portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article commentary global

alternative media

The Corbett Report

James Corbett FBI Provocateur
I have been watching The Corbett Report on the internet for about a year now and the information presented on his show is of excellent quality; but very often the propaganda shows through. He also very often shows duping delight, which is a sign of psychopathy. If this isn't bad enough he also occasionally 'wears' clothing items known to be FBI tradecraft and less frequently uses DGS (German Sign Language). This is all very disturbing. Just when I thought I had found an honest man, I discover I haven't; what a let down.

What Mr. Corbett has done is not only demonstrate that he is on the side of the FBI and Justice department; but by doing the things mentioned above actively assists FBI spy-provocateurs to infiltrate society at large by making their tradecraft look 'normal,' and 'cool;' it is neither. It also helps demonstrate that the 'alt-media, answers to and gets their 'talking points' from the FBI and Justice department exactly like the MSM (Main Stream Media) does. "The New Boss Is The Same As The Old Boss." This is even more disturbing.

All of this finally begs the question "Why would the FBI and Justice department want to promote 'anarchy' and 'volunteerism?' Certainly, there are many within the informed population that are fed up with the lies and deceptions of the MSM and are looking for alternatives and abandoning the MSM. To keep the matrix intact and continue to propagate your message, you would have to control and dictate to the alt-media as well. This appears to not be going away without a very vicious and brutal fight.

May God help us all.

anonymous

[quote] " duping delight " — ?? 12.Jan.2017 17:18

_

wtf is ^ that?

Corbett may not be perfect, but he also far from an 'FBI provocateur'; too many others all over YouTube and the interwebs much, much closer to that description.


also [quote]:
--
" I have been watching The Corbett Report on the internet for about a year now "
--

This duration of "watching" Corbett "on the internet" somehow qualifies you to pronounce/call him out as "FBI provocateur"?

I and many others here, have seen Corbett's presentations and activism for over a decade, enough (greater than you) to draw different conclusions about his output.

James Corbett Is Not FBI. He's CIA. 13.Jan.2017 07:22

blues

He wants war with Russia. All his "radical" rants amount to nothing.

Look close and you will see that.

He can take all his overwrought analysis and shove it where the sun don't shine.

(blues) "He wants war with Russia" — 13.Jan.2017 19:56

_

when did Corbett say or advocate that?

if it's as you claim, there must be verification.


Please post a link to one of Corbett's articles, podcasts or videos in which he even implies (let alone explicitly states) "I want war with Russia".

Implies = Read Between The Li(n)es 14.Jan.2017 13:00

blues

Corbett & Edmonds Call Out Nauseating Russia Worship in Alt-Media
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZpdTLjeYSaw

'call out Russia worship' somehow = 'wants war with Russia' ?! 15.Jan.2017 00:44

_

w t f

as per usual we are having trouble following blues 'logic'

...



further RE: Russia and also Corbett more broadly,
aside from his overall excellent Sept 11 reportage more of which can be seen on the 9.11 investigation topic pages


Deconstructing Russophobia 12.Sep.2016 17:18
Catherine Brown
 http://catherinebrown.org/deconstructing-russophobia/

 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2016/09/433131.shtml#447758



Corbett Report Episode 223 - Revolution Impossible?
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2016/08/432985.shtml

Corbett Report Episode 264 - The Government Illusion
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2016/08/432989.shtml

ever think for yourself, blues?

+ even more on convenient demonization of Russia 15.Jan.2017 01:02

_

 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2016/10/433435.shtml#448160


A New McCarthyism: Greenwald on Clinton Camp's Attempts to Link Trump, Stein & WikiLeaks to Russia

 http://www.democracynow.org/2016/8/31/a_new_mccarthyism_greenwald_on_clinton

(VIDEO INTERVIEW)
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3yy742HAovY


Published on Aug 31, 2016

 http://democracynow.org - Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Glenn Greenwald says Democrats have adopted a "Cold War McCarthyite kind of rhetoric" by accusing many its critics of having ties to Russia. "It's sort of this constant rhetorical tactic to try and insinuate that anyone opposing the Clintons are somehow Russian agents, when it's the Clintons who actually have a lot of ties to Russia, as well," Greenwald said. "I mean, the Clinton Foundation and Bill Clinton helped Russian companies take over uranium industries in various parts of the world. He received lots of Russian money for speeches."

