has undoubtably used some in the past. Why are democrats seldom found to have skeletons in the closet when Republicans can have sealed diverse and other documents quickly brought to attention? Because they have a continued and well financed opposition research program.
    The commentator lists many of the tools available to the President without passing new legislation. AT most it might require Executive Orders but more likely just directives using existing authority could start the action.
    I suspect that he may have been a bit naive about the enemies around him or, maybe, he really knew and realized the amount of insubordination that was practiced with impunity by his disloyal work force. SO why initiate efforts ordained to failure.

    On the 100th year after end of fighting in World War 1, a sad and rejected President will review a military parade. Then with the liberal sweep of Congress, the SHTF will begin full bore and PDJT will realize that he once had a fighting chance but pissed it away. We are the losers as much as him. I never expect to have another chance to cast a vote for him again.

    Replies: @Anonymous

    Could not agree more. His first mistake: announcing he would not pursue any legal action or even an investigation of HRC.

    Until 2015, Trump and the Clintons were friends, and he was involved in the affairs of their foundation. This is too close for comfort. He can’t go after them without risk to himself.

  175. @Lot
    @Twinkie

    Polygraph?

    Did both your grandfathers fight for the United States, in WWII and Korea?

    Yes.


    Did you patrilineal ancestor, whose name and Y chromosome you bear, join and fight with United States Army in 1861-1865?

    Yes.

    Replies: @Svigor, @Twinkie

    None of that matters if the individual himself is degenerate. He won’t pass. The reason Mormons and Jews are overrepresented in government are different and they are also overrepresented in different parts. Putting the the two together is obfuscation.

  176. @Anon
    "The Trump administration appears to be a rather belated recognition of these facts."

    Firing Sessions would be a good start if they want to fight back. He's useless. Unfortunately, Trump has staffed his administration with incompetent sycophants, so it's difficult to fight back without resorting to extreme measures like a total overhaul.

    I recognized this problem immediately after Trump's election and thought Trump would be wise to organize a first strike:

    break up big tech monopolies using anti-trust regulations, clandestinely encourage the EU to sanction Google in order to weaken them, break up big media companies, push out Paul Ryan from the House, push for a return to 90s era FCC regulations limiting ownership of local media and newspapers to drive legacy media circulation down even further, lead a public smear campaign of the intelligence services by declassifying and releasing embarrassing details/inflammatory secret operations they don't want made public to undermine their public trust, use private detectives to dig up and release dirt on enemies like Harvey Weinstein and democrat campaign donors, sick the DOJ after antifa, revoke security clearances for all retired government personnel...plus a massive firing spree of government workers, starting with everyone hired or promoted at CIA/NSA/FBI/DOD by Obama or anyone who is a known associate of any NeverTrumper, including all neocons; Trump could justify a military purge using the Fat Leonard scandal - sell it as an anti-corruption effort.

    I also would be stealthily withdrawing American troops - carefully curated - from certain global locations and restationing them in D.C. for activation, should that become necessary (his own insurance policy), while also moving potentially disloyal elements farther away to the Asian theater.

    He could additionally undermine cable news and the big tech democrat companies by pushing for a massive increase in public broadcast spending, specifically focusing on having the government build a free speech alternative to YouTube and Google. This would greatly diminish their ability to control the narrative, if not outright bankrupt YouTube considering their enormous operating expenses. And cable customers would only continue "cutting the cord" away from MSNBC and CNN in such an event, tanking their ratings in the process. This could easily be sold as an effort to stop fake news: provide consumers with well-funded alternatives - an American BBC. Who could be against that?

    Too bad Trump isn't really capable of any of this, though (same for low IQ "muh free market" conservatards). That's his weakness - one of MANY. He is a Caesar not able to see the plotters closing in. Amazingly, Trump foolishly played into their hands by approving merger after merger, all because he wanted to be Mr. Businessman, CEO. Sad. His tariff thing has definitely helped out with the public, but he should have been focusing on institutional control, instead, not engaging in social media popularity contests.

    Replies: @Tyrion 2, @prusmc, @Anonym

    I wouldn’t be scheduling many motorcades with your presidential plan.

  177. @Lot
    "the CIA seems to have a track record of historic ineptitude"

    That has not been my impression at all.

    Replies: @Southron, @Cagey Beast, @Achmed E. Newman, @Peter Akuleyev, @Federalist, @Prester John, @James Forrestal, @J.Ross, @Tarheel American

    Don’t spend the fifty cents all in one place.

  178. @Reg Cæsar
    @Art Deco


    You don’t know because you’re operating under the assumption that your historical fantasies are real.
     
    I didn't say he knew. Only that his tears were mock. Pearl Harbor gave him exactly what he wanted.

    Replies: @Flip, @Desiderius

  179. @Anonymous
    @dr kill


    I can hope for silent success in the intelligence industry, but I feel the failures are much greater than the triumphs. I’m just thinking of the First Gulf War, Bay of Pigs, Pearl Harbor, Berlin Wall.
     
    The key failure in the First Gulf War was in the State Department. Why did they give Saddam permission to invade? The most charitable explanation I can think of is that all eyes were on Russia at the time and nobody was paying attention to the Middle East.

    Replies: @J.Ross

    There was a huge discussion, now forgotten, that went roughly like this:
    Our only mistake in Vietnam was in allowing the public disapproval to reach a critical size; therefore, we can return to an aggressive foreign policy if we keep interventions small and brief. (You can see the party-spanning deep state following this through the Clinton years thanks to groundwork laid by GHWB).
    A small bad guy is needed to demonstrate that we can get in there, and get right back out, as world police, and not as Westmoreland talking about more and more reinforcements.
    Panama was the trial run and Iraq was the rebirth of banana wars. It wasn’t about Saddam or Russia at all, as always it was about us.

    • Replies: @Lot
    @J.Ross

    Definitely a weak point of the USA is our inability to occupy a defeated nation like Sunni Iraq at a reasonable cost.

    A drone/bot occupying force controlled by a mix of AI, disabled Americans, and patriotic NEET gamers is about 15-20 years away. Israel will do the field testing in Gaza and perhaps later around Hebron. A larger deployment in Yemen funded by the Saudis and UAE could be another good proving ground.

    Replies: @J.Ross, @Lugash

  180. The NYT includes this snippet from a Spanberger supporter:

    When Sara Gaborik, another group member, worked the polls at a recent local election, “so many people said, ‘I have never seen a Democrat here before,’” she recalled.

    Ms. Gaborik said she moved to the county from Richmond several years ago for the same reason so many other women have — for the schools and lower housing prices.

    Right, it’s for schools and housing. And what’s wrong with Richmond’s schools and housing? Richmond is over 50% black and has a high rate of violent crime. And of course big cities charge a big premium for housing as far away from that vibrancy as Becky can get.

    On to fresh pastures they go, like a plague of locusts.

  181. @PV van der Byl
    @Steve Sailer

    Charles McCarry, enormously popular spy novelist and decade-long undercover operative of the real life CIA, had the following to say in a magazine interview:



    CM: I don’t remember saying that. Some of it by inadvertence at least. I never met a stupid person in the agency. Or an assassin. Or a Republican.

    RB: No Republicans? [laughs] Are you serious?

    CM: I’m serious. They were, at least in the operations side where I was, there were wall-to-wall knee-jerk liberals. And they were befuddled that the left outside the agency regarded them as some sort of right-wing threat. Because they were the absolute opposite, in their own politics.
     
    https://themorningnews.org/article/birnbaum-v.-charles-mccarry

    Replies: @J.Ross, @fnn

    >Charlie McCarry never met a stupid CIA officer
    In fairness he worked there long before Egghead McMuffin took selfies with ISIS.

    • Replies: @PV van der Byl
    @J.Ross

    Yep, McCarry's years were 1957-1967.

  182. @PV van der Byl
    @Steve Sailer

    Charles McCarry, enormously popular spy novelist and decade-long undercover operative of the real life CIA, had the following to say in a magazine interview:



    CM: I don’t remember saying that. Some of it by inadvertence at least. I never met a stupid person in the agency. Or an assassin. Or a Republican.

    RB: No Republicans? [laughs] Are you serious?

    CM: I’m serious. They were, at least in the operations side where I was, there were wall-to-wall knee-jerk liberals. And they were befuddled that the left outside the agency regarded them as some sort of right-wing threat. Because they were the absolute opposite, in their own politics.
     
    https://themorningnews.org/article/birnbaum-v.-charles-mccarry

    Replies: @J.Ross, @fnn

    The movie, The President’s Analyst (1967) portrayed a CIA made of hip liberals, in stark contrast to the FBI of J. Edgar Hoover.

    • Replies: @PV van der Byl
    @fnn

    Not at all inaccurate for 1967, then.

  183. There is an argument that the obvious liar and massive swindler Bill Browder (exposed in the film of our time, Magnitsky Act Behind the Scenes, which takes a bit of work to see but is well worth it) is either CIA or working with them, and that the real reason Congress believes whatever he says is he is the Madoff of the despoilment of Russia, so going after him would mean dragging in a wide range of celebrated Ivy League and high-clearance criminals currently making up our elite.

  184. @J.Ross
    @PV van der Byl

    >Charlie McCarry never met a stupid CIA officer
    In fairness he worked there long before Egghead McMuffin took selfies with ISIS.

    Replies: @PV van der Byl

    Yep, McCarry’s years were 1957-1967.

  185. Veterans were highly critical of Kerry and his behavior long before he became a contender for the Democratic Party’s nomination for President in 2004.

    Perhaps they should’ve been equally critical of the fact that Bush invented claims of non-existent “weapons of mass destruction” to get us into Iraq.

    8,000 Americans (soldiers and contractors) have died in Iraq. 1 million American soldiers have been injured, 50,000 soldiers have experienced poly-trauma, 300,000 soldiers have PTSD “(functional impairment”), and 270,000 have been diagnosed with brain injuries. The long-term cost of the Iraq War is estimated to be $5 trillion.

    Democrats have actually been quite successful from time to time engaging in a bit of “cross-dressing” for elections

    Democrats aren’t the only “cross dressers” in America.

    Bush skipped going to the Vietnam War by enrolling in the Texas Air National Guard. Unfortunately, he stopped actually showing up to work after some time. Cheney got 5 deferments from the Vietnam War and, when asked, said that he had “other priorities” at the time……..

    ……..and yet, for some reason, they were allowed to wrap themselves in the flag and appropriate the mantle of patriotism. Bush, who skipped Vietnam and even his Texas Air service, was “strong” and “steadfast.” Kerry, who went to Vietnam, was “weak” and “acted French.”

    Here’s a clip of Bush flying a plane onto an aircraft carrier. He’s dressed in military clothing. He has a sign behind him that says “Mission Accomplished.”

    Bush, who was a male cheerleader back during his high school in Phillips Academy, somehow decades later becomes the “resolute Commander-in-Chief.” For whatever reason, our “liberal media” sort of just let Bush keep up this charade.

    It’s really amazing when you think about it.

    • Replies: @anonymous
    @JohnnyWalker123

    Yep.

    And Bush Jr gets to hire worst ever Neo Conservative Zionist speech writer David Frum to somehow justify all this S#&*$# that Saddam Hussein's Iraq was part of an Axis of Evil along with Iran and North Korea and anyone who objected was....

    An unpatriotic Conservative who would soon be purged from National Review and anywhere and everywhere else in Conservative Inc.

    Replies: @JohnnyWalker123

    , @Harry Baldwin
    @JohnnyWalker123

    George W. Bush was undoubtedly one of the worst presidents America ever had.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Berty

  186. @J.Ross
    @Anonymous

    There was a huge discussion, now forgotten, that went roughly like this:
    Our only mistake in Vietnam was in allowing the public disapproval to reach a critical size; therefore, we can return to an aggressive foreign policy if we keep interventions small and brief. (You can see the party-spanning deep state following this through the Clinton years thanks to groundwork laid by GHWB).
    A small bad guy is needed to demonstrate that we can get in there, and get right back out, as world police, and not as Westmoreland talking about more and more reinforcements.
    Panama was the trial run and Iraq was the rebirth of banana wars. It wasn't about Saddam or Russia at all, as always it was about us.

    Replies: @Lot

    Definitely a weak point of the USA is our inability to occupy a defeated nation like Sunni Iraq at a reasonable cost.

    A drone/bot occupying force controlled by a mix of AI, disabled Americans, and patriotic NEET gamers is about 15-20 years away. Israel will do the field testing in Gaza and perhaps later around Hebron. A larger deployment in Yemen funded by the Saudis and UAE could be another good proving ground.

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    @Lot

    Indeed, the only argument that Alex Jones's "Prison Planet" concept (high technology enabling unprecedented totalitarian control) is absurd depends on assuming that Jones expects it within the week. Surveillance gadgets, legal flexibility, and even robot terminators already exist to make freedom an obscure myth; with time they will be refined, become less expensive, and be more accepted.

    , @Lugash
    @Lot


    A drone/bot occupying force controlled by a mix of AI, disabled Americans, and patriotic NEET gamers is about 15-20 years away. Israel will do the field testing in Gaza and perhaps later around Hebron. A larger deployment in Yemen funded by the Saudis and UAE could be another good proving ground.
     
    There's not going to be a Yemeni population in 10-15 years given the Gulf states current levels of starvation and bombing. Even if there was, they'd just set the knobs to 'exterminate' rather than 'pacify'.
  187. anonymous[739] • Disclaimer says:

    Ex KGB agents in Russia tend to be overwhelmingly patriotic Russians with sensible views about Islamic terrorism, mass 3rd world immigration and traditional Russian Orthodox Christian views about marriage, sexuality.

    American current and ex CIA agents tend to be…..

    what?

    What exactly do these George Bush Sr. (former head of the CIA) care about? Never could figure it out.

    They certainly don’t seem to care about securing our borders, lowering, ending mass homicides in my Chicago as Bush Sr. didn’t care about 2,000 plus murders in New York City when I lived there in the early 90s.

    These types pretend to be Republican or the pretend to be Democrats, they pretend to care about Pro Life, they run against Affirmative Action, but when in power they implement affirmative action.

    What do they really care about?

    What to wear to a presidential dinner honoring Nelson and Winnie Mandela.

    What do you wear to a White House dinner honoring Black Nationalist Communists intent on genocide of White farmers who also personally murdered a young 9 year Black child?

    What a country.

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    @anonymous

    You are on the point I was just thinking about (although W did once tell a journalist what he and his dad talk about outside of work). We have an enormous advantage here. Everyone having camo and legal terrorism in their CVs is a patriotic appeal of the most brainless kind. There's plenty of animosity toward the CIA and the NWO. For every time these Constitution-hating scum claim to love America or to have served America, we should ask, which one? We must cling more bitterly to the Second Amendment and point out their dog whistling about common sense reforms. One of these guys was in Human Rights Watch and then under Kerry! The stock Republicans who still haven't got the memo about who won in 2016 are doomed because they are hypnotically triggered into paralysis by the flag, but militancy can beat these people.

    , @JohnnyWalker123
    @anonymous

    They're not that pro-black.

    The evidence suggests some degree of CIA involvement in MLK's assassination.

    When South Africa was under apartheid, the CIA helped the govt find Mandela, who was then imprisoned for many years. They also illegally provided arms to the South African military.

    The reality is that they're not particularly attached to any ideology or culture. They've got an agenda and they'll do whatever is necessary to push it through. Whoever will work with them at the time is their current ally.

    , @Desiderius
    @anonymous

    “What do they really care about?”

    Being among the Elect rather than the Reprobate. Same as it ever was.

    , @S. Anonyia
    @anonymous

    Bushes Et. all care about the stupid “shining city on a hill” mantra that’s been ruining this country for awhile.

  188. @Art Deco
    @Reg Cæsar

    How FDR kept a straight face during that broadcast, I don’t know.

    You don't know because you're operating under the assumption that your historical fantasies are real.

    Replies: @Mr. Anon, @Reg Cæsar, @Anonym

    I guess Rear Admiral Robert Theobald was a fantasist too.

  189. anonymous[739] • Disclaimer says:
    @JohnnyWalker123

    Veterans were highly critical of Kerry and his behavior long before he became a contender for the Democratic Party’s nomination for President in 2004.
     
    Perhaps they should've been equally critical of the fact that Bush invented claims of non-existent "weapons of mass destruction" to get us into Iraq.

    8,000 Americans (soldiers and contractors) have died in Iraq. 1 million American soldiers have been injured, 50,000 soldiers have experienced poly-trauma, 300,000 soldiers have PTSD "(functional impairment"), and 270,000 have been diagnosed with brain injuries. The long-term cost of the Iraq War is estimated to be $5 trillion.

    Democrats have actually been quite successful from time to time engaging in a bit of “cross-dressing” for elections
     
    Democrats aren't the only "cross dressers" in America.

    Bush skipped going to the Vietnam War by enrolling in the Texas Air National Guard. Unfortunately, he stopped actually showing up to work after some time. Cheney got 5 deferments from the Vietnam War and, when asked, said that he had "other priorities" at the time........

    ........and yet, for some reason, they were allowed to wrap themselves in the flag and appropriate the mantle of patriotism. Bush, who skipped Vietnam and even his Texas Air service, was "strong" and "steadfast." Kerry, who went to Vietnam, was "weak" and "acted French."

    Here's a clip of Bush flying a plane onto an aircraft carrier. He's dressed in military clothing. He has a sign behind him that says "Mission Accomplished."

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BIW6qyrdu4

    Bush, who was a male cheerleader back during his high school in Phillips Academy, somehow decades later becomes the "resolute Commander-in-Chief." For whatever reason, our "liberal media" sort of just let Bush keep up this charade.

    It's really amazing when you think about it.

    Replies: @anonymous, @Harry Baldwin

    Yep.

