'Expelling Diplomats' Explained

The media has headlined the expulsion of 35 Russian diplomats from the US and the closing of a 'compound' - which was a resort owned by the Russian government at which these full-time diplomats and their families spent time during vacations.

What has not received any attention at all as far as I have been able to see, in any of the media reports, is what such expulsion is all about.

The word 'conflate' has been doing the rounds a lot since George Galloway tore strips off the US Senate - IN that Senate where as a member of British Parliament he defended himself - for 'traducing his name' and 'conflating' his various human rights and journalistic efforts around the world with some malignant motivation, without 'the slightest shred of evidence.'

A New York socialite with Anton Fedyashin, the head of Mosfilm,
and multiple award-winning film-maker Karen Shakhnazarov

Here, with the matter of the expelling of diplomats, we have an excellent example of what has become all too common - in that the media has 'conflated' 'spies' with 'diplomats;' or, as in this case Russian diplomats. Apparently, in the common public mind, it is all too easy to say 'Russian' and this immediately makes the link to the Soviet era Cold War of 'Russian spies' of popular myth, entertainment legend, and also at times, fact.

So let's quickly summarize the way it really is:

You know this part, but anyway... diplomats are granted, by mutual legal agreement - by treaty - as well as International Obligation via United Nations' agreements, legal immunity from prosecution in the countries they are working. If it becomes the case where a government believes the individual is say for instance, so individually or characteristically problematic as to pose a danger - for instance, they have become aberrant, done something heinous which could not be explained as merely not having a good enough understanding of local custom and laws - then they can or will be 'expelled.' But that simply means a new diplomat returns to take that individual's place.

People who are actual spies - do not have any kind of immunity from prosecution. And spying is an illegal activity. Spying means taking information that is privileged or belongs to someone else and using it for your own advantage in an illegal way. Breaking patents is a kind of commercial operation that often relies on commercial espionage. Certainly there is also active damaging of State infrastructure or other valuable assets - these kinds of 'spies' are operative agents. Pejoratively, within the CIA, they are sometimes called 'operators' and this can also mean someone who is doing something that 'fucks something up!' Which is not necessarily always an intention!

It is simply not a fact - as the media want to imply - that the US government has said the Russian diplomats were spies.

Amy Pascal, on the right, head of Sony during' the Sony
email hackings - you will recall that. Wasn't done by the Russians.

The tradition is this: where a government thinks there are spies operating, not simply researching in a benign way, but for some reason, maybe they are not certain who these are but are sure they are there - THEN, they expel diplomats to give the signal to that foreign government that IF they caught their spies these people would NOT HAVE LEGAL COVER OF IMMUNITY FROM ARREST AND PROSECUTION.

That is what the whole thing means.

It's not that the diplomats were spies. That would be one of the most ridiculous and illogical things to say. If the diplomats were spies you could stop their activities because you knew who they were, where they were, and where they were working from. You could track every single they were doing. It's ridiculous.

So why is the media saying it? There are only two answers - one, that the media is totally incompetent and ignorant and stupid, or two, that they are saying it on purpose to fool you about something.

"Is It Time, Morgiana?" (revisited)

So the general media is saying that Obama has expelled thirty-odd Russian 'spies.'

But you better not be one of those who believe this kind of rubbish. 

Factually, they are diplomats.

Susan Lehrman - wealthy New York Socialite

Diplomats are the kinds of people who have access to other diplomats and high levels of government - although only in rare cases, exactly the highest levels. And what they do is 'suggest' diplomatically, that you do things like check out the Tsarnaev brothers. And they only suggest because often they can only base their views on educated speculation - it may be very well educated speculation but it will lack the hard forensic evidence to warrant taking the matter directly to say, the FBI. Diplomats do stuff like a 'heads up.' 

Now spies on the other hand, actual spies, be they of those who interfere with what you are doing, or who gather highly sensitive information that may be used against you, will be positioned differently to diplomats.

