The ‘Snowden Revelations’ Have Been an Unmitigated Victory for the National Security State

| |

Top Tier Gear USA


by David Thrussell 

No doubt you know the basic story.

Beginning June 5th 2013, a series of explosive articles ran in The Guardian (and subsequently a handful of other newspapers/magazines) detailing a vast web of global surveillance (engineered by the U.S. National Security Agency and U.K. partner GCHQ). The revelations were backed by large troves of primary information (code-names/programme descriptions) and internal documents (charts and diagrams) apparently directly sourced from the NSA.

A storm of controversy soon erupted over the breadth and ubiquity of this global surveillance. Forthcoming details on the myriad of previously secret programmes made it clear that email, text, phone data and communications were being scooped-up, recorded and analysed on a mammoth and almost unimaginable scale around the world.

On June 9th, 4 days after the earth-shaking leaks began, the then 29 year-old Edward Snowden identified himself as the source of the leaks. Secreted in a Hong Kong hotel room, Snowden volunteered his motives and personal history to a voracious media and public. What followed in the succeeding 2 weeks resembled an international spy-thriller, as Snowden fled from one safe-house to another throughout Hong Kong, always one step ahead of the press and (presumably) U.S. law enforcement.

The details are sometimes contradictory, but apparently Snowden then boarded a flight from Hong Kong June 23rd en route (via Moscow and Havana) to safe haven in South America. Oddly, sometime during that flight the U.S. government revoked Snowden’s passport, causing him to be stranded in Moscow’s Sheremetyevo International Airport. After a lengthy period (somehow, and somewhat miraculously, avoiding both assassins and journalists for over a month) Snowden received legal asylum and left the airport to begin a new life in the Russian Federation.

Meanwhile, various news outlets continued a drip-feed of dramatic and ‘Orwellian’ revelations.

Snowden had become an iconic figure. Celebrated by ‘progressives’ as a whistleblower and hero, derided by ‘conservatives’ as a traitor and fugitive – he lives presently (we’re told) with his girlfriend in Russia, and appears (sporadically) as an advocate of communications privacy and government accountability.

Further theatrics were provided by the incidents of an Ecuadorian Presidential plane being forced to land, numerous international political leaders’ communications being routinely tapped and fierce debate about the probity of Snowden’s actions and the actual spying regime he exposed. American conservatives and pundits denounced his ‘treason’ and pleaded for his ‘extrajudicial assassination’ while others hailed his patriotism.

Snowden ID

It was a thrilling, captivating and microscopically reported tale.

Yet somehow…it doesn’t quite stack up. Some thread of doubt remains, some scent of faint incredulity lingers.

Questions provoked by the official narrative are partly logistical, partly philosophical and decidedly pragmatic.

For starters: are we really to believe (especially in light of his own revelations of an all-pervasive clandestine surveillance regime) that Snowden, after booking a flight to Hong Kong (and soon after  – numerous hotel rooms) all admittedly on his own credit card, could not be immediately traced and apprehended (or ‘neutralised’) shortly after (assumedly) the entire U.S. security apparatus had been alerted to his actions and movements? Is it really plausible that possibly the world’s most wanted man (at that moment) could just ‘go-to-ground’ and evade the ‘all-seeing-eye’ for a full fortnight in a cosmopolitan and highly-accessible city?

Some sources report that Snowden gave up his rental home in Hawaii (as he was ostensibly ‘transferring jobs’) just days before he ‘fled’ to Hong Kong and global infamy. How convenient.

Snowden also comes from a family steeped in security state nomenclature. His grandfather was a rear-admiral and subsequently a senior FBI official (present at the Pentagon on September 11th 2001) while apparently “everybody in my family has worked for the federal government in one way or another.” Snowden himself enjoyed stints at the CIA and NSA before landing at defence contractor Booz Allen Hamilton. Surely it would be starkly traumatic for one so tethered to the military-industrial-complex, to suddenly turn ‘traitor.’

Still other questions rudely interrupt the ostensibly chivalrous tale.

To put it bluntly, Snowden is possibly just a little too young to be a convincing whistleblower. 29 year-old whistleblowers are statistically a rare thing indeed. By definition – zealots must start with zeal. Only over time is it plausible for the zealot to become wizened by the ugly machine of which he is but a cog. Just a handful of years before turning tumultuous ‘whistleblower’ Snowden was to be found on internet tech-forums waxing enthusiastically about the security state. His ‘gestation’ from true-believer to ground-quaking operative seems unusually and unconvincingly brief.