    And Bush Jr gets to hire worst ever Neo Conservative Zionist speech writer David Frum to somehow justify all this S#&*$# that Saddam Hussein’s Iraq was part of an Axis of Evil along with Iran and North Korea and anyone who objected was….

    An unpatriotic Conservative who would soon be purged from National Review and anywhere and everywhere else in Conservative Inc.

    • Replies: @JohnnyWalker123
    @anonymous

    Originally, Frum referred to the alliance as the "Axis of Hatred." He then changed "hatred" to "evil."

    An alliance with three extremely different nations - secular Sunni-Arab Iraq, fundamentalist Shiite-Persian Iran, and isolationist-nationalist Communist North Korea. Somehow all three countries were in one alliance, an alliance based on "hatred" and "evil."

    Somehow Al-Qaeda (which is an extremist Sunni Muslim terrorist group who hated secular Iraq and "heretical" Shiites) was involved too.

    So was the Taliban, who almost went to war with Iran in 1998.

    Iran and Iraq fought a very bloody war in the 80s too.

    This all made sense.

    It's amazing that our media, politicians, and public are all such gullible and credulous
    fools.

    Replies: @ben tillman

  190. @Svigor
    @Alec Leamas


    I think as iSteve and others have pointed out the culture of the CIA from its beginning favored breeding – being born to a family of a certain sort and attending a handful of elite educational institutions. There may have been a time when this arguably yielded a cultured man a cut above others with greater aptitude for clandestine service or intelligence gathering and analysis, one doubts that this is any longer the case in fact. The decline of the CIA probably tracks the decline of other elite institutions, particularly the Ivy League Universities from which it has historically recruited.
     
    My guess is the pedigree thing was more about loyalty than competence. Much harder for Soviets to gin up and infiltrate a phony 10th-generation American than a phony 2nd-generation American. Much easier for the 2nd-generation American to be raised with alien notions, too.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Anon

    Los Alamos was hugely successful at building an atomic bomb due to cosmopolitan meritocracy, but hugely unsuccessful at hanging on to its secrets due to cosmopolitan meritocracy, e.g., Klaus Fuchs, Ted Hall, and the Rosenberg connection.

  191. @Harry Baldwin
    @Hibernian

    Also, the main group really willing to fight German occupying troops seems to have been the communists.

    Replies: @JMcG

    After Barbarossa anyway. Before that they had no problem with the Germans.

  192. @anonymous
    Ex KGB agents in Russia tend to be overwhelmingly patriotic Russians with sensible views about Islamic terrorism, mass 3rd world immigration and traditional Russian Orthodox Christian views about marriage, sexuality.

    American current and ex CIA agents tend to be.....

    what?

    What exactly do these George Bush Sr. (former head of the CIA) care about? Never could figure it out.

    They certainly don't seem to care about securing our borders, lowering, ending mass homicides in my Chicago as Bush Sr. didn't care about 2,000 plus murders in New York City when I lived there in the early 90s.

    These types pretend to be Republican or the pretend to be Democrats, they pretend to care about Pro Life, they run against Affirmative Action, but when in power they implement affirmative action.

    What do they really care about?

    What to wear to a presidential dinner honoring Nelson and Winnie Mandela.

    What do you wear to a White House dinner honoring Black Nationalist Communists intent on genocide of White farmers who also personally murdered a young 9 year Black child?

    What a country.

    Replies: @J.Ross, @JohnnyWalker123, @Desiderius, @S. Anonyia

    You are on the point I was just thinking about (although W did once tell a journalist what he and his dad talk about outside of work). We have an enormous advantage here. Everyone having camo and legal terrorism in their CVs is a patriotic appeal of the most brainless kind. There’s plenty of animosity toward the CIA and the NWO. For every time these Constitution-hating scum claim to love America or to have served America, we should ask, which one? We must cling more bitterly to the Second Amendment and point out their dog whistling about common sense reforms. One of these guys was in Human Rights Watch and then under Kerry! The stock Republicans who still haven’t got the memo about who won in 2016 are doomed because they are hypnotically triggered into paralysis by the flag, but militancy can beat these people.

  193. Don’t forget the 1300 servicemen who’ve gotten their dicks blown off, err ‘suffered urogenital injuries’ in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    And don’t forget the hundreds of thousands who foreigners who’ve been maimed and killed in the most gruesome manner due to American interference in the region.

  194. @RichardTaylor
    Every CIA person I see on TV is a globalist and a Leftist (rare exceptions prove the rule). Has this always been true or were the intelligence agencies taken over by the Left in the last 20 years?

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @El Dato, @Hibernian, @TTSSYF, @JohnnyWalker123

    This seems like a more recent occurrence.

    In the run up to the Iraq War, George Bush referenced a document that demonstrated Iraq was attempting to buy nuclear weapons-grade uranium from Africa. The document also supposedly demonstrated Iraq had trained one of the 9/11 terrorist masterminds. It later turned out that the document was forged by the CIA and the Whitehouse.

    Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Ron Suskind recorded a very senior-level CIA official admitting that the CIA was involved in the forgery. Phillip Giraldi (a former CIA officer who frequently writes for Unz.com) confirmed this allegation.

    Recently declassified documents show that back in the 1960s, the CIA planned to conduct “acts of terrorism” on U.S. cities and military assets. The CIA then planned to blame the terrorist attacks on Cuba, which would’ve justified an invasion. This plan (“Operation Northwoods”) never happened because President Kennedy came out strongly against it.

    Then there was the 1980 October surprise. During the 1980 presidential election, Governor Ronald Reagan and HW Bush (with the assistance of the CIA) secretly negotiated with Iran to delay the release of the American hostages being held by Iranian militants. Jimmy Carter ended up losing the 1980 election, mostly due to his inability to secure the release of the hostages. Minutes after the newly elected Reagan finished his inaugural address and assumed the presidency, Iran released the hostages back home to America. The Reagan administration (with the assistance of the CIA and Israel) then illegally provided arms to Iran, without informing the public or Congress. Google “Iran-Contra” to learn more.

    Here’s a good documentary about how the CIA smuggled cocaine into the U.S. and used the profits to fund the Contras. Reagan, HW Bush, and Clinton all aided this during their respective administrations.

    Watch below from 5:35-8:50.

    So, no, not “liberal.” At least not until the Obama years.

    Liberals actually hated the CIA back in the 60s, 70s, and 80s. These days, they’ve learned to love the CIA. Rather odd.

    • Replies: @JohnnyWalker123
    @JohnnyWalker123

    Here's a "secret."

    The CIA is neither "liberal" nor "conservative."

    With that said, they're willing to form temporary alliances with select groups of useful idiots.

    The useful idiots these days are mainly on the left.

    My guess is that the pro-establishment Obama administration, and the subsequent anti-establishment candidacy of Trump, forged trust between Democrats and the establishment (which includes the intelligence agencies and military). Most likely, the "nice" image currently being put out by the CIA has further improved their reputation.

    People on the right are pretty stupid too. The CIA and Bush administration spent years selling lies about "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq. According to a 2015 poll, the majority of Republicans believed WMDs were found in Iraq. That's even dumber than any of this Russia stuff.

    http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/228733-poll-4-in-10-think-us-found-wmds-in-iraq

    There's convincing evidence that the CIA and FBI played a role in assassinating MLK, likely due to his opposition to the Vietnam War.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zlcu9jtrkJ4

    , @Prester John
    @JohnnyWalker123

    Wasn't there a rumor some years ago that Slick Clinton was a CIA recruit while an undergrad at the G-Town Foreign Service School and that his connections resulted in that air strip in Mena, Arkansas,which the CIA used to run drugs to/ from Central America? Never did get a straight answer concerning that allered trip he made to Rooshia back in '68 at age 22 with that "priest" shortly after Prague Spring at a time when they wouldn't let the POTUS in, let alone a US college undergrad.

    Replies: @J.Ross

  195. @Anonymous
    @Sean

    Paul Samuelson's famous "Economics" textbook, one of the most widely used college textbooks of all time, and the best selling American college textbook for 30 years until the 80s, repeatedly predicted that the Soviet economy would overtake the American economy:

    https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2010/01/soviet-growth-american-textbooks.html


    In the 1961 edition of his famous textbook of economic principles, Paul Samuelson wrote that GNP in the Soviet Union was about half that in the United States but the Soviet Union was growing faster. As a result, one could comfortably forecast that Soviet GNP would exceed that of the United States by as early as 1984 or perhaps by as late as 1997 and in any event Soviet GNP would greatly catch-up to U.S. GNP. A poor forecast–but it gets worse because in subsequent editions Samuelson presented the same analysis again and again except the overtaking time was always pushed further into the future so by 1980 the dates were 2002 to 2012. In subsequent editions, Samuelson provided no acknowledgment of his past failure to predict and little commentary beyond remarks about “bad weather” in the Soviet Union (see Levy and Peart for more details).
     

    Replies: @Jack D, @Sean, @Desiderius

    In my honors economics class at Penn in the late ’70s, we were taken to see Larry Klein’s shop, the respected Wharton Econometric Forecasting Associates (WEFA). Klein was a Nobel Prize winner who had pioneered computer modeling of economies – just like you could forecast the weather given temperature, pressure and wind direction inputs at a number of locations, you could forecast the economic future given various data inputs. (He had also joined the Communist Party in the ’40s). WEFA had contracts with big corporations and Wall St. firms who wanted predictions on whether the economy would grow or shrink in the coming year, etc.

    Any Larry didn’t come out but one of his deputies did – I no longer remember the guys name. And he proceeded to give us the same exact speech. He brought out a graph and it showed that the Soviet economy was growing at X%/year and the American economy was growing at Y%/year (a slower rate) so eventually the more steeply sloped Soviet line would cross the American line. QED – it was just math.

    Apparently it didn’t occur to these guys that the Soviets would publish phony statistics.

    • Agree: Desiderius
    • Replies: @J.Ross
    @Jack D

    There is a lecture by a defected KGB colonel in which he says that Soviet intelligence is always better because they insist on razvestia -- on actually breaking rules to personally check things out, not trusting others, information first hand -- whereas the Americans are okay with what dinner guests from the Imperial Japanese Navy mentioned over a friendly Scotch. Apparently this applies to American academics as well.

    Replies: @Jack D

  196. @Lot
    @J.Ross

    Definitely a weak point of the USA is our inability to occupy a defeated nation like Sunni Iraq at a reasonable cost.

    A drone/bot occupying force controlled by a mix of AI, disabled Americans, and patriotic NEET gamers is about 15-20 years away. Israel will do the field testing in Gaza and perhaps later around Hebron. A larger deployment in Yemen funded by the Saudis and UAE could be another good proving ground.

    Replies: @J.Ross, @Lugash

    Indeed, the only argument that Alex Jones’s “Prison Planet” concept (high technology enabling unprecedented totalitarian control) is absurd depends on assuming that Jones expects it within the week. Surveillance gadgets, legal flexibility, and even robot terminators already exist to make freedom an obscure myth; with time they will be refined, become less expensive, and be more accepted.

  197. @Jack D
    @Anonymous

    In my honors economics class at Penn in the late '70s, we were taken to see Larry Klein's shop, the respected Wharton Econometric Forecasting Associates (WEFA). Klein was a Nobel Prize winner who had pioneered computer modeling of economies - just like you could forecast the weather given temperature, pressure and wind direction inputs at a number of locations, you could forecast the economic future given various data inputs. (He had also joined the Communist Party in the '40s). WEFA had contracts with big corporations and Wall St. firms who wanted predictions on whether the economy would grow or shrink in the coming year, etc.

    Any Larry didn't come out but one of his deputies did - I no longer remember the guys name. And he proceeded to give us the same exact speech. He brought out a graph and it showed that the Soviet economy was growing at X%/year and the American economy was growing at Y%/year (a slower rate) so eventually the more steeply sloped Soviet line would cross the American line. QED - it was just math.

    Apparently it didn't occur to these guys that the Soviets would publish phony statistics.

    Replies: @J.Ross

    There is a lecture by a defected KGB colonel in which he says that Soviet intelligence is always better because they insist on razvestia — on actually breaking rules to personally check things out, not trusting others, information first hand — whereas the Americans are okay with what dinner guests from the Imperial Japanese Navy mentioned over a friendly Scotch. Apparently this applies to American academics as well.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @J.Ross

    Then again the Russians were so paranoid that often real defectors would come to them and they would assume that they were double agents and they would torture them to death, or they would obtain real information and assume that it was disinformation and discount it.

    The key to understanding Russian behavior (maybe anyone's behavior) is that they always assumed that their enemies were just like them and this is what they would do in their enemy's place so their enemies must be doing the same. Americans make the same assumption and conclude that everyone is an American at heart and means well.

    Replies: @J.Ross, @Anon

  198. @JohnnyWalker123
    @RichardTaylor

    This seems like a more recent occurrence.

    In the run up to the Iraq War, George Bush referenced a document that demonstrated Iraq was attempting to buy nuclear weapons-grade uranium from Africa. The document also supposedly demonstrated Iraq had trained one of the 9/11 terrorist masterminds. It later turned out that the document was forged by the CIA and the Whitehouse.

    Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Ron Suskind recorded a very senior-level CIA official admitting that the CIA was involved in the forgery. Phillip Giraldi (a former CIA officer who frequently writes for Unz.com) confirmed this allegation.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8F8S31tBBoM

    Recently declassified documents show that back in the 1960s, the CIA planned to conduct “acts of terrorism” on U.S. cities and military assets. The CIA then planned to blame the terrorist attacks on Cuba, which would’ve justified an invasion. This plan (“Operation Northwoods”) never happened because President Kennedy came out strongly against it.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyA-sCE18hY

    Then there was the 1980 October surprise. During the 1980 presidential election, Governor Ronald Reagan and HW Bush (with the assistance of the CIA) secretly negotiated with Iran to delay the release of the American hostages being held by Iranian militants. Jimmy Carter ended up losing the 1980 election, mostly due to his inability to secure the release of the hostages. Minutes after the newly elected Reagan finished his inaugural address and assumed the presidency, Iran released the hostages back home to America. The Reagan administration (with the assistance of the CIA and Israel) then illegally provided arms to Iran, without informing the public or Congress. Google “Iran-Contra” to learn more.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ruf5CynbPJo

    Here's a good documentary about how the CIA smuggled cocaine into the U.S. and used the profits to fund the Contras. Reagan, HW Bush, and Clinton all aided this during their respective administrations.

    Watch below from 5:35-8:50.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7gW7QwevFI

    So, no, not "liberal." At least not until the Obama years.

    Liberals actually hated the CIA back in the 60s, 70s, and 80s. These days, they've learned to love the CIA. Rather odd.

    Replies: @JohnnyWalker123, @Prester John

    Here’s a “secret.”

    The CIA is neither “liberal” nor “conservative.”

    With that said, they’re willing to form temporary alliances with select groups of useful idiots.

    The useful idiots these days are mainly on the left.

    My guess is that the pro-establishment Obama administration, and the subsequent anti-establishment candidacy of Trump, forged trust between Democrats and the establishment (which includes the intelligence agencies and military). Most likely, the “nice” image currently being put out by the CIA has further improved their reputation.

    People on the right are pretty stupid too. The CIA and Bush administration spent years selling lies about “weapons of mass destruction” in Iraq. According to a 2015 poll, the majority of Republicans believed WMDs were found in Iraq. That’s even dumber than any of this Russia stuff.

    http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/228733-poll-4-in-10-think-us-found-wmds-in-iraq

    There’s convincing evidence that the CIA and FBI played a role in assassinating MLK, likely due to his opposition to the Vietnam War.

  199. On the bright side, it’s difficult to imagine anything that leads to Eric Cantor not being in Congress being a bad thing.

    Okay, obtaining that result via a meteor slamming into the earth and destroying all life would be a net loss, but otherwise…

  200. @anonymous
    Ex KGB agents in Russia tend to be overwhelmingly patriotic Russians with sensible views about Islamic terrorism, mass 3rd world immigration and traditional Russian Orthodox Christian views about marriage, sexuality.

    American current and ex CIA agents tend to be.....

    what?

    What exactly do these George Bush Sr. (former head of the CIA) care about? Never could figure it out.

    They certainly don't seem to care about securing our borders, lowering, ending mass homicides in my Chicago as Bush Sr. didn't care about 2,000 plus murders in New York City when I lived there in the early 90s.

    These types pretend to be Republican or the pretend to be Democrats, they pretend to care about Pro Life, they run against Affirmative Action, but when in power they implement affirmative action.

    What do they really care about?

    What to wear to a presidential dinner honoring Nelson and Winnie Mandela.

    What do you wear to a White House dinner honoring Black Nationalist Communists intent on genocide of White farmers who also personally murdered a young 9 year Black child?

    What a country.

    Replies: @J.Ross, @JohnnyWalker123, @Desiderius, @S. Anonyia

    They’re not that pro-black.

    The evidence suggests some degree of CIA involvement in MLK’s assassination.

    When South Africa was under apartheid, the CIA helped the govt find Mandela, who was then imprisoned for many years. They also illegally provided arms to the South African military.

    The reality is that they’re not particularly attached to any ideology or culture. They’ve got an agenda and they’ll do whatever is necessary to push it through. Whoever will work with them at the time is their current ally.

  201. @JohnnyWalker123

    Veterans were highly critical of Kerry and his behavior long before he became a contender for the Democratic Party’s nomination for President in 2004.
     
    Perhaps they should've been equally critical of the fact that Bush invented claims of non-existent "weapons of mass destruction" to get us into Iraq.

    8,000 Americans (soldiers and contractors) have died in Iraq. 1 million American soldiers have been injured, 50,000 soldiers have experienced poly-trauma, 300,000 soldiers have PTSD "(functional impairment"), and 270,000 have been diagnosed with brain injuries. The long-term cost of the Iraq War is estimated to be $5 trillion.

