Probable Cause with Sibel Edmonds: Truth vs. Silent Witnesses & Official Lies

Welcome to our sixteenth episode of Probable Cause. This episode continues and furthers our previous discussion on official narratives-official lies. We will be talking about a common false belief held by millions of people: Major government operations would be known to many, there is no way to keep all those with direct knowledge silent, and thus, they could never be hushed and covered up.

We are going to discuss official lies, whistleblowers, silent witnesses, and how the majority falls for official fictions and dismisses truth. We will also be discussing another common tactic used by the deep state and its tentacles to promote official-lies and cover up truth: Muddying the facts by bombarding people with conflicting, contradicting, and confusing supplementary lies before moving on to their next officially-narrated official lie.

Why, when it comes to truth, in almost every single case, for every whistleblower/truth-teller does there seem to be dozens or more silent witnesses? Despite dozens of established and publicized credible cases why does the public still remain wary and skeptical of whistleblowers? These are just two of several questions we will be posing in this episode’s discussion. As always, our next episode will be based on your reaction, critique, responses and questions posed in the comments section below.

*To listen to our previous episodes on this topic click here

Listen to the full episode here:


Show Notes

White House Photo Op: Officials Watch Real-Time Bin Laden Raid

Now You See it, Now You Don’t: The “Supposed” Bin Laden Kill-Raid to Remain Secret Forever

White House PSYOP Script Falls Apart: Bin Laden Story Keeps Changing-Obama’s Nose Keeps Growing

Corbett Report Video- 9/11: A Conspiracy Theory

FB Like

Share This

This site depends….

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


  1. I think the ‘real time’ White House photo op must’ve been taken right at the part where Seal Team 6 ™ broke into the compound and supposedly found Bin Laden watching porn. Remember that one? The expressions certainly seem fitting. (Apparently Joe Biden hadn’t seen that one yet. =p )

  2. samadams73 says:

    So all Pentagon records of the “bin laden” raid were moved to the CIA. So, the Pentagon can’t even refer to the raid and all of its mistakes in future training materials and exercises? Really?

    • samadams73,

      Another new name, unless I missed your name before (age thing;-).

      That’s right: ‘Really.’ The worst part is the reality governing our media and the majority today. The case, the lie, the fake shenanigan, went away; poof, just like that.

      This is very similar to the FBI/DOJ never placing Bin Laden on their ‘Wanted List’ for 9/11. To be on a ‘Wanted List’ requires evidence- something they never had, never have been able to show. Even this significant facts has been shrugged off by the media (this includes the pseudo alternatives) and of course, the American Majority.

      • samadams73 says:

        No offense Sibel…member from the beginning of BFP 😉

        Dare I ask….are there still aspects from your case that you are still “gagged” from speaking about? If so, have you found ANY reputable journalist willing to contact those names you know who have that same knowledge?

        Finally, this is extremely touchy, but simply obvious, that a foreign enemy would be very interested in your insider knowledge. I KNOW you have not taken bait, but have those nefarious offers been made?

        • samadams73,

          No offense at all. I am glad to hear that. Each added voice increases my resolve, helps me overcome my pessimism/cynicism, and keeps me going.

          “…are there still aspects from your case that you are still “gagged” from speaking about?”- No one really knows. I’d say, other than some crucial details (who was being tapped? Where? The exact dates? Overt name and verbatim quotes, etc.), they could not care less since they have succeeded in quashing the truth by media blackout/marginalizing/etc. They haven’t cared whatsoever. How do I know? My books, especially The Lone Gladio. My interview series with Corbett on Operation Gladio B. I am the first, the only person, to date, who has come forward exposing the biggest/macro operation that includes al Qaeda, 9/11, heroin … No one has dared coming out when it comes to this most important answer/operation. Guess what? People cannot even comprehend it. They want juicy little revelation that deals with some little detailed case or event, and then, they want to move to the next one, immediately, and then, the next one … When the macro truth stands right before them, the glare makes them look away and not even acknowledge its existence.

          “If so, have you found ANY reputable journalist willing to contact those names you know who have that same knowledge?” – I am not sure about ‘reputable’ but yes, some have, and their findings have never seen the light of day.

          “…but have those nefarious offers been made?”- Actually, ‘No.’ Other than overt and covert threats by one, between 2002-2004, I have never been approached by any foreign entities. On the other hand, I have been approached by the US government agencies several times, overtly, to ‘switch track.’ I have been approached by a couple of major Democrats with nefarious offers (Between 2004-2007): including a million-dollar movie deal, positions, only if I were to say and do XYZ.

      • 344thBrother says:

        Great music! I’ve never heard that Chapman song. Pointy, intelligent and sad. Bang bang bang.

        I made a lot of hay from the top ten terrorists (Bin Laden #1) web site. I posted it to many Islamic chat rooms and made copies and posted them around as well in the “Real world”. I’m sure it HAD to make a lot of people scratch their heads (Those who were willing to visit anyway,) But there’s no way at all to know what overall effect that effort had. I expect that the same activity you reported on affected the impact of that obvious and right in your face evidence.

        Regarding the famous photo (OP) dual meaning there for sure, it’s comical, but then propaganda is meant to target the most credulous, least inquisitive and most unintelligent members of the masses, because these people are the ones who will blindly follow what they’re told and thus are more useful than anyone who actually thinks about what they’re seeing. I’m thinking of (Brown shirts) here. It ties in directly with the purposeful (and court sanctioned) hiring of police officers with IQ’s barely above warm milk temperature. Don’t think about it, just point and shoot. Bang bang bang.

        A great report as usual Sibel. Fascinating truly, and I salute your father’s bravery and integrity as well as your own.


  3. Okay seriously though. Clearly we know ‘going through the proper channels’ is not a successful strategy. I’ll put this question directly to Sibel: if you could go back to the position you were in when you first tried to blow the whistle at the FBI, knowing what you know now, first: would you say that it was worth it? and second: more importantly, what would you do differently? I’m not asking these rhetorically or by any means dismissively and, yes; they’re somewhat of the dumb Nightline variety, but I still think they’re worth revisiting.

    Clearly it’s not a matter of showing people the truth, or is it? Of course I was being sarcastic in my previous comment, but I’m convinced at this point that if there had been a press release that they found Bin Laden on a pogo ball and clubbed him to death with a whiffle ball bat people would eventually accept it or let it go (at least Americans). When lies like those covered in the previous episode are eventually exposed as such, whatever outrage there is eventually comes to pass. That said, I still do think that laying them out plainly and explicitly in the manner that Sibel did is still helpful to at least get people to stop and consider that some of the points raised regarding 9/11 on any number of issues are far from “wild conspiracy theories” when you compare them with other lies. Particularly something like Operation Northwoods. I feel like people are becoming more willing to take another look at the false narrative of 9/11 when I talk to them, but once I have their attention the question remains; what can you or I do about it? I guess that’s what we’re trying to figure out here…

    • You are asking some tough questions here, Benny. I’m going to answer them straight forward, despite knowing that my answers will disappoint some of you:

      ‘…would you say that it was worth it?’- In the short run, up to this point, NO.

      ‘… what would you do differently?’- Hmmmm. Sometimes I think ‘I’d skip the illusionary channels all together- OPR, OIG, Congress, etc.’ But then I think, ‘Although all fake and illusionary, it went a long way to establish it as a ‘real’ case and ‘credibility’- at least as far the majority is concerned.’ Because think about it: Leaking to the media, without any witnesses who are willing to come forward (some of whom did: but they were willing to do so only for Congress/OIG, etc. aka official channels), would have painted me as ‘ a lone Jane Doe with a bunch of serious allegations- everything based solely on her word.’ As far as ‘documented evidence’ goes: Less than handful of supposed ‘alternative’ got it, and buried it. With the MSM: they would have taken the documents and handed them over to the Gov in a second.

      Back to your question: ‘… what would you do differently?’- Assuming that I would have blown the whistle … I don’t think I would have done anything differently. Because the same major obstacles would have been there: no reliable trustworthy brave attorneys/legal firm to represent me, no ‘real’ media to leak to, not a single body of organization/group to get support from …

      ‘Clearly it’s not a matter of showing people the truth, or is it?’- At the time, it was. At least for me. I was way too naïve. I truly overestimated the American majority.

      ‘… whatever outrage there is eventually comes to pass.’- Spot on; a classic consistent pattern.

      ‘…but once I have their attention the question remains; what can you or I do about it? I guess that’s what we’re trying to figure out here…’- Ditto. I think we have a much better chance to find an answer (or may be possible answers/solutions) to this, rather than, doing it individually and silently.

      Hope to see more comments/input/analyses from you here. I appreciate and respect critical minds and articulate expressions.

      • CuChulainn says:

        was is worth it? NO in the short run
        this response surprises me. i have been following Sibel for over a decade, have found her conduct a life lesson. isn’t acting with integrity is its own reward? when one sees folks like wolfowitz it appears that being who they are is condign punishment.

        • CuChu,

          I totally understand. I guess some of it is caused by my personality: I am one of those people who look for tangible/concrete results. Let’s say with my father, it was not as if he was keeping a count, but he could confidently believe in the positives he helped bring about (He saved many people’s life; he helped so many people without means with their major health issues, etc.).

          People like you have kept me on this journey. Believe me, otherwise, by 2007-2008, I was ready to leave everything behind and never look back. As for the ‘real/tangible’ results: Stories like mine has prevented more people from coming forward (aka blowing the whistle) than encouraging them to come forward. Mine and other ‘real’ whistleblowers’ journeys have acted as a lesson- deterrence (‘Look what happens to those who come forward. It ruins their lives while it doesn’t even make a dent, or even a scratch …’. So that’s for one.

          It’s been 13 years+. Every single culprit still out there- stronger than ever. Every attempt to garner reaction from the public, in a call for action and change, has been easily quashed, marginalized … and even by many among the irate minority, ‘all forgotten.’

          So while people like you count (count a great deal), as far as ‘tangible’ change/result goes: I truly see none.

          • Ronald Orovitz says:

            “It’s been 13 years+. Every single culprit still out there- stronger than ever.”… Indeed, they are still the “wise men” the mainstreams run to for their sagacious “wisdom” on the day’s events. Just the other day Marc Grossman was on the Beeb – I have to shout “TRAITOR!” every time he’s on my tube.

            I know it’s frustrating in the meantime, but I do think that eventually the official narratives will come crashing down spectacularly. It won’t happen with a big expose in the Washington Post or New York Times, but more likely as accompanying an economic, political and/or military implosion, much as the USSR fell. The rest of the world seems to be catching on that this is coming, and are preparing for it – for instance with so many nations signing up for China’s AIIB bank.

            The hegemony of the dollar and the unipolar “American Century” is coming to an end. When this happens the clueless general public will be traumatized with the death of their narratives – it will be like the moment when a little kid comes to the realization that there is no Santa Claus because “Santa is molesting me!” When this happens they will need people like you to make sense of it all – along with the rest of us who know what’s up. Then we become the “wise men and women”… This is already happening in small ways. For instance, after the Snowden revelations (limited hangout operation notwithstanding), I had people tell me “you were right” when before they told me I was just being paranoid.

          • @Ronald:
            I agree both that the false narratives are destined to fall and that they’re not going to do so on account of any one story. Certainly not from the Post, Times, or any of the quasi-alternatives (as Sibel likes to say). But I’d go as far as to say that I’m convinced that, without a different strategy (what, I don’t know), not even a solid publication that knows what the real deal is will have the capacity to galvanize the public into action by revealing the truth, no matter how substantial the implications are.

            I think the real Snowden “revelations” were that the state of apathy is so severe that the government/deep state realizes that they don’t even need to invest as much time, energy, and money on the top shelf propaganda. The store brand is apparently sufficient. That said, I think that’s actually a good thing for us. Similar to you, people who have typically been dismissive on any number of issues I’ve pointed out in the past have started to come around to the conclusion that I know what I’m talking about and are actually listening to what I have to say, which I find encouraging.

          • CuChulainn says:

            the history of the last 20 years will be written, so far its historiographers are folks like Nafeez Ahmed, Doug Valentine, Michael Ruppert (maybe others can suggest whom i’m omitting?), but others will follow, and Sibel will be a heroine in the story of our time. small consolation maybe, but would you rather have become a Beltway bandit like your GWU classmates?

          • That WS is a typo and there are many others.

        • Integrity as a reward is one trying to daydream a reward I to existence. Its good to have integrity, but the goal is to end the interference with free will as much as possible and make life’s endeavours somethine worth while. Exploration instead of war. Creativity instead of productivity.

          The only solution I can think of involves a catalysing event leading to the formation of a perceived need by the public to have everyone monitor enerything.

          • The events in Britain involving high level pedophilia would be quite a good fire to start fanning the flames of to drives the creation of a surveillance society.

            You may think the idea backward, but it is the only way to get rid of conspiracy theory and start motivating people with an interest in conspiracy fact. Watching security cams could become the new reality TV.

            Furthermore, Benny made a comment about how these agencies get all this data and cannot sift through all of it. If only the public.could help out!

            Also the light beam tech that Firefox uses could be expanded upon so that everyone could monitor the traffic on the net.

            The secret to their power is the control of information and subsequently the control of its

            If you can wrench that from their hands then their blackmail system is severely crippled WS framing is no longer so easy, the terrorist problem is handled directly by the public so much less of the booger men can seep through the cracks, the false flags become harder to engage in…

            Micro drones and bugs can make this even more effective. You could monitor anything with the right tech.

            Privacy is already dead so why care about that issue?

            All that’s needed is a bit of tech and a lot of interest by the public. If only the appropriate catalysing event can be formed and lead in the appropriate direction.

            The issue with the crap in Britain is that the people feel they have no power to stop it. If only they could be made aware that there is a way.

            And the 5000 pentagon computers thing could carry the necessity all the way to the core for both those who would believe it a ruse and those who wouldn’t.

      • Thanks for the thoughtful response and I’m glad I was able to make you laugh =p
        The phony narratives are so over the top so much of the time that being able to try to get a laugh out of it when I can is the best I can do to keep from going crazy. I try my best though to contribute something meaningful to the conversation beyond crass humor though.

        Just to be clear, although I’m ashamed to admit it, as I’ve been so woefully absent from the conversation, I’ve been a BFP member for some time now. I’ve just been catching up here and in some ways I’ve been trying to exercise some restraint as I have a tendency to get passionate about these sorts of discussions here and get carried away, spending more time than I can afford to (so to speak) in all honesty. I’m sure a few BFP members will recognize my avatar and be able to vouch for at times perhaps contributing more than my fair share of what’s at least presumably fit for print 🙂

        That said, I think this series is really taking what’s going on here at BFP to the next level and I’m really excited about it. I’ve been binge listening to get caught up and so far I’m totally digging the whole angle of really trying to push the conversation beyond just venting in anger and despair (although there’s inevitably no shortage of that to some extent), and thinking about what can actually be done; getting a bit grimy and bumping heads on some ideas (respectfully!) and not just harping on some sort of geopolitical utopia over latte with soy milk. This is what the woman you spoke about was saying when she said we can afford to have these sorts of conversations (a la Snowden) where we feign outrage, but fail to channel that into anything beyond disgust and resignation. (or lucrative book deals)

        It’s funny, I feel pretentious sitting here listening to myself waxing righteous as I type on my fancy computer. But like you said Sibel, our relative level of comfort in some ways ought to push us to at least put some sort of sincere effort into considering what’s feasible. Your answers to my questions didn’t disappoint me. There’s no point in coming here if not to speak frankly (not that I have even the most remote idea of that ever not being the case with you 😉 ). I think your experience as a whistleblower is about as clear cut a case that the beast is well versed enough at defending itself from any sort of conventional attack. But I truly believe that sharing that experience here, along with the wealth of other experience you’ve brought to these podcast episodes, holds the potential to open up another avenue which all of us here are interested in pursuing: one that leads to real change. (not “change you can believe in”! 😉 )

        Okay, I’m going to try to exercise some restraint and make sure I get some work done so I can make sure I can afford (literally) to keep up with the conversation here! Great stuff =]

        • Benny,

          Hope to see you more often. And, please don’t refrain from being passionate and expressing that passion.

          “…to get a laugh out of it when I can is the best I can do to keep from going crazy.”- Same here. It helps me with maintaining some level of sanity Some people get frustrated when they see me laugh in response to some questions asked during my interviews. I have to laugh: when the widely-held notions are so ludicrous, ridiculous and insanely against all kinds of common sense. So I laugh publicly, and I don’t care what the reaction is;-)

          “…but fail to channel that into anything beyond disgust and resignation.”- Sometimes, the majority, channel them into the ‘wrong’ thing. For example: Many people would tell you, ‘What do you expect?! All these politicians are dirty scum bags …” Yet, every two or four years, they go to those boots and cast their votes to elect one of the two dirty scum bags. No?

          • Depression, apathy, cynicism, aren’t all of us plagued by this false-state of being? We are human beings here. This is why I feel the first step of true progress is affirming life. I was given a second life when I had my son, now I’m trying to form a third life around a new career.

