Podcast: Play in new window | Download | Embed
How do you tell truth from fiction when it comes to unsourced online information? This week on #SolutionsWatch, James answers a question about how to verify a quotation by showing you step-by-step how to start sourcing information online for yourself!
Video player not working? Use these links to watch it somewhere else!
WATCH ON: 
/ 
/ 
/ 
/ 
/ 
or DOWNLOAD THE MP4
SHOW NOTES
Episode 174 – Patriot mythology
No, Albert Pike Did Not Predict WWIII
How to Research Online – #SolutionsWatch
Excellent James.
As Voltaire said:
“Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you believe in Santa Claus.”
🙂 🙂
I ran this through a search on Presearch and got just one result: “Corbett Report – How to Verify a quote”. 🙂
Not sure what “Presearch” is.
So that means our comments here are being harvested by the machine??
My oh my Toto, we’re not in free space anymore. :-O
THEY GOT YOU GOOD (song)
https://old.bitchute.com/video/Hpm24888Hud2/
Nice song, EJ!
A rare complement here, big thanks.
“…gonna fight or barbecue” 🙂
Lot more good stuff there if you browse the dozens of videos.
Thanks James, you are a task master and a very good teacher. I have a question; can a person use an android phone for such a work-out, the flexing of this remarkable muscle you challenge us to develop? I will try but have a low confidence I could master this fondle slab. Also , EJ are you in the spotlight now.!?!
No ? I wouldn’t want that but I have a similar situation lately. The book ; By the Editor -en-Chief.
Can an ad banner on the front page of a dusty old blog page, an early Corbett report page on the screen, be considered a quote, say directly attributed from the author?
The banner said ‘Get the Book’
Corbetts Book. In small print it said something to the affect,'” an accumulation of Corbett’s articles, ect.ect.. So, I’m still looking…
Now, many of you know how a physical book could have importance in this realm we occupy? . A tomb of artifacts in one place. Are you becoming aware of that importance giving today’s challenge from the editor-en- chief? Good.
It all began weeks ago. Home- remedy supply referenced an older Corbett report. On that old sheet , a newsletter ? There was a banner, an advertising banner. That banner urged the reader to get the Corbett book. I can’t remember the article or the date,subject content but believe me bro. I’ve looked over hundreds of HRS’ comments looking for that page. Can you remember seeing that page?
Off course after you sharpen your skills, these ARE skills and practice makes perfect, so when you’re done with today’s assignment, let me know if you saw the page HRS linked to. Please and thank you.
Hello James, and thank you for doing a video on this showing how to walk through the steps of attempting to verify an old “damning” quote on the internet.
As it turns out, and this feels a bit like cheating as I attempted to verify one of those quotes about two weeks ago for my own benefit. But I humbly put forth, that I think I can satisfactorily source the Paul Warburg quote you mentioned at the end there.
Paul Warburg apparently said that quote at the 81st Congress, 2nd Session(?, the document says “2d session” but that doesn’t seem right), and it is noted in this document with the heading:
REVISION OF THE UNITED NATIONS CHARTER
Hearings before a Subcommittee of the Committee on Foreign Relations
United States Senate
81st Congress, 2nd Session on Resolutions relative to the United Nations charter, Atlantic Union, World Federation, etc.
Feb. 2, 3, 6, 8, 9, 13, 15, 17, and 20, 1950
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON, 1950: 64429
PP. 494-508
The online link I used is “Wikisource” which I will admit I am somewhat skeptical of as, obviously, anyone can go in and change stuff around. But here is the link nonetheless: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/James_Warburg_before_the_Subcommittee_on_Revision_of_the_United_Nations_Charter#I._IS_IT_A_PLAN_OR_JUST_A_HOPE?
/Start Quote:
“I am James P. Warburg, of Greenwich, Conn., and am appearing as an individual.
I am aware, Mr. Chairman, of the exigencies of your crowded schedule and of the need to be brief, so as not to transgress upon your courtesy in granting me a hearing.
The past 15 years of my life have been devoted almost exclusively to studying the problem of world peace and, especially, the relation of the United States to these problems. These studies led me, 10 years ago, to the conclusion that the great question of our time is not whether or not one world can be achieved, but whether or not one world can be achieved by peaceful means.
We shall have world government, whether or not we like it. The question is only whether world government will be achieved by consent or by conquest.
Today we are faced with a divided world—its two halves glowering at each other across the iron curtain. The world’s two superpowers—Russia and the United States—are entangled in the vicious circle of an arms race, which more and more preempts energies and resources sorely needed to lay the foundations of enduring peace. We are now on the road to eventual war—a war in which the conqueror will emerge well nigh indistinguishable from the vanquished.
The United States does not want this war, and most authorities agree that Russia does not want it. Indeed, why should Russia prefer the unpredictable hazards of war to a continuation of here present profitable fishing in the troubled waters of an uneasy armistice? Yet both the United States and Russia are drifting—and, with them, the entire world—toward the abyss of atomic conflict.” /End Quote.
P.S. I know you want all 4, but that’s beyond my free time this week. I offer up that quote (or that information on how to BETTER source that quote with a better document/site than Wikiquote) as free for anyone else who covets that free cap!
I’ll probably just hit up The Corbett Report Store for some goods in the coming weeks anyhow. Thank you for the reminder to be a better Truth Seeker!
Reminds me of a meme I saw with Abraham Lincoln’s image on it. It said something like “You can’t believe earth you see on the internet” ~Jimmy Hendricks 1906
haha I remember that meme (or a very similar one) being used by a history professor I had in college about 15 years ago or so. It’s more relevant than ever!
Hat still up for grabs? I’ll take a shot:
The first quote by Rothschild is unverifiable, in fact, it was recently removed from all forthcoming editions of a memoir by Liz Truss that was published earlier this year.[https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-68853672]
It has also been quoted in the extremely shoddy work entitled Behold a Pale Horse by William Cooper on pg. 46.
[https://highlanderjuan.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/William-Cooper-Behold-a-Pale-Horse.pdf]
There is no primary source that can be attributed to this quote but some say it goes back to a testimony given to Congress by T. Cushing Daniel in 1911. I could only find a hearing from 1913 that had the quote:
J. P. Morgan, the recognized authority among the bankers, practically admits this, as evidenced in his testimony under oath December 19, 1912:
“Question. If a man controls the credit of a country, he would have control of all
its affairs?
Mr. M o r g a n . He might have that, but he would not have the money. If he had
the credit and I had the money, his customer would be badly off.”
[https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/banking-currency-429/volume-ii-7310/fulltext]
Other’s place the earliest known publishing to The Magazine of Wall Street 1934-11-10: Vol 55 Iss 2, where on pg. 15 (on the pdf, bottom right) he uses the quote without attribution.
[https://annas-archive.org/md5/fa05819d6995245ec8dd83c2f78ee55d]
A quote we definitely can verify is from Jay Electronica (who infamously dated a rothschild) on the track Ghost of Soulja Slim where he states:
“I came to bang with the scholars
And I bet you a Rothschild I get a bang for my dollar
The synagogue of Satan want me to hang by my collar
But all praise due to Allah Subhanahu wa ta’ala”
[https://genius.com/Jay-electronica-ghost-of-soulja-slim-lyrics]
The second quote is a bit jumbled.
The first part of the quote can be sourced to a letter from Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 28 May 1816.
“And I sincerely believe with you, that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies; & that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale.”
[https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/03-10-02-0053]
The latter half of the statement is possibly a miswording taken from a letter from Thomas Jefferson to John Wayles Eppes, 11 September 1813.
“The question will be asked, and ought to be looked at, what is to be the resource, if loans cannot be obtained? there is but one. ‘Carthago delenda est.’ [Carthage must be destroyed] Bank-paper must be suppressed, and the circulating medium must be restored to the nation to whom it belongs.”
[https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/03-06-02-0388]
The third quote cannot be verified either (I’m sensing a theme). Perhaps popularized by Eustace Clarence Mullins in The Secrets Of The Federal Reserve, some say it was first published in a pamphlet “Andrew Jackson and the Bank of the United States: An interesting bit of history concerning ‘Old Hickory,'” by Stan Henkles.
Business Insider had a decent article [https://www.businessinsider.com/sorry-andrew-jackson-probably-never-said-that-den-of-theives-quote-2010-1] where they note:
The only contemporary account of the interview does not support the authen[ti]city of the quote. Jackson was speaking yo a hostile audience, explaining his opposition to the national bank. The contemporary account, which appeared in the Baltimore based Niles Register in March of 1834[https://archive.org/stream/nilesnationalreg46nileuoft/nilesnationalreg46nileuoft_djvu.txt], does say Jackson used some dramatic language, including the claim that he would not restore the deposits or charter of the national bank even under torture by the ten Spanish Inquisitions and that he would rather live in the wilds of Arabia than a country with a national bank.
Looks like something he might have or would have said but cannot be verified.
Seems to me, at this point, who gives a shit who said what, the question is the comment true. I often see this distraction tactic, “Voltaire did not say, to learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize”, yet this sounds like a rather truthful statement. If Voltaire did not make it, is it any less truthful? I think this comes down to cult of personality, where “truth and reality are for the professionals to establish, not the common man”. If I said Joe Smith made that statement, suddenly is it less truthful, hardly.
If you criticize Israel, you will quickly find yourself labeled an “anti-Semite”, and dealt with accordingly. As we saw during the generally peaceful (outside of some Zionist agent provocateurs who are always ready to discredit a movement using violence for the ready TV cameras, ala January 6th) university protests against the Israeli Genocide of the Palestinians. Unlike the mostly violent ANTIFA and BLM riots that we saw a government wide stand down, protesting Israel saw state police and PAID thugs beat lawful protesters who mistakenly believed they lived in a free country. You are to free to attack the “white male establishment anyway you want”, but if you criticize in anyway the Zionist puppet masters, you quickly find out freedom is an illusion.
Now if I look up who made the quote I referenced, I am told, no it was not Voltaire but some “white nationalist anti-semite”, who knew? Of course this is the same googling that tells me, “the belief MSG is bad for you is rooted in racism and xenophobia”. Evidently my headaches were not from ingesting MSG, G being glutamate which acts as a nerve stimulant, over stimulating nerves in my brain, nope, it is because I have a hidden hate for the Chinese immigrants and the MSG they brought with them (that is from Web MD and the Mayo clinic).
The greater their control becomes the more altering of truth, thus who said what becomes less relevant versus the veracity of the statement itself.