Why Would People Lie About Climate Change? – Questions For Corbett #033

12/16/2016143 Comments

In this edition of Questions For Corbett James (and Sibel Edmonds of Newsbud.com) answer your questions on Iran/CIA connections, climate change duplicity, whether the conspirators think they can survive their own conspiracy and much more. Also, James answers that age-old question: why do Hollywood movies suck so much these days?

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

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

SHOW NOTES:
Who Is Behind The #StopZika Fear Campaign? – Questions For Corbett #032

‘9/11 was an inside job’: Full speech by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at UN

Sibel Edmonds Gladio B Part III

Know Your Terrorists: Ayman Al-Zawahiri

Interview 1180 – Sibel Edmonds Reveals the Khomeini / America Connection

Judith Curry presents at the “Data or Dogma” hearing

Climategate: The Backstory

We Have 25 Years Invested in This Work…

Long List Of Warmist Organizations, Scientists Haul In Huge Money From BIG OIL And Heavy Industry!

Big-Oil money fund warmists, confusing attack machine

Rockefellers Promised Access to Publisher of InsideClimate News, Emails Show

The WWF’s Vast Pool of Oil Money

There’s Big Money in Global Warming Alarmism

Why Hollywood Makes Bad Movies

For Whatever Reason, China Really Likes Bad Hollywood Movies

6 Bizarre Ways Chinese Audiences Alter Movies You Watch

Special license plates shield officials from traffic tickets

Government to get special swine flu vaccine

10 Secret Underground Bunkers Around The World

Buy Corbett Report Data DVDs in The Corbett Report Shop (use coupon code “christmas25” without quotation marks)

Luke’s YouTube channel

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail

Filed in: Questions For Corbett
Tagged with:

Comments (143)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Corbett says:

    To any Corbett Report members thinking of taking advantage of the 25% off data dvd special:

    There will be a coupon code for 50% off any data DVD purchase for Corbett Report members only in tomorrow’s subscriber newsletter. Please stay tuned for that.

  2. BuddhaForce says:

    Rules for Rulers
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs

    While not specifically about monetary policy, an interesting video on how power works for all of us “would-be” Kings out here.

  3. HomeRemedySupply says:

    Wonderful Episode. Real. Real communication. Real. really.

  4. HomeRemedySupply says:

    TEXAS Underground Elite Condos
    A 300 million dollar elite armed and underground “condo” complex is being built northeast of Dallas (30 minutes east of Sherman).
    It is called “Trident Lakes”. (by invitation only to live there)
    https://tridentlakes.com/news­

    Trident Lakes plans to have 400 condos, all 90 percent underground. People will start living there in about 18 months.
    There will also be an underground tunnel system, air-lock blast doors, a shared greenhouse, a DNA vault and several helipads. It’s going to be one of the world’s safest communities, so of course, it will be gated with 12 foot walls, watch towers and there will be armed security at all times.
    It will also feature off-the-grid supplies of food, water and electricity.
    A championship golf course, 5-star spa, sports courts, 15-acre blue lagoons for water sports, jogging trails, gun ranges, equestrian center, restaurants and retail shops.
    A HUGE fountain will feature a statue of Poseidan holding a golden Trident. It is being built now.

    one minute video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9g6zKf8U-A­

    • ypyrkh says:

      I wonder what those people think. There been plenty of experiments with closed off communities in geodesic domes in the past, and they all failed miserably. Do they really think that a bunch of egoistical rich folks can live in a closed off space for a time without going for each other throats?

    • Octium says:

      The best thing about these kind of projects is that when the SHTF and none of the sewerage treatment plants are operating, we will be able to divert our sewerage to all those wonderful underground tanks that the criminal elite have built for us!

  5. kawilly 007 says:

    Here’s a peculiar thing about Ahmadinejad, though: Yes, he exposed 9/11 truth at the UN, but he has also spoken of the need for a New World Order. What does this mean? Is he part of some elaborate plan to bring about global government in the form of controlled opposition? My brain hurts trying to make sense of the figureheads on the grand chess board.

  6. kawilly 007 says:

    It’s kind of funny to trace the evolution of the smear language that’s been used against people who question the climate consensus. We went from “skeptics” in the early 2000’s to “deniers”, then to “heretics” (proof that it’s a religion), to straw man accusations of being “creationists” to finally having the POTUS say that, “We don’t have time for a meeting of the flat earth society.” https://youtu.be/XB9–MF0tx0 There you have it, skeptics are all flat earthers. My liberal friends ate it up (shared it on facebook). And they view themselves as the party of “thinking” and “logic”. Even if they understand what they are doing, the ends justify the means, and they get their kicks from rallying around making fun of “conservatives” and science deniers. Ugh. I should’ve have realized something was wrong during my college years when it went from being able to joke about “bringing on global warming” during the cold winter months to getting booed and chewed out by both my professor and classmates during my senior year (2004) when questioning global warming…and this was during discussions of our reading assignment that was chosen/provided by our professor, which looked at evidence that we are due for another ice age. Wow, guess I was naive to the “science” shaming.

  7. I certainly don’t want to cut into your financial support but if the spread of information is more important, you could seed torrents of disc image files of your complete annual Data DVDs that people would need to either burn to disc or use a virtual disc reader to read the disc image file (ISO, IMG, etc – http://fileinfo.com/filetypes/disk_image ).

    It would also be easy enough to include a text document or few explaining that this is “not an illegal pirated copy” but is free and open source legitimate creator published content, supported via these various donation avenues…

    With torrent links and check sums on your site people would be able to verify their torrent was legit (until “they” start censoring or subverting).

  8. Crypto Currencies

    We know the money system and banks are fucked.
    We know the politicians are more corrupt the higher you go and bigger the region they control.

    That said, what if local regional people started their own cryptocurrencies managed by their local people, which may or may not involve (less corrupted) politicians, naturally based on local trust.

    Living in Windsor, Essex County, Ontario, Canada – is 4 potential currencies right there. If you don’t like them you could make more: South Western Ontario, East Windsor, Pillette Village, etc.

    You don’t have to stop there. Christiancoin, Carlincoin, Jupitercoin, Batmancoin… for any group or affiliation you like, even use ones you don’t.

    How about a Truthercoin?
    (While we’re at it, how about a tax exempt Church of Truther with vaguely anti-state anti-religion beliefs? Vague only because people will always bicker about the details or “theories”.)

    After all there’s already Bitcoin, Peercoin, Dashcoin, Darkcoin, Litecoin, Feathercoin, Vertcoin, DogECoin…

    • Something like a “Truthercoin” (and/or Church of Truther) might do better if it had a “Home” website or network where the culture could live and thrive and be disseminated from and to. I’m not talking about consolidating or reinventing the wheel or cementing a brand. I’m just talking about having core basic key points laid out for newbies, and an base of promotions and advertising and news for the coin and the culture. But who decides? Obviously my centralized conformist ideas clash with decentralized diverse ideas.

      Maybe it’s a bad idea to marry trutherism and coins. Some might call it alternative survival strategy while others might call it capitalizing on tragedy and exploitation, inviting exploitation, infiltration, and tragedy.

  9. Votecoin:

    We all know that all of the centralized establishment systems are corrupted by money causing most of the problems. I certainly don’t know how, but imagine if a cryptocoin could be married to your intentions.

    How would you express your intentions? In the way that a library organizes with a Dewey Decimal System, imagine you had a voting list with meta sub-sections and sub-sub-sections.

    Note: Vote on actions and policies – not on parties, individuals, or the cults of personality.

    For example – applied to taxes: Starting with 100% you section it off and say you want 0% to military, 20% to education, 20% to health care, 20% to charity, 20% to infrastructure. (Forgive this overly simple example.) Lets say you want to be more specific and say 10% of infrastructure to the city, 10% to my street. Break it down further with as many sub-sub-sub-sections as you like.

    Applied to consumption, somehow, you could vote-support free trade, non-GMOs, etc.

    With your cryptocurrency “married” to this intention data, then what?
    How would you apply it on the other end?
    How would it be enforced?
    How could your intentions stay with the currency after you’ve “tagged” it?

    It’s a start. Maybe not a good one, but I invite everyone/anyone to build on it.

  10. mapinkett says:

    on the issue of climate change. My experience…on the past and present of the activist scene….. . I still see in the uk they are active. I was actually part of the environmental activist scene from 2005 to 2010. right in the uber period when msm was on full tilt. people never checked the info and wanted to believe it all including myself. which is very useful to be able to look back and realise that its many things. some people are led by powerful individuals. these powerful individuals are so very different from the rest. A very tight core of activists run the environmental activist scene in the uk and act like environmental flying pickets. well their underlings do. the leaders stay put and often have respectable jobs, councils, journos, drug rehabs.NGos its Very cult like and has created a mythology for itself which sort of ties in with the convoy of the eighties, animal rights groups, radical feminists, no borders, permiculture, earth first, palestine liberatiion, veganism, sustainability and i believe pagan idolatry, mother earth/ gaia etc etc.. The climate change activism is part of all that…….some are obscessed with zapatistas and greek anarchists. On one of the climate camps in the uk kingsnorth ( I know this is along time ago now) in 2007 inside one tent arround 50 of them were raving to filmed footage of greek anarchists rioting, punching the air, and singing . I was not shocked as I organised raves myself in the past but was taken by that they all knew these words to the specific political songs. It was very cult like. and carefully managed by the clique that were in charge. These are still active in the anti fracking, and no borders in calaise.

    controlled oposition ? people running No Borders groups and working for the city council ? No borders groups that are sparking riots in calaise ? I am not against all people finding a safe place to live but stiring up riots openly and running that group and being paid by taxpayers. surely this is controlled oposition.

    because of the blending of different activities they are able to maintain cohesiveness and group think. They are separate from the public, yes, but still just manage to keep it in the public eye. This is what I think fracking is all about in the uk. just keeping the scene going and the environmental agenda in the news. to maintain an activist scene it has to do actions, thats how it recruits and keeps people involved.

    On the whole the radical environmental movement is run by radical feminists and those well educated and those connected to lord this and that. sad but true….outsiders are not welcomed and are vetted for subservience and maliability. very cult like, and controlled.

  11. cruzmauio says:

    Hi James,
    This was a great episode, thanks! Regarding your question I can’t think of any other answer than something that indigenous communities in my country (Ecuador) use (some of which are being massacred at this very moment by our “socialist” government defending Chinese capital who took over their land in the jungle), and that is: barter. I love to see this practice and think is is ideal because the value of products or services is not differentiated – I need healing a disease so I go to the shaman and take a hen or some eggs for him/her in exchange. You provide plumbing services to Jane and she will build you a chair. This would really bring down the value of material stuff and bring up community and human values . But, of course, that would be my ideal world.

  12. mtflaxman says:

    Heat is an anagram of hate -it’s global hate that’s increasing. This increase has been naturally selected for – survival has come to mean being as tough as the toughest kid on the block (or risk slavery). This conflicts with our pacifist self image. The solution: pathological denial.
    James, did you ever catch that CBC IDEAS episode – THE FOOL’S DILEMMA?

  13. bgree says:

    Questions for Corbett

    Hey James, thank you for all the work that you do and for directing me to other sources such as Media Morning Monarchy and Tragedy and Hope peace revolution podcast. Would really love to see or hear all of you in another round table discussion group. As I have been listening to your podcasts, I’ve heard references and insinuations to books you have written and published. I went to the main page with items for sale and no books.
    My question is what books have you written besides Essays On the NWO how would I be able to obtain them?
    And
    Are you still planning on doing a Shakespeare expose podcast?

  14. Richard Ran says:

    A4C. Answer to your last Q James: let the free market (i.e. we ourselves) decide what our money, or rather “moneys” will be. I believe Ron Paul proposed something along those lines.

    “What has government done to OUR money?” Well, they took it from us step by step, as Rothbard shows so brilliantly in his book. We need to take it back, simple as that (and obviously not make the “greenbacker”, Bill Still mistake of handing the printing press over to government, based on the erroneous belief that our current system has everything to do with “private” banks and nothing whatsoever with government, the violent institution these crony banks are mainly working for.)

    To Luke (last comment in de vid) I’d say that I salute you from Holland (Woodenshoesland). We share the same name, though (alas) not the same age. Your comment fills me with both joy and some mild form of sadness. Joy because of what you say about discovering the CR, some sadness also, because when I was 18 myself, there was no Corbett Report for me to discover (computers had only just become “personal”) with no internet to circumvent the gatekeepers of allowable opinion, and “alternative sources” being predominantly of the dull and actually quite silly radical left variety.

  15. Mark says:

    A question for James for next time, and perhaps you knew this was coming! The question is, why have you apparently not ever addressed the “Jewish Question”? I have noted this on an ongoing basis in the years that I have followed your work, and now have done a cursory search of my pre-history here and didn’t find anything that fits the bill there either.

    What that Question is probably is best addressed in the works of people like Dr. E. Michael Jones (particularly in The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit and Barren Metal), Dr. Kevin MacDonald (A People That Shall Dwell Alone, Separation and Its Discontents, The Culture of Critique) and Jeff Gates (Guilt by Association). Their work describes a separate culture operating within other cultures, with their own interests which do not align with the interests of the “host” cultures, there is a long history of this which includes very significant conflict, and that misalignment and conflict is coming to a head today. I think all three of these people come to the same conclusion that there has been an ascendancy to a dominant position of this cultural elite over the last 50 years, even though they all approach the subject from different directions.

    When one looks at concentrations of Jewish elites today, those are at the core of so many of the issues addressed at Corbett Report – the media including Hollywood, banking and finance (and particularly central banking), federal government administration, think tanks, election financing, the 9/11 wars, the new culture war against Islam, the newer cold war with Russia, on and on. But this aspect is seemingly not directly addressed at CR at all, almost as if it doesn’t exist.

    In my search I came across the piece Meet Rahm Emanuel from 2011, and assumed one couldn’t possibly delve into this character without addressing this matter. There was of course material on his father’s Ergun involvement, his Israeli military service, etc., but not in a way that really explained him as a piece of this greater issue. The piece concluded with two items, both sourced from Wayne Madsen. The first was about the rumored Chicago gay bathhouse thing including Obama, which paints him as just another Hastert-like blackmailable patsy operating for the unnamed oligarchs, and not an actual player of any standing within a criminal syndicate (as Gates would describe it). The second was much more to the point, with Madsen linking Emanuel’s ties to the Israeli government, Larry Silverstein’s ownership of the Sears Tower, and the possibility of a second 9/11 in Chicago. But the piece ends there, there was really little further comment on what those connections mean, just an equating of Emanuel to Giuliani of NY. So this piece is a bit like Chinese food – you end up still feeling hungry an hour later.

    Further, on the electric third rail of all electric third rails, I came across a piece from 2009, an interview with Jordan Kaufman that appears to be revealing of one aspect of this Question. In that piece was a description of the involvement of IBM in the Holocaust, and given your comments, it appears that (at least at that time) you believe the conventional narrative on that event. In my view that was one of the three big false flags, along with JFK and 9/11, that have led us from the end of WWI.II and the 19th century post-Napoleonic world to where we are today, and it shares many of the characteristics of those other events:
    – It was codified by an official government inquiry, the Nuremberg trials, which was an entirely politicized process with a predetermined conclusion.
    – It served multiple political purposes: justifying the execution of the German leadership, “de-nazifying” the German people and putting down the German state, masking and justifying the war crimes of the Allies, justifying the establishment of the criminal state of Israel, etc.
    – It is plagued with problems of basic physics, from the mechanics of execution to the disposal of millions of bodies.
    – The conventional story lacks hard evidence and instead relies heavily on anecdotal evidence. To the extent that the weak hard evidence is presented, it mostly comes from a highly dubious source (the USSR, against whom Germany fought the real war, who controlled the “killing fields” for the next 45 years).
    – It led to the rise of a new power structure; the world would never be the same after, in part because of a change in general consciousness and worldview. In this sense perhaps it can also be compared to the laughable notion of the Civil War being fought to “free the slaves”, an altered narrative.
    – It has its own “follow the money” aspect – the holocaust industry, reparations, billions of military aid to Israel.

    And yet in the pantheon of great and dubious events this one seemingly does not exist at CR. On the greater Question, I naturally make the comparison with another Japan-based ex-pat norteamericano alt journalist, Ry Dawson at ANC, who tills much the same soil as CR. The one very major difference I have noted is that Ry is very willing to “go there” on this Question, while James is very unwilling to do the same, opposite ends of the spectrum. Why is that?

  16. mikee says:

    Man, I love these QFC episodes.

    Thanks for the response to my question, James. I’m got Interview 604 with Sibel Edmonds queued up to watch and share. And anyway, I don’t feel that I’ve given Gladio B enough attention.

    I wanted to say,
    I noticed when you read my question you questionably emphasized where I said “we” as in “WE took him out (Qaddafi)” by proxy and “WE invaded Iraq”.

    I meant us.

    Haha, no I mean the USA. I live in the US so yeah, I generally say “we” did this or we did that concerning US actions. To me, being unwillingly culpable is still culpable.

  17. mkey says:

    Lets be honest here, there’s a very good reason as to why politicians need their own swine flu vaccines. It is a swine flu after all, they need all the protection they can get, being most exposed to it.

    (my apologies to any actual swines reading this comments section)

    • Ragnar says:

      I wonder if it’s possible to get a sample of the elite swine flu vaccine? Testing that and the pion version and analyzing the differences might be a good way of exposing the fallacy of the “one size fits all” medical mentality?

  18. mkey says:

    A suggestion for the next Film, Literature and NWO video

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4645330/

    Denial (2016)

    Acclaimed writer and historian Deborah E. Lipstadt must battle for historical truth to prove the Holocaust actually occurred when David Irving, a renowned denier, sues her for libel.

    I suppose the holocaust theme is not directly tied in with NWO agenda, but it’s an immensely important event which could serve as a beacon for the unwashed masses.

    • Mark says:

      “historian Deborah E. Lipstadt must battle for historical truth” Wow, there’s a first for Debs! Must have been very painful…

      Yes, it would be a nice piece of propaganda to have analyzed here, given the very recent unanimous consent passage of the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act of 2016 by the US senate, pushed by the ADL and legislating on basically thought crime. The NY Post: “In the name of protecting Jewish students from discrimination, S. 10, if approved by the House, will encourage universities to suppress dissenting political opinions and have a chilling effect on constitutionally protected speech.”

      Btw, nice to see the film has lost $6M so far. Maybe it would be doing better if they played the short docu El Gran Tabu before running that feature-length fantasy flick…

    • Mark says:

      I didn’t realize Eric Hunt has already done a review of this propaganda film – definitely worth a watch:
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0eHNSUv6XzY
      (There are two versions/parts, the complete one linked here; this version is apparently banned in many countries? The other one is also on youtoob.)

      • mkey says:

        Cheers, watching now.

      • mkey says:

        To be perfectly honest, I wouldn’t call these videos a review of the movie “Denial” since it mostly enumerates various dogmatic segments of the grand Holocaust™. If anything, it’s more of a review for “The reader.”

        The larges issue with all of this “evidence” is the fact it was made to fit a very different era and it simply can’t stand the scrutiny of modern times. Luckily, people are being kept freshly brainwashed.

        • Mark says:

          I agree, I doubt Hunt even bothered to see the film, and I can’t criticize him for that, you know how the film will play the story and that can be seen just from the trailer. I certainly wouldn’t put money in the pockets of the producers and studio, and don’t know that I could stomach watching it anyway.

          And, yes, this is a mythological story that simply couldn’t be pulled off today, which is why it has to be walled off the way it is, it’s just so critical to the state of the world and power that it can’t be shuffled off in the way that the sinking of the Maine, Pearl Harbor and the Tonkin incident kind of are. Rather it’s more like JFK and 9/11, any breakdown in the official story sheds light on the nature of power structures today in an untenable way.

          Not to mention that the Holocaust is the core of the religion of Judaism version 3.0 today, the first two versions being based on the pre-Christian Torah and then the Talmud-based version of the last 1500 years or so. In some sense that’s really the crux of the matter – if the myth actually broke there would undoubtedly be a justifiable sense of outrage (including among many Jews) and that could have terrible consequences for Jews; it certainly would for Israel. So there is this defensive effort that makes the situation even more impossible, unfortunately.

        • mkey says:

          Well, if you’re reviewing a film, be damn sure to watch it. If for nothing else, but to tear it apart.

          The issue of Holocaust has been like a small caliber bullet, not having enough energy to exit the skull upon entry, bouncing around in my head for years now, turning the brain into porridge. It’s such an important question that, in my view, most people are simply not ready to face with any skepticism simply because if they had to realize it was a lie they would need to handle it. Pretty much like in Matrix, people are not ready to face the reality.

          If those people, “voted” into power, are willing and capable of disseminating such a bitter, hateful propaganda myth, what else are they capable of? They obviously have to be stopped and the status quo must be usurped. Wicked stuff would have to be done, a revolution sounds like the plan, but those are only efficient at installing the next overlord.

          When you augment the whole issue with the fortress of Zionism Israel has become, I honestly don’t see any potential for an amicable solution. These guys are armed with the most vile stuff created by this civilization, they have a number of compromised states supporting their insane cause AND an incredible public support. What could go right?

          Either way, I’d start by poking this holocaust bastard with a stick.

          • Mark says:

            mkey: “If those people, “voted” into power, are willing and capable of disseminating such a bitter, hateful propaganda myth, what else are they capable of?”

            Unlike other major deep events like JFK and 9/11, I think this one kind of evolved over time. You had a Jewish elite zionist agenda in existence since WWI and the Balfour thing (and I think the earliest mention of the death of 6M Jews was during that war, but it might have been earlier). There was certainly a major Jewish element among the Bolsheviks in the USSR that still existed during WWII, and that’s really the specific source of much of the tale. There was also a significant Jewish element in the US Army psy op team at the end of the war and all of their de-nazification efforts that produced those films of bodies in the German (non-death) camps. It’s hard to say that what happened at Nuremberg was part of a massive effort at construction of today’s Holocaust myth, although that certainly created a foundation for it.

            Then there were the purges of Jews in both the USSR and in the US (the red scare) in the post-war years, mostly after the establishment of Israel. I think today’s story really started to be built in 1961, with the Eichmann trial in Israel and the publishing of Raul Hilberg’s Destruction of the European Jews; what followed were all the Hollywood films on the subject, particularly after all the Jewish/Zionist/Israeli “victories” of different kinds during the mid-60s.

            My understanding is that the holocaust story behind the iron curtain wasn’t really a Jewish story, and the ~4M dead number at Auschwitz before the fall included ~3M non-Jews (I think largely Polish Catholics), which was the piece that got removed once communist control was eliminated. That suggests that the Jews were just the most committed and effective at utilizing this mythical story to their advantage.

            Anyway, I think it’s kind of a case of the Jewish elite taking something and pushing it waaay too far, which someone like E. Michael Jones would probably say is a habitual problem in that culture that has come back to bite them in their collective asses for hundreds if not thousands of years. If so, there’s some very serious ass-biting coming up shortly…

          • mkey says:

            First mention of millions of dead Jews and death threats to millions of Jews date back even prior WW1. Quite a few times this story tried to gain a foothold.

            Rightly you say, Bolsheviks were infested with Jews and that certainly created fertile ground for things that followed. Hopefully, Solzhenitsyn’s “200 years together” will get an English translation. Especially the acclaimed chapter 15.

            As James has said several times by now, one shouldn’t look for a monolithic conspiracy nor a massive convergence of interests. I find it safe to say Nuremberg trials are not to be held trustworthy because of massive falsification of documents presented as evidence; because of upholding of policy; because of its main intent, being a show trial.
            Lay a foundation, start raising walls, you’re bound to stumble into something looking like a house.

            There is one reason and one reason alone why there were no death camps in Germany: people were allowed to actually investigate them, so truth had to surface. On the other hand, Poland (and it’s “death” camps) were safely tucked behind the iron curtain, denying any and all scrutiny.
            Those millions served many purposes and the story kept evolving, so it’s no surprise it took a while to gain proper traction.

            As you rightly say, Jews have been cast away quite a few times from various regions during history. If the response this time around is to be in scale, I can only fear what is to come. If anything can cure violence, it certainly isn’t further administration of violence.

            • Mark says:

              “Rightly you say, Bolsheviks were infested with Jews and that certainly created fertile ground for things that followed. Hopefully, Solzhenitsyn’s “200 years together” will get an English translation. Especially the acclaimed chapter 15.”

              I think the most accessible point to this whole matter is Russia’s history since the post-Napoleonic western expansion of the Russian empire into what became the Pale of Settlement, which contained the majority of the Jews in the world at that time. The history of conflict and covert warfare, from the tax farming and usury and anarchic revolutionaries in the 19th century to the communists and their foreign bank-rollers to the rape of the Russian economy by the Jewish oligarchs aided by the Harvard Boys at the end of the 20th century to Soros, neocon Victoria Nuland et al who just won’t quit this war, is very revealing and could be quite helpful in getting people who can’t see straight in the US to understand how this thing actually works. Translating and publishing that book in English would certainly be a help, because it inevitably would generate publicity, as negative as it might be. At some point the slurs will break down, and a very notable author like Solzhenitsyn has enough chops that it might just be able to overcome that in these eye-opening times.

    • mkey says:

      It looks like there’s a lot (all kinds) of information in the trial decision over here http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2000/115.html

      It is a long, long read.

      • Mark says:

        I’ll take a look, thanks. My impression of this situation is that it’s the general view that Irving was foolish in going after Lipstadt in court that way, and the forces aligned against him were too overpowering for him to possibly win.

        What I’d much prefer to see is an honest and accurate film on the Ernst Zundel trials in Canada in the ’80s: http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v08/v08p417_faurisson.html A lot more interesting case, evidence and outcome than this one, and its about the prosecution of a “denier”, which is much more critical given all the thought crime denial laws put in place since then.

      • mkey says:

        Yes, that was THE holocaust trial. There are several documentaries about it, what I found most shocking was the obviously acceptable behavior of those JDL “people.” Those guys are ugly and law and justice doesn’t want to get involved with them in no way.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hAsIAQw0oOs

    • M says:

      What I think is that the 6 million figure is exaggerated. Some say it matches some Jewish prophecy, but who knows. Not sure whether death camps really existed or not but I think the fact is that Jews were the target of Nazi genocide. From what I have read, for example in some Baltic States the Nazis really did not have to push the local population against Jews but they willingly started to slaughter them because of the totally disproportioned number of Jews in Soviet leadership and secret police etc. Of course this does not in anyway justify the killing of innocent people. The six million number is from what I gather based on studies on the Jewish population before and after war and basically presumes that the effect WW2 had on the number of Jews was all caused by the Holocaust, not taking in account sickness, starvation and deaths on combat.

      Example of this can be found for example in Yad Vashem “Shoa Victims” list where you can list the place of death for example Vyborg and find many people killed in combat. I am not militaristic or nationalistic person, but for me as a Finn it is an insult to have members of Soviet military listed as “Shoa Victims” who have died in Vyborg from which my grandfather had to evacuate as a result of WW2. In theory it is possible that some of those “Shoa Victims” have been killed by Finnish Jews serving in Finnish military:

      http://yvng.yadvashem.org/index.html?language=en&advancedSearch=true&pld_value=Vyborg&pld_type=synonyms

      When it comes to purges against the Jews, I find it very interesting that Stalin was probably poisoned after he started going after them with the “Doctor Plot” etc.

      • M says:

        Have to add for anyone interested about the Six Million figure should also check what is considered the second worst genocide attempt against the Jews:

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmelnytsky_Uprising#Jews

        The development of the estimate on the number of victims is kind of revealing. I have trouble understanding the need to exaggerate…

        Basically the early Jewish sources on the number of victims are higher than the total number of Jews living in the area.

      • Mark says:

        My impression is that the 6M figure predates the event and just got carried forward at a time when an actual figure probably wasn’t viewed as that critical. The was an oft-cited article in Reader’s Digest in the middle of the war, before anyone knew about “the Holocaust”, that said 6M Jews were at risk, and this was an estimate of the total Jewish population in a certain group of European countries. What I’ve seen is that total Jewish population figures weren’t very good at that time – some revisionists cite the totals in the world almanac before and after the war (both ~15M), and the exterminationists cite a drop to ~11M in 1949, when accurate figures were finally available (they also increased the before-war figure in ’49, which looks suspicious). But the reality is that any post-war figures were reliant on figures coming out of communist eastern Europe, and how reliable are those?

        Raul Hilberg in his seminal work estimated 5.1M killed, with roughly half of those in the six Polish death camps; most of the rest were via firing squads (and “gas vans”). But Hilberg had to be mindful of the mythological 6M figure, so perhaps felt he couldn’t go under 5M. But it’s those firing squad deaths that are the real issue here, because those are the ones out in the wild in the war zone, from Poland through western Russia, where the real war occurred and where there were years of chaos and occupation. That’s also where the Jews lived. Timothy Snyder released a book on the holocaust last year that emphasized this aspect of the thing, and he had previously written Bloodlands, which was about this theater of the war. He’s a conventionalist and estimates a death count just under 6M, and he did seem to be shifting the emphasis to the figures difficult if not impossible to verify in any meaningful way.

        Regarding German intentions, there apparently is no real evidence of a genocidal program regarding the Jews. One of the lamest aspects of the story is that the Germans used coded language at Wannsee, so they couldn’t be found guilty of genocide after the war. As if the Germans were preparing to lose that war in late 1941, and thought they could hide the long-standing “antisemitism” of that regime in defeat…

        I tend to think there wasn’t any such plan, it makes no sense to me that a nation at war and facing the greatest military might in world history would decide to eliminate a notable portion of their domestic workforce. I definitely think they wanted no Jews in whatever kind of country or empire they had after the war, so expulsion, the traditional remedy for this particular matter, was the plan, and they had already started down that road re German Jews before the war. My wild-ass guess would be that somewhere between 500k and 2M Jews died during the war, and certainly not all at the hand of the Germans; it may well be that the majority of blood is on the Soviets’ hands. But a lot of them were probably due to disease, starvation, exposure, and from other non-military causes (civilian uprisings).

      • mkey says:

        Best I could gather, 6 million is a prophetical figure, stating that chose people could return to Israel only after 6 of them die.

        Exact meaning of the word holocaust is “a sacrifice completely consumed by fire; burnt offering” which is kind of very revealing in itself.

        So, lets take some religious nuts whom believe in prophecies and expect that 6 million burnt dead will have be offered sooner or later. Is there a better way to cheat destiny than to make the whole world believe the offering has already been made?

        • Mark says:

          Circling back, David Irving had some interesting things to say about this term and his experiences with it, starting at about 1:16:00 in this talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=97L_SJrPl6g

          Btw, I think anyone who watches this film and believes a person should be able to defend themselves against slander should also watch this talk, to see the difference between the real Irving and whatever gross caricature Hollywood devised for their purposes in that propaganda piece.

        • mkey says:

          I’m not certain what to make of this account. The “white and red house” reference, for instance. He states this room was approximately the same size of his study and yet they would gas 200 people at the time. That storyline doesn’t sound too convincing to me, for the same reasons the original death camp wall to wall packed gas chambers don’t make much sense.

          I’m also extremely vary of anything related to Treblinka, Belzec and Sobibor.

          • Mark says:

            On the Reinhardt camps, I think his view is based on his general approach, which is to source the story from the original archives or going to other original sources. So he’s got a couple docs which make these somewhat questionable references to 1.24M liquidated in one year, which seems like a very big number – I think Hilberg had a total of 1.5M from them, and Irving adds another 1M for the next year, so he’s already 50% high. But we’re still left with all the other big questions about these camps, probably best detailed in DenierBud’s One Third of the Holocaust. On the other hand, one of my biggest issues with the revisionists’ position on these camps as transit camps for Jews being shipped east is where did they go from there and is there any real record of that?

            Until someone is allowed to take some serious soil samples at those camps and finds serious human remains I’m going to believe they’re as much of a death camp fantasy as Auschwitz. I do wonder if Irving has offered this part up as a concession to the powers that be in order to get somewhat off their shitlist, though. I can see where the lack of the kind of contrary evidence in the Leucher report leads him back into the archives for his position, as opposed to being more dubious because of the Auschwitz case.

          • mkey says:

            Denier Bud doesn’t work on the angle about which I’m interested. I.e. is there any solid proof Treblinka, Belzec and Sobibor existed as any sort of a camp in the specified period?

            It seems fitting to me that, after you have attempted to load numbers on existing camps and failed quite miserably, one would attempt to make up specific camps all together. The story stating that ze Germans went through the trouble to pull out EVERYTHING and replant grass, shrubs and trees while they were losing the wore which they probably believed was still winnable is 100% ridiculous to me. Like other stories which escaped down the memory hole: human fat soap, shrunken human heads, items made of tattooed human skin, tons upon tons of human hair used as a commodity, who knows how much gasoline and wood used to burn corpses etc, etc.

            Where all of this completely fails to hold water would be the numbers.
            http://vho.org/GB/Books/dth/fndaerial.html

            • Mark says:

              I never really considered that those camps never existed, I guess I was under the impression that there are German written records of facilities of some kind there, and I was also under the impression that there were railroad spur lines that extended to them. In the article you linked there was mention of concrete gassing buildings described by witnesses, but assuming those didn’t actually exists (and I think we do), then that issue goes away, particularly if all the structures were made of wood, which I what I thought. If these were just transit camps where inmates and their belongings were deloused (and valuables taken, which dovetails with Irving’s assertions) and they changed trains, then there wouldn’t have to be that much there, and what there was could have been of a temporary nature. If they terminated the use of those camps in ’43 I can see where there would be little left by the time the Russians got there.

              There was testimony about these camps at Nuremberg, if very limited, so if they were a fabrication it was a very early one, when the whole story was still in its formative stages. Remember the famous photos of Tom Dodd at Nuremberg holding the shrunken head?

              Btw, I like that the article you linked talks about Babi Yar. I haven’t seen much about “the other 3M”, the victims of firing squads in the east. That’s where 33k were supposed to have been killed, right? Another case of a lack of physical evidence, it seems.

            • mkey says:

              The railroads are there of course and those concrete buildings could have existed, there’s no denying the possibility. Germans could have invested time and troops into pulling out all foundations, as well. I just don’t find that probable, at all.
              Especially since we know that the advancing mungos horde made many of the camp detainees whom were fit for travel go west with their mass murderers, instead of waiting to be “liberated.”

              Transit camps made out of wood were possible and plausible, but I doubt anyone in the German’s army mass slaughter division would think gas chambers made out of wood was the way to go. I thoroughly doubt that. Besides, vegetation on those pictures doesn’t show much activity of any kind.

              Many of these stories fail to take into account the fact Germans were quite technologically superior at the time, which makes me pretty sure that had they been interested in mass murders, they would have found an efficient and safe way to do it. Most of that “evidence” is just claptrap some random schmoe managed to come up with. It’s something schmoe would have done while failing miserably.

              Just an example: does anyone really but REALLY think Germans would have scrounged diesel engines from a destroyed Soviet tank and use them to suffocate people with CO2, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, for months? Firstly, diesel engines don’t have a good CO2 output. Secondly, why use Soviet equipment, for which you don’t have required parts nor do you know the maintenance schedule?

              Does anyone think Germans would have gone through such a colossal effort of systematically killing millions without readying a plan to have the corpses disposed? Even if they hadn’t factored it the possibility of losing the war, committing such atrocities would have to be conducted in a much more secret fashion because you just know it would have come back to bite you in the ass.

              The precise reason as to why these outlandish stories became even more outlandish as time went by is the fact they had to be revised time and time again since the facts (and laws of physics) have been completely ignored from the beginning.

              Physical evidence is lacking for each and every aspect of this story, the only reason why one would BELIEVE it is because of a massive guilt complex, provided by mass psyops which initiated right after the war ended.
              I personally am not much of a believer and don’t feel any guilt about these past events, even if it were proven beyond any reasonable doubt that these events transpired as described.

              I hold in contempt both the Catholic church and these Holocust peddlers for instilling their guilt complex in unsuspecting masses. A person feeling guilty over anything will be ready to do whatever to ease their burden and this is exactly why we find ourselves today in this predicament.

              • Mark says:

                “Physical evidence is lacking for each and every aspect of this story, the only reason why one would BELIEVE it is because of a massive guilt complex, provided by mass psyops which initiated right after the war ended.”

                The initial exaggerated story as promoted by the allies for their purposes at the end of the war creates the foundation of the thing, but I think it would have kind of faded away over time had there not been this opportunistic group which was fully prepared to take that and run with it, build it into the stuff of their dreams, in a sense the militaristic messiah that they’d always wanted, the club to beat the western world with. That’s the critical and revealing part here, the thing that shows us the true nature of this culture and their leadership and what they are capable of in protecting and enhancing their interests.

                I think you can see that in the Auschwitz story. The line was “over 4M killed” for decades and it wasn’t just a Jewish story, but then with the fall of Polish and Soviet communism that fell to “over 1M’, and I think the reason for that is very obvious – the inviolable part of the myth, the Jewish myth, had a million Jews killed there, backed by Hilberg’s estimate, so that was the new floor. All the other vaporized victims – Poles, Soviet POWs, Gypsies, etc.- didn’t really matter a half century later, but not the same with the chosen people.

                “I hold in contempt both the Catholic church and these Holocust peddlers for instilling their guilt complex in unsuspecting masses. A person feeling guilty over anything will be ready to do whatever to ease their burden and this is exactly why we find ourselves today in this predicament.”

                I don’t entirely agree with that, I think over the last 50 years the Catholic church can be criticized for lots of things related to the Jews, all coming out of nostre aetate, but that’s really been the Jews taking advantage of an extended hand, from what I understand. I think that’s another of the many Jewish victories of the ’60s, including the visible aspect of the breaking of the Catholic production code in Hollywood and injecting pornography in film. And you also have someone like Bishop Williamson out there, bucking the tide.

                The media is the big promoter, and that’s where it’s really the same as JFK and 9/11 – these grand deep events have that characteristic, the media doesn’t know how to deal with them at the time and then ends up the biggest defender, the hardest line in breaking through to the truth. There’s certainly a huge Jewish element to that, perhaps in all three cases and definitely in two.

                Anyway, Merry Christmas! Today the world celebrates, in some sense, the very root cause of all these particular problems, in mythological terms the moment the zygote first divided into two cells, the birth of the savior who the Jews would not recognize and instead would see dead, and that set them on the long road to the instigators of where we are in the west today… 😉

              • mkey says:

                “That’s the critical and revealing part here, the thing that shows us the true nature of this culture and their leadership and what they are capable of in protecting and enhancing their interests.”

                Somewhere I read about how these Jews are practically a natural enemy to men. I’m still not ready to accept that’s how evolution planned to even things out, but I’m certainly getting there 😛

                “All the other vaporized victims – Poles, Soviet POWs, Gypsies, etc.- didn’t really matter a half century later, but not the same with the chosen people. ”

                I’m not exactly certain if you’re implying that the victim count reduction should be attributed to ignoring victims of certain origin.
                I see that camp as a work camp and if the staff had to deal with 4 million corpses during that period (lets say: 4 million over 1000 days would mean 4000 per day) not much actual work could have been performed in all of those western factories greasing the Nazi war machine.

                “I think over the last 50 years the Catholic church can be criticized for lots of things related to the Jews”
                What about the original sin? Guilting dozens of generations of people to put yourself in position of power can’t be accounted for trivially.
                I’m not saying that I understand what an organization has to do to survive for several thousands of years and I do understand they have been bashed for a lot of things they haven’t done, but still I do hold them accountable for their doctrines.

                Bishop Williams is just one twinkle on an otherwise dark sky. I’m sure there are more people in similar position sharing his views, but they don’t have his courage.

              • Mark says:

                “Somewhere I read about how these Jews are practically a natural enemy to men. I’m still not ready to accept that’s how evolution planned to even things out, but I’m certainly getting there”

                My current view is that the matter arises out of a culture (including religion) built on separation and non-assimilation, a strong in-group/out-group dichotomy, with the God-chosen people overlay, a long history of conflict with host cultures, and a higher level of average intelligence (at 110 IQ the Ashkenazim the highest ethnic group in the world), which has led to a further cultural arrogance and of course a higher level of wealth (the highest average income of any ethnic group in the US, roughly 50% higher than the US average).

                One can compare them to blacks in the US, another minority group with significant physical and psychological separation and an understandable grudge against the dominant European Christian culture. But blacks don’t have the same sort of long cultural history and have assimilated religiously, they don’t have nearly the same level of intelligence (average IQ of 85) and so low income/economic power – and they can’t operate in a state of crypsis, they can’t hide in plain sight as white people when it serves their purposes. Those are critical differences in how cultural resentment is expressed and speaks to the nature of cultural warfare.

                Btw, I think the Ashkenazim are the perfect case against the CR position of the fallacy of eugenics – their higher IQ has likely developed over time due to the mating practices in their culture involving their traditional intellectual class (basically the rabbinical order).

                Another aspect of this culture war is the nature of European Christian peoples, that they don’t really believe in this special DNA thing, and their culture is in some way inherently inclusive. This leads to a kind of vulnerability, I think. Plus the religious history creates the potential for conflict, given the common root and then the break point, when one side or the other took a fundamentally incorrect path.

                Anyway, I don’t think there is anything biological in the roots of this conflict, it all arises out of cultural differences that just don’t go away. And it is a war that the Jews are winning, and have been winning to a growing extent over the last 75 years. Time to call a spade a spade here.

                “I’m not exactly certain if you’re implying that the victim count reduction should be attributed to ignoring victims of certain origin.”

                Yes, in the sense that almost all victims are fabrications, and all but one group of them could get corrected over time, once the value of the myth and the people perpetrating it (Soviet communists) were gone. But that last group has built a mountain out of a molehill and has a tremendous stake in the ongoing myth.

                “Guilting dozens of generations of people to put yourself in position of power can’t be accounted for trivially.”

                Original sin is on both sides of this equation. In any case, I don’t know what to think about the history of the church, but these days I don’t so much look at it as just another oppressive power structure, in the light of this conflict. Part of the reason for this is I don’t really know how much of its history is being defined by this cultural opponent these days, in the same way that they are distorting other elements of history. An example might be the perception that the inquisition persecuted Jews, when in fact the case has been made that it only persecuted conversos, people who had chosen to fall under its umbrella.

                One generally gets this image of Christians chasing after Jews, pogroms, expulsions, etc., a very one-sided history without any balance regarding Jewish actions causing these reactions, the perfect innocents. And one has to remember that the church considered and considers usury to be a sin, a position I certainly can’t argue with, and that is at the heart of so much of this history and conflict. There are also aspects of the pre-Judaized, pre-protestant Christian society that seem admirable and worth considering (the vast church lands as common areas, etc.). So I’m kind of rethinking the Catholic church at this point, not that I of course don’t still view it as a manipulative, oppressive power structure as well.

              • mkey says:

                I haven’t considered the effects of selective breeding, but must be the case here. I do think that accounts for some sort of a psychosis as well. A limited gene pool will lead to mental illness, or so I would hope.

                They are winning this war, obviously, with so many people being completely oblivious about it. Masses will keep refuting this conflict based on “fact” that “so many people can’t be onto it.” Well, tough shit, it all must be just a coinkidink, then.

                If anything, the church hasn’t done enough to persecute usurers. For this, I also hold them in contempt.

              • Mark says:

                “They are winning this war, obviously, with so many people being completely oblivious about it. Masses will keep refuting this conflict based on ‘fact’ that ‘so many people can’t be onto it.'”

                The guy I always think of when considering how this works is “new atheist” neuroscientist Sam Harris, who frames himself as a spiritual progressive, and he emerged as a voice after 9/11 and the start of the war in Iraq. His view of the three religions of the book is that Islam is the worst; the Jews have the worst holy texts but he basically passes on really criticizing Jews because even they don’t really believe them – as if religious belief is the only question or matter here and broader culture doesn’t matter in his limited analysis*. He has become this holy warrior on the danger posed by Islam, mainly criticizing fellow liberals for their application of political correctness to this situation and so not facing the reality of the threat.

                His mentor in all this seems to have been a guy he admires immensely, Christopher Hitchens, who claimed he found out his mother was Jewish only when he was an adult; Hitchens, another “progressive” new atheist, was a socialist who effectively moved right over his career and took a sharper turn to the right after 9/11, related to the acceptability of the military response against Islam. In this respect I think he mirrors the general trend among Jews. One thing Samuel Benjamin Harris doesn’t like to talk about, from what I’ve seen, is his blood, his membership in “the tribe” – his mother is also Jewish (she’s one of those Hollywood Jews).

                An example of that was his battle with Glenn Greenwald a couple years ago. I listened to Harris going on an almost-uncontrolled rant about Greenwald and what he said, absolutely viscous and really unfair, and then I listened to what Greenwald had previously actually said about Harris, which I think overall was reasonable and fair. The one thing there that I think was actually the matter to Harris was Greenwald sort of in passing calling him a “self-identifying Jew” – Greenwald was clearly calling him out on his bias, a foundation of his positions and worldview. But in his extended rant Harris never even mentioned this. So I conclude that this is Harris’ version of Jewish crypsis, not acknowledging or distancing himself from his tribe, because of the negative impact on his message that might have.

                Today Harris’ position is that basically Trump won the election because the Dems and the left in general don’t adequately face up to the threat of Islam (he of course supported Clinton). [He also takes predictable positions on the Russian threat and “fake news”, btw.] Here are examples of how he frames the thing; note about halfway through the first the way he deftly shifts from the Islamic threat to reminders of Nazism:
                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DcmbRPSEbw4&t=469s
                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNVtfzyZtTE&t=68s

                I think this is how this works, certain elitist Jews stepping up to the plate for their people without having to be told the necessity of that, without really conspiring with anyone in the normally-understood sense (although he derives much publicity from interviews done by fellow travelers like Bill Maher and Dave Rubin, of course). And if you can become famous and make a lot of money in the process more the better, especially if you can also build a cult of goy followers. What he’s clearly trying to accomplish is the building fear of Islamic peoples (a traditional cultural enemy) in historically Christian-European peoples (another traditional enemy) using (Zionist false-flag?) terrorism, while distracting them from the greater Zionist threat to our society.

                *An example of his statements on Judaism: “The question I’ve now received in many forms goes something like this: Why is it that you never criticize Israel? Why is it that you never criticize Judaism? Why is it that you always take the side of the Israelis over that of the Palestinians? Now, this is an incredibly boring and depressing question for a variety of reasons. The first, is that I have criticized both Israel and Judaism. What seems to have upset many people is that I’ve kept some sense of proportion. There are something like 15 million Jews on earth at this moment; there are a hundred times as many Muslims. I’ve debated rabbis who, when I have assumed that they believe in a God that can hear our prayers, they stop me mid-sentence and say, “Why would you think that I believe in a God who can hear prayers?” So there are rabbis—conservative rabbis—who believe in a God so elastic as to exclude every concrete claim about Him — and therefore, nearly every concrete demand upon human behavior. And there are millions of Jews, literally millions among the few million who exist, for whom Judaism is very important, and yet they are atheists. They don’t believe in God at all. This is actually a position you can hold in Judaism, but it’s a total non sequitur in Islam or Christianity. So, when we’re talking about the consequences of irrational beliefs based on scripture, the Jews are the least of the least offenders.”

              • mkey says:

                That’s certainly a good example. I have heard some of Harris’s talks, never followed it too deeply though, so I hadn’t spotted such obvious bias.

                It’s basically just Jews furthering the cause of the Jews, turning a blind eye now and again. Everybody does it, it’s just that these Jews are quite proficient.

                I find his stance on atheism in Judaism a bit funny. It was obvious to me for a while that for these guys Judaism isn’t a religion, but a race. I don’t think their apparent godlessness works in our favor, either.

              • Mark says:

                The atheism thing was what got me interested in Harris in the first place, as a non-believer, and listening to him I found his cleverness amusing. But then I started to really delve into the “Jewish question” more deeply – I had flipped on the holocaust some time ago, but then DenierBud led me to Kevin MacDonald, who led me to E. Michael Jones (who I would rate with Peter Dale Scott as the intellectual who has most influenced my thinking in the process of “waking up”) – and it was after I “got it” that I finally looked and confirmed that Harris was Jewish (as silly as that might seem, given he looks like Ben Stiller’s twin brother). The blinders were off at that point and my view of Harris changed completely.

                His work seems to put a box around these cultural issues and comparisons that limits them to religion and particularly religious dogma. So once he defines Jews as not particularly religious they basically have their “get out of jail free” card. And because he’s one of those non-believing Jews that applies to him as well – he doesn’t talk about what he’s actually doing, revving up hate and fear of Islamics and the consequences of that; the only evil here is the guy who straps on the suicide bomb vest supposedly seeking 72 virgins, and not the guy who helps create an atmosphere that leads to indiscriminate bombing of innocents in open warfare. Very clever.

                It’s not like he doesn’t have disputes with other Jews on this and other angles of his “work”, rather that just points up the extent to which Jews dominate intellectual life in America and the west. So they can conduct these activities in a way that even they might not believe exhibits a cultural bias. An example of that is a discussion on Russia between Stephen Cohen and Ken Roth moderated by Amy Goodman on Zionism Now! a couple weeks ago that I watched, where there were differing viewpoints but where you are effectively getting an entirely Jewish view that operates to set the mainstream bounds of the universe on the thing. Another example is this little video blurb quoting the “extreme” position that Harris has taken on Jewish persecution, with the counter from another secular Jewish intellectual: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5KF2_zgIzQ

                So Harris can be very critical of political correctness, even though that’s basically a Jewish invention propagated by Jews for the benefit of Jews through social control. It’s not going to make it go away, rather it serves to define the universe of acceptable thought – are you going to practice PC and not see cultural differences even when they are damaging your culture, or are you going to deny PC and support war against Islam? Either way you’re screwing yourself.

                This stuff has a significant impact on our culture and thinking, I believe, once you multiply it by all the other like voices out there and the platforms they are given. So Jews and Jewish-influenced thinking dominates the public space, this the consequence of the combination of their cultural intentions and priorities, their intellect, the impact of their wealth, and also their cultural chutzpah, which I think is viewed as a very positive trait in that culture, particularly related to their out-group interactions.

                That’s part of Harris’ cleverness, even if it’s subconscious, the manipulation of the goyim. I think you can see this in this little piece with Dave Rubin: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0H2PUOrHDA He’s seemingly dancing on the edge of danger there (in terms of polite discourse), but the real message is much more straightforward, and you can see his smirkiness in delivering that message. It’s kind of the same as him saying countries shouldn’t have holocaust denial laws that jail people for thought crime, rather people questioning that story should just be outcast and treated as social pariahs for the remainder of their miserable existence. How generous! Btw, this is one of the very, very few times I have ever heard Harris refer to himself as a Jew.

                Yesterday I came across this big piece of work from someone who clearly considers Harris to be an important player in the building of the dominant narrative: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TarjxPMcid0&t=5s I think that sort of shows how visible he is in the thinking mainstream (assuming that’s not a contradiction!), and so how impactful his crypsic messaging can be.

            • mkey says:

              What you stated about how these camps were mentioned during the trials, even if very VERY briefly, a point concisely conveyed by Denier Bud, makes me only think that they wanted to have a decent framework for future development. Pretty much like they wanted to weed out all the completely imbecilic stories and not have them entered into the record.
              Like the one stating that a moving electrified floor was used to perform both mass killings and corpse disposal.

              • Mark says:

                I thought it was electrified floors with trap doors and an underground rail system to transport the bodies? Anyway, my take has been more that these were filler stories at Nuremberg, smaller, temporary and kind of meaningless camps, with only a handful of “survivors” to testify to anything, and maybe a few Germans who more than “cooperated” through torture-induced testimonials. But it didn’t really matter much at the time, just more war atrocities to hang on the Germans before those Germans got hanged themselves. Then much later, perhaps when someone like Hilberg was trying to jam anything close to 6M bodies into the whole story, they got filled out as major killing centers, to up the counts. And because they were death camps only it’s not like anyone would expect a lot of witnesses to the story. A good place to stash 1.5M corpses without much work.

              • mkey says:

                Yes, I very much agree, very plausible.

                I expressed myself shabbily, “moving floor” sounded good in my brain. It was the “electrified trap door with underground railroad corpse deployment system” thing. Which the judge at the trial didn’t want to admit as testimony, proving he had an IQ of 80+.

  19. M says:

    Regarding the Rockefellers and Climate Change this is a very interesting recent article:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/21/science/exxon-mobil-rockefellers-climate-change.html?_r=0

    Exxon Mobil is accusing the Rockefellers of conspiracy against the company and it is also said that the Rockefellers have been disinvesting themselves out of fossil fuels. In my mind the reason the oil companies are funding environmental organisations is that it serves as good PR, perhaps some control over the organisations and then the good people inside those companies that actually care about the envinronment since even if man made climate change is not real, we are as human race facing really serious environmental problems and one would have to be indenial not to admit that. That being said the only scientist, who I have personally encountered who has studied the subject, said that man made global warming is BS or irrelevant since we are heading to new Ice Age. That person was a teacher in school circa 2002 and that is really not a popular view out here in Finland.

    Also what I think we need to take in account is that even if some things are funded by presumably “bad people” or suspects, that does not mean that they might not be right. I dont think anyone considers the experiation dates on milk a bad thing even though they exist thanks to Al Capone.

  20. HomeRemedySupply says:

    Neocons “Foreign Policy Initiative”
    I would love seeing Corbett lay out all these Neocon players (along with their newer generation of minions) during Obama, Hillary and soon to be Trump.

    It is very evident that the Neocons are behind this “Russian hacking” ploy. They have gained a lot of mileage with it. And they even use the “Russian con” in order to strike back at their nemesis, The Alternative Media.

    All these characters. I am just not that familiar with some of the names and their roles in this more recent era.
    I need a Playbill, with an in depth description on the “Cast of Characters”.

    Russia / Neocons / Robbie Martin – Short clip
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybmh7rbC–Q&feature=youtu.be&t=1m37s

    • HomeRemedySupply says:

      P.S.
      It is my contention that the “Fake News” charade is part of the Neocon plan. They have to take out Corbett Report and the like. Their agenda is jeopardized by Truthful Media.
      We know for certain that the Neocons want a scrap with Russia. So we know from whence this “Russia bad guy” talk is coming from.

      • mike jay says:

        Right, but and even more, I think they’ll use this in many other ways. Say, when a story gets too sticky that they are planting in the public consciousness they can just say “it was fake”.

        They can track stories back to where they say the “real” news sources accidentally reported “fake” news from, umm, “unnamed” sources, willly-nilly social media or wherever. This could get to the point where it’s played out essentially the same as the “faulty intelligence” about WMD’s in Iraq.

        And they are openly faking it themselves. The two links below show this (unless it’s fake LoL). It’s making it acceptable to lie on what seems a wider spread scale and no worries about it mattering at all…

        “Police use ‘fake news’ in gang ruse; media criticize tactics as dishonest”…
        http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-fake-news-california-20161203-story,amp.html
        – LA Times

        “California police use fake news release in gang plot that experts say erodes trust”…
        https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/05/california-police-use-fake-news-release-in-gang-plot-that-experts-say-erodes-trust
        – The Guardian

        BUT HEY, this was about crime prevention! So it’s good! Most people will think that.

        That story has been addressed in episodes here already. Sorry if redundant but they so well illustrate what’s coming.
        The whole thing brings chills to me.

        [both links are same news story]

      • BuddhaForce says:

        Neocons for Hillary: Obama “Doesn’t Want Nuclear War”
        http://mediaroots.org/exclusive-obama-doesnt-want-nuclear-war-neocons-for-hillary/

        These psychopaths have no qualms about nuclear war…

        QUOTE
        Robbie Martin: I wanted to know what your feeling was on Hillary’s approach to Ukraine, is she going to send the weapons to the Ukrainian army?

        Robert Kagan: I mean, I’m sure, I mean the answer to that question is I don’t know. I know she cares a lot about Ukraine and certainly cares more about it than the current president does

        Robbie Martin: With arms, why do you think the president has sort of dragged his feet?

        Robert Kagan: Uh, because he said to me because he doesn’t want to get into a nuclear war with Russia.

        Robbie Martin: That’s literally what he said?

        Robert Kagan: Yeah, I don’t think…he’s not…he’s through with his agenda with Putin, I don’t think he cares about Putin anymore at all, I think he’s hopeless–uh, he thinks Putin is hopeless, but he says, he thinks Ukraine is part of Russian sphere of influence, and it means more to them than it means to us and therefore we shouldn’t escalate in a situation like that, that’s why he doesn’t want to send arms.

        Robbie Martin: He actually said he doesn’t want a nuclear war over Ukraine?

        Robert Kagan: He did, ‘I don’t want to have a nuclear war over Ukraine’–my response is well who do you want to have a nuclear war over? Do you want to have a nuclear war over Estonia? I’ll go down the list, Germany? If that’s your going in position, then okay, fine. Whatever nuclear countries don’t want, we won’t do.

    • Ragnar says:

      I’d like to see a Corbett Report on the Neocons as well. But, I feel that the Oogabooga Russian hacking is being used the same way Muslim extremists have been used. To further “their” control of aspects like the Internet and personal freedoms. To grind the people’s idea of sovereignty and freedom and to inch forward the whole police/surveillance state. I’m leaning toward the globalists playing a key role as well. Even though I never heard a real American ask for it, we are told that after 9/11 the people begged for more security. Security only the government could provide by stripping away constitutional rights.

  21. macburns says:

    I have also struggled to understand why big oil is propagandizing us to believe that we are in a climate change crisis and need to get off oil. The way I see it is that they have worked very long and craftily to make the entire world dependent on oil, so at any moment they can whip the petroleum rug they have woven, right out from underneath us. Then what…?

    • Ragnar says:

      I’ve thought about this as well. Maybe to get out in front of the topic? And to have a seat at the table where “solutions” are discussed. Getting off fossil fuels would take 100 years, even if the scientific world were all working with that as its goal. Working toward this would also drive prices for it up, which these corporate heads lust for. I really don’t think “they” care that their industry might only last another century. I think they are greedy and they don’t care whether they are a part of the problem or a part of the solution. Only that they get filthy rich in the process.

      I can see them pushing global warming, as it stands. Mainly because people and companies who provide approved solutions, like carbon credits and such will reap massive profits from all the hype and hysteria. Especially if there are more ecological acts or terrorism. Floods, hurricanes, earthquakes etc… Not even taking geoengineering or the weapons that have been rumored to exist that can cause seemingly natural disasters to occur. (Yes that’s fairly far out there, I’m aware).

      • Ragnar says:

        I wanted to toss in that corporations who donate money to ecological organizations could fluff up their poof reputations. Give them positive PR. Even if no one believed them benevolent, the illusion is all that matters where they are concerned. I saw a lot of it after the 2010 BP WMD attack on the gulf. Loads of commercials and news segments showing how sensitive and empathetic BP is to the concerns of the public and damage the deluge caused. It was all a sham though. Their “efforts” were surface efforts and when the cameras left, so did the money.

  22. decon$ume says:

    James,

    I am a big fan. And as a social scientist I am typcially a sceptic when it comes to most ‘scientific positions’ particularly when they are propagandised with such force as has been the case with ‘climate change’.

    I was however disappointed with your reply to craig.j’s question about the climate debate, particulary with respect to the Big Oil’s funding of climate change research. Correct me if I’m wrong but I understood your argument as follows:

    1. Oil companies donate to environmental groups
    2. Therefore it’s illogical to suggest that Oil Companies are funding anti-global warming campaigns.

    If this is indeed your position, the conclusion does not follow from the premise and is an example of an either/or fallacy. Eg. either big oil is funding environmental groups or they are funding anti global warming groups.

    Just because Big Oil funds environmental groups doesn’t mean they don’t fund anti-global warming groups as well. There are plenty of reasons they may choose to do both, too many to mention here..

    I hope you can address / clarify this point in more detail in the future content you create on this issue.

    A//E

  23. martin.h says:

    Nothing new here I’m sure. A continuation of the question about climate change. Why not make climate changers feel more at home here?

    Preamble: I think that the degradation of the environment under the weight of industrialization and the externalization of costs, the problem of the commons and all that, is accelerating and fast making parts of the planet uninhabitable. Fukushima, the Middle East, GMO, fracking, etc etc.. While the question of what processes are causing this degradation is of vital importance to science and finding remedies to reverse the damage, the way forward to minimise further degradation seems clear, we know how to begin. I wasn’t too familiar with the arguments about how a false climate change consensus might be used politically to tighten the noose, so thanks very much for that perspective. Another idealogical weapon to be clubbed over the head with along with all the others, perhaps in particular to be used to marshall us towards yet tighter controls, like terrorism, I can see what you mean, but also as another debate to polarise and divide us, the right versus the left. I get it. Yet at the end of the day I remain sympathetic to the general notion underlying a belief in climate change – we are stuffing the planet and we need to stop. It seems to me that is why so many people so readily believe.

    Question: Technological advances in solar energy, batteries etc that many climate change believers want to see accelerated not only promise to reduce our environmental impact but offer a way forward towards decentralization and energy independence – facilitating the type of political system advocated here. Why not emphasize ones common purpose of protecting the environment with the climate change movement and seek shared solutions where these occur while keeping focused on the application of these solutions to political change? Looking after the environment even implies a new political system – I think many climate change believers could expand their view to include political change while anarchists could deploy their technology to realise increased freedom from the state. Sharing each other’s views and solutions would enrich the debate. Here in Australia the uptake of home solar is just as much an ‘up yours’ to the energy incumbents as a nod to the environment. While peoples goals aren’t explicitly anarchic they could be. One almost imagines a place where the left and the right might meet. If you head off in a straight line and go far enough do you return from the other side? Maybe you end up at the Corbett Report!

    • Mark says:

      “A continuation of the question about climate change. Why not make climate changers feel more at home here?”

      “One almost imagines a place where the left and the right might meet. If you head off in a straight line and go far enough do you return from the other side? Maybe you end up at the Corbett Report!”

      Uh, no – at least not currently. I agree with your preamble on climate change, and I still find the case for climate corporate/government conspiracy incredibly weak – in this case a big deal about a scientific group not wanting to make the effort to provide a lot of data to another scientist or two who are known to already be climate “deniers”; overall, there’s basically nothing that I’ve seen that would logically explain the rationale and intentions behind this grand covert effort. Climate change has moved to the forefront and so has become hugely politicized, and that has all kinds of aspects and effects. You can pick through that anecdotally and make cases for all kinds of things.

      Rather I think this is one of the more clear aspects of CR and the CR community that shows its foundation is on the right, even if rather radical right (libertarian/anarchic), and so effectively the adoption/retention of a fundamentally right position on something. I think there are multiple reasons for that, but that’s not really important here.

      My feeling is one of those steps (like turning off the MSM) to true political enlightenment and intellectual freedom is to abandon this right-left paradigm and to instead analyze everything on its merits, as best that can be done. I tend to think of that paradigm not as a linear concept but as a circle, and one views it as looking at a loop from the side. So it looks like a line but as one moves out to the far right and left edges become blurred, and eventually the loop circles back out of sight. Somewhere out there the truly radical right and left meet again, but you have to figure out what that means, because it’s not visible to all in the way our traditional political center is; it’s not the same thing. Just a way of describing or conceptualizing it, and it’s that area “back there” that we have to figure out, where we need to meet.

      • martin.h says:

        Well said, I completely agree. It is interesting that multi-perspective view, the curvature of political space, a sort of paradigm shift that might add a dimension, the line becomes a circle – a plane. This year has pointed to something like it slightly – eg Bernie/Trump. And I agree to get there it will take some active thinking, some effort rather than the dumbing down and sloganising that happens in the ‘real news’, an individual challenge. Thanks. Would you see anarchism as a possible description of the area ‘back there’?

        • Mark says:

          I think any radical idea about forms of governance and organization of society that doesn’t really exist in the current political world or doesn’t have advocates in the mainstream belongs “back there” somewhere. That would include the various anarchical concepts. I think over time these things evolve into view and eventually can become a reality, but probably in a form materially different than what people might envision now.

          I’m not at all an advocate of anarchy, because I just don’t think you can create such a vacuum of power and expect that it won’t get filled, and very likely in a negative way. I think some form of what we call government is a necessity in organizing society in anything approaching a positive way. I think materialism, wealth and the monetizing of that is the real matter driving much of the problems today, and as long as that is the basis of the worldview and underlies the definition of freedom or liberty there are going to be big problems. I think the anarchism envisioned by most people today is just an extreme version of libertarianism, and that in turn a radical version of conventional right-wing politics or Republicanism in US terms, so it’s built on a foundation of that same thinking – materialist, free-market capitalist, anti-regulatory, anti-government generally, anti-democratic.

          In a similar way I think of the flaws in radical left political philosophy, which I now consider to be infected with what is ultimately hostile and self-serving Jewish thinking in some important ways. It also seems to largely be stuck in an earlier era and so is in serious need of a refresh.

          In any case, I don’t think it’s all that useful to be fixated on that sort of theoretical goal, because it just isn’t practical in any way, it’s not like the world is going to suddenly become some anarchic utopia, in the same way that it’s not going to suddenly become some Marxist utopia. I suppose it’s good to think about these things in the sense of having conceptualized a defined desired direction or goal, but it’s more important to work on having an understanding of how the real world actually works, who wields the power and in what sort of desirable and undesirable ways, and what can be done to change that, most importantly I think in raising consciousness. Getting fixated on something like anarchy can be counter to this, because it’s easy to start thinking of all government as evil, and then one can be stuck in the trap of absolutism or structuralism, and nothing useful from a practical standpoint gets accomplished.

          • martin.h says:

            I like that you include materialism in your list of causes. I think I have heard James arguing that an anarchic system can only evolve in concert with our evolving ideas – that we are not quite ready. I read Schiller’s letters on aesthetics not so long ago, a bit aside from the point but maybe not, quite similar, the state as a necessary midwife to such a raising of consciousness if it doesn’t fall into corruption – a controversial idea but worth a thought. I really agree with all that though, thanks, got me thinking.

            • Mark says:

              Here is I think a useful definition of anachism: theory that equality and justice are to be sought through the abolition of the state and the substitution of free agreements between individuals. Central to anarchist thought is the belief that society is natural and that men are good but are corrupted by artificial institutions. Also central in anarchism are the belief in individual freedom and the denial of any authority, particularly that of the state, that hinders man’s development.

              That suggests a different mentality than what most people seem to have under our current (corrupting) system. One of my criticisms of both the right and left on radical systems of governance (beyond the Jewish influence on both) is that these are ideas promulgated at least a century and a half ago, probably fulminating out of enlightenment, the late 18th century revolutions, and as a reaction to the industrial revolution. The 19th was also the century of utopianism, right? So I think these are largely ideas of their time and not ours, and they have this unrealistic utopian aspect.

              So I think we are in need of a refresh, and answers that reflect today’s sense of reason, which is based on a level of experience those thinkers didn’t have access to, and which can result in answers which can be applied to this post-industrial age. An example of this situation might be global warming, which simply isn’t something the thinkers of the mid-19th century would have contemplated dealing with, and it’s not something that really fits into their work product today, if we’re talking about anarchism. The world is much smaller and much more populated than the one those notions were built on.

              I think the other thing is that a basic given in the notion of anarchism in this definition is the fundamentally negative nature of the state, and that isn’t necessarily a given. I think there’s an assumption that man is somehow better than his institutions, or perhaps that man can get better but his institutions can’t, and that doesn’t really make sense to me. I do think it’s natural for people to have this kind of reaction during times of abuse by states, and you have to say that’s the mood that applies today. I tend to think of the situation as similar to a person with lung cancer – you can cut out the lung and be rid of the cancer, but you’re left with someone with only one lung. Except that I think it’s perhaps a more accurate analogy to cut out both the lungs…

              I don’t really know much about Schiller – he’s the sturm und drang guy, right? Generally I don’t think we should be throwing out the old philosophers at all, they are the foundation if selected properly, but I kinda think we need a new generation of that sort. And if the leading philosopher of our time is Michel Foucault, then you can see why we’re in serious trouble… 😉

              • martin.h says:

                Ha ha, Foucault, for sure! I agree all those abstractions can be enjoyable to think about but are not necessarily useful. Thanks for that definition. Our institutions were at least sometimes the product of free/creative individuals and helped our progress so I agree they can evolve and can be useful. Is the idea that when our consciousness has been sufficiently ‘raised’ we won’t rely on others and we will be able to come up with our own ‘institutions’ spontaneously? Here’s a question: do you think the raised consciousness in a stateless society relies on a common underlying morality? I guess that is implied by your phrase ‘raised consciousness’ already. Is there an objective morality? I always get worked over by friends when I suggest that maybe legal systems are only there to stop bad until we can ‘see’ good. Few have much faith in human nature and so prefer the state to enforce a moral order, a hurdle we need to overcome. I think we should be exploring such questions more. Relativism taken too far might also be another one of those causes of our current predicament while a philosophical basis for a shared morality could help. There are a few contemporary advocates I believe, not none!

              • Mark says:

                I don’t think a stateless society is a real-world scenario, so I don’t know what it would rely on in the vaporworld of theory. I think morality is both an innate characteristic and a learned trait, and there are always going to be differences in morality and levels of adherence to that among individuals. And remember that there are a lot of sociopaths out there, and that these individuals tend to rise to positions of power, exactly because they don’t act on conscience.

                More than the “who will build the roads?” question on anarchy, I think the real issue relates to how such a society would cope with brutal power, meaning basically armed gangs of thieves and oppressors. This is the ubiquitous scenario in post-apocalyptic books and movies, and I think there’s a good reason for that, everyone knows almost instinctively that is the first impulse of a certain slice of society. To some extent states are an evolution of that, but they are also the remedy. To some extent states create this kind of behavior as well, but they also control it, limit it. So maybe the questions is, what is the balance, do they exacerbate the situation more than they ameliorate it?

                In any case, I don’t think extreme antisocial behavior simply goes away with the removal of the state, as theoretical as that question is.

                What I think raising consciousness (in the immediate sense I meant it) does is gets people focused on the actual issues and acting on them. Humans are an adaptive species and a social and cooperative one which relies on leadership initiative, so to a great extent people will settle for their lot in life and make the best of it, even if it could be better, especially through cooperative effort. But give them a push, an incentive, and they will react, they will act cooperatively. That does require a kind of group consciousness, though, which is where the raising of that is critical.

                Something like the Trump election is an example, as weak as that was as a societal reaction. I don’t think there was much raised consciousness involved, I just think people knew on a more basic level that there were serious problems, and so reacted in an almost instinctive, child-like manner. But if that instinct could be better informed, if people had a better understanding of the true nature of the matter and if that consciousness had coalesced in a more apparent and visible way, then the actions, the choices, the outcome would have been more positive, more corrective. Instead the Trump election is more like a kid getting angry, picking up a rock and throwing it at someone or something – the situation likely will just get worse. It’s the same as people wanting to go to war with Iraq after 9/11, when our institutions treated us like children.

                I think we can do a lot better, but that requires us to change our fundamental thinking. Materialism is part of that, the pursuit of things and measuring success by the size of the pile. It’s distraction, and a controlling mechanism. Sex is the same thing, sexual liberation as political control (with Foucault as the anti-Christ in this regard!); that’s why they’re pushing all this LBGT crap at us. Drugs and alcohol, TV, it’s all part of what keeps us down, because it seems to help make the current situation more tolerable, distracts us, puts us to sleep. Then there’s the burden of the nature of our education and information systems on the development of what should be the intellectual leadership segment; they end up locked into the system more than anyone.

                Clear out all of that and who knows what might happen, who knows what sort of state and institutions we’d develop. But I ramble on too long, time to go back to sleep…

  24. mkey says:

    James,

    I’d like to hear your opinion on the matter of LFTRs. I had presented this issue once before, but I was probably overlooked.

    https://eic.rsc.org/section/feature/is-thorium-the-perfect-fuel/2000092.article

    LFTR is a shorthand for Liquid fluoride thorium reactor, pronounced lifter. These reactors appear to be the answer to the (probably ensuing and almost certainly artificially created) energy crisis. Over standard and predominantly used PWR and LWR types of reactors, LFTR offers an incredibly wast array of advantages.

    Firstly, instead of scarce uranium 235, 4 times as abundant thorium is used as fuel. Thorium is globally available and does not need to be enriched. Occurrence of thorium in Earth’s crust is comparable to led, while that of uranium 235 is equivalent to silver.

    Secondly, fuel usage efficiency for LFTR should be beyond 99%. Comparing that figure to 0.5-0.8% fuel efficiency presented by current PWR and LWR requires no imagination from the viewer. More fuel efficiency means a lot less bad byproducts. To make matters even better, much of that remaining 1% can be used in medicine, for space exploration etc. The amount of bad byproducts as compared to uranium reactors would be near 10.000 less.

    Thirdly, LFTR is inherently more secure than PRW/LWR. Low pressure fluids are used for heat transmission and in case of a catastrophic failure, the reactor can be setup in such a way to shut the fusion process automatically. This also means a lot less redundancy, making the entire installation far less expensive.

    There are more advantages, but I don’t want to make your work even easier 😛

    Disadvantages:
    – very cheap electricity for all of humanity. After R&D costs of trillions (basically, one could make Pentagon pay for it to cover its debts) Kirk Sorensen estimates production costs for such a plant should be comparable to standard coal or gas electrical plants
    – massive shifts in geopolitical spheres of influence, with an abundant source of energy, million times more dense than your standard hydrocarbons, raw oil exporters would become nobodies overnight
    – massive losses for giant corporations still grasping to lucrative fuel production contracts
    – no energy market manipulations

    I understand you may not be well versed in technology, but I find this issue to be the most important non social issue of our time.

  25. zyxzevn says:

    On one side the big users of carbon based fuel have a good reason to push the research into the direction that they want. They want to avoid any responsibility or loss of profits. These present any environmental problem as a minor problem. I don’t agree with these group of “climate-deniers”. But I agree with most of the scepticism as it is presented by real scientists that dare to point out some of the corruptions going on. Other scientists seem to have forgotten to be self-criticizing.

    The actual climate research, stripped from all the fake data, does not present any big catastrophe. The real scientists also confirm this in their models. The climate is a self balancing system, due to life itself. This means that the earth is hotter only a little bit. Yet in the news we see over and over again that “the end of the world is near”. These are not scientists, these are prophets pretending to be scientists.

    There is a reason why the climate is presented as a catastrophe. And CO2 as the only cause? There are so many other factors in play.

    We can see some of the producers of oil sponsoring the scientists on catastrophic global warming. This is not because they want to “make things good”. It is because of more profit. If they wanted to make things good, they should stop pumping oil instead.

    The oil industry is owning most of the science institutes, so it is very easy for them to block certain science reports. Did you see any report of the damage caused by oil-disasters? They have been catastrophic, but instead we get presented CO2 as the biggest threat on earth.

    The scare for oil and coal makes it possible for them to buy oil-fields cheap from current owners. They also push the closing of coal-mines. With that they can establish oil-monopolies. And we are still going to use oil, whatever laws may be coming.

    But I do not think it is about the oil. The US-money is related to oil. The oil price has been very high for some time and companies like “Deutsche Bank” paid a lot of money for contracts that ensured a fixed price for oil. With the price collapsing, these organisations are now nearly bankrupt.

    With the introduction of carbon tax, the world will need a global money system. Money that is still related to oil anyway. This means that the oil-field owners may be taking over the global banking system.

  26. Greg Bacon says:

    Another huge bunker complex is for the Walton Gang, the pirates that own Wal Mart.

    http://www.filmsforaction.org/watch/the-walton-familys-secret-underground-bunker/

    When the SHTF, they can be safely ensconced in their bunker, making love to their fortune.

    As for climate change…Here in the Midwest, we’re going to have temps in the 50’s and 60’s on Xmas day. 30 years ago, one could stop mowing the yard around mid-October, since it got cold enough and stayed that way, so the grass would go dormant. Last year, was still mowing the yard in mid-December. This year, only to Thanksgiving.

    We should have a national effort to start switching over to renewable sources, like Costa Rica, which is 100% renewable power. But rich assholes like the COCK brothers have an enormous amount of money invested in oil fields, oil and NG pipelines and refineries, like the ones that the Canadian tar sands oil will be shipped to.

    But what they hey, let’s dump that problem on our kids and grandkids, like all our other problems!

    • mkey says:

      We have a rather warm winter here as well, your point being?

      Do you realize that “money” invested in oil is dwarfed by “money” invested in the military keeping those oil routes “safe”?

      • Mark says:

        Once the middle east is fully destabilized and balkanized and project Greater Israel is complete, and our brothers in yamakas control the region’s oil supply and the world is paying $250 a barrel (including the “reparations tax”), then will it be time to start getting really serious about renewable energy and reduction in use? 😉

        • mkey says:

          I think you’re conflating one to many issues here.

          Firstly, is there any actual proof oil isn’t a renewable source of energy? How is it exactly created? I stopped believing that dinosaur leftover bullshit a while back. There’s quite a lot of processes going on in Earth’s crust and I find it possible oil isn’t very much finite at all. Sure, I guess deposits can dry out, which doesn’t mean they will all dry out or that they don’t replenish over time.
          And I’m not referring to the fact that, even if it was a finite source it will never dry out completely, because there will always be leftover deposits which are too deep to make profit.
          If they do replenish, I wouldn’t be surprised if people making money on them would have their motives to keep the information suppressed.

          Secondly, how much energy do we really need to live comfortably? Do standard renewable energy sources provide enough power to cover all that we need? Does anyone really think the world can go full solar or wind? These plants can be very useful in certain areas and required technologies are becoming more and more affordable, but on a more global level I don’t find that to be doable. You can go partly solar and thus lower your impact on the habitat for a low cost and practically zero loss in comfort, however most of the “modern” infrastructure isn’t well suited for making even the most modest of changes. Therefore, I ask, how much would we need to change to achieve a certain degree of power usage reduction?

          As a blanket measure, reductions will only lead to further disparity. It makes me sad so many people don’t realize that. Also, people should realize that these alternative sources of energy are ripe with failed policy measures and are often backed by very same people who appear to stand to lose the most if by some chance alternative became the norm.

          Regarding your political implications, I’ll refer you to the post I made just a few scrolls above. It’s plainly evident oil price has no correlation with scarcity.

          • Mark says:

            You make some valid points there, but I think it’s mostly a matter of point of view. I am reasonably convinced that burning billions of gallons of oil isn’t at all good for the biosphere. I don’t think oil is quick-regenerating “blood of the earth”. I think the reliance on cheap oil has led to a great number of negative developments in our world, particularly in the US, where things like suburbanization and urban sprawl are directly placed at its feet. And the nature of the current destructive manufacturing paradigm, go where the labor is cheapest, is utterly dependent on oil-based transportation. I think it’s also contributed to overpopulation, which has been dependent on mechanization of agriculture. I just think the world would be a better place overall without massive amounts of relatively cheap oil to burn, and that’s without getting into the wars we have fought, the corrosive corporate power of the humongous oil companies, etc.

            My point on Israel was that the 9/11 wars were not fought over oil, at least in the commonly-perceived sense; I think they’re fought exactly for the benefit of Israel, to break down the Arab world. The next step, after we finish the “Wesley Clark project”, is for Israel to impose their will on whatever is left, and take control over the bulk of the world’s readily-available oil supply. That doesn’t mean an increase in price based on supply-and-demand, rather it means another huge piece of the economic control structure falling under this predatory, viral criminal culture. The one good thing I can think of about big oil today is that it’s generally not under the control of the Jewish oligarchs (and we can thank Putin for a piece of that), but that doesn’t mean it’ll stay that way.

          • mkey says:

            Most stuff you said there I find agreeable, but I don’t see how does that reference my reply to Greg Bacon above.

            My point in that reply was that there are some climate changes (or instability in certain areas) going on, but that there is no actual proof the problem is man made or caused by human actions. I also replied to what I found was a false paradigm, the “oil money” which is a very complex issue. In other words, there are a lot factors which should play a role when putting a price tag on a barrel of raw oil, but they are deferred and treated as unrelated costs. Oil is actually very expensive when you consider all the extra expenses.

            To name one, the military, which again serves its own purpose. Like the fact that US imports wast majority of its oil needs from routes other than those where its most heavily invested militarily. Trillions upon trillions are wasted on “securing” these oil routes, and then about 10% of US oil needs are met from these destinations in the middle east. One can not make this stuff up, it’s completely insane. Utter madman are left in charge, what would one expect? Mad men making mad decisions.

            I absolutely agree that we’re very wasteful in our western and quasi western way of life. But that’s a layered infrastructural problem which can’t be solved by simply tossing renewable sources at it. Proper issues need to be addressed in proper order.

            If a man came to a doctor stating that his cranium has cracked due to his pounding against the wall, the solution wouldn’t be to equip the man with a disposable forehead which he could replace when the need arose, but to see to the core of the issue: why the hell is he banging his head against the wall?

            Why are we living such wasteful lives? I’ll name just some of the structural problems:
            – bad and outdated construction practices coupled with bad regulation leading to overpriced, badly insulated, non lasting housing
            – terrible traffic planning and organization, investment into obsolete technologies a.k.a. personal cars based on 40% theoretical fuel efficiency, even worse when you consider people typically travel alone in their cars
            – zoning, where distance is put between the places people “work” and “live” just so that even more expenditures are pressed on people because “spending is good for the economy.”

            • Mark says:

              “My point in that reply was that there are some climate changes (or instability in certain areas) going on, but that there is no actual proof the problem is man made or caused by human actions.”

              This isn’t a court of law, this is the entirety of existence we’re talking about here. If even two-thirds of appropriately skilled and knowledgeable scientists agreed that the level of CO2 emissions was causing a small degree of warming of the earth generally and that would have an impact, that’s enough for me. And I tend to think it’s a lot more than two-thirds. What is the real downside here? It’s not like everyone is going to jail. Yes, there is a cost and inconvenience, but how much is that, and what is the benefit after?

              I don’t really have a dog in the fight here, I’ll probably be dead in another 25-30 years and will leave no one behind, I have no children. So I don’t know how thinking people who do react on this issue, based on that knowledge and responsibility. I’m sure some elevate it to the level of the most vital matter in the world today, and I’m sure some resort to denial, because they just can’t or don’t want to deal with it. Me, I think this business of pointing toward oil companies “funding” climate change organizations today as proof that it’s a scam is just silliness – how often do giant corporations try to influence potential roadblocks with the corrupting power of their millions? What did we learn from the tobacco issue? Anyway, that’s not your point, but regarding the CR consensus here, I doubt anyone in this community has the scientific skills and knowledge, and the objectivity, to really inform on this matter. So what we’re seeing here is predisposition, personal desire, the impact of influence, etc. and that’s about it.

              “I absolutely agree that we’re very wasteful in our western and quasi western way of life. But that’s a layered infrastructural problem which can’t be solved by simply tossing renewable sources at it.”

              I think the US is on a different level than Europe in this matter, so you can’t quite spread it over the western world. Europe has historically been paying much higher oil costs, they have older cities and traditional lifestyles which aren’t nearly so much built on oil, and they have been pursuing alternative energy sources much more than over here. Throwing in the big US oil companies and the military angle you mention, I think this is really a US-focused matter more than anything else.

              What I see in your comments is what I would think of as the language of a typical right-wing perspective in many ways – you blame regulation and zoning, because of course it’s significantly the government’s fault. I think governments have played a role, but that’s largely been that they have responded to the power of giant corporations, best seen in the cartel that conspired to destroy the urban rail systems in this country in the ’50s. That along with the construction of expressways and the social engineering project that broke up white residential neighborhoods in inner cites resulted in suburbanization and urban sprawl. That is the legacy of “the greatest generation”. Government responds to its constituencies, and you and I know who makes up the parts of that with real influence. But we were also living on a sea of cheap oil in those days, and the negatives weren’t even in sight yet.

              If you cut down the oil supply it forces changes that simply aren’t going to happen otherwise – addicts don’t start cleaning up their lives until they deal with their addiction. Changing zoning laws and revising building regulation isn’t going to do anything. People will live closer together in smaller and better-insulated homes and closer to work when the cost and/or ability to do without that is too great. And they will do it willingly when the cultural imperatives don’t push them toward the big suburban house with the two-car garage on the big lot and in relative isolation from their neighbors.

              Climate change creates an opportunity to change the way we live in some very positive ways, and I think we’re all better off if we embrace that change, no matter the motivation. I think on the basics of that change you and I mostly agree.

            • mkey says:

              “If even two-thirds of appropriately skilled and knowledgeable scientists …”

              One third would be enough for me push the panic button, but where are these people? The scientific community has been coopted like pretty much every other facet of this civilization.

              Yes, we do have an effect on our environment. Is our involvement raising CO2 levels in such manner it may prove to be instrumental to our ecosystem? I don’t know. Does this planet have certain mechanisms to deal with stuff like too much CO2? Yes, it does. Can the planet efficiently deal with all sorts of waste we throw at it? No.

              This may not be a court of law, but still we need to proceed based on facts, running around aimlessly won’t solve a thing. I’m not advocating “lets do nothing about this” approach nor I’m trying to minimize the effects of our influence on the surroundings. I am against climate change movement as is because these sort of affairs are always about something else. It pretty much never is about what it says on the tin and as such I reject it.

              What I’m trying to advocate for is proper methodology. Lets identify core problems, lets give them a proper name instead of a fake label and work toward resolving the core issues. Treat the cause, not the effects. Throwing public money at a yet undisclosed, undefined issue is not going to solve anything. There’s a lot astroturfing going on, these big companies are funding both sides of the argument… why? Because that’s what they always do and it works out great for them in the end. They just want more power and money and have practically limitless funding. If all you have is money, every problem must look like a bribe that hasn’t been payed yet.

              There’s far too much hypocrisy going around in the world today for people to be able to look at what they’re doing objectively. Taking matters into your own hands isn’t easy, either.

              I’m European, not that it matters, but wanted to make that clear. I’m not sure what’s right wing about (some of) my statements or positions, but I do not think along those terms. If you need to align me, that alignment would be chaotically neutral.

              It is true that European oil has always been more expensive here and its price has been kind of a pivotal point for most budgeting issues, but it also pays homage to insane bureaucracy going around in many failed socialists states on this continent. Or, as they call them, nation states, thanks to all the federalist bullshit.

              I’ll give one short example here, for local gas prices, calculated in US gallons and USD:

              1 gallon of gas with markup: 2,03
              fixed tax per gallon: 1,88
              VAT 25% (tax calculated on tax, INSANE): 0,98
              total USD per gallon: 4,98

              • Mark says:

                “One third would be enough for me push the panic button, but where are these people? The scientific community has been co-opted like pretty much every other facet of this civilization.”

                I think they’re out there, the problem is that they’re lost in all the noise. The way I look at this issue is that it seemed pretty clear what it was for several decades after the initial discoveries and projections were made, but that was fairly esoteric knowledge and there didn’t seem to be more in opposition to that than big oil companies eventually poo-pooing the whole business. But in this century it’s gotten very politicized as it’s risen to greater awareness, including a further reaction from the pro-climate change side relative to the lack of action and the loss of time. I don’t doubt that’s changed the nature of their approach, especially as more people started taking roles in that.

                My position remains based on my understanding of it in those early days, and I pretty much ignore the noise more recently. I don’t know how old you are or how far back you go on this, but I tend to think this is one of those cases where younger people being “born” into this issue and the nature of today’s decentralized information, understandable skepticism about the accuracy of that information, and “preaching to the choir” news habits all conspires against their ability to suss things out.

                “What I’m trying to advocate for is proper methodology. Lets identify core problems, lets give them a proper name instead of a fake label and work toward resolving the core issues. Treat the cause, not the effects.”

                Do you think that can even happen? I mean from your view. How do you know that hasn’t already happened and you’re just rejecting that, based on all the noise? I think this is the problem with something that is based entirely on science and isn’t really visible otherwise, in a capitalist, materialist society that is so corrupted by money and special interests. Think about the history of evolution theory, the opposition of the church as the power structure, and the reaction of all the believers who had their worldview threatened. In some sense the issue never gets resolved, but in that case it really doesn’t matter much.

                I don’t think this matter gets resolved either, because it’s just not something that humans have the ability to deal with, apparently. So either there will be a kind of environmental disaster or not, and unless it’s totally catastrophic the people in power will not skip a beat in adjusting to that, while millions and perhaps billions of powerless will suffer and perhaps die.

                “People running this show do not give a shit about you, me nor the planet.”

                Totally agreed.

              • mkey says:

                “How do you know that hasn’t already happened and you’re just rejecting that, based on all the noise?”

                Well, I know for a fact that some of the stuff I’d like to see going on isn’t going on. Like decentralization, less governance, more public organizations, locally grown food, sane and safe influx of technology into modern day lives etc.

                What I see now is just more of the same that’s being going on for decades now. A bunch of failed policies coupled with influx of religion into all facets of life (politics, banking, economy; all of that is just dogma today) leaves much to be desired. And people are completely drawn into it. Nobody seems to notice, nobody seems to care. I don’t know one single person in real life who appears concerned about these issues, people are just moving on and hoping for the best or whatever. Not one second is spent on thinking about what’s actually going on and why does this system require faith to function, instead of critical thinking and conscious, responsible decision making.

                As far as these matters are concerned, I’m about 7 years old. On average, I’d say I was happier and more complacent before, even if there was something bugging me for years. Now, after realizing some of the issues and none of the solutions, I don’t know where to turn next. The only thing that gives me a modicum of hope, something that may occur is to find a group of like minded individuals and start a settlements somewhere in a forest, deeper the better. It wouldn’t be bomb or ecological catastrophe proof, but it would be a start.

            • mkey says:

              As for renewable energy sources, EU has a tendency to cofinance these projects, that is until it runs out of money. Basically, the idea is to give public money to various state and privately owned electricity distributor companies so that they may purchase (at a higher price than they are actually selling) electricity produced from these (typically very expensive) plants based on renewable energy. Typically, what happens is that people take out loans to fund these plants and then by February the funding program runs out of money so John Doe can’t take care of his loans and goes belly up. Quite a few such solar plants have went under in Spain, but I’m sure some of the top officials made a nice bundle on John Doe’s grief.

              In my mind, measures like these do not even hint at a solution. These are nothing more but failed policies serving as short lasting news soundbites.

              The military angle IS a US centric issue, the whole of NATO couldn’t invade Iceland on their own. However, even if these troops are just for show, so that it doesn’t appear US is without any allies and those who think alike, it still is a common issue. People do not object to NATO and therefore NATO goes on. There is no reason to have it anymore (if ever there was one) so it should be abolished.

              The military industrial complex, on the other hand, is a 99.99% US centric issue. Europe is not nearly as financially involved with this industry, but it still plays a role and, like a good lap dog, goes along even against its own interest. Now, I’m not hinting at another false dichotomy here, this is not a EU vs US, people in power want a federal state of Europe to simplify ruling over many people coming from completely different cultures. By following the US model, which worked out great for them.

              I guess the general state of infrastructure in US is quite worse off than in core of Europe, which ties in with what you’re saying there (destroy decent public services and provide less efficient alternatives) but same problems have been going on in Europe as well. Public services gone private because “state can’t handle them efficiently” so they sell them for cents on a dollar. Same shit all my freaking life, they just rebrand it. Privatization, monetization, fuckyouization etc.

              While we do agree on the core issues, I do not think any sort of fake scarcity can make the situation better. I wasn’t implying that changing zoning rules could, either. What needs to happen is for people to start seeing through the bullshit on a massive scale. There is not one reason to believe that this false dogma of climate change can somehow automagically turn good and have positive (and completely unexpected) consequences. People running this show do not give a shit about you, me nor the planet.

          • mkey says:

            Access to energy sources of higher density is not a bad thing in itself. We’re just handling it very very badly. Access to cheaper and more efficient energy sources will lead to more freedom, the problem are the people who place themselves between us and it because they want to keep us in their stranglehold.

            The problem isn’t in the technology, but with these people and our inability to see through them.

            Suppose that tomorrow you woke up and found a strange device on your doorstep, delivered for free. After inspection, you realize that this device, in exchange for a small monthly charge, provides a very cheap source of electricity which you can use to power your home and your business; to charge your car; or even to produce your own hydrocarbon based fuel. Would that device empower your household or hold it back? What if that same device was delivered to everyone in your community?

            We will not remove from power these bastards if we just quit oil or whatever other source of energy. You only need to hang mean bastards, but mean bastards you need to hang. Our way of life needs to be revised. This false economy of consumption religion needs to be dumped. People need to unhook and start to see through the bullshit. The first thing they see won’t be peachy, but it will be the truth and the first step toward a better tomorrow.

  27. HomeRemedySupply says:

    Dec 23 2016 – Bloomberg –
    Ignoring Climate Change Just Got More Expensive
    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-12-23/ignoring-climate-change-just-got-more-expensive
    Obama’s “Social Cost of Carbon” – SCC –
    Quote:
    …these models to produce the “social cost of carbon” (SCC) at the heart of dozens of energy-related federal rules. The measure is expressed in dollars per ton of carbon dioxide emitted. The current U.S. estimate is about $40….

    ha!… in 100 years sea levels rising 6 feet.
    “Climate Change Could Cost U.S. Homeowners $1 Trillion”
    Short Bloomberg video from August 2016
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WW22o5uFEDw

  28. rich3 says:

    Excellent video as usual. My personal belief as to why the money powers are financing climate hysteria (clearly their funding is extremely one-sided) is that the writing is on the wall about their impending institutional apocalypse. The word is getting out about their scams especially the business models of the central banks (creation of “business cycles”, war-debt, real interest payments on virtual capital and the creation of an inflation gradient which funnels real goods to the top) and all the social control levers implicit in it. I think it’s pretty conclusive that those who control such machinations are certainly malthusian eugenicists if not outright satanist pedophiles, especially since the latter provides an express elevator to the top of the pyramid. It’s clear that they’re into killing for sport and social control. So what is their business angle on global warming? I think there are two: increased profits from increasing the premium on energy production, and ultimately deindustrialization and depopulation as tools of social control. Ask your typical indoctrinated and invested climate professor if there are too many people in the world and I think we can all guess the answer. So this agenda is an easy sell to those few credentialed opinionators whose cooperation is important to sell the myth to the rank and file sheeple in the lower echelons of the “scientific community”.

  29. HomeRemedySupply says:

    Dec 26 2016 (Thanks to Joe who spotted this.)
    America’s Top Climate Change Expert Sentenced To Jail For Fraud – The United States’ (EPA) highest paid climate change expert has been sentenced to 32 months in federal prison on fraud charges.
    http://yournewswire.com/climate-change-expert-jail-fraud/

    EXCERPT
    …Beale drew a $200,000 plus salary per year and regularly travelled around the world staying high end hotels – all at the taxpayer’s expense – while claiming to be saving the world from global warming as well as working for the CIA on covert assignments.

    What else do you think he has been lying about?….

    • mkey says:

      In other words, were this guy connected with CIA in any way, this wouldn’t be happening lol

      • HomeRemedySupply says:

        ha!…I am laughing!
        …yea, had Beale been with the CIA, he would had been laundering drug money through carbon credits, the prosecution dropped, and the Russians would be blamed for climate change.

        • nosoapradio says:

          Wooo!

          YOU HAVE MEDDLED WITH THE FORCES OF NATURE MR BEALE AND YOU WILL ATONE!

          Wait for Beale’s blockbuster movie “Catch me if you Can 2″-style” (produced by CIA Chase Brandon’s Entertainment Liason Office). The guy’ll finally realize his dream of “puffing up his image”, the New American Dream, existing on screen…
          Humiliating the CIA for years on end? is all the rage these days. Just ask Snowden!
          Talk about a revolving door…

  30. rich3 says:

    To me the biggest scientific red flags about AGW are

    1) the fact that their computer models are utterly worthless
    2) the infamous hockey stick showing a correlation between temp and CO2 actually shows something we’re not supposed to see: in the instances where the two variables diverge in the graph, the temperature ALWAYS PRECEDES the CO2 levels. In other words, if there is a causal connection between the two, it goes in the reverse direction: temperature drives CO2, not the other way around. And there are known mechanisms for how this could be: CO2 is less soluble in warmer ocean water and of course the ocean is a huge reservoir of CO2, and warmer soil emits CO2 faster through increased microbial activity.

    • nosoapradio says:

      Yea, pretty suspicious all that but for me the most suspicious aspects were the monolithically lucrative solutions concocted and imposed from on high to supposedly address the problem…

      And the utterly sacred nature of this particular unassailable truth with the menacing undertones:

      “Believe it or else!”

      Typcial institutional self-congratulatory Frat boy intimidation tactics…stinks to high heaven – dead giveaway.

    • HomeRemedySupply says:

      rich3,
      Spot on.

    • JerseyCynic says:

      http://manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2016/12/22/how-to-tell-whos-lying-to-you-climate-science-edition

      How To Tell Who’s Lying To You: Climate Science Edition

      “…..The coup de grace for the Hockey Stick graph came with the so-called Climategate emails, released in 2009. These were emails between and among many of the main promoters of the climate scare (dubbed by McIntyre the “Hockey Team”). Included in the Climategate releases were emails relating specifically to the methodology of how the graph was created. From the emails, skeptical researchers were then able to identify some of the precise data series that had been used by Mann et al. Astoundingly, they discovered that the graph’s creators had truncated inconvenient data in order to get the desired depiction. A website called Just the Facts has a detailed recounting of how this was uncovered. As a key example, consider this graph:

  31. Strandy says:

    Maybe some interesting articles from this site?
    http://principia-scientific.org

  32. Strandy says:

    Just did some dot connecting….. Could the Trump elections (making USA an official cooperate business company) and the cosy up to Russia be a good starting point for making OWG look reasonable??? Total cooperate takeover! hmmm….

  33. Strandy says:

    And some add ons to previous post…. All leading nations and institutions seems to slowly have become business models excluding any influence from individuals allowing for a non existing entity “Company” to rule the world at large, could this be the way to OWG or calling it “one world company” instead making individual influence obsolete???????

  34. HomeRemedySupply says:

    Questions For Corbett

    Internet & News Monetization (sub-heading “Fake News”)

    I am old school from the days of hand written letters. I am somewhat unfamiliar with the trends in internet marketing and revenue sources, especially when it comes to news media, both alternative and mainstream.

    If time allows, could you talk about this topic?
    Also, would you refer me to any previous episodes or articles.

    ~~~
    I am gung-ho for anyone to make an honest buck…and lots of bucks.
    However, I have noticed this increasing trend of “rage clicks”, “hyperbole, sensationalized news headlines”, clickbait ads, “individual YouTube so-called experts”, “shock videos”, etc.

    I keep running across stories of some folks who make extremely good money promoting tabloid trailer trash. But I am in the dark on the mechanisms of how they get their revenue.

    Example for YouTube: Adam Saleh and others…
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2EFDaiv-jT4

    I tried to digest this article “How Ad Tech is Destroying the Web”, but that is just one aspect. https://kalkis-research.com/clickbait-and-traffic-laundering-how-ad-tech-is-destroying-the-web

    Example of “Alt Media” pollution:
    http://beforeitsnews.com/

  35. Discussing the 7 wars of Obama over the holidays with my Uncle, a United Nations aircraft maintenance engineer posted in various places around the world for months at a time, he repeatedly pointed out that Mogadishu suffered from American attacks.

    Please consider doing a show about Mogadishu, Somalia, and what’s happening there.

  36. nosoapradio says:

    How about a FLNWO on Baudrillard Simulacre et Simulation?

  37. HomeRemedySupply says:

    Jan 4, 2017 article in “The New American”
    New Report Exposes Rockefeller Dynasty’s Role in “Climate” Scam
    http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/24980-new-report-exposes-rockefeller-dynasty-s-role-in-climate-scam

    EXCERPT
    “… according to a recently released ‘investigation by a watchdog group'(link below). That dynasty, of course, is the Rockefeller family. In essence, they have largely created, bankrolled, and weaponized what is known as the “green” movement “as a means to expand their empire over the past three decades,” the report found….”

    pdf link “The Rockefeller Way – The Family’s Covert ‘Climate Change’ Plan”
    https://eelegal.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Rockefeller-Way-Report-Final.pdf

  38. mike jay says:

    QFC and/or episode subject matter request,

    Vertical farming

    http://www.verticalfarm.com

    New article came out today here…
    http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/01/09/the-vertical-farm/

    I saw a documentary about this recently and it seems like one of the greatest things to come about. It’s a bright spot for the future I hope.

    What do you think? Any perspectives from our community? What’s it’s history, pros & cons and so forth?

  39. mike jay says:

    Another possible QFC and/or *QFFS.

    Are there any meaningful differences and similarities of Agorism and life lived within Native American Reservations (AKA Domestic Dependent Nations)?

    *Questions for Fellow Subscribers

    • HomeRemedySupply says:

      mike jay,
      I am interested in this topic also. There is a lot to be learned from the Native American history and situations. After all, as a culture they have tried to survive against Elite Controlling Powers and overwhelming “new technologies”.
      (Derrick Broze might have insights)

  40. david.s says:

    QFC;
    If there is a so called ‘war on cash’ why is the Bank of England replacing millions of £5 notes for new plastic ones and every year mints new replacement £1, 50p coins etc? I’m sure this is not an isolated case of costly currency updating.

  41. david.s says:

    QFC;
    With terrorist attacks such as Boston, Nice, Paris etc. that are often claimed to some degree to be staged, is anyone investigating the hospital admissions? Surely there has to be a paper trail that can’t simply be faked, that records data on admissions for a particular date and location? Even more so, a doctor or nurse at a local hospital would be able to come forward and state whether or not they treated genuine victims that correlate to the publicised casualty figures for such an event? Is anyone digging into this?

  42. HomeRemedySupply says:

    QFC

    James, Do you know of any Open Source avenues which give guidance to “small time people like me” towards shorting corrupt corporations in the marketplace?

    I feel like this could be a pleasant form of activism: the possibility of personal financial gain betting against the corporatocracy in the marketplace.

    At this juncture, I would love to short some of the MMR vaccine companies.

  43. Batya says:

    #Q4C
    Hi James,
    In our strive for freedom Bitcoin seems to play a important role, but off course crypto currency can come in handy in furthering the goal of the globalists as well.
    So what’s your take on Onecoin vs Bitcoin?
    Onecoin seems to be the fastest growing crypto currency and differs from Bitcoin on some crucial points they themselves off course see as advantages but could equally well serve the oligarchs agenda towards the cashless society and off course a One World currency.
    Most important differences are Onecoin has a central server, ‘so lost passwords can be retracted’, and you have to identify yourself before buying Onecoins/ opening an account.
    Could rules change for Bitcoin for being anonymous part or worse, is it possible that Bitcoin is being forbidden?
    The fact that Bill Gates is promoting Onecoin should raise some eyebrows…

    https://youtu.be/q9BiELSKDN0

    Greetings from Holland, your work is immensely appreciated!
    Batya

    • Batya says:

      Hi,
      I did some further research.
      Onecoin promotes themselves as the fastest growing crypto currency and they’re sure they will overthrow Bitcoin. But the fact that Onecoin is supported by Bill Gates and Richard Swanson plus some flashing of hand signs 👌 made me suspicious. So sure enough a lot of complaints from people not being able to cash nor trade their coins, although Onecoin will only go to the market halfway 2018. See more on this here http://behindmlm.com/companies/onecoin/onelife-suspend-onecoin-withdrawls-affiliates-cant-cash-out/

      The most serious accusation is that their block chain is not working properly if they have one at all… Extensive research regarding this to be found here

      http://onecoinonelifefacts.blogspot.nl/2016/11/analysis-of-onecoin-blockchain-part-1.html?m=1

      Where am I going with this? It’s my suspicion that the Onecoin scam is allowed on purpose in order to insert all kind of regulations and restrictions to crypto currencies in general, aka also Bitcoin, after Onecoin turns out to be the biggest Ponzi scheme of the century.
      Curious to know whether you see restrictions coming up for Bitcoin?
      This issue might also be a great topic for further open source investigation

      • Where were the hand signs?

        This brings to mind the epic sci-fi mini-series Dune 2000 and Children Of Dune 2003, when the witches talk to each other on one level knowing they are being listened to, while on the other level they are having another conversation in minimal (lap-based small gestures) sign language. If they can cross space and ride giant worms and have hidden microphones, wouldn’t you think they’d have invented secret video?

  44. HomeRemedySupply says:

    Feb 4, 2017 – The Daily Mail
    Exposed: How world leaders were duped into investing billions over manipulated global warming data
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4192182/World-leaders-duped-manipulated-global-warming-data.html
    QUOTE
    The Mail on Sunday today reveals astonishing evidence that the organisation that is the world’s leading source of climate data rushed to publish a landmark paper that exaggerated global warming and was timed to influence the historic Paris Agreement on climate change.

  45. HomeRemedySupply says:

    Feb 3, 2017
    1,000 science papers challenge the false narrative of man-made climate change
    http://www.newstarget.com/2017-02-03-1000-science-papers-challenge-the-false-narrative-of-man-made-climate-change.html

  46. jay.z says:

    QFC:

    James, what’s your take on Anonymous? Lately, I’ve been seeing alot of their stuff making its rounds on FB and some of the recent material from them seems to begin to dip into topics that are covered at reputable alternative media like here and GR… But I also tend to get a bit of a weird vibe from some of their stuff as well, much like I get with “alt media” personalities like Alex Jones or even “whistleblowers” like Assange or Snowden. Do you think Anonymous is completely a CIA “false opposition” front to make would-be activists and hactivists feel as if the work needed to expose TPTSB is already being accomplished?

    Thanks again for tirelessly bringing the some of the very best research and analysis I’ve found thus far.

    • Anonymous is not monolithic as far as I can tell. I think there are various cliques that loosely go under the label Anonymous, which has it’s own problems. Because it’s more or less decentralized, I’ve seen various folks who identify with the “Anonymous” moniker subscribe to opposing positions – e.g., pro-Syria regime change, anti-Syria regime change. Of course, this sort of nebulous group also makes it an easy target for infiltration and to spread disinformation/misinformation propaganda. As always, everything should be sourced, checked, verified and if not able to be sourced, checked, verified, then taken with a grain (or bushel) of salt. Usually, it’s pretty clear to parse the wheat from the chaffe. When any group comes out pro-regime change, that’s usually a good sign it’s disinfo.

      • mkey says:

        “Anonymous” should be the epitome of anarchy, many individuals acting … well, individually. Like a torrent of thought and expression, sometimes acting in concert. That being said, I find most of the anonymous related material to be bullshit, based on the content, not the possible purveyor of that information.

  47. HomeRemedySupply says:

    QBC
    In a cashless society, how would the illegal drug game work?

    • mkey says:

      You’d get to grow your own stuff.

      • HomeRemedySupply says:

        ha! That’s funny. I remember when a kilo of weed in Austin, TX was $110 in 1972.

        But really, How would the CIA and Banks market their Afghanistan opium to the common folk on the streets in the U.S.?

        • mkey says:

          I don’t think digital money would prevent authorized sellers from selling anything. Also, the mere fact you can look into transactions doesn’t mean you will.

          So, pretty much, just fedex the drugs and shoot up.

  48. HomeRemedySupply says:

    Iowa State University scientists claim global warming is causing violent behavior
    http://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/global-warming-and-violent-behavior#.WKPZiK8ixKY
    (Geez!!…you can’t make this stuff up.)

    Found this via Natural News…
    http://www.naturalnews.com/2017-02-13-university-scientists-claim-left-wing-violence-caused-by-global-warming.html

    • scpat says:

      From Iowa State article:
      “In fact, many of these same climate-change-driven factors aid in terrorism recruitment: Uncertainty and frustration about one’s livelihood, seeing others who seem unfairly unaffected, and the belief that there are no other viable options to sustain oneself may all contribute to terrorism.”

      It’s almost unbelievable that this type of nonsense is even out there. But I guess we shouldn’t be too surprised these days.

  49. fractaluniverse says:

    Hello Mr. Corbett!

    My question is unrelated to this post:

    While listening to your reading of Lysander Spooner, i think i heard him mention that states / countries themselves are existing, doing business, interacting, waging war etc. in a state of anarchy, meaning without a ruler(this is true). Who rules the states? well you could argue the UN does(ehh not really)… but then who rules the UN? At some level in any hierarchy there is anarchy. A bizarre internal contradiction most statists have is the outright rejection of a voluntaryist(anarchist) society for individuals, yet they seem perfectly fine with countries(groups of politicians) conducting business, waging war, etc. in anarchy. My whole point and question is: am I missing something when i say ANARCHY = POWER since whoever is not being coerced must be at the top of the hierarchy? Of course if there is no hierarchy, it’s already anarchy. By definition, ‘the people’ only have power in an anarchist society, and they give up all their anarchy to the next level on the hierarchy as soon as they allow themselves to be coerced in any way. This could be an clear explanation in an attempt to redpill statists. What do you think?

  50. mkey says:

    Climate change standup
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bARjABDqok

    This chap has some talent.

  51. HomeRemedySupply says:

    A MUST WATCH video…
    Obama’s Chief Climate Adviser on 1920s global warming: ‘It is a crisis we’re trying to address’
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ilD6aYvMPZw

    (Corbett had posted this video in show notes https://www.corbettreport.com/the-deep-state-gives-trump-his-false-flag-briefing/ )

    Also an article…
    https://climatism.wordpress.com/2017/02/22/the-great-extreme-weather-climate-change-propaganda-con/

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Back to Top