The Strangest Documentary You'll Ever See

10/16/201785 Comments

Imagine, if you will, a documentary on population control and resource restriction produced by the United Nations.

A documentary that opens with Rue McClanahan of The Golden Girls fame pretending to be sexually aroused by the prospect of hundreds of world leaders cooped up in a UN conference room talking about the environment.

A documentary that illustrates a point about abortion-as-population-control by repeatedly and rapidly cross-cutting between a screaming, bloody newborn in the delivery room and a close-up of a gun barrel. (Gun shot. Screaming baby. Gun shot. Screaming baby. Gun shot. Screaming baby.)

A documentary featuring that renowned environmental crusader, John D. Rockefeller III, as an "expert" commentator on the dangers of overpopulation.

A documentary narrated by no less a personage than Perry Mason himself, Raymond Burr.

A documentary in which Hugh Downs, standing in front of the UN headquarters as the melodramatic soundtrack swells in the background, tells us that the only hope for the "problem" of humanity on planet earth lies with the UN.

Now stop imagining this phantasmagorical orgy of nonsense and pull up a cozy chair, because you're about to witness just such a documentary...

Find out more about the craziest UN globalist propaganda documentary you'll ever see in this week's edition of The Corbett Report Subscriber.

For full access to the subscriber newsletter, and to support this website, please become a member.

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 (85)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. PeaceFroggs says:

    Let me preface by first saying I’m a male with a Catholic upbringing, just so people who read what I’m about to write know where I’m coming from.

    –population control–

    Population has increased exponentially, from approx 1 Billion people world wide a 100 years ago to about 8 billion worldwide today, and that’s a fact.

    Personally I’m against abortions, I believe it is a form of murder, however I do respect a woman’s right to choose. Besides, nobody is forcing women to have abortions it is their choice to make. (you would think anarchists and individualists would be Ok with abortions given it is an individual choice to make)

    Something else to consider is that women had abortions way before it was made legal, this is nothing new.


    Pollution is real, burning fossil fuel for energy causes pollution and smog, this too is a fact, this is not fake news!

    Corporations are by far the biggest polluters, however individuals pollute just as well
    (all 8 billion of us). So if social engineering helps people change their daily habits and start reducing, reusing and recycling, how is this a bad thing?

    –over fishing/over hunting–

    I’ve noticed that anarchists and individualists always ignore this subject, as solutions run counter to their beliefs. For example, I have yet to read about how an anarchist society or individualist society would curb over fishing without some form of social engineering or passing international laws of some kind.

    How would an anarchist society protect wildlife from going extinct?

    How would an anarchist society protect rivers from pollution?

    Could corporations even exist in an anarchist society?

    These are but a few questions anarchist and/or individualist always seem to side step.Geez, I wonder why? 😉

    • beadbud5000 says:

      Nooooooooooooooooooooo)))!!! LOL! Soylent Green came out a year later…

      Sorry I couldn’t resist!

    • scpat says:

      Regarding your comments on population control, yes, human population has expanded greatly in a short period of time, but does that justify the extermination of several billion people? It’s a simple question, but it is behind the entire logic of Rockefeller et al. plan to rid the world of overpopulation.

      • PeaceFroggs says:

        Hey there scpat,

        “…but does that justify the extermination of several billion people?”

        — Not sure I’m fully understanding your question here, because as you mentioned…”the human population has expanded greatly in a short period of time”…therefore you can’t have it both ways, it’s either extermination or expanded greatly, which is it?

        If you’re talking about abortions, well that’s a little different, however it’s not as if the Rockefeller’s are forcing women to have abortions, it’s a choice, and like I stated before, women were having abortions a 1000 years ago, abortions aren’t new, and neither are wars…men have been killing each other since the beginning of time basically.

        So instead of blaming the Rockefeller’s and Rotschild’s for everything evil, when are we gonna start blaming G-d for diseases like the black plague, which apparently is responsible for the deaths of some 25 million people, and what about Volcanoes, earthquakes, floods, fires, pestilence and other diseases, bear attacks, shark attacks, lightning strikes….

        …see what I’m getting at, or are the Rockerfellers to blame for these deaths too?

    • Richard Ran says:

      Hi PF,

      “For example, I have yet to read about how an anarchist society or individualist society would curb over fishing without some form of social engineering or passing international laws of some kind.”

      The only philosophically consistent approach to this important question and related ones concerning the environment, other than enforcing some kind of (international) state-sponsored law, is the one that’s ultimately based upon property rights. If some of the Indian tribes could do it, then surely some anarchists (of the free market variety) would be able to come up with the same sort of idea.

      As far as reading goes, you have a lot of catching up to do. Perhaps start with a classic from the 70’s, concerning a property rights society and its defence against pollution (ok, not exactly overfishing, but the approach would basically be the same):

      Kind regs from Amsterdam,

      • PeaceFroggs says:

        Hey Richard Ran, how’s you?

        you say “…is the one that’s ultimately based upon property rights.”

        — I beg to differ, property rights in an individualists society basically means every man for himself, and I really don’t believe “individuals” would agree to have vast swats of land designated natural parks in order to protect wild life habitat. Sorry.

        • Richard Ran says:

          Hi PF,

          Doing okay, thank you.

          “— I beg to differ [..]”

          Of course you do, and I expect nothing less. The one thing I like about your posts is that they prevent this forum from becoming a fanboy’s echo chamber.

          But you “begged” too soon, because the matter at hand was not your opinion about individualism. You said that environmental issues are evaded by “anarchists” and that you had yet to read about how an anarchist society would curb overfishing etcetera. Agreed?

          So logically, I provided you with something to read “to fill the void” so to speak. A real classic from the ’70’s by Murray Rothbard.

          Instead of reading, you come back with an opinion..

          May I suggest that if you’re serious about still having to read.. that you do precisely that and then after you’re finished come back to offer your insights?
          Or is it that you have yet to read the sort of literature that I linked to, because you never really intended to read that stuff in the first place?

