Another Another 25 Books You Should Read

05/23/202296 Comments

Well, I can't say I didn't ask for it.

You see, at the end of last year (*CORRECTION: 2020!) I released an article titled Another 25 Books You Should Read in which I wrote that "I can keep recommending books as long as people keep requesting me to." But I just had to follow that provocative statement up with a dare: "Wanna try me? I could easily whip up another list after this one!"

I'm not surprised that it took less than a month for one Corbett Report member to take me up on that dare. And now there are people asking for a 4K high res pic of my bookshelf so they can go out and buy every single book I own. Note: I will not do that because, to be clear, I wouldn't recommend every book on my bookshelf.

Having said that, I am a man of my word so, in addition to: the New World Order Reading List; the tour of my bookshelf; the Liberty Weekly book recommendation roundtable; the WWI book recommendations; the book-off with Richard Grove; Another 25 Books You Should Read; and Your Summer Reading List, I now present to you Another Another 25 Books You Should Read. The only question now is how long it will take for someone to ask for Another Another Another 25 Books You Should Read.

Happy Reading!

Want to access the full list? You can access it for free via the CLICK HERE link below, or you can become a member of the website to log in and read the full newsletter, including: the reading list; James' recommended reading, listening and viewing; and a 25% off coupon code for Corbett Report purchases at the store.

For free access to this editorial, please CLICK HERE.

This content is restricted to site members. If you are an existing user, please log in. New users may register here.

Existing Users Log In

Filed in: Newsletter
Tagged with:

Comments (96)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Chasicakes says:

    I would add:

    The Devils’s Chessboard

    Confessions of an economic hitman

    • Duck says:

      Confessions of an economic hitman is a good book for general worldview but I got the feeling the guy was going rather lite on what he actually knew.

      Just my feeling… 🙂 not based on anything but that. It is a very normie friendly book though.

      • CRM114 says:

        yea i preferred chossudovskys the globalization of poverty although it may be a bit outdated now

  2. rob.h says:

    The Fauci book is a MUST read. I passed that one onto everyone I can, mostly normies and they are starting to wake up.

  3. PhildWithMalice says:

    The fact you didn’t include a fun book like last year’s “The Mayor of Casterbridge” shows how the past 12 months have been trying. That book was a great read and was looking forward to seeing another unique title I wasn’t familiar with. I have found the RFK book so painful because I grew up in a pharmacy and I distinctly remember seeing many gay men die horribly during Dr. Fauci’s AZT days. I didn’t understand why other than they had HIV/AIDS. Knowing what I know today, how many of them may have survived another 30+ years in decent health? Just makes me sick.

    • Buddy says:

      The book shocked and sickened me. I felt embarrassed and guilty at having been so thorougly duped for so long. It was one of the hardest books to get through. I didn’t expect to admire any Kennedy, but Robert ought to get an award for this book—except that awards are corrupt. Kennedy wrote a chapter for Virus Mania, which I recently read. I wonder if anyone here has read that book and what they think about it.

      • ChairmanDrew says:

        I’ve read Virus Mania. It quickly becomes repetitive, not through the fault of the author’s but due to the same playbook being detailed in regards to every virus scam covered. The chapter in the recent edition on Covid should be news to no one who has been paying attention these last years. My recommendation for those pressed for time would be to read the chapter on AIDS as it is instructive to how every other virus scam has played out before and since.

        • Buddy says:

          I agree. I also got tired of comments about the evils of money. In this book, money and profit are always terrible.

  4. jo-ann says:

    Thank you, James, for the additional book recommendations.

    Corbetteers note: “The Great Reset” can be downloaded as a free PDF:

  5. jdl says:

    If you are interested in viruses read “Bechamp Or Pasteur? A Lost Chapter in the History of Biology”

  6. Nick says:

    Question for the community..I have a 13 yo son who is open to the kind of material James discusses already. The covid debacle has certainly aided there. Are there any fans of the tuttle series here? Just wondering what the sweet spot for him would be. The series for younger kids look a lot more profound to me but prob too young for him. The older ones (pick a path type I think) look less profound / foundational maybe, but more of an older kid read. Thoughts appreciated. Cheers

    • Torus says:

      I purchased the Tuttle Twins series (12 books) to read to our 7 and 5 year olds. While I was able to simplify the themes for them, these were mostly over their heads. But they were excited to listen to each new book nonetheless. I’m sure they will be revisited in the next few years. Overall, I do recommend them to any age, even I learned new concepts.

      Your 13 year old may find these books a bit “simple” for his reading level, but they are sure to expand his understanding of foundational values and concepts. Plus they are entertaining stories. Additionally, each Tuttle twins book is based off another work which is briefly discussed at the end of each. So if your son is especially interested in one of the themes, he can continue with the more advanced literature, which he will have a base understanding of. Like a spring board to help with the dive.

      We also got one of the choose your own adventure books. It was a good exploration of choice and accountability, or freedom and responsibility, (concepts severely neglected in our society). Personally, I have never cared for the ‘choose your own adventure’ style, but it’s a valuable exercise that illustrates the power of choices and the many paths one can take as a result.

    • Torus says:

      One additional comment. Corbett’s recommendation “The Tuttle Twins and the Miraculous Pencil”, from the series, is a book my kids keep referring to. They will ask me to “do the pencil book thing” with a toy or a food. So we will talk about the item, what materials it is composed of, where those materials were sourced, how they were put together, and who all was involved. (Farms and transport are always in the mix) Each time it’s an enlightening exploration that my kids now initiate because of this book. Not only are they learning about cooperation, specialization, and supply chains, but it is an introduction to spontaneous order which is how humans naturally self organize when need arises.
      I second this recommendation!

    • 929raf says:

      Hope all is well. For both you and your son… The Disappearance of Childhood by Neil Postman. Take care, Richard.

  7. GENDUN LAMA says:

    Add me to the list that wants hirez of your bookshelf. That’s something that’s bugged me since the first time I saw it.

    Since you need more things to do –
    Even the ones you “don’t recommend”. It would be good to know your thoughts on them.

    AND thank you so much for your work; it is MOST greatly appreciated.

