[mypastself]

I believe I have a decent understanding of the subject, but I’d love to hear a good podcast about it. However, I’m not familiar with James Corbett, and googling the name seems to result in a lot of conspiracy-related stuff.

Which is not to say CBDCs aren’t conspiratorial enough on their own, but is that an educational show, or is it more politically oriented?

[LinuxBender]

I've listened to Corbett for some time and used to watch his videos prior to being silenced on several platforms. He does present himself in a manor that sounds like a conspiracy theorist which is unfortunate because he is actually one of the few decent investigative journalists that remain on the internet. I suspect he presents himself that way because it draws a bigger audience or perhaps it's just his personality. Either way, I appreciate that he does not ask permission from the Trusted News Initiative to speak.

I think this would be an interesting topic in and of itself. Why do investigative journalists that cover taboo or fringe topics end up sounding the way they do? Is it a reaction to the frustration of being silenced? Is it a quirk of a particular personality type? Or maybe it's me? Maybe I am so used to listening to corporate media that anyone who deviates from their presentation style just sounds a bit off?

[kolanos]

Maybe listen and draw your own conclusions? In this episode he uses fringe sources like the American Bankers Association. He does cover conspiracies, but some conspiracies are actually true. This appears to be one of them.

His channel was removed from social media for questioning the ever changing and largely incoherent COVID narrative. [0] [1]

But if you or anyone else finds a more comprehensive resource, please share.

[0]: https://www.corbettreport.com/mission-accomplished-the-corbe... [1]: https://www.corbettreport.com/sciencesays/

[mypastself]

> Maybe listen and draw your own conclusions?

That’s the thing, the same could be said of any random piece of media ever made, but I have neither the time nor the interest in going through all of it.

There are plenty of quality programs out there, and I don’t want to realize I should have spent that time listening to In Our Time an hour into the show.

I’m opposed to CBDCs. But this person generally seems to present himself as a conspiracy theorist, and I’d rather start with a more meat-and-potatoes approach.

And I’m not sure what removal from social media has to do with whether or not he’s worth listening to.

[kolanos]

> That’s the thing, the same could be said of any random piece of media ever made, but I have neither the time nor the interest in going through all of it.

Then I am not sure what you are hoping to achieve with this kind of commentary. Why not just move on?

Should I not have shared the best podcast I have thus far found about CBDCs because it doesn't meet the ad hominem Google check? If that's the case, then that's a shame because a lot of good sources were swept up in COVID cancellation fever for no good reason.

> And I’m not sure what removal from social media has to do with whether or not he’s worth listening to.

Because the sources you're relying on that portray him as a conspiracy nut are the same ones that were cancelling every other person who had something to say about COVID that wasn't sanctioned by the CDC/NIH (Google).

Corbett's supposed crime that resulted in his cancellation was playing clips of Anthony Fauci making contradicting statements to the media days/weeks apart and turning it into a game of "simon says".

[mypastself]

As I said in the parent comment (and as confirmed by the other commenter), he seems to present himself as a conspiracy theorist. One of the first search results was an AMA he did on r/conspiracy.

But you’re right, I’ll move on. I might even give the show a listen sometime. I just prefer looking at things from a more mainstream perspective first.