How to Defeat A Gatekeeper – #SolutionsWatch

by | Apr 24, 2024 | Solutions Watch, Videos | 96 comments

When you call someone a “gatekeeper,” you may think you’re saying something about that person, but people who know the true nature of gatekeeping hear something very different. Join James for this short, simple and powerful message detailing how you can defeat the only gatekeeper in the world once and for all.

Video player not working? Use these links to watch it somewhere else!



  1. Yes, indeed James, that’s sound advice and a position I’ve held since childhood. It put me in a lot of conflict with my parents, teachers, and all authority whilst growing up. Eventually my parents came to respect and appreciate my independence of thought.

    In just one area of life, it later meant I was able to help my parents in their old age to battle against the medical tyranny the NHS in Britain tried to inflict upon them, steering them to towards more effective natural remedies.

    Again, yes indeed, if you can’t trust your own judgement, figuratively speaking, you are little more than a sitting duck!

    • “…… you are little more than a sitting duck!…”

      😉 LOL, jk.

      More seriously I think you are mostly right, but I’d say that its more then JUST trusting your own judgment-its about being willing to think stuff thru and change your opinion on things.
      Most people dont want to change their mind because their ideas become their identity

      Its pretty easy for marketers and social engineers to hack the way you make decisions with fancy tricks, especially since the majority of people decide things on an emotional level and then use their thinking mind to justify their choice AFTER the fact.

      Haidt came up with the metaphor of the elephant and the rider.

      But the flip side is that we can spend our whole lives learning our way thru things and still not really understand the big picture, I just listened to Morgoth talking about it.

      • Oh, I absolutely agree! It is very important to have the humility and wisdom to realise and accept when you are wrong about something, learn and move on!

        Yes indeed, if you can’t trust your own judgement, figuratively speaking, you are little more than a gullible fool and not necessarily a sitting duck, LOL!

        All the best Duck.

  2. Seems pretty obvious, so why isn’t it?

    • Because most people don’t ever actually think thru their idea….. they attach themselves to an idea emotionally. Thinking thru EVERYTHING is flat out impossible , unless maybe if you live alone and do nothing else.

      Attaching yourself to a leader is a pretty normal heuristic for dealing with complex things that you dont have time or information to work thru yourself. Its not exactly a BAD thing, it works mostly fine when your in a small group but in the age of mass media the controllers can hack right into our emotional brains and puppetter us.

      • Duck,
        D-“Because most people don’t ever actually think thru their idea….. they attach themselves to an idea emotionally”
        I see what you mean by emotional attachment. Ideas are like birthing children, you love the creator so all those little creations are loved too. I heard something along those lines about the English and suppose that has something to do with their language.
        D-.”Thinking thru EVERYTHING is flat out impossible , unless maybe if you live alone and do nothing else.”
        Maybe that’s why the esoteric form of thinking, and communicating are preferable to me . Also the language of the right and left brain have to come together somewhere.
        The German idea of Gestalt.
        There is no equivalent meaning in English.
        I’m in the process of learning how not to kill life forms. Living on the edge of a primordial forest is challenging to not kill something every day. Grasshoppers are / where / working on it …kind a critter that begs to be killed when en-mass they eat the food garden in a day. Untill I had a conversation with a grasshopper one day that stopped the assaults from both sides I fully understood the many ways to communicate. Gestalt. Not English,esoteric,romantic or guttural but ….? Let’s let a leader say it for me…
        Summer Day by Mary Oliver.
        That’s a good example of the poorly formed ideas that is clear to the right brain thinkers yet unknown to the left brain leaders.

        • On Gestalt.
          Its a good idea to have at least a passing understanding of some other language.

          You are correct that sometimes words do not translate exactly, and experiencing different languages give you a wider view, different tools to think about things.

          As to killing life forms….. are plants NOT life forms? 😉

          Arrogant worm “carrot juice is murder”

          • Duck,
            It’s a fine line we walk with plants. I husband my greens in a symbiotic non parasitic way.

            • I like that idea! You really help my mind work in new ways. Thanks.

  3. True, but I’m afraid that few people have the mental strength and self-awareness to know whether they are a follower of a charismatic person, or a person who makes up their own mind. Let’s face it, you are very persuasive as well as have a pleasant voice, and you make interesting and well-crafted videos. You have been consistent in your message. But that doesn’t mean you are always right. Everyone makes mistakes. Many people have thought they were right for their whole lives then got new information and changed their beliefs. We should always be open to new data and never be too proud to change our minds.

    • I totally agree about pride pk. It’s a huge stumbling block for so many of us today and something we all to to work on. Humility is a greatly underestimated virtue and IMHO, LOL, is so very essential in the discovery of truth.

  4. Powerful message! Having been a follower of alternative media sources for over a decade, I can relate to what it feels like to self-sabotage yourself into believing that “gatekeepers” and people in high positions of power, actually control your life. We are the ones who decide what we believe, how we feel about it, and what we’re going to do about it. Thanks for the message.

  5. So powerful and true! Your passion and feistiness is palpable. Enclosed please find one air hug.

  6. I always thought that people don’t judge someone because of what you said about them, they judge you on what you said about that person.

    • Yes, I think I understand your position Rob. Sometimes we are judged on what we don’t say. Gossip can be so very toxic!

