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.
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.
To clarify on the Edmonds things, she was supposed to take out Beeley and Bartlett. You can read their Syria reporting yourself and it's dynamite.
But such things were not Edmonds normal assignment and maybe her handler was out of town and couldn't write it up for her, who could possibly know. The job was an utter botch and everyone who was paying attention to her noticed. Totally and completely off-base and unprovoked. The "nervous breakdown" line seem to be the cover story they went with, which I find about as convincing as "holding it for a friend".
Corbett definitely says explicitly "there's no one at the top" now. It was probably within the last year that I heard it because it really caught my attention. It would have been in the free audio he publishes, but I never saved the specific link and timecode.
And I never saved the specific link and timecode because after a while it's like trying to keep track of exactly which neighborhood raccoons are getting into the dog food. In addition to the tedium of it, virtually no one will ever be interested in that particular data.
So what would I say happened with that point of view? Well, it's not like Corbett is in the CIA's HR system and gets mailed a weekly paycheck. Everything is influence from the top to the bottom: do the "right thing" and "good luck" will flow your way. No, these things are not right and it's it not luck but orchestration.
If Corbett previously held a different view, well, now those upwards of him no longer consider that the "right thing". A "good friend" mentions it to him, has a discussion, wonders if James has really thought it through because this friend leans towards a different view. And this friend has never steered him wrong before. Good things kept happening, didn't they?
I'm not claiming this is precisely what happened. I'm saying it's just that easy.
This is actually a very important topic. How exactly some conspiracy happens? How do they manage it? Usually the second thing normies say (right after ever popular question: "who are they?") is: "This conspiracy can't be true because all of them would have to be in on it and everyone would have to keep a secret." Well, no, not all of them have to be in on it and not everyone has to have the full picture for some conspiracy to work.
Basically there are two ways of managing something. One is direct management. (Like, say, a company with departments, managers etc.) The other one is indirect management. First one is what normies have in mind when they dismiss some conspiracy as impossible. Second one is how it is actually done. More like tending a garden and less like managing a company. When you tend a garden you don't directly tell every flower which way to grow. No, you just water it, tend to soil and make some small adjustments here and there... and that's about it. The garden grows by itself. This is how I see most conspiracies working. They just push the right buttons at the right time. Sure, they most probably do have some key people in key positions, but for the most part conspiracy works out by itself.
Now, wouldn't this mean that even if Corbett is a gatekeeper, he himself might not be entirely aware of it? Even if he has some minder attached, it doesn't necessarily mean he consciously knows about it...
Hmm, I haven't noticed it... I'll keep this in mind and pay attention next time watching his videos.