Podcast: Play in new window | Download | Embed
In this edition of Questions For Corbett James answers your questions on Iran/CIA connections, climate change duplicity, whether the conspirators think they can survive their own conspiracy and much more. Also, James answers that age-old question: why do Hollywood movies suck so much these days?
For those with limited bandwidth, CLICK HERE to download a smaller, lower file size version of this episode.
For those interested in audio quality, CLICK HERE for the highest-quality version of this episode (WARNING: very large download).
WATCH THIS ViDEO ON BITCHUTE / ODYSEE / YOUTUBE or DOWNLOAD THE MP4
SHOW NOTES:
Who Is Behind The #StopZika Fear Campaign? – Questions For Corbett #032
‘9/11 was an inside job’: Full speech by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at UN
Sibel Edmonds Gladio B Part III
Know Your Terrorists: Ayman Al-Zawahiri
Interview 1180 – Sibel Edmonds Reveals the Khomeini / America Connection
Judith Curry presents at the “Data or Dogma” hearing
We Have 25 Years Invested in This Work…
Long List Of Warmist Organizations, Scientists Haul In Huge Money From BIG OIL And Heavy Industry!
Big-Oil money fund warmists, confusing attack machine
Rockefellers Promised Access to Publisher of InsideClimate News, Emails Show
The WWF’s Vast Pool of Oil Money
There’s Big Money in Global Warming Alarmism
Why Hollywood Makes Bad Movies
For Whatever Reason, China Really Likes Bad Hollywood Movies
6 Bizarre Ways Chinese Audiences Alter Movies You Watch
Special license plates shield officials from traffic tickets
Government to get special swine flu vaccine
10 Secret Underground Bunkers Around The World
Buy Corbett Report Data DVDs in The Corbett Report Shop (use coupon code “christmas25” without quotation marks)
To any Corbett Report members thinking of taking advantage of the 25% off data dvd special:
There will be a coupon code for 50% off any data DVD purchase for Corbett Report members only in tomorrow’s subscriber newsletter. Please stay tuned for that.
Rules for Rulers
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs
While not specifically about monetary policy, an interesting video on how power works for all of us “would-be” Kings out here.
I simply can’t stand how that guy puts an emphasis on every single word lol
Wonderful Episode. Real. Real communication. Real. really.
TEXAS Underground Elite Condos
A 300 million dollar elite armed and underground “condo” complex is being built northeast of Dallas (30 minutes east of Sherman).
It is called “Trident Lakes”. (by invitation only to live there)
https://tridentlakes.com/news
Trident Lakes plans to have 400 condos, all 90 percent underground. People will start living there in about 18 months.
There will also be an underground tunnel system, air-lock blast doors, a shared greenhouse, a DNA vault and several helipads. It’s going to be one of the world’s safest communities, so of course, it will be gated with 12 foot walls, watch towers and there will be armed security at all times.
It will also feature off-the-grid supplies of food, water and electricity.
A championship golf course, 5-star spa, sports courts, 15-acre blue lagoons for water sports, jogging trails, gun ranges, equestrian center, restaurants and retail shops.
A HUGE fountain will feature a statue of Poseidan holding a golden Trident. It is being built now.
one minute video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9g6zKf8U-A
The best thing about these kind of projects is that when the SHTF and none of the sewerage treatment plants are operating, we will be able to divert our sewerage to all those wonderful underground tanks that the criminal elite have built for us!
I certainly don’t want to cut into your financial support but if the spread of information is more important, you could seed torrents of disc image files of your complete annual Data DVDs that people would need to either burn to disc or use a virtual disc reader to read the disc image file (ISO, IMG, etc – http://fileinfo.com/filetypes/disk_image ).
It would also be easy enough to include a text document or few explaining that this is “not an illegal pirated copy” but is free and open source legitimate creator published content, supported via these various donation avenues…
With torrent links and check sums on your site people would be able to verify their torrent was legit (until “they” start censoring or subverting).
Crypto Currencies
We know the money system and banks are fucked.
We know the politicians are more corrupt the higher you go and bigger the region they control.
That said, what if local regional people started their own cryptocurrencies managed by their local people, which may or may not involve (less corrupted) politicians, naturally based on local trust.
Living in Windsor, Essex County, Ontario, Canada – is 4 potential currencies right there. If you don’t like them you could make more: South Western Ontario, East Windsor, Pillette Village, etc.
You don’t have to stop there. Christiancoin, Carlincoin, Jupitercoin, Batmancoin… for any group or affiliation you like, even use ones you don’t.
How about a Truthercoin?
(While we’re at it, how about a tax exempt Church of Truther with vaguely anti-state anti-religion beliefs? Vague only because people will always bicker about the details or “theories”.)
After all there’s already Bitcoin, Peercoin, Dashcoin, Darkcoin, Litecoin, Feathercoin, Vertcoin, DogECoin…
Something like a “Truthercoin” (and/or Church of Truther) might do better if it had a “Home” website or network where the culture could live and thrive and be disseminated from and to. I’m not talking about consolidating or reinventing the wheel or cementing a brand. I’m just talking about having core basic key points laid out for newbies, and an base of promotions and advertising and news for the coin and the culture. But who decides? Obviously my centralized conformist ideas clash with decentralized diverse ideas.
Maybe it’s a bad idea to marry trutherism and coins. Some might call it alternative survival strategy while others might call it capitalizing on tragedy and exploitation, inviting exploitation, infiltration, and tragedy.
Votecoin:
We all know that all of the centralized establishment systems are corrupted by money causing most of the problems. I certainly don’t know how, but imagine if a cryptocoin could be married to your intentions.
How would you express your intentions? In the way that a library organizes with a Dewey Decimal System, imagine you had a voting list with meta sub-sections and sub-sub-sections.
Note: Vote on actions and policies – not on parties, individuals, or the cults of personality.
For example – applied to taxes: Starting with 100% you section it off and say you want 0% to military, 20% to education, 20% to health care, 20% to charity, 20% to infrastructure. (Forgive this overly simple example.) Lets say you want to be more specific and say 10% of infrastructure to the city, 10% to my street. Break it down further with as many sub-sub-sub-sections as you like.
Applied to consumption, somehow, you could vote-support free trade, non-GMOs, etc.
With your cryptocurrency “married” to this intention data, then what?
How would you apply it on the other end?
How would it be enforced?
How could your intentions stay with the currency after you’ve “tagged” it?
