Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

June 6, 2025 - Jim Fetzer

01:51:43

The Agenda: Their Vision - Your Future (2025) | Full Documentary | Oracle Films

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Ladies and gentlemen, the distinguished author, Mr. Aldous Huxley.
	Brave New World is a fantastic parable about the dehumanization of human beings.
	In the negative utopia described in my story, man has been subordinated to his own inventions.
	Science, technology, social organization, these things have ceased to serve man.
	They have become his masters.
	Aldous Huxley's novel portrays a dystopian future under the dictatorship of a world state, where every aspect of human life is controlled, from laboratory creation to the grave.
	He described the story as fantasy, but later wrote, The prophecies made in 1931 are coming true much sooner than I thought they would.
	The nightmare of total organization has emerged and is now awaiting us just around the next corner.
	With the rise of brain-computer interfaces and biometric sensors and so forth, all the bodies, all the brains would be connected together to a network and you won't be able to survive if you are disconnected from the net.
	All life on Earth is going to be radically changed.
	It's a fusion of the physical, the digital, and the biological world.
	It's changing who we are.
	These people have gotten to the point now where they are openly anti-human.
	Everything will be monitored.
	The environmental consequences of every human action.
	It cannot happen without digital ID.
	Once the digital ID is in place, it's game over for humanity.
	The ideology of a world dictated through science is deep-rooted.
	Almost a century ago, a movement was established in the United States, preaching that the population should be governed by an elite of selected experts, scientists and academics, rather than democratically elected politicians.
	They called it technocracy.
	These engineers and scientists from Columbia University promoted technology.
	It's not going to be a price-based economic system.
	It's going to be based on resources and energy, control over energy.
	They thought that science was the answer for everything.
	They didn't have any spiritual bone at all.
	You know, they were very mechanistic in their thinking.
	The definition was clear.
	Technocracy is the science of social engineering, the scientific operation of the entire social mechanism to produce and distribute goods and services to the entire population.
	The movement was short-lived, but the principle never died.
	As we'll demonstrate, a stranglehold on policy and resources has always been the ambition of the powerful oligarchs behind many of today's world institutions.
	It seems to me that there's a very strong drift in the direction of globalization, of the ultimate centralization, of control in the hands of unelected officials at supernational organizations.
	The lust to control other human beings is a story as old as time.
	They want all of the resources of the world in their pocket.
	They do not want you and me to have anything.
	It's in writing all over the World Economic Forum's website.
	By 2030, you will own nothing and be happy.
	That's an oxymoron.
	If you don't have anything in your name, you ain't going to be happy about it.
	The World Economic Forum may have called that infamous phrase a prediction, but it translates as a statement of intent on behalf of its global power brokers.
	The bigger picture is that an attempt is underway now to collapse liberal democracy and replace it with global technocracy.
	What I call an omni-war is now underway, which is to say that the transnational ruling class is literally, it's not a metaphor, is literally at war with the rest of humanity and has weaponized everything that it can.
	This is a coup.
	They can remove the power from the parliament and the legislative branch and consolidate it into a monetary system which has complete control.
	That control is now entirely achievable because the would-be controllers finally have the tools to execute it: total surveillance, artificial intelligence, digital IDs and central bank digital currencies.
	The potential for social control is gigantic and potentially irreversible.
	What our experts are describing is a world commanded by an exclusive group of bankers and industrialists, affecting every aspect of our lives.
	What we eat, what we can buy, where we travel, where we live.
	And all bypassing democratically elected governments.
	You could be forgiven for thinking this is a grand conspiracy theory, but please consider this.
	The term conspiracy theory has become one of the most successful propaganda terms of all time in closing down discussion and debate.
	It's a thought-terminating cliché, but nevertheless, it's surprisingly effective when you try to calmly present evidence in a factual and reasoned manner.
	In this film, we will present evidence that the global takeover is not only possible, it's actually happening and has been decades in the making.
	They plan to commandeer land, reduce farming and radically change the food we eat, transform the supply of electricity and then dictate how we use it and replace currency with a system of credits under their control.
	It's a classic template.
	To win the war, take control of food, of energy and of money.
	And here's the key.
	All three strategies are built on the premise of a climate crisis caused by carbon dioxide.
	A gas that is actually vital for life on the planet.
	So what if the whole carbon narrative was one gargantuan lie?
	A political manoeuvre to establish their brave new world.
	A big lie is a lie which is told on such a scale that ordinary people simply would not imagine it to be possible.
	People with empathy can't fathom that a group of people would organise and engineer this kind of mass atrocity to get where they want to go.
	It should come as no surprise that financial kingpins are calling the shots.
	And it's certainly no conspiracy theory when banking executives spell out their intentions.
	The End We are on the brink of a dramatic change where we are about to, and I'll say this boldly, we're about to abandon the traditional system of money and accounting and introduce a new one.
	And the new one, the new accounting, is what we call blockchain.
	It means digital.
	It means having an almost perfect record of every single transaction that happens in the economy, which will give us far greater clarity over what's going on.
	It also raises huge dangers in terms of the balance of power between states and citizens.
	We are shifting to a new financial system, but the general population is not shifting to a new financial system.
	It's shifting to a control grid.
	And private sector players to program, to create smart contracts, to allow targeted policy functions, for example, welfare payment, for example, consumption coupon, for example, food stamp.
	By programming CBDC, those money can be precisely targeted.
	For what kind of people can own and what kind of use this money can be utilized.
	A key difference with the CBDC is that Central Bank will have absolute control on the rules and regulations and also we will have the technology to enforce that.
	They're saying we can control with rules.
	we don't need currency anymore.
	And so it's It's purely a digital concentration camp.
	It's a slavery system.
	When Catherine Austin Fitz talks, we should listen.
	She's a former high-level investment banker in New York and held senior office in the first Bush administration in Washington.
	There may be a thousand models of how it could work.
	But essentially, you will have, whether it's a banking account or a credit card, And it can be turned off and on.
	So my incentive system is not you go to work and work hard and you get money.
	My incentive system can be based on how you behaved in the last five minutes, you know, on a 24-7 basis.
	CBDCs, as the name suggests, would be issued by central banks like the Federal Reserve in America and the Bank of England, not by high street banks.
	They would signal the end of cash.
	And every transaction you make would be transparent and held on a permanent database.
	Crucially, under a net-zero regime, your carbon footprint could be at the heart of the system.
	We're developing through technology an ability for consumers to measure their own carbon footprint.
	What does that mean?
	Where are they travelling?
	How are they travelling?
	What are they eating?
	What are they consuming on the platform?
	This can be the infrastructure for a carbon-crowded system.
	It's totalitarian control, and if people don't become aware of it now, it's going to be too late to backtrack from this.
	It's a ratchet system where it's very difficult, if not impossible, to backtrack.
	But why is now the time for change?
	Because the system is in crisis.
	It entered crisis in 2019.
	Mark Carney, he talked quite openly about how the international monetary and financial system had entered profound crisis and was effectively on its last legs.
	If you study the history of how the central bankers designed technocracy, you know, essentially when they created the Fed, they said, look, this can't last forever.
	We're going to need, you know, at some point somebody's going to get hip to this game.
	We're going to need another system.
	And I will say this because I used to be part of that group.
	You know, I was born and bred to be a central banker.
	They plan ahead hundreds of years in advance.
	Predictably, the money brokers seem to hold all the cards.
	As a subtext, does the ruling class need to protect itself as artificial intelligence threatens mass unemployment?
	And what will happen to our existing assets if the banking system is collapsed and money disappears overnight?
	In an unknown future, one thing is certain: digital IDs are essential to the project.
	If they become compulsory, data on every detail of our lives will be monitored, stored and monetized.
	Nothing, but nothing, would be private.
	For younger people, often it's the case that they like technology, they're completely au fait with it, they enjoy it.
	So they don't see the dangers that technology can bring, because, like a drug dealer does, you feed people, you know, low levels of drug.
	Where it's all fun.
	And then later, when you have them addicted, you feed the hard stuff and that destroys their life.
	So in a similar way, all of this technology is currently pretty much nice.
	But when the central bank digital currency comes in and the control comes in and the censorship systems, then the younger people will realize all too late in many cases that they've walked themselves into a trap.
	music
	One man who knows the dangers only too well is Aman Jabi, who was at the forefront of digital development in Silicon Valley, California, for 25 years.
	He left when he recognized the dark side of surveillance technology, choosing instead the peace and beauty of Montana.
	He's an expert in facial recognition.
	It's a technique that is used to uniquely So, in a device like your smartphone and most modern smartphones in the last 5 or 7 years, they have a 3D camera module in the front of the phone which you cannot see.
	Within that module is a near-infrared projector which projects tens of thousands of dots on your face.