  8. technomancer says:

    I would recommend book “Zeman, Scharlau: Merchant of Revolution” (Oxford University Press, 1965)

    It tells story of Parvus Helphand, man that convinced German government to let Lenin through their country into Russia.

    Related wikipedia article:

    • Duck says:

      I was just reading about parvus in Jewish Revolutionary Spirit by Dr Jones….I think dr Spence has a sect6on him in Wallstreet Nd the Russian revolution.

      Dude was pretty interesting.

  9. pill says:

    A satirical book about “it”: The Rise of the New Normal Reich by C. J. Hopkins

  10. Screwdafed says:

    Thanks for the listing and brief summaries. I have wondered since I discovered your wonderful site . . . do you believe in God? I myself, was raised a Catholic and more or less had a childlike ‘fear’ of God rather than a firm, religious belief. That all changed within days of the Wuhan virus breakout around the world. Before that, I just chalked all the bad things that happened around the world to corrupt politicians (especially my own American politicians) but now I believe it is more than just corruption . . . I truly believe these people are EVIL! So, I’m back baby! I once again believe in the God of the Bible. Would love to hear your thoughts on the subject.
    Keep up the awesome work and God bless you and your family!
    R. Ferrara

    • cu.h.j says:

      I suspect JC is kind of an “agnostic.” Or he keeps his spiritual and religious beliefs private, which is understandable.

      I have gone from being an atheist in my youth, to more of an “agnostic” in my adulthood. I had a rough life growing up and was very angry and I hated God which turned into wanting to disprove existence of “something more.” I couldn’t do it, in fact, I’ve had some experiences that I’d say are spiritual. But I certainly can’t prove or disprove to myself or anyone else beyond a shadow of a doubt that God exists or not. If God does exist, I don’t think any single book could describe such a being or force and so all we get is second hand information described in books that are tainted by subjective experience.

      I wish I could be as sure as you seem to be. I envy people who are certain. I’m more of like I’ll see eventually if there’s something more, particularly when I die. I go back and forth between more certain and less certain that there is a God (the kind that could have a conversation). Anyway, interesting question you asked.

      • Fact Checker says:

        “I suspect JC is kind of an ‘agnostic.’” Or he keeps his spiritual and religious beliefs private….”

        Wrong on both counts. See my response to Screwd, below.

        “I’ve had some experiences that I’d say are spiritual.

        Oh, do tell!

        “But I certainly can’t prove or disprove to myself or anyone else beyond a shadow of a doubt that God exists or not.”

        Interesting combination of weasel-qualifiers here. FIrst, the “to myself”. This merely indicates a stubborn wish that the impossible is true. Second, the “to anyone else.” This indicates 1.) the prideful intransigence of “the faithful” who—you are quite correct—will never be convinced of anything rational. They boast of their imperviousness to reason, logic, and empirical evidence. But who cares how “steadfast” these superstitious zealots are in their nonsensical “beliefs”? All that matters is your own unwavering, unflinching search for actual truth. The fact that you can’t “convince” a bunch of cult members of something is totally irrelevant to whether it’s true.

        Third, the “beyond a shadow of a doubt,” misusing a procedural legal standard. That technical standard of proof in courts of common law has nothing to do with whether one is convinced of some myth, or the untruthfulness of that myth. If we were to start applying the Burdens of Proof and Rules of Evidence at Common Law to theological questions, we’d have to throw out all holy texts as hearsay, right off the bat! I take it that your clinging to this “shadow-of-a-doubt” copout is just another expression of your wishful desire to believe something that isn’t true, even though you know it isn’t true.

        “If God does exist, I don’t think any single book could describe such a being or force”

        This is a form of “begging-the-question”. “God” is merely a construct, that depends on definitions in books. By saying, “I don’t believe the Bible fully and accurately represents God,” that is the same as saying you don’t believe in God, because to believers, the biblical YHWH, God of the Israelites is the one and only true God. The First Commandment is “THOU SHALT HAVE NO GODS BEFORE ME.” God is, by every commonly accepted definition, exclusivist, supremecist, and jealous. Your claim to be agnostic is in fact contradicted by your claim to disbelieve the Bible. You, my dear, are an atheist, who deeply longs to be a mind-wiped religious freak.

        “I wish I could be as sure as you seem to be.

        My point—proven!

        “I envy people who are certain.”

        Why envy deluded troglodytes? Be proud of your courageous rationalism.

        “I’m more of like I’ll see eventually if there’s something more, particularly when I die. I go back and forth between more certain and less certain that there is a God.”

        But remember Pascal’s Wager, my dear! You better just believe, because “when you die, it’ll be too late!” You better repent and proclaim “faith” now, or you’ll burn for eternity in the Lake of Fire!!!!!

        • Duck says:

          “….Why envy deluded troglodytes? Be proud of your courageous rationalism…..”

          What virtue is there in courageous rationalism if their is no God to declare what virtue is?

          Has it made you happy?

        • cu.h.j says:

          I don’t think “God” requires belief for “divine reward” if there is such a thing. I think that doing good in the world provides rewards in the here and now and that waiting for something later is a bit of a waste of life. I think we should live each moment to the fullest.

          What makes more sense to me, is that we reincarnate again and again for the soul to learn and “go back to the source.” This is what I believe, when I’m in a frame of mind of belief. I go back to being uncertain and knowing that there are things I don’t see and know or understand, the whole thing becomes a question in my mind again.

          I am influenced by my empirical reality and what I can see and hear and understand. But I also know that I am biased and that there are things that are beyond what I can experience with my senses.

          When I say spiritual, I will exclude things experienced during sleep deprivation and mind altering drugs (although those might also be spiritual). I have had two brushes with death and disability and come out relatively unscathed. It could be luck who knows, but one of these health conditions went away, where most doctors believed it wouldn’t. I did pray and got better. But I’ll never know if the doctors were wrong and there was another explanation. But I strongly believe that whatever creative force that is that has sparked life would NOT CARE if people believe. I think that might be applying human attributes incorrectly.

          And I’m not sure the force would be characterized as “God” by people who strictly follow the bible. And I’m not even sure about what it is exactly. But if we are here, it must also have the capacity for good.

          I’m sure there might be a bit of Pascal’s Wager going on in my mind, but I would be pissed off at that type of God because it is wrong to make belief a requirement. But belief does provide a type of comfort.