Fellow whistleblower William Binney is more likely (at least by age) to be the real deal. Over three decades in spy-craft he reportedly became increasingly frightened by the metastasising spectre of the national-security-complex. His revelations, while similar in tone to Snowden’s and predating them by over a decade, were greeted with little fanfare (and considerable personal harassment and marginalisation).

By contrast, Snowden was granted immediate and enthusiastic access to the most venerated organs of ‘controlled opposition’ and officially sanctioned stenography. Each outlet sticking dutifully to their established charter and brand demographic.

While (by some sleight-of-hand) still able to present itself as ‘progressive’ and ‘independent’, the New York Times is neither. Socially liberal yet aggressively war-like in foreign policy tastes (just how elites like it), the NYT has led the charge to countless illegal and immoral invasions/wars/actions and interventions, baying for rivers of blood from Iraq to Syria and beyond.

Likewise, the U.K Guardian gives oxygen to a raft of somewhat nebulous social concerns with po-faced righteousness, while yet being a clamorous cheerleader for bombing and murder from Libya to Ukraine (how many times can one newspaper repeatedly invent the ‘Russian invasion of Ukraine’ and retain any kind of credibility?).

Similarly, there is something decidedly absurd about the pretence of exclusive Snowden techno-anarchist sound-bites gracing the pages of neocon-beltway-bible The Washington Post.

And yet those glorified minarets of state/private propaganda champion a supposedly dangerous traitor/whistleblower absconded into enemy territory? It doesn’t add up.

Indeed, The Guardian tasked one of its most voracious experts in officially-sanctioned fellatio (Luke Harding), to mint the approved novelisation of poster-boy Snowden’s exploits. Harding’s long stint of feeble, flaccid journalism in thrall to MI6 and deep-state enabling has finally found just recompense in a big-time Hollywood pay-cheque (his book adapted for Oliver Stone’s forthcoming Snowden biopic).

As a blunt instrument of propaganda, Clint Eastwood’s “American Sniper” might indeed make Leni Riefenstahl blush, but could the Snowden gambit be a far more insidious and subtle secret-state strategy?

In purely practical terms alone, the ‘Snowden revelations’ have been an unmitigated victory for the national security state. A global public that was previously blissfully unaware of its position as central target of mass surveillance has now been thoroughly (and generally, comfortably) acclimated to that very idea. A raft of recent studies conclude that the Snowden revelations have had a marked chilling effect on people’s online habits and expressions of dissent.

Indeed, for a permanent cyber-Panopticon to be truly effective as a means of social control, the inmates (the global public) must be at least peripherally aware of its existence. Assuming it does actually exist and one of its aims is (logically) the abortion of popular dissent (through mass scale self-policing), a gargantuan surveillance apparatus also has clear uses as a giant blackmail machine (this would neatly explain the perpetually compliant response from the legislature and judiciary) and as a profound and unimaginably effective tool of social engineering.

Perhaps we are already there? Various leaks about Facebook and the Pentagon’s partnered experiments in ‘crowd herding’ and ‘emotional contagion,’ along with the underreported long-term history of tech corporations (Google, Microsoft, Facebook etc.) co-parenting with the NSA-CIA-Pentagon-DARPA nexus, hint that the entire electronically mediated womb-environment of today might just be one vast dark Psy-Op (interestingly, Vladimir Putin once referred to the internet as a ‘CIA Project’).

Software already exists to constantly monitor social media, analyse (in real-time) public trends and responses, and generate automatic (i.e robotic) comments/posts supporting (or denigrating) a chosen policy/worldview/opinion/initiative/product. We know (ironically largely via Edward Snowden), that our rogue intelligence agencies have been busy launching battalions of cyber-warriors and studying the psychology of online relations and the very architecture of our intrinsic belief systems.

After endless reams of circus commentary and vast volumes of hot air, the net result of the Snowden saga has in fact been the legitimation, legalisation and expansion of the very same unwarranted, unconstitutional, unnecessary (and surely intrinsically illegal) indiscriminate surveillance regime.

‘Mission creep’ has become a stampede, as supine governments rush a candied ‘national security’ wish-list of mass surveillance (and police state) initiatives past a bewildered and disenfranchised public. Nowhere is this more rudely obvious than in Australia, Canada, the U.K and the U.S itself, all of which have increased the state’s options for surveillance and data retention in the months since the ‘Snowden revelations’ (while performing a pantomime of ‘debate’ and ‘consultation’).

