James Corbett uses recent coverage of his documentary Century of Enslavement: The History of the Federal Reserve, to highlight one of the dangers of relying on YouTube (and other internet giants) – covert censorship.
Imagine you’re a high school student doing a homework assignment on the Federal Reserve. You go to YouTube and type in “Federal Reserve” in the search bar and find “Century of Enslavement: The History of the Federal Reserve.” The horror! Luckily, you don’t have to worry about that, because now that MSNBC and Mother Jones have ganged up, it’s being scrubbed from the search results! Welcome to the world of soft censorship, folks!
Links sources and show notes available here.
NOTE: The embedded video is from YouTube rival bitchute, we will be using this website (or d.tube) to host and link videos as much as possible in the future.
For direct-transfer bank details click here.
well, the science is settled, so we are told
Denial takes many forms. It is a double-edged sword. The word denier is regularly used here to attack another’s point of view. It slams the door on them. It denies another’s view from its perceived to be unassailable platform of righteousness. In these cases, its use is clearly that of a denier. Denial can become the literal definition of ignore…ance.
There are several subjects mentioned on this site as being absurd conspiracy theories. It has been said that their mention will be dismissed and ignored with disgust, as they are ignorant.
Voluminous ‘proof’ has not diminished but rather increased polarization in the discussion of climate change.
Is this not indicative of a deeper problem? Something systemic?
17 years of ‘proof’ for the cause of a total of 267 floors of steel reinforced concrete structure turning to dust in the middle of New York city has changed little.
We are currently strolling into a microwave oven and having a heated discussion about it along the way. Is this normal? It somewhat reminds me of the bar of soap handed the shivering naked people as they entered the ‘showers’ of Auschwitz. All while watching the people before them hauled off dead, out the back door on wagons.
Could that bar of soap be denial? The ultimate placebo?
When there is no progress being made in trying to figure out why the sign on the oven keeps blinking NEXT….and now it is your turn, It will be too late to rethink our thinking. Step on in. Here’s a fork to poke some holes in yourself so you don’t explode.
NOW…. let’s look at one of the objects of that proclamation of ‘ignorance’. Chemtrails!!!
I spent a lot of time looking at the sky as a child. I saw contrails and watched them. I hated them. I felt they ruined the blue sky. I saw persistent contrails and I watched them too. They were even worse. In 1989 I heard a talk about chemtrails and thought the guy was crazy. By the early 2000s I began to think maybe he wasn’t. Why? Simply by looking at the sky and watching it turn white every day as a result of the ever weirder expansion of what is said to be merely contrails. I have spent days watching these things and they are not water vapor. Period.
I used binoculars to determine if the expanding mist was coming from jet engines. In some cases, yes….in others, from the wing tips. The fact that something is going on up there was obvious to the naked eye. I swore right then that I would never be closed minded again. I have spoken with the California Air Resources Board. A close friend recently retired as a physicist from there.They know. It is more than clear that they are not at liberty to address this topic.
It is well known that there are many conspiracy theories that are a bit out there on this topic. Does this mean chemtrails don’t exist? No. Does the fact that someone theorized a lady with a pink umbrella killed Kennedy with a poison dart, mean the cover story is therefore true?
I am open to someone explaining the physics of how this whiteout is occurring from condensation alone. I know what I see. It is happening. It is real. It is something. Something else. So what is it?
Chemtrails DEBUNKED: “They didn’t look like that when I was a kid”
Debunking Chemtrail (in under three minutes)
Chemtrails Conspiracy Theory Completely Debunked by US Airline Pilots (Chem-trails)
Why do PILOTS DUMP FUEL??? Explained by CAPTAIN JOE
Debunked: Chemtrail Plane Interior (Ballast Barrels)
Chemtrails Debunked by Atmospheric Scientists
Science Officially Debunks Chemtrails, But the Conspiracy Will Likely Live On
Cutting and pasting from the first page of google? Do you know about algorithms? If you do know, then you realize what the first page is for. How it is used. This is the same ploy used by Mobil Oil in the Gulf oil spill. This was also all discussed on this site a couple weeks ago. Your providing me this is enlightening.
One site says, there are millions of hits on a ‘Conspiracy theory video about chemtrails’………then why is it not at the top of the Google page? Algorithms and google policy maybe. Their site had 10,000 views, yet is #1. What’s happening here? Any ideas?
Chemtrails DEBUNKED: “They didn’t look like that when I was a kid”
This first video addresses contrails only. It is also MSM. I didn’t hear the word Chemtrails once. This now informs me about the changes in contrails. I have noticed this also. It is a bit off topic.
Debunking Chemtrail (in under three minutes)
This second video is a classic. I will be using it as an example in the future for how simple propaganda technique works. I’m sending it to a lot of people now. Thanks. It doesn’t miss a beat. This approach is always a red flag. CNN to the core. I watched it anyway. Glad I did. I have a feeling you didn’t watch any of these.
Just so you know, It begins by defining ALL chemtrail conspiracy theorists as being in one bag. Then it describes what they ALL believe. Yes, all…every one. It then debunks THAT belief. Come on. Did you really watch this?
1st the false premise, the qualifying label of “conspiracy theorist”
2nd What they [ conspiracy theorists] all believe.
3rd The condemnation of that particular false, contrived theory. “We win”
This is how propaganda always works. Always. You know this.
If you believe this stuff, this is essentially a conversation with yourself, being seen only by you as 2 way conversation. It’s not me on the other side. So, who are you talking to?
Interesting that this classic 3 minute blurb shows a picture, then say’s “Pure logic tells you this cannot happen” So, is it saying that the picture is false? Photo shopped? Unfortunately, it is what I see around here all the time. Maybe we live in different dimensions, you and I. Do you think that the minds of millions of people are being photo shopped? You must believe in the Mandala effect. Do you? Is the creator of this ‘3 minute debunk’ practicing a new hypnotherapy technique? Popular Mechanics used it on 9/11 theories………BTW do you believe their official story? They are right in line with MSM. One of your links says Oswald acted alone. Do you think so?
What else could you be telling me here? Actually, what are you telling me? You believe this stuff?
This one was way too superficial. Let’s try another.
Chemtrails Conspiracy Theory Completely Debunked by US Airline Pilots (Chem-trails)
Here we go again. The 2nd sentence…a lunatic fringe of conspiracy theorists….At minute two “NO RESPONSE WILL BE ACCEPTED” At min 2:08 this piece loses all credibility.
‘Contrails now persist longer because the same contrail is reinforced as another plane fly’s on the exact same route and through the same exact path of the original contrail? Same altitude? Same flight path? Did it take into account wind factor, time, or are these things just lined up like ISIS in new Toyota’s on the way to town?
Do you know anything personally about flight paths. Really, how logical do you think this is? This is utterly stupid. I really didn’t think there was anything diabolical before viewing this post but I am beginning to change my mind. I hope these links get better. If you haven’t watched them….which I doubt. You should. I don’t know why I am even watching this garbage at all. Let’s try another.
Why do PILOTS DUMP FUEL??? Explained by CAPTAIN JOE
This one was educational but had absolutely nothing to do with the topic.Guess it just got caught up in the left click.
Debunked: Chemtrail Plane Interior (Ballast Barrels)
Good one. This is very useful. I will certainly pass this on to people who believe these things were full of some kind of chemical. They want to believe there is a conspiracy. I merely know what I am seeing and asking what it is. You might consider this one for future debunking. I would. It’s good.
Chemtrails Debunked by Atmospheric Scientists
Wow, this site grabs you by the chemtrails and drags you across the minefield of denial for everything that has happened that they don’t want you to think about right back to the Sabor Tooth Tiger. It was a hypnotic rant. I could almost see and feel the telescreen looking down. I wonder if the Bush family is involved with this site.
This site says …..Of the 77 scientists surveyed, 76 (98.7 percent) said they had found no evidence of such spraying.
So, one did? A scientist? Where is anything about what he may have said? Wouldn’t that be interesting? Relevant? Also, as I have stated before, the constant drumming of ‘conspiracy theorist’ is a giveaway. But in very sentence? Come on.
‘No evidence exists, say researchers, of a clandestine government plot to manipulate the atmosphere.’
Which researchers? The one’s who want to keep their pension?
Who is talking about a clandestine government plot? If we were talking here about atmospheric manipulation it would be a different story. Were talking about chemtrails. Aren’t we? I was. That subject here is conveniently discarded by a false premise in the first sentence.I don’t care about conspiracy theorists. Logic should tell us from the wording of this one sentence that manipulation of the atmosphere is the REAL story being hidden. I didn’t think so until this. Now I will look into it.
BTW… wasn’t that cute the way they threw in [98.7%] to make it a little more substantial to compensate for the missing scientist?
For God’s sake, the Smithsonian is as bad as Scientific America. These outfits are total shills.
“The researchers said that 80 to 89 percent of the samples could be explained by phenomena much more simple than chemtrails.” …….Ok, Is this saying Chemtrails IS one explanation, just not a simple one? Semantics again. Are we saying here that soil and air samples are being questioned and some chemical is present? Which chemical ? If everything is normal why the mystery? I notice they don’t go deeper. Did their secretary write this script? Maybe the elevator operator.
Do you know what skewed research looks like? A denier of anything will only see what he wants to see. The people to whom I show the tanks and their real purpose in the video you provided will also deny that is what they are really for. It just goes on and on. Both sides of denial. I am more convinced now that there is a cover up than I have ever been before.
You no doubt disbelieve my original statement about having a friend at the California Air Quality Board. His behavior alone should have been enough for me to know something was up.
Looks to me like I have described my position and been given a response that presumes my position as something it isn’t. I believe we have had this discussion before?…….
Science Officially Debunks Chemtrails, But the Conspiracy Will Likely Live On
This is like listening to Niki Haley. You didn’t read these. I have been pretty open minded, thinking you might know or have something. I approached your links in this way. If you have really seen, and read the material here and believe it on it’s face, cognitive dissonance has wrapped around you like a octopus and there is little hope.
All I said is what are they? You are saying here with these links that they are nothing. Hmmmmmm…. Don’t think so.
Thanks for the two useful links. Oh, three, I forgot about the planes all flying in one long line video.
“This first video addresses contrails only. It is also MSM. I didn’t hear the word Chemtrails once. This now informs me about the changes in contrails.”
That’s because chemtrails do not exist.
If you want to worry about something, worry about something that’s real, like this: takebackyourpower.net for example.
That is just a non-reply.
BTW… I am not worried about anything. I simply state what I see. I have made no final judgement on this at all. You, on the other hand have. Is it safe therefore to say that I am open minded, and you are closed minded? Hard to deny that isn’t it?
I merely see the obvious. Things don’t go away because you deny them.
I will watch your new video tonight. It looks good. It is also an issue in which I have been involved. My town blocked the streets and wouldn’t let PG&E pass. It was a major battle. Quit possibly what led to the opt out provision. There is no smart meter on my house or any in this neighborhood. Few in this town.
Do you know the can of worms you opened with this new subject? This is more contentious than chemtrails by far. Where are you going to draw the line for yourself? This is a rabbit hole which includes chemtrails just a short way down. Is that your jumping off point? Did you watch the video you sent me?
You might want to debunk this. It addresses every link you posted with evidence rather than self righteous denialism. I do not know, I will. My mind is open. You have gotten me thinking.
Didnt realize the chemtrail discussion went on.. some things to consider. the flight patterns that form a lattice work of trails one day and none the next. where are all these planes going? how does the rare atmospheric conditions that cause contrails to linger happen so often? why do trails stop and start as if a spray is being turned on and off? why does one plane at the same altitude leave a trail but another plane at the same altitude at the same time leave none at all? why does one plane leave a trail of a different color than another at the same altitude at the same time? all of this i have observed, how does frank explain this i wonder.
I cannot listen to Corbett. His whole perspective is based on a radical anarchism according to which government is evil per se therefore anything said or done by any government or any ancillary body or person associated with a government is wrong and evil and probably a plot to deprive everyone of liberty and their money and then kill them.
As far as I am concerned anarchism is a non-solution to the challenge of human governance (by governance I mean how human beings manage their societies). It’s an adolescent reaction. James is too intelligent and educated to be a sovereign citizen, but he is on the same scale imo.
My first time posting here so go easy on me.
Hi there first time poster. I’m somewhat new also. Prepare yourself. This is an extremely friendly place. I see it as 99% education and 1% letting off some steam. Corbett is not my favorite sounding voice or favorite looking face, but I think his message is clear, intelligent and essential. Also, I personally believe that most of our governments are extremely evil beyond any degree you can imagine. In fact, when I think about governments, I smell burning flesh. I feel this so strongly that I would imagine if the founding fathers, should return, they would ask me first to build the gallows onto which I would help them march every politician we have. Any below the caliper of a Ron Paul would be yanked off golf courses, pulled from their limo’s , dragged out of bed…all of them. I would gladly put the noose over their heads and pull the lever. Why? It’s a surprise. You will get more info with your first order of Chemtrails.
I did reference the mitigation for policy makers section. And I referenced Kevin Anderson’s response.
Given the mythical ‘pause’: can you be so sure it does not underestimate the rate of warming? No, no one can. It’s just another strawman and SCAM.
You must be aware that the IPCC has been criticised for either adding too much, or too little, overestimating or underestimating the effects of AGW since its first report? Very few credible scientists are arguing against AGW. What part of carbon redistribution is so hard to understand? Will Antonym respond to the broader issues of mitigation raised by the report?
Or is it a case of find a minor detail in a footnote which makes little difference to the broader humanist implications? Isn’t it just another case of trying to get people to discuss things that possibly neither of them understand, while the wider implications go ignored?
That was a response to Admin and Antonym from way down the page. I don’t know why they keep going to the top?
I’ll move it for you BigB – Automatic is just getting worse in every way.
Update: can’t move it. Tried and failed. Sorry. I’ll edit it to make clear you’re addressing Antonym.
Many thanks. So it’s not a senior moment, or fatfinger? I’m glad to hear it!
The IPCC Reports have consistently understated the extent and rapidity of anthropogenic climate destabilisation, because of the need to achieve ‘consensus’ with rogue genocidal regimes like Sordid Barbaria and Austfailia. We have decades of rapid climate destabilisation baked in because of the delayed and continuing effects of greenhouse emissions over the last few decades, and the impacts of positive feedbacks like dying tropical forests and warming soils becoming carbon sources, not sinks. And we have millennia of destabilisation guaranteed by the vast quantities of heat sequestered in the oceans. We are, ALREADY, dead and gone.
Corbett click-bait videos reveal that he has no political education whatsoever. There is no ‘news’ or ‘reporting’. There are tired memes about building seven on 9/11 and nonsense about climate change. Sometimes he might stumble across a fact that is not widely known and put such a true fact in one of his click-bait-videos but that does not mean that he has anything meaningful to say.
His mindset is far from enlightened, he is stuck barking from the sidelines, stuck like a stuck record. People have heard it all before and there are some who actually like this, they want to hear someone else talk nonsense about ‘building seven’ (or whatever) to validate their own world view.
I have seen the word ‘gatekeeper’ in this thread. There is no doubt in my mind that Corbett has flawed thinking and slots into the little sceptic role that he has all by himself. There is no FBI COINTELPRO secret scheme out there paying for the Corbetts of this world to utter piffle and nonsense to keep anyone ever getting themselves a decent political education. Corbett grade chumps just do it for themselves, churning out the click-bait, never taking the time to think properly.
My dismissal here of everything the poor chap has ever posted to YouTube is not personal. It is just a peril of the system that we live in that there will always be weak minded Corbett types offering something but only leading people into a cul de sac of nothingness, offering wrong answers that are just slightly less wrong than Trump/Obama/Bush/Clinton. There is no coherent grand plan or vision, just a view that everything is a conspiracy and that everything is wrong.
It is not fair to dismiss and shoot someone down in flames without proposing something better. So I would suggest to anyone that they read/watch/study everything Dr King (MLK) ever said as well as other revolutionary prophets that have been willing to die for the mental freedom that mankind deserves.
Do you know the definition of troll? Wow….that’s you.
I’m sure you already knew that. how could you not?
Your written English isn’t up to scratch.
Most schools have teachers that put red marks next to punctuation, spelling and other mistakes. They teach us that sentences start with capital letters and correct ellipsis to have just the three dots.
Why do these teachers make the effort to do so?
Because language is a gift and it is important to get it right. If you can’t then people think you are stupid.
If you do not have time to use the language your teachers gave you then you showing a lack of respect for your audience. There are exceptions, we have dyslexia and others who have special needs.
What is your excuse?
Did you not go to a good school? Did teachers not love you enough to encourage you to try harder? Is this the root of why you are so angry?
There is a difference between being a troll and constructive criticism. My view is that Corbett is a flawed character, lacking in an ability to think critically. This is not an ad-hominem attack.
You, dear boy, are indeed a fully fledged troll. You are unable to do better than to shoot from the hip with ad-hominem attacks on people. I wonder if it is just a reaction you want from people, a punch in the face is at least something, an acknowledgement of existence for someone who does not know love. Is this you?
Is this why you lurk in forums repeating the same nonsense about chemtrails, claiming you know best because you have secret information? How is that supposed to convert people into believing what you believe?
Then in your special, childish way you are accusing people that have the time to write respectfully that they are trolls?
I fail to see what you seek to achieve beyond getting someone to at least acknowledge your otherwise lonely, isolated existence.