            We are writing the novel now. Celebritydom, though we may not seek it, is a means to justice, when in harmony with the Tao, and now celebritydom is a mere youtube channel away.

            I scratch my head when people say, “what should I do?”

            Create content! Is it not, in large part, to Sibel’s content that has brought us here and keeps us coming back?

            We must follow in her footsteps. In the footsteps of James Corbett, etc.

            “Monkey see. Monkey do.” well “Enlightened Monkey see. Enlightened Monkey do.”

            Time to get enlightened folks! After how I awake I *thought* I was, I am still waking up today! The journey has only begun. We must read more, journal more, exercise more, and take it easy more! How? Less time worrying, more time meditating, more time cooking for ourselves.

            I’m saying this not in perfection, but in principle This is what I’m striving to do. I’m sharing it here, because this forum is “divine” so to speak. It is a platform for Truth, and Truth is the most priceless resource of all! Let’s cherish this space and make more like it.

            God Bless

  4. 344thBrother says:

    Just a heads up:

    My internet is very slow today, but there may be a problem on your end. Podcast download doesn’t start.

    • Dave,

      Everything has been working fine, as usual, on this side.

      Does anyone else have problems? People?

      • 344thBrother says:

        Sibel, fyi:
        I got the download to work today by directly clicking on the download link instead of using a download manager which up until yesterday had worked fine. I’m busily checking out everything I can on this computer, but I suspect that the problem is on my end, so kindly don’t waste your time worrying about it unless other people have the same problem.

        I’ll let you know if I find something that answers the question.

  5. to 344thBrother: My podcast was fine.

    The conspiracy theorists are always fighting that pull of conformity. This pull is stronger on more difficult decisions.
    The idea that there was a such a terrible conspiracy at high levels is very disturbing but because so many people do not believe it, then it must be unlikely and not believable. If that is the scenario then the only real way to counter that popular conformance is not via the popular media (as the podcast notes many conflicting stories at that level have no resonance) but instead to convince individually those in that majority – which is how I interpret Sibel’s goal of bfp.
    “First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, and then you win.”
    Unfortunately that saying applies to so many social, scientific, and political debates.

    • Dave,

      ‘… and then you win.’ Well, we’ve been waiting for that ‘then’

      • The sort of conversation and constructive exploration of ideas and strategies; including as I mentioned above, what hasn’t worked, may not be ‘winning’ yet… but it’s a respectable alternative to ‘waiting’ as far as I’m concerned 🙂

        • 344thBrother says:

          “what hasn’t worked, may not be ‘winning’ yet… but it’s a respectable alternative to ‘waiting’ as far as I’m concerned :-)”

          absolutely. The alternative is mindless conformity or oblivious mental shrugging. I really do believe that we are winning the war, even though it seems we lose a lot of the daily battles against the propaganda.

          • @344thBrother:
            I’ll get lazy and quote part of what I wrote a little earlier in a reply to Ronald, as I think it’s a suitable reply to what you’re getting at here. 🙂

            I think the real Snowden “revelations” were that the state of apathy is so severe that the government/deep state realizes that they don’t even need to invest as much time, energy, and money on the top shelf propaganda. The store brand is apparently sufficient. That said, I think that’s actually a good thing for us. Similar to you, people who have typically been dismissive on any number of issues I’ve pointed out in the past have started to come around to the conclusion that I know what I’m talking about and are actually listening to what I have to say, which I find encouraging.

      • Sibel, such laconic irony.
        I have been called an unhelpful cynic here and I had no objection. The criticism was honest and accurate. I just hope nobody ever thinks I am happy that reality is the only position in which integrity is unblemished.
        Of course nobody gives a damn what I think.
        These enormous lies we call history. Lies that leave millions dead and millions more maimed and broken. Why is it important to us to have them exposed? Is it so justice can be served? Is it because “the people” have a “right” to the truth? Or is it so people like us can say “told you so”?
        We the minority of individuals that concern ourselves with that ethereal, gossamer notion called truth do not matter, have never mattered and will never matter. We can build temples of knowledge. But it will remain arcane. We can print beautiful hymnals, for the converted to bask in the smugly heady glow of distilled wisdom, yet only we will find it sweet music to the ears. And so our hard won knowledge, our relentlessly pursued revelations are converted into just another dogma. Some fringe lunacy destined for some brief footnote in history.

        This is the sad reality. But it is reality. Or at least as close to it as is actually achievable. Yet for all its existential nihilism, all the inferred impotence and frankly depressing futility it is preferable to ignorance.

        • David have you no hope for humanity even for some distant future?

          • Ahhhh.. Hope! Well it depends on how you define it.
            I hope many things despite my black views. But hope is like prayer in that it changes nothing.

            And in truth if you look at the bigger picture life for your average human is easier and better than it has ever been.

          • “But hope is like prayer in that it changes nothing.” It changes the perceiving self which changes attitudes, personality, and actions which does affect those in the person’s orbit.

            ” And in truth if you look at the bigger picture life for your average human is easier and better than it has ever been.” – Ah, so change is possible, and positive change at that. What does this imply in regard to future possibilities?

            Yeah David, life has always been tough throughout history, with psychopaths creating much misery and hopelessness. Yet as you wrote life is easier and better than ever in history. As more and more humans become educated and more choose peaceful coexistence and growth of consciousness over power and greed, change will come in the form of real education becoming tolerated and eventually the norm and then ……… Such visions are for a time far beyond our lifetimes. As a species we are just not ready yet.

          • Mandela,

            “It changes the perceiving self which changes attitudes, personality, and actions which does affect those in the person’s orbit.”- Beautifully-put, and so true.

        • David,

          “Of course nobody gives a damn what I think.”- Not applicable here @ BFP. I for one value all ideas/opinions/view points.

          ” Why is it important to us to have them exposed?”- Because it established ‘pattern.’ Especially when we are dealing with skeptical people who claim ‘Oh, our gov would never do anything like that!’

          “…This is the sad reality. But it is reality…”- I for one, during many pessimistic phases/periods (‘realistic phase maybe?) have said this; so many times- in the past 13 years. But each time I am forced o make a decision: ‘So do I just back off, go away, accepting this as the unchangeable reality, and ‘move on’ with my life? Or, do I keep trying- despite the odds against us?’ Obviously, even with momentary pauses here and there (attempts to move on), I keep coming back, and sticking with option 2.

          “Depressing Futility”- I totally understand this point; a repeated experience. But then again, I overcome the ‘depressing’ part. Another point to keep in mind: It is not as if our entire life stands still while we are doing this; for me the balance comes from: raising my daughter, my international orphanage projects, cooking, music, reading … and lately, with this forum and its activist participants. I am so glad we started this- I don’t want to call it ‘therapeutic’ but … it has started a brand new phase for me. Maybe it is knowing that we are not alone. Irate Minority: yes. But alone: NO.

          • So true..
            Maybe it is knowing that we are not alone. Irate Minority: yes. But alone: NO.
            In these days..
            My World…
            A little island Bornholm.
            It is in Denmark.
            But I am alone..Where are you…
            Kind Regards

        • steven hobbs says:

          Hi David,
          Mandela, writes to you, “David have you no hope for humanity even for some distant future? But hope is like prayer in that it changes nothing. It changes the perceiving self which changes attitudes, personality..”

          I would like to second Mandela’s sentiment. David, consider as Stanley Keleman says, “To know yourself be still, to be yourself act.” When you are still, you may have no hope. However, by submitting comments, clearly expecting them to have an effect, and by joining with others, you are acting in manner that belies your “no hope” comment. If you were genuinely hopeless you would not write at all. Not even to have a conversation with yourself.

          • “To know yourself be still, to be yourself act.” – Great quote! Talk about distilling all of psychology into 9 short words. As they say, all the rest is commentary.

        • David:
          You are not alone. I have a simple quote pinned on my wall:
          “Forests to precede Civilizations, deserts to follow”
          Francois Rene Chateabriand…1084
          I’ve been around(74)–witnessed the brutal beauty of the earth and human plunder. I’m convinced our species is headed for straight into “the heart of darkness”. The variables have long past the point of no return. Ignorance seems a blessing for most.
          For me, ignorance is a kind of death. I know the deck is stacked–yet, with all of this, I must continue reaching and deeply urge our commenters to struggle to whatever levels they can.

          • That should be 1840..

          • Here is another voice from the soon-to-be desert wilderness, agreeing that the human species is, overall, a scourge on the planet. However, I don’t feel responsible for “my” species as a whole. Egoist? Not entirely, just on the side of other species, and of those few humans who have a functioning conscience. As you neatly put it, “reality is the only position in which integrity is unblemished.”

  6. Re: “Somebody would have talked’
    What you hit on in your example, Sibel, was golden. People understood the apparent futility and fear of going against the power center. The alteration of your father’s medical autopsy record is right in line with one of Valentine’s early revelations in regards to his father’s military records being changed after WWII. For those unaware, Doug’s father was a POW during the war and his military record was changed to hide that fact. It was a revelation for Doug that the government has the ability to alter one’s existence — literally — if it suits their narrative and purpose. It’s in his riveting novel “The Hotel Tacloban”, for those interested.

  7. Sibel: Once again, I note your father was a warrior!!
    I suppose we must more clearly define “official narrative’ as opposed to, say a “white paper” The “official narrative” is actually a conspiracy by those in power—which begs the next question: How can we know the exact names of these officials? It seems to me, as I think about it, actually knowing their names may or may not help; because the gullible, spellbound, masses would probably overlook that. Sort of like when Madeline Albright thought the death of 500,000 (at least) Iraqi children dying because of harsh sanctions “was worth it.” But I knew because of my anti-war days in the 60s, most people would just shrug it off and allow the bitch to continue to make $$ giving speeches.
    This “official narrative” stuff is much older than the Roman Empire. For thousands of years people in power have been fooling and lying to their own people. And for thousands of years these odious liars/criminal/butchers get away with it. Obama decided not to look into the thousands of illegal acts committed by the Bush administration and the gargantuan fraud committed by the Bankstas–which is still going on! In fact, for me the most pressing issue is the total collapse of global currencies which may happen this year! For me and many of us here on this thread, it is an absolute given that we are being lied to and other “official narratives” are being created 24/7.
    Sibel’s question is a supremely difficult one. It involves a given “official narrative” and this complex, nebulous term called “the people”. I am somewhat uncomfortable with generalizations, so my thinking leads towards the types or classes of Americans who buy the official line.
    We have the “It couldn’t be true, because there would be somebody who talked” type.
    Then there is the “My government would never do such a thing” group.
    Next comes the “Hell what can we do? We are just ants, dust in the wind” section.
    There is the “Don’t be so negative! Geez, Ron, look on the bright side!”
    And the “This is the real world and there are terrorists in it, I just heard Wolf Blitzer say so!” group.
    Etc., etc.
    I’m quickly setting up a seemingly hopeless situation. and a great deal of it has to do with the way humans evolved, how particular nervous systems work with certain types. I’ve been trying to figure out some of these things for decades and I can’t get a clear answer other that certain hypothetical conjectures. I hope this stirs up something. Enough for now.

    • Ron,

      “How can we know the exact names of these officials?”- Those with names and faces happen to be the second of third from the top ‘n the tiered pyramid. Let’s say, when you look at people like Wolfowitz (Third-tier), Perle (Third-tier), Kissinger (Second-tier), etc. That’s what I mean when I use the phrase ‘Deep State’ and ‘Deep State’s Tentacles.’ Only the tentacles act as fronts: with names and voice; with visibility.

      “…Obama decided not to look into the thousands of illegal acts committed by the Bush administration and the gargantuan fraud committed by the Bankstas.”- That’s why he was offered as one of the two choices by the ‘Deep State.’ I have to say: I don’t see it as Obama ‘deciding.’ The front puppets are only that: puppets. They are not in any position, with any power or say to decide. Things are decided at the top- they are not the ‘top.’

      I like the way you categorized the ‘types’- It sums it up perfectly. At least, in my opinion.

      • Yes, you are right about Obama not deciding anything, really. I contradicted my age-old position that politicians are useless. Thanks for spotting it, Sibel

  8. Haven’t got to podcst yet. Grandparenting comes FIRST and yay etc ! But : relying on your title statement “We will also be discussing another common tactic used by the deep state and its tentacles to promote official-lies and cover up truth: Muddying the facts by bombarding people with conflicting, contradicting, and confusing supplementary lies before moving on to their next officially-narrated official lie.”

    seems the presentation over at truthandshadows fits perfectly your thesis ; the next officially-narrated official lie- on order: as required: from the ‘Institutional Lie” departments of agnotology and coercion –
    UN-controlled demolition.

    Listen to pod as soon as.

  9. Andrei Tudor says:

    Sometimes I wonder if I’m not putting the cart in front of the horse by starting conversations on these topics with the “what” rather than the “why”. The “why” as in “why you should care about this”, “why this is important”, “why this is not just an intellectual pastime, not just playing Sherlock Holmes”. I admit that I do this in part because it is easier to talk about the what than the why, but on the other hand, I feel that the why is more important – if the interest is piqued, the information will come, because it is available.

    The objections I hear most often against the why are A) what ron said above – there is nothing I can do about it anyway, and B) this has nothing to do with us, the regular people, it’s what politicians do and have been doing since the beginning of time – let them kill each other all they want, as long as we stay away, we’ll be okay.

    The answer to A) would be some success stories, but these are very hard to come by. For all her work and brilliance, even Sibel has none and she feels it’s not been worth it. Hopsicker wrote recently that he thinks his work has not made one bit of difference. For my part, I would respectfully disagree with both, but that’s just my opinion. I believe they, and others like them, have kept the psychopaths in check somewhat – without this minimal resistance things would have been worse. The answer to B) in my view, should be self evident – wars have killed millions of regular people, big pharma and big ag have probably done the same – but it is not.

    Basic question is, how do I “sell” this, how do I get someone to believe that neither A) nor B) is valid? I haven’t had any success so far.

  10. otabenga says:

    I see the statement which began this episode (someone would talk) as reflex rationalization…people will just throw out anything they can think of an excuse to not deal with the actual facts which come with deeply unpleasant implications. The ‘conspiracy theory’ label is another. It allows people to maintain a sense that there’s nothing really bad going on here…just some problems we can deal with. The overall system is healthy and fine.

    This is cognitive dissonance and it’s devilishly hard to work through because it doesn’t rely on reason…just pure emotion. You can’t argue folks out of that stance…they’ll just dig in their heels and chant ‘’ inside. It’s a tough nut to crack.

    A minor point: nice choices of music for these podcasts. Too often commentators use head-banging rubbish which sets my teeth on edge. You use intelligent clips which actually relate to the topic.

    • dancingbrave says:

      I like the ‘reflex rationalisation…people will just throw out anything they can think of an excuse to not deal with the facts’ also like ‘The conspiracy theory label’ and ‘it doesn’t rely on reason…just pure emotion’. I would agree with these points as I have experienced them myself. My psychological take on it is that its more closer to home to the person reacting, rather then them only simply being ’emotionally’ scared of the nefarious peoples in power out there. To them only the alternative conspiracy theory is a conspiracy theory and no-one wants to be associated with a conspiracy theory as it is simply stupid which means they would look stupid within the group they keep company with. In my opinion we should not shy away from the term conspiracy theory but use it so to gradually change it from being a derogatory term for the alternative view to a more general term that also encompasses the official narrative. Perhaps if this could be achieved people won’t be ’emotionally’ embarrassed about being associated with the term conspiracy theorist and so help them to think more critically about the often ridiculous official narrative.

      • dancingbrave,

        “In my opinion we should not shy away from the term conspiracy theory but use it so to gradually change it from being a derogatory term for the alternative view to a more general term that also encompasses the official narrative …”- Exactly. I concur. In fact I have been doing it. Many ‘closet’ truth-ers remain closeted because they are afraid of being ridiculed and marginalized as ‘conspiracy theorists.’ I know op-ed writers and journalist who are afraid to even touch upon the subject for the fear of being ridiculed, marginalized and forced out of the mainstream. So many people tried, and still try, to warn me: ‘Sibel, covering 9/11 subject, talking about it, lessens your credibility and the chances of having any influence … blah blah blah …’ Now, I am more like AA participants: My name is Sibel Edmonds, I am a whistleblower, and I am a 9/11 conspiracy theorist.

        Overcoming the fear of marginalization, being ridiculed, is one of the first steps any activist should be taking. How many historical great scientists were ridiculed and marginalized, even punished, when they put their scientific findings out in the public? The earth was not supposed to be moving, darn it, the sun was moving around the earth. What kind of a crazy conspiracy theorist nutcase would claim otherwise?!!!!

      • steven hobbs says:

        Hi Dancingbrave,
        “Perhaps if this could be achieved people won’t be ’emotionally’ embarrassed about being associated with the term conspiracy theorist and so help them to think more critically about the often ridiculous official narrative.”

