Probable Cause with Sibel Edmonds: Libertarians- The Likely Kindling Point of the Coming Revolution?

Welcome to our third experimental episode of Probable Cause. I want to thank all of you who joined our interactive discussion in our previous two episodes. For this episode I am going to share with you my responses to the questions posed during our first episode: Do you believe we will have some sort of revolution here in the United States in the near future? If so, in your opinion, where will it come from? Which segment of our population do you see likely to revolt?

I will be providing my answers based on what I have been observing, through my own personal lens, and based on my very own experiences, views, reasoning and analyses. And as usual 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 and here.

Listen to the full episode here:

A Few Related Links

Libertarians Are Not the Tea Party

How the Religious Right and the Libertarians buried the hatchet

Unfashionable Outreach: Libertarians and the Christian Right

Tea Party

Evangelicals and Tea Party Overlap in Congress, Public

Conservatives Remain the Largest Ideological Group in U.S.

Homeschoolers: A Snapshot

SUBSCRIBE

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. Just listened to the first few minutes and have to run out of the house for a while. Sibel, I hope you will respond or acknowledge my comments, specifically my perspective on what is and isn’t “government” and what is “revolution”. I know you went with a different definition in this podcast, but I think something is missing without this acknowledgement in the conversation. At least I hope I’m not coming across as the “big government” type you are complaining about in the beginning of this podcast. Thanks!

  2. Sorry, but I need to duplicate this comment under this post. Please thanks…

    Here are two videos I came across today. They show a very distinct difference in the perspectives of different philosophies. One of them, with our great BFP partner, James Corbett, actually upsets me, as have all the other similar “Let’s buck the system and buy land in South America” videos I’ve seen (Gulch, anyone?) It shows people with apparently no problem travelling the world and/or buying property, and totally disconnected from the reality our public is facing. Simply self-serving and being self-righteous about it.
    The other video shows what the people in Greece have just done, which matches much of the sentiment that’s been occurring on this post/conversation.
    Please take a look and see if the contrast impacts you. Thanks:
    1. Acapulco Anarchy Conference
    Jeff Berwick Invites You to Anarchapulco: http://youtu.be/qWDh5RvMn_w
    2. Greece
    Greek Revolution Against Corruption – Will We Follow? Russell Brand The …: http://youtu.be/Nd-neB369pw
    PS – I could take or leave Mr. Brand, but thought he did a great job reporting the news from Greece and giving it some context. Ignore his humor if you don’t care for it. Not saturated with it.
    – See more at: http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2015/01/23/probable-cause-with-sibel-edmonds-uniting-for-a-revolution-and-the-morning-after/comment-page-1/#comment-15577

    • 344thBrother says:

      I watched both those videos Xicha. Off the cuff I could say “Another country heard from”. Give me some time to rewatch and think and I’ll drop you a line later. I’m trying to avoid further flooding of the forum.
      peace
      d

    • 344thBrother says:

      OK Xicha. Briefly:
      I’ve watched both those videos. That conference in Aucupulco looks great! Boy would I love to attend that. I liked what he had to say about the Police strike that backfired, like the one in New York did. The cops stop work and things get better. To quote the Bush administration “NO ONE COULD HAVE IMAGINED!” *cough cough*

      Russel Brand had some interesting things to say. I disagree with his take on “Capitalism” because I think real free marked Capitalism is a better thing than the known alternatives. Socialism and Communism = bigger government.

      The commons you refer to sounds good in theory, perhaps Greece will be able to pull it off. I’m rooting for them. They went through a long pretty bloody (gun less) revolution themselves recently so they deserve something good. I’m waiting to see if the leader they just elected turns out to be a liar, a compromiser, or a target. Here in the USA, even if we did elect a Ron Paul to the presidency I believe that he’d be gunned down by some “Crazy militia gun owner Lone Nut” *cough cough* type pretty quickly.

      Briefly on Ron Paul the man. I admire him in many ways and wish him well, I sincerely wish that he’d taken the opportunity to fight the obvious shenanigans against his candidacy in particular the criminal stealing of his votes during the Primaries. The proof was RIGHT THERE and he was “Too much of a gentleman” to argue it. That discouraged me. Twice.

      pftj
      d

      • Thanks, 344thBrother.

        It was obviously the far-left on the sidelines and the libertarians in the action, just like Sibel’s boxes right?

        Sibel, read my grandfather’s book someday. You know damn well that what he did and what my mother did unionizing the librarians cost them big time. He lost a beautiful home and everything else just before the great depression, because he stood up to the KKK. She lost her health and job after taking a stand for workers’ rights. I felt that one, and you know it. I myself have and will stand up for myself and my family and have taken action and you and I have had conversations about the schools and OUR dealings with them. So I’m for nationalizing the banks and medicare for all, you have to say that I’m religious/irrational and me and my family stand on the sidelines. It’s a personal attack at this point, after your continued non-acknowledgement. Think about your own family. Wasn’t your father far left? What the hell is going on with you calling it something that it isn’t and now using the Fox news definition of far left?

        Who cares about anybody’s political philosophy, if we’re not going after the oligarchy. This conversation is now mired in mud and I’m out. Good luck!

        BTW, Clinton/Obama (doesn’t equal) far left. They are corporate fascists, who are called socialists and the left by… mistake.

        • Xicha, let’s start by having you define what you mean by Oligarchs. As we had to do with the word ‘revolution.’ This way we’ll have better understanding and some parameters. Do you mean the top-tier billionaires and corporations such Gates, Soros, Lockheed, JP Morgan ….? Do you mean any successful business owners, who make over certain $$$$?

          And please tell us how you propose going after them? Similar to pitch fork notion? We’ll go and shut down all their businesses/ factories, and send them to exile? And free all their workers?

          Governments declare wars. Not companies. This is why the 1% war beneficiaries lobby the gov (or the deep state management from behind). This is why the oligarchs you are talking about will not have this power without the system that ensures their existence and expansion.

          Same with the pharma industry. They get the gov create and dictate mandatory vaccination: ‘No public school for you if you don’t get your child vaccinated with 100 of vaccines on our list.’ Without gov, they wouldn’t have expanded and become what they are today.

          MIC: Do you want to go and boycott them? Well, you are not their consumer, my friend. Who does MIC sell to? Our government and the gov of other nations. What will happen to them if they end up with a very small anti-war federal gov? SAIC, Lockheed, Northrop?

          Government is the tool to implement many of the corporate evils we have discussed. You take that tool away, reduce its size & $$$ power, and you have automatically wiped out many of them.

          The financial institutions were going to collapse and disappear. Who bailed them out? With your money, with mine. Who prevented their deserved destruction? With your money.

          Also, who takes your money by force: Taxation. You as an individual have a choice to boycott and not purchase from let’s say Walmart or ToysRus or XYZ … You have zero say about how much, when, how often the government takes your money and hands it to these corporations.

          Have you been following Christian Sorensen’s DOD monthly purchase report? Who do you think is the buyer and decision-make here? With your money.

          This is why it would be great if you ‘briefly’ define what you mean by people going and getting rid of the Oligarchs. Give examples, and establish parameters. I am trying to understand you here, so that I can respond, or, see that others respond. Are you talking about what Bolsheviks/communists meant and did with Oligarchs? We get rid of all corporations, including hard-working successful small, medium-sized companies? And thenn what? We will be all employed by the gov? Farm our own food and make our own furniture and build our own houses/roads and …?

          I know you have been bringing up the same exact thing over, and over and over here, but maybe we are dense and not getting it exactly, or, maybe you can ‘precisely’ and ‘briefly’ clarify it.

          As for the videos: I am not crazy for either one. I have been to Greece many times. I have Greek friends and family members. The climate/situation is far more convoluted and complex. Let’s see where the guy is going to get the money to make his promises come through.

          • andrei_tudor says:

            Sibel, I just want to compliment you on how clear-headed your reasoning is. You take a seemingly fuzzy question and make it look like a math problem: A leads to B leads to C leads to D. Simply a joy to read. Good thing your conscience is just as spectacular as your mind, ’cause they could sure use a mind like yours over on the dark side.

    • John Phillips says:

      Xicha
      Your points stated on Jan 26 are well taken. Where I have a great deal of respect for James Corbett and is work, I find his recent connection with Jeff Berwick disturbing. I’ve followed Jeff’s work for about five years, often cringing and bit with some of his positions and philosophies. I came to the conclusion he is just another capitalist in anarchist clothing. His idea of anarchy is to be on top and have all the bit coins. He IS the sociopath that f’s-up any revolution in an anarchist environment.

      As for Mr. Brand…intelligent, heart in the right place, funny and refreshingly BLUNT!
      Best Regards

  3. I finished listening. I had answered your question about a strategy for avoiding what happened in Iran. That didn’t show up and I didn’t show up in any of the boxes you constructed with such vitriol in this segment. I feel that the conversation stream has taken a turn and left the stream in a direction I can’t follow. All I would be doing is repeating what I’ve already said, fairly thoroughly and with some appreciation from other commentators. But now, there’s a wall of definitions that have been thrown up in front of me.

    I hope that you will watch the two videos I posted in my comment on episode 2 and tried to re-post here. They put the lie to the boxes and behaviors you so confidently created in this episode. The contrast is clear and puts a spotlight on the ROOTS of the philosophies you built on in #3. That’s why I was cautious when I mentioned taking it a step at a time as well, putting the horse before the cart.

    I know you know that I’m not what you talked about when you discussed the far left. But, I’m left to process this surprising attack, not on the oligarchy, no. On the far left.

    It’s time for people to learn how to separate the criminals from the government they poison. And from the philosophy they corrupt. When you blended those so masterfully (blind rage?), you left me without a place in the rest of this discussion.

    My apologies, if I am totally misreading you, Sibel. I’m feeling a little punch drunk and am having a little deja vu feeling and I think I wished I would have understood better the last time this happened. So, I wonder if my comprehension skills are working or not. My intuition says yes, but I’m really confused why I’m here again. Help me out if you can.

    Thanks,
    Xicha

    • tonywicher says:

      Hi, Xicha. You know, I have tried to go along with Sibel as much as possible in thinking outside the box of the left-right dichotomy, but I’m afraid Sibel’s remarks here have shoved my head right back in. Some of the commenters here who call Clinton and Obama “leftists” or even “extreme leftists” must be speaking some other version of English, as far as I’m concerned. What they are is phonies and Wall Street sellouts. If you want to know what a real leftist is, have a look at Yanis Varoufakis, the new finance minister of Greece just appointed by Alex Tsipras: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/27/greek-pm-alexis-tsipras-economist-yanis-varoufakis
      He has vowed to “destroy” the Greek oligarchy who “viciously suck the economic power and energy from everyone else”.

      Real revolution can only come from “the left”, because there is not a libertarian who understands economics. If there is a “libertarian” revolution, it will be a synthetic one with Wall Street behind it. Wall Street seeks to destroy all centers of power that oppose its totalitarian rule, but most especially to destroy representative, democratic government “of the people, for the people and by the people”. Anti-government libertarians are the perfect tool for this purpose.

      • Ronald Orovitz says:

        I’m afraid this Varoufakis may not be all that his strong words suggest… Quoting “Hausfrauleaks” from: http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/forum/21/206

        “Meet Yanis Varoufakis.

        He is the City-of-London-embedded black cloud over the new Greek government. Varoufakis. Pseudo-socialist wolf in Syriza clothing. He is the most crucial sorosite in the incoming Greek government. Nothing will change in Greece except the political window dressing rhetorical change in Greece as long as this man controls their finances…

        Varoufakis was the adviser to Papandreou when Papandreou made a deal with the EU on behalf of Greece.

        Here is Mr. Varoufakis praising Mario Draghi and the ECB and suggesting solutions for how to keep Greece in the EU…. http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2014/11/economists-roundtable-euro-zone-3

        …Varoufakis also works for Valve Corporation – that is a Seattle-based gaming offshoot which otherwise ties directly into the Seattle giant Bill Gates Microsoft corporation. Its founder Gabe Newell is a zionist corporatist connected directly to Google spy chief Eric Schmidt. Newell together with Mike Harrington (one of Bill Gates’ top men in Microsoft Seattle) started this Valve Corporation for which Greece’s new finance minister still works…

        …I expect to hear hot-steam anti-EU rhetoric from him while photos of him kissing Merkel and Lagarde will also appear soon….

        Varou-fuck-this, Mr. Varoufakis….

        Soros and the bankers are already raining first rain drops of reality onto the short-lived Greek election triumph…. ”

        -Just a few of the beefs being aired about the latest savoir against the oligarchs.

      • Enter Professor Antal Fekete, a mathematician turned economist who has exposed the anomaly in the matrix!
        http://www.thedailybell.com/exclusive-interviews/35987/Anthony-Wile-Dr-Antal-Fekete-Blowing-Up-Modern-Austrian-Economics–in-a-Good-Way/

        Libertarians/liberals/progressives WHOEVER u are, until we understand the fundamentals of MONEY, we will be lost!

        Simple case study: Disney issues its own currency (Disney Dollars) WHICH REQUIRE NOT GOVERNMENT APPROVAL. We have a practical solution within our midst.

        $25,000 CASH can be sent INSURED by the US postal service. We can create our own paypal.
        I am currently working on a payment system for policyholders and those in the insurance industry to ensure fair payment.

    • Xicha: I can sense somewhat your frustration. ‘Been there many, many times. I will be careful not to offer “advice”–I don’t care much for gurus or “leaders”. I for one, conclude that this particular medium in which we are attempting to “communicate” is limited. We all need to be in a large room with an ocean view and spend an entire day or 2 discussing virtually impossible subjects.
      Limited though it may be, it comes from Sibel’s passion. I’m in. And most of us will feel that the “other” doesn’t quite understand “my” position on X. WE are limited creatures, IMO.

  4. 344thBrother says:

    @Sibel:
    Please forgive my massive flooding of the forum. This subject is one I’ve been struggling with for a long time and it’s opened a lot of thought streams that I’m exploring “out loud”. I’m going to take one more stab at it and then TRY to sit back and listen for a while without (Much) or any further comment. Wish me luck.

    @Xicha:
    I downloaded the Russel Brand video and will watch it later. I’m not commenting on your personal position, but I do see Sibel’s point that “The extreme left”, I would put those as if you’ll pardon the expression “Obama lovers” and “Clinton lovers” and basically those who are happy as long as their candidate wins. (It happens on the right too for sure). I have friends who really can’t see beyond the “Vote the bums out” and the “Everything would be better if the other side just let us do what needs to be done (Push through a bunch of new laws) via our candidate” types.

    I cannot convince them that the voting system is corrupt, both parties are controlled by the rulers and both parties have similar goals with different ways of getting to those goals. I don’t hold it against them, but I don’t agree that the making of more laws when the Constitution is a perfectly acceptable baseline to operate from is a good idea. I’m old fashioned that way. When you’ve dug yourself into a hole, the first thing you have to do is stop digging.

    @Sibel:
    My opinions:
    OK… “Who will begin the revolution in the USA?”

    Gun owners.
    They cut across a lot of party lines. They are very protective of themselves, their families and the right to do so with weaponry. They’re in a position to respond to violence with violence of their own. Libertarians love guns in general. The Right and Extreme Right love guns. Even a lot of centrists and a decent portion of “Left liberals” have come to enjoy learning how to safely operate firearms and to hit what they shoot at. Under Obama, gun purchases have gone through the roof, and as the gun purchases have increased, the number of survivalists and militia members and hunters has steadily increased along with them. In response to this we see the incredible build up of military technology, weaponry and the arming of government agency personnel.

    Even without an overt shooting revolution, the mere presence of all those privately held weapons introduces resistance into the system. Any attempt to force gun owners to give up their weapons, especially if it is done with force will most likely start some serious brushfire gun battles throughout the United States with the result that it’s going to be a lot harder to sustain a police state against the general population.

    One example will suffice. My grand fathers were very different people. One was a professional government employee, a rancher and well off. He lived in Salem Oregon. The other was a hard working country person who loved to hunt and worked as a carpenter. He lived in Bend on the outskirts of town. He taught me to drive and run his dogs in his Ford Pickup when I was 8 out in the red cinder areas around Pilot Butte. He had a truck garden. Both of my grand fathers told me separately and un-solicited by me that “One of these days, they’re coming for the guns and they’re NOT GETTING THEM.” I admired both of those men, and I’ve found that a lot of country people (at least in the West) feel this same way. If it was good enough for those honest, upright men, it’s good enough for me.

    Gun owners are by in large Constitutionalists.
    A large percentage of police and military and ex-military have guns and have the training to use them in any protracted conflict. (According to militia members I’ve spoken with in the past, lots of police have told them quietly that “When the shooting starts, this uniform comes off”. If that’s true, and I think it is, especially in the rural areas of America, those officers are in a position to influence their brother officers, seize weaponry and take over positions of power within the police departments even without firing a shot in some cases.

