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

06/07/2019100 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).


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)


Strange Bedfellows: The India/Pakistan/China Triangle

Ian’s website

Corbett Report IPFS mirror


Filed in: Questions For Corbett
Tagged with:

Comments (100)

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:

      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.

    • 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…”


      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.


      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?…”


      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.”


        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.


    • 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.

      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!


      *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.

  8. Fantasy of Nothing says:

    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).


    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:


    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:

      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

      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:

    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


    • 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:


      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

  15. mkey says:


    Is Elvis dead?

  16. manbearpig says:

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


    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”!

      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

    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.

    • 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”.

  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.


  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!!

  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:


    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.

  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?


    • 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.

    • 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

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Back to Top