Interview 1801 – James Corbett on Obama, Trump, Q, Musk and Hopium

by | May 4, 2023 | Interviews, Videos | 22 comments

via Truth Over Comfort: In todays video, I conducted an interview with James Corbett, about the concept of Hopium, and his documentary featuring it. We discuss Obama, Trump, Qanon and more. Hopium is intertwined with society in politics, religion, idols and general life. As with Obama and Trump, this belief of someone coming to save society, like a superhero or divine figure, followed a pattern of disappointment and egregious lies.


Show Notes

Truth Over Comfort website

The Corbett Report’s Mass Media Course

Previous James Corbett interview on Truth Over Comfort

Episode 404 – A Brief History of Hopium

Pelosi: Bush Impeachment `Off the Table’

Obama on Investigating Bush Crimes: “Need to Look Forward”
Aide: Obama Won’t Prosecute Bush Officials APRIL 20, 2009 CBS

Obama: We Are Going To Close Gitmo (2009)

How Obama Bungled the Guantánamo Closing

The Nobel Peace Prize 2009 Barack H. Obama

NATO and Afghanistan 31 Aug. 2022

Nobel secretary regrets Obama peace prize

Obama’s Final Drone Strike Data

Operation Timber Sycamore

Obama: ‘We tortured some folks’

Episode 395 – Precedent Trump

The Syria Strikes: A Conspiracy Theory

Operation Warp Speed

Trump hails the COVID-19 vaccine as ‘one of the greatest achievements of mankind’ and rejects vaccine skepticism in new interview

The American Deep State: Big Money, Big Oil, and the Struggle for U.S. Democracy by Peter Dale Scott

US drone strike ordered by Trump kills top Iranian commander in Baghdad

Who Is Bill Gates?

WHO Funding

Microsoft anti-trust suit

Elon Musk is speaking out against government subsidies. Here’s a list of the billions of dollars his businesses have received.

Elon Musk Cameo Scene – Iron Man (2010) Movie Clip HD

Elon Musk reportedly planning to launch AI rival to ChatGPT maker

Tesla Energy Department Loans

Episode 429 – Meet Elon Musk, Technocratic Huckster

Elon Musk wants to offer Americans an ‘everything app’ like China’s WeChat.


  1. Say his name, James: Ezra Cohen-Watnick.

  2. One thing I won’t forget are those “lock her up” chants going silent as the Donald says “thanks to Killary for her service”. Looking forward like a horse wearing the blinders.

  3. “After-the-fact” gatekeepers and the lies of con men selling Hopium: Part One

    After the seasoned Mr Corbett used Chomsky as reference towards the beginning of the interview, the young TOC interviewer got it right at 1:15:25.

    It might be considered “spineless and ultimately selling out humanity” not to point out that

    one key way “they” dealt the Obama crack to the world resulting in an international Hopium trip is that “they” used gatekeepers like Noam Chomsky to convince an unconditional disciple base that “there’s nothing wrong with voting for the lesser of two evils”. This hard sell had evolved into “a moral duty” by the time Hillary Clinton came to the podium.

    “If you can sell yourself as being different enough people will project whatever they want onto that blank slate”

    and Chomsky, as one con man in the service of another, while expressing his contempt for those who are presumably on the wrong side of the swing states, is here to remind voters that THERE IS A DIFFERENCE:

    CHOMSKY: Well, to say it doesn’t make any difference who wins is simply to express your contempt for the general population, ’cause it does make a difference. A lot of what they say is correct: the two parties are effectively factions of one party, the business party, but the factions are somewhat different. And as I mentioned, over time the differences show up in benefits, working conditions, wages, things that really matter to people. So yes, there’s a difference. It’s a narrow difference, and the spectrum within the political system is well to the right of popular opinion, and certainly the public is well aware of it. So 80 percent of the population say that the government is run by, I’m quoting, “a few big interests looking out for themselves, not the population.” And they can argue about the details, but the picture’s essentially correct, and they don’t like it. Nevertheless, there is some difference and you have to make a choice. If you’re in a swing state, you have to ask: is this difference enough for me to pick the lesser of the two evils? And there’s nothing wrong with picking the lesser of the two evils. The cliché makes it sound like you’re doing something bad, but no, you’re doing something good if you pick the lesser of two evils. So is it worth doing that? Or is it worth trying to act to create a potential alternative? For example, should I vote Green because maybe someday their party will be a real alternative? Should I express my disdain for the right-wing orientation of both parties by not voting, let’s say? Or should I pick the lesser of the two evils, thereby helping people? Okay. That’s a decision people have to make.