	Those dots are then distorted based on the contours and the features of your face.
	And there's a near-infrared camera that takes a picture of that distortion, captures it, and then reverse-engineers the exact profile of your face.
	In the longer term, facial recognition will be used to unlock your digital identity, which is going to be a tool of control for the agendas that are coming down the pipeline.
	Elements of that control are already with us.
	Good morning.
	Good morning.
	You are never alone in your home, and this is why.
	All your devices at home and all smart appliances, they are all connected on a wireless network.
	Many of these devices will have cameras, many will have microphones, and so they are monitoring everything all the time.
	Your smart appliances are communicating with the smart meter and sending it real-time usage data.
	If there's a ring camera also in your home, a mesh network is formed and all your devices are being tracked within the home, its location, its usage, and all the data is going to Amazon servers.
	When you leave your home all modern vehicles are connected to the internet So your automobile is being tracked all the time when you're going under a They are tracking all the devices on you from smartphones to smart watches when you're walking on the streets.
	So data is being collected 24/7 continuously on every human being whenever you are within these wireless networks.
	And it's obviously not In the long term, the plan is to pretty much lock up humanity in smart cities, which is kind of a super set of a 15-minute city.
	They've sold all the state and local governments and countries that smart cities are about sustainability and the good of the city.
	But in reality, the language from the UN and WEF and their white papers is all inverted.
	So, their monitoring is really about limiting mobility and no-car ownership.
	Right?
	Surveillance, control via LED grid is why the smart lighting is death.
	Water management is about water rationing.
	Noise pollution is about speech surveillance.
	Traffic monitoring is about limiting mobility.
	And then, of course, energy.
	Conservation is all about rationing heat, electricity and gasoline.
	Another concept one should be familiar with is called geofencing and think of it as an invisible fence around you where you cannot go beyond a certain point and that will be related to your face recognition, digital identity and access control.
	Your smart contracts, SoftBrick can turn off your digital currency beyond a certain point from your house.
	It has been turned into a digital panopticon.
	That means you can be monitored, analysed, managed and monetised.
	Surveillance capitalists are already making billions of dollars selling our information to big corporations because this kind of detailed knowledge enables them to predict and influence our behaviour.
	Worse, our children are being exploited.
	There are a lot of board games and other games that are already in the market and have been for over two years that have cameras inside and underneath these LED screens that are observing and scoring and emotionally calibrating the faces of all the children.
	So are all the iPads that they use in schools.
	They're all manipulating children's behavior by what they display on the screens.
	And child data is big business.
	There's a concept called social impact investing, which people should read up on.
	If your kids are in schools, they are already being traded on Wall Street in real time.
	They can bet on groups of kids whether they're going to be successful or not, whether they're going to become computer scientists or environmental engineers.
	So children have become essentially a commodity and have been for years with this system.
	And once it's fully in place, The Chinese have already gone one step further.
	Classrooms have robots that analyze students' health and engagement levels.
	Students wear uniforms with chips that track their locations.
	There are even surveillance cameras that monitor how often students check their phones or yawn during classes.
	These sensors pick up electrical signals sent by neurons in the brain.
	The neural data is then sent in real time to the teacher's computer.
	We've been drawn into this digital spy network in the name of convenience, connectivity, safety and especially entertainment.
	The 3D world of cyberspace creates virtual lives that are often more exciting than reality.
	Why is this technology being developed?
	It's all for the culmination of this digital prison from which there will be no escape after all the switches are turned on.
	The critical switch would be the introduction of those digital IDs and central bank financial control.
	A world of zero trust.
	Zero trust is based on a simple principle.
	Never trust.
	Always verify.
	Zero Trust is a protocol that is implemented by cybersecurity companies.
	And what it really means is we don't trust you and you have to prove who you are all the time, 24-7.
	So think of it as going from a world of implicit allow to default deny.
	In tomorrow's world, once Zero Trust is implemented in, say, retail, everything will be behind plexiglass doors with a 3D camera.
	And it'll only be unlocked through your digital identity and facial recognition if you have the available carbon credits in your digital currency.
	If you've reached the limit of your allowance, it could be access denied.
	This would apply to fuel, to travel, to meat and dairy products, to clothes and other consumer goods.
	Because everything in life could be valued by its carbon footprint.
	Even access to the internet could be denied.
	So the new world of Zero Trust is really a world of locks.
	It's like an inverted prison.
	You are supposedly free to roam about, but everything you want to access is behind lock and key.
	You are free to go to the next level of the world.
	Most advances in science, including AI, bring great advantages to the world.
	They can enhance and improve human endeavor in almost every walk of life.
	But you don't have to be a scientist to see the flip side.
	They're constantly monitored by facial recognition cameras that are able to instantly put a face to a name.
	Now the Chinese are also ranked, given a mark out of a possible 950 points.
	For now, the number is a sort of bank credit rating, keeping track of everyone's spending habits.
	It may seem scary, but it's just like that here.
	We're used to it, and anyway, we don't have a choice.
	If you think this couldn't happen in the West, ask yourself why so many cameras, smart poles and 5G networks are being installed in your neighbourhood.
	In London, the police are using facial recognition surveillance.
	Sainsbury's is already experimenting with AI.
	Thank you for waiting.
	The cabinet will now be opened.
	In UK railway stations, surveillance is being tested to collect travellers' data.
	And in Oxford, these barriers were installed by the Council under its so-called 15-minute city plan.
	They were removed following protests.
	But look at what's replacing them in these quiet residential streets.
	As the tech companies are proud to tell us, the possibilities are endless.
	We've developed the camera into a sensor.
	The camera does not only capture video, it can now start to count, measure, and detect.
	With deep learning capability, the camera is able to generate accurate and trustworthy data and send notifications in order to take action, all directly from the camera.
	And since our cameras have open technology, well, we can work with different analytic partners from all over the world and together do just about anything we want.
	Note that they can do just about anything they want.
	Digital technologies mainly have an analytical power.
	Now we go into a predictive power.
	But since the next step could be to go into a prescriptive.
	Which means you do not even have to have elections anymore because we know what the result will be.
	Ultimately, we're facing manipulation by the system.
	A world where instead of us using technology, technology is using us.
	But who's really pulling the strings?
	Banking and oil dynasties like Rothschild and Rockefeller inevitably get mentioned, as do the modern-day big tech masters, including the ubiquitous Bill Gates.
	David Hughes takes a wider view.
	It's those who own the means of production, who are capable of magicing money out of thin air, who control the media, and all of the other means of production which have now been weaponised against the rest of the global population.
	Catherine Austin Fitz, the banking insider, adds a sinister thought.
	If you know their name, they're not at the top.
	Either way, it's a story of power, money and manipulation by a small group of people who share common interests and a belief that the world needs top-down control for maximum efficiency.
	As we'll see, it could result in the destruction of the farming industry in favour of laboratory foods.
	And a shortage of electricity because of the race to net zero.
	Net zero means the impoverishment of ordinary people.
	It means fundamental changes to their lifestyles.
	And the politicians are not being honest with the people about it.
	Surprisingly, the blueprint for transformation is woven into the United Nations Agenda 2030.
	Ostensibly, a vision for a better world.
	The Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, I say again that taken together, the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the Paris Climate Agreement provide humanity with a master plan for a sustainable way of life on this planet.
	New York City, late September 2024.
	The setting for the United Nations Summit of the Future.
	A gathering of member nations to reinforce and accelerate Agenda 2030.
	.
	The plan has a broad spectrum and is full of worthy ambition.
	But behind those deliberately bright and colourful boxes lies a darker theme, a shifting of influence and potentially power towards unelected world bodies.
	The strategy goes back well into the last century, and pressure is growing.
	Because the goals are far behind targets set at the grand relaunching in 2015.
	Seventeen inspiring sustainable development goals.
	The SDGs.
	Our aim is clear.
	Our mission is possible.
	And our destination is in our sight.
	To end poverty and hunger.
	Address inequality.
	Protect our planet and build It appears to be a noble and ambitious programme for a perfect world.
	And who could argue with those aspirations?
	But critics insist the goals are not what they seem.
	Alex Newman is a journalist and broadcaster who's been investigating the issue for 15 years.
	He has his own way of interpreting the rhetoric.
	You have to learn to speak what I call UNEs.
	You have to know what the terms mean if you want to truly understand what is being discussed.
	When they talk about peacekeeping forces or the peacekeeping role of the United Nations, they're actually talking about the war-making capabilities of the United Nations.
	So you have this Orwellian doublespeak.
	When they talk about transparency, more often than not, they're talking about eliminating your privacy.
	Human rights is another very, very good example.
	They make very clear in this document that your rights can be restricted under the guise of public order or morality or whatever the case may be.
