Did A New Study Just Find GMOs Safe? - Questions For Corbett #030

06/19/201646 Comments

Why does America attack the I-CIA-SIS it created? Was Gladio an outgrowth of SOE? How do you get a loved one out of the military? And did the National Academy of Sciences just find GMOs to be safe in a new study? Find out the answer to these and other burning questions as James opens the mailbag for this month's edition of Questions For Corbett.

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).

Episode 295 – Who is Really Behind ISIS?

U.S. Demands Russia Stop Bombing Al-Qaeda … Is War On Terror Over? Can We Have Our Rights Back?

Nato's Secret Armies

Conscientious Objectors: Their Fascinating History, and Their Role Today

Two Conscientious Objectors from the Air Force Tell Their Story

Corbett Report Radio 050 – Deconstructing Pearl Harbor with Robert Stinnett

Tora, Tora, Tora! – FLNWO #21

Yes, GMOs Are Safe (Another Major Study Confirms)

What the Forbes model of contributed content means for journalism

Who is "GMO Answers"?

How the National Academy of Sciences misled the public over GMO food safety

Episode 145 - You Are Being Gamed

FLNWO podcast on iTunes

FLNWO podcast RSS feed

Corbett Report Extras YouTube channel

Subscriber video on "The Origins of OK"

Filed in: Questions For Corbett
Tagged with:

Comments (46)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. ismado95 says:

    Hi James, did the American government save the great plains from the dust bowl? This is the narrative we learned in American high schools and I am a bit skeptical of it because it supports the idea that the government is able and responsible for fixing environmental catastrophes. So did better farming techniques from the government and planting of trees cure the dust bowl or is there something more to it? Thanks.

    • jhnsmall6 says:

      No, after 40 years of attempting to reverse, or correct the damage done, the agency created reported they had only had a %60 success, Congress taught the bureaucracy that failure is the way to succeed. Congress increased their budget 4 fold. According to the oral history of Pappy Job, the Job family had adopted a farming method, used throughout American History, of farming the land for short term maximum profit, without care of future use, (effectively destroying the land), they were, for 3 generations, able to acquire new land from the government and moving on and on. This was a well-known practice that was a big embarrassment to the farming community. Given, that over half the Congress was made up of farmers and ranchers, ignorance cannot be claimed. The Congress was also aware, after several hearings, that the proposed land reform would be a failure. This was not a problem for the business plan of the Job Family. Even we non-farmers are aware that some land is better for farming than others and the Oklahoma lands were among the worst. Congress was able to gain short-term political gains, and thus systemic needs of politics trumped common sense. John Wayne and the Sons of the Pioneers, cattlemen, were thrown off the land and Steinbeck did not write a Grapes of Wrath for them, John Wayne did make a B-movie about their plight. I always saw what happened to the Job
      Family as Cosmic Justice, correctly punishing people who were well deserving punishment. Unfortunately, none of the politicians were punished in any way, as usual. (A lesson learned, making a policy error contains little risk of public correction as opposed to Commercial failure.)

  2. erichard says:

    Where is the safest place on earth to live today? Everyone should study and pray for the best answer FOR THEM to this question. Seek to gather with like minded people that are collectively seeking local independence in every way. Big cities are obviously not a good place to gather. Coastal cities are also not a good place for weather and disaster reasons. Always be ready to gather to another place if necessary.

    • barry2 says:

      Safe place to live?
      Since the dawn of human history people have settled at river mouths and estuaries. And there is a long history of such settlements being destroyed or damaged by floods, storm surges, tsunamis, invading pirates or armies.
      But people keep on coming back to them.
      Good reason: easy transport of goods and people by land, sea, or river. Makes for natural place for different peoples to meet, trade, exchange ideas and genes .Fertile soil on flood plains. Usually abundant fish in river and sea.
      Most of the time the benefits far outweigh the disadvantages.

