Here's What's Next on the Globalist Calendar

04/18/202251 Comments

As you should know by now, the threat facing free humanity is not a secret conspiracy but a perfectly open one. Those seeking to monopolize the resources of the planet and institute a system of perfect technocratic control are, generally speaking, not secretive about their plans. On the contrary. Any number of publicly available records—from books and white papers to blog posts, fora and lectures—give an interested public plenty of lead time to prepare for the next steps in the unfolding globalist agenda.

So, in the grand Corbett Report tradition of Listening to the Enemy, let's employ one of the simplest methods for understanding what's coming next in the global plan: let's consult the would-be world controllers' own calendar.

Join James for this week's edition of The Corbett Report Subscriber as he consults the globalists' own calendar to discover what's in store for the coming years. Then, stick around for James' recommended reading, listening and viewing, and a coupon code for 25% off Corbett Report DVDs at the New World Next Week shop.

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 (51)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. mkey says:

    Bobby Kennedy talks to Mark Crispin Miller about underlaying conditions of our plight

    Brace for a few cringy comparisons to climate change ™, but otherwise this is a very solid half hour interview.

  2. I hope there’d be a demonstration in Stockholm in which case I’ll go.

    I’m thinking about buying a sheep onecie and go there to cheer up for “world government” and against “Russian Al-Qaeda misinfo terrorism”

    But I’m open to any creative ideas/suggestions you may have. Please do share it here in case it’s useful for others.

    Also welcome if you have any other suggestions of things to do there. Photo or video ideas, etc.


    • Another idea I have is to use that opportunity to do “positive propaganda” on the demonstrators.

      I’m thinking to bring attention that being a good example for your family and friends by doing Buycotts & Boycotts is key. But still I couldn’t come up with a funny concise idea for this message.

      What is in your mind?

      Thanks in advance!

  3. HomeRemedySupply says:

    RE: James Corbett’s Sunday 4/17 Easter bunny article:
    Here’s What’s Next on the Globalist Calendar

    These cuddly overlords make me feel so securely warm about a fuzzy future.
    Those Easter eggs in Corbett’s article held some eye-opening gifts.
    It may be hard to sleep tonight.

  4. Fact Checker says:

    From Peter Jacobson’s pro-natalist propaganda piece on FEE:

    “People are creative and entrepreneurial, and they use those talents to create new products and institutional systems which allow ‘finite’ resources to effectively multiply. … Advances in technology and production processes can cause returns to increase.”

    And there it is, right there. Pro-natalist policies are, at their fundamental core, pro-technology policies. Every single pro-natalist utopian necessarily follows the logic of Julian Simon (to whom both Corbett and Jacobson uncritically subscribe), who says, in effect, Don’t worry about where the food comes from. The Great Machine will provide!

    Even if they’re right, though (and I actually tend to suspect that they are indeed correct) this feedback-loop of ever-increasing population and technological totalitarianism is not a good outcome for humanity. It just means that the bigger the population is, the more dependent on technology the population is. And the more dependent the population is on technology, the more vulnerable the population is to being enslaved by the very technology that proliferates to satisfy the little humans’ basic bodily drives. This runaway process was recognized over a century ago by a long line of philosophers, whose concerns had nothing to do with Mathusian fallacies. The real concern—the one that is presently rearing its nasty head in the material world—was always that the technologization of man leads to the technologization of society: bureaucracy and technocratic hierarchy, and to the mechanization of the human mind. This process of “technological determinism” was predicted clearly, as early as the mid-18th Century, by Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s “Discourse on Arts & Sciences.” This mechnization process became even more starkly apprehended by Thomas Carlyle in 1829 (“Signs of the Times”). Carlyle explained, “It is the Age of Machinery,” lamenting that reliance on machines had necessarily resulted in enthrenched, dehumanizing bureacracization. “Men are grown mechanical in the head and heart, as well as in hand. …[F]or Mechanism of one sort or another, do they hope and struggle. Their whole efforts, attachments, opinions, turn on mechanism, and are of a mechanical character.” He understood: “Our true Deity is Mechanism.”

    This mechanization of humanity is the obvious and predictable outcome of the tech-dependent breeder-mass of humanity celebrated by Simon, and his ideological successors like Corbett.

    • Fact Checker says:

      Carlyle’s observations were expanded even more powerfully by Samuel Butler in 1863, who wrote, “Darwin among the Machines“. He pointed out that Darwin’s model of natural selection would apply equally to the relationship between man and machine, with machines evolving much more quickly, and headed inexorably for dominance. He foresaw that by the end of the selective process, “man will have become to the machine what the horse and dog are to man,” and accurately predicted that “the time will come when the machines hold the real supemacy over the world and its inhabitants [which] no person of a truly philosophic mind can for a moment question.” Even back then, before the “digital revolution,” Butler recognized that “the mischief is already done…and that we are not only enslaved byt are absolutely acquiescent in our bondage.” In 1865 Butler wrote in “Mechanical Creation” that eventually humans would be bred like livestock to serve particular purposes in the engineering of the Machines.

