Podcast: Play in new window | Download | Embed
The experts always know best…or do they? Join us today on The Corbett Report podcast as we scrutinize the media’s ready reliance on “experts” to say what the establishment wants to be said, and what this practice means for the rise of the scientific dictatorship.
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 this video on BitChute / YouTube / Download the mp4
Documentation
| Cutting Through The Matrix – January 21, 2011 | |
| Time Reference: | 05:16 |
| A Safe Tan? No Way, Experts Say | |
| Time Reference: | 10:07 |
| European fiscal union: what the experts say | |
| Time Reference: | 10:13 |
| Arsenic? Experts say real apple juice danger lies in calories | |
| Time Reference: | 10:18 |
| Fuel experts say gasoline consumers had it easy during recent storms | |
| Time Reference: | 10:27 |
| Pet shouldn’t be impulse gift, experts say | |
| Time Reference: | 10:41 |
| ESPN Experts Say…New York Giants Fall to the Pack | |
| Time Reference: | 13:02 |
| Growing wealth disparity underlies Occupy protests, experts say | |
| Time Reference: | 14:48 |
| Strong market: Experts say ride on the wave but be cautious | |
| Time Reference: | 17:05 |
| The National On Demand | |
| Time Reference: | 20:24 |
| Alan Watt on “Rude Awakening” | |
| Time Reference: | 25:02 |
| Dr. Tim Ball on The Corbett Report | |
| Time Reference: | 34:01 |
| Dr. Tim Ball official homepage | |
| Time Reference: | 39:13 |
| Climategate 2.0: Hockey Stick Debunking Confirmed | |
| Time Reference: | 41:14 |
| Frontline – The Vaccine War | |
| Time Reference: | 42:59 |
Nick Weech asks a question regarding: “Bingo, bango, sugar in the gas tank.”
https://www.corbettreport.com/experts-say-experts-say-headlines-are-propaganda-propagandawatch/#comment-67105
The Real Problem Central Bankers Face: The Rest of Us
If only people behaved as they were supposed to, central banks wouldn’t keep missing their targets. Psychology is leading them to an even odder conclusion: perhaps the Federal Reserve needs to teach people to behave as the economic models require.
So it is not their fault – it is OUR fault! And we need to be taught how we should behave!
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-real-problem-central-bankers-face-the-rest-of-us-11570536214
What a headline and first paragraph by James Mackintosh!
I wish the article wasn’t behind a paywall, because I can’t believe he is serious.
Stunning. I don’t know why I’m surprised. Here’s my contribution to highlight another example of gaslighting:
“As a reporter who covers technology and the future, I constantly hear variations of this line as technologists attempt to apply the theory Charles Darwin made famous in biology to their own work. I’m told that there is a progression of technology, a movement that is bigger than any individual inventor or CEO. They say they are simply caught in a tide, swept along in a current they cannot fight. They say it inevitably leads them to facial recognition (now even being deployed on children), smart speakers that record your intimate conversations, and doorbells that narc on your neighbors. They say we can’t blame these companies for the erosion of privacy or democracy or trust in public institutions — that was all going to happen sooner or later.[…]Companies are simply responding to ‘natural selection’ by consumers.”
https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/2019/10/1/20887003/tech-technology-evolution-natural-inevitable-ethics
Ooops.
PDF of article here
http://www.mediafire.com/file/n55wy67bcm6xkhn/The_Real_Problem_Central_Bankers_Face__The_Rest_of_Us_-_WSJ.pdf/file
Reveals some of the thinking of the ‘elites’.
The need for propaganda, disdain for low IQ’s, reliance on computer models… The parallels with elements such as Brexit, climate crisis, et al are very clear for me.
You forgot one:
“Officials Say”
🙂
hugo.c-
“Officials Say”
That must be the vaguest of the lot. An ‘official’ said something? Really? An official what, exactly?
Corbett’s Summary Point in this 2011 “Episode 211 – Expertology “
The last few minutes of the episode, Corbett clarifies a few aspects.
e.g. “‘An Appeal to Authority’, that is a logical fallacy.”