	And so they're saying, here's your rights, but by the way, they're not really rights.
	We can revoke them at any time.
	The UN is filled with contradictions like this.
	For example, when they talk about gender equality.
	A normal person in the Western world thinks gender equality means a woman has a right to earn money, to own property, to have all the rights and privileges that a man would have.
	When you look at the individuals who You're talking about radical feminists.
	You're talking about people who are very interested in dissolving the nuclear family.
	As you dig into these goals, it's very clear we're dealing with something far more nefarious.
	Once you look past the marketing slogans that kind of warm and fuzzy, we're going to end hunger, which again is just window dressing, you realize that this is actually a blank check for totalitarian global control.
	Author and campaigner, the late Rosa Coray, called out the plan more than a It is the biggest public relations scam in the history of the world.
	But it's far more than that.
	It's a blueprint.
	It is the action plan to inventory and control all land, all water, all minerals, all plants, all animals, all construction, all information, all energy.
	All means of production and all human beings in the world.
	What can be measured can be managed and ultimately monetized.
	In fact, a study at Yale University has calculated that the natural assets of the world are worth five quadrillion dollars.
	Is this the basis of the new world monetary system?
	And is it the deep underlying reason for the United Nations project to rewild 50% of the Earth by 2050?
	They talk a lot about biodiversity.
	They want you to think, oh, we're going to preserve the toucans and the parrots and whatever, lizards.
	But when you actually dig into this, what they're talking about is creating, and they're working on it now, an international database with...
	And then they want to start mixing and matching it.
	Bill Gates ultimately and his buddies want to end up in total control over all life on the planet.
	Is it a coincidence then that Bill Gates has become the largest private landowner in America while planning to build smart cities in which to corral the general population?
	What is indisputable is that the oligarchs of global business are embedded in United Nations policy.
	They don't care about the planet.
	They care about getting in.
	Finance goes to where it gets the greatest return.
	There's a move into the green finance.
	It's all about profit.
	It's not about the planet.
	This is not conjecture.
	Under the guise of climate change and net zero, Vast fortunes are already being amassed.
	Take carbon exchange markets.
	Companies inlitting excess carbon dioxide can buy credits from businesses that are carbon negative.
	But increasingly, many are paying a high price to offset their emissions against land schemes.
	Grasslands, forests, conservation projects and so on.
	Some legitimate, others not so.
	Either way, the brokers and middlemen get rich, while having no impact on actual carbon emissions.
	We've also seen the emergence of natural asset companies, whose name says it all.
	They identify the asset and then issue shares in that asset.
	Out of thin air, essentially.
	And they can sell it to financial institutions, asset managers, sovereign wealth funds.
	And then they go public and have an IPO, and that funding is, they say, meant to preserve the natural asset.
	But elsewhere, they say that their main purpose, like so much else, is to generate profit for shareholders.
	It has nothing to do with preserving the environment.
	That is literally just the talking point they think will stick and sell.
	We're all in it together.
	We've got to save the planet.
	So let's allow the bankers to create a new racket that makes the natural world collateral.
	So if everything in nature is to be traded on financial markets, setting a value on the land we walk on and the air we breathe, why do we, the public, have no say?
	There's no route that an ordinary person can take to make a representation to the United Nations.
	So it's fundamentally undemocratic.
	What it has done is build relationships with billionaires.
	Right from the start, the rich and powerful have enjoyed undue influence in the UN's inner sanctum.
	In fact, the Rockefeller family part-financed its headquarters in Manhattan.
	Between them, the Rockefeller family has funded hundreds of organisations and as a consequence spread their authority on civil society, institutions, banking, education and global politics.
	The Rockefellers always believed in world governance.
	In the 1950s, their Special Studies Project report declared: In 1973, David Rockefeller co-founded a non-governmental organisation which still carries international power today, the Trilateral Commission.
	Its stated objectives revived technocracy and in turn planted the seeds of the UN's sustainable development agenda.
	They said at the time that they were going to create a new international economic order.
	It was all over the literature.
	The goal of the new international economic order was not to get richer in the sense of money.
	They knew even back then that eventually the fiat currency system of the world was going to disintegrate.
	So the goal became to actually capture the physical resources of the world.
	All wealth historically has come out of the ground.
	They wanted to take away everything that they could possibly take away from the nation-states of the world and from private individuals of the world and stuff it into the Global Common Trust where they would administrate it.
	And they would be the ones getting licenses for the resources to turn around and make stuff.
	The financial kingpins have long seen themselves as masters of the universe, manipulating global affairs through institutions like the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.
	Is Agenda 2030 the defining act for complete control?
	And how significant was the global response to COVID-19?
	As the world builds back from COVID-19, we have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to make investments that will strengthen the economy and improve public health, and fight climate change for generations to come.
	One might ask why the UN needs a multi-billionaire finance and media player as a special envoy.
	Or why Mark Carney, the former governor of the Bank of England, who called for a new global monetary system, is the UN's Special Envoy for Climate Action and Finance.
	And then there's Larry Fink, the boss of BlackRock, the world's largest asset management company.
	He's a board member of the World Economic Forum and, as we'll see, has driven the UN's goals through investment strategies for the past 20 years.
	All three are principles of the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero.
	A partnership with the UN.
	With the green economy worth trillions to corporations and investors alike, it's hard not to see a conflict of interests.
	Are the bankers raising money to achieve United Nations goals?
	Or are the goals a Trojan horse to change the world's financial control systems?
	Now consider the events at Jackson Hole, Wyoming in August 2019, only three months before the COVID outbreak.
	It's when Mark Carney delivered his call for change, and BlackRock proposed a new financial mechanism, Going Direct, which in principle allows central banks to channel capital direct to large corporations.
	So the central bankers got together in 2019, the G7 central bankers, and voted on the going direct reset.
	And the going direct reset, of which the COVID operation was part of it, has done a phenomenally excellent job of massively consolidating capital into central control.
	If you look at the COVID operation from a financial standpoint, it was absolutely clear.
	That it was one way you balanced the books.
	It worked.
	The major corporations, like Amazon and others, were allowed to continue business.
	Meanwhile, other businesses, particularly small and medium-sized entities, were deemed to be, quote, inessential.
	Many of them were put out of business.
	And so what we saw was a global wealth transfer of a reported $3.3 trillion.
	From the working classes and the middle classes to this kind of super-rich billionaire brigade.
	The people who ran the operation made an absolute fortune.
	It was economically, as a taking, it was a huge taking.
	And that included billions of pounds of taxpayers'money going to pharmaceutical firms for so-called vaccines.
	Whatever the truth around COVID, We see techniques of shock and awe being applied through the lockdowns, techniques of isolation, making reality seem strange and threatening.
	All of this helps to de-pattern the mind.
	These are all well-known military tactics.
	Look them in the eyes and tell them you're doing all you can to stop the spread of COVID-19.
	Stay home.
	Protect the NHS.
	Save lives.
	These are in fact very nasty and very vicious techniques which were deployed against the public of multiple countries at once.
	HE SIGHS These are forms of serious I think once the public starts to understand that, there's going to be a very severe pushback against everything that's happened.
	The general population cannot fathom the psychopathy of the vision that they're facing.
	So they can't fathom that a group of people would organize and engineer this kind of mass atrocity to get where they want to go.
	Be aware then of the World Health Organization, the UN's most powerful agency.
	Since COVID, the WHO has sought to increase that power to unprecedented levels through amendments to its pandemic treaty and the international health regulations.
	A key driver is its One Health initiative.
	One Health is a concept that was created to enable the WHO, with these documents, to take over jurisdiction of everything in the world by saying that climate change, animals, plants, water systems, ecosystems are all central to health.
	That places the Director General in a key position to influence world events, another potential conflict of interests given the WHO's financial backing, particularly from the pharmaceutical sector.
	Its accounts for 2022 show that an eye-watering 84%, or $3.656 billion of income, came from voluntary donations.
	The top four sources of these donations included the Bill& Melinda Gates Foundation and GAVI, a public-private vaccine alliance also heavily supported by Gates.
	People see the WHO as a benign organisation and there are still areas where the WHO does useful stuff.
	But the biggest focus now is purely on a tiny disease burden where investors can extract a large amount of wealth.
	This has shifted WHO's focus very much to this emergency agenda, which is very false.
	Pandemics are very rare events.
	This is why we now have a WHO that promotes vaccines all the time, because that's what the money is coming in to support.
	So instead of being a world health organisation, we have a world vaccine organisation, and that seems to be the only thing they're touting.
	What's in the treaty has got nothing to do with health.
	It's a business deal focused on the most profitable business imaginable, pandemic profiteering.
	The other part of it, they're setting up a huge surveillance network.