      That is quite unmistakably the exact same vision as that espoused by Simon and Jacobson and Corbett, except they see it through rose-tinted glasses! More technology means more people and more people means more technology! YAAAAAY! Yes, a mechanized breeder-mass of entirely dependent, dehumanized and collectivized primates that essentially live their entire lives as puppies waiting to be fed by robotic feeding-tubes, as they are increasingly scrutinized, studied, and instrumentalized by the mechanized Overmind of Technology. This is a nightmare-vision of the rapid extinction of the human spirit, but they think it’s a defense of unquestioning procreation.

      Nietzsche, too, recognized that “Mankind mercilessly employs every individual as material for heating its great machines: but what then is the purpose of the machines if all individuals are of no other use than as material for maintaining them? Machines that are an end in themselves–is that the human comedy?” (“Human, All Too Human”; 1878.)

      In 1905 Max Weber pointed out that mankind “is now bound to the technical and economic conditions of machine production, which today determine the lives of all the individuals who are born into this mechanism, not only those directly concerned with economic acquisition, with irresistible force.” (“Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism”.) This state of affairs is even implicitly understood by Jacobson when he makes the blithe and simplistically Panglossian pronouncement that “Technology will provide.” But this repulsive, irreversible grafting of the Machine onto a metastacizing breeder-mass of dependent human bodies is a far worse outcome than what Jacobson purports to defend against: prudent and thoughtful reduction of the population. A smaller population (notwithstanding the exaggerations of the “Population Bomb” thesis) is a less technologized population. A smaller population is a less bureacratized, regimented, and industrialized population. A smaller population is a more human population.

    • Fact Checker says:

      The “Simon Set,” like Jacobson and Corbett, are gleefully plunging headlong into the techno-dystopia envisioned by Oswald Spengler (“Man and Technics”) in 1931. “The lord of the World is becoming the slave of the Machine, which is forcing him—forcing us all, whether we are aware of it or not—to follow its course.”

      Even though Corbett is occasionally forced to acknowledge the encroaching tyranny of the technological forms that surround us, he nonetheless insists caution should be dispensed with when it comes to breeding, and that humans should just “go forth and multiply” specifically because they will be served by the Great Machine as Julian Simon promised. Not only does this pro-natal maximalism necessitate staying the course into techno-dystopia, but it means pumping the gas instead of the brakes.

      The Simonian mindset is necessarily dependent on the “instrumentalist viewpoint” of technology: that it is “just a tool” that can be used “for good or evil” depending on the user. However, the instrumentalist fallacy was debunked by Heidegger, who appreciated that technology is not merely a potential danger, but “it is the supreme danger.” (“The Question Concerning Technology”; 1954.) Technology is “danger as such“.

      Indeed, Corbett even acknowledges that firm principle in his discussion of Robocop and the like, repeatedly employing the phrase “the logic of the technology” to explain how such movies are so prescient in depicting the surveillance and coersion the technology is delivering to humanity. This “Logic of the Technology” is precisely so because technology is an autonomous force of nature. Even though humans may be the substrate through which this force emerges, mankind is never in control of it, and it is never a mere neutral “instrument.” It’s not “just-a-tool,” but it is instead an end to itself. But one senses that Corbett remains in deliberate denial of that very Logic of the Technology when he backslides into his rosy natalist platitudes about how “The Machine will Provide.” He wants to “have his cake and eat it too,” by pledging his faith in the Machine to protect and provide for his offspring, while “decrying Its excesses.” This cognitively-dissonant tension is a product of the unthinkable and unspeakable magnitude of the horrors that await us. Those horrors are best pushed aside, to be worried about later.

      But how about instead of just “worrying about that later,” we apply the Precautionary Principle when it comes to feeding more humans into the Machine? Why not err on the side of caution, rather than procreative maximalism? What could it possibly hurt to spare a few humans the fate of being grafted onto an inhuman machine in permanent slavery to its soulless ends?

      • Duck says:

        Fact Checker

        Seriously still with the fancy words on why people should stop having kids? The team h tyranny will fail, now or in a thousand years.

        Nothing man makes is forever.

        Too much thinking without useful work is destructive to the human psyche.

      • alexb says:

        You make an interesting argument about man serving machines but I don’t agree that machines / technology / tools are inherently evil.

        I think you discount mankind’s inhumanity. Even before the industrial revolution, the rulers / “powers that shouldn’t be”, treated other humans like cattle. Take the “Enclosures” for example, where serfs were evicted by landowners in favour of sheep to sell wool internationally.

        It’s this attitude that persists and in my opinion, treating groups of humans like commodities to exploit and sell and use on plantations, build infrastructure etc. – this is where evil lies. Technology gives these monsters greater powers to be even more inhumane. But, imo. this does not mean that all technology is bad.


    • nosoapradio says:

      Pro-natalist policies are, at their fundamental core, pro-technology policies.