  3. born2sk8urmum says:

    Hi James, in answering your question about voting on issues like brexit as opposed to traditional candidates. I live in the UK unfortunately and it always staggers me how advanced the Orwellian nightmare is here and also how apathetic as a whole we Brits are. I as many Corbett report viewers would see the clear and obvious choice of voting to leave the EU. We have seen and also as previously discussed on the podcast how other referendums ended in a similar fashion and business as usual, centralisation of power continues. However, a great point is made by the fact that Britain has such a large influence on global economics and not to mention the biggest player in the nwo next to the US. Previous attempts to abolish the human rights act in the UK and the creation of a British constitution on the cards, could the choice to opt out possibly be more detrimental to our rights? Could similar strategies to totally crash the UK be on the cards as we have seen in the US? Just another case of da ja vu. Although its not a candidate we are voting for that can lie and finally deceive us. This could quite clearly be another case of which hand would you like to be beaten with, either way your getting hit. Fundamentally the same left right paradigm mind games are the mechanism and the goal, to continue to divide us and steer us from real issues of importance. Cheers, Stephen 

    • bubromer says:

      As an anarchist who is tired of the left-right politicking I agree fully with your questions and concerns… I’m hesitating between not voting (I see voting as morally problematic) and voting Brexit (I want to put sticks in the wheels of the NWO) but I share your concern that ultimately UK sovereignty is just as awful and hardly more accountable than EU sovereignty and will advance the NWO agenda regardless of the outcome of the vote.

      What tips the balance slightly in favour of Brexit is the false flag/psyop (in my estimation) against Jo Cox, which makes me think globalist scum are running scared of Brexit.

  4. James Ouimet says:

    In response to questions to ask us:

    1. As an anarchist the only answer is not to vote or vote for the exit. It is time to act and this opportunity won’t happen often. If the rest of the world falters because of this – to bad. We should all be in the fight to be free and remove these incompetent murderers and accomplices.

    2. No country (Gov’t) on this planet is really any good in my experience. What you need is food, shelter and water. The best bet is to go high into the mountains near spring water and dig a cave. Bring an indoor garden (see the Internet they are available) and the basic survival kit.

    3. Freedom is measured by how easy it is to live in your environment (planet, people, travel and others).

  5. rob5280 says:

    Greetings James,
    I enjoyed viewing/listening to QFC #030, and I continue to appreciate the amount of time you invest in reviewing and responding to your subscribers, as much as I do hearing your subscriber’s questions.
    As you know, the people of the United Kingdom will be voting on the issue of whether or not to leave the EU. The outcome, either way, will lead to changing the dynamics of Europe, for perhaps the next century.
    The vote takes place on June 23, 2016.
    I spent some time this weekend, searching the internet for related articles and conversation about this issue, and I came across a documentary that I found to be very well done and informative. I encourage anyone and everyone who is interested in this issue, to click on the below and have a look for themselves.
    Best regards,


    Brexit: The Movie is written and directed by filmmaker Martin Durkin,
    and produced by Wag TV.

  6. Filip says:

    1. Answer to the Brexit question:
    You should vote leave. It is an opportunity to scale back government that won’t offer itself twice.
    2. Where to live? Everywhere I have been is infected with statism and socialism. Move to NH if you are in the US, if you are in the EU move to the least socialist one: Estonia.

    My QFC: What do you think of MGTOW and the Japanese counterpart of it?

  7. dwayner says:

    Dear James;
    Very thought provoking questions. Should an anarchist vote for Brexit? An anarchist is free. This freedom is going to require responsibility to make individual decisions on every action one takes in life. Sometimes an anarchist will decide for his own situation that he can vote, and may do so. It is good not to be attached to any particular outcome, as most government-run elections are rigged.

    As an anarchist living in the landmass commonly referred to as Canada, I very rarely vote. I actually voted for Justin for two reasons; 1) I was sick of seeing Harper show up as Canada’s representative in the G7, etc. 2) I live in a tiny village where I didn’t have to stand in line to fill out the ballot. Didn’t cost me much. I was not at all labouring under the illusion that the new face on tyranny would actually change anything really meaningful, except that his face is easier to look at as he delivers his propaganda to the masses. It’s just a presentation thing…

    If you think that leaving the EU would impact your world in a positive way, you may decide to put in the time and stand in line and fill out your ballot. Decentralizing the power is certainly a good thing, but remember, these power-mongers are very good at stealing elections. Don’t be surprised if they don’t accept the will of the people, screw up the ballots, hold another vote if they don’t like the results, etc, etc. This is what they do. “They don’t care about you” (Saint Carlin).

    You are only as free as you act. If voting is something you want to do, don’t let some philosophy get in the way of making a decision on your own particular issue at hand. We can form alliances, governments, and ad hoc groups to serve us when individuals are not strong enough to make the improvements alone. The enlightened anarchist will be empowered to form effective groups and dissolve them when they have served the purpose.

