Interview 1231 - New World Next Week with James Evan Pilato

12/01/201638 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: FBI Gains Expanded Hacking Powers As “Rule 41” Kicks In
With Rule 41, Little-Known Committee Proposes to Grant New Hacking Powers to the Government
Compromise Reached On Massive U.S. Defense Bill, AKA The NDAA 2017
Search: NDAA
Fingerprints Will Be Mandatory When Buying SIM Cards In Thailand In 2017

Story #2: Forget Paris - France Drops Carbon Tax Plan
Planned-opolis, city of the future
Weather Is Not Climate!

Story #3:  Juncker Begs EU Leaders: No More Referendums, They’ll All Vote ‘Leave’
MPs Launch New Attempt To Interrogate Tony bLIAr Over Iraq
FT Admits NWO Gatekeepers Heading for “Marie Antoinette Moment”

#NewWorldNextWeek Headlines: Castro Is Dead! Long Live Castro!
#PizzaGate Panel Scheduled For ‘Daily Show’?
ND Gov Orders Evacuation of #NoDAPL Camp Ahead Of Army CoE’s Dec 5th Threat

Filed in: Interviews
Tagged with:

Comments (38)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. VoiceOfArabi says:

    Let us see what Rule 41 + Fake News list could translate to!

    This could mean because i am accessing, which is flagged as Fake News site, this gives NSA (and European equivalent) the right to engage Rule 41, and hack into my computer (or any device including phones) and retrieve data that can be further used to investigate my association with Fake News!.

    Oppps… i better start deleting all my browser history, all the downloaded porn, all the “private” pictures that no one should see, all the downloaded movies and music… OHHH NO.. I have to delete all the emails both sent and received, as some of them are incriminating and can be easily misunderstood… OMG… (police state… what police state??)

    But let me look at the positive side… I will have plenty of hard disk space when i am done !

    • NES says:

      Yep. In fact, these surveillance state criminals directed with the #pizzagate elites set-up sites like Propornot to monitor traffic and capture IP addresses then correlate those with red flagged sites deemed “bad” and there ya’ go. The fascist state buggy-man has come to get you. It has begun. They are in an all out push to suppress the public voice and it’s real. Believe it.

      • mkey says:

        All they can do is push. What could be accomplished by this? At best these are scare tactics, who the hell is going to “hack” a few billion devices? Preposterous.

        If you had 10.000 “hackers” working 8 hours per day, every day, hacking around 3 billion devices with a “hack” taking 10 minutes on average, each of them would need 17+ years of labor get through all of the devices that are out there today. What to do with all that data? How to process all of those “criminals”?

        Have no doubt, if you had 10% of people dissenting, any state apparatus in the world would collapse trying to quell those 10%.

        • VoiceOfArabi says:

          Hi mkey,

          What you say does make sense, but you leaving out a very important fact… We no longer live in the 1960’s.

          Today, computers (or Artificial Intelligence – AI) does all that hard work of skimming through all the emails, or the files or the faces in your photos and recognize some using facial recognition software.

          It is also able to register when you drive your car down the highway (capturing over thousand cars a minute), and track how much money you spent the last time you are in the pub.

          Today, with the processing power they have, they can track more than 10% of the people easily.

          (p.s. try to use your phone and say the word bomb… a computer will register the pattern of the word, and will be processed to make sure it is not a threat.)

          • mkey says:

            Well, tracking isn’t hacking (or gaining access to the mark’s system) is it? I of course agree that these queries we make toward the outer world can be easily stored and processed for future use. But conflating “tracking” and “acting based on data collected” holds no merit.

            I may search for how to make a pipe bomb and have lord knows how much private info stored, but there’s quite a few steps between having that entry written on a hard drive somewhere and having someone knock on my door, while being aware I may have built that bomb in the first place.

            No government can handle 10% dissenters. Not enough police, not enough court clerks, not enough jail space. Can’t be done. Even if you wanted to extra judicially assassinate the 10% one can only imagine you’d run into extreme difficulties.

            • VoiceOfArabi says:

              Hi mkey,

              Here is were we disagree with each other….

              In the old days, although you have a highway already to your device (wifi, cable or radio for mobile phone), you still need an individual to crack the security that Microsoft/Apple/Google had built into the device.

              Sadly, all products are built with “backdoors” with special “keys”, which are now handed to government by law. So, there isn’t much “hacking” done here, they just “open” the door to your device and access it just like “cloud” storage access your device.

              Anyway.. that’s the problem…. the solution is..

              We must fight all government legislation that allows them to have encryption keys and backdoor to the products that we use.

              • mkey says:

                OK, if that’s the case, you are right, but still I wouldn’t call that hacking.

