Are All US Presidents Related? – Questions For Corbett #028

02/13/201644 Comments

Did you know that Cheney and Obama are eighth cousins? Or that Obama and McCain are 22nd cousins? Or that every US president in history can trace their roots back to British royalty? Is it true, and if so, what does it mean? Join James for this month’s edition of Questions For Corbett where he ponders this as well as natural monopolies, the viability of conspiracy theories, peak oil, 3D chess and 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).

SHOW NOTES:
Episode 244 – Secret Weapons Technology

The Corbett Report Extras YouTube channel

AIG Exposed

Episode 277 – …But What About The Roads?

The Myth of Natural Monopoly

Contra Krugman on the Flint Water Supply Problem

http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2016/01/27/Scientist-develops-math-model-to-test-conspiracy-theories/6791453919235/

On the Viability of Conspiratorial Beliefs

“On the Viability of Conspiratorial Beliefs” – Debunked!

Peak Oil is a Fraud

Confessions of an ex-Peak Oil Believer

@Brytmann asks about Presidential bloodlines

All presidents bar one are directly descended from a medieval English king

12 Year Old Discovers ALL U.S. Presidents Related to One British King

Are all the U.S. Presidents related to each other?

Most royal candidate theory

Van Buren also related to King John

McCain and Obama share royal lineage

Everybody is your 16th cousin

How Many Relatives Do You Have?

I knew it! Madonna…Celine Dion…George W. Bush!!!

Kerry’s royal roots will give him victory, says Burke’s

James Corbett on The Anarchist Standard

2D vs. 3D Chess on The Grand Chessboard

China and the New World Order

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail

Filed in: Questions For Corbett
Tagged with:

Comments (44)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. 100monkeys says:

    Thanks for another great episode of Q4C.

    I would like you to do some work on “Richard Nikolaus Count Coudenhove-Kalergi ”
    the “Founding Father” of the European Union.
    There is a lot of controversy on his plan and parallels to current developments in Europe.
    Thanks

    A. Monkey

    • alice88 says:

      I second this idea. I’ve been researching on Count Kalergi and it does look like the invasion or the importation of colored body people to Europe is engineered. Quoting Karlergi’s book, ‘Praktischer Idealismus’, the citizens of the future “United States of Europe” will not be White people anymore. Here’s more info on
      http://tomatobubble.com/id979.html
      White genocide is real and is happening.

  2. tomas says:

    Fantastic analogy with the 2D and 3D chess James !! wow , really hit a note ! Thats a perfect way – in my mind – to explain the system . And also explains how many of us in the “open-minded” world will get caught up defending sides in the 2D world while those controlling are sitting comfy watching ( and surely giggling ) from their 3D world chairs !

    Excellent , truly perfect way and so simple ( i think ) to put it & understand it .

    • Collin says:

      While watching the chess analogy it struck me that surely the Sinking of the Lusitania was a good example.
      Yes a U boat torpedoed a liner, but the behind the scenes machinations of Poms, Yanks, Krauts and the British Admiralty surely introduce a number of other levels. Then again one has to wonder, in that scene, who are the bods moving the pieces other than …….
      So perhaps it is a results based analogy, rather than glimpsing the ‘master piece movers’.

  3. mksca220 says:

    On the Viability of Conspiratorial Beliefs: As an engineer who works exclusively with mathematical models it is clear that the devised model is not fed with adequate input data and the results cannot be validated against actual time frames given the examples used!! This is just ridiculous. But people like to hear the word “model”, it makes them feel reassured somehow…

    • candideschmyles says:

      Agree 100%. It was not even a study it was a validation excersise for public broadcasting to hint that it has the only credible information.

      • Collin says:

        My take is that part of the issue is all those who are besotted with “the Scientist said …”

        As i have pointed out to some, that that is little different from the playground taunt ‘the Teacher said ..’

        But getting the many to apply logic and/or reasoning seems to be an exercise in futility.
        Most ending up here would understand the issue remains of getting the masses to wake up!

  4. s.jamieson says:

    I’ve always wondered if there’s a story behind that quintessentially British female voice that tells us we’re listen to The Corbett Re-Port. But I won’t ask about it, seeing that I now hear James complaining about being swamped with questions.

  5. awc.consulting says:

    Thank you James for all your effort. It’s come to the point that I get sick to my stomach listening to the radio or TV news. I wish that I can go back to my ignorant state of pre Corbett Report but that is impossible. Now I have to live with knowing the truth! Keep up the hard work and know that we are counting on you to give us the facts.