    Now that’s some real “you’re either with us or your with the terrorists” reasoning for such a sophisticated sophist, I mean venerated intellectual.

  4. “After-the-fact” gatekeepers and the lies of con men selling Hopium: Part Two

    So voting for mass-murderers and pedophiles is “something good” according to this reference for excellent analysis on the lies of con men.

    Hypocritically sweetening his fallacy kool-aid he coins the phrase:

    “Vote for Obama without illusions”.
    What is the concrete difference between voting with illusions and without illusions??

    Citing this man as an example of analytical clearsightedness, and particularly within the context of denouncing the marketing of war-mongering criminals is like

    giving your vote to the lying, bullying, manipulative gatekeeper con man “without illusions”,

    a sophist without whom people might’ve been able to open their eyes on various monumentally pivotal events in human history.

    Deliberately using truth to sell murderous lies, which is what Chomsky does again and again and again, from “The Great Leap Forward” via the Warren Commision, Pol Pot voting for left wing candiates and of course, 9/11, as Barrie Zwicker has quite amply demonstrated, and with the gatekeeper always managing to whitewash his guilt “after-the-fact”, is quite simply reprehensible.

    Referring to such an inveterate gatekeeper as a clear-sighted analyst of the very crime that he unapologetically partakes in is… bewildering at best coming from an otherwise clairvoyant truth-teller with or without prefacing his reservations.
    Fortunately or fortuitously the young interviewer sets the record straight about “voting for the less of two evils” at the end of the interview.

    (Please add the required “http://www.” before the last three links to view their content.)

    • What is the concrete difference between voting with illusions and without illusions??

      I guess it’s the difference between understanding and not understanding you are making a fool out of yourself.

      • Thank you for your reply.

        Realizing that you’re making a fool of yourself should thus lead you to not engage in the humiliating action, no?

        So if you go on to engage in the humiliating action

        again, and again, and again… as proned by devoted DOD partner Chomsky, (new article by Whitney Webb if you haven’t seen it):

        said sophist ever able to distort his reasoning to the point of utter hypocrisy to sell his salad,

        what’s the concrete difference between understanding and not understanding you are making a fool out of yourself?

        Oh wait! Maybe that was your point in fact!?

        (just a pretext to link Ms Webb’s latest piece incriminating the criminal)

        • If you understand, you might stop. And Chompsky is there to help you leave yourself hanging.

        • I confess that I was a bit disappointed and even confused by Ms Webb’s last sentence. Suggesting that Chomsky who’s been effectively, if not admittedly, devoted to the American military since the very, very beginning, even as he’s brandishing anti-war banners, and thus garnering points and adulators as an anti-establishment dissident, thereby becoming the ideal pied piper of controlled opposition, would have any qualms about making morally questionable compromises is, in my view, excessively generous to the vertiginous point of distortion. Let us say it’s an otherwise laudable act of benefit of the doubt.

          In fact, Chomsky’s anti-war efforts might very well be considered controlled opposition, particularly in view of his role in the release of the Pentagon papers as distraction from the Phoenix Program among other things, according to the “alternative view” of this event as compellingly described by Douglas Valentine on this very outstanding website by an outstanding interviewer:

          Chomsky has undeniably always been involved in “deep state politics” and rubbing shoulders with questionable deep state actors, and not the least within the context of his activities with the Warburg funded “Institute for Policy Studies”, incubator and cradle of The New Left.

          Then he fraternized with Epstein.

