Interview 1228 – Newsbud Roundtable on Elections vs. Reality

11/20/201655 Comments

via In this week’s edition of Newsbud’s Roundtable Spiro Skouras is Joined by Newsbud Founder Sibel Edmonds, Newsbud Sr. Producer Kurt Nimmo and James Corbett of Corbett Report to discuss potential candidates of the Trump Cabinet. We also discuss the indoctrination process of the youth in public schools and Sibel issues a call to action against the two-party system indoctrination.


Newsbud Kickstarter

Another Day In The Empire


Filed in: Interviews

Comments (55)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Greg Bacon says:

    America stopped having two different political party’s a long time ago.

    There is only one party, the ‘Wars for Wall Street and Israel’ party that takes great care of those outfits, while letting We the People drink toxic tap water, like they do in Flint, MI because Congress whines they don’t have the money to fix the problem.
    Of course they don’t, not as long as they keep shoveling tons of free money to Wall Street and Israel.

    • wall says:

      I don’t understand how Kurt could be so surprised. I was reading about Newt wanting to make a new council on unamerican activites. These buttholes keep trying to play this as a revolution. It is the only way they can keep control. They are going to push forward with a sort of nationalistic pride BS and use that to push more destruction of rights and to breed more division to keep us from uniting against them. We had the politically correct elite selling political correctness as empowerment. Now they are going to sell us on white pride as empowerment. Both as just BS crap designed to divide and screw us all. Did you see the part about bringing back internment camps for muslims? They blow up these people’s countries, drive them into ours and “save” us with more war, which we are supposed to want even though it has put us in a situation where we are now more at risk than ever of terror attacks, and more police state-ism. Screw these… I am not calling them the elite anymore. Henceforth they shall be known as “the disease”.

      • Mark says:

        “…as long as they keep shoveling tons of free money to Wall Street and Israel.”

        “I was reading about Newt wanting to make a new council on unamerican activites.”

        Think about these two statements in combination. The commonality in the first is Jews, of course, and the original “unamerican activities” were related to communist subversion, and who was at the core of that in the late ’40s and early ’50s? The main target of that ended up being Hollywood, and who controlled Hollywood?

        Maybe Newt’s idea isn’t an entirely bad one after all…

        • wall says:

          Um, no, it isn’t a good idea. We don’t need Mcarthyism and we do have a right to free speech. Please take your “itz da joozes!” crap elsewhere. They are just one of many groups involved in this mess.

          Also, the CIA owns hollywood. They are partners in crime. So the CIA won’t be going after them.

          • Mark says:

            Well, that was tongue-in-cheek, but I was also trying to make a point, which is about the undercurrent in the Trump message of dealing with “the Jewish problem” in its many aspects. And of course the CIA didn’t own Hollywood in the late ’40s and early ’50s; they didn’t really get revved up on much of anything until Eisenhower was inaugurated in ’53 and brought the Dulles Bros. into his administration. Possibly the Hollywood Jewish-CIA alliance was a sort of settlement related to the end of the red-baiting era? Possibly reflected a decade later in the elimination of JFK? I for one don’t accept that the conventional story of McCartyism is necessarily the truth, I think there was more going on there than meets the eye. What, I don’t know.

            “…we do have a right to free speech. Please take your ‘itz da joozes!’ crap elsewhere” – Anyone see a contradiction there? Anyone? Anyone?

  2. m.clare says:

    Have you considered that “they” are allowing you to speak so that “they” can identify who their enemy is?

    Know Thine Enemy – Sun Tzu

    Play out enough rope so that we can hang ourselves (as I continue to mix my metaphors…..)

    I can’t help but wonder, James, Sibel and friends…..if you are the unwitting Pied Pipers who will lead the rodents out of the cities where they can be properly dealt with.

    What is the plan for Trump and his beefed up war machine?

    Let’s pretend there was to be a Drone Strike that took care of the Pied Pipers and their loyal rodents in one Shock & Awe event. This could be blamed on ISIS. It could be blamed on Putin, China, N. Korea and / or Iraq. New regulations would be required to limit the freedom of communication on the internet that allowed this attrocity to take place.

    Alex Jones supported Trump. FYT supported Clinton. There will be an “alternative” media because the people will demand it. “They” are going to provide this “alternative” media. They are busily scuttling their own ships because they have already jumped ship. The banks. The democratic political system. The media. The Great Reset is just around the corner.

    Try to think like a trillionaire psychopath as Sun Tzu would have you do.

    • nosoapradio says:

      I’d like to fully understand what you’re saying…

      I understand the paradox of the Gallop poll, and I think I grasp the Pied Piper metaphore…

      but I can’t quite visualize your fear here…

      Is it, in an apocalyptic fema camp context, TPTSB will consult the Corbett Report Subscribers list to identify all the anti-establishment/anti-TPTSB entities in view of having them shot?

      Or simply that we’re presenting ideas that, since they’ve now been expressed on these comment boards can now be neutralized? That Mr Corbett and Ms Edmonds are unwitting Pied Pipers in drawing out our plans and strategies for “defeating the NWO” so the enemy can better annihilate them ?
      Or perhaps, even more frightening, better give us the illusion of what we say we desire and neutralize us through placation?

      You mean, being here is like shooting ourselves in the foot to spite our face?

      Forgive me if I’m being obtuse. I hate it when I do that.

      • m.clare says:

        I’m just dreaming, speculating and rambling with the hope that I might inspire somebody else to think. I sincerely appreciate the opportunity to communicate with somebody who takes the time to think with an open mind about these things. In answer to your question, E, all of the above.

        Is it possible that MANY more of us are “awake” than we suspect? Is it possible that “they” are on the ropes in a state of panic? How would we know? …. “they” control the Polls.

        I wonder if we were to conduct a poll or two of our own if we’d surprise ourselves?

        If what Corbett and friends say is true about the psychopathic trillionaires, why are they allowed to continue? I think this is an important question.

        • nosoapradio says:

          Why are they allowed to continue…?

          Yes, a very provocative question that I imagine most of us “here” have wondered about.

          Though I wouldn’t say Ms Edmonds and Mr Corbett share exactly the same position/history

          perhaps, as you suggested, they provide a window into how their “enemy” is thinking,

          or they’re simply not dangerous enough (there’re too few of us, fewer and fewer with time?)

          or perhaps wittingly or unwittingly they serve the agenda (again as you suggested)

          perhaps by keeping folks excited about the possibilites of new technologies, for example, which is why I’m wary of a revolution built on computer technologies. (Then again I don’t understand them…)

          or because they are spreading the message for the paradigm that TPTSB have planned for us next…the (connected) agro-neo-mediaeaval era?