    • candideschmyles says:

      I don’t see them as facts but as interpretations of reality which makes more sense if you think about how chaotic everything is. But I feel your pain, I very often wish I could unlearn it all. Perhaps Candide should retire to his garden. Nahhh fuck it. The pain reminds me I’m still alive.

  6. candideschmyles says:

    Thanks James for another fantastic episode. It’s so great to have a guy like you who knows just about everything about everything here to tell us all how to think. Your incredible output as a polymath of anti globalist perspective saves me so much time and effort, you have become invaluable and indispensable to my whole world view.
    I do have a lover who like yor wife is about as political as a sea cucumber. So I get you there. As its valentines tomorrow I hope you remember to take the day off and spoil her, they appreciate that kind of thing.
    I know you are busy but I do have another question if you can manage it. It’s quite a simple and in good faith:
    Q. Does your wife get the Gaisha outfit on for you sometimes?

  7. jeandavid says:

    I was amused, once, to find out that I am probably related, by marriage, to Mata Hari, a..k.a. Margaretha Geertruida “Margreet” MacLeod (née Zelle; 7 August 1876 – 15 October 1917), better known by the stage name Mata Hari, was a Dutch Frisian exotic dancer and courtesan who was convicted of being a spy[1] and executed by firing squad in France under charges of espionage for Germany during World War I. — wikipedia. Now Macleod is the name of an ancestor of my grandmother, Mabel Lorenz Ives, daughter of Charles Louis and Sara Sophia (McLure) Lorenz. Now the McLures, McClures, and MacLeods are all related, and come from the Island of Skye, as did the unfortunate Ms. Zelle. I lost interest and patience trying to tighten the connection still further. But when all is said and done (more is said than done), it does not really matter very much. She was shot to death by a French firing squad in 1917.

  8. firehorse says:

    I’ve been married to my one and only spouse for 30+ years since we were both teens. I suspect couples grow closer in interests or they split up.

    If I were interested in meeting with like-minded people I’d try the assorted meetup sites and see if there were any attractive possibilities. I know people who met each other in liberty-minded events.

  9. HomeRemedySupply says:

    Question –
    James,
    In the past even the mainstream media was mentioning the classified “28 Pages” about 9/11. However, currently there does not seem to be many headlines about the “28 Pages”.
    In light of the masterpiece “How Big Oil Conquered the World” along with the very recent drop in oil prices and Saudi pumping to gain market share, do you think that there is a connection in the scheme of things?
    In other words, do you see any link between the “28 pages” not now in the headlines and the current oil situation?

    Best, TomT in Dallas

    PS
    This article astounded me…
    QUOTE
    “Saudi Aramco, which handles the marketing of Saudi Arabia’s crude, is the successor to the Arabian American Oil Company, a partnership between Chevron, Texaco, Exxon and Mobil established in the 1930s and 1940s.” …
    “In 1988, Saudi Aramco bought a 50 percent stake in Texaco’s refining and marketing operations in the eastern US and on the Gulf Coast, which was named Star Enterprises (“Saudi Arabia, Texaco join forces” Los Angeles Times, 1988).”
    “In 1997, Royal Dutch Shell joined the joint venture, subsequently renamed Motiva. When Chevron merged with Texaco in 2001, Texaco’s interest in the combined refining and marketing operations was sold to Shell and Saudi Aramco and reorganized as a 50:50 joint venture between them.” ….
    …and more….
    http://www.arabnews.com/economy/news/873006

  10. Lance says:

    Mika –

    I’ve been married 20+ years and my wife and I have more differences of opinions than similarities. In fact, as James mentioned with his wife, it is a very healthy situation to be in. I have noticed that John & Jane marriages (you know, matching jumpers and matching viewpoints) can shatter with any fundamental disagreement. IMO long-lasting relationships (sexual or not) need a good dose of healthy personality clashing too.

    My point is, I suppose, that it is probably better to find someone you’re attracted to and find if you have anything in common on which to start growing together. Apart from anything else, you may not be able to know what motivates them as they may not even know yet themselves.

    I could write books on this subject as it’s of great interest to me, especially as many attitudes sold by our society are just so unhelpful on anything but the most superficial level. But I’ll leave it there.

    I hope you find a good quality of love between you and another person.