          Either way, whether you intend to learn something new or not, your claim that the subject of conservation is ignored in the “anarchist” literature doesn’t hold up. And I dare say that it is kinda funny that you base your claim on the fact that you personally haven’t read any anarchist works on the subject. So I offer the literature and you choose not to read. It seems that if there’s any “ignoring” going on, it is squarely on your part, PF.

          Well, as they say:

          “Because Ignorance Is Bliss!”

          Cheers from Woodenshoesland,

          • PeaceFroggs says:

            Hey Richard Ran

            you say: “Instead of reading, you come back with an opinion..”

            — Not entirely correct there Richard, I did read some of it yesterday haha! I did came back with an opinion though, that is true…

            …however the problem with the read (so far), is that the libertarian author conflates Soviet Communism with Socialism, and then he falsely assumes only private property rights will insure an end to pollution.

            The author should read up about how the libertarian Wild Wild West was tamed. Butchering millions of Buffalo to near extinction. Such a wise and respectable people they were.

            How do I know he falsely assumes only private property rights will insure an end to pollution? Simple, scroll down to the bottom of the page, and read the comments, they blow holes in his theory 10 miles wide!

            • Richard Ran says:

              Again PF,

              Moving the goal posts as always when you might find yourself having to concede the point. In this particular case, your fallacious claim that anarchists ignore/evade the problem of environmental protection.

              Your “proof” of that claim is your own lack of familiarity with the vast amount of literature on the subject. You said you had yet read anything on the subject of “anarchist” conservationism, and so you simply concluded they must have “ignored” the subject. Apart from the sloppy reasoning, do you see just how silly that sounds?

              Kind regs from Amsterdam,

      • taylrmd says:

        interesting that you mention property rights and in the next sentance you mention Indian tribes. the whole US is built on stolen lands by people who didn’t have the same concept of property rights as the ones living here before……….

        • Richard Ran says:

          Yes, interesting isn’t it? And of course what you say is mostly true, except not entirely for the part that is really interesting. What I was alluding to is the fact that some of the Indian tribes actually used property rights in order to prevent overhunting (is that proper English?) when natural resources became scarce. That’s property rights based conservationism of wildlife because the tribe now has a real incentive to prevent another “tragedy of the commons,” so to speak. The tribe stands to benefit from the protection of the wildlife on the land they own (e.g. against hunting by other tribes).

          So in my reply to PF, I tried to point out that there are ways to protect wildlife without any need for “government intervention”. The main point was that far from being ignored or avoided in the “anarchist” literature, there’s actually lots of stuff to read on the subject, for anyone with an open mind and a serious interest of course. And that includes Indian tribes creating their own incentives for wildlife conservation based on property rights. I don’t suppose PF would like to argue that these tribes did it because of some kind of international law or any “social engineering” by a central government 😉

          Kind regs from Amsterdam,

          • PeaceFroggs says:

            “I don’t suppose PF would like to argue that these tribes did it because of some kind of international law or any “social engineering” by a central government”

            — After their land was stolen and then relegated to “reservations”, the American Indian way of life (conservationism) was gone forever, but here we are talking about a clash between two different civilization, and the white man’s (capitalism) won.

            An added caveat to this story, is that Theodore Roosevelt, the 26th President of the United States, is responsible for extending federal protection to land and wildlife.

            Roosevelt established the United States Forest Service, signed into law the creation of five National Parks. He also established the first 51 bird reserves, four game preserves, and 150 National Forests. The area of the United States that he placed under public protection totals approximately 230,000,000 acres.

            Roosevelt extensively used executive orders on a number of occasions to protect forest and wildlife lands during his tenure as President. By the end of his second term in office, Roosevelt used executive orders to establish 150 million acres of reserved forestry land. Roosevelt was unapologetic about his extensive use of executive orders to protect the environment despite the perception in congress that he was encroaching on too many lands. In total, Roosevelt used executive orders to establish 121 forest reserves in 31 states. (My favorite Socialist 😉 )

            — Wikipedia.

            • Richard Ran says:

              Hi PF,

              That’s a lot of words to implicitly concede the point that Indian tribes didn’t need any international law or govt social engineering to independently develop their ancestral property rights, hundreds of years ago, like e.g. the Tlingit Indians, who developed personal and private property rights in fisheries and hunting grounds, long before these rights were disrespected by the US government. We’re talking about property rights developed by Indian tribes long before their lands were stolen. So once again, you’re moving the goal posts to argue beside the issue at hand. Nice try, won’t fly.

              Now that we’re clear on the fact that property rights were developed by Indians for the protection/stewardship of their wildlife long before any international environmentalist law told them to, let me address your enthusiasm for govt. land grabs in the name of conservationism/environmentalism in one quote.

              “That is why, again and again, lands and waters that are supposed to be protected by government decree end up mined, logged, flooded, and poisoned. Their controllers have no incentive to defend them..”


              So you get +1pt for trying PF, but you really have to do better. It’s precisely the lack of respect for property rights by the state that creates all of these tragedy of the commons problems, which in turn “necessitate” yet another government solution (govt. conservationist land grabs) to a problem created by the state in the first place.


              • PeaceFroggs says:

                “moving the goal posts to argue beside the issue at hand”

                –Haha, well, not sure we’re even playing the same game!

                You says: “Now that we’re clear on the fact that property rights were developed by Indians for the protection/stewardship of their wildlife long before any international environmentalist law told them to…”

                The term “Land ownership” for Indians had a different meaning than it did for Europeans. Natives were Nomadic people, they lived off the land, but never considered they “owned” it.

                I think what you are alluding to here are “territorial rights” that the Natives tribes had agreed upon to avoid clashes, which is completely different than land “ownership”.

                Question: Are you suggesting Mr.Ran that libertarians would like to live like the nomadic peoples of America before the Europeans arrived and tried to convert them into farmers?

              • Richard Ran says:

                Hi PF,

                Well, the game seems to be: You claim, I refute 😉

                “Question: Are you suggesting Mr.Ran that libertarians would like to live like the nomadic peoples of America before the Europeans arrived and tried to convert them into farmers?”