          • cu.h.j says:

            I have more belief in a soul, than the God described in the bible. I think living things have those. What is the soul is another puzzle.

            • cu.h.j says:

              Oh one more experience I would classify as spiritual is love. Love is such a beautiful experience and peak experience. I have never experienced such highs in my life, the bliss. I wish I could experience it every day, every moment. Particularly romantic love. Some people never experience it. I am glad that I have and there is noting like it in the world.

              If “God” is love, that is something I can agree with and believe.

              • Fact Checker says:

                Love = A neural/hormonal euphoria response, programmed into your nervous system to try to manipulate you into breeding and spreading your germ-line replicators. Nothing spiritual about it in the least.

    • Fact Checker says:

      Because the world is ruled by Evil, that means God exists? That doesn’t stand to reason in the least. It’s more the stuff of madness than of divine revelation. Perhaps the Devil’s Greatest Trick of All was actually to Convince the World that His Own Existence Necessitated the Existence of God. It’s just as likely that the Creator of the Universe is none other than the Devil. That would have a lot more explanatory power as to the abject, mephitic state of reality.

      Anyway, in this interview, James Corbett admitted to being Christian.

      It was highly distressing and disappointing to the entire Rationalist community, worldwide, I assure you.

      • cu.h.j says:

        He said he grew up in a Christian household and that he believes in a creator and the idea of good and evil.

        This is different from believing every word that was written in the Bible was fact.

        And if the big bang is the correct theory, it is mind boggling for me to think of what was “before” the big bang. It leaves room for me for the possibility of a “creator” of some sort, a force, or something that links all living things.

        I don’t think JC is the kind of person that believes in the literal written word of the bible.

        • Fact Checker says:

          “This is different from believing every word that was written in the Bible was fact.”

          In for a penny, in for a pound.

          “And if the big bang is the correct theory…”

          “Big Bang” is almost as retarded and senseless as Abrahamic creationism. It explains nothing, and serves only as a “secular myth” for professional flim-flam shovelling “theoretical physicists” to ground their byzantine nonsense on. Rather than being derived from some observable data, “Big Bang” is just an a priori assertion that is then justified and rationalized with pseudo-mathematical sophistry, endless rationalizing and epicyclical buttressing.

          “…it is mind boggling for me to think of what was “before” the big bang.”

          Even if “Big Bang” is valid at all (which it isn’t) then why is it “mind-boggling” that some random, senseless shit existed before this particular random, senseless shit that we’re enduring now?

          “It leaves room for me for the possibility of a “creator” of some sort”

          “Leaves room.” More telling phraseology. This shows that you want such a thing, and that you are “searching” for “opportunities” to find it. To discern what is true one must be guided only by nature, and not one’s own egocentric aspirations. The “creator” thesis is entirely unworkable. Why is it “mind-boggling” that nothing existed at some point, but not “mind-boggling” that some infinitely complex, powerful, anthropomorphic entity with the power to create the whole universe existed, instead? The “creator” thesis only raises innumerably more questions than it purports to answer. What “created” the “creator”? The whole avenue of hypothesis is hopelessly stymied in infinite regress.

          “or something that links all living things.”

          Well NOW you’re talking about something COMPLETELY different than “God”! If there IS “something that links all living things” then it must link equally the good with the evil. It must be dualistic. But this is rejected by exoteric Abrahamic monotheism. (It is embraced by Kabbalah, but THAT’s a matter for a different thread.)

          An all-powerful dualistic force, that cruelly tortures as much as it generously blesses, would not fit very many people’s definition of “God” which must be not only “all-powerful” but “all-good”—immaculate and infallible. That’s why small-minded goyim were only able to accept YHWH by the addition of “the Enemy” or “Satan” which was only added to the Abrahamic mythos in the New Testament. Dumb-ass goyim needed a story to explain the bad in existence, which conspicuously contradicts God’s announcement in Genesis that “It was good!” The story of evil, moreoever, had to be as dumb and cartoonish as the story of creation by the mono-deity. Hence: Old Nick. The Red Devil. Old Pointyhorns.

          If a true, all-encompassing, dualistic binding force exists, then it is not perfect. It is, by necessity, as flawed and conflicted—as lost, as pained, and as troubled as every human and as every creature that it created. This morose, baroque monster probably regrets creating anything, but simply couldn’t help Itself. It probably created the Universe out of loneliness and madness, and then resented Its own creations, and wants nothing other than to see them suffer for Its own depraved, perverted, solipsistic amusement.

          • cu.h.j says:

            Dualism is an interesting observation and I think warrants exploration. Thank you for bringing that up.

            Could a creator have good and evil? I know that everyone has good an evil within. Even little bits of evil remain, or what one might characterize as evil. Hateful thoughts perhaps might be defined as evil. I tend to think that what’s more important are actions in the physical world that matter.

      • Torus says:

        Fact Checking Fact Checker.

        In the referenced interview, I too was surprised by James’ religious/spiritual comments, but you are misrepresenting what he actually says here.

        Corbett mentions growing up in a Christian household, which is his lens. But then explicitly states he does not have the answers and doesn’t claim to.
        He said “I’m not an atheist. I don’t believe in materialism”.
        He said “I believe the universe is a creation, it has been created.”
        At no point did I hear him say anything about Jesus or the Bible being part of his beliefs.

        He does not “admit to being Christian” as you profess. You’re making assumptions rather than taking the man at his word. One can believe in creationism and a universal power without being a Christian, regardless of upbringing.
        No need to be distressed or disappointed, Fact Checker.

        Perhaps he himself will clarify this point, but he doesn’t really need to.

        • Fact Checker says:

          You are correct Torus, that he avoided saying bluntly, “I have accepted Jesus Christ as my personal Lord and Savior and I accept every word in the Tanakh and Gospels as literal truth.”

          However, he did say in perfectly plain language, “I was raised in a Christian household, so that’s my lens.” Despite the somewhat weaselly phrasing and almost-apologetic tone, the obvious and express meaning is that he passively adopted Christianity by accident of having been born in a “Christian household”. The deliberate passive-voice framing and the avoidance of declarative clarity I think only reflects that James doesn’t want that to be his shtick. He doesn’t want to be limited by some “stigma” as a “Christian commentator” or even “Christian conspiracy theorist”. Like a rock band, of Christians, who are terrified of being pigeonholed as the dreaded label “Christian Rock Band“. (The horror!!!!)

