User talk:JasonCarswell

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
New logo large.png Welcome to RationalWiki, JasonCarswell!

Check out our guide for newcomers and our community standards!

Tell us how you found RationalWiki here!

If you are interested in contributing:

-ⅅℐᎯℳᎾℕDⅅℐЅC1 (talk) 02:59, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

None of the links on your user page work and I'll tell you why[edit]

None of the links on your user page work. That's because you did them wrong.

You can either type [ User Jason Carswell] or [[wikipedia:User:JasonCarswell|User:JasonCarswell]].

You can either type [ User:JasonCarswell] or [[commons:User:JasonCarswell|User:JasonCarswell]].

You can either type [ User:JasonCarswell] or [[wiktionary:User:JasonCarswell]].

Don't put in the dividing line when you type out the full URL. You only put it in when you type it the short way. Spud (talk) 11:10, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

@Spud Thanks. I fixed it and added a page of stuff. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 13:50, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Random note[edit]

Sheeple! Wake up and smell the goat! Bongolian (talk) 03:27, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

James Corbett[edit]

What's your take on James Corbett and the Corbett report? Pros, cons? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:58, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

@User:Reverend Black Percy - Hi. I love both the Corbett and Colbert Reports. But nothing is above being made fun of. I thought Rational Wiki was a good place for that. I am improving the Draft:James Corbett (journalist)Wikipedia and in my research I found (what I think is) hilarious edits made to the actual TCR deleted article. Because the James Corbett article needed more goat, I was trying to oblige. I was adding:
Not to be confused with The Colbert Report.
when I discovered you rolled it back. Please tell me why? ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 18:06, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello! The hatnote was a good idea, I'll re-insert that immediately. Thanks for thinking of it. Regarding the other edits, well... Look to our other articles, generally. We rarely, rarely ever cover wikidrama, in the sense that we pay much attention to since-reverted edits to the TOW articles on any topic at all. I also didn't think your improvement to the lead made it much better. Keep experimenting, though — worst case, you get reverted. No bigge. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:09, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
@User:Reverend Black Percy - Also, I wrote the article(s), it was rejected at Wikipedia, then I posted it here. It was weakly goated. I cleaned it up recently after it came to the attention of James Corbett and others. Watch this video then read the TCR comments section (not the YouTube comments) for the full disclosure of my involvement: So now I'm resubmitting an improved Wikipedia article, and sprinkling the Rational Wiki article with cheer. I'm not trying to be bad to RW, WP, JC, or anyone and I'm pretty sure that JC would get a kick out of it. I intend to share the revisions with him soon, whether he bothers to look or not is up to him. I do hope for feedback from him and The Corbett Report members. Some of them may even contribute (I was really hoping for more help from them). ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 18:17, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
I could be wrong, but I think it's relevant in this case. My edits to the lead focused the "humour" where it was more appropriate. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 18:19, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
@Reverend Black Percy - I'm unclear how to proceed. Should I give up here or can I continue? Would it be too much to ask to be able to finish editing it my way? Then in a day or few (depending how long it takes me to get through it) you can return and improve or butcher it as you like while I'd be happy it's at least archived. I'm curious, ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 18:33, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Draft article[edit]

Here, I created you a draft article. In it, I restored the edits I had rolled back, too. In this article, you can work uninterrupted — you have the last say on what goes in it (within the limitations of the law and the community rules, of course). Finish what you started here. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:47, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

@Reverend Black Percy - Thanks. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 18:57, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

If that's your opinion, man[edit]

