The purpose of my newsletter is to give you important information that is censored in the mainstream media. If you would like to keep up to date with the very latest information, you can follow me on X, TikTok, Facebook, Instagram or Telegram.
“The way you get democracy to function is by informing the public.” – Robert Kennedy Jr.
“Science is more than a body of knowledge. It is a way of thinking; a way of sceptically interrogating the universe with a fine understanding of human fallibility. If we are not able to ask sceptical questions, to interrogate those who tell us that something is true, to be sceptical of those in authority, then, we are up for grabs for the next charlatan (political or religious) who comes rambling along.” – Carl Sagan
“Never worry about who will be offended if you speak the Truth. Worry about who will be misled, deceived and destroyed, if you do not.” and
”Two roads diverged in a wood, and I took the one less travelled by and that has made all the difference.” – Robert Frost
Though the newsletter chapters interrelate, they are divided into six sections and have a common realisation that a cabal of corporate elites have captured global trade, global governance, mainstream and online media, and ultimately many of our minds.
As a stenographer, I link to an article or audio and paste a key section. My most trusted websites are platforms for journalists who don’t compromise on the truth and have thereby been shunned by the mainstream media. These include; SUSTAIN, Sustainable Food Trust, Soil Association, Farm Gate, The Organic Grower Podcast, Global Research News, Consortium News, Children’s Health Defence, Geopolitical Economy Report, The Grayzone, Unlimited Hangout, 21st Century Wire, UK Column; The Duran, Robert F Kennedy podcast, The Jimmy Dore Show, Palestine Declassified, Alex Krainer, Mattias Desmet, Dr John Campbell, The Cradle, Quds News Network, The Grayzone News, The Electronic Intifada, Jonathan Cook, Richard Medhurst, Russell Brand, Judging Freedom, Craig Murray, Syriana Analysis, The Exposé, The Intercept, Declassified UK, The Light printed newspaper, and via Telegram, For The People, Assange News, Resistance News Network, Juan Sinmiedo, Resistance News Network, B’Tselem, Pepe Escobar, The Truth Contract.
Disclaimer: Farms Not Factories newsletters share and repost material that is already publicly accessible. The views expressed in the articles do not necessarily represent those of Farms Not Factories but are selected to promote open discussion on issues often overlooked by mainstream media.
Stop Lime Down
On Sunday 8th June, hundreds of locals walked along a section of the Roman Fossway in Wiltshire to support the campaign; Stop Lime Down Solar project that threatens to cover 2,200 acres of neighbouring farmland with black shining panels. As tall as double-decker buses, (4.5m), they will industrialise the beautiful countryside, undermine local tourist businesses, disrupt ecosystems, and destroy the land that feeds us. Money from the local economy will go into the hands of 8 landowners and the CEOs of Island Green Power and their funders, Macquarie, the disgraced Australian multinational investment banking and financial services group that left Thames Water with an extra £7.4 billion debt burden of which £2.8 billion went to shareholders.
This fight goes beyond Wiltshire. Across the UK, rural communities are being asked to sacrifice their land for energy projects. We’re already a nation that is not self-sufficient in food, and losing more agricultural land will only make our food security more fragile.
This community needs your support. Island Green Power is set to submit their proposals on 18th September. The Planning Inspectorate (PINS) will then have 28 days to either approve or reject the plans. After this, we will have 30 days (from 18th October to 18th November 2025) to submit written representations.
This is when we need to act with thousands of voices to influence the decision.
We encourage you to register with Stop Lime Down for updates on how to take action. Alternatively, you can join their 1000 Club to donate and support the cause. Stop Lime Down will provide guidance on how to submit your objection and make your voice heard.
Food & Farming / CO2 Tunnel Vision / Geoengineering
On Sunday 22nd June, the Forbidden Fruit and Veg market garden team hosted our annual Summer Harvest Festival party. After a guided tour of the walled garden, the 120 local guests, that included many farmers and growers, heard talks from four speakers,
Roger Meacock [00:00], a local vet,
Mark Byford [06:26], aka the Bowler Hat Farmer,
Adrian Steele [11:57], Soil Association,
Nick Wier [20:16], Open Food Hub.
The speakers explained why and how we need to protect our precious farmers by re localising the food economy. Watch the speakers and follow up questions from inquisitive farmers.
The fact that farming is on its knees thanks to our globalist authorities, supermarkets and banks, is now so obvious that people are waking up to the need to re-connect producers with consumers in each local community or face losing their farmers to provide food on our once bountiful Island.
In our locality, we have a strong community so we could easily support our precious farmers by shunning the supermarkets and buying directly from them.
Supermarket food is only cheaper than real food due to hidden and direct subsidies. The corporate plan is to patent and thereby own the next generation of junk food that will be grown by scientists, not farmers, and consist of insects, lab-grown meat and GM fruit and veg seeds grown in vertical farms in peat bags with drip-feeder of water and fertiliser, picked by robots, to yield a vegan goo that can be 3D printed. For proof read the intro of Sainsbury’s Future of Food!
Inspired by the talks, a few farmers want to start growing veg and sell their meat in the locality. Thereby they will join a local farmer who is selling his beef at his new cafe and another planning milk deliveries. We could have a local fruit, veg, milk, meat and eggs hub that could handle small or large quantities to provide local schools or veg boxes, shops, cafes and kiosks.
I am traveling in July so the next newsletter will be in August when I hope I can report on a local food hub in the making.
All the best
Tracy
Thatcher/Starmer-style neo-liberal economies lead to food being sourced from global trade networks and not from UK farmers, resulting in farm bankruptcies with the farmland being sold to equity investors, supermarkets, billionaire tax dodgers and property developers who put profit above providing food for our Island.
Watch; Beware of any Government worldwide that doesn’t protect its farming families Gareth Wyn Jones, 12 June 2025
“Beware of any government that doesn’t protect its farmers and the farming families because it will end up in food problems, food inflation and food shortages. So believe me or believe me not, we are at a turning point. I don’t think it’s just in this country, I think it’s globally where family farms are being oppressed, being squashed, are being taken over by multinational corporations for solar, for wind, for forestry and for their own self belief into offsetting their carbon they can still produce while they grow a few trees here, there and everywhere. The people that will suffer will be the poorer people in society, the people that are struggling to pay their bills, pay for their food and to keep their families healthy. We need a farming food revolution. We need to start to look at this as a global agenda against the farming populations of the world. Make your own choices, make your own decisions. We need to stand up with the farming communities worldwide to make a difference and ask your governments why are you doing this to the people that are feeding you? It makes no sense.”
With corporations demanding that their patented frankenstein food will be our food ‘security’, the government is killing family farms with a thousand cuts.
Read; Farmers demand judicial review of inheritance tax grab; Cityam, 24 June 2025
‘A group of farmers and business owners are seeking a judicial review of the government’s contentious inheritance tax raid, arguing there should have been a public consultation before the policy was confirmed.
The claim, which was served to the Chancellor and HMRC on Tuesday, does not seek any concrete changes to the overhaul but alleges the government failed to comply with its obligations to consult on significant shifts in tax policy.’
Supermarkets are not in the business of providing healthy food – they may do PR stunts but the reality is providing the very cheapest food from across the globe.
Listen; Imported beef in supermarkets; BBC Farming Today, 26 June 2025
Presenter; “Many UK supermarkets have made public commitments to sourcing 100% of their beef from the UK, but in recent months some seem to be moving away from these pledges. Last month Asda was selling Uruguayan beef for a limited period and two weeks ago Morrisons ran a trial selling Australian beef. Sainsbury’s has had Wagyu beef from New Zealand on its shelves as well. The National Farmers Union said reneging on sourcing commitments erodes trust and damages farmer confidence.”
Supermarkets have all the power so have zero respect for their farmers; ‘”If the GCA (The Groceries Code Adjudicator) cannot investigate and robustly intervene to protect suppliers, producers and consumers when it is clear that the pricing structure of a supermarket is putting the short-term interests of shareholders above the wider public interest…what’s the point of the GCA?h asks MP Rebecca Long Bailey’.
Read; Impotent umpire” – is the GCA unfit for purpose? Wicked Leeks; 19th June 2025
The Groceries Code Adjudicator has an important role to play in regulating the conduct of retailers – but is it falling short?
You would think that with all that’s going on from farmwashing to unfairness in supply chains that the grocery sector in Britain is wholly unregulated. But there is a regulator – the Groceries Code Adjudicator or GCA for short. The code aims to ensure that the 14 largest grocery retailers from Tesco to Lidl, Aldi to Amazon, treat the thousands of suppliers they deal with fairly.
It won’t come as a surprise to anyone that within the food and farming sector there’s a rapidly growing concern that the GCA is not fit for purpose. A recent parliamentary debate highlighted that suppliers are afraid to report unfairness, fearing they’ll be punished by supermarkets or delisted (i.e. have their contracts cancelled). All the risk, said one speaker, is “sitting on the shoulders of producers and growers.” Another debate said “more needs to be done to improve confidence in the system” and producers were regularly “bullied” by the supermarkets.
“It’s remit is too narrow. It’s time for a new groceries code regulatory authority, with powers to introduce price floors and ceilings, ensuring fair prices for suppliers and consumers,” said MP, Rachel Gilmour, in the latest deliberation in Westminster this June.
And while the machinations of grocery regulators rarely make the headlines or capture public interest, the human stories of pricing pressure in the food supply chain and the disastrous impact it’s having on British farming does matter (a lot) to the British public – 77% believe supporting British farmers is important.
The problem is that many farmers who’ve been treated poorly by the supermarkets remain tight lipped – so putting the onus on them to report issues to the GCA is unrealistic when most British farmers have few viable alternative routes to market other than through 12 retail giants, which account for 95% of all food consumed in the UK. The only realistic option to action change must be to drill down on supermarket regulation.
Producers going under
When supply chains have persistent power imbalances and where producers are forced to accept the (often loss-making) prices set by the retailers, or go out of business altogether, a lot needs to change. The BBC’s Tom Heap described the GCA as an “impotent umpire” with “a prevailing culture of fear between supermarkets and their suppliers”. Others have said that the GCA is essential, it’s just not doing enough.
Lawyers for Aldi and the regulator have been battling over whether the GCA should be able intervene in a landmark High Court hearing over the retail giant’s delisting of a producer – where the last remaining brassica farm in Yorkshire was forced to cease trading when the retailer terminated their contract, even though the crop of sprouts had already been planted out.
“If the GCA cannot investigate and robustly intervene to protect suppliers, producers and consumers when it is clear that the pricing structure of a supermarket is putting the short-term interests of shareholders above the wider public interest…what’s the point of the GCA?” asks MP Rebecca Long Bailey.
After four months of dispute, the High Court judge has now just permitted the GCA to submit evidence. This landmark ruling will set a precedent for future legal cases brought by farmers against supermarkets, states SUSTAIN.
Read; The politics of food; WickedLeeks Meets Dolly van Tulleken by Nick Easen, 25 June 2025
‘In many countries food is not only political, it’s politicised, from Italy to France and Japan. In the UK it’s relegated to the free market. Blame the Industrial Revolution or fears of the nanny state telling us what we should eat. Yet such a laissez faire approach to food has made us one of the sickest, fattest countries in Europe, and unenviably one of the nations with the most ultra-processed diet.
“We should all be shocked,” says Dolly van Tulleken. Dolly should know, she’s a visiting researcher at the epidemiology unit at the University of Cambridge and was once a Conservative Party candidate in the 2017 general election. Her brother-in-law, Chris van Tulleken, is the author of the best-selling book Ultra-Processed People – so she is deeply embedded in the world of food, health, and politics.
“I used to focus on obesity as the problem. Now I realise it’s a symptom of our creaking food system, which was designed after the Second World War to deliver abundant, cheap calories. This is no longer fit for purpose. Right now, we’re all suffering the consequences of a broken system that doesn’t deliver nourishing, healthy, sustainable food as the most affordable and easiest option,” says Dolly.
“It would be incredible for people passionate about food to get political and use their citizen power to contact their local MP and demonstrate their public interest. Food as an issue should have election winning potential. But very few people, if any, go into politics because they’re excited about changing our food system. But when you start linking it to other issues such as health, community, education or tradition then politicians become a lot more interested.”
Dolly has unique insight into this issue having done a deep dive into the politics of food and health in the UK. Last year, with Henry Dimbleby, she interviewed 20 prime ministers, health secretaries and senior politicians, of national food strategy fame, producing Nourishing Britain: A Political Manual for Improving the Nation’s Health. This provides some great insight into the levers of power. “Politicians are so allergic to being perceived as middle class elites telling people what to do and how to live their lives… that sense of nanny statism. The same is true with public health at large. This kind of political debate was absolutely rife when it came to dealing with smoking or the sugar tax on soft drinks,” details van Tulleken.
“Then you have the issue of commercial influence – big time. It’s not just lobbying. You’ve got entire government departments who are literally there to serve the interests of industries, such as the big supermarkets or the advertising sector. You therefore have mechanisms in-built within the UK government to block any interventions that would be seen to be hampering those industries.”
It was only recently that the UK government was exposed for dropping a health push on fruit and veg, as well as other natural foods, after lobbying by global food firms pedalling ultra-processed products.
If you are prepared to hand over your data!, this article tracks the result of corporate control over our food;
Read; Majority of children will be overweight or obese in nine areas of England by 2035, study shows; Andrew Gregory; The Guardian. 23 June 2025
The majority of children will be overweight or obese in nine areas of England by 2035, according to “deeply concerning” projections showing child obesity rates are set to worsen across 90% of the country.
More than a third of primary school children (36%) are already overweight or obese, figures from the government’s national child measurement programme show.
Our broken farming system is no accident.
Watch; 15 minute or SMART cities = concentration camps; Rick Armstrong, 3 June 2025
“Humans that once lived on farms and in rural areas, so-called wildlands, will be relocated to cities now referred to as human settlements. And the idea is that if you concentrate populations into specific areas or zones, less energy usage, less water usage and less transportation. So people will have less reason to leave home. They’ll stay in their homes. They may even work out of their homes. And so they’re not going to be using their cars, they’re not going to be using energy and they’re not going to be using water. Since, as we saw earlier, the UN is not big on property rights, it should come as no surprise that the first private property to be phased out will be single family homes, what socialists at UN headquarters consider suburban sprawl. Instead, we the people will live in apartments and condos in mega cities near railroad tracks. Our super tall dwelling units will all be built to UN-specified building codes authorised by the ADA, and a myriad of NGOs and other friends of sustainable development. While the animals run wild in continental corridors, we the humans will live in transit villages and smart cities. Smart growth or a new urbanism is that ideology that says that you shouldn’t have more space than you actually need. So if you’re a couple of people living in a three-bedroom house, well, you don’t need that extra space, so why do you have it? There’s a clear concerted effort to make it really just about as miserable as possible to exist and use your own private transportation on your own home. All impetus and incentive, financial and otherwise, is to convince people that it is unsustainable to live in your own home having air conditioning. It is their duty as a human being, as a global citizen, you basically exist and little more. Our high rise stack and pack dwelling units, complete with smart metres and smart heating systems will make sure no one uses too much energy and if they do the energy police, with help from the neighbours and eye on the street surveillance systems will be right there to handle the situation. If they can put 1,000 people in one building, it’s a whole lot easier to know what they’re doing, where they’re going and how they’re thinking than it is. You got 1,000 people living in a rural or suburban area. And so the stack and pack is multi- storey buildings, multiple families living in the same spot, walking in and out of the same door, always being able to be managed. Smart metres play a big role in that management so they can measure everything that you do in your life when you’re using smart appliances. If you have a garden or a single family residence, while you’re watering your garden, you might have more than one bathroom, you’re taking too many showers, you’re using more than your 10 gallons of water a day and this is unsustainable, so you need to be removed from your single family residence. Anybody that’s got a couple of acres of land and his own water supply and can grow his own food, these people are a threat to the collectivist society because they aren’t going to go to the politicians and say please feed me, please clothe me, please give me shelter. That’s the secret behind Agenda 21. They want people out of the countryside. They want corporations out there growing all the food and that kind of thing, but they don’t want anybody living out there.
To describe human settlements and the food sheds that sustain them as modern day concentration camps might be a little over the top because with no cars, parking lots or air travel, everyone will walk and use bikes, so they will be fit and healthy, at least as healthy as the genetically-modified foods they are forced to eat, will allow.”
Now that our government has adopted its ‘growth economy’ designed by the UN, the WEF and global agri-tech corporations, they need only to persuade us that food produced by agri-tech and precision breeding (aka GMO seeds) is healthy. Unless we use the power of our purse to resist this transhuman world, there will be no family farmers or growers to grow food in the soil.
Read; Agriculture included in government’s industrial strategy; June 24, 2025
‘Having agri-tech and precision breeding technology as areas of focus within the growth sector plan means there should be greater opportunities for farmers and growers to contribute to the government’s growth agenda, increasing their ability to create jobs, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, boost productivity and drive investment in sustainable food, fibre and energy production.’
‘The strategy, expected today alongside the NATO summit, will explain how the government intends to keep the UK safe at a time of rising global instability. The NFU says that and food should be included in it. NFU President Tom Bradshaw said, “We are facing into an increasingly volatile world. The World Economic Forum’s Global Risks Report forecasts heightened global instability over the next decade, with conflict and economic shocks on the rise and extreme weather becoming the norm. It’s therefore vital that the resilience of our food system is considered a strategic priority. The nation was reminded all too recently of the consequences of fragile food supply chains, with supermarket shelves bare and fresh produce rationed because of high production costs here and bad harvests abroad.’
In the same Farming Today episode we hear about both the impact of trade agreements on UK farmers and the loss of farm subsidies. It does not mention that the two are related. Farmers need subsidies because of unfair competition from cheap imports flooding in due to our globalist politicians signing trade deals with countries that have lower currency values, cheaper labour and/or lower chemical and animal welfare standards that UK farmers have to abide by. UK farmers are being eliminated by anti-farming government policies that use UK land for solar panels, wildlife and housing, not least for immigrants who are welcomed due to the fact that they are more exploitable than UK citizens. Why would they want to come here? Transnational companies want vast monocultures for export – any counter policies face a coup. Who can blame their young enterprising citizens for following the money? They join us in eating low standard imported food. The end of UK farming and healthy food is set in stone unless we support UK farmers by buying directly from them via farm gate shops, online food hubs or box schemes.
Listen; Gulf States trade deal, subsidy phase out; BBC Farming Today, 18 June 2025
Presenter; “More details have emerged about the future of farm payments in England after last week’s spending review. Since Brexit, the annual payments farmers received from the government have been in transition. Under the old EU rules, farmers received payments based on the amount of land they had, but that system is being phased out and will end by 2028. Farmers always knew their payments would be reduced, but not how quickly that would happen. They now know that next year the most anyone will get will be £600. Our producer Heather Simons has been looking into it. So Heather, what’s the context of this announcement?”
Heather Simons; “Farmers in England have known since 2020 that their area-based payments would be phased out over time and would be gone entirely by 2028. People with more land who got more money would see their payments decrease faster than those who received less in the first place. The idea was to reduce the amount spent on these old payments so that the money could instead be spent on the new system of environmental payments being introduced in England post Brexit. That’s the Environmental Land Management Scheme, or as regular listeners will know them, ELMS.”
Richard Hedy, Farmer; “You know, when you talk of phasing something out, you think you can ease something away, you don’t just remove over 90% of it straight away. So it’s staggering. The amount of money has gone from something we can plan around and help us run a business to an amount that it’s useful, we can use it, but you can’t really make any business decisions around it.”
Presenter; “The CLA, the Country Land and Business Association, has called this expected but nonetheless unwelcome and points out that this comes at a time of uncertainty for farmers because the Sustainable Farming Incentive (SFI), that’s part of the new environmental payment system, remains closed to new applications and we don’t yet know when the new scheme will open and what it will be like. Of course you could argue till the cows come home about whether it was right that farmers ever got area-based payments in the first place, but the fact is that they have done for decades.”
Farmer; “When you’re producing grain at about the cost of production, you’ve got to see a margin somewhere to take care of all the other costs that are concerned with the business. So it was just being absorbed by the business in the day-to-day running so that the farm could stay afloat. And without that, we’re trying to diversify other ways of keeping the farm going when years are rough, like grain prices this year, terrible, but it’s a struggle. I’m a farmer, I’m not someone who’s good at dealing with the public and opening up farm shops or running Airbnb’s or whatever. My passion is growing food and that’s where my skill base lies and that’s what I’d really like to continue doing.”
Presenter; “The NFU has confirmed it sent a private letter to the Prime Minister raising concerns over a prospective trade deal with the Gulf states. It said the deal could open up the UK to imports of low welfare meat from the Gulf and more importantly, many other countries around the world. Although meat from the Gulf states might come up to UK hygiene standards, some welfare groups are concerned about the conditions animals are kept in and the intensive nature of production, especially poultry. Tom Bradshaw is the NFU president.”
Tom Bradshaw; “We’re hearing very worrying rumours that poultry might be part of the deal with the GCC and we really can’t square that as standards of production is something we’re very proud of and their standards over there are pretty well non-existent in comparison to the standards we have to produce to.
We cannot undermine ourselves in any trade negotiation because everybody is watching on. And if anybody feels that our poultry sector is open to be targeted in future trade negotiations, not just the GCC, but we’ll have the US coming back to the table saying, well, look, you’ve done it for the Gulf, now we want a piece of that, we’ll have Brazil, and so we’ve got to be really careful at the signal this sends out to other countries around the world about whether our poultry sector is in scope or not.”
With the closure of SFI (Sustainable Farming Incentive) subsidy that made up for the loss in income from lower yields (due to farming in symbiosis with nature), farmers will be forced to intensify production. Without a subscription to The Times this is just an interesting headline.
Spending review: Cutting farming subsidies ‘will harm nature’; The Times. Will Humphries.
The Country Land and Business Association (CLA), which represents 28,000 farmers and rural businesses across England and Wales, found almost all farmers would have to return to intensive farming of livestock and cash crops to survive without government subsidies. In a poll of 460 farming members, 88 per cent said they would revert to intensive farming if funding was pulled for the SFI and CSHT schemes, while 95 per cent said they would reduce the amount of land managed for the environment.
Wisely the Scottish Government has refused to reduce livestock numbers to meet emissions targets. Their cattle numbers are already massively in decline, plus they are largely pasture fed so carbon neutral.
