Agree. But how? We can’t end it until we gain control of government again. And to do that we need to demand transparency and decentralization in government. What we need is a transparency movement. #bitcoin #transparency #transparencymovement https://joshketry.substack.com/p/what-we-need-is-a-transparency-movement
The beginning of several articles to come, I hope. I understood that there were certain FBI agents who were aware of HRC's email tricks but were too afraid to come before Congress because of their jobs. Is that true? How can investigative journalists find out? Does anybody care that HRC violated all sorts of laws? And so we continue.
One day we must understand why Trump didn't fire the entire 7th floor. He started the clean-up but left Wray who is part & parcel of the self-serving leadership. I do believe that many of the FBI sworn officers are honorable people. I served with such people in the military so I am reasonably sure they are there. Generally such people are not overtly political and simply want to do their sworn duty. How can we account for the corruption in the Whitmer case? All of those officers should be allowed to resign or be fired.
I hope the interminable Laptop from Hell gets a full examination by the Congress and another batch of agents required to resign or get fired.
Where is that guy, Mr D or something, with a lamp when we need him? I can hope for a Trump or Trump-like person to become our Chief and act to clean up the mess created by complacency and rank incompetence.
yes, the very fact he had no plan to fire every fire-able person, ends up meaning he was simply a trojan horse. I spent a few years thinking that maybe he just didn't realise, but I can't keep up that pretense anymore.
This is a sad, sad story. I worked with the FBI in some of its most sensitive operations between 1982 and 1986. They were always the trusted intermediary. In fact, at one point when I was working on the National Security Council Staff under Admiral Poindexter, a coworker - Oliver North - told me he wanted to introduce me to someone he thought I would like. We went next-door in the Pentagon basement's segmented secret squirrel cage, and he introduced me to my brother-in-law. North began bragging about all of his exploits, unaware that the fellow in the corner was Dave Major, a highly-credible well-known FBI agent, who took notes.
Power corrupts. As long as they have enough power to corrupt justice, whining about them on the internet is useless. They're stronger than any of us, but not stronger than all of us. The solution is to reduce their power. They can be beaten with proper supervision. Focus on electing rational government and we'll bring them to heel.
Forgive me, but "power corrupts" is wrong. A corrupt perosn will use power for corrupt reasons and spread the corruption to others. How much easier isn't that then if you can convince people that it's not them who are corrupt, but the power that made them so?
And the start of corruption is always "If you don't do this lesser evil, you allow a greater to happen".
Followed by "Think of all the good you can do with the power you will have. If you don't grab it, someone else will and they might not be as good as you; wouldn't it be better if you had the power instead?"
And the closer: "You can lay it down anytime. No one is forcing you to do anything, you are in command, yours is the power. Only you have that special moral fortitude and strenght of conviction to handle power responisbly, and it costs you nothing but a token of goodwill."
Power does not corrupt. Corrupt people excuse and rationalise their corruption, neither saying "I want, so I do: my will be done" nor saying "No, this is wrong. Even if you can get anyone else that will do it, it won't be me", but instead just following orders, acting for the greater good, in the interest of the cause, and so on.
And justice? Justice rests at the end of a spear, as my ancestros used to say.
You're suggesting they do it because they think it's the right thing to do. The evidence shows they know what they're doing is wrong, and a violation of the oath they all took. That's corrupt.
Yes, but that doesn't adress my statment: power does not corrupt. Corrupt people use power to corrupt, and rationalise their actions post and ad hoc.
If you found yourself in the position as head of a secret service agency such as the FBI, how long do you think you could remain there unless you aligned your personal ehtics with those already ingrained in the organisation's pre-existent structure, knowing full well that if you did not align, you'd be sidelined and outmaneuvered, made to look incompetent and hence replaced with someone who is "a good fit" for the organisation?
That's a major part of the problem: to get into a position to affect and effect change, one must compromise one's ideals and rationalise this internally well past the point that one's moral event hoizon is not even a memory, or the organisation or structure you are trying to climb through won't let you advance.
Seeking power over others feeds whatever seed of corruption we all carry within.
