Episode 443 – Meet King Charles, The Great Resetter

by | May 5, 2023 | Podcasts, Videos | 58 comments

While most of the the public’s attention is falling on the obvious issues—the monarchy’s increasing irrelevance to the 21st century, the colossal waste of taxpayer resources that go towards the upkeep of the world’s richest family and their multiple palaces, the dark history of slavery and other colonial abuses for which royals of the far-distant past are responsible—few are aware of just how dark the history of the royal family is, or just how twisted Charles’ vision for the future of the United Kingdom—and, indeed the world—really is.

Watch on Archive / BitChute / Odysee / Rokfin / Rumble / Substack / Download the mp4

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

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

Watch a FINNISH SUB of this documentary


[Royal fanfare.]

GARTER KING OF ARMS DAVID VINES WHITE: Whereas it has pleased almighty God to call to his mercy our late Sovereign lady Queen Elizabeth II of blessed and glorious memory, by whose decease the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is solely and rightfully come to the Prince Charles Philip Arthur George.

We, therefore, the lords spiritual and temporal of this realm, and members of the House of Commons, together with other members of Her late Majesty’s Privy Council, and representatives of the realms and territories, aldermen, and citizens of London and others, do now hereby, with one voice and consent of tongue and heart, publish and proclaim that the Prince Charles Philip Arthur George, is now, by the death of our late Sovereign of happy memory, become our only lawful and rightful liege lord, Charles III.

SOURCE: Charles III proclaimed king in historic ceremony @BBCNews – BBC

It’s hard to be a human being living on planet Earth in May of 2023 and not be hearing about, reading about or listening to discussions about the pending coronation of King Charles.

Yes, Charles’ big day is dominating news headlines at the moment, and it seems that the glitz and glamour of the upcoming coronation are infecting people around the globe with a case of royal fever.

. . . Well, maybe not everyone.

TC NEWMAN: Republic states on their website: “As we approach Charles’ coronation the country needs an honest, grown-up debate about the monarchy. We need to stop and ask ourselves: Can’t we just choose our next head of state?”

SOURCE: King Charles Heckled by Anti-Monarchy Protestors

PROTESTER: Charles, while we struggle to heat our homes we have to pay for your parade.


PROTESTER: The taxpayer pays £100 million for you, and what for? Nid fy brenin! Not my King!

SOURCE: Taxpayers ‘pay for your parade’: Charles heckled in Wales on cost of monarchy

[Protester throws eggs at Charles, gets arrested.]

SOURCE: Watch: Protester throws eggs at King Charles III

No, not everyone is happy about King Charles stepping into his mother’s shoes . . . or diamond-encrusted loafers, or gold-plated clodhoppers, or whatever it is that monarchs wear to prevent their poor, delicate royal feet from touching the earth.

But while most of the public’s attention is falling on the obvious issues—the monarchy’s increasing irrelevance to the 21st century, the colossal waste of taxpayer resources that go towards the upkeep of the world’s richest family and their multiple palaces, the dark history of slavery and other colonial abuses for which royals of the far-distant past are responsible—few are aware of just how dark the history of the royal family is, or just how twisted Charles’ vision for the future of the United Kingdom—and, indeed the world—really is.

I’m James Corbett of The Corbett Report, and today we’re going to look beyond the headlines and talking points so that we can Meet King Charles, The Great Resetter.

Chapter 1 — King Charles

For those who do not consider themselves “royal watchers” and only know the new King of England as that buffoon who spent his entire life waiting for his mother to die, the first sign of what Charles is really like came in a viral video moment captured during the typically pompous ceremony in which he was proclaimed king.

There, in the manic, sausage-fingered, tooth-gritted flailing of the new king, is the perfect encapsulation of Charles Philip Arthur George Windsor, aka “Charles III.”

His life has been an endless series of carefully arranged photo opportunities and ribbon-cutting ceremonies that serve no actual function other than to punctuate the dreary luxury of his royal existence. But it is in moments such as these where we see through the veil of PR and propaganda to the real Charles: a man who treats his retinue of servants like mere objects, only good for slaking his royal desires and fulfilling his regal demands.

And demands there are.

His royal highness’s daily demands begin with the pressing of his royal shoelaces and the requirement that his royal bath plug be placed in precisely the right position and the royal bathtub be exactly half full of precisely tepid water. Charles’ valet must then squeeze precisely one inch of toothpaste onto his royal toothbrush while the royal chefs prepare a series of boiled eggs, which are numbered according to how long they were boiled so that: “If the prince felt that number five was too runny, he could knock the top off number six or seven.”

In fact, wherever Charles travels, he not only takes along a large contingent of his 124 member staff—including his butler, two valets, a private secretary, a typist, a chef, and a handful of bodyguards—he also makes sure to take his own personal food supply, consisting solely of fresh, organic ingredients grown on his own organic farm.

Yes, King Charles is more than happy to put his John Hancock on The Genetic Technology Precision Breeding Act 2023, which (as its supporters will be happy to explain) “remov[es] barriers to research into new gene editing technology” by (as its supporters will never explain) “remov[ing] regulatory safeguards from whole subclasses of genetically modified organisms” at the behest of (surprise, surprise!) the GMO industry.

But don’t expect him to put those gene-edited frankenfoods anywhere near his lips! They are not fit for the royal gullet, don’t you know!

Chapter 2 — The Royal Sickness

In a sense, the royals aren’t wrong when they assert that the blood that flows through their veins is different from the blood that flows through us commoners’ veins. As many know, the royal families of Europe do indeed suffer from a genetic blood disorder, hemophilia, one of the many defects that has resulted from centuries of inbreeding.

But, strangely, they do not see their so-called “blue blood” as a problem. Instead, they hue to a twisted belief system; one that holds that as a result of their special blood, the royals actually deserve to rule over their subjects.

In order to understand this royal worldview, we have to go back to the beginning. No, not the beginning of Elizabeth’s reign in 1952. Not to the beginning of the English branch of the House of “Windsor” to which she belonged. Not even to the beginning of the monarchical system in England.

No, we have to go back to the beginning of monarchy itself.

You see, the ancient Egyptians worshipped the Pharaohs as progeny of the sun god, Ra. The Japanese were told that their Imperial family descended from the sun goddess, Amaterasu, and the sea god, Ryuujin. In Europe, monarchs claimed that God Himself had directly granted them a “Divine Right” to rule over their subjects. In China, they called it the “Mandate of Heaven.”

Yes, the ancients were taught to believe that their emperors were literal gods. The European dynasties, meanwhile, flourished for centuries under the mass delusion that these families were specifically selected by God to rule over their people. Should it come as any surprise that at some point the royals started to believe their own propaganda?

But, as these proto-eugenicists soon figured out, if their blood was too precious to mingle with the commoners’, then that blood must be kept in the family. And so began centuries of royal inbreeding that resulted in the deformities, abnormalities and genetic weirdness that today pervade the royal bloodlines (congenital haemophilia being just one of the most well-known examples). Perhaps the most notable example of intra-family marriage leading to genetic ruin is that of the Spanish Hapsburgs, who, after 500 years of ruling over vast swaths of Europe, managed to inbreed themselves out of existence.

With this understanding of the proto-eugenical philosophy as our background, we can begin to make sense of the millennium-long story of the British monarchy. Alfred the Great yadda yadda yadda Henry beheading wives and starting a church blah blah blah the madness of King George etc. etc. etc. Mrs. John Brown and so on and so forth all the way up to Eddie (VII, for those keeping track at home) and the intrigues that kicked off WWI and birthed the modern world. You know, that story.

To finish making sense of that history, we just need to add one other element to the story: as it turns out, the “British” royal family isn’t very British at all. The House of “Windsor” only became the House of “Windsor” in 1917, after all. Before that, it was Saxe Coburg-Gotha. But the British public were a bit fired up about the Huns because of that whole, you know, WWI thing, so “Windsor” it became.

Noting the true origins of the House of “Windsor” is not just some cheap anti-Germanic slur, of course. It points to something even more fundamental. These royals—connected, as we remember, through inbreeding—had much more in common with their European brothers and sisters, cousins and uncles (but I repeat myself), than they did with the populations they were supposedly ruling over.

