Interview 1420 - The Tin Foil Ripple Farm on Infotainment vs. Reality

02/19/201916 Comments

via The Ripple Effect: Another Tin Foil Ripple Farm Report round-table discussion with James Corbett from the Corbett Report, Sam Tripoli from the Tin Foil Hat podcast, and Pat Miletich from The Conspiracy Farm podcast. (WARNING: profuse profanity throughout)

Video courtesy: The Ripple Effect YouTube channel

Do You Believe in the Deep State Now? by Robert Merry

How To Tell If Someone Is Controlled Opposition

How Big Oil Conquered the World

Desmogblog on

The Minds of Men documentary

Filed in: Interviews
Tagged with:

Comments (16)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. ChaosNavigator says:

    Intro and analysis (not so much an intro as a complementary addition to Brandon Smith’s piece below :-): There are so many anomalies and contradictions with Trump, many specific bullet points which the trumpist cult crowds are largely completely unaware of, his biography, his honey trap-pedophile specialist mentor, Roy Cohn, his many connections to the rabid Zionists and mafia, Rothschild connections, chabad connections, how Cambridge Analytica and PsyGroup waged psychological digital warfare campaigns for him, etc. – all of which absolutely cannot be explained away by arbitrary associations and coincidence theory. [1]

    This has resulted in a new form of iliteracy on the alternative level, primarily among newcomers among the so-called truth movements, but also some veterans. A co-opting of the truth movements through psychological operations. Most veterans are not deceived in spite of the trumpist simulacra, what I call fake awakening, fake rabbit holes, limited hangouts, cognitive honey traps to hook the already awakened by mimicry. 4th generation warfare and cognitive infiltration.

  2. NES says:

    Please! The guy with the white earphones and the sucker in this mouth does not have to yell into the mic. He can be heard just fine.

  3. n4x5 says:

    One of the more remarkable parts of the conversation is James’s account of feedback from well-known journalists telling him of their appreciation for his work but being unwilling to come out into the open on this kind of subject matter (50:03). I don’t recall hearing this before. Coincidentally, earlier in the conversation Ricky mentions Russ Baker, who in the afterword of Family of Secrets shares a similar experience: “I’ll admit it. Fear of being so labeled has haunted me throughout this work. It’s been an internal censor that I’ve had to resist again and again. And also an external one, as friends within the journalistic establishment reviewed my findings, found them both credible and highly disturbing, and yet urged me to stay away from them for my own good.” (emphasis added) Russ Baker of course has written for The New York Times, The Nation, and other MSM outlets.

  4. mkey says:

    Woah, manbearpig got WD-40 handed back to them… aaaawkwaaaard!

  5. mkey says:

    Somewhat on the trail of what was discussed in this talk, about how information should be judged on its own, without relying too much on the context set by the one bringing the information.

    On the local “news” site there’s an article about how some far right politician nobody was a guest in one of the morning shows on the “national” television. The topic of discussion was abolition of the income tax.

    I can link the article, but it won’t mean much to anyone, I’d just like to lay out some statistics I found interesting:
    – the article in total has 3364 characters
    – the initial paragraph is 329 characters long
    – the closing paragraph, the only one relevant to the topic at hand, is 512 characters long
    – the rest of the article, some 2515 characters, is used to depict the far right politician nobody’s unsavory past, past speeches and whatnot

    This type of thing doesn’t have even the most basic components required for a journalist effort.

  6. manbearpig says:

    “…The function of a gatekeeper is not to spout lies 100% of the time or to be some sort of bumbling fool who doesn’t know what she’s talking about. It is to be exceptionally good and an exceptionally keen analyst on enough topics that people will buy into what you’re saying so that on those one or two topics that you have to skirt around and that you have to get your audience to stop paying attention to, you can do so with some credibility…”

    “…the fundamental starting point and ending point of any such investigation into the gatekeeperness of a gatekeeper like Johnstone which is well, is she serious with herself, is she serious with her audience, to what degree does she know what she is talking about, to what degree is she deliberately misleading people and to what degree is she misleading them in general and these are all very good questions and ones that I will not presume to answer for you, the reader out there, that I will ask you to answer for yourself, but I will of course share my own thinking on the matter which is that I am not going to come today to any grand consclusion about Caitlin Johnstone’s affiliations and who she may or may not be working for…

    …that she was banned from twitter that has futher bolstered her reputation as Rebel, cemented her status in the popular imagination as someone who is deeply troubling to the powers that shouldn’t be despite the fact that she answers these important questions without providing evidence…