                Good question, but nope, I’m not suggesting that.

                With the example of property rights based wildlife conservation by said Indian tribes, I’ve refuted your claim that in order to curb overfishing, we need:

                “some form of social engineering or passing international laws of some kind.”

                There you go, claim refuted. If the Indians of yesteryear could protect wildlife without international law, then so can we.


              • PeaceFroggs says:

                “If the Indians of yesteryear could protect wildlife without international law, then so can we.”

                — You are comparing apples and oranges. Two very different cultures, two very different economic systems.

                If you want to protect wildlife without international law, then you must first abolish capitalism, remove all fix borders (no more nations), and become nomadic wandering people that live off the land.

                Ha, good luck with that.

              • Richard Ran says:

                Hm, apples & oranges maybe, but in this case the focus is on the fact that they’re both fruit.

                Two very different cultures for sure, but that’s inconsequential to the matter at hand, because they’re both human, you see?

                And like real people, in both very distinct cultures the members of it react to real incentives to protect scarce resources, like wildlife for instance. The common factor here is of course, as I’ve outlined extensively in my posts, a property rights based preservation of the environment.

                You have one more chance left to showcase your reasoning skills (or lack thereof) and then I’m afraid I must call it a day.

                See you around PF, take care,

              • PeaceFroggs says:

                showcase “my” reasoning skills? Oh brother, a little self righteous of you Ran 🙁

                Until the day in which Libertarians actually overthrow the current systems of government and are therefore able to introduce corner stone legislation pertaining to “a property rights based preservation of the environment”, until that day, I think it’s best we agree to disagree, and leave it at that.


            • redrose says:

              It wasn’t the libertarian wild West men who wiped out the bison, so much as the U.S. Gov. paid people to wipe out the bison as way of wiping out the plains Indians.
              The plains Indians were almost the only nomadic natives in the Americas. Most other places had territories of each tribe.
              Peace to you.

  2. amjamiediggins says:

    Yo PF, I too was raised as a Catholic, alter-boy and catholic schooz, etc. I do not subscribe to that belief system as an adult. I share your views on abortion too. But then again, I don’t have a vag so I won’t ever have to face that terrible decision. I feel that is an aspect that pro choice folks gloss over, the psychological effect on women who do choose to endure abortion! I actually saw this film back in the day, my Pop was very stanch pro lifer, and active in that endeavor. I feel all life is precious, born and unborn, but it is not my body, and there fore, I have no right to dictate morality to others.
    If one is speaking of forced sterilization of the populace, or spiking the water supply, that is another matter all together! Those are the plans and machinations of oligarchs.
    As to your questions toward anarchists (I consider myself an anarco capitalist, and conservative by nature), I believe in personal responsibility. Over hunting/ fishing/ anything, is usually based in exploitation and greed. Being conservative, I hate waste, and work towards making my footprint as small as possible, and using and re purposing when ever I can. This attitude helps to keep my life simple. I hope that answers your queries.

    A huge thank you James for your seemingly tireless efforts!

    • PeaceFroggs says:

      “…but it is not my body, and there fore, I have no right to dictate morality to others.”
      — Amen.

      “I hate waste, and work towards making my footprint as small as possible, and using and re purposing when ever I can. This attitude helps to keep my life simple. I hope that answers your queries.”

      — Not really, my question was geared towards the masses/society in general, not the individual.

      In other words, if the individualists or anarchists were ever to overthrow and over-plant the current world order, how would a anarchist society stop over-fishing or prohibit hunting tigers?

      Don’t bother trying to answer, because you can’t, and that’s the problem with anarchism/individualism!

  3. HomeRemedySupply says:

    Perry Mason!
    Glad to see a real, credible authority involved. (Edward Bernays would be proud.)
    I well remember the 1950’s watching Perry Mason when my Mother had it on.
    (40 second intro to “Perry Mason”)

  4. phreedomphile says:

    Here’s a link to an article I stumbled upon last year looking for depopulation information. The author, Kevin Galalae, discusses how the US and Russia have been moving closely in lock step to control their populations.

    Russia’s Role in Global Population Control, Sept 5, 2016

    https : //globalfreedommovement . org/has-russia-abandoned-genocide/

    “The Soviet-American cooperation in the depopulation genocide, which I exposed in my book Killing Us Softly: The Global Depopulation Policy, is confirmed by a recently leaked U.S. State Department cable from 20 October 1973 – when Henry Kissinger was Secretary of State and Richard Nixon President. The cable was written by the American ambassador to India at that time, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who later became America’s Ambassador to the UN thanks to his expertise in population control.”

    Also, I came across graphs of Iran’s declining birth rate starting in the 90s, around the time IMF economic and social policy recommendations were kicking in. Very striking decline. Did other nations hit a switch around the same time?

    • PeaceFroggs says:

      Soviet-American cooperation in the depopulation genocide???

      Government Forced Abortions, since when?

      • phreedomphile says:

        Yes. Cooperation in genocide as in the close US-USSR collaboration to set up the Korean War (UN “Police Action”) as elegantly deconstructed by James Perloff in his paper and his interview with James Corbett.

        The author gave a very detailed analysis and this also centers around the UN. Nowhere did I come across him discussing government forced abortions as part of the running comparison. He mentioned voluntary abortions in Russia and some government induced sterilizations during the Soviet era.

        “Despite starting with very different birth rates (Russia at 45 and the US at 30) and having vastly different social and economic systems (Russia being communist and the US capitalist), they have managed to reach and maintain parity in their crude birth rates for the past 70 years. They have also managed to reach replacement level fertility (i.e. 2.1 children per woman) within 7 years of each other, Russia in 1965 during Khrushchev’s leadership and the US in 1972 during Nixon’s leadership.”

        “…The Soviets and the Americans have worked hand in hand to lead the world and pressure all other nations to adopt population control measures and this gives an entirely new perspective to Soviet-American relations during the Cold War; a perspective that shows deep collaboration and contradicts the adversarial scenario presented to the world.”

        The author also posted the Moynihan memo.