With that historical background in place, we can understand, for example, the Windsors’ well-documented fondness for the eugenics-promoting Nazis. Where do you think the Nazis got their eugenical beliefs from, after all? Given the royal pedigree of the eugenic worldview, it is perhaps unsurprising to learn that the pseudoscience of eugenics was pioneered by Royal Medal recipient Francis Galton, himself hailing from the celebrated (and thoroughly inbred) Darwin-Galton line, which boasted many esteemed Fellows of the Royal Society.

The overt ties between the Edwardian (VIII, for those keeping track at home) court and Hitler’s eugenics-obsessed regime are well-documented. The covert ties are even more intriguing. (Hmmm, that gives me an idea for a documentary . . . .) But it isn’t just the home movies showing the future queen giving the Nazi salute or Edward VIII’s hobnobbing with Hitler or King Charles’ lifelong friendship with unreformed SS officer (and Bilderberg co-founder) Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands or Prince Harry’s predilection for Nazi cosplaying. More to the heart of the matter is Prince Philip’s infamous desire to be reincarnated as “a particularly deadly virus” in order to contribute to the depopulation of the planet (a remark that has been fact-checked by Snopes, so you know it’s true!).

FIONA BRUCE: What do you see as the biggest challenges in conservation?

PRINCE PHILIP: The growing human population. From where we are there’s nothing else.

SOURCE: Prince Philip on what should be done about “overpopulation”

You see, the royals’ blue blood pomposity wouldn’t be so bad if they simply felt themselves superior to the commoners in a “What, you groom your own stool?!” kind of way. Sadly, it is not mere snobbery that motivates them, and their great desire is not simply to be kept apart from the commoners. As it turns out, the royal family doesn’t just feel superior to their subjects, they actively dislike them and constantly scheme to subjugate them, rob them, impoverish them and mislead them.

Chapter 3 — Royal False Flags

There’s something quaint about Redditors seemingly discovering for the first time that, far from some nice old man who waves to the crowds and enjoys tea and crumpets in pretty English gardens, King Charles is actually the heir to a fortune amassed via the violent subjugation of much of the world’s populace and the plundering of their wealth and resources. The fact that anyone could be shocked by this historical reality speaks to the naïveté of the masses, who cannot imagine that ruthless psychopaths conspire to amass more wealth by inflicting suffering on the world.

(Just wait until these dear, trusting masses learn about the British East India Company and the opium wars and the Bengal genocide and the Boer concentration camps and the Amritsar Massacre, etc., etc., etc. . . .)

But for a prime example of the perfidy with which the British monarchy has ruled for centuries (and which gave rise to the “Perfidious Albion” moniker), one need only look at the history of their speciality: false flag operations.

Befitting the governing monarchy of a nation that has been known for its treachery for centuries, the British royals’ use of false flag events to gin up public support for the persecution of their enemies likewise goes back centuries. For one prime example of that, we will have to “Remember, remember the fifth of November.”

Outside of Britain, the “gunpowder plot” is known only tangentially through cultural artifacts, like the references to the plot contained in V for Vendetta and the subsequent adoption of the Guy Fawkes mask as the symbol of Anonymous. Even in England, most will only know the official version of the story—the one compiled in the so-called “King’s Book” written by King James I himself.

According to that official account: on the evening of November 4, 1605, Guy Fawkes was discovered with 36 barrels of gunpowder and a pile of wood and coal in the undercroft beneath the House of Lords in Parliament, presumably preparing to blow up the building. After his apprehension, Fawkes was brought before the king and, cracking under the interrogation, eventually led the king’s agents to the other conspirators in the plot.

As it turned out, the whole harebrained scheme to blow up Parliament as it convened on the 5th of November had been hatched by the Jesuits and carried out by a ragtag group of crazed provincial English Catholics! King James then took the sensible precaution of cracking down on Catholics in England, thus ensuring that Catholic treachery would never again threaten the kingdom.

Of course, this story—like so much of the history written by the winners—is total hogwash. Entire books could be written about the plot, what we really know about it, and how the official version was conjured into existence . . . and at least one book has! It’s called The Gunpowder Plot and it was written by Hugh Ross Williamson and published in 1952.

Those who are interested in the full story are highly encouraged to read Williamson’s account. Although the full truth of the plot will likely never be known—buried as it is in a sea of forged documents, tampered evidence and official secrecy—we can say with certainty that the official story was constructed from torture testimony and forged confessions, that the king’s spies were likely involved at every level of the plot, that the band of patsies who were ultimately blamed for the whole affair could not possibly have perpetrated it by themselves and, most importantly, that it provided King James with the perfect excuse to crack down on Catholics in the exact manner he had desired.

In other words, Guy Fawkes was likely neither the radical Catholic terrorist mastermind that the court of King James made him out to be nor the crusading anti-authoritarian hero that V for Vendetta and Anonymous pretend him to be, but, rather, a patsy, a dupe or a mole who was used by the monarchy as a convenient excuse to enact draconian new laws clamping down on the king’s opponents.

Go figure.

But the British monarchy’s false flag hits don’t stop there!

Viewers of my WWI Conspiracy documentary will already know the central role played by King Edward VII and his German-hating wife in forging the so-called “Triple Entente” between Britain, France and Russia that paved the way for the “Great” War against the Huns. You will likely also remember WWI conspirator Edward Mandell House’s own account of his rather remarkable conversation with Edward VII’s successor, King George V, on the morning of May 7, 1915. As House recounts in his Intimate Papers, the two “fell to talking, strangely enough, of the probability of Germany sinking a trans-Atlantic liner.” Even more “coincidentally,” House relates that George specifically inquired what would happen if the Huns “should sink the Lusitania with American passengers on board.” Later that very day, the Lusitania was sunk, and public opinion in America turned decidedly against Germany, preparing the way for US entry into the war on Britain’s side.

Coincidence, surely.

“But that’s ancient history!” some would argue. “I mean, yes, the British were responsible for backing, supporting and enabling the Saudi royal family to begin their brutal rule of the Arabian peninsula and” (as I documented in False Flags: The Secret History of Al Qaeda), “British support and collusion with the Muslim Brotherhood and with Wahabbi radicals gave birth to the modern era of false flag terrorism . . . but what does that have to do with King Charles?”

Good question. Maybe some intrepid reporter will put the question of the million-pound donation he received from the bin Laden family to the new king?

Or maybe they could ask about Princess Diana’s remarkable clairvoyance in warning of her own death at the hands of . . . [name redacted]

NARRATOR: In October 1996, in a letter to her butler, Princess Diana expressed the fear that she would die in a car crash and it wouldn’t be an accident.

ACTOR (AS PRINCESS DIANA): I am sitting here at my desk today in October, longing for someone to hug me and encourage me to keep strong and hold my head up high. This particular phase in my life is the most dangerous. X is planning an accident in my car. Brake failure and serious head injury [. . .].

SOURCE: What Really Happened On The Night Of Diana & Dodi’s Crash? | Diana: The Inquest | Real Royalty

Given the royal family’s participation in false flag events in the past, perhaps it is no surprise that World Economic Forum chairman Klaus Schwab invited His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales to inaugurate The Great Reset, the grand global attempt to use the generated crisis of the scamdemic to completely transform the world and institute new paradigms of governance and social control.

CHARLES: We have a golden opportunity to seize something good from this crisis. Its unprecedented shockwaves may well make people more receptive to big visions of change. Our global crises like pandemics and climate change know no borders and highlight just how interdependent we are as one people sharing one planet.

[. . .]

And as we move from rescue to recovery, therefore we have a unique but rapidly shrinking window of opportunity to learn lessons and reset ourselves on a more sustainable path. It is an opportunity we have never had before and may never have again, so we must use all the levers we have at our disposal, knowing that each and every one of us has a vital role to play.”

SOURCE: Prince Charles Says Pandemic a Chance to ‘Think Big and Act Now’

Yes, it is no surprise to find this royal mouthpiece popping up in the defining false flag event of our times, advocating a complete re-envisioning of our economy, our way of life and even the social contract between people and their government on the back of a synthetic and constructed “crisis.”

But if only his involvement in false flag events were the greatest of King Charles’ worries. . .

Chapter 4 — The Windsors’ Pedophile Problem

Oh, if only the new king’s greatest fault were to have been born into a eugenics-obsessed family.

If only he were the guiltless benefactor of the cheating, swindling, extortion, theft and plunder of his forebears.

If only his worst sin were his ridiculous climate hypocrisy or his campaigning for Klaus Schwab’s Great Reset or his attempt to mask cows.

If only he were a regular, run-of-the-mill tyrant, a psychopath who got off on torturing and killing others.

