Exposing the Libertarian Agenda of the “Free Thought Project”

by Deborah May on October 9, 2016


I knew there was something seriously wrong with the “The Free Thought Project” (a.k.a., “Police the Police,” “Get Involved, You Live Here,” “V is for Voluntary”) which somehow has become a wildly popular source of information for many of my liberal, progressive and radical friends on Facebook.

While their extensive reporting on incidents of police brutality in the United States at a time when Black Lives Matter has brought the issue of racist police brutality to national attention makes it appear that the folks at FTP must be progressive anti-racist allies with BLM, nothing could be further than the truth.

The Free Thought Project website articles on police accountability support an “All Lives Matter” perspective. One FTP writer’s perspective on the police violence in Charlotte is very different from anything coming out of Black Lives Matter. “Corporate media subtly furthered victim-blaming and what it inaccurately surmised to be a matter of black versus white as the cause for rioting in Charlotte — rather than that overzealous officers stole yet another life for which justice almost certainly won’t follow.”

Another FTP article’s headline reads, “Black Libertarian Calls Out Black Lives Matter’s Culture of Divisive Politics and Victimhood.” Not only does FTP not support BLM, it opposes and undermines the work and anti-racist perspective of that movement.

I first became alarmed when good friends started parroting several words and concepts they attributed to the Free Thought Project. It was easy to recognize the code words used by conspiracy theorists and libertarians: “imaginary money,” “volunteerism,” “Rothschilds,” “false flags,” “Federal Reserve criminals.” Yet most of my friends are well-educated politically conscious folks on the left – so what is going on that so many of them are getting on board with this “Free Thought Project” and their “Police the Police?”

I used my Sunday morning to find out exactly who is part of The Free Project, who funds them and what their real political agenda might be. I found out and it’s not pretty.

First I watched the video linked below that was filmed in February 2016. It features a couple of chain-smoking young white dudes wearing sunglasses and khaki cargo shorts. The background is a beautiful beach in Acapulco. They have just attended the 2016 Anarchapulco international conference there. Despite the incorporation of the word “anarchy,” I’m not feeling the solidarity.

Jason Bassler, one of the two “enlightened” founders of FTP, cannot manage to keep his knees still for even one minute during the half-hour interview with one of his fellow “anarcho-capitalist” activists, Jeff Berwick. Bassler looks more like a coke-head hipster on vacation from his Wall Street job than an anarchist who might proclaim solidarity with the goals of Occupy or Black Lives Matter.

Yes, I did write, “anarcho-capitalist” in the above paragraph. Anarcho-capitalists are more commonly known simply as “libertarians.” These are people whose agenda is to eliminate all government regulation of corporations in favor of “individual sovereignty” in a free market economy. Injecting the word “anarchy” into their new name makes libertarianism sound almost attractive and interesting to progressives who otherwise would reject it outright. Similarly, two of their favorite terms, “evolving consciousness” and “enlightenment” provide their work with an aura of Eastern spirituality. But their anarcho-capitalism is just another word for libertarianism, that noxious conservative neoliberal ideology on steroids.

We could also just remove “anarchy” from the “anarcho-capitalist” label and call them . . . capitalists. If you happen to be one of my friends who believes in overthrowing capitalism, or at least in greater government regulation of corporate capitalism, you should be aware that FTP is owned and operated by people who definitely disagree with you. So be aware whenever you want to repost one of the Free Thought Project’s police brutality videos that you are increasing their advertising revenue and supporting their pro-capitalist libertarian agenda.

The Free Thought Project’s libertarian agenda also includes the concept of volunteerism as a substitute for government provision and coordination of services through the common payment of taxes. The government doesn’t need to provide regular trash pick-up service to urban dwellers, because all we need are volunteers like Bassler, who reports having carried a trash bag to the Acapulco beach to collect the litter there himself. His “leadership” apparently inspired and “empowered” other individuals to join him in his personal project of cleaning up the beach.

