Has anyone gone through his stuff and compared to what actually happened?
If he has proven correct, then what is he predicting for the rest of this year? Or in 2040? Or is he more like a tarot reader/psychic that can't be proven one way or another?
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (20)
sorted by:
Right, any disinfo has got to contain some truth, but I always think of it like picking up gold nuggets in a minefield: you have got to know what you're doing, but if you do it can be very profitable.
Frankly, I found Clif High to be particularly bereft of value. I have a very strong interest in the Anunnaki and a good background in that subject, and in one interview he mentioned--as a simple of fact--that Eden was one of ten (?) Anunnaki biodome laboratories. Finally, something to follow up on!
So after like 20 minutes of searching, what did I come up with? Nothing at all. Not "nothing important"--nothing at all. So this "simple matter of fact" had never been written down by anyone, not even Clif High. How much can any serious researcher expect to get from this guy?
On the flip side, I still refer people to disinfo agent Miles Mathis, but only his work before summer 2019, when I feel it completely came off the tracks. I didn't read it but his latest paper on the Maui "wildfires" advances the thesis it was all faked. Jesus.
You know what's funny? I recently came to the conclusion that James Corbett is himself disinfo. I've listened to every one of his audio podcasts and I never, ever noticed until they "activated" him after the Ukraine War started.
His "gag", if you will, is that he thoroughly documents his work. So years and years were spent building up the impression that this guy has a detailed command of all the material and is a disciplined scholar. Which is true, at least until such time and in such way as it needs not to be.
So I heard his Ukraine show and thought, "Good Lord, are the NYT, WaPo and Rachel Maddow his only sources of information on this?" I was quite shocked, and I've actually waited for a "correction" since that time but it's never come.
You can see the technique, though, in the notes for this show:
"If the bad side is so bad we'll never convince you they're good, then we're going to convince you the good side is in on it with the bad side". This is the same technique you see with the Democrats: "Yes, the Democrats are horrible... just like every single Republican and especially Trump. Right, my friends?"
Corbett actually gets outed right away in the comments:
Can any (supposedly) outstanding researcher like Corbett possibly have simply never heard that, or have failed to address it completely? No way, no way at all. That's the tell, where the disciplined scholar needs to miss something.
Well sure, agree to disagree. But you should pause to recognize that it falls right into the pattern. Whenever I find myself in agreement with a lot of "smart" people, I freeze and my eyes begin to dart all around.
If you or anyone reading this is at all curious about how fake the "news" is and the way the world really works, this appears to be a completely fake person: Dmitry Utkin
About the only lead we need is this one sentence:
Of course he hasn't. He's just a boogeyman created in Langley and has no physical manifestion to appear after, during or before 2016. That footnote [18] reads in the wiki as this:
Doesn't actually exist? What is that supposed to mean? I guess it was supposed to blackwash and minimize Wagner back before they did all that damage to the war effort in Ukraine.
But good old reliable Foreign Policy magazine retconned the title of the article, and it's now:
Oh, okay, murky nature. So they're admitting they don't know much about the group? Maybe it's not so much not knowing, it's not having decided what lies it's convenient to tell everyone.
Anyway, let's close with a good laugh. I mean, a good laugh at anyone who believes in Dmitry Utkin, or Krampus, or Belsnickel.
Take a look at this lame pic of "Dmitry" in what FP assures us was the "last time he was seen". Then compare it to this scary-looking fellow. There's also his "passport photo" in his wiki, which looks to have been issued in the 1950's, and one other tiny group photo not even worth linking.
We've all seen way better photos of Sasquatch.