	We're talking about $31 billion a year.
	They have to surveil for variants of viruses, and they'll find them.
	They just have to decide there's a threat, not even a real harm.
	Experts are preparing for what is known as Disease X, or the next pandemic virus.
	They're creating a supranational, self-perpetuating pandemic industry.
	The latest scare is monkeypox, renamed mpox, a disease highly unlikely to affect the general population.
	Nevertheless, the WHO has acted.
	The emergency committee met and advised me that, in its view, the situation constitutes a public emergency of international concern.
	If you get to declare the emergency and then profit from it, there's a big problem, isn't there?
	It's essentially a build-out of big pharma, and the WHO is essentially looking to be their marketing and distribution arm worldwide.
	We're fighting for, really, the right to own our own lives.
	We're fighting for that freedom Corporate authoritarian structure or medical fascist structure, which is what is clearly trying to impose on us.
	Changes to the WHO's regulations are expected to be voted through in the coming months.
	As we speak, the UK government is fully behind them.
	Meanwhile, in common with many other global institutions, the WHO tries to silence criticism and dissent, branding it misinformation.
	The science?
	It says is settled.
	Digital platforms are being misused to subvert science and spread disinformation and hate to billions of people.
	This clear and present global threat demands clear and coordinated global action.
	I have a little rule of thumb for diagnosing a centralization scam.
	If we can detect, one, a propagandised global crisis, two, admitting only global solutions, and three, with dissenting voices viciously silenced, then we know with absolute certainty that we are dealing with a scam.
	Control, dictate, eliminate debate, the hallmarks of a totalitarian regime.
	And nowhere is the cold ambition of corporate dominance more evident than with the World Economic Forum.
	Klaus Schwab founded the WEF in 1971.
	His mentor was Henry Kissinger, statesman, political shaper and close confidant of the Rockefellers.
	The organisation now employs 800 people and has programmes in business, academia, And in training future global leaders.
	It's far more than its famous annual meeting in Davos.
	Over the last 50 years, the World Economic Forum has blossomed into enormously influential organisation with all of the major corporations as stakeholders or trustees and all funding the World Economic Forum.
	To ultimately fund the UN World Government Plans and Agenda 2030.
	Klaus Schwab is the public face of stakeholder capitalism, a planned system of central ownership and control that has little to do with democratic process and is uncomfortably close to communism.
	It's a partnership between global corporations, governments and what Schwab refers to as civil society.
	The agenda is driven by finance, which gives the unelected and unaccountable oligarchs huge influence, if not control, over policy.
	The UK's Prime Minister, himself a one-time member of the Trilateral Commission, has already declared his interest.
	You have to choose now between Davos or Westminster.
	Davos.
	Why?
	Because Westminster is too constrained.
	And, you know, it's closed and we're not having meaning.
	Once you get out of Westminster, whether it's Davos or anywhere else, you actually engage with people that you can see working with in the future.
	Westminster is just a tribal shouting place.
	Starmer seems to forget that he is elected by the people to serve the people through Parliament.
	That's his democratic duty.
	And while he refuses to listen to our farmers, he entertains the globalists in Downing Street and publicly doubles down on his philosophy.
	I'm determined to deliver growth, create wealth and put more money in people's pockets.
	This can only be achieved by working in partnership with leading businesses like BlackRock to capitalise on the UK's position as a world-leading hub for investment.
	To underline the influence of non-elected unaccountable policy drivers, consider this document from 2004.
	It was commissioned by the UN and produced by financial institutions, including the World Bank.
	It cited research by the WEF.
	The result was the emergence of environmental, social and governance metrics, ESGs.
	ESG is an attempt to turn financial power into governance without going through the democratic process, without the normal process of making law.
	ESGs allow major asset management companies such as BlackRock to impose ideologies on businesses and consumers across the world through their investment strategies.
	BlackRock's billionaire chairman and CEO, Larry Fink.
	Also a board member of the WEF, remember, is clear.
	You have to force behaviours.
	If you don't force behaviors, whether it's gender or race, or just any way you want to say the composition of your team, you're going to be impacted.
	Now we get ethics, green ethics, racial ethics, gender ethics, driving corporate decisions about who This is a new form of political power that isn't accountable, isn't transparent and it isn't democratic.
	We, the public, are being manipulated.
	Our lifestyles, our culture and our future.
	Be it through forced, woke ideologies, intrusive technologies, so-called pandemics.
	Censorship or information which is too often propaganda.
	Your compliance is vital to the agenda.
	To impose global solutions, the leadership needs you to believe in global problems.
	Climate change is here.
	It is terrifying and it is just the beginning.
	The era of global warming has ended.
	The era of global boiling has arrived.
	This stuff is so fantastically stupid, it's hard to believe that they're doing it.
	There is no climate emergency.
	That is a total scam.
	If they came out and said, hey, we want to destroy your economy, we want to destroy the middle class of your country, and then ultimately we want to make you a slave to a one-world government, it just wouldn't be as appealing as saying we're trying to save the planet for future generations.
	2024.
	With the hottest day on record, and the hottest months on record, this is almost certain to be the hottest year on record.
	And the masterclass in climate destruction.
	Statements such as that are amplified by emotional footage from all over the world.
	But is any of it true?
	I do not think there's a climate crisis, and I base that on all the evidence and the climate data sets that we build to answer questions just like that.
	We actually use satellites to monitor the global temperature, the true global temperature of the atmosphere.
	And we find there is a rise.
	It's about 1.5 degrees per century, which is certainly something that's manageable and the Earth has seen before.
	Compared to the 19th century, which was about the coolest century in the past 10,000 years, we were warmer.
	But we're about the same as we were 1,000 years ago and certainly cooler than we were about 5,000 to 8,000 years ago.
	John Christie is a highly regarded climate scientist who developed the measurement of accurate temperature records using satellites.
	His evidence is critically inconvenient to the climate change industry.
	I'm not popular in most of the climate community, that's for sure, because much of the climate community depends on climate model results.
	Tens and hundreds of millions of dollars have gone into that industry of climate modeling, and I show, well, you folks have failed.
	But yet, they prop up the entire political world that tends to support this.
	In 2017, I came to work and there were seven bullet holes in our office suite.
	And so some people are pretty upset that the evidence that we build and show that can stand the test of time and can stand up to cross-examination is just not going along with their issues and their desires.
	So let's consider these statistics on the Earth's atmosphere.
	78% is nitrogen, 21% oxygen, other gases make up less than 1%, and carbon dioxide accounts for a mere 0.04%, the majority of which is natural.
	Can man-made CO2 really be a problem?
	Roy Spencer and I are going on the assumption that all the warming that you see is due to carbon dioxide emissions, and so we find that that's a pretty modest warming.
	But see, that's a big assumption.
	Mother Nature is able to warm up the planet without extra CO2.
	And so we are just saying the worst case scenario is this warming of about a degree and a half.
	And that's certainly not a catastrophe at all.
	On the contrary, carbon dioxide is vital for the world's survival.
	The greater the concentration, the better plants grow.
	In fact, according to NASA figures, The world has become 14% greener in the last 40 years.
	During the last cool period before industrialization, let's say 200 years ago or so, it was below 300 parts per million.
	And during the Ice Ages, it was even lower.
	And that's a dangerous level because plants struggle.
	And struggle to survive when the CO2 is at a low level.
	And so the biosphere becomes less diverse and less available to support the animal life.
	So low CO2 is not good for the planet as a whole.
	Where is the logic, then, behind the UK's decision to spend £22 billion on facilities to capture carbon?
	The greatest controversy of all revolves around readings from ice cores.
	CO2 levels can be measured in bubbles of air trapped in ice thousands of years ago.
	By aligning this to temperatures, scientists have argued that carbon dioxide is the cause of global warming.
	However, closer inspection leads to the opposite conclusion.
	Once the temperature starts to rise, you will see the carbon dioxide rise about 500 to 1,000 years after.
	So the CO2 actually lags.
	The temperature changes.
	But what of the extreme weather events, which are increasing and driven by climate change according to everyone from the top of the United Nations down?
	Professor Christie says there is no data to support those claims.
	What we find is that virtually every one of these claims is false.
	The extremes are not increasing.
	Hurricanes are not increasing in intensity.
	Frequency, same with tornadoes or thunderstorms or floods or droughts.
	It's just going along like it always has with the natural variability.
	Why aren't we looking at the surface data sets that are constantly adjusted upwards?
	Why aren't we looking at the 40.3 record at CONSB, which the Met Office is very proud of, on July 19th in 2022, and when we did a free information request at the Daily Skeptic, we found that there were three Typhoon jets landing on a runway next to the measuring device because CONSB, as they call it, is actually RAF CONSB.
	The temperature lasted for 60 seconds.