                All in all, there’s too many security related programs out there, along with various hardware solutions, for something like that to be so easily attainable on a large scale.

                I don’t think it’s about legislation, but about the people legalizing their unlawful behavior. The law is just a red haring.

      • karl.h says:

        Propornot to capture ip addresses? Then correlate with red flagged sites?

        Can you explain this in more detail please?

  2. Mark says:

    I didn’t comment on the Weather is NOT Climate! thing before, but I will here, since it’s been raised again. I don’t know much about the science of this and don’t follow it as intensely as others, but I have been generally aware of it for a very long time, like four decades or more. What I remember from those early days is that the people first promoting this notion were scientists and fairly radical environmentally-concerned individuals; the government and big (oil) business wanted nothing to do with it, and then were in denial about it for decades after. Not entirely clear how that ended up being a government plot.

    Another thing was the surface message in this piece, which is that weather isn’t climate, that by the time we saw the real impact of global warming in the weather it would be too late to do anything about it. Now, it doesn’t shock me at all that people who are concerned about this issue would be very tempted to use unusual or changing weather to wake people up on global warming, even if they really know there’s not much or maybe no evidence of a connection at this point. But that doesn’t make it some heinous government plot.

    On a more detailed level, I note that even the anecdotal evidence presented in the piece appears to have been subtly manipulated. For example, about halfway through the piece is a bit on the CA drought, and a report indicates that they did not find evidence of it being human-induced; that gets translated by JC as their finding being that it is not human-induced. Those are actually different things. Not that it actually matters – weather is not climate! Something we’ve known for decades…

    In any case, the case of global warming being a massive government plot as described here just seems laughable to me. There’s no surprise that (post-Gore) raising this matter to general consciousness would result in all kinds twists and turns, especially when big business accepts that they have lost and so sinks its teeth into it in another strategy.

    On another bit here, I find it funny after all the sham stuff on the recent US elections, suddenly elections like BREXIT are described as the will of the people! Which is it, CR, totally fixed or actually legit? Do they actually count votes in Europe but not in the US?

    Finally, a comment of JEP’s joking comment about JC being a “propaganda mouthpiece”. I google propaganda and the first definition I find is: “information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote a political cause or point of view.” Now, unless one believes that Google is manipulating that result somehow, that seems like a reasonable definition. So, acknowledging that this isn’t at all related to Russia, I guess propaganda is in the eye of the beholder…

    • mkey says:

      A few decades back Enron was about to introduce carbon credits, which basically converts to a carbon tax. They had a lot of influence and were set in the pole position to make a lot of profits on this scam.

      Any entity strong enough can lobby any of these compromised governments, as we have seen happen so many times, which doesn’t make the government people collaborators. Just as I wouldn’t call your typical soldier a murderer, just because he got his mind destroyed by the insane military doctrine. Compartmentalization can go a long way.

      When talking about government plots, I’m not sure which government are you referring. The power and influence have been condensed a lot over these past decades, but one can still not expect for such a diverse bunch of entities to act in unison. As I see it, strong entities can lobby to introduce something that’s wholly in their interest while a bunch of other entities can be coopted, bought off, sidetracked or brought under. There’s a wide array of interest vectors and the general direction will be to the benefit of the majority of these influences.

      I find the global weather scam to be a scam due to (in no particular order)

      a) rebranding; changing names of corporations, movements etc. reeks of foul play. Why change the name of something that’s going well, you wouldn’t do that, would you. You rebrand when you need to distance yourself from a less favorable past and keep your fingers crossed nobody will notice the switch. As a side note, but in line with point no. 1, do you remember the khorasan group?

      b) taxes do not fix stuff. They never had, they never will, they were always used for transferring the wealth. From the plebs to the ruling class, of course. If something gets spilled over in form of social programs, it serves only the purpose of extending the status quo.

      c) if governments wanted to do some good for a change, 0.6°C rise in fudged global temperatures would be ranked (sorted according to descending priority) at about 1000th spot on the todo list. There are so many plainly evident issues going on RIGHT NOW that carbon taxes (even if they were set to do some good in the long run) should be way, way off the radar

      The best scams are usually laid out evidently in plain site. Global weather thing is one of such scams.

      I do agree on the issue of believing some votes and not believing the others. Sometimes these outcomes are well aligned with our wishes, so we may be more accepting toward them. All of us are subjective beings, in the end.

      Going back to Trump/Hillary thing to form this example, I had some desire to see Hillary lose (the whole bitch from hell thing) so to that effect I would have been more inclined into believing they rigged the election for her, had she won. But she ran against another wretch of a human being so who the hell knows?

      In the case of EU, I want to see it destroyed, so I’d be naturally more accepting of an exit vote, set to doubt it a bit less for rigging since that’s the outcome I desire.

