THE UN IS ATTEMPTING TO IMPLEMENT A GLOBAL CLIMATE TAX

The war on the sovereignty of nations around the world, through the United Nation’s efforts at a global climate tax; and to begin with, while nations around the world reject climate policy, the unelected bureaucrats at the United Nations are looking to force an international tax on carbon emissions. This week, the UN agency called the International Maritime Organization (IMO) gathered in London to vote on a “net-zero framework” on shipping. It’s the first time the UN has attempted to levy a tax. Implement

Now, if the proposal is approved, ships over 5000 gross tonnage will be subject to regulations and a pricing mechanism. Current talks set the fee at around $100 per ton of CO2. Future increases will be decided by an unelected 170-member committee. MEANWHILE, shipping is responsible for a mere 3% of global emissions, but this tax will have a major impact on consumers. Experts say it will raise shipping costs by up to 10% and will increase the cost of most household goods.

Then, regarding the money and overall utility of the tax, first, the UN will collect an estimated $11-13 billion every year from this tax. The money will go into a new fund, controlled by the UN, to push decarbonization and “mitigate negative impacts” of climate change in developing countries. The fund will also apparently “reward low-emission ships” and forward green innovation. This means that an unelected international agency, not a sovereign state, would set a price on carbon, collect the money, and decide how to spend it. Essentially, the UN has found a way to do what it has sought for decades: which is to create a global tax base, and one where once established, there would be no logical or political limit to where that power expands next — be it aviation, logistics, manufacturing, agriculture, or even individual consumption.

Meanwhile, the UN’s long record of corruption, mismanagement, and political bias makes it unfit to handle global taxation, and this is not even considering that taxation is itself a horrible system. But, this is to say that this plan for global taxation severs the link between taxation and representation, transferring fiscal power from nations to unelected bureaucrats, thus creating a multi-billion-dollar fund with no accountability. And by rewarding compliant states and punishing dissenters, this global taxation system further undermines national sovereignty over energy, trade, and emissions policy, by placing control in the hands of those who stand to profit from the rules.

Well, unsurprisingly, the United States—which is the UN’s largest sponsor—is balking at the prospect of taxation without representation. The Trump Administration has threatened sanctions on any country that votes for it, among other actions which we will address shortly. And in addition, some lawmakers, like Senator Mike Lee of Utah, say it is time for the US to pull out of the UN altogether.

THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION’S PROPOSAL TO NATIONS IN FAVOUR OF THE NET ZERO FRAMEWORK

Now, in light of the actions considered by the Trump administration on nations that support the net zero framework, Secretary of State Rubio, Secretary of Energy Wright, and Secretary of Transportation Duffy issued a Joint Statement in response to the UN’s efforts; and it states the following. First, the statement details that “President Trump has made it clear that the United States will not accept any international environmental agreement that unduly or unfairly burdens the United States or harms the interests of the American people.”

The joint statement continued to remark that “The Administration unequivocally rejects this proposal before the International Maritime Organization and will not tolerate any action that increases costs for our citizens, energy providers, shipping companies and their customers, or tourists. The economic impacts from this measure could be disastrous, with some estimates forecasting global shipping costs increasing as much as 10% or more. We ask you to join us in rejecting adoption of the NZF at the October meeting and to work together on our collective economic and energy security.

Then finally, the joint statement proceeds to highlight notable considerations from the Trump administration. Here, the joint statement notes that: “The NZF proposal poses significant risks to the global economy and subjects not just Americans, but all International Maritime Organization member states to an unsanctioned global tax regime that levies punitive and regressive financial penalties, which could be avoided. The United States is considering the following actions against nations that support this global carbon tax on American consumers:

(1) The first is Pursuing investigations and considering potential regulations to combat anti-competitive practices from certain flagged countries and potential blocking vessels registered in those countries from US ports; (2) Second is imposing visa restrictions including an increase in fees and processing, mandatory re-interview requirements and/or revisions of quotas for C-1/D maritime crew member visas; (3) Third is imposing commercial penalties stemming from US government contracts including new commercial ships, liquified natural gas terminals and infrastructure, and/or other financial penalties on ships flagged under nations in favour of the NZF; and (4) Fourth is imposing additional port fees on ships owned, operated, or flagged by countries supporting the framework; and the final measure considered by the Trump administration is evaluating sanctions on officials sponsoring activist-driven climate policies that would burden American consumers, among other measures under consideration.

Now, you heard in the excerpt that we’ve just watched, where Ambassador Mike Walz stated that this net zero tax would primarily be a win for the EU and Chinese corporations; and before this is quickly dismissed as standard US government official banter; I’d like for us to look into these remarks further, because they reveal something important about the shadow activities of diabolical corporations in influencing government action – which is another crucial aspect on the war on the sovereignty of nations.

UNPACKING THE UN’S INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANISATION’S “NET ZERO FRAMEWORK”

But first, let’s proceed to zoom in on the Net-Zero Framework, and what exactly it entails. In essence, the Net-Zero Framework is: The International Maritime Organization’s regulatory framework aimed at achieving net-zero greenhouse gas emissions in international shipping by or around 2050. The Net-Zero Framework introduces legally binding requirements on GHG fuel intensity, pricing, and rewards mechanisms, applying to large ships engaged in international trade. It is designed to accelerate the adoption of zero or near-zero GHG fuels, technologies, and energy sources in the maritime sector, with implementation expected to begin from 2028 if formally adopted.”

