activistpost--2020-10-15--Interview: James Corbett Encourages You To Do Your Own Research

Dan Williams of kla.tv interviews James Corbett about the recent Forbes article warning the hoi polloi not to do their own research .
They discuss the agenda behind this exhortation and why independent thinkers doing their own research is the bedrock of any truly free society .
Watch on Archive / BitChute / LBRY / Minds / YouTube or Download the mp4 Dan : So James , back in July I read an interesting article on forbes.com , and it was an editor ’ s pick so it must have been good , and the title of the article was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ own research when it comes to science.
” And I kind of had a chuckle and it struck me right away .
And of course the gist of the article was : Well look , all of us normal people , we have jobs , we ’ ve got families , wives , responsibilities , we couldn ’ t possibly have enough time to research the important issues especially concerning medicine , and therefore you need to defer to the experts .
After all I´m not an epidemiologist , so , okay , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ flaws in that logic ?
Corbett : I can find a few and I will encourage people at this point to go watch the video that I did on this subject called : “ Don ’ t Do Your Own Research – # PropagandaWatch !
” where for my regular propaganda watch series I dealt into this article .
And not to perform a performative contradiction here and tell you : ” Don ’ t look at his article !
” Because of course , I think you should !
You should research @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
So I have a link in the show-notes for that video , not to forbes which clearly wants the clickbait , rage-click , “ Hey , what is he talking about click ” , and they get the advertising dollars .
I will lead them to archive.is where it does not go to their servers , they do not get the money for it , so I would suggest people would check that link .
But do read the article and look at the argument that is being made , which , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ level sounds reasonable enough .
But as soon as you start to dig into the details it becomes , shall we say , “ problematic ” to use the lingo of the moment .
Just as sort of the surface level approach to this , a level that I ’ m sure everyone can understand regardless of political persuasion : We have in the western system of jurisprudence that is derived from the English common law and all of that , we have the idea of a “ jury of your peers ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , when you are trying to prove murder or whatever it is , you have to convince these twelve peers that this or that happened .
And you bring in the experts to make their case and this expert says this and that expert says that .
But ultimately it is the twelve peers – the people who are not experts who may or may not have any sort of accreditation , may or may not have any familiarity .
It is the job of the experts to convince these people , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is the right one .
That is the model one would presume that people in the media would be promoting .
“ We ’ re here to bring you this expert opinion , this opinion and we are putting it in front of you and then you decide.
” Remember when that used to be the tagline ?
: “ You decide.
” No , no , not any more .
You are not competent to make your own decisions about conflicting reports from expert opinions .
We tell you now what those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was recently noted by Derrick Broze over at The Last American Vagabond .
He had a great article up about “ Are we in an anti-science-society ?
” or something along those lines .
People can look up the exact headline .
And he makes the point that they constantly try to say that the people these days are pushing an anti-science objective because they are against vaccination or they are against this or they are against that .
When in fact it is the people who are promoting that viewpoint , who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sense , because science is not a body of facts .
And if you disbelieve these facts then you are anti-science .
No !
That is not what science is .
Science is a methodology , it is a tool for coming to understanding that rests on skepticism and doubt , and not believing anything 100 % wholesale all for eternity , “ I swear on this book of science that I believe these things.
” No !
We come to our own conclusions based on the evidence that is presented to us @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people will make errors .
They will have poor judgement on these things .
But , so be it .
That is freedom .
People will come to erroneous conclusions , but that is actually how we progress .
We build on mistakes of the past .
That is what science is actually about .
So media telling people that they must believe the experts that we select actually puts the media in the position of being the god-emperors of this universe of science that they are trying to promote .
Because they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to listen to and which experts you shouldn´t hear at all .
And I think anyone with two brain cells to rub together will understand that this comes from a perspective of an agenda that is being pushed .
Dan : Agreed .
After I read the article I just jotted down four quick points on why I thought , “ Well , no , you can ’ t just defer to the seven o ’ clock news experts.
” And if I could run through each point and you could say : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : the experts can be wrong as you just said !
Right ?
Dan : Number two : experts serve other interests , besides the public ’ s interests mainly their own financial interests .
Corbett : The only quibble with that is “ mainly.
” Some may be purely financially motivated or mostly financially motivated , others might have other motivations .
But you are right , that again there is no such thing as an objective viewpoint in science or anything else and everything is a question – well I mean @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it works today , it does rest on funding .
So who is funding this study and why and for what purpose ?
And what results are they excluding , etc.
?
As you say , the excluded context is manifold .
Dan : Right and can there be any better case example of expert opinion that might be influenced just a bit by financial interest when it comes to say vaccines and the new Covid vaccine coming up ?
Corbett : Yeah , exactly .
Of course the pharmaceutical companies literally have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ line on vaccination safety and efficacy .
And anything that goes against that is literally against their bottom line , so do you think they would fund studies that are showing problems with their safety and efficacy ?
Of course they would not .
Would they spend money in terms of just marketing in a sense to denigrate people who are denigrating their product , of course they would .
Any business would do that , but that is exactly why we have to know their business interests and there has to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as part of our , the general public ’ s ability to understand these experts and their motivations .
Dan : Right .
My third point is : There are experts out there who might not be getting on the seven o ’ clock news and one group of experts might disagree with another group of experts .
So who do we choose ?
What do you think about that point ?
Corbett : Yeah , no , that is exactly right , and that ’ s what I am saying with regards @ @ @ @ @ @ @ position of rulers , essentially , by saying , “ You have to trust the science , but we will only present you this science .
We won ’ t present you these scientists , we won ’ t present you this , what we present to you is the truth.
” And that puts them , the media , actually in the position—it ’ s not even the scientists then that are holding all the cards , it ’ s the media that decides you get to hear this viewpoint , you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ viewpoint .
And actually we see specific examples of that , of researchers like a Knut Wittkowski or a John Ioannidis , or name a million others during this current Covid [ situation ] , who in the past would have been and have been heavily and prominently featured in mainstream science reports , but now their viewpoint is not being discussed because it goes against the agenda that is being pushed .
So now you don ’ t get to hear those scientists .
“ Oh , those are quacks now that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Dan : Right , right .
My fourth and last point was that even the consensus experts themselves , forget about the other experts we ’ re not allowed to hear , the consensus experts themselves contradict themselves and they , they send out contradicting information .
Corbett : Yes , the idea that there is a monolithic , singular message here , again is—we have to understand—this is a media construction .
The narrative is created at the narrative layer of what the media is saying and they will use this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this study .
So it ’ s not even—yeah , as you say—it ’ s not these scientists are approved scientist in everything they say , no this , this thing helps us to put forward the narrative and this thing and this thing .
So , again , it ’ s the people who are creating that narrative who again are putting themselves in charge .
It isn ’ t hard to see why people in the media would argue that the media gets to decide what is right and wrong and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ listen .
Dan : Right , right and specifically to the corona virus , examples where they disagree themselves over time is obvious stuff like : In a pandemic the infected should be quarantined .
That was yesterdays thinking right .
But now in a pandemic everybody should be quarantined .
Here is another one , yesterday ’ s experts : masks don ’ t help .
OK , that was as of late as April or May .
I think it was from the CDC or Fauci .
New expert consensus : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Yesterday ’ s experts : we need to put Covid patients on ventilators .
New expert consensus : we ain ’ t pushing that .
Old expert consensus : this is a this is a big one and this came from the Canadian Health Minister , I think I saw it on your video a month or two ago , I think her name is Tam and she says , well , first , the old expert consensus—most recently this would be promoted by Gates and company—we ’ ll be able to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a vaccine .
New expert consensus : the vaccine though absolutely necessary is no silver bullet .
We are looking at continued strict measures for two or three years .
Have you seen that one ?
Corbett : Yes , yes I ’ ve seen all of the things that you ’ re talking about there , all of the seeming contradictions .
