A Proper CIA Report

Where the whole thing falls down - as if you properly don't already know (the tragedy being that no one who needs to know, reads blogs like this one) - is that the CIA report of the last couple of days regarding the so-called 'hacking' of emails, is that it is not like an authentic CIA report.

An authentic CIA report - in full - goes something along these lines:

Over the last period of ____ to ____, we analysed data from all sources and commenced surveillance or closer observation of (for example) '350' potential targets. 

Of those, (for example) '75,' were regarded as having cause to scrutinize using a higher level of human resources.

During the said period, we ran '35' group surveillance projects,

...'11' additional surveillance projects targeting sole individuals,

of whom, '7' were within government organizations, and

...'3' were employed in sensitive or mission critical private firms or contractors.

'25' FSA warrants were sought during the period and '25' were subsequently obtained.

Three arrests have been made and several possible interdicts of possible dangerous illegal activities occurred.

The Agency uncovered '5' possible clandestine 'hand-off' events, and closed down '150' possible or potential 'dead drop' sites across the country.

On the basis of a combination of intercepted communications from the targets under surveillance, and digital data gathered from examining various computers and servers, we have determined that, there is a correlation between the organised activities of covert cells acting withing the United States, and the illegal accessing of private or confidential government communications and data archives as and when or within an umbra time frame of movements of finance or possible encrypted 'orders' moving through the covert cell traffic and its communication channels.

The correlation gives us a 'high confidence' that... et cetera.

In summary:

• 350 potential targets
• 75 targets
• 35 group targets
• 11 sole targets
• 3 arrests
• 5 'live' current cells revealed and left intact for further/ on-going action

And then there is often attached, a summarized contrary opinion or minority report.

Finally there might be some word on 'Assembly code' software - or 'Assembler/Assembler' software that was used to uncover indications that computers had been 'peered into' and what those signatures really were in terms of dates of such signatures (old signatures meant off-the-shelf software and were extremely unlikely to be used by serious professional hackers).

Now assume of course the numbers are nowhere near anything that might be an accurate reflection of the levels of actual government counter-espionage activity, and assume that in any de-classified report, the numbers would be modified or blacked-out entirely with only privileged members of the House selected to see them, nevertheless, this will give you an impression of what a true report would look like.

The CIA report was a combination of bizarre, ludicrous, childish, foolish, amateurish, insulting, and in the end, dangerous and reckless.

It was tendentious in the extreme. 

'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.