    A lot of the military veterans who have returned from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and Vietnam etc. . know how they’ve been lied to by their government and they do not trust it at all and for very good reason. These people know how to fight, resist, defend and maneuver. Lots of these people are really pissed.

    Where will the revolution be primarily fought and maintained?:

    Rural America.
    That’s where the gun owners, Libertarians, Right wingers and survivalists are congregated and that’s where it’s easiest to carry on guerrilla activities from. Lots of successful revolutions start in the country and eventually surround the cities. I believe America will be the same way.

    What comes afterward?:

    I really don’t know, but it won’t be as easy for one group to annihilate another group if the revolution is primarily carried out by gun owners. Again, it introduces a measure of equality into the situation and some serious resistance to any major change as well.

    My guess is that there will be a lot of struggling for power and probably there will be some serious fighting between armed groups, but I don’t expect the religious right to annihilate the liberal left or the anarchists. I don’t expect gun owners/resistance fighters to do much massive murdering of other groups. I think if that was going to happen it would have taken place already. Most gun owners I know don’t want to kill anyone and merely want to defend themselves, their families and the Constitution.

    Whether or not there’s a massive purge of people within government, the alphabet soup agencies, violent police and the ruling elite is anybodies guess. I think it’ll be in an area by area basis. Again, i expect brushfire rebellions scattered throughout the USA and separated by terrain and distance and population. I expect a lot of refugee movement away from areas of conflict and instability in areas that get flooded with refugees. I also expect the cities to get the worst of it when the infrastructure breaks down and they can’t fend for themselves. Again it will be the gun owners in the city that will at least have a fighting chance to survive against any number of attackers from gangs, criminals, starving people and the Federal Government.

    @Sibel:
    OK I listened to all 3 episodes 3 times and (Out of order) I heard 2 then 3 then 1 so my posts have been out of synch. In particular I was most interested in your discussion of the Iran Revolution. You didn’t mention gun ownership. I’m guessing that in Iran in 79 there was very little if any private ownership of guns. Am I right on that?

    Did private weaponry play any significant part in the revolution there?

    Did the revolution begin in the urban areas with mass demonstrations?

    Lastly, would you be willing to speculate on how things would have been different if the Iranian public had been armed?

    I’d also like to hear from the gentleman from Romania on the subject of an armed citizenry during that revolution.

    Peace freedom truth justice
    d

    • David, … wow!!!! There are way too many jewels here. Some excellent points. You are right: I forgot to mention the ‘gun’ factor. Excellent, excellent point.

      I am cooking dinner for my girl, but I will be back to respond to some of the points and questions you raised here. But quickly:

      Your point on ‘Rural’ areas: right on. Totally agree!

      Your point about police when they go civilian: I am in Bend Oregon, and I have had first hand experience with it (from talking to a few officers, one dep. sheriff). Again, right on.

      Iran: almost ‘zero’ gun ownership. The only with guns were the police and military (Gendarme).

      I am going to be back (later this evening or tomorrow to re-read this great observation/points listed, and respond to those I can.

      Meanwhile: Don’t you dare going silent on us; please don’t! You are bringing experience, history, and thought-provoking points/observations. Please continue!

    • andrei_tudor says:

      David,

      There was no gun ownership to speak of in Romania. The occasional hunter here and there, but that does not make for armed resistance. Would gun ownership have prevented things from becoming as bad as they did? This is just speculation, but I can’t see how it would not have. During the mass purges of the 50’s and 60’s, people were taken out of their homes by the thousands and dropped in black hole prisons, never to be heard of again. If you know you’re going to die anyway, how long before realizing that it’s better to die with some dignity and on your own terms?

      This could be just my ignorance, but I can’t think of an armed population that was subjugated by force by its own government. But, to my knowledge, the only two countries where gun ownership is legal and widespread are the US and Switzerland, and that does not make for a very large sample.

      • 344thBrother says:

        andrei you wrote this:
        “If you know you’re going to die anyway, how long before realizing that it’s better to die with some dignity and on your own terms?

        This could be just my ignorance, but I can’t think of an armed population that was subjugated by force by its own government. ”

        Agreed on the die with dignity statement. That option is easier to exercise if you have some real means of self defense, regardless if the outcome is that you die.

        It’s my understanding that Mao, Stalin, Hitler and Pott disarmed their citizenry prior to annihilating them. Hopefully Americans have figured out that any attempt to disarm the public is a red flag for tyrannical/public cleansing.

        pftj
        d

  5. I agree with you 150% regarding the so-called “Left”. Back in the sixties we/I called the people you are describing as wishy-washy arm chair Liberals. Semi- intellectuals who cared not about the gritty realities of the “streets” and peoples of underdeveloped, starving countries at an existential level. And the mere idea of trusting any politician/government to do anything was almost childish, since many of us felt the presence of “soft Fascism”. The entire MSM media could not be trusted–erg, the Underground press, etc.
    In my first comment I said that America, as we are now, cannot possibly create a serious Revolution. I will stick with that.
    From my point of view, a true powerful movement has to begin with that person in the mirror. It must begin with the self. Here are a few small REVOLUTIONARY ACTS, IMO, which a BFP member might consider:
    –Stop eating animals–that is a move against Big Energy and big Ag
    –Stop watching TV(a huge addiction, really)
    -Stop reading MSM mags and newspapers
    -“Pay It Forward”–this requires empathy and empathy cannot be taught, per se. But it can “rub off” and if you consistently do it, chances are you will affect persons whom you know or meet—2 or 3 is big!!
    -Do your own research on what you consider to be a high priority.
    -As per Sibel, consider Home Schooling your kids and/or spend an extra 30 minutes a week with them
    -Consider very carefully your religion, philosophy, or belief system–this is a hard one.
    -If you have never typed down a comment on any blog, simply try it
    -Search your town for like minded people–eye ball to eye ball beats email hands down!

    There are more simple, small REVOLUTIONARY ACTS you can come up with. Many more. Take a smallish town of 50,000 people. Imagine if 20% made these above actions a regular part of their life. Perhaps it would go viral. Perhaps these acts are not so small. Perhaps it could spread. Perhaps…
    Upon examination of the bigger global picture, it appears our species is experiencing massive collapse.
    But if you begin with yourself, you will have something that will never be taken, come what may.
    AS USUAL, THANK YOU SIBEL.

    • –Stop watching TV(a huge addiction, really) -Since 2002 (once in a blue moon DVD)

      -Stop reading MSM mags and newspapers -But of course; other than those I read and select to illustrate facts/the truth

      -“Pay It Forward”–Absolutely

      -Homeschooling: Currently a combination both (spend minimum of avg 1.5 hours per day; including weekends)
      -Consider very carefully your religion, philosophy, or belief system: Exactly; I call it our own spiritual guideline. The pursuit of truth is one of the top commandments in our family’s system.

      -Search your town for like minded people–eye ball to eye ball beats email hands down!: This has proven to be one of the hardest ones. So far, very little success (Frustrating; discouraging). Usually take the easy route: hermit life… I’ve been running low on tolerance lately;-)

      Stop Eating animals: We eat them; It has fair share of our diet (including juicy/bloody twice a month), however, all locally sourced: local/natural/organic. We know the people who raise our beef and chicken, and we have those beautiful orange-yolk farm eggs that come from a friend’s farm … milk/yogurt/butter/etc. as well. All local, all natural, all small/individual farmers, and all within 20 miles radius.

      • When I stopped eating animals many years ago, I would have dreams of marching cheeseburgers. Never fancy steaks–hamburgers and marching hot dogs.

        • 344thBrother says:

          “Somebody get me a cheeseburger!” Steve Miller Living in the USA

          • Dave, check out/google Dr. Donald Miller; you should get his videos/articles. I think you are going to like it. He is now considered a whistleblower within the medical profession. ‘How dare thou challenge the pyramid?!’ 🙂

        • :-))) I am going to find this link to a speech given by a highly-accomplished Heart Surgeon that challenges the notion of cholesterol causes, the saturated fats myth, and the corrupted food pyramid. It is an excellent, almost an hour long presentation.

          • 344thBrother says:

            @Sibel:

            I “LIKE” your take on food.

            Any chance of your webmaster installing “Like” and “Dislike” buttons in the comment section? It might make it easier to keep track of the general state of peoples opinion in the forum on specific topics. For me, it would probably reduce the amount of text I post as well.

      • andrei_tudor says:

        One more: get a gun, and learn how to use it?

        • 344thBrother says:

          Learn how to use a gun, then get one that you need.

          I suggest a nice rifle with telescopic scope and a laser if it’s for personal defense and hunting.

          Dual purpose is good.

          There are many gun stores and places you can learn to safely handle weaponry and then try out lots of different types in an indoor shooting range. Well worth the time and money.

          Alternatively, a 38 revolver with internal hammer is a good “Carry weapon”.
          peace
          d

        • Mgrdichian says:

          I think we would be better off to keep our trigger finger on the keyboard and learn how to use the internet with noteworthy prowess.

          • 344thBrother says:

            3/19
            Mgr. I agree. Never pull a gun on anyone (or thing) you don’t intend to shoot. BUT, having a gun levels the playing field at least on the small/local scale.

            Also agree, the internet is the tool of choice when battling TBTB << I like that term! except that i'm going to modify it to tbtb as an insult.
            p
            d

        • yup.

  6. Mgrdichian says:

    Great format. Bravo. Unfortunately I’m mostly disqualified to comment because I’m in the camp that believes there will be no revolution in America (in the way you’ve defined it) in our lifetime, and if there is it will likely be spawned by some sort of economic turmoil or military catastrophe. But I do have some reflections.

    You’ve invoked the Ron Paul movement in your own reflections. As a Ron Paul supporter since 2008 I’ve found the RP movement to be driven by people who want to restore the “system” in a way they believe it was meant to function, and not overthrow it in the traditional sense. This context is where I think the Iran model of 1979 misses the mark as a pertinent example in 21st century America. The US Constitution is a world class document of concepts that were generations in the making, globally, before it arrived on the scene in America in 1776. There is nothing comparable in the modern (as opposed to ancient) Iran experience. IMO the Constitution “IS” the system, and it’s the players that are abusing it. It is the human decency built into the Constitution that unites the RP movement and not a revolutionary ideology. Again, IMO, if the RP movement was built upon a “let’s throw out the system and start a new one” mentality, it would never have gotten as far as it has because it would have required an answer to: “OK, what system should we have?”, and they never would have agreed on anything. Thank God that didn’t happen.

    Since I’m not in the camp that believes a “revolution” is imminent without something like economic turmoil, I’ll obey the rules and refrain from elaborating (too much) on why I feel that way. But I’ll give my conclusion, which is “an irate minority” needs to implement some “boiling frogs” tactics in reverse. Why not? The power elite have proven that turning up the temperature ever so slowly is an effective way to implement change with little resistance. Why don’t we use the same tactic on them — for good purposes? (actually, I think we already are with things like BFP). The reason most of us don’t? It’s really hard, frustrating work, and hard work has ceased to be an American virtue. This may be hyperbole, but I somewhat liken “revolution” in solving our political woes to someone wanting to win the lottery to solve their economic problems. Sure, winning the lottery would work, but would that person really learn anything? Americans en masse need to be instilled with the notion that our type of government is an ever-evolving process and not a stagnant book of laws with enforcers. It was once called “The Great Experiment” and I think that’s still true.

    Again, brilliant format. Can’t wait to see it it in operation on a host of other issues.

    • Mgrdichian says:

      That’s 1789 not 1776 for the Constitution’s final arrival.

    • “Unfortunately I’m mostly disqualified to comment because I’m in the camp that believes there will be no revolution in America”: I don’t agree. You make valid/sound points, including your belief that there will be no revolution.

      RP: You are absolutely right. The staunch constitutionalism. Well, base on the state of ‘things’ today, and almost completely eroded constitution, I consider the restoration (going back to) constitution a major revolution.

      BF tactics in reverse: Excellent point. Similar to those who believe the first step of countering indoctrination in state school system is ‘un-schooling.’

      ‘Winning Lottery’ analogy: spot on. Thus, the example from Iran.

      And finally: Please don’t hold back. We want more:-)

    • Many of us seem to appreciate your “unwanted comments” so…….ya better comment.

  7. I’m not from the States… traveled there years ago, so saw idolatry of uniform-left-right-left-right squareness. Have lived to see odious BUSH cast aside international Geneva conventions ‘in a memo’ – like he can write ! , so basic culture is sycophantic of military – actually uniforms in general, and exceptionalist belief in #1 to seig heil degree. Gun owners are all types – I don’t imagine the ‘which-side you on’ stripes will show until shit happens. a CIVIL war rather than revolution anyway. The way the cops are shooting people like dogs sure makes you think the military/police are pushing for a total ‘revolution’ ? maybe they think they got the materiel etc but, that in itself is naziism….and nazi ARE fundamentalist Christian .
    I DO think Naziism is a part of the program. at a very deep level. Eugenics and OIL Street money ties-up corporate fascism everywhere . The torture exposed by Senate Intelligence Report from the black sites is based on nazi sentiment. Human experimentation. Mind control. Learned helplessness. The mantra of 911deception caste Muslim as sub-human – and that is basic Naziism.
    Fascism is GLADIO . P2, Brevik etc. Utilizes extreme fundamentalist right and violence ; GULEN for one has schools all over USA as well as Middle East . What are they teaching? ‘the new’ naziism is deep state fascism all dressed up in Mickey Mouse. And fox news https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awkYetuR3G8 . The Sharia law analogy is a good one. Which way would Jaisus Fundamentalists go if the ‘Libertarian left’ stood up for true humanity ? if divide and conquer rules ?

  8. Won-a-pa-lei says:

    Me thinks there is a certain group that are light years ahead of us on this revolution planning thing. Wouldn’t it be beneficial to know who your enemies are before you start fighting?

    “The Revolution won’t happen with guns, rather it will happen incrementally, year by year, generation by generation. We [Jews] will gradually infiltrate their educational institutions and their political offices, transforming them slowly into Marxist entities as we move towards universal egalitarianism.”

    — Max Horkheimer, Frankfurt School philosopher

    • 344thBrother says:

      @Won.
      I think that quote by Horkheimer as well as recent bragging by leaders of Israel about how much they control America and a lot of history about how really bad the Jewish … policies have been is going to stop their forward motion and force a big step back.

      Note how the term “anti-semite” has turned full circle and is now biting them in the butt, hard?

      Knowing your enemies. Definitely a good thing. Sun-Tzu for that.
      p
      d

  9. 344thBrother says:

    @ron:
    I like your list of revolutionary actions.
    Let me see if I can expand the list at the bottom a little.

    Mine and Sibel’s answers to your revolutionary actions are nearly identical

    –Stop eating animals–that is a move against Big Energy and big Ag. Semi-check. I eat beef and country eggs and yes the ones with the bright orange yolks that really stand up on the plate are the best. Butter, cheese, all the stuff they told us was bad for us. This is the same stuff my grand parents ate every day and all my grandparents lived to ripe old ages. I draw the line at fast food restaurants (Easy because we don’t really have any here) and I eat organic whenever possible. That’s a work in progress.

    –Stop watching TV(a huge addiction, really) – Check. Long ago, although I do watch movies, in my defense I’ll say that I purposely watch for the hidden messages, subliminals, commercials and propaganda within them. As a hermit with grown children in a tiny town, it’s the only really mindless activity I do indoors.

    -Stop reading MSM mags and newspapers – Check. I sometimes read headlines for a laugh, that’s it.

    -“Pay It Forward”– Check. Volunteer fireman most of my life since I was 16. Little known factoid. Nearly 90% of firemen in America are Volunteer. (This includes a lot of paid firemen who also volunteer). But even so, think where we would be if there were no volunteers. I’m not whining about it, but it annoys me that people who dedicate that much time and effort are constantly called upon to do more and more instead of making it easier for them to do their jobs. The volunteer services in America are suffering badly. It’s a shame.

    -Do your own research on what you consider to be a high priority.-Check

    -As per Sibel, consider Home Schooling your kids and/or spend an extra 30 minutes a week with them-Check when they were home I taught my kids to read phonetically and count change at the same time. It took less than 20 hours each it cost me about 20 bucks and it was fun to boot. How long does it take to teach a child to read in a classroom?

    -Consider very carefully your religion, philosophy, or belief system–this is a hard one.-Check Truth, knowledge, logic and kindness are what I strive for. I enjoy debating religion, philosophy and beliefs with anyone who wants to face to face. Like Sibel, I’ve had the Jehovah Witnesses over many many times to talk over lots of issues. I’ve found them to be very open minded and knowledgeable on issues of government and corruption and the like. Usually I invite them to sit around the fire on cold Saturdays, but I think I finally convinced them that I wasn’t going to convert because they’re friendly now but not in sales mode any more.

    -If you have never typed down a comment on any blog, simply try it-Boy howdy

    -Search your town for like minded people–eye ball to eye ball beats email hands down! -Check sorta. It’s a tiny town and everyone knows me as “Conspiracy Dave” so, there’s no point to it unless someone wants to talk over something. At one time I was a lot more intense about it, now, not so much, like Sibel, I’m mostly a hermit. I try to keep my mind active and call it good.