The ‘terrorist’ bogeyman (looking understandably tired and unconvincing) has been trotted out yet again to justify all this breathless chicanery. That these nations are all working from the same international (intelligence agency?) playbook seems in little doubt – the timing, wording and circumstances of (for example) recent surveillance ‘reforms’ in Australia, Canada and France being so strikingly similar. Likewise, a similar series of dubious provocations, sieges and ‘terrorist’ attacks predictably and magically manifested themselves just prior to the legislation being tabled – the public must, of course, be cajoled in the right direction.

Is it not possible that we have been completely gamed? The mysterious and messianic figure of Edward Snowden, introduced to acclimatise the global public to the very idea of an endless, all-pervading surveillance state (entirely unaccountable with unstated goals and limitless technology). Snowden as ‘progressive’ Trojan Horse (perhaps much like Barack Obama before him) to activate and mobilise the public passion, only to see it hijacked and channeled into Room 101. After much ‘debate’ from captured politicians and a puppeteer punditry the (entirely noxious) ‘security regime’ is solidified and expanded – the illusion being, that ultimately ‘democracy’ functioned and the population actually ‘chose’ omniscient observation – for the ‘greater good.’

Snowden himself perhaps reminds one of an articulate Lee Harvey Oswald-like character, a brave young patriotic warrior in deep-cover embrace with the Russian bear, dancing a dangerous and duplicitous deep-state deception. Knowingly (or unknowingly) a tool of clandestine forces. Snowden should bear in mind that he too, if he outlives his usefulness, might be thrown to the lions (just like Oswald was).

Imagine for a moment that the Snowden saga is a test. Having built a labyrinthine structure for social control (a compliant media and cowered public that cheerfully delivers itself up to enormous data-mining projects like social media): in fact, an almost entire reality-set constructed and delivered electronically – surely one would be tempted to test it? To see if complete movements, debates, paradigms and world-views could be generated out of whole virtual cloth and controlled? A test-tone, a electro-static ripple, a tremulous shock-wave to the online body electric.

Would it really be possible to introduce an idea (global omniscient surveillance) itself intrinsically repugnant, and yet shepherd it through a controlled release (and discourse) to have it ultimately accepted, completely present and yet essentially invisible? To test the various nuances and feedback loops in media (and online social media) that now might just grant remote Panopticon control of an entire population and their ‘internal landscape’? An electronically mediated ‘reality’ where ideas and beliefs are mere manifestations of algorithms and software?

Conservatives, progressives, activists, lethargists – all actors in the traveling circus of ‘representative democracy’ and ‘online society’?

About the Author

David Thrussell is a poet trapped in the body of a hillbilly. Or a hopeless romantic hidden in the twisted frame of a dark electronic musician. Late at night Thrussell fantasises that actually he lives next door to Hieronymous Bosch in Medieval Europe and has hallucinated the whole dreadful modern era while suffering from acute ergot poisoning. We are not entirely convinced that this is not the case. The world knows him (if it knows him at all), as the creator of a seeming multitude of obscure recordings (Snog, Black Lung and Soma among others) and film scores. He has written previously for New Dawn, Wax Poetics, Fortean Times and numerous other publications.

Delivered by The Daily Sheeple

We encourage you to share and republish our reports, analyses, breaking news and videos (Click for details).

Contributed by Waking Times of

Waking Times is an independently owned and operated online magazine that seizes on the transformational power of information to trigger personal revolution and influence humanity’s evolution.

Wake The Flock Up! Please Share With Sheeple Far & Wide:
  • The author’s bio explains the article.

  • Someguy

    Meh, author might be whomever, but still valid points. The public doesn’t care that we have secret police that would make nazi Germany and commie Russia to blush. How his info trickles out to feed the narratives and fog the mirrors is suspect too.