  11. candideschmyles says:

    Personally I think falling in love is just pure and simple that good old biological imperative. Once that’s sated or not then the tricky bit of do you actually like each other enough to live together kicks in. If you do you call it love, if you don’t youl have years of misery or split up. With all the dating apps if you can’t find someone halfway compatible fairly quickly then get a cat.

  12. Beau Boeye says:

    Hello James,

    The easiest way to explain my question, and my thoughts behind it, is with an analogy:

    Let’s say you’re watching a professional skateboarder’s montage video, and you see him landing all of these insane tricks – you think he’s god-like. What you don’t see is his failures and mistakes which got him there (to be fair, a lot of montage videos do now include some of these clips).

    With that said, I’m curious as to what failures and mistakes you have made in the past which have molded you into who you are today; to see you as a fellow human being who also makes mistakes, learns from them, and excels forward.

    I wanted to ask this question because you’re someone I look up to; as do many others. This question came to mind because of the recent coverage of the falsification of peak-oil, something which I hadn’t been aware of before. I’ve studied the philosophy and design principles of Permaculture, and within this community peak-oil has become an embedded belief – along with ‘sustainable development’, which the word itself has become bastardized by globalists, but, I still believe there is merit in the idea of being self-sustaining.

    I guess what it is I’m looking for is motivation, or reassurance of the human condition. Maybe this is something I can start doing myself – create content based around the idea of motivating others. I really enjoy your #solutions based videos – I feel like many have been misguided and have become lost; maybe what we need to do is give each other the guidance and compassion to find our ways back home.

    I’m rambling now, but I think I’m learning something as I type this. Thanks James. This might have been what I needed.

  13. michael2 says:

    Hi James, In reply to meeting like minded people (but not a dating service), consider starting an account at meetup.com…

    This will allow CR members to organise “meet ups” in their local areas for other CR members, you can even make themes for the meet ups e.g. Worm Farming, 3-D Chess, Henry Kissinger Appreciation Night, whatever…

    I’m fairly sure if I was to have a beer and a chat with another one or ten CR members, there wouldn’t be too many axe wielding homicidal maniacs amongst them.

    Thanks for your work.

    m2

  14. doublek321 says:

    #QFC

    It’s been 50+ years since the JFK assassination. The official story is that it was done by a lone nut, yet 5 decades later there are thousands of documents that are still sealed.
    Even if I were to buy the official story (and I don’t) this piece of it makes absolutely zero sense and thus feels very damning to TPTB. I have a theory that TPTB would never let a candidate get elected who would re-open the JFK investigation. In fact I almost view it as a sort of measuring stick of whether or not TPTB are still in control (unfortunately they are).

    Is this too simplistic a view in your opinion or am I on to something?

    P.S. I know there are other similar cases where investigations could be re-opened (e.g. 9/11) but the JFK thing (sealed documents 50 years later) seems like an even more flimsy official story.

  15. VoltaicDude says:

    This is my favorite “questions” segment yet! Questions so many meme’s fundamental to our malicious corporatist-shaped, mainstream pop-culture.

    1) Looking forward to reading DiLorenzo’s The Myth of Nat. Mono. I’m not quite there yet conceptually – in fact I’ve been reading J.K. Galbraith’s The New Industrial State lately! – but it sounds like fertile ground for more fundamental questioning.

    2) Grimes work is a total joke. It’s incredible that this sort of crap passes as legit on a regular basis in academic circles and TV “news.”

    People are intimidated by numbers and science. That’s actually a point Galbraith made – just because somebody called an economist or mathematician or scientist builds a graph to convey some idea, doesn’t make it so. And it doesn’t make it beyond debate for non-specialists, without any disregard for the special aptitudes that these professional experts bring to the table. Dan Dicks does a good job debunking this crap.

    The fact that this crap does fly…well…there might be a conspiracy in there somewhere.

    3) Engdahl’s work on peak oil is epic!

    I can remember being taught peak oil theory in grade school – really! Obviously it was taught at an accessible level, as part of a bi-weekly blended-studies program including bits on geography, geology, biology, meteorology, space exploration and basic science and cultural studies.

    This also ties in interestingly to the issue of conspiracy. How is it that such a senseless theory- “fossil fuels” – can be unquestioned for decades? Kind of makes me feel silly that I fell for it too (get’em while they’re young), even when it was so easy to point out the infeasibility of it.

    Where were all the geologists? Working for Exxon or mainstream institutions I guess? And what else from my educative programming days do I still take for granted?

