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.
Yes, sometimes he does that. Almost like taking mainstream media at face value... but usually that's only the starting point which then goes to very non-mainstream directions.
As far as I know he's an anarchist (or at least presents himself as one). Very hardcore libertarian, if you will. So, taking that into account his anti Trump/Putin rants kind of make sense. Like, there is no such thing as good government or good power. In Corbetts view the only good government is a small one and an invisible one.
Hmm, I have my doubts about that. Sometimes I really do view them as threats to The Powers That Be. On some other times, though, I'm not so sure about that. Probably Corbett is right and Trump/Putin are not a threat, but their biggest assets instead.
After all what have they done? Sure, they both talk big and all that, but what are the actual results? Is the march to Agenda 2030 stopped? No. Is WHO dismantled and all those criminals prosecuted? Again, no. They are still pushing for all of that and even more.
I really don't know about this one... I guess this is yet to be determined whether they really are threats to TPTB or are actually with them... Or maybe they're just figureheads and aren't actually deciding anything.
You do have a point here. He does not give away anything that's not already out there. He's all about summary and analysis - not grand revelations - but it's a very good summary and very thought provoking analysis at that.
Could be. I like to follow him because of his analysis and some unexpected viewpoints, but I certainly wouldn't take him as absolute truthsayer or anything like that. He also often does interviews with Whitney Webb who most probably really is a limited hangout, but I could be mistaken on that, I haven't listened her that much.
The incident I forgot to mention about Corbett was the scandal involving Sibel Edmonds. If you've never heard of it, that would be my point. It got swept right down the Memory Hole.
It was years ago and I let it slide at the time because Sibel Edmonds had never broken cover up til then either. I never paid much attention to her work so I never questioned it, but in hindsight I see it as another disinfo op of the "whistleblower" type, along the lines of, "Boy, those FBI people sure were incompetent!"
Everything she said may be true, but do you think that's one of the important truths about 911, incompetence? Again it's an echo of the Corbett "stenographer" model. Everything is true yet nothing is important, at least not as I would define importance. It's free juicy worms all day but I look at people chomping down and getting dragged away from those parts of the lake They would rather you not swim to.
Finally, I would say your instincts are right about Whitney Webb, yet another echo in the guise of "investigative journalist". Everything true and nothing important. Well, the important thing is anti-Trump, everything he does, all the time, for all different reasons than you hear elsewhere, just as long as you arrive at the same destination.
I have found that these disinfo agents work in little cells where each supports the other. "Oh, what great work So-and-so is doing!" Of course they would structure like that since these are ultimately Intel ops. The big giveaway came for me a couple of years ago:
Should You Trust Elon Musk? Roundtable Discussion with Whitney Webb, James Corbett, Ryan Cristián & Jason Bermas: Here's why you should be extremely skeptical of Elon Musk. (Derrick Broze 1/13/2023)
So they have to convene this whole summit just to tell you not to trust someone? I had been following Elon's "turn" up to that point quite closely and saw what a threat he was becoming, saying all kinds of things you would never want someone to say publicly as part of any controlled op you could ever dream up. It would be like staging a fake argument with a coworker starting with calling him a wife-beater and pedophile.
And what kind of analysis is, "Don't trust someone"? That's pure psyop, manipulation based on fear, and there they were saying it plainly. Really, you may want to listen to it with what I've said in mind. I remember it as transparent and cringeworthy.
But then again, I'm not here to tell you how to feel about it.
This is a very good point. The best lies are lies by omission. Say nothing untrue, but carefully steer your flock in desired direction.
That said, as of now I still lean to Trump, Musk et al being part of the establishment and not against it. There might be some elite infighting going on, but none of that is for the good of the people anyway. It's just different flavours of same tyranny. Or, alternatively, all of this might have already been planned... good cop, bad cop type of thing... Either way, there's not much to be happy about and we shouldn't expect real solution coming from within establishment. I guess I agree with Corbett on this one.
In a sense all of them really are in it and none of them cares about the people. At all. It's not about good politics vs bad politics. It's about the elites vs everyone else.
Well, at least it's honest and upfront, haha... but you could be right on this one. I'll check out that discussion. I remember his Johnny Youtuber shtick he was doing for a couple of videos. Nice idea, I guess, but it does fall a little bit flat.
I remember something about her, but can't quite put my finger on it. What was it about Sibel Edmonds?
The Sibel Edmonds story has long been forgotten, since that's how the Memory Hole works. The case is a bit complex, has a bit of context, and is not written up anywhere, so to explain it I'll have to do what I always resist doing, which is to "give the answer".