I suggest that you improve your writing game, get the little details of punctuation correct and try to engage constructively with the wider world.
Books are a good place to start, you will notice that books don’t have the spelling mistakes, clumsy punctuation and formatting errors you write with. Read a few of the better books, get a better education and try harder.
You will thank me for this, please resist the temptation to write other derogatory comments to OffGuardian, listen more, read more and only write when you have something to say.
Wow , I loved reading that. I am not even sure that i totally agree with you, but It doesn’t matter I still love what you wrote. I am going to pay special attention to my own writing now. Thank you.
Thank you too!
And apologies for my condescending tone!
I learned the hard way about writing properly, I had a colleague who didn’t write that well and I did a little bit of reading about why it is that we use language the way we do. Essentially it is all about respecting others and courtesy, putting the time of others before one’s own time, treating others as we wish to be treated.
The internet does give everyone an opportunity to up one’s game and to learn from how our words are received. Nobody is perfect and we all make mistakes. Even when we think we are right it can be how we write rather than what we say that lets us down.
Anyway, next time you encounter a troll, be polite!
While were at it, speaking of freedom of speech….it may well be time to address chemtrails. I certainly have an observation and corresponding opinion.. Anyone else?
If you want to discuss chemtrails go ahead. We can’t promise everyone will agree with you, but that’s ok.
I already know it is a contentious subject. I have inside info that I can’t reveal due to those who value their pensions. I think that it is an important topic.It is a reality. What it is I am not sure. That it is, I am certain.
hi. i dont know how this happened. i wrote a comment just now that vanished. i was prompted to slow down i was posting too fast. please check into this. has my address been confused w someone elses?
You haven’t done anything wrong, and we aren’t picking on you! it’s the comment software being a pain. We are currently using WordPress’s native system, which was overhauled and updated recently and is now a nightmare. We’re right in the middle of a major upgrade of OffG, which will be launching next month, and we will be saying goodbye and good riddance to the old comment system at the same time!
Absolutely. It’s amazing how whatever powers may be can corral peoples thoughts and prevent them from investigating anything outside of the invisible fence that encloses them. The invisible fence of mind control, called conspiracy theory.
Derogatory use of various forms of the word ‘denial’ on this post as of 11/6
All others 0
Not strictly true. We have several who use the word as a hook for a priori dismissal sans data, and at least one other who in all seriousness compares deniers to (quote) “heretics and traitors”.
Very concerning. Are people being infected with mainstream intolerance without realising it? We’re hoping it’s a phase and will pass.
I just now searched (Pale Moon, Carrytel8) for James’s video. It came up. But I absolutely know what James is talking about. I seem to have all but disappeared on YouTube. Google is not your friend (if you’re human). I’m reading Yasha Levine’s “Surveillance State” right now. Where do these Silicon Valley orgs come from? Answer: darkness
I have been called out as both a far-right Tory and an extreme left winger on various MSM blogs and no I am not a stark raving bonkers schizophrenic.
I am merely somehow who tries to ask where entrepreneurial innovation has its place and where societal interests trump narrow selfish behaviour.
It is possible to not believe in equality of outcomes, rather equality of intrinsic human value (i.e. an ecosystem not a monoculture).
It is possible to deride global warming whilst being called a traitor for holding extreme skeptics to account also. It happens if you challenge the difference between weather events and climatic shifts.
It is possible to consider some ‘on the left’ to be some of the nastiest scumbags going, without being a disciple of the Koch Brothers.
It is possible to be vigorously opposed to the EU and opposed to the UK becoming a US lapdog.
This is the problem with modern discourse: preadolescent tribalism.
I read Breitbart to try and understand what those folks commenting actually think, how their mind works. They are absolute tribalists, literally believing that everything Trump says is right and anything anyone says to disagree with him is wrong. This is such immature simplistic nonsense as to be laughable, if it were not so dangerous.
I read RT to try and see what the Slav mind thinks and to see some real anti-semitic minds not censored out. It is also a source of diplomatic activity not coming from Washington.
I have read enough of the BBC over the years to know how EU fanatics, global warmers and London-centric metrosexual leftie minds work.
All of these tribes have shibboleths, things their minds are closed to.
All in that respect are extremists.
It is just that extremism is defined by those who formulate the definitions. And right now, the BBc is not extremist, Breitbart is not extremist, but RT is and so is James Corbett.
What a silly world we inhabit.
Well, Rhys you are entitled to your opinion. You make some good points.
I don’t agree with you about RT – I love RT – and I’ve never read Breitbart. (I’m suspicious of Bannon.) Some of what Corbett says I like, but not all of it. Much the same with all media persons and outlets.
lol, for anyone who read that, I was not including the MSM, which I avoid as far as possible! (IS RT, MSM? Well, whatever – I don’t think it is anyway.)
I like your point of view. You must listen to Bannon, He is a relevant part of the current dialog. I believe it beneficial to look at all media.All ideas and perspectives. It is fascinating. You will define yourself as a result.You can discover who you are in a world of the gullible, narrow minded and uninformed. This alone makes life worth living. I get excellent physics lessons from flat earth sites, great geology lessons from fundamentalist Christian sites. These people are dedicated researchers. You just need to be discriminating in what you believe. This is a way to refine your perspective. Hone your person. It is fun,educational and a celebration of free speech,free thought and free will. I love this planet. I
hope you do too. Explore.
There is some truth in saying there are faults on the left and the right and that no one side has all the right solutions and like you I read both left and right publications but mostly my right wing reading is to see what they are up to in order to counter their rhetoric. What is obvious though is that what is called the left in the USA is not what I would call left. The Democrats are about as left as my right testicle. So too the Guardian these days. Unlike you I hear right wing propaganda much of the time being sprouted by the BBC. It has some today about Iran that is clearly not true or at least very unbalanced in its assessment of what Iranian people think about US sanctions. There are constantly unproven and unlikely claims about Syrian use of chemical weapons and above all no recognition that the conflict in those countries has been driven by Western hegemony not by internal conflict. While RT does put a Russian point of view it allows the opinons of Western commentators like Noam Chomsky and Chris Hedges and Seymore Hersh to be heard . These highly regarded writers are black banned by the MSM in the USA because they report the truth in an age of propaganda.
The BBC lies about EVERYTHING, and arrogantly, too.
In what possible sense can the BBC be described as “leftie” or leftist?!?!
“If you hide your ignorance, no one will hit you and you’ll never learn.”
― Ray Bradbury, Fahrenheit 451
Remember when facts were sacred and then they came for you?
The soft censorship James Corbett talks about is well under way. However as he points out in his video the final solution 19:24 in where the author of the report – Alternative Influence, Rebecca Lewis – states quite clearly as a response to the question from Mother Jones “what can be done about all this?” … “If they [the extremists (not the White Helmeted ones I hazard a guess)] were consistently de-platformed they wouldn’t be able to make content about it. In other words with total censorship there will be nothing to comment about.
As we know the Guardian got there several years ago as a purge on over zealous reporting and allowing pretty open comment blogs on revelations by Edward Snowden and Julian Assage. But since the men in black paid them a visit their balls are now safely locked in their handbag.
This is how fascism begins
“We need not to be let alone. We need to be really bothered once in a while. How long is it since you were really bothered? About something important, about something real?”
― Ray Bradbury, Fahrenheit 451
The Magnitsky Act Behind The Scenes…..available free here.
Thanks very much for that link, axisofoil. Very useful.
Anyone who might think this is just another good example of James exposing the lies of the MSM and so something they already know and understand should not be tempted to miss what he has to say from about 19:00 onwards where he addresses the truly frightening Orwellian depths of the Mother Jones article.
Yes, that Mother Jones article was really way out there. Hard to believe some people can’t see through the glaring propaganda, but I guess so.
They say that TPTB play both sides. Seeing this altercation between Mother Jones and Corbettreport makes me wonder if they’re not playing some kind of propaganda tennis match: Mother Jones lobs one in Corbetts direction, Corbett lobs one back. Nicely done. Everybody happy.
Anyone as intelligent as Corbett peddling the hysterical private Fed stuff has to be viewed with utmost skepticism
Quotes On the Federal Reserve Bank
“The few who understand the system, will either be so interested from it’s profits or so dependant on it’s favors, that there will be no opposition from that class.” — Rothschild Brothers of London, 1863
“Give me control of a nation’s money and I care not who makes it’s laws” — Mayer Amschel Bauer Rothschild
Senators and Congressmen
“Most Americans have no real understanding of the operation of the international money lenders. The accounts of the Federal Reserve System have never been audited. It operates outside the control of Congress and manipulates the credit of the United States” — Sen. Barry Goldwater (Rep. AR)
“This [Federal Reserve Act] establishes the most gigantic trust on earth. When the President [Wilson} signs this bill, the invisible government of the monetary power will be legalized….the worst legislative crime of the ages is perpetrated by this banking and currency bill.” — Charles A. Lindbergh, Sr. , 1913
“From now on, depressions will be scientifically created.” — Congressman Charles A.