        • PeaceFroggs says:

          There is no “The Soviets and the Americans” population conspiracy.
          It’s a rather simple concept to understand…

          Developed Economies = Womens Rights = Population Control

          One only needs to compare population growth of developed economies (ie first world nations) to that of third world nations, and then compare women’s rights in these countries, and you’ll notice that there is a correlation there.

          I suppose you’d rather live in a world where women have no rights (barefoot and pregnant) and a world population that keeps increasing exponentially, regardless of urban sprawl, over fishing and hunting?

          I suppose when they say there are less than 5000 tigers left in the world, this is fake news?

          • phreedomphile says:

            Your reading comprehension is a concern here. You didn’t read the paper and made up the part about mandatory abortions and then remained unaware of the Moynihan memo, or its relevance, and the vast amount of research compiled by the author.

            Please don’t assign straw man arguments to me about not wanting women to have rights, etc. I’m a well educated woman and a medical scientist by profession – good training to understand complex paradigms and puzzles. The silly left vs. right cliches for division and compartmentalized thinking is what you should have been discarding, not holding onto tighter.

            Perloff’s research is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to global policy planning, and much of it is nefarious if one considers contrived war an evil. Surely it’s understood to be an evil for soldiers and civilians who were maimed or died and the Vietnamese people. And I don’t deny the deleterious effects of chemtrails (geoengineering) any more than I would deny the mountain of evidence demonstrating 9/11 was a false flag.

            • PeaceFroggs says:


              All wars are contrived, and have been waged since time immemorial. Wars are part of life on this earth, whether its a pack of wolves taking down their prey, bees stinging to death an animal/human protecting their hive, or Sun Tzu, The art of war, 5th century BC. Not saying it’s right or wrong, just saying it’s a part of life, it is what it is.

              Not sure where you got “The silly left vs. right cliches” from any of my comment(s), and no where do I ever deny the mountain of evidence demonstrating 9/11 was a false flag.

              What I don’t do however, is go from: yeah man, 9/11 was definitely an inside — to — oh my Gawd, they want to kill billions of us!!! Quite the leap, don’t you think?

              • phreedomphile says:

                I’m sorry but you can’t follow logic trains well.

                “There is no “The Soviets and the Americans” population conspiracy.”

                To go to that, without having read or understood the only thing I shared in my primary comment, and then to tigers is your own leap. You made unwise assumptions about the research of Galalae and didn’t even bother to acknowledge your first error.

                I wish you well and ask you to find other people to “debate”.

        • HomeRemedySupply says:

          Good post phreedomphile!

          (I guess you don’t use the ‘F’ word.) 😉

          • phreedomphile says:

            Thank you for the good word!

            LOL. Yeah, the F word. I try to be careful but there are times when it feels like a good venting mechanism as a therapy antidote for the most obtuse displays of thick skull hall of fame, as in in PF’s commentary. 😉

  5. 4TLeser says:

    I wonder what “Beheimatete” and those called “Inhabitants without migration background” feel when hordes of very prolific breeding multi wifed invaders into Europe and other “Whitey’s” lands bring already dense populated areas to overflow with what can be observed today.

    For each Million eked on by the ilks like Soros, Merkel, F.Timmermans, T.Barnett, Pope and UN and US hegemonic’s to move for free things, tenfold will breed responsible gold-pieces (as per Socialist Schulz -BRiD) for the next wave.

    Good night civilization…

    Every country can absorb and integrate intelligent self supporting newcomers but what we see right now is ethnic genocide on a mass scale to reduce the most dangerous group to NWO and creating the most freakish mix of people.
    Exactly as per Count Kalergi.

    • Richard Ran says:

      Hi 4TLeser,

      That’s one important gate of the globalist agenda that seems carefully guarded by the network of the Corbett Report and related sites.

      I was really surprised about the level of PC/MC constituting a veritable apologia for —or at least conspicuous negation of— the mass migration agenda of the elites. An agenda I presumed to be one of the more obvious schemes for James to expose and dismantle.

      Kind regs from Amsterdam,

  6. jase says:

    One has to love the blatant irony of having the Chairperson of the commission of population growth and the American future, being the “chairman” of the Oiligargy and presented in a show that blames humans through oil-based pollution for the impending doom to come…their hypocrisy knows no bounds, and yet people all over the world hold them in esteem and hang on every word they say…Sigh..
    Keep it up Corbett! at least some of us are slowly learning the truth.

  7. PeaceFroggs says:

    I believe some of you are missing the historical perspective while arguing your points of view regarding population control and resource restriction.

    It wasn’t that long ago when slavery was an accepted economic and political system, and a time when women were considered subhuman by law, and weren’t allowed to vote, weren’t allowed to work (earn a living), nor had access to education.

    Millions of men fought and died to bring about emancipation and Universal Suffrage, therefore we owe a great debt of gratitude to these men and women, because if if wasn’t for their sacrifices most of us wouldn’t be enjoying the very freedoms we have today, one of which is to express our thoughts openly without fear of repercussions.

  8. wall says:

    Um, I didn’t know where to post this, so I will post it here.

    HEADS UP WARNING: Be careful of VOAT and a twitter user called “Pokornyy Rabochiy @ObxdxxntWxrkxr”. I am not sure if my suspicions are correct, so I am just saying watch out for this possibility. But many times he will post links to VOAT about this whole pizzagate scandal type stuff, and the reference images they use on VOAT are many times creepy, even if censored. And they may be illegal even when censored. I am not sure. So, be aware of that. It could be an attempt to frame up people for illegal porn charges even though such people aren’t looking for illegal porn. Or I could just be worrying too much. I have wondered about such tactics being used after seeing that Glee star go to prison. Was he really pedo? Was he set up for exposing pedos? I know nothing about that case, but it seems odd that people like Woody Allen and Amanda Bynes dad are not being taken down. If these were really pedos being prosecuted, why not go after the obvious ones?

    Back on topic. Also, given that most, maybe all, of the stuff I have seen on that one thread is from mainstream media… it makes me really wonder about mainstream media. Even more so than before.