Now how easy was that? A couple of people a couple times a month and who needs government services to clean up beaches or whatever? Without governments stopping us from performing volunteer services like this, individual citizens could easily provide all the goods, services and coordination needed in a complex society. “It’s not up to the government to take care of all our problems,” says Bassler. “Volunteerism is the only consistent ideology I embrace.” I bet it is.

The example of cleaning the beach is discussed at length in the video to demonstrate why everyone should refuse to pay taxes to “corrupt governments” for programs serving the common good. Apparently, the provision of health care, mass transit, and education should be fully volunteer-run and privatized. And if you want streetlights in your neighborhood, you better come up with a way to pay a private company to install them in front of your own house.

Bassler and Berwick fully embrace libertarian politics in this video when they openly scoff at the idea that people need any kind of “social contract” to ensure the protection and welfare of all. And if private citizens can figure out a way to make a hefty profit by delivering what used to be a government service under the new libertarian system of wholly unregulated capitalism, so much the better! Just look at how great privatized prisons worked out.

Capitalism has worked out just fine for Jason Bassler and Matt Agorist. They are very happy about having founded the profitable Free Thought Project. With tens of millions of website followers, Bassler and Agorist are rolling in dough from advertising revenue. And they believe that’s a great thing! FTP is unapologetically a pro-capitalist business venture promoting libertarian candidates and ideology. Their other Facebook pages, which include “Police the Police” and “Get Involved, You Live Here,” also link tens of thousands of people back to their profit-making website.

So don’t confuse the Free Thought Project with a benign grassroots nonprofit organization promoting a social justice mission. The mission of FTP is to spread libertarian propaganda disguised as progressive left ideas and make a lot of money doing it.

If you are Black, Muslim or Latino and you think the good folks at the Free Thought Project are looking out for you because they are deeply concerned about how people from racial and ethnic minority groups are targeted by police violence, you can let go of that illusion right now. FTP promotes only “liberty” from a “corrupt government” and “the police state,” but it expresses zero interest in promoting social and economic justice for black communities or fighting back against racist police practices.

In fact, in over thirty minutes of the linked video which emphasizes FTP’s work on the issue of increased police accountability, the words, “racism,” “Black” and “African American” are not mentioned once, let alone the words “Black Lives Matter.”

However, Jason does let us know how excited he is that “a growing swell of people” from “different groups” are joining their efforts to demand police accountability. Like, for example, that “different group” in Ferguson, Missouri after the police execution of Michael Brown.

Finally, let’s move to an examination of some other content on FTP’s website. We see in the “About Us” section that the founders support a “revolution of consciousness.” I assume this is somehow connected to enlightenment” in FTP’s self-description: “The front page to exposing the corrupt government and finding enlightenment along the way.” Yeah, these are a couple of very spiritually-evolved guys.

The “Anti-War” section of the website contains several stories that appear to be taken directly from conspiracy theorist Alex Jones. The articles do not report on any issues central to most progressive peace movements. The “Government Corruption” section has a story focused on a teen who was suspended from her school for taking photos of dirty water in the school water fountain. Yep, there’s evidence of some nasty big government corruption. The “Solutions” section is not a list of links, resources or recommendations, just reposts of the same news stories that appear elsewhere on the website.

So who are some of the role models and activists our enlightened anarcho-capitalist activists mention on this video as folks whose work they find inspiring? Alex Jones, the social media king of convoluted conspiracy theories. Adam Kokesh, gun rights activist. Ron Paul, former Libertarian Presidential candidate from the heart of Texas. Are these guys your heroes?

If you feel still comfortable supporting the Free Thought Project’s libertarian and All Lives Matter political agenda, by all means, continue to uncritically repost their police brutality and conspiracy theory articles and videos to help them earn more advertising revenue. The same is true for their multiple Facebook pages under different names, including “Police the Police,” “Get Involved, You Live Here,” “V is for Voluntary.”

Me? I’d rather send my nickels to my comrades Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez at Democracy Now!

#blm #blacklivesmatter #freethoughtproject #thefreethoughtproject#jasonbassler #occupy #anarchy #garyjohnson #ronpaul #socialism#democracynow

Anarchast Ep.279 Jason Bassler: The Free Thought Project

Jeff interviews Jason Bassler of The Free Thought Project, topics include: the recent Anarchapulco conference, Ron Paul and the anarchist movement,…

{ 27 comments… read them below or add one }

Wayne Price October 9, 2016 at 4:59 pm

Virtually all those who regard themselves as anarchists, of whatever school, reject the idea that so-called “anarchist-capitalists” are anarchists in any way. From its founding in the 1860s, anarchism has always rejected both the state and capitalism. (This includes not only the anarchist-communists and anarchist-syndicalists but individualist anarchists.) They see no point in rejecting the centralized, bureaucratic state while accepting centralized, bureaucratic corporations. They emphasize the interrelation and mutual support of the state and every ruling class down through the centuries. As for the term “libertarian,” it was originally used in France as a synonym for anarchism (usually as in “libertarian socialism”). Unfortunately, in the U.S. and U.K., it has been taken over by right wingers.


Pierz September 4, 2017 at 3:37 pm

Anarchism wasn’t invented in the 1860s. That is merely when Anarcho-Socialists declared themselves the one true form of anarchy. Reality is that anarchy is millennia old and appears in every human civilization, in everything from the Tao Te Ching to ancient Ireland to Native American tribes to today.

Rejecting anarcho-capitalism because corporations will exist is nonsensical. Humans will always organize themselves into social units.
The question is how will those social units operate. Voluntary exchange is the basis for anarcho-capitalism. The real irony is that while anarchy can and often is communal in nature, anarcho-socialism is not and cannot be both socialist and anarchist. Socialism requires the presence of a violent and compulsive social order that can force time redistribution of wealth and percent the accumulation of “too much” wealth. It therefore cannot be anarchist.


Anonymous November 29, 2017 at 6:56 pm

Anarchy as a practice may millennia old, but to ascribe anarchism to periods and practices antecedent to the formation of the term and philosophy itself is anachronistic. Anarchism as a political philosophy and movement originated with radical leftists during the French Revolution and, more prominently, in the 19th century. That is, in fact, when it was invented as an actual theory and defined movement. Proto-anarchist positions, and other formative influences, preceded that time; however, conflating the latter with anarchism itself dilutes the meaning of the term. And typically, the only people who seem to do that are those politically motivated to do so because they want to distort and co-opt anarchism to serve them, particularly so-called “anarcho-capitalists” despite how capitalism itself is antithetical to anarchism in principle and not just in theory or practice.

Wayne Price was quite right in their statements, though such claims are such a common refrain among radical leftists (especially anarchists) these days that they’ve grown rather cliché. Nonetheless, I’ll try my best to elaborate.

Wayne’s rejection of “anarcho-capitalism” as anarchism proper is because of the fundamental incompatibility of capitalism with anarchism, and thus the oxymoronic nature of the term itself, not merely because corporations would exist exist in such a hypothetical society. The fact that corporations would exist, however, is indeed an indirect indication of the self-contradictory nature of “anarcho-capitalism” due to the fundamentally capitalistic nature of corporations—that is, unless we resort instead to a much broader definition of “corporation”, though broadening its definition to the point of compatibility with anarchism would render the term itself practically indistinguishable from terms which already have a long-standing and established historical relationship with anarchism and radical leftism in general, such as “cooperative” or “commune”.

Although you quite rightly recognize voluntarism as an expected necessary condition of anarchy per anarchism, this is because voluntarism inherits its conditional necessity from the principle of free association. What you seem to fail to understand, or otherwise inexplicably reject, is the fact that capitalism as a system necessarily precludes free association and thus that economic relations in capitalism are necessarily involuntary—or, at least, insufficiently voluntary to qualify as such per anarchist theory.

This is because in capitalism, a proletarian must work to receive wages and these wages are the only economic source of survival for the proletariat. (Charity, theft, and other such potential sources of income are irrelevant because they are fundamentally non-capitalist and thus fall outside the scope of this discussion.) Therefore, in capitalism, the implicit threat against the proletariat is that they must work to live. In contrast, this is not the case for capitalists. Capitalists never need to actually perform productive labor; for some, their luxurious subsistence is maintained through dividends and returns from other financial investments, and thus from mere ownership of property such as a company or house, none of which require much more labor than a few clicks of a button or a walk to one’s mailbox.