  7. QFC,
    Does writing a book make you a gate keeper? Does the magnitude of the ideas change with the knee jerk ability to respond with a quick comeback response in the comment section.
    Book writing hasn’t changed from my poor pitiful perspective. I still view the book as a highly respected art form. It does have the ability to act as a gatekeeper. It can be highly motivating. The inability to ejaculate uncomfortably formed ideas while reading is a gate. Whereas the comments section is immediate and the graveyard of actions spent seeds. The immediacy of enlightenment bakes the ideas being put forth into manna that can last a long time in the mind. Feeding the whole person.
    I had no idea what you meant when you said Joyceian when you quipped one day about your doctrine. Still researching that as I still search for Picasso’ quip on cubism.
    Your books ultimate reason to come into being was revealed with a very challenging statement you made about Faulkner. Why in the world did Absalom, Absalom have merit to be one of your, and of course a million other souls favorite works of literature?
    Well, the gate was closed and I went about opening it. As you stated here in this fun video. I opened it, walked into the book and by doing so was enlightened.
    I’m convinced if you want to influence the world the book form has survived the test of time. The premature mental masturbations of an immediate response system , the comment section, is proving the death of action. The impregnating of ideas that stay in a person’s head grow, mature and when needed out in public spring forth,with authority. This is just my opinion but have you ever read Absalom,Absalom and asked yourself what just happened to me?
    Power ! And you got that Jamisan. Start with a first, move on to the 10 th , bettering and oiling the hinges on that gate so it ceases to be any resistance to new ways and ideas.

  8. I’ll double down on this important message by playing devil’s advocate.
    People don’t warn about gatekeepers because they, themselves feel held back, but rather out of fear that other ‘inferior’ minds will be swept up by them. It is motivated out of a desire to protect the herd from bad shepherds. Just like how the censors will try to protect the public from so-called misinformation.
    Either out of disdain for others, or out of a desperate need for quick radical change, people may fear that highly visible personalities are not doing enough with their intellectual, social or financial capital. When money or fame is involved, I’ll always defend the idea of holding people and institutions to a higher standard.
    That said, I wholeheartedly believe that if you are concerned about others being lead into dead ends, maybe it’s time to get involved in the conversation. It won’t be easy, and people aren’t going to start listening overnight, but that’s just how things are.

  9. How to Defeat A Gatekeeper or What is shadow work.

  10. You can tell, James is pissed. I’d be too, with all the idiots with the gatekeeper, shill crap directed at him. There’s a reason I subscribe to James and very few others. Thanks James for all you do.

    • Dear Kirm,
      Can you point out a specific instance of what you claim, directed at him
      (JC)? What did I miss ? Thank you.

      • Most alt news respect JC but some of the wackier ones have made claims… Can’t remember who though. Regarding commentators; check out the comments on any of his videos on Bitchute. Bitchute comments aren’t known for their…sanity, shall we say, in any case.

        I’m sure James could give you an idea but he’s probably too busy to pay much attention to the detractors. There’s a saying; you can’t kick every dog that barks.

      • If you peruse Substack “no virus” “camp” you’ll find some accusations of various alt journalists who don’t believe what they believe and thus must be shills and gatekeepers.

        I have posted in their comment section to oppose their moronic insults, but it was a waste of my time since I don’t know how many are actually human at this point. I don’t know how developed AI comment bots are at this point and I figure if someone can’t use their own brain for discernment, it’s not worth my time.

        I’ve noticed some insults on some of these extreme “alt right” Substack posters as well, you know the borderline Neo Nazi’s, the Hitler cheerleaders who want some fascist to tell them what to do.

        If someone opposes Hitler, they must be a gatekeeper! If someone opposes Eugenics, they must be a gatekeeper! I have been disappointed at the lack of intuitive and critical thinking ability of many online posters, but you can’t know if it’s a real person anyway so who actually knows.

        The important thing is for people to be able to think for themselves and not need others to regurgitate information and parse it for them.

        • I do strongly believe that people have the right to say what they want though. People must always have the right to speak.

          It is important for someone to follow the evidence and make up their own mind and know that insults against others made without merit will discredit the person who makes them.

          Having said that, I think that labels like “gatekeeper” sometimes are accurate but it is still critical to be able to separate the message from the messenger.

          On the topic of Noam Chomsky, I do think he is a gatekeeper. Maybe not even knowingly but is one nonetheless. Maybe people are lazy and don’t go the extra step in researching for themselves and coming to their own conclusions. They depend on another to tell them what the boundaries are for thought and research.

          A person who makes the claim that their judgment and opinions should supplant another should be considered suspect IMO. If someone ever tells you that you should trust them to think for them, be very wary.

  11. Continuing with April’s Story…

    James Corbett says:
    “When I hear that [“that person is a gatekeeper”], I hear someone saying, I am weak. I am pathetic. I am intellectually dependent on other people to tell me what to think, what to think about, what to research, what I can’t research.
    I’m going to listen to other people tell me what to believe.”

    ”But here’s my message for you…
    …You are not intellectually dependent on me or anyone else in the world to tell you what to think or what to think about.
    And you are a free, beautiful human being, intellectually sovereign.
    You are the one who decides what you will think about, what you will research, what information you will take on board, and what information you won’t take on board, who you will listen to.
    And when you listen to anybody, what parts of their information you will listen to and what you will discard.
    That is up to you, because you are strong, you are powerful, you are intellectually sovereign.”

    ”So, here’s the real answer to the question of how to defeat the gatekeepers.
    Well, there is only one gatekeeper in the world that can gatekeep your mind, and that is YOU.”…

    …”There is no gatekeeper but yourself.”
    …”there is no gatekeeper.
    Think about whatever you want to think about.
    Research whatever you want to research.
    Come to whatever conclusion you come to.
    No one can tell you otherwise.”

    • I, myself, have never considered James Corbett a gate-keeper, but the term has value nevertheless. There are many gate-keepers out there, the better consideration is to identify them. We need terms like gate keeper and shill because without these terms it is impossible to articulate what the hell is going on.

      It is messy right now, but people are learning to identify BS, identify false misleading characters, and this is a very good thing.