It’s a start. Maybe not a good one, but I invite everyone/anyone to build on it.
on the issue of climate change. My experience…on the past and present of the activist scene….. . I still see in the uk they are active. I was actually part of the environmental activist scene from 2005 to 2010. right in the uber period when msm was on full tilt. people never checked the info and wanted to believe it all including myself. which is very useful to be able to look back and realise that its many things. some people are led by powerful individuals. these powerful individuals are so very different from the rest. A very tight core of activists run the environmental activist scene in the uk and act like environmental flying pickets. well their underlings do. the leaders stay put and often have respectable jobs, councils, journos, drug rehabs.NGos its Very cult like and has created a mythology for itself which sort of ties in with the convoy of the eighties, animal rights groups, radical feminists, no borders, permiculture, earth first, palestine liberatiion, veganism, sustainability and i believe pagan idolatry, mother earth/ gaia etc etc.. The climate change activism is part of all that…….some are obscessed with zapatistas and greek anarchists. On one of the climate camps in the uk kingsnorth ( I know this is along time ago now) in 2007 inside one tent arround 50 of them were raving to filmed footage of greek anarchists rioting, punching the air, and singing . I was not shocked as I organised raves myself in the past but was taken by that they all knew these words to the specific political songs. It was very cult like. and carefully managed by the clique that were in charge. These are still active in the anti fracking, and no borders in calaise.
controlled oposition ? people running No Borders groups and working for the city council ? No borders groups that are sparking riots in calaise ? I am not against all people finding a safe place to live but stiring up riots openly and running that group and being paid by taxpayers. surely this is controlled oposition.
because of the blending of different activities they are able to maintain cohesiveness and group think. They are separate from the public, yes, but still just manage to keep it in the public eye. This is what I think fracking is all about in the uk. just keeping the scene going and the environmental agenda in the news. to maintain an activist scene it has to do actions, thats how it recruits and keeps people involved.
On the whole the radical environmental movement is run by radical feminists and those well educated and those connected to lord this and that. sad but true….outsiders are not welcomed and are vetted for subservience and maliability. very cult like, and controlled.
Hi James,
This was a great episode, thanks! Regarding your question I can’t think of any other answer than something that indigenous communities in my country (Ecuador) use (some of which are being massacred at this very moment by our “socialist” government defending Chinese capital who took over their land in the jungle), and that is: barter. I love to see this practice and think is is ideal because the value of products or services is not differentiated – I need healing a disease so I go to the shaman and take a hen or some eggs for him/her in exchange. You provide plumbing services to Jane and she will build you a chair. This would really bring down the value of material stuff and bring up community and human values . But, of course, that would be my ideal world.
Heat is an anagram of hate -it’s global hate that’s increasing. This increase has been naturally selected for – survival has come to mean being as tough as the toughest kid on the block (or risk slavery). This conflicts with our pacifist self image. The solution: pathological denial.
James, did you ever catch that CBC IDEAS episode – THE FOOL’S DILEMMA?
Questions for Corbett
Hey James, thank you for all the work that you do and for directing me to other sources such as Media Morning Monarchy and Tragedy and Hope peace revolution podcast. Would really love to see or hear all of you in another round table discussion group. As I have been listening to your podcasts, I’ve heard references and insinuations to books you have written and published. I went to the main page with items for sale and no books.
My question is what books have you written besides Essays On the NWO how would I be able to obtain them?
And
Are you still planning on doing a Shakespeare expose podcast?
I guess it was Bush Sr. who first said “NWO”?
But I feel the same as Mark here. I don’t think the phrase was meant to signify what it’s been made out to. But then again, to me it was creepy when Bush Sr, said “…when we are successful, and we will be”…
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_CWBTL33MpA
…Just even his tone and look on his face, uggg.
Man, I love these QFC episodes.
Thanks for the response to my question, James. I’m got Interview 604 with Sibel Edmonds queued up to watch and share. And anyway, I don’t feel that I’ve given Gladio B enough attention.
I wanted to say,
I noticed when you read my question you questionably emphasized where I said “we” as in “WE took him out (Qaddafi)” by proxy and “WE invaded Iraq”.
I meant us.
Haha, no I mean the USA. I live in the US so yeah, I generally say “we” did this or we did that concerning US actions. To me, being unwillingly culpable is still culpable.
Lets be honest here, there’s a very good reason as to why politicians need their own swine flu vaccines. It is a swine flu after all, they need all the protection they can get, being most exposed to it.
(my apologies to any actual swines reading this comments section)
I wonder if it’s possible to get a sample of the elite swine flu vaccine? Testing that and the pion version and analyzing the differences might be a good way of exposing the fallacy of the “one size fits all” medical mentality?
A suggestion for the next Film, Literature and NWO video
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4645330/
Denial (2016)
Acclaimed writer and historian Deborah E. Lipstadt must battle for historical truth to prove the Holocaust actually occurred when David Irving, a renowned denier, sues her for libel.
I suppose the holocaust theme is not directly tied in with NWO agenda, but it’s an immensely important event which could serve as a beacon for the unwashed masses.
Cheers, watching now.
To be perfectly honest, I wouldn’t call these videos a review of the movie “Denial” since it mostly enumerates various dogmatic segments of the grand Holocaust™. If anything, it’s more of a review for “The reader.”
The larges issue with all of this “evidence” is the fact it was made to fit a very different era and it simply can’t stand the scrutiny of modern times. Luckily, people are being kept freshly brainwashed.
Well, if you’re reviewing a film, be damn sure to watch it. If for nothing else, but to tear it apart.
The issue of Holocaust has been like a small caliber bullet, not having enough energy to exit the skull upon entry, bouncing around in my head for years now, turning the brain into porridge. It’s such an important question that, in my view, most people are simply not ready to face with any skepticism simply because if they had to realize it was a lie they would need to handle it. Pretty much like in Matrix, people are not ready to face the reality.
If those people, “voted” into power, are willing and capable of disseminating such a bitter, hateful propaganda myth, what else are they capable of? They obviously have to be stopped and the status quo must be usurped. Wicked stuff would have to be done, a revolution sounds like the plan, but those are only efficient at installing the next overlord.
When you augment the whole issue with the fortress of Zionism Israel has become, I honestly don’t see any potential for an amicable solution. These guys are armed with the most vile stuff created by this civilization, they have a number of compromised states supporting their insane cause AND an incredible public support. What could go right?
Either way, I’d start by poking this holocaust bastard with a stick.
First mention of millions of dead Jews and death threats to millions of Jews date back even prior WW1. Quite a few times this story tried to gain a foothold.
Rightly you say, Bolsheviks were infested with Jews and that certainly created fertile ground for things that followed. Hopefully, Solzhenitsyn’s “200 years together” will get an English translation. Especially the acclaimed chapter 15.
As James has said several times by now, one shouldn’t look for a monolithic conspiracy nor a massive convergence of interests. I find it safe to say Nuremberg trials are not to be held trustworthy because of massive falsification of documents presented as evidence; because of upholding of policy; because of its main intent, being a show trial.
Lay a foundation, start raising walls, you’re bound to stumble into something looking like a house.
There is one reason and one reason alone why there were no death camps in Germany: people were allowed to actually investigate them, so truth had to surface. On the other hand, Poland (and it’s “death” camps) were safely tucked behind the iron curtain, denying any and all scrutiny.
Those millions served many purposes and the story kept evolving, so it’s no surprise it took a while to gain proper traction.
As you rightly say, Jews have been cast away quite a few times from various regions during history. If the response this time around is to be in scale, I can only fear what is to come. If anything can cure violence, it certainly isn’t further administration of violence.
It looks like there’s a lot (all kinds) of information in the trial decision over here http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2000/115.html
It is a long, long read.
Yes, that was THE holocaust trial. There are several documentaries about it, what I found most shocking was the obviously acceptable behavior of those JDL “people.” Those guys are ugly and law and justice doesn’t want to get involved with them in no way.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hAsIAQw0oOs
Best I could gather, 6 million is a prophetical figure, stating that chose people could return to Israel only after 6 of them die.
Exact meaning of the word holocaust is “a sacrifice completely consumed by fire; burnt offering” which is kind of very revealing in itself.
So, lets take some religious nuts whom believe in prophecies and expect that 6 million burnt dead will have be offered sooner or later. Is there a better way to cheat destiny than to make the whole world believe the offering has already been made?
I’m not certain what to make of this account. The “white and red house” reference, for instance. He states this room was approximately the same size of his study and yet they would gas 200 people at the time. That storyline doesn’t sound too convincing to me, for the same reasons the original death camp wall to wall packed gas chambers don’t make much sense.
I’m also extremely vary of anything related to Treblinka, Belzec and Sobibor.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dda-0Q_XUhk
There are some articles even prior to 1915.
Denier Bud doesn’t work on the angle about which I’m interested. I.e. is there any solid proof Treblinka, Belzec and Sobibor existed as any sort of a camp in the specified period?
It seems fitting to me that, after you have attempted to load numbers on existing camps and failed quite miserably, one would attempt to make up specific camps all together. The story stating that ze Germans went through the trouble to pull out EVERYTHING and replant grass, shrubs and trees while they were losing the wore which they probably believed was still winnable is 100% ridiculous to me. Like other stories which escaped down the memory hole: human fat soap, shrunken human heads, items made of tattooed human skin, tons upon tons of human hair used as a commodity, who knows how much gasoline and wood used to burn corpses etc, etc.
Where all of this completely fails to hold water would be the numbers.
http://vho.org/GB/Books/dth/fndaerial.html
The railroads are there of course and those concrete buildings could have existed, there’s no denying the possibility. Germans could have invested time and troops into pulling out all foundations, as well. I just don’t find that probable, at all.
Especially since we know that the advancing mungos horde made many of the camp detainees whom were fit for travel go west with their mass murderers, instead of waiting to be “liberated.”
Transit camps made out of wood were possible and plausible, but I doubt anyone in the German’s army mass slaughter division would think gas chambers made out of wood was the way to go. I thoroughly doubt that. Besides, vegetation on those pictures doesn’t show much activity of any kind.
Many of these stories fail to take into account the fact Germans were quite technologically superior at the time, which makes me pretty sure that had they been interested in mass murders, they would have found an efficient and safe way to do it. Most of that “evidence” is just claptrap some random schmoe managed to come up with. It’s something schmoe would have done while failing miserably.
Just an example: does anyone really but REALLY think Germans would have scrounged diesel engines from a destroyed Soviet tank and use them to suffocate people with CO2, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, for months? Firstly, diesel engines don’t have a good CO2 output. Secondly, why use Soviet equipment, for which you don’t have required parts nor do you know the maintenance schedule?
Does anyone think Germans would have gone through such a colossal effort of systematically killing millions without readying a plan to have the corpses disposed? Even if they hadn’t factored it the possibility of losing the war, committing such atrocities would have to be conducted in a much more secret fashion because you just know it would have come back to bite you in the ass.
The precise reason as to why these outlandish stories became even more outlandish as time went by is the fact they had to be revised time and time again since the facts (and laws of physics) have been completely ignored from the beginning.
Physical evidence is lacking for each and every aspect of this story, the only reason why one would BELIEVE it is because of a massive guilt complex, provided by mass psyops which initiated right after the war ended.
I personally am not much of a believer and don’t feel any guilt about these past events, even if it were proven beyond any reasonable doubt that these events transpired as described.
I hold in contempt both the Catholic church and these Holocust peddlers for instilling their guilt complex in unsuspecting masses. A person feeling guilty over anything will be ready to do whatever to ease their burden and this is exactly why we find ourselves today in this predicament.
“That’s the critical and revealing part here, the thing that shows us the true nature of this culture and their leadership and what they are capable of in protecting and enhancing their interests.”
Somewhere I read about how these Jews are practically a natural enemy to men. I’m still not ready to accept that’s how evolution planned to even things out, but I’m certainly getting there 😛
“All the other vaporized victims – Poles, Soviet POWs, Gypsies, etc.- didn’t really matter a half century later, but not the same with the chosen people. ”
I’m not exactly certain if you’re implying that the victim count reduction should be attributed to ignoring victims of certain origin.
I see that camp as a work camp and if the staff had to deal with 4 million corpses during that period (lets say: 4 million over 1000 days would mean 4000 per day) not much actual work could have been performed in all of those western factories greasing the Nazi war machine.
“I think over the last 50 years the Catholic church can be criticized for lots of things related to the Jews”
What about the original sin? Guilting dozens of generations of people to put yourself in position of power can’t be accounted for trivially.
I’m not saying that I understand what an organization has to do to survive for several thousands of years and I do understand they have been bashed for a lot of things they haven’t done, but still I do hold them accountable for their doctrines.
Bishop Williams is just one twinkle on an otherwise dark sky. I’m sure there are more people in similar position sharing his views, but they don’t have his courage.
I haven’t considered the effects of selective breeding, but must be the case here. I do think that accounts for some sort of a psychosis as well. A limited gene pool will lead to mental illness, or so I would hope.
They are winning this war, obviously, with so many people being completely oblivious about it. Masses will keep refuting this conflict based on “fact” that “so many people can’t be onto it.” Well, tough shit, it all must be just a coinkidink, then.
If anything, the church hasn’t done enough to persecute usurers. For this, I also hold them in contempt.
That’s certainly a good example. I have heard some of Harris’s talks, never followed it too deeply though, so I hadn’t spotted such obvious bias.
It’s basically just Jews furthering the cause of the Jews, turning a blind eye now and again. Everybody does it, it’s just that these Jews are quite proficient.
I find his stance on atheism in Judaism a bit funny. It was obvious to me for a while that for these guys Judaism isn’t a religion, but a race. I don’t think their apparent godlessness works in our favor, either.
What you stated about how these camps were mentioned during the trials, even if very VERY briefly, a point concisely conveyed by Denier Bud, makes me only think that they wanted to have a decent framework for future development. Pretty much like they wanted to weed out all the completely imbecilic stories and not have them entered into the record.
Like the one stating that a moving electrified floor was used to perform both mass killings and corpse disposal.
Yes, I very much agree, very plausible.
I expressed myself shabbily, “moving floor” sounded good in my brain. It was the “electrified trap door with underground railroad corpse deployment system” thing. Which the judge at the trial didn’t want to admit as testimony, proving he had an IQ of 80+.
Neocons “Foreign Policy Initiative”
I would love seeing Corbett lay out all these Neocon players (along with their newer generation of minions) during Obama, Hillary and soon to be Trump.
It is very evident that the Neocons are behind this “Russian hacking” ploy. They have gained a lot of mileage with it. And they even use the “Russian con” in order to strike back at their nemesis, The Alternative Media.
All these characters. I am just not that familiar with some of the names and their roles in this more recent era.
I need a Playbill, with an in depth description on the “Cast of Characters”.
Russia / Neocons / Robbie Martin – Short clip
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybmh7rbC–Q&feature=youtu.be&t=1m37s
P.S.
It is my contention that the “Fake News” charade is part of the Neocon plan. They have to take out Corbett Report and the like. Their agenda is jeopardized by Truthful Media.
We know for certain that the Neocons want a scrap with Russia. So we know from whence this “Russia bad guy” talk is coming from.