	Sticking a thermometer up the backside of a jet aircraft is not probably, scientifically, the best place that you can sort of determine temperature measurement, particularly when you then morph it into a global database, which the Met Office has, and then tell dear old Antonio Gutierrez that the globe is boiling.
	the whole thing is junk.
	How we came to the point where we think that we're going to prevent bad weather from happening by eliminating fossil fuels...
	And the whole world is caught up in this nonsense.
	So how did the carbon story take hold?
	Meet the man who invented climate change, according to the Telegraph.
	His name?
	Maurice Strong, an oil tycoon, a Rockefeller associate, and a man with an extraordinary talent for moving between high finance Strong was a member of the highly influential Club of Rome, an institution formed in 1968 at a Rockefeller property on Lake Como in Italy.
	A group of scientists, academics and industrialists discussed what they saw as an urgent crisis.
	The impact of human activity on the planet.
	I don't think we can sustain current growth trends much beyond, say, the lives of children who are being born today.
	To prove the thesis, they commissioned computer modelling at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
	This research laid the foundations for an agenda that's persisted for over 50 years.
	Cut use of autos.
	Use less electric power.
	Have fewer children.
	Limit growth.
	All of this was fueling this ideology that there's too many people on the planet, there's not enough resources, and that something has to be done.
	The natural world in which man lives and on which he depends is indeed deteriorating, is being destroyed in many instances.
	At a rate that is accelerating and that can only continue to accelerate unless we begin to control the activities that are having this destructive impact.
	In 1975, the Club of Rome published a second report, Mankind at the Turning Point.
	The lead quotation was telling.
	"The world has cancer, and the cancer is man." The report concluded: In other words, technocracy.
	Top-down control of everything, including populations.
	But if that was the solution, a worldwide problem was required.
	Climate change provided the answer.
	As admitted in a later Club of Rome document.
	This is the quote from page 115.
	In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill.
	All these dangers are caused by human intervention and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome.
	The real enemy then is humanity itself.
	It really does look as though they are inventing climate change there.
	They just made it up out of thin air, literally.
	Nobody really looks at that book and says, well, there you go.
	This has nothing to do with science whatsoever.
	They just made it up.
	Interestingly, in 1988, Maurice Strong had been instrumental in establishing the IPCC, the mainly political entity which endorsed a thesis by a small group of scientists.
	That industrial carbon dioxide was driving climate change, and the IPCC has been locked into that theory ever since.
	Maurice Strong's masterstroke came in 1992, when as Secretary-General of the UN's Earth Summit in Brazil, he saw 179 nations commit to a World Action Plan.
	Agenda 21. We have been the most successful species ever.
	We are now a species out of control.
	Nobody would question the need for a cleaner environment and the protection of nature.
	And Strong's legacy lives on through the Kyoto Protocol, the Paris Accord, the current Agenda 2030 and the worldwide push for carbon net zero.
	But there are questions on his motives and his connections.
	He was behind the first financial carbon market and a founding director of the World Economic Forum.
	Surely a conflict of interests with his involvement in the IPCC.
	A sceptic might ask why nearly all research grants in almost 40 years have gone on developing IPCC carbon dioxide theories, while anyone who raises questions is ridiculed, cancelled or has their career stalled.
	Funding for someone who wants to determine the natural variability of the climate system as an explanation for what has happened is just not there.
	I mean, the government is very clear that they want a catastrophic story.
	There is no single science paper that proves conclusively that humans control all or most of the global climate.
	If there was, you wouldn't hear the last of it.
	Instead, we get this call to authority to the IPCC, the United Nations Panel on Climate Change.
	Many more scientists and academics are speaking out against the IPCC.
	Almost 2,000 have signed a declaration stating that there is no climate emergency, including Nobel Prize winner Professor John Clauser, who wrote: The popular narrative about climate change reflects a dangerous corruption of science that threatens the world's economy and the wellbeing of billions of people.
	We need to have a full and honest debate about the science.
	It needs to be discussed in Parliament.
	It needs to be discussed in the media.
	It needs to be generally discussed.
	And we need to sort of bring the drains up, if you like, on all of the science to see is there really a threat.
	That debate is highly unlikely because the juggernaut of net zero careers on with trillions at stake.
	What is certain is that the repercussions will affect the food we eat, ravage our countryside and have a disastrous impact on our energy supply.
	music
	If you cannot set a credible course for net zero, with 2025 and 2030 targets covering all your operations, you should not be in business.
	Well, Net Zero is insanity.
	It's pure insanity.
	I mean, the idea that you can Remove 85% of the world's energy, which comes from hydrocarbons, within less than 30 years and replace it with the sunbeams and the breezes.
	It shows a complete lack of economics, societal effect.
	It shows a simple lack of the progress that we've made over 300 years.
	Nevertheless, net zero is enshrined in UK law, with the government passing the Climate Change Act in 2008.
	A 100% reduction in emissions by 2050 from 1990 levels was included later in a strategy document.
	But experts argue that the policy is fatally flawed.
	Europe's mad dash towards net zero is effectively economic suicide.
	Politicians are purposely impoverishing ordinary people, purposely de-industrialising Europe, where companies are forced to move to countries where they have access to cheap energy, whether it's the US who frack and therefore have cheap gas, or whether it's to China, which is still predominantly producing from non-manewable, especially coal.
	It is literal economic suicide.
	China continues to open new coal-fired power stations to drive the factories that manufacture wind turbines and solar panels, which are then sold to the West.
	As a result, China emits almost 30% of global greenhouse gases, while the UK is responsible for less than 1%.
	In essence, carbon emissions are merely transferred to another part of the planet.
	And while China gets richer, UK households face a bleak and expensive future.
	What it will effectively do is price ordinary people out of having access to electricity at a time they want and a price they can afford.
	The core problem is that neither the infrastructure nor the technology exist to provide a constant supply of electricity.
	The proportion of time that solar actually generates electricity is actually 9% in the UK.
	That means that for 90% of the time, solar doesn't generate the average amount of electricity that its capacity can generate.
	For onshore wind, it's about 20-40%, and for offshore wind, it's about 30-50%.
	So that means by definition, you will always have periods of time when renewables aren't producing electricity, but there is demand for electricity.
	Reality though, seems not to concern the activists.
	I'm here because I don't have a future!
	I look at some of these hysterical youngsters and some of the hysterical youngsters as well.
	You know, screaming about the climate is collapsing and all that sort of thing.
	And you think you haven't got a clue what would happen if you removed hydrocarbons.
	You haven't got a clue.
	You'd be back in service like probably your ancestors were.
	You'd be skivvying on the land in big houses with warlords, you know, calling themselves aristocracy and all that sort of stuff.
	You want to go back to that?
	Fine.
	You know, get rid of hydrocarbons.
	Many of these apparently grassroots protest groups are backed by organisations such as the Climate Emergency Fund, financed by billionaires like the oil heiress Aileen Getty.
	And if they claim to be environmentalists, they conveniently ignore the bigger picture.
	Thousands of wind turbines are disrupting coastal waters, changing habitats, affecting marine life.
	and killing seabirds.
	Landscapes are being scarred by the production of lithium for electric car batteries and by cobalt mines in Africa, where child labor contributes to huge corporate profits.
	How does the loss of thousands of square miles of farmland to vast solar parks meet the UN's biodiversity goal?
	And how helpful are wind turbines when they're blotting the landscape visually and through noise pollution and disrupting wildlife in the air and on the ground?
	The glorious mountain terrain of southwest Wales is a stark example.
	It's a landscape breathtaking in its beauty, untainted and largely untouched by humans.
	A haven for wildlife.
	A place where life runs its natural course.
	Yet this is what's planned.
	Mega turbines designed for offshore, reaching 700 feet into the air and dwarfing the hilltop forests.
	Planning permission is being sought for the so-called Bryn Cadwyn Energy Park.
	If you put one in the valley floor, it would be standing.
	Some 40 metres above the valley floor, so above the horizon.
	But they're not putting them in the valley floor, they're putting them on the top of the hills.
	So it'll be standing some 600 odd metres above sea level up there, casting a shadow over our solar panels.
	Justin Cotter lives right in the centre of the proposed development.
	He's fighting to preserve the countryside he loves.
	And across the mountain, Jason and Josie Barker are equally aggrieved.
	It feels very much like it's exploitation, using the climate crisis narrative as its supporting evidence.
	So it feels like it's being abused in a tremendous way.
	And there's going to be a lot of destruction done in the name of doing good, which really just seems utterly backwards.
	And if we really want to protect nature, then some of the best way of doing that would be to leave it well alone, especially in the wilder places, and let it flourish.
	We certainly found that being here.
