I knew something was awry on the world stage when The Independent declared yesterday, with its usual subtle finesse and understatement, that - even for women who are pregnant by choice and want their baby - the historic overturning of the American Roe vs. Wade legislation (which has triggered laws making abortion illegal in 13 States) would "ruin their life".

This was just one of the many howls of outraged fury and despair across the left-leaning press, both here, in the States, and across the world. That this legislation returns us to the Middle Ages. That women's lives are now in imminent danger, and that civil war is about to break out (although, as The Guardian noted ominously, "civil rights are being stripped away so why should we be civil?").

On the other side of the abortion divide (and there is surely no issue more socially divisive), right-leaning and pro-life groups have been engaged in ecstatic celebration, popping champagne and heralding a great victory - as well as telling the world loud and clear: we're not stopping here. We're not stopping until abortion is banned in all 50 states - and then we're coming for contraception.

If you don't keep up with US politics (and who could blame you? Sometimes I struggle to keep up with the politics in my own living room... remote control wars, you know how it is), please allow me to briefly catch you up on this extremely significant turn of events.

From 1973 until this year, abortion was legally available throughout the USA, owing to the "Roe vs. Wade" ruling, which involved a pregnant woman named Norma McCorvey (known in the case by the legal pseudonym, Jane Roe), who filed a law suit against her local district attorney, Henry Wade, claiming that her home state of Texas's ban on abortion was unconstitutional. The judge panel ruled in her favour, and the ruling was then taken to the Supreme Court, and applied at the federal level, meaning that, in 1973, abortion became legal across all 50 states in the USA.

McCorvey began her case in 1970, so of course, by 1973, was no longer pregnant. In fact, Norma McCorvey, perhaps the single most historically significant woman in the USA in the abortion wars, never did have an abortion, and went on to become a prolific pro-life activist. She called her central involvement in the Roe vs. Wade legislation "the biggest mistake of my life".

Nonetheless, the transformative legislation that bore her name (albeit a false one) has been championed by left-wing and women's rights activists all over the world ever since, as key in ensuring women's liberation and equality between the sexes.

I wrote last week about the legalising of abortion, and the real motivations behind it, which, of course (like everything the ruling classes do), had an ulterior motive: it was, in reality, nothing to do with liberating women and everything to do with achieving long-established elite depopulation goals. Please read my essay if you have not already done so, as it gives very important historical context to what is now occurring.

To sum it up, whenever the elites desire a dramatic social change, they present it in such a way as to make it appear authentic and appealing to the masses, and thereby disguising their own true malevolent intentions. The truth is that the ruling classes could not care less about women's happiness, liberation, or safety, just as they do not care about men's or children's. They care only about achieving their own goals, mass depopulation being a key long-term agenda item, and they have been sponsoring global depopulation through various schemes since at least 1950. So, they legalised abortion - a crucial tool in dramatically diminishing population growth - by dressing Roe vs. Wade up as a "victory for the people", framing it to suggest that that poor, oppressed women had risen up and challenged misogynist elites, and won. Legal abortion, we were told, was about challenging the elites, not serving them, and because it was presented to us in brilliant rhetoric about liberation and equality, many people believed this.

The reality, of course, was a little different.

Until she died in 2017, Norma McCorvey, aka Jane Roe, spent all the years from 1995 onwards passionately campaigning to oppose the legislation brought forward in her name, and to tell the world the real story of how she - a frightened, disadvantaged young woman, battling addiction and poverty - was cajoled, manipulated, and bullied by wealthy and powerful elites into fronting a cause she never believed in.

Writing in 2005, McCorvey said, "I am the woman once known as the Jane Roe of Roe v. Wade. But I dislike the name Jane Roe and all that it stands for. I am a real person named Norma McCorvey and I want you to know the horrible and evil things that Roe v. Wade did to me and others."

She continued:

"I never got the opportunity to speak for myself in my own court case. I am not a trained spokesperson, nor a judge, but I am a real person - a living human being who was supposed to be helped by my lawyers and the courts in Roe v. Wade. But instead, I believe that I was used and abused by the court system in America. Instead of helping women in Roe v. Wade, I brought destruction to me and millions of women throughout the nation. In 1970, I was pregnant for the third time. 

I was not married and I truly did not know what to do with this pregnancy. I had already put one child up for adoption and it was difficult to place a child for adoption because of the natural bond that occurs between a woman and her child. And after all, a woman becomes a mother as soon as she is pregnant, not when the child is born. And women are now speaking out about their harmful experiences from legal abortion. 

