Is Government Propaganda Illegal? - Questions For Corbett #027

01/10/201634 Comments

In this month's edition of Questions For Corbett, James fields your questions on the kakistocracy, the legality of government propaganda, the Zuckerberg Initiative, low tech media backups, Australian media sources 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).

Previous Episode: Questions For Corbett #026

The EU Is About to Become A Superstate: Here’s How it Happened

DHS caught busing in illegal Somalis from Mexican border

The Well-Read Anarchist podcast

Walter Block: Privatize the Ocean

Interview 1024 – Tjeerd Andringa Exposes the Kakistocracy

The Eyeopener - PSYOPS on the homefront (+ Transcript)

U.S. Repeals Propaganda Ban, Spreads Government-Made News to Americans

And the winner of the Canadian election is…

Canadian fighter jets strike ISIS targets in Iraq

Canada Defense Minister Backs Off Campaign Rejection of F-35 Jet

Zuckerberg hearts Kissinger

Eyeopener - Facebook/CIA (+ Transcript)

Japanese worried about privacy as My Number ID program becomes law

Filed in: Questions For Corbett
Tagged with:

Comments (34)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. sahid.miller says:

    QFC: What happened to you and Alfred and Financial Survival?

  2. SoniaG says:

    Regarding the importation of refugees into the US, this site contains quite a lot of legitimate information, there is also a great interview with Ann Corcoran, the site owner, on Red Ice Radio/Youtube:

  3. Al Saleh says:

    It might be OK for you to know what the corporate media says, but is it OK for you to propagate what they say inside your media?

    The difference between receiving their propaganda and propagating it is critical.

    I sincerely hope that you will try to see how NewWorldNextWeek will look when sourcing every story from the official sources, not from corporate media sources. Can you at least try it for the sake of those who do not want to get mainstream propaganda embedded in the CorbettReport?

  4. Eric says:

    Hello James!

    I recently had a brief dialogue in the comments of your Deep State Rising article, in which we discussed undisclosed technology. I mused about my own interest in (and yet uncertainty about) such characters as Dr. Stephen Greer, who makes a pretty decent case for the notion of ET contact in the 40’s and subsequent government cover ups and secret development of things like zero point energy and anti-gravity technology. I’m curious what, if anything, you know about Stephen Greer. Is there anything about his disclosure efforts that screams co-intel to you? He seems to be in contact with many insiders and whistle blowers, and it sure looks to me like he is indeed in possession of quite a few real documents, but he’s been making such things public for years now, and he’s still alive! Sadly, that seems fairly incriminating.

    Also, what is your take on the existence of advanced technology? Be it ET or human in origin, do you think the powers that shouldn’t be are sitting on what gets called free energy technology and keeping it secret from us? I believe that such technology is feasible, but if it really existed, wouldn’t the veil have already been lifted and the New World Order forcibly imposed by the strength of this superior military technology?

  5. Knarf says:

    Speaking for myself only, I’d rather see whatever James considers relevant and rely on my own BS filter. YMMV

  6. Knarf says:

    Eric, I encountered “undisclosed” technologies in 1986, on two occasions. No non-humans involved to my knowledge. Both technologies have actually been disclosed, though with embedded disinformation (the Payload), in a “Popular” publication subsequently, but not in a manner or context which would seriously impair deniability.

    There is no reason to kill external persons unless deniability is materially threatened, which I see no evidence of as yet. Internal personnel are more likely to be killed for the purpose of staunching a serious breach which can reasonably be expected to threaten deniability. But their deaths would not be characterized as suspicious, naturally (pun intended).

    To the surprise of absolutely no one reading this, the mass media is controlled. Merely maintaining even thinly plausible deniability suffices to keep whatever it is below the mainstream threshold of consciousness.

  7. shiranaihito says:

    Someone sent in a question about the difference(s) between Anarchism, Libertarianism, etc.

    In case someone here is wondering about that, and happens to see this, I’d like to clarify the terms a bit.

    As James said, “Anarchism” is an umbrella term for essentially the idea that human beings shouldn’t have rulers at all. This implies a society without a government, of course.

    “Libertarianism” is, I believe, commonly understood to refer to the idea of a minimal government that would cover only “the bare necessities” like police forces, fire departments and national defence. Of course, in reality this boils down to “Better Enslavement”, because you’d still have rulers, and the end result would be something like today’s America (and whatever happens next).

    “Minarchism” is roughly the same as “Libertarianism” as described above. They’re both basically about a minimal government. Some people might say there are notable differences between them, but it’s rather pointless to discuss the nuances of exactly how you’d like your “Better Enslavement” to be arranged.

    “Voluntaryism” and “Anarcho-Capitalism” are essentially the same thing. They’re based on accepting two fundamental ideas:

    1) The *initiation* of the use of force (including coercion) is immoral, and thus, forbidden. (Also known as “the Non-Aggression Principle”, or “NAP” for short)
    2) Property Rights.

    OK, so the first one is a moral principle, and the second one is a concept that involves figuring out what constitutes legitimate property and what you’re (not) allowed to do with it. It just so happens, though, that anyone with a conscience adheres to both ideas automatically.

    In other words, we don’t need to be told not to aggress against others or not to take their stuff. Doing either doesn’t even occur to us.

    Some people prefer talking about Voluntaryism because it sounds less scary because it doesn’t involve “The C-Word” (Capitalism), but the terms are interchangeable.

    Note that when you really get to the bottom of “Capitalism”, it boils down to something like: “stuff people naturally do in an economy”. We make exchanges, we make investments, we save money, and so on.

    The word “Capitalism” in this sense also implies “a free market economy”, i.e. the absence of coercion/intervention again.

    Anarcho-Capitalists tend to talk about The Non-Aggression Principle a lot, but an Anarcho-Capitalist world is also a Voluntaryist world where “all interactions between people are voluntary”, because the end result of no one “initiating the use of force” against anyone (as prescribed by The NAP) is that all human interaction is voluntary.

    Both Anarcho-Capitalism and Voluntaryism can also be referred to as “Anarchism”.

    Finally, there are some people who claim to be “Anarchists”, but are actually something like Marxists. They fervently oppose Capitalism, but don’t want to really get to the bottom of what it actually means.

    They also claim to oppose all “hierarchy”, even though anyone with half a brain understands that there’s nothing wrong with *voluntary* hierarchy like someone having a manager at a workplace.

    Personally, I believe anyone who fervently espouses that kind of “Anarchism”, or basically any other Anarcho-Whateverism besides Anarcho-Capitalism is a psychopath. Either he’s misleading people just for fun, or he’s being paid to do it by governments.

    Alright, I hope that helps. Let me know if you have any questions.. I hope I get e-mail notifications about responses though.

    • mik says:

      Now I see even more clearly why James didn’t present his view on property more openly. Question of property is quite hard staff and it’s not wise that he gets engaged in this debate.

      “…other Anarcho-Whateverism besides Anarcho-Capitalism is a psychopath.”
      First I think you should be more careful with the use of psychopath word(diagnose) and rather use psychopathic behavior instead. Anyway, neither one helps healthy debate.
      I’m pretty sure that I’m coming from different cultural background (ex-Yugoslavia with specific flavor of socialism until recently) then you. I believe you are coming from developed country.
      About Anarchism and Marxism. Ones I’ve heard: Anarchism is Marxism without state. Sounds good to me and is totally comprehensible. For me, Anarcho-Capitalism is an oxymoron.

      I can assure you that I don’t work for government nor I’m psychopath.
      But having said all that I have to admit I don’t know enough about the subject and have to read Proudhon and…..

      Please explain me from Anarcho-Capitalist point of view one thing:
      Who makes a decision about distribution of fruits of production?
      Are there any guidelines how distribution should be done?

  8. anders says:

    QFC: Have your read Dimitri Khalezov´s book “The third truth” about the 9/11 event? I´ve just seen an 4 hour interview with him on his book, and done some searching around, and it seems like this guy is some sort of deep shit with the Thai goverment (and also the Israelite and US), and i´ve read in comments that alot of his videos have been banned from YT and other places. He even posts a video every 10 days to let people know that he is alive and well. So to me it seems that someone is out for this guy, and maybe because he knows something that….is true?

    His theory seems to give some straight answers to the deaths and illnesses of first respondents to 9/11.

    Anyone else know about this?

    • anders says:

      *this guy is in some sort of deep shit.

      Or maybe he is some sort of deep shit. I don´t know, but it would be interesting to get some more perspective on this matter.

  9. graviv says:

    I listened to the link about privatizing water. Walter Block wants to domesticate wild animals including whales, and thinks that private ownership of the bison herds could have saved them. Is this the Onion?

    Anyway, we have a water issue here that could also come from the Onion. State of Maine stated that the Penobscot Nation does not have rights over the water in the river, but they can do what they want with the riverbed. I wonder what the anarchocapitalists would do.

