By James Corbett
April 2, 2013
When faced with the overwhelming evidence of the widespread, systemic conspiracies that take place at the very highest levels of government, the general public has been pre-programmed to respond with the all-too-familiar retort: “But someone would have talked.”
This reasoning is sufficient for most people to return to their day-to-day lives. No matter how much documented information is presented to someone in such a mindset, they can satisfy themselves that there are no whistleblowers who question the official narrative of 9/11, or the actions of the NSA, or the involvement of government agencies in drug running, or any of the other well-documented examples of conspiracies involving the upper echelons of politics and the intelligence apparatus of the government. To these people, the mere uttering of the words themselves are enough to dismiss any mountain of evidence: “But someone would have talked.”
The implication is that no one has talked on these issues, that no insider has ever stepped forward to reveal the uncomfortable truths of active conspiracy in the hallowed halls of government. This is, of course, an easy enough assertion to prove patently false.
It would be all too easy to continue going on (and on and on) with such examples from the modern era of American politics, let alone whistleblowers from other countries and other time frames. In fact, even a few hours of research on the internet these days would be sufficient to bring up more examples of similar whistleblowers than could even be enumerated in a short video like this. This embarrassment of riches in the search for counter-arguments to that favorite debunker refrain, “But someone would have talked,” brings up an important question: if so many people have, in fact, talked, then why are these stories so completely unknown to the public?
Sadly, the answer to this question is obvious enough. If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound? And if an insider blows the whistle on government conspiracy and no journalist reports on it, does it make a difference?
The refusal of the corporate media to report on these whistleblowers should be as obvious as their motivations for participating in the cover-up. Anyone who, in the post-Iraq era, any longer doubts the monolithic corporate-government propaganda nexus that is the mainstream “news” are simply deluding themselves. The defense contractors, financiers, and other multi-billion dollar industries that thrive off of the corporate welfare and government protection they buy from government regulators have too much invested in the status quo to ever rock the boat with anything approaching the muckraking journalism of yesteryear, much less to even mention the stories of these insiders and whistleblowers.
But as I have been documenting in my work here at BoilingFrogsPost.com and elsewhere for some years now, there is an even more direct attack on whistleblowers that is taking place now. Although attempts to silence dissent have always existed throughout the history of the American Republic and every other institutional power structure, these attacks began to be systematized during the Bush administration through the use of the state secrets privilege and other draconian measures, and have reached a crescendo under Obama, who has gone further than any other administration in the history of the United States to silence the whistleblowers who threaten to upset the officially-sanctioned war on terror / war on drugs narrative. [See this and this and this.]
The answer to this coordinated attack on whistleblowers is relatively simple: to document the abuses and to shake the public from the smug complacency that allows them to dismiss the reality of government corruption and illegal activity. Whereas the bought-and-paid for corporate media and the equally controlled foundation-funded media will never offer more than a cursory glance at these stories, the alternative grassroots online media still has (for the time being) the ability to operate independently and to shine a light on these gross abuses of power. This is why it is incumbent on all of us to educate ourselves and educate others about these insiders who in some cases have risked their very lives to bring this information to us.
To this end, we will present in the coming weeks a series of Eyeopener reports to introduce our viewers to the stories of various of these whistleblowers, stories that the vast majority of the public, and even followers of alternative media, know little about. And with these reports as a resource, perhaps finally we will be able to answer the age-old retort of the naysayers, “But someone would have talked,” with a rejoinder of our own: “But they HAVE talked. Now why haven’t you been listening?”