    Democrats have actually been quite successful from time to time engaging in a bit of “cross-dressing” for elections
     
    Democrats aren't the only "cross dressers" in America.

    Bush skipped going to the Vietnam War by enrolling in the Texas Air National Guard. Unfortunately, he stopped actually showing up to work after some time. Cheney got 5 deferments from the Vietnam War and, when asked, said that he had "other priorities" at the time........

    ........and yet, for some reason, they were allowed to wrap themselves in the flag and appropriate the mantle of patriotism. Bush, who skipped Vietnam and even his Texas Air service, was "strong" and "steadfast." Kerry, who went to Vietnam, was "weak" and "acted French."

    Here's a clip of Bush flying a plane onto an aircraft carrier. He's dressed in military clothing. He has a sign behind him that says "Mission Accomplished."

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BIW6qyrdu4

    Bush, who was a male cheerleader back during his high school in Phillips Academy, somehow decades later becomes the "resolute Commander-in-Chief." For whatever reason, our "liberal media" sort of just let Bush keep up this charade.

    It's really amazing when you think about it.

    Replies: @anonymous, @Harry Baldwin

    George W. Bush was undoubtedly one of the worst presidents America ever had.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Harry Baldwin


    George W. Bush was undoubtedly one of the worst presidents America ever had.
     
    I have a hard time thinking of a worse one to be honest, but Clinton and Obama were pretty crummy too.

    The last truly great President was James K. Polk, for taking part, but only part, of Mexico. That was genius.

    The last one that was really good might have been Calvin Coolidge.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Flip

    , @Berty
    @Harry Baldwin

    Something that really amazes me is the extent to which Dubya's entire administration has been memory-holed by the GOP. Nobody ever talks about him in glowing terms. Nobody claims to have been inspired by his legacy. Nobody considers themselves followers of his policies (except maybe Lindsey Graham). Nothing. Zip.

    Anyone who was a hardcore Bush Republican was defeated in 06 or 08 and their successors either continue to worship Ronald Reagan as a saint or lavish praise on Trump. It's like nothing happened in between.

    It's stunning when you think about it.

    Replies: @J.Ross

  202. @europeasant
    @Reg Cæsar

    In this book that I just finished reading "The Wolf in the Kremlin, Lazar Kaganovich" it is claimed that Stalin knew of the upcoming attack on Pearl Harbor. He did not notify FDR for some reason or other that I forget. Maybe he was upset that the USA did not immediately attack Germany on the mainland instead the USA chose to invade North Africa. He was pretty pissed off.
    Also he only went to war with Japan after it was mostly settled between USA and Japan as a payback for USA's late entry into Europe. He figured 'let them bloody each up a bit' as a payback to the USA.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Reg Cæsar

    it is claimed that Stalin knew of the upcoming attack on Pearl Harbor.

    How did Stalin know about Pearl Harbor?

    IIRC, it was widely known by various intelligence services that the Japanese were about to enter the war, but exactly who/where they were going to attack was uncertain.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @Anonymous

    Lots of people hear lots of stuff.

    Stalin got something like 26 different warning that Hitler was going to attack him and didn't do much about it.

    Replies: @Anon

    , @J.Ross
    @Anonymous

    Not sure about Pearl Harbor specifically, although, by a freak of geography which careful map readers may have noticed, Japan has a major bay that happens to resemble to base at Pearl Harbor, which they exploited in preparing the attack, and there were Soviet spies in Japan.
    This is briefly touched upon in Eri Hotta's book Japan 1941, which has much good new information but which is also burdened by bad analysis. Stalin had a spy in Japan (among others) who was able to win the trust of high level people very quickly.
    The Russia question was a huge issue for Japanese war planners. Whether to "go north" (and re-attack Russia, which had soundly defeated them under none other than Zhukov in the interwar period) or ignore Russia and "go south" (to European colonies) was a primary question, they knew better than to try both. The problem of Japan re-attempting a Siberian invasion was also a big deal to Stalin, as he could not recommit Eastern assets to the European theater until he could be sure they weren't needed on the Pacific.
    This was the Soviet spy in prewar Tokyo:
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Sorge
    "A devastating example of a brilliant success of espionage." – Douglas MacArthur, General of the Army[85]
    "His work was impeccable." – Kim Philby
    "In my whole life, I have never met anyone as great as he was." – Mitsusada Yoshikawa, Chief Prosecutor in the Sorge trials who obtained Sorge's death sentence.
    "Sorge was the man whom I regard as the most formidable spy in history." – Ian Fleming
    "Richard Sorge was the best spy of all time." – Tom Clancy

    Replies: @Desiderius

  203. @LondonBob
    @Desiderius

    Is that how (((Moldbug))) explains Communist spying in America, suppose it makes as much sense as blaming Wasps for Freudianism, the Frankfurt School, Boasian Anthropology and the 65 immigration act.

    Replies: @Desiderius

    That’s where the demand for all that nonsense was/is coming from, as I can attest from the inside.

    • Replies: @fnn
    @Desiderius

    It looks like the trad WASPs were defeated at Pearl Harbor>
    https://racehist.blogspot.com/2009/08/paul-gottfried-hates-wasp-people.html


    Brewster [Sr.], described by one acquaintance as "a crustacean McKinleyite Republican," entertained many members of Congress at his Catoctin retreat. [. . .] Brewster's politics, however, were too extreme to be openly expressed in the mainstream GOP. His anti-Communism was so rabid and sweeping that his son remembered that "if I were considerate enough to visit him in Washington with a friend whose parents were somehow associated with the Roosevelt administration, it was natural that he should refer quite regularly to my 'Communist friends.'" [. . .] Brewster's political opinions and his business contacts with Germany led the FBI to start a file on him. While various information testified that he admired the Nazi system and claimed to have met personally with Hitler on visits to Germany, the FBI's investigation revealed little aside from the fact that "BREWSTER possessed a great hatred for Jews and regarded them with suspicion at all times."

    Brewster's views on race and religion were perhaps most fully expressed in the works of his good friend the eugenicist Lothrop Stoddard, who believed that Anglo-Saxon civilization and America's ancestral purity were under threat from inferior races. Stoddard was, like Brewster, a Harvard Law School graduate and sometime resident of Brookline, Massachusetts. (Brookline was, not coincidentally, the location of the nation's first country club.) Stoddard's works included evocative titles such as The Rising Tide of Color Against White World Supremacy and The Revolt Against Civilization: The Menace of the Under-Man.

    American society, according to Brewster and Stoddard, was a racial aristocracy under threat [. . .] Many upper-class East Coast gentlemen shared the view that snobbery and racial exclusion were necessary to preserve their elite culture, even if they stopped short of Stoddard's conclusion that "race cleansing is the obvious starting-point for race betterment." Although Brewster's virulent racial opinions were welcome in polite society, most of his peers expressed themselves in more decorous terms.
     
  204. @JohnnyWalker123
    @RichardTaylor

    This seems like a more recent occurrence.

    In the run up to the Iraq War, George Bush referenced a document that demonstrated Iraq was attempting to buy nuclear weapons-grade uranium from Africa. The document also supposedly demonstrated Iraq had trained one of the 9/11 terrorist masterminds. It later turned out that the document was forged by the CIA and the Whitehouse.

    Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Ron Suskind recorded a very senior-level CIA official admitting that the CIA was involved in the forgery. Phillip Giraldi (a former CIA officer who frequently writes for Unz.com) confirmed this allegation.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8F8S31tBBoM

    Recently declassified documents show that back in the 1960s, the CIA planned to conduct “acts of terrorism” on U.S. cities and military assets. The CIA then planned to blame the terrorist attacks on Cuba, which would’ve justified an invasion. This plan (“Operation Northwoods”) never happened because President Kennedy came out strongly against it.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyA-sCE18hY

    Then there was the 1980 October surprise. During the 1980 presidential election, Governor Ronald Reagan and HW Bush (with the assistance of the CIA) secretly negotiated with Iran to delay the release of the American hostages being held by Iranian militants. Jimmy Carter ended up losing the 1980 election, mostly due to his inability to secure the release of the hostages. Minutes after the newly elected Reagan finished his inaugural address and assumed the presidency, Iran released the hostages back home to America. The Reagan administration (with the assistance of the CIA and Israel) then illegally provided arms to Iran, without informing the public or Congress. Google “Iran-Contra” to learn more.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ruf5CynbPJo

    Here's a good documentary about how the CIA smuggled cocaine into the U.S. and used the profits to fund the Contras. Reagan, HW Bush, and Clinton all aided this during their respective administrations.

    Watch below from 5:35-8:50.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7gW7QwevFI

    So, no, not "liberal." At least not until the Obama years.

    Liberals actually hated the CIA back in the 60s, 70s, and 80s. These days, they've learned to love the CIA. Rather odd.

    Replies: @JohnnyWalker123, @Prester John

    Wasn’t there a rumor some years ago that Slick Clinton was a CIA recruit while an undergrad at the G-Town Foreign Service School and that his connections resulted in that air strip in Mena, Arkansas,which the CIA used to run drugs to/ from Central America? Never did get a straight answer concerning that allered trip he made to Rooshia back in ’68 at age 22 with that “priest” shortly after Prague Spring at a time when they wouldn’t let the POTUS in, let alone a US college undergrad.

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    @Prester John

    They had been flying out of New Orleans, which had a large agency presence because of convenient air travel distance to Cuba, but their guy got outed and involved in a criminal trial. Mena, Arkansas, was pretty much nowheresville when they started using the airstrip to supply Contras. This is all laid out in the Mena Connection video, which is somewhat long, redundant, and at the end turns into a charity appeal for the filmmakers. The starting point was a Contra-supplying plane crashing in a country that felt no obligation to do us a solid and keep the photographers out, which was traced beck to the NOLA activity. Supposedly Clinton's career took off after he accommodated the coke taxis.

  205. @anonymous
    @JohnnyWalker123

    Yep.

    And Bush Jr gets to hire worst ever Neo Conservative Zionist speech writer David Frum to somehow justify all this S#&*$# that Saddam Hussein's Iraq was part of an Axis of Evil along with Iran and North Korea and anyone who objected was....

    An unpatriotic Conservative who would soon be purged from National Review and anywhere and everywhere else in Conservative Inc.

    Replies: @JohnnyWalker123

    Originally, Frum referred to the alliance as the “Axis of Hatred.” He then changed “hatred” to “evil.”

    An alliance with three extremely different nations – secular Sunni-Arab Iraq, fundamentalist Shiite-Persian Iran, and isolationist-nationalist Communist North Korea. Somehow all three countries were in one alliance, an alliance based on “hatred” and “evil.”

    Somehow Al-Qaeda (which is an extremist Sunni Muslim terrorist group who hated secular Iraq and “heretical” Shiites) was involved too.

    So was the Taliban, who almost went to war with Iran in 1998.

    Iran and Iraq fought a very bloody war in the 80s too.

    This all made sense.

    It’s amazing that our media, politicians, and public are all such gullible and credulous
    fools.

    • Replies: @ben tillman
    @JohnnyWalker123


    It’s amazing that our media, politicians, and public are all such gullible and credulous
    fools.
     
    No, it's not. We're made to trust our tribe's authority figures. The problem is that, in this instance, "our" authority figures are members of another tribe.
  206. To anyone curious about how white men are able to talk themselves into supporting their own dispossession, little Johnny Kinnock here is exhibit 1A.

  207. @anonymous
    Ex KGB agents in Russia tend to be overwhelmingly patriotic Russians with sensible views about Islamic terrorism, mass 3rd world immigration and traditional Russian Orthodox Christian views about marriage, sexuality.

    American current and ex CIA agents tend to be.....

    what?

    What exactly do these George Bush Sr. (former head of the CIA) care about? Never could figure it out.

    They certainly don't seem to care about securing our borders, lowering, ending mass homicides in my Chicago as Bush Sr. didn't care about 2,000 plus murders in New York City when I lived there in the early 90s.

    These types pretend to be Republican or the pretend to be Democrats, they pretend to care about Pro Life, they run against Affirmative Action, but when in power they implement affirmative action.

    What do they really care about?

    What to wear to a presidential dinner honoring Nelson and Winnie Mandela.

    What do you wear to a White House dinner honoring Black Nationalist Communists intent on genocide of White farmers who also personally murdered a young 9 year Black child?

    What a country.

    Replies: @J.Ross, @JohnnyWalker123, @Desiderius, @S. Anonyia

    “What do they really care about?”

    Being among the Elect rather than the Reprobate. Same as it ever was.

  208. @Lot
    @J.Ross

    Definitely a weak point of the USA is our inability to occupy a defeated nation like Sunni Iraq at a reasonable cost.

    A drone/bot occupying force controlled by a mix of AI, disabled Americans, and patriotic NEET gamers is about 15-20 years away. Israel will do the field testing in Gaza and perhaps later around Hebron. A larger deployment in Yemen funded by the Saudis and UAE could be another good proving ground.

    Replies: @J.Ross, @Lugash

    A drone/bot occupying force controlled by a mix of AI, disabled Americans, and patriotic NEET gamers is about 15-20 years away. Israel will do the field testing in Gaza and perhaps later around Hebron. A larger deployment in Yemen funded by the Saudis and UAE could be another good proving ground.

    There’s not going to be a Yemeni population in 10-15 years given the Gulf states current levels of starvation and bombing. Even if there was, they’d just set the knobs to ‘exterminate’ rather than ‘pacify’.

  209. @Anon
    "The CIA have been the biggest bunch of fuck-ups the world has seen."

    Both the CIA and the NSA are extremely adept at technical analysis, probably above GCHQ in my opinion. You'd be shocked if I told you what they could do. Russian FSB doesn't even use computers anymore for their most sensitive work; they had to go back to using typewriters. How embarrassing for them.

    Their weakness, however, is the human aspect of the equation. Long neglected and now hampered by political correctness, it has withered since the end of the Cold War - but somewhat better since 9/11. They are kept in business in that regard because most of their opponents just happen to be morons. Your average terrorist isn't too bright. God help the country if some devious genius ever gets it into his head to cause trouble. Those types, even with the surveillance state, could be a serious problem before they are taken down (i.e. a guy like Stephen Paddock but with a chemistry degree).

    Replies: @Corn

    “Russian FSB doesn’t even use computers anymore for their most sensitive work; they had to go back to using typewriters. ”

    Given all the hacking that goes on nowadays is using typewriters an embarrassment or good security?

  210. @Anonymous
    @europeasant


    it is claimed that Stalin knew of the upcoming attack on Pearl Harbor.
     
    How did Stalin know about Pearl Harbor?

    IIRC, it was widely known by various intelligence services that the Japanese were about to enter the war, but exactly who/where they were going to attack was uncertain.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @J.Ross

    Lots of people hear lots of stuff.

    Stalin got something like 26 different warning that Hitler was going to attack him and didn’t do much about it.

    • Replies: @Anon
    @Steve Sailer

    People keep claiming that Roosevelt 'knew' Pearl Harbor was going to be attacked. Yet he got caught with his pants down and most of the Pacific fleet was wiped out.

    People keep claiming that Stalin 'knew' he was going to be attacked by Hitler. Yet he got surprised and sucker-punched so thoroughly that he lost about 1/3rd of his country before he could get back on his feet again.

    To say that men like these 'know' everything and what they do is always part of a plot is paranoid ideation. Of course they don't know everything. They screw up exactly the way regular people do. When you grow up to become a real adult, you realize this.

    Replies: @Sean, @Anon, @J.Ross

  211. @Reg Cæsar
    @Art Deco


    You don’t know because you’re operating under the assumption that your historical fantasies are real.
     
    I didn't say he knew. Only that his tears were mock. Pearl Harbor gave him exactly what he wanted.

    Replies: @Flip, @Desiderius

    In his shoes I could appreciate the strategic implications while still mourning the victims/my country’s and my own wounded pride.

  212. @Cagey Beast
    @Peter Akuleyev

    OTOH, the CIA is Mormon dominated which keeps it fairly honest and morally conservative.

    On the other hand, Mormonism (ie White Rastafarianism) teaches that America has a unique task in God's plan. That's problematic, to put it mildly.

    Replies: @Anonymous

    Any people who do not see themselves as having divine purpose in some way will perish.

    • Replies: @Cagey Beast
    @Anonymous

    Yes, that's very likely true.

  213. Anonymous[427] • Disclaimer says:
    @Harry Baldwin
    @JohnnyWalker123

    George W. Bush was undoubtedly one of the worst presidents America ever had.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Berty

    George W. Bush was undoubtedly one of the worst presidents America ever had.

    I have a hard time thinking of a worse one to be honest, but Clinton and Obama were pretty crummy too.

    The last truly great President was James K. Polk, for taking part, but only part, of Mexico. That was genius.

    The last one that was really good might have been Calvin Coolidge.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @Anonymous


    The last truly great President was James K. Polk, for taking part, but only part, of Mexico. That was genius.

     

    Polk's, or Nicholas Trist's?

    Lothrop Stoddard praised the Danes for taking only that part of Schleswig-Holstein that was Danish, when they could have had more.
    , @Flip
    @Anonymous

    I like Ike more the older I get.

  214. @Prester John
    @JohnnyWalker123

    Wasn't there a rumor some years ago that Slick Clinton was a CIA recruit while an undergrad at the G-Town Foreign Service School and that his connections resulted in that air strip in Mena, Arkansas,which the CIA used to run drugs to/ from Central America? Never did get a straight answer concerning that allered trip he made to Rooshia back in '68 at age 22 with that "priest" shortly after Prague Spring at a time when they wouldn't let the POTUS in, let alone a US college undergrad.