    “Like private landowners, the Penobscot Nation may also restrict access to their lands, here islands, as it sees fit,” Schneider wrote. “However, the river itself is not part of the Penobscot Nation’s Reservation, and therefore is not subject to its regulatory authority or proprietary control. The Penobscot River is held in trust by the State for all Maine citizens, and State law, including statutes and regulations governing hunting, are fully applicable there.”

  10. setatliberty says:

    Aristocracy… I had just come across the dedication of the translations of the ancient scriptures, and it would appear that James (the King) was considered by the translators as quite the aristocrat. Here’s a great read that exemplifies their affection toward the noble King James:






    Great and manifold were the blessings, most dread Sovereign, which Almighty God, the Father of all mercies, bestowed upon us the people of England, when first he sent Your Majesty’s Royal Person to rule and reign over us. For whereas it was the expectation of many, who wished not well unto our Sion, that, upon the setting of that bright Occindental Star, Queen Elizabeth, of most happy memory, some thick and palpable clouds of darkness would so have overshadowed this land, that men should have been in doubt which way they were to walk, and that it should hardly be known who was to direct the unsettled State; the appearance of Your Majesty, as of the Sun in his strength, instantly dispelled those supposed and surmised mists, and gave unto all that were well affected exceeding cause of comfort; especially when we beheld the Government established in Your Highness, and Your hopeful Seed, by an undoubted Title; and this also accompanied with peace and tranquillity at home and abroad.
    But among all of our joys, there was no one that more filled our hearts than the blessed continuance of the preaching of God’s sacred Word among us, which is that inestimable treasure which excelleth all the riches of the earth; because the fruit thereof extendeth itself, not only to the time spent in this transitory world, but directeth and disposeth men unto that eternal happiness which is above in heaven.
    Then not to suffer this fall to the ground, but rather to take it up, and to continue it in that state wherein the famous Predecessor of Your Highness did leave it; nay, to go forward with the confidence and resolution of a man, in maintaining the truth of Christ, and propagating it far and near is that which hath so bound and firmly knit the hearts of all Your Majesty’s loyal and religious people unto You, that Your very name is precious among them: their eye doth behold You with comfort, and they bless You in their hearts, as that sanctified Person, who, under God, is the immediate author of their true happiness. And this their contentment doth not diminish or decay, but every day increaseth and taketh strength, when they observe that the zeal of Your Majesty toward the house of God doth not slack or go backward, but is more and more kindled, manifesting itself abroad in the farthest parts of Christendom, by writing in defence of the truth, (which hath given such a blow unto that Man of Sin as will not be healed,) and every day at home, by religious and learned discourse, by frequenting the house of God, by hearing the Word preached, by cherishing the teachers thereof, by caring for the Church, as a most tender and loving nursing father.
    [SNIP – Edited for length. Please try to keep comments under 500 words. – James]

  11. parrhesiaJoe says:

    One of my favorite mental exercises is,
    “One Hundred [whatever]’s get stranded on an island. What happens?”

    It is fun.

    One of today’s topics is something I researched for about a decade, which is… how do 100 anarchists decide what the rules for “Property Rights” are?

    To that effect… 100 anarchists are now stranded on an island.

    I always think I’m so awesome… and then I stumble into a place like CorbettReport, and I’m really… just… YOU guys are awesome… I’m butt-ash in comparison.

  12. mik says:

    James, about migration crisis.

    MSM here are in overdrive about this.
    This crisis goes on for years but last year numbers increased dramatically.

    Here is a 2014. document written by William Lacy Swing director of International Organisation for Migration. Some prominent figures maybe could be found there at IOM.

    There is also an organization Asylum Protection Center which has donors from usual suspects: USAID, Soros,……(look down left)

    This organization helps immigrants and also gives them maps, leaflets with legal advice and their rights. One journalist try to contact management of organization and was unsuccessful.
    Information above is from local blog and I can’t verify it, but blog is mostly ok.

    I don’t see direct connection but there is one very prominent Bilderberger – Peter Sutherland. He is United Nations Special Representative of the Secretary-General for migrations.

    Final thought: This is orchestrated I believe. Simply moving people of that proportions at the same time…it’s not possible. But proving this is another thing. I hope I’ve been helpful.

  13. Batya says:

    #QFC Hi James, do you know of Karen Hudes, whistleblower of the World Bank who is now working to ensure that the Global Debt Facility will benefit humanity. She uses the power transition model according to which there is a 90 to 95% rate of succes. Today in her broadcast she talks about Fukushima being the 9/11 of Japan, based among others on the rapport from researcher Jim Stone.
    Broadcast Network of Global Corporate Control Karen Hudes:
    Jim Stone:
    all love!

