Probable Cause with Sibel Edmonds- PNAC & Deep-State Manifestos for False Flag Operations

Welcome to our fourteenth episode of Probable Cause. In our last two episodes we discussed coups and false flag operations initiated to win hearts and minds. I provided you with the 1980 military coup in Turkey and the 1953 coup in Iran as contexts, and talked about the synthetically-created events and false flag operations that preceded these coups to not only make them possible but also long-lasting. In this episode we are going to delve into a major aspect present in many of these deep state operations. We are going to talk about Manifestos- Manifesto defined as: A public declaration of intentions, opinions, objectives, or motives, as one issued by a government, group, sovereign, or organization.

Interestingly, despite the general populations’ feign of ignorance, the intentions and objectives are more often than not boldly stated and documented for the majority of the deep-state created false flag operations and synthetic events. For our discussion today we will examine the similarities and parallels between the manifestos for the 1953 Coup in Iran- Operation Ajax, Operation Northwoods, and of course, the most recent manifesto- Project for the New American Century (PNAC).

As always, our next episode will be based on your reaction, critique, responses and questions posed in the comments section below.

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

Listen to the full episode here:


Show Notes

In declassified document, CIA acknowledges role in '53 Iran coup

Operation Northwoods: Pentagon Proposed Pretexts for Cuba Invasion in 1962

The Project for the New American Century

PNAC: Rebuilding America’s Defences

The CIA, 9/11, Afghanistan, and Central Asia

FB Like

Share This

This site depends….

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by SUBSCRIBING, and by ordering our EXCLUSIVE BFP DVDs.


  1. CuChulainn says:

    where have all the whistleblowers gone?
    they’ve become online sexual predators

    • Scott Ritter ended up like that too. Not entirely surprising if you listen to his speeches from around the start of the Iraq war. In one of his speeches he talks about the documentary he was about the make, of which there is an excerpt available here

      . Does anybody know where the full movie can be obtained? Wikipedia and imdb seem to suggest that it WAS actually released, but I can’t seem to find any trace of it.

    • steven hobbs says:

      Hats off for this find. Thank you.

      Here’s a teaser for those not yet on this: “Concerned about his privacy on base, Matt wanted to create a safe, secure place online where he and his fellow anons and disgruntled airmen could organize and vent. And he had just the solution: the massively multiplayer online game World of Warcraft. In his spare time, Matt would cruise 4chan, quietly recruiting members of Anonymous and other disgruntled airmen to join his Warcraft guild, Viral. To facilitate their communications and maintain privacy, Matt created a secret server using Tor, the online privacy software, and called it the Shell. Using the Shell, Matt and his recruits could freely and securely chat with one another and store sensitive files.”

    • I’m late to post so I wonder if you’ll see this. Can you cover the tricks that not only they but the private sector use? On enenews they hijack accounts or make similarly named accounts to call other members names and create division. They can delete files from your PC. They can hijack DNS servers and alter searches, search results and report buttons. They can flat out make the data up or load it in. They can pose as people on forums where you’re talking about stuff a simple as eating and say “hey, go to this site” and its not anything to do with food or they threaten you with the bylines or make it oddly worded enough to get you curious as to just what it is so you click it anyway (don’t!). Of they alter stuff mid stream or do the lue rudkowski Stuart Rhodes thing. They can do this with terrorism crap and drug crap too.

      • Of should be or. Lue should be Luke.

        • And a simple should be as simple

          • A copy of this should have gone to the admin but the send button was a bit buggy. Also please cover the tactics I haven’t mentioned. I’m sure there are many more.

          • Sorry for more spam, but what do you do if you want to blow the whistle or even just talk about these subjects (deep state stuff, 9/11, hidden agendas, Fukushima, etc…) securely? I’m not a whistle blower. That’s just a big question I needed to ask.

            Also, please cover the 5000 pentagon computers loaded with evil and the missing nukes thing. I’m not sue how there could not be a link is the missing nuke thing is real.

          • steven hobbs says:

            Hi A Name,
            “Sorry for more spam, but what do you do if you want to blow the whistle or even just talk about these subjects (deep state stuff, 9/11, hidden agendas, Fukushima, etc…) securely?”

            I’m glad you can join. Yes, I too try to keep my verbiage to a minimum — aspiring to concision. But, cant help waxing voluble on occasion, later wishing more self-editing. Many issues you raise are in previous conversations.

            I’ve given up on thinking that I can protect my secrets (hardly at all). But, I also think “their” trying to track me would cost more “to them” than I am worth.

          • You don’t have to be worth much for it to happen. Sometimes I think they do it just to spread fear. Kind of ironic possibility though since it it simultaneously designed to be something you don’t just strike up a conversation about but instead hold onto silently.

            Tracking isn’t the issue. Being disappeared, framed, having data deleted or finagled with, those are the ral issues. Remember, the tracking is for a reason, and that reason isn’t just seeing what you’re up to. Spying is sabotage and peeking is just a small part of it.

          • I should clarify. By securely I don’t mean secretly. I mean safely.

        • Ah. And one more thing an example of which is sibels dad getting his toe nails plucked while his friend disappears completely. Why do they do some people worse than others? Is it to hide the modus operandi? Whims? Amusement at the fact that they have the power to decide? Why are some people weighed differently?

          It isn’t just the threat they pose. Of this I am sure as it can happen to anyone. It almost seems random. But perhaps that is part of the fear mechanic they are seeking to use?

  2. Thanks for the link Cuchu, but its no joke. Stories like this show exactly why Sibel is trying to educate the irate minority. It’s painful seeing all of the avoidable mistakes that he made and how because of them he has a good chance of seeing his life destroyed before it really got started.

  3. CuChulainn says:

    rhetorically speaking, does it really make sense to identify as an irate minority? do people want to participate in an irate minority? do irate people advance arguments rationally and effectively so as to persuade others? we have a lot of irate people in the USA who do little but vent; virtually the whole Republican Party and many of the Democrats can be described as irate. there are angry white males, angry blacks, angry feminists… somewhere i saw a poll indicating that a plurality if not a majority of USAers wake up angry in the morning.
    how about the conscious, the informed, the aware minority?

    • I must confess that I did cringe inwardly as I wrote “irate minority” but used it as it is a site convention. I acknowledge your suggestions and add astute, clear-sighted, discerning, judicious, penetrating, sagacious, and savvy minority, or maybe the post propaganda minority, or widen the term ‘truther’ or…..?

      • Mandela and group: How about the awakened or awakening minority? Sibel has a thing about apathy and empathy, as well…they don’t seem to fit as labels I have a bit of an edge, so I like terms that suggest penetration, confrontation via fact- based or reality-based thinking. In the 60s there was a small publication called “The Realist” which circulated among the anti-war, anti-establishment people on the ground. I’m OK with irate minority, actually. Post propaganda? That makes me grin a little–since it never stops. Anti-propaganda, maybe.

        • “…an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.”
          Samuel Adams

          That works for me. One of the definitions of “irate” is “angry”. If we aren’t angry, what are we doing here?

          Admittedly the reference is a bit obscure, so if I wanted to sum up my stance in a T-shirt slogan, it would probably read, “Enemy of The Deep State.”

          The difference between our situation and that of Sam Adams, is that the oppressor he aligned himself against was overt, while ours is covert. Sam Adams didn’t have the burden of convincing anyone of the existence of the royal governors or the crown they served.

          On the other hand, we don’t have a problem he did, in that we aren’t likely to encounter many people who overtly recognize and support the deep state.

          We only need to reveal the existence and especially the EXTENT of the malicious deep state to a sufficient number of minds, for our task to be mostly accomplished. Virtually anyone who wakes up and sees the deep state for what it is, will naturally be antagonistic to it. In that number I would optimistically include many people who are now “in” the deep state in some capacity, because it’s necessarily compartmentalized.

