Why Do People Believe Fake Statistics?

06/13/202262 Comments

I've got a shocking piece of news for you today: Sometimes, statistics are inaccurate.

I know, I know. I've probably just shattered your world. "How can this be?" you're asking yourself.

But wait, it gets worse!

Not only are statistics occasionally inaccurate, sometimes they're presented in misleading ways!

"Say it ain't so!" I hear you screeching.

But prepare yourself; I've saved the worst for last.

Sometimes, statistics are made up.

"I can't believe it!" you say, falling on your knees as your world collapses around you.

OK, OK, enough joking around. I know you know all of this already. But today I want to talk about an interesting phenomenon related to this topic. You see, the very people who are perfectly capable of pointing out the statistical chicanery of the globalist supervillains and their MSM cronies are often the same people who fall for the statistical chicanery of people that they like.

Why is this? Let's find out.

Join James for a deeper-than-expected deep dive into the psychosocial meaning of statistical trickery in this week's edition of The Corbett Report Subscriber. Also, check the full newsletter for a discount code for 25% off any Corbett Report DVD or even 25% off the brand new Data Archive USB.

Sign up to become a member of the website and read the full newsletter or CLICK HERE to access the editorial for free.

This content is restricted to site members. If you are an existing user, please log in. New users may register here.

Existing Users Log In

Filed in: Newsletter
Tagged with:

Comments (62)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Fact Checker says:

    James Corbett continues his precipitous slide into mysticism and obscurantism.

    “The chain of historical, scientific and philosophical developments that have led us to this point have been taking place for centuries if not millennia…”

    It seems Mr. Corbett has drifted very far indeed from his cui-bono-driven sleuthing, and power-analytic historical revisionism. Increasingly, he is attributing everything to woolly, abstract, unmoored, esoteric, techtonic shifts in the noosphere. I think the Talmudist Desmet is a bad influence on him.

    “…and we can no more choose to simply change the epistemological paradigm…”

    Criminal abuse of the English language. “Epistemological paradigm”? Why not “deontological sensemaking”?

    “…the only thing that will ever actually change the world is … to reconceptualize the universe.”

    Oh, is that all?!?! That should have been Solutions Watch Episode No. 1!!!! Seriously, is this satire?

    WTF happened to Who, What, When, Where, and Why? Now, the answers to all those basic question seems to be: Everyone, Everything, Eternally, Everywhere, and All By Accident. This heavy descent into esoteric navel-gazing on Mr. Corbett’s part is all very strange, surprising and disheartening.

    • HomeRemedySupply says:

      Fact Checker,
      Report back after you read Corbett’s “side-mentioned” article:
      The Technocratization of Public Education

    • wiesiek says:

      When I read your posting, dear Fact Checker, some questions flashed in my mind, such as “do you yourself believe the things that you said?”

      James has produced an intelligent and cohesive argument, whereas your accusations against him seem so vague that they hardly mean anything at all — they are just anchored in empty space.

      You open your statement with “James Corbett continues his precipitous slide into mysticism and obscurantism.” What James in fact does is exposing for us the hidden mysticism and obscurantism of propaganda-driven statistics that purport to reflect objective reality.

      Or… could it be that you are a secret supporter of James, and that’s why you said the things that you said? Are you perhaps garnering support for him by illustrating with your criticism the divide between his cool-headed analysis and the arbitrary “truth” of the so called “fact checkers”?

      • Fact Checker says:

        Hey wiesiek:

        There’s no “secret” that I am a supporter of James Corbett. I obviously support his work, since I’m here commenting.

        But that doesn’t mean I have to like his current thread of outright anti-rationalism. It’s just a bad direction for him to go in. It goes nowhere. (Nowhere good, anyway.) First, I’m just not buying this “we-need-to-build-a-new-narrative” narrative. That’s lame.

        But more importantly, I’m even more deeply disturbed by Mr. Corbett’s increasing hints that the “new narrative” he wants to develop is some kind of collectivist, anti-rationalistic, messianic voodoo. This whole idea of a mass “reconceptualization of the universe” smacks of the exact same terrifying, totalitarian, new-age utopianism as anything Klaus Schwab is saying. In fact, it pains me to say, it reminds me more than a little bit of how Alex Jones built a huge following on opposing a “global government” but then all of a sudden started openly preaching about a righteous world kingdom ruled by “the Messiah” from a “throne in Jerusalem.”

        wiesiek, I am still going to assume you’re in good faith, even though your suggestion that my criticisms are “in a vacuum” is clearly unfounded, since I quote multiple particular passages from the article, and critique them directly. Maybe what confuses you is that I’m not terribly concerned with the “statistical manipulation” theme, which isn’t interesting or controversial. I’m disturbed by the creeping anti-rationalism in favor of….what? I just don’t know. What is Corbett trying to say should be the metaphysical foundation of his “narrative” if not rationality and empirical, verifiable reality? I’m just not seeing anything constructive coming down the pedagogical pike, so to speak.

        • wiesiek says:

          Thanks Fact Checker! I now see that you are genuine, and you have my respect for expressing your views honestly. I can even see how it is possible to interpret some of James’s comments the way you did, even though I wouldn’t interpret them myself the same way. For example, it rings true for me that “we can no more choose to simply change the epistemological paradigm our civilization is operating under than we can choose to grow an 11th finger.” Paradigms that are based on beliefs are extremely difficult to change, as a change of this kind can only occur organically. We can’t change even our own beliefs by an act of will (if someone told me that my left foot had eleven toes, I wouldn’t believe them not because I am unkind, but because I know that the number of toes is five), so how would we go about changing epistemological paradigms for the society as a whole?