      On one hand you have the ZioComs using their vast fortunes to buy everything that is for sale and using it as a weapon to control the masses. ON the other side you have the masses who are starting to learn things are not what we are told they are. This is a learning process and it is far more complex than any of us could possibly understand.

      James is doing a great service by educating with reason, logic and sincerity (sincerity being the most profound aspect). There is something about the truth that is more than just words, speaking it is important unto itself. All the systems of control Christianity, Democracy, Capitalisms, are all weapons designed to stifle and destroy us from within. Our only hope is people waking up from this 2500 year nightmare, finding the glory in nature and ourselves, and getting away from the cage the Abrahamic cabal has constructed around civilization.

    • HRS,

      Thanks for posting the transcript. I like the message he’s giving or rather what I’m hearing.

      I hear he’s encouraging his audience to think for themselves and not rely on others to tell them what to think or research or what conclusions they should come to. Intellectual sovereignty. I like it.

      Why do some people feel a need to have others think for them and give them a script for their mind? Does it have something to do with identity I wonder. “I’m this kind of person, so I believe these people and this narrative”? Maybe some people do and maybe this is how I have thought in the past as well. I don’t remember accurately how I used to think as a younger person though.

      In the case of young people who’s brains are still growing, changing and developing, they may need a little guidance. Even adults need this once and a while.

      My interpretation of this message is that in the final analysis we are the gatekeeper for our mind. It’s an empowering message I am hearing.

  12. As for “gate-keepers”, such as Alex Jones, lets say, it is not so much a moniker that defines how I interact with him, rather it defines his purpose.

    The Zionist powers are always full of tricks to control the masses.

    Before the Trump phenomenon, the powers that be saw the MSM was losing its usefulness pushing lies to an ever shrinking percentage of the population. So, there was a meeting in Israel of the controllers, they brought Steve Bannon, Alex Jones and alike, to create the “alt-right”. They came up with a plan to drive the questioning population, those who knew things were not right, away from the no longer useful MSM, to a “new reliable media, the alt-right media”. So, Gate Keeper extraordinaire Alex Jones started the psyop, getting kicked off of YouTube (being kicked off of YouTube was like a badge of honor, a “proof of legitimacy”, or so they want us to believe). Then, these new “alt-right” sites started popping up, right in time for the TRUMP, break from “traditional Republicans”. EVERYTHING was scripted. The leadership of the Reps turned against Trump, as did the MSM, thus showing Trump was “anti-establishment”…You get the picture, this was ALL PURE theater, every person in this show was an actor reading a script.

    Of course YouTube is owned and controlled by the same corrupt tyrants, they just use their control of these entities to create new narratives and new cu-da-sacks for the masses, giving them Trump and Q to distract and misinform.

    The point with using terms like “gate keeper” is to help understand what something like an Alex Jones is, his purpose in this system of control. Language is the main way they control us. “Racism can only refer to white people”, You can’t say illegal immigrant, then it was undocumented immigrant, now it is refugee. Someone who takes care of themselves is a “health-nut”, someone who stores supplies for a rainy day is a “hoarder” or “prepper”, all derogatory in spirit. You could write a book on how our society has been skillfully and maliciously guided, using language as a weapon, limiting some thoughts while promoting others, all through the use of language.

    As I have said before, human civilization is not designed to deal with this unbelievably deceptive tactics. They have endless schemes and plans to drive people into debt, destroy culture, families, lives.

    Here is a novel idea I think we should ponder, perhaps we who woke up early, who question, while others are oblivious, perhaps this IS evolution at work. Perhaps the human species is evolving to deal with this PSYCHOPATHIC abomination. I think this is an intriguing thought and one that has merit.

    • Rexleonum,
      Very nice account of the last 20 years. Novel idea of humanity as organism . It refects actions at the micro level to promote a healthy organization all the way to the macro level of that organization.
      It does have merit. Hope, that those who are out of tune will get corrected.

      Humanity may be a self tuning, self correcting instrument in the cosmos.

  13. Don’t censor yourself, or anyone else, with ad hominems.
    They may have something important to say. Even a broken clock is right twice a day, as they say. Being able to not instantly dismiss something, is important.

  14. Episode 285: “Meet Noam Chomsky, Academic Gatekeeper”

    “There is no gatekeeper but yourself”, James. :)))

    On another note, is that a 5G Tower in the background at min 2:12? In my hometown those things are mushrooming out of the soil at an unbelievable pace and it quite scares me and it scares me even more that except for me noone even seems to notice it.

    • Hughsername,
      The tower is an antenna, if it broadcasts it’s dangerous. The chemtrails are an extension of that antenna. They probably don’t see that as a threat either. Oil and water drill pipes are antennas. They all can broadcast and receive. If your community is that unawares I do feel sorry for them. I encourage you to speak at them and be prepared to speak to them. Around here 10% will get back to me at some time in the future and report what they have learned from that first time I spoke at them. Funny humans.

      • I think that was probably the first episode of the Corbett Report I watched when he was still on Youtube and it was a good episode.

        Chomsky IMO probably worked for intelligence. Chomsky was also buddies with Epstein.

        If the shoe fits…But, nowadays people use that term “gatekeeper” as a form of cognitive infiltration and to smear people who don’t have identical beliefs as the accusers. It’s also used to cause division in resistance movements.

        Tucker Carlson is probably a gatekeeper but I might watch one of his shows from time to time.

        People should be impervious to gatekeepers by using their own minds to think with.

        • So, are you saying we should use the term gatekeeper?

          The old clip says yes, and so do you.
          The new clip emphatically says no.

          What does James say?

          • I liked the Chomsky episode. Have you watched it?

          • I think the term has value personally. Keeping discourses or paradigms of thinking confined to boundaries is how I define gatekeeping.