QUEUED video
(a few minutes)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0se7V2hGOs&feature=youtu.be&t=44m57s
Don’t sell the CNN short on their hilarious experts on sarin gas
https://youtu.be/TvwdoCG2XUM
Hello flammable,
Interesting discussion here.
I guess you meant to say that(The theory of)”Man-made climate change is creating a shortcut to fixing the environment by limiting all problems to carbon.”
However, I would have to think that the vast majority of those who believe in anthropogenically derived climate change are also very concerned about the health of the environment, as concerns for both logically go hand in hand. Wouldn’t you say? At least for those who are honest about it, that is, your average Joe, and not necessarily the captains of industry – owners of production – who may very well be banking on the idea (scheme) that paying for carbon footprints with credit swaps will ultimately be a zero-sum game, while their own creditors, and others, e.g., governments beholden to central banks, stand to reap massive carbon tax rewards.
With said carbon tax scheming in mind – and with Al Gore as a front man such scheming seems all too obvious – a technique used by the best of liars and schemers to advance their manipulative scheming is to incorporate “convenient” truths with manipulative falsehoods and omissions. In this case, the convenient truth happens to be that both climate and environment are changing. For Al Gore and Carbon Taxes such a truth is hardly inconvenient. It’s simply being manipulated to create the desired narrative that speaks solely and exclusively of CO2, alone, being the one and only culprit driving climate change – the much easier to formulate a wide-reaching global tax….Yes, how convenient, indeed!
However, once again, to whatever extent the CO2 narrative is being conjured and manipulated, it is a mistake to reject out of hand the notion that climate change is, potentially, in some way anthropogenic.
That the overall degradation of the environment is unquestioned, with our billion plus automobiles and trucks, tens of thousands of daily airline travel, tens of thousands of smoke stacks spewing a whole host of chemicals and soot into the atmosphere and effluence into the waters, the heating and cooling of millions upon millions of buildings, not to mention geoengineering, the unspoken dispersal of nano-particulates into the air we breath, etc., etc, with all that, it just seems ludicrous to dismiss it as a contributive factor. Certainly it’s contributing to a change in environment – but, not climate?
In the same vein as you were saying, that there are many causes of pollution creating the degradation of the environment, I sense the same scenario playing out in the degradation of the atmosphere with the very real consequence of it being a catalyst, detrimental in nature, for a destabilizing climate.
However vast and glorious it may seem, the atmosphere is finite in nature.
Picture this: If you drew a circle roughly 24 feet in diameter representing the Earth, a band surrounding this circle to represent the Earth’s first three layers of its atmosphere – the Troposphere, Stratosphere and Mesosphere, would be all of two inches wide.
More than likely, how we’re screwing with Earth’s climate is the question, not if we are.
My dear manbearpig,
No apologies?
Lol
No matter – water under the bridge….
I do fear we have a changing, volatile, climate which seems to be wrought with near historic weather extremes, in terms of frequency and magnitude. This is not to say extreme events such as hurricanes and droughts, etc., have never occurred, but catastrophic events seem to be occurring, anecdotally, with greater strength and/or frequency in just the past 15 years, or so…. Perhaps my point of view is shaped by media bias and fear mongering, but, I don’t really think so. Though, I’m only a casual observer and not a statistician, and have not personally entered data to chart what my gut is telling me.
But, as far as CO2 is concerned, you seem to miss my point. As far as I’m concerned, the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere is only one factor – perhaps even a relatively insignificant factor – that’s contributing to a changing climate. And no, of course I have no proof, just gut. The fumes of pollution belching out of every factory smoke stack, power plant, tail pipe and chimney, whether burning oil, gas, coal or garbage, contain far more than just CO2. And let’s not forget about the dastardly effects of lovely geoengineering which at least you and I can actually agree on – aluminum in your tree roots, anyone? …. Yes, harping solely on CO2 as the culprit of climate change is quite a bad, stinking joke in my opinion. But, as I attempted to explain, boiling the problem down to a single element, CO2, makes for a very wonderful and convenient trading commodity to cap, swap and trade in a nice global business way, much easier to quantify than trying to add up the other gazillion pollutants manufactured world-wide, which spew forth into the atmosphere, unabated, 24/7.
This desire to knight CO2 as the one honorary fiend of plant and animal(human)kind on the planet would be the logical reason for such things as you call out – obfuscation/tampering and criminal activity – conducted by champions of the CO2 narrative. I don’t know if you have corroborating legal evidence and can document the criminal activity you mentioned, such as child abuse. That’s a new one on me. You’re not talking about Greta Thunberg, are you? lol… I’m sorry to kid about it, as child abuse is no laughing matter. It is quite an accusation on your part. Please elaborate!
There are a few things I believe in, or rather, to put it a better way, there’s a few things that seem illogical to discount or emphatically dismiss:
1. There’s no reason not to believe that quantities of foreign gases, chemical compounds and particulates added to a particular system would not alter that system in any way.
2. The system is very complicated, indeed, and yet it can’t be denied that cleaning up the air we breath is beneficial.
3. There is time.
Child Abuse
mbp,
Part 1.
Thank you for the link to realclimatescience.com. It really does contain a terrific, enlightening archive of old newspaper clippings and photographs of catastrophic events of years gone by, documenting matter-of-factly, evidence of dire climactic events rivaling any and all recent events occurring in the age of so-called “global warming”…including the most recent havoc from Typhoon Hagibis this very week. The website illustrates an odd disconnect, quite telling, indeed; reports in the early part of the 20th century depicted concern over arctic and Greenland ice melting, and yet, by mid-century, there were numerous articles discussing growing threats of a new ice age….How odd, then, that lo and behold, we have now come full circle back to the threat of global warming….
Still, I can’t help feeling there’s been something very queer and different about the weather these days (actually, the past decade or two), having nothing to do with professional propagandists – er, hopefully not (more on that later) – though your point is well taken.
Just from personal experience, I can remember the first time the weather was literally like a spring day in NY on Christmas Day, something like 60°F, or 15.5°C. For 45 years the temperature was nowhere near as high as that, and yet, since then, it’s been similarly mild on a number of occasions. For me, this is pointedly bizarre, because from early childhood until well into adulthood, it was a given that late December was always cold, icy and snowy. But, there are other qualities to the weather that strike any number of older people as quite odd – particularly the up and back nature of the temperature in a given period of time – hot, then cold, then cold then hot, etc. In common recollection, this pattern seems not to have been the case to such a degree(no pun intended)decades ago.
But, I realize this is neither here nor there with regard to the discussion of today’s climate being anthropogenic, or not.
I enjoyed your use of the term “colossal” and do believe in your causative description – “…the climate system that is managed by the colossal forces of the sun, cosmic rays, ocean-cloud exchanges…”, and yet…
I refuse to discount, completely, that the human induced discharge of all materials finding its way into the atmosphere, either from the product of fossil based fuels and other substances, burned or otherwise, and/or the introduction of chemicals, the spewing of nano-particulates – which are literally designed to modify the weather – does in some way, albeit, unknown way, great or small, effect the Earth’s climate.
To flatly deny the potential of any effect such dispersal of pollutants might have upon the natural order – the “colossus” of universal energies upon the Earth – is just as bizarre as declaring, in a sense, the exact opposite, the claim that a particular level of CO2 is the sole progenitor of all that effects the Earth! Not!
Anyway, more to come in part 2…. Poor Greta, and the evil that is geo-engineering.