They will be located in entirely different places to embassy compounds. Theoretically, you will not be able to detect them. Yes, there are trained lawyers who will handle things if an actual 'operative agent' gets into trouble - and those lawyers will be in or close to embassies. But they will not generally have exact knowledge of who the spies are and only 'find out' when the embassy is contacted and the appropriate accreditation is exposed by that individual 'in trouble' for whatever reason. Sometimes, it's just that someone was apprehended in the commission of a real crime, who was supposed to be carrying it out secretly, and didn't - and then, embassy cover begins at which point smart people realize, oh, that wasn't an ordinary 'crook' that was a foreign agent doing something and things went wrong. For instance, he might have been pulled up for speeding, or jay-walking or something, in the middle of well, what he was really up to...

'Karl Rove is a spy.' Who he spies for I have no idea. Well, I don't know that he's a spy, what I'm saying is that he is the type of person who is - he goes where they go, he knows who they like to know, he does what spies do.

Amy Pascal. You remember, from the Sony email
hacking

He gives lectures - free lectures - at places such as the Gilbert M. Grosvenor Center. 

And at those lectures, people turn up who shouldn't really be there, and then they talk to others there with the same views and outlooks and so on and an 'association' develops. These things take place over years, decades, even generations. Nobody 'spies' who just turns up one day into a desk job at an embassy, and then a few months later gets turfed out because you have 'discovered' they are a spy!

Men's Clubs, And Watches

For no reason whatsoever, I shall be talking a little about old gentlemen's clubs - well they will need to be 'old' because I am trying to refer to things which no longer exist anywhere except perhaps in my front rooms...!

I regularly take a look at magazines and internet magazines about the so-called 'world of the luxury consuming and wealth-possessing elite' - and all I get is a bunch of stuff about Singapore, or brand-name restaurants and hotels in New York well and truly past their prime. The Singapore stuff is, albeit definitely full of cash and property-rich people, just a parody of 'ideas' from the olden days about what constitutes the 'luxury lifestyle.'

It's at a men's club somewhere,
I don't know where

Do men's clubs have women members? Well yes, they do and may do, except the women ought to dress properly - which in fact means they can wear tuxedos and pants. Not many people know that women are permitted to wear tuxedos to formal or semi-formal affairs and it does not or need not imply they are lesbian.

Some of -, no no all of the world's best bespoke men's suite-makers make trouser-ed attire for women clientele. 

Even the Milanese men's fashion platform - Pitti Uomo - has examples of clothing for women that consists of ostensibly, or otherwise, male fashion styles.  

And what has this got to do with anything? Nothing at all. It's just that I feel it is another one of those things which appears to be going along with my recent theme about popular expectations and perceptions of 'truth' and 'reality.' Many people might think I'm wrong about the above stuff. And they won't be the people within the social circles in which there are these kinds of things worn:

$800,000 watches!

Separated Minds

You have to realize, that is, if you have a truly independent and intellectual mind - that today's highly criss-crossed world of 'information' and 'thoughts' contains the danger of mass-scale error and fatal mistakes taken into some form of action.

But by 'truly independent' I mean able to think away from the apparent consensus and the common cant.

When a popular entertainment - say like a movie - appears and takes a firm hold of people's beliefs and outlook, then it becomes next to impossible to shake the 'truth' that the common man thinks he now 'has' on account of this latest 'thing' which gave him his newest latest unshakable confidence...

The assumption that is all too easily made these days - and you hear it in many quarters - is that information is everywhere and widely available and easily accessible and virtually everything (factually knowable) is 'out in the open' if you search enough.

Here is a very short list of things that everyone is convinced are 'facts:'

• There are no independent records of the existence of Jesus Christ
• There are no actual 'originals' of the Gospels
• Most Western religions are based on pagan season traditions, and astrology
• Zeitgeist, the movie, is a relatively modern, new, work
• Atheism means not having a belief in god, or not believing there is a god, or is a scientific, practical perspective that uses proof and evidence to come to a 'knowledge.'
• Christmas as it is practiced now, is based on a pagan festival
• the young boy who died with his face downwards in the sand, was fleeing to Europe

However none of these things are true.