Unfortunately for all of us, it’s much worse than that.

ANCHOR: Reports of Savile’s unusual behavior in royal circles came about as details emerged of a surprise role for him as a counselor for Prince Charles and Princess Diana during their marital difficulties and a request from Prince Charles to help with the image of Sarah Ferguson.

SOURCE: Jimmy Savile: ‘licked young women’s arms’ on Palace visits

The public got a hint of what really goes on behind the royal family’s closed castle gates when the Jimmy Savile scandal first came to light a decade ago. If you are able to cast your mind back to the innocent days of 2012, you might recall that, at the time, the existence of high-level pedophile rings (let alone high-level necrophilic pedophile rings) was considered the stuff of total conspiracy lunacy.

You might also recall that the royal family’s relationship to Savile was certainly “problematic” (to use the kids’ lingo). But, given what the public then knew, not necessarily more problematic than the involvement of any of the other people who had cozied up to the monstrous pedophile during the course of his career.

Sure, the Queen had knighted Savile back in 1990, and any number of photographs could tell you that he was awfully chummy with Charles. Yet perhaps knighthood was to be expected, considering that he had seemingly dedicated much of his life to charity and had made many high-profile friends along the way.

In fact, the first hard questions about who knew what when about Savile were asked of the BBC, which certainly did know about the allegations many decades before the disgusting abuser finally died.

JON SNOW: One of the things that’s really interested me there was your view about Jimmy Savile and your knowledge at the time that it was going on.

JOHN LYDON: Yeah. Unfortunately, I think all of us—what we call “the peoples”—knew what was going on with the BBC.

SNOW: As bad as we now know it was?

LYDON: Yeah, we knew. We all knew.

SOURCE: John Lydon on Jimmy Savile and BBC

But over the years the “who could have known?” routine used by the Windsors’ defenders has become increasingly insupportable. First, there was the revelation that Savile was so close to the royal family that he was almost made Prince Harry’s godfather. Then came the increasingly damning reports on Savile’s close personal friendship with Charles, culminating in the release earlier this year of letters proving that the now-King of England regularly sought Savile’s advice on sensitive political matters

ALISON BELLAMY: It’s not just a couple—you know it’s not just three or four. There’s absolutely loads—there’s files of it!

ALISON BELLAMY [READING LETTER FROM PRINCE CHARLES TO JIMMY SAVILE]: December 22, 1989. I wonder if you would ever be prepared to meet my sister-in-law, the Duchess of York? I can’t help feeling that it would be extremely helpful to her if you could. I feel she could do with some of your straightforward common sense.

NEWS ANCHOR: 54 minutes after they’d taken off without warning or distress signal, the airliner started to disintegrate over Lockerbie.

ALISON BELLAMY: January 27, 1989. A month after the Lockerbie disaster. This is Jimmy giving PR advice to the royal family about how to react publicly when there’s a major incident in Britain.

PRINCE ANDREW: I suppose that, statistically, something like this has got to happen at some stage on a time. But of course, it only affects the community in a very small way.

ALISON BELLAMY [READING LETTER]: Jimmy advises the queen should be informed in advance of any proposed action by family members. Jimmy suggests they should have a coordinator who’s a special person with considerable experience in such matters. There must be an incident room with several independent phone lines, Teletex, etc.

ALISON BELLAMY: I mean, Jimmy is advising them how to do it. What they should do. How they should act. What they should say. Should they say anything.

So Charles says to Jimmy: “I attach a copy of my memo on disasters, which incorporates your points, and I showed it to my father and he showed it to her majesty.”

Jimmy had sent back to Charles a five-part manual titled “Guidelines for members of the Royal Family and their staffs.” Jimmy seems to be a kind of unofficial chief advisor to the Prince of Wales.

SOURCE: Jimmy Savile: A British Horror Story

And on top of all that, there was Savile’s own uncomfortable admission that the knighthood had “let him off the hook” for his past sins.

Unsurprisingly, the royal family has never had to respond in any way to public outrage about these reports. No presstitute who wants to keep his job is ever going to dare press Charles on the issue and, since Savile’s crimes were only brought to light after his death, the royals could always hide behind the “plausible deniability” that they didn’t know what Sir Jimmy was up to. They didn’t even need to launch a formal process to strip Savile of his knighthood because, as it turns out, the honour “automatically expire[s] when a person dies.”

But, as I say, the Savile scandal blew up back in the bygone era of a decade ago, when the concept of political pedophile rings was still in the realm of crazed conspiracy podcasts. That all changed, of course, when the Epstein story finally broke into the public consciousness in 2019.

And who just happened to be in the middle of that scandal?

That’s right, Prince Andrew. The brother of the current king and the eighth in line to the British throne. A man so transparently lecherous that for decades the UK tabloids have mockingly referred to him as “Randy Andy.” A man who literally had to invent a scientifically unknown condition of being “unable to sweat” to try to “prove” that the allegations made against him by Jeffrey Epstein victim Virginia Giuffre were false.

I mean, yes, there’s the photo of him with his arm around an underage Giuffre (with intelligence handler and convicted sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell hovering in the background), but he doesn’t sweat so . . . it’s all a lie?

No one buys anything that comes out of the mouth of His Royal Lowness, Prince Andrew, Duke of Dork. After all, you know someone must be a public relations mess when even the royal family is compelled to revoke his titles and royal patronages to keep him out of the spotlight of public scrutiny. As we’ve seen, the royals didn’t even dole out that form of retroactive punishment to Sir Jimmy.

As we all know, the public is no longer as naïve as they were in 2012, and, sadly, the nightmarish reality of protected political pedophile rings is so accepted as documented fact that it is no longer mocked as conspiracy yarn. And, to the surprise of no one who is familiar with the ignoble history of the royal family, the House of Windsor has been implicated in two of the highest profile pedophile scandals in recent memory. . . . Oh wait, make that three.

So here’s a rhetorical question for you: who in the controlled mainstream media do you think will ever dare bring up this topic up again now that Prince Charles is officially King Charles?


Making this video feels like I’m telling a child, all in one sitting, that Santa Claus isn’t real, the Easter Bunny is a hoax and the tooth fairy is just your mom.

But, in reality, it’s worse than that. It’s telling fully grown adults that Santa Claus isn’t real, the Easter Bunny is a hoax and the tooth fairy is just their mom and being ridiculed as a fringe loony for doing so.

This isn’t my first attempt at opening eyes on this subject, either. Back in 2015, I made note of the absolute madness that took hold of the global media surrounding the announcement of the birth of Princess Charlotte, writing:

So who is going so crazy for this royal baby? Surely no one who is familiar with the real history of the reign of the “Windsors,” a reign marked by the tens of millions of lives lost in the First and Second World Wars (in which the royal family had a great degree of culpability), close collaboration with the banksters that have brought us to the edge of the next great depression, the formation of the Anglo-American “special relationship” in common cause with like-minded eugenicists in America like Teddy Roosevelt, the cultivation and protection of pedophiles (of whom Jimmy Savile was just the most noticeable tip of a very large iceberg), the slaying of Diana, and any number of other atrocities that should make this family one of the most reviled in the “commonwealth” they claim to rule over. And yet the media still lauds their every action, sings their praises as a venerable institution at the core of British society, dutifully acts as the royal PR mouthpiece in reporting on their charity work, and marginalizes any talk of doing away with the royal family altogether as “republican rabble-rousing.”

Plus ça change . . .

And now once again we have one of these royal events come along to remind us just how many people are still firmly ensconced in normieland. After all the royals have put us through, it’s flabbergasting that they’re still held in such high regard.

It’s incomprehensible that this royal eugenicist is trotted out to be the face of The Great Reset and to lecture the peasants about how they’ll have to become serfs on the neofeudal plantation for the sake of Mother Earth, but even more disheartening is the fact that there are still vast swaths of people who believe that this family has been chosen by God Himself to rule over an entire nation (or even a “commonwealth”).

Here’s to the day when this type of video is completely unnecessary and the placing of a fancy hat on some pompous British octogenarian’s head was of no significance to anyone whatsoever. One can always dream. . . .

This piece first appeared in The Corbett Report Subscriber newsletter in September 2022. To keep up to date with the newsletter, and to support The Corbett Report, please subscribe today.


  1. Bloody brilliant. So good I watched it again straight afterwards, and accidentally ended up nuking my broccoli. It was worth it.

    • Agreed!! I’m looking forward to a second watching this evening when my partner can join me.

  2. This was so great, and superbly produced and edited by Broc as well. I just love you guys and so grateful for what you are doing.

  3. Excellent feature James!
    If I had the power, I would force school book publishers worldwide
    to include a chapter in their history text books, of the royals, that included your text word for word.

  4. Thank you James and Broc! Much enjoyed this one, and the teasers that we’ll get more!

  5. Why can’t some people believe in the evil of Royalty? If magic is the work of a mage to enthrall or enslave, then what is Majesty?

  6. Did you guys/gals/zee see the great news? WHO done it again, the pandemic is over. We are SAFE at last. All hail the WHO.

    • Not in my neck of the woods.
      As of today, a good 25% of the people still refuse to go out in public without their face diaper. 🙁

      • People here quit for good. Still some mask wearing in various “medical institutions”, but otherwise difficult to see it when up and about. I’m sure some of the incoming tourists are going to keep up with the paranoia, but for me it’s getting increasingly difficult to see these people as people. I know, I’m working on it. Tourism industry is one of the final nails in the coffin.

      • I see them as those kids that like to relieve themselves into their diaper. If that feeling of soiling oneself is not the strongest possible motivation to stop wearing diapers I don’t know what is.

      • “poker players who hold their cards backwards”

        Great line!

  7. They all look like vampires – KC3, QE2, Andy, Princess Anne, Harry and his scary af wife could all star in Bram Stoker stories. Diana and Catherine are the only human looking ones.

  8. A timely, sobering and important report James. Thanks to both you and Brok for the excellent work.

    It is disturbing and disgusting that a mortal human could actually feel that he is entitled to become “the only lawful and rightful liege lord” of other men and women.

    At least in the United States the rulers have the decency to pretend that they believe in “democracy”. Ha!

    Still, I am and always will be a monarchist. And no, while a devoted fan, I’m not referring to Media Monarchy.

    My King didn’t spend His entire life waiting for his predecessor to die. My King spent His entire life teaching those who had the ears to hear and would listen how to themselves gain eternal life.

    My King didn’t treat his friends like mere objects, only good for slaking his royal desires and fulfilling his regal demands. He became their servant.

    My King didn’t suffer from a genetic blood disorder, hemophilia, or any of the many defects that has resulted from centuries of inbreeding.
    Rather He was the immaculately conceived only begotten Son of God whose blood has washed away the sins of anyone who submits themselves to His authority.

    It definitely is incomprehensible that this royal eugenicist and all the other mortal misanthropes is trotted out to be the faces of The Great Reset and to lecture the peasants about how they’ll have to become serfs on the neofeudal plantation for the sake of Mother Earth,
    My King is actually going to bring about a great reset. The Greatest Reset.
    My King is going to bring a whole new earth into existence. He is going to make all things new again. He is going to completely do away with suffering and death. And He will reign over that new earth as the only righteous King for all eternity.

    And the best news is that while One can always dream that the day will come when men stop worshiping and enthroning other mortals. We don’t have to dream about my King
    One need simple to believe in Him and accept the gift He gave to the world.

    Redemption. Its no dream.

    2 Corinthians 6:2
    “(For he saith, I have heard thee in a time accepted, and in the day of salvation have I succoured thee: behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation.)”

  9. James – If you’re planning a trip to Canada, anticipate being strip searched. Thus, recommend leaving the “Screw The Oilers” boxer shorts at home. Your diary as well. Also, I don’t express my gratitude often enough. Allow me to remedy that deplorable situation. Thank you, James, for all you do. For stepping up to the plate back in 2007. You continue knocking them out of the park. Kudos to you as well, Broc, for your editing magnificence. Consider yourselves Knighted.

  10. The pomp and circumstance is so repulsive.

  11. Nice work, James and Broc. I have to say, this mini-documentary made my stomach turn. We are looking at lost, evil people. It’s sad to see that some of humanity exists in the way the “royals” do.

  12. >>Making this video feels like I’m telling a child, all in one sitting, that Santa Claus isn’t real, the Easter Bunny is a hoax and the tooth fairy is just your mom.>>

    Good start. Might include some other truths…

    God: A fiction created to rationalize the inevitability of death. The persistence of a myth doesn’t make it true.
    All organized religions are based on man-made “gods” used for power and control over others. They strip humans of sovereign spiritual expression of thanks for the miracle of sentience to be replaced with rule books of fear from made up evils like satan, hell, demons, sin, etc.
    – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
    There is no such thing as human made “climate change” or whatever it is being called these days.
    Basically…in one hundred years of study, world temp has warmed up 9/10ths of ONE DEGREE.
    Carbon dioxide is necessary for plant growth.
    – – – – – – – – – – – – –
    Oil is not a “fossil” fuel. Oil is unlimited, abiotic, and in constant renewal from deep in the earth.
    In 1892 oil barron Rockefeller sent his scientists to a convention in Switzerland. And because everything Hydrogen, Oxygen and Carbon, they got the convention to name Oil a “fossil fuel.”
    – – – – – – – – – – – – –
    Robert J. O’Neill did not kill Osama Bin Laden. Osama (Tim Osman-CIA code name)
    Died in 2001 in Tora Bora from kidney failure
    – – – – – – – – – – – – –
    Over the past 15-20 years Max Martin has been the brains, ears and talent behind virtually every hit pop song that has been released to the screaming masses. He’s personally responsible for churning out more Billboard singles than Michael Jackson and Madonna COMBINED.
    – – – – – – – – – – – – –
    Author Brian Tuohy provides a full-sourced saga of the corruption that has infected the storied histories of the NBA, MLB, NFL, NHL, and NASCAR, arrangements between television networks and sports leagues, all against a background of drinking, drugging, gambling and crime.
    – – – – – – – – – – – – –
    The United States of America is not a country, it is a corporation owned by the same bloodlines who owned the Virginia Company, because the USA is the Virginia Company! In 1604, a group of leading UK politicians, businessmen, merchants, manufacturers and bankers, met and formed a corporation called the Virginia Company in anticipation of the imminent influx of white Europeans into the North American continent.

    After the original American colonies won their ‘independence’ and an ‘independent’ country was formed after 1783, the Virginia Company simply changed its name to… the United States of America.

    GET OFF THE PHONE (song)
    (431 words)

    • I agree with all of what you listed, although the Rob O’Neill link you gave showed an “error” page. I think that there would be no need to read him in on the hoax, thus he may actually think that the man he shot was Bin Laden, making him a patsy of sorts. My one disagreement with your list would be that even though the tyrannical co-opt religion for their own selfish purposes, it does not prove the non-existence of God. For example, bad people found and abuse charitable organizations, but that does not negate the concept or beauty of true charity.

      • Plenty of links to Osama’s death certificate in search engines. Yeah, O’Neill could easily have been a patsy considering the long history of using doubles for Osama on film.

        As you know, in intellectual “argument” the person making a claim is responsible for the proof to back it, the denial of a claim is the factual observations (moon landing, JFK, 9/11, Sandy Hook, etc.)

        In the case of the god myth there has never been anything except heartfelt personal testimony and intellectual machinations with “therefore…” conclusions.

        Your “charity” example is a nice one but is only thought provoking not evidence of anything else but interesting thinking.

        The difference of tribal spirituality and Western “religion” is tribal is about spiritual business, a humbling thanks to the unknown for the beauty of sentience. Indeed some were fear filled but overall, world wide, tribal spiritual expression was not.

        Religion is the BUSINESS of spirituality…power, control, wealth, etc. based on fear and punishment.

        In my essay: THE BIGGER PICTURE P 1

        I am able to go into greater depth about the control of humanity evolutionary process. With the great number of actors pulling it off it is more significance to first understand the WHAT is being done rather then the WHO.

        As I have offered here many times, for the majority of folks under 50 their foundation of beliefs and “knowledge” has been acquired from the controller’s propaganda arm…the Entertainment Business (TV, Movies, News, etc.)

        Observing the common pop culture cliche’ ridden conversations should be a big clue for most. Same think, same speak.

        Thanks for the reply.

        • I am glad you clarified what you mean regarding religion versus spirituality and that there is an unknown. I think that religion has been used as a mechanism of control but also that it is now being replaced by something worse. I think the existence of a deity or deities has not been proven with science thus cannot be proven empirically which leaves doubt in some people’s minds. And they have a right to doubt and find their own way.