          Revealing truth (about Rockefellers, Rothschilds,Federal Reserve, the Climate industry etc etc), as Mr Corbett does, has always been associated with using it to slip in the insidious message (like who cares about 9/11 or vote for the lesser of two evils or the BDS is useless and immoral) which in Mr Corbett’s case might unwittingly be his “solutions” (though it’s perfectly laudable when criticizing to want to offer solutions.)

          MIT Gatekeepers like Chomsky have raised this technique to an art form. (or when linguistics in the service of the DOD becomes a WMD at the expense of Palestinians for example…)

          now I have to stop my aimless rambling and hop into the hamster wheel!

          • ralphodavis says:

            The only way TPTSB win is if they succeed in silencing us.

            If ‘they’ want to take me out, let’m try. That’s not bravado, just my acceptance of my own mortality no matter what.

            So, I say f’m, freely and openly express what you think to whom you intend and let the chips fall where they may.

            No one here gets out alive and that’s fine with me. We’re all (or should be) Lavoy Finicum, (I wish), like it or not, know it or not.

            I just must add how much I like and admire this small force of nature roundtable. Really amazingly thoughtful sensibilities and unpretentious display of intelligence.

            Makes one surprisingly proud to be human despite the rest of it. Cheers to all, have a great feast together with loved ones and know, in the end, it’s alright. No worries. Really.

  3. nosoapradio says:

    Reverse psychology…and/or the subconcious mind…?

    As someone who has reluctantly come to the conclusion that most if not all humans are constantly seeking a leader of some sort in every given human context, and probably even need leaders to accomplish complex, larger-scale projects, either for logistical reasons, because of our condition as primates or due to our education

    Mr Corbett’s idea of educating people away from this seemingly innate tendancy was both edifying and illuminating.

    In fact, as the human mind is at present changing and evolving at lightening speed to adapt to the onslaught of new and virtual technologies that have seized near-total power (through coercion and consent) over most of our private and professional lives

    it would seem critical to have this counter-balancing, if not neutralizing apprenticeship or evolution towards becoming self-respecting, self-reliant and immune to the extent possible, to the need for leaders and even to the addictive-debilitating effects of this promiscuity with new technologies, and this outside of any literal war/survivalist context. (apparently the War really is for your Mind!)

    As for the psychology behind Trump’s electoral victory, I disagree with Kurt Nimmo that Trump’s victory proves the lack of control by the deep-state over the “electoral process”.

    Indeed, whether or not “the people”, (whoever that is), chose Trump or rigged voting machines put him “in office” (which is a real possibility in my book)

    the president is a recurrent and powerful symbol. A symbol that, like all symbols, speaks immediately to the subconscious, illiciting emotions, that largely dictate our perceptions, opinions and hence our actions.

    I believe Trump was chosen by those who choose based not only on the emotional impact this choice had on “Americans”, but the impact it has on the psyche of the entire world’s populations and how conducive these emotions are to accomplishing socio-economic and geopolitical objectives.

    If I’d come from generations of insanely rich, educated and powerful families I’m sure I would buy myself at least that: the ability to understand and manipulate symbols and the human psyche in such a way as to craft the world into the image of my own ideals.

    Yes, of course, I’d learn to Wag the Dog.

    • jay.z says:

      100% on point here in my opinion, nosoapradio

      • nosoapradio says:

        Well! Thanks for the support jay.z!

        And I also enjoyed your comment below concerning Corbett, his commenters, content: the community: also reflected in a post by ralphodavis (above) wishing us all well in the most galvanizing yet appeasing of terms.

        Thanks to you both. Here in France I’d forgotten all about Thanksgiving.

        I look forward everyday to reading you here in virtual communion (or contradiction!) on this comments board.

        Please, be well!

  4. m.clare says:

    The election was a con. We were played:

    – ALL media, including “alt”, portrayed Trump as an outsider
    – ALL media suggested the Clinton victory over Bernie was rigged; Trump claimed likewise
    – Trump suggested the only way he wouldn’t win would be IF the presidential election were rigged
    – Trump won. Logically, therefore, the election WASN’T rigged.

    The snake oil salesman peddled his oily American Dream: Every vote matters.

    Can anybody recall a recent “election” horse race that wasn’t neck and neck requiring a photo finish? Who pays attention to the 2nd half of a Superbowl if the score is 35 – 0 at the half? What a wasted opportunity for the propagandists if there was a clear winner early in the game.

    No, what is required is an emotional investment in a thriller. A nail biter that has us on the edge of our seats wringing our hands praying to the gods for a favourable outcome in an epic battle between good and evil. Propaganda has NOTHING to do with logic and everything to do with emotions.

    • ccuthbert2001 says:

      Yes, of course the election was rigged. Your analysis, m.clare, is excellent. Elections are rigged from the beginning with who is allowed to run and that there are only two viable parties (I know there’s really one, but you get what I mean) and that on election day there needs to be doubt as the the result, down to the wire.

      Your best contribution to these comments is the idea that a vote for Trump showed that the election wasn’t rigged. Fantastic insight.

      I’d been scratching my head about vote/voterr fraud for a while. I didn’t understand why tptb were making it so obvious that there’s vote/voter fraud. My generation was told that the most important duty we have as ‘Merikans was to vote. Voting is arguably the most important sacrament of the democratic religion. Yet here is not only a candidate saying the election will be rigged, but all the msm AND the alt media talking about it.

      Then, miraculously, Roger Stone is allowed to have his “independent exit polling,” Trump wins, the nation averts disaster, good triumphs over evil, and our holy sacrament is restored. However, the reality is and has been for over a century that the elections are rigged way before election day.

      Thank you m.clare for explaining to me what really happened. 😉

      There were parts of the shadow play this time that may have been genuine, though, which makes everything more confusing. For example, while obviously not a real outsider, Trump is an “outsider” in that he’s not a politician nor part of the DC power structure. That’s why the msm hates him and congress will be against him. The hatred of him that emanates from some on the left appears to be genuine.

      Also, it seems that there really were a team clinton and team trump that were battling it out. That doesn’t mean that there isn’t one league. The clinton team really did get kicked out and this seems to reflect an internecine struggle in tptb, especially over Russia. So I guess if tptb were going to prevent a war with Russia, they had to provide a substitute, hence the Trump military build up.

      imho, tptb saw the need to tap the brakes on our run away socialist nightmare because there was too much push back building. The election result may buy us a couple of years in certain respects, but the railroad tracks still lead in the same direction.

      I hope this isn’t just wishful thinking on my part.

      James, m.clare’s analysis is worth a podcast. In fact, one of your documentaries on the election scam would be great.