And of course the obvious counter rebuttal to that would be to say , “ Yes this is how science works .
We believed something yesterday .
We got new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
So we thought masks were ineffective .
Now we know they ’ re effective.
” OK , now present the evidence for that .
Now lay that case out and explain it to me in a way that I understand .
But on top of that , on top of that you also have to say : well then people who were questioning those experts back when that was the expert consensus opinion being presented by the media several months ago , they were wrong and people were right to question them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
Because I thought we have to just believe the science .
And the science was wrong , but we should have believed them even though they were wrong ?
It ’ s nonsensical on its face .
You have to do mental pretzel knots to try to come to some sort of conclusion that you should never think of these things .
You should never question anything .
Anyone who tells you never question anything is by definition , I would say , your enemy in some sense , your intellectual enemy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ treated as such .
My message accordingly , has always been and will always be to do your own research .
Quite explicitly : do not believe what I am saying .
Please look at the sources .
And that ’ s why I always list the sources on everything that I do .
And actually I gave a talk on that concept of open source journalism several years ago at the FOSSA ( free open source software arena ) conference in France .
And in that presentation I highlighted how back in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , you could go to their website and you could read an article on their website !
Wow , you know , we ’ re living in the future world , you can read articles on the web !
But there you could read through an entire article and there would not be one hyperlink to any information .
And fast forward to 2013 or whenever I gave that talk – and oh you could find maybe one or maybe two hyperlinks in an article but it would just be linking to other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It wouldn ’ t be linking to the source documents .
They would write entire articles about this document that was just released by the government or this thing , this new study but they wouldn ’ t link to the study .
They wouldn ’ t link to the document .
Again , because they want to be the arbiters of the truth and they do not trust you , you poor plebs with this valuable information that only we can read and interpret .
Dan : Oh , that reminds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ relatives .
You know , I have a west-coast family , so I don ’ t talk about this much , but at one point I said : Ok I have gone in enough , I have seen enough , I should send them the best article I have seen on this Covid situation – it came from a University of Oregon professor .
And it was chuck-full of references and hyperlinks and all to doctors , researchers , institutions , universities , and I sent it .
And my relative sent me @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ah , that guy is just armchair quarter-backing , look , take a look at this – and you know , it was a 40-minute talk by Bill Gates with no hyperlinks , no references .
When I read the article , it took me about a day and a half to say to myself : “ Hm , I wonder what Corbett thinks about this ” .
And wow was I happy to see it took you like 3 days to make a 25-minute video on it .
It was great .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ know as a supplement to that I wonder if we could talk about a couple of instances , historical instances , they could be distant or recent where we have really shot ourselves in the foot by just believing the experts .
And I think that the clearest example of these kinds of things when it comes to war—and I ’ m thinking of say Colin Powell ’ s speech in front of the UN and how all the experts lined up behind him .
Interestingly there were a few experts that weren @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but suddenly they didn ’ t become experts anymore , and I think of Scott Ritter – and I think of – who is the general ?
Norman Schwarzkopf himself – he looked into it and he decided “ no , the experts are wrong , we shouldn ’ t get into this war.
” You notice how those guys are in the wrong expert group when they don ’ t agree with the 7 o ’ clock news theme .
Dan : So , anyway , and I was also thinking about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ignored the experts and where we had said “ no , we ’ re not gon na listen to a consensus ” and the public is going to go against it .
And in my case I thought of – let ’ s see – our secretary of State , John Kerry , during the Obama administration was standing up there saying that we need to go put boots on the ground in Syria .
And there was actually a public outcry against that one .
So in that case we didn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ignored them , and for our own benefit , I think .
Can you think of any other examples in medicine , in war , in – I don ’ t know – war and drugs or something where listening to the experts has really been the wrong approach – I mean , there is lots , right ?
!
Corbett : Yeah , there is .
In fact my mind boggles , I ’ m thinking of really any of the works that I do that doesn ’ t in some way @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , everything that I do is based on this .
But of course we have to make the little asterisk and stipulate that when we say “ experts , ” again , we are talking about the certain approved experts that are—at least in this particular case—bolstering a particular narrative that ’ s being used to forward a particular agenda , and to then thereby exclude any other “ expert ” opinion .
I personally have developed an aversion to that word “ expert.
” That is not to say that there are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spent their entire lives diving into it and know it a lot better than other people , but “ expert ” is generally a word that is used simply to turn people ’ s brains off and to stop them from functioning .
So , as you say , I think , the most obvious examples and the most pressing examples are the ones that have led the nation—whatever nation you happen to be in—into war .
Time and time again throughout history , those have generally been , for at least the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of outright lies .
Specifically because of course back in the day you could just have a king issue a proclamation “ we are at war ” and you are at war , but in some sort of democratic society , however loosely or tightly you define that , you have to motivate the public for war and the only way that can be done is through some version of war atrocity propaganda , false flag terrorism , something along those lines , to make the public believe that their enemy is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ here right now and we have to go after them .
So , my examples that I would bring up in this context would be something like the Gulf of Tonkin incident which we know now 100 % from NSA intercepts and others , the second incident at any rate did not happen , and yet , that was at least the trigger for what became really the Vietnam war .
The escalation of that war at any rate .
And we know that was a cynical lie that was being forwarded by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ incident that they were talking about didn ’ t take place , but that was just the fig leaf of justification .
Again , people—unfortunately with these types of things we run into the wall : yes , of course , do your own research—but at that time in 1964 what kind of research could people have done , because the intercepts and the NSA analysis , that was all behind the wall of secrecy .
No one knew about that for 50 years until it was finally released to the public .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ are lying when you don ’ t have the research ?
But that ’ s actually just a further bolstering of the idea that we need transparency , and we need the public to be able to examine evidence .
Because when it is behind that wall of classification and secrecy , then all sorts of lies—that are demonstrable lies—that get exposed half a century later—take place—and those lies lead us to war .
Another example of course is 1953 , Operation TPAJAX – which was a CIA/MI6 operation to destabilize Iran and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Iran .
And again : we now know that it has been a long known—but it was finally “ confirmed ” shall we say by the release of CIA documents back in 2013 , Obama gave a speech about it , yes , we went in and overthrew the government of Iran .
It was on the record .
And as I covered recently on my program , just in the past couple of weeks there is this new documentary that now confirms MI6 involvement—again , not that we hadn ’ t known @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , names and places of MI6 involvement in that operation .
That again—the public is fed a certain story—the real story is happening under a cover of secrecy , because the public can not do their own research in these cases , this is once again why transparency needs to exist in a number of important facets and ways .
And another example in fact of how the media responds to this —I included the mention in that video on “ Don ’ t do your own research ” —about Chris Cuomo on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It ’ s illegal for you to hold these stolen Wikileaks documents , but it ’ s okay for us , the media.
” which of course is 100 % false .
It is not illegal to have Wikileaks documents , to download them .
They are out there now , it is not illegal to own them .
But the media wants you to believe that you literally can not even look at these documents .
Only they can look at them and interpret them for you , and that I think @ @ @ @ @ @ @ insight into the ways that these people operate in their mindset , which again , is that the media will control the narrative and they will tell you what to believe .
Dan : Yes , you know , an interesting thing is , in some cases , like , you could say , okay , before 1995 , 1996 , How did we find out the information we needed to make a correct choice about whatever war the US is going to get into ?
And I guess now , we don´t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can search for it ourselves .
But even when we learn new information , sometimes they still try to push a different narrative .
And one of the things I was thinking about where we listened to the experts and we got bitten for it was the war against Spain .
The US-war against Spain .
Wasn´t it Randolph Hurst who said : ” Give me the pictures and I ` ll give you your war !
” And I thought : “ Well , ok. There´s where we needed , like we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the public , to go into a war .
Well , talking about experts I just went to a history channel article online and the title was : “ Did yellow journalism fuel the outbreak of the Spanish-American war ?
” And , they say : ” No !
No !
Absolutely not , absolutely not.
“ And it begins : ” No serious historian of the of the Spanish-American war period embraces the notion that the yellow press of Hurst and Pulitzer fomented or brought on the war with Spain in 1898 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of communications at American University.
” So they ’ re still trying to downplay the fact that yes , the press has an absolute crucial role in this .
Corbett : I would have to read that specifically but I might actually agree .
In that the yellow press didn´t foment the war .
It didn´t really cause the war .
It ginned the public into the war hysteria that allowed the democratic process to pass this war , essentially make it part of the governments processes .
But the war itself was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was sold to the public through the press and that.. , I don´t know , I ` d have to read that article , but I´m assuming they are playing on that distinction and hoping people won´t notice .
Dan : Well , in any case , we both agree that wars do have to be sold to people and that is the job of the press .
Corbett : Absolutely .
Without public support this can not function .
And that´s again exactly why they want to consolidate and to control all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what you can and can not look at and what you can and can not research .
Dan : Right .
Great , well James we will definitely link to your video , your 25 minute video and then people can get a link to the original forbes article and not have to go straight to their page and give them the hits .
Just to finish up here : a year ago I did an interview with Scott Horton and I finished up with YNP-10 .
And having you on here with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sick of Covid myself—and I thought we might cover a couple of other topics real quick .
But in a quick ratatap form .
I have ten questions and I wonder if you could answer yes no or pass .
It ’ s called YNP-10 , and if you want to leave a comment on any one of them that ’ s fine with you , would you be up for that ?
Dan : Ok , here we go .
Number one : did Jeffrey Epstein run an extensive blackmail operation using @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two : would the US and the world be better off if anyone connected to Jeffrey Epstein was barred from positions of power and influence ?
Corbett : Yes .
Qualification : it depends on what you mean by connected ?
But yes in any meaningful sense of “ connected , ” yes .
Dan : How about they , they took a flight on the Lolita Express , they went to Sex Slave Island .
Corbett : Yes I ’ d say that is connected , yeah , absolutely .
Dan : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ soirees in Manhattan .
Dan : Three : Google may be worse than useless for finding the truth , but wouldn ’ t you say we can count on honest and untainted search results from DuckDuckGo , startpage etc ?
Corbett : uhm because I don ’ t think that—there is no such thing , I think , as meaningful unbiased search .
I mean there , unless you ’ re simply returning based on keywords the number of times that keyword pops up in the search results or something .
That is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ search results .
And that is useless because then people just start gaming it and start putting the words on the screen a million times to make it pop up in the search results , so you need some sort of algorhythm that will shape and will rank certain things higher and lower .
So there is going to be a bias in search results , which is why I think the answer is not DuckDuckGo or startpage or bing or whatever , SwissCows or SearX .
No , it ’ s every @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hopefully come to a better triangulation of the search results your looking for .
This is a tough one you might have to be careful .
Should homogenous Japan be punished with sanctions for not accepting more refugees from war torn developing countries such as Syria ?
Corbett : No .
Punished by who ?
No .
Dan : Yea that ’ s an obvious one for me too .
Five : Do you think Assad purposely and repeatedly gasses his own citizens ?
Dan : Ok , six : Do you think @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the US and simultaneously plotting to “ wipe Israel of the map.
” Dan : Seven : Do you think since Venezuela is an economic basket case and suffers under corrupt socialist rule , a coalition of free countries led by the US should invade and spread some democracy down there ?
Dan : Ok , Eight : Do you think that in the minds of the powers that shouldn ’ t be , it ’ s really truth that needs to be suppressed and banned not lies .
Corbett : In the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t be ?
Dan : Nine : did the Israeli pilots know they were shooting at a US Navy ship when they attacked the USS Liberty ?
Dan : Ok , and well you know they claim they didn ’ t know.. you knew that ?
Corbett : Yea but , I am pretty sure there is NSA intercepts that have been declassified now .
I do have that listed in a video that I did called “ A Brief History of False Flags , ” I believe .
I ’ ll have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , I am sure its admitted , or not admitted because they don ’ t talk about it , but at any rate the evidence is there that one hundred percent they knew .
Dan : Right , ok James none of your answers have surprised me .
Last one I don ’ t think you will surprise me here either .
Maybe !
Will James Corbett come to his senses take Bill Gates advice and get the vaccine for himself and his family ?
Corbett : No .
At least not , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no , I reserve the right to choose what medical interventions I take and my family takes and no one gets to tell me what to do , in that matter .
Dan : Ok , well on that note Mr. Corbett thank you very much for the interview it was enlightening and – Thank you very much .
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth , peace , and freedom news .
Send resources to the front lines of peace and freedom HERE !
Follow us on SoMee , HIVE , Parler , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Provide , Protect and Profit from what ’ s coming !
Get a free issue of Counter Markets today .

By The Corbett Report
Dan Williams of kla.tv interviews James Corbett about the recent Forbes article warning the hoi polloi not to do their own research.
They discuss the agenda behind this exhortation and why independent thinkers doing their own research is the bedrock of any truly free society.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download | Embed
Watch on Archive / BitChute / LBRY / Minds / YouTube or Download the mp4
Transcript courtesy kla.tv:
Dan: So James, back in July I read an interesting article on forbes.com, and it was an editor’s pick so it must have been good, and the title of the article was: “You must not do your own research when it comes to science.” And I kind of had a chuckle and it struck me right away. And of course the gist of the article was: Well look, all of us normal people, we have jobs, we’ve got families, wives, responsibilities, we couldn’t possibly have enough time to research the important issues especially concerning medicine, and therefore you need to defer to the experts. After all I´m not an epidemiologist, so, okay, sounds reasonable. Can you find any flaws in that logic?
Corbett: I can find a few and I will encourage people at this point to go watch the video that I did on this subject called: “Don’t Do Your Own Research – #PropagandaWatch!” where for my regular propaganda watch series I dealt into this article. And not to perform a performative contradiction here and tell you: ”Don’t look at his article!” Because of course, I think you should! You should research. You should study things for yourself. So I have a link in the show-notes for that video, not to forbes which clearly wants the clickbait, rage-click, “Hey, what is he talking about click”, and they get the advertising dollars. I will lead them to archive.is where it does not go to their servers, they do not get the money for it, so I would suggest people would check that link. But do read the article and look at the argument that is being made, which, as you say, at the surface level sounds reasonable enough. But as soon as you start to dig into the details it becomes, shall we say, “problematic” to use the lingo of the moment.
Just as sort of the surface level approach to this, a level that I’m sure everyone can understand regardless of political persuasion: We have in the western system of jurisprudence that is derived from the English common law and all of that, we have the idea of a “jury of your peers”. That in a court of law, when you are trying to prove murder or whatever it is, you have to convince these twelve peers that this or that happened. And you bring in the experts to make their case and this expert says this and that expert says that. But ultimately it is the twelve peers – the people who are not experts who may or may not have any sort of accreditation, may or may not have any familiarity. It is the job of the experts to convince these people, the regular folk that their viewpoint on this is the right one.
That is the model one would presume that people in the media would be promoting. “We’re here to bring you this expert opinion, this opinion and we are putting it in front of you and then you decide.” Remember when that used to be the tagline?: “You decide.” No, no, not any more. You are not competent to make your own decisions about conflicting reports from expert opinions. We tell you now what those opinions should be.
Which as it was recently noted by Derrick Broze over at The Last American Vagabond. He had a great article up about “Are we in an anti-science-society?” or something along those lines. People can look up the exact headline. And he makes the point that they constantly try to say that the people these days are pushing an anti-science objective because they are against vaccination or they are against this or they are against that. When in fact it is the people who are promoting that viewpoint, who are themselves anti-science, in the real sense, because science is not a body of facts. And if you disbelieve these facts then you are anti-science. No! That is not what science is. Science is a methodology, it is a tool for coming to understanding that rests on skepticism and doubt, and not believing anything 100% wholesale all for eternity, “I swear on this book of science that I believe these things.” No! We come to our own conclusions based on the evidence that is presented to us.
And yes, 100%, people will make errors. They will have poor judgement on these things. But, so be it. That is freedom. People will come to erroneous conclusions, but that is actually how we progress. We build on mistakes of the past. That is what science is actually about. So media telling people that they must believe the experts that we select actually puts the media in the position of being the god-emperors of this universe of science that they are trying to promote. Because they get to decide which experts you have to listen to and which experts you shouldn´t hear at all. And I think anyone with two brain cells to rub together will understand that this comes from a perspective of an agenda that is being pushed.
Dan: Agreed. After I read the article I just jotted down four quick points on why I thought, “Well, no, you can’t just defer to the seven o’clock news experts.” And if I could run through each point and you could say: “agree, disagree.”
Number one: the experts can be wrong as you just said! Right?
Corbett: Yes, exactly.
Dan: Number two: experts serve other interests, besides the public’s interests mainly their own financial interests.
Corbett: The only quibble with that is “mainly.” Some may be purely financially motivated or mostly financially motivated, others might have other motivations. But you are right, that again there is no such thing as an objective viewpoint in science or anything else and everything is a question – well I mean it does, in our system as it works today, it does rest on funding. So who is funding this study and why and for what purpose? And what results are they excluding, etc.? As you say, the excluded context is manifold.
Dan: Right and can there be any better case example of expert opinion that might be influenced just a bit by financial interest when it comes to say vaccines and the new Covid vaccine coming up?
Corbett: Yeah, exactly. Of course the pharmaceutical companies literally have a vested interest in promoting a certain line on vaccination safety and efficacy. And anything that goes against that is literally against their bottom line, so do you think they would fund studies that are showing problems with their safety and efficacy? Of course they would not. Would they spend money in terms of just marketing in a sense to denigrate people who are denigrating their product, of course they would. Any business would do that, but that is exactly why we have to know their business interests and there has to be disclosure of those kinds of financial ties as part of our, the general public’s ability to understand these experts and their motivations.
Dan: Right. My third point is: There are experts out there who might not be getting on the seven o’clock news and one group of experts might disagree with another group of experts. So who do we choose? What do you think about that point?
Corbett: Yeah, no, that is exactly right, and that’s what I am saying with regards to the media putting themselves in the position of rulers, essentially, by saying, “You have to trust the science, but we will only present you this science. We won’t present you these scientists, we won’t present you this, what we present to you is the truth.” And that puts them, the media, actually in the position—it’s not even the scientists then that are holding all the cards, it’s the media that decides you get to hear this viewpoint, you don’t get to hear that viewpoint. And actually we see specific examples of that, of researchers like a Knut Wittkowski or a John Ioannidis, or name a million others during this current Covid [situation], who in the past would have been and have been heavily and prominently featured in mainstream science reports, but now their viewpoint is not being discussed because it goes against the agenda that is being pushed. So now you don’t get to hear those scientists. “Oh, those are quacks now that we have decided they’re quacks.”
Dan: Right, right. My fourth and last point was that even the consensus experts themselves, forget about the other experts we’re not allowed to hear, the consensus experts themselves contradict themselves and they, they send out contradicting information.
Corbett: Yes, the idea that there is a monolithic, singular message here, again is—we have to understand—this is a media construction. The narrative is created at the narrative layer of what the media is saying and they will use this quote and this piece of evidence and this study. So it’s not even—yeah, as you say—it’s not these scientists are approved scientist in everything they say, no this, this thing helps us to put forward the narrative and this thing and this thing. So, again, it’s the people who are creating that narrative who again are putting themselves in charge. It isn’t hard to see why people in the media would argue that the media gets to decide what is right and wrong and you just have to sit there and listen.
Dan: Right, right and specifically to the corona virus, examples where they disagree themselves over time is obvious stuff like: In a pandemic the infected should be quarantined. That was yesterdays thinking right. But now in a pandemic everybody should be quarantined. Here is another one, yesterday’s experts: masks don’t help. OK, that was as of late as April or May. I think it was from the CDC or Fauci. New expert consensus: you need masks to defeat this virus. Yesterday’s experts: we need to put Covid patients on ventilators. New expert consensus: we ain’t pushing that. Old expert consensus: this is a this is a big one and this came from the Canadian Health Minister, I think I saw it on your video a month or two ago, I think her name is Tam and she says, well, first, the old expert consensus—most recently this would be promoted by Gates and company—we’ll be able to get back to normal when we have a vaccine. New expert consensus: the vaccine though absolutely necessary is no silver bullet. We are looking at continued strict measures for two or three years. Have you seen that one?
Corbett: Yes, yes I’ve seen all of the things that you’re talking about there, all of the seeming contradictions. And of course the obvious counter rebuttal to that would be to say, “Yes this is how science works. We believed something yesterday. We got new evidence. We adjusted our theories accordingly. So we thought masks were ineffective. Now we know they’re effective.” OK, now present the evidence for that. Now lay that case out and explain it to me in a way that I understand.
But on top of that, on top of that you also have to say: well then people who were questioning those experts back when that was the expert consensus opinion being presented by the media several months ago, they were wrong and people were right to question them. But are we allowed to question? Because I thought we have to just believe the science. And the science was wrong, but we should have believed them even though they were wrong? It’s nonsensical on its face. You have to do mental pretzel knots to try to come to some sort of conclusion that you should never think of these things. You should never question anything.
Anyone who tells you never question anything is by definition, I would say, your enemy in some sense, your intellectual enemy at the very least and should be treated as such. My message accordingly, has always been and will always be to do your own research. Quite explicitly: do not believe what I am saying. Please look at the sources. And that’s why I always list the sources on everything that I do.
And actually I gave a talk on that concept of open source journalism several years ago at the FOSSA (free open source software arena) conference in France. And in that presentation I highlighted how back in the day, the New York Times, you could go to their website and you could read an article on their website! Wow, you know, we’re living in the future world, you can read articles on the web! But there you could read through an entire article and there would not be one hyperlink to any information. And fast forward to 2013 or whenever I gave that talk – and oh you could find maybe one or maybe two hyperlinks in an article but it would just be linking to other New York Times articles, of course. It wouldn’t be linking to the source documents. They would write entire articles about this document that was just released by the government or this thing, this new study but they wouldn’t link to the study. They wouldn’t link to the document. Again, because they want to be the arbiters of the truth and they do not trust you, you poor plebs with this valuable information that only we can read and interpret.
Dan: Oh, that reminds me of recently with one of my relatives. You know, I have a west-coast family, so I don’t talk about this much, but at one point I said: Ok I have gone in enough, I have seen enough, I should send them the best article I have seen on this Covid situation – it came from a University of Oregon professor. And it was chuck-full of references and hyperlinks and all to doctors, researchers, institutions, universities, and I sent it. And my relative sent me back something – and he says: Ah, that guy is just armchair quarter-backing, look, take a look at this – and you know, it was a 40-minute talk by Bill Gates with no hyperlinks, no references.
When I read the article, it took me about a day and a half to say to myself: “Hm, I wonder what Corbett thinks about this”. And wow was I happy to see it took you like 3 days to make a 25-minute video on it. It was great. And I said to myself, you know as a supplement to that I wonder if we could talk about a couple of instances, historical instances, they could be distant or recent where we have really shot ourselves in the foot by just believing the experts. And I think that the clearest example of these kinds of things when it comes to war—and I’m thinking of say Colin Powell’s speech in front of the UN and how all the experts lined up behind him. Interestingly there were a few experts that weren’t lining up behind him, but suddenly they didn’t become experts anymore, and I think of Scott Ritter – and I think of – who is the general? Norman Schwarzkopf himself – he looked into it and he decided “no, the experts are wrong, we shouldn’t get into this war.” You notice how those guys are in the wrong expert group when they don’t agree with the 7 o’clock news theme.
Corbett: Right, Yeah.
Dan: So, anyway, and I was also thinking about possible examples of where we’ve ignored the experts and where we had said “no, we’re not gonna listen to a consensus” and the public is going to go against it. And in my case I thought of – let’s see – our secretary of State, John Kerry, during the Obama administration was standing up there saying that we need to go put boots on the ground in Syria. And there was actually a public outcry against that one. So in that case we didn’t listen to the experts. We ignored them, and for our own benefit, I think. Can you think of any other examples in medicine, in war, in – I don’t know – war and drugs or something where listening to the experts has really been the wrong approach – I mean, there is lots, right?!
Corbett: Yeah, there is. In fact my mind boggles, I’m thinking of really any of the works that I do that doesn’t in some way address this very question. I think, everything that I do is based on this. But of course we have to make the little asterisk and stipulate that when we say “experts,” again, we are talking about the certain approved experts that are—at least in this particular case—bolstering a particular narrative that’s being used to forward a particular agenda, and to then thereby exclude any other “expert” opinion. I personally have developed an aversion to that word “expert.” That is not to say that there are not authorities on certain subjects who have spent their entire lives diving into it and know it a lot better than other people, but “expert” is generally a word that is used simply to turn people’s brains off and to stop them from functioning.
So, as you say, I think, the most obvious examples and the most pressing examples are the ones that have led the nation—whatever nation you happen to be in—into war. Time and time again throughout history, those have generally been, for at least the last couple of centuries, the result of outright lies. Specifically because of course back in the day you could just have a king issue a proclamation “we are at war” and you are at war, but in some sort of democratic society, however loosely or tightly you define that, you have to motivate the public for war and the only way that can be done is through some version of war atrocity propaganda, false flag terrorism, something along those lines, to make the public believe that their enemy is a vital, present threat that’s here right now and we have to go after them.
So, my examples that I would bring up in this context would be something like the Gulf of Tonkin incident which we know now 100% from NSA intercepts and others, the second incident at any rate did not happen, and yet, that was at least the trigger for what became really the Vietnam war. The escalation of that war at any rate. And we know that was a cynical lie that was being forwarded by McNamara and others that knew that the incident that they were talking about didn’t take place, but that was just the fig leaf of justification.
Again, people—unfortunately with these types of things we run into the wall: yes, of course, do your own research—but at that time in 1964 what kind of research could people have done, because the intercepts and the NSA analysis, that was all behind the wall of secrecy. No one knew about that for 50 years until it was finally released to the public. So how do you prove that they are lying when you don’t have the research? But that’s actually just a further bolstering of the idea that we need transparency, and we need the public to be able to examine evidence. Because when it is behind that wall of classification and secrecy, then all sorts of lies—that are demonstrable lies—that get exposed half a century later—take place—and those lies lead us to war.
Another example of course is 1953, Operation TPAJAX – which was a CIA/MI6 operation to destabilize Iran and overthrow Mohammed Mosaddegh as the president of Iran. And again: we now know that it has been a long known—but it was finally “confirmed” shall we say by the release of CIA documents back in 2013, Obama gave a speech about it, yes, we went in and overthrew the government of Iran. It was on the record. And as I covered recently on my program, just in the past couple of weeks there is this new documentary that now confirms MI6 involvement—again, not that we hadn’t known it but confirmes some of the dates, names and places of MI6 involvement in that operation.
That again—the public is fed a certain story—the real story is happening under a cover of secrecy, because the public cannot do their own research in these cases, this is once again why transparency needs to exist in a number of important facets and ways. And another example in fact of how the media responds to this —I included the mention in that video on “Don’t do your own research”—about Chris Cuomo on CNN saying to his audience: “It’s illegal for you to hold these stolen Wikileaks documents, but it’s okay for us, the media.” which of course is 100% false. It is not illegal to have Wikileaks documents, to download them. They are out there now, it is not illegal to own them. But the media wants you to believe that you literally cannot even look at these documents. Only they can look at them and interpret them for you, and that I think that is just such a window of insight into the ways that these people operate in their mindset, which again, is that the media will control the narrative and they will tell you what to believe.
Dan: Yes, you know, an interesting thing is, in some cases, like, you could say, okay, before 1995, 1996, How did we find out the information we needed to make a correct choice about whatever war the US is going to get into? And I guess now, we don´t have an excuse, right? We can search for it ourselves. But even when we learn new information, sometimes they still try to push a different narrative.
And one of the things I was thinking about where we listened to the experts and we got bitten for it was the war against Spain. The US-war against Spain. Wasn´t it Randolph Hurst who said: ”Give me the pictures and I`ll give you your war!” And I thought: “ Well, ok. There´s where we needed, like we say, we needed propaganda to convince the public, to go into a war.
Well, talking about experts I just went to a history channel article online and the title was: “Did yellow journalism fuel the outbreak of the Spanish-American war?” And, they say:” No! No! Absolutely not, absolutely not.“ And it begins: ”No serious historian of the of the Spanish-American war period embraces the notion that the yellow press of Hurst and Pulitzer fomented or brought on the war with Spain in 1898, says Joseph Campbell, a professor of communications at American University.” So they’re still trying to downplay the fact that yes, the press has an absolute crucial role in this.
Corbett: I would have to read that specifically but I might actually agree. In that the yellow press didn´t foment the war. It didn´t really cause the war. It ginned the public into the war hysteria that allowed the democratic process to pass this war, essentially make it part of the governments processes. But the war itself was motivated by much deeper motivations. It was sold to the public through the press and that.., I don´t know, I`d have to read that article, but I´m assuming they are playing on that distinction and hoping people won´t notice.
Dan: Well, in any case, we both agree that wars do have to be sold to people and that is the job of the press.
Corbett: Absolutely. Without public support this cannot function. And that´s again exactly why they want to consolidate and to control all sources of information and to tell you what you can and cannot look at and what you can and cannot research.
Dan: Right. Great, well James we will definitely link to your video, your 25 minute video and then people can get a link to the original forbes article and not have to go straight to their page and give them the hits. Just to finish up here: a year ago I did an interview with Scott Horton and I finished up with YNP-10. And having you on here with your encyclopedic knowledge—I am kind of getting sick of Covid myself—and I thought we might cover a couple of other topics real quick. But in a quick ratatap form. I have ten questions and I wonder if you could answer yes no or pass. It’s called YNP-10, and if you want to leave a comment on any one of them that’s fine with you, would you be up for that?
Corbett: Let’s do it.
Dan: Ok, here we go.
Number one: did Jeffrey Epstein run an extensive blackmail operation using underage sex slaves?
Corbett: Yes
Dan: Number two: would the US and the world be better off if anyone connected to Jeffrey Epstein was barred from positions of power and influence?
Corbett: Yes. Qualification: it depends on what you mean by connected? But yes in any meaningful sense of “connected,” yes.
Dan: How about they, they took a flight on the Lolita Express, they went to Sex Slave Island.
Corbett: Yes I’d say that is connected, yeah, absolutely.
Dan: Or even one of his New York soirees in Manhattan.
Corbett: Right. Yeah, yes.
Dan: Three: Google may be worse than useless for finding the truth, but wouldn’t you say we can count on honest and untainted search results from DuckDuckGo, startpage etc?
Corbett: No
Dan: Why not?
Corbett: uhm because I don’t think that—there is no such thing, I think, as meaningful unbiased search. I mean there, unless you’re simply returning based on keywords the number of times that keyword pops up in the search results or something. That is the only objective unbiased way to form search results. And that is useless because then people just start gaming it and start putting the words on the screen a million times to make it pop up in the search results, so you need some sort of algorhythm that will shape and will rank certain things higher and lower. So there is going to be a bias in search results, which is why I think the answer is not DuckDuckGo or startpage or bing or whatever, SwissCows or SearX. No, it’s every search engine: you compare results and hopefully come to a better triangulation of the search results your looking for.
Dan: Got it.
This is a tough one you might have to be careful. Should homogenous Japan be punished with sanctions for not accepting more refugees from war torn developing countries such as Syria?
Corbett: No. Punished by who? No.
Dan: Yea that’s an obvious one for me too.
Five: Do you think Assad purposely and repeatedly gasses his own citizens?
Corbett: No.
Dan: Ok, six: Do you think Iran is itching for a fight with the US and simultaneously plotting to “wipe Israel of the map.”
Corbett: No.
Dan: Seven: Do you think since Venezuela is an economic basket case and suffers under corrupt socialist rule, a coalition of free countries led by the US should invade and spread some democracy down there?
Corbett: No.
Dan: Ok, Eight: Do you think that in the minds of the powers that shouldn’t be, it’s really truth that needs to be suppressed and banned not lies.
Corbett: In the minds of the powers that shouldn’t be?
Yes.
Dan: Nine: did the Israeli pilots know they were shooting at a US Navy ship when they attacked the USS Liberty?
Corbett: Yes.
Dan: Ok, and well you know they claim they didn’t know.. you knew that?
Corbett: Yea but, I am pretty sure there is NSA intercepts that have been declassified now. I do have that listed in a video that I did called “A Brief History of False Flags,” I believe. I’ll have to double check that reference but yeah, I am sure its admitted, or not admitted because they don’t talk about it, but at any rate the evidence is there that one hundred percent they knew.
Dan: Right, ok James none of your answers have surprised me. Last one I don’t think you will surprise me here either. Maybe!
Will James Corbett come to his senses take Bill Gates advice and get the vaccine for himself and his family?
Corbett: No. At least not, not like that, no. No no, I reserve the right to choose what medical interventions I take and my family takes and no one gets to tell me what to do, in that matter.
Dan: Ok, well on that note Mr. Corbett thank you very much for the interview it was enlightening and – Thank you very much.
Corbett: Thank you
Become a Patron!
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth, peace, and freedom news. Send resources to the front lines of peace and freedom HERE! Follow us on SoMee, HIVE, Parler, Flote, Minds, and Twitter.
Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.


activistpost--2020-10-14--Bankrupt Restaurant Chains Hand Their Keys To The Lenders

Last week , California Pizza Kitchen canceled its auction after no worthy bidders came forward to buy the casual-dining chain .
The result : The company will likely end up in the hands of its lenders .
That came the same week that Ruby Tuesday started its bankruptcy process with a plan that hands the keys to the chain to its lenders .
Such deals are far from uncommon and totally understandable .
But it ’ s indicative of the state of the business that once-venerable chains can ’ t even scrounge up bidders to help fuel bankruptcy auctions .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ for bankruptcy since the pandemic have ended up sold in credit bids .
CraftWorks , the owner of Logan ’ s Roadhouse and Old Chicago that declared bankruptcy before the pandemic , was sold through a credit bid in May .
Aurify Brands acquired both Le Pain Quotidien and Mayson Kaiser by first acquiring the debt for the two brands and then using that to take over the company .
To get an idea of why this is happening now , we asked Petition , a journalist who covers corporate bankruptcies and restructuring @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s going on .
“ With too many restaurants per capita pre-pandemic and uncertainty about COVID-19 heading into winter , strategic buyers are scurrying to their foxholes to avoid the shakeout , ” they said .
“ Existing lenders have no choice but to play out their option , hoping that less competition , strong digital adoption and execution , a slimmer balance sheet , a reduced footprint and focused management will bridge them to an industry comeback.
” To be sure , the companies above occupy some of the most challenging @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Both Le Pain Quotidien and Maison Kayser , for instance , are bakery-cafe concepts in urban areas .
Those types of concepts face an uncertain future thanks to empty offices as consumers work from home , along with a potential flight of residents toward the suburbs .
Ruby Tuesday has been struggling and shrinking for more than a decade .
It has closed nearly half of its units since 2017 and is less than a third of the size it was back in 2008 .
Bar and grill casual dining itself faces significant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chain , is also shrinking .
California Pizza Kitchen is another casual-dining chain .
But it was built around pizza .
Consumers have shifted much of their pizza consumption to delivery , leaving full-service pizza concepts behind .
Buyers simply aren ’ t ready to take the plunge on those types of concepts .
The business for dine-in sales is weak .
It is also expected to remain weak for some time .
That leaves the companies with little choice but to hand the keys to the lenders and walk away .
Any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ company reduced to only the most profitable locations .
And they ’ re going to want that company for a considerably smaller price than the face value of the secured debt .
A lot of investors live to buy concepts through credit bids .
They buy the secured debt on the secondary market , often for considerably discounted prices—lenders , believing they ’ ll be unlikely to get their money back and eager to get an unworkable loan off the books , will sometimes sell the debt at a discount .
Investors step @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That can give them the inside track when a company ends up in bankruptcy .
If a buyer willing to pay the face value of the debt emerges during an auction , the investor can make money based on the discount they paid for that debt .
If not , they get the chain and can run it until the situation improves .
But such sales can often prolong the life of a chain that wouldn ’ t survive on its own , extending the life of “ zombie ” chains that aren @ @ @ @ @ @ @ innovating and simply exist .
The pandemic , of course , is creating zombies in all sorts of industries .
Restaurant chains included .
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth , peace , and freedom news .
Send resources to the front lines of peace and freedom HERE !
Follow us on SoMee , HIVE , Parler , Flote , Minds , and Twitter .
Provide , Protect and Profit from what ’ s coming !
Get a free issue of Counter Markets today .

By Jonathan Maze at Restaurant Business
Last week, California Pizza Kitchen canceled its auction after no worthy bidders came forward to buy the casual-dining chain. The result: The company will likely end up in the hands of its lenders. That came the same week that Ruby Tuesday started its bankruptcy process with a plan that hands the keys to the chain to its lenders.
Such deals are far from uncommon and totally understandable. But it’s indicative of the state of the business that once-venerable chains can’t even scrounge up bidders to help fuel bankruptcy auctions.
Indeed, several companies that have filed for bankruptcy since the pandemic have ended up sold in credit bids. CraftWorks, the owner of Logan’s Roadhouse and Old Chicago that declared bankruptcy before the pandemic, was sold through a credit bid in May. Aurify Brands acquired both Le Pain Quotidien and Mayson Kaiser by first acquiring the debt for the two brands and then using that to take over the company.
To get an idea of why this is happening now, we asked Petition, a journalist who covers corporate bankruptcies and restructuring, to get an idea of what’s going on.
“With too many restaurants per capita pre-pandemic and uncertainty about COVID-19 heading into winter, strategic buyers are scurrying to their foxholes to avoid the shakeout,” they said. “Existing lenders have no choice but to play out their option, hoping that less competition, strong digital adoption and execution, a slimmer balance sheet, a reduced footprint and focused management will bridge them to an industry comeback.”
To be sure, the companies above occupy some of the most challenging sectors or subsectors during the pandemic.
Both Le Pain Quotidien and Maison Kayser, for instance, are bakery-cafe concepts in urban areas. Those types of concepts face an uncertain future thanks to empty offices as consumers work from home, along with a potential flight of residents toward the suburbs.
Ruby Tuesday has been struggling and shrinking for more than a decade. It has closed nearly half of its units since 2017 and is less than a third of the size it was back in 2008. Bar and grill casual dining itself faces significant questions—TGI Fridays, once the leading casual-dining chain, is also shrinking.
California Pizza Kitchen is another casual-dining chain. But it was built around pizza. Consumers have shifted much of their pizza consumption to delivery, leaving full-service pizza concepts behind.