          What irks me is people who try to impose their beliefs and views on others including people who are staunch atheists which to me is another type of “religion” or stringent belief system. I have no problem with people who believe that god does not exist but should not impose their views on others.

          It comes back to control. Once people attempt to centralize control and/or use systems to manipulate people becomes problematic and almost like a cancer to the essence of humanity.

          While I’m sure many people use religion for purposes of community, devotion to beauty and mystery and to find meaning and greater purpose, I think it’s undeniable that organized religion has also been used to harm. For example during the dark ages when people were burned at the stake. Humanity has gone through some very dark periods and this is no exception.

          Anyway, I thought your comment was thought provoking.

          • >>I am glad you clarified what you mean regarding religion versus spirituality and that there is an unknown.>>

            Indeed. I have always been of the school of spend less time probing the “cause” or “creation” of life and actually enjoying it and exploring all the wonders of other things from waterfalls to creepy crawlies.

            Sort of like an initiation ritual…when you can really dig reality then one will be ready for the bigger story hey? 🙂

            >> I think that religion has been used as a mechanism of control…>>

            For sure it has been, and the mechanics of that I have offered here from a little book I wrote called Demons and Redemption…

            Control and power of the church state the government, the military, the global corporations, university systems, etc. have adapted or blue printed the same tactics as the very successful male run church state:

            Organized religion has sin and devil;
            the government has terrorists and communists;
            global corporations have yellow waxy floor buildup, bad breath, etc.,
            the universities say you are ignorant and need to be taught.

            They all promise to provide Redemption for a cost. Parishioners, taxpayers, customers and students must fork over money in a never ending dance of new demons, or new ways of redemption.

            >>… but also that it is now being replaced by something worse.>>

            IMO, the take over of humanity. All the nonsense symbolism of devils, demons, 666, hell, etc. have been so embedded in the sub-conscious and conscious group mind true, clear thinking is quite difficult to find. One hears soooo much Satan nonsense it is very sad.

            >>I think the existence of a deity or deities has not been proven with science thus cannot be proven empirically which leaves doubt in some people’s minds. And they have a right to doubt and find their own way.>>


            >>What irks me is people who try to impose their beliefs and views on others including people who are staunch atheists which to me is another type of “religion” or stringent belief system. I have no problem with people who believe that god does not exist but should not impose their views on others.>>

            That arrogance and hubris is known as cognitive bias: Individuals create their own “subjective reality” from their perception of the input.

            Cognitive biases may sometimes lead to perceptual distortion, inaccurate judgment, illogical interpretation leading to Confirmation Bias where people select information that supports their views, ignoring contrary information and then ride that donkey to death.

            >>It comes back to control. Once people attempt to centralize control and/or use systems to manipulate people becomes problematic and almost like a cancer to the essence of humanity.>>

            It is the consequence, IMO, that the reduction or elimination of “Right brain” creativity, intuition intentionally done by the controllers to strip people of their understanding of their power and put in place a reliance on being “saved” whether it is Jesus, Trump, “Q” or the endless heroes of the cartoonification of humanity…

            [SNIP – Please keep comments to 500 words or less. Longer comments can be split into multiple posts. -JC]

          • “impose their views on others.”

            What does that mean to you exactly?
            How someone would go about imposing their views on others in regards to religious beliefs?

            Are you referring to to the Crusades or the Spanish Inquisition?

            • Yes, I think my example was the Spanish Inquisition. But, I mean impose in the normal sense of the word. Here’s the standard definition and common examples that convey the meaning:

              With respect to religion some people will try to “push” or promote their beliefs on others such as some Jehova’s coming around every week handing out their booklet. Some are less pushy and actually quite polite an I’m never rude, but I’m not really interested in someone trying to convert me to their religion.

              I’ve also had a nutty uncle who was involved with a certain church that was more of a money making operation and he would always try to talk to me about his beliefs when it was obvious that this was a one way conversation. He was more of a shyster than a minister.

              On the other hand, if someone invites me to attend their church because they think I’d enjoy myself and they are acting in good faith I won’t be offended. If I say no, they are open to no it’s not pushy. I might say yes and in fact have attended church with friends. I even attended my husbands church a few times.

              I also don’t like people who try to get to me to drink more alcohol than I want to or do any activity I’m not really wanting to do. In fact, that to me is more annoying than the Jehova’s because alcohol is harmful.

              But to cut it short, impose implies a type of coercion by way of legal penalty or shaming or other type of manipulative practice. There are people who impose their views on others. Stating ones beliefs is different than imposing. Implying other people are stupid or some other negative characterization for not holding their beliefs is kind of annoying. People with strong beliefs or who lack humility are most prone to this.

              • Thanks for clarifying. I think though that the key word in the definition you linked to is “Force”.

                I was just out front watering and a ice cream vendor drove by blaring obnoxious carnival type music that is going to be reverberating in my skull for the rest of the evening.
                I couldn’t escape from it. I live here. I was forced to listen.
                It was imposed on me.

                On the other hand, if I went to a carnival and walked down the fairway with the same sort of horrible music blaring from every attraction, that would not be an imposition. I chose to be there and have the freedom to leave.

                Pushing one’s beliefs and or opinions on others only becomes imposing when force or coercion is used.

                My persistence in defending my beliefs here is likely annoying to some who read my comments. Seemingly most people. But its not imposing. Because anyone and everyone has the choice to simply not read them.

                For instance, when Mr. Doyle vociferously demanded that duck stop replying or responding to him. That indicates one of two things.
                Either Mr. Doyle is being forced by someone to read duck’s posts or else he is lacking the self control to refrain from reading those posts that he finds so off putting.
                Either way, duck isn’t imposing his opinions on him.

              • Steve,

                Yes, agree with impose implying force or sometimes coercion or pressure. Like I used to have a friend at work who was a bit of a problem drinker and always drank to excess and would try to get other people to drink more than they wanted to. She wasn’t forcing me, but was pressuring me. But it was still my choice, so I can’t blame her for when I woke up with a bad hang over. I’m better at resisting pressure now.

                I think that with religion if people have had negative experiences with it, like being swindled or being strongly pressured or even abused in some cases (catholic schools used to whip students-my great grand ma told me). This can cause leave a negative impression. Some people are more indoctrinated into religion as young people and some of them naturally become off put by it. It can be a means of control rather than liberation or at least comes off as such.

                I’ve spoken to some really seemingly enlightened people from different faiths (priests and rabbis) who on first glance might assume they would be a certain way but they were actually interesting to talk to. I’ve been surprised a few times as to their openness to discuss ideas outside of their religious context.

                I have also interacted with priests and rabbis in the course of my work, seeing how they support patients and families in times of substantial stress. Usually people like this genuinely want to help and give/lead someone to something they think can help them and say it in such a way that it is not imposing, judgmental or condescending. And then they leave the person with the autonomy to make their own choice. Usually they are good listeners.

                I try to have respect for people’s religious and spiritual beliefs even ones that are contrary to my own.

                I do not feel imposed upon by you sharing your religious beliefs and practices, just so you know.

  13. I’m kind of dreading watching this one. When I learned about the creepy prince Andrew situation and heard what one of these parasites said about coming back as a virus to kill off humanity, I knew all I needed to to know what these people are.

    And tax payers do subsidize these people and their lifestyle. It’s sick actually, having wages stolen and supporting “leaders” who actively want to kill, maim and harm the very people who pay for their existence. What causes this insanity? Who legitimizes this?

    How long has this system been in place? It seems very ingrained in the psyche of people in western civilization. I can’t comment on people outside of my own context, so I don’t know how other cultures view this.

    I bet these sick individuals actually enjoy taking money from people who they are harming. It is probably pleasurable to them, to harm people who support them financially. What type of person does this if not a psychopath. And why are all these psychopaths in these positions? Why do people look up to psychopaths? Is it that people don’t know or do they have some kind of unconscious or subconscious desire to be exploited or used? Or do people like to be ruled over? What benefit do they get from this? What need is being fulfilled? How can we fulfill this need in a more healthy way? Or how do we expose this and get people to see what they are doing?

    I look at my own acts of supporting these parasites through taxes. But how do we stop doing this if most people would continue to support it? One person being thrown in jail will not stop the system. And if people are essentially allowing these types of people to use their funds for evil, does that mean that they are complicit in evil?

    • Why do people look up to psychopaths? Is it that people don’t know or do they have some kind of unconscious or subconscious desire to be exploited or used? Or do people like to be ruled over? What benefit do they get from this? What need is being fulfilled? How can we fulfill this need in a more healthy way? Or how do we expose this and get people to see what they are doing?

      These psychopaths are being supported by the MSM and governments around the world.
      The psycho’s own them. The general public is simply ignorant. If somehow they learned the truth about who/what the British Monarchy is all about, they would denounce them all in a heartbeat.

      But we have reached the point of no return. Only the total collapse of western civilization will ever return the world to sanity and safety.

      • If a relative normie like me can find this material and learn it and cogitate on the facts, I conclude that other persons similar to myself can also learn. Having said that, I don’t really think the general public likes to learn about things that challenge how they see the world. It’s uncomfortable and can cause a rift in the psyche and be overwhelming to consider the extent and weight of the problems that face us. I often feel overwhelmed and “stuck” like I’m in quicksand or paralyzed mentally. It’s very uncomfortable because there is only so much I can do.

        So, I think it’s more than just ignorance. Some of this stuff is very unsettling to say the least. Especially considering the pedophilia and other sickness that’s probably involved that is a bit too much even for me to consider. These people are monsters. They are no better than the every day criminal psychopathic murderer and yet they have tremendous power which is very frightening to consider.

  14. The coronation isn’t getting very good reviews in the United States today. Social media is filled with displeasure about everything from Camilla, to the opulence, to the ones who will only acknowledge Christ as King, to the ones who haven’t cared since 1776. Not a good day to be a royal on Instagram.
    Of course, the private secretaries and communications directors are deleting as fast as they can but the general opinion isn’t wishing them well.

  15. “God: A fiction created to rationalize the inevitability of death.”

    Would you perhaps be willing to explain what qualifies you to make such a definitive and categorical assertion?

    Is your IQ so much greater than the countless intellectuals in history who have come to a different conclusion? Notables such as Isaac Newton who said,

    “This most beautiful system of the sun, planets and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.”

    Or Albert Einstein
    “In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognise, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support of such views.”

    Or Francis Bacon
    “God has, in fact, written two books, not just one. Of course, we are all familiar with the first book he wrote, namely Scripture. But he has written a second book called creation.”

    Is your breadth of experience broader and your knowledge deeper than men like
    Benjamin Franklin, (God will certainly reward virtue and punish vice, either here or hereafter.)
    Thomas Jefferson (I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever.)
    and C. S. Lewis? (I gave in, and admitted that God was God, and knelt and prayed:)

    Of course, I have no way of knowing with any certainty. But perhaps James Corbett isn’t convinced that what you claim so confidently about the non existence of God is actually a “truth“.
    Perhaps Mr. Corbett is humble enough to realize that making such a claim leaves one in the rather awkward position of trying to explain the origins of a universe that man is incapable of even observing more than a fraction of or explaining the workings of to any significant degree. Much less understanding it’s origins.

    Can you explain how everything that is came to be Mr. Doyle? Has the theory of evolution become the fact of evolution?
    Even Darwin himself acknowledged the Creator.
    “I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed by the Creator.“

    “The persistence of a myth doesn’t make it true.”

    I agree. The myth that the universe came into being with an intelligent Creator, who many people refer to as God, is perhaps the most unbelievable myth ever proposed. And will remain so no matter how many times it is repeated.

    • ““The persistence of a myth doesn’t make it true.”

      I agree. The myth that the universe came into being with an intelligent Creator, who many people refer to as God, is perhaps the most unbelievable myth ever proposed. And will remain so no matter how many times it is repeated.“

      Should have read “ The myth that the universe came into being “without” an intelligent Creator”

      • I agree with the essence of what you say regarding the assertion of what god is with absolute certainty. I think that when people become certain about the unknown, this is called belief or faith.

        I used to be a staunch atheist when I was younger (and probably had a higher IQ than I do now). But I grew to understand that there are things that I don’t know and can’t know with my intellect and science. There are spectra of light and sound that I cannot even perceive.

        So in recognition of this and some very seredipitous events in my life have left the door open for “more”. Certainly greater minds than me like Einstein and others have believed in god. Even my own mom who ‘s intellect far outstrips my own believes. But that by itself does not make me certain of anything.

        I am a skeptic and always have been since I was a kid once I learned the tooth fairy was a lie was a bit skeptical of mystical phenomena and fully believing anything. But this doesn’t mean I can’t be wrong and would like to believe that there is some loving force/creator/cosmic intelligence that takes a “personal interest” in me. But regardless of what lies beyond, I am very thankful and grateful for the life that I have lived. And even if I didn’t believe in god would still feel a sense of empathy for others and concern for what I leave behind and for the well being of future generations, animals, and the the miracle of life itself.

      • On and on it goes. The arguing and dis-agreeing and speculating and denying.
        Christ said: “Prove me by that which is made.” He didn’t say “exists”. He said MADE. That means it was created. That it previously did not exist. Yeah, I know. I’m doing that which I accuse everybody else of doing. Or am I?
        There is one thing that we all will finally have to admit at some point. Either God exists or He doesn’t. For some that will only happen after they are dead. And believe it or not everyone is going to die at some point. Even if you believe that Methusala lived over 900 years, he still died.
        The arrogant, and the proud like to believe that they are a leg up and have some sort of intellect that others of us do not have. But there is one thing for sure.
        They will also die. The thing that they will have to decide is, What if I’m wrong? I, don’t have to worry about that because if I’m wrong and there is no God I’m not going to be spending eternity regretting my mistake. On the other hand….

        • Joebear, I know that most folks here would rather I keep my faith to myself. I’ve no doubt that some don’t even bother reading the post when they see my name at the top.
          But I strongly believe that it would at minimum be disobedient and at worst be evil to neglect to share the most wonderful and important truth that I know.
          And to warn anyone who is willing to hear against the rejection of it.

          Hebrews 2:3
          “How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him;”

          I know that the world is filled with people who have similar thoughts as expressed by cu.h.j when she encouragingly wrote;

          “But this doesn’t mean I can’t be wrong and would like to believe that there is some loving force/creator/cosmic intelligence that takes a “personal interest” in me.”

          I know because I had the same sorts of thoughts myself once.

          Knowing that there are honest, open minded seekers who are still searching for the meaning and purpose of their lives, how could I even consider remaining silent about my absolute conviction that God exists and that He gave His only begotten Son as a sacrifice for the sins of mankind so that anyone who believes might be reconciled to Him?

          Psalms 34:8
          “O taste and see that the LORD is good: blessed is the man that trusteth in him.”

          You are correct that there is absolutely nothing to risk or lose by opening the door of one’s heart to the one true God of the universe.
          That so many people don’t is evidence that the god of this world has blinded them.

          2 Corinthians 4:4
          “In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.”

          I always pray that my clumsy and feeble attempts to share the Gospel might be blessed by the Lord, that He might bind the evil one and allow the eyes to open.
          Whether He chooses to use me or not is something that I can’t worry about.
          I can only trust and obey.

          Acts 26:18
          “To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.”

        • Yes, everybody dies and everyone will learn what lies beyond or doesn’t or if it’s totally different than what you believe.

          The thing I don’t get is why some people think that if a person does not believe exactly what they believe that god will either send them to hell or give them eternal darkenss? Or whatever it seems that some Christians seem to believe. I’m sure some other messianic faiths may also have this belief too, so I’m not picking on Christians.

          It doesn’t make sense to me, why would an enlightened being or creator care what someone believes before they die? I mean I do kind of believe in the idea of karma or that there is some value to being good. But believing in something isn’t a conscious choice. But to lie is especially to oneself.

          I’m not going to lie and say I believe in something that I really haven’t delved into.

          I do think that religion and spirituality is like a language and speaks to different people differently.

          I mean has anyone ever gone out and tried to talk to other people in different faiths or spiritual traditions? Would you tell a Buddhist that if he doesn’t say that Jesus Christ is his lord and savior that he will burn in hell?

          He might have done more good in the world than anyone on this board. I just really don’t think a creator would care who the good Buddhist believed in. What matters most is your actions and I think that’s how you get to know god or how ever else you define it.

          Practice religion, a meditative practice or some other creative endeavor and be a good person and god will speak to you in a way you can understand.

          That’s kind of the way that I see it and if you think I’m an evil person for this or that I should go to hell, that’s perfectly fine.