      I’ll always be more vary of voting machines than using actual paper, though.

      However, by the same litmus tests, something was off with both of those elections. They only thing boggling my mind is why would anyone fix a “for” brexit vote? Or was it maybe the case of not fixing it enough? Because there’s no doubt in my mind that, had push come to shove, the ruling class wouldn’t allow the plebs to make any decisions. They worked hard to form this monstrosity and they are to be blamed for vote stealing at least.

      • Mark says:

        Hey, mkey. The matter I see here is really the right-left thing raising its ugly head. I have really tried to lift myself out of that trap in how I look at and analyze political matters. I come from a generally non-mainstream leftist background; I have not developed any great love for the right at all but I have abandoned at least the more moderate, mainstream left, largely because I now see it as the Jewish left – since Clinton most of the Dems’ funding comes from Jewish/Zionist sources (individual donors, Wall St., Hollywood, etc.), the party and lefties in general have swing toward Jewish-sourced issues (immigration and multi-culturalism, political-correctism, support or at least tolerance for wars benefiting Israel, etc.) and away from support of labor and the working man. There is a dishonest, destructive aspect to that (the culture war between Jewish power and the European/Christian west – divide and conquer) that I can no longer overlook. The insane level of focus on LBGT stuff is probably the most-obvious symptom of the corrupting rot infesting the American left.

        When I googled the Enron matter you mentioned, the first two sources I saw were from Breitbart and the Cato Institute, non-alternative far right propaganda sources. That pretty much tells me right away this is an agenda-driven matter within the right-left paradigm. So after a very brief look I move on from that matter dismissively.

        I appreciate your honest comment on the election. My view on Hellary is really what I said about the Dems in general above, except that she personifies that in spades. On the Trump side, there was at least the possibility that he could be better, but at this point it actually looks like he’s going to do worse.

        On the election “fix”, one of the aspects that raised my eyebrows was that late flurry of comments about Trump’s lack of “ground game” and the Pubs coming in to rescue him on that. Now we see a lineup of fairly typical if some what nutty right-wing Pubs heading for top posts. My suspicion on that is that the party came to Trump late, told him the (electoral) election looked close and if it ended up that way they could throw it his way, in the same way they did for Dub in ’00 (vote/count manipulation). The cost of that was his appointments, which would have to be generally acceptable to the party. Pure speculation on my part, but it does seem to fit.

        I don’t follow UK politics that closely, but I think there has to be an element of the power structure that doesn’t want anything to do with the EU. Hell, Corbyn had been against the EU, right? The UK is another Jewish-infested state historically, and perhaps this was just another part of their European divide-and-conquer strategy, along with massive Muslim immigration.

        Anyway, I think there is a danger in looking at these matters through the lens of the left-right spectrum, which is exactly what you’ve expressed. That sort of bias is a trap, and I would encourage everyone here to work at avoiding that if they really do want to understand what’s going on and not just end up being another manipulated constituent in that game.

        • mkey says:

          I don’t hold much regard for the left/right dichotomy, in my eyes that’s completely false. It’s like having person A beat you senseless after which you run to person B, which is just going to beat you some more. After some time passes, you may forget of the beating person A issued or maybe it starts to fade a bit in comparison so you may consider running back to A to escape B. That would be completely useless, the answer to the posed question of “to whom do I run?” is neither A nor B.

          I don’t think the “center” or whichever other side is the solution, either. This whole system needs to go, we tried it, it isn’t working. The right isn’t going to fix anything, neither will the left. They’ll just keep passing the ball along, screaming and pointing at the party which holds the ball currently.

          I think that antique stuff like sortition would fair a lot better than this end to end catastrophe. This is even worse that your standard dictatorship because when you’re living under a dictator you are at least aware of that. Well, at least to a greater extent than people are aware of the current political system.

          Your speculation sounds very plausible.

          Most states today are Jewish controlled, if not through anything else than through the central bank. All these guys need to do is cry “holocaust!” and all doors open wide. The guilt complex is an incredible thing.

          • Mark says:

            “I don’t think the “center” or whichever other side is the solution, either. This whole system needs to go, we tried it, it isn’t working. The right isn’t going to fix anything, neither will the left. They’ll just keep passing the ball along, screaming and pointing at the party which holds the ball currently.”

            From the standpoint of the current system, within the established parties, my view on how we got here is that the key transition point was the ’60s, when two big things happened – first was the racist white south moved from the Dems to the Pubs because under JFK-LBJ the Dems became the party of civil rights. That made for Nixon’s new majority, but for the most part the only thing those southerners and the old Pubs had in common was a level of racism. That meant this uncomfortable alliance would lead to the religious right in the party, then the Tea party, and eventually the Trump phenomenon. The Pubs, at its core a party of big business and the rich, could never reach a majority without that kind of unholy alliance.