    The same applies to the “least terrible government” question. It is going to look different for everyone. Sink into your own life, and learn what it is you need to thrive and survive. Some might be happy sitting in a cave, like the monk archetype, and some might find fulfillment being an activist on the front lines. Be the best you can be. Look critically at your strengths and limitations, and make the moves necessary. Show up. Life is a gift. We are living in very challenging times, and self-awareness is paramount.

    • bubromer says:

      I’m of the anarchist persuasion so I relate to your comment.

      I’m a UK resident and am ‘entitled’ to vote in the EU referendum.

      I am not voting in this referendum because whichever way I vote, my vote, along with millions of others, will be recuperated by unsavoury party political types whose ideas and discourse I find toxic.

      Take Brexit. If I vote Brexit out of concerns for the NWO agenda and the EU’s role in it, I know that that is not how my vote will be interpreted, i.e recuperated.

      Rather it will be recuperated as signalling assent to the anti-foreigner, anti-immigrant pro Brexit campaigners such as Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage whose statism, while not left wing, is still of the social control variety of the cheapest kind (‘security’, ‘stability’ etc.).

      Also the UK is very much on board with Washington and the NWO agenda and will ratify things like TTIP and GMO crops sooner than you can say ‘Bob’s your uncle’ – the EU has been halted in these processes by pressure groups. I don’t see such pressure groups carrying any weight in Westminster or Downing Street.

      So, to conclude, voting is problematic for many reasons – e.g. giving legitimacy to the fallacious idea of political representation, alienating personal sovereignty in favour of state sovereignty, signalling assent to authority and external control – but in the case of the referendum, where these issues are less apparent, I know that any which way I vote it will provide fuel to the causes of opportunistic, immoral controllers who will interpret my vote in a way that supports their very own NWO agenda, when all along I was seeking to undermine any kind of NWO agenda.

      • Corbett says:

        Thanks for the thoughtful reply, bubromer. You make some good points.

      • mik says:

        Just one thing, why bother how crooks and scumbags will interpret your vote (if you decide to vote)?
        We know (s)elections are just a game.

        • bubromer says:

          Precisely. I don’t necessarily want to play ball with those people or contribute to the (s)election process. In fact life would be so much better if nobody voted, ever., for then the sham nature of our democracy would be revealed for all to see. But they would then probably just force us to vote anyway under threat of penalties.

    • HomeRemedySupply says:

      Nice quote of yours…

      “You are only as free as you act.”

      I am going to use it with our group “North Texans for 9/11 Truth”.
      (google it)
      We do a lot of “actions”, not just talk.
      The quote is sweet.
      “You are only as free as you act.”
      (On May 21st, out group enticed about 60 people to meet at Dealey Plaza (JFK grassy knoll) for a sign wave of anti-GMO anti-Monsanto)

  8. bubromer says:


    I have a mundane, presentational question for James. What is the story behind the title of the show New World Next Week?

    Does it mean there may be a New World Order next week, so we must be on a guard, or does it mean there’ll be a New, better word next week (unlikely given the content I’ll admit) or is it simply because it rolls off the tongue well?

    It’s a superficial question no doubt but it’s been playing on my mind for a while.

    • loftbat says:

      I’m not James, but I can answer that question for you.

      The Council on Foreign Relations has a podcast of its own, it’s called The World Next Week. Corbett or Pilato (I can’t remember which) thought that NEW World Next Week would make a great name for their weekly collaboration. I believe it is a tongue-in-cheek reference to the New World Order, but more broadly the fact that the world is constantly changing. Whatever happens next week, good or bad, we can be sure that it will be new.

      James did explain this somewhere. If I made a mistake he can correct me. I hope this helped!

  9. ccuthbert2001 says:

    Rappoport had an interesting article on the GMO front:


    From his article: In May, the NAS issued a comprehensive report: “Genetically Engineered Crops: Experiences and Prospects.” The report’s key finding takes in the entire period of US cultivation of GMO crops:

    “The nation-wide data on maize, cotton, or soybean in the United States do not show a significant signature of genetic-technology on the rate of yield increase.” — Chapter 6, Page 66.

    There’s deafening silence on the conclusion of this report. The GMO industry’s whole raison d’etre is increased yields. Yet the press, that reports on the stupidest little “scientific” study that has no importance to our lives, reports nothing. What a shock!

  10. VoiceOfArabi says:

    Are we Freedom Fighters or Are we Terrorists??