        Possibly the term ‘conspiracy theorist’ is to emotionally provocative and pejorative. One reason referring to the official story as a ‘conspiracy theory’ may be an effective rhetorical device. There was a conspiracy to destroy evidence. That is a fact, to say the least.

  11. steven hobbs says:

    “Bosses assistant, “My father told him, ‘I am a doctor you are doctor, our loyalty is to humanity, not this particular job. It is to serve truth, and justice.’” The apple doesn’t fall from the tree. Your father was a brave man with a great deal of integrity.

    “One narrative, then [it morphs] again and again, more conflicting narrative. Then a small detail. Now what happened? It floats there, conflicting details and all. When the lie is so big, bombard the people with conflicting, contradicting, and confusing supplementary lies. And, then move on to the next lie.” You state this so well, how confusion muddies the waters for common folk that they give up trying to understand due to sheer exhaustion.

    To add another feature: “Misinformation Effect (false memory) Human memory is not as good as people like to think. There are times when you are 100% confident in your memory of something and the reality is, your memory is wrong. This is often seen in eye witness testimony situations. How is it that 10 people witness a crime and when asked, there are 10 different versions of the crime? According to the misinformation effect, when we witness an event and then get some incorrect information about that event, we incorporate that incorrect information (misinformation) into our memory of the event. The result in an altered memory of the event. You may not want to believe this one, but it’s true and we are all susceptible to it.”

    So, after confusion and exhaustion, cognitive dissonance, conformity effects and misinformation effects people cobble together what’s comfortable for them at the moment. A moment is influenced by the group around them, its status, size, and power.

  12. First, a second – of the comment about the music. Tracy Chapman rocks!
    And secondly, and this is also a second for me: Thank you to someone whom I consider to be a hero in every meaningful sense of the word. Sibel, I can (I presume) understand why you would feel disappointed and have second thoughts about your choice to come forward with your [information redacted] from the [XXXXX] case, when you, [name withheld], were at the [Top Secret].
    Okay, enough of that. But it was fun! Anyway, I can imagine that you had high expectations, were scared as hell, have had your life impacted and your sleep disrupted in ways most of us cannot even imagine. And yet, you DID make a difference. All you heroes who choose the selfless route, who honor the truth, who take risks simply because you want to do what is right, are not just an inspiration for the rest of us, you are necessary (!!!) in the world. Whether or not justice prevails in the long or the short run, there would be no reason to go on living if all were governed by avarice, venality, and im- or amorality. We who give a damn need that flicker of hope, that the human species doesn’t comprise 9 billion Dick Cheney clones.
    Also, had you not blown the whistle you would not have had this fine community you have created since that time (I speak of the others, being somewhat of a lowlife myself). Aren’t you having more fun hanging here than you were having at the [HIGHLY CLASSIFIED]?

    • plt, now there is the ultimate Grade B horror movie – The Planet of 9,000,000,000 Dick Cheneys

      You’re so right about the need, the dire need, for flickers of hope like Sibel and BFP. Of course she’s disappointed in the course of events, or perhaps more precisely, non-events since the time she blew the whistle. To the same extent she briefly became a media figure, the true implication of what she discovered was buried, and not by accident to be sure. This illustrates how the ‘truth’ doesn’t necessarily have to be locked away under a granite mountain to be strangled. It can just as likely be swamped out and trampled heedlessly underfoot in the relentless chaotic stampede of fools which the media presents to us as news and entertainment.

      What makes Sibel a hero is that she kept the (sometimes lonely) faith and didn’t allow herself to be pulled or pushed off track. She’s still on point, and having realized the majority are entranced, she’s seeking the minority who can handle the truth, and even spread it about.

      The mental picture I have now, is of Sibel and some scores of ‘us’ who she got through to, with our eyes open and all of us gazing at a monumental wall of Indifference and Denial – a wall which stretches across the full extent of the landscape, and towers above the clouds. We’re looking at it, and saying, “Ummm…what now?”

      Never in my life have I felt so sure I’m in the right place, yet at the same time felt so inadequate. I’m typing words which probably resonate in others in our ‘choir’…but so what? There was another time, long ago, when what I wrote was suddenly being circulated around the world and returned to me in viral emails, to my chagrin. I was being contacted by investigative reporters with national readership and viewership. What did I do? Closed my account, disappeared, ran and hid. Stopped all mail to my home and started using a private mailbox service. I had thought my audience was a small group of like-minded when actually it was much more. “The World” was not welcome in my cloistered little shire.

      Now…would that any jot or tittle of what I might blather on about HERE, attract some attention for The Cause! But the Internet is a vast cosmos now, not the budding network of networks it was then. Thus the story of my life in all respects, personal and professional – when I had it, I didn’t want it, and then later when I want it, I don’t have it.

      On the other hand, do I even have the right to feel impatient? I’ve been here less than two years, while Sibel has been waiting over 13 years for a breakthrough. No, I have no right, only a duty to keep trying, because she did.

      What chain reaction
      What cause and effect
      Makes you turn around
      Makes you change?
      If you knew that you would be alone
      Knowing right being wrong
      Would you change?
      If you knew that you would find a truth
      That brings a pain that can’t be soothed
      Would you change?
      If everything you think you know
      Makes your life unbearable
      Would you change?
      If you knew that you would die today
      If you saw the face of God and Love
      Would you change?
      Would you change?
      “Change” by Tracy Chapman

      • CuChulainn says:

        this discussion is, as usual, fairly Pindocentric–outside the USA the brainwashed consensus does not exist, except among what passes for respectable opinion in Pindosphere places like UK & Germany. Sibel is known and respected by a large segment of Turkish opinion; in most countries skepticism re. US official truths is the norm.

        • CuChulainn,
          You’re right about the discussion. As soon as I logged off I realized that I was using “we” inappropriately. Always a day late and a dollar short…
          However, I live in Europe now (not UK or Germany), and I see as much lack of awareness, apathy, and denial as I did in the US. Maybe that is because the US is being forced to face reality, or because I sought out like-minded souls there. I was, and remain, shocked by the French reaction to the Hebdo event. Do Europeans in general talk about Gladio? I haven’t heard a peep about it, sadly. I hope it’s just the region I’m in that is so numb.

        • CuChulainn,

          ‘…in most countries skepticism re. US official truths is the norm’- Definitely. This has been my experience/observation as someone who travels and works around the world. Would you add France to UK-Germany as well? I have not spent any time there, so my info/observation is limited to reading/media coverage. How do you assess their general response to Hebdo incident?

          • CuChulainn says:

            in France as in Germany, UK, Benelux, bourgeois opinion takes things like charlie hebdo at face value–but there are still vestiges of community and critical thinking in these countries, a revolutionary consciousness that Marx recognized as distinctly European, which make public opinion a threat to power in the way it cannot be in Pindostan–take Dieudonné, for example, France’s most popular comedian currently the US-dominated French government is at war with him and Alain Soral precisely because a large part of French opinion shares their radical skepticism about the sacred stories canonized by Hollywood spectacles. Guy Debord: The spectacle presents itself as something enormously positive, indisputable and inaccessible. It says nothing more than “that which appears is good, that which is good appears.” The attitude which it demands in principle is passive acceptance which in fact it already obtained by its manner of appearing without reply, by its monopoly of appearance… The spectacle is the preservation of unconsciousness within the practical change of the conditions of existence. It is its own product, and it has made its own rules: it is a pseudo-sacred entity… All community and all critical sense are dissolved…

          • CuChu,

            Thank you for expanding on ‘France.’

            “The spectacle is the preservation of unconsciousness within the practical change of the conditions of existence.”- There it goes: a loaded point phrase so beautifully. Have you ever considered writing editorial pieces? If yes, please let me know if you’re willing for us to publish it @ BFP. This goes to all of you articulate members. I have no idea why I have not brought this invitation up before. I know many of you are consciously trying to limit the length of your responses, so this is an opportunity (an invitation) for those of you who would like to share ‘more-expanded’ and detailed ideas/analyses with the rest of us. Doing this would make this site even more interactive and member-driven. We all are familiar with great passionate writings by people like Paul Craig Roberts, and informed analyses by people like Philip Kovacevic … However, isn’t it time to expand this small pool and our coverage by new names, new voice, new ideas, different styles …?

            Please think about it and let me know. I love the idea of having a multi-platform member participation like that.

          • CuChulainn says:

            thank you for the kind offer, Sibel, if something worthwhile comes to mind i shall send it on–probably more valuable would be translate/subtitle works from the french from like the following, if one had the time–

        • Cu;
          “outside the USA the brainwashed consensus does not exist” You don’t really believe that do you, Cu? North Korea? Millions in china? Millions of hypnotized brains absolutely blowing the Mid-East to dust. I’m afraid US does not have a monopoly on being brainwashed.

      • Knarf, your very moving words hit home for me. We all want to be able to effect change, I suppose, or we wouldn’t be here (except for the intel-operatives assigned to watch over Sibel). I remind myself daily of the words of wisdom I read some 35 years ago on a locker room wall: A woman is no less a woman if she tries and fails, only if she fails to try. Presumably that goes for men as well!
        I would say that you were very lucky to have gotten any attention in the first place, that you had every right to want to shelter yourself, and that hindsight is a bitch. But you didn’t make a wrong decision, and you can’t know that things would have gone any better had you made a different one. Maybe you would have been “disappeared”, been made into a pedophile, and been used to scare little kids into not questioning authority.
        Anyway, almost everything that needs to be said has been said, not often as eloquently as when you say things, but still. I think it is always worthwhile to be planting seeds, never useful to have expectations that they will sprout.
        For my own part, I don’t see any hope of coming out on top in this struggle. But for me, it is about the whole planet, and everything on it. Oftentimes I think fuckitall, there’s nothing to be done… but then I see a photo of dead dolphins or dying trees – family members without a voice – and decide to keep searching for a way to make a difference.
        My, I seem to have begun channeling a buddhist-influenced Ann Landers. How very horrifying!

        • Dieudonné is a gem, no doubt, and imho France remains one of the best countries in which to live (though, sadly, I don’t live there now). I have been surrounded mostly by younger, university-bound types since coming to Europe. Hopefully this is an unhealthy island in a more thriving sea. But it seems to me that smart(NOT)phones and mass media are having an impact here, just as they did in the US. Being more comfortable with Hugo or Yourcenar than with Twitter, I feel not just alien but alienated.

        • Pit; your words: Funny but right on!

  13. Please keep this lively and enlightening discussion going. I’ll be back later this evening to read and respond.

  14. “So, after confusion and exhaustion, cognitive dissonance, conformity effects and misinformation effects people cobble together what’s comfortable for them at the moment. A moment is influenced by the group around them, its status, size, and power.”
    Steven – let’s add one more to your excellent list: Learned helplessness.

    • Dennis,

      Learned helplessness definitely deserves a high-level spot on our list: ‘But there is nothing I can do!’

      • Sibel; In my seemingly endless research, I came across a web site related to conspiracies and the Illuminati. My view of things is too scientific for sites that get into the “illuminati/conspiracies”, etc.–I recoil a bit because it sounds like high level voodoo…the “dark side” and a touch of Satanism. I am not familiar with this site, but I’ll be damned if it does point out an amazing amount of ideas which a true Machiavellian would use(think neocons)! Especially the “Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation” The neocons actually have studied Logic Fallacies and Critical Thinking and twist them to cause too many people to agree with their Sophistry( a very sophisticated, high usage of arcane vocabulary–But the words arrive at nothing–very shallow). ‘Sounds great’ but ain’t worth a damn!


          Here it is! Ask Matthew to check it out, please.

        • steven hobbs says:

          Hi Ron,
          “My view of things is too scientific for sites that get into the “illuminati/conspiracies”, etc.–I recoil a bit because it sounds like high level voodoo…, but I’ll be damned if it does point out an amazing amount of ideas which a true Machiavellian would use(think neocons)! Especially the “Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation” The neocons actually have studied Logic Fallacies and Critical Thinking”

          Is that Sott? Anyway, I’m feeling you.

          There’s a difference between science and scientism as there is between logic and rhetoric. You might enjoy a little cognitive dissonance – strictly for those who learned scientism and don’t know science: youtube “Science and the taboo of psy”

          Our Machiavellians use blissed out mystics with extra $ promotion for audience share, even on (possibly) worthy sites. Too many distractions it seems.

          Psychopathy in high (and low) places is evident.

          Knowing your enemies, in this case, means knowing critical thinking, logic, scientific method – and, a psychopathy radar. All of these are distinct from knowing rhetoric, sophistry, or mystification. What else?

          “Proof in pudding,” gonna check out “25 rules of disinformation” thanks.

          • steven hobbs says:

            Quick look
            w/ music, enjoying original author youtube 25 rules by H. Michael Sweeney! 7:30

  15. Still haven’t made time to listen to this podcast but will soon. Hope I can be forgiven for throwing a thought into the ring anyway, on the topic of “what is to be done”. I was just reading an article about Frances Fox Piven, who along with Richard Cloward wrote an excellent book called Poor People’s Movements. Now, the situation we face here is without precedent or exact analogy, because what we are ultimately talking about is not this or that issue, around which a “movement” could be “organized”, but really an unmasking of (putative) reality itself as a mirage. It is as much a philosophical challenge as a political one. Nevertheless, some parallels do resonate from Piven and Cloward, or so it seems to me. Here’s how they end the book:

    “One can never predict with certainty when the ‘heavings and rumblings of the social foundations’ will force up large-scale defiance,” Piven and Cloward write. “But if organizers and leaders want to help those movements emerge, they must always proceed as if protest were possible. They may fail. The time may not be right. But then, they may sometimes succeed.”

    It’s a good general point to bear in mind: proceed as if change were possible. Once in a while it is.

    Then maybe one other way to proceed is to rule out approaches, tactics, traps, pitfalls that we can identify as fool’s errands — and have a look at what’s left.

  16. Won-a-pa-lei says:

    I usually listen to all of BFP podcasts on my Ipod through the Downcast App. No podcasts have shown up for download since March 3. I have also tried to listen to them through the Itunes podcast app on the Ipod but always receive an error message even after entering my username and password. Any ideas?

  17. CuChulainn says:

    Niemand ist mehr Sklave, als der sich für frei hält, ohne es zu sein.–None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. Goethe Die Wahlverwandtschaften Bk. II, Ch. 5.
    The capitalism of seduction trains us to identify freedom with our choices, with patterns of consumption and transgression. So, while enslaved to one’s appetites, one is rigidly attached to belief in one’s own freedom, with a correspondingly fierce aversion to any contrary evidence.

  18. Another great piece Sibel. I would like to direct members right back to the boiling frogs post and the writings of Dr. Ismail Salami about the MEK/MKO, marxist terror cult. There is also a heart-wrenching doc “For My Daughter Somayeh” about the cult on youtube. In this documentary, the father of Somayeh depicts, through primarily home video footage itself, how he was duped into supporting the MEK’s agenda. The MEK used marxist ideology to seduce kids into their cult, & then the cult used the kids to seduce the parents! “Show up at our rally, support our cause, and we’ll maybe let you see your kids for a little bit.” In another youtube piece on MEK, we find a man saying “I was tortured, then became a torturer!” This is reminiscent of what I’m reading in the book “Anti-Humans” about how the communists made torturers out of anti-communist Romanian students.

    For me, this is all very personal because it is reminiscent of my time in the labor movement. When I started as an organizer for UNITE (now UNITE-HERE) in Canada, I wanted nothing more than to “talk to the workers.” I didn’t want to be in management. I was a “purist”. I simply wanted to carry out orders from union leadership – people who I thought were “on the cutting edge”. In my time with UNITE, I saw how management was one clique, and the organizers “on the ground” were in another clique. There was so much gossip, in-fighting, trickery, — and this from a “union” supposedly trying to unify Cintas workers!

    Well, after my apprenticeship was “let to expire”, I decided to protest. I leafletted at one of their recruitment activities, warning would-be organizers that UNITE was a trap.

    You might think after this experience I was done with the labor movement. Well as the saying goes, “out of the fry pan and into the fire.”

    I came back to California, and this time I’d join up with a ucla alma mater at SEIU (1 of Glenn Beck’s favorite targets, lol). I thought with my harrowing experience with UNITE, I would be better prepared to handle insider politics. Well, not only was I better prepared, I became so prepared, that I became one of them. I became a lead organizer, pushed by leadership stroking my ego telling me “Rahul, if you don’t step up to the plate, someone else will.”

    And so it was, a year-and-a-half into organizing for SEIU, that I would find myself emigrating to Texas, part of an international (read DC) sponsored effort to “open up the southern market” to union organizing.

    The difference was now I was in management. It was only a few months later where I would end up hiring, and then soon after, firing, my first employee. The fear of firing someone is horrible. The rush one gets, the feeling of power one gets, from firing someone is probably even worse. “I danced with the Devil, and I liked it.”