          And maybe I am wrong and some jealous deity is the creator and because I didn’t do everything he wanted I will burn in eternal hell forever and ever. And if a deity did this to me I’m sure I would me miserable, but I would be right to say this deity is wrong to condemn me! I would be right and he would be wrong and very much doubt that the creator of all things is jealous and spiteful and wants to be worshiped in the way that some believe is necessary. I just don’t believe it.

          And maybe I just don’t understand what you are saying and in that case, I hope I didn’t offend you. I just don’t get it.

          • “He might have done more”

            That is the crux of the matter.

            Imagine that you were God. Which you don’t seem to have much of a problem doing. 🙂

            Now imagine that you sacrificed the life of your own perfect, sinless Son to restore mankind to the relationship that you originally designed them to have with you, their creator. The perfect loving eternal relationship that man enjoyed before he exercised his free will by choosing to disobey you and bringing all creation under the curse of death.

            You didn’t have to provide a way of redemption for your creation. You could have just wiped them out and started over.
            But because you loved mankind so much and were so broken-hearted because of the separation that man’s rebellion brought about, you chose to make the ultimate sacrifice to repair the relationship.

            Now imagine how you, as God would feel when someone says,
            “I don’t need to accept what you’ve provided. I can do it myself by being good and doing nice things. You let your Son die for nothing.”

            cu.h.j., you have every right to believe that you are in a position to judge God and His methods.
            You are certainly entitled to reject what the Bible teaches.
            But you can’t claim that the Bible doesn’t say what it says.

            The Jews were given the Law, and commanded to perform animal sacrifices in order to teach them and show the world that keeping the law was impossible and performing good works was insufficient.
            The purpose of the law was to point the world to the savior.

            The Bible teaches that you cannot possibly do enough good works to redeem yourself. It teaches that its not a matter of what you do. Its a matter of what God has already done.

            Salvation is a free gift from your creator. Take it or leave it. Believe it or deny it.
            But you will never be able to claim that you were unaware of it.

            • You have not answered some of the points I have raised but have instead done what the poster Duck does a lot but Isolate one sentence and and then in a way preach. I don’t think you are trying to be offensive and so I won’t take it that way.

              But if you want to really give something or guide someone, you need to listen more. Be an example instead of lecturing and reading from the Bible to others.

              I have noticed that in the past you have had some more flexibility in mind and I’m not sure what has changed but when you are so stringent and retrenched in dogma or a certain way of worship, other people may automatically put up walls.

              This is just my impression, how I’m responding to what you’re writing.

              I’m not trying to offend you or other evangelical Christians (and there are diverse types as I’m sure you are aware), but there are things in the Bible that don’t mesh with me. This is the same of the Jewish law, the Talmud and all that stuff. It frankly turns me off. But maybe I’m misreading it or it’s meant for different ears. That can also be true.

              If you are concerned for my eternal soul, thanks. I have enough faith in my own intuition and relationship to sacredness that I’m not worried about it, so you don’t need to worry, okay.

              If you want to really have deeper discussion about religion and spirituality, I’m interested in that but I’m not interested in someone preaching at me and telling me that I’m wrong about something that is unknown to both of us. Logic does have it’s purpose and so does scientific discovery. Einstein was a great thinker and I like some of his ideas, how he tried to understand and connect physics with god.

              Anyway, I hope you are doing great and enjoying this day and I’m so glad you have passion, faith and love in your heart! I mean that. I am so glad that you feel so good in your faith. Thank you for taking the time to share.

              • I’m sorry that you don’t think that I’m listening to what you’re saying. I really tried to address what you said in as clear a way as I can.

                Please tell me specifically what you think I should have addressed that I didn’t.

                I think that the problem might be that I am in the position of taking the Bible as the actual infallible Word of God.
                I can’t put myself in the position of questioning what it says. To me it is the truth.

                Whereas you don’t accept the Bible as truth so therefore are able to apply your own reasoning to how you think God should treat people.
                I don’t have the luxury of being able to do that.
                So speculating about how you or I would like God to deal with people is pointless to me.

                So I’m sorry that you find my way of communicating preachy and lecturing. I just don’t know how else to communicate what I actually believe but by using the source of what I hold to be true.

                So at the very likely risk of offending you once more I will quote one more verse that might explain why you might feel the way that you do.

                1 Corinthians 2:14
                “But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.”

                I truly am concerned about your eternal soul. The fact that you aren’t actually only makes me feel worse.

              • cu.h.j
                Steve hit the nail squarely when he pointed out The verse in Corinthians.
                God is the Creator and He is the one who decided how it would be done and when. In His Word He states His plan and reveals His Goal.
                It really makes no sense that He would do all of this and then just sort of walk away and leave man to his own devices. Like “Go ahead and roll the dice and see what comes up”. God knows what will happen in this world and why. And He also knows how to communicate with His people when He needs to. There is nothing that he does not know. It’s simple man who doesn’t know anything. He cannot even sustain himself when he is first born. He may have some instinct that causes him to cry out because he is hungry at first breath, but other than that he can do nothing. Imagine a newborn getting up after about 20 minutes and wobbling away across the room. That would be earth-shaking.
                God’s Word is written with cryptic meanings and coded messages for His Elect. It’s meant for only them and only they can get the true understanding by way of God’s Holy Spirit. St. Paul understood this and that’s why he said what he said in Corinthians. Two different kinds of people. One with God’s Spirit and one without. Again, man had nothing to do with it. It’s God’s will to give His Spirit to whom He will.
                You said to Steve; ” but there are things in the Bible that don’t mesh with me.”
                May I ask you for an example? I don’t know if I can answer you correctly but maybe I can.
                In my heart of hearts I don’t believe there is anything more important than this. Mankind is on a road that will lead to the end of himself if not stopped. If his goal is to turn himself into a perpetual machine that never dies and never gets old or wears out, then what would be the end result? Machines do not have feelings. James did a fantastic job with his explanation of sycopaths way back in 2009. They are clearly pointed out in the scriptures too. But they too eventually die. A machine? A robot?
                What’s the point? A world full of Star Trek Data’s?
                This world we live in is a fantastic place. It is full of wonders that simple man can’t even begin to explain or understand. All he can do is marvel at how perfect things are. Until he puts his hands on them, they are just that . Perfect. The human eye? The Arctic Tern? The Hummingbird?

          • No, you haven’t offended me and I certainly do not intend to offend anyone either. My God is a Jealous God and He says so. Who am I to judge Him? Everything I have or have had has been provided on this earth. I have not nor can I create anything. Except maybe havoc.
            What I believe most people struggle with is the Faith part. The scripture clearly states that without Faith there is no hope. It’s not my will or my plan. It’s just the way things are. I do have Faith, and sometimes it wavers when things really go haywire. I think that this day and age would be enough to shake anyone’s Faith at least a little.
            But if there is nothing beyond this meager physical flash of life, what is the reason for people going through all they do? Why bother? Why wonder if there isn’t something more? To what end. If you know there is a difference between good and evil, why do you know that? When was it decided that there even was good and evil? But in our guts we know there is and we can’t deny it to ourselves.
            I’m rambling. Sorry.

        • Interesting discussion and interesting to see spiritual topics coming up (though am I correct in recalling that James never explicitly has dealt with those on his show?) and obviously there are listeners of all believes (or non-).
          Personally -fwiw- have always been fascinated by all those.
          If I may ask:

          “There is one thing that we all will finally have to admit at some point. Either God exists or He doesn’t. For some that will only happen after they are dead”

          I think I understand your point and it is of course a fair one, everyone has simply different experiences I guess.

          If -off chance- interesting to anyone, mine are:

          In general that in spiritual (or whatever to call it) questions the answers` limits (and possibility to encompass knowledge/truth) are already the question and the real one infact being its opposit, namely what are the assumptions IT is based upon ?.

          In this case: “Either god exists or he doesn`t (…) happen after they are dead”
          -in my experience at least- already bears very strong assumptions as to the three- in their essence nothing more (nor less) than words- concepts of

          1A) “God”
          1B) “Existence”
          1C) “Dead/Death”

          Plus the very main assumption of all underlying not only those, but also the (only) tool of both asking and pursuing/understanding the (and any) answer:


          – (capability of) consiousness, in this case (ca 16 hours/day) “waking” (in contrast to ca 8 hours/day “sleeping”) consciousness.
          Usually consisting in my experience for the most part of what is commonly meant by “Logic”-capabilities plus a certain individual range of (both material and other) “sensory” in/output.

