What’s Your Endgame? – Questions For Corbett #045

06/07/2019146 Comments

So what’s James’ endgame anyway? And what’s the deal with the Lord of the Rings? And can you be pro-freedom if you’re for mandatory vaccines? Good questions! Find out the answers to these and other burning queries in this edition of Questions For Corbett.

Watch this video on BitChute / DTube / YouTube or Download the mp4

For those with limited bandwidth, CLICK HERE to download a smaller, lower file size version of this episode.

For those interested in audio quality, CLICK HERE for the highest-quality version of this episode (WARNING: very large download).

SHOW NOTES:

Netanyahu admits 9/11 was good for Israel

Hayek quote on “The curious task of economics”

The Lord of the Rings – FLNWO #07

Escobar article mentioning INSTEX

The Death of SWIFT and the (Engineered) Death of the Dollar

Corbett Report Radio 234 – “Mandatory” Vaccinations (and how to avoid them)

VaccineRights.com

Strange Bedfellows: The India/Pakistan/China Triangle

Ian’s website

Corbett Report IPFS mirror

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail

Filed in: Questions For Corbett
Tagged with:

Comments (146)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Bart says:

    Hi James,

    Thanks for the response.
    I didn’t mean you, or anyone for that matter, should “decide” how we all should live. I was mostly just interested in how you, and others view their ideal world. Even in a world where everyone can build their own little society and “run” it the way they would like, in which one would you choose to live?

    I personally see “having a goal” as fairly important in order to take the steps needed to get there.

    If not, and we would simply tru to stop “the elites” in what they’re doing, and then let every country/state/city or even smaller parts of the world decide how they would run things, I wonder how things would go, and if it wouldn’t lead to complete chaos and a form of “survival of the fittest”.

    I completely agree that we should allow people to form communities the way they’d like and let them be (within certain limits, I believe there are certain things that we do not want in our world, just because some people would. For example, I don’t think we should condone a group of people going around raping everyone simply because they feel that’s the society they’d like).

    So how do you see the transition from where we are today, to “the ideal world”?
    Without an idea on how to fill in this transition period I would see quite a few bad things happening.

    For example, if tomorrow the world fiat currencies all collapse, a lot of people would starve to death as most people aren’t able to grow their own food. If the governments would shut down, there would probably be a lot more criminality to start with. I do believe a form of an anarchist society could work, where people find their own “punishments” for such deeds, but this wouldn’t work right away and would take some time to work out. I do think people could set up their own governments and make them truely “for the people”, but again I don’t think this would happen in a week time, and there will be complete mayhem before that.

    Sorry for rambling on too much, it’s a lot to consider.
    I agree with you that eventually everyone should choose how to run there part of the world they’d like, and people should be able to choose to move to places where there is a society that suits them more.

    I just find it hard to see us “overthrow” the elites, if that’s what we’d want to do, and then all set up our own little societies. I get see this happening without a structured plan, at least for a transitional phase.

    Maybe such an event would never happen, and it’s up to us to set up these little societies as we see fit right away. Probably start off with small countries and set up societies there. The problem is that you easily become a target for invasions and what not to do this while the same elites are running things.

    Again sorry if this is too much rambling on

    • mkey says:

      What makes you think you have the right to allow someone to do something you don’t have the right to deny them in the first place? You don’t have the right to tell other people how to live and you don’t have the capacity to abrogate that right you don’t have to anyone else on “higher” position.

      If people would realize this simple fact of life, we would be on our merry way to a better tomorrow. Mass rapist tropes aside.

      Empires don’t fall overnight. The Roman empire was going down for half a century. People adapted.

      The strongest source of criminality is the government. There is no other entity (past an occasional comet) responsible for such slaughters government can provide. Not even by a long shot. In a “normal” society, you’d need about one person to kill one person in combat, on average. Good luck finding three million volunteers who’d be willing to travel thousands of miles so their lives could cancel out three million Iraqi lives. Mass rapes notwithstanding.

      All of this is really simple. Live by two laws: don’t cause harm to others and honour what has been agreed upon. If you abolish taxation, 90% of “criminality” goes away.

      • Bart says:

        I agree that a big portion of financially driven criminality would be reduced if we live in a society where money isn’t such an issue as it is today and things like taxations and war wouldn’t exist.

        However, there is plenty of criminality that isn’t linked to money. There simply are people who “like young kids”, or are psychopaths, etc.

        So unless you believe that these people should fill there “fetishes” as they seem fit and we all just have to live with it, because “who are we to tell them they can’t do that”, which I find a fairly barbaric point of view, we would need some sort of system to defend society against such deeds.

        I personally think most trouble is caused by the fact that the banking systems basically owns the government, there are plenty of systems thinkable where there would still be a form of government but without the banking interests to corrupt them. I don’t believe government itself is to root problem.

        But I can see a stateless system working aswell, but I personally don’t feel to much for everyone loading up on guns and shooting down everyone we see fit, because no one is there to tell us not to.

        Yes the criminal that currently does some robbing because he can’t get by otherwise, will probably stop doing so in a system that allows him to survive without robbing. However, there are plenty of bigger criminal instances just after “big profits” and they wouldn’t stop in a system that makes it easier to rob and kill, why would they?
        And every rapist and psychopath would have the time of their life, because “who are we to tell them how to run their lifes”

        • pam86 says:

          The “system” to which you’re referring is called “community.” We do not need a government to regulate undesirable behavior. Humans are social animals, that’s just the way it is. They desire and NEED to be part of a group. Therefore the group itself establishes the guidelines upon which it wishes to live. Threat of being ostracized from or thrown out of the group is enough to keep most in line. Of course there will be exceptions, but those are just that – exceptions (few and far between) and not something that makes the creation of a criminal, oppressive, tyrannical empire necessary.

          Our people have lived very happily under this system before. We build high trust societies because of how we’ve evolved. Maybe that system wouldn’t work for other cultures, but then that’s not for US to decide.

        • mkey says:

          I wasn’t talking about financially driven criminality nor am I advocating for moneyless sociaties. Money is not am issue in itself, the issue is who’s controlling the printing press.

          There are people who like young kids and there are people who would like to kill people who like young kids. Which one of these groups, do you reckon, is in the majority?

          Is it your contention that we need governments to keep rapists and molestors in check? If that’s the case, how come there are as many rapings and molestations going on as they are?

          We have psychopaths now,too. Most of them are in the government.

          So unless you believe that these people should fill there “fetishes” as they seem fit
          Are you serious? Do you really, I mean REALLY, think this is the point I’m making? Oh just let “these” people do what they want ladida. No, that’s not the point I’m making. I’ll spell it for you – t-h-e n-o-n-a-g-g-r-e-s-s-i-o-n p-r-i-n-c-i-p-l-e.

          You may believe whatever you wish, that’s fine. Find me one example in history where governemnt wasn’t bound to the moneychangers while you’re at it.

          everyone loading up on guns and shooting down everyone we see fit, because no one is there to tell us not to.
          Seriously, come on? Other people with guns are telling you not to.

          You really need to think this through, your points are completely off the charts. These are not questions for Corbett, these are questions for Cosby’s show.

          • Bart says:

            I agree with most what you’re saying. However, in a way it still sounds like a “wild west” scenario, where the solution to every so-called outcast of society is to put a bullet in him.

            I’m not saying that would be the case, or that you’re describing it that way. However, I honestly don’t have a good example of modern societies living that way. I’m not a fan of governments in any way, and I can see most things being done without a government to do them.

            And perhaps there are enough “brave” folks who are willing to risk their life for the greater good of society (i.e. going after psychopaths etc.)

            And maybe most troubles in society would disappear when we get rid of governments, taxes, etc.
            However, there have always been financially driven crimes, that don’t need to go away just because everyone is able to get by. There will always be greedy people in any society. And there will always be people trying to force their will upon others for whatever gains. And yes, maybe there will be enough brave/stronger/better shooting fellas that will risk their life to protect others, but maybe there won’t be.

            I’m just openly trying to get some imput on how this would work, as there generally aren’t too many people thinking about, let alone speaking openly about it. No need to be offended by me if I don’t “get it” right away.

            On the questions about governments being bent to the will of moneychangers. Yes that has always happened, but for a good part because the public hasn’t been informed on the monetary system. If we would succeed to change the system in a way where we wouldn’t have governments, and we wouldn’t do this in a violent way, the public will pretty much have to be informed about how the system currently works, otherwise I don’t have much hope in changing it. And once the public is informed, I believe it would be a lot harder to corrupt the system again.

    • Fantasy of Nothing says:

      Bart,
      I am developing a plan for the transition. To create a decentralized network of semi-autonomous socio-political-economic units. Sadly my full description of it will not fit into this comment section. You can send me an email at [no email addresses in the comment section, please. Anyone who is interested can contact me to get in touch with you. – JC] if you would like to see it. I would like feedback.

  2. ShutR says:

    Please have a look at the decentralized computing network Blockstack.
    https://blockstack.org/

    • manbearpig says:

      If it’s regulated by the SEC then I guess it’s safe. No backdoors or anything.

      “…Blockstack believes that, if approved by the SEC, it would be the first to use the exemption to sell a crypto token.

      Tucked in the filing was a disclosure about another Blockstack investor: Harvard Management Company, which oversees the university’s endowment. It’s listed alongside two other investors that together hold a stake valued at about $11 million, purchased in an earlier token sale (Harvard’s exact share wasn’t disclosed). Though a few big institutions, including Yale and two Virginia pension plans, have invested in crypto-focused funds, Harvard’s involvement is unusual in that it appears to have taken a direct interest in the tokens of a blockchain network…”

      https://www.wired.com/story/startup-sell-you-crypto-tokens-with-sec-backing/

      The SEC, Yale, Harvard and Virginia pension plans… what could possibly go wrong? right?

    • manbearpig says:

      Ok, ok,my bad. Shouldn’t comment on stuff I know nothing about and without reading carefully… Yale and Virginia pension funds betting on other projects. Only SEC and Harvard on Blockstack.