    The Mahatma Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King, Jr., Fidel Castro, Hugo Chávez were all flagged as terrorists, and some are still demonized by majority of “the average citizen”

    So, Why is everyone on the membership list of this website “not a terrorist”… in fact, majority of us will share similar views to the legends listed above.??

    Why are we calling ISIS terrorists?? (i am calling them terrorist because i have seen first hand the terror they have created!). Why are we calling Hezbollah Terrorists and not freedom fighter??

    Question then. Who decides and what is the definition?? and do we have obligation to protect any person or organization that is flagged falsely, even though it might put us in danger??

  11. pieter says:

    if I may be so free and open to write my opinion about GMOs.

    the trusted face, the relaxing sofa and trusting blue color of the sofa and curtain are quite inviting to do so.

    I think the question “has shown a recent study that GMOs are safe” becomes overthrown by the oppressions we faces.

    let us therefore start by looking at to the foundations which make this system possible.

    if I’m not mistaken there is some Corbrettreport podcast where reference is made to the book An Underground History of American Education By J.T. Gatto

    the podcast mentions “that schools were created to build up a corporate industrial complex”

    and that’s exactly what’s going on today.

    you can hear the mainstream media itself talk about the disappearing of biodiversity through “the human fault” 100 % faster than without our intervention.

    by greed, deforestation, monoculture.

    but has anyone thought about the fact that; hey I can indoctrinate myself in the welfare state for genetic engineering, but nowhere to study biodiversity.

    perhaps that is what we need most. by a threat of genocide.

    to give an example:

    Wheat, for example, is massively cultivated in our monoculture. Our monoculture used only five variants. While there are 300 variations of existence.

    when these are put in interaction, and a pair of variants to catch a disease the other variants will have a resistance

    this biodiversity can be studied, learned, observed, and protected.

    therefor are its genetic manipulated organisms are benefit solutions.


    Monsanto promises to work to help end hunger, donate their genetically manipulated seeds to farmers. in exchange for their natural seeds.

    but destroys these natural seeds. instead of to prepare them.

    another point is that they are often produced by Pharmaceutical companies that also often produce pesticides.

    which has two effects – the company manipulates so that their seeds can absorb more pesticides.

    – more pesticide use kills the bottom, which turn in dependent on external factors.

    – or just as a software company they can distribut a virus on the web as well make a profit on selling the antivirus.

    then there is great danger; of hybrid seeds.

    which grow mastodon just as a cancerous growth probably, by the only thing they have in common, faulty genes.

    the danger light here in the dependence.

    can you imagine a four-year war without having self reproducing seeds?

    and it looks like we’re going to a global government; after these it is put in place after their genocide.

    the only wars then possible is that of the population against the elite.

    with food reproduction in their hands, they can starve the population in case of a riot.

    the change of species is also something that requires time.

    1 certain butterfly species has its particular plant it eats.

    and place its eggs, caterpillars on it.

    this plant can sometimes change its chemical structure, so it become uneatable for the Caterpillar.

    the butterfly can then again turn into a different kind, A new species is born. all this happened rarely over a lifetime.

    and to gain profit we (or the globalists) want engineering 80% of what we eat in one lifetime?

    and the laws around it are also not righteous.

    the company that makes genes pollution overfly;

    would be the ones who have to pay for it.

    [SNIP: This comment exceeded the 500 word comment limit. You may submit the other part of it as a separate comment. -JC]

  12. whaugen says:

    Here is my view on the Brexit vote and why. As a very general background I consider myself mostly if not entirely Libertarian. Libertarians, like Anarchists I believe, believe in voluntary cooperation and the non-aggression principle and I would take this a step further to say I believe in the concept of individual sovereignty. To me sovereignty should almost never be delegated and if ever delegated should only be for a specific purpose and for a limited time that would automatically revert to the grantor unless the grantor specifically grants an extension of the delegated sovereignty. So on the Brexit vote I view any reduction in an individual’s delegated sovereignty as a move toward restoration of individual sovereignty and as such as a positive move in the direction of individual liberty, freedom and sovereignty, so to that extent I fully support Brexit and hope the UK will vote to leave the EU. Yes, there would still be delegated sovereignty but it would be reduced and closer to home so to that extent I think it would be a better result for the citizens of the UK.