Intro; ‘The meat wholesalers’ body in Scotland says the Scottish government isn’t doing enough to combat meat imports which are putting the sector under pressure. As we reported last week, cattle numbers in Scotland have been declining for some time, but Rural Affairs Secretary, Mairi Gougeon, told us the government is supportive of farmers and has rejected advice from the Climate Change Committee to cut livestock numbers to help meet emissions targets. Alan Brown, the President of the Scottish Association of Meat Wholesalers, told me they’ve heard it all before.’
As a result of a race to the bottom in terms of price wars, economies of scale and distorting subsidies aka infrastructure and inputs come off tax, factory farming, which provides most of our meat sales, abuses animals, overuses antibiotics, pollutes the air, water and soil, and destroys rural communities.
Read; Feeding the Machine: Trade, Meat, and the Price We All Pay; Slow Food, 21st June 2025
‘At any given moment, a staggering around 74% of all land animals raised for food are confined in factory farms. This equates to billions of sentient beings living lives devoid of natural behaviors and fundamental freedoms. These systems are not built for compassion, but are meticulously designed for maximum efficiency and profit, pushing animals into extreme conditions that strip them of any natural life.’
Local campaigners finally won their battle to stop the local council giving planning permission for a new-build factory farm. Perhaps this will tighten the planning procedure so councils can refuse planning consent without a monumental battle that they inevitably lose when fighting a corporate backed animal factory.
Read; Poultry megafarm in Shropshire halted over river pollution concerns; The Guardian. Sandra Laville. 17 June 2025
Caffyn, who brought the judicial review on behalf of campaign group River Action, said the case highlighted systemic failures to account for the environmental toll of having clusters of industrial-scale poultry farms in one area. She said: “There are nearly 65 chickens for every person in Shropshire and yet the council still thought we needed more.”
‘KFC announces hundreds more outlets as it spreads its wings in the UK. Pity the birds in its supply chain.’
Read; Finger lickin’ bad news as KFC opens 500 new outlets; By David Burrows, Wicked Leeks, 26 June 2025
‘…..this news hides the considerable costs of our insatiable appetite for poultry served up in greasy (and therefore hard-to-recycle) paper boxes, mixed in ingredients that are kept a secret. Namely: the imported soya (that comes with a huge environmental footprint); the fast-growing birds cooped up in small spaces; the pollution of land and rivers with vast amounts of poultry poo.
None of the coverage I saw mentioned any of this. Which reminded me of a piece in the Financial Times last year in which it was reported that Costco Wholesale was managing to sell (cooked) chickens at $5 (£3.90) (“Costco rules warehouse club roost with brisk sales of $5 chickens and other favourites”, the headline in June 2024 ran). And that’s brilliant news, the article concludes. “Costco’s point [ . . .] is to offer the lowest prices humanly possible”, one expert is quoted as saying.’
Activism can be effective to embarrass the brand. That is if the mainstream media isn’t pressured by the company threatening to pull their advertising revenue.
Read; Direct action hits KFC drive-thru; Brendan Montague, The Ecologist; 19th June 2025
Animal charity The Humane League UK (THL UK) will shut down KFC drive-thrus across the country this summer, hitting KFC “where it hurts” after the company abandoned its commitment to improving animal welfare.
The restaurant reneged on its promise to stop using fast-growing breeds of chicken – dubbed Frankenchickens – by 2026. KFC continues to ignore calls for the company to publish a new timeline to end the use of these animals who have suffering coded into their DNA.
There has been months of dialogue between activists and the management, alongside the peaceful protests. Members of the public sent 16,000 emails to KFC voicing their anger at the company’s backtracking on the Better Chicken Commitment (BCC).
Mother pigs are not confined ‘temporarily’ as the article claims, but are trapped for up to five weeks at a time in steel cages so narrow they cannot turn around or lie down without contorting their limbs. They suffer lesions, extreme stress and bleeding gums from biting the bars in frustration. They cannot turn around to nurse their piglets. The system is inherently illegal as the law says pigs must have access to bedding at all times, yet farrowing crates have barren concrete slatted floors which are not compatible with bedding material which blocks the slats. Farmers who use this barbaric system are being allowed fifteen years to transition to the more humane open farrowing system, meaning pigs will suffer fifteen more years of cruelty on a scale that should never have been allowed in the first place – enough time for the industry to have weaned us all on to fake meat..
Read; Devon farm footage prompts calls to ban restrictive pens for pregnant pigs Guardian, 13 June 2025
‘The use of restrictive pens to temporarily house pregnant pigs in the UK severely compromises their welfare, can traumatise them and should be banned, experts have said. Analysis by Animal Equality UK of footage collected from a farm in Devon showed that three pregnant sows in farrowing crates spent more than 90% of their time lying down, with one not standing up at all for a day. On average, between them they bit the bars (a sign of extreme stress) more than once an hour. The farm is part of the Red Tractor scheme, used to mark food produced to a “high standard”, and supplies Tesco.
Animal Equality UK said it illustrated the wider problem with farrowing crates, in which more than 200,000 sows are confined each year in the UK.’ Abigail Penny, the executive director of Animal Equality UK, said: “Cages must be banned. Forcing intelligent mother pigs to eat, sleep and defecate in a highly cramped space is unimaginably cruel. Such extreme confinement takes a terrible toll on the animals, who – unable to escape – inevitably become hopeless and traumatised.”
The vast amount of money and time spent on fighting factory farms has made zero difference.
Read: More than 24,000 factory farms have opened across Europe; The Guardian. Sandra Saville & Helena Horton; 13 June 2025
In the UK alone, there are now 1,824 industrial-scale pig and poultry farms, according to the data obtained by AGtivist that relates to 2023.
The countries with the largest number of intensive poultry farm units are France, UK, Germany, Italy and Poland in that order. For poultry farming alone, the UK ranks as having the second-highest number of intensive farms at 1,553, behind France with 2,342.
All animals thrive outdoors, not crammed into barren steel cages where they are tormented by boredom and stress, leading to diseases that require them to be routinely dosed with antibiotics, causing more and more diseases such as MRSA to become resistant to antibiotics and pass from pigs to humans.
Watch; Why You Should Raise Pigs on Pasture: Free Masterclass Session | Joel Salatin’s Farm Like a Lunatic, 23 July 2024
‘If you’ve ever considered raising pigs on pasture – this is the video for you. Joel Salatin presents the concept for why raising pigs in a pastured setting is a healthier alternative for the land, the pig, and can help you earn $10,000 per acre! In this free session from the pastured pork masterclass on FarmLikeALunatic.com you’ll learn how to get started with your pig farm venture and make money as a pig farmer using regenerative farming practices.
This video is an excerpt from the “Pastured Pigs” Masterclass course at FarmLikeALunatic.com.
Considering starting your own farm or homestead? To see more and to learn more about Joel Salatin’s “Farm Like a Lunatic” masterclass on regenerative farming look here ???? https://www.farmlikealunatic.com‘
Small abattoirs are disappearing, meaning less local meat for local consumption and less money staying in the local economy.
Listen; Small abattoirs at risk; BBC Farming Today, 3 June 2025
Presenter; “Increasing financial strain and red tape is putting the future of small abattoirs at risk. That’s according to the owner of Downland Traditional Meats in West Sussex. The closure of abattoirs has been a long standing trend, something we’ve been reporting on since I first presented Farming Today in 1995. In the 1970’s the UK had two and a half thousand abattoirs, but that had dropped just 203 by 2023. Edward Parrott rears pedigree cattle amongst other animals on his farm near Ditchling. He sells the beef in his own farm shop to customers who want to buy local traceable meat.”
Edward Parrott; “We take the animals in Monday, they come back Tuesday and then we cut them up and then they’re ready to sell. This way of doing business relies heavily on having a small abattoir close by. My ethos here is local produce for local people and to have a short journey to an abattoir is good for the animal, animal welfare, the cost. If the small abattoir we use closes down, it’ll make our life very difficult.
Luke Smith, abattoir owner; “We have a fantastic local food network here, we have some fantastic Sussex beef, great land, great local free-range pork that’s available. We’re not utilising enough in the area because we don’t have the infrastructure to be able to process those animals and supply them to local chain network.”
Presenter; ” Luke says the cost of disposing of animal waste has risen sharply. Finding staff is difficult, regulation for small abattoirs is oppressive, and he can’t afford to invest in infrastructure when the abattoir is making a loss.
Luke Smith; “We are in a very, very challenging environment and I’m not sure that there’s a hugely positive spin on it at this moment in time. We’re one of very few abattoirs left in the southeast of England offering the full service which we’re offering, and we need support and help.”
More tech is being subsidised with our taxes to solve farm animal diseases caused by animals being bred and fed (protein) in production systems that exceed the animals natural growth rate making them inherently sick. Farm animals should be pasture fed and bred to be healthy so avoid the diseases in the first place.
Listen; New labs for animal disease BBC Farming Today, 24 June 2025
Presenter; “Work has officially begun to create a new National Biosecurity Centre. It’s being built on the existing Animal and Plant Health Agency (APHA) site, at Weybridge in Surrey. The whole project is costing between two and three billion pounds and is expected to take until 2033 to complete. The APHA was recently criticised by the National Audit Office, which said facilities there were not adequate to prevent or cope with contiguous national animal disease outbreaks such as foot and mouth and avian flu. However, the government says it is putting that right by the upgrade, which will ensure that the threat of animal diseases, which could be passed to humans, are prevented or dealt with efficiently.”
Toxic waste and water has been spread all over UK fields. When water and waste disposal is in private hands, money for shareholders and director’s bonuses is the driver, not the health of the ecosystem or consumers.
‘Toxic cocktail of chemicals’ being spread on UK farms; William Dodds;10-Jun-2025
Immediate action is needed to prevent ‘toxic’ sewage sludge from being spread on UK farmland, environment secretary Steve Reed has been told.
BBC’s Farming Today gives a week to promoteing agri-chemicals and GM seed. Multinational criminal, Syngenta, sells poisons in the name of ‘crop protection’ that contaminate food, destroy wildlife and lock farmers in a cycle of debt. Syngenta admits that their success is abroad, so I can only deduce that is because they are exporting their toxic chemicals that are banned in the UK.
Listen; Agri-tech innovation, BBC Farming Today, 7 June 2025
Presenter; “Now $300 million or £221 million and around a decade, that is the estimated cost and timeline for bringing a new agri-chemical product from idea to farm. All this week on Farming Today we’ve been looking at agricultural innovation and those two stats are a good indication of the challenges. We’ll hear more about that in a moment, but first let’s hear from one of the big companies in this field. Syngenta is an agri-chemical and seed multinational with around 53,000 employees in 100 countries. Its largest research and development centre is here in the UK. Doctor David Hughes, the company’s global head of technology, identification and evaluation for crop protection, told Charlotte Smith, innovation must be driven by what will add value on farm.”
Presenter; “How much, then, is it a concern as more farmers turn to regenerative farming, where they’re trying to use fewer chemicals?”
Hughes; “Well, I think the question always has to be what is the best way of producing this crop that achieves multiple different objectives at the same time. The profitability of the farm is a key objective.”
Presenter; ” I just want to talk a bit about when innovation looks like it’s going to be great but actually doesn’t work out. And the obvious example is neonics in this context where it looked like a great idea, something that was a seed treatment, it meant you didn’t have to spray chemicals around, but actually because of the impact it had on bees and other pollinators, they were banned. How much is that a concern as you’re coming up with bright ideas? Is failure in the back of your mind?”
Hughes; “Failure is intrinsic in the R&D process. Most of the things that we work on sadly fail, they never make it to market. So those of us in R&D get used to this. What we can do is learn the lessons of the past, understand what the parameters are in more detail than we did perhaps back then, and apply those parameters to our R&D processes to make sure we don’t make the same mistakes again.”
Sharon Todd from the Society of Chemical Industries; “The UK is a great place in which to innovate. We have great assets, amazing universities, SMEs, government supports R&D with funds, so it’s a great place to innovate, but it’s not a great place necessarily for that innovation to be turned into societal and economic benefit. We make all the investment, but the payback comes later and more often than not the payback comes elsewhere outside of the UK.
We need government intervention to ensure that the cycle of companies that start up this stay, and that might mean helping them in terms of support for scale up. And we also need to make the UK much more competitive for research intensive industries to be doing their research here and supporting development and commercialisation of products and manufacture of those products in the UK.”
Bayer has agreed to pay out $10.9 billion to settle 125,000 Roundup lawsuits, with thousands more in the pipeline.
Read; International study reveals glyphosate weed killers cause multiple types of cancer GM Watch, 10 June 2025
‘Leukemia findings are especially striking – potentially lending support to plaintiffs in court cases who allege that Roundup exposure caused their blood cancer A comprehensive carcinogenicity study on the world’s most used herbicide, glyphosate, involving scientists from Europe and the US, has found that low doses of the controversial weedkiller cause multiple types of cancer in rats. In this long-term study, published today, glyphosate alone and two commercial glyphosate-based formulations, Roundup BioFlow (MON 52276) used in the EU and Ranger Pro (EPA 524-517) used in the US, were administered to rats via drinking water beginning in prenatal life, at doses of 0.5, 5, and 50 mg/kg body weight/day for 2 years. These doses are currently considered safe by regulatory agencies and correspond to the EU Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) and the EU’s No Observed Adverse Effect Level (NOAEL) for glyphosate. Glyphosate is used on over 80% of GM crops.
In all three treatment groups of the study, increased incidences of benign and malignant tumours at multiple anatomic sites were observed compared to controls. These tumours arose in haemolymphoreticular tissues (leukemia), skin, liver, thyroid, nervous system, ovary, mammary gland, adrenal glands, kidney, urinary bladder, bone, endocrine pancreas, uterus and spleen (hemangiosarcoma). Increased incidences occurred in both sexes. Most of these involved tumours that are rare in Sprague Dawley rats (background incidence < 1%), with 40% of leukemias deaths in the treated groups occurring in early life. Increased early deaths were also observed for other solid tumours. The leukemia findings are especially strong and may provide important support for plaintiffs in court cases who allege that exposure to Roundup caused their Non-Hodgkin lymphoma, another type of blood cancer.
Ruthless corporations unashamedly pressure politicians to shield them from liability.
Read; Bayer’s sneak attack: the company’s 5-pronged effort to avoid pesticide liability, after making a bad bet to take on Monsanto’s culpability for injuries; Meryl Nass, 1 July 2025
‘That 1986 liability shield got us cheap, safe vaccines, right? What could go wrong if a similar law applied to all pesticides? Consider calling your elected officials!!!’
‘Bayer, a part of I.G. Farben’s conglomerate, and after WW2 a spin-off of I.G. Farben (which used slave labor and even ran its own concentration camp during WW2 to assist Hitler’s war machine) has long known that getting help from government can make you extremely rich. Look what Bayer admits to on its own website: 25,000 deaths, and slaves that died after an average of only 4 months of being worked to death.
In 2018, Bayer acquired Monsanto, despite Monsanto starting to lose legal cases in which Roundup was alleged to have caused cancer. It must have looked like a clever deal to them, with the litigation reducing Mosanto’s price. But Bayer did not foresee that the Roundup litigation could get out of hand.
Gene therapy! This is a company that likes taking risks. But it also has deep experience in using governments for its own ends.
Here are the 5 ways Bayer is fighting back against Roundup lawsuits, which have already cost $Billions. The global glyphosate market in 2023 is estimated at $8.7 Billion. There may even be more than 5 ways. Bayer claims it has spent $10 Billion on claims and litigation expenses already, and so it has put a lot of money aside to fight additional losses. Just imagine what $billions can buy in lobbying.
Bayer’s CEO warned in April that the company might stop producing Roundup—this sounds like an attempt to get farmers who use the stuff to do unpaid lobbying to retain it on the market. Get the Senators from Soybean land riled up.
Bayer fights as hard as possible against every loss in court, even appealing to the Supreme Court to find against lower courts that have given awards to plaintiffs who alleged injuries due to glyphosate, especially Non-Hodgkins Lymphoma patients.
The Associated Press’ David A. Lieb reported at the beginning of April that “global agrochemical manufacturer Bayer has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to decide whether federal law preempts thousands of state lawsuits alleging it failed to warn people that its popular weedkiller could cause cancer.”
“Bayer’s new request to the nation’s highest court comes as it is simultaneously pursing legislation in several states seeking to erect a legal shield against lawsuits targeting Roundup, a commonly used weedkiller for both farms and homes,” Lieb reported. “Bayer disputes the cancer claims but has set aside $16 billion to settle cases and asserted Monday that the future of American agriculture is at stake.”
“In a court filing Friday, Bayer urged the Supreme Court to take up a Missouri case that awarded $1.25 million to a man who developed non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma after spraying Roundup on a community garden in St. Louis,” Lieb reported. “The federally approved label for Roundup includes no warning of cancer. Bayer contends federal pesticide laws preempt states from adopting additional labeling for products and thus prohibits failure-to-warn lawsuits brought under state laws.”
“The Supreme Court in 2022 declined to hear a similar claim from Bayer in a California case that awarded more than $86 million to a married couple,” Lieb reported. “But Germany-based Bayer, which acquired Roundup maker Monsanto in 2018, contends the Supreme Court should intervene now because lower courts have issued conflicting rulings.”
The Supreme Court has just asked the DOJ to provide information to help it determine whether to hear Bayer’s appeal.
Bayer has had its lackeys in state legislatures introduce legislation that provides a liability shield for pesticides in general. This has already passed in Georgia, has been defeated in several states, and moves forward in several other states.
Bayer has had its surrogates in Congress try to add a pesticide liability shield to existing bills—there has been discussion about sneaking it in to various bills, and by doing so other members of Congress might only have 24 hours before a committee vote on such an amendment.
The Bayer CEO said the company would be working to develop 5 new pesticides—presumably by the times we have learned how they harm us, it will move on to the next pesticide. How utterly ruthless.’
Politicians are lobbied not to support farmers to adopt a healthy food system but to ensure their paymasters in the agri industry sell their GM crops and toxic pesticides/herbicides to farmers.
Read; Defra does not ‘intend to subsidise regenerative agriculture’; Agriland, 21 June 2025
‘A new UK parliamentary report has highlighted regenerative agriculture as a promising, farmer-led approach to improving soil health, biodiversity, and water quality.
However, despite increasing interest in this area, the UK government currently offers no designated public funding to support farmers in transitioning to regenerative methods.
The report states that Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) “does not currently intend to subsidise regenerative agriculture”, with the department claiming insufficient UK-specific evidence that it delivers public goods.’
However, I read today that there is a subsidy that the wildlife charities are welcoming.
New vision to get farming transition back on track; 30 June 2025
‘Today, The Wildlife Trusts launch a vision for the future of food and farming – Food & Farming in a Nature & Climate Crisis – stressing that the time is now to get the farming transition back on track.
Following the Government’s recent move to protect England’s nature-friendly farming budget in the Comprehensive Spending Review, The Wildlife Trusts argue that nature-friendly farming must move centre-stage as one of the most cost effective and efficient ways to reach nature recovery and climate targets across vast swathes of the country.
Nature-friendly farming benefits not just wildlife and farm businesses, but also works to reduce flooding risk, tackle climate change, clean up waterways and increase food security. The Wildlife Trusts maintain that the entire food system – including politicians, supermarkets, food producers and farmers – must think long term about their support for a nature-positive and climate-resilient farming sector.
The Food and Farming in a Nature and Climate Crises vision shows how to get the farming transition back on track; huge efforts are already underway led by farmers, producers and suppliers to harness the power of nature-friendly farming.
The Wildlife Trusts say that action to address the nature and climate crisis across the farmed landscape must include:
Facilitating support structures, guidance, and independent advice for farmers to transition to regenerative & agroecological farm systems
Utilising both public and private finance, and technology and innovation, to supercharge nature-friendly farming practices and nature-based solutions
Policies to reform food supply chains, ensuring they reward farmers fairly for the food they produce in harmony with nature
Vicki Hird, strategic lead for agriculture at The Wildlife Trusts, says:
“Whilst the spending review fell short of the ambition required to scale up nature-friendly farming, it’s more vital than ever to channel support into environmental delivery across the farmed landscape.
“Farmers must not be left high and dry on their transition to more sustainable farming practices, when mechanisms to drive this important change exist across the supply chain, government policy and technology.
That’s why we’ve launched our Food & Farming in a Nature & Climate Crisis vision – it sets out a blueprint for delivering healthy diets, nature recovery and climate-resilient farm and food businesses long into the future.
“All eyes will now be on DEFRA to set a clear long-term vision in their developing 25-year “Farming Roadmap” and ensure that public money is used the most effectively, including the deployment of funds to agri-environment schemes.”
The Wildlife Trusts argue that transformation of the food and farming system is more vital than ever as farmers are continuing to face a huge degree of uncertainty, battling the ever-increasing impacts of a changing climate and volatile markets.
Read the Food and Farming in a Nature and Climate Crises vision. Its launch comes as The Wildlife Trusts host the new ‘Farming with Nature’ stage at Groundswell regenerative agriculture festival on 2nd & 3rd July.
Regenerative agriculture is all things to all people as it has no rules or standards, so farmers using glyphosate can claim this description. If the rhetoric of regen really means to care for the soil and nature, and thereby produce high quality food, why not farm to organic standards? Have the glyphosate sales teams managed to green wash their toxic chemical by weakening the organic movement with a big PR push for the more fashionable word ‘regenerative’ farming?
Listen; Regenerative Agriculture, BBC Farming Today, 30 June 2025
Intro; ‘All week, we’re talking about regenerative agriculture. It’s a way of farming which aims to restore and protect soils. Regen methods include farming without ploughing, using cover crops so fields are never left bare, growing a range of crops, and using animals to fertilise the ground. But there is no one definition of “regenerative”. Professor Andy Neal, a soil microbiologist at Rothamsted Research, explains why he thinks that’s a good thing.’
BBC Presenter; What critics of regenerative agriculture always bring up is the use of glyphosate because you can’t plough, you have to kill the crop somehow and people use glyphosate. Is that trade off worth it?
Rothamsted Research; “I think it is worth it when you consider glyphosate within the context of what happens if you don’t use it. Of the very beneficial structure. So taken in the round and in the appropriate context, glyphosate has a role. But, of course, understanding how we use it as part of a tool within a complex system, and that’s what really regenerative.”
Regenerative agriculture should be a transition stage towards organic, not a system that can be labeled as a good standard; ‘For the regenerative farming movement, agriculture is not about “imposing 0% of anything,” but about providing a transition path for conventional farmers to adopt better practices.’
