The Agenda_ Their Vision - Your Future (2025) _ Full Documentary (4K)     MP3 OF VIDEO
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFHHOBiUrkg&t=1s 

This briefing analyzes the core arguments presented in the documentary "The Agenda: Their Vision - Your Future," which  exposes a globalist agenda to establish a technocratic, centrally controlled world system. The documentary showa that this agenda, rooted in early 20th-century Technocracy movements and advanced by powerful unelected global organizations and financial elites, seeks to dismantle liberal democracy and individual freedoms. Key mechanisms identified include the weaponization of perceived crises (especially climate change), the implementation of pervasive surveillance technologies (digital IDs, CBDCs, smart cities), and the restructuring of fundamental societal pillars such as food, energy, and money. The ultimate goal is total control over humanity, bordering on "transhumanism" and population reduction, driven by an "anti-human" ideology. 

• The Rise of Technocracy and Global Control:

• Historical Roots: The documentary traces the origins of modern global control to the "Technocracy" movement established almost a century ago in the United States by engineers and scientists from Columbia University. They advocated for a society governed by an elite of experts, replacing capitalism with a resource and energy-based economic system. The core definition is "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."

• Persistence of the Principle: Despite the movement being short-lived, the "principle never died," manifesting in a "very strong drift in the direction of globalization, of the ultimate centralization, of control in the hands of unelected officials at supranational organizations."

• "Brave New World" Parallels: Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World" is cited as a "fantastic parable about the dehumanization of human beings," where "man has been subordinated to his own inventions. Science, technology, social organization, these things have ceased to serve man. They have become his masters." Huxley himself reportedly felt his "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."

• The "Omniwar" Against Humanity and Collapse of Liberal Democracy:

• Intent to Collapse Democracy: The overarching claim is that "an attempt is underway now to collapse liberal democracy and replace it with global technocracy." This is described as an "omniwar," where the "transnational ruling class is literally...at war with the rest of humanity and has weaponized everything that it can."

• Tools of Control: The key tools for executing this coup are "Total surveillance, artificial intelligence, digital IDs, and central bank digital currencies. The potential for social control is gigantic and potentially irreversible." This creates a world "commanded by an exclusive group of bankers and industrialists, affecting every aspect of our lives...all bypassing democratically elected governments."

• "You Will Own Nothing and Be Happy": This infamous phrase from the World Economic Forum is presented as a "statement of intent" rather than a prediction, signifying the desire of global power brokers to control all resources and prevent individuals from owning anything.

• Weaponization of Crises – The Climate Change Narrative:

• The "Big Lie" of Climate Crisis: A central argument is that the "whole carbon narrative was one gargantuan lie? A political maneuver to establish their brave new world." The term "big lie" is used, where "a lie...is told on such a scale that ordinary people simply would not imagine it to be possible."

• Control through Food, Energy, Money: The strategy to win this "war" is to "take control of food, of energy, and of money," all built on the premise of a climate crisis "caused by carbon dioxide. A gas that is actually vital for life on the planet."

• Scientific Dissent and Manipulation:Scientists like John Christie, who measures global temperature via satellites, argue there is "no climate emergency" and the observed warming is "about 1.5 degrees per century, which is certainly something that's manageable and the Earth has seen before."

• Claims of increasing extreme weather events are refuted as "virtually every one of these claims is false."

• The narrative ignores the fact that CO2 is "vital for the world's survival" and that "the greater the concentration, the better plants grow."

• The idea that CO2 drives warming is questioned by ice core data, suggesting CO2 lags temperature changes by "five hundred to a thousand years."

• The origin of the "climate change" concept is attributed to Maurice Strong, an oil tycoon and Rockefeller associate, who was instrumental in establishing the IPCC and linking the carbon market to climate policy.

• Research funding is alleged to be biased towards catastrophic narratives: "the government is very clear that they want a catastrophic story."

• Financial Restructuring and Control Grid:

• Abandonment of Traditional Money: Financial experts openly state an intent to "abandon the traditional system of money and accounting and introduce a new one...blockchain. It means digital. It means having a almost perfect record of every single transaction that happens in the economy."

• Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) as Control: CBDCs are described as shifting the general population "to a control grid." They "can allow government agencies and private sector players to program...to create smart contract, to allow targeted policy functions...By programming CBDC, those money can be precisely targeted for what kind of people can own and what kind of use this money can be utilized." This allows central banks "absolute control on the rules and regulations, and also we will have the technology to enforce that."

• "Digital Concentration Camp": CBDCs are likened to a "digital concentration camp" or "slavery system" where financial access can be "turned off and on" based on behavior, allowing for an "incentive system...based on how you behaved in the last five minutes."

• Carbon Footprint Integration: Under a "net zero regime, your carbon footprint could be at the heart of the system," monitoring travel, eating, and consumption. This could form the "infrastructure for a carbon credit system," leading to "totalitarian control."

• Surveillance and Smart Cities:

• Pervasive Monitoring: The documentary highlights continuous, 24/7 data collection on individuals through smartphones, smart appliances (cameras, microphones), Ring cameras forming mesh networks, connected vehicles, and smart LED poles on streets. This creates a "digital panopticon" where individuals are "monitored, analyzed, managed, and monetized."

• Facial Recognition and Digital Identity: Facial recognition technology is seen as crucial for unlocking "digital identity," which will be "a tool of control for the agendas that are coming down the pipeline."

• Smart Cities as "Digital Prisons": The long-term plan is to "lock up humanity in smart cities, which is kind of a superset of a fifteen minute city." While promoted for "sustainability," their language is "inverted": "monitoring is really about limiting mobility and no car ownership," "water management is about water rationing," "noise pollution is about speech surveillance," and "energy conservation is all about rationing heat, electricity, and gasoline."

• Geofencing and Zero Trust: "Geofencing" would create "invisible fences around you, where you cannot go beyond a certain point," linked to digital identity and carbon credits. The "zero trust" protocol means "never trust, always verify," leading to a world of "locks" where "everything you want to access is behind lock and key" and "access denied" is possible if carbon credits or allowances are exhausted (e.g., for fuel, travel, meat, Internet).

• Attack on Agriculture and Food Systems:

• "Global War on Agriculture": Farming is portrayed as being under attack, with claims that "agriculture contributes about 33% of all the emissions of the world," despite providing "100% of the food that we need to eat." This is seen as a "global war on agriculture" aimed at causing a food crisis.

• Corporate Takeover and Artificial Food: The goal is to "get rid of farmers, we kill any naturally grown food, and we engineer food in manufacturing plants and laboratories." Figures like Bill Gates are investing heavily in "artificial meat and genetically modified crops" with the aim of "total control over all life on the planet" through intellectual property.

• Programmable Food Access: With programmable currency, people "wouldn't have a choice" in what food they can buy, being dictated "what food you can and cannot buy."

• Energy Transformation and Rationing (Net Zero):

• Economic Suicide: The "mad dash towards net zero is effectively economic suicide," involving removing "85% of the world's energy, which comes from hydrocarbons," and replacing it with unreliable renewables. This leads to "purposely impoverishing ordinary people, purposely deindustrializing Europe."

• Unrealistic Demands and Costs: Achieving full net zero would require a "tenfold increase in the amount of renewable energy" and run into "trillions of pounds," costs that government reports are accused of "grossly underestimat[ing]."

• Rationing and Smart Meters: Since constant electricity supply will be impossible, "supply will be rationed." "Demand management" will occur by "simply increasing the price of electricity so that demand falls to the available level of supply," enabled by "smart meters" for "minute by minute pricing."

• Impact on Lifestyle: A government-sponsored report is cited, predicting "a quarter of the power by 2050," "no travel," "no meat, or no beef lamb," "restrictions on clothing," and living in "mud huts."

• The United Nations and its "Agenda 2030":

• "Master Plan" for Control: Agenda 2030 and its 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are presented as a "master plan for a sustainable way of life," but are interpreted as "a blank check for totalitarian global control" once the "marketing slogans" are ignored.

• "Orwellian Devil Speak": The UN's language is criticized as "Orwellian devil speak," where "peacekeeping forces" mean "war making capabilities," "transparency" means "eliminating your privacy," and "human rights" can be "restricted under the guise of public order or morality."

• Inventory and Control of Resources: Rosa Corre described Agenda 2030 as a "blueprint...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." This aligns with a calculated value of "natural assets of the world are worth 5 quadrillion dollars."

• Undemocratic Influence: The UN is described as "fundamentally undemocratic," building "relationships with billionaires" like the Rockefeller family, who "part financed its headquarters" and "always believed in world governance." The Trilateral Commission, co-founded by David Rockefeller, aimed to "capture the physical resources of the world" to "stuff it into the global common trust where they would administrate it."

• World Economic Forum (WEF) and Stakeholder Capitalism:

• Central Role of WEF: Founded by Klaus Schwab, the WEF is "enormously influential," with major corporations funding it to "ultimately fund the UN World Government Plans and Agenda twenty thirty."

• Stakeholder Capitalism as Communism: "Stakeholder capitalism" is described as "a planned system of central ownership and control that has little to do with democratic process and is uncomfortably close to communism." It involves a "partnership between global corporations, governments, and what Schwab refers to as civil society."

• ESG as Undemocratic Governance: Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) metrics are "an attempt to turn financial power into governance without going through the democratic process." Major asset management companies like BlackRock "impose ideologies on businesses and consumers across the world through their investment strategies." BlackRock's CEO, Larry Fink, is quoted saying, "You have to force behaviors."

• World Health Organization (WHO) and Pandemic Profiteering:

• Power Grab and "One Health": Since COVID, the WHO has sought "to increase that power to unprecedented levels through amendments to its pandemic treaty and the international health regulations." The "One Health" initiative is viewed as a means to "take over jurisdiction of everything in the world by saying that climate change, animals, plants, water systems, ecosystems are all central to health."

• Financial Influence and "World Vaccine Organization": The WHO's heavy reliance on "voluntary donations," particularly from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and Gavi, is highlighted, suggesting a shift to an "emergency agenda" focused on "pandemic profiteering" and promoting vaccines, transforming it into a "World Vaccine Organization."

• Surveillance Network: The proposed treaty includes setting up a "huge surveillance network" for "variants of viruses."

• Silencing Dissent: The WHO's branding of criticism as "misinformation" is seen as a "thought terminating cliche" to close down discussion, a "hallmark[] of a totalitarian regime."

• Indoctrination and Anti-Humanism:

• Propaganda and Censorship: The media is accused of "propaganda" and "ill informed and has an agenda" to "promote alarm and, induce governments to decarbonize." Organizations like "Covering Climate Now" enforce a single narrative, funded by entities like the Rockefeller Family Fund.

• Education System Compromised: Universities are accused of prioritizing "pursuing the money" over "fearlessly pursuing the truth," and medical students are trained to accept climate science as fact.

• Child Indoctrination: Children are targeted with global ideologies through media (e.g., Thomas the Tank Engine partnership with UN), fear-mongering about climate change ("I want you to panic"), leading to mental health issues and a reluctance to have children due to perceived "civilization breakdown."

• Gender Politics and "Evangelism": Schools are criticized for promoting "woke ideology" and "social transitioning" as "evangelism" rather than tolerance, with the WHO suggesting sexual education for four-year-olds.

• Transhumanism as the "Final Piece": The ultimate goal is "total control over everyone and everything" by "implant[ing] technologies inside human bodies." This "data driven world" with AI and synthetic biology is seen as "robotic and predictable," lacking creativity or individual choice.

• Anti-Humanism: The core ideology driving these trends is labeled "anti-humanism," viewing humans as "the scum on the surface of the little blue dot" or "some kind of blight," in contrast to a worldview that "humans are the best feature of the observable universe" and "ought to be revered and ought to be cherished."

Conclusion:

The documentary "The Agenda: Their Vision - Your Future" presents a cohesive narrative of a globalist conspiracy. It argues that a powerful, unelected elite, operating through organizations like the UN, WEF, and WHO, is actively implementing a technocratic system designed to control every aspect of human life. This is achieved by fabricating crises (primarily climate change), centralizing financial power through digital currencies, imposing pervasive surveillance, and restructuring essential sectors like food and energy. The ultimate aim, as presented, is the dehumanization and enslavement of the global population under an "anti-human" ideology, with the "truth" being the only weapon against this unfolding "digital prison."

I. The Agenda: Their Vision, Your Future (2025) by Patrick Wood

1. A full-length documentary on Technocracy, titled "The Agenda: Their Vision, Your Future," was released in 2025. "The first-ever full-length documentary on Technocracy The Agenda: Their Vision, Your Future PATRICK WOOD JUN 09, 2025." "Long in the making, it is finally released!"
   
   

2. Patrick Wood's body of work on Technocracy, starting in 2015, has significantly influenced the presenters in the documentary. "My works, videos, and books on Technocracy broke this story starting in 2015, and have clearly impacted each of the presenters." "It shows that others around the world are getting the big picture."
   
   

3. Shortly after its release, the documentary achieved substantial viewership and positive engagement, indicating potential for viral spread. "In five days since its release, it has received 150,000 views, 5,500 thumbs up, and over 800 comments." "It could go over the top viral if enough people share it!"
   
   

4. Aldous Huxley's novel, "Brave New World," is presented as a powerful parable illustrating the dehumanization of human beings. "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."
   
   

5. Huxley's narrative depicts a future where science, technology, and social organization no longer serve humanity but instead become its masters. "Science, technology, social organization, these things have ceased to serve man." "They have become his masters."
   
   

6. Huxley's prophecies from 1931 are said to be materializing much sooner than he anticipated, with a "nightmare of total organization" emerging. "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."
   
   

7. The rise of brain-computer interfaces and biometric sensors is described as connecting human bodies and brains to networks, fundamentally altering human identity. "With the rise of brain computer interfaces and biometric sensors and so all the bodies, all the brains would be connected together to a network, and the and the biological world." "It's changing who we are."
   
   

8. A current agenda is described as openly "anti-human," leading to the comprehensive monitoring of every aspect of human life. "These people have gotten to the point now where they are openly anti human." "Everything will be monitored."
   
   

9. Digital IDs are presented as a critical tool for this monitoring, especially for the environmental consequences of human actions, marking a decisive shift for humanity. "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."
   
   

10. Technocracy, a movement established in the United States almost a century ago, advocated for governance by an elite of experts rather than democratically elected politicians. "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."
    
    

11. These technocrats from Columbia University promoted an economic system based on control over resources and energy, intended as a replacement for capitalism and free enterprise. "These engineers and scientists from Columbia University promoted what they thought was gonna be the replacement for capitalism and free enterprise." "It's not gonna be price based economic system. It's gonna be based on resources and energy, control over energy."
    
    

12. The early technocrats held a mechanistic worldview, believing science held the answer to all problems and lacking any spiritual dimension. "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."
    
    

13. Technocracy is clearly defined as the science of social engineering, aiming for the scientific operation of the entire social mechanism to distribute goods and services. "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."
    
    

14. Despite the original movement being short-lived, its core principle endured, driven by powerful oligarchs seeking a stranglehold on policy and resources. "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."
    
    

15. There is a strong perceived movement towards globalization and the ultimate centralization of control in the hands of unelected officials within supranational organizations. "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."
    
    

16. These powerful groups aim to gain possession of all the world's resources, denying ordinary people ownership of anything. "They want all of the resources of the world in their pocket." "They do not want you and me to have anything."
    
    

17. The World Economic Forum's phrase "By 2030, you will own nothing and be happy" is deemed an oxymoron and a declared statement of intent rather than a prediction. "It's in writing all over the World Economic Forum's website." "By 02/1930, you will own nothing and be happy. That's an oxymoron."
    
    

18. This phrase is interpreted as the global power brokers' explicit intention to implement a future where individuals possess no personal property. "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." "If you don't have anything in your name, you and I ain't gonna be happy about it."
    
    

19. A major attempt is underway to collapse liberal democracy and replace it with a global technocracy, characterized as an "omniwar" against humanity. "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."
    
    

20. This ongoing transformation is likened to a coup, where those seeking control now possess the tools to remove power from parliaments. "This is a coup." "They can remove the power from the parliament would be controllers finally have the tools to execute it."
    
    

21. The tools for implementing this vast social control include total surveillance, artificial intelligence, digital IDs, and central bank digital currencies. "Total surveillance, artificial intelligence, digital IDs, and central bank digital currencies." "The potential for social control is gigantic and potentially irreversible."
    
    

22. The described future involves an exclusive group of bankers and industrialists commanding the world, affecting every aspect of life while bypassing democratic governments. "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."
    
    

23. The term "conspiracy theory" is identified as one of the most successful propaganda terms ever, used to shut down discussion and debate. "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 cliche, but nevertheless, it's surprisingly effective when you try to calmly present evidence in a factual and reasoned manner."
    
    

24. The documentary aims to present evidence that a global takeover is not only feasible but is actively unfolding and has been in preparation for decades. "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."
    
    

25. A classic template for achieving victory in a "war" involves gaining control over food, energy, and money. "It's a classic template." "To win the war, take control of food, of energy, and of money."
    
    

26. All three strategies for control—food, energy, and money—are asserted to be built upon the premise of a climate crisis caused by carbon dioxide. "And here's the key." "All three strategies are built on the premise of a climate crisis, caused by carbon dioxide."
    
    

27. Carbon dioxide is highlighted as a gas vital for life on the planet, suggesting that the carbon narrative is a "gargantuan lie" or a political maneuver. "A gas that is actually vital for life on the planet." "So So what if the whole carbon narrative was one gargantuan lie?"
    
    

28. The climate crisis narrative is described as a "big lie," told on such a grand scale that ordinary people struggle to believe its possibility. "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."
    
    

29. Empathetic individuals are considered unable to comprehend that a group of people would organize and engineer such a widespread atrocity to achieve their goals. "People with empathy can't fathom that a group of people would organize and engineer this kind of mass atrocity to get where they wanna go." "It should come as no surprise that financial kingpins are calling the shots."
    
    

30. The intentions of financial kingpins are openly stated, making their actions transparent and not merely a "conspiracy theory." "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."
    
    

31. A dramatic shift is anticipated, involving the abandonment of the traditional money and accounting system in favor of a new, digital one based on blockchain. "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."
    
    

32. The blockchain-based system is expected to provide an almost perfect record of every transaction in the economy, offering greater clarity but also posing significant dangers. "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."
    
    

33. This shift to a new financial system is believed to raise "huge dangers" concerning the balance of power between states and their citizens. "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."
    
    

34. The general population is perceived to be transitioning not to a new financial system, but to a "control grid" facilitated by Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs). "It's shifting to a control grid." "CBDC can allow government agencies and private sector players to program, to create smart contract, to allow targeted policy functions, for example welfare payment, for example consumption coupon, for example food stamps."
    
    

35. CBDCs will allow for money to be precisely targeted, controlling who can own it and for what specific uses it can be utilized through programming. "By programming CBDC, those money can be precisely targeted for what kind of people can own and what kind of use this money can be utilized." "A key difference in 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."
    
    

36. The new system is characterized as a "digital concentration camp" or "slavery system," where rules can be enforced to control behavior, negating the need for traditional currency. "They're saying we can control with rules." "We don't need currency anymore."
    
    

37. Catherine Austin Fitts suggests that banking accounts or credit cards can be remotely activated or deactivated, enabling incentive systems based on an individual's moment-to-moment behavior. "But essentially, you will have, whether it's a banking account or a credit card, and it can be turned off and on." "My incentive system can be based on how you behaved in the last five minutes, you know, on a twenty four seven basis."
    
    

38. CBDCs will be issued by central banks, such as the Federal Reserve and the Bank of England, signaling the end of physical cash. "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."
    
    

39. Every transaction made with CBDCs would be transparent, permanently recorded, and potentially linked to an individual's carbon footprint under a net zero regime. "And every transaction you make would be transparent and transparent and held on a permanent database." "Crucially, under a net zero regime, your carbon footprint could be at the heart of the system."
    
    

40. Technology is being developed to enable consumers to measure their own carbon footprint, encompassing travel, eating, and consumption habits. "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."
    
    

41. This individual carbon footprint tracking system is seen as the infrastructure for a carbon credit system, leading to totalitarian control that will be difficult to reverse if not recognized now. "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."
    
    

42. The existing international monetary and financial system entered a profound crisis in 2019, prompting the need for a new system. "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."
    
    

43. Central bankers are said to have designed technocracy, anticipating that the previous financial system would eventually fail and necessitate a replacement. "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 gonna need, you know, at some point somebody's gonna get hit to this game, we're gonna need another system."
    
    

44. Those within the central banking system are claimed to plan hundreds of years in advance for future financial systems. "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."
    
    

45. The rise of artificial intelligence and its potential for mass unemployment raises the question of whether the ruling class needs to protect its position. "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?"
    
    

46. Digital IDs are considered essential to this project, as they will enable the monitoring, storage, and monetization of every detail of individuals' lives, eliminating privacy. "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."
    
    

47. Younger generations, comfortable with technology, are seen as particularly vulnerable to its hidden dangers, likening the process to drug addiction. "For younger people, often it's the case that they like technology." "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."
    
    

48. Aman Jabi, a digital development expert from Silicon Valley, chose to leave the industry after becoming aware of the surveillance technology's "dark side." "One man who knows the dangers only too well is Aman Jabi, who was at the forefront of digital development in Silicon Valley, California for twenty five years." "He left when he recognized the dark side of surveillance technology, choosing instead the peace and beauty of Montana."
    
    

49. Facial recognition technology uniquely identifies biometrics by projecting invisible dots onto a face and capturing their distortion with an infrared camera to map a precise profile. "He's an expert in facial recognition." "Within that module is a near infrared projector which projects tens of thousands of dots on your face."
    
    

50. In the long term, facial recognition is predicted to be used to unlock digital identity, serving as a tool of control for impending agendas. "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."
    
    

51. Smart home devices and appliances are constantly connected on wireless networks, equipped with cameras and microphones to monitor everything within the home. "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."
    
    

52. Smart appliances, along with Ring cameras, form mesh networks that track device usage and location, sending real-time data to corporate servers like Amazon's. "Your smart appliances are communicating with the smart meter and sending it real time usage data." "If there's a Ring camera also in your home, a mesh network is formed, and all your devices are being tracked within the home, its location, its usage, and all the data is going to Amazon servers."
    
    

53. Modern vehicles are connected to the Internet and constantly tracked, as are devices on individuals through smart LED poles and lights on streets and highways. "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."
    
    

54. Data is continuously collected 24/7 on every human being whenever they are within wireless networks, also raising concerns about electromagnetic radiation and health. "So data is being collected twenty four seven 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."
    
    

55. The long-term plan is to "lock up humanity in smart cities," which are presented as beneficial for sustainability but are in reality a means of control. "In the long term, the plan is to pretty much lock up humanity in smart cities, which is kind of a superset of a fifteen 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."
    
    

56. The language used by the UN and the World Economic Forum in their white papers regarding smart cities is inverted, concealing their true intentions. "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."
    
    

57. Smart city monitoring is actually aimed at limiting mobility and car ownership, while smart lighting is for surveillance controlled by an LED grid. "So their monitoring is really about limiting mobility and no car ownership." "Surveillance controlled via LED grid is why the smart lighting is there."
    
    

58. In smart cities, "water management" translates to water rationing, "noise pollution" to speech surveillance, "traffic monitoring" to limiting mobility, and "energy conservation" to rationing utilities. "Water management is about water rationing." "Noise pollution is about speech surveillance."
    
    

59. Geofencing is described as an invisible fence that, linked to facial recognition and digital identity, can restrict movement and even turn off digital currency beyond certain points from one's home. "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." "Your smart contracts, Softbrick can turn off your digital currency beyond a certain point from your house."
    
    

60. The world has been transformed into a "digital panopticon," where individuals can be constantly monitored, analyzed, managed, and monetized. "Our world has been turned into a digital panopticon." "That means you can be monitored, analyzed, managed, and monetized."
    
    

61. Surveillance capitalists are earning billions by selling detailed personal information to corporations, enabling the prediction and influencing of human behavior. "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."
    
    

62. Children are being exploited through games and iPads with embedded cameras that observe, score, and emotionally calibrate their faces to manipulate their behavior. "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."
    
    

63. The concept of "social impact investing" involves trading children on Wall Street in real-time, with bets placed on their future success or career paths. "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."
    
    

64. Once fully in place, this system is intended to completely control children's behavior, including their adherence to diversity, equity, and inclusivity principles. "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, etcetera."
    
    

65. Chinese classrooms employ advanced surveillance, including robots that analyze students' health and engagement, and uniforms with chips that track their locations. "The Chinese have already gone one step further." "Classrooms have robots that analyze students' health and engagement levels."
    
    

66. Surveillance cameras in Chinese classrooms monitor students' phone usage and yawning, while sensors transmit neural data from their brains in real-time to teachers. "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."
    
    

67. People have been drawn into this "digital spy network" under the guise of convenience, connectivity, safety, and particularly entertainment. "We've been drawn into this digital spy network in the name of convenience, connectivity, safety, and especially entertainment." "The three d world of cyberspace creates virtual lives that are often more exciting than reality."
    
    

68. The development of this technology is ultimately aimed at creating a "digital prison" from which there will be no escape once all control mechanisms are activated. "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."
    
    

69. The introduction of digital IDs and central bank financial control is identified as the "critical switch" that will establish a "zero trust" world. "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."
    
    

70. "Zero trust" is a cybersecurity protocol based on the principle of "never trust, always verify," shifting from implicit allowance to default denial in everyday life. "Zero trust is a protocol that is implemented by cybersecurity companies." "And what it really means is we don't trust you, and you have to prove who you are all the time, twenty four seven."
    
    

71. In a "zero trust" retail environment, access to goods will be locked behind plexiglass doors, requiring digital identity and facial recognition, contingent on available carbon credits. "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 three d camera, and it'll only be unlocked through your digital identity and facial recognition if you have the available carbon credits in your digital currency."
    
    

72. If an individual reaches their allowance limit, access could be denied for essential items like fuel, travel, meat, dairy products, clothing, and other consumer goods. "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."
    
    

73. Everything in life, including access to the Internet, could be valued by its carbon footprint, potentially leading to denial of access for those who exceed their limits. "Because everything in life could be valued by its carbon footprint." "Even access to the Internet could be denied."
    
    

74. The "new world of zero trust" is metaphorically described as a world of locks, functioning as an "inverted prison" where individuals are supposedly free but everything they desire is inaccessible. "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."
    
    

75. While scientific advancements like AI offer great advantages and can enhance human endeavor, there is a significant "flip side" to their development. "Most advances in science, including AI, bring great advantages to the world." "They can enhance and improve human endeavor in almost every walk of life."
    
    

76. Chinese citizens are continuously monitored by facial recognition cameras that instantly link faces to names, and they are assigned a social credit rating based on spending habits. "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."
    
    

77. The widespread installation of cameras, smart poles, and 5G networks in Western countries prompts questions about the potential for similar surveillance and ranking systems as seen in China. "If you think this couldn't happen in the West, ask yourself why so many cameras, smart poles, and five gs networks are being installed in your neighborhood." "In London, the police are using facial recognition surveillance."
    
    

78. Surveillance systems are being tested and implemented in Western public spaces, such as UK railway stations and in cities like Oxford under "fifteen minute city" plans. "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 fifteen minute city plan."
    
    

79. Tech companies are developing cameras into advanced sensors capable of counting, measuring, and detecting with deep learning, generating data and sending notifications for action. "We've developed the camera into a sensor." "The camera does not only capture video. It can now start to count, measure, and detect."
    
    

80. The "open technology" of these cameras allows them to collaborate with various analytic partners globally, enabling them to "do just about anything they want." "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."
    
    

81. Digital technologies are advancing from analytical and predictive capabilities towards a "prescriptive mode," which could potentially eliminate the need for elections by predicting outcomes. "Digital technologies mainly have an analytical power." "But since the next step could be to go into prescriptive mode, which means, you you do not even have to have elections anymore because we know what the result will be."
    
    

82. Ultimately, humanity faces manipulation by a system where technology uses people, rather than people using technology. "Ultimately, we're facing manipulation by the system." "A world where instead of us using technology, technology is using us."
    
    

83. Banking and oil dynasties, like Rothschild and Rockefeller, along with modern big tech leaders such as Bill Gates, are identified as the primary forces behind these global changes. "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."
    
    

84. Control is attributed to those who own the means of production, can create money "out of thin air," and control the media, all of which have been "weaponized" against the global population. "It's those who own the means of production, 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."
    
    

85. According to Catherine Austin Fitts, the true top-level controllers are unknown to the public, as "if you know their name, they're not at the top." "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."
    
    

86. The pursuit of global control is predicted to lead to the destruction of the farming industry in favor of laboratory-produced foods and an electricity shortage due to the "race to net zero." "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."
    
    

87. Net zero policies are presented as leading to the impoverishment of ordinary people and fundamental changes to their lifestyles, about which politicians are allegedly being dishonest. "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."
    
    

88. The United Nations Agenda 2030 is revealed as the underlying blueprint for this global transformation, despite being ostensibly presented as a vision for a better world. "Surprisingly, the blueprint for transformation is woven into the United Nations Agenda 02/1930." "Ostensibly, a vision for a better world."
    
    

89. The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the Paris Climate Agreement are collectively framed as humanity's "master plan for a sustainable way of life." "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 twenty twenty four, the setting for the United Nations Summit of the Future, a gathering of member nations to reinforce and accelerate Agenda 2,030 and its 17 sustainable development goals, or SDGs."
    
    

90. While the UN's Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are broadly ambitious, they are significantly behind the targets set at their 2015 relaunch. "The plan has a broad spectrum and is full of worthy ambition." "But behind those deliberately bright and colorful boxes and pressure and pressure is growing because the goals are far behind targets set at the grand relaunching in 2015."
    
    

91. The 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are presented as inspiring aims to end poverty and hunger, address inequality, protect the planet, and build a dignified life for all. "17 inspiring sustainable development goals, the SDGs." "Our aim is clear. Our mission is possible, and our destination is in our sight. To end poverty and hunger, address inequality, protect our planet, and build a life of dignity for all."
    
    

92. To truly understand the UN's discussions, one must learn "UNspeak," where terms like "peacekeeping forces" are Orwellian for "war making capabilities." "You have to learn to speak what I call UNEs." "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."
    
    

93. The UN's use of "transparency" is often interpreted as a means to eliminate individual privacy. "So you have this Orwellian devil speak." "When they talk about transparency, more often than not, they're talking about eliminating your privacy."
    
    

94. The UN's definition of "human rights" is criticized for explicitly stating that rights can be restricted under the guise of public order or morality, effectively making them revocable. "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."
    
    

95. The UN's concept of gender equality, as interpreted by its leading radical feminists, is seen as aiming to dissolve the nuclear family. "When you look at the 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."
    
    

96. A deeper examination of the Sustainable Development Goals reveals something "far more nefarious" beyond their appealing marketing slogans. "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 gonna end hunger, which again is just window dressing, you realize that this is actually a blank check for totalitarian global control."
    
    

97. Author Rosa Corre described the UN plan as the "biggest public relations scam" in history, but more significantly, a blueprint to inventory and control all global resources and human beings. "Author and campaigner, the late Rosa Corre, called out the plan more than a decade ago." "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."
    
    

98. The principle that "what can be measured can be managed and ultimately monetized" is applied to the UN's objectives, including natural assets. "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 dollars."
    
    

99. The valuation of the world's natural assets at $5 quadrillion is questioned as a potential basis for a new global monetary system and the underlying reason for the UN's project to rewild 50% of the Earth by 2050. "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?"
    
    

100. The UN's emphasis on biodiversity is seen as a cover for creating an international database containing virtually all genetic material of all species on the planet, with intentions of mixing and matching. "They talk a lot about biodiversity." "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."
     
     

101. The creation of a global genetic database is intended to enable the mixing and matching of genetic material from various species. "And then they wanna start mixing and matching it." "It."
     
     

102. Bill Gates and his associates are alleged to desire total control over all life on the planet, coincidently aligning with Gates becoming the largest private landowner in America and planning smart cities. "Bill Gates, ultimately, and 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?"
     
     

103. The oligarchs of global business are undeniably embedded in United Nations policy, with their motivation being financial return rather than genuine concern for the planet. "What is indisputable is that the oligarchs of global business are embedded in United Nations policy." "They care about getting in finance goals to where it gets the greatest return."
     
     

104. The move into "green finance" is presented as being entirely driven by profit, rather than environmental protection. "There's a move into the green finance." "It's all about profit. It's not about the planet."
     
     

105. Under the guise of climate change and net zero policies, immense fortunes are already being accumulated. "Under the guise of climate change and net zero, vast fortunes are already being amassed." "Take carbon exchange markets."
     
     

106. Carbon exchange markets allow companies to offset emissions by buying credits from businesses or land schemes, which enriches brokers but has no impact on actual carbon emissions. "Companies in letting 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."
     
     

107. "Natural asset companies" are emerging to issue shares in natural assets "out of thin air" and sell them to financial institutions, despite claims of environmental preservation. "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."
     
     

108. Natural asset companies state their main purpose is to generate profit for shareholders, with environmental preservation serving merely as a "talking point" that resonates with the public. "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."
     
     

109. The trading of natural elements like land and air on financial markets is occurring without any public input or democratic representation. "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 United Nations."
     
     

110. The United Nations is fundamentally undemocratic, having established relationships with billionaires from its very beginning, who exert undue influence. "So it's fundamentally undemocratic." "Right from the start, the rich and powerful have enjoyed undue influence in the UN's inner sanctum."
     
     

111. The Rockefeller family partially financed the UN's headquarters in Manhattan and has funded hundreds of organizations, spreading their authority across civil society, institutions, banking, education, and global politics. "In fact, the Rockefeller family part financed its headquarters in Manhattan." "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."
     
     

112. The Rockefeller family has consistently advocated for world governance, viewing the UN as a symbol of a future world order, as declared in their 1950s Special Studies Project report. "The Rockefellers always believed in world governance." "In the nineteen fifties, their special studies project report declared The UN stands finally as a symbol of the world order that will one day be built."
     
     

113. David Rockefeller co-founded the Trilateral Commission in 1973, whose objectives revived technocracy and planted the seeds for the UN sustainable development agenda. "In 1973, David Rockefeller cofounded 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 sustainable development agenda."
     
     

114. The Trilateral Commission aimed to create a "new international economic order" not for monetary wealth, but to capture the physical resources of the world, anticipating the disintegration of fiat currency. "They said at the time that they were going to create a new international economic order." "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."
     
     

115. The objective was to transfer all physical resources from nation-states and private individuals into a "global common trust," where they would be administered and licensed by powerful entities. "So the goal became to actually capture the physical resources of the world." "They wanted to take away everything that they could possibly take away 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."
     
     

116. Financial kingpins have long seen themselves as "masters of the universe," manipulating global affairs through institutions like the IMF and World Bank, with Agenda 2030 potentially being their defining act for complete control. "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 twenty thirty the defining act for complete control?"
     
     

117. The significance of the global response to COVID-19 is questioned regarding its role in enabling investments that strengthen the economy, public health, and climate action. "And how significant was the global response to COVID nineteen?" "As the world builds back from COVID nineteen, we have a once in a lifetime opportunity to make investments that that will strengthen the economy and improve public health and fight climate change for generations to come."
     
     

118. Prominent financial figures like Mark Carney and Larry Fink hold influential positions as UN special envoys or board members, linking finance directly to UN goals. "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."
     
     

119. Larry Fink, BlackRock's chairman and CEO, has actively driven the UN's goals through his investment strategies for the past two decades. "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 twenty years." "All three are principles of the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero, a partnership with the UN."
     
     

120. The trillions of dollars at stake in the "green economy" for corporations and investors pose a clear conflict of interest with the stated objectives of the United Nations. "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?"
     
     

121. It is questioned whether the UN's goals are a "Trojan horse" designed to fundamentally change the world's financial control systems. "Or are the Gols, 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."
     
     

122. The "going direct" financial mechanism, proposed by BlackRock and voted on by G7 central bankers in 2019, allows central banks to directly channel capital to large corporations. "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 02/2019, the g seven central bankers, and voted on the going direct reset."
     
     

123. The COVID-19 operation is presented as a component of this "going direct reset," effectively consolidating capital into central control. "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."
     
     

124. The COVID-19 response allowed major corporations to continue business while small and medium-sized businesses were deemed "inessential" and forced out of operation. "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."
     
     

125. The COVID-19 operation resulted in a reported $3.3 trillion global wealth transfer from the working and middle classes to the super-rich billionaire brigade. "And so what we saw was a global wealth transfer of a reported $3,300,000,000,000 from the, 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."
     
     

126. Billions of pounds of taxpayers' money were directed to pharmaceutical firms for so-called vaccines during the COVID-19 response. "And that included billions of pounds of taxpayers' money going to pharmaceutical firms for so called vaccines." "Whatever the truth around COVID, doctor Hughes says the response deployed dangerous elements of social control, what he calls weaponized deception."
     
     

127. Doctor Hughes states that the COVID-19 response deployed "dangerous elements of social control" and "weaponized deception" against the public. "Whatever the truth around COVID, doctor 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."
     
     

128. Techniques such as lockdowns and isolation during COVID-19 are described as military tactics of "shock and awe" and "de-patterning the mind." "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."
     
     

129. Public health slogans like "Stay home. Protect the NHS. Save lives" are characterized as "nasty and very vicious techniques" of "serious psychological abuse" deployed against populations globally. "These are all well known military tactics." "These are, in fact, very nasty and very vicious techniques which were deployed against the public of multiple countries at once."
     
     

130. The general population is deemed unable to grasp the "psychopathy" of the global vision or the idea of an organized "mass atrocity." "The general population cannot fathom the psychopathy of the vision that they're facing." "So they can't fathom that a group of people would organize and engineer this kind of mass atrocity to get where they wanna go."
     
     

131. The World Health Organization (WHO), as the UN's most powerful agency, has sought to increase its power to unprecedented levels through amendments to its pandemic treaty and international health regulations. "Be aware then of the World Health Organization, the UN's most powerful agency." "Since COVID, the WHO has sought to increase that power to unprecedented levels through amendments to its pandemic treaty and the international health regulations."
     
     

132. The WHO's "One Health" initiative is presented as a concept created to allow the organization to assume jurisdiction over virtually everything in the world by linking it to health, including climate, animals, plants, water, and ecosystems. "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."
     
     

133. The WHO's financial backing, particularly from the pharmaceutical sector, raises concerns about conflicts of interest influencing its agenda and global events. "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 $3,656,000,000 of income came from voluntary donations."
     
     

134. Major sources of WHO voluntary donations, including the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and Gavi, suggest significant influence on the organization's priorities. "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 organization, and there are still areas where the WHO does useful stuff."
     
     

135. The WHO's focus has allegedly shifted towards a narrow "emergency agenda" driven by profitable disease burdens, rather than addressing broader health issues. "But the biggest focus now is purely on a tiny disease burden where investors can extract a large amount of wealth." "This has shifted, WHO's focus very much to this emergency agenda, which is very false."
     
     

136. The WHO is criticized for constantly promoting vaccines due to financial incentives, effectively becoming a "World Vaccine Organization." "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 Organization, we have a World Vaccine Organization, and that seems to be the only thing they're touting."
     
     

137. The pandemic treaty is dismissed as having "got nothing to do with health" and is instead characterized as a "business deal focused on the most profitable business imaginable, pandemic profiteering." "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."
     
     

138. A huge surveillance network, costing $31 billion annually, is being established by the WHO to monitor for virus variants. "The other part of it, they're setting up a huge surveillance network." "We're talking about $31,000,000,000 a year. They have to surveil for variants of viruses, and they will fine them."
     
     

139. Experts are preparing for "disease x" or the "next pandemic virus," leading to the creation of a "super national self perpetuating pandemic industry." "Experts are preparing for what is known as disease x or the next pandemic virus." "They're creating a super national self perpetuating pandemic industry."
     
     

140. The WHO is criticized for declaring public health emergencies for diseases unlikely to affect the general population, thereby enabling profiteering from such declarations. "The latest scare is monkeypox, renamed m pox, a disease highly unlikely to affect the general population." "If you get to declare the emergency and then profit from it, there's there's a big problem, isn't there?"
     
     

141. The WHO is perceived as functioning as the marketing and distribution arm for the pharmaceutical industry on a global scale. "It's essentially a build out of big pharma, and the WHO is essentially looking to be their marketing and distribution arm worldwide." "WHO, the people say no."
     
     

142. A struggle is described between individuals fighting for their right to own their lives and an emerging "corporate authoritarian structure" or "medical fascist structure." "We're fighting for really the right to own our own lives." "We're fighting for that freedom versus, 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."
     
     

143. The WHO and other global institutions actively suppress criticism and dissent by labeling it "misinformation," asserting that "the science is settled." "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."
     
     

144. A "centralization scam" can be identified by the presence of a propagandized global crisis, the exclusive promotion of global solutions, and the vicious silencing of dissenting voices. "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."
     
     

145. Control, dictation, and the elimination of debate are presented as the fundamental hallmarks of a totalitarian regime. "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."
     
     

146. The World Economic Forum (WEF), founded by Klaus Schwab in 1971, has grown into an immensely influential organization with major corporations as stakeholders and funders. "Klaus Schwab founded the WEF in 1971." "His mentor was Henry Kissinger, statesman, political shaper, and close confidant of the Rockefellers."
     
     

147. Major corporations fund the WEF to ultimately finance the UN World Government Plans and Agenda 2030. "Over the last fifty years, the World Economic Forum has blossomed into 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 twenty thirty." "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."
     
     

148. Klaus Schwab's "stakeholder capitalism" is described as a planned system of central ownership and control that resembles communism and bypasses democratic processes. "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."
     
     

149. The WEF's agenda is driven by finance, granting unelected and unaccountable oligarchs significant influence, if not outright control, over policy decisions. "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."
     
     

150. The UK's Prime Minister is criticized for prioritizing engagements at Davos with globalists over his democratic duty to serve the people through parliament. "Starmer seems to forget that he is elected by the people to serve the people through parliament." "That's his democratic duty."
     
     

151. The Prime Minister expresses a preference for engaging with people outside Westminster, such as at Davos, viewing Westminster as too constrained and a "tribal shouting place." "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."
     
     

152. The UK Prime Minister has committed to fostering economic growth through partnerships with leading businesses like BlackRock, aiming to position the UK as a global investment hub. "I'm determined to deliver growth, partnership with leading businesses like BlackRock to capitalize 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 02/2004."
     
     

153. Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) metrics are presented as a means to convert financial power into governance, bypassing normal democratic and legal processes. "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."
     
     

154. Larry Fink, BlackRock's CEO, explicitly states the need to "force behaviors" through ESG, including aspects like gender and racial composition of teams. "BlackRock's billionaire chairman and CEO, Larry Fink, also a board member of the WEF remember, is clear." "You have to force behaviors."
     
     

155. "Ethics" such as green, racial, and gender ethics are depicted as driving corporate decisions regarding financial access and societal behavior. "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 they're going to behave in society, and how 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."
     
     

156. The public is allegedly being manipulated in their lifestyles, culture, and future through "forced woke ideologies," intrusive technologies, "so-called pandemics," censorship, and propaganda. "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."
     
     

157. Public compliance is deemed vital for the global agenda, requiring leadership to convince people of global problems like climate change to impose global solutions. "Your compliance is vital to the agenda." "To impose global solutions, the leadership needs you to believe in global problems."
     
     

158. The climate emergency narrative is dismissed as a "total scam" and "fantastically stupid," designed to hide an agenda of economic destruction and a one-world government. "This stuff is so fantastically stupid." "There is no climate emergency. That is a total scam."
     
     

159. The "saving the planet" narrative is considered an appealing facade to mask intentions of destroying economies, the middle class, and ultimately enslaving populations under a single world government. "If they came out and said, hey. We wanna destroy your economy. We wanna destroy the middle class of your country, and then ultimately, we wanna 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."
     
     

160. Climate scientist John Christie uses satellites to measure the true global atmospheric temperature, finding a modest rise of about 1.5 degrees Celsius per century. "I do not think there's a climate crisis, and I base that on all the evidence and the climate datasets 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."
     
     

161. This observed temperature rise is considered manageable and consistent with historical climate fluctuations on Earth. "It's about, 1.5 degrees per century, which is certainly something that's manageable and the Earth has seen before." "Compared to the century, which was about the coolest century in the past ten thousand years, we're warmer."
     
     

162. John Christie's evidence, derived from accurate satellite temperature records, is described as "critically inconvenient" to the prevailing climate change industry. "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."
     
     

163. The climate modeling industry, despite significant funding, is alleged to have failed, yet it continues to prop up the entire political world that supports the climate narrative. "Tens and hundreds of millions of dollars have gone into that industry of climate modeling." "Nice show. Well, you've folks have failed."
     
     

164. Scientists who present evidence that challenges the established climate narrative face severe repercussions, including threats like bullet holes in their office suite. "But yet they prop up the entire political world that tends to support this." "In 02/2017, came to work, and there were seven bullet holes in, our office suite."
     
     

165. Given that carbon dioxide constitutes only 0.04% of Earth's atmosphere, with the majority being natural, its portrayal as a significant problem is questioned. "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."
     
     

166. Even assuming all global warming is due to carbon dioxide emissions, the observed warming is characterized as modest and not a catastrophe. "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."
     
     

167. Carbon dioxide is asserted to be vital for the world's survival, with higher concentrations leading to better plant growth. "On the contrary, carbon dioxide is vital for the world's survival." "The greater the concentration, the better plants grow."
     
     

168. NASA figures indicate that the world has become 14% greener over the last forty years, suggesting a positive impact from CO2. "In fact, according to NASA figures, the world has become 14% greener in the last forty years." "During the last cool period before industrialization, let's say two hundred years ago or so, it was below 300 parts per million."
     
     

169. Historically low CO2 levels during ice ages were detrimental for plants, causing them to struggle and leading to a less diverse biosphere unable to support animal life. "And during the ice ages, it was even lower, and that's a dangerous, level because plants struggle and struggle to survive when the c o two is at a low level." "So low c o two is not good for the planet as a whole."
     
     

170. The logic behind the UK's decision to spend £22 billion on carbon capture facilities is questioned, given the argument that CO2 is vital for life. "Where is the logic then behind The UK's decision to spend £22,000,000,000 on facilities to capture carbon?" "The greatest controversy of all revolves around readings from ice cores."
     
     

171. A closer inspection of ice core data reveals that carbon dioxide levels actually lag temperature increases by about 500 to 1,000 years. "Once the temperature starts to rise, you will see the carbon dioxide rise about five hundred to a thousand years after." "So the CO 2 actually lags the, temperature changes."
     
     

172. Professor Christie contends that there is no data to support claims of increasing extreme weather events such as hurricanes, tornadoes, thunderstorms, floods, or droughts. "Professor Christie says there is no data to support those claims." "And what we find is that virtually every one of these claims is false."
     
     

173. Extreme weather events are observed to be occurring with natural variability, showing no increase in intensity or frequency. "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."
     
     

174. Questions are raised about the reliability of constantly adjusted surface datasets and specific temperature records, citing the example of the 40.3-degree record at RAF Connersby. "Why aren't we looking at the surface datasets that are constantly adjusted upwards?" "Why aren't we looking at the 40.3 record at Collarsby, which the Met Office is very proud of, on July 2022."
     
     

175. The 40.3-degree temperature record at RAF Connersby is dismissed as "junk" and scientifically unsound for global temperature measurement, having lasted only sixty seconds and being influenced by nearby jet aircraft. "The temperature lasted for sixty seconds." "Sticking a thermometer up the backside of the jet aircraft is not probably scientifically the best place that you can sort of determine a 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."
     
     

176. The notion of preventing bad weather by eliminating fossil fuels is deemed "nonsensical" and "illogical," despite the world being caught up in this belief. "The whole thing is junk." "How we came to the point where we think that we're gonna 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."
     
     

177. Maurice Strong, an oil tycoon and Rockefeller associate, is identified as the individual who "invented climate change" according to The Telegraph. "Meet the man who invented climate change according to The Telegraph." "His name, Maurice Strong, an oil tycoon, a a Rockefeller associate, and a man with an extraordinary talent for moving between high finance, politics, and the United Nations."
     
     

178. Maurice Strong was a member of the influential Club of Rome, an institution formed in 1968 at a Rockefeller property to discuss the urgent crisis of human impact on the planet. "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."
     
     

179. The Club of Rome believed that current growth trends could not be sustained much beyond the lifespan of children being born at the time. "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."
     
     

180. Computer modeling commissioned by the Club of Rome at MIT laid the foundation for a fifty-year agenda advocating for reduced auto use, less electricity, fewer children, and limited growth. "This research laid the foundations for an agenda that's persisted for over fifty years." "Cut use of autos, use less electric power, have fewer children, limit growth."
     
     

181. This agenda was fueled by the ideology that there are too many people on the planet and insufficient resources, necessitating intervention. "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 we he depends is indeed deteriorating, accelerate unless we begin to control the activities that are are are are heaviness destructive impact."
     
     

182. The Club of Rome's 1975 report, "Mankind at the Turning Point," controversially declared, "The world has cancer, and the cancer is man." "In 1975, the Club of Rome published a report, Mankind at the Turning Point." "The lead quotation was telling. The world has cancer, and the cancer is man."
     
     

183. The report concluded that crises could only be resolved within a global context, leading to an "emerging world system, a new world economic order, and a global resources allocation system," interpreted as technocracy. "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."
     
     

184. A later Club of Rome document admitted that they "came up with the idea" of pollution, global warming, water shortages, and famine as a "new enemy to unite us." "Climate change provided the answer, as admitted in a later Club of Rome document." "This is the quote from page one one five. 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."
     
     

185. These dangers are presented as caused by human intervention, implying that humanity itself is the "real enemy" and can only be overcome through changed attitudes and behavior. "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."
     
     

186. The concept of climate change is alleged to have been "made up out of thin air" by the Club of Rome, rather than being scientifically derived. "It really does look as though they they are, inventing climate change there." "They just made it up out of thin air, literally."
     
     

187. Maurice Strong was instrumental in establishing the IPCC, which has since been "locked into" the theory that industrial carbon dioxide drives climate change. "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 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."
     
     

188. Maurice Strong's legacy extends to global environmental agreements like the Kyoto Protocol, the Paris Accord, the current Agenda 2030, and the worldwide push for carbon net zero. "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."
     
     

189. Maurice Strong's involvement in both the financial carbon market and as a founding director of the World Economic Forum raises questions about conflicts of interest given his role in the IPCC. "He was behind the financial carbon market and a founding director of the World Economic Forum." "Surely, a conflict of interests with his involvement in the IPCC."
     
     

190. For nearly forty years, almost all research grants have gone towards developing IPCC carbon dioxide theories, while those who raise questions are ridiculed, canceled, or have their careers stalled. "A skeptic might ask why nearly all research grants in almost forty 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 the climate system as an explanation for what has happened is just not there."
     
     

191. Governments are accused of explicitly wanting a "catastrophic story" regarding climate, leading to a lack of funding for research into natural climate variability. "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."
     
     

192. There is no single conclusive scientific paper that proves humans control all or most of the global climate. "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."
     
     

193. Almost 2,000 scientists, including Nobel Prize winner Professor John Clauser, have signed a declaration stating there is no climate emergency. "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."
     
     

194. John Clauser claims that the popular climate change narrative dangerously corrupts science, threatening the world's economy and the well-being of billions. "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."
     
     

195. There is a call for a full and honest debate about climate science across parliament, media, and general public discourse. "That it needs to be discussed in parliament." "It needs to be discussed in the media. It needs to be generally discussed."
     
     

196. A comprehensive debate on climate science is deemed unlikely due to the "juggernaut of net zero" and the trillions of dollars at stake, which will affect food, countryside, and energy supply. "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."
     
     

197. The net zero policy is unequivocally labeled as "insanity," particularly the idea of removing 85% of global energy from hydrocarbons and replacing it with renewables in under 30 years. "Well, net zero is an insanity." "It it's it's pure insanity."
     
     

198. The net zero agenda is criticized for displaying a complete lack of understanding of economics, societal effects, and the progress made over three hundred years. "I mean, the idea that you can, remove 85% of the world's energy, which comes from hydrocarbons, within less than thirty 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 three hundred years."
     
     

199. Europe's rapid pursuit of net zero is described as "economic suicide," leading to the impoverishment of ordinary people and deindustrialization. "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."
     
     

200. Net zero policies are forcing European companies to relocate to countries like the US or China, which have access to cheaper energy from fracking or coal, effectively transferring carbon emissions. "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 fracked and therefore have cheap gas, or whether it's to China, which is still predominantly producing from nonmaneuable, especially coal." "It is literal economic suicide."
     
     

The first-ever full-length documentary on Technocracy The Agenda: Their Vision, Your Future 
PATRICK WOOD   JUN 09, 2025
Long in the making, it is finally released! This documentary was made in the UK, and while I sat for an interview, it shows that others around the world are getting the big picture. My works, videos, and books on Technocracy broke this story starting in 2015, and have clearly impacted each of the presenters. In five days since its release, it has received 150,000 views, 5,500 thumbs up, and over 800 comments. It could go over the top viral if enough people share it!

Ladies and gentlemen, the distinguished author, mister 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 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 all the bodies, all the brains would be connected together to a network, and the 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, 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 gonna be the replacement for capitalism and free enterprise. It's not gonna be price based economic system. It's gonna 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 02/1930, you will own nothing and be happy. That's an oxymoron. If you don't have anything in your name, you and I ain't gonna 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 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 cliche, 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 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 wanna 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 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 contract, to allow targeted policy functions, for example welfare payment, for example consumption coupon, for example food stamps. By programming CBDC, those money can be precisely targeted for what kind of people can own and what kind of use this money can be utilized. A key difference in 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 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 Bush administration in Washington. There may be a thousand models of how it could work. Mhmm. 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 twenty four seven 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 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 gonna need, you know, at some point somebody's gonna get hit to this game, we're gonna 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 foam, 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 Aman Jabi, who was at the forefront of digital development in Silicon Valley, California for twenty five 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 three d 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 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 smartwatches when you're walking on the streets.

So data is being collected twenty four seven 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 fifteen minute city. They've sold all the state and local governments and countries that smart cities are about sustainability and the good of the city. But in reality, the language from the UN and WEF and their white papers is all inverted.

So their monitoring is really about limiting mobility and no car ownership. Right? Surveillance controlled 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 will be related to your face recognition, digital identity, and access control. Your smart contracts, Softbrick can turn off your digital currency beyond a certain point from your house.

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 gonna be successful or not, whether they're gonna successful or not, whether they're gonna 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, etcetera. 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 three d world of cyberspace creates virtual lives that are often more exciting than reality. Why is this technology being developed? It's all for the culmination of this digital prison from which there will be no escape after all the switches are turned on. The critical switch would be the introduction of those digital IDs and central bank financial control, a world of zero trust. Zero trust is based on a simple principle.

Never trust, always verify. Zero trust is a protocol that is implemented by cybersecurity companies. And what it really means is we don't trust you, and you have to prove who you are all the time, twenty four seven. 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 three d camera, and it'll only be unlocked through your digital identity and facial recognition if you have the available carbon credits in your digital currency.

If you've reached the limit of your allowance, it could be access denied. This would apply to fuel, to travel, to meat and dairy products, to clothes and other consumer goods. Because everything in life could be valued by its carbon footprint. Even access to the Internet could be denied. So the new world of zero trust is really a world of locks.

It's like an inverted prison. You are supposedly free to roam about, but everything you want to access is behind lock and key. Most advances in science, including AI, bring great advantages to the world. They can enhance and improve human endeavor in almost every walk of life. But you don't have to be a scientist to see the flip side.

They're constantly monitored by facial recognition cameras that are able to instantly put a face to a name. Now, the Chinese are also ranked, given a mark out of a possible 950 points. For now, the number is a sort of bank credit rating, keeping track of everyone's spending habits. It may seem scary, but it's just like that here. We're used to it, and anyway, we don't have a choice.

If you think this couldn't happen in the West, ask yourself why so many cameras, smart poles, and five gs networks are being installed in your neighborhood. In London, the police are using facial recognition surveillance. Sainsbury's is already experimenting with AI. And keep 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 fifteen 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 prescriptive mode, which means, you 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, 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 02/1930. Ostensibly, a vision for a better world. 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 twenty twenty four, the setting for the United Nations Summit of the Future, a gathering of member nations to reinforce and accelerate Agenda 2,030 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 and pressure 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 sight. 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? Investigating the issue for fifteen 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 wanna 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 devil speak.

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 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 gonna 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 Corre, called out the plan more than a decade ago. It is the biggest public relations scam in the history of the world, 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 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, like, oh, we're gonna 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 wanna start mixing and matching it.

It. Bill Gates, ultimately, and 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 goals 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 in letting 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 gotta 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 United Nations. So it's fundamentally undemocratic. What it has done is build relationships with billionaires. Right from the start, the rich and powerful have enjoyed undue influence in the UN's inner sanctum.

In fact, the Rockefeller family part financed its headquarters in Manhattan. Between them, the Rockefeller family has funded hundreds of 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 nineteen fifties, 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 cofounded 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 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 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 twenty thirty the defining act for complete control?

And how significant was the global response to COVID nineteen? As the world builds back from COVID nineteen, we have a once in a lifetime opportunity to make investments that 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 twenty 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 Gols, 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 02/2019, the g seven 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 $3,300,000,000,000 from the, 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, doctor 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 nineteen. 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 gonna be a very severe, pushback against everything that's happened.

The general population cannot fathom the psychopathy of the vision that they're facing. So they can't fathom that a group of people would organize and engineer this kind of mass atrocity to get where they wanna go. Be aware then of the World Health Organization, the UN's most powerful agency. Since COVID, the WHO has sought to increase that power to unprecedented levels through amendments to its pandemic treaty and the international health regulations. A key driver is its One Health initiative.

One Health is a concept that was created to enable the WHO with these documents to take over jurisdiction of everything in the world by saying that climate change, animals, plants, water systems, ecosystems are all central to health. That places the director general in a key position to influence world events, another potential conflict of interests given the WHO's financial backing, particularly from the pharmaceutical sector. Its accounts for 2022 show that an eye watering 84% or $3,656,000,000 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 organization, and there are still areas where the WHO does useful stuff.

But the biggest focus now is purely on a tiny disease burden where investors can extract a large amount of wealth. This has shifted, WHO's focus very much to this emergency agenda, which is very false. Pandemics are very rare events. This is why we now have a WHO that promotes vaccines all the time because that's what the money is coming in to support. So instead of being a World Health 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 $31,000,000,000 a year. They have to surveil for variants of viruses, and they will fine them.

They just have to decide there's a 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 super national 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 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. WHO, the people say no. WHO, the people say no.

We're fighting for really the right to own our own lives. We're fighting for that freedom versus, 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 WHO's regulations are expected to be voted through in the coming months. As we speak, the UK government is fully behind them. Meanwhile, in common with many other global institutions, the WHO tries to silence criticism and dissent, branding it misinformation.

The science, it says, is settled. Digital platforms are being misused to subvert science and spread disinformation and hate to billions of people. This clear and present global threat demands clear and coordinated global action. I have a little rule of thumb for diagnosing a centralization scam. If we can detect, one, a 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. Klaus Schwab founded the WEF 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 fifty years, the World Economic Forum has blossomed into 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 twenty thirty. 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 a 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, partnership with leading businesses like BlackRock to capitalize 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 02/2004. It was commissioned by the UN and produced by financial institutions, including the World Bank. It cited research by the WEF. The result was the emergence of environmental, social, and governance metrics, ESGs.

ESG is an attempt to turn financial power into governance without going through the democratic process, without the normal process of making law. ESGs allow major asset management companies such as BlackRock to impose ideologies on businesses and consumers across the world through their investment strategies. BlackRock's billionaire chairman and CEO, Larry Fink, also a board member of the WEF remember, is clear. You have to force behaviors. If you don't force behaviors, whether it's gender or race or just any way you wanna say the composition of your team, you're gonna 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 they're going to behave in society, and how 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 wanna destroy your economy. We wanna destroy the middle class of your country, and then ultimately, we wanna 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. Statements such as that are amplified by emotional footage from all over the world.

But is any of it true? I do not think there's a climate crisis, and I base that on all the evidence and the climate datasets 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 century, which was about the coolest century in the past ten thousand years, we're warmer.

But we're about the same as we were a thousand years ago and certainly cooler than we were about five to eight thousand 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. Nice show. Well, you've folks have failed. But yet they prop up the entire political world that tends to support this. In 02/2017, 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's 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 c o two 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 c o two. 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 forty years. During the last cool period before industrialization, let's say two hundred 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 c o two is at a low level.

And so the biosphere becomes less, diverse and less available to support the animal life. So low c o two is not good for the planet as a whole. Where is the logic then behind The UK's decision to spend £22,000,000,000 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 five hundred to a thousand years after. So the CO 2 actually lags the, temperature changes. But what are 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. And 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 datasets that are constantly adjusted upwards? Why aren't we looking at the 40.3 record at Collarsby, which the Met Office is very proud of, on July 2022. And when we did a free of information request at the Daily Skeptic, we found that there were three typhoon jets landing on a runway next to the measuring device because the Connersby, as they call it, is actually RAF Connersby. It's a military airport.

The temperature lasted for sixty seconds. Sticking a thermometer up the backside of the jet aircraft is not probably scientifically the best place that you can sort of determine a 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 gonna 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 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's persisted for over fifty 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 we he depends is indeed deteriorating, accelerate unless we begin to control the activities that are are are are heaviness destructive impact.

In 1975, the Club of Rome published a 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 one one five. 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 they are, inventing climate change there. They just made it up out of thin air, literally. That that nobody really looks at that book and say, well, there you go. It's not 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 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 financial carbon market and a founding director of the World Economic Forum.

Surely, a conflict of interests with his involvement in the IPCC. A skeptic might ask why nearly all research grants in almost forty 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 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.

That it needs to be discussed in parliament. It needs to be discussed in the media. It needs to be generally discussed. And we need to sort of dig the bring the drains up, if you like, on all of the science to see what 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 twenty twenty five and twenty thirty targets covering all your operations, you should not be in business. Well, net zero is an insanity. It it's 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 thirty 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 three hundred years. Nevertheless, net zero is enshrined in UK law, with the government passing the Climate Change Act in 02/2008. 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 fracked and therefore have cheap gas, or whether it's to China, which is still predominantly producing from nonmaneuable, 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.

But, 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 the, you know, 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 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 on in in big houses with warlords, you know, calling themselves aristocracy and all that sort of stuff.

You wanna 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 700 feet into the air and dwarfing the hilltop forests. Planning permission is being sought for the so called Bryn Cadwin Energy Park. If you put one in the valley floor, it would be standing some 40 meters above the valley floor, so above the horizon.

But But they're not putting them in the valley floor. They're putting them on the top of the hills. So it'll be standing some 600 odd meters above sea level up there, casting a shadow over our solar panels. Justin Cotter lives right in the center 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 as it's supporting evidence. So it feels like it's being abused in in a tremendous way, and there's gonna 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 well alone, especially in the wilder places, and let it flourish. We certainly found that being here.

The more we've lived here, the more we've worked with it and encouraged it, the more it's come back. All of those spruce trees on top there, they will have to go to make way for turbines. All of that, all of this spruce will be gone. To build a 230 meter turbine in that location, it's gonna take some crane to lift the 240 ton nacelle onto the top of the tower some 180 meters up. So they'd have to stabilize all the ground for the crane, stabilize the ground for the actual turbine, put in a a concrete plug, basically, in the ground of some thousand ton of steel, 4,000 ton 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, the worst valleys, they're all twists and turns.

They're gonna have to straighten out the valleys. Where you've got steep hills, they're gonna 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. There'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 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 gonna 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 tenfold 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 2,000 in Norweg's 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 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 and 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, sword treatise.

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 gonna come from?

Are we gonna take it off the grid? What does it mean for elevated energy prices for everybody else if it's that? I think it's gonna 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 a little, kind of an important detail that he ought to have mentioned. And I think what we're dealing with here is actually a global war on agriculture. I believe they are demolishing our food infrastructure partly to cause a crisis. Right?

And I guarantee it, mark my words, we're going to be in a food crisis and they're gonna 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. 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 wanna make it so that every single organism that is used for food is ultimately under their control, either through the three d printing or through this genetic manipulation. So we're moving now very rapidly toward this totally centralized food system where a tiny handful of corporate interests embed 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 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 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 care is a blame 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 a woo woo figure has 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 sweet corn, and then we have a break for that field. So it goes into a predominantly grass and clover mix. That allows the soils 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. 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 for every cow they own in a world tax on meat.

Goal seven, 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 their question's 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 foods, 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 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 gonna 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 c o two is declared the enemy of mankind even though it's necessary for life to exist on earth. There's a resource crisis even though there are abundant resources to support everyone. What's with us here, you know?

Who created all these crises? They did it. Just as clear as the nose on my face, it's all been a sham. All the essential things of life, they've been declared to be scarce, because things that are scarce you can control. The architects of such globalist trajectories, all the Kissingers, Rockefellers, Schwabbs, Karnies, Strongs, Karstens, 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 a pace through the WHO's so called pandemic agreement, its One Health initiative, initiative, and ultimately, the United Nations Agenda 2,030. From medical diktats to gender and racial politics to climate change, the indoctrination runs deep. 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, UK one hundred, there's also c forty 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 councillor is a planet saver. And, of course, there are organizations that, like the UK one hundred, that are gonna 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 gonna probably see them and say, what the hell are you doing? Ben Pyle 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 they exclude vast areas of of climate science. They exclude all the skeptical scientists. By the BBC, which has done it for twenty 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 1,000 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 Right. 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 four 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 mis, dis, and malinformation. They don't appreciate views they can't control.

The fight for truth is on. A partisan media obsessed local councils, and then there were the universities, which should be the 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 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 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 been permeated by the global ideologies of the United Nations.

If you go to goal number four, it deals exclusively with education. And when you think education, recognize they're talking about indoctrination. The sustainable development goals. Under the surface of it all is this effort to bring all the children of the world into this one world globalist system. And 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 chance. We guys come here full. 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 action.

We want action. I want action. I want 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 their birth is a disaster for the planet? That's not encouraging them to be productive citizens who were 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, key and 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 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 for the more woke you can be. Spray dear makeup and and lipstick and lit it on.

Because I think it looks pretty. You don't think it looks pretty? What schools have done is employ party agencies to deliver material for which the 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 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 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 irrelevant in twenty 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 20 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 specter 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, new 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 gonna 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 antihumanism. 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 can find a better pathway. And the only way we're gonna 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.