- - - - -

TRANSCRIPT
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

AMY GOODMAN: And when it comes to Russia, I mean, you have this very unusual juxtaposition. Talk about the Democrats' approach, Hillary Clinton's approach, to Putin, and also Donald Trump. I mean, his recently departed, from the campaign, at least, campaign manager, Paul Manafort, his close ties to Ukraine and to the Soviet ally former president, Yanukovych, in Ukraine, who then fled to Russia, and whatever the—not clear what his financial dealings were with them. But talk about Russia as it relates to U.S. foreign policy.

GLENN GREENWALD: To me, this is one of the more remarkable things of this campaign, which is that any of us who grew up in politics or came of age as an American in the '60s or the '70s or the '80s, or even the '90s, knows that central to American political discourse has always been trying to tie your political opponents to Russia, to demonizing the Kremlin as the ultimate evil and then trying to insinuate that your political adversaries are somehow secretly sympathetic to or even controlled by Russian leaders and Kremlin operatives and Russian intelligence agencies. And this was not just the McCarthyism, which was sort of the peak of that, but even long after. This was typically a Republican tactic used against Democrats. So, if Democrats advocated greater detente with the Russians, arms deals or other negotiations with Russia to decrease tensions or decrease conflict, Republicans would immediately accuse those liberals and Democrats of advocating that, of being—either having allegiance to the Kremlin or being useful idiots or stooges of Russian leaders.

And it's amazing to have watched, in this campaign, Democrats completely resurrect that Cold War McCarthyite kind of rhetoric not only to accuse Paul Manafort, who does have direct financial ties to certainly the pro—the former pro-Russian leader of the Ukraine, but really anybody who in any way questions the Clinton campaign. I mean, they even tried doing it to Jill Stein a few weeks ago by claiming that she had done something nefarious by attending an event in Moscow sponsored by the Russian television outlet RT that's controlled by the Putin government. And so, it's sort of this constant rhetorical tactic to try and insinuate that anyone opposing the Clintons are somehow Russian agents, when it's the Clintons who actually have a lot of ties to Russia, as well. I mean, the Clinton Foundation and Bill Clinton helped Russian companies take over uranium industries in various parts of the world. He received lots of Russian money for speeches. The Clinton Foundation has relationships to them. President Obama refused to arm factions in the Ukraine that were trying to fight against this pro-Russian dictator, and continuously tries to partner with the Russians in Syria. So this rhetoric can cut both ways, and it's very problematic, I think, to try and depict anyone who questions NATO or who advocates detente with Russia of somehow being disloyal or useful idiots or stooges to Putin, given how dangerous that rhetoric traditionally has been in American political discourse.

AMY GOODMAN: And, Glenn, where WikiLeaks fits into this picture with Russia, and then also if you could talk about Ed Snowden?

GLENN GREENWALD: I mean, what I just talked about, in terms of this tactic of trying to depict political adversaries as being agents of Russia, obviously, from the beginning of the Snowden reporting, that was used to try and demonize Edward Snowden by virtue of the fact that he ended up in Russia, where he sought and then obtained asylum. Even though he never intended to go to Russia—he was passing through Russia, and he ended up getting stuck there because the U.S. government revoked his passport on the plane from Hong Kong to Moscow—they used the—they first forced him to stay in Russia and then used the fact that he was in Russia to depict him as some kind of a nefarious Russian agent.


