My heroes: Are you willing to sacrifice everything to do good in an evil world? Will you be Socrates or Plato?

I wanted to write this post because I recently saw a discouraging comment under a video on this forum. I can’t find the specific comment now, but it was either on a video by The Duran or Alex or Alexander. The commentator asked something like, “Why haven’t you been debanked yet?”—essentially complaining that The Duran isn’t being prosecuted more aggressively. This showed me that some people don’t truly understand what we are up against.

I’d like people to cut The Duran some slack. That is why I’ve shared this video of Doug Valentine being interviewed by Whitney Webb (of whom I am a huge fan). While the entire video is fascinating, I specifically wanted to highlight one particular part.

7:15

You really struggle when you do it on your own. You realize that you aren’t going to have the support of the Columbia Journalism Review or The New York Times, and that PEN America and the Authors Guild are not going to stand up for you or defend your rights as an author. If you go against the CIA, it means you have to do everything on your own.

I was prepared to do that, and the reason I was prepared was because of the support of my wife, Alice. When we got married, her background influenced us; her parents had met in the Communist Party in New York City in the 1930s, and she was raised to know that things are not always what they seem.

When we married, she decided she wanted to get an MBA and find a good job. The deal was that I would write books to bring about positive social change, and she would support me. I had an advantage that many people in my business don’t have: a wife who understood and supported what I was doing. She knew from the very beginning that I was going to be sidelined and spied on.

We would get calls at midnight. Alice would pick up the phone and someone would say, “I’m going to burn your house down.” Alice would respond, “Take a number and get in line.” Or they would say, “I’m going to kill you,” and she’d say, “Well, you can only kill him once. Why don’t all you guys get together, form a committee, and just do it instead of waking us up at midnight?”

We were not intimidated. We knew that kind of stuff wasn’t really going to happen; the government was just trying to intimidate us. Certainly, the conditions then were not like the conditions now, where Congress and various presidential candidates are working to make criticism of Israel illegal. When I was doing my work, it still wasn’t illegal, so they had to resort to other means to dissuade people from investigating them.

We are on the verge of a slippery slope: first, it becomes illegal to criticize Israel, then Congress, and eventually the CIA. That is when things will get really serious. But that pretty much sums up my attitude. I had the support of my wife, and she wasn’t going to back down. She’s a tough kid from Queens; you can’t frighten her. You have to do something in the real world to actually make an impact on us. Those threats didn’t count because I was surviving and didn’t have to worry about where my money was coming from.

I want to highlight this for people criticizing The Duran. This is especially applicable to Alexander, who has a wife and family; you need to understand the kind of threats they could face. It isn’t just being chased out of “polite society,” but also being suppressed, debanked, having their careers ruined, facing legal consequences, or even receiving death threats.

The fragment I just highlighted showed that Doug Valentine was lucky to have his wife’s support. Because of her, he didn’t have to worry about money, and she was willing to face death threats alongside him in order to do good within this evil world.

Now, put yourself in Alexander’s position. He has a family — do you think he has the same deal with his wife? Would you be willing to sacrifice the well-being of your wife and kids to do good? Just look at the story of Gary Webb, another of my heroes. His family was destroyed and he ended up divorced. His career was ruined after he exposed that the CIA was importing cocaine and was responsible for the crack epidemic in America. He was never again able to work as a journalist, even though he was telling the truth.

He eventually ended up dead. Perhaps he was driven to it, or perhaps it was with “help” from the CIA or even killed by the CIA, since he died from two gunshot wounds to the head. There is a great short interview with him that I have posted before.

It was a distraction from what the story actually said, and it became a media war between the San Jose Mercury News—which stood behind the story at that point—and the rest of the establishment media, who wanted us to back away from it. Part of the reason was that these major newspapers had written about this issue back in the 1980s, but they had written about it very dismissively, as if it were nonsense that never happened.

Then, ten years later, we came back with documentation showing it was absolutely true—and that it was even worse than previously thought. We had bypassed the gatekeepers and gotten the story out in a big way that they couldn’t control. I think a lot of the subsequent pressure was directed at the Mercury News to send a message: “We don’t care about your documentation or what kind of story you have; we set the national news agenda. If we don’t like your story, we will kill it regardless of the truth.”

The media establishment rejoiced when the paper finally recanted because it meant they had won. They had forced a newspaper to back away from a true story simply through a barrage of mindless criticism. This essentially took its toll on the editors; they were being treated like outcasts from the “club.” I believe they made a political decision that it was better in the long run to “take a dive” on the story to get back into the good graces of the rest of the media.

Eventually, it became a war between my editors and me because I wouldn’t apologize for or back away from the story. I fought them publicly, so they transferred me to a bureau 140 miles from where I lived. I called in sick a lot after that.

