Talk:James Corbett/Archive1

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive page, last updated 9 October 2021. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page:   , (new)(back)

Article Origins[edit]

Full confessions: I wrote this draft for Wikipedia (rejected 2016-05-19, not revised), albeit a little biased, but they really have their guard up against alternative media. So I've brought it here for now, to build upon. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 21:41, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

If you're actually James Corbett, why don't you just admit it. This page reads like James Corbett wrote it. The page on Wikipedia was deleted because it did not clearly show importance. This is not inherently a criterion for deletion on RW. However, it currently reads like a press release, which could be grounds for deletion unless someone else takes the effort to suss out Corbett and clean it up. Bongolian (talk) 05:03, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
I am not James Corbett though in many ways I wish I was. Jesus Christ, John Connor, countless others and I all have JC as our initials too. (Watch the Memento movie to see what happens when similar names are confused.) I am a huge fan of his work. I know it reads like a press release because my first effort was allegedly too promotional so I tried to "neutralize" it and this was the result. Also, FYI, James Corbett lives in Japan and his unique voice is in all his videos, while I live in Windsor, Ontario, Canada and you can call me anytime (XXX.XXX.XXXX) to verify that my voice is not remotely the same. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 20:55, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
1. We don't allow doxing here (i.e., phone numbers of individuals). 2. We don't know who you really are and we don't really care that much. 3. The real point is that the initial article read like a press release. Bongolian (talk) 21:13, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Fair enough. I hadn't thought much about that. In addition to sounding like a press release (because it was intended for Wikipedia) the goat is also terribly stale and unimaginative. Linking to moonbat and crackpot instead of real concepts or humour is meh at best. I haven't visited here since I wrote it in August. The reason I'm visiting here now is because this article was linked, covered, and reviewed in a Corbett Report video ( ) and my comments below the YouTube video are ignored even more than here (especially my long comment claiming authorship). (I hope you can hear the tragic humour in my tear soaked giggling keystrokes.) This article is linked by another "fake news" article and list about "propaganda or not" and has become a news meme. I don't know if any of this is relevant to modifying the article or not. While not all wrong I know the NewsBud (yes, the B is capitalized) information is not quite all correct. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 21:30, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
The original draft may have sounded like a press release, but the current draft sounds like it was written by an opinionated college freshman who knows little about professionalism. Or like an Onion article. Also, there are a number of grammar errors that are too convoluted for me, an English professor, to want to fix right now.— Unsigned, by: Natbee / talk / contribs
On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: SigButt.png on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you. I suppose this where I am obliged to link you to SPOV. But yeah, it looks a bit bad. —Kazitor, pending 05:34, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
What do you think of this page now? ᴵᵐᵃᵍⁱⁿᵃʳʸ, or just ℂ𝕠𝕞𝕡𝕝𝕖𝕩? The S̸͉̄q̵͖͍̇͝͠ŗ̵̬̟̈́͂͘t̴̡̫̘͗̌-̸̟̰͂͑1̴͍̒͝ (talk) 10:23, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

The man's on-mission, that's for sure[edit]

Because his website is a cesspit of crank magnetism and woo. Do contribute to this article, just to show how utterly unhinged the man is. It's hilarious. NewFrenchHotness (talk) 15:36, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps if you were less a skeptic of this article and more a skeptic of government you might appreciate his work more too. If you don't believe in the Santa-God dogma why do you believe in patriotic dogma, these ridiculous corrupt political systems of over-regulating control and exploitation and war, and the mass hypnosis mind controlling government mainstream media propaganda? Wikipedia censors the shit out of alternative-history and politically sensitive articles - and much else besides. Corbett is huge in his circles which the government is trying to censor and discredit. Some of his videos get millions of views, not even counting the re-posted mirrors. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 20:55, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Your assumptions about me and my political alliegances say far more about you than they do about me. You don't give a fuck about the truth, you just wanna feel smarter than the next guy over. NewFrenchHotness (talk) 22:07, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
I don't know you. I don't assume anything about you. I said "if". You've assumed. Half of everyone is stupider than average - and too many who aren't are awfully close to the stupid half. And most of them will not be contributing "intelligent conversation" to the internet like this. So maybe I am smarter. Maybe I'm not. I AM skeptical. Of you, of government, and of all who obfuscate, manipulate, dominate, exploit, and exterminate here or abroad. That's pretty much all I can claim. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 06:26, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Then consider RationalWiki to be a Skeptic skeptic skeptic skeptic, where you are the assumed skeptic. Psedoskepticism at it's best. The Sqrt-1 talk 05:08, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
The entire website is basically anarchist propaganda... that's what it is. The Sqrt-1 talk stalk 04:10, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

November 2016 Updates & Full Disclosure[edit]

I thought it fair to at least document why I've returned to update and improve this page.