    Additional:
    I will no longer work for taxable wages. I was able to squeak by for a long time until my SSI finally kicked in and now I try to take money OUT of the system as much as possible in order to do a tiny bit to keep it out of the hands of the enemy and perhaps positively influence the Military Industrial Banking complex in some tiny negative way. At least I don’t have to feel guilty when a soldier is killed with my tax dollars. It means I’m pretty poor, but so what?

    Refuse to debate people who can’t or won’t debate in a logical or polite fashion. I think of it as reduction of frustration, starving the trolls and maybe encouraging some people to learn how to debate more intelligently.

    “Neither a borrower nor a lender be.” Good advice from the Bible. If I’ve got money and it will help someone I may give it as a gift. Loaning money seems to just cause grief for the loaner AND the loanee. Borrowing money from banks is basically the same as taxes.

    Lastly (sigh yet again I’m flooding) I find that the 10 commandments are a good guideline to follow as much as humanly possible. And the bad guys hate it.

    So there you have it. And thank you Sibel for your kind words and consideration.

    Peace freedom truth justice
    and God bless us
    Every
    One.
    d

    • Solid!
      Sorry, I’m late at getting back to you, bro. You definitely appear to be not only a concerned person–but also a solid citizen. I’m glad my comments affected you. As we still say, “Keep on keeping on.”

  10. John Phillips says:

    Sibel
    OMG! I think your analysis is right on! I am so thankful for for your analysis and insight!

    For lack of better terms I consider myself a “liberal” with “conservative” tendencies. So I cringed a bit with your character of “liberal,” I agree we have been a wimpy bunch for a long time. Chris Hedges would agree!

    For everyone, let me clarify. I think the basic philosophies of almost any religion are morally based and beneficial to human-kind. I have respect for anyone’s religion as long as it doesn’t involve telling me or anyone else how to believe or not. Faith is simply one of the most incredible gifts we have as human, but also a weakness. Since,” like,” 90% of the world’s population believes in one religion or another, it is the exploitation of the faithful of any religion that is truly my concern.

    Having said that and very specifically, I think the people truly in power through the extreme religious right (the evangelicals) have been preparing for revolution for at least 20 years and during the Bush administration made incredible headway. From local officials, school boards, State and Federal judgeships, legislation and political appointment they have been preparing for the eventful revolution that could come. The front looks like an attack on women’s reproductive rights, teaching “creationism” in public schools and universities, other changes in teaching and research curricula, assuring the media is awash with “Christian witness” and assuring key judges (like the current supreme court) are packed with the right people with the right philosophy. Not to mention the current supposed religious war the US is now involved in. In your face kind of stuff. Very successful.

    As much as I want to see change, that necessary change we are all dreaming of…I fear that if revolution ever comes to the US it will be bloodier than anyone can imagine (note all the guns in the US) and instead of “freedom” (needs a definition here) tyranny will reign as in Iran. “We the people” are not ready!

    All the Best

  11. DenStendigeResen says:

    Wow, do I feel out of place here. First of all, those whom Sibel describes as the “far left” sound to me like Clinton democrats – those who vaunt their “reasonable” approach to life. They don’t have anything to do with the leftist counterculture folk I used to know, who lived in tents, worked seasonally, and read more in a week than the typical Harvard student might in a year (I don’t count cramming for exams as reading). They were effectively constitutionalists, but by no means libertarians. They were unschoolers before it had a name.

    When I think libertarian, I think (quite justifiably) of Ayn Rand and her “virtues of selfishness”. I quit the Corbett sphere when I heard him describe a digital currency as wonderful because it would “reward the productive members of society”. Is that not exactly what the eugenicists/Bilderbergers/PNACers are out after? The only difference being the membership list. Call me a bleeding heart wimp, but I see a place for entities that exist to make sure everyone’s right to be free and happy is protected. Because history has proven that there are those who want to encroach on others’ rights, always.

    Which brings me to the point that I feel was sorely lacking here: how to define government. What we have today, which goes by that name, i see as a front for corporate America. I totally disagree with the claim that corporations don’t declare war. Cui bono? Every war the US has fought since becoming a nation has been for the sake of profiteering corporations and robber barons. In a word, the oligarchy.

    How about government by, of and for the people? We have never had that, but in my far-left idealized world, it would provide health care, worker protection, stringent limits on corporate power (as before the mid-1800’s, when they could not be incorporated for more than 10 or 20 years), and protection for those unable to work. It would not try to tell people how to live, beyond “Don’t tread on anyone else” – which is quite a different philosophy from “Don’t tread on ME!” The key to this system, though, would have to be involvement. I don’t think it is possible in today’s dumbed-down world, so I am not really interested in any hypothetical revolution for now.

    About homeschooling: I homeschooled my children. It was the best thing I’ve ever done, for them and for me. However, most of the other homeschooling parents I met were – i cannot say this emphatically enough – CONTROL FREAKS! Their kids were tyrannized 24 hours a day. I see nothing good in the current school system, but neither do I see as a panacea, “Oh, just keep your kids out of school.” Parents have to be willing to see their kids as actual human beings with rights, needs, and minds of their own, for homeschooling to be a positive for the kids.

    • Thanks, DenStendigeResen. I was unable to respond, waiting for my blood to stop boiling after what I perceived as strawman questions (oh, yes, the oligarchy means small business owners, for sure. you know me better than that.), and what seemed like an unwillingness to understand or acknowledge what I had been saying. As well as the fact that Sibel’s message tries to lead the audience to believe that no one understood me, when, if she had read the comments in the first two episodes, she would see that my comments received positive feedback and clues to their comprehension.

      Sibel and I had an argument like this a couple years ago, +/- a year, and since then I really thought that she no longer subscribed to the no-government or government is the same evil as the ruling class oligarchy. I thought she wanted more localized government. I even thought she said something to me recently about a federal agency having value in a recent issue in her life. What happened with this episode 3 and this latest question/request for clarification, seems so strange to me and I don’t know what happened.

      I don’t know how I can simplify the concept any further: corruption displaces government and so the reverse can also be true. Getting rid of corrupted officials is not the same thing as getting rid of the offices, although the Gladio office in the Pentagon would surely go down with the criminals who run it.
      This is a continuous process and each instance of accountability or informing the public is a revolutionary step on an eternal path of revolutionary existence. We can consider ourselves as living in a revolutionary democratic republic.

      Revolution can be a way of life, not just an armed coup, which seems to be what is being called for here by a few.

      And BTW, (I hope this is precise and brief enough for you) my family is full of small business owners, veterans, gun owners, and people who have done something for their community without working for the government (example: donating diving boards for the city swimming pools). And those who have worked for the government (building city lakes during WPA, managing infrastructure in expanding rural and city school system many years ago). My repeated and repeated and repeated point has been that we need BOTH individualism and collectivism. Sibel even agreed with one of my comments saying so in this series. So what’s with the (what I perceived as) seemingly disingenuous strawman questions, like I’m against small business and private enterprise, etc.?!!!

      Anyway, this is getting long. Thanks again for your comment and the notes about home schooling as well. I’m still in no condition to answer myself.

      • Take a deep breath, Xicha. Many of the points made have to do with the FEDEARL GOVERNMENT. Go back and read my questions. It is the Federal Gov that is spending trillions of dollars of our hard-earned wages/$$$$ on war and MIC procurement. Small, local governing systems are far easier to keep in check. Small local governing system is where we can get people’s ‘direct’ participation. Small local systems cannot go and declare and wage wars across the ocean. Small local systems can oversee that those ‘truly’ in need are accounted for, assisted.

        One of the things we are trying to avoid here: unnecessary anger (blood boiling). The attitude that says: ‘Why XY doesn’t see how I see it’ and XY saying, ‘Why Z is forcing her/his view’ is the first step towards destructive argument/discussion.

        There was zero reference point in my response to Z: Not having any governing system. Because the topic had to do with you clarifying, defining, Oligarchs. Which you did; to a certain degree within this ‘boiling’ response. But so many questions are not answered. As long as there is ‘demand’ there will be ‘supply’ and ‘suppliers.’ As long as we have this ginormous out of control, unanswerable to any one other than 1%, Federal Government that takes trillions of dollars from the people to wage wars, abuse, waste … there will be evil mega war industry, evil mega pharma industry, evil wrongly-named mega security industry …

        • Your line of questioning assumes that I want big overbearing government and that I’m not for localization of control. Your Z was conflation of government with corruption by the ruling class/establishment/oligarchy (no, not small businesses). My point has been to try separating the two and see life as a continuous opportunity for revolution, instead of a coup. You’re asking me for a fix all answer and I don’t have it. But that doesn’t mean I’m on the sidelines. Do you realize that you are creating a little maze with limited inputs and outputs? I’m not in there. And let’s just call it passion. I’ll go take a breather. Please review my episode 1/2 posts without conflation between criminality and government, or public/private balance and BIG. Thank you.

      • arealjeffersonian says:

        Xicha:
        Try to chill out a little. We’re having a discussion here, I think a very important one, but we all need to be mindful of respecting each others right to their point of view.

        Having said that, and having read Sibel’s questions for you – her request for clarification – and your response here, I don’t see your thoughtful responses and I would very much like to see them. Just as a starter, how do we get rid of the oligarchs? (and who are they – you didn’t really answer that).

          • The image of Pyramid makes my point very well: If you were to remove the bottom, where the top’s weight supported, that tip will fall flat on its butt, and crumble. On the other hand, if you let the fat/chunky/foundation bottom remain, it would a piece of cake to replace the top; install a new tip.

            The MIC/Mega Financial Institutions are built upon the base.

    • Your points on ‘Homeschooling’: Now, this is one topic I would love to prepare an episode on. You are absolutely right. Here is how I see it: Those who select homeschooling only to replace one style of ‘indoctrination’ with another. This is exactly why I have not found (yet) any to network on homeschooling in my area (where I live). There are those who exclude 90% of topics, view points, philosophies, theories, in favor of the ones ‘they’ agree with (and believe in) in their homeschooling curriculum. It is the desire and hubris to create carbon copies, rather than ‘educate.’

      For my child I want to offer her the history/context and content of all religions- Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hindus … (including Atheism), if I am able (can afford it), I will make extensive travel a part of this (My child has already been to 8 countries; she’s been in Buddhist temples and has watched their ceremonies; she’s been to church and mosques; so far). She is an adult should take in everything, process, critically think, and come up with her own set of views and reasoning. Period. This vs. schooling the child only based on Bible (or Koran) and related history and stories.

      The other day I was looking at a curriculum designed for Ron Paul’s Homeschooling Program. They listed History: Ancient Western Civilization History (all related inventions, etc.). Well, does this mean they are skipping all other ancient civilizations: The Ancient Chinese, The Egyptians, The Arabs, Persians? For example: Are they going to skip the following: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/how-islamic-inventors-changed-the-world-469452.html

      So, yes, you brought up a very important point/subject. Thank you!

      Another good point:
      “It would not try to tell people how to live, beyond “Don’t tread on anyone else” – which is quite a different philosophy from “Don’t tread on ME!”” Exactly. I’m in 100% agreement. This is the key (the only way) for peace, harmony and respect; especially when it comes to diverse nations like the United States. You won’t believe ho many times I have been told: ‘How do you feel about YOUR people going through this and that?’ I have no idea who ‘MY People’ in their mind. Some tribe they see me a part of? Iranians? Muslims? Turks? Agnostics? I have no idea. I have lived in total 7 years in Iran; 9 Years in Turkey, in Azerbaijan. I’ve been in this country for 27 years, with a period of a year in Russia, a year in Vietnam, half a year in AU, and another half a year in NZ …

      Again, please do NOT view yourself out of place in tis forum. This community consists of so many different philosophical views, beliefs. And in the past 6 years, since our birth, I have not seen any point of view attacked, written off with animosity … This community is a proof that people from all views and all walks of life can come together, respect each other, engage in debates/discussions (civil; respectfully), and feel further enriched.

      • Mgrdichian says:

        PLEASE! Do an episode on homeschooling. Here’s my first comment in advance: “I live in an urban area near what some people call “da hood” and know some kids who would be far better off listening to their public school teachers than their parents about anything, if there are any parents home at all. I have the same opinion about some kids in toney neighborhoods as well”

        • We will; an episode on Homeschooling. We will take on ‘indoctrination.’ We will look at the downside of each, and of course, the upsides.

          But you are right, to say homeschooling is a good replacement no matter what, would be very uninformed and ignorant.

    • arealjeffersonian says:

      DenStendigeResen

      Much of what you say here I agree with, especially your comments on homeschooling.
      However, as to government I tend to agree with Sibel’s arguments. Of course that should be apparent from my username. I am a follower of Jefferson & subscribe to his view that “government is best which governs least”. You state that every war has been fought for the benefit of the oligarchy, but without a powerful government would any have taken place? Could Rockefeller or JP Morgan have fought a war? Could Soros today? Or could big “pharma”? Or Exxon? Reduce the size and power of government and you reduce the ability of those who would co-opt it to their own ends.

      I do agree with you that the key to anything resembling government “of the people, by the people, for the people” is involvement of the people, which is currently sadly absent. But whose fault is that? What is preventing any of us from becoming more involved?

      • There seems to be some conflation between having a commons and “big government”. The military is huge, yet, the far left represents big government.

        I see a basic problem with libertarians needing to privatize EVERYTHING. To me, that’s all about “Don’t tread on me.” instead of “Don’t tread on another.” Just because I want a balance between individualism and collectivism – they each have their place – doesn’t mean I want an overbearing, huge government that’s totally centralized. So many bad assumptions and conflation going on.

        And, for all those who don’t think the ruling class could do any damage without government, just google that anarchist fantasy video from Stephan Molyneaux about an insurance company-run distopia and try to think.

        Please try to think outside your preconceived box and imagine that corruption displaces government and government (by and for the people/public) can displace corruption. Separate and don’t equate the two concepts, if you can. Simply because, government will exist and it’s a natural state of humans in groups.

        • tonywicher says:

          To me, the right balance between “individualism” and “collectivism” consists in nationalizing the banking system. If the banking system is truly nationalized and controlled by a representative government that makes economic policy by using its sovereign power to control currency and direct credit for real economic development and production that benefits the whole country, then private “free enterprise” can pretty much take care of everything else. In this case the government is providing the economic environment for free enterprise and creative initiative to function at its best. This is what the framers of our Constitution, particularly Alexander Hamilton, originally intended and was once called American School economics, but it has been buried by Wall Street control of our academic institutions to the point where there is hardly an American economist to be found who has ever heard of it. If anyone who has not heard of it is interested, you could start by looking up American School economics in Wikipedia.

      • Jeffersonian: Good points. As for your question: ‘What is preventing any of us from becoming more involved?’ There are so many ways to get involved. One of the things I have hard time with, because I’m one of those people who tend to want to be able to see some tangible/obvious results; however small, and in this case it is so hard (again for me).

        In my naïve/idiotic days, early whistleblowing period, I fell for the petition writing, congressional rallies, and joining forces with the exact same NGOs I’ve been exposing. I fell for it. I guess some things boil down to trial and error; experiences.

        Going back to what I mean as ‘tangible’: How do we determine whether today we have more awake/informed people compared to, let’s say, 2009? How do we measure? I don’t know. Maybe this is why once-in-a-while I go through my pessimism periods (And I go to my shelf, take out PP&M and play ‘blowing in the wind’;-). Another good reason for having a forum like this: when we go through our own down period, we get the needed boost and get energized by the state of other community activists here.

        • Excellent point Sibel. For those who are “warriors”, like most on this thread, it will be ups and downs, confusion and clarity. A. Einstein: “Something’s moving.” The flow of whatever continues.

    • tonywicher says:

      Den, you aren’t out of place here, just in the minority. There are others including me here who find calling Clinton and Obama “leftists” to be laugh at best. Apparently only a few here believe in representative democracy, or the need for such a government to oppose totalitarian corporate rule. They call themselves “constitutionalists”, but they no more understand the Constitution than they do economics.

      • Tony, point out to a comment where anyone has even mentioned Clinton or Obama. I haven’t seen any. And as far I am concerned this is one rare community where people know there is no difference: Bush/Clinton, McCain/Obama. This is one of the rare places where people actually believe in the concept of ‘Two Sides of the Same Coin.’ I have written about that, and spoken about this so many times. And I have never seen anyone equating Bush with the people (or even the Right), or Clinton with the people (with the left).

        We have worked very hard to establish a community where throwing false information is not tolerated. Same for slender. Destructive anger. Bullying with one point of view. I want to make sure I will never allow that here. Otherwise I will be one of the things I truly hate: a hypocrite. Do not equate this with some ‘Soup Nazi’ protocol. I welcome all differing point of views. I encourage constructive disagreements. But I will not hesitate, for even a second, to exclude (after nicely asking to leave voluntarily first) to eliminate destructive forces within a very constructive community. I have seen way too many forums out there where that kind of a dynamic has discouraged others from joining or commenting. And where the language and attitudes have become beastly and ugly.