  5. m.clare says:

    There’s a saying among musicians: you can’t play the blues until you have experienced the blues. I can see the pain in Kurt’s face….. the sort of heart break that occurs normally at age 50. Young men are generally concerned with competing for a mate and don’t have much time for politics… or so they are conditioned to believe.

    The generation gap is exaggerated so it can be used against us. Divide and conquer. Baby Boomers are vilified by Gen-X. Bunch of grumpy and out of touch old farts. What do they know? Bunch of uppity young whipper snappers….what do they know? Innovation and novelty are intentionally kept apart from historical context. Compartmentalized. Distracted. Pitted against one another rather than uniting against the common enemy, we are collectively harmless to TPSSB.

    The source of the anxiety you speak of is the heightended awareness of mortallity that accompanies middle age. The fear that you are helpless to do anything more than pass the mess onto future generations in precisely the same fashion you received your inheritance.

    Intergenerational conversations must be encouraged.

    Meanwhile, grumpy old men gripe about hell and handbaskets while kids “rebel” with new hair styles and entertainments…. in accordance with the plan.

  6. peace.froggs says:

    I sense a bit of defeatism in this podcast.

    Impatience!? Here, let me throw a few cliche’s your way. Life is a journey, not a destination. There’s no rest for the wicked. Etc…

    You’re probably asking asking what the (ph)uck am I talking about?

    Well, 9/11 and the Internet has awaken the populace like never before! What you guys don’t seem to understand is that after casting your vote, it doesn’t mean you get to go to sleep politically for the next four years. Quite the contrary, that ballot is like a movie ticket that you purchased. A ticket that not only gives you access to the movie, but actually allows you to rewrite the script as the movie is playing itself out.

    Take a look at the protests across American cities that have already taken place immediately following Trump’s (s)election. You think Trump and whatever Neocon/Warmonger he surrounds himself with as he picks his cabinet, will be able to get away with another 9/11 type attack or drop a nuke on Raqqa? The answer is no, no matter how much they cozy’s up to Japan. The world won’t allow it.

    Domestically, Trump won’t even be able to build his stupid wall, nor will he be able to force Muslims to carry a religious identity card, nor will he be able to create a mass deportation team, …why? Because everyday Americans, along with mayor’s and law enforcement of sanctuary cities have already shown that they will not allow it.

    In other words, the (s)election over, but our work has really just begun.

    Bernie sums it up pretty good right here

    • Mark says:

      I find it ironic that the round table disparages the notion that a presidential election changes anything and that people put so much emphasis on that, yet this discussion on the election ONLY talked about the presidential part of the election. Kurt made the only mention of congress, and that wasn’t even framed correctly – he made it sound like the Republicans achieved a majority in this election as if that was new (as has much of the media), when in fact the Democrats made (insufficient) gains in both houses, in addition to taking the popular vote for president. And of course there was no mention at all of state, municipal and local matters.

      That emphasis is particular in this country, as the US has a tendency to focus on personalities and to personify power structures (why do you think “we” elected Gordon Gekko?) , just as we unwisely look at things in the light of good vs. evil more than the rest of the world. This is a cultural trap, and I’m sure what the source is (Hollywood perhaps? Christianity?). And that we have a presidency structure as opposed to a parliamentary one also emphasizes the primary leader by its nature.

      Not voting is a losing proposition, simply based on the clear desires of the two sides of the ruling party – Republicans do everything they can to lessen participation in general, while Democrats try to increase that but really only in the groups who tend not to participate anyway, the proletarian underclasses. The reality is that we get what we get because the people who vote make those choices, within a reasonable margin (there is some manipulation, of course). The power structures do as much as they can to limit the choices, particularly at the state and national levels, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t the opportunity to tell them to shove it in the booth anyway. I absolutely believe people have a right to choose the tactic of not voting, but I wouldn’t encourage that as a general tactic. The people who advocate that are the only ones who claim voting justifies the system, presumably as a tactic to get people not to vote. And I find offensive James’ overbearing claim that doing so is actually immoral (not stated here, btw). And the claim that most people don’t vote because they are disgusted by the system is pretty much foundationless, isn’t it? I think there are huge numbers of people who don’t vote because it’s a hassle or they’re too lazy, because they don’t follow politics, because they don’t think it counts simply based on the math, because they legally can’t vote, etc.

      Voting isn’t that big of a deal, it took me maybe 20 minutes, not counting prep time. My prep time was much longer, looking at state and local candidates and propositions and initiatives – I spent zero time in that process on the presidency. And I don’t put unrealistic expectations on it even though I participate; those things aren’t linked. In the end I didn’t vote third party for president, because I chose to make my protest vote in another manner.

      I think the Trump-Obama comparison here is invalid, these were different matters. Obama was an empty vessel much like Trump, but he was framing his rhetoric as anti-war and that simply wasn’t honest or at least was without conviction. Otherwise, he was clearly a product of the political system, which Trump is not. Still, he’s unusually popular for a president after almost eight years, so I don’t think framing him as hugely disappointing to the electorate, having stabbed them in the back, is actually accurate – the people basically stand by that choice. This time we weren’t given an anti-war candidate at all (even liberal darling Sanders), which I think is one of the most important aspects of this election that has been insufficiently discussed. Trump might actually be the best of them all.

      Regarding this and the alternative media in all this, I will say again that they, as much as the mainstream, refuse to directly confront the central issue of our time within the ruling power structure, which can be seen in both the neocon-driven middle eastern war policy within both parties and the (chosen) people who control international banking and our government’s role in that, most meaningful in the US in the ’08 economic collapse and the bailouts that followed, and worldwide in neo-liberal policies (and the same applies to the revving up the cold war with Russia, of course). The 9/11 wars and the state of banking and the economy are the issues of our times, and almost no one has the cojones to actually tackle them straight on, rather choosing to generalize in ways that do not really inform.

    • jay.z says:

      Tho I think things are probably more pervasive and dismal then you outline at times… (i.e. the left/democrats are just as much a part of the establishment/deep state and its war/police state/anti-liberty agendas as the neocons – e.g. Council on Foreign Relations, Trilatteral Comission, etc) I do agree with you p.froggs about not being fatalistic… If we become fatalistic (and don’t take ownership of our social, political, economic futures both individually and as collectives – essentially various forms of local anarchy imo) then we might as well give up now. Fatalism and its cousins apathy and ignorance will always end up being self-fulfilling. And the “elite”, the “disease” would love nothing better than the majority of those who are awake or awakening to feel hopeless and helpless about the present state of our world and our future…

      That’s the reason why I love this community… Both Corbett and so many guests and contributors/commentators/activists here are always pushing for answers and solutions. The CR in my opinion models the way forward… Namely, becoming aware and educated to the issues that face us as humanity, and then creatively/communally moving toward sustainable long term solutions that subvert the existing political/economic systems of (not so subtle) enslavement,

  7. dreadeutsch says:

    Now that the MMM have been seen to be totally biased, they are attempting to quash alternative news site reports on Facebook, etc.