            The other big thing in the ’60s was the series of victories by the Jews, nationally and internationally – the establishment of the holocaust myth, the ’64 civil rights act, the ’65 immigration law, the ’67 Israeli land grab, the Jewish bomb, etc., and you might as well toss in the murders of JFK and RFK. That all meant a new power in the US (enough that they could totally get away with the Liberty attack), which first manifested itself with black-white tensions in the late ’60s and then the infancy of neo-conservatism in Scoop Jackson’s office in the early ’70s. By ’72 with McGovern the Dems were already hopelessly divided between an old school and the multi-cultural, feminist new school.

            Those changes rooted themselves over the next couple decades, and by the time communism fell the US government was ready to be taken over by neo-conservatism and neo-liberalism, both basically Jewish movements, and both basically ways for the US to be effectively instrumentalized in series of assaults on the world. So no “end of history”.

            Then came the Dem shift rightward and sellout under Clinton, that fundamentally another concession to the Jews, who became the financial power behind the party. A quarter century later we have two broken parties but no sign of anything which might replace them, and an electorate which is both hopelessly propagandized and hopelessly alienated. Money and multinational corporations run it all, and none of the powers that really be have any alliance with or loyalty to America and its people.

            So, yeah, no easy – and realistic – answers. But I think it starts with an abandonment of the right-left paradigm, which has been the trap set for us ever since the south went from LBJ to Wallace to Nixon in 64-68-72, and then the further corrupting shift rightward by the Pubs under Ford as the Jewish neocons first defeated the WASP Rockefellerists (the Halloween Massacre). That paradigm has had America by the balls ever since, and people don’ even know where their interests and their desires lie anymore. At least that’s my take.

    • m.clare says:

      I can’t tell you how many times people have suggested to me “I’m not a scientist, but…..” and then ranted on like the Energizer Bunny repeating what they picked up from the self proclaimed “experts” in the media.

      I AM a scientist. I do not support they mythical 97% consensus of scientists any more than I believe that 4 out of 5 dentists promote brushing twice daily with Crest toothpaste to prevent tooth decay. I am no more impressed with the perpetual parade of colorful cartoons and sock puppetry than I am with the assertion that there are Two Scoops of Raisins in each package of Kellogg’s Raisin Bran.

      Everybody loves to be told how smart they are. Who are we to argue against 97% of scientists?

      For me, 9/11 is the first litmus test. Climate Crisis is a close second. Please tell me how taxing us for our trace exhalations of plant food is less absurd than high rise buidlings falling into their own footprints? I encourage you to revisit your assumptions…. it was no less painful for me than it will be for you.

      I’m going to recommend a book that should be mandatory reading in Canada:

      If you are interested, let me know and I’ll post links to published science that contradict the official myth.

      • Mark says:

        I’m afraid I’m probably not going to really try to tackle the science of this, because I feel like I would get in waay over my head very quickly. My impression is that it’s not like 9/11 (or, to me, the holocaust) in that sense, that I would be unlikely to surprisingly discover that there is nothing of scientific value on the other side of that issue. Maybe I’m wrong about that, of course; if you can send me to something that can convince me there is no real science behind climate change please do. To me, something about a scientist(s) saying it’s wrong is just anecdotal; there are always going to be differences of opinion – there are JFK witnesses who say only three shots were fired, all coming from the TSBDB.

        To me it’s the non-scientific obvious stuff that causes me to question something like this. In the case of 9/11, just seeing those buildings falling causes me to question it, I don’t really need the science, and the only scientific justifications offered behind that (FEMA, NIST, various MSM documentaries, etc.) are incomplete, contradictory and very questionable. Additionally, one can see motivations behind the events, especially in subsequent events, like the wars, security/surveillance state, etc. The holocaust plays out exactly the same way (they killed 900k Jews with the exhaust of a Soviet diesel tank engine? They burned all those bodies without fuel or smoke?).

        But I just don’t see it in the case of global warming. It seems obvious that dumping tons of pollutants in the atmosphere over decades and centuries by an overpopulated humanity is going to have some effect. The story arose initially from what seem like credible sources seemingly without some grand secret motivation, even if rather speculative. The forces supposedly behind it now were formerly utterly opposed to the notion; their motivation for the hoax today just doesn’t make sense to me. And, frankly, the people in “denial” seem to be the ones with the most motivation for that position, beyond anything scientific (basically the hard core believers in capitalism and materialism on the right). And the consequences of changing behavior patterns don’t seem that horrible – that you raise this tax issue just puts you into the right-wing “I want to drive my gas-guzzling SUV but I don’t want to pay taxes” crowd in my mind. Why aren’t you and others complaining about solar panels and windmills and more public transportation? Well, perhaps the latter, if it involves more taxes…

        I could be very wrong about this, but I’m just not going to make my call based on science, as odd as that might seem. Until I have a complete picture that actually adds up there’s really no point.

        • m.clare says:

          You won’t “tackle the science of this, because your “feel like [you] would get in waay over [your] head very quickly.”

          You are not alone. I appreciate your honesty.

          Why would you choose to have faith in the same media that continues to sell the 9/11 myth? Please think this over carefully.

          Last November in Paris, 175 of the leaders of the world…. including Obama and our Canadian hero, Justin Trudeau…. signed us up for the Great Green Climate Austerity:

          – our kids are taught daily about Climate Crisis (my youngest son presently has a paper to write on the matter)
          – our media is filled with daily reminders
          – our leaders are promising Billions of dollars to the United Nations to fight Climate Crisis
          – 97% of “scientists” agree that something must urgently be done
          – the leaders of my province are implementing carbon sin taxes
          – Rockefeller Brothers Foundation announced their total divestment from fossil fuels back in 2014
          – Prince Charles and the Royals are leading the charge


          97% of the best scientific minds humanity has to offer, in cooperation with the United Nations, teachers, professors, media, the Royal Families, the Biggest of Big Oil, the vast majority of “educated” citizens, the political leaders of every country and Billions of dollars raised every year…… are somehow concerned their efforts may be thwarted by the handful of remaining nuckle dragging, science hating, heretical “deniers”?

          Whatever you choose to believe, get ready for your cost of living to jump next year.

          • Mark says:

            I don’t “believe the media”, I’m not actually that aware of the media (I unplugged some time ago). As I said, my position on this is developed based on the profile of other “deep events”, significant myths created by our power structures. This just doesn’t fit that profile. Among other things, it’s kind of backward – you guys are on the side as the big oil companies and the Republican party, for chrissakes. And in that respect, it really is a right-left issue, which none of the other big ones have been. Hell, on 9/11, many and perhaps most of the big-name truthers have been people who voted for Reagan and the Bushes.

            If the whole story doesn’t add up, then there’s no reason to get bogged down in the science, at least that’s my view. Now, if someone could point me toward 3 or 4 or 5 good, independently-produced documentaries that lay out the whole story in a comprehensible manner – exactly the kind of thing I could do to convince someone of the truth behind 9/11, JFK or the holocaust (whether or not someone was actually convinced by those) – then I’d watch and we’d see. But I can tell you that I haven’t found anything here at CR to be convincing, and perhaps it’s been the opposite.

            Back to the tax issue, which seems to be your greatest concern, the reason that even exists is because governments had to come up with a “market mechanism” to reduce fossil fuel usage, because oil companies and many of the (propagandized) voters wouldn’t stand for having production/use limits imposed on them. Americans are in love with big cars and big houses in big suburban lots, an earlier generation was convinced to do that, and that’s part and parcel of this entire matter.

            You don’t like taxes? Convince people to “voluntarily” reduce their consumption. That ought to be easy, considering how superior anarcho-voluntaryism is as an organizing principle. 😉

            • m.clare says:

              You raise an excellent point. Very few people read today. I’ve watched lectures on the matter but I’m not sure if I’ve seen a really good documentary that summarizes the entire situation. Unlike yourself, I’ve been impressed with what Corbett has produced on the matter but I’ll keep my eyes peeled for something more accessible.

              Regarding Big Oil, please check out what Rockefellers were up to in 2014:


              Again, Cloak of Green explains a lot but it’s quite an investment in time.

              Meanwhile…consider photosynthesis:

              6CO2 + 6H2O ——> C6H12O6 + 6O2

              Does it seem strange that one of the two ingredients required to build green plants has been vilified?

              Carbon dioxide is NOT a pollutant. Please try to convince me that it is.

              My greatest concern is that people have become so thoroughly brainwashed that they are not asking, rather, they are Demanding to pay taxes to save the planet from our trace exhalations of plant food. Taxation without representation is repugnant by itself; when the funds are directed toward an imaginary problem with no proposed measure of their effectiveness….words fail me.

              • HomeRemedySupply says:

                Greenhouses often purchase a machine which makes CO2 in order to feed the plants (and help kill bugs). Google images shows many types of machines.

              • Mark says:

                Definition of pollutant: a substance that pollutes something, especially water or the atmosphere.
                Definition of pollute: contaminate (water, the air, etc.) with harmful or poisonous substances.
                Definition of global warming: a gradual increase in the overall temperature of the earth’s atmosphere generally attributed to the greenhouse effect caused by increased levels of carbon dioxide, CFCs, and other pollutants.