        For example: Some people have dropped names, such as Corbett and one of his guests. You are more than welcome to go over there, and add your response to that particular topic, guest, and the host. This particular forum, discussion, has nothing to do with that one. Unless, the intention is poisoning the climate.

        Am I clear everyone? I will be monitoring the threads very thoroughly, as always. Thank you all.

        • 344thBrother says:

          Clinton/Obama < Guilty.

          My point was meant to be that people (In this case so called "Leftists") and I was referring specifically to my personal friends who cannot seem to realize that the idea of voting one party or candidate in or out makes very little difference, because the rulers are directly guiding the results, the voting system is rigged and both sides (One could argue, nearly ALL sides) are coopted or are in the process of being coopted.

          If I insulted anyone with my over-simplification that was not my intent and I ask forgiveness. As I've stated previously, I "Think out loud" which is the text version of brainstorming and doesn't always lead to the clearest of expression. I've been known to open mouth, insert foot and keep chewing until I get to the knee before I realize it. So, if you feel insulted by something I may have said or may say in the future, just be aware, that it's most likely a syntax problem and my tenny-runner is probably being digested as we speak.

          Peace on earth
          d

          • Not at all. My response was to Tony here. I have heard the ‘Right’ when slapped with horrible deeds committed by the Bush Admin saying: ‘He doesn’t represent us, the right. For example, look at his spending, that is anything but conservative …’ Same, with some on the far left, when faced with exact same horrible deeds, from torture to wars etc. they say: ‘Obama does not represent the Real left.’

            They are right. All those puppet figures are ‘establishment’ and selected by the same deep state.

            They are wrong: Because, hey, who went out there casting votes? What kind of idiotic conviction-less person goes and cast his/her vote for someone who they consider as Not their representative.

            As for me: Don’t cast my vote for any puppets; right, left, or …

        • tonywicher says:

          Fine, people in this community, including me, don’t see any real difference between Bush and Obama. But they do see this lack of difference from different perspectives. There is still a big difference between my “leftist” perspective and that of the “right”, and I am trying to clarify that difference. Clinton and Obama are social liberals. Wall Street finds such liberalism as useful as it finds libertarianism. They are not what I call “leftists”. Any real “leftist” understands that Wall is in control of government. A real leftist opposes that control. But it seems to me that the “right wing” libertarians and maybe right wing Christians here think that “big government” is the problem, not Wall Street control of the government. I think that really marks pretty clearly the difference between “left” and “right”. Obama no way represents the real left. Please check out this real representative of the “left” for comparison: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/27/greek-pm-alexis-tsipras-economist-yanis-varoufakis Here are some quotes:

          “Greek democracy today chose to stop going gently into the night. Greek democracy resolved to rage against the dying of the light,” the Greek-Australian wrote on his blog.

          One of the first two ministers to be confirmed by prime minister Alexis Tsipras, Varoufakis studied at Essex University and has taught in Australia, Greece and the United States. In pre-election interviews he vowed to destroy Greek oligarchs, end what he called the humanitarian crisis in Greece and renegotiate the country’s debt mountain.

          “We are going to destroy the basis upon which they have built for decade after decade a system, a network that viciously sucks the energy and the economic power from everybody else in society,” he told Britain’s Channel 4 television.

          This guy is speaking my language. Can you imagine Obama saying (much less actually meaning) something like this?

          Thanks to 344thBrother for supporting me by saying he had called Clinton and Obama “leftists”. Brother, you are an honest man. Why number 344? Just curious.

          • Mgrdichian says:

            Let me introduce myself by saying one of my goals in activism is to help dismantle the left/right paradigm which IMO has outgrown any usefulness and in turn become a destructive force.

            You said: “Fine, people in this community, including me, don’t see any real difference between Bush and Obama. But they do see this lack of difference from different perspectives.”

            I don’t see a problem with that. On the contrary, the fact that the smoke screen employed by both sides is being recognized by both sides for what it is — a smoke screen — is a good thing. It’s a sign that it’s losing its grip on society. As much as they say otherwise, the elite on the left and the right want the paradigm of division to remain in tact, or else it would eliminate their raison d’être.

            “Clinton and Obama are social liberals… Wall Street finds such liberalism as useful as it finds libertarianism.”

            Indeed, Wall Street has learned how to capitalize on different ideological perspectives. Why shouldn’t they? Capitalization is the name of their game. But so do politicians on both sides capitalize on different social ideologies. It’s no secret, even among some mainstream political pundits, that politicians use social issues to distract and divide us for their political gain, i.e. why talk about the economic and human costs of invading countries when we can talk about abortion?

            “it seems to me that the “right wing” libertarians and maybe right wing Christians here think that “big government” is the problem, not Wall Street control of the government. I think that really marks pretty clearly the difference between “left” and “right”

            I’ll spare everyone the diatribe and simply challenge you to consider that both corporate control of government in general and the size and scope of the federal government today are all problematic. IMO that’s why it’s a crisis. The problems are so big and so bad it makes people feel helpless. Politicians (insiders) love that because it allows their machines to create “saviors” and perpetuate their myths.

          • Mgrdichian: valid observations; sound reasoning. I don’t see how anyone could argue against what you just offered. Thank you!

          • 344thBrother says:

            Tony:

            343 of my brother firemen died on 911 in buildings full of bombs. It’s in remembrance of them I’ve had this nickname since that day. And in case you wonder, no, I’m not NYFD just a volunteer from Northern California who happened to be on the East coast during the attacks. It was the firemen describing explosions before the towers fell that first tipped me off.

            Thanks for asking.
            peace
            d

          • 344thBrother says:

            3/19/15
            @Sibel re voting:
            I’m proud to state that I was 18 when the 18 year old first got the vote. It was Nixon vs Mcgovern. I voted for Donald Duck. I’ve voted for Mickey Mouse, Chairman Mao, Roger Rabbit (Memory gets fuzzy here) for no other reason then that’s what I think of our “choices” and because I figured I could do a little good just by giving the polling place ladies a laugh.

            I used to vote for cartoon characters every big “election” and religiously studied and voted my conscience on resolutions. Since the advent of electronic voting, I just let the box vote for me, they don’t need my input.
            p
            d

      • arealjeffersonian says:

        tonywicher:

        Me thinks you underestimate the BFP community here. First, maybe I missed it, but I don’t see anyone in these comments calling Obama or Clinton leftists. Depending on one’s definition, maybe they are, maybe they’re not, but that doesn’t have anything to do with our discussion. Your comments sound just like what I hear and see in the mainstream media political “discussion”. Just name calling, and my candidate/party is better than your candidate/party – same old tired non-productive rhetoric.
        We can do better than that here at BFP.

        Why do you say most here don’t believe in representative democracy? Totalitarian corporate rule? Facts, please. Is the NSA corporate? Is the CIA? Is Homeland Security? Is the Federal Reserve? I could go on, but I just don’t see how corporates can rule.

        And as to the Constitution, what do you think you understand about the Constitution that others here don’t? For me, I believe the Constitution is far easier to comprehend than the thousands of laws and amendments put forth by your big government, and I for one would love to see a return to it.

        • tonywicher says:

          I was not the person who introduced the “left-right” terminology to this discussion. Sibel did in her introductory remarks. I never said there was a difference between Clinton and Obama. I objected to either of them being called “leftists” by right-wingers. They are social liberals, not leftists, which is primarily an economic term. I will wager that every person reading this thread who calls himself a “leftist” agrees with me. The difference between the “leftists” Sibel is talking about (which does not appear to be what I mean by this term) and the “libertarians” she thinks will make the “revolution” is the very topic of this discussion. If you are interested, I will post a longer comment in which I will briefly explain to you the “leftist” view of economics and the Constitution. I also call myself a Constitutionalist, and I happen to agree with you that we need to return to its basic principles and not make a lot of new laws. However, I suspect that our understanding of those basic Constitutional principles is very different.

          • arealjeffersonian says:

            Tony,

            Thanks, I appreciate your measured response.

            I’m very interested in your Constitutional views – curious as to how different our understanding really may be. Perhaps you can start a new thread so it will be easier to spot when you post it.

            Re economics, Sibel started the discourse by stating that we should leave the economy out of this particular discussion, and I confess to my ignorance anyway.

            As to left vs right, it’s useful in a discussion like this to generally identify views – I just object when it becomes “us vs them” with accompanying finger pointing and name calling.

            I got a chuckle out of part of your answer – I wonder if you see the irony that I do in you expressing your objection to Clinton or Obama being called “leftists” by in the same sentence using the term “right winger’s”?

            I think I’ll post a separate thread on “revolution” as its being discussed here, and I look forward to your post on the “leftist” view of the Constitution.

          • tonywicher says:

            Jeff,

            Our discussion should be a very interesting one, since you are a Jeffersonian, whereas I call myself a Hamiltonian. It will be part of a discussion that goes back to the very foundation of our Republic.

        • Jeffersonian: I’d say my two picks from that era would be …. Thomas Paine, and then Jefferson. Hmmmm, I am going to remain silent on Hamilton. He began the move towards expanded powers for the Federal Gov …

  12. To All,

    Sorry I got angry. I’m taking a break and have unsubscribed from comments for this post. What got me upset initially was the vitriol in Sibel’s podcast, when she talked about the far left with such disdain. I thought it was wrong and I took it personally.

    • arealjeffersonian says:

      Xicha:

      Don’t be such a spoil sport to just take your ball and run away. If you feel strongly, which apparently you do, then stand your ground and support your viewpoint with fact and logic, not just angry reaction.

      Having said that, I don’t think Sibel was overly kind to any political group in her podcast, not just the far left.

      So please refrain from ugly angry name-calling and just be a part of our lively discussion.

    • 344thBrother says:

      @Xicha:
      For me, no worries.

      If a subject is worth exploring, it’s likely to be touchy to someone or some group. Text is an imperfect communications medium and lets face it, Sibel is bringing up issues that are very intense. I took her use of boxes such as keeping the economic situation constant as a means of keeping the discussion somewhat within certain parameters and thus not too far ranging.

      I watched and participated in the “Scholarsfor911Truth” forum way back in the day when Thermite was first being discovered and discussed. People’s opinions and feelings started to get attacked and it devolved into “You’re an agent!” name calling. Such a shame, such a waste and it resulted in the breakup of that forum/group which was doing good, ground breaking work on a number of fronts.

      Anyway, I’m here to learn as much as to post and to hear all sides whether I understand them all or not. I value what everyone says who is righteously trying to carry forth the discussion and make logical statements. That is why I like this forum.

      peace
      and God bless us
      Every
      One

      • A good point that I should have maybe emphasized further. If we don’t keep certain variables constant (I know in real life they are not ever constant;-), then, it becomes way to massive to discuss, but also way too polarizing.

        As for econ: I have such mixed thinking. I don’t have much econ expertise. I usually listen to various sides on their view of various economic models, yet, I have been unable to formulate my very own point of view. I listen to one side, and they make pretty good sense, and show pretty solid data to back up their point. Then I go and listen to another view, similarly well-argued and supported by what seem to be solid data/graphs/historical context. And then another one. I guess the reason I have not formulated my own stand/view, is lack of very deep understanding. No? Otherwise, how come, I find every side make sense??! To make the long story short, I am not comfortable enough to criticize either model, or side with one. Does that make sense?

        Maybe it is a left brain, right brain thing. So far, I’m not getting it enough …

        • Just to add: I ended up taking 8 or 9 econ courses during my bachelors and masters degree (4.0 GPA); including international econ, even a course called ‘Economics of Crime’ which basically tied and analyzed crime based on supply and demand theories.

          The reason I am bringing this up: with all these courses, the more I read, the more I listen, the more I’m swayed from one point to another, then another, and then back to point A …

        • Sibel, I feel you need no help from economists–some call it a dead science. The heavy hitters are from the financial area, gold bugs, Max Keiser types, and one of your best buddies, James Corbett. Classical Economics is no longer related to the real world of central banking and absolute lack of “free markets”. Free market gone. Control of $ by opaque psychopaths now.

    • You made it a little intense–so what? Please stay.

  13. Hello everyone,

    Here is new Food for Thought:

    In this episode I talked about the Far-Right and Far-Left. I pointed to Far-Left as a fanatic religion where government system is viewed as ultimate God/force. I also talked about the Far-Right where Bible & Christianity is seen/viewed as the foremost ultimate/ top force.

    Now, for someone who considers both camps fanatics, and both sides driven by their unquestioning religious beliefs, which ones have shown up here as the angriest for their religion being pointed to and criticized? In other words, which one so far has appeared more fanatic?

    Well, based on all the comments we have gotten here so far, and based on all the e-mails and notes I have received from our members (Yes, we have Left, Right, Ultra Left, Ultra Right, Libertarians, Anarchists, …. all of them as members), guess which one (so far) has proven to be the most fanatic, going from constructive discussion mode to ‘I am so offended, and pissed and angry’ mode, even resorting to very ugly characterization, as very offended party(ies)?

    Now, your turn to respond. I’ll let you to deduce that based on what we have here. In addition to what we have here I have received dozens of e-mails/notes from our community members. And so far, only one side, one fanatic ‘far’ side, has been spewing fire, foaming at the mouth. I have yet to hear from any other sides, other than very positive criticism or support.

    I’ll let you guess; informed guess. But I tell you this much: this is why we are so divided as a nation; driven by intense hatred rather than love and tolerance.

    • Mgrdichian says:

      Which side is being more fanatical? That’s too easy to guess. We all know the LEFT always thinks it’s RIGHT, which makes the RIGHT feel like it’s being LEFT out.

    • Your podcast was the most divisive comment here. And you were wrong about the far left being on the sidelines. I thought I showed you why. I’m not a religiously leftist person, but I see the value in those who have had that philosophy and I understand it. If you want to bring people together, why start calling names right off the bat? Take a look in the mirror.

      • As I have suggested to you, encouraged you, many times, Xicha, you should consider writing articles and analyses on these points. And share it with public.

        Now, I am going to add another suggestion: You should start your very own podcast series. You have the technical ability, the time, and obviously this very strong position and urge to put forth your opinions, get agreement, and maybe even convert a few (even I in government religion it is viewed as ‘saving one’s soul.’

        From what I see, you would have no problem fitting with many left-oriented forums/sites out there. They will be supportive, and you will be echoing each other with one core message. That would be good for you.

        However, I won’t have you as a troll coming here, and try so very hard to ‘sell.’ To sell, force-feed your version/view. To begin categorizing, generalizing, attacking, disrespecting … the trend I call ‘foaming at the mouth’ that is so common in the poisonous partisan forums out there.

        For a person who is not known to be patient, and very tolerant, I have tried very hard with you. And this is not the first time. We have had you coming and leaving based on anger, disagreement, religion …

        I wish you best of luck in setting up a site, a podcast, writing your views (some of them very good indeed), and have a soap box that will, I’m sure, attract quite many people. This website, what we have been doing here for years, won’t be molded with those among the majority with their ugly and divisive attitude towards anything that deviates from their standards.

        I have been showcasing my partner producers when they have had guests that I totally despised. You know why: because they offered a point of view, surely different than mine, surely something I cringed upon, but that never became a reason for me to censor my producer partners, criticize them, or part with them. Same with my authors: I regularly publish articles and analyses by authors that do not fit my views in any way. Again, I have never ‘not’ published those views. And each of those had their own agreeing audience among our community. Say, AGM Podcast and anarchism. I tried the gracious way, took a deep breath, and said ‘maybe there are some valid points there … maybe some people view it from an angle I don’t possess …’

        Without that open-minded, respectful, gracious, and tolerant attitude there wouldn’t be communities like this; BFP.

        I wish you luck. No hard feelings. Just move on and find a new home, where everything is tailored with an exact fir for you. So long, and please let this be a permanent one; I’m sick and tired of the broken record that has been haunting me with every e-mail and comments posted.

  14. 344thBrother says:

    @Sibel:
    My father was a smart man. He once told me “The economy is like a giant blob of Jello, you poke it here and it wiggles around and pouches out somewhere else”. That’s about the extent of my understanding.

    At some point however, I would like to hear a little overview on the Economics of Crime, that sounds like an interesting class.
    pftj
    d

    • I like your father without even meeting him.

      Econ of Crime: While the course was mainly based on liberal/government point of ‘zero crime vs. high crime’ dynamics (The law of diminishing return; meaning: how and at what point the gov’s expenditure in reducing crime via policing/etc. decreases, thus, it stabilizes somewhere between zero crime and very high crime). Tons of gobbley gook went along went along with the entire notion, and of course, as it is always the case, all other variable except the two (gov policing & crime degree/profit), were kept constant (disregarded;-).

      Now, I know Libertarians will work out the same data/numbers, and will come up with a different results.