New green farm lobby digs into Brussels, setting up turf war with organics; 13 June 2025
‘Across the Atlantic, accusations of greenwashing are mounting. Friends of the Earth US analysed data from the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) and found that most so-called ‘regen’ no-till farms also rely on synthetic pesticides, fertilisers and GMOs.
“No-till typically increases herbicide use in conventional farming systems since farmers aren’t using tillage to manage weeds,” Dr Kendra Klein, the scientist behind the report, told Euractiv. She argues that organic farmers “are the original regenerative farmers” with the added benefit of being “enforced through a rigorous legal standard.”
She also notes that major agribusinesses such as Tyson Foods, ADM, Cargill, and Bayer are now promoting – or funding – no-till under the regenerative banner.
In EARA’s report, food giant Unilever is listed as a “private sector pioneer,” but Sapp said the company is not providing funding and is merely seeking to learn from regenerative farmers.
Back in Brussels, Gall criticised regenerative actors in Europe for not calling out greenwashing in regen when they could have done so. “So far they haven’t,” said Gall. “And we do see a risk of diverging policy action away from organic.”
On Dyson’s 34,000 acres of the UK, he’s inventing and no doubt will soon be selling tech. He can use his fortune from making hoovers and hand driers, but that doesn’t mean he can produce healthy food. His tech dream is replacing farmers with scientists, farm workers with machines, healthy soil with chemicals and covering the land in machines, concrete and metal buildings. He can take the cost of farm tech off his tax bill but will high input farming go belly up financially, the same way as vertical farms? Only buy food that has been grown in the soil by real farmers.
Watch; James Dyson reveals the future of farming; James Dyson; 24 June2025
James Dyson; ‘We need to produce food in England. We need to produce really good food. So we asked a group of engineers at Dyson what they could do to improve some of the activities on the farm. And one of the things we came up with was a vertical growing system.
I think this is the biggest rig Dyson’s ever made. 24 meters long, five and a half meters tall. Each wheel’s 500 kilograms.
We did the whole thing ourselves. Every bit of wiring, every nut, bolt, fastener. Spent a lot of blood, sweat, and tears into this rig for the last two years. It’s like having a child. Every single bolt I’ve got a relationship with.
We import all our strawberries in England except in the height of the summer season. So what I’ve done is to build two huge greenhouses, and from that, we can produce the tastiest strawberries, as you can imagine, all year round.
What we’re working on here with the the Dyson engineers is the whole different growing system to get much, much higher density fruit in a covered environment. This is stacking strawberries up across these multiple levels. The challenge you then get is light levels and shadowing and making sure that the leaf in the leaf canopy gets enough sunlight to really develop. By using this system, we’re able to move the plants around and make sure every plant gets the maximum natural energy from the sun so we can use as little energy as possible supplementing that with the LED lights.
Growing things is like making things. I’m a manufacturer. And so I suppose anyway, I’ve approached farming from that point of view. Know, how can we make it more efficient? What technology can we bring in that will improve the quality, the taste of the food, use the land better so that we can invest further and make a difference to farming?
So this is one of our Dyson owned sensor packs. We’ve got a very high accuracy c o two sensor, relative humidity and temperature. And then on the top there, this is the apogee power sensor. So that detects only the wavelengths that the strawberry plant is interested in, and and then we know how much we need to top up with our artificial light. We’ve got this supply system which comes up to the central manifold, which splits out, and then each five goes to two, and we go through into the gutter. And then once the water flows through, that goes into the train here, which captures the water, and this black pipe acts as a dynamic collector. So it hits this ramp and it empties as it goes round and empties into the base station, and this gets pumped out.
We get a two and a half times uplift in the output of the greenhouses. This vertical growing system will allow farmers to produce the very best food in England and make Britain more secure in its own food production. We’ve got wonderful land, and we should be able to grow everything we eat.’
Behind the scenes of Dyson Farming with James Dyson; Dyson PR; 2024
How nutritious are Dyson’s strawberries grown in water?
Hannah Fraser’s report video: Displacing Empty Calories with Nutrient-Dense Food – How can UK farmers be rewarded? Nuffield Farming; 6 June 2025 ;
Hannah Fraser’s report video; ‘Displacing Empty Calories with Nutrient Dense Food: How can UK farmers be rewarded for practices that promote nutrient density?’, jointly sponsored by the Yorkshire Agricultural Society and the Worshipful Company of Fruiterers.
Read Hannah’s full report here: https://bit.ly/43IyI77
Executive summary;
‘The UK faces a growing health crisis, with rising rates of chronic diseases putting immense pressure both on individuals and the NHS. While the link between food and health is now well-established, emerging evidence suggests that the way food is produced could also play a critical role in combating our health issues. Farmers could be key to improving public health by enhancing the nutritional quality of their produce.
The idea that “food is medicine” dates back to Hippocrates, but modern research is revisiting this concept with a new focus: not just on what we eat, but how our food is produced. Concerns are mounting that the nutrient density of our food is in decline. This has sparked interest in whether changes in agricultural methods could lead to more nutritious food, thereby helping to prevent chronic diseases and promote good health.
A small but growing number of researchers and farmers are exploring how specific farming methods could boost the nutritional content of food. If successful, these methods could be integrated into broader strategies to improve public health. Through my study tour, I identified four key areas where evidence demonstrates a clear link between farming method and nutrient density:
Soil Health: Regenerative farming practices that improve soil health can increase the populations of beneficial microorganisms, which play a crucial role in nutrient cycling. Healthier soils could therefore lead to more nutrient-rich crops.
Breeding and Variety Selection: Selecting and breeding crop varieties with a greater ability to take up nutrients could help to improve nutrient density.
Biofortification: Enhancing the nutrient content of crops either through selective breeding to take up a particular nutrient, or by applying nutrients directly to plants during growth, potentially leading to foods that are richer in minerals.
Animal Feed: Influencing the nutritional content of animal products; meat, milk and eggs, through optimising the animal’s diet.
While the potential benefits of these methods are promising, there is still much work to be done. Collaboration between researchers and farmers is essential to understand the impact of different farming practices on food quality. Large-scale human health trials may also be needed to confirm the health benefits of consuming more nutrient dense foods. Additionally, healthcare professionals must become more aware of how food quality, influenced by farming methods, can affect health.
For real change to occur, comprehensive data collection and stronger evidence are necessary, along with closer collaboration between agricultural and public health sectors. Farmers who sell directly to consumers have an opportunity to promote the nutritional benefits of their practices, however broader adoption will require systemic changes, including potential new incentives that reward farmers for not just the quantity, but the quality of food they produce. If these efforts are successful, they could lead to a new understanding of the role of food production in public health and potentially reduce the burden of chronic diseases. It could also transform how we value food in society’
A simple way for farmers to take back control over their land and livestock is to register it in the farm owner’s name, not the council’s.
Watch; Saving farmers and humanity; Richard Vobes, 29 February 2024
Michael O’Bernicia; “Only reason that the British farmers are currently under the cosh of the government is because of one technical problem that exists for all landowners in this country, and that is when the land is conveyed. Let’s just take an example. When a farmer bought the land that they’re farming, even if there are no financial encumbrances registered at the land registry, the owner of the land is free to write whichever local authority he chooses in the box marked local authority on the land registry form, which is called an AP1 form. Now the AP1 form is what your solicitor uses to change what’s written in the land registers.
And there are two land registers, one is the the registration of ownership and the other is the registration of charges. And when you have no charges over your land, in the event that you’re a farmer and you’ve just bought this land and you don’t want to grant jurisdiction to the government to tell you what to do, to order you to cull your livestock on fraudulent arguments which simply don’t hold water, you can fill in in this one box on a form of the land registry. You can fill in your own name or your own trust or your own organisation as the local authority instead of your local council. And there is absolutely nothing that anybody can do to stop you.
This is called the ancient law of manorial estates. It means that if you own a piece of land, then you are the sole sovereign of that land. You are able to say what happens on it as long as what happens on it is lawful and nobody can stop you unless you have signed away the sovereignty of your land to the local council by granting it granting it jurisdiction. Now we realise that this is a concept that is probably going to be alien to most people. There may be a few of you who’ve heard me talk about this on various webinars that I’ve run over the past few months and years, but I’ll just run over it again.
So what I’m talking about is the only reason that the local council claims to have the right to charge you council tax and and the charge of parking banditry business outside your property, on the road outside your property. The only reason they get away with doing such things is because your conveyancing solicitor when you bought that property filled in the local council’s name in the box marked global authority. I’m suggesting that if every British farmer wrote their own name or the name of their own organisation in that box instead of the local authority’s name, local councils, then even though every farmer would be would become immediately responsible for all the maintenance that the council are supposed to do and don’t do, i.e maintain the roads around the property and any street lighting that’s there etcetera.
Apart from that there is no change except the council have no jurisdiction to argue that they have authority over the farmer to order the farmer to get the cows vaccinated or the sheep or whatever livestock they have to call it on the basis of a false notion that there’s some killer lurgy out there that is going to wipe everybody out if they don’t do the cull. What I’m saying is in the event this remedy is adopted by all British farmers, they take the jurisdiction of the government to act away from them. And the legal argument becomes very easy to win. Where is the jurisdiction to act? It doesn’t exist and because they demonstrate through the land registry that they have established jurisdiction elsewhere the matter is settled and closed.”
Richard Vobes; “Can the farmers and in fact can anybody for that matter go back to the land registry and say there’s been an error and I want to correct it and change that box on there so that the jurisdiction is changed to your own jurisdiction?”
Michael O’Bernicia; “That’s a great question Richard. Yes. Absolutely. So let me just run over that for people. So in the event that farmers or anybody else who owns land in this country that’s registered at the land register for that matter.
But let’s focus on the farmers. So in the event the farmers have registered land, they can make an application called an AP1 application. And all you have to do is fill out the AP1 form. They’re all downloadable easily on the net, and you fill out the form or you get a conveyancing solicitor to fill out the form, but I wouldn’t. It’s very easy to fill out the form yourself.
You just simply look up the directions on how to fill out the form on the land registry’s website. It’s the best way to do it and it’s it’s relatively simplistic. So you fill out the form and then you also make a witness statement yourself which is just a plain and simple witness statement affirming the facts and the facts are whatever you need them to be. But in this particular case, the facts would be that you have the authority to change the register to read a different local authority to the one from before. And the land registry will immediately get in contact with you and say you do realise this means you’re liable for the maintenance costs on your property.
And all you do is you affirm that you are well aware of that, and that’s the only thing that we’re aware of thus far that the land registry has to make you aware of. And once you are aware of that, that’s in through application. There as long as there is nobody who objects to it, and if you haven’t got a mortgage a mortgagee on board or a bank who’s got a charge over the property who’s basically ordering you to do what they think you should do on the property and not what you want to do unless you’re in that situation which takes a different type of remedy, there’s nobody who can stop you doing this.”
Though I would like to see a total ban on harming hares, the next best is to ……
Petition: Protect hares and their young from shooting during the breeding season; Deadline 29 October 2025
‘We call on the Government to stop the shooting of hares during their peak breeding season, by establishing a legally enforceable close season for hares in England and Wales, from 1st February to 30th September.’
The state of rural life – ‘Red tape, exhaustion and a slow, quiet dismantling of countryside life’.
Watch; Clarkson’s Farm Is Telling the Truth No One Else Will; Bruce Unfiltered World, 8 June 2025
“There are only 62 pubs per 100,000 people in Britain today. Twenty years ago there were over 105. That’s not just a stat, it’s a symptom of decay. Because Clarkson’s Farm isn’t just good telly, it becomes one of the few honest portrayals of what’s really happening in rural Britain. While Westminster talks a good game about being pro-farmer, Clarkson shows us the truth. Red tape, exhaustion and a slow, quiet dismantling of countryside life. Because in Series 4, Clarkson looks tired, worn down, or less of the Top Gear bounce, more of the 1,000 yard stare. Caleb’s gone for the first few episodes, and it’s lonely, no help, no idea which button starts the tractor and it hits home. Because that’s what real farming looks like. And it’s not just the fields that are struggling, the villages around them dying, pubs and shops closing, and Clarkson spells it out, if this carries on, what even is a village? A few houses, no shop, no pub, just people stuck indoors, nothing to do, nowhere to go, not that most can afford a night out anymore anyway. And this isn’t nostalgia, it’s a crisis. And yet the only help the government offers rural communities? It’s tied to Net Zero grants if you stop farming, incentives if you let land go wild. Want to grow actual food? Well, too bad. And Clarkson makes it painfully clear the system punishes those who want to feed the country and rewards those who give up. And when he tries to bring life back, revive a pub, create jobs, build a shop, he’s blocked at every turn by bureaucrats in councils, the same ones who say they’re supporting the rural economy. But amidst the mud and machinery, there’s something powerful. Harriet Cohen, a young Derbyshire farm worker, steps in, puts Clarkson in his place, she hasn’t even watched the show, and she doesn’t need to. She is the next generation, confident, sharp and doing the job better than her celebrity boss. And Clarkson, credit to him, lifts people like her and Caleb up by showing his own flaws. And in doing so, he gives young rural workers something they rarely get, recognition and a bit of hope. So while the critics sneer from London, Clarkson’s Farm is doing what Countryfile won’t. Telling the truth. Hubs are vanishing, shops are closing, farmers are being nudged out. And behind all the humour is one serious question, who is actually fighting for the countryside really? Because it sure as hell isn’t the government.”
I confess, I would love to be an Amish farmer.
Watch; 800 Amish farmers move a barn Matt Van Swal, 30 May 2025
‘Astonishing video footage has emerged of a group of 800 Amish men in Ohio all simultaneously picking up a barn and carrying it 200 feet. According to locals, the move, “went according to plan” and took less than a half hour. No large machinery was used at all.’
Though the video is boasting of how technology is replacing human labour, the pictures show the cruelty endemic in each system to maximise speed and so-called efficiency. If we don’t get in touch with our humanity, it will also be normal to treat our fellow humans in this way.
Watch; Most Ingenious Farm Inventions Akla Gelen, 27 May 2025
Though the demise of 190 dairy farmers last year might not have reduced the amount of milk produced, the true cost of the big-is-beautiful mindset is the destruction of our island’s food sovereignty, local economy, quality of the milk and welfare of the cows.
Listen; Dairy Farmers; BBC Farming Today, 27 June 2025
BBC Intro; ‘New figures from the farming industry body the AHDB show that 190 dairy farmers left the industry last year. There are now 7,040 dairy producers in England, Wales and Scotland. That’s a 2.6 percent fall from the year before. But, despite that, there has been an increase in the amount of milk produced. We ask a dairy farmer why so many are leaving.’
Presenter; “Dairy farmers across the board are producing more milk because we have fewer, bigger farms. So in a sense, does it matter if people leave dairying? Is it fair to say that actually the more inefficient farms are the ones that close?”
George Holmes; “I don’t think it’s necessarily the more inefficient ones that will close, but I think it’s the efficient ones that will grow bigger. Does it matter? I think it does in the long run because I think it has an overall impact on our countryside. But also actually the UK is a tremendous place to make milk. We have a great infrastructure and a great climate for milk production. We can actually do it with a lower carbon footprint compared to many other countries in the world. So we actually should be producing milk here, and we should be using that milk to swap for other foodstuffs that we can’t produce in this country. So it should be a key element of how we manage food security.”
Though replacing farmers’ knowledge of their soil and plant needs with AI is my nightmare, I have to concede that it might be useful when farmers are incessantly brainwashed by sales reps to use chemical and machine inputs. Amish farmer, John Kemph’s AI system Delphine, is an example of easily accessible, genuinely nature-friendly advice.
Listen; Investment trends shaping regen market growth; ffinlo Costain, FarmGate 27 June 2025
Intro; ‘Venture capitalists need to be able spot a good investment – but to do that they need a remarkable understanding of the market in which they operate. Christopher Ramsay and Simon Evill are the brains behind Pelican Ag, a venture capital company right at the heart of the regenerative agriculture movement – here they provide insight into the key themes and trends that are shaping the next phase of market growth’.
ffinlo; “I take your point that, of course, AI can help at all stages of the supply chain. And this question of working out where it’s most useful to have that sort of immediate assistance and where the supply chain can sort itself out in different ways. But just this last week, John Kempf’s new AI system, Delphi, has landed, and I wonder if either of you have had a chance to try that out as yet?”
Simon Evill; “Yeah, I’ve had a chance to try it out, and Chris and I have met John, he’s a lovely man, fascinating polymath, and experienced farmer.”
ffinlo; How can we help farmers get to a sensible decision based on a very complex situation?
Simon Evill; “The reality from what we’re seeing is you need a lot more data. You need topographical data. You need soil data, but you also need to understand the actual farm business itself. That comes back to the agronomy role or the land agent role. There’s a lot of things to factor into even just one decision like trying to address a calcium deficiency in a potato crop”.
ffinlo; ” What was interesting about John’s Delphi is that, of course, it has the whole weight of John’s mind to draw on, and so it’s able to get further in terms of regenerative agriculture. But, it doesn’t have the nuance of the specific location, of the specifics of a farm business. What it did seem to be very good at doing was raising other things that I might need to think about. So, for example, I asked a fairly simple question this morning about ploughing versus glyphosate to produce milling wheat, and it came back with fairly nuanced answers. But what it was inviting me to do was to think about it further. It was giving me other things that I needed to ask questions about. So from that perspective, it was helpful. And I guess it’s going to need lots of testing and further development. But it seems that the role of AI is to help us think more clearly rather than simply giving us an answer in itself. Does that accord with your experience, Simon?”
Simon Evill; “Yes, definitely, I mean, one idea that comes to mind is there’s some excellent regenerative agriculture courses now globally. One that I did was with Richard Perkins, the regenerative ag master class. He’s got thousands of hours worth of content, which goes into very, very minute detail about different elements of regeneration in a sort of a small-scale farming context. I don’t think it will be very long before a sort of an AI version of Richard can sit on a farmer’s desktop and bring you to the YouTube information or unlock the information within his library in order to help the farmer in situ try and make a decision a bit like Delphi. So, the opportunities here are vast. Executing and monetising them is an entirely different ball game because, as we know, farmers are tricky fish and the value proposition needs to be incredibly high here to see traction as we’ve seen with Mad Capital and NoFence, the value proposition needs to be right on point for there to be a scalable opportunity.”
ffinlo Costain; “I put in; ‘Ploughing verses glyphosate to produce milling wheat.'”
John Kempf’s digital avatar Delphi; “When considering ploughing versus glyphosate for producing milling wheat, the decision hinges on several factors, including soil health, weed pressure, long-term sustainability, and the specific goals of your farming operation. Both approaches have distinct implications for soil biology, carbon dynamics, and crop quality, so it’s essential to weigh these carefully. Ploughing, as a mechanical weed control method, can be effective in burying weed seeds and preparing a seedbed. However, it comes with significant drawbacks. Tillage disrupts soil structure, oxidises organic matter, and can lead to compaction, especially if tools like discs or moldboard ploughs are used. Over time, this degradation can reduce water infiltration, microbial activity, and overall soil health. That said, if tillage is necessary, using tools like a narrow-pointed field cultivator or a v-ripper can minimise structural damage compared to more aggressive implements. Glyphosate, on the other hand, offers a chemical approach to weed control, often used in no-till systems to preserve soil structure and organic matter. However, glyphosate is not without its challenges, it can act as a chelating agent, tying up essential micronutrients like manganese and zinc, which are critical for plant health. Additionally, its widespread use has been linked to shifts in soil microbial communities and the development of herbicide-resistant weed species . From a regenerative perspective, reliance on glyphosate can undermine efforts to build resilient, biologically active soils.
For producing milling wheat, the ultimate goal is not just yield but also grain quality, particularly protein content and baking characteristics. Achieving this requires a focus on soil health principles: minimising disturbance, maintaining soil cover, and fostering a diverse microbial community. Integrating cover crops, crop rotations, and balanced nutrition can reduce weed pressure naturally while enhancing soil fertility and crop resilience . If you’re deciding between these two approaches, I’d encourage you to consider a hybrid or transitional strategy. For instance, you might use glyphosate sparingly in the short term while implementing practices like cover-cropping and reduced tillage to build soil health and reduce dependency on herbicides over time. Alternatively, if ploughing is necessary, ensure it’s done judiciously and complemented with practices that rebuild soil structure and organic matter. Could you share more about your current soil conditions, weed challenges, or specific goals for your milling wheat crop? That would help refine the recommendations further.”
Fishing
Industrial farming of salmon goes to another level of cruelty with this newbuild land–based factory.
Listen; Onshore salmon farm plans; BBC Farming Today, 9 June 2025
Presenter; “Now the town of Grimsby was built on fish, known in the early 20th century as the world’s largest fishing port with extensive processing facilities and a vast fleet catching cod and haddock. The town was always at the forefront of fishing innovation and now it could become home to the UK’s first large scale onshore salmon farm. A judicial review has upheld Northeast Lincolnshire Council’s decision to grant it planning permission. An animal rights group had challenged the development on fish welfare grounds. Lara King from BBC Humberside has been following the story and she’s been telling me about the proposed salmon farm.”
Lara King; “So it’s Aquacultured Seafood Limited, they’re behind this proposal, it’s a £120 million proposal to build what would be the UK’s first large scale on-land salmon farm in Grimsby and it’s not actually far from Grimsby docks. It’ll be around 10 acres and it’ll process around 5,000 tonnes of salmon a year. The company says the site at Oakley in Grimsby is the optimum location for a UK-based onshore aquaculture farm because they say there’s a strong knowledge of fishing and food processing nearby. Now the fish are farmed in big indoor tanks, which the company says minimises the risks of things like pollution and parasites and also fish escaping. And they also say that means that fish welfare would be optimised.
Presenter; “Well, that’s what they say, but animal rights campaigners don’t agree and that’s why they brought this judicial review, isn’t it?”
Lara King; “Yes, that’s right, absolutely. Animal Equality UK brought the legal challenge two years ago because of animal welfare concerns. And they say they won’t back down despite losing their challenge. They say similar farms in other countries have failed. Abigail Penny is the group’s executive director.”
Abigail Penny; “This mega farm represents an entirely new form of factory farming, with only around 100 or so of these farms existing globally. These online sites are untested, unwanted and highly experimental. This proposal is bad for the environment, bad for the local community and bad for animals.”
