Interview 1201 – New World Next Week with James Evan Pilato

08/18/201624 Comments

Welcome to New World Next Week — the video series from Corbett Report and Media Monarchy that covers some of the most important developments in open source intelligence news. In this week’s episode:

Story #1: Hack Proves "Dissident" Groups, Movements Funded By Soros
“We're stuck in the Twilight Zone.”
Leaked Soros Memo: Refugee Crisis ‘New Normal,’ Gives ‘New Opportunities’ For Global Influence
Meet George Soros

Story #2: ’Shadow Brokers' Claim NSA Hack, Share Hi-Tech Hacking Tools
Edward Snowden Points to Russia on Alleged NSA Hack
James Corbett On ‘Declare Your Independence’ Radio
Wikipedia: MacGuffin

Story #3: ”Russian" Hacker Guccifer 2.0 Publishes Complete Personal Information Of 200 Congressional Democrats
Twitter (Temporarily) Suspends Account of Guccifer 2.0, Hacker Behind DNC & DCCC Leaks
What You NEED To Know About The NSA Hack And Bitcoin Ransom

#GoodNewsNextWeek: Little Free Pantries On Your Sidewalk Give Shelf-Stable Help

Who Got Us Into These Endless Wars?

Previous Episode: Imaginary BBC Detector Vans Now Scanning WiFi?

Filed in: Interviews
Tagged with:

Comments (24)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. m.clare says:

    I thought about the following when I listened to Richard Gage. I think about it when I listen to James Corbett and James Evan Pilato…..

    “They know who this guy is and where he is and they can nab him if they really wanted to…..Who is allowed to leak and what are they allowed to leak and why are they allowed to leak it because it has to be seen in that context especially when the NSA is the internet and the internet is the NSA….”

    “If you’re being allowed to leak this stuff then clearly there’s someone upstairs who is not unhappy with what you’re doing”

    • VoiceOfArabi says:

      Hi m.clare,

      I have certainly had similar thoughts as yourself, and asked the question, why are some people allowed to “leak” or “freely speak”, and others are silenced, or “disappeared”.

      I think it comes to two things…

      1- credibility.. If you are an important member of society (preacher, famous journalist, country leader, movement leader or any other figure with Critical mass behind him or her, who does not have any “skeletons in their closet” (important), then it is simple.. they get murdered or “disappeared”

      2- if you have credibility issues, or no Critical Mass behind them or have “skeletons in their closet”, then they pose no harm, and it is best to let them create noise and “muddy the water”, and if the situation change, you just expose the “skeletons in their closet”. Michael Ruppert comes to mind.

      otherwise, how would you explain Martin Luther King Jr, or many of the other people killed in cold blood.??

      In the old days, we used to cherish sayings like:

      1- If there is any doubt, then there is no doubt…
      2- If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it is a duck..

      Now a days, we ignore all those signs because it is easier than facing reality. (otherwise it is called denial!)

      We live in a “police state” the world over… but no one is ready to accept that fact.. and Many soldiers, who are supposedly democracy loving citizens, will go to another country and kill their children without any legal right.. they will do it for money and dominance.

      I guess.. in contrast to what everyone claims about being modern and civilized.. we are still living in the Roman Empire times.

      • m.clare says:

        There will always be a small minority of free thinkers who will ask awkward questions. What is the most effective strategy to deal with these “trouble makers”? To silence them would give them credibility…. martyrdom, therefore, is to be avoided. No, they are instead afforded the opportunity to hop onto their soapboxes and rant freely. The Corbett soap box is thus lost in a sea of genuine lunatics and sponsored gate keepers who shout absurdities at the confused public. The noise is deafening and we are left divided, conquered, bewildered, apathetic, afraid and ultimately harmless.

        If an individual managed to obtain a critical mass of public sentiment, he would wind up much like another fellow who got all uppity a couple thousand years ago. I wonder what that critical percentage is?

      • nosoapradio says:

        “…I guess.. in contrast to what everyone claims about being modern and civilized.. we are still living in the Roman Empire times…”

        Does the emblem on this wiki page look familiar to you, VoiceOfArabi?

  2. nosoapradio says:

    I’m rather embarrassed to admit that at the moment I’m getting my fix of “Mr Robot” season 2.

    Watching this particular NWNW was like a bonus episode of “Mr Robot”.

    Come to think of it, I think I saw Misters Corbett and Pilato breaking things down on this show that masterfully mixes fiction and reality (incorporating real footage of Obama, Merkel, Putin et al battling with hacking and spying issues), reflecting the main character’s own tenuous rapport with reality.

    own tenuous rapport with reality, clichés of geeks, international corporate super-Golems, virtual false flags, cognitive dissonance, darknets and dark sides of the human psyche, End of the World parties, psychopathologies and power, existential musings about life before and after the 9/5 attacks (or 5/9 attacks?), transgender mafiosos and last but certainly not least, the genuine Enron logo for the fictional? and omniscient ECorp/EvilCorp entity

    like an establishment-approved controlled demolition of established reality…? a primal scream for disenfranchised conspiracy theorists…

    Reality? Prove it!