Right, but and even more, I think they’ll use this in many other ways. Say, when a story gets too sticky that they are planting in the public consciousness they can just say “it was fake”.
They can track stories back to where they say the “real” news sources accidentally reported “fake” news from, umm, “unnamed” sources, willly-nilly social media or wherever. This could get to the point where it’s played out essentially the same as the “faulty intelligence” about WMD’s in Iraq.
And they are openly faking it themselves. The two links below show this (unless it’s fake LoL). It’s making it acceptable to lie on what seems a wider spread scale and no worries about it mattering at all…
“Police use ‘fake news’ in gang ruse; media criticize tactics as dishonest”…
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-fake-news-california-20161203-story,amp.html
– LA Times
“California police use fake news release in gang plot that experts say erodes trust”…
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/05/california-police-use-fake-news-release-in-gang-plot-that-experts-say-erodes-trust
– The Guardian
BUT HEY, this was about crime prevention! So it’s good! Most people will think that.
That story has been addressed in episodes here already. Sorry if redundant but they so well illustrate what’s coming.
The whole thing brings chills to me.
[both links are same news story]
Neocons for Hillary: Obama “Doesn’t Want Nuclear War”
http://mediaroots.org/exclusive-obama-doesnt-want-nuclear-war-neocons-for-hillary/
These psychopaths have no qualms about nuclear war…
QUOTE
Robbie Martin: I wanted to know what your feeling was on Hillary’s approach to Ukraine, is she going to send the weapons to the Ukrainian army?
Robert Kagan: I mean, I’m sure, I mean the answer to that question is I don’t know. I know she cares a lot about Ukraine and certainly cares more about it than the current president does
Robbie Martin: With arms, why do you think the president has sort of dragged his feet?
Robert Kagan: Uh, because he said to me because he doesn’t want to get into a nuclear war with Russia.
Robbie Martin: That’s literally what he said?
Robert Kagan: Yeah, I don’t think…he’s not…he’s through with his agenda with Putin, I don’t think he cares about Putin anymore at all, I think he’s hopeless–uh, he thinks Putin is hopeless, but he says, he thinks Ukraine is part of Russian sphere of influence, and it means more to them than it means to us and therefore we shouldn’t escalate in a situation like that, that’s why he doesn’t want to send arms.
Robbie Martin: He actually said he doesn’t want a nuclear war over Ukraine?
Robert Kagan: He did, ‘I don’t want to have a nuclear war over Ukraine’–my response is well who do you want to have a nuclear war over? Do you want to have a nuclear war over Estonia? I’ll go down the list, Germany? If that’s your going in position, then okay, fine. Whatever nuclear countries don’t want, we won’t do.
Oh man!
Thanks BuddhaForce.
I’d like to see a Corbett Report on the Neocons as well. But, I feel that the Oogabooga Russian hacking is being used the same way Muslim extremists have been used. To further “their” control of aspects like the Internet and personal freedoms. To grind the people’s idea of sovereignty and freedom and to inch forward the whole police/surveillance state. I’m leaning toward the globalists playing a key role as well. Even though I never heard a real American ask for it, we are told that after 9/11 the people begged for more security. Security only the government could provide by stripping away constitutional rights.
I have also struggled to understand why big oil is propagandizing us to believe that we are in a climate change crisis and need to get off oil. The way I see it is that they have worked very long and craftily to make the entire world dependent on oil, so at any moment they can whip the petroleum rug they have woven, right out from underneath us. Then what…?
I’ve thought about this as well. Maybe to get out in front of the topic? And to have a seat at the table where “solutions” are discussed. Getting off fossil fuels would take 100 years, even if the scientific world were all working with that as its goal. Working toward this would also drive prices for it up, which these corporate heads lust for. I really don’t think “they” care that their industry might only last another century. I think they are greedy and they don’t care whether they are a part of the problem or a part of the solution. Only that they get filthy rich in the process.
I can see them pushing global warming, as it stands. Mainly because people and companies who provide approved solutions, like carbon credits and such will reap massive profits from all the hype and hysteria. Especially if there are more ecological acts or terrorism. Floods, hurricanes, earthquakes etc… Not even taking geoengineering or the weapons that have been rumored to exist that can cause seemingly natural disasters to occur. (Yes that’s fairly far out there, I’m aware).
I wanted to toss in that corporations who donate money to ecological organizations could fluff up their poof reputations. Give them positive PR. Even if no one believed them benevolent, the illusion is all that matters where they are concerned. I saw a lot of it after the 2010 BP WMD attack on the gulf. Loads of commercials and news segments showing how sensitive and empathetic BP is to the concerns of the public and damage the deluge caused. It was all a sham though. Their “efforts” were surface efforts and when the cameras left, so did the money.
James,
I am a big fan. And as a social scientist I am typcially a sceptic when it comes to most ‘scientific positions’ particularly when they are propagandised with such force as has been the case with ‘climate change’.
I was however disappointed with your reply to craig.j’s question about the climate debate, particulary with respect to the Big Oil’s funding of climate change research. Correct me if I’m wrong but I understood your argument as follows:
1. Oil companies donate to environmental groups
2. Therefore it’s illogical to suggest that Oil Companies are funding anti-global warming campaigns.
If this is indeed your position, the conclusion does not follow from the premise and is an example of an either/or fallacy. Eg. either big oil is funding environmental groups or they are funding anti global warming groups.
Just because Big Oil funds environmental groups doesn’t mean they don’t fund anti-global warming groups as well. There are plenty of reasons they may choose to do both, too many to mention here..
I hope you can address / clarify this point in more detail in the future content you create on this issue.
A//E
decon,
You make a good point.
I’ll bet that Corbett addresses the details in his follow-up to the masterpiece How Big Oil Conquered the World.
https://www.corbettreport.com/episode-310-rise-of-the-oiligarchs/
Video – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySnk-f2ThpE
I am hoping Corbett can help me to fathom how huge this ‘carbon credit trading charade’ is. The incredible amounts of money are masked in so many ways.
I keep running across other odd money shuffles in the climate change hype…
Cow Farts
For instance, California now has a cow tax because they fart. (Cows give off lots of methane). In 2008, Obama tried to implement it Nationwide at about $75 per head of cattle and $20 per hog. ha!…I guess Mexican restaurants would need to have a methane tax too.
http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2016/09/19/cow-fart-regulation-passed-into-california-law/
Something that surprised me, was how the Big Wall Street players are making easy big bucks by trading an EPA credit on ethanol. Many millions. These EPA credits are traded on the commodity exchanges.
Read more here… https://www.corbettreport.com/episode-310-rise-of-the-oiligarchs/#comment-33964
Nothing new here I’m sure. A continuation of the question about climate change. Why not make climate changers feel more at home here?
Preamble: I think that the degradation of the environment under the weight of industrialization and the externalization of costs, the problem of the commons and all that, is accelerating and fast making parts of the planet uninhabitable. Fukushima, the Middle East, GMO, fracking, etc etc.. While the question of what processes are causing this degradation is of vital importance to science and finding remedies to reverse the damage, the way forward to minimise further degradation seems clear, we know how to begin. I wasn’t too familiar with the arguments about how a false climate change consensus might be used politically to tighten the noose, so thanks very much for that perspective. Another idealogical weapon to be clubbed over the head with along with all the others, perhaps in particular to be used to marshall us towards yet tighter controls, like terrorism, I can see what you mean, but also as another debate to polarise and divide us, the right versus the left. I get it. Yet at the end of the day I remain sympathetic to the general notion underlying a belief in climate change – we are stuffing the planet and we need to stop. It seems to me that is why so many people so readily believe.