  14. Guilherme de Souza says:

    Hello Corbett, I wanted to understand what prevents you from stopping eating meat? Once you have the knowledge about how the system operates what still holds you? Even if you would hunt your own food as we hunter and gatherers did thousands of years ago that would still be unnecessary. You have the choice and the means to avoid all that suffering that you are aware that goes on. 🙂 I would be more than happy to give you some links and advices! Start by understanding better whats going on in the world today, there’s a documentary called Cowspiracy. Try that or Earthlings. It will give you a different insight towards our food system. Remember, the livestock industry pollutes the environment much more than any other industry, it causes deforestation in the Brazilian amazon (Where I come from). Please dig into this subject because it is of extreme importance. Cheers

    • mik says:

      Regarding Cowspiracy.

      It’s nice documentary but from the beginning I was annoyed because of support of climate agenda. It is different approach and continue watching.

      When the end was coming I was disappointed, really.

      For me it is not acceptable to use someones propaganda to promote your idea. Even if it is perfect idea (I’m not saying anything about veganism.)

    • Beau Boeye says:

      If you’re an animal-product-consumer, and you’re concerned with the industrialization of the industry, then the solution is to better source your product – this is a much better solution than cutting out all animal products (I would be cautious with such a decision because a vegan diet is not nutritionally sustainable).

      Boycott sellers which you do not align with; finds those who raise animals humanely.

  15. Cheryl says:

    #QFC I have recently seen a real rise in the promotion of gender fluidity across the board in UK media and TV. Often this is focused on very young children who apparently don’t feel they have been born the correct gender and with the help of their parents are making steps to gender realignment or living as gender neutral. Is this that same in Japan and what do you feel might be behind the push to bring this into the the public realm?
    Thanks James

  16. orion says:

    QFC: Hi James. In the following video series, Eric deCarbonnel claims that the Exchange Stabilization Fund (ESF) is responsible for laundering “dark money” related to CIA drug running, extortion, and murder, among other things. Recently, Hugo Salinas Price reported that central banks have magically turned $1 trillion of government bonds in to cash to prevent the dollar from falling. Do you believe that the ESF had a hand in this? Do you believe that the ESF plays a vital role in modern geopolitics, and does it deserve more scrutiny from the alternative media?

    Thank you.

    Video series:

    Hugo Salinas Price article:

  17. severin says:

    QFC: Hi James. I was wondering if you have looked into the insurance industry. Does that industry play any part in the Oiligarchy family, and if so how?

  18. mik says:

    QFC: James, I have a question on how to solve a problem of natural monopolies in egalitarian society. Roads, water supply etc. You talk about this in episode “…But What About The Roads?”. But solution proposed would hardly work in a big city. I think we need a better solution so that in the end “a pie wouldn’t be more expensive then the pot which has been used to bake it”.
    The problem becomes even more obvious when taking into consideration an electronic chip factory. There are just few of them on the world because they are extremely hard to build and therefore expensive. Also it is almost impossible that chips will ever be produced locally since the technology involved is extremely complicated.
    Those who would run such a factory will have very powerful tool for blackmailing the others.
    On the other hand, we need internet.

    The solution of very spread ownership is prone to possible concentration of ownership when time is passing.

    Maybe member ‘parrhesiaJoe’ has something to say about this problem.

    Feel free to improve my language.

  19. Lance says:

    Question: If I protected my family’s material wealth against hyperinflation by buying some precious metals, who would then buy the metal when it’s $50,000/oz (or 2k or anything in between)?

    I know this is tangential to this site’s general focus, but I have put in a fair amount of research and can’t find any kind of hint of an solid answer and wondered if any fellow readers or James had any thoughts on this.

    My research has lead me to the working hypothesis that no one would. It would be worth essentially nothing as none of the usual buyers (jewellers, dealers, investors etc) would ever buy if metals skyrocketed.

  20. Ruby says:

    Hi James,

    I don’t know if this question has been posed/covered specifically, but what are your thoughts on consensus decision-making process? I’ve heard some very good arguments for and against. For, that it limits the power of the group to things everyone can agree on; that it encourages new solutions and discussion; that it ensures against the systematic exclusion of minority stances and so honors all participants. Against, that participation itself becomes a kind of coercive instrument (show up at the meeting or lose something); that what is called consensus is really just “beating people up with the process” i.e. wearing people down in endless meetings. I’m sure I’m leaving some out. Is all this merely a matter of scale, or are there some other principles to consider?

    In connection with this, at what point does an affinity group cross some line and become government? How is this measured?

    Thanks! I would really love to hear more about this!

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Back to Top