If someone demanded that you perform certain labor under threat of starvation and death, I suspect that you would reasonably conclude that it would be a coercive relationship and thus that it is involuntary (or at least insufficiently voluntary). That’s probably why you oppose chattel slavery, too. At least, I hope you do! And yet, that is the same basic dilemma that the working class faces every single day, only it’s a systemic threat rather than a personal one. “Anarcho-capitalists” accept that taxation is coercion because implied in it is a systemic threat of violence from the state, yet deny any analogous relationship between workers and capitalists. For them, capitalism—and the capitalist class that runs the system—is forever exempt from any such criticism or critique.

Wage labor itself, and more generally any hierarchical social relationship, is considered an involuntary social relation in anarchism (especially anarcho-communism, which serves as the principal theoretical basis and origin for anarchism outside of Proudhon’s mutualism, which it had quickly superseded) because those with the superordinate position of power in the social relation will inevitably tend to use that power to shape and maintain that relationship, even through coercion. This means that even if the social relation itself formed voluntarily, and thus the initial conditions were voluntary, the reproduction of that social relation will promptly render it involuntary because of the power differential between its members, who differentiate into distinct classes based on those power relations and then develop class interests which they forcibly pursue. An example of this would be the ancient practice of “voluntary slavery”, in which someone “voluntarily” sells their self into chattel slavery. The initial agreement may have been voluntary (though that is disputable), but the subsequent social relation that is reproduced is pretty clearly not. The same is true with all forms of slavery, including wage slavery. The only way of preventing this hierarchical inevitability is by abandoning the hierarchy itself, by abolishing slavery entirely, which anarchists support in relation to the hierarchies of capitalism and the state (and which anarcho-communists support with all social hierarchy).

“Anarcho-capitalists” refuse to abandon capitalism because they deny the inescapably hierarchical nature of capitalism, often through the denial of economic class, and thus the necessarily involuntary nature of economic relations in capitalism for the vast majority of people. They have no problem applying a similar analysis to the state and to statism, and thus in that capacity seem to be anarchists, but stop short of applying any such critiques to capitalism itself or indeed many other hierarchies. This fact, among many others, demonstrates why “anarcho-capitalists” are not anarchists: anarchism, since the origin of anarchism itself as a political philosophy, has historically always been anticapitalist. Even Proudhon, the “first anarchist” whose mutualism has always been criticized (by Marx and others, even to this day) as a sort of quasi-socialism which remained fundamentally capitalist, was himself anticapitalist.

Only in recent history, with the development of disaffected liberals who despise the modern state but cherish the very capitalism which produced it and who have nostalgia for a romanticized historical stage of capitalism that is neither extant nor feasible any longer, has the long tradition of radical leftism in anarchism been conveniently ignored and disputed in favor of a co-opted and diluted redefinition of anarchism that is only opposed to the archoi of the state but not the archoi of the economy or indeed any other archoi at all. In that sense, the onus is on the claimant that anarchism is NOT anticapitalist rather than on the one who claims that it is, despite the centuries of history of an exclusively anticapitalist anarchism. Just because that distortion of anarchism has gained traction in a few parts of the world, and just because a fringe minority (compared to all who have ever called themselves anarchists) purports to be anarchistic, that does not mean the history of anarchism as a political philosophy does not itself demonstrate that it has always been a radically leftist and thoroughly anticapitalist position.

Similarly, you seem to misunderstand what socialism is, too. Your description of socialism as requiring “the presence of a violent and compulsive social order that can force time redistribution of wealth and percent the accumulation of ‘too much’ wealth [sic]” does not describe socialism as defined historically by any socialist theorist. Unfortunately, however, the term “socialism”—like “anarchism” and “communism”—has also undergone semantic erosion over time, much of which seems politically motivated by those who oppose such ideologies.

Socialism is, fundamentally, a system in which the means of production are socially owned and the social relations between members of that system are democratic. There is much controversy and dispute over the exact definition (and implications of said definitions) of socialism, including many who contend that the logical conclusion of socialism is effectively anarchist or even anarcho-communist, but none of the theorists or philosophers from which socialism originated ever defined socialism in the way you described. Marx himself never even explicitly disambiguated “socialism” from “communism”, either, and treated “socialism” as simply lower-stage communism. The differentiation of the two originated with Lenin and, more clearly, with Stalin. It should not come as much of a surprise to discover, then, that many radical leftists (including Marxist socialists and communists) don’t even consider the USSR to have been socialist, much less communist! That arguably includes Lenin himself, who described his New Economic Plan (NEP), which formed the Soviet economy, as “state capitalism”.

The closest you might get to such a definition would be Lenin’s own theories, though a cursory review of his own history and the historical debates within the radical left about his ideas would reveal that even he didn’t consider what he was doing as socialism proper and pretty much all radical leftists back when didn’t either, not to mention how many Marxists then and today contend that Lenin (and Stalin and all other Leninists and Stalinists) broke from Marx’s own theories and thus never represented Marx or Marxism, and or indeed socialism or communism, in any meaningful capacity. Your description more aptly applies to so-called “social democracy”, which is a form of social capitalism (or “social fascism” as Stalinists described it) and which is fundamentally different from democratic socialism (the largest historical and current forms of socialism). Part of that semantic erosion I mentioned above involves the recent conflation of social democracy with democratic socialism, just as occurred with Lenin’s “state capitalism” and socialism, all of which seem to have been motivated by political expediency rather than by theoretical rigor or even good faith.

A recent (as in since the early 20th century or so) response to this semantic erosion and co-option, both of “anarchism” and “socialism” and indeed of “communism”, is to coin new terms to clarify and distance oneself from the old terms. Anarchists, who have historically always been socialists and communists, now tend to call themselves “social anarchists” or “left-anarchists” or “anarcho-socialists” or “anarcho-communists”. Libertarians, which were historically always anarchists (and particularly anarcho-communists) ever since the anarcho-communist Joseph Déjacque coined “libertarianism” as a euphemism for both, now call themselves “left-libertarians” or “libertarian socialists” or “libertarian communists”. Socialists, to distinguish from social democrats and “national socialists” (who were never socialists), now call themselves “democratic socialists”. Communists, meanwhile, now tend to prefer the term “left communist” after Lenin’s co-option of the term, or “anarcho-communist” if they’re also anarchists and wish to avoid accusations of totalitarianism by “libertarians” and other liberals who have no clue what communism is.

These changes have been made in large part to distinguish from the propertarian poachers and other reactionaries who now call themselves “libertarians” and “anarcho-capitalists”. And they are all poor attempts at avoiding semantic debates like this one, a non-solution that permits the continuation of this oft-intentional obfuscation. This only leads to the ideological befuddlement and mutual unintelligibility between liberals and everyone else that we see today, an example of which is this very exchange.

Yes, “anarchy can and often is communal in nature”. This is because anarchy, as defined by anarchism, is fundamentally socialist and communist. That’s why anarchists have historically always associated with socialists and communists, at least until the schism between anarchists and Marxists began to form during the First Internationale, thanks to Marx and Bakunin, and worsened by Lenin et al. That’s why one of the oldest, largest, and most influential forms of anarchism historically and today is anarcho-communism. That’s why the most successful historical examples of, and attempts at, anarchism in practice—the Free Territory of Ukraine, the Shinmin Prefecture, Revolutionary Catalonia, Anarchist Aragon, etc.—have been socialist or communist. That’s why the most successful extant attempts at practicing anarchism are found exclusively among the radical left, such as the various communes across the world, the MAREZ of the Zapatistas, and Rojava itself. (What about successful examples of “anarcho-capitalism”? The Congo Free State? Somalia from 1991 to 2006?) And that’s why “anarcho-capitalism” is not anarchist. Capitalism cannot exist in a state of anarchy because it requires the state to survive. The “real irony” here, and a tragic irony at that, is that your own claims are as self-contradictory and fundamentally ahistorical as is “anarcho-capitalism” itself.

If you wish to consider “anarcho-capitalism” to be properly anarchist, and yet deny well-established anarchist tendencies such as anarcho-communism and anarcho-socialism as at least as properly anarchist, then so be it. But that is not the history of anarchism and the overwhelming preponderance of anarchists who have ever lived, from the best-known anarchist theorists (e.g., Proudhon, Kropotkin, Stirner, Bakunin, Goldman, Bookchin) to the typical black-bloc activists still raising hell on the streets, would probably reject such an interpretation as patently absurd. Therefore, if you are at all surprised that you receive such pushback for such claims, then that speaks more to your own unfamiliarity with anarchism and its history than to that of your critics.


TZM_TVP_RBE October 11, 2016 at 8:28 am

Just a few comments:

I have also read from the FTP website and while some of the articles are pure rubbish, taken from conspiracy theorist websites, there are many articles posted there that never show up in the MSM and are very enlightening to what is going on in the world, and the US today.

I have also noted articles posted from RT (Russia Today) and CommonDreams, both of which are very much leftist in nature. Why would they post articles from there if they are so pro-Capitalist? One of those articles makes mention of bankers being jailed in Iceland for the 2007/2008 economic collapse, that doesn’t seem too pro-Capitalist to me, throwing bankers in jail and celebrating it, something that did not happen in the US and should have.

You also mention paying taxes and the good that it brings, but what about the bad? Do you enjoy your tax dollars going to the military who are dropping bombs all over the world and killing thousands (millions if you go back far enough) of innocent people all so that some corporations can make a profit from it? That website slams war, so in essence they are also slamming Capitalism are they not?

Are you sure you are defending the left or simply promoting business as usual (which is what Democracy Now is all about)?


Terry Mac March 8, 2017 at 3:46 pm

Crime is crime whether it is committed by a socialist or a capitalist. Truth is what matters, not the source of the truth and Russia Today is a pretty good source of information that is not being reported by the MSM. The same rules apply to ALL sources, of course, and due diligence is required when fact-checking all reports. Remember that Russia is no longer a communist country and are resisting the New World Order alongside the rest of us. Being from Scotland I don’t see the arguement as being as simple as Right v Left. Every side has criminals, liars and assholes and it is up to the individual to make objective, rational decisions on the available information.


Jason R July 19, 2017 at 6:00 am

I forgot about a few:
Considering however that all those ideas are incorporated in at least one of the original list I posted I thought it may not have been necessary to mention them, but realized studying these ideas on their own helped me to understand all those others on a more intimate level and gave me a deeper understanding for the importance of Anarchism, now more than ever.


james November 26, 2016 at 8:33 pm

There is so much bulls…going around that my nose is rebelling. Anyone know a ‘safe bet’ site I may have missed.


Rick Petrik December 19, 2016 at 8:27 am

Kind of a sad display of self righteousness and ignorance. People should probably not speak on issues they clearly haven’t taken the time to understand.


Rick Petrik December 19, 2016 at 8:31 am

It’s actually spelled Voluntaryism* – That is the first indicator that you didn’t spend more than 2 minutes trying to understand what was being conveyed. You seem very close minded and incapable of entertaining ideas outside your current worldview.


Cathal April 18, 2017 at 11:05 pm

And it would be closed minded. Not close, you’re point is what?
What world are you viewing? Maybe you need to go to the closest grocery store and stock up on the tinfoil.


Jason R July 19, 2017 at 3:45 am

Your strawmanning (or gaslighting as it’s now called by professional psychologists) is useless here, or at least to anyone whom owns their own mind. Those who must resort to insults are admitting that they have no real ground to stand on in the argument they are attempting to conduct.


Derwood January 14, 2017 at 12:18 pm


Except, the FTP has always been *explicitly* a Libertarian project.


Kathy Young February 4, 2017 at 7:06 pm

Love the Free Thought Project. To each his own. FREE SPEECH means FREE SPEECH. So many little Hitlers running around now. And they comment.


Ian Allen February 14, 2017 at 10:38 pm

This article is ridiculous. Many folk spend years trying to get a truthful idea of how the world really works, as opposed to the mind-numbing nonsense spun by the mainstream media. The very notions this author jeers at are mostly very real indeed if only he used some of his pseudo intellect to discover that fact!


Wayne McAnany April 1, 2017 at 1:10 pm

Lol. It’s Voluntaryism. The golden rule. Living moral and not using unnecessary violence. Karmic law, consequential ism, moral law. All follofollowing under Natural law. Think what you will you have every right. But Voluntaryists are just peaceful people who live morally superior lives.


Cathal April 18, 2017 at 11:08 pm

Wow, so many Hitlers running around. Free speech does not give you the right to LIE. To spread falsehoods and hatred to further an agenda.


Stratos May 6, 2017 at 5:06 pm

It’s funny, that for a very long time I’ve been calling Libertarians, “dumbass anarchists” . And now I find out they funcy themselves as such!


jerry August 18, 2017 at 12:21 pm

After reading this article then taking a look at Democracy now, it is very apparent that the author is your prototypical Neo Liberal…..who along with mainstream conservatives are what is wrong with this country, I would much rather take a little time and sort through the content of The FTP, knowing that they have an agenda….but so does every news organization on the planet, CNN, MSNBC etc are far far worse and more damaging because they reach far far more people with their fake news.


Rita February 17, 2018 at 3:39 pm

Jerry, Fox news is fake news. They have lied and twisted 99% of all their reporting. They even lie about what is right in front of them.
You have been listening to the Russian bots for so long, you have been brainwashed.
This administration was built on fake” news” coming from a hostile country to destroy our great country.
Mueller is catching up to all of them involved. Please be part of the solution and not the Russian properganda. This isn’t even about party’s anymore.
We are all family in this great nation. Help save our freedom of what is left of it from these Nazi lovers taking over.
Do you really want a WW3 to start?


Elixirmixer312 September 19, 2017 at 5:58 pm

Wow! Not a troll here but you guys with every ‘ism”…need to get a grip. Conspiracy theories? Really? Ill go out on a limb here that nobody here has any degree in economics social sciences etc. If you learn how the world works for real you would see that conspiracies arent necessary to be ruling class. You would discover how to maxmimize your lot in life given the hand you were dealt even if it is shitty. Work hard go to school stay out of trouble instead of moaning and groaning bout how the man keeps you down. A poor person on welfare in the US is fariing much better than most others. Oh yeah…welfare is paid for by taxes.
B Volunteers are the solution? That is the most insane idea…look up communal living in the 60s. See how that worked out. Hippies in the 60s morphed into yuppies of the 80s..go figure.


Rita February 17, 2018 at 3:28 pm

Agreed 100%. These guys are in la la land.


water February 22, 2018 at 3:17 pm

It has nothing to do with volunteerism. People could volunteer of course, but that’s not what voluntayism is about.



Connie December 25, 2017 at 3:11 pm

After reading several posts I just had a feeling about this Free Thought Project, that maybe the free thought isn’t so free. I was right too.


Rita February 17, 2018 at 3:23 pm

So in a nutshell, these spoiled, greedy, rich frauds are far right wingers pretending to take a sharp left turn to spread lies and deception without any real problem solving.
Its a fraugulant info-commercial to make money off of innocent people about to be screwed.
Your information is an idea. Not reality. Stop spreading the lies. Stop supporting these greedy Nazi’s. These guys are a joke!
They can’t even quote the bible correctly!

3 Most Misunderstood Bible Verses on Money
Have you ever come across a chapter or verse in the Bible that left you scratching your head? I want to help clear up any confusion about some popular money-related verses.
3 Most Misunderstood Bible Verses on Money
Have you ever come across a chapter or verse in the Bible that left you scratching your head?

Or maybe you always thought a certain verse meant one thing, only to have your pastor completely blow your mind one Sunday when he explains it in a completely different way!