          • sounds solid, KNARF!

          • steven hobbs says:

            “The difference between our situation and that of Sam Adams, is that the oppressor he aligned himself against was overt, while ours is covert. Sam Adams didn’t have the burden of convincing anyone of the existence of the royal governors or the crown they served.” My dad may have been pulling my leg, when he told me I was related to SA — by marriage.

            Your statement is unconvincing, as SA’s enemies were also covert. In addition to organizing a change of thinking for the provinces, he was challenging and provoking cognitive dissonance for those most organized by authoritarian principals of monarchy.

          • steven hobbs says:


            As much as I wish it were true, IMHO, this is misguided: “We only need to reveal the existence and especially the EXTENT of the malicious deep state to a sufficient number of minds, for our task to be mostly accomplished. Virtually anyone who wakes up and sees the deep state for what it is, will naturally be antagonistic to it.”

            It just doesn’t (all) work this way, i.e. on the basis of rational self interest.

        • Awakening works for me Ron, especially as it implies an ongoing process.

      • CuChulainn says:

        as an enneagram type 1, Sibel naturally thinks of anger as a positive, mobilizing force, but it doesn’t look that way to all of us

  4. CuChulainn says:

    i like all of your suggestions Mandela, except for truther (sounds cultish & pejorative to me) and savvy, whose inside baseball connotations Chris Floyd has teased out: Garton-Ash, like the rest of us, lives in an Anglo-American power-sphere that in the last ten years alone has sent hundreds of thousands of innocent people to their deaths, and sown chaos and extremism across the Middle East and North Africa. Yet he, like so many of our “savvy” liberal analysts, constantly decries the lack of “toughness” in American policy. They shake with moral outrage at, say, the Kremlin’s machinations in Crimea; they want, always, a “tougher” response — more brinkmanship, more aggression. They want lives (other people’s lives) put on the line to maintain the West’s “credibility.” All this, while in their name — in all our names — thousands of people are murdered, civil liberties are ravaged and whole regions are destroyed by a system our savvy analysts laud and uphold. In any case, we will likely see H. Clinton’s “toughness” and “credibility” in action soon enough. And I’m sure the world will be a better place for it.

  5. Oliver. “I have a friend who after googling for two minutes convinced himself that NIST is probably OK.”
    Did you point him toward the ‘probability’ of ‘NISTs’ 911 narrative and ‘google’ ‘being OK’ – needs to run through the investigative reports 1. and 2. of Nafeez Ahmed?
    ” a two-part story on the intersections between the US military industrial complex and Silicon Valley focusing on two entities: Google and the Pentagon’s Highlands Forum:”
    Where ‘perception management’ and ‘google’ appear in the same sentence.
    Helping understand the ‘two minute’ scope of your friends conviction.
    [nice floating graph btw. difficult to figure. Will be interested to see final form]

    • Hi Remo, Andrei, Cu, thanks for your support!

      Andrei: The Eastman-Cole literature review
      Remo: Google itself is going Chinese on us
      CuChulainn: Picture with smoking beams

      Here’s a metaphor I think may have some relevance: The stability of people’s paradigms comes from a network of mutually reinforcing beliefs. It’s comparable to the city-walls of old: The circular design makes every single brick have the value of ten. If the wall looks like it’s too strong, I suspect it is not effective to ‘broaden the offense’, like by adding the reliability of google to the discussion. The smoking beam I suspect is too weak a gun. I’m hopeful about the literature review, ’cause it points to actual objective checkable facts, namely mainstream publications that support controlled demolition. (I need to check that claim).

      I’m also hopeful about the Northwoods approach angle: The chiefs of staff must have thought the project staffable & hushable. Once I get him to admit that, or at least to think about it, marinating his brain for a few weeks in that thought, I might be able to dislodge an import brick in the wall. I’ll keep you posted.

  6. CuChulainn says:

    the smoking beam argument is enhanced by the fact that it was important to the US government to keep us from seeing those pictures for almost a decade. has anyone seen that picture elsewhere?

  7. I was just thinking about the posts questioning whether PNAC, AJAX, Northwoods, and etc. are manifestos. Well they certainly are a declaration of policy and aims, but they weren’t public in the sense that the MLK dream speech, or the Communist manifesto, Mein Kampf, or the Declaration of Independence were. As has been pointed out AJAX and Northwoods became known because they were declassified. PNAC was a policy that its authors unsuccessfully campaigned and lobbied 2 presidents for. Over the last generation there has been a huge shift as to what is politically acceptable. This is shown by how many issues Obama is far to the right of Dwight Eisenhower, our last classically ‘conservative’ president. This rapid shift has been accomplished through what is now called Information Operations or IO. An article said that “The purpose of “Inform and Influence Operations” is not to provide a perspective, opinion, or lay out a policy. It is defined as the ability to make audiences “think and act” in a manner favorable to the mission objectives. This is done through applying perception management techniques which target the audiences emotions, motives, and reasoning. These techniques are not geared for debate. It is to overwhelm and change the target psyche.”
    In other words news, policy statements, manifestos, ideas, and concerted plans of action are disseminated to the public in a way designed over time to manufacture consent or at least acceptance/reasonableness of that which would have been unthinkable in the not too distant past. In short they are part of well designed propaganda campaigns. Once they are public and have managed to dodge the bullet of mass outrage, the next shoe can be dropped and so on.

  8. David Carlson says:

    I am as impressed by the quality of replies here as I am with the content of the podcast.

    As was said there is no secret aganda by the Deep State. Their plan and its methodology are indeed in the public domain. However I am not convinced a critical mass of awareness can be achieved let alone acted upon to actually counter the psychopathy of those responsible. Everything we heard in the podcast is when all is said and done…old news. Like some untouchable Imperial Roman Council they have no fear of publishing their manifesto. The few percent who will ever know of its publication and read its agenda’s and strategies are statistically irrelevant in the numbers game of false representational democracy and highly effective mass social conditioning. The reason they don’t shut us up is because they don’t have to. They know that 95% or more of good citizens would not take it in or react to it except by a total cognitive block. I would really like to be wrong. But in my 35 years + of truth seeking and knowledge of the Deep State I have only seen their methods honed to a sick perfection.

    • David if there were a free and independent press that took it’s job as the fourth estate seriously, it would be a whole new ball game. The founding fathers feared tyranny would come from within more than from without. It has been the successful systematic eradication of all the constitutional checks and balances put in by the FFs that has made the DS so fearless, shameless, and reckless.

    • I can relate David.
      In earlier episodes we discussed the seeming hopelessness–I’m sure I did. We also discussed how one can alter one’s lifestyle by “unplugging” from the establishment in various revolutionary individual ways. And we also considered the fact that one should Act in terms of building consciousness and going against the grain of the Deep State. Otherwise we freeze up like a terrified antelope rigidly standing as a cheetah blurs by with a bead on another racing antelope.
      Ultimately, each of us is stuck with our selves and nobody I’ve read here is interested in ” rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

    • “As was said there is no secret agenda by the Deep State”

      Prove it.
      Just kidding, a negative can’t be proved. They do have secrets however, and they most definitely need op sec when things are in motion. If by their “agenda” you mean maintaining and expanding their power, then yes I would agree that goal is transparent and in fact inevitable.

      State Secrets Privilege was deployed to gag Sibel. I’m not clear to what extent that was done to protect specific deep state secrets per se, or rather was the privilege invoked mostly to conceal (by effectively making moot) the extent to which the investigative powers of the FBI and Congress are hamstrung by coercion and corruption? Am I making a distinction without a difference? I really don’t know.

