Tag Archives: NSA

Next GOP assassin: “216 to go.” Gotcha. Expect bio-pharmaceutical-terrorism.


Kikinda, for easy no-rules-development. Right on the borders of everything.

Long time readers might remember this post — I’m hunting the next assassin of GOP members of Congress. Join me — in which I analyzed a message of a potential future assassin of Republican members of the Congress of these United States. The one thing I couldn’t quite get was a really solid motive beyond ideology (although that’s also a lot). But now I think I’ve got it, what with health care reform or not in Congress, what with conflicts of interest with members of Congress and, in whatever way, with the pharmaceutical industry. The irony is breathtaking.

You’ll remember that the comment of the future assassin sent to Rep. Claudia Tenney, R-N.Y., was communicated at the time that House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) was very close to death just after an assassin came very close to killing off an unthinkable percentage of the duly elected members of this democracy.

Steve, who survived, God bless him, recently released the following statement honoring the victims of the September 11, 2001 terror attacks on what is now the sixteenth anniversary:

“Today I join Americans everywhere in honoring the thousands of innocent lives that were lost 16 years ago when radical Islamic terrorists perpetrated attacks of unimaginable evil against our country. While we can never forget the anger and anguish we felt, we also will never forget the awe we felt in watching our first responders risk their lives to save others, and the everyday Americans across the country who stepped up in the aftermath to help, including thousands who were inspired to answer the call to duty and join our military.

“Through all of the destruction, the American spirit was never broken, and our resolve proved it never could be. Though our country continues to face serious threats both at home and abroad, we will never surrender our American ideals and way of life. Let us all reflect today on how blessed we are to live in the greatest country in the history of the world, and continue to pray for those we lost, as well as those in our military who sacrificed in order to serve and who continue protecting our freedoms.”

I’m guessing that the very unstoppableness of Steve Scalise is what’s been bothering our future assassin in the past few days. He’s dropped a comment in my comments box last night on, of all things, this hopeful and purposely scattered post about the imminent appearance of graphene: Graphene, my “Shadow” and you know. I didn’t let him out of the moderation queue. But those who need to see it can see it (hint: look at the old Admin comments moderation queue as there are all sorts of identifiers there, which need following, so click on everything there, soooo easy, too easy, I think he’s bragging about a done deal; notice that he’s on the run, otherwise removing his presence from the web).

The comment might at first look a bit stupid, like the guy has been drinking a bit too much. The thing is, however, that he’s got the same everything about him as the guy who wrote to Rep. Claudia Tenney, R-N.Y., threatening the assassination of the rest of the GOP members of Congress right after Scalise was gunned down. “Same everything” means down to least vapors of nuance of academic prowess, literary finesse (I’m really impressed), extreme brevity with every word referencing whole movements of history, and he personally having enough clout to get the things done he needs to get done, though he’s personally not really great at tradecraft or, more specifically at this point, doesn’t want or need to be. And look at his present location… If I had to hazard a guess, I would say it’s 100% the guy who threatened Congress using Claudia Tenney to this end, but we’ll go with 95% since no one likes certainty.

What I’m afraid of for Congress is that some idiot analyst (sorry) will dismiss his ever so brief ideological references as irrelevant triteness when, instead, let me repeat, they match exactly what was sent to Claudia Tenney. Really, I don’t think that should be dismissed so easily by those with zero background in philosophy and theology and… and… what is now the prevalent official Russian ideology. In comparison, the exactitude of the nuances are stunning. One after the other. Incredible.

This guy is one of the very best in the world with pharmaceutical research (as is the “Shadow” of my “Shadow”, just coincidentally), and is totally radicalized, though not to ISIS but rather that which more tied ideologically to Hegel. He’s made, in his own mind, the perfect mind meld of Hegel and the raw power of his cipher of darkness. And he’s rationalized it to kill off his once, I’m guessing, piously Catholic conscience (a kind of reverse Kryptos, of course). From his attitude, I’d say he’s already delivered the goods. He thinks it’s inevitable. Done deal. I don’t mean to implicate my “Shadow’s Shadow” above, but that person might find it interesting that, if I remember correctly, they both went to the same university and studied the same things, although he’s that other person’s senior by about six years.

To the Company and the Institute: I would analyze his comment publicly, but the problem is I would immediately be shut down with law suits since I can name names and companies here in the USA. Hint: The name of this Doctor is cleverly discovered in his handle (with his pharmaceutical company’s name) and his email address, which contains a weird part of his own personal name. Check the locations mentioned in third party articles about him. He’s rather well known. Lot’s of street cred. Despite what he thinks about himself in his choice of rather significant handle. And, from what’s there, you can immediately find his street address in Kikinda. Easy peasy. Maybe he wants to be picked up for a bit of fame, knowing that no information will be able to stop what he’s already put into action. He’s figured out some sort of bio-terrorism to accomplish his goals, that is, his self-fulfilling prophesy, just what’s needed in his self-serving narcissism.

Perhaps I’m wrong. Perhaps. But, as the famous lady said: “But it’s a 100%.” If I were you, I’d pick him up and ask him a question or two. Just ask, and I’ll analyze his comment for you. It’s jammed. I could think of a 1000 questions I could ask him leading to decisive and actionable intelligence.

He’ll see this post, of course. But he can’t run. WAY too famous. He doesn’t want to run. But what I would do straightaway is go to see his research project notes at his research facility here in these USA. That might give you some indication about what he’s been developing Kikinda.


Filed under Intelligence Community, Politics, Terrorism

ODNI NSA CIA… Politically correct intelligence? Is that, like, a thing?



A great deal of my life in academics was spent in getting to know the greatest thinkers the world has ever known, such as the prophets and evangelists, such as Augustine and Aquinas on the one hand, as well as, on the other, the fakers who become flavors of the day for self-congratulators, such as Erasmus and Luther, Rahner and de Chardin, Mohammed and Cardinal […].

What I’ve discovered about so very many of the analysts of those personages and so many others is that it’s all just about another effort in self-congratulation unless they take the time and effort (laziness and fear of the reality of oneself is the problem) to read everything that person has read, unless they go back in time as well as one might so as to insert oneself in the languages and mores and the times in which that person lived, shedding anachronisms of what we know or think we know and whatever we would want to see for whatever selfish reasons. You know the exclamation by a great orator: “O tempora! O mores!” That blistering sarcasm presumes a comparison with other times and other ways of doing things, condemning the idiocy of our own day, whatever day that happens to be in which pride of self covers over reality. But this protestation falls on deaf ears. The game among most academics is to ensure that no one does real research so that the comfort of self-congratulation can continue unabated: “Let’s all read ourselves into whatever and whoever, just don’t confuse us with the facts!”

Now, I just wonder – just wondering, mind you – whether or not a few of those who set policy for intelligence communities these days have set about reducing acquisition of knowledge, of actionable intelligence, to the lowest common denominator that is so low and so common that, really, if someone knows how to play this game, he or she can escape being thrust outside the ultra-broad parameters of tolerance of normalcy by encoders of algorithms, thus remaining undetected, the tradecraft of avoiding tradecraft, making it appear that one is not avoiding detection. Doing this is as easy as knowing the dumbed-downness of one’s partner in the “game.” If the political correctness of analysts has been brought to the point of having analysts never delving deeply into motivation (a predictor of action), the policy has provided a licence to terrorists to kill. Such policy would be the arrogance of a false humility, the imposition of what one expects of one’s ideological instead of real self, a reading of the mere shell of oneself into the target, the actual reality of the target being brushed aside as irrelevant, making the suspect no longer suspect. If it’s irrelevant for me then it must be irrelevant for him, right? Wrong. This is precisely not the humility of which I wrote regarding Kryptos. (See: Solving Kryptos – Crux stat dum volvitur orbis.) This is precisely the way to let terrorism happen.

So, let me be more specific. Is there a politically correct denial of natural law, even though it is cited continuously and somewhat speciously, you know, the old “integrity which knows how to work in gray areas” diatribe? What is the basis for integrity if not natural law, such as in “Don’t murder the innocent,” that kind of thing? Rejection of some of the natural law is rejection of all of it, weakening the accomplishment of the mission because of the dimming of the vision of analysts. If they can’t see what they are doing, what can one expect?

O.K., let me be even more specific. If there is such a backing away from natural law, there follows lockstep a confounding of real religion with fake religion. True religion, to be such, must be consonant with natural law. Fake religion always compromises natural law. If true religion is irrelevant to the analyst, he or she won’t be able to assess the importance of fake religion as a primary motivator in terrorist attacks. This is ideological insanity (wildly not consonant with reality) and forces analysts to be nervous enough to exaggerate their merely secular analyses, as if that were enough. “We can do it! We can do it!” Yes, UBL was had that way, but so much more can be done. Fake religion is the primary motivator in terrorism. That must be taken into account. If not, expect the worst, like Kasi, like the Tsarnaevs, like…

So, what is the crux of religion? It’s not as Kryptos as you think, if you’re honest.

Anyway, something to think about even before mid-late January when the swamps along the Potomac will be drained. Let’s gear up for something good, shall we? For my part, I think I should start publishing a bit more on real vs. fake religion. Stay tuned.

1 Comment

Filed under Intelligence Community, Interreligious dialogue, Politics, Terrorism