                I’m not totally ignorant of science, which is why the physics of 9/11 seem quite obvious to me, and I understand the basics of photosynthesis and the nature of CO2 as “plant food”. I also understand oxygen as “animal food”, but if you asked the families of the dead Apollo 1 astronauts what they think of an atmosphere of pure O2 I think they wouldn’t be so positive. I also understand that O3 (ozone) up there in the atmosphere is a good thing, but down here with us isn’t quite so good. It’s all about quantity and location.

                I read that Rockefeller thing and it looks like typical offsetting corporate PR to me, sort of the corporate version of the businessman who spends six days a week ensuring that he’ll be consigned to hell for eternity, and then goes to church on Sundays.

                As for the tax thing, I don’t think those people really are asking that they be taxed, rather they’re asking that everyone else be taxed, because something has to be done which will stop people from using so much fossil fuels.

                I don’t have a strong view on that, because I don’t follow the issue that closely, frankly. My take on the whole controversy is that it all got heavily politicized in this century, the key event being An Inconvenient Truth, and that Gore making that film contributed to that significantly – what would the reaction be by the left had Cheney done something similar on another issue in the last few years?

                Again, I think the science is a quagmire – one can easily find science-sourced information about average temperature rise over the last century, and also micro-analysis of that which rips it apart based on the nature of the data used, on and on. To me it gets back to the overall “conspiracy”, the development of the story, who appears to be behind it and from the start, who benefits and from the start, and why it would be this big false and damaging deep event. I don’t see that at all, and so I will continue to view it from the perspective that I did before it got politicized, unless someone can convince me otherwise (again, not based on the science).

                I also am not obsessed by it, even if it is the biggest threat of our times, because it is so politicized, and therefore it seems unlikely that it will actually get dealt with until it actually bites us in the ass. So I will focus on things that actually can be impacted, where consciousness can actually be raised.

      • Wolberg says:

        There appears to be a rift between the original contributors of “why in the world are they spraying” and “what in the world are they spraying” documentaries. (Dane Wiggington and G. Edward Griffin) apparently there are pending lawsuits being brought The rift is concerning an upcoming conference in Pheonix, AZ on climate change/warming models and their calculations. In that conference there are two scientists Lord Monckton and Tim Ball who both have discredited the existance or use of atmospheric aerosols. Wondering if this is content James or any of you might like to dig into.

        The Biggest Scam In United States History | G. Edward Griffin and Stefan Molyneu

        G. Edward Griffin response:

        Dane Wigington response:

        Lord Monckton explination for climate model review

        Skyderalert: aerosol spraying camera catch app and Dane Wigington interview/ lawsuit notification

        • Wolberg says:

          sorry edit: the aledged lawsuit is against the act of spraying not Mr Griffin himself

        • nosoapradio says:

          Hello Wolberg,

          I must say I watched your links (and others I found directly related to the topic) with great interest.

          I also discovered the existence of this rift with fascination.

          Indeed, doing so has forced me to reexamine how I come to my own layman’s conclusions on various key issues and also on how I evaluate the credibility of my “sources”.

          And of course, underlying all of this is the toxic notion of “gatekeeping” that is of particular concern to me.

          Indeed, I do disagree with Lord Monckton on at least one point
          he made in the following video at 15m46sec: “The great thing about the Truth, is that it is the Truth, and they may have the power, the money and the Glory, but we have the Truth and We and the Truth will win.”

          Well, I’m sure that’s what Joan of Arc was thinking as her skirt was catching fire.

          Because it is the perception of the Truth that rules earthly matters and not the Truth.

          and this is what seems to trip up Dane Wigington as well who seems to more or less legitimately consider himself to be the expert on Chemtrails but also on Climate Change science and thus finds himself resorting to ad hominem, shoddy research and such fallacious assumptions as: if the proponents of chemtrail awareness don’t believe that the climate is warming their campaign will be completely discredited and incoherent

          which pre-supposes that chemtrails represent geo-engineering designed to slow down global warming which may or may not be the case.

          Now I must say that in an attempt to reconcile the conflict sparked in my gut by Lord Monckton’s high-brow appraisal that Chemtrails are contrails I found myself forming the same arguments used by some to get the likes of Chomsky, Palast and Monbiot off the hook despite their logically unreasoned yet adament position on 9/11.

          For the moment, the only conclusion I can draw with any conviction from all of this is one that echos Mr Griffin’s words saying essentially that though the topics of Climate Change and Geo-engineering are certainly directly related, they still remain separate topics and credible proponents of each of the two polemic campaigns need not be in total agreement about the science involved. Insisting that this be the case is what, in fact, could truly sabotage the chemtrail-awareness and prevention movement.

