It’s surprising that I only saw a clear connection between intelligence work and my condemnation of Wordism.
When I use the term Wordism it sounds theoretical. In serious intelligence works it’s about as theoretical as explaining to an advertizing convention that they shoudl not refer to their product as bad.
Big appropriations went into the CIA’s New England Mafia. The money went to the Ivy League types to whom the field was afraid to report. When the Torricelli Amendment attacked the problem that so many informers used out in the field were — horrors! — very shady types, this problem surfaced like a tidal wave.
Torricelli that any informer a field operative wanted to use, if he had a police record, simply had to be checked out with Washington. There has never been a clear demonstration of how much the field operatives trusted the Harvard boys in DC.
On-the-ground intelligence collapsed. Despite that, not ONE SINGLE field operative ever sent a name to DC! They didn’t who Hansen was, but they knew there were plenty of his kind at HQ. Whatever you let CIA HQ in on went straight to the KGB, and your man would disappear.
On a practical level, this explains some of the desperate financing of real work during the Cold War. You couldn’t go “on the budget” so you went to the Howard Hunt types( I am describing a TYPE, not a person).
Let me repeat that the head of the Cuba Desk of the Defense Intelligence Agency was a Castro agent and is now in prison for it. How many did NOT go to prison?
She was a Hispanic leftist, but no one was allowed to question her loyalty to whatever philosophy Being a Good American was suposed to be in the Pentagon at the moment.
Meanwhile, back on Planet Earth, no sane person would trust you for a second if you did not understand you needed to deal with people who had GUT loyalties, not to a set of words about “What America Should Be” or “I Want to Teach the World to Sing in Perfect Harmony.”
If you didn’t want to be ratted out, you had better deal with a Southerner or a Phildelphia Irishman whose concept of loyalty had nothing to do with the latest theories on What America is All About.
He is loyal to his country, a specific people, and he won’t sell them out.
#1 by Shari on 05/12/2006 - 5:44 pm
Gut loyalty is just loving your neighbor as yourself. We need the poison that makes us think that hate is love, while real love goes begging, out of our heads. I think that there was a nasty seed planted at Yale about 1836 as well, but I don’t even try to figure everything out. Couldn’t anyway.
#2 by kane on 05/12/2006 - 10:41 pm
Well, lol, my whole life experiences with filthydelphia irishmen have not been overwhelmingly postitive, to say the least, lol. They usually are anti-southern btw, or to put it differntly, pro-Lincoln, in your face ultrapatriotic pro-Lincoln setiments there. There is something different about irish people. I never feel like I’m “one of them” when I’m around them. In fact I think its ridiculous to deny that there are differences between the different subraces of the white race, as sf does. I cetainly believe there is a difference between an anglo-saton (you), a slav (me), and an irishman. I believe stormfront obsesses over Jews to mask over these differences, or to distract people from them.
#3 by henryd on 05/13/2006 - 9:13 am
I recently read a debate between a couple white nationalists/survivalists and jews. One of the WN/WS’s said that all the men who signed their names to the Declaration of Independence were White Europeans. The Jew replied that they weren’t White Europeans – They were “Americans.”
I believe this is in direct correlation to what you said here Mr. Whitaker:
“If you didn’t want to be ratted out, you had better deal with a Southerner or a Phildelphia Irishman whose concept of loyalty had nothing to do with the latest theories on What America is All About.
He is loyal to his country, a specific people, and he won’t sell them out. ”
#4 by Peter on 05/13/2006 - 3:25 pm
I think I know what you are saying, Bob. Well said and diplomatic. You never disappoint me.
#5 by Simmons on 05/13/2006 - 3:47 pm
An honest Irishman would rat out his mother. Having worked with the
Irish in the Chicago building trades I can say stick with the Dagos.
#6 by Elizabeth on 05/13/2006 - 4:32 pm
One day in 1985, I was wandering through a little park near a house I’d recently moved into.
A man in a business suit caught my attention. He looked nervous. One or two other
men in business suits walked up to him. (Note: these were the only men in business
suits in sight. Everybody else present was in some sort of casual dress.)
Several months later, after I’d moved to a different suburb, a news story broke about
an FBI agent who’d been passing secrets to the KGB. This was the fellow in the
business suit.
This is just one of a few really odd things I’ve seen or heard that, if I’d reported
it, I would have been ridiculed for. What would I know? I’m just a graduate of
a public university in the South!
#7 by Elizabeth on 05/13/2006 - 4:35 pm
I’ve been reading about the intelligence agencies since my teens. I was really
disappointed when I first read about the CIA’s obsession with hiring Ivy
leaguers as analysts. As I’ve gotten older, I’ve also been grievously
disappointed that they have an age ceiling for (desk-bound) analysts —
of 37!
Hey, what would a bunch of kids know?
#8 by Elizabeth on 05/13/2006 - 4:41 pm
Me again.
Deke DeLoache, who was J. Edgar Hoover’s chief assistant for many years, wrote
an interesting book probably ten years ago about his years in the FBI. He
wrote that Hoover especially trusted Catholics and Mormons because
they understood how to work within a hierarchy AND because he (Hoover)
considered them to be the most consistently anti-Communist of
potential agents. (It’s been a long time since I’ve read the book.)
The FBI was unusual in that, in the 1920s and 1930s, it required a college
degree in accounting or a law degree, which were educational requirements
completely unknown in any other law enforcement agency in the US at the time.
#9 by Mark on 05/13/2006 - 5:04 pm
“I think that there was a nasty seed planted at Yale about 1836 as well, but I don’t even try to figure everything out.”
You were around in 1836? So and you Bob have something in common!
#10 by Shari on 05/14/2006 - 10:21 am
Sometimes I wish that I was around then, my cares would be over now. Ha! No, I think that was the year that a nasty social club was formed. Didn’t the CIA start as the OSS in world war2 ? I read that someone dubbed it the Oh so social.
#11 by Mark on 05/14/2006 - 5:17 pm
“Sometimes I wish that I was around then, my cares would be over now.”
Hey don’t give up on today. I have a feeling things are just starting to get interesting. I have no idea what direction the wind will blow and who will be the participants, but I honestly believe all of us in the pro white movement will have oppurtunities galore to change the social fabric and possibly, the political climate to our betterment. I could be wrong, but from what I see going on and how fast things are changing, we are in one for one dramatic roller coaster ride.