    This was only the beginning. We had formed our own cult unbeknownst to us. Some might call it karma or fate. In other words, we surround ourselves subconsciously with situations that bring about unresolved issues from our childhood. This might be a high falootin way of saying: very few can resist the games played to get us to be forever stuck on “the corporate ladder”. Translation: we stay employees forever: whether worker, crew leader, supervisor, manager, director, or CEO, we still answer to someone else, never owning our destiny.

    One of my worst memories was towards the end of my union career, when I, along with some other directors, conspired to “free” one of our staff from her alcoholic boyfriend. I was the key. After a staff retreat, I showed up at her hotel room — we talked, I tried to flirt — thank God nothing happened. But wow, how disgusting the whole thing was.

    And this is all a drop in the bucket. In my time with SEIU, the president of the California public employees local, passed away from a heart condition. I have no doubt it was due to stress caused by the movement. Other organizers have gotten into car accidents from lack of sleep around election time when the campaign pressure becomes extreme.

    Notice, in my entire story, violence was never employed.

    This is my point. If we don’t strip away at the false-ideologies of “command and control”: socialism, communism, marxism, then we will fail to progress.

    What are the classical liberal principles that empower us to voluntarily associate? What are the memes that motivate us in mutual benefit? I know the market is you and me, we the people. It is not some “hidden hand”. The market is like the flea market, mathematics in harmony. Constitutions are like consuls, perpetual bonds between the people and their governments. But if we don’t grasp what a bond is, how can we grasp the constitution?

    Unions grasp part of this: look at CALPERS, it is the largest california pension for workers, holding a tremendous amount of wealth. But why are workers taught to pool their wealth only for benefit at retirement age. How can we pool our wealth now?

    I have many more stories to share about the labor movement. Maybe, one day, when I’m financially secure in my new career as an insurance broker/public adjuster, I can write a piece for bfp. In the mean time, this comment space is the best therapeutic outlet I’ve found for what I consider the hidden “civil war” — the American labor movement.

  19. First welcome home Sibel and thrilled to hear that it was not Dengue Fever, a potentially nasty piece of work. Also a fabulous and historically documented answer to the question of how the gov’t could keep ‘conspiracy theories’ quiet. I also have been away without internet access in the Great Smokies. I had many interesting conversations with fellow hikers which may give you some hope that more people are closer to ‘seeing’. I had no success with educated lefties. Their belief in the inherent good intentions of the gov’t despite their woeful inability to execute was unshakable. On the other hand, the southern right, who think that Rush, Alex, and their ilk are dangerous harbingers of truth surprised me with their ability to learn and make new connections. As an example, I hiked 4 miles with a wealthy and successful 71 year old lawyer from Baton Rouge Louisiana. By the end of our walk and talk he was clear that Republicans and Democrats are the Coke and Pepsi equivalents of the political world – just branding of essentially identical products, that his media idols were of no danger to the establishment as they never questioned the system itself, that a conspiracy theory was no more than a refusal to accept the official gov’t narrative, that the problem was not Obama any more than that it had been Bush or Clinton, and he also changed his mind on many other beliefs. He told me that I would be very welcomed in his circles even if I am a northerner, that there was huge dissatisfaction and hunger for understanding that was being poorly served.

    So when you feel that there has been little to show for 13 years of standing up for truth, know that there has been a deep shift in both consciousness not only in the US, but around the world during this time and you have done your not insignificant part. You certainly have been part of my educational journey and of many others who have impacted others who have….., and etc. Societal change is a slow, from the point of view of activists, a glacially slow process requiring patience and vision. It’s like farming, but with MUCH longer seasons. The substrata of society is changing more quickly than ever before in my lifetime. I see it and feel it. I am beginning to see the neocons as corrupted code in what had been a remarkably resilient program and therefore the answer to our prayers. Due to their work, all over the world people and entire countries are seeing that the emperor has no clothes. When you add on that the world wide economic system is on life support and even our “closest” allies have embraced the AIIB against our direct wishes and warnings you see that there is a huge tide change happening before our eyes. When one looks at a world map of members in the AIIB, it is not Russia that is isolated, but the US. This would have been unimaginable from the vantage point of the Clinton administration just a short 16 years ago. Change is afoot Sibel. I lend you my patience and you help keep my eye on the prize.

    When I asked you if you could go back in time and talk to your Dad as a young man before he was tortured, before the brutal mistakes made in collaborating with the religious fanatics to overthrow the Shah, what you would tell him, you said that you would not change a thing. You were so right, because to change anything would change everything. If you had changed any of your choices would you be bringing up your daughter as you are, would you be able to look yourself in the eye in the mirror each morning, would you be capable of feeling the elation that you will feel as a new order comes to pass with you as a credible voice for positive change? Sin was once defined as a falling short from ones totality. In that sense both you and your father have been warriors against sin.

    • Mandela,

      ‘I had no success with educated lefties…’- This is a very interesting observation. If I were to categorize the percentage of those who have ‘truly’ supported me (and other whistleblowers I know of), it would look something like: 50% libertarian and libertarian-leaning, 30% conservative, and 20% (or less) liberals. I have to say, between 2004-2010, this came to me as a major surprise. If I were to categorize the percentage of those who have openly/publicly attacked me (and my work- whether with NSWBC or this site, whether on political front or personal front, I’d say 85% liberals, and 15% conservative-Republicans, 0% libertarians. To give you an example: My case came out during the Bush admin, and of course all the ‘front-men’ involved (From Mueller to Ashcroft to …). 2002-2005 was when I received the most media attention- cursory/limited and shallow coverage, that is (CBS, CNN,NPR, D-Now, etc.). Yet I received almost ‘zero’ attack by the political Right. Even with the online forums/networks/sites- I remember only one or two who engaged in attack smear campaign (One of them was freedom or republic underground … or something like that). On the other hand the most vicious, the ugliest, including personal direct attacks … all came from Left NGOs, Left forums/blogs (From Democratic Underground to Daily Kos to …), and the so-called left activists.

      I know for many of you this is a new piece of info, but it is a fact (easily established by online archives, etc.).

      The question: why?

      The part with libertarians or libertarian-leaning people, the answer is easy: they have some level of healthy skepticism when it comes to the gov and its tentacles within the media, etc. Now, with conservatives I have to make a distinction: there are several categories- Ultra hawks, Neocons, classic conservatives, etc. When it comes to hawks/neocons: they totally stray away from the core principles of conservative philosophies (small/limited government, etc.). I’d say the support came mainly from this group: they were pro limited gov, they were mainly anti wars, in fact, they did not like/support Bush.

      I also find your emphasis on ‘educated’ very interesting. I call this group (not to be generalized to ‘all’) the ‘myopic academics.’ Something happens during that whole process (ex: PhD) to many (NOT all): they become myopic, singular-minded, and somehow the process of ‘loss of common sense’ takes place. Of course, many of them identify themselves with Liberal Left and Democrats. They have been the hardest to reach for me as well. So I share your experience.

      You brought up some really deep and important angles/points with this comment!! It made me pause; the wheels started turning in high-speed in my head; the memories/recollections began coming like a flood …Thank you!!

      • Thank you for highlighting ‘educated’ as it reminds me of things that I have learned, but let slip to the back of my mind – know the feeling? Becoming an academic is no different than rising in the ranks of the deep state. You only survive if you drink the cool aid. Years ago I was fully funded by the Koch brothers to get a PhD in economics. I knew of their libertarian beliefs and desire to place Austrian trained econ Profs all over the country who would create a climate for an economics that justified “free markets” for all sorts of business activity, so I spoke like one of them and was welcomed to the fold. I soon saw that the economics of the university had no and I mean zero scientific basis. To stay and get a PhD would require developing a refined ability to manipulate equations and words with no relation to reality other than the abstract reality that we were being asked to ‘prove’. So getting a doctorate usually shows the same personal traits as becoming a Senator, Congressman, FBI or CIA director, successful alternative news anchor, successful journalist, highly placed executive in a large corporation, and etc. The ability to be a team player and give what your superiors demand without respect to truth, the good of society, the law, or any other values you want to throw in.

        The nonacademic left whether they are children of communist sympathizers or old time liberals who yearn for the return of an FDR figure have all their visions aligned with government solutions. They can’t shake their years of belief that the US gov’t in power might be misguided, but at its core it is well intentioned. Most of us here at BFP had to go through a very personal life changing process to reject a lifetime of propaganda and become ‘different’ within our families, communities, and among our friends. People who are and psychologically need to remain respectable can’t risk taking in alternative narratives. For them being respectable MEANS being aligned with the respected majority consensus.
        Dave has written about taking colloidal silver when he gets sick. If his Dr. saw him get better from something that her medicine arsenal would have been ineffective against, she probably would just dismiss it as coincidence. She wouldn’t even research it. There is a real fear in many to even consider anything that the mainstream ridicules for fear of loss of credibility and its concomitant social and economic status.

        • Mandela,

          “who yearn for the return of an FDR figure have all their visions aligned with government solutions.”- So very true’; you nailed it.

          “They can’t shake their years of belief that the US gov’t in power might be misguided, but at its core it is well intentioned.”- How many times have I heard this line expressed vehemently by this group, in one style or another.

          “People who are and psychologically need to remain respectable can’t risk taking in alternative narratives.”- Here is one real-life example:

          One of my professors from GMU: “Sibel I would love to set up a speaking session for you to come and talk about some of those issues here at GMU. However, I am one of very few who sees the value. Even suggesting it to the board would be a career-ending move … We also get large Federal Grants and having you as a speaker would back fire …”

          “For them being respectable MEANS being aligned with the respected majority consensus.”- So what they do is this: They only associate with each other. They are invited by the exact same kind of forums, media outlets and academic communities. They read the same articles. They use the same words/phrases … Group-Think and Conformity at its worst. I had this same discussion with Ellsberg in 2006-2007: ‘You have been stuck in the same circle (Chomsky, Berkley crowds, ACLU, D-Now, POGO, GAP, Mort Halprin and his cabals … Why don’t you try and expand, go beyond this highly limited and bordered arena?’ You see, after ‘opposing’ Obama, asking for his impeachment, together with the rest of the choir, they quickly switched to ‘Campaigning for Obama’ in 2011. By that I mean real active campaigning with the Obama election campaign and D-HQ.

          • Sibel, are you saying that Daniel Ellsberg campaigned for Obama in 2011 despite his detailed knowledge of Obama’s unprecedented war on whistleblowers? I can forgive his 2008 support, but for him to throw himself behind his 2012 election bid shows how his need to be a spokesman for the left trumps his sense of justice. I guess that being in the public eye is a narcotic as addictive as crack cocaine for some. In today’s world the equivalent of his release of the Pentagon Papers would mean the end of his freedom to live his life as he wished. It disgusts me that he, who truly understands what is at stake, could support a candidate that would do that.

          • Mandela,

            Here is a link on Ellsberg. Not only he campaigned for Obama in swing states (2012), but he also strongly warned people against Third Parties, alternative and independent candidate:

            He and his circle of clowns, a few months after they help win the 2012 elections for Obama, turned around again, and began their pseudo campaign to impeach Obama again. Back and forth; back & forth.

            Unfortunately, he and that circle are completely under the thumbs of ‘controlled-opposition’ implementers.

            It was truly disheartening when Ellsberg and McGovern expressed their disappointment with my book being released before the Obama elections, since my criticism of Obama was perceived by them as an act of ‘betrayal.’ Both refused to back, support, review the book, or even give quotes. All I had to do was: ‘Wait until after we get Obama elected for 2012.’

            Talk about being ‘disgusted.’ Yuck.

          • CuChulainn says:

            Ellsberg? why are we talking about Ellsberg? Doug Valentine told us about Ellsberg–
            Sibel’s link calls him an “unquestioned patriot”–sorry, never was

          • CuChu,

            I found Valentine’s findings and points totally plausible. Before I go any further:

            No matter what I would always be thankful for the support and kindness Ellsberg provided me during 2003-2005 years. Those were the loneliest painful years. And his support was genuine.

            The other thing: Getting to know him and true self/personality gave me the following impression: A highly intelligent and informed/educated person + extremely talented (he is a great pianist; was child protégé), who had some very trusting, manipulate-able (here I think I made up a word!), almost child-like qualities and characteristics.
            I lean towards: him being totally controlled and manipulated. For example: his best friend, the guy who ‘directed’ him (From 70s until at least 2006) was Mort Halprin. In 2000a, Halprin was the guy in charge of ALL Soros money to be earmarked for various NGOs, foundations, pseudo alternatives (including Amy Goodman). I observed: Mort was ruling Ellsberg. The other thing I observed: Ellsberg being extremely naïve and trusting (I have known many ‘genius’ people who have similar qualities) …

            I also have to pint out: Ellsberg is NOT material. He and his wife are both extremely humble (hippie-like) and live a very frugal life. I know Ellsberg was presented with many offers that would have made him a very rich man. He never fell for it. He truly despises materialism/money and positions (He would regularly refuse board positions offered;’ some of them very lucrative). He never made any money from books or movies (had he wanted to, he would have)/
            Other qualities I observed in Ellsberg: Totally not diplomatic (Painfully honest when he answers questions and when you talk to him); not a calculative kind of a person.

            Anyhow, what I am trying to say is this: Everything I got to see, observe, experience, first-hand, directly, makes me lean toward the word: ‘ being utilized, used, directed, managed, unknowingly.’

            You know, I have a pretty good nose for ‘acts,’ ‘pretend humbleness,’ etc. I did not detect nefarious intentions when it comes to Ellsberg. I just didn’t.

            So, how does this go with other facts, and other theories, on Ellsberg? I don’t know. I am just sharing my own observations/experiences/opinion. I have not seen or spoken with him since … 2011-2012. I know he is royally pissed with me on ‘Snowden’ (Grapevine;-). I know he is still being utilized/used by ‘Democratic HQ’ (and the deep state) …

          • For what it’s worth, I appreciate your comments about Ellsberg. Your impression rings true: that he’s not somebody with bad intentions, but is still somehow unable to come to terms with the fact that the two party system is a fraudulent facade and that by endorsing a candidate like Obama (but lets face it, any puppet by whatever name), he’s granting that fraud an air of legitimacy, which as you implied, is allowing himself to be manipulated by the establishment, using legitimately earned credibility to wash down the horse sh*t aftertaste for liberal sensibilities.

            I don’t believe that people who mean well deserve a pass, so to speak, when they’re doing a disservice to the public in general. However, I think it matters to be able to recognize and acknowledge that not all the players on the board have the wherewithal to understand how they’re being played.

          • steven hobbs says:

            Hi Sibel & Mandela,
            Interesting points regarding the “left,” and “academics” you had the displeasure of meeting.

            From Zogby (August 30, 2004) Half of New Yorkers Believe US Leaders Had Foreknowledge of Impending 9-11 Attacks and “Consciously Failed:” “On the eve of a Republican National Convention invoking 9/11 symbols, sound bites and imagery, half (49.3%) of New York City residents and 41% of New York citizens overall say that some of our leaders “knew in advance that attacks were planned on or around September 11, 2001, and that they consciously failed to act,” .., nearly 30% of registered Republicans and over 38% of those who described themselves as “very conservative” supported the claim…The charge found very high support among adults under 30 (62.8%), African-Americans (62.5%), Hispanics (60.1%), Asians (59.4%), and “Born Again” Evangelical Christians (47.9%)..“Self-identified “very liberal” New Yorkers supported a new inquiry by a margin of three (75%) to one, but so did half (53%) of “very conservative” citizens across the state..[The demographics] “The call for a deeper probe was especially strong from Hispanics (75.6%), African-Americans (75.3%) citizens with income from $15-25K (74.3%), women (62%) and Evangelicals (59.9%).

            The poll was in New York in 2004 so it’s not representative of any other place or time — particularly because it’s the crime site. A possibly better typology than “liberal” and “conservative” may be the Big-5 Factors Model of the Personality, which has piqued my interest. When people are described as open to change “liberal” it seems a misnomer for those who genuflect to sacred government myths. That said, I’ve had much the same experience with those on left, not however the “far left” as I use the term, and “academic.” It’s curious about this Zogby poll the reason you, Sibel, have received more genuine support from the right. Perhaps like you suggested, their core belief structure allows for a consideration of government as a threat more than a source of safety contrary for “liberals.” Belief becomes a protector in the face of threat, stress, and uncomfortable dissonance. These political categories fail us, which seems another task of our developing praxis.

            I described myself as a liberal, from a liberal family, but found my life multiply threatened at 16 when arguing facts I gleaned from my self-study regarding kidnapping young solders (draft), racism, and empire. My dad was a firm democrat who didn’t trust the government. Although he didn’t own one, he was in favor of the second amendment, he said to allow protection against government. Sure seems quaint now. I’ve stopped calling myself names without many qualifications; for the most part anyway. My two advanced degrees achieved through external programs allowed student design of educational objectives. Nevertheless, I’ve always considered (as many here) self-study as fundamental.

            Most academics, and educators have betrayed their professions and their integrity. As you say Mandela, “There is a real fear in many to even consider anything that the mainstream ridicules for fear of loss of credibility and its concomitant social and economic status.”