    Replies: @J.Ross

    They had been flying out of New Orleans, which had a large agency presence because of convenient air travel distance to Cuba, but their guy got outed and involved in a criminal trial. Mena, Arkansas, was pretty much nowheresville when they started using the airstrip to supply Contras. This is all laid out in the Mena Connection video, which is somewhat long, redundant, and at the end turns into a charity appeal for the filmmakers. The starting point was a Contra-supplying plane crashing in a country that felt no obligation to do us a solid and keep the photographers out, which was traced beck to the NOLA activity. Supposedly Clinton’s career took off after he accommodated the coke taxis.

  215. @Desiderius
    @LondonBob

    That’s where the demand for all that nonsense was/is coming from, as I can attest from the inside.

    Replies: @fnn

    It looks like the trad WASPs were defeated at Pearl Harbor>
    https://racehist.blogspot.com/2009/08/paul-gottfried-hates-wasp-people.html

    Brewster [Sr.], described by one acquaintance as “a crustacean McKinleyite Republican,” entertained many members of Congress at his Catoctin retreat. [. . .] Brewster’s politics, however, were too extreme to be openly expressed in the mainstream GOP. His anti-Communism was so rabid and sweeping that his son remembered that “if I were considerate enough to visit him in Washington with a friend whose parents were somehow associated with the Roosevelt administration, it was natural that he should refer quite regularly to my ‘Communist friends.’” [. . .] Brewster’s political opinions and his business contacts with Germany led the FBI to start a file on him. While various information testified that he admired the Nazi system and claimed to have met personally with Hitler on visits to Germany, the FBI’s investigation revealed little aside from the fact that “BREWSTER possessed a great hatred for Jews and regarded them with suspicion at all times.”

    Brewster’s views on race and religion were perhaps most fully expressed in the works of his good friend the eugenicist Lothrop Stoddard, who believed that Anglo-Saxon civilization and America’s ancestral purity were under threat from inferior races. Stoddard was, like Brewster, a Harvard Law School graduate and sometime resident of Brookline, Massachusetts. (Brookline was, not coincidentally, the location of the nation’s first country club.) Stoddard’s works included evocative titles such as The Rising Tide of Color Against White World Supremacy and The Revolt Against Civilization: The Menace of the Under-Man.

    American society, according to Brewster and Stoddard, was a racial aristocracy under threat [. . .] Many upper-class East Coast gentlemen shared the view that snobbery and racial exclusion were necessary to preserve their elite culture, even if they stopped short of Stoddard’s conclusion that “race cleansing is the obvious starting-point for race betterment.” Although Brewster’s virulent racial opinions were welcome in polite society, most of his peers expressed themselves in more decorous terms.

  216. @Anonymous
    @europeasant


    it is claimed that Stalin knew of the upcoming attack on Pearl Harbor.
     
    How did Stalin know about Pearl Harbor?

    IIRC, it was widely known by various intelligence services that the Japanese were about to enter the war, but exactly who/where they were going to attack was uncertain.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @J.Ross

    Not sure about Pearl Harbor specifically, although, by a freak of geography which careful map readers may have noticed, Japan has a major bay that happens to resemble to base at Pearl Harbor, which they exploited in preparing the attack, and there were Soviet spies in Japan.
    This is briefly touched upon in Eri Hotta’s book Japan 1941, which has much good new information but which is also burdened by bad analysis. Stalin had a spy in Japan (among others) who was able to win the trust of high level people very quickly.
    The Russia question was a huge issue for Japanese war planners. Whether to “go north” (and re-attack Russia, which had soundly defeated them under none other than Zhukov in the interwar period) or ignore Russia and “go south” (to European colonies) was a primary question, they knew better than to try both. The problem of Japan re-attempting a Siberian invasion was also a big deal to Stalin, as he could not recommit Eastern assets to the European theater until he could be sure they weren’t needed on the Pacific.
    This was the Soviet spy in prewar Tokyo:
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Sorge
    “A devastating example of a brilliant success of espionage.” – Douglas MacArthur, General of the Army[85]
    “His work was impeccable.” – Kim Philby
    “In my whole life, I have never met anyone as great as he was.” – Mitsusada Yoshikawa, Chief Prosecutor in the Sorge trials who obtained Sorge’s death sentence.
    “Sorge was the man whom I regard as the most formidable spy in history.” – Ian Fleming
    “Richard Sorge was the best spy of all time.” – Tom Clancy

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    @J.Ross

    Sorge was also involved with the inception of the Frankfurt School, and Stalin also got his start near the oil fields of Baku.

  217. @Anonymous
    @Sean

    Paul Samuelson's famous "Economics" textbook, one of the most widely used college textbooks of all time, and the best selling American college textbook for 30 years until the 80s, repeatedly predicted that the Soviet economy would overtake the American economy:

    https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2010/01/soviet-growth-american-textbooks.html


    In the 1961 edition of his famous textbook of economic principles, Paul Samuelson wrote that GNP in the Soviet Union was about half that in the United States but the Soviet Union was growing faster. As a result, one could comfortably forecast that Soviet GNP would exceed that of the United States by as early as 1984 or perhaps by as late as 1997 and in any event Soviet GNP would greatly catch-up to U.S. GNP. A poor forecast–but it gets worse because in subsequent editions Samuelson presented the same analysis again and again except the overtaking time was always pushed further into the future so by 1980 the dates were 2002 to 2012. In subsequent editions, Samuelson provided no acknowledgment of his past failure to predict and little commentary beyond remarks about “bad weather” in the Soviet Union (see Levy and Peart for more details).
     

    Replies: @Jack D, @Sean, @Desiderius

    https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/csi-studies/studies/97unclass/soviet.html

    ” the divergence was over whether “those things” were possible in an economy that was growing at an average of nearly 2 percent a year. The CIA argued that this was possible because GNP merely measured gross output without regard to use, quality, or contribution to welfare; it included, for example, the military production and raw quantities of wasteful output. (US calculations of its own GNP as an indication of the public welfare recently have come in for similar criticism.) […] Given the nature of the analytic problem posed by the Soviet system, the analysts preparing the numbers anticipated that some of their numbers would be open to question.[…] Such examinations would also illuminate the fact that GNP calculations include production of unsold goods as well as spending on defense and other government projects that may not directly benefit households. These conditions were particularly manifest in the wasteful construction projects and unsold inventories of Communist countries.

    An objective examination would also provide an opportunity to confront the “counter-intuitiveness” argument with certain realities such as: (a) the population of the Soviet Union exceeded the combined populations of West Germany and Japan by an amount greater than the combined populations of France, the Netherlands, and Belgium; (b) the Soviet GNP included production for what was probably the world’s largest military establishment; (c) material extraction in the Soviet Union was the highest of any single nation; and (d) the principal problem with the Soviet economy was not its size but its distortions–not simply how large the GNP was but its composition and how it was distributed.

    For all their protestations, I think because they were accused of boosting the USSR Brokenspectre-style, the CIA are going to lowball estimates of China . Also, the max growth projection for China would be seen as too politically Trump-friendly within the CIA right now.

  218. @europeasant
    @Reg Cæsar

    In this book that I just finished reading "The Wolf in the Kremlin, Lazar Kaganovich" it is claimed that Stalin knew of the upcoming attack on Pearl Harbor. He did not notify FDR for some reason or other that I forget. Maybe he was upset that the USA did not immediately attack Germany on the mainland instead the USA chose to invade North Africa. He was pretty pissed off.
    Also he only went to war with Japan after it was mostly settled between USA and Japan as a payback for USA's late entry into Europe. He figured 'let them bloody each up a bit' as a payback to the USA.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Reg Cæsar

    Maybe he was upset that the USA did not immediately attack Germany on the mainland instead the USA chose to invade North Africa.

    Which direction does time run where you live? Or did Stalin have his own Rasputin, telling him in 1941 who we’d invade in 1943?

  219. @Anonymous
    @Harry Baldwin


    George W. Bush was undoubtedly one of the worst presidents America ever had.
     
    I have a hard time thinking of a worse one to be honest, but Clinton and Obama were pretty crummy too.

    The last truly great President was James K. Polk, for taking part, but only part, of Mexico. That was genius.

    The last one that was really good might have been Calvin Coolidge.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Flip

    The last truly great President was James K. Polk, for taking part, but only part, of Mexico. That was genius.

    Polk’s, or Nicholas Trist’s?

    Lothrop Stoddard praised the Danes for taking only that part of Schleswig-Holstein that was Danish, when they could have had more.

  220. @Sean
    @Tyrion 2


    Furthermore, out competing them on a fair free market playing field isn’t a great option as the globalist side is not limited by those rules itself
     
    The number one one concern of the CIA is foreign countries gaining in power relative to America. The Deep State of America predicated its Globalism on America coming out on top in liberalized Global trade. No one is is favour of rules they cannot win under .

    This is why a realist perspective is important. Principles are great, until sticking to them is the very thing that prohibits you from effectively defending them.
     
    True, and the Deep State has begun to realise that China has an advantage under American principles. An instance of this was when Gina Haspel addressed the issue of China’s “overt and illicit efforts to steal” U.S. technology.

    The Old Guard at the CIA did not see the danger of China, and the Chinese, one might add, did not see the danger of Trump. The head of Chinese intelligence is being sacked. After hearing about Russia tipping the balance for Trump, I suspect Xi was wondering why nothing had been done by his espionage service to help Clinton. The institutional power of the state exists to maintain the state over-against other states, and the CIA disagreements with itself on how to do that are probably as so often in these cases between the young and the older functionaries. The school of thought that China on globalism is not the threat to United States primacy consists of superannuated Cold Warriors no longer at the agency.

    Replies: @Tyrion 2, @Sam Malone

    No one is is favour of rules they cannot win under .

    White people are.

  221. @Anonymous
    @Harry Baldwin


    George W. Bush was undoubtedly one of the worst presidents America ever had.
     
    I have a hard time thinking of a worse one to be honest, but Clinton and Obama were pretty crummy too.

    The last truly great President was James K. Polk, for taking part, but only part, of Mexico. That was genius.

    The last one that was really good might have been Calvin Coolidge.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Flip

    I like Ike more the older I get.

  222. @fnn
    @PV van der Byl

    The movie, The President's Analyst (1967) portrayed a CIA made of hip liberals, in stark contrast to the FBI of J. Edgar Hoover.

    Replies: @PV van der Byl

    Not at all inaccurate for 1967, then.

  223. @Anonymous
    @Cagey Beast

    Any people who do not see themselves as having divine purpose in some way will perish.

    Replies: @Cagey Beast

    Yes, that’s very likely true.

  224. istevefan says:
    @Svigor
    @istevefan


    This is exactly what the Missouri Democrats did with Jason Kander in the 2016 Senate election. They did a commercial showing Kander assembling an M-16 while blindfolded to show off his army bona fides
     
    Movies and TV present this as if it were some kind of L-eet activity, but modern firearms are designed by geniuses, to be used by idiots. I can disassemble and reassemble my 9 with my eyes closed in like a minute. Because it's got like four parts (part groups, really). The AR platform is sorta in the middle, designed before this golden age of weapons that are super-simple to take down, in the sense that you can get your jimmy stuck in your zipper if you're not careful, but doing it blindfolded is not a big deal at all. It just means you've done it a lot (it probably took me a half-dozen times with my 9 before I realized I could do it with my eyes closed).

    Replies: @istevefan

    I was in the infantry so I know all about disassembling and reassembling an M-16. However, watch that video again and pay attention at the 24 second mark. He seems to be struggling to pull the charging handle.

    The reason I noticed this is because when we did the manual of arms one of the weapon drills was “inspection arms”. To properly perform this drill you have to hold the weapon in front of you with your forearms pretty much at chest level. Then while holding the weapon with your left hand on the front hand guard, you have to pull the charging handle with your right hand to show the inspector the weapon is empty.

    It sounds easy. However, the hard part is that you must remain rigid and upright. You must remain like a statue. So you learn how to charge the weapon without your body quivering as though it is taking all your strength to pull the handle. Jason doesn’t seem to be able to do this.

  225. @Cagey Beast
    I've posted this video clip here before but it merits reviewing. At 18:48 and especially 24:30 we get some pure, unfiltered American radicalism. It's managerial radicalism of the same sort that seems to guide the CIA and its domestic political allies.

    https://youtu.be/OewhlYeU2fo?t=1446


    The American line of thinking seems to have been, that to prevent a repeat of the Bolshevik Revolution in South Vietnam, the Americans had to get some people to kill the Czar and his family first, before anyone else could.

    In the same way, Gaddafi, Saddam, Assad and Mubarak have to be toppled and/or killed before radical Islamists do it. Official America believes strongly in the therapeutic power of revolutions but they also believe they can do them better than the locals. Maybe they'll bring some of that proactive thinking back home? Maybe ex-CIA Congressmen will decide some of the leadership in the local Chamber of Commerce are going to have to be killed if that airport expansion is going to get done? Who knows with these people?

    Replies: @Hunsdon

    How does the old joke go? The one place immune to an American coup is America, because there is no US embassy there.

  226. @Tiny Duck
    @Tyrion 2

    Your side will fail midrabky because it has no People of Color

    Replies: @Tyrion 2

    Is there a more parochial term than “people of colour”?

  227. @J.Ross
    @Anonymous

    Not sure about Pearl Harbor specifically, although, by a freak of geography which careful map readers may have noticed, Japan has a major bay that happens to resemble to base at Pearl Harbor, which they exploited in preparing the attack, and there were Soviet spies in Japan.
    This is briefly touched upon in Eri Hotta's book Japan 1941, which has much good new information but which is also burdened by bad analysis. Stalin had a spy in Japan (among others) who was able to win the trust of high level people very quickly.
    The Russia question was a huge issue for Japanese war planners. Whether to "go north" (and re-attack Russia, which had soundly defeated them under none other than Zhukov in the interwar period) or ignore Russia and "go south" (to European colonies) was a primary question, they knew better than to try both. The problem of Japan re-attempting a Siberian invasion was also a big deal to Stalin, as he could not recommit Eastern assets to the European theater until he could be sure they weren't needed on the Pacific.
    This was the Soviet spy in prewar Tokyo:
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Sorge
    "A devastating example of a brilliant success of espionage." – Douglas MacArthur, General of the Army[85]
    "His work was impeccable." – Kim Philby
    "In my whole life, I have never met anyone as great as he was." – Mitsusada Yoshikawa, Chief Prosecutor in the Sorge trials who obtained Sorge's death sentence.
    "Sorge was the man whom I regard as the most formidable spy in history." – Ian Fleming
    "Richard Sorge was the best spy of all time." – Tom Clancy

    Replies: @Desiderius

    Sorge was also involved with the inception of the Frankfurt School, and Stalin also got his start near the oil fields of Baku.

  228. @The Man From K Street
    @Tyrion 2


    Your list amounts to one man instigating and implementing an instantaneous full scale revolution off the back of a very narrow Presidential victory.
     
    Lenin and the Bolsheviks didn't see their tepid victories in 1917 elections to the Constituent Assembly as much of a bar to their instigating and implementing full scale revolution. And if that's too leftist for you, consider that the Whigs who consolidated power after the Hanoverian accession in 1715 and shut out the opposition completely for decades would not have won a single election 1700-1750 if they had been decided by the actual number of votes vs. rotten boroughs.
    No revolutionary in history has ever acted from a landslide electoral mandate.

    Replies: @ben tillman

    Lenin and the Bolsheviks didn’t see their tepid victories in 1917 elections to the Constituent Assembly as much of a bar to their instigating and implementing full scale revolution.

    Tyrion 2 was right. Note that word “Bolsheviks” — it’s plural!

    “Trump” is singular. All those things that were suggested would require allies. Lots of them, and ones with their own powerful networks at that.

    • Agree: Tyrion 2
    • Replies: @Tyrion 2
    @ben tillman

    Also, Russia was in a state of revolution whether the Bolsheviks took control or not. Erdogan is a much better example for Trump and even he had the Gulen cult to intially support him.

  229. @Reg Cæsar
    @ben tillman


    Pearl Harbor was not an intelligence failure.
     
    If anything, it was an intelligence success. Feature, not bug.


    How FDR kept a straight face during that broadcast, I don't know. Maybe his polio was a feature there, too.

    Replies: @europeasant, @Art Deco, @ben tillman

    Right. Stinnett’s book convinced me that FDR knew and sent instructions (“expect sabotage”) intended to maximize the damage.

  230. @Achmed E. Newman
    Bring lawyers, guns, and money:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lP5Xv7QqXiM

    Replies: @PV van der Byl

    Many thanks for this delightful highwater mark of the late 1970s (my undergraduate years)!

    And Warren was no weanie. His father was this Los Angeles gangster:

    http://mafia.wikia.com/wiki/Willie_Zevon

    And Warren’s mother was a Mormon girl.

    Only in America!

  231. @Peter Akuleyev
    @Lot

    What I have heard from State Department types is that the CIA guys stationed at embassies abroad had almost unlimited financial resources at their disposal, were arrogant and had no obvious “deliverables” to meet. Half of them seem to be living in their own fantasy worlds. The Russians had more limited resources and were held accountable for results, and were thus much more disciplined. OTOH, the CIA is Mormon dominated which keeps it fairly honest and morally conservative.

    Replies: @Cagey Beast, @theMann, @Desiderius, @S. Anonyia, @Twinkie, @Anon, @Bill jones

    The CIA drug trade from the war on Korea on has provided them limitless cash.

  232. @J.Ross
    @Jack D

    There is a lecture by a defected KGB colonel in which he says that Soviet intelligence is always better because they insist on razvestia -- on actually breaking rules to personally check things out, not trusting others, information first hand -- whereas the Americans are okay with what dinner guests from the Imperial Japanese Navy mentioned over a friendly Scotch. Apparently this applies to American academics as well.