And they've done the same to WikiLeaks, especially since WikiLeaks disclosures this year have been damaging to the Democratic Party and the Clinton campaign. I mean, it's amazing that WikiLeaks's last disclosure resulted in the resignation of the top five officials of the Democratic National Committee, including the DNC chair, Debbie Wasserman Schultz. So WikiLeaks has become an enemy of the Democratic Party, and they seem to have one tactic with their adversaries and enemies, which is to accuse them of being Russian agents. And that's the tactic that has now been used against WikiLeaks, as well.

And so, it's a very sort of disturbing strategy that not is just disturbing in and of itself, but that will have enduring consequences in the likely event that Hillary Clinton wins, because when you constantly inflame the public by telling them that Russia is this enemy, that they have domestic agents operating in the U.S., namely anyone who is a critic of the Clinton campaign, that's going to have lots of long-term implications in terms of how the U.S. government treats Russia, how the American media and the American people are going to expect the U.S. government to react to Russia and how much dissent and criticism is going to be allowed without people being accused of being agents of the Kremlin.

AMY GOODMAN: And what about Donald Trump and his admiration for Putin, and how you think he would deal with Russia?

GLENN GREENWALD: So, again, I think that Donald Trump comes from this ideological tradition, to the extent that he has any cogent views at all, that says that the United States should get along with the world's dictators, unless those dictators directly threaten the United States. And it's a little bit hard for me to take seriously complaints that Donald Trump wants to get too close to Putin, who's a dictator or an authoritarian, when the closest allies in the world of the United States government are themselves dictators and tyrants, beginning with the Saudi regime and going throughout that region and into lots of other regions, as well. Cuddling up to dictators has long been and continues to be a central U.S. policy.

I do think that Trump's admiration of Putin is sort of personal, in that Trump personally admires what he regards as this sort of fascistic strength, this kind of assertion of will and this ability to command and rule, that does reflect very negatively, in fact kind of alarmingly, on Trump's personality, the parts of his personality that result in admiration for Putin. So I think there are genuinely disturbing aspects of it.

But the fact is that there's a lot of people who think that the United States should not be seeking out tension and conflict with Russia. And ironically, the person who has probably done the most to reduce tension between the U.S. and Russia is the person who currently occupies the White House: Barack Obama. And so, I think it's important to leave space in American political debate to advocate for greater cooperation with Russia without having your loyalties or sympathies called into question.

AMY GOODMAN: You know, we mentioned in the first part of our conversation what's happening in Israel and Palestine. You write that Clinton-led Democrats are now "to the right of George W. Bush" when it comes to Palestinian rights. Explain what you mean.

GLENN GREENWALD: The fact that Israel is illegally occupying the West Bank is a consensus of international law. And not only is it a consensus of international law, but George Bush himself, as steadfastly supportive of Israel as he was, often said that Israel's occupation of the West Bank was illegal, and he used those terms. So did the Bush administration. That was its formal position.

During the platform debate of 2016 within the Democratic Party, when several Sanders appointees, led by Cornel West and James Zogby and others, attempted to insert language into the platform that simply reflected this international consensus—namely, that Israel was occupying the West Bank illegally and that the U.S. government opposes it—the Clinton appointees on this platform committee, including Neera Tanden, who will now head the transition and currently heads the Center for American Progress, and other witnesses and appointees were opposed to that and objected to it and actually blocked the inclusion of that language. And so, apparently, it's the current position of the Clinton-led Democratic Party that you can't or should not use the term "occupation" to describe what Israel is doing in the West Bank, even though that is the international consensus and even though the Bush administration itself was willing to embrace and use those terms. And that does place the Democratic Party, unsurprisingly, to the right of not just the international community, but even the Bush administration, when it comes to their blind, slavish, incredibly immoral support for the Netanyahu government.

