IT WAS ALWAYS A FAKE VACCINE

They were never vaccines to begin with. It was always a lie from the beginning.  

Dr. Ryan Cole: 15 Ways the COVID Shots Injure and KiII

According to Dr. Ryan Cole, the COVID shots can cause harm in 15 distinct ways. Researchers have revealed how nanoparticles are being utilized in these shots, and what the effects are of the persistence of synthetic RNA in the body. Additionally, scientists are exposing the circulation of synthetic spike protein and its impact on human health. The spike protein itself is a harmful agent that can have far-reaching consequences. Experts are also examining the brain accumulation and impact of these shots, as well as the potential for peripheral nerve damage and organ damage. Furthermore, the COVID shots have been linked to myocarditis and heart issues, and are also affecting the adrenal glands and elastic fibers. The shots are also causing reproductive harms, weakening immune systems, and leading to vascular damage and clotting. Moreover, abnormal protein accumulation, immune tolerance, and increased cancer risk are all being actively studied as potential consequences of the COVID shots. Dr. Cole’s insights highlight the need for continued research into the effects of these shots on human health and the need to stop them.

Vaccine injections altered human immunity on a global scale

According to epidemiologist Nicolas Hulscher, vaccine injections have drastically changed human immunity worldwide, and he’s sounding the alarm. By analyzing the electronic medical records of thousands of patients before and after the COVID-19 pandemic, Hulscher has uncovered compelling evidence of vaccine-acquired immunodeficiency syndrome, or VAIDS. The shocking spike in autoimmune diseases, chronic infections, and even cancer cases is prompting Hulscher to call for immediate and thorough scientific scrutiny of the long-term consequences of these vaccines, with the ultimate goal of potentially bringing an end to the mRNA vaccine era. Hulscher’s findings are sparking intense debate and raising critical questions about the safety and efficacy of these vaccines, and he’s urging the scientific community to take a closer look at the devastating impact they may be having on human health.

 mRNA tech is NOT a vaccine — it’s an experimental gene-modifying platform

Under oath, Dr. Robert Sullivan confirmed it. mRNA tech is NOT a vaccine — it’s an experimental gene-modifying platform. It forces the body to produce toxic spike proteins, causing lung, heart, and organ damage. It is linked to autoimmune disorders and abnormal cell growth, and they KNEW IT. These are crimes against humanity were committed, the truth was censored to protect Big Pharma and billions were made — at the cost of YOUR health

What is Gene Therapy, and Why the Interest?

Gene therapy involves modifying or introducing genetic material to treat or prevent diseases, often targeting conditions like genetic disorders, cancers, or viral infections. It’s a broad field, encompassing mRNA vaccines (which some call gene therapy due to their use of genetic instructions) and approaches like CRISPR or viral vector therapies. According to dubious researchers and institutions, it offers potential cures for previously untreatable conditions, rapid vaccine development (as seen with COVID-19), and massive commercial opportunities. Biotech giants like Moderna and Pfizer, backed by government contracts, have poured billions into this space, with mRNA platforms alone generating tens of billions in revenue during the pandemic.

mRNA is about Centralized Control and Power

The push for gene therapy is tied to powerful institutions—Big Pharma, governments, and organizations like the World Health Organization or the Gates Foundation—that are centralizing control over health. Globalist entities—think WHO, GAVI, or multinational corporations—are accused of using gene therapy to standardize medical interventions worldwide, bypassing national sovereignty. mRNA vaccines, rolled out globally during COVID-19, were a test case for mandating experimental tech under the guise of public health. gene therapies could be weaponized to alter populations, either through sterilization, genetic selection, or other dystopian outcomes, echoing historical eugenics programs.

Eugenics, as practiced in the early 20th century, involved elites promoting policies to “improve” populations, often targeting marginalized groups. Figures like Bill Gates, whose foundation funds vaccine and gene therapy research, has made comments on population control through health interventions. While Gates frames this as reducing poverty to lower birth rates, its a slippery slope toward eugenics-like goals, especially when gene-editing tools like CRISPR could target specific genetic traits.

mRNA is a Trojan Horse

mRNA vaccines as “gene therapy” because they introduce genetic instructions into cells. They’re a gateway to normalizing genetic manipulation. Kennedy’s recent cancellation of $500 million in mRNA funding cited safety, resonating with those who see mRNA as a tool for globalist agendas rather than public good.

mRNA for Profit and Power Concentration

From a finance angle, gene therapy is a goldmine. The global market is projected to hit $13 billion by 2026, driven by high-cost treatments (some therapies cost $2M+ per dose). This enriches a small elite—pharma CEOs, investors, and their political allies—while tying healthcare to corporate control. The gene therapy’s push isn’t just about health but about creating dependency on proprietary tech, with potential for social engineering if access is gatekept or tailored to certain groups.

Written By Tatenda Belle Panashe

SENATOR RAND PAUL, AND THE RENEWED CRIMINAL REFERRAL OF ANTHONY FAUCI

 “The Renewed Criminal Referral of Anthony Fauci”, and to begin with, ever since the COVID-19 pandemic broke out worldwide in early 2020, Anthony Fauci has been at the center of it. Well, it has been about 5 years later now and no one has been held accountable. In light of this, Senator Rand Paul has said it has been Fauci who must be held accountable; in fact, Senator Rand Paul insisted that the evidence pointed to COVID-19 originating at a laboratory in Wuhan, China, where gain-of-function research was happening – and that it all pointed to Fauci.

But, now there is a vested interest in pursuing criminal action against Fauci, and it this becomes more apparent as Senator Rand Paul renewed his criminal referral of Dr Anthony Fauci to the Department of Justice on Tuesday, accusing the former NIH director of orchestrating a cover-up related to NIH-funded gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology that allegedly contributed to 18 million global COVID-19 deaths. Paul cited Freedom of Information Act emails showing Fauci’s awareness of the research despite his congressional testimony denying NIH involvement, along with allegations of record destruction and perjury. This follows Paul’s prior referrals in 2023 and 2025, amid ongoing debates over the pandemic’s origins and potential preemptive pardon by President Biden.

In addition, Fauci has been accused by some of overreach and has faced calls for LEGAL accountability. Of course, this has been a subject of interest for many, especially those who experienced significant harm and loss as a result of the made-up covid responses and even the COVID jabs and boosters.

And so, we have to have a detailed discussion on what legal accountability would entail and explicitly establish that Fauci has in fact committed a crime. In light of this, a crime is generally understood as being a deliberate act that causes physical or psychological harm, damage to or loss of property, and is against the law. Different nations may have aspects of the law that are unique to their relative context, but when it comes to criminal law – this is typically standard across different jurisdictions. And so, what is key to establish for the purpose of our discussion, and also in light of the criminal referral of Anthony Fauci, is Fauci’s culpability in committing unlawful conduct. In addition, there must be a causal link between the unlawful conduct and the resulting consequence or harm to the (literal) millions of people in the US and the world at large. But, before we proceed, here is what Senator Rand Paul had to say concerning the rationale behind the renewed criminal referral.

WHY THE CRIMINAL REFERRAL OF ANTHONY FAUCI WAS INITIATED TO BEGIN WITH

But, while we speak of the renewed criminal referral of Anthony Fauci, it is worth noting why this criminal referral was initiated to begin with. In essence, Senator Rand Paul long pointed to an email from February 2020 in which Fauci detailed a call with British medical researcher Jeremy Farrar, who was director of the Wellcome Trust at the time. According to Fauci, those on the task force call, including Francis Collins, former director of the National Human Genome Research Institute, and other “highly credible” scientists with expertise in evolutionary biology, expressed concern about the “fact upon viewing the sequences of several isolates of the nCoV, there were mutations in the virus that would be most unusual to have evolved naturally in the bats and that there was a suspicion that this mutation was intentionally inserted.”

“The suspicion was heightened by the fact that scientists in Wuhan University are known to have been working on gain-of-function experiments to determine the molecular mechanisms associated with bat viruses adapting to human infection, and the outbreak originated in Wuhan.

DID FAUCI COMMIT UNLAWFUL CONDUCT RELATING TO THE COVID VIRUS AND PLANDEMIC RESPONSE?

And so, let’s begin by asking whether Fauci committed unlawful conduct (1) first, while leading the NIAID, (2) second, in his role in the plandemic response that was coerced on states and nations, and (3) thirdly even possibly with respect to the creation and leak of the virus itself. Well, right of the bat, it certainly appears so because in July 2024, the US District Attorneys began working together to criminally charge ANTHONY FAUCI with racketeering, collusion in creating the Wuhan virus and premeditated murder of thousands via Remdesivir and the Covid jabs.

Frankly, we could stop here – because this fairly establishes Fauci’s culpability in both the creation of the COVID virus, and the plandemic response; including the interventions used, being Remdesivir and the Covid jabs – all pointing to unlawful conduct. But, this is not even the gist or end of Fauci’s unlawful conduct. Back in the month of May, Lawrence Tabak, the Principal Deputy Director of the NIH, confirmed that Anthony Fauci committed a federal crime by providing false testimony to Congress under oath. Under US Code Title 18 and section 1001, it is a federal crime to knowingly and willfully make false statements to Congress. The penalties for such an offense can include up to five years in prison.

Then there is the abuse of children. In particular, Fauci used children as guinea pigs for so-called medical interventions. Fauci made sure that none of those children had guardians, which is illegal, and then he hid what he was doing to his board. In addition to all of this, Fauci was also disposing of the corpses of these children who died in illegal experiments.

ASSESSING FAUCI’S MALICIOUS INTENT TO HARM THROUGH COVID PROTOCOLS

Having established Fauci’s unlawful conduct, we then also have to assess whether Fauci acted maliciously to cause harm. For clarity, malicious intent is the intentional desire to cause harm, damage, or injury to someone or something. It is the kind of misconduct that is NOT due to, say, laziness or ignorance, but rather it is a conscious decision to act in a harmful way. Well, with respect to this, not only did Fauci act with malicious intent to cause harm, but he has even done this before in relation to a different case.

First, the proof of Fauci’s malicious intent to cause harm is found in his intentional distortion of information and scientific fact, especially seen in the plandemic responses – including the claimed safety and efficacy of the COVID jabs. In fact, even he conceded that it was mostly guess work or discussions he does not recall, and yet, they formed mandates on their guesses, and subjected society to them.

Secondly, Fauci’s malicious intent is also seen with his dismissive attitude towards the inalienable freedom of choice and the bodily autonomy of people. In particular, he intentionally contributed to a plandemic response that would make vaccine mandates inescapable, thus robbing individuals of the ability to make an informed choice on whether to take the vaccine, while some (among those who did not take it) lost their jobs and livelihoods. This binary outcome where you either take the jab or lose access to basic necessities, or institutions in society was intentionally curated with malice, as you’re about to hear Fauci express. And this resurfaced during a House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus hearing, in which Representative Dr Rich McCormick, being a medical doctor himself, questioned Fauci on him making it difficult for people to live their lives in dignity, and robbing them of the ability to make informed healthcare decisions.

BUT, as alluded to, Fauci has also done this prior; that is to say, he has previously acted with malicious intent to cause harm before! In particular, this relates to the drug AZT. Clinically called Zidovudine, but nicknamed AZT after its components, the drug was said to have shown a dramatic effect on the survival of AIDS patients. But there were tremendous concerns about the new drug. It had actually been developed a quarter of a century earlier as a cancer chemotherapy, but was shelved and forgotten because it was so toxic, very expensive to produce, and totally ineffective against cancer. It was said to be powerful, but unspecific, meaning that the drug was not selective in its cell destruction. Well, Fauci pushed AZT, and it killed an estimated 330,000 people. AND, When doctors found effective treatments as a much safer and plausible alternative, Fauci proceeded to silence them – REFUSING to test those alternatives. All of this is to say that Fauci is not new to the unlawful conduct of maliciously harming people, while instituting measures to silence others.