But I wish you wouldn't call RationalWiki a "mainstream media brainwashed and dogmatic politically oblivious website" on your user page. I happen to think our interactions have been useful, and the reason I helped you set up a draft article was so that your changes would not be lost. You're free to condemn us as much as you please, of course, but I just hope that maybe that harsher judgement of the site was based on bad interactions with other users, perhaps from long ago. Just saying. It's a little bit of a letdown to read those words you pit against us and the entire platform, because honestly, they contribute to that type of polarity which you seem to be against. If you wanna call Wikipedia that, fine. The mainstream media that, also fine. But most of us are actually here (on RW) to help, and I don't think you're any different in that regard. Nuance is, after all, an important tool of the skeptic. Oh well, just my two cents. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:35, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not here to cause trouble. Like everyone I'm here to contribute on a forum at least willing to acknowledge alternative views, even if you use pejorative phrases like the CIA's disparaging "conspiracy theorist" term. It's embraced among the community as a badge of honour but outside it's usually an insult. James Corbett and Sibel Edmonds are occasionally long-winded and hyperbolic but they are doing vastly superior work of contextualizing and making sense of things than all mainstream media which intentionally provokes, divides, obscures, and works for the corporate overlords that control the government of our rigged globalized establishment systems. That's a mouthful but no less true. I'd be happy to consider rephrasing my sentiments if RW changes their approach of their own accord. They're not likely to create sub-classification scales of conspiracy analysts - say from "Moonbat Crackpot" to "Legitimate Griper" - but I'm not going to ask them to nor would I expect them to.
When I first started I perused the Saloon and participated a bit. I was trying to explain stuff with basic historical examples to no avail. I got busy for a week and came back later to find the "ISIS=CIA" discussion archived. I didn't feel the need to dredge it up and provide examples of black masked men with western military arm tattoos and British accents. However I did laugh my ass off learning a new word - JAQing off. That term and others here are entertaining ways of shutting down conversation and supporting circular logic. But people are annoying.
I completely concur on the polarity point. Everyone thinks they are right. No one is. I don't know of any but if you think of any tips, tools, or the like to bridge the "gap" I'm totally keen because it can be shared and applied everywhere.
So far as I see it, the only certainty in my mind is that it's all of us against the elites' rigged systems of manipulation and exploitation and everything they do is to get us to fight each other rather than see behind the boob tube. We're groomed to accept a boss who exploits you without a say in the matter rather than have a democratic workplace. The more that boss is willing to exploit, the higher they rise, until they're not just exploiting in their industry but people are getting hurt or killed. I don't expect everyone will just give up their Prussian education of subservient drones, but maybe some will. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 13:55, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello? You there?[edit]

Just checking up on the original creator of the article I have edited so much on, would say I have brought it one third the way for a bronze brain star. Also, you edited your page in 2016, are you still active? What do you think of the article now, it is terribly biased, but I think it fits with RationalWiki Sqrt-1 (talk)