Secondly, it is a specialized agency of the United Nations. The International Maritime Organization was established by a UN conference and operates under an agreement that defines its relationship with the UN, focusing on setting global standards for shipping safety, security, and environmental performance. Its framework and regulatory authority derive from the UN system, but it functions independently to create and enforce legally binding shipping regulations. Here’s more on this:

Then thirdly, (and this is where we begin to look further into the remarks we watched from Ambassador Mike Walz) there is also a driving force behind this push for the International Maritime Organization’s Net-Zero Framework; and this driving force comes from a coalition of European nations, UN-aligned climate institutions, and major green fuel and maritime associations, with endorsement from several international business groups linked to the clean energy transition. The major entities involved in green shipping fuels, often referred to as “green fuel” companies or organizations, include both large international shipbuilders and fuel producers. Key players actively developing and deploying green fuels for maritime decarbonization are:

(1) First, HD Hyundai Heavy Industries (in South Korea) and they are leading in building dual-fuel vessels capable of running on what is said to be green methanol and other low-carbon fuels. (2) Second is Samsung Heavy Industries (also in South Korea) and they focus on developing what are said to be sustainable ships powered by green ammonia and methanol. (3) Third is COSCO Shipping Industries (in China): and they are working on green vessel technology, including methanol and alternative fuels. (4) Fourth is Huangpu Wenchong Shipbuilding (also in China): Designing what are deemed eco-friendly, dual-fuel vessels, including green methanol ships. (5) Then finally, is Shanghai Shipbuilding (in China): and they are developing what are said to be environmentally friendly vessels capable of operating on green methanol.

In addition, fuel production firms and renewable energy projects supporting green fuels such as e-methanol, green hydrogen, and ammonia include corporations like European Energy and other renewable energy firms involved in scaling up green hydrogen and e-fuels. It also involves projects like the Copenhagen Infrastructure Partners’ Murchison project in Western Australia, which aims to produce green ammonia using renewable energy. And (as you would probably already expect) it also involves various public-private partnerships pushing for the scaling of green hydrogen and methanol, such as Hyphen Hydrogen Energy in Namibia. And so, ultimately, the development of green fuels is closely tied to major shipbuilding conglomerates and energy firms that are investing heavily in low-emission vessel technologies and infrastructure.

In other words, while the International Maritime Organization’s regulatory framework aimed at achieving net-zero greenhouse gas emissions in international shipping will significantly increase consumer costs, it also sounds like a lucrative endeavour for corporations who have invested in green policies – first because they are key players that are actively developing and deploying green fuels for maritime decarbonisation; but also because they stand to receive rewards for “ low-emission ships” and forward green innovation.

This is crucial to note because it brings to mind something that the President of Loveworld incorporated highlighted in light of concerning agendas that are supported by governments; and it is that there are often diabolical corporations that serve as the culprits driving these concerning agendas. It is the case with free speech restrictions, and evidently, even with climate tax policies.

THE NET ZERO FRAMEWORK WOULD ULTIMATELY AMOUNT TO CLIMATE IMPERIALISM

In reality, the net zero framework it is a test run for a global taxation regime — one no citizen voted for, no parliament authorized, and no nation can easily opt out of. If adopted, it would mean that for the first time in history, taxation without representation would be enshrined at the global level — imposed not by kings or empires, but by an international bureaucracy claiming moral authority through “climate activism.”

Secondly, embedding this mechanism into what is called MARPOL Annex VI, which is the legally binding part of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships that regulates air emissions and sets mandatory energy efficiency standards for nearly all international vessels, and which is already ratified by 108 nations covering 97% of the world’s merchant shipping fleet by tonnage, the UN actually aimed to make participation mandatory! In other words, what was presented as climate policy in April has, by October, become the framework for the world’s first global tax, created and administered by unelected officials — without a single citizen’s consent – thus amounting to climate imperialism, and a war on sovereignty.

However, beyond being climate imperialism, the NZF is particularly a European inspired climate imperialism. More specifically, the NZF was written largely by European delegations and backed by the European Commission, the U.K., and a handful of Pacific island states. It is framed as climate solidarity but functions as regulatory imperialism — exporting European-style carbon policies through the UN to countries that never voted for them. And so, Europe, having already imposed its own shipping emissions rules regionally, now seeks to universalize the cost through the UN so its industries don’t lose competitiveness. The result is a global redistribution of costs from Europe’s climate ambitions to the developing world — and to consumers everywhere.

However, it is also worth remembering that this system did not emerge from nowhere. Many of its founding figures were not defenders of liberty but disciples of liberal eugenics — men like Brock Chisholm of the WHO and Julian Huxley of UNESCO, who openly argued that humanity must be “scientifically managed” through psychological reconditioning and population control. After World War II, these ideas were rebranded as global health, global education, and global governance. The language changed, but the underlying principle remained: the UN and its satellite organisations see ordinary people as too ignorant to rule themselves.

And so, the same logic that justified the World Health Organization deciding “global health emergencies,” UNESCO dictating “educational standards,” and the IMF enforcing “fiscal responsibility” on sovereign states now seeks to tax the world. The institutions may differ, but the ideology is the same: which is that these institutions seem to think that unelected bureaucrats and self-appointed experts should govern humanity in the name of what they define as science, efficiency, and progress. This is UNACEPTABLE.