      So, after some additional web surfing I found the Blockstack “Don’t be Evil” contest, Woops! I mean the “CAN’T be Evil” contest.

      blog.blockstack.org/welcome-to-the-age-of-apps-that-cant-be-evil/

      Anyhow, Hackermoon kindly explains the “Can’t be Evil” stack rationale distinguishing it from “don’t be evil”:

      Don’t be evil: a cute slogan. Now a rescinded promise.
      Can’t be evil: a model for future organizations and business.

      “Meritocratic Technology

      What’s powering can’t be evil organizations? You might suspect buzzwords like blockchain and cryptocurrency along the names of several startups and some heavy hand waving. This article is about fundamentals and it’s much simpler that all of that. Cryptography.

      …We can’t simply add money to the internet and expect business to change. The paradigm shift must go beyond money. We need to shift society and culture. Movements around the world are beginning to hack away at what some are referring to as the Web 3.0 technology stack…

      …Can’t be evil organizations are coming. Along with them are the B2B and B2C can’t be evil SaaS providers. Where will you build?…

      …While everyone’s eyes are on what AI/ML or other technologies will do next, we must shift our attention to who and how we control AI and emerging technologies. New breakthroughs, algorithms and design patterns are occurring almost daily. There is an inordinate amount of data produced by us. It’s time we take back what’s rightfully ours. We’ll need the right tools to do it. Can’t be evil is the future of technology, organizations and business.

      How will you prove yourself?…”

      hackernoon.com/cant-be-evil-vs-don-t-be-evil-12fb625057b7

      Cryptography: the new religion to keep us safe from evil?

      • manbearpig says:

        The Warburg Endgame?
        Blockchaining the World to the biometric IoT?

        Human Rights Watch
        the Jewish Museum Berlin
        the General Director of the World Health Organization

        are just a few of those lucky enough to have benefitted from the time, talent and dedication of the beautiful blockchain expert, Bettina Warburg.

        Between Oxford and Georgetown university degrees, in 2008 she would move to Germany and in addition to her research at the Jewish Museum Berlin, worked at NPR worldwide as a production assistant, responsible for customizing the Berlin Radio station.

        Her company “Animal Ventures” “…is an agency of innovation that partners other animals to create, implement, and invest in some of the most exciting and emergent technologies”…and invites visitors to “Join the Herd”.

        “…Bettina Warburg is the Founder and Director of the Blockchain Futures Lab, a research and development laboratory launching soon.

        The BFL is designed to expand the world’s knowledge base and intellectual property
        through significant investments in blockchain research,

        stimulate and support a growing community of blockchain technologists and enthusiasts,

        and partner with the Fortune 500 in setting concrete actions towards the global commercialization and integration of blockchain technology…”

        She’s reportedly very private about her family and personal life (and even her year of birth). Though her probable namesake, Bettina Warburg (Senior?) has a wikipedia page stipulating that she was a member of the Warburg banking dynasty and was deeply involved with jewish matters and most notably in assisting psychoanalysts emigrate to the U.S. and Europe during the rise of nazism.

        “…Prior to the BFL, Bettina received her MSc from Oxford University and BS from Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Service, having

        developed a keen interest and specializing in global governance

        and cultural diplomacy. As a Public Foresight Strategist at the Institute For the Future, Bettina has focused on bringing a futures lens to a variety of strategic initiatives with top corporations, foundations, education institutions, and city governments.

        While at the Institute For the Future, she also co-founded its governance research practice,

        looking to reimagine society for an age of planetary challenges and human responsibility…”

        “…Concerning The Future Of Healthcare:
        Leading blockchain expert Bettina Warburg discusses what this game-changing technology may mean for the future of healthcare…”

        “…Bettina has published for Georgetown University Press on German nationalism and researched the Tamil diaspora…

        She speaks English, German, French, Spanish and Portugese and is a certified yoga instructor.”

        https://www.marathi.tv/personalities/bettina-warburg/

        From dollar democracy to blockchain technocracy, the Warburgs bring global governance into the digital age.

    • manbearpig says:

      Hey ShutR!

      I’m really glad you mentioned Blockstack as it got me looking into blockchain in general and its implications for other technologies and industry in general.

      In addition to learning that the Blockstack data storage system is called “Gaia” (and Can’t do Evil)

      I saw that when referring to 3D printers in industry we now speak of “Additive Manufacturing” which seems to have been quickly associated with blockchain (at least it appears so on Bettina Warburg’s Animal Ventures website.)

      Perhaps Bettina Warburg’s fellow geek at the Institute for the Future, Jane McGonigal, will make sure blockchain integrates the gaming industry, quickly developing and diversifying such “educational” distractions as “Crypto Kitties. In an effort to liberate and educate humanity, of course. The world will be virtually saved.

    • Fawlty Towers says:

      Thanks for the update tg.
      It’s very sad news.
      Apparently the third time in jail now in just recent months.
      They’re just going on a fishing expedition against him.

    • HomeRemedySupply says:

      Thanks travelinglass.

      (May 2019) Alan Phillips says: “I’m being required to produce information and documents that I literally can’t or legally can’t produce, leaving me feeling like I’m being set up to be put in jail.”

    • mkey says:

      Oh look, tax dollars being put to good use. if it talks like a mob and acts like a mob what could it be? A duck?

  3. david.a says:

    Hi James,
    I’m a dedicated follower of yours and appreciate your insights and descriptions of the world as we know it (or don’t.) My question to you: Do you think we are entering a new ice age or the cyclic period known as the Grand Solar Minimum?
    Cheers, David Aston (New Zealand)

  4. joseph says:

    Where is Indira Singh?

    • Fawlty Towers says:

      joseph I’ve been trying to find out any information I could about Indira for years, to no avail.
      I just hope and pray that she is alive and well somewhere.

  5. Fawlty Towers says:

    On Christchurch…

    I’d just like to add a few points about the attack in Christchurch, NZ.
    I’ve done some painstaking analysis of the 17 minute shooting video.

    There are incriminating pieces of evidence in the video that reveal Tarrant was not acting alone in the mission.

    He had accomplices/handlers working with him on that day. One can count a minimum of three in the video.

    So the official narrative that a lone white supremacist was responsible for the shootings is just plain nonsense.

    This was undoubtedly one of the main reasons for the banning of the video in NZ.

    There were probably multiple purposes for the attack. James mentioned one; a crackdown on information available to the public.

    Another would be more gun regulation in NZ.
    Another of course would be the furthering of the terrorist meme that is essential in keeping the ‘war on terror’ alive and well.
    Also bolstering the newly added layer of the divide and conquer meme, the ‘white supremacist’. So now we must beware of not only evil Muslims but also ‘crazy white supremacists’.

    • Ian Davis says:

      In the UK governments recent Online Harms White Paper, which literally proposes the establishment of the Ministry of Truth at a governmental (rather than private corporate level) they stated the following:

      “Terrorist groups place a huge premium on quickly reaching their audiences. A third of all links to Daesh propaganda, for example, are disseminated within an hour of upload, while in the immediate aftermath of the terrorist attack in Christchurch, there was a co-ordinated cross-platform effort to generate maximum reach of footage of the attack. It is therefore vital to ensure that there is the technology in place to automatically detect and remove terrorist content within an hour of upload, secure the prevention of re-upload and prevent, where possible, new content being made available to users at all”

      I think this indicates clearly how the attack is being used in this regard.

  6. Fawlty Towers says:

    On ‘The Endgame’…

    James as a voluntaryist stated:
    “I want a world of voluntary interactions where people can voluntarily congregate or disassociate as they please.”

    What if one of the many voluntaryist communities you mentioned wanted to be built upon a democracy that was later usurped by a deep state (like we have in the U.S. today) or wanted to be built upon a dictatorship, and in each of these cases the leaders were bent on attacking and going to war with all the outside peaceful voluntaryist communities of the world and taking them over?

    Then it would be, “So much for the worldwide voluntaryist communities!”

    • Bart says:

      I also see problems with the volumtary small communities.
      I get the point that no one should have the right to choose how other people live their lives, but if every small part of the world has their own little society, what is stopping them from trying to take over other parts of the world? People throughout history try to conquer the world, at least some people have tried and I don’t see a good reason why that would stop alltogether.

      • Octium says:

        Voluntaryists still have the right to defend themselves against those who are not respecting the voluntaryist principle. They have the right to defend others if they wish to be defended. They can also choose not to associate with others (Boycotts etc)

        Government is like having an enormous toilet that is blocked and filled to the brim with crap. Some people are too afraid to unblock it as a clean toilet might encourage others to use it to take a dump.

        • Bart says:

          I understand that.
          However, generally speaking the people who would like to “conquer” the world have more means of getting armies off the ground, than those living in a peaceful society. I personally don’t see every average Joe grabbing his gun to defend his little society. I think people in a peaceful society will generally not be too ready for a war once they get invaded all of the sudden. Obviously I could be wrong in assuming this.

          Also, I don’t avocate having a government. I just see flaws in anarchist societies that I’d like to see answers for. Thanks all for the comments and please keep ‘em coming as I find it a fascinating discussion.

          • Fantasy of Nothing says:

            Military is one of the most difficult functions to conceive of an volunteerist society performing. But if NATO can work, then it seems like we should be able to engineer a situation where many volunteerist groups can find it in their interest to come together for common defense.

        • HomeRemedySupply says:

          Octium states a colorful metaphor:

          “Government is like having an enormous toilet that is blocked and filled to the brim with crap. Some people are too afraid to unblock it as a clean toilet might encourage others to use it to take a dump.”

      • pam86 says:

        It won’t. It’s human nature.

    • mkey says:

      What if all ther other peaceloving communities took a break from their tree huhhing, got together and said “no you fucking won’t”?

    • Ian Davis says:

      Voluntarism as a principle for social organisation (an oxymoron I know but this response will unavoidably be full of them) could work very well if it were based upon universal (another one) agreement of a constitutional framework (and again).

