No, really, if you think about it, the whole idea is quite absurd! Why on earth would they decide such matters right in the spotlight of general public? Why would they announce for the whole world to see and hear at first the meeting itself, then all that happens there, then reached conclusions?
I don't know about others, but If I'd be the one actually deciding future of nations, I wouldn't do any of that in the public. Absolutely nothing of importance would be done in the public. Even more, I would pretty much prefer, that public doesn't even know about me that I exist...
Which most probably is the actual case. Nothing of importance is being announced in the news unless it's not planned and those clowns at those meetings are not the ones who actually decide anything. Simple as that.
The idea that how it's "supposed to work" is how it "actually works" is the very first assumption anyone trying to figure out what's going on in the world needs to heave overboard.
Just in my own career, doing nothing that had any importance outside the walls of the office building, I never spoke candidly in a meeting, nor did I expect anyone else to do so.
Anything where at any point I needed someone's agreement and cooperation, I discussed with them personally. If I could not get agreement privately, why would it come in a group? One-on-one, at least there was the possibility that they might say, "Listen, I wouldn't tell everyone this, but...." If any mutual agreements got publicly displayed and formalized in a meeting later on, well, who cares actually?
Also, I never assumed that "They" were any stupider than me.
Yes, exactly. I guess, I'm just tired of even conspiracy minded people constantly following mainstream narrative as if it's something real and of substance. All those meetings, conferences, summits and whatnot... This politician said that, that politician said this... Come on, people! It's all kabuki, kayfabe, show for the masses! If you see and hear something on the news, it has been planned and you were meant to see and hear it. This also goes to large part of alternative news as well.
Let me suggest a further clarification, a structure, and a reason behind what you describe. I realized it only recently and now I don't know why it took so long to crystallize for me.
At the normie level, they get their (version of) the truth from the mainstream "authorities" by far the most important being the default mainstream media you get when you turn on your TV.
At the conspiracy theorist level, they get their (version of) the truth from the alternative "authorities". The difference here is that they may choose freely from these alternative media sources: Alex Jones, James Corbett, Whitney Webb, Steve Bannon, Ian Carroll, etc.
The key is the word "media", meaning "middle" as in between the viewer and reality itself. "They" know that if they take control of this middle, they control reality in a practical sense. It's impossible to think of a reason They wouldn't do with the alternative what They've done with the mainstream.
At the highest level, which you rarely see, people break with the concept of "authority" entirely. Not that expert opinion doesn't matter, but it doesn't define the truth. The truth is where you find it: mainstream, alternative, scripture, the ravings of lunatics, wherever. Again, very few operate at this level.
Sometimes I turn around and reflect in hindsight on what Alex Jones has not said in his long career. How could he have missed all the things I stumbled across in a few short years? There's just no way, no way he could be legitimate. But find a fan of his and they'll defend him to the death.
You're right. Most people just look for some authority to believe in. For someone to tell them what to do and think. Majority are satisfied with mainstream offering. Some others are not. Those are looking for authorities outside mainstream. However, the very reasoning behind the search stays the same. It differs in direction, but not in nature. I completely agree. It's very important to break with the concept of "authority" altogether.
Yep, this is good way to detect that something is not quite right. To look for things they don't talk about. Other good way is to look for things they agree with mainstream, that make them similar to it, if only slightly different. For example, belief in political system. It is a huge red flag, if someone claiming to be opposition still maintains that political systems are real and politicians are those that actually make decisions.
That all said, I do like James Corbett. Sure, he very well might be controlled, but out of the whole bunch he's one of the most insightful. I also like that he doesn't go off on various wild tangents. One could say he's kind of a normie friendly conspiracy theorist. He doesn't make normies flinch (like Alex Jones definitely does, for example). In any case, even if he is controlled op, it's quite high level disinfo.
A little more of my thoughts on Corbett, submitted for your consideration:
I listened to all the audio he published for free staring from the beginning and never saw anything wrong with it. What finally caught my attention, though, was not that long ago.
It was during that big Texas snowpocalypse and he was talking about the war in Ukraine. The comments he made were like he was getting them by reading the front page of the New York Times. I couldn't believe anyone who had actually studied the situation would say such things.
The highlight, the fundamental theme, was that he was totally anti-Putin. Later on and still, he's totally anti-Trump. Guy cannot do a single thing right and you're a shithead for even thinking otherwise, you know?
Well in my analysis of--I guess you would say--everything else, Trump and Putin are far and away the biggest threats to "Them". Looks like they're going to turn the whole thing and its head and stomp it into the ground if they accomplish what they've set out to do.
So then I went back to carefully considering what Corbett had actually done. As I think of it, his front is as a "stenographer", rather than a researcher digging for what's really going on. That's vague so let me give you an example.
He had a whole show about the Ludlow Massacre. Okay, the Rockefellers turn out to be assholes, right? Well, any conspiracy theorist who passed 101 already knows about the Ludlow Massacre. Everything Corbett said about it could be found in any number of articles and videos. It was only a summary. He gave nothing away, you see?
I have long been familiar with it, too, of course. But also somewhere along the line, I had learned just how many historical events were faked. When I went back to examine it more closely in that light, yep, it was fake too.
If you're wondering why they would fake it, it was because the father was deeply hated. Junior, however, came out smelling like a rose, the big hero. I recall a Truthstream Media video about it and they were baffled by this result. Well, now you see why it all happened, right?
So Corbett never makes any such revelations. He's a true gatekeeper. He just runs a different pen than Rachel Maddow.