But furthermore, we already see the cost of carbon taxes on a national scale, when we look at Canada as a case study. Canadians protested the carbon tax on the grounds that it makes life too expensive, punishes citizens for requiring basic necessities; and that it is ultimately not working.

REMINDER: AFTER COVID FAILED, CLIMATE ALARMISM WAS THE NEXT CONSIDERATION

What is interesting to note is that it is not so long ago that we were warning against new efforts at drumming up climate alarmism, as we were offering rebuttal to a Times Magazine article about so-called scientists claiming we have passed the first tuning point towards irreversible environmental harm; and yet meanwhile, globalists were working since April to implement a global carbon tax! BUT, here is a crucial nuance we ought not to miss: the globalists efforts at using climate alarmism as a conduit for authoritarianism is an implicit concession of their failures to subjugate the world, with earlier strategies – especially the COVID plandemic.

In fact, you’d recall the footage of a CNN staff member who was caught on camera conceding that they were working towards climate alarmism as the new and predominant fear-mongering message, because COVID was no longer an effective bogeyman for the globalist cause.

HOWEVER, just as efforts at the subjugation of nations and the robbing of their sovereignty were thwarted by the Church, even the climate change hoax will not progress, and is restrained only until He who restrains is taken out of the way.

Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso

The Proposal: Taxing Your Home to “Solve” a Crisis of Their Own Making

Australia is currently grappling with a severe housing crisis, as young families are being priced out of the market due to soaring prices and rents. The Albanese Labor government has made a commitment to construct 1.2 million new homes over the course of five years, but as of August 2025, they are already facing a significant shortfall of 250,000 homes, primarily attributed to construction delays, regulatory obstacles, and a shortage of skilled labour. In a bid to address this issue, property research firm Cotality has proposed a radical concept, known as the “spare bedroom tax”, which was recently presented at the government’s Economic Reform Roundtable in mid-August 2025, sparking a new wave of debate and discussion.

Eliza Owen and Cotality is pushing for a tax on unused bedrooms, claiming over 60% of Aussie households have just one or two people, yet most homes have three or more bedrooms. This proposed tax, potentially paired with scrapping stamp duty and introducing a land tax, aims to encourage downsizing and renting out spare rooms, supposedly shifting demand towards smaller units. However, critics argue that this tax won’t add new dwellings, instead punishing hardworking Aussies who’ve saved for their dream homes. The real issue, they claim, is years of unchecked mass immigration, foreign investor speculation, and stifling zoning laws, which have manufactured the housing crisis. The public is fiercely opposing the tax, with many calling it a “crazy idea” that targets retirees and families, rather than addressing the root causes of the crisis. Critics, including opposition figures, argue that the tax would hit middle-class asset holders hardest, pitting generations against each other, while foreign investors would snap up freed-up properties at inflated prices. With over 13 million spare bedrooms nationwide, taxing them won’t solve poverty or supply shortages, and instead, would be a regressive move that ignores real fixes like cutting immigration or easing building regulations. Treasurer Jim Chalmers is considering reforms, but the proposed tax has sparked outrage, with many calling for a reality check on the true causes of the housing crisis.

The Globalist Great Reset: Erasing Ownership for Elite Control

Here’s the bigger picture: the spare bedroom scheme is just the tip of the iceberg, exemplifying the World Economic Forum’s (WEF) “Great Reset” agenda, a master plan unveiled by WEF founder Klaus Schwab in June 2020 to radically transform global economies into a “stakeholder capitalist” model. The Great Reset is actively pushing for a major overhaul of taxes, regulations, and investments, prioritizing “equity” and sustainability, often at the direct expense of individual property rights. Klaus Schwab is using the pandemic as a catalyst to build back a greener and fairer world, with governments working together to implement wealth taxes, eliminate fossil fuel subsidies, and leverage cutting-edge technologies like AI and surveillance for what he calls the “public good.” Meanwhile, Klaus Schwab’s daughter, Nicole Schwab, is actively promoting the WEF’s ‘Great Reset’ plan, which is deliberately designed to exploit crises to gain control. Nicole Schwab explicitly reveals their strategy: use crises as a smokescreen to dismantle the existing economy and replace it with a so-called “sustainable” system, which would be firmly controlled by the elite.

Here’s the lowdown: the clique of powerful, unelected elites gathering at Davos is secretly orchestrating a massive power play, backed by over 1,000 gigantic corporations like Google, Apple, and BlackRock. Under the guise of combating inequality and climate change, they’re actually working to centralize control and reshape the global economy. The World Economic Forum’s infamous slogan, “You’ll own nothing and be happy,” is the smoking gun that exposes their true intentions. This mantra originated from a 2016 essay by Danish politician Ida Auken, published on the WEF’s website, which envisioned a world by 2030 where people would rent everything – from homes and cars to appliances and clothes – through shared services and drones. Auken painted a picture of a city where “I don’t own anything… everything you considered a product has now become a service.” The WEF amplified this idea in a video summarizing their predictions for 2030, sparking a global debate. Although Auken later backtracked, claiming it was just a thought-provoking scenario to discuss the pros and cons of technology, the damage was already done. Whether or not you believe in conspiracy theories, the fact remains that this concept perfectly encapsulates the Great Reset’s push for a subscription-based economy, where corporations own all the assets and individuals are forced to lease them, lining the pockets of Big Tech and finance giants while stripping away the security and freedom that comes with ownership.