	The more we've lived here, the more we've worked with it and encouraged it, the more it's come back.
	All of those spruce trees on top there, they will have to go to make way for turbines.
	All of that.
	All of this spruce will be gone.
	To build a 230-metre turbine in that location, it's going to take some crane to lift the 240-ton nacelle onto the top of the tower some 180 metres up.
	So they'd have to stabilise all the ground for the crane, stabilise the ground for the actual turbine, put in a concrete plug, basically, in the ground of some 1,000-tonne of steel, 4,000-tonne of concrete, just as a base.
	They'll need to be lit.
	It'll take away the dark skies.
	It's totally devastating.
	It would just be catastrophic damage and destruction.
	The roadways up through these valleys, they're Welsh valleys, they're all twists and turns.
	They're going to have to straighten out the valleys.
	Where you've got steep hills, they're going to have to level out those hills.
	There's a 200 metre drop into the actual valley itself.
	So they're going to have to create gradients that machinery carrying 400 tonne loads can actually traverse and get up.
	The locals argue that there are much better ways of creating clean energy, such as solar panels on industrial sites.
	Areas of natural beauty should be respected.
	This is about preserving and protecting this sacred land.
	We need to speak up and protect the environment.
	It's just tremendous amount of damage in the name of saving the planet.
	It does make you ask the question of what is it we're actually saving if we're paving it over.
	It doesn't make any sense at all in my head.
	The proliferation of turbines and solar panels certainly seems at odds with protecting biodiversity, and experts argue that the economics simply don't add up.
	If we are going to go on to full net zero, we not only have to change our electrical system, but we have to change the other 66% or more of the rest of our energy needs as well.
	So we need to triple the amount of renewables just to cover our present electricity generation.
	And then we need to triple again to cover all of the other usages.
	It's almost a tenfold increase in the amount of renewable energy that we're producing.
	Ralph Ellis has analysed three government reports and says all have grossly underestimated costs.
	Two of the reports ignore the need for that crucial backup when the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine.
	At present, this is the only such site.
	Dinorwig in Wales.
	But going by the government's own figures, Ellis says the equivalent of 2,000 Dinorwigs would be required.
	The overall cost would run into trillions of pounds.
	It's an energy fantasy because none of this has been thought through.
	Battery plants are one alternative to back up the national grid, like this one already constructed in Australia.
	But again, they offer limited supply.
	We're facing a situation where, if fossil fuels are eliminated, it will be impossible to maintain a constant supply of electricity.
	You can't instantly put on new supply, so what you have to do is control demand.
	And to be honest, they're quite open with this.
	If you look at the National Grid's latest paper on this, they talk about demand management.
	And the system is, well, electricity will only be available at a price you can afford when the wind is blowing and when the sun is shining.
	And when the wind isn't blowing and the sun isn't shining and the one or two hours of battery storage have been used up, the way they will reduce demand is by simply increasing the price of electricity so that demand falls to the available level of supply.
	Part of the control that the government has or part of the means by which it can manage the demand is through the use of smart meters.
	Effectively, smart meters allow them to do minute-by-minute pricing.
	Which means that as the intermittent renewable production goes up and down, they can effectively change the price at which you can use electricity.
	So essentially it's going back to pre-industrial age where the weather determines our lifestyles and our energy use.
	A government-sponsored report from the UK Fires Organisation agrees that targets will not be met and therefore electricity usage will have to be cut.
	They say we'll have a quarter of the power.
	By 2050.
	And they say there'll be no travel.
	There'll be no meat or no beef lamb.
	There will be restrictions on clothing.
	And we will live in mud huts.
	And it's not an exaggeration.
	They use the word earth.
	The United Nations use the word bamboo.
	Impacted earth.
	Sword treatise.
	This is what they're writing.
	But what of the claim that renewable energy will be cheaper?
	Not so, says Derek Bertelsen.
	We can also look at the accounts of these renewable energy companies.
	And what we see if we look at those is that the cost of production is considerably higher than the market price of electricity.
	And therefore, without these subsidies, these renewable companies would go bust.
	Ironically, the anticipated reduction in supply comes at a time when demand is about to skyrocket, with the explosion of surveillance systems and artificial intelligence.
	BlackRock's Larry Fink predicts that by 2030, data centres will use 30 times more power than a single city.
	Where's that power going to come from?
	Are we going to take it off the grid?
	What does it mean for elevated energy prices for everybody else if it's that?
	I think it's going to represent some huge societal questions that we have not addressed the negative side.
	Forget about the use of it, but just the generation of it is massive power.
	If the race to net zero will affect our energy, it could also have a devastating effect on our food, as global policies and the march of corporations accelerate.
	Great.
	Farming has been at the heart of our lives for generations.
	But to the climate change advocates, suddenly it's a threat.
	A lot of people have no clue.
	That agriculture contributes about 33% of all the emissions of the world.
	You just can't continue to both warm the planet while also expecting to feed it.
	Doesn't work.
	One thing John Kerry didn't mention was that farming and agriculture contributes 100% of the food that we need to eat.
	So that's a little, kind of an important detail that he ought to have mentioned.
	And I think what we're dealing with here is actually a global war on agriculture.
	I believe they are demolishing our food infrastructure, partly to cause a crisis, right?
	And I guarantee you, mark my words, we're going to be in a food crisis and they're going to say it's climate change.
	I wouldn't say it's about saving the planet, no.
	I would say it's about land grab and about profiteering and corporatisation of our food sector.
	It's basically a pharmaceutical industry taking over the food supply.
	If I can switch everybody from real food to pharma food, then 100% of the agriculture industry can go through my publicly traded stocks and I have complete control.
	So the idea is we get rid of farmers, we kill any naturally grown food, and we engineer food in manufacturing plants and laboratories.
	But I assure you that those guys are not eating this.
	Bill Gates is one of the familiar corporate faces, and he's investing heavily in the food revolution under the guise of avoiding climate disaster.
	Cows alone account for about 6% of global emissions.
	So we need to change...
	Crucially, anything that is invented or altered can be patented.
	The core of his agenda is he wants to do in agriculture and pharmaceuticals, by the way, what he did in the computer world.
	True power, massive, incalculable wealth comes from owning intellectual property and then monopolizing it.
	They want to make it so that every single organism that is used for food is ultimately under their control, either through the 3D printing or through this genetic manipulation.
	So we're moving now very rapidly toward this totally centralized food system where a tiny handful of corporate interests in bed with totalitarian government will dominate the food supply so that there is only a giant public-private partnership with total control of all food, all energy, and I believe water will be next.
	While the global machinations continue, thousands of farmers fear for their livelihoods.
	And the new UK government's first budget has multiplied those fears.
	By reducing relief on inheritance tax, they're penalising those who would want to pass their farms to sons or daughters.
	The National Farmers Union described it as a disastrous budget for family farms that would snatch away the next generation's ability to carry on producing British food and see farmers forced to sell land to pay the tax.
	For Kelly Seaton, concern goes well beyond her family farm in Cheshire.
	It makes me feel incredibly sad that the dairy and meat industry is so vilified.
	You will never find anything as nutritionally complete as milk and meat.
	the food that is going to replace milk, meat, and all of the other products that we produce in this country is going to be very nutritionally lacking.
	They will starve us from nutrients and then...
	No Farmers No Food was set up to campaign against untenable net zero and climate change policies.
	Farmers, says Kelly, are being dealt a deeply unfair hand.
	When cares are blamed for climate change, it does make you question everything.
	And I think this is where a lot of farmers are waking up to the fact that there's a lot of lies being told to us.
	The problem with the current carbon system is that a lot of big corporations are offsetting their carbon.
	So most dairy producers now especially, but other farmers as well, are having to record their carbon footprint on systems that aren't fit for purpose.
	A woo-woo figure is pulled from the sky, quite frankly.
	And then the big corporations are using that data to offset their carbon so that they can look better, again, at the same time as beating us with a stick and saying that we're the ones killing the planet with these girls.
	The methane emitted by cows' digestive system is part of the argument against them.
	But Kelly says that's just hot air.
	The grass that they eat would produce the same amount of methane, whether they ate it or not.
	OK, they do speed that up.
	But the other thing they give us is this, muck, which we put on the fields to fertilise the fields and reduces our reliance on buying in fertiliser.
	200 miles to the south, Ed Rhodes farms 188 acres of Devon countryside.
	He's not part of the No Farmers, No Food movement.
	But agrees that the whole narrative on cows and climate change is wrong.
	As farmers, we recycle carbon all the time.
	That's what we do.
	You could almost define farmers as carbon recyclers.
	We're an organic beef, sheep and vegetable farm.
	We run a fairly traditional system of rotational farming.
	We'll have a field which would be growing a brassica crop for one year, a non-brassica crop for another year, such as broad beans or sweet corn, and then we have a break for that field, so it goes into a predominantly grass and clover mix.
	That allows the soil to recover from the work that we've done with it while we've had the vegetables growing.
	It also allows things like the clover to put nitrogen back into the soil.
	So the livestock are absolutely essential for grazing that grassland.
	We also mow it so that the hay, the silage that we take from those fields are fed to the cattle in the winter.
	The bale I'm sitting on, the bedding that they're standing on is all mown from very rushy areas on our farm.
	The animals then dung onto that.
	We compost that.
	That gets spread onto the land primarily where we're growing the vegetables to put the fertility in and that's what then produces our crops.
	If you remove livestock from the system, you have no system.
	Farmers like Ed Rhodes work with knowledge and passion, but still have to comply with a labyrinth of government rules and regulations, including carbon monitoring.
	And now land itself is under threat.
	Corporations such as British Airways are buying farms to plant trees for carbon offsets.
	While other areas are being declared sites of special scientific interest, restricting or even preventing use for crops and livestock.
	And then there's the United Nations SDGs.
	Goal 15. Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems.
	Consequently, rewilding programs are impacting farmland across the world.
	In the UK, for example, That's an area almost as large as Cornwall.
	And in America, dams are being removed and river courses reopened, disrupting water supplies for crops.
	Goal 13 states...
	As a result, the Dutch government plans to close 3,000 farms to meet EU emissions targets, drawing widespread protests.
	And in Denmark, farmers face paying £80 for every cow they own in a world-first tax on meat.
	Goal 7. Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all.
	One result.
	Cultivated land is disappearing under vast solar parks.
	How does this square with the UN's biodiversity goals or even ending hunger?
	Maybe they're questions for Ed Miliband, the UK's Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero.
	He's cleared the way for a huge solar park on prime farmland in East Anglia, an area big enough to cite 1,745 football pitches.
	It's a crime to take food productive land out for solar panels which are unrecyclable, potentially not that productive going forward, and not feed the planet.
	It's absolutely catastrophic.
	We've gone from being 78% self-sufficient in 1984.
	It's now less than 60% self-sufficient.
	I think it's about 54%, which I think is set to fall even further this year.
	On top of all that, British farmers are being paid not to produce food under schemes like the Sustainable Farming Incentive.
	Kelly Seton understands that many farmers accept the money to balance their books.
	But has this warning.
	When you look at how many farms are selling up, how many arable farms are struggling, we're walking into food shortages and I think we're going to end up eating more processed food, maybe lab-grown meat, and I think that's part of the plan.
	The squeeze on farming is self-evident.
	Our supply of natural food is under very real threat, just as the WEF predicted.
	Worse than that, Catherine Austin Fitz says that with programmable currency, you wouldn't have a choice.
	No one in their right mind would ever eat this stuff.
	But the reality is, once they have control of your transactions, they can dictate what food you can and cannot buy.
	If they want you to buy pizza made with insect-based flour, that's what you're going to get.
	There's an energy crisis.
	Even though there is an abundance of energy.
	There's a food crisis, even though there's plenty of food to feed the world.
	There's a water crisis, even though 70% of the Earth's surface is covered with it.
	There's an air crisis where CO2 is declared the enemy of mankind, even though it's necessary for life to exist on Earth.
	There's a resource crisis, even though there are abundant resources to support everyone.
	What's with us here, you know?
	Who created all these crises?
	They did it.
	Just as clear as the nose on my face.
	It's all been a sham.
	All the essential things of life, they've been declared to be scarce.
	Because things that are scarce, you can control.
	Of such globalist trajectories, all the Kissingers, Rockefellers, Schwabs, Carnies, Strongs, Carstens, are held out as great intellects, but they are nothing of the sort.
	We know, both in theory and in practice, that centralisation causes nothing but misery, because it destroys the mechanisms of error correction, leading to doubling down on flawed policies.
	And yet the creed of global dominance continues apace.
	Through the WHO's so-called Pandemic Agreement, its One Health Initiative, and ultimately the United Nations Agenda 2030, from medical diktats to gender and racial politics to climate change, the indoctrination runs deep.
	The End Local councils have been supped in by the tentacles of global power.
	encouraging them to spend vast amounts of time and taxpayers'money on climate schemes, without challenging the rationale.
	Local councils have taken these actions because they are part of or lobbied by
	And these organisations require local authorities to sign pledges that say they're going to ban cars from streets, we're going to make people vegetarian, we're going to restrict certain forms of trade faster than is required by national government.
	They've been able to do this because democratic engagement at the local level is so weak.
	The voters' decisions are completely outweighed by the influence of the green blob, essentially.
	One organisation, Climate Emergency UK, has introduced scorecards, a league table to compare the progress of councils.
	It brings both pressure and opportunity.
	Environmentalism creates the idea that a local councillor is a planet saver.
	And, of course, there are organisations, like the UK 100, that are going to flatter people in that position.
	They're going to indulge those people and say how important they are, whereas most of the rest of the public are going to probably see them and say, "What the hell are you doing?" Ben Pyle emphasises that such organisations are not grassroots initiatives.
	Civil society has been bought and it's been organised around the interests of its billionaire philanthropists.
	Newspapers and television also consistently push the same story.
	We've been hearing about the threat of climate change for decades, but now we can't ignore it.
	Here, the climate crisis is very real and it is getting worse.
	What mainstream media does in following this narrative is that they exclude vast areas of climate science.
	They exclude all the sceptical scientists.
	By the BBC...
	Journalists and broadcasters are schooled in the carbon doctrine by organisations such as the Carbon Literacy Project, which claims to have trained 1,000 BBC employees.
	Meanwhile, Sky joined forces with the psychologists of the behavioural insights team to produce this initiative.
	How the power of television can nudge viewers to decarbonise their lifestyles.
	The recommendations included: Give green content more screen time, more salience in plots and scenes.
	Use kids' content to encourage positive environmental behaviours amongst children and their parents.
	How then can we possibly expect impartiality in reporting?
	Rather we're served with propaganda.
	Statements that nobody seems willing or able to question.
	It is unequivocal that human activities are responsible for climate change.
	I can take current media and almost any climate story, I can write, I think, a very effective counter.
	It's like shooting fish in a battle.
	This is endemic to a media that is ill-informed and has an agenda.
	The agenda is to promote alarm and induce governments to decarbonize.
	There's an organization called Covering Climate Now, which is a nonprofit membership organization.
	Their mission is to promote the narrative.
	They will not allow anything to be broadcast or written that is counter to the narrative.
	Among the 500-plus media partners on the Covering Climate Now website are Reuters, Bloomberg, ABC, CBS, MSNBC, NBC, Channel 4 News, The Guardian, The Daily Mirror and The Lancet, as well as several British universities.
	Funders of Covering Climate Now have included the Rockefeller Family Fund, the Rockefeller Family and Associates, It's true that the mainstream media only report one side of the story and that most of them are in the pockets of the powerful people who are trying to implement these changes.
	I don't question that at all.
	But it's also true that people are listening to them less and less and reading them less and less.
	We see independent media people with much larger audiences than mainstream media.
	Papers.
	And I think that phenomenon will gather pace now.
	That rise in independent voices has seen institutions like the UN, the WEF, big tech companies and broadcasters like the BBC wage war on what they call mis-, dis-, and mal-information.
	They don't appreciate views they can't control.
	The fight for truth is on.
	Apart is our media, obsessed local councils, and then there are the universities, which should be the first and last bastions of objective research and open debate.
	But here, too, is a story of outside pressure.
	With the drop in government funding, the shortfall has been made up from other sources, and those tend to be NGOs, private organisations.
	For example, the Gates Foundation and the Wellcome Trust.
	Invariably, money from private organisations will come with vested interests.
	These vested interests, according to Professor Moss, drive university teaching towards business goals and ideologies at the expense of critical thinking and levels of academic achievement.
	One new initiative is the European Network on Climate and Health Education, led by Glasgow University.
	Medical students have been trained to accept that climate science is an established fact.
	Increasingly, climate change is harming people's health.
	You could say it's the largest health emergency of our time, and I do need to be ready to help tackle this challenge.
	Can the outcomes really be free of prejudice when the backers include the WHO and major pharmaceutical companies?
	This new collaboration will help train the next generation of medics with the skills they need to treat the health impacts of climate change and deliver more sustainable healthcare.
	That's why health leaders from across the public and private sectors are coming together to support this transformative new network.
	Academics, right from the beginning now, are socialised to orientate their research towards the money.
	So this, I think, is quite damaging when it comes to fearlessly pursuing the truth wherever it may lead.
	That doesn't really happen anymore in academia.
	It's more about pursuing the money wherever that might lead.