    …We can Simply see Johnstone’s pronouncements for what they are (manipulatively employing the term “conpiracy buff/enthousiast in a way that she herself decries, ,the derogatory MSM term “climate denier” while misrepresenting what climate skeptics actually contend for a start). We Don’t have to bring in very much in the way of speculation into this conversation…

    So why is Corbett defending the quisling Johnstone? Look how much valuable time we’ve spent arguing with Corbett about the motives of the quisling Johnstone. While I can’t know exactly what motives are inside Johnstone’s mind, I can most certainly make an informed and intelligent determination of the likely motives for her absolutely nonsensical statements about “conspiracy buffs, climate deniers, mass extinctions and man-made global warming. Johnstone is behaving lika a classic gatekeeper of the left leaning controlled opposition. All we’re saying is, is if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s probably a duck. And so my friends, I think that is the note that we will leave things on today as we look at the duck waddling away quacking its gatekeeper song and again we don’t have to make bold pronouncements that she is working for the CIA or whatever organization we want to come up with. We can simply say that whatever she’s doing, she’s functioning as if she were working hand in hand with the very elites that she proclaims to be fighting against…”

    • manbearpig says:

      excerpts from the brilliant “Meet Noam Chomsky, Academic Gatekeeper” by James Corbett with Johnstone inserted where Chomsky should be and Corbett inserted where Schlessinger should be in a quote by Gaelan that Mr Corbett included about Schlessinger and “the quisling Chomsky”.

      I could never have written something so eloquent. I borrow Mr Chomsky’s own words and quotes to try to illustrate my point, giving one line descriptions of my own to describe what I perceive to be Johnstone’s gatekeeping behavior.

      I repeat: I do not discourage picking up Chomsky or Sibel Edmonds or Johnstone’s jewels: I merely try to highlight what appears to be to me the highly typical and potentially toxic modus operandi of the Gatekeeper.

      • manbearpig says:

        good grief!! ERRATUM

        the statement below

        “… I borrow Mr Chomsky’s own words and quotes to try to illustrate my point, giving one line descriptions of my own to describe what I perceive to be Johnstone’s gatekeeping behavior.”

        should be

        “I borrow Mr Corbett’s own words and quotes to try to illustrate my point…”

        typing important stuff at 2 o’clock in the morning or when running out the door can lead to this type of hapless mistake…

        my apologies.

  7. manbearpig says:

    I understand that what I, as a subscriber, write on your comments board reflects upon you

    and it is all to your credit that you have not censored me.

    But, though, it’s all very well and good to identify the modus operandi of a toxic pundit such as Johnstone or Sibel Edmonds, after the fact,

    it would seem more constructive to identify them before they can fully wield their toxic influence on the key issues of the time.

    In Chomsky’s time, the key issues leading people by the nose into the new world order were JFK and then much later, 9/11.

    The key issue in Johnstone’s time, from my subjective standpoint, is the factless hypothesis known as anthropogenic climate change for a bevy of reasons that I am too tired at the moment to detail.

    If you, Mr Corbett, were to expend as much meticulous, ardent and perspicacious energy on your subscribers’ comments and in this case my own, that you do on the very important issues you deal with, which is pretentious to demand and that you do with unrivalled brio, you would have noticed that I always comment on a pundit’s words and actions and never engage in ad hominem. I do not condemn Ms Johnstone for disagreeing with me, but for being hypocritical in ways that are highly typical and recognizeable, and largely thanks to your efforts among others.

    Which is why I was most dismayed by your derisive misrepresentation of my written expression. I did not miss the point of Ms Johnstone’s article.
    You have proven that her thesis is at best strangely convenient and at worst utterly absurd.

    Of course one can recognize the stamp of gatekeeping and controlled opposition.

    And preferably before the effect has become irreversible.

    Respectfully and with evident devotion,


  8. pearl says:

    Speaking of gatekeepers, Edward Curtain wrote (another) fantastic essay detailing his recent experience with such:

    To battle honestly in the open forum, to argue to and fro squarely, is often prevented in advance by eliminating an opponent’s voice from the debate. This is the typical method used by the corporate mass media that stack the deck with sycophants and refuse dissidents a place to voice their ideas.

    Then there is the masquerade of fighting an opponent who is really a collaborator and benefactor, whose punches one counters in a game of shadow boxing meant to convince the audience that the fight is real and you are on their side. Some alternative media use this technique because they are gatekeepers for the power elite.