            However even in the episode Noam Chomsky Academic Gatekeeper, JC said to dismiss him outright is foolish. Also acknowledging Chomsky’s contribution to linguistics and outspokenness about US foreign policy is important to consider.

            He said that people fall into lazy patterns of listening to Chomsky and defending him even if his ideas aren’t making sense or are wrong (statements about the Federal Reserve and 9/11 for example).

            He notes this form of mental laziness as problematic but it is also probably a human failing. It’s how people idealize politicians or other people. They want a hero, someone to come in and do the work. People maybe want others to do the thinking for them as well.

            What do you think? Does the gatekeeper term have value in your opinion?

          • Re Chomsky I think Steven Pinker’s points were good ones. Some of Chomsky’s wordings seem to make things more complex than they actually are and some might say this is done to obfuscate.

            I really don’t know what Chomsky’s intentions were in the beginning of his career or if they changed or maybe his mind started failing with age.

            I do think if people can’t state their thoughts concisely in language others can understand they might not understand the ideas themselves. Chomsky did seem to do this, make simple ideas more complex than they actually are. Pinkner astutely points this out. I’d recommend this podcast “Chomsky academic gatekeeper”

            I thought it was a good one.

            • Yes, of course, I watched it. Again. I have been following him from the beginning.
              I am having trouble understanding how both clips can be great, as you say. One contradicts the other.

              Anyway, I must reiterate that I don’t want to tear down Mr. Corbett. He is my favorite. I share his love for logic and fairness on these issues, and assume that he is big enough to handle this quirky issue. If he is guilty of being a mere human, he will have our quick forgiveness. If he has a good explanation, I will surely listen…

              You understand, his valid criticisms of Chomsky’s hypocrisy are a total distraction from the point, which is his own self-contradiction.

              • Yes, I see the contradiction. I would have to disagree with the idea that gatekeeping does not exist, or that calling someone a gatekeeper makes someone weak minded (if it accurately describes what’s going on).

                I think I get his point in the past and get his point now. His point now is that his audience should be able to use their own mind to learn, research, think, formulate opinions, etc. regardless of people who attempt to keep thought inside safe spaces, etc.

                I have read lots and lots of name calling online against some journalists calling them shills and gatekeepers just because said journalist may have different views or not research or comment on certain things. This is stupid, for lack of a better word.

                A gatekeeper IMO knows what they are doing consciously and deliberately attempt to shape narratives to keep people divided. Chomsky either knowingly or subconsciously seemed to be a gatekeeper. However, I still learned a few things from Chomsky.

                In short, I get your point and perhaps this would be a good question for Corbett. “Do you think this is a contradiction to your past work in the podcast about Noam Chomsky?”

                I understand wanting to know his answer because he’s a brilliant mind. I don’t give that complement lightly.

            • This a reply to your post, featuring this remark, “perhaps this would be a good question for Corbett.” The computer would not let me reply there, so I am doing it here, out of order.

              Thanks for the clarification. We do agree on a lot here.
              I was confused by your stance on supporting the usage of the term ‘gatekeeper’, in light of his pointed and insulting remarks about weak-minded people being the only ones who would resort to such lazy gossip. It seems that you are ready to take on that insult.
              Anyway, this is becoming a ‘tempest in a teapot,’ as they say, so I am ready to move on. Let’s wait and see how he responds.

              • I am willing to take on the insult.

                I think Noam Chomsky is an academic gatekeeper! He was right about Chomsky.

                He’s right about how funding acts to gatekeep discourse in “safe spaces” that don’t really challenge the PTSNB. Academic institutions are gatekeepers in a way.

              • But even if Chomsky does function as a gatekeeper does not mean that some of his work is very good.

                I really liked the documentary Manufacturing Consent.

                I was disappointed that Chomsky went against 9/11 truth, is pro climate change and pro jab, etc. I really didn’t know what to think about that.

                It was sort of like a punch in the gut, a betrayal. But I was able to take what I liked and discard the rest. Chomsky is right about some things and very very wrong about others. My mind is not bound by Chomsky’s opinions though. I have moved beyond that level of intellectual development possibly because of my advancing age.

    • Good find Hughsername (Chomsky).
      I guess James will have no choice but to come back with: “Do as I say, not as I do”. 🙂

      Speaking of 5G towers though (that isn’t one BTW) …

      I hope James can invite Arthur Firstenberg author of The Invisible Rainbow: A History of Electricity and Life, as a guest on an upcoming episode.

      I know James interviewed Jerry Day a few years ago on 5G/EMF’s/RF’s but a lot has happened since then and Firstenberg is much more erudite on the subject.

      As I mentioned, a few incidents happened to me recently that have driven home the importance of warning the masses of this invisible but insidious threat.

      • Interesting, i’ll take a look at his work (Firstenberg).

        May I ask what those incidents were that you’re talking about? I didn’t see you mention them.

        • Sure I can tell you about the incidents but I’d prefer to keep them private.
          If you click on my name it will take you to Root For Liberty.
          From there you can write to me using the contact form.

      • “I guess James will have no choice but to come back with: “Do as I say, not as I do”. 🙂”

        There is also the possibility that James has modified his position on the subject in the last 11 years.
        I know that I’ve gone through some mental revisions during that period of time. Haven’t you?

        • Good speculation, quite plausible.
          But I’d rather hear his explanation.

          • “But I’d rather hear his explanation.”

            Good luck with that. 🙂

            • Ye, of little faith…

              Be patient, all will be revealed.

          • I’ll be very surprised if you receive any response from James about this, in my opinion, nonissue. I’ll be staying tuned though.
            I’m just going to give James the benefit of the doubt.
            It seems much more likely to me that James has simply changed his opinion about how the word “gatekeeper” is understood and used than to think that he is being hypocritical.
            I’m certain that he didn’t forget about the Chomsky video and he has never given me any indication that he’s a hypocrite.