    I don’t know all what was posted on that thread as I had to stop reading the thread I am thinking of pretty quickly as it was just too creepy. I cannot remember the name of the thread. I know it involved Harrison Ford and Carry Fischer. This same twitter user also posted a link to a VOAT thread about Brooke Shields being exploited for nude images at an early age by some Playboy mag called Sugar and Spice. I do not know what is in that thread as I was afraid to click on it.

    This is just a heads up. This twitter user could be sincere, but I thought I should warn people just in case.

  9. wall says:

    Actually, the thread I was thinking of was on the Ron Paul forums I think.

  10. Hotfoot says:

    It’s amazing to think this film could ever be taken seriously. It’s like the makers of Spinal Tap made a mockumentary about Eugenics. The fact that the guy at 17m42s, Dr Harrison Brown, looks just like Peter Sellers only adds to the overall feeling of silliness. I love it!

  11. marvin says:

    Thanks James for bringing out this interesting video and background information.

    I note that if you look at population statistics for the world, the population of the world (MINUS AFRICA) is very nicely leveling off and achieving steady state conditions rapidly. No one seems to comment on this fact.

    Anyway, time to move on past the sociopath population issues. We need to develop self sufficient communities. Personal generation of wealth via disciplined study and focused effort/use of learned skills within a self-selected community is the basic of future prosperity and happiness. I loved your introduction of agorism for this reason. We need to acknowledge the madness of the herd (the UN movie is a great example) and work on our alternative. No more time for endless internet chit chat crap. The tsunami is coming and we need to run up the hill away from the bankers and globalists………..

  12. T.T. says:

    If the basic cause of ‘the problem’ is consciousness, doesn’t that mean that the basic cause of ‘the problem’ is people…

  13. herrqlys says:

    After reading the article (but skipping the propaganda video mentioned) and reviewing the comments so far, I had induced thoughts about many topics.

    Populations are controlled naturally (if not painlessly) by the environment in which they exist. Today’s environment for the human population is very complex, and extends well beyond the physical world. The economic environment can be as compelling on human action as the severest weather can.

    The Russian Federation (not to be confused with the former Soviet Union) has a national program of population growth stimulation in the lesser urban regions. Vladimir Putin has deemed Russia’s population growth as essential to the future of Russian society, and it is a national priority. There is a focus on pre-natal education and health care, and an effective allocation of hospital staff and equipment for this purpose, right through to delivery and post-natal care. All this is possible because the Russian medical model is different from that of the United States. People are to come before profits.

    Earth’s population has been funnelled into urban megalopoles that remove the “neighbour” from neighbourhoods. And at the same time there are large corporate agricultural enterprises monopolizing the arable land. Human populations are losing their grounding in nature, and the emotive context that this provided as the species evolved. We need smaller scale living spaces integrated with a greener, natural habitat. And we need a return to smaller farming communities as the moral spine of a nation. The antithesis of what corporatist culture expects of us.

    There were other thoughts, but this will do.

    • Richard Ran says:

      Hi herrqlys,

      “We need smaller scale living spaces integrated with a greener, natural habitat. And we need a return to smaller farming communities as the moral spine of a nation.”

      This scenario immediately provokes some questions:

      – How does one get from the megacities to the rural/green communities that you envision?

      – Approximately how many people could our planet sustain in your estimate after a global return to smaller/greener farming communities?

      You said something else that was very interesting:

      “The economic environment can be as compelling on human action as the severest weather can.”

      Can’t agree more. Some even say that economics equals (the study of) human action.

      Kind regs from Amsterdam,

  14. madmovond says:

    In conjunction with your suggested link about thoughtcrime in the UK, I just saw this float across my newsfeed the other day:

    It’s a couple years old, but they’re trying to tell us that science can translate how we speak today to scientifically prove what we’ll do in the future. Should we call Tom Cruise to explain their error to them?

    God creates man. Man destroys God. Man creates science. Science eats man. Woman inherits the earth.

    • manbearpig says:

      Hey madmovond,

      Something about the term “Hegelian dialectic” is troubling with regards to this theory of “semantic coherence”.

      In other words, can you make it work the other way around? Can you drive a society crazy or dictate its future by forcing it to use the words “zombie” or “apocalypse” or “genocide” or “artificial intelligence” or even just “smart” or “virtual” or “blockchained” or how about…”immortal”…? or “sinful”, “condemned” or “inferior”, “unsustainable”, “bad for the planet”, “hopeless”…?

      or all their antonyms…?

      anyhow, thanks for bringing this to my attention.

      • manbearpig says:

        Is that what you meant by calling Tom Cruise?

        sleepiness, cushy coziness, cat, dreams, rest, resourcing, relaxation, REM, alliteration…nighty night… (see if this works…)

        collective hypnosis? Dictated by media? gnight…

        • madmovond says:

          I see what you did there, and I approve. The media colludes with the government to condition us to speak in a certain way. Then “scientists” that collude with the government arrive on the scene to tell us that the way we speak indicates that we’re all going to be terrorists in the future. Then the police force that colludes with the government throws us in jail or fines us for thought crimes.

          To reference Jurassic Park again – clever girl.

  15. mkey says:

    This documentary is gold. I made it to 17:35 only, though, my brains had an emergency board meeting and forced me by a majority vote to shut the damn thing down. Still, quite brilliant, now I have a craving for some Leslie Nielsen movies. That bit about New York was immaculate.

    The baseline point of the movie, or at least as far as these 17 minutes I managed to endure of it go, is as old as sin. Actually, it is sin, isn’t it? The church patented it, but that’s not preventing globalists from using it. Convince the people of their own guilt and they’ll be ready to do some wacky stuff just to get a chance to “atone.” Mind control at its finest.

    (Gun. Soros’ face exploding. Gun. Soros’ face exploding. Gun. Soros’ face exploding)

  16. HomeRemedySupply says:

    I finished watching Survival of Spaceship Earth (1972)

    Having left High School, hitchhiking and then starting college in 1972, I was also watching to see if I recognized the film. After all, we had just a handful of TV channels to choose from. But once a show ran once, it went into the ether unless it was due for a rerun.
    Also, there were times I would go months without watching TV. Anyway, the film didn’t strike a memory chord.

    Pollution was a big deal back in 1972. Lots of news stories and photos in the publications and on TV.
    Example: “Acid Rain” in the northeast was big news with lakes dying and statues ‘melting’. The smog in L.A.

    Around this time, I remember reading an article about pollution. What struck me in the article was that the government was offering a ‘bounty’, a $10,000 reward for turning in companies who were violating anti-pollution regulations. At a time when minimum wage was $1.60 an hour, that type of ethical endeavor seemed very appealing.

    The population growth scare in the publications didn’t scare me in 1972. That’s Japan’s problem.
    I’m in Texas, in a town 50 miles from Ft Worth. There weren’t that many cars on the road and there was lots and lots of open land. We could go to the river or go hunting and never see a soul nor cow. But I gotta say, those ole “free range” stomping grounds ain’t there no more.
    1972 Texas population – Almost 12 million
    2017 Texas population – Almost 29 million
    2017 – Ft Worth/Dallas metropolitan area – 7 million

    Another magazine publication “scare” in the early 1970’s was “The Coming Ice Age”.
    Again, I wasn’t scared ’cause I was in Texas. But I didn’t look forward to real cold weather either.
    On the film…
    That Margaret Mead just scared the toot out of me. Aggh, like some Aunt who hates kids or something.

    The film really brings home how “leaders” / “authority figures” want to dictate your life and plan your community.
    I don’t get it… The word “dictator” gets people ready to grab the pitchforks, but being dictated is okey-dockey.

    • HomeRemedySupply says:

      Amazon review – Survival of Spaceship Earth VHS

      By Ciarin January 2, 2013
      Landmark Documentary Steep in Propaganda
      Anyone who wants to understand climate change/global warming movement today, might want to view this documentary prepared for the UNEP, back in the early 70’s. This documentary features actors like J.D. Rockefeller III, Margaret Meade, Hugh Downs, Raymond Burr and Barbera Ward. Internationalism, a value system based completely in the ‘real,’ an appeal to ‘Gaia.’ Anyone whose seen Captain Planet as a kid, might also appreciate the way this documentary is delivered.

      I don’t value the message as much as I believe this documentary to be essential to anyone who wishes to understand today, as it was scripted in the past.

    • HomeRemedySupply says:

      So the re-release of Survival of Spaceship Earth comes out in 1992.
      Taking the lead from the Amazon comment and profile of “Ciarin”, here is a tidbit about Captain Planet.

      Captain Planet and the Planeteers is an American animated environmentalist television program created by Ted Turner and Barbara Pyle. The series was produced by Turner Program Services and DIC Entertainment and it was broadcast on TBS from September 15, 1990, to December 5, 1992

      “The New Adventures of Captain Planet (1993) – Intro”
      (one minute)
      (They even had kids’ toys characters/props for sale.)

      Don’t miss this updated version of… Captain Planet
      (2 minutes or less)

      • mkey says:

        I was indoctrinated by that show as a toddler. Don’t remember much of it though, but I do consider it was a good fondation for my disdain for humanity.

      • Richard Ran says:

        Thanks for the laugh HRS,

        “Five special rings to five special young people”:

        1) Kwha!(tever, can’t hear his name), from.. Africa North America actually, by the looks of it.

        2) From North America: Wheeler!

        3) From Eastern Europe (why’s that? let me guess, early nineties..) North America: Linka! (Link-up, Lincuh?)

        4) From Asia North America: Kee! (Ki?)

        5) From South America South Park, North America: Ma!(..something)

        Apart from the globalist Gaiaprop, there’s also the typical neocon end of history “no distinct cultures, we’re all Americans now..” propaganda, for all these “special young people” really look like US Gaia warriors 😉

        • HomeRemedySupply says:

          “no distinct cultures, we’re all Americans now..” propaganda

          You hit on a very profound point about this globalist agenda.
          Here is what Lee Hamilton of 9/11 fame had to say…

          These globalists are sly dogs. They made it culturally inappropriate to oppose mandated immigration.

          • Richard Ran says:

            Hi HRS,

            Thank you for the link you provided. Very interesting and yes, from a European perspective, certainly the first part of the greater agenda you mention applies (destruction of cultures/divida et impera).

            I’d like to point out that, quite ironically, this observation is in the comments section of a Corbett Report interview with none other than a very dedicated politically correct “open borderite”, Mr Jeffrey Tucker who after his sudden split with the Mises Institute in 2013 subsequently transformed into a delicate “humanitarian libertarian” snowflake. I’m still trying to figure out just why this PC/MC turncoat is being so enthusiastically promoted nowadays on the Corbett Report and related sites (Vin Armani, Derrick Broze, Jeff Berwick, etcetera).

            If you have any thoughts on that one, please let me know ’cause I’m really at a loss here. Thought the unmasking of the globalist forced immigration scheme (nicely dovetailing with the endless US neocon wars in the Middle East) and the politically correct MSM rhetoric that goes with it would be “gefundenes Fressen” for voluntarist sites like these.

            • HomeRemedySupply says:

              Open Borders
              My opinion…I think intent has a lot to do with this issue.

              In an ideal world without “authorities” making the rules, open borders works. If a community or person desired not to have newcomers, they could post a sign “You are not welcome here.”

              However, in our current situation, we do have “authorities” who mandate rules by force. And the rules are not designed to benefit the people, despite pretense. I believe that the enforced immigration policies are all messed up, just like anything the government touches…it turns to shit.

              With immigration policy as it stands…
              I believe there is a deliberate attempt to destroy cultures and the “sense of community”. And to cause conflict.

              In my area, it is not uncommon in Hispanic neighborhoods or middle-eastern neighborhoods or Asian neighborhoods to see extended families all living under one roof.

              I compare it to this…
              …if the government came along and mandated that some gringo couple or black family, or whoever move in with them… …well, we would see that household in turmoil. That household’s “sense of community” and “sense of commonality” would be destroyed.

              Personally, I have helped many an illegal immigrant in the past here in Texas. Lots of anecdotes, full of color or adventure dating back to the 70’s. One anecdote here…

              I think what is currently happening with immigration mandates is an “evil intent”.

    • Richard Ran says:

      Hi HRS,

      That last sentence reminds me of what a friend of mine said recently about people preferring to “be liberated” instead of liberty itself.

  17. scpat says:

    The reason I asked that question is because in your initial comment (and in your response to my comment) I do not see how the point you are making about population and abortions is at all related to Corbett’s article, which has nothing to do with abortions. So I am curious as to why you were arguing it in the first place, and to me it sounded more like you were trying to justify population control.

    “Therefore you can’t have it both ways, it’s either extermination or [human population] expanded greatly.” Ha, what? I hope you don’t really mean that, but you are entitled to your own opinion.

    “So instead of blaming the Rockefeller’s and Rothschild’s for everything evil…” You act as if the Rockefellers and their ilk don’t deserve to be blamed for the evil agenda they are carrying out, or that they are being blamed unfairly? How can you watch the Big Oil documentaries and come away with that idea? And then you honestly ask why we should not blame natural phenomena such as diseases, volcanoes, and earthquakes in the same manner that we would blame malicious, power hungry families such as the Rockefellers. I don’t think I even need to explain the reasoning for that. It seems you have clearly missed the entire point of Why Big Oil Conquered the World.

    • PeaceFroggs says:


      “I do not see how the point you are making about population and abortions is at all related to Corbett’s article”

      — Did you not watch the documentary? It’s mainly about unmitigated population growth, population control (abortions), urbanization, pollution…

      “and to me it sounded more like you were trying to justify population control.”

      — I am justifying population control! Humans have a responsibility to manage this planet which we share with all other living creatures big and small. It is our responsibility to protect the natural habitat of wild animals for which they need to survive. There’s a Native American saying that goes “We Do Not Inherit the Earth from Our Ancestors; We Borrow It from Our Children” –I believe this to be true.

      “You act as if the Rockefellers and their ilk don’t deserve to be blamed for the evil agenda they are carrying out”

      — What evil agenda? There are 7.5 billion humans today compared to 1 billion a 100 years ago….is this part of their evil agenda?

      — Modernization of India’s and China’s economies, and cleaning up pollution…this evil agenda?

      — Our quality of life today is a 1000 fold better than it was 100 years ago. Running water, electricity, plumbing, health care, dental care, fruits and vegetables in grocery store year round thanks to refrigeration, air travel, automobiles, paid vacations, pensions etc… this evil plan?

      Women’s suffrage is key to population control and an improved quality of life.

      • scpat says:

        I was referring to the ideas that inspired the making of this propaganda film (Rockefeller funded environmentalism and the solution to save our planet being, population control). I should have made that clear.

        “I am justifying population control!” The problem here is that no one person or group of people are justified in the central planning of the population and managing the killing off of billions of people as they wish to do. These wanna be “managers” of the population aren’t doing it for the good of mankind. They are doing it because they believe they deserve the planet’s resources more than you do.

        Then comes the validity of the claims they are making. We know pretty certainly that the hypothesis for man-made climate change can’t be proven yet, if ever, and isn’t supported by any solid scientific evidence. The same people behind that bogus idea are the same ones lusting to kill off billions of people. As for the science of overpopulation, I can’t argue on that because I am not familiar, but the fact that the Rockefellers and others are using it as a tool for evil purposes is enough for me not to support and buy-in to their bullshit.

        “What evil agenda? There are 7.5 billion humans today compared to 1 billion a 100 years ago…is this part of their evil agenda?” Regardless of the science of the overpopulation situation, you have to think about who is behind the push for this. It is the eugenicist and Rockefeller-sponsored environmental movement who not long before all of this didn’t give a rats ass about the environment (oil industry) or the good of mankind (monopolizing the market at the expense of everyone else).

        • PeaceFroggs says:


          “The same people behind that bogus idea are the same ones lusting to kill off billions of people.”

          –Really?! So tell me, how is mass immigration to Europe and America part of killing billions of us?

      • HomeRemedySupply says:


        Population growth is nothing to worry about. Free, aware people naturally work it out.

        What is worrying…is that “authorities” desire to dictate what everyone should do.

        The Rockefellers and Elite are lying. They don’t give a rat’s ass about the well being of people, nor the environment.
        They are NOT truly concerned with “population growth”.

        It is about controlling people. That is their mission.
        Not about “stabilizing population growth” nor about the environment nor about anything which would benefit mankind.

        The “worry of population growth” is a pretense to devalue the worth of an individual. A psychopath’s wet dream…the making less of a person’s life, of devaluing people. Human beings are made to appear as disposable commodities by instilling “a fear of more people”.

        • PeaceFroggs says:


          You say: “Population growth is nothing to worry about. Free, aware people naturally work it out.” — What a bunch of Malarkey.

          A history of wildlife in North America.

          By the end of the 17th century, the westward expansion of European settlers had begun in North America. Many of these settlers had a belief in “manifest destiny,” that they were divinely appointed users of the American earth and that this use was for the good of all “mankind.”

          In the two decades following the Civil War, hunters literally killed buffalo by the millions. Sometimes carcasses were left to rot; sometimes the animals’ tongues and hides were taken. Two to four million were killed each year during the 1870s, and it was recorded that twenty thousand hides were sold in St. Louis in a single day during this period. The last large herd of bison (300,000) was surrounded and killed in North Dakota in 1883.

          • HomeRemedySupply says:

            It sounds like those folks who caused the destruction were not “free, aware people”.

            Also, “authorities” played the major role in setting policies which caused the destruction.

            • mkey says:

              I’d like to add that even if the people who “settled” the west were a rebelious, thirsty, inconsiderate, germ like bunch (which to a large extent they were) who or what gives you, me or any third party (especially the hard core so called socialists) the right to monitor, influence or control their fucking schedule?