    Replies: @Jack D

    Then again the Russians were so paranoid that often real defectors would come to them and they would assume that they were double agents and they would torture them to death, or they would obtain real information and assume that it was disinformation and discount it.

    The key to understanding Russian behavior (maybe anyone’s behavior) is that they always assumed that their enemies were just like them and this is what they would do in their enemy’s place so their enemies must be doing the same. Americans make the same assumption and conclude that everyone is an American at heart and means well.

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    @Jack D

    When the Japanese accepted defeat and were getting ready to be occupied by Americans, there was a meeting at which they resolved, well, the first thing the Americans will do will surely be to rape everybody, so we've got to get women to volunteer to be comfort women to absorb that.

    , @Anon
    @Jack D


    Then again the Russians were so paranoid that often real defectors would come to them and they would assume that they were double agents and they would torture them to death, or they would obtain real information and assume that it was disinformation and discount it.
     
    The CIA did this too, minus the "death" part. There is almost literally no stupidity of which they were and are not capable.

    Americans make the same assumption and conclude that everyone is an American at heart and means well.
     
    We've invaded Canada twice and Mexico once and sort-of again, not to mention the other parts of our continent. The Canucks beat us and while we beat the Mexicans the first time we didn't accomplish much in our half-hearted raids after that. Both we and the Russians have a moralistic and Messianic conception of our roles in the world which is unsupported by reality.

    The key to understanding Russian behavior
     
    How Russian was the KGB? The GRU? I'd hazard a guess the latter was more Russian than the former though both were probably pretty close to the country as a whole, at least from the '50s to the '80s.
  233. @Anon
    "Your list amounts to one man instigating and implementing an instantaneous full scale revolution off the back of a very narrow Presidential victory. To put it extremely mildly, I don’t think the conditions for such an action to be a success were in place."

    Says who? Strong men make the conditions with the power they are granted. Adolf Hitler didn't win a majority of the vote, and the American revolution was fought with only a third of the public supporting it. Most of the short list I provided is eminently doable in one form or another. It wasn't done either because Trump doesn't want to or lacks the competence (probably both). If I were Trump, you'd be watching my coronation on television about now.

    "one man instigating and implementing an instantaneous full scale revolution"

    *cough, Hugo Chavez...it's not as hard as you think; and I never said anything about anything being "instantaneous." That was just something you put in your comment to discredit mine via strawman because you couldn't generate a proper rebuttal.

    "Also, Jeff Sessions is probably the crucial Trump ally in government and always has been. He is quiet and diligent and I would advise anyone criticising him from a nationalist perspective to be a little more humble."

    He's a weak man who has let Trump's most ardent enemies encircle him. He's spent the better part of his tenure trying to make the non-issue of marijuana illegal again.

    "To put it extremely mildly, I don’t think the conditions for such an action to be a success were in place."

    Don't cross the Rubicon Caesar. The conditions aren't in place yet.

    Replies: @Tyrion 2, @ben tillman, @Anon

    Says who? Strong men make the conditions with the power they are granted. Adolf Hitler didn’t win a majority of the vote, and the American revolution was fought with only a third of the public supporting it.

    Hitler already had a paramilitary force at his disposal, and the military sure as hell wasn’t going to support the SPD or KPD over Hitler. Moreover, Hitler got his greatest share of the vote form the lower-middle class and the upper class, from which military officers were drawn. Finally, the forces aligned against were extremely disorganized by modern standards because of the difference in communications technology.

    The Americans were fighting an enemy that had to cross an ocean to engage. And think about the communication issues in that war.

    Be serious.

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    @ben tillman

    The Americans were fighting an enemy that had to cross an ocean to engage. And think about the communication issues in that war.

    To reconnect this to foreseeing Pearl Harbor: the Soviets had also independently broken the Japanese diplomatic codes, which becomes an argument against Sorge's significance in freeing up Eastern military assets.
    Did the Japanese have the worst codes?

  234. Anonymous[248] • Disclaimer says:
    @Tyrion 2
    There really does seem to be a military versus CIA dimension to current partisan conflict. Amusingly, it mirrors Kruschev's battle with Beria as shown in The Death of Stalin.

    It is also reflected in the disagreements between West and East Coast Straussians who, contra many theories on this site, tend to move their positions to accommodate reality as that is a key part of their ideology. This explains their coherence with dominant trends much better than them exerting nefarious control.

    None of this is a formal conflict, though perhaps more so on the CIA side which is naturally better suited to such stuff. Then again, it is easy to notice that many feminine women join organisations like the CIA, in part, because they like to be around military men but also enjoy having elegant fingernails.

    Of course, both are moderate forces within their respective parties. They fraternise too much not to be.

    We are at a turning point in history, where everything gets shaken up. The nationalist side is worse positioned by not having much heft in the key influencing industries of the media and academia. The globalist side is worse positioned by being dragged along into lunacy by that very influence.

    Controlling the Kool-Aid makes you the don of the festivities, until you drink too much of it and embarrass yourself.

    I don't think that the above observations are particularly useful but it is interesting to note that at historical turning points, when the previous consensus is breaking, it is very often the military and security services that are able to step into the cracks.

    I suppose the most practical point is that if you want your side to win then you need to move as fast as you can to neutralise all of their sources of individual power. Legalism be damned. The public eventually bore of any administration so you need to make sure you have colonised the opposing side before they are given their turn to have a crack at colonising you.

    Institutional capture is particularly powerful in this scenario as the type of ambitious and competent people who staff them have a way of aligning themselves to the whatever the direction of flow is meant to be.

    The Trump administration appears to be a rather belated recognition of these facts. An impromptu and unlikely reaction by a side that had almost lost mostly because it had refused to recognise that there even was a fight. I assume that there were some outrageous provocations that finally managed to wake them from their slumber.

    With Big Tech openly joining up with Big Media and Big Education, the globalist side has not stayed still. Perhaps the greatest difficulty is that the nationalist side is constrained by its own ideology from even neutralising those organisational weapons, nevermind capturing them.

    Furthermore, outcompeting them on a fair free market playing field isn't a great option as the globalist side is not limited by those rules itself. Globalist censorship efforts are outsourced to places like Britain, where minority grievance mongering parliamentarians harangued Big Tech into a more globalist shape.

    This is why a realist perspective is important. Principles are great, until sticking to them is the very thing that prohibits you from effectively defending them.

    The nationalist-minded administration has a finite if unknowable time period to bring the media, academia and tech into line, and it needs to find a way to do it without looking horrifically hypocritical. That, or other actors need to do it for them; but there's no obvious alternative to the institutional power of the state.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @Tiny Duck, @Alec Leamas, @Sean, @Hunsdon, @Anonymous

    Interesting points. Ever since Valerie Plame posed for Vanity Fair I’ve been skeptical of the female spook trope– it seems like the perfect not-actually-risky-but-badass-seeming high status GS-14 career that suburban college girls infest. OTOH I can see how it would appeal to a certain kind of “Zero Dark Thirty” idealistic/aggressive smart woman who couldn’t hack it in the private sector (for all the complex reasons entailed by that–to the distaff bureaucrat it’s just a lot less friendly than the Potomac demimonde). Also if my own observations from school comport with trends in foreign language specialization, the female students seem to be taking it over.

  235. @JohnnyWalker123
    @anonymous

    Originally, Frum referred to the alliance as the "Axis of Hatred." He then changed "hatred" to "evil."

    An alliance with three extremely different nations - secular Sunni-Arab Iraq, fundamentalist Shiite-Persian Iran, and isolationist-nationalist Communist North Korea. Somehow all three countries were in one alliance, an alliance based on "hatred" and "evil."

    Somehow Al-Qaeda (which is an extremist Sunni Muslim terrorist group who hated secular Iraq and "heretical" Shiites) was involved too.

    So was the Taliban, who almost went to war with Iran in 1998.

    Iran and Iraq fought a very bloody war in the 80s too.

    This all made sense.

    It's amazing that our media, politicians, and public are all such gullible and credulous
    fools.

    Replies: @ben tillman

    It’s amazing that our media, politicians, and public are all such gullible and credulous
    fools.

    No, it’s not. We’re made to trust our tribe’s authority figures. The problem is that, in this instance, “our” authority figures are members of another tribe.

  236. @Intelligent Dasein
    The KGB were always the éminence grise within the Soviet state, which they protected not only from its external enemies but also from its own internal weaknesses and contradictions. They were the master statesmen with a long institutional history of political experience. They were the best of their side.

    The CIA, by contrast, represents the acme of American arrogance and cluelessness. They are the most confirmed, most artificial product of the bubble-reality that the West has become. Thus, they seem to themselves and their admirers to be exceptionally competent and tuned in, but really they are the most delusional of all.

    The two agencies could not be more different, and while rule by the FSB has been generally good for Russia, rule by the CIA would be disastrous for America.

    The only thing that America has roughly comparable to the role played by the KGB is its small remaining handful of relatively unPOZ'd ops managers spread throughout industry, finance and government. They are the only ones who must struggle to produce real-world results while at the same time containing the fallout from Cultural Marxist ideology without running too far afoul of the party line. A grizzled old KGB hand would have found himself in precisely the same position. The problem is that our éminence grises aren't very united as a class or institution, and have little political heft.

    The wonder of Donald Trump was that he originally seemed to be a representative of this group who miraculously made it to the corridors of power. Unfortunately, subsequent events have shown him to be very much the globalist wannabe. He is not our Putin but our Gorbachev.

    Replies: @J.Ross

    You make a lot of good points but I wonder what nineties dance disc jockey “Moby” would put in if he could read you.

  237. @ben tillman
    @Anon


    Says who? Strong men make the conditions with the power they are granted. Adolf Hitler didn’t win a majority of the vote, and the American revolution was fought with only a third of the public supporting it.
     
    Hitler already had a paramilitary force at his disposal, and the military sure as hell wasn't going to support the SPD or KPD over Hitler. Moreover, Hitler got his greatest share of the vote form the lower-middle class and the upper class, from which military officers were drawn. Finally, the forces aligned against were extremely disorganized by modern standards because of the difference in communications technology.

    The Americans were fighting an enemy that had to cross an ocean to engage. And think about the communication issues in that war.

    Be serious.

    Replies: @J.Ross

    The Americans were fighting an enemy that had to cross an ocean to engage. And think about the communication issues in that war.

    To reconnect this to foreseeing Pearl Harbor: the Soviets had also independently broken the Japanese diplomatic codes, which becomes an argument against Sorge’s significance in freeing up Eastern military assets.
    Did the Japanese have the worst codes?

  238. @Jack D
    @J.Ross

    Then again the Russians were so paranoid that often real defectors would come to them and they would assume that they were double agents and they would torture them to death, or they would obtain real information and assume that it was disinformation and discount it.

    The key to understanding Russian behavior (maybe anyone's behavior) is that they always assumed that their enemies were just like them and this is what they would do in their enemy's place so their enemies must be doing the same. Americans make the same assumption and conclude that everyone is an American at heart and means well.

    Replies: @J.Ross, @Anon

    When the Japanese accepted defeat and were getting ready to be occupied by Americans, there was a meeting at which they resolved, well, the first thing the Americans will do will surely be to rape everybody, so we’ve got to get women to volunteer to be comfort women to absorb that.

  239. @Harry Baldwin
    @JohnnyWalker123

    George W. Bush was undoubtedly one of the worst presidents America ever had.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Berty

    Something that really amazes me is the extent to which Dubya’s entire administration has been memory-holed by the GOP. Nobody ever talks about him in glowing terms. Nobody claims to have been inspired by his legacy. Nobody considers themselves followers of his policies (except maybe Lindsey Graham). Nothing. Zip.

    Anyone who was a hardcore Bush Republican was defeated in 06 or 08 and their successors either continue to worship Ronald Reagan as a saint or lavish praise on Trump. It’s like nothing happened in between.

    It’s stunning when you think about it.

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    @Berty

    Not entirely correct, the Bezos Blog had a piece about W representing decency, and they did try to bring him back once, just to prove how utterly clueless they are and because Trump evidently doesn't deserve his silence. Karl Rove is still a media clubmember in good standing consulted for what he thinks about politics, which is perhaps more remarkable.
    https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/status/995008969415495689
    Seeing this was a "redpill" for several people I've seen commenting on it. W can go from being the devil incarnate to the patron saint of proper spelling because expediency demands it.

    Replies: @Tyrion 2, @Anon, @Jack D

  240. @ben tillman
    @The Man From K Street


    Lenin and the Bolsheviks didn’t see their tepid victories in 1917 elections to the Constituent Assembly as much of a bar to their instigating and implementing full scale revolution.
     
    Tyrion 2 was right. Note that word "Bolsheviks" -- it's plural!

    "Trump" is singular. All those things that were suggested would require allies. Lots of them, and ones with their own powerful networks at that.

    Replies: @Tyrion 2

    Also, Russia was in a state of revolution whether the Bolsheviks took control or not. Erdogan is a much better example for Trump and even he had the Gulen cult to intially support him.

  241. @Berty
    @Harry Baldwin

    Something that really amazes me is the extent to which Dubya's entire administration has been memory-holed by the GOP. Nobody ever talks about him in glowing terms. Nobody claims to have been inspired by his legacy. Nobody considers themselves followers of his policies (except maybe Lindsey Graham). Nothing. Zip.

    Anyone who was a hardcore Bush Republican was defeated in 06 or 08 and their successors either continue to worship Ronald Reagan as a saint or lavish praise on Trump. It's like nothing happened in between.

    It's stunning when you think about it.

    Replies: @J.Ross

    Not entirely correct, the Bezos Blog had a piece about W representing decency, and they did try to bring him back once, just to prove how utterly clueless they are and because Trump evidently doesn’t deserve his silence. Karl Rove is still a media clubmember in good standing consulted for what he thinks about politics, which is perhaps more remarkable.


    Seeing this was a “redpill” for several people I’ve seen commenting on it. W can go from being the devil incarnate to the patron saint of proper spelling because expediency demands it.

    • Replies: @Tyrion 2
    @J.Ross

    Even reading the newspapers as a pre-teen I was shocked by the ridiculous demonisation of GWB before he'd even gotten into power.

    , @Anon
    @J.Ross

    Someone commented that the WaPo is trying to whitewash the CIA.

    Ahem. The CIA gave Jeff Bezos' company, Amazon, a great big fat contract. This was AFTER Bezos bought the Post. So Bezos is giving a very good customer some good press, and the CIA is chuckling because by giving Bezos a lot of government (aka taxpayer) money, it's obtained some groveling good spin. The relationship is soon to become even more incestuous because Bezos, like many smart science guys with doltish people sense, doesn't realize he's being conditioned to operate as a CIA tool by CIA psych-ops. Bezos calls himself a libertarian. No, he's not. He's now a Democrat, and he acts exactly like one while telling himself all the while that he's never changed his politics. That's how feeble his insight is.

    Replies: @J.Ross

    , @Jack D
    @J.Ross

    "Strange new respect" is a trick that the Democrats have been pulling for years to try to swing marginal Republican votes to their side and which newspaper reporters can use to make it seem less obvious that they are Democrats with bylines. It's a very simple formula.

    "[Current Republican President/Presidential Candidate A] is a right wing ideologue whom no respectable person (Republican swing voter) should support, unlike [previous Republican President B] who was a man of honor and a moderate. "

    As time goes on, A gets promoted to B and the current A assumes the role of demon. B is NEVER a man of honor or moderate while he is still in office, only in retrospect when he is safely out of power, or even better, dead. Reagan, whom Democrats hated almost as much as Trump when he was President, is treated with respect now that he is dead, but only as a contrast with more recent Republicans. Even Nixon gets a good word now and then. To seem thoughtful, you can add "we were wrong about B."

    Of course the tendency for some Republicans (McCain) to move to the left as they age sometimes makes this whole charade go down a little easier.

    Replies: @Corn

  242. @S. Anonyia
    @Peter Akuleyev

    I always heard the FBI was dominated by Mormons. CIA is more dominated by adventurous neoliberals and people who took democratic peace theory way too seriously in their Ivy League Poli Sci classes.

    With Mormon over-representation in intelligence agencies, I think it's mainly because they don't question authorities or orders due to their cultish upbringing. And they are fit, clean-cut, reasonably intelligent.

    But honest? Hah! Las Vegas is half run by Mormons. They call outsiders "gentiles."

    However I will say my opinion of them changed somewhat after visiting Utah. I'd never be at home there but they've really made a lovely place.

    Replies: @Anonymous

    SLC is safe for gentiles but stay out of Provo after dark.

  243. @J.Ross
    @Berty

    Not entirely correct, the Bezos Blog had a piece about W representing decency, and they did try to bring him back once, just to prove how utterly clueless they are and because Trump evidently doesn't deserve his silence. Karl Rove is still a media clubmember in good standing consulted for what he thinks about politics, which is perhaps more remarkable.
    https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/status/995008969415495689
    Seeing this was a "redpill" for several people I've seen commenting on it. W can go from being the devil incarnate to the patron saint of proper spelling because expediency demands it.

    Replies: @Tyrion 2, @Anon, @Jack D

    Even reading the newspapers as a pre-teen I was shocked by the ridiculous demonisation of GWB before he’d even gotten into power.

  244. @The Wild Geese Howard
    @Twinkie


    Because foreign service officers are objective observers and have no chips on their shoulders at all
     
    In my experience the diplomatic corps are a bunch of taxpayer funded drunks trapped in the belief that Dulles, VA is the apotheosis of Western civilization, and the entire world should conform to its norms.

    They exist solely for drunken soirees, shopping trips to Europe, and using the embassy as a platform to push the globalist economic and social program.