  8. sjbecker999 says:

    Maybe the elite decided that a nuclear war was not in their best interests after all, so if Trump wins, whew.

  9. ccuthbert2001 says:

    Sibel, I have little sympathy for people who say they value liberty yet send their children to government schools. It’s wrong that your daughter was propagandized this way but it’s your own fault.


    Also, you are 100% wrong about homeschooling. It will not be made illegal. They tried that and it didn’t work. If they tried again, with the number of homeschooled children so high–higher than the first war on homeschooling by orders of magnitude–it would be too dangerous.

    They don’t need to make homeschooling illegal. It is and will remain fringe. The economics won’t allow it. And football makes it impossible.

    The only way that homeschooling will ever pose a threat to tptb is if the number of homeschooling students plus private school students reaches a level that forces widespread closure of government schools. I can’t see that happening anytime soon. ‘Merikan parents are too brainwashed and too horrendously selfish to homeschool in those numbers.

    Besides, there are advantages to tptb to having homeschooling. Like private schooling, it’s a source of talent for important technical positions. It’s a safety valve for the growing anti government sentiment. Government toleration of homeschooling makes our society seem open.

    • m.clare says:

      My boys go to a public school where they are made to write papers on current events such as the 2015 Paris Accord. What a learning opportunity. They can see first hand how the system wants to Greenwash them. The school walls are filled with propaganda. They are taught not how to think for themselves so much as they are conditioned to repeat the “truths” delivered unto them by their teachers…. who receive their curriculum from on high. The goal is to prepare them to receive “news” as adults and bobble their heads up and down at the office water cooler with their learned colleagues.

      My boys write papers that occasionally get them into trouble with teachers and peers. I am exceedingly proud of them. At times there is an inverse relationship between my pride and their grades.

      Your job as a parent is to guide them. To help them develop the skills to identify b.s. and the courage to call a spade a spade. Isolation is for the fearful. Be strong.

      Speaking hypocritically of isolation…. We have no cable TV. We do, however, watch TV as a family while on vacation so the kids have a guided exposure to propaganda. They will be exposed to the toxic $hit eventually, will they not?

      Sibel’s kids will be brave, worldly and intelligent warriors who will not be easily conned.

      • ccuthbert2001 says:

        There is no “isolation” in homeschooling. In fact, corralling all the children into an institution is more isolation than homeschooling. We did not homeschool out of fear. We did it because we knew that the gov’t schools are inferior in every way and do not promote intellectual development.

        Likewise, there is no “isolation” in choosing not to throw away your money on piping propaganda into your house. That you characterize your lifestyle this way is truly astounding.

        Sibel’s child is being bombarded with propaganda and mind control. Instead, she could be spending her days on genuine education. School is a terrible way to waste a child’s time and effort.

        The most important role liberty loving people have is preparing their children to continue carrying the banner for liberty. Sentencing them to 12 years of mind control under an oppressive socialist system is not the way to do that.

        You and Sibel can work overtime to deprogram your children and I hope you can and do. But why not avoid the whole mess and say no to child incarceration? Why not give your children the opportunity to decide for themselves how to spend their time, what they want to study, and with whom they want to associate?

        IMHO, the people who are fearful are the ones who can’t break out of their gov’t school conditioning, or buck the peer pressure of family and friends to homeschool.

        • Aron says:

          Homeschooling may not be for everyone but based on your coherent argument, I wish there were more people like you in the world willing to take that task on. Society would be in a much better position with a generation of children growing up where their creativity, intelligence and independence can flourish. I have met home-schooled kids and found them to be very socialized and interact easily with people of all ages. I don’t think going to “school” automatically means effective socialization will occur, in fact, there is much evidence that shows the exact opposite.

    • HomeRemedySupply says:

      – Sibel and school. –

      ccuthbert2001, I politely disagree. We should not judgmentally evaluate the personal lives of others, because we could never have all the data. Sibel is the parent…let Sibel wear her hat. Besides, her daughter will also gain keen insight on how the real world works. During those early grades, it is tough to Home School a young child unless you are trained. Often the child does better in the school system during the early grades, because they learn the basics like reading and writing. Plus they learn how to interact with people of their age group.

      I was actively involved in Home Schooling students before Home Schooling was popular back in 1992. There are two sides to the coin…while Home Schooling has benefits, it can have liabilities because the student is not exposed to “the system” and the real world.

      Home School – Distance Learning
      I can personally vouch for this Home School program which a student can do anywhere in the world.(Grades 4-12) A person receives a High School diploma. Work is mailed in (not done online). On average, the cost is about $200 month.

      • HomeRemedySupply says:

        As an aside about Home School – Distance Learning in relation to counter-economics and anti-establishment. If a person is well trained as an educator with skill, aplomb and altitude, then this type of gig is wonderful way to make a living and also to forward agorist concepts. There are many renditions in which a person can be self-employed and help with independent education.

      • ccuthbert2001 says:

        “her daughter will also gain keen insight on how the real world works.”

        I couldn’t disagree more. The “real world” is not segregated by age. In the “real world” there are no bells that ring every hour forcing us to stop what we’re doing. Subjects are not delineated in such an artificial manner. Adults are not forced to “share” their possessions against their will. We are not forced to associate with people we don’t want to. If an adult wants to learn something new, there are thousands of ways open to us to do so. We don’t have to go to the prison down the street and sit in uncomfortable chairs listening to Mrs. McLumfy drone on about bs.


        Btw, homeschooling is not difficult and there is no need to spend $200 per month which I think is an outrageous amount of money. The saying among homeschoolers that all you need is a library card is true.

        • HomeRemedySupply says:

          Each to his own choices.
          I guess you have had much experience home schooling / educating small grade school children full time while not working another job, because small grade school children first need to learn to read, write and other basics.

        • Mark says:

          “The ‘real world’ is not segregated by age. In the “real world” there are no bells that ring every hour forcing us to stop what we’re doing. Subjects are not delineated in such an artificial manner. Adults are not forced to “share” their possessions against their will. We are not forced to associate with people we don’t want to.”

          What planet do you live on???