The word that people ought to be using when they say 'atheist' is 'opo-theist.' Which is also, not the same as 'apotheos!'

What people mean is that they are OPPOSED to religion and to 'god' or the need for a god.

'A-theist' is similar in construction to a word such as 'a-moral...' If you see what I mean.

To be an atheist is a political thing these days, and so what people should say is that they are 'opotheist.' In other words, politically opposed to religion and to god. Not that they 'don't know whether there is a god,' or that they have proven that there isn't one. That would be: 'agnostic,' and 'protonihignotheist.'

The young boy who died on the beach was turned away by Talal Al Waleed from seeking refuge in Saudi Arabia and received no money or support from Al Waleed - but Al Waleed spent several billion dollars taking large stakes in the media companies who took the picture and spread it around, and, he spends billions of dollars establishing foundations and research grants at Harvard and other Universities where people like Reza Azlan get their degrees. I don't care whether there is or isn't proof of the existence of 'Jesus.' I don't like Reza Azlan trying to tell me.

If you see what I mean.

I will say this: never one single time, have I ever floated a story, or canvassed one, here, without facts and proof to back everything I said up. Not one single time. Ever.

Can't Argue With Wikipedia or TED

The photographs in this post were taken this year without any enlargement lenses or any kind of modification inside or outside of the camera, of what was visible to the ordinary human eye at the time.

Supermoon - evening in New York

But if you go to the Wikipedia entries about the apparent size of the Moon to human vision, you will wade through long passages of turgid pseudo-science and jargon that basically contradict what people's actual experiences are. Namely, that they do not in fact (according to Wikipedia) 'see' the Moon as being larger at the horizon and smaller when higher in the sky, and that this is just an illusion inside their heads (rather than actually an optical illusion in the sky) although of what exact nature no one is agreed upon 100%.

And as far as the Supermoon is concerned it is more or less the same thing - on the one hand the Moon is physically closer, but that doesn't alter the original human mind trickery that makes it only seem as if it is visually - that is, optically - incredibly large at the horizon.

San Fancisco, 2016

Good luck to you if believe that.

The wonder of today's world is that no sooner had the human race harnessed the power of computers and computer memory, than they altogether gave up thinking through anything, being able to rely on mechanical iterations and re-iterations of processes and 'things' they need or consume without having to really be so concerned that they actually knew how these things happened...

So then we also have Chris Anderson, the founder of TED Talks, who claims to be a Christian or something akin at least, and to appear on the surface, to be racially or ethnically English, and to own and run this 'not-for-profit'/'NONPARTISAN' organisation that promotes interesting, usually academic, talks. He calls them 'powerful' rather than my word - 'interesting.'

Indians - a lot of them - call him a Bangla, though. And what they mean is laden with political import not readily understood by outsiders. When Bengal was ceded by the declining British Empire, part of it became part of India (West Bengal) and another part of it became what is now called Bangladesh, and another part of it went to Pakistan.

And she's not Chinese, either! But she is a spy,
at least in a Bond flick anyway

Under the processes of 'partition' people who could establish they owned land in Bengal, and were moving to the new Islamic nation of Pakistan, would receive money and land both from the British and in Pakistan itself from the new government of Pakistan. The way they 'established' they had previously owned land in Bengal was the exact same way Barack Obama established that he was born a US citizen: they went basically to expert Indian forgers who forged amazing documents 'proving' whatever it was they could afford to 'prove.'

Chris Anderson in my view is more or less the same thing as a Janissary - he is a Muslim who was 'captured' by means of money or force originally as a white person and a Christian, and then converted to engage in Fifth-Column activities and spying and sabotage in the West.

You don't need to believe me though. But if you go and trust TED Talks or Chris Anderson and wonder why you had ended up with a knife in your back (figuratively, of course...!) then on your own head be it, which it probably will be.