Friday, June 28, 2013

Mark Novitsky / Spike

Financial whistleblowers / Edward Snowden


  1. I am a huge Jim Fetzer fan, and I so I say this with regret, but you were not a very active listener or genteel host to a man who seemed very sophisticated

  2. I refer to Spike, who I've never heard before, but who was fascinating. Strangely, Jim, you acted as if he held very contrarian views and showed an impatient, antagonistic attitude toward him. And who hasn't questioned the mainstream media coverage of Snowden, or why suddenly he is allowed to penetrate the coverage. Many others have doubted Snowden's credentials. And clearly Obama doesn't run the government and only extorted assets are allowed to become president. Fetzer, have Spike back on and interview him without the attitude.

  3. I do not feel that Jim mishandled the interview with Spike. Spike was almost completely incoherent, it was often difficult to understand what he was getting at. Certainly he said he believes that the huge amount of media coverage around Snowden, from a corporate controlled media, shows that this is a fake story. I agree with this myself, though Jim does not. I think Jim may be holding on to a faint hope that there is still something of this world that is the way it used to be long ago, that is, an honest media covering a big story truthfully. But sadly, Jim, this can no longer be the case.

  4. Here is a real journalist interviewing a real politician. Sadly, days long gone now.

  5. Why would Jim be so reluctant to consider this given all we know. Perhaps because Jim is just the liberal target that Snowden is meant to provide a release valve for, just like Wikileaks and Manning. You can't say that Assange is just an op, but then act like Bradley Manning is a total hero/martyr... those are inconsistent paradigms.

    Much of the Manning/Assange story seems to be staged. For whatever reason they do such things, this seems to be the case, and explains so much of why senators could not see Manning, and so forth.

    The national security state might be releasing some trial balloons, in a sort of way, testing what America will tolerate. Many think the precedent of TWA 800 allowed 911 to happen.

    If America just rolls over, then we are an OVERT tyranny. There can be no more crystal clear display of violations of civil rights, and of the facade of our government having the consent of the governed.

    Now, I wonder... what if Gordon was wrong about all his theories about the Air Force being the bad guys. What if the Navy is the bad guy. I see a long train of abuses showing ONI and Navy Intelligence being the source of much corruption. DOes that mean Mike Harris and even Jim are thus part of this, and many have claimed, but I never believed?

    All is up for grabs.