I think we’ve all been there as we’ve grown in our understanding of God’s Word. That’s why it’s so important that we keep digging and learning. The Bible is so full of truth that unpacking it often involves peeling away the layers before we understand what God is really saying.

One Bible subject many of us misunderstand is money. You might be shocked to learn that the Bible even has anything to say about money! Or maybe you’ve heard a money-related verse misquoted so often that you begin misquoting and misunderstanding it yourself.

And that’s why I want to help clear up any confusion about some popular money-related verses. Below are the three I see misinterpreted most often, plus my explanation of what the Bible is really trying to tell us through them.

Both the impoverished and the wealthy are considered godly.

1. “For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil.” 1 Timothy 6:10, NIV

Raise your hand if you’ve heard this verse misquoted all the time as saying money is the root of all evil. I have! But it’s just not true. It’s the love of money that gets us in trouble. Our attitude toward money is the problem, not the money itself. Money is morally neutral.

Throughout the Bible, both the impoverished and the wealthy are considered godly. Job very well could have been the wealthiest person in the world during his time, but the Bible is clear that he was a godly man. When he lost everything, God even replaced it twofold! In fact, sometimes those who were materially blessed, like Job, were also blessed by God with the power to carry out His work. God clearly doesn’t equate money to evil.

Related: Gain a Deeper Understanding of What the Bible Says About Building Wealth and True Generosity. Order The Legacy Journey Today!

2. “How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God! Indeed, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.” Luke 18:24–25, NIV

Many people use this passage to make the wealthy feel guilty for their financial success. I guess that means we should all aim to be poor, right? But did you know the majority of Americans earn an annual salary that puts them in the top 1% of the world’s wealth? According to that misinterpretation, nobody in America earning more than $34,000 a year will enter the kingdom of God. That’s crazy! And it contradicts the very clear teaching that God’s grace is sufficient.

The reality of this verse is that Jesus is calling out a major stumbling block for anyone who thinks they can get to heaven by their own works: their wealth. If we stop reading there, we miss the whole point. But if we continue to verses 26 and 27, we understand: “They who heard it said, ‘Then who can be saved?’ But He said, ‘The things that are impossible with people are possible with God.’”

This passage doesn’t condemn wealth at all. It’s Jesus’s way of letting the crowd know that none of them can get to heaven by their own effort, but by grace alone. And let’s not forget that just a handful of verses later, Zacchaeus, a rich, tax-collecting crook, accepted Christ and inherited the kingdom of God because of the grace of Jesus. God truly does make the impossible possible.

The wallet is a great window to the soul.

3. “For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.” Luke 12:34, NIV

So often that verse is misquoted backward, but the meaning is still mostly the same. It’s telling us that when we look at our budget and our bank statement, we can see where our heart is. So is the large percentage of our money going toward earthly matters, or is it going to fulfill God’s purposes for it? Our spending (or saving or giving) are all good indicators of whether we’re giving our hearts to God or to material things. The wallet is a great window to the soul.

I hope these explanations clear up some common misperceptions when it comes to the Bible and money. What money verses have you heard that are confusing to you? I’d love to know so I can address them too. Tweet me @ChrisBrownOnAir to share yours!

Your welcome for my volunteerism! Have a Free of propaganda day!


Unscene February 25, 2018 at 10:06 am

I went over to the FTP to find an example of a badly-sourced argument against billionaire George Soros. Well, they delivered: the piece’s author (Jay Syrmopoulos) cited a single source for his allegations, Journal Neo, which is described on Sourcewatch with a single line:

“Online magazine based in Russia”

Says it all, really.


Robert MacFarland March 5, 2018 at 11:43 pm

Now they want the Video of the Florida Shooting released to the public…I guess so they can post pictures of dyeing children.


Tacit April 21, 2018 at 4:14 pm

I came across this article when wondering the same thing that got you started: who is this group? I can’t say I find much substance in your critique. It seems to boil down to the fact that some of the people involved there disagree with some of your political views, or even that they agree with your views for different reasons than your own. Is all disagreement illegitimate, and must everyone be always in lockstep? What you don’t provide is any example of clear falsehood or dishonesty from them.


Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: