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.

...asserting that there's "no one at the top"...

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...

I read 330 papers by Miles Mathis and never had any doubts about his legitimacy.

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.

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.

...asserting that there's "no one at the top"...

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...

I read 330 papers by Miles Mathis and never had any doubts about his legitimacy.

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 exaple, I lean to agree with him on nukes not existing. Not many are exploring such topics out there.

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.

...asserting that there's "no one at the top"...

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...

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.

...asserting that there's "no one at the top"...

Hmm, actually I've got completely different impression. He specifically states that conspiracy does exist, that there are elites who shouldn't be in positions they are and he has even 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...