Presenter; “Now they say this isn’t a defeat, but it’s rather a bittersweet victory because despite upholding Northeast Lincolnshire council’s planning approval, the High Court judge actually ruled that animal welfare concerns could be a key planning consideration in future cases.'”
If you want to hear the trawler industry’s excuses to continue to destroy the sea bed, open the link as I only pasted below a trusted opinion of the damage caused.
Listen; Bottom trawling; BBC Farming Today, 13 June 2025
Presenter; “The UN Ocean Summit in Nice ends later today. It’s hoped more countries will ratify a high seas treaty and so bring it into force. The agreement was actually made two years ago to put 30% of international waters into marine protected areas by 2030, but even within those areas bottom trawling will be allowed. Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall is amongst many campaigners who say that must change.”
Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall; “There’s been a pretty united front from marine conservation NGOs, backed by a lot of good science, showing that the extraordinary damage done by this form of fishing is having a long term negative consequence not just for the marine wildlife on the ocean floor, but for fish stocks and therefore for the fishing industry as well.”
CO2 Tunnel Vision
Of course the government’s mouthpiece, the BBC, gives the developers’ PR when describing the Lime Down solar panel project that will cover 2,000 acres of food-growing land. They perpetuate the company, Island Green Power’s claim that the scheme will produce enough energy to power 115,000 homes. Sure, but if they cared about local peoples’ access to renewable energy, they would build them on 15,000 local roofs. The truth is that the small amount of energy produced will be sold to the national grid; profiting the company and their Australian bank backers, Macquarie, that owned Thames Water for 11 years and loaded it with debts of £7.4 billion, largely to pay directors’ bonuses and shareholder dividends. The local MP, Roz Savage gave the true interpretation of the project.
South Cotswolds MP, Roz Savage’s speech in parliament on Thursday June 5th (3.56pm);
“We should look closely at the companies behind Lime Down. The developer, Island Green Power, is now fully owned by Macquarie bank, a global investment firm with a track record that should give us all pause for thought. During its time leading the consortium that ran Thames Water, Macquarie extracted billions in dividends while letting infrastructure crumble and rivers fill with sewage. It is an asset management company. Its job is to make money, and it does it well. It is not a public utilities company. It is not interested in home-grown, community-led energy; it is interested in profit. It is not here to protect the beauty of the British countryside or to invest in long-term sustainability. Its business model is simple: build big, move fast and maximise returns, whatever the cost to people, nature or public trust,”
Out of the blue last autumn we heard that a new feed additive, Bovaer, was being trialled on dairy cattle to reduce their methane emissions. When we heard that the product is listed as toxic, there was a storm of protest based on the welfare of the animals that were potentially being poisoned along with consumers. Though not all supermarkets stock it, you can be sure to avoid products from cattle fed Bovaer by buying organic.
Watch; PREVIEW… Christof Plothe: Bovaer in our Food Chain The Truth Contract, 19 May 2025
Christof Plothe; “It manipulates the microbiome. We’ll go into that. It can be passed on by the milk to our children. It does show cancer-causing properties in animals. It does show infertility in male and female animals. It’s not tested for the safety on the environment. And we have to ask, as you just mentioned, David, why are we using it in the first place?”
David Carter; “….presumably they intended it not to be given to humans, but they’re giving it to humans through the food supply indirectly. Though they put this potentially poisonous toxic substance into the food supply without telling anybody.
Christof Plothe; “Exactly. 50% of the citations in these papers had been censored.”
David Carter; “And could not conclude on the safety of the additive for other animal species or categories. It’s like, what more evidence do we need that this is bonkers?”
Christof Plothe; “It offers a short term methane reduction but raises significant safety, ethical and environmental concerns, and the long term impacts on cattle, humans and the ecosystem remain unclear.”
David Carter; “That will be really clear. There has been no safety testing for this.”
Christof Plothe; ” That’s another trick by the industry. Just look at it for a short time and declare it safe. But even there it was responsible for developing tumours.”
‘Some of the questions we explore include:
– What are Bovaer’s long-term health risks to humans and animals, including microbiome disruption, cancer, and fertility issues, given no rigorous safety studies?
– Is Bovaer’s mandate to cut methane (0.02% of atmosphere) justified, or are regenerative farming and seaweed better options?
– How can we ensure Bovaer’s transparency with labels and independent research, given its untested use in food?’
Read; Highland sheep vanish as carbon projects take over, sector warns; Farminguk, 23rd June 2025
‘The wholesale removal of sheep from Highland estates for carbon offsetting is triggering a crisis that extends far beyond falling lamb numbers, warns the Scottish sheep sector.
Beyond lost sheep and meat production, the NSA (National Sheep Association) warns of wider consequences, including the erosion of rural skills such as hefting, working and training sheepdogs, and deep knowledge of the landscape—skills that are not taught formally and are hard to replace once lost. Declining livestock numbers also threaten businesses reliant on throughput, including auction marts, abattoirs, and animal health and nutrition services.’
The fact that pasture-fed animals are carbon neutral falls on deaf ears with the BBC; the loyal voice of the government must push NetZero.
Listen; Report shows more action needed to meet emissions targets in agriculture BBC Farming Today, 25 June 2025
Presenter; “Tom Lancaster, head of land, food and farming at the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit, told me that despite showing some gains in certain areas like woodland creation and peatland restoration, overall the report shows that more progress is needed”.
Presenter; “And one other area was cutting meat consumption, which is mentioned in the report as beneficial to cutting carbon emissions. Has that happened?”
Tom Lancaster; “According to the Climate Change Committee, again that is on trend if you like, and I think that reflects the fact that people are just choosing to eat slightly differently now, we eat food from lots of different cultures, many of which have a much bigger focus, and culture, of eating vegetarian foods.”
Presenter; “And also connected to that is the fall in the number of livestock in the country, sheep as well as cattle, which we have mentioned in previous programmes. Is that making a significant difference?”
Tom Lancaster; “It will make a difference in terms of emissions over time because cattle and sheep are ruminant livestock so they emit significant amounts of methane, so agriculture accounts for over half of the UK’s methane emissions which is a really powerful greenhouse gas. But it will also make a difference in terms of the land available for woodland and other habitats that we need to create in order to get to Net Zero, and this isn’t necessarily a bad news story for farming, I think this can be a really good news story for farming if the sector across the four countries of the UK is supported in the right way through a new Land Management Scheme, but also through the markets that all farmers have to engage with and the buyers and supermarkets that farmers have to sell their produce to.”
The paid up ‘experts’ are leading the narrative that excess carbon is causing climate change.
Read; Huge blow for Ed Miliband as new poll reveals Britons have turned against Net Zero MSN, 16 June 2025
‘Britons are increasingly turning against Net Zero, as a bombshell poll reveals they now fear the impact it will have on the cost of living crisis. The survey from Merlin Strategy reveals that public mood has shifted “sharply” on Net Zero. Asked whether Ed Miliband’s mad eco policies have helped or hurt their living standards, more voters than not now agree that they have. 38% said Net Zero has had a negative impact on their standard of living, compared to just 21% who believe it has been positive. Reform UK voters are the most supportive of this proposition, with 57% criticising Net Zero, compared to 32% of Tory voters and 20% of Labour voters.
Responding to the poll, deputy Reform UK leader Richard Tice told the Express: “The great British people are realising big time that they have been conned and lied to by the eco zealots on Net Stupid Zero.”
“They now know that it means higher bills, higher cost of living with jobs & industries being destroyed.”The blow to Ed Miliband’s agenda comes the same week as a report by Grayling Energy found that 55% of voters say the top minister’s policy of clean power by 2030 is unattainable. This compares to a tiny 9% who believe in the former Labour’s agenda. Shadow energy secretary Andrew Bowie said: “Kemi Badenoch has been clear – the current Net Zero by 2050 is impossible. We must change course.”
“We need a properly thought through approach, not more hot air from Net Zero nutters intent on leaving us all weaker, poorer and less secure.”
Solar panels only have a lifespan of up to 25 years. By 2050, an estimated 200 million tonnes of solar panels could be dumped in landfills as toxic waste.
Read; Challenge to stop solar panels becoming a ‘waste mountain’ BBC News, 4 June 2025
‘While they are being promoted around the world as a crucial weapon in reducing carbon emissions, solar panels degrade and become gradually less efficient. After about 25-30 years it’s typically more cost effective to replace them with new ones. Experts say billions of panels will eventually all need to be disposed of and replaced. “The world has installed more than one terawatt of solar capacity. Ordinary solar panels have a capacity of about 400W, so if you count both rooftops and solar farms, there could be as many as 2.5 billion solar panels.,” says Dr Rong Deng, an expert in solar panel recycling at the University of New South Wales in Australia. According to the British government, there are tens of millions of solar panels in the UK but the specialist infrastructure to scrap and recycle them is lacking. Energy experts are calling for urgent government action to prevent a looming global environmental disaster. “It’s going to be a waste mountain by 2050, unless we get recycling chains going now,” says Ute Collier, deputy director of the International Renewable Energy Agency. “We’re producing more and more solar panels – which is great – but how are we going to deal with the waste?” she asks.’
This is an excellent summary of the true costs of carbon tunnel vision.
Watch: We in Great Britain Don’t Have the Money, Workforce or Materials to Achieve Net Zero Ian Brighthope, 5 June 2025
‘Michael Kelly, an Emeritus Professor of Technology at the University of Cambridge and former government scientist, argues that the UK’s Net Zero plans by 2050 are an “engineering fantasy” due to practical, financial, and resource constraints. Below is a summary of the key points he makes during the conversation: Achieving Net Zero by electrifying ground transport and all industrial, commercial, and domestic heating would require expanding the electrical grid at an estimated cost of £1.4 trillion. Retrofitting all 26 million UK houses to reduce carbon emissions by 100% could cost around £2–4 trillion, based on pilot programs showing £85,000 per house for only 60% emission reductions. These costs equate to 7–8% of GDP, far exceeding earlier estimates (e.g., Lord Stern’s 1% of GDP), potentially requiring tax increases and equalling the education budget for 30 years.
The plan would need 40,000 civil and electrical engineers and three times as many skilled tradespeople working full-time for 30 years, a workforce comparable to the education or health sectors.The UK lacks these personnel, with training a professional engineer taking 10 years, and current shortages already evident (e.g., plumbers, electricians). Diverting engineers from critical roles (e.g., hospital life support systems) would be necessary but impractical. Electrifying all cars would require copper equivalent to one year’s global supply, and wind turbines need 600–700 times more high-quality steel and concrete than gas turbines for equivalent energy output. Copper mining must increase tenfold, but supply is limited, and renewable infrastructure (e.g., wind farms) is material-intensive, contradicting efficient resource use principles.
The current grid must triple in size (2.7 times) to handle electrified transport (0.7) and heating (1.0), as winter heating demands three times more energy than electricity. Most homes need rewiring (e.g., from 60 to 120 amps) to support heat pumps, fast chargers, and electric appliances, costing £700 billion for distribution upgrades. Infrastructure limits (e.g., transformers, wires) in some regions are already at capacity, and grid connection delays for wind farms can reach 15 years. Battery storage is prohibitively expensive and impractical, for example, a £45 million battery in Adelaide could power the city for 17 minutes, and one for Addenbrooke’s Hospital would cost 180–1,300 times more than diesel generators for equivalent reliability. Battery energy density is 40 times less than petrol, with only a six-fold improvement over 50 years and a projected two-fold increase in the next 50, making large-scale storage unfeasible this century.
Retrofitting progress is slow (1% in 10 years vs. a needed 25% in 40 years), and there’s no roadmap for Net Zero, unlike the semiconductor industry’s clear 10-year plans.The scale of disruption (e.g., rewiring homes, replacing appliances) is comparable to the 1960s gas conversion but far more complex, requiring decades of coordinated effort. Kelly argues it’s unethical and unprofessional for engineers and institutions (e.g., Royal Academy of Engineering, Royal Society) to not highlight Net Zero’s infeasibility, comparing it to building on an earthquake fault without warning. Engineers have a Code of Ethics requiring transparency, but many remain silent, assuming Net Zero is possible or avoiding debate to “go along for the ride.” There’s no public or scientific debate on Net Zero’s feasibility, with Kelly’s estimates dismissed without explanation (e.g., by the Energy Secretary). Cancel culture and fear of backlash deter scientists from questioning climate models or Net Zero policies, as admitting models “run too hot” could slash research funding.
Climate models are unreliable for long-term predictions, akin to weather forecasts beyond 10 days, due to complex, unproven assumptions about interacting variables.The belief that zero carbon emissions will stop climate change is flawed, as climate has always changed, and past geological periods had higher CO2 and temperatures without catastrophic outcomes. UK and US emission reductions are dwarfed by China’s (33 times UK savings) and India’s (7 times) increases from 2000–2022, rendering local efforts futile. EU restrictions on fossil fuel development in Africa, forcing reliance on costly renewables, are seen as immoral and akin to modern slavery.
EVs are less practical due to high battery costs, limited range (half a petrol tank’s), and inefficiencies in cold climates. Consumer reluctance is evident (e.g., unsold EVs at Bristol port), and mandates forcing EV sales could harm the car industry, leading to degrowth. Renewable energy (e.g., wind, solar) requires extensive land use and mining, causing more ecological damage than fossil fuels, which use smaller pipelines. Green lobbyists are criticised for single-issue focus, ignoring trade-offs like material use and environmental impact. Small nuclear reactors, proven in US Navy warships, are viable but face overregulation due to excessive safety standards (e.g., surviving nuclear bombs or plane crashes). France’s low electricity costs from nuclear power demonstrate feasibility, but current reactors wouldn’t meet modern safety rules, and nuclear can’t ramp up/down quickly like gas turbines.
Kelly advocates adaptation (e.g., sea walls, like New Zealand’s earthquake fund) over mitigation, as it’s more practical and only requires action when needed (e.g., Thames Barrier’s success). Net Zero’s scale risks a financial crash by the decade’s end, exacerbated by unrealistic policies and economic burdens. Modern civilisation relies on seven times more energy per person than in 1800, and reducing energy use would revert living standards to pre-industrial levels.New technologies (e.g., EVs) destroy old jobs (e.g., like shipping to aviation), and Net Zero could lead to degrowth, reducing production and mobility. Kelly concludes that Net Zero is unachievable by 2050 due to insurmountable barriers in cost, workforce, materials, and infrastructure, urging a shift to adaptation and more realistic energy policies like nuclear, while criticising the lack of debate and professional accountability.’
Read; UK Housing Grab: Government and immigrants are forcibly taking homes; The Exposé, 12 June 2025
‘Norfolk residents are being forced to sell their homes to make way for a solar farm. In another instance of a housing grab, immigrants have forcibly taken an elderly woman’s home from her; the police say they cannot intervene, leaving her to pursue legal action against the immigrants in an effort to reclaim her property. Residents in three “Domesday villages” fear their homes will be the first in Britain to be compulsorily purchased to make way for the country’s biggest-ever solar farm. Dozens of villagers living in Hempnall, Saxlingham and Tasburgh in Norfolk have received letters from a developer saying their homes “may be required” to create space for the East Pye Solar Project. The development will cover a massive 2,500 acres – the equivalent of 1,762 football pitches or the size of Chichester in West Sussex – and is 10 times bigger than the UK’s current largest in Flintshire, Wales.The Government is doing the same to farming but in a less obvious way.
Last year, we published an article that highlighted Gareth Phillips, a “renewable energy expert” at Pinsent Masons, declaring that the UK’s inheritance tax on farmers will free up land for “renewable energy” projects. The reduction in the relief on inheritance for farmers potentially threatens the survival of independently-run family farming in the UK, yet Phillips was pleased at the news because, presumably, it would mean more business for him. But Phillips is simply attempting to capitalise on what is government policy, as the UK’s Energy Secretary confirmed a month later. In December 2024, Ed Miliband proposed carpeting the countryside with solar panels as he pledged to bring in “the most ambitious reforms to the country’s energy system in generations.” Bringing about food insecurity by diminishing agricultural output was evident before Phillips declared his allegiance and Mad Miliband made his proposals.
A few months before, we published an article about a speech given by Cornish farmer Keith Andrews explaining how the UK government is incentivising farmers not to grow food. We were not able to establish when or where this speech was given, but Andrews explained that under the Sustainable Farming Incentive, the UK government was paying farmers to plant seed for birds and bees instead of crops. The incentive is one of three schemes that make up the Environmental Land Management, which replaced the European Union’s Common Agricultural Policy and aims to “support the rural economy while achieving the goals of the 25 Year Environment Plan and a commitment to Net Zero carbon emissions by 2050.”
In addition to being an expensive, unrenewable and unreliable source of energy, solar farms are also environmentally unfriendly. Apart from the threat to farming (which is environmentally friendly aside from the use of chemicals suffixed with “cide”) and the loss of habitat for the birds and bees (their natural habitats, including farmland, are covered with solar panels), the battery storage required for solar farms poses a threat of catastrophic and uncontrollable fires.
Persistent problems have plagued nature-based carbon projects – the introduction and solution is pasted below – the entire article is very interesting to prove that carbon tunnel vision is a disaster that is the inevitable consequence of trusting economists, who have to monetise everything, to run the world:
Read; Our forests are not spreadsheets, 8.9ha, by Robert Nasi, Natural Capital, 11 June 2025
‘This article is by Robert Nasi, Director General of the Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR).’
‘As a tropical forest ecologist, I have spent decades studying ecosystems teeming with a complexity that still humbles me. I have seen firsthand how a single ancient tree can be an entire world for countless species, how the subtle shift in understory plants can signal profound changes in the ecosystem’s health, and how interconnected everything truly is.
So, when I hear discussions about creating markets to “save nature,” a part of me is hopeful, but a bigger part is deeply cautious.
The idea of channelling much-needed funds towards conservation is vital. But looking at how these market ideas have played out, like carbon markets, gives me pause. Forests, wetlands and the natural world are not simple spreadsheets; treating them as such can lead us down a perilous path.
The story begins with carbon markets. Born from a genuine desire to tackle climate change, these markets aimed to put a price on pollution, creating a system where emitting fewer greenhouse gases had a tangible financial value. The core idea was to create a tradable unit – a tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e). If a company or a project could reduce emissions or pull carbon out of the atmosphere, they could earn carbon credits to sell in a carbon market.
From an ecologist’s viewpoint, the design of these markets favoured things that were easier to count than the intricate workings of a forest. Think of industrial projects: capturing methane from a landfill or installing solar panels. The inputs and outputs, the reduction in CO2e, could be measured with a certain engineering precision. This is not to say it was perfect. Still, it was more contained, more predictable than guaranteeing how much carbon a newly planted forest will store over the next century or proving that an existing forest would not have been logged anyway. This inherent bias towards the “easily quantifiable” was understandable from a market perspective thriving on clear, fungible units.
Big challenges emerged when these carbon markets tried to fully embrace Nature-Based Solutions (NbS) – using forests, soils and wetlands to soak up carbon. Forests or wetlands are incredible carbon sinks, no doubt. They can deliver a huge chunk of the emission reductions we need globally. But they are also living, breathing, dynamic systems. And this is where the carbon market’s simplistic logic began to clash with ecological reality.’
So, what is the alternative? Is there one indeed? I believe that if we are to use market-like mechanisms for biodiversity, they must be built on a foundation of ecological realism:
Embrace local uniqueness, not global fungibility – We must accept that biodiversity value is local and specific. A credit from a restored peat bog in Scotland is different from one from a protected coral reef in Indonesia. Markets should focus on driving investment into specific, high-priority ecosystems, with metrics tailored to those places.
Prioritise real outcomes over tradable units – The goal shouldn’t be to create a perfectly liquid commodity, but to ensure that investments lead to genuine, measurable and lasting improvements in ecosystem health, species survival and local livelihoods. This means robust, long-term monitoring by independent ecologists, not just a paper exercise.
Integrity in measurement is key – If we must use metrics, they need to be scientifically sound, transparent and reflect true ecological complexity as much as possible, moving beyond simplistic proxies like mere acreage. We need to be honest about uncertainties and build in large precautionary buffers.
Strengthen governance and transparency – Independent verification, clear rules, public registries and well-resourced enforcement are non-negotiable. The conflicts of interest that have sometimes plagued carbon markets (where those who benefit from credit sales also influence their validation) must be avoided.
Empower local and Indigenous stewards – Indigenous Peoples and local communities are often the most effective guardians of biodiversity. Any market mechanism must respect their rights, involve them centrally in design and governance, and ensure they receive equitable benefits. Schemes like Plan Vivo, which mandate a significant portion of funding goes to local stakeholders, offer a good starting point.
Focus on contributions, not just offsets – The language matters. Biodiversity credits should primarily fund additional conservation and restoration – nature-positive contributions – rather than being seen to compensate for avoidable destruction elsewhere. The mitigation hierarchy (avoid, minimise, restore, then offset as a last resort) must be rigorously applied.
Our planet’s biodiversity is not a collection of interchangeable parts that can be easily valued and traded like stocks or shares. It is the intricate, evolved web of life that sustains us all. While financial mechanisms can play a role in its protection, they must be designed with a deep understanding of and respect for ecological principles. We cannot afford to simply replicate the flawed logic of past market attempts.
For the sake of the forests I study, the people who steward these, and the myriad life they support, we need to be far more thoughtful, rigorous and honest in how we approach the “valuation” and “marketing” of nature.
It demands nothing less.
Watch or Read: The Climate Alarmism Scam – Why the Data Doesn’t Add Up by Paul Burgess,
The Truth Contract, 19 May 2025
‘Paul Burgess, B.Sc., M.Sc., is a retired Chartered Water Resources and Environment Engineer who managed water resource planning across the UK for many years overseeing supply, flood protection and weather monitoring. In 1971 he built one of the earliest climate models. After retiring he founded a business that went on to win a Wales Innovation Award for a globally sold product. Since the early 2000s Burgess has countered climate alarmism through his YouTube channel, Climate Realism.
Passionate about scientific truth, he gives talks nationwide at his own expense – exposing what he calls the “climate alarmism scam” using facts and data. This discussion is a must-watch summary of his case and essential primer for the argument that the concept of man-made climate change – which controls ever more aspects of Western life – is a total fabrication.’
Watch; Trailer
David Carter; “Is climate science a science? Is CO2 a problem? Is extreme weather increasing? Is green energy cheaper and is net zero possible, desirable or achievable? It’s a really dangerous target for humanity.”
Paul Burgess; “We had a thriving car industry that’s gone, steel industry gone, aluminium industry gone, chemical industry going, you, you name it.”
