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

Bill Gates’ GMO Mosquitoes

Flying Syringes for Forced Vaccination and Global Control

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

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

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

Bill Gates is Waging a High-Tech War on Mosquitoes

At What Cost to Humanity and the Environment?

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

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

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

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

Written By Tatenda Belle Panashe

HISTORICAL CONTEXT: THE COMPANIES AND ALLIED MATTERS ACT IN NIGERIA 

The Companies and Allied Matters Act (CAMA) 2020 legal framework was a piece of legislation that sought to allow the government to control church operations. The law passed by President Buhari on August 7th allowed for the establishment of a commission to regulate, coordinate and monitor non-governmental organisations, a move the Christian leaders “completely reject” as it “brings the Church which is technically grouped among the NGOs, under control of the government.”

At the centre of the contention provoked by this Act was Section 839 (1) and (2) which empowers the Commission to suspend trustees of an association (in this case, the church) and appoint the interim managers to manage the affairs of the association for some given reasons. And in light of this provision, Christian leaders asked how can the government sack the trustee of a Church which it contributed no dime to establish? But, perhaps even more importantly, how can a secular and political minister be the final authority on the affairs and management of another institution which is not political?

The Christian leaders then resolved that the Church cannot be controlled by the government because of its spiritual responsibilities and obligations, and thus called on the Federal government to stop the implementation of CAMA law until the religious institutions are exempted from it.

Similarly, in this period, the Man of God and President of Loveworld Incorporated, being the highly esteemed Rev Dr Chirs Oyakhilome DSc DSc DD spoke against the efforts at regulating the Church, especially efforts by the Nigerian Government to reduce the time of Sunday services. And he stated emphatically that the government had no right to regulate Churches and determine how long services take; even exclaiming that he was appalled that others would have the audacity to tell Christians how many hours we can spend in Church or in worshiping God.

THE CHAIRPERSON OF THE CRL COMMISSION IN SOUTH AFRICA WANTS TO REGULATE CHURCHES

But, while the Church in Nigeria pushed against diabolical efforts aimed at regulating the affairs of the Church, governments in other nations are attempting the same failed script, and one of them is that in South Africa. Thoko Mkhwanazi-Xaluva, who is the chairperson of the Commission for the Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Cultural, Religious, and Linguistic Communities (or simply the CRL Rights Commission)… she wants to overhaul the system and have structures that hold Church leaders accountable. And as alluded to earlier, beneath the cloak of accountability lies a diabolical plan to make Churches into secular organisations accountable to the state. So, the CRL Commission Chair also speaks of a vetting process for Pastors in particular. And, I say she speaks of Pastors because it appears that while the commission speaks of the regulation of religious organisations, the chairperson is more interested in Christian Leaders.

THOSE IGNORANT OF THE GOSPEL & SPIRITUAL REALITIES CANNOT TO REGULATE THE CHURCH

What also appears to be influencing the demand to regulate Churches and Church leaders, in addition to satanic inclinations, is also just pure ignorance. For some context, in the Scriptures, we learn of various Man of God, Prophets and key figures who heard from God, which means that God has a proven desire and record of communicating with His people. In fact, we can even take the intercession that Abraham conducted as an example, where in Genesis 18:33 it then reads that, “When the LORD had finished speaking with Abraham, He departed, and Abraham returned home”.

Similarly, in John 10:27, Jesus describes the intimate relationship between himself and his followers, emphasizing that his true followers recognize and follow his guidance, stating that “My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me.” Also, in Acts Chapter 9, on the road to Damascus, Saul (who became the Apostle Paul) encountered the glory of Christ as a blinding light from heaven, heard a voice asking why he was persecuting Jesus, and was temporarily blinded. Well, in light of this context, I’d like to play this excerpt to expose the ignorance of those with the audacity to call for the regulation of the Church.