    4) Everybody is your 16th Cousin – brilliant. Again so easily described, and yet so easy to be duped on. Even knowing analysis of mitochondrial DNA suggests that all humans can trace their ancestry back to a single African mother – the ultimate connection – is not quite as tangible (certainly not “politically”), as this perspective – and this view allows one to analyze how easily “facts” can be used to misinform us and send us on wild goose chases.

  16. candideschmyles says:

    Question. As a meeting of like minds would you describe Anarcapulco as more the Bohemian Grove or the Bilderberg Meeting of self proclaimed Anarchists?

  17. Oscar says:

    #QFC:
    Hi James,

    On April 6 the Dutch population will be able to give their opinion about the association and free trade agreement between the EU and Ukraine, in a citizen-enforced, non-binding referendum.

    The Dutch government now holds the EU presidency, and a no-vote by the Dutch citizens would be noticed in Europe. Furthermore, I believe that an association agreement with another nation requires an unanimous vote by all the EU members.

    EU commission president Jean-Claude Juncker stated that if Dutch voters turn down an EU-Ukraine treaty in this referendum, this would “open the door to a large continental crisis” and may benefit Russia. He called on Dutch voters not to “change the referendum into a vote about Europe” and to “vote like a European strategist”.

    My question is this:
    Can you explain why – in your opinion – the Dutch voters should vote for or against an association and free trade agreement between the EU and Ukraine?

    • VoltaicDude says:

      I’m grateful for your comment above Oscar. Before reading your comment I knew nothing of this E.U.-Ukraine trade agreement. I’d like to provide a view into how we all interpret news of this sort when confronted with it.

      While we may be ignorant of many specific details to new developments, we come to them with a preset world view, which may ultimately provide us with either quick insight or conversely baseless bias, or – more usually – a mix of the two.

      It’s difficult to be sure whether insight or bias is in effect at any one moment, and we need to constantly exercise a healthy dose of skepticism about the things we take for granted.

      In that light I can offer a description and reasoning of my reactions to your comment. Of course I provide this as “insight,” but we can all find at least some humor in receiving insight from a self-proclaimed ignoramus!

      The big historical alliances that divide the East and the West may “officially” be a matter of the past now that the Soviet Union has been dismantled, however cultural and realpolitik structure does not necessarily dissolve so readily.

      Also, there was a tacit agreement at the time of the fall of the Soviet bloc that NATO would not pursue expansion into that realm of geography – an understanding that has been violated consistently almost from the start.

      While the trade agreement you talk about is presented by governmental structures as a neutral and benign E.U. “economic policy,” like so much economic policy its repercussions are far beyond such a shallow account speaking in terms of realpolitik.

      It will probably be understood by Russia and many Ukrainians as a very politically charged and aggressive move by the E.U. (in fact as a shadow of NATO intentions), and in fact just one more betrayal of the tacit understanding that such aggression would not follow the decentralized command of Eastern Bloc countries after the dismantling of the Soviet Union.

      This of course is all happening since the NATO initiation of the recent coup in the Ukraine which deposed a duly elected Ukrainian president who happened to favor a continuance of close political and economic ties to Russia.

      This coup was largely carried out by far-right and even neo-Nazi Ukrainians secretly funded by the West, and also, lo and behold, by al Qaeda militia which somehow found their way to the Ukraine, “by chance” directly after Russia’s interventions in the Syrian crisis. (That intervention helped avoid the assassination of Assad – as was done to Gaddafi and Saddam Hussein – and the fall of the Syrian nation into a state of catastrophe as has occurred in Libya and Iraq.)

      The importance of this intervention cannot be overstated – just in Iraq, millions of Iraqi civilians were killed as collateral damage as result to the illegal invasion of this sovereign country based on corporate media-pumped excuses which were total lies – this unfortunately is the reputation that the U.S. and NATO alliance has built for itself regarding military aggression around the world.

      As well as the political/military environment I review above, one must question the terms of this “free-trade” agreement itself.

      I knew nothing of the agreement to begin with, and did no research before I began writing this, so of course I cannot speak to the specific terms and clauses included in this agreement.

      I can say that there are other trade agreements that I am more familiar with such as the TPP and NAFTA – agreements that include U.S. as a signatory. Of these I can say that they are anything but about “free-trade.” They are about globalist development of world markets, and are a further entrenchment of corporatocracy – the most current form of totalitarianism to gain traction.

      The devil is in the details of these “free-trade” agreements, and we need be wary to that reality. I am keen to learn more about this.