          On the other hand, this points out why libertarian/anarchic radicalism is placed on the right in the conventional linear analysis, which is that at its heart it’s based on what like-thinkers think of as freedom and liberty, but is equally just based on selfishness and a “me first” philosophy. What it looks like to me is social immaturity.

          Most home schooling is the same thing, kids only learning what their parent or parents believe and want to indoctrinate into their offspring. There certainly is indoctrination in organized schooling, public and private, but there’s also a lot more than that. And parents (and others who choose to) in the community do have the ability to shape that to a degree. But the reality is that no organized, community-funded education system is ever going to teach what you probably want them to – unless that community has been brought together primarily by whatever that is. Some kind of anarchic commune, I suppose – except that’s a contradiction, that’s socialism, right?

          My question is, would a parent who feels the way you do about public education allow their child to go to public school if that was what that free-thinking child wanted to do? If the answer is no, then the whole case made against public schools and for home-schooling is BS, rather it’s just an alternative form of indoctrination…

          • ccuthbert2001 says:

            I understand that you might not agree with this, but being a parent means that you teach your children your beliefs. That is far better than allowing the government to indoctrinate children, especially against the desires of the parents, if for no other reason than the parents love their children and want the best for them, whereas the state wants compliant taxpayers.

            Another role of the parent is to guide their children away from harm and toward activities that are positive and supportive of their development and well being. Parents must do that until they determine that their children are capable of making decisions for themselves. I didn’t let my children play on the highway, or eat chocolate cake for breakfast because that would be dangerous to their physical well being. Likewise, I didn’t let my children decide to go to government school, the intellectual equivalent of playing on the highway.

            Your gotcha question was ill informed and not thought through. I’ve had it many times before. I answered it for the benefit of others who are truly interested in education and homeschooling. If you have any real questions, I’d be happy to answer.

            • Mark says:

              All I would say is that my only personal connection to home schooling are people in my extended family, people who are fundamentalist Christians. Those people are extremely isolated and appear to totally accept the bible as the literal truth. One of my cousins had nine children, and the only thing I can attribute this to is an effort to outbreed the rest of us. Her children seem like very smart and talented people from what I see, but their view of the world is extremely narrow and controlled. I don’t think for a minute that they would be the same had they gone through a public education and associated with other kinds of people.

              I don’t question that a public primary education has its limitations, but I don’t think it’s just indoctrination. I had that education and I’m not some controlled automaton. Societies need some sort of commonality to function, and a common schooling experience provides some of that.

              I think the bigger issue with propaganda and indoctrination is higher education and the media, which take people with basic tools and keep them in line just when they’re really capable of independent and alternative thinking. I think the toughest people to convince to go off the conventional rails are people who have BA degrees in liberal arts from good institutions and who really valued that education and found it enlightening and formative. They have a real stake in that reality and are reluctant to abandon it.

  10. HomeRemedySupply says:

    Wonderful, powerful ROUND TABLE discussion!
    Thank you! Each individual presented some excellent and profound points.

    Thank you… YOU are helping to create a trend, to help guide society in a better direction.

    We are all trapped within the system by different aspects.
    As individuals we can try to avoid different aspects of the system, but we also must continue to challenge this corrupt system and be activists in that challenge…the wars, the educational system, the tax system, the big-pharma health system, the energy system, etc.

    Sibel makes some good points in that we must be activists in challenging the system. We doom ourselves and our world if we only try to avoid the system and hide in a hole somewhere.

    People Power
    “People Power” is a “decentralization of state control” philosophy that advocates self-governed societies based on voluntary institutions and interactions; the elimination of the state in favor of individual sovereignty, private property, and open markets. People Power advocates actively challenging the system and exposing the deceptions. People Power includes a revolutionary form of free-market that focuses on employing counter-economic activity to undermine the centralized control of the state.

  11. HomeRemedySupply says:

    Just plugging…
    Corbett Report Extras

  12. Corbett says:

    Hey everyone. Sorry, I just realized the very end of this conversation gets cut off here for some reason. If you’re curious about the last few minutes they’re available on the Newsbud post of this video:

  13. Nevertheless says:

    I love The Corbett Report videos, I find James right on the mark on so many issues. I think what I enjoy most is the “take the story where it leads you aspect of his commentary.

    I honestly was not a huge fan of this particular, there was not a lot of building on a theme: James would take the conversation in a certain direction, then Sibel Edmonds would just move on. I enjoy when a story takes on a life of its own, and leads the participants to a conclusion, I did not see this here. I did enjoy both the contributions of James and Mr Nimmo, honestly a discussion between just the two of them would have been more productive.

    I found this video to be rather naive in its depiction of where we find ourselves today. With Donald Trump’s victory, Mr Nimmo concluded the powers that be don’t have the power he thought they did, really, JFK, 9/11, Murrow, the Iraq war…that is power, and the far more likely reality that this outcomes illustrates is that the powers that be wanted Trump, OR they did not care.

    Whatever you call them, the elites, the oligarchs, deep state, I usually oscillate between globalists and Zionists, but regardless of the name, their control is absolute.

    The media’s OVERT attacks of Trump, in areas Trump easily pushed back on, seemed to me to be set-ups, contrived. Elections are not about selections, they are about DIVIDING! I had the same feeling when the media suddenly started “reporting” on ISIS. ISIS was everywhere. The important thing to remember is there is absolute collusion within the establishment media, so if they are all doing something at the same time there is a reason. With ISIS, like with 3/11 and Iraq, the goal was obvious, with this election, not so.

    To believe we have control, or that this is not orchestrated greatly underestimates the power of these people, and is a total disconnect from what history tells us. Money buys influence, and when you have most of the money, you have most of the influence, something these creatures are not likely to surrender. They absolutely control Hollywood, and use its platform endlessly to promote propaganda. They promote racial tensions, gender and income divisions, all to move the country into a state of eternal conflict.

    We don’t get the best people to run this country out of our elections, we don’t get a hashing of the issues, but what do we get, we get division. And when the primary outcome of elections is the constant reinforcement of these right vs left narratives, you have understand, THAT IS THE GOAL!

    • Mark says:

      “I honestly was not a huge fan of this particular, there was not a lot of building on a theme: James would take the conversation in a certain direction, then Sibel Edmonds would just move on. I enjoy when a story takes on a life of its own, and leads the participants to a conclusion, I did not see this here. I did enjoy both the contributions of James and Mr Nimmo, honestly a discussion between just the two of them would have been more productive.”