    Replies: @Twinkie

    In my experience the diplomatic corps are a bunch of taxpayer funded drunks trapped in the belief that Dulles, VA is the apotheosis of Western civilization, and the entire world should conform to its norms.

    I am going to disagree with you a little. A lot of foreign service officers might “permanently” live in Dulles, VA*, but they hanker to go back overseas as soon as they are “home.” Why? Because, overseas, they receive the lifestyle to which they feel they are entitled as elites. People who otherwise live in townhomes in Dulles will frequently command a driver, a maid, and (by local standards) a luxurious apartment or house in many less affluent parts of the world. They are also treated with respect as VIPs by the locals. It’s a hard pill to swallow to come back home from all that to a modest abode in Dulles where they are merely a part of the lower middle class and become “nobodies.”

    *Dulles is, of course, not a real municipality, but an ill-defined place name of convenience.

    So, once home, they will desperately insert their overseas assignments (usually no more exciting than punching visas) in every conversation in an effort to convince you that they are actually world-traveling elites and that they did, in fact, hobnob with local elites overseas, what with their children attending the same local “international” schools with the children of the said elites (of course, now they have to go to a public school in Sterling or Herndon with Hispanic and Indian children).

    At least CIA (DO) officers who served overseas have the decency to be reticent about their time out of the country. : )

  245. Anon[315] • Disclaimer says:
    @Steve Sailer
    @Anonymous

    Lots of people hear lots of stuff.

    Stalin got something like 26 different warning that Hitler was going to attack him and didn't do much about it.

    Replies: @Anon

    People keep claiming that Roosevelt ‘knew’ Pearl Harbor was going to be attacked. Yet he got caught with his pants down and most of the Pacific fleet was wiped out.

    People keep claiming that Stalin ‘knew’ he was going to be attacked by Hitler. Yet he got surprised and sucker-punched so thoroughly that he lost about 1/3rd of his country before he could get back on his feet again.

    To say that men like these ‘know’ everything and what they do is always part of a plot is paranoid ideation. Of course they don’t know everything. They screw up exactly the way regular people do. When you grow up to become a real adult, you realize this.

    • Replies: @Sean
    @Anon

    To say that men like these ‘know’ everything and what they do is always part of a plot is paranoid ideation. Of course they don’t know everything. They screw up exactly the way regular people do. When you grow up to become a real adult, you realize this.


    https://www.unz.com/article/the-case-for-pearl-harbor-revisionism/

    Roosevelt’s planned incident consisted of sending “three small vessels” on an alleged reconnaissance mission. He personally authorized this mission in a December 1 message to Admiral Thomas Hart, head of the Asiatic Fleet at Manila. Roosevelt specified that each ship was to be manned by Filipino sailors and commanded by an American naval officer. [...] Roosevelt’s apparent intention of sending the little ships was to have them blown out of the water, thus providing an incident for war.[51]
     

    Japan was a back door to war with Germany (and it also had to be distracted from joining in the attack on the USSR and letting Germany win). The proof of that is even when Japan did far better than expected against US forces, Roosevelt did not concentrate concomitant resources on the Pacific theater, it was all about defeating Germany.

    https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/csi-studies/studies/vol50no1/9_BK_What_Stalin_Knew.htm
    Stalin was absolutely convinced that Hitler would attempt nothing until he had resolved his conflict with Great Britain. He was encouraged in this preconception by a well-orchestrated German deception operation—including the two letters to Stalin—that was, at least in part, personally directed by Hitler. Thus it was that Stalin was able to ignore the massive military buildup on his borders and to dismiss every warning of a German attack as disinformation or provocation, right up until the morning of 22 June.

    In describing how intelligence was collected and reported to Moscow, Murphy chillingly documents what it meant to be an intelligence officer under Stalin by following the careers of three men. NKVD foreign intelligence chief, Pavel Fitin, whose agents reported on German plans for BARBAROSSA right up to the attack, served throughout the war, but was in disgrace afterward. Ivan Proskurov, an air force officer and head of military intelligence during 1939–40, insisted on telling the truth to Stalin. He was shot in October 1941. Proskurov’s successor, Filipp I. Golikov, suppressed or altered intelligence reporting that did not meet the Soviet dictator’s preconceptions. He prospered under Stalin.
     

    Stalin was a Marxist and accordingly believed the capitalist powers were destined to tear each other to pieces. Stalin still thought that after WW2:

    http://soviethistory.msu.edu/1947-2/cold-war/cold-war-texts/stalin-on-the-inevitability-of-war-with-capitalism/
    Consequently, the capitalist countries’ struggle for markets and the desire to crush their competitors turned out in actuality to be stronger than the contradictions between the camp of capitalism and the camp of socialism.
     
    Roosevelt wanted to stop Germany becoming the most powerful state in the world and Stalin wanted to move west and get the lions share of the spoils of a war between the capitalist powers. Ultimately, both Roosevelt and Stalin achieved their objectives, although blundering through at far greater cost than originally thought.
    , @Anon
    @Anon

    People keep claiming that Roosevelt ‘knew’ Pearl Harbor was going to be attacked. Yet he got caught with his pants down and most of the Pacific fleet was wiped out.

    No, the idea is he wanted the attack to happen so that Americans would support US entry into the war. People who say FDR knew about the attack point out that the air craft carriers were removed from Pearl Harbor.

    I don't know what really happened. Things just seem fishy.

    People keep claiming that Stalin ‘knew’ he was going to be attacked by Hitler. Yet he got surprised and sucker-punched

    No, the idea is that Stalin had intended to attack first but got preempted by Hitler. I don't buy this theory but some pointed out USSR positioned itself offensively against Germany prior to the German invasion. I think Stalin was bluffing so that Germans would choose defensive position than offensive position.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @LondonBob

    , @J.Ross
    @Anon

    Stalin didn't want to believe that Hitler would break the pact first because of several very good reasons, one of them being that Hitler really wasn't ready yet (another being that Stalin, who did want to eventually attack Hitler, was even less ready). When the attack happened there is reason to believe Stalin was so overwhelmed that he gave up completely and expected to be lynched. He fled to his dacha and waited for death. At the very moment when the Russians could have most easily removed Stalin, they embraced him and begged him to come back (which is oddly similar to something Ivan the Terrible did deliberately to legitimize his power).
    "Stalin knew" in this context does not mean that he had certain knowledge which he accepted, the way that Stalin knew that Trotsky's behavior at Brest-Litovsk and Lenin's doddering certainty of revolution in England could not be tolerated. It meant he had the less discussed great sin of the intel business, good intelligence that is not appreciated (its bigger brother is lying). Compare Hermann Goering being informed that the Soviet Union had individual aircraft factories physically bigger than the entire aircraft building resources of Germany and laughing.
    Gore Vidal's great little novel Smithsonian Institution mocks the certainty everybody had at the time that war was coming by starting every chapter with perpetually "gathering stormclouds."

    Replies: @Jack D

  246. Anon[315] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anon
    "Your list amounts to one man instigating and implementing an instantaneous full scale revolution off the back of a very narrow Presidential victory. To put it extremely mildly, I don’t think the conditions for such an action to be a success were in place."

    Says who? Strong men make the conditions with the power they are granted. Adolf Hitler didn't win a majority of the vote, and the American revolution was fought with only a third of the public supporting it. Most of the short list I provided is eminently doable in one form or another. It wasn't done either because Trump doesn't want to or lacks the competence (probably both). If I were Trump, you'd be watching my coronation on television about now.

    "one man instigating and implementing an instantaneous full scale revolution"

    *cough, Hugo Chavez...it's not as hard as you think; and I never said anything about anything being "instantaneous." That was just something you put in your comment to discredit mine via strawman because you couldn't generate a proper rebuttal.

    "Also, Jeff Sessions is probably the crucial Trump ally in government and always has been. He is quiet and diligent and I would advise anyone criticising him from a nationalist perspective to be a little more humble."

    He's a weak man who has let Trump's most ardent enemies encircle him. He's spent the better part of his tenure trying to make the non-issue of marijuana illegal again.

    "To put it extremely mildly, I don’t think the conditions for such an action to be a success were in place."

    Don't cross the Rubicon Caesar. The conditions aren't in place yet.

    Replies: @Tyrion 2, @ben tillman, @Anon

    I think an important point about Sessions that gets missed is that he’s a careerist beta male whose first priority has always been looking after himself. When the alphas start warring, he ducks and tries to ride out the storm. He’s too fearful to get into a fight, and he doesn’t have the anger necessary to start one.

    • Replies: @Sean
    @Anon

    Brave as a metaphorical lion, but not any actual lion (they never fight against the odds).

    Trump waited and waited and waited, then he saw a weak old gnu, (sorry, Dem candidate) and started his run.

  247. Anon[315] • Disclaimer says:
    @J.Ross
    @Berty

    Not entirely correct, the Bezos Blog had a piece about W representing decency, and they did try to bring him back once, just to prove how utterly clueless they are and because Trump evidently doesn't deserve his silence. Karl Rove is still a media clubmember in good standing consulted for what he thinks about politics, which is perhaps more remarkable.
    https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/status/995008969415495689
    Seeing this was a "redpill" for several people I've seen commenting on it. W can go from being the devil incarnate to the patron saint of proper spelling because expediency demands it.

    Replies: @Tyrion 2, @Anon, @Jack D

    Someone commented that the WaPo is trying to whitewash the CIA.

    Ahem. The CIA gave Jeff Bezos’ company, Amazon, a great big fat contract. This was AFTER Bezos bought the Post. So Bezos is giving a very good customer some good press, and the CIA is chuckling because by giving Bezos a lot of government (aka taxpayer) money, it’s obtained some groveling good spin. The relationship is soon to become even more incestuous because Bezos, like many smart science guys with doltish people sense, doesn’t realize he’s being conditioned to operate as a CIA tool by CIA psych-ops. Bezos calls himself a libertarian. No, he’s not. He’s now a Democrat, and he acts exactly like one while telling himself all the while that he’s never changed his politics. That’s how feeble his insight is.

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    @Anon

    It's not oversimplification to say, it's more that this is one group of people, and they have the tradecraft of a drunken Ivy League fratboy. NSA created a computer monitoring system by actually designing a new system. CIA does computer stuff by muscling into a legitimate business like a gangster and leaving themselves a backdoor which terrorists or enemies can also use. Why does is this organization allowed to exist? Why can't we say it had a good run and break it up?

  248. @Anon
    @Anon

    I think an important point about Sessions that gets missed is that he's a careerist beta male whose first priority has always been looking after himself. When the alphas start warring, he ducks and tries to ride out the storm. He's too fearful to get into a fight, and he doesn't have the anger necessary to start one.

    Replies: @Sean

    Brave as a metaphorical lion, but not any actual lion (they never fight against the odds).

    Trump waited and waited and waited, then he saw a weak old gnu, (sorry, Dem candidate) and started his run.

  249. @Anon
    @Steve Sailer

    People keep claiming that Roosevelt 'knew' Pearl Harbor was going to be attacked. Yet he got caught with his pants down and most of the Pacific fleet was wiped out.

    People keep claiming that Stalin 'knew' he was going to be attacked by Hitler. Yet he got surprised and sucker-punched so thoroughly that he lost about 1/3rd of his country before he could get back on his feet again.

    To say that men like these 'know' everything and what they do is always part of a plot is paranoid ideation. Of course they don't know everything. They screw up exactly the way regular people do. When you grow up to become a real adult, you realize this.

    Replies: @Sean, @Anon, @J.Ross

    To say that men like these ‘know’ everything and what they do is always part of a plot is paranoid ideation. Of course they don’t know everything. They screw up exactly the way regular people do. When you grow up to become a real adult, you realize this.

    https://www.unz.com/article/the-case-for-pearl-harbor-revisionism/

    Roosevelt’s planned incident consisted of sending “three small vessels” on an alleged reconnaissance mission. He personally authorized this mission in a December 1 message to Admiral Thomas Hart, head of the Asiatic Fleet at Manila. Roosevelt specified that each ship was to be manned by Filipino sailors and commanded by an American naval officer. […] Roosevelt’s apparent intention of sending the little ships was to have them blown out of the water, thus providing an incident for war.[51]

    Japan was a back door to war with Germany (and it also had to be distracted from joining in the attack on the USSR and letting Germany win). The proof of that is even when Japan did far better than expected against US forces, Roosevelt did not concentrate concomitant resources on the Pacific theater, it was all about defeating Germany.

    https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/csi-studies/studies/vol50no1/9_BK_What_Stalin_Knew.htm
    Stalin was absolutely convinced that Hitler would attempt nothing until he had resolved his conflict with Great Britain. He was encouraged in this preconception by a well-orchestrated German deception operation—including the two letters to Stalin—that was, at least in part, personally directed by Hitler. Thus it was that Stalin was able to ignore the massive military buildup on his borders and to dismiss every warning of a German attack as disinformation or provocation, right up until the morning of 22 June.

    In describing how intelligence was collected and reported to Moscow, Murphy chillingly documents what it meant to be an intelligence officer under Stalin by following the careers of three men. NKVD foreign intelligence chief, Pavel Fitin, whose agents reported on German plans for BARBAROSSA right up to the attack, served throughout the war, but was in disgrace afterward. Ivan Proskurov, an air force officer and head of military intelligence during 1939–40, insisted on telling the truth to Stalin. He was shot in October 1941. Proskurov’s successor, Filipp I. Golikov, suppressed or altered intelligence reporting that did not meet the Soviet dictator’s preconceptions. He prospered under Stalin.

    Stalin was a Marxist and accordingly believed the capitalist powers were destined to tear each other to pieces. Stalin still thought that after WW2:

    http://soviethistory.msu.edu/1947-2/cold-war/cold-war-texts/stalin-on-the-inevitability-of-war-with-capitalism/
    Consequently, the capitalist countries’ struggle for markets and the desire to crush their competitors turned out in actuality to be stronger than the contradictions between the camp of capitalism and the camp of socialism.

    Roosevelt wanted to stop Germany becoming the most powerful state in the world and Stalin wanted to move west and get the lions share of the spoils of a war between the capitalist powers. Ultimately, both Roosevelt and Stalin achieved their objectives, although blundering through at far greater cost than originally thought.

  250. @J.Ross
    @Berty

    Not entirely correct, the Bezos Blog had a piece about W representing decency, and they did try to bring him back once, just to prove how utterly clueless they are and because Trump evidently doesn't deserve his silence. Karl Rove is still a media clubmember in good standing consulted for what he thinks about politics, which is perhaps more remarkable.
    https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/status/995008969415495689
    Seeing this was a "redpill" for several people I've seen commenting on it. W can go from being the devil incarnate to the patron saint of proper spelling because expediency demands it.

    Replies: @Tyrion 2, @Anon, @Jack D

    “Strange new respect” is a trick that the Democrats have been pulling for years to try to swing marginal Republican votes to their side and which newspaper reporters can use to make it seem less obvious that they are Democrats with bylines. It’s a very simple formula.

    “[Current Republican President/Presidential Candidate A] is a right wing ideologue whom no respectable person (Republican swing voter) should support, unlike [previous Republican President B] who was a man of honor and a moderate. ”

    As time goes on, A gets promoted to B and the current A assumes the role of demon. B is NEVER a man of honor or moderate while he is still in office, only in retrospect when he is safely out of power, or even better, dead. Reagan, whom Democrats hated almost as much as Trump when he was President, is treated with respect now that he is dead, but only as a contrast with more recent Republicans. Even Nixon gets a good word now and then. To seem thoughtful, you can add “we were wrong about B.”

    Of course the tendency for some Republicans (McCain) to move to the left as they age sometimes makes this whole charade go down a little easier.

    • Replies: @Corn
    @Jack D

    Right. I remember as a teenager in the ‘90s the press painted Reagan as this crypto-fascist who killed homeless people and personally pulled the plug on gay men dying of AIDS. Then when W took office he was the soul of reason and moderation.

    Likewise, when Trump the Brown Genocider took office, there was brief, mild attempt to rehabilitate George “family values don’t stop at the Rio Grande” Bush. Most of the public didn’t seem to bite though.

  251. Anon[202] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jack D
    @J.Ross

    Then again the Russians were so paranoid that often real defectors would come to them and they would assume that they were double agents and they would torture them to death, or they would obtain real information and assume that it was disinformation and discount it.

    The key to understanding Russian behavior (maybe anyone's behavior) is that they always assumed that their enemies were just like them and this is what they would do in their enemy's place so their enemies must be doing the same. Americans make the same assumption and conclude that everyone is an American at heart and means well.

    Replies: @J.Ross, @Anon

    Then again the Russians were so paranoid that often real defectors would come to them and they would assume that they were double agents and they would torture them to death, or they would obtain real information and assume that it was disinformation and discount it.

    The CIA did this too, minus the “death” part. There is almost literally no stupidity of which they were and are not capable.

    Americans make the same assumption and conclude that everyone is an American at heart and means well.

    We’ve invaded Canada twice and Mexico once and sort-of again, not to mention the other parts of our continent. The Canucks beat us and while we beat the Mexicans the first time we didn’t accomplish much in our half-hearted raids after that. Both we and the Russians have a moralistic and Messianic conception of our roles in the world which is unsupported by reality.

    The key to understanding Russian behavior

    How Russian was the KGB? The GRU? I’d hazard a guess the latter was more Russian than the former though both were probably pretty close to the country as a whole, at least from the ’50s to the ’80s.

  252. @Svigor
    @Alec Leamas


    I think as iSteve and others have pointed out the culture of the CIA from its beginning favored breeding – being born to a family of a certain sort and attending a handful of elite educational institutions. There may have been a time when this arguably yielded a cultured man a cut above others with greater aptitude for clandestine service or intelligence gathering and analysis, one doubts that this is any longer the case in fact. The decline of the CIA probably tracks the decline of other elite institutions, particularly the Ivy League Universities from which it has historically recruited.
     
