Tag Archives: NSA

My “Shadow” sent my entire texting history with him to the *destination*

safe-house

This is just one of those boring, kryptic, for-the-record posts.

Pictured above is the safe-house of my “Shadow.” He’s the guy who stole my identity, becoming me back in the mid-late 1970s, looking like me and the same age as me, but with maybe just a tiny little bit more grey in the mustache. He wants to gain weight so as to be an identical copy of me. I have trouble losing weight because of a medicine I take. He even wanted me to sign off on all his properties (many) not for me to own them but so that he could disappear. This has been going on for decades.

Pictured below is my “Shadow”. He looks like a tramp for my visit. He’s really good at what he does. He doesn’t live at his safe house. He has a much nicer place. And a super-decked out conversion van, you know, for work. He seems to live far beyond his means. Hint, hint, hint.

img_20170125_204742

A little while back my “Shadow” copied and forwarded all my text messages with him to an unknown destination upon that destination’s request. That was very soon after I put in a case with the FBI that would involve the FBI, CT at McLean and Main State (because of what Main State had said to me, confirming that two days later, both being extensive conversations). Interesting. I am reminded of texting conversations these days what with all the flurry about the not analogous but perhaps not too separate case of Stzrok and his girl friend.

Back in 1992 Main State wrote me a two page single space letter saying that they couldn’t care less about my Shadow, but were instead going to track me, and this in perpetuity. In 1996 the FBI at the U.S. Consulate in Rome tried to force me, a citizen in good standing in these USA, to forego my identity and disappear altogether, letting the guy who took my identity years before go on with his life as me. To their disgruntlement, I didn’t do it. It has been chaos all these years, stretching back into the 1980s. I could write volumes about this. It isn’t about to end soon:

I have to say that my “Shadow” has a human side to him, you know, a little bit of guilt, a weak spot. I like that. It works for me. He seems to have “mistakenly” let me in on the texting he had with the destination of my texting history with him. Heh heh heh. For the record. It’s surely not that they didn’t have that texting history already available to them; it’s that they wanted to see if he would be so loyal to them as to do their bidding, no matter what. Whatever about him, it was written for them.

For the record, let’s say that that request of mine at the top of that texting (the destination will know what that is) is actually serious. That would solve particular endangerment that I’m put in because of this, right? Along with that goes something else that goes along with that and is one of the primary reasons for that, and that would solve a lot as well, right? Be nice.

[Could I possibly be more kryptic than that? Lol. ;-) ]

1 Comment

Filed under Father Byers Autobiography, Intelligence Community

Countering cafeteria: countersabotage counterintelligence counterterrorism

manure spreader

NSA’s program is a massive FISA warrant. Robert Mueller was in on it. James Comey was in on it. Peter Stzrok was in on it. Snowden reported a part of it.

Comey thinks everyone who thinks Nunes’ FISA Memo is important is a weasel and a liar, not because spying on the POTUS or anyone else is at all wrong, it seems for him, but that doing so as a favor to political opposition is just fine and dandy in a democracy with a Constitution such as we have it. ?!?!?

So, anything goes, and anyone who doesn’t get with the program is held to be countering countersabotage, counterintelligence, counterterrorism, and is therefore as un-American as any saboteur, spy or terrorist. When I was a little kid, it was a saying among all the kids that you shouldn’t point your finger at anyone since the rest of your fingers were pointing back at yourself if you do so.

But, hey! Now we’re moving on to Nunes’ “phase 2” with Main State. Ha ha.

4 Comments

Filed under Intelligence Community, Politics

FBI’s Strzok-Page “insurance policy” – Should I sit on this?

main-state-department-of-state

To this day, no one knows what the “insurance policy” is, well, almost no one. People assume that it has something to do with Russia. Why? The point is that if all that Russia rubbish doesn’t work (which means it’s all fake, by the way), then, post-election, you do something else to have the President of the United States (Trump) removed from office. As Trump pointed out the other week, this is treasonous.

Whenever we talk, the blackest of all black operators (I get reprimanded by others for saying that that he’s the best shot in the world, but it’s verifiably the truth) tells me again and again about insurance policies as being the normal way of operating for everything important that goes down in the running of this country here or abroad. You always but always have something to hold over someone’s head, and that works vice versa.

As long time readers know, I’ve stuck my head out and reported to the FBI some things the State Department related to me regarding oversight of Counterterrorism in McLean, something which compromises not only our efforts with Counterterrorism (as if that wasn’t bad enough in this day and age), but which fit exactly what Strzok would like to have as an insurance policy by which to oust the President of the United States immediately upon the word being given.

I’ve mentioned this to CT, and they’ve related this to the FBI (meaning that CT at McLean is clean of this) and given me some other instructions regarding various Inspectors General. The FBI has been doing some background work, but they’re hesitating, unsure to use this to redeem themselves in the eyes of the citizens of these United States, or to go ahead and let it be an insurance policy for them. How about just going with it for the sake of the good of the country? Hey! That’s a novel idea.

Should I continue to sit on this? Should I name names? Would I then be guilty of leaks and unmasking?

Justice is always the way to go. No politics. Just do the right thing, always, every time, no compromise, ever. Once you cave in, you’re done, a “made man”, but in the sense of “you’ve been had,” meaning you’re then no longer a “company man” in the best sense, but someone who can only be a danger to themselves, to others, to the country, secure in your job, you think, until you’re not. Sad, that. But we’ll continue.

1 Comment

Filed under Intelligence Community, Politics

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

CIA MEMORIAL LANGLEY

Thanks for your “DEDICATION ON BEHALF OF THE AGES.”

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