          But just because he isn’t evangelizing doesn’t mean we rationalists can’t be disappointed in his adherence to such…less than rational beliefs.

          • nosoapradio says:

            what’s less rational than the very existence of life, consciousness and rationality itself??

            • nosoapradio says:

              sorry. Let’s try that again:

              What’s less rational than the very existence of life, consciousness and rationality themselves?

              Why, how in the name of rationality does anything exist at all?

              How is existence and the capacity to wonder at it rational? What’s human rationality got to do with the very existence of existence?

              Did human rationality bring consciousness, life, playfulness, longing and loss into existence?

              • Fact Checker says:

                “how in the name of rationality does anything exist at all?”

                Rationalists are the only ones willing to tell the truth and say: I don’t know.

                “How is existence and the capacity to wonder at it rational?”

                Compound question. Existence and the “capacity to wonder” are two totally different things. Existence is entirely irrational. The propensity for humans to “wonder” (gape) at the irrationality of existence is perfectly natural, but not rational. It’s just the understandable effect of pitting a limited, individuated consciousness against a vast, incomprehensible reality.

                “What’s human rationality got to do with the very existence of existence?

                Now you’re just trolling.

                “Did human rationality bring consciousness, life, playfulness, longing and loss into existence?”

                Obviously not. Those human traits are manifestations of the architecture of the nervous system of the human animal, which is a bundle of tropisms that developed over countless generations, to navigate the primordial world in which our innocent ancestors. Rationality is just a “sister” trait to lust and adventuresomeness and greed and flirtatiousness and pettiness and what have you. It’s just a cognitive adaptation. It didn’t bring other human traits into existence any more than it brought itself into existence (or, for that matter, any more than “God” could have brought “Himself” into existence).

              • nosoapradio says:

                or, for that matter, any more than “God” could have brought “Himself” into existence

                You use a lot of words just to say:

                I don’t know.

                An honest admission.

                If you don’t know, then you can’t determine with your admitted limited, individuated consciousness against a vast, incomprehensible reality

                whether God can bring himself into existence or not.

              • Fact Checker says:

                “If you don’t know, then you can’t determine … whether God can bring himself into existence or not.”

                Just because we can’t know everything does not mean that we can’t know anything. Certain hypotheses can be ruled out by rational consideration, such as something creating itself. Your logic (a/k/a illogic) supports the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster every bit as much as it does the existence of YHWH of the Bible. Or Cthulhu. Or Lestat the Vampire. Or Hercules the Demigod Hero. Or Darth Vader. Or the Chupacabra.

          • mkey says:

            Maybe time for you to update your handle to something like “rationalist spokeperson”.

          • Duck says:

            “….Certain hypotheses can be ruled out by rational consideration, such as something creating itself….”

            How can that be ruled out except by “common sense” ?

            But “common sense” breaks down all the time…. quantum mechanics being the prime example of “common sense” not meeting reality.
            Your statement is arbitrary.

          • Torus says:


            In your response to nosoap you say “Rationalists are the only ones willing to tell the truth and say: I don’t know.”

            I would simply like to point out that our admirable host, James Corbett, explicitly says in what you call his ‘admit to being Christian’ that he “doesn’t know the answers and doesn’t claim to”.

            Quite rational in my opinion.

            • Fact Checker says:

              Agreed, Torus.

              Corbett is overwhelmingly characterized by admirable rationalism. His forebearance in punishing the audience with any belligerent piety the way militant Christians do is testament to his very rational temperament.

  11. Screwdafed says:

    My recommendation would be The Unseen Hand, by A. Ralph Epperson.

  12. feriba says:

    I just bought the Tuttle twins books for my grandchildren , thank you for the book list

  13. canbeen says:

    So many books.. I surrender! Just insert the brain chip and download everything into me 🙁

    • Duck says:


      It’s not a brain chip but THIS can make it easier if your not able to sit down much

      Tons of old books in audio… I liked ‘tales of old Japan’ and as i recall that’s where i got “what prohibition has done to America” .

      I found books like the tower of Basel Nd other more modern books on YouTube and you can made it audio only with openshot if you get the vid

      Audiobooks for the dammned channel on yoi tube has a ton of fan read movie books from the 80s. 🙂 not as good as a brain chip still…easier to download though

  14. mkey says:

    Bruce Lipton – Wisdom of your cells

  15. wolfgang says:

    Thanks once again for the great recommendations James.

    Does anyone know a good source for new or even used books (in Germany or the EU) where I can get (most of) those (in English) without supporting some cleptocratic corporate giant?

  16. n4x5 says:

    As the white replacement agenda becomes increasingly overt and undeniable, the ground may be more fertile for a book like The Way Life Should Be?: The Globalists’ Demographic War on America with Maine as a Microcosm to gain a wider audience. The title is a bit misleading; the book covers evidence from multiple diverse sources rather than focusing entirely on one specific US state. The astute reader will probably take issue with some minor points, but it’s still a solid piece of research.

    I make the recommendation with some reservation for a couple reasons. First, something like this can easily feed more divide-and-conquer, a certain amount of which is inevitable at this point, but which should be minimized as much as possible. Second — and this point applies not only to the Publius book — consuming reading material can serve as a kind of surrogate activity. Clearly informing oneself of the existence of a threat is a necessary first step, but too often it is the only step when we fail to take any action. Easier said than done, I know. Remember, sheer number of books or pages read doesn’t automatically signify anything of value in terms of counteracting the globalists’ plans. This isn’t the Pizza Hut Book It! program. There are worse ways to spend a few hours, but there are also better ways than reading a fourth book on 9/11 when we’ve already read three and seen dozens of hours of footage and analysis. Most of us here have a basic level of awareness. More deeply probing the minutiae of topics with which we already have familiarity may not be a wise expenditure of our time. Just a suggestion for us to try to be judicious in our use of this precious resource and mindful about what the actual effects of our use of that resource really are.

