THE Agenda (2030 obviously) full documentary

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 wont 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 what they thought

was going to be the replacement
for capitalism and free enterprise.

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 supranational 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’re not 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 Omniwar 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 maneuver
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 organize

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.

NO MONEY, NO CHOICE

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 a 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.

CBDC can allow

government agencies
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 programing 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 the 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 no longer a financial system
or a currency system.

It's purely a digital concentration camp.

It's a slavery system.

When Catherine Austin Fitts 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?

That's where are they traveling?

How are they traveling?

What are they eating?

What are they consuming on the platform?

So individual carbon footprint tracker.

This can be the infrastructure
for a carbon credit 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 is 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.

THE DIGITAL PRISON

One man who

knows the dangers only too well is Aman Jabbi,
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

identify the biometrics of any face.

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
then 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.

Alexa, 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’s 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 string of smart LED poles and smart LED

lights on the highway and in the streets
of your towns and cities,

those form a wireless network
and are tracking your vehicle.

They are tracking all the devices on you,

from smart phones 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

good for health also because of all the
electromagnetic radiation.

In the

long term,
the plan is to pretty much lock up

humanity in smart cities,

which is kind of a superset
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...

Air monitoring

is really about limiting mobility
and no car ownership.

Surveillance control via LED grid
is why the smart lighting is there.

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 that's, think of it
as an invisible fence around you.

Where you cannot go
beyond a certain point.

And that'll be related to your face
recognition, digital identity

and access control.

Your smart contracts
software can turn off

your digital currency
beyond a certain point from your house.

Our world has been turned
into a digital panopticon.

That means you can be monitored,

analyzed, managed, and monetized.

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 behavior.

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,

it is going to be used to fully control
the behavior of children as well as how

they behave with respect to, you know,
diversity, equity, inclusivity, etc.

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 cyber security 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 will 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.

Most advances in science,

including A.I. 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 neighborhood.

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 travelers 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 then the next step
could be to go into prescriptive mode,

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 magicking money
out of thin air, who control the media

and all of the other means of production
which have now been weaponized

against the rest of the global population.

Catherine Austin Fitts,

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 favor 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 MASTER PLAN

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

and its 17 Sustainable Development
Goals, or SDGs.

The plan has a broad spectrum
and is full of worthy ambition.

But behind those deliberately bright
and colorful

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.

17, inspiring Sustainable

Development Goals.

The SDGs.

Our aim is clear.

Our mission is possible.

And our destination is in our sights.

To end poverty

and hunger.

Address inequality.

Protect our planet.
And build a life of dignity for all.

It appears to be a noble

and ambitious program 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 U.N-ese.

You have to know what the terms mean

if you want to truly understand
what is being discussed.

When they talk about peace

keeping 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.

Like, for example, when they talk about
gender equality, right?

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 lead this movement within the UN,

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,
the 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 Koire,

called out the plan
more than a decade ago.

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
$5 quadrillion.

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 the 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 virtually

all of the genetic material
of all of the species on the planet.

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 emitting 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.

...to hand you Mr Lie my father’s check.

Thank you, Mr.

Rockefeller.

Between them,
the Rockefeller family has funded

hundreds of organizations
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:

The UN stands
finally as a symbol of the world order

that will one day be built.

In 1973,

David Rockefeller
co-founded a non-governmental organization

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 their 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 Commons 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 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 balance 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,
Dr Hughes

says the response deployed dangerous
elements of social control.

What he calls weaponized deception.

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.

These are forms of

serious psychological abuse.

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 organise

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 W.H.O. 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 W.H.O.

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 W.H.O'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 and Melinda Gates
Foundation and Gavi,

a public private vaccine alliance
also heavily supported by Gates.

People see the

W.H.O. as a benign organization,
and there are still areas where the W.H.O.

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 the W.H.O’s focus
very much to this emergency agenda,

which is very false. Pandemics
are very rare events.

This is why we now have a W.H.O.
that promotes

vaccines all the time, because that's
what the money is coming in to support.