      Also, I find the terms, “citizen-enforced non-binding referendum” very interesting in light of past E.U. agreement ratification processes.

      • Oscar says:

        Hi VoltaicDude
        (cc James)

        Thank you for your comment. If I had to answer my own question, I think I would have provided a similar answer to your answer. I would probably have used some general descriptions about NATO aggression, the probable dubious role of Western intelligence agencies in the Maidan uprising and the failure of similar trade-agreements such as TPP/TTIP/NAFTA but I wouldn’t have been able to bundle it into a coherent narrative nor provide specific details. I am not exactly new when it comes to the alternative media. I have been ‘awake’ regarding the NWO for a few years (thanks to Edward Griffin) and also have been awake to the shenanigans of the financial Powers That Be such as the FED and ECB for some additional years. To top it off, in the last year, my understanding of NWO-related matters has grown rapidly thanks to James and the corbettreport.com

        To be clear, for these reasons, I think I am against the association agreement between the EU and Ukraine. However, I am old enough to remember the cold war. It was a extremely big deal at the time. And it seems we are heading for a new one (even if it is fabricated by the West). The ugly thing is that even our Western leaders are the instigators of a new cold war, IF this leads to a real war with Russia (and China) you don’t want to be on the receiving end when it comes to yourself and your family.
        Even if you dislike Empire, and even when there is a 3D-chess game going on, when 2 empires clash you want YOUR empire to win. Because the ultimate consequence is that if your empire does not win, you and your family will be dead or hurt. Again, this is the case even if you dislike the concept of Empire and the New Great Game.

        Therefore, I am hoping James Corbett can provide a coherent narrative and his honest assesment/thoughts about the matter.

        I mean, if I have a hard time convincing even myself, how can I hope to present the case to my partner, family and friends. I think it is important because I think this is a front in the Infowars that the average citizen CAN make a difference.

    • Oscar says:

      Hi James,

      Regarding my QFC on 21 february. The Dutch referendum on April 6 about the EU-association treaty with Ukraine has already been held, so the concrete practical (although maybe not philosophical) relevance to answer this specific QFC has been reduced.

      Any way, I have voted gainst treaty purely because of my increasingly anti-globalist view – partly because of your work – so you might take some pride in that.
      However, I could not provide a coherent narrative on the EU-Ukraine treaty to the people in my surroundings (which was the reason for my QFC) because I could only offer them generalities, such as NATO/Western aggression, the negative impact of similar treaties in the past such as NAFTA, and the likelihood that this treaty will benefit the elite and not the ordinary man. It was too hard for me to fluently back it up with hard evidence in a normal conversation. My general sounding explanations came across a little vague to them, so I am sad to report that they mostly voted for the treaty.

      On the plus side and with regard to the bigger picture, I am glad to report that the Dutch population turned down the treaty with 61,1 percent against and 38,1 percent for the treaty. 0,8 percent voted blank. The turnout was 32,2 percent which makes the result legal (although still not binding). Prime minister Rutte says that he will take the result into account and that the treaty cannot be ratified ‘just like that’. He says that the Dutch government will have study on the results, and that now a step-by-step process will come into play that will take weeks (or months) rather than days. Some sceptics say they will find a way to push through the treaty. Which isn’t hard to imagine since 27 of the 28 EU nations already have ratified the treaty.

      However, it does a signal to the rest of Europe, especially now the Netherlands presently holds the EU-presidency.
      Nigel Farage, leader of the Eurosceptic UK Indepence Party in the United Kingdom says this was just the appetizer. The main course will come on June 23, 2016 when the United Kingdom will vote if they will leave the EU or not. He says a Dutch no-vote on the Ukraine-EU-association treaty will help enormously for the Brexit because he now can point to a continental-wide anti-EU-sentiment. So that will be something to watch.

  18. Markus O'hilleus says:

    I loved your video a while back about Chomsky being a gatekeeper for the NWO. I was just reading the comments under it and I see you caught a bit a flack from a couple listeners. So I’m not sure if you’d be into doing another one…

    For years, I’ve been listening to Stefan Molyneux. I love hearing him destroy socialists of all stripes. He constantly promotes anarcho-capitalism and peaceful parenting, two concepts with which I whole heartedly agree. And for the most part, he is very consistent in his arguments.