David Carter; “We’ve been perilously close a few times with the production in CO2 to ending humanity because of a lack of CO2”
Paul Burgess; “Correct. What happened was the government basically cancelled me and the next day the government sent people in to brainwash them about CO2. That is what happened.”
David Carter; “I’ve always understood from the media that it’s the growth in CO2 that’s causing the temperature to rise, whereas actually what your graph is showing is the complete opposite. If we had left the system where it was 20 years ago, we would have spent 90 billion less just on energy. When you add on top of that the knock on consequences of having five times more expensive energy.”
Paul Burgess; “I’m not a conspiracy theorist. I hate conspiracy theorist. I’m afraid this one is true. It’s the biggest conspiracy there it’s ever been in the history of the world. All the religious cults, they all have leaders and the followers obey every word and do all stupid things, and the whole alarmist movement is a cult. I put a challenge out now to any professor, anyone you like, come and debate me. They don’t do it.”
I could be sued if I put the paywall-busting code into this newsletter, and if I paste the content. So below is the headline of an article about a UN expert who wants to fine people who don’t agree with the mainstream opinion that CO2 causes climate change.
The Guardian. Nina Lakhani.
UN expert urges criminalising fossil fuel disinformation, banning lobbying
A leading UN expert is calling for criminal penalties against those peddling disinformation about the climate crisis and a total ban on fossil fuel industry lobbying and advertising, as part of a radical shake-up to safeguard human rights and curtail planetary catastrophe.
Geoengineering
Read and Watch; State Representative Sounds The Alarm On Climate Engineering; Dane Wigington, Geoengineering Watch, 24 June 2025
‘Undisclosed and officially denied climate engineering operations continue to rage in our skies, though populations are finally beginning to awaken to what is being done to them without their knowledge or consent. In a world where everything to do with government is synonymous with deception and criminality, unyielding honour and courage is still standing strong in a select few, South Carolina Representative Lee Gilreath is one of those few. Representative Gilreath continues to set a stellar example of what an elected official should stand for if they truly represent the people. Global climate engineering / weather warfare operations are wreaking havoc on climate systems while simultaneously contaminating every breath we take due to the toxic climate engineering fallout. Representative Gilreath deserves our unwavering support, our collective efforts are desperately needed in this most critical battle to fully expose and halt devastatingly destructive geoengineering programs.’
Censorship / Surveillance / Coercion/ Corruption / Blackmail
Watch; The Agenda Film; 4 June 2025
‘The Agenda: Their Vision | Your Future’ is a feature-length independent documentary produced by Mark Sharman; former UK broadcasting executive at ITV and Sky (formerly BSkyB). In fiction and fact, there have always been people and organisations with ambitions to control the world. And now the oligarchs who pull the strings of finance and power finally have the tools to achieve their global objectives; omnipresent surveillance, artificial intelligence, digital currency and ultimately digital identities. The potential for social control of our lives and minds is alarmingly real. The plan has been decades in the making and has seen infiltration of governments, local councils, big business, civil society, the media and, crucially, education. A ceaseless push for a new reality, echoing Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, or George Orwell’s 1984.
‘The Agenda: Their Vision, Your Future’ examines the digital prison which awaits us if we do not push back right now. How your food, energy, money, travel and even your access to the internet could be limited and controlled; how financial power is strangling democracy and how global institutions like the World Health Organisation are commandeered to champion ideological and fiscal objectives.The centrepiece is man-made climate change and with it, the race to Net Zero. Both are encapsulated in the United Nations and its Agenda 2030. A force for good? Or “a blank cheque for totalitarian global control”?
The Agenda presents expert views from the UK, the USA and Europe.’
Watch; Godfather of AI: I Tried to Warn Them, But We’ve Already Lost Control! Geoffrey Hinton, 16 June 2025
‘He pioneered AI, now he’s warning the world. Godfather of AI Geoffrey Hinton breaks his silence on the deadly dangers of AI no one is prepared for. Geoffrey Hinton is a leading computer scientist and cognitive psychologist, widely recognised as the ‘Godfather of AI’ for his pioneering work on neural networks and deep learning. He received the 2018 Turing Award, often called the Nobel Prize of computing. In 2023, he left Google to warn people about the rising dangers of AI. He explains:
– Why there’s a real 20% chance AI could lead to HUMAN EXTINCTION.
– How speaking out about AI got him SILENCED.
– The deep REGRET he feels for helping create AI.
– The 6 DEADLY THREATS AI poses to humanity right now.
– AI’s potential to advance healthcare, boost productivity, and transform education.’
Timestamps: 00:00 Intro 02:11 Why Do They Call You the Godfather of AI? 04:20 Warning About the Dangers of AI 07:06 Concerns We Should Have About AI 10:33 European AI Regulations 12:12 Cyber Attack Risk 14:25 How to Protect Yourself From Cyber Attacks 16:12 Using AI to Create Viruses 17:26 AI and Corrupt Elections 19:03 How AI Creates Echo Chambers 22:48 Regulating New Technologies 24:31 Are Regulations Holding Us Back From Competing With China? 25:57 The Threat of Lethal Autonomous Weapons 28:33 Can These AI Threats Combine? 30:15 Restricting AI From Taking Over 32:01 Reflecting on Your Life’s Work Amid AI Risks 33:45 Student Leaving OpenAI Over Safety Concerns 37:49 Are You Hopeful About the Future of AI? 39:51 The Threat of AI-Induced Joblessness 42:47 If Muscles and Intelligence Are Replaced, What’s Left? 44:38 Ads 46:42 Difference Between Current AI and Superintelligence 52:37 Coming to Terms With AI’s Capabilities 54:29 How AI May Widen the Wealth Inequality Gap 56:18 Why Is AI Superior to Humans? 59:01 AI’s Potential to Know More Than Humans 1:00:49 Can AI Replicate Human Uniqueness? 1:03:57 Will Machines Have Feelings? 1:11:12 Working at Google 1:14:55 Why Did You Leave Google? 1:16:20 Ads 1:18:15 What Should People Be Doing About AI? 1:19:36 Impressive Family Background 1:21:13 Advice You’d Give Looking Back 1:22:27 Final Message on AI Safety 1:25:48 What’s the Biggest Threat to Human Happiness?
Read; BritCard: a passport to digital slavery; PAUL CUDENEC; 30 JUNE 2025
ZIM, the zio-imperialist mafia, has long cherished the dream of imposing a totalitarian-style compulsory ID scheme on the British population.
Tony Blair, one of its principal contemporary puppets, tried on its behalf to introduce an ID card 20 years ago, despite massive public opposition.
His response to critical colleagues at the time was, as the Financial Times reveals: “I accept all the problems but I just see this as an idea whose time has come”.
The Covid scam gave the former UK prime minister – who, like the WEF’s founder Klaus Schwab, has been awarded Israel’s Dan David Prize and is close to the zio-bankster Rothschilds – the chance to have a further, pandemic-pretexted, bash at advancing the same agenda.
In September 2020 he told the BBC that it was “common sense to move in the direction of digital IDs”.
The following year he said that the introduction of vaccine passports was now “inevitable” with the reopening of international travel.
Blair insisted: “Once vaccination really starts to be widespread, of course you’re going to ask for proof of what the vaccination status is.
“Therefore it’s best to start now on trying to devise common standards and if you start to do this on a vast scale, you’re going to need the technology that allows you to do it digitally”.
The anniversary of Julian Assange’s freedom and reunion with his family, WikiLeaks posted this 2 min video of very moving pictures.
Watch; I pled guilty to journalism; Julian Assange, WikiLeaks, 24 June 2025
One year ago today, Julian Assange began his 48-hour journey to freedom, leaving Belmarsh prison in the United Kingdom and boarding a jet bound for Australia via the remote U.S. island of Saipan. “365 days have passed, but we are light years away from Belmarsh prison. To all the supporters who helped make this possible — there are no words to express how grateful we are to have Julian free.” – Stella Assange
Julian Assange; “I want to be totally clear. I am not free today because the system worked. I am free today after years of incarceration because I plead guilty to journalism. Like so many of the efforts made in my case, whether they were from parliamentarians, presidents, prime ministers, the Pope, UN officials and diplomats, unions, legal and medical professionals, academics, activists or citizens, none of them could have been necessary. But all of them were necessary because without them, I never would have seen the light of day. I eventually chose freedom over unrealisable justice after being detained for years and facing 175-year sentence with no effective remedy. Journalism is not a crime, it is a pillar of a free and informed society. Let us all commit to doing our part to ensure that the light of freedom never dims, that the pursuit of truth will live on and that the voices of the many are not silenced by the interests of the few.”
Reiner Fuellmich is a hero, like Julian Assange, persecuted to silence his past and present success at exposing the lies of big banks and big pharma.
Read; THE FULL STORY OF DR. REINER FUELLMICH; by Seba Terribilini, 13 June 2025
‘Well-known attorney Dr. Reiner Fuellmich is being detained under terrible conditions for reasons that have nothing to do with what he is accused of. He had the courage to speak out on the truth about the so-called pandemic and is now paying for it. He is, without any doubt, a political prisoner! I will give you an overview of the situation, but to start with, let me briefly summarise who Dr. Reiner Fuellmich is. Dr. Reiner Fuellmich, 67, has been a trial lawyer in Germany and California for about 30 years, defending consumers and small and medium-sized enterprises against large corporations. He undertook important lawsuits against Deutsche Bank (for which Dr. Fuellmich himself worked, and which he defined as “one of the largest criminal organisations”), against Kühne & Nagel and Volkswagen (over the diesel issue). Interestingly, Volkswagen’s second largest shareholder is none other than the state of Lower Saxony, where the trial against Dr. Reiner Fuellmich took place and where he is currently being held.
During the lockdowns in 2020, Fuellmich and his wife were in their ranch in California, but as the situation appeared to them to be quite strange, they decided to return home to Germany to find out what was really going on. Fuellmich soon recognised the crimes against humanity in connection with the so-called pandemic and on July 10, 2020, together with three other lawyers, Viviane Fischer, Antonia Fischer, and Justus Hoffmann, he created the “CORONA INVESTIGATIVE COMMITTEE” in Berlin, whose aim was to shed light on the actions of governments, institutions, and the medical community. The main questions Fuellmich sought answers to were: – How dangerous is this virus? – How reliable is the PCR test ‘revised’ by Drosten? – What damage is being caused to the world’s economy by the lockdowns? Fuellmich conducted a vast series of interviews (approx. 400) and consulted more than 150 scientists and experts from around the world in the medical field. such as: – Nobel Prize winner Dr. Luc Montagnier, – renowned American cardiologist and epidemiologist Dr. Peter McCullough – Dr. Mike Yeadon (former vice president of Pfizer) – Dr. Judy Mikovits (scientist) – Dr. Robert Malone (American biochemist and pioneer of mRNA technology) – Dr. Roger Hodkinson (forensic pathologist) – Dr. Arne Burkhardt (forensic pathologist, who led a large group of pathologists in conducting a study based on autopsies of vaccinated people) – Dr. Astrid Stückelberger (scientist and researcher) – Dr. Simone Gold (founder of America’s Frontline Doctors) – Dr. Antonietta Gatti (scientist) – Dr. Mattias Desmet (psychologist) -Dr. Tess Lawrie (guideline methodologist) and many others.
He also consulted financial experts, historians, investigative journalists, and writers, such as: – Ernst Wolff (writer, journalist, and financial expert) – James Corbett (writer and investigative journalist) – Matthew Ehret (writer and journalist) – David Icke (writer and journalist) – Naomi Wolf (journalist, writer, and US political consultant) Fuellmich also interviewed other highly influential people, such as: – Vera Sharav (Holocaust survivor and human rights activist) – Catherine Austin Fitts (former US Assistant Secretary for Housing and Urban Development and finance expert) – Calin Georgescu (former high-ranking member of the United Nations) – Monsignor Carlo Maria Viganò (Archbishop) – Pascal Najadi (former Swiss banker and current film producer who denounced Swiss President Alain Berset) and many, many others.
His investigations led him to conclude that the “C-19 emergency” was never about public health, as there was no pandemic. If anything, it was a “PCR test pandemic.” It was precisely thanks to these PCR tests, which generated over 95% false positives, that it was possible to inflate the number of COVID “cases”, thus justifying the measures taken to face the “emergency”. According to Fuellmich, this was the fundamental point on which allegations of intentional wrongdoing by the governments of most countries in the world could be based. Furthermore, according to Fuellmich, all governments have acted and are acting against the interests of their citizens and are clearly under the control of large multinational corporations and NGOs, which Fuellmich henceforth referred to as “Mr. Global.” – a moniker devised by Catherine Austin Fitts. “Mr. Global has committed and is still committing, without a shadow of a doubt, the greatest crime against humanity”. ‘The background, his persecution, the abuse he is subject to and his scandalous conviction.’
Update; Reiner doing better on many levels in his new prison- Elsa; June 30
PS. By the way, to donate for legal and other expenses, here is the link.
Irish comedian and filmmaker Tadhg Hickey has had is Instagram page taken down because of his support for Palestine.
Watch; Instagram page taken down; Tadhg Hickey Changed My Life, 26 May 2025
Tadhg Hickey; “Hi guys, bit of an interesting development there. This morning my main Instagram page has been taken down. No warnings, nothing like that. There was a kind of a pro-Palestine purge again last night on Meta. Nobody received any warnings, just like lots of pages taken down. My own page had about 300,000 followers and hundreds of millions of views on the video. So you can make up your own mind as to why it was taken down. Now it’s a little bit frustrating and I tell you the main reason why it is because anybody who knows my account, I used to use the collaboration feature quite freely. So I was blessed enough to be able to help a variety of Palestinian causes, initiatives and fundraisers around the world. So that’s been taken away from me now and from the community as well, again, with no real route to recourse because the appeal system is just automated, which I think is actually illegal. And anybody who’s familiar with the appeal system on Instagram would know that you lose all your appeals. So I’d say the account is gone. Anybody who could look into it for the sake of the community, that would be great. I’m not expecting anything. But I am left with the feeling, if you’re so right in your ideology and your viewpoint, why would you have to spend so much time and money and effort silencing any voices of dissent?”
Our corporate captured governments across the world but particularly the UK and US have partnered with and allowed data sharing to enable spywear that can track our every move, our health records and social media presence. Woe betide your safety and freedom if you don’t follow the mainstream narrative.
Read; Trump’s Embrace of Dystopian Palantir Spying Tool Sends Stock Soaring by Kit Klarenberg, the Grayzone, 5 June 2025
‘During an end-of-year investor call this February, Palantir co-founder and militant zionist Alex Karp bragged that his company was making a financial killing by enabling mass murder. “Palantir is here to disrupt and make the institutions we partner with the very best in the world and, when it’s necessary, to scare enemies,” he stated, adding, “and on occasion kill them.” On this front, Karp claimed Palantir was “crushing it,” and he professed to be “super-proud of the role we play, especially in places we can’t talk about.” Karp went on to predict social “disruption” ahead that would be “very good for Palantir.” “There’s a revolution. Some people are going to get their heads cut off,” he warned, suggesting that his firm was producing the most vital technology enabling elites to restore control during the coming unrest. Palantir is already playing a decisive role in the besieged Gaza Strip, where its products assist Israel’s application of a ferocious AI targeting system known as Lavender which directs its ongoing genocide. In the face of public protest, Karp has acknowledged that he is directly involved in killing Palestinians in Gaza, but insisted the dead were “mostly terrorists.”
At the start of January, the overtly pro-Israeli firm’s board of directors gathered in Tel Aviv for its first meeting of the new year. Since then, its financial fortunes have improved dramatically. Throughout May, Palantir’s stock exploded, making it the S&P 500’s top-performing company. On June 2, Palantir’s share price hit an all-time high, a year-on-year jump of 512%, turbocharging the company’s market value to roughly $311 billion. Driving this abrupt burst of investor exuberance was a welter of lucrative deals signed with multiple US government agencies since Donald Trump took office, and the expectation Palantir will ink further contracts in the future.’
‘The important thing that I realised during COVID is that there’s a global system of control that’s happening in the world. …… People want to say it’s Fauci, it’s Bill Gates, it’s Pfizer, and all of those people and entities are components of the giant global cartel, and they’re all striving for that cartel to have more power and more influence. And in order to do that, they need to censor us, propagandise us, surveil us and control us.’
Listen; Covid-19 Was a Military Psy-op; UK Column News, 5 June 2025
Debbie Lerman; “I first realised that everyone knew the virus wasn’t dangerous because I had checked in January and February, I had looked at the statistics, I had looked at who was dying and who wasn’t. Nobody was dying. It wasn’t dangerous. It was like all the other outbreaks like MERS and SARS and whatever, you get little outbreaks, you treat them and you move on. And that’s what had always been done. And I assumed that that’s what was going to be done, so I really wasn’t worried. And then when they started locking down the whole world and doing all of that, and everybody was completely terrified and using masks that we had known before March 2020, everybody in the medical world knows that masks don’t work against airborne viruses, everybody knows it, but the propaganda was so strong, I actually kind of had a nervous breakdown because everybody I knew who I thought was really smart and educated was falling for this like crazy garbage. And that’s what really started me trying to figure out what was going on. And then I realised as I was investigating it that it wasn’t just about the pharmaceutical or the public health corruption which are part of it. It was a giant network, which I call Global Public Private Partnership. I didn’t invent that, other people have talked about that, but an easier way to say it is a global crime cartel. That’s the new way that I’ve decided to talk about it because it’s easier to say, but it’s a global conglomeration of public and private entities that are all like just like a big monster that needs to be fed. And it is the military and intelligence agencies, it is the military industrial complex, which includes the military and the intelligence agencies, that includes Wall Street, it includes Silicon Valley, so those are all of the components of the military-industrial complex. And then it also includes all of the NGOs, it includes the academic institutions, the journals, the international banking system. It’s a giant cartel. So the important thing that I realised during COVID is that there’s a global system of control that’s happening in the world. It sounds so weird and so conspiratorial, it’s hard to wrap one’s mind around, and I totally get it, and I have been working hard and I’m still working to find the best ways to explain that because people want to say it’s Fauci, people want to say it’s Bill Gates, people want to say, it’s Pfizer, and all of those people and entities are components of the giant global cartel, and they’re all striving for that cartel to have more power and more influence. And in order to do that, they need to censor us, propagandise us, surveil us and control us. That’s what they need to do, and so what COVID revealed was the systems that they were using to do that. So the digital systems, the propaganda and censorship industrial complex, which is a global, as you said, world encompassing. How did everybody come up with the same words at the same time? How did everybody come up with the same narrative at the same time? Obviously there was coordination. That’s not a conspiracy, that’s a fact. So the important thing to realise now is that this system is rolling forward to get more control. So no matter what happens on a local political level, you might change a few things on the surface level that you think are important, and that’s fine, but you are not addressing the rolling constant, we haven’t stopped it, it hasn’t slowed down. In fact, it uses each voting cycle and each administration to convince half the population that now you don’t have to worry about the cartel, now the cartel isn’t really doing anything, now we’re going to save you and we’re going to make everything fine. And the cartel is just moving on and doing its thing. So what I try to do is point out that no matter who’s in charge, even if you feel more politically affiliated with one side or the other, they’re actually using that in order to distract you from what’s happening on a global level. It’s all in my book, which is called The Deep State Goes Viral.”
Read or listen; The Deep State Goes Viral Pandemic Planning and the Covid Coup: Brownstone Institute 7 minutes. 12 May 2025
‘Even when it became eminently clear that the virus posed little to no threat to children, they insisted that kids had to stay inside (the absolute worst thing I could imagine for a child) and wear masks. Then, when vaccine mandates were rolled out, even when it became indisputable that the vaccines did not stop infection or transmission, people turned vicious. “The unvaccinated” became a category of undesirable outcasts not allowed to participate in society. I found the irrational cruelty of people who considered themselves moral and compassionate to be downright terrifying.
The main cause of that irrational reaction was equally spine-chilling: a massive, global censorship and propaganda campaign undertaken by the entire online and traditional media apparatus. It was so gigantic that most people could not – and still do not – believe it could happen.
Due to that unprecedented narrative-control campaign, barely anyone was investigating what actually happened.
So I decided to do just that, and what I discovered was astonishing.
I discovered that the US Covid pandemic response was not a public health response run by the HHS, CDC or any other public health body. Instead, it was a biodefense/counter-terrorism response, run by the Pentagon, National Security Council, and Department of Homeland Security.
When I continued to dig, I found that the same pattern was followed in many countries around the world. The pandemic response, according to all available evidence, was implemented according to globally planned and directed protocols.
None of this has been reported in the corporate media, and even in independent media spaces, very few have investigated or reported on these topics.
Why does it matter? You might ask. So what if the pandemic response was run by national security agencies according to a biodefense/counterterrorism playbook, rather than by public health agencies according to public health guidelines? And why is it surprising that most countries responded in similar ways?
Put simply, if it had been a regular public health response, Covid would not have differed from any of the viral epidemics or pandemics of the last century: The public would have been told to remain calm, wash hands frequently, and stay home if sick. Public health agencies would have tracked clusters of severe disease and treated them accordingly. This would have happened at different times, in different locations. Most people would barely have been aware that there was a novel virus circulating among them.
Instead, the response to Covid was the exact opposite: The media and public health agencies whipped the population into levels of panic massively disproportionate to the threat actually posed by the virus. Everyone was convinced that the only way to “beat the virus” was to lock down the whole world and wait for a never-before-tested or manufactured vaccine.
This book presents my attempt to understand why and how that switch happened: from a rational, medically, and ethically sound pandemic response to a global military-style lockdown-until-vaccine nightmare.’
Starmer takes up the lies-to-war banner from Cameron and Blair. ‘This is about the British elite’s promotion of its own agenda in the world, which is actually they’re very comfortable with fighting wars. We have to remember that this is the foremost war-mongering state in the world. Over the last 200 years we’ve invaded more countries than anyone else and even since 1945’.