    As far as the global economy is concerned, it is destabilized already and generally in a declining growth period. To say or think that the world economy is so fragile that Britain leaving the EU, which has been in an extended period of low growth, would somehow collapse the world economy seems, well ridiculous to me. The EU is giving a lot of signals in my opinion that low and declining growth is the most likely course for it for at least the next few years, if not outright recession and/or depression with or without the UK in it. The EU and the global government movement in general are looking more and more like global recessions and depressions without or very limited economic growth potential.

    I don’t know which country has the least terrible government and I guess this is somewhat subjective but the ones with the fewest laws and regulations and smallest central governments would be the first place I would look. Not knowing how many laws are on the books in this country Switzerland has always been high on my list and any country that has managed to stay out of wars for extended periods of time would also score high on my list.

  13. totemynote says:

    Hi James and fellow subscribers,
    A question about how privacy on the web. Does a VPN matter and what are the trade offs? What browser do you use and does the choice matter? I have researched this info somewhat but would like to hear what our virtual community has to say about it. I looked here as well… https://www.corbettreport.com/?s=privacy …but could not find anything about specific about VPN’s and so forth.
    Thank you,
    Mike in Oregon

    • mik says:

      an article about how to hide from preying eyes


      • totemynote says:

        Ahh, thanks mik, very informative link.

        Sometimes I feel like I’m self-censoring myself. And once in a while I get a twinge of unease when I click a youtube video that isn’t a cat playing a piano or something.

        Other times I’m really brave and do things like posting here! I say that with levity but it’s just a little bit under the surface type of true. But, since discovering James C, Sibel E, James Perloff, all the others from BFP, and my fellow subscribers here I feel braver. Truly, it is freeing for me to watch, listen (yea, on a iphone but at least I know what the consequences are now) and interact here.

        I figure if they ever did take a “steely hard look” at me they’d know I’m harmless. All I want right now today that is anywhere close to a restricted type of activity is to have some chickens on that unused plot of land outside my apartment. And after that; some eggs.

        Thanks James C for having my question on today’s QFC #031. I was surprised and it gave me a good feeling.

  14. bubromer says:


    Dear James, have you ever had the dubious pleasure of reading the infamous conspiracy document “Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars”? If you have, I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on it.

    For my part I saw it as confirming the view that the monetary system as currently practiced is an instrument of mass enslavement. I also found it a fascinating portrait of the psychology (or should I say psychopathy) of those who dwell in the shadow government, regardless of whether the document is a genuine leak or a fabricated artefact.

    And there is no denying that, as I speak, society has moved much further towards the agenda of total control exposed in the document than when it was first discovered in 1979, especially in terms of mass surveillance and data gathering.

    It certainly is worth a read, if only to understand how globalist controllers view their fellow human beings.

    For those interested, my personal review of the document can be found here: http://scruffyowlet.blogspot.co.uk/2016/07/silent-weapons-for-quiet-wars.html

  15. HomeRemedySupply says:

    Question for Corbett –
    In your opinion, why do you think that 15 of the 19 who were “chosen”, were chosen to be Saudis and not other nationalities?

    Actually, the infamous Prince Bandar raises this point.
    “…Otherwise, is it accidental that they will choose 15 misguided young people to be out of 19 when they had a pool of so many people from so many different countries? So it was intentional, in my judgment, to do it that way to hurt our relationship….”

    (Links at http://911blogger.com/news/2016-06-24/brexit-britain-bae-saudi-arabia-28-pages-and-military-industrial-complex )

    Again and again recently, the 28 pages keeps cropping up in the news. July 2nd – Associated Press –

  16. shiranaihito says:

    #QFC: Did you not know Sean Stone is a charlatan, before interviewing him here: https://www.corbettreport.com/interview-1183-james-corbett-enters-the-buzzsaw-with-sean-stone/ ?

    Sean seemed like an interesting guy, so I took a look at his channel, and.. his video’s titles and imagery struck me as kind of shady, involving stuff like “Psychic War Healing”, “Alien Disclosure’s Mandela Effect”, “Draco, Anunnaki & Pleiadian Ancestors of Humanity”.

    So I figured I’d watch through a short video to.. well, by that point it was basically to confirm that he’s a scumbag charlatan, and chose this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqELwqRdlyw

    Sure enough, he brought up “astral projection” as if it were real: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqELwqRdlyw?t=90

    Shortly after that, his guest says “you have to open up your ‘Third Eye'”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqELwqRdlyw?t=98 .. as if he sincerely believes in whatever the fuck a “Third Eye” is supposed to be.

    Shortly after, the idea of “submitting” to a “higher source” is mentioned: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqELwqRdlyw?t=121

    He says that through “research”, one could learn to “submit in a certain way”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqELwqRdlyw?t=134 and then you can “receive the information you’re supposed to receive”.

    Back to Sean then: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqELwqRdlyw?t=150 – he says some people are just “getting” “some kind of entity’s chatter” and that “they don’t actually know what’s talking to them”.

    His guest agrees and points out it could be a “demon” or a “Gin”(?) or something: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqELwqRdlyw?t=156

    Alright, this is enough. The video is a barrage of *supernatural horseshit*, and those two just casually chat about it as if they *genuinely believed* in all of it.

    But they’re both smart people, and smart people are too smart to believe in *obvious* supernatural horseshit, which means *they know* it’s horseshit – they’re just pretending it’s not, which means they’re habitual liars/bullshitters, which means they are psychopaths.

    The video’s description also advertises a way to “Make up to $10k per week with this secret system!” ( http://i.imgur.com/Zby3Pno.png ), which is obviously a scam too. People with consciences don’t promote obvious scams on their YouTube channels, but psychopaths sure don’t mind!

    This “Draco” video is quite a gem too: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6iKJizmm1wg

    James, what’s your take on this? I’m assuming you don’t *knowingly* associate with scumbag charlatans, but it doesn’t take much to see that Sean Stone is one, so I’m a bit confused here.

    • jay.z says:

      James, and my only question in light of all off this glaring information is, could you potentially be a psychopath too!? lol

      • shiranaihito says:

        For whatever it might be worth to anyone reading this, I remember concluding that “jay.z” here is a psychopath himself.

        It’s *possible* that I’m wrong about that! But I don’t think it’s likely.

        Note that if you’re not a psychopath yourself, you’ll most likely have no clue what signs to look for.

        As for James, I’ve always admired him, and never saw/heard anything suspicious before this “Sean Stone Incident”.

    • HomeRemedySupply says:

      — SEAN STONE —
      I politely disagree with you about Sean Stone. I admire him.

      His format is to openly interview people no matter what the topic or controversy. It is open communication and he talks to people from ALL walks of life, big names and small names. It certainly is an adventurous format.
      Hopefully, the listening audience has higher order critical thinking skills, and can glean what they desire… and perform further research on their own if they choose.

      Sure. Some guests have a “wacko idea of things” in my opinion.
      So what?

      I like Sean Stone’s personal philosophy as stated in this short clip.

      In the short clip, Sean points out the importance of “looking” and “listening” and finding “commonalities”.
      There is a lot to be said about finding commonalities with people, not focusing on divisive issues.

      In the 9/11 truth movement, a lot has been done to cause divisiveness.
      Let’s keep our commonalities and tolerance in mind.

      • jay.z says:

        Well said HomeRemedySupply…
        I find that so many people in our population are closed minded to deeper inquiry about things like 911, high level conspiracy and the deep state… And when individuals do the same thing (being closed minded and dismissive) with interdimensional/metaphysical and deep philosophical questions and inquiry, I find it a similar modernistic ignorance and pride that “mainstream” views on reality are the only “rational” way to view it… This to me is scientism, this to me modernism, this to simply has not engaged with the last 500 years of philosophy, epistemology, and much of the evidence that scientists on the “periphery” that are dismissed because their evidence doesn’t fit the mainstream scientific dogma of the day.

        Thankful for James and this community and the dominate aptness to question and be open to everything, rather than being selective and closed minded about our lines of inquiry.

      • shiranaihito says:

        The idea of “looking for commonalities” is just a cover for promoting horseshit.

        Seriously. When someone talks about “astral projection” (or all the other horseshit they spout), and you’re not a complete idiot, why wouldn’t you ask some questions about what it’s supposed to mean?

        How would someone know it’s real? You might also want to know if you’re talking to a *sane* person or not, i.e. whether associating with him is worth your time, etc.

        Instead, even just not questioning nonsense leaves listeners with the impression that Sean sees no problem with what’s being said, which kind of implies he’s looked into it and found it’s true.

        But Sean is not only not questioning the nonsense, he’s casually talking about it himself, and that’s even worse.

    • Corbett says:

      Thanks for the question, shiranaihito. May I ask a couple of questions in return for clarification?