Hi @Sqrt-1. Thanks for reaching out.
Bummer that RW got hacked in 2017 and all the passwords were stolen. I was forced to change mine. I hope they don't get hacked again.
I came to RW after I was banned from WP in 2016-2017 for a year for being "another polite truther" and for writing stuff like the initial Wikipedia-like (sans-goat) Corbett article which is now forked here, long outdated and very incomplete for the most part. (InfoGalactic has it's pros and cons, and I may stick around there for a while, but eventually I'll be settling down on WikiSpooks despite not having the deep encyclopedia and classic format I prefer. I've also been heavy on for the last couple years, though we shall see how well it deals with growth.) I tried to make nice with the locals on RW in their Saloon Bar but I've found that Rational Wiki is not so rational. Sure it's easy grasp low hanging skeptic fruit and doubt the existence of an invisible impotent or uncaring God (or manufactured economic crash due to a hyper-overreaction to an invisible potentinal virus threat less deadly than the flu or prescriptions, fast food, tobacco, alcohol, and driving, also a totalitarian excuse to censor, destroy small businesses, and social engineer people into fear-hating and ratting out their non-compliant neighbours), but people freaked out when I questioned government authority and powers and suggested that the CIA had profound influence in ISIS activities which has long since been established and justified, not least with the lack of support for Tulsi Gabbard's "Stop Arming Terrorists Act" which would have been hella simple if they were serious, though it would have put a dint in their Hegelian dialectic. But I digress.
To your work on James Corbett - good stuff I guess. Obviously you put some effort in and believe you're doing good. I'll go over it and point out things along the way and you may choose to do with that what you will.
The opening quote is cleverly loaded. I'm hoping you actually watched the documentary, because it's all verifiable, worrying, and he and others have been warning of all this long before COVID-1984 and HR:6666. "Literally" as in figuratively you can say anything, but actually if you want a better summary of everything you need to know about conspiracies then I recommend "How" and "Why Big Oil Conquered The World" by Corbett. Really, it's all there.
Corbett is not an anarcho-capitalist. He's a voluntarist. There's no shortage of him declaring so. Also citing the anonymous "Prop-Or-Not" (likely CIA assets) is about as shitty a source as you can get. You might wanna update that Russian fake news shit since the Russiagate thing has been proven false though it was a limited hangout and virtually every Billionaire has ties to Russia and their Zionist mafiya (The Antedote (sic) does good analysis on the authentic Russiagate).
I don't think he's been on RT for some time now. Boiling Frogs Post changed into NewsBud with a pay wall and Corbett didn't continue there after the rearrangement. A couple years ago there was a dramatic rift between Edmonds and Corbett when he called out some of her shit and she tried to counter smear only looking like a petty amateur. I always meant to go back and document that for my own IG article but it's sensationalist shit about almost nothing, other than Sibel making herself look bad then worse for a moment in time. That's the only "scandal" I know of that Corbett has been in.
You have pejorative loaded terms describing The Corbett Report. Our glorious leaders will not acknowledge "chemtrails" yet the synonym "geoengineering" is acceptable and is a real thing, as we've been saying all along. "Climate change denial" is as loaded as "Holocaust denial" automatically painting anyone with questions, much less any skepticism as anti-Semitic.
It's flat out FALSE that ANY his articles are locked behind a paywall. ALL of his work is free. 100%. He lives on donations and memberships to his discussion forum below his videos and articles on his site - all freely available. Back when this Corbett article was cited by Prop-Or-Not cited by the Washington Post as was covered in that YouTube video, he gifted me a free membership, perhaps for life since it hasn't expired. I use it on occasion.
Corbett is about un-brainwashing. It's clear you're writing not only from a biased and brainwashed state but you clearly know little about your subject.
I see some of my writing remains a bit, though awkwardly twisted in places. I also agree he's not often funny when he tries, but that's not his strong suit.
"Dangerous morons" would be a better description of most folks in positions of authority, not "conspiracy theorists" trying to end wars, suffering, exploitation, corruption, pollution, etc. to improve the lives of all of humanity, not just serve the ruling class. You can add that he's against Agenda 21 as well as the Carbon Tax Scam.
"He is your usual conspiracy theorist spreading the classic bullshit..." linking to bullshit. This is the classy bullshit expected on "Rational"Wiki. No substance, just smears. I'd be insulted if I didn't already expect it. I can read this kind of bullshit from any other mainstream media source except they won't even give him any airspace at all because they can't afford to accidentally have people even know about him because they might just look him up and wake the flock up. It's called dynamic silence when the media either ignores you completely or actively demonizes you regardless of truth so that you are no longer viable in the sheeple public's eye.