AMY GOODMAN: So, Glenn Greenwald, your view of third parties? I mean, you talk about Jill Stein. There's the whole debate over the debates, who gets to participate in the debates, which, of course, it's a self-fulfilling cycle, because if you get in the debates, you get much more well known, and you have a national platform that is viewed by millions of people. But what do you think about both Johnson, the former governor of New Mexico, and Dr. Stein, the Green Party candidate? Johnson, of course, the Libertarian, Gary Johnson.

GLENN GREENWALD: I think—yeah, I think American political discourse would value greatly from the inclusion of both of them in the debates, which is exactly why neither the Democratic nor the Republican Party will allow it. What—the big scam of the Democrats and Republicans is that they agree overwhelmingly on most issues. It doesn't seem like that's the case, because that's the scam. The issues on which they agree, such as giving billions of dollars of taxpayer money to Israel each year, are simply ignored, so you don't realize the issues on which they have agreement, because those issues are ignored by television commentators and don't get debated. And then there are issues where they vehemently disagree, whether it be like abortion or LGBT issues or the rate of taxation or healthcare, that do get attention, and so it seems like they disagree on everything, because the only issues that get any attention are the ones where they vehemently disagree.

Allowing third parties and four-party candidates into the debate, who would then call into question U.S. posture toward Israel or the drug war or the criminal justice system or a whole variety of other issues where both parties agree, including trade, would open up the range of issues that Americans start questioning and start thinking about and start challenging, that they never think about now because the two major parties agree. And I've watched here in Brazil, for example, where there's all kinds of parties, and eight or 10 parties, or six parties participate in the presidential election, so you have far-left and far-right and center parties, where all views get aired. And you contrast that to the United States, where a tiny range of issues get debated, because only two sides are heard, and that's exactly the way both parties want it.

AMY GOODMAN: Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Glenn Greenwald of The Intercept, speaking to us from his home in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. You can visit our website to watch the first part or our interview, when we talked about the impeachment trial of Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff, Bernie Sanders' opposition to the coup in Brazil, the Clinton Foundation and the future of Rio after the Olympics.


RE: the ^ video clip blues obsessively keeps ***mming — 15.Jan.2017 01:45

_

Corbett and Edmonds here (in an unidentified/undated podcast interview exchange) are merely discussing the portrayals of Russia and the U.S. as well throughout corporate mass media (not just 'alt media').

Edmonds' volunteered spontaneous use of the term 'nauseating',

within their exchange,

was specifically referring to the portrayal of Russian imperialist and warmongering actions on the Russian news network RT
(Edmonds and Corbett each also happen to have past personal experience appearing on that network themselves, and do remark briefly about that in the video clip as well),

i.e. contrasting how Russian bombing of Syria for example is portrayed on RT, versus how American CNN portrays the U.S. bombing of Iraq, Afghanistan etc., and further how certain elements of the American Left and leftist (supposedly...) leaning media "give RT a pass" with respect to their coverage and portrayal of such imperialist violence.

of course nowhere in the entire video clip is "war with Russia" (WHAT EVER THE ***K THAT's supposed to mean....) ever even hinted at.
It's a sidelong discussion amongst alternative media activists, about contemporary portrayals of superpower imperialism via various sources of mass media / the press. Period end.


p.s. your bro, brandon martinez who posted the YouTube video blues is so enamored with, claims to be an Intifada Palestine (-style) activist but most of his Internet posts and YouTube vids focus on Israeli and more specifically Judaism-bashing, many of which are expressly picked up and further distributed by the proudly anti-Semitic strains of Israel critics on the Intertubes. As in he's got a deliberately (???... perhaps with covert backing.....................) loose mouth with the open 'Jew bashing', along with plentiful doses of "Jews control all elements of global operations"-related assertions, and doesn't seem to care who either knows or takes up on that. Don't take my word for it check out brandon martinez' internet profile via google et al. for yourself.

