Boston Globe Writes About Secret Government: "Vote All You Want. The Secret Government Won't Chang

As far as the OP, 'good...'bout time... I wish it had been a tad more strident, accusatory and specific.

Something occurred to me while reading some of the responses... saying "sheeple are dumb" or "TPTB are evil" we gotta remember that very separatist mentality is how we got here in the first place. We should generally try for a more inclusive, holistic view of humanity... and everything, really.

originally posted by: On the Edge

originally posted by: signalfire
a reply to: TheLaughingGod



Let's face it, anyone remotely awake during and after 9-11 who is not a 'conspiracy theorist' is an idiot of epic proportions,

I prefer the term "Conspiracy Analyst".

What would be the opposite of a conspiracy theorist? "Coincidence theorist" ??

Wouldn't be surprised if Glennon ends up passing away in an unfortunate car "accident"...

a reply to: TheLaughingGod

I completely agree with you. It was definitely the wrong choice of words on my part. I meant more that this was a "main stream" statesman type, and should have used that to single him out.

I'm a "conspiracy theorist" by popular culture's definition. But yeah, I'd prefer to be called a conspiracy analyst! I wear my tin foil hat with pride.

And it's important to give mainstream folks and especially leaders of any kind props when they do attempt to speak dangerous truths. As you said, many of us in ATS-esque communities are always wishing someone like that would say something, and decrying the fact that almost no-one does.

People in general operate from an unconscious hierarchy, and often will either not listen to average people saying all of this OR the powers that be can easily sideline someone who is not powerful themselves or influential. It is harder to just mock them as "conspiracy theorists" when they are well respected.

originally posted by: MRuss
a reply to: Logarock

I don't know that I agree with the above responses to the OP.

As I stated---there is so much more that this article and interview could have said, but we're taking baby steps here.

Essentially, a very well-respected statesmen has written a book claiming there's a secret government pulling the strings and that it doesn't matter much who is in office.

We at ATS have been screaming this from the rafters for years---and here's an article in a renowned newspaper reiterating our assertions.

What about the following statement from the article is vague?

The author catalogs the ways that the defense and national security apparatus is effectively self-governing, with virtually no accountability, transparency, or checks and balances of any kind. He uses the term “double government”: There’s the one we elect, and then there’s the one behind it, steering huge swaths of policy almost unchecked. Elected officials end up serving as mere cover for the real decisions made by the bureaucracy.

I think it's pretty significant, but don't expect all the marbles to be spilled in the first round.

originally posted by: MRuss
a reply to: 3n19m470

I agree. Just acknowledging that there is a secret government is a big step. Well said.

I plan on buying the book and reading it and will see how far down the rabbit hole this author is willing to go.

That's the thing. Especially for people of that level, they have to tread very carefully.

I was studying in graduate school with people of that level, international affairs and international development. Professors like that are usually still employed or leading something, such as being a director of an NGO, or working for the UN or something. So, they may realize deeper stuff after working inside for 40 years. But they know that if they say anything too revelatory or critical, they may not get that next nomination, or next consultancy, or whatever it is.

It was very frustrating for me because I thought people would be more honest. Often, it enters the world of high politics at that level.

A couple of times I said to my professor who was Assistant Secretary General for the UN under Kofi Annan what I really believed about the Syrian conflict, something along the lines of 7 countries in 5 years, proxy wars, CIA, and all of that. She just smiled, nodded, said a single sentence kinda agreeing somewhat, and deflected the convo. People like that have a lot at stake if they say too much.

Then again, from our perspective we might think that a truly ethical person would not put ladder climbing over calling out bad stuff governments or world leaders are doing.

a reply to: MRuss

No problem man, didn't know it that was actually what you meant, just felt the need to explain these things just in case that was your intent.

I'd prefer civilian intelligence analyst myself, though I'd be lying to myself if I said I thought I'd be qualified for such a title, ha, not even close probably.

a reply to: MRuss

S&F More people should be aware of this. Of course, here at ATS many of the members have been saying this since before ATS existed. Although it's cheering the mainstream media would publish a review of this kind of book.

Maybe this book will help wake up more people.

I wonder just how much Michael J. Glennon really knows -- that didn't make it into the book.

Glennon offers us a ray of hope, but I think it's naive. Too little, too late.


"IDEAS: Do we have any hope of fixing the problem?"

"GLENNON: The ultimate problem is the pervasive political ignorance on the part of the American people. And indifference to the threat that is emerging from these concealed institutions.

That is where the energy for reform has to come from: the American people.

Not from government. Government is very much the problem here.

The people have to take the bull by the horns. And that’s a very difficult thing to do, because the ignorance is in many ways rational. There is very little profit to be had in learning about, and being active about, problems that you can’t affect, policies that you can’t change."