|
All of a sudden I can't get "Far From Any Road" by the Handsome Family out of my head.
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2019 20:08
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 16:36 |
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_574Rxxez2c
|
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2019 21:34
|
|
|
Atrocious Joe posted:the blackmail bit seems more like epstein trying to seek protection rather than control people Yeah until you read the bizarre details about how he rose rapidly from an obscure background, nobody on Wall Street ever seemed to meet anyone who worked for his supposed hedge fund and no one could quite figure out where his money came from.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2019 23:50
|
|
|
Hell yeah, True Detective was a documentary and the world elite are all practicing an esoteric Satanic mystery religion in plain sight BBC posted:Switzerland tunnel: The oddest moments of the opening ceremony When the stars are right they'll connect this tunnel with the higher dimensional energies being generated through the Large Hadron Collider and the tunnel will become a portal and machine elves who will emerge to feast on our adrenchrome
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2019 22:52
|
|
|
|
|
#
¿
Jul 25, 2019 14:27
|
|
|
Jose posted:lol this was possible McAfee I'm sure it's because of my viewing history but loving lol that one of the videos showing as a recommendation when I watch this is a talk by Daniel Dennet.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 25, 2019 16:40
|
|
|
Torpor posted:I am incredibly impressed by our leaderships ability to fall dick first into every honeypot trap on the entire planet. After a certain point you have to start wondering if it isn't a prerequisite for high level success in certain fields, sorta like how after a certain point any honest cop would be inherently threatening to their dirty colleagues.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 25, 2019 20:17
|
|
|
Literally came here to say don't read Legacy of Ashes, especially if your interest was piqued by JFK.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2019 17:53
|
|
|
MeatwadIsGod posted:What don't you like about it? Ooook but strap on your tinfoil hat. I think that because Weiner's book was so otherwise critical of the CIA and because he didn't want to sound like a lunatic and lose out on book sales he consciously decided not to cover details about Oswald's biography and the circumstances of his time in New Orleans and Mexico City in the summer of 63. The book doesn't even mention that Hoover and the FBI told Lyndon Johnson that the man claiming to be Oswald who showed up in Mexico City was an imposter and not the real Oswald (this is extremely serious since it implies somebody was actively trying to frame Oswald 6 weeks before the assassination, implying a conspiracy with significant resources and planning, and while there's evidence going both directions about whether it was really Oswald in Mexico City, the fact Weiner skips the controversy altogether is indicative of his general reluctance to deal with the subject). He also ignores the really weird circumstances of Oswalds career from his time in the Civil Air Patrol up through his time at Atsugi Air Base, Japan or his strange friendship with George de Mohrenschildt. No mention of David Ferrie (oh look another pedophile air plane pilot, what is it with these guys?) or Guy Bannister or the fact that Frontline actually discovered pictures of Oswald and Ferrie together in the CAP when Oswald was 16. Years later US Senator Richard Schweiker, one of members of the Church Committee which took a second look at the JFK assassination among several other incidents, wrote that "We do know Oswald had intelligence connections. Everywhere you look with him, there are fingerprints of intelligence." Weiner was too cowardly to go there, even if only to explain why he thought it was wrong. Instead he spent the entire chapter on Oswald speculating about how the real cover up was that Castro had JFK killed and the real scandal is that the CIA was unwilling to investigate thoroughly. This is, needless to say, an incredibly charitable account of the CIA's activity. Oswald was, at bare mininum, of much greater interest to the CIA than they were ever willing to admit. It may be the case that Oswald was a genuine Marxist who was being monitored by the CIA as part of one of Angleton's mole hunts and they had to cover this all up because it was so embarrassing. Or maybe the truth is a lot more sinister. Either way I think Wiener recognized that even discussing this stuff would make his book sound like a loony conspiracy tract so he made the self interested decision to just not talk about the really weird and difficult to explain stuff that a lot of people would interpret as circumstantial evidence of a cover up. Just to give an example of what you won't find in Weiner's account, I highly recommend reading this transcript of a Frontline interview of G. Robert Blakely, who was chief council for the House Select Committee on Assassinations. The transcript is fascinating because it includes both the original interview from 93 and an addendum 10 years later in 03 where Blakely candidly outlines why he has now realized that the CIA was very actively covering something up. As you read this keep in mind that this transcript comes from several years before the publication of Legacy of Ashes: quote:G. Robert Blakey’s 2003 Addendum to this Interview: To be very clear: the cover up may be that Oswald was being monitored by James Jesus Angleton as part of a counter intelligence mole hunt. In that case the reason for the cover up would be the CIA's massive embarrassment that someone they were actively following killed the President. Or it could be that Oswald was working for Carlos Marcelo or David Ferrie or someone else that the CIA was in bed with but not directly controlling, in which case, again, the motivation for the cover up would be standard CYA procedures. But at this point the fact there was a significant cover up - much greater than the one Weiner describes in his book - is well documented and attested to by senior US government investigators and legislators who have since looked into these events. So Weiner has no excuse here. If this was a story that he thought would distract from his larger history of the CIA I think it would have been more honest if he simply avoided the topic and admitted it was too vast and weird to cover in a single chapter.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2019 20:33
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:The Bay of Pigs was JFK's own baby. The idea that he was assassinated by a US government conspiracy just doesn't make any sense, since supposedly he was assassinated for not being enough of a cold warrior. Not really. It was a holdover from the Eisenhower administration and Kennedy was pissed off enough at how mislead he was regarding the probability for success that he shortly thereafter cleared house by removing CIA Director Allen Dulles, as well as the Deputy Director for Plans Richard Bissell and Deputy Director Charles Cabell. the broad continuity of US foreign policy before and after Kennedy's death and his status as an ardent Cold Warrior would argue against the idea that he was assassinated as part of a coup because he wasn't sufficiently anti-Communist but that doesn't mean he wasn't in conflict with members of his own government, especially after what they viewed as his failure of nerve during the Cuban Missile Crisis. None of which is to say he was killed as part of an elaborate coup. There's more continuity than change in the Kennedy-Johnson administrations which makes the argument for a coup hard to sustain. Assuming JFK was killed as part of a conspiracy it wouldn't really have been a "government" conspiracy though individual members of the government may have either participated or simply enabled it ("whoops, the mobsters we've been using to try and assassinate Castro just murdered the President, we better make sure this never gets out!" or "oh poo poo the crazy Marxist we've been monitoring as part of mole hunt against the KGB just mail ordered a rifle and shot the President, time to memory hole everything we have on him"). The one unquestionable fact is that the Warren Commission's only goal was to convince people Oswald acted alone, with absolutely no concern for whether that was true. Pener Kropoopkin posted:the bay of pigs was literally an invasion of Cuba. iirc it’s supposed that they were mad because JFK didn’t give them air support. I dunno, it’s a weak story because JFK did act to gently caress over Cuba and the Soviet Union as retaliation for Bay if Pigs. Dulles misrepresented the probability of the invasion succeeding on its own in the expectation that in the heat of the moment Kennedy would be concerned about the optics of a failed operation so early in his term and would therefore acquiesce to sending in the US air force. Kennedy surprised Dulles by not bending under pressure and then really surprised Dulles by not just accepting his designated fall guy and forcing Dulles himself to also resign.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2019 18:51
|
|
|
Gum posted:I guess even the remote chance he could be going to prison for his crimes is enough to make him sweat Keep in mind that there have been multiple articles published about how unfair it is that Dersh isn't getting invited to wine-and-cheese parties on Martha's Vinyard anymore. His anguish is likely over the idea that people will think he is a pedophile and it will taint his glorious "legacy" as much as it is over the remote prospect he actually goes to prison. Remember how upset Wall Street execs were because Obama said some mildly critical things about them while moving heaven and earth to protect them? It's not enough to have all the money and power, these people desperately need to told that they deserve everything they have and are superior individuals.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2019 15:33
|
|
|
shame on an IGA posted:Really cool to see one of the most famous lawyers of his generation making literally word for word the same arguments as random ADTRW pedos The water draining from you bathtub forms the same emergent pattern as the rotations of a spiral galaxy. Similarly, the motivated reasoning and terrible writing of so many goons is really just the exact same thought process as any of the dumbass pundits or columnists you might read in the paper, just with a smaller audience.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2019 20:05
|
|
|
Jeffrey Epstein's Death Was On 4Chan Before Officials Announced It — And Authorities Had To Look Into It
|
|
#
¿
Aug 14, 2019 04:07
|
|
|
Inspector Hound posted:It looks like one of the paramedics was a poster Or...  The people who killed Epstein planted this for some reason or other
|
|
#
¿
Aug 14, 2019 04:20
|
|
|
Your brain hasn't truly crack pinged until you start pouring through the loving McCarthy hearing transcripts for poo poo like this: [quote=EXECUTIVE SESSIONS OF THE SENATE PERMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS OF THE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS VOLUME 5, EIGHTY-THIRD CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION , 1954 , MADE PUBLIC JANUARY 2003 ] ALLEGED THREATS AGAINST THE CHAIRMAN [Editor's note. — William J. Morgan (born William Mitrano, 1911-1996) was a lieutenant-colonel in military intelligence, U.S. Army Reserve, who held a Ph.D. in psychology from Yale. During World War II he served as director of the Psycho- logical Text Bureau, worked with the British in selecting agents to operate in Nazi- occupied territories, and parachuted into France to organize and train guerillas. He later published The O.S.S. and I (1957). From 1947 to 1957 he created tests to ex- amine new recruits and employees for the CIA. Dr. Morgan did not testify in public session.] THURSDAY, MARCH 4, 1954 U.S. Senate, Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Government Operations, Washington, DC. The subcommittee met (pursuant to Senate Resolution 189, agreed to February 2, 1954) at 4:00 p.m., room 101, Senate Office Building, Senator Charles E. Potter presiding. Present: Senator Karl E. Mundt, Republican, South Dakota; Sen- ator Charles E. Potter, Republican, Illinois; Senator John L. McClellan, Democrat, Arkansas President also: Francis P. Carr, executive director; Roy M. Cohn, chief counsel; Robert F. Kennedy, chief counsel for the minority; Donald A. Surine, assistant counsel; James M. Juliana, investi- gator; Ruth Young Watt, chief clerk. TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM J. MORGAN Senator Potter. In the matter now in hearing, do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Dr. Morgan. I do. Senator Potter. Will you identify yourself for the record, Dr. Morgan — your full name and your present address and your present occupation. Dr. Morgan. My full name is William James Morgan and my oc- cupation is psychologist. I have specialized in psychological warfare and intelligence operations for the last twelve years. I work at the Department of the Army as deputy chief of research in the office of chief, psychological warfare. Senator Potter. Is that under General Erskine? Dr. Morgan. General Erskine is at the Department of Defense level. I am with the army. My home is Merrifield, Virginia. Mr. Carr. Where were you employed in September 1953? Dr. Morgan. September of 1953. I was with the Psychological Strategy Board. Mr. Carr. Do you specifically recall the afternoon of September 20, 1953, Friday afternoon? (165) 166 Dr. Morgan. Not specifically, no, sir. Mr. Carr. Do you recall a meeting which you attended while you were in that position which was attended by Mr. Horace "Pete" Craig? 2 Dr. Morgan. I attended many meetings with him because I was in the same office. As a matter of fact, he was my superior. Mr. Carr. Do you recall any meeting with Mr. Craig in which a statement was made concerning Senator McCarthy? Dr. Morgan. Yes, sir. Mr. Carr. Could you recount that meeting? Dr. Morgan. Well, on a number of different occasions the name of McCarthy came up. It is a very common term, so there were a number of different occasions when the name would have come up. Mr. Carr. Do you recall an occasion when you suggested that the agency for whom you were working at that time attempt to become friends with Senator McCarthy? Dr. Morgan. There was what might be called a hypothetical dis- cussion that we were having. Senator Potter. This was with Mr. Craig, was it? Dr. Morgan. Mr. Craig. Sometime in September he asked me to stay over and wanted to chat with me. From time to time he asked me to do this. As I recall the incident, he began to talk about var- ious things and made a statement to the effect that the survey was completed concerning our international operation, activities, and that conclusions had been drawn that Senator McCarthy's influ- ence was the most important factor in negating the influence of U.S. activities abroad and that then kicked off the discussion. I thought he was feeling me out on various things. Mr. Carr. At that time was there any discussion as to a proce- dure to combat the influence of Senator McCarthy? Dr. Morgan. Well, here is the situation as briefly as I can re- member it. The question of Senator McCarthy was raised — what would you do with it, and I said, "Well, I don't know what the prob- lem is." He said, "You know General Donovan, what would his sug- gestion be?" I said, "Well, I don't know what Donovan would sug- gest." Mr. Carr. You say General Donovan? 3 Dr. Morgan. Yes, I had been in OSS. I said, "There is one thing very clear, what we are trying to do and what the senator is trying to do is the same." I said, "It may be desirable to indoctrinate him concerning our procedure and some of our goals," and he stated that he didn't think that was a wise procedure because Senator McCarthy was a very clever, intel- ligent man and that he admitted his mistakes and that it would simply not lead to anything. Then, I forget — the situation was one that I remember very clearly but exactly how it transpired, I don't know. I know I was very late getting home for dinner. I must have stayed at the office an hour or an hour and a half or so. I want to make a remark. What Dr. Craig said — the interpreta- tion is always difficult because some of the things he may say be- cause he wanted to add glamour to his name by association with 2 Horace S. Craig (1911-1963) served with the CIA until 1958. 3 Gen. William J. Donovan (1883-1959) served as head of the Office of Strategic Services dur- ing World War II. 167 a figure. That is a well known psychological technique. Or he may have had other motives. He said that somebody had recently come to see him and felt the best thing to do was to penetrate the McCarthy organization, which is of course a Communist espionage technique, and he thought they had a candidate for it; that they were steering him into being employed by the investigating com- mittee and the man's name escapes me now. I may be able to bring it to mind. Senator Potter. Do you know whether they were successful in doing that or not? Dr. Morgan. No, sir, I don't know whether they were successful or not. The man was apparently very well thought of, of good edu- cation, and had the highest recommendations. The point that he was concerned with at the time was that he didn't know how much knowledge had to be turned over to this man, because if you turned over too much knowledge, he might not be able to go through with it. One of the problems with agents, if you let them know too much in the beginning, it might frighten him, so you get him into a situa- tion and then maneuver. I don't know whether or not the thing was ever successful. [Off-record discussion.] Mr. SURINE. To further identify Dr. Craig, could you administra- tively put on the record who his superior was at that time? Dr. Morgan. Well, I think it is a matter of public knowledge. In these things I have to make a decision whether it is security infor- mation or whether it is not security information. In this case this is public information because it has not been in anything with a stamp on it. The Psychological Strategy Board, of course, at that time had both a board and a staff; then the president's special as- sistant, Mr. C. D. Jackson, was the one who was running the Office of Evaluation, which was the office in which Dr. Craig was func- tioning. 4 Things became in rather a turmoil after the new adminis- tration came in because psychological activities were supposed to continue, but actually they didn't continue and Mr. Jackson took charge, took certain responsibilities from PSB, as it is referred to, and Mr. Craig answered to Mr. Jackson because he worked with him before. Mr. Surine. Where is Dr. Craig now? Dr. Morgan. Operations Coordination Board, which is the suc- cessor agency to PSB. Mr. Surine. To your knowledge, what was the true employment at that time of C. D. Jackson and Mr. Craig? Dr. Morgan. Well, by the true employment do you mean where do they get their money? Mr. Surine. Who paid their salaries? Dr. Morgan. I don't know of Mr. C. D. Jackson. I just don't know at that time. Dr. Craig, I think he was on the CIA payroll. Right here I ought to say this — that is a question of security. I understand that people in CIA must not be identified as CIA peo- ple. I don't know just how to classify this. He is known publicly to be on the CIA payroll. 4 Charles Douglas Jackson (1902-1964), publisher of Fortune magazine, had organized the psychological warfare division at General Eisenhower's headquarters in London during World War II and served as special assistant to Eisenhower in the White House from 1953 to 1954. 168 Mr. Surine. You are speaking of Craig now? Dr. Morgan. Craig. Mr. Surine. What about Jackson? Dr. Morgan. At that time I don't know. Later I don't know. Mr. Surine. How about before? Dr. Morgan. I may have information before, but I think that is classified. Mr. Surine. Were you at that time receiving your money from CIA? Dr. Morgan. No, sir. The Psychological Strategy Board is broken down into two echelons. Those who are GS-15s and below are paid by the Department of State. Those who are GS-16s and above are paid by CIA. Mr. Surine. Getting back to the conversation with Mr. Craig, which you have covered part of here, when you suggested to him that possibly CIA attempt to make friends with Senator McCar- thy — could you fully develop that conversation as he related it to you and his response to your remark. Dr. Morgan. Well, it was very simple. He shrugged the thing off. He walked up and down the room and made the remark; then he said, "There are madmen who would be willing to do it for a price," something of that nature. I kind of looked him over. My reaction was, "Is Pete serious about this thing or is he sounding off? Is he trying to be dramatic or what is the score?" At that time, I might add, that particular kind of suggestion was not made very often. Since then to hear that, as in connection with the Puerto Ricans, etc., everybody says, "Was Senator McCarthy there?" 5 Mr. Surine. To further identify yourself, could you relate your government employment, starting with roughly 1943 to the present time? Dr. Morgan. Yes, sir. In 1943 the OSS hired me as a psycholo- gist. They lost my records. I went overseas. They found my records in London and I managed to stay there, soliciting spies and sabo- teurs with the War Office Election Board, which was a British set- up working with OSS; then in 1944 I jumped behind the lines as a civilian, close to the French Maquis, where I organized a team of 150. For six weeks we had a lot of fun shooting, etc. I left there and went to China and operated in China. Fifty teams would have been sent up to the Northern China territory to penetrate the Com- munist hierarchy but Chiang Kai Shek and the State Department and others fell through so then I was doing other chores in China. I was S-3 and assistant operations officer in the Yellow River pe- ninsula. I was the officer in charge of the important operation of sending people into the Communist territory and keeping them out of Communist hands, fighting the Japanese. After the war was over I went to Formosa as executive officer; then when the deputy left, I became deputy; then I became chief of SSU, the successor agency to OSS, making intelligence scoops on the island so we would have the information we needed; following that I returned to the States and became deputy chief of the training staff of the CIA; then I be- 5 On March 1, 1954, four Puerto Rican nationalists fired thirty shots into the House chamber, wounding five representatives. 169 came the chief of the psychological assessment unit for the screen- ing of people because I was applying there the techniques that were used in the British set-up. In 1951, I worked for a year on career management problems, setting up career plans, etc. In 1952 I went to PSB. In 1953 I went with the army. Senator Potter. I would like to go back to where this man Craig stated that he felt that Senator McCarthy should be liquidated. I'd like to place the date of this. When did it happen? Dr. Morgan. It happened in September. Senator Potter. September of what year? Dr. Morgan. Last year, 1953. Senator Potter. He stated in essence that this man should be liquidated, referring to Senator McCarthy? Dr. Morgan. It may be necessary. Senator Potter. And that there are madmen Dr. Morgan. For a price willing to do the thing. Senator Potter. Did you make any comment after that? Dr. Morgan. No, sir. I looked at him and kind of figured, "What gives?" I didn't say anything. Senator Potter. Did he follow that up with any explanation of that statement? Dr. Morgan. No, sir. I don't remember he did follow it up. Senator Potter. Did you take this as a possible activity for your agency? Dr. Morgan. No, sir. I was quite stunned by it. I thought he had lost his self-control, discretion, or something had gone wrong with him; and that if it did reflect people with whom he was working that it just didn't seem to me someone was going mad. Senator Potter. Did he ever follow that up at a later date? Dr. Morgan. No, sir. He never did, not that I can remember. Senator Mundt. Was this during the same conversation in which they were talking about penetrating the McCarthy staff? Dr. Morgan. Yes, sir. Senator Potter. I assume from the conversation which took place that he was very much opposed to activity of this committee. Is that correct? Dr. Morgan. I don't know, Senator, whether he was opposed to the activity of this committee or whether he was opposed to what Senator McCarthy was trying to do. This happened in September 1953. I don't know who the members of the committee were at that time. Senator Potter. He was referring more to Senator McCarthy than to the committee? Dr. Morgan. That would be my interpretation. Senator Mundt. You say this happened in connection with the discussion of penetrating the committee. Did this statement pre- cede the statement about liquidation? Dr. Morgan. The question of penetration preceded the question of liquidation. Senator Potter. After he made the statement about liquidation and you registered some astonishment, what happened? Dr. Morgan. I think shortly thereafter we began to close up and wander out. Senator Potter. There was just the two of you there? 170 Dr. Morgan. Just the two of us. The reason I give this testimony with extreme caution, my own feeling is that the entire interpreta- tion is something that at the time it was a shock. I discussed it with my wife when I got home. I didn't know exactly what to do with it. It may simply have reflected an attempt on his part to do his thinking out loud. Senator Potter. Did he say who was to pay the madman to do, the job? Dr. Morgan. No, sir. He made no reference as to how it was to be accomplished except that there were madmen who would do the job. He made no reference to anyone specifically. Senator Mundt. Did this ever come up again in subsequent con- ferences? Dr. Morgan. No, sir. At a subsequent discussion he mentioned the name of the man he was talking about who was going on the staff, and I think it was one or two other times that he talked about this person. On one occasion he said he was having no luck and on another occasion he said something like he would like to find a job for him at the Department of Defense. Senator Mundt. In other words, in subsequent conversations he did continue to suggest the possibility of penetrating the McCarthy staff, but he never again referred to the possibility of liquidation? Dr. Morgan. He never again referred to liquidation. In the two subsequent discussions there was no discussion of penetration. He just simply mentioned the name and that he wasn't having any luck. On another occasion he said he was trying to make an effort to get him employed at the Department of Defense. Senator Potter. Do you know a man by the name of Matt Baird? 6 Dr. Morgan. Yes, I do. Senator Potter. What is his present employment? Dr. Morgan. I don't know. Senator Potter. What was he doing when you knew him? Dr. Morgan. Matthew Baird was chief of the office of training of the CIA and this is public information because it has been pub- lished in the newspapers. Senator Potter. When was that? Dr. Morgan. I would say that he became chief of that about 1951 sometime, the early part of 1951. Senator Potter. Did he have any personal traits that would be objectionable in normal society? Dr. Morgan. He is a handsome looking guy, but I would say gen- erally speaking "no." Senator Potter. Is he known to you to be a homosexual? Dr. Morgan. That has a long history. Senator Potter. You mean by that it is well known that he is a homosexual? Dr. Morgan. If you are asking whether I have facts that he is a homosexual, the answer is "no." Mr. Carr. Which one are you talking about now — Craig or Baird? 6 U.S. Air Force Col. Matt Baird (1901-1972) served with the CIA from 1953 to 1965 and de- veloped the agency's officer training and career development program. 171 Dr. Morgan. Baird. I don't have any factual evidence he is a ho- mosexual. Senator Potter. What is your knowledge in that respect? Dr. Morgan. Circumstantial and opinion. I don't know whether it is classified or not. Senator Potter. What information do you have to form your opinion? Dr. Morgan. Well, I think on that particular thing, in order to save the work of the committee, I gave information to two air force investigative officers who came to see me about Matt Baird in, I would say, early summer of 1953, around June. That file would contain everything I knew about that case. Senator Potter. Wasn't Mr. Baird discharged from a boys' school? Dr. Morgan. I understand that he was. Senator Potter. What information do you have as to the reason he was discharged? Dr. Morgan. I understand that he was discharged because he made the mistake of teaching the boys how to masturbate properly, but that doesn't come from any direct source. Senator Potter. When did he leave CIA? Dr. Morgan. I don't know whether he has left. For all I know, he may still be there. Mr. Surine. What is the nature of your information about his being discharged from the school on that grounds? Dr. Morgan. The information that I have is that a Mary Lee Fletcher, who is an employee of the agency, said that she had talked with some four or five persons in New York City, one of whom was the daughter of J. Leonard Hand, and they made the remark to her that it was a pity that the U.S. government had Matt Baird as their director of training and director of personnel. Senator Potter. That is director of CIA? Dr. Morgan. He had been director of training and personnel — in view of his record at the Arizona Desert School; that he was looked upon as a queer, etc. Senator Potter. I think that you have covered this subject pret- ty well, Dr. Morgan, and I wish to thank you for appearing here. Senator McClellan. I would like to ask a question or two. I didn't get Dr. Craig's initial. Dr. Morgan. Horace C. Craig, I think. Mr. Kennedy. There is a Horace S. in the telephone book. Senator McClellan. Where is Dr. Craig now? Dr. Morgan. I suppose he is with the operations coordinating board. Senator McClellan. Is he still with the government? Dr. Morgan. I believe so. Senator McClellan. He is still in the same position he occupied then, at the time you were testifying about, last September? Dr. Morgan. Well, there has been a reorganization, Senator. I don't know what position he now occupies but it is in the same framework. Senator McClellan. Is he still your boss? Dr. Morgan. No, sir. Senator McClellan. He was in September? 172 Dr. Morgan. Yes, he was in September. Senator McClellan. Then you think he is still with the govern- ment? Dr. Morgan. I think he is still with the government. Senator McClellan. Of course, that fact can be ascertained. I tried to follow very closely with respect to the conversation you had last September when he was pacing the floor after he had sug- gested the idea — made reference to the idea of penetrating the com- mittee staff, and then I think this is your exact language, and I want to get it accurately because you used some qualifying words, I think, after you used this language. I understood you to say and I quote,"It may be necessary to liquidate Senator McCarthy as was Huey Long." Is that quote accurate or substantially accurate as you recall what he said? Dr. Morgan. Yes, sir. Senator McClellan. Then you followed that by saying, if I got it correctly, and I quote: "There is always some madman who will do it for a price." Dr. Morgan. Yes, sir. Senator McClellan. Is that substantially what he said? Dr. Morgan. That is substantially as I remember what he said. Senator McClellan. Did you relate those two expressions at the time as the second implementing the first — that there would al- ways be some madman who would liquidate Senator McCarthy for a price? Did you relate those two statements together and think the second statement referred to Senator McCarthy? Dr. Morgan. Oh, yes. Senator McClellan. There was no question in your mind at the time about it? Dr. Morgan. No, sir. That was the subject of discussion so that it was relevant to what he had been saying. Senator McClellan. Now, this could be a very serious matter and I am trying to elicit from you as of now a description or an expression of the emotion you felt then and the reaction you had to his remarks. Were you impressed at the time or did you believe at the time accept his remark as that of a threat or that of a plot that was going through his mind to actually develop a scheme to accomplish what he had said. How did you react to it at the time? Dr. Morgan. Well, at the time I looked over Dr. Craig and thought, "He must be losing his mind. What is wrong with the guy." That was my introspective analysis. I was sufficiently dis- turbed to mention it at home when I apologized to my wife for being late. She said, "He is out of his mind" or "What is wrong with him" or something of that sort. The fact that he would raise it for discussion and keep me there after closing hours — this was the subject of discussion. We closed up at 5:30 and we were there, I would guess, till 7:00 or thereabouts, so that he must have had in mind that he wanted to go over this thing. Now that I look back, I think also he was trying to find out whether I was tied in with the McCarthy group. I think that may have been one of his intents because a question he threw at me caused me to answer, "I don't know him. I have never met him. As a matter of fact I have never seen him on TV." I think one of his intents was to feel me out with respect to my own affiliations. 173 Senator McClellan. Is that your reflection about it now after the incident occurred some five or six months ago? Do you feel it was just a remark to feel you out, to elicit some expression from you? In other words, was he trying to find out if you were in com- munication with the committee? Dr. Morgan. I think that he was. Senator McClellan. What do you think? Dr. Morgan. I think his first intention was to find out whether I was tied in with the McCarthy group, so to speak. Senator McClellan. Would that be a technique that you use in this psychological warfare — whatever you call it — to make a state- ment that will lead somebody out to express themselves, find out what they may be thinking, their attitude, what their relation or connection may be? Dr. Morgan. It is one of the interrogation techniques. Whether or not he was using it on me — my impression was that he was feel- ing me out as to whether or not I was a member of the McCarthy group. Senator McClellan. In other words, he was trying to find out if you were leaking out information to the committee? Dr. Morgan. No, sir. I think what he was interested in was to find out if I had political affiliations or connections or whether I was identified with the McCarthy group. Senator McClellan. You can only work by giving information. Dr. Morgan. Yes, that is so, but in government, as a government employee they are always interested whether you know Senator so and so. That is a very strong weapon for any government employee. Senator McClellan. Did you ever report the incident to any of your superiors? Dr. Morgan. No, sir, I did not. Senator McClellan. To whom did you first report it, aside from your wife? Dr. Morgan. I think I first talked it over with possibly Colonel Kellis. No, he was gone by that time. He was a confidant of mine. The man I first talked to was you [pointing to Mr. Surine]. Senator McClellan. Whom do you mean? Mr. Surine. Mr. Surine, me. Senator McClellan. You think he is the only one you talked to about it besides your wife? Dr. Morgan. He is the only one who knows about it besides my wife, possibly Colonel Kellis, Mr. La Venia and Mr. Surine. Senator McClellan. Mr. La Venia is also a member of the staff of this committee, is that right? Dr. Morgan. Yes. Senator McClellan. I want to follow up and get the real pro- spective of this thing. If that was a threat, that is something we want to know about, if the guy is still in government service cer- tainly. Of course, if it was just a maneuver on his part to try to elicit information from you or gain some impression from you, folks do that all the time and it would have no significance. I want to get you to evaluate, as of now, in the light of the facts, your reaction then and your sober reflection upon it since. How do you evaluate it as of now after five months' reflection? 174 Dr. Morgan. My evaluation is that at the time he must have been concerned with the problem and that he must have held dis- cussions with persons other than myself and that he was trying to find a solution, in his own mind, as to what ought to be done about McCarthyism, as it is so-called. Senator McClellan. That is your evaluation of it now after five months' reflection, that he really was concerned to himself at least, with what to do about McCarthyism or McCarthy and in medi- tating upon it and thinking out loud, he made these remarks? Dr. Morgan. Yes. Whether or not he would ever have enough courage to carry it through, I don't know. Senator McClellan. I know you wouldn't know that. You are the one involved; you heard the conversation; you know Dr. Craig from working with him and associating with him and you have had five months to reflect upon it. You are now giving testimony about it and you probably are the one most capable on evaluation on the standpoint of whether it really has substance that is of interest to this committee and the public or whether it was something that has no significance and should not be pursued further. I would like for you to make an expression on it. Dr. Morgan. I will say this very decidedly. I don't think informa- tion of this kind has public value because I don't see what purpose is going to be served. I think in connection with other items of a information, it may lead to a more clear picture of what is hap- pening concerning psychological warfare, international operations and things of that sort. I think as an isolated scrap, it reflects the thinking of a person who in line, say with others, would be politi- cally or other reasons. Not politically. I shouldn't say politically, but to what Senator McCarthy was doing at the time. I am not speaking of objectives. I think it has this. I don't know whether I have muddled the thing. Senator McClellan. I think it poses this question or problem for us on the committee. If that man was talking like that in a serious vein and it was thoughts rolling around in his mind, at the time, ideas he was expressing, I think the committee would be concerned about it. Whether it is something that should be given to the public or not, we might have to determine that later, but the question is if we have men in government with ideas like that and expressing ideas like that, I think the committee would be a little bit con- cerned. Dr. Morgan. I think it was a serious statement. He didn't say it in jest. He said it in a reflective sort of way. The reason I ques- tioned the publicity end of it, I don't see what purpose that would serve. Senator McClellan. Aside from that, we don't want that kind of men in government. That would be my first reaction. A man in government making remarks like that, it might go to his fitness to continue to serve as a public servant at least. Dr. Morgan. I want to make a statement at the present time. The fact that I am testifying here jeopardizes my own stay in gov- ernment. If I am a government employee a year from now, I will really be amazed. The very fact that I am here giving information and nobody knows what the status of the information is puts me in a position of jeopardy and I would like to make it a matter of 175 record. I am willing to talk and talk freely and give my opinions, but I would like to have it put down. Senator McClellan. Put down. What do you mean? Dr. Morgan. Put down as a matter of record. I have had a de- bate with my conscience ever since last night. Senator Potter. Did you volunteer to appear before the com- mittee? Dr. Morgan. I have expressed the desire to give information which I consider is to the national interest, and I will give informa- tion which is to the national interest and I have no reluctance whatsoever to giving it. Senator Potter. Did you volunteer the information that you have given here? Dr. Morgan. A substantial part of it to staff members of the committee. Senator Potter. Did they elicit that information or did you give it on your own initiative? Dr. Morgan. I volunteered it. Senator Potter. While you may have been subpoenaed Dr. Morgan. Yes, sir. Senator Potter [continuing.] You initially volunteered the infor- mation? Dr. Morgan. Yes, sir. Senator Potter. How long ago? Dr. Morgan. The information was volunteered, oh, during the last six or seven or eight months — since last October, I think. [Off-record discussion.] Senator Potter. When did you first mention it? Dr. Morgan. I think it was in October. Senator Potter. Within a month after the incident actually oc- curred? Dr. Morgan. Something like that. Mr. Surine. To your knowledge, do you know of any projects of liquidation that CIA has engaged in abroad, in a general way? Dr. Morgan. Yes, sir. Mr. Surine. They call them projects? Dr. Morgan. They may use that. Senator Potter. Liquidate men or persons? Dr. Morgan. No, sir, I don't. It is a business I use to lecture on in CIA. I don't know of any liquidation processes going on abroad. Mr. Surine. Either in the past in your experience in intelligence? Dr. Morgan. When men are liquidated in intelligence you must not refer to it, but you don't ask for permission. The minute you ask for permission, it is denied. That is a code. The question of liq- uidation of enemy agents is never referred for official discussion. Senator McClellan. Now, there is one other thing I'd like to make clear here. At the time Mr. Craig had the conversation about McCarthy and penetration of the committee, was he cognizant of possible investigation or had he ever discussed the question of the McCarthy committee investigating CIA? Dr. Morgan. I don't remember accurately. He may very well have because everybody at the time was saying something about it, his investigation, and whether he expressed an opinion pro or con, I don't remember. 176 Senator McClellan. Has there been any personal feelings, quar- rels or misunderstandings between you and Dr. Craig at any time? Dr. Morgan. No, sir. Senator McClellan. No breach in your personal relationship any way at all? Dr. Morgan. No. Senator McClellan. Thank you very much. Senator Potter. Senator, before you leave — I have no other questions to ask Dr. Morgan — I would like to get permission to make public the executive hearing on Major Peress. Senator McClellan. I thought it had been made public already. Senator Potter. We had an open hearing. This is executive, so if there are no objections, this will be made public. Dr. Morgan, we thank you kindly. [Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 5:05 p.m.] [/quote] To be clear this is less a vindication of McCarthy and more a fascinating peephole view into the Agency during the 50s, with some tantalizingly vague references to Huey Long's "liquidation" and some even vaguer allusions to a highly placed pedophile in the ranks (though in typical 50s fashion this is treated as synonymous with being a homosexual). But my God does all of this just come off a bit... differently.... after you've gone full Epstein brain.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 14, 2019 21:53
|
|
|
RobattoJesus posted:Goddamnit I just learned of Huey Long like 2 pages ago and now I find out he He got the Kennedy treatment, i.e. a lone nut took him out for no real motivation other than personal grandeur or resentment. You wanna talk about weird suicides then look up Gary Webb.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 14, 2019 22:31
|
|
|
The Apocalypse happened in 70 AD and we're the half formed mutant lumps of sentient flesh that were left behind when God and his Hosts ascended back out of the universe with the Elect. We're all spiritual hobos squatting in the moldering remains of a divine mansion.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2019 19:57
|
|
|
gh0stpinballa posted:much love to the tabloids in this instance they're the only ones who seem to give a poo poo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=brawJsSUtxk
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2019 23:36
|
|
|
twoday posted:Piloting airplanes, helicopters, submarines, and dog sled teams is some James Bong poo poo Even in the context of a criminal international pedophile conspiracy white male privilege still applies. Epstein seems to have been a weird creep who coasted from high school drop out to fake hedge-fund billionaire while his prisoners and paramours had to learn how to pilot helicopters and submarines and were also seemingly responsible for all the legwork involved in actually acquiring and grooming the victims of his predatory instincts.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 16, 2019 00:55
|
|
|
a friend in need posted:The way some MSM outlets are covering this is probably way more fascinating to me than the event itself. They are very blatantly misrepresenting the Washington Post article in this writeup. 
|
|
#
¿
Aug 16, 2019 00:57
|
|
|
Dr. Killjoy posted:Not what Bors is getting at but this whole time we’ve been assuming that the assassin came from outside the prison when it’s probably easier to hire someone that’s already inside. I mean how hard is it to strangle someone (well it takes a few minutes at least so not trivial but still)? You don’t need to be trained in the School of Americas for that. Especially when the camera “went out” to cover any bloopers in the procedure. I think the more logical approach is compartmentalize the conspiracy as much as possible. Having the guard also be the assassin means that there's a specific guy out there with way too much information. If the guard was merely encouraged to take a nap or look the other way then there's way less information for them to tell spill to their wife or drinking buddy. The right hand is never supposed to know what the left hand is doing in these situations.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 16, 2019 20:49
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:I'll admit I'm a little sad that "is this for yahweh or is this for bel" didn't get more play after that twoday post Now all we need is a giant effort post on the suppressed teachings of the Gnostics who reveal that those names are but two different masks for the demiurge.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 19, 2019 18:07
|
|
|
Johnny Red posted:the fact that he signed off on the will two days before his death is interesting. obviously he was getting his affairs in order, so either he was aware of the danger he was in, or he did off himself (facilitated by the mcc), or he was preparing his finances for the super-secret body switch. This is purely speculative but if you really want to game out all the possibilities then he may not have been in total control of his own estate and team of lawyers. We don't really know how much, if any, of the wealth he accumulated was actually his own. If Epstein was essentially a cipher for some other group or individual who created him to be a paper billionaire who could be used for moving around resources and people and performing risky and sensitive blackmail operations then for all we know his estate might be largely controlled by someone else. Epstein may not even have been aware that his will had been updated.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 19, 2019 23:38
|
|
|
Wraith of J.O.I. posted:there's a looooooooot going on in this very long interview with this old guy who seems to be senile........ Among the other details here is a remarkably direct example of the (literal) double think that structures how men like him think about rape. quote:What Jeffrey did is nothing in comparison to the rapes and the forceful things, which people did. Jeffrey had to do with a bunch of women who were totally complicit. For years, they went, came there time and time and time again. And if there was only one of them who did it, no one would have noticed—except he made an industry out of it. And why did he make an industry out of it? Because Jeffrey was a very, very, very sick man. For some reason that doesn’t get understood. Did you ever hear of nymphomania? Do you know what that is? quote:
|
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2019 22:55
|
|
|
broke: google Ron Paul woke: google Murray Bookchin bespoke: google Kraft-Ebbing
|
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2019 23:00
|
|
|
"Hail, brothers, Coranon Silaria, Ozoo Mahoke"
|
|
#
¿
Aug 24, 2019 22:55
|
|
|
Johnny Red posted:the story has been starved of significant developments, and that, coupled with the fact that the media has done the absolute minimum to investigate the epstein affair, is seeming to rapidly lead to the energy around it going kaput. there has also been so much else going on in the news to pull away people's attention, too, what with trump's insanity, the amazon, the economy, and all the rest of it. The part that really gets to me is that nobody seems to be perturbed by the idea that a massive blackmail operation targeting numerous figures of political and cultural significance was being conducted more or less openly for decades without apparently drawing much attention from the FBI or anyone else. The D&D line I see getting used is that the claim Epstein belonged to intelligence was a face saving lie to cover up more pedestrian corruption, but if you don't think Epstein had any protection from the American security state then at the very least you would think it would be a massive scandal that nobody took any interest in all of this. This isn't just a question of justice for the victims either. Even looking at this from the most Machiavellian realpolitik perspective, surely you would be concerned that Epstein might have been working on behalf of or willing to sell his information to foreign agencies or businesses. If Epstein wasn't acting with the sanction of someone in the US government then it really raises the question of how massively incompetent and irresponsible they would have been to ignore what he was doing for decades. Even the most mundane interpretation of this scandal, interpreted through the most lazy liberal political perspective, should raise alarm bells. There should be congressional inquiries, huge media scrutiny, people getting fired. The fact that none of this is happening is, on its own, enough to raise suspicions.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 26, 2019 22:04
|
|
|
Dr. Killjoy posted:the sex in Lion King and “take off your clothes” stuff in Aladdin is horseshit, the nude lady in one frame of The Rescuers was real https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCX5JJwkZhU
|
|
#
¿
Aug 26, 2019 23:16
|
|
|
Perry Mason Jar posted:Interesting that the criticism is coming from CounterPunch as well. Maybe read the thread, it's already been uncovered that CounterPunch is owned by a pedophile. Uhm, what?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2019 22:36
|
|
|
The Unabomber used to put meaningless messages inside the packages he mailed just to gently caress with and confuse anyone who intercepted one. Inside one unexploded bomb there was a note saying ""Wu—It works! I told you it would—RV"" and in other cases he'd attached plates with fake initials. Similarly, we know that in the past the government has fed stories to UFO conspiracy theorists to make them publish ridiculous sounding statements that will discredit them to the larger public. So perhaps the truly crack pinged option here is that blatantly photoshopping pictures of Maxwell and putting random "clues" in the metadata of the pictures would be a way to muddy the waters and confuse people. Plenty of normies who might be open to hearing about all the very weird coincidences surrounding Epstein's "suicide" are going to lose interest fast when you start ranting at them about secret messages inside the meta data. And yet it's exactly the kind of weird salacious detail that potential conspiracy theorists are likely to fixate on. It would be a low cost way to drive wedges into any potential truther movement thereby insuring that any conspiracy theory remains isolated outside mainstream opinion and is only associated with cranks. Obviously there are less elaborate explanations that should be considered first, but this is a scenario to always hold somewhere in the back of your mind.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2019 20:10