Instead of getting me financial or vocational help, instead of helping me to get off of drugs and alcohol, instead of working for open adoption or giving me other help, my lawyers wanted to eliminate the right of society to protect women and children from abortionists. My lawyers were looking for a young, white woman to be a guinea pig for a great new social experiment, somewhat like Adolf Hitler did."

This dovetails precisely with what I found in my investigations into the origins of the "sexual revolution" - namely, that free and easy access to hormonal contraception and abortion was founded on the type of hard racism and eugenics typically associated with brutal and murderous dictators. Please note that Marie Stopes, of the eponymous abortion clinics, was a a close personal friend of Adolf Hitler, whilst Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, had ties to the Ku Klux Klan.

Norma "Jane Roe" McCorvey was simply used as a pawn: a photogenic poster girl who would gain public sympathy in that particular political climate (young and white, as opposed, for instance, to black and middle-aged), for a nefarious agenda cooked up by depopulation-obsessed elites.

Remember that whenever the elites do anything, there's always two reasons for it: one, the reason given to the public to make it palatable - in the case of abortion, women's liberation, equality, and freedom from oppression - and two, the real reason - dramatic depopulation. There have been 54,559,615 abortions in America since Roe vs. Wade.

As I detailed in my earlier piece, comprehensive studies on women's happiness since the 1960s, conducted both here and in the US and in developed countries around the world, do not reflect the initial promises of the sexual liberation lobby - namely, that hormonal contraception and legal abortion would make women happier and more fulfilled. On the contrary: in every country where reliable data is available, the findings are always the same: greater educational, employment and political opportunities correlate with a decrease in happiness for women, as compared to men.

So if abortion is measured as a tool to overall benefit women - to increase their happiness and satisfaction with their lives - then it has failed spectacularly. If, however, it is evaluated by its real intended purpose - to dramatically reduce the population - then it has been tremendously successful. In 1960, before abortion was legalised, the fertility rate for the United States was 3.58 children per woman (e.g. if all the children born that year were divided by all the women, that would mean each woman had an average of nearly 4 children each). By 1980, after 7 years of legal abortion, that number had dropped sharply to 1.77.

It has remained at this low ever since, taking the US - like most developed countries - to below the crucial "replacement level fertility" rate, which is necessary for a society to remain stable and not demographically imbalanced. The replacement fertility rate is 2.1 children per woman, which is enough to replace the woman and her partner, a necessity to ensure society does not become "top-heavy" demographically. If the overall fertility rate is less than 2.1, then that means the society will soon end up with a large cohort of elderly people, and not enough younger, working-age people to support them - precisely the problem China is now facing (known as the 4-2-1 problem), because of its one-child policy, and that has become increasingly problematic here in the West, since fertility dropped below replacement levels, meaning we now have an enormous, rapidly ageing Baby Boomer generation, who did not have enough children to replace them (and their children are having even less).

This is why governments around the world are incentivised to kill off their elderly populations, a covert euthanasia programme which has been going on for some while under several guises, including the "free 'flu vaccinations for over 65s", programme - a genocidal initiative which rapidly gathered pace during the Covid 'pandemic', courtesy of Midazolam, and the Covid injections.

I've said many times that free vaccines to elderly populations, who don't pay income tax and are a drain on the welfare state, make absolutely no sense whatsoever from an economic perspective, if these injections are actually meant to protect and prolong life. Why would a cash-strapped government spend a fortune manufacturing and promoting injections, and offer them for free, to a cohort that does not pay tax and costs them a lot of money? It defies any kind of rudimentary logic (and government bureaus dealing with huge budgets operate solely on cold, hard logic, not any PR sentimentality about "saving Granny"). If you instead see the reality, that these injections are meant to shorten life, and therefore ease the burden on the state and costly state services, then it makes perfect (if diabolical and evil) sense.

To sum: the ruling classes are ruthless depopulationists and they primarily target for their schemes the "easy pickings", which are the very young (babies in the womb) and the very old (residents of care homes and otherwise elderly and infirm people).

So, all this being the case, you may very well scratch your head and wonder, "so why have they overturned Roe vs. Wade, if mass depopulation is their goal? Won't that lead to an explosion in the birth rate?"

No it won't, and this is why: the timing of this announcement is crucial. Pro-life activists have been vigorously campaigning against Roe vs. Wade for 50 years, and in much more conservative climes than we find ourselves now. So why has it been overturned now? Why mid-2022, rather than 1990 or 2010 or even 2021?