So instead of

being a World Health Organization,
we have a world vaccine organization

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 will 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 are 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 W.H.O. has acted.

The emergency committee met
and advised me that, in its view,

the situation constitutes a Public Health
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 W.H.O.

is essentially looking to be their
marketing and distribution arm worldwide.

W.H.O.

the people say no!

W.H.O.

the people say no!

We’re fighting for, really, the right
to own their own lives.

We’re fighting for that freedom versus
a sort of

corporate authoritarian structure
or medical fascist structure,

which is what is clearly trying
to, you know,

interests are trying to impose on us.

Changes to the W.H.O’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 W.H.O. 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 the centralization scam.

If we can detect one,
a propagandized 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.

THE DAVOS DYNASTY

Klaus Schwab founded the W.E.F. in 1971.

His mentor was Henry Kissinger, statesman,

political shaper,
and close confidant of the Rockefellers.

The organization now employs 800 people

and has programs 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 an enormously influential

organization
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.

NGOs and so-called think tanks.

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 W.E.F.

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 W.E.F, remember,

is clear.

You have to force behaviors.

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 may have money,

what they may use their money for

and how

they are going to behave in society
and what they're going to do with it.

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.

CRISIS? WHAT CRISIS?

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 a 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

in 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're warmer. But we're about the same
as we were a thousand years ago,

and certainly cooler than we were about
5000 to 8000 years ago.

John Christy 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 manmade 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 pounds 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 1000 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 Christy 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 or frequency.

Same with tornadoes or thunderstorms
or floods or droughts.

It's just going along like it
always has with a 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 Coningsby,
which the Met Office is very proud of?

On July the 19th in 2022

and when we did a freedom of information
request at the Daily Sceptic,

we found that there were three typhoon
jets landing on a runway

next to the measuring device.

Because Coningsby, as they call
it, is actually RAF Coningsby.

It's a military airport.

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 António Guterres
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

is just about the most nonsensical,
illogical thing that I can imagine.

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, politics and the United Nations.

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

modeling at the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology.

This research laid

the foundations for an agenda
that has 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:

The solution of these crises
can be developed only in a global context,

with full and explicit recognition
of the emerging world system.

A new world economic order
and a global resources allocation system.

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 behavior 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.

That, 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,

canceled or has their career stalled?

Funding for someone who wants to determine
the natural variability

of 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 2000 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 well-being of billions of people.’

We need to have a full and honest debate
about the science and it needs to be to

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.

THE NET EFFECT

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 sun beams 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 deindustrializing 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 nonrenewable,
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 to 40%,
and for offshore wind it’s about 30 to 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.

As we’ll hear,

the net result is
that supply will be rationed.

Reality, though,

seems not to concern the activists.

I’m here because I don’t have a future.

I look at the,
some of these hysterical youngsters

and some of the hysterical oldsters 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 organizations
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

700ft into the air
and dwarfing the hilltop forests.

Planning permission is being sought
for the so-called Bryn

Cadwgan Energy Park.

If you put one in the valley floor,

it would be standing some 40m
above the valley floor, 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 would be standing some 600
odd meters 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.

Leave it alone, especially
in the wilder places, and let it flourish.

We've 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 meter turbine in that location,

it's going to take some crane
to lift the 240 tonne

nacelle on to the top of the tower,
some 180m up.

So they'd have to stabilize all the ground
for the crane.

Stabilize
the ground for the actual turbine.

Put in a concrete plug,

basically in the ground of some, thousand
tonne of steel.

4000 tonnes 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 meter
drop into the actual valley itself.

So they’re gonna have to create gradients

that machinery carrying 400 ton 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 like 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 like,

you know,
transport, space, heating and industry.

So it's almost a ten fold increase

in the amount of renewable energy
that we're producing.

Ralph Ellis has analyzed
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 2000
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 1 or 2 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 you 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 Organization 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 used the word bamboo.

Impacted Earth, soil detritus.

This is what they're writing.

But what of the claim
that renewable energy will be cheaper?

Not so, says Derek Berthelsen.

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 will 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 centers 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.

FROM FARMER TO PHARMA

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 contribute
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.

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 corporatization of our food sector.

It's basically the 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,
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 cows.

And while he talks up
the perceived problem, Gates

is pouring money
into the supposed solution.

Artificial meat.

And genetically modified crops.

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 towards
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 penalizing 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 the pharmaceutical companies

will probably pick up the slack on that,
all of which create a profiteering circle.

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 cows 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.

They are woo woo figures 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.

Okay, they do speed that up.

But the other thing they give us
is this. Muck. Which we put on the fields

to fertilize the fields and reduces
our reliance on buying in fertilizer.

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 sweetcorn.

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,

the government is planning to set apart
1,200 square miles

for wildlife habitat by 2042.

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.

Go 13 states:

Take urgent action
to combat climate change and its impacts.

As a result,
the Dutch government plans to close 3000

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 site 1745 football pitches.

It's a crime to take food
productive land out for solar panels,

which 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.

To 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 Seaton 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
Fitts says that with programable 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

rven 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 this here?

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.

The architects of such globalist
trajectories.

All the Kissingers, Rockefellers,

Schwabs, Carneys,

Strongs, Carstens are held out

as great intellects.
But they are nothing of the sort.

We know, both in theory and in practice,
that centralization 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 W.H.O’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.

CONTROLLING THE NARRATIVE

Local councils

have been sucked 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,

a network of green organizations
throughout the United Kingdom.

For example,
the UK 100, there's also C40 cities

and there's the Global Covenant of Mayors.

And these organizations
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 organization,

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 councilor is a planet saver.

And of course, there are organizations
that,

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 Pile emphasizes
that such organizations are not grassroots

initiatives.

Civil society has been bought,
and it's been organized

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,

which has done it for 20 years,

saying that you cannot have any other view
apart from the settled narrative.

It's doing an enormous disservice
to science.

Journalists and broadcasters

are schooled in the carbon doctrine
by organizations such as the Carbon

Literacy Project,
which claims to have trained

1000 BBC employees.

Meanwhile, Sky
joined forces with the psychologists

of the Behavioral Insights Team
to produce this initiative.

How the power of television can nudge
viewers to decarbonize their lifestyles.

The recommendations included:

Give green content more screen time,

more salience in plots and scenes.

Use kids’ content to encourage positive

environmental behaviors
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 barrel.

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,
and the One Earth Fund.

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 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.

A partisan 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 organizations.

For example, the Gates Foundation

and the Wellcome Trust.

Invariably, money
from private organizations

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 W.H.O.

and major pharmaceutical companies?

This new collaboration will help train
the next generation

of medics with the skills
they need to treat the healt

impacts of climate change and deliver
more sustainable health care.

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 socialized

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.

It makes me feel distraught.

It makes me feel 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.

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 being 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.

If we die it’s kind of your fault!

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.

And we want it now.

I want you to feel the fear
I feel every day.

Fossil fuels have got to go.

I want you to act
as if the house was on fire.

Because it is.

This propaganda,

relentlessly,
promoting fear in various ways.

Be it disease, be a 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 apologize
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,
GMO foods,

and very few counterarguments
were presented.

If you cannot produce this information

that's in the textbooks,
you cannot succeed in the school system.

If a student undertaken a geography exam,

for example,
doesn't talk about manmade climate change,

then they're very unlikely
to hit the top marks.

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.

Why do you have make up and lipstick

and glitter on?

Because I think it looks pretty.

Oh, 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 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.

Doctor 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,
how would they ever know the difference

between what is happening within the home
if they're encouraged to also explore

that part of themselves
within a school curriculum?

What do we do with an organization
like the United Nations or the World

Health Organization?

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. As 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 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 are heading
towards civilization 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.

There 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.

And that the imposition of 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 them.

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.

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.

And if one understands
that one mustn't live on their knees,

even if you have to die on your feet,
you must share truths

because truth is the weapon for free people.