      For me, the most important related topic would be government’s profit (translation: peoples’ loss & government budget and force expansion) from illegalization. Let’s say with legalization of pot. That’s in a way a threat to the gov. It should translate to shrinking (almost disappearing) DEA, prison industry complex, etc. That is, unless, they replace that with illegalizing other things. Because as we know: fed gov departments never shrink, they’d rather make crime happen, then, get smaller. Apply this to all the synthetically created and magnified terror threat. Terror threat to sustain, actually expand, TSA, FBI, CIA … If it doesn’t happen, then make it happen. Or else they have to go about justifying spending trillions of dollars of taxpayers money …

      You see, without the Gov worship, we would have econ courses demonstrating/teaching how each terror event brings $$$$$$ increase to gov spending & government expansion (employees), and how it brings $$$$$$$$$$$$$$ for the war/security mega corporations. That would go a long way in getting people ‘really’ think about 9/11, Boston … No? And that’s where the real revolutions begin: thinking.

  15. dancingbrave says:

    Hello I am a new subscriber from the UK and have been enjoying following this format. I feel out of my depth but would like to offer something.

    UKIP seem to be gaining more and more support in the UK but are still very unlikely to win the general election next year, the bookmakers have them at around 33/1 and are not usually wrong. It is a shame as they have promised a referendum regarding leaving the EU which I am sure they would honour. The Consevatives say they will do the same but I think they are conning the public as Brussels will offer just enough of a compromise to keep us there. Also it would have been a refreshing change and may have rekindled the publics interest in politics rather than the usual left or right, red or blue, labour party or conservative party. The liberal Democrats (500/1 this time) did share the spoils last time with the conservative party but still nothing exciting happened.

    How that affects a revolution in the USA, not sure but maybe with different policies (especially tighter immigration) and the decentralising of power in Europe with potentially other countries following suit it could be interesting. As would Nigel Farage’s relationship with the next president of the USA, the UK and the USA have a very close relationship. If the Uk leave the EU and our relationship with America wasn’t so close it could effect global politics and give cause for the American public to consider there government?

    • Welcome to BFP.

      I would love to have your comments/perspectives here from the UK.

      EU: For years and years I have been on the other side of the gov in Turkey, and against joining the EU. That’s just one small reason to have more from you here. With the econ crises in Europe, while Turkey remained fairly strong (at least in tact), many Turks who were on the other side began considering their previous strong support for joining the EU. Of course we see some of the same kind of reconsiderations in countries like Italy & Spain (For their own set of reasons), and add to that, the revival of and increase in ‘nationalism,’ at least in a sense where we see the desire for the public to maintain their unique identities, their own traditions/culture. Some of it is the rational opposition to ‘one size fits all,’ some of it is being dominated by the ‘dominant’ nations in the circle …

      You are right. No matter what isolationists say, what happens across the ocean, many thousands of miles away, can have direct effect (domino effect) for each country. Thus, how events unfolds globally, what happens with the UK, the economic crises in China … all can become catalysts for what happens here in the States. Or vice versa.

      We have several others from the UK here @ BFP. I have several good friends there as well. Please expand our view angle by bringing in yours and what’s happening there and why.

  16. The revolution, therefore, is in THINKING. as the revolutionary act. As opposed to violence, which is the weapon of choice of the superstate. Which it is very good at. has indoctrinated the entire population with violence as necessary for ‘peace’, and heroic. It has control of the thinking process to extremes of illogic, able to explode complex steel framed high rises straight down at free fall “due to normal small office furnishing fires” , and can execute a president with a bullet to the face “from behind”. So their degree of owning or marketing the ‘thinking’ is sophisticated and very effective(if you can see our hand in it, we ain’t doing or job properly.”) Magicians perhaps?
    Being a solitary animal myself, its hard to see how the independent single thought is transmitable. Which brings us back to the first Nash equation.
    And the algorithms set up by RAND etal to ID the second coming.
    Sorry to see Xicha and BFP in crosstalk.

    • Well-said, Remo. Thinking, critical thinking, independent spirit …

      ‘Being a solitary animal myself, its hard to see how the independent single thought is transmitable ‘- presents a dilemma. For me, this is a major step: stepping out of my preferred solitude, go beyond occasional writing, and try doing ‘this.’ On the other hand, I’ve been seeking alternatives, different ways, different approaches since 2001. In some I failed (mobilizing whistleblowers, pounding congressional doors, etc.) … In some of those … well, the jury is still out … And this one: time will show. No matter what, the key is, keep trying; not giving up …

    • Mgrdichian says:

      A “Revolution of Thinking” is indeed a preferred option, and likely more effective than violence and worthy of a far-reaching paradigm of its own. I’m going to skip over the metaphysical question of whether a thought is a transmittable energy form from an isolated location, or weather the general population has the requisite acumen to determine how the structural integrity of WTC7 was compromised. But regarding how a president can be “shot in the face from behind” I’d like to challenge your evaluation regarding a lack of critical thinking. Indulge me.

      Even before the Warren Commission released its findings, a huge portion of the population was skeptical about the “lone nut” idea. From then until today, poll after poll showed most Americans believe he was killed in some sort of conspiracy. Over time, critical thinking on the Kennedy assassination has grown exponentially and in greater detail. It was said in a recent film about Jim Garrison: “In 1969 only one person believed the CIA was involved, Jim Garrison. Today more people believe the CIA was involved than believe the Warren Commission story” In a way that’s remarkable. It was a time in history when the press was trying to do it’s job. There was no CNN or instantaneous footage (like 9/11) to ponder, analyze or reflect on. All there was were news accounts, select stills, witness stories and word of mouth. And when the Zapruder film was finally shown the public reaction instigated the House Select Committee on Assassinations. So to cut the public a little slack on this one, by in large the majority never bought the official narrative, and still doesn’t. Did the perps ultimately get away with the crime? Of course. On the ramifications of this dynamic I was enlightened by something the late John Judge said: (paraphrased) These types of political criminals could care less what we know regarding the truth. All they care about is whether we know enough to litigate.” And if someone does, they’ll kill him. THAT is the real problem.

      So one thought I’m left with is critical thinking is not enough to change the tide. Yes, the ultimate power of MSM is in the wrong hands. That’s why it’s essential that those who care about the truth become masters of the internet and whatever information vehicle comes next. I really don’t think the MSM has as much ultimate power over peoples minds as we give it credit for. IMO its really just enough power the take the bite out of possible repercussions. From a criminal’s (cover up) point of view that’s enough. I think our real challenge is to help put some bite into people’s deepest thoughts and gut feelings. I have no idea how to do it but “my” gut tells me that things like working to eradicate paradigms that divide us is a step it the right direction.

      Sometimes all you can do is try your best believing that the next step will be revealed if your heart is in the right place. That’s how I try to conduct my personal life and I think it applies in my activism, too.

      And no Sibel, you didn’t fail with your whistleblower activities. The current extreme clampdown on whistleblowers is a testament to how effective you and whistleblowers like you have been. If (all of) you weren’t being effective they wouldn’t need to clamp down. And its OK to say to yourself I’ve taken it as far as I can. No one is holding you responsible to topple the entire corruption.

      • Mgrdichian says:

        Addendum:

        Remo, to be fair and honest I totally agree with you. Critical thinking is at an all time low in America and the MSM has a big role to play. I live in Boston and I see how so many people have bought into the Marathon bombing official narrative. But a poll here also shows around 40% aren’t buying all of the prosecutions claims. The sad part is they are deathly afraid to speak their minds. I truly feel that this “fear factor” is currently our biggest obstacle and far-reaching. We need an army of thinkers from all spectrums to win.

        • its the ‘deathly afraid to speak their minds’ bit that answers the question. CIA stated “the make-up of the Commission and its staff was an excellent safeguard against over-commitment to any one theory, or against the illicit transformation of probabilities into certainties”.
          The illicit-transformation-of-probabilities-into-certainties
          of any ONE theory.
          ‘Probabilities into certainties’ speaks to the fact that there are certainties… the illicit TRANSFORMATION speaks to the fact it is known by CIA, that thoughts CAN transform. so it is also known, 40% knowing is never enough. And, those ‘truths’ have to be IN the literature. Sanctified by Law. Understood by the proletariat. Thats the game. keep it out of the literature , keep it illicit., keep as big a percentage as possible fluctuating in fear and that 40% can know whatever it likes it won’t change the dynamic the conspiracy knows, works. For instance, British PM David Cameron stated “Non-Violent Extremists” Including “9/11 Truthers” and “Conspiracy Theorists” are Just as Dangerous as ISIL Terrorists’. That is a method for keeping those 40% heads DOWN. Mind control. It is also absolutely true that any bona fide litigation gets close to busting this one out of the can, will suffer violence.
          Yet. notwithstanding, it is simply the truth that Kennedy being shot from the front, and 911 being controlled demolition are the fulcrums of modern geopolitic. The entire world is now built on the Lies the CIA commissions were employed to legitimize and protect. – its what we are talking about in every line.
          Break those paradigms, and revolution in thinking follows.

          • Mgrdichian says:

            I’m glad you see that “deathly afraid to speak…” answers the question. You could also add TSA pat downs, removing your shoes at the airport, and walking thru a scanner to enter govt buildings, etc to the list of attempts to control people’s perceptions. All of these are designed to keep certain powers in the hands of an elite few. My “exposé” on the Kennedy assassination was to point out that despite these types of efforts, a vast number of people were/are able to see through it. My concern is that in many activist circles, all too often the population that is being victimized is also being reprimanded — i.e. calling them “sheeple” or ignorant or uninformed, etc, etc. I’m here to argue that this posture is self-defeating — blaming the victim. Over and over I see activists highlighting abuses yet giving little more than a nod to small victories and/or arguing about their merit. HR428 is a perfect example. In my view there have already been some huge victories there. The initial press conference, itself, is a huge victory, along with the number of Reps signing on as co-sponsors, yet those who feel this way are chastised or labeled as brainwashed or fooled. Rather than count the blessings and build on it, the 911 truth community instead bickers over its value, speculates over its intent and purposefully undermines its effectiveness, all because it doesn’t fit neatly into its agenda. I’ll tell you something, the ‘revolution’ isn’t gonna be neat and tidy. In all our efforts we need to find ways to encourage and defend our fellow citizens and not reprimand them. When you say “keep as big a percentage as possible fluctuating in fear and that 40% can know whatever it likes it won’t change the dynamic,” you’re agreeing with me. In that regard the idea that “knowledge is power” is somewhat of a myth. It’s courage and not knowledge that overcomes fear. That’s why I feel that en-“courage”-ment has to go hand in hand with knowledge, and I see that as lacking these days. In that regard this thread is huge. Look at the results. Sibel has gone out go her way to encourage everyone to participate, even people she disagrees with. Look at the participation results. Long-time members are coming out of the woodwork. We should all pay special attention to what’s going on here and work to emulate it all that we do. The results will speak for themselves.

          • Being derisive is being divisive and you can bet disinfo. knows that very well. So I agree totally that different groups success should be congratulated. No one knows from where the links it are going to come, and ego, really, should be kept out of it. Individual and wide-ranging expertts furnish me everyday with clear results I couldn’t possibly uncover myself, and each is a jewel in the darkness of this (data)mine of militarism/surveillance superstate.

  17. The recent book The Righteous Mind offers an interesting insight into the group dynamics in Iran and in this search for a trigger to a revolution.
    Apparently most people lean toward one of two tendencies – the need for conformance which is often seen in conservatives and evangelicals – or the need for tolerance which is often seen in what might be called liberals.
    In a political battle, those seeking conformance are fighting for ‘us’ while those seeking tolerance are essentially fighting for ‘others’ (as so many within/among a more diverse group) and so the first group tends to be easier to unite into that cause while the second group tends to be more disjointed. Your story of the Iranian revolt revealed how the wide variety of groups could unite against a common enemy because during that time everyone was fighting for ‘us’ not ‘them’ and with so many united it was a formidable presence. After the revolution then the group dynamics came into play again with those most focused on us, which included the religious forces, winning over those seeking a better society and/or government.

    In the first PC segment, you mentioned groups like the libertarians or the evangelicals as being possible triggers – and that is because they are more uniform when focused on their group – while the various groups in the left seeking social justice and the like are unlikely triggers – because they are never as focused on a specific goal and any success requires some measure of popularity. The first group can win by maintaining focus while for the second group it is easier to criticize the system than it is to galvanize action toward a diverse goal of somehow fixing it.

    The American Revolution had widespread support but it was the propertied class that was most united to get rid of taxation and other complaints over the king. That focus on their self interest, while getting popular support, could drive that revolution to success. The Federalist Papers pushing for a strong central government and the frequent dissent trying to prevent it forced compromises into that Constitution. I suspect (I was not there!) because the colonies were much more rural than now, there were not so many self-identified groups as described in your Iran story – nor as is found in American society.

    Group dynamics are important. We now have a rich ruling class, focused on their self interest. There is no other group as united in their self interest to oppose them. No opposition means no accountability – so absolute power corrupts absolutely. When so much of the population is on the edge of survival, with limited resources, so threats to their well being (take the low wages or you can be replaced) can be successful in suppressing dissent. Congress seems to be tasked now with just finding ways to placate the masses, so issues like police brutality and NSA are just met with talk of reform and such. As you mentioned if anything drastic would ever be done, like real severe violence against Occupy Wall Street, a popular uprising remains a possibility. The current big demonstrations against police violence almost seems like a potential trigger to widespread discontent, but again the race card gets played so often. Us vs them – divide and conquer.

    • Dave, I just added ‘The Righteous Mind ‘ to my list of readings. Thank you.

      Excellent analysis, and so very eloquent. I truly envy people who have this amazing ability: this level of articulate/eloquent writing. Points made with clarity.

      Sometimes it feels preposterous to talk/write when my audience happen to be you people; way above me.

  18. CuChulainn says:

    the Left is of course the vanguard of capital; as for Marx, he understood that the state is an inevitable concomitant of capital, and that the abolition of money would involve the abolition of the state. Leninist state capitalism embodied the tendencies that Marx himself fought, near the end of his life saying that the one thing he knew for sure was that he was not a Marxist. he differed from anarchists like Bakunin in understanding that the capitalist state cannot be abolished by fiat. so yes both the Left and the Right of capital rely on the state; the sublation of capital means the sublation of government. socialists who believe in big government are as befuddled as anarchists who believe in capitalism.

    • “so yes both the Left and the Right of capital rely on the state; the sublation of capital means the sublation of government. socialists who believe in big government are as befuddled as anarchists who believe in capitalism.” Yes.

  19. Mike, here is the interesting part: The Far-Right is stating exactly the same thing; using exactly the same words; they say: “There is hardly any trace of conservative Right, things have moved so far to the left over … evident in mainstream media, entertainment industry, etc. etc.”

    And that says it all.

    • John Phillips says:

      Sibel
      The Far-Right states many many lies as truth, over and over again until the public “believes” it. The Far-Right can say anything they want, but the political environment in the US has move so far right that my conservative view now seem “liberal.” So, no the Press is not leftist or liberal any more than Clinton or Obama. Until Obama Slick Willy was our most “republican” president.

      There still remains a left, but I should warn everyone that I think the terms “left, right, liberal, conservative, republican or democrat” as completely inaccurate terms and in today’s world serve only to “divide” the populace not unite us.

      I’m reading a lot of intellectual exercising and not a lot of basic common sense here.
      Best Regards
      John

      • I agree with you on ‘Labeling.’ The categorization.

        On the other hand, I totally disagree when it comes to your take re: common sense in our community’s response. Not only they provide well-articulated views, but also valid criticism with very logical possible solutions.

        In fact, you can see how often the issue of ‘labeling’ has been stated by most commenters.

        And I don’t see how suggestions such as beginning revolution with knowledge, independent thinking, critical thinking followed by action could be considered not ‘common sense.’

        I also see uniting approaches that us absent from 99.9999% of other forums/discussions out there.

        repeating lies over & over & over by the Far-Right: See, you just committed what you view other commenters committing (which many of them are not). The repetition of the same old lies, lies, lies, and more lies, is not unique to the Far-Right. Not at all. It applies to equally to all politicians, both sides, both media sources equally.

        So yes, we should definitely watch out for the trap called ‘labeling.’

      • I also take issue with the use of ‘common sense’ here, and would like to take this moment to respectfully defend the integrity of this forum with the following: I find it common sense that if an argument floats on nothing more than ‘common sense’ itself, instead of built on a foundation of intellectual and philisophical exercising, then it is an argument that ought to be reallocated back to the State Department, where it can be most comfortably propagated.

      • arealjeffersonian says:

        John:

        Everything you say in your first paragraph can be and is said by the opposite side:

        The Left states many many lies as truth, over and over again until the public “believes” it. The Left can say anything they want, but the political environment in the US has moved so far left that my liberal view now seems “conservative.” So, no the Press is not right-wing or conservative any more than either Bush. Until Bush, Jr, Bush, Sr was our most “democratic” president.

        See how that works?

        So I fully agree with your second paragraph, the terms “left”, “right”, “democrat”, “republican” are totally meaningless and only serve to divide – so lets not divide, lets not point fingers at the “other side” – lets get together and work towards solutions that bring about useful change in our country, and this forum provided by Sibel is a good place to start.