The Great Reset ties directly to housing: Schwab’s plan emphasizes “green urban infrastructure” and ESG (environmental, social, governance) metrics to force denser living and reduce private land use, aligning with UN Sustainable Development Goals for 2030. In Australia, this manifests as the bedroom tax, which would coerce downsizing into high-rise rentals—echoing the UK’s failed 2013 “bedroom tax” that harmed vulnerable tenants without boosting supply. Pauline Hanson of One Nation have called Labor’s housing tweaks a “first step” toward this Reset, where government stakes in homes (up to 40%) morph into outright control. Globally, it’s the same script: Tax private property to fund “equitable” redistribution, while elites like amass billions during crises.  This isn’t about fairness—it’s about dependency. When you own nothing, you rent from the state-corporate nexus, losing the autonomy that homeownership provides. As property theory shows, ownership isn’t just financial; it’s tied to human dignity and happiness, fostering personhood and security. The Reset rejects that, promoting a “happy” serfdom where surveillance tracks your every move for “sustainability.” Ex-investment banker Catherine Austin Fitts says that the ‘Great Reset’ is a plan “to sell to people a vision of a world where the average person has a much smaller command on resources and assets and is subject to complete central control.”

Defending Personal Values Against Globalist Overreach

From a finance standpoint, homeownership has always been the great equalizer—building equity, hedging inflation, and passing wealth to heirs. Australia’s “homeowners’ welfare state” (as economists dub it) has fuelled middle-class prosperity, but the Reset views it as inequality’s root. Taxing spare bedrooms would accelerate wealth transfer from families to governments and corporations, widening the gap while claiming to close it. It’s politically suicidal—polls show Aussies cherish their quarter-acre dream—but globalists thrive on top-down imposition, bypassing democracy via forums like Davos.

The USA Housing Crisis: A Man-Made Supply-Demand Nightmare

But it’s not just Australia. This thing takes different shapes in different places. America’s housing market is in freefall for the average citizen, with affordability at its worst since the 2008 crash. As of mid-2025, the median sale price for an existing home stands at $435,300, a staggering 48% jump from June 2020’s $294,400. Rents average $1,382 monthly, consuming over 30% of income for half of all renters—a record high. And first-time buyers? In cities like Portland, Maine, a two-bedroom starter home lists for $400,000+, outbidding young families with cash-flush investors. The crisis spans urban, suburban, and rural areas: 76% of Americans see it worsening, with rural folks (80%) hit hardest by skyrocketing costs. At the heart is a supply shortage of 3.7-4.5 million units, per Freddie Mac and Zillow estimates. Construction starts for single-family homes dropped 6.9% in October 2024 to just 970,000 annually, far below the 1.5 million needed. Inventory sits at a 4.7-month supply—below the balanced 5-6 months—keeping prices elevated despite high mortgage rates (6.74% for 30-year fixed as of July 2025).

US housing market hijacked by BlackRock, Vanguard & State Street – RFK Jr.

The US housing market is being aggressively dominated by Wall Street giants BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street. According to US Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr, inflation is only part of the problem, as these corporate behemoths are actively driving up prices by paying 20-50% over the asking price for single-family homes. BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street are quietly buying up every available property, with a clear goal of controlling a massive 60% of all single-family homes in the US by 2030. RFK Jr. sounded the alarm, warning that these giants are deliberately targeting the middle class as part of their “Great Reset” agenda, which aims to leave individuals with no assets and no control. The CEO of BlackRock, Larry Fink, is actively pushing this agenda as now the chairman of the World Economic Forum. The result is a deliberate and systematic takeover of the US housing market, with the middle class firmly in the crosshairs.

WEF and BlackRock’s public plans to ban single-family homes and private cars

The Reset rejects homeownership as “inequality’s root,” promoting “happy serfdom” via surveillance and shared assets. It destabilizes markets, forces renting, and widens gaps.  Elites benefit from scarcity; policies like zoning preserve it for the wealthy.

Ownership builds equity, hedges inflation—key to middle-class prosperity. The Reset views it as a threat, pushing dependency on small space rentals. It’s the Globalist plan to have you own nothing. Alex Jones also exposed the WEF and BlackRock’s public plans to ban single-family homes and private cars, tax families, and herd us into tiny “smart cities” using a fake climate emergency.

The WEF will not control the nations

Don’t let globalist mantras like “own nothing and be happy” become policy. Happiness comes from freedom and ownership, not enforced sharing. If Australia falls for this, it’ll be a cautionary tale for the world: The Reset isn’t reset—it’s regression to feudalism, where elites own everything, and we’re just happy to rent. Stand firm; your home is your castle, not their experiment.

Written By Tatenda Belle Panashe

Food and agriculture as another of the 7 areas targeted by globalists; and to begin with, knowing that COVID was a diabolical hoax, we ought not to miss the curious relationship between COVID lockdown and the food chain system, in that the COVID lockdowns revealed the weakness of overly centralised supply food chain on a global level. Government-mandated shutdowns disrupted food distribution hubs and shuttered meat processing plants, causing chaos, riots, and unrest worldwide as people scrambled to find food for their families. So much so that in 2023, 282 million people globally experienced high levels of acute hunger – which is an increase of 8.5 percent from 2022’s already elevated levels. In the United States (alone), the US Department of Agriculture reported that one in eight American households lacked adequate food in 2022.

You’d think this would be the time to support farmers around the world, and to encourage local food systems that are resilient in the face of supply-chain disruption. Instead, in country after country, cabal-affiliated leaders proceeded to crack down on independent farmers and force them to comply with draconian new rules in the name of combating climate change – which marked the beginning of consolidated efforts to weaponise laws in a bid to target food and agriculture.

