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.

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.

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.

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.

So bizarre what goes flying by your perception. The original shows a washer and dryer. Disney+ shows a washer and that thing we all keep our pizzas in.

Wait--what thing we all keep our pizzas in?

unchecked violence from paramilitary thugs

At least it was something out in the open we could all point to and shoot at. Not so today.

One thing I noticed about pkvi is that he started in a while back at r/conspiracy_commons and then later at r/conspiracy. I thought was interesting because he clearly doesn't have enough juice to jump the line. I doubt they'd bother orchestrating that for the one person watching.

He only posts a fraction on those subs of the content he does here. What I thought was interesting is that while he gets reliable traction here from brigading (one would assume), he gets very little on Reddit. Many of his posts are downvoted to zero, like numerous other dumb bullshit shill posts there.

I thought it was informative to see that at least there are enough conscious humans left on r/conspiracy to slam the obvious garbage into the ground. But not here, though, quite the opposite.

As a practical proof of the stranglehold of censorship on Reddit (and I have to conclude of me, personally), I wrote up a post very much like this one over three years ago on what is supposedly the low-profile r/conspiracy_commons, the kids' table of r/conspiracy:

In honor of the Olympics, I pose the question: What really happened between Jesse Owens and Hitler at the 1936 Berlin Games? (r/conspiracy_commons 2/4/2022)

As I write, this OP has 10 upvotes (including mine) and 0 downvotes. What did I get back in 2022 with the same content on a far bigger sub? Let me save you all the click:

• Net +1 upvotes (and you start with +1)

• 2 comments with only 1 comment visible

• "Holy shit you’re an actual Nazi brother" with 2 upvotes

• Reading carefully, the comment is either from a complete dumbfuck troll or an actual Nazi

• "Sorry, this post was removed by Reddit’s filters" with no further detail

I considered this content quite tame. If anyone has read any of my other posts on this site and wondered why I don't put it up on Reddit, the real lesson here is that all the content you see on Reddit has already been extremely censored. If you ever suspect anything "explosive" on there might be a psyop, it certainly is.

Also, it should be noted as horribly ironic yet instructive that--say what you want about the tenets of National Socialism--the regime had no power remotely similar to shape the public discourse.

I don't think the warming boxes shown can be concluded to be "artificial wombs" since you can buy pretty much the same thing at the feed store today for hatching baby chicks.

That being said, the question remains: "Where the hell are all the mothers?"

I think my simple point was that claims made without any supporting argumentation should be immediately discarded. So instantly posting yet another one as some sort of support for the previous? An notable display.

I seem to be having quite a lot of trouble getting these ideas through. Maybe these ideas are not as simple to others as they appear to me.

Who is this "we" for which you're speaking? And do you claim to be an authority figure for in this group? Jesus, the shills get stupider and more obvious all the time.

Now go do something better with your life

Wow, the refutations and slams literally write themselves.

I have a rule that if someone is reduced to claiming, "It's real!" without immediately supplying supporting evidence. that is the final confirmation necessary that it is, in fact, not real.

I'll now be adding a new rule that if someone is reduced to claiming, "It's a psyop!" without immediately supplying supporting evidence, that is the final confirmation that it is, in fact, not a psyop.

Let me be blunt: Polly goes on way too long without stating the point she's trying to prove. To be even more blunt, disinformation agents very characteristically give you long soap opera narratives instead of trying to transmit information as clearly and concisely as possible.

That being said, a vital question is: exactly why do "the important stories never go viral"? She doesn't answer that in the first 6:14, which is when I turned it off.

Nor do I have the exact answer... yet. The art and science of it seems to be subtle. The overt act of telling you a lie is quite primitive by comparison, as is silencing and censoring those who tell the truth. Shadowbanning and other such techniques are somewhat more sophisticated.

There seems to be something underlying that, which I have noticed due to a phenomenon I have seen over and over: The evidence for numerous startling conclusions is frequently lying in plain sight, yet no one seems to notice. Further, bringing it to people's attention should be like setting a match to a cotton ball, but it is in fact more like setting a match to waterlogged newspaper.

I spent at least my first couple of years of research into the new world of conspiracy theory saying to myself, "Wait--what?! Hang on, is that really true?!" then launching into further research. This very much does not appear to be the way that the vast majority of "conspiracy theorists" operate, let alone normies.

In sum, it seems that all "They" need to do to keep "the important stories from going viral" is to simply keep them out of the mouths of authorities, both mainstream and alternative, because almost everyone needs to be beaten over the heads with the truth. Very few appear to be capable of getting it on their own.

I wonder if this was Polly's answer? I doubt it.

Whatever anyone cares to believe about Jim Jones and what happened at Jonestown, they should be aware of his... "enlightening" genealogy:

It turns out Jonestown should have been called Parkertown (plus, what is revealed by Jim’s connection to the Queen of England) (conspiracies.win 6/24/2024)

Without going through all the material in the article linked in the OP, I would wager that--somehow--Jim's genealogy is not included.

That somehow would, of course, be the now familiar pattern: "They" will hand you as many conspiracy theories from which to choose as you could possibly desire, and you are free to select from among them. All are wrong, and none of them will ever lead you to the truth They are trying to hide.

I couldn't help but notice that one of the linked subarticles was:

Jonestown, the CIA and the Mystery Tape, by David Parker Wise (2005)

As mentioned in my Parkertown writeup itself, They frequently use their mother's maiden name to reflect their bloodlines, being obsessed with such things. Do I think that finding a Parker writing up "conspiracy theory" about a Parker is a surprising coincidence? As I am trying to explain, no, it's no surprise to me at all.

Interestingly, a few weeks after announcing it was coming, Noem ended up just pushing the fence over:

Kristi Noem Blows Hole in Federally Mandated 'REAL ID,' Likely Leaving Pro-National ID Crowd Disappointed (Western Journal 5/7/2025)

My guess is that Trump & crew just didn't want to have the argument with the technocrats and the entirety of the mainstream media right now. Bigger fish to fry.

Maybe they also know that whoever brings this up as a "threat to democracy" and demands that the Trump Administration enforce the law as written is going to get all the blowback for going out of their way to create more trouble for the average American.

Not a bad play, IMHO.

There is as yet no direct evidence on this, but it has been suggested that the wildfires (if not also the sandstorms) are a revenge attack by Iran for the nuking of Bandar Abbas. Yes, that was a nuke, apparently meant to derail the ongoing talks between Iran and the United States, which appear to be going quite well.

Iran makes an incredible number of threats of retaliation and only very rarely does anything, but every once in a while they drop a hint like, "And we got shit you ain't even know about, too." I suspect everyone reading this is fully aware by this time that not all wildfires are wild.

I would also note here that the inflammatory remarks by Hegseth may be mere appeasement and distraction for the Christian Zionist crowd. Frankly, Hegseth may have been put forward as unwitting mouthpiece for such statements because he's one of them.

A question that gets kicked around is, "At what level of Eliteness are they finally told the truth?"

I've ruminated on that issue a lot and concluded (tentatively) that no Elite is ever told the full story. You have to answer the question with the question, "Why would The Person At The Top ever do that?"

Really, the question belies a certain misconception. It's like a goat thinking that the Judas goat and the farmer are "in on it together". Well, kinda, but then again not at all, right?

Over the years, I've listened extremely closely for any indication that the Elites are aware of any of the same knowledge that I've had to carefully excavate. I don't even need all the fingers on one hand to recount the instances there was a hint of that.

Thus, if we're ever going to get something close to "The Truth", we're going to have to do it the old fashioned way with disciplined research and the free interchange of knowledge.

But I also fully believe, as did Fox Mulder, that "The truth is out there."

I don't want to burst anyone's bubble and for anyone who does not care to have that done, please stop reading now.

As part of the normal process for a conspiracy theorist considering a high-profile event, one should always at least cursorily examine photographs we've been handed down in the historical record for signs of fakery. Thus, take a good, close look at this famous photo of the "Fatima Shepherd Children".

If you can't see any problems for yourself, then heed this warning: if you think the following may be some textual voodoo putting ideas in your head about the authenticity of the photo, read no further.

I think the boy may be legit, but look at the faces of the two young girls. They look like they're in their late teens or early twenties. The boy looks like a young boy, so why are the girls so much more aged?

Now look at the girl on the left: her head is too big for her body. In ratio, it's bigger than the boy's head, although women have smaller heads in ratio to their bodies. Same goes for the other girl to a lesser extent.

Now look at the girl on the right: note how much darker her throat is than her face. Is she a Moor from the neck down?

Finally, for both girls, see how their chins do not fade into their necks in any place? There's just a line where their faces overlay the rest. On the boy, you can see such a connection on his left hand side.

Conclusion: the faces or the girls were pasted over the originals.

Speculation on the reason: I have not the slightest clue.

My whole point here is that if anyone chooses to accept the analysis of anyone concerning miracles but who has also failed to detect century-old photo retouching, then good luck learning the truth from them.

Did anyone else notice that this is from Kurzweil, the "Singularity" guy? Are we looking to him for reliable insight?

I would suggest her whole story is fake, as was this suicide.

They reason "They" throw suicide into the narrative is because they know the only people who might be following along and questioning the story--conspiracy theorists--will chomp down hard on it while congratulating themselves that they've figured something out.

It's exactly the same reason fishermen give away free worms on the ends of twisted up pieces of metal. Works just as well, too.

I don;t at all think the problem is finding these things out. If some significant fraction of conspiracy theorists have known this for many years, how unlikely is it that Musk and Trump are not also aware?

The problem is what to do with that information if your goal is to somehow alleviate the situation, perhaps by changing the way the average American believes and behaves. It is not at all clear what should be done.

But conspiracy theorists never get tired of that feeling of superiority over "normies".

FWIW, the assassination of RFK was faked.

Strangely, even the photo used in the article was faked. The guy on RFK's left is half a head shorter than RFK, which you can see clearly in video of the event. Rosie Grier, in the back right of the photo, is half-a-head taller.

Why fake the photo at all? Who the hell knows, but it's some measure of how incredibly manipulated our history has been.

Thanks very much! Maybe one of these days....

No, I've never collected any of this work in one place. What you're seeing are more like bulletins made out of research notes as I go along. I find out new stuff all the time, just stumbling into it as I always say.

Just this morning, for example, I was watching a video about the Ukraine War and happened to notice that there's a place in England called Paddock Wood. It's in Kent, which is the next county over from Essex, where most of these douchebags I've been researching originated.

A famous guy born there was Sir Frederick Morgan, who was Chief of Staff to the Supreme Allied Commander in WW2, just outside the spotlight as always. His father was Frederick Beverly Morgan, which is the name of the town just north of Salem, MA. His American deputy was General Ray Barker. What a coincidence, right?

So there's new material all the time, puzzle pieces I have to try to fit together into a narrative that makes some sort of sense to people. The further challenge is that I also have to crowbar people out of whatever narrative they've already locked on to about history. Even worse, there's no one else's work I can plug into and reference, and say this is just more detail.

Also, I'm super lazy, so who knows if I'll ever get around to moving this mountain. In the meantime, I try to make these little bulletins informative and interesting on their own, while trying to reference the bigger picture under construction. We'll see how it goes.

And thanks for your support! It's appreciated more than you can know.

I would submit that the Palestine situation is also subtle, but what you have to do is take in all the evidence and be alert for those tiny, transient clues to try to figure out what the hell is really going on.

One thing that you never hear about in the mainstream is that Israel is internally fracturing, with widespread political dissent of all stripes, and headed towards civil disorder or even civil war. It's shaking itself apart, as has been predicted by some over the years. So time is working against The Jewish State and for the Palestinians. In the meantime, yes, Palestinians are dying, but in a war of any type (such as that which I believe Trump is very quietly fighting) you simply cannot expect both to save everyone and to prevail.

In the meantime, Trump's the only one interested in actually saving their lives, even more than the Palestinians are. They will never, ever, ever assert their rights and live on their homeland if they all get blown to pieces. They'll be a bunch of brave dead martyrs that history will forget almost immediately. About half the Gazans are dead already and no one knows or cares. Seems a dumb way to go and Trump is the only one offering them a path other than a quick one to Paradise.

As part of the overall picture, the big narrative is "Trump is Zionist shill". That line would seem to be contradicted by stories which quickly evaporate like these:

Trump shares video calling Netanyahu ‘a deep, dark SOB’: Relations between the incoming US president and the Israeli PM have often been rocky (1/10/2025)

Trump played key role in Gaza ceasefire deal – Times of Israel: The incoming US president’s envoy has reportedly convinced PM Netanyahu to accept a truce with Hamas (1/16/2025)

Netanyahu ‘obviously shocked, embarrassed’ on live TV after Trump announces Iran talks: Reports (4/8/2025)

I mean, anyone can still think Trump is a Zionist shill based on whatever else. but they still need to give their explanation for these and many other things. They never, ever do. Not even aware of such evidence, as far as I've ever seen.

It seems crazy to take as reliable the analysis of anyone who isn't aware of all the significant, relevant evidence. But what I've found is that almost everyone analyzes until they get to the answer they're comfortable with and that becomes the "truth".