I'll tell you exactly why: it's because, at all of those prior dates, the majority of the child-bearing-aged population (let's say 15-50) had not received several doses of a sterilising "vaccine", and now they have. A very powerful and harrowing new short film, "Infertility: A Diabolical Agenda", produced by Dr. Andrew Wakefield (the same much-maligned doctor who first identified a link between vaccines and neurodevelopmental disorders like autism), puts this into clear context: in previous decades, ruthless eugenicists and depopulationists like the WHO and the Gates Foundation, have targeted the highly fecund Africa with sterilising injections presented as "vaccines".

Please watch this film (it's just 30 minutes long), which features interviews with top African doctors and other community figures who sounded the alarm, at great personal cost. They tested the "vaccines" in their own facilities and found irrefutable proof they were all laced with sterilants - but when they tried to warn the African people, the gargantuan PR monolith behind the vaccination campaign went into overdrive to malign, discredit, and destroy them. Ultimately, one of the doctors spearheading this movement was murdered (media short-hand was that he "died of Covid").

The doctors explained that you cannot efficiently sterilise someone with a single injection, but rather, the individual needs to receive three or four separate injections, spaced roughly six months apart.

Sound familiar?

The Infertility film ends with the ominous and very, very prophetic warning: "when they've finished with Africa, they're coming for you".

To be clear on what I'm saying: the great majority of people who have received three or more Covid "vaccines" are now sub- or infertile, and so it is only now that they are, that abortion legislation is being overturned, because now the ruling classes no longer need it to meet their depopulation goals. They have sterilised most of the population, and also shortened their lives, with the Covid injection, instead.

You may perhaps ask, ok, so they might not "need" abortion in the same way they did, but why go to all the bother of banning it, inciting riots, stoking civil war, etc? Why not just leave it available, as some people will still become accidentally pregnant - not everyone is vaxxed etc.

The reason for this is - well, first, tired old tactics of divide and conquer (they like it best when we're at each other's throats and so busy fighting each other we don't think to fight the real enemy, them), but also because banning abortion and contraception (and they've already said they're going after contraception next) will deliver a catastrophic hammer blow to close personal relationships, and as we know, the elite don't want us to have those.

The Covid lockdowns were a preview of the kind of life they want to foist on humanity - sitting alone isolated in your SMART pod, receiving a stipend from the government ("furlough" will swiftly become UBI), and with only digital devices for company.

They've been very explicit about this goal, really, and it is laid out in much predictive programming, such as 1993's Demolition Man, where everyone lives alone and physical contact is forbidden, and in the more recent 2149: The Aftermath, where people live alone in tiny techno-pods, interacting only with computers.

I know this may sound a little far-fetched, but this is the reality - the ruling classes want to eradicate sex. It is too powerful a bonding tool, it creates relationships that are too close and intimate (and that aren't controlled by the state), and it lays the foundations for a family - none of which the elite want you to have.

So, by overturning Roe, they've now created a situation where millions of people believe sex is too "dangerous" to engage in, because there is no fall-back of abortion in the instances of unplanned pregnancy. The ruling classes are always playing the long-game (playing Chess whilst much of the rest of the world plays Snakes and Ladders) and they have waited until 2022, when there are no child-bearing-aged adults around who remember life before legal abortion, to overturn Roe. So to these people, this overturning is terrifying and unthinkable, as they have no experience of life without it - as previous generations did. If Roe had been overturned in, say, 1990, the fall-out would have been comparatively minimal, as so many people would have remembered life without legal abortion, and so simply would have reverted to that.

However, by waiting until now to overturn it, means that everyone who is currently of "putative parent" age (let's say under 50) has been raised in a culture pivoted around the idea that parenthood is never inevitable, even if you engage in reproductive activity. You can prevent the reproductive consequences of reproductive activity, and if your preventions fail, you can obtain an abortion.

That world view is at the heart of everything our "liberal, progressive" culture does and believes in, because without the ability to plan and prevent pregnancy, then all sorts of other sacred shibboleths like sexual liberation, equality between the sexes, women having uninterrupted careers, and so on, go out the window. No adult under 50 has any lived experience of a world where disposing of unplanned pregnancy isn't a "right" (as I say, 99% of humans who have ever lived did live in such a culture, but most are now long dead).