Watch; Starmer Bangs Drums Of War In Speech At Arms Factory; Novara Media, 2 June 2025
Mark Curtis, Declassified UK; “If Keir Starmer’s talking about placing Britain on a war fighting footing, which is basically what he said, that raises a whole load of concerns about what this government is actually planning to do. Over the last few months there’s been all sorts of mentions by Britain’s military figures or intimations that they’re preparing for a war with Russia. So what are we meant to conclude now that Keir Starmer is talking openly about war footing? My view is that from what we do know about this so-called strategic defence review is that it’s certainly not strategic. It’s actually not about defence, it’s not even a review because it’s not strategic, because it’s not actually about the public security needs of the UK. It’s about the geopolitical strategy of the British elite. It’s not about defence, it’s about offence. It seems to be about spending more money on more offensive military equipment to fight more wars. And it’s certainly not a review because the government announced many months ago that certain things were completely off the agenda anyway of the so-called review. It’s important to make the distinction between what would constitute an actual defence policy and what we currently have. What we currently have is a huge array of military spending that is actually about fighting wars. Six billion pounds has gone on these two new aircraft carriers, described as vulnerable metal cans by former head of the UK military. We’re spending billions on a new generation of attack warplanes with up to £200 billion being spent on the Trident nuclear weapons system over the next 30 years. These don’t provide security. This is about the British elite’s promotion of its own agenda in the world, which is actually they’re very comfortable with fighting wars. We have to remember that this is the foremost war-mongering state in the world. Over the last 200 years we’ve invaded more countries than anyone else and even since 1945. I did a piece of research with Declassified a few months ago showing that Britain has intervened on 80 occasions since 1945 in dozens of countries. So the British elite likes fighting wars and they like doing it because it’s good for the arms companies, it’s good for their geopolitical interests. They just have to get the public to back them, and they do that by generating support among their mates in the media. And that happens all the time, and it’s happening now. If you look at the way the media are writing up this strategic defence review, they’re just writing up MOD press releases from what I’ve seen so far. I also think we have to be careful about taking on board too much of their arguments as to why we are increasing military spending. Is it really the case that there are rising threats to Britain of a military nature? OK, so the government wants to say to us that Vladimir Putin is going to eat our children and invade the Shetland Islands, that’s basically what they’re telling us. But this is frankly ridiculous. The war in Ukraine was undoubtedly provoked partly by NATO and US and British policy. That doesn’t excuse what Russia did, what it did in crossing the international borders of Ukraine was totally criminal. It’s bombardment of Ukrainian cities has been barbaric and it’s committed war crimes. But to put all of the fault of this war onto Moscow is not an accurate reading of what’s gone on over the last few years. And there’s now a legion of evidence showing that that war in Europe was partly at least the result of NATO provocations over a period of several decades, of NATO reneging on on assurances that were made to Russia about not expanding up to Russia’s borders, not basing military equipment and military forces in a country up to Russia’s borders. So there’s all sorts of reasons why we’re now in that mess in Central Europe, the Ukrainian people are paying the price for. It’s not only Russia’s fault, it’s also the fault of the same kind of rhetoric and the same kind of policies that we’re now seeing from Starmer in this new policy that’s been announced today.”
Trump’s latest scam, force EU countries to buy weapons from the US.
Listen; US dominates European weapons purchases; UK Column News, 27 June 2025
Patrick Henningsen; “The main part of this conference was to drum up pressure and support by the United States to get Europe to pay its fair share, to pay for its defence. So what Trump is doing is getting them to spend 5% of GDP and spend it with Uncle Sam or most of it. That’s a huge payday, a huge payday for the Americans. So what are we looking at here? Turkey backs NATO’s 5% defence goal here, planning a nationwide air shield, Turkey’s planning to prioritise its steel Dome project. So not to be outdone by the Iron Dome in Israel, Erdogan wants a steel Dome. What are we looking at here? Every country saying the same thing. Golden Dome, Iron Dome, Steel Dome, we’re looking at an arms race, that’s exactly what we’re looking at here. Take a look at the coercion and bring this up on screen. ‘Trump says Spain will pay more in trade (tariffs) after the refusal to meet NATO’s defence spending targets’. So NATO is determining what governments spend, and if you don’t comply, Trump will hit you with punitive tariffs. This is outrageous. Everyone in Brussels should be railing against this. This is the United States imposing budgetary spending, NATO is directing European economic and political affairs.
But let’s look at the reality in the EU, why countries will not meet their 5% spending. And here’s the first one, ‘the EU 0% GDP growth projections and a recession’. So that’s 5% of a smaller GDP and we’ll go here, ‘state budget constraints require new laws’, so in some cases there might be constitutional amendments required for this as well. And the deficit spending is hurting EU states’ credit ratings. And we’ll go on, ‘government forced to bring in austerity measures’ as a result of this and ‘privatisation, more cuts in public and social services’. So that’s what it looks like and voter backlash is coming, and they’re not interested in a war with Russia.”
‘The US Department of Defense has the goal of “always having robots, not soldiers, make first contact with the enemy.” Robotic systems are being developed to perform everything from surveillance to killing. With an army of autonomous slaughterbots, there is no longer a concern of ethics.’
Read; AI Control of the US Military by Greg Reese, 11 June 2025
‘In the military, a “kill chain” refers to the sequential process of finding, fixing, tracking, targeting, engaging, and assessing a target. And the US military war machine has found that humans are not as willing to kill as much as they’d like them to. After World War II, studies conducted by Brigadier General S.L.A. Marshall showed that only 20% of U.S. infantrymen fired their weapons at the enemy, even when under direct threat. He attributed this to an innate human resistance to killing. He wrote in his book, Men Against Fire, that “the average and healthy individual has such an inner and usually unrealised resistance towards killing a fellow man that…at the vital point he becomes a conscientious objector.” This led to changes in U.S. military training, such as, human-shaped silhouette targets and dehumanisation of the enemy.
In 1996, The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society by Lt. Col. Dave Grossman, showed that increasing the kill rate in US infantrymen came with psychological costs due to the guilt and trauma of killing. The National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health in 2011 showed that soldiers who believed they killed someone in combat were at higher risk of PTSD, depression, and suicidal thoughts. It is for these reasons that the IDF, with the help of the US military and Palantir, have been utilising Artificial Intelligence on the battlefield. Destroying an entire building to kill one person may seem extreme for a human, but not for AI. It is admitted that the AI targeting system murders innocent civilians 10% of the time, and AI is not bothered one bit.
The Golden Dome that President Trump announced will rely upon AI-driven tracking and interceptors. And lethal autonomous weapons are next. The Bullfrog M2 is an autonomous .50 caliber machine gun developed for the US military. It detects, tracks, identifies, and acquires targets autonomously. Last year, DARPA released footage of Artificial Intelligence autonomously flying an F-16, known as the X-62A, against a human-piloted F-16. Known as the founder of Oculus VR, Palmer Luckey is the latest harmless looking front-man for the military industrial complex. In 2017, Luckey founded Anduril Industries, a military technology company focused on autonomous military weapons systems. The US Department of Defense has the goal of “always having robots, not soldiers, make first contact with the enemy.” Robotic systems are being developed to perform everything from surveillance to killing. With an army of autonomous slaughterbots, there is no longer a concern of ethics. If a government wanted to unleash them against their own people, they will have no problem following those orders.’
I have been introduced to a brilliant truth seeking podcast, The Truth Contract, run by David CM Carter whose interview is excellent
Watch; Britain is at a crossroads; David CM Carter joins Jim Ferguson; The Truth Contract, 18 June 2025
‘In this timely and urgent conversation, David CM Carter, co-founder of The Truth Contract, speaks plainly about where we are, how we got here, and what must happen next.
Formerly an investment banker, global venture capitalist, and advisor to leaders around the world, David has spent decades inside the systems now failing the public. From his vantage point, the message is clear:
“There is a war on your mind, your autonomy, and your sovereignty.
We are governed by a system that no longer serves, and you’re not being told the truth.”
David doesn’t bring problems without proposals. In this interview, he outlines:
– Why Britain is in an existential crisis, and what that really means
– A call for a referendum to return power to the people
– Why direct democracy is not radical, but necessary
– The parts of government that must be dismantled to reclaim sovereignty
– The deeper cultural and psychological battle we’re facing, and how to meet it with clarity, courage, and action
This isn’t about politics. It’s about principles, and what comes next.’
Read; About The Truth Contract
‘We’re living in a time of growing distrust; in governments, institutions, media, even in each other. Many feel overwhelmed by noise, unsure who to believe, or afraid to speak what they really think. And yet, beneath the cynicism, something deeper is stirring: a quiet but powerful hunger for truth, agency, and integrity.The Truth Contract exists to meet that moment. Not with outrage or noise, but with clarity, courage, and purpose.
What is The Truth Contract? The Truth Contract is a movement and platform for those who think critically, speak honestly, and act with intention. We connect truth-seekers with truth-speakers; scientists, doctors, whistle blowers, independent journalists, and everyday people who see through the fog and are ready to build something better. We offer a space for meaningful dialogue, public intelligence, and truth-led participation; through long-form interviews, private discussions, in-person gatherings, and a growing set of tools designed to return civic power to the people.
What We Stand For; We’re not here to fix a broken system. We’re here to replace it, with one grounded in truth, transparency, and shared human values. This isn’t about ideology. It’s about integrity. We’re here for the curious, the courageous, and the constructive: those ready to unlearn, rethink, and reclaim their place in shaping a more honest world.
Founding Principles; Truth as Our Compass We seek, share, and stand by truth, even when it’s uncomfortable. Clarity over conflict.
Radical Transparency; No hidden agendas. No backroom deals. We communicate openly and honestly, always.
Power to the People; We challenge centralised control and build structures that return agency to communities.
Civic Wisdom; We trust the public’s ability to think critically and hold space for informed, respectful dialogue.
Action with Purpose; Ideas must lead to impact. The Truth Contract bridges awareness with practical solutions.
Peaceful Transformation; We believe in bold, non-violent change that unites, not chaos that divides.
Unyielding Integrity; We live the values we speak. No shortcuts. No compromise.
Community as Our Strength; This is a shared path. Our power lies in trust, collaboration, and collective resolve.
Who’s Behind The Truth Contract? We are a diverse collective of researchers, facilitators, creatives, scientists, writers, and system thinkers;from fields including health, media, governance, human rights, and beyond.
What unites us isn’t ideology, it’s a shared commitment to truth, discernment, and integrity in action.
If you’ve ever felt like something doesn’t add up,
if you’ve questioned what you’ve been told,
if you’re ready to move beyond passive frustration and step into meaningful participation – you’re already part of this.
Why Subscribe? Subscribing connects you to exclusive, ad-free content including:
– Long-form podcasts and expert interviews
– Deep dives into underreported issues
– Access to private conversations and community calls
This is your space to reconnect with clarity, build trust in your own discernment, and be part of a community that’s not just asking better questions – but building better answers.’
‘Breaking this silence is crucial in resisting propaganda and emerging totalitarianism.’
Watch; Some truths about ‘speaking truth; Mattias Desmet: Psychology and Totalitarianism, The Truth Contract, 7 May 2025
‘Mattias Desmet is a Belgian clinical psychologist and Professor of Clinical Psychology at Ghent University. He holds a PhD in psychological sciences and a Masters in Statistics, specialising in psychoanalysis. Desmet gained international attention for the theory of ‘mass formation’, detailed in his 2022 book, The Psychology of Totalitarianism which examines societal conditions that he says can lead to collective psychosis and totalitarianism.
He has published more than 100 peer-reviewed papers and received awards like the 2018 Evidence-Based Psychoanalytic Case Study Prize. A practicing psychoanalytic psychotherapist, Desmet’s views on COVID-19 measures sparked debates and have led to many appearances on prominent platforms, including The Joe Rogan Experience.
Some of the questions we explore include:
– What conditions lead ordinary people to abandon reason – and embrace tyranny?
– How can sincere speech counter propaganda and resist totalitarianism in a brainwashed society
– Why do 60-65% stay silent despite sensing flawed narratives, and how do we inspire action?
– Is the broken social contract in Britain fixable through evidence-based, open debate?
– Can communities built on honest opinions and diverse views prevent a transhumanist future?Introductions – and rationale behind The Truth Contract. Antidote to contradictory information from different sources.
00:02 – 00:05 The dissatisfaction of British people in surveys – can we tell what the truth is anymore? Why have we been brainwashed and what can we do about it? 00:05 – 00:12 Matthias Desmet’s background in clinical psychology and statistics and study of academic research failures and totalitarianism. Early unease about Coronavirus crisis. 00:12 – 00:17 Different people buy into narratives for different reasons. The aim appears to be a transhumanist future involving mastery over the chaos of the world and a move towards more globalist modes of government. 00:17 – 00:21 Small groups have always sought to control larger groups. Is this simply the latest iteration of that phenomenon? Lust for power as part of the human condition. The warnings of Hannah Arendt about technocratic fascism. Many scientists understand that life is not rational in nature. Rationalists are fanatical about their project/s and many are willing to follow them. 00:21 – 00:23 The social contract in Britain has been broken. Keir Starmer’s links to Davos. How many people are actually willing to involve themselves in a solution? 00:23 – 00:29 20-30% of people believe propaganda even when it’s absurd. About 60-65% sense something wrong with the narrative but remain silent. A small group, 2 – 10%, recognises the flaws and speaks out, potentially driving societal change. Breaking this silence is crucial in resisting propaganda and emerging totalitarianism. Discussion of the contrast between classical dictatorships, where silence may be wise, with modern totalitarianism driven by fanatical ideology. 00:29 – 00:34 A personal story about what is taught in school about CO2 levels. How to convince the silent 65% to reconsider long-held narratives? A warning that AI could become a powerful propaganda tool. There is an enormous challenge in knowing what’s true in an era of pervasive narratives. 00:34 – 00:40 The importance of recognising when narratives – such as the ‘climate change’ narrative – feel wrong, even without knowing the full truth. Need for communities where people freely express honest opinions, maintain slight uncertainty, and listen to differing views to avoid fanaticism. Fanatical belief in possessing the truth leads to totalitarianism. The Truth Contract community as a place where opinions must be backed by scientific evidence, not ideology. Science is never settled, encouraging open debate always needed based on facts. 00:40 – 00:46 Honest speech is vital in resisting totalitarianism. Communities must embrace diverse opinions to avoid propaganda-driven conformity. Gandhi’s nonviolent truth-speaking as an example. Success of ‘mass formation’ in silencing dissent through fear. 00:46 – 00:52 How ‘mass formation’ silences dissent despite widespread dissatisfaction shown in polls. How complex systems like the Corona crisis fuel polarisation and atomisation, disconnecting people. Sincere speech and truth-telling are vital to reconnect individuals, forming cohesive communities that resist totalitarianism’s isolating collectivism. 00:52 – 00:54 Importance of collective action, open debate, and evidence-based discussions. Reminder of Margaret Mead’s quote about small groups driving change. The vision is rooted in improving lives universally through shared energy and a commitment to humanity, rather than enriching a small elite. 00:54 – 01:10 Work of Professor Desmet on truth psychology, mass formation, and totalitarianism aligned with The Truth Contract goals. Need to practice ‘sincere speech’ daily in Samurai tradition to resist propaganda and foster ethical relationships. Likelihood that totalitarianism will self-destruct, but sincere speech is crucial to prevent societal harm first. Historical empires that collapsed due to excess – and hope in a 5% group inspiring the fearful 60% to act. The 20 non-political, common-sense issues (e.g., stopping pollution) that The Truth Contract will research first to unite people. Warnings against using propaganda to counter propaganda. Sincerity as the only remedy. Enlightenment rationalism disconnected people from truth, making them vulnerable to propaganda. Sincere speech rebuilds relationships, countering the dehumanising aspects of totalitarianism. 01:10 – 01:16 Unanimous agreement among those registering with The Truth Contract that the social contract is broken, requiring a new system. Need to listen lovingly and speak sincerely to unite people, despite varied political views, to solve shared problems. Sincere listening as vital, like sincere speech, to overcoming ego and suspending judgment to truly understand others. Both skills are necessary for rebuilding relationships and countering propaganda’s divisive effects. Vision of The Truth Contract to unite a million UK citizens to create a better system supported by the 65% who seek change. Mission is to counteract years of brainwashing by fostering honest communication and faith in the majority’s power to overcome a propagandising elite, preventing totalitarianism through community and sincerity. 01:16 – 01:21 We end with an expression of faith in the resilience of humanity against totalitarianism. A brave minority is able to drive change, as Nietzsche noted with the Renaissance. Professor Desmet emphasises sincere, vulnerable speech as the key to overcoming propaganda.’
The government security strategy report out today might have some clues as to the direction the Deep State is cooking up for us hapless mortals. You can see in the 1st short clip below, the lies it spins about Iran’s ‘aggressive activities’ when Iran has done nothing but help resist Israel’s and the West’s wars, not only in Palestine but in all West Asian countries that dare challenge coups, wars and genocide to secure their oil resources to grow our trans human world.
Renewable energy is another drive toward growth and alleged energy security in a world that increasingly we are fighting.
Read; National Security Strategy 2025: Security for the British People in a Dangerous World Cabinet Office, 24 June 2025
15. ‘We have seen direct military conflict between Israel and Iran. This follows years of aggressive and destabilising activity by the Iranian regime which has included activity specifically targeted against UK interests at home and overseas. Significant escalation in any of these theatres would have a profoundly negative impact on our energy security, the cost of living and our ability to grow our economy.
25. Our energy security is vital to our national security, economic stability, the delivery of essential services and our ability to fuel new technological developments in fields such as AI. We are moving away from imported fossil fuels and towards electricity produced at home and by our allies. We have banned the import of oil or gas from Russia and are building a global uranium nuclear supply chain that is entirely free from Russian influence. We have also lifted the ban on onshore wind, consented to record amounts of solar power projects and continue to innovate and invest in other sources of renewable energy. Reducing energy prices remains a vital part of ensuring our nation’s ability to innovate and grow our economy. Alongside action to shore up our domestic energy security, we will work internationally to address the climate and nature crisis and the risks it poses to our national security, financial stability and green growth at home. Our Global Clean Power Alliance will maintain international momentum behind the transition to clean power, drive investment in emerging markets and developing economies, and enhance the resilience of clean energy supply chains, including for the UK. With partners, we are working to reform the global financial system so that it delivers the finance needed to tackle such global challenges.’
“We now have billionaires who have endless money, and because they have endless money, they can buy politicians, they have their own banks, they have tremendous power, arguably more power than a monarch would have. They couldn’t get enough immigrants into America to work in factories and on railroads fast enough, and they saw women as this huge pool of very cheap, easy labour; they’re already here, we don’t have to pay them as much as men, and if we can get all these women out of the home and into the factory, we can also tax their income. So we double our income tax revenue overnight.”
Listen; Women’s Liberation Enslaved Women UK Column News, 9 June 2025
Rachel Wilson, Author; “Here in the West, women’s suffrage all came about kind of around the same time, Australia, the UK, America, around 1920 we start to see the passage of women’s suffrage. And in the United States you have the creation of the central banking and you have the income tax, all passed right around the same time. And then there’s another thing that passed around the same time, which was compulsory public education. So this was a giant project. And you don’t have to believe me, the source material is the people themselves writing and telling you that they did this and why they did this. You can go to the Rockefeller family archives and read about it. You can go to the Vanderbilt archives and read about it. What happened was we had this crop of new wealthy industrialists from the 19th century who built railroads and built a lot of the infrastructure in America, factories, and became incredibly wealthy in a way that we really hadn’t seen in the world before, where it’s not just a king or a politician who has this tremendous power, we now have billionaires who have endless money, and because they have endless money, they can buy politicians, they have their own banks, they have tremendous power, arguably more power than a monarch would have. What these guys wanted and needed, they couldn’t get enough immigrants into America to work in factories and on railroads fast enough, and they saw women as this huge pool of very cheap, easy labour. They’re already here, we don’t have to pay them as much as men, and if we can get all these women out of the home and into the factory, we can also tax their income. So we double our income tax revenue overnight. And if the mothers are not at home, the children have to go somewhere, so we’ll create this public education system. There’s a whole video on my YouTube about the founding of the American public school system and how it’s based on the Prussian military model, which was meant to create good soldiers and good factory workers. That’s why we have bells, you know, at the beginning, bell at the end, a bell to leave class, a bell to start class. It’s actually a Pavlovian mechanism to train you to do what you’re supposed to do. Public school was never about creating these kids who could critically think about the world and solve problems and be innovators. It was literally created to make good little cogs in a wheel who are going to do what the state tells them to do and follow the narrative and follow the programming. That’s what it’s there for. So all day while mom and dad are at work making these people money and making the government all this new income revenue, the income tax revenue, the children are going to be educated by the state with the values of the state and whatever the state wants them to have and believe. And that’s exactly what we did. Then in 1970, the Ford Foundation, with some help from Rockefeller and some others, created Women’s Studies. And what happened in 1970 when they created Women’s Studies as a discipline? They gave huge grants to multiple big universities to create a gender studies programme. We see this huge dissemination of propaganda telling women to go to work. 1970 was a huge year for this because not only the creation of gender studies, but also the founding of Miss magazine by Gloria Steinem and the CIA, it’s a CIA-funded magazine. It was part of a much broader propaganda programme. The CIA had to tell women that the home life was oppressive, that they need to have a career, that they need to have a college education, otherwise you’re not informed, you are ignorant, you will never do anything with your life and you are just a slave. And then we see this massive amount of propaganda come out. So in the 70s you had a ton of movies and TV shows like Mary Tyler Moore Show, The Stepford Wives, all this propaganda convincing women that being a housewife, being a mother is this oppressive, boring, stuffy, awful thing, you could be out having 5 boyfriends and doing cocaine, why do you want to be at home? You could be the fancy business woman and have an exciting life in the city where you’re working, but you’re in the suburbs and you’re bored and it’s unfulfilling. And it’s really created this view that women did not have. If you look at what women were saying 50 years before that, none of them felt this way. There was never this idea that the family life was a oppressive drudgery, it was this horrible, boring, awful thing that women were just forced to do because they weren’t allowed to do anything else. I have an interview with my 99 year old grandmother on my channel asking her, being born in 1926, growing up in the 30s and the 40s, what it was like for her and her friends, and I asked her, did you guys ever have this sense that you were oppressed or that you didn’t have options? Did you feel like you were just going to be stuck at home bored and you had to get married and have all these kids? And she thought it was crazy. She was like, no, we never felt like that, we never did. That wasn’t even a topic that ever came up among her and her sisters and her friends.”
‘In this way, truth stands in opposition to tyranny, and its presence in society is contingent on the degree of freedom permitted.’
Read; Post-truth Incidence, Part 1: The Ubiquity of ‘Post-truth by Prof. Gloria Moss; UK Column, 22 June 2025
‘In this series of three articles, the focus will be on the incidence of ‘post-truth’ in the three sectors of (a) science and medicine, (b) education, and (c) the legal system in Britain. We will start here with a look at science and medicine.