            • Yes, a non-issue. But, he might be flattered to know people in his audience like to know how his mind works (or not.)

              I agree with you on just changing and evolving as one gets older and new insights get turned on.

              He wrote something about “cognitive infiltration” that was very interesting, search Cass Sunstein (I think). People can become bogged down trying to root out “gatekeepers” and “shills” etc. But in reality, people should be in charge of their own minds.

              It’s like being passive versus being active in ones own mind. So what if someone’s a gatekeeper? Will that stop us from learning and thinking for ourselves?

              Anyway, thanks for sharing and putting up with my ramblings.

            • Definitely, maybe. On the memory part. I don’t consider James a hypocrite, as a good descriptive label, either. I like him, and I’d like to hear his take on it, not your ‘gatekeeping.’
              I agree this is a ‘tempest in a teapot,’ but I wonder if the definition of the term ,gatekeeper, has really changed.
              Well maybe. The definition of racist has changed. Also immunity, health, pandemic, war, man, woman, equality, etc. Why not gatekeeper too? Well, I don’t think James wants to be identified with those language manipulators.

            • “There is also the possibility that James has modified his position on the subject in the last 11 years.
              I know that I’ve gone through some mental revisions during that period of time. Haven’t you?”

              “It seems much more likely to me that James has simply changed his opinion about how the word “gatekeeper” is understood and used than to think that he is being hypocritical.”

              I don’t think it’s either one actually.
              The meaning of a gatekeeper hasn’t changed nor is it likely that James has changed his interpretation of the word.

              My guess is that in the last little while (months/years) he has been hit on personally, being labeled a ‘gatekeeper’ and that it has unsettled him. I can’t blame him if this is the case.

              But you have to admit, given his bristling outburst in this solutions watch, it is a little ironic that he himself labeled Chomsky the ‘g’ word.

              James is a very resourceful person though.
              I have all the confidence that he can extricate himself from this conundrum. 😉

              • I think the insults online against legitimate, honorable journalists like JC are because they are hitting the target. The lame elitists and their weak narratives are boring and people are sick of it and the tide is turning.

                They put out the cognitive infiltrators to confuse people (the normie waking up).

                I would urge James Corbett to not get frustrated or insulted, but rather know that his message is working and we are winning.

          • “but I wonder if the definition of the term ,gatekeeper, has really changed.”

            Apparently so.

            “I’d like to hear his take on it, not your ‘gatekeeping”

            Evidently it now means “stating one’s opinion “. 🙂

            • I was a bit too clever with the ‘your gatekeeping’ remark. I apologize. But I do feel like some people here are telling us what James must be thinking. Why speculate?

              Are you serious about the meaning of gatekeeping having changed? If so, from what to what?

              • @Hanky,

                Based on how it’s been used recently online as a smear ad hominem, it would seem so. At least they are misusing the term.

                I think the way JC used the term in his Noam Chomsky podcast provided lots of context and analysis. It was not only calling Mr. Chomsky names but rather did acknowledge his good contributions in linguistics and his critiques of US foreign policy.

                But Chomsky’s comments about 9/11 and the Federal reserve made no sense. Chomsky didn’t say “I know nothing about the details so I cannot comment now” which would be understandable.

                Instead Chomsky implied that there is something wrong with the argument against 9/11 and the federal reserve. I think Chomsky also promotes the official narrative about JFK.

                How can someone with Chomsky’s intellect not understand the logical critiques of these events and institutions? His response to the questions were IMO peculiar and someone might think that he was gatekeeping (setting the boundaries for acceptable discourse).

                I do not find that stating that means that I have a weak mind or a pathetic intellect. But I don’t think JC’s words are directed at me and even if they were, I would have to politely disagree.

                Having said that, to stop researching because someone appears to be gatekeeping is intellectually lazy. Also throwing this accusation around because of differences in opinion should embarrass the accuser.

          • “ I apologize. ”

            That is very gracious of you but entirely unnecessary. I hope that you don’t feel that I was offended. I wasn’t.

            “ Are you serious about the meaning of gatekeeping having changed? If so, from what to what?”

            I believe that what you posted about “my gatekeeping” pretty well illustrates what I mean by the meaning having changed.
            I should probably have said that the meaning has become more loose or flexible.
            Sort of like how the term “antisemite” now seems to include anyone who opposes the slaughter of innocent children in a war and has the audacity to say so publicly.

            • Good point about how definitions of words seem to change (conveniently).

  15. Perhaps some human beings have always been “hackable”.

  16. I disagree very strongly with James on some things, but I still don’t think he’s a shill or a fraud. When someone makes that accusation about someone I’m not very familiar with, it does put a doubt in my mind since I can’t spend tons of time listening to see what I think generally, but I’ve listened to James enough to be convinced he is sincere and trying to get to the truth, albeit missing it in some cases in my opinion.

    I take it I missed something recently that brought this on.

    • Well, ya know Hanky panky, you know who recruits “exceptionally smart” people, don’t you?

      I don’t mean to yank your chain, but, this particular podcast – this mini, mini podcast – has been drawing this lurker out of the freaking woodwork – and your comment about James being exceptionally smart pulled me over the line, from behind the brambles into the firing line!

      Oh, how bizarre our man is!!

      In another life, after a brief teaching career, JC could have been a rather good thespian! It’s the baritone, baby! Who knows, maybe he was Othello in high school?

      So, for those – anyone- who are questioning authenticity, suddenly and bizarrely, in the maestro’s eyes (or ears) he’s hearing PATHETIC voices!