      • Good question for Sibel Knarf. I think that over time Sibel has publicly shared much of that which States Secret Privilege was invoked to silence. So saying it is not the problem. It seems that documenting it in a public legal institution that can’t be abided. Sibel, if you get to read this, your understanding of what, why, and when States Secret Privilege is used would be interesting! That will help us to understand how whistleblowers should approach disclosure.

    • steven hobbs says:

      ” game of false representational democracy and highly effective mass social conditioning. The reason they don’t shut us up is because they don’t have to. They know that 95% or more of good citizens would not take it in or react to it except by a total cognitive block. I would really like to be wrong. But in my 35 years + of truth seeking and knowledge of the Deep State I have only seen their methods honed to a sick perfection.” Yes!

      Problem is folks wake up angry knowing something is dreadfully wrong for 99%. The comprehension is inchoate, but resistance is growing. Deep State (we need a definition) responds with injustice, police state apparatus, social control — squelching youthful imagination — further fomenting unrest. The Deep State has a problem — the beast is felt in peoples’ bones. They don’t yet have a name, or understanding of it, just a feeling. That’s a responsibility of those privileged with revolutionary consciousness is to name names, tell stories, and lead.

      • To precisely and persuasively delineate the core of the deep state is probably, to destroy the world as we know it. Or at the very least, destroy ourselves. Unconscious awareness of this reality accounts for some of the nameless dread.

        I believe this world is an illusion, and when has there been an illusion which is completely stable and self-consistent? Recall many years ago playing “Jurassic Park” on Nintendo 64, I think it was. There was a glitch that allowed you to “go behind the game” if you found certain hidden openings. After stepping out of the game, you could walk around it and duck back in at certain points, sort of like walking around the Big Top at the circus. “Life” is inside the brightly lit Big Top, but there’s a dark perimeter outside where one can choose different spots to duck out or duck in.

        As a construct, I suspect this world has Easter Eggs and glitches, and perhaps some place where the BSoD can be triggered. That’s my weirdness, your mileage will vary.

        All that being said, the best policy is to treat the world as if what we do matters, as if “it’s real”, because you never know , it could be.

        So yes steven, we need to come to terms with what we mean by “it”, to the extent we can do while staying within the nominal boundaries of this reality. It’s important.

        • steven hobbs says:

          “I believe this world is an illusion.’ With all due respect bro, you are treading toward the philosophically discredited belief of solipsism. As an aside, IMHO, many Asian transcripts have been mistranslated and misunderstood with this idea. I think the intended meaning, “The world is AS IF a dream.” So it was intended as a metaphor, rather than an ontological statement.

          • steven,

            My view is informed mostly by quantum physics, rather than philosophy or narcissism. Though I would recommend the Critique of Pure Reason which is prescient in regarding time and space conditions of our perception.

            YOU are not a illusion, steven, nor am I.

          • Steven: The fact that KNARF said “I believe this world is an illusion” is a legitimate view, and your notion that he is “treading….towards solipsism” is a simple logical fallacy on your part–close to a non sequitur. Indeed, he takes my position.
            Quantum physics and wave/particle paradox etc. We are made of electrons, protons, and photons-everything is. From our point of view, the deeper you go(Higgs boson, etc.), the more the mystery grows.

          • steven hobbs says:

            Hi Ron,
            ” “treading….towards solipsism” is a simple logical fallacy on your part–close to a non sequitur.”

            Yep. You are probably right. I think I’m somewhat of an expert in them; without definition. My comment was intended as a humorous metaphor about an ontological postulate. This conversation seems far afield, into Gurdjeff, Ouspensky, and Kant territory. Maybe it would be useful to have sub-conversations regarding epistemology, ontology, and philosophy of science’s relevance to state crimes, and cultural change?

            Currently listening to: “De-Manufacturing Consent- Mexicoleaks: The Answer to Mexico’s Narco-Politics Nightmare?” Check it out.

        • Ronald Orovitz says:

          “To precisely and persuasively delineate the core of the deep state is probably, to destroy the world as we know it.”
          You raise some interesting philosophical issues Knarf.
          I would suggest there is no ultimate core, but there are layers, some deeper than others. In the present context, every layer consists of patsies, so to speak, concealing the players of a more inner layer. The 9/11 hijackers and OBL were the outer layer patsies of the 9/11 spectacle. Beneath that layer are the Rudi Dekkers and Wally Hilliards that Daniel Hopsicker uncovered. They were “patsied” through drug convictions and other legal troubles. Then you have a deeper layer that includes some of the Saudi royals – they perhaps will soon be “patsied” if the classified 28 pages of the joint congressional committee on 9/11 ever gets released – there are increasing calls in Congress to do so. But even deeper than this are the players that Sibel has as portraits in her State Secrets Privilege Gallery – the Turkish intel elements and the Israeli dual citizen neo-cons. Ultimately these too may be “patsied”.

          As each layer is identified by investigation, it undergoes – to borrow the terminology of quantum physics – a “state vector reduction” from its “superposed” wave state. Schroedinger’s cat is in a superposition of both dead and alive until it is observed through the quantum mechanism. Likewise, our deep state players enjoy the “superposition” of concealment until they are exposed. To loosely merge lingos here: States Secrets Privilege is invoked in order to preserve a concealed superposition/deep state player from observation/exposure that would reduce its wave state and identify the particle’s position, or the culpability of the person.

          Further complicating matters, however: the logic of game theory is in play here. The “state vector reduction” may be induced not from the outside in (i.e. observation/exposure), but from the inside/out – from a deeper layer sacrificing or “patsying” an outer layer or rival players in order to protect itself.

          • Yep, all pieces on the chessboard are expendable except the King.

            If they splash open the 28 pages and perhaps throw the Saudis under the bus, we need to be thinking laterally, around the diversionary spectacle. When the magician makes a flourish with one hand, the other hand is doing the deed. The beast has far more than two appendages (tentacles).

            BTW, while I’m comfortable with the jargon of QM, I know many others tend to tune out. My excuse for the term “entanglement” is that it was in reference to a potential use of that fundamental property in a future application.

  9. I don’t think you are wrong David Carlson. Just sad fact-of-the-matter but also, the point of entry into it.
    We are now moving into cyberWar proper. It is my folly I thought Justice and Truth – essential “good” – existed as an entity unto itself. Infinite. Protected..
    It is unnerving to realize even if so, it is well shadowed by its equal and opposite ‘other’, at the moment in the box seat.
    Again. Karl ROVE’s statement : “We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality – judiciously, as you will – we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.” need be read … manifesto ? probably not. but as power projection, intention, arrogant assertion; I do not think I have read its equal.
    The point is NO Criminal contest has been allowed of Government presentations ‘of fact’ of OCT 911.
    And none is intended.
    Their ‘evidence’ remains uncontested. Its central algorithms protected by state secrets privilege.
    FI. The recent Senate Intelligence Report on CIA Black sites time-lines’ the 911 Commission narrative drawn from testimonies gained under methods judged by CIA’s own measure, in violation of Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects” regarding Human Experimentation’ – found to be Flawed and FABRICATED’. The Rumsfeld/Tenet/Ashcroft letter to the Commission Jan16.2004 forbade the Commission any access to ‘subjects under interrogation’ – including video of ‘EIT sessions’ – they had to believe what they were told.
    The ‘Commission sensitive’ letter from Scheid, Fenner and Lederman asserting “Executive Branch Minders’ Intimidation of Witnesses’ Oct3.2003 all point to corruption of the Commission Report.
    We need read this through:

  10. CuChulainn says:

    a general assumption here seems to be that most people, notwithstanding cognitive dissonance, would be indignant if they knew the truth.

    in the case of JFK we know that many were happy that he was killed. there were reports of celebrations in Texas and elsewhere in the South. some people visibly took pleasure in the spectacle of this public execution. those who were not disappointed by his assassination have little motive to look into alternative explanations.

    how many people found some gratification in 9/11? we are assuming human sympathy for those killed, and even for those killed from what it led to; but you don’t have to be Baudrillard to realize that many people found the spectacle a sensory pleasure, many (others?) found it a rationalization for their world view, and i am not thinking of the Palestinians whose prerecorded celebrations were deceptively broadcast on the news that day. think of the Daily Mail article i posted above, the crowd begging the man to jump, orgasmically gratified by the spectacular suicide, the instantaneous corpse jumping from the heights, a splendid selfie? this British crowd last week is not a different species from the rest of us. how motivated would these people be to understand the truth of that man’s life?

    • I think that the general assumption here is that people will think and feel what they are trained to think and feel. The Daily Mail spectacle is the product of decades of dehumanizing TV, movies, news presentation coupled with gradual destruction of the culture of solidarity with one’s fellow man.

    • My assumption is that we are being lied to, laughed at, and herded and slaughtered like cattle, by beings who are not fit to suck air on my planet.

      I shall never reconcile myself to this state of affairs.

  11. Nafeez Ahmeds final pages in his excellent ‘Insurge Intelligence’ release says plain and simple advanced propaganda techniques thru DARPA Rendon Highland Forum and others cited are toward ‘Neurobiology of Narrative Framing’ focusing on ‘trying to understand how to increase the Pentagon’s capacity to deploy narratives that influence listeners in a way that overrides conventional reasoning in the context of morally -questionable actions’. Sacred Values. Core personal, national and religious values under the tight little eyeholes of corporate superstate perception management RAND eugenic dept’s . ‘Amercian’.
    Although, you’d have to argue that after selling 911 false flag, what else do they need know about herd
    mentality and capacity for the proletariat to suck the big lie?

    • Excellent, remo.

      In a reply to me, steven hobbs cautioned against presuming hostile intent when none might exist. That’s a great personal policy when dealing within our small circles, because trust must given before it can be expected in return. But the world is different at the macro scale, because the stakes are ever so much higher.

      Unfortunately at the macro scale we live among a populace which is undeniably under attack by “narrative framers” and other mental engineers who’ve been trained by, and are being supported by, superpower-level resources. Under such circumstances we simply don’t have the luxury of NOT adopting the default assumption that anything and everything coming at us is lies promulgated by liars, unless convincing evidence or logic to the contrary is established.

      Hell of a way to live, but war is hell.

  12. When I was a child my father or uncle took me to view Nazi items on display. I’m guessing the year was 1947-48. I was 6 or 7 years old. It was some traveling show in times of depression in Canada. There were photos, military weapons and uniforms. One thing, however, boggled my mind. It was a lampshade made from human skin!! I stood about 2 feet from it and recall being speechless.
    When living in the southern Philippines, 1962-64, I heard stories about the Japanese Occupation that were unspeakable. Read about “the Rape of Nanking.”
    I talked to Viet Nam Vets who confessed to committing unimaginable acts. Needless to say, I could go on about my own discoveries of what humans are capable of.
    I am convinced that certain neocons and many of the key persons of the DS–usually male–are psychopaths. But when I visualize a thousand crucified enemies lined up on the Appian Way as the Roman generals proudly walked their stags and hearing the roar of the crowd, I still question the brain of the human species.
    And I know it to be a fact that there are a huge number of people similar to us who comment here. Humanity is still evolving. I guess the question for me is whether or not it may split into those with conscience and those that have zero. There has never been a time like this and we are still equipped with a brain which can be too easily programmed, alas. One carries on.

  13. Edward Weglowski says:

    Fourteenth episode and how far are we in the understanding of the conditions for change. Social constructionism and social criticism are both indispensable, however not mixed in the same dish. The series of this discussion screams for using tags, Sibel, for the follow-up thread coherence.

    If we want to throw light on the biggest false flag operation that keep the world by the throat, the centuries old banking systems taking-in more than lending-out prevents civilization from breathing – not to mention from the value of work. The last thing on earth would be to approach this dilemma by street protests (e.g.: Occupy Wall Street). Ups. . . somebody had such idea.

    Social constructionism is something else. Don’t hung-up on the politicians just yet. Changing the status of the voter is the new incentive for aspiring politicians wanting to get into the game without funds. One of the few engineered misconceptions of democracy is the existence of opposition. Democracy by definition has legitimate, diverse interests at its core which is not the same as the elimination of political minorities. When was the list time you thought of having a political account? Try to do something without it.

    • Edward; You are definitely coming on strong. A bit too many imperatives for me, but I take the point regarding street protests. That could happen in the 60s–but not in this military/police state which watches everything.
      For some 14 episodes the Deep State and all that it can do has been a key topic. America’s Deep state is more of a network than an institution: The military-industrial complex, the federal reserve system with its its privately controlled fiat $ system and the baking system which creates more $ from nothing based on “fractional reserves”, oligarchs representing various multi-national corporations–from oil to big pharma, etc., etc.
      Within the Government, the Executive branch has many non-elected key players(neocons or otherwise). There are at least.. “several hundred in the Executive dept.-non-elected officials who sit atop the military intelligence, diplomatic and law enforcement agencies…relating to international and internal security. Large segments of the public continue to believe that America’s Constitutionally established institutions are the locus of government power…but the public is mistaken” …The deep state/network…”makes most of the decisions concerning national security, removed from public view and from constitutional restrictions”…which are supposed to check America’s institutions. The words in quotes are by M. Glennon, author of “National Security and Double Government” 2010. He is laying out the truth for us. And he is doing so in a much more polite form than I.
      I smell psychopathy, Fascism, lust for power/$$ and endless war.
      Politicians come and go. “Changing the status of the voter” is pointless, since it will never affect the Deep State/network. In effect, politicians cannot be depended upon and are rather useless. They are temporary puppets. They do what their masters tell them. I learned this in the 60s.
      Asking Sibel or anyone to get in touch with “aspiring politicians” is akin to creating a “straw man” of sorts. Quick! Look over there at our elected politicians. Work with them and pay no attention to the men behind the curtain!
      I am grateful for our last 14 episodes. Most of the commenters seem to have their eyes pointed in the right direction at something, despite its chameleon-like amorphous form.

      • Edward Weglowski says:

        Dear Ron. Preaching to the converted is one thing, and serving those to whom you preach is another. Politicians are just people, and if you insist on their record illuminating their sour aftermath, this comes as the result of the existing disconnect between them and their subjects — the citizens. The better you’re organized the better off you are.
        Facebooks and Tweeters around the globe are simply traps. No society can control its government without having [controlling] own source of information. That is – who knows — the first requirement? The financial resources for such endeavor can come only from taxpayers (before public sector abolishes the killing public sector king’s taxation). Now, can you communicate with the rest of the society as to build diversified public data without public network? No. If you understand that, you understand the present position in history. To pinpoint the missing element, let me refer to the ratification of legislation being done in the name of the voter without ratification of the latter. So my position is; let’s step out from of telepathic communication utopia and step into reality. Changing the voter status from voting on election days to voting on ratification of LOCAL legislation changes the content of the legislation; also changes the standing of local administration. Nations are the sum of their parts.

    • Ribbit-Mark says:

      I am glad that Edward has brought up the ‘p’ word (protests). I say so because I was thinking about the apathy article that Sibel penned and all the responses that ensued. I don’t recall reading much to become enthusiastic or optimistic about.

      After giving much thought to what can be done to reverse the tide or bring about change/tear down the deep state et al. the only thing I could come up with was protests, as silly as it may sound at first blush.

      The deep state is very effective at snuffing out individuals or small numbers of citizens attempting to stir up ‘trouble’ with their agenda.
      But as we know strength is in numbers. Protests consisting of thousands of individuals, at various locations, building on each other’s success are to my mind the only way that any change will be possible.