    My guess is the pedigree thing was more about loyalty than competence. Much harder for Soviets to gin up and infiltrate a phony 10th-generation American than a phony 2nd-generation American. Much easier for the 2nd-generation American to be raised with alien notions, too.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Anon

    My guess is the pedigree thing was more about loyalty than competence.

    And it worked marvelously; Alger Hiss and Kim Philby (on the Anglo side of the Pond) were very loyal indeed– the only question was: “To whom?”.

    Okay, I’m kidding a bit, but I get your point.

  253. The careerist personality type thrives in bureaucracy, and always supports the ruling power structure as a point of pride.

    Speaking of today’s CIA operatives, in 1775, their dominant character trait would have made them British loyalists, at least until the American revolutionaries gained the upper hand.

  254. @anonymous
    Ex KGB agents in Russia tend to be overwhelmingly patriotic Russians with sensible views about Islamic terrorism, mass 3rd world immigration and traditional Russian Orthodox Christian views about marriage, sexuality.

    American current and ex CIA agents tend to be.....

    what?

    What exactly do these George Bush Sr. (former head of the CIA) care about? Never could figure it out.

    They certainly don't seem to care about securing our borders, lowering, ending mass homicides in my Chicago as Bush Sr. didn't care about 2,000 plus murders in New York City when I lived there in the early 90s.

    These types pretend to be Republican or the pretend to be Democrats, they pretend to care about Pro Life, they run against Affirmative Action, but when in power they implement affirmative action.

    What do they really care about?

    What to wear to a presidential dinner honoring Nelson and Winnie Mandela.

    What do you wear to a White House dinner honoring Black Nationalist Communists intent on genocide of White farmers who also personally murdered a young 9 year Black child?

    What a country.

    Replies: @J.Ross, @JohnnyWalker123, @Desiderius, @S. Anonyia

    Bushes Et. all care about the stupid “shining city on a hill” mantra that’s been ruining this country for awhile.

  255. Anon[335] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anon
    @Steve Sailer

    People keep claiming that Roosevelt 'knew' Pearl Harbor was going to be attacked. Yet he got caught with his pants down and most of the Pacific fleet was wiped out.

    People keep claiming that Stalin 'knew' he was going to be attacked by Hitler. Yet he got surprised and sucker-punched so thoroughly that he lost about 1/3rd of his country before he could get back on his feet again.

    To say that men like these 'know' everything and what they do is always part of a plot is paranoid ideation. Of course they don't know everything. They screw up exactly the way regular people do. When you grow up to become a real adult, you realize this.

    Replies: @Sean, @Anon, @J.Ross

    People keep claiming that Roosevelt ‘knew’ Pearl Harbor was going to be attacked. Yet he got caught with his pants down and most of the Pacific fleet was wiped out.

    No, the idea is he wanted the attack to happen so that Americans would support US entry into the war. People who say FDR knew about the attack point out that the air craft carriers were removed from Pearl Harbor.

    I don’t know what really happened. Things just seem fishy.

    People keep claiming that Stalin ‘knew’ he was going to be attacked by Hitler. Yet he got surprised and sucker-punched

    No, the idea is that Stalin had intended to attack first but got preempted by Hitler. I don’t buy this theory but some pointed out USSR positioned itself offensively against Germany prior to the German invasion. I think Stalin was bluffing so that Germans would choose defensive position than offensive position.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @Anon

    "People who say FDR knew about the attack point out that the air craft carriers were removed from Pearl Harbor."

    But FDR wanted war with Germany as his top priority. Pearl Harbor turned the public into demanding War with Japan. Then Hitler solved that problem for FDR by gratuitously declaring war on America.

    Replies: @Anon, @Anonymous

    , @LondonBob
    @Anon

    Stalin was warned by Britain, Bletchley Park, he was going to be attacked, Stalin thought it was trick.

    FDR's demands and actions were doing everything to encourage a Japanese attack.

  256. @Hunsdon
    @Achmed E. Newman

    Once upon a time, when I was in Mongolia, working on a USAID subcontract to privatize the state cashmere company, I almost got into a fistfight with another subcontractor over that album. (He said it was a greatest hits album.)

    Replies: @Autochthon

    This comment (assumed true) easily intimates the zaniest adventure ever. It could be seamlessly inserted into Mike Myers’ inspired monologues detailing Dr. Evil’s history. Tell me please at least some of the cashmere was made into thneeds….

  257. Trump should tell the CIA to foment an independence movement in Puerto Rico. After a short period of agitating, El Presidente could inform Congress that we cry “Uncle!” and that PR is long due for independence. After all, the USA granted Philippines Commonwealth status in 1935 and then full independence in 1946.

    I can’t think of a more economically beneficial fallout for the USA that would be worth billions just in the food stamp savings alone.

  258. @Jack D
    @J.Ross

    "Strange new respect" is a trick that the Democrats have been pulling for years to try to swing marginal Republican votes to their side and which newspaper reporters can use to make it seem less obvious that they are Democrats with bylines. It's a very simple formula.

    "[Current Republican President/Presidential Candidate A] is a right wing ideologue whom no respectable person (Republican swing voter) should support, unlike [previous Republican President B] who was a man of honor and a moderate. "

    As time goes on, A gets promoted to B and the current A assumes the role of demon. B is NEVER a man of honor or moderate while he is still in office, only in retrospect when he is safely out of power, or even better, dead. Reagan, whom Democrats hated almost as much as Trump when he was President, is treated with respect now that he is dead, but only as a contrast with more recent Republicans. Even Nixon gets a good word now and then. To seem thoughtful, you can add "we were wrong about B."

    Of course the tendency for some Republicans (McCain) to move to the left as they age sometimes makes this whole charade go down a little easier.

    Replies: @Corn

    Right. I remember as a teenager in the ‘90s the press painted Reagan as this crypto-fascist who killed homeless people and personally pulled the plug on gay men dying of AIDS. Then when W took office he was the soul of reason and moderation.

    Likewise, when Trump the Brown Genocider took office, there was brief, mild attempt to rehabilitate George “family values don’t stop at the Rio Grande” Bush. Most of the public didn’t seem to bite though.

  259. @Anon
    @Steve Sailer

    People keep claiming that Roosevelt 'knew' Pearl Harbor was going to be attacked. Yet he got caught with his pants down and most of the Pacific fleet was wiped out.

    People keep claiming that Stalin 'knew' he was going to be attacked by Hitler. Yet he got surprised and sucker-punched so thoroughly that he lost about 1/3rd of his country before he could get back on his feet again.

    To say that men like these 'know' everything and what they do is always part of a plot is paranoid ideation. Of course they don't know everything. They screw up exactly the way regular people do. When you grow up to become a real adult, you realize this.

    Replies: @Sean, @Anon, @J.Ross

    Stalin didn’t want to believe that Hitler would break the pact first because of several very good reasons, one of them being that Hitler really wasn’t ready yet (another being that Stalin, who did want to eventually attack Hitler, was even less ready). When the attack happened there is reason to believe Stalin was so overwhelmed that he gave up completely and expected to be lynched. He fled to his dacha and waited for death. At the very moment when the Russians could have most easily removed Stalin, they embraced him and begged him to come back (which is oddly similar to something Ivan the Terrible did deliberately to legitimize his power).
    “Stalin knew” in this context does not mean that he had certain knowledge which he accepted, the way that Stalin knew that Trotsky’s behavior at Brest-Litovsk and Lenin’s doddering certainty of revolution in England could not be tolerated. It meant he had the less discussed great sin of the intel business, good intelligence that is not appreciated (its bigger brother is lying). Compare Hermann Goering being informed that the Soviet Union had individual aircraft factories physically bigger than the entire aircraft building resources of Germany and laughing.
    Gore Vidal’s great little novel Smithsonian Institution mocks the certainty everybody had at the time that war was coming by starting every chapter with perpetually “gathering stormclouds.”

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @J.Ross

    In the one and only recording of Hitler speaking in a normal conversational tone, he is kvetching to Mannerheim of Finland that the Russians have dedicated their entire economy to military production and are making thousand of tanks. This apparently violated Robert's Rules of Order for Mad Dictators or something.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Corn

  260. @Anon
    @J.Ross

    Someone commented that the WaPo is trying to whitewash the CIA.

    Ahem. The CIA gave Jeff Bezos' company, Amazon, a great big fat contract. This was AFTER Bezos bought the Post. So Bezos is giving a very good customer some good press, and the CIA is chuckling because by giving Bezos a lot of government (aka taxpayer) money, it's obtained some groveling good spin. The relationship is soon to become even more incestuous because Bezos, like many smart science guys with doltish people sense, doesn't realize he's being conditioned to operate as a CIA tool by CIA psych-ops. Bezos calls himself a libertarian. No, he's not. He's now a Democrat, and he acts exactly like one while telling himself all the while that he's never changed his politics. That's how feeble his insight is.

    Replies: @J.Ross

    It’s not oversimplification to say, it’s more that this is one group of people, and they have the tradecraft of a drunken Ivy League fratboy. NSA created a computer monitoring system by actually designing a new system. CIA does computer stuff by muscling into a legitimate business like a gangster and leaving themselves a backdoor which terrorists or enemies can also use. Why does is this organization allowed to exist? Why can’t we say it had a good run and break it up?

  261. @Anon
    @Anon

    People keep claiming that Roosevelt ‘knew’ Pearl Harbor was going to be attacked. Yet he got caught with his pants down and most of the Pacific fleet was wiped out.

    No, the idea is he wanted the attack to happen so that Americans would support US entry into the war. People who say FDR knew about the attack point out that the air craft carriers were removed from Pearl Harbor.

    I don't know what really happened. Things just seem fishy.

    People keep claiming that Stalin ‘knew’ he was going to be attacked by Hitler. Yet he got surprised and sucker-punched

    No, the idea is that Stalin had intended to attack first but got preempted by Hitler. I don't buy this theory but some pointed out USSR positioned itself offensively against Germany prior to the German invasion. I think Stalin was bluffing so that Germans would choose defensive position than offensive position.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @LondonBob

    “People who say FDR knew about the attack point out that the air craft carriers were removed from Pearl Harbor.”

    But FDR wanted war with Germany as his top priority. Pearl Harbor turned the public into demanding War with Japan. Then Hitler solved that problem for FDR by gratuitously declaring war on America.

    • Replies: @Anon
    @Steve Sailer

    But FDR wanted war with Germany as his top priority. Pearl Harbor turned the public into demanding War with Japan. Then Hitler solved that problem for FDR by gratuitously declaring war on America.

    Because there was no chance Germany was going to attack the US, Japan was the next best bet.
    Even if Germany didn't declare war on the US after Pearl Harbor, the fact that it was an ally of Japan would make US public opinion turn against it. With Germany as ally of Japan, it would allow the US to send tons of aid to USSR even if US didn't engage Germany militarily.

    I don't know about the Pearl Harbor theory. It's tantalizing but there is no real smoking gun.
    More interesting is, 'what if Japan had attacked only Southeast Asia without hitting Pearl Harbor?'
    Japan would then have access to resources. Would the US public have supported a war with Japan on account of Japan's attack on white colonies in Asia?

    And the biggest What If. What if Japan had joined Germany in war on USSR?

    Replies: @Steve Sailer

    , @Anonymous
    @Steve Sailer

    Hitler was in a furious rage in the early days of December 1941 due to the German collapse outside Moscow. This was Germany's first defeat of the war. He was angry and looking for scapegoats and seized on the (so far minor) U.S. support of Russia as one of the reasons for the reverse. (It's also not unrelated that at this time he also gave the order for the Holocaust to begin.)

    Replies: @J.Ross

  262. Anon[425] • Disclaimer says:
    @Steve Sailer
    @Anon

    "People who say FDR knew about the attack point out that the air craft carriers were removed from Pearl Harbor."

    But FDR wanted war with Germany as his top priority. Pearl Harbor turned the public into demanding War with Japan. Then Hitler solved that problem for FDR by gratuitously declaring war on America.

    Replies: @Anon, @Anonymous

    But FDR wanted war with Germany as his top priority. Pearl Harbor turned the public into demanding War with Japan. Then Hitler solved that problem for FDR by gratuitously declaring war on America.

    Because there was no chance Germany was going to attack the US, Japan was the next best bet.
    Even if Germany didn’t declare war on the US after Pearl Harbor, the fact that it was an ally of Japan would make US public opinion turn against it. With Germany as ally of Japan, it would allow the US to send tons of aid to USSR even if US didn’t engage Germany militarily.

    I don’t know about the Pearl Harbor theory. It’s tantalizing but there is no real smoking gun.
    More interesting is, ‘what if Japan had attacked only Southeast Asia without hitting Pearl Harbor?’
    Japan would then have access to resources. Would the US public have supported a war with Japan on account of Japan’s attack on white colonies in Asia?

    And the biggest What If. What if Japan had joined Germany in war on USSR?

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @Anon

    What if Japan had joined Germany in war on USSR?

    Zhukov would have chewed up Japan's miniature tanks again, like he did in 1939.

    Replies: @Anon

  263. @Anon
    @Steve Sailer

    But FDR wanted war with Germany as his top priority. Pearl Harbor turned the public into demanding War with Japan. Then Hitler solved that problem for FDR by gratuitously declaring war on America.

    Because there was no chance Germany was going to attack the US, Japan was the next best bet.
    Even if Germany didn't declare war on the US after Pearl Harbor, the fact that it was an ally of Japan would make US public opinion turn against it. With Germany as ally of Japan, it would allow the US to send tons of aid to USSR even if US didn't engage Germany militarily.

    I don't know about the Pearl Harbor theory. It's tantalizing but there is no real smoking gun.
    More interesting is, 'what if Japan had attacked only Southeast Asia without hitting Pearl Harbor?'
    Japan would then have access to resources. Would the US public have supported a war with Japan on account of Japan's attack on white colonies in Asia?

    And the biggest What If. What if Japan had joined Germany in war on USSR?

    Replies: @Steve Sailer

    What if Japan had joined Germany in war on USSR?

    Zhukov would have chewed up Japan’s miniature tanks again, like he did in 1939.

    • Agree: dfordoom
    • Replies: @Anon
    @Steve Sailer

    Japan vs Russia without Germany would have been in Russia's favor.

    But if Russia had to expend most of its energies on fighting Germany, this would give Japan a chance. Not enough to defeat Russia but make it bleed by drawing Russian soldiers to the east.
    If Russia has to fight Japan on the eastern flank, it would be a huge advantage to Germany.

    Japan couldn't defeat Russia, but if it could draw just enough troops from the Western front and allow Germany to finish off Russia, Japan would win too.

    When Zhukov fought Japan, Russia didn't have to face Germany. When a bear is fighting a tiger, even a wolf biting its back can be a huge disadvantage to the bear. Germany was certainly a tiger.

    Also, what if Japan had decided mostly on air power in the war on Russia?

    Japan was vulnerable when it faced off against Russia because it was fighting for specific territories in Mongolia and around Manchuria. But in an all-out war, Japan could freely attack parts of Russia that was most vulnerable.
    In the end, could Japan have drawn just enough of Russian forces from the West to allow Germans to prevail? If Japan didn't hit the US, Japan would be free to fight Russia. And since Germany would not have declared war on the US, there would be no US-Germany War.

    I'm thinking Russians would have allowed Japan to take some chunks of Siberia and focused mainly on defeating Germany. It wouldn't have fallen for the bait of a two-front war. Eventually, it would have rolled back Germany and then moved east to retake Siberia from Japan. But it would have been more grueling.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @J.Ross

  264. @J.Ross
    @Anon

    Stalin didn't want to believe that Hitler would break the pact first because of several very good reasons, one of them being that Hitler really wasn't ready yet (another being that Stalin, who did want to eventually attack Hitler, was even less ready). When the attack happened there is reason to believe Stalin was so overwhelmed that he gave up completely and expected to be lynched. He fled to his dacha and waited for death. At the very moment when the Russians could have most easily removed Stalin, they embraced him and begged him to come back (which is oddly similar to something Ivan the Terrible did deliberately to legitimize his power).
    "Stalin knew" in this context does not mean that he had certain knowledge which he accepted, the way that Stalin knew that Trotsky's behavior at Brest-Litovsk and Lenin's doddering certainty of revolution in England could not be tolerated. It meant he had the less discussed great sin of the intel business, good intelligence that is not appreciated (its bigger brother is lying). Compare Hermann Goering being informed that the Soviet Union had individual aircraft factories physically bigger than the entire aircraft building resources of Germany and laughing.
    Gore Vidal's great little novel Smithsonian Institution mocks the certainty everybody had at the time that war was coming by starting every chapter with perpetually "gathering stormclouds."

    Replies: @Jack D

    In the one and only recording of Hitler speaking in a normal conversational tone, he is kvetching to Mannerheim of Finland that the Russians have dedicated their entire economy to military production and are making thousand of tanks. This apparently violated Robert’s Rules of Order for Mad Dictators or something.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @Jack D

    Hitler's view was that the Soviets were being bad sports by taking his whole War of Extermination thing so seriously that they were fully mobilizing their workforce to stop him. Hitler just wanted to murder the Jews and enslave the Slavs, but he wasn't going so nuts over it that he expected German hausfraus to get jobs in factories.

    Replies: @Corn, @Anonymous

    , @Corn
    @Jack D

    There is another recording of Hitler in casual conversation that exists. An old film reel without sound. A deaf German or a German speaker who was trained to lip read analyzed it for the History Channel. Apparently Hitler was praising his chauffeur, telling someone “no one cares for a motor car like Kempka”.