THE WEAPONISATION OF LAWS TO DISRUPT THE AGRICULTURAL SECTOR

For instance, in Ireland, the agricultural sector was ordered to cut carbon emissions by 25% in seven years. This was a requirement that would obviously drive many farms into bankruptcy and would force the culling of hundreds of thousands of cows.  Meanwhile, in Canada, the goal became a fertiliser reduction of 30%, including reductions in manure use on organic farms – while manure was the only viable alternative to chemical fertiliser. Farmers proceeded to ring the alarm bells that this policy will devastate the food supply. And even though milk prices were hitting record levels, Canadian officials still forced farmers to dump their milk if they produced more than an arbitrary quota. Dairy owners were further banned from giving the milk away to neighbours or homeless shelters. For instance, in Ontario, farmers could not even sell their milk directly to consumers at all, but were rather mandated to sell it to a single government-approved body which then decides how it is distributed.

Then, in the Netherlands, the government required a 30% reduction in livestock and mandated cuts in nitrogen of up to 95% – and this is the nitrogen that is released from cow manure and, if used properly, is an earth-friendly fertiliser. In any case, the government also promulgated plans to seize and shut down up to 3,000 farms to meet climate objectives. During this time, protests by Dutch farmers have been met with force, including the police firing live ammunition rounds at protesters. Denmark, Belgium, and Germany considered similar nitrogen reduction policies. And, both the UK and US had already put schemes into place to pay farmers not to farm. In fact, in huge areas of the Midwest, large corporations were seizing prime farmland through the law of eminent domain to install solar farms – despite the fact that these installations could instead be built in sunny, arid deserts where they would not disrupt the food supply, thus proving that this was a deliberate measure to disrupt the work of farmers, as opposed to being about alternative sources of energy.

But, it was not just large corporations who were front and centre of the seizure of land in the US – the government was a key stakeholder during the Biden-Harris administration. You’d recall that Biden’s “climate czar” John Kerry, remarked that small farms are significant emitters of nitrogen, necessitating a push for the US federal government to crack down on farming in America allegedly to combat “global warming.” Kerry further insisted that the United States must massively reduce farming to meet the radical “green agenda” goals laid out by the World Economic Forum and the United Nations. According to the former Secretary of State, the world can’t tackle climate change without first addressing the agriculture sector’s emissions – and farmers in the US were front and center of his plans.

Of course, we mentioned that this weaponisation of laws to disrupt the agricultural sector is not exclusive to the US, and has included measures from the UK as well. In late 2024, this was seen with the target of specifically family farms, through the introduction of a tax on inherited agricultural assets. And concerningly, how this plays out is that (essentially) a typical family farm would have to put 159% of annual profits into paying the new inheritance tax every year for a decade and could have to sell 20% of their land, and this is according to analysis by the Country and Land Business Association. This is to say that a typical 200-acre farm owned by one person with an expected profit of £27,300 would then face a £435,000 inheritance tax bill.

But, doubling down on their efforts, the Labour government has also paused the Post-Brexit subsidies paid to farmers to boost food production and the environment without warning! And the news of the pause came amid protests to Labour’s changes to agricultural inheritance tax rules. Clearly, pause leaves thousands of farmers at a crossroads as to how they can plug the subsidies, which are being phased out. Meanwhile, under the SFI scheme, farmers are paid for actions aimed at boosting NOT ONLY food production, but also nature, including by improving the condition of their soil as well as planting hedgerows, trees and wildflowers.

THERE ARE CORPORATIONS (DELIBERATELY) HINDERING FOOD SUPPLY

But, finally, since 2020 there has been a significant increase in the number of unexplained fires and other events damaging farms, barns, food warehouses, food pantries, and the food supply chain in general, prompting the FBI to warn that the food system is under threat from cyberattacks. So why was this happening? In other words, why was the food supply system being disrupted, seemingly on purpose? And who is behind this global assault on our farmers? Well, this brings us to a discussion about corporations that have been functioning as a hindrance to food supply. And for anyone who delved into the entities behind the tyrannical COVID policies, you may also note that many of the corporations we’ll discuss are quite familiar.

Let’s start with Bayer/Monsanto. Bayer merged with Monsanto in 2018, effectively combining the companies responsible for Agent Orange and pioneering chemical warfare. And just for some added context, Agent Orange, was a mixture of herbicides that US military forces sprayed in Vietnam from 1962 to 1971 during the Vietnam War for the dual purpose of defoliating forest areas that might conceal Viet Cong and North Vietnamese forces and destroying crops that might feed the enemy.

In any case, in 1999, Monsanto’s CEO, Robert Shapiro, bragged that the company planned to control (and I quote directly here): “three of the largest industries in the world—being agriculture, food, and health—that now operate as separate businesses.” Also adding that (quote): “there are a set of changes that will lead to their integration.” Well, today these chemical manufacturers control a huge percentage of the world’s food supply. And Monsanto has already been in the news a number of times in relation to their war on food, especially news relating to lawsuits affecting farmers.

