AMA From Ostensible Former CIA Guy

[Ironhold]

Every so often I'll pull up some random "Reddit Stories" type YouTube video and have it going in the background to see if it stirs up some ideas. 

This video here is the channel owner reading bits from an "ask me anything" someone who claims to be a former CIA operative did. Note that it's mildly NSFW due to some of the specific questions being asked. 

At the 7 minute mark we get to question #10, where someone asks "Are there secret societies or powerful people that have huge influence on the intelligence community?". 

The ostensible former operative's response? 

"Texas A&M and the Mormon Church". 

Now, the Texas A&M system of colleges is synonymous with the ROTC (Reserve Officer Training Corps) program, a means by which college students can receive military leadership training and potentially receive a commission as an officer upon graduation. In fact, the main Texas A&M campus at College Station pretty much *is* a massive ROTC program with well north of a thousand students who are essentially cadets and live as such. Given that many people who are military go into the CIA, I can see how this would be a big thing.

With the church? 

I'd heard the occasional whisper that some US government agencies quietly place a premium on hiring members of the church, especially returned missionaries. This is because members of the church are more likely to be bilingual, more likely to have "clean" lifestyles that don't cause problems for others, and tend to be better able to work in groups. 

If this person actually *is* a former operative and what they're saying is true, then that would seem to indicate that yeah, there *is* a silent preference for hiring members of the church for at least certain positions. 

Edited February 21, 2023 by Ironhold

[NeuroTypical]

3 hours ago, Ironhold said:

I'd heard the occasional whisper that some US government agencies quietly place a premium on hiring members of the church, especially returned missionaries. This is because members of the church are more likely to be bilingual, more likely to have "clean" lifestyles that don't cause problems for others, and tend to be better able to work in groups. 

If this person actually *is* a former operative and what they're saying is true, then that would seem to indicate that yeah, there *is* a silent preference for hiring members of the church for at least certain positions. 

I've spent decades hearing ppl talk about it openly and plainly.  No whispers, or silent preferences, or quiet premium-placing, or "secret societies or powerful people" necessary.  Yes, some govt agencies, especially the CIA, spend energy recruiting from BYU and other campuses with high LDS populations.  For exactly the reasons you mention.  Every org built to last tries to recruit fresh and young on occasion.  And if the CIA can get fresh, young, patriotic, with language skills, foreign country experience, and clean records that can pass background checks in greater numbers at BYU, what kind of idiot wouldn't go recruit from BYU? 

Good fisherman know where to find the desired kind of fish.  When your dad and uncle show up with a cooler full of trout, it's not because secret societies or powerful people somehow manipulated their choice of fishin' hole.  It's because they went trout fishin', 'cuz trout are tasty.

 

 

[Vort]

1 hour ago, NeuroTypical said:

I've spent decades hearing ppl talk about it openly and plainly.  No whispers, or silent preferences, or quiet premium-placing, or "secret societies or powerful people" necessary.  Yes, some govt agencies, especially the CIA, spend energy recruiting from BYU and other campuses with high LDS populations.  For exactly the reasons you mention.  Every org built to last tries to recruit fresh and young on occasion.  And if the CIA can get fresh, young, patriotic, with language skills, foreign country experience, and clean records that can pass background checks in greater numbers at BYU, what kind of idiot wouldn't go recruit from BYU? 

FBI, as well. Heard from an FBI agent that they loved recruiting LDS kids. At least back in the early 1990s.

[Carborendum]

As a tangent...

I looked further into the video.  Interesting Q&A.

Quote

Q: What news sources do you find reliable?
A:The Economist & BBC are good.  Stay clear of Fox, CNN, & NPR

Quote

Q: Could you debunk some common myths about the CIA?
A: We don't do assassinations (anymore); Many officers only speak English; The LGBTQ+ community is alive and well

That one threw me for a loop.  He gave no explanation.  I absolutely believe we still do assassinations.  I was pretty sure that CIA operatives all HAD to speak multiple languages.  But the LGBTQ+ community is NOT very active?  Hmmm...

 

Time stamp about 15:10 I had to paraphrase.  It was a long question and answer.

Quote

Q: Is news true, engineered, govt propaganda, etc.?
A: Most of it is untrue and almost none of it is government engineered.  It's untrue because every source of media is desperate for attention so they will always sensationalize it as much as possible.  But the government only inserts a very small amount into the media.  And it is usually to influence bad actors.

He also noted that the agents themselves really are only following orders.  Electing proper policy makers is essential for those agents to do their jobs in the interests of the US Citizens.  Elect bad policy makers, and the intelligence community can harm the US.

See his wording at the time stamp.  But this ^^ is what I got out of it.

[Carborendum]

OMT:

I'm actually going to PRAISE NPR.

He mentioned both FOX and CNN to stay away from.  I believe he intended those two to represent virtually all the popular sites on both conservative and liberal side of the media. 

But he also mentioned NPR as a site to stay away from.  One thing I've noticed by reading NPR articles is that when they get into politics, it is entirely one-sided.  It is 99.9% propaganda. 

BUT...

I also notice that their legal analyses are top-notch.  They argue the liberal side, to be sure.  But the way they lay out

• The wording of the law...
• The reasons why such a statute does or does not apply to a given situation.
• The arguments being made on both sides.
• Why one side's argument is weaker (usually the conservative side)
• Why the other side is stronger (usually the liberal side)
• Analyses of the rulings from lower courts and the questions and comments from the SCOTUS justices.  And the nature and effects of the the final ruling.

Those guys REALLY know what they're talking about.  I don't recall ever reading any logical fallacies (I could have missed some article).  Their interpretation of the words of both statues and rulings didn't seem to have any flaws.  AND most of their predictions are correct.  I remember when they were talking about a particular case where the conservative Justices were asking questions that seemed reasonable, but were rather weak.  Then the liberal lawyers gave very strong answers.  They predicted which conservative justices would side with the liberals so that SCOTUS would rule in favor of the plaintiff .  And they were right.

They consult some very good legal scholars at that news source.  But their opinion and commentaries?  Blehhh.

[Vort]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

Quote

Q: Could you debunk some common myths about the CIA?
A: We don't do assassinations (anymore); Many officers only speak English; The LGBTQ+ community is alive and well

That one threw me for a loop.  He gave no explanation.  I absolutely believe we still do assassinations.  I was pretty sure that CIA operatives all HAD to speak multiple languages.  But the LGBTQ+ community is NOT very active?  Hmmm...

It looks to me like the items he listed do not constitute the "common myths about the CIA", but rather his debunking of said common myths.

[Carborendum]

26 minutes ago, Vort said:

It looks to me like the items he listed do not constitute the "common myths about the CIA", but rather his debunking of said common myths.

Let's remove all the double negatives from this converstation.

What I got out of it was that he said those three things he said were what are commonly said and he was hereby calling them myths.  Is that what you meant?  

If he was correct in saying all three of those statements as he said were myths, then my reaction was that I pretty much agreed that the first two were myths.  But the third is a myth?  That would mean that the LGBTQ+ movement is not very big and it is failing.  Huh???

[Vort]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

Let's remove all the double negatives from this converstation.

What I got out of it was that he said those three things he said were what are commonly said and he was hereby calling them myths.  Is that what you meant?  

If he was correct in saying all three of those statements as he said were myths, then my reaction was that I pretty much agreed that the first two were myths.  But the third is a myth?  That would mean that the LGBTQ+ movement is not very big and it is failing.  Huh???

No, my understanding is the opposite. I thought he was saying, "Here's the way it really is."

[Carborendum]

5 minutes ago, Vort said:

No, my understanding is the opposite. I thought he was saying, "Here's the way it really is."

Could be.  Like I said.  He didn't offer explanations.

Edited February 22, 2023 by Carborendum