      I think the problem here is part of the reason that James isn’t a core part of Newsbud, that the thinking at CorbettReport is rather extreme and marginal for a nascent news network, even as alternative as Sibel envisions. The CR position on the election is that it was meaningless, that elections are totally controlled and so totally fallacious, and the only answer is total abolition of anything that would constitute government. You simply can’t have a meaningful discussion about the meaning of an election when one of the participants is, frankly, living in that fantasyland. If you look at the titles given at CR and NB you see the difference in intentions clearly – here it’s “Newsbud Roundtable on Elections vs. Reality” and at NB it’s “Newsbud Calls Out 3rd Parties on Challenging Two-Party System Indoctrination”.

      “Whatever you call them, the elites, the oligarchs, deep state, I usually oscillate between globalists and Zionists, but regardless of the name, their control is absolute.”

      It is only as absolute as we believe. I am a proponent of the idea, probably best elucidated by Chris Hedges, that power is what it is only as long as the majority or at least a very significant minority, believes it is. Until we get to a world like the future in the Terminator, when the power elites can completely control the world and manufacturing with robots, people and their labor are the source of power and wealth. So the whole trick of elites is to convince the masses that they have no power, and that is a tenuous state. [Perhaps not so much at CR, where the consensus seems to be that their power/control is absolute.] Once affairs come to a tipping point power structures can collapse overnight, which is what history shows us.

      On globalists vs. Zionist vs. the Oligarchy, my feeling is that whatever you call the Zionists (Jeff Gates probably addresses this naming problem best, and simply refers to it as “a criminality”.), they are today a necessary but not sufficient element. The eclipsed Rockefeller protestant elite structure still has significant power but is swayed by their successors, and the MIPC in business plays along with anyone who will feed their wealth. But if the first component wasn’t in such power today we wouldn’t have this state of perpetual war with Islam, we wouldn’t have this ramped-up tension with Russia, we wouldn’t have the same level of predatory finance, and we probably wouldn’t have quite the same level of absolute globalism. I think you have to go back to the era of JFK thru Nixon, before “Jewish power” began to move toward almost total power in this country, to see the jumping off point for that alternative future.

      • nosoapradio says:

        This article quickly succinctly emotionally expresses how I feel about gatekeepers (who are not confined to this very short list).

        • nosoapradio says:

          woopsy! Meant to post this after my gatekeeper rant on the Nomi Prins interview board!

          • Aron says:

            The Newsbud Roundtable was very on point. I very much agree with the points made about working around the financial controls to the extent possible. If you can barter or trade items/services with your neighbours, all the power. I also hope Sibel gave the school administration an ear full!

            nosoapradio – regarding the article you have linked to above, I would like to challenge a couple of the key messages that argues the twin towers “collapsed on its own footprint” and that “strategically placed demolition charges were used to cut through steel support structures” (which was accompanied by a picture which I presume the author of the article is referring to).

            Regarding the presumption that the towers fell on its own footprint, Dr. Judy Wood has shown through the evidence she has compiled that only a small percentage of the towers fell on its footprint, some of the evidence being:

            (1) The height of the debris pile remaining after the destruction of the towers was too small to account for the height of the 110 story buildings. According to Dr. Wood’s analysis, each of the twin towers should have left a debris pile at least 1/8 the height of each building, or about 14 storeys. In fact, the debris piles were 2% the tower’s height or about 2 stories. And the debris was not buried in the underground levels where photographic evidence shows damage but still very much open and accessible by people (Figures 180, 181, 182, Where Did the Towers Go?).

            (2) Dr. Woods calculated the volume of dust that would be generated from the dustification of the towers based on the volume of all building materials and the spatial extent the dust spread based on aerial photographic evidence. She calculated a probable thickness of 1 inch of dust that could accumulate on the ground over an area of 2.5 to 5.0 sq. miles from her analysis. If you compare this 1 inch value with on-the-ground photographic evidence that shows even thicker amounts of accumulated dust, it suggests rather strongly that most of the towers’ building materials had to have turned to dust to create the accumulations seen, and therefore the towers could not have “collapsed” on their footprints. Less than 20% of the building materials that made up the towers actually fell on their footprints, the remaining material was turned to dust and drifted away.

            (3) Regarding the photograph in the article you reference of the angled cut steel beam, this can most likely be explained by safety measures taken during the search efforts to cut and remove damaged beams that otherwise could have injured rescue workers.

            Further evidence can be found at the following if you care to look into the evidence yourself:



        • Mark says:

          Not sure if your mistake was initiated by me mention of Hedges, but I think one should be cautious about throwing out the gatekeeper charge at people. My feeling is the gatekeepers are intentional, that an essential goal is to manipulate opinion through knowingly falsifying their statements. There are a lot of people with very good ideas speaking a lot of truth who don’t go “all the way”, and in part because they are professionally layered somewhere between acceptable conventional thinking and truly alternative views. That doesn’t necessarily make them gatekeepers. One example of this is Russ Baker, who got religion on JFK but who won’t go there on 9/11, although he doesn’t come close to taking a Chomsky-like hard stand against it either. One has to accept that speaking “total truth” has a marginalizing outcome.

          The matter in my mind these days here at CR is “the Jewish Question”, which was raised prominently related to James’ videos on Soros and 60 Minutes. I can’t say I’ve dug through the archives on this, but to my knowledge James has never actually broached this topic in any material way, and that leaves me wondering why. Clearly there are members on both sides of this view, and it is increasingly material in light of the rise of the alt-right and Trump. Maybe James has “a dog in the fight”, as Mel Gibson would say, maybe he sees addressing it in any way as a loser for his website and alt career (including legal issues in countries which have “hate crime” laws), maybe he hold a very mainstream politically correct position on it, maybe he thinks it’s a “bridge too far” in terms of acceptability, who knows. My personal opinion is that he owes his readers some sort of statement on this matter.

          There are people who will go there on JFK and not on 9/11, as I said (and vice versa), but I think a greater wall are the people who will go there on both but not on the holocaust, and many who are condemning of those who will. In general I don’t think one should dismiss everything thinkers say just because they have certain blindspots. But how that deal with those blindspots can be telling, which I think is the Chomsky issue.

          • nosoapradio says:


            “I don’t know that we were lied to?”


            and he runs away…

            Chomsky’s blind spots? Please give me a break.


            As for Mr Corbett,

            if you’ve watched his Federal Reserve or Oiligarchs or Follow the Money documentaries to name a few,

            you see he’s named names.

            Don’t need spoonfeeding. Just sincerity. The difference between Mr Corbett and the Gatekeepers.

            P.S. “Not sure if your mistake was initiated by me mention of Hedges”…

            Mea Culpa

            • Mark says:

              Named names? Let’s look at an example of that. This documentary does a pretty decent job of providing an overview of the Russian Oligarchs in their heyday in the late ’90s: And not only does it it names names – Berezovsky, Khodorkovsky, Guzinsky, Chernoy – but it shows them and interviews them. It also mentions George Soros by name, specifically by Berezovsky when he talks about going to the west to look for funding.

