Youth-led demonstrations denounced the election as rigged

Youth-led demonstrations, fuelled by social media campaigns using hashtags like #EndBiyaEra, have vehemently denounced the election as rigged, echoing the controversies surrounding the 2018 election, where international observers noted significant irregularities. Biya’s stance on globalization is rooted in his resistance to unchecked Western influence, prioritizing African agency and self-determination. A notable example of this is the “Chicken War” he sparked in 2007 by increasing tariffs on imported poultry, which led to a 300% boost in local production and protected farmers from subsidized European exports. This move was hailed as a victory for food sovereignty, and Biya has continued to advocate for reforming global trade rules, arguing that they perpetuate Northern dominance, at forums like the African Union.

Biya’s ties with China are also noteworthy, with the country funding 70% of Cameroon’s infrastructure projects, such as the Kribi deep-sea port, without imposing conditions on governance. This pivot away from traditional Western partners is a hallmark of Biya’s anti-globalist stance. However, this stance coexists with selective engagement, as Cameroon remains part of the IMF’s Extended Credit Facility, accepting fiscal advice while resisting deeper political conditions. For Biya, such policies embody conservative self-reliance, but critics argue that they enable elite capture, with corruption scandals siphoning billions of dollars amid rampant youth poverty. As Biya begins his eighth term, the country remains deeply divided, with many questioning the legitimacy of his rule and the future of Cameroon’s development.

Biya Western Ties: Independence or Puppetry?

How Biya’s Regime Hollowed Out Cameroon

Cameroon’s economy is a stark reminder of its unfulfilled potential, with growth stagnating at a mere 3% annually since the 1980s oil boom. The country’s crippling import dependency and lack of industrial base have resulted in a vicious cycle, where raw cocoa is exported to Europe only to be imported back as finished chocolate at a staggering 10 times the price. Officially, unemployment stands at 4%, but the reality is far more dire, with youth joblessness hovering between 13-15%, driving a brain drain that sees over 70,000 skilled workers fleeing the country every year. The state of Cameroon’s infrastructure is equally alarming, with potholed roads, frequent blackouts in the capital, and a healthcare system that fails to prevent one in five children from dying before the age of five. Corruption is the lifeblood of the regime, with Transparency International ranking Cameroon among the most corrupt countries in Africa. The Biya family is alleged to have amassed over $2 billion since 1982 through shell companies and secret Swiss bank accounts, while public funds mysteriously disappear into “ghost projects” and civil servants are left striking over unpaid salaries. The Anglophone crisis, sparked by Biya’s centralist crackdown on English-speaking regions in 2016, has claimed over 6,000 lives, displaced 700,000 people, and turned the Northwest and Southwest provinces into war zones of repression and militia terror. Biya’s response has been to impose internet blackouts, carry out mass arrests, and deploy French-trained troops to enforce a bilingual divide-and-rule policy straight out of the colonial playbook.

What is going on Cameroon is a classic case of neocolonial extractivism, where Cameroon’s economy is trapped in a state of perpetual subservience. The country’s currency, the CFA franc, is pegged to the euro and printed in France, ensuring that 50% of foreign reserves flow directly into Parisian banks. IMF loans come with strings attached, forcing Cameroon to privatize its resources to French companies like TotalEnergies, slash subsidies, and watch as inequality soars, with the top 1% of the population, including Biya’s inner circle, hoarding 40% of the country’s wealth. Biya himself rules Cameroon from the comfort of his villas in Geneva or his hideaways on the French Riviera, with decisions being faxed to Yaoundé from the French embassy. This is not sovereignty; it’s a debt-financed occupation, where global finance, dictated by Paris, calls the shots. Cameroon is forced to sell its uranium to Orano, its cocoa to Barry Callebaut, and keep the CFA printing press humming to benefit French interests. The result is a twisted game of economic colonialism, where Cameroon’s resources are exploited to enrich France, while its people are left to suffer the consequences. 

Milei’s La Libertad Avanza Wins Argentine Midterms with 40.7% Vote

On October 26, 2025, Argentine voters propelled President Javier Milei’s La Libertad Avanza party to victory in legislative elections, securing 40.7% of the vote and boosting its seats to 111 in the lower house and 20 in the upper house. The win strengthens Milei’s position to advance free-market reforms amid inflation over 200% and poverty above 50%. U.S. President Donald Trump congratulated Milei. Milei won so BIG in Argentina that his party surged its parliament deputies by 172%, from 37 and senators by 233%, from 6 to 20. This is HUGE! He has defied all media expectations by far.

