Lord Christopher Monckton and Jim Corr.

Brown Bomber

I've always considered Jim Corr as courageous and sincere if a little misled by Alex Jones/Loose Change disinfo.

However, his association with Lord Christopher Monckton has made me doubt his integrity.

I've always had a good eye for a con man and it wasn't just Monckton's thyroid problem that gave me an uneasy feeling about him.

10 minutes and google all but confirmed that Monckton is a shill for me. For who/what I don't know because I'm on the fence on climate change. But that is not what this thread is about, it is why Jim Corr associates with probable controlled opposition if he himself is not controlled opposition

Viscount Monckton and family are knee-deep in the elitism that Jim Corr claims to expose on his site.

There are strong familial connections between the Monckton family and British Royals, British Government (of Bilderberger Thatcher and famous freemason Churchill), British Army, Irish Seannad, Oil Corporations, International banking, a plethora of leadership roles in Catholic chivalric orders, and even the death of princess Diana.

Two examples of many I could have chosen.

His brother Anthony described by the Times of London as "Britain's most important secret agent in the Balkans".
http://cryptome.org/mi6-monckton.htm

His father, Gilbert Monckton was founding Chairman of the Blackwater/Xe alike and very spooky "Defense Systems Limited" http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Defence_Systems_Limited

Who count amongst their clients Rothschild (De Beers) and Rockefeller(Exxon)

Jim Corr claimed on the Late Late Show that he suspects the "Anglo-American elite" carried out the 9.11 attacks. I believe Jim Corr needs to explain how he could make that claim with a straight face seated shoulder-to-shoulder with one such prominent member of the elite.

Yitzhak Rabin

I agree with you that Monkton is a complete shill. He's a dishonest disinformation peddler, and to me it is quite obvious that he is on the take.

I would think that Jim Corr is unfortunately just a bit dim. I know that that seems like a very glib assessment, but he seems to just accept everything about 9/11 hook line and sinker. He repeats long debunked claims about 9/11, that you could only conclude that he's a bit simple for believing. Either that.... or as you said, he's purposely using these tired old arguments to discredit 'true' truthers. I don't buy that though...

thecommander

yekahS wrote: »

I agree with you that Monkton is a complete shill. He's a dishonest disinformation peddler, and to me it is quite obvious that he is on the take.

Why does he have to be on the take? Why can't he just be a tool thats wrong?

Yitzhak Rabin

thecommander wrote: »

Why does he have to be on the take? Why can't he just be a tool thats wrong?

That could be the case, but I don't think thats the case. He is not an idiot, and the fallacies he spreads have been pointed out to him time and time again, yet he continues to repeat them.

By on the take, I mean he is making money from it. He gets paid to do speaking tours to on the tea-bagger circuit in the US.

Monty Burnz

yekahS wrote: »

I would think that Jim Corr is unfortunately just a bit dim.

A lot of people who believe every conspiracy going fall into that category, so it's not like Jim Corr is some sort of aberration. And the repeating of long-debunked claims - well, we see it on this forum daily. Some people just seem to have no sense of what parts of a narrative are plausible (e.g. contrails modify the weather) and which parts are completely off the wall (e.g. it's to protect us from alien invaders).

You could argue that some of these loons are out there making ridiculous claims to deliberately discredit those genuinely asking hard questions about the official narrative, but there are so many of them it seems to be just an area that attracts those with sub-normal critical faculties.

Brown Bomber

Monty Burnz wrote: »

A lot of people who believe every conspiracy going fall into that category, so it's not like Jim Corr is some sort of aberration. And the repeating of long-debunked claims - well, we see it on this forum daily. Some people just seem to have no sense of what parts of a narrative are plausible (e.g. contrails modify the weather) and which parts are completely off the wall (e.g. it's to protect us from alien invaders).

You could argue that some of these loons are out there making ridiculous claims to deliberately discredit those genuinely asking hard questions about the official narrative, but there are so many of them it seems to be just an area that attracts those with sub-normal critical faculties.

I didn't report your post cos' I don't want to actually see you get banned so I'm going to appeal to your better nature. These poorly veiled attacks are tiresome and unneccessary what chance if you haven't got anything nice to say don't say it all?

Monty Burnz

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I didn't report your post cos' I don't want to actually see you get banned so I'm going to appeal to your better nature. These poorly veiled attacks are tiresome and unneccessary what chance if you haven't got anything nice to say don't say it all?

On what grounds would I be banned exactly? Do you disagree with my point? I'm sure back-seat modding is not appreciated on this forum.

If you have an argument, please make it. I'm appealing to your better nature.

Mr Plough

Monty Burnz wrote: »

A lot of people who believe every conspiracy going fall into that category, so it's not like Jim Corr is some sort of aberration. And the repeating of long-debunked claims - well, we see it on this forum daily. Some people just seem to have no sense of what parts of a narrative are plausible (e.g. contrails modify the weather) and which parts are completely off the wall (e.g. it's to protect us from alien invaders).

You could argue that some of these loons are out there making ridiculous claims to deliberately discredit those genuinely asking hard questions about the official narrative, but there are so many of them it seems to be just an area that attracts those with sub-normal critical faculties.

I'm glad I'm not a dickhead.

Penn

Please don't make it. Discuss the topic at hand or don't post. If you both want to have a discussion about each others posting styles, take it PM.

Monty Burnz

I take it you don't actually disagree with my point though Mr. Plough? Because I presume if you had an actual argument, you would have used it.

Penn

Mr.Plough banned for a week for personal abuse. While i appreciate that he posted around the same time as my on-thread warning which he wouldn't have seen, I do not appreciate personal abuse towards another user.

Please take the time to read the charter again if any of you think you may need a refresher course

King Mob

So why exactly is what Alex Jones and Loose Change guy put out malicious disinfo?
Is it not possible they are both just crap at research and are just taken in by the same nonsense on the internet as Jim Corr has fallen for?

Monty Burnz

King Mob wrote: »

So why exactly is what Alex Jones and Loose Change guy put out malicious disinfo?
Is it not possible they are both just crap at research and are just taken in by the same nonsense on the internet as Jim Corr has fallen for?

Why, are they considered to be spreading disinformation on behalf of the Man?

I confess I haven't listened to or read any of their stuff.

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

So why exactly is what Alex Jones and Loose Change guy put out malicious disinfo?
Is it not possible they are both just crap at research and are just taken in by the same nonsense on the internet as Jim Corr has fallen for?

Yes of course it's possible. There are many possibilities. Surely you are aware of this?

I happen to consider Alex Jones as disinfo for a number of reasons, none of which I am interested in going into right now.

King Mob

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Yes of course it's possible. There are many possibilities. Surely you are aware of this?

I happen to consider Alex Jones as disinfo for a number of reasons, none of which I am interested in going into right now.

That was the question I was asking.
How do you distinguish between a disinfo agent like Jones and someone who's just been duped like Jim?

I don't see much of difference between them, and there's nothing as far as I can see to assume any shadowy influences when it comes to where the nonsense is coming from. So therefore I think Hanlon's razor applies.

The same goes for Monckton, people believe crazy nonsense and sell that crazy nonsense all the time without the help of the shadowy conspiracy.

Grasshoppa

yekahS wrote: »

He repeats long debunked claims about 9/11, that you could only conclude that he's a bit simple for believing.

Which bits have been debunked?

Just out of curiosity.

Thanks.

(which ones haven't might be an easier question, or a link to a good thread here. i can't search for 9/11)

Lab_Mouse

What makes me doubt jimbo corrs integrity,BB, is that he's one of these fukkers that owes the banks a few quid but hasnt/wont bother his hole paying his debts off.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0930/corrj.html

Before that I thought he was a bit 'dim'(as yekahs put it ).

I think of all the people to be associated with, monkton is one of the worse to pick.He's a proven liar

My name is URL

I can only assume that Corr didn't do his homework on Monckton before agreeing to appear by his side. Monckton is out for his own gain, no doubt about that.

The more Jim makes himself available for mainstream exposure the less sane he appears to be & I mean that in the nicest possible way. The way in which he followed Monckton into shouting someone down (that whole Withdraw! thing) doesn't exactly suggest that he's an independent thinker.

I wouldn't question his integrity though.. if he believes that what he's doing is the right thing then he has integrity, and I've no reason to think that he doesn't believe he's doing the right thing.

There's really no need to bring his personal finances or legal issues into the equation btw, is there?

Lab_Mouse

My name is URL wrote: »

There's really no need to bring his personal finances or legal issues into the equation btw, is there?

yes there is.

a)its in the public domain
b) it brings his entegrity into question-which was why I brought it up in the first place.

In a sworn statement, solicitors for ACC Bank said numerous attempts had been made to serve Mr Corr with legal papers but it was clear from his conduct he was 'evading service'.

Doesnt reflect too well on dim jim,does it?

King Mob

My name is URL wrote: »

There's really no need to bring his personal finances or legal issues into the equation btw, is there?

Why is bringing up his finances apparently not needed, but yet you've no issue with someone bringing up Lord Monckton's family to attack his credibility?

My name is URL

Lab_Mouse wrote: »

yes there is.

a)its in the public domain
b) it brings his entegrity into question-which was why I brought it up in the first place.



Doesnt reflect too well on dim jim,does it?

Any links which are not 6+ months old? You don't know the details of the case other than what has been made known, and it doesn't state that he has broken any law.

By your reckoning, anything which links a the courts or banks to someone, regardless of how unconnected it is to their work, can be used to diminish their character.

It seems odd that ACC are finding it so difficult to serve Corr with papers even though he makes himself and his whereabouts publicly available (doing talks etc). Unless there is a court case or more information/proof that Corr is evading service, then no.. it doesn't reflect on him whatsoever.

King Mob wrote: »

Why is bringing up his finances apparently not needed, but yet you've no issue with someone bringing up Lord Monckton's family to attack his credibility?

Did I say I agreed with that, or does my not disagreeing with it imply that I tacitly agree with it? Maybe I just don't give a shit..

Lab_Mouse

My name is URL wrote: »

Any links which are not 6+ months old?

no I dont.Might of missed the link where the papers were served and/or he paid the money back.

Didnt say he was a criminal.And it does bring his entegrity into question.He could of accepted the papers and got his side of the story across in the courts but he didnt.The judge didnt object to ACC bank's assertion that he was avoiding the serving of the legal documents.

As to why they didn't give the documents to him on the late late show,who ****in knows , maybe ACC dont pay over time to their baliffs.

King Mob

My name is URL wrote: »

Did I say I agreed with that, or does my not disagreeing with it imply that I tacitly agree with it? Maybe I just don't give a shit..

Just seems a tad hypocritical to not mention it when it is one of the main points of the OP.

My name is URL

Lab_Mouse wrote: »

no I dont.Might of missed the link where the papers were served and/or he paid the money back.

Didnt say he was a criminal.And it does bring his entegrity into question.He could of accepted the papers and got his side of the story across in the courts but he didnt.The judge didnt object to ACC bank's assertion that he was avoiding the serving of the legal documents.

As to why they didn't give the documents to him on the late late show,who ****in knows , maybe ACC dont pay over time to their baliffs.

Just because ACC swore an oath does not mean that Corr failed to accept the papers. The judge may have had no basis for objecting to the assertions of ACC's solicitors, but again that may be because they lacked the information necessary to do so.. much like how we lack the information to draw a conclusion from any of it.

Going by Google, the last mention of it in the media was last September.

King Mob wrote: »

Just seems a tad hypocritical to not mention it when it is one of the main points of the OP.

How? BB was trying to show how Monckton has relatives in 'high places', and how Corr seems to be conflicted between the people he tours with and the beliefs he shares. I don't really see what's hypocritical about not disagreeing with the points raised.

Lab_Mouse

My name is URL wrote: »

Just because ACC swore an oath does not mean that Corr failed to accept the papers.

the whole reason they were in court was because jim wouldnt accept the papers.ACC were asking for permission(which they got,so I presume they made more than a few attempts) to post the documents as normally they have to serve them by hand,therefore jim was avoiding recieving the documents.

I have no problem with peoiple having a debt or their inability to pay it off(unless they borrowed knowing full well they had no intention of paying it back) whether its joe soap or dim jim but at least have the balls to face up to it.If you dont,for me its a question of entegrity,and jim has shown none.

King Mob

My name is URL wrote: »

How? BB was trying to show how Monckton has relatives in 'high places', and how Corr seems to be conflicted between the people he tours with and the beliefs he shares. I don't really see what's hypocritical about not disagreeing with the points raised.

But he's using Monckton's personal life to call into question his credibility, something you said isn't needed when discussing Jim Corr.

My name is URL

King Mob wrote: »

But he's using Monckton's personal life to call into question his credibility, something you said isn't needed when discussing Jim Corr.

Stop being disingenuous.

King Mob

My name is URL wrote: »

Stop being disingenuous.

But I'm not.
Brown Bomber is using Monckton's personal life, specifically his family to call his credibility into question.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Viscount Monckton and family are knee-deep in the elitism that Jim Corr claims to expose on his site.

There are strong familial connections between the Monckton family and British Royals, British Government (of Bilderberger Thatcher and famous freemason Churchill), British Army, Irish Seannad, Oil Corporations, International banking, a plethora of leadership roles in Catholic chivalric orders, and even the death of princess Diana.

Lab_Mouse is using Jim Corr's personal life, specifically his financial problems to call his credibility into question.

Lab_Mouse wrote: »

What makes me doubt jimbo corrs integrity,BB, is that he's one of these fukkers that owes the banks a few quid but hasnt/wont bother his hole paying his debts off.

To me it seems like they are doing the exact same thing, yet you only say it is not necessary in regards to Jim.

Lab_Mouse

King Mob wrote: »

To me it seems like they are doing the exact same thing, yet you only say it is not necessary in regards to Jim.

yes.Until JC starts a thread on BB's integrity.Then BrownBomber is fair game:eek::pac:

in fairness i'm biased.So will drop out of this.I'll admit the only thing I 'like about dim jim are his sisters.

Wouldnt trust him as far as i could throw him,financialy or verbally.

Nehaxak

I still have Christopher Monckton's numbers on my phone from past dealings with him. Even if I disagreed with a lot of what he'd have to say, he's an extraordinary man to talk with and a great person to debate with.

I'm no personal friend of his either, I started correspondence with him through email at the time in relation to one of his articles on the data being presented by global warming supporters. It went on from there and though neither of us had anything to gain from just chatting, they were nonetheless long memorable and intelligent chats.
Nothing but good to say about the guy now personally myself, I honestly don't believe he's making stuff up or pushing any particular agenda, he always seemed honest and forthright in what he said but was also willing to admit when he was wrong and accept views contrary to his own.

His email address is widely known and if you're constructive enough and honest in your approach to him, I'm sure he'd reply to any specifics you might question him on.

Yitzhak Rabin

Here's a good video which shows the kind of faulty methods that Monkton uses...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbW-aHvjOgM