    Fiction? Snowed in?

    Wikileaks shall reveal it. In due course.

    Could be rich FLNWO material?

    • nosoapradio says:

      Oh my gosh! I forgot about Anonymous, e-coin, bad boys’ blocked bitcoin, God as Alter Ego, Kojak as a lolli-licking Jersey girl and even a wink at Abby Martin! I think…

  3. nosoapradio says:

    Can’t seem to play the “Meet George Soros” podcast…

    Is there a YouTube version? I didn’t find one.


    • nosoapradio says:

      Ah wait! Does play on my computer terminal but not on my laptop.
      My Bad! False alarm! Sorry about that!

      Jeepers, I’ve really got to get a grip on this cyber stuff…

  4. Corbett and Pilato:

    As you well say, if the powers-that-be wanted, they could easily catch these supposed hackers – which points to these being false flag attacks (/inside jobs) whose (true) authorship are people who are part of the establishment (big corporations and their puppet governments) itself.

    And, the answer to the big question that you pose, is that: the end purpose of all these “hacks” and “leaks” is to create the idea that the Internet is an insecure place, and that we need to control it, in order to make it more “secure” (and stop these violations of privacy etc). That is:

    The end goal of all this, is to create an excuse to start controlling and censoring the web – Estulin has been warning about this for years (namely in his book about the CIA front organization, WikiLeaks).

  5. totemynote says:

    Man oh Man James. Your video only pages filters out to 108 (and counting) of them …

    …Almost all pages have ten videos.

  6. HomeRemedySupply says:

    — Good News This Week — 9/11Truth Ads —

    4 animated interactive Ads about 9/11 are online in 14 newspapers reaching more than 243,000 readers …for 3 months.

    The famous James Corbett video “9/11: A Conspiracy Theory” is linked to one of the ads.

  7. peace.froggs says:

    Forgive my ignorance, but out of thousands of leaks emails, a Memo with the words…

    “Refugee Crisis ‘New Normal,’ Gives ‘New Opportunities’ For Global Influence”

    this is what passes for proof that Soros was BEHIND the Refugee Crisis? Seems more like Soros WASN’T behind it at all, but rather, instead will try to use it to his advantage.

    So, the real question is…who’s behind the leaks, and why are they trying to blame Soros for the Refugee crisis? To deflect blame maybe?

  8. nosoapradio says:

    Mr Corbett, you look like you’ve been through the spin cycle! For heaven’s sake get some rest!

  9. zellthegreat-oz says:

    First off, hats of and a big thanks to your both for keeping that beacon of truth going – I admire you huge effort, time and energy you guys are spending to enlighting humankind!

    I just saw an article shared by on Facebook yesterday that caught my attension, and I just had to share with you to hear what your thoughts are. Apparantly chemtrails is “proved” by 77 atmospheric chemists to just be a “big conpiracy”. I’m very sceptical to this article and the comments on Facebook is beyond anything. Is this propaganda at it’s best or what do your thoughts?

    Many thanks, peace

    • nosoapradio says:

      Without having looked very closely at the entire article that you linked, I think a big part of the problem lies in the “study’s” methods and protocols, described in the paragraph extract below:

      “…Expert participants were selected by using the ISI Web of Science to identify the authors

      of the most-cited peer-reviewed publications covering these topics that have been published in the past 20 years (1994–2014).

      … For the purposes of this study, we define ‘contrail expert’ and ‘atmospheric deposition expert’ to be a person who has co-authored one or more of the 100 most-cited papers in each search…”

      Then there’s this telling little bit in the following paragraph:

      “…Using these criteria, we identified 220 contrail experts and 255 atmospheric deposition experts. A survey invitation was sent out: 49 contrail experts and 65 atmospheric deposition experts could not be reached with our contact information or explicitly disqualified themselves as experts on the survey topic…”

      With that in mind you might want to take a look at Mr Corbett’s interview with Judith Curry in June as well as the comments found there (not mine) for some at least partial answers to your questions:

      And there’s a lot more where that came from on that topic!

      Just my own quick reaction to your question.

    • nosoapradio says:

      More by Corbett offering perspective on the potential profiles of the 77 selected participants in the “study” you linked to:

      “… Until recently the medical department at London’s Imperial College told researchers that their target was to “publish three papers per annum including one in a prestigious journal with an impact factor of at least five.” Similar guidelines and quotas are enacted in departments throughout academia.

      And so, like any quota-based system, people will find a way to cheat their way to the goal. Some attach their names to work they have little to do with. Others publish in pay-to-play journals that will publish anything for a small fee. And others simply fudge their data until they get a result that will grab headlines and earn a spot in a high-profile journal…”

      Furthermore, with reference to the title of the “study” itself:

      “Quantifying expert consensus against the existence of a secret, large-scale atmospheric spraying program”

      Here is what the Randombio website has to say about consensus in science:

      “…What is the role of consensus in science?
      Consensus is a social phenomenon. It is an appeal to authority, which has no place in science…”

      by T.J. Nelson

      “…The concept of consensus does not come from scientists, but from news reporters and others who are searching for a shared viewpoint so they can write a story and appear credible. They want to make a generalization, so they say that a ‘consensus’ exists. This might sound like a reasonable thing for a non-scientist to do. But the activists are trying to change public opinion by manufacturing a consensus

      that suits their political goals.

      …I have never heard it (the word consensus) used by any scientist to mean that we should accept a conclusion based on consensus.

      Consensus, as used that way, is an appeal to authority. It is intended to silence skeptics. But as much as some would like it to be true, authority has no place in science. In fact, I will go out on a limb and say that using the term around real scientists marks one as an outsider or neophyte. In general, only non-scientists use this term…”

      Considering that this debunking “study” describes the interpretations and opinions of 77 scientists and does not itself present any scientific evidence (except criticisms of the methods employed by one “conspiracy” website for collecting contaminated samples) disproving the evidence or interpretations of the “conspiracy theorists” they purportedly debunk, one might wonder about author, Patrick J. Kiger’s own biases or agendas in reporting on it. And taking into account his longstanding collaboration with the very same “Sugar Daddy” funded D.C.-based associations that Sibel Edmonds recently decried, namely the “flowery” sounding, Ford Foundation funded “Center for Public Integrity”, his own pristine objectivity might be put into question.
      (23 minutes into video)

      “Propaganda”, as you suggested Zellthegreat-oz, is a word that does indeed come to mind to describe this “study”.

      • zellthegreat-oz says:

        Thanks for you extensive replies nosoapradio, you certainly gave me some food for thought. The part about consensus in science is a perspective I haven’t viewed it from before – but makes much sense.
        The worst part is that this was just one of many posts I see weekly on Facebook that just doesn’t seem to add. Also, the comment sections always seem to be very pro-whateverthepostisabout and ridiculing of opposing/alternative views tops the charts..

        Thanks for the provided links, I’ll dig into them now!

        Keep up with the great work guys!

  10. VoltaicDude says:

    We got nothing from Occupy? Occupy, like Brexit, and the various Arab Spring protests are only what you get out of them.

    You may have even contradicted yourself on this point when you spoke about how Soros helped fund Occupy as well as other “revolutions” and the subverted aspects of the Black Lives Matter campaign. – that is a pretty important thing to know about how the world works.

    Having spent a relatively small amount of time at Occupy NY and D.C. I saw a great deal of subversive activity by “the authorities” – interesting stories too long to tell here.

    Just the fact that at the beginning of the Occupy run Chase gave $10M to the NYPD is an important thing to remember.

    I saw firsthand a rather well-publicized head-bashing by the NYPD and made a lame attempt to reach the guy to suggest he leave the area once I realized they were mobilizing after him for virtually no good reason – rattling a temporary crowd-control fence and yelling some BS at the cops – yes silly, but not as criminal as using that behavior as an excuse to bash bloody somebodies head.

    We now have documentation of the organized police-state fashion in which all US Occupy sites were systematically and in a nationally coordinated effort clamped down on simultaneously.

    And we can compare how all these “uprisings” were used to flush out political activists and used as an opportunity to develop intelligence files on participants.

    If anything we should continue to try to discover how that intelligence is being followed up on and not just lose the opportunity ourselves to discover more about the abuses the government is engaged in and the quality of the networks they use to accomplish this work, i.e. the mob, corrupted and infiltrated police forces, specifically rogue sectors of the FBI and CIA, the corporate sector, other institutions like religious organizations, etc.

    This is all just a continuum of historical occurrences. Did the Black Panthers accomplish anything? Did the Civil Rights Movement of the 50’s and 60’s accomplish anything?

    Of course none of these observations change the important fact that Soros and others of his ilk are still perverting the Black Lives Matters agenda and other “popular” political action groups and efforts, and that it is in the best interests of “the-powers-that-shouldn’t-be” to provoke activists into counterproductive violence.

    • VoltaicDude says:

      I may have attributed a specific argument to you directly, but on second listening sounds like you were reading from an article that was being cited.

      Sorry for the sloppy listening!

  11. viki says:

    I can understand why Soros was hacked, but why are my accounts being hacked every so often, before I have even started speaking to a wider audience is beyond creepy. Why are they trashing me and my influence, literally by my picture on the internet, like the good old fascist times, is, well…a great sign. When you expose Hollywood, monarchy, state, the house of worship, the prison system and child abuse, they bring out their best soldiers. They lost. They will lose every time.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Back to Top