Are We Ready for Anarchism? - Questions For Corbett #026

11/01/201553 Comments

On this month's edition of "Questions For Corbett" James fields your questions on anarchism, free banking, bitcoin, veganism and much more.

For those with limited bandwidth, CLICK HERE to download a smaller, lower file size version of this episode.

For those interested in audio quality, CLICK HERE for the highest-quality version of this episode (WARNING: very large download).


“Washington’s Pope”? Who is Pope Francis?

Bitter Past: Pope Francis and Argentina’s Dirty War

President Obama to Pope Francis: I'll Pick You Up At the Airport

James Corbett: The Revolution Of The Mind Is The Only Revolution That Matters

James Corbett on The Mind Renewed: Anatomy of the New World Order

Fed’s Once-Secret Data Compiled by Bloomberg Released to Public

The experience of free banking

Century of Enslavement: The History of The Federal Reserve

Episode 262 – Solutions: Pirate Internet

Dr. Katherine Albrecht on StartPage and StartMail

Darkode - Radiolab

How Roger Ver Got Hacked, and What He Did to Stop it

UltraScience ’97 Electronic Mind Control

Lithium In Drinking Water?

Fluoride Reduces IQ - Harvard Study

Sibel Edmonds launching new project to take on the system...

Filed in: Questions For Corbett
Tagged with:

Comments (53)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Batya says:

    Hi James, sorry to bother you again with this question…
    In Holland we have heated discussions about the “tsunami of refugees” as one controversial politician is calling it. In MSM we read a lot of analyses, but none refers to my suspicion, which is that the refugee crisis in Europe seems orchestrated, as it suddenly gained momentum. The be welcome strategy of Angela Merkel seems very suspicious, refugees have never been welcomed this way, on the contrary. But where is “proof” of this orchestration, aside from Isis being funded by US, and IMF (Christine Lagarde) foreboding all the problems that are now coming into existence?
    Thanks James, I highly appreciate your work!

    • guy says:

      I have no doubt that the refugee problem is indeed orchestrated. Perhaps if you obtain a libretto from a Bewilderburg Opera, you might find hard evidence. Otherwise, consider the following.

      Globalist UberGoober Strategem: “From Chaos, Order.”

      What better way to foment chaos than hordes of displaced refugees, especially all-male, military-age, radical fundamentalists opposed in principle to Christian-based cultures. When the local populace is flummoxed and then inflamed by radical jihadist disruptions, your all-wise and benevolent government may then step in with “solutions.”

      For all that have NOT noticed, the EU is now a Fascist Union. Through and through. It has taken about 100 years, but here it is:

      The (German) September Program (1914 War Aims) :
      “Our Goal is to enforce a CENTRAL EUROPEAN ECONOMIC UNION
      with joint custom regulations that includes France, Belgium, Holland, Denmark, Austria-Hungary, Poland
      and potentially Italy, Sweden and Norway.
      This Union – under German Leadership – has to stabilize the economic dominance of Germany over Central Europe.”

      Refugees can be well used by the Globalist UberGoobers in pockets where the local citizenry is still strong: Sow civil unrest, chaos, disruption, crime (look at Sweden’s rape crisis instigated largely by military-aged hoodlums from the Levant.) STEP 1: Dilute your internal opposition with chaos, then STEP 2: “solve” the whole thing with “reasonable measures.” Consolidate. The Totalitarian Tip-Toe crescendos with a symphonic finale. Opposition quelled, silenced. Order established.

      For other insights, you might search out podcasts by Alex Jones or Jim Willie. Maybe David Icke. The US also is being subjected to these INTENTIONAL disruptions. Soon enough I expect to see headlines decrying terrorist violence from ISIS cells within the US. Boston was a mere prelude.

      May Holland remain strong!

    • minnie says:

      I also suspect that the refugee crisis is at least partly orchestrated. It looks as if the powers that shouldn’t be are trying to “clear” the “Fertile Crescent” – their ultimate aim is always plunder.

      I agree with James that people should have a right to live wherever they want to in the world. But these refugees are pawns in a chess game.

      This is an interesting passage from EH Cookridge’s book “Gehlen: Spy of the Century” p81 (1971 paperback):

      ‘Goebbels… had drawn up a more sensible plan for “a new Russia” aimed at winning over the peoples of the Soviet Union, and particularly her many ethnic minorities, for the idea of “a new Europe based on freedom and equality”, though, of course, under German [Nazi] tutelage.’

      “A new Europe based on freedom and equality” – oh wait, isn’t that what we have now?

    • Batya says:

      This Russian writer is stating it very clearly that the refugee crises is orchestrated but I’d like more proof to convince the skeptics

  2. Batya says:

    Solutions as what to do:
    – pay as little taxes as possible by accepting and paying only (possible?) cash
    – peer to peer economy as much as possible
    – activating as many people as possible to not pay taxes, mortgage,
    – convincing police and military that they’re not serving the people by following orders
    – abandon common law and go to natural law

  3. candideschmyles says:

    Who builds, runs and maintains schools, hospitals, railways, roads and all the infrastructure of civilisation while your little groups non violently grow their corn and get robbed by the violent? The violent coercive strongest who realise they need to invest a little if they want to have anyone to Rob is who. What you propose James is the status quo and all its repetitive melodies.

    Wikileaks has over a thousand documents on the Bank of International Settlements.
    Doubt there is a smoking gun there but a treasure trove of potential for any serious journalist looking for clues.