      Yes it would be tricky indeed to coordinate with the police state watching everything; actions/protests would have to be taken swiftly once the decision to call it a go was announced.
      These protests would need to be extremely focused with near-term and long-term goals.

      • Edward Weglowski says:

        Since you’ve mentioned, my friend.
        Change comes by strategy[-izing], not so by criticizing. Protests would work – easily guessed – with an internal registration for communication, persistent follow up and the ability to handle diversities. But then the security forces could infiltrate the outside-led attempt and compromise the trouble much easier. So using the number of initial gatherers (protesters) engage in official political structure—instead being infiltrated—as the only recipe. Any activist need to put her or his hand on administrative resources to do things democracy cannot function without; a direct participation – to direct a part of local resources to construe an official, fully functioning network. And go from there, sharing the experience with other communities. Think globally, act locally.

        • steven hobbs says:

          Edward & Ron,
          I love this quote: “Change comes by strategy[-izing], not so by criticizing.” To which I would add agency.

          And, this one: “.. to direct a part of local resources to construe an official, fully functioning network. And go from there, sharing the experience with other communities. Think globally, act locally.”

          It’s unfortunate if we choose to diminish the work of others ala Occupy, or protest, or even politics. Yes, I participate in these, and don’t believe that others must think as I do, or want exactly the same things, to be allies. My newest motto: “Unity of purpose. Multiplicity of tactics.” Food Not Bombs threatens the state, just as those in “Occupy The Farm.” Many levels and types of resistance are ongoing. I prefer to focus on unity (when purpose is shared) than on difference. At the same time as inspiring curiosity, and organizing resistance is worthwhile, so is making the state irrelevant by being less dependent on it. My question, in part, is how to get the greatest synergy.

          • Edward Weglowski says:

            Hi Steven
            Success equal strategy; be prepared few steps ahead of any challenge. Occupy movements were designed to lose, but this is not known to the participants. You would live in a different country if the simplest approaches were undertaken. As for the State – it is all people have. The indoctrination to go without is to keep the society outside their own administration permanently. Greek gods have their game.

          • steven hobbs says:

            Hi Edward,
            “Occupy movements were designed to lose, but this is not known to the participants.”

            I would like to understand the meaning of your sentences. But find, I’m often guessing. For example, “Occupy movements were designed to lose.” Was the design from the outside or from those (some? all?) who participated? Were participants designers of their own agency? Which participants (because they are multifarious and multiple) lost? What does it mean to lose? Was losing a positive? In the eyes of whom? What was lost? How? What was the value of losing? Are you suggesting each motivation of every participant ended in loss? How would that not be the case? When would you say there would be a win? Would you say that Occupy Sandy was intended to lose? Lose what? How would you say some or all of Occupy lost as intended? What was the intention?

          • Edward Weglowski says:

            Hi Steven
            Why protests don’t work is a big topic in itself. The difficulty of this topic lies in the fact that the reasons are never visible to the naked eye. In judging political acts to start with – you analyze the outcome. You have the initiators and you have the recipients.
            You need look no further than how the wallstreat is built structurally and how structurally was build the occupy movement. Secrets lie in structures and the structures display intents.
            A civic society is a concept that cannot work from outside. Outside the administration that is. And this obvious fact is not even voiced yet. So who are your partners? And are we really ready to accept goals of real political equality for every citizen and skip the quarrel who is right and who is wrong? Even antidemocratic conservative chimps operating today under democratic cover should have their little autonomy in the whole system; a place they deny today the rest of society.

          • steven hobbs says:

            Hi Edward,
            More specifically, if organizer’s intention is to activate citizen agency and generate broader recognition to concerns (not addressed by media), then protests are often successful. If the intention of organizers is to change government policy, protests by themselves are mostly inadequate, but may still be an essential part of this larger project. Occupy Sandy included protest in a context of activating agency and organizing help for a community FEMA was failing. They showed themselves better able to help the community than any government agency. Another purpose of protests is to bring together diverse populations to unify participants with a sense of encouragement and empowerment emerging from shared camaraderie. Protests are often successful with this purpose — even when there is no change on the issues in question. Protests are one tool in the tool box, it can have multiple intended purposes at various times to various people.

          • Edward Weglowski says:

            Everything you say is right under the rule of freedom to act. The rule never changes. We don’t criticize Occupy movement from this perspective. The word “occupy” has aggressive overtone. And who is the aggressor here? Criticism has natural barriers in impacting growth. Sincere organizers use sincere connotations. Look for those who seek the source, not for those who seek followers. And who is the source? The people.

  14. CuChulainn says:

    P.D. Scott has covered this ground:
    Tonkin Gulf, 9/11, and even the Kennedy assassination itself can all be seen as events that were indeed “engineered,” along the guidelines set out in 1962 in the Joint Chiefs of Staff proposals for Project Northwoods. In two recent books I have been slowly persuaded, against my own initial incredulity, to list more than a dozen significant parallels between the Kennedy assassination and 9/11. Thanks to Kevin Fenton’s brilliant research, I can list a further analogy. The CIA files on Lee Harvey Oswald, more or less dormant for two years, suddenly became hyperactive in the six weeks before the Kennedy assassination. Fenton has demonstrated a similar burst of activity in FBI files on the two Saudis in the weeks before 9/11, a burst initiated by Tom Wilshire, at a time suspiciously close to when the alleged hijackers settled on a final date for their attack. Then in both cases there were also strange delays, leaving the files open at the time of the deep events.

  15. Hello everyone,

    Just a quick update:

    1- Still alive and semi-well after exploring the incredible rural areas (Mekong Region). I say semi because I have to be tested for ‘Dengue Fever.’ Considering the state of med where we are we may have to wait after we get back for the test. No worries though, my body fights things well;-)

    2- I just released several comments that were held due to too many links. Please keep ‘links’ to minimum.

    3- I’ll be back and we will resume our discussions and podcasts in a week. My head is filled with too many philosophical points and questions … Of course the fever didn’t help things- churned them up, down, around, and left me delirious;-)

  16. My apologies to everyone who commented on my previous scribblings for their lucidity and clarity deserved a response time denies me. What I would say is the scientific community must be targeted with all muster to provide proof and reason. It exists as sure as the crescent moon in tonights sky. Scientific proof has no equal.

  17. Ribbit-Mark says:

    chris bagg says:
    March 25, 2015 at 1:12 pm

    I agree with Chris’ general statements re: free fall of the buildings and physics.

    I would just like to add a few comments to what he said:

    If an object is falling at free fall acceleration, it means that there is no energy left to do any work, i.e. to pulverize supporting structures.

    I wouldn’t quite put it that way.
    For if object A is falling at free fall for say, 50 stories and suddenly bumps into object B in its path, object B would certainly fall victim to the potential energy of object A.
    So as object A is falling at free fall, it has lots of potential energy.

    The fact that the collapses occurred at anything close to these these rates means that energy was being added to demolish and remove the supporting structures.

    I look at the collapses (WTC1/2) a different way.
    The demolition of the buildings was timed in such a way as to make it look like the buildings were collapsing, when in reality they were being exploded/pulverized, floor by floor in rapid succession.

    So the buildings (WTC1/2) never really fell/collapsed and were never in free fall.

    • Somebody needs to crowdfund a scientifically sound scale model and put it to the test.

      • Ribbit-Mark says:

        Well this isn’t a “scientifically sound scale model”, but it’s good enough in my books.

        It’s the Moulin Rouge Tower that was demolished in 2010 in Las Vegas.
        The proportions to the WTC are almost identical in terms of building height vs. gash.

        What is spectacular with the Moulin Rouge collapse is that:
        – there was no fire in the structure
        – there was no steel inside the structure
        – more than half of the structure fell onto the remaining floors below
        – the tilt of the building at collapse was almost identical to WTC2’s tilt when it started to collapse
        Pause the video at 1:19 min. and see if you can predict what will happen when you resume.