    Sometimes this ruse is so blatant that the fix becomes transparent because the smart-asses who play this game screw up, yet they still expect their real opponents to shut up and walk away because their fixer’s mantra is “Never apologize, never explain.” It has always been the code of the rich and powerful.

    Some are brawlers, however, and fight back against this bullshit.

    Life is short, time is precious, and God bless the brawlers!

    BabeRuthManBearPig knocked it outta the park again.

  9. HomeRemedySupply says:

    Great line from Ricky (Ricardo):

    “…It is one of those things where you look around and you feel like you’re in some church that you don’t belong to….”

  10. HomeRemedySupply says:

    At one brief point in the conversation, wives / girlfriends were brought up as having no strong interest in ‘conspiracy type topics’.

    Spouses and others we come in contact with…
    I guess we underestimate how much influence we have.

    I was married for 29 years before we got divorced. We are still great friends and I am often over to my ex-wife’s place.
    While we were married, my wife mostly wanted to have nothing to do with conspiracy type stuff. No strong interest. Although, she did let me show her stuff about 9/11 back in 2005 (a time when that was considered taboo). She had no strong interest in organic methods nor supplements nor alternative health.
    At least, this had been my consideration. But I think I was wrong. I think that she had been paying attention. It was just a different interest level.

    Now, when we talk on the phone or I am over at her place, she initiates conversations and topics which she has been researching on her own.

    For example:
    Recently, she asked me what all this Flat Earth stuff was about…she tried to research it with an open mind, but it didn’t make any sense. ( I told her that it doesn’t make any sense, because it doesn’t make any sense…that it could be part of a disinfo/marginalization/confusion campaign.)
    And Sunday, she showed me all these supplements which she now was taking. She ranted on AOC (Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez) and the New Green Deal silliness, and also brought up aspects of how the Constitution is not followed citing the “Article” or Amendment.
    Heck, she goes to Colorado sometimes to get CBD oil which helps with vertigo, and does a lot of alternative health practices.

    She researches and discovers stuff on her own.
    Her interest line is much like the interest line of many Corbett Members.

    My point
    is that just by displaying “our line of interest” in matters of substance, this aspect can rub off onto others.

    • generalbottlewasher says:

      Homey, that was a magnificent tightrope walk of gender bias I think if ever seen. You have displayed great skill and genteel decorum.
      I noticed in some previous comments above here an unusual diametric line of thought that in my unsophisticated youth would have attributed, incorrectly I might add, to gender bias mind. That bias was the product of a successful campaign of propaganda. I realize that now and try to avoid it as it is a mine field. In search of the reality of life here on earth I came across THE CORBETT REPORT.
      I speculated it may be a ” round table type” publication. For who? For why? Recently the publisher came clean in a #Propaganda watch editorial. I have come a little closer to understanding by comparison to the past history, how it repeats its self and why. How to combat the parts that favor those who would do wrong to others and what sets them apart from the motivations and methods to achieve the same outcomes, using the same methods. How do you tell them apart?
      For one , using “the round table” as example. Propaganda was used as a weopon of aggression. It was censored by the publishers at
      175 Piccadilly , useful editorial submissions were allowed by a gate keeper. Probably Rothschild at 178 Piccadilly.
      Here the difference of the agorist anarchist libertarian Publisher is stark. There is no censorship but one. 500 word limit to one block of type, but no limit to the blocks. Or content or meaning. A defining refreshing policy.
      The lack of censorship will be a good indicator of gatekeeping intent. Certainly unnerving to authoritarian battered souls who have not yet shed the propaganda put deeply into psychic place.
      Im a firm believer that there are no stupid questions just stupid
      ( orders) requests. Thanks to F-IW Russel and this site publisher.

      • pearl says:

        The lack of censorship will be a good indicator of gatekeeping intent. Certainly unnerving to authoritarian battered souls who have not yet shed the propaganda put deeply into psychic place.

        That’s been one of my key indicators as well, and one of the reasons I consider James Corbett to be a genuine man of integrity and a continual source of invaluable information.

        Assuming I’ve not misread the exhaustive and numerous indicators pointed out by manbearpig over several weeks’ time, I believe Caitlin Johnstone does censor.

  11. Libertydan says:

    “Redacted-Tonight” has a nice little jiggle that I think applies here;
    “They have their money, but we have our Souls”

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Back to Top