    But over the past few months, I’ve noticed a bit of gatekeeping from him as well. For the most part, he (correctly) prescribes the majority of our society’s problems to government intervention. But when discussing Big Pharma and vaccines, his rhetoric is almost indistinguishable from that of the average reddit user. There is a particular episode where he is refuting anthropogenic climate change, and his exact argument could be used to refute vaccine safety, but he doesn’t seem to notice this inconsistency.

    There have been other moments in which I find myself arguing with him as I drive to work. But that’s ok. I don’t have to agree with him on everything. But it all came to a head recently when he posted a series of videos called “The X debate, yes really!” The first one was “The Flat Earth Debate, Yes Really!”. The next one was “The Young Earth Debate, Yes Really!”. As you can guess, he argues against opponents of questionable intelligence about these outrageous, nonsensical topics that no almost no one would take seriously.

    Good for entertainment, maybe. But then recently, he did another one called “The 911 Truth Debate, Yes Really!”. If you haven’t heard it, I suggest you give it a listen, especially the last 10 minutes or so. Rather than giving the caller (an admitted novice when it comes to 911) the last word on the topic, he takes out his earpiece so he can “rant to the end”. He then proceeds to give one of the most ironic speeches I’ve ever heard. He accuses the caller of working against his own stated goal of ending the war on terror. He says that by bringing up these questions about 911, he’s actually hurting the liberty movement by associating these ‘outlandish’ claims with the cause of freedom, and that people will hear the 911 stuff and be turned off from the idea of liberty. The crazy part is that almost every line of this diatribe is perfectly applicable to Molyneux, himself.

    He closes the video with a chilling and almost creepy statement that mirrors his idle, Chomsky. He says that even if you found a smoking gun tomorrow that absolutely proves beyond the shadow of a doubt who is responsible for 911, it would change nothing.

    Sorry for the long rant, but I was curious if you had interviewed him in the past, so I searched your past episodes and found his name quite a few times. It appears that he even filled in as a ‘guest host’ for you on a few occasions. So I guess my question is this:

    How well do you know Stefan Molyneux? Are you friends? Would you be interested in discussing 911 with him? And if he refuses, would you be interested in making another gatekeeper video? If so, I would be more than happy to help dig through his videos and provide specifics.

    • Oscar says:

      I saw James’ video on Chomsky some time ago and I totally agree with the assessment that his video about Chomsky being a gatekeeper is brilliant! If James wouldn’t have pointed this out, how would we even know? We would have taken what Chomsky said at face value. I also read the comment-section and I thought that the flack James caught in the comment-section was undeserved. If I have time, I might go back and counter those comments there.

      So I also wish James would make more video’s like these. I have no opinion about Steven Molyneux (so fine do a QFC on him), but there have been a few people in the alternative media that I have been wondering about. And it doesn’t always have to be the case that they are gatekeepers, they can also be salesmen. For example: pimping fear is a known tactic to sell your product. A lot of people in the alternative media do that.
      Another thing is that some people in the alternative media go way way way overboard. I mean, it is proven without a doubt that there are multiple conspiracies. But not EVERY thing is a conspiracy (lizards anyone?!) For example: what about David Icke?
      But I agree again with the choice for a ‘gatekeeper’ because these are the people that spread disinformation that is the least conspicuous, but no less poisonous.

      In short, James Corbett’s role is to be a guide of sorts, in my opinion at least. It would be a lot harder to navigate the media without this kind of guidance. I mean, I wasn’t even aware of the concept of gatekeeper until I watched James’ Chomsky video.

      So I agree we should definitely have more of those video’s!

      After all, if James were to give anything less than his honest assessment on people or subjects – wherever it may lead – I would not be following his site.

      • candideschmyles says:

        The problem is Oscar that James is not infallible. He does not know everything about everything. For example Chomsky elucidates for a certain audience a narrative that nobody else touches without entering into the spurious world of alternative media, which as you point out is a hit and miss grey area that educated people tend to avoid. Chomsky puts a salient rationalised argument exposing the US as a hegemonic dystopic bully and does so with a well researched and beautifully simple logic. In some sense and to a certain audience he is a candle in the dark. The only area in which he can be faulted is his refusal to look at the evidence regarding 9/11. As he has been an outspoken critic of US policy since the early 1970s and written dozens of highly critical books since then I think he should be given the benefit of the doubt on that one subject.
        As I have pointed out quite often James seems rather too quick to start throwing stones in the glass house of his own narrative. With Julian Assange, Laura Poitras, Edward Snowden and others he makes assertions with opinion not evidence. That is not good enough. And on the climate issue James himself can quite readily be accused of being a gatekeeper for big oil. Personally I don’t want opinion, I want facts supported by evidence, especially when some effort is being made to destroy an important messenger.