WE ARE ENGAGED IN A SPIRITUAL WAR, AND THE WAR ON CHRISTIANS IS A GLOBAL CONCERN

Now, what we see happening is far from being a South Africa or African problem. In Ukraine, the freedom to practise one’s faith is also being targeted. You would have observed headlines especially in the month of August 2024 revealing that Zelenskyy has banned the Church in Ukraine. Dozens of priests were also being targeted, and it appears that this was done in part in order to divide Christians concerning the proxy war!

In the UK, children are being indoctrinated with Muslim teachings – while Christians are being arrested for praying outside of abortion clinics. In fact, Reform UK councillor Francesca O’Brien says Welsh parents were branded racist for objecting to an unannounced Islam lesson at a Swansea primary school.

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

Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso

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

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

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

The Globalist Great Reset: Erasing Ownership for Elite Control

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

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

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

Defending Personal Values Against Globalist Overreach

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The WEF will not control the nations

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

Written By Tatenda Belle Panashe

‘BritCard’, the UK government’s proposed mandatory digital ID

The BritCard system actively enables the government to monitor your every move, track your online activity, identify the protests you attend, and record your spending habits, storing this vast amount of data permanently. The state is deliberately designing this system to exclude any option for citizens to opt-out, effectively making every individual digitally visible to the authorities in all their transactions. If you choose to defy some future directive, will the government actively cut off your access to your own funds, or will they restrict your freedom of movement? The implementation of BritCard is actively paving the way to a future where privacy is not just impossible, but explicitly forbidden, eroding the very foundation of personal autonomy.

Digital ID is Blair’s baby. One of the authors works for the Tony Blair Institute. Labour Together was founded by Blairite MPs and is staffed with ex-members of Blair’s cabinet. This is pure Blairite sleight-of-hand. Tony Blair’s Institute for Global Change has been pushing digital IDs as a fix for everything since forever, and now Starmer’s mulling a “Gov.uk wallet” for digital docs amid a Home Affairs Committee inquiry. Illegal migration? That’s the smokescreen—just like how the BIS uses “efficiency” for CBDCs in Project Mariana. BritCard won’t stop dinghy arrivals; it’ll track your movements, banking, and even vax status, paving the way for social credit, CBDCs, and carbon taxes. it’s a “slave collar like the COVID vax pass as a trial run. it’ll evolve into an app tying your bank and everything else, eroding freedoms. This dovetails perfectly with the Web3 hijack we discussed yesterday: blockchain digital identities from JPMorgan’s Onyx to Billions’ ZK proofs, all feeding into a globalist net where your “proof-of-personhood” locks you into compliant ecosystems.

The Quiet Rebranding of CBDCs as “Digital-ID”

The US has issued an Executive Order banning Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs), yet elements typical of a CBDC system are emerging, though not from the Federal Reserve. The US Treasury Department is now inviting public comments on the role of Digital ID in decentralized finance (DeFi). They aim to gather input on innovative methods to combat illicit finance risks tied to digital assets, as part of the GENIUS Act and in alignment with Donald Trump’s initiative for responsible digital asset growth. The Treasury’s request covers various topics, including using APIs to enforce access controls, monitor transactions, and enhance the security of financial institutions dealing with digital assets. It also explores employing Artificial Intelligence to identify illicit financial patterns and trends, as well as blockchain monitoring to assess high-risk activities and trace transactions across different blockchains. Additionally, the Treasury is seeking feedback on introducing portable digital identity credentials. These would support anti-money laundering (AML) and counter-terrorism financing (CFT) measures, promote user privacy, and lessen the compliance burden on financial institutions. Such credentials could enable DeFi services to verify user identities before processing transactions. This approach mirrors the Bank of International Settlements’ (BIS) proposal to assess individual crypto wallets for AML compliance, leveraging the history of crypto assets to calculate an AML compliance score. This score would indicate the likelihood of a crypto asset being linked to illicit activities, allowing authorities to enforce a duty of care among crypto market participants.

Digital ID verification in DeFi – Transparency or control?