  • Charles

    Interesting that the author mentions the compliant response of the judiciary and legislators… there was a while back a whistle blower who said that the NSA/CIA was collecting dirt on the legislators and judiciary….wonder why they are making the decisions they are making (healthcare,etc..) probably have some good pics of these folks. The whistle blower is probably wearing some concrete boots in a bayou somewhere…anyway it’s tough too fight the evil machine who creates most of the crimes instead of solving it

    • mirageseekr

      Tough, but not impossible. Time for the people who outnumber the traitors by far to take a meaningful stand. By meaningful I propose starting by having courts as defined by the constitution, that are comprised of the people for the people and that adhere to natural (or God’s law) as opposed to the criminal maritime and statute law that is now used. Jury’s need to understand nullification when laws are presented that go against the natural order of things to protect the elite. I also think a few public hangings would go far in preventing future tyrants from activity. Without a doubt Snowden is a psy-op. (Snowdon, snowjob…boy those guys in the CIA sure are funny!!!) The purpose without a doubt is to make the population self censor and feel helpless against such an all encompassing surveillance. It also guarantees that the elite will have the advantage of being aware of any group gaining traction against them. It is past time for the American Revolution 2.0 and it is imperative that as the state continues to try to divide us that we all remember who the true enemy is.

  • Too many people miss the point. Whether a particular individual is “controlled opposition” or not is of secondary or tertiary significance.

    Everyone must pick and choose what he believes. He must integrate the information he collects from a wide range of sources into a logical whole on his own.

    That means that if Snowden, or Alex Jones, or the NRA is “controlled opposition” it doesn’t matter — as long as one does not send them money, and as long as one picks and chooses what to believe on a case by case basis, rather than trusting the individual to be right all the time.

    The “controlled opposition” attempts to use us. That doesn’t mean we can’t use the controlled opposition back.

    • Lewie Paine

      Hi BC,
      I have a really off-the-wall question that relates to my work
      and I haven’t been able to google any satisfactory results. I wish
      disqus had some sort of personal correspondence feature but
      unfortunately it does not. That’s why I came here.
      My question is,
      how does anarchism relate to dadaism? All I can get is that it’s
      ‘anti-establishment’ but that can be said for Marxism as well.
      trying to pick through the bios of some of the more prominent dadists
      but I can’t see they ever professed to being anarchists.
      Any thoughts.
      (Obviously I have an odd job.)

      • Dear LP,
        How does anarchism relate to Dadaism?
        Interesting question!
        I’ve never considered it.
        I would tend to think that they are to some extent antithetical.
        Dadaism is a cynical, subjectivist, absurdist school of art.
        Anarchism, properly defined as anarcho-capitalism, is a rigorously rational school of political philosophy.

        • Lewie Paine

          Thanks for the reply. I’m coming to the same conclusion.

          On a different note, I’ve decided to no longer identify as an ‘anarcho-capitalist.’ Primarily because the word, ‘capitalism’ has been so bastardized it’s almost useless. Same as what happened with ‘liberal.’ (I’m tired of explaining the difference between ‘classical liberal’ and ‘neo-liberal.)
          More so, I recently came across a quote by an old communist, Mikhail Gorbachev:
          The market is not an invention of capitalism. It has existed for centuries. It is an invention of civilization.
          This made me think that ‘free market anarchist’ would probably be more precise, but then I though, that’s simply redundant. A free market is absolutely critical to a free society and what distinction would I be trying to make? That I’m not a regulated-market anarchist?
          So now I have gone full circle and I realize I’m an anarchist. I know that communism can be voluntary which places it in the anarchist school of thought and to clarify, I guess I would call myself, most precisely, an individualist anarchist.

          • These considerations you mention are also some of the reasons I finally went with “voluntaryist”. Even “anarchy” had too much baggage. Besides “Voluntaryist” has the advantage that I am not defining myself in terms of what I oppose. As An-archist as opposed to “archist”— why should *we* have to endure wearing the privative prefix? Should I not habitually refer to myself as a Free Man, rather than “Not-a-Slave?” There is only Voluntaryism, and Involuntaryism.

          • Fred Bastiat

            Coralyn and I just had look again at the word Libertarian. It seems there is no word that isn’t eventually polluted by the statist. Voluntaryism is one I’ve always liked, but I’d be willing to bet a round of drinks to our little crew that eventually it’ll become synonymous in popular culture with violence, chaos, and the very opposite of voluntary. Hell, I’d like to buy our little group a round of drinks anyway.

          • It seems there is no word that isn’t eventually polluted by the statist.

            Having watched the “Libertarian” Party Town Hall on CNN last night, I couldn’t agree more.

            Voluntaryism is one I’ve always liked, but I’d be willing to bet a round of drinks to our little crew that eventually it’ll become synonymous in popular culture with violence, chaos, and the very opposite of voluntary.

            Unfortunately, you are probably right about that. I’m gonna see how much mileage I can still get out of it before the ever shifting semantic landscape forces a trade-in. If you’re ever in the KCMO area, I’ll take you up on that drink!

          • Fred Bastiat

            I once relished all news Libertarian, anymore I find it mostly disappointing that so many can be so close to accepting the truth, but can go no further than a limited denouncement of state violence.

            Likewise if you’re in the OKC area. We seem to be up that way for some reason or another every few years, mostly for in-laws.

          • “Newspeak… is a controlled language created by the totalitarian state Oceania as a tool to limit freedom of thought, and concepts that pose a threat to the regime such as freedom, self-expression, individuality, and peace…

            Newspeak… follows, for the most part, the same grammatical rules as English, but has a much more limiting, and constantly shifting vocabulary. Any synonyms or antonyms, along with undesirable concepts are eradicated.”
            — Wikipedia

            The Oceanian state is making sure we have no way to express our yearning for freedom.

          • I’ll drink to that!

          • Lewie Paine

            Well said. You are correct in that ‘voluntaryism’ gets to the heart of the matter.

          • That’s also a good alternative.

          • Good point about the “not an archist” aspect.

            Also, voluntaryist has another advantage. It sets up anyone who oppose voluntaryism as “involuntaryist”, as someone who advocates involuntary relationships between people.

            Not a bad dichotomy from a rhetorical perspective.

          • My thinking exactly. 🙂

          • “individualist anarchist”

            I have absolutely no argument with that. It has the advantage of distinguishing one from the “collectivist anarchists” of old.

            ” Anarchist schools of thought can differ fundamentally, supporting anything from extreme individualism to complete collectivism.[10] Strains of anarchism have often been divided[by whom?] into the categories of social and individualist anarchism or similar dual classifications.[22][23] Anarchism is usually considered a radical left-wing ideology,[24][25] and much of anarchist economics and anarchist legal philosophy reflect anti-authoritarian interpretations of communism, collectivism, syndicalism, mutualism, or participatory economics.[26]”
            – Wikipedia

            Gorby was right. He stumbled across an old truth. The free market is not actually a “political system”. It is a metasystem.

            One might say that: “The free market is what happens while statists make their plans”.

            It is not that champions of the free market have concocted a pet system of their own, one that runs head on with a pet system concocted by socialists.

            No. That is a highly misleading formulation. Champions of the free market are not actually imposing any system on anyone. They are simply “doing nothing”, in the best sense of the term. They are refraining from imposing any system on anyone.

            It is true that a society sufficiently evolved to respect property rights is a precondition. But other than that, champions of the free market are not actually ”
            imposing their preferred system on others”. They are simply refraining from imposing any system.

          • Coralyn Herenschrict

            The property rights part is where the other side could say voluntaryists are not any more voluntary in that they are willing to use force to impose their definition of property as first-comer homesteaded.

          • True.
            That is indeed what they say.
            But as our side knows, homesteading is a natural right, one that holds true even in the animal kingdom.

          • Coralyn Herenschrict

            I’ve always loved the fact that even animals lacking any rational faculty employ first-comer homesteading as basis for behavioral habits mimicking respect for property rights.

            Thanks for the Friedman citation. His work is underappreciated and underutilized in the libertarian community. Its wholly pragmatic orientation makes it especially powerful with non-ideological thinkers, i.e. almost everyone out there other than us uncommonly found intellectually rigorous, deeply principled types. I think Friedman supplies an awesome armamentarium utilizable by us in debate as fallback for those who insistently reject our moral arguments and insist statism is necessary for practical reasons. Sometimes people have to see something is practical first before they will let themselves see that it is moral. It’s a human brain thing.

            I was just hoping we wouldn’t have to dive all the way down to first principles to defend the term voluntaryism. I mean, avoiding having to do that is why we’re choosing the term in the first place.

            If we succeed in finding anyone on the other side intellectually capable enough of understanding the low-level philosophical argument for first-comer homesteading and desirous of hearing it, that person is likely a PhD well-drilled in establishment counter-arguments such as social contract theory.

            Voluntaryist is great precisely because it resonates with the masses requiring no thought. Problematically, the criticism that voluntary depends on definition of property is at a more accessible level to the masses than our rebuttal requiring an extremely deep level of philosophical rigor that would be ignored or draw blank looks.