Corbett never said he believes Gates created the pandemic, though close enough as Gates certainly has a role to play in the well organized global LockStep lockdown (look up the LockStep documents) and the Event 201 which really happened.
"Despite the numerous scientific studies conducted that conclude..." and despite the numerous scientific studies that counter it. The establishment has us all intentionally "confused" in this manufactured crisis. You can pick any statistic and counter it with other statistics. As long as there is no singular truth then there is no debating it. Hypernormalization controls and supports all sides while keeping everyone fenced in within their sphere of control, meanwhile we're all forced to have blind faith in their privatized scientism rather than authentic open science that is universally verifiable.
I don't have time to nit-pick your pro-Gates stuff. Corbett did the research and shared it with citations on his freely OPEN not paywalled site. You can look at those yourself and try to refute them if you like. Clearly you're not into proper research, or you'd know that you can find "such pictures of Bill Gates" by doing research. While you're at it you might also check out some of the many pieces Corbett has done on the biases of "fact checkers".
If Gates were serious about helping people in India he'd bring them sanitation and plumbing to save lives. He is a eugenicist always talking about population control - which is another myth. If our "great leaders" seriously wanted to help humanity they'd stop promoting disposable consumerism and actually support sustainable natural lifestyles within our means not dependent on chemicals, plastics, and third world slave-wage factory products for the middle class. The powers that be don't want independent thought or media so now that they've herded everyone onto YouTube, Facebook, etc they can just ban the fringe and keep the rest controlled and brainwashed. Unfortunately few people are going to ever read your lame article, or mine for that matter, certainly not enough to matter and not enough for us to live on. The difference is I'm trying to make the world a better place and your trying to smear it with shit. Be the asstroll that you are, but at least get good at it.
Gates harming people with vaccines extends faaar beyond what Corbett reported and what you tried to counter. You might want to check out these subs on SaidIt: VaccineSkepticism, Bill_Gates_is_Evil, Billionaires, Healthcare, Coronavirus, CorruptScience, just to name a few off the top of my head. That kind of content would be censored on corporatocracy sites like Wikipedia, Reddit, Facebook, etc. You can also find more in WikiSpooks' Vaccine articles and WikiSpooks in general.
It's interesting that you take the time to be serious and detailed quoting the well-paid powers that be and their "official" narrative on “the case of mass psychogenic illness” incident when it only serves your purpose. Believing the government, any government, like the Chad government, is beyond naive and foolish, like the sheeple they "lead" and exploit.
Commercial break: I took a moment to post this on
'Documentaries' doesn't cover documentaries. It only gripes about the Bill Gates one. There are many more. Look at the InfoGalactic article for more of the important ones. Even if you were to try to rip them apart you'd be giving him more exposure and some people would actually see them non-ironically.
Are you paid directly or indirectly by any Bill Gates' ventures? This RW Corbett article is skewed and heavily dwells on Gates too much when there is certainly no shortage of other Corbett content to pick apart. What is your agenda? (Besides smearing.)
GMOs needs citations to back up the unfounded claims that Corbett things GMOs cause cancer. Also, protip: You'll want to tie in fertilizer (like Bayer-Monsanto's RoundUp a proven actual carcinogen) and chemical corporations for their engineered dependency relationship with GMOs. This article makes no mention that the European Union has severe restrictions on GMOs.
NWO good quote. "Unless I tell you it's not." But why/when would he ever. Disaster capitalism is a legit thing. Look it up, read Naomi Klein's "The Shock Doctrine". But that's old school. Surveillance capitalism is the new big thing. The walls are closing in and all the shit the conspiretards and conspirophiles have been wailing about is coming true. Maybe there actually is something to this conspirituality.
"He believes that Trump wants to establish some New World Order." This is ridiculous and false. The NWO has been around a lot longer than Trump and is an ever evolving process as the ruling class volley among themselves for power yet all generally agreeing with the status quo matrix of rigged systems all feeding their bank accounts.
"how every movie in existence is specially designed to spread propaganda and misinformation brainwashing the masses" False again on many fronts. He hasn't covered every movie in existence. There are a lot of shitty movies that don't do much at all. There are foreign movies that have few agendas. Making a movie without an agenda is making a movie without a point of view - like a documentary without a topic or an essay without a thesis. As far Hollywood goes, yes, most of them feature propaganda from exceptionally mild to in your face obvious. Many simply maintain the status quo. Despite no shortage of careers ripe for drama, there's certainly a monopoly and dominance of CIA, FBI, cops, prisons, lawyers, judges, politics, etc in media to perpetually remind you that "justice" exists and that we must always obey the "authorities" and their mafia-like monopoly on violence, and even if they are clown idiots in a comedy, their authority is never questioned. It's more prevalent than a weekly church sermon to remind you that God exists. Brainwashing propaganda to make everyone obey.