So, as these people are now abruptly catapulted into such a world with no psychological preparedness to handle it, they will panic at an extremely visceral level. These panicked populations do not realise, of course, that they have likely been sterilised by the vaccine, so their instant reaction, in a huge number of cases, is going to be to boycott sexual relationships - which is the desired and designed reaction the elite want them to have.

A male friend of mine joked on Facebook, "But it should be my right to persuade a women to abort. This is an attack against all men. I refuse to have sex until the supreme court is destroyed and my fellow men are free to have unprotected sex with women they don't care about."

Obviously he's making a political joke - lampooning the legions of outraged men who have claimed to support abortion because they "care about women's rights", but in reality, most just care about access to easy and consequence-free sex.

However, my friend is actually right, in that this is exactly how a lot of men will react. Many will completely retire from the sexual scene once they realise there is no "fall-back" to avoid fatherhood. Many relationships - and not just casual ones - are held together by the understanding that there will be no "surprises" child-wise. Unplanned pregnancies will be prevented - or dealt with - or the relationship will be over.

Once men realise having sexual relationships with women could mean any number of children and that there is now no fail-safe to prevent that, many are going to bail on women completely.

Equally, many women who realise they now cannot have complete control over their fertility and could end up with any number of unplanned pregnancies, therefore derailing education, career, and other plans, are going to entirely retire from men. Left-wing activists have already said it - if there's no legal abortion, they're going on a sex strike.

And, boom, there you have it. The latest elite goal - destroying intimate relationships and turning the sexes definitively against each other - has been achieved.

That is also why they're ramping up the "monkeypox-as-STD" propaganda, plus now telling us there's a new strain of "super-gonorrhoea" (they're actually calling it that) that is sweeping the world and is resistant to treatment. You can see what they're doing, right? They're making everyone terrified of sex. Terrified of catching a disease, terrified of pregnancy, so the safest thing is just to give it up altogether. And people will. En masse.

Especially once the ruling classes go after hormonal contraception, too, which they will (maybe on a "public health" rubric, since it is, objectively, terrible for women's health, and of course the elite have known this all along). It's not coincidental that for the last 50+ years, natural family planning methods have been so completely demonised by the usual suspects - "don't work, medieval, old wives' tale" etc. Actually, they do work, at least as well as the Pill and with no nasty side effects, but the population has been kept entirely ignorant about this knowledge for decades as a) the elite wants you to poison yourself with their toxic chemical cocktails instead, and b) they want you to be too afraid of, and ignorant about, your body to take control of it yourself.

Natural family planning (NFP) simply means avoiding sex on days when women are fertile, which, contrary to popular belief, is only a few days out of every month. It's extremely effective when used properly (though like all contraception, is not perfect and infallible), but does require personal responsibility and discipline, which the elite is very keen for you not to have, and, of course, wouldn't work at all in the "casual sex" climate where people are encouraged to have casual liaisons outside of committed relationships with others they don't know well. Obviously NFP provides no protection at all against STDs, so does wholly depends on commitment and monogamy, which again, the elite doesn't want you to have. So, this knowledge, and the promotion of NFP as an alternative to huge families or poisoning yourself, is not presented anywhere in the mainstream. Consequently, and as a result of the Roe vs, Wade overturning, millions of people are now absolutely terrified of sex.

Remember the scene in Demolition Man where the female protagonist, Lenina Huxley, asks John Spartan if he wants to "have sex"? She means the "modern" variety - sitting six feet apart, fully clothed and with VR head sets on - and when she realises he means the "old fashioned" type, she is absolutely, viscerally, horrified and appalled - "ew, disgusting!", she cries. She then informs Spartan that "that is no longer done", since, and I quote:

"Rampant exchange of bodily fluids was one of the major reasons for the downfall of society."

She continues, "After AIDS, there was NRS. After NRS, there was UBT."

Uh, sound familiar, in our own little never-ending procession of pandemics? (Covid, monkeypox, polio, super-gonorrhoea...).

She then concludes, "And one of the first things that Dr. Cocteau [a futuristic Fauci if ever I saw one] was able to do, was to outlaw and behaviourally engineer all fluid transfer out of societally acceptable behaviour."

This includes, Huxley explains, "mouth transfer" (e.g., kissing), which is, in the here and now, also being banned as part of the monkeypox agenda (and we were warned against it during the Covid chapter, too). So, if anyone thought non-procreative or same-sex relationships might now be pushed as a "safer" alternative to opposite-sex ones, nope. The monkeypox agenda is primarily targeting same-sex relationships to make sure they're out of bounds, too (I wrote about that in more detail here). All intimate relationships are earmarked for imminent destruction, and this is all planned and has been plotted and pre-scripted many decades in advance. Note that in the sexless society of Demolition Man, abortion is also illegal - "but so is pregnancy without a licence".