          Why I’m ready to conclude that Chomsky or Monbiot are “gatekeepers” but not Mr Monckton is certainly connected to the inflammatory language employed by the former to stigmatize their ideological opponents.

          It is not discord amongst experts that is problematic but the Modus operendi in silencing dissent that determines the validity of a position and the possible “gatekeeper” status of a given pundit.

          Thank-you Wolberg for this food for thought.

        • HomeRemedySupply says:

          Here are a few links…


          On June 30, 2016 at the Council on Foreign Relations, the Director of the CIA ( John O. Brennan ) talks specifically about chemtrails ( Stratospheric Aerosol Injection – SAI ).
          (Go to the 12 minute mark)

          In the United States…
          LOCAL RADAR – You can track planes live


        • nosoapradio says:

          Well I have to admit I was disappointed to find this:

          Chemtrails or Contrails? By Tim Ball
          Published October 1, 2016

          What is unfortunate, again, is not that Mr Ball attempts to debunk any physical validity for concern over chemtrails but rather his tone and repeated derogatory use of the term “conspiracy theorist”.

          Also the three cordial comments underneath the article provide some contradiction to Mr. Ball’s statements and conclusions.

          • nosoapradio says:

            Actually the article I posted above was posted on the WUWT site.

            One of the commenters seemed to indicate that any discussion (with the exception of the one taking place thanks to Mr Ball’s article explaining chemtrails away as an unfortunate form of “conspiracy theory”) was forbidden on that site,(along with, perhaps more understandably, the term “chemtrail-denier”) which suprised me.


            Of the 225 comments posted under that 2013 article, the vast majority of which were ad hominem and condescending attacks on “Chemtrail nutters”,(with the exception of posts by Myrrh, Elmer and Neil) there was this comment by Lord Monckton of Brenchley:

            “Monckton of Brenchley September 3, 2013 at 8:06 am
            I am very grateful to TIm Ball for knocking the chemtrails nonsense on the head. At nearly every talk, I am approached by someone who asks about chemtrails and I have to explain that there is even less evidence for those than for catastrophic global warming. Well done, Tim.”

            which is a perfectly cordial remark devoid of any ad hominem or other skillfully wielded fallacy.

            Personally I’ve watched the grids being sprayed into the sky with as many as around 10 planes at a time, and this in various more or less isolated areas of France over the years.

            Also, when I systematically pointed such activity out to the people around me as it was going on, they politely listened and then immediately turned their attention to more “down to Earth matters”. Nobody I know personally seems to detect any reason for alarm.

            I’d always been, without experiencing any medical side-effects, persuaded that chemtrails do indeed exist. Also I clearly recall that such trails in such forms as observed today, certainly did not exist as I was growing up.

            So, I’ll admit, I’m thoroughly confused now and shall be taking another look at this issue.

            • nosoapradio says:

              Perhaps I need to better understand the concept of “cognitive bias”…?



            • nosoapradio says:

              Well, this is baffling:


              Why would Anthony Watts write a hit piece entitled “Chemtrails theory gets shot down by science” against chemtrails “conspiracy whackadoodles” based on a pseudo-study devoid of any scientific method in the form of a survey operating on the “appeal to authority” fallacy and then, by example, encourage his fans, many of whom are scientists, to band together and insult and ridicule any dissenting voices??

              One such critical commenter attempts to hold his own, pointing out flaws in logic and responding to such comments as the following:

              “If this is a secret government program, why don’t they only fly at night and no one will see the evil chemtrails?”

              He responds:

              “Trails exist, and you have no way of knowing none are “chem-trails”, yet you assume none are, as do many others here. So why “hide” them? The question is nonsensical coming from those who are in the process of dismissing the possibility, with the trails that could be “chem-trails” hanging the air, it seems to me. You folks are DEMONSTRATING why there is no need to hide them…”

              Another excerpt of his numerous comments appearing towards the end and that he might as well have addressed to that entire community including the site master himself:

              “…To me, the very idea that you could somehow know with certainty that there are not/have not been other forms of “chem-trails” being generated is logically nonsensical. A “positive” along these lines, you could logically know with certainty, but not a “negative”, which would require God-like awareness.

              The very fact that you are acting as though it is rational to think you could somehow be (rightly) absolutely certain of what has NOT been done in the realms of geoengineering, disqualifies you as a rational and/or honest person, regarding this entire realm, to me.

              Knowing negatives is not like knowing positives . . and no amount of double-talk or mocking or distracting will cause me to forget that…”

              Why would would Anthony Watts, or anyone interested in establishing truth, resort to such misrepresentation (passing the survey off as some sort of scientific study debunking anything) and bullying?

              • HomeRemedySupply says:

                Interesting stuff. Especially “Carnegie” involvement.

                I personally ran air tests on chemtrail activity.