  265. @tsotha
    The KGB had a huge advantage. They took the creme of the creme of each generation of young Soviets. To be selected by the KGB was a huge honor and was the road to wealth and power. The CIA, on the other hand, had to compete with investment banks and save-the-world startups. I interviewed with the agency after college, and unlike other potential employers the CIA did interviews off campus so they didn't have to deal with, well, the KGB's useful idiots.

    Didn't follow up because they wanted to send me to third world shitholes where you can get VD from the water and where they'll hang you from your scrotum if they suspect you're working for the CIA. There were companies willing to pay a lot more money for a lot less inconvenience. My idea of world travel is Germany and France, not Kenya and Guatemala.

    Plus, no License To Kill. That was a big disappointment.

    Replies: @Anonym, @Achmed E. Newman, @Stan d Mute, @Cato

    The analysis side of the CIA is one of the prime places to be employed in the Federal bureaucracy. Smart people, mostly ivy league, but often with odd academic preparations (for example, the China analysts sometimes don’t speak Chinese). It’s been an innovative place in terms of filtering information from large numbers of people into final reports used for decision making.

    The operations side is kind of invitation-only, and, according to what I’ve been told, “mental toughness” is the prime qualification for employment.

  266. @Jack D
    @J.Ross

    In the one and only recording of Hitler speaking in a normal conversational tone, he is kvetching to Mannerheim of Finland that the Russians have dedicated their entire economy to military production and are making thousand of tanks. This apparently violated Robert's Rules of Order for Mad Dictators or something.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Corn

    Hitler’s view was that the Soviets were being bad sports by taking his whole War of Extermination thing so seriously that they were fully mobilizing their workforce to stop him. Hitler just wanted to murder the Jews and enslave the Slavs, but he wasn’t going so nuts over it that he expected German hausfraus to get jobs in factories.

    • Replies: @Corn
    @Steve Sailer

    For all the stereotypes concerning German industriousness and efficiency, Hitler was remarkably lackadaisical about fully mobilizing the German volk for war.
    Sure they used slave labor and brought foreign workers to Germany but I think I read it wasn’t until 1943 or ‘44 that full mobilization measures were undertaken or rationing even became that tight.

    But when one looks at what the Nazis did achieve, thank God they didn’t fully mobilize sooner.

    , @Anonymous
    @Steve Sailer

    As with everything else that Hitler did, this had its roots in WWI.

    Hitler was very concerned to prevent another collapse in German morale as happened at the end of the previous war. He remembered the social dislocations and hardships imposed on the civilian population in that war, and held them partly to blame for the demoralisation and defeatism of Germans at the end of it. He was determined to keep civilian life for ordinary Germans as normal as possible for as long as possible.

    This was also why he was so adamantly opposed to retreats, and ordered his men to stand and fight no matter how hopeless the situation. The lesson of WWI was that small retreats turn into big retreats which cause demoralisation and defeat.

  267. Anon[425] • Disclaimer says:
    @Steve Sailer
    @Anon

    What if Japan had joined Germany in war on USSR?

    Zhukov would have chewed up Japan's miniature tanks again, like he did in 1939.

    Replies: @Anon

    Japan vs Russia without Germany would have been in Russia’s favor.

    But if Russia had to expend most of its energies on fighting Germany, this would give Japan a chance. Not enough to defeat Russia but make it bleed by drawing Russian soldiers to the east.
    If Russia has to fight Japan on the eastern flank, it would be a huge advantage to Germany.

    Japan couldn’t defeat Russia, but if it could draw just enough troops from the Western front and allow Germany to finish off Russia, Japan would win too.

    When Zhukov fought Japan, Russia didn’t have to face Germany. When a bear is fighting a tiger, even a wolf biting its back can be a huge disadvantage to the bear. Germany was certainly a tiger.

    Also, what if Japan had decided mostly on air power in the war on Russia?

    Japan was vulnerable when it faced off against Russia because it was fighting for specific territories in Mongolia and around Manchuria. But in an all-out war, Japan could freely attack parts of Russia that was most vulnerable.
    In the end, could Japan have drawn just enough of Russian forces from the West to allow Germans to prevail? If Japan didn’t hit the US, Japan would be free to fight Russia. And since Germany would not have declared war on the US, there would be no US-Germany War.

    I’m thinking Russians would have allowed Japan to take some chunks of Siberia and focused mainly on defeating Germany. It wouldn’t have fallen for the bait of a two-front war. Eventually, it would have rolled back Germany and then moved east to retake Siberia from Japan. But it would have been more grueling.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @Anon

    You know, it kind of would have made sense for Hitler to discuss global grand strategy with his Japanese allies, but neither wanted to do that, so they attacked in uncoordinated directions.

    Replies: @MC

    , @J.Ross
    @Anon

    Result would be the same with an altered order. Victory for Zhukov in the East, now preceded (rather than followed) by European Russia withdrawing from the West, until it was strong enough to turn around and call the bluff of ability over numbers. Stalin had factories on the far side of the Urals that could support a nearly indefinite effort.

  268. @Anon
    @Steve Sailer

    Japan vs Russia without Germany would have been in Russia's favor.

    But if Russia had to expend most of its energies on fighting Germany, this would give Japan a chance. Not enough to defeat Russia but make it bleed by drawing Russian soldiers to the east.
    If Russia has to fight Japan on the eastern flank, it would be a huge advantage to Germany.

    Japan couldn't defeat Russia, but if it could draw just enough troops from the Western front and allow Germany to finish off Russia, Japan would win too.

    When Zhukov fought Japan, Russia didn't have to face Germany. When a bear is fighting a tiger, even a wolf biting its back can be a huge disadvantage to the bear. Germany was certainly a tiger.

    Also, what if Japan had decided mostly on air power in the war on Russia?

    Japan was vulnerable when it faced off against Russia because it was fighting for specific territories in Mongolia and around Manchuria. But in an all-out war, Japan could freely attack parts of Russia that was most vulnerable.
    In the end, could Japan have drawn just enough of Russian forces from the West to allow Germans to prevail? If Japan didn't hit the US, Japan would be free to fight Russia. And since Germany would not have declared war on the US, there would be no US-Germany War.

    I'm thinking Russians would have allowed Japan to take some chunks of Siberia and focused mainly on defeating Germany. It wouldn't have fallen for the bait of a two-front war. Eventually, it would have rolled back Germany and then moved east to retake Siberia from Japan. But it would have been more grueling.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @J.Ross

    You know, it kind of would have made sense for Hitler to discuss global grand strategy with his Japanese allies, but neither wanted to do that, so they attacked in uncoordinated directions.

    • Replies: @MC
    @Steve Sailer

    Somewhat amusingly, if you play Axis and Allies a lot (and I played it A LOT when I was a kid), the most common victory scenario for the Axis is that Germany fights the Allies more or less to a standstill in Western Europe while Japan moves slowly but surely towards Moscow while merely limiting American gains in the Pacific.

  269. @Anonymous
    @Sean

    Paul Samuelson's famous "Economics" textbook, one of the most widely used college textbooks of all time, and the best selling American college textbook for 30 years until the 80s, repeatedly predicted that the Soviet economy would overtake the American economy:

    https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2010/01/soviet-growth-american-textbooks.html


    In the 1961 edition of his famous textbook of economic principles, Paul Samuelson wrote that GNP in the Soviet Union was about half that in the United States but the Soviet Union was growing faster. As a result, one could comfortably forecast that Soviet GNP would exceed that of the United States by as early as 1984 or perhaps by as late as 1997 and in any event Soviet GNP would greatly catch-up to U.S. GNP. A poor forecast–but it gets worse because in subsequent editions Samuelson presented the same analysis again and again except the overtaking time was always pushed further into the future so by 1980 the dates were 2002 to 2012. In subsequent editions, Samuelson provided no acknowledgment of his past failure to predict and little commentary beyond remarks about “bad weather” in the Soviet Union (see Levy and Peart for more details).
     

    Replies: @Jack D, @Sean, @Desiderius

    My Comparative Economics professor at Manchester U (UK) was teaching us that the East German economy was superior to the West in the spring of 1990 (!). Backed up by the assigned text of course.

    Luckily we had a five week spring break where we could go see how ridiculous this was first hand while picking up a piece of the crumbling Berlin Wall.

  270. @Song For the Deaf
    Where are the ex-CIA officials running as Republicans? Did Obama appoint these activists to our intelligence services or do they precede him?

    Replies: @Twinkie

    Where are the ex-CIA officials running as Republicans?

    They are not foolish enough to run for elected office. They are in business earning lots of money.

  271. @Anon
    @Anon

    People keep claiming that Roosevelt ‘knew’ Pearl Harbor was going to be attacked. Yet he got caught with his pants down and most of the Pacific fleet was wiped out.

    No, the idea is he wanted the attack to happen so that Americans would support US entry into the war. People who say FDR knew about the attack point out that the air craft carriers were removed from Pearl Harbor.

    I don't know what really happened. Things just seem fishy.

    People keep claiming that Stalin ‘knew’ he was going to be attacked by Hitler. Yet he got surprised and sucker-punched

    No, the idea is that Stalin had intended to attack first but got preempted by Hitler. I don't buy this theory but some pointed out USSR positioned itself offensively against Germany prior to the German invasion. I think Stalin was bluffing so that Germans would choose defensive position than offensive position.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @LondonBob

    Stalin was warned by Britain, Bletchley Park, he was going to be attacked, Stalin thought it was trick.

    FDR’s demands and actions were doing everything to encourage a Japanese attack.

  272. @Jack D
    @J.Ross

    In the one and only recording of Hitler speaking in a normal conversational tone, he is kvetching to Mannerheim of Finland that the Russians have dedicated their entire economy to military production and are making thousand of tanks. This apparently violated Robert's Rules of Order for Mad Dictators or something.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Corn

    There is another recording of Hitler in casual conversation that exists. An old film reel without sound. A deaf German or a German speaker who was trained to lip read analyzed it for the History Channel. Apparently Hitler was praising his chauffeur, telling someone “no one cares for a motor car like Kempka”.

  273. @Steve Sailer
    @Jack D

    Hitler's view was that the Soviets were being bad sports by taking his whole War of Extermination thing so seriously that they were fully mobilizing their workforce to stop him. Hitler just wanted to murder the Jews and enslave the Slavs, but he wasn't going so nuts over it that he expected German hausfraus to get jobs in factories.

    Replies: @Corn, @Anonymous

    For all the stereotypes concerning German industriousness and efficiency, Hitler was remarkably lackadaisical about fully mobilizing the German volk for war.
    Sure they used slave labor and brought foreign workers to Germany but I think I read it wasn’t until 1943 or ‘44 that full mobilization measures were undertaken or rationing even became that tight.

    But when one looks at what the Nazis did achieve, thank God they didn’t fully mobilize sooner.

  274. Someone mentioned an ideological motivation for Stalin’s insouciance. I’ve heard about this before. Where did Marx/Lenin write that the capitalist powers were preordained to destroy each other before turning on the socialist states?

  275. Anonymous[408] • Disclaimer says:
    @Steve Sailer
    @Anon

    "People who say FDR knew about the attack point out that the air craft carriers were removed from Pearl Harbor."

    But FDR wanted war with Germany as his top priority. Pearl Harbor turned the public into demanding War with Japan. Then Hitler solved that problem for FDR by gratuitously declaring war on America.

    Replies: @Anon, @Anonymous

    Hitler was in a furious rage in the early days of December 1941 due to the German collapse outside Moscow. This was Germany’s first defeat of the war. He was angry and looking for scapegoats and seized on the (so far minor) U.S. support of Russia as one of the reasons for the reverse. (It’s also not unrelated that at this time he also gave the order for the Holocaust to begin.)

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    @Anonymous

    Hitler gave the order for the Holocaust? Because he was mad? Really? Steven Spielberg, is that you?

  276. Anonymous[408] • Disclaimer says:
    @Steve Sailer
    @Jack D

    Hitler's view was that the Soviets were being bad sports by taking his whole War of Extermination thing so seriously that they were fully mobilizing their workforce to stop him. Hitler just wanted to murder the Jews and enslave the Slavs, but he wasn't going so nuts over it that he expected German hausfraus to get jobs in factories.

    Replies: @Corn, @Anonymous

    As with everything else that Hitler did, this had its roots in WWI.

    Hitler was very concerned to prevent another collapse in German morale as happened at the end of the previous war. He remembered the social dislocations and hardships imposed on the civilian population in that war, and held them partly to blame for the demoralisation and defeatism of Germans at the end of it. He was determined to keep civilian life for ordinary Germans as normal as possible for as long as possible.

    This was also why he was so adamantly opposed to retreats, and ordered his men to stand and fight no matter how hopeless the situation. The lesson of WWI was that small retreats turn into big retreats which cause demoralisation and defeat.

  277. @Lot
    "the CIA seems to have a track record of historic ineptitude"

    That has not been my impression at all.

    Replies: @Southron, @Cagey Beast, @Achmed E. Newman, @Peter Akuleyev, @Federalist, @Prester John, @James Forrestal, @J.Ross, @Tarheel American

    Then your perception is not based on reality.

  278. The emergence of these Jane Bond PC-Progressive candidates is not surprising, if you’ve been watching the destruction of the CIA by quotas and gender requirements.

    Here’s an excellent analysis of the results of the feminization of the CIA:

    http://intelctweekly.blogspot.com/2012/07/political-correctness-killed-7-at-khost.html

    The whole story of “Zero Dark Thirty?” All the Jane Bond heroines? Nonsense.

    PC required their empowerment. Their incompetence killed people.

    The only positive point is that their male colleagues are not that much better.

    John Brennan is the poster boy for CIA’s current state. It’s not good.

  279. @Anon
    @Steve Sailer

    Japan vs Russia without Germany would have been in Russia's favor.

    But if Russia had to expend most of its energies on fighting Germany, this would give Japan a chance. Not enough to defeat Russia but make it bleed by drawing Russian soldiers to the east.
    If Russia has to fight Japan on the eastern flank, it would be a huge advantage to Germany.

    Japan couldn't defeat Russia, but if it could draw just enough troops from the Western front and allow Germany to finish off Russia, Japan would win too.

    When Zhukov fought Japan, Russia didn't have to face Germany. When a bear is fighting a tiger, even a wolf biting its back can be a huge disadvantage to the bear. Germany was certainly a tiger.

    Also, what if Japan had decided mostly on air power in the war on Russia?

    Japan was vulnerable when it faced off against Russia because it was fighting for specific territories in Mongolia and around Manchuria. But in an all-out war, Japan could freely attack parts of Russia that was most vulnerable.
    In the end, could Japan have drawn just enough of Russian forces from the West to allow Germans to prevail? If Japan didn't hit the US, Japan would be free to fight Russia. And since Germany would not have declared war on the US, there would be no US-Germany War.

    I'm thinking Russians would have allowed Japan to take some chunks of Siberia and focused mainly on defeating Germany. It wouldn't have fallen for the bait of a two-front war. Eventually, it would have rolled back Germany and then moved east to retake Siberia from Japan. But it would have been more grueling.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @J.Ross

    Result would be the same with an altered order. Victory for Zhukov in the East, now preceded (rather than followed) by European Russia withdrawing from the West, until it was strong enough to turn around and call the bluff of ability over numbers. Stalin had factories on the far side of the Urals that could support a nearly indefinite effort.

  280. @Anonymous
    @Steve Sailer

    Hitler was in a furious rage in the early days of December 1941 due to the German collapse outside Moscow. This was Germany's first defeat of the war. He was angry and looking for scapegoats and seized on the (so far minor) U.S. support of Russia as one of the reasons for the reverse. (It's also not unrelated that at this time he also gave the order for the Holocaust to begin.)

    Replies: @J.Ross

    Hitler gave the order for the Holocaust? Because he was mad? Really? Steven Spielberg, is that you?

  281. @The Z Blog
    The conspiratorial minded looks at this stuff as part of a grand Hollywood style plot to run the country from a secret bunker. In reality, it reflects the rot in the political system. Just look at the plot to subvert the last election. It's not exactly an all-star cast or a flawlessly executed plan. They failed at the very basics of intelligence work.

    The reason is the FBI and CIA are staffed with careerist toadies lacking any real talent or experience. They just know how to climb the greasy pole of politics within a pointless bureaucracy.

    This is also why the tech giants are doing what they please. They have no fear of the US government. They see the rot. The pols are easily bought and the regulatory agencies are staffed with morons. What's the government going to do if our tech overlords decide to shut down all dissident web sites? We know the answer. Nothing. That theory has been tested and now the great purge is upon us.

    Replies: @Corvinus

    “Just look at the plot to subvert the last election. It’s not exactly an all-star cast or a flawlessly executed plan. They failed at the very basics of intelligence work.”

    Indeed, it would appear Trump’s team has really messed up.

    “The reason is the FBI and CIA are staffed with careerist toadies lacking any real talent or experience. They just know how to climb the greasy pole of politics within a pointless bureaucracy.”

    Another egregious lie. Are you ever going to admit that Martin Luther (95 Theses) was NOT a pedophile as you claim? Very telling that you are avoiding offering evidence to your assertion.

    “What’s the government going to do if our tech overlords decide to shut down all dissident web sites? We know the answer. Nothing. That theory has been tested and now the great purge is upon us.”

    Except there is a response. Next time, do your homework.

    http://voxday.blogspot.com/2018/08/the-futility-of-social-media-bans.html

  282. @Steve Sailer
    @Anon

    You know, it kind of would have made sense for Hitler to discuss global grand strategy with his Japanese allies, but neither wanted to do that, so they attacked in uncoordinated directions.

    Replies: @MC

    Somewhat amusingly, if you play Axis and Allies a lot (and I played it A LOT when I was a kid), the most common victory scenario for the Axis is that Germany fights the Allies more or less to a standstill in Western Europe while Japan moves slowly but surely towards Moscow while merely limiting American gains in the Pacific.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS