We’ve had more than enough Revelations …and the American Majority has spoken

The American Majority & Its Deadly Chronic Disease Called Apathy

They say we need more revelations. I say we have had more than enough revelations on synthetic wars, atrocities, surveillance and torture. They wonder when the majority of Americans are going to speak up. And I say: The American Majority has already spoken—loud and clear.

The United States government has been engaged in the worst kind of human rights abuses, detention and torture around the globe. That’s a fact. And the American Majority knows this. The US Congress, NGOs and various human rights organizations, numerous reports, witnesses, leaks and whistleblowers, even the government propaganda outlets (aka US media) have established this as an undisputable fact: The United States has been engaged in unthinkable ongoing operations involving kidnapping, torture, black sites and detention centers, and murder all over the world. The American Majority knows this. They have spoken: with their silence.

The United States government has been engaged in ongoing police state operations, utilizing all sorts of surveillance and witch-hunt methods. Whether through the NSA’s massive surveillance, or the FBI’s massive informant cadre, or its joint operations with corporate partners, the United States government has been spying on and collecting a wide range of private information from its citizens at home and those abroad. Again, this is a known fact. And everybody knows. Ongoing revelations and leaks have made this an undisputable fact. And the American Majority has already spoken: with their silence.

So is it really more revelations we need? More whistleblowers? More alternative websites in the business of educating the people on these issues? Because from where I stand I can tell with one hundred percent certainty: The American Majority already knows. They have spoken: with their silence. And their silence speaks more than a million words.

Then, what is it that we are trying to do? If knowing, being aware, has so far translated into a loud deafening silence, then, what is the next logical step? Keep telling them what they already know? Ask more whistleblowers to put their lives on the line to tell them what they’ve been told for years?

As a whistleblower and activist for a dozen years I spent much time and energy pointing a finger at entities such as the U.S. Congress, the U.S. Courts and the media. In the end I have come to identify the real culprit in all of this: The American Majority and its deafening silence and persistent indifference. I have known and worked with hundreds of government whistleblowers, who in the end came to much the same conclusion. Sure, the U.S. government can intimidate, gag, classify, prosecute, jail and torture us. But you know what? All that would be for a noble worthy cause if the people were on our side. All those prices paid would be worthwhile and justified, if only the people utilized those sacrifice-driven revelations and reports to fight against our government’s crimes against humanity-and us, the people.

This is why I no longer expect or demand additional whistleblowers and more revelations. We do not need more revelations. We do need less apathy. We do not need additional whistleblowers. We do need a vocal majority. It is not the State and the one percent that is destroying our liberties, world peace and humanity. It is the silence of the American Majority and its deadly disease called pure apathy.

# # # #

FB Like

Share This

This site depends….

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by SUBSCRIBING and/or DONATING.


  1. By the time the majority wakes up it will be too late. In my opinion we have already long passed the point of no return from this spread of evil. Rather than look to the majority, why not take the opportunity to seek the counsel of God?

    “Fret not thyself because of evil-doers, Neither be thou envious against them that work unrighteousness.
    For they shall soon be cut down like the grass, And wither as the green herb…” Psalm 37

  2. Perry Watson says:

    Here here! And i am a Canadian

  3. I think until the “silent majority’s” comfort level is affected by STATE it will continue with its agenda. That agenda is kept in place because of the psychological imprinting on a fear based culture. That’s a short answer, Sibel. I think if you ask Americans to be honest, in private no less, on whether they fear their government their answer would be a resounding, yes. Do I fear the government. You bet I do. I know exactly how the government can hoodwink, demonize and prosecute against those who go against the grain. You, Sibel, understand this all too well. You by all accounts have your father’s predilection for justice and because of this you were held to the fire at the FBI. However, for me, my comfort level is minimal and peripatetic and I have Irish blood running through my veins. So if Freud was correct – The Irish are impervious to psychoanalysis – than I will be the poor dumb son-of-bitch who walks and talks among the walking dead about what is really going on. So be it…..

  4. Jon Gold says:

    Good article Sibel. So many things have been done over the years, any one of which should have gotten the American people up in arms, but they haven’t. The one time when Americans almost got it right was during the Occupy Protests, which were marginalized by the corporate media, and shut down brutally through the DHS working together with other cities in a coordinated attack. I honestly think that people are afraid. Maybe because of the reaction to Occupy. I think people are starting to look more towards local endeavors. Making sure the area that they live in will sustain them in the long run. That being said, so long as there is a Government doing horrible things in this country and around the world in our name, with our tax dollars, we have a responsibility to shut them down. The question is, what will make Americans angry enough to do it? What will bring 1,000,000 people to the streets of D.C., not to “Occupy,” but to shut down traffic, and offices, etc… and so on. Here’s a good article that was written recently on the subject.


  5. I’ve been thinking the same thing. At the same time, the pressure seems to be building on a lot of fronts: economically, environmentally, geopolitically…all within a framework of total corruption and social disunity. One crisis emerges after the next, and there is no time to address the root causes, as people either ignore them altogether, get immersed in some reform activity that consumes them with little effect, or run around pointing out the numerous brush fires which are growing in intensity.

    Chris Hedges has said, “I don’t fight fascists because I think I can win. I fight fascists because they are fascists.” I like that sentiment, but I also agree with what you are saying Sibel…what’s the point of sacrificing yourself or your loved ones for people who 1)don’t know what you’re talking about, 2) wouldn’t believe you if you told them , and 3) really don’t care anyway, and won’t bother to educate themselves.

    We’re stuck in an abusive relationship with seemingly no where to turn. Should there be a revolution, you know it will be either turned against itself COINTELPRO style, or infiltrated, financed, and co-opted by government or multinational corporations, IMF, etc looking to profit.

    All that being said, it seems to me that we then should proceed in our lives living in alignment with our principles as best we can. Store some food for the eventual collapse.

    I would like to have more time to read that book Peter B. Collins mentioned in your anarchism discussion, because I believe we will eventually need to know how to respond to the kinds of crises that a dysfunctional society like ours has produced in the past and which will, I believe, produce in greater intensity here at home in the future. Stewart Rhodes of the Oathkeepers is calling on people to create citizen groups along the lines of special forces to be prepared for collapse, although he primarily sees it coming in the form of financial breakdown, while I additionally see our food system coming under pressure from a variety of factors.

    Obama recently spoke at Wal-Mart to laud the corporation for its sustainable practices, while Joe Biden’s son joined the board of Ukraine’s largest natural gas producer. Cheney and Bush admit to water boarding, a practice which has been historically viewed as torture. They just make stuff up and invade countries, and that’s been in plain view for a while. The stuff that is going on now is so in our face, whistle blowers are kind of like the icing on the cake. The lack of reaction is beyond pathetic…it’s like the gazelle that goes limp before being torn apart by the lion… or the actual zombie apocalypse taking place in real time, with people re-enacting their own plight in costumed gatherings.

    Those of us who are trying to get the word out should indeed take stock of how we are spending our time, what it is we think we should be doing, what it is we want to be doing, what strategies we are implementing to achieve our goals and how effective they’ve been, etc. Change does take time and effort, and some people are starting to realize how bad the situation is, (and how much worse it could get) but persistence shouldn’t look like repeating a failed strategy. Even if it hasn’t reached it’s most overt stage, the people in power are at war with us, and that should inform our own mindset.

  6. Rich Winkel says:

    You need to make it personal. It’s much too easy to ignore things that aren’t seen as impacting their personal lives. The immediate expense of keeping their heads down and staying glued to the tube is still less than that of getting involved and speaking out. The longer term expenses haven’t yet been factored in in their minds.

    Here’s a different angle that probably hasn’t occurred to you. Maybe it’s harebrained, make of it what you will. There’s a huge scandal brewing in american medicine, specifically obstetrical medicine, which strikes very close to the heart of the vast majority of americans either directly or indirectly. I believe a strong case could be made that the corporate foundations responsible for the social engineering that has turned this country into a nation of sheep very consciously and deliberately steered medicine into this disaster decades ago, in pursuit of this very objective of mass atomization and learned helplessness. If the connection could be made in peoples’ minds of what they’ve already lost in their personal lives, and how it relates to the rising police state, it might be enough to get them off their butts.

    There’s a learning curve involved, a great deal of suppressed knowledge, some of which was paid for and then censored at the NIH. The latter event, involving the work of James Prescott, is clear evidence of high-level totalitarian social engineering.


  7. mymarkx says:

    I reached similar conclusions and have apent the past 8 years, not trying to get people to oppose the government, because most people, for various reasons, cannot or will not. I ask people only to stop supporting it.

    But not in any way that might take effort, or be difficult, risky, or illegal. All I ask is that people who oppose the government, stop voting for it.

    Apparently it wasn’t enough for people to know that their votes don’t have to be counted (Bush v. Gore 2000) and do not determine the outcome of elections.

    People in the US don’t really seem to care about wars, the economy, human rights violations, or anything that really matters. They want only to better their own lives through legal marijuana, marriage equality, GMO labels, or whatever they personally want. They couldn’t care less about the rest of the world.

    The few who care have seen that they are too few to successfully oppose a police state. So they try to separate themselves from the state as much as possible.

    Nobody is going to rise up and overthrow a government that they themselves voted for.

    The reason that big banks and corporations spend billions of dollars financing election campaigns is that they get a return on their investment of trillions of dollars worth of tax cuts, deregulation, bailouts, and government contracts, while continuing to maintain the fiction of having the consent of the governed because even people opposed to corporate rule, continue to vote.

    Your vote is your consent. If you consent, the government isn’t screwing you, because once you consent it becomes consensual political intercourse.

    “You’ve Got to Stop Voting!” by Mark E. Smith (me): http://fubarandgrill.org/node/1172

    Political operatives insist that not voting is “doing nothing.” Well, if what you’ve been doing has led to wars, torture, the destruction of the economy, environmental crises, and the continuation of the status quo, maybe it is better to do nothing. After all, isn’t that exactly what people here are so good at?

  8. Sun Zoo says:

    100% fact. There are no fence-sitters in this age of information. If one can deny the obvious, it is only because their conscious or sub-conscious mind wishes these things to be fiction – and in a virtual world, they are!

  9. Waldemar Perez says:


    That’s how I feel. But I think part of their strategy is also to create hopelessness. If you are hopeless you think there is no point in speaking up and that all is lost. We will never convince everybody, but we can do all we can to inform those who will listen and want to take action or some precautions. Its sad anyway I look at it.

  10. pj98rider says:

    I think pick is right on the money in that it’s about fear. People are overwhelmed by the sheer size and weight of it all. The corporate media’s relentless propaganda spews out nothing but fluff, hate and lies. Folks are being ground down and feel helpless and frustrated. The relentless attack on workers in the U.S. saps their energy to fight for anything else but their lives and the lives of their loved ones. They feel like they’re in the middle of a sh_t storm and can’t catch their breath and that makes it hard for them to take a stand on some of the issues we try to point to. Of course there’s apathy but fear and the constant grinding down, I think, plays big time.

    What do we do? Keep on pressing forward and keep trying to get the word out there about what the corps, the media, the hate-mongers and those in government are doing. If we stay silent, we’re finished. I think Luke also has it right when he says…”All that being said, it seems to me that we then should proceed in our lives living in alignment with our principles as best we can. Store some food for the eventual collapse.”

    • Pj98rider wrote: “People are overwhelmed by the sheer size and weight of it all. The corporate media’s relentless propaganda spews out nothing but fluff, hate and lies. Folks are being ground down and feel helpless and frustrated.”

      Well put, Pj98rider! Woe to every man, woman or child who questions the status quo and instead thinks from within their intellect and soul. I ask does education teach this?

    • Okay, I accept that, but let’s do a comparison here:

      Do people in countries like Bahrain, Turkey, Egypt, have less to be fearful about? You look at the rampant torture practices and openly dictatorial regimes (including 100% controlled & intimidated media) they face, and then, see how courageously they protest and take the torture/bullets.

      Thus, are we saying our government & its police state practices are much more intimidating, thus, the lack of action and all the apathy?

      I don’t know. You tell me. Sometimes I try to look at the differences. For example: They don’t have this fairly well-fed middle class, instead they have the 1-2% real fat cats, maybe 20% or less semi-comfortable middle class, and then, the rest. Is it the pseudo comfort of Middle Class-ism that is contributing to this? They are so busy shopping for ‘deals’ in Wall-Marts and Target, gobbling up fad diets and exercise regimens, reading up on fashionistas & Kardashians, watching collage footballs and basketball, medicating themselves and their kids to death … and just to numb and busy to think critically?

      What I’m trying to say is this: if it is the fear, why so much more prohibitive here than the rest of the world?

      I see it as a result of several ingredients: willful Denial, too much misplaced individualism, systematic indoctrination for decades, materialism, misplaced nationalism … and tummy that is way too full with hormone & GMO ridden garbage food … among other things.

      Now back to you guys (and ladies; where are they anyway!).

      • All excellent points, Sibel. However, what has been indoctrinated into the American psyche is American exceptionalism via the Nationalistic faith as David Ray Griffin has pointed out. Look at the years of propaganda each generation must overcome. Also, the perception of comfort is slowly but surely being eroding in this country, but is countenance by distractions of alcohol, drugs, entertainment and sports. I am willing to bet those countries do not have the technological means nor cultural dissociation on a wholesale level to enjoy, or rather distract, from what we consider creature comforts in the west. Moreover, tactically, each country feels the sting, again tactically, from policies emanating from the beltway. In essence this keeps the political fallout alive in those countries who aspire to what the west has propagated as the “free world.” That is the ultimate “blowback” with our post-modern and narcissistic culture.

      • I totally agree with these reasons as to why Americans are so apathetic. I also think there is a growing distrust of government with the various leaks that have been coming out. In that light, I thought of a bumper sticker/ t-shirt ad for BFP. It could say something simple like “boilingfrogspost.com For REAL news from an FBI whistle blower.” I think this could capitalize on the growing distrust of official narratives, and yet have the credibility needed to be taken seriously.

      • Thomas Wonsetler says:

        Right on again, Sibel ! But people like you, James, Peter, Alex Jones, Jesse Ventura, Chris Hedges, Greg Palast, and sites like RT, Buzzsaw, and of course BoilingFrogsPost and others are the heroes who are helping to turn the tide ! Thx for everything you give ! Your a true heroine-warrioress for the people ! Keep on going ! Love !

        • Greg Palast has investigated US elections and written extensively about them. He knows that the popular vote doesn’t have to be counted, that the results of US “elections” are unverifiable, and that once elected, candidates cannot be held directly accountable by voters,. But he lacks the backbone to stand up and tell people that in circumstances like those, their vote is not a voice in government and they should withhold it until they get free, fair, and honest elections.

          Alex Jones hypes everything to the max in order to grab attention.

          Chris Hedges, who called Black Bloc tactics a “cancer” on the Occupy movement, is more concerned about vandalism of property (some protesters), than about violence against human beings (police brutality). He’s also a shameless plagiarist.

          Sibel is way out of their class–a backbone of steel, no hype, and no hypocrisy or dishonesty. If you want a mature, responsible society, you have to learn to distinguish between the fake and the genuine. Greg, Alex, and Chris are poseurs; Sibel’s the real McCoy.

  11. “Silent Majority” is a myth, a pseudo-concept coined by one wing of US reactionaries in their PR struggle against another group of US reactionaries. We cannot hope to clarify our situation by using the language and ideas of the status quo guardians.

  12. truther2 says:

    Having family in the DC area, I am often stupified by their pro-government views and opinions. This has led me to try and investigate to what degree they have perfected low frequency mind control programs. It seems these rallys and protests in DC that are advertised every few months may be a test to determine how well the programming is working. I have not come across any concrete evidence that this programming is in fact occurring but it seems the only logical explanation to me.

  13. Propaganda works. That’s why they do it.

    While many have woken up I still believe a vast majority are not aware of how truly sophisticated and insidious is the propaganda and control system. In one sense Sibel is correct — people sense things aren’t right, we’ve seen some leg — but nowhere in the corporate mainstream does it get any consistent and vigorous articulation (just a red team/blue team ping pong match). Those who combine the skill set of consciousness, energy and articulation are marginalized or taken out, one way or another. This reads and seems bleak, I know, but we should not underestimate the inertia of the institutions nor the rancor of our leadership (if I may be vulgar for a moment, Bill Clinton knew he was an opportunistic and criminal piece of shit long before I figured it out, and he’s not that much older. Clinton knocked out the last legs of independent broadcast media with the Telecommunications Act of 1996).

    There are, of course, other criminal Presidents and institutions I could give as examples, but the point I’m leading to is this: when I was a young kid I was excited to go with my family to Disneyland, never conceiving until many, many years later and after careful study that we now all LIVE in Disneyland.

    “We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.”
    — former CIA Director William Casey

    Do we think he was joking?

    “The CIA owns everyone of any significance in the major media.” — former CIA Director William Colby

    How about him? Was he joking?

    After waking up to the 9/11 fraud I eventually worked my way to making a list of all the major political events of my life beginning with the murder of JFK in ’63. In nearly EVERY instance their exists strong evidence that supports an alternative narrative unfavorable to the power elites for each of those events. THAT stunned me. Try it yourself. Make your own list and take an inventory, it’s not pretty.

    Consciousness is the weapon of choice. Clear articulation whether in rhetoric, essays, music or art is the launcher. Whatever one may suggest, in terms of action, each person has the right to determine his/her own level of involvement.

    Truth is sacrifice. Truth has a price. To paraphrase a recent comment by Ryan Dawson, the one thing truth has going for it, is truth.

    God bless and let’s not forget to tend the garden.

  14. wildw123 says:

    The article is right on Sibel.

    And apathy is the right term. And it IS a choice.

    The silence is enabling the abuse we accept to take on the side in return for goodies and some vague sense of ‘protection’. You lose your right to complain when you willfully delegated all your responsibilities (except breathing) to some abstraction called the State because you were so afraid to take care of yourself and were unwilling to cooperate and negotiate with your neighbours. Most of all: as the State equals force, it was actually kind of ‘handy’ when it was used to obtain the unearned. Till the force backfires..

    • You lose your right to complain when you willfully delegated all your responsibilities (except breathing) to some abstraction called the State because you were so afraid to take care of yourself and were unwilling to cooperate and negotiate with your neighbours. Most of all: as the State equals force, it was actually kind of ‘handy’ when it was used to obtain the unearned. Till the force backfires..

      What is it with you hyper-individualists anyway? The state the state the state the state the state. Like robots. I honestly don’t think all of the talking points that I hear about the state are coming from cognitive beings. You are followers. A herd. Directed by the oligarchy through trickery that gets your pride up.

      I think of my own life experience, which includes both dependence on the state and sacrifice for the state at times, when I read your words and I get angry. Angry at you for misunderstanding the situation and then having the nerve to say those things. It makes me really angry. What you are saying has no link to reality whatsoever. You are lost in pride and conviction and have no idea how you are being used.

      Go live on Liberty Island or Galt’s Gulch or wherever it is that your cult is gathering to escape the force. Lucky for you and Stephan Molyneaux, the insurance companies and private security forces in your free markey paradise won’t call it force when they screw you. You’ll be in heaven.

      • mymarkx says:

        @ Xicha

        Louis the XIV said, “L’état, c’est moi,” which means, “I am the state.”

        Kings actually were the state, by Divine Right, and their subjects had no say. A king was the equivalent to a divinity and could kill people at will. Some kings used this right cautiously, killing only people who had done something wrong, but other kings killed anyone they didn’t like, or anyone whose wife or other property they coveted. Divine Right notwithstanding, kings didn’t live forever, so there were good kings and bad kings. When there were bad kings, a lot of people got killed just because bad kings enjoyed exercising their unlimited right to kill.

        So, back in the 13th Century, a group of noblemen confronted the British king and forced him to sign a contract called the Magna Carta. In this document, the king agreed not to kill any of his subjects without first allowing them a public trial where they would be accused of crimes and permitted to defend themselves. The Magna Carta’s right to due process has been honored from 1215 until just recently, by all but the most barbaric tyrants. It is considered to be a basic human right.

        Recently, however, a US President (unlike the lifespans of kings, Presidents usually only reign for 4 or 8 years) decided that he had sufficient security to ensure that nobody could confront him, that he didn’t care if his moronic subjects wanted to protest and go to jail, and he rejected the Magna Carta, giving himself the right to kill US citizens without due process. Neither Congress nor the Supreme Court made any objection.

        We in the United States have now returned to the 13th Century, when a tyrant could kill at will and there was no basic right to due process. Of course the current President might only kill people he thinks are terrorists (he is still keeping prisoners in Guantanamo that both his administration and the previous one admitted were known to be innocent of any crime), like members of the group called Al Qaeda that he is militarily supporting in Syria, or whistleblowers and environmentalists, but a future President might not be as responsible.

        Statists are people who believe that a state is necessary. As one friend told me, “Without the state, how would I feed my chickens?” It was as if the absence of a state would cause the growers and sellers of chicken feed to let it all rot rather than selling or bartering it.

        Sociologists and anthropologists have studied stateless societies and found that without a state, people tended to do whatever they had done before, with a few exceptions such as demanding restitution rather than paying to imprison criminals.

        Just imagine what this country could be like if the Pentagon wasn’t able to mislay, lose, or be unable to account for trillions of taxpayer dollars every year. Schools, jobs, housing–trillions of dollars is a lot of money. And that’s not even counting the money that is accounted for as waste, fraud, and abuse, like no-bid contracts where services were never provided, $400 hammers, and contracts awarded for things that the Pentagon does not want or need and cannot use.

        The state is a bureaucracy. Of course there are people who believe bureaucracy is necessary. At the highest levels these are usually people who are engaged in crimes and don’t want to be caught out. At the lowest levels they are people who simply cannot understand that if we weren’t capable of surviving without a state, none of us would be here, as humans existed on earth for tens of thousands of years before there was a state. But of course back then, before there was a state, the earth and its bounty hadn’t been polluted and destroyed, so it was capable of supporting life.

        Now the states of the world and the corporations that own them, are saying, “We destroyed this planet so that you could not survive without us, so you have no choice but to respect us–and if you don’t, we’ll kill you too.”

        Is that not being used?

        The herd is composed of those who follow leaders, i.e., the state.

        They are not cognitive beings because they don’t even try to think–they elect people to do their thinking for them.

        Had you lived your life in a stateless society, and somebody came to you and insisted that you needed a state, you probably would tell them to get lost. Having lived your life governed by a state, you can imagine no other way to be.

        That’s sad.

        • mymarkx:

          Get real. What you just laid out was pretentious and has nothing to do with what I said. You think that you’ve got a better imagination or read more ethnographies than me or what? Been in a sweat lodge yourself? I doubt it. Do you have more disdain and disgust than me about the travesty people call the federal government? I don’t think so. Next time somebody wants to call me afraid to negotiate with my neighbors or take care of myself, they better have walked a mile in my shoes first.

          I have consistently attempted to explain my views about government. What we have now is not ours. It is the oligarchy using the name of government. It is a private enterprise. We do not have a state. What we need is a government by and for the people. We need eternal vigilance for liberty and justice for all. We already are ruled by anarcho-capitalists and the worst thing about it is that they have trickled down upon the slaves the idea that people organizing and empowering themselves to create and maintain laws is the problem. A people’s state, a public state, is the only defense against tyranny and the only way to create a context for liberty for each member of a society. Your anti-state ideas are the piss of the oligarchy, not the great imaginings of an enlightened individual.

          And by the way, your statement about what stateless societies do made no sense. You talked about their laws.

          And one more. Thanks a lot for thinking that I was defending our horrible federal government. That was a cheap straw man that any high schooler individuo-fascist who had never been here and heard from me before would use. Sheesh. Terrible.

          • mymarkx says:

            First of all, there is no such thing as an anarcho-capitalist.

            Anarchists are against capitalism. Anyone who calls themselves an anarcho-capitalist is not against capitalism and is therefore not an anarchist, hyphenated or otherwise.

            If you want to call the state anarchist, when anarchy means no state, you are just going to continue distorting words and calling things their opposites.

            That’s as fascist as anything Orwell ever predicted. War is peace, the state is anarchy, anarchists are fascists. Sure, Xicha.

            And I suppose you’re a purple kangaroo? Surely nobody could argue with that.

            And yes, by calling things the opposite of what they are, you are defending fascism and the state.

            The way in which stateless societies deal with criminals is not by means of laws, nor did I talk about such nonexistent laws. Anyone, including you, can go back and see that I never used the word. What people do is different from what legislators enact.

            Since you disagree with all dictionaries on the meaning of words like laws, state, anarchist, fascist, etc., there is no possibility of discussion, as we lack a common language.

          • Try to imagine a world without slaves. Then look back at your tens of thousands of years. Now who’s the one with the imagination problems? Yes, I’m interested in liberty and justice for all. Maybe that’s the difference between us. But, what most of the current flock of individualism followers, who parrot the same talking points, don’t realize is that they will most likely not be the happy go lucky owner class in their stateless dream state. I have needed to take care of myself and negotiate with my neighbors probably more than most of the supposed free-thinking anarcho-individualists I’ve been hearing from lately. What I’m hearing from them is total BS fantasy from a position of relative comfort. Who probably have never been humbled by accepting government cheese or had their school mates notice how poor they were. But, they’ve probably been the ones making jokes about it.

            I’ve seen this individualist crap my whole life. And it’s always been from the privatizers, from the relatively well-to-do, and from arrogant creeps. It’s never been integrated into the resistance so much before. I think that’s a purposeful strategy by the oligarchy.

          • Yes, there is a lot of confusion about terms. Don’t let that get in the way of deciding you can interpret what I mean. Use your brain. Don’t try to escape with such a cheap excuse. Understand my point. I dare you!

        • Thomas Wonsetler says:

          I agree with what your saying, of course, when it comes to an abusive, corrupt, tyrannical state. But not if the “state” were run in a compassionate, honest and wise fashion. And to say that people who follow leaders are the herd is a bit much. Dumb sheep and blind followers are the herd, but not all people with leaders are dumb sheep ! Whats so bad about having leaders and managing and protecting a society ? ! Even Native Americans had chiefs ! Why assume that all government has to be evil or corrupt or tyrraniccal ? ! Im not an expert on Emporer Ashoka of India, but I do know he is revered in India as having been a very wise, compassionate leader who did a lot of good for his people ! And im sure theres many other examples ! We need a management (government) uncorrupted by corporations and big banks, and a citizenry mature and responsible enough to do there part in supporting a good government, and not the bullshit thats been going on !

          • mymarkx says:

            @ Thomas Wonsetler

            Certainly there can be compassionate, honest, and wise states, just as there are abusive, corrupt, and tyrannical states.

            Unfortunately, the evil states don’t happen to like good states. States that have eliminated or greated decreased poverty have been destroyed or are constantly under attack by the United States, because our government prefers what it calls democracy, capitalism, or freedom, where a few are free to be obscenely wealthy and the many are free to be obscenely poor.

            As for the citizenry doing their part, I suggest you read my book, Consent to Tyranny: Voting in the USA, which can be found by clicking a link near the top right-hand corner of my website: http://fubarandgrill.org

            James Madison wrote the Constitution to ensure that the elites would be protected against the majority, as Scott Noble explains in an excellent article that was just published: “Anarchy and Near Term Extinction” http://dissidentvoice.org/2014/06/anarchy-and-near-term-extinction/

            If we need a government, management, or state that is uncorrupted by corporations and big banks, it would have to be one that is not based on capitalism. A citizenry raised in a capitalist culture tends to be, with admitted exceptions, overwhelmingly driven by competitiveness, greed, a lust for power, and other traits that do not allow for maturity and responsibility.

            But in order to rein in the excesses of capitalism, it takes a strong government, perhaps even a dictator, as banks and corporations are not going to willingly limit their profits. And while one dictator may be benevolent, not even dictators live forever, so their successors in a dictatorship may be less principled.

            Self-governance is an ideal, but when the world is controlled by a military superpower in the service of big banks and corporations, it can be difficult to achieve. If, however, people were mature and responsible enough to stop supporting evil (greater and lesser evils are NOT the only choices), there would be a potential for good to prevail.

            Let’s make it so!

      • wildw123 says:

        Xicha, your reply is a collection of adjectives, intimidations, bullying and dishonest projections and assumptions on others. You are not presenting 1 rational argument. Absolutely fine if you want to express your feelings but I would not put that in the form of a rebuttal which this is not. For sure I won’t spend further time on this, as the continued thread below is of the same quality.

        • I’m glad you got that off your chest, wildw123. I’m sorry I really wasn’t very polite was i. Well, I hope that you could find something or another to at least challenge your assumptions a little. If not, well, I hope you find something that challenges them in the future.

          • wildw123 says:

            Thanks for your apology but kindness is not the issue.

            Assumptions are changed by arguments only. And for that I’m always glad to invest time.

          • mymarkx says:

            Displaying your ignorance and being impolite doesn’t challenge people’s assumptions, Xicha.

            Your own assumptions, such as that capitalists can be anti-capitalists, that those who abuse others can be egalitarians, that the state has somehow tricked people into opposing the state, etc., are nonsensical, irrational, and absurd.

            I know how easy it is to be deceived by people with no social consciousness calling themselves anarchists, because before I began studying the literature I’d made that mistake myself. It is necessary to understand that there are many people who accept the state’s definition of anarchy as chaos, and who think that calling themselves anarchists allows them to rape, steal, and impose their will on others without being held accountable. By accepting the state’s false definition, they accept the state and are not anarchists.

            It is no solution to rape, theft, and bullying, to have a state with the power to kill millions of innocent people while the rapes, theft, and bullying continue unabated. Statism reinforces patriarchal values that promote the rapes, theft, and bullying in the first place.

            You don’t have to admit that you are impolite, as wildw123 and everyone else reading this thread can see that for themselves. But as for challenging assumptions, it might help to start with your own.

            Emma Goldman, Kropotkin, Bakunin, Malatesta, and other anarchist theorists weren’t part of some strategy by the oligarchy to trick people into opposing the oligarchy. The oligarchy tricks people into supporting the oligarchy by forming bureaucracies called states–bureaucracies the oligarchy controls and which will never serve the people as long as they are controlled by the oligarchy.

            A legal system is the opposite of a justice system. Two wrongs don’t make a right. Imprisoning someone for a crime doesn’t provide restitution to their victim. Even if a state imprisons or kills a small percentage of rapists, murderers, and thieves, it does not justify a military state spending trillions of taxpayer dollars to sponsor mass murder, mass rape, and the theft of those trillions of dollars from people hoping the state will provide them with individual protections.

          • mymarkx, I stand by my points. I’m sorry they had no value for you either. I was simply letting wildw123 off the hook, since they couldn’t muster up an argument.

            As for you, I thought I did a good job of challenging your view that states need to be capitalist. You even admitted that a government by and for the people sounds good to you.

            Now you’re calling me absurd, as if that’s an argument.

            Gotta run. I’m considering whether or not to respond in more detail to you. It might not be worth it. I finish by advising you to speak for yourself. Good luck!

          • mymarkx says:

            This particular state, the one that is the subject of this topic, the imperialist United States of America, is capitalist.

            Government by and for the people sounds good because it can exist without hierarchy. It doesn’t need to establish, classes, positions of power, etc. Government by and for the people, rather than by and for the oligarchy and its puppet state, sounds very good–that’s what anarchy is, government by and for the people instead of government by and for the bureaucracy (state) established by the oligarchy for the oligarchy.

            In order to avoid having to communicate with the people, since the people are many and the wealthy and powerful are few, the oligarchy announces that it will communicate with elected representatives of the people. What it fails to mention is that such communication is top down, not bottom up. It’s nothing more than a chain-of-command.

            If this state, the USA was effective in holding criminals responsible and reducing crime, that could be an argument for the usefulness of the state. We have more prisoners than any country ever had before, and we still have had no reduction in crime, only in very rare cases is there any victim restitution, and the biggest criminals, the oligarchs and their minions who control the state and commit the biggest crimes, act with impunity.

            But since words don’t have the same meaning for you as for anyone else, there’s really no point in attempting to communicate.

          • How many times did effing tell you that I wasn’t defending THIS state? Come on!

            The comment I originally responded to called STATISTS afraid to take care of themselves. You are being very careless when it comes to reading my comments. This is much more impolite than my admitted anger.

            I asked you some questions that you didn’t answer. I’d still like to know if you are defending wildw123 ‘ s comment that all statists are afraid to negotiate with their neighbors and take care of themselves.

            I would also like to know whether or not you are interested in liberty and justice for all, instead of simply for yourself. Did you understand what this question has to do with government? (I guess I need to qualify that word for you every time I use it. I don’t mean THIS government.) Do you understand how this question relates to whether or not individuals can have responsibilities that might conflict with religious individualism?

            I’m getting tired of repeating these questions and the points associated with them. So, I’m humbly requesting that you give your reading comprehension a little more effort. Maybe go back and re-read our conversation to see if you can figure out the points that you are ignoring and/or avoiding with non-answers. Thanks in advance.

          • Government by and for the people, rather than by and for the oligarchy and its puppet state, sounds very good–that’s what anarchy is, government by and for the people instead of government by and for the bureaucracy (state) established by the oligarchy for the oligarchy.

            I love it. This is exactly what I’ve been trying to tell you. Except now you’re saying that government by and for the people is not a state. Well I hope you are ready to defend the idea of government to the rest of the individualists, including wildw123. Welcome to the absurd point of view.

          • mymarkx:

            Your own assumptions, such as that capitalists can be anti-capitalists, that those who abuse others can be egalitarians, that the state has somehow tricked people into opposing the state, etc., are nonsensical, irrational, and absurd.

            The first two, I didn’t say. I hope that you’ve understood that by now, since you’ve surely gone back to see the hundred fifty times I said I wasn’t talking about THIS state (even chastised you for suggesting I was in my first reply to you – I called it a strawman, which it was).

            The third is also incorrectly stated. What I HAD SAID was that the OLIGARCHY was tricking people (through their hyper-religious individualism memes) into hating the idea of government. Read that real slow-like to see if you can understand it. Ever heard of Peter Thiel?

            Now take the last four words (“…nonsensical, irrational, and absurd.”) and:
            1) Write them backwards on your forehead.
            2) Take a long look in the mirror.
            3) Begin a fresh start in life, by actually paying attention to what other people are saying to you.
            4) Go on a mission to convince all the other anarchists that government by and for the people is not a state.
            5) Then tell all the individualists that government by and for the people is anarchy.
            6) Just respond as though I was promoting our current federal government. It will make you feel better in the moment.

          • Do either of you ever gain any insight from each other in these political/ideological food fights? Just curious…

          • That bad, eh? See something say something. More and more people being called statists with such undeserved disdain. What would you do if you wanted to nip it and thought it came from the Bilderberg Thiel, among other oligarchy, who was just referred to as a possible Bilderberg insider for the individualists on a close relative of BFP in the last few days. Silence doesn’t always do the trick. Sorry it’s disturbing. I don’t really like it either.

          • Just for the sake of clarity, that was a serious question.

          • http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2014/05/28/weve-had-more-than-enough-revelations-and-the-american-majority-has-spoken/comment-page-1/#comment-14421

            What did you think? Is it OK that Sibel is also being called a statist (meant as an insult), since the last round table? Is it OK for people to spread this negative, simple-minded view at BFP, and be met with silence? Is silence apathy in this case? I don’t think this message will just go away because it’s ignored. Just to be clear, these aren’t rhetorical questions. Thanks!

  15. mymarkx says:

    @ Xicha

    Sorry, slavery didn’t happen until patriarchy, and that was only about 6,000 years ago.

    Just because you’ve been relatively affluent compared to me, as I spent much of my life homeless and/or living in extremely primitive conditions in third and fourth world countries, doesn’t make you superior or smarter.

    You’re point, if you had one, would be that you and you alone know everything, that I’m wrong, all anarchists are wrong, all dictionaries are wrong, and only you are right.

    You think you were poor? Have you ever lived in places where there was no running water, no electricity, and, since nobody had money, no stores (not to mention no government handouts)? What you can’t imagine, having never experienced it, is that people can be happy like that. As long as nobody has more than anyone else, nobody can make fun of anyone else. As people in Afghanistan told me, “We’re poor, but everyone here is poor, so it’s okay. But you’re poor and all the other Americans we’ve seen are rich. It must be terrible being poor in a rich country.”

    Not as terrible as living in a country that steals from the world’s poor to give to the rich. Not as terrible as living in a country where somebody like you who has never really been poor, thinks everyone else must be rich.

    • So it’s okay. Yeah, it’s alright, man. Groovy. I bet you found lots of individualists in Afghanistan, right? How about in the 3rd and 4th world? Thanks for not trying so hard. What’s left in your back pocket now?

      • Have you ever lived without electricity or heat when it’s below zero? You know nothing about me. Was it the peace Corp or are you just that lone western educated third world traveller on the internet that everyone is talking about? The one who says there was no slavery before patriarchy. Care to qualify that?

        • I consider myself very affluent now, even though I’ve still never had a positive net worth in dollars.  I’m grateful for where I am now. I have enough to raise children who live in comfort and help others when I can. I am a person, just like you. I deal directly with people all the time. Having a state does not mean that people don’t share, negotiate with each other, or take care of themselves. Do you agree with the original comment i was replying to, that, because I think liberty is a public interest and that a government by and for the people is the means and ends of that interest, that I am afraid to negotiate with my neighbors or take care of myself? If so, you are wrong and no dictionary can save you.

      • mymarkx says:

        “Having a state does not mean that people don’t share, negotiate with each other, or take care of themselves.”

        Some people share, negotiate with each other, or take care of themselves, and some don’t.

        Having a state means delegating to others the power to tax, the power to decide where and how tax money is spent, the power to wage wars, torture, assassinate, or whatever they wish.

        Having a capitalist system of government means basing decisions on what will bring the maximum profits to the wealthiest, while ignoring the needs of the billions of people in the world living on less than a dollar a day, or even actively drone bombing them to steal their resources.

        A government by and for the people might be able to further the public interest. Venezuela’s socialist government, for example, has gone a long way towards eliminating poverty in that country. The US does not have a government by and for the people, it has a government by and for the rich, a plutocracy or oligarchy, and even when the US was the richest country in the world, it did everything it could to increase income disparities, to make the rich richer and the poor poorer.

        I don’t know what you mean by liberty. Some people think liberty means the freedom to steal from the poor and give to the rich. If that’s what you mean, then yes, government is the best way to do that.

        I was in Afghanistan before the US first provoked Russia into invading (by recruiting, funding, arming and training Islamic terrorists like Al Qaeda) and then invaded Afghanistan itself. When he ran for President the first time, Obama promised to expand the war in Afghanistan and he is now promising that we will never leave (while accusing Russia of “adventurism”).

        Other than allowing rich people to use them as tax write-offs, governments don’t usually found public libraries. The English-language library in Kabul when I was there was not founded by their government. I don’t know who supported it–for all I know it might have been the CIA or their Peace Corps.

        A government of, by, and for the people would be a wonderful thing indeed. But that’s not what our counterrevolutionary Constitution gave us: http://fubarandgrill.org/node/1085

        • I’d say we’re getting closer to agreement or maybe a little understanding. The government I want looks nothing like our federal government. In general, I think we need more direct representation and more control at the local level. I think we do need to tax people for infrastructure and that it should be involuntary. That includes libraries. Public libraries are maintained with tax money, even if they aren’t founded by it. The federal level should be there for national defense and bill of rights-type protections, as well as some interstate infrastructure.

          It’s possible that we want some similar things. I don’t see how we can accomplish any of them without a government, precisely because of the words ‘for all’, which, as I mentioned earlier, is the only way to create a context for doing your own thing, without being molested, enslaved, etc.

          The libertarian individualists are boiling everything down to property rights. Not everything is property. The voluntaryists (individualists) boil everything down to consent. This cannot work as an absolute because obviously a society protecting liberties ‘for all’ cannot allow individuals to do their own thing in conflict with bill of rights-type protections for others, especially those who are vulnerable or weak. So, even a voluntaryist must be forced to support these protections with taxes, even if they decide for themselves that they don’t care about others, especially the vulnerable or weak. If they are to live in a context/society where they can do their own thing, this is the price, to protect that for everyone.

          The anarchist seems to be defined differently by many people. I liked A G Marshall’s explanation, but I look at that scenario as a type of government (by the people in a horizontal structure). There seem to be people also talking about anarchism as no government, others say no leaders, others say no rulers, others say no outside rulers. It seems hard to nail down for me, but the explanation I liked the best (Andrew’s) seemed like a good form of government. Workers having a stake in the decisions of the factory type of thing.

          Some good people need to fear the word government less, IMO. It’s a natural thing and is ubiquitous in our lives. I’m not talking about the Big Brother federal government. I’m talking about the natural organization of groups of individuals. The thing on the school bus that won’t let it go over the speed limit. Every two people who have a relationship create a subtle form of government between them. Government does not need to mean ‘outside asshole rulers who own us’. Government by the people requires people who are vigilant to keep it fair and clean. That’s why I called it the means and the ends. Because it won’t ever be perfect and needs continual attention.

          • mymarkx says:

            One of the biggest differences between a competitive society and a cooperative society is that the former does require governance. There is no need to have constraints on the extent to which people cooperate, only on the extent to which they compete.

            People in competitive societies tend to believe that competition is the natural human way, while people in cooperative societies tend to believe that cooperation is the natural human way.

            You wrote: “Every two people who have a relationship create a subtle form of government between them.”

            In a competitive society that is mostly true. In a cooperative society it mostly is not.

            I’d had my fill of competitive relationships by the time I was 40. So I avoided relationships for the next 30 years. But a few years ago I was drawn towards somebody online because we each respected the other’s way of thinking. We may never meet, but we have developed a very close relationship that is totally cooperative rather than competitive, and there is no form of governnment, subtle or otherwise, between us.

            Since it isn’t physical or sexual, you might not call that a relationship. Since we communicate several times a day, and we eagerly anticipate and rely on those communications, we do. In fact, since neither of us has ever felt closer to anyone else in the world, including people to whom we were married, we call it love.

          • Good for you. I imagine that you still have boundaries and if crossed, could end th relationship. I’m not saying you need an outside person to govern your relationship, but that the two of you are governing it cooperatively. But regardless of what it’s called, it’s a good story.

            About cooperative societies not needing government, I would say that no society can be perfect, and members will not always act perfectly. So, while government might seem easier, it would still exist, IMO. Also, I look at cooperation as a type of government anyway. This is how the society crates and maintains laws or rules. Maybe you would call them customs. But they are enforced and reinforced in many ways.

          • mymarkx says:

            Thank you, Xicha.

            We recently tried to discover what those boundaries might be, and the only things we could think of were things that neither of us would consider doing and that made us laugh just to think of them.

            Government “from below” as the Zapatistas put it, does not require the formation of hierarchies, social classes, or law enforcement specialists. That’s what separates the “good government” of the Zapatistas from the bad governments that rule from above.

            Power corrupts. When people elect someone to have power over them, they are tempting that person to take advantage of that power–leading them into temptation as some would say. Even as an atheist, I can say a heartfelt, “Lead us not….”

    • Are you interested in liberty and justice for all or not? Cause the oligarchy has your stone age paradise by the balls too, if you haven’t noticed.

    • I suppose you got your education from your own private library, that you built and maintained while homeless and in the 4th world? Thank goodness you didn’t need a yucky statist public library.

  16. Sibel,

    My guess is that the apathy is an intentional product of individualism and exceptionalism. This formula created an American public who thinks they are special enough for the new model of Cadillac or hand bag, but excused from civic duties by a feeling that they must have pulled themselves up by their own bootstraps. It excuses manifest destiny. It allows people to imagine others less well off must not have worked hard enough. It discourages empathy. It’s easier for Americans not to get involved because they generally don’t even understand they’re being preyed upon themselves, much less the concept of externalities. The oligarchy has replaced their state with a cartoon, and has even taught them to hate the idea of ever getting it back or building anew. History is, also, a cartoon. They can barely sepaseparate current events from their entertainment worldview. They are number 1 when it comes to this condition. Because of the individualism and exceptionalism in schools and the culture.

    • Won-a-pa-lei says:

      Xicha, if your theory of American individualism and exceptionalism being the cause of apathy is true, wouldn’t the passing of the ndaa naturally infuriate such a mindset?

      • I wish. So many things should. But, when you are so ethically unconnected and special, I think you really have a difficult time realizing that you are the target, along with the targets you are told about. If you are told it’s for your own good by the likes of those successful folks in power, then that’s the safest, most normal way to think. The ones I know in my life who are the most selfish are the same ones who will repeat the commercial news line, almost word for word. Actually the most selfish ones don’t watch the news, but they get their opinions from people around them who they think are successful. It becomes a very dishonest existence, in my opinion.

        • mymarkx says:

          Since you are not one of those people who says, “the state the state the state,” you say, “…those successful folks in power.”

          The successful folks in power, Xicha, are government officials who constitute the state, along with the big corporations that finance their political parties and election campaigns. The merger of business and government was Mussolini’s definition of fascism. It is those “successful folks in power,” along with those who finance and control them, who own the mass media and define the thinking of those who want to be “safe” and “normal.”

          Despite your awkward circumlocution, you are saying “the state.”

          • First, I was explaining the viewpoint of the Exceptional Individualistic American.

            Second, after I’d explained the same thing a hundred times, you think this is news. I’ve said it in this post. You got me. Except, this isn’t the state. It’s the state in name only. It’s a bad cartoon of a federal government. It’s a private enterprise, not by and for the people. Why didn’t you catch this the first time I said it above?

            Lastly, wow. Circumlocution – very nice word. You must not have picked that up in a yucky statist public library.

  17. colinjames says:

    Andrew Vltchek wonders what more he and other reports have to do, also, so this discouragement is going around I guess
    I don’t know what to tell you Sibel. You’ve done all you can do and more. I can’t get anyone I know to get mad, get educated, and get involved either. It’s sad. Like sometime else said here, by the time people realize just how screwed we are it’s going to be too late.

  18. A heads up: something weird is happening to the comments. For no reason some comments are being held for moderation. I’ll check them regularly (and free them up!) until we find out what’s going on and fix it.

  19. Thank you, Sibel, for replying on the “moderation” issue.

  20. True indeed, the majority of Americans have spoken with their silence. At the same time, lets suppose hypothetically apathy wasn’t the predominant factor and a majority of Americans vocally opposed what the NSA was doing and wanted to take action. What would that action look like? What kind of demands would we be making? It doesn’t seem like those of us who are passionate about these issues and understand why they’re important have taken that next step. Maybe that’s at least part of the problem.

    Being honest with ourselves. Imagine some sort of wild alternate universe where Obama was receptive to American’s concerns about the NSA, what sort of action could he take which would give us any reassurance that abuses wouldn’t continue? What good is a promise from the fox that there are appropriate safeguards in place to insure the safety of the chickens?

    I’m not saying these things to be discouraging, I just don’t feel that there’s any consensus about what a viable security policy for the chicken coup would look like (so to speak). Maybe this has been discussed at length somewhere and I’ve just completely forgot or I’m otherwise oblivious.

    I have ideas about how we might be able to do a better job reaching people and breaking through some of the apathy, but if we don’t have any coherent ideas about what we kind of steps to take proactively once people realize why they should be concerned, we’ll be leaving them with no place to hide.

    • Good focus. Personally, I think some Big Brothers need to go to prison. And maybe that will domino. Hopefully resulting in repeal of the Patriot Act as well, but I won’t trust any reform without accountability for the crimes.

      • That’s a good point about repealing the Patriot Act Xicha. It’s a specific demand which a dialog and talking points could be structured around. I agree that jail time would be a logical and just deterrent, but I have a much harder time seeing that happen. I think trying to tackle some of the thoughtcrime-style policies to keep activists out of prison is a higher priority. That’s the real threat of all this NSA rubbish IMO. Besides, I’m not sure the first priority of Americans is re-litigating the past 😉

  21. Sibel: I can see your struggle and frustration. Forgive my simplification of your quandary–but it feels like a problem of way too much apathy and not enough empathy. Well, we are back to the evolutionary development of the human brain. You mentioned “willfull denial”. That assumes that our brains have a so-called “free will”—current neurological studies indicate that “free will” does not existed, per se. There simply are too many dendritic actions, neurotransmitters, etc., happening by the trillions in thousandths of a second before we open our mouths to speak. Denial can be brought about by cognitive dissonance— when the brain can’t resolve its own programmed(by its tribe, family, etc.) narrative while it stares at or listens to the naked facts. Most adult Americans experienced this during 9/11/01 and refused to believe how those buildings had to come down by internal demolition–especially bldg.7! This is not Orwellian, per se—this is how most programmed brains have always worked.
    And the difficult thing to fully grasp is that EMPATHY is usually limited to one key social unit–not to the endless global suffering. But a small percentage of us seem to have it—you certainly do!
    The poet Matthew Arnold in his great work, Dover Beach” sensed the endless struggles of armies in distant “darkling plains” hopelessly at war then at peace, then at war–like the tides.

    • Ron, I think apathy is appropriate here, because the Snowden episode has exposed the fact that Americans are resigned about standing in opposition to abuses directed at us. This takes things a step further than merely a matter of empathy for those our government is oppressing elsewhere, which you’re no doubt right to point out is a lack of empathy. Still, if you’re not willing to defend yourself when someone’s whipping your ass the prognosis for your brethren looks less than promising.

      The major takeaway from this article, for me anyway, is that an ongoing exposure of abuses isn’t serving anybody’s good if the public has yet to react. I’ve argued elsewhere that there’s a risk that ongoing saturation of this information in light of this apathy without some sort of change in attitude runs the risk of solidifying the sense of powerlessness and hopelessness people who already care about the situation feel.

      • Benny, you are talking about a numbing information overload amped to the max by technology. It’s as though a numbing apathy begets more apathy. We have a 20,000 year old multifaceted designed organ in our skulls. Our collective brains now exist in an electronic nowhere land and there ain’t no going back.
        I was in “the movement” in the sixties. We thought we had changed something in the American psyche with our protests, marches, etc. But, alas, we were too naïve. Now. Today. It’s a new trip, man.

        • Ron, it’s interesting that you seem to be expressing doubt about what kind of impact activism of the sixties had on politics and society. That’s before my era, so I’m getting the information second hand, but it seems that this activism did have some sort of impact on society in changing opinions about civil rights and what was going on in Vietnam. It seems that the converging of the civil rights movement and the anti-war movement was an asset. Probably Martin Luther King’s greatest speech, a year to the day before his assassination, was “Beyond Vietnam: Time to Break Silence”, where he stressed the link between war abroad and poverty at home. Perhaps one of the more successful steps which could be made now is reinforcing that correlation.

          Change doesn’t cease to exist when the future doesn’t reflect it. It’s just proof that it doesn’t last when you don’t protect it.

          The power and the speed at which technology transmits the exchange of information and ideas continues to increase exponentially, but the underlying humanity of the collective brain, as you referred to it, is a relative static constant; for both better and for worse. Going back is relative, but stopping every now and then to evaluate whether we’re going in the direction we want is the best way to avoid getting lost or too far off track. Speaking of which, I better get back to doing what I have to do;-)

    • Thomas Wonsetler says:

      To some extent what your saying is true, thats called conditioning, but it can also be an excuse to just wait for someone else to change things. Anyway, evolution goes on and this is a process of educating,organizing, inspiring and for leaders, leading which goes on over time. This world is a world of learning and growth, or a work in progress as one philosopher put it, so we have to just keep on doing our part to support things like BFP and other Truth sites and organizations to keep the tide turning and it wont be long til its turned the other way !

  22. mymarkx says:

    I liked an article I just happened to see on another website:

    Marimba Ani: An African-Centered Critique of European Cultural Thought and Behavior


    Maybe this isn’t the right place for it, but I wanted to share something at the end of the article:

    Dr. Marimba Ani (born Dona Richards) is an anthropologist and African Studies scholar best known for her work “Yurugu: An African-Centered Critique of European“, a comprehensive critique of European thought and culture, and her coining of the term Maafa for the African holocaust.

    According to Dr. Ani, “One of the deepest beliefs of the Europeans is in the related notions of “civilization,” “progress,” and the “evolutionary” superiority of their culture. The concept of “codified law” is a definitive ingredient of that of civilization; for with civilization, according to European ideology, comes order and legality assures “lasting order” – not moral conduct but consistent and predicable conduct. So that the “civilized” way – the European way – is to bring laws, however forcibly, and the structures of European culture (“civilization”) to those whom one treats immorally and for whom one has no respect. Along with “development,” this justifies expansionism – for after all, Europeans bring “law and order” to people who must have previously lived quite “disorderly” lives (or so they believe).”

    • Won-a-pa-lei says:

      Interesting…this falls right in line with this passage from the book End of Evil by Jeremy Locke

      To understand how evil controls people, it is necessary to
      understand the difference between principle and law.
      A principle is a truth that creates freedom. A law is a lie that
      creates slavery.
      Principles describe reality. They are knowledge that help you
      to make use of your world. Because of your intelligence, you
      recognize principles in everything you do. Every true thing you
      learn is a principle. The movements of your hands, which foods
      taste good, mathematics and empathy for a friend are all based
      on principles.
      Laws are artificial ideas created by evil men to restrict the
      thinking and understanding of people. Laws mask themselves in
      authority so that they can impersonate principles. When people
      mistake law for principle their freedom is restricted. When
      people mistake truth for the ideas of authority, their abilities and
      their wisdom are diminished. This is the purpose of law.

      • Now that’s some religious individualism. Evil is mystical, not rational. If it were a more rational argument, then laws would be recognized as an extension of principles. This argument parses words in the context of mysticism, as a cover for the underlying anti-government, anti-collectivist values of the author. At least that’s how I understand it. Of course, I might be considered absurd for saying this. Or maybe evil is more to the point?

      • Ribbit-Mark says:

        “To understand how evil controls people, it is necessary to
        understand the difference between principle and law. – …

        Laws are artificial ideas created by evil men to restrict the
        thinking and understanding of people. Laws mask themselves in
        authority so that they can impersonate principles. When people
        mistake law for principle their freedom is restricted. When
        people mistake truth for the ideas of authority, their abilities and
        their wisdom are diminished. This is the purpose of law. ”

        Would you happen to be an anarchist or a proponent of that school? 🙂

        • Won-a-pa-lei says:

          I suppose I am not sophisticated enough to wear a label. I am just trying to figure out this human experience like everyone else. The laws as described in The End of Evil are speaking of man’s laws. The principles to which the author refers, I believe, are akin to Natural or Universal Law. An example of what the author may be referring to is made clear in a law for justifiable battery that was passed in Georgia, which can be used as a defense making it legal to assault someone if they used abusive language toward you. Now, to my understanding of Natural Law, it is never justifiable to initiate violence on another being. To my understanding, this law goes against truth and wisdom.

          I have heard it said the collectivism tears people apart while individualism brings people together. I believe this statement to be true because of the fact that a group cannot have a conscience. Only an individual can have a conscience.

          • I wonder how much Thiel paid for the development of those talking points.

          • Won-a-pa-lei says:

            Sorry Xicha, I’m not up on the whole Thiel thing. I’m just a single mom of 2 boys, receiving no help from father, family nor state. I just go with what resonates with me and what I see to be true. I am a big fan of Mark Passio however and have enjoyed and learned a great deal from his podcasts. If you do not believe that evil is manifest in this world for your eyes to see, you haven’t searched out photos of all of the deformed babies being born in Iraq due to the US military use of depleted uranium. You also must be unfamiliar with Rachel Corrie as well as all of the murder by cop going on right here in Amerika. I’m really not sure where you’re coming from.

          • Won-a-pa-lei,

            Thanks for sharing your personal story. I think that makes your views stronger and more effective in my book. I understand your situation and for generations, I’ve seen my family doing the fighting for justice, even from a similar position of relative poverty, while all the individualists sat on their hands and would only whisper support in private. I was the youngest of eight of a single mom – grew up in govt housing. Took help from friends, relatives, govt, anywhere. But didn’t stop my mother from fighting for unionization for the librarians. Or my grandfather from stopping the KKK from firing Catholic teachers in the county. Both of them lost their jobs because of the back lash. Both ended up sacrificing thier (and my) well being for the well being of others. And countless others have benefited because of their successes. Even though they lost on one level. Their personal level.

            Mark Passio – yes, I think I watched several hours of him yelling at people a while back. Actually most of that 10 hour (or however long) training session to get what he’s talking about – left brain right brain self defense vs pacifism masculine feminine something or another. He’s very effective. Definitely into the religious aspect, being an ex-satanic priest or whatever. But he’s definitely a salesman. He continues to be a salesman with deep convictions. I think it’s important to hear many different views, especially after spending some time with Mark Passio. He’s a pretty strong and persuasive person, but that doesn’t mean he’s thought of everything or is correct. He’s intimidating and kind of mean/angry looking is all. Anyone who’s gotten that deep into manipulating people in his past should be taken with serious caution.

            Listen, I probably have more in common with you than you think. I share your views about the problems. It’s the solutions where we differ. I think we need balance. Isn’t that always good advice? We have a lot of tools in our tool bag. We have individualism and collectivism, and there are even different types of those. We can use all of them in various situations and contexts. But we are also made up of our relationships. When people are in isolation, they lose their identity. Being part of a group with rules is totally natural. Even the anarchists are presenting a type of democratic government. “We need to deal with the natural tensions between the individual and the group.” (I forgot who on BFP commented that recently, but I liked it.)

            I often “do my own thing.” = HI (Horizontal Individualism)

            The well-being of my co-workers is important to me. = HC (Horizontal Collectivism)

            It annoys me when other people perform better than I do. = VI (Vertical Individualism)

            I would sacrifice an activity that I enjoy very much if my family did not approve of it. = VC (Vertical Collectivism)

            These are from the paper:
            Triandis, H. C., & Gelfand, M. J. (1998). Converging measurement of horizontal and vertical individualism and collectivism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(1), 118-128. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.74.1.118

            This paper also includes a summary of practical implications:

            It is important to note that none of the four cultural patterns is necessarily better or worse for human functioning. Instead, each of these cultural patterns is probably functional in different situations. Specifically, the HI pattern allows individuals to do their own thing without the restraints provided by in-groups; the VI pattern, with its emphasis on competition, is likely to result in creativity and high effort. By contrast, the HC pattern is likely to lead to much social support and sociability. The VC pattern can allow the in-group to produce more than the sum of its parts. This cultural pattern provides protection and security and reduces the need for personal decisions, which some people find anxiety provoking. In Eric Fromm’s (1941) terms, this somewhat authoritarian pattern allows individuals to “escape from freedom.”

            On the other hand, there are probably costs associated with each pattern. The HI pattern may result in social isolation, in which individuals do their own thing but no one approves of what they do. The VI pattern may result in extreme stress, especially after failures in competition, and thus may reduce the effectiveness of the immune system and increase the probability of both cardiovascular disease and ineffectiveness in battling infections (Triandis et al., 1988). The HC pattern could absorb much of the individual’s energy in social relationships, thus decreasing productivity. The VC pattern could result in authoritarian regimes and ethnic cleansing.

            I think the religious individualist’s constant reduction of every issue into a question of individual property rights (every problem’s a nail for their one hammer). There are, in my opinion, valid limits that should be placed on individual voluntaryism. Those are to protect the group’s interest in liberty and justice, as well as the common infrastructure, public land and resources.

            In practical terms, this means that, if you are a part of this group, you are going to, by coercion if necessary, pitch in to protect your neighbors from slavery and your environment from ruin, even if it doesn’t directly effect your individual property. This is the only way to create a social context for liberty and justice for each individual. It is the means and the ends of eternal vigilance for liberty and justice for all.

          • Won-a-pa-lei says:

            Xicha, so many points to respond to, so little time. On the personal aspect, just to say, I do not feel like a victim and if being part of a group means associating with liars, hypocrites and thieves, I am very happy to go it alone. On Mark Passio… I have a hard time watching his videos but have listened to all of his podcasts from beginning to end. What he has to say resonates as truth to me and if that’s what he’s selling, I’ll buy it. As for the rest of your post, I guess it’s over my head.

          • Won-a-pa-lei, guess that’s that then. Thanks for the reply.

          • Won-a-pa-lei,

            FYI – just in case you’re interested in reading a critique of Mark Passio. Sometimes it’s important to question and validate the respect we hold for our leaders. I’m not saying that Mr. Passio has no value, but this critique goes to the point that some folks do have careers selling mysticism and Mr. Passio does have a background of manipulating people’s emotions.

            These satanists and even many of the holy rollers are very good actors and understand how to play roles. I’m sure you understand that, but you did seem to put quite a lot of trust and stock in Mr. Passio. So, it might be worth your time to inspect criticisms such as the following. This is from a couple years ago and it’s by an author who does think that there are conspiracies to uncover in important current events. His approach is less mystical than Mr. Passio’s (investigate real evidence of the crimes of 9/11, instead of associations with the ideas of Aleistar Crowley, for example) , and this is one of the foundations of his criticism.


            Hope this helps. I can remember “ex-satanists” selling books since the mid-80’s, when there seemed to be a lot of news about satanic cults stealing children and sacrificing small animals in small towns across the country. There was a market boom.

          • Won-a-pa-lei says:

            Xicha, I have read Hager’s criticisms of people who’s work he has admittedly not investigated. Please don’t worry about me.

  23. Sibel, you said “I see it as a result of several ingredients: willful Denial, too much misplaced individualism, systematic indoctrination for decades, materialism, misplaced nationalism … and tummy that is way too full with hormone & GMO ridden garbage food … among other things.” I don’t know that I agree with “willful denial” but I think the rest is right on and denial is surely immense. Americans have had it good for so long that they can’t even see when it turns dark on their own soil. They believe they are an exceptional people–it can’t happen here, etc. I hear this from many of my own family. They, on the whole, give little thought to the suffering going on in their name in other countries. As far as individualism, I couldn’t agree more. In fact I think we have lost all sense of community, real sense of helping one another let alone caring about people in other countries. Do Americans care about their fellow Americans–take Detroit for example. We have become selfish, self-centered and thanks to MSM (and mind numbing video games not to mention facebook), ignorant about what is going on in the world. Even when the public becomes aware of something horrific like the NDAA. People tend to discuss it briefly and then it goes down the rabbit hole. The thought does not seem to be there that they must do something. I fear this country is lost and we will not see any significant action until those GMO filled tummies are empty and real suffering surfaces for the ”individual” or their immediate family. By that time, it will be too late. How do they put up with it? Well, I as an “individua”l have not experienced police harrassment or a friend/family member who has, I, as an “individual” have not lost my home, have not been bombed, have not lost my job, can still buy groceries, still have heat in winter and a warm cozy bed. Isn’t it usually the middle class following a leader that are the one’s that make change happen? The middle class may be falling behind but most are still able to go to those big box stores to fulfill their need for comfort so everything keeps going on as usual. Americans don’t see tyranny when it is staring them in the face. The APATHY is scarry. I often ask myself, why don’t I do something. I read all the time and I know what is going on. I feel it is because I have yet met anyone who would be willing to join me, most don’t even want to enter into a discussion about anything of significance. I have been accused of being a right winger, conspiracy theorist and once a “Debbie Downer” (I didn’t even know what that meant but now know it was some show on TV/Internet). I admit I am scared to go it alone and don’t even know where to begin. There are already so many blogs, so much information on the internet. What is needed is a million people in the streets and as someone else said on here not marching but interrupting traffic, making themselves visible and yes, fighting, willing to fight. Right now I see WWIII as a real possibility on the horizon and the fools in Govt believe they can win a nuclear war. What will stir people to act? I sure don’t know.

    • Well said, Judith. I appreciate your honesty and think that talking about things on a personal level really makes a difference in the effectiveness.

  24. Won-a-pa-lei says:

    There is a recent interview on Alchemy Radio with Tahra Ahmed about the Reset. I found it very inspiring and would love to here other’s thoughts about it.

  25. Won-a-pa-lei says:
  26. CuChulainn says:

    may I suggest that subscription to this site would be more attractive were there are real discussion forum, instead of a mere listing of recent posts, usually monopolized by the otiose brown-nose who calls himself Xicha?

    • You volunteering? Or just governing?

    • Hi CuChulainn,

      How are you feeling today?

      I don’t think I’ve ever taken the time to say just how much I appreciate your comments here. You have to be one of the smartest, kindest, and dare I say attractive members of BFP. If it weren’t for you, I think this place might just fall apart.

      Please continue to grace us with your presence. And remember that I’m here for you, if you ever need a shoulder to whine on. Or even if you happen to get irate about one of the issues presented here at BFP. I know the site isn’t quite good enough for someone of your stature, but we need you – and don’t you forget it!

    • Ribbit-Mark says:

      Maybe CuChulainn didn’t use the most persuasive language to get his/her point across
      but I agree with the suggestion.

      Proper software that allows Forum Discussion on this site would make the site a lot more pleasant to its members and visitors.

      Currently members’ only opportunity to voice their views is to post comments on articles written here.
      The disadvantages to this are many, as members here know well.

      Hopefully we will see a change soon in this regard. 🙂

  27. There is one issue that, in my opinion, could provide a rational common ground for those Americans who for whatever reason remain outside labor or communist movement but who are looking for action and believe that organized struggle for people’s power (democracy) is long overdue. By most part, these people’s political instincts and ideas remain within the framework of ‘representative democracy’. The existence of this common ground is the ground for hope because otherwise a kind of malign individualism, or atomization pervades their personal opinions about everything else. OWS movement represented this situation is a caricature way. Thousands of people endlessly argued about everything as if their personal opinions or even ideologies (in the end every individual belief can be shown to manifest an ideology of a certain social class) had any significance. They do not, of course, because those were opinions of people who had no power. In this sense, their ideas and opinions were also false. Truth is the function of power. Only those in power know truth because only they collectively choose the ends and the means to accomplish them. This is why 99 percent of this ‘republic’ are separated from truth in its most meaningful sense. They must take power before they learn the truth. Once they are in power, most of existing differences in opinions and even ideologies will become irrelevant. Is it practically possible for 99% take collective control over their future within the framework of ‘representative democracy’? I don’t think so. But I believe that in the present situation of mass “apathy” in the West there is a space for making first step or two in this direction within this framework, without engaging in useless and irrelevant exchange of opinions which are not informed by being in power. I see this first step in mass organization around the struggle to separate money from [political] power.

    It is useless and counterproductive to

    • Hi netter,

      What’s your opinion of The After Party? Do you think their combination of being a community action organization (gaining the trust of communities throughout the year), as well as a political party (and a focus on local elections) will help them/the public gain the power you speak of in your comment? Here’s a link to their “plan” page:


      How do you suggest we move to separate money from power? Move to Amend?

      (BTW, it looks like the end of your comment was cut off.)


      • Hi Xicha,
        Both initiatives are OK as long as they are grassroots. Move to Amend and similar constitutional initiatives can serve as rallying points for mobilizing people of varying, even opposite beliefs in pursuit of a single but most fundamental goal. To separate money–not only corporate but private as well–from power in the United States will be nothing short of the greatest revolution of modern times. The real choice is not between capitalism and socialism, but one between people’s power–the people as producers of life, organized by social production, material and spiritual/intellectual–on one hand, and the power of exploiting “elites” whether capitalistic (US), state bureaucratic (Soviet Union), or their combination, on the other.

        Why “apathy”? Because it is not enough to “inform” people about the corruption of power. It is not enough to stir their moral indignation. People/population will become historical agent–“we, the people”–only if they see a clear, realistic, doable and desirable alternative. The problem with Western intelligentsia, like Andre Vltchek (see above the link to his piece in Counterpunch), who have been trying to “wake up” the population of the Empire, is that almost like 18th-century Enlighteners they believe that when people get educated they will change society. But they have been unable to offer an alternative. One reason for this has been the tremendous power of anti-communist indoctrination in the post-war period, the ideology of “the end of history” after the collapse of the Soviet Union. If I don’t see any realistic alternative to the human situation in general, to my situation and a citizen of the Empire, I would naturally be “apathetic” and tend my own garden. At best, my struggle would remain defensive and strictly within the System run by the logic and in the interests of power elites. Vltchek sees it and comes to realize that political education of Western populace must involve struggle against the demonization of post-capitalist experience in Russia, China, and other countries. It’s important but not enough. Progress in the West can be achieved only on the basis of its own historical experience, mentality, deeply ingrained values, and even prejudices. Not a return to the “genuine” representative democracy–for such democracy has never existed–but the fullest realization of its promise which cannot be achieved without separating money from political power.

        • Well said, netter. That makes a lot of sense to me. One question I have about your last sentence:

          Would it be fair to emphasize the word ‘return ‘ instead of ‘genuine’? So, a genuine representative democracy is still the goal, but, having never had one, we are not returning. A genuine representative democracy being “people’s power”, as opposed to the exploitative power of elites.

          I have been calling this idea a “public government”, to mean that the power is by and for the people. I think that the lie of what we call government today is that it is by and for the elite, but has a superficial pageantry of being by and for the people. This strategy is not the only way an elite could accomplish their exploitative goals, as some would argue. But, it has a benefit built into it which protects those elite and their power. That benefit is that many dissidents will be tricked into hating the idea of government, genuinely representative or not. They have split the resistance by taking advantage of the people’s disdain for their own ability to empower themselves. They have filled young vibrant minds with dreams of trading chicken eggs for Internet access in a gulch hidden in South America, becoming Atlas in their own private mythology, holding up their very own personal planet.

          • Thank you for correction: it’s “return” of course. Genuine democracy has never existed. Beginning with the power of male slaveholders in ancient Greece to landowning NA settlers to the grandiose scheme of mass manipulation, intimidation, suppression, and corruption by One Percent — democracy remains a historical ideal. Its closest approximation so far were the Russian soviets (councils) of 1905 and 1917 before they were suppressed by the Bolsheviks.

            “That benefit is that many dissidents will be tricked into hating the idea of government, genuinely representative or not. They have split the resistance by taking advantage of the people’s disdain for their own ability to empower themselves.”

            This is precisely the point of complicity between the primarily American ideology that “(big) government is bad” and modern anarchism. It’s amazing how the majority of educated people live and die babies in their political thinking. They cannot grasp the difference between “the state” and its “government.” That is between the political organization (the state) without which civilization and its progress is impossible and the question of who is in control of this organization: the exploiting elites of whatever kind or producers. Why the “anti-government” ideology has been so popular throughout the history of this country is pretty clear: both small bourgeoisie and corporate capitalism constantly produce this ideology as anti welfare state, anti-taxes and so on. Same classes though are very much pro-“government” when it comes to prisons, police, courts and federal “pork” of infinite varieties. Political anarchism in a more inclusive sense–from bohemian and semi-bohemian circles to libertarians to traditional anarchists (communists)–has little political clout but is important as ideology, especially among Western intellectuals. It is important because intellectuals, especially the mass of middling intellectuals have the social role of disseminating general ideas among other other classes. Their anarchistic tendencies flow from their situation as the dominated part of the dominant class. They have no power whatsoever, they are simply a better paid servants and this is the reason for their frustration. Hegel called it “the butler’s complex.” The butler serves his master, but he also secretly despises him. It’s the feeling of intellectual/cultural/professional superiority by the socially inferior over his socially superior. “The butler” feels superior also over his social inferiors–“the working class” who lack his professional skills, education, and cultural sophistication. Intellectual or middling professional is a socially schizophrenic being. His education and “clean” /mental occupations often of administrative kind is what he shares with his master. His powerlessness and economic unprovidedness of his existence is what he shares with “simple workers.” Both groups have to sell themselves.
            Thus squeezed between men of property and power and those on the opposite social pole, the intellectual aka butler generates anarchism of different colors and shades. He would love to destroy the state of his inferior superiors–capitalists and their bureaucrats–but he hates to submit himself to the state of his inferior inferiors –“simple workers” –without who the rule of exploiters cannot be destroyed. What communist anarchists–that is the historically progressive form of anarchism– cannot or do not want to understand is that the state is much more than a coercive force, “the executive committee of the ruling class” or whatever its numerous detractors and demonizers may attribute to it. The State taken over by producers is necessary as the instrument of mediation between them. The differences between the learned and unlearned, “professionals” and “blue-collar workers” women and men, blacks and whites, the American South, New England, and California, and on and on do not disappear with producers establishing their rule. Now the State becomes a “Council” in which they negotiate between themselves, agree on their mutual interests, and carry out their agreements in the form of state policies. Thus the New State becomes the framework for a collective self-transformation both of society as a whole and each and every individual. Only through such a state can the dream of ‘good society’ be realized.

            because politics now comes to

          • Also, let’s not forget the Iroquois Confederacy. A much longer lasting representative democracy that included women in positions of power. It gets mentioned frequently as a source of inspiration for the Founding Fathers of the USA. Unfortunately, it didn’t inspire them quite enough.

            And regarding pseudo-intellectual characters/roles, I’d like to point out how many people learn to argue from a type of authority (I think it’s a logical fallacy) where an idea doesn’t have merit, unless one can constantly “define the terms” and “cite the literature”, like high school debaters who win without any personal feelings or connection to the argument. I think of it like baseball. I like to play baseball. I’ve played and watched many games and understand baseball. But don’t ask mewho played second base for what team, because I’ve never been a fan. Many academicians can’t really play ball and many a fan never tried thinking for themselves. Many commentators ca t have a discussion without the dictionary and sources. Critical thinking is a talent that can be developed. We have too many fans and not enough players. Where’s Yogi Berra when you need him? Get me out of this analogy Mr. Berra! What? No I haven’t seen your picanic basket!

          • Good stuff, netter, but it looks like you got cut off again.

  28. mymarkx says:

    The last paragraphs of Paul Craig Roberts’ March 2014 Notice to Readers:

    “This site serves for me to share with you the experience, knowledge, and analytical ability that comes from a lifetime of being involved in major events of our time.

    That is all that I can do for you.”


  29. Ribbit-Mark says:

    Further to my comment about not having Discussion Forums here…

    I just read an Editorial here entitled ‘The theater of media operations: Snowden analyzed’
    June 2, 2014 by ‘Jay’.

    After reading the article I was prepared to post comments about it, just as we do after reading regular articles here. When I saw that the Editorial was just a link from another site, I understood why I couldn’t comment on it.

    The Editorial was deemed important enough to be linked to at this site and also mentioned Sibel’s name in it and so I will comment on it here below (I have no other discussion forum available to me at this site).

  30. Ribbit-Mark says:

    re: Editorial ‘The theater of media operations: Snowden analyzed’ June 2, 2014

    Sibel, just as you asked Snowden half a year ago to “Come Out and Take a Stand Publicly as to Your Intentions” (Dec 13, 2013) it is time for you to come out and tell us where you stand with your beliefs about Snowden.

    There is a Major Disconnect going on here.

    On the one hand you state in no uncertain terms that you consider Dan Ellsberg to be ‘the father of all government whistleblowers’, a friend and someone you have deep respect for.

    Further, we have Dan Ellsberg revealing to the world a couple of weeks ago that he has deep respect for Ed Snowden, has been in close touch with him over the past year and considers him to have “done more than anyone in or out of government in this century to demonstrate his patriotism, moral courage and loyalty to the oath of office the three of us swore: to support and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

    On the other hand we have your website linking to articles by ‘Jay’, which include you along with a list of other Snowden detractors:
    “Veterans of intelligence work and black operations then made it clear that Snowden was a faux hero who was questionable at the least, including Dr. Steve Pieczenik, Sibel Edmonds, Daniel Estulin, Kurt Nimmo and Jon Rappoport.”

    Jay joins the team of YASB’s (Yet Another Snowden Basher) gaining momentum here on BFP.

    What is Jay’s ‘proof’ that Snowden is a fake?

    1. Brian Williams’ (NBC) ability to “reach out and touch” Snowden (interview him) yet U.S. government officials can’t touch him.

    2. The “Damascus Road conversions of the whistleblowers. The establishment whistleblower was formerly a “high level” individual like Manning or Snowden or Ellsberg that magically feels a pang of conscience and when the scales fall from their eyes, they repent.”
    (Jay considers Ellsberg’s Pentagon Papers as a “bogus narrative”.)

    Jay considers Julian Assange to be a fake as well.

    He also has difficulty with tenses. He talks as if Assange is no longer holed up in Britain. “Remember when Julian Assange was holed up in Britain? How absurd is it that Mi5 couldn’t get to Assange, while trapped under house arrest in the UK?” )

    3. According to Jay, Snowden has just revealed that he was a trained CIA operative.

    Well Jay, in Dr. Steve Pieczenik’s interview published on Youtube Feb 15, 2014 he already states Snowden was a CIA operative!
    How did he know that?

    And almost a year ago in June 2013, there were many publications detailing that Snowden worked for the CIA, under cover in Switzerland. This is not new news Jay, it’s old news.

    4. The fact that there are now books, movies and other money-making ventures about Snowden is further ‘proof’ that he is a fake.

    I’m sorry but everything that Jay has laid on the table that ‘proves’ Snowden is fake is purely conjecture, no more, no less.

    • Well, you and CuChulainn have certainly shown that you aren’t apathetic. CuChu (decode as crazy train – CuCu ChuChu) cares about me, you both care about the site, and what would the lack of apathy be without the defense of ES? Well played. Perfect balance of indignation and blurred indignation. It’s amazing how you knew that BFP was in need of an ES defender and a forum. And to top it off, your questioning of Sibel’s integrity and personal relationships was related to that same ES. How do you do it? Crazy Train Lane, I think you’ve got a challenger for least apathetic.

      • Ribbit-Mark says:

        I would like to first make it absolutely clear that I have nothing but the deepest respect and admiration for Sibel.

        Having read her book “The Classified Woman” I learned just how courageous, strong-willed and principled she is and also how caring and devoted an individual she is to family and friends.

        You are quite correct Xicha in noting that I am not an apathetic person. 🙂

        Also your knack for shallow compliments followed immediately by sarcasm is still intact and in good working order. 🙂

        Let’s separate the issues, shall we?

        I apologize for posting my comments about Jay’s editorial here in this unrelated area.
        Had there been a dedicated spot on this site where I could comment directly on his editorial, I would have gladly done so.

        Perhaps it might be more appropriate if you moved these posts to a Snowden-related article comment section?

        As to my echoing CuChu’s sentiment about implementing forums on the site where members could comment about various issues (separate from making comments on specific articles); I don’t think we are the only two here who share this view and I certainly don’t think we deserve to be ridiculed about it.

        re: defense of ES.
        A number of people here (including editorialists) have made disparaging remarks about ES questioning his integrity, values and legitimacy.
        I personally feel that these remarks are neither justified nor correct.

        I never stated that BFP is “in need of an ES defender.”
        That is your personal interpretation of my comments.

        And finally, the last issue: Sibel being forthright about her position on ES.

        Any objective observer who has been reading Sibel’s articles and listening to her podcasts on ES will note that she has been quite skeptical about his legitimacy as a whistleblower.

        There is nothing wrong with that all. We all have our own opinions about any number of issues.

        Something started to ring a bell in my head though a week ago
        while reading an article online written by Dan Ellsberg on Ed Snowden.

        To say I was quite surprised by what I read was an understatement.

        To paraphrase the article, Ellsberg was basically saying that:
        a) he has been in touch with Snowden over the past year
        b) he has deep respect and admiration for the man in what he has done re: his whistleblowing
        c) Kerry has shown a complete lack of respect and decency in his comments about ES.

        Immediately after reading Ellsberg’s article I thought of Sibel.
        a) Because they are both well-known whistleblowers.
        b) Because Sibel has been a huge supporter and friend of Mr. Ellsberg, who in turn gave Sibel much needed support when she was at a low point in her fight against the U.S government.

        That prompted me to re-read some articles that Sibel had posted on this site re: ES.
        While browsing through her articles I chanced upon her
        October 24, 2011 article entitled Pinpointing “Fairytale Whistleblowers”.

        After reading the article it seemed to close the loop. I had come full circle.
        We have Sibel declaring that:

        a) Be wary of fairytale whistleblowers (fake ones trying to make a buck)

        b) Ellsberg was/is ‘the father of all government whistleblowers’ and at the time (Oct. 2011), the most famous government whistleblower in our history.

        But it was a strange loop indeed, because we have her site BFP linking to an editorial that:

        a) pans ES as a fake whistleblower.
        b) pans Dan Ellsberg as a fake whistleblower.

        Does anyone else here see the disconnect?

        I simply would like to hear Sibel come clean and tell us exactly
        where she stands with her beliefs about Snowden; whether she feels he’s a legitimate whistleblower or not and if not, why not?

        Not simply that he doesn’t follow the mold of a typical whistleblower.

        • As to my echoing CuChu’s sentiment about implementing forums on the site where members could comment about various issues (separate from making comments on specific articles); I don’t think we are the only two here who share this view and I certainly don’t think we deserve to be ridiculed about it.

          I’ll be happy if BFP keeps the lights on. Have you seen the results of the latest round of fundraising? I have no problem with suggestions for the site. The site started out with a forum that nobody used. It had technical difficulties as well, but nobody really used it. We had one long conversation on there between 3 or 4 of us I think. In the context of this post (should we keep trying to inform the public if they’re not going to do anything anyway?) and the recent fund drive results (I think about half of what BFP needed) and the piling on of criticism (Sibel, come out and tell us what you really think of Snowden, because your friend likes him!/I can’t comment on news items (this also used to be the case, when they were posts like any other, except now they’re rotated differently – looks like commenting was given up to afford an ongoing rotation at the top of the page) anyway, it seems like bad timing and placement for the request, like you’re asking for more site functionality when Sibel’s wondering out loud if the immense work she’s put into it is worth it. But, after all that said, I agree – it would be nice to have a comment area for individual news items. It would be nice to have a forum. Those take money to build and time to maintain.

          I simply would like to hear Sibel come clean and tell us exactly where she stands with her beliefs about Snowden; whether she feels he’s a legitimate whistleblower or not and if not, why not?

          Sibel asked ES some questions and, to my knowledge, they were never answered. In fact, I think they may have been dismissed with some intentionally disrespectful comments about Sibel, but I don’t know if or where this was published. Here are the questions. Maybe you can write to Mr. Ellsburg and ask him if he thinks they should be answered. Let’s remember, Sibel asked these questions when it was an uncomfortable position to do so. Many, whistle blowers or not, jumped on the bandwagon and let all critical thought fly out the window, because they were being validated by some of his documents. These are from the article which you can find at BFP/2013/12/15/mr-snowden-its-time-to-come-out-and-take-a-stand-publicly-as-to-your-intentions/

          1. What was your foremost intention for making the decision to obtain thousands of documents that implicated the United States government?

          2. What was your foremost intention for actually taking the action following your decision, and obtaining those documents?

          3. At the time, when you were obtaining the documents, did you target particular categories of implicating documents, or did you just grab everything you could?
          1. If you vetted the documents, or the specific categories of documents, beforehand, and then went about obtaining them, then why would you ask journalists to vet and make personal judgments on which ones to release or which ones to withhold permanently?
          2. If you didn’t vet the documents prior to obtaining them, and if you asked particular journalists to vet them and decide what to release and what to withhold, did you make any demands to ensure that you were part of that vetting process and that they had to have your consent?
          3. If you didn’t vet the documents prior to obtaining them, and if you asked particular journalists to vet them and decide what to release and what to withhold, did you also asked them to have meetings with U.S. and U.K. government agencies, and have those who were actually implicated in your documents call the shots on what to withhold and what to release?

          4. Did you provide Glenn Greenwald with your explicit consent and authorization to make decisions on what to release and what to withhold? If so, was this in writing? If so, why and how did you make that decision?
          1. For example: Mr. Greenwald entered in a contractual agreement with a mainstream corporate publisher to withhold certain documents only to include them exclusively in his coming book in return for millions of dollars. Did you sanction this decision? Do you find this action justified and reasonable?

          5. Did you provide Mr. Greenwald with your explicit consent to strike a business venture with a corporation that is a known cooperative partner of the NSA in a $250 million deal? Did you authorize Mr. Greenwald to withhold 99% of the documents and transfer their ownership to the corporate news entity owned by PayPal’s Pierre Omidyar? If yes, when and how did you provide your consent and approval? What was your reasoning for sanctioning and or authorizing this transfer of document ownership, and to withhold the vast majority of these documents from the public and its right to know?

          6. Do you believe it is reasonable, justified and acceptable that the person you gave the ownership of these documents to is commoditizing and profiting from these documents that are considered classified and stolen by the United States government, yet were considered by you as evidence to which the people have the right to know about?
          1. If yes, then, do you believe that it is acceptable and correct for entities who obtain classified and incriminating government documents to market these documents as commodities, and offer them to the highest bidders, whether the bidder is the government, or a corporation, or a book publisher?
          2. If your answer to above question (a) is yes, then, do you believe you are also entitled to benefit and profit from the sale and censorship of these documents?

          7. Have you made any venture deals or entered into any contract with Mr. Greenwald where you will receive a cut from the millions of dollars that are being obtained by him in return for publication and withholding certain portions of the NSA documents?
          1. If yes, when, where and how?
          2. If yes, then, does your flexibility on the sale and commoditization of stolen and classified government documents also extend to foreign government entities?

          8. This appears to be the first case labeled and categorized as a whistleblowing case where a leak is being commoditized at a value of hundreds of millions of dollars by corporations such as PayPal, Book publishers and Hollywood studios. Could you provide us with your general stand, principles and values with regard to leaking and disclosing for political and profit motives?

          This is Boiling Frogs Post. Home of the Irate Minority. We need people who are willing to question authority. When ES was suddenly on every tv and radio station in the country and the world, could you tell that something was fishy? Do you think that any story coming out from GG about these documents will ever have even 1% of the attention and effectiveness at impacting a world-wide audience again? If so, you are sorely mistaken. The iron was hot. We were stabbed in the back. America will continue to believe that the government looked at their call logs to fight terrorism. They will argue about whether ES is a hero or a traitor. Reform will be superficial and ineffective. The dissident community will be even more afraid at the power and invulnerability of Big Brother. Congress, POTUS, SCOTUS will continue to be compromised at the behest of sith lords like Dick Cheney and the rest of the oligarchy. Welcome to BFP. We can see the charade – even if Danny Ellsberg doesn’t. Sibel is not afraid to question authority, even if her friends don’t. I think she’s made her opinions about it clear, through a myriad of articles and the questions I copied. Go ask Danny E what he thinks about Sibel’s questions for ES now. Maybe he can get some answers out of ES at their next luncheon.

        • Ribbit-Mark, thanks for being a good sport about my sarcasm. I appreciate your clear and precise comments and smiley faces. (Not sarcasm)

  31. Ribbit-Mark says:

    Thanks Xicha for your response.

    I fully realize the time and effort that would be required to add discussion forums to the existing site.
    I know it would not be easy to do.

    A possibility might be to add/link to a sister site that can make use of one of the many free discussion forum software, like SMF (Simple Machines). That software is fairly easy to set up and maintain.

    Thanks for copying Sibels questions to ES to this post. I was actually already quite familiar with them and believe I was instrumental in her formulating some of those questions (if you read some of my posts that were made before she posted them, you will see what I mean).

    Sure it would be great if ES had answered/answers those questions. But just because he hasn’t does not mean he is not a legitimate whistleblower.

    Heck he could even be getting a cut from GG right now as we speak. And that still would not mean that he is not a legitimate whistleblower.

    A whistleblower with loose morals perhaps, but still a whistleblower.

    BTW I agree with most of the sentiments you expressed in your last big paragraph.
    I still would like to hear directly from Sibel on this.

    • BTW, I ‘m pretty sure she has said that someone who’s selling them isn’t a legitimate whistle blower by her standards. More like a spy. Must have said it In podcast/audio. So, while you’re waiting for Sibel to respond, I think you can go with ‘no’. He’s either doing it with the blessing of the national security establishment, doing it for money, or both.

      I think maybe you’re getting at the fact that “information about illegal activities by the government” = “information about illegal activities by the government”, no matter the intentions of the person that brought that information to our attention. While that may be true of the “information”, it does not apply to the person. The term whistle blower does say something about the motivations of that person. And someone who’s selling the info doesn’t qualify. Make sense?

    • Ribbit-Mark, I think she makes it pretty clear, “100%” clear, at the end of the round table released today.

  32. Thomas Wonsetler says:

    I dont believe that its fear for the most part unless its fear of actually changing the staus quo and the false sense of security that many people seem to get from that. There have to be real leaders who can educate, inspire, organize and lead others since most people are not leaders ! Also extreme reactions to the situation are not going to solve anything and will alienate most people anyway ! For instance anarchy. People in general are not going to throw away all forms of government and believe that large societies are going to function well without the managerial and protective functions of a good government. But with enough wise, compassionate, brave, intelligent and well organized leadership, more and more people will follow over time. It will take time and persistance. One person on here said he thinks its too late and we should just turn to “God”. Thats a copout and an infintile reaction. Waiting for some parentlike deity or santa clause “god” to take care of everything for us has been a serious problem that has held people back from growing up and taking responsability and making positive changes for a long time ! Much of religion is designed to do that, thats why the State doesnt mind it and allows it and even uses it to dumb down and control people. So they’ll just wait for “God” to what we have to do ! Thats another big part of the reason more people arent standing up and making things right ! As long as their “leaders” keep them hypnotized and waiting for daddy “god” to do it, then they wont be much help ! Im not a materialist by the way, im very spiritual, but spiritual is much different than what the word religious usully means, which is usually myth and dogma and a parentlike deity ! Usually nothing spiritual about it, though sometimes they overlap. And not all of religion is ridiculous, some things in some of it are good, but waiting for daddy “god” to fix everything for us is rather childish ! Anyway, Sibel is right, and as always, brilliant, and I thank you and BFP for all you give to the world !

  33. Thomas Wonsetler says:

    Reply to mymarkx. There was no reply button at the bottom of your reply to my comment so heres my reply. When I said people have to do there part I wasnt talking about the standard voting for the two corporate parties, or even really referring to voting at all in that particular statement. Of course that would be more of the same shit sandwich ! I was really talking about people being informed, and then standing up and pressuring the government to make the changes that need to be made. With enough people we can bring positive change, but this is a process that takes time, which means we need to keep the revolution(nonviolent) building more and more til the tide turns completely ! It takes patience, persistance and an excellent sense of humor !

    • Thomas, what exactly do you mean by “pressuring the government?” How many do you think would be “enough people?”

      I hope you don’t mean petitioning the king for redress of grievances. If you get 300 million signatures on a petition, and Monsanto, Goldman Sachs, and a few other corporations donate $300 million dollars to political PACs and campaigns (they spend about $5 BILLION financing presidential elections, so that’s chump change to them), who do you think wins?

      If you mean getting enough people to protest in the streets, our law enforcements agencies under the Department of Homeland security have become militarized. The government that nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and killed millions of innocent people in Viet Nam and Iraq, will be happy to nuke a few million US citizens if it needs to protect the elites it was created to protect.

      Patience, persistance, and a sense of humor are necessary, but not sufficient.

      This system derives its legitimacy from the consent of the governed. Unless the 50% of the governed who still vote their consent, start withholding it, the system will continue to prevail.

      The government has tricked people into thinking that people who don’t vote are apathetic. There is nothing more apathetic than delegating your power to people who will abuse it and who can’t be held accountable. People who vote really don’t care who wins, as long as somebody else makes their decisions for them.

      Elections boycotts are legal, nonviolent, and totally effortless. Instead of doing your duty to the state, you go to work or stay home and ignore them. Sometimes Congress has no more than a 10% approval rating, yet 40% to 55% still vote. How apathetic do you have to be to vote for a system you don’t approve of?

      Once you vote, as one former elections official put it, your job is over. You’ve delegated your power and authority and if you don’t like how it is abused, you can just wait until the next election and try again for another hundred years. Or, you can stop delegating your power and authority to people who can’t be held accountable, and let them cry about how apathetic you are. When only a candidate, their spouse, and their mommy and daddy votes for them, they can cry apathy all they want, but the vote of no confidence is in and cannot be disputed.’

      Making the Case for an Election Boycott: Why the Left Should Refrain from US Imperialism’s Electoral Charade, by Danny Haiphong

      If the people try to pressure the government they voted for, they won’t succeed, as their vote has already authorized that government to take whatever measures are necessary to suppress their dissent. If half the people vote to authorize the government to bash the other half’s heads in, the only change will be increased growth in the prison industry.

      And protests are NOT nonviolent. They gather masses of people together to make an easy target for government violence, which is always forthcoming. You can’t tell me that you are nonviolent if you deliberately provoke a 300-pound gorilla into attacking you.

      It doesn’t matter how evil or corrupt a leader is–if nobody follows them, they’re not a leader. In order to have mature, responsible leaders, we first have to stop following corrupt, tyrannical leaders. And that takes educating people so that they begin to understand that they are more capable of balancing a budget than anyone in Washington, DC, and therefore more capable of governance than anyone in DC.

      • Ribbit-Mark says:

        You are spot on with your comments mymarkx!

        “If you mean getting enough people to protest in the streets, our law enforcements agencies under the Department of Homeland security have become militarized. The government that nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and killed millions of innocent people in Viet Nam and Iraq, will be happy to nuke a few million US citizens if it needs to protect the elites it was created to protect.”

        This is a very sad thing.
        We (Americans) will never be able to pull off a Ukraine-style coup of government simply by taking to the streets, gathering on mass and making our voices heard over loud speakers.
        Our options are extremely limited.

        No ‘Arab spring’ awaits us here.

      • I agree about elections. I used to joke and tell people: vote, at least that way you’ll be entitled to complain when nothing changes. Obama put the last nail in the coffin as far as my optimism that a president can’t have any sort of real impact on policy goes. I may vote for a third party candidate just to send a message, but we’ll see.

        While my pessimism about presidential politics is maxed out and the same is largely true for the House and Senate, I actually see a window of opportunity in organizing around issues on a more local level. Approval for Congress is at such a low that I think people can actually see the value of not trying to push legislation to the national stage and handling issues by initiating dialog on more of a person to person basis, where common sense is less vulnerable to predatory attacks from vulture capitalists who can swoop in with limitless cash and eviscerate common sense with effective propaganda. BTW – speaking of Congress, a group of baboons is referred to as a “congress”. No joke. (At least baboons understand the value of cooperation) 😉 Anyway…

        There have been some encouraging examples where towns and counties have passed measures to ban water fluoridation, decriminalize marijuana, and one of the more noteworthy examples; deny material support for the implement indefinite detention. I don’t know what the statistics are, but I would gather approval for measures such as indefinite detention are probably in the single digits. These aren’t the sort of steps which can deal with some of the larger problems, but I think that aside from their direct value, they have the potential to energize people to see that taking the initiative to affect positive change can work, but at least for now, I think only if it can be achieved by keeping a low enough profile to avoid getting picked off by the vultures in plain view. Real Democracy is an endangered species, but it’s not dead. We’re easy prey out in the open, but if we can come up with some ways to take cover in the trees, maybe we can evolve into a more prolific and formidable new breed of activism. Small brush fires…

        • The other idea, before I forget, is that if there’s a way to engage with local law enforcement in times of relative stability, it could be extremely valuable in circumstances where the order from up high come down to bash in protesters heads in to protect the likes of Walmart and Monsanto. I’m anti-authoritarian by nature, but I know that not all law enforcement officials get a rush out of suiting up in riot gear to follow whatever sort of executive order comes down, a lot of them are just doing their job, at least as it’s being presented in the given context. Don’t get me wrong, I’m sure a lot of them do enjoy it, but it’s a mistake to assume that from the outset. The problem is, once things heat up, an antagonizing relationship is almost always inevitable. Building relationships beforehand could make a difference in not having things get out of control, which plays into the hands of the political and corporate elite to pass even stricter “anti-terror” laws. This is the context where I see aspects of the NSA being at their most threatening. I’m not sure what any of these strategies would look like, but I just want to throw that out there.

          • PS – last thing. I don’t want to hear any BS about how I’m being pro-law enforcement, pro-state, pro-pain in the ass, etc. I’m just trying to discuss strategies in the context which they currently exist, not in the ideal space which I’d rather they did. I don’t want to see my comments get dragged down into the abyss of ‘isms’ which has been proliferating to unhealthy levels here lately. Nuff said…

          • You know, I’ve been thinking along this line a little more lately, because I just found out the second of two close childhood friends just became a high level police officer in my hometown – chief actually. Now the two kids I played with as an eleven year old through high school are the Police Chief and Deputy Sheriff. (What the hell happened to me?) 😉

            I haven’t talked to one for 10+ years and the other 20+. But, I’ve started thinking about making contact to see what kind of feedback I’d get to some ideas like joining Oath Keepers to ensure our local (back home) police department and sheriff’s office are on our side or maybe just reconnect communication lines to find out what I can from those streams of consciousness (hopefully).

          • Glad to hear you’ve thought about that as well Xicha. It sounds like you have a pretty good channel to explore reaching out and making that connection. Certainly there’s nothing to lose.

  34. Thomas Wonsetler says:

    Sibel, I wanted to say that I saw u on a video with Alex Jones recently, not sure when the video was made, where u said something about u hope your not still doing this 3 or 4 years from now. Well I hope uve changed your mind since then, and feel a renewed enthusiasm, cos your one of the leading lights in this nonviolent revolution and u have taught me more than anyone else about all this and clarified the big picture more than anyone else ! I love watching your videos and reading your posts and your so brilliant about all this, and such a joy to listen to ! I thank u so much and hope u continue to do this til the tide has completely turned which will definitely happen, and very soon ! Thx so much !

  35. After weeks of hype and drama, Greenwald finally releases the fire-works finale of the Snowden leaks…


    But, out of the as few as 202 or as many as 5000+ domestic email addresses targeted, he only discloses 5, and all of those are Muslim Americans with “funny” sounding names -something Sibel has noted of Greenwald in the past. It should come as no surprise then that this story – contrary to all the hype and in contrast to previous Snowden leaks – is getting relatively little airtime in the mainstream media.

    Moreover, by holding the vast majority of addresses, Greenwald is defying Snowden’s alleged instruction to him:

    “When Edward Snowden turned over a trove of NSA documents last year, he explained that he included the spreadsheet of monitored emails because he wanted to give people subjected to electronic surveillance the opportunity to challenge the spying as unconstitutional. For years, the government has succeeded in having such challenges dismissed on the ground that the various plaintiffs lack standing to sue because they could not prove that they were personally targeted.

    Thanks to Snowden’s disclosures, those seeking to obtain such a ruling now have specific cases of surveillance against American citizens to examine…”

    So what does this mean? You have to go to court and issue a subpoena against Greenwald for him to release ones email on the list?

Speak Your Mind