    • Duck says:

      The white replacement agenda is really an attack on everyone of every race…. Dr Jones over at culture wars makes the good point that “white” is not a real identity that people can hold onto-its a substitute for actual cultural ties like language or religion…the people driven out of their homes by globalists to colonize the west are targeted for the same death culture they hit us with.

      It’s like the way they hit the American blacks 1st and then they hit the whites… the Hispanics and the muslims are just further down the list IMO but at the end of the day the only people who they want to allow group identity/solidarity is Jewish.

      You are correct that knowing what’s up does not change anything but IMO most people won’t do anything until it’s too late as long as the food and TV and social media can be kept atleast trickling along. Best to save those that can save themselves

      • n4x5 says:

        Assuming I understand it correctly, I doubt that the E. Michael Jones idea about enduring white identity (or lack thereof) is correct. Most people of European descent see themselves as a distinct entity from other non-European peoples, even after decades of weak or nonexistent religious affiliation, and even after loss of the old language. Interbreeding between whites and non-whites is still fairly low. It’s true that additional features of group identity can create an additional sense of cohesion, but they don’t necessarily supercede a sense of race. Biologically speaking, these racial and ethnic labels are imperfect and their boundaries are blurry, but this doesn’t render them meaningless.

        However, it’s definitely the case that we all (with the possible exception of some Jews) are being targeted — for removal of any healthy form of identity and for enslavement. It is proceeding at different rates for different groups. Whites are just receiving special attention at the moment because they represent a more stubborn impediment to the agenda. In very general terms, their sense of awareness, culture of liberty and capacity for resistance to tyranny certainly seem to be stronger. This website and most others like it were created by whites. I’d be comfortable betting that 80%+ of the people reading this are white. I haven’t seen anything of the scale of the protests in Europe anywhere else in the world, despite other people experiencing similar injustices during the plandemic. Of course there are multiple variables to consider, but it’s a bit hard to believe that there are zero biological forces at work here.

        • Duck says:

          “….Most people of European descent see themselves as a distinct entity from other non-European people….”

          In my experience French and the Germans and the British are all white but do not think of themselves as JUST “white” in quite the same way deracinated Americans do. The same way
          real Africans do not think of themselves as generic “blacks” the way American blacks do.

          White is not really a firm identity compared to language or religion…trying to mush all whites into one thing is IMO a little like the LGBTQP thing or the black/Hispanic
          “poc” thing where they try to have a big tent of people that don’t really have many common interests or even like each other much…… how much do you have in common with a globohomo’d libtard white? Sharing genetics with such a Bug Person won’t make you automatic allies…. still I don’t think we are actually arguing against each other too much just seeing different degrees of the same thing 🙂

          • n4x5 says:

            It’s true that particular European groups see themselves as distinct from other particular European groups, but they almost always see themselves, along with those other European groups, as more distinct from non-Europeans than they are from one another. In this sense, whiteness is a broader classification of people, the various particular white ethnicities being subgroups thereof. In the United States specifically, religion and language have functioned heavily in the past as markers of identity within the broader white population to demarcate one subgroup from another; e.g. Polish Catholics speaking Polish versus German Lutherans speaking German. This is the additional sense of cohesion I mentioned above. In relation to nonwhites, though, they’ve meant less. Roman Catholic and Baptist churches are still mainly self-segregated along racial lines. From a perspective of intermarriage, I’m confident that for most white males seeking a mate, a higher priority criterion is that a woman be white than that she be an adherent of a certain faith.

            It’s true that African blacks see themselves as distinct from other African black groups, but I have no doubt that they still see themselves, along with those other blacks, as more distinct from non-blacks. It’s a matter of groups and subgroups again. All of these are statements about self-perception and identity whose foundation in biology is another matter, but nevertheless it’s worth pointing out.

            • Duck says:

              “…I’m confident that for most white males seeking a mate, a higher priority criterion is that a woman be white than that she be an adherent of a certain faith….”

              Well… to be honest I think that depends.

              I DO see where your kinda right but to be honest I would suggest that I have more in common and would make a better marriage with decent conservative Hispanics or even blacks rather then a white woke globo homo girl.

              Which would you rather marry? Serious question and not snark.

              Biology matters but I don’t think it reigns supreme.

              • n4x5 says:

                I guess it’s a fair question to ask, if not a realistic one. It’s artificial in the sense that the choices are restricted more narrowly than what exists in the real world, and in reality my answer would be none of the above. I’d simply continue looking for a good white woman. That being said, I can at least understand why some white men choose to pair with Asian or Hispanic women, even if I (and most other white men) don’t choose that route. I think it’s true that white women are in some ways damaged and poor wife material at rates higher than some other groups’ females. (The really extreme ones are still a small minority, though.) On the flip side, I think it’s also true that there are higher rates of white females with certain appealing characteristics like heightened awareness and liberty-oriented values. (Plus a lot of white people (like a lot of nonwhite people) find the opposite gender of their own group more sexually appealing and want their offspring to look more or less like themselves and their ancestors.) I don’t see much of a correlation here with religion or language. I see the differences explained better in the degree to which the different populations have been subjected to social engineering, and again probably to some degree in genetics, as well as other possible factors. Islam might be something of an exception, but some Muslims have told me that they see their culture slowly degenerating as well, and the fact that they’re rejecting some aspects of globohomo doesn’t mean that they possess our level of appreciation for its existence as a goal-oriented plot nor the corresponding ability to resist in an informed intelligent way.

        • cu.h.j says:

          I’d guess there are close to zero biological forces at work. If you look at Fredrick Douglass for example in the US, who was a former black slave, was liberty minded.

          I think liberty mindedness has more to do with culture than race as a biological category. I would have to research this. Corbett has interviewed non white people who are liberty minded, a few were black if I recall correctly.

          Also, with respect to Jews, I think the “green pass” in Israel and the forced vaccinations demonstrates how the globalists feel about ordinary Jews.

          Interesting observation about how different “white” or lighter skinned people see themselves. I’m an American, but maternal family is from eastern Europe, and primarily secular Jews who viewed themselves as Europeans. Paternal family is from England mostly, who saw themselves as Americans once they came to this country. They liked to have tea though.

