Taking on James Corbett

Are the truth tellers interested in truth or science?

Personally, I had nothing against James Corbett. He was over in Japan, just like me, and he put out a regular Corbett Report that offers helpful information about what is really going on in the world which I read occasionally. He was clearly willing to talk about 9.11, about the COVID-19 operation, and about many critical issues that even the alternative media shies away from.

That said, I felt from the start that his reporting lacked the edge required. That is to say his reporting lacks clarity (who exactly is responsible for what, and how—what precisely was the chain of command, or what might it have been), it lacks a demand (put these people in jail, seize their assets because of these state crimes), and it lacked a plan (contact me or my friends and we will help you organize a movement).

Perhaps hidden forces blocked him from taking such steps, I thought to myself. And I was forgiving.

Then I was introduced to James Corbett by a friend, via email. I wrote him, I wrote him again, and then after three months, he wrote back. I will not share the correspondence, but let us say he did not time to meet me or talk to me, let alone do a talk with me. That is totally up to him, of course.

But then I saw him pushing these climate change is a myth narratives left and right. I do not hold the opinion there is climate change. There is but what exactly it is must be determined through a rigorous investigation. I have read quite a bit on climate change and it is clear, as I have stated here before, that although the research on climate change may be wrong, that those who are leading the charge to discredit the threat attack figures like Greta and Al Gore and refuse to take on the core serious scientific research.

So, when I saw James Corbett’s most recent post "The Climate Death Cult's Mask is Slipping" which attacked all assumptions there is a dangerous shift in the climate out of hand, I had to respond. My email gives the general contours, but let me just restate for the record that if someone is putting out statements about climate change that do not take on the real research, and is not willing to debate those who are looking for the truth but have a different opinion based not on bias, but on broad readings, than you are peddling an opinion, not engaging in science.

I doubt that there is anyone out there who thinks a debate between me and James Corbett would be a waste of time. I do not assume that theories of dangerous climate change must be true. They could be wrong—but they must be proven wrong through rigorous science. I know a lot more about what I am saying than Greta or Al Gore. And most importantly, I have been punished, not rewarded, for taking on climate change, the collapse of biodiversity, and other threats. You have to ask yourself why so many people have lost funding and jobs for taking a stand on climate change if it is a big conspiracy of the World Economic Forum.

I was deeply disappointed that James Corbett did not respond to my email. I would like to say that although I value his contributions, this marked silence is the silence of a coward. If he will not debate me, one has to wonder what he is afraid of?

Could it be that the mainstream climate change narrative is wrong, but that long-term climate change is reality that certain powerful forces do not want to discuss? Could it be that these postings are about emotions, not about science. Or perhaps could it be that James Corbett is an annointed opinion leader who inhabits a special space, up there with Joe Rogan, Robert Malone, Peter McCullough, Tucker Carson, and others who get to talk to famous people, who are quoted all over the place, but who avoid certain truths while promoting their “truth telling” credentials using half truths?

It is an open secret that certain truth tellers have been approved by Homeland Security and get to talk to people like Robert Kennedy and other people who speak too much truth do not exist. But do you really think we are going to overthrow this totalitarian system by playing along with its hidden rules?

Let me make it clear. If you are not willing to take on these serious issues scientifically, you are not doing anyone any favors.

---

[Emanuel Pastreich’s email to James Corbett]

Sent with Proton Mail secure email.

------- Forwarded Message -------
From: Emanuel Pastreich <epastreich@protonmail.com>
Date: On Monday, March 11th, 2024 at 0:55
Subject: a Consideration of "The Climate Death Cult's Mask is Slipping"
To: The Corbett Report from The Corbett Report

 James Corbett <[xxx]@corbettreport.com>

Dear James,

 I read this recent posting and I must say that although there is clearly all sorts of fraud used by multinational corporations to use climate change so as to force people to follow their dictates, that there is plenty of reason to believe that there is long-term catastrophic climate change. 

It is welcome that you pose challenges to accepted scientific positions, but in this case, you are quoting establishment figures, and not actual serious climate scientists. The debate needs to be about the scientific pillars of climate science, not the representatives of the UN and other corporate players. 

The fact that carbon dioxide is harmless does not mean that a change in the percentage of the atmosphere that is carbon dioxide cannot have a serious impact. it would be silly to dismiss such a possibility--it is of course possible such data is flawed, but that requires diving into the data and proving that a significant increase in carbon dioxide has no effect. I have not seen anything in what you have presented that proves this point. 

In any case, I would say that we must both take a skeptical and scientific approach to this issue. I am not ideological and no one is paying me to promote climate change. If anything, the opposite. 

I welcome you to a debate with me on the issue of climate change at which I think I can credibly demonstrate that although I do not claim to be an expert,  there is good reason not to dismiss the possibility that we are facing serious long term climate change related to human activities. 

I have already demonstrated my capacity to argue complex issues in my writings. I also do not enter into the debate with the assumption that I am right. It is entirely possible that I am wrong. But I must be proven wrong in a scientific method-and I do not think this will be quite so easy.

When I saw the 9.11 attack, I knew immediately that the story made no sense, and I said so.

When I saw the COVID 19 story pushed in January, 2020, I knew after reading three articles that the arguments advanced made no sense and did not justify the actions taken. 

When it comes to AIDS being a made up disease, however, I think the data is more complex and I would hesistate to fling around accusations.

When people tell me that viruses do not exist without wrestling with the primary research on virology, I cannot take them seriously. I would of course be open to the possibility that the entire field was fundementally flawed, but the evidence presented that I have seen proves only that we do not know as much about viruses as some experts claim--which is true. But it does not disprove the basic thesis. 

As for climate change, I have been reading about the topic for years and I fully recognize that carbon trading, carbon offset, carbon capture, electric cars are hyped, useless, or harmful. But I did not see tell tale signs that the narrative was fake. In fact I saw many efforts to surpress the early research on climate change, global warming. 

In any case, I really think there is no choice but to have an open debate on this topic that will allow us to determine what is true, what is not true and what we still do not know. The first stage will set out the general parameters. 

Do let me know what might be a good time.

Thanks

Emanuel

Emanuel Pastreich

On Sunday, March 10th, 2024 at 21:20, The Corbett Report from The Corbett Report <corbettreport@substack.com> wrote:

The Climate Death Cult's Mask is Slipping

THE CORBETT REPORT

MAR 10

]

by James Corbett

corbettreport.com

March 10, 2024

Have you heard the latest nonsense from the climate cultists?

No, I'm not talking about recycling human hair to change the weather.

And I'm not talking about the hot new fad of defacing works of art (and the US constitution) to end climate change.

No, I'm talking about the incredible, newly discovered (and peer-reviewed!) scientific fact that the act of breathing in and out is itself an offense against the weather gods. Or, in the slightly higher-falutin' language of the clickbait headline writers:

Humans Are Fueling Global Warming

By Just Breathing, Study Claims

Indeed.

But have you actually read the study that generated these headlines? And, more to the point, did you sift through that pseudoscientific propaganda to get to the blood-curdling reality that lies beneath the headlines? When you do drill down, you'll discover that the real utility of a "scientific" study like this one stems not from any perceived scientific merit, but from the role it plays in furthering a very dark agenda. And, armed with that knowledge, you'll be better equipped to confront the cultists' agenda.

Intrigued? Here, let me explain . . .

THE STUDY

Late last year, PLoS One published "Measurements of methane and nitrous oxide in human breath and the development of UK scale emissions," which posits that "[e]xhaled human breath can contain small, elevated concentrations of methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O), both of which contribute to global warming."

Or, in plain English: human breathing contributes to "climate change."

If you follow the link to the paper itself, you'll discover that its authors collected 328 "breath samples" from 104 British volunteers to determine whether or not human beings are guilty of exhaling greenhouse gases—in this case, methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O).

The results? It turns out that, yes, 31% of those sampled were found the be "methane producers" (handily abbreviated "MPs" in the paper) and "[a]ll participants were found to emit N2O in breath."

Zounds! Do you know what this means?!!

Yeah, neither do the researchers. Specifically, they were not able to account for variations in emissions from any of the volunteers based on any of the variables (age, sex, dietary habits, smoking habits) examined.

But there is one thing this crack team of scientists are sure of: that these startling results have revealed human breath to be a significant and hitherto neglected source of climate change.

But wait! That's not all.

We report only emissions in breath in this study, and flatus emissions are likely to increase these values significantly, though no literature characterises these emissions for people in the UK.

That's right, "flatus"! Your farts are really making the weather gods angry, folks! And don't even get me started on cow burps!

Luckily, the King of England has spent years developing state-of-the-art, cutting-edge technology to take on the cow burp threat.

Now if only someone would develop something similar for the human livestock.

Oh, right. Never mind.

Silliness aside, there are a few different responses you might have to the "news" that a "scientific" study has found you guilty of creating bad weather by breathing in and out.

If you're a climate cultist yourself (or someone who has unquestioningly absorbed the propaganda of the climate cultists), you might take this as vindication of your deep-seated hatred of humanity. Confirmed in your suspicion that humans are a cancer on this earth, you might choose to curl yourself in a ball and wait for the sweet release of death (assuming your remains can be composted in an environmentally friendly way, of course!). Perhaps you'll console yourself by throwing some soup on a painting or climbing atop a London Underground car or doing something equally productive.

Or, if you have more than two brain cells to rub together, you could choose to dive even deeper into the study and interrogate its assumptions, methodologies and conclusions.

•            Are 328 breath samples from 104 volunteers really a basis for drawing conclusions about the UK population (or the global population), for example?

•            And doesn't the fact that the assessed contribution of human-breathed CH4 and N2O (between 0.05% and 0.1% of total UK emissions) falls below the margin of error of national inventories render these conclusions statistically meaningless?

•            And, more to the point, did it really take an entire team of well-funded "experts" months of careful study and a peer-reviewed journal article to confirm that humans do, in fact, breathe?

Or, if you're a veteran of this kind of climate change propaganda, you might be tempted to simply roll your eyes, let out a (greenhouse gas-emitting) New World Next Week sigh, and go back to living your life as usual.

But wait. There is something very important happening here. With every story like this, the would-be controllers of humanity are telling you something about who they are and what they have planned for you.

WHAT IT MEANS

As is so often the case with this type of propaganda-masquerading-as-science, it turns out that the real trick to this scientific deception lies not in what is said, but in what is not said.

Specifically, in their conclusion, after acknowledging that they could find no correlation between diet and emissions, the study's authors conclude with a warning against downplaying the importance of this minuscule (and statistically meaningless) human-breathed greenhouse gas contribution and . . . that's it. The question of what is to be done with this information is left completely unaddressed.

Naturally, this is when the establishment mouthpiece "fact checkers" will arrive with their ACKSHUALLY to inform us that "Of course a scientific study isn't going to tell us what to do about the problem. They're simply documenting and quantifying the problem!"

But such a retort assumes that this study is being published in a perfectly objective vacuum. That it is the result of a process of dispassionate scientific inquiry that is only concerned only with measurement and experiment.

But it is not. It is in fact—as viewers of the Fake News Awards will know—the end result of a fundamentally biased and thoroughly corrupted marketplace of ideas in which only those results in line with the Climate Crisis dogma will be published and only those results suggesting a depopulation solution will be promoted.

What other conclusion is possible from these "breathing contributes to climate change" results? As the researchers themselves say: "diet or future diet changes are unlikely to be important when estimating emissions [from human breathing] across the UK as a whole." So, no change in diet is going to reduce this emission scourge. What can reduce the emissions caused by human breathing, then, other than reducing the number of humans who are breathing?

Of course, none of this is ever stated openly. It doesn't have to be. It is the inevitable logic of carbon eugenics, a sick and twisted ideology in which, as I pointed out 15 years ago, "human life is no longer something to be treasured, but something to be measured in carbon and then reduced." Or, in this case, humans are to be categorized as "MPs" and then reduced.

Does all this give you crippling anxiety? Does it make you question whether you should have children? Does it make you feel guilty for having been born yourself?

Of course it does. Story after story after story in the establishment media hammers home the point that more and more children and adolescents are now suffering from "climate anxiety"—a "chronic fear of environmental doom," as the American Psychiatric Association defines it. A recent study in The Journal of Climate Change and Health, for example, finds that 78% of young Canadians now say that concerns about climate change impact their mental health.

One need look no further than the (synthetically created) poster child of the green youth activist movement, Greta Thunberg, to see what such a mental health crisis actually looks like.

Now, here's the rub. You—as a healthy, loving, non-psychopathic human being—might expect that psychologists, psychiatrists and others in the mental health space would be interested in healing these poor children. In assuaging them of their guilt at having been born. In helping them realize that as sovereign individuals they have the power to change the world. In protecting them from the non-stop doom porn propaganda of the climate cultists.

But if you think that, you'd be wrong. No, the weaponized psychologists of the Dissent Into Madness crew are not helping youngsters to overcome their climate anxiety. They're actively nurturing it.

Take, for example, Britt Wray, a Stanford researcher who specializes in "climate grief" and mental health. In her estimation, climate anxiety isn't something to be treated, but something to be encouraged.