	That the whole purpose of university learning has been subverted.
	The influence and ambition of big business, the mission creep of so-called woke thinking, the cancel culture, the suppression and smearing of those who dare to question.
	Shockingly, the conditioning starts in the youngest of minds.
	Shockingly, the conditioning starts in the youngest of the two.
	All aboard for Global Goals!
	This year, Thomas and his friends have teamed up with the United Nations.
	The world of young children is supposed to be one of innocence and joy, but it's been permeated by the global ideologies of the United Nations.
	If you go to goal number four, it deals exclusively with education.
	And when you think education, recognize they're talking about indoctrination.
	The Sustainable Development Goals.
	Under the surface of it all is this effort to bring all the children of the world into this one world globalist system.
	And what's so remarkable about this to me is that it's not even hidden anymore.
	Take part in the global movement.
	To save our world from being destroyed.
	How will you fight climate change?
	Try meat-free meals.
	Reduce your electricity use.
	Give your clothes a second chance.
	And you can never ignore Greta.
	The eyes of all future generations are upon you.
	And if you choose to fail us, I say we will never forgive you.
	I don't want you to be hopeful.
	I want you to panic.
	We want action.
	We want justice.
	We want equality.
	I want you to feel the fear I feel every day.
	I wanted to act as if the house was on fire, because it is.
	This propaganda relentlessly promoting fear in various ways, be it disease, be it climate, I think is having a very damaging impact on young people's mental health.
	The disasters that continue increasingly to afflict the natural world have one element that connects them all.
	The unprecedented increase in the number of human beings on the planet.
	We're asking children to believe they are a scourge on the planet.
	I have a problem with children believing they shouldn't be here from the off.
	How are we ever going to encourage them to have strong mental health and emotional well-being if they believe that their birth is a disaster for the planet?
	That's not encouraging them to be productive citizens.
	Who are making an active contribution to society if they've got to apologise for their very existence?
	I think it's very dangerous and I think we need to reverse that as soon as possible.
	The indoctrination of children is further evidenced across their learning.
	Objectivity and freedom of thought are being stifled by the persistent pushing of agendas.
	I undertook a study of secondary school textbooks to see what children are being taught.
	And what I found was extremely shocking.
	I found unqualified acceptance of climate change, the wonders of vaccines, human foods, and very few counter-arguments were presented.
	If you cannot produce this information that's in the textbooks, you cannot succeed in the school system.
	If a student undertaking a geography exam, for example, doesn't Is it not surprising that the phrase critical thinking actually only occurs in relation to two subjects?
	One is art and design, and the other is history.
	Other than that, it's completely absent from the national curriculum.
	If we have a dumbed-down syllabus, we're actually stunting.
	Children's brain capacity and brain potential.
	While parents may not be fully aware of these issues, many are concerned at the growing trend of gender politics, including transgendering.
	One former head teacher says his local authority advised teachers not to use the words "boy" or "girl" for fear of misgendering anyone.
	The Department for Education as well has really subscribed to this kind of woke ideology, so there's almost like brownie points for the more woke you can be.
	Because I think it looks pretty.
	You don't think it looks pretty?
	What schools have done is employ third-party agencies.
	To deliver material for which the third parties most certainly have a vested interest in.
	And I wouldn't have a problem if it was I'm there in school to ask children to accept me as I am.
	That's fine.
	We all need to be tolerant and liberal in a diverse society.
	My problem is that what they're actually doing is more of a form of evangelism, which is this is who I am and you might be too.
	In my heart, I've always known that I'm a girl Teddy, not a boy Teddy.
	I wish my name was Tilly, not Thomas.
	Language carries so many meanings and messages.
	And if schools are encouraging social transitioning, that's not a neutral act.
	That's a significantly impactful act.
	Dr Fraser is also highly critical of the World Health Organization's recommendations, suggesting that four-year-olds should learn about sexual stimulation.
	It's harmful.
	They don't need to know it.
	And in fact, for those children who are perhaps victims of adult abusers,
	What do we do with an organisation like the United Nations or the World Health Organisation if we take our orders from them about what is suitable education for our child?
	How do we say, no, we're not doing that, we want a change?
	Teachers are sent on courses to embrace the diversity dogmas.
	And many buy into them.
	But Fairclough says that those who don't keep quiet for fear of reprisals.
	It's a dereliction of duty.
	It's a dereliction of their legal as well as their moral duty to safeguard children against harm.
	I can certainly say I feel very let down by the teaching profession because I am not hearing people speaking out on behalf of the children.
	A one-world dictatorial education?
	A dumbing down in the classroom?
	Fluidity of gender?
	The impact of technology?
	Are our children being groomed for a life in the digital prison?
	Today, nobody has any idea what to teach young people that will still be relevant in 20 years.
	Computers become better and better in more and more fields.
	There is a distinct possibility that computers will outperform us in most tasks and will make humans redundant.
	And then the big political and economic question of the 21st century will be, what do we need humans for?
	Or at least, what do we need so many humans for?
	Do you have an answer in the book?
	At present, the best guess we have is to keep them happy with drugs and computer games.
	But this doesn't sound like a very appealing future.
	A chilling forecast, and one which echoes brave new world, in which the oligarchs did indeed provide drugs and entertainment so that people learned to love their enslavement.
	Yet there are even darker clouds on the horizon.
	The spectre of transhumanism.
	In a sense, it is that final piece of the puzzle.
	If you want to gain total control over everyone and everything, then you actually ultimately need to be able to implant technologies inside human bodies.
	And that's exactly what's taking place.
	Artificial intelligence, the metaverse, near space technologies.
	And I could go on and on.
	Synthetic biology.
	Our life, in ten years from now, will be completely different, very much affected, and who masters those technologies in some way will be the master of the world.
	These modern technocrats seem wedded to science and technology at the expense of our human spirit and ingenuity.
	They aspire to a data-driven world which is robotic and predictable in every sense, with no room for creativity or individual choice.
	But if the goal is and always was population reduction, maybe they're right on track.
	We feel too afraid to have kids because we feel that we're heading towards civilisation breakdown.
	People under the age of 35 are more likely to report climate change as a reason not to have children.
	I've decided not to have kids to do my part for climate change.
	If I don't think the future is worth anything, then I'm not going to have children.
	If I think it is worth something, I will have children.
	I think these ideas have spread like bad viruses, and there's been a lot of investment in promoting some extraordinarily weak ideas.
	Sitting at the top of all of these very bad ideas is one giant one, which we can call anti-humanism.
	Transhumanism, the trans phenomenon, net zero, lockdowns, population reduction, all of these ideas are basically the ugly stepchildren of anti-humanism.
	They are, as I read it, essentially two competing ideas in the world at the moment.
	One is that humans are the best feature of the observable universe, the only creatures capable.
	of creative thought and generativity and of creating explanations for how reality works.
	That humans ought to be revered and ought to be cherished.
	That we should plan for their flourishing.
	That we should be planning for the flourishing of as many people as possible.
	That human agency ought to be respected.
	That civil liberties ought to be respected.
	Top-down, one-size-fits-all policies on humanity is completely incompatible with that kind of worldview.
	Set up against them are people who regard humans as the scum on the surface of the little blue dot.
	People who regard humanity as some kind of blight.
	People who believe that the Earth needs rights to protect it from these horrible humans.
	And I think it is a deeply sad reflection.
	of the state of our societies that so many people live in the latter camp but i'm definitely not one of We can all stand up to tyranny.
	We can and must fight for the things that truly matter.
	The people we love, the fairness we'd like to see.
	And the personal freedoms we'd like to experience.
	We should not be bullied, nor should we accept the influences of those who would split our society, be it by race, by gender, by culture or anything else we hold dear.
	And perhaps we should start by limiting our reliance on technology and remembering how creative we can be.
	music
	Once you've seen it, you can't unsee it.
	You can't go backwards.
	So what that means is that over time, more and more people are starting to see this now.
	The powers that be have no choice but to keep pushing forward for their global technocracy.
	They're the ones who are attempting the controlled demolition of liberal democracy.
	They have only one route they can go and they are tobogganing towards disaster.
	On the other side, we the people have no choice.
	But to fight back against all of this.
	I don't expect that we're going to just be able to tell the truth indefinitely without consequences, but we must continue to do it.
	We must, for the sake of our children, for the sake of humanity, for the sake of generations yet unborn.
	We have no option but to stand against this evil.
	If you look at where this thing is going, I'm not going there, okay?
	And whether God takes me out or the leadership takes me out, I don't care.
	I'm not going there.
	And the only way we cannot go there is if we can find a better pathway.
	And the only way we're going to find a better pathway is with transparency.
	If I want to live as a virtuous human being, I need to live amongst people that are free.

▲