|
|
|
Bip Roberts posted:*kidnaps child and is noticed by authorities* Better yet, make sure your story gets picked up by the most reviled and pernicious fever swamps of the alt-right so that anyone expressing skepticism about the official narrative is now associating themselves with the worst people in society.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2019 16:00
|
|
|
Hatebag posted:I saw a National Enquirer at the store (can't find it online) and the headline was something like Also don't lose sight of the fact that the Murdoch owned New York Post, which has been the forefront of reporting on Epstein, has been used as a vehicle for attacking Murdoch's enemies since he took it over in the 70s.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 10, 2019 19:14
|
|
|
I see that the cosmic showrunner for this season of Hellworld decided to include an allusion to Lovecraft, probably in an attempt to lampshade how cliched this is getting.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 10, 2019 20:53
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/cjciaramella/status/1171162452857434112
|
|
#
¿
Sep 10, 2019 20:57
|
|
|
The fasc adjacent narrative this thread is getting hooked on about how every rich person is basically a space alien obscures the fact that almost every business owner, parent, community leader, manager and landlord is also potentially in a position to leverage their social power for coerced sex. Most rapes are committed by someone in the family of the victim not a billionaire on a topical island. Let's not obscure the very real and human face of sexual violence by projecting it onto some Otherized boogyman.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2019 19:37
|
|
|
Serf posted:yes, we're fash adjacent for highlighting the billionaire satanist child rape and sacrifice to moloch cult It is literally a variation on the pizza-gate conspiracy theory that is a signature belief of the alt-right so yes, whether or not it is true it is fasc adjacent in the most literal sense. tylersayten posted:But nobody is denying this though? The new part is the ample amount of evidence detailing billionaires, millionaires, and intelligence agencies organizing and maintaining child rape sex operations with the explicit goal of blackmailing each other in order to maintain the current capitalist status quo of the last 60 + years? What we have is a lot of evidence of a government sanctioned child sex trafficking ring with sprawling connections to elite philanthropy and American / Israeli intelligence. How we interpret that information and what political implications we think it has are a more open question. Since the media's attempt to convince the public that Epstein committed suicide was incredibly ineffective the greatest danger right now is that the only people trying to raise awareness of the details of the Epstein scandal end up sounding like Pizzagaters.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2019 20:32
|
|
|
gh0stpinballa posted:getting mixed messages here...so we should look into the global paedo network of elites but we should also be aware that doing so is pretty fascist. nevertheless we should dig the dirt but only if we first agree not to share what we find in case we look like q chuds... We should be aware that there's a ready-made fascist narrative ready and eager to adsorb and neuter anything that is uncovered and do our best to avoid falling into that trap. One way of doing that is to focus on a materialist analysis and to be wary about slipping into modes of thought that downplay systemic forces in favour of individualist ones. Al! posted:i think the most foolish mistake of people itt is thinking that there's only one cabal and not several competing ones Even referring to "cabals" may be presuming a greater degree of coherency and order within high level elite politics than actually exists. Are there durable long lasting coalitions with clearly defined insiders and outsiders or is it an endlessly complicated shifting mosaic of individual relationships that don't cleanly map onto any larger organizational schema? Are there literal secret societies where you're inducted via unspeakable crimes and rituals or just a lot of bilateral relationships between powerful people that over time become so dense and interlayered that they approximate a vast conspiracy? Is this a relatively recent development or does this go back centuries? Do we need to start dusting off Carol Quigly's writings on the Round Table movement? The frustrating part is definitive answers to these questions will probably never present themselves and we're left interpreting shadows on the wall of the cave. At the very least though I think it is safe to say that we probably wouldn't be learning anything about this and Epstein probably wouldn't have been arrested in the first place if there wasn't some kind of high level elite conflict going on behind the scenes. What, for instance, is the role of the Murdoch owned press and why have they been so central to the reporting on what happened? Why did the SDNY prosecutors decide now was the time to move against Epstein? What was Epstein's relationship with the FBI? etc.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2019 21:26
|
|
|
sleeptalker posted:Intelligence agencies are involved, and they're bureaucratic, so to me that's a pretty good reason to assume these things are formally codified as operations, because that's how you stake out your turf and keep your job in a bureaucracy. American intelligence agencies are full of byzantine office politics and bureaucratic empire building, and many of their most significant operations are conducted at arms length with minimal oversight, so I wouldn't assume that just because they are involved in this there must be some underlying coherence. Perhaps the model to look to here are the oligarchic conflicts that afflicted 1990s Russia in which you'd have rival billionaires both assassinating each other and also attacking each other in the press by leaking compromising information on each other's business and personal affairs. The main difference here being that the Russian oligarchs were unsophisticated nouveau riche squabbling over table scraps whereas the people who killed Epstein are presumably integrated into the most powerful ruling elite in world history.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2019 23:00
|
|
|
If you like your cabal, you can keep it
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2019 23:34
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 16:36 |
|
|
Turns out all those studies showing billionaries' don't pay taxes didn't factor in the money the CIA forces you to tithe to their vast international underage sex trafficking ring.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2019 17:54
|
|