"Only believe the books on NWO I told you to read!" He never says anything remotely like that. He's always open to other views, never dictates, and is always saying stuff to the effect: "Don't just trust me, look it up for yourselves, and make up your own mind. Think for yourself."
If we're allowed to ask questions about the officials and their official narrative, but not ask questions about the official "fact checkers" you seek answers from, is that really okay with you? These are limited hangouts at best. If you don't even know what a limited hangout is then you don't understand manipulation and how they are manipulating us all. There is a vast glossary of political, tradecraft (spycraft), and deep state jargon that the public is oblivious to.
I can point you to truth-seekers who rant. James is not one of them. If he refutes people who attack him I'd say he's justified in countering those claims.
9/11. "Don't ask us how." Because you're not even going to bother looking into it. I'll tell you how: Anthrax. All the Democrats and the mainstream corporate media fell in line shortly after 9/11 to only spout the "official" narrative even though it makes little sense - because they were silenced by fear of the Anthrax. How are these politicians and media funded - the military industrial academic complex. War is profitable. If you can't question the very fundamental foundation of the global war of terror then you are living in a totalitarian state. But can you even realize it, and how would you ever know if you don't or won't or can't question?
Climate Change, because science is never corrupted? Blind faith in corporations pushing shitty products and services on you for maximum profit seems completely legit to me. /s Give me a fucking break. Scientism is worse than ever since COVID. One day everyone hates the government and the media, the next there's a scamdemic and everyone's believe their contradictory claims and laughable science. Again, if we can't question science then it's scientism. Proper science needs to be open and universally provable. Climate Change is necessary to the official bullshit so they can create the global Carbon Tax scam that will be profoundly unfair to the poor people and poor nations of the world. It's another angle at which totalitarianism is herding humanity into the cages of Agenda 21, which is curiously absent from this hit job article.
The "Special guests and interviews" is more out of date than my InfoGalactic article. The "See also" section could have huge number of topic covered on TCR. "External links" is lame, since he's profoundly distanced himself from Boiling Frogs aka NewsBud, yes you've linked both to the same. If you wanted you could include a link to my InfoGalacic Corbett article, to the CorbettCommenters feed and discussions on Saidit, or any other number of Corbett-related sites - or even to his work on Global Research.
Full disclosure: I did not look up any of your citations on your hatchet job, nor am I going to bother countering much of your biased crap. We could both bring mountains of evidence to this battle but both lose.
I don't know what your agenda is or why you want me to look at your clearly biased bullshit article so much. I guess you ought to be proud for making anti-counter-propaganda since you clearly support the Big Brother "official" narrative. You'll get no praise from me. This is shitty writing and an obvious hit job. You could try to at least offer something complimentary once in a while to give the illusion of balance. But "Rational"Wiki doesn't even try to do that, and that's why few people visit it. If you thought it would piss me off, you're pissing into the wind. I can't condone it and I couldn't give a shit. If I were and SJW I'd have it banned or censored, but I'm not. You have your janky platform here riddled with the brainwashed, the immature, and operatives, and just like assholes, bellybuttons, and opinions everyone has them - and should. Bad ideas need to be countered with good ideas. Unfortunately, "lies get half way around the world by the time truth puts on its boots."
This has been slightly interesting with lots of slights. Not clever, not funny, not true, D+ for effort at generous best. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 01:00, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
You are not pissed off? This huge wall of text says otherwise. You wrote 7 insults in the same line in the last paragraph, and your obviously biased 2 page essay is littered with several more, only to end it by saying “I am not pissed of!!”. I can suddenly see why trolls like trolling so much, I think I might try it at WikiSpooks and InfoGalactic sometime. Ironic that you say “your janky platform” “that’s why few people visit it” “no one will see this article” whereas your article is situated on a nazi website and the Saidit forums you link to have less than 5 posts in them. You give the disclosure- “I did not look up any citations”, so why did you provide your arguments against this article which are THE EXACT SAME ARGUMENTS THAT THIS PAGE DEBUNKS and YOU JUST KEEP ON REPEATING THEM? like wtf dude? Why don’t you ACTUALLY try to debunk any of our arguments against your easily debunkable claims? Instead of repeating the same rhetoric everywhere and typing this out all by hand, why didn’t you actually do something productive and provide arguments why we are wrong and you are smarter than the almost entirety of the world’s scientists, researchers and journalists? — Unsigned, by: Sqrt-1 / talk / contribs