"Climate anxiety is not in itself a problem. [. . .] It’s actually a very healthy and normal response to have when one understands the escalating civilizational threat that we’re dealing with when it comes to the climate crisis."

Yes, the would-be social engineers are fully aware of the impact that decades of "the-world-is-ending" claptrap has had on the population. That's the entire point. As I observed last year in my editorial on the insane "carbon pawprint" propaganda being pushed in the name of saving the planet:

If you were a rich and powerful oligarch with eugenicist beliefs and a desire to cull the population, you would have a hard time devising a more effective plan for implementing your depopulation agenda than the one that is being rolled out before us.

First, you convince the public that their “emissions” are a threat to the long-term survival of humanity, and indeed of the planet itself.

Then, you habituate the masses into constantly calculating the “carbon footprint” of their daily activities and train them to accept ever-greater sacrifices in the name of reducing that “footprint.”

Finally, you convince the credulous commoners that the real problem lies not in their actions but in their very existence. You make them believe that life itself is the original sin against nature and that they would be less of a burden if they didn’t keep that pet. Or if they didn’t have that baby. Or if they themselves had never been born.

So, here's the real question:

WHAT WE CAN DO ABOUT THIS?

First, the bad news: you undoubtedly know someone—or, more likely, more than one someone—who feels guilty about existing and who believes that vast swaths of the human population must be killed in order to save the planet.

These are not necessarily bad people. Many of them have simply proven more susceptible to a lifetime of indoctrination, which has taught them that humans are a cancer on this planet.

These unfortunately trusting sheeple have been led along by the nose, believing that "the population bomb is about to explode!" and that they have to "do their part to save the earth" simply because they have heard these lies all their life..

But what does that mean, exactly. "Doing your part"?

At first, doing your part was easy. Trivial, even. "Reduce, Reuse, Recycle!" we were told as schoolchildren . . . only to find out years later that recycling is a scam and was known to be useless from its very inception.

Then, we were told to take more drastic action. We must start rationing. We must cut back! We must measure our carbon footprints and begin reducing them.

Next, things took a dark turn. We'd better start measuring our pets' carbon pawprints and reducing those, too! We must "eat ze bugs" to appease the weather gods! And we can't bring more children into the world, can we? Think of their carbon footprint!

And now, those unquestioning types who've obeyed every diktat of the climate cult have found themselves in the inevitable final chapter of this macabre narrative, in which our very breath is revealed to be a poison that is killing the earth! We must find a way to reduce human breathing!

Here we are, stumbling around like one of the characters in an old Twilight Zone episode. The entire world has gone mad and only a few of us can see it. What can we do to shake some sense into our fellow humans who are heading, like cattle, to the slaughterhouse?

Yes, we could engage in a calm, measured analysis of this "human breathing" study. We could take it at face value as an earnest (if flawed) attempt to quantify one contribution to atmospheric emissions and simply point out the statistical flaws and analytical errors it contains.

But to do that is to miss the point. This is not just another flawed scientific study. This is part of a sinister agenda. We can't just pick around its edges . We have to confront the lies at the very root. Life is not the problem. Life is sacred.

Yes, there are plenty of problems in what governments, militaries and corporations are doing to the environment. No one is denying that there are many things that must be changed if we are to preserve this world for future generations. But humans are the answer, not the problem. Culling the population is not a solution. It is a false template that has been inculcated in us by the inbred eugenicists who desire to get rid of us.

Unless and until people rediscover the timeless truth that human life is sacred, they will willingly march themselves into the slaughter pen and happily wait for the butcher's blade to descend. That is the most horrifying thought of all.

But finally, the good news: if you don't feel guilty about existing and if you don't believe that vast numbers of people must die in order to save the planet, then congratulations! You have managed to retain your intellectual sovereignty in the face of the largest, longest, most well-funded and well-coordinated propaganda campaign in human history. That fact alone is truly remarkable, and it's a testament to your resilience and to the unstoppable power of the dynamic human spirit.

Now, it's time to confront the propaganda head-on and rekindle our love of life. It is the only true antidote to the poisonous propaganda of the death cult.

Like this type of essay? Then you’ll love The Corbett Report Subscriber newsletter, which contains my weekly editorial as well as recommended reading, viewing and listening. If you’re a Corbett Report member, you can sign in to corbettreport.com and read the newsletter today.

Not a member yet? Sign up today to access the newsletter and support this work.

You're currently a free subscriber to The Corbett Report. For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.

Upgrade to paid

© 2024 James Corbett

c/o The Corbett Report, Japan

Unsubscribe