BFP Roundtable Video 3– Alternative Media: Alternative to What & Independent of Whom?

Alternative to what and independent of whom? These are the questions that are seldom asked of the pseudo-alternative, foundation-funded and establishment-dependent "alternative" media. Today on the BFP Roundtable, Sibel Edmonds, Peter B. Collins, Guillermo Jimenez and James Corbett discuss the meltdown of the dinosaur media paradigm and how the establishment is using the pseudo-alternatives to continue to forward their agenda. We also discuss ways of counteracting this and positing real solutions to the problems we are facing.

FB Like

Share This

This site depends….

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

Comments

  1. Mgrdichian says:

    IMO, critiquing “mainstream” vs. “alternative” media is pursuing a dead-end paradigm. The problem I see is a historic myth that media in America is and should be unbiased. Nothing could be further from reality. The references to people like P.T. Barnum and Mark Twain demonstrate that intellectuals throughout our history have recognized the problems and dynamics associated with mass media. Peter B. touched on this at the beginning and the end of the roundtable. All media is inherently biased — in America and everywhere. And there’s nothing wrong with that. European cultures came to terms with this a long time ago. I think publications like The National Review and The Nation serve as noteworthy models moving forward, albeit with a 21st century upgrade. Each admittedly represent a defined POV — one conservative, the other liberal (or progressive, whatever that means). Unfortunately, liberalism and conservatism have all but lost their meaning, along with the fact that the issues we’re faced with today transcend a “two-party” dynamic, but the idea of a self-defined perspective is, IMO, still a useful model. The more we can shatter the “unbiased” myth and force media outlets to stand by and acknowledge their biases, the easier it will be for ordinary citizens to process their own thoughts about the ideas being presented to them. So the pressure on Fox and MSNBC to come out of the closet and admit their bias needs to continue. Likewise, pressure on National Public Radio and Public Television, which falsely present themselves as “non-commercial (aka non-corporate),” needs to continue. I believe if, as a society, we can learn to recognize and acknowledge our biases in media without being mean-spirited or accusatory, we will approach the ideals of a truly open society in which plurality and diversity is out strength. In that light I say to BFP, define yourself. Where is your bias? Be proud of it. And let everyone else do the same.

    Individual reporters and journalists live in a different realm. Typically, lots of good journalists have historically contributed to a variety of outlets throughout their careers. That doesn’t need to change, but what does need to happen is creating and supporting new models of compensation to these journalists. Here is where self-defined media outlets play an important role, because each has a loyal constituency, and that constituency needs to be encouraged and reminded to ante up.
    That’s all for now.

    • Hi Mgrdichian,

      I’m wondering if we can admit our bias but push to get rid of it at the same time? The whole idea of having an open mind, and independent critical thinking, is that we continually push to throw off the shackles of our duck-ness.

      Luckily, the publisher at BFP is very responsive to criticism. Not to say blown with the breezes, but open to criticism. So, the members can exercise their critical thinking and continually help make this a better institution.

      We recently saw the termination of one of the contributing author relationships, after member responses pointed out some hypocrisy. Can you believe it? Wow. This is exactly what we need – a fluid, responsive structure, that is able to evolve. I don’t think that would happen as often, if BFP were to define and then attempt to live within their bias. Unless that bias is simply towards independence and critical thinking, with respect for its membership.

      • Thomas Wonsetler says:

        Yes, their “bias” is truth, honesty, fairness, human rights, compassion, wisdom and a healthier and more benign world, rather than the deceit, corruption, fascism, neo nazism, oppression, mind control, exploitation, raping, pillaging, murdering, and plundering of the world and a global empire of genocidal maniacs and psychopatic, sociopathic scumbags ! ! ! ITS OBVIOUS WHAT THEIR “BIAS” IS ! ! !

  2. CuChulainn says:

    I can’t agree with those whom GJ who cites at 23:30 saying it would psychologically healthier to choose illusion over reality, but to know what e.g. Sibel knows one needs all the more equanimity as taught for example by http://www.dhamma.org/en/code.shtml
    “If a defilement such as anger arises, one always tries to find the external cause – ‘This person has abused me. That is why anger has arisen and I have become agitated.’ But the cause of your anger, the cause of your misery, is not outside. When you begin to look within, you will clearly understand that there is a link between the external event and the misery that has arisen within. When that link is observed, one gains understanding about it and learns to remove the cause of one’s misery.”
    http://www.vridhamma.org/en2001-01

    • tonywicher says:

      CuChulainn,

      I appreciate the Buddhist philosophy. Self-awareness is absolutely critical. But still, can you say that to people who are starving? Can you say that to a mother whose family has just been droned at a wedding party?