This all goes back 7 years. The situation in Syria was and is as dirty as dirt can be with head chopping freedom fighters, White Helmets, barrel bombs, the whole 9. There were two independent journalists who were doing a hell of a lot to expose the truth, including on-the-ground reporting: Eva Bartlett and Vanessa Beeley. If Pulitzer Prizes were actually worth anything, they should get them.
So this is a big problem for The Big Machine. It looks like They decided to use a solid asset that they had built up over many years, Sibel Edmonds, to put some torpedoes into these inconvenient truthers. Her rep against these little known wenches, right?
Except it all goes wrong and the blowback is intense. That's where this post comes in:
Sibel edmonds appears to be having a nervous breakdown. James Corbett breaks it all down and disavows her. (r/conspiracy 3/30/2018)
One guy even says:
I can't even tell if that's a shill trying to cover for Edmonds or an honest reaction to how far off base her attack was. In any case, the link is to Corbett's video where he tries to dance away from the flaming wreckage. You can judge the post and the video for yourself, but there are two things I would add at this point.
First is a bit of context that the Redditors don't bring up. Newsbud didn't just republish Corbett's work, and he wasn't just a staff writer or something. Newsbud was Edmonds and Corbett, and they had collaborated for a number of years. So to come off like, "How was I to know? We've all been fooled, frens," well, I'm not buying that.
Which brings up the second point: the gun that didn't smoke. You see, in all the years since then, I've paid close attention and I've never heard him mention Edmonds once. I suppose I uphold a certain standard for any truth teller, which would be that he learned a lesson, and from time to time would have reason to say, "We gotta be careful who we put our faith in. We can all be fooled. Everybody remember the Sibel Edmonds thing?"
I had a somewhat similar experience, from which I learned and about which I speak freely. I read 330 papers by Miles Mathis and never had any doubts about his legitimacy. In those years, I even came across two exposes on him as a disinfo agent. One I read and dismissed out of hand, the other I ignored completely. I had to open myself up to the idea then figure it out on my own. At least I'm not on record defending him as not a disinfo agent... lol
So Edmonds, Corbett, Mathis... you just have to be very, very careful, always aware disinfo agents are around every corner. When They really need to, They will call out an enemy a disinfo agent, but that's a last ditch effort because They simply do not want that concept in your mind.
Anyway, now you know why you didn't already know all about Sibel Edmonds... lol
EDIT: I keep forgetting to mention that Corbett has lately tipped his hand (as I interpret it) on what his final game is, asserting that there's "no one at the top". I firmly disagree, but you'll have to decide for yourself. In any case, if I was the alpha wolf of alpha wolves, I would want every wolf hunter to think that there was no such thing as an alpha wolf.
Hmm, very interesting... Thanks for the writeup. That video is no longer available, though. I did some search on Corbett's site, but couldn't really find it. To his credit, Edmonds is not completely scraped off that site and search returns several pages of related material.
Anyway, the obvious question is: What would be the point of it all? Was that nervous breakdown really an accident? If not, then what was the point of exposing it? Could it be that Edmonds was a shill with specific task, to bring down Corbett, which she kind of botched, hence the breakdown? After all that is what shills do. They infiltrate various grassroots movements or discussion groups and lead them astray.
All in all, I agree, it's best to assume that anyone could be disinfo agent. However, that doesn't mean there is no truth in what they're saying. After all, as we already discussed, best lies are those that do not lie at all. So, it's basically a matter of critical thinking and trying to not lose focus on what's really important. There are a lot of distractions out there. A lot of those truthtellers will endlessly go on and on about things that do not really matter (tip to Alex Jones) while actually important things are left unsaid.
Hmm, actually I've got completely different impression. He specifically states that conspiracy does exist and that there are elites who shouldn't be in positions they are. He has also argued against the notion that this is all just systemic oppression without anyone at the top. For example, I remember his discussion with Matthias Desmet who asserts that the whole covid thing was just mass psychosis, that it wasn't planned and that politicians themselves were under the spell of some kind of psychotic delusion. Corbett, as I remember, opposed this notion quite strongly. He agreed with Desmet on a lot of things, but this particular notion was rejected outright. So there's that at least...
Mathis's papers are quite entertaining though. I do read them from time to time, but more like entertainment and not some absolute truth. Also, he sometimes goes on self-aggrandizing rants which are not that great. That said, he has some good points as well. For example, I lean to agree with him on nukes not existing. Not many are exploring such topics out there.