Lindbergh Sr. , 1913
“The financial system has been turned over to the Federal Reserve Board. That Board as ministers the finance system by authority of a purely profiteering group. The system is Private, conducted for the sole purpose of obtaining the greatest possible profits from the use of other people’s money” — Charles A. Lindbergh Sr., 1923
“The Federal Reserve bank buys government bonds without one penny…” — Congressman
Wright Patman, Congressional Record, Sept 30, 1941
“We have, in this country, one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever known. I refer to the Federal Reserve Board. This evil institution has impoverished the people of the United States and has practically bankrupted our government. It has done this through the corrupt practices of the moneyed vultures who control it”. — Congressman Louis T. McFadden in 1932 (Rep. Pa)
“The Federal Reserve banks are one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever seen.
There is not a man within the sound of my voice who does not know that this nation is run by the
International bankers — Congressman Louis T. McFadden (Rep. Pa)
“Some people think the Federal Reserve Banks are the United States government’s institutions.
They are not government institutions. They are private credit monopolies which prey upon the people of the United States for the benefit of themselves and their foreign swindlers” — Congressional Record 12595-12603 — Louis T. McFadden, Chairman of the Committee on Banking and Currency (12 years) June 10, 1932
“I have never seen more Senators express discontent with their jobs….I think the major cause is that, deep down in our hearts, we have been accomplices in doing something terrible and unforgivable to our wonderful country. Deep down in our heart, we know that we have given our children a legacy of bankruptcy. We have defrauded our country to get ourselves elected.” — John Danforth (R-Mo)
“These 12 corporations together cover the whole country and monopolize and use for private
gain every dollar of the public currency…” — Mr. Crozier of Cincinnati, before Senate Banking and Currency Committee – 1913
“The [Federal Reserve Act] as it stands seems to me to open the way to a vast inflation of the
currency… I do not like to think that any law can be passed that will make it possible to submerge the gold standard in a flood of irredeemable paper currency.” — Henry Cabot Lodge Sr., 1913
From the Federal Reserves Own Admissions
“When you or I write a check there must be sufficient funds in out account to cover the check,
but when the Federal Reserve writes a check there is no bank deposit on which that check is drawn. When the Federal Reserve writes a check, it is creating money.” — Putting it simply, Boston Federal Reserve Bank
“Neither paper currency nor deposits have value as commodities, intrinsically, a ‘dollar’ bill is just
a piece of paper. Deposits are merely book entries.” — Modern Money Mechanics Workbook,
Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, 1975
“The Federal Reserve system pays the U.S. Treasury 020.60 per thousand notes –a little over
2 cents each– without regard to the face value of the note. Federal Reserve Notes, incidentally, are the only type of currency now produced for circulation. They are printed exclusively by the
Treasury’s Bureau of Engraving and Printing, and the $20.60 per thousand price reflects the Bureau’s full cost of production. Federal Reserve Notes are printed in 01, 02, 05, 10, 20, 50, and 100 dollar denominations only; notes of 500, 1000, 5000, and 10,000 denominations were last printed in 1945.” —Donald J. Winn, Assistant to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve system
“We are completely dependant on the commercial banks. Someone has to borrow every dollar
we have in circulation, cash or credit. If the banks create ample synthetic money we are prosperous; if not, we starve. We are absolutely without a permanent money system…. It is the most important subject intelligent persons can investigate and reflect upon. It is so important that our present civilization may collapse unless it becomes widely understood and the defects remedied very soon.” — Robert H. Hamphill, Atlanta Federal Reserve Bank
*In May 1971, West Germany left the Bretton Woods system, unwilling to revalue the Deutsche Mark. In the following three months, this move strengthened its economy. Simultaneously, the dollar dropped 7.5% against the Deutsche Mark. Other nations began to demand redemption of their dollars for gold. Switzerland redeemed $50 million in July. France acquired $191 million in gold. On August 5, 1971, the United States Congress released a report recommending devaluation of the dollar, in an effort to protect the dollar against “foreign price-gougers”.
*On August 9, 1971, as the dollar dropped in value against European currencies, Switzerland left the Bretton Woods system. The pressure began to intensify on the United States to leave Bretton Woods.
*On the afternoon of Friday, August 13, 1971: The Nixon shock was a series of economic measures undertaken by United States President Richard Nixon in 1971, the most significant of which was the unilateral cancellation of the direct international convertibility of the United States dollar to gold. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_shock
Hey jag, it sounds like you have a persuasive argument up your sleeve. Let’s see it.
The Fed is a government agency subservient to Congress and the Treasury. Congress has the power of money creation (spending) and destruction (taxation).
The very notion that the Fed creates dollars to lend to the government to make a profit (in dollars) is absurd on its face.
Feel free to run me through the logic on that one.
Yeah, I thought not.
Corbett in a nutshell…..my opinion
That’s a good video, but why would that be Corbett in a nutshell? Or did you mean to say 9/11 in a nutshell?
So he does not buy the 9/11 official story: good.
He also does not buy global warming… good?
‘Nut shell’ was what I see as Corbett’s trademark ability to pack a lot of information into a coherent fast moving package – with humor.
On the global warming issue, I think it is the poster child of how deep deceptions in our cultures has rendered a potential crisis virtually unintelligible. There are many babies in this tsunami of bathwater.
“Ability to pack a lot of information into a coherent fast moving package” is not what I saw in that video posted in the article above. What I saw was a lot of interminably and boring complaining.
And how is the global warming issue unintelligible? Isn’t there a scientific consensus that global warming is real. Aren’t the ice caps melting?
First you said it was good……then you say it was a lot of interminably and boring complaining.
This is not about Global Warming. It is about censorship.
There are a hundred issues in life that are contestable. Let them remain so.
Truth is not a value which gets much traction in this world.This is our core problem, not it’s effect.
If we all burn up it is because we didn’t re first access our collective and individual values, without which all is rendered ‘UNINTELIGABLE’. No matter how intelligent and well informed we think we are, we’re not. look……….there goes another baby.
“First you said it was good……then you say it was a lot of interminably and boring complaining.”
I was referring to the video in the off-guardian article above that we are commenting to, which you can see if you read my comment more carefully.
The “good” video was the one about 9/11, a comment directly under that video.
“This is not about Global Warming. It is about censorship.”
I brought up the fact that Corbett does not believe in global warming, you responded to that, to which I responded in turn. That’s how discussions on forums work. Seems like you’re suddenly trying to change the subject when it’s not going how you like.
“There are a hundred issues in life that are contestable. Let them remain so.”
Some issues are contestable yes, but as I said: “Isn’t there a scientific consensus that global warming is real. Aren’t the ice caps melting?”
“If we all burn up it is because we didn’t re first access our collective and individual values, without which all is rendered ‘UNINTELIGABLE’. No matter how intelligent and well informed we think we are, we’re not. look……….there goes another baby.”
If you wanted to give an example of something that is unintelligible then you succeeded, no offense. I would proffer that the issue of global warming is not unintelligible.
You have jumped entirely out of the framework of a dialog which you started in response to a video I posted.
To your comment………“That’s a good video, but why would that be Corbett in a nutshell? “
I then responded to my ‘nutshell’ reference by qualifying it. Are you still with me?
Do your question and my response not both specifically identify the object of discussion?
The 9/11 truth in 5 min. James Corbett. This is the video about 9/11. Is it not?
You then made your ‘complaining’ comment………………still in reference to the video of which we were then in agreement was at issue.
Did you forget what your conversation was about? Are we still on the same page about this?
I am going to give you a pass because this is just too obviously a lack of awareness and attention. A mistake perhaps?
I am not going to break down each sentence in your last entry. Please. I will simply say this. When you quote someone and then respond to that quote with no regard to what they actually said, you just look silly.
I will repeat…. This is not about Global Warming. It is about censorship
You have imagined a conversation with me that you have been having only with yourself.
Apparently, to you a discussion forum is for whatever you want to discuss. If someone doesn’t bite, you go right ahead with an imaginary discussion as if they had. If you think this childish approach will work on me you might want to get out of the house more often.
Let me break it down for you one more time.
In a nutshell.
#1 Your attempt to swap the object of discussion [the 9/11 video] is not even worthy of comment.
#2 “Seems like you’re suddenly trying to change the subject when it’s not going how you like”.
Any rational person will have already determined by evidence here in writing that this statement applies to you not me. What on earth are you thinking?
#3 My single statement about global warming was this……….
On the global warming issue, I think it is the poster child of how deep deceptions in our cultures has rendered a potential crisis virtually unintelligible. There are many babies in this tsunami of bathwater.