  4. rockshot says:

    These revelations about Hastert and the rest of them were NEWS to me likely due to the Blackout. Honestly, I did not even know the name of ANYBODY mentioned. Sibel was wrong to leave us with the impression that we just do not care, obviously we do CARE!
    Solutions? The general public does find this behavior and subsequent cover up irrepressible. The slap on the wrist is just insult to injury and I believe this only exacerbates the crimes. So this is NOT what the problem is here.
    Identify the problem: the public just does not KNOW.
    Solution is to greatly increase the public’s awareness of exactly what did/does happen. These are not guesses or speculations, but concrete proof of crimes committed and the specifically the criminals’ names.
    So…what has worked in the past to expose crimes amid a blackout on every level?
    I would have to say carrying signs of images (and politically INCORRECT ones at that) and a leaflet of 5 sentences maximum. Picketing with with just ONE image or a maximum of 2 words. “Hastert Rapes”, Pedo Blackout”, “Children SOLD”, this should be EXTREMELY minimal so as to circumvent phys-ops and provocateurs, who are SURE to invade to dilute and subvert the truth.
    I contend that the problem is that nobody KNOWS. And further, as soon as the names and crimes get out, the rest will take care of itself.

  5. bubromer says:

    (1) Develop, as you have, one’s ability to tell truth from falsehood. In other words, being alert, using one’s critical faculties, monitoring carefully what one takes on board. We are not only what we eat but all that we take into ourselves.

    (2) Linked to (1) not giving ourselves to mind control techniques used for millennia such as divide and conquer, controlled opposition, the monetary system, ‘food’ and ‘medicine’, obfuscation, exploitation of primal fears, the illusion of time, religion, false flag attacks, indoctrination (education system), subversive symbology, control of the mass media, the denial hassle ridicule factor and the poisoning of worldview (‘too many people’ etc). An excellent resource in this regard is researcher Mark Passio’s podcast series on

    (3) Communicating truth as widely and freely as possible.

    (4) Learning about history and I would add, etymology (which simply means ‘the true’), for most mind control is done through language.

    (5) Never giving in to fear but constantly aim to expand one’s consciousness (what true love is) however dark the reality

    (6) avoid as much as possible areas such as the military, banking, the police, the entertainment industry under greater psychopathic control

    (7) associating with like minded individuals for it is true that strength lies in numbers.

    (8) making art

    • mammique says:

      Thanks James & bubromer, to go straight to the point about Passio’s work on that topic, start with the conference Order-Followers & The Destruction Of The Sacred Feminine, a crucial piece of information, a must watch, I sincerely urge all of you to check it out. Then follow with the Natural Law seminar if you feel to dig into to his enormous amount of work. BTW James, I think that Mark Passio would be an awesome guest for you show, he was on Gnostic Media, IMHO he would in here perfectly too.

      Keep it up!

    • kabouit says:

      The mere mention of etymology and Mark Passio in the same comment makes me roll my eyes all the way back of this planet. If anyone did 5 minutes of Latin or Greek, they would know that the word “soldier” is not derived from “soul” and “dire”.

      That said, I agree that etymology is important to understand the underlying meaning of many texts. But to really understand it, one would need more than a 5 hour discourse about natural law by a guy who, probably despite being well intended, spreads a load of crap.

      • mammique says:

        I agree that he sometimes takes shortcuts from etymology to play on the words, but most of the word definitions he does are relevant, not to say absolutely essential for some. Most of his work is the product of Trivium method research (and when it is not he disclaims it, e.g. Cosmic Abandonment), it requires more than name calling “crap” to dismiss his work. Indeed I believe that he has good intentions even he is sometimes far fetched (and only on peripheral topics, I never caught him being blatantly wrong on core topics, on the contrary), unlike your sarcastic comment that I don’t believe being well intended.

        • kabouit says:

          Ok so I was a little harsh on Passio. I do believe he believes in what he does. I agree in your way of describing the problem with his approach. He is letting connections he makes himself discredit the balance of his work. It doesn’t take much to discredit a huge amount of work when we’re talking about controversial subjects. So I find it is a shame.

          As for being sarcastic, it is one of my pet peeves when people make up etymology to make a point. And there are many. It is hard enough to find good sources of information on the alt media. I wish those who are genuine didn’t let their imagination ruin the rest of it.

          • mammique says:

            Fair enough. Indeed etymology is crucial, it’s the first step of the Trivium method: grammar. And it should be taken seriously. Most of Passio’s etymological definitions are relevant and in good faith from him to fulfill that goal. But he sometimes mixes it with play on words just to be pedagogical in making a point, he should disclaim that it is not etymology (despite the fact that one can notice it by himself quite easily usually), I agree on that.

            He knows full well that he can be discredited on peripheral topics, secondary issues or even superficial ones. He doesn’t want to comply with these standard, that’s why he warns people not to pay attention to all of this at the beginning of his conferences, but just focus on the message, he ads that he has no intention of changing his presentation style :-p

            Maybe there are other researchers out there who explains this better than him, but I don’t know any so far. This is crucial to understand that we cannot make any progress before changing our minds, elevate our level of consciousness by understanding Natural Law principles and applying it. The huge works on solutions made by James is not a starting point, it is what we will manifested into reality after having changed our mindset, not the other way around (except the fact that geeking around with these solutions might accidentally lead us to a higher level of consciousness, but not guaranteed and counter-productive, many get lost on the way, or stalled having found a comfort zone or placebo alternative in these solutions). That’s what Passio explained to the audience of the Tesla Memorial Conference about free energy (if it exists?), they think that free energy will save the world, but they Put The Cart Before The Horse.

      • bubromer says:

        You’re confusing two distinct approaches to words that Mark Passio uses distinctly.
        – etymology: origin of words (such as conspiracy from to breath as one)
        – green language: surface form of words and what clues this might give (such as money = mon eye, one eye, or individual, not divided or dual).

        Mark Passio makes the distinction explicitly in his work. You were just not paying enough attention.

        • bubromer says:

          Also I have Greek and Latin to an advanced degree (it’s my undergraduate degree) so I know for a fact that Passio is NOT a shit etymologist.

  6. When it comes to the “what can I do?” question, I suggest what you have also pointed to. When you can do your business locally.

    I recently bought a simple cup to enjoy my tea for $20 whereas I could have found something more than adequate and more precisely made for a fraction of that. But I could buy it from the hands of the person who made it. That is what we can do.

    I buy local milk, because it is very good and I talk face-to-face with one of the people who milks the cows.

    I buy Red Ape Cinnamon because it is very good and I have interacted directly with the owner, or Chief Primate. They employ those less able to do other things in life. I respect that and he has earned my business.

    I buy Numi tea because it is very good and the principles’ heritage is from Iraq. It is my way, as an American, to apologize to a degree to the people of Iraq.

    Your desires or issues will be different, but the fundamental is the same: Buy with principle in mind before price. Change the world around you.

    Love your neighbor, buy local!

  7. Al Saleh says:

    Towards a Grassroots Media Strategy. My response to James Corbett.

    James Corbett asked his audience to contribute ideas to an important question , how do we face the corrupt powers that shouldn’t be? he said that he wanted to see specific actions and steps to be taken by normal people to face the global powers in the situation of corrupt pedophile politicians.

    I believe we need to have a strategy to fight this war on multiple fronts. James is doing a great work in his Solutions series , Especially when promoting agorism as a social/economical strategy, but who is working on the media strategy?

    Luckily, The opposing media strategy has been revealed, and I invite everybody to study the “exclusive Mint Press News investigation ” about it. In summary, This strategy was developed by Stratfor and applied since 1991 in many occasions. they classify us into four categories, radicals, idealists, realists, and opportunists, and the short version of their strategy is:

    Isolate the radicals, “cultivate” the idealists and “educate” them into becoming realists. Then co-opt the realists.
    I have seen this strategy in action applied against us in Syria, and I believe the Syrian Grassroots activists have developed defensive tactics against it, however, All what we have done is in Arabic, and it is generally defensive. On my Arabic site I have posted many guides for media activists, and I believe they have made some influence in our grassroots movements.

    I believe we should start by understanding the “Stratfor strategy” and defending against it. some ideas would be:

    1- Connect to the isolated voices in the community. Things like interview 1020 and interview 901 , among many others, are excellent examples by James Corbett.
    2- Create and support counter-propaganda platforms, things like and are excellent examples.
    3- Build for the future, one brick at the time, and set the correct expectations about growing your circle of influence.

    As for offensive media campaigns against the powers that shouldn’t be, I can think of many successful examples, like ReThink911 and the media activities of George Galloway . Currently I am following a promising media offensive run by Yanis Varoufakis , he says he wants to “democratize Europe”.

    Building on things that worked in the past, I think that an initiative like “RethinkTheCongress!!” would be a good startup action, Maybe some “Radical Americans” can lead it to become a serious worry to political pedophiles. Ice breakers like “Did you know that …” can get the conversation started, and anybody can develop and use them in conversations with other normal people.

    Posted (with hyperlinks) on my blog

    • minnie says:

      I was with you all the way until you mentioned Yanis Varoufakis and George Galloway! Seriously?

      Apart from that a very interesting post!

      • Al Saleh says:

        Galloway and Varoufakis are both on the media offensive against the powers I oppose, I do not agree with them on everything, but their media activities can give serious lessons for those who want want to learn.

    • candideschmyles says:

      The problem seems to be not so much one of the corpobank fascists being percieved among the general population as good guys but that they are better than the local mafias that preceded them and would succeed them given a return to agoraism. The sizeable majority in western representational democracies do better, have a greater percieved economic stability and a desire to keep the rewards that empire grants them. Any idea that majority is petioned with that does not offer more is doomed to democratic rejection. The majority do not want to grow their own food, they want a supermarket that sells them blemish free produce in any season. Anything less seems regressive to them.
      They also know semi-conciously that this convenience and affordability is only possible due to wealth inequalities and the exploitation of the less developed world. And though a few protest this the vast majority can live with it. So how do we offer them more?

  8. garyegeberg says:

    QFC: In my experience, when I have shared some information about what the PTSB are up to with someone who is not aware, it’s not unusual to be asked something like, “Well, what can we do about it?” or “Can anything be done about it?”

    Those who don’t automatically reject the information I have shared or label me as a conspiracy theorist seem genuinely interested in what can be done. Who wants to be told of a problem (actually a horror) without any way of being able to take some kind of efficacious action? No wonder people don’t want to know the truth about any given situation if we can’t provide them with an alternative to “write your Congress critter” or bend over and kiss your ass goodbye? It’s not apathy, in my opinion; it’s a case of not knowing what to do.

    Thus there is an urgent need for more of us who are in various stages of awakening to up our “what can be done” game. I believe the potential action a person can take in response to a specific issue needs to be very simple and concrete so that this individual doesn’t need to expend a huge output of time or energy in order to experience near-immediate success–not in terms of the result but in terms of the action itself.

    An example in my own life: I recently took heart when I discovered that had fliers a person could download and reproduce to help others become aware of chemtrails, HAARP, and the like. What a great way for a person like me, who has felt utterly powerless, to start! For sure I can print out twenty fliers and drop them off at a coffee shop or two as a way to experience the “art of taking action without knowing the result.” It’s taking the action that counts for me, because prior to this discovery, I wasn’t taking any action; all I was doing was becoming more and more discouraged. And such a first step can then lead to second step, whether it is downloading more fliers or contributing money to one of the billboards put up or even gaining enough expertise to facilitate a one-hour discussion on chemtrails (or whatever the issue might be).

    As we all look for ways to take efficacious action without knowing the result, I think it behooves us to think of ways to help people start small and taste immediate “action success” while also offering additional action alternatives for those who have a history of being more actively involved.

  9. sahid.miller says:

    There’s a bit of history I tend to draw from (The family of Muhammad, saw, after his death) that I’m starting to use as a prototype for the ‘apathy’ we focus on.

    Looking at these comments, I feel like we’re concentrating on the mosquito and not the elephant in the room. Without constant implementation of solutions throughout the entirety of our social and political lives, apathy will only shift or become more noticeable as our solutions exaggerate other problems at the very least by mere contrast. I’m at a loss for a good analogy but the perceptive can hopefully recognize that I”m pointing out that this will be a constant in our lives, like stress (guess I found that analogy! Too lazy to rewrite). And like stress it can be a good thing, which is why I look forward to working with people (like anybody bothering the read this 🙂 in identifying and solving the problems we face and will face in the future.

    QFC: So my solution starts with the question, isn’t the solution the same as it’s always been? If not, why? Shouldn’t the solution literally and simply be justice?

    If that’s the principle behind it, then it really is so simple that we tend to overlook it. Maybe calling it a solution is the wrong word for it, maybe it’s just the already established framework we should work in to come up with that solution, which in the end would in itself be called justice or an example of justice. Regardless, this should be our starting point, right?

    So let’s start! I’ll go first, to be able to do this we need to know the victim(s) and become resources for them to gain their retribution over their oppressor. I think that’s the best place to start. Done, whose next?

    …If that’s too simple maybe I should highlight the difference between strategy and tactics, because this would simply be the strategy, the choosing to help some victim and the resources they need, the tactics come into play with who the victim is, how you’ll actually become a resource for the victim as well as how the victim uses these resources. At least that’s my take… Wiser people would clear that up (look at you Mr. Corbett! or Mrs. Edmonds if you’re here)

    Any thoughts?

    EDIT: Found a good analogy! it’s like upgrading a computer part by part. once you replace one thing, the next becomes the bottleneck.

    Ironically, now I feel complete. That’ll change in 5 minutes when I notice there’s something else to ponder or articulate that I can’t put my finger on :p

  10. Jelloir says:

    For those interested in Private email, you may be interested in or For those wanting to run their own email server then or may be of interest.

  11. sujabu says: I think this could perhaps be something to look out for in the not to far future. A decentralized internet.

  12. Collin says:

    In the matter of Bitcoin Ransom – my first thought was – here was a computer user who is not backing up.

    If i ended up in that Ransom scene i would simply go off line boot from my external back up, go on line and change all my passwords then over write the corrupted hard disk. Sorted at no cost other than a bit of time.

  13. Myers says:

    I want to get a clearer idea of your opinions about climate change and anthropogenic global warming. Every now and again I hear a passing mention of it in your work, and have just watched your ’10 Myths’ vid from 2013.

    I wonder if you are skeptically undecided, or have you concluded that the whole thing is a fraud drawn up and promoted by globalists? Maybe you hold a different position, if so what is it?

    I am interested what you make of the recent work of David Ray Griffin (‘Unprecedented’). I am sure you agree that he has done more than any other writer to carefully document the fictional aspects of the 911 narrative, in light of that do you think that he has got it wrong about climate change?

    I am interested in that I view the two issues of 911 and AGW as polar opposites, whereas you appear to see them as two examples of the same phenomenon.

  14. nosoapradio says:

    I agree with Guy the refugee crisis was orchestrated.

    I also believe there’s been an acceleration in the NWO schedule with the 17 global goals and the COP21 in Paris: indeed I tend to think that TPTSB feel a need to go quickly, pushing ever harder the anthropogenic climage change propaganda in concert with Agenda 2030’s 17 global goals to get people to quickly and emotionally invest in and endorse the smart green agenda before 2030,

    before they pick up on the fact in the next decade that it’s all horse poopoo, the sceptics were demonized and that they’ve closed their eyes, sung kumbaya, held hands and danced their way with Meryl Streep and Matt Damon into the hyper-surveillance paradigm otherwise known as the New World Order.

  15. guy says:

    Regarding Sibel Edmonds criticisms and the “what can be done” quandary:

    Sibel is right to chastise. I took her criticisms to chastise those in the power structures who COULD HAVE made a difference. To chastise those in media who COULD HAVE made a difference. There is not just something rotten in the State of Denmark, but a foul, stinking rot through and through.

    The degree of rot and just plain evil is frankly beyond comprehension of most us. This rot and evil has indeed been blacked out as commentator “rockshot” says above. This makes it even harder to grasp as there are very little prior reference points to help us gain bearing and perspective.

    So… what do you do? I thought I’d sleep on it and maybe come up with something good to say. I woke up next day and still didn’t have much I thought helped a whole lot.

    So what do you NOT do? Avoid “learned helplessness.” How do you do that? Even the smallest of willful action can do the trick. Like me thrashing about with this effort to contribute a thought.

    What do you NOT do? Acquiesce. Refuse to grant even the smallest nod of authenticity to these once-humans who make of themselves animals and demons.

    What do you NOT do? Refuse to grant authenticity to the foul mouthpieces posing as journalists. Acknowledge them as accessories.

    DO : Maybe read an inspiring journalist like William Shirer (US foreign correspondent in the German theater of WWII). Here was a brave soul. Here was a truth speaker. Read “Berlin Diary” by William Shirer.

    DO : Keep listening to our present truth tellers like James and Sibel.

    DO : Tell your truth, shine your light. You are important.

    DO : Still enjoy the simple things of nature.

    DO : Maintain your sense of devotion.

    DO : Rest well and arise renewed.

  16. T.T. says:

    Hello James,

    Your site is so inspiring, especially the section solutions. I do think we have a long way to go in relation to the revolution of consciousness but as for voluntaryism as a way of governing ourselves…you’re making a believer out of me!

    I wanted to comment on your reaction on speciesism and eating meat. I also think there is and should be a difference between rights for humans and animals but why should we distinquish between the welfare of animals and humans? Sure the example of the dog and the child in the burning house is easy but isn’t it so that if we take good care of animals we also take better care of ourselves? For example, just because we want to eat a lot of meat we put huge amounts of antibiotics in animals, engineer them to grow extremely quickly or just the stress we make these animals go through. It’s not healthy for the animals but it’s also not healthy for us if we eat that meat. Let alone the strain we put on our environment by using huge amounts of water, destroying forrests for animal food or the inefficient use of land. Or what about the bees. A perfect example, when we help these animals, we help ourselves.
    I’m not trying to advocate a vegan or even a vegetarian lifestyle(i eat meat myself) but i do think there’s a difference between eating meat and EATING MEAT. You didn’t really eleborate on how much or what kind of meat you eat but maybe it’s an idea to eat less and biological meat. So i think the answer ‘i don’t relish in the hurting of animals’ or ‘i’m wired that way’ is (could be?) insufficient. What are you doing to minimize that ‘hurting’?
    Furthermore, if you say ‘i’m wired that way’ or ‘that’s the way i am’ that sounds to me like there is no possibility for change. In this revolution of consciousness you could ask yourself if there is ground to be made here…?

    Possible sollutions (things i try to do):
    -Inform yourself as best/as widely as you can. Don’t get stuck at one site or stay in your political corner. There is no one thruth. Come to your own conclusions.
    – Share/ventilate your thoughts (preferably in the physical world)so you don’t get overwhelmed/depressed by the enormity of it all.
    – Demonstrate or engage in another way of activism. It’s not only a way to (marginally) try to change things. It also makes you feel that you are doing something, and you meet like-minded people or at the very least you can ventilate some frustration.
    – It’s good/necessary to focus on problems but you should end on a constructive/possitive note.
    – Be possitive about life and yourself (meditation?) The best weapon ‘they’ have is fear.
    – Where do you spend your money? Buy local/biological. Don’t feed the multinational supermarkets who do nothing than dominate the whole foodchain and sell you crap for more profit. It can sometimes be some work but buy conscious all-round.
    – Eat less (processed)sugar, sugar is a poison.
    – Try to regularly visit nature.
    – Enjoy the little things, the’re the best and often free!
    – If you can (always be careful ofcourse), stay of (most) of the synthetic medicine/vaccines and use natural medicines.
    – Don’t feed the surveillance state. What kind of smart toys do you have? Are you on Facebook/Twitter? Do you use Google/Microsoft? etc.
    Make it as hard as possible for ‘them’, use VPN, anonymous email (,ecryption,Firefox,Linux, Duckduckgo or Startpage.
    – Use a conscious bank. (best of two evils)
    – Use green/renewable energy, preferably your own.
    – Free doesn’t exist in this system, be prepared to pay for services like newssites/email/social media etc. Don’t pay with your data!
    – Try to make some steps outside the system, for example, something like STRO(Social TRade Organisation) where you can buy currency that operates outside the banking system. It’s main purpose is to keep the currency in the region but it’s also interesting because businesses can get credit without interest.

    Thanks again James for all the hard work you do!

  17. minnie says:

    One “solution” I’ve personally been carrying out is to “de-corporatise” as much as possible.

    Firstly in utilities – there are lots of small firms providing utilities which often don’t get the big advertising opportunities with, for example, money-saving websites. You have to hunt them out via online forums etc. They often seem more expensive initially, but you get long-term savings as the big corporates carry out sneaky practices like nudging bills up when you’re too busy to notice. Also if you overpay, small companies tend to return your money quickly. I no longer use any big corporates to supply my utilities.

    There are new types of mobile phones emerging, like the Ubuntu and the FairPhone. Ubuntu also does laptops and tablets.

    I also try not to buy clothes made in sweatshops. It doesn’t mean never buying products made in developing countries – just trying to ensure that the producer monitors the factories where the goods are made for safety and labour abuses. Maybe I’m mistaken here, and I’m sure I make many slip-ups but it’s not about ME trying to be a super-ethical pure person, it’s about putting pressure on corporates globally to give workers a better deal, one step at a time.

    I’m trying to be self-employed after years as a corporate worker – it’s a struggle but well worth it.

    I buy about half of my food from a very cheap independent grocer – sadly organic is beyond my budget currently. Next step will hopefully be growing my own organic food.

    I’m also trying to wean myself away from banks and towards credit unions.

    A quiet protest – it would be great if it could become a quiet revolution.

  18. invalidrecipient says:

    Any number of mutually effective solutions depend upon a high degree cooperation/synchronization. There is no magic bullet and any solution would suffice – provided it can be revised and gain consensus with changing circumstances. When people feel connected, understand they are not alone, part of something bigger, need not be afraid…well the rest is just details. These “apathetic” people are (ironically?) disconnected and properly terrified. This is the first order problem to be solved as I see it.

  19. Batya says:

    Solution: Did any of you ever read the books by Vladimir Megre about Anastasia? Her solution is establishing a so called multigenerational family domain of 1 hectare outlined according to some guiding principles which will not only lead to abundant food for the inhabitants of that domain but also for others and which will also protect against dark forces.
    I am in the process of investigating whether I can create such a domain in the French Ardennes, I bought the land, now I have to find the family 😉

  20. Aimec says:

    How are your opinions on human beings’ (conditioned, perceived, legal, but not genuine) right to use animals consistant with your promotion of the non-aggression principle? I would argue that they completely go against the non-aggression principle. We cannot pick and choose who we are allowed to initiate violence against.

    As a vegan and advocate for animals for many years, i have heard every excuse in the book to justify initiating violence and imposing slavery on animals, and i was disappointed to hear them from such a brilliant, forward-thinking – in my opinion – person as yourself. Normally your logic is flawless.

    I truly believe that as long as there are slaughterhouses, there will be war, and until we can protect the most vulnerable in society we will all live in slavery.

    Explain how eating meat is “just the way you are”? I used to eat meat, like most vegans used to, and i changed. I realised i had just been conditioned to justify human domination over animals. I was wrong. I also don’t believe you can be an anarchist if you believe you have the right to rule over the animal kingdom.

    Being vegan of course doesn’t mean that you care more about animals than humans, or even equally. It just means that you don’t participate and support in the slavery of animals. It doesn’t mean you have to change your focus to animals from humans.


    • doublek321 says:

      “I truly believe that as long as there are slaughterhouses, there will be war, and until we can protect the most vulnerable in society we will all live in slavery.”

      Though I’m a hypocrite/carnivore, it really is an interesting point you make (and one I’ve thought of as well). One counter-point to that, however, is that even vegans are killing things all the time (e.g. bacteria from washing your hands or maybe from cooking or cleaning). I understand that killing bacteria doesn’t quite “feel the same” as killing a chicken or cow but it does feel like to me (though I’m certainly open to dissenting opinion) that’s it’s kind of a logical extension. If you disagree, where is the cut off and what is the rationale for the cut off? I guess it could be argued that, if left unchecked, bacteria could kill you. So basically, you’re not violating the NAP if you’re defending yourself against it.

      As another point, I do feel terrible (though it hasn’t led to action) about my role – as a carnivore – in the killing/enslavement of animals. I think James made a great point about how being removed from the actual kill makes eating animals a different thing. I remember once ordering a fish at a restaurant that came as a whole fish (including eyeball) intact though fried. I couldn’t even eat a bite of it. Seeing a filet though is a different thing entirely. Maybe it’s just another example of how society removes us from things that, as humans, we would instinctively react to in a certain way. If I had to kill a chicken or a cow to eat chicken/beef, I very well could end up being a vegetarian (or possibly vegan).

      Btw, I’d be interested to hear the reason you chose veganism over vegetarianism and how you view vegetarians (e.g. are they still initiating violence against animals).

      • Aimec says:

        Hi doublek321,

        Sorry i only just saw this comment. I chose veganism over vegetarianism because i realised that it wasn’t just the slaughter of animals that was wrong, but moreover the using of animals. Slavery is wrong in all its forms and there’s no more clear and extreme form of slavery on earth than the slavery of animals, whether used for meat, milk, fur, wool, experimentation or the circus. That the animals used in the production of “vegetarian” products don’t suffer any less than the animals used for meat shouldn’t really surprise, as it’s a profit driven industry that consider the animals as long as it doesn’t affect their margins (not at all).

        I also think that if we are conditioned to accept any kind of systemic violence and slavery, like against farmed animals, then we are more likely to accept other kinds. I mean everyone can see that what’s happening to the animals and most people, while not liking it, just accept it as part of life. This is a very dangerous attitude. We need to question everything around us in these days of widespread deceit. We need to question our traditions and all our previously held views. If we are not open to that, we are destined as a species to be in for some very dark days ahead.

      • Aimec says:

        Concerning bacteria and the likes, i think everyone should make their own decision as to where to draw the line. I don’t know a vegan who wouldn’t kill bacteria, but there are different opinions on where the line should be amongst vegans. I kill mosquitos. I suppose that is because i think their consciousness is very low and of course they are programmed to harm us, but yeah there is no perfect answer.

    • Tyler73 says:


      Thank you for putting my thoughts into words, Aimec. Your assessment is 100% correct.

      @James: This is my first post to your website, even though I have been following your work since its inception and I have listened to every one of your podcast episodes. I have supported your work through donations for many years now but never bothered to post a comment or send a message because frankly I thought I had nothing valuable to add to the conversation. In my opinion your assessment of almost all topics you cover is correct and you are the person who’s opinion I value most when it comes to political and philosophical questions. You opened my eyes to the 911 false flag, made me question everything and ultimately contributed to me learning my way into voluntarism. Which is exactly why I feel the need to post my first comment to you, now.

      I urge you to reconsider your viewpoint with regard to animal rights. As Aimec correctly points out the non-aggression principal applies to all sentient beings. Just as no one has a right to force another human being into slavery no one has a right to rob animals of their dignity and of their equal right to inhabit this plant by degrading them into mere products existing purely for human consumption.

      You take an easy way out when sating that you would first rescue a baby instead of a dog and the logical fallacy in this argument is blatant. No one argues that animal lives are more (or even equally) valuable than human lives. The question is whether you (or anyone else) have a right to deliberately kill another sentient being for your own pleasure and without necessity (because unlike earlier parts of human history the times we are fortunate to live in, allow us to live a health life without relying on meat or other animal products).

      Please don’t fall for the excuse that “elites” have used for centuries when committing their atrocities. Namely that so called “higher” beings have a right to rule over so called “lesser” beings in whatever way they see fit. Just because another (human or animal) being is less fortunate, less intelligent, less wealthy or less able to defend itself does not justify to enslave or murder it.

      Moreover, this is one of the few issues which you as an individual have a direct influence on. You vote with your dollars (as you always preach). And it’s not about going from 0 to 100 %. Just as a voluntaryist might feel pressured into paying taxes or sending his kids to state-run schools, a vegan might be pressured (by the way our food industry is structured) to (consciously or unconsciously) eat animal products. Nonetheless, it’s the understanding of the underlying problem that matters. It’s not about calling yourself a voluntaryist, a vegetarian or a vegan and not about doing the right thing all the time. It’s about taking the right decision to the highest extend possible. I.e. choosing not to support the state/the animal slaughter industry whenever the negative consequences of doing so are limited to a minimum. I.e. sitting in a restaurant, looking at the menu and ordering a vegan meal instead of one containing animal products. Eating animal products might be necessary in certain “emergency” situations or for health reasons (milk for babies, etc.) but where it can easily be avoided it’s a moral obligation to do so. Or in other words: When given a choice between food from animals and food from plants, do not kill another living being that feels pain and appreciates life just as you do… It’s as simple as that.

      If you need a first incitement you might want to have a look at the documentary “earthlings” ( and this related comment ( (which might be comparable to “Loose Change” and the necessary discussions which followed in the 911 context).

      Finally I want to let you know that I planned to end this post by offering a 100 $ donation for an honest reply from your side but I figured that this would infringe on your objectivity when choosing questions for your future episodes. Therefore, I just want to let you know that this topic is important for a lot of people and (from my point of view) forms an integral part of the voluntaryist philosophy. An honest reply would hence by much appreciated (and the donation will follow anyway).

      Be ensured of my continued support and thank you for opening my eyes to voluntaryism (so that yours might in turn be opened for the “animal aspect” thereof).

      Best regards

      • tomas says:

        Here lies the hypocrisy with vegans , its alright to end the life of a mosquito , as it is somehow justified in their reasoning , but its not ok for another to end the life of a chicken – even though they would actually do so to eat it .

        Everyone should make their own choice , as has been said “draw their own line” , but a life form is a life form , wether you destroy a broccoli plant or a corn stalk , it is still a life form that is no longer alive now.

        One could make the same example as James in the video , substituting the baby child for a mosquito or celery plant , and asking the same question which would you save …..

        Being aware and grateful and respectful of all life forms in all their appearances and eliminating this need of labels to describe out eating habits would go a long way in not falling into the hypocritical web the “system” wants us to be in .

      • Guilherme de Souza says:

        Tyler I understand you and support you. I also follow Corbett for quite a long time now and unfortunately I can not understand his logic behind this. If he knows how the industry operates and how the fishing industry (especially in japan) is killing our oceans, how can he still support it? I am pretty sure that the odds of him having to chose to save either a child or a dog in that situation are quite low, but he faces the option of choosing not to kill an animal everyday in life, every time he eats. I am also waiting for an honest reply. Cheers from Brazil

        • tomas says:

          By eating vegan or vegetarian you are supporting the same corporations that run the animal and fishing ones . Exceptions would be those that grow their own food to eat , which even then would only account for a portion of their total diet .

          Making divisions is the same ploy that industry keeps wanting us to do , to have 2 sides arguing and finding fault with each other yet at the end of the day both are at the whim of the industry . Lets not
          keep falling into these pre-set traps .

          Fishing industry killing oceans , vegetable industry killing soil , grain industry killing forests , etc etc ….
          different angles to same problem , to make it seem as though there is a difference , keep the majority of people debating and distracted .

      • I would like to consider the animal rights question from an Anarcho-Christian perspective, with the caveat that the title of Christian, Muslim, or even Atheist does not put one into a lockstep monolith.

        In the Bible a person or an animal is alive in context, but a plant is not since it does not have blood (Gen 9:4, Lev 17, Deu 12). Pre-fall plants and perhaps plants alone were food. Post the fall animals are also food.

        As a Christian I have freedom to enjoy all kinds of food, but not to the point of offending others (Rom 14). My freedom does not allow me to impose on others to eat what I eat, nor restrict others from eating what they desire. There is no issue with both perspectives coexisting as long as one does not impose on the other. It is the Lord who imposes that I don’t impose.