More specifically, since Monsanto began selling their patented ‘Roundup Ready’ genetically modified (GM) seeds they have sued hundreds of farmers for patent infringement. Their heavy-handed investigations and ruthless prosecutions have been nothing less than an assault on the foundations of farming practices and traditions that have endured for millennia, including one of the oldest, the right to save and replant crop seed. Michael White, who is a fourth generation farmer and seed cleaner living in the northeast corner of rural Alabama never imagined that he would become the target of the conglomerates aggressive legal tactics. But unlike other farmers who could not afford the legal battle or faced demoralisation of other kind, in his area Michael White refused to give in to Monsanto and in doing so became one of only a handful of farmers to maintain the ability to speak publicly about his case.

The second corporation we will look at is Cargill, alongside the US Department of Agriculture (also known as the USDA). Cargill is a World Economic Forum partner and the largest private company in the United States. It monopolises unimaginably vast swaths of the global food industry, including meat processing in the United States. And Cargill’s business practices, along with bigger-is-better policies enforced by their cohorts at the United States Department of Agriculture, have led to the closures of many local abattoirs which forced farmers to depend on a few corporate mega-slaughterhouses. This leaves farmers waiting 14 months or longer for butchering slots, for which they often must transport their animals hundreds of miles—and indeed, farmers and ranchers must book processing dates up to a year before the animal is even born! Furthermore, the high fees charged by Cargill’s slaughterhouses contribute to the skyrocketing price of meat—all while the farmers themselves are barely paid enough to cover the cost of raising the livestock. And the USDA, meanwhile, made sure that their policies prevent farmers from processing meat themselves on their own farms.

Then there’s the Wellcome Trust. The Wellcome Trust, which was the former owner of Glaxo before it merged with SmithKline, played a major role in Britain’s Covid debacle and is unapologetic about its goal of reducing food sovereignty! Now, interestingly, the Wellcome Trust also funds “Livestock, Environment and People” (also known as LEAP), which is an organisation dedicated to developing and testing behavioural modifications to coerce the public into removing meat and dairy from their diets. However, LEAP’s co-director Susan Jeffs bemoans that motivating people with environmental impact labels on their foods does not seem to work: stating that “People are already settled into very established habits”. She also went on to suggest altering what the industry provides, thereby forcing consumer choice. And of course, the industry referenced here tends to be pro veganism and eating insects. But, this attitude from Susan Jeffs is ultimately because the Wellcome Trust researchers recommend “availability interventions” that “rely less on individual agency” to reduce access to animal food products.

Then there is, of course, the World Health Organization and the World Economic Forum. Starting with the WHO, Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, the WHO’s Director-General, would like you to believe that food production is responsible for almost one-third of the global burden of disease. Then subsequently, he calls for transforming the global food system toward plant-based foods, reducing meat and dairy in our intake, and enforcing policies to save the climate through restricting diet. In fact, a WHO 2022 report concluded that (quote) “considerable evidence supports shifting populations towards healthful plant-based diets that reduce or eliminate intake of animal products.”

And of course, you are likely familiar with the World Economic Forum and their Great Reset agenda. Part of their messaging has been why eating insects could reduce climate change, why we need to give insects the role they deserve in our food systems, and even why we might be eating insects soon. Suffice it to say that their plans for your dietary future are clear. However, in addition to this, there is a link between a limitation on food intake and their sinister plans for “smart cities.

Then, finally, we then have to talk about the Rockefeller Foundation, because members of the Rockefeller family may carry more blame than anyone else in history for turning agriculture away from independent family farms towards corporate conglomerates. Essentially, in 1947, Nelson Rockefeller founded the International Basic Economy Corporation (also known as IBEC) to modernise and corporatise agriculture in South America, particularly in Brazil and Venezuela. The IBEC transformed farming to depend on expensive machinery and inputs that priced subsistence peasant farmers out of viability. The American International Association for Economic and Social Development (also known as AIA), which is a Rockefeller-funded philanthropic organisation, also helped build the market through which IBEC could enrich its owners. And while the IBEC’s promotional literature claimed that the company was generously assisting the “Third World” by providing necessary consumer products while turning a profit, on closer examination, it was simply a business enterprise built on the Rockefellers’ old Standard Oil model, in which smaller competitors are forced out using monopolistic practices before prices are raised!

However, this tactic was taken to a whole new level with the so-called Green Revolution, first in Mexico in the 1940s, then in the Philippines and India in the 1960s, as well as in the United States. Traditional farming practices such as the use of manure as fertiliser for heirloom native crops were then replaced with a model of mechanised chemical farming, using Rockefeller-funded new seed varieties which had been developed to require petrochemical fertilisers and pesticides to produce significantly increased crop yields compared to the traditional crops grown by peasant farmers in these countries.

And it is worth noting that the Rockefellers, as oil oligarchs, stood to profit from the petroleum-based fertilisers and pesticides that this new method demanded. The crops grown were almost all cereal crops like rice and unfortunately replaced more nutrient-dense, traditional crops like millet. And there were consequences for this. For example, India experienced an increase in food but a decrease in nutrition: with more empty calories but fewer fruits, vegetables, and animal proteins, micronutrients essentially disappeared from the diet. In addition, illnesses such as anaemia, blindness, fertility problems, low birth weight, and immune impairment increased in the country. Therefore, while the Green Revolution was hailed as the solution to world hunger and poverty, it actually poisoned local water supplies, depleted the soil, and left farmers drowning in debt as they could no longer independently produce the fertiliser and seeds they needed. And I believe you would have also deduced that the latter Monsanto GMO Roundup-Ready seed model followed this playbook established by the Rockefellers. But this is a reminder to South American, Asian and African countries (as we are about to discuss) to sever themselves from these organisations  especially because people who profit from your suffering, cannot be your helpers. In addition, these regions are wealthy and have intelligent people, enough for us to be self-sufficient.

