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.

Why do you even ask when you already know all about it? Just serving your ego?

Those are rhetorical questions. I could not possibly care less about your answers. But go ahead and post them if you need to serve your ego even further.

Totally serious. That's how weird the world has turned out to be with careful research.

Meanwhile, they somehow have people taking Simulation Theory seriously. Again, weird world.

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:

IS IT POSSIBLE SHE'S VICTIM OF SOME NERVOUS SYSTEM COVERT ATTACK THAT'S MADE HER LOOP OUT LIKE THIS?

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.

Bibi Satanyahu: "Fuck, they used to always say 'Death To America' right after that. Looks like we may really be cooked this time, boys."

The return of Nibiru to the inner Solar System. All things considered, it looks like Jesus was part Anunnaki.

Such alterations to the nucleus of an atom are the subject of everyday "nuclear chemistry". In "regular" chemistry, the nuclei are never changed.

Nature produces atoms only up to uranium, Element 92. All of the "transuranics" are the product of nuclear chemistry. For example, Bob Lazar's "unumpentium" is simply moscovium, the element between flerovium and livermorium, which makes it seem much less like something to ooh and ahh about.

Lead and gold are very close, nuclear chemistry-wise. Lead is defined by having 82 protons while gold has 79 protons. If you somehow knock three protons off a lead nucleus, you've got gold. The only reason they don't just "manufacture" gold is because it takes a tremendous amount of energy to knock those protons off, far more than the resulting gold could ever be worth.

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.