Milei’s Midterm Triumph: A Sovereign Slap to the Globalist Elite

Argentina’s peso is skyrocketing, with a 10% overnight surge, as investors finally catch a whiff of real, earned money on the horizon, not just printed cash. This isn’t just a win for Buenos Aires; it’s a roadmap for every nation suffocating under the weight of IMF debt and EU-style bureaucratic red tape. For decades, Argentina has been a guinea pig for globalist experiments gone horribly wrong. The country’s history of Peronist populism, marked by endless subsidies, reckless money-printing, and kowtowing to international lenders, has left it with a staggering 200%+ inflation rate, a decimated middle class, and a sovereignty sold to the highest bidder in Washington. But then came Milei in 2023, the economist who boldly called out the IMF as a “scam” and vowed to blow up the central bank. While skeptics mocked him, two years in, his austerity measures have slashed the deficit from 6% of GDP to near-zero, tamed inflation to single digits, and sparked a private-sector resurgence. Now, with his coalition’s midterm mandate, Milei is poised to lock in deregulation, privatize state-owned dinosaurs, and tell the World Bank to take a hike.

I’ve seen countless “reform” promises fizzle out into cronyism, but Milei is different – he’s the anti-globalist antidote, prioritizing national wealth over transnational handouts. Milei isn’t just balancing the books; he’s restoring the family, faith, and fiscal virtue that Peronist hedonism has eroded. His coalition’s surge has crushed the socialists and their cultural rot, signaling that Argentines are done with identity politics and open borders that flood labor markets with cheap imports. Think of it as the Southern Cone’s version of MAGA: secure borders, Bibles back in schools, and no more taxpayer-funded gender clinics. And globally, this win has Trump’s fingerprints all over it – the Donald himself endorsed Milei pre-vote, tweeting that his “chainsaw economics” is the cure for woke socialism. It’s a tipping point, as Milei himself proclaimed, turning Argentina from a cautionary tale into a beacon for populists from Brazil to Budapest.

Financially, the upside is enormous. That 10% peso pop is the market’s way of pricing in lower default risk and higher yields on Argentine bonds, with spreads already tightening. With congressional cover, expect Milei to greenlight more mining concessions – lithium is the new oil – and slash red tape for agribusiness exports. Inflation is on track to dip below 5% by mid-2026, and GDP growth could hit 4-5% if he keeps the pedal down. Sure, the losers – unions, Peronist dead-enders, and their media megaphones – are howling about “austerity cruelty,” but that’s code for “stop stealing our future.”

As investors, we thrive on clarity: Milei’s victory screams “buy the dip on ARGT ETFs” and short the basket-case currencies still hooked on Soros-style sorcery. In the end, Argentina’s midterms aren’t about one man’s ego – they’re a conservative clarion call against the globalist grind. Milei is proving that you can slash spending without slashing throats, honor God and gold without groveling to Geneva.

Written By Tatenda Belle Panashe

The food and agriculture is among the 7 areas targeted by globalists, we addressed the corporations behind the war on food and agriculture. Well, today, we ought to begin our discussion with what has become a codified playbook on the war on this industry, from the Rockefellers. This is crucial as a focus 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

But let’s also talk especially about “GMOs”. In 1986, the federal government established the Coordinated Framework for the Regulation of Biotechnology. This policy describes how the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and US Department of Agriculture (USDA) work together to regulate the alleged safety of GMOs. In 1992, the FDA policy stated that foods from GMO plants must meet the same requirements, including the same safety standards, as foods derived from traditionally bred plants. Then, the first GMO product created through genetic engineering—a GMO tomato—became available for sale after studies evaluated by federal agencies proved it APPARENTLY to be as safe as traditionally bred tomatoes in 1994. Following this, in the 1990s, the first wave of GMO produce created through genetic engineering became available to consumers: from summer squash, soybeans, cotton, corn, and canola. AND YET, concerns have been expressed regarding GM food safety.

These concerns, as well as the limitations of the procedures that were followed in the evaluation of their safety (by bodies like the WHO and the FDA) are presented as being quite dire. For instance, animal toxicity studies with certain genetically modified foods have shown that they may toxically affect several organs and body systems. In addition, the results of most studies with GM foods indicate that they may cause some common toxic effects such as hepatic, pancreatic, renal, or reproductive effects and may alter the haematological, biochemical, and immunologic parameters. But, these effects are not surprising at all. There is a lot of damage done by companies that produce food, especially genetically modified foods today. In fact, just looking at Monsanto as an example, it began in part as a chemical company that polluted the environment of many areas where they operated their plants.

Well, GMOs are not just inherently bad – but they are also tied to 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.

CASE STUDIES: NATIONS ARE PUSHING BACK AGAINST BIG FOOD & GMOs

However, in this dispensation, not only are more people demanding an end to GMOs, not only are more people becoming aware of the dangers and ills of GMOS on their health and the environment, but numerous individuals and heeding to the call to use formal legal recourse options to hold parties like Monsanto accountable. In fact, you’d recall that we have discussed here on ‘The War Room’ that the state of Oregon in the US celebrated that it reached a historic settlement with Monsanto. And with a new law, it will be investing a portion of the settlement in improving the air, land, and water that was polluted for decades.

Similarly, despite recent talks about having GMOs in the country, Nigerians have a well documented history of emphatic resistance to GMO’s. For instance, in 2017, a coalition of civil society groups organised a rally in Abuja demanding an end to the planned introduction of Genetically Modified Organisms into Nigeria’s foods and farming scheme. They also petitioned the National Assembly seeking a repeal of the National Biosafety Management Agency (NBMA) Act. In 2024, the Nigerian House of Representatives initiated a suspension of the introduction of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) across the country. This decision follows a motion calling for an investigation into the potential risks associated with GMOs, particularly regarding food and environmental safety. The House is urging the federal government to halt the commercialization of GMO crops until a comprehensive investigation is completed by the Committee on Agricultural Production and Services; and this followed after Honorable Muktar Shagaya moved the motion to suspend the introduction of GMOs until investigations are carried out to ascertain the safety, on May 16, 2024.

Now, a number of nations still have long been trying to protect organic crops. However, they were often tricked into the planting and consumption of GMO crops (which is one of the things that let you know that this is a deliberately orchestrated tool in the war on food). For instance, in 1998, Mexico passed a law banning the planting of genetically modified corn. But, unfortunately, came a time when Campesino farmers in Mexico bought unmarked corn from the US from their local government store. They ate some and planted some, as most farmers do. Unfortunately, the genetically modified seeds crossed with the land raised organic corn and contaminated the corn of the farmers.

Well, on March 18th this year, Mexico’s lower house of Congress has officially approved a constitutional reform banning the planting of genetically modified (GM) corn. The ban has taken effect immediately and is a result of a process initiated by former President Andrés Manuel López Obrador. A general ban on GM corn in Mexico seemed more complex after a trade dispute ruling in December ’24. This ruling deemed Mexico’s restrictions on GM corn a violation of the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), stating that it lacked sufficient scientific evidence and caused unfairly restricted US market access. Following the USMCA panel’s decision, Mexico has lifted its import restrictions on genetically modified corn intended for human, livestock, and industrial applications, a move that impacts approximately $5 billion in annual US GM corn exports, primarily for livestock feed

Despite the risk of economic repercussions, the current administration of President Sheinbaum took a next step in the process by ensuring GM corn cannot legally be planted in Mexico anymore, reaffirming its stance on protecting Mexico’s traditional agriculture and food security. The law will ‘guarantee biodiversity, food sovereignty, and the health of Mexicans’, according to the President.

The newly approved reform solidifies previous legal measures by enshrining the ban in Mexico’s Constitution. The decree aims at preserving native corn varieties, protecting biodiversity, and ensuring food sovereignty. The reform prohibits GM corn cultivation while mandating strict legal oversight to prevent risks to biosafety, public health, and Mexico’s biocultural heritage. This is in line with the focus of the Mexican government on rural development and the support of traditional agricultural systems.

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

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

Food safety and production standards are once again under scrutiny, following a new U.S.-UK trade deal that reduces barriers to billions of dollars in U.S. exports, including beef, while the UK continues to ban hormone-treated meat and chlorine-washed chicken, practices that are common in the U.S. but prohibited in the EU and UK due to stricter regulations. This isn’t just about beef – it’s about waking up to the fact that the system has been hijacked by chemical pushers and marketing firms posing as newsrooms, with 86% of the meat case having nothing to do with clean food. We’re at an inflection point, and the only way forward is to support local producers, one at a time.

As RFK Jr. spearheads a crusade for cleaner food in America, his radical reform agenda is actively working to slash the consumption of ultra-processed foods, revive authentic nutrition, eliminate toxic seed oils, ban hazardous artificial food dyes, and drastically reduce the use of high-fructose corn syrup and lethal pesticides, all of which have been directly linked to the alarming decline in public health. Meanwhile, the era of cheap, processed foods that has allowed Americans to allocate the smallest fraction of their income to food compared to almost any other nation is rapidly coming to an end, as a seismic shift towards cleaner, less industrialized food is poised to drive up costs, forcing Americans to reassess their priorities when it comes to the food they consume. Bill Gates wants to vaccinate cows against farting to stop the planet from getting warmer.

Deliberate Contamination Of The Global Milk Supply

Governments are now planning to deliberately contaminate the global milk supply under the guise of combating climate change, with cows being bizarrely scapegoated as the primary culprits. The Netherlands is set to confiscate thousands of farms and drastically reduce livestock numbers, while in New Zealand, the left-wing government was recently ousted after farmers united to oppose the introduction of a so-called “fart tax” aimed at curbing emissions from cows. In a disturbing new development, countries are now actively feeding toxic chemicals to cows in a bid to reduce their burps and farts, with the ultimate goal of slashing climate emissions and meeting the 2030 climate targets. By 2030, the agricultural industry is under pressure to reduce climate emissions by a staggering 5 million tons of CO2, a move that is inextricably linked to the UN Agenda 2030 “global goals” being bankrolled by none other than billionaire philanthropist Bill Gates. The endgame is to ensure that all ruminant livestock used for dairy and meat production are fed methane-suppressing chemicals within a matter of years, sparking widespread concerns about the long-term consequences for human health and the environment.

The Truth about Bovaer

So what is Bovaer? It’s a feed additive that contains the active ingredient 3-nitrooxypropanol, which is specifically designed to reduce methane emissions from cattle by targeting an enzyme in the rumen that produces methane during digestion. Manufacturers are administering Bovaer in small doses, approximately a quarter teaspoon daily, which reportedly reduces enteric methane emissions by around 30% in dairy cows and up to 45% in beef cattle. Regulatory bodies, including the UK Food Standards Agency, European Food Safety Authority, and US Food and Drug Administration, are claiming that Bovaer is safe for human consumption, despite having previously made similar claims about Covid vaccines. Currently, Bovaer is being tested in the UK, with companies like Arla Foods, Tesco, Morrisons, and Aldi, conducting trials across 30 farms since November 2024. Other dairy companies in Sweden and Finland are also using this additive. However, experts are warning that Bovaer is being used solely to address the Net Zero initiative, which aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by stopping cows from producing methane, allegedly to prevent severe weather conditions.

EU is actively pushing its member states to incorporate chemicals into cow feed

The European Union is actively pushing its member states to incorporate chemicals into cow feed, aiming to reduce gas emissions by 8%. Meanwhile, Kent Nielsen, a Danish citizen journalist, has released a revealing video exposing the alarming consequences of this practice, where local farmers claim that cows fed with Bovaer are experiencing severe health issues, including fevers, diarrhea, and mastitis. Furthermore, a disturbing report from one farmer reveals that six of his cows have died shortly after being fed Bovaer, sparking widespread concern over the safety and ethics of this EU-mandated initiative.

The Dangers on Bovaer to Humans

Investigations have uncovered that Bovaer is, in fact, an unapproved animal drug, with warning labels stating “Not for human use” and “Caution should be exercised when handling this product.” Researchers are finding that 3-nitrooxypropanol may cause damage to male fertility and reproductive organs, is potentially harmful when inhaled, and is a skin and eye irritant. Handlers are advised to wear personal protective gear, including eye wear, a dust mask, and impervious gloves, and to wash their hands after handling the product. In the event of accidental eye exposure, handlers are instructed to rinse their eyes thoroughly with water. Despite these warnings, Bovaer is being added to the food supply, raising concerns among consumers and experts alike.

Written By Tatenda Belle Panashe