            There seem to be so many with so many excuses like, “it’s not of interest,” “it would backfire,” “it’s not really proven,” “I’m over it,” and this “I wouldn’t believe it anyway,” etc.
            I remember reading on cognitive dissonance (lost the reference), when presented with contrary evidence, those more educated are more intransigent and voluble in their objections. Belief may be less sway-able in the educated because they are more full of themselves. Perhaps their sense of self is more threatened by the possibility there may be something they don’t know, or that they may simply be wrong. People without great pride in their education may be more willing, like Socrates, think they don’t know anything; and, therefore don’t have as much need to defend regarding sacred official stories. This is certainly not the case for either educated or uneducated authoritarians, whom we usually think of as conservative.

            I wonder, Mandela, possibly two of the factors that allowed you to sway your gentleman friend (other than your intelligence, empathy, and education) were time together — without his homies.

            For those who don’t know these authors writing why 9/11 is ignored:
            Manwell, “In Denial of Democracy.”
            Shure, “Why Do Good People Become Silent—or Worse—About 9/11?”

          • Steven,

            Here is an interesting point to consider regarding that poll in 2004. Bush was the President; A Republican one. 9/11 happened on his watch. Thus, that 75% makes a lot of sense. My hypothesis would be: If the poll was implemented again after 2008, that 75% would be … below 50% (maybe even smaller percentage). Same thing with Antiwar protests and the funding of antiwar activism/organizations. During Bush Admin it was very high. Fast forward to 2008 and after: it dropped to almost zero. The fund-ers are 90+% left sugar-daddies/foundations/NGOs. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that ‘the left’s anti war stand mostly applies to wars waged by Republican presidents. When they get ‘D’ president, even if the number of unjust/inhumane preemptive wars quadruples, they could not care LESS.’

            ‘I’ve stopped calling myself names without many qualifications; for the most part anyway.’- That describes me as well.

            ‘Most academics, and educators have betrayed their professions and their integrity.’- This applies to so many profession today in the USA. Think about the physicians/doctors. They are ruled by the Pharma and their lobbying/marketing arms, they openly accept pharma bribery despite … the immorality ….the conflict interest

          • steven hobbs says:

            Hi Sibel,
            “Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that ‘the left’s antiwar stand mostly applies to wars waged by Republican presidents. When they get ‘D’ president, even if the number of unjust/inhumane preemptive wars quadruples, they could not care LESS.” – Agreed, its historically accurate. I’d love to see the poll again under Obama. There appears to be significant disgust in Obummer by some previous supporters, it will be interesting to see how they line up over the next front man/woman.

            Betrayal of professional ethics and integrity is indeed a serious matter in many fields due to greed, bigotry, over zealotry, to name a few beyond stupidity and ignorance. As a psychotherapist I’ve the luck and curse of helping others improve their coping with stress and suffering. Clients occasionally comment politically allowing a Socratic moment — sometimes drifting to topics of psychic numbing, news slants, misinformation, everyday trance, internet, historical fictions, and back around to reality testing, cognitive dissonance, psychological operations, etc. These sometimes exciting dialogues may prompt further investigation by all, allowing me to receive and suggest reading and other media. I’m delighted when that occurs, it’s like a gift shared, and palpably energizing for both. I’m bound, however, by ethics and licensing to keep relatively focused on immediate health and well-being benefits. As you might imagine, mileage varies. But, some become inspired to pursue more information.

            A question I’ve been pondering: what is the responsibility of those who consider themselves intellectuals, other than philosophic gadflies in person, on silicon, or paper? I’ve been thinking of a litmus test for “intellectuals,” such as, historical perspective on Palestine, assassinations, false flags. It doesn’t really end though, because I now have added knowledge of Climate Change and its probable causes. I may add more before tomorrow, like disbelief that democracy can co-exist with capitalism. My bar is getting higher. What is fundamental is curiosity, and a doubting approach. Sad how even those who consider themselves intellectual (or those in the activist community) are lacking in inquisitiveness. Most people just want to live their lives without too much perturbation. Others are willing to walk on the wild side and rebel.

            “In order to exist, man must rebel, but rebellion must respect the limits that it discovers in itself – limits where minds meet, and in meeting begin to exist.” Albert Camus

          • Steven,

            “what is the responsibility of those who consider themselves intellectuals, other than philosophic gadflies in person, on silicon, or paper?”- Maybe it boils down to ‘the purpose’ of philosophy-zation/intellectualization. For so many it is the end within itself. Hundreds of pages of blabbering, jargon-izing … just for the sake of that. That, versus, mapping roads or pairing those up with possible actions as objectives.

            Camus: Great quote!

          • steven hobbs says:

            Hi Sibel,
            “Maybe it boils down to ‘the purpose’ of philosophy-zation/intellectualization. For so many it is the end within itself.., versus, mapping roads or pairing those up with possible actions as objectives.” — Yep.

            I tend to think so too. Philosophy sans praxis is empty spoutin’ from critics’ chair.

            BFP is a crowd (need better term) sourced knowledge base. Here are some possible active (praxis) concerns. Just for a start. My thoughts and wording are not specific or comprehensive enough — they need help from others. Ours, need be a thoughtfully active, engaged in by all, action plan. We could start with a clear statement of our movements’ objectives. Once that’s stated, and agreed, we might:
            1. Identify present characteristics of “ripening conditions” and “majority of public opinion,” ala Bill Moyer’s phases of revolutionary “success.”
            2. Identify the best methods and practices to quickly demystify Deep State workings to various populations.
            3. Use all available means to demystify DS including media, actions, alliances, etc.
            4. Accomplish all these prior to “success.”
            5. Shift paradigms and power arrangements while gaining majority support.

            That said, at present, DS concerns are below awareness for most, but it’s tingling in the background waiting to awaken, so to speak. Psychic numbing, stress of daily living, comfort, and security in known authorities. But, when old towers fall, ideas move fast.

            I was thinking plan too. Here are my humble offerings. Now I’ll go read your more comprehensive and specific plan.

          • After reading your link and post Sibel and your links, CuChu, it just reminds me how incredibly dangerous it is to work for the government, especially if it involves intelligence. It opens too many doors to the possibility of being controlled/owned as they are expert at studying potential assets to find their weak spots and then exploit them ruthlessly.

          • Steven,

            Interesting poll, but we have to remember that that poll reflects New Yorkers opinions at a time when the recently re-elected George Bush was hated in the NE and had no credibility. They were able to entertain possibilities in regard to his administration that they seem incapable of considering re Obama. When Obama has been in campaign mode, as he was in 2007, 2011, and has substantially been since the 2014 midterm elections, he speaks the language of the liberals with a sincerity worthy of an Oscar, thereby convincing them that this is his true nature.

            You wrote that you’ve always considered (as many here) self-study as fundamental. That is the key as those who look to authorative sources, whether on the left, right, center or alternative press to validate truth by definition can’t think for themselves and therefore can’t wind up with beliefs contrary to that of the mainstream. We can’t change hearts and minds to our view (there is that assumed consensus Benny B) if those we speak with don’t trust their own abilities to form conclusions from a set of facts.

            This is a big part of why the man I hiked with was able to experience a change of understanding. He is a successful lawyer who has to be able to follow a fact pattern and think on his feet. Add to that a basic mistrust of government, even if, at first all the blame went to Obama, the democrats and those horrible NE liberals. So there was material to work with there if one were to listen carefully and make the case step by step as needed for his way of thinking then given time and willingness it was doable. One thing that really opened him to me was his absolute shock that someone from NY state thought as I did. He told me that in and of itself was an earthshaking fact for him as he thought that I would be telling him that Hillary would make a fabulous president.

          • Mandela,

            I posted my comment to Steven on direct main website main dashboard before reading yours:-)

          • Doug Valentine says:

            There’s a lot of confusion about Ellsberg. I was introduced to DE by his BFF Peter D Scott. Both DE and PDS knew I was going to rip him – and neither would have confessed unless I came along with charges from CIA officers that DE had to refute. PDS wouldn’t at out DE because the personal trumps the political, which is why Sibel has a soft spot for DE. Which is why PDS never wrote about DE’s CIA connection. But DE is the archetypal CIA officer, a good looking fast talking snake oil salesman. I know, because i’ve been around 100s of those guys. They are likeable. But like tyrion said in GoT, their genius is in “Making honest feelings do dishonest work.” Like Ray McGovern, who is out front as a supposed CIA reformer, who wants to keep the analytical side of CIA intact, which means keeping the CIA intact. Of course he was an analyst, which is like saying, “I was just the Mafia bookkeeper, I never killed anyone.” These guys, DE and RM, use honest feelings to do dishonest CIA work, drumming up sympathy for the the members of an on-going international murder conspiracy the world has never before seen the likes of before. How anyone could trust or feel sympathy for these guys is beyond me. DE may appear to be a naive manipulated genius be he’s a conman extraordinare. He has a booking agent and speaking engagements worldwide. DE said i would never understand him because i’m not a celebrity like him. Fact is, i do understand him, psychologically, and I’m happy to explain why he didn’t reveal in the TV movie about himself that he worked for the CIA in vietnam, as an agent reporting on high level political developments as ell as snatching and snuffing civilian supporters of the nationalist revolutionaries.

          • Doug,

            ‘PDS wouldn’t at out DE because the personal trumps the political, which is why Sibel has a soft spot for DE.’- You may be right. That personal connection and early attachment may very well cloud my judgment.

            Ray McGovern: Concur with all your points. I’d go further and say: How could you last 25+ years in that evil institution, get to know (first hand) about many major evil operations and subsequent cover ups, yet never come forward, never blow the whistle. Even after the retirement: why hasn’t he come forward with many revelations (which I know with certainty he has full knowledge of?). Yet, despite his supposed ‘activism,’ flying around the world, having direct personal contacts (in person with Snowden) … while that fat chunky checks arrive from the CIA every month? I mean how can this guy ask for more people to come forward, blow the whistle, yet, he has not made a peep about those major facts, the truth, he’d been privy of (first hand), for 25+ years?

            “DE may appear to be a naive manipulated genius be he’s a conman extraordinare…”- Is he doing it for the cause (the deep-state cause)? Because as I stated in my previous comment, I saw ‘zero’ indication of money/wealth/power seeking. A good example to compare with would be ‘Snowden’ case: Unlike Snowden, after the initial fame, DE was pretty much marginalized. I know for a fact that they live very frugal-humbly with very little money. I know the deep-state, Soros and tentacles, finance some of his travel and speaking arrangements. I know for a fact that they did not do that when he tried to provide me with support. I know how he was trying to scramble for $350 airfare to get him from SF to DC with 3 stop overs, while he was going through chronic knee issues/pain … I know he was asked more than a dozen time to wash his hands and have nothing to do with me. Mort, was present in one meeting we had in POGO’s DC office (as Soros representative and one of the biggest fund-ers of POGO/GAP) in 2005; he actually looked at me and said: ‘I don’t like you. I don’t like the way you attack ‘D’ and ‘R’ without any discretion. Your style does not fit our organizations’ objectives …’

            His CIA ties: Not only that, Doug, but my own case involved ‘RAND Corp’ as one of the main culprits (And one of the top reasons for SSP) and a major player in Op Gladio B. DE does not deny his past employment and classified work with RAND. I think this is one of the reasons I found all your analyses factual and plausible years ago. That RAND angle always kept a part of skeptical.

            And finally: Just like ‘Snowden’ case, once heroes are designed and made, and got promoted and accepted as such by the majority, thou shall not dare ever questioning the official narrative/story. Thus, I stand to be corrected:-)

          • Thank you Doug for your clarifications on DE and RM. I know that you have also pointed out how both of them have been incredibly selective about what they criticize/reveal. Neither has ever spoken about CIA drug running, black ops, or how it infiltrates and runs behind the scenes every level of government as they have higher security clearance levels along with access of information of any level or branch of government. This is what is needed and this is what their ilk never talk about as they criticize the system while supporting its continuation by never revealing its true nature, aims, and means.

            Your work on DE opened my eyes to the fact that Watergate was the CIA bringing Nixon down without having to resort to killing him cuz Nixon was at war with the CIA over drugs. This brings up a question, post Nixon’s downfall has there been a change in the system to ensure that presidents are more respectful of their true place in gov’t? Or is the job just done by the media to ensure that no one of independent thought ever gets elected – Howard Dean’s scream, Ron Paul’s near media blackout, even the huge effort to discredit Gingrich after he won the SC primary over Romney, to mention some of the most recent examples. Has any president since Nixon gone up against the CIA??

          • CuChulainn says:

            Sibel: his support was genuine
            sorry to appear cynical, but since cognitive dissonance & manipulation are themes here, at what other time would DE have approached you, but when you were most vulnerable? and what else would he have shown to win you over, if not the mother’s milk of kindness?

          • CuChu,

            Excellent point; applicable. As I said in my comment (response) to Doug, I stand to be corrected.

          • CuChu,

            Another point to be added (relevant to my case): Did the ACLU ‘really’ represent me (my Supreme Court Case)? Or was it a damage-control move by the Deep State? I still wonder …

          • Sibel asked, “Another point to be added (relevant to my case): Did the ACLU ‘really’ represent me (my Supreme Court Case)? Or was it a damage-control move by the Deep State? I still wonder …”

            You shared that Mort Halpern, Soros’ right hand so to speak, told you point blank that he didn’t like you. Between 2005-2009 Soros’ charitable organization, The Open Society Institute contributed almost $11 Million to the ACLU. Do you think that could possibly be used to influence them?

        • Ronald Orovitz says:

          It so happens that I went into a grad program in Sept. 2001 – after a break of over 10 years from the university environment. In that period of self-directed study I had had some background in deep state politics (though not nearly what I have now) – enough so that I posed the question on the day of 9/11: “inside job?” (and am embarrassed to admit that my initial answer was in the negative -‘they wouldn’t pull anything this big’)… In a matter of a couple months however I was beginning to question the narrative -that French book on Bin Laden and its quotes of John O’Neill were what initially sparked my skepticism (he said in July of ’01 that he could shut down Al Qaeda but the higher ups were preventing it), then came Michael Rupert’s From the Wilderness website and so on, but being immersed in my course-directed study, the status of 9/11 investigations was on the periphery of my awareness… In any case, I’m certain that if I had brought up skepticism relating to 9/11 to certain of my professors, even in social settings, this would have adversely affected my academic progress. Other profs however I could speak freely with on such matters, and they happen to reside on extreme opposite ends of the political spectrum – Marxists on one end and libertarian on the other. For those in the respectable middle though, forget about it. Anecdotally, I recall when Paul Wellstone was killed… We were waiting for the prof. to show up and somebody mentioned it about Wellstone, then I said to the effect “well isn’t that convenient?” (you’ll recall that Wellstone was the most vociferous Senator in opposition to the lead up to the Iraq war). I got this look from the other student like I had just said he was shot down by space aliens… American exceptionalism in action: those things just don’t happen here, and you are a complete loon to even suggest it.

          • Ronald Orovitz says:

            Being in the academic milieu at that time, when the ‘nation is under attack,’ one is implicitly party to the national effort in the war against terrorism, so anything that defies the consensus is verboten, at least in polite circles.

            Another anecdote: one visiting researcher who I did argue with on the subject was a classic lefty -his beat up car was plastered all over with anti-Bush/anti-war bumper-stickers. He stuck to the party line when it came to 9/11 however – it was exactly what we are told it was. I raised issues with building 7 and all that, and he starts citing Popular Mechanics. Yes, a neuro-scientist working on a DARPA research program gives me Popular Mechanics as the authority on the matter. Now, this is interesting. Here is someone who did somewhat lament the fact that he was contributing to the military-industrial complex, while vociferously opposing the war that was then taking place, and yet rallying behind one of the “public myths” that was used as justification for that war (-and he would admit deceptively so where Iraq and 9/11 is concerned, but I’m not sure if he was opposed to the Afghan war).

            This brings me to another aspect of the academic milieu that deserves more scrutiny, but it relates to a term I brought up in an earlier thread: “epistemic lacunae” . The example above is a case of someone researching a specific problem. He feeds the knowledge he gains to DARPA, which in turns combines this knowledge with that gained in other research programs and applies them to technologies that of course are highly classified. The individual researchers myopically focused on their particular problems might guess how their findings may be applied, but they really don’t know – they live on little islands in a sea of epistemic lacunae….

          • On Ellsberg, Colonel Prouty (Mr. X from the Oliver Stone film) sets the record straight on how the “Pentagon Papers” was a controlled release (hey, wikileaks/assange/snowden anyone!?). Sounds like the limited hangout of its day. Highly recommend Prouty’s book on JFK:
            His book actually contains key documents *left out* from the pentagon papers. Prouty is also on youtube debunking “peak oil” and other eugenicist, population control kooks.
            When anyone gets mixed up with D.C. politics, it becomes very hard to remain “independent.” I’m fortunate that my family “bailed me out” from the labor movement. Else I’d still be whistling a typical big Dem party tune.