              I guess that standpoint is reserved for those among us whom were sent by the gods to do their work. I certainly was not.

              Buffalos certainly didn’t have it coming, but an outbreak is what it is in the free world.

              • HomeRemedySupply says:

                …even if the people who “settled” the west were (major assholes)… …who or what gives you, me or any third party the right to monitor, influence or control their fucking schedule?

                Excellent point!

              • PeaceFroggs says:

                “who or what gives you, me or any third party the right to monitor, influence or control their fucking schedule?”

                — And that, in a nut shell, is exactly why an individualist or anarchist society could never find a way to protect wild life or curb pollution, because …nobody in an individualist society would have the right to monitor, influence or control another’s fucking schedule!!! Bye bye Buffalo.

              • HomeRemedySupply says:

                Not true PeaceFrogs.

                Actually, in anarchist society you would have a bunch of pissed of free thinking people who like buffalo coming around or don’t like their water polluted.
                And they would probably organize to do some serious “whoop ass”.

                In fact, that is why this community is here on Corbett Report. To “whoop ass” with viable solutions.

              • mkey says:

                There are guns in the anarchist society, to go along with the whoop ass. But, do you know what there is none in the anarchist society? Government payed (as if “government” had its own money) goons.

              • PeaceFroggs says:

                Ha! are you guys for real? The American West (1865-1900) is about as “anarchist society” as one can get, and these anarchists caused wildlife populations to fall rapidly from exploitation and altering the environment.

                – Bison, slaughtered!
                – Passenger pigeon, extinct!
                – Heron populations, decimated!
                – grizzly bears, less than 1800 in the US today!
                – Mountain lions, and wolves, virtually wiped out!

                Thank G-d for Theodore Roosevelt and his socialist conservationist achievements, extending federal protection to land and wildlife.

  18. gepay says:

    One of my wife’s sisters (born in the late 40s) was sterilized by the state of Md.I believe the state did need the parents’ permission. Although Md did not pass the common eugenics statutes as other states did in the 30s – “For example, Prince George’s General Hospital performed sterilizations on minors because the chairman of obstetrics and gynecology was unaware of federal policies prohibiting sterilization of persons under twenty-one. In 1978, the Greater Baltimore Medical Center, a private hospital, performed the most sterilzations in the state. Its chairman of gynecology, Dr. Everett Diggs, like the chairman of obstetrics and gynecology at Sinai Hospital, simply chose to ignore the federal regulations on age requirement for consent and performed sterilizations on minors because they considered it morally right (Kluchin, pp. 209-10).
    My parents in law were Catholics. However they did want to be modern. They were functional alcoholics. My mother in laws drinking probably did cause the sister’s mental problems (probably labeled Fetal Alcohol Syndrome these days). She was in and out of various institutions. She was probably incapable of caring for children or making good choices about her sexual activity. At age 40 she basically committed suicide by walking in front of a speeding car.
    A friends’ daughter has a speech impediment and severe epileptic seizures with other problems. She had two children. She was unable to care for them and she moved back in with her parents. One child is normal. The other has a few problems.
    I have mixed feelings about the above.
    What gets me about the documentary is that – mostly they just wanted the third world to have less people. I am sure Prince Phillip would have been very happy to have sub-Saharan Africa as a large wild life preserve with just enough natives to do the menial work.
    What work have these elites done to make Barbara Ward’s suggestion of making many smallish (around 1/2 million) cities spread throughout developing countries? China knew about the pollution problems with heavy industry yet did nothing about it. The West basically exported the heavy pollution problem to China along with castrating the power of the unionized Western workers. Seeing Maurice Strong – Believing the myth of man made CO2 is a pollutant can cause harm: “London’s Nitrogen Dioxide Pollution Worse Than Beijing’s
    “Successive governments knew more than 10 years ago that diesel was producing all these harmful pollutants, but they myopically plowed on with their CO2 agenda,” said Simon Birkett, founder of Clean Air in London, a nonprofit group. “It’s been a catastrophe for air pollution, and that’s not too strong a word. It’s a public-health catastrophe.”
    There does seem to be something to the belief that when the race between androids and robots (Artificial Intelligence seems to be winning) that the elites will bring out a mandatory vaccine due to some health scare that will – either kill us all in a year or sterilize us all. The Gates foundation has apparently tried it in Latin America and Africa with a vaccines – The vaccines were mixed with hCG Gonadotropine – causing antibodies against it, preventing pregnancy.
    The Nigerian Bishops Assn had the vaccines tested and found it. The state of Nigeria tested and didn’t find it. It was with a tetanus vaccine that oddly needed 5 inoculations and was only targeted at young childbearing women. Unusual for Tetanus vaccine.

    • HomeRemedySupply says:

      Very interesting anecdotes and information. Thankyou.

    • redrose says:

      Gates has even admitted his vaccine programs are for population control…in TED Talks!

  19. theplanet.myhome says:

    I know this might sound like a stupid question but how do we actually know there are 8 billion people on this planet?

  20. scpat says:

    One of the things that I came away with from this article is that John Holdren appears to be a psychopath.

  21. joe.h says:

    I bet the climate alarmist folks will just embrace eugenics. The people (locally) I see have their egos in so deep they won’t back out. Now that would be truly scary.

  22. temporary says:

    The earth is not presently under the threat of over-population because in the wealthier regions people are having fewer children. This has been a voluntary process. This was the result not of United Nations fear-mongering, but of a cultural shift. It should also be noted that pockets of people continue to exist in these wealthy regions, such as the Mormons, who resist the trend and continue to have 5-10 children for every family.

    1. Do you believe that over-population would be a problem if most or all families in European and Anglophone nations started to bear 5-10 children for every family?

    2. If so, how can you discount another cultural shift from happening in the future which makes having large numbers of children fashionable?

  23. redrose says:

    Generally, the more educated women are, the less children they have. Birth control and access to abortion helps, too.

  24. geof.h says:

    You should update the link to the movie, maybe?

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Back to Top