That's all I can think of that is if not interesting at least worth noting. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 00:05, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Not that it makes any difference but I approve of the improvement edits so far. Last time someone tried to half add a dead goat starved of any goodness. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 09:22, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Skeptics, assemble[edit]

So, read the talkpage. James Corbett is highly missional. However, this article could need some attention from people other than avowed fans of Corbett. Now, it's very honest to admit to liking him, and liking him doesn't have to mean the article is either good or bad as a result. And I'm not trying to rake up people who hate Corbett (if such people exist). But the fact is that Corbett is basically a moonbat, and he needs a more skeptical coverage. Besides, he's notable enough that the article deserves expansion, generally. That's all. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:15, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you here, not only is the Article short, it also tries to push this "Corbett-Lionel Law" as something genuine.If anything its message should be reversed: "The greater the horror, the faster conspiracy's Pop up." --Benaresh (talk) 18:06, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
A fanboy is not the best person to author pages on RW that are not science-oriented. The so-called "The Corbett-Lionel Law" just seems silly compared to the bullshit that Trump pumps out on the most trivial issues. As they stand now, both the "Special guests and interviews" and "Personal life" could just be deleted with no loss whatsoever. This is not Wikipedia. Bongolian (talk) 18:37, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
I think the "Special guests and interviews" should stay. It could function as "Best of.." compilation for his many Theories.--Benaresh (talk) 19:51, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. The "law" had to go, at least as it was then written. Bongolian (talk) 20:04, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I think you've done a really good job even from a divergent appreciation than my own avowed fandom. Unlike faux news, you seemed fair and balanced (though still brainwashed by the corporatocracy).
I am fascinated that you've included focus on the worst aspects of a person's history or work (James Perloff) implying they may always be like that even when it is not relevant. An actor may be terribly wrong about astrophysics or religion, but if interviewed about comedy it's not relevant. It's not rocket science. It's funny. It's also funny that I've liked what I've seen of Perloff, but now I must look further into his thing, and with a broader awareness be skeptical.
Similarly, at James Corbett's discovery of this article, declared by the video and heavily discussed in The Corbett Report comments (and YouTube comments which are less interesting) where he states that he may not be an atheist/agnostic. [1] I'm totally bummed about that.
In full disclosure, I contribute to the LionelWikipedia article and he deleted the "Corbett-Lionel Law" paragraph that I preciously salvaged into the WP Corbett draft. He'd made another Lionel's LawWikipedia that he repeats now and then so I (mistakenly) thought that this conception during an interview was notable. I know it's too awkward here but it is fascinating.
Keep up the good work. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 06:26, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
This isn’t really supposed to be 100% pure unbiased high quality journalism, it is from a rationalist perspective with a snarky style.The Sqrt-1 talk 05:14, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

To clarify[edit]

In case anyone's wondering, Corbett is really deep in crank magnetic "alternative media" conspiracy territory. We're still not debunking him nearly enough in this piece. Don't be afraid to make huge changes to the current article, as the current article is still almost a flattery piece. Compare to the tone in the Alex Jones, David Icke, Mark Dice or Natural News articles, for example. That's the tone we should be gunning for. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:52, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

The page is 100% editorializing. There are almost no facts, almost all opinions. I'd like to see some facts. — Unsigned, by: Natbee / talk / contribs

How about now? Eh? The Sqrt-1 talk 05:14, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

To be fair[edit]

When he does episodes, everything he makes claims of, is claims of others, refined. Like he will play an old official government video from WWII and then address something in there. He's not a spacekook (UFOs etc.), if he has a faith, he is like everyone with a faith that I like, he keeps it to himself and only a few time did the people he was interviewing annoyed me greatly (Jeff Broderick of Anarchapulco is complete joke and obviously paid to have those gatherings of alternative journalists all in one place and their data, if dumb enough to travel with some, stolen, anyways... He has cleaned up a lot of the people he will deal with, such as AJ, where he did show up from time to time in his earlier days, because of course AJ tries to grab anyone researching history beyond what's in your high school textbooks (and there is a lot more books with less omissions and of course more information that is sourced). James Corbett has a Master's Degree in English, he's taught English in Japan when he was short of money. The "conspiracy theorist" who says he is a Canadian RCMP spy is completely batshit, whenever he visits Canada (and he rarely did so after leaving his extremely polluted province of Alberta), he was confiscated jewellery and anything with gold he had, like his marriage ring) and cash. Canadian customs are known to be very rude and worse than American customs, I can confirm, I live close to the border, so I pay extra for a driver's license that counts as a passport, and it's always on my way back that they manage to get me angry just by their general attitude although it wasn't through an airport so I didn't have baggage where they could steal from.