One of the things I am proudest of regarding that story is the website the Mercury News set up. It was really the first time a newspaper brought its readers not only into the interior of the paper but into the reporter’s notebooks. As I told my editors, this story had a very high “unbelievability factor” built into it; many people were going to say it couldn’t be true.

The story became a sensation specifically because of the website. Previously, the San Jose Mercury News was a small regional newspaper in Northern California that you couldn’t read if you lived in New York or Los Angeles. But with the website, you could read it anywhere in the world and see all of our documentation. We did this on purpose to make it very difficult for people to claim it didn’t happen—but they said it didn’t happen anyway.

This is a very sad story, and there are likely many more stories of brave heroes we will never know about. Gary Webb’s story only got out because he used the newly developed internet. As I have written before, his Dark Alliance series was accessible only because of the web; I wrote before that in my opinion it was truly a precursor to Julian Assange’s WikiLeaks. We will never know how many brave heroes had their lives ruined and their stories silenced before the internet existed. All of my heroes were silenced because we live within what I call the “Western Capitalist Empire of Evil,” where exposing the truth forces you to face severe repercussions.

All of my heroes face these consequences. As I mentioned in my recent post, there is an official state narrative that serves as a Kabuki theater, creating a “world of the naive.” Behind this theater lies the Deep State, which represents the real world—a world hidden from us by these constructed narratives.

If you don’t face prosecution or pushback, it means you aren’t talking about reality; you are merely participating in the Kabuki theater. For me, the measure of how much truth you are speaking is the level of opposition you face. The Deep State does not want us to know reality; they want us to believe in the theater they have constructed.

Another example of my heroes is Philip Agee. Here is an interview with him; I would like to highlight a specific fragment from the second part.

I didn’t do anything more on this story until November, when my deportation crisis began in Britain. This was brought on by Henry Kissinger, then Secretary of State, who made a secret trip there and pressured the British to take action against me, sparking a series of deportations.

The media descended on me in Cambridge, and The Sun newspaper in London wanted a special angle. As a mass tabloid that sells millions of copies a day, they wanted a “sex angle.” I thought, “Well, I’ll give you a story,” and I told them about Leslie Janet.

To my surprise, they actually found her. Their New York bureau tracked down a woman named Leslie Dunnigan, a motel clerk in Georgia. She swore she had never worked for the CIA, never worked against me, and had never even been to Europe. However, when they asked if she had ever heard of a Janet Strickland, she said, “Oh, sure. She was my best friend; we grew up in Caracas together.”

It turned out she had switched names. Janet Strickland was apparently her real name, and she had assumed her friend’s identity. The journalists then found the family living in an enormous villa in Palm Beach. Leslie Janet was there at her parents’ home. Her father, it turned out, was the head of all Exxon operations in Latin America. When the journalist and photographer arrived, the father threatened to punch the photographer, but they managed to get a picture. The Sun ran a three-part front-page series on it—something like “The Spy Who…”—and that completed the circle. The oil man’s daughter was working for the CIA. It was incredible.

Legal Action and the “Murder Plot”

Currently, I have a lawsuit for six million dollars in the Federal District Court in Washington under the Federal Tort Claims Act. Through documentation received under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), we discovered that the CIA committed criminal actions against me during the early 1970s while I was in contact with “Sal” and Leslie.

The documents are highly censored, so we don’t have the exact details yet, but we know the CIA tried to get a criminal indictment against me in early 1975 when my first book came out and William Colby was Director. They had to back down because the Justice Department, while preparing facts for the grand jury, discovered illegal activity in the files. The Department told the CIA that if they prosecuted me, I would gain access to those files through the discovery process. The CIA refused to let that information see the light of day.

Five times during the 1970s—including when George Bush was Director—they tried to indict me, and five times they backed down because the information was too sensitive. I believe it will come out in my lawsuit that this was actually a murder plot—a plan to make me disappear.

The plan was for the Spanish services to do the job if Sal and Leslie could convince me to go to Spain. I don’t think Sal or Leslie necessarily knew what was going to happen; their job was simply to get me to Spain so the Spanish authorities could take over. At the time, it was nothing for them to “disappear” someone. I am hoping we will finally get all the facts out and find out exactly what they were planning.

This is another example of what happens when you expose reality. I also want to point out another of my heroes, Michael Parenti, and how his career was ruined for telling the truth. Additionally, I listen to his son, Christian Parenti, who does great work regarding the surveillance and undermining of the political Left in the West — specifically how it was transformed into “woke” nonsense.

I’ve written before about how “interactionism” and the influence of Michel Foucault were pushed and used by the CIA to shift the real Left and Marxism away from class struggle and toward an ideology-based “woke” Left nonsense. Christian Parenti has spoken about how their family faced severe financial problems because of the persecution Michael Parenti endured. I have posted this video before, but I want to share it again to highlight another specific fragment.