          • Great comment! I agree with you:”I confess that I was a bit disappointed and even confused by Ms Webb’s last sentence…”

            How do we know what “young Chomsky” would have done? Which is what she said in the last sentence. Look at what he’s said about what he thinks should be done to the “un-vaccinated”

            I was pretty shocked by that, that he outed himself that way.

            I think everyone who fraternized with Epstein should be scrutinized given his known proclivities.

            I suspect that the degree of depravity Epstein was involved in (and who else was involved) has not been made public which is why he was terminated. I mean what we know is bad enough. But who knows what else they were into.

            From my understanding there are vast networks of pedophiles who procure children for exploitation. There was a case of a young guy from Britain who was volunteering in missions in foreign countries and abusing children of all ages and selling the pornography. He was one of the worst pedophiles in Britain (who was caught and actually punished). He was killed in prison by another inmate.

            My point is that it would be naive to assume that these political pedophiles were not involved with younger children, younger than “under age” and perhaps into other things that we would not even want to know.

            I like to avoid guilt by association fallacies however if a person is associating with a known pedophile “Lolita express”
            the person likely has some type of issue with morality.

            So his association with Chomsky, the chumming around, and the association with other perverts like Woody Allen really gives me strong reason to doubt that Chomsky was ever fully on the up and up. That in and of itself makes me go hmmmm. Plus the fact that a highly intelligent and innovative researcher of linguistics and foreign policy would not know the official story of 9/11 was a lie.

            I mean it’s like with the JFK assassination, one you learn about the forensic analysis, the official story is obvious bs.

            • The 9/11 official narrative had been fully debunked by researchers. Perhaps the details of how are not fully known, but I can say with confidence that the government was involved and they lied to the public. That much I think has been proven. Chomsky is smart enough to know and his insistence that “conspiracy theorists” around 9/11 are some kind of nut cases or are wrong to be theorizing is very dishonest.

              • Chomsky’s deliberate use of fallacies has been clearly demonstrated by Barrie Zwicker, Jeffrey Blankfort and others. Deliberate use of twisted and empty travesties of fallacious “logic” underlined with intellectual bullying and dismissive contempt if necessary that go way beyond his notorious and seemingly off-handed reflection on 9/11 “even if it were true…who cares”.

                On the major topics sensitive to public opinion, he somehow always ends up toeing the party line while often seeming to criticize it whether it be Kennedy, Syria, Iran, Covid injections, 9/11, left-wing presidential candidates or the atrocities committed by Israel on the Palestinians.

                Indeed, he passes himself off as a champion of the Palestinian cause while, amid a lot of other misleading sophistry, denouncing the BDS campaign with the following bizarre statement:

                “So; calling for sanctions here, when the majority of the population doesn’t understand what you are doing, is tactically absurd-even if it were morally correct, which I don’t think it is. The country against which the sanctions are being imposed is not calling for it”.


                He claims to be a champion of free speech proclaiming (correctly) that if your enemy doesn’t have it then it doesn’t exist; but with the following qualification:

                “even to enter into the arena of debate as to whether the nazis carried out such atrocities is already to lose one’s humanity.”

                at 8:50

                So his alleged “support” of Faurisson’s right to question the holocaust, approving the latter’s use of a paper he’d penned on the subject as the preface of his book questioning central aspects of the holocaust, turned into a (pre-internet) international grandstand of the opposite message and of what you become if you question the history as written by the victors (or by himself); Subhuman. Or worse,

                a conspiracy theorist.

              • A short lesson on the advantages of controlled opposition, brought to you by the Harvard Crimson with regards to one of their distinguished Harvard Fellows:


                Chomsky’s Gift
                By David Weinfeld
                December 12, 2002

                “MIT Institute Professor of Linguistics Noam Chomsky recently gave the greatest Hanukkah gift of all to opponents of the divestment campaign against Israel. By signing the Harvard-MIT divestment petition several months ago—and then denouncing divestment on Nov. 25 at Harvard—Chomsky has completely undercut the petition

                …he is the self-proclaimed “leading opponent” of divestment. So why did he attach his name to a petition that calls for divestment as one of its demands?…

                …Because of his prominence and academic position, Chomsky was irresponsible and inadvertently deceptive in his signing of the petition. More importantly, Chomsky completely discredited the petition. If the most famous signer of the petition is actually a leading opponent of divestment, the petition is worthless.”