  20. Memory has it that co-incidental to the OSAMA ‘psyop’
    was the global ‘photo-shop’ community Tearing apart the just released, on-line, White House Presidential Birth Certificate.
    Within 24hrs came the OBL ‘sacrifice’.
    A lucky Larry moment for OBAMA that OSAMA happened to trump the identity question on msm ‘wheel of attention’ spinning that day [a game of skill for all the family].
    Rove : “we are an Empire now. We create our own realities while you, all of you, get to talk about them……..”
    YOO : “Another tool would have our intelligence agencies create a false terrorist organization. It could have its own websites, recruitment centers, training camps and fundraising operations. It could launch fake terrorist operations and claim credit for real terrorist strikes, helping to sow confusion within Al Qaeda’s ranks, causing operatives to doubt others’ identities and to question the validity of communications.”
    P2OG .
    ‘Illusion of Justice. Human Rights Abuses in US Terrorism Prosecutions.’
    They make no shame of it. Almost a point of pride.

    • remo,

      Thank you for these excellent points and reminders. I totally forgot about the timing of that OBL Raid bs.

      “Another tool would have our intelligence agencies create a false terrorist organization…”- ABSOLUTELY. Do you remember all the press releases and publicity on ISIL being the richest terror organization with $2 Billion+ networth??! Soon they are going to have their own central bank and stocks!!! Thank you for emphasizing this point again. It can never be emphasized enough.

      • I have to suppress a wave of nausea every time I hear comments about how “sophisticated” their use of PR/Propaganda and social media is… Yuck!!!

        • … and in financial news, we’ve seen a great fluctuation in ISIL shares over speculation of a merger with Al Nusra. Investors are clearly exercising caution after the Khorsan fiasco a few months ago…

          • Benny,

            Tell me about it. Just like CIA-created and managed al-Qaeda. Their number went from a few thousands to tens of thousands, then hundreds of thousands … and soon they’ll be in millions: female ones, teenage ones, elderly ISIL, Australian ISIL, Belgian ISIL … Fetus to be enrolled with ISIL after birth … There will be ISIL in every corner: in that old Deli in Brooklyn, the ticket Kiosk for Mount Rushmore visitors, under the Eifel Tower, in the gondolas cruising Venice … In that shed behind your garden … The world is exploding with this less than three-year old group/organization/cult/whatever!!!

          • LOL… great stuff Sibel! =p

    • chris bagg says:

      First, out of sheer historical curiosity, let me offer some thoughts on the Bin Laden raid. Bear with me for a moment here, and I will address the larger topic in a follow up comment.
      Obviously the story line of killing Bin Laden and burying his body at sea is a lie. The military would never have passed up the opportunity of running a victory lap and spiking the ball in the end zone, had they really gotten their hands on the arch villein Bin Laden. But was the entire thing a fiction? I have my doubts about this because of the fact that a helicopter was supposedly downed during the raid. Why would the planners have inserted this detail just for the sake of adding a note of realism to their story? It doesn’t really help the triumphalist message.
      It was claimed by officials that one of the helicopters made a hard landing and had to be abandoned at the compound. However, at least one eyewitness claims that no helicopter landed, and only dropped a small group of commandoes on the terrace of the compound. He claims that this helicopter then returned 20 minutes later to pick them up, but was blown up while trying to land. According to him no one survived, and all the supporting craft left the scene. Here is Muhammad Bashir’s account;
      OK. What really happened? It strikes me that this event has many parallels with the ill fated hostage rescue mission that Jimmy Carter sent to Teheran during the siege of the American embassy there. Both happened months before an upcoming election. In Carter’s case the failure of the mission caused him to lose that election. It has been argued convincingly that Carter was set up for this defeat. Was the deep state trying to do the same thing to Obama?
      The President had gotten cold feet at the last minute in the Syrian conflict, failing to bomb Syria in spite of the military’s false flag set up with the sarin gas attack. Obama feared a public backlash, yet Romney was promising to carry through on the invasion. Could Obama have snatched victory from the jaws of defeat by simply pretending the mission, though it may have been a trap to begin with, was really a success? As I remember, a seal team six helicopter was downed several months later to account for the dead soldiers, and some top brass in the military were fired or forced out.

      • Chris,

        “Why would the planners have inserted this detail just for the sake of adding a note of realism to their story?”- Why not? Why not fill it up with relevant and irrelevant, significant and insignificant details? There is a reason they say: Smoke & Mirrors. Wouldn’t this be in ‘smoke’ category?

        “According to him no one survived, and all the supporting craft left the scene…”- Could this be eliminating witnesses to a hoax?

        “Was the deep state trying to do the same thing to Obama?”- Why so many people try to separate Obama from the Deep State? I keep seeing this. Look at those who financed his election? Who do you see (‘Shallow’ State)? No one would be ever declared ‘Viable Candidate’ without Deep State credential and approval. No one. Why do you think the entire MSM declared Ron Paul a nut case, and ‘not viable’? Same goes for Nader, and any outside ‘Deep State’ person who has ever dared becoming a candidate. In the United States, ‘Viable’ means Deep-State approved and backed. As far as I am concerned no ifs or buts on this one. I will staunchly defend this position for as long as I live … well, until we have our ‘revolution’ concluded and succeeded.

        “The President had gotten cold feet at the last minute in the Syrian conflict, failing to bomb Syria in spite of the military’s false flag set up with the sarin gas attack.”- That had nothing to do with the Public Opinion. Public opinion in the United States can be changed in less than 24 hours. That had to do with Russia-Putin. It was put on hold, placed in pause, temporarily, until they reach compromises behind the scene…

        “As I remember, a seal team six helicopter was downed several months later to account for the dead soldiers, and some top brass in the military were fired or forced out.”- Couldn’t that be the continuation of ‘witness elimination? Let’s put it tis way: How many people who supposedly participated in the raid (directly) have been around? How many names do we know? I’m talking about ‘direct’ witnesses.

        And finally, please don’t get offended by my strong reaction to ‘soft spot’ for Obama or ‘D.’ I know it exist. I know it is real. It exist on the other side as well: Take Paul Craig Roberts (whom I like and respect): no matter what he still maintains an ultra soft spot for Reagan. I never re-publish his articles on Reagan. It is one of those cases where I take ‘mostly good’ and try to ignore that little ‘not so good.’

        • chris bagg says:

          Sibel- I agree with you 100 % that no candidate gets anywhere near the White House without deep state approval. This is certainly true for Obama, who fooled America into voting for him by pretending he would be an antiwar president. I have no soft spot for this guy who has badly damaged whatever was left of our shredded democracy by ignoring the crimes of 911. His “look forward not backward” policy on state crimes against democracy is inexcusable. The deep state knew that America would want an Anti-Bush Democrat in 2008 and that’s what they gave us. Or so we thought.

          But remember that the same could be said of President Carter, who had ties to BCCI and other deep state connections. They needed him to wipe the slate clean after Nixon/Ford, yet still made sure to limit him to a single term. Why did they do this? I think their planned agenda was just too dark for their god fearing mascot, and he had to go, one way or another.

          You may well be right that Bashir’s account of the Bin Laden raid helicopter crash is more smoke and mirrors. I do realize that I am on thin ice when looking at the President as someone who makes up his own mind when contemplating foreign policy choices. Nevertheless, the official account of the raid seemed so fraught with inconsistencies that I thought it worth looking at some alternative explanations. There was just too much “got a tiger by the tail” stuff with that one.

          • Chris,

            “You may well be right that Bashir’s account of the Bin Laden raid helicopter crash is more smoke and mirrors.”- I think it is more like one hypothesis versus the theory presented. I certainly would not claim having the ‘fact-truth,’ having the ‘real story,’ Without any whistleblowing witnesses, without access to real evidence, with so many holes/contradiction and conflicting, and with the ever-present government secrecy.

            Carter: Another hypothesis of mine= It ended with Kennedy. ‘They’ made sure to not ever encountering any presidents and situations/cases like that. But again: offering a hypothesis; an opinion.

        • Hi Sibel, congratulations with not having Dengue fever.

          Talking about Smoke & Mirrors, I have it as one column in the ‘implementation matrix’ of evidence that I typed here (scroll down for the matrix):

          It’s intended to create some kind of order in the plethora of 911 evidence and/or arguments.

          Have you had time to look up whether there are precise definitions with which to distinguish Means from Opportunity?

        • 344thBrother says:

          chris and Sibel you quoted: ““Why would the planners have inserted this detail just for the sake of adding a note of realism to their story?”- Why not? Why not fill it up with relevant and irrelevant, significant and insignificant details? There is a reason they say: Smoke & Mirrors. Wouldn’t this be in ‘smoke’ category?”

          I think it’s in the “Powers” I personally prefer “Elite” but, whatever. it’s in their best interests to throw in the kitchen sink any time they try to pull off one of these things. Example, the 911 attacks.

          Explosions of the towers.
          Implosion of WTC 7
          Evidence of a smart munition hitting WTC 6 dead center leaving a spherical crater with vaporized steel.
          Evidence for a missile or smaller plane or possibly even a fuel air shape charge aimed at the building, and bombs in other areas.
          Whatever it was that blew up in Shanksville.
          The weird damage to the ladder truck and some of the cars near ground zero.
          The passports that were found everywhere.
          I could go on for a long time on this, but, point being, this is done in order to get us all arguing about issues of little practical significance, instead of oh say FOLLOWING THE DAMN MONEY. FOLLOWING THE DAMN PEOPLE WHO HAD A MOTIVE. FOLLOWING THE PEOPLE WHO HAD THE MEANS AND THE OPPORTUNITY.

          Instead it’s this constant “were there planes or not” bla d bla. And it opens huge holes in the ranks that sock puppets can step right into and sow dissension. It’s brilliant at splintering those of us who are groping toward the truth.

          OK Off the soapbox now. @Olivier:
          This from Wikipedia *shudder* but it seems accurate and succinct:
          “In US Criminal law, means, motive, and opportunity is a popular cultural summation of the three aspects of a crime that must be established before guilt can be determined in a criminal proceeding. Respectively, they refer to: the ability of the defendant to commit the crime (means), the reason the defendant felt the need to commit the crime (motive), and whether or not the defendant had the chance to commit the crime (opportunity). Opportunity is most often disproved by use of an alibi, which can prove the accused was not able to commit the crime as he or she did not have the correct set of circumstances to commit the crime as it occurred. Motive is not an element of many crimes, but proving motive can often make it easier to convince a jury of the elements that must be proved for a conviction.”


          • 344thBrother says:

            PS, as to motive. Adequate motive for both the Oklahoma City Murrah Federal Building bombing and the WTC 7 building existed in the form of ongoing investigations into crimes leading back to some of the biggest players. Enron, World Com. “Whitewater” “The Rose Law Firm” and thousands of other BIG investigations that conveniently went poof and were never heard of again. Just that alone should have prompted serious criminal investigations of the active suspects, but nooooooooo.

  21. Just a thought in relation to some comments… Although I usually find myself in the frustrating position of having other people giving me the ‘oh, you’re one of those conspiracy theory types’, I have to admit that quite frequently I see people who I might be championing some of the same causes as me, but are simultaneously championing a sort of fringe side of the conspiracy theory spectrum (if you will), which I myself feel a reaction that I can only imagine is what people are feeling when they hear me discussing conspiracy-fact; not speculation.

    I saw someone mention the idea of how the use of “we”, as it applies to fellow BFP members, potentially has its downsides, as it assumes a relative degree of consensus to an extent where, as mentioned above, it might not be the case. I’m not referring to anything specifically here. It’s more a reflection that I too come to this forum with my own sense of there being a consensus on various issues and, in most cases, I’d say not unreasonably so. However, I didn’t get to my state of understanding on these issues over night. Might I have raised an eyebrow in the past at some of the things I’d classify as facts and not merely ‘conspiracy theories’ now? Probably.

    Not sure what else I have to add in ‘conclusion’, but again, it’s just a thought. I’ll also add that I like the fact that in this podcast Sibel presented these instances of conspiracies as facts, not theories, almost like a lawyer presenting a case. Verbatim quotes are presented carefully as such and in outlining each case there are no speculative flights of fancy.

    • I think you raise a good point here, about the fact that most people who now accept that 9-11 was an inside job, needed some time to get to that point. Also about the lack of consensus. For my part, I really don’t understand why “the world changed on 9-11”. The US has committed heinous crimes before and since that date, on a far greater scale, abroad and even domestically.
      One often hears, within the truther “community”, the declaration that one can sort humanity into 2 groups: 9-11 truthers, and deniers. I vehemently disagree, and equally vehemently object to the implicit claim that that one atrocity has special status. It was by far the most media-friendly false flag event in history, period.
      I suppose there is a case to be made for its having been soooo blatant that it boggles the imagination that anyone could refuse to see the truth about it, but many things have been done right out in the open (invading Afghanistan, what?) that have raised far fewer hackles. And the US/NATO have managed to get us into other equally barbarous, equally immoral wars, without a 9-11 to pave the way.
      Personally, I see 9-11 as the Deep State having symbolically given 2 middle fingers to the world.
      At the same time, I don’t think that consensus of opinion is necessary, or even healthy. As long as those metaphorically at the table have a moral compass and a willingness to listen, why not spice up the conversation with variety? 🙂

      • Hi pit, some thoughts:

        “the world changed on 9-11″ This was the ‘official’ line right from the start. Not really true — so many bigger crimes, greater murders, as you say — but useful nonetheless (it happened to ‘us’) for the narrative of the deep state clan. DV often repeats Galtung’s quote “(sic) personal violence is for the amateur in dominance, structural violence is the tool of the professional”. They sent anthrax to Senators Daschle/Leahy to ensure rapid adoption of the Patriot Act which is an essential “tool” of the “structural violence”. These are “serious guys,” after all. What blinds the eye from the anti-war perspective is the horror of the inescapable realization that these guys would shoot their own children, our own children, us (killing NYC civilians, anthrax, etc.) to ‘win’ their point. The realization that ‘we’ are NOT higher class peasants in the global dominance game is the sticker and ‘American Exceptionalism’ is a key psychological tool to cover the crime.

      • plt,

        ” I really don’t understand why “the world changed on 9-11″- For the ‘deep state’ it had to change. The 7-8 yrs period post Cold War was the determinant.

        ” It was by far the most media-friendly false flag event in history, period.”- And that’s the real status… and how it was utilized.

        • Sibel,
          “for the DS, it had to change, etc.”
          I would very much like to hear you elaborate on this, or, if the point has already been belaboured, point me to earlier podcasts where I can become better informed!

      • @plt:
        I guess often when I refer to 9/11 I’m not necessarily referring to the event itself, but more sort of the pandora’s box that opens up when you look honestly and the factors involved as a whole. Most notably elements like the role of the CIA, the deep state, and so forth. There’s a certain amount of “in the know” or common knowledge that unifies certain schools of thought, be they more liberal leaning, libertarian, etc.

        When I refer to not having arrived at my state of understanding on these issues overnight, 9/11 might not be the best example. The day it happened, my initial response was that something on that scale couldn’t have happened without somebody purposefully ‘failing to connect the dots’ , but beyond that I was too stunned to speculate beyond that. So in this case each piece of knowledge eventually just expanded my understanding of the scope of what happened and my overall understanding of what I mean when I refer to 9/11 or conspiracies.

        I don’t believe that “the world changed” on 9/11 either. However, it changed the way I looked at the nature of the beast so to speak, in recognizing what had taken place almost as a declaration of war against the population at large. In my view the world changed to the extent that the powers that shouldn’t be were willing to push the envelope, particularly in targeting American citizens. That piece of the pie was perhaps was the hardest to swallow and digest for me personally, as a whole. Maybe this is what I’m referring to when I talk about coming to some of the conclusions I have about the way things work: that nothing is sacred.

        These days one of my primary concerns in terms of what I want to communicate to people is something like: look, you’re aware that things are this bad, but you need to understand that things are a lot worse than that. Like I said the idea that the government would sacrifice its own citizens, particularly for some of the ‘western’ countries who’ve largely had the luxury of looking at what our governments and military are willing to do elsewhere to achieve their goals either directly or by outsourcing the dirty work. My feeling in general is that the more people are willing to process and understand this reality for what it is, the less susceptible they/we as a society will be to getting jerked around and responding in the desired manner.

        I still don’t feel like I’m really getting at what I meant to address. I absolutely agree that variety of opinions is a good thing not a bad one. I’m not for sugar coating the truth by any means, but some of the areas that I’ve found repellent along the way in my search for the truth are people who’ve been too quick to draw conclusions and fail to qualify speculation as such.

        Again, I’m not really sure I’m capturing what it is I’m getting at, but I feel like a certain amount of self awareness is valuable in making the truth on a number of the issues we discuss here accessible to the general public who are well attended to with the kind of propaganda that assures you to look the other way and check out the latest political scandal or celebrity sex tape etc.

        The other half of my thoughts in the previous statement pertain to the sort of revolution/post-revolutionary discrepancies that hold all the potential to derail legitimate progress either by co opting, such as FBI snitches and NGO… players ;-), or post revolutionary domination by a group who’s common cause is limited and its predominant flaws prohibitive, such as the Iranian Revolution scenario. This is probably the more important part of my thoughts, but I’m going to part with those thoughts for now…

        • See… this is what I mentioned about going overboard. Oh well… 🙂

          • BennyB, I certainly wasn’t thinking of you when going off on that rant about Truthers! I wouldn’t have made the comment if I thought it applied to this crowd. I appreciated your observations, and they inspired an independent line of thinking upon which i immediately began expatiating. Unfortunately, in today’s aluminum-afflicted Alzheimer/Autism global hell (that’s AAAAGH! for short), it’s almost impossible for me to maintain a coherent train of thought. I should change the “plt” (which is pLt, not pit-as-in-bull, though they look identical) to “but I digress…”

          • @plt:
            Don’t worry about it! 🙂 I didn’t take it that way.Did I address you as pit? It is very difficult to discern, but that’s alright =]

          • Nope, wasn’t you, and it really doesn’t matter, except that the word pit conjures up images of: 1) overly-agressive dogs; 2) holes dug to bury garbage and excrement; and 3) EA Poe’s brutally shocking and shockingly brutal short story, replete with pendulum. I should change to upper case letters.

          • Might not be a bad idea if you want to avoid confusion, but it’s all a matter of what suits you…

    • 344thBrother says:

      @BennyB: Pardon me for being self evident here.

      Regarding the use of we. I think of it as “The royal we!” And my opinion on that all inclusive term is that “We” are the irate minority and “We” are in agreement that there’s a big problem (many of them) and things must be done to address this problem.

      The details and the specifics of how we define the problems and what we are groping toward in the terms of solutions is the journey we are on. To this end, we have a guide and ombudsman *Sibel* and a lot of travelers who want to go in many directions while still arriving at similar destinations.

      I guess this was a clunky euphemism to use.

      Bottom line is, “We” are the Boiling Frogs and “We” are the Irate Minority and “We” are NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANY MORE!

      Thank you “Network” for this apropos quote!!


  22. As in “The Psychology and Application of False Flag Attack in Modern Geopolitic”
    In relation to the equality of Putin and Russian secret services in present realPolitik:[Litvinenko/Felshtinsky : ‘Blowing up Russia.’]
    “It was they who unleashed the first and second Chechen wars, in order to divert Russia away from the path of democracy and towards dictatorship, militarism, and chauvinism. It was they who organized a series of vicious terrorist attacks in Moscow and other Russian cities as part of their operations intended to create the conditions for the first and second Chechen wars.
    The explosions of September 1999, in particular the terrorist attack that was thwarted in Ryazan on September 23, are the central theme of this book. These explosions provide the clearest thread for following the tactics and strategy of the Russian agencies of state security, whose ultimate aim is absolute power.”
    I don’t care how soft/hard OBAMA is. As president, he has presided over the COVER-UP of the greatest hate crime of the centuries. The constructed war against Islam. 911 is a trigger for the Utilization of hatred and fear against a nominated religion and people to further a ‘nation’s’ agenda and is against every civilized evolutionary DNA of justice and human progress.

    • remo,

      ‘911 is a trigger for the Utilization of hatred and fear against a nominated religion and people to further a ‘nation’s’ agenda and is against every civilized evolutionary DNA of justice and human progress.’- Well-said!

  23. Very much appreciate your words on Daniel Rllsberg.

  24. Action Alert (off Topic):

    For the past few weeks I have been thinking of possible ‘action items’ for our community. I have been looking for an ‘experimental’ action item that is not too big, and possibly local, thus, more ‘doable/action-able.

    I have come up with a possible action target/item. The State: Oregon. The Specific Target: The State of Oregon Judicial Review Board which has consistently earned one of the worst grades in the nation, appears to be biased/corrupt, and lacks transparency (100% secrecy).

    You can read a so-so (they tried to make it kind of shallow and mild) article on this here:

    I also know of (100% factual knowledge) a real-life example case.

    Why couldn’t people tackle this gov body with its disastrous record already established and public? Judicial independence and integrity is an extremely important issue. Of course, we all know how horrible is the state of our Federal Courts (on Gov Secrecy, whistleblowers, illegal spying, torture … you name it). The same applies to state and local courts. Yet, other than a few NGOs who do cursory and cosmetic work (supposed work) for issues of judicial accountability and integrity, we haven’t seen much public activism and attention on this issue.

    So, why not take on the issue via a small and fairly local target, do so together as a BFP activist community, try to mobilize local activists, and see where (how far) we can take this?

    As you can see we are not taking on a highly conspiratorial or controversial issue. I believe if you ask anyone how they feel/view corrupt/unethical judges and courts, you’d get supportive responses. This is what I mean by ‘taking on’ a smaller, more local, doable/action-able activism/action item.

    How would we tackle it?

    1- It will start with some research: We’ll need participation from all of you to accomplish this. We’ll gather all the data/facts: how the board is put in place, what are their operational guidelines/bylaws/rules, how can they be held accountable (considering their total secrecy), etc. We also need to dig for any historical cases/media coverage of the board.

    2- We have a solid real case: A test case that was brought before them. with all relevant facts and evidence and documents, yet, as they have been doing with 100s of cases a year, they refused to take it on and cited no reason, because their by-law says they do not have to provide why they refuse cases.

    3- We need to gather solid ‘legal opinions’ from the relevant experts: a- Legal professors who teach legal ethics/etc within the academia; b-NGO experts who work on supposed ‘oversight’: judicial integrity, Judicial Watch, etc. 3- Current and or retired attorneys

    Once we have created a well-organized (and easy to understand) documentation with the description of the target gov org, their operation & rules, the descriptions of what constitutes violations (conflict of interest, bias, corruption, integrity violations, etc.), together with legal opinions we have gathered and documented, we’ll move to Stage 2: Raising awareness locally, and invite local activists to join the action item.

    Stage 3: We’ll organize events (ex: gathering before the board’s office or AG office, giving short speeches, handing out our info sheets, etc.), and we’ll invite the local/state media bodies. I know this is very accomplishable in Oregon, and I know we will have decent media coverage.

    Stage 4: With the actions and media visibility (local) we’ll press on daily (the opposite of what we see happen with issues around the country: a couple of days of media coverage, and then, poof, the movement/issue goes away/dies down). We will be utilizing our site with live daily coverage. Those of you who can will utilize social networking mediums for updates and call for action, etc.

    Stage 5: We’ll see where we are at that point …

    Now, I just want to get general reaction and responses here on this proposal, first. If you are for it, then, we’ll have to figure out how we set up a section @ BFP (only available to our activist members) for this ongoing action item. We will post and organize our research and data in this section, provide updates, etc. I haven’t figured it out yet (being technologically challenged;-), but I promise I will.

    Now, ‘YOU.’

    • Sibel: ‘sounds really sharp. ‘depends on my cash flow, health, etc., but hitting the streets is crucial!

      • Ron,

        No fundraising would be required. At least for stage 1, 2,3. Basically, it will be time and participation: research, organizing & documenting findings, networking, help raise awareness & increase the number of participants, help gather needed legal opinions …

        If others get on board, after we accomplish the objectives within this small experimental project, it would be a good/solid real-life example of movements and actions without formal organizations (aka NGOs), deep state & mega business backers … It would accomplish far more than that: it would slap the ‘I know all this but what can ‘I’ do; there is nothing I can do’- the learned helplessness. It would be an example of ‘actions and small victories being achievable given the needed resolve and commitment.’ Maybe it will be a sample to be implemented by others in other states/locations. Maybe it would provide us with further ideas/potentials …

        • Sibel,
          I was only referring to my travel expenses.
          There is a fundamental reality that you must consider, Sibel. When I was involved with groups, protests, seminars, marches, etc. ,in 60s, 70s there was a lot of real time discussion face to face. I have never been involved in “organizing” on-line. My thing would be(if I had $ and better health) to fly to Portland about 4 days before the event and thrash things out to arrive at a consensus. My take on our commenters-including me-would assume a little friction here and there among us–that sure as hell was how it was in the 60s,70s.
          Therefore the most efficient way is more than collecting the right, most compelling info.: My experience with group dynamics tells me to urge commenters to get their concerns lined up and express them as this web process unfolds. And you have to except the fact, in this case, You are the guide, Sibel.
          Naturally, this would be a unique experience for those who are relatively new to such “gatherings” and I really hope they get involved. I’m just outlining the limits of this web to “location” process. More hard realities; but definitely worth a shot.


          Here’s some research re; how California handles retiring judges—spears to have more variables then Oregon

          • F******g typos

          • Ron,

            I have plenty of those here;-_ I am one of those Type A multi-task-ers, so usually I am doing two or three things at the same time. And sometimes I have my daughter sitting next to me talking, which she does nonstop (I really mean nonstop) leaving me totally dizzy …

    • Andrei Tudor says:

      I’m in.

    • steven hobbs says:

      Hi Sibel,
      Years ago, the most outspoken far left agitators resided around Berkeley and in the Deep South. Canada now has a most thriving activist community (seemingly more than in the US). Of course, all we get is blackout. Some Canadians and the Zapatistas are the most adept revolutionaries on the streets of this Northern Continent, or so it seems. There are many groups already here, already active. Like the deep state, I like to think global. Thank you for the suggested plan. I’m noodling it.

      I’ve avoided links, but I’d like to suggest this by the stimulator:

      I can imagine (with a quick read) how your plan might be a fitting praxis. Youth can often see more possibilities, take more risks, and be more open to change of paradigm or whatever. They get that way (possibly) due to daily trauma, and the precarious nature of their lives. I invite us to think together about how to be inclusive — without losing focus. What narrative might sway activists of the importance of big picture justice and truth, understanding deep state, to their? Some already know, but have a more immediate focus . How might we create alliances without subterfuge goals? Or, am I way off track

      Some requirements of a praxis seems (S.M.A.R.T. goals?), long and short term objectives within the following areas: personal learning and action objectives, internal community objectives (including but not limited to research and explication), and shared external objectives, and independent projects.

      Your experimental action seem to offer a number of process objectives:
      1. Building an active and thoughtful praxis with experienced activists.
      2. Building alliances with local justice groups and more;
      3. Building organizational capacity.
      4. Establishing BFP street cred.
      5. Internal and external community consciousness raising.
      6. Facilitating (our) community agency with media synergy.
      Something missed?

      Tell me if I’m overthinking this plan. I would like to think about it more than, “Stage 5: We’ll see where we are at that point.” It seems to me, being as specific as we can regarding where we want to be at each stage essential.

      At first blush, (I may sound like brother David) what is the benefit of reform of small arm of the beast? IMHO, reform is unlikely to get us where we want to go? The system is sick. What would we be looking to accomplish? What are our long range objectives?

      • Steven,

        “Tell me if I’m overthinking this plan.”- No. This is an important part of Stage 1: defining the objective(s) clearly, and putting together the map.

        “what is the benefit of reform of small arm of the beast?”- I wouldn’t call it ‘reforming.’ I rather think of it as ‘chopping’ the arm and replacing it. In this case: Other than the theoretical idea being sold with this board, everything else is rotten to start with. From the way the members are put in place, to their operation rules (all of them), to their procedures, to their complete secrecy, to being unanswerable to the public … It is one of those cases where the design and operation is 100% rotten, thus, it shows that the intentions were not to provide Judicial Overview/Check. The real intention was/is to: cover up the judicial corruption/crime while giving the illusion of having a system in place to prevent it.

        “What would we be looking to accomplish?”- Plenty. If successful, it will go a long way to counter the prevalent and chronic ‘learned helplessness’ (But there is NOTHING ‘I’ can do)trend. It will convert the thought process from: The impossibility of taking on the monster in its entirety at once, to, taking the different parts of the monster and then take on the crippled leftover (aka the head of the snake). If successful, it provides an alternative model to be pursued by others.

        I think starting our action item with something in chewable size (rather than a preposterously big one) might be a good idea. I am open to everyone’s feedback on this. And this will also show how serious we all are when we talk about: when are we going to take some action addition to all these talks/discussions/analyses. Based on past experiences: people are greatly dedicated and passionate about doing something during the ‘talk stage.’ When the time comes, when the opportunity presents itself to put all those words into some action, however little, we get to see less than 5% of them. I am hoping for a different experience this time;-)

        • steven hobbs says:

          Hi Sibel,
          Thank you for your thoughtful response. I like the way this is unfolding, and want to begin gaining knowledge of the geography of this project, so to speak, before further developing our objective(s), and the path(s) to achievement. Time for me to start some exploration.

          • steven,

            Oregon is known as ‘progressive’ state. We just legalized Marijuana. Environmentalism is big all over the state. Oregonian (Oregon Live): has been pretty decent (relatively speaking; compared to other states’ main publications). Localiterianism is also a major movement.

            Now with all that, for a state that prides itself as so good/clean/progressive compared to the rest, to have a horrible record on judiciary and its overview should stink them big time. So far it hasn’t. Partly it is due to not having enough media/alternative media coverage.

            Let’s not forget: we have had more members committing to the NW area than anywhere else;-)

            I think the state is ripe for an important action item like this. I invite those of you who live in OR and have far more experience to chime in and let me know what you think.

            While we are at it let’s talk about the worst scenario: We do all this work and ‘nothing’ happens. So what? It will still be positive: we learn from our experience. We’ll be up from where we started not ‘down.’ The key: we’ll keep at it … after each small setback/defeat, we’ll stand up, dust ourselves, and keep it at again. Can’t we? Of course, we can. Will we? Let’s see and find out.

    • Katie Stewart says:

      I’m in, any way I can help. I’m a native Oregonian, so all things Oregon are near and dear, and I’m here in Bend. And, as an “activist in training” I like the idea of something relatively small and local to tackle. 🙂

      • This is cool. It’s something proactive and positive and I agree with the sentiment that tackling specific issues at a local level is the most practical area to actually get things done. Direct democracy if you will. I’m not from Oregon, but I’ll keep in mind ways I might be able to help. =]

      • Katie,

        Thank you!

        I just finished recording our coming episode, and at the end of the episode I have a brief overview of the project: what & why(s). Once we have that episode up (It should be up by tomorrow afternoon), and we get additional responses/reactions, I will start an e-mail group to discuss the initial first stage and create a doable first few small steps. You will definitely be on that group e-mail list. Once we do that, I’ll e-mail you separately, and we’ll arrange a time/place to meet. There is one other lady from our beautiful city Bend (Robbie). I’ll make sure to give her a head up as well (I still owe her an e-mail!! soon!). We have several other Oregonians as well.

        Keep in mind everyone, as emphasized in our next episode, you don’t have to be Oregonian to participate and help. So much of this initial work will involve: research, organizing our research and findings, creating/coming up with the best way to conduct an interesting survey/poll, gathering expert legal opinions (active-retired judges, legal ethics academic experts, retired/active attorneys, etc.) … after that stage we will need help with dissemination (articles, reports, action alerts), social networking, some technology related stuff …

        We are going to approach this is small and sure steps, methodically; without overwhelming big chunks or fuzzy/abstract objectives. And yes, with each small step successfully taken, with each stage accomplished, we’ll pause and breath and celebrate. We will resist and fight frustration. We will refrain from engaging in too fast/too exhausting approaches- we’ll pace ourselves logically. Our successes will be measured in little chunks/pieces, thus, there will be no ‘failure’ states. Sure- we will make mistakes, and we’ll find out about them and learn from them, but there won’t be such a thing as ‘failed.’ Why? Because it is not one of those media headline temporary, short-term, action items- we won’t let it go- we’ll keep at it.

  25. CuChulainn says:

    this is a website recommended by Tjeerd Andringa in his recent podcast with James Corbett, it addresses many of the issues raised here

  26. Sibel;
    Oregon needs to establish a system whereby All judges are elected! If there is a moody and “compromised” Governor, entropy sets in. A first Question for me would be, “How do states that get “A” ratings operate? In the end, Oregon citizens must have their say. There could be a temporary judge put in place on probation until a special election is scheduled, etc., etc.

    • Ron,

      Yes, but even with elections, there has to be a transparent process-based oversight.

      You know, I used to value ‘elected judge’ process/option. However, since moving to Bend, I see that in the end it doesn’t make any difference (Or very little; once-in-a-while). Here, in Bend, for elections two things matter most: 1- Endorsement; 2- Money. Then, we have to boil it down to 1 thing: Endorsement, because that’s the way to get ‘the big’ money. The ones who get the endorsement of the big pocket, interest, bosses, get the visibility in the local media (shockingly(!!!), the media here endorses the ones endorsed by the big money/big interest). So, once they get the ‘system’ people’s endorsement, thus, the media’s spotlight/coverage, then, they get all the big money, and then, they get to be the elected ones. It seems like, in the end, we get the big interest/big money/the system’s men, whether they are elected or appointed. You get the same psychopaths liked, approved and endorsed by the mega psychopaths.