Shortly, you're grasping at straws. Slowly and slowly even things I didn't consider real were confirmed by such paragons of humanity as John Brennan, the ex-CIA evil (it's likely a required qualitative to be head of that organization), where he said chemtrails are geoengineering and "stratospheric compound injections". I have tons of family in the Canadian army/air force and it's not even a secret, my grandfather was spreading ammonium nitrate in the atmosphere, apparently it was to prevent or as an adjunct to atmospheric nuclear tests, as the ammonium nitrate prevented the ozone layer from disappearing very quickly. But here I'm going into things I cannot substantiate, it is empiric data aka life. But the John Brennan quotes or paraphrasing is on record and real, you look it up yourself, intellectual laziness is a reason a lot of unneeded debates happen and energy gets wasted. It's good to be a skeptic, but I'd be a lot more skeptic of proxied websites (that cannot be identified) that comes out of the woodwork after the election of Trump, PropOrNot is not to be taken seriously, they've even modified their list after the whole thing. It's ridiculous that Corbett's article, right in the first phrase makes it official policy here that he's a paid Russian disinfo agent. Such a notion is so hilariously dumb.. if you've ever just given some of his most scientific podcasts(he always uses the scientific method, even when studying/showcasing a subject that is rather historic or one with very little data, correct or not, if he ends up thinking something makes no sense, it will be through patient research and then yes he will call something nonsense because he will have formed an informed opinion on the subject). Only a few times did I have problems with his choices, such as believing the September 23rd 2013 doomsday (well, not believing it, but he had made a banner with a generic meteor coming towards earth and opened an investigation, because a lot of rather not-so-great things were converging just a few days before, I can't remember all of them. But although he does discuss the occult, it is always with an open mind but with a reminder that there's likely nothing there except for the psychological side of how humans will do a lot to justify atrocious behaviour, and that's something we've done as a species ever since consciousness has shaken us awake. (talk) 15:12, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

It's better now. The goats have moved on to greener pastures. It could still use expansion if anyone wants to listen to the audio. I find untranscripted audio annoying since it's unsearchable, but also it's a red flag for possible crankery. Thanks for giving this article a push, RBP! Bongolian (talk) 21:18, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
To clarify, James Corbett is not the same as:
  • Alex Jones - IMHO spaz Christian anarcho-capitalist sell out, who now kisses Trumps ass where before he crapped on Clinton, Bush, and Obama more evenly.
  • David Icke - IMHO believes in lizard alien shit, need I say more? Okay, I will. He, like anyone can say a lot of true stuff. When he mixes it with woo it becomes conflated and then everyone just lumps all "conspiracy" analysts into the tinfoil hat. I wonder if he started exposing power then was shown photos of his kids and is allowed to continue exposing power as long as he mixes in crazy shit to keep his family from "accidents".
  • Mark Dice - I've never heard of him, but now I'll look and make up my own mind.
  • Natural News - Again, I don't know anything about it. I like nature so it must be good right? Or is it greenwashed astroturf? I'll look with a skeptical mind.
You could argue that James Fetzer has some good ideas, like many and like anyone, but can also be sloppy enough or uninformed on some issues he'd be wise not to publicly discuss to wash him out with seltzer. I don't know if James Corbett has ever crossed paths with Fetzer.
The point is, and why I brought up sloppy "academic" Fetzer, that, like you, they are all different with different skills and ideas. Corbett is about geopolitical control of power and the wars, history, psychology, and economics of manipulation, domination, and termination.
Regardless, real conspiracies do happen. All the time. All through history. We all can pitch in for or against a culture of McCarthyist witch-hunting regardless of whether there are any or not. All you have to do is point and scream. Or not. Ignore that at your own peril as the military police state rises. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 06:26, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
It dawned on me when she was staring me in the face. Ex-FBI whistleblower Sibel EdmondsWikipedia is likely Corbett's most frequent guest and they pretty much agree on everything. You guys have completely written her out of the article. She has had her Boiling Frogs Post for some time but is now expanding with the new NewsBud team of associates and partners. James Corbett is one. (I don't know exactly where BFP and NB begin and end. I think NB is an "umbrella" alt-news media network collecting BF and others into it.) They've always featured articles on each others websites probably because it expands audience accessibility and awareness, and I imagine for money. NewsBud set the record for biggest news media Kickstarter fundraising campaign raising $150k this summer, then again this fall. The point is that because Corbett and Edmonds are virtually ideologically identical, your views on both should be similar if not identical for whatever that's worth. You may need to re-calibrate your ideas of Corbett but then you might have to question all you've mislabeled/demonized/idolized. Or you could do Edmonds and her ilk.
Besides her omission, the reason I bring this up is that you don't have an article on Sibel Edmonds, Boiling Frogs Post, growing NewsBud, Lionel often featured on RT, or Richard D. Wolff. (Full disclosure: With Corbett, these people are my FAVES. It's very rare if I ever disagree with anything they say.) Marxist emeritus economics Professor Wolff frequently makes appearances and tours while his radio shows are growing rapidly in popularity since the 2008 crash and with the now worse crash looming. (FYI: Marxism, as defined by Wolff, a Marxist economics professor, is the critical analysis of the pros and cons of capitalism. Too many people equate Marxism with socialism, communism, voluntaryism, agorism, anarcho-capitalism, anarcho-syndicalism, anarcho-veganism... None of these ideas are the same, or even close.) Similarly I also like Yanis Varoufakis (Yanis VaroufakisWikipedia), Greek ex-finance minister who would not sell out his people to the EU banksters so they fired him.
Thanks for enduring this length. I hope it helps. Take it with a grain of avowed fanboy salt. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 07:20, 5 December 2016 (UTC)