      Firstly, why do you say that I interviewed Sean when he clearly interviewed me?

      Secondly, can you elaborate on your definition of “associate with” (especially as it pertains to media)?


      • shiranaihito says:

        > Firstly, why do you say that I interviewed Sean when he clearly interviewed me?

        Yeah, you’re right. He interviewed you – that just wasn’t on my mind when writing the comment.

        How does it matter who interviewed whom, though?

        > Secondly, can you elaborate on your definition of “associate with” (especially as it pertains to media)?

        I’d imagine that for example giving him that interview would count as “associating with him”. English is not my first language though.

        But basically, if I knew someone is a scumbag psychopath spreading supernatural horseshit, I wouldn’t want anything to do with him, and would thus refrain from giving him an interview.

        When your listeners/viewers see you associate with someone (regardless of the specifics), it leaves us with some degree of a positive impression of the guy.

        I had never heard of Sean before, but because you were talking to him, I figured he’s worth checking out.

        Do you agree that Sean is full of shit, and therefore doesn’t deserve any increase in credibility being seen talking to you might give him?

        If not, perhaps you could tell us why.

        • Corbett says:

          Thanks for the clarifications, shiranaihito. I asked merely because it seems to me to make a huge difference whether I am reaching out to someone to ask for their expertise on a subject and to present their thought/work to my audience or whether someone is reaching out to me to ask for my expertise on a subject and present my thought/work to their audience. Wouldn’t you agree?

          The long story short is: if you don’t hear me say something or promote something then I am not saying it or promoting it. You can say that allowing myself to be interviewed by someone is tantamount to endorsing or promoting their (not discussed, not mentioned) worldview, but that’s in your head, not mine. I don’t take responsibility for what other people say when I’m not there and I don’t think allowing myself to be interviewed by someone constitutes “associating with” them in that kind of “their views are my views” way.

          So to the heart of your question, and just for the record: Do I believe in astral projection and annunaki and evil djinn? No. And I’d be happy to say so if Sean asked me about it. But he didn’t ask me about that, he asked me about economics because that’s what we were there to talk about. And, as you admit, it turned out to be an interesting (and rational) conversation. So that’s my mission accomplished.

          Anyway, if my appearing on this show somehow makes me an un-credible person in your eyes, then so be it. It’s a shame you’ll also have to stop listening to Peter Dale Scott and Richard Grove and Sibel Edmonds and Nomi Prins and a number of other great researchers, too. After all, you wouldn’t want to “associate” with people who “associate” with someone who has different beliefs than you, would you? What would people think?

          • shiranaihito says:

            > I asked merely because it seems to me to make a huge difference whether I am reaching out to someone to ask for their expertise on a subject and to present their thought/work to my audience or whether someone is reaching out to me to ask for my expertise on a subject and present my thought/work to their audience. Wouldn’t you agree?

            It’s not clear which question you’re referring to with “I asked”, but neither one of them would matter.

            It’s irrelevant who asks whom, or who interviews whom. It’s a question of whether you find someone too scumbaggy to associate with.

            > if you don’t hear me say something or promote something then I am not saying it or promoting it

            This is also beside the point. I haven’t even mentioned the idea of *you* promoting anything or anyone.

            > You can say that allowing myself to be interviewed by someone is tantamount to endorsing or promoting their (not discussed, not mentioned) worldview, but that’s in your head, not mine.

            This too is beside the point. I’m sounding like a broken record here, but basically I’m just trying to be thorough. You keep bringing up various ideas that are not relevant to the issue at hand.

            Also, if something is “in my head” here, it’s more like reason & logic than some specific idea that shouldn’t be there.

            > So to the heart of your question, and just for the record: Do I believe in astral projection and annunaki and evil djinn? No.

            Actually, that’s not even close to the heart of any of my questions. I already know you don’t believe in astral projection because you’re way too intelligent to believe in obvious supernatural horseshit. You don’t need to tell me that, and I didn’t even ask!

            Here’s a question I *did* ask: “Did you not know Sean Stone is a charlatan”?

            Here’s another question that somehow slipped through the cracks here: “Do you agree that Sean is full of shit”? But you don’t even need to answer that, because we both know you know he *is* full of shit, because he’s spouting obvious supernatural horseshit.

            > And I’d be happy to say so if Sean asked me about it. But he didn’t ask me about that, he asked me about economics because that’s what we were there to talk about.