          I see myself as an American since I was born here and speak English and somewhat outside a group identity. I don’t really see myself as “white” because I don’t think I really have an identity outside of what I think of myself. I was not raised religious at all, but to value education and with a strong ethical background that went beyond race or religion.

          I strive to treat everyone the way I want to be treated an look at everyone first as a unique individual without prejudice. Maybe this is an American value and if it is, I think it’s a good one.

          • Fact Checker says:

            “I don’t really see myself as ‘white’ because I don’t think I really have an identity outside of what I think of myself.”

            I can’t imagine a clearer illustration of exactly the deracination that n4x5 is talking about.

            Very educational, cuhj.

            • cu.h.j says:

              Is it necessarily bad though? Just a question. I think its an American thing pre Woke era. America being a “melting pot”. I do identify as being a woman and a human too.

              • Fact Checker says:

                The “Melting Pot” is all part of the Kalergi Plan, just one thread of the all-encompassing, pan-generational Jewish conspiracy to achieve unrivalled supremacy over the entire Earth. By diluting and contaminating the only potential rival—non-Jewish Europeans—by miscegenating them with the manifestly low-intelligence races, the Judaic Masters have quite effectively neutralized any threat posed by European gentile bloodlines, and softened up the Herd as a whole for the extermination-and-domestication process currently underway.

                So, whether you think it’s “bad” depends on whether you think non-Jewish peoples of the world should be systematically genocided and permanently enslaved as Noahide sub-humans. That’s a judgment call, and it’s up to you to decide.

              • cu.h.j says:


                When you say “…diluting and contaminating the only potential rival—non-Jewish Europeans—by miscegenating them with the manifestly low-intelligence races…” implies that there is a genetic basis for intelligence and capacity to resist tyranny. I don’t think there is any scientific basis to conclude that entire “races” of people have more or less intelligence or more or less capacity to resist tyranny.

                I think social and environmental factors have a greater influence on intelligence and valuing freedom than genetics. The idea of superiority in general, plays into the hands of the psychopathic elitists because it’s divisive and keeps people fighting among themselves.

                I also doubt that some of the ultra rich Zionist Jews who may be involved with this program have any tribal loyalty to other Jews. Rather they use the tribalism and identity politics to keep people divided. The poorer and less educated Jews are just as much goyem to them. Classifying other people as sub-human or “goyem” is pathological in my opinion.

              • Duck says:


                “…implies that there is a genetic basis for intelligence and….”

                A person’s value is NOT in anyway lessened by a low IQ since the value of human life comes from God..

                .however I am surprised that you, a medical type person, would NOT know that IQ potential I’d VERY genetic

                Literally Google’s first hit below


                Copy paste “…Many of these studies have focused on similarities and differences in IQ within families, particularly looking at adopted children and twins. These studies suggest that genetic factors underlie about 50 percent of the difference in intelligence among individuals. Other studies have….”

                While “the Bell Curve ” may have some methodological issues it’s well known that certain Gene’s run with Hig IQ just like they do with mental illness or medical conditions of the body

                A pretty fun guy is “dr Dutton t he jolly heretic ” if your wanting to listen to more of that, thou6i can’t say I agree with all his ideas.

              • cu.h.j says:


                I did not say genetics weren’t involved in IQ, I said that I have not found any scientific evidence to suggest entire races of people are less or more intelligent than other races of people. If you have any studies that you have seen please post them.

                There is a lot of variation in IQ within races as far as I know. And is IQ the only determinant for intelligence? Isn’t intelligence more complex than a number? What does IQ even measure?

                I’ve known people with very high IQ who lacked common sense or had some other deficit that negated their potential. My own mom is neurotic and her IQ is in the 160s. On the other hand my IQ is lower (recent test 130s), but I have more common sense and better intuition and less neurotic tendencies. Just one case in point.

                In short, my point is that I think that making generalizations about entire races of people lacks scientific basis at this point. If you have any scientific studies that refutes my claim, please point them out.

                Another point is that I don’t think intelligence is the only thing that is required for opposing tyranny. People must also be brave and willing to fight for it.

              • Duck says:


                “…generalizations about entire races of people lacks scientific basis at this point….”

                That depends on what kind of generalization does it not?

                For example Africans have higher Testosterone on average … generalization is a tool not a frame that fits everyone


                “…Testosterone levels increased rapidly with age and reached higher and earlier peak levels in black males compared to white males at 20-30 years of age. After reaching a peak level, testosterone levels declined earlier in blacks than in whites. Further analyses showed that black males had considerably higher levels of testosterone compared to white males aged 20-39 years after adjusting for covariates, including age, body mass inde..”

              • Duck says:



                “….umber of studies have found that Ashkenazi Jews in the United States have a high average IQ……review of studies shows that Oriental Jews in Israel have an average IQ 14 points lower than that of European (largely Ashkenazi) Jews. It is proposed that this difference can be explained in terms of the Cochra…”

                I can get more… like the one that shows Jews in Israel in the pre war period had higher mental instability then arabs and Europeans living there …. it’s not a big reveal that there ar differences in physical traits (in generalization) and THE BRAIN IS AN ORGAN so there being zero differences between people groups would be rather weird.

                Shall I post more studies when I get to my PC?

              • Duck says:

                “….Another point is that I don’t think intelligence is the only thing that is required for opposing tyranny….”

                That point has merit, plenty of smart people make horrible choices… as I have said a person’s value DOES NOT come from IQ but from God.

                Obviously when you get past a certain level of stupid people the state will get powerful pandering to those that can not exist without its help…can you imagine a free and democratic society of actual retards ? 🙂 lol

              • Fact Checker says:

                “I think that making generalizations about entire races of people lacks scientific basis at this point. If you have any scientific studies that refutes my claim, please point them out.”

                I’m perfectly comfortable relying on my skills of observation, pattern-recognition, discernment, and honesty to myself. I don’t rely on corporate-governmental statistical “science” for my beliefs any more than I rely on dumb-ass religious texts.

                You are quite obviously in carefully-curated denial and self-deception. You have been conditioned not to trust your “lying eyes” by the Jewish media-eductation complex. There’s no waking up someone pretending to sleep. I for one am not interested in trying to “prove” manifest, albeit uncomfortable, reality to you.

                “I also doubt that some of the ultra rich Zionist Jews who may be involved with this program have any tribal loyalty to other Jews.”

                Strong agree. Big Jew doesn’t give a damn about Little Jew.

                “Rather they use the tribalism and identity politics to keep people divided.”

                True. And they also use forcible egalitarianism and cosmopolitanism to keep different groups crammed together despite inherent and intractable biological differences. Your counterfactual universalism is a tool of Their programming in enforcing unnatural and unfortunate integration of incompatible groups.

                “The poorer and less educated Jews are just as much goyem [sic: goyim] to them.”

                Big Jew doesn’t give a damn about “education” or “money”. Big Jew is an equal-opportunity predator that is able to manipulate all of society to his own aggrandizement and gratification. Big Jew isn’t motivated by any value system other than cosmic hunger for power and planetary control.

                “Classifying other people as … ‘goyem’ [sic again] is pathological in my opinion.”

                You are trying to describe harsh, apathetic material reality in terms of normative values. That’s a category error. That’s like saying, “Classifying other species as ‘animals’ is pathological.” No, it isn’t. It’s just true. The fact that humankind is split into sheeplike goyim and predatorlike Masters is sad; but it’s true. As the Romans said, Homo homini lupus. (“Man is wolf to man.”) Biological differenes lead to political dynamics that determine the arc of history. This reality might not say anything promising about the destiny of the human species, but the fact remains that it is what it is…

              • cu.h.j says:


                Thanks for the links. I would like to find the full paper for this abstract

                It’s good to be able to look at the study design and methodology to evaluate validity. But even if it’s evidence suggests some “races” have slightly higher IQ score, what does that even mean? And is 14 points significant? I guess it would be if you compared lower IQ people, either being “retarded” or below average could matter. But people scoring 164 versus those scoring 178? Or those scoring 135 versus 149? Do those 14 points always matter?

                And, can a person study and train their mind to get a better IQ test score? As a challenge for myself, maybe I will study and prove that I can get a better score, maybe even 14 points more! I think it’s possible for some people.

                I started the book Being in Time by Giliad Atzmon who described some of this “selection” process that went on in Askenazi Jewish societies in Europe to develop certain intellectual skills and abilities in order to maintain an edge in finance and banking, etc. This is a social endeavor mostly. Suppose this training was applied to other types of people, could they not also become just as skilled and talented in certain fields?

                What I’m saying is that I think that the actual genetics of intelligence are not well understood enough to apply to entire races of people nor are they sufficient to determine potential or predictable and meaningful values.

                For example suppose you took random Asian, African, Caucasian and looked at IQ score, you would have to hold constant social and environmental factors to be able to even begin to make a biological argument. Then, you’d have to look at genes and genetic interactions and actual biology which I don’t think we even understand yet, how they interact to manifest complex characteristics like thinking.

              • Fact Checker says:

                “you would have to hold constant social and environmental factors to be able to even begin to make a biological argument”

                Impossible. Social and environmental conditions are inextricable functions of biology, and are quite obviously themselves secondary and subordinate to intelligence.

                You might as well say outright, “You have to control for intelligence”!

                Your burden-of-proof is carefully designed specifically to be unsatisfiable. This is why “science” as commonly understood will never be able to reveal anything useful about human biodiversity, but is instead just a set of protective tricks to try to conceal and obscure obvious reality with layers of rhetorical dissembling.

              • Duck says:


                “….What I’m saying is that I think that the actual genetics of intelligence are not well understood enough to apply to entire races of people nor are they sufficient to determine potential or predictable and meaningful values….”

                First you say there is no evidence then you say the evidence is not strong then you say that even if it’s true it does not matter.

                I am not saying people are worth more or less due to IQ

                I am not saying that their rights vary because of IQ

                I am not even saying that average IQ matters more then Culture

                You are reacting, IMO, in something of an emotional manner due to the implications of what I am saying conflicteling with your world view.

                There is plenty of evidence to show that IQ varies by family, class, and people group.

                I literally used GOOGLE to get those links and spent zero time digging….its THAT easy to show though the practical implications are more complicated

              • cu.h.j says:


                I know you aren’t saying IQ scores determine worth or rights. But there are people who do think this and use these numbers to determine worth and make potentially faulty conclusions based on these numbers. Everyone has some confirmation bias going on to support their world view. No one is exempt from this effect because we are all having subjective experiences.

                I find the tendency to exclude others based on race, religion, sex etc from friendship and cooperation to be a mistake. And I don’t think you are the kind of person who does this BTW. But I have seen this type of discussion on other sites, talking about IQ like it’s some huge determinant of social status or something. I think that’s bogus.

              • Duck says:

                “..IQ like it’s some huge determinant of social status or…”

                Well… it IS somewhat important for social status.

                If you have to work 2x as hard to learn then all being equal you generally will end up in a lower status job, also do more stupid things and generally have a worse life outcome.

                That’s all things being equal…culture and community coherence matter a huge amount.thats why I know they can do the whites exactly what they did to the blacks with the attack of the famil6and community

                But…that said …. you can not expect a place where average IQ is 80 or 90 to have the same culture as a place where everyone is 120.

                Pretending that people are identical or fungible is a horrible mistake.

              • cu.h.j says:


                “Pretending that people are identical or fungible is a horrible mistake”

                Yes, I agree and that each person is unique.

              • cu.h.j says:


                An IQ of 80-90 is pretty low though, like having an intellectual disability low. And and IQ of 120 is above average. Maybe the average of 100s be able to achieve just as much as the 120s? I have no idea because I haven’t looked into this much.

                I think some people are just better test takers, like myself. I have learned how to take tests and am pretty good at it. I am not sure my IQ score is what makes me kind or intuitive or able to discern right from wrong. These qualities are important for culture too.

              • Duck says:

                “…An IQ of 80-90 is pretty low though, like having an intellectual disability low…..”


                bear in mind that there are some methodological issues with how these were collected….however there is zero doubt that different areas of the world have large difference in IQ… some of this may be from environment….for example LEAD in gasoline has destroyed an estimated millions of IQ points and thus is would be UTTERLY INSANE to imagine that the average IQ of those drinking the water in Flint Michigan was the same as their hypothetical twins who had been drinking lead free water

              • Duck says:

                You should note that that “80 to 90″ IS NO LONGER ‘very low”
                the classification for Retardation has been changed…. AFAIK due to too many black kids being swept up into Special Ed.