You have validated my comment with your open and verifiable deception,whether you realize it or not.
The ‘baby’ in this case is truth, as well as Corbett. Tossed out by your obsession with a closed and single minded world view. Why would you want to be the antithesis of the object of this post? That is pretty self centered. I will have to admit, you have validated the posts importance.
#4 If you wanted to give an example of something that is unintelligible then you succeeded, no offense. I would proffer that the issue of global warming is not unintelligible.
It was apparent to me from the start that you solely want to engage in a global warming debate. Although off topic, I gave my opinion. In case you still don’t know what I said, which is quite possible, let me clarify.
I have an opinion. As do you. My opinion clearly put the ‘ mandatory’ topic of global warming in the context in which I see it That is all. Period. I’m sorry you couldn’t find someone else to label denier in your trolling. It isn’t all about you.
I also don’t like to be offensive, but when I think about the severity of things like global warming, I can only reiterate……..“If we all burn up it is because we didn’t first access our collective and individual values, without which all is rendered ‘UNINTELIGABLE’. I stand by this. Therefore,
I place the guilt squarely on those like you who will inevitably be the root cause of what might constitute a catastrophe for which we all pay the price. Thanks a lot.
I call this selfishness.
Just my opinion.
You posted a 9/11 video under an article about the Federal Reserve Bank and internet censorship. I responded to that posting.
I have no idea what all the ranting and raving is about. You expect nobody ever to disagree with you on an internet forum?
Although I suspect that you are not acting in good faith I do apologize for calling a portion of your comment “unintelligible”, that was bad manners on my part.
Other than that the comments are up there for all to see, I don’t think it’s necessary for me to continue this dialogue any further.
Frank-you know how the denialists operate. They do not see whatever they do not want to see. Ice-caps? What dat?
Look who’s talking.
Note by admin – we don’t know who this person is, and we certainly haven’t banned them
Amazing that you Assange fanboy cretins complain about censorship of Corbett and the smelly boy himself yet effectively ban me for being a non Assange fanboy. Even hysterical dimwit Caitlin Johnson didn’t ban me.
‘Paranoid, vain and jealous’ – the secret life of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange
An excoriating profile by Julian Assange’s ghostwriter, Andrew O’Hagan, has lifted the lid on the strange world of the founder of WikiLeaks
He is vain, secretive, paranoid and jealous, prone to leering at young women and making frequent sexist jokes – and that’s not the view of one of his many enemies, but of a friend who regards him sympathetically.
A damning picture of Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks who is currently sheltering in the Ecuadorean embassy in London in a bid to avoid extradition to Sweden on rape charges, has emerged in a detailed account by his ghostwriter Andrew O’Hagan.
In a 45-page essay chronicling the collapse of a $2.5m deal for Assange’s autobiography, O’Hagan, an award-winning novelist and non-fiction author, recounts how he spent months with the Australian computer hacker in an attempt to extract material for the book.
But Assange, who was quite happy to reveal the secrets of governments around the world proved far more reluctant when it came to talking about his own past and private life.
“The man who put himself in charge of disclosing the world’s secrets simply couldn’t bear his own,” writes O’Hagan in the London Review of Books. “The story of his life mortified him and sent him scurrying for excuses. He didn’t want to do the book. He hadn’t from the beginning.
“He’d rather spend hours Googling himself than have his own say in the pages of his autobiography.”
In the end Assange’s publisher, Cannongate, releases its own version of the autobiography, after Assange allegedly fails to honour the terms of his contract. The book flopped, selling only 700 copies in its first week
During their time together Assange behaves in front of O’Hagan like an egotistical tyrant interested more in his own self-publicity than in changing the world. Worse still, he turns on his friends with increasing regularity, rather than focusing his anger on his enemies.
At one stage Assange describes the Ecuadorean ambassador offering him diplomatic asylum as “mad”, “fat” and “ludicrous” for going on a diet because she did not like the photographs of herself in the press.
The WikiLeaks founder is also disparaging of his former ally Jemima Khan, who put up the surety for his bail before he broke its conditions by seeking refuge in the embassy. O’Hagan recounts: “He didn’t pause to ask why a loyal supporter might become aggrieved; when I raised it with him he simply made a horribly sexist remark.”
Earlier O’Hagan had watched as Assange leered at two 14-year-old girls as they walked past a café table at which they were sitting. O’Hagan writes how Assange thought they were “fine”, until he saw one was wearing braces.
Even Assange’s girlfriend, WikiLeaks researcher Sarah Harrison, grew increasingly frustrated at his behaviour during the weeks he spent on bail at Ellingham Hall, in Norfolk, the home of another of his guarantors, Vaughan Smith, the founder of the Frontline Club.
Miss Harrison says of Assange: “He openly chats girls up and has his hands on their a**e and goes nuts if I even talk to another guy. He’s like threatened to fire me a few times and always for crazy reasons. One of the times was literally because I had hugged another member of staff. Julian was like ‘that’s so disrespectful to me’.”
Indeed Miss Harrison appears to begin having doubts about Assange’s account of his relationship with the two Swedish women who have accused him of rape.
She tells O’Hagan: “It was weird. Like, why was he even staying with those girls? He didn’t rape them, but he was really f****** stupid.”
O’Hagan notes that for someone so concerned about possible attempts by governments to undermine and even neutralise him – he claims to be in constant fear of assassination, leading to one farcical scene in which a car he claims is tailing them turns out to be a cab on a school run – Assange is remarkably careless about security.
Supposed WikiLeaks sympathisers and supporters come and go with no apparent vetting, the organisation’s staff use the same mobile phones for weeks on end and Assange himself is remarkably indiscreet.
At one stage he threatens to publish transcripts of phone calls and emails between himself and Cannongate, the publishers of his planned autobiography – for which he had been paid – following the collapse of their deal.
O’Hagan writes: “I wanted to warn him that they certainly had transcripts of our interviews, sittings in which he’d uttered, late at night, many casual libels, many sexist remarks. There was little security consciousness at work in those interviews.”
O’Hagan, who had hoped to find an anti-authoritarian rebel figure worthy of admiration, says he comes to regard Assange as someone who sacrificed the moral high-ground by attempting to evade trial over the rape charges.
“Big Government’s opposition to WikiLeaks’s work became confused, not least in Assange’s mind, with the rape allegations against him,” writes O’Hagan. “It has been a fatal conflation.
“A man who conflates such truths loses his moral authority right there. Because he has no ability to see through other people’s eyes he can’t see how dishonest this conflation seems even to supporters such as me.”
Character assassination is a premise for discerning facts? Maybe all those people didn’t really get shot in Iraq. It could have been an attention seeking ploy. We will have to rely more on the news which is approved by the blue pedophiles and the red necrophiliacs.
“He is vain, secretive, paranoid and jealous, prone to leering at young women and making frequent sexist jokes – and that’s not the view of one of his many enemies, but of a friend who regards him sympathetically.
Well, apart from the ‘secretive ‘ and ‘jealous’, which is just one person’s opinion, it all sounds quite normal to me.
None of that matters a damn, even if it was true. We are not depending on Assange’s moral authority here, there’s no doubt that the leaked cables he publishes in Wikileaks the book for eg are absolutely real
Can’t understand why someone would go to so much trouble to trash Assange’s character when its totally beside the point .And given that Assange can not counter these smears as he’s been denied freedom of speech, casts the smearer in a particularly bad light, not someone to take seriously
Shame on you
Are you reproducing long, and tedious tracts of O’Hagen because you have no ideas of your own?
The central issue here pertains to asymmetrical power allied to the manipulation of information in order to keep the public in the dark not a cod personality analysis that reads like a half-arsed psychiatric report.
“Amazing that you Assange fanboy cretins…”
So the guy’s a total asshole. In that case, my question is: why have you got your head so firmly lodged up him? Did you mistake him for your own?
could you not spam the comments section with copy and pastes of work not your own, thanks.
A great hatchet job on Assange’s personality, the equal of any Hollywood muckraker. Now talk to me about WikiLeaks.
JOmo sonds a lot like a bell end kitty / puke hardon clone
I wish that this post would bring with it the storm of controversy brought by “Unprecedented Crime,”
as the very platform upon which that debate stands is being removed. Right in front of our eyes.
There is little more traumatic and debilitating than the solitary confinement of the human mind. Why would we so casually allow it? Let’s at least fight while we still have some tools to fight with. Rather than later, with our blood.
“Freedom of speech is a principal pillar of a free government: When this support is taken away, the constitution of a free society is dissolved,”
Benjamin Franklin in The Pennsylvania Gazette.
“If men are to be precluded from offering their sentiments on a matter, which may involve the most serious and alarming consequences that can invite the consideration of mankind, reason is of no use to us; the freedom of speech may be taken away, and dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep, to the slaughter.”