          Also, about the narratives. Is there a way to change a narrative except by another narrative? One can only strive to produce a narrative that is closer to verifiable facts, and ultimately one should keep an open mind.

        • mkey says:

          What would be the basic tennets of antirationalism as you keep referring to?

          • Fact Checker says:

            Hey mkey:

            I am referring to Corbett’s eager adoption of the Talmudist Matias Desmet’s statements that people should reject and reverse Enlightenment values of empirical observation and reason. This thread of polemic was disturbingly foreshadowed in the latest “flashback” episode about GMOs, where Corbett espouses the views of the (unnamed) sanpaku-eyed bearded yahoo starting at 37 minutes, in which beardo demonizes Cartesian empiricism, arguing that it is “reductionist” (a go-to, generic canard used by mystically-minded people who do not wish to offer their alternative because it is always some sort of superstition).

            When somebody like Desmet or sanpaku-beard is railing against Cartesian descriptions argue that empirically-based, rational inquiry is “reductionist,” this is code for: “It does not allow for my supernatural and mystically-based religious explanations.” For Desmet, he hints at his preferred explanatory model with his mention of “Dah Tahl-MOOT“. In other words, he is advocating the abandonment of rational Enlightenment values in favor of Talmudic revelatory religious values. The beard-guy doesn’t hint at his alternative value-system, but I suspect (without being able to look him up because he is not named) it is something about accepting-Jesus-Christ-as-our-Lord-and-Savior. For Corbett, I get the feeling he hasn’t thought about what he is advocating in any organized way, or he is hesitant to come right out and say it for fear of alienating the non-superstitious segments of his audience. Since Fact Checker knows that part of the dawning messianic age entails turning all gentiles into mind-wiped Noahide slaves, I get a feeling of sinking dread whenever I hear a suggestion that “we” (a terrifying pronoun in its own right!) need to reject Enlightenment rationality. That road leads to theocratic totalitarianism, one way or another.

            Gilad Atzmon refers to Enlightenment values as Athenian, meaning seeking truth by philosophy, empirical observation, and rational inquiry. On the other hand, deriving values from revelation as opposed to rational inquiry, Atzmon calls the Jerusalemic mindset. This includes Desmet’s Talmudism, and Islam, and any dogmatic religious worldview. Since Corbett is so far reticent to say what his alternative to (Athenian) Enlightenment thinking is, I remain repulsed and unsettled by his anti-Enlightenment talking-points. He wants “us” (shudder) to “reconceptualize the universe.” Okay…but reconceptualize it as what, exactly?

            Is he implicitly advocating corny Christianity, bloody-minded Abrahamism, or new-age Aquarian transcendentalism? All of those superstitious paths are leading the entire world straight toward Noahide bondage.

            • cu.h.j says:

              I certainly hope he is not advocating a theocratic world view for everyone. I don’t think that is an acceptable alternative for everyone. I am more inclined toward “new-age mysticism” if that means any non monotheistic spiritual orientation or agnosticism. But I wouldn’t impose this view on others insisting that they are wrong.

              When we interact in the physical world there are scientific realities that can be observed by everyone, such as gravity and death. These don’t go away because I might want them too.

              Anyway, it would be good to get clarification on his views, like what precisely is he advocating for “us” if he is really implying universal adoption of some “way” of re imagining reality.

            • mkey says:

              I am referring to Corbett’s eager adoption of the Talmudist Matias Desmet’s statements that people should reject and reverse Enlightenment values of empirical observation and reason.

              After rewatching the recent Desmet interview, I can’t say I came to the same conclusion. I am known to tune in and out during philosophical exchanges, though. I do agree that Desmet does seem to build a case against rational thought, but I also agree with him that some things are not rationally knowable. He invokes the need for resonance to know the unknowable. That might work on some level, I can’t make a judgement on that.

              What I found a lot more worrying was his mentioning of principles and their relation to people who abide by them, by saying that they are theirs principles. If I would read too much into that, I could come a conclusion that Desmet is invoking moral relativism, but that would be in collision with some of his other pronouncements.

              Again, I don’t see the antirationalist invective here. To accept the eternal fact that some things can be known, also means accepting that some things can not be known. This, of course, is not to say that I endorse outsourcing discovery of meaning to an external agent or expert. I’m not anti, I’m just saying there’s more to it than that.

              It is my contention that we are rational but also spiritual and emotional beings. While most of the times I will try to understand what is right by trying to place the questionable action in the appropriate box, I will on many occasions have to concede and rely on my moral compass – the emotions – to tell me what is the wrong action and what the toll of undertaking it is going to be. Similar can be said about love, faith, anger etc.

              Admittedly, Desmet does not appear to be talking about one’s emotional makeup when referencing the scientists who supposedly determined that there was a limit for rationally knowing the fabric of the universe. It certainly is not of material nature, so to that extent it does seem to depart from ability of being determined by rational thought.

              This reminds of the movie Lucy I have watched yesterday in which Morgan Freeman as part of a lecture states:

              .. this allows [the dolphin] to have an echo location system that is more efficient than any sonar invented by mankind. But, the dolphin did not invent the sonar, it developed it, naturally. And this is the crucial part of our philosophical reflection that we have today: can we therefore conclude that humans are concerned more with having than being?

              While the movie is inane at times and I don’t agree with much of what it puts forward, I do appreciate running into a few gems here and there. Typically, one would need to binge watch TV for days without even having the luxury of taking a break to change the diaper to run into a similar amount of scintillating content.

              • Fact Checker says:

                mkey, I greatly appreciate this balanced and sober rumination on your part. Just one bit jumps out at me:

                I also agree with him that some things are not rationally knowable. He invokes the need for resonance to know the unknowable. That might work on some level, I can’t make a judgement on that.

                This is the problem with anti-rationalists like Desmet. They have a certain absolutist mindset that tells them, “If it is not knowable by rational means, then it must be knowable by some irrational means.” (Of course, they also always happen to have their “Answer™” that they’re trying to sell you as a means of “completing” one’s knowledge beyond the rational realm. Here, he resorts to “resonance,” whatever the hell that is.)

                Behind this anti-rationalist pattern is the absolutist, greedy sense that everything must be knowable, and that gaps in knowledge are intolerable. Rationalists are perfectly content to concede that there is, and might always be, a limit to rational understanding. Anti-rationalists, however, don’t accept that, and instead insist either 1.) that one must resort to irrational “faith” or “belief” to fill in the gap left by rational inquiry; or even worse 2.) that rationality must be abandoned entirely because it is imperfect or limited.

                By way of example: in arguing with a Christian, I have found, if ever one says “I don’t know” in response to some “grand question” posed by the Christian (usually irrelevant and obscure) the inevitable response from the Christian is, “See! See! You don’t know! You don’t even know!” as if it’s some all-purpose gotcha that somehow proves that their particular crank belief-system must be true. This never fails.

                This same “gnostic absolutism” is borne out in all the totalitarian belief-policing systems that emerge from such thinking. Such as Talmudism.

    • cu.h.j says:

      I think we shouldn’t throw logic, statistics and rational thought out the window. If that’s what you’re saying, I agree. That’s why I started listening to Corbett reports in the first place. It made logical sense. I like statistics and looking at the numbers. It provides useful information.

      But I’d guess that a majority of the population in the US doesn’t even know how to look at statistics critically. I bet if you took a random sample of people in the US and asked them to look at a graph or chart, they would be hard pressed to actually understand what it meant. This is probably different from Japan. I suspect people are better educated over there.

      So, I think I get the gist of what you are saying and I think that the issues are more complex than even Desmet understands. After all, he is a psychologist, which is a “soft science.” And maybe it is more simple and less complex…We’ll never really know.

      I do think that only seeing the world with statistics is a very narrow and flawed way to view existence, but we should not disregard mathematical analysis. People could learn how to understand math, statistics and science and psychology.

      I still remember early in the scamdemic when I told one of the doctors I was working with that statistically we were unlikely to die from Covid, he turned to me and said “Have you seen Italy?”. Clearly he was not thinking with his logical brain. So there is merit to people’s biases and fear response clouding their rational judgment. But should we throw it out? I don’t think so. And I’m not sure JC was suggesting that either BTW.

      • Fact Checker says:

        Hey cuhj: It seems you and wiesiek took away a similar misunderstanding from my comment.

        I’m not concerned with the statistics topic at all. That’s a no-brainer. Statistics are bullshit, precisely because they are all human-generated, and inherently biased.

        What I am concerned with are the increasing suggestions on this channel that rationalism is the scapegoat for the evils currently befalling mankind. Significantly, this is a theme that even comes up at the end of the latest “flashback” presentation about GMOs from 2007. (So maybe this has been a lurking hobby-horse of Corbett’s since before I was a supporter. But the theme is bad in any event.) It is that the “mechanistic view” of the universe is the culprit for everything—not just “mass formation psychosis” but apparently dangerous GMOs and patent abuse, too! The recurring suggestion is that the “mechanistic view” of reality is at the heart of all humanity’s ills.

        Not only is this a radical departure from the power-analysis that characterizes Corbett’s best work, but it also contains another unsettling implication. The implication is that empiricism and rationality are evil, and “we” should adopt some alternative. And by “we”, Corbett expressly means the entire world. This kind of totalitarian rhetoric never fails to send chills down Fact Checker’s spine.

        I mean…what’s the alternative that is being advocated, to empiricism and rationality? Corbett never even hints at that! Yet he is advocating overthrowing the “epistomological” order of the world! What is he advocating? Abrahamic legalism? Kibbutz communitarianism? Christian literalism? Sufi mysticism? I really have no idea what he’s getting at.

        But I’ve got an increasingly bad feeling about it…

        • cu.h.j says:

          I don’t think all statistics are bullshit. I took a calculus based statistics class in college and it was rigorous and precise. I suppose it depends on what you are looking at though.

          I like math and though I haven’t studied anything beyond calculus think that it can provide some very useful information and I don’t think we should get rid of it. Similarly physics, chemistry and other sciences are also very helpful in understanding certain phenomena.

          I don’t support any kind of universal “way” of being or analyzing so long as it doesn’t take advantage of others. I kind of like the way some native american shamans look at the world, but don’t think their way should be imposed on everyone else. There can be room for other ways of seeing the world, but the math will always work even if it hasn’t been described yet. I don’t think empiricism contradicts other non intrusive and benign ways of conceptualizing the world.

          • cu.h.j says:

            Maybe JC was not precise enough in what he was getting at in this article. I think that things should make sense in simple terms. Someone once said (I don’t remember who), but if one cannot explain something simply then they don’t really understand.

          • cu.h.j says:

            Regarding “universal ways” I meant that I don’t think there is or should be one way. And that once we start to impose ways will start to infringe on the rights of others even if we think we might be right. Science is supposed to provide objective information for people to form their own conclusions.

            I think the enlightenment was a pivotal moment for humanity, in a good way and necessary for our evolution. I think what these psychopathic parasites are doing is anti-enlightenment and anti-rational. But I am not a philosopher, just some random cog in the biomedical machine.

            • Duck says:

              “… I think what these psychopathic parasites are doing is anti-enlightenment and anti-rational…”

              I think you will find that the Enlightenment birthed almost all the horrid ideas we’re swimming in these days…say what you like about the flaws in the Pre-Enlightenment Christian Culture but not even the Catholics thought they had as much Right to play God as the people who came after….

              Its perfectly RATIONAL to murder the spare people to make room for own genes if your Worldview is based on Materialism and Darwin…Its just EVIL, which a pure Materialist will have trouble articulating properly .

              • cu.h.j says:

                They are not “making room” but eliminating bio-diversity which is not rational to sustain the species. They are essentially killing off humanity physically, psychologically and spiritually. They are basing their assumptions on science that is poorly understood and risking the survival of our species and other species for personal gain. A psychopath does not consider others and their behavior is not rational in the long run. The wisdom in nature is ancient. To try to understand is one thing, but to manipulate is another.

                Look at the declining population levels. Some might say this is dangerous. To me they are psychotic and the population is allowing the insane to have the keys to the asylum so to speak. If humanity cannot figure this out and act accordingly we will die out far sooner than our sun goes nova.

          • Duck says:

            “…They are not “making room” but eliminating bio-diversity which is not rational to sustain the species…”

            You are assuming that they think you are part of the same species as them… they will pick blood over Not Blood every time. You should read “The Selfish Gene” if you want a rationale, and millennia of genociding other peoples does not appear to have hurt the human races health very much.

            Whatever the long term benefits of biodiversity may be a lack there of has not hurt even the inbred Ashkenazi Jew’s to the point that they could not breed up a massive population if they wanted to.

            • cu.h.j says:

              “You are assuming that they think you are part of the same species as them… they will pick blood over Not Blood every time”

              They may not think I am of the same species, but the fact remains that I am as are other humans. The rejection of that fact is irrational. I will check out “the selfish gene”

              I think there are fertility issues among Askenazi Jews, particularly in Israel. Their population grows less quickly than the Arab population from what I have been told. This is one of the reasons they don’t want a single state, because they would no longer have an Jewish ethno-state.

              I think there is some theoretical minimum level of people that are necessary to continue the species, but once you get down that low there are no guarantees.

              Another illogical and dangerous wager is the mass experiment with the gene therapy shot that has included regular Ashkenazi Jews. I suspect this may affect fertility and fitness of the human population in a negative way, but it remains to be seen.

              I think that the people who wield power with the consent of the population think that they can out-smart nature or want something else, a cyborg species or some variant of that which will benefit them. If this is a selfish gene, it’s a threat to our survival. How to overcome stop it is continuing to inform the population and build out the population of people who want to be free and live in harmony with nature and balance.

              Some might argue that it is not illogical to extinguish the species. I believe that is false.

              I’ll look for some studies on genetic diversity in humans when I get a chance.

              • Duck says:


                “…They may not think I am of the same species, but the fact remains that I am as are other humans. The rejection of that fact is irrational. I will check out “the selfish gene”….”

                You are falling into the trap of finding a Rational Reason why What_You_Want is true.

                An example of this might be Henry 8Th of England…. who found that it was Gods Will that he do anything to get a legitimate Son as Heir….another example might be the atheist explaining that its Human Nature to be Polyamorus and NOT cheating on your spouse is “UnNatural” (I actually heard such a ‘person’ on the radio one time)

                Sadly LEwisDoodle on Youtube no longer has “The ABolition Of Man” as a doodle… Its later section is a near perfect description of Technocracy….

                On Human reproduction you should note that probably LESS then 1/2 the men who have ever lived got to reproduce and something like 90% of people alive to day would NOT HAVE EXISTED in the pre-Industrial revolution Harsh Selection conditions.

                As to fertility in ashkanazi, that may be true but they can still breed up plentyful numbers if they need to- the junk DNA just dies off from Tay Sachs n such…. evolution is a process of WEEDING OUT the dross not of preserving life at any cost. Its no wonder it gave rise to such a ruthless ideology

              • cu.h.j says:


                I’m not sure I understand. It is a fact that humans are a species. There are variations within it, but we are one species, which is why we can mate with other humans. It’s a biological definition. My wants don’t factor into this.

                I know some people don’t like to classify human beings as animals, but we do meet the biological definition and we are a species.

                I think the hypothesis is correct, that if population is reduced to a certain level, may result in extinction.

                Some people may be polyamorous and others are monogamous and mate with only one person. Some people have suggested humans are not naturally monogamous, but I think this might not be the case.

              • Duck says:

                “..I’m not sure I understand. It is a fact that humans are a species. There are variations within it, but we are one species, which is why we can mate with other humans….”

                Dogs are one species… yet there are big and small dogs, there are Corgi’s and Lab’s and Yorkies and Collies.

                I do not think anyone imagines dogs will go extinct because the people who keep them breed particular kinds of dog together and castrate dogs with traits they do not like…. if your purely materialist then you must say dogs and humans are NOT all that different.

                You are trying to rationalize morality… genocide (within certain limits) MAKES SENSE if you have no morals. So does rape and murder and theft if you can get away with them.

                The fact it makes sense should be clear since THAT IS HOW HUMANS HAVE DONE THINGS since forever.

                I think that if Industrial Society had not made medicine and food cheap 90% of the people alive today would never have been born because an ancestor would have died back when it really was survival of the fittest and luckiest.

                Its been pretty normal for humans to kill off other groups they meet, and we show zero sign of it being a problem for our genetics….you could argue (as Eugenics does) that NOT weeding out the weakest makes the populations genetics WORSE….farmers certainly eliminate animals and Cows and Sheep and Dogs all appear to be doing fine

              • cu.h.j says:


                Maybe I am trying to rationalize morality and will think about that idea. Is morality rational? I propose that you can make a good argument for why it is.

                Controlled genocide might have been present since the beginning of time, but with things like atomic weapons and genetic manipulation makes it a threat to the survival of our species as a whole. Meaning that they risk themselves by doing what they are doing. I will consider that hypothesis too, that they, the “owners” are also a bit insane and have made a mistake by taking a risk with the gene therapy shot. Psychopaths sometimes take risks that end in their own demise. Many of them have less of a fear response than a normal person. Maybe they are playing with all the marbles this time.

                I think this weird genetic manipulation they are messing with is similar to atomic weapons, that it could result in a catastrophic extinction event. I would need to research this more though.

        • beaconterraone says:

          Has anyone ever accused you (accurately) of being a fanatic?

          “Statistics are bullshit, precisely because they are all human-generated, and inherently biased.”

          That is, either, a whopper of profound deceit, or a blinding alert strobe of someone who is stuck in his own pseudo-“reality.”

          Statistics are just numbers. Humans attach meaning to them. They can be numbers reflecting what actually is – reality – or they can be numbers a liar tells others represent something that is not actually true.

          I have zero siblings. I have one living parent. I have three children. Those are statistics. They are true, since they reflect what actually is.

          • Fact Checker says:

            “I have zero siblings. I have one living parent. I have three children. Those are statistics.”

            No. They aren’t. Not all numerical values are statistics. Statistics are aggregated data.

            In any event, I have no idea what your point is, and I don’t really care, so no need to reply any further.

            • beaconterraone says:

              I shouldn’t expect anything other than disingenuous sophistry from you.

              I won’t even waste a second “debating” with you.

          • mkey says:

            Actually, your example does not really represent statistics. If we added mine to your numbers:

            you: 0 siblings, 1 parent, 3 children
            me: 1 sibling, 1 parent, 0 children

            We can work out that between the two of us, we each have 0.5 siblings, 1 living parent and 1.5 children. These numbers are in fact a lie that does not and can not pan out in reality. Don’t get me wrong, statistics can certainly be useful, they can be copiously used to advance an agenda at an incredibly accelerated rate, as we have seen during these past few years.

            But of course, the core of the problem is not with mathematics but with laziness and stupidity.

            • beaconterraone says:

              I don’t want to waste either of our time debating the scope of what “statistics” are. I merely use the broadest scope, all the way back to collection of basics, and you prefer a more narrow scope, focusing on analysis, which is fine; vanilla vs. chocolate.

      • Duck says:


        “…I bet if you took a random sample of people in the US and asked them to look at a graph or chart, they would be hard pressed to actually understand what it meant….”

        I think I read that something like a third of the population are Functionally Illiterate, meaning they can read but can not extract and compare ideas from an article….add in that everyone now has endless, GOOD, entertainment in their Pocket Screens to consume every spare moment and most people under 30 or 40 are (IMO anyway…) “Functionally ADHD” too…. the cognitive decline in people who grow up with Devices is probably because they never have time to read or think about anything- like CS Lewis said in Screwtape Letters they live in a constant stream of events and noise.

        People have always been generally Not Interested in things like statistics, but now they are actually getting Dumb.

    • alexb says:

      Hi Fact Checker, I think time constraint may have curtailed Corbett’s analysis of the remediation needed to combat the joyless, souless march of technocratic control.

      I listened to the interview with Mattias Desmet again after reading your comments. Your contention that Desmet was trying to insert spirituality/religion to fill the unknown, made me wonder if I had listened to a different interview, so I listened again and realised that I might have zoned out at the point, so thank you for that.

      I don’t agree with you on this, but that’s fine with me. I don’t want to live in a world where everything is managed and measured, where there are no unknowns, it revulses me. Most people crave the spiritual, you could put this down to superstition and ignorance or perhaps a fear of death, but I feel it’s deeper than that.

      Best wishes,


      • Fact Checker says:

        “I listened again and realised that I might have zoned out at the point…”

        Such is the hypnotic and soporific power of the pseudo-intellectual Talmudic style of sophistry!

        “I don’t want to live in a world where everything is managed and measured…”

        That’s exactly it. Desment is using the naive wishfulness of the goyim to sell them his brand of neutralizing fairy-magick dust. Religion for the goyim; scientific slave-management for the Masters.

        The ugly, awful, unbearable truth is: Man really is just a Machine. A hackable animal. There is no hope without capitulating to this terrible, but manifest, truth. The truth of the mechanistic universe is proven all around you every day and in every way, from the flawless hypnosis of the Herd by the Alpha-wave-generating TeeVee, to the Milgram-experiment-proven power of hierarchical social dynamics to elicit compliance and conformity in vast populations of humans. The strength that is held by the people who are enslaving the masses right now comes from the fact that They are capable of accepting the unappealing reality, and of embracing it. That’s precisely why they’re as powerful as They are. They are conforming Their behavior to reality, rather than living by comforting lies. They are able to look lucidly at the horror of the Great Machine of the Cosmos, however hideous and inhuman It is, and They consciously bow to Its power, and assume Their roles as the Machine demands.

        Humans are never going to be able to fight back without understanding and acknowledging that reality, however harsh, distressing or disappointing it might be. On the other hand, cunning tricksters like Desmet have been tasked by the Machine to keep the goyim in a lower state of consciousness, believing in magick, ghosts, and fairy tales. They know that as long as the masses remain in denial about the unforgiving, apathetic mechanics of the universe, the little dreaming monkeys will be completely at Their mercy, manipulable and pliant to whatever mystical narrative the Machine needs to generate in order to keep the masses hypnotized. Desmet is meeting the market demand represented by your statement about what kind of “world you want”. He is selling you a palliative rhetorical pill (bluepill) to keep you (and your demographic of ‘alternative-media’ consumers) dreaming contentedly, instead of taking the bitter pill of realism (redpill) and waking up to face the harsh reality of the cruel, mechanistic universe in which your brain is suspended, much like in a vat of pink goo…

        Well, my whole comment turned into the Matrix! (That happens a lot to old Fact Checker!) But it works, and I’m going with it!

        You, Alex, “not wanting to live in a world like that” is just like Cypher wanting to stay in the Matrix and enjoy a steak, rather than suffering the nasty, inhuman world outside it. To escape the Matrix, first you must admit that you’re in the Matrix. That’s your choice. Desment is offering a nice little corner inside the Matrix where you can sort of see the “real world” on your computer screen…but then go back to the psychological comforts of believing in the Matrix’s seductive lies about gods and ghosts.

        • alexb says:

          I enjoyed your take on it but I disagree with your nihilist framework. I do think you have a point about the technocrats not having the constraints of morality.

          I suspect, just like the Nazi’s use of pervitin to give soldiers incredible stamina and combat fatigue and inhibition, this destruction of morality comes at a cost.

    • Tony_PotenZa says:

      What triggered you Fact Checker? Are you a Putin 5D Grand ChessMaster?

  2. HomeRemedySupply says:

    RE: Corbett’s Why Do People Believe Fake Statistics?

    I really liked how Corbett shaped this article, and also I am excited about where it seems to be headed.
    One aspect which I strongly appreciate is his link/synopsis to the “Ruble Rebound” narrative.

    Fortunately, while reading, I was wide awake on my 10th cup of habitual coffee consumption with all its many, many, many health benefits per a recent scientific study.
    i.e. Habitual coffee consumption is associated with the prevention of chronic and degenerative diseases, including type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and liver disease.

    I smell a FLASHBACK coming…
    Could it be from 2012?

  3. SuperBobo says:

    Brilliant article, James. I am glad you are setting this example for people out there, who may never have questioned these types of assumptions about the world. I count the willingness to question ideas (all ideas) among the highest virtues, if not the very highest.

  4. mkey says:

    Q: Why Do People Believe Fake Statistics?
    A: People are on average very lazy when it comes to informing their own world view.

  5. SuperBobo says:

    I think many people knew there was something gravely amiss when what the telly was saying suddenly in March 2020 and onward didn’t actually reflect anyone’s lived experience. I hadn’t known anyone personally who had died of anything novel at all, nor had anyone I knew. As far as I could see with my own eyes, there was nothing at all the matter. And yet it seemed that so many people were suddenly under a powerful spell, obeying a hypnotist’s commands; might as well have been doing their hour of permitted daily exercise walking and clucking like chickens. And that scared me more than any of the fear mongering in the news, because I could see that I was surrounded by a different enemy: the fear experienced by those around me, which unlike the MSM blather or any politician, would actually put me at risk of crucifixion at their hands. I never believed the statistics, and now I know to be very wary of those who do.

  6. wessel says:

    You write: “Storm into the country with a cadre of soldiers who didn’t even know about the operation until the last minute, split them up to commit a significant portion of them to a meaningless, undersupplied and—later—aborted encirclement of Kiev, and then continue the drawn out, protracted battle for months, making minimal gains and incurring significant military losses all the while. Brilliant!”

    Compare this to Thierry Meyssan, who writes “The Russian general staff attacked from all possible borders; from Crimea, from Rostov, from Belgorod, from Kursk and from Belarus. In this way, the Ukrainian armies did not know where they should concentrate. In this apparent disorder, the Russian armies destroyed the Ukrainian air defenses and raided the Zaporizhia nuclear power plant, from which they recovered the illegal reserves of uranium and plutonium, and several military laboratories where they destroyed containers of viruses and other biological weapons [5]. They destroyed the railroads when the Westerners offered to send weapons to the front. Then they fought against the Bandarist Azov regiment in its stronghold of Mariupol. Finally, they are cleaning up the parts of Donetsk and Lugansk oblasts that were occupied by the Ukrainians.” https://www.voltairenet.org/article217173.html

  7. inisfad says:

    My only difficulty with this article: Putin never said he was fighting for the ‘little guy’, but rather that he was protecting Russia’s borders from NATO, etc. And while yes, the inflation rate in Russia is at 17%, it went down from April (whereas ours is going up). By the way, if the inflation equation that was originally used in the US prior to 1980 is used now, US inflation is somewhat similar, at about 18%.

  8. scpat says:


    The hyperlink for “Lies, Damned Lies, and Global Warming Statistics” is wrong. It is currently pointing to “Lies, Damned Lies, and Coronavirus Statistics”

  9. pnwf says:

    This is my first time to comment as a suscriber to the Corbett Report web site. I have watched James Corbett’s videos on YouTube and now on Odysee.

    I’m glad to see references which I can share with others.

    My dad worked for the government for 23 years in order to get retirement benefits. He used to tell us that we should never trust the government; because, it has a habit of making things up. So, is that a habit like smoking? Hard to give up? My dad passed away a while ago, so I can’t ask him for clarification.

    • HomeRemedySupply says:

      I am so glad that you are here on these comment boards, and I probably speak for everyone here. Welcome!

      Personally, I have a penchant for “personal anecdotes”. Thanks for posting the tidbit about your Father.

  10. scpat says:

    The chain of historical, scientific and philosophical developments that have led us to this point have been taking place for centuries if not millennia, and we can no more choose to simply change the epistemological paradigm our civilization is operating under than we can choose to grow an 11th finger.

    This is spot on. Because if we could change this paradigm, then why not have we already done it? It has to unfold naturally. A revolution of consciousness is necessary, but it cannot be forced or willed into existence. We have to trust that the universe will take care of itself.

  11. Octium says:

    More to the point, why do people conveniently forget last weeks fake statistics?

    Is our two weeks to flatten the curve over yet??

    • mkey says:

      That’s a good point. To really enable illogical tought you have to nib in the bud the logical progression. People who have not been brought to their current state of the mind in a logical fashion will want to forget as soon as possible how they got there.

      Soundbites and reading titles only informs the fake world view that is based on assumptions about knowing something. There is no discernment or scepticism to talk about.

  12. cu.h.j says:

    Why do people believe fake statistics? Because they don’t understand statistics. They think they aren’t smart enough to make a decision on their own or that they are incapable of understanding. The critical thinking ability of the general population has been eroded by deliberate dumbing down and distraction with a bunch of crap that doesn’t matter.

    Is it important that people are believing fake statistics and can’t understand statistics? Yes, it is. How do we fix it, with more statistics? Probably not. A more holistic approach is needed. Are statistics necessary to understand what is happening? No, it’s obvious, common sense and intuitive that many people who have no clue about statistics can understand.

  13. Duck says:

    The CIA hacker story had me laughing out loud…. let him be a lesson to everyone that Encryption does not work if you write your password down.

    Honestly, though, if the articles description of his moral caliber is accurate he was born to be in the CIA.

  14. beaconterraone says:

    Boobus Americanus (and foreign equivalents) do not so much trust fake statistics; rather, they trust “authority” figures that the System has told them are “trustworthy” (recent terminology, “trusted sources™”).

    The average boob in society actually can’t comprehend true stats, let alone fake ones.

  15. zyxzevn says:

    Survival Heuristics: Avoiding Intelligence Traps
    Also applies to science and news

    A CIA analyst who has a long experience of solving problems.
    These are the topics that she covers:

    The streetlight effect
    Trends are always about the past
    Most things don’t happen by chance
    Exponential causality
    Worst case doesn’t mean it’s unlikely
    The probability of something occurring is independent from the consequences that that event may have, right?
    Don’t drone on with technical explanations and facts, use compelling stories and examples tot make the point you want to make.
    They never run out of bullets
    Emotions can kill
    Construct and constantly revise your analytic landscapes
    Know Your Thinking style
    Cause-effect relationship: – Concrete Sequential (CS) – Abstract Random (AR) – Abstract Sequential (AS) – Concrete Random (CR)
    Deploy Diversity of Thought (Organizations that allow for a lot of different ideas, have better outcomes, even when the dissenters are wrong)
    Think Together from the Start
    Respect Your Intuition

    • nosoapradio says:

      Interesting video.

      It’s funny, ’cause I scrolled down to it just as I was looking for, attempting to construct a model for a compelling argument on the limits of rationalism.

      And the first cognitive trap in the list jumped out at me as an “Of course!”

      I really really need to study these cognitive traps, not exclusively the ones in this video as… I have kind of a “where’s the beef” feeling about it but

      if we want to understand phenomena, clearly there’s a lot to understand about sophistry and such cognitive traps…

  16. Marlsa says:

    Good article. I agree with that idea in the book that modern man wants to explain almost everything now in statistics and its simply impossible, but he will continue to do so to prove his points , or disprove his opponents points.

    Its a very important truth to realise. We are not mechanistic rational beings, even though we think we are.
    We have a lot of appreciation for rational thought, since it enabled the Enlightenment to develop after our European Dark Ages, and it brought a lot of good. But throwing out everything about us (our myths, stories, wisdom) we aquired over thousands of years before that to be replaced with rationality , is actually a very irrational move!

    One example, in many ancient cultures a god of war, or a god of love exists. Why? They are not real, right? Or are they perhaps so real, they are more real than us.
    Long before we were born, human beings have been falling in love and also fought to death with each other. These emotions rule over us. In each persons lifetime, he is sometimes possessed by love or by war with his fellow humans. And if we are possessed by these emotions in our lives, we are heavily ruled by them. That is why they were symbolised as gods, by not one, but many ancient cultures.

    We are still very deeply irrational in our behaviour, even thought we behave very rational at times.

  17. HomeRemedySupply says:

    Censor the Climate Change Denialists

    Biden’s National Climate Advisor Gina McCarthy was interviewed by a reporter for Axios.
    “The tech companies have to stop allowing specific individuals over and over again to spread disinformation…
    …“We need the tech companies to really jump in.”

    “…Now it’s not so much denying the problem. What the [fossil fuel] industry is now doing is seeding doubt about the costs associated with [green energy] and whether they work or not.”

    47 second video
    Biden Advisor Gina McCarthy: Content Critical Of Green “Transition” Must Be Censored On Social Media

    Monday June 13th – Wall Street Journal
    Climate-Change Censorship: Phase Two
    Now Gina McCarthy tells Big Tech to stifle debate global-warming policy responses.


    • mkey says:

      So much ado about the social cesspools. This issue is so easy to solve, to nip it in the bud, so to say.

  18. HomeRemedySupply says:

    Remember Michael Crichton
    …in FLASHBACK: Feudalism 2.0 (2007)

    I want to invite people to read the Michael Crichton Wikipedia page.
    There are some things about his demeanor which I admire as being independent minded.

    EXCERPT Tidbits
    …He held a contrarian position on various scientific issues such as climate change, the health risks of secondhand smoke, and the search for alien life. Crichton himself framed this contrarianism as a practical skepticism of “consensus-based” science, arguing that over-reliance on statistical models creates the potential for bias, especially in the face of political and social pressures such as the desire to avert nuclear war…

    During his undergraduate study in literature, he conducted an experiment to expose a professor who he believed was giving him abnormally low marks and criticizing his literary style. Informing another professor of his suspicions, Crichton submitted an essay by George Orwell under his own name. The paper was returned by his unwitting professor with a mark of “B−”. He later said, “Now Orwell was a wonderful writer, and if a B-minus was all he could get, I thought I’d better drop English as my major.”

    Crichton received an M.D. from Harvard Medical School in 1969 but did not practice medicine. …He obtained his bachelor’s degree in biological anthropology summa cum laude in 1964 and was initiated into the Phi Beta Kappa Society. He received a Henry Russell Shaw Traveling Fellowship from 1964 to 1965 and was a visiting lecturer in Anthropology at the University of Cambridge in the United Kingdom in 1965. Crichton later enrolled at Harvard Medical School…During his clinical rotations at the Boston City Hospital, Crichton grew disenchanted with the culture there, which appeared to emphasize the interests and reputations of doctors over the interests of patients…Crichton concluded that patients too often shunned responsibility for their own health, relying on doctors as miracle workers rather than advisors.
    He experimented with astral projection, aura viewing, and clairvoyance, coming to believe that these included real phenomena that scientists had too eagerly dismissed as paranormal…

    …As an adolescent Crichton felt isolated because of his height (6 ft 9 in, or 206 cm). During the 1970s and 1980s, he consulted psychics and enlightenment gurus to make him feel more socially acceptable and to improve his karma. As a result of these experiences, Crichton practiced meditation throughout much of his life…

  19. HyperSimian says:

    This scamdemic and the lunacy of parrots and their “statistics” has me so checked out, I’m at the “gotta see it to believe it” mind frame. I’ll be in my own only tangible world over here taking it one day at a time, healthy and happy.

    • cu.h.j says:

      I’m glad you mentioned that because I feel the same way. Statistics are very abstract, but if done with real data can actually show something meaningful. It’s a tool. But real world experience and trusting ones own eyes and ears are also very important, perhaps more so. Maybe that’s what informs us and then we look at the math and see how it can show what we have experienced.

      It’s easy to manipulate statistics to make an argument but one must check in with themselves and sit with it and learn to trust ones bodily instincts at times. Some people have good intuition and others not so much. I did not understand why people in the hospital I was working at were so terrified because we have seen people get very sick from the flu in the past and yet there was no extreme paranoia going on. It was very weird that people could not critically see what was happening, especially the lack of bodies dropping like flies and yet we had a massive economic shut down that destroyed lives and livelihoods. It was really insane. And I sure hope that people are over it, because they will try to do it again. People at my job were already mentioning monkey pox. I thought to myself are these people that stupid. Who wants to live like that? I sure don’t. I want to live far away from germaphobes now, very far away. And luckily I will be moving in the next few months.

  20. pkadams says:

    I may be one of the few Christians in this group and I am glad to know that James is aware that there is more to the universe than meets the eye. Rationalism will never answer all the questions or provide the solutions to the problem underlying all problems, man’s separation from God. Thankfully Jesus took care of that on the cross.
    As to the article, I’m not bragging, but I did not believe the Covid numbers. I knew there was NO WAY those numbers could be accurate. However, I do like graphs, and I have been misled in the past. I’m trying to do better. Thanks for your work, James. All the best.

  21. Mielia says:

    Thanks to Fact Checker for starting this little discussion. I read a bit of the comments here and there and it got me thinking and then I read James article.

    I think I actually would love to engage with somebody presenting how we are embedded in a certain worldview and how much different it could be with an in another way minded population, how different it actually was for other populations in past centuries. Contrapositions.
    I myself usually start talking then about 3 modern concepts: state, sex and love.
    But. I dislike Dezmets way of articulating himself too. Too fuzzy, too broad, too abstract. Too much of what I dislike about what my writing has become.
    Then again with a topic like epistemology it has to be somewhat abstract.

    Here I give you three points how I myself believe I can encapsulate this train of thoughts of James article and Desmets exclamation.

    1) I am still puzzled how supposedly lefty minded persons have zero issue with the concept of a (carbon) footprint. One of the supposed nightmares of capitalism was always that it ends in dealing with everything in numbers, attaching to everything a number.
    As opposed to: every life is infinitely valuable.
    And a lifespan carbon footprint (c.f.) or holiday c.f. or meat consumption c.f. with literally your worth tied to a fixed number – totally normal for people.

    2) What always comes again and again in my mind with these subjects is then what I associate with the Mises institute:
    values are subjective
    Most of you know it probably. This thought is hammered into my mind.
    (Do you see the opposition to a technocratic view of everything can be calculated (objectively) (and then presented in such a fashion of diagrams, boards, statistics)?

    3) And now I also see again how and why
    Giorgio Agamben speaks of “bare life” or “reduced to bare life”.
    An Italian frequently mentioned (and quoted) here by James.

    I myself think with the concept of bare life or the lament about mechanization you can in the same way lament about
    having a picture (or concept(ualization)) of ourselves as robots or machines.

    And doesn’t that shout technocracy to you?

    With that in mind,
    I believe I can see why James writes at the end.

    “The chain of historical, scientific and philosophical developments that have led us to this point have been taking place for centuries if not millennia, and we can no more choose to simply change the epistemological paradigm our civilization is operating under than we can choose to grow an 11th finger.”
    and have less trouble with it. This chain or train to me is a) one worldview developing into another into another (i.e. mechanical as a foundation or at least a remnant) and b) our biologic or bodily (I believe Agamben says corporeal) development intermixed with the current technology of the time.
    Although for James article the focus looks very much with a).

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Back to Top