                And there you have it.

                (of course, I’d bicker with the use of the word “inadvertently” but hey, you get the idea.)

              • Thanks for the link you provided that well illustrates how Chomsky uses language in a deceptive manner that appears to be deliberate and to bewilder the listener or reader.

                You really state concisely what he seems to be doing and it does appear deliberate to prevent taking any action against the establishment.

                I definitely had some reservations about him about 9/11 because in my mind the argument against the official narrative was sound and then Chomsky dismisses it. And I found JC’s podcast on Chomsky as a result of that intuition in 2016.

                His contradictory comments about free speech and the BDS campaign are similarly telling. He contradicts himself. It’s confusing and he’s smart enough to know better.

                I was also surprised by the last sentence of Webb’s article too because her research is robust in many areas. I mean everyone can be wrong about someone and naive and perhaps it is just that. I think Chomsky was probably always a deep state player. It’s disappointing but seems likely. I liken him to the O’Brien character in the book 1984.

  5. YT axed my interview. I am Louis (Truth Over Comfort). Glad James promotes alternative platforms, he lead me to make an account on Bitchute. I plan to get on other platforms. Hope people enjoyed the interview. You can also view it on my website.

  6. I’d argue this is something much of the counter-intuitively named “De-Fi” space sells as well.
    “Don’t look at how the digital asset works, just use this custodial wallet and buy your ticket to digital utopia!”

  7. Zbigniew Brzezinski
    Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Technetronic Era
    (written 50 years ago)

    “We have a large public that is very ignorant about public affairs and very susceptible to simplistic slogans by candidates who appear out of nowhere, have no track record, but mouth appealing slogans”
    – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
    “Drain the Swamp” “Make America Great Again”


  8. There have been podcasts about the state of Israel in the past. It should be obvious to people that both political parties are heavily enmeshed with Israel. Even the supposed freedom fighter governor in Florida Ron DeSantis has to pay tribute. It’s pretty sickening actually and is a good reminder about where their loyalties lie.

    I think Israel was one of the first countries to roll out the vaccine passport “green pass” and force the jab on their population.

  9. Glad it was mentioned that the actual power comes from the people and we legitimize the system through our compliance and acceptance.

    I mean if a substantial portion of people just stopped using Twitter and Fakebook and threw away their “smart” phones and took their energy elsewhere it could make a huge difference.

    I do think that inspiring young people to do this could help things. Getting off of social media or limiting use and actually doing positive things in the real world could really make a difference.

    I’m glad that JC is mentoring young people and leading by example.

  10. Thank you, James, for taking time out from working your own prodigious projects to yet once again do an interview with a newish podcaster.

    Over the past three years, I’ve continued to be grateful for your website’s high-quality information, yes, but also for the reassurance I get from someone of your intellect and personality being able to continue–day in and day out– to share your information with us. James is still at it, laughing, serious, deadpan, eloquent so the universe is still working out well!

    As a big ole read/write school nerd, I relish and celebrate how you analyze and express yourself. (Especially when you are in a playful/sarcastic mood.)

    Though today I’m writing to say thank you for all the times in the past few years that I’ve logged onto your website for the comfortable academic environment I experience here only to get teary that you’ve taken the time to be interviewed by yet one more (compared to you) nobody in the alt news space.

    Young to old, bumbling and nervous to talking more than you do, to laughs, to odd questions, to sudden changes of subject, I’ve wonderful more than once if you actually say yes to every single interview request. Each time I’m humbled by seeing someone of your import and talents in our world spending so much time fostering the efforts of others.

    Thank you for spending time vigorously mentoring/promoting other people’s work while continuing to provide mountains of high-quality, detailed reporting.

    I appreciate all the time you spend in service to humanity.

    • thumbs up and ditto to this.

Submit a Comment


Become a Corbett Report member