      Corbett’s not pro-natalist. He’s pro-freedom to choose and anti-mass forced sterilization. And he’s anti-demographic winter.

      All forms of tech are not the problem. The way it’s used is the problem. And there are other crucial combined factors to support not force-restricting birth rates.

      this feedback-loop of ever-increasing population


      Dropping fertility rates, new lifestyles, economic hardship, aging demographics and thus impending demographic winter are the feedback loop.

      Corbett has clearly described it’s not about encouraging reproduction: it’s about dispelling over-population propaganda and de-guiltifying would be parents.

      But I was genuinely happy to learn that fabulous word “panglossian”! PanGlosssssian! Gorgeous! Will use asap!

      • Fact Checker says:

        Hey nosoap:

        “Corbett’s not pro-natalist. …it’s not about encouraging reproduction: it’s about dispelling over-population propaganda….”

        Corbett literally produced a “Solutions Watch” episode called “Go Forth and Multiply,” where he encouraged his audience to procreate because “every child born is a dagger in the heart of the New World Order.” Putting aside the absurdity of people going to a conspiracy webcam-video podcaster for family-planning advice, he quite deliberately lined up a series of other conspiracy website personalities to gush about the wonderful experience of raising a generation of masked little rascals to scamper about in the rising biosecurity grid. Then, in multiple other episodes, he bragged that that very same “Solutions Watch” webcam address actually persuaded some fools to breed “IRL”, over their previous misgivings. This is all pronatal demagoguery of the crudest and most hamfisted nature, appealing to the audience’s gooey goyish sentimentality.

        All forms of tech are not the problem. The way it’s used is the problem.

        I already anticipated this fallacious “instrumentalist” argument with my reference to Heidegger above. In addition to that seminal critique, a more recent and even starker disputation came from Henryk Skolimowski in 1975 (“A Way out of the Abyss”):

        “Technology, as developed in the West, is not neutral. …When woven into the secular worldview, which in its development emptied out man of his inner life—particularly his ethical and spiritual life—technology cannot be but destructive of man’s higher values. No way yet has been found to prevent that, which means that the detrimental consequences of technology are not incidental but endemic; they lie in the very nature of the phenomenon.”

        Skolimowski also explained that industrial-scale technology also by necessity centralizes and concentrates both political power and wealth into fewer and fewer hands. These are inherent characteristics of technology as such, because control of the tech will always tend to corrupt its holders, and the worst sorts will be attracted to sieze that power whenver it exists. These are quite basic principles, and not very hard to grasp.

        Ivan Illich said similarly, in 1973 (“Tools for Conviviality”):

        Certain tools are destructive no matter who owns them. …Networks of multilane highways, long-range, wide-bandwidth transmitters, strip mines, or compulsory school systems are such tools. Destructive tools must invariably increase regimentation, dependence, exploitation, or impotence….”

      • Fact Checker says:

        “Dropping fertility rates, new lifestyles, economic hardship, aging demographics and thus impending demographic winter….”

        Allow me to submit that anyone encouraging personal action in order to address some high-level, abstract, collective “threat” like “demographic winter” or “unfunded-liability shortfall” (or, “overpopulation” or “global warming,” for that matter) are leading you down the proverbial “primrose path”. This is especially true when the personal action being recommended is of such a fundamentally consequential and potentially ruining nature as birthing a helpless child when a powerful, totalitarian government has outright declared you and your kind enemies to be dealt with very harshly, and has already described plans to separate children from parents for “health reasons.” Under current conditions, birthing a new child is an extremely dicey and perilous proposition that should not be undertaken for the “common good” of “supporting Social Security” or, gawd fucking forbid, “winning a brutal, protracted, multi-generational war of attrition against the New World Order.”

        Bear in mind, I suspect no bad faith on the part of Corbett, or his fellow webcam conspiracists. Instead, I believe their pro-natal activism is born of rationalization and sublimated breeders’ remorse. I think they all know (on some level) that they have committed a disastrous folly, and a sin against their own flesh, by rendering up babies to the hungry pleasure of the global government now bearing down on us all in earnest. Therefore, these hapless young parents are desperate to find any way possible to reinforce and sustain their self-hypnotic optimism. This is often accomplished by pulling still more people into whatever cult the evangelist happens to be in—whether its Christianity, Covidism, Communism, or the Babymakers’ Brigade. One assuages one’s own misgivings by drawing more people into the folly. This same mentality was demonstrated en masse during the recent wave of injection uptake.

        But I was genuinely happy to learn that fabulous word “panglossian”! PanGlosssssian! Gorgeous! Will use asap!

        Why use it, nosoap? You’re the very embodiment of it!

        • gauntlet33 says:

          @Fact Checker, how about for once you stop telling people what they should do, drop your control freak attitude, and just let people be? You can’t, can you? Why?…Because deep down you’re one of THEM (the globalists / communist / socialist trolls) who can’t help but pry their noses into everyone’s business. My life is beautiful and I’m having kids because despite the potential dystopian tyrannical future which may one day happen, I am optimistic that humanity and reason will prevail and these days will be seen in hindsight as the Second Dark Ages and that they will live very happy and fulfilling lives. And I further believe that trolls like you will crawl back under the rocks from which you all came.