    • WannabePhilosopher says:

      I completely agree, although I can’t say I’ve ever followed Molyneux’s work that closely. To me, it always seems like he’s trying to blame the average person for humanity’s problems. At every turn it’s the immigrant or the poor man who is the scapegoat. We all should know damn well that’s not the case, and be wary of those who try to tell you otherwise.

  19. Eric says:

    I have a question, which I’d like to submit in video form. I don’t see how to post a video here… can I just email it to James?

  20. jeff3 says:

    Here’s a question:

    We know that credit rating agencies can be gamed because of their “issuer pays” structure, in which entities pay to have their securities rated, which becomes a conflict for obvious reasons as it serves the rating agency to give out good ratings to their paying customers.

    Do you suppose this conflict could be gamed in-reverse?

    Could an entity or a bloc of entities that make up a significant portion of the rating agency’s client base influence the agency to downgrade their competition?

    What do you make of Moody’s downgrading China’s government debt rating?

    Might this be the result of behind-the-scenes political maneuvering?

  21. Aimec says:

    Hi James!

    I have noticed that you used to feature the work of Alex Jones as part of your work, and i have noticed that you no longer do. I used to follow Alex Jones avidly, but i have grown skeptical of his motives and indeed who he is actually working for.

    Of many examples i could choose, in a recent video of his he announced that he thought Donald Trump would get killed by the establishment because he was such a big threat to them, but chose to omit the facts that Bill Clinton and Trump have been playing golf together for years, Bill and Hillary attended Trump’s wedding in 2005, and Trump has also donated to not only Hillary’s previous campaigns, but also to the Clinton Foundation’s efforts to destroy the lives of Haitians and others.

    He has also been extremely scaremongering in his coverage of ebola and, at the turn of the millenium, he told us that the Russians were going to nuke the US! Something that didn’t exactly materialise!

    So the question was: what are your opinions of Alex Jones?

    Thanks you for all your work,

    Aimec

    • Markus O'hilleus says:

      Alex Jones has inspired many people (including James Corbett, as I understand) to join the alternative media and spread the message of truth. However, he doesn’t always tell the whole story and can be quite misleading to his listeners. He is another gatekeeper. (See my post above about Stefan Molyneux.) It’s high time these people are called out for what they are.

      And just to be clear, this is not about a difference of opinion. This is about withholding facts from the public and controlling the narrative. People like James are shining a light on the corrupt groups and individuals who are destroying our societies, and Jones and his ilk are casting shadows.

    • Oscar says:

      I second that (that is, if I am allowed to second another QFC apart from submitting my own one for the following episode :-)). I’ve actually been wondering myself about Alex Jones. I think he does provide useful information. But I genuinely wonder if there isn’t some disinformation going on as well. Are his motives pure, or if there’s something else behind it? What does this mean then, if the latter is the case.

      Like I said before: I think that James’ role is to be a guide in the media-landscape, not only with regard to the mainstream media but also with regard to the alternative media. THAT is his niche or forté. More so than anything else, in my humble opinion.

      I realize that one has to be careful in doing this. I also realize that calling out gatekeepers, fear pimping salesmen or other people on falsehoods does not make you new friends, but James’ quest is about finding the truth and not about making new friends. Being friends with such people would only hurt James’ reputation, because pursuing the truth – WHEVER IT MAY LEAD – is his strong suit IMO. I think James’ audience is keenly aware of this. James has his own strong base and is therefore independent. Compromising when calling out issues or people on falsehoods would only weaken this base of strength.

  22. doublek321 says:

    #QFC

    If I understand the Rothschild family narrative correctly it seems as if they’re able to use their enormous wealth to influence government. It’s interesting to me that government didn’t just threaten to take their wealth via some type of taxes/regulation. In other words, it seems as if money “won out” over government instead of vice-versa. The article below talks about how the reverse seems to happen in China.

    I’m interested to hear your opinion about why money wins over government in some cases but not others. And does the idea that government might steal from rich families almost force them to take measures to try to protect their wealth (even if via evil schemes)? I’m certainly not trying to defend the Rothschilds btw. Just trying to get a clearer understanding of how things work. Apologies if I’m asking a question that is very difficult to know the answer to. I have a lot of respect for your knowledge though so I feel like it’s okay to ask you tough questions.