      I’m sorry man, I can’t get over the bizarreness of this podcast! Why in the world? And why now? What’s going on, James? And if it’s some assholes attacking you for being some sort of gatekeeper, why would you give a shit? Why the thespian, canned, scripted, overwrought theatrics? And what about the complete vagueness of it all? Why
      not give a few for instances so your base can have an inkling of context so as not to wander off into space……..

      Questions for Corbett, indeed!



      By the way, where was Oswald sheep-dipped? It was in Japan, right?

      I still get a laugh thinking about what’s-his-name’s eyes bulging out at Anarchapulco a few years ago when you said (blurted) something about that people might find out ten years hence that you were a government agent.

      Talk about gatekeepers. What about Alex Jones for example? What about 9/11? Every anniversary he’d be out there with his crew with banners and bullhorns – 9/11 was an inside job!….. What now? He gets busted for spouting bullshit about Sandy Hook and his main argument is that he’s just an entertainer.

      Do you see the buffoonery here? How that impacts on his credibility on Joe and Jill mainstream? And also how the crimes of 9/11 fade into the great blue (or black (name the color) yonder? Of course, the funny thing is, for years the MSM wouldn’t dare mention Info Wars, and now you’ve got 95% of the MAGA crowd suckling each and every enter-tit-ment; concentrating these days on its worship of the golden ‘The Donald’ calf. Poor Donald.


      You shall know them by their deeds…or, know them on what hasn’t been accomplished.

      Years and years of churning. But, to what end? Butter? So much butter.

      But, nothing’s any better.

      Could it be that the best gatekeepers in the world are also the best predictive programmers???

      Who knows. But, like MBP used to say, back to the hamster wheel for her.

      PS: I draw no comparison to MBP. She was, to my pure consternation and pure delight – depending – truly one of your most brilliant acolytes, JC!

      I long for her intelligence! I suppose I’d also welcome getting skewered for my insolence.


      • Glad you mentioned her. I hope she is doing okay. I do miss her sharp intellect on the comment board. Good to read your words.

      • You may be misunderstanding me. The words you referenced were just me trying to soften the main thing that I said in my numerous posts here, which is that I prefer hearing James’ own first-hand explanation of this apparent self-contradiction over the fawning pretzel logic of some of the faithful commenters, that thought both videos were just fine.

        I know that I wasn’t sure what your main point was. This comments medium is challenging for me, both ways, reading and writing. Are you inferring that James is a secret government agent? THAT would require more than vague veiled innuendos.

        BTW Who is MBP?

        • Hanky,
          So sorry for you not to have known her. She could reappear at any moment. She is a world class explorer, Huck Finn times ten. Fearless, possibly the fastest researcher ever to explore the ether. A wordsmith that stymied the French and made the perfidious English tell the truth. A force as of yet defined definitely. She made the winds from the Sahara blow backwards. She photographed UFOs over the Mediterranean . She conversed with praying mantis in the middle of the bay. She danced with naked Russian cats in the Alicante alleys. She is a voice- over artist extrodenaire. She runs with the bulls that run from her. She is Apollo’s muse and Pans hoof cleaner. She was terrible, she was great and if Al Gore ever were to shake her hand he would surely turn to stone. She eats barbed wire and shits atomic bombs. She is an influencer and will never be forgotten, a peach. That is just some of who she is. A legion of things on the way to becoming a myth. Much like Texicans. A legend.
          Got it? I could go on.

            • She changed her moniker to nosoapradio. Maybe her recent comments would show up on that search.

              I’ve never been able to search for comments but my tech skills are embarrassingly poor, so I’m probably doing something wrong.

              I do hope she is okay. I haven’t read her comments here in a while.

              • I have another comment in moderation because it has two links. It will post below.

              • cu.h.j,
                She , IMO, started with the nosoapradio moniker. It was an amusing story she told of its origin and meaning. A conspiracy practical joke played on some unsuspecting soul, where the punch line to the joke was ” No soap radio” and all conspirators agreed leaving the smuck to wonder clueless.

                This here teapot or trainwreck of a tempest has those qualities. We all want answers but Our Professor who refuses to profess, won’t tolerate begging the ❓ questions. He is a teacher ,fact . Does this remind one of Sybil Edmonds?Boiling Frogs Post? Sybil wrote a book,”The most censored Woman in America.” Or something close to that. In reality she was the most controlled woman in America. If James is worried about perceptions he can use his platform to teach,and that must be what’s happening. If the class is a dud I can see similarities in others, mostly the Professor s that literally threw things at the students who where just stupid, pathetic beggers of questions and would not think. The down side for JC is this is all new. He is pioneering here. Very risky in perception. There is no past equivalent to compare it to. That was the exciting part of this thing he created. My first encounter with JC over email was my interest in the comments section. Which was nieve but I had no agenda other than using them for my own research. He gave me the impression that they were of no interest,as he should, as an artist that created something, and I was more interested in the spectators than the content of his art. It was a bad begging to say the least. Now, as Homey has come forward with new information ,I thank there is a question but it really doesn’t matter . The comments are there but why? Why are some gone? Maybe in that book I keep referring to, that I have very little idea is even in existence,which comes by way of the ether to me, JC will give us some clue to the workings of the world without it being a manifesto but a textbook. I asked “Jeeves” if it was going to be a Saul Alinsky affair? No . A big fat no.How absurd, but as MBP would say…. Now where did all she said go?

        • ManBearPig (later known as NoSoapRadio) is a wonderful lady who once posted here at Corbett Report.
          Her comments were a treasure…often thought provoking and offering keen insights.

          She was an English teacher in France face-to-face, often with a hectic schedule and racing to catch the bus. With her classes of students who were learning to speak English, she often tried to incorporate a topic which would provoke critical thinking. She wanted to wake people up.

          When the lockdowns happened, she eventually moved to an apartment on the eastside of Spain by the ocean, and shared some very pensive thoughts.

          She was raised in New York City. Her loving father was a marketing guy for JC Penny. Sometimes she would share some interesting anecdotes of her time growing up.
          e.g. She knew the Bill Cosby family and would play with one of his daughters. She doesn’t believe the mainstream narrative about Bill Cosby.

          As a young lady, she had some adventures and memories in Arizona on the back of a motorcycle.

          I have been hearing GeneralBottleWasher’s pleas for her return. Like him, I really miss her.

          Some comments by ManBearPig seem to be missing…
          For example:
          She made a post linking a Michael Crichton video. The “pointing the bone” anecdote had impacted me.

          Here is a comment which I made a few days after she posted it…
          How authority figures shape reality – Chernobyl and “Pointing the Bone”
          In the comment section of the latest NewWorldNextWeek, Corbett member “ManBearPig” presented a fascinating video with famous writer, Micheal Crichton.
          QUEUED at Chernobyl. Around the 17 minute mark “pointing the bone”.

          Here is my 6/21/2019 reply to ManBearPig after she first posted the video…

          But her original comment is not there.

            • Oh! My eyes got watery…what a treasure…the smile and voice.

            • I believe people get like this because of the fine cheeses. God bless.

            • Homie,,
              I heard from MBP ,NSR .
              She is well. She loves life. She probably is not coming back to TCR anytime soon.
              I sent a question to her about the time line of who came first, NSR or MBP . We will see, it was so long ago. 2010-2011?

              • GBW says:
                “She is well. She loves life.”

                I am so very, very, very happy to hear that!
                For the longest time, I have wondered.

                Kind of cool…all of it…a special ‘letter’ from Europe.

                GBW, Thanks so much for what you do around here.
                I notice.
                You can tame lions and pet cranky bears.
                You really help to mold this Corbett Community.
                Thanks friend.

              • Homie,
                I don’t know about how special. The only special I know about is that star on the flag.

                And as far as mold goes, as MBP would say, ” so long as it’s blue mold we might stop an infection or use it to make cheese”………kudo Mkey!

      • Hey Candlelight good to hear/read from you again! It’s been a long time.

        “I can’t get over the bizarreness of this podcast! “

        I agree with you. It is bizarre on so many different levels.
        Allow me to explain.

        “If you have spent any time at all in the independent media space, then you’ve seen it.
        This person is a shill.
        This person is a gatekeeper.
        This person isn’t telling you the truth about X, Y, or Z.”

        Believe it or not the person being accused of being a shill/gatekeeper in this case is himself (James Corbett).

        “All right, so here’s the question.
        How do you overcome such a gatekeeper?
        How do you defeat the gatekeeper?”

        He is not asking “How do you defeat the person accusing him of being a gatekeeper.”
        Read it carefully. He is asking “How do you defeat the gatekeeper?”

        “Well, here’s a pretty simple answer for you … ”

        James does not answer the question “How do you defeat the gatekeeper?”.
        Instead he tries to explain that the person who is accusing him of being a gatekeeper (the gatekeeper-labeler), is weak!

        His conclusion that the person accusing him is “intellectually dependent on other people” to tell them what to think is quite a stretch. Where does he have proof of this? Where are the links?
        How does he know they haven’t done a lot of independent research and have come to their conclusion on their own?

        “So, here’s the real answer to the question of how to defeat the gatekeepers.

        Well, there is only one gatekeeper in the world that can gatekeep your mind, and that is you.”

        That doesn’t answer the question.
        Defeating a de facto ‘gatekeeper’ and teaching people how/what to think are two entirely DIFFERENT subjects. They have as much in common as downhill skiing has with snails!

        “There is no gatekeeper but yourself.”

        Here James goes full tilt and attempts to nullify a legitimate word in the English language!

        “So keep that in mind next time you hear someone saying, oh, this person is a gatekeeper.”

        The title of this Solutions Watch episode should have been “How to Defeat a Gatekeeper-labeler”.
        Not “How to Defeat a Gatekeeper”.
        They are two totally different subjects.
        We never got to hear James instructions on how to defeat an actual gatekeeper

        “To defeat the gatekeeper, you have to defeat the gatekeeper in your mind and in your heart.
        And once you do so, and once you reclaim your sovereignty as a free, beautiful,
        independent human being, there is no gatekeeper.”

        Surprise, surprise. At the end of the piece we learn that gatekeepers don’t actually exist!
        The term was made up by groups of people all around the world who have one thing in common.
        They all have weak minds and can’t think for themselves!

        Just to be clear. I am not accusing James of being a gatekeeper.
        I am however accusing him of trying to eliminate a legitimate word in the English language when he says “there is no gatekeeper”.

        • Hello Fawlty Towers,

          How’ve you been?

          I’ve read your post several times, and it seems to me perhaps you’re taking James too literally, or, in a sense, misinterpreting the overall message he was trying to convey – even though his method of conveyance was weird as hell. And I apologize to him for jumping all over his exasperation, but it was just too alluring not to make fun of his thespian theatrics, and from what on the outside, at least, seemed a very odd convolution of his thought processes. Branding a person as weak and intellectually dependent on others for considering putting a label of gatekeeper on someone definitely seems off-kilter, and more so, taken out of context, such a statement is not only off-kilter, but would be totally wrong.
          However, I think what he was really trying to say kind of reminds me of the line from the Bible – if I may quote the King James version (no pun intended) – “And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?” …. Yeah, a little on the heavy side (though, so was his presentation, eh?). I don’t think James was denying the concept and/or existence of gatekeepers, as much as being critical of people who may rush to conclude someone’s a gatekeeper without first considering the influences upon their own thought processes and how one’s own views may be stilted and jaundiced.