Question: Technological advances in solar energy, batteries etc that many climate change believers want to see accelerated not only promise to reduce our environmental impact but offer a way forward towards decentralization and energy independence – facilitating the type of political system advocated here. Why not emphasize ones common purpose of protecting the environment with the climate change movement and seek shared solutions where these occur while keeping focused on the application of these solutions to political change? Looking after the environment even implies a new political system – I think many climate change believers could expand their view to include political change while anarchists could deploy their technology to realise increased freedom from the state. Sharing each other’s views and solutions would enrich the debate. Here in Australia the uptake of home solar is just as much an ‘up yours’ to the energy incumbents as a nod to the environment. While peoples goals aren’t explicitly anarchic they could be. One almost imagines a place where the left and the right might meet. If you head off in a straight line and go far enough do you return from the other side? Maybe you end up at the Corbett Report!
Well said, I completely agree. It is interesting that multi-perspective view, the curvature of political space, a sort of paradigm shift that might add a dimension, the line becomes a circle – a plane. This year has pointed to something like it slightly – eg Bernie/Trump. And I agree to get there it will take some active thinking, some effort rather than the dumbing down and sloganising that happens in the ‘real news’, an individual challenge. Thanks. Would you see anarchism as a possible description of the area ‘back there’?
I like that you include materialism in your list of causes. I think I have heard James arguing that an anarchic system can only evolve in concert with our evolving ideas – that we are not quite ready. I read Schiller’s letters on aesthetics not so long ago, a bit aside from the point but maybe not, quite similar, the state as a necessary midwife to such a raising of consciousness if it doesn’t fall into corruption – a controversial idea but worth a thought. I really agree with all that though, thanks, got me thinking.
Ha ha, Foucault, for sure! I agree all those abstractions can be enjoyable to think about but are not necessarily useful. Thanks for that definition. Our institutions were at least sometimes the product of free/creative individuals and helped our progress so I agree they can evolve and can be useful. Is the idea that when our consciousness has been sufficiently ‘raised’ we won’t rely on others and we will be able to come up with our own ‘institutions’ spontaneously? Here’s a question: do you think the raised consciousness in a stateless society relies on a common underlying morality? I guess that is implied by your phrase ‘raised consciousness’ already. Is there an objective morality? I always get worked over by friends when I suggest that maybe legal systems are only there to stop bad until we can ‘see’ good. Few have much faith in human nature and so prefer the state to enforce a moral order, a hurdle we need to overcome. I think we should be exploring such questions more. Relativism taken too far might also be another one of those causes of our current predicament while a philosophical basis for a shared morality could help. There are a few contemporary advocates I believe, not none!
James,
I’d like to hear your opinion on the matter of LFTRs. I had presented this issue once before, but I was probably overlooked.
https://eic.rsc.org/section/feature/is-thorium-the-perfect-fuel/2000092.article
LFTR is a shorthand for Liquid fluoride thorium reactor, pronounced lifter. These reactors appear to be the answer to the (probably ensuing and almost certainly artificially created) energy crisis. Over standard and predominantly used PWR and LWR types of reactors, LFTR offers an incredibly wast array of advantages.
Firstly, instead of scarce uranium 235, 4 times as abundant thorium is used as fuel. Thorium is globally available and does not need to be enriched. Occurrence of thorium in Earth’s crust is comparable to led, while that of uranium 235 is equivalent to silver.
Secondly, fuel usage efficiency for LFTR should be beyond 99%. Comparing that figure to 0.5-0.8% fuel efficiency presented by current PWR and LWR requires no imagination from the viewer. More fuel efficiency means a lot less bad byproducts. To make matters even better, much of that remaining 1% can be used in medicine, for space exploration etc. The amount of bad byproducts as compared to uranium reactors would be near 10.000 less.
Thirdly, LFTR is inherently more secure than PRW/LWR. Low pressure fluids are used for heat transmission and in case of a catastrophic failure, the reactor can be setup in such a way to shut the fusion process automatically. This also means a lot less redundancy, making the entire installation far less expensive.
There are more advantages, but I don’t want to make your work even easier 😛
Disadvantages:
– very cheap electricity for all of humanity. After R&D costs of trillions (basically, one could make Pentagon pay for it to cover its debts) Kirk Sorensen estimates production costs for such a plant should be comparable to standard coal or gas electrical plants
– massive shifts in geopolitical spheres of influence, with an abundant source of energy, million times more dense than your standard hydrocarbons, raw oil exporters would become nobodies overnight
– massive losses for giant corporations still grasping to lucrative fuel production contracts
– no energy market manipulations
I understand you may not be well versed in technology, but I find this issue to be the most important non social issue of our time.
On one side the big users of carbon based fuel have a good reason to push the research into the direction that they want. They want to avoid any responsibility or loss of profits. These present any environmental problem as a minor problem. I don’t agree with these group of “climate-deniers”. But I agree with most of the scepticism as it is presented by real scientists that dare to point out some of the corruptions going on. Other scientists seem to have forgotten to be self-criticizing.
The actual climate research, stripped from all the fake data, does not present any big catastrophe. The real scientists also confirm this in their models. The climate is a self balancing system, due to life itself. This means that the earth is hotter only a little bit. Yet in the news we see over and over again that “the end of the world is near”. These are not scientists, these are prophets pretending to be scientists.
There is a reason why the climate is presented as a catastrophe. And CO2 as the only cause? There are so many other factors in play.
We can see some of the producers of oil sponsoring the scientists on catastrophic global warming. This is not because they want to “make things good”. It is because of more profit. If they wanted to make things good, they should stop pumping oil instead.
The oil industry is owning most of the science institutes, so it is very easy for them to block certain science reports. Did you see any report of the damage caused by oil-disasters? They have been catastrophic, but instead we get presented CO2 as the biggest threat on earth.
The scare for oil and coal makes it possible for them to buy oil-fields cheap from current owners. They also push the closing of coal-mines. With that they can establish oil-monopolies. And we are still going to use oil, whatever laws may be coming.
But I do not think it is about the oil. The US-money is related to oil. The oil price has been very high for some time and companies like “Deutsche Bank” paid a lot of money for contracts that ensured a fixed price for oil. With the price collapsing, these organisations are now nearly bankrupt.
With the introduction of carbon tax, the world will need a global money system. Money that is still related to oil anyway. This means that the oil-field owners may be taking over the global banking system.
We have a rather warm winter here as well, your point being?
Do you realize that “money” invested in oil is dwarfed by “money” invested in the military keeping those oil routes “safe”?
I think you’re conflating one to many issues here.
Firstly, is there any actual proof oil isn’t a renewable source of energy? How is it exactly created? I stopped believing that dinosaur leftover bullshit a while back. There’s quite a lot of processes going on in Earth’s crust and I find it possible oil isn’t very much finite at all. Sure, I guess deposits can dry out, which doesn’t mean they will all dry out or that they don’t replenish over time.
