THE Agenda (2030 obviously) full documentary

Ladies and gentlemen,
the distinguished author, Mr. Aldous Huxley.

"Brave New World" (book)
is a fantastic parable...

about the dehumanization
of human beings.

In the negative utopia
described in my story,

man has been subordinated
to his own inventions.

Science, technology, social organization,

these things
have ceased to serve man.

They have become his masters.

Aldous Huxley's novel
portrays a dystopian future

under the dictatorship
of a world state,

where every aspect of human life
is controlled,

from laboratory creation
to the grave.

He described the story as fantasy,
but later wrote:

"The prophecies made in 1931 are coming true
much sooner than I thought they would."

"The nightmare
of total organization has emerged....

and is now awaiting us
just around the next corner."

With the rise of brain-computer interfaces
and biometric sensors and so forth,

all the bodies, all the brains
would be connected together to a network,

and you won't be able to survive
if you are disconnected from the net.

All life on earth
is going to be radically changed.

"It's a fusion of zhe physical, zhe digital,
and zhe 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.

They 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.

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 super-national 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 omni-war is now underway,

which is to say
that the transnational ruling class is literally,

it's not a metaphor, is literally at war
with the rest of humanity

and has weaponized everything that it can.

This is a coup.

They can remove the power
from the parliament and the legislative branch...

and consolidate it into a monetary system
which has complete control.

That control is now entirely achievable...

because the would-be controllers
finally have the tools to execute it.

Total surveillance, artificial intelligence,

digital IDs and
Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDC).

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 plant a common deer 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.

We are on the brink of a dramatic change where we are about to,

and I'll say this boldly,

we're about to abandon the traditional system of money and accounting

and introduce a new one.

And the new one, the new accounting, is what we call blockchain.

It means digital.

It means having an almost perfect record of every single transaction

that happens in the economy,

which will give us far greater clarity over what's going on.

It also raises huge dangers in terms of the balance of power between states and citizens.

We are shifting to a new financial system,

but the general population is not shifting to a new financial system.

It's shifting to a control grid.

CPTC 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 programming CPTC,

those money can be precisely targeted for what kind of people can own

and what kind of use this money can be utilized.

A key difference with the CBDC is that Central Bank will have absolute control

on the rules and regulations,

and also we will have the technology to enforce that.

They're saying we can control with rules.

We don't need currency anymore.

And so it's no longer a financial system or currency system.

It's purely a digital concentration camp.

It's a slavery system.

When Catherine Austin-Fitz talks, we should listen.

She's a former high-level investment banker in New York

and held senior office in the first Bush administration in Washington.

There may be a thousand models of how it could work,

but essentially you will have,

whether it's a banking account or a credit card,

and it can be turned off and on.

So my incentive system is not you go to work and work hard and you get money.

My incentive system can be based on how you behaved in the last five minutes,

you know, on a 24-7 basis.

CBDCs, as the name suggests, would be issued by central banks

like the Federal Reserve in America and the Bank of England,

not by high street banks.

They would signal the end of cash,

and every transaction you make would be transparent

and held on a permanent database.

Crucially, under a net zero regime,

your carbon footprint could be at the heart of the system.

We're developing, through technology,

an ability for consumers to measure their own carbon footprint.

What does that mean?

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's going to get hip to this game.

We're going to need another system.

And I will say this because I used to be part of that,

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 O.F.A. 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.

One man who knows the dangers only too well is Amman Jabi,

who was at the forefront of digital development in Silicon Valley, California, for 25 years.

He left when he recognized the dark side of surveillance technology,

choosing instead the peace and beauty of Montana.

He's an expert in facial recognition.

It's a technique that is used to uniquely identify the biometrics of any face.

So, in a device like your smartphone, and most modern smartphones in the last five or seven years,

they have a 3D camera module in the front of the phone, which you cannot see.

Within that module is a near-infrared projector,

which projects tens of thousands of dots on your face.

Those dots are then distorted based on the contours and the features of your face,

and there's a near-infrared camera that takes a picture of that distortion,

captures it, and then reverse-engineers the exact profile of your face.

In the longer term, facial recognition will be used to unlock your digital identity,

which is going to be a tool of control for the agendas that are coming down the pipeline.

Elements of that control are already with us.

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 smartphones to smart watches

when you're walking on the streets.

So data is being collected 24-7 continuously on every human being

whenever you are within these wireless networks.

And it's obviously not 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, their monitoring is really about limiting mobility and no-car ownership.

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

Water management is about water rationing.

Noise pollution is about speed surveillance.

Traffic monitoring is about limiting mobility.

And then, of course, energy conservation is all about rationing heat, electricity, and gasoline.

Another concept one should be familiar with is called geofencing.

And think of it as an invisible fence around you where you cannot go beyond a certain point.

And that will be related to your face recognition, digital identity, and access control.

Your smart contracts, 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, analysed, managed, and monetised.

Surveillance capitalists are already making billions of dollars selling our information to big corporations

because this kind of detailed knowledge enables them to predict and influence our behaviour.

Worse, our children are being exploited.

There are a lot of board games and other games that are already in the market and have been for over two years

that have cameras inside and underneath these LED screens that are observing and scoring

and emotionally calibrating the faces of all the children.