          But ironically it is exactly that part of consciousness that is and will always be incapable of understanding the answer to these particular -its own- questions, hence it/we always finally meet(s) the dead end of “the eternally unknown” and thus “faith” as the seemingly only way to deal with that paradox.

          Religio means re-connection and different schools of faith -ime- are/can be very helpful exotheric practices/rituals as long as being (no more nor less then) the connection to the origin esoteric core, which is -and always will be- consciousness and now, for -ime- it creates reality, not the other way round.
          As also all questions (as mentioned) about

          “1”) itself,
          1A) Existence,
          1B) God,
          1C) Death

          and the questioning of its questioning/answering and All else.
          Awareness is always the centre of all and not in a philosophical, but practical sense.

          And – in my experience at least- this does not change after physical death, actually exactly the opposit, as in “sleeping” consciousness each night.
          The “environment” one finds oneself in during those states are mostly direct reflections/projections of one`s own individual consciousness, for the most part the “sub-conscious” parts and the “realities” we thus create are as real as it gets (including entities we encounter, from angels to demons). Though maybe not objectively.

          [SNIP – Please keep comments to 500 words or less. Longer comments can be split into multiple posts. -JC]

  16. On another WEF/Great Reset note, there is an abnormal scandal occurring in Canada that seems to be setting the stage for something. This isn’t your run-of-the-mill, “Prime Minister’s family member got money” scandal; we now have a foreign country (PRC, to be exact) threatening members of parliament:


    I haven’t checked te source, but I read that Poilievre’s campaign co-chair is a WEF youth member. Is this paving the way for Canada accepting to participate in a possible war against China, or will Poilievre assuredly be the next PM? After all, the Tories are working towards getting the fringe media’s attention by talking about what is normally considered conspiracy theories. Trudeau has accused Poilievre of that on a few occasions. China supposedly wants Trudeau there because he is less anti-China than Poilievre. Anyways, that is the theory behind the intervention in the first place. Now that talks of war against China are heating up, perhaps it is time for a change in order to start making more weapons?

    Whatever it is, I do not recall this type of scandal before. Maybe there are others, that I do not know of, that would help me understand what is happening now? I can research, but if anyone has info that would help, I would like to see it!

  17. I can’t thank you enough for always providing the full transcript of your show. I need to hear the rain today, rest up from this crazy eclipse period.
    And after reading the comments, I don’t think I want to watch these freaks. Been close to such as they have here in US, spooky creepy weird scary. Gross, really gross.
    Anyway, Matt Ehret’s doing a series on this on his substack, and other sites. The details of these shenanigans. Excellent complimentary work between the two of you. Kudos.
    Wow, hail? Yep…Happy May.
    I have a lot of suspicion it will be unforgetable.
    You more than deserve the success you’ve achieved, Mr Corbett. Your work is always sterling.

    The past three years have taught me to never ever underestimate the power of stupidity. I think Monty Python knew that the Brits were the ultimate power brokers of stupidity. Nothing like the outfit to prove it, eh Klauss? They’re all German, after all.

  18. This was a great episode! It was short and concise and was nicely edited. I liked the background. I think this is a great video to share with normies to introduce the surface of the depravity of the “royals” and I’m sure it’s much worse. I’ll have to watch the earlier documentary.

    I have had no interest in the royals. They always looked ugly to me, physically and seemed shallow but when I learned more about the pedophilia and probable deeper and more depraved involvement in it (that we probably will never be able to confirm) they turned my stomach. It’s a combination of nausea and rage. People who are involved in pedophile rings and sick stuff like that are truly evil. I won’t detail what I would like seen done to them.

    The extent of the political pedophilia and exposure of it could reduce them to nothing. But the psychopaths own the media and won’t cover it. But the people who work for them should know what they are covering up and I hope that it eats away at them every day and at the end of their lives they will know what they have done. Everyone has a last day and even for people who lack any belief or anything like that can have some type of life review, a personal accounting of what they did.

  19. I am 63 and Danish, living in one of the oldest kingdoms of the world, praising this institution and its function throughout most of my life, seeing the royal family as a noble and most valuable representative of Denmark, looking forward to Her Majesty’s wise and moral speech to the nation each new year. Yes, I had my reservations towards the other royal families of Europe and those of the Far East, but not ours—oh no! The royal Danish family (and of course the royals of our brother nations; Sweden and Norway) could never be entangled in any conspiracies or muddy scandals. Then (in 2020) I fell off my high horse when I learned that our crown prince and his wife princess Marry both were on the WEF-list of Young Global Leaders, and this new year when our queen took side in her speech with the Ukrainian nazi collaborator regime and by that sanctioning the civil war on Donbas supported by Kyiv since 2014. Then I slowly came to realize that these royal institutions, and what they are claimed to be, must be brought to an end. The royal, political, religious and scientific pedestals and all worshipping of celebrities must be eradicated if we are ever to become truly free.

  20. Iain Davis wrote an article published by OffG where he reminds us of another (and lesser known) paedo-related connection of Charles: his uncle and mentor was considered a paedo by the CIA (for what it counts).

    “As an adult, Charles was encouraged by “Uncle Dickie” to use Broadlands for any sexual rendezvous that Charles would rather keep quiet. The US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) described Mountbatten as a paedophile “with a perversion for young boys.”


    • Good article about his connection to child rapists. It’s a good read that goes into more depth about “Uncle Dickie”

      I mean considering UK citizens are supposed to be known for their high morality why are these parasites still being paid? I mean at least the government pretends to do actual work. Not that I’m justifying government or their own parasitic existence at this point, but the royals do absolutely nothing of value, zero as far as I can see. And if they are wasting hard earned money stolen from taxpayers and are using it for involvement in child rape and other similar crimes and depravity, this is just mind blowing.

      I really did not know just how corrupt these monarchs were, just thought it was some weird tradition. But wow, they are really sick, lowest of the low. And I don’t like to make assumptions based on appearance but they are ugly too, I mean hideous looking. Maybe the outside tends to look like the inside overtime? But I’m not saying all psychopaths are ugly, but these ones are.

      • I never understood why Dianna was so attracted to Charles, just based on looks alone he would be a turn off. It was just so weird. I mean if she wanted to marry into money, she could have found someone a lot better looking. I was just always baffled by that and on top of that he was a creep. Maybe she found out about the pedophilia and other depravity which is why she was assassinated.

  21. Three years ago, at the tender age of 60, I lost my innocence. The plandemic agenda lured me curiously down the proverbial rabbit hole, and I discovered that I had no idea whatsoever that evil’s gnarled tentacles reached so far and wide, so demonically deep, and into segments of society where one often places some measure of trust and perhaps even admiration. My shock, in part, was tempered by the fact that I am rather disinterested in celebrity, royalty, politicians and the like, so it seemed entirely possible to my brain that those in the so-called ‘elite’ classes could be this depraved. It is the depths of that depravity which I still grapple with. Yet I believe most humans are incredibly resilient, creative and compassionate. We must know these awful truths so we can try to do something to help, then deal with the trauma and move forward in a much healthier way. Wading through the mess will get us to the other side of it, but not unless we can wake people up to the real real. It’s going to be a tough slog, in my opinion, because many of the people I know are in the same place they were four years ago–unwilling to listen to or look at anything that goes against their world view, which they hold onto with every ounce of their resolve. The divide is great, but I do think some headway has been made of late. In terms of bonnie King Charlie, I don’t see his reign being a very long or successful one. For all of the pampering and organic food and the best of everything he has access to, he looks remarkably old and decrepit for a man his age. God save the king indeed. By the way, you’re looking very sharp, James. Well done!

  22. “..These royals—connected, as we remember, through inbreeding—had much more in common with their European brothers and sisters, cousins and uncles (but I repeat myself),..”

    I heared, I understood, I burst out laughing. Right up my alley, this kind of humor. Brilliant!

  23. Larken Rose just declared himself King

    Bow down and unclench, you peasant scum. Charles is given a week to vacate the premises and to hand over the family jewels. Including the crown and the precious stones.

    (you may need to copy paste the URL, odysee rendition of valid URLs might not be well aligned with some/any browsers when converting text to clickable links)

  24. Loved this one! Thank you for sharing exactly what I also think. I am flabbergasted at how royal families world wide are still exulted and rich for doing absolutely nothing.

Submit a Comment


Become a Corbett Report member