The EyeOpener Report- What Anti-War Movement? Left/Right Politics & the War Agenda

As we examined last week on The EyeOpener Report, the fraudulent left/right political divide has been used to keep the people divided against each other even as it is used to dupe the public into supporting the very same political agenda through puppet administration after puppet administration. Perhaps nowhere is this process of divide and rule quite so transparent as it is in the so-called "anti-war" movement of the last decade.

Find out about the Left-Right politics and the so-called "anti-war" movement of the last decade in this week's edition of the Boiling Frogs Post EyeOpener Report with James Corbett.

FB Like

Share This

This site depends….

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by SUBSCRIBING, and by ordering our EXCLUSIVE BFP DVDs.


  1. Trying to sell us more collectivism and engagement, Mr. Corbett?


    • Collectivism and engagement aren’t mutually inclusive and I think you misunderstand collectivism as opposed to collective action 🙂

      • Shared interest is a slippery slope. Could make its way to shared property someday. Engagement is opposed to disengagement, is it not?

      • Of course they are mutually inclusive.

        • “Of course they are mutually inclusive.”

          Sorry, that should’ve said, not necessarily mutually inclusive – which they are not.

          “Could make its way to shared property someday.”

          I try to avoid slippery slope fallacies. Otherwise, I may end up a flying pig someday 😉

          “Engagement is opposed to disengagement, is it not?”

          I suppose. Is this relevant to something in particular?

          • I never said they were necessarily mutually inclusive, in the first place!

            Cool, don’t fly away. Go ahead and deny that Corbett said anything that counters his anti-collectivist histeric rhetoric. He is a golden god who has no conflicting aspects. No flaws. Perfect. Don’t contrast his sentiment about shared values and engagement with his attacks on shared property and probably shared values if you take a close.enough look, and attacks on engagement. That’s where “engagement” fits into the equation, Andrew. As a direct contrast and opposite of what he often suggests. I think you scrambled the equation a little bit to start with. He usually calls engagement not only futile, but supportive of the collectivist conspiracy!

            Your defensiveness on my simple suggestion and criticism – that James lay of the collectivism bashing, is pretty strong. Are you really defending collectivism bashing? Do you live on Liberty Island too? I think it actually does come down to seeing simple collective actions, to understand what collectivism really means. Isn’t liberty a public interest, as well?

        • I’m not sure why there was no reply button on your last post in this particular series, so I clicked on this one (maybe it’ll show up in the correct place).

          I’m going to cruise past the lengthy fallacious and ironic rhetoric in your post and see if we can’t move to a more substantial interaction.

          Is it your contention that collectivism and collective action are synonymous?
          Is it your contention that James Corbett views the terms as synonymous?
          What do you mean by “engagement”?

          • Same as our other thread:

            I think this excerpt from the following paper might be helpful to move our discussion forward a little:
            Triandis, H. C., & Gelfand, M. J. (1998). Converging measurement of horizontal and vertical individualism and collectivism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(1), 118-128. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.74.1.118

            Practical Implications It is important to note that none of the four cultural patterns is necessarily better or worse for human functioning. Instead, each of these cultural patterns is probably functional in different situations. Specifically, the HI pattern allows individuals to do their own thing without the restraints provided by in-groups; the VI pattern, with its emphasis on competition, is likely to result in creativity and high effort. By contrast, the HC pattern is likely to lead to much social support and sociability. The VC pattern can allow the in-group to produce more than the sum of its parts. This cultural pattern provides protection and security and reduces the need for personal decisions, which some people find anxiety provoking. In Eric Fromm’s (1941) terms, this somewhat authoritarian pattern allows individuals to “escape from freedom.” On the other hand, there are probably costs associated with each pattern. The HI pattern may result in social isolation, in which individuals do their own thing but no one approves of what they do. The VI pattern may result in extreme stress, especially after failures in competition, and thus may reduce the effectiveness of the immune system and increase the probability of both cardiovascular disease and ineffectiveness in battling infections (Triandis et al., 1988). The HC pattern could absorb much of the individual’s energy in social relationships, thus decreasing productivity. The VC pattern could result in authoritarian regimes and ethnic cleansing.

            Sample items
            I often “do my own thing.” (Horizontal Individualism)
            The well-being of my co-workers is important to me. (Horizontal Collectivism)
            It annoys me when other people perform better than I do. (Vertical Individualism)
            I would sacrifice an activity that I enjoy very much if my family did not approve of it. (Vertical Collectivism)

            You see, the suggestion by James that we work together, based on shared interests, was, as I understood it, concerned with the welfare of the group. That is how it relates to collectivism. You seem to be saying that, if he didn’t promote a total governing social system where individuals sacrifice for the group, then he didn’t betray all those statements he made, that portray collectivism as the root of all evil. I disagree with your evaluation, obviously.

            It has been my contention that we need a balance of approaches and I find the attacks to be divisive and deleterious. I find the explanation quoted above as a good academic description of what I was intuitively promoting. These are all tools and the more we attach and align ourselves with a single mode of thought, the more easily we are disrupted as an effective resistance to tyranny. This is why I am curious about the funding aspect.

            How about have your savings account and spend it too?

            The replies are only nested so many levels, in order to save horizontal space.


            Perhaps we should now keep our interaction to one thread or the other? If you have a response, why don’t you chose the thread? If you don’t have a response, “see” you soon.

  2. BennyB-DoubleD says:

    Well stated Andrew.

  3. BennyB-DoubleD says:

    Doesn’t anybody remember what the rationale was for awarding Obama the Nobel Peace Prize? I can’t even deal with trying to look it up. That really was like a sick joke. It still makes me grimace every time I think about it.

  4. BennyB-DoubleD says:

    Maybe he promised to carry out drone strikes more humanely? =\

  5. colinjames says:

    Awwww snap 😉

Speak Your Mind