          Anyway, that’s about the best I can do to straighten out this strange episode. 🙂 But, I think you’re right, in an earlier post you alluded to the idea that maybe the label of gatekeeper/shill was being heaped upon him (like on and off for the last 17 years) and James was a little rattled. Of course, ironically, to paraphrase, soon after this podcast he mentions in an interview that he doesn’t have time to care what people say about him. But, even James has time to be human, though he may not want to admit it…..

          But, in this same interview, the link to which HRS kindly provided in this thread, James does seem to have raised the bar when it comes to gatekeeping, noting that today, he probably would not bother to hold a Chomsky type to the fire, and be as quick to point critical fingers at people for what they may or may not be saying and/or keeping to themselves. James also makes it very clear that he’s really only interested on concentrating on the conversation he wants to have, and not the conversations others would have for him….
          Interesting. Maybe that’s the whole gist of the matter in a nut shell. Maybe that explains the sensitivity over the concept of gatekeeping. Maybe there’s a fine line here. As James emphasizes, the Corbett Report is his platform, and he has the right to have only the conversations that he wants to have. And in that sense, he very much keeps control of the narrative.

          • Continued….

            Indicative of his desire to control the conversation, thus the narrative, if you think about it, is the fact that as an interviewer, or interviewee, he has never engaged with anyone who is/was directly oppositional to his point of view. Can you think of any time where any conversation on any podcast was adversely argumentative? I can’t. Yet – and this is a very big “yet”! – when it comes to the comment section, it is virtually free-wheeling, without any meaningful administrative controls, it’s virtually uncensored and unedited. And, I have to admit, that’s a real feather in his cap. It’s very admirable.

            But, with that said, there are certain conversations here that are not engaged in, and that silence still feels a bit like thunder, or dark clouds – a mystery inside an enigma. Some might say, WTF, let’s move on, and maybe they’d be right. But, the mystery still weighs upon me….

            What conversation am I talking about?

            Can you guess, Fawlty?

            Yup, Sibel Edmunds.

            Sibel Edmunds…. No, we’re not going to have a conversation, here, ever, on the Corbett Report about her…. “Meet Sibel Edmunds” Nope.

            • Continued.

              You know her whole story, so I’m not going to belabor it; but, nonetheless, the very close association, corroboration, support, and I dare say mentorship, between James and her, given the context of government infiltration, manipulation, distraction, deception and distortion inside the truth movement, begs very deep, unanswered questions. Questions that I wonder if James could answer even if he wanted to.

              To say the world of intelligence agencies of all stripes is a murky field, is to put it very mildly; it can literally be a catalytic minefield for cognitive dissonance, among one its many nefarious uses.

              I have an anecdote about one of the things Sibel went on about with her Gladio B stuff, concerning terror groups.

              She claimed that the Turkish leader, Fethullah Gulen, who resides in the United States, is secretly running a terrorist organization. If you look him up, you’ll find that he’s a main rival of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, the president of Turkey. [Sibel, by the way, fawns over Erdoğan.] In 2016, there was a failed coup attempt in Turkey that was blamed on Gulen’s organization. Consequently, hundreds of Gulen’s acolytes were rounded up and thrown in prison. Gulen has denied any involvement. At any rate, given Sibel’s characterization of Gulen and his organization, you would think they were a bunch of Muslim terrorists.

              Well, quite by accident, a couple of years ago I came across a number of Gulen’s adherents holding an art exhibit and lecture! I was really floored. Quite amazed. It was very obvious that Gulen is an extremely revered and loved, spiritual leader of these people, whom I can only describe as being kind and peaceful spiritual devotees. The art exhibit comprised 15 or so paintings by a young female artist. Each painting depicted the story of an individual or family who were thrown into jail, police state style, as political prisoners of Erdoğan after the attempted coup.

              To meet these people and hear their story was quite moving. For me, the experience really put the lie to Sibel’s claims of terrorism.

              I can only imagine the extent of her “inaccuracies”.

  17. Commenters on this “Gatekeepers” Thread should read the transcript…

    James Corbett is giving an informal verbal essay***, using the terms “shill, gatekeeper, non-truthteller on X, Y, or Z” to bring out and point to a particular perspective.
    And James tells us flat outright “…here’s my message for you…”

    It is an incredibly well-done verbal essay. Look at all the conversations.

    An essay is a concise piece of nonfiction writing that aims to either inform the reader about a topic or argue a particular perspective. It can either be formal or informal in nature.
    …To grab the reader’s attention, an opening statement or hook is crucial…

  18. Best 4 minutes I’ve seen in a long time! I would have no self respect if I didn’t think for myself, even when it turns out to be wrong.

  19. Surprised that someone would call James a gatekeeper. If I hear it in conversation I’ve always assumed its refering to someone working as part of a collective to frustrate someone looking into a topic. Doesn’t bring the corbett report to mind.
    Its a bit of a nothing insult if its someone batting for the team but I could see it being useful referencing someone arguing in bad faith or holding you to standards they aren’t prepared to honour. So please call someone a gatekeeper or shill but at least show your working and make it an interesting post.

  20. Absolutely true James! WE are not a WE we are a bunch of yous and mes – sovereign individuals under a massive psyop that constantly tries to tell us differently. Everyone – be YOU, regardless of all and everything.

  21. I’ve been called a gatekeeper before. It’s funny because when they called me that, I was only pointing out common sense, easily provable fact. I think they used that word because they disagreed with me but didn’t know how to express it. So now, anytime i hear someone call another person a gatekeeper, I see them as someone who has no idea what they are talking about and are incapable of expressing a coherent argument as to why they disagree. I think half the time, people using that word don’t even know what it means.


    • To even qualify as a gatekeeper, one would at least need to have an audience. The gate is irrelevant if nobody is coming to it.

      And yes, people are that stupid.

Submit a Comment


Become a Corbett Report member