              What it doesn’t do is ever use words like “Jew” and “Jewish” and Zionist”. So you are not told that all of these guys are Jews. Here is what the Guardian said about a decade ago:

              “And in a country where anti-semitism is still rife and openly expressed, nationalist rabble-rousers have made much of the fact that of the seven oligarchs who controlled 50% of Russia’s economy during the 1990s, six were Jewish: Berezovsky, Vladimir Guzinsky, Alexander Smolensky, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, Mikhail Friedman and Valery Malkin. That fact is incontestable – but it is the result not of some grand conspiracy, but of the way the Soviet Union restricted Jews’ ability to assimilate and rise up in society. While ethnic Slavs dominated all the best career slots in the highly bureaucratised official society, Jews who wanted to get ahead were forced into the black market economy. When communism collapsed and the black market was legalised as free market capitalism, the Jewish entrepreneurs had a head start.”

              So criminals, even with the way this quoted piece seems to try to excuse them and even create sympathy for them, which fits what Jeff Gates has called them more generally, an “ethnic criminality”. This documentary doesn’t really go into what sort of funding they actually got “in the west”, nor does it detail the “help” received from the US government in privatizing the Russian economy, in the form of the “Harvard Boys”, the Harvard Institute for International Development, led by people like Larry Summers and Jeffrey Sachs – who are also Jews.

              My point is there is the naming of names, and then there is the naming of names…

              Another take on that piece which you liked, I note that the named are all “left gatekeepers”, which makes me wonder if this really falls into the conventional left-right paradigm and is just a right-wing trashing of the left. And I don’t defend or excuse Chomsky at all – I think he’s done good and valuable work in the past but I don’t think he’s done much of anything new or substantial in the post-9/11 period, and I condemn him for his statements on JFK and 9/11 (which are much worse than what you linked from Hedges).

              I stand by what I said with regard to Hedges, even though he has “blind spots” beyond 9/11; for instance, he still has a very conventional good and evil view of the wars in Yugoslavia in the ’90s which he reported on. Doesn’t mean he has nothing of value to say, or that every word is meant to somehow support the oligarchy.

              • nosoapradio says:

                Don’t you find it curious how 9/11 seems to have caused an epidemic in blindspotedness??

                All those left-wing pundits (called “left gatekeeepers” because most of them inspire left-wing/progressive thinkers),

                who resort to ad hominem attacks on 9/11 truthers…

                You would expect more conservative “establishment” talking heads to poohh-pooh 9/11 truth.

                But curiously the most virulent ad hominem attacks or outright avoidance of the subject, seem to come from the extreme left-wing factions…


                “Morons” “Fruitcakes” “Just conspiracy theory” “conspiracy idiots” “Complete and utter fraud”, “useless” ,

                Chomsky’s “blindspot” is the Khmer Rouge…JFK…AIPAC…OH! And 9/11:

                And Norman Finklestein’s is 9/11:

                and George Monbiot’s is 9/11;

                Greg Palast actually talks himself into a clearly mendacious knot on 9/11:
                (at least watch full last minute of video)

                anyhow, can’t trust them on crucial issues as their analyses are clearly controlled and censored by some powerful establishment force…

              • Mark says:

                “Don’t you find it curious how 9/11 seems to have caused an epidemic in blindspotedness??”

                Actually not at all, that’s the nature of a grand deep event. If you go by PD Scott’s definition of a deep event it’s one that, among other things, conventional media can’t deal with, much like in the case of JFK. In the JFK case we’e had a situation where for decades the majority of the people believe LHO did not act alone, yet the media is uniformly of the opposite position, as are most commentators. In the case of 9/11 I think it’s a very small minority of the people who believe in the MIHOP or LIHOP positions, it’s also a much fresher event, so it’s no surprise to me that there are very few public figures who would have their positions and/or incomes adversely impacted that have gone out on that limb.

                Anyway, I think I have my answers here – this is simply a right-on-left attack. It’s not like armies of thinking commentators on the right have gone out on the limb either. but perhaps there just aren’t armies of thinking commentators on the right. 🙂 And you haven’t commented further on what was of concern to me, CR’s lack of comment or position on Jewish power in America and the world today, so I’ll assume that also has been put to bed.

          • HomeRemedySupply says:

            – Russ Baker –
            You are correct. Several different years at the JFK Conference, I would approach Russ Baker about 9/11. He doesn’t want to “go there”.
            Our Texas 9/11 Group had a table giving out free DVDs and Ae911truth brochures at the Dallas JFK events. At one time years ago, a girl from our group went off to intern with Russ.

            • Mark says:

              I like the way Russ handles it compared to many others, not being at all dismissive but rather saying WhoWhatWhy hasn’t really looked into it, in part because of resources, and so no position is taken – they follow the traditional journalism model. I don’t know that over time this might not change. I don’t criticize him for that and certainly don’t attribute dark intentions; he and his people are doing some good work and should be applauded for that, even if they don’t go “all the way”. His alt journalism is more of an evolution than a revolution, and that sort of connective tissue between the mainstream and more radical thinking is pretty important, I think.

  14. HomeRemedySupply says:

    — Anarchist Comic Relief —
    Comedian Tim Allen is an Anarchist. Nov 21 2016 He was interviewed on Fox’s “The Kelly File”.
    Tim Allen: “I’m really an anarchist, because as a comedian, I don’t want anyone to tell me what to do. Period.”

    In 2013, Tim Allen was interviewed.
    Allen: “Well, the long and the short of it is, I’m kind of politically anarchist, you know? And comedy is the ultimate anarchist. There’s nobody telling me what to do and I guess I’ve always liked…”
    GRAPHIC – “Comedy is the ultimate anarchist.”
    Article –

    (90 seconds)
    Tim Allen on Fear, the Media and Hillary Clinton
    “The Man” (government) –
    “Politically Correct” –

    Woody Harrelson evidently has anarchist leanings.

    I would not be surprised if many celebrities visit Corbett Report.

  15. VoltaicDude says:

    What a great pod! Proof that tackling difficult subjects doesn’t bring people down. It’s an uplifting positive example to see people engaged in this type of independent and “connecting” effort.

    Also very glad to see NewsBud on the rise! Been promoting the Corbett Report for quite a few years now, so I’m glad to see James that you continue to connect with a diverse group of fellow podcasters whose main goal is to contribute to a news community that is free from corporate tyranny.