2:32

While he was a member of the campus for two years, from 1970 to 1972, he brought to the university his insight into the imperial character of the Vietnam War and provided a model of courage for those seeking to take action against it. He played a key role in campus-wide teach-ins and radical student organizing, serving as a model for many of us who were deeply opposed to the war but had not yet moved effectively or in an organized way to counter it.

At the time, he was one of the most published and best-known scholars on campus. He was superbly qualified for reappointment at the end of his two-year contract in 1972. During the review process, the entire campus community strongly supported his reappointment—including the faculty, students, and the administration up to the Office of the President.

Until that time, the University of Vermont (UVM) Board of Trustees had traditionally accepted the recommendations of the review process, essentially rubber-stamping them; the trustees played no active role in deciding reappointment and tenure decisions. In Michael’s case, however, that precedent was broken. The trustees reached down and overturned the decision of the entire university. In a vote of 15 to 4—taken ironically in this very room in December 1971—they decided not to renew Michael Parenti’s contract.

Because he was eminently qualified by all standing requirements—including publications, teaching, and community service—the trustees invented a new criterion called “professional conduct.” They claimed Michael had not met this standard, though no one had ever heard of it before.

As an example of what they labeled “unprofessional conduct,” Michael was once invited to be the guest speaker at the Burlington Rotary Club. The club typically opens its events with the Pledge of Allegiance. Michael declined to pledge allegiance to the flag, giving a talk instead on the phrase “with liberty and justice for all.” He stated that as long as that line was not true, he would work hard to make it true, and once it was, he would be the first to take the pledge; until then, he felt it would be hypocritical to do so. The trustees decided that not pledging allegiance constituted unprofessional conduct.

Another reason cited was his carrying of a National Liberation Front flag during a demonstration on Church Street in downtown Burlington. This flag, more commonly known in the press as the “Viet Cong” flag, had increasingly become a symbol for many of us of the side we should have been on, rather than the side we were making war against. Michael was carrying a flag that represented the commitments and convictions of a great many people both on and off campus.

These reasons, among others, were blatantly unconstitutional. They were cases of politically protected speech and action, providing no legal basis for his termination. Officially, the trustees justified the decision by stating that Michael’s “anti-business” attitudes were unacceptable to the Board. It was argued that he was “bad for the image of the university”—an image that apparently required being pro-business and certainly not being critical of it.

The year Michael was fired, the university handbook featured the statement of academic freedom on both the front and back covers, as if publishing the statement could undo the effects of the firing. The administration, the president, and the majority of the faculty overwhelmingly agreed that it was a very sad day in the history of the University of Vermont. Despite this, the trustees successfully removed Parenti’s analysis, point of view, and voice from the campus.

Here is another example of a person prosecuted for telling the truth about our wonderful “Western Capitalist Empire of Evil.” I had an argument with someone who hates Parenti and it upsets. He says Parenti had a problem because his work was bad, but if what is said here is true — and unfortunately I lack the ability to confirm it, which is one of the downsides of my lack of formal education — the reality is different.

If all the professors, students, and even the president of the university wanted to extend his contract and he filled all the requirements, and in the end his contract was not extended because of the Board of Trustees, it shows why I hate official education and see it as a scam. The Board of Trustees — corporations giving donations — decide what is true and who can speak. Is that science? I argue with that person that this is how science works and has worked for a very long time. This was best seen during COVID: who pays for research decides the result. I don’t understand how people don’t see it after such a great example during COVID. This example of Michael Parenti shows us it didn’t start with COVID; it existed all along, but people didn’t know it.

Now, I don’t think I need to mention the story of Snowden or Assange, who also told us the truth and faced prosecution. This is how they created this “Kabuki theater” constructed from narratives, constituting what I call the World of the Naive. By prosecuting truth-tellers who expose reality and undermine narratives, they hide the real world from us. It is nothing new; you simply start to notice it. This is why they want to censor the internet and fight so-called “misinformation.” Suddenly, things that were previously hidden are coming to light, and their precisely constructed fake reality is falling apart.

That’s why it upsets me when people say “what the West has become.” In reality, the West didn’t suddenly become something new; people simply started to see the real world for the first time. I can also give the example of Peter Dale Scott, who could not publish his first two books, had his manuscripts burnt, and was told by editors to take stuff out and he also faced death threats. Before, they were able to silence information, but now because of the internet, that suppressed information comes to light. This is why they are panicking; their carefully designed fake reality is falling apart.

How many of you have heard of Doug Valentine, Gary Webb, Philip Agee, Michael Parenti, or Peter Dale Scott? I know members of this forum are well-informed, but the average person in the West doesn’t have a clue. Most people have no idea, for example, that the CIA was responsible for the crack epidemic in America which Gary Webb exposed. All those people faced repercussions for telling the truth long before current events and stories like this of Jacques Baud. This is why it angers me when people say they “never suspected” such things would happen in the West. They still haven’t realized those things happened all the time.

Knowing the story of my heroes, you need to take it into consideration as context for what The Duran is doing — especially Alexander, who has a family. You need to cut The Duran some slack. They already face repercussions; the forum on which I am writing is banned in Poland, which reduces their reach. I suspect this is because they platform someone like me who speaks too much truth. If The Duran started speaking the stuff I am writing, their channel would be completely suppressed or even banned, they could be debanked, their careers could be ruined, and they could even face death threats or worse.

I decided not to have a girlfriend because I would neglect her because I am spending all my time trying to understand what is happening, but most importantly, if I ever reached a larger audience, I would face repercussions and I would not want a person I love to suffer. If I had a family like Alexander, I would censor myself for their wellbeing, so I understand his position. It’s easy for people to demand the truth when you are not the one facing the consequences. I am extremely grateful to The Duran for platforming me. My social media is already suppressed and this forum is banned in Poland probably because it platforms me. The Duran not only allows me to post criticism of their positions, which shows incredible integrity, but they allow me to post even if it means a reduced reach.

A side note: I don’t know if this forum is banned in Poland because of me, but if someone has an advanced VPN, I would really appreciate it if you could check if this forum is only banned in Poland or if it is banned in other countries as well. Because if it is banned only in Poland — and I think I am the only Pole to post on this forum — it seems suspicious. I wrote before that you don’t get silenced for pushing lies if they support the narrative; you only get silenced for telling the truth, which undermines the narrative.

In the title, I wrote, “Are you going to be Socrates or Plato?” That is because, in my opinion, Socrates was the first truth-teller, while Plato was the first official propagandist. That is my own interpretation; since Socrates believed writing things down was harmful, we have no surviving works by him and only know him through the writings of Plato.

Here is my interpretation: Socrates questioned everything, and by doing so, he undermined the Gods of Ancient Greece and the social order. For example, the rulers of Ancient Greece claimed their authority because Gods like Zeus willed it. The social order was justified by religion, so by questioning the existence of those Gods, Socrates undermined the very foundation of that order. If a ruler is only in power because the Gods want him there, but those Gods don’t exist, then why should he rule us?

Such questioning could not be permitted, as it threatened the power of the rulers. Therefore, Socrates had to be stopped. He was put on trial and judged by the citizens of Athens — the very people he was trying to free by exposing the truth. After being found guilty, he was asked to suggest his own punishment. Many believe that if he had suggested exile, the court would have agreed and he would have lived. Instead, he stayed true to himself. He suggested he be given free meals for life at the Prytaneum (the public dining hall of Athens) — an honor typically reserved for Olympic heroes and great benefactors. He chose to face death for what he believed.

In my view, Plato saw what happened to his teacher and decided to work for the “powers that be” instead of following in his footsteps. Rather than undermining the Gods and the social order, Plato created the “Noble Lie.” This was not meant to liberate people but to work for the rulers. In my opinion, the Noble Lie was the first official state narrative and the first piece of state propaganda.

The question is: are you going to sacrifice everything, even your life, to tell the truth like Socrates and undermine the powers that be? Or are you going to work for them and push a narrative like Plato?

I see similarities here with Jesus. I don’t see him as the literal “Son of God” in a way that makes him different from us; if he is a child of God and we are too, then there is no difference between us. I see Jesus as a great thinker and truth-teller, just like Socrates. Like Socrates, Jesus was judged by the people he tried to free. Both had the opportunity to avoid death — Socrates could have chosen banishment, and Jesus could have denounced his beliefs — yet both decided to remain truthful and face death. I see all the heroes I’ve mentioned in this post following the path of Socrates and Jesus: willing to sacrifice everything to do good by telling the truth within an evil world.

In the end, I would like to remind you of another truth-teller who followed the same path. Rest in peace, Gonzalo Lira.

Why am I making this video? I don’t even agree with many of Gonzalo’s points and predictions. The reason I support him is that he is a free thinker who speaks his mind because he knows it’s the right thing to do — even though it will have terrible consequences for him. That is super brave, and it should be seen as a virtue.

If we only allowed one view of the war to be told, we would just create brainwashed golems who would kill their neighbors simply because an authority figure said it was the right thing to do. For this reason, it is very important for free thinkers to help each other out, because eventually, they will be coming for you and me as well.

I will end it here thanks to everyone who stuck with me until the end of my post. And, as always…

“Knowledge will make you be free.”

― Socrates

+

“Knowledge isn’t free. You have to pay attention.”

― Richard P. Feynman

=

“Freedom is not free, you need to pay attention.”

― Grzegorz Ochman

“There is no better breeding ground for the bacteria of falsehoods and legends than the fear of truth and a lack of will.”

―Józef Piłsudski