We're pretty much in agreement. Corruption is within all of us, instinctively pursuing our own best interests. Some suppress it better than others, but power is the catalyst that allows it to become active, and to affect others. Without power, we're just curmudgeon. A tyrant is a curmudgeon who has acquired power.
Ah David - I would that that "rational government" were possible. But I suspect that elusive creature may be another of those 'Golden Age' myths. Our world is ruled by nameless, faceless, unidentified, (and unidentifiable), definitely unaccountable bureaucrats. The holders of office - the people we go through the motions of electing - are controlled by vast armies of 'officials'. Sixty years ago, in a slightly different context, Eisenhower warned us about the "potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power". Ike was right!
You're suggesting rational government isn't possible, and we have to accept whatever they demand of us. Ike's government was fairly rational, and he was correct that it could be worse. He didn't feel it was necessary to say "it's up to us." A lot of people today seem to overlook that.
It has been used as a political weapon from the outset in 1924, and it should never have been created in the first place, Its existence is a violation of the Tenth Amendment, another power grab by the centralised Federal Government, to negate various provisions of the Bill of Rights by illegal and unconstitutional acts. Too often, it has been used - especially under J Edgar Hoover, the epitome of a spiteful, unaccountable, and far too powerful federal bureaucrat - to protect and perpetuate organized crime.
"Decency, security, and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be subjected to the same rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen. In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy.
To declare that in the administration of the criminal law the end justifies the means—to declare that the government may commit crimes in order to secure the conviction of a private criminal—would bring terrible retribution. Against that pernicious doctrine this court should resolutely set its face." Olmstead, 277 U.S. at 478-79 (1927) (Brandeis, J., dissenting), cited in https://olemiss.edu/depts/ncjrl/pdf/2009%20Steiker.pdf
When Clinton got in office, one of the first things he did was ask the FBI for the files they had on elected leaders and high level bureaucrats. Now why do you think he'd want that info? (Everyone sure played nice together, didn't they?)
I'm sure there are many who are dirty in Washington. From someone I knew long ago and had to deal with those same people and their sex crimes (discreetly)... It's rampant. So yeah, I could see people being afraid to go after the FBI.
After all, how do you think J. Edgar Hoover stayed in as the head of the FBI for so long? He had dirt on everyone and he let them know it.
There is an art to pretending to care what your constituents think and the Republican establishment are well practiced in it. Now it is a race between the angry base who are tired of their crap and the entrenched establishment who are trying to distract and delay until people start to forget about it. It is rather telling that whenever populism is mentioned, the old guard GOP is sent into a state of anger and hysteria.
Such defense would be quite welcome. On another stack, I did acquire a reply that was clearly Russian in nature and quite wrong about Ukraine reportage. I was mildly surprised. I have noted that no real CDC/HHS types ever comment in rebuttal to much of the data we are seeing. They are obviously aware of these SubStacks yet decline comment even hiding who they are. Unlike the twiitterverse SubStack writers can do as they wish to mange trolls so we see much less of that and we have some decent conversations. For that I'm more than grateful.
While I don't like the threading model used by this platform, reading the comments gives me a sense of not being nuts or all alone in my thoughts. I relish those who hold me to account as it helps my thinking. I'm sure venting also helps as well, just to calm my anger.
Your observation makes a very important point: "a sense of not being nuts or all alone in my thoughts". When our only local coffee shop closed (refused to adhere to mask/vaccine card rules), I felt isolated. (Don't do fakebook, the Bird, or wallow in any of the other anti-social groupthink sewers). Sub-stack offers a window into actual information. And even Intelligent and amusing commentary. Sure - there's some crap. I write my share. But overall, the authors and commentariat provide a tiny glimpse of sanity in a world that isn't.
Hell, maybe I should turn on comments for paid subs only. If they can throw $54,000 to Big Dan, surely they can kick down some cash to spew shit onto the comment section 😝
I'm interested to see how widely that "I agree, we should overthrow the government by force" bot spreads as many stackers begin writing about the Whitmer verdict.
I haven't clicked any of the several links it uses but I may have Husbandmouth take a glance at the code at some point.
While the discussion on the bloat of the administrative state is for another day I think we need to really assess what the problem is at the FBI and our other institutions. Despite the many mistakes of the FBI over the years it was still the premier law enforcement agency. However it no longer is because it has been politicized and dominated by elites who believe they are entitled to “reimagine” the agency to meet their enlightened agenda. We see the same thing at places like Disney that has been captured by a minority group espousing fringe view. However, they like their counterparts in government believe they are entitled to run these institutions by virtue of their moral and intellectual superiority thus making anyone questioning that an evil that needs tk be silenced or worse
Whatsamatta? They ain't got no more Efrem Zimbalist Jrs. to run the place?
Ever notice how good Hollywood is at making us forget there was ever a J. Edgar Hoover? All that sage-smudging with Scott Glenn and Jodie Foster, and a really cartoonish Hannibal Lecter to keep folks watching through iteration and reiteration of the heroic saga. (The Lecter of the books was an extraordinary creation and the Brian Cox and Mads Mikkelsen versions were good interpretations, but they're all supporting scaffolding for the important work of mythologizing a fetid agency.)
Our civilization is being brought down by tawdriness, and really, I'd have preferred, at least, to have had the dignity of a demise at the hands of Genghis Khan, or someone.
The U.S. Marshalls were created in 1789 to enforce Federal law and go after interstate fugitives. FBI, DHS, CIA, BATFE, DEA, NSA, DIA, why the hell do we need multiple agencies whose "jobs" technically overlap? It cannot be for redundancy because they are all equally incompetent. Maybe just maybe, if we had specific agencies for specific things with hard limits on their authority, they might just be somewhat competent at their actual jobs!
Most of the TLA's (Three Letter Agencies) were initially established with specific goals - or at least for defined purposes. Then, bureaucracies being bureaucracies, they spun off more three and four letter Agencies, who begat more four and five Agencies. And so on. Until today. When we no longer know how many Agencies exist. Or why. But almost all of the myriad mysterious meddlers seen to possess extra judicial powers. And few, if are ever held accountable. For anything. Including murder! (Ashli Babbitt, Branch Dravidian massacre at Waco, etc.)
A fellow called Parkinson wrote a lot about the growth some years ago by studying the Uk ministry of wooden ships which continued to grow as wooden ships were removed from service. Competent management in the private sector avoid overhead if the business is to survive, but government has no such control. And the Peter Principle ensures that competent management becomes impossible. Within governments about the only way to clear out deadwood is lateral transfers at frequent intervals of the top levels. Bereft of cronies managers are forced to focus on organization and either perform or decide to retire.
I think deus ex machina is the best hope. I think it's coming, one does not complexify and corrupt indefinitely. Many things could serve. My fav is a coronal mass ejection from that large friendly sky presence that I personally worship.
Oh, only down side is that isn't going to actually mean regaining control of them and forcing them to serve those who pay.
Simply they and we will cease to be able to fulfil those roles.
Agree. But how? We can’t end it until we gain control of government again. And to do that we need to demand transparency and decentralization in government. What we need is a transparency movement. #bitcoin #transparency #transparencymovement https://joshketry.substack.com/p/what-we-need-is-a-transparency-movement
The beginning of several articles to come, I hope. I understood that there were certain FBI agents who were aware of HRC's email tricks but were too afraid to come before Congress because of their jobs. Is that true? How can investigative journalists find out? Does anybody care that HRC violated all sorts of laws? And so we continue.
One day we must understand why Trump didn't fire the entire 7th floor. He started the clean-up but left Wray who is part & parcel of the self-serving leadership. I do believe that many of the FBI sworn officers are honorable people. I served with such people in the military so I am reasonably sure they are there. Generally such people are not overtly political and simply want to do their sworn duty. How can we account for the corruption in the Whitmer case? All of those officers should be allowed to resign or be fired.
I hope the interminable Laptop from Hell gets a full examination by the Congress and another batch of agents required to resign or get fired.
Where is that guy, Mr D or something, with a lamp when we need him? I can hope for a Trump or Trump-like person to become our Chief and act to clean up the mess created by complacency and rank incompetence.
yes, the very fact he had no plan to fire every fire-able person, ends up meaning he was simply a trojan horse. I spent a few years thinking that maybe he just didn't realise, but I can't keep up that pretense anymore.
This is a sad, sad story. I worked with the FBI in some of its most sensitive operations between 1982 and 1986. They were always the trusted intermediary. In fact, at one point when I was working on the National Security Council Staff under Admiral Poindexter, a coworker - Oliver North - told me he wanted to introduce me to someone he thought I would like. We went next-door in the Pentagon basement's segmented secret squirrel cage, and he introduced me to my brother-in-law. North began bragging about all of his exploits, unaware that the fellow in the corner was Dave Major, a highly-credible well-known FBI agent, who took notes.
North was out on his ass not long after that.
Friggin Bastards Incorporated
Wait a minute... You mean "The X-Files" isn't a documentary?
Power corrupts. As long as they have enough power to corrupt justice, whining about them on the internet is useless. They're stronger than any of us, but not stronger than all of us. The solution is to reduce their power. They can be beaten with proper supervision. Focus on electing rational government and we'll bring them to heel.
Forgive me, but "power corrupts" is wrong. A corrupt perosn will use power for corrupt reasons and spread the corruption to others. How much easier isn't that then if you can convince people that it's not them who are corrupt, but the power that made them so?
And the start of corruption is always "If you don't do this lesser evil, you allow a greater to happen".
Followed by "Think of all the good you can do with the power you will have. If you don't grab it, someone else will and they might not be as good as you; wouldn't it be better if you had the power instead?"
And the closer: "You can lay it down anytime. No one is forcing you to do anything, you are in command, yours is the power. Only you have that special moral fortitude and strenght of conviction to handle power responisbly, and it costs you nothing but a token of goodwill."
Power does not corrupt. Corrupt people excuse and rationalise their corruption, neither saying "I want, so I do: my will be done" nor saying "No, this is wrong. Even if you can get anyone else that will do it, it won't be me", but instead just following orders, acting for the greater good, in the interest of the cause, and so on.
And justice? Justice rests at the end of a spear, as my ancestros used to say.
You're suggesting they do it because they think it's the right thing to do. The evidence shows they know what they're doing is wrong, and a violation of the oath they all took. That's corrupt.
Yes, but that doesn't adress my statment: power does not corrupt. Corrupt people use power to corrupt, and rationalise their actions post and ad hoc.
If you found yourself in the position as head of a secret service agency such as the FBI, how long do you think you could remain there unless you aligned your personal ehtics with those already ingrained in the organisation's pre-existent structure, knowing full well that if you did not align, you'd be sidelined and outmaneuvered, made to look incompetent and hence replaced with someone who is "a good fit" for the organisation?
That's a major part of the problem: to get into a position to affect and effect change, one must compromise one's ideals and rationalise this internally well past the point that one's moral event hoizon is not even a memory, or the organisation or structure you are trying to climb through won't let you advance.
Seeking power over others feeds whatever seed of corruption we all carry within.
We're pretty much in agreement. Corruption is within all of us, instinctively pursuing our own best interests. Some suppress it better than others, but power is the catalyst that allows it to become active, and to affect others. Without power, we're just curmudgeon. A tyrant is a curmudgeon who has acquired power.
Ah David - I would that that "rational government" were possible. But I suspect that elusive creature may be another of those 'Golden Age' myths. Our world is ruled by nameless, faceless, unidentified, (and unidentifiable), definitely unaccountable bureaucrats. The holders of office - the people we go through the motions of electing - are controlled by vast armies of 'officials'. Sixty years ago, in a slightly different context, Eisenhower warned us about the "potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power". Ike was right!
You're suggesting rational government isn't possible, and we have to accept whatever they demand of us. Ike's government was fairly rational, and he was correct that it could be worse. He didn't feel it was necessary to say "it's up to us." A lot of people today seem to overlook that.
It has been used as a political weapon from the outset in 1924, and it should never have been created in the first place, Its existence is a violation of the Tenth Amendment, another power grab by the centralised Federal Government, to negate various provisions of the Bill of Rights by illegal and unconstitutional acts. Too often, it has been used - especially under J Edgar Hoover, the epitome of a spiteful, unaccountable, and far too powerful federal bureaucrat - to protect and perpetuate organized crime.
"Decency, security, and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be subjected to the same rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen. In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy.
To declare that in the administration of the criminal law the end justifies the means—to declare that the government may commit crimes in order to secure the conviction of a private criminal—would bring terrible retribution. Against that pernicious doctrine this court should resolutely set its face." Olmstead, 277 U.S. at 478-79 (1927) (Brandeis, J., dissenting), cited in https://olemiss.edu/depts/ncjrl/pdf/2009%20Steiker.pdf
Well done! I learned some things here. Considering that most of the Republicans are likely bought, shutting down the FBI isn’t likely.
When Clinton got in office, one of the first things he did was ask the FBI for the files they had on elected leaders and high level bureaucrats. Now why do you think he'd want that info? (Everyone sure played nice together, didn't they?)
I'm sure there are many who are dirty in Washington. From someone I knew long ago and had to deal with those same people and their sex crimes (discreetly)... It's rampant. So yeah, I could see people being afraid to go after the FBI.
After all, how do you think J. Edgar Hoover stayed in as the head of the FBI for so long? He had dirt on everyone and he let them know it.
Indeed. As I wrote the other day, the GOP isn't exactly stuffed with freedom-lovers.
https://simulationcommander.substack.com/p/democrats-have-gone-crazy-but-freedom?s=w
There is an art to pretending to care what your constituents think and the Republican establishment are well practiced in it. Now it is a race between the angry base who are tired of their crap and the entrenched establishment who are trying to distract and delay until people start to forget about it. It is rather telling that whenever populism is mentioned, the old guard GOP is sent into a state of anger and hysteria.
Pay close attention to this comment section, especially starting 8 or so hours after this post is fresh.
Explanation for the knowledge-impaired?
I think Guttermouth is predicting a swarm of fedposters.
Such defense would be quite welcome. On another stack, I did acquire a reply that was clearly Russian in nature and quite wrong about Ukraine reportage. I was mildly surprised. I have noted that no real CDC/HHS types ever comment in rebuttal to much of the data we are seeing. They are obviously aware of these SubStacks yet decline comment even hiding who they are. Unlike the twiitterverse SubStack writers can do as they wish to mange trolls so we see much less of that and we have some decent conversations. For that I'm more than grateful.
While I don't like the threading model used by this platform, reading the comments gives me a sense of not being nuts or all alone in my thoughts. I relish those who hold me to account as it helps my thinking. I'm sure venting also helps as well, just to calm my anger.
Your observation makes a very important point: "a sense of not being nuts or all alone in my thoughts". When our only local coffee shop closed (refused to adhere to mask/vaccine card rules), I felt isolated. (Don't do fakebook, the Bird, or wallow in any of the other anti-social groupthink sewers). Sub-stack offers a window into actual information. And even Intelligent and amusing commentary. Sure - there's some crap. I write my share. But overall, the authors and commentariat provide a tiny glimpse of sanity in a world that isn't.
That's the haps, Cap.
Hell, maybe I should turn on comments for paid subs only. If they can throw $54,000 to Big Dan, surely they can kick down some cash to spew shit onto the comment section 😝
I like your suggestion, as it's funny and surely true, but I must admit as an unpaid subscriber, I lose interest when I can't comment when necessary
Yeah I wouldn't really shut off unpaid comments :)
It would basically be a tax refund.
Watch for cointelpro.
The lady is prescient!
I'm interested to see how widely that "I agree, we should overthrow the government by force" bot spreads as many stackers begin writing about the Whitmer verdict.
I haven't clicked any of the several links it uses but I may have Husbandmouth take a glance at the code at some point.
While the discussion on the bloat of the administrative state is for another day I think we need to really assess what the problem is at the FBI and our other institutions. Despite the many mistakes of the FBI over the years it was still the premier law enforcement agency. However it no longer is because it has been politicized and dominated by elites who believe they are entitled to “reimagine” the agency to meet their enlightened agenda. We see the same thing at places like Disney that has been captured by a minority group espousing fringe view. However, they like their counterparts in government believe they are entitled to run these institutions by virtue of their moral and intellectual superiority thus making anyone questioning that an evil that needs tk be silenced or worse
And every branch and every agency and every leach of government.
I'm with Ripley on this one, it's the only way to be sure.
Whatsamatta? They ain't got no more Efrem Zimbalist Jrs. to run the place?
Ever notice how good Hollywood is at making us forget there was ever a J. Edgar Hoover? All that sage-smudging with Scott Glenn and Jodie Foster, and a really cartoonish Hannibal Lecter to keep folks watching through iteration and reiteration of the heroic saga. (The Lecter of the books was an extraordinary creation and the Brian Cox and Mads Mikkelsen versions were good interpretations, but they're all supporting scaffolding for the important work of mythologizing a fetid agency.)
Our civilization is being brought down by tawdriness, and really, I'd have preferred, at least, to have had the dignity of a demise at the hands of Genghis Khan, or someone.
I'd rather die in battle than by executive order.
Sounds like planning to lose. Never a good strategy.
"I'd rather X than Y" = idiom universally understood in English grammar to mean "between the two stated positions I would select the identified one."
If you accept "Y" as a possibility, you increase the chances of it happening. Better to focus on "X."
The important thing here is that you won the rhetorical argument you started.
Not important to me. My focus is winning physical arguments.
To be sure, there's a certain amount of safety in skulking, but it runs out eventually.
I've always said, in general, that I might not win but I'll go down fighting. Strange how that attitude of mine seems to piss so many people off...
The U.S. Marshalls were created in 1789 to enforce Federal law and go after interstate fugitives. FBI, DHS, CIA, BATFE, DEA, NSA, DIA, why the hell do we need multiple agencies whose "jobs" technically overlap? It cannot be for redundancy because they are all equally incompetent. Maybe just maybe, if we had specific agencies for specific things with hard limits on their authority, they might just be somewhat competent at their actual jobs!
Most of the TLA's (Three Letter Agencies) were initially established with specific goals - or at least for defined purposes. Then, bureaucracies being bureaucracies, they spun off more three and four letter Agencies, who begat more four and five Agencies. And so on. Until today. When we no longer know how many Agencies exist. Or why. But almost all of the myriad mysterious meddlers seen to possess extra judicial powers. And few, if are ever held accountable. For anything. Including murder! (Ashli Babbitt, Branch Dravidian massacre at Waco, etc.)
A fellow called Parkinson wrote a lot about the growth some years ago by studying the Uk ministry of wooden ships which continued to grow as wooden ships were removed from service. Competent management in the private sector avoid overhead if the business is to survive, but government has no such control. And the Peter Principle ensures that competent management becomes impossible. Within governments about the only way to clear out deadwood is lateral transfers at frequent intervals of the top levels. Bereft of cronies managers are forced to focus on organization and either perform or decide to retire.
J Edgar blazed a trail that they continue to follow. I am of the opinion that we need to eliminate 90% of our Federal Government agencies...
It certainly is a political weapon and proof of the Deep State. Funny how it’s never used against leftist scum.
It is used against the dissenting left, not, of course, the apparatchiks and useful idiots.
It has in fact been used against "leftist scum" - in the 1930s and in the 1970s and the 1990s...
And while we're at it, let's end the Department of Education, Transportation, and Interior....to name a few.
All public welfare
Last time Ron Paul ran I think his position was similar to this. He wanted to get rid of like 75% of them.
75% seems like a good start.
97% would be better
Doesn't the Department of the Interior somehow "magically" overlap everything?
I think deus ex machina is the best hope. I think it's coming, one does not complexify and corrupt indefinitely. Many things could serve. My fav is a coronal mass ejection from that large friendly sky presence that I personally worship.
Oh, only down side is that isn't going to actually mean regaining control of them and forcing them to serve those who pay.
Simply they and we will cease to be able to fulfil those roles.