        As to your last line, I have to disagree, I see a lot very thoughtful commentary here. But maybe I’m wrong. If so, please enlighten me with some common sense.

  20. Jeffrey Lapinski says:

    Sibel,
    I will start by saying THANK YOU! I love the concept behind your new podcast series and I have enjoyed and found the first 3 episodes extremely intellectually stimulating! I will try to respond to the last 2 podcasts in one post.

    Your discussion of the Iranian Revolution in 1979 was fascinating as I always thought I knew more about it than I actually did (I knew of the 1953 CIA coup and installation of the Shah). What I never knew was there was a combination of multiple “ideological” groups that succeeded in his overthrow, I was always under the impression that the revolution came exclusively from the fundamentalist Islamic camp.

    That being said, once hearing the actual story I immediately began to consider where a revolution would arise within the United States as currently configured. In many ways I have come to the same conclusions as you.
    Personally, I came out of the “Left” and considered myself a “socialist” until the election of Obama and his subsequent administration. It was only then that I started to review my own positions on many issues that I realized that I actually have much more in common with classical libertarians than I do with the capital L left. Ultimately, I arrived at the conclusion that “labels” are a great part of the problem and the last 2 years of my life have been spent throwing off all political and ideological labels focusing solely on the issues.

    Returning to the topic, I agree that the “left” is a very unlikely source of any true revolution in this nation. A perfect example of that was the Occupy movement and I think the fate of “Occupy” as a force speaks for itself. The idea of a partnership with the Christian fundamentalists has always been a terrifying prospect as my fear has always been that the end result would be exactly what you described as occurring in Iran. Despite my agreement with them on issues such as home schooling, gun rights, and the desire for government to stay out of my personal business, I as an athesit fear what they would do once obtaining any acutal power.

    Again, thank you for starting this podcast and I look forward to more!

    JL

    • Welcome, Jeffrey.

      You know how some people say when they look people in the eye they get a pretty good idea. Well, I get that from people’s e-mails/notes/comments. There are those that reek with straight-forwardness & frankness. Say it as is, not worrying about being accepted/liked/approved of. Well, your comment, first comment tells me all that.

      I am glad you specifically brought up the issue of ‘labeling.’ In the past 8-9 years, since I began actively writing (and bit of speaking), I’ve been called ‘the lefty shill,’ ‘The Right-Wing Darn Repug,’ ‘Hardcore Gun Ho Militia Loving Libertarian,’ including, lately that is, ‘Guardian Angel of Oligarchs around the World.’ I think part of the reason is that I so loath this entire labeling trend (to a fanatic level). And that I have never entirely fit into one particular group/label/organization/party.

      Even outside politics, if you were to go through my music collection (a fairly large one), one minute you’d say, ‘Oh yes, I know the type, the snobby opera fan.’ The next minute you’d scream, ‘Oh my, she has Bluegrass and old-time country, that little closet Red Neck gal.’ And one minute after that: ‘The girl is stuck in the 50s-60s rock.’ To make the long story short, it will be very hard for me to describe my musical taste with a/one label.

      My experience is similar to yours. In the last 6-y years, since 2007, I have found more commonality with the classical libertarians. You see how I use lower case ‘l’? Exactly. I don’t belong to the L party. Also, this is based on relevant comparison. Meaning, while not in 100% agreement on all issues, of all the political groups (and subgroups) out there, I have found many of the reasoning and concepts within this group logical, based on common sense. I also share your fear regarding the fanatics fundamentalists, and have been very concerned with ‘some’ who believe it to be safe/ok/for greater good to form a coalition/partnership with that segment.

      Looking forward to hearing more from you.

      • Sibel,

        Thank you for your response and your strikingly accurate impression of me! I am actually not “new” here at BFP I have just never started to speak – but there is no time like the present and your new podcast seems to have been the catalyst that I needed to open my mouth!

        It appears that you and I may be kindered spirits because you have essentially described my music collection to a tee! More importantly is the issue of labeling, I have come to the same conclusion that many people have in regards to labels. I have come to the conclusion that labels are essentially artifical and are a very effective tool that the “elite” uses to keep the proles at each others’ throats. Take the issue of abortion as a classic example.

        I have certainly thrown off party politics and have started to use a term coined by Gerald Celente, i.e. political atheist – I do not believe in any political party or politician!

        My fear of the rise of the religious right is tremendous – probably like you, I want this group to have all the freedom they want to believe, practice their religion/faith as they see fit BUT I refuse to accept a theocracy nor will allow my children to live with the tyranny of any religious group. I was raised as a free and critical thinker and like you, deplore any fundamentalist religion.

        On a separate note, I must confess that before last night “Classified Woman” was in my collection but was on my list of books to read. Well I opened it last night and could barely put it down and look forward to finishing it today or tomorrow at the latest!

        I will end this post here, but plan to post later today a scenario that I have just read and find extremely plausible.

        Be Well,

        JL

      • 344thBrother says:

        @Sibel You said:
        “Gun Ho Militia Loving Libertarian” I’m pretty sure you meant this:
        Gung-ho at Dictionary.com *
        adjective 1. wholeheartedly enthusiastic and loyal; eager; zealous: a gung-ho military outfit. adverb 2. in a successful manner: The business is going gung-ho. To this I agree. You are Gung-ho

        Gun Ho would be an entirely different thing!

        Just keeping it light here.
        peace
        d

        • Pun intended: Because when I express any support for our second amendment, I am right away attacked as gun-loving, militia-loving, violence-loving, redneck-following, hick. Because of that, I took the liberty, and modified the term to Gun-ho. I have been doing this with a bunch of words: I love playing with words (in all 4 languages). The academia does that a lot, they have come up with millions of ‘-ism’. In 1998-1999, one of my political science classes dealt exclusive with one theory, the neocon guy Francis Fukuyama, and his new theory of ‘Endism.’ Talk about indoctrination with a load of manure. But hey, with his PhD, and dozens of newly created ‘ism’ jargons, he was being marketed as the new God of political science … Anyhow.

          By the way, some from the far-right have given me titles as well: Bleeding Heart Liberal, Muslim-loving commie (I have no idea how that’s possible; and I’ve been neither), ACLU poster Girl (I have criticized ACLU more than anyone else I know if, when deserved), Hot-headed feminist, …

  21. DenStendigeResen says:

    Thanks for all the feedback to my rather impulsively written comment. I really shouldn’t be posting here right now – time issues, not ideological ones! – but feel the need to say a few things.
    First, homeschooling: curricula are the problem, imo; they are Substitute Schooling. Love of learning is inborn and powerful. My kids learned without any more help or direction than an occasional discussion of math methods (and both got an Associate’s degree before they were officially adults). I strongly recommend John Holt for anyone who homeschools. The problem with schools is systemic/structural, not just content-related. Even the most inclusive curriculum has behind it the notion of Child as Receptacle for Learning, not free and self-motivated being.

    Which brings me to: Why no participation? Imo, television should be outlawed, but schools (and home schooling) are designed to kill children’s natural love of learning. John Taylor Gatto explains it well, but for this audience Jonathan Kozol might be more relevant (The Night is Dark and I Am Far From Home).

    Finally, I think semantics are bringing this discussion down. A government by any other name…? No, one can conceive of govt’s of entirely different natures. Arguing libertarianism v. X is not (really) arguing for or against govt, but for laissez-faire capitalism v. X. Apples and elk. Ron Paul is no anarchist, at least not from what i’ve seen.
    Gotta go… Cheers, Xicha!

    • 344thBrother says:

      RE Semantics:
      Den
      Agree fully. There’s nothing that makes my eyes cross faster than a long involved debate over what one word or one term or one label means when the issue is elsewhere.
      p
      d

  22. DenStendigeResen says:

    Sorry, Sibel, hadn’t read through to the end of this comment thread. It seems to me that what you call lower-case-L libertarian is more of an anarchist movement. Still, i would love to see a discussion of government’s role in the market (where people are the government), because i firmly believe that there would have to be guidance and governance, economy-wise, if we wanted to prevent a rise of an oligarchy. Like i said before, i don’t believe we have ever tried govt of and by the people, so our current state of affairs cannot be used to say “See what happened with that?”

  23. andrei_tudor says:

    One thing that I believe needs to be considered when assessing where the revolution will most likely come from is the government’s reaction to a perceived threat of revolution. Most commenters here believe that rural America is the most realistic starting point, and that the revolution will initially take the form of armed skirmishes with law enforcement, prompted by an attempt by the government to disarm the population. That view is supported by the recent Bundy ranch standoff, and I agree, the way the events unfolded does show that both the will and the capability exist for armed resistance.

    However, one built-in assumption in this assessment is is that the government will come for the guns, and will attempt to impose their will by force. But what if they never do? What if they decide that it’s better to give up on controlling a small part of the population rather than risk a full blown uprising? Isn’t that how they eventually handled the Bundy situation? To me it looks like they backed off militarily only to try to destroy his support base by playing the race card (he may very well be a racist, I have no idea, but truth is never a relevant consideration when it comes to the making of public personae, perception management is).

    So I would like to pose a question to everyone here – assuming that the government never actually comes for people’s guns, do you still believe rural America to be a likely flashpoint? Come to think of it, this whole “give up your guns” campaign may be just a ruse on the part of the government to distract people’s attention and point them in the wrong direction. After all, most public initiatives are just that, while the real measures are taken without much fanfare and out of the spotlight. If they really wanted to disarm the population, would it make sense to alert them to it first?

    • 344thBrother says:

      andrei:
      That is a very good question and I frankly admit that my bias has always been towards “They will come for the guns and they’re not getting them”. So I haven’t given any thought to your question as it stands. WHAT IF THEY DON’T COME FOR THE GUNS?

      I’ll start by admitting that I believe this premise to be incorrect. There’s already a lot of bureaucratic posturing to prevent veterans, PTSD sufferers, and people who are perceived as threats from owning guns, thus, guns will be illegal. There is already a lot of gun gathering by police whenever a home search or a “Crime has been committed”. Plus there are lots of laws on the books that tack on really BIG additional penalties whenever any “Crime” has been committed with a gun or when there’s a gun somewhere in the picture ie “We searched the residence and found marijuana and a weapon” . Marijuana possession is one crime, possessing it PLUS a gun is a whole other and much more serious crime.

      So, to me it appears that they are already coming for the guns at least bureaucratically and incrementally and the Police State is being geared up to deal with an armed populace with military equipment and harsh “Patriot act” type laws and internment camps and propaganda against gun owners. So I’m sure that some conflict is inevitable. Whether or not it will result in any serious revolution is doubtful.

      Like everyone else, the vast majority of gun owners are peaceful, normal people. Normal people don’t want to start shooting it out with other people. So, if they don’t “COME FOR THE GUNS”, my guess would be any revolts that start would be limited to family, immediate friends and within isolated geographic areas. This has already happened in areas where well organized Militia groups actively train. So far none of those groups has opened fire. It’s hard to know if there have been real armed stand-offs between police and Militia. the Militia members I know claim there have been quite a few, I’ve never seen one and I’m not active Militia, so I can’t say.

      Well, there IS the Bundy Ranch standoff. Which was successfully accomplished without any gun-fighting merely by armed citizenry taking a stand and backing off the armed Federal presence.

      I’m going to need to take some time to seriously think this over andrei, thanks for asking the question.

      peace on earth
      d

      • andrei_tudor says:

        David,

        You’ve made some good points. I live in Canada, not the US, and so I am not really able to assess the situation “on the ground”, as they say, when it comes to gun confiscation. My suspicion is not grounded on actual facts, it’s more of an instinctive suspicion against ideas that seem to appear into the public discourse out of nowhere, and become common knowledge overnight. I think many of them are disinformation planted by the same sources that gave us Saddam’s WMD’s and Assad’s chemical weapons attack against his own people.

        I view the disinformation campaign as a sort of obstacle course that the state designs to frustrate those who search for truthful information. The biggest and crudest obstacles are thrown in at the beginning (Saddam’s WMD’s, Iran’s nuclear weapons, you name it), and they stop the greatest majority of the people. Too many are getting past the big boulders though, so increasingly more complex barriers have to built to gradually sift and divert the rest. The Snowden affair, for example, or the Pentagon papers. And the idea came to me that maybe gun confiscation belongs in the same category, but like I said, I have no facts to back it up.

        I think it would be interesting to study how ideas like these get into the public discourse. The channels used for their introduction would tell lots about the likely sources.

      • Mgrdichian says:

        I think question ‘WHAT IF THEY DON’T COME FOR OUR GUNS?” is brilliant — outside of the box thinking and not at all far fetched. An expanded question would be “How much tyranny/Police state can be imposed without touching the guns?

        Something that fits in with that is the melding of the war on terror with domestic unrest. NEWS FLASH: NYPD now has cops with machine guns. Police Commissioner Bratton (formerly of Boston and LAPD) shows us exactly why that is happening (info sent to me from a gun owning RP libertarian) http://gothamist.com/2015/01/29/nypd_machine_guns.php

        And of course a police state innovation would not be complete without a mug shot of our old pal John Miller

        • As usual, I don’t get to the bar until after closing time, as it were. What can I say other than the usual excuse that there are many demands on my attention. Anyway, my two cents worth if anyone is still following this thread. Or not.

          The natural tendency in prognostication is to take current circumstances and project them into the future along some kind of more-or-less linear trajectory. We all see current circumstances a bit differently, and we project different trajectories, but so far I haven’t seen anyone bring in the “left field” factor. But relatively recent history is replete with hugely significant elements which came from left field. Many of these world-altering elements are technological, such as the Internet and weapons of mass destruction. I was a member of a computer club in the late 1970’s. None of us, that I recall, foresaw the Internet. But by the late 1980’s, many people did. That particular left field factor was coming into view by then.

          Marie Curie and her contemporaries in the late 19th century could not have foreseen the development and use of nuclear bombs. But Einstein in the 1930’s, did.

          So what am I getting at? Firearms are a technology, and virtually all technologies are eventually obsoleted. If, or I should say when, firearms are obsolete, then the issue of anyone “coming for them” is moot.

          If (or once again, I should say when) a machine the size of a house fly can insinuate itself into your personal space and either incapacitate you for easy capture, or kill you, what protection does ANY firearm provide? Can you imagine trying to kill a fly in your home with a handgun or rifle, or even a shotgun? How about trying to kill a dozen of them before one pierces your skin?

          Who is most likely to develop this kind of capability FIRST? Not some guy in his home workshop, I would hazard. Whether it’s robots the size of insects or humanoid combat robots, there are two mitigating factors I’m sure are going through the minds of techonlogically astute readers.

          1. The AI necessary to make autonomous deadly robots of any form factor is simply not extant, and not likely to be extant for some time. I agree.

          2. The government is not likely to find enough Americans willing to be the “human-in-the-loop” needed to go about the grim business of remote-controlling these machines in a manner to terrorize and subjugate their countrymen on a massive scale. Once again, I agree.

          But the thing is, you see, this kind of wet work could easily be outsourced to non-Americans. I won’t even mention nationalities or affiliations because I don’t need to. We know elements of the US government, particularly a certain three letter agency, has no qualms about working with criminals and psychopaths.

          In prognosticating some hypothetical next revolution, we seem to be, as they say, fighting the last revolutionary war. What we need, I submit, is more thinking about the landscape of the future as it will be quite soon, like it or not. Genies don’t go back into bottles.

          The coming landscape might very well be one which cries out for a revolution more intensely than any other time in human history, while simultaneously making a revolution more difficult than any other time in human history.

          Think forward. The arrow of time has one direction only.

          • Mgrdichian says:

            Right, when tyrants have weapons of control the size of a fly, what good is an outdated machine like a firearm? I think most people who recognize the need for drastic change, at the very least “feel” that, even if they can’t articulate it. The real revolution is a battle of minds, and appropriately “Probable Cause” tackled an aspect of this in the follow up podcast. Being and staying ahead of the curve is what it’s all about.

          • andrei_tudor says:

            Knarf,

            That’s a good observation. My counter argument would be Afghanistan, and Irak. All the technological superiority in the world was not enough to secure victory against locals armed with AK-47’s. My feeling is that we’re still far away from being able to control populations through technological means, if such a thing is possible at all.

          • We aren’t Afghanis with a long history of inter-tribal warfare. We don’t have some of the world’s most rugged terrain located in one of the world’s most remote regions, as a factor in our favor. Most importantly, we would not be facing boots-on-the-ground US military operating under restrictive ROE. We would be facing faceless mercenary agents operating remotely at undisclosed locations.

            Rather than revolution in some classic sense, what we may actually be facing will be the need for a counter-coup to try and get back some semblance of liberty, because once this kind of nightmare technology becomes feasible at sufficient scale, the PTB will neutralize obsolete police and military forces, as well as government as we know it. This is the form the synthetic revolution could take, in that it would be packaged as a “great leap forward” towards Utopia and seemingly have widespread public support. The most dystopian development in human history would be packaged as the most glorious and wonderful thing since sliced bread. That’s what mass media is for, is it not?