                It is interesting to note that Carnegie gets its hand in so much stuff, such as this chemtrail issue.
                James Corbett repeatedly points out “Carnegie” even in 1905. e.g.

                Carnegie and carbon tax and oil

                What the chemtrail deniers never mention is “why the planes fly back-n-forth” or do zig-zag checkerboard flights.
                — LOCAL US RADAR – You can track planes live —

              • nosoapradio says:


                First of all, it’s highly commendable that you run tests. Hat’s off to you.

                Secondly, there may very well be a simple and innocent scientific explanation for every “chemtrail” phenomenon I’ve witnessed.

                But given all the evidence that spraying, if, by chance, is not already happening, may very well be happening soon,

                it’s stupefying that the likes of Anthony Watts (who hasn’t received any degree in science) and who has undergone bullying from the Man-made climate change crowd

                would inflict precisely the same kind of gang ridicule and insults on those who are also laymen and yet concerned that the skies are not as they used to be.

                Here is how the August 12th, 2016 WUWT 368 “thought” thread ended including the last half of “Mike’s” comment:

                “…If I had to speculate as to a purpose and function that seems to fit the stated observations, I’d say the military was working to enhance the conductivity of energy through the ionosphere– perhaps converting it to a temporary or ongoing platform for the transfer of energy (weather modification or weaponization of the atmosphere, or perhaps for observation or shielding) across intercontinental distances. The fact that it uses materials already commonly found in the soil and water– aluminum, barium etc, simply makes the program deniable, as does the existence in nature of persistent contrails.

                Anthony Watts August 17, 2016 at 10:48 am
                And with Mike’s ridiculous comments, the thread is closed. I’m tired of moderating the small mindedness of it all.

                Comments are closed.”

                the small mindedness of it all…

                In light of Mr Watts’ own battle against institutionalized gatekeeping forces, why has he gone to such pains to stigmatize clearly intelligent, courageous and concerned people?

                This is not a rhetorical question.

  3. nosoapradio says:

    Well as I’m a barrel of laughs these days I’ll just leave this encouraging little message of positivity:

    I’m afraid it’s the big bosses of the energy companies who are fully aware of the climate change fraud.

    No pushback from the people.

    The people risk losing 5000 jobs

    and France is entering an election cycle-popularity contest

    so in the name of bread and circus

    whoever’s receiving the fat dividends from the national electricity producers of France

    won’t be paying the promised carbon tax.

    No, the carbon tax will be implemented when they’ve signed Angelina Joli on to explain to the French people why they should be paying for it directly from their pockets.

    Or they find another way of disguising it buried under percentages in paychecks, consumer eco-taxes, gas taxes, stuffed into car tune-up payments and so on…

    and heck, to make sure the scam’s really profitable, they’ll just call it the “CSG2” and we’ll dutifully pay the tax twice!

    Wouldn’t count on any popular pushback though…

  4. HomeRemedySupply says:

    Dec 1, 2016 – Forbes Taking away cash from society

    …Believe it or not, some experts think we should do something much like this in the US…
    …Harvard economist Kenneth Rogoff has a new book out called The Curse of Cash. He thinks we should eliminate most paper bills. His plan is to phase out $100, $50, and $20 bills, which together account for about 97% of the face value of all US dollars in circulation…
    …Rogoff isn’t aiming only at tax evaders and drug dealers. He thinks paper money is problematic no matter who holds it because cash restricts monetary policy.
    It would get in the way if the Federal Reserve ever wanted to push interest rates into the negative range, the way central banks in Japan and the Eurozone already have.
    Under a negative interest rate policy (NIRP), putting cash in the bank costs the depositor money instead of earning it. You can avoid this simply by holding paper currency… but not if the paper currency doesn’t exist because your government followed Professor Rogoff’s advice….

  5. HomeRemedySupply says:

    Fluoride News
    Nov 30, 2016
    The Fluoride Action Network along with national environmental and medical health groups delivered a Citizen Petition to the EPA that calls for a nationwide ban on water fluoridation due to the neurotoxicity of fluoride.
    The EPA must take action within 90 days or face a lawsuit.
    For more information on this petition visit:­
    (2 minute YouTube)

    Dogs are against fluoridation too.­

  6. Brian Walker says:

    It’s global James. You’re a legend, keep it happening.
    I’m working on locking down New Zealand, so the bastards can’t fly here in when it all goes wrong.
    I know you hate FB, but shouldn’t we use all mediums?

  7. Knarf says:

    The safe assumption is they capture everything now, they’ve been capturing everything for a number of years, and they shall continue to capture everything…indefinitely.

    What Rule 41 or some other similar rule actually does is expand what they can acknowledge capturing as evidence which can be brought forth in court.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Back to Top