A comment or two …

This first comment is from Namelessrange at 4&20 under a post about impeachment:

Nevermind the hypocrisy of members of Congress being OK with the NSA/CIA spying on U.S. citizens, but having issues with the CIA spying on them, but I think a pretty damning case can be made that Obama should be impeached.

The CIA was caught spying(hacking into the computers) of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and the bastard didn’t even bat an eye.

The Executive Branch was spying on the Legislative Branch. The head of the Executive Branch is out of control. There is a massive breakdown in the Separation of Powers, and Obama is culpable.

I file it under “miles to go before I sleep,” as NLR is only beginning to understand the corruption of his country’s government. As JC noted elsewhere, it is very difficult for citizens brought up to love and admire this country and its institutions to accept that they are corrupt. The post below hints at a scab you might not want to scratch, of our black-op boys running the opium trade in Afghanistan. I might also introduce him to a group of men and women in Langley who routinely meet and decide who they are going to murder, and how. They do not kill bad guys. They are the bad guys. They murder good people who get in their way.

Below is an excerpt from the CIA manual on assassinations, which of course does not exist, never did, and once found, was discarded and never used again:

For secret assassination, either simple or chase, the contrived accident is the most effective technique. When successfully implemented, it causes little excitement and is only casually investigated.

The most efficient accident, in simple assassination, is a fall of 75 feet or more onto a hard surface. Elevator shafts, stair wells, unscreened windows and bridges will serve. Bridge falls into water are not reliable. In simple cases a private meeting with the subject may be arranged at a properly-cased location. The act may be executed by sudden, vigorous [excised word] of the ankles, tipping the subject over the edge. If the assassin immediately sets up an outcry, playing the “horrified witness”, no alibi or surreptitious withdrawal is necessary. In chase cases it will usually be necessary to stun or drug the subject before dropping him. Care is required to insure that no wound or condition not attributable to the fall is discernible after death.

Falls into the sea or swiftly flowing rivers may suffice if the subject cannot swim. It will be more reliable if the assassin can arrange to attempt rescue, as he can thus be sure of the subject’s death and at the same time establish a workable alibi.

If the subject’s personal habits make it feasible, alcohol may be used [words excised] to prepare him for a contrived accident of any kind.

Falls before trains or subway cares are usually effective, but require exact timing and can seldom be free from unexpected observation.

Those cut ups! Imagine you are pushed into a river by a murderer, and the last thing you see before dying is the killer swimming toward you, laughing, saying “I am here to rescue you!” as he clubs you the final blow or pushes your head under water to hold you down and finish the job. It’s a coffee break laugh at Langley.

These are our people, they do this for a living. They are not out of control. This is how they keep control. If they confined themselves to wiretapping now and then, they’d be less a bother to democratic governance. But people who work in Washington and who have any power at all know about the underbelly of American government, the power of assassination, intimidation, blackmail. This “out of control” executive, like all before him since 1963, works with gun at his head. We live in pathocracy.
This, below, from Rob Kailey:

As per norm, [Mark] teases the reader to the appropriate conclusion (he wants) when in fact he probably just ought to flat out state it. But that would require being overtly logical, which for some reason I will never understand Mark often seems to think abhorrent, or low minded.

This comment, which I found fascinating, serves more to highlight differences in individual mindsets than any defects in character or writing style for either of us. Rob wants me to merely say what I am trying to say without being coy. But my fingers don’t work like that. I guess I’d never be able to write an assassination manual.

About Mark Tokarski

Just a man who likes to read, argue, and occasionally be surprised.
This entry was posted in Blogroll. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to A comment or two …

  1. Good Morning Mark,

    I am well aware of how corrupt our Govt can be and all too often is, and have not admired many things about my country in a long time. To explain my comment, and more accurately me, you revert to psychologizing once again. This retreat to an unfalsifiable explanation is too easy to do, rarely relies on any sort of knowledge, and is ultimately nothing but wishful ad hominem. It could just as easily be done to those who believe in the validity of what are commonly known as “conspiracy theories”, and would be just as much of a tripe, as it has absolutely nothing to do with specific arguments. Basically, you do it to make yourself feel better.
    To the aforementioned comment:

    Lizard was discussing the impeachment of Obama, so I provided a thought on grounds for impeachment. In doing so, I provided something for which the evidence is overwhelming and for which a clear logical line can be brought to a conclusion. Namely, The President is failing to do his job, which is run the executive branch per the constitution, therefore grounds for impeachment may exist. I find this reasoning plausible and clear enough that it would be available to most, regardless of political affiliation, which is why I provided it.

    Though I think there may be a case within them, I purposefully avoided miles of circumstantial evidence, dubious premises, and conclusions that do not follow – which is all too often your Modus Operandi.

    Go ahead now, say something about MSM, the letter “D”, TV, lack of curiosity, and whatever else you think explains away the fact that you are self-aware, surrounded by a sea of deluded people. (Which in terms of probability, is bad for your priors, thus the retreat)


    • I have much knowledge obtained over many years, a quarter century. I am an evidence theorist. I try to understand the minds of those who avoid and keep their distance from evidence, in fact, belittle and ridicule those who have it. The best I’ve been able to do so far is Orwell’s crimestop, though JC helped out quite a bit a few days ago in bringing me something from Sagan regarding how people who are bamboozled would rather stay that way than move forward.

      You say you are “…well aware of how corrupt our Govt can be and all too often is”, and all I am saying is, no, you’re not. You’ve not yet begun to explore the depths of our corruption. We are merely speaking past one another.


    • PS: I do not link to your comment as I am not trolling, nor did I write what I wrote above to expose or belittle you. I simply want to know where your mind is at. I stated this clearly when I wrote last week that I was going to highlight comments, the more interesting ones I run across, that expose differences in thought habits and mindsets. For you to be where you are at in your progress in understanding reality, versus me, indicates divergent paths. It is difficult to speak across the void.


  2. steve kelly says:


    Lessons from the past just don’t seem to “stick.” Sam Smith doesn’t hold back very often.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s