        The issue gets messy when a vegan imposes on the carnivore to restrict their diet by legislation or physical action, or the carnivore imposes meat on the vegan overtly or covertly. I suggest this is where it becomes unacceptable.

        While the Non-Aggression Principle is a good foundation, I suggest it is aggression on others to impose the principle on behalf of animals. An issue with the Non-Aggression Principle from a secular perspective is that is has no foundation. It simply makes sense to agree that I won’t impose on you if you don’t impose on me. However, from a Christian perspective we have the same principle in Lev 19:18 with “you shall love your neighbor as yourself”, and the foundation with “I am the Lord”. This is clearly man to man and not man to animal.

    • Guilherme de Souza says:

      Thank you for sharing this Aimec, I agree 100% with your facts driven conclusions.

    • CQ says:

      Though a long-time follower/listener of the Corbett Report, I only recently delved into the archives, where I discovered Questions for Corbett. In fact, it was the question on veganism that prompted me to become a CR member, so I could read and perhaps even contribute to the comments here!

      I especially appreciate the thoughts shared by Aimec, Tyler73, and Guilherme de Souza. My way of expanding this conversation is to point to the literally thousands of quotes on animal ethics (and 500 photos of animals) that I compiled over the course of a year and published in 2010. You’re welcome to click on my nickname “CQ” — which is short for Creature Quotes — if you’d like to read these quotes, most of which are organized chronologically (where I know the year of birth of the author).

      Note: Though set up in a book format, with 28 chapters, it’s a FREE e-book!

      Because James lives in Japan, where the number of vegans is apparently quite low, I’m including here a link to a new essay written by a vegan woman who lives in Okinawa:

      Her gentle words remind me of my own motives: Far from “taking a side” in a battle royal between vegans vs. non-vegans, I’m simply following my heart, which instinctively, like a little child, loves all animals — including mosquitoes, who do not bite or bother me; hmmmm, I wonder why that is? 🙂

      T.T. points out (above) that in answering the question “Are you vegan?” James sounded like there’s no possibility he’ll change his meat-eating ways.

      Well, I believe James and all of us on this website are subject to dramatically changing our views and actions in multiple aspects of our lives. None of us can predict exactly *what* will trigger those changes or precisely *when* our hearts and minds will be ready to advance, evolve — whatever word you choose.

      Which reminds me of a quote on the home page of Creature Quotes. It’s written by an unknown author: “If nothing ever changed, there’d be no butterflies.”

  21. doublek321 says:


    James, can you give us your opinion of Alex Jones? I know you’ve mentioned that he got you to start looking at a lot of issues back around 2006 but in your recent “what can we do” BFP round table, you brought him up in what felt to me like a strongly negative light (e.g. he’s an over-the-top entertainer type). I’d really be interested to hear both your current (and previous!) thoughts on him.

  22. doublek321 says:


    James, one of the biggest hurdles I have with libertarian philosophy (and probably it applies to anarcho-capitalism as well) is property rights. It makes no sense to me how people claim ownership of natural resources (e.g. land, water).

    I’ve heard Tom Woods talk about “having the best claim” (e.g. I saw it first) but that seems incredibly flimsy to me. What if someone else claims “well I can do more productive stuff w/ the land that you saw first”? And what if someone else says “this is holy land and I am the most religious”. Who amongst us can really decide which of those arguments is best?

    Also, if we believe in privatization of land and water, would this also extend to “privatization of air”, should the creation of such a mechanism be possible?

    Basically when taken to an extreme, this stuff gets to the point of absurdity.

  23. lundqvist11 says:

    In a discussion between perloff and kelly ( kelly mentions that DHS has allowed +100000 muslims into the country covertly somehow. I came to think about a couple you interviewed regarding libya that claimed 300000 libyans were on their way to US with passport and money in the bank awaiting them etc. At the time I found it non credible until further poof had arisen. I haven’t seen any but now when kelly brought it up I wonder if you can follow up on this couples claims. Appreciate if you can do that in the next QFC. Thanks!

  24. Kaz says:

    I don’t believe we can even begin to move away from a oligarchy without general shift in peoples attitude to electoral accountability.

    Even in an Anarchal society, people will volunteer to assume certain responsibilities and be be selected to do so.

    So long as the citizens deciding the appointment accept a system in which they have no recourse when what was promised is not even perused, the the worst of people will fight for the position…or the best of people will become corrupted.

    Is the starting point of any change the requirement for ‘Voter Consumer Rights” and can that only happen by diligent voters require that candidate ‘Opt In’ to be taken seriously.

  25. doublek321 says:

    Hi James,

    Regarding veganism (I’m happy to say I’ve recently become one), you mentioned you would be interested to hear more. I highly recommend watching the video below. It’s 1hr 10 mins long but the speaker is extremely direct and knowledgeable.

    Best Speech You Will Ever Hear – Gary Yourofsky

    • CQ says:

      Glad you mentioned Gary’s impressive GA Tech presentation, which he gave in 2010 — coincidentally, the year I started heading away from animal activism and toward 9/11 Truth research. For several years I shared this video with friends who have compassionate hearts; most of them responded positively to its message and the way Gary imparts it.

      I can’t believe his speech has reached more than 4M views in the past eight years. Well, actually, I CAN believe it.

      BTW, Gary made further points during the follow-up Q&A, which has exceeded 600K views:

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Back to Top