So are all the iPads that they use in schools.

They're all manipulating children's behaviour 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 created 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 behaviour of children

as well as how they behave with respect to diversity, equity, inclusivity, etc.

The Chinese have already gone one step further.

Classrooms have robots that analyse 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 AI, bring great advantages to the world.

They can enhance and improve human endeavour in almost every walk of life.

But you don't have to be a scientist to see the flip side.

They're constantly monitored by facial recognition cameras that are able to instantly put a face to a name.

Now the Chinese are also ranked, given a mark out of a possible 950 points.

For now the number is a sort of bank credit rating, keeping track of everyone's spending habits.

It may seem scary but it's just like that here.

We're used to it and anyway we don't have a choice.

If you think this couldn't happen in the West, ask yourself why so many cameras,

smart poles and 5G networks are being installed in your neighbourhood.

In London the police are using facial recognition surveillance.

Sainsbury's is already experimenting with AI.

Thank you for waiting. The cabinet will now be opened.

In UK railway stations, surveillance is being tested to collect travellers' data.

And in Oxford, these barriers were installed by the council under its so-called 15-minute city plan.

They were removed following protests.

But look at what's replacing them in these quiet residential streets.

As the tech companies are proud to tell us, the possibilities are endless.

We've developed the camera into a sensor.

The camera does not only capture video, it can now start to count, measure and detect.

With deep learning capability, the camera is able to generate accurate and trustworthy data

and send notifications in order to take action, all directly from the camera.

And since our cameras have open technology, well we can work with different analytic partners

from all over the world and together do just about anything we want.

Note that they can do just about anything they want.

Digital technologies mainly have an analytical power.

Now we go into a predictive power.

But since the next step could be to go into a prescriptive 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 magicing 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-Fitz, the banking insider, adds a sinister thought.

If you know their name, they're not at the top.

Either way, it's a story of power, money and manipulation

by a small group of people who share common interests

and a belief that the world needs top-down control for maximum efficiency.

As we'll see, it could result in the destruction of the farming industry in 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.

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.

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 UNEs.

You have to know what the terms mean if you want to truly understand what is being discussed.

When they talk about peacekeeping forces or the peacekeeping role of the United Nations,

they're actually talking about the war-making capabilities of the United Nations.

So you have this Orwellian doublespeak.

When they talk about transparency, more often than not,

they're talking about eliminating your privacy.

Human rights is another very, very good example.

They make very clear in this document that your rights can be restricted

under the guise of public order or morality or whatever the case may be.

And so they're saying, here's your rights.

But by the way, they're not really rights.

We can revoke them at any time.

The UN is filled with contradictions like this.

For example, when they talk about gender equality.

A normal person in the Western world thinks gender equality means a woman has a right to earn money,

to own property, to have all the rights and privileges that a man would have.

When you look at the individuals who 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 that kind of warm and fuzzy,

we're going to end hunger, which again is just window dressing,

you realise that this is actually a blank check for totalitarian global control.

Author and campaigner, the late Rosa Corre, 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 monetised.

In fact, a study at Yale University has calculated that the natural assets of the world

are worth five quadrillion dollars.

Is this the basis of the new world monetary system?

And is it the deep underlying reason for the United Nations project

to rewild 50% of the Earth by 2050?

They talk a lot about biodiversity.

They want you to think, oh, we're going to preserve the toucans

and the parrots and the, you know, whatever, lizards.

But when you actually dig into this, what they're talking about is creating

and they're working on it now, an international database

with 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 elitting 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 issues 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. Lee, my father's chair.

Thank you, Mr. Rockefeller.

Between them, the Rockefeller family has funded hundreds of organisations

and, as a consequence, spread their authority on civil society,

institutions, banking, education and global politics.

The Rockefellers always believed in world governance.

In the 1950s, their special studies project report declared...

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 organisation

which still carries international power today, the Trilateral Commission.

Its stated objectives revived technocracy

and in turn planted the seeds of the UN's sustainable development agenda.

They said at the time that they were going to create

a new international economic order.

It was all over the literature.

The goal of the new international economic order

was not to get richer in the sense of money.

They knew even back then that eventually

the fiat currency system of the world was going to disintegrate.

So the goal became to actually capture the physical resources of the world.

All wealth historically has come out of the ground.

They wanted to take away everything that they could possibly take away

from the nation states of the world and from private individuals of the world

and stuff it into the global common trust where they would administrate it

and they would be the ones getting licenses for the resources

to turn around and make stuff.

The financial kingpins have long seen themselves as masters of the universe,

manipulating global affairs through institutions

like the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.

Is Agenda 2030 the defining act for complete control?

And how significant was the global response to Covid-19?

As the world builds back from Covid-19,

we have a once in a lifetime opportunity to make investments

that will strengthen the economy and improve public health

and fight climate change for generations to come.

One might ask why the UN needs a multi-billionaire finance

and media player as a special envoy.

Or why Mark Carney, the former Governor of the Bank of England,

who called for a new global monetary system,

is the UN's special envoy for climate action and finance.

And then there's Larry Fink, the boss of Blackrock,

the world's largest asset management company.

He's a board member of the World Economic Forum

and, as we'll see, has driven the UN's goals

through investment strategies for the past 20 years.

All three are principles of the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero,

a partnership with the UN.

With the green economy worth trillions to corporations and investors alike,

it's hard not to see a conflict of interests.

Are the bankers raising money to achieve United Nations goals?

Or are the goals a Trojan horse

to change the world's financial control systems?

Now consider the events at Jackson Hole, Wyoming, in August 2019,

only three months before the Covid outbreak.

It's when Mark Carney delivered his call for change

and Blackrock proposed a new financial mechanism,

Going Direct, which in principle allows central banks

to channel capital direct to large corporations.

So the central bankers got together in 2019,

the G7 central bankers, and voted on the Going Direct reset.

And the Going Direct reset, of which the Covid operation was part of it,

has done a phenomenally excellent job

of massively consolidating capital into central control.

If you look at the Covid operation from a financial standpoint,

it was absolutely clear that it was one way you balanced the books.

It worked.

The major corporations, like Amazon and others,

were allowed to continue business.

Meanwhile, other businesses, particularly small and medium-sized entities,

were deemed to be, quote, inessential.

Many of them were put out of business.

And so what we saw was a global wealth transfer

of a reported $3.3 trillion from the working classes and the middle classes

to this kind of super-rich billionaire brigade.

The people who ran the operation made an absolute fortune.

It was economically as a taking, it was a huge taking.

And that included billions of pounds of taxpayers' money

going to pharmaceutical firms for so-called vaccines.

Whatever the truth around Covid,

Dr Hughes says the response deployed dangerous elements of social control,

what he calls weaponised 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 Organisation, the UN's most powerful agency.

Since Covid, the WHO has sought to increase that power to unprecedented levels

through amendments to its pandemic treaty and the international health regulations.

A key driver is its One Health initiative.

One Health is a concept that was created to enable the WHO with these documents

to take over jurisdiction of everything in the world

by saying that climate change, animals, plants, water systems, ecosystems

are all central to health.

That places the Director-General in a key position to influence world events.

Another potential conflict of interests given the WHO's financial backing,

particularly from the pharmaceutical sector.

Its accounts for 2022 show that an eye-watering 84%

or $3.656 billion of income came from voluntary donations.

The top four sources of these donations included

the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and GAVI,

a public-private vaccine alliance also heavily supported by Gates.

People see the WHO as a benign organisation

and there are still areas where the WHO does useful stuff.

But the biggest focus now is purely on a tiny disease burden

where investors can extract a large amount of wealth.

This has shifted the WHO's focus very much to this emergency agenda,

which is very false. Pandemics are very rare events.

This is why we now have a WHO that promotes vaccines all the time,

because that's what the money is coming in to support.

So instead of being a world health organisation,

we have a world vaccine organisation

and that seems to be the only thing they're touting.

What's in the Treaty has got nothing to do with health.

It's a business deal focused on the most profitable business imaginable,

pandemic profiteering.

The other part of it, they're setting up a huge surveillance network.

We're talking about $31 billion a year.

They have to surveil for variants of viruses and they 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're creating a supranational, self-perpetuating pandemic industry.

The latest scare is monkeypox, renamed M.pox,

a disease highly unlikely to affect the general population.

Nevertheless, the WHO has acted.

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

the situation constitutes a public 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 WHO is essentially looking to be their marketing and distribution arm worldwide.

We're fighting for really the right to own our own lives.

We're fighting for that freedom versus a sort of corporate authoritarian structure

or medical fascist structure, which is what is clearly the interests of trying to impose on us.

Changes to the WHO's regulations are expected to be voted through in the coming months.

As we speak, the UK government is fully behind them.

Meanwhile, in common with many other global institutions,

the WHO tries to silence criticism and dissent, branding it misinformation.

The science, it says, is settled.

Digital platforms are being misused to subvert science

and spread disinformation and hate to billions of people.

This clear and present global threat demands clear and coordinated global action.

I have a little rule of thumb for diagnosing a centralisation scam.

If we can detect, one, a propagandised global crisis,

two, admitting only global solutions,

and three, with dissenting voices viciously silenced,

then we know with absolute certainty that we are dealing with a scam.

Control, dictate, eliminate debate, the hallmarks of a totalitarian regime.

And nowhere is the cold ambition of corporate dominance more evident

than with the World Economic Forum.

Klaus Schwab founded the WEF in 1971.

His mentor was Henry Kissinger, statesman, political shaper,

and close confidant of the Rockefellers.

The organisation now employs 800 people

and has programmes in business, academia, and in training future global leaders.

It's far more than its famous annual meeting in Davos.

Over the last 50 years, the World Economic Forum has blossomed

into an enormously influential organisation

with all of the major corporations as stakeholders or trustees

and all funding the World Economic Forum

to ultimately fund the UN World Government Plans and Agenda 2030.

Klaus Schwab is the public face of stakeholder capitalism,

a planned system of central ownership and control

that has little to do with democratic process

and is uncomfortably close to communism.

It's a partnership between global corporations, governments,

and what Schwab refers to as civil society, 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 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 of Westminster, just as a tribal shouting place.

Starmer seems to forget that he is elected by the people

to serve the people through Parliament.

That's his democratic duty.

And while he refuses to listen to our farmers,

he entertains the globalists in Downing Street

and publicly doubles down on his philosophy.

I'm determined to deliver growth, create wealth

and put more money in people's pockets.

This can only be achieved by working in partnership

with leading businesses like Blackrock

to capitalise on the UK's position as a world-leading hub for investment.

To underline the influence of non-elected, unaccountable policy drivers,

consider this document from 2004.

It was commissioned by the UN and produced by financial institutions,

including the World Bank.

It cited research by the WEF.

The result was the emergence of environmental, social and governance metrics.

ESG's.

The ESG is an attempt to turn financial power into governance

without going through the democratic process,

without the normal process of making law.

ESG's allow major asset management companies such as Blackrock

to impose ideologies on businesses and consumers across the world

through their investment strategies.

Blackrock's billionaire chairman and CEO, Larry Fink,

also a board member of the WEF, remember, is clear.

You have to force behaviours.

If you don't force behaviours, 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're 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.

2024, with the hottest day on record

and the hottest months on record,

this is almost certain to be the hottest year on record

and the master class in climate destruction.

Climate Change

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 is a climate crisis

and I base that on all the evidence and the climate data sets

that we build to answer questions just like that.

We actually use satellites to monitor the global temperature,

the true global temperature of the atmosphere,

and we find there is a rise.

It's about 1.5 degrees per century,

which is certainly something that's manageable

and the Earth has seen before.

Compared to the 19th century,

which was about the coolest century in the past 10,000 years,

we were warmer,

but we're about the same as we were 1,000 years ago

and certainly cooler than we were about 5,000 to 8,000 years ago.

John Christie is a highly regarded climate scientist

who developed the measurement of accurate temperature records

using satellites.

His evidence is critically inconvenient

to the climate change industry.

I'm not popular in most of the climate community,

that's for sure,

because much of the climate community

depends on climate model results.

Tens and hundreds of millions of dollars

have gone into that industry of climate modeling.

I show, well, you folks have failed.

But yet they prop up the entire political world

that tends to support this.

In 2017, I came to work

and there were seven bullet holes in our office suite.

And so some people are pretty upset

that the evidence that we build and show

that can stand the test of time

and can stand up to cross-examination

is just not going along with their issues

and their desires.

So let's consider these statistics

on the Earth's atmosphere.

78% is nitrogen,

21% oxygen,

other gases make up less than 1%,

and carbon dioxide accounts for a mere 0.04%,

the majority of which is natural.

Can man-made CO2 really be a problem?

Roy Spencer and I are going on the assumption

that all the warming that you see

is due to carbon dioxide emissions.

And so we find that that's a pretty modest warming.

But see, that's a big assumption.

Mother Nature is able to warm up the planet

without extra CO2.

And so we are just saying the worst-case scenario

is this warming of about a degree and a half.

And that's certainly not a catastrophe at all.

On the contrary,

carbon dioxide is vital for the world's survival.

The greater the concentration,

the better plants grow.

In fact, according to NASA figures,

the world has become 14% greener in the last 40 years.

During the last cool period before industrialisation,

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 1,000 years after.

So the CO2 actually lags.

The temperature changes.

But what of the extreme weather events

which are increasing and driven by climate change

according to everyone from the top of the United Nations down?

Professor Christie says there is no data to support those claims.

What we find is that virtually every one of these claims is false.

The extremes are not increasing.

Hurricanes are not increasing in intensity 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 Collinsby,

which the Met Office is very proud of,

on July the 19th in 2022,

and when we did a free information request at The Daily Skeptic,

we found that there were three Typhoon jets

landing on a runway next to the measuring device

because Collinsby, as they call it,

is actually RAF Collinsby.

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 Antonio Gutierrez

that the globe is boiling.

The whole thing is junk.

How we came to the point where we think

that we're going to prevent bad weather from happening

by eliminating fossil fuels

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 girls' trends

much beyond the lives of children who are being born today.

To prove the thesis,

they commissioned computer modelling

at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

This research laid the foundations for an agenda

that's persisted for over 50 years.

Cut use of autos.

Use less electric power.

Have fewer children.

Limit growth.

All of this was fuelling 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 behaviour

that they can be overcome.

The real enemy, then, is humanity itself.

It really does look as though

they are inventing climate change there.

They just made it up out of thin air, literally.

Nobody really looks at that book and says,

well, there you go.

This has nothing to do with science whatsoever.

They just made it up.

Interestingly, in 1988,

Maurice Strong had been instrumental

in establishing the IPCC,

the mainly political entity which endorsed a thesis

by a small group of scientists

that industrial carbon dioxide was driving climate change,

and the IPCC has been locked into that theory ever since.

Maurice Strong's masterstroke came in 1992,

when, as Secretary-General of the UN's Earth Summit in Brazil,

he saw 179 nations commit to a world action plan,

Agenda 21.

We have been the most successful species ever.

We are now a species out of control.

Nobody would question the need for a cleaner environment

and the protection of nature,

and Strong's legacy lives on through the Kyoto Protocol,

the Paris Accord,

the current Agenda 2030,

and the worldwide push for carbon net zero.

But there are questions on his motives and his connections.

He was behind the first financial carbon market

and a founding director of the World Economic Forum.

Surely a conflict of interests,

with his involvement in the IPCC.

A sceptic might ask why nearly all research grants

in almost 40 years have gone on developing

IPCC carbon dioxide theories,

while anyone who raises questions is ridiculed, cancelled,

or has their career stalled.

Funding for someone who wants to determine

the natural variability of the climate system

as an explanation for what has happened is just not there.

I mean, the government is very clear

that they want a catastrophic story.

There is no single science paper that proves conclusively

that humans control all or most of the global climate.

If there was, you wouldn't hear the last of it.

Instead, we get this call to authority to the IPCC,

the United Nations Panel on Climate Change.

Many more scientists and academics

are speaking out against the IPCC.

Almost 2,000 have signed a declaration

stating that there is no climate emergency,

including Nobel Prize winner, Professor John Clauser, who wrote...

The popular narrative about climate change

reflects a dangerous corruption of science

that threatens the world's economy

and the well-being of billions of people.

We need to have a full and honest debate about the science.

It needs to be discussed in Parliament,

it needs to be discussed in the media,

it needs to be generally discussed,

and we need to 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.

If you cannot set a credible course for net zero,

with 2025 and 2030 targets covering all your operations,

you should not be in business.

Well, net zero is insanity.

It's pure insanity.

I mean, the idea that you can remove

85% of the world's energy,

which comes from hydrocarbons,

within less than 30 years

and replace it with the sunbeams and the breezes,

it shows a complete lack of economics,

societal effect.

It shows a simple lack of the progress

that we've made over 300 years.

Nevertheless, net zero is enshrined in UK law,

with the government passing the Climate Change Act in 2008.

A 100% reduction in emissions by 2050

from 1990 levels was included later in a strategy document.

But experts argue that the policy is fatally flawed.

Europe's mad dash towards net zero

is effectively economic suicide.

Politicians are purposely impoverishing ordinary people,

purposely deindustrialising Europe,

where companies are forced to move to countries

where they have access to cheap energy,

whether it's the US who frack and therefore have cheap gas,

or whether it's to China,

which is still predominantly producing from non-manual,

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,

at 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 look at some of these hysterical youngsters,

and some of the hysterical oldsters as well,

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

calling themselves aristocracy and all that sort of stuff.

You want to go back to that? Fine.

Get rid of hydrocarbons.

Many of these apparently grassroots protest groups

are backed by organisations such as the Climate Emergency Fund,

financed by billionaires like the oil heiress Aileen Getty.

And if they claim to be environmentalists,

they conveniently ignore the bigger picture.

Thousands of wind turbines are disrupting coastal waters,

changing habitats, affecting marine life and killing seabirds.

Landscapes are being scarred by the production of lithium

for electric car batteries,

and by cobalt mines in Africa,

where child labour 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 south-west Wales

is a stark example.

It's a landscape breathtaking in its beauty,

untainted and largely untouched by humans.

A haven for wildlife,

a place where life runs its natural course.

Yet this is what's planned.

Mega turbines designed for offshore,

reaching 700 feet into the air and dwarfing the hilltop forests.

Planning permission is being sought

for the so-called Bryn Cadwyn Energy Park.

If you put one in the valley floor,

it would be standing some 40 metres above the valley floor,

so above the horizon.

But they're not putting them in the valley floor,

they're putting them on the top of the hills.

So it would be standing some 600-odd metres above sea level,

up there, casting a shadow over our solar panels.

Justin Cotter lives right in the centre of the proposed development.

He's fighting to preserve the countryside he loves.

And across the mountain, Jason and Josie Barker are equally aggrieved.

It feels very much like it's exploitation,

using the climate crisis narrative as its supporting evidence.

So it feels like it's being abused in a tremendous way,

and there's going to be a lot of destruction done

in the name of doing good, which really just seems utterly backwards.

And if we really want to protect nature,

then some of the best way of doing that would be to leave it well alone,

especially in the wilder places, and let it flourish.

We certainly found that being here.

The more we've lived here, the more we've worked with it

and encouraged it, the more it's come back.

All of those spruce trees on top there,

they will have to go to make way for Turbine.

All of that, all of this spruce will be gone.

To build a 230-metre Turbine in that location,

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

onto the top of the tower some 180 metres up.

So they'd have to stabilise all the ground for the crane,

stabilise the ground for the actual Turbine,

put in a concrete plug basically in the ground

of some 1,000 tonne of steel, 4,000 tonne of concrete,

just as a base.

They'll need to be lit. It'll take away the dark skies.

It's totally devastating.

It would just be catastrophic damage and destruction.

The roadways up through these valleys,

they're Welsh valleys, they're all twists and turns.

They're going to have to straighten out the valleys.

Where you've got steep hills, they're going to have to level out those hills.

There's a 200-metre drop into the actual valley itself,

so they're going to have to create gradients that machinery,

carrying 400-tonne loads, can actually traverse and get up.

The locals argue that there are much better ways of creating clean energy,

such as solar panels on industrial sites.

Areas of natural beauty should be respected.

This is about preserving and protecting this sacred land.

We need to speak up and protect the environment.

It's just a tremendous amount of damage in the name of saving the planet.

It does make you ask the question of what is it we're actually saving,

if we're paving it over.

It doesn't make any sense at all in my head.

The proliferation of turbines and solar panels

certainly seems at odds with protecting biodiversity,

and experts argue that the economics simply don't add up.

If we are going to go on to full net zero,

we not only have to change our electrical system,

but we have to change the other 66% or more

of the rest of our energy needs as well.

So we need to triple the amount of renewables

just to cover our present electricity generation.

And then we need to triple again

to cover all of the other usages,

like transport, space heating and industry.

So it's almost a tenfold increase

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

Ralph Ellis has analysed three government reports

and says all have grossly underestimated costs.

Two of the reports ignore the need for that crucial backup,

when the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine.

At present, this is the only such site,

Denorwig in Wales.

But going by the government's own figures,

Ellis says the equivalent of 2,000 Denorwigs 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 all you have to do is control demand.

And to be honest, they're quite open with this.

If you look at the National Grid's latest paper on this,

they talk about demand management,

and the system is, well,

electricity will only be available

at a price you can afford

when the wind is blowing and when the sun is shining.

And when the wind isn't blowing and the sun isn't shining

and the one or two hours of battery storage have been used up,

the way they will reduce demand

is by simply increasing the price of electricity,

so that demand falls to the available level of supply.

Part of the control that the government has

or part of the means by which it can manage the demand

is through the use of smart meters.

Effectively, smart meters allow them to do minute-by-minute pricing,

which means that as the intermittent renewable production

goes up and down, they can effectively change

the price at which you can use electricity.

So essentially, it's going back to pre-industrial age,

where the weather determines our lifestyles

and our energy use.

A government-sponsored report from the UK Fires organisation

agrees that targets will not be met,

and therefore electricity usage will have to be cut.

They say we'll have a quarter of the power by 2050,

and they say there'll be no travel,

there'll be no meat or no beef lamb,

there will be restrictions on clothing,

and we will live in mud huts.

And it's not an exaggeration, they use the word earth.

The United Nations use the word bamboo,

impacted earth, sawed treatise.

This is what they're writing.

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

Not so, says Derek Bertelsen.

We can also look at the accounts

of these renewable energy companies,

and what we see if we look at those

is that the cost of production is considerably higher

than the market price of electricity.

And therefore, without these subsidies,

these renewable companies would go bust.

Ironically, the anticipated reduction in supply

comes at a time when demand is about to skyrocket,

with the explosion of surveillance systems

and artificial intelligence.

BlackRock's Larry Fink predicts that by 2030,

data centres will use 30 times more power

than a single city.

Where's that power going to come from?

Are we going to take it off the grid?

What does it mean for elevated energy prices?

For everybody else, if it's that,

I think it's going to represent some huge societal questions

that we have not addressed the negative side.

Forget about the use of it,

but just the generation of it is massive power.

If the race to net zero will affect our energy,

it could also have a devastating effect on our food,

as global policies and the march of corporations accelerate.

Farming has been at the heart of our lives for generations,

but to the climate change advocates,

suddenly it's a threat.

A lot of people have no clue

that agriculture contributes about 33%

of all the emissions of the world.

You just can't continue to both warm the planet

while also expecting to feed it.

Doesn't work.

One thing John Kerry didn't mention

was that farming and agriculture contributes

100% of the food that we need to eat.

So that's 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 a pharmaceutical industry

taking over the food supply.

If I can switch everybody from real food to pharma food,

then 100% of the agriculture industry

can go through my publicly traded stocks

and I have complete control.

So the idea is we get rid of farmers,

we kill any naturally grown food,

and we engineer food in manufacturing plants

and laboratories.

But I assure you that those guys are not eating this.

Bill Gates is one of the familiar corporate faces,

and he's investing heavily in the food revolution

under the guise of avoiding climate disaster.

Cows alone account for about 6% of global emissions,

so we need to change 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 and 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 cars 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.

OK, they do speed that up,

but the other thing they give us is this, muck,

which we put on the fields to fertilise the fields

and reduces our reliance on buying in fertiliser.

200 miles to the south,

Ed Rhodes farms 188 acres of Devon countryside.

He's not part of the No Farmers, No Food movement,

but agrees that the whole narrative

on cows and climate change is wrong.

As farmers, we recycle carbon all the time.

That's what we do.

You could almost define farmers as carbon recyclers.

We're an organic beef, sheep and vegetable farm.

We run a fairly traditional system of rotational farming.

We'll have a field which would be growing

a brassica crop for one year,

a non-brassica crop for another year,

such as broad beans or sweet corn,

and then we have a break for that field,

so it goes into a predominantly grass and clover mix.

That allows the soil to recover

from the work that we've done with it

while we've had the vegetables growing.

It also allows things like the clover

to put nitrogen back into the soil.

So the livestock are absolutely essential

for grazing that grassland.

We also mow it so that the hay,

the silage that we take from those fields,

are fed to the cattle in the winter.

The bale I'm sitting on,

the bedding that they're standing on,

is all mown from very rushy areas on our farm.

The animals then dung onto that.

We compost that.

That gets spread onto the land primarily

where we're growing the vegetables

to put the fertility in,

and that's what then produces our crops.

If you remove livestock from the system,

you have no system.

Farmers like Ed Rhodes

work with knowledge and passion,

but still have to comply

with a labyrinth of government rules and regulations,

including carbon monitoring.

And now land itself is under threat.

Corporations such as British Airways

are buying farms to plant trees for carbon offsets,

while other areas are being declared

sites of special scientific interest,

restricting or even preventing use

for crops and livestock.

And then there's the United Nations SDGs.

Consequently, rewilding programmes

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.

Goal 13 states,

take urgent action to combat climate change

and its impacts.

As a result, the Dutch government

plans to close 3,000 farms

to meet EU emissions targets,

drawing widespread protests.

And in Denmark,

farmers face paying 80 pounds

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 1,745 football pitches.

It's a crime to take food-productive land out

for solar panels, which are unrecyclable,

potentially not that productive going forward,

and not feed the planet.

It is 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-Fitz says

that with programmable currency,

you wouldn't have a choice.

No one in their right mind would ever eat this stuff,

but the reality is once they have control of your transactions,

they can dictate what food you can and cannot buy.

If they want you to buy pizza made with insect-based flour,

that's what you're going to get.

There's an energy crisis,

even though there is an abundance of energy.

There's a food crisis,

even though there's plenty of food to feed the world.

There's a water crisis,

even though 70% of the Earth's surface is covered with it.

There's an air crisis,

where CO2 is declared the enemy of mankind,

even though it's necessary for life to exist on Earth.

There's a resource crisis,

even though there are abundant resources to support everyone.

What's with us here?

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 Kissinger's, Rockefeller's, Schwab's,

Carney's, Strong's, Carston's,

are held out as great intellects,

but they are nothing of the sort

We know both in theory and in practice

that centralisation causes nothing but misery,

because it destroys the mechanisms of error correction,

leading to doubling down on flawed policies.

And yet the creed of global dominance continues apace

through the WHO's so-called pandemic agreement,

its One Health initiative,

and, ultimately, the United Nations Agenda 2030.

From medical diktats to gender and racial politics

to climate change,

the indoctrination runs deep.

Local councils have been supped in

by the tentacles of global power,

encouraging them to spend vast amounts of time

and taxpayers' money on climate schemes

without challenging the rationale.

Local councils have taken these actions

because they are part of, or lobbied by,

a network of green organisations

throughout the United Kingdom.

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

and there's the Global Covenant of Mayors.

And these organisations require local authorities

to sign pledges that say they're going to

ban cars from streets,

we're going to make people vegetarian,

we're going to restrict certain forms of trade

faster than is required by national government.

They've been able to do this because democratic engagement

at the local level is so weak.

The voters' decisions are completely outweighed

by the influence of the Green Blob, essentially.

One organisation, Climate Emergency UK,

has introduced Scorecards,

a league table to compare the progress of councils.

It brings both pressure and opportunity.

Environmentalism creates the idea

that a local councillor is a planet saver.

And, of course, there are organisations like the UK 100

that are going to flatter people in that position.

They're going to indulge those people

and say how important they are,

whereas most of the rest of the public

are going to probably see them and say,

what the hell are you doing?

Ben Pyle emphasises that such organisations

are not grassroots initiatives.

Civil society has been bought

and it's been organised around the interests

of its billionaire philanthropists.

Newspapers and television also consistently

push the same story.

We've been hearing about the threat of climate change

for decades, but now we can't ignore it.

Here the climate crisis is very real

and it is getting worse.

What mainstream media does in following this narrative

is that they exclude vast areas of climate science.

They exclude all the sceptical scientists.

By the BBC, which has done it for 20 years,

saying that you cannot have any other view

apart from the settled narrative,

is doing an enormous disservice to science.

Journalists and broadcasters are schooled

in the carbon doctrine by organisations

such as the Carbon Literacy Project,

which claims to have trained 1,000 BBC employees.

Meanwhile, Sky joined forces with the psychologists

of the Behavioural Insights team

to produce this initiative.

How the power of television can nudge viewers

to decarbonise their lifestyles.

The recommendations included

Give green content more screen time,

more salience in plots and scenes.

Use kids' content to encourage

positive environmental behaviours

amongst children and their parents.

How then can we possibly expect

impartiality in reporting?

Rather we're served with propaganda,

statements that nobody seems willing or able to question.

It is unequivocal that human activities

are responsible for climate change.

I can take current media

and almost any climate story,

I can write, I think, a very effective counter.

It's like shooting fish in a 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 decarbonise.

There's an organisation called

Covering Climate Now,

which is a non-profit membership organisation.

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 pocket

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

miss, diss and malinformation.

They don't appreciate views

they can't control.

The fight for truth is on.

A part is our media,

obsessed local councils

and then there are the universities,

which should be the first and last

bastions of objective research

and open debate.

But here too is a story

of outside pressure.

With the drop in government funding

the shortfall has been made up

from other sources and those tend to be

NGOs, private organisations.

For example the Gates Foundation

and the Wellcome Trust.

Invariably money from

private organisations

will come with vested interests.

These vested interests

according to Professor Moss

drive university teaching towards

business goals and ideologies

at the expense of critical thinking

and levels of academic achievement.

One new initiative is the European

Network on Climate and Health Education

led by Glasgow University.

Medical students have been trained

to accept that climate science

is an established fact.

Increasingly climate change is harming

people's health.

You could say it's the largest

health emergency of our time

and I do need to be ready

to help tackle this challenge.

Can the outcomes really be free of

prejudice when the backers include

the WHO and major

pharmaceutical companies?

This new collaboration will help

train the next generation of medics

with the skills they need to treat

the health impacts of climate change

and deliver more sustainable 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 socialised to

orientate their research

towards the money.

So this I think is quite

damaging when it comes

to

fearlessly pursuing the truth

wherever it may lead.

That doesn't really happen anymore in academia.

It's more about

pursuing the money

wherever that might lead.

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 been permeated

by the global ideologies of the

United Nations.

If you go to goal number four it deals exclusively

with education and when you think education

they're talking about indoctrination.

The Sustainable Development Goals.

Under the surface of it all

is this effort to bring all the children

of the world into this one world

globalist system and

what's so remarkable about this to me

is that it's not even hidden anymore.

Take part in the global movement

to save our world from being

destroyed. How will you fight climate

change? Try meat-free

meals. Reduce your electricity

use. Give your clothes a

second chance.

And you can

never ignore Greta.

The eyes of all future generations

are upon you

and if you choose to fail us

I say we will never

forgive you.

I don't want you to be hopeful

I want you to panic.

We want action. We want justice.

Let's talk about action.

And we want it now!

I want you to feel the

fear I feel every day.

Hey hey! Go home!

Go home!

I wanted to act as if the house

was on fire because

it is.

This propaganda

relentlessly

promoting fear in

various ways be it disease

be it climate I think

is having a very damaging impact on young people's

mental health. The disasters

that continue increasingly to afflict

the natural world have one element

that connects them all.

The unprecedented increase

in the number of

human beings on the planet.

We're asking children to

believe they are a scourge

on the planet. I have a problem

with children believing they shouldn't

be here from the off. How

are we ever going to encourage them to have

strong mental health and

emotional well-being if they believe

that their birth is a

disaster for the planet? That's not

encouraging them to be productive

citizens who are making

an active contribution to society

if they've got to 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,

here in foods

and very few counter

arguments were presented.

If you cannot produce this information

that's in the textbooks

you cannot succeed in the school system.

If a student

undertaking a geography exam, for example

doesn't

talk about man-made 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.

Because I think it looks

pretty.

You don't think it looks pretty?

What schools have done

is employ

third party agencies

to deliver material

for which the third parties

most certainly have a

vested interest in.

And I wouldn't have a problem if it was

I'm there in school

to ask children to accept me as I am.

That's fine

we all need to be tolerant

and liberal in a diverse

society.

My problem is that what they're actually

doing is more a form of evangelism

which is

this is who I am and you might be too.

In my heart

I've always known that I'm a girl

Teddy, not a boy Teddy.

I wish

my name was Tilly

not Thomas.

Language

carries so many

meanings and messages

and if schools are encouraging

social transitioning

that's not a neutral act

that's a significantly impactful

act. Dr Fraser

is also highly critical of the

World Health Organisation'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 will 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 organisation like the United

Nations or the World Health Organisation

if we take our orders from

them about what is suitable education

for our child? How do we say

no, we're not doing that

we want a change?

Teachers are sent on courses to embrace

the diversity dogmas

and many buy into them

but Fairclough says that those who don't

keep quiet for fear

of reprisals.

It's a dereliction of duty, it's a dereliction

of their legal as well as their

moral duty to safeguard

children against harm.

I can certainly say I feel very let down by

the teaching profession because I am

not hearing people speaking

out on behalf of the children.

A one world

dictatorial education

a dumbing down in the classroom

fluidity of gender

the impact

of technology

are our children being groomed for

a life in the digital prison?

Today nobody has

any idea what

to teach young people that will

still be relevant in 20

years. 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 learn to love

their enslavement.

Yet there are even

darker clouds on the horizon

the spectre of transhumanism.

In a sense it is

that final piece of the puzzle

if you want to gain total

control over everyone

and everything

then you actually ultimately

need to be able to implant

technologies inside

human bodies and that's exactly

what's taking place.

Artificial intelligence

the metaverse

near space technologies

and I could go on and on

synthetic biology

our life

in ten years from now

will be completely

different very much

affected and

who masters those

technologies

in some way will be

the master of the world.

These modern technocrats seem

wedded to science and technology at the

expense of our human spirit and ingenuity.

They aspire to

a data-driven world which is robotic

and predictable in every sense

with no room for creativity

or individual choice.

But if the goal is and always was

population reduction

maybe they're right on track.

We feel too afraid

to have kids because

we feel that we're heading towards 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.

Trans-humanism, the

trans-phenomenon, net zero,

lockdowns, population

reduction, all of these

ideas are basically

the ugly step-children

of anti-humanism.

They are, as I read

it, essentially two

competing ideas

in the world at the moment. One is

that humans are the best

feature of the observable

universe. The only

creatures capable of creative

thought and generativity

and of creating explanations

for how reality works.

That humans ought to be revered

and ought to be cherished.

That we should plan for their

flourishing. That we should be planning

for the flourishing of as many

people as possible. That human agency

ought to be respected.

That civil liberties ought to be respected.

And that the imposition of

top-down, one size fits all

policies on humanity

is completely incompatible with that kind of

view. 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.

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

truth. Because truth

is the weapon for free people.