        • 344thBrother says:

          Yeah. 2/3 of the building collapsing on 1/3 and drop/sliding a couple floors to impact solidly below, and it crushes less than 2 floors of the bottom building… No pyroclastic flow. No shattering. No pulverizing. It was weird the way they got to fall over.

  18. Won-a-pa-lei says:

    I think most Americans and many Europeans due to the havoc that forced multiculturalism is having on their communities, are way to attached to loving the idea of hating the towel heads. Even if you could prove beyond any shadow of a doubt who was actually responsible for 9/11, if Bush and Cheney got on tv and told the entire world that they were in on it and went on to describe in detail how it was executed, most would choose to ignore the proof and continue to make every excuse for blaming and bombing the entire muslim population. The mind control and propaganda goes deep and it’s the enemy they LOVE to hate.

    • There is much in what you say. The natural human tendency toward the them and us is taking daily media conditioning to keep in check. Its like a trained dog straining to be given permission to fetch. Frankly I think the overlords could turn the deserts of Arabia to glass with impunity. Just so long as they had enough footage of big explosions to captivate the viewers.

  19. CuChulainn says:

    the Lufthansa executive explained today that the German Wings copilot was able to lock himself in the cockpit and keep the pilot out because of armoring of the cockpit doors introduced after Sept. 11. 149 more casualties.

    • lots of assumptions there based on media assumptions and other sketchy info from execs that stand to lose a lot of money if the plane is found to be at fault (which is most likely, including software).

      my gut feeling is that it is way too soon for them to be releasing such conclusions within a couple of days. it doesnt feel right, it doesnt feel like a legit investigation has been done.

      anyway, sorry for digressing off topic

  20. Speaking to the above calls for expert contest of the creatioNIST reports; this just in from Craig McKee.
    Major coup for AE9/11Truth – American Institute of Architects green lights Building 7 vote.
    Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth achieved something truly remarkable. It succeeded in getting a commitment from the largest association of architects in the U.S. to debate and vote on a resolution supporting an investigation into the destruction of World Trade Center Building 7 on Sept. 11, 2001.

  21. they’re going to need all the help they can get. xx

  22. Gee Sibel, Dengue fever does not sound good at all. I suppose you have checked it out on the net, but from what I know it can have severe complications and it’s not something to triffle with. Lots of fluid intake is required if you have Dengue. Please look after yourself. Best wishes for speedy recovery.

  23. >steven hobbs says:
    >March 27, 2015 at 1:10 am
    >As much as I wish it were true, IMHO, this is misguided: “We only need to reveal the existence and >especially the EXTENT of the malicious deep state to a sufficient number of minds, for our task to be mostly >accomplished. Virtually anyone who wakes up and sees the deep state for what it is, will naturally be >antagonistic to it.”
    I>t just doesn’t (all) work this way, i.e. on the basis of rational self interest.

    “All” is perfection. We don’t need perfection, we just need good enough. A sufficient number of minds opening up is good enough.

    What’s perceived as self-interest is highly subjective and surprisingly immune to cold logic. Most of our thought process and decision-making is subconscious and therefore is not something we can take in hand and conform to an objective ideal by force of will, though we all believe we can and do just that. Instead, we become consciously aware of a particular decision we’ve taken after it ascends from our subconscious, and only then do we construct a rationale and back story of some conscious process which in fact did not occur as we recall it. This retroactive editing of memory occurs automatically and virtually imperceptibly. In fact, everything we experience is a memory, but I digress.

    Failing to appreciate this admittedly unsettling truth about the dominant role of the subconscious, leaves us susceptible to self-defeating behavior and poor decisions resulting from destructive programming we ignorantly ingest into our subconscious. Garbage in, garbage out.

    My unprofessional definition of cognitive dissonance is that which occurs when the conscious receives information which the subconscious cannot or will not process because of how it’s been programmed. Subconscious thought processing which rejects consciously-acquired information is, by definition, difficult to perceive. Our subconscious thought process is there, but it’s a very quiet signal in our minds, easily drowned out by the cacophony of modern media.

    I’ve come to appreciate the concept of taking a retreat from all electronic media for a week or so. Each time I manage to swing it. I come away with new insights and a better-adapted frame of reference.

    Would that there was a way to get those we wish to educate, away from the clamor of everyday life and into a peaceful setting where they can slow down and think about how they think.

    • steven hobbs says:


      All good points. From my limited knowledge of cognitive dissonance it seems accurate to suggest that conscious perception of threatening facts are occasionally over ridden completely, i.e. similar to a negative hallucination — it literally isn’t there to the person. The reptilian brain overrides and fear dominates. It appears Milgram’s experiments there is also cognitive dissonance arising from more consciously considered conflicting alternatives, and then a decision is to resolve the conflict.

      Yes. As you suggest, many actions are not considered, i.e. act first, rationalizations later. If it were all this way there would be no conversation here. Information can flow to the subconscious from the conscious too, and as you suggest environmental and contextual influences conditions that potential, along with lived experience (previous learning, trauma, exposure, passion, etc).

      Some questions, assuming that we can open more minds to the history of deep state crimes against democracy and human rights:
      1) How much knowledge (in those we speak to) regarding these crimes is adequate?
      2) What are the intended goals of this education?
      3) Are we hoping to inspire action in the newly educated?
      4) What actions are we expecting will make the difference we desire?
      5) What is the state of affairs we desire?
      6) What difference will it make if we gain that desired state of affairs?
      7) How might this difference be persuasive enough to help overcome apathy?
      Certainly each of these questions open up further questions. It seems important to ask ourselves our plan, and intended purposes.

      • Steven: Many of these questions were discussed in much earlier episodes. And as you noted “each of these questions open up further questions.” I cannot count the number of quantum physics articles, neuroscience journal style articles questioning “free will’ and the ides of “self” which wind up as their closing sentences., “This topic raises further study/experiments and many questions may appear unexpectedly.”

        • And of course dissapear again in an instant. The upside being if you manage to measure the spin of one appearance you can know the truth of its entangled pair.

        • steven hobbs says:

          Hi Ron,
          As much as I appreciate being compared to physicists and neuroscientists writing in peer reviewed journals that you read (thank you), this red hearing isn’t getting away free. I’ve been catching up, and may have missed something in my reading of (all) previous discussions. I found no substantial dialogue on these questions. Please identify the definitive or concluding dialogue(s) by topic, author, date and time, along with the question(s) they answer.

          • Steven:
            I definitely was not laying out a red herring for you and I will not go back and check topic, author, date ,etc.
            Also there has never been a metaphysical “discussion” between me and anyone. That last remark by me to cuchuchain was a snarky quip by me to him, which I now regret. He used a highly esoteric occult term(enneagram) . I had gently asked him episodes back to refrain from using, in this case, Buddhist terms in this format. He did not reply in either case..
            So your remark, “this conversation seems far afield into Gurdjieff, Ouspensky, and Kant”
            What conversation? Where? Please show me what you call a conversation? Do I need to say you jumped to a “hasty conclusion”–logic fallacy?
            Perhaps this old brain(74) gets cranky when I see someone come on with too many imperatives and, IMO, a taste for correcting commenters.
            You are the first person that I called logic fallacies on. I certainly respect your intellect.
            There are way too many smart, kind, and deeply concerned persons on this thread for me to even think of a “logic fallacy” patrol. My wish is to let them comment free and easy.
            I hope we can put to bed our little hiccup in the scheme of things.

          • steven hobbs says:

            Hi Ron,
            Thank you for your kind response. The conversation(s) will be found if you search “illusion.” I’ll stand by the red herring comment. If you find I’m writing with fallacies, too many imperatives, over-generalizations, or being impolite, please tell me specifically so I can get it through my thick head. I do appreciate this is not the purpose here, but like to learn and improve anyway. My requesting specifics was a result of a seeming dismissal of questions posed and therefore the concerns that gave rise to them. I may have misunderstood

        • As a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of humanity anyone finding themselves here reading this, anyone who understands the execution of the PNAC manifesto as a living history has in their psyche information of such gargantuan and grotesque magnitude it changes them irrevocably. It is a Pandoras box of corrupt pestilence that pervades every aspect of waking reality. So much so that it almost seems a cruelty to enlighten those blissfully ignorant of the truth. Would it be kinder to leave them to their generic camp presenters of their “reality” TV? To the monochrome illusion of representational democracy? To their enslavement to mind numbing mundanity? I wonder.

          • David,

            For purely technological reasons, we’re quite possibly living in the last days of the era when past and present information is concealable or inaccessible.

            Imagine a condition in which all information which has been created, ever, is available. Every event, every arrangement of matter and energy, every word, every thought. From a thousand years ago, or two seconds ago. There is no problem with causality. Knowing the past and near-present with perfect fidelity, creates no paradox.

            If, or more realistically, when this “omniscience” technology is commonplace, gaining and retaining power by deception and blackmail will be obviously impossible. The only remaining option for the psychopaths will be raw force.

            In the meantime, the heavy-handed maliciousness of the dark state is even now so blatant as to make NOT perceiving it a mental state which requires a combination of constant distraction, and subconscious programming designed to set up cognitive dissonance when faced with information which would otherwise be revelatory.

            For now it’s a fair question as to if we are doing someone a favor by waking them out of their trance. In the long run however, everyone will find themselves in a world where all illusion is destroyed forever. When the transition to that kind of world begins in earnest, those of us who’ve already discarded most illusions will find it easier to cope.

            Another thing: Anyone we nudge into a state of awareness, was probably bound to get there one way or another, IMHO. It’s just that we need them to come aboard NOW, while Sibel is willing and able to provide this incredible substrate.

      • steven,
        I’ll give my best guess answers to your questions.

        1) How much knowledge (in those we speak to) regarding these crimes is adequate?

        Enough knowledge for them to make at least a somewhat informed decision about which color pill they prefer – red or blue. We can at best present convincing evidence. A small percentage who’re presented with convincing evidence will undertake to educate themselves. We need to reconcile ourselves to the reality that the percentage of the population which has the toolset and willingness to walk this path with us will never be larger than a single digit.

        2) What are the intended goals of this education?

        See answer to #1.

        3) Are we hoping to inspire action in the newly educated?

        Certainly. We need more people in the boat, more minds thinking creatively, more innovative ideas. It will take time, but in time we need more participants who’ve expended the effort to gain a well-rounded understanding of the situation, and are therefore competent to present convincing evidence and answer questions.

        4) What actions are we expecting will make the difference we desire?

        For the most part, that would be actions we haven’t thought of yet. That’s why we need more minds working on the question.

        5) What is the state of affairs we desire?

        A society which will not accept lies or liars.

        6) What difference will it make if we gain that desired state of affairs?

        Such a state of affairs is unprecedented, so that’s a good question.

        7) How might this difference be persuasive enough to help overcome apathy?

        Only if it becomes an issue of survival itself, which I think it shall within this century.

        • steven hobbs says:

          Hey Knarf,
          Thank you so much for responding. I hope others join, even if to challenge, adjust or add to these questions. I would not presume “right” or “wrong” answers. IMHO, we are having a respectful dialogue on political and existential issues of consequence. We aid each other and advance our praxis by contributing, AND, with our internal self-criticism. We share in this project of building a greater knowledge base. I’m extremely grateful for this opportunity, and would like to thank everyone here [save infiltrators]; and, don’t mind an intellectual spanking, so to speak, when well founded. But, abjure needless discord. There’s no reason to take disagreement personally. The linguist Debra Tannen in, “The Argument Society,” well explicates how a discussion (in contrast to a conversation or dialogue) is a form of contest, one that has winners and losers often devolving to angry exchanges. That’s usually not my style, but sometimes I get caught up with stupid ego sensitivity.
          Knarf, I will store your (and others’) comments for future reference.
          In reference to question 1, you suggest, the aim is to provoke further curiosity motivating self-education enabling them to walk with us.
          In reference to question 3, you (seem to) suggest [paraphrasing here] an intention to inspire a tipping point generative of broad participation in further education of those not yet initiated.
          In reference to question 4, our imaginations fail us, we need more working on this question.

          Indeed, any addition, clarification, correction, or elaboration by anyone is most welcome.

          • steven,
            I completely reject the contest notion. Other than the contest we must fight with our own egos and ignorance. I have both in abundance, along with other afflictions.

            I work in electronics as basically a technician, alongside physicists and engineers who have specialized knowledge. A vital skill for me is picking their brains quickly and economically, so I can take over as much of their “grunt work” as possible while they are free to work to their pay grade. By grunt work I mean things such as troubleshooting, fabricating needed doo-dads, collecting data and presenting it in a useful format, repairing equipment now and then, so forth. To be effective and especially to be innovative, I need to be “with the program”, fully up to speed on what we’re doing and why. Believe it or not, there is no formal process for that information to be pushed down to me. I’m given access to everything and everyone and I’m expected to get myself up to speed.

            I’m trying to get up to speed here. When I engage in conversation it’s ultimately because I want to get something out of it, for my own enlightenment. Grunt work is what I do best, so my role here is that of learning what I don’t know, to integrate with what I think I know, so at some point I can hopefully be of use.

            Egos don’t stymie me. I swim with the sharks every work day, staying out their way while catching what crumbs I can.

            I found your questions VERY useful, steven. That would be case whether I dared post my answers or not. A question triggers formulation of an answer, and in that there is discovery. My understanding doesn’t crystallize until I try to express it in writing. When life was less hectic, pre-Internet, I intermittently kept a journal. It was very strange to revisit it a few years later and get a reference for how steadily I keep changing. Who was that guy, who wrote that stuff? I can’t say, I can no longer connect. Very strange.

            Here I am now, and I want to keep my focus centered around what I think I perceive to be the central issue, namely how do we throw off the psychopathic parasites who’re literally stealing our blood and sweat and robbing our children of their futures?

            II can’t compently follow all the philosophical references, yet. That’s not the kind of education I’ve had. I’m appreciative when the references to this or that philosopher summarize whatever is relevant, for the benefit of us who’re otherwise in the dark for now.

  24. CuChulainn says:
  25. CuChulainn, Niqnaq, begins this post with, ” i do realise some people find it hard to believe that top jews quite simply own the pindo govt, but i never have any trouble finding evidence of the fact”. What is he saying here? That the deep state is a Jewish cabal? Inquiring minds want to know.

    This business of the gov’t having to send lackeys down to tell judges that cases must be thrown out under the rubric of States Secret Privilege can’t last. It’s too cumbersome. They will have to change the system so that a phone call or email would suffice. Oh, but that would leave a trail in case someone else gets access to PRISM. But seriously, this shows that Ellsberg’s acquittal would have zero chance of happening in today’s US legal system. And to think that he voted and campaigned for Obama. What a fool he must feel for that.

  26. CuChulainn says:

    can’t say Mandela, caustic but sometimes inscrutable headings go with the territory. in any case i prefer linking to a one-man shop than to the Intercept juggernaut.

  27. Chchu. Sibel found corruption at the heart of Amercian Justice.
    “The group [UANI] is not affiliated with the government, and lists no government contracts on its tax forms. The government has cited no precedent for using the so­-called state­ secrets privilege to quash a private lawsuit that does not focus on government activity.”
    “beyond the bizarre DoJ intervention itself, the extreme secrecy that shaped the judicial proceedings is hard to overstate. ”
    “Here virtually everything has been hidden, even from the plaintiffs’ lawyers. Not only did the government provide no clue as to what the supposedly endangered “state secrets” are, but they concealed even the identity of the agency making the claim:”
    UANI feature Lieberman, Woolsey, Dagan and Michael Hayden. How many professional LIARS does it take to win a hand? – imagine the ‘leverage’ at play with Ramos?? Russell TICE told us on BFP no positions of power filled without leverage.
    There are no rights left. No-one can touch them.
    911 ? No chance.
    ‘Justice’, it aint.

  28. CuChulainn says:

    yes, remo, this is an amazing incident both for what it reveals about the necons’ degree of immunity and what the State Secrets privilege has become. it incidentally seems to confirm what Sibel is saying about federal judges. am now reading Michael Ruppert _Crossing the Rubicon_ and am impressed how much of this he nailed and documented at length back in 2004

  29. Steven,

    I wish I shared your somewhat optimistic view that because something is recorded it becomes accessible. History has recorded for posterity mostly a collection of stories on political intrigue, warcraft, despotism, usurpation and the ubiquitous slaughter of peasants. The fact that we have known these histories across the centuries has never succeeded in preventing subsequent generations from allowing those least fit to rule us from doing just that.
    By coincidence this morning on a revisit to Voltaire’s Dictionaire Philosophique I was reminded that all we know about the deep state has been known by many throughout history. The deep state represents the pitifully sad truth that humanity itself is powerless against the psychopathic aspect of its fundamental nature. All you do in the removal of one gaggle of psycho’s is to clear the way for the next.

    • steven hobbs says:

      Hi David,
      I’m not sure to which comments you are referring, so I can only fail at clarifying my intended meaning. This conversation has become a little long in tooth. Over-generalizations, such as, ” because something is recorded it becomes accessible,” which was not stated, and “we have known these histories across the centuries has never succeeded in preventing..,” make it difficult to respond incisively. I will say, “Everybody Knows” is one of my favorite Leonard Cohen songs, but I don’t find it an excuse for complacency.

    • David,
      I’ve deduced your reply was intended for me.

      Optimistic? Hmmm.. I would not necessarily argue the implications of entanglement and quantum computation in regards to a possible omniscience technology are positive by default. Omniscience could just as easily destroy us. Regardless, the introduction of such technology would be initially traumatic at the very least. Who of us is ready to have no secrets, no privacy? Not me.

      You’re indisputably correct about the root cause of our enslavement. We’ve found no way, so far, to keep the psychopathic element from gaining and maintaining control. We always fall for the Big Lie. The bigger it is, the more difficulty we have recognizing it. The approach these days seems to be Lie Stupendously Big or go home.

      The one thing about omniscience – they would no longer be able to pull it off by means of deception. Without the ability to lie, they would have no recourse but whatever force is necessary to rule in a state of undisguised despotism. Attempts would undoubtedly be made to restrict the technology so as to preserve their ability to deceive, but in the long run the genie always escapes the bottle.

      • CuChulainn says:

        “they would no longer be able to pull it off by means of deception”
        that seems to be the case currently in Mexico, where the “war on drugs” legend no longer convinces any significant part of the public–hence the necessary recourse to brute force

  30. With apology and embarrassment Steven I am forced to confess that post was in fact a reply to Mr Knarf, whom is owe equal apology. It remains however that you are right in that my Sarteian pessimism is not helpful.

    • steven hobbs says:

      Hey David,
      No problem.
      I’ve made the mistake at least once. Hadn’t considered “Sarteian pessimism,” never heard of it, and don’t remember Sartre as such a pessimist exactly. Your comment drove me down the intriguing web rabbit hole of Cartesian and Nietzschean pessimism: “Reimagining Life: Philosophical Pessimism and the Revolution of Surrealism” Thanks. I’ll be up for air soon.

  31. I have a vague memory that someone here was reading a book about the neocons. If it was about the neocons and included their policy of The end of History with the US as THE hegemon as 1st articulated by Wolfowitz in his Defense Planning Guidance of the early 1990’s and who they worked with and represented, please repost the book. If it was Paul Craig Robert’s February address, then I have read that.

    Thank you!

    • Mandela:
      Recently I finished a book: NEOCONSERVATISM AND THE NEW AMERICAN CENTURY by Maria Ryan, 2010. She covers Wolfowitz quite a bit. Wolfowitz was a student of Alan Bloom who was a student of Leo Strauss. Here is a quote, “Wolfowitz had set out some of his core views in an article written in 1991, while he served in the pentagon under the sec. of defense, Dick Cheney…Wolfowitz argued for a proactive, rather than defensive strategy to consolidate the cold War victory.” And, “the justification for American troops now transcended the fall of the Soviet Empire; an American presence would be necessary to prevent instability in the new Europe. Washington should also maintain the NATO alliance, which could now serve as a mechanism for maintaining U.S. leadership in Europe beyond then Cold War.” And to think this cowardly psychopath helped to pave the way to all the deep darkness which we face today! Also the neocons pushed Washington to break the promise with Gorbachov NOT to expand NATO Eastward towards Russia. Now the Ukraine situation could trigger the BIG ONE.
      Another book on the neocons I would recommend is “THEY KNEW THEY WERE RIGHT” by Jacob Heilbrunn.
      I’m particularly interested in studying their pathologies and a key period in the evolution for the Ivory-towered academics. That would be when 60s students in rebellion, including the Black Panthers, scarred the living shit out of those creatures when they occupied offices and buildings.
      You might want to research Wolfowitz’s mentor Allan Bloom and the neocons’ obsession with masculinity; which, of course, indicates their own insecurities. Sometimes, I feel like I just want to walk away from this infernal sickness–but I keep hangin’ around.

  32. CuChulainn says:

    this book is excellent, covers the neocon role in spreading the un-american meme of conspiracy theories–
    Conspiracy Theory in America (Discovering America) Paperback – February 15, 2014 by Lance deHaven-Smith

    • On, there’s a glowing review of Conspiracy Theory in America in the February archive. The page with the review is a good read in itself.


    It can be read online for free at the Ralph Nader Library.

  34. There have not been any comments since 29th – what is happening? Nothing untoward, I hope.

  35. 344thBrother says:

    Agreed ron.

    @Sibel: a little rest and some time for reflection on your latest adventure would be a good thing. also, if you continue to battle this fever thing. Seriously, colloidal silver. I would be happy to send some, what you find in health food stores tends to be over priced, but a shot glass of 30ppm a couple times per day until the symptoms disappear is my professional advice. It really works, I’ve tried it on myself (it even seems to kill the common cold, no joke) and alway have some on hand for friends.

    either way, I would be very interested to hear of your experiences on your trip when you’re up to it. Your work with children is particularly interesting to me.

    and wb!

  36. I finally bothered to skim and peek at that PNAC thing and all I saw was we need more money for research, blah blah, whine whine. We must dominate all, blah blah.

    What pages were most important? And I may be remembering wrong but wasn’t that thing supposed to show their desire for a motivating and planning for a motivating factor to be introduced?

  37. – 9/11 a “false flag” & “Synthetic” ? No way. But PNAC took the opportunity with both hands and used it for it own advantage. PNAC didn’t realized that they did what Osama Bin Laden wanted them to do: drive the US deeper into debt & put a number of nails in the american coffin more.
    – The problem however is that it increased the financial bubble in the US even more.

    • Ribbit-Mark says:

      Does this mean you believe the 9/11 OCS?

      • OCS ??

      • – All the combined actions done by the Bush administration increased the US Current Account Deficit and that ALLOWED the US to live MORE beyond its means. It therefore increased the US housing bubble and will increase the housing bubble implosion part 2 in the upcoming years.
        – But I doubt the PNAC folks are even able to wrap their minds around such intricate stuff.

Speak Your Mind