                Before the Larry P. case, California education code required school districts to use IQ scores when assessing students for special education…”

                “….Based on the test results, black students statewide — young Darryl included — wound up categorized as “educable mentally retarded” at disproportionate rates: 27% labeled that way in 1968 were black — even though black students made up less than 9% of the student body…”


                See article for talk on IQ test cultural bias.

                You should note though that
                “…An IQ of 80-90 is pretty low though, like having an intellectual disability low…”
                http://www .assessmentpsychology. com/iqclassifications. htm

                you may have the maths i dont but the 100 AVERAGE means that maybe near 15 to 20% have a sub 85 IQ in the USA… i read,anyway,since my maths suck 🙂

          • n4x5 says:

            “I think liberty mindedness has more to do with culture than race as a biological category.” I don’t rule that out as a possibility, but still I doubt strongly that the genetic contribution is negligible. We generally have no problem admitting physical differences: black people are more prone to developing sickle cell anemia and are more prone to vitamin D deficiency at higher latitudes; East Asian people apparently have different earwax than other people; white people sunburn more easily. For some reason, though, some people are reluctant to consider the possibility that racial or ethnic differences may extend to differences in cognitive or behavioral patterns. The deeper reasons aside, my claim is that the tendency and ability to resist the globalists is disproportionately, but far from exclusively, a white phenomenon. A few nonwhite liberty advocates don’t undermine that claim.

            I also don’t rule out the possibility that Jewish identity is being used by at least some of the oligarchs as an expedient tool more than as something they sincerely cherish. Another book recommendation: The Invention of the Jewish People by Schlomo Sand.

            “I strive to treat everyone the way I want to be treated an look at everyone first as a unique individual without prejudice.” This may be the appropriate way to evaluate people under some circumstances. When very large numbers of dissimilar people are moved artificially (and deliberately malevolently) into new surroundings already occupied, though, the appropriate way to evaluate them is probably as a group, not as individuals.

          • Duck says:

            “….Douglass for example in the US, who was a former black slave, was liberty minded….”

            Frederick Douglass fell under the influence of a jewish German girl and treated his wife as a house servant…. the German Jew was herself under the influence of too much Romantic Fiction and was somewhat disturbed IMO…. she taught him to be an Atheist and very much reduced him to a grifter rather then the great leader he could have been.

            He was indeed liberty minded at the start but lost a lot of that thanks to her influence…. her mother was in many ways why she screwed her life up so bad

            See “Jewish Revolutionary Spirit” vol 2.

  17. Duck says:

    Sorry no but Internet Archive has a ton of older books along with some newer stuff people post
    Sorry if you already know it 🙂

    Love librivox for audio books though… their all olde books though

    • Duck says:

      This was a reply to wolfgang… not sure why it’s here on the bottom of the page.

  18. Kelly says:

    As an infant conspiracy theorist, I’m happy to say that I already had a few of these in my library! Yay!

    Might I make an unsolicited recommendation for the addition of some gardening, livestock husbandry, canning and cooking from scratch over a campfire books? We’re all going to find those useful somewhere in the near future.

    PS to my fellow Corbeteers: If you’ve ever wondered about the quality of dollar store seeds, I have found them to be above satisfactory in germination and harvest rates for the past 2 years. Follow me for more off topic life tips.

  19. palama says:

    Is anybody else reading Marsha Keith-Schuchard? She’s a literary historian (University of Texas) with a bent for cataloging the importance of secret societies in history. Her books have changed the way I think about the 18th and 19th centuries. When you get to the 19th century there is no author of fame that didn’t dabble in the occult or have connections to the Free Masons. It seems as though the entire publishing industry has been taken over by secret societies and ideas have always been tightly controlled by the secret priests. Her latest title is “Irish” William Blake and Illuminist Freemasonry in 1798 (2021) and it builds upon her recent tome: Masonic Rivalries and Literary Politics: From Jonathan Swift to Henry Fielding. If you don’t come away from this reading feeling the overwhelming effect of secret societies on everything, you’re not getting it.

    • Duck says:

      I don’t know her but she looks interesting…. kinda like Nesta Webster who did World Revolution and some stuff on the Masonic French revolution. I will ck her stuff out when I’m at my desk. Thanks.

      dr Richard Spence does that kinda stuff too…but on Freemasonry Dr Jones in Jewish Revolutionary Spirit writes about how the British exported Freemasonry to destabilize the French regime thru creating social unrest-kinda like the NGO’s spread it around now.

  20. JD says:

    Thanks so much for the list, James! I just picked up three of them, started digging in, and am enjoying the information and insights within!

  21. CaptainJohnSmith says:

    Interesting list, Mr. Corbett. I would add to it the collected works of C.G. Jung.

  22. wolfgang says:

    whosoever does not yet start projectile vomiting at the prospect of reading another story/book about Covid and some rather obscure (in this context obscure) key people – I can recommend the book “GAME OVER. DIE INTERNATIONALE MAFIA HINTER ANTHRAX-01 UND COVID-19.” by Heiko Schöning.
    The book is only available in German at the moment, however there is a transcript of a recent interview available (also in German) – which you can translate with the translation software of your choice:
    Why is this book particularly interesting:
    It fills in several blanks/incoherences of the decades-old biosecurity agenda and some leading people working on it within the Deep State. Dr. Schöning mentions people deeply involved since at least the leadup of the Anthrax attacks in 2001 (e.g. Dr. Richard Tubb or Admiral William Crowe). I would really love if James could bring on Dr. Schöning in an interview about this (or anyone else who might be interested could do that for the English speaking audience – I have contact to Dr. Schöning and he is 100% authentic and has been a vocal voice for truth and resistance against the powers that shouldn’t be for years!)

  23. Not This Little Frog says:

    I’m late to this edition of TCR’s Subscriber Newsletter…I just clicked on the link in this offering to the previous “Another 25 Books…” offering from James and it is dated 2020, when current writing states that it was last year ie 2021. Perhaps living off grid for the last 2 or so months has slowed my wit, but why is it dated 2020 when James writes “last year’?

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Back to Top