I mean... that's where we are, or will be in about five minutes. Never-ending sexually transmitted "pandemics" will be used to re-engineer people's behaviour to see sex as too dangerous and disgusting to engage in, whilst procreation will be entirely decoupled from sex (not least because nearly everyone will be infertile, a future demonstrated to us by such predictive programming as 'The Children of Men' and, of course, The Handmaid's Tale).

What we are seeing the dawn of - and this will gather pace very quickly, so please get ready - is a new era of ultra-conservatism, where not only are abortion and contraception outlawed, but so are intimate relationships in their entirety. The collapsing economy will see many jobs lost and so many will be forced into a grotesque distortion of "1950s housewifery" - that they will have to stay at home cooking and cleaning all day (because they have no job and are not allowed to leave the house because of a pandemic or climate change, etc.), but entirely on their own. Not for men (intimate relationships having been banned), and not for children (as almost everyone is infertile).

I noticed change agent Louise Perry (I wrote about her, and her role in facilitating these social changes, here) pushing for a revival of "domestic feminism" (wasn't that what Serena Joy called it?), where women should return to doing nothing but unpaid household work all day, BUT - not for men. Men, you see, are unreliable cads and bounders. Women should just do it for themselves, Perry implies. Alone. With no paid work to support themselves (and therefore subsidised by the government).

Louise Perry is a very interesting case study, as she pretends to be pro-marriage, but - she is very clear on this - only with the strict caveat that women have access to the Pill and abortion, as they need tight control over their fertility. So, obviously, once abortion and contraception are banned, Louise Perry won't be pro-marriage any more. She says marriage is the only option, that there's no other safe way for women to relate to men, so she is clearly a thinly disguised radical segregationist, which - it will soon become apparent - many of these cool young "conservative" change agents really are.

It is actually hard to properly gauge the gargantuan social changes that are going to occur off the back of the Roe vs, Wade overturning, but what we can be sure of is that these will herald a total collapse of our "liberal, progressive" culture, because this, and the beliefs and values it is founded on, are all ultimately pivoted around the ability to completely control fertility. Now, in much of the USA, people can't - and this will quickly spiral to come here and to encompass the rest of the developed world. That will mean the end of the so-called "sexually liberated" culture that characterises so much of modern life; the end of dating apps, the end of mixed college accommodation, the end of the sexes socialising together and mixing freely (Louise Perry already says women should only drink and party with other women, never in mixed company) - and probably the end of liberal parenting, when parents realise grandparenthood at a very young age is a looming and real possibility unless they start applying a much stricter and more traditional approach to their children.

In short, these changes have been foisted on people so abruptly, and with so little (or no) attempt to prepare them, that the fall-out is going to be - to coin a phrase - inconceivable.

It's very interesting for me as a social commentator (especially one who has been predicting an ultra-conservative revolution for a while) to observe these changes, but as a human being, also rather worrying... However, as many before me have, I take heart in the ubiquitous existence of outlaws, and that every society - no matter how dystopian and totalitarian - has always had them. In Demolition Man, there's a vibrant and well-established underground community (they literally live underground) who have rejected the "new normal", in all its sterile, sanitised, meat-free unglory (meat is banned in Demolition Man, as is smoking, drinking, and swearing), and live more freely - with all the concomitant risks and rewards that brings.

In a memorable speech, the leader of the underground says:

"See, according to Cocteau's plan, I'm the enemy. Cause I like to think, I like to read. I'm into freedom of speech and freedom of choice. I'm the kind if guy who wants to sit in a greasy spoon and think, "Gee, should I have the T-bone steak or the jumbo rack of barbecued ribs with the side order of gravy fries?" I want high cholesterol. I want to eat bacon, butter and buckets of cheese, okay? I want to smoke a Cuban cigar the size of Cincinnati in a non-smoking section. I wanna run through the streets naked with green Jello all over my body reading Playboy magazine. Why? Because I suddenly might feel the need to. Okay, pal? I've seen the future, you know what it is? It's a 47-year-old virgin sittin' around in his beige pajamas, drinking a banana-broccoli shake singing "I'm an Oscar-Meyer Wiener". You wanna live on top, you gotta live Cocteau's way. What he wants, when he wants, how he wants. Your other choice: come down here."

See you there... 🙂