Just To Clarify 15.Jan.2017 13:40

blues

(+) Well, maybe I'm wrong to declare that Corbett is "CIA". I don't think I have enough evidence so far. Corbett just keeps coming out with all this mostly radical ranting, but usually with very little back-up material. It was disturbing to hear Corbett and Edmonds come out with all those complaints about Russia/Putin "worshiping". That made me suspicious, but maybe they're just not as smart as they appear to be. (But Edmunds does seem to know quite a lot.) What harm is there in people worshiping Russia/Putin? None that I can see -- people do worship a lot of worse things. Actually I would rather have Putin as our president instead of the two that we were offered. (Trump is probably not a neocon, or even a paleocon. He certainly is an authoritarian and a "law and order" lover, and this will likely lead to a whole lot of trouble. But maybe he really believes this is good for the 99%.)

(+) I only inserted the one video, so it's not "spamming". This Brandon Martinez person is certainly not my "bro". He is simply the person who uploaded the video. I just looked at his other videos, and he does seem to have a nasty habit of bashing Jewish people.

(+) Amy Goodman I will not listen to at all. I've seen her too many times doing dirty stuff (promoting wars or something like that).

Yep you're 100% wrong about "Corbett = CIA", glad you acknowledge — 15.Jan.2017 16:55

_

he may not be perfect but he absolutely in every piece of output, encourages readers/viewers to think and investigate _for themselves_, to make up their own minds; and frequently that his presentation on a particular (no matter which) topic is only intended to serve as an outline / guidepost and-or 'scratch [just] the surface'.

(RE: " = CIA " provocateur, fwiw a far better and more apt candidate is brandon martinez .... )


Yes, Edmonds (through her own intelligence operations background) and Corbett (via his diligent long-term research) are pretty much experts on what is 'officially' known about the events of September 11 2001. Each is well worth listening to, taking notes and learning from (for further research / understanding on one's own) regarding that topic.


I generally agree about Trump, he (is not a neocon and) does seem to "really believe" in a bunch of the stuff repetitively bashed home during his campaign speeches over past year.... but now we all will see if he even _likes_ being president, let alone the idea of it even.... seems like he's going to want to go back to running his own global development/hotel empire after awhile of dealing with the typical ______________ of being head of this corporate-plutocratic state. As we've seen he doesn't even want to reside in the White House, for one.


Goodman / DemocracyNow! : they are of interest for 'alternative' coverage, but don't expect much investigative reporting from DN!
also, Goodman and DN have specifically and consistently bashed and marginalized 9/11 skeptic investigators and research over the years, i.e. they completely (even if only implicitly) support and propogate the official U.S. government explanation of that day's events.
Having said that, Glenn Greenwald (for one) has been a consistent reporter, guest and analyst appearing on DN! for over a decade, and with his background of investigating the Anthrax Attacks (for several different media outlets prior to his expatriatism from U.S.) that puts DN!'s participation with anything approaching 9/11 skepticism a tiny bit further in the right direction...... though Greenwald himself won't go far in extending his unshakable investigation of the U.S. government's Anthrax hoax to the 11 September attacks a few weeks earlier - however, the 2 events are inextricably connected, with the passage of USA Patriot Act being the third part of a Trifecta in what is effectively a fascist takeover of this country that's now been in place for a decade-and-a-half.


RE: "Putin worship" (and related corporate-mass media meme phrases)
This is nothing but a bunch of utter B.S.
Greenwald deconstructed it quite eloquently, ^ above  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2017/01/434090.shtml#449710
(and see the other previous link above about
Russophobia  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2016/09/433131.shtml#447758 )

in a weird psychological/Freudian manner it's sort of like the doppelganger of "Trump hate" - all of it relating to the general public's / politically-unsophisticateds' natural tendency to reduce global geopolitics, government leadership and statecraft all down to the machinations of merely one specific single individual/personality.

Living Colour happened to write a song about it back in the 1980s :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xxgRUyzgs0
< LISTEN TO THE LYRICS HERE, blues >