    Thanks for sharing the story Sibel about your kid’s school’s misconduct! Absolutely APPALING!. I SO DO HOPE THAT YOU PURSUE THIS AND FILE SUIT. As corrupt as the system is, there is also definitive legal structure that would support this case. I predict you’d win in the long run, after the usual bureaucratic delays.

    But litigation is expensive. I wouldn’t take money from any third-political-party organizations (that would be their lawsuit to pursue, and they should too). Maybe the ACLU would help? As with all such org.’s one has to tread carefully. As you suggested Spiro, wherever the “action” is, that arena will be the target of infiltration.

    Pursuing this is a “rich” opportunity, because it also breaks the mold on the either/or syndrome. Either you hate the public school system and “must take your child out,” or you are “committed to it and are fighting to make it right.”

    Exclusive home-school is no doubt a valid option, and no matter what, home-schooling in general is essential. However, exposure to a public school environment can additionally serve as a child’s training ground for the harsh realities of the real world if not relied on exclusively. And, the cloistered “protecting” of a child from bad influences can just as easily be a parents way of being overly controlling, lackadaisical in justifying personal values, and limiting to the child’s growth – often, its own type of debilitating tyranny.

    With all this comes the responsibility not to allow your child to be abused by the system. Because of your attitude and support your daughter is learning to stand-up against a fascist/totalitarian institution and culture.

  16. vumxmx says:

    In my view, the sole reason to have voted for Trump is to avoid an almost sure nuclear war with warmonger Hillary. Other than that, they are both horrible.

  17. myra says:

    Kurt Nimmo needs to fix his mic. Almost impossible to understand.

  18. marc.g says:

    It would be better to have a fairer moderator.

  19. nosoapradio says:

    Hey there Mark!

    You said,

    “… If you go by PD Scott’s definition of a deep event it’s one that, among other things, conventional media can’t deal with, much like in the case of JFK. In the JFK case we’e had a situation where for decades the majority of the people believe LHO did not act alone, yet the media is uniformly of the opposite position, as are most commentators…

    …so it’s no surprise to me that there are very few public figures who would have their positions and/or incomes adversely impacted that have gone out on that limb…”

    I totally agree! The likes of Chomsky, Monbiot, Hedges and Palast and also Goodman and Greenwald are, despite appearences, hypocritical public figures of the conventional media who would not have their positions and/or incomes adversely impacted by going out on a limb!

    Which, incidentally, is precisely why I find it curious that anyone seeking the truth would base their interpretation of important events on their analyses.

    You also said: “And you haven’t commented further on what was of concern to me, CR’s lack of comment or position on Jewish power in America”


    “My personal opinion is that he owes his readers some sort of statement on this matter.”

    Chris Hedges comments and draws conclusions on issues directly related to 9/11 while walking away from any discussion of 9/11 itself

    but Mr Corbett who’s named names on 9/11 and issues surrounding 9/11

    “owes his readers some sort of statement” on the “Jewish power in America”. ?


    As for the “right-on-left attack” …I can’t say… I don’t know any right wing pundits. I grew up in a notoriously progressive left-leaning community, woke up 8 years ago to TPTSB and NWO on a predominantly extreme left-wing site called Information Clearing House, am married to a left-leaning spouse, hang out with left-wing neighbors and friends and live in a decidedly left-wing, socialist country.

    So what do you mean by “right-on-left attack”? That I’m a libertarian anarchist? or that I voted for Trump? or…?

    Finally, I don’t understand how I can be having this contentious discussion with someone who said the following:

    “The 9/11 wars and the state of banking and the economy are the issues of our times, and almost no one has the cojones to actually tackle them straight on, rather choosing to generalize in ways that do not really inform.”


    “…just as we unwisely look at things in the light of good vs. evil more than the rest of the world. This is a cultural trap” you say

    “… and I’m sure what the source is (Hollywood perhaps? Christianity?)…”

    You were speaking of Harvard divinity school pundit Mr Hedges and not Mr Corbett there!?


    • Mark says:

      I don’t look at the world as black or white, I don’t dump everyone in a single bucket based on some sort of litmus test, rather I try to evaluate what they have to say and its value, and what might be underlying their presentation. You mention Amy Goodman here, and she’s a good example – I think her D-Now! is entirely a Zionist propaganda site these days, although I don’t think that was always the case. My understanding is that at some point there was some sort of powerplay with Pacifica, and Sibel says she’s now taking significant money from Soros, so that may be where things changed. Now I call it the Bad White People channel, because all she does is bash ethnic Europeans here and abroad for an hour a day (mostly men, of course), in a massively biased manner. I watched her shows from last week and it was an amazingly blatant run of that shit; the only redeeming piece was one featuring Deborah Lipstadt that got dropped because the wicked witch of the Holocaust’s connection kept dropping.

      On the other hand, Hedges was a positive voice on the election, not supporting Sanders’ run because of his foreign policy positions, I think primarily on Israel and the middle east, and then encouraging people to vote for Stein rather than making the “lesser of two evils” choice with Clinton. Yes, he has “blind spots, and yes, his Christian background probably contributes to some of that (but my comment on that was a generalization of the American culture and not anyone in particular).

      On the right/left thing, you were attacking what you viewed as public left-wingers only, and you kind of dismissed the right from the same test, when I don’t think there should be any difference made between them on such a horrendous event. And describing America as socialist is classic right wing thinking, moving the spectrum through false labeling in the way mainstream Republican right-wingers do it – Fox news, etc. Now, if you view anything cooperative more structured than anarchy as socialist you may be correct, but that’s knowingly not using the term in its generally-accepted manner.

      As for Corbett, the reason I posed that question was because I think he does very good work (which I support) in general, even though I don’t agree with him on some major issues (climate change “denial”, morality of voting, viability of anarchy). This question is one which I just see him avoiding rather than taking a position, and I don’t see how anyone with their “eyes entirely opened” can view this as a non-issue, something that legitimately doesn’t need to be addressed in some way. By your math I should just drop Corbett from my list because I think he has “blind spots” as well. But that’s not the way I think.

      I too come from a leftist background, and I have only fairly recently (and very intentionally) moved on from that, but to what I think of as a neutral or non-position on that false or manipulative paradigm. I haven’t swung wildly to the right within that paradigm. My general view on the radical right and left is that the right thinks government is the problem, whereas the left thinks capitalism, the rich and big corporations are the problem. Me, I think the rich and those big corporations control government, and you can’t solve the problem by eliminating or even severely limiting government, because that still leaves the root cause in place. But I also think there is a culture war going on in this country that is a huge part of the problems these days, and it’s almost not addressed by anyone. Which brings us back to my question posed to Mr. Corbett.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Back to Top