      That constitution, agreed as a fundamental principle underpinning all voluntary interactions, could be based upon the overarching establishment of natural and common law. Natural law, God’s Law, Universal Law (call it what you will) could be used to inform Common Law, establishing transparent contract law as the basis for all voluntary exchange. No initiation of force nor causation of harm being its founding ethos.

      I’m from Britain so I would suggest our codified constitution, the Great Charter of 1215 (the Magna Carta) provides the form of ‘government’ (there I go again) that could enable voluntarism to work across society while protecting against dangers of the initiation of force you highlight.

      The reason for this is that the word ‘government’ and ‘democracy’ are widely used today in completely the wrong context. The Hellenic Athenian Constitution established ‘democracy’ as ‘government by trial by jury.’ That is to say any ‘legislation’ can be annulled by unanimous verdict of a jury. A constitutional framework, voluntarily agreed by all, would allow voluntary communities and individual to live, exchange and act in peace no matter what ‘legal system’ they choose to enter into, because the Common Law of ‘government by trial by jury’ would always take precedent.

      Under such a constitutional arrangement a ‘deep state’ could not emerge because it would rely upon the deception and coercion. A voluntary ‘deep state’ could but it would have no reach because those who oppose it could annul any of its machinations if they contravene the Common Law constitution.

      I realise this is full of contradictions and many anarchists will vehemently oppose the notion but, in reality, if we seek to establish an agorist society I do believe this could be this could facilitate it.

      You may find these posts interesting.

      https://in-this-together.com/the-british-constitution-deception-part-1/

    • Fawlty Towers says:

      More on ‘The Endgame’…

      A story broke recently in the Canadian MSM about seasteading.
      I hadn’t heard of the term before.

      Basically it is homesteading at sea, or setting up a home in the ocean.

      Why would anyone in their right mind want to make a home out of the ocean?
      Well for starters it sure beats traveling to the moon or Mars!

      There are basically two movers and shakers behind seasteading:
      a non-profit that came up with the concept 11 years ago (The Seasteading Institute) and a company that will be building the seastead structures for the time being (OceanBuilders).

      What’s so special about seasteading?
      Well first of all having a permanent home out at sea is not something that many in this world have tried.

      One of the goals of the seasteading movement is to free the inhabitants from nation states and their governments.

      Seasteading aims to be a marriage between voluntaryism, new forms of government, blockchain technology, new countries on the ocean, floating cities etc.

      Unfortunately the first single family seastead unit hit some turbulence.
      The couple who bought their unit are currently drowning in sorrow.

      You can listen to their story at this link.
      https://podcast-a.akamaihd.net/mp3/podcasts/asithappens-cU2lvuYY-20190607.mp3

      Fast forward to the 17:45 minute mark.

  7. Fawlty Towers says:

    On Protecting online content, censorship/suppression…

    James: “Currently I’m most excited about the IPFS mirror of Corbett Report.com which Ernie Hancock has put together…
    It is not lightning fast at this point, but it is up there forever, as long as you have the hash…
    and how you can set up your own node to help preserve the Corbett Report forever and always and nothing they can do to take it down…”

    I would be extremely hesitent to utter those words “up there forever”.
    Heck even Google and Microsoft routinely give just a few months notice before permanently pulling the plug on web spaces that had lasted years and people thought would last ‘forever’.

    • candlelight says:

      Hello, hello, Fawlty Towers,

      Yea, nothing is up there forever. Nothing lasts, for sure. So, no need for any hesitation. At least, I don’t believe there’s anything on this planet that would come close to lasting forever.

      Though, here is one definition of ‘forever’ I’d like to offer – call it eternity, if you wish: Think of a mountain 10 miles high and 10 miles wide, and every ten thousand years a little bird stops a few seconds to sharpen her beak upon this mountain; and when that mountain has finally been worn down by that little bird sharpening her beak, then one day of ‘forever’ shall have passed.

      You, nor me, nor James Corbett, nor his website, nor its mirror, nor anything else you know, or I know, or we know, or have experienced, will last forever.*

      Speaking of other things, James, through the years, has offered tremendous, gargantuan insight into so many topics that would make a normie’s head spin. James’ insight is deprogramming at its finest. Though, it reminds me of the roadrunner cartoon. Legs spinning a hundred miles an hour, kicking up dust – but getting absolutely nowhere.

      I can’t put my finger on it, but at the risk of framing my thoughts negatively, there does seems to be something fundamentally wrong with his website, or the website’s format. Definitely the Corbett Report scratches beneath the surface, yet it seems nothing is explored terribly further than initially presented. Plus, there’s this feeling of a repetitive churning. May I dare opine, a lil feeding of the beast, eh? Lol

      Perhaps, with regard to certain topics, workshops could be set up among subscribers to go further in-depth, before jumping on to the next proffered topic, which acts, to a certain degree, like a distraction of sorts.

      Also, what happened to the Michel Chossudovsky’s of the world? It would be nice to get some interviews with the old heavy hitters, once again.

      PS: I’m sorry to express even further irrelevancy, and/or be further off topic here (not that there is one), but, as far as the fellow who designed the rEVOLution signage, whatever he throws into the ascribed 5 hour Corbett DVD, he must include “911 War Games”. Hands down!

      Cheers!

      *Philosophical, or even religious discussion wanted/recommended.

      • Fawlty Towers says:

        Candlelight I understand where you are coming from with your thoughts about James’ site.
        It is undoubtedly one of my favourites, I stop by each day.
        Having said that, it could certainly be improved…

        I too would like to see more offered in the way of practical solutions to all the issues raised, rather than descriptions of the problems with little advice for hands-on, grass-roots participation by the masses.

        One weakness for me with this website is the way it is set up. Perhaps it is by design?
        For the most part, it is a one-way flow of information.

        Sure we have this comment section, but it is not very user-friendly.
        For starters, if there is a flurry of comments posted, your eighth or ninth post will probably no longer be visible in the list.
        And if you posted to a topic that is not current, then chances are, very few readers will see it.

        A comment/forums section that was readily available and easily accessible for all topics covered on the site would be great!
        Most forums using software such as vBulletin etc. offer much greater flexibility for users to post their thoughts and engage in discourse/debate.

        General forums and sub-forums could easily be constructed to cover all of the material on this site.
        And users would see the most recent posts in each sub-forum at all times.

        • Not This Little Frog says:

          Hey There Fawlty Towers,
          I like your thinking…we TCR community would need to take ownership of at least some of the work towards what I see as a laudable goal.
          There does exist another website that meets some of the forums that your idea encompasses and that is Tragedy & Hope community website; but I like your idea none the less.

  8. Fantasy of Nothing says:

    James,
    In your description of a voluntary society, you refer to groups of people possessing land. When there are no county offices to tell everyone who owns what land, how can a stateless society agree on who gets to use land? Should there be some notion of “fair use” based on the number of people in the organization occupying it? It seems that militarized national boarder control is fundamentally non-libertarian. But doesn’t a voluntarist society have to do essentially the same thing on a smaller scale?

  9. My endgame is coming in a story I’ve been working on for almost 2 decades on and off – now full time. It will be written in several formats – a novelette, a screenplay, a storyboard, and eventually cleaned up as a graphic novel. Hopefully it may even become a feature film, animated or live action.

    I’ll be publishing it in chapters/scenes on SaidIt.net and eventually on other social media platforms with crypto and/or rewards (recommendations welcome).

    https://SaidIt.net/s/BittersweetSeeds/

    I do not see any good outcome for most of humanity – unless something like what happens in this cautionary tale comes to pass.

    To keep that story mainstream accessible, relatively free of conspiracy theories, I’m also developing an animated comedy short mockumentary series to purge me of preachy impulses. Years ago I tried to entice Corbett to collaborate for animated projects to no avail (he even ignored a little limited animated Question for Corbett. Here’s a frame: https://infogalactic.com/info/File:James_Corbett_Animation_01_Rough_Test_Intro_Pop-Up_v01_Final_1920x1080_h264.mkv_snapshot_00.04.png). I also tried with many other established YouTubers. Some were interested, some not, all of them too busy. So I’m going it alone, for now:

    https://SaidIt.net/s/Trutherism101/

    It may be years before either of these is ready to be published at large, but you heard it here, second, after Saidit, and can follow developments and even participate. There’s also an open source online worker coop project, Glossed And Profound, to manage production and other related stuff that’s not explicitly about the creative projects.

  10. brig says:

    I do have one question which my brother asked me and I couldn’t answer. He asked why it was that the oil industry doesn’t seem to challenge, particularly, the CO2 global warming narrative, when you would think it would use its considerable resources to promote alternative explanations, such as solar influences on weather.

    How do you explain this?

    • manbearpig says:

      “…why it was that the oil industry doesn’t seem to challenge, particularly, the CO2 global warming narrative…”

      With all due respect, you need to rewatch with your brother the “Why Big Oil Conquered the World series.”

      The short answer: They helped Create and Promote the Human-Caused Global Warming and Climate Change narrative.

    • HomeRemedySupply says:

      brig,
      James Corbett had a number of videos as a follow-up to “Why Big Oil Conquered the World”.

      I really enjoyed this recent, relatively short Corbett May 31, 2019 roundtable discussion The Post-Carbon Energy Eugenics Hoax EXPLAINED
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SykwLpCpo7A&feature=youtu.be&t=2m37s

      Except for a few interruptions of Corbett’s overview, he covers a lot of ground and the focus of topics is well guided by Jeffrey Wilson.

  11. HomeRemedySupply says:

    I love these “Questions for Corbett”.

    The community interaction along with Corbett’s direction of the dialogue and his answers to questions help to being me a lot of insight.

    There are some really sharp folks who hang out with Corbett.
    I continue to mature just by being a member of this community.