Candlelight: down the page a bit on your response to Mbp you state so matter of fact, that nano particulates are literally designed to modify the weather. I also noticed a complete lack in your response of any mention of the military thugs. The Dr. Strangeloves. I wonder why it is devoid in your ideas when as you say ” illogical”. Let me explain. It would be logical to assume the invention of such a thing as nano would be extremely expensive and for military use. The weather manipulation is so much more efficient with something much cheaper and abundant as carbon black or coal fly ash. Nano is so expensive to produce it would be illogical to use it for anything less than exotic weapons, intell or biologicals. The chicken or the egg was part of my rant much further down the page. Weopons development came first for full spectrum control of earth by the Military. Who for ? The rest follows along. Like Ken Lay and his weather derivatives market schemes for the Navy. Which was born from the weopons research of Bernard Eastland and HAARP. I was just curios and mean no disrespect of your thought. But I was wondering why the elephant in the room is never mentioned as the primafacto logical source and cause of climate change or the deranged reality of our current weather anomalies?
These two items are connected. Average Joe needs to know of this but how will he ever get it. Get it he must. It is imperative to his survival or so I claim. What do i know, Im just a bottlewasher .
1.” Pervection”
http://oprj.net/articles/atmospheric-science/25
2.”NASA” ICON
https://m.jagranjosh.com/current-affairs/nasa-launches-icon-mission-to-study-earths-ionosphere-1570862153-1?ref=rel_stories_art
People still today believe NASA is a benevolent civilian benefactor.
Hello gbw,
The Military thugs and the Dr. Strangeloves of the world are precisely those whom I was referring to when I asked manbearpig to “blame the scientists involved, blame the military”. They are the elephants in the room, to be sure.
A very good website for information on Geoengineering is:
https://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/
A quote from the website:
“Chemtrailing is the publics term for the CLASSIFIED ONGOING artificial modification of Earths climate systems using reflective nano-materials (aerosols) to reflect sunlight. The aerosols are dispersed via jet aircraft trails that expand into reflective artificial clouds.”
Relying on information presented in Geoengineering.org is primarily the reason why I used the term nano-particulates. Though I certainly do not know all the ins and outs of Military methodology determining the use of various formulations and materials for diverse operations, I am pretty damn sure they don’t give a rat’s ass as to how high the tab. If their attitude isn’t public be damned, I’d be surprised.
The context in which I used the term “illogical” was to simply connote the idea that it makes absolutely no sense to believe you can add a tangible substance to a system and not alter that system by doing so. In this case, the system is Earth’s climate, and the tangible substance is, basically, molecular energy and mass.
For the sake of this argument, I am not putting any value on said substance other than to say it’s greater than zero. My present argument is none other than that. That the crap we’re injecting into the atmosphere by all present means, by burning it, aerosolizing it – you name it – has some value, some significance, has some effect, great or small. Or even teeny tiny and miniscule! But to deny any effect whatsoever is, in my book, unreasonable. Or, put another way, illogical…. And to misplace ones vitriol over it is even more illogical.
Armed with myriad formulations and methodologies, accompanied by charts, tables and tabulations, whatever various and diverse values and significance we do put on what I would like to term Anthropogenic Atmospheric Injection of all kinds, outlined above – AAI – is a whole other can of worms.
One can among a multitude.
Be good!
mbp
Part 2.
Now, you state the following:
“Thus, the average joe who swallows hook, line and sinker, the idea that man can dial up or down the climate through increase or decrease of man-made pollution, CO2 or otherwise, becomes, in fact, an accomplice to their own poisoning and that of the environment that they presumably care about, by unwittingly aiding and abetting the mendacious establishment of life-killing geo-engineers.”
At this point in time, the vast majority of average joes, let alone even those average joes highly educated in the sciences have not a clue such geo-enginering is taking place and have had not a thing to do with either the reality of its establishment or its ongoing program.
To pin the label of unwitting accomplice based upon a person’s ignorance of something that is deliberately being obfuscated, while at the same time therefore questioning their moral integrity and sincerity – as you say “…poisoning…the environment they presumably care about…” is on its face, and every other level, beyond ludicrous. It reminds me of some venomous magistrate busting some poor innocent soul for something they did exclaiming – Ignorance Of The Law Is No Excuse!….God, do I hate that.
I’m fain to acknowledge my own ignorance of the acronym you used – SAI. Yes, I should have known it, I guess I must have forgot. So, I googled it and could not find the proper meaning. I did find the website acronymfinder which may well have boasted 91 meanings for SAI. But, lo and behold, Stratospheric Aerosol Injection was not among them. I had to google SAI weather modification to find the proper meaning. Then, I went back to acronymfinder and added a 92nd meaning to their illustrious list for SAI. So, if you find Stratospheric Aerosol Injection injected into their list, that was my doing. I gave acronymfinder the wikipedia page as an authoritative source. And wouldn’t you know it, the wiki page concerning SAI leads one to believe, when you boil it down, that it’s only a theoretical concept at present – in other words, not currently being employed – and goes on to explain how the program would begin and ultimately expand to some 4000 planes spraying on a daily basis. Would you believe that shit? Lying through their fucking teeth.
So, please, don’t go blaming average joe for this insidious program, blame the scientists involved, blame the military, don’t blame the public being purposely kept in the dark. Don’t skewer a person’s integrity based upon what they’re unaware of.
Next up – part 3. Greta
a822, you have described the military mode-de-camp and its timeless conflect with civilian authority. Which we should know is a fallacy. Civilians have no authority. The militaries need of something, to accomplish the mission. Consequences be damned,liabilities parameters only extend to the success of the mission needs. Duck and cover, plausible deniability. Wrap so many layers of obfuscation the enemy will never figure it out , nor will the sacrificed humans damaged by it. Any other by-products will be assessed for potential use. And it spins out of control. In come the clowns. David Keith, Ken Caldera. Al Gore, Greta Thunberg, Jon Stewart. The Flag, Valley Forge, Concord, the Lucitainia, UFOs. Everything and anything used to accomplish the mission. If they could only squash that need of those inquiring minds. Lets see? David Keith says millions will die, that might work to our advantage. We can get our C4 antennas working and rid ourselves of those pesky vermin, fund everything we desire and blame it completely on someone else. Perfect! Run Forest Run. Yes you described it to a “T” a822.
Bon jour MBP , sharp and correct !
Thank you MBP. Very interesting to this officer of bottle washing with a high rank and a low IQ.
It made me think that the SAI that former CIA director Brennen loved so much has to be somewhere at the top of the game that is afoot. In the formulas the Sun X4 part may be the SAI.
This may be too little at the wrong place but what the hell. If SAI acts as a polarized lens, than the light causes a reaction, just like Transition Lenses, sunglasses.. They go dark. The earth turns with the lenses and the reaction stops. They go clear. What if the reaction is opposite of that in the sky. The clear( open) during the daylight letting in light ( heat) and at night goes dark ( closing) and trapping heat. For the trillions of $ s at stake could this be why Brennen loved it so much. Obscured secrete weapon, unintuitive machinations and fully charge($) and blame and shame the victims with impunity. Sounds right at home for the CIA scientific experts joined at the hip of wall street. Im going to look into this. Bernard Eastland discovered a great deal about lenses in his work on HAARP.
Candlelight, thank you for the clarifications. Seems to me , and The Corbett Report too but I don’t have time to find talks about DARRPA, that all the really bad stuff invented and developed by the military must have a dual use, or quite posiblily many as possible uses. Thus the chicken and the egg I was alluding to. They have long since done away with taxpayer money and must print it at will or take great gains from the black market. Solairy Report, Catherine A Fitts talked about FASDA 56. No accounting what so ever. Which makes me think they now don’t have any consideration of the American populations position on anything. As you also stated. It is troubling to believe that an individual in this country has been jettisoned from the myth of that country and given no option for redress.
You as well , be good.
gbw, thanks for mentioning Catherine A Fitts and her Solari Report. Hadn’t heard of her before, but just briefly listening to her propound upon the machinations and mechanisms driving the financial world she seems well grounded and knowledgeable. I couldn’t find her talk on FASDA56 – could you link directly to it? Also, could you point me to your post alluding to “the chicken and the egg”, because I don’t really know what it is you’re referring to.
When it comes to Military budgets, if they’re not “accounting” for the disappearance or dispersal of trillions of dollars – that’s trillions with a “t” as in trillions, as Donald Rumsfeld was so open and gracious to point out on 9/10/01 – then, yes, there is as you said “No accounting what so ever.” Like as is Gonesville.
You touch upon the idea of platforms developed by the Military as possibly having dual – and I’ll add – multiple purposes. No doubt that’s a valid idea. When it comes to geoengineering, who knows what those dual/multiple purposes might be? It’s an interesting question, because I’ve pondered the question whether it’s possible that contrary to it’s stated reason for deployment, that is, creating cloud cover via the spraying of aerosols to deflect solar radiation, that it may be trapping more thermal heat than it does the defection of solar radiation, thus tending to warm the planet, rather than to keep it cool?
On another note, just for the record, I’m not a Flat-Earther, but, if you fill the atmosphere with black soot, it’s bound to absorb and transform radiant energy into thermal energy (heat), whilst spinning around and circling a globe, notwithstanding. Plus, I truly find the prospect of dividing testicles by two rather abhorrent, don’t you?
Be good.
https://youtu.be/-Mv5DxcGIsoCandlelight; I found this but its not the exact interview but C. A. Fitts speaks about FASDA 56, and the new paradigm for institutional investors and due diligence.
https://home.solari.com/caveat-emptor-why-investors-need-to-do-due-diligence-on-u-s-treasury-and-related-securities/
Im also going to ask you view the other you tube. At the 12.07 min she talks about C.A. Fitts. See what you can make of it.
https://youtu.be/fyon5ZMCK9M
DAARPA created weapons are so advanced it boggles the imagination. To offer them to be tested and considered on an introduction to solve a problem or be utilized for really nefarious uses a cover story,or an obfuscation of its true use or goal must be accompanied by an egg. The egg is part of the dual use, the super weapon lays an egg at the door step of every malcontent hatching diabolical plan waiting for the technology to implement them. The party that the weapon is being used on must and will unravel the conundrum of what it is . The chicken or the egg. It wouldn’t be to far off the mark to assume these people are capable of anything. Hubris in science , religion or military subterfuge is very old and has plagued mankind forever.
Candlelight; the link below got tangled up a bit. I will repost here. Elana Freehand and Clifford Carnicom have exposed more than enough.
https://youtu.be/-Mv5DxcGIso
gbw,
Between Catherine A Fitts and Karen Hudes, one of these ladies is lying (or maybe they both are, eh?).
So, Karen Hudes at 13 mins into the link you provided is calling out Fitts as controlled opposition for expressing distracting bizarre ideas of “off-world events” which Hudes fails to explain. Being unfamiliar with Fitts’ work, I have no idea what Hudes is talking about. But, in her podcast, Hudes is supporting some thesis which dates the Mt. Vesuvius eruption which buried Pompeii as occurring in the year 1631AD, rather than the accepted timeline of 79AD. That’s a trifling difference of about a thousand years, or so…. Oh, I guess it’s no big deal if this thesis she supports flies in the face of objective, historical and documented facts. Right? You know, throw out all them history books, all them scholars are all deceiving us!!! Right on, Karen, you go, girl!
So, you have to ask yourself, who is controlled opposition, or to put it more bluntly, who’s the wack-a-doodle in this equation? I’m going to bet every fiat dollar I own that it’s Hudes who’s the bona-fide nut job, and is acting precisely in the manner of controlled opposition in accordance with her very own description of what constitutes the behavior of an agent of controlled opposition!
Simply amazing, isn’t she?
Amazingly stupid.
Her idea of beating the central banks with local currency and bartering is not about to happen any time soon. With the global economy being what it is, with central banks controlling and regulating the financial markets world-wide, what Hudes is proposing as a viable counter-measure is not only fallacious but is in large part, counter-productive. I have nothing against bartering, per se, but it doesn’t represent any sort of real solution to the question of central bank fraud, wherein money is conjured up “out of thin air” at the discretion of these money masters and inputted into the “system” which allows this fraudulence to occur at the easy click of a button.
But, unfortunately, Hudes’ solution is fantasy.