          With that said, I hope you have a nice day.

          • Fact Checker says:

            “…despite the potential dystopian tyrannical future which may one day happen, I am optimistic…”

            As I stated in my reply to Mr. I-Was-a-23-Year-Old-Child, even if the probability of the “potential” techno-feudal nightmare coming into being were extremely low, the magnitude of the harm that will be suffered by its inhabitants will be so enormous as to make the Risk-value (Severity x Probability x Exposure or R = S x P x E) still a very, very high value. But it’s really not a low probability. It’s such a high probability, that for all the hand-wringing and “solutions-watching” by the unflappable optimistic set, I haven’t yet seen a single articulation of an action that would have any significant potential to stop, hinder, disrupt, delay, or even impact that outcome in the slightest. You can choke down all the pine cake you want, but the Machine is coming for you. If you have kids, the Machine will liquidate you, and put your kids in an augmentation-and-conditioning center. The Machine will be their adoptive parent.

            In light of the manifest risk posed by the entirely unckecked power, clearly-announced plans, and merciless discipline of the Great Resetters, under present conditions it is reckless and extremely callous to doom additional souls to existence.

            More likely than not, if you choose to have children, they will be raped and tortured to death.

            Don’t say Fact Checker didn’t warn you.

            • candlelight says:


              Reading your posts, on this thread in particular, it appears you are, at the moment, well tuned and humming on all cylinders, with a full tank of high octane!

              As is typical, your Dantesque/Matrix (the movie version) vision of humanity’s certain fate is, decidedly, humorously over-the-top, which at times delivers patently high entertainment value – which I tend to suspect is designed, more so than not, to be, if you don’t mind the redundancy, purposely provocative, which is cool – I’ll take a laugh anywhere I can get one.

              But, this time around you paired your arguments with some really interesting historical biographies. Especially fascinating, is your referencing Samuel Butler, who had, as you make us aware, reflected amazing prescience. I know somewhere in the house is a copy of The Way of All Flesh which I only started to read (and stopped) eons ago. But, I had no clue about his other writings on man and the machine, and what that portends.

              The points that you (and Butler) drive home are well taken, that technology, and all that it represents is, in essence, it own creature, distinct and independent from, let’s say, us humans. And, in that very sense, I, too, believe deep down, as you, in technology’s inexorable continuum and the eventual consummation of what is now understood and or experienced as human spirit.

              So, all I can say is thank you for your referencing Butler’s work, and as such, for a start, I plan to get a copy of Butler’s Erewhon which seems to embody his visionary, Nostradamus-like insight.

              Pretty mind-blowing.

              • Fact Checker says:

                I’m cribbing my treasure-trove of quotes from the stupendous, compendious textbook by David Skrbina, The Metaphysics of Technology. And yes, when I got to the bit about Samuel Butler I too absolutely flipped. Couldn’t believe what I was reading. Seeing one’s own prediction for the coming decade, so vividly presaged more than 150 years ago, is uncanny to say the least. (Apparently, btw, Erewhon contains a version of the “Darwin among the Machines” essay as an interlude, according to the user reviews on Bezosmart.)

                I wish I could say I find this topic “entertaining” and “funny” as you do, but it would seem my sense of humor isn’t all that dark after all, relatively speaking, in the grand scheme of things. But in any event, I’ll take your reply to be a complimentary sentiment from a fellow technological determinist.

                [Btw I believe you mean “consumption”—not “consummation”—no? Really does change the meaning!]

              • candlelight says:

                I’m not sure that in this context, “consummation” v “consumption” is all that different.

                “Consummation” may be a bit awkward; I was using it in its meaning of an ending, or termination.

                “Consumption” works, too. It connotes to me more of the active state of wasting away, such as being consumed by tuberculosis – “consumption” being the old term for TB. It’s certainly apropos. We could say the mechanical and digital age is wasting away thousands of years of human tradition. Just the other day I had a discussion about the fact that kids today don’t even know how to read cursive writing, because it’s no longer taught. Everything is done on the keyboard. In the same vein, when you think about traditions where the intricate knowledge of community craft has been handed down generationally, you have to wonder how long will it be before this knowledge is forever lost, and the term “hand-made” will be an historical reference, at a time when everything is made strictly by machine; perhaps by the machines, themselves, where the robotics decide the when and the how to push the buttons that they, themselves, have designed.

                Another thought about the word “consummation”, as when a romantic relationship is “consummated” with the act of sexual intercourse. And so it is, as in the courtship of man and machine: It is Humanity that is getting fucked….

                It is a grim subject, so it’s curious why I find your posts humorous. Though, I believe the reaction is due to your very heavy handedness of the subject, where you demonstratively state in no uncertain terms that there is no hope, and consequently, there is no escape from our hellish future which you invariably describe in nightmarish detail. That you offer no hope exes out that one last grasping straw that is in human nature to hold on to; so, there is no solace nor prayer; a Friday the 13th movie with no survivors. I guess that’s what I find funny, that you buck the system in that sense – your adamant and steadfast refusal to offer hope. To some, it may engender condemnation (which, too, is funny in the anticipation of same). Perhaps that explains the entertainment factor on a certain level, the interplay of the traditionalist verses the iconoclast, with the actual subject being of lesser import.

              • Fact Checker says:

                Hey, thanks for this sensitive and thoughtful response candlelight. (I thought you had lost interest.)

                I figured you meant “consumption” as in being consumed…because we are indeed being consumed—devoured and absorbed—by a carnivorous megamachine.

                (“Consummation” to me means harmonious union, or perfection. And that is not what’s happening to mankind. We’re not a blushing bride being swept off her dainty feet into the soft embrace of satin sheets…but rather a shackled, unconsenting organ-donor being hacked open with a dull rotary saw, alive but without anesthesia.)

                “…you offer no hope … to hold on to; so, there is no solace nor prayer; a Friday the 13th movie with no survivors. I guess that’s what I find funny, that you buck the system in that sense – your adamant and steadfast refusal to offer hope.”

                Hope is just one of the enemies to overcome. I’m the only person in the entire Dissent-O-Sphere actually offering a solution. It just happens to be a solution of a far more subtle and unexpected nature than people are willing to accept. It is a genuinely difficult, counterintuitive solution: Withdrawal. Spiritual escape.

                But really, people don’t want to escape. Even after they’re beaten. They still want to win. No matter how much suffering such a hopeless enterprise will engender. People who want to “win” don’t realize that the Earth herself is a whore. They think she’s a prized treasure, and that they deserve to be the one to own her. So they seek to “reclaim” her from the “evil” people who have taken her away.

                This is actually just a complex of pride and greed. It’s the same pride and greed that drive the Great Resetters, but it’s the bitter, wistful version jealously clutched by the underclass marginals who populate alt-media chatboards like this. Even in their abject enslavement and defeat, they continue to harbor their hopeless, vain delusions of “victory”, like Gollum clutching his “Preshioussssss“. Their desire to “win” and to “reclaim their birthright” and all that bullshit is precisely the sin for which only their children will pay. Dearly. With exquisite pain, and a scale of horror so immense you and I are lucky to be unable to imagine it.

              • candlelight says:

                You’re correct. In a general sense, I have lost interest in the Dissent-O-Sphere/alt-media. After umpteen years it’s getting pretty old, and is in the process of devolving into well churned, re-hashed boring banter – and outright (alt-right) balderdash in some cases.

                But, in the present instance, the case of Samuel Butler really pricked up my ears. It is the concept of what the man’s divination actually implies that I find utterly fascinating. I mean, seriously, back in, what, the 1840’s he’s talking about artificial intelligence subsuming humanity?

                Obviously, the man’s synapses were working on overdrive, but it doesn’t mean he was “dreaming” this. It means his foreknowledge was produced via logical progression that he was able to cognate directly or otherwise tap into on some unconscious level. This could imply that the trajectory toward the sublimation of humanity and organic life by inorganic forces (that we “create”) may very well be built into our DNA.

                Therefore, the technological progression toward trans-humanism, and beyond, to the evolution of a purely inorganic form of cognitive “life”, is not merely a possibility, but an absolute eventuality.

                Your “With exquisite pain, and a scale of horror so immense you and I are lucky to be unable to imagine it.” brings to mind the biblical “Nashing of teeth”…. No doubt by way of mechanical choppers.

      • Steve Smith says:

        When I was a child in my early twenties I felt that bringing children into a world that had treated me so cruelly would be unethical. This led me to make a rather irrevocable decision that I have regretted many times after I was mature enough to think about the issue objectively.
        I am now of the mind that this idea of anti-natalism when espoused by so-called academics is a doctrine of demons. And those espousing it, unless they are delusional children as I was, are pawns of the devil. Or demons themselves.
        Just my opinion.

        “…. anti-natal philosophy results in a bizarre paradox: one in which its ethical premises are, on the local and individual level, undeniable, but its implementation would produce human suffering so broad, deep, and protracted that the initial ethical impulse is betrayed.”

        • Fact Checker says:

          You were a “child” in your early 20s? Weird.

          Anyway, thanks for the article link. The author, a student at an unnamed university, demonstrates he is desperately out of his depth with this bit: “It is equally unclear how the unmitigated suffering of the extinction generation benefits the non-extant future generations of persons who are not brought into existence, given there are no recipients of this benefit”

          In other words, Engel completely failed to grasp Benatar’s asymmetry argument, and is actually incapable of grasping it due to remedial reading comprehension and a tendency toward what we call “category error” in basic logic. Engel’s concern with “non-extant future generations” is a category error: there is no such thing conceivable as an extant future generation. “Future generations” are a fundamentally exclusive category of extent persons. An extant person cannot be a future person and vice versa. Engel is adrift without a rhetorical paddle.

          The whole point of Benatar’s asymmetry (which really isn’t hard to grasp) is that although innumerable generations who are born would necessarily suffer, none of those hypothetical beings would feel any loss at all if they were not born, since a never-born being isn’t burdened in the first place with the wants, needs, and drives (collectively refered to as “preferences” in dry philosopher-speak) that are necessary before a being can enjoy any pleasure (or “satified preference” in the parlance). Only a life-in-being experiences preference-frustration. Benatar’s whole point is that non-procreation prevents suffering of lives that would otherwise come to being, with no downside (for the never-born beings).

          In any event, I’m not concerned with Engel’s counter-factual “paradox” because I am under no delusion that anti-natalism would ever be adopted en masse. The vast, vast majority of people are simply impelled by their base drives. They have neither the inclination or capacity to learn about or understand any such metaphysically-based prescription. So I am not concerned with such woolly and unlikely counterfactuals. I am only speaking to people clever enough to see the threat posed by the techno-tyranny bearing down on us at this very moment. (Again, the vast, vast majority are neither inclined nor capable of apprehending the threat, even as they are receiving lethal injections and offering their children up to it.) Only those with eyes to see concern me. I am only trying to appeal to the mercy and prudence of those people. I don’t care about counterfactuals, and I don’t believe there is such a thing as the “common good”.

        • Fact Checker says:

          But if someone is able to see the bio-security state being erected around them, but still consciously decides to thrust a helpless child into it, then I am here to point out the irresponsibility, recklessness, and downright cruelty of such a decision. Everybody who survives the Great Reset will exist as livestock in a human-scale high-density feedlot, to be bred as test subjects, sex-toys, and robotized meat-puppet bio-slaves. They will be manipulated, mutilated, prodded and caged by a machine intelligence that has no mercy, sentimentality, or regard for the human as anything more than a paramecium in a petri dish. This is virtually certain. But even if the probability of this outcome were very low, the magnitude of the harm is so immense that the decision to “roll the dice” is monstrous on the part of a would-be breeder.

          Oddly, Engel suggest, “A combination of the most abject horrors of the gulags, Mao and Stalin’s famines and purges, Auschwitz and Dachau, and our worst contemporary humanitarian crises would likely amount to only a fraction of the suffering visiting upon the final generation’s poorest members.”
          I have no idea where he’s getting that idea, and he certainly doesn’t even try to support it with fact or argumentation. On the other hand, I can point to endless policy white papers and outright statements of intent by the WEF, Rand Corporation, and militaries of the US, UK, and Germany, that demonstrate concretely that those unimaginable horrors are very much a matter of public policy, from which no one has articulated any actionable plan of escape. (“Let them eat pine cake!” certainly doesn’t count.)

          Again, I have no delusions about saving all the yet-unborn generations of humans in the “future light cone” of Earth (again, forgive the philosopher-speak), any more than I have delusions about a ragtag band of Corbeteers defeating the New World Order. Neither one is going to happen. But if I can help prevent just one single birth of one single child from what the Great Resetters have in store, I will have preempted a vast Universe of suffering.

  5. scpat says:

    Several Solutions Watch episodes are now required to alleviate the feeling of knowing more about the sickening and offensive plans that the United Nations and their buddies have for us.

  6. Ukdavec says:

    Interesting twitter thread opining on the Elon saga with Twitter

  7. nosoapradio says:

    Woke up to this:

    “…It is a “strange and alarming” epidemic, according to the scientific journal Science. On April 5, 10 cases of severe acute hepatitis in children under 10 in central Scotland were reported to the World Health Organization (WHO). Three days later, a total of 74 children had been hospitalized for the same reason in the United Kingdom: 49 in England, 13 in Scotland and 12 in Wales and Northern Ireland. None died, but some required liver transplants. Three other cases have been reported in Spain. According to Science, “clinicians in Denmark and the Netherlands are also reporting similar cases.” Across the Atlantic, some children may be suffering from the same disease. The Alabama Department of Public Health (ADPH) announced on April 15 that it is studying “an increase in hepatitis in young children…”

    Sugar and Covid injection?
    The US version of same article (add: https://www. to the beginning) :

    Ongoing on the Globalist agenda: spike in sales of funeral products.

    • nosoapradio says:

      oops. even a truncated http://www. counts as a full link… suspected as much, now I know it. So I’ll just write “don’t post two links in the same comment” 100 times in cursive as I do my time here in the moderation queue.
      Then again, there’s something smugly satisfying to observe that the algorithm can’t tell when I’m posting a full link that goes somewhere or not…

      • HomeRemedySupply says:

        Oh!…the dreaded moderation queue.
        I wonder if moderation wastes carbon credits. 😉

        Remember? –> How to Calculate Your Individual ESG Score

        “There are some things money can’t buy. For everything else, there’s Mastercard.”

        Tuesday April 19, 2022 – Bloomberg via YahooFinance
        Mastercard to Tie All Employee Bonuses to Meeting ESG Goals

  8. bedwell says:

    Don’t forget the World Social Summit in 2025 and the Transforming Education summit 2022, dates tbc. I doubt latin, logic or theoretic arithmetic are high on the ‘education’ agenda.

  9. weilunion says:

    “… the global commons that support life on Earth…

    That is because the ‘public commons’, the words echoed in decades past, is now the privatized global commons.

    Notice they use the words ‘global commons’.

    And you will never hear them speak about the neo-enclosure movement which this is all a part of.

    Words of rationality are cast to the wind.

    This is clever techno-sophistry:

    What was the public commons is now the transnational corporate commons and this is what they say supports life on earth, when in fact it destroys everything it touches.

    And it is not common. It is held privately, the only thing common about it is the forms of repression that are employed.

    Alas, the term ‘public commons’ can no longer be used for it connotes some sort of public interest or public stake and what is at stake are private profits and public control.

    We have seen incredible changes in the use of language in the age of digital sophistry. Up is now down, Nazis are Freedom Fighters and the public good is really what is privately manufactured.

    We might not make it.

  10. Jed says:

    The UN of unelected technocrats is taking over the world? — no?! Isn’t that what we’ve been telling people for the LAST THIRTY Fc%*n YEARS?
    NYC’s E’ side is loaded with ‘em, self-important, expresso snorting social climbing bureaucrats who go about their business much like flies fighting for space on a fresh dog-turd, wasting away their countries’ tax rolls on overprice hotels, cockroach infested overpriced snotty restaurants, parking garages, expresso bars and car services whilst playing out their protocols painted up like clowns. It costs the city billions to host this multinational gathering of privileged round shouldered blood sucking tics. No. Not my boss, not now, not ever.

  11. HomeRemedySupply says:

    Does the price of oil hinge on the French?

    Why wait until after the election to launch the embargo?
    Simple: Europe’s bureaucrats are correctly terrified that the coming oil price spike to push the vote in Le Pen‘s favor, which is why Europe will wait until after the election (when Macron will supposedly be the next president of France, as Belgium hopes) to announce it publicly…

    …As JPM’s commodity strategist Natasha Kaneva writes, she has reviewed various scenarios should Europe expand its sanctions to include Russian oil, and warns that
    “any immediate embargo measure taken by the European Commission will have a severe impact on the global oil market with risks to price entirely to the upside in the short-term.”

    Updated Healine Title – Tuesday April 19, 2022 – Zero Hedge
    EU To Impose Full Embargo On Russian Oil Next Week, Will Send Price Above $185 According To JPMorgan

    Update (13:15 ET): What was largely a theoretical modeling exercise until moments ago, is set to go live because Reuters reports that the EU is set to declare a full embargo on Russian oil after this weekend’s French election:


    Why wait until after the election to launch the embargo? Simple: Europe’s bureaucrats are correctly terrified that the coming oil price spike to push the vote in Le Pen‘s favor, which is why Europe will wait until after the election (when Macron will supposedly be the next president of France, as Belgium hopes) to announce it publicly.

    Despite the clear intentions of western government to cripple Russian energy production, loadings of Russian oil have so far been surprisingly resilient, so much so that Russia’s current account balance is at all time highs….
    [JPMorgan Analysis]

  12. generalbottlewasher says:

    Great Homey ! That should really run the gasoline bill up from my return from the ends of the earth! Hope all are well. I said I’d return when the “wear a mask crime ” would be found criminal in intent.
    Hope you and all editorial chiefs and subscribers are well!
    BLESS THIS WELL OF SWEET WATER.I have had a powerful thirst.

    • HomeRemedySupply says:

      Oh gosh! I’ve missed you GeneralBottleWasher!
      Whenever I see a map of Oklahoma, I think of you. I believe the American Trucker Freedom Convoy passed through your neck of the woods a month or two back.

      With NatGas and Oil prices up, I bet there are parts of Oklahoma which are pretty happy.

      There are a lot of happy “maskless” travelers in America right now with the ruling.
      Glad you are here, GBW.

    • mkey says:

      From a criminal to a criminal, welcome back.

  13. HomeRemedySupply says:

    — ESG in the U.S. —
    The challenge comes years after the Supreme Court ruled 5–4 in Massachusetts v. EPA (2007) that the agency can regulate greenhouse gas emissions such as carbon dioxide as “air pollutants” under the act. In the decision, the court called climate change “the most pressing environmental challenge of our time.”

    The social cost of carbon, a measurement in dollars of the damages supposedly caused by releasing a metric ton of greenhouse gases, is used by policymakers to provide cost-benefit analyses and to write regulations.
    Placing a monetary value on the effect of the gases gives federal regulators ammunition to justify tougher environmental regulations.

    Tuesday April 19
    Louisiana Asks SCOTUS To Block Biden Administration From Calculating ‘Social Cost’ Of Carbon Emissions
    Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry is vowing to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to prevent the Biden administration from recalculating and using the “social cost” of carbon emissions, a metric used in climate regulation that critics say needlessly drives up operating costs for businesses and prices for consumers….

  14. padraig says:

    when the hell is james getting back to arizona from his vacation in langley?

  15. mkey says:

    Astrazeneca CEO says immunocompromised individuals can’t take the “vaccine”

  16. altittude says:

    well here is the agenda playing out in real time in Canada. I was $200 short on my mastercard payment since I lost my 42 year career due to covid and had to retire at 1/3 my monthly income. I opened my Bank of Montreal bank statement and apparently since mastercard would not take ” Im short this month for and answer” They just helped themselves to the arrears payment from my account without my permission and Bank of montreal let them take it.welcome to the effects of the incoming global agenda without CBDCs

    • vadoum says:

      same in aus.
      Ive garnered from an account of a woman I beat in court; and was shocked at how, with the right looking paperwork, I had access to someone’s account: the fire wall of the banks is a joke. the process of micro managing peoples financial records is in place, but mostly used to expose/scrutinize those seeking money from the government; and one sits with a case worker, and boom your account is on their screen in a skinny second. The govn’s “money system” aint private.

      on he other hand that is likely for “small” amounts. try to get more than a couple thousand in cash and watch the barriers get thrown up.

      • altittude says:

        The thing that blew me away was in the 40 years i have had credit cards not once have they taken a arrears payment from my bank account. Seems like they are giving people a taste of whats coming with CBDC’s

        • vadoum says:

          sounds Like you had a good Long run and then got uncermoniosIy shunted to the next stage of being processed.

          The wizard of oz continues to be the most probable outcome: big tech scares the people until someone curiousIy puIIs back the curtain (puIIs the plug),

          our current system (in Aus,) is mosty digital. people buy 50 cent candy with their tap’n pay, cash is rare until out of town. or happening to be where theres no electric. but that scenario is more common or possible than most think.

      • Duck says:


        “…to get more than a couple thousand in cash and watch the barriers get thrown up….”

        Consider that with Fractional Reserve banking the bank has something like 1 to 10 cents in actual money for the money it circulates…. it would take a relatively TINY amount cash to be asked for by customers to crash the bank.

        “…..widespread banking practice in which only a fraction of bank’s demand deposit are kept in reserve and available for immediate withdrawal, whilst the remaining deposits are immediately lent out to borrowers ( and so is never actually available for immediate withdrawal by the legitimate depositors).

        The bank in effect lends out most or even all of the funds it receives in demand deposits, whilst at the same time guaranteeing that all deposits are available for immediate withdrawal upon demand. The pr….”

  17. DMOZ says:

    interesting recent analysis and comment on “…the subversion and replacement of the international rules-based order with a system utterly alien to democracy..”

  18. loggin says:

    Here we go. We’re entering the last lap.

    Another pandemic will mean a WHO takeover of health (lockdown, vaccines). The threat of a nuclear war could see the world begging for United Nations 2.0 to save our worthless souls and become a world government.

    Who would lead it, Bill Gates, Klaus Schwab ?

  19. mik says:

    A case against the term Neo-feudalism

    Confucius have been asked by a disciple, what would be his first move if he were to run a kingdom. From this exchange a quote for westerners has been coined:

    When words lose their meaning people lose their freedom.

    Sure, one could stretch the meaning of word feudalism to the point that it fits current circumstances. Inevitably that would be very loose fit, since word feudalism signifies a socio-economic order that was quite different. Property today is foremost acquired by means of capital, that wasn’t the case during feudalism. There is not enough of feudalism today to justify the use of word!
    Next, the word neo-feudalism is ahistorical, therefore keep in mind Orwellian consequences.

    Proper term for today’s socio-economic order is Monopoly Capitalism.
    Monopoly, Tim Geilen

    Be aware, one doesn’t need 50% share to control the corporation. A fourth of shares might be enough to effectively control a big corporation.
    I think, neo-feudalism sounds good to free-market believers, so they can abstain from using damn C word (not conspiracy, coincidence).

  20. zyxzevn says:

    Stephanie Seneff (MIT scientist)
    How the mRNA shots cause brain disease
    The mRNA has different elements that cause huge damage.
    The GxxxG pattern is very similar to the pattern that creates prions.
    This increase in prion diseases is also visible in the data.
    The artificial codes in the mRNA is also creating problems.
    They can infect immune cells that do not know what to do with it.
    And the artificial version stays around much longer and can not be detected
    by the immune cells.
    All these problems do not exist with the original virus.

    The glyphosate (made by Monsanto) is also causing health problems.

    Much more here:

    • HomeRemedySupply says:

      Thanks 67. This is top grade.
      I watched that interview (and the prelude with Jefferey Jaxen about the alarming Walgreen’s numbers of Vaxxed vs Unvaxxed).
      Here is the full Highwire episode which includes the Jaxen Report.

      Stephanie Seneff is one smart gal! I emjoy her style of communication (when I can understand it.)
      I like her approach on “solutions”.
      Her past work on glyphosate is admirable.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Back to Top