      • 344thBrother says:

        3/19/15
        Reading back in the forums is instructive. Knarf, andrei you guys make good points. The issue of the “technolification” of warfare is a huge concern. A mechanical tetse fly or a small robot that can hop onto roofs (look up the flea) and wait around for you to exit the building would have to be met with some sort of electronic/hacking/destroying force. Hackers, job opportunities abound!

        Nevertheless, on guns, they’re cheap, available, plentiful and can be stored for long periods of time, they’ll always be a factor, not necessarily a good one. They may become the modern day club.

        I agree on mercenaries, perhaps piloting drones, remotely from Afghanistan. Why not? We have all these enormous military bases all over the world, (“Lets put em to use!”_) buy off a thousand locals here or there who really hate “Fat stupid Americans” and give them joysticks and drones of various kinds. The new swarming technology in robotics is particularly disturbing to me. Again, Hackers get to work!
        p
        d

  24. Well, putting aside what is in my mind as in many others here, the only real possibility for a perceived substantial revolution being a sort of Gladio C/D/E or synthetic operation, and to answer one of Sibel’s questions, the people aren’t simmering. Sure you and I may be, but normal people aren’t. Our current system is constantly testing the waters, to virtually no serious opposition, at least to the deep/military/surveilance state issues, and as far as foreign affairs, forget it, people are completely tangled in the pinocchio strings. People seem to be clamoring to happiness more than ever, if they feel the fire, they are pushed further away from it and deeper into blissful/painful ignorance. They don’t know, they don’t want to know, and they sure as hell don’t want to feel it. I think the only thing that truly explains the magnitude of what we are seeing here in the U.S., the ‘probable cause’ that is, is indoctrination, deeply embedded in virtually every aspect of our daily lives, esp young lives. The psychological damage done by national/international wars/violence/depression has been encased by education, press, books, tv/movies, social media, gov, you name it.

    So I really don’t see a substantial, geniune overthrow, or mass disengagement, or tipping point ever reached in this particular case, from any particular political party, of this particular country. The problem doesn’t appear to be a regime here, it appears to be the people themselves. Frogs, already boiling… on life support, smiling zombies that boil per eternity. Cooked, without even realizing they were on the menu.

    I find our only hope for a true revolution that actually benefits humanity, whatever your morning-after philosophy may be, first rests in the undoing of indoctrination, or somehow hijacking the mindfucking, perhaps providing non-industrial-complex solutions for peoples everyday needs, and that’s not even addressing education… of which I certainly look forward to a future Probable Cause podcast.

    • “Frogs, already boiling… on life support, smiling zombies that boil per eternity. Cooked, without even realizing they were on the menu.”

      Well-said, Jeff. This is exactly why the question of ‘the morning after’ does not apply to ‘long-term’ revolutions: increased knowledge, deep awareness. Those brought by ‘knee-jerk’ reactions, based on some catastrophic events, unholy alliances made in hope of ‘being temporary’ will (no matter what) wake up and face the morning after.

      I think the discussion in this forum evolved pretty much towards the points you made. I just finished reading ‘Mgrdichian’ and I think, while differently state, it supports the core point. And so many others.

      Most importantly, we have had members from all walks of life, with different philosophical views, furthering this discussion, and by that I mean going/delving deeper. Our 20-minute podcast episode brought up the topic, defined our concept very lightly (compare to what we’ve been getting here I’d use the word shallow), posed a few questions, and then our discussion took this, turned it over its head several times, delved deeper and deeper … and just look what we’ve got here. Incredible!

  25. Mgrdichian says:

    NEW THOUGHT:

    This discussions revolves around political paradigms as they exists today – left, right, center, and none of the above. I like to argue that under the existing paradigms we don’t stand a chance to win much, and that to achieve any type of lasting victory we need to change the paradigms because the existing paradigms are firmly in the hands of the respective power brokers. So how do we change the paradigms?

    Let’s take voter registration as an example.There are a lot of good reasons to encourage voter registration. Democrats love to flaunt their efforts in bringing voters to the polls and Republicans are quite good at mobilizing their base. But as positive as higher voter turnout might be, all it really does is reinforce the existing structure and accentuate competition that ultimately benefits one side or another and the paradigm in general. No real change.

    But what if a group of citizens took on the mantle of getting people to vote in a slightly different way. Let’s say a certain constituency, like the ecology movement for example, took on voter registration. But they did it a little differently. Instead of getting traditionally democrat ecologists to lobby other democrats, and republicans doing the same, they decide to reverse it. They instead encourage democrat ecologists to lobby republicans to get out and vote, and visa-vera. How do think that would sit with the respective power brokers? How would that change the general perception of the value of political parties? What would the conversations be like? What false motives could be pinned on the activists? And what if it was successful? Who else might then attempt the same strategy? Any success would turn the staunch partisans upside down. They wouldn’t know what to do with it. And I’d argue that it would put some power back into the hands of the people.

    The possibilities are endless if we are open to it. I truly feel there are a lot of areas where with a simple twist we could undermine the destructive nature of many of the existing paradigms, paving the way for a new type of participation, cuz the old way certainly isn’t working.

    • Mgrdichian says:

      PLUS if any of us actually attempted it, it would be a lot of FUN, and as an activist friend of mine likes to say, “you’re not having fun, you’re not doing it right”

  26. The Ron Paul Libertarians have already had one synthetic revolution – the Ron Paul revolution. And it was a classic revolution, leading everyone round in a circle back to where they started. And just like the Far Left, Ron Paul’s primary donor was a billionaire – Peter Thiel (of In Q Tel and the Bilderberg group). For some reason (namely the cult of personality around Ron Paul) no one ever mentions this. Every time the Left gets mentioned, people bring up George Soros and synthetic Leftist revolutions. And yet the Right gets a free pass – no one mentions that Ron Paul is largely funded by a billionaire, and the other half of the Libertarians are funded by the Koch brothers. No one mentions this. It couldn’t possibly be because of a right wing bias in the alt media could it…?

    Honestly, I despair of how many people still think this egotistical huckster Ron Fucking Paul is a credible man rather than a guy who took your money, led you nowhere, and then used that money to set up an institute named after himself. If that’s what you think will lead to a genuine revolution then I do not know what to tell you…

    • I was a Ron Paul bot! I respect the Ron Paul Institute and Daniel McAdams work but I really hope Ron Paul revises his stance on the civil war. England & France incited treason by promoting the slavocracy! This is a part of history left out in the books: Tsar Alex II was the only world leader to support the Union.

      Ron Paul believes in devolution and secession and confuses what “states rights” are all about. We really need to “get right with Lincoln” nay… transcend Lincoln!

      Here’s a critique of Lincoln by a woman with the same spirit as Sibel — independent and free!

      Nadine Turchin — “A Monotony Full of Sadness”
      [http://dig.lib.niu.edu/ISHS/ishs-1977feb/ishs-1977feb-027.pdf]

      ¡VIVA LA #R3VOLUTION!

    • tonywicher says:

      Tom,
      I tend to agree with you about the Ron Paul “revolution” but I cannot think of any “synthetic left” revolutions Soros has financed. Outside of the United States, the “synthetic revolutions” are all orchestrated by Anglo-American intelligence agencies and NGO’s, including Soros organizations, but none of those “color revolutions” are even fake leftist – I would call them fake libertarian.

      • I meant more that Soros is considered to be ‘on the Left’ and hence his influence on synthetic terrorism is supposedly motivated by Left wing sympathies.

        Meanwhile, what’s really missing from the dialogue is Left Libertarians. I find it disgusting that Libertarianism has become an entirely Right wing political dialogue, that’s all about shitting on poor people because they are ‘just lazy and unproductive’ and saying ‘the free market’ i.e. big corporations who already dominate the market, will provide everything we need.

        But then, I consider most political dialogue to be insane and pointless, and I’ve yet to see a revolution that truly helped bring about the consequences it claimed it would. I’ve seen an awful lot that just lead to more authority and centralisation.

        • Tom, interesting, just as a sidebar off your main point, you made the generalization of free markets as big corporations already dominating the market. I do not defend any of the people you describe at all, but I would have to disagree with this interpretation of a ‘free market’ in that big corporations dominating the market have come to be in a system of not free market capitalism, but crony capitalism. In U.S. And what crony capitalism has done via ‘market regulations’ is snuff out the little guys and make it very very difficult (expensive red tape and taxes) to start a very small business or even in some cases a competing business. And for context, I do not fall into one (or any for that matter) political label, nor do I or have I ever been in possession of a lot wealth. Quite the opposite really. So this argument comes from a little guy. Shitting on the little guy and poor people is precisely an action of crony ‘regulated'(friends-in-powerful-positions, cartelized or monopolized) markets, not free markets, at least not in the U.S.. I don’t stand here and pretend to be some sort of die-hard advocate of free markets, but I simply think free markets is a system that has yet to be tested, at least here in the U.S..

          • What you call ‘crony capitalism’ I would just call capitalism. Wealth tends to accumulate, regardless of what shape of market you have, because once it starts accumulating that lends certain advantages to those who have accumulated it, leading to unfair competition, leading to a further accumulation of wealth. It’s only really when some aristocrats get so in-bred that they fuck it all up and lose loads of money betting on elephant racing or somesuch that this tendency is really upset. That is to say, if you have wealth (in the sense of private property) then it will tend to accumulate. I don’t really see a way round that, nor do I have a fundamental problem with it. It’s just capitalism + inevitable human megalomania.

            My point was rather than if you deregulated the market now, it would be open season for those who already dominate all the key markets (food, energy, transportation, media). This is what why I have the same anger towards ideological Libertarians as I do towards ideological Marxists – they are just worshiping an ideology, they don’t care about reality. I hear so many people talk like we can just push a button and institute a completely deregulated free market where everyone can compete on a level playing field, as though there isn’t a small number of interconnected people who basically own all the major markets anyway.

            If you combine this with the Libertarian rhetoric about ‘the government doesn’t have any right to take anyone’s money’ and you have the US going bankrupt in three days, because unless you use government to take the money back from Wall Street and use that to pay back the debt then there’s literally no way of resolving that problem. That is literally the only answer, yet that is unsayable for most US Libertarians because that sounds like Communism to them, and whatever they disagree about the one thing they are all in sync on is that they are anti-Communist. Whatever a Communist is. Or might be.

            It’s the same with Marxists on the other side, who simply refuse to understand that making a small-scale self-employed person pay income tax so that people who are richer than them get free healthcare is morally screwed up. Indeed, most Marxists refuse to do anything except blame Capitalism. Whatever capitalism is.

            Free markets were tried in the US – before the invasion by Europeans you didn’t have any government in the Americas, or at least not like the ones that then developed in both Europe and North America. Then the Europeans arrived, created a government, and killed all the people living off the land in what you might call a ‘free market’. Free markets have been tried (in the sense of not having a government regulating work and trade) loads of times all over the world. This invariably leads to accumulations of power and wealth.

            Forgive me, but I don’t really think that genuine political revolution is possible, so I’m pretty apathetic towards the notion. There are all kinds of good things that people can do and lots of ways to make governments behave better if that’s what people are interested in. But for most they just flee from any real political responsibility, seeking a safe haven in supporting a party or an ideology, or even worse become an anarchist who does absolutely nothing anarchistic and just operates from a position of rhetorical superiority because they don’t have any answers except the impossible – ‘get rid of the government’.

            This is fundamentally what’s lacking – a generation of people who actually take politics seriously and who refuse to flee to any of these hiding places. You never know, that might lead to meaningful revolution. At the very least it would lead to less laws and regulation that worked better at accomplishing certain aims, thus leading to smaller governments.

          • @Tom As far as what we have today in the U.S., I agree with you, a political revolution is far out of the question. And some sort of deregulation of the economy of Federal Reserve Notes is , on top of what you already mentioned about that, literally an impossibility by the very means these things are created and by the very laws that dictate them ‘legal tender’. This ‘money’ is exactly, by every sense of the phrase, ‘monopoly money’, pure fraud, enforced by the State.

            I do see, like you pointed out, at the core of things, the problem is very human. The megalomaniac and his libido dominandi. So I think the question of life, the universe and everything is ultimately, how can we most peacably live amongst and protect ourselves from the monster in humanity, internally and externally. I absolutely have no idea myself. But I have a strong feeling it has little to do with politics. I do believe the key, as it has been mentioned, is decentralization… everywhere in every aspect of societies, governments shrinking almost naturally in that wake(personal pipe dream). There seems to be some good changes in pockets all around the world, and that the opposition to these movements like homeschooling, as Sibel’s next episode addresses, will be facing serious opposition in the near future by the entire pyramid(s).

  27. Please may I take up a point..
    that Jeff wrote..( to virtually no serious opposition )..! yes it is a problem in our world of the West.
    And I think that Dave also do have something about that.
    He (Dave) also wrote this.(.sorry have to do some copy and paste.).
    (When we think of revolution as sudden, we forget backstory of dedication, organizing, grueling, challenging, committed work over years behind the scenes to undermine authority and relevance of the state — as it is known — and for what it does. )..
    Not just in USA or Europe..
    Also in Russia and China…
    Africa…well all over this World We share.
    For little old me..
    Revolution means Decentralization…!
    Kind regards
    Jens.
    Ps. Wish I could write to You in Danish.
    Ps ps. So much to read..I am getting Dizzy.

    • That’s another keyword I believe in, and like: “Decentralization.” As you said, everywhere. Not only in terms of government, but also businesses: the ruling mega corporations & their monopoly utilizing their servants (the governments).

  28. William York says:

    I enjoy the new podcast format. I think the only hope for some kind of meaningful change is for people on both the liberal left and libertarian (or even conservative) right to focus on what they have in common, such as opposition to the police/surveillance state, perpetual war, corporate welfare, etc. That means being more pragmatic and less wedded to labels and ideologies. This site does an excellent job of promoting this kind of independent-minded thinking, which is what we need more of.

  29. Libertarian = classical liberal. Ain’t no reason we can’t take the LIBERAL label back and make the “classical” part understood! The state is the root database of contracts vital to city services. Government are the people elected to manage the state. I like the memes: #minarchism, #agorism, #voluntaryism because they represent process and means.

    The mondragon model confuses people because they think cooperatives are organizations where workers vote to impact how the org works. This is socialism and fails. I am proposing 1000s upon 1000s of owner-operator cooperatives employing a unionized workforce.

    Everything I believe in is in alignment with the U.S. constitution and liberal ethic of America. I really think we must take the #zen approach to life. And say no to eugenics and YES to families and the YOUTH! #SISEPUEDE

    (I’m dancing here 🙂

  30. In terms of the OVER ALL :
    https://medium.com/@NafeezAhmed/how-the-cia-made-google-e836451a959e
    http://www.nafeezahmed.com/
    “INSURGE INTELLIGENCE, a new crowd-funded investigative journalism project, breaks the exclusive story of how the United States intelligence community funded, nurtured and incubated Google as part of a drive to dominate the world through control of information. Seed-funded by the NSA and CIA, Google was merely the first among a plethora of private sector start-ups co-opted by US intelligence to retain ‘information superiority.’
    The origins of this ingenious strategy trace back to a secret Pentagon-sponsored group, that for the last two decades has functioned as a bridge between the US government and elites across the business, industry, finance, corporate, and media sectors. The group has allowed some of the most powerful special interests in corporate America to systematically circumvent democratic accountability and the rule of law to influence government policies, as well as public opinion in the US and around the world. The results have been catastrophic: NSA mass surveillance, a permanent state of global war, and a new initiative to transform the US military into Skynet.” (“This exclusive is being released for free in the public interest, and was enabled by crowdfunding. I’d like to thank my amazing community of patrons for their support, which gave me the opportunity to work on this in-depth investigation. Please support independent, investigative journalism for the global commons.)
    Thank you NaafezAhmed.

  31. addendum:
    “This exclusive is being released for free in the public interest, and was enabled by crowdfunding. I’d like to thank my amazing community of patrons for their support, which gave me the opportunity to work on this in-depth investigation. Please support independent, investigative journalism for the global commons.”
    : these words are Mr Ahmed’s, for which I thank him, with respect .
    I apologize for any inference that could possibly be taken otherwise.rm

  32. mariotrevi says:

    (Q1) Do you believe we will have some sort of revolution
    here in the United States in the near future?

    Within 20 years, there could be “stirrings”. It’s hazy…

    (Q2) If so, in your opinion, where will it come from?

    Civil rights people, anti-war activists
    or anti-inequality activists.

    (Q3) Which segment of our population do you see likely to revolt?

    Anonymous-types: libertarian bent or anarchists.