— George Washington, first U.S. president
“Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost.”
— Thomas Jefferson,
“The freedom of speech and the freedom of the press have not been granted to the people in order that they may say the things which please, and which are based upon accepted thought, but the right to say the things which displease, the right to say the things which may convey the new and yet unexpected thoughts, the right to say things, even though they do a wrong.”
— Samuel Gompers, U.S. labor leader
“If there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other it is the principle of free thought — not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate.”
— Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., U.S. Supreme Court justice
“We are reluctant to admit that we owe our liberties to men of a type that today we hate and fear — unruly men, disturbers of the peace … in a word, free men. … Freedom is always purchased at a great price, and even those who are willing to pay it have to admit that the price is great.”
— Gerald W. Johnson, U.S. journalist
‘Freedom of Speech’ is a value only when it is shared equally. In a capitalist pathocracy, where that ‘freedom’ is distributed highly unequally, benefiting Evil swine like Murdoch and his ilk, and the common man, in contrast, has virtually no power, it becomes simply a ‘freedom’ for the very worst in society, and that society commences to rot, intellectually, morally and spiritually.
‘Freedom of Speech’ is a value only when it is shared equally”.
This statement would be valid in a commune or a prison yard. This reminds me of 2nd grade school yard antics “It’s not fair, whaaa”. If you haven’t learned by now….fair is a concept for children.
Do you know why freedom of speech exists? Here, in my country, freedom of speech was established with full knowledge of it’s eventual and inevitable necessity.
It was a known fact that freedom is always taken for granted and safeguards must be put in place for the future when first establishing order from tyranny. It was known that corruption would reign until confronted. It was also known that tyranny would return as there is little that can be done about the corrupt nature of man. This is why we planned ahead. The first amendment is ‘freedom of speech’ and the second grants the means to enforce it if necessary. This 2nd wasn’t established by accident. It was known this day would arrive.
Speaking up is what is done to state one’s opinion in opposition to an existing statement. Speaking out is establishing one’s perspective in an increasingly hostile environment. These are acts of defiance based on values. Speaking just to hear yourself talk is an entirely other thing.
The rest of your statement sounds to me somewhat hypocritical. If you truly see yourself becoming ‘powerless intellectually, spiritually and….. morally rotten’, are you saying you have giving up on freedom of speech? Why are you bothering to post? A last gasp? A death rattle? I am glad that at least you are not adding to the dead weight already over here.
Maybe you are simply announcing your willingness to bend over for the ‘evil swine’ you so detest. Are you? What a visual. If not, I am now wondering what your MO here really is.
You have indicated you see me as a ‘denier.’ You have made a grave mistake. As I see it, you make this assumption based on nothing more than your desire to be welcome in what I see as a cult of self-indulgence. Your continually feigned indignation is nauseatingly transparent. Do you have anything positive to say? Anything at all?
Thank you for inspiring me to express myself and exercise my freedom of speech.
James Corbett does some good stuff and bad stuff, but on the whole I don’t watch him. This is better.
Ray McGovern – Russia-gate: Can You Handle the Truth?
Rays position I appreciate and always have. In reference to ‘Russia-gate’, what to me is more relevant in so far as ”handling the truth’ is, as an example ‘The Magnitsky act, behind the scenes’ has been banned.This is a volatile, potentially viral film which has been ‘handled’. Ray is given a pass. Anything genuinely damaging to the status quo, is not. Orwell knew.
The Magnitsky Act – Behind the Scenes is a Norwegian, internationally supported investigative documentary feature. Its scheduled premiere at the European Parliament in Brussels on April 27 2016 was cancelled at the last moment due to the legal threats from the protagonists at the centre of the investigation. A few days later ARTE (a French-German TV network that co-financed the film) annulled the May 3 broadcast at a short notice. The legal and political pressure on the film and its makers has continued ever since. In September 2018 the film was taken down by Vimeo for alleged defamation.
You can watch it on that site for €4.39.
It’s definitely worth the watch.
I’ve always felt something’s off with that Corbettreport channel, though it’s hard putting a finger on what exactly it is. Controlled opposition? Some kind of Illuminati agenda?
Corbettreport not monetizing their videos is just a front to give themselves more legitimacy in the eyes of their public. Corbettreport does make money from their output on YouTube, they just use Patreon. So then why all this hullabaloo about not monetizing their videos? That being said I don’t believe they need even that. Controlled opposition outlets get their funding from behind the scenes.
Corbett also likes to stress how much he’s being censored, but the reality is that his channel is still on YouTube, unlike the massive amount of channels that have in fact been removed.
Some of the dodgy stuff on there:
Chemtrails Exposed – The Past, Present and Future of the New Manhattan Project
Climate Change is Unfalsifiable Woo-Woo Pseudoscience
Considering the above, not unsurprisingly there seems to be some kind of anti-science bias. There are tons of videos talking about the crimes of science. But it’s obviously not actually science itself which is to blame, science is just a methodology, it’s the corporations -amongst others- who are to blame. So why blame it on science all the time?
In any case, as already mentioned below, there’s definitely an anti global warming agenda, that much is clear.
Yes, Corbett is intelligent.
not so. he just talks about aspects of the climate debate outside the official narrative. thats probably what you find disturbing. chemtrails is a real phenomenon. the reason you dont recognize it as such is due to your programming. you know, to dismiss those dam conspiracy theorists. as george bush commanded.
The ‘aspects’ of climate science outside the ‘official narrative’ are almost always lies, distortions and misrepresentations peddled by the fossil fuel industry and the paranoid, omnicidal, Right.
sounds like youve been indoctrinated
Do stop talking to yourself-it’s unhealthy.
yeah, youd like that wouldnt you? alas i dont believe in censorship. not even self censorship.
But you clearly are a devotee of stupidity and ignorance.
now now. flattery will get you nowhere. lol.
a scientific hypothesis, in this case climate change, can not be taken seriously if you dont take into account all relevant factors. if the scientists want me to take them seriously theyve got to do better science. they are not doing anyone any favors by ignoring chemtrails and the US military both of which seem to be enormous contributory factors in global warming.
until they take chemtrails into consideration, theyre hypocrites. until they confront the US military, theyre enablers of global warming. deliver me from such scientists.
edited by Admin for typo
Anybody who peddles this chemtrail nonsense goes into the “ignore” category as far as I’m concerned. Which is why I find it disturbing that Corbett is pushing this stuff too.
Not a single shred of evidence. It does not even make sense from a logical point of view. And I’m not going to debate this with you, just like I’m not going to debate the flat earth or the mandela effect or other similar nonsense. Waste of time. There’s a new one I noticed recently: dinosaurs are fake! (It’s ever so slightly more plausible than the other stuff, but still.)
‘And I’m not going to debate this with you, ‘
i appreciate that, considering the level of argumentation you signal. who said anything about flat earth? or fake dinosaurs? thats diversion and disruption of serious discussion. nomad dont need that crap.
Yes, the really dangerous ones get targeted. Corbett and Scott Creighton (closed down by WordPress) both of whom think Wikileaks is a fraud. Yes also a climate skeptic and 9/11 denier.
Never, ever trust a Canadian in exile who has a beard, a bald head and wears glasses.
Must be a far left commie fruitcake.
Republicans would go buy a wig….Nikki Haley does not go for bald men and all red blooded Republicans want to jump her bones!!
Corbett is hardly left-wing.
He’ll go down well here, I’m a big fan but……and being a denier is a big but.
What’s he denying? I’m guessing either climate change or something about 9/11…
James Corbett is a climate skeptic. We try hard not to use the Orwellian/Stalinist word “denier.”
Anthropogenic climate destabilisation deniers are NOT ‘sceptics’. Sceptics hold their opinions tentatively, and are open to rational argument and changing their opinions. Anthropogenic climate destabilisation deniers are fanatics, ideological to the core, immune to evidence and argument and depend on fabrication, misrepresentation and distortion in their service to the fossil fuel industry, Rightwing ideology and the destruction of Life on Earth.
Maybe they’d be less immune to your evidence if you posted some links to it, rather than lecturing them for not googling properly?
Deniers are immune to being convinced, just as they are immune to debate. All they want to do is shout loudly about Maunder Minimums, LIAs, and non-existent Pauses (that are over anyway). Give them a link, and they’ll criticise the source, the author, the Method, the proxy measurements (you can’t quantify the sea, the climate, etc) etc. They abuse your open comment policy, because in a more scientific environment, they would be shut down (by science, not censorship) in a few minutes. Back in the day, even the hated Guardian was an excellent source, in BTL comments, of anti-AGW bluff …because actual scientists would come back and comment with all the relevant data. But this is ‘propaganda’ and ‘conspiracy’. The very conservative ‘The Conversation’ was much the same. They’ve got nothing to say, no positive vision, only a Mephistopheles obsession with barbecued biomes. And protecting their own self-interest.
If anyone wants a link, the WWF ‘Dying Planet Index’ is a sobering synopsis of why we have to change. This is the most important debate no one wants to have. Deniers just want to shout it down. So deniers is good for me. And for professional deniers, like Curry, heretic and traitor also apply. Thanks for the suggestion.
As for James, he’s caught between two stools. His agorism/libertarian anarchism requires an outside source of capital (bitcoin) creation. He’s not going to bite the hand that feeds him, not too hard anyway. All the time the bitcoin keep flowing in to Japan, he’s good with crypto-capitalism. His mate Derek is a bit more rad. I notice that no one has mentioned that James was one of the first to point out that BRICs was “controlled opposition”. So you pays your money (yes, I am a subscriber of his): and you takes your choice. I very much doubt that any one source of information would completely suffice for anyone. If it did, that would be unhealthy. Just for the record, I have watched him interview Curry …it’s very illuminating.
I have to say that characterisation of “deniers” (we would be so happy if people stopped using that word) scarcely seems a fair way of describing the sceptics posting on here. They are obviously in a minority but have consistently posted scientific arguments and facts.
No they HAVE NOT. Your denialist credentials, which you have often mendaciously denied, are here starkly displayed. Your denialist friends produce NO ‘scientific arguments and facts’, unless you count shouted denial, lies and distortions as ‘facts’.
You make it very difficult for us. None of us really agree with the skeptics here, but the fact is, it’s you who has failed to produce any data, and you who has been screaming and shouting. You have even gone so far as to refuse to post links you claim to have. As I recall you said only “denialists” ask for evidence and called the person asking you a “hard right” maniac.
Your comment above is only explicable as projection.
As he proves again and again, Mulga only provides ad hominem, never links with arguments. Though he is certainly not uneducated, most have seen this and consider him insane,
Still, with his bad language he is defacing this site. Mods, he is fouling your nest, he is putting off new readers. He was caught before rating himself up and others down many multiples.
Is there a way to xxxx out every insulting word written, or give him a time out?
I don’t have to produce any ‘evidence’ when the scientific record is filled with tens of thousands of papers that confirm the theory, when ALL the Academies of Science and scientific societies on Earth confirm the theory and 99% of active climate scientists confirm the theory. Yet YOU and the denialist cabal you succour, produce no credibly published scientific papers refuting the science, no Academy of Science or scientific society that refutes the theory and no eminent climate scientist who refutes the theory, save the same tiny cabal who have not changed in personnel for years, if not decades. So the pathopsychological projection is ENTIRELY yours, not mine.
So to sum up your point – you don’t need to produce evidence, because you’re right, and when skeptics DO produce evidence it doesn’t count because they’re wrong.
You also literally believe they are evil heretics. And should be prosecuted.
It’s shocking enough anyone here thinks this way, but that one or two seemingly sane longtime contributors agree with you is mind numbing.
Let’s take a concrete example, Admin and Antonym, to see why reason is not applicable. While I was away, the claim was made the there had been NO warming for 18 years (emblazoned in bold as irrefutable.) This is a lie, in denial of all data, a cherry picked anti-scientific denial of real science…all of which has been copiously dealt with elsewhere and debunked.
The scientific ‘debate’ here was carried out in a bubble of ignorance, by he who shouts loudest, in denial of science, by he who carries the biggest pseudo-science stick to beat science.
Some of the issues wilfully ignored to make such a claim include:
Had there been an 18 year hiatus in ALL data; ALL constituent hypotheses that form the AGW theory (not a colloquial theory, a highly verified (but not proven) scientific theory) would be automatically falsified – no more AGW. Except, this did not happen. Looking at ALL data, ALL hypotheses, AGW is still the best theory that fits ALL data. (Off the top of my head, at least 4-5 years in the period were warmer than 1998, using ALL data).
Using recent phenomena (including this years extreme weather) deliberately conflates weather and climate, in a way that no scientist (without an agenda) would. An 18 year pause is an insignificant statistical anomaly. It is short of multidecadal, its statistical significance will take 30 years to assess (or 50-100 depending on the hypothesis the data is to match). To present it as anything else is a cardinal schoolboy error. Or worse.
There WAS a hiatus, in land temp data. Isolating this from other data and hypotheses is a distortion of science. So what, the next 18 years could be the warmest on record? Some of them already have been.
[It might be good to point out facts that you should really know. How much data can science collect in one year? It’s not a trick question. One year per year, and thirty years to parse weather from climate. If AGW happened, we would still be having this asinine argument for thirty years AFTER it was too late because of this fact. Which is why modelling plays such a heavy part …we can’t wait that long. We need to act pragmatically and humanistically on the increasing conditional probabilities …not wait on faux ‘scientific’ certitude …which is to give in to a SCAM].
Even if there was a hiatus in all data, we still need a new hypothesis to explain the verified data AND the anomalous data (there wasn’t any). This hasn’t happened, because the AGW theory was not falsified. A bunch of people on the internet screaming “Pause, pause” does NOT constitute science, but its antithesis. Just as trolling out every debunked Daily Mail trope imaginable to beat Flaxgirl with is nor science. Its a SCAM. The scientific way to proceed is through the peer review process. Not perfect, but more rational than shouting loudly and bullying on the internet.
[Most other comments attack Method, including modelling, from the POV that the commenter has a better overall understanding of science than scientists. This is asinine, and works on the implication that all science is corrupt. The models and theories (when is a theory not a theory? When it is a scientific theory. As pointed out, even the semantics are manipulated) …the models aren’t abstract, they are highly correlated with verified data. If you understand cybernetics, they are slowly being developed to 100% accuracy. When they reach 100%, we’ll all be fried. The only real proof is the real world event].
As a case in point, NASA did produce a paper saying the hiatus was over, using cherry picked data. It was quickly discarded, exposed BY ALL SIDES. Science may be biased and fallible, but it is not generally, conspiratorial.
I also want to point out, that I have discussed Method at length. All of these points have been made, and ignored. The Method is flawed, but it is the only means we have of predicting the future. Manipulating the inherent uncertainty is a SCAM. If anyone is using the above kind of flawed logic, they are being dishonest – not ‘scientific’. They are deniers, not contrarians, and definitely NOT sceptics. Sceptics keep an open mind and are amenable to change POV. I’m a sceptic.
A quick survey of the teleology of denialist arguments reveals the dishonesty The ultimate expression of denialism is the end of life on earth. Too drastic a contention? Before we get to farm the Arctic, where has the ice gone (a potential 230 feet sea rise). Apart from Bangladesh and Holland, the majority of the worlds capital cities are at or around sea level. We might migrate, but the majority of species won’t. And you call that POV ‘scientific’? Please.
There’s no need to convince us of the AGW argument, BigB. It’s the “let’s burn the Denier Witches” argument we have a problem with.
The scientific ‘debate’ here was carried out in a bubble of ignorance, by he who shouts loudest: that would be Mumblebrain then 😉
Less loud is the IPCC; in their Special Report 15 they now take climate to be 15 years before 2017 plus model predicted data for the next 15 years. How’s that for Science according to you? Redefining climate?
Page 5 footnote 5: Present level of global warming is defined as the average of a 30-year period centered on 2017 assuming the recent rate of warming continues.
The definition for climate was till now the arithmetic average of a climate element (e.g. temperature) over a 30-year period – measured! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate#Definition
Now the IPCC cut that in half and glues 15 years of future speculationonto it.
Indeed they do this to bend a small temperature increase upwards to reach for a hockey stick blade to make it alarming.
Ok, I get it. Why would they do this, and how does it skew the data?
I mean, I understand what you mean about the hockey stick spike, but HOW do you see that resulting from the change from a 30yr estimation to a 15 yr + 15 yrs of projection.
I was merely replying to the contention that they have consistently posted ‘scientific’ arguments and facts …which is not true and empowers extremism and denialism over rationalism and empiricism. The scientific debate has parsed such outlying opinions years ago. MM may be presenting themselves in an unbecoming manner, but what they are saying is nevertheless rational and empirical …if poorly worded. There is no need to ‘prove’ the case, unless you accept the case is not proven. Then, even going as far as defining the word ‘proof’, as I did, we go round and round in circles in the anti-debate.
How about removing the contention, and moving on to the mitigation and policy debate? The broader debate boils (or burns) down to carbonism (my new neologism for… you can see) …carbonism v humanism. As soon as you move on, the praxis of inaction and induced contention disappears. Which is what the recent debate should have been about, IMHO. Moral humanism v pseudo-science.
Unless anyone thinks we should kill off the remaining populations of species, deforest the Amazon, subjugate 80% of humanity …because that is what carbonism entails. Carbonism underpins everything we do. I’d go as far as oleum ergo sum …the very way we think is carbonised. Some more than others, perhaps?
[There is a higher order way to favour true dialectics and second order cybernetics (the participatory communication of communication) – using para-consistent logic – to produce a true (valid) contradiction. This leaves both inputs (thesis and antithesis) as valid (if not necessarily wholly true). In that way any topic can be debated to a valid and pragmatic inclusive solution without the need for shouting. However, I do not think that this is applicable to this, or any other community. It would in itself entail a paradigm shift in the philosophy of mind. Suffice to say, this is happening, and there are ways to agree to disagree, and move on in favour of the super-majority. As opposed to being subjected to the dictatorship of the super-minority – the ones with access to the greatest resources, or the ones who shout loudest].
A lot of words, but you didn’t answer my simple question about the latest(October 2018) IPCC report. Why did they have to redefine “climate”? 15 years of data for empiricism & 15 for rationalism instead of the normal 30 years of data?
Kill of > half of Life through a small actual temperature increase? If alarmism is not based on facts it becomes spin – fake news – a false flag – a religion.
The IPCC is hugely biased towards carbonism, and not to be trusted, For instance, I think they have 250+ pages of mitigation policies, many of which rely on unproven sequestration and ‘negative emissions’ technologies. In other words, they passed the inter-generational can (and the cost) down the road. The whole IPCC/UN strategy is corporate carbonism …to be seen to be doing something, so long as it does not impede ‘sustainable growth’ (SDGs etc) …which is an oxymoron. Those two words are rightfully mutually exclusive. Compound exponential growth is the main vector toward civilisational crisis.
The main point of validity is that if we do not mitigate for 1.5 C: the ‘small actual temperature increase’ of 0.5 C will cost substantially more – in financial, human and biotic capitals. So much for small differences?
I did address all this on Sunday, with the proposal that the More Developed Carbonist economies consume less, in order to let the Less Developed Carbonist economies develop. Within an overall reduction framework: so we mitigate AGW and poverty. Poverty is a major driver of land usage change, species depopulation and extinction, poaching, alien species introduction, etc so we save the remaining megafauna and biomes …that hugely subsidise carbonism. It’s a win win strategy for humanity and nature?
If AGW is not the trigger event for such a rationalist change, isn’t that something we should be doing anyway?
What say you, Antonym? Should we burn for carbonist exceptionalism, or mitigate for universalism and humanism?
Or is rationalism, pragmatism, and humanism a false flag? In which case, whose side are you on?
It might help discussion if you added a source for the IPCC being soft on “carbonism”? Also, if I understand Antonym correctly (not sure about that), I think he is saying the IPCC are skewing the data to increase the amount of estimated warming. So, I think you two may be at cross purposes.
@ Antonym I’m not understanding your point here about how they have “redefined climate”. Could you explain it making due allowance for idiocy (I can’t be the only one!)
Antonym, your vicious, typically denialist, assertion that the IPCC was ‘bending’ the data ‘upwards’ to ‘reach for a hockey-stick..’ is simply a lie. As usual. Mann’s famous ‘hockey-stick’ has been replicated over and over again by other scientists, in regard to climate parameters like global average temperatures, and other measures of the horrendous ecological Holocaust engulfing Life on Earth. Yet denialist disinformers like you, pretend mendaciously, that Mann’s hockey-stick is unique, and even more untruthfully, that it has been disproved. That is a Big Lie worthy of Hitler or Goebbels, although it will cause far more deaths that any of the Nazis’ lies.
‘Heretic and traitor’ are certainly good, as in traitor to science, rationality and evidence. But basically they are ‘enemies of Life on Earth’, for some perverted pathopsychological reasons. The purest Evil possible.
Just about all climate (computer) models run too hot, so they will produce the badly desired hockey blade spike towards the future. Real Science is neutral and has no desired outcome; ambitious people (and clubs like the IPCC) have.
Climate mitigation: lets not spend a fortune on it but strengthen a few sea barriers and first off all stop building more on flood planes: make any new construction there un-insurable. Also clear river beds of blocking constructions. Empty storage dams before heavy rainfall, not during it.
Lies-as usual. All models are wrong, as the saying goes, but some are useful. The climate models have greatly improved over time, and are getting better at predictions, and retro-predictions that concur with previous weather and climate and paleo-climate evidence. In fact, the models that the IPCC Reports have preferred have consistently UNDER-ESTIMATED the size and rapidity of climate destabilisation, and the latest estimates of climate sensitivity to a rise in global atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations have produced results that are truly frightening. But you denialists simply do not care whether Life on Earth is devastated, just so long as you can feeding your prodigious egomania, and your insatiable ideological hatred of environmentalism and those concerned about humanity’s future.
I may be wrong, but wasn’t Mann’s original hockey stick completely discredited when it was revealed they’d tried to pass off surface temperature data as tree ring data in order to “hide the decline” in temperature the tree rings showed in the 1960s?
There was some talk about it here a while back. From what I was reading it’s the whole basis of Climategate, that these scientists were caught faking data essentially.
I am assuming no one approves of that. We need honest research on this subject. It’s too important to be politicised or made the subject of individual egos, or worse, the portal for witch hunts and intolerance.
Orwellian/Stalinist? How about Zionist.
Just say it, Frank … James Corbett is a gatekeeper equivalent to (let’s say) Robert Fisk and George Monbiot but on the opposite extreme of the political spectrum. He can rail against certain aspects of the FUKUS imperialist monster project as long as he toes the line on other aspects that help keep the hoi polloi distracted (such as quibbling over certain details of the climate change argument that lifts the responsibility away from governments, the military and all their corporate backers).
This would explain why his channel continues to stay on Youtube while others are being censored.
Can you develop your thoughts on this a bit? We might not agree with his climate scepticism (even though we are a “denialist cabal” according to Mulga Mumblebrain), but it seems incredibly extreme to compare him to Robert Fisk, or – good lord – Monbiot??
It’s important we don’’t get lost in denouncing each other don’t you think?
My comment wasn’t intended to denounce James Corbett by comparing him down to Fisk or Monbiot – I probably could have chosen Glenn Greenwald and The Intercept as well but they’re probably just as bad – but just to suggest to that Corbett and his site may be acting in a gatekeeper role to dissipate and relieve tension that their target audience may be feeling about a lot of issues. This gatekeeper role might not be one handed to them or which they have adopted in the way Guardian writers like Monbiot have adopted; it is one that Corbett and his sources may have taken on at some point in the past and particular audiences have been attracted to it to the extent that the CR has to carry on with it to avoid confusing people.
Corbett may well be justified in saying that chemtrails are partly to blame where others would blame climate change but he and his sources have their work cut out demonstrating direct proof. Personally I have an open mind on the possibility of chemtrails being a major cause of changes in weather and climate patterns and I still believe that governments and militaries (both govt and privately controlled) are the biggest global polluters with corporations coming a close second.
Much of what we call the mainstream climate change agenda is aimed at putting the blame on individuals and the decisions they make, as though it is entirely in the power of individuals to choose particular products or services, and so stop or minimise damage to forests in particular parts of the world, without endangering other areas. The fact is that individuals are given a limited choice of products and services, each and every choice has consequences, and it is impossible for individuals to evaluate every possible choice and the consequences it leads to.
There are good reasons to be climate skeptics. CIA Whistleblower Speaks Out About Climate Engineering, Vaccination Dangers, and 911
CIA DIRECTOR JOHN BRENNAN ADMITS TO CHEMTRAILS (STRATOSPHERIC AEROSOL INJECTION)
James has the facts on his website- go see and make your own decision please. For both 9/11 and Climate change and do much more … Go and look for yourselves
I can only say he has helped me revisit what I thought/believed to be true before
I think James Corbett always supports his assertions logically and provides links for those industrious enough to follow his tracks to see how he came to his conclusions. But, with regard to the Fed, Ron Paul, a decent person, has always railed against it, one of his major pet peeves, actually, aside from interventionist wars, which he always, without exception, voted against during his many years in Congress.
The Fed was set up as a monopoly from the beginning. Ron Paul was/is right to rail against it, wasn’t/isn’t he? It’s was conceived as being out of any govt control from 1914. Century of Slavery, I agree with James, from what I understand…
The Fed was set up as a monopoly from the beginning. Ron Paul was/is right to rail against it, wasn’t/isn’t he? It’s was conceived as being out of any govt control from 1914. “Century of Slavery”, I agree, from what I understand so far…
Ron Paul is a gatekeeper. Libertarians are useful idiots kept active by the oligarchy to make neoliberalism look sensible to the masses.
‘Libertarians’ are just open about their hatred of others. ‘Neo-liberals’ just deny it, but practise it remorselessly.
‘BUT’…..is the world we don’t want to loose.