THE WEF’S NOTORIETY BEGAN WITH ITS EFFORTS AT CRIPPLING NATIONS

The protruding trend of the decline of Davos’s influence, and we ought to begin with the crux’s of the WEF’s notoriety, because it certainly did not begin with Klaus Schwab’s scandals – if anything, Davos’s decline far predates the events of 2025 because its notoriety began with its interest in the destruction of nations in service of its agenda. And to give an accurate description of what this destruction entailed, we ought to look at Russia as a case study, particularly also to enjoy the contrast of how the WEF’s efforts have failed to replicate in modern politics, given Russia’s Christian, patriotic and effective leadership. That said, Russia’s history with the WEF tells us much about the lengths that the WEF is willing to go to capture leaders and cripple nations in pursuit of their interest.

So, what happened? In early 1996, Boris Yeltsin, Russia’s president since the Soviet Union’s collapse, faced a dire political crisis. His approval ratings had collapsed amid economic turmoil, rampant inflation, crime, and the fallout from painful market reforms. Polls placed him fifth among potential presidential candidates, with just 8% support. Leading the pack was Gennady Zyuganov, head of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, who commanded around 21% and appeared poised to win as the frontrunner.

Zyuganov’s rise alarmed Western business elites and Russia’s emerging oligarchs. At the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, in February 1996, Zyuganov attended and presented himself as a moderate open to foreign investment and anti-corruption measures. Yet many attendees – particularly Russian business leaders – remained skeptical, fearing a Communist victory would reverse privatization, threaten their newly acquired wealth, and destabilize the post-Soviet economic order.

Russian tycoons, including Boris Bere-zovsky, Vladimir Gusinsky, Mikhail Khodor-kovsky, and others, saw Zyuganov’s potential triumph as an existential risk to their fortunes. Frustrated by Zyuganov’s polite reception in Davos and convinced that a Communist resurgence would undo their gains, these oligarchs set aside rivalries to unite. In informal meetings during the forum, they forged what became known as the “Davos Pact” – an unwritten alliance to back Yeltsin financially and through media control.

Key figures recruited Anatoly Chubais, a prominent reformer previously sidelined by Yeltsin, to overhaul the flagging campaign. The pact expanded to include Vladimir Potanin, Alexander Smolensky, Mikhail Fridman, and Pyotr Aven – forming a powerful group later dubbed the “Semi-bankirs-china” (which translates to the rule of the seven bankers). They poured massive resources into Yeltsin’s effort: funding advertising, securing favorable coverage on television networks they influenced (such as ORT and NTV), and coordinating strategies to portray Yeltsin as a stabilizing force against communist rollback.

The campaign shifted dramatically. Yeltsin, initially ailing and unpopular, benefited from heavy media dominance, tactical alliances (including with nationalist General Alexander Lebed), and promises of stability. Western leaders and institutions, wary of a communist return, offered indirect support through loans and diplomatic signals. In the June 16 first round, Yeltsin edged ahead with 35% to Zyuganov’s 32%. In the July 3 runoff, Yeltsin secured 54% to Zyuganov’s 40%, clinching re-election.

This meant that communism was (indeed) defeated – but the victory came at a steep price, and the steep price being Russian sovereignty and electoral integrity. And this is considering that the oligarchs’ backing involved media manipulation, unequal access, and alleged irregularities, while Yeltsin’s team rewarded supporters with lucrative state asset deals in privatization so-called “auctions”. This entrenched oligarchic influence, eroded public trust in democratic processes, and compromised Russia’s electoral integrity. As such, this case study and the Davos Pact symbolise how global financial interest, driven through the WEF and domestic tycoons could shape outcomes in a fragile democracy that prioritises the economic benefit of diabolical special interest groups over popular will. Which is why Yeltsin’s win averted a communist revival (sure) but set precedents for concentrated power and crony capitalism that defined Russia’s 1990s trajectory. This is what the WEF does: it destroys economies and cripples nations with its dirty theories.

THE RUSSIA 1996 CASE STUDY REVEALS THE COST OF COLLABORATING WITH THE WEF

Now, here’s why this glimpse into the historical archives of the WEF’s shadow government operations matters for leaders in the status quo, and even young individuals who are sold an idea of some alleged prestige in being associated with the WEF. The Russia 1996 case study reveals the great cost of association with the WEF – a cost that many nations are having to grapple with in the status quo too. Furthermore, it exposes the ambitions of Klaus Schwab’s great reset. And while Klaus Schwab simplified the essence of the Great Reset, with his notorious mantra, it is actually very diabolical in what it tries to accomplish for the purpose of robbing people of personal ownership and socio-political rights and agency.

For instance, the controversy surrounding what was called Ohio’s Issue 1 in the 2024 election centered on redistricting reform, which was really a covert attempt at a “great reset” in political power dynamics in the State. In essence, Issue 1 proposed amending the Ohio Constitution to establish a 15-member so-called “independent citizens’” commission – rather than politicians – to draw state legislative and congressional district boundaries. Supporters of this proposal argued that it would end gerrymandering, which has essentially become a practice of manipulating district lines to favour one party, and is an issue that had plagued Ohio and various other states for years; seen even with the Ohio Supreme Court having struck down multiple maps as unconstitutional gerrymanders.

But, while gerrymandering (also called redistricting) is a valid concern (in fact as we have this discussion, a Virginia state court just slammed the door on Democrat gerrymandering schemes, and struck down any attempt to redraw Congressional maps for extra blue seats in 2026 – which is good news!) HOWEVER, while gerrymandering is a valid concern, Ohio’s Issue 1 was actually an election manipulation tactic disguised as a gerrymandering solution. Democrats knew that they cannot win at the ballot box because Ohio has rejected their morally decadence and ineffective leadership, and because they couldn’t win at the ballot box, they wanted to control how district lines are drawn.

This was made apparent by opponents to the Issue 1 proposal, including Governor Mike DeWine, Secretary of State Frank LaRose, and Republican leaders, who exposed Issue 1 for the deceptive power grab by Democrats that it is. They exposed that the measure would mandate proportional representation that ironically required “gerrymandering” to guarantee seats for both major parties, overriding traditional principles like compact districts and community integrity. Meanwhile, ballot language described the proposal as requiring gerrymandering, thus confusing many voters who were led to believe that this proposal was supposed to get rid of gerrymandering. And so, the proposal THANKFULLY was defeated in November 2024. But, here’s more on the substantive challenges of gerrymandering in the US as a whole, including leftist media trying to make gerrymandering a Republican or Trump problem (which was well refuted by former California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger), and even race-based gerrymandering, which thankfully seems to be on a trajectory to be struck down by the US Supreme Court this year.

But, now, beyond the substantive challenges with Issue 1, a key point of contention was also funding. The pro-Issue 1 campaign raised over $30–37 million, and roughly 85% of that came from out-of-state sources. This included significant contributions routed through groups like the Sixteen Thirty Fund, which received millions from a Swiss billionaire. And so, this highlighted external interference in American elections, where conglomerates and non-Ohio interests were allowed to influence state governance and undermine local voter agency. And herein lies the people of Ohio’s antipathy with the WEF. This is to say that this narrative ties into broader claims of a “great reset” agenda – echoing ideas from figures like Klaus Schwab – where so-called elite financial powers erode citizens’ socio-political control. By allegedly bypassing electoral losses in a Republican-leaning state, out-of-state money sought to reshape districts and dilute Ohioans’ voice, thus prioritising national progressive interests over local will.

This makes the mid-term election in Ohio very important to look at, especially because Issue 1 is quite linked to Vivek Ramaswamy’s 2026 bid for Ohio governor – and you’d recall he was tapped by president Trump to run DOGE alongside Elon Musk, after which he returned to his home state of Ohio, emphasizing restoring opportunity and countering perceived elite overreach. And so, Issue 1 not only exposes the applicability of the WEF’s great reset agenda into state or local politics, but its chronic dangers to the democratic will of the people, even in the modern context, seeing as the protection of local democratic will is among the key issues that Ohioans’ will take to the ballot at the midterms this year. But, here’s Vivek Ramaswamy speaking on Issue 1.

WHY THE WEF IS A POLITICAL & ECONOMIC LIABILITY IN THE MODERN CONTEXT

During the January 2026 edition of the Global Fasting and Prayer programme with the Man of God and President of Loveworld Incorporated, the highly esteemed Rev Dr Chris Oyakhilome DSc DSc DD, he highlighted the the WEF is not worth listening, emphasising how this organisation has destroyed nations and their economies using their climate hoax, even plunging many nations into debts from which they will never recover. Taking a cue from the President of Loveworld Incorporated, we then ought to highlight (in the post Davos gathering period) why the WEF is a political and economic liability in the modern context – even beyond the WEF’s thwarted ideological influence in Ohio’s Issue 1.

The first reason that the WEF is a political and economic liability in the modern context is that it seems to require leaders to view sovereign affairs as a secondary (if not tertiary) consideration. In more detail, participation in WEF initiatives – whether through Davos summits, the “Great Reset” rhetoric, or partnerships on global governance – it tends to encourage policymakers to subordinate domestic priorities to supranational agendas. National interests, such as protecting local industries, safeguarding borders, preserving cultural identity, or prioritizing citizens’ economic security, get deprioritized in favor of alignment with elite-driven global frameworks. And as such, this dynamic fosters unaccountable influence, where unelected corporate and institutional voices shape policies that affect entire populations without direct democratic oversight – which is precisely what the WEF’s multistakeholderism philosophy is about – Klaus Schwab wanted to dilute the influence of sovereign nations, and replace that with the finances and influence of private corporations in a private-public partnership model, that is far more private than it is public.

Now, in recent years, this tension between sovereign affairs and globalist pursuits has intensified. Events like the 2026 Davos meeting highlighted clashes, with figures from the US and Argentine, for instance, decrying globalization’s failures – from hollowed-out industrial bases, worker displacement, and eroded sovereignty. This demonstrated that leaders pushing policies that put their nations first explicitly reject the WEF’s models, which (in contrast) place international coordination above domestic needs, ultimately driving dependency and weakened national control.

But, perhaps this was best demonstrated ironically by unelected European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen promulgating that she will be making European citizens pay for Ukraine’s security once again. Not only does this go against the desires of European citizens who are frustrated by a decaying standard of living in their respective countries, but it proves the dire nature of the WEF’s dependency model, seeing as how requesting such funds and loans has become synonymous with Zelensky’s presidency.

The second reason why the WEF is a political and economic liability today concerns the relationship between anarchy and insecurity and the WEF? The crux of the matter here is that the WEF’s great reset agenda requires disorder or insecurity in order to flourish. It is based on the realist notion that nations exist in a state of insecurity without a central governing body that rules over them all; and therefore, the WEF tries constantly to highlight a state of anarchy and insecurity. This is why in January, they are constantly announcing issues of focus that are an urgent threat. Well, the announcements of issues of focus are not an end in themselves. In fact, together with the UN, they are culpable for creating problems, all to condition nations to accept their message of inherent anarchy and the need to cede their sovereignty. And this is how the UN has predominantly existed under Guterres. It is a satellite organisation of the WEF – essentially functioning with the same motive. 

But, unfortunately, there are nations who’ve served as a case study for this modus operandi of the WEF to require anarchy and insecurity as prerequisites for their operations. Canada is one of them. Klaus Schwab bragged that the WEF had penetrated the cabinets of nations, naming former Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau among the examples, and the essence of Justin Trudeau’s tenure was marked by a chaotic immigration system and a depreciation in the standard of living in Canada, climaxing in his resignation. Similarly, Ukraine’s leadership is heavily influenced by the WEF and the Open Society Foundation. For one, the co-chair of the WEF is Larry Fink (who is the CEO of BlackRock), and yet BlackRock has been acquiring Ukrainian land, enabled by the proxy war in Ukraine. Blackrock uses this transaction as a money laundering scheme, and was even said to have the audacity to ask that Ukrainian soldiers not be buried on its land in Ukraine.

The Open Society Foundation is the same, and it bears mentioning here because Alex Soros (who took over his father’s work) frequents the WEF. Well, in 2015, George Soros and WEF ‘Young Global Leader’ Chrystia Freeland, who I believe is now an unpaid economic adviser to Zelensky in Ukraine, they openly admitted that Ukraine’s leadership has ties to George Soros.

Then the third reason that the WEF is a political and economic liability pertains to the (frankly) satanic ESG model. Essentially, the World Economic Forum promotes deep economic integration through interconnected global systems, including tightly linked supply chains, unified digital governance frameworks, and the widespread adoption of ESG (or environmental, social, and governance) standards.

The issue with this is that heavy reliance on global supply chains has exposed countries to external shocks – such as geopolitical conflicts, trade disruptions, or concentrated resource dependencies – that can cascade rapidly across borders. Similarly, harmonised digital governance is nothing short of a dictatorial technocracy, especially when we consider plans towards central bank digital currencies, a unified ledger for those CBDCs curated by BlackRock, and even 15 minute cities. 

Additionally, ESG mandates, often pushed through international benchmarks, tend to impose compliance costs and redirect investment priorities away from domestic needs toward globally aligned goals, thus eroding sovereignty. Which is why globalisation is nothing short of a euphemism for colonisation ,and instead denotes woke capitalism.

“A LYING TONGUE IS BUT FOR A MOMENT”

Now, when we began today’s discussion, I highlighted that our focus is on the collision between the works of God and the wicked plans of men, in what ultimately amounts to Davos in decline. This was no mere statement. This was intended to capture a divinely orchestrated reality.

Now, for greater clarity, you’d be aware that in previous years, there have been numerous prophecy that have gone forth concerning the demise of the WEF, and truly we have seen that come to pass – from the WEF and associated platforms receiving compelling competitors (which we spoke of in light of the alternative multipolar system that has been created by the BRICS and now even the US, when it made this offer during the UN assembly last year, and partly reflected in the creation of the Board of Peace). We saw this concerning the internal implosion of the WEF itself when its chief architect left in disgrace.

But, if you noticed, during the January 2026 Global Fasting and Prayer programme, there was yet another prophetic emphasis and progression concerning the WEF, when the Man of God, Rev Dr Chris Oyakhilome DSc DSc DD, proclaimed that the WEF is an organisation that should no longer exist. To me, and I believe so many of us, it was a re-emphasis of the truth that the lying tongue is but for a season, meaning it the lying tongue seems to gain influence just until we who bear the obligation of being truth protagonists arrive on the scene – in other words; the lying tongue is for a moment, until the manifestation of the truth and of the sons of God.

Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso

The President emphasized the urgent need for global reforms to address inequality, mounting debt, and the imbalance of power within international institutions. He underscored Zimbabwe’s commitment to sustainable development, inclusive growth, and global cooperation, asserting that progress in Africa must be matched by fairer global economic structures.

In a bold statement, President Mnangagwa also revealed Zimbabwe’s intention to seek a non permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council for the 2027–2028 term. He said the move reflects Zimbabwe’s readiness to contribute meaningfully to international peace, security, and development.

The Doha summit brought together global leaders to discuss strategies for reducing poverty, promoting equality, and fostering global solidarity themes that resonated strongly with Zimbabwe’s message of shared progress and reform.

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

TIME MAGAZINE: “THE WORLD’S FIRST CLIMATE TIPPING POINT HAS BEEN CROSSED, SCIENTISTS SAY”

 We ought to start with the Times Magazine article and its recent contributions to the climate alarmism discourse. So, as referenced earlier, Time Magazine published an article titled “The World’s First Climate Tipping Point Has Been Crossed, Scientists Say”. Then, Simmone Shah, who is the author of the article remarks that (quote) “The exact moment when Earth will reach its tipping points—moments at which human-induced climate change will trigger irreversible planetary changes—has long been a source of debate for scientists. But they might be closer than we think. A report published today says that the Earth has passed its first climate tipping point.”

She continues to state that “The second “Global Tipping Points” report published by the University of Exeter found that warm-water coral reefs are passing their tipping point. Rising ocean temperatures, acidification, overfishing, and pollution are combining to cause coral bleaching and mortality, meaning that a large number of coral reefs will be lost unless the global temperature returns towards 1°C warming or below. “ Furthermore, Tim Lenton, who is the founding director at the Global Systems Institute at the University of Exeter (who led the report that Simmone Shah is wrote bout in this Times articles), he is quoted stating that “We’re in a new climate reality,”… and that “We’ve crossed a tipping point in the climate system, and we’re now sure we’re going to carry on through 1.5°C of global warming above the prior industrial level, and that’s going to put us in the danger zone for crossing more climate tipping points.”

And for clarity, the authors define a tipping point as “occurring when changes in a system become self-perpetuating and difficult to reverse beyond a threshold, leading to substantial, widespread impacts.” Scientists  are said to have found as many as 25 major tipping points, including the Amazon rain forest transforming from a lush forest that stores carbon emissions to a dry savannah, and the permanent melting of polar sea ice whereby the dark open water absorbs more heat compared to white snow, encouraging further melting. Now, let’s directly respond to these claims.

First, Simone Shah does not do much to clarify who exactly are the scientists behind the claim that the “World’s First Climate Tipping Point Has Been Crossed”, which I think we can at least deduce that they are people working with Tim Lenton, who is the founding director at the Global Systems Institute at the University of Exeter, as quoted by Simone Shah herself. But this question matters, because knowing who are these individuals that are shoved under the collective title of “scientist” helps us to investigate their credibility; because otherwise, their credibility appears only to be that they agree with climate alarmist claims – which is not on its own a testament of critical thought and scientific integrity.

Secondly, it is worth noting that merely stating that scientists have made a certain claim about climate change does not carry the weight it does, because scientists do not have an overwhelming consensus on issues pertaining to climate change – UNLESS the money funding their research comes from organisations that expect them to arrive at that conclusion – hence climate alarmism grew parallel to research funding for this area becoming a billion dollar industry – which is also not testament of scientific integrity or genuine consensus among scientists. In fact, regarding scientific consensus on climate change, you’d recall that we’ve discussed here on The War Room that almost NO ONE who refers to the claim of there being about 97% consensus among scientists concerning a climate emergency has any idea of whether this claim was proved. And in our previous discussions we’ve discussed that among the studies that were used to justify the lie behind the 97% consensus claim, was a weirdly popular paper authored by a John Cook, who runs the website SkepticalScience.com, which is a virtual encyclopedia of arguments trying to defend predictions of catastrophic climate change from all challenges. And yet, in the weirdly popular paper, Cook was able to demonstrate only that a relative handful of scientists endorse “the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.” Cook calls this “explicit endorsement with quantification” (quantification meaning 50 percent or more). But, really what those findings meant is that there is no quantifiable 97% consensus among climate scientists.

To drive this further, Dr Judith Curry, who is a renowned climatologist and Georgia Tech professor emeritus, she describes how climate research has been overtaken by politics, funding incentives, and academic pressure to conform. She adds that honest debate is discouraged, climate models are treated as infallible and students are trained to find disasters, not question assumptions.

THERE IS 0.04% CO2 IN THE ATMOSPHERE; AND HUMANS ONLY CONTRIBUTE 3% OF THAT

This brings us to the third point of rebuttal to the claims made in the Times article by Simone Shah, and this has to do with the association between the so-called tipping points, with what is regarded as human-induced climate change that will trigger irreversible planetary changes. Now for clarity, human-induced climate change (also referred to as anthropogenic factors of climate change), usually has to do with carbon emission from humans. Well, the point of rebuttal is this: climate alarmists need to stop for a moment and ask how much carbon dioxide is in the earth’s atmosphere and how much of it humans contribute to because they will discover how ridiculous their approach is.

Simply, CO2 (that is carbon dioxide) is 0.04% of the atmosphere. Humans create only 3% of that 0.04%. This means that if carbon dioxide is inherently bad (which it is not, considering its organic existence and role in the flourishment of life), there is nevertheless an incredibly low amount of it in the earth’s atmosphere already. Secondly, assuming the amounts of carbon dioxide need to be kept at a minimum, restrictions on humans who collectively contribute only 3 percent of carbon emissions is a ridiculous approach with less than marginal gains. And the proof of this is that carbon emissions have actually been on a sharp decrease for YEARS!

Today, CO2 levels are at about 400ppm; and yet, CO2 at 4,000 parts per million means abundant life. The historic average for CO2 in the atmosphere is also 1,600 ppm. Meanwhile, CO2 is considered completely safe in naval submarines at 8,000 ppm, which is notable as the oceans are the storehouse of 93% of all CO2 on earth, where up to 70% of all photosynthesis takes place, via phyto-plankton.

CHANGE IN THE CLIMATE DOES NOT NECESSARY REFLECT AN IRREVERSIBLE AND IMPENDING DOOM

Then the fourth and final piece of rebuttal to the Time magazine article by Simone Shah has to do with the definition of tipping point itself (that is beyond its association with human CO2 emissions). Just to remind you, the authors quoted in the study define a tipping point as “occurring when changes in a system become self-perpetuating and difficult to reverse beyond a threshold, leading to substantial, widespread impacts.” The so-called scientists are thus said to have found as many as 25 major climate-related tipping points, including the Amazon rain forest transforming from a lush forest that stores carbon emissions to a dry savannah, and the permanent melting of polar sea ice whereby the dark open water absorbs more heat compared to white snow, encouraging further melting.

Now, the question I’d like to ask (part of refuting these remarks) is this: Have they differentiated between a tipping point and a natural occurrence, that either requires no alarmist response or the earth is equally capable of correcting organically? I ask this because when climate alarmists make statements that are supposed to communicate an impending emergency, it is often relative to how they have manipulated the data and chosen to frame the message they wish to communicate. For instance, they can say “today is the hottest day ever recorded” – and that sounds somewhat serious to the unsuspecting mind. But, how consequential it is that today is the hottest day ever recorded changes the moment you ask “since when”. Because, for example, the hottest day recorded in the last 50 years, is not equal to or above the hottest day that was recorded in the days of Jesus on earth. And yet, ironically, the communication from climate alarmists is that we are progressively experiencing harsher climates due to increasing CO2 emissions, and not that the present state is even better than previous years, when there were lesser CO2 emissions.

And so, the tipping points sound well defined, until you realise that the definition is hinged on a relative consideration of irreversible harm. The earth was made by a very wise Creator who understood how to ensure harmonious co-existence of all elements and life. That is why the sun knows when to shine, and oceans have boundaries; or why there are habitable (and thus likely non-habilitable places of the earth) – so much so, that the earth is even able to self regulate and correct. For instance, after something as destructive as a volcano eruption, plants grow incredibly well after because volcanic ash creates incredibly fertile soil that is rich in essential nutrients like potassium, phosphorus, and calcium. God knew what He was doing; and change in the climate is an organic event and does not necessarily reflect an emergence or irreversible doom.

CLIMATE ALARMISTS ARE ALSO WRONG ABOUT ANTHROPOGENIC FACTORS 

But, let’s also zoom in on the claim of anthropogenic factors fueling climate change. So, climate alarmism is built upon the four part theory that: (1) Firstly, CO2 levels were in equilibrium (at around 280-300 ppm); (2) secondly the use of fossil fuels (and steel, cement & aluminium production) increases CO2 levels; (3) thirdly, increases in global CO2 concentrations increases average global temperature; and (4) finally, that an increase in average global temperatures is bad, and causes more bad weather.

Well, this theory has been destroyed by a paper which demonstrates that CO2 levels (using an analysis of 979 technical papers reporting from 1,901 air samples) have actually not been in equilibrium and in fact rose to 383 ppm in the early 1940’s  (thus corresponding with temperature increases at that time) and then fell.

CO2 levels have been measured at Mauna Loa in Hawaii since 1960 – but prior to that, CO2 measurements relied upon proxy data from Antarctic ice samples which have been found to be highly questionable given a great deal of selection bias that was uncovered.

In more detail, the late Dr Ernst-Georg Beck spent years compiling an exhaustive chemical database of the CO2 levels measured in air samples from across the globe. Analyzing 979 technical papers reporting from 1,901 air sample measurement stations, Beck’s CO2 measurement data was published in a scientific paper entitled “Reconstruction of Atmospheric CO2 Background Levels since 1826 from Direct Measurements near Ground” after his death in 2022.

The 60,000 global-scale chemical measurements compiled between 1930 and 1950 using data from 25 authors and locations assessed that between 1939 and 1943 global atmospheric CO2 rose to 383 ppm – the same concentration again achieved in 2007. After the early 1940s, the chemical measurements indicate CO2 plummeted  to 310 ppm by the late 1940s.

Well, these fluctuations are consistent with variations in sea surface temperatures and temperature-dependent soil respiration processes, thus suggesting that temperature is the driver, and CO2 variations are the effect. But, ultimately, this proves that the major driver of CO2 levels are natural temperature variations, and not human activity.

Furthermore, the analysis reveals that of the 90 ppm rise in CO2 since1958 (the Mauna Loa era), not more than 12 ppm could be said to have derived from fossil fuel emissions. And when the CO2 rose to 383 ppm in the early 1940s, the impact from anthropogenic emissions “can be largely excluded.” This means that climate  alarmism is once again exposed to be a scam. Simply, CO2 variations happen outside of anthropogenic factors, thus meaning that schemes to reduce fossil fuel use are also a vain and diabolical effort.

So, given that this theory on anthropogenic factors is so obviously wrong, why was it pushed? The answer is control. Former US government insider, Marc Morano, summarises how unelected globalists are using the “human-induced climate change” hoax as a pretext to deliberately collapse the food supply, so people will have no choice but to eat insects and lab-grown “meat”. And this is further evidenced by the fact that Climate grifter extraordinaire, John Kerry, announces the need for a war-like effort to collapse the global farming industry, under the pretext of tackling the “human-induced climate change” hoax.

THE REAL “INCONVENIENT TRUTH” IS THAT CLIMATE CHANGE ALARMISTS ARE ALWAYS WRONG

You’d recall that Al Gore presented a film titled “An Inconvenient Truth”, and it portrayed sea level rises as such that they’re going to be 20 feet in a few decades. Well, it appears that the real so-called inconvenient truth is that climate alarmists are often wrong; especially considering that this was nowhere in any science at all, even the most extreme, far-fetched projections.”

Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso

Beijing, August 26, 2025 — Chinese President Xi Jinping is set to host more than 20 world leaders next week at a high-stakes regional security forum, marking a significant display of Global South solidarity and a renewed diplomatic push in favor of multipolar global governance just months before the U.S. presidential election that may return Donald Trump to the White House.

The Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) summit will be held from August 31 to September 1 in the northern port city of Tianjin. Alongside President Xi, the event will be headlined by Russian President Vladimir Putin, whose attendance underscores the deepening strategic partnership between Beijing and Moscow amid intensifying Western isolation and sanctions against Russia.

The guest list includes leaders from Central Asia, the Middle East, South Asia, and Southeast Asia, many of whom represent emerging economies increasingly skeptical of U.S. led global institutions and sanctions regimes.

“This summit is China’s moment to solidify its role as the anchor of the Global South,” said one senior diplomat from the region. “It’s also a platform for Russia to show it’s far from diplomatically isolated.”

SCO: From Regional Bloc to Global Platform

Founded in 2001, the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation initially focused on regional counterterrorism and economic cooperation among China, Russia, and Central Asian states. But in recent years, it has expanded its scope  and its membership  to include India, Pakistan, and Iran, with dozens of observer and dialogue partner states.

The 2025 summit in Tianjin marks a shift in tone and ambition, with China aiming to elevate the SCO as an alternative platform to Western led alliances like NATO and G7.

Topics on the summit agenda reportedly include:

• Regional security cooperation

• Trade and infrastructure initiatives tied to China’s Belt and Road

• Strategies to bypass Western sanctions and develop parallel financial systems

• Humanitarian cooperation and food and energy security

Russia’s Diplomatic Lifeline

For Russia, the summit provides a critical opportunity to demonstrate that it retains high level diplomatic partners, even as its war in Ukraine and associated Western sanctions have constrained its economy and isolated it from major Western powers.

Putin’s confirmed participation marks one of his most prominent multilateral appearances this year, amid a flurry of recent engagements with non Western allies like North Korea, Iran, and BRICS partners.

“China is throwing Russia a diplomatic lifeline,” said a Eurasia analyst. “It’s a clear signal that alternative poles of power are being formed.”

Trump Factor and the U.S. Shadow

The summit also comes against the backdrop of a fast approaching U.S. presidential election, with Donald Trump a vocal critic of multilateralism and NATO  leading in several battleground state polls. Many SCO member states see the U.S. as distracted and divided, giving Beijing a unique opening to reshape the global narrative.

Observers suggest the Tianjin summit could also preemptively counter a second Trump administration, especially if it adopts a transactional approach to alliances and accelerates U.S. disengagement from global leadership.

What to Watch

The SCO summit is expected to conclude with a joint declaration reinforcing calls for:

• Non-interference in domestic affairs

• Reform of global governance institutions

• Respect for “multipolarity” in international relations

• Expanded South-South cooperation

China may also announce new investment funds or digital infrastructure agreements with member states, further anchoring its economic influence across Eurasia and the Global South.

As the geopolitical center of gravity shifts, the 2025 Tianjin SCO Summit could be a milestone in the post Western world order that leaders like Xi and Putin have long envisioned.

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

The war against the pandemic industrial complex, and we ought to begin with some recapitulation. To begin with, it is essential to dispel the assumption that the pandemic accord emerged out of sincerity or the urgent necessity that has been claimed by the DG of the WHO, Tedros Ghebreyesus. Rather, this very pandemic accord emerged out of concerning circumstances – which should not be lost on anyone.

More specifically, the draft pandemic accord has been under development for three years by delegates of 194 Member States of the World Health Organization. The WHO has been pushing to negotiate a pandemic treaty or accord allegedly to better prepare the world for pandemic preparedness, prevention, and response, in parallel with a new set of amendments to the 2005 International Health Regulations (IHR).

But, here’s where we find the concerning context behind the pandemic accord and the amendments to the international health regulations. In essence, the IHR amendments were pushed to a vote at the 77th World Health Assembly in 2024, less than 48 hours after negotiations on them finished. This haste was in blatant violation of the WHO’s own procedural requirements! Meanwhile, in December 2021, the WHA instituted the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB) to negotiate the pandemic agreement, but this body failed to reach agreement for the 2024 world health assembly.

Following this failure, the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body was then mandated “to finish its work as soon as possible” and no later than a year. The reason for this is that the WHO has tried to add to the sense of haste, with its Director-General (DG) recently claiming that (quote) “the next pandemic could occur tomorrow.” However, the problem with this manufactured sense of urgency is that it is not based on a sincere interest to prepare against genuine health concerns, since for one viruses and lab leaks do not occur naturally. But, secondly, the pandemic accord is drafted to orchestrate a power grab. This is to say that drafts of the PA, along with the IHR amendments, seek to centralise management of pandemics and pandemic preparedness in the WHO, considerably expanding its role in public health, all while undermining the sovereignty of nations. But, ultimately, what this hastened nature of the pandemic accord and the IHR amendments shows is that its acceleration emerges out of political interest, and not organic necessity – especially seeing that the WHO even undermined its own regulations in the process.

However when we consider that the WHO is not a genuine health-focused body, and instead is one that has been working against the advancement in good health practices while pushing a bacteriological warfare agenda, this context is not difficult to appreciate. However, what should be jarring is that the agreement centers on something called the PABS system, a global plan to share profits from so-called “pandemic pathogens.”

DEVELOPMENT: UPDATE ON INTERNATIONAL HEALTH REGULATION AMENDMENTS

Let’s talk about a development in light of the IHRs. For clarity, the IHR are an existing legal agreement outlining the rights and responsibilities of WHO and its member states in handling international public health events, while the Pandemic Accord is a potential new international agreement being negotiated to strengthen pandemic preparedness and response. Therefore, the IHRs and the Pandemic Agreement serve complementary but somewhat distinct purposes in global health governance – differing primarily in scope, objectives, and focus (but are ultimately serving the same purpose – which is the functionality of the WHO, and its potential increase in power), hence, they IHR and the pandemic accord are often discussed in conjunction. Furthermore, there has been an extensive discussion on amendments to the IHR since 2005.

Well, much has been written on the amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR), and this is what countries would be making themselves subject to after July 19th, if they do not withdraw. However, many nations are actually raising concerns of loss of sovereignty, censorship, corporate greed, and conflict of interest – and we ought to emphasise why these are valid concerns, and not mere considerations that do not end up having a weight in the value judgments made by nations concerning the IHR, and the pandemic accord.

THE AMENDMENTS TO THE INTERNATIONAL HEALTH REGULATIONS CURATE AN EROSION OF SOVEREIGNTY

But, first, with IHR, on Saturday 19 July, amendments to the WHO’s International Health Regulations (IHR) become binding international law (which I think is a dangerous paradoxical statement). In any case, these IHR give the WHO legal authority to influence lockdowns, travel, medical mandates and digital health IDs across major Western nations. How this happens is that through these amendments, the WHO can declare a global emergency — even if there’s no outbreak in your country. That means unelected officials in Geneva could trigger lockdowns, jab campaigns, or border closures in your city based on events somewhere else.

Meanwhile, in the current amendments to the IHR, they deleted the requirement that health measures respect your dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms. Those exact words are scrubbed, and are replaced with vague “equity” language that paves the way for coercion & censorship. Then, because they know that international law is not actually binding (like we;ve discussed previously here on The War Room, the amendments the IHR made a diabolical adjustment to make the WHO decrees enforceable. How they did this is that the IHR requires every country to appoint a National IHR Authority. This is a local enforcement body that takes orders from the WHO. It won’t answer to your vote, your courts, or your constitution. It will coordinate “compliance” with global health law. In other words, the WHO is by passing constitutional sovereignty, meaning that the constitution in your country (as far as health and related policies are concerned) will no longer be the highest law of the land.

Then, if after Saturday 19th, your government is pressed to exit, they have made that option incredibly difficult. This is because July 19th is the last day that Member States of the World Health Organization can withdraw from the IHR amendments (without entering a multi-year withdrawal process). By failing to withdraw, they will be committing their taxpayers to fund the key surveillance aspects of a rapidly expanding industry that is the pandemic industrial complex. And so, the fact that we are having this conversation now is quite jarring seeing that many leaders and citizens have been speaking out against this attempt at a power grab for years.

THE PANDEMIC ACCORD IS ALSO DESIGNED TO INHERENTLY UNDERMINE SOVEREIGNTY 

Now, I mentioned earlier that the IHR and the pandemic accord ultimately serve the same purpose even though they are presented as different bodies of law. And to drive this further, I’d like to indicate how parallel (and frankly identical) their provisions are when it comes to the erosion of sovereignty. But before we address how the pandemic agreement undermines sovereignty, I’d like for us to kindly have a listen as the DG of the WHO tries to make a disingenuous case for why sovereignty is not undermined.

Let’s directly respond to this. In essence, while Article 3 of the pandemic accord affirms national sovereignty (on paper), the agreement—adopted under Article 19 of the WHO Constitution—creates binding international obligations for Parties once ratified (especially when you look at Articles 31–33). And this happens because these provisions empower the WHO to coordinate pandemic responses through: (1) a global Pathogen Access and Benefit-Sharing System (according to Article 12); a Global Supply Chain and Logistics Network (GSCL) (according to Article 13); a Coordinating Financial Mechanism for pandemic response (according to Article 18); and a National pandemic planning, surveillance, and communications strategies (according to Articles 4, 6, 16). And then to top it off, once ratified, countries would be expected to align domestic policies with WHO-led systems, thus subjecting national decision-making to international influence. And so, while article 3 of the pandemic accord is paraded as a preliminary response to concerns of the erosion of sovereignty, the entire accord completely disregards it in various avenues!

Furthermore, this means that the global concept of (quote-unquote) “One Health” remains in the pandemic agreement. And One Health is defined in the pandemic treaty as an “integrated, unifying approach that aims to sustainably balance and optimise the health of people, animals and ecosystems.” This therefore introduces a problematic expansion of the WHO’s authority into new areas including global warming, the environment, farming, and food supplies!

KEY CONCERNS HIDDEN IN THE WHO PANDEMIC AGREEMENT

It does not stop there, because there are a number of detrimental provisions that are outlined in the pandemic agreement, detailed in various articles of the document. First, the WHO pandemic agreement promotes expedited regulatory authorisations and WHO’s Emergency Use Listing during pandemics (through Article 8.2). It encourages regulatory alignment and urges manufacturers to allocate 20% of their real-time production of vaccines and therapeutics to WHO, including 10% as a donation (which you see in Article 12.6). And what this is aimed towards is a global deployment of more experimental injections.

Secondly, there is no built-in liability or compensation for injuries. This is to say that although mass distribution of pandemic countermeasures is promoted, the agreement includes no binding provisions for compensation. To add to this, Resolution OP15.10 from the Assembly merely requests the WHO to develop “non-binding advice” on managing legal risks related to novel pandemic vaccines, leaving responsibility to individual nations.

Then thirdly, the pandemic agreement further lays groundwork for vaccine passports and digital surveillance! In Article 6.3, the agreement mandates development of inter-operable national health information systems. Article 8.4 encourages regulatory reliance, and Article 16 promotes population-level risk communication and “pandemic literacy.” While vaccine passports are not explicitly named, the structure supports global digital compliance mechanisms linked to immunization and surveillance, which culminates in vaccine passports.

MEANWHILE, THE INTERNATIONAL HEALTH REGULATIONS ARE A MONEY MAKING PLOT

What is most aggravating about this discourse on the IHR and the pandemic accord is the fact that it is all ultimately a plot by greedy psychopathic people who want to make more money. More specifically, in the 20 years prior to Covid-19, experts recruited by the G20 to present evidence supporting the IHR amendments could only find outbreaks amounting to about 190,000 deaths in the 20 years pre-Covid (and you can find this in the section on “major infectious disease outbreaks” in Annex D of the 2022 G20 report). Putting numbers to these, nearly all (163,000) deaths are attributed to Swine flu in 2009 (about a quarter of normal yearly flu mortality). Most of the remainder were from the geographically confined West African Ebola outbreak, and the Haiti cholera outbreak which arose from sewerage leaking from a United Nations compound. IN CONTRAST, about 1.3 million people are reported to die yearly from tuberculosis and over 600,000 children from malaria. Roughly 100 million died from malaria, tuberculosis, and HIV/AIDS combined over the same 20-year period. But, undaunted, the G20 secretariat concluded that the acute outbreak like swine flu and ebola constituted an “existential threat” justifying far more resources.

Then, the World Bank teamed up with the WHO to provide an explanatory graphic in their official report aimed at convincing our governments to divert funds to pandemics rather than the major endemic diseases; such as malaria, tuberculosis, and HIV/AIDS. But, to justify public money being allocated to profitable pandemic preparedness rather than high-burden diseases, they needed to show that pandemics cost economies far more. And what they did is that they presented a graph, in which they drew a line for malaria, tuberculosis, and HIV/AIDS combined at $22 billion per year (i.e. probably about 1% or 2% of true cost). Then they drew a wavy line above this to indicate that SARS1 (840 deaths) and MERS (about 800 deaths) cost $50-70 billion.

Based on this graph, covid is costed at over $9 trillion, which clearly includes costs of lockdowns and incentive packages from the extraordinary response. A Lancet article that the WHO would have previously agreed with estimated annual economic costs of tuberculosis alone to be $508 billion, but the WHO and the World Bank chose $22 billion for TB, malaria, and HIV combined. This means that the WHO considers a virus with a less than 1 percent mortality rate (being the COVID virus) to require orders of magnitude more finances than three diseases that have killed about 100 million, mostly children and young adults, in just 20 years. This math does not make sense, except you’re trying to justify funnelling money towards the pandemic industrial complex!

And this is not even the gist of it all: there is far more extensive evidence of the WHO and partner agencies misleading the public, media, and governments to promote the pandemic agenda. It is a deliberate misrepresentation intended to divert funds to wealthier nations, their corporations, and investors, increasing inequality and causing net harm. The private sector and a few countries can control most of the WHO’s work through specified funding. Member States go along because delegates want a job with the same agencies or refuse to accept that these agencies fabricate a story, even when a cursory review shows their claims are exaggerated or unfounded.

And so, even though the main proponents of the IHR amendments cannot articulate a coherent case for having them, if nations are not careful and quick to use this opportunity to resist this agenda, they may come into force in their respective nations. This is simply about building an industry to repeat Covid; taking money from the larger but less profitable disease burdens, printing more, and concentrating this wealth amongst those promoting this agenda – it is nothing short of diabolical and abhorrent and a threat to the principles of sovereignty and the more plausible aspects of democracy that we are supposed to protect.

THE W.H.O IS NOT COMPETENT TO HANDLE THE AMOUNT OF POWER IT DEMANDS

Finally, it is important to reiterate that the WHO is not even competent to be given such a potentially expanded role. And here, we ought to address the fact that even if the provisions of the pandemic accord were legitimate (which they categorically are not), the WHO is also just yet another poorly and corruptly run bureaucracy, which SHOULD disqualify it from being given this amount of power.

For starters, the WHO maintained for years that a lab leak was highly unlikely as a cause for Covid, including on its investigative panel people suspected of sharing responsibility for work leading to the probable leak. It then publicly insisted that there was no human-to-human transmission of the virus as reports increased of spread in the population in Wuhan, China, and subsequently provided highly flawed and exaggerated case fatality rates.

Then secondly, despite extensive and early evidence of low harm from Covid-19 to children, the WHO was essentially silent as schools were closed for hundreds of millions of children – which in various contexts, set the scene for drastic ramifications such as crippling education quality, and youth suicidality. The WHO’s COVAX mass vaccination campaign then spent nearly $10 billion vaccinating people it knew were mostly already immune, and never at high risk.

In addition, and in an effort to promote its pandemic preparedness prevention response agenda and the increased funding it is requesting to support this, the WHO and the wider global health industry looking to benefit have embarked on an unusual campaign of demonstrable misrepresentation and confusion. Countries and the media have been provided with a series of reports shown to greatly exaggerate the available evidence and citations on the risk of pandemics occurring, exaggerate expected mortality (mostly based on Medieval data), and exaggerate the expected return on investment. And so, ironically, while the pandemic accord calls for so-called “better adherence to honesty and evidence”, it evidently directs these recommendations to countries rather than the WHO itself. But, president Donald Trump long exposed these issues of corruption and manipulation in the WHO, as early as 2023, and even prior – in his first administration.

Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso

The authorities are actively constructing a digital prison

Big Tech insiders are now exposing the alarming plan to confine humanity within smart cities, essentially creating a high-tech prison under the guise of security, convenience, and sustainability. Aman Jabbi, a whistleblower, reveals that our personal devices and smart appliances are constantly monitoring our every move, tracking our daily activities. As we step out of our homes, our cars are being tracked, and our smartphones, smartwatches, and other devices are being surveilled as we walk down the street. This pervasive surveillance allows for 24/7 data collection on every individual, effectively creating a digital prison. The concept of smart cities, which encompasses the idea of 15-minute cities, is designed to restrict our mobility and limit our access to resources like water, energy, and transportation. Moreover, initiatives like air monitoring, water management, and noise pollution are being used to ration our resources, limit our movement, and even surveil our speech. The notion of geofencing is also being employed, creating an invisible fence that restricts our movement and controls our access to digital currency, all tied to our face recognition, digital identity, and access control. In essence, our world has been transformed into a digital panopticon, where our every move is being watched, tracked, and controlled. The authorities are actively constructing a digital prison, and it’s imperative that we’re aware of the looming threat to our freedom and autonomy.

Surveillance capitalism erodes individual autonomy

Surveillance capitalists are actively manipulating users, stripping them of their autonomy by utilizing algorithms that predict and shape their behaviour, posing a significant threat to the very foundations of democracy. By concentrating power in their own hands, these surveillance capitalists are undermining democratic processes, leveraging their influence to mold public opinion and dictate policy. Furthermore, the unchecked wealth generated by surveillance capitalism is exacerbating economic inequality, as the corporations that own and control the data and algorithms are raking in profits, while users are being exploited as nothing more than free commodities, fuelling a system that perpetuates economic disparity.

Covid was meant to normalise biometric surveillance

But it even goes beyond that. Advisor to the WEF, Yuval Noah Harari admitted that Covid was critical because this is what convinces people to accept total biometric surveillance, which will enable the Stalins of the 21st century” to monitor and analyse the brains of all the population, all the time.

Understanding Smart Cities, 15-Minute Cities

In cities and towns across the word, our communities are being transformed by the implementation of so-called “smart” technologies said to create more efficient, safe, and sustainable environments. These smart cities use a range of devices such as cameras, sensors, and artificial intelligence to attempt central management of everything from traffic and public safety to environmental monitoring. Proponents of smart cities will sing songs about their efficiency. Traffic lights adjust in real-time to traffic conditions, reducing congestion and shortening commutes. Smart waste management systems notify city services when trash bins are full, optimizing collection routes and frequencies. Public safety could be enhanced by using networked cameras and environmental sensors that can detect crimes and so forth.

Moreover, the control and ownership of this data resides predominantly in the hands of corporations. This new era of surveillance isn’t just about privacy. It’s a profound shift in the power dynamics between the state and the individual. It tips the balance overwhelmingly in favour of the observer. In a society where everyone is watched, the watched are not free. This surveillance creates a chilling effect on behaviour, stifling dissent and discouraging participation in civil society. If you think about it, it’s a strange trade-off. We’re bartering away bits of our privacy for the convenience of not having to flip a light switch or remember where we parked the car. And the lessons from history are clear. Surveillance technologies, once introduced, are rarely rolled back. They tend to expand in scope and scale, often outstripping the original intentions behind their deployment. So we need to ask: Are we building a smarter world or just a more surveilled one?

The UN’s Diabolical Agenda for World Domination 

Under the United Nations’ plan for complete global control known as Agenda 21 (which Agenda 2030 is a mere milestone of), humans who once lived on farms and in rural areas are to be forcibly relocated into densely populated “smart” cities, known as “human settlements”. Watch this except from the documentary, ‘Unsustainable: The UN’s Agenda For World Domination’.

As we stand at the crossroads of technology and privacy, the choices we make today will define the legacy of our generation. It’s crucial that we strike a balance between leveraging technology for our own betterment and safeguarding the individual freedoms we hold so dear. The Documentary ‘The Agenda: Their Vision, Your Future’ by Oracle Films presents evidence that the global takeover is not only possible—it’s actually happening and has been decades in the making.”

Writtebn 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