Buyers simply aren’t ready to take the plunge on those types of concepts. The business for dine-in sales is weak. It is also expected to remain weak for some time. That leaves the companies with little choice but to hand the keys to the lenders and walk away.
Any buyer of such chains will want that company reduced to only the most profitable locations. And they’re going to want that company for a considerably smaller price than the face value of the secured debt.
A lot of investors live to buy concepts through credit bids. They buy the secured debt on the secondary market, often for considerably discounted prices—lenders, believing they’ll be unlikely to get their money back and eager to get an unworkable loan off the books, will sometimes sell the debt at a discount.
Investors step in and buy the debt cheap. That can give them the inside track when a company ends up in bankruptcy. If a buyer willing to pay the face value of the debt emerges during an auction, the investor can make money based on the discount they paid for that debt. If not, they get the chain and can run it until the situation improves.
But such sales can often prolong the life of a chain that wouldn’t survive on its own, extending the life of “zombie” chains that aren’t growing and aren’t innovating and simply exist. The pandemic, of course, is creating zombies in all sorts of industries. Restaurant chains included.
Sourced from Zerohedge
Become a Patron!
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth, peace, and freedom news. Send resources to the front lines of peace and freedom HERE! Follow us on SoMee, HIVE, Parler, Flote, Minds, and Twitter.
Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.


activistpost--2020-10-14--WATCH: The Fact-Free COVID Dystopia

WATCH: The Fact-Free COVID Dystopia

When it comes to Covid-19 , bureaucrats and politicians keep moving the goalposts , changing the rules , and engaging @ @ @ @ @ they can maintain the “ new normal ” dictatorship .
Those who object , we @ @ @ @ @ just want people to die.
” It ’ s now becoming clear that “ you @ @ @ @ @ life back in some states unless you take it back.
” From the Mises 2020 @ @ @ @ @ the historic Jekyll Island Club Resort on Jekyll Island , Georgia , on 9 October @ @ @ @ @ follow him on Twitter .
Visit Mises.org and subscribe on YouTube .
Subscribe to Activist @ @ @ @ @ , and freedom news .
Send resources to the front lines of peace and freedom @ @ @ @ @ SoMee , HIVE , Parler , Flote , Minds , and Twitter .
Provide , @ @ @ @ @ ’ s coming !
Get a free issue of Counter Markets today .

By Thomas E. Woods
When it comes to Covid-19, bureaucrats and politicians keep moving the goalposts, changing the rules, and engaging in bait-and-switch tactics, so they can maintain the “new normal” dictatorship. Those who object, we’re told, “just want people to die.” It’s now becoming clear that “you can’t have your life back in some states unless you take it back.”
From the Mises 2020 Supporters Summit, presented at the historic Jekyll Island Club Resort on Jekyll Island, Georgia, on 9 October 2020.
Visit TomWoods.com and follow him on Twitter. Visit Mises.org and subscribe on YouTube.
Become a Patron!
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth, peace, and freedom news. Send resources to the front lines of peace and freedom HERE! Follow us on SoMee, HIVE, Parler, Flote, Minds, and Twitter.
Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.


activistpost--2020-10-14--China Releases Military Propaganda Video Invading Taiwan

China has threatened to “ seize an island ” presumed to be Taiwan during a live-fire drill video widely circulated in its media .
The video marks the fourth threatening military propaganda film that the Chinese military has released in under six months .
In the recently released video which was syndicated by state broadcaster CCTV ( China Central Television ) on Saturday , troops from the People ’ s Liberation Army ( PLA ) can be seen simulating an attack on an unidentified island during a large-scale military exercise .
The video is 2 minutes and 35 seconds long @ @ @ @ @ @ @ montage of military drills held by China , The Telegraph reported .
The military maneuvers coincided with Taiwan celebrating a holiday known as National Day .
The footage comes as political tensions between China and Taiwan have spiked to a new high after Beijing aired a purported confession from a Taiwanese businessman who is held captive by Chinese authorities on spying charges , Dailymail reported .
It ’ s also worth mentioning that last month , China sent 18 fighter jets and bombers into the Taiwan Strait in a show of force that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a warning to Taiwan and the United States about their increasing political and military cooperation within the region , The New York Times reported .
This buzz by fighter jets was amid a meeting with a diplomatic official , Keith Krach , the undersecretary of state for economic , energy and environmental affairs .
This follows another mysterious meeting by a higher-up official in July-August , Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar .
Upon Azar ’ s visit to Taiwan , Chinese state media angrily threatened to retaliate by holding live-fire missile @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , last month , Chinese aircraft crossed what ’ s known as the “ mid-line ” and entered Taiwan ’ s air defense identification zone , prompting Taiwan to scramble jets to intercept them .
A Twitter account by the Defense Ministry has been archiving all the incidents see : “ @ MoNDefense.
” “ The Taiwan region is an inalienable part of China ’ s territory , ” said Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Wang Wenbin , according to an official transcript .
He added that the “ so-called ” mid-line of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Taiwan Defense Ministry reports , China has threatened or entered into Taiwan ’ s airspace 46 times in just nine days , the island ’ s defense ministry said , in a statement , Aljazeera reported .
China claims Taiwan is its territory and threatens to use military force to bring under its control the island that is a self-governing democracy and close U.S. ally , CBS reported .
Taiwan and the U.S. are now said to be in economic talks and that ’ s the reason for these diplomatic meetings .
These @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has warned the U.S. of “ serious damage ” to their relations if they do not withdraw , the Associated Press reported .
On Saturday , the Taiwanese President stated in an address that she has hopes for less tensions with China and in the region if Beijing will listen to Taipei´s concerns , alter its approach and restart diplomatic talks with the self-ruled island .
Speaking at Taiwan ’ s National Day celebrations on Saturday , Tsai used recent remarks by Chinese leader Xi Jinping in a video message to the UN @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hegemony , expansion or to establish a sphere of influence , Anewspost previously reported on this statement .
“ As countries in the region and around the world are now concerned about China´s expanding hegemony , we hope this is the beginning of genuine change , ” Tsai said in her annual address at the Presidential Office in downtown Taipei .
However , China seems to have responded to Tsai ’ s call for peace with a new video showing Chinese soldiers taking control of an island during a military exercise .
This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The live-fire training session also featured — amphibious crafts , attack helicopters and land-based missiles .
The footage released by CCTV is said to have been filmed during a drill off China ’ s southeastern coasts of Fujian and Guangdong provinces .
Anewspost has been covering the ongoing and constantly evolving geopolitical relations between China and the U.S. for months now .
Recently , we reported that China ’ s President Xi Jinping warned that war was on the horizon if things didn ’ t turn around , adding that China didn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a cold war or hot conflict , but it would defend its national interests .
However , as Anewspost reported , China ’ s military has painted a much different picture releasing several frightening videos aimed at the U.S. More recently , the People ’ s Liberation Army Air Force published a video of nuclear-capable H-6 bombers carrying out a simulated attack on Andersen Air Force Base on the U.S. Pacific island of Guam .
That isn ’ t the first video release that seems aimed at the U.S. either .
The Chinese @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) has previously published a video on social media showing Hong Kong air defense drills as Anewspost reported .
Beijing ’ s state media has previously warned any attempt to prevent China from accessing its interests in the region of the South China Sea could risk sparking a “ large-scale war.
” Even the UN chief Secretary-General Antonio Guterres warned that the tensions between the U.S. and China were moving in a dangerous direction that could fracture the world and turn into a military conflict .
“ We must do everything to avoid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said .
“ We are moving in a very dangerous direction.
” He added , “ Our world can not afford a future where the two largest economies split the globe in a great fracture .
A technological and economic divide risks inevitably turning into a geo-strategic and military divide .
We must avoid this at all costs , ” Guterres said .
Guterres isn ’ t the only political official to warn about increasing tensions with China becoming into a hot conflict .
A top Republican lawmaker Rep. Ted Yoho ( R-Fla. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Affairs subcommittee on Asia , the Pacific , and Nonproliferation recently predicted that an armed war with China was imminent .
“ I would predict there will be a clash within the next three to six months , ” Yoho told the Washington Examiner .
The Florida Republican predicted that armed conflict will be triggered by a Chinese naval attack against the U.S. Pacific Fleet , which often commands a strong presence in the South China Sea , as Anewspost reported .
Nikkei Asian Review warns that if the U.S. were to recognize @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” it would likely be the spark needed to fuel the fires of war between America and China , expressing the risk of war is “ rising rapidly.
” While the U.S. and China is certainly a serious situation that needs to be watched , the potential conflict to heavily scrutinize even more is one much closer to the region between China and Taiwan .
Taiwan previously released its own military propaganda video in late August fending off a Chinese attack , the South China Morning Post reported .
The war drums @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Alex Baldridge is an activist and freelance journalist from the Midwestern United States who was inspired to become a writer after watching the development of the WikiLeaks story and the persecution of Julian Assange .
Alex is especially interested in topics like surveillance , the rise of automation , foreign policy , prison reform , and the legal system .
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth , peace , and freedom news .
Send resources to the front lines of peace and freedom HERE !
Follow us on SoMee , HIVE , Parler @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Provide , Protect and Profit from what ’ s coming !
Get a free issue of Counter Markets today .

By Alex Baldridge
China has threatened to “seize an island” presumed to be Taiwan during a live-fire drill video widely circulated in its media. The video marks the fourth threatening military propaganda film that the Chinese military has released in under six months.
In the recently released video which was syndicated by state broadcaster CCTV (China Central Television) on Saturday, troops from the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) can be seen simulating an attack on an unidentified island during a large-scale military exercise. The video is 2 minutes and 35 seconds long complete with dramatic music matched to a montage of military drills held by China, The Telegraph reported.
The military maneuvers coincided with Taiwan celebrating a holiday known as National Day.
The footage comes as political tensions between China and Taiwan have spiked to a new high after Beijing aired a purported confession from a Taiwanese businessman who is held captive by Chinese authorities on spying charges, Dailymail reported.
It’s also worth mentioning that last month, China sent 18 fighter jets and bombers into the Taiwan Strait in a show of force that a military official in Beijing said was a warning to Taiwan and the United States about their increasing political and military cooperation within the region, The New York Times reported.
This buzz by fighter jets was amid a meeting with a diplomatic official, Keith Krach, the undersecretary of state for economic, energy and environmental affairs.
“Those who play with fire are bound to get burned,” Senior Col. Ren Guoqiang, a spokesman for the Chinese Ministry of National Defense, said at a briefing in Beijing, warning the United States and Taiwan against what he called “collusion.”
This follows another mysterious meeting by a higher-up official in July-August, Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar.
Upon Azar’s visit to Taiwan, Chinese state media angrily threatened to retaliate by holding live-fire missile drills near Taiwan and Guam.
Simultaneously, last month, Chinese aircraft crossed what’s known as the “mid-line” and entered Taiwan’s air defense identification zone, prompting Taiwan to scramble jets to intercept them. A Twitter account by the Defense Ministry has been archiving all the incidents see: “@MoNDefense.”
Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen previously called China a threat to the entire region.
“The Taiwan region is an inalienable part of China’s territory,” said Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Wang Wenbin, according to an official transcript. He added that the “so-called” mid-line of the Taiwan Strait does not exist.
The Taiwan Defense Ministry reports, China has threatened or entered into Taiwan’s airspace 46 times in just nine days, the island’s defense ministry said, in a statement, Aljazeera reported.
China claims Taiwan is its territory and threatens to use military force to bring under its control the island that is a self-governing democracy and close U.S. ally, CBS reported.
Taiwan and the U.S. are now said to be in economic talks and that’s the reason for these diplomatic meetings. These meetings have angered China and the country has warned the U.S. of “serious damage” to their relations if they do not withdraw, the Associated Press reported.
On Saturday, the Taiwanese President stated in an address that she has hopes for less tensions with China and in the region if Beijing will listen to Taipei´s concerns, alter its approach and restart diplomatic talks with the self-ruled island.
Speaking at Taiwan’s National Day celebrations on Saturday, Tsai used recent remarks by Chinese leader Xi Jinping in a video message to the UN General Assembly that China would never seek hegemony, expansion or to establish a sphere of influence, Anewspost previously reported on this statement.
“As countries in the region and around the world are now concerned about China´s expanding hegemony, we hope this is the beginning of genuine change,” Tsai said in her annual address at the Presidential Office in downtown Taipei.
However, China seems to have responded to Tsai’s call for peace with a new video showing Chinese soldiers taking control of an island during a military exercise. This island is presumably assumed to be Taiwan.
The live-fire training session also featured — amphibious crafts, attack helicopters and land-based missiles.
The footage released by CCTV is said to have been filmed during a drill off China’s southeastern coasts of Fujian and Guangdong provinces.
Anewspost has been covering the ongoing and constantly evolving geopolitical relations between China and the U.S. for months now. Recently, we reported that China’s President Xi Jinping warned that war was on the horizon if things didn’t turn around, adding that China didn’t want to get involved in a cold war or hot conflict, but it would defend its national interests.
However, as Anewspost reported, China’s military has painted a much different picture releasing several frightening videos aimed at the U.S. More recently, the People’s Liberation Army Air Force published a video of nuclear-capable H-6 bombers carrying out a simulated attack on Andersen Air Force Base on the U.S. Pacific island of Guam.
That isn’t the first video release that seems aimed at the U.S. either. The Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) has previously published a video on social media showing Hong Kong air defense drills as Anewspost reported.
Beijing’s state media has previously warned any attempt to prevent China from accessing its interests in the region of the South China Sea could risk sparking a “large-scale war.”
Even the UN chief Secretary-General Antonio Guterres warned that the tensions between the U.S. and China were moving in a dangerous direction that could fracture the world and turn into a military conflict.
“We must do everything to avoid a new Cold War,” Guterres said. “We are moving in a very dangerous direction.” He added, “Our world cannot afford a future where the two largest economies split the globe in a great fracture. A technological and economic divide risks inevitably turning into a geo-strategic and military divide. We must avoid this at all costs,” Guterres said.
Guterres isn’t the only political official to warn about increasing tensions with China becoming into a hot conflict. A top Republican lawmaker Rep. Ted Yoho (R-Fla.) who sits on the House Foreign Affairs subcommittee on Asia, the Pacific, and Nonproliferation recently predicted that an armed war with China was imminent.
“I would predict there will be a clash within the next three to six months,” Yoho told the Washington Examiner.
The Florida Republican predicted that armed conflict will be triggered by a Chinese naval attack against the U.S. Pacific Fleet, which often commands a strong presence in the South China Sea, as Anewspost reported.
Nikkei Asian Review warns that if the U.S. were to recognize Taiwan and end the “one-China policy,” it would likely be the spark needed to fuel the fires of war between America and China, expressing the risk of war is “rising rapidly.”
While the U.S. and China is certainly a serious situation that needs to be watched, the potential conflict to heavily scrutinize even more is one much closer to the region between China and Taiwan. Taiwan previously released its own military propaganda video in late August fending off a Chinese attack, the South China Morning Post reported.
The war drums continue beating, louder than ever now…
Source: Anewspost.com
Alex Baldridge is an activist and freelance journalist from the Midwestern United States who was inspired to become a writer after watching the development of the WikiLeaks story and the persecution of Julian Assange. Alex is especially interested in topics like surveillance, the rise of automation, foreign policy, prison reform, and the legal system.
Become a Patron!
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth, peace, and freedom news. Send resources to the front lines of peace and freedom HERE! Follow us on SoMee, HIVE, Parler, Flote, Minds, and Twitter.
Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.