And I’m not referring to the fact that, even if it was a finite source it will never dry out completely, because there will always be leftover deposits which are too deep to make profit.
If they do replenish, I wouldn’t be surprised if people making money on them would have their motives to keep the information suppressed.
Secondly, how much energy do we really need to live comfortably? Do standard renewable energy sources provide enough power to cover all that we need? Does anyone really think the world can go full solar or wind? These plants can be very useful in certain areas and required technologies are becoming more and more affordable, but on a more global level I don’t find that to be doable. You can go partly solar and thus lower your impact on the habitat for a low cost and practically zero loss in comfort, however most of the “modern” infrastructure isn’t well suited for making even the most modest of changes. Therefore, I ask, how much would we need to change to achieve a certain degree of power usage reduction?
As a blanket measure, reductions will only lead to further disparity. It makes me sad so many people don’t realize that. Also, people should realize that these alternative sources of energy are ripe with failed policy measures and are often backed by very same people who appear to stand to lose the most if by some chance alternative became the norm.
Regarding your political implications, I’ll refer you to the post I made just a few scrolls above. It’s plainly evident oil price has no correlation with scarcity.
Most stuff you said there I find agreeable, but I don’t see how does that reference my reply to Greg Bacon above.
My point in that reply was that there are some climate changes (or instability in certain areas) going on, but that there is no actual proof the problem is man made or caused by human actions. I also replied to what I found was a false paradigm, the “oil money” which is a very complex issue. In other words, there are a lot factors which should play a role when putting a price tag on a barrel of raw oil, but they are deferred and treated as unrelated costs. Oil is actually very expensive when you consider all the extra expenses.
To name one, the military, which again serves its own purpose. Like the fact that US imports wast majority of its oil needs from routes other than those where its most heavily invested militarily. Trillions upon trillions are wasted on “securing” these oil routes, and then about 10% of US oil needs are met from these destinations in the middle east. One can not make this stuff up, it’s completely insane. Utter madman are left in charge, what would one expect? Mad men making mad decisions.
I absolutely agree that we’re very wasteful in our western and quasi western way of life. But that’s a layered infrastructural problem which can’t be solved by simply tossing renewable sources at it. Proper issues need to be addressed in proper order.
If a man came to a doctor stating that his cranium has cracked due to his pounding against the wall, the solution wouldn’t be to equip the man with a disposable forehead which he could replace when the need arose, but to see to the core of the issue: why the hell is he banging his head against the wall?
Why are we living such wasteful lives? I’ll name just some of the structural problems:
– bad and outdated construction practices coupled with bad regulation leading to overpriced, badly insulated, non lasting housing
– terrible traffic planning and organization, investment into obsolete technologies a.k.a. personal cars based on 40% theoretical fuel efficiency, even worse when you consider people typically travel alone in their cars
– zoning, where distance is put between the places people “work” and “live” just so that even more expenditures are pressed on people because “spending is good for the economy.”
“If even two-thirds of appropriately skilled and knowledgeable scientists …”
One third would be enough for me push the panic button, but where are these people? The scientific community has been coopted like pretty much every other facet of this civilization.
Yes, we do have an effect on our environment. Is our involvement raising CO2 levels in such manner it may prove to be instrumental to our ecosystem? I don’t know. Does this planet have certain mechanisms to deal with stuff like too much CO2? Yes, it does. Can the planet efficiently deal with all sorts of waste we throw at it? No.
This may not be a court of law, but still we need to proceed based on facts, running around aimlessly won’t solve a thing. I’m not advocating “lets do nothing about this” approach nor I’m trying to minimize the effects of our influence on the surroundings. I am against climate change movement as is because these sort of affairs are always about something else. It pretty much never is about what it says on the tin and as such I reject it.
What I’m trying to advocate for is proper methodology. Lets identify core problems, lets give them a proper name instead of a fake label and work toward resolving the core issues. Treat the cause, not the effects. Throwing public money at a yet undisclosed, undefined issue is not going to solve anything. There’s a lot astroturfing going on, these big companies are funding both sides of the argument… why? Because that’s what they always do and it works out great for them in the end. They just want more power and money and have practically limitless funding. If all you have is money, every problem must look like a bribe that hasn’t been payed yet.
There’s far too much hypocrisy going around in the world today for people to be able to look at what they’re doing objectively. Taking matters into your own hands isn’t easy, either.
I’m European, not that it matters, but wanted to make that clear. I’m not sure what’s right wing about (some of) my statements or positions, but I do not think along those terms. If you need to align me, that alignment would be chaotically neutral.
It is true that European oil has always been more expensive here and its price has been kind of a pivotal point for most budgeting issues, but it also pays homage to insane bureaucracy going around in many failed socialists states on this continent. Or, as they call them, nation states, thanks to all the federalist bullshit.
I’ll give one short example here, for local gas prices, calculated in US gallons and USD:
1 gallon of gas with markup: 2,03
fixed tax per gallon: 1,88
VAT 25% (tax calculated on tax, INSANE): 0,98
total USD per gallon: 4,98
“How do you know that hasn’t already happened and you’re just rejecting that, based on all the noise?”
Well, I know for a fact that some of the stuff I’d like to see going on isn’t going on. Like decentralization, less governance, more public organizations, locally grown food, sane and safe influx of technology into modern day lives etc.
What I see now is just more of the same that’s being going on for decades now. A bunch of failed policies coupled with influx of religion into all facets of life (politics, banking, economy; all of that is just dogma today) leaves much to be desired. And people are completely drawn into it. Nobody seems to notice, nobody seems to care. I don’t know one single person in real life who appears concerned about these issues, people are just moving on and hoping for the best or whatever. Not one second is spent on thinking about what’s actually going on and why does this system require faith to function, instead of critical thinking and conscious, responsible decision making.
As far as these matters are concerned, I’m about 7 years old. On average, I’d say I was happier and more complacent before, even if there was something bugging me for years. Now, after realizing some of the issues and none of the solutions, I don’t know where to turn next. The only thing that gives me a modicum of hope, something that may occur is to find a group of like minded individuals and start a settlements somewhere in a forest, deeper the better. It wouldn’t be bomb or ecological catastrophe proof, but it would be a start.
As for renewable energy sources, EU has a tendency to cofinance these projects, that is until it runs out of money. Basically, the idea is to give public money to various state and privately owned electricity distributor companies so that they may purchase (at a higher price than they are actually selling) electricity produced from these (typically very expensive) plants based on renewable energy. Typically, what happens is that people take out loans to fund these plants and then by February the funding program runs out of money so John Doe can’t take care of his loans and goes belly up. Quite a few such solar plants have went under in Spain, but I’m sure some of the top officials made a nice bundle on John Doe’s grief.
In my mind, measures like these do not even hint at a solution. These are nothing more but failed policies serving as short lasting news soundbites.
The military angle IS a US centric issue, the whole of NATO couldn’t invade Iceland on their own. However, even if these troops are just for show, so that it doesn’t appear US is without any allies and those who think alike, it still is a common issue. People do not object to NATO and therefore NATO goes on. There is no reason to have it anymore (if ever there was one) so it should be abolished.
The military industrial complex, on the other hand, is a 99.99% US centric issue. Europe is not nearly as financially involved with this industry, but it still plays a role and, like a good lap dog, goes along even against its own interest. Now, I’m not hinting at another false dichotomy here, this is not a EU vs US, people in power want a federal state of Europe to simplify ruling over many people coming from completely different cultures. By following the US model, which worked out great for them.
I guess the general state of infrastructure in US is quite worse off than in core of Europe, which ties in with what you’re saying there (destroy decent public services and provide less efficient alternatives) but same problems have been going on in Europe as well. Public services gone private because “state can’t handle them efficiently” so they sell them for cents on a dollar. Same shit all my freaking life, they just rebrand it. Privatization, monetization, fuckyouization etc.
While we do agree on the core issues, I do not think any sort of fake scarcity can make the situation better. I wasn’t implying that changing zoning rules could, either. What needs to happen is for people to start seeing through the bullshit on a massive scale. There is not one reason to believe that this false dogma of climate change can somehow automagically turn good and have positive (and completely unexpected) consequences. People running this show do not give a shit about you, me nor the planet.
Access to energy sources of higher density is not a bad thing in itself. We’re just handling it very very badly. Access to cheaper and more efficient energy sources will lead to more freedom, the problem are the people who place themselves between us and it because they want to keep us in their stranglehold.
The problem isn’t in the technology, but with these people and our inability to see through them.
Suppose that tomorrow you woke up and found a strange device on your doorstep, delivered for free. After inspection, you realize that this device, in exchange for a small monthly charge, provides a very cheap source of electricity which you can use to power your home and your business; to charge your car; or even to produce your own hydrocarbon based fuel. Would that device empower your household or hold it back? What if that same device was delivered to everyone in your community?
We will not remove from power these bastards if we just quit oil or whatever other source of energy. You only need to hang mean bastards, but mean bastards you need to hang. Our way of life needs to be revised. This false economy of consumption religion needs to be dumped. People need to unhook and start to see through the bullshit. The first thing they see won’t be peachy, but it will be the truth and the first step toward a better tomorrow.
Dec 23 2016 – Bloomberg –
Ignoring Climate Change Just Got More Expensive
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-12-23/ignoring-climate-change-just-got-more-expensive
Obama’s “Social Cost of Carbon” – SCC –
Quote:
…these models to produce the “social cost of carbon” (SCC) at the heart of dozens of energy-related federal rules. The measure is expressed in dollars per ton of carbon dioxide emitted. The current U.S. estimate is about $40….
ha!… in 100 years sea levels rising 6 feet.
“Climate Change Could Cost U.S. Homeowners $1 Trillion”
Short Bloomberg video from August 2016
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WW22o5uFEDw
Dec 26 2016 (Thanks to Joe who spotted this.)
America’s Top Climate Change Expert Sentenced To Jail For Fraud – The United States’ (EPA) highest paid climate change expert has been sentenced to 32 months in federal prison on fraud charges.
http://yournewswire.com/climate-change-expert-jail-fraud/
EXCERPT
…Beale drew a $200,000 plus salary per year and regularly travelled around the world staying high end hotels – all at the taxpayer’s expense – while claiming to be saving the world from global warming as well as working for the CIA on covert assignments.
What else do you think he has been lying about?….
In other words, were this guy connected with CIA in any way, this wouldn’t be happening lol
ha!…I am laughing!
…yea, had Beale been with the CIA, he would had been laundering drug money through carbon credits, the prosecution dropped, and the Russians would be blamed for climate change.
rich3,
Spot on.
Questions For Corbett
Internet & News Monetization (sub-heading “Fake News”)
I am old school from the days of hand written letters. I am somewhat unfamiliar with the trends in internet marketing and revenue sources, especially when it comes to news media, both alternative and mainstream.
If time allows, could you talk about this topic?
Also, would you refer me to any previous episodes or articles.
~~~
I am gung-ho for anyone to make an honest buck…and lots of bucks.
However, I have noticed this increasing trend of “rage clicks”, “hyperbole, sensationalized news headlines”, clickbait ads, “individual YouTube so-called experts”, “shock videos”, etc.
I keep running across stories of some folks who make extremely good money promoting tabloid trailer trash. But I am in the dark on the mechanisms of how they get their revenue.
Example for YouTube: Adam Saleh and others…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2EFDaiv-jT4
I tried to digest this article “How Ad Tech is Destroying the Web”, but that is just one aspect. https://kalkis-research.com/clickbait-and-traffic-laundering-how-ad-tech-is-destroying-the-web
Example of “Alt Media” pollution:
http://beforeitsnews.com/
Discussing the 7 wars of Obama over the holidays with my Uncle, a United Nations aircraft maintenance engineer posted in various places around the world for months at a time, he repeatedly pointed out that Mogadishu suffered from American attacks.
Please consider doing a show about Mogadishu, Somalia, and what’s happening there.
http://manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2016/12/22/how-to-tell-whos-lying-to-you-climate-science-edition
How To Tell Who’s Lying To You: Climate Science Edition
“…..The coup de grace for the Hockey Stick graph came with the so-called Climategate emails, released in 2009. These were emails between and among many of the main promoters of the climate scare (dubbed by McIntyre the “Hockey Team”). Included in the Climategate releases were emails relating specifically to the methodology of how the graph was created. From the emails, skeptical researchers were then able to identify some of the precise data series that had been used by Mann et al. Astoundingly, they discovered that the graph’s creators had truncated inconvenient data in order to get the desired depiction. A website called Just the Facts has a detailed recounting of how this was uncovered. As a key example, consider this graph:
Jan 4, 2017 article in “The New American”
New Report Exposes Rockefeller Dynasty’s Role in “Climate” Scam
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/24980-new-report-exposes-rockefeller-dynasty-s-role-in-climate-scam
EXCERPT
“… according to a recently released ‘investigation by a watchdog group'(link below). That dynasty, of course, is the Rockefeller family. In essence, they have largely created, bankrolled, and weaponized what is known as the “green” movement “as a means to expand their empire over the past three decades,” the report found….”
pdf link “The Rockefeller Way – The Family’s Covert ‘Climate Change’ Plan”
https://eelegal.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Rockefeller-Way-Report-Final.pdf
QFC and/or episode subject matter request,
Vertical farming
http://www.verticalfarm.com
New article came out today here…
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/01/09/the-vertical-farm/
I saw a documentary about this recently and it seems like one of the greatest things to come about. It’s a bright spot for the future I hope.
What do you think? Any perspectives from our community? What’s it’s history, pros & cons and so forth?
Another possible QFC and/or *QFFS.
Are there any meaningful differences and similarities of Agorism and life lived within Native American Reservations (AKA Domestic Dependent Nations)?
*Questions for Fellow Subscribers
mike jay,
I am interested in this topic also. There is a lot to be learned from the Native American history and situations. After all, as a culture they have tried to survive against Elite Controlling Powers and overwhelming “new technologies”.
(Derrick Broze might have insights)
QFC
James, Do you know of any Open Source avenues which give guidance to “small time people like me” towards shorting corrupt corporations in the marketplace?
I feel like this could be a pleasant form of activism: the possibility of personal financial gain betting against the corporatocracy in the marketplace.
At this juncture, I would love to short some of the MMR vaccine companies.
Max Kaiser had a venture along those lines, he got some people and money together and they shorted … what needed shorting, I guess.