  12. Ergo says:

    James,
    I struggle to figure out what your idea of a functioning society is. If we went the anarchist route and everyone can voluntarily participate in or dissociate from any particular group or activity, then how do we create laws that say, for instance, no you cannot have sex with children even though a large group of people want to do it? How would a society function with no governance?

    • mkey says:

      Wait, you think laws prevent child molestros from molesting children? Or that police prevents them?

      Hurt my family and I’ll put a bullet right between your eyes.

      Or I’ll hire someone to do it for me.

      Or, if you are part of a large child molesting collective (which is nothing but cartoon vilainry at its finest) and have hired some goons to protect you, then I’ll make sure to get other people whom are interested in protecting children (about 99.9% of adults) to pitch in so that we are sure that our gang of hired goons can kill your gang of hired goons along with the whole child molesting lot.

      Or, if me and other adults whom are interested in protecting children are stuck in an area in which child molestors prevail, then we’ll simply move to another area instead of clammoring for the gubmnet to sort the issue for us.

      When I say “you” I don’t mean you personaly, of course.

    • mik says:

      Do you really think people are intrinsically bad?

    • Ian Davis says:

      [@Ian Davis: Please do not copy/paste responses multiple times in the same comment thread. You can direct people to your original response if need be: https://www.corbettreport.com/qfc045/#comment-62183

      -JC]

    • Ian Davis says:

      I don’t believe you can ‘stop’ paedophilia or violence in a society. No matter what form it takes, there will always be ‘bad’ people. However our current model seems to actively encourage or protect these criminals.

      I think a voluntary society could reduce the likelihood of these crimes occurring. Voluntarism doesn’t necessarily mean ‘no law.’ For example, I wouldn’t choose to live in a community without law, though others may.

      This could be achieved if there existed a overarching constitution based upon Natural and Common Law:

      https://www.corbettreport.com/qfc045/#comment-62183

      Such a constitutional arrangement would mean, even for ‘lawless communities’ crimes against any and all ‘individuals’ could be prosecuted by any and all ‘individuals.’

      For example the lawless community could exist within the constitution but, should Natural Law (our innate sense of right and wrong) be contravened (eg. paedophilia) then those whose human rights are violated would have access to remedy under the constitution.

      In effect, the Constitution could enable communities to self organise along any lines they wish, while still providing Lawful protection for all.

  13. link042 says:

    Hi James I understand there are competing factions in the new world order/ one world government plot (such as the zionists, the Anglo American empire, and massive corporations of all kinds) but could you try your best to outline what exactly these factions are? I understand they’re very different from another but trying to identify them and assign labels is a good start to further understand them. Could you also relate them to each other so we can understand who competes with whom over what and also what overlying power structures they are subservient to? Thank you for your time and please excuse my grammar it’s very late and I am no longer taking English anyway 🙂

  14. link042 says:

    Hey James could you list a few other alternative media journalists you consider worth following other than yourself? I follow you and media monarchy and also the Ron Paul liberty report and Blackstone intelligence with Jake Morphonios. Those are who I trust a lot but I follow some others who aren’t as professional aswell but I would like your opinion on these outlits as I value your option highly (as many others do) I am highly suspicious of everyone on the alternative media and of organizations such as the John birch society but I try to read everything from the New York Times to rt to know more news. Thank you and I hope you see the value in helping us find more sources of information in this war of weaponized information
    -Alex

  15. mkey says:

    #QFC

    Is Elvis dead?

  16. manbearpig says:

    Speaking of Endgames, and not to ruin anyone’s day but, had anyone seen this?:

    https://bnonews.com/index.php/2019/06/2-dead-in-murder-suicide-in-washington-d-c/

    A tweet from Truthstreammedia seems to wonder if a rash of murder/suicides of government officials and police officers might conceivably be the direct result of a certain Bilderberg meeting last week…??
    😯 ??

    • HomeRemedySupply says:

      If you are in the Austin, Texas area around July 2nd, 2019…
      …Tuesday, early evening, at the Alamo Drafthouse Theatre!

      This is a warming clip from Aaron and Melissa Dykes.
      (8 minutes)
      BIG NEWS! Please Join Us for the Austin Theater Premiere of “The Minds of Men”!
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7flHPFL97c

      Regarding the film, “The Minds of Men” , Amazon says: This title is currently unavailable.
      Our agreements with the content provider don’t allow purchases of this title at this time.

      On Corbett Report’s Episode 356 – Top 5 “Conspiracy Theories” That Turned Out To Be True, there is a great excerpt from “The Minds of Men”.

      • manbearpig says:

        Yowza! That looks like A LOT of FUN! Wish I could muster the funds to fly out of France to your neighborhood just for that! If they do it in Denver I could maybe get out there and bring my Brother and his son! Plus, July 2nd is a very meaningful date for me. Makes me really wish I could make this happen…

  17. HomeRemedySupply says:

    DuckDuckGo TWITTER Feed
    https://twitter.com/DuckDuckGo

    The DuckDuckGo Twitter Feed has some very interesting articles relating to privacy and other matters.

    I would bet that Gabriel Weinberg, co-founder and CEO DuckDuckGo, has some insight as to how Google / YouTube / certain browsers and other factors filter search results and access. Example: One article noted that a user’s tracked location might bring up bias results.

  18. justine.k says:

    Regarding questions on 911 and Bollyn and Wood.

    Despite spending too much time (according to my family) researching 911, I never came across these two names (though I think briefly Dr. Wood who was disparaged by ‘official’ 911 truth sites, bad on me I never looked into her until last summer).

    My lesson, 911 truth community is partially controlled, at least sticking to a certain narrative and not allowing some information to be freely shared. Needless to say not good, and I felt naive to this manipulation.

    Both Bollyn and Wood have well documented and interesting facts to share and leads to pursue. I looked up James’ QFC#001 as he mentioned addressing Dr. Wood back then in 2013. I didn’t know of her then, so I’m in no position to critic James for his skepticism. That said, I disagree with James’ opinion and agree with a comment left by a CR member on QFC #001 in 2018 on Dr. Wood and how the Jenkin’s interview was more a hit piece interview than anything else. Although I think the truth is elusive, I do think it is very illustrative that Bollyn and Dr. Wood have been marginalized from the discussion/debate on 911. It raises the question of why?

    • HomeRemedySupply says:

      I met Christopher Bollyn when he delivered a slideshow to our Dallas 9/11 Truth Group in February of 2015.
      The video can be seen on YouTube.

      I thought he gave a good presentation.
      Perhaps, the reason his message is often marginalized by some of the “authoritarian 9/11 groups” is because of the over-emphasized, out-PR anti-Semitic behavior of some of the online community (and that community likely includes government trolls).
      Statements like “Jews did 9/11” automatically lump the 9/11 event as an oddball conspiracy theory.

      Judy Wood
      I well remember Judy Wood and watched how events unfolded with her.
      Our Dallas 9/11 Group has had many discussions about her.
      Personally, I think she is disinfo, and that is why her stuff stays around.
      Most folks do not thoroughly research her stuff and counter-perspectives.

      Steven Jones thoroughly nailed her. I remember when she came on the scene with Fetzer…what a mess. Jones has a good scientific paper on her stuff, but the time line history of Judy Woods and Fetzer and CIA operative Morgan Reynolds would make a person puke at how they tried to hijack the movement and how they caused a big mess.
      Morgan Reynolds jumping on board is an easy-to-spot give-away as to the disinfo agenda.

      911blogger.com has a good timeline, especially when you read the comments.

  19. mik says:

    I’m not satisfied with Endgame answer, because it is kind of “political” answer.

    It sounds good, one can imagine things might work this way, but….
    there is no details, not even bigger ones. When people ask these questions they expect details, reasonable person doesn’t expect minute details, still they are looking for real answers.

    On the other hand I understand and respect James’ answer. Providing a real answer is enormous task and, more important, sooner or later inevitability comes to very very hard and polarizing questions.

    Local communities can solve many problems and fulfill many needs we have in everyday life but not all of them. For example, we are all using electronic chips in one way or another and they can’t be and won’t be produced locally. It’s complicated, hard, expensive….
    More examples could be found with no problem.
    Therefore some bigger society structures will be needed, the question is how they will be managed/governed. System that can be used in communities is not good for bigger organizations.

    Let me provide one detail in my vision of endgame.
    About property, of course, my favorite topic.

    With personal property, things you need for surviving, I see no need for radical change.
    On the other hand private property, things connected to your business activities, should be completely publicly known. Almost no secrets allowed in business, particularly financial ones. Certainly no secret ownership.

  20. ddave says:

    The last six months I have been researching what is known as the “flat earth model” and what I find interesting is that there is no claim by the flat earth community that the earth is provably flat. However, it is just that when we honestly examine what we see, it appears flat.

    Now a large focus of research in the flat earth community concerns trying to verify that the earth is a spinning sphere. New technology has made it possible to verify some of the claims made by NASA that are provably untrue. For example on the internet there is a earth curve calculator where the observation fail to reconcile with the results of the calculator. Interestingly with the Nikon P1000 zoom camera and its optical zoom capabilities it is possible to see objects that according to the earth curvature would be absolutely impossible.

    I have not been able to verify that the earth is spherical. I would be required to believe it to be true. You use the spherical earth in your logo for corbettreport.com, have you chosen to believe the earth is a sphere or have you discovered it to be true?

    • Fawlty Towers says:

      I have not been able to verify that the earth is spherical. I would be required to believe it to be true. You use the spherical earth in your logo for corbettreport.com, have you chosen to believe the earth is a sphere or have you discovered it to be true?

      There are so many things to be researching and studying in the world today.
      Quite honestly, this would be the last, or near last thing that would pique my interest.

      If for no other reason, it is simply intuitive that the earth is spherical.

      Look at the moon one night. Do you see a linear object or a circular one?
      Look at the sun one day. Do you see a linear object or a circular one?
      Look at some planet photos one day. Do you see linear objects or a circular ones?

      Why should the earth be any different from those cited above?

      And if they are all circular, would it make more sense that they are circular discs or spheres?

      • mkey says:

        Because reasons, would be the short answer, I guess.

        I personally tend to go with what’s simpler – some spheroids rotating one around another duebto unseen forces? Check. Disks resting on … something or levitating, I guess, with other disks following gnarly trajectories? Not so much.

        One would be quicker to sell me a simulation and/or a stuck-in-a-giant-lab hypothesis than the flat Earth model. But I don’t mind the investigation, it’s the association fallacy that ticks me off.

      • colin786 says:

        Re: Why should the earth be any different from those cited above?

        Why should it be the same? Your assumption is that the Earth is the same as the circular in appearance objects.

        Originally planets were interchangably referred to as stars. Only later did people start to confuse the Earth as a planet.

        • mkey says:

          What’s the shape of the Earth?

          • colin786 says:

            A flat round disc, with seven major stars, or planets as they used to be called, orbiting above.

            • mkey says:

              How thick this disk is? What materials is it composed from? Are there layers to the disk? Is the disk in open space (vacuum)? Is the disk spinning on one ore more axis?

              These stars, are they disks as well? Are they orbiting around the Earth disk or just above?

            • Fawlty Towers says:

              ddave, colin786 seems to have been researching this too so these questions go out to both of you.

              These are not simply probing questions, I’m going somewhere with this. 🙂

              1. For the earth, are we talking a perfect circle disc/pancake?
              1a. If not, is it close to a perfect circle?

              2. Can you tell me the diameter of the earth disc, approximately?

              3. Are the sun and moon flat as well or are they spherical?
              3a. If they are spherical how do you know that?

              4. Is the earth circling around the sun or vice versa?

              • colin786 says:

                1) I believe it is a perfect circle.

                2) and 3) I really don’t know, and to be perfectly honest, do not really care. I am not saying it is not important, but that for my purposes, it does not matter to me personally. I leave that to those who should/can calculate it on the real facts. The assumptions made affect the outcome of such calculations, and those assumptions may be false. As far as “modern” physics is concerned, they are false in my view.

                4) There is a video simulation on Gootube that describes the movement, and I say it is circling above the Earth, leaving one part illuminated and another in the dark. It is by or is used by Eric Dubay, if I remember rightly.

              • Fawlty Towers says:

                Thanks colin.

                “4) There is a video simulation on Gootube that describes the movement, and I say it is circling above the Earth, leaving one part illuminated and another in the dark. It is by or is used by Eric Dubay, if I remember rightly.”

                I’ve seen several ‘video simulations’ and just watched one by Eric Dubay.

                In all the models I have seen so far the sun makes circles around parts of the earth, giving off light as if it were a flashlight, sending a focused beam of rays on selected parts of the earth.

                Perhaps if the sun was very close to the earth it could give off light in a focused ‘flashlight’ manner.

                But the sun is millions of miles away from the earth, and if it is illuminating a flat surface such as the earth at that distance, then it could not possibly selectively illuminate one part of the earth and not another.

                Now if the earth was a sphere, that is a completely different kettle of fish…

    • HomeRemedySupply says:

      Just from an observational perspective…

      Like a drop of water, it seems that particles of mass tend to attract each other.
      When particles freely clump, spherical shapes make sense.
      Pizza shapes don’t.

      I can just picture this huge pizza floating in space, gathering more and more crust on its outer edges (not toppings). Eventually the Universe becomes threatened by the Super-Sized Pizza ready to pizza-ize-disk anything near it, until finally the Universe ends with the Big Gulp.
      It is the Law of “7 Eleven”.

      • HomeRemedySupply says:

        The Law of 7 Eleven ” & Recent Events in China

        Just this week, thousands of Hong Kong protestors used “The Law of 7 Eleven” as an umbrella to protect themselves from the police.
        They were protesting the China extradition bill.
        I am glad that I did not sell books in Hong Kong when I was in the book business.

        7/11 IMAGE
        https://s2.reutersmedia.net/resources/r/?m=02&d=20190612&t=2&i=1396966637&r=LYNXNPEF5B0NI&w=940

        Maybe the world is flat.
        It sure is weird sometimes.

        • generalbottlewasher says:

          Homey and M; I knew the universe was in good hands as I left this cosmos on the 13th of June. In my absence the world was adequately cataloged and defined ! Wow the things you miss when you try to duck out. 7-11 new universal law in physics… You will be nominated so pack your bag for Oslo HomeRemedySupply. A shoe in!

      • manbearpig says:

        damn! I’d missed this: The Big Gulp theory??!! HOly Connoli!!

        😯

        (…and I thought Schrodinger’s cat was scary…!?)

        anything on the Double Slurpee Experiment???

        maybe it could get me to the hamster wheel on time…??

    • M says:

      Download some planetarium software (which all use the heliocentric model). Look up for the planet Jupiter and after that look for it in the sky (easy to find when visible) and zoom in with your Nikon P1000. Follow for longer period of time and you will see 3 or 4 “stars” orbiting around it. Those are the largest of moons of Jupiter. In general I would say that study some astronomy and you will gain understanding after which you do not need any images from space to understand the Earth is spheroid.

  21. Ian Davis says:

    I have repeated more or less the same comment for a number of posts on varying topics on this thread. Broadly they all relate to how a voluntary society could work while still protecting against violence, sexual exploitation, financial abuse, border conflicts and so on. In absolute terms I don’t think a large voluntary society, incorporating various communities, groups and individuals could ever ‘stop’ the initiation of force from happening. It is inevitable I believe.

    However, though it is somewhat unlikely, I do think it would be possible to create a voluntary society where the likelihood of the initiation of force would be far lower than it is in the society we are currently compelled to endure. But this would require law and a form of governance. I accept this appears to be an oxymoron to many but I would like to explain why it isn’t.

    A voluntary society could emerge if, post political revolution (which does not have to be violent) all agree to abide by an agreed constitution. This could perhaps occur through the exercise of democratic universal suffrage. Thereafter people and communities would be free to voluntarily self organise and, as James said, could choose to continue ‘democratic suffrage’ and decision making if they chose.

    I suggest that constitution could be based upon Common Law. I don’t want to bore you again with my explanation of how I think this could work, please read my comments above if you are interested.

    I am still trying to figure this out myself and have undoubtedly missed numerous pitfalls and problems. So I would really be interested in your opinions, criticisms and especially the highlighting of potential problems.

    I have written a couple of posts on ‘governance by trial by jury’ which I suggest could underpin this voluntary society which highlight why I think it would be possible if anyone is interested.

    I look forward to any response you care to make.

    https://in-this-together.com/the-british-constitution-deception-part-1/

  22. hugo.c says:

    With regard to Ian’s question of protecting your content,

    I speak as a IT Systems Engineer (my paid work).

    1) There is NO SUBSTITUTE for off-line multi-location backup.

    I’ll unpack that a little. For every piece of important data, you need a copy of it on some media (DVD, hard drive, whatever) which is not connected to a power supply and is many kilometers away from the source data, and which is in a “safe” location (define “safe” for yourself; fire proof, theft proof …).

    2) Do not trust anything which you do not control. Blockchainy things are nice, and may survive. Centralized platforms are stoopid. But, using many of them may help. But, I think the effort outweighs the benefit. I like IPFS, but it may never take off. Its resilience is its size, and currently that is small.

    So, how do you achieve the above as easily as possible?

    You need two computers, both with external drives, and a friend (to run the “remote” computer). (The friend can be you, but it is to look after the content on the remote computer). You use Git via some repository replication/management mechanism. Github.com is okay, but you dont control that. This is not a killer (read on). Or, you could set up your own FOSS version using gitlab with help from some IT knowledgeable individual if you dont have the skills.

    With whatever Git repository platform you choose, create a blank repository, and then “git clone” that to both of the computers onto their external drives. Into that top level directory on one computer put all the files. “git commit” and “git push”. This gets the content up to the repository platform. Then ask your friend to “git pull” from the other computer and then TURN THAT COMPUTER OFF and DISCONNECT THE EXTERNAL DRIVE.

    You then continue to “git add”, “git commit” and “git push” your content from computer one to the repository management system (github, gitlab, whatever). Every now and then, you ask your friend to do the “connect external drive, turn on, git pull, turn off, disconnect external drive” routine.

    With this routine you have your data in three places, your computer, the repository manager (github or wherever) and the computer your friend is looking after. In all cases, the data is under control of git which does integrity protection (SHA-1 hashes of the content of the repository at each commit). If you used a repository manager which someone else controls and it becomes unavailable (for whatever reason), you find another (build your own or whatever) and you replicate one of the two repositories you still have to the new repository manager, and configure the other computer to also use that. This is mildly annoying but eminently feasible.

    The repository manager is serving as a content distribution system. Indeed, if you want to publish all this stuff, just hand out access to the repository on the repository manager to whoever you want and ask them to “clone” the repository. This creates even more backups.

    Git is smart. It only replicates over the network that which it does not already have. Lets say you have a 100 GB repository. The first clone has to clone all of that. But, if you add another 2 GB and “commit, push” that, then the other repositories only need to “copy” (pull) that extra 2 GB. Git also compresses things when that makes sense.

    Git is a Linus Torvals GPLv2 project. It is used by millions of developers world wide and will never (TM) disappear. If it does, it will be replaced by something else and there will be instructions for conversion to the new thing, at a minimal. Millions of people depend on Git.

    I run a course on using git. I could screencast a version of that. It would be about 30 mins. The class is 2.5 hours, but that’s because you need to give time for learners to learn 🙂

    If I were doing content generation and distribution, this would be my strategy for backup. Publication is another matter entirely. And this is where “multiple centralised non-controlled by highly used” platforms come in, exactly as James does (ThemTube, Steemit, D-Tube, whatever). But, NEVER treat one of them as a backup.

    My two cents.

    PS: You can extend this strategy. Have two repositories, one for published content, and the other for your “internal” records. Your friend replicates both, and you hand out access to the “published content” to anyone you wish.

    • Ian Davis says:

      Many thanks, really helpful and will certainly act on it. I guess my question was more about security of distribution, in light of the coming censorship grid. I use multiple platforms (Steemit, Gab, Bitchute, D-Tube etc) but all have centralisation (prone to censorship) problems. I hope IPFS does scale and they resolve the naming issue because, it seems while it may ‘protect’ the content, it isn’t conducive to spreading information to others at the moment.

      So I’m currently trying to post content to Steemit, then link to it via Pocketnet. I hope, as the censorship rolls out demand for secure distribution and sharing will grow, attracting more developers to finding solutions.

      Fingers crossed.

  23. Shar says:

    James, I love your work and it’s something my partner of 16 years and I used to watch together. He passed in August so I cry through most of your videos, but it’s getting better.

    Could you do an episode on jury nullification? As far as I know, it’s still a right that juries have to vote on whether it’s a bad law, and throw the case out. That would be a fantastic addendum to our limited rights these days.

    Thank you!!
    Shar

  24. mas says:

    Regarding Pocketnet, it’s a brand new, completely decentralized, social networking platform without any leader, owner or corporation, preventing censorship. It’s a blockchain program, just like Bitcoin. It can be accessed with either a browser companion, or better, a desktop Windows app which bypasses the DNS system, preventing it from being blocked. A Linux desktop version is almost ready.

    Pocketnet is still in beta with significant new features being added regularly. Very soon, content will be able to be uploaded like: videos, audios, documents, etc. It will be accomplished in a manner that should be much more responsive than IPFS which is still very slow. At this time posts may include images which are saved within the Pocketnet decentralized platform. The other content listed above is still a link for a short time longer. After that, uploaded content will not be able to be censored or blocked.

    This is HUGE in the battle against censorship and blocking of information the powers that be want to suppress.

    To learn more, visit https://pocketnet.app . If James Corbett would like to contact Daniel Satchkov, founder of Pocketnet, he can be reached at [no email addresses in the comments, please – JC].

    • Ian Davis says:

      I’m just starting to get to grips with Pocketnet and it seems really encouraging. Even in Beta it is pretty intuitive. The open source, decentralised, local node infrastructure seems to offer real censorship resistance. If something like Pocketnet was intergrated with IPFS (assuming the naming problem will one day be cracked) do you think, short of turning off the internet, this would be pretty much un-censorable?

      • mas says:

        Ian, the Pocketnet team has evaluated several possibilities for content uploading, including IPFS. A decision was made to move forward with some open source torrent code incorporated in Pocketnet’s open source code which will be activated soon. Each user of the desktop app can elect to provide an amount of disk space for the community to use in a decentralized manner for content uploading that will be harder to attack and faster. Many of us are planning to provide a lot of space for the community and providing instructions on how to optimize the use of that space.

        The uploaded content will be addressed by the hash blockchain which is decentralized with a code like bitcoin operating on nodes, aka miners. Posts and associated images reside in a decentralized manner on the nodes also, accessed by the hash blockchain.

        Desktop application users and nodes are un-censorable and independent of the DNS system which can be used to block certain domains. Those using the browser companion will be interfacing through the DNS and possibly subject to domain blocking, as I understand it. I’ve not used the browser companion. The only way to stop Pocketnet users with the desktop app will be to hit the kill switch for the entire internet which would be a painful proposition for the powers that be.

        For more details, check out the information available at pocketnet.app

  25. Ian Davis says:

    #QFC

    As you have stated before, I share your view that there isn’t really a single, cohesive global power but rather an interconnected global network of competing interests and globalist power brokers, who are just as likely to stab each other in the back as anyone else.

    However, in your recent New World Next Week episode with James you spoke about the seeming peculiarity that, unlike recent historical precedents, current geopolitical moves appear to be pushing Russia and China together as a trading block.

    Given the focus on Eurasia, in keeping with Brzezinski’s doctrine over the last 40 years, and in light of the apparent tensions within the transatlantic ‘deep state partnership’ (the Council for National Policy behind Trump for example), is there any evidence that the ‘old world order’ (I guess I mean the Rhodes’ round table Pilgrim Society alliance) is shifting focus? Or is it waning?

    Who are the new players, if any? Or are the traditional power brokers now starting to see the Russian China block as the primary vehicle to establish its one world government, and is there any evidence that may point towards one or more these possibilities?

    Many thanks.

  26. Namesi says:

    Sorry this is terribly off topic, but I’m having trouble finding the article video about the ability to edit live TV. James explains since 1999 they’ve had the ability to actually edit live TV in real time and demonstrated it by removing a figure skater from the feed; you could still see the spray of ice when she stopped but everything that would have appeared behind her was there on screen making her invisible. If anyone can point me to the episode/article I’m having trouble finding it. Thanks in advance!

  27. andrea.b says:

    Dear James,
    To change the subject completely, please can you tell us about the 5G roll out in Japan? Is there any public opposition and is the government showing any sign of monitoring the effect on public health or setting research based exposure standards? Have you read the BioInitiative Report 2012?
    If not please do, you will find it fascinating and chilling. It can be found at https://bioinitiative.org. It details all the most up to date research on the risks of ELF and RF radiation.
    Thanks

  28. knightsr says:

    Hi James,

    I have a question for you, or anyone else here:

    My question is about the war games that were planned on 9/11. Many believe that elements in the government planned these war games to make their false flag attacks on 9/11 easier. – But Let’s assume that Al Qaeda actually did entirely plan and execute the attacks on 9/11. Isn’t it possible that Al Qaeda somehow knew these war games were being planned on/near 9/11, and then because of that they decided to attack at this vulnerable time? How do we prove that Al Qaeda did not have any foreknowledge of the war games?

    Thanks.

    • Duck says:

      I was asked this very question by an autist “…. Isn’t it possible that Al Qaeda somehow knew these war games were being planned on/near 9/11, and then because of that they decided to attack at this vulnerable time?…”
      simple answer is that for them to know such a thing would require HUMAN interaction between a bunch of dudes in caves and a bunch of dudes in offices. Unlikely at the very least… its about as likely as YOU knowing what the Queen of ENgland likes for a snack….unless you know the same people as the queen knows it inst a viable thing. This makes more sense when you see an organization in action and watch how infomation passes around, or when you see that while YOU know info from the internet most people do not even know what your talking about. Information passes thru very clear channels, even informally, in that there has to be a link and no one passes on ifo thru a third party that has zero interest in it.
      example traffic controller talks to buddy about drill….. what are the chances the buddy will pass that info to any one else? Will they know a terrorist that has interest in it? Information must pass thru channels that can be see after the fact

    • Fawlty Towers says:

      “But Let’s assume that Al Qaeda actually did entirely plan and execute the attacks on 9/11.”

      It is not necessary to answer the questions that follows your assumption.

      That is because WE KNOW Al Qaeda did not plan and execute the attacks on 9/11.

      It would probably be worthwhile for you to spend more time learning why we know this, rather than posing questions such as the ones you did.

    • mkey says:

      Why would that be a vulnerable time? If military and police are running a drill why would it be an opportune moment to attack the very targets which were targetted by the drill itself?

      If cops had a bank robbery drill going on and bank robbers knew about it, would they rob the same bank in which the drill was being conducted? This is a plot for an Ocean’s sequel, not a plan for a terrorist attack.

      • Fawlty Towers says:

        It sounds like he’s a goner mkey.
        He believes Al Qaeda did the deed and that whenever the U.S.
        engages in war games exercises, by default they pull all their forces to one side of the country so that the other side is completely exposed to a possible attack.

      • knightsr says:

        Maybe I should have said this to begin with, but I don’t think Al Qaeda entirely planned these attacks by themselves (this is pretty obvious when you compare WTC7 falling to controlled demolitions). I am just trying to figure out what evidence we can use to prove “U.S. involved inside job” versus any of the other options (like say Saudi Arabia did 9/11, and the US govt just let it happen).

        I see your point about the robbery situation. But the 9/11 attacks were different. In James’ 9/11 War games documentary, he shows that the air traffic controllers were confused about what were false radar injects, and what were real hijacked aircraft. It could be possible that a terrorist group like Al Qaeda may predict this confusion and take advantage of it.

        • mkey says:

          Start from proving that Al Qaeda ever existed.

          • knightsr says:

            I should have put this in my first message, but I honestly am not trying to be argumentative or trying to prove people wrong just for the sake of proving people wrong. I’m in my 9/11 research phase now, and I thought this was the best place to go to get some good counterpoints to the idea I mentioned.

            I know there is evidence to show the 9/11 attacks were a US-involved inside job (WTC7, etc). With regards to only the 9/11 war games, I used to think they 100% proved a US-involved inside job. But then I thought there could be some other possible scenarios were the US govt did not necessarily need to be on the inside (but perhaps just negligent, and not actively planning the attacks). Here is one possible scenario like that:

            Say the US govt planned all these 9/11 war games purely for drill purposes. I would imagine that all these drills are not highly classified, and that the US govt would let our allies (like Saudi Arabia and Israel) know about some of these war games ahead of time. It is possible that the Saudi royal family (who has closed ties to the Bin Ladens) in conjunction with Al Qaeda planned the 9/11 attacks during the US’s war game scenarios because they knew (possibly from past experience with this type of thing) this would be a good time to attack. As the “9/11 War Games” documentary shows, air traffic controllers were confused about what were false radar injects and what were real hijacked air craft, which prevented them from doing their jobs effectively.

            —So the above comment/question is my final QFC question (was not clear enough with my original).—

            • Fawlty Towers says:

              It seems that you are in the early stages of serious 9/11 research knightsr?

              I’m not trying to be flippant, but it would serve you best to continue with your research for at least a couple more years before asking the questions you have posed here.

              I have studied 9/11 for years, and it takes time to get to the bottom of the crime.
              We can’t give you a satisfactory answer in one or two paragraphs.

              First pay your dues, then if things still aren’t clear come back with your questions.

              While you are doing your 9/11 research, it would be helpful to also do some research into statistics and probability.

            • mkey says:

              Note that the drill thing is a common, recurring theme. 9/11, London metro “attack”, Paris, probably more than I’m aware. The drill is a cover, not a foot in the door for terrorists with boxcutters.

            • HomeRemedySupply says:

              Al Qaeda and their many mega-underground, high-tech complexes
              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGhGHxw0mSo

              Rumsfeld said: “You bet! This is serious business! And there is not one of those. There are many of those!”

              Dang!…now we know how Al Qaeda planned it.
              Like Tim Russert says: “…very sophisticated….”

    • Fawlty Towers says:

      It’s like asking a question about the JFK assassination after you start out by assuming that Kennedy was killed by Oswald.

  29. Fawlty Towers says:

    In case anyone missed it, today was the day Brendon Tarrant, alleged Christchurch killer, was assigned his trial date.
    Arrested on March 15, 2019, he will stand trial on May 4, 2020.

    Why wasn’t Bin Laden, alleged 9/11 mastermind, arrested on May 2, 2011 and brought to trial for 9/11?
    Why did the U.S. government (a government that takes pride in its democratic justice system) choose to kill him when they had the perfect opportunity to arrest him and show the world just how democratic they are?

  30. Cheryl says:

    2 Questions for you James… ive been saving these for so long…

    1. Ok, so man made climate change is a eugenics construct for population control (your recent round table video sums this up very eloquently btw) However, you have mentioned geoengineering, aka chemtrails, numerous times. If not some clandestine effort to mitigate the supposed effects of man made climate change, then for what purpose is this happening?
    Or is geoengineering THE man made climate change? The fabricated ‘proof’ for the masses that the weather is changing so we buy into the narative wholesale and are more malleable?

    2. Since having children, I have been shocked at how many dubious products and practices i previously thought were normal that we just give and do to our children without thought. Now i look into everything in much more detail, following the money as you say! However, there is so much info out there. As a parent yourself, i am interested where you go to get information you trust in relation to your children’s health and wellbeing etc.

    With very best wishes
    Cheryl
    London

  31. Sunny says:

    Hi James,

    A personal and honest note-

    I find your answer regarding getting along with friends despite them not being on the conspiracy research camp very inspiring. Perhaps, we each have our own strengths and weakness and what is easy for one person may be difficult for another. And you sure seem to have a strength regarding this matter that I can learn from.

    I must confess, although the phenomenon of being ”The guy at the party who keeps talking about 9 11” did not occur often for me, it did sometimes, not quit in parties, but a similar kind of thing.

    It seems you found an easeful and reasonable approach, giving videos which promote a sense of urgency and need and yet knowing not to impose this clearly important stuff on others in day to day situations. And I guess there is a fine line between making something available to others and imposing it on them. And I am still looking for how to be good at it. I do think that as someone who does not run a website it may be reasonable to offer investigative explorations for others at times. But one should seek to do it in the right proportion and manner and timming. Else, hmmm….It can be kind of lacking in tact and social reasonability.

    Thanks a lot,

    Sunny

  32. Dacajeweiah says:

    #QFC

    Hello James,

    I had this question for quite a while now. Why is the state of Israel so important on the geopolitical chessboard? Why the US is funding it so heavily and every politician in the US and in Europe as well have to support it if they want to have a chance to progress their careers? You often call it on NWNW with Pilato “the third rail of geopolitics”. Why does it have that kind of power in fact why did it had to be created in the first place? I’ve tried to answer this question “myself” but all I got was in the lines of “It’ s the Jews!!” or “Nothing to see here”, which are both lets say unsatisfactory and/or bias.
    So to sum up: Why is the state of Israel so important?

    Thanks for taking the time and sorry for the long question
    P.S
    Recommendations on well sourced books and documentaries will be appreciated

    • joris says:

      Hi Dacajeweiah,

      I don’t have a straight answer because it is quite messy to start with. But from what I have gathered over the years there is a certain pattern emerging.

      First disclaimer: when I use Jews, I don’t mean all Israeli people or all Jews, these are the most extreme and occult parts of the religion/nation.

      I am sorry but I am too tired to look up all the different sources for you to read yourself yet I will help you if you need to find sources.

      To start with: what is so special about the Jewish religion? They are part of the two mono-theistic religions who believe that they are the chosen people and all other people are inferior. This creates the apartheidsregime we currently see in Israel: Jews have superior rights. Which explains why Jews don’t consider it a crime or sin to
      The other part, which is a red flag is that their god demanded human sacrifice. There is even historical records going back to ancient Greece of reports of children being killed in ritual sacrifice.
      The third red flag is that both Islam and Judaism allow (and in the latter obligate) genital mutilation of the male infants. (Look up Eric Clopper’s in debt research, which got him kicked out of Harvard.)

      Those both things have Jewish people led to say that Jewish religion is at it’s core satanic. Or worship of Baal, the bull god to whom children were sacrificed.

      This explains why Israel is trying to become the global center. They actually want to control the world, or at least be the court for whole the world.

      If we look at the 1917 Balfloor declaration, we see that the Rothschilds are heavily involved in Zionism, which is the problematic piece about Judaism.
      The presence of ‘Jewish’ people in all the most influential domains of society is a clear indicator that they are trying to push a certain agenda. In banking, political and entertainment the Jewish people are vastly over-represented. They will say that it has to their culture of reading the Thora from a young ago and their IQ is higher. Yet I doubt that the Asian communities aren’t as intelligent or hardworking. Their culture just isn’t about being god’s ‘chosen’.

      • M says:

        Also interesting is that usually the one person who is mentioned when talked about financing of the “liberal left” is George Soros. The biggest financiers of the “conservative right” are the Koch brothers. Perhaps there is some Kosher Nostra meetings where they get together. The Mafia plays both sides of the argument and seek to cause conflict to benefit from it.

  33. alexandre says:

    Hi James. Following a link in a newsletter from Patrick Wood I ended up in this “High-Level Expert Group on Artificial Intelligence” page.

    https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/high-level-expert-group-artificial-intelligence

    Patrick says “…a high-level, independent advisory group has warned against using AI for mass surveillance and social credit scoring”. When you look at the interminable list of members in this group, that sentence seems very strange. (I know one of the members, Luciano Floridi – he debated John Searle once on the AI question,…

    (https://youtu.be/b6o_7HeowY8?t=36)

    …both agreeing that AI is unlikely because machines don’t have semantics). What seems to be a group of technocrats will advise Europe against technocracy? I don’t understand.

    But then I thought that the confusion goes much further, and I wonder if it’s just me. People are talking AI left and right but I’m not sure that it’s clear what AI means. What is artificial intelligence exactly, actually, other than the idiot on the phone that keeps asking to press one if you want to buy our products, or suggestions of videos on YoutTube? Words like “algorithm” are used as if it’s the most normal thing. I think I’m asking if you ever saw AI with your own eyes. Do we have evidence other than the usual adverts – robots etc, which is more like fancy automation than actually intelligence. Is intelligence the capacity to do math very fast? Is then an old calculator AI? What about Searle’s Chinese Room? Or, as he points out, the fact that scientists have no idea where or how consciousness is created? Wouldn’t it be obvious to expect AI to have some sort of consciousness? Syntactic awesome machines are pretty far away from “it’s gonna take over the world” as if it’s some sort of entity.

    I hope you understand what I’m trying to ask. Where is the beef?!

    Thank you
    alex.

  34. joris says:

    Sorry for the double post, but apparently the timer got me before I could hit “Save” on my edit.

    #QFC

    Hi James,

    I know that you haven’t looked into what the Qanon movement is all about, because ‘trust the plan’. Yet I am quite confident that the following video, made by a Q-researcher might show you the side about Qanon that I really appreciate: more people joining the truth movement and starting at least thinking for themselves and some researching for themselves.

    Before I go in depth of why you should watch this video, let me pose my question first: “James, won’t you approve of any movement, psy-ops (or whatever you want to call it) which encourages people to think rationally and think for themselves?”
    I know that looking at all 3350 post from Qanon might be demanding too much from you so I will point you out to post #916 which made me remain on the fence if the Qanon phenomenon is a good thing or not. While I stayed to learn more, I must say that Qanon did sound more like a voice of reason than the pure propaganda the other channels of government are sprouting.

    The two part documentary is titled “The Weathermen” after a radical left organisation that went full terrorist in the ’70 and how the people inside this organisation are connected to people with very influential positions.

    This first part is filled with historical data, juridical historic facts and testimony of key people. The thoroughness of this documentary made me think about your work. Only you can still get a humorist twist in here and there. Sir Patrick Mack (the pseudonym the author uses) does this in his regular coverage of news, Q-drops and his other research though, in his own style.

    He does provide all the sources for his documentary, so you can verify whatever he is presenting. Much like you do James, and that is why I know you guys are genuine. Maybe not always right, be at least trying to give as much of the truth as possible.

    Here is the link to his documentary.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PjtV0RA8hE

    With much respect for what you do and a warm greeting of Love from my heart,

    Joris Vander Cammen.
    Flanders, Belgium, Euorpe.

  35. alexandre says:

    Well, Corbett more or less asked the same question, but not quite, I think. I’m not asking if AI is hype or real, but “where’s the beef?” AI in action, where is it? As I said, if we’re talking bots and automation, that’s just better versions of the old child dolls. My sister had one that you pulled a string and she really “spoke” – “I’m cold” or “Can I have a kiss?” That ain’t AI. Sophia? Give me a break. It seems to be a festival of circus demonstrations of supposed incredible possibilities for some future, but we see no beef, just advertising campaigns for some Buck Rogers kind of illusion that never comes. And advertising campaigns have a goal other than delivering any product, let’s say, but persuading. What are they persuading us towards? – If that is correct in English. What are they persuading us of?

    As the discussions go on that link one thing is constant; everyone assumes that consciousness comes from the brain. That seems to be “settled”, as they say in Global Warming, so the discussion doesn’t go further than that, even being incredibly complex, intelligent and learned. I can’t follow half of that without my “brain” exploding. In a sense it’s a good thing, because it seems obvious that, as they say in the east, the brain is a function of consciousness, not its source. Experts are studying, defining, describing and understanding deeply the car without even a glance at the driver. So we’re ok. The more they try to understand the brain, consciousness is more “protected”. On the other hand, if they decide that intelligence is choosing which of the two “terrorists” to zap based on a database, then we’re really screwed. Still, I’d like to see it in action, a real example of AI working, functioning for something other than “yes, I’ll exterminate humanity”.

    • Fawlty Towers says:

      alexandre I’m with you 100% on “Where’s the beef?” with AI?

      I know exactly where you are coming from and what your frustrations are with the whole topic.

      The MSM seems to get on a ‘flavor-of-the-year/decade(s)’ kick with any number of topics.

      Terrorist boogeymen, Gobal warming (morphed into Climate change), AI etc. etc.

      Personally I have seen no evidence of true intelligence in any AI device to date.

      Despite all the computer power we have today, all the miniaturization, I have yet to see anything come even remotely close to making intelligent independent (as in unprogrammed) decisions.

      Specific tasks sure: if this isn’t here, do that, then if this isn’t here, do that… etc. If you want to call that intelligence… Puh-lease!!!

      For goodness sake, they still haven’t even been able to come up with a simple ‘intelligent’ automated telephone answering system that doesn’t make me pull my hair out, curse and throw my phone on the floor! 🙁

      • alexandre says:

        Exactly. Thanks for that. I’m kinda old and seen so many promises over the years. Blade Runner and so on. By now we should be transmutating and space-travelling and living forever a million times over, resurrecting loved ones, you name it, and yet…. “I will exterminate humanity”. The answering systems, yes, what a nightmare, which means that not even that low level of idiocy they are managing to produce. And when your AI goes berserk, just say they were “developing their own language”. GTF.

        My dad, back in the 90s, got a CP500 computer, learned some basic (IF-THEN etc) and wrote a program called “Ana Lyza”, a psychoanalyst that answered questions. For the responses he wrote generic answers like “tell me about it” or “how does that make you feel” etc and I tell you, it was better than what we have today. At the very least it was creative. I maintain that the real purpose of this whole campaign – other than the usual military applications – is to downgrade humans to the level of a vacuum cleaner, and then an umbrella will look like a genius. And for what I’ve seen with Facebookers and Instagramers, THAT is working pretty well.

        • Fawlty Towers says:

          I would call a spade a spade and simply call it
          ‘fake intelligence’ rather than ‘artificial intelligence’.

          If it can’t do basic thinking and reasoning then it’s not intelligent.
          A computer/robot regurgitating programmed information is not thinking/intelligent, no matter how many ‘if thens’ it has processed.

          Let me see a computer/robot write a novel on par with ‘Crime and Punishment’ or piece of music on par with Sibelius’ Violin Concerto
          and then we’ll talk A.I.

  36. M says:

    Question for Corbett:

    What is your take on the Koch brothers political network? I just finished listening “Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right by Jane Mayer” and frankly it was the scariest book I have listened to. They are the chief financiers behind the ideology that government is always bad and the government is the only thing standing in their way in their quest for money at the cost of the environment and the health of people living near their refineries. As a consumer it seems very hard to boycott the Koch Industries as their labels are not on the end product. Then again sadly the modern society is dependent on the products they manufacture. The poison they are spreading is not just environmental but also academical, ideological and political. You see any solutions to this problem?

    I thank you for your good work and really hope this issue could be taken on the Corbett Report as for me it seems as if the “Climate Hoax” and people looking to cash-in on it are just the other side of the argument. The other side is people like the Koch brothers. In some way there is again the thesis and the antithesis. Another way to put this would be that there are people who are looking to make the United World States New World Order and the other that is looking to make New World Order incorporated where the major companies are above the nation states.

    PS. Sorry for using the term New World Order when we are mostly discussing Real World Order.

  37. Camille says:

    James, I have a question.

    Some of us have been discussing the connection between Silicon Valley and pension funds in the comments for Episode 359 – The Secrets of Silicon Valley: What Big Tech Doesn’t Want You to Know, and I am wondering if that is an aspect you’ve looked into.
    https://www.corbettreport.com/siliconvalley/#comment-63177

    It seems to me that the wealth of information that was provided in The Great Pension Fund Hoax, the documentary I’d linked to that sparked the conversation, could be just the thing to reach a mainstream and global audience, since so many now seem to be noticing something is wrong with the world.

    In the comments, Corbett Report member CQ provided us with a great overview of the documentary, and HomeRemedySupply added to it all with some current news on this “insidious timebomb of incredible magnitude.”

    Have you looked into this? If not, would you please? Thank you!

  38. generalbottlewasher says:

    The world has gone crazy. When ? I can only speculate. I would guess the start was after WWII . Most certainly as pre-supposed and
    for-knowlegded and foreshadowed in Stanley Kubricks film ” Dr. Stranglove”. Certainly a biopic of Dr Edwin Teller.
    This prelog to my question for Corbett came to me on the most charged of occasions, the 4th of July.
    Sitting in an amphitheater before a large stage on a clear sunny morning, the National Repertoire Orchestra was performing for 3000+ people tunes from Broadway and all the patriotic standards. Above the portable pavilion covering the stage came the very high altitude jets spraying chemical trails in an otherwise clear sky. The mountain range that made this bowl of an amphitheater blocked the horizon to the front so one could not see how far away the chemical trail started. I say this because the spray ended at the mountain range to our backs, very high in the sky. I got the impression it was a skywriting spectacular event at 60,000ft.just for our benefit or as I openly opined to my fellow spectators an direct insult to our sacred day and obvious F.U. Americans, in your face you useless eaters kind of thing. By the end and before we could walk back to the car the blue sky turned to a silver soup of gray haze.
    Question for Corbett; does the space fence extend around the world, America to Russia to Eurasia to China to Pacific, at the behest of the global banking cabal, or at the behest of each sovereign crazy ( keep up with the Jones’s) Dr.Teller type paranoid Generals and Admirals? Either way we the people are the ones getting F’ ed.

    • HomeRemedySupply says:

      …on a clear sunny morning… …By the end and before we could walk back to the car the blue sky turned to a silver soup of gray haze.

      Man! I hate those kind of days. Gorgeous, blue, sunny skies deliberately mucked over.

  39. Fawlty Towers says:

    So James, is it reasonable to expect a special feature from you in the next few days on the 50th anniversary of the (cough) world famous moon landing?

    Rather than a small NWNW footnote?

    • mkey says:

      The big 5-0 crept up on us, did it? We should get hold of some moon rocks to celebrate.

      • manbearpig says:

        I’ve been thinkin’ we’re well established on the moon (full moon tomorrow) even if the Chinese probe circling the dark side created no hype…

        just to celebrate:

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xl5F6Kxic8

        • mkey says:

          Maybe NASA surprises us with a secret you’re-50-only-once surprise mission to the Moon (and back), hopefully after 50 years (several technology leaps and all) they have managed to recover some of that advanced 60es technology they lost (especially the advanced flight computer) and weren’t able to reproduce even since, but I’m betting that wherever it’s lost it must be sitting with all of those tapes and flight recordings (you know, those same tapes acting as the eternal proof to the most notable human accomplishment in modern history if not of all time, at least as far as we know it; not counting some fine lost and forgotten civilisations which may have had a feat or two of their own) behind a fridge somewhere.

          • alexandre says:

            Some greats of the past talked about something called “mass madness”. Imagine a sopa-opera. Then imagine that people talk about it seriously, as if it was real life. Then something incongruous happens in the soap-opera, some character vanishes for no reason, or some prop disappears. People find it strange and talk about it. The “conspiracy theorists”, i.e. serious researchers and questioners, discover that such and such prop disappeared or such character vanished; they have all the dates and evidence to prove that those things were there before etc, but the “antas” (anta is a Brazilian animal and we use this word for gullible dumb people) refuse to accept that those strange things happened in the soap-opera, disregarding them as “poetic licences” or something, calling every non-anta “a conspiracy nut”. At the end everybody is talking about the soap-opera as if it was real life. This is mass madness, at least one form of it.

            NASA shouldn’t exist anymore if the planet was inhabited by real normal humans (like the Navajos, Marajoaras or Aborigines etc). In fact governments and “systems” shouldn’t exist either. Evidence after evidence of frauds (trillions missing everywhere) and psychopathy of depths unimaginable, and yet the State grows and grows, swallowing everyone, and worse…convincing everyone that it is real, and good. Big mass madness. An enormous amount of mass madness, as Woody Allen would say. There’s only one way out of this.

          • manbearpig says:

            the two most hilarious things NASA has ever said:

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SC2Qj8HsMK8

            my fridge has been making some pretty wierd noises lately… maybe I should have a look…

            😯

  40. colin786 says:

    For the next Questions for Corbett edition:

    Have you or has anyone looked into the Russian side of such questions as to whether the FSB was or was not involved in the Moscow apartment bombing, or whether the Internet Research Agency is a Deep State operation?

    I have observed that lots of people opine on these matters but have not seen anyone, especially from within Russia, who has actually investigated and ‘debunked’ these questions either way.

    The issue of who financed the Internet Research Agency would be key. I did see one Russian journalist wheeled out to speak at the CFR, but that did not convince me either way that the operation was backed by the Russian State, whereas there is plenty of evidence that Russiagate was a Western intelligence agency operation.

  41. Jessica53 says:

    Hey James!

    I was just reading about Epstein’s apparent “suicide attempt,” and wondering if you have ever speculated on the “undisclosed Japanese island” to where Podesta said Denny Hastert might need to “vanish.” Think it’s code? Think there’s a weird island over there in Japan filled with disgraced political pedos? Keep up the good work!

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Back to Top