Corbett Report | 26 November 2019

Similar Posts

3 Comments

  1. Thank you for all your hard work and publicizing “the defensible reality,” versus the official one. We have this and USA Watchdog to mull through the holiday. I continue to believe the analogue to the famous anti-war poster, “What if they made an official reality and nobody believed it?” Perhaps the recent sham of impeachment hearings is a test case. It has basically been ignored. If there is a defensible reality, which I believe we have constructed the outlines of, it will make more and more sense to the average man and eventually will coalesce as the center of trust, leaving “the news,” what now clings to the thinnest threads of utility, in the ash heap. After all, it is the utility of news that makes it worthwhile knowing, and partisanship is only useful when people misapprehend it long enough to cast a ballot. I am optimistic that we are making progress, however slowly.

    1. Yes, would be good to find a center of trust. It needs to be one that many people have chewed through – it needs to stand the test of time from many different points of view. Integrity. Endurance. No matter what the wild new technology is.

      1. I choose “Defensible Reality” as the concept because we are always learning and expanding our knowledge base, so the center of trust will move. But if you take in to account all of what you know, your defensible reality will not be assailable by your own tests. If there was to be some sort of disclosure, defensible reality and official reality will overlap more. When there is true transparency, they will share a central core. What bugs all of us is that there are probably core things that we simply are kept oblivious to. Worse, we may have paid to discover those things, but the elite thumbs its nose to our claims on them.

Comments are closed.