The US Treasury’s potential integration of digital ID verification is poised to fundamentally alter the core of decentralized finance, a concept that was never truly decentralized to begin with. By embedding IDs directly into smart contracts, Know Your Customer and Anti-Money Laundering regulations will be strictly enforced on-chain, effectively closing the loophole for money laundering activities, but also sparking significant concerns about privacy. At this juncture, decentralized finance will be indistinguishable from traditional finance, as it will be subject to the same regulatory oversight. This development could potentially pave the way for cryptocurrency to become more integrated with traditional finance, resulting in lower compliance costs and fostering trust with major institutions. However, the drawbacks of this approach far outweigh the benefits, as stringent regulations will inevitably lead to the elimination of non-compliant protocols. In response, compliant stablecoins and DeFi platforms will emerge as the new standard, becoming institutionalized at an accelerated rate. Ultimately, DeFi will be forced to operate within the boundaries of the law, but the underlying question remains: is this regulatory push genuinely aimed at combating money laundering, or does it serve a more ulterior motive? Whitney Webb breaks down the coordinated global push for a new, dystopian system of control, marrying digital ID with CBDCs.

Governments and financial institutions are actively constructing a comprehensive digital surveillance system, with Digital Identity and Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) serving as the two primary components that lock individuals into this framework. This system is being designed to replace traditional government-issued IDs with Digital IDs that are deeply rooted in immutable biometric data, including fingerprints, facial structures, and iris patterns. By harnessing this biometric data, authorities are creating an unbreakable link between individuals’ physical bodies and their digital identity credentials, effectively rendering their bodies as passwords. The United Nations and the Bank for International Settlements are openly acknowledging that Digital IDs and CBDCs are being integrated to form the backbone of a new financial system. This biometric digital ID is crucial for the implementation of Know Your Customer (KYC) protocols, which require the identification and verification of every participant in the digital financial system. Digital wallets are being tied to Digital IDs, which are, in turn, mapped to individuals’ biometrics, establishing a total linkage between financial transactions and biological data. Prototypes of this system are already being rolled out, with initiatives like Sam Altman’s WorldCoin encouraging people to scan their irises to obtain a “unique identifier” and a digital wallet. Similarly, the UN’s “Building Blocks” program is forcing refugees to scan their irises to receive food rations, with the value being deducted from a wallet linked to their biometric ID. Under the guise of addressing the “identity gap,” authorities claim that digital IDs are necessary for the world’s poor to access essential services like banking and healthcare. However, the reality is that this system is being designed to exert programmable control over individuals, with their access to society and their own money being permissioned and revocable based on their compliance. This digital surveillance system is not about convenience; it’s about control. The new global financial system is being built on the foundation of total surveillance, where individuals’ every move is monitored and regulated. The implementation of Digital IDs and CBDCs is a deliberate attempt to create a framework of control, where authorities can dictate who can participate in the financial system and who cannot.

That brings us into Project Mariana, a cozy little collab between the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) Innovation Hub, the Bank of France, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS), and the Swiss National Bank (SNB). These unelected technocrats are “exploring” – that’s code for piloting – the use of decentralized finance (DeFi) tools for cross-border trading of wholesale central bank digital currencies (CBDCs). And get this: they’re borrowing tech from Curve Finance’s Curve v2 Hybrid Function Market Maker (HFMM) to power on-chain liquidity pools for these digital fiat monstrosities.

The Federal Reserve and its allies are debasing currencies, and Project Mariana reeks of their old playbook: disguising control as innovation. This project, backed by the “central bank of central banks,” aims to make international settlements faster and cheaper using digital currencies. They’re testing a digital version of the US dollar, euro, and other currencies on a private Ethereum network, cutting out traditional middlemen. But who’s building this new system? The same institutions that created the current economic mess. Mariana is using Curve Finance’s technology to swap currencies without the chaos of traditional markets. Curve’s system is perfect for institutional-scale digital currency pools, making it a key player in this project. But don’t be fooled – this isn’t about liberating the masses; it’s about the traditional financial system co-opting decentralized finance to build a programmable money system that’s traceable, taxable, and controllable. This project is part of the World Economic Forum’s “Great Reset” plan, which leads to a system where every transaction is tracked and controlled. The ultimate goal is to create a digital currency that can track your every purchase, including your morning coffee, and penalize you for “carbon overuse.” Mariana is building on earlier projects, pushing for a global digital currency platform that spans borders, all under the guise of “financial inclusion” and “reduced costs.” The irony is that Curve, a protocol born from crypto anarchy, is now lending its technology to the establishment’s surveillance ledger. If this project scales, say goodbye to cash anonymity and hello to a world where governments and banks can freeze your assets in an instant. This is the establishment’s endgame: hijacking blockchain’s promise to entrench their power and control over the global economy. So how does XRP tie into all this? Ripple has a Secret Plan to make your Biometric Identity Control Money and Healthcare.

Written By Tatenda Belle Panashe

JPMorgan and WEF Pushing Blockchain Digital ID as Cornerstone for Web3

Meet JPMorgan, the banking giant that’s been slapped with billions of dollars in fines for manipulating markets and facilitating large-scale fraud. This behemoth is now aggressively pushing Web3 narratives through its blockchain arm, Onyx, rebranded as Kinexys. In a video and article series, “The Big Shift: Digital Identity in Web3,” JPMorgan explicitly claims that Web3 will revolutionize the way we create, store, and manage assets and identity information, transitioning to decentralized blockchain models. The bank envisions a future where your digital identity, stored in a blockchain “wallet,” enables you to seamlessly navigate digital realms like DeFi, the metaverse, and NFTs, all while proving ownership without relying on centralized servers. On the surface, this sounds incredibly empowering, as you’re in control of your data, sharing only what you want, and blockchain’s immutability keeps it secure.

JPMorgan’s Digital ID intentions are not at all altruistic

However, JPMorgan’s true intentions are not at all altruistic like the video tries to sell. The bank is building a permissioned blockchain, which is centralized enough for them to control access and comply with government regulations. They’ve already processed over $300 billion in transactions on this platform and are now exploring digital identity wallets that tie your assets, credentials, and even offline payments to this system. JPMorgan claims this is all about efficiency, faster loans, and reduced fraud, but it’s clear that banks like JPMorgan don’t innovate without a profit motive. They’re using this “decentralized” identity to extract fees and data, funnelling it through their ecosystem, where they can monitor transactions, enforce know-your-customer rules, and integrate with global payment systems like their JPM Coin. This isn’t about giving users sovereignty; it’s about establishing JPMorgan’s sovereignty, with blockchain as the shiny new ledger for their financial empire. Jordan Peterson on digital ID, and the social credit systems it facilitates.

JPMorgan is actively trying to shape the future of digital identity, but it’s crucial to examine their motives and the implications of their actions. By doing so, we can better understand the true nature of their Web3 ambitions and what they mean for the future of finance. The bank’s aggressive push into Web3 is a calculated move to expand its reach and consolidate its power, and it’s essential to consider the potential consequences of their actions. As JPMorgan continues to drive the development of digital identity wallets and permissioned blockchains, it’s vital to ask: what does this mean for the future of financial sovereignty, and who will ultimately benefit from these innovations?

In comes the World Economic Forum, stepping into the fray, and the alarm bells warning of a globalist agenda ring louder than ever. Led by BlackRock’s Larry Fink now and unelected billionaire powerbrokers, the WEF has been aggressively promoting blockchain technology as the cornerstone of their controversial “Great Reset” initiative for years. The organization’s Blockchain Toolkit, launched in 2019, devotes entire modules to the concept of digital identity, emphasizing its crucial role in facilitating every transaction across supply chains and beyond. By advocating for “trusted digital identities” that seamlessly integrate the physical and digital realms, the WEF envisions a future where blockchain technology is used to verify and authenticate actors within complex networks, encompassing governments, corporations, and even IoT devices, all interconnected and interdependent. Queen Máxima of the Netherlands tells the WEF why digital ID is necessary for verifying vaccination status, accessing financial services and distributing government subsidies.

the WEF’s Digital ID Initiative

In a 2023 article, the WEF’s Digital ID Initiative is pushing for the development of privacy-preserving systems that leverage decentralized technologies, such as verifiable credentials and zero-knowledge proofs, allowing users to store metadata on public blockchains while keeping their personal information secure in offline wallets. The WEF even cites the concept of “soul-bound tokens,” introduced by Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin, as a means of binding non-transferable identities to individual blockchain profiles. According to the WEF, this initiative is designed to provide a solution to global problems, including the estimated 850 million people who lack official identification, by granting them access to essential services such as finance, healthcare, and social benefits, while also curbing the exploitation of personal data. However, a closer examination of the WEF’s true intentions reveals a more sinister agenda – the implementation of stakeholder capitalism on a global scale. The organization is actively promoting the development of interoperable systems that standardize identities across borders, effectively merging public blockchains with regulatory oversight. The WEF’s ultimate vision is that of a “decentralized society” where blockchain technology enables the tracking of compliance across a wide range of areas, including carbon credits, and more. JPMorgan is already on board, collaborating with the WEF on pilot projects such as Project Mariana and integrating with SWIFT for tokenized assets. Recent rumors have also linked this initiative to Ripple’s XRP Ledger, with leaked non-disclosure agreements suggesting ties to BlackRock ETFs and even health tech initiatives from the current US administration, highlighting the complex web of connections that underpin this global financial agenda. Listen to this from ‘The Agenda: Their Vision, Your Future’ by OracleFilms.

JPMorgan has explicitly stated that digital identity is the foundation of Web3, while the World Economic Forum (WEF) is linking it to healthcare, compliance, and global settlements. The WEF is even recommending its own reports on “trustworthy verification” of digital IDs, emphasizing its importance for a sustainable tech landscape. This push for digital identity is dark. When giants like JPMorgan and the WEF are at the helm, it’s not about decentralization, but rather centralizing control under the guise of tech utopianism. Digital IDs on the blockchain would create a permanent and tamper-proof record of an individual’s life, including their finances, health, location, and purchases, all of which could be accessed by anyone with the right keys. This would essentially eradicate privacy and open the door to total surveillance, allowing governments and corporations to blacklist individuals for their beliefs or actions.

The WEF’s focus on “redesigning trust” in supply chains is a euphemism for globalist micromanagement

The WEF’s focus on “redesigning trust” in supply chains is actually a euphemism for globalist micromanagement, where every transaction would be subject to ESG scores and carbon tracking, eroding national sovereignty and individual rights. This ties in with the development of Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs), which would give governments and corporations unprecedented control over individuals’ financial lives. JPMorgan is already experimenting with blockchain settlements, and a universal digital ID would make programmable money a reality, where individuals’ dollars could expire if they don’t comply with certain requirements. While JPMorgan and the WEF spin this as empowerment, it’s actually a trap for the masses. We need to resist this globalist digital leash and push for truly decentralized alternatives that don’t involve these players, protect cash, and keep the internet free from ID mandates.

Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso

We have discussed severally how governments worldwide are attempting to erase the foundational principles of personal liberty and financial independence. The latest assault on these values is unfolding in Australia, where policymakers are floating a “spare bedroom tax” to supposedly “free up housing supply.” This isn’t just bad economics—it’s a blatant intrusion into private life that aligns eerily with the globalist blueprint of the World Economic Forum’s (WEF) “Great Reset.” Let me break it down for you step by step, drawing on the facts and why this should concern every freedom-loving individual who values owning a home as the cornerstone of stability and prosperity.

AUSTRALIA FLOATS ‘SPARE BEDROOM TAX’ IN RADICAL HOUSING CRACKDOWN

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

Australia is in the grips of a housing crisis, with skyrocketing prices and rents leaving young families locked out of the market. The Albanese Labor government pledged to build 1.2 million new homes over five years, but as of August 2025, they’re already 250,000 short due to construction delays, regulatory hurdles, and labour shortages. Enter the “spare bedroom tax”—a radical idea floated by property research firm Cotality at the government’s Economic Reform Roundtable in mid-August 2025.

Cotality’s head of research, Eliza Owen, argues that over 60% of Australian households consist of just one or two people (based on 2021 Census data), yet three-quarters of homes have three or more bedrooms. She points to “inefficiencies” like empty nesters clinging to family-sized homes, suggesting a tax on unused bedrooms to encourage downsizing or renting out spare rooms. This could be paired with scrapping stamp duty (a transaction tax on property sales) to make moving cheaper, while introducing a broad-based land tax that scales with property size. Proponents claim this would shift demand toward smaller units like apartments and townhouses—the so-called “missing middle” housing—and free up larger homes for growing families. Treasurer Jim Chalmers hasn’t ruled it out, calling Australia’s tax system “imperfect” and hinting at reforms in upcoming budgets.

 But here’s the reality check: This crisis isn’t caused by “underutilized” bedrooms; it’s manufactured by years of unchecked mass immigration (over 500,000 net arrivals annually under Labor), foreign investor speculation, and zoning laws that stifle new builds. Taxing spare rooms won’t add a single new dwelling—it just punishes hardworking Aussies who’ve saved and sacrificed to own a home big enough for their dreams, like space for kids, grandkids, or a home office.

Public backlash has been fierce, with social media erupting in memes and outrage.  Critics, including opposition figures like Sarah Henderson, call it a “crazy idea” that targets retirees and families, ignoring real fixes like cutting immigration or easing building regulations. From a finance perspective, this tax would hit middle-class asset holders hardest—empty nesters on fixed pensions who can’t afford to downsize without losing equity to high transaction costs or capital gains taxes. It’s regressive, pitting generations against each other while foreign investors snap up freed-up properties at inflated prices.  Australia already has over 13 million spare bedrooms nationwide, per earlier studies, but taxing them won’t solve poverty or supply shortages.

The Globalist Great Reset: Erasing Ownership for Elite Control

Now, let’s connect the bigger picture. This spare bedroom scheme isn’t isolated—it’s a textbook example of the WEF’s “Great Reset” agenda, a blueprint launched in June 2020 by WEF founder Klaus Schwab to “reset and reshape” global economies toward “stakeholder capitalism.” The Great Reset calls for overhauling taxes, regulations, and investments to prioritize “equity” and sustainability, often at the expense of individual property rights. Schwab’s vision included using the pandemic as a “rare window” to build back greener and fairer, with governments coordinating on wealth taxes, ending fossil fuel subsidies, and harnessing the Fourth Industrial Revolution’s tech (like AI and surveillance) for the “public good.” Let’s throwback to Klaus Schwab’s daughter as she pushed for the WEF’s ‘Great Reset’. The project isn’t about saving the planet — it’s about exploiting crises to seize control. Nicole Schwab, literarily unveiled their plan: use crisis to dismantle the old economy and replace it with a “sustainable” system (run by elites, of course?)

Sounds noble but let me tell you what it really is: a power grab by unelected global elites at Davos, funded by a consortium of over 1,000 mega-corporations like Google, Apple, and BlackRock, to centralize control under the guise of fighting inequality and climate change. The smoking gun is the WEF’s infamous mantra: “You’ll own nothing and be happy.” This stems from a 2016 essay by Danish politician Ida Auken, published on the WEF site, envisioning a 2030 world where people rent everything—from homes and cars to appliances and clothes—via shared services and drones. Auken described a city where “I don’t own anything… Everything you considered a product has now become a service.” The WEF promoted it in a video summarizing predictions for 2030, including that line, sparking global debate. Auken later tried to take it back saying  it was a provocative scenario to discuss tech’s pros and cons, not a utopia, but the damage was done. Conspiracy or not, it perfectly encapsulates the Reset’s push for a subscription-based economy where corporations own assets, and individuals lease them—profiting Big Tech and finance giants while stripping away the security of ownership.

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

Defending Personal Values Against Globalist Overreach

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The WEF will not control the nations

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

Written By Tatenda Belle Panashe

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

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

THE WEAPONISATION OF LAWS TO DISRUPT THE AGRICULTURAL SECTOR

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

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

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

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

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

THERE ARE CORPORATIONS (DELIBERATELY) HINDERING FOOD SUPPLY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso