Monday, November 10, 2008


This is the kind of pressure we can and should be exerting now. This was a savvy move. We do not know what effect it will have. We don't know how many others will pick up a ball like this and run with it. I wrote about Gorelick in Rubicon and I agree that her appointment as AG would be a very discouraging sign. So... let's test the waters and see if anyone is listening. This is called recon and I am happy to put my signature on this Open Letter as well.

Now, how do we make sure that Mr. Obama sees it?


From: Kyle Hence

Date: November 10, 2008 8:35 AM :
Nov 10 To: undisclosed-recipients:;
Subject: OPEN LETTER to President-elect Obama: No to Jamie Gorelick as AG --
Gorelick Freed Known Terrorist & Protected Bush over Saudi Ties to 9/11

*Open Letter to President-elect Barack Obama Regarding Former 9/11 Commissioner Jamie Gorelick*

Dear President-elect:

Congratulations on your inspiring and momentous victory. Now the great burden and opportunity of leadership falls upon you and your team, including the responsibility of choosing someone ideally suited to lead the way to restore the rule of law and the Constitution in these United States.

A profile published today in The New York Times reports that your transition staff may be considering nominating former 9/11 Commission Jamie Gorelick to the post of Attorney-General. I am writing to urge you in the strongest possible terms not to do so. This recommendation from your transition team should they put her name forward must be rejected. She, along with the Commission's Executive Director, Philip Zelikow were the two most highly compromised of the 9/11 Commission members; their conflicts of interest should have disqualified them from being members of the Commission. In fact their records relative to 9/11 should have made them sworn witnesses in the investigation itself. Jamie Gorelick was not the right pick for the 9/11 Commission and she is not the right person to fill the position of Attorney General.

As Deputy AG Jamie Gorelick was instrumental in the extradition to Jordan of Mohammed Jamal Khalifa, a known terrorist where he was later freed (see below). Later she wrote the infamous "wall memo" which sought to make life difficult for FBI investigators probing past terrorist crimes from counter-intelligence agents seeking to prevent future attacks. Then as Commissioner she presided over an investigation that failed to answer over 70% of the questions posed bythe 9/11 Family Steering Committee . [BTW, This record should also disqualify former 9/11 Commissioner Tim Roemer who some have said is being considered for Intelligence czar]. Then there is her work with the failed Fannie Mae which "she left just as it was coming under fire for huge accounting failures," as Eric Lightblau wrote this morning for NY Times.

On the basis of her record, as Deputy AG, as 9/11 Commissioner, and with Fannie Mae, Jamie Gorelick must be, in my view excluded from consideration for the position of Attorney General or any other high level position in your administration. No to Jamie Gorelick.


Kyle F. Hence

JO writes:

For more on Jamie Gorelick, see interview with Emmy-award winning author, Peter Lance.
And on her role in erecting a wall between FBI investigators and Al Qaeda operative, Ali Mohammed

Meanwhile, on the "Economy, Stupid," front:
The End of America (film)
No (Short-Term) Pain, No (Long-Term) Gain
Why Are Docs From the Bailout Being Redacted?

Science News, Good, Bad and Ugly but Clear

US Army Delays, Alters Medical Studies Under Little Known Scientific Censorship Program
GEOEye's New Satellite Program Offers Unprecedentedly Sharp Images


Eddie Willers said...

This is a double comment that mainly addresses the dialogue below about Obama's election...but it fits into this story as well.

I apologize for the length, Jenna!


I wish I shared your enthusiasm, Mr. Ruppert, I really do. I’ve been a loyal FTW reader for nearly three years and I’ve enjoyed every second of it…but I could not possibly disagree more with what you’ve written below with respect to the election of Barack Obama.

In your missive below, you stated, “I submit that what really liberated all of these new comments was a belief that they can be posted now without fear of retribution – as a result of Barack Obama’s election.”

I suspect that those people who looked at the election of Obama as a liberating moment (regardless of collective groups, be it black, white, liberal, etc.) will be unable to read the map you have drawn for your followers. Those who do not understand the function of a tool are doomed to isolation and are exactly the kind of cannon-fodder the government continues to exploit.

Like the hammer, the saw, and the rifle, the map is a tool. Tools, by definition, are both useful and dangerous. In order to be used successfully, one must learn how to correctly use the tool they’ve created or have been given. In thinking that we must accept the Volckers, Emmanuels, and Obamas in order to someday implement the economic, energy, and environmental changes you have fought for over the years, you are endorsing the same system (i.e. tool usurpers) that has abused you in the past. Just as surely as one cannot change the plantation by first becoming a slave, one cannot possibly change government by first becoming part of government.

Suggesting we can attain freedom via the ballot box is an endorsement of the system that rules us. Just as we can no more find freedom or, worse, equality by casting a ballot, we only experience censorship because we choose to censor ourselves. The key to understanding the point above lies in the idea that we do not derive our rights and/or feelings from government; rather, we derive our rights by virtue of our being human.

To illustrate, remember that a government big enough and powerful enough to “grant” its people freedom, equality, prosperity, etc. is also big enough to take away everything it “granted” you in the first place. Sadly, this subtlety is missing in your analysis. Obama’s coronation merely changed the spokesperson of the agenda – the product remains the same, and the agenda moves forward. In my (admittedly) cynical view, an Obama presidency was the fastest way to increase US support for the War on Terror as well as placing a fresh, acceptable face on the rapid erosion of our precious civil liberties. Indeed, after eight years of George W. Bush, Obama would have defeated any corpse running with an “R” after his or her name.

More disturbing, however, is your belief in the fundamental truth purported by Madison, Jefferson, Franklin, and John Adams, that “…politicians won’t do anything the People don’t make them do.” Recent (as well as historical) events are rife with examples that suggest the exact opposite of that truth; namely, that Washington acts and the people conform.

For an example of this, consider the recent bailout package. The people overwhelmingly rejected the first bailout package, citing (mostly) the right economic reasons and correctly labeling it what every government-mandated bailout is: legalized theft and corporate socialism. Calls flooded the offices of our rulers demanding that they vote against the bailout, some reporting the ratio as high as 100:1. In this case, the people rightly sensed they were about to be swindled, and sought action to avoid being robbed through their elected representatives.

The result, of course, was a defeat of the first bailout package. What happened next should serve as a reminder to those who continue to believe government can solve your problems. The first bailout package did not die; it was replaced with another, more robust and sinister package a few days later. There is no reason to expect an Obama administration will act any differently than a Bush, Clinton, Reagan, etc. administration. If you are in doubt of this, a simple examination of their voting records will prove your suspicions incorrect. At the end of the day, you are at the mercy of our rulers. The agenda transcends political parties as well as what you, me, or any other individual thinks.

You may think the Obama administration has earned people a spot at the head table, a chance for fresh ideas to be heard and considered by open minded individuals who finally rose to the top of government. And maybe you’re right. In my view, however, the old poker saying applies here: if you can’t spot the sucker after 20 minutes of playing poker, then you are the sucker. It’s no coincidence that casinos – like government – expand year after year. Both provide their customers and constituents an undeniably addictive bromide: hope.

My advice is to cease thinking you can change things via the ballot box, to endorse ideas and people who have disengaged from the institutionalized belief that our politicians represent us. Such institutionalized thinking is akin to allowing the outcome of a football game to determine your mood for the following week (how many of us know someone like that?). Your admonition “until we change the way money works, we change nothing” will continue to resonate hollow with me because, unfortunately, your endorsement of an Obama presidency is an endorsement of the wholesale looting and coercion of those he was elected to rule in the first place. I suggest modifying your admonition to read, “Until we disengage from government, we change nothing.”

Mr. Ruppert, I hope I am wrong. It would give me great pleasure to beg for the forgiveness of everyone on this blog (and beyond) for spreading unpopular ideas. My greatest concern is that, in searching for those Lions in the Wilderness, your endorsement of Obama will only create more Whiners in the Wilderness. To me, the most disgusting image from election night was the one celebrated most – I hope I never again see 150,000 people chanting their ruler’s name in a park. I hope to never again see people deify their ruler as much as Obama’s supporters have done, for as Orwell cautioned, “Beware of the streamlined men who think in slogans and act with bullets.”

I know the majority of people saw Tuesday’s events as an overwhelming repudiation of a bankrupt political ideology and the simultaneous re-birth of the American spirit – I saw the manifestation of Orwell’s quote above. Time will tell whose instincts were correct.

FTW admin said...

to anyone who's put off by the length of the above comment, i urge you to read it. regardless of where you stand, the poker metaphor is memorable, brilliant

Michael said...

I sent it to the transition team via their website and added my signature. If you want to take Mike's lead and do the same head here

Michael said...

Great stuff Eddie. It aligns with how I generally see things. Yet there’s this tug……

Sticking with the gambling metaphor what about hedging our bets with minimal investment? What about organizational dynamics and rallying cries that serve to galvanize? What about the Joseph Campbell side of that Orwellian nightmare which suggests that simplicity and myth are essential if any challenge were ever to be mounted against the staggering machinery that continues on its accelerated pace of destroying so much and so many? The heroes journey…

Think about how Mike's star shown so brightly when he publicly challenged CIA Director Deutch in LA and cost him an appointment as Secretary of Defense. The spirit of that moment has been monumentally inspirational. It's true there was a long line of idiots behind him and maybe it amounted to no substantive change. But on the other hand, it set in motion events that helped sustain Mike and FTW and reach many thousands more people with real information regarding the perilous state of the world.

I don't know the answers, that it is for sure. I read Mike the last week and I have mixed feelings too. I didn't vote for Obama, nor have I ever voted for a Dem or a Republican in my life. I have nearly stopped voting altogether many times, and counsel others on the futility of even seeking anything from government in the first place. I am a lifer outside the political system and a rational anarchist distrustful of concentrated power like many of the founders of this country. But to quote a band that was my Mike Ruppert 10+ years before I knew his name,

It has to start somewhere.
It has to start sometime.
What better place than here?
What better time than now?

(Rage Against the Machine-Guerrilla Radio)

At the moment, Obama supporters, and to a lesser but still relevant extent, Obama’s extended team, believe the hype (the latter their own bullshit perhaps). Now we may all agree that that is either self-delusional rationalizations, ignorance or (idealistically) a suicidal subterfuge with little hope of being hatched into a broader revolution when they take office (I offer that last one for the true romatics amongst us ;-). It’s most likely some combination of all of these.

Whatever the foundations, the pump is primed with some genuine belief and engagement level that could theoretically have an impact…somehow (of course not simply by electing Obama). If it’s point and click activism to copy some dude’s letter putting the transition team on notice that bullshit business as usual appointments will be met with resistance, is that worth 30 seconds of time? The answer would be no if that act were viewed in isolation or with the stark realities you lay out most cogently. But, if you concede that we are all searching to be a part of something greater than merely an obscure highly knowledgeable demographic with lots of canned goods and some gold buried in our back yard, then it might have potential value. It might be that butterfly flapping its wings on the other side of the globe that becomes the storm that sweeps these chanting Obama supporters closer towards understanding the true magnitude of our plight at the moment. There are a 1000 steps in between, but it’s theoretically possible that things somehow get interesting and real change results.

I could keep writing, but I don’t need to BS you or win a point, when I’m not sure I don’t agree more with your thoughts than what I just scribbled down here. I do know that suppressing the desire to act, even if those acts are arguably futile, will kill off any tiny chance of real change, as well as our spirits, faster than an overwhelmingly powerful enemy ever could. I know because I’ve been guilty of it myself more often than not, and it’s a damn shame when knowledge becomes a burden due to lack of action that has at it’s root fear.

One thing this election has produced is some energy. Who knows..maybe some of it will amount to something interesting…something good eventually. Anyway, I forwarded and signed the letter. For whatever it’s worth.

Michael Place

PS Jenna, I don’t comment much, but I gotta tell you it took effort not to say ‘fuck’ a few times above. For a group that sees the vast majority of our “civilized” way of life as dinosaur on the verge of extinction, I find that prim and proper shit pretty fucking hilarious to be honest. It’s just emphasis, and although “potty talk” can be over done I suppose, we need to be a little more careful who we alienate for essentially stylistic reasons methinks. Delete the neo nazi’s but Slamdunk Zhivago can trash talk in my book any day. Maybe she’ll command an army of chanting simpleton’s with her rhetoric someday soon…who knows. Whatever fires people up as far as I’m concerned. I just cited Rage Against the Machine and Mike as huge influences. Strange bedfellows an' all.

All in all, you do a super job of course. Thanks to you, Mike of course, but also the whole community. Jolly good discourse….

sunrnr said...

I think back on the history of our country and the people who lived during that time. The Indians and the migrants formed rules to survive by that became "government". Early on leaders were tasked with ensuring the rules (mores) were followed for the good (survival) of the tribe or settlement.

The tribes, settlement, indian nations, states were made up of individuals and the "government" served them. The people had a vested interest in "government" namely their very survival. They were also very self sufficent for the most part.

Unfortuately, that has flipped 180 degrees where the "government" is now self serving and the people too lazy to take a vested interest. They mostly want just to make money and live comfortably and essentially to be taken care of.

Jared Diamond has written extensively on the fates of societies that have become self indulgent and dependent on others for goods and services as well as the environment. The Roman Empire, the Mayan, Aztec, Anastasi, vikings, Easter Island societies, etc. are all examples of how things start going wrong when lines of supply, environment, greed and climate change start getting in the way of survival.

Basically Americans have degenerated to the point very few could now survive on their own. We'all dependent on someone else for almost everything, food, water, electricity, etc. As a nation we're now more dependent than ever on foreign oil, foreign capital, foreign workers, etc. for our everyday needs. Not a good scenario.

On top of all that, "Government" has taken on a living life of it's own to the point that no-one knows all the parts of it, nor how to control it. We're all now servants of the "beast" as it were.

Bottom line, people may yet disengage enmasse as suggested, but the need to do so has to be there first. Many don't yet feel that need. Many are too distracted by their own concerns to unite as one. It will take something very serious for folks to get off the sidelines and take an active role.

Unfortuately, as Mike and others have pointed out, I'm not sure we as a people could stand up against TPTB, even if we collectively want to. There appears to be too many traps in place already which could easily thwart any "movement to unite" no matter how small or large. As a matter of fact, I believe, TPTB are waiting for just the right moment to spring those traps in a pre-emptive move.

One man or woman cannot change things by themselves. The effort to change needs to be a cooperative and collective endeavor.

Will Obama be given a chance to make a try? Will he be able to pull expertise from outside the "beast"? Will we really be asked and allowed to participate?

Personally, I feel we're all sitting on a powder keg and there's too many playing with matches without adult supervision.

I also personally think that many are severly underestimating President-elect Obama's abilities and committement to this welfare of this country. I guess only time (if we have it) will tell.


Anonymous said...

I concur with the analysis put forth by Eddie Willers. The USA was an empire long before Bush and Cheney took power. That empire could dissolve peacefully the way the USSR went under Gorbachev, or it could end in a world war the way most empires have done.

A review of L. Fletcher Prouty's The Secret Team explains just who Obama is climbing into the cockpit of that 777 with. While Obama may be picking much of the flight crew, I want a flight crew with integrity; not one that flies up to 20,000 feet, and then uses extortion to control and swindle the jet's passengers.

Regardless of who is at the helm right now, be it Bush, Obama, or McCain, the USA is an empire in decline, exhibiting the historical death throes of any empire. The elite will try to reinvent the current capitalist system when it collapses; that will be the critical time for people to reshape society into a sustainable, equitable system, rather than be led down the path of fear and willing slavery again.

Indeed, we need to be lions in the wilderness, but lions that hold firm to principle. NB Patton is correct in noting that we need to VERY STRICTLY hold the Obama presidency to the change he has promised us. Frankly, I know of no mechanism to actually hold our politicians accountable, save the threat of voting for 3rd parties: the bailout package exemplified that perfectly. I witnessed many good people surrender their principles during the Clinton years, opting for party loyalty, and setting aside critical thinking. The same fear that the Republicans use to control the masses, is exploited by the other corporate party to steer dissent back to the center right that the Democrats now represent.

The first 100 days of an Obama administration will set the tone for his 4 years in office, but already his questionable selections of advisers is indicative of what direction that will be. If Obama can actually come out and utter the phrase "peak oil," then maybe the nation and the world can roll up our collective sleeves, and begin the transition to a paradigm of sustainability rather than infinite growth.

Either way, I'm standing by the sustainable organic farm and alternative energy solutions I've been working on for the past 7+ years. Many of us have been living the change we want to see in the world long before Obama's speechwriters plagiarized that slogan.

FTW admin said...


as i suggested in my initial explanation, 'fuck' is a useful word in any number of contexts. i've 'censored' it when comments have said things like 'you fucking people' or called another commenter a fucking (fill in the blank.)

NB Patton said...

Eddie Willers (and others)
Great post! Most of what you said is on target. However you fall short with your basic understand of the message that MCR is conveying.

For the love of God MCR is not "endorsing" Obama! I wish you guys would stop taking everything for face value and spend a little bit more time to critically analyze what he is saying. I admit, I had to re-read it before I understood it clearly.

I think MCR is saying that now is NOT the time to sit back and think all is well! Now is NOT the time to sit back and say, HEY this isn't Ron Paul! Now IS the time to stand UP and demand the change that the sheeple voted for will happen! So you see, we want the same damn thing.

Eddie, others, I think the real "problem" here is that we are on the same team, standing at the top of the key with the shot clock running down, fighting over whether the point guard or shooting guard is a more effective position. What a regretful waste of time and effort.

One specific point I agreed with:
-Your comment about the idea shared by Madison, Jefferson, Franklin, and John Adams. Hate to say it but I agree on that point, more accurate today is, "Politicians wont do much of anything that the banks and corporations don't make them do."

Points I disagreed with:
You said:
"Just as surely as one cannot change the plantation by first becoming a slave, one cannot possibly change government by first becoming part of government."

Ha! Tell that to Andrew Jackson. You are absolutely wrong. Thats like saying you can effect the speed and heading of a car by choosing to disassociate yourself from it. Also explain the "slave" Ron Paul.

You Said:
"My advice is to cease thinking you can change things via the ballot box, to endorse ideas and people who have disengaged from the institutionalized belief that our politicians represent us."
"Until we disengage from government, we change nothing."

Just to make it perfectly clear, by the sum of both of these quotes, you are calling for open revolution, correct? If not, what other method do you know to effect change on a government without voting or running for office?
Before you judge me, take a look at my avatar to view my opinion on revolution. To clarify, I think it is the DUTY of every American to resist tyranny at ALL COSTS.

I just also happen to think its not exactly time for it just yet. I admit we are close, so close that one event tomorrow could change my mind.

I'm on a list now aren't I?...

Anonymous said...

In addition to pressure on Obama to avoid such ignoble characters as Jamie Gorelick, Rahm Emanuel, and Larry Summers, it occurs to me that the single most important issue he could be urged to confront would be PEAK OIL.

Every day the reality of peak oil is ignored and put off for more feel-good-now politics and lifestyle, is another days resources squandered that could be put to use transitioning to a sustainable future for the planet. As late in the game as it is, until a prominent politician takes up that cause, and brings it to the forefront of national dialogue, we can expect more war for fossil fuels and other resources on the international scene.

I humbly submit that an effort to urge Obama to acknowledge and deal with peak oil as a nation and global community would be time well spent.

Eddie Willers said...

Nb Patton:

I cannot speak for Mr. Ruppert nor will I ever pretend to know what is in his mind. I can only judge him by his words and what I’ve come to understand about the man from past readings. I’ve always understood - and accepted- MCR as someone who leans left politically, not necessarily because he agrees with the politics of the Democratic Party (I recall with joy many scathing remarks about Hillary Clinton over the years) but rather because I think he felt the Democrats provided a better chance for his ideas to be heard.

In my view, herein lies the problem. The bulk of MCR’s “Interregnum” article centers around the fall of the Republican Party, the celebration involved with the ascendency of Barack Obama to the nation’s highest elected office, and the ramifications for the newfound “freedom” for all Americans. My contention remains that freedom isn’t something we can gain at the ballot box. More importantly, freedom is not something created when one big government party leaves office and another big government party assumes power.

I attempted to expand upon the main idea of the above paragraph in my previous comment. Although I think we have different ideas in mind when it comes to revolution, you are correct about my calling for an open revolution.

The revolution I’m advocating is one of peaceful disassociation from the State. The State is fundamentally corrupt because it survives and expands (indeed, it’s sole existence) is based upon what it can steal from its citizens. By voting, you are endorsing the coercive arm that picks your pocket. By voting, you are giving the state your consent to act as it sees fit. If we’ve learned anything for certain over the years, it is that the state will act…often times without your knowledge, but ALWAYS upon the consent of those who vote.

Far from a complex concept, those in power have entirely grasped the voting charade and all of its subtleties. All they have to do is provide you a reason to believe – like the gambler at the slot machine on her last nickel – that “this time things will be different.” After viewing various election night displays and reading all of the supposedly “liberating” personal accounts of what an Obama administration means for individuals, how can one NOT think the bulk of America is poised to take their seat at the slot machine?

Inevitably, because of its weak foundation, the American government will collapse upon itself. The American government is, as one commenter above put it, “in the last throes of empire.” I submit to you that more pressing than Peak Oil, more dangerous than Global Warming, more destructive than World War is the massive, unquestioned, and altogether unprincipled subjugation of the individual to collectivized, institutional thought and action. Blaming the Republicans (or Democrats) for our present situation only addresses the symptoms of the larger disease. No politician – not even Ron Paul, who I respect and admire very much but would never vote for – can deny the overwhelming power and inherent danger that accompanies group mentality in the midst of a crisis. History is full of examples of the destructive nature of collective’s too bad, as Allen Dulles said, “The American people don’t read.”

NB Patton said...

Eddie Willers,
Another great post, I truly enjoy reading what you have to say...
And again one that I almost entirely agree on. So why are we still standing at the top of they key again? I have my picket sign AND my pitchfork whichever way she goes and I am ready willing and able for more than point and click activism. Matter of fact my picket arm is already sore, and my throat coarse from waking people up. I hope the rest of you are out there talking to people too.

You said:
"The revolution I’m advocating is one of peaceful disassociation from the State. The State is fundamentally corrupt because it survives and expands (indeed, it’s sole existence) is based upon what it can steal from its citizens."

(And then you went on to say)

"No politician – not even Ron Paul, who I respect and admire very much but would never vote for – can deny the overwhelming power and inherent danger that accompanies group mentality in the midst of a crisis. History is full of examples of the destructive nature of collective action..."

-You want a revolution but believe that collective action is destructive? Destructive to who is on the muzzle end! So was the revo war destructive?

You said:
"it’s too bad, as Allen Dulles said, “The American people don’t read."

I agree 100%. I think that is the PRIME reason the WORLD, not just Americans, are in this mess.

So from what I gather, you want all government to disappear, and you want to achieve that by ignoring it and disassociating yourself from it? I'm sorry, my feeble mind is having trouble grasping this concept. So we all move to the hills and live "off the grid" until the governing bodies collapse from debt and no tax income? I'm a bit of a survivalist so that actually sounds like fun to me, but I just don't see how that will effect the change you want. Its just not realistic. Are you totally off the grid? Have no "Job", no car, grow your own food, have a loom and make your own clothes, that sorta stuff?

I suggest that the basic governmental philosophy our forefathers designed is a great one, flawed (obviously) but great. And I think it is worth fighting for. I think we should all help enlighten people so that we can form a collective to take back what is OURS, a government by the people for the people!
And with hindsight we can very carefully amend it to attempt to prevent it from happening again. Its all one big experiment, we try try again, but the important thing is that we try. You must admit it wasn't ALWAYS corrupt! The way I see it we were doing pretty decent until 1913. So identifying a "target" or "goal" shouldn't be too hard I think.

Okay sure, its a romantic thought, but honestly what else do we do? Give up and head for the hills? Give up and continue to be corporate/bank owned slaves?

Regardless of the path we ultimately take, we can't begin it as a nation until the citizens wake the hell up, so that's what I do,... I'm out there, every day, waking people up. Hope you guys are doing the same.

Anonymous said...

NB Patton, 1913 comes pretty close, but recall the 1886 Supreme Court case of Santa Clara versus the Southern Pacific Railroad, the turning point in a shift of power to corporations in our society.

Andrea Murrhteyn said...

CC: NBPatton (Email)
CC: FTW Blog (No Contact Email Provided):


NB Patton (martinfr3*
Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 3:50 PM
Fwd: “An idea that is not dangerous is unworthy of being called an idea at all.”

Censored comment by FTW, from da crazy lady!! ;-)

NBPatton responded with:

What an awesome message Andrea!
And thanks for the mention,... I am so confused and conflicted lately! I know Ruppert is a smart man, as are many other people on that blog. Yet they ALL oppose and despise you,.... Why? Everything I have ever read of yours has been true.
Being radically honest here; I think your copious use of profanity is unnecessary to make the profound and thoughtprovoking statements that you make. Combined with the extreme emotion packed into every word it makes for an emotionally draining read. But I might be biased because when I read things, I attempt to fully involve myself with the message because I want to understand it completely. With that said, I also dont allow the vulgarity to inhibit the message behind it, hell the vulgarity is a PART of the message so ignoring it is to not have a complete understanding of the author's intent. In laymans terms, I'm not enough of a damn coward to let any amount of any type of words stop me from giving someone the benifit of the doubt.
But I got ahead of myself here... Why do they on FTW reject you so? the logic you speak I CANNOT deny. Yet the FTW blog does hold value for me in the way of information and discussion... This is why I am so damn conflicted lately!!! Censorhip just DOES NOT BELONG in that blog!!
Also someone emailed me telling me that you are a white supremacist, tell me that isn't so! I would be REALLY confused then.
-NB Patton



Hi NBPatton,

Name's Lara, Andrea just nomdeguerre (sp)...

No need to be confused and conflicted. Mike is a very smart man, and yet no matter how smart any of us are or may be, we all got our blind spots; if that is what it is. Only he knows whether his statements are his truth, or whether he is intentionally attempting to provoke me or his followers. And if either, only he knows his intentions.

As for all opposing and despising me, well clearly some oppose my ideas; which is okay; as for despising me; well that may be true, I don't know. But if so, then hanging on to their emotions of anger (in my opinion there suppression of their anger would fall somewhere in the depression is only anger without enthuisiasm file) in quiet desperation and not sharing them out loud and getting over them, so that each can learn from each other, is their problem. I certainly have not given them any encouragement to withhold thier opinions, nor made any requests that their honest opinions be censored by anyone whatsoever; if anything my efforts have been clearly towards creating an environment for a far greater spectrum of tolerance of emotions and ideas; as opposed to the very narrow little bandwidth of ideas, and even narrower bandwidth of emotions, and a pinpcrrick bandwidth of psychological freedom.

But it is Mike's blog and Jenna is the moderator, and clearly their censorship indicates that they certainly have not, and so far continue not to share my ideas or perspectives on the issue, and that is okay. I may continue to occassionally share my opinion, or not. At the very least I will have a clear conscience that I did not reach out once, nor twice, not dozens of times, but many many many more, and I repeatedly got the same response: basically a 'thanks but no thanks stay out of my life; friendship over.... or the more frank term would be an honourable 'fuck you'. And that -- sadly -- for me says in ACTIONS SO LOUD AND CLEAR they cannot be ignored, where Mike stands on an honest conversation. He has expectations that various persons in power are supposed to listen to others below them; and yet he isn't even willing to listen and frankly have a conversation with someone whom he just kicked out of his life, and find honest honourable closure on the issue. In my opinion, that reduces the strength of his message. And if that is his choice, then so be it; my conscience shall be clear.

I respect your perspective that your opinion as to my honest copious use of profanity is unnecessary, from your perspective. From your perspective I entirely agree, in receipt thereof, I can quite understand and would not doubt that what you say is true for your honest perspective. From my perspective, when I do resort to the use of copious amounts of profanity; then it is usually my honest perspective at that moment, and I am not willing to dilute my message.

I think we are all biased when we read things, not only intellectually, but experientially (in terms of psycho-emotions); the issue for me is simply noticing my bias, not resisting it, noticing it, letting it flow like a river where it goes, and so on.

You ever heard of the book, The Wisdom of Insecurity: A Message for an Age of Anxiety, by Alan M. Watts.... really interesting book, in general good times, and even more so now.

Many psychologists who have been critical of mainstream psychology theories, as being the causes of the oppressive psychological conformity -- which is then used to herd people into buying 'things' materialism to fill the empty hole inside (as a result of the search for 'what is wrong'... you know that Matrix line)....

Anyway, for example Erich Fromm once wrote somewhere... that in his opinion all that was needed was for the world to stop printing all newspapers and all 'news' (that was before the internet) for a PERIOD OF SEVEN DAYS ONLY, and in his opinion -- all the suppressed 'madness, namely the suppressed anger, that is 'chanelled into work - tv - eat - sleep work automatonism -- would explode into I imagine what we shall see coming in the crash; although not for the same reasons.

The sufi's say that 98% of people live at the consciousness level of belief; basically just a little different as to what Alan talks about in his book; namely that people are desperate for MEANING; and they want the meaning to be CERTAIN; they are very, very bad at TOLERATING DOUBT AND UNCERTAINTY.

And in that context you can see why people on the blog find my criticisms of Mike, to create uncertainty for them, and they don't want to be uncertain, they don't want ideas to start be critical of Mike, they want Mike to be their leader, to think for them (except for a few and been really enjoying Eddie's posts lately -- let him know if you have contact with him)... and hopefully that is getting less. I hope some of my OUTBURSTS TO MIKE HAVE GOTTEN THROUGH, HE SEEMS TO HAVE RELAXED A LITTLE IN TERMS OF ENCOURAGING THE BLOG TO THINK AND CONTRIBUTE, RATHER THAN JUST TAKE HIS WORDS AS GOSPEL.

Anyway, sorry took so long to respond... I enjor reading your posts, very much. I enjoy your passion and feeling, and your optimism based on what I consider a pragmatic realism, that it may be hopeless, but it definitely is if we don't try, and even if the chances are small, small chances are better than none. I appreciate you for that aspect of your character.

And I agree censorship doesn't belong on the blog, but it's not 'my' blog, it's 'Mikes' or depending on how he views it in terms of 'community'. My leadership thinking has always been aimed more at matriarchal (particularly Native American combined with Radical Honesty) type of leadership decision making thinking as opposed to patriarchal hierarchical dictatorial decisionmaking.

But anyway those are my brief opinions. Really appreciate receiving your email, and feel free to drop me a line whenever you want, shall copy you on stuff occassionaly if i think it may interest you.

I think you have a really big heart and care allot; and I admire that; and I imagine it's also very painful sometimes.


TWO: forgot about 'white supremacist"

Forgot, you said:

"Also someone emailed me telling me that you are a white supremacist, tell me that isn't so! I would be REALLY confused then."

That's funny.... Well, they are more than entitled to think what they wish to think; and if that makes them happy then, I am happy for them.

I can see how people who have a very plain, normal, very constricted lifeview would view some of the things I have said as 'racist', and who just would not remotely have the experiential worldview I have had (I spent 14 years travelling the world backpacking).

I can tell you I am not a 'white supremacist', and yet what would that mean? Firstly if you are really serious, how would you define 'white supremacist', so that we are at least talking about the same thing; that's always a good start when dealing with an abstract subject for which there are more than a few different definitions and interpretations.

But I imagine it's the general one, the kind of "hitler' 'aryan' view thing. That's so funny... I'm sorry, but I just think it's hilarious that someone would think I'm a white supremacist... And that they would write someone else to tell them that, rather than to me directly and accuse me thereof, with their evidence...

It's hilarious, thanks for making me laugh! ;-)


Eddie Willers said...

To Michael, nbPatton, and Lara:

If you are interested in chatting further, please email me at:

edwillers (at) yahoo dot com

I don't want to clutter this blog with long dissertations (I'm sure Jenna appreciates that - ha!) but I am interested in continuing our discussion.

I look forward to hearing from all of you.

FTW admin said...

eddie, you are more than welcome to keep that discussion online. the people who actively voice their interest represent others who remain mum. me, for instance.

KimB said...

Well, here's the full page ad I placed in my local paper at the beginning of this year:

. . . and it was published without the slightest problem or objection.

NB Patton said...

Thanks for that, I didn't know about it, I'm going to google it right now!

Actually I was tempted to put a blurb about the National Bank act of 1864 in there too.
Then it occurred to me that the pit was dug, and each punji stake was slowly sharpened and affixed over a long period of time. It just so happened that Lady Liberty and her sisters; Justice and Freedom fell headlong into that pit on December 23, 1913.

TPTB were even smart enough to have 3 look-a-like but hollow impostors take their place.
To make matters worse the once loud cry's for help coming from the pit have been increasingly overpowered by the endless drone of the T.V.'s, Radios, Video game, infotainment, etc. etc.

Wonder how long it will take them to bleed out down there?


Great message as always! And this one was very calm and easy to read might I add! :)
In other news,... my email was a personal reply sent directly to your email, posting my message and your reply to it publicly was an unexpected surprise! Keep in my I am NOT offended at all that you did, i just wonder why? Very unusual.


Eddie Willers,
Although I welcome and encourage emailing me anytime you like... It would be disappointing to have this great discussion broken up! After all that's why we blog, right?

Andrea Murrhteyn said...


Great message as always! And this one was very calm and easy to read might I add! :)

There is an Afrikaner saying: Stille Water, Diepe Grond (Quiet Waters, Deep Ground); similar to Don't Judge a Book by It's Cover... You ever been to Lake Baikal? It's the deepest fresh water lake in the world; I swam in it a few times, purity that takes your breath away

In other news,... my email was a personal reply sent directly to your email, posting my message and your reply to it publicly was an unexpected surprise! Keep in my I am NOT offended at all that you did, i just wonder why? Very unusual.

Couple Reasons: Transparency, Disclosure, Mohammed Sunna says 'Gossip is for Infidel Cowards', Principle of Honesty, Honour.... Bluemail Bestiality is best! ;-)

When there is nothing in your life you are ashamed of, no matter how horrific moo moo Little Eichmann Sycophants to the Dollar Fuhrer living in suburbia, with 2.2 kids and picketfence may judge it, whose $lavery Exchange 'Investments' 'Trading' irrespective of their MASSIVE DENIAL to the COLLATERAL DAMAGE of thier $lavery Exchange Greed Consequences

Then there ain't anything anyone can blackmail you with; now or ever; is there? ;-)

You know I had a RH friend who once had sex with a horse, he said it was interesting! He didn't think the horse even noticed! She was lying down! Anyway such honesty is common in the RH community...

You ever stood naked infront of 18 other naked people and told them your entire sexual history, with people, animals and vegetables, and were videotaped, and then watched your videotape afterwards?

Very, very, very interesting experience...

It was one of the requirements that I made for the Political Party Platform (STARH) years ago... anyone running for office, would voluntarily make such a videotape, and how easy might it be to blackmail such a person, when they ain't embarrased about their sex lives, and it ain't no big secret?

However, that was yet another idea toooooooo dangerous for discussion...

Story of my Major Manuel life! ;-)

NB Patton said...

I think you misunderstood me. I have absolutely nothing to be embarrassed or ashamed of in the message I sent to you, matter of fact I had already said all of that on the blog already. The question I had was about courtesy and respect. Are these qualities that are abandoned with Radical Honesty?
Maybe my understanding of email correspondence is askew from the norm but I treat it like a letter in the mail. When someone emails me, out of respect for the sender, I keep what they said private. I couldn't tell you the philosophical theory supporting it,... Just feels right to me.

I must admit though, I feel there is NO QUESTION that the world would be a better place if everyone stuck to Radical Honesty with Spock like dedication.

FTW admin said...

Andrea Murrhteyn has left a new comment on your post "HERE'S AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT This ...":

General Patton! ;-)

Perhaps I misunderstood you, but I don't think so. I don't question that you are embarrassed or ashamed of anything that you wrote in your email to me.

About courtesy and respect: No, I would not say courtesy and respect are abandoned, I would say:

1. They are abstract concepts with multiple cultural interpretations.

2. Since RH is about honest communication above all else, the first thing we would do would be to identify and clarify what each of our personal definition is about these abstract subjects, should the issue of 'respect' or 'courtesy' become an issue of conflict.

3. If or where they do, individuals who appreciate RH, have made the conscious decision that they are tired of white lies, pretending, deception, withholding, passive aggressive behaviour etc, etc... and that they are finally willing to sacrifice 'courtesy' and 'respect' to brutal honesty; and in the process thereof, they in fact learn a new experiential much more valuable appreciation and new definition for courtesy and respect. We consider respect to be when someone respects us enough to tell us their whole brutal truth -- that is respect; as opposed to traditional 'respect' which is where someone withholds information out of 'respect' and is nice and polite, but in effect lying.

Same with courtesy; it becomes courteous to tell someone the brutal truth -- and brutal truth is not necessarily always 'ugly' or about 'conflict'; it can be about sexuality, intimacy, fears, love, etc... etc...

We learn to notice first, and think second.

So, for people who prioritize their interpretaiton of 'courtesy' and 'respect' above brutal honesty; for such a person... their answer would indeed be that we in the RH community abandoned their particular interpretation/definition of courtesy and respect.

I imagined you would not object to sharing our correspondence.

I do not intentionally keep secrets. If someone wants to tell me something and they want me to keep it a secret, then I expect them to say something to the effect of 'I got a secret, can we make an agreement that you will keep it if I tell you; and I want to tell you'. And then I may ask more questions, before I agree to keep the secret. Because if I do agree to keep any secret, then I intend to keep it.

However a small matter in that anyone telling me a secret is not a secret from the NSA (nor anyone they care to tell, which I consented to); whom I officially gave permission to on 28 October 2001, to psychotrnoically monitor every single thought I have; and should they wish to inform me of any thoughts they wish to, they can do so, but it's a tricky procedure. I made the agreement as a matter of honour, since I was aware of their capacity to do so, and aware of them doing so; and for various reasons; primarily so they could monitor my intentions, should anyone be concerned about my intentions.

The only person who has ever demanded -- subsequent to telling me his secrets -- that I keep them; or he will kill me was [X; name removed by ftw admin], about his role in the Oklahoma City Bombing, and his relationship with Timothy McVeigh. We had a, what Jenna would probably call very 'vituperative' very loud, confrontation in the middle of a Flying J, parking lot, in Phoenix, AZ, with [X]'s fist two inches from my face; and me screaming 'Kill me if you gonna do it, but I ain't keeping your go**am secrets'.. until X burst into laughter, and said it was time for a cigarette... It was kind of like I guess vituperative orgasms...

Actually like anything I don't think it should be forced upon anyone, and it wouldn't work; cause it's one of those things you gotta really want to do, and work at; but the rewards are indeed there. However, it may not be for anyone, and for many it is extremely threatening.. but for those who work through their fears, there is great freedom in being at the other end.

But the last thing RH needs to be about is some new kind of moralistic fascism; it's a process, not an ideology. Just a process of communication; of sharing resentments and appreciations with a focus to the feelings in our bodies; and not being attached to our thoughts as whom we are.

One of the more incredible benefits of RH are in terms of improving communication for better sexual enjoyment and intensity. So there are definitly many, many benefits! ;-) Mr. Spock! ;-)

NB Patton said...

My quiver has run dry, I graciously submit to your logic! You just can't argue with that stuff. Or you can make yourself a fool trying.
And the more I read, the more open I become to other people's perspectives on what certain human qualities mean to them. Its all relative to experience.

I think I am beginning to realize why people have such dramatic reactions to you. The logic involved, forces one to either shut you out completely in some non negotiable "faith" like reasoning, that I am sure is usually hostile or violent more often then not... Or embrace it.

Although I'm SURE I don't have to say it, I will anyway; Don't let the negative comments on this blog deter you from posting! I for one, value what you have to say and!

-A friend in logic.