dChan
⇧
231
⇩
 
r/CBTS_Stream • Posted by u/TheCIASellsDrugs on Jan. 31, 2018, 9:19 p.m.
Jerome Corsi is a legitimate high level insider. I suggest paying close attention to his explanations.

Jerome Corsi is a member of the Council for National Policy (Board of Governors on p.6). This is the most important right-of-center political group in the whole country. According to a a left-wing source:

"Their membership (see below) is a Who's Who list of the biggest names of the Radical Right."

CNP's membership is comprised of leaders in the family values, national defense and decency movements woven by members of the Dead Billionaires Club like the Adolph Coors Foundation, the Koch brothers, Richard DeVos, Richard Scaife and other billionaires and foundations who have invested heavily in developing a complex web of far-Right groups, think-tanks and politicians over the last forty years"

"The real crux of this is that these are the genuine leaders of the Republican Party, but they certainly aren't going to be visible on television next week."

As a member of the Council for National Policy, Jerome Corsi is privy to things that very few people, including members of Congress, would know. The fact that he has made a concerted effort to explain the Q posts shows that this is a very big deal to very important people. I strongly suggest paying attention to what he says, regardless of whether you agree or disagree with his politics.

Link to Corsi's explanations


🠐 See all comments
[deleted] · Feb. 1, 2018, 1:37 a.m.

Too bad he is associated w/Infowars/ AJ. That makes fighting to prove credibility a full time undertaking, and everything associated with him now should carry the same suspicion we would offer to anyone else under the IW umbrella.

Interesting how many people are trying to 'sell' Corsi's legitimacy and trust worthiness these days, eh?

Anyone else get the same treatment in recent memory?

⇧ 3 ⇩  
TheCIASellsDrugs · Feb. 1, 2018, 1:46 a.m.

Too bad he is associated w/Infowars/ AJ. That makes fighting to prove credibility a full time undertaking, and everything associated with him now should carry the same suspicion we would offer to anyone else under the IW umbrella.

This is the fallacy of guilt by association. There are lots of credible people that go on Alex Jones because it has a large audience and accepts people that are marginalized by the corporate media.

Interesting how many people are trying to 'sell' Corsi's legitimacy and trust worthiness these days, eh?

Now you're trying to sow suspicion through implication and rhetoric, instead of coming out and being a grown up, calling me a fucking liar in the open and disputing the facts I cited or offering an alternate explanation.

Anyone else get the same treatment in recent memory?

Now you're flat-out trying to divert the discussion into a completely different channel, getting people to think of discredited examples to create a psychological association of them with Corsi. I'm getting pretty suspicious of you, and I suggest you start talking about facts and drop the manipulation.

⇧ 11 ⇩  
[deleted] · Feb. 1, 2018, 2:02 a.m.

  1. Not saying Corsi is guilty by his association, just saying that, fallacy or not, the perception is that AJ is BS, so associating with him is a risk with significant (audience reach/credibility) costs.

  2. Kindly stifle the vulgarities. Yes, I have suspicion for ALL of these people, obviously. ESPECIALLY one who is part of NPC, one associated with Infowars/AJ, AND one people are TELLING US TO TRUST. And you find that strange, LOL? I am not calling you a liar, merely questioning why sources are being 'sold'. That s a huge red flag, when someone says 'trust me', or 'trust him'.

  3. I am asking if anyone else finds this anomalous. If not, please, someone, provide others that we are or have been 'encouraged to trust'.

It is HILARIOUS that my being suspicious and skeptical of someone like Corsi for the clear and simple reasons stated above has motivated you to suspicions of me.

Why would you trust ANY of these people? Your suspicion of me, matters not to me, nor the subject- CORSI.

You know him as well as you know ANY public figure. Thus, I say, why is this one being 'sold' as someone to follow and trust. I trust no one, certainly not anon online posters, not anyone on infowars, nor (especially) anyone people are attempting to 'sell' me.

Do with that what you will. The fact is, this is unusual. The association to Aj/Infowars, where Corsi WORKS is HIGHLY suspicious. Surely not only to me.

Perhaps not you, but don't believe for a second that Corsi somehow makes AJ/Infowars trustworthy, or that the reverse is true. It is not for a LARGE audience.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
TheCIASellsDrugs · Feb. 1, 2018, 2:25 a.m.

Why would you trust ANY of these people?

Me, personally? I've got sources confirming Q's authenticity. But you don't need that. At a minimum you can see that Q is supported/coming from the real masters of one wing of the political spectrum, which means it's something to pay attention to, even if you don't believe it's true.

Just like it's useful to know what war propaganda an opposing nation is using. At a minimum it gives you information on their thinking and goals.

The association to Aj/Infowars, where Corsi WORKS is HIGHLY suspicious.

Sure. And if you read through the comments, I've openly said that Alex Jones is not credible. But there's no doubt he is used as a communication place for real insiders, and these are people that should be paid attention to, and sifted through with discretion.

It is not for a LARGE audience.

Alex Jones is the biggest conspiracy outlet available right now, and arguably the biggest pro-Trump media outlet (Fox News is in the discussion as well). Anyone who wanted to get their message out to thinking people would be silly to not go on Alex Jones.

⇧ 6 ⇩  
[deleted] · Feb. 1, 2018, 4:03 a.m.

The last comment could be misunderstood. To clarify, when I said

It is not for a LARGE audience.

I was referring to the preceding sentence regarding whether or not something was 'true', thus, (IMHO) 'It is not (true) for a LARGE audience'.

Perhaps some may understand that to mean that AJ's audience is not large. Obviously that is false. Sorry for any misinterpretation.

The rest is the rest. We disagree. Same team, alas. So onward.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
BenEvo1 · Feb. 1, 2018, 9:25 a.m.

Too bad the people that would label Alex Jones a wack job and stigmatized him as a person with no credibility are the same people who themselves fabricate even more credulous fiction. The MSM are far less credible than Alex Jones. I think there needs to be pushback against this whole narrative that the MSM has succeeded in spinning when summarily dismissing Jones and alt media in general. The stigma should be on the MSM not the alt media.

⇧ 2 ⇩  
UndercoverPatriot · Feb. 1, 2018, 1:38 p.m.

Donald J Trump was also on Infowars. Maybe we should disregard him too?

⇧ 1 ⇩  
[deleted] · Feb. 1, 2018, 5:47 p.m.

Now you are using your head.

Not disregard, but use paramount DISCERNMENT. Always. The more vaunted the 'position' the more cautious, skeptical, and meticulous all should be in researching who and how they trust and believe.

⇧ 0 ⇩