      • Sibel;
        I agree with everything you say! Psychopaths, big money, the “old boy network”…and it usually gets worse…blackmail regarding male or female prostitutes, pedophilia(check out the British aristocracy). I could go on such a rant for pages ; but who wants to listen?
        So “we”(whoever is interested) do a “thing”, notwithstanding the futility of it all. “The play is the thing” (Hamlet)”
        First you must articulate the goal. Then investigations, searching for allies, reporters, information, etc. Don’t you assume, like me, the deep state , in a sense, is the State?
        More information–this is 7 pages long and is critical of why can there be no serious vetting of the Oregon court/justice system.

        • Sibel: You have articulated the goal! Sorry, another damn sr. moment!

        • steven hobbs says:

          Hi 344Bro,
          “The details and the specifics of how we define the problems and what we are groping toward in the terms of solutions is the journey we are on. To this end, we have a guide and ombudsman *Sibel* and a lot of travelers who want to go in many directions while still arriving at similar destinations.” – Well said, Bro. Many roots to this tree.
          “Bottom line is, “We” are the Boiling Frogs and “We” are the Irate Minority and “We” are NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANY MORE!” — As much as, I don’t want to take it anymore, what other choice? “Take it,” and stand up again. Some days I feel a biologically traumatized (learned) helpless frog, other days I’m an odd one jumping out of pan yell’n back to others.
          “First you must articulate the goal. Then investigations, searching for allies, reporters, information, etc. Don’t you assume, like me, the deep state, in a sense, is the State?” – Spot on.
          Curious about how your link related to Oregon Judicial Fitness and Disability Board? My first question on a very cursory look, how is the volunteer pool invited, who selects the volunteers, what are their agreements, how long is their term?

          “So “we”(whoever is interested) do a “thing”, notwithstanding the futility of it” – Being a rebel is more invigorating than surrendering, also healthier, building auto-immune function, stamina, excitement, community, and liberty potential, to say nothing of praxis.

        • steven hobbs says:

          Hi Ron,
          Got it. Yes. This is an example of a poor judicial decision (without retraction?), egregious and disturbing. Please walk us through this comment, “More information–this is 7 pages long and is critical of why can there be no serious vetting of the Oregon court/justice system.” in regards to vetting. How does this one case demonstrate there can be no serious vetting?

          • Steve; embarrassing mistake(probably a sr. moment) on my part. “Vet” is not the word I meant to use as in “to vet”, examine carefully–usually one person at a time before they can fill a position
            . I simply meant to send this article as a critique of Oregon court system. Concerns/criticisms regarding online review opinions, etc.
            I was searching for possible allies who may know other things about a “D” rated court/justice system. And I did notice an attorney’s phone no at end of article.

        • Ron,

          I read that. That delves into ‘court decisions.’

          For our action item we are going to be very exact, precise. The most important thing to read & understand is: The Oregon Commission on Judicial Fitness and Disability. They make it clear: The investigations and cases are limited to ONLY the judge’s qualification (conflict of interest, corruption, etc.), and that does not include any complaints/cases re: Judge’s decisions. Meaning: They are not there to process complaints/reports in judges’ decisions.

          When we take on an area/institution: It is extremely important to be PRECISE/EXACT. If we start throwing everything but the kitchen sink we’ll be defeated before we begin. Thus, I keep emphasizing ‘scope/limit/well–defined.

          My suggestion: Read their site, their process, their rules … and begin focusing what it within that scope. For example: They say something like ‘Complainants/whistleblowers can submit their case/report and request for investigation on a particular judge’s integrity/fitness/corruption/ conflict of interest. We meet only once every 1 or 2 months, read these reports/complaints, and then send the complainant a letter saying whether we are taking the case or not. When we refuse/decline a case we will not cite any reasons…’

          That goes into: Transparency/secrecy, but also unaccountability/lack of oversight. The commissions are telling the media that they only receive complaints on judges’ decisions, thus, they have very few investigations/cases, and that reports/complaints with solid corruption/conflict of interest are very rare (almost nonexistent). There is no way anyone can disprove this (currently), since all complaints are secret, and all decision letters they sent are secret and cryptic.

          Based on a direct awareness of a slam-dunk conflict of interest case (a judge), and based on my research (online forums, etc.), I know what they are claiming is absolutely ‘False.’ That, they do receive very credible/documented cases of judicial corruption, but they cover up for the judges, by Not investigating the case, and declining the case in secrecy with no reason cited.

          So what I am trying to say is this: Time is precious. We do NOT want to shoot everywhere, take on too many unrelated angles/issues/points. We want to take them on with Precise/solid/focused steps.

      • Sibel:
        See my 3-15 at 11:48 to Steve.. I’ll await for some suggestions by you. I was just seeing what I could come up with on the web regarding Oregon’s court system.

        • steven hobbs says:

          Hi Ron, excuse me for butting in. Your clarification is much appreciated. Would you expect attorneys’ numbers? I’m not on the inside of this guild. The case you reference, (provocatively) diminishes free speech. An excellent example of State/Corp control, i.e. fascist dictate.

          • Steve: I guess Sibel will go to Episode no 17 anytime. She wants us to study, I believe, The Oregon Commission on Judicial Fitness and Disability—see my link 4-16 11:48

  27. Elections without endorsement and big money? with transparent oversight ?
    true revolution.

  28. stevan topping says:

    Thank you for the podcast. If Sibel hadn’t gone through the illusory channels with regards her case, maybe X amount of people would still assume these State actors to be honourable. Doing so has been/is immensely valuable in the long run. Lets stop policing one another, the monstrosity is disintegrating. Maybe that’s why things appear to be getting worse, because ‘their’ whole structure is falling apart and they are going all out still clinging on. Hey, laughter, life and love to you all.

  29. While we are at it let’s talk about the worst scenario: We do all this work and ‘nothing’ happens. So what? It will still be positive: we learn from our experience. We’ll be up from where we started not ‘down.’ The key: we’ll keep at it … after each small setback/defeat, we’ll stand up, dust ourselves, and keep it at again. Can’t we? Of course, we can. Will we? Let’s see and find out.

    May I have a say on those two ??..
    Can’t we?
    Will we?
    Yes We can Do this…Because of This Forum.
    End of Story.
    Thank You Sibel, for giving a little person like me, a voice.
    Kind Regards from my Island Bornholm.

  30. Question:

    Has anyone had problem with site loading today? We had on and off loading problem all day. We checked with our Server/Hosting provider and they showed no problem … Please let me know-it will help with troubleshooting.

    Many Thanks

    • 344thBrother says:

      I do find it interesting how far your clock on this site is off. I’m on Pacific Standard as are you and I’m reading 8:02 and your post is (same day) 9:35

  31. No problems loading.

  32. CuChulainn says:

    1) do Sibel or others have a sense of how complicit/conscious Graham is of his participation in the Big Lie? Chussodovsky (below) says very, i am not sure—

    2) John & mandela, there is a new annotated edition of Guy Debord’s Society of the Spectacle, and now an English translation of the Commentaries on the Society of the Spectacle–the latter work, written in 1988, is the best thing i have read on terrorism

    • steven hobbs says:

      Hi CuChu,
      ” complicit/conscious Graham is of his participation in the Big Lie?” — I agree Graham is not trustworthy. My impression: he likes to get out in front of news revelations and then use them for his own, and “Big Lie” ends. It’s hard to tell how much he is a simple minded cold calculating psychopath, and how much a narcissistic seeking great attention and using others to get it. He had been involved with a 9/11 group (don’t remember the name now) taken their money and then backed out of the project at the last minute. That might have been explainable one way or another, but not the fact that he refused to return the stipend he received.

    • My unmarinated take on this is that the US is deep into reconsidering their marriage to the Wahabis in the Kingdom of the house of Saud. Before they and their buds took down the price of oil to put a big hurt on ‘axis of evil” members such as Russia, Iran, and Venezuela, the fracking boom left the US feeling so flush with domestic oil that they were looking at exporting oil and saying nyet to the keystone pipeline deal with Canada AND I think, maybe jettisoning the unquestioning total alliance with SA as no longer worth the price as SA has in recent years become more militant in demands of the Pindos. The Pindos are now doing all sorts of things that are of great pain to SA – Iran talks, no longer pushing hard for Assad ouster, hugely increasing oil production, and etc. This silly business of putting the blame for 9/11 on SA might be part of a new policy of pivoting away from them, which is always done through demonization. If this is correct Graham would be a natural choice to lead such a psyop. While SA financed and helped carry out 9/11, as Sibel saw, all was known in advance and covered up. They were just doing US bidding, just as they did in their help in creating ISIS. After all there are limits to how much money can be raised for black ops through CIA drug running. We need cash rich friends with no conscience. We better not pivot too far away from them or we could lose control of both the cash and oil spigots they control.

      And thanks Cuchu, I had already gotten the annotated version and it is a new voice for me.

      • In my opinion, as suggested, the Saudi’s days are numbered. Soon enough they will become the next Saddam Hussein. In this instance making a case for their providing material support for terrorism won’t be particularly difficult (to put it mildly), but the 9/11 documents will eventually surface when someone, probably Bob Graham, will get to play the role of the hero and “force” officials to make the documents available to the public, because gosh this is America, we have a free and open press and, dagnabbit, the American people have a right to know! =p

        In all seriousness, the idea of selective document disclosures regarding the Saudis, once it becomes strategically convenient absolutely disgusts me beyond words.

        • BennyB, nice send up on Graham and completely plausible.

          “…because gosh this is America, we have a free and open press and, dagnabbit, the American people have a right to know!” Still laughing.

          • Thank PeterM, glad you approved 😉

            I’m looking forward to Peter B’s interview with Bob Graham. I can’t help but get a chuckle out of the fact that in one corner of BFP Bob Graham will be given what I’m sure will be a thorough but respectful interview by the ever professional Peter B Collins, while over here he’s being skinned alive. It speaks to the strength of having a variety of different perspectives.

          • Benny,

            Peter’s intro addresses all this ever so effectively, and professionally. You’ll love it.

  33. Graham?
    The farmer looks to the land
    as the butcher does the lamb.
    Whatever game is being played, Graham is balls deep in it.

  34. excellante’

  35. Hi Sibel,

    I dont know if you’ve been tracking Ukraine much lately but it appears to be turning into another Turkey with the manner in which dissidents are dealt with.

    “At least six former Ukrainian government officials from Yanukovych’s time have died over the past two months in various circumstances that police have said were most likely suicides.”

  36. Molly Freze says:

    THANK YOU FOR YOUR BRILLIANCE, SIBEL. This was perfectly stated.

  37. Ronald Orovitz says:

    Curious as to what everyone’s take is on the Mr. Smith goes to Washington on a gyro-cycle incident yesterday… It looks like an act of civil disobedience that was permitted to happen (a LIHOP, if you will). Doug Hughes is the VP of a 501(c)3 (not a mega-foundation, though it might be worth a look into who its donors are)… -just giving the site a cursory review, it addresses certain obvious problems with Washington, but not others less obvious (to the moderate middle), such as the out-of-control secrecy that facilitates the corruption that this org seeks to address.

    If Mr. Hughes should become a folk hero, whether or not he’s a real deal, this could be to the benefit of other genuine grass-roots efforts, including the one initiated here concerning judicial review boards.

    • steven hobbs says:

      Hi Ronald O,
      Can’t speak for everyone. My two cent: as imperial psychopaths gain overt dominance at everymans expense, desperation spreads in the territories. Some good hearts look in the rear-view mirror, nostalgically wishing an idealized representative democracy and act courageously — sometimes cunningly. Those folks do’t realize the ruse. And they end (in some ways) contributing to another subterfuge, diluting systemic focus on power, $, and global rebellion. Deep State doesn’t mind if people learn civility, that’s not THEIR currency.

      • Ronald Orovitz says:

        Yeah, some “good hearts look in the rear-view mirror” and fancy themselves in a Norman Rockwell painting, or a Jimmy Stewart film. Really though, supposing he should galvanize Joe Q. Public, why not seize that moment from the grass roots up against whatever attempts will be made from the top down?

        • steven hobbs says:

          Hi Ronald Or,
          “..supposing he should galvanize Joe Q. Public, why not seize that moment ” Absolutely! Timing is crucial.
          Stages (Bill Moyer):
          • Critical social problem exists
          • Prove failure of official institutions
          • Ripening conditions
          • Take off
          • Perception of failure
          • Majority public opinion

          Seems to me, we are in “ripening conditions.” This is only one map for our situation. I’m not presenting it as fact. I didn’t even think of it. Just to spark conversation. IMHO, seeding during the ripening conditions is optimal.

          • Ronald Orovitz says:

            Wayne Madsen has a story up today answering the “Cui bono?” question – apparently Raytheon’s JLENS surveillance blimp program was slated to have its funding cut, but in the aftermath of this incident, it will likely be expanded…

            But as I commented over there, it would be nice to have some blow-back in the form of a national movement to clean up Washington…

  38. Folks – this may be the laugh of the century. A new term:” Weaponized Information” that a US Congress sub-committee is looking into. To my way of thinking any thoughts by anyone (such as ourselves) could fit nicely into this category. Apparently any information that does not follow the US Government line, is automatically information “weaponized” to hurt the empire. 🙂 Good Grief Charlie Brown!!!

    • Dennis,
      “Apparently any information that does not follow the US Government line, is automatically information “weaponized” to hurt the empire.”- Exactly. Do you know how many times I’ve been told by people in congress (Waxman, Leahy, etc.) and in the media, that ‘your case is just way too “explosive” to delve into/investigate…’? ‘Weaponized’, ‘explosive’ … seems to be all that.

    • steven hobbs says:

      Hi Dennis,
      Thank you so much for the link. You are probably aware F. Hollande (French Pres) declared anyone speaking of false flags, or gov. conspiracies may be subject to charges of terrorism. Here in the belly, Homeland Security (in their documents) has stated that those who espouse such things may be terrorists in the making. I kinda wish for the old days when it was simply “sedition.” Gotta give it to the consliglieri wordsmiths.

      • CuChulainn says:

        Op Phoenix was terrorism called an “anti-terrorist operation,” the Kiev nutters are calling the people of SE Ukraine terrorists, as a pretext for unleashing terrorism against them.
        “all individual reality has become social reality directly dependent on social power and shaped by it. It is allowed to appear only to the extent that it is not.”–debord

  39. CuChulainn says:

    now the nazis have killed Buzine, an admirable and truly patriotic ukrainian thinker; Poroshenko’s claims of Russian provocation are especially ludicrous, since Putin does what he can to surrender
    how similar to what happened south of the Pontos in the 80’s, where the terrorist regime murdered “terrorist” intellectuals

  40. CuChulainn says:
    • Nice to have a whistleblower confirm the inept investigation. I’ve been wondering lately about why the anthrax perps used US anthrax. ABC led the phony allegation of “bentonite” and tried to link it to Iraq, so why wouldn’t the perps go all-in and construct an attack anthrax that could at least mimic an Iraqi source? Most of 9/11 shows careful planning, but oddly not in this case. Surely they understood the possibility of what forensic tests would reveal (Ames strain), or did they think they could control the science as they have so far been able to in the public’s mind on 9/11? It’s like borrowing someone else’s gun to commit a gun crime and then returning it, i.e., leverage. Second, Robert Stevens anthrax death is mysterious. Others apparently were exposed (type/illness/treatment? I don’t know) and AMI offices were contaminated, but no letter found. Too many reasons that if a letter existed at AMI it would have been kept. My hypothesis based on speculation is that Stevens may have known too much about the Irish’s contact via Gloria Irish’s real estate work that connected her to the alleged hijackers (two directly and nine total). I do believe as MacQueen does that unraveling the anthrax attack can pull the whole 9/11 – anthrax operation down.

  41. Carter Wessman says:

    What’s up with CIA director Leon Panetta saying that the screen was blacked out? Seeing how it casts doubt on the photo up, I don’t understand why he would do such a thing.

    • Carter,

      Welcome to our BFP activist forum.

      A good question. We discussed the points on ‘smoke & mirrors.’ I’ll throw another possible hypothesis: Sometimes the gov do things like this in order to preempt a whistleblower or other internal leaks. Here is how the process for Media-US Gov goes: Let’s say a couple of insiders tip off a media outlet about there being NO live/video coverage. The media outlet then contacts the gov PR office (CIA PR office or WH PR office, etc.) to let the gov know that they have received such info, and seek for comments (It is like giving a heads up to their bosses). At this point, depending on the strength of the leak (Was it backed by more than 1 leaker; did the leak come with documents, etc.), the gov is in this situation to either: 1- Deny (and if the leak is solid, face major black eye situation), or, 2- Cut a deal with the media outlet, and preempt the leakers. Why? It is far worse for them to be exposed by leaker/whistleblowers, than, have one of their players come out and put out the info. Think about it, the majority would say something like: ‘Yah, but may be it was some misunderstanding to begin with, since they, themselves, came out with the contradictory info …’

Speak Your Mind