Thanks mkey. I’ll do some homework.
I am bent on shorting the child killers, i.e. Merck stock with its MMR and other vaccines.
The corrupt CDC is now scampering in fear with some of Trump’s appointments…
…Georgia Congressman and surgeon, Dr. Tom Price, as Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS). Read this hit-piece: Tom Price Belongs to a Really Scary Medical Organization That Promotes Anti-Vaccine Hysteria http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2016/12/tom-price-belongs-to-a-really-scary-medical-organization.html
…Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said he would chair a presidential panel to review vaccine safety and science at U.S. President-elect Donald Trump’s request. — Dynamic revealing interview with Kennedy https://youtu.be/kCFsc1FqRP4?t=1m47s
— (15 minutes) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2UJ2oBeya0
The disposal of Big Pharma could also potentially help collapse the MainStreamMedia and corrupt Lobby/Congressional connections. In non-elections years, some Media companies derive up to 70% of their revenue from Big Pharma. The Big Pharm Lobby is much, much larger than the Oil Lobby or the military Lobby. The CDC itself purchases more than 4 billion dollars a year in vaccines. (One Minute) – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1ARNgVx36c&feature=youtu.be&t=24m36s
Where were the hand signs?
This brings to mind the epic sci-fi mini-series Dune 2000 and Children Of Dune 2003, when the witches talk to each other on one level knowing they are being listened to, while on the other level they are having another conversation in minimal (lap-based small gestures) sign language. If they can cross space and ride giant worms and have hidden microphones, wouldn’t you think they’d have invented secret video?
Feb 4, 2017 – The Daily Mail
Exposed: How world leaders were duped into investing billions over manipulated global warming data
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4192182/World-leaders-duped-manipulated-global-warming-data.html
QUOTE
The Mail on Sunday today reveals astonishing evidence that the organisation that is the world’s leading source of climate data rushed to publish a landmark paper that exaggerated global warming and was timed to influence the historic Paris Agreement on climate change.
Feb 3, 2017
1,000 science papers challenge the false narrative of man-made climate change
http://www.newstarget.com/2017-02-03-1000-science-papers-challenge-the-false-narrative-of-man-made-climate-change.html
LALAALALAALAAALAALALALAAAALLALAALALALLA
https://youtu.be/USZ6vRY_kWI?t=4m30s
Looks like there has been a response to the claims made in the Daily Mail, by none other than Time. Time is calling out “climate change deniers” as the originators of so-called fake news and visciously critizing the Daily Mail, as well as Dr. Bates for attempting to call into question the validity of the data that supposedly disprove this climate change pause. The comedy and irony of Time accusing others of purporting fake news is apparent, but it would be interesting to dissect the claims made by Time and use them as an example once again of spreading real fake news.
http://time.com/4664173/climate-change-denial-fake-news/
QFC:
James, what’s your take on Anonymous? Lately, I’ve been seeing alot of their stuff making its rounds on FB and some of the recent material from them seems to begin to dip into topics that are covered at reputable alternative media like here and GR… But I also tend to get a bit of a weird vibe from some of their stuff as well, much like I get with “alt media” personalities like Alex Jones or even “whistleblowers” like Assange or Snowden. Do you think Anonymous is completely a CIA “false opposition” front to make would-be activists and hactivists feel as if the work needed to expose TPTSB is already being accomplished?
Thanks again for tirelessly bringing the some of the very best research and analysis I’ve found thus far.
“Anonymous” should be the epitome of anarchy, many individuals acting … well, individually. Like a torrent of thought and expression, sometimes acting in concert. That being said, I find most of the anonymous related material to be bullshit, based on the content, not the possible purveyor of that information.
QBC
In a cashless society, how would the illegal drug game work?
You’d get to grow your own stuff.
ha! That’s funny. I remember when a kilo of weed in Austin, TX was $110 in 1972.
But really, How would the CIA and Banks market their Afghanistan opium to the common folk on the streets in the U.S.?
I don’t think digital money would prevent authorized sellers from selling anything. Also, the mere fact you can look into transactions doesn’t mean you will.
So, pretty much, just fedex the drugs and shoot up.
Iowa State University scientists claim global warming is causing violent behavior
http://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/global-warming-and-violent-behavior#.WKPZiK8ixKY
(Geez!!…you can’t make this stuff up.)
Found this via Natural News…
http://www.naturalnews.com/2017-02-13-university-scientists-claim-left-wing-violence-caused-by-global-warming.html
From Iowa State article:
“In fact, many of these same climate-change-driven factors aid in terrorism recruitment: Uncertainty and frustration about one’s livelihood, seeing others who seem unfairly unaffected, and the belief that there are no other viable options to sustain oneself may all contribute to terrorism.”
It’s almost unbelievable that this type of nonsense is even out there. But I guess we shouldn’t be too surprised these days.
Spot on scpat!
Hello Mr. Corbett!
My question is unrelated to this post:
While listening to your reading of Lysander Spooner, i think i heard him mention that states / countries themselves are existing, doing business, interacting, waging war etc. in a state of anarchy, meaning without a ruler(this is true). Who rules the states? well you could argue the UN does(ehh not really)… but then who rules the UN? At some level in any hierarchy there is anarchy. A bizarre internal contradiction most statists have is the outright rejection of a voluntaryist(anarchist) society for individuals, yet they seem perfectly fine with countries(groups of politicians) conducting business, waging war, etc. in anarchy. My whole point and question is: am I missing something when i say ANARCHY = POWER since whoever is not being coerced must be at the top of the hierarchy? Of course if there is no hierarchy, it’s already anarchy. By definition, ‘the people’ only have power in an anarchist society, and they give up all their anarchy to the next level on the hierarchy as soon as they allow themselves to be coerced in any way. This could be an clear explanation in an attempt to redpill statists. What do you think?
Climate change standup
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bARjABDqok
This chap has some talent.
A MUST WATCH video…
Obama’s Chief Climate Adviser on 1920s global warming: ‘It is a crisis we’re trying to address’
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ilD6aYvMPZw
(Corbett had posted this video in show notes https://www.corbettreport.com/the-deep-state-gives-trump-his-false-flag-briefing/ )
Also an article…
https://climatism.wordpress.com/2017/02/22/the-great-extreme-weather-climate-change-propaganda-con/
Richard Feynman Lecture On Quantum Mechanics (2/2)
https://youtu.be/Q-_lvGtfeEM?t=25m12s
How Richard Feynman defines science (without probably even meaning to)
What is necessary for the very existence of science is just the ability to experiment, the honesty in reporting results, the results must be reported without somebody saying what they’d like the results to have had been. And finally, an important thing, intelligence to interpret the results but important point about this intelligence is that it must-it should not be sure ahead of time about what must be. Now, it can be prejudiced and say that’s very unlikely, I don’t like that. Prejudice is different than absolute certainty, I don’t mean absolute prejudice just bias but not strict bias, not complete prejudice. As long as you’re biased it doesn’t make any difference because if the fact is true the end will be actual accumulation of experiments that perpetually annoy you until they cannot be disregarded any longer. [They] only can be disregarded if you’re absolutely sure ahead of time of some precondition that science has to have. In fact it is only necessary for the very existence of science that minds exist which do not allow that nature must satisfy some preconceived conditions like those of our philosopher.