      • CuChulainn says:

        The question is how to gain the equanimity to act positively, rather than merely reacting. This faculty is as important to those who suffer as to those who would help them.

    • Thomas Wonsetler says:

      I agree with your first sentence, that its NOT healthier to be distracted by garbage entertainment then to focus on what really matters and create a better world. But the rest of your comment, what I would call psuedo Buddhism is repulsive. I have a lot of respect for true Buddhism, but blaming people for getting upset or angry when bad things happen is mean and sickening ! So if someones children are kidnapped and murdered they shouldnt be upset or angry ? ! Or if someone screws you over ? ! What a crock of shit ! All that is is a psuedo new age twist on real Buddhism, trying to turn people into passive little robots and zombies with little or no feelings, and calling them Buddhists ! ! ! Another example of religious brainwashing and mind control, with nothing to do with actual growth and developement toward real spiritual enlightenment or Nirvana ! New agers are infamous for saying these sickening and abusive kinds of things, until somebody screws them over or something bad happens to them, the guys an asshole and there upset and angry ! Such hypocrites ! ! ! Stop trying to turn people into passive little faggots(and by faggots I dont mean gays) and calling it “spiritual” ! Its disgusting ! Another example of religious oppression and mind control !

  3. tonywicher says:

    Hi Mgrdichian,

    I appreciate your contribution to the discussion and I totally disagree with you. Truth is that which exists absolutely. It is eternally independent of opinion, bias, culture and conditioning. What makes us human is that we have minds capable of discovering the truth, and the existence and progress of civilization depends on this. But are also full of prejudices, biases, preconceptions, fears, desires, ambitions. All of these things obscure the truth from us. Jesus said he came to bear witness to the truth. Pilate replied ‘What is truth?” and washed his hands. Only those to whom truth is the highest priority, who will sacrifice position, money, prestige and ultimately their lives for it will find it. This is the kind of dedication I look for. I see this characteristic in Sibel Edmonds, and this is why I support BFP. Not that Sibel is an oracle of truth – I have often disagreed with her – but that her deep intention is to discover, tell, and live the truth. This is the meaning of integrity. This is what makes these discussions so worthwhile.

    • Amen, tw. And I happen to think that, inside many people, there is a puzzle piece that will latch onto the ever-growing picture being built here. The more who join the faster it grows.

      One question I have is whether or not BFP and its members should put some resources into advertising. Is word of mouth preferable to mass advertising, in terms of what kind of membership we end up with? I keep thinking about billboards. Thoughts?

  4. Imants Virsnieks says:

    Keep doing what you are doing; telling the truth! You will inspire others. Yes. ” nullification rocks”!

  5. I hope I will have time to comment this roundtable later. Your talk made me think about the german philosopher Peter Sloterdijk´s book “Critique of Cynical Reason” where he analysed the sentiments within the greman society just before WWII. And then a study of Aldous Huxley where he showed that “the media” lets say MSM can manipulate/control more or less the mayority of population on the “normal curve” exept 20 % that insist on thinking for themselves. I will return later with more precise comments that I hope can be of som help. Thank you for an exellent talk.

  6. Mgrdichian says:

    Xicha
    People in media are terminated often, sometimes for legitimate public concerns, sometimes due to internal politics and sometimes for reasons more nefarious.

    To answer your primary question, no, you can’t successfully push to eliminate bias and also adhere to your own bias, and that’s my point…. don’t try to do the impossible.

    Let’s look at another comment from this roundtable discussion. At one point, Sibel brings up the “N” word — nullification. Here, Sibel accurately presents some of the different viewpoints that swirl around the concept of nullification. But in the end, she takes a stand and is quite cogent in defense of her position. She could have tried to be “unbiased” by attempting to accommodate all of the viewpoints around that concept, but she didn’t. She took a stand and expressed her predisposition (bias) concerning nullification. My observations of media show me that when someone tries to accommodate all sides of an issue as a general rule (be unbiased), the issues get watered down and the potency of all perspectives is drained. And when that happens, nothing gets done. To me, that’s the primary problem with MSM, and it’s based on the myth that media needs to be unbiased.

    Analyzing media is a complex endeavor. Media has many forms and structural dynamics and quite often they overlap. There is print vs. radio vs. TV vs. internet, all of which use different mechanisms to tell a story. And within each there are also various dynamics. There is news vs. commentary vs. entertainment. While it is true that the general public has been somewhat dumbed down, they are also quite aware. Those who love the tabloids don’t pretend they are something they are not. People know the tabloids are sensationalized trash, they just happen to enjoy them. IMO if NYT readers exercised the same honesty as tabloid readers, we would be much better off.

    I think new media has evolved quite well, much to the chagrin of those who like to manipulate media. And my exposure to young journalists shows they are as idealistic as ever. So in my view the singularly most important concern is how are we going to sustain venues (like BFP) where honest journalists can get paid well for their honesty. IMO everything else is merely fodder for the pundits and serves no long-term objectives.

    And I don’t know why you think the termination to which you refer would not have happened if BFP was more forthright and defined about their perspective. You need to elaborate on that, I don’t see your point.

    • I was going to point you to the article, but it looks like it has been removed from BFP. Anyway, Norman Solomon, wrote a piece here called “Is MoveOn Less Progressive Than the New York Times Editorial Board?” After comments from Knarf, WobblyOne, and me, Sibel wrote the following:

      I see, and I have to admit: I agree with you.

      We just took out Mr. Solomon’s bio & author’s page as our ‘regular contributing authors.’ I see he is going to be happy with that as well.

      We don’t like hypocrisy here, so the last thing we want to do: be hypocrites.

      I think there’s a difference between being forthright and defined in perspective, and embracing your bias. Perspective should be aligned with truth (see tonywicher’s comment above), and should change if warranted. This is critical thinking and honesty, not necessarily bias. That’s why Sibel can’t be pegged easily as a duck, though many have tried.

      Also, being independent and thinking critically doesn’t mean presenting all sides, in an effort to appear unbiased. In this, I agree with your sentiment. It gives unnecessary credence to invalid viewpoints and muddies the water. I still think there is a distinction between expressing a singular opinion and embracing bias. Maybe we are saying similar things and some of this is semantics? Take a look at this definition of bias:

      a particular tendency or inclination, especially one that prevents unprejudiced consideration of a question; prejudice.

    • Also, when you answered my question, I think you may have misinterpreted it. Here is my question:

      I’m wondering if we can admit our bias but push to get rid of it at the same time?

      and here is how you described my question, in your response:

      To answer your primary question, no, you can’t successfully push to eliminate bias and also adhere to your own bias, and that’s my point…. don’t try to do the impossible.

      Notice that I used the word ‘admit’ and you used the word ‘adhere’.

      • Mgrdichian says:

        It may all be semantics.

        Let me say this. I am anti-war under any and all circumstances. Whenever I write something public, and I do from time to time, I will be admitting and adhering to that bias. I totally disagree with pro-war advocates, but I want to live in a society where their views can be expressed as fervently as mine. The argument I’m making is that if media outlets were more honest and public about their perspectives, then honest dialogue would be more accepted. Kinda like the early days of Bill Mahr’s Politically Incorrect. Mahr navigated discussion but wasn’t afraid to put his position out there. It was a wildly popular program for good reason. Then the network stepped in and said you can’t do that. He crossed a line and paid for it. He touched some nerves back then and In my view that’s the perspective that will touch the right nerves to bring about change. If the PTB didn’t think that type of dialogue would rattle the cage, he wouldn’t have been shut down.

        Truth? I often refer back to Joe Pesci’s portrayal of David Ferrie in the movie JFK, in which he said, “Who killed, Kennedy, who killed Kennedy…. the fu#%ing shooters don’t even know.”

  7. Mgrdichian says:

    One more point. One of the most serious concerns about media, which has been around forever, is discerning news from commentary and speculation. This has been made exponentially more problematic due to vast reach of the internet. So it’s more important than ever to make clear distinctions between the two and be ardent in the practice of that discipline.

  8. Mihiri Lim says:

    James, for your question, how to reach a wider audience without resorting to msm tactics- vsauce (one of your recommended you tube videos from newsletter ) got 3 million hits in 3 days and seems to have a great following. All his videos are about 10mins, factual and humourous. Just a thought.

  9. interested in truth says:

    Thank you all for your dedication and hard work….i appreciate having a place to come to that I trust ….it is refreshing to hear facts and solutions discussed without the “fear-mongering” that are on other sites. Could you in the future give your listeners some input on how to “know” who to listen to….it gets very discouraging just trying to discern the truth from the lies….
    Keep up the good work and I look forward to supporting you…..

    • Hi interested in truth,

      One of the most important things that Sibel has been trying to drive home, when it comes to information sources, is the funding. Take a look at how the source is funded and you might get an idea about the bias of the information, which is sometimes cleverly disguised.

      Also, always consider the concept of controlled opposition when evaluating the motivations for the delivery of the information. This is used as a release valve for pressure building up in a particular population. Give them something to feel good about, while omitting underlying facts and/or creating a perception of success, while dissuading further critical thought.

      My 2 cents.

  10. Mark Green says:

    That was a very interesting show Sibel.
    Lots of food for thought.

    I know where you are coming from when you say you don’t think you could hang around for another 3-5 years here without seeing any real change.

    But as you said, it’s all about baby-steps.
    Set some realistic goals.
    Set up a plan of attack.
    Enlist the troops.
    Make it happen.

    On another note.

    Before I read this in Xicha’s post above:
    “One of the most important things that Sibel has been trying to drive home, when it comes to information sources, is the funding. Take a look at how the source is funded and you might get an idea about the bias of the information, which is sometimes cleverly disguised.”

    I started thinking about the following as a bit of a tongue-in-cheek prank. But the more I thought about it, the more it actually sounded like a reasonable (nothing ventured, nothing gained) overture.

    I recommend that you (Sibel) write a letter (possibly an open one) to Mr. Omidyar and make a pitch to him.

    Tell him that you are aware of his recent media venture he is entering into with Greenwald et al and that you think it’s a great idea if it will bring out the truth on all issues covered.

    Then tell him you are a renowned whistleblower who has created a media venture of your own (BFP).
    Ask him if he might be interested in joining your venture (ie. contributing some funds) to help lift it off the ground and gain a much wider audience.

    What could you offer him in return? For starters, how about a cache of documents (Classified Woman) that he might re-package and re-publish, and a website that is waiting to be fine-tuned and go viral.

  11. Consenesco says:

    Sibel: right on about the celeb news on the sidebars. The day any of your websites have celeb news is the day I turn them off.

    Peter: just to add to your comment about “why should I care about these people”. I don’t watch TV but on the way home from work a couple of weeks ago a friend called me and told me there was going to be a civil war in the country over “Phil” of Duck Dynasty getting thrown off the show by A&E, I guess. Anyway, that’s why you should care.

  12. Just a note on the production value.

    Sound-wise it is OK (although Sibel’s signal has a changing noise level), but Peter B should use a better camera (more contrast, more realistic colors) and a higher camera postion. He looks down, which is suboptimal. The “teddy bear” at the wall is somewhat weird.

    I once decided not to apply at a firm who send me a glossy folder in which all men had mustaches. I do not have something against mustaches, but I have something against uniformity. Be careful not to appear too uniform at the roundtable: the men all have gasses, a receding hairline, and (now) beards.

    What sparks the interest is the sculpture in Sibel’s room. Anyone I should know?

  13. doublek321 says:

    Great podcast. I really liked that the discussion was mature enough to talk about “criticizing vs pandering to the audience” and broaching the topic of “should we attempt to use the same tricks to get the public to pay attention”. Very thought provoking.

    Here are a couple of potential approaches that popped into my head during the episode:

    1) Trying to “knock it out of the park” on a single issue. To me, it seems like 9/11 would be the ultimate one since so much tyrannical legislation has been passed in the name of that event.

    2) Since 9/11 is going to get calls of “conspiracy theory”, what about a website (or page on BFP) of things that are shocking but well-documented? Of course, the topics have to be chosen and handled carefully.

    One potential example would be “police brutality”. It’s certainly shocking and there are quite a few cases on record (espeically in New Mexico). However, I would think the public would probably turn that off pretty quickly. However, possibly there’s a creative approach to these kinds of “visceral” topics to make them more palatable. Or, of course, there are plenty of less off-putting topics that could be covered

    I like the idea of overdubbing something from pop culture (e.g. an NFL announcer, something from MTV’s “Jersey Shore”, some story about the Kardashians, etc) onto serious topics. Hopefully that would get people to watch the video but also listen to the serious info being presented (and ideally wondering “is that for real?!”)

    3) Attempting be to expose the tricks politicians use. For example, Jay Carney is famous for saying “thank you for the question”. I’m sure other politicians do the exact same thing. If a video was created showing different 10 different politicians all saying “thank you for the question”, maybe it would expose it as “straight out of the playbook”. If people started recognizing that stuff, it might force politicians to speak less rigidly. Maybe that would cause a little bit more truth to leak out?

    • mariotrevi says:

      Concerning point number 2, and strong armed police SWAT tactics, John Whitehead wrote a book named “A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State”; he continues his work and has a WordPress blog with new posts about once a week.
      With Jay Carney, isn’t it the case that the White House has “veto power” over who is allowed to get a White House Press Office Press Pass?
      Or, if Jay Carney can get away with non-answers like “thank you for your question”, I’d suggest it might say something about citizen disengagement (or something) with “Official Washington”. Would be happy to get your views on that.

      • doublek321 says:

        I’ve heard John Whitehead interviewed on several shows and he’s simultaneously fascinating but frightening. I recently got his book but haven’t read it yet. Maybe he’s got the whole “police state” idea taken care of. Or maybe we (the liberty community – not Siebel and co who already have their hands full) can create media that can draw attention to the stuff Mr. Whitehead talks about. Anything to get the public’s attention to the topic. Once that happens, they’ll stumble on his excellent work.

        As far as the white house having veto power over who is allowed in the press conferences, I’d say that being a reporter in a presidential press conference isn’t necessary. If enough people become aware of the tricks it would create pressure on these guys to change the way they speak. Getting Jay Carney to trip up is unlikely because he’s a master at what he does. I’m talking more about politicians. If the public mocks them for using these techniques then maybe they’ll feel pressured to talk more like a regular person (and hopefully slip up).

        I am still trying to think of other ideas. I definitely like the idea of using creative media to try to get more people to pay attention to serious issues. Again though, it would have to be handled very delicately because these are very serious topics and we wouldn’t want to present them as frivolous.

  14. doublek321 says:

    Another thought is that we have to use “crowd sourcing” to our advantage. I know there aren’t that many people who follow these types of topics but there are certainly enough where we can try to leverage the group. Possibly if we view and comment on a certain liberty-related YouTube video, it can increase the likelihood it will show up in a search engine for others? Maybe that would spread the message.

    Another thing we can do is find people on the YouTube comments section who make derogatory comments toward liberty ideas. We can make a point of it to contact 5 people each day and talk to them directly (there’s a way to direct message a person on YouTube and you won’t be limited to their small 500 character comment box). Basically try to find comments that your gut tells you are real people (as opposed to a bot or paid cointelpro) and who seem passionate in their views. But the key would be to find people who DISAGREE w/ us. The goal is to try to win them over to the ideas of liberty. If there are 100 of us doing this, that would be 500 people contacted per day. If we did this 5 days per week, that would be 2500 people contacted each week.

  15. mariotrevi says:

    @doublek321 I don’t know if there are videos at Youtube of Jay Carney being interviewed. I have found lots of informative videos on Youtube showing progressives (or socialists, etc.) such as Gore Vidal, Noam Chomsky, John Pilger, William Blum, Naomi Klein, William Pepper and Howard Zinn. The point of seeing and studying Jay Carney being interviewed would be to “figure out” Jay Carney 🙂 Since I have both a Twitter account and a WordPress account, I could include links to interesting videos or pages on topics that are news-worthy but don’t make the MSM news, or are rather distorted over there …

  16. Scientists claim that perpertuum mobile is cannot be made because of some laws of physics. But mental perpertua mobili (forgive my Latin) abound in this most conservative of all countries, primarily among its middling classes. This thought passed my mind when I watched the discussion and read the comments above. The well-meaning people who want to enlighten their society and change its direction toward some vague but praiseworthy ends by even vaguer means, with some of them getting impatient that the desired “changes” may not come within a year or two. How about a life time of struggle without a fricking spark of light in the end of the tunnel? Meaningful changes take “long-time persons” to come about and they rarely live to see them. Like those Chicago anarchists or socialists and communists of the 1920s-30s who led American workers to wrest from the ruling class eight-hour workday, social security, and other hard-won rights that we still enjoy today. They are not middle-class models, but it is they who were our real “founding fathers,” not those colonial slaveholders and planters from high-school textbooks. “Independent journalism”? Independence exists only in interstellar spaces of our Universe where galactic gravitation forces balance each other. One cannot be free from society. If you don’t want to be paid by capitalists or their state you have to be paid by workers, people who sell their labor power, physical and mental, to provide for their existence. Today these people have no power whatsoever. In this sense they are like Neanderthals in comparison to our “founders” of the 1930s. They have nil historical consciousness, zero political imagination. To borrow from Sibel, they have been “nullified.” We have been “nullified.” And how naive one should be to repeat after her: I have “internally” nullified the Congress, the courts, and the rest of the system when exactly the opposite is true. The weak, the powerless find consolation in fantasies of nullifying the world they cannot change.

    “Change”? What change? Watching this talk I tried to figure out what change these talented journalists want from those who watch and read them to make. The only answer came from Sibel who said something like change from “pseudos, etc.” I had that uncanny feeling that I heard this vacuous word before from one black man who used to repeat it ad nauseam before the sheeple as vacuous as his words. And then I thought about how many times the sheep had sold on this word before, and about the perpertuum mobile that smart but limited scientists consider impossible because of the “laws of nature.”
    People in Portland eliminated fluoride? Good for them! That’s an achievement worthy of sovereign people. How about seven-hour workday for a change?

  17. I checked my huge unabridged dictionary and found it had 6 definitions for the word “alternative.” To my way of thinking this means an automatic rearing of semantic confusion. What does a given person mean/feel about the word when it’s combined with the word “media?” “Alternative Media.” HHmmmm… When I learn that any one of you said something or other last week on “alternative media”; I think that whatever was said around whatever topic, I will find myself feeling glad that someone else among the sheeple has heard a person speak who speaks with integrity and struggles and researches endlessly. But the question you must all ask is what does “alternative” mean to each of you. Clear the air before you start. You know, the Socratic thing–agree upon terms/assumptions as much as possible, then go for it.
    Since my approach tends to be science-based: hypothesis, doubt, scepticism, finding at least several different sources, keep driving to find a fact or, even better, facts. Best the Fukushima phenomenon be approached in this manner, for example. I found out within an hour or so, that the Turner report was bogus.
    Also, I look for my information regarding any major item from specific, even technical, scientific sources .I don’t go to “alternative media” or “alternative news”. I search for persons in the field of inquiry. I never rely on a few “alternative media” sites. I go where I suspect answers–sometimes a link from a link from a link. I go to BF for a general anti-establishment, empathic reporting on what’s going on in a more general sense.

    This is specifically for Sibel: You can’t know everything about the 10 most important manifestations occurring on the planet right now! Impossible! To get seriously into Fukushima, one needs to study nuclear and even quantum physics. Don’t even think about going into deep study of that- lol! I did for about 20 years and there is just too much to learn. I’m 73 now and I’m really beginning to see how bloody damn limited each human is–including me! James talks about cognition–an “in” word now is “cognitive dissonance”. To deeply understand that, I automatically head for neuroscience–now there is another area that takes lifetimes! So, I am being selfish here Sibel. I(and many others) wait for your intensity and passion, albeit, confused and questioning. In fact, that is your irony and power, my dear, your willingness to admit uncertainty, but struggle on–that is your gift. Reality is a bitch. Back far as the 60s many of us(radicals!) knew politicians were scumbags! You help big time Sibel!! Wail on, my sweet!!

    • Thomas Wonsetler says:

      Yes, equanimity is very important, but true Buddhism is about transcending mind or ego, therby producing eequanimity, not merely being emotionally repressed, or trying to not ever get upset or angry by doing something to the mind or ego to attain “equanimity” ! Being reopened to Infinite Awareness and Energy or Light through right, empowered, guided by a real Buddha, practice results in Nirvana, not some do it yoyrself, ego or m7nd based “practice” that never produces real Buddhas !

    • Thomas Wonsetler says:

      I would say that Sibel is one of the least confused, most intelligent, clearminded people ive ever come across ! She has helped me soooo much to understand whats going on around the world politically and economically, all about the shadow government and U.S. Nato empire and their diabolical schemes ! No offense but you( Ron ) are one of those people who will make things as complicated as you possibly can, whos obviously stuck in the left side of his head and waaaaaay too analytical ! What a nightmarish trap to be caught in ! I would say that you are projecting your own confusion onto Sibel, its not Sibel ! You would do well to free yourself from your left brained analytical mind and learn to be more intuitive and wholistic ! Life is much simpler than all that nonsense and waste of time and energy ! We need to change the world for the better, not analyze everything to the ABSOLUTE DEATH ! ! ! ! ! And then chatter overly analytically for the next 10,000 years ! We dont all need to study nuclear and quantum physics for 25 years to know that a nuclear power plant is leaking radioactive material or study neurophysiology for decades to know that the shadow government and U.S. Nato Empire, banksters, oil corporations, CIA black ops, etc. are destroying the world and we need to make changes for the better ! Duh ! Dude your comment has driven me nuts ! This is another form of distraction that is obviously not needed ! While you psuedo intellectuals stand around obsessively stuck in the left side of your heads, the rest of us need to understand the situation and do what we can to help make the world better ! ! ! ! !

  18. Well, I for one appreciate the heck out if all 4 of the journalists in this discussion. They actually addressed the 900 LB. elephant in the room instead of glossing it over and moving on to “sports”. I appreciated it so much that I subbed to BFP because of it, and the other content here 😉 thanks!

  19. who writes the script?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TM8L7bdwVaA

    There is nowhere to run. This is the paradigm we are in. ‘paradigm’ perfectly describing the war-mongering GWOT deep state deceptions played on us by the ‘drone warriors’. Protected by perception management teams, and firms inventing them. Identified at this site and others struggling with 911truth as strategy of tension.
    A paradigm shift is what the discussion is about.
    Older speakers here help me realize again the complications and yearnings are not new. Nor the blunt reality that ‘power’, built on deception and upholding it at all cost- has tormented men and women for decades. By other accounts, centuries. This ‘paradigm’ is easily up to the task of countering forensic evidence and highly intelligent researchers ranged against it. Nixon/Watergate. Kennedy(s). 911. Iran Contra. BCCI. USS Liberty. Tonkin. Many many thousands have gone thru this meat grinder of realization that we are being thoroughly manipulated and that that manipulation is multi faceted, nuanced and very cruel toward 98% of the global population.
    That it kills people regularly.
    P2OG. Gladio. Q group; COINTELPRO, “Conspiracy Theorist’ as smear (how Sunstein/Vermule got away with that sinister Nazi Eugenics based ‘Crippled Epistemology” is beyond me.) This is an ongoing business of madness. The 100th monkey has the possibility of trigger points in group consciousness activating paradigm shift. It can happen? Has it? Every expression in accord with the need to expose the truth, is elemental to that shift. Just as every counter hack mercenary debunk piece, is elemental to its not.
    The discussion here is new/old all at once. New because this is a global catchment in an instant, and the generation of speed of spread means the paradigm can only keep ahead by greater inputs to and of ’its’ available group. Money, mercenary algorithms, citizen ‘respect’ for LAW and degree of force applied in extremis binding it, but the yearn for truth is the power confronting their object – the need for a comprehensive and sustainable re-balance may just be more powerful. Again. This is said in hope, of course, knowing the addict in face of his/her own demise will still inject, leading to the other possibility/probability, that we, as a species, are just stupid enough to kill ourselves.
    Yet. Luther, Gallileo, Darwin, Van Gogh, prove paradigm shifts can and do happen. Somehow, the earth went from being FLAT, to being ROUND. From 6000 years to infinity. It took every disclosure in the network of disclosures to trigger that shift.
    So, Mr Cohen and Guillermo add weight to the Snowden/Greenwald narrative exposed by Sibels’ reporting of anomalies in the pattern of Whistleblowers and the character of Omidyar. The immediate identification of graham FULLER as ‘Uncle Ruslans’ ex-Father-in-law to the Boston live act etc. without which we only have OCT narratives thru Bilderburg msm to run on. The more we learn from diverse source, the more we form certainties CIA recognised the danger of, inventing ‘conspiracy theorist’ slur as ‘tactic’, and identifying the ‘need to “control the illicit transformation of probability into certainty” in citizens perceptions – illicit in that ‘people’ are making up their own minds:
    That Oswald was patsy.
    That 911 was demolition.

    The disgusting Ghouta Gas false flag attack was exposed before R2P NATO bombed ASSAD out of Syria by a spread of information the paradigm could not contain, and this is significant, because, as we discuss feelings of futility, personal disappointment – impatience – against deep state apparatus, the Syrian turn-about, is example of paradigm shift .
    Knowledge of Ghouta broke Cameron and Haige, pulling the plug on Obama/NATO.
    911 would have been understood within the WEEK as inside job had that same network been up and running in 2001. JFK, exactly the same. Information exchanges via this medium and these networks exposed the LIARS, and broke Ghouta.
    It will happen again. sure. Both ways.’The machine’ learns from that and So do ‘we’ .

  20. I look forward to the possibility of a round table where at least one participant is not (at least entirely) part of the proverbial, congregation. Regardless, I enjoyed the conversation. Moving on to the slightly more trite – as a means of reaching a wider audience, I’ve wondered as to the effectiveness of a truly non-partisan version of the Daily Show/Colbert or even Onion (all partisan to the “left”, of course). Their success at reaching a wide audience cannot be denied. I suppose one would find out just how important Sibel’s point regarding partisanship, is.

    Richard Grove and even Ben Swann, seem to believe that high production value (mainstream mimicry?) is key to a wider spread message and I would agree that there is merit to that.

  21. Thomas Wonsetler says:

    Sibel and friends ! Great discussion and I love you people ! But I wish you all would stop saying that its a small minority who are aware or care ! Of course people want to have fun and enjoy life but that doesnt mean theyre not aware and dont care ! Most people are aware and DO care ! But as I always say, most people are not leaders, and there needs to be intelligent, compassionate, brave, inspiring leadership and organization to bring about the positive changes we need to happen ! ! ! As new leadership, real leadership, not ego trippers or fanatical maniacs, or power trippers or whatever, emerge, there will be more and more supporters as time goes on. Maybe real leaders are only one in a million or whatever but that is what it will take ! People who see the big picture and are very good at organizing ! ! ! And not just on local levels as many people say, which is also important, but on a global scale !

  22. Thomas Wonsetler says:

    Yeahhhhh Sibel and friends, keep on going ! ! !

  23. Thomas Wonsetler says:

    One more thing I’d like to say on this: I see this site, BFG, as a site that speaks the TRUTH about what is going on and hopefully will more and more talk about ways to make the world better, NOT a place for psuedo intellectuals to babble on incessently, wasting peoples time with there obsessive compulsive disorder of lopsidedly and nearly exclusively left brained overly analytical, BORING, babbling nonsense ! ! ! Whewwwww ! ! !
    Keep on going Sibel and friends ! ! ! Thanks ! ! !

  24. Thomas Wonsetler says:

    I must say one more thing in response to the comment from ron. Why would you say to Sibel that “you cant know everything about the 10 most important manifestations happening on the planet right now” ? ! What kind of statement is that ? ! ! Shes not claiming to know EVERYTHING about “the 10 most important manifestations hapoening on the planet right now” ! ! ! But she obviously knows a lot about the subjects that shes talking about ! You seem to be implying that she is some kind of arrogant know it all ! Being intelligent and knowing a lot about these subjects does not make her an arrogant know it all, it means she knows what shes talking about and is very interesting and a huge help to the world ! ! ! Maybe your just insecure about the fact that she is far more intelligent then you and knows so much more than you do about these subjects ! I cant stand people who want to drag others down by saying stupid insulting statements like that one ! As I said, you are the one who sounds confused, not Sibel ! ! ! Sibel, I will always defend you, you are a GREAT GIFT to us and we thank you and love you ! ! ! And your funny too ! ! !

Speak Your Mind