DID FAUCI BENEFIT FROM THE COVID RESPONSES AT THE EXPENSE OF OTHERS

But, then following this, additional evidence of culpability and malicious intent is found in how Fauci benefited financially from the curated and made-up Covid response at the expense of others. According to RFK Jr, not only does the NIH get the royalty [from the Moderna injection], but the individuals who work for Anthony Fauci, they each get what they call patent margin rights. So they’re gonna collect royalties – around $150,000 a year forever, potentially, from those vaccines. [PAUSE] This reveals that the COVID response was a coordinated effort, for which he knew the likely outcome, hence he was able to profit from it.

Furthermore, in his 492-page book, Robert F. Kennedy reveals how Fauci committed a crime against humanity. In particular, as NIAID Director, Fauci controlled $6.1 billion in annual research funding. NIAID’s funds are expected to improve American health, as well as to eliminate viral allergic illnesses and autoimmune diseases. However, under Fauci’s watch, the chronic disease crisis has become worse. The turning point came in 2000. In Gates’ $127 million mansion, him and Fauci forged an alliance. Their goal was a vaccine empire with unlimited expansion potential. Gates called it “philanthropic capitalism” (which you would have heard him speak about). But, what this meant is that public health became their vehicle for diabolical plans, while profit became their engine.

EVEN IF FAUCI CLAIMS DENIABILITY, HE STILL ENGAGED IN CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE

Assuming that Fauci would attempt to claim deniability, it would also be possible to show that he engaged in a crime of omission through negligence – based on his words. So, Fauci knows that COVID was not a naturally forming virus, and that it was leaked in the lab in Wuhan – because the US worked with China on that virus and leak. However, in private communication, Fauci would merely concede that the COVID virus does not seem natural, BUT, he proceeded to commission the publishing of the ‘Proximal Origins’ letter (which you’d recall from our previous discussions), and this letter, which was published in the journal Nature Medicine on 17 March 2020, was written by a group of virologists including Kristian G. Andersen, Andrew Rambaut, W. Ian Lipkin, Edward C. Holmes and Robert Garry. The authors examined possibilities of an accidental leak of a natural or manipulated virus from a laboratory, and (very deceptively) concluded that genomic analyses indicated that “SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus.”. So, Fauci’s crime of omission here was not investigating his suspicions as a person curating a pandemic response! He is therefore responsible for silencing critical discourse in 2020 on the origins of COVID.

ACCOUNTABILITY AS THE RESULT OF THE PRAYERS OF THE CHURCH

All of this is to say that there was a lot of planning that went into the COVID hoax, with premeditated outcomes – thus making it easy to establish Fauci’s criminal liability. HOWEVER, if they had it their way, this would not even be a conversation – because they wanted absolute control over people and a monopoly on truth. BUT, they did not plan for the Church of Jesus Christ!

In fact, you’d recall that Anthony Fauci came to Washington even on January 8th last year to answer questions on how he flipped his position on public policy for masks, how the agency he headed funded risky research in China, and how post-infection immunity was downplayed – especially as a chief architect of the US’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic. He was behind closed doors for two days of questioning from the US House of Representatives Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic. And this was the first time he answered questions under oath since November 2022. Members of the panel asked Fauci about how he flipped positions on mask policy, seeing that he started from the position that masks wouldn’t work to curb transmission of COVID-19, according to emails he sent in early 2020, to then being an ardent supporter of not only wearing masks but mandating masks. Last year, he was also confronted by Senator Rand Paul in a committee hearing about statements he made concerning natural immunity; and this next clip is from the committee hearing in 2022.

ANTHONY FAUCI MIGHT JUST LOSE HIS AUTOPEN IMMUNITY

Then finally, while we are having these discussions, a key part of accelerating the vaccine reckoning is ensuring that the relevant stakeholders do not hide behind legal loopholes. Which brings us to an interesting development where effects are actually being made to ensure that Anthony Fauci is held accountable despite the weird autism immunity from former US president Joe Biden.

Peel back the glossy press releases, and a darker narrative emerges—one echoed in financial circles wary of the World Economic Forum’s (WEF) “Great Reset” rhetoric. Independent researchers and African policymakers have revealed that GMO mosquitoes aren’t just about disease suppression; they’re a Trojan horse for depopulation and coerced medical interventions. The Gates Foundation, with its $50 billion endowment and deep ties to pharmaceutical giants like Pfizer and Moderna, has long been exposed of prioritizing population management over genuine aid. In a 2010 TED Talk, Bill Gates himself mused on reducing global population growth through vaccines, healthcare, and reproductive services. Fast-forward to today: Oxitec’s malaria-focused strains, developed with Gates funding, will deliberately target human fertility in high-birth-rate regions.

Bill Gates’ GMO Mosquitoes

Flying Syringes for Forced Vaccination and Global Control

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation invested a staggering $41 million in Oxitec, a British biotech firm, to develop these genetically modified mosquitoes that purportedly aim to eradicate malaria. However, numerous health experts have dubbed these creatures “flying syringes,” because their true purpose is to covertly vaccinate the general population with potentially hazardous vaccines that induce sterility in both men and women, without their knowledge or consent. This could lead to a significant increase in infertility, with women becoming barren and men becoming impotent on a massive scale, highlighting just one of the many risks associated with this technology.

Consider the “flying syringe” concept, a Gates-backed idea to engineer mosquitoes that deliver vaccines via bites. A 2008 Grand Challenges grant explored transgenic mosquitoes secreting malaria antigens into human saliva during feeding, turning insects into inoculators. This blurs the line between consent and compulsion. This tech could enforce compliance under the guise of public health emergencies. Financially, the payoff is staggering: The global vaccine market, projected to hit $100 billion by 2030, thrives on perpetual crises. Gates’ investments in mRNA platforms during COVID-19 yielded billions; GMO mosquitoes could similarly prime markets for next-gen shots, funnelling profits to elite stakeholders.

Back in 2008, Gates’ foundation doled out $100,000 to a Japanese scientist, Hiroyuki Matsuoka, to engineer mosquitoes that secrete malaria vaccine proteins in their saliva. Bite you? Boom – you’re “vaccinated.” No needle, no doctor, no choice. They called it a “flying syringe,” and it wasn’t some fringe fantasy; it was funded under Gates’ Grand Challenges Explorations, where he threw millions at 104 “bold ideas” for global health domination. Fast-forward, and outfits like Oxitec – backed by Gates cash – are releasing billions of GM bugs in places like Florida and Brazil, supposedly to fight diseases. But whispers from the lab? These could be tweaked to deliver anything: vaccines, gene therapies, or worse. These genetically engineered mosquitoes are not only being touted as a means to control population growth, but also as a way to inoculate people with vaccines without their explicit consent. As a seasoned finance analyst who has tracked the ways in which globalist billionaires transform “philanthropy” into lucrative business ventures, this initiative reeks of a depopulation agenda masquerading as a benevolent endeavor. Rather than saving lives, Gates is essentially attempting to playing god with people’s bodies, and the backlash from Africa is only the beginning. In essence, the hazardous and potentially deadly vaccines that people have been wary of and rejected can now be administered without their knowledge or consent, courtesy of these genetically modified mosquitoes. All it takes is a mosquito bite, and the vaccine is injected into the bloodstream, complete with untested and questionable substances, all without the individual’s permission. Why should any nation, proud of its heritage, allow Bill Gates and his associates to continue perpetrating their mass depopulation agenda on their soil? The very idea of allowing these “flying syringes” to infiltrate their ecosystems is a stark reminder of the need for vigilance and resistance against such insidious plans.

Bill Gates is Waging a High-Tech War on Mosquitoes

At What Cost to Humanity and the Environment?

Bill Gates’ ambitious plan to eradicate malaria is a complex combination of artificial intelligence, experimental vaccines, and genetic modification, known as gene drives, which are essentially “kill switches” for mosquitoes.

 At first glance, his plan appears to be a selfless act, aiming to save the lives of over 600,000 children under the age of five who die from malaria every year. However, beneath the surface of this seemingly altruistic endeavor lies a more sinister reality: Gates’ desire to control nature reflects the arrogance of the global elite, who view humanity and ecosystems as mere test subjects for their experiments. Gates portrays mosquitoes as malicious, but is he and his allies truly any different? Unlike mosquitoes, they have monopolized farmland, disrupted food supplies, and profited from crises under the guise of “charity” – actions that have had far more devastating consequences for human societies. The use of gene drives, the cornerstone of Gates’ mosquito eradication plan, poses significant risks to the environment and ecosystems. These irreversible genetic modifications have the potential to disrupt the delicate balance of nature in unpredictable ways. While mosquitoes can be a nuisance, they also play a crucial role in pollinating plants and supporting biodiversity. However, Gates’ solution to the malaria crisis disregards these essential roles, prioritizing short-term human intervention over long-term ecological stability. This reckless approach to genetic engineering is reminiscent of the same hubris that has plagued globalist experiments in agriculture, healthcare, and energy, which have often had disastrous consequences for the environment and human societies. The narrative surrounding the “war on malaria” also conceals a more insidious agenda: control.

Gates acknowledges that malaria research has been underfunded because its victims are “too poor to attract attention”, but who is responsible for perpetuating this imbalance if not the billionaires who profit from inequality? Gates’ projects are not about saving lives, but about consolidating power and using diseases as leverage to reengineer society and nature in the image of the global elite. The exploitation of the Global South by Western philanthropists and corporations has become a familiar pattern, with the beneficiaries of these “humanitarian” efforts often being the same biotech firms, AI companies, and elites who profit from controlling life at the molecular level. The use of gene drives as a tool for population control is a chilling possibility that cannot be dismissed as a conspiracy theory. Given Gates’ history of using the Global South as a testing ground for his experiments, it is not far-fetched to imagine the use of gene drives for more sinister purposes. The same individual who has treated people as lab rats now seeks to play god with the natural world, ignoring the catastrophic consequences that his actions could have for the environment and human societies. The growing resistance to Western “philanthropy” in the Global South is a testament to the fact that people are no longer willing to be treated as test subjects for the experiments of the global elite. Ultimately, if Bill Gates truly wants to eliminate parasites, perhaps he should start by targeting the ones that are monopolizing resources and exploiting humanity. Mosquitoes may carry malaria, but Gates and his allies are carrying the far more malignant disease of hubris, which has already had devastating consequences for the environment and human societies. The cure for this disease is not found in a lab, but in the growing resistance of people who are rejecting the control of the global elite and demanding a more equitable and sustainable future for all. Financially, this is a goldmine for the elite. Gates invests in biotech firms like Oxitec and big pharma players, then “donates” to projects that create demand for their patents. It’s vertical integration on steroids – fund the “problem” (engineered bugs), sell the “solution” (vaccines via bite), and watch royalties flood in while populations dwindle. Remember his TED talk where he released mosquitoes on the audience to make a point about malaria? That wasn’t a stunt; it was foreshadowing. And don’t buy the fact-check spin that his current projects aren’t for vaccination – the tech’s the same gene-editing toolkit, and history shows he’s funded the syringe concept directly.

Bill Gates is actively utilizing insects as carriers for hazardous pathogens and recklessly dumping untested mRNA technology on impoverished communities, flagrantly disregarding fundamental conservative values such as informed consent, secure national borders, and unrestricted free markets. The Nuremberg Code, established to protect human rights, is being blatantly disregarded, while national sovereignty is being deliberately compromised. The potential consequences of these actions are alarming, ranging from ecological devastation and unforeseen genetic mutations to deliberately engineered pandemics designed to justify further authoritarian control. The state of Florida has already been transformed into a testing ground for these experiments, with billions of dollars being invested under the supervision of Governor DeSantis, despite the absence of comprehensive long-term studies to assess the safety and efficacy of these measures. We must reject this blatant attempt at technocratic domination and instead support courageous leaders like Traoré, who are taking a firm stance against these dangerous experiments. It is imperative that we invest in genuinely effective solutions, such as locally driven agricultural initiatives and traditional medicine, rather than relying on patented, potentially lethal products promoted by Gates. If we fail to take immediate action to halt these egregious practices, we risk being subjected to an unending barrage of experimental technologies concocted by globalist elites, as this sinister agenda is driven by an insatiable pursuit of wealth, power, and the systematic erosion of national sovereignty.

Written By Tatenda Belle Panashe

Despite several years of decolonisation in Africa, parts of the continent are still enmeshed in neocolonialism, imperialism, and other forms of subtle colonial control. And I think that part of the reason for this is that, while previous attempts have interrogated the subject matter, emphasis has often been placed (almost exclusively) on the political aspect of decolonisation (specifically looking at gaining independence of the political order – which (make no mistake) is certainly important. However, with this (almost exclusive) focus on the political aspect of decolonisation, African countries have been missing crucial aspects of the neocolonial paradigm. For instance, neocolonialism does not primarily manifest in the form of nation states attempting to take over the territory and political systems of others, rather, it is largely orchestrated through international organisations and philanthro-capitalism – both of which come under the pretence of offering aid to respective African and Asian nations.

In fact, this should bring to mind what Professor Patrick Lumumba highlighted in his keynote address at the International Conference on Africa’s Democracy 2025, this past month of July, which is that neo-colonialism poses a threat far greater than colonisation itself, because this time around the colonial actors are faced with desperation. And so, in the post colonial and post WWII era, neocolonists created international organisations that technically respect the provisions of laws and treaties that demand a respect for human rights and sovereignty in Africa, BUT that simultaneously create a legal justification for plunder.

Immediately, you could think of the Bretton Woods institutions, and their structural adjustment programmes that threaten the sovereignty of national economies because they allow an outside organisation to dictate a nation’s economic policy. By minimising a government’s ability to organise and regulate its internal economy, pathways are also then created for multinational companies to enter states and extract resources in Africa. Furthermore, upon independence from colonial rule, many nations that took on foreign debt were unable to repay it, because they were limited to production and exportation of cash crops, and also restricted from control of their own more valuable natural resources (such as oil, rare earth minerals) by SAP free-trade and low-regulation requirements.

And so, clearly, in the neocolonial paradigm, it is NOT just political systems that are captured with the intention to form a satellite state that is some form of extension of the colonial one – in the way that Australia and Canada were the extension of the British Empire, or in the way that Congo was supposed to be the extension of Belgium. Rather, in the neocolonial paradigm, economic policies and inclinations are also of great interest to those who wish to continue the subjugation of African (and Asian, and South America) countries. And this is rooted in the need to destroy the people of these nations, while looting their wealth. And so, herein lies one of the crucial markers of the new dispensation of African leadership. This is leadership that is not exclusively interested in having political power (as symbolic and systematic proof of decolonial efforts in their respective nations). Rather, the new dispensation of African leadership understands that those who profit from your destruction do not have a vested interest in your upliftment, and that there is a need to decrease dependence on international organisations. Afterall, Africa is the new world, with hardworking people.

So, who then are these African leaders, at the fore of this strategic new dispensation of leadership? And to begin with, let’s talk about recent developments from Ibrahim Traore in Burkina Faso. On the 22nd of August, Burkina Faso halted a Bill Gates-backed project that had seen genetically modified mosquitoes released in a claimed bid to eradicate malaria and other insect-borne diseases.

Target Malaria, which is an organisation funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, is the latest NGO to come under pressure from the Ibrahim Traore-led administration. In a communique, it was ordered to stop “all activities”. This is said to be in part related to the verdict on the works produced by an organisation with a similar focus. In particular, the Gates foundation funded Oxitec, which is a British biotechnology company to the tune of $41 million to create Genetically Modified Mosquitoes, which Gates and his cohorts claim will end Malaria. HOWEVER, the verdict is that many health experts actually refer to Gates’ mosquitoes as “flying syringes,” explaining that the hidden aim of these mosquitoes is to secretly vaccinate the general population with dangerous vaccines that would induce sterility in both males and females without them knowing it, which the people ordinarily would not accept in a traditional sense – so women become barren and men go impotent – and that’s just one of the potential risks associated with these mosquitoes.

Now, the Traore administration’s response is not reflective of the usual position that African countries take towards what are said to be generous, philanthropic pursuits that seek to alleviate problems like Malaria in their respective nations. But, clearly the leadership in Burkina Faso is suspect of the colonial inclinations – not only of nations like France – but also of philanthro-capitalists like Bill Gates – and necessarily so, because first, Gates’s billions have not been intended at generously solving problems, rather, they have purchased a stunning level of control over public policy, private markets, scientific research, and the news media. Whether he is pushing new educational standards in America, health reforms in India, global vaccine policy during the pandemic, or Western industrialised agriculture throughout Africa, Gates’s heady social experimentation has shown itself to be not only undemocratic, but ultimately aimed at purchasing influence and power more than anything else.

On an international scale, this is perhaps exemplified in the relationship between Bill Gates and the WHO. RFK Jr, the Secretary of the US Department of HHS explained that Bill Gates gets tax deductions for giving money to the WHO, while he gains control of the WHO. Meanwhile, the WHO finances the health ministries in virtually every country in Africa, so Bill Gates can establish conditions for receiving that money, which can translate into the WHO transferring those conditions on nations. These conditions could also include conditionalising the receipt of funding on the vaccination numbers and status of the country. On top of that, the vaccines that countries are buying are owned by companies that Gates owns or has shares in. Therefore, at the end, the punchline on almost all of his philanthropic projects is that he ends up making money.

Secondly, Bill Gates actually does not have the good reputation and track-record that many assume he does! In essence, the claim of vaccine efficacy AND SAFETY (which has been the bane of Bill Gate’s push for vaccines) is actually not based on proven studies. Rev. Dr Chris Oyakhilome has asked for those studies. RFK Jr has ALSO asked for those studies, in fact, with the polio vaccine and the DTP vaccine, both Rev Dr Chris Oyakhilome and RFK Jr respectively proved that the safety of vaccines is always alleged, and not based on scientific evidence!

For instance, with the DTP vaccine (that is the diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis vaccine) Bill Gates asked the Danish government to support the program behind DTP vaccines, and said it saved 30 million lives. The Danish government asked Gates to show them the data. But, he interestingly was not able to. So the Danish government came to the African continent and did their own studies, in which they looked at 30 years of DTP data. [PAUSE] What they found shocked them: they found that girls who got the DTP were dying at 10 times the rate of unvaccinated girls. So, did Bill Gates not know this? Where were the 30 million lives saved? Or could it be that he maybe did have studies but studies that only looked at short term effects, below the 30 year mark? Well, irrespective: this proves that the data that Bill Gates tried to use as a selling point to the Danish government was false. The safety of the DTP vaccine was alleged, and therefore, the benefits were perceived at best.

This is crucial to note because it tells that – similarly – Bill Gate’s reputation and track record of doing good and alleviating health problems is alleged at best. It only appears factually accurate because it is repeated by his cohort, while truth was buried for the longest time.

Again, crucial to note is that this sterilisation project was tested in an African country, being Kenya. Which highlights (once again) why it is crucial that the Traore administration has rejected a similar effort in their country. But, of course, to the outside, ultra liberal world, Traore’s administration is a violent military government that poses a threat to democracy – especially since his administration began with a coup.

COUPS IN AFRICA ARE SEEMINGLY A RESPONSE TO CORRUPT, WESTERN-INSTITUTED GOVERNMENTS

But, important to take note of concerning Western instituted coups is that the figures who subsequently gained power were often figures friendly to the Western nations and their agenda – meaning these were people, who had no genuine and plausible aspiration to serve the people they were meant to lead in their respective country – or perhaps lost that aspiration once they were bombarded by the agenda set for them by the West.

Let’s take Gabon as a notable example. As you would recall, on the heels of a military takeover in Niger in 2023, a group of senior Gabonese military officers announced on national television they were seizing power in the central African nation, overturning results in a disputed presidential election. But, Before his removal in a military coup, Gabon’s hopelessly corrupt President Ali Bongo was courted by Obama and feted from Washington to Davos.

For half a century, the Bongo family ruled the resource-rich country but has been recently accused of abusing power and amassing exorbitant wealth. Military officials called themselves the “Committee of the Transition and the Restoration of Institutions” and said that “irresponsible, unpredictable governance” has led to a collapse in social cohesion. But, of course, president Bongo’s arrest was met with indignant condemnations from Washington and Paris, which had propped him up as he pillaged his country’s vast oil wealth. BUT…his ouster represented a particularly sharp rebuke of former President Barack Obama, who groomed the Gabonese autocrat as one of his closest allies on the continent, and leaned on him for diplomatic support as he waged a war on Libya that unleashed terror and instability across the region. And so, the US war on Libya which destabilised the region may not have succeeded without him.

Ultimately, so close was the bond between Obama and Bongo that Foreign Policy branded the Gabonese leader, “Obama’s Man in Africa.” With Obama’s help, Bongo attempted to fashion himself as a reformist moderniser. He travelled repeatedly to Davos, Switzerland to attend the World Economic Forum, where was appointed an “Agenda Contributor.” There, he pledged to accelerate the Fourth Industrial Revolution in Africa by implementing lucrative digital identification and payment systems among his country’s heavily impoverished population. And so, this exposes that so-called civilian led governments (that are said to be a contrast of military governments) are not always plausible – especially where they are infiltrated by external influences. And so, Traore is a military leader, who came in through a coup (as it was in Gabon) – BUT he is exactly what his people desired.

AFRICAN LEADERS NEED TO CEASE TO PRIORITISE FOREIGN DIRECT INVESTMENT

Now, while we see certain leaders at the forefront of prioritising the best interests of their people, we also need to consider how we standardise this calibre of African leadership. I would argue that we ought to begin with eradicating a dependent and almost beggarly attitude in some African leaders, especially because some African leaders have relied on an interpretation of national wealth that prizes foreign direct investment and high dollar reserves, or an IMF and World Bank validated fiscal and monetary policy. All of these things do not amount to wealth, and an increase in the standard of living of their people. What they are tools for the creation of perpetually defendant economies that are hamstrung by the dictates of lenders.

For instance, in April this year, the South African president expressed that foreign direct investment is the means through which to curb unemployment. Not the development of local industries, not increased support for small and medium enterprises, not even an increased government investment into technical and vocational education, which gives people practicals skills that they can use to find early employment or even begin their own business – which would also serve a catalyst to liberate the South African work economy from regarding a university degree as an important prerequisite for employment (despite formal education doing little to prepare people for work). But, yes, despite all of these more reliable measures, the South African president says that foreign direct investment is necessary for more job creation.

By the way, this narrative of key developments in the South African economy being hinged on foreign direct investment was once again rehashed after the meeting with members of the Trump administration at the White House. In what was concerningly viewed as a successful re-opening of trade relations with the US, in pursuit of FDI, the president of South Africa highlighted that not only is FDI allegedly needed, but that South Africa (and other nations) curate regulatory frameworks to attract foreign investors.

What is being missed by the South African presidency (and many other nations who uphold the FDI model for development), is that it is inherently predatory. The fact that nations have to restructure development plans and policies in order to attract foreign investors is equivalent to opening doors to a trojan horse. Which is why foreign direct investment culminates in the disenfranchisement of the people and business of the country! For instance, as opposed to merely increasing competition, FDI displaces local business because large foreign companies, with their economies of scale and access to global markets, often drive out local businesses that cannot compete. This ironically leads to job losses and a decline in local economic activity. Furthermore, FDI can lead to a concentration of economic power in the hands of foreign entities, potentially even undermining local economic development and reducing the ability of local actors to influence policy decisions – in fact, this is exemplified by the concession from the South African president in stating that they curated regulatory frameworks with the intention of attracting foreign investors (which means that domestic priorities become secondary to the appeasement of foreign investors).

This should not come across as a sound or sustainable plan for economic or industry development. Which brings us to the message from the President of Loveworld Inc. – which needs to be the new modus operandi for African leaders, and especially the president of South Africa.

AFRICAN LEADERS ALSO NEED TO EXTRICATE THEIR COUNTRIES FROM DIABOLICAL ORGANISATIONS

Secondly African countries need to extricate themselves from dangerous organisations and treaties – and the WHO is at the top of them. We mentioned earlier that the WHO has been sterilizing Kenyan women through vaccines, and the biggest sterilization happened when they brought what they termed as a “tetanus eradication vaccine”, where women were to be vaccinated to prevent the kids they will give birth to from getting tetanus – when in actual fact they were being rendered sterile. But, now, the people of Kenya have woken up to the evils of the WHO, and need to demand their government be removed from WHO associations.

Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso

Target Malaria: Pioneering Genetic Technologies to ”Combat” Malaria

Target Malaria is a not-for-profit international research consortium dedicated to developing and sharing innovative genetic technologies aimed at controlling malaria transmission in sub-Saharan Africa. The initiative originated as a university-based research program in 2005, initially exploring genetic modifications in mosquitoes. By 2012, it had evolved into a broader consortium, incorporating multidisciplinary expertise from scientists, social scientists, and regulatory specialists. At the heart of Target Malaria’s strategy is gene drive technology, which uses CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing to introduce modifications that spread through mosquito populations at higher-than-normal inheritance rates. They say these modifications typically aim to reduce female mosquito fertility or bias offspring toward males, leading to population decline over generations. Target Malaria operates in several African countries, including Uganda, Burkina Faso, Mali, and Ghana, collaborating with local institutions such as the Uganda Virus Research Institute (UVRI) and the Institut de Recherche en Sciences de la Santé (IRSS) in Burkina Faso. In Uganda, recent contained studies on non-gene drive mosquitoes have advanced understanding of male bias traits. Past activities in Burkina Faso included releases of non-gene drive genetically modified mosquitoes in 2019, marking early field testing. Primary funding comes from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the Open Philanthropy Project, with additional support from entities like the UK Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (DEFRA), the European Commission, the Medical Research Council (MRC), the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and African governmental bodies such as the Uganda Ministry of Health.

Bill Gates’ Philanthro-Capitalism

In Africa, malaria claims thousands of lives annually, with over 10,000 fatalities reported in Burkina Faso alone in 2023. However, a closer examination reveals the significant financial interests at play. Bill Gates, often perceived as a philanthropist, is also an investor with substantial stakes in biotech firms and pharmaceutical giants that stand to gain from innovations like these. Essentially, the strategy involves creating a problem, or exaggerating its severity, then selling the solution, and reaping the financial benefits while the local population bears the risks. From a financial perspective, this approach is a classic example of the globalist playbook, where costs are externalized to impoverished nations, and the elite reap the benefits of patents and subsidies. The project, backed by Gates and allegedly linked to US military interests, has turned African soil into a testing ground for gene-drive technology, which poses significant risks, including ecological disasters and the potential for weaponized biology. Traoré has taken a firm stance, ordering laboratories to be sealed, samples destroyed, and all activities halted due to concerns over biosafety, ethics, and ecology. The public outcry from locals and anti-Western activists has also played a significant role, as they reject the narrative that this is a form of assistance, instead viewing it as interference. The issue of sovereignty, a core conservative value under attack worldwide, is a critical aspect of this debate. The military government of Burkina Faso is pushing back against foreign NGOs and projects that undermine local control, revoking licenses and asserting that Africans will not be used as test subjects for Western experiments. Traoré is a hero in this context, thinking outside the globalist box, while other African leaders succumb to the lure of handouts. Critics argue that halting this project could hinder progress in combating malaria, but this is the same fear-mongering tactic used to promote every globalist agenda, from vaccines to climate change initiatives.

Traditional methods, such as bed nets and insecticides, have proven effective in combating malaria without resorting to genetic manipulation. The ethical red flags surrounding this project are glaring, including a lack of transparency, potential long-term harm to biodiversity, and the absence of genuine input from the affected population. Gates’ track record is questionable, given his ties to population control rhetoric and investments that conveniently align with his charitable work. This suspension serves as a beacon for conservatives worldwide, highlighting the need to reject globalist overlords, protect borders, and prioritize fiscal and national independence. More countries should follow Burkina Faso’s lead, abandoning the Gates-funded initiatives that come with strings attached and investing in homegrown solutions that do not compromise their sovereignty. If we fail to do so, we risk becoming lab rats in their grand experiment, with our nations and ecosystems being exploited for the benefit of the global elite. The people of Burkina Faso have made it clear that they will not be used as test subjects for Western experiments, and their stance serves as a powerful example for other nations to follow. By taking control of their own destiny and rejecting the influence of globalist interests, they are reclaiming their sovereignty and protecting their people from the risks associated with untested and potentially harmful technologies.

Bill Gates’ GMO Mosquitoes – Flying Syringes for Forced Vaccination and Global Control

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation invested a staggering $41 million in Oxitec, a British biotech firm, to develop these genetically modified mosquitoes that purportedly aim to eradicate malaria. However, numerous health experts have dubbed these creatures “flying syringes,” because their true purpose is to covertly vaccinate the general population with potentially hazardous vaccines that induce sterility in both men and women, without their knowledge or consent. This could lead to a significant increase in infertility, with women becoming barren and men becoming impotent on a massive scale, highlighting just one of the many risks associated with this technology.

Back in 2008, Gates’ foundation doled out $100,000 to a Japanese scientist, Hiroyuki Matsuoka, to engineer mosquitoes that secrete malaria vaccine proteins in their saliva. Bite you? Boom – you’re “vaccinated.” No needle, no doctor, no choice. They called it a “flying syringe,” and it wasn’t some fringe fantasy; it was funded under Gates’ Grand Challenges Explorations, where he threw millions at 104 “bold ideas” for global health domination. Fast-forward, and outfits like Oxitec – backed by Gates cash – are releasing billions of GM bugs in places like Florida and Brazil, supposedly to fight diseases. But whispers from the lab? These could be tweaked to deliver anything: vaccines, gene therapies, or worse. These genetically engineered mosquitoes are not only being touted as a means to control population growth, but also as a way to inoculate people with vaccines without their explicit consent. As a seasoned finance analyst who has tracked the ways in which globalist billionaires transform “philanthropy” into lucrative business ventures, this initiative reeks of a depopulation agenda masquerading as a benevolent endeavor. Rather than saving lives, Gates is essentially attempting to playing god with people’s bodies, and the backlash from Africa is only the beginning. In essence, the hazardous and potentially deadly vaccines that people have been wary of and rejected can now be administered without their knowledge or consent, courtesy of these genetically modified mosquitoes. All it takes is a mosquito bite, and the vaccine is injected into the bloodstream, complete with untested and questionable substances, all without the individual’s permission. Why should any nation, proud of its heritage, allow Bill Gates and his associates to continue perpetrating their mass depopulation agenda on their soil? The very idea of allowing these “flying syringes” to infiltrate their ecosystems is a stark reminder of the need for vigilance and resistance against such insidious plans.

Bill Gates is Waging a High-Tech War on Mosquitoes

At What Cost to Humanity and the Environment?

Bill Gates’ ambitious plan to eradicate malaria is a complex combination of artificial intelligence, experimental vaccines, and genetic modification, known as gene drives, which are essentially “kill switches” for mosquitoes.

 At first glance, his plan appears to be a selfless act, aiming to save the lives of over 600,000 children under the age of five who die from malaria every year. However, beneath the surface of this seemingly altruistic endeavor lies a more sinister reality: Gates’ desire to control nature reflects the arrogance of the global elite, who view humanity and ecosystems as mere test subjects for their experiments. Gates portrays mosquitoes as malicious, but is he and his allies truly any different? Unlike mosquitoes, they have monopolized farmland, disrupted food supplies, and profited from crises under the guise of “charity” – actions that have had far more devastating consequences for human societies. The use of gene drives, the cornerstone of Gates’ mosquito eradication plan, poses significant risks to the environment and ecosystems. These irreversible genetic modifications have the potential to disrupt the delicate balance of nature in unpredictable ways. While mosquitoes can be a nuisance, they also play a crucial role in pollinating plants and supporting biodiversity. However, Gates’ solution to the malaria crisis disregards these essential roles, prioritizing short-term human intervention over long-term ecological stability. This reckless approach to genetic engineering is reminiscent of the same hubris that has plagued globalist experiments in agriculture, healthcare, and energy, which have often had disastrous consequences for the environment and human societies. The narrative surrounding the “war on malaria” also conceals a more insidious agenda: control.

Gates acknowledges that malaria research has been underfunded because its victims are “too poor to attract attention”, but who is responsible for perpetuating this imbalance if not the billionaires who profit from inequality? Gates’ projects are not about saving lives, but about consolidating power and using diseases as leverage to reengineer society and nature in the image of the global elite. The exploitation of the Global South by Western philanthropists and corporations has become a familiar pattern, with the beneficiaries of these “humanitarian” efforts often being the same biotech firms, AI companies, and elites who profit from controlling life at the molecular level. The use of gene drives as a tool for population control is a chilling possibility that cannot be dismissed as a conspiracy theory. Given Gates’ history of using the Global South as a testing ground for his experiments, it is not far-fetched to imagine the use of gene drives for more sinister purposes. The same individual who has treated people as lab rats now seeks to play god with the natural world, ignoring the catastrophic consequences that his actions could have for the environment and human societies. The growing resistance to Western “philanthropy” in the Global South is a testament to the fact that people are no longer willing to be treated as test subjects for the experiments of the global elite. Ultimately, if Bill Gates truly wants to eliminate parasites, perhaps he should start by targeting the ones that are monopolizing resources and exploiting humanity. Mosquitoes may carry malaria, but Gates and his allies are carrying the far more malignant disease of hubris, which has already had devastating consequences for the environment and human societies. The cure for this disease is not found in a lab, but in the growing resistance of people who are rejecting the control of the global elite and demanding a more equitable and sustainable future for all. Financially, this is a goldmine for the elite. Gates invests in biotech firms like Oxitec and big pharma players, then “donates” to projects that create demand for their patents. It’s vertical integration on steroids – fund the “problem” (engineered bugs), sell the “solution” (vaccines via bite), and watch royalties flood in while populations dwindle. Remember his TED talk where he released mosquitoes on the audience to make a point about malaria? That wasn’t a stunt; it was foreshadowing. And don’t buy the fact-check spin that his current projects aren’t for vaccination – the tech’s the same gene-editing toolkit, and history shows he’s funded the syringe concept directly.

Bill Gates is actively utilizing insects as carriers for hazardous pathogens and recklessly dumping untested mRNA technology on impoverished communities, flagrantly disregarding fundamental conservative values such as informed consent, secure national borders, and unrestricted free markets. The Nuremberg Code, established to protect human rights, is being blatantly disregarded, while national sovereignty is being deliberately compromised. The potential consequences of these actions are alarming, ranging from ecological devastation and unforeseen genetic mutations to deliberately engineered pandemics designed to justify further authoritarian control. The state of Florida has already been transformed into a testing ground for these experiments, with billions of dollars being invested under the supervision of Governor DeSantis, despite the absence of comprehensive long-term studies to assess the safety and efficacy of these measures. We must reject this blatant attempt at technocratic domination and instead support courageous leaders like Traoré, who are taking a firm stance against these dangerous experiments. It is imperative that we invest in genuinely effective solutions, such as locally driven agricultural initiatives and traditional medicine, rather than relying on patented, potentially lethal products promoted by Gates. If we fail to take immediate action to halt these egregious practices, we risk being subjected to an unending barrage of experimental technologies concocted by globalist elites, as this sinister agenda is driven by an insatiable pursuit of wealth, power, and the systematic erosion of national sovereignty.

Written By Tatenda Belle Panashe

Healthcare as one of the 7 areas that globalists seek to manipulate, and we ought to start with some historical context, regarding how the COVID plandemic enabled globalists to test a militarised healthcare system.

Now, in former US president Eisenhower’s farewell speech of January 17, 1961, he stated that “…in the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex.” Sixty-three years on, many understand what he was referring to. We’ve seen the cycle of undeclared wars and decades-long foreign occupations that are undertaken on nebulous or even outright false pretences. We’ve also seen the ever-hungry mega-industry that produces super-expensive, high-tech killing devices of every imaginable form, as well as the steady stream of traumatised soldiers that it spits out. Evidently, war, to some, has become big business! And as Eisenhower warned, as long as those profiting from it drive the policy and the money stream (in other words – if they can weaponise the laws), the MIC will continue to grow.

In light of this contextualisation of the MIC, one would think that other mega-industries – the medical industry in particular – have generally fared better in public perception than the military-industrial complex; in that this MIC seemed a far more diabolical industry. Well, that was until the covid pandemic, but not forsaking a number of prior controversies. But this is really to say that among its many lessons, the Covid plandemic era has taught us this: if you substitute Pfizer and Moderna for Raytheon and Lockheed Martin, and swap the NIH and CDC for the Pentagon, you essentially get the same result. Meaning that not only is the “medical-industrial complex” every bit as real as its military-industrial counterpart, but, it is also every bit as real a problem, precisely because they are different sides of the same coin since the military industrial complex informed the weaponisation of the healthcare system in the COVID era. So, how did this happen?

Well, during the Covid era, one can infer interesting parallels to military operations. For instance, by early-to-mid 2020, it became obvious to those paying attention that the Covid “response,” while promoted as a medical initiative, was in fact a military operation. Martial law had effectively been declared in March 2020, after the Covid response (and practically speaking, control of the nation) was ceded to the National Security Council. Civil liberties – including the freedoms of assembly, worship, the right to travel, to earn one’s living, to pursue one’s education, or to obtain legal relief – were rendered null and void. In addition, top-down diktats on how to manage Covid patients were handed down to physicians from high above, and these were enforced with a militaristic rigidity unseen in doctors’ professional lifetimes. Meanwhile, the mandated protocols also made no sense: they ignored fundamental tenets of both sound medical practice and medical ethics; they shamelessly lied about well-known interventions, while their mandated protocols killed people.

What was also interesting to note during that time is that those physicians and other professionals who spoke out were effectively court-martialed. State medical boards, specialty certification boards, and large healthcare system employers virtually tripped over each other in the rush to de-license, decertify, and fire dissenters. Genuine, courageous physicians who actually treat patients, such as Peter McCullough, Mary Talley Bowden, Scott Jensen, Simone Gold, and others, were persecuted, while non-practicing bureaucrats like Anthony Fauci were hailed with false titles like “America’s Top Doctor.” The propaganda was as nauseating as it was blatant. And the subsequent violence was no different.

But, speaking of lies about well-known interventions, you’d recall the ivermectin debate, that president Trump was involved in during that period. Well, as more evidence came out supporting Trump’s claim of the comparative benefit of using ivermectin in comparison to vaccines and all other protocols that were mandated, the FDA in the Biden era, even tried to back-peddle on their dismissal of ivermectin. In particular, the FDA claimed their Ivermectin smear campaign was only related to people self-medicating w/ a veterinary formulation of the drug.

However, in a 2021 interview with the American Medical Association, FDA Director John Farley discouraged physicians from prescribing Ivermectin, calling it a ‘tragic choice’. He stated that (quote): “Making that choice to choose Ivermectin over a vaccine can be a tragic choice that can lead to them getting very sick, getting admitted to the hospital, or even dying from COVID.

This ultimately means that the concerning tenets that have driven the military industrial complex were incorporated into the healthcare system. During covid, globalist debuted this militarised so-called healthcare response, and thus in seeking to manipulate healthcare, want similar control. Why else would there be a WHO pandemic treaty and IHR that try to centralise power to dictate health policy on the Director General, except to great a legal justification for a militarised top down approach to global healthcare?

MEDICINE BECAME BIG BUSINESS: THE COMMERCIALISATION OF SICKNESS AND INFIRMITY 

Now, in light of the parallels between the military and the medical industrial complexes, we alluded to the fact that in light of the operations of the military industrial complex, war has become big business. Well, as far as institutional capture is concerned, the medical establishment has done the same, especially with cancer. You’d recall that we discussed here on ‘The War Room’ how not only is cancer man-made, but it is also big business, a multi-billion dollar industry. It involves getting people to get cancer, to be poisoned with chemotherapy, and large amounts of money spent on continuous research for a cure that apparently does not exist (which is a lie). And the biggest proof of this intentional weaponisation and commercialisation of cancer is that, simply put, cancer did NOT really exist more than 50 years ago but started booming with the introduction of processed food loaded with massive amounts of sugar and chemicals.

So, you’ve just heard the President of Loveworld Incorporated, the highly esteemed Rev. Dr Chris Oyakhilome DSc. DSc. DD. warn about the artificial and genetically modified food that causes cancer. Well, another crucial cause is exposure to carcinogenic systems. Now, a carcinogen is any substance, agent, or process that can induce cancer. They can cause cancer by damaging DNA or interfering with cellular processes (hence cancer is known as an attack on healthy cells by a cancerous cell). Examples of these carcinogens include asbestos, benzene, radon and even tobacco smoke.

This is critical to note because it exposes a detrimental irony when it comes to chemotherapy. Chemotherapy is also a carcinogenic system! It is inherently a harmful concoction of chemicals that was initially created as a weapon, and then suddenly became rebranded as a highly profitable health intervention.

There you have it, this same chemical agent that was used to kill people is now being used to allegedly treat cancer. And ironically, despite the modifications on it, chemotherapy can also function as a carcinogen! More specifically, chemotherapy drugs are designed to target and destroy rapidly dividing cells, including cancer cells, but they can also affect healthy cells that divide quickly, like those in the bone marrow, hair follicles, and digestive tract. However, some chemotherapy agents, particularly alkylating agents, have been linked to an increased risk of developing certain types of leukemia or other secondary cancers. And the risk of developing a second cancer after chemotherapy is influenced by factors like the type of chemotherapy drugs used, the dosage, the duration of treatment, and the individual’s overall health. ALL of this is to say that (IRONICALLY) chemotherapy also functions as a carcinogen, meaning that it is a cancer causing agent.

And so this details the institutionalisation of the commercialisation of sickness and infirmity. The medical industrial complex sees sickness as an opportunity to form a market or customer base; and so, this industry interventions that it knows are harmful or not effective in the long run, and merely brands them as an acceptable panacea. What makes this a problem of institutional corruption, as opposed to mere isolated cases of unethical business conduct is that this is standard practice in the medical industry – all while legitimate or just better cures are hidden.

Take Dr Patrick Soon-Shiong, who we recently discussed. So, in an interview with Tucker Carlson he detailed that there actually is a medical breakthrough in fighting cancer. However, because of politics, the Deep State and Big Pharma it’s being suppressed. Meaning that there is an intervention for which he has the data and research to prove has been helpful, yet special interests block it – pointing to systemic institutional corruption in the medical industry. Meanwhile, Dr Mark Hyman also told Tucker Carlson about the keto diet’s ability to fight cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer’s, schizophrenia and more. And so, literally eating certain good organic foods, is a comparatively far better option to chemotherapy.

MEDICAL ASSOCIATIONS: THE MEDICAL CARTEL’S TOOL FOR WEAPONISING LAWS

We then also have to address how the medical industrial complex weaponised laws, through formal legal avenues and also through the establishment of organisations that serve special interests. For instance, we’ve spoken about the audacious incident where the American Academy of Pediatrics, American College of Physicians, the American Public Health Association, and the Infectious Diseases Society of America have filed a federal lawsuit against Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr for withdrawing COVID-19 vaccine recommendations for healthy children and pregnant women.

The cartel also demanded a federal judge reinstate the COVID shot recommendations (again for children and pregnant women)—and block the US Department of HHS from enforcing or promoting RFK Jr’s May directive that removed them. Then, they also argued that Kennedy’s directive violates (quote) “norms” by bypassing the CDC and its ACIP panel, and undermines their ability to push the shot to patients and secure insurance coverage. This revealed a jarring display of the audacity of the medical industrial complex to use laws to fight or undermine progress. Because they obviously know that there are serious ramifications from the COVID jabs, but were adamant to use formal legal structures to block the US Department of HHS from enforcing or promoting RFK Jr’s May directive that removed those jabs from the recommendation list.

Similarly, we’ve been told to “listen to scientists” for years, while their credibility was tied to medical societies and associations that vouched for their alleged credibility. BUT… the dark and corrupt history behind the largest group of health professionals in the US, being the American Medical Association, suggests that these organisations are part of the problem of systemic institutional rot and corruption.

Thankfully, the corruption of these medical associations is being exposed on the regular today. For example, files from the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (also called WPATH) prove that the practice of transgender medicine is neither scientific nor medical. The American Medical Association, The Endocrine Society, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and thousands of doctors worldwide rely on WPATH. It is considered the leading global authority on gender medicine.

And yet WPATH’s internal files, which include written discussions and a video, reveal that its members know they are creating victims and not getting “informed consent.” Victims include a 10-year-old girl, a 13-year-old developmentally delayed adolescent, and individuals suffering from schizophrenia and other serious mental illnesses. Meanwhile, WPATH members indicate repeatedly that they know that many children and their parents don’t understand the effects that puberty blockers, hormones, and surgeries will have on their bodies. And yet, they continue to perform and advocate for gender medicine. In any case, the WPATH Files prove that gender medicine is comprised of unregulated and pseudoscientific experiments on children, adolescents, and vulnerable adults.

Then there is also the American Heart Association. This association exposes systemic corruption in the medical industry in that it also serves to propagate false and detrimental health directives. You’d recall that we had a discussion of the hoax behind the claim that humans need to consume very little saturated fats and salt, which heavily implicated Ancel Keys, who had the backing of the American Heart Association. Well, even in the status quo the American Heart Association recommends aiming for a dietary pattern that achieves less than 6% of total calories from saturated fat. This is to say, that for example, if you need about 2,000 calories a day, no more than 120 of them should come from saturated fat – the same saturated fat that has now been proven to be essential for your health and to play an essential role in the functionality of your body!

Well, this unaccountable attitude towards accurate nutritional science in the present (as well) is actually less surprising when you consider that the AHA has been operating as a corrupt, anti-health lobby institution for the medical industrial complex, and even food companies. For instance, this year, the American Heart Association sent an employee to TEXAS to fight a bill that would stop food stamps from covering unhealthy items such as candy and soda—part of the MAHA initiatives.

Well, when you follow the money, you understand why the AHA has these inclinations. Not only is it funded by many pharmaceutical corporations, but General Mills and Pepsi Co are both forum members of The American Heart Association.

The question then is, why have these associations averted scrutiny for all these years? Well, for one the people who back them, like the Rockefellers have deep pockets: they not only pay for their operations, but pay to insure they either receive positive coverage (think the mainstream media and vaccines), or pay to ensure they remain under the radar. The second reason is that these organisations play on the liberal inclinations of society, in a world where identity politics are also expected to govern organisational culture. For instance, (and this is not a joke), the American Medical Association declared WEIGHT measurement, through the Body Mass Index (or BMI) to be RACIST, of all things – which obviously fit well in a culture of “body positivity”, and negative reinforcement for unhealthy habits.

Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso

Weaponising the law in pursuit of trying to use these 7 areas for their agenda; and what it means that at the centre of the projects being pursued by the globalist is Bill Gates, through his philantro-capitalism. Let’s begin with the weaponisation of laws.

Once again, God’s Prophet to the Nations and the President of Loveworld Inc, being the highly esteemed Rev. Dr Chris Oyakhilome DSc. DSc. DD., re-echoed the warning against the satanic plans of globalists, in which they intend to use various other methods to try to control nations, looking at 7 areas that these respective globalist figures intend to manipulate. A key medium for their manipulative efforts is the weaponisation of the law, and there are important reasons why this is the case.

The first is that laws are a socialisation agent; and one that is often ignored. When we talk about socialisation agents, the tendency is to think about the most social aspects of society and thus restrict the definition of socialisation agents to entities like one’s family, school, social group, and similar considerations. But laws are actually a massive socialisation agent – when you consider the relationship that society and government has with the law.

For our collective clarity, when we speak of socialisation agents, we speak of those individuals, groups, or institutions that influence how a person learns and even internalises what are presented as the values, norms, and acceptable behaviours of their society. As a result, these socialisation agents play a crucial role in shaping an individual’s social development and (more broadly) their understanding of the world.

Here’s how laws are socialisation agents: the values, norms and behaviours of a society do not exist in a vacuum, and are thus often susceptible to some influence and change – positive or otherwise. Driving this change are the interests of certain groups, or at times even the government. And how the government influences or changes these societal values, norms and behaviours is by systematically nudging people to begin to think and act a certain way through legislating a new set of values, norms and behaviours.

So, this is quite significant because when a law is implemented, there are usually subtle or overt propaganda efforts that purport the legitimacy of that law. For example, the UK government keeps claiming that the Online Safety Act is about protecting children, and so when they say that enough about the Online Safety Act, that begins to be what people associate with it. This measure is also significant because it preys on the more liberal inclinations of certain sects of society and the impressionable minds of a younger generation without pre-existing ideals. Again, in the UK, the end of life Bill failed to pass years ago with an older more conservative society, but it passed in newer more liberally inclined one, where even younger members of society claimed they wanted so-called merciful deaths for their aging relatives.

Now, as stated earlier, we see this socialisation capacity of the law play out positively and negatively: on the one hand, we saw people in liberal democracies where the freedom of movement was supposed to be guaranteed, be systematically nudged to suddenly accept being imprisoned in their homes in the name of “flattening the curve”, because the law dictated that it was illegal to move at will. On the other hand, we see governments enact laws against the gender mutilation of children to systematically nudge society away from assuming the inherent correctness of sex changes. And so, the point is not that all laws are bad and manipulative, but it is to highlight that law is very much a socialisation agent, and that governments use it as such. And knowing this, globalists also want to use laws to try to enforce a new set of values, norms and behaviours in society – which paints a picture of how systemic their vain ambitions are. And here’s the President of Loveworld Incorporated warning about the weaponisation of laws, and emphasising our role as the Church in this time.

The second reason globalists have this diabolical ambition to weaponise laws is because – in addition to laws being socialisation agents – they often come with the expectation of general application. This is because laws typically demand compliance, and in order to enforce that compliance, it should be expected of all if not the majority of people. Therefore, weaponising laws for globalists is about trying to use the law to guarantee a massive impact of their pursuits – ensuring that their diabolical efforts are of general applications, with few exceptions.

Here’s an example, if you regularly watch ‘The War Room’, you would know I do not regard international law and actual law because it has no enforcement capacity. For the most part, all it tends to be is a bunch of agreements that nations may choose to organise resources and enforcement capacity to achieve, usually through incorporating some aspects of the international agreement into an act from the legislative body – otherwise, international law is inconsequential. At best they could either sanction nations to try to disincentive certain conduct, or offer trade benefits to encourage it – but, again, otherwise, international law is inconsequential.

Now, I think the globalists caught on to this reality, because they then weaponised domestic law, capacity and enforcement towards a diabolical, international law-related agenda, which is the pandemic accord and the international health regulations. More specifically, the amendments to the IHR made a diabolical adjustment to make the WHO decrees enforceable. How they did this is that the IHR requires every country to appoint a National IHR Authority. This is a local enforcement body that takes orders from the WHO. It won’t answer to your vote, your courts, or your constitution. It will coordinate “compliance” with global health law. In other words, the WHO is by-passing constitutional sovereignty, meaning that the constitution in your country (as far as health and related policies are concerned) will no longer be the highest law of the land; but also that they capture domestic enforcement mechanisms to enact their agenda. And so, this desire to make laws of general application, while also capturing domestic enforcement capacity is another reason why globalists want to weaponise the law for their 7 fold agendas.

Then the final consideration on why globalists want to weaponise the law, is that they wish to evade accountability, and so they want to make governments legislate things in their favour. There are two key examples that attest to this. First is the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, which was signed into law in the United States as part of a larger health bill on November 14, 1986. This Act’s purpose was to eliminate the potential financial liability of vaccine manufacturers due to vaccine injury claims to ensure a stable market supply of vaccines, and to provide cost-effective arbitration for vaccine injury claims. And this happened because pharmaceutical companies made the case that they simply would not be able to profit if they were open to liability.

Second is Agrochemical companies are taking a page from big pharma’s playbook, in that they are seeking a TOTAL liability shield against claims against them! This is to say that while the pesticides that agrochemical companies like Bayer and Monsanto utilize have been “linked to cancer, to learning disabilities, to infertility, to hormone disruption … and they impact children more than the rest of us..” they are, nevertheless, fighting for a liability shield to prevent people from taking legal action against them for injury and death.

And so, just like vaccine manufacturers have zero liability for the harms their vaccines cause, agrochemical companies, like Bayer are seeking similar protections. While Congress has allocated a special fund for those who have been injured by vaccines, the chemical companies are proposing no such plans.

BILL GATES: AT THE CENTRE OF GLOBALIST PROJECTS THROUGH PHILANTRO-CAPITALISM

This then brings us to the second part of our discussion, in which we address the fact of bill Gates being at the centre of the  globalist plans exposed by the President of Loveworld Inc., and this being done through his modus operandi of philantro-capitalism. In essence, through his philantro-capitalism, Bill Gates transformed himself from a tech villain into one of the most seemingly admired people on the planet. Even as allegations of misconduct have recently tarnished his public image, the beneficence of the Gates Foundation, celebrated for spending billions to save lives around the globe, is taken as a given. But as investigations have revealed, Gates is still exactly who he was at Microsoft: a bully and monopolist, convinced of his own righteousness and intent on imposing his ideas, his solutions, and his leadership on everyone else. At the core, he is not a selfless philanthropist but a power broker, a clever engineer who has innovated a way to turn extreme wealth into immense political influence—and who has made some people believe that they should applaud his acquisition of power, and not challenge it – something that the president of Loveworld Inc. and God’s Prophet to the Nations has exposed.

But, like the media, Gates also uses gaslighting inorder to sanitise and justify his diabolical philatro–capitalism dealings. For instance, Gates once exclaimed in an interview that he has been taken aback by the volume of (what he calls) “crazy” and “evil” conspiracy theories about him and Dr. Anthony Fauci spread on social media during the COVID-19 plandemic – which is an interesting attitude towards people demanding accountability from people like him, who had imposed a tyrannical order, during the pandemic.

THE COST OF BILL GATES’ PHILANTRO-CAPITALISM ON RECEPIENT NATIONS

Now, there is a notable reason why Bill Gates has pursued philantro-capitalism, which answers the question of what is the cost of being a recipient nation of his schemes, falsely presented as philanthropic works. In particular, Gates’s billions have purchased a stunning level of control over public policy, private markets, scientific research, and the news media. Whether he is pushing new educational standards in America, health reforms in India, global vaccine policy during the pandemic, or Western industrialised agriculture throughout Africa, Gates’s heady social experimentation has shown itself to be not only undemocratic, but also ineffective. In many places, Bill Gates is hurting the very people he claims to help.

Now, you’d also recall that Bill Gates has openly articulated his belief the world needs billions less people. Everything he does, supports, and funds, actively promotes achieving his psychotic death wish for those he considers useless eaters. Gates funded Event 201 in October 2019, laying out the master plan for the Covid plandemic, while at the same time funding the vaccines for a disease that supposedly didn’t exist yet. Of course, he was also front and centre in pushing billions across the globe to be injected with this untested toxic DNA altering concoction. It is now unequivocally provable these vaccines killed millions immediately, millions more slowly and methodically, and stopped millions more from ever being born by drastically altering the fertility of young people who had ZERO risk from covid, but were forced to be injected by the authorities and their bought off lackeys.

Let’s zoom into Gates’ claims that his involvement in the health affairs of nations is about a rational and humane decrease in human population. He claims that they are merely making information and products for better health available, which in turn encourages families to decide to have fewer children. This is a weird argument and it’s sad that not a lot of people have said this to Bill Gates and his team at the Gates Foundation. First, this claim by Bill Gates presupposes that parents who choose to have more children typically lack knowledge and products that promote their health and wellbeing, which also sounds like the people Gates is supposedly talking about have a perpetual inclination to making bad decisions that leave them in worse conditions – no! Being fruitful and multiplying is not a consequence of poor health education and products.

Secondly, one would expect that when health becomes better, parents would want to have more children because the health facilities required for adequate care are more available. And so, this tells us something about the Gates’ Foundation proposed solutions for health – they likely contribute to population decline, especially when we look at vaccines and how they have destroyed the reproductive capacity of many around the world, if not killed the vaccine recipients completely.

Well, we have surely prayed, and continue to pray. Therefore, in this glorious Year of Completeness, all satanic and globalist agendas are suspended; they will live in our world, and we will not live in theirs, as we wrap up the Church age. And so, let us keep fighting the good fight of faith, because we have truly already won.

Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso

In a groundbreaking ruling, the European Court of Justice has ordered the European Commission to release the private text messages between European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla, after four years of secrecy and controversy surrounding a massive €35 billion vaccine deal. The EU Commission is now required to make these texts public, which allegedly contain details of the clandestine negotiations for the lucrative vaccine contract, paid for by European taxpayers. Investigations by Investigate Europe have uncovered that the cost per dose was a staggering 15 times the production cost, potentially resulting in billions of euros being overpaid. Furthermore, it has been revealed that Bourla failed to appear for his scheduled testimony before the EU Parliament in 2022, while von der Leyen’s husband holds a prominent position as Medical Director of Orgenesis, a biotech firm that receives EU funding and has a significant partnership with Pfizer. This complex web of relationships and dealings raises serious concerns about potential corruption at the highest levels of the European Union, with possible conflicts of interest that directly benefit von der Leyen’s family and may have resulted in the misappropriation of billions of euros in public funds through clandestine agreements. The situation appears to be a clear case of alleged fraud on a massive scale, and the European public is eagerly awaiting the release of the incriminating texts, which could shed light on the truth behind this scandal. As the European Union watches with bated breath, the release of these texts is expected to have significant implications for von der Leyen’s tenure and the future of the EU.

MEP Christina Anderson speaks on Pfizer Gate verdict

Ursula Von Der Leyen, we will hold you accountable: Christina Anderson

German MEP Christina Anderson reacted to the stinging rebuke to European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, who secretly negotiated a massive contract with Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla for 1.8 billion doses of the coronavirus vaccine, worth a staggering 35 billion euros. What’s more, these backroom deals were made not through official channels or formal documentation, but rather through casual SMS text messages exchanged between von der Leyen and Bourla. Following a recent ruling by the General Court of the European Union, it has been confirmed that von der Leyen has indeed broken the law, and now the EU Commission is being forced to make her incriminating text messages public, shedding light on the shady dealings that have sparked widespread outrage and calls for greater transparency.

EU Parliament’s shocking display of censorship

Questions have been asked in the EU Parliament but there is always a shocking display of censorship. European Union Parliament member Christine Anderson was once abruptly silenced on the floor after she boldly exposed the corrupt vaccine contracts between EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and pharmaceutical giant Pfizer. This outrageous move is a blatant attempt to stifle free speech and transparency, and it’s utterly disgusting. As Anderson’s microphone remained on until she dropped the bombshell that a parliament that covers up such corruption is equally corrupt and is robbing its people, her voice was suddenly and deliberately cut off. The moment she uttered those words, her microphone was swiftly turned off, sparking a wave of outrage. One courageous individual yelled out, demanding to hear the rest of Anderson’s statement, but his request was callously rejected, leaving many to wonder what the EU Parliament is trying to hide. Now we know what the EU Parliament was afraid of, and why they were so desperate to silence Anderson’s truth-telling voice?

€35 billion was secretly funnelled to the pharmaceutical cartel

Investigations have uncovered a complex web of deceit, revealing that a staggering €35 billion of taxpayer money was secretly funnelled into the coffers of a powerful pharmaceutical cartel, with no transparency, oversight, or accountability in place. This is not merely a scandal, but a blatant case of organized crime that has infiltrated the highest echelons of European power. Delving deeper into the heart of the matter, it becomes clear that this was not just a corrupt contract, but a meticulously coordinated operation orchestrated by the Medical Deep State – a shadowy alliance of unelected bureaucrats, pharmaceutical moguls, and globalist technocrats who have hijacked the scientific community, exploited fear, and amassed enormous profits from the masses. Ursula von der Leyen, a key player in this syndicate, has been found to be complicit in this scheme, using her position to push through policies, bypass democratic checks and balances, and channel billions of dollars into the hands of corporate giants like Pfizer, all under the guise of “public health.” A disturbing pattern of events has emerged, in which Pfizer dictated the terms, Bourla evaded testimony, Ursula sent clandestine texts, her husband’s company reaped the benefits, and millions of people were forced into compliance, silenced, coerced, vaccinated, and tracked. Remember when Ursula von der Leyen wanted to impose mandatory vaccination within the EU?

EU chief Ursula von der Leyen joined forces with Bill Gates

EU chief Ursula von der Leyen has joined forces with Bill Gates to “vaccinate 500 million children by 2030”. The organisation aims to vaccinate 500 million children in the next five years, including 50 million children with a malaria vaccine.

This is the very fabric of the Medical Deep State: a parasitic network that infiltrates governments, manipulates institutions, and exploits crises for financial gain. It silences medical professionals, censors dissenting voices, and only funds research that serves its agenda. The COVID operation was the crowning achievement of this syndicate, with Ursula von der Leyen serving as its European queenpin. However, the walls of secrecy are now crumbling, and the incriminating texts are being released, exposing the digital fingerprints of betrayal for all to see. This marks not only the end of a political career but also the beginning of a global reckoning, one that will hold the perpetrators of this massive scandal accountable for their actions. The people demand justice, and it is time for the truth to be revealed.

White House bans U.S. agencies from all work on G-20 in South Africa

The White House National Security Council has ordered U.S. agencies and departments to suspend work with the Group of 20 conference set to be hosted by South Africa this year, according to two people familiar with the matter, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe a government decision not yet made public. The move follows President Donald Trump’s public threats to boycott the summit over claims that White South Africans are having their land taken away by the government under a new expropriation law. The G-20 is an international forum of the world’s biggest economies and is designed to address the biggest financial issues around the globe. The Johannesburg summit is set to be held in November under the theme “Solidarity, Equality, Sustainability.”

Can the G7 take charge, or is global collaboration falling apart?

The G20’s power seems to be slipping. Can the G7 still steer the world, or is teamwork between countries falling apart? The G20, which includes both rich and developing nations, was designed to tackle big global issues together. But with different countries having different goals, reaching agreements has become harder. For instance, getting everyone to agree on climate change policies is tough. If the G20 can’t lead, the spotlight shifts to the G7. This group of wealthy countries has a track record of setting the agenda. Yet, some wonder if the G7 is truly able to handle today’s complex global challenges alone. Can they get other nations to follow their lead? Or are we entering an era where countries focus more on themselves, making it difficult to solve problems that affect everyone?

The globalist agenda and the G20

The globalist agenda” tied to the G20 often comes up in debates about power, sovereignty, and who really calls the shots in the world. The G20 as a tool for pushing policies that erode borders, prioritize corporate interests, and centralize control under the guise of international cooperation. At its core, the G20 is about coordinating the world’s biggest economies—think US, China, EU, India, and others—to manage global systems like trade, finance, and climate. That mission naturally leans toward interconnectedness: open markets, harmonized regulations, and collective action. For supporters, this is just pragmatic economies don’t exist in a vacuum, and problems like pandemics or recessions don’t respect borders. But in actuality, it’s a stepping stone to something more sinister: a world where national identity and autonomy get swallowed by a borderless, elite-driven system. Let’s look at G20’s economic playbook. Since its post-2008 financial crisis glow-up, it’s championed free trade, deregulation, and global supply chains. Look at the 2016 Hangzhou Summit under China’s watch—it pushed hard for “inclusive globalization,” doubling down on cross-border investment and digital trade. Critics say this just hands more power to multinational corporations and technocrats, who rake in profits while local industries in smaller nations—or even G20 members like Argentina—get hollowed out. The G20’s own data backs this up indirectly: its members account for 80% of world trade, but the benefits skew toward the top dogs, leaving others scrambling for crumbs. Then there’s the climate angle, a favourite target of the globalist-label crowd. The G20’s been loud about “sustainable development”—think the 2021 Rome Summit’s net-zero pledges or the 2023 New Delhi push for green tech. This is a Trojan horse: centralized control over energy and resources, enforced by unelected bodies like the IMF or World Bank, which often tag along in G20 discussions. The counterargument is that climate change is a global mess needing global fixes but look at the fine print—carbon taxes or trade rules that hit poorer nations hardest while letting big emitters like China or the US off the hook with loopholes.

The G20 isn’t about sovereign nations

The inclusion of supranational players like the EU and, since 2023, the African Union, stirs the pot further. This proves the G20 isn’t about sovereign nations but about building a framework for regional blocs—eventually into one-world governance. Add in the guest list—heads of the UN, WTO, OECD and the WEF—and it’s easy to see the makings of a cabal. The G20’s own statements don’t hide this: the 2022 Bali Summit called for “multilateral reform” to “strengthen global governance.” That’s code for chipping away at national control.

The WEF Globalist Agenda drives the G20

The G20’s decisions aren’t binding, but its soft power is real—think peer pressure with trillion-dollar stakes. When it nudges policies like digital currencies (a hot topic in 2025 with India’s pilot and China’s e-yuan) or vaccine passports (post-COVID), you can see the globalist endgame: centralized surveillance and economic dependence. The 2019 Osaka Summit’s focus on “data free flow with trust” got tech giants salivating, but it also sparked fears of a world where citizens answer to algorithms over parliaments. With 19 countries plus a couple of unions calling shots for 8 billion people, the G20’s push for integration—trade, climate, tech—feel like a top-down power grab. That’s the rub: it doesn’t need a shadowy handshake to look like a globalist machine—it just has to keep doing what it’s designed to do.

Is the G20 simply another globalist climate cult group?

One could say the G20 is simply another globalist climate cult group. They push a radical climate agenda. They want to control every aspect of our lives. They demand we give up our freedom. This group has no real authority. It represents an attack on national sovereignty. We should refuse to fund this organization. Every dollar given empowers their destructive plans. They will use our money to push their harmful ideas. We must resist their influence. When you rope in their clandestine meetings under the guise of global welfare are mere facades for their true intentions. The WEF and the G20 weave a web of influence that stretches across continents, manipulating policies and economies to serve their own insidious purposes. Behind closed doors, a sinister plan unfolds, designed to shape the world according to their malevolent vision. But as the shadows of their agenda lengthen, whispers of resistance grow louder, challenging the darkness that threatens to engulf the nations.

Written By Tatenda Belle Panashe

GAVI, the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization, has announced an ambitious initiative to vaccinate 86 million girls in developing nations against Human Papillomavirus (HPV). The vaccination program will include the administration of Gardasil, a vaccine produced by Merck, which is currently embroiled in a lawsuit in the United States due to reported side effects that range from sporadic paralysis to cancer. Despite the troubling evidence that emerged from India in 2009, indicating that the HPV vaccines may lead to serious health complications or even fatalities, both the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) have continued to provide their support to GAVI. USAID has contributed over $2 billion to GAVI between 2001 and 2017, with an additional commitment of $1.16 billion from 2020 to 2023. Furthermore, documents leaked and published by Revolver News in 2022 revealed a GAVI initiative that utilized pandemic funds for “reproductive health” projects in Africa. Additionally, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI), in collaboration with Dr. Anthony Fauci’s National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), has been associated with several controversial health initiatives, including a September 2019 workshop focused on vaccine biomarkers and its involvement in Event 201, a pandemic simulation conducted in October 2019, mere weeks prior to the outbreak of COVID-19.

The Gates Foundation and USAID are engaging in a collaboration that is often framed as “philanthropy,” yet it serves to further a globalist agenda that impacts public health, agriculture, and education on a worldwide scale. USAID channels taxpayer funds into these initiatives, frequently focusing on developing nations with experimental vaccines, genetically modified organisms (GMOs), and measures aimed at population control. Since 2012, Gates has contributed more than $30 million to USAID, and his GAVI Vaccine Alliance has emerged as a significant recipient of these resources, thereby enhancing their shared objectives for global vaccination. Gates has issued a stark warning that a reduction in USAID funding could precipitate another global health crisis, potentially resulting in the loss of millions of lives.

Partners in food (in)security

The Gates Foundation and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) have highlighted their collaborative efforts to enhance food security by promoting agricultural technology tailored for smallholder farmers in developing nations. Bill Gates has made significant investments in genetically modified organism (GMO) research, including ventures with Monsanto and its controversial “terminator seed” projects, as well as startups focused on synthetic meat production. A critique published in 2022 by usrtk.org scrutinized Gates’ agricultural initiatives in Africa, particularly the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA), which is backed by both Gates and USAID. The analysis revealed that the AGRA initiative, which emphasizes chemical-intensive monoculture farming, has led to increased dependency on agro-business enterprises rather than effectively alleviating hunger. This perspective was reinforced by Arikana Chihombori-Quao, the former African Union Ambassador to the United States, during a recent interview.

Gates’ apprehensions regarding the potential decline of USAID appear to be primarily focused on the loss of a crucial partner in the pursuit of managing development, food security, and health initiatives in developing countries, rather than a genuine commitment to “saving lives.”

Private Public Partnerships in Global Health 

Taxpayer finances are being used to fund Globalist Health Agendas

Billions of dollars are being injected into the global health sector, driven by the emergence of alliances and associations that are actively shaping the very foundations of our society. Organizations such as GAVI, the Pandemic Fund, and the World Health Organization (WHO) are taking the lead, but their ambitious goals are actually fuelled by a hidden agenda that is more diabolical than meets the eye. In recent months, the WHO, GAVI, the International Development Association (IDA), and the Pandemic Fund have publicly disclosed their substantial funding requirements for the upcoming years, with the WHO seeking $11.1 billion, GAVI targeting $11.9 billion, IDA aiming for a staggering $100 billion, and the Pandemic Fund requiring $2 billion. The critical question on everyone’s mind is: what are the sources of these massive funds? According to Devex, while numerous donors have expressed vocal support for the initiatives of the WHO, GAVI, IDA, and the Pandemic Fund, and some have even made significant funding commitments ahead of the official replenishment and investment events, others have yet to make a firm commitment, leaving the total contributions uncertain and shrouded in doubt. The United States had established itself as the largest and most influential donor to global health initiatives, having been the top donor to IDA and the leading contributor to the WHO in the last replenishment cycle. The US was at the forefront of funding efforts for both the Pandemic Fund and GAVI, having pledged a substantial $667 million and $1.58 billion, respectively, and poised to play a crucial role in shaping the future of global health. This has all changed with the entrance of the trump administration.

Contrary to this, private-public partnerships have been taking a more aggressive approach, driving the globalist agenda and depopulation efforts under the guise of promoting global health and pandemic preparedness. In reality, these funders and partners are spearheading the charge, deliberately crafting and manufacturing pandemics, rather than genuinely working towards preparedness. The term “pandemic preparedness” has become a euphemism, as it is now synonymous with the intentional creation, development, and construction of these global health crises, ultimately serving the interests of these powerful partnerships.

As the COVID-19 plandemic ravaged the globe, prominent philanthropic organizations, including the Rockefeller Foundation, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and Wellcome Trust, emerged as key private funders, leaving an indelible mark on the crisis. Notably, the Rockefeller and Gates Foundations are intricately linked, with individuals like Patty Stonesifer and Rajiv Shah, who have strong ties to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and Microsoft, holding senior positions within the Rockefeller Foundation, thereby solidifying the foundations’ interconnectedness. Furthermore, national governments have been channelling taxpayer money into global plandemic and vaccine initiatives, often shrouded in a lack of transparency and oversight. Given Bill Gates’ substantial involvement in these endeavours, it is highly likely that the funds he redirects between various schemes may, in fact, originate from government contributions funded by taxpayers. This synergy between taxpayer money allocated by the government and the significant investments made by private players has effectively created a robust public-private partnership, one that warrants closer examination and scrutiny.

Public Private Partnerships in Global Health: GAVI

GAVI is a public-private global health partnership founded in 2000 by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation “and partners.” WHO is one of four permanent members of the GAVI Board. The other three permanent members are the World Bank, UNICEF (vice chair) and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.  These four organisations are also stated as GAVI’s core partners. Gavi’s impact draws on the strengths of its core partners, the World Health Organization, UNICEF, the World Bank and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Gavi now vaccinates more than half of the world’s children, giving it tremendous power to negotiate vaccines at prices that are affordable for the poorest countries and to remove the commercial risks that previously kept manufacturers from serving them. In other words, GAVI is creating a global vaccine monopoly.  GAVI is not a charity; it is not giving vaccines away it is selling them.  To pay for its expenses it will be selling vaccines above cost.  How much it sells vaccines for above cost and who benefits from the profits are topics that are never publicly discussed or scrutinised.  We are simply expected to believe the claim that GAVI is a not-for-profit organisation even though in 2023 it spent $33 million on fundraising activities, $44 million on its management expenses and $3.6 billion on what it calls “programme expenses.” For the period 2021-2025, total contributions and pledges to GAVI, so far, are $21.6 billion, averaging $4.3 billion for five years.  For comparison, its latest financial statements show it received 394 million in 2023 and $450 million in 2022 from contributions and donations.  Either the pledges never materialise or GAVI is planning to dramatically increase its global vaccine trade in the coming years.

For the period 2021-2025, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is the fourth largest funder and largest private funder contributing $1.8 billion. GAVI launched its replenishment campaign in June. It’s asking for $9 billion in new pledges, out of a total need of $11.9 billion to fund the organisation’s work from 2026 to 2030.

The organisation aims to vaccinate 500 million children in the next five years, including 50 million children with a malaria vaccine.

Public Private Partnerships in Global Health: The Pandemic Fund  

private players are proactively seeking funding, likely in anticipation of another pandemic they intend to unleash on the world. So, let’s delve into the Pandemic Fund, a dubious initiative that is intended to alter the way we prepare for and respond to global health emergencies. Launched in September 2022, the Pandemic Fund is a collaborative effort led by the World Bank, bringing together a diverse group of stakeholders, including donor countries, implementing governments, foundations, and civil society organizations, with the World Health Organization (WHO) at the helm, providing so-called technical expertise. The Fund is specifically designed to bolster investments in pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response, targeting national, regional, and global levels. To date, it has already allocated its initial grants to support countries in enhancing their disease surveillance capabilities, early warning systems, laboratory infrastructure, and health workforce capabilities. A glance at the Fund’s website reveals an interesting list of founding financial contributors, including Australia, Canada, China, the European Commission, Germany, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, the Republic of Korea, New Zealand, Norway, Singapore, Spain, the United Arab Emirates, the United States, as well as prominent foundations such as the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the Wellcome Trust. It’s a private public partnership focused on the disenfranchisement of the people. These founding donors, joined by Austria, Denmark, France, India, the Netherlands, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom, have collectively pledged an unprecedented $1.6 billion in financial contributions to date. However, the Fund’s mission is far from over, as it continues to seek additional funding to drive its diabolical initiatives forward. With a medium-term strategic plan spanning five years, the Fund is determined to raise a staggering $2 billion to bring its vision to life, underscoring the urgent need for sustained investment in global health security. This is why men ought to pray without ceasing.

Public Private Partnerships in Global Health: The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria

The Global Fund was launched in 2002 by Kofi Annan, with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation providing initial funding. As a public-private partnership, it channels 95% of its funds from the public sector and 5% from private donors. In 2011, a staggering €34 million went missing from African community programs, prompting Sweden and Germany to halt donations until a thorough audit was completed. The Global Fund secures funding in three-year cycles, with the current Seventh Replenishment spanning 2023-2025. To date, a total of $15.7 billion has been pledged, with $14.4 billion coming from countries and $1.3 billion from private sector donors. Key country donors include France, Germany, and the European Commission, while the US has committed a substantial $6 billion. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation leads private sector donations with a $927 million pledge. Notably, China has made no pledges for the current cycle, despite previous commitments secured by Bill Gates and Bono. The Global Fund invests over $5 billion annually to combat HIV, TB, and malaria, working closely with WHO, UNICEF, and UNAIDS to drive global health initiatives.

The involvement of United Nations (UN) agencies often brings to mind the UN’s connections to the Rockefeller Foundation. The Rockefeller family has had a long-standing relationship with the UN since its inception. After World War II, John D. Rockefeller, Jr. donated land for the UN headquarters. The UN headquarters in New York remains an extraterritorial site, beyond the jurisdiction of the surrounding city, state, and US federal government. The Rockefeller Foundation also played a significant role in the transition from the League of Nations (LoN) to the UN. It collaborated with two international organizations: the Economic, Financial and Transit Department (EFTD) of the LoN, by financing its move to the United States and its work during World War II, and the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration (UNRRA), by providing staff, working methods, and a global network of contacts. The Rockefeller Foundation was deeply involved in redefining the structure of international organizations during WWII. In this following clip from 1947, John D. Rockefeller III donates a cheque on behalf of his father for the purchase of land to build the United Nations Headquarters.

Public Private Partnerships in Global Health: The WHO 

The World Health Organization (WHO) is a specialized agency of the United Nations. The collaboration between the Rockefeller Foundation and WHO dates back to the organization’s inception. According to WHO’s website, the Rockefeller Foundation participated as an observer at the first International Health Conference in June 1946, where WHO’s constitution was signed, making it the first specialized agency of the United Nations. In January 2022, the Rockefeller Foundation was admitted as a non-state actor with WHO. Non-state actors in official relations can participate in sessions of WHO’s governing bodies. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is also one of WHO’s non-state actors. However, the Rockefeller Foundation and the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) are the only non-governmental organizations listed alongside countries on WHO’s ‘Partnering for a Healthier World’ webpage, which lists WHO’s partners in global health. WHO has been delayed in publishing its audited financial reports, which, if released, would provide some reassurance to the public that the funds are being used as claimed. The most recent audited financial statements available are for the year ending December 2021. In 2021, the combined contributions of GAVI and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation made Gates the second-largest funder of WHO.

Influence on WHO extends beyond the Rockefellers and Gates. Sir Jeremy Farrar, who has been WHO’s chief scientist since 2023, was previously the chair of the Wellcome Trust. WHO launched its first investment round for the year in May at the 77th World Health Assembly and will hold a fundraising event in November. At the 77th World Health Assembly, WHO had planned to enact a global coup through amendments to International Health Regulations and a Pandemic Treaty. WHO is currently seeking $11.1 billion to fund its work over the next four years. It expects $4 billion to come from membership dues, leaving $7.1 billion to be raised from governments and the private sector, according to Devex. There are concerns about WHO’s transparency, leadership, and accountability regarding the funds it receives. Additionally, the WHO Foundation, launched in 2020 to expand the agency’s donor base and attract funds from philanthropic organizations, companies, corporate foundations, and the general public, aims to raise $50 million for the investment round. Professor Thomas Zeltner, the founder and chair of the WHO Foundation, has a long history of collaboration with WHO. He is a former Secretary of Health of Switzerland and Director-General of the Swiss National Health Authority. From March 2020 to October 2022, he co-chaired the Task Force Covid-19 Vaccination in Switzerland. He is currently President of the Swiss Red Cross, Chairman of the Swiss Red Cross Council, Deputy Chair of the University Council of the Medical University of Vienna, President of the UNESCO Commission of Switzerland, and advises the Swiss Federal Government on the implementation and future development of the National Health Policy.

 Public Private Partnerships in Global Health: IDA

IDA, the World Bank’s fund for low-income countries, hopes to raise $100 billion through a new cycle of funding. IDA has historically been funded largely by contributions from the governments of its member countries from which it gives grants and provides loans. On its ‘Replenishment’ webpage, IDA states: “About a third of IDA countries are facing a looming food crisis.”  The next sentence reads: “To help countries build back greener, a substantial portion of these funds go to tackling climate change.”  The funds it is referring to were $93 billion raised in December 2021 for fiscal years 2022-2025 (IDA20). While we don’t yet know the pledges for the 21st replenishment (IDA21), the previous replenishment, IDA20, raised $16.5 billion.  The top funders were Japan ($.4 billion), Germany ($1.4 billion), France ($1.2 billion), the United Kingdom ($1.3 billion) and the United States ($2.4 billion). Apart from Bill Gates – who is a common denominator in all these schemes and could, at least in part, be profiting from moving countries’ contributions from one fund to another – we are the ones funding all these nefarious Globalist schemes from the taxes we pay to our governments.  And the money required to feed the ever-growing appetite of these schemes seems to be increasing exponentially.

Written By Tatenda Belle Panashe

]]> https://ln24international.com/2025/05/09/bill-gates-and-usaid-a-dangerous-alliance-with-shady-secrets-2/feed/ 0