  33. Ronald Orovitz says:

    Thanks for this podcast Sibel. It broaches an issue – the endemic right/left dichotomy in American politics – for which I have in the past proposed a solution by radically simplifying the tax code by making donations to not-for-profits 100% deductible from tax owed as calculated on 1040 tax forms. It is my thesis that this would satisfy the left by maintaining a social safety net (in a decentralized fashion) and would satisfy the right by keeping control of how ones hard-earned money is distributed by the individual. It is also my thesis that this would satisfy concerns you have long raised about how foundations have been one of the primary means of oligarchical control since most of their moneys come from the super-rich. By this system, a much greater share would come from the middle class, hence making foundations much more democratically accountable, particularly through free market mechanisms as applied to the public sector.

    The problem you raise in this podcast – concerning the split within the right between libertarians and religious fundamentalists – is also, I hope, somewhat satisfied by my proposal to both sides in so far as the fundamentalists will be happy that their tax dollars will not be spent on things like stem cell research and such that they find objectionable on religious grounds.

    I consider this proposal to be small “l” for both libertarians and liberals. I had presented it in a paper at a libertarian philosophy conference back in 2011 at which one of the main figures of big “L” Libertarianism was present – the editor of Reason mag., Matt Welch, who is a regular on the “young libertarians” show on FOX Business channel. He didn’t seem too interested in the proposal though. In his own keynote presentation, he admitted that the Koch bros. were financial contributors to Reason, but he said it wasn’t much proportionally. I wonder how much Peter Theil, Pierre Omidyar perhaps? and others we would consider oligarchs contribute overall? From what I’ve read of Reason, it seems more about “Freedom!” for corporations to run roughshod over the rest of us.

  34. I just recently learned of this movie and of the death of its director. I actually downloaded the rough cut and plan to watch it soon.

  35. Won-a-pa-lei says:

    After deducting those and their supporting family members who work for the Military Industrial Complex, the Health Care Industrial Complex, the Public and Higher Learning Indoctrination Industrial Complex, the Oil and Energy Industrial Complex, the Religion Industrial Complex, the Banking Industrial Complex, the GMO Industrial Complex…how many people with a working conscience are actually left to join a Golden Rule Party?
    Seriously, does anyone have any idea of the numbers? An Evolution is going to take critical mass and right now, I think we are far outnumbered.

  36. Coming Up Tomorrow @ BFP Podcast: “The Feds’ Coming War Against American Homeschoolers” @ Probable Cause with Sibel Edmonds

  37. Ok, the damage can’t be undone, anyway.
    The cat has escaped her burlap container.

  38. A few data points to consider on the TEA Party: 1) I have been to several TEA Party meetings attended by a small number of blacks and many Hispanics (~35%), some other minorities (Indian, etc.) but mostly white. I could detect zero racism. Living in the Houston, TX area I would expect to have a decent showing of Hispanics at any meeting. I have talked at length with many in the TEA Party and have yet to meet a single one who hates blacks, smoking marijuana or Hispanics. I’m sure some do, but I have seen no evidence. Here are the TEA Party’s stated Core Values: Fiscal Responsibility; Constitutionally Limited Government & Free Markets. I have seen people from every walk of life there from pot smoking hippies to oil field workers. I have been a Christian (Baptist) all my life. Though I rarely go to church, I have yet to meet a single person who hates blacks or Hispanics. Some hate Muslims because of all the state-sponsored propaganda; most are against smoking pot and abortion, but zero want these people killed or eliminated. And yes many believe in the false state narrative of spreading Democracy by war but this just expresses the ignorance you will find in the general American population. Being a Christian, my leanings are toward Libertarianism and even Anarchy. My belief is that the government needs to get out of our personal business and adhere to the constraints of the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights. If you want to smoke pot, that is your business and none of mine or anyone elses. If you want to home-school your children as I did mine, that is none of the state’s business. I have always been against abortion not for any religious reasons but for scientific and logical reasons. Abortion is taking a life and that is murder.

    My college philosophy teacher was and probably still is an atheist, yet he was an amazingly brilliant teacher … one of my best. Despite his lack of faith or belief in things unseen or unproven by his deductive method, he was staunchly anti-abortion. He reasoned as did I that once you minimize or devalue life at one end of the spectrum (very young) what logically will prevent you from minimizing it at the other end (very old); and once so done, one’s foot is squarely placed on the proverbial slippery slope. And where does this slope lead? Well it leads to further adjustments at either or both ends. So if we have scarce resources—which we always do–the value of a person prior to being productive for society would be less than say a person of working age and likewise the value of an older person incapable of vigorous work would be less valuable. So at some point, this logic trip leads us to the conclusion of stratification of value based on age; such that a society would be more interested in investing and/or saving the life of someone between the age of 18 and 35 say. Outside this range, you are less valuable and therefore on your own or possibly a candidate for post-birth abortion. In fact this is already occurring. We have death panels with Obamacare and recent opinion polls on college campuses show a growing approval of post-birth abortion up to age five if it would save jobs. So there you have it. Ideas have power and they have consequences that on first blush you may not have even considered.

    I’ve long believed that you can know a man by his choices. One of our most important and fundamental choices we all make is a choice between a belief in materialism or in something more than the physical world that I call the spirit; if you choose materialism you have unwittingly established a partnership with “The Machine” and your future will necessarily be a stark, dry, dusty moonscape devoid of the juice of life or meaning; because after all, we are merely cause and effect of the material world. Such is the dreary life of the man who chooses materialism to the exclusion of the spirit. Mistaken as truth or science, the belief in materialism provides a naive and short-sighted pathway to the religion of death where concepts like infanticide become a reasonable choice for family planning.

    In the material world there is no right and wrong,no good or evil just cause and effect. We have shirked our responsibility, we fail to take ownership of our actions and so we are all turned over to our own devices and sent a strong delusion by the machine.

    Like cackling hyenas lusting to feast at the hoax sold to us as sexual freedom, we choose death over life, debauchery over love and are left howling into the vast existential abyss of meaninglessness. The machine wins.

    Wikipedia: Materialism holds that the only thing that exists is matter or energy; that all things are composed of material and all phenomena (including consciousness) are the result of material interactions. In other words, matter is the only substance, and reality is identical with the actually occurring states of energy and matter.

    “Then came our Quantum theory, which totally transformed our image of matter. The old assumption that the microscopic world of atoms was simply a scaled-down version of the everyday world had to be abandoned. Newton’s deterministic machine was replaced by a shadowy and paradoxical conjunction of waves and particles, governed by the laws of chance,rather than the rigid rules of causality. An extension of the quantum theory goes beyond even this; it paints a picture in which solid matter dissolves away, to be replaced by weird excitations and vibrations of invisible field energy. Quantum physics undermines materialism because it reveals that matter has far less ‘substance’ than we might believe. But another development goes even further by demolishing Newton’s image of matter as inert lumps. This development is the theory of chaos, which has recently gained widespread attention.”
    — Paul Davies and John Gribbin, ‘The Matter Myth’,Chapter 1

    “As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together.We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter.”
    — Max Planck, ‘Das Wesen der Materie’, 1944

  39. Speaking to the state department propagation – “fuck the EU” victoria Nuland included…..and after reading part one of Nafez Ahmeds wonderful “Why Google made the NSA/Inside the secret network behind mass surveillance, endless war, and Skynet” https://medium.com/@NafeezAhmed/how-the-cia-made-google-e836451a959e….I wonder if the RANDians and creatioNISTs at State could comment on how their algorithms factor : ‘We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter” into their algorithms festering the quadrillion fetajules of information now in cyberspace?

  40. Thank you Sibel for this new show. Very interesting format.

    I think the coming revolution could emerge from the synthesis of these radical forces giving birth to a third dynamic. I’m thinking of Cercle Proudhon that was established in 1911 by monarchists, anarchists and radical syndicalists, because of the upcoming war. That’s the way this irate minority of this time tried to face these critical challenges. Obliviously they failed (aborted at the beginning of the war), but reading them one century later reveals that their proposals were dead on on most topics, the circle has recently reborn because of nowadays similar pre-war atmosphere. And I must say they are pretty relevant.

    A bigger phenomenon that could match this “third dynamic” is what is called the “dissidence” in France. A rainbow of irate people : anarchists, christians, muslims, far left/right activists, rich, poors, men, women, etc. a perfectly representative sample of the society reconciliated against TBTB. Already identified as the number one threat by TBTB, and already being fought against. The most meaningful symptom of this phenomenon is the popularity of the comedian Dieudonné. Sorry to advertise for my work again but I think that it is the most exhaustive documentation you can find in Englis: Open Source documented interview of Jacob Cohen (French “dissident” novelist). First episode are maybe not the most exiting (and very Zionist oriented as Jacob is specialized on that topic) because just setting the context in French society, the real deal start from episodes 4~5.

    These people are very conscious of the fact that they may be fooled after the revolution (or counter-revolution), there are workshops all around France for people learning how to write new constitutions, based on the fascinating research of Étienne Chouard. The goal being to write the new constitution prior to the revolution, avoiding the of the movement to be taken over by an insider movement.

    Camille.

  41. Libretarians also have, like any other group of idealogues, their own set of blind spots. The Libertarians do also have a set of distorted views on e.g. an economy works. And the longer I listen to these people the more I am agast.

  42. John Phillips says:

    I’ve state more than once how incredible this site and this forum is. My opinion has not changed. I appreciate being able to participate and my apologies to those who I must have offended; for I guess I have.

    Lies are lies whether they originate from the left, right or in between. I don’t think anyone would dispute that the media is awash with lies and propaganda.

    Yes, one must be careful with terms and maybe “common sense” is not accurate. I guess what I should have said is there is a lot of very complex analysis coming forward that I see as tangent to the questions. I think the answers to the questions rest with the awareness of the people.

    Their level of awareness is directly related to what they have been taught, the level of their education, if they poses critical thinking skills, if they’re strongly influenced by Religion or not, their economic status (question of available resources), where they obtain their information, if they read and what, and whether they strongly question what the media (news and entertainment) have to offer.

    Sibel has said she does not watch TV or Movies (an occasional DVD). I don’t watch TV unless stuck in a hotel somewhere, but I do watch movies…mostly to see what my twenty something children are exposed to. If you haven’t watched any TV in months…do so. It will shock you, because it is incredibly stupid stuff or scary or psychopathic, but most definitely shallow and violent. Most of the movies now a days are full of misinformation, misguided history, and full of not-so-subtle messages. This is where American apathy comes from.

    So, watch the Avengers (a comic strip movie) action, adventure, the theme of which and the messages it sends are worrisome at best. And what “adults” call entertainment these days is scary. Often misogynistic and violent (e.g. The Sopranos or Braking Bad) or shallow (Dancing with the Stars). People I work with are actually praising American Sniper…. I know better to even consider watching it.

    If you are aware of these issues with the populace then it may not be so difficult to understand why there will not be a popular uprising or revolution, because the awareness of the people will never reach that threshold.

    Simple, common sense, logic. Most people in the US simply don’t have the intellect or critical thinking skills to participate in this sort of dialog, and are too distracted by entertainment and propaganda to understand much less take action.
    Best Regards and sorry to offend
    John

    • John, I don’t think you offended anyone- at least not in this forum. What saw was people expanding upon your point; which is fantastic.
      I could not agree more with your points. I believe it is by design, and as you said, it is a combination of all methods: schools, entertainment industry, mainstream media … even our medical industry (zombify by medication; happiness via pills …).

  43. – “Mass Movements” like Nazism, Communism, Socialism, etc. are only possible because there were the “Masses” that could be controlled, gulled, cajoled, forced etc. and be formed into a “Mass movement”. The existence of the masses allowed a number of governments to wage wars. Think of WW I & WW II. T And the “Masses of people” have been growing since especially say the second part of the 19th century. (Europe, US, Middle East, China, etc.).

  44. Mrs. Edmonds,

    I agree with you. I also think the most likely candidate who will start the revolution in the US is the “Religious right”. As far as I know this the group that has been building an entire system in which the people are nurtured, fed, indoctrinated, etc. by the “religious right”.

    I would go one step further than that. I would argue that the ones that have prepared for a “power takeover” (for years) are the most likely people that are going to “win” the revolution. When I look at other countries now and in the past then I see the same pattern over and over again.
    I would also add the word “Ideology” to the mix. Because then the pattern becomes much more clearer. Then one can identify a whole range of groups with a strong “ideology” who have overthrown governments in the past. Nazis, communists (Soviet Union, China, etc.) but also Islamists (Persia/Iran, Fetullah Gulen (???)) And all these groups took over power when economic circumstances were deteriorating/have deteriorated.

    And there’s another group in every country that is Always preparing itself for a future “conflict” and that group is called the army/military. I think it’s very likely that the religious right here in the US will be teaming up with the US military. I would go one step further. According to my info there’s a group inside the US military that seems to seek to “Conquer the world for Christ”.

    Like the muslim jihadis want to conquer the world with the sword in the one hand and the Koran in the other hand, there’re christians in the US army who want to conquer the world with the sword in one hand and the Bible in the other hand. This group is called the “Christian Dominionists”. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominion_Theology.

    It’s essentially the christian version of the muslim fundamentalists. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/06/02/1096273/-Why-We-Fight-Christian-Dominionists-Are-Dead-Serious-About-Overthrowing-Democracy
    http://www.militaryreligiousfreedom.org/mrff-media-coverage-compilation/ http://www.militaryreligiousfreedom.org/media-events/
    http://www.militaryreligiousfreedom.org/

    Follow the weblinks !!!!!

    I consider the combination of the religious right and the US military is a VERY dangerous one. Even for the rest of the world.

  45. Sibel, you have certainly sparked a lively discussion. You have a deal…I will comment more often.

    Paraphrasing your question, “If there is a (further out in time) revolution in this country, do I agree that it will come from the Libertarians combined with the Tea Party Far Right?” No. I don’t think so.
    1st: For Libertarians to align with Tea Party and Far Righters (I call them Evangelicals) is destructive, short-sited and stupid…the Libertarians I know will not go for it under any circumstances.
    2nd: People in this country have a lower threshold for radicalism and they see both of these groups as radicals. A “radical” in this country is not just defined as someone who wants to blow up a building but is someone who talks “nonsense”, i.e., not mainstream. People think Rush Limbaugh is radical and others think Obama is radical and any idea like the gov knew about and facilitated 911 in a small or large way is a radical theory. People in this country do not want to be associated with a “radical”…they will shun radicals…they will tell their friends that so-and-so is a radical. Many people in this forum have pointed out that what is important is the TRUTH, learning the truth, talking about and spreading the truth. The truth will set you and everyone free. Isn’t that what we do when we turn off the TV and unsubscribe to media that we have discovered is trying to spin the truth, omit the truth or out-and-out lie about the truth? Sure. Why care about the truth? Because it tells us who the real radicals are. Because it tells us who the liars are. Because it tells us what their real agenda is. Once we know that, we put people in office to repel bad laws and enforce good ones…Constitutional ones, liberty-like ones. Simple. Doesn’t always work, though. But what does work is constant vigilance and calling-out those that harm us. Being quiet and PC doesn’t work. We all must be constantly speaking out. BFP and it’s mastermind, Sibel, certainly does that beautifully.

    There a tons of good books on revolutions (why they start, who starts them, what the outcomes are, who the winners are). I just finished two trilogies that are for young adults and are absolutely excellent, in my opinion. My favorite is the Divergent trilogy. The second is the Hunger Games trilogy. Both talk about societal problems, oppression, freedom, political games, lying, alliances of different factions or districts or classes of people, what happens when the “winners” get power. Both are compelling stories that don’t necessarily have happy endings. Both encourage the reader to think on their own…and to think about how revolutions start and why. Every player has an agenda…something he/she wants for themselves…and surprisingly it isn’t always freedom and liberty which is what this country was founded on. What we need to do is work to keep it.

  46. steven hobbs says:

    Hi Sibel and all,

    Yes! Citizen strategies via state avenues to correct state crimes are ineffective (alone) in achieving radical solutions, i.e., solutions that get to the root of problems. Nevertheless, confront state power on all fronts, even TSA, and even in its own courts — as it is is useful to influence popular consciousness. Some may need to extinguish hope before choosing more disruptive channels, others might find wherewithal to plaintively continue. That’s not my present direction, but I would not say any of it is unworthy. Unity of purpose (justice), multiplicity of tactics.

    Sibel, in your use of “far-left ” seeking to be precise“far-left”:
    “Far-left politics or extreme-left politics are left-wing politics that are further to the left than mainstream centre-left politics. The far left seeks equality of outcome and the dismantlement of all forms of social stratification.. Far leftists seek to abolish all forms of hierarchy, particularly the inequitable distribution of wealth and power.” https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&rlz=1C1CHFX_enUS574US574&ion=1&espv=2&es_th=1&ie=UTF-8#q=the%20far-left&es_th=1

    As much as I abhor labels, I too wish to abolish (most) forms of hierarchy and inequitable distribution of wealth. In this, I may be called a “far-leftist.” I’m equally disgusted by the triangulation, appropriation, and usurpation of civic causes that “lefties'” use without realizing the poison pill they swallow, e.g., Obummer — for hope and change.
    Yes, not all NGO’s are shills for oligarchs.
    Thank you

Speak Your Mind