In 2016, The Oxford English Dictionary named post-truth as the Word of the Year. Its meaning? They give it as “relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief”. The phrase has been used by establishment sources to debunk alternative narratives, for example when The Economist in 2016 dubbed the claim that Barack Obama’s birth certificate was faked as “post-truth politics”. It has also been used by Yuval Harari to depict his picture of humans as a “post-truth species” and to assert that only “post-truth, and not truth, can co-exist with power”.
In reality, the situation is not as black and white as Harari suggests. According to the Frankfurt School philosopher Max Horkheimer’s book Eclipse of Reason (1947), subjective and instrumental rationality, both elements of ‘post-truth’, are born of a fascistic society. By contrast, what he terms “objective reality” has its roots in a context of free critical thinking, grounded in a commitment to human emancipation and the pursuit of a more just society. In this way, truth stands in opposition to tyranny, and its presence in society is contingent on the degree of freedom permitted.
The association between post-truth and tyranny is well exemplified by George Orwell’s 1949 novel 1984, in which O’Brien, the high-ranking member of INGSOC, the English Socialist party ruling Oceania, asserts that sometimes 2+2 equals 5, sometimes 3, and sometimes “all of them at once”. Indeed, one of INGSOC’s three slogans is the notorious “Ignorance is strength”. Yes, this is fiction, but as Walter Besant and Henry James expressed in an 1884 magazine article and lecture ‘The Art of Fiction‘, a novel is “a direct impression of life”, a view echoing Aristotle’s notion of mimesis that appears in his work Poetics, advising writers on the art of creating fiction.’
Covid / Vaccines Scam
‘The public is waking up to the rot at the core of this system—and nothing terrifies a corrupt establishment more than an audience that can’t be bought. So the next time you see some white-coated “expert” foaming at the mouth over RFK’s purge, ask yourself: Who owns them? The answer won’t be subtle—just follow the money. Stay sharp. Stay skeptical. And remember: When the chorus sings in perfect harmony, it’s not harmony—it’s coercion. The truth doesn’t need a script. And now? The script just got flipped. On June 11th, Kennedy named eight new advisers who actually put science over Pharma profits’
Read; RFK Jr. Purges CDC Vaccine Committee The Truth about Cancer, 13 June 2025
‘Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. has taken decisive action against regulatory capture by dismissing all 17 members of the CDC’s vaccine advisory committee. This bold move represents a significant step toward restoring independence in vaccine policy decisions. His reasoning? Simple: You don’t “restore trust” by keeping the same Pharma-backed bureaucrats who’ve spent decades rubber-stamping every vaccine Big Pharma shoves at them. Who was on the ACIP committee? The geniuses who rubber-stamped injecting experimental mRNA cocktails into infants while dismissing parents’ concerns as “misinformation.” As Mike Adams (the Health Ranger) put it: “If I were HHS Secretary, I would solve the entire vaccine problem in one day. ‘You’re all FIRED!’ I would auction off the furniture, sell the buildings, pink-slip everybody on day one and return health decisions to the American people (and the states) instead of a bunch of corrupt pharma whores who profit from maiming and killing children. Problem solved. RFK pretty much just did that. NBC spun the news this way: “Manufactured chaos: Kennedy guts CDC’s vaccine panel of independent experts.” Let’s pause to appreciate NBC’s hilarious definition of “independent experts.” Apparently, “independent” now means “financially entangled with Big Pharma but still somehow magically unbiased.” But sure, NBC, tell us more about how Kennedy’s the one causing “manufactured chaos.” The only thing being gutted here is Pharma’s ability to treat the CDC like their own private focus group. But here’s where it gets hilariously suspicious… Within hours of RFK’s announcement, a swarm of blue-check “doctors” flooded social media with near-identical meltdowns:
“This is dangerous!”, “RFK is anti-science!”, “He’s gutting public health!”
Gee, I wonder if those keyboard warrior doctors are on Big Pharma’s payroll. How many zeroes did it take to turn them into corporate attack dogs? Hilarious how they ‘forgot’ to mention that many of their fired buddies on the ACIP committee were practically swimming in Merck, Pfizer, and Moderna cash. And what a coincidence—their outraged tweets all landed in the same four-hour window. Almost like… a coordinated Pharma meltdown. Weird, right? Let’s be clear: This was never about science. This was about a captured system rubber-stamping vaccines with less scrutiny than a TikTok dance trend, all while committee members lined their pockets with Pharma speaking fees, sat on corporate boards, and voted on products from their own financial partners. Now that RFK Jr. has derailed their gravy train, we’re witnessing something glorious: the vaccine-industrial complex having its mask-off meltdown moment—complete with coordinated media hysterics and the kind of tantrum usually reserved for toddlers who lost their juice box. The truth is simple: When “trusted institutions” suddenly start screaming in unison, it’s not consensus—it’s collusion. No, the backlash isn’t organic—it’s a scripted meltdown. And no, these suddenly outraged “experts” aren’t independent voices—they’re Pharma’s well-paid attack dogs, tweeting in eerie unison, their outrage timed like a synchronized PR campaign. Notice how none of them mention their own financial ties to Merck, Pfizer, or Moderna? Funny how that works. If RFK Jr. were truly wrong, they’d dismantle his arguments with facts, not hysterical tweets and canned outrage. But they won’t, because this isn’t What’s Next? The media will dutifully frame this as “RFK vs. Science,” carefully omitting the glaring conflicts of interest: ACIP members who personally enriched themselves from the vaccines they championed, the CDC’s patent portfolio on mandated shots, and the systematic silencing of independent scientists who dared to question the narrative. But the game is unraveling. The public is waking up to the rot at the core of this system—and nothing terrifies a corrupt establishment more than an audience that can’t be bought. So the next time you see some white-coated “expert” foaming at the mouth over RFK’s purge, ask yourself: Who owns them? The answer won’t be subtle—just follow the money. Stay sharp. Stay skeptical. And remember: When the chorus sings in perfect harmony, it’s not harmony—it’s coercion. The truth doesn’t need a script. And now? The script just got flipped. On June 11th, Kennedy named eight new advisers who actually put science over Pharma profits, including Vicky Pebsworth of the National Vaccine Information Center, a rare beacon of truth in a sea of bought-and-paid-for “experts.” Then there’s Dr. Martin Kulldorff, the epidemiologist who co-authored the Great Barrington Declaration and warned the world that lockdowns would cause more harm than COVID itself. And let’s not forget our friend Robert W Malone MD, MS , who rose to prominence during the COVID-19 pandemic as he was outspoken against the toxic mRNA jabs. We interviewed him in our film, “Propaganda Exposed.”
Dr. Mike Yeadon who was formerly vice president and chief scientific officer at Pfizer, warns that the Covid pandemic and the vaccines were all about control and eugenics.
Watch; “The design of these molecular structures in the vaccines… has no other purpose but to injure and kill.” Wide Awake Media, 31 May 2025
Dr Mike Yeadon; “So now I’m going to turn to something that probably of all the contributors only I can tell you, and that’s the design of these molecular structures in the vaccines, injections has no other purpose but to injure and kill. It’s a huge claim. I’ve worked over 30 years with colleagues in what’s called rational drug design. Every synthetic medicine that is something not purified from nature, consists of a series of atoms and molecules and formulations. Every single component in that vial, as it turns out, has to be chosen by a person. They’re not there randomly, they’re not there as a natural product. Someone decided to put them in there and you put them in there because you have particular objectives for the drug to be absorbed quickly or slowly, for it to last a long time or not to go everywhere versus a certain area of the body and so on. When I looked at these, I declare them toxic by design. They are intentionally harmful. Now, I think that fits perfectly with the lie you’ve been told about a pandemic. The purpose of the pandemic I think was to damage the economy, to get us used to doing what we’re told under a mock emergency and to roll up our sleeves to receive these dangerous materials, and I believe in short, if you do nothing and don’t speak up and do what you’re told, you will lose your freedom and then your life. I think some self appointed group of very rich people have decided they don’t like 8 billion people being on the planet and want it to be a much smaller number. I don’t have a copy of the script, but I can deduce what they’re doing. So given the warning I’ve provided to you, I suggest that you you get weaving and start talking to anyone and everyone and do so relentlessly because this is not going away. And if we do not protest, if we do not refuse and fight back, we will lose freedom first and then our lives.”
‘The more doses you get, the sooner you’re likely to die, within a shorter period’.
Read; Japan Releases Bombshell Vax vs. Unvax Data on 18 Million People The Vigilant Fox, 17 June 2025
‘Japan Releases Bombshell Vax vs. Unvax Data on 18m people. Dr. Murakami’s conclusion was blunt: “the more doses you get, the sooner you’re likely to die, within a shorter period” Dr Murakami is the deputy director of RNA research at Tokyo University.’
‘A COVID vaccine database covering 18 million citizens has just been released for the first time. After reviewing the data, a top professor warned: “The more doses you get, the sooner you’re likely to die.” The most terrifying finding was a deadly spike just 3 to 4 months after the final shot. Let’s break down the data. On June 15th, a group of brave Japanese truth seekers did what their government wouldn’t—they released a bombshell broadcast exposing vaccine data from over 18 million people. Journalist Masako Ganaha posted on X: “If the government won’t do it, then the people should investigate the mass deaths of Japanese people! Database of 18 million vaccinated people revealed for the first time!” The video featured Member of the House of Representatives Kazuhiro Haraguchi, Dr. Yasufumi Murakami, and the Information Disclosure Request Team. Dr. Yasufumi Murakami isn’t just some fringe voice. He’s a respected professor at the Tokyo University of Science, where he serves as vice director at the Research Center for RNA Science. He holds a Doctor of Pharmaceutical Science from the University of Tokyo and has authored over 100 scientific publications. But when the data went public, things got deeply unsettling. Pharma insider Aussie17 shared a clip from the broadcast on X. Dr. Murakami’s conclusion was blunt: “…the more doses you get, the sooner you’re likely to die, within a shorter period…” The first graph compared death rates between vaccinated and unvaccinated groups. According to Dr. Murakami, there was no noticeable spike in deaths among the unvaccinated. But among the vaccinated, a clear peak emerged, especially between 90 and 120 days after the shot. “A significant peak forms at three or four months,” he said, pointing to the vaccine as the likely cause. “It’s probably due to the vaccine’s influence, with adverse reactions occurring leading to death.” Then came a graph that was impossible to ignore. It showed a clear pattern: the more vaccine doses a person received, the sooner they died after their final shot. The title translates to: “Number of days from final vaccination to death and number of deaths.” The note on the right reads: “As the number of vaccine doses increases, the peak in deaths appears sooner.” Each line represents people grouped by the final dose they received before death. In other words, those counted under the third dose curve had received three shots and died before receiving a fourth. What stood out most was the steep green spike representing deaths after the third dose. Not only was it the highest, but it also appeared earlier, around 90 to 120 days. The trend held across the board: as the number of doses increased, the peak of death consistently moved closer to the time of the last injection. As Dr. Murakami noted, “We found that as the number of doses increases, the peak of deaths appears faster, meaning the more doses you get, the sooner you’re likely to die, within a shorter period. So, the risk increases with more doses.” He added, “If the vaccine had no toxicity or didn’t induce death, there wouldn’t be a peak. That’s the point.” “This is a key discovery,” he continued. “The more doses, the more the peak shifts, indicating that the toxicity accumulates. The toxicity overlaps, and the more doses you receive, the faster people die.” While the data is truly alarming, it comes as no surprise to anyone who’s been paying attention. There’s simply no excuse for these shots to still be on the market. Remember, the swine flu vaccine was pulled in 1976 after just 25 deaths and around 550 cases of Guillain-Barré syndrome—and that was with only a quarter of Americans vaccinated. Ultimately, 53 deaths were linked to the program, and the government not only shut it down but also issued apologies and compensation to victims. As Dr. Peter McCullough states in the video, “It’s unacceptable to have anyone take an injection electively and die. It’s absolutely unacceptable. It’s not something that our country has ever thought is okay to do.”
‘Dissenting science, whether or not well founded, cannot be allowed to exist.’
Watch; Dr Andrew Wakefield: The Doctor-Patient Relationship, Vaccines, Drug Trials, and the Cost of Asking Questions, The Truth Contract, 29 May 2025
‘Andrew Wakefield is a British physician, researcher, and filmmaker whose work has sparked global debate around medical freedom, vaccine safety, and public health ethics.’
Andrew Wakefield; “I think the biggest problem that we face is one of the mindset of the establishment particularly. And I can talk about my own experience and I can talk about vaccine safety science specifically to give some context to what I can say. And I want to just read you something that really characterises the mindset of the system and what scientists face when taking on the system. This is from the American government, it’s from the Federal Register, it’s an official document and it says this, ‘Any public doubt, whether or not well founded, about the safety of the vaccine cannot be allowed to exist in view of the need to assure that the vaccine will continue to be used to the maximum extent consistent with the nation’s health objectives’. So dissenting science, whether or not well founded, cannot be allowed to exist. So there you can immediately see the barrier that the dissenting scientist comes up against. It doesn’t matter if you’re right. It doesn’t matter whether what you say or what the parents say about what happened to their children has real substance. It cannot be allowed to exist. So how do you move forward in science with that kind of impenetrable roadblock that really sets the objective? And something that we’ve really learned from the COVID experience is this, when Tony Fauci proclaimed that he was science, he, Tony Fauci represented science, he said the scientists working in this field, that is the field of gain of function research, might say, as I have said, that the benefits of such experiments and the resulting knowledge outweigh the risk. So there you have an unelected individual, a scientist, a single person taking a decision on behalf of 7 to 8 billion people globally. ‘I believe it is my belief that it is worth the risk’ (says Fauci). Of course it wasn’t. It was absolutely catastrophic. Now it’s been established beyond all reasonable doubt that this was a lab-generated virus through gain of function and that the consequences were catastrophic globally.”
‘Oh my God, this is so scary. We have to lock everything down’. But that was all coming from a global place. It was coming from this global public private partnership and it was being channelled through the UN and the WHO to all of these global governance bodies, which are just coordinating mechanisms for global control.’
Watch; COVID-19 Was a Military Psyop; UK Column, 5th June 2025
‘Jerm and Debbie Lerman discuss the COVID-19 ‘pandemic’, focusing on the military and intelligence roles in public health, and Deborah Birx‘s influence. Lerman shares her shift from scepticism to recognising a global public-private partnership that emerged during the crisis. They stress examining beyond obvious narratives to understand control mechanisms, questioning political power and accountability. The conversation covers the illusion of presidential authority, deep state control, and systemic barriers to change. The lab leak theory is a distraction, China is a scapegoat. The COVID era was an elite-orchestrated event. Lerman advocates disconnecting from the system to address societal issues’ root causes. Her book, ‘The Deep State Goes Viral’ critiques the power structures behind the pandemic.’
Debbie Lerman; “In every country, not just in the United States, the global bio-defence public-private partnership took over. I know that he (Trump) didn’t have the power because he was tweeting in May of 2020, ‘open up the country’. Who is he talking to? He’s the President. Why is he tweeting ‘open up the country’? Just go and open it up if you want to open it up. So clearly he didn’t have the power. And Scott Atlas in his book also explained that all the deference was given to Deborah Birx, and Trump told him at the end when he had to leave, that basically it wasn’t Fauci who was the problem, it was Deborah Birx, that’s why I think he went after USAID. And right now he’s going after the National Security Council. So there’s certain agencies and people and groups that usurped his power during the pandemic and he’s trying to get back at them. He can’t because they’re still in charge. So in every country in the United States, at the beginning, everybody was saying everything’s fine, don’t worry about it, the Chinese are over-reacting. And there’s a date which is February 27th, which is the date that Deborah Birx actually took over, which is I think when they switched the narrative to, ‘Oh my God, this is so scary. We have to lock everything down’. But that was all coming from a global place. It was coming from this global public-private partnership and it was being channelled through the UN and the WHO to all of these global governance bodies, which are just coordinating mechanisms for global control. It’s not like the chief of the WHO sat down and said, I’m going to do this terrible thing to the world. He was just a conduit for the cartel to say, OK, this is what we’re going to do. And so it all came from there. Many countries in their investigations have revealed that on the local level, people were not allowed to respond to what was happening. Whether there was or wasn’t an outbreak, they were getting their orders not even from their national government, because their national government was getting orders from somewhere else. And the same was true for Trump. They were all getting their orders from the WHO or the UN or NATO or whoever was sending out the message.”
Provoked War with Russia
Cartoon of world leaders portrayed as squabbling toddlers
Watch; WW3 Chess Brunno Wallace, 19 June 2025
As articulated by this young man’s message thanking those who have left the army and warning others not to join, the campaign ‘No to NATO, No to War’ is promoting the mass migration of soldiers from the army.
Watch and read; BRITISH TROOPS MASS RESIGNING – REFUSING TO DIE FOR STARMER & UKRAINE WAR; NoConscriptionLeague, 7 June 2025
‘Reports are emerging that British soldiers are signing off en masse – stepping down rather than being sent to fight in NATO’s proxy war in Ukraine. They won’t die for Starmer’s regime or a war that funnels billions to elites while ordinary people pay the price. They see through the lies: This isn’t our fight. No British soldier should freeze at -20°C to line the pockets of warmongers. These troops are choosing prison over pointless slaughter – and the public should back them. If conscription comes, REFUSE. Let the corrupt elite send their own kids first. PUTTING BRITAIN FIRST, NOT GLOBALIST WARS. Our military is for defence, not dying for EU/NATO expansion. Good on these lads for putting their lives over political madness. STAND WITH THEM. SHARE IF YOU AGREE.’
Parisians on the streets demonstrating against the West’s proxy war in Ukraine
Watch; ‘If French Soldiers Are Sent…’: Paris Up In Arms Against NATO; Macron Faces Fire Over ‘War Move’; Times Of India; 30 June 2025
‘Hundreds gathered in Paris to protest NATO, EU militarization, and France’s support for Ukraine, in a demonstration led by right-wing politician Florian Philippot. The rally condemned French President Emmanuel Macron’s military policies and called for France to exit both NATO and the European Union. Protesters held signs reading “Frexit is another name for peace” and chanted against sending aid or troops to Ukraine. Philippot also praised Russian President Vladimir Putin’s call for renewed peace talks, criticizing the West’s aggressive stance as dangerous and unnecessary. The demonstration reflects rising discontent in France over foreign entanglements and military spending.
‘The collective West entered this conflict as giants and they’re going to be walking out of it as midgets. That’s going to affect everything. It’s not just going to be military contracts but it’s going to affect diplomatic relations and economic treaties and so on and so forth. It’s going to be a huge boost for the emergence of a multipolar world’.
Watch; Dangerous risks for U.S. as Ukraine crumbles w/ Peter Erickson from Conversations Among The Ruins; The Duran; 28 Jun 2025
“Peter Erickson; “I think there’s no question that it’s going to be a very consequential defeat for the United States. I know that John Mearsheimer has said ‘there’s no question that Russia will win this war but it will be an ugly victory’. I think there’s no question that Ukraine of course will be defeated but it will be an ugly defeat and an ugly defeat not just for Ukraine but for NATO because the involvement of NATO has been so extensive from the very beginning and the constant insistence on the part of all the European leaders and of American leaders at least of Biden, that we cannot lose. ‘As long as it takes’. Remember we don’t hear that so much now but we heard it again and again and I think the Europeans still utter that. This will be a difficult one to walk away from. You’re talking about Iraq a small country or Afghanistan even, that was an embarrassing debacle but now people don’t think about it, it’s a small country on the far on the other side of the world with really very little connection to the western world. Tt this is different. Ukraine is part of the Western world this is not something that you can simply walk away from that you can memory- whole which often our media is very very good at doing. This is right on the borders of Europe. So this is something that will have consequences. Consequences for the reputation of NATO of the collective West. there’s there’s no escaping. It’s going to be a serious blow. When this started there was a great deal of confidence that we would prove victorious that our weapons were far superior and we have seen these weapons introduced one after another with great fanfare. Each and every one of them was going to be a game changer; everything from the HIMARS to the the F-16 and several weapon systems in between and every single one of them has had virtually no impact or if there was an impact it was temporary and the Russians then figured out a way to neutralize that weapon. Anybody who’s paying attention sees this and says “Well wait a second this is not the invincible military power that I thought it was’. Then on top of that is of course the weakness of the Western military-industrial complex has been laid bare. i think that’s actually maybe the even bigger story it’s not just that their weapons weren’t what they were made up to be, they just don’t have the productive capacity. You find out that they had a stockpile of a thousand of these a thousand of those and whoops we used it all up but we can produce a hundred every year…….we’re going to wait for 10 years. I am exaggerating a bit but not by a whole lot. All of these have been exposed to people who are paying attention. That is going to have a long-term impact on the way we’re already seeing. This is not some sort of distant possibility and eventuality but this is taking place right now. It’s going to reach its culmination when the defeat finally occurs. When this is all over and the dust settles and the smoke clears, the rest of the world is going to look completely different in their minds of what the collective West is. It’s going to be greatly reduced. They entered this conflict as giants and they’re going to be walking out of it as midgets. That’s going to affect everything. It’s not just going to be military contracts but it’s going to affect diplomatic relations and economic treaties and so on and so forth. It’s going to be a huge boost for the emergence of a multipolar world’.
Putin massages Trump’s ego with undeserved compliments perhaps to ensure Trump doesn’t support the British and EU warmongers.
Watch; ‘Courageous Trump…’: Putin Sings Praise For US President After He Snubs Zelensky At NATO Summit; Times of India, 27 June 2025
Vladimir Putin; “President Trump, I believe, sincerely wants to achieve peace in Ukraine. Just recently, he said it’s more difficult than he believed he had believed before. Well, that’s true. And it’s to be expected because it’s one thing when you look at something from the outside and it’s something different when you actually deal with it. And the same goes for the Middle Eastern matter, although over there, I think he had much more experience, he was more involved in the Middle East before, but it’s difficult there as well because real life is always difficult. It’s more difficult than what you initially believe. But personally, I’m always open to any contacts, to any meetings, and I know that President Trump has said on multiple occasions that we could meet. But I personally think this is something you need to prepare for, because as a result of such a meeting, we need to achieve some kind of new level of partnership. But overall, thanks to President Donald Trump, relations between Russia and the United States are starting finally to get better in some respects. Of course, we still have issues diplomatically, but the first steps are there, we’re moving forward. We have contacts between our major agencies, between the State Department and our Foreign Ministry, between our special services, which is really important, because it’s really critical to be able to fight terrorism, whatever the situation is, whatever the environment is. And in other agencies too, we have very good prospects in terms of economic development, economic partnership. I know that American businesses are really willing, they’re sending signals that they would like to go back to our market. We would welcome that but that requires dialogue.’
Jeffrey Sachs explains in 2 minutes what the Western media and politicians try to hide about the Western-provoked proxy war in Ukraine.
Watch; Jeffrey Sachs: Understanding the Ukraine conflict (minidoc) JUJU, 6 December 2024
‘A mini-documentary on the background of the Ukraine conflict follows Jeffrey Sachs’ lecture at the Cambridge Union. The journey begins in the early 1990s and continues to the present day. The documentary features interviews and statements from world leaders along the way, shedding light on significant historical geopolitical events and questioning the narrative created by Western media. What is true and what is not—that decision is left to the viewer. However, the most important thing is not who is right but that there are understandable explanations for everything that has happened, and that these events are merely the result of a chain reaction of numerous events, the consequences of which we are now witnessing.’
Jeffrey Sachs; “Let me just explain in 2 minutes the Ukraine war. This is not an attack by Putin on Ukraine in the way that we are told every day. This started in 1990. February 9th 1990 James Baker, the third our Secretary of State, said to Mikhail Gorbachev, NATO will not move one inch eastward if you agree to German unification, basically ending World War 2.”
Dangerous war games by vain, corrupt, power-crazed politicians. A whole generation of Ukrainian men have lost their lives because, as Boris said; ‘if Ukraine fails it would be a catastrophe for the West, it would be the end of Western hegemony, and we will have no one to blame but ourselves.’
Watch; Spread the Word; Alex Krainer, 29 November 2024
“The globalist cabal are planning a false flag terror attack on London which they’ll blame on Russia so that they could trigger an all out whole of society mobilisation by all of the Western powers against Russia. Now, if that seems far fetched, there are now several important elements that fit coherently with this scenario, starting with the general geopolitical state of things. Ukraine is too important for them and the stakes could not be higher. From the imperial Cabal’s point of view, the price, in fact, is the whole world. In April 2022, then US Chief of Staff Mark Milly said that if we lose in Ukraine, the world order we created 80 years ago will crumble. Poland’s Prime Minister Matthios Moravietsky said if we lose in Ukraine, we will lose the world for decades. Defeat in Ukraine could be the beginning of the end of the golden age of the West. Former NATO Secretary General George Robertson said that if Ukraine loses, world order would be established by our enemies. Finally, in April, Boris Johnson recorded himself telling the world that if Ukraine fails it would be a catastrophe for the West, it would be the end of Western hegemony, and we will have no one to blame but ourselves. It is unlikely that the Empire’s vested interests will quietly accept this catastrophe. This is why they’re escalating provocations against Russia, desperately hoping that the Russians will strike at a NATO member nation, creating the pretext to avoid Article 5 of the NATO treaty and to unleash a united response where the collective West could confront Russia in a whole of society effort and hopefully snatch a victory out of the jaws of a certain defeat. A new fall flag attack aimed at triggering World War Three against Russia wouldn’t be unusual in the context of history.”
Cracks are starting to appear in Ursula’s plans for more sanctions, more weapons and more war against Russia whose only crime is to use its plentiful resources to help build a multipolar world.
Watch; Sovereignty War in Europe: Hungary & Slovakia Say NO to Anti-Russia Sanctions! Times Now World, 13 June 2025
‘Hungary and Slovakia are openly defying the EU’s energy sanctions against Russia, warning of rising utility costs and national sovereignty threats. As Brussels finalises its 18th sanctions package, both nations are leading a rebellion against EU energy policy, demanding real energy security and refusing to abandon Russian imports.’
Narration; “Hungary and Slovakia have just detonated a political grenade inside the European Union. As Brussels races to finalise its 18th sanctions package against Russia, this time targeting energy giants like Rosatom and the Nord Stream pipelines, two member states are refusing to play along. Hungarian foreign minister Péter Szijjártó didn’t mince words, he called the EU’s proposal a blatant violation of our sovereignty, accusing Brussels of trying to hijack national energy policy. His message? Hungary won’t sacrifice its affordable Russian energy just to satisfy the political agenda of Brussels or Kiev. “Neither for the sake of Brussels nor Kiev, we are willing to exchange our existing energy sources for more expensive and unsafe energy sources.” And Hungary isn’t standing alone. In a coordinated move, Szijjártó and his Slovak counterpart Juraj Blanár agreed to oppose the EU plan at the upcoming energy ministers meeting in Luxembourg. Slovakia’s Prime Minister Robert Fico has already warned of a looming crisis if Russian energy supplies are cut off, and he’s threatening to block the entire sanctions package unless the EU provides a real plan for energy security. The alliance between Hungary and Slovakia is no longer quiet dissent, it’s a full scale rebellion. What’s truly explosive is what Hungary is implying, that the EU isn’t just punishing Russia, it’s punishing its own citizens. Szijjártó warned the ditching Russian energy would drive up utility bills for Hungarian families and suggested that Brussels might be using energy funds to continue the war, without even naming Russia as the aggressor. That’s not just political spin, it’s a radical challenge to the dominant Western narrative. Meanwhile, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban continues to reject Ukraine’s EU and NATO ambitions, claiming Russia poses no serious threat to the alliance. These aren’t isolated statements. They’re part of a broader, calculated resistance. Hungary and Slovakia are pushing back hard against the EU’s authority, and if more countries follow suit, Brussels could face a political earthquake. The unity of the EU is beginning to crack and the front lines aren’t in Ukraine but inside the Union itself.”
Watch; Scott Ritter; How Soon Will Ukraine Collapse? Judging Freedom, 10 June 2025
Scott Ritter; “The British haven’t even been clever about this. They have acknowledged that they have initiated a programme that is designed to keep Ukraine in the fight. In fact, I think that might even be the name of the programme, but it is a concerted effort by the British government using it’s the various resources it has available to it, including that of MI6 to keep Ukraine in the fight. And one aspect of keeping Ukraine in the fight right now is to use asymmetrical capabilities, covert action to create the conditions to provoke a Russian overreaction, the scope and scale of which would be so much that the West would feel compelled to intervene because that is the only pathway of salvation for Ukraine. They have lost this war on the battlefield. The Russians have penetrated Dnipropetrovsk, they’re closing on Sumy, the Ukrainians are collapsing across the battlefield, the Russians now are talking about moving in even deeper. They’ve annihilated the air defence, they have free reign over Ukraine strategically. They haven’t finished with their retaliation attack. It’s over on the ground. So the only hope Ukraine has is for an intervention by European states backed by the United States. This isn’t going to happen on its own volition, so what the British are seeking to do is play this very dangerous game of brinksmanship, of provoking the Russians to the point where Russia will do something that will have to trigger a Western response. And there are some people who I’m in communication with in the United Kingdom right now who are linked to this decision-making cycle, believe that the the British are deliberately provoking Russia to use a tactical nuclear weapon against Ukraine under the belief that that is the only condition under which now Europe and the United States may become decisively engaged. So Britain is provoking Russia to use nuclear weapons against Ukraine. That is what’s happening now. That is not something I think the United States is pursuing, but the mechanisms of facilitation of this plan had been put in place by the United States. Remember, it’s the United States, not Great Britain, that built 20 CIA bases inside Ukraine to carry out covert actions. And one of those bases is a drone operation centre. And the British play a very important role in that. So the technology, the planning, the tactics, the techniques that have been transferred by the United States and the British to the Ukrainians that facilitated this attack. That is what Lavrov talks about. The inertia meaning that we started something, Trump may have temporarily put a pause on it or pulled the plug, but we started something and through inertia, that is facilitating the British assistance to Ukraine to carry out these strikes.”
Judge Napolitano; “I’m going to change the subject slightly because you alluded to it in your last really terrific answer. And I want to get back to nuclear weapons, the British and their crazy provocations. How much longer can Ukraine survive? You talked earlier about the continued Westward march of the Russian military. How soon before Ukraine collapses either because the military gives up the ghost and goes home, or Zelensky and the government leaves the country or is killed?”
Scott Ritter; “First of all, we we have to be realistic here. The Russians have this military supremacy, the Russians are dictating the pace of action in a way that the Ukrainians can’t respond. Their force structure is such that they could probably push to the Dnieper River and make some inroads into Mikolaiv, but they would require significant reinforcement to go beyond that, meaning that if they were to make a push to Odessa to get to Transnistria up by the Moldovan border, this would require hundreds of thousands of additional troops, if they were to push down through Belgorod, Kursk to take Chernihiv and Sumy and take Kharkov, additional hundreds of thousands of troops. So the Russians right now, I believe they can accomplish their immediate task, which is the securing of Kherson, Zaporizhia, Donetsk, Lugansk, and then to make inroads into a buffer zone in the Dnipropetrovsk , Mikolaiv, Kharkov, Sumy region. They’re fully capable of doing this. But to make that final push would require require the Russians to mobilise several hundred thousand more troops, and that takes time. So the Ukrainians can collapse where they’re currently are. But if they fall back to the Dnieper river and start building a defensive there, it’s possible for Ukraine to stay in this fight militarily for some period of time. The problem is the economic, social and political collapse that comes with this. The Russians basically are taking out Ukraine’s industrial capacity there. They’re already destroyed economically. Ukraine defaulted on its loans and has no money. They can’t even afford to buy their dead back, and that’s not buying their dead back, it means when they receive their dead, they have not acknowledged their dead and then paid the families and they don’t have the money to do that. And then we’re already seeing the political collapse, widespread discussion about Zelensky’s final days, the moving control of the government to the parliament, new elections. And it’s that aspect of it’s going to bring about the end of the war, not the military collapse, but the economic, social and political collapse. And I believe that’s coming sooner rather than later.”
The core of the issue is for Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia, they’ve been caught in a US game from the 1990s, partly to weaken Russia, partly to grab oil resources in the Caspian region, partly to build a Caspian-Black Sea pipeline that would go around Russia. In other words, great game stuff with some of the big names of the neo-con world involved from the start; Brzezinski, Snowcroft, Kissinger, playing games in this region, thinking that this was part of the post 1991 process of further weakening or deconstructing or decolonising Russia.
Watch; Dirty war, second front and South Caucasus w/ Jeffrey Sachs The Duran, 12 June 2025
Jeffrey Sachs; “Georgia together with its two other neighbours, Armenia and Azerbaijan are part of this great game that has been going on for centuries actually between Britain and Russia and between the United States and Russia in the last 30 years. This is contested territory, these are borderlands, these are places where the United States has actively tried to intervene, specifically in Georgia to expand NATO. So this is part of the plan that includes Ukraine to surround Russia and the Black Sea region with NATO. This is Brzezinski’s plan from the 1990s, riffing off of Lord Palmerston’s plan in the 1850s. And Georgia became part of that game. And it has been a deadly game because it involved one hot war between Russia and Georgia in 2008 and the continuing very tense situation in recent years. So you have this region, the South Caucasus, these are the small countries, very historic, each, if you look at Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, with civilisations that go back thousands of years, Georgia, arguably ten thousand years of recognisable civilisation, that have been contested zones actually between East and West, North and South, for for thousands of years. They are countries at the crossroads of East and West, at the crossroads of Christianity and Islam, within the region itself, a contested territory between three great imperial powers of the last 600 years of history, the Ottoman Turks, the Iranians and the Russians. And so those three empires, even without the United States and Britain, have been fighting among themselves and contesting this territory. But after 1991 and even during the Cold War, I would say, it was viewed as the soft underbelly of the Soviet Union or the soft underbelly of Russia and therefore a place where the CIA could meddle, a place where the American deep state could meddle, a place where American so-called non governmental organisations, which are very much governmental organisations, part of the US deep state, could try to intervene and swing politics. And Georgia got caught completely in that because Georgia was one of the locations where the United States helped to arrange the overthrow of the government, the Rose Revolution of 2004, which overthrew Shevardnadze and installed a Western favourite, Saakashvili, backed by George Soros personally and backed by US money personally. And he was the stooge, I would say, to promote the entry of NATO and the EU into the region. Now one thing about the EU being there also, this region, if you ask a geographer, is not in Europe. These are countries South of the Great Caucasus Mountains. The crestline of the Caucasus Mountains is the divide between Europe to the North, that’s Russia, and Asia to the South. So these aren’t even geographically part of Europe, but the European Union in this neo-con US-promoted age wanted to take territory as NATO expands. So they went side by side as in Ukraine as well. And Saakashvili became the instrument for that. And in 2008, at this infamous NATO Bucharest summit, which was a turning point when Europe fell completely into line with US neoconservatism, that Georgia and Ukraine together at that NATO summit were invited into NATO, that was I think, the turning point from cold to hot war that ensued. And in the case of Georgia, Saakashvili, I’ll tell you one anecdote, but he took this invitation to NATO, is also the invitation to attack a breakaway territory and try to reclaim it for Georgia, thinking that NATO has his back and the United States has his back. And he lost a war with Russia in 2008. He ended up in many weird adventures of politics throughout the region, including in Ukraine. And a very bizarre guy, but in any event, this thrust Georgia into the front line of the Russia-US confrontation. And it’s been there until basically now the governing party, the Georgia Dream, which you will know more about and be more up to date than I am having just visited, is trying to extricate Georgia from all of this great game, because this great game is not conducive to peace, to security, or to economic development. It is a disaster. It is being used as a pawn of somebody else, and in this case, a pawn of the United States. And I just wanted to tell you an anecdote. We discuss all the time how Ukraine became a pawn of the United States and has been devastated and bloodied and degraded and divided because of this neo-con Palmerston idea of grabbing Ukraine for NATO and for the West and so forth. In 2008, as this was brewing, this NATO enlargement, Saakashvili actually came to New York, came to the Council on Foreign Relations in New York City in April or May 2008. And I was curious, so I thought I’d go over and listen to him. So I walked across Central Park and went to hear him speak and it was incredible, “We are part of Europe, we’ve always been part of Europe. We will be part of NATO, we will be part of the European Union. We are the most European country”. And of course, all these fools, I have to say in New York in the audience, “yeah, you’re wonderful, we’ve got your back” and so forth. And I remember I walked out of the building and I called my wife because I was shaking. I said this guy is so reckless, this guy is nuts, this guy is going to get his country destroyed. And it was just two or four weeks later that the war broke out and that indeed Saakashvili was smashed as a result. But I had that very personal prescience of this insane arrogance that the United States gives these countries. They think the US has their back, “now we can do anything, we’ll defeat Russia, we can put it in their face”. And this is the mindset that has led us to disaster all over the region. But that’s a very long winded answer to your question. But the core of the issue is for Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia, they’ve been caught in a US game from the 1990s, partly to weaken Russia, partly to grab oil resources in the Caspian region, partly to build a Caspian- Black Sea pipeline that would go around Russia. In other words, great game stuff with some of the big names of the neo-con world involved from the start. Brzezinski always around, Snowcroft, Kissinger, playing games in this region, thinking that this was part of the post 1991 process of further weakening or deconstructing or decolonising Russia. And these three little wonderful, amazing historic countries have gotten caught in the middle of it and they’re trying to extricate themselves from it. And Europe continues to meddle non-stop. the US has tried, but I hope that Trump has no interest in this. So maybe they actually have a chance on their own for some economic development. Bottom line and final point, I should say, my recommendation to them is look at your map, look at your geography, look at your neighbourhood. That’s how you do economics to start with. You have neighbours, you trade with your neighbours, you have investments with your neighbours, you have infrastructure with your neighbours. The three neighbours are three big powers, Russia, Turkey and Iran, three historic civilisations. They actually are getting along reasonably well right now, thank you, and that gives a chance for the three Caucasus countries, which really have a shared destiny as well, to say, look, we can be prosperous within this region by having decent relations with all three sides. The United States is not our issue, the EU is not our issue, but Russia, Iran, Turkey, the Middle East, a North-South trade and infrastructure corridor and East- West trade corridor. We can have a very nice future if it’s peaceful in our region.”
Like the Ukrainians, the Georgians are being brainwashed to think that the EU is their friend and Russia their enemy. Can’t they see that the West has killed half a million Ukrainian men in their lie that the war is to free them from Russia? The Ukrainians voted to end the conflict led by the ultra-nationalists and funded by the neocons to destroy Russia and steal her resources.
Georgia Erupts: Protesters Defy Crackdown, Zourabichvili Leads Anti-Government Charge!; Times Now World; 30 June 2025
Intro; ‘Thousands of protesters have gathered outside Georgia’s parliament in the latest demonstration against the ruling Georgian Dream party, marking seven consecutive months of unrest. The protests, driven by accusations of election rigging and a pivot away from European integration, have escalated following the imprisonment of opposition leaders and a government crackdown on dissent. Critics accuse the government of moving closer to Moscow, raising concerns over Georgia’s democratic trajectory’.
The UK citizens do not want war in Ukraine and yet ‘leaked documents revealed that there was a cabal inside British military intelligence called Project Alchemy that had been planning attacks on Russian train lines, drone attacks on Russian military bases from inside Russia, and we revealed the blueprints produced by this British military intelligence cabal to attack the Kerch bridge.’
Watch; The Five Eyes Blind Trump; Max Blumenthal, The Grayzone, 10 June 2025
‘Exposing MI6’s Ukraine Proxy War and Palantir’s Dark Role in Gaza and Global Surveillance. In this explosive interview on ‘Judging Freedom’, journalist Max Blumenthal dissects the West’s role in escalating global conflicts, from British-backed drone attacks sabotaging Ukraine-Russia peace talks to Israel’s AI-driven genocide in Gaza. He exposes Palantir’s deep ties to the U.S. government and its complicity in surveillance and warfare, while condemning figures like Lindsey Graham for endorsing violence against activists like Greta Thunberg. Blumenthal also reveals how Trump’s diplomacy is being undermined by neocons and intelligence agencies. A chilling analysis of power, technology, and imperialism, this conversation is a must-watch for understanding the hidden forces shaping today’s wars.’
Judge Napolitano; “What are your thoughts on the Ukraine drone attacks? I mean, does anybody take seriously President Trump’s statement to President Putin that the United States didn’t know about this?”
Max Blumenthal; “Well, if Trump didn’t know about it and everyone wants to blame the Deep State, then Trump has lost control of the most critical areas of diplomacy. And he is allowing the British, the most radical dangerous country engaged in supporting Ukraine, to take control and sabotage him along with radical actors from Mike Pompeo to no relation to me, Richard Blumenthal and Lindsey Graham, who claims to be America First to completely sabotage diplomacy. And that’s what’s been happening. This has been happening since early May. So let’s step back a second before we talk about this daring drone attack, this brazen drone attack, which has been prepared for over a year, maybe eighteen months, and obviously was conducted with British support. In early March, Trump humiliated Zelensky and everyone, including us, believed this was the moment that Trump would use to suspend intelligence cooperation with the Ukrainian SBU, which has been carrying out all these terror attacks, assassinations inside Russia, and withhold weapons to bring them to the table and bring an end to this war and end the killing. As his vice president JD Vance said, one week after that took place, Trump restored intelligence cooperation and restored weapons deliveries to Ukraine, and the brakes were off on this attack leading up to the landmark Istanbul talks. And so just hours before Putin and Zelensky teams were to meet in Istanbul, Ukraine carries out these attacks, and we at the Grayzone have been exclusively reporting with leaked documents that no one else has reported on that there was a cabal inside British military intelligence called Project Alchemy that had been planning attacks on Russian train lines, drone attacks on Russian military bases from inside Russia, and we revealed the blueprints produced by this British military intelligence cabal to attack the Kerch bridge. All of that has happened in the past seventy-two hours, all of that, and we have the we’ve had the blueprints out there. This is obviously a British attack, and one more point, the US and Russia have a treaty that all strategic bombers must be able to be seen by satellites from the air in order to prevent a surprise nuclear attack. Which country in NATO in the West is not a part of that treaty? Britain. And so it it’s just another piece of evidence adding to their desire to attack.”
Judge Napolitano; “Your analysis is 100% consistent with Scott Ritter who says the CIA surely knew about it, but the the the plans, the money, the idea, the operations were MI6. Talk to me about how dangerous it is. You alluded to this in your the initial part of your statement. If John Ratcliffe, the director of CIA and Tulsi Gabbard, the director of National Intelligence, if they in fact did not know or if in fact they did know and didn’t tell Trump, I don’t know which is worse, one is incompetence and the other is deceptive and insubordinate.”
Max Blumenthal; “Well, it looks like the Five Eyes have rendered Trump blind.”
Judge Napolitano; “Good line, good line, Max. The five eyes are are the five English- speaking countries, Great Britain, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, United States that frequently share and almost without guidelines share intelligence.”
Max Blumenthal; “So the thinking is, and I’m sure Scott Ritter was all over this, that this was planned under Rishi Sunak’s MI6 and it took that level of preparation, laying the groundwork for storing drones inside a hangar in Russia, finding the strategic bombers, finding the right time and then executing it in order to sabotage negotiations in Istanbul. On the day after Richard Blumenthal and Lindsey Graham, the neo con duo, were in Kiev. And this followed a visit by Senator Mark Kelly at the same time that Ukraine executed cyber attacks which apparently targeted Elon Musk’s Twitter X. So, I mean, it’s clear what has been going on here, that this was an attempt to sabotage Trump. Under the Five Eyes agreement, you would think GCHQ would have to tell the NSA and that the CIA would learn from MI6 that this was about to take place, but what took place was after this attack, if you were on Twitter X or social media, you would see all the pro-Trump MAGA influencers basically flipping their wigs, freaking out that this had sabotaged Trump’s plan for this grand deal in Istanbul. So Trump’s clearly activated his influencers and now Trump himself is under enormous pressure from the media. This is what they always do, the Beltway press in the Rose Garden, is they always pressure the president from the neo-con position to do more war. They never pressure him against it, and so Trump just had a press conference and was pushed on applying more sanctions on Russia. He’s constantly under attack by the press for not sanctioning Russia more, and it means another step away from diplomacy, sanctioning the country that is already the most sanctioned country on the planet, over 1,000 sanctions have been placed on Russia and the ruble has not turned to rubble, so what is the point of doing more? It’s that Trump finds himself overwhelmed once again, as