            This is beside the point again. As an extreme example, would you like to have a chat about economics with Stalin? Hitler? Pol Pot?

            Would you find them too mass-murdery for your tastes, and would therefore want nothing to do with them? Or would you insist that there’s no problem because you’re only talking about economics, and say, not the genocides they’ve committed?

            Sean Stone is a charlatan. He promotes obvious supernatural horseshit, *and* at least one obvious “get rich quick” -scam.

            Sean’s “crazy talk” serves to discredit the truth/freedom movement and us “conspiracy theorists” in general, which is probably not even just a fun hobby for him.

            He misleads people, counteracts the work that *you* do, and promotes obvious scams.

            Here’s the real question: Is what Sean is doing against your values, principles and your sense of morality?

            If you’re not a scumbag (=/psychopath) yourself, the obvious answer is “yes”, and so much so, that you wouldn’t want anything to do with him.

            If or when you respond, please do so by quoting things I’ve said and then addressing them, much like an intellectually honest person would.

            • HomeRemedySupply says:

              Could you post the link to your show?

              • shiranaihito says:

                I’m not talking to you, a self-proclaimed admirer of an obvious charlatan.

            • Corbett says:

              Wow. So you are now comparing Sean Stone to Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot, all because he has different metaphysical beliefs than you? If I missed the several million people Sean is guilty of murdering then I do owe you and the audience an apology, but since that isn’t the case all I can say is that I’m much more concerned about people without the civility to allow others to have their (non-violent, non-aggressive) ideological differences.

              Also, your obsession with Sean is particularly strange given the fact that I have been interviewed by devout Muslims and devout Christians, Buddhists and assorted others, practitioners of transcendental meditation, deniers of 9/11 truth, believers in global warming, etc. etc. etc. But for some reason you’re fixated on the views of Sean Stone and the fact that he interviewed me about economics. As I’ve said before, I’m happy to go on any media outlet that will allow me to present my views in an unfiltered and unedited way, even the mainstream news networks (who actually are guilty of complicity in mass murderer for their Iraq war lies if nothing else). But for some reason you don’t seem to have a problem with any of those interviews, just this one.

              In conclusion, Sean was a gracious host and the interview was informative and interesting as even you admitted. I’d be happy to be on his program again in the future.

              • shiranaihito says:

                There’s no way you went through an interview with Sean before seeing enough of his material to see that he’s full of shit.

                You’re an investigative journalist, after all. You investigate.

                So I didn’t actually expect you to answer my questions. It’s not like you could honestly admit you knew he’s a charlatan anyway, and on the other hand, I wouldn’t have believed you denying it either.

                Considering the above, my previous response in particular was mostly just meant to bait you into spewing some more psychopathic bullshit/sophistry, to confirm that you are, indeed, a psychopath.

                There we have it, then. I can’t say I’m not disappointed.

                But keep up the good work, and thanks for not being a Useful Idiot, unlike the vast majority of your brethren!

  17. AB33 says:

    QFC FTW!


    Am curious as to whether the US DoD and the intelligence apparatus have separate black budgets? There are a whole gang of numbers floating around–50 billion, 53 billion, 60 billion–intentionally obfuscated, no doubt.

    Any suggestions?

  18. osufan says:

    Hi James,

    Although I do believe oil to be a renewable abiotic energy source, what is the deal with the push for fracking?

  19. paul4 says:

    James, a question:

    As a fan of your work, and a fan of Earnest Hancock (FreedomsPheonix.com) I really enjoy your regular appearances on his radio program. Best thing since CorbettRadio.

    Q. Why don’t you post your episodes on his program on corbettreport.com?

    I know that his show is raw and his speaking style is very abbreviated but they are some of most informative and real conversations I have heard you engage in.

    New viewers might find his style disconcerting but if nothing else I would suggest linking to your freedomspheonix.com shows on your monthly subscribers newsletter.

    Keep up the good work.


  20. mauricebourke88 says:

    Hi James, are the claims about Emmanuel Kant’s book, towards perpetual peace, in this below brief video true, namely political science and EU itself founded on the basis of it. Not following all your stuff as closely as I once was but don’t remember you mentioning it before.


  21. beadbud says:

    Corbett #030 – The one question on some economic basics. Along with your Federal Reserve video, Aaron Russo, From Freedom to Fascism (2006) is good. That is my 2 cents here. Love your podcasts and informative videos. You are a gem!

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Back to Top