I think Ron Paul had the right idea, for starters, when he campaigned on the idea to audit the Federal Reserve, with the ultimate goal of ending it.
If you want to beat he system, go after it!
One very interesting system, though, that is used globally which sort of by-passes central banking is Hawala.
If you’ve never heard about it, you should check it out.
Cheers.
Candlelight ; if I could physically work this machine the message could of been clearer.
The Carnicom- Freeland lecture talks about some of the real time crisis facing us today. These two real people are confronting what the other two ladies are proposing as controlled opposition. The camparition of the three was what I was hoping you would make.
Fitts has had her moments with some very far out things. Hudes has had some recent health issues which further confuses some of her message, however when viewed which one of these three come across as authentic, believable and accurate.
The topics here are hard to grasp. Transhumanism as discussed by Corbett and Dr. Patrick Woods seems fantastic but when Carnicom -Freeland discussed how it is being implemented in real time the issue takes on a rather immediate urgency. Unlike reports of a past financial coup De gra or the corruptions of the mafias and Mt. Vesuvius date of eruption.
How,what, when ,where and who are discussed at the end of the Freeland- Carnicom lectures from answering questions from the audience. They also get into some of what I was alluding to about the order of creation of some of these weapons and trying to defend against an attack from the chicken or the egg. Corbett in his latest round table with Vanderus , Webb, Bemis and Sam Triploly speak on the Who is controlling the subjects we are facing… Hope you may view Carnicom- Freeland lectures as I may be incorrect as to their ethics, motivations and accurate presentations of their investigations. I hope its all a bad dream. Be well.
gbw,
I’ll take a closer listen to the Freeland- Carnicom lecture which you linked. It’s 3 hours long, so I kind of just skimmed through it.
The idea of a geo/bio engineering link is the stuff of bad dreams.
I’m not sure I’m ready for any additional nightmares.
However, I’ve always found alternative ideas and analyses to be worthy of looking into when they seem at least somewhat plausible. It’s a subjective call on my part, though I try generally to be as open minded about things as I possibly can, assuming it’s not entirely preposterous.
I do find that in certain instances there are those who are content to connect together any dots they wish, for whatever purpose they wish. In this regard, alternative view points can be potentially just as deceitful as that which is promulgated in the main stream. In some general way, the main stream tend to avoid connecting any dots – as few as they can get away with, whereas alternative narratives, when they go wrong, tend to connect too many dots, thereby creating a false picture of reality, similarly as do the main stream’s lies of omission create their own falsehoods.
When it comes to the sciences, I’m a layperson, I have no expertise to rely on as a backdrop, to make comparisons, or to gauge plausibilities. But, like I mentioned, I prefer to have an open mind.
I’ll let you know what I think about the Freeland – Carnicom video.
Bon nuit , the auto-text said bone nut, do the French collect bones at night?
MBP: The hat has to tip to the Ecuadorians. However their government organization was trying to reduce the people’s will to nil, it has failed. Hurray! This just in from Real News. I.M.F told to shove it. Success by the nils. Now if Hong Kong can do something similar, in this bright sky of October I will look for pigs on the wing.
https://youtu.be/W6o6EuTweLg
Nov 5, 2019 Bloomberg
Earth Needs Fewer People to Beat the Climate Crisis, Scientists Say
More than 11,000 experts sign an emergency declaration warning that energy, food and reproduction must change immediately.
…a larger group of scientists is sounding another, much more urgent alarm. More than 11,000 experts from around the world are calling for a critical addition to the main strategy of dumping fossil fuels for renewable energy: there needs to be far fewer humans on the planet.…
…they go one step further, into the politically fraught territory of population control. It “must be stabilized—and, ideally, gradually reduced—within a framework that ensures social integrity,”…
…The report, however, comes one day after U.S. President Donald Trump began the formal procedure of withdrawing America from the Paris climate accord….
(In the article are GRAPHS of ‘stats’ “Shrinking Ice Cap” and “Rising Global Surface Temperature” and “Rising Greenhouse Gases”)