    ==========================================
    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-rich-crime-idUSKBN0TY0VV20151215

    Just over one percent of Chinese billionaires identified by the Hurun Report as the country’s richest over the past 17 years have been jailed, charged or even executed mainly for bribery, embezzlement or economy-related crimes, the publication said.
    ==========================================

  23. Markus O'hilleus says:

    I’ve got another QFC that is right up your alley. It has to do with bitcoin and the parties who are controlling it’s future.

    I understand that many of your listeners may not be up to speed with the block size debate, so here’s a quick summary as I understand the situation:

    Early on, when Satoshi was still in control of the project, he (she, it, they?) implemented a 1MB limit to the size of blocks on the blockchain. This was to prevent a spam attack – basically filling transactions with unnecessary information to bloat the size of the blockchain and make it impractical to run a full node. In Satoshi’s own words, this was meant to be a temporary fix until a better solution could be devised. Now, years later, bitcoin is gaining acceptance and becoming more widely used around the world, and this 1MB block limit is beginning to cause problems. Since only so many transactions can fit in a block, bitcoin cannot scale beyond it’s current limitation of about 7 transactions per second. We’ve already seen days where many blocks in a row are full, which causes a delay in the network. And some users end up having to wait hours or even days for their transactions to go through.

    For the past year or so, there has been a heated debate regarding what should be done about this problem. Several solutions have been proposed to increase the block size limit. The least radical, in my opinion, is called ‘Bitcoin Classic’ which would raise the block size limit to 2MB and everything else would stay the same. To me, this seems like a sensible approach which would buy us more time and keep the network running smoothly for another couple years while we work out a long term solution.

    However, many of the ‘Core’ devs are staunchly opposed to any block size limit increase. They argue that an increase would lead to further centralization of bitcoin as fewer people would have the resources to run a node due to the accelerating increase in the size of the blockchain. But many in the community suspect that these core devs have other motives. Several of them have been hired by a company called “Blockstream” to work on ‘off chain’ systems that would supplement bitcoin and allow for additional functionality on the blockchain. They are accused of censoring the discussion (in the case of Theymos, moderator of r/bitcoin) and preventing the size increase because it would make their products less viable if bitcoin could scale and allow more transactions per second.

    The problem is that if something is not done fairly soon, then we’re going to have full blocks all the time, which will grind the network to a halt and cause bitcoin to crash. This would hurt Blockstream as well, causing their investors to lose the $75 million they’ve spent so far.

    And here’s where it gets interesting. A recent post on r/btc suggests that the legacy fiat banking elite are the ones behind Blockstream and that they have no intention of getting a return on their $75 million investment. As the author of the post (u/UndergroundNews) points out, the banking cartels spent much more than that to eliminate Gaddafi and establish a new central bank in Benghazi. And seeing as crypto currencies are the biggest threat to their hegemony, throwing away a few million to destroy bitcoin would be nothing for them.

    https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/48vhn0/the_owners_of_blockstream_are_spending_75_million/

    Since you yourself are a bitcoin user, I wondered if you’d be interested in digging a bit deeper into this story.

    P.S. If this is true, it could definitely be interpreted as good news for humanity in general, as the bankers know their time at the top is limited, and that it’s crypto that will bring on their downfall.

  24. christian says:

    Hello James !

    As a huge fan of your work, and especially the FLNWO-series, I have a question. Where can I find the early episodes, I understand that you have done episodes about “The Insider” and “Blade runner” But they are no where to be found. Could you please direct me on the right path, or if unavailable, PLEASE re-upload them(!)

    Best regards from Stockholm Sweden
    Christian

  25. Smokeyspam2000 says:

    Hello James,

    Who is Hillary R. Clinton?

    -Smokey

  26. Filip says:

    Lately I have seen a lot of coverage for the fight between “Cultural Libertarians” and “Third Wave Feminism”, and I wanted to ask a few questions:
    #QFC 1
    What is your opinion of Third Way Feminism and the current battle that rages in Youtube/Twitter/etc between the likes of Sarkeesian, J. Valente, Milo, Sargon of Akkad, etc?
    #QFC 2
    What is your opinion of the MGTOW (Men Going Their Own Way) movement and their tenets? What do you think about Barbarossa, Paul Elam, Stardusk, Sandman, etc?
    #QFC 3
    What is your opinion about the concepts of gynocentrism, hypergamy and men disposability?

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Back to Top