            Still the initial claim of “voluntary = no government guns” is the most accessible of all. So agreed we should definitely stick with that. Trump has gotten where he is using nothing but the simplest and shallowest of emotionally resonant claims that wouldn’t survive the slightest rational challenge. The facts of the landscape in the modern world are the sexiness and emotional accessibility of claims alone seems to be the sole basis of competition for earning popular support.

          • Agree. I found Friedman’s nature based homesteading principle extremely compelling.

            The problem, as always, is that so many modern Western “intellectuals” are Intellectuals In Name Only. They have little trouble engaging in flagrant intellectual evasion when confronted with irrefutable empirical evidence or a priori logical propositions.

            How else to explain so many seemingly intelligent peoples’ acceptance of Keynesian economics, the economic analogue of perpetual motion in physics.

          • Coralyn Herenschrict

            Name Only indeed. Occupying the clothes of intellect without any of the bone or muscle. Kept inflated solely by an ego devoted the maintaining the feeling and appearance of being right, regardless of facts or reality. Willing to think, do, or say anything to maintain that bubble.

            A genuine great intellect is unafraid to detach from ego and laugh at how utterly wrong he is. I’ve recently observed in life it’s very much OK to be wrong. You just can’t resist being wrong and try to fight it. It’s this latter part that gets you in trouble, not the former.

          • Nathaniel Branden once used an interesting anecdote to illustrate the nature of intellectual integrity, at one of his “intensives”, i.e., intensive psychology workshops.

            He related a tale about a famous geologist on the brink of confirming his geological theory. He ascends a mountain hoping to find a certain kind of rock on one side of the ridge. If he does, the theory he has worked a lifetime to prove will be validated, and he will enjoy fame and recognition.

            If he finds it on the other side of the ridge however, the theory he has worked a lifetime to prove will be invalidated, and he will be discredited and forgotten.

            When the geologist reaches the top of the ridge, he finds a rock on the “wrong” side of the ridge. He is shattered. He sits there in a daze.

            Eventually he emerges from his daze, and realizes that except for himself, there is no other witness around. All he has to do is kick the rock over to the “right” side of the ridge, and his dream of fame and fortune will come true.

            He moves his foot toward the rock, then hesitates.

            Fade to black.

          • Coralyn Herenschrict

            Integrity to what kind of life is the big question. Rock-kicking academics and cronyists see obtaining status and money as ends-in-themselves. Thus considerations like actual truth or use of state aggression are irrelevant to them.

            Integrity to life qua human is a different reason for living. IMO, a better life, richer, more satisfying, more rewarding.

          • Yes.
            I find it hard to believe that Keynesian “economists”, and I use that word advisedly, actually believe their “something for nothing economic” claims.

            They cannot possibly be that stupid. After all, their claims that wealth can be created simply be printing more money is the economic analogue of perpetual motion in physics.

            The only possible answer is that they have sold their souls to the devil, or the closest thing to the devil, the global bankster elites.

          • Coralyn Herenschrict

            Queue Upton Sinclair.

          • He is remembered for writing the famous line: “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.”

          • Fred Bastiat

            Accepting one’s own mistakes is a fundamental virtue that creates cascading benefits. Foremost among them the ability to translate one’s mistakes into information for your children. Generational ignorance and cycles of abuse all begin with the lack of virtue that you and Bevin are discussing.

            But virtue doesn’t comport with progressivsm and is thus another of those quaint ideas (like self ownership) dismissed by the statist and purposefully removed from schooling.

          • Indeed.
            As Thomas Acquinas correctly noted, “Nature to be commanded, must first be obeyed”.

            There is no humiliation in acknowledging one’s errors. Such honesty is a virtue, a badge of courage, one that brings one back into alignment with the forces of nature, and is empowering, not humiliating.

          • Socrates Wilde

            You’re spot on about David Friedman. I’ve been quite fortunate to have met him (as well as his father) a handful of times. One of the benefits of Living in San Francisco.

          • I don’t know David personally but I had numerous friends when I lived in the Bay Area that did, mostly through The Society for Creative Anachronism.

          • Socrates Wilde

            I wouldn’t go so far as saying I know him personally. I doubt he would even remember the quiet guy.

          • Coralyn Herenschrict

            If you are quiet in real life, it’s probably in the E.F Hutton way.

          • Socrates Wilde