However, the Rockefeller Foundation did not end in the Americas or Asia – they also launched an attack on the African continent. More specifically, in 2006, the Rockefeller Foundation, Bill Gates, and others pushed the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa, or AGRA, and they again followed this proven playbook. Since AGRA’s launch, African biodiversity has been lost, and the number of severely undernourished people in sub-Saharan Africa has increased by nearly 50 percent, even by the UN’s own reports. Just as in India, farmers are being tricked into abandoning nutrient-dense, drought-resistant crops like heirloom millet in exchange for the empty calories of GMO corn. And in response, hundreds of African organisations have demanded that this neocolonial project end, leaving the future of African agriculture in the hands of the native farmers who know the land best.

And by the way, the Rockefeller Foundation has also set its sights on the US food system with its Reset the Table agenda, handily launched in 2020 just weeks after the Great Reset was announced. This is another sinister plan to watch, and pray against.

However, what is incredibly dangerous and important to note is that a number of these corporations waging a war on food tend to project themselves as pillars for good. They have invested a lot into curating a public image that makes their evil works either go unchecked or even be covered by the promulgated message that their actions are for the greater good. And to say this was intentionally done is not a mistake – their philanthropic (or more accurately, philantro-capitalistic) works are nothing more than a public image campaign. For instance, the corrupt wealth and influence of figures like John D. Rockefeller was resented by Americans who knew its source. And to counter that, John D. Rockefeller embarked on a campaign of so-called philanthropy, primarily to redeem his public image; and not because he is inherently a philanthropist.

SECRET MANIPULATIONS OF CROPS, TO MAKE THE PUBLIC CONSUME GMO FOODS

So, here’s another manipulative tactic that has been used in the war on food and agriculture – especially pertaining to wheat. Wheat itself in its organic form is not the issue in question; the issue especially relates to genetically modified wheat; and this is because the Big Fake Food Corporations are NOT ONLY dumping this GMO wheat in massive quantities into the food supply, but also that in doing so they have actually known for 40+ years now what gluten has been doing to the digestive system of consumers. More specifically, there is something that’s found IN the gluten that is VERY IMPORTANT to these fake food corporations: which is a protein called Gliadin. They discovered this protein in gluten was highly addictive. When you eat GMO wheat, the gliadin in the gluten goes straight to your brain and makes you CRAVE MORE FOOD, and also  makes you HUNGRIER.

And once they discovered what this gliadin protein does to your brain, the Big Fake Food Corporations started dumping their GMO/gluten/gliadin-filled-wheat into just about everything they make that ends up on your grocery store shelves. Essentially, gliadin stimulates your appetite and makes you hungry for more sugar and more grains! Which means that the more you eat their genetically modified wheat, the more you’ll want! Now, you’d recall that with the COVID-19 jabs, government bureaucrats working in conjunction with Big Pharma had to sabotage HCQ and Ivermectin for their profits.

Well, similarly, some governments are not only NOT doing anything to prevent this harm to the public, but a number of lawmakers have all been bought off and are colluding with these big fake food corporations – the same food companies that do not care about you and have been selling you toxic, addictive fake food that they have tinkered with to make you constantly want to eat more of it in order to increase their profits. Obviously, this relationship between lawmakers and Big Food is diametrically opposed to the government’s mandate to act in the best interests of its people.

However, when you follow the development of the genetically modified week, what is utterly concerning is also the revelation that many believe that there was no genetically modified wheat, especially in northern America. And yet, people found illegal strains of wheat in different parts of North America.

WE ALSO HAVE A PART TO PLAY IN SUPPORTING LOCAL FOOD PRODUCERS

Then finally, while the issues we have discussed today are systemic and a consequence of the plans of sinister actors, we must also not miss an opportunity to compound on our activist efforts to ensure a clean, organic, cost-effective and functional food supply system. And honestly, it begins with supporting local food producers! First, we need to demand this on a legislative front though engaging the relevant stakeholders and policy makers, but also with the choices we make. It is jarring the extent to which consumers have also substituted the support for things like local farmers markets for convenience stores. And we saw this, for example, when American farmers across the country were reported to be struggling because the so-called elite class only wanted imported foods, instead of buying foods from American farmers and American companies.

Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso

Financial Costs of the Texas Floods

The Texas floods of July 2025, described as among the worst in the region’s history, have inflicted a staggering economic toll. While comprehensive damage assessments are still ongoing, early estimates and historical comparisons provide a framework for understanding the financial impact. Let’s start with Direct Property Damage. The floods, triggered by up to 15 inches of rain falling in a few hours, devastated homes, businesses, and infrastructure in Kerr County and surrounding areas. The Guadalupe River’s rapid rise—surging 26 feet in under an hour in some locations—destroyed homes, vehicles, and businesses, particularly in low-lying areas like Camp Mystic, a historic girls’ summer camp. Drawing from historical precedents, the 2002 Guadalupe River floods caused approximately $250 million in damages (unadjusted for inflation). Given the greater severity of the 2025 event, with reports of over 100 deaths and widespread destruction, estimates suggest damages could exceed $1 billion in 2025 dollars. Infrastructure losses include washed-out roads, bridges, and public facilities. For example, the Cade Loop bridge in Ingram was heavily damaged, and debris removal costs alone are expected to run into the tens of millions. Harris County’s flood infrastructure plan, adjusted for increased rainfall intensity, recently saw costs rise by $150–$200 million due to flood safety needs. Similar cost escalations are likely for Kerr County’s recovery efforts, particularly for rebuilding flood defences and infrastructure.

Then there is Economic Disruption. The floods struck during the July 4th holiday, a peak tourism period for the Texas Hill Country, known for its scenic rivers and outdoor attractions. The destruction of RV parks, campsites, and local businesses has disrupted tourism revenue, a significant economic driver for the region. Kerr County, with a median household income of $68,000 and a modest $67 million annual budget, lacks the fiscal capacity to absorb these losses without federal or state aid. Business interruptions, particularly in agriculture and small retail, are expected to cost millions in lost revenue. Livestock losses and damage to farmland, swept away by floodwaters, further compound the economic hit. Search-and-rescue operations, involving hundreds of first responders and military personnel, have already incurred significant costs, likely in the range of $10–$20 million based on comparable disaster response efforts.

looking at Long-Term Economic Impacts, rebuilding efforts will likely take years, with costs escalating due to inflation and supply chain constraints. The 2021 Texas winter storm, for comparison, cost an estimated $20–$130 billion in total economic impact, and the 2025 floods, while more localized, could approach $5–$10 billion when factoring in long-term recovery and lost economic activity. Insurance payouts for property damage and business interruption will strain insurers, potentially leading to higher premiums across Texas. Uninsured losses, particularly in flood-prone areas without adequate coverage, will burden homeowners and small businesses, further depressing local economies.

Debunking the Climate Change Narrative

The mainstream media and certain political figures have been quick to attribute the Texas floods to climate change, citing a warmer atmosphere’s ability to hold more moisture as the primary driver of extreme rainfall. This narrative, however, oversimplifies a complex meteorological event and ignores critical context about the region’s natural weather patterns and forecasting challenges.

Central Texas Is Naturally Flood-Prone

The Texas Hill Country, colloquially known as “Flash Flood Alley,” has a long history of extreme flooding due to its unique geography and meteorology. The region’s limestone hills and shallow river basins, combined with moist air from the Gulf of Mexico, create ideal conditions for flash floods. Historical records show significant flooding along the Guadalupe River in 1978, 1987, and 2002, with the 2002 event causing $250 million in damages and seven deaths. These events predate the modern climate change narrative, indicating that catastrophic floods are a recurring feature of the region, not a new phenomenon.

Politicization of Natural Disasters

Democrats and media outlets have seized on the floods to attack the Trump administration’s cuts to NOAA and FEMA, alleging that these reductions led to inadequate warnings and response. However, the White House and meteorologists have countered that NWS forecasts were accurate and timely, with extra staff on duty during the event. Critics like Rep. Jared Huffman and Gov. Jay Inslee have linked the floods to Trump’s broader climate policies, including the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” that slashed renewable energy credits and NOAA funding. These claims conveniently ignore that the proposed $2.2 billion NOAA budget cut for 2026 had not yet taken effect and thus could not have impacted the 2025 floods.

Evidence Supporting Weather Modification as a Contributor

Meanwhile, concerns are swirling about suspected weather modification operations in the area. Growing concerns—amplified by posts on X and public skepticism—point to weather modification operations, specifically cloud seeding, as a potential contributor to the disaster.

Active Cloud Seeding Programs in Texas

Texas operates seven state-authorized cloud seeding programs under the 1967 Texas Weather Modification Act, covering 31 million acres in regions like the Panhandle, West Texas, and South Texas. These programs, managed by the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation (TDLR), use aircraft to disperse silver iodide into convective clouds to enhance rainfall, primarily for drought relief.

• Augustus Doricko, CEO of Rainmaker Technology Corp., confirmed a 20-minute cloud seeding mission in south-central Texas on July 2, 2025, just two days before the floods.

The TDLR claims cloud seeding produces minimal rainfall (fractions of inches annually) and denies it causes flash floods. However, a 2019 Texas Tech University study found seeded thunderstorms produced 24% more rain and lasted 41% longer than unseeded storms, suggesting a potential to amplify existing weather systems.

• The July 2025 floods involved a mesoscale convective complex with 5–18 inches of rain, described as a 500- or 1,000-year event. Cloud seeding, even if they claim it did not directly cause the storm, it intensified moisture-laden clouds, contributing to the extreme rainfall. The lack of transparency about specific seeding locations and atmospheric impacts fuels this speculation. The timing of seeding operations two days prior, questioning why such activities continued in a region already under flood watches, suggesting a lack of caution by operators.

It is safe to say that these floods were linked to “cloud seeding, geoengineering, & manipulation.” The TDLR requires operators to report seeding activities to NOAA within 10 days, but these reports are often delayed by months, limiting public oversight. Rainmaker’s decision to suspend operations after July 2 due to “abnormally high moisture” suggests operators were aware of heightened flood risks, yet the mission proceeded. This raises questions about oversight and seeding exacerbated an already volatile atmosphere.

Publicly available documents reveal that the U.S. Congress has been quietly approving funding for weather modification and geoengineering projects. New documents show that Congress has allocated funding for these projects without any studies on the impact on human health or public consent. This information is accessible through the website usaspending.gov. In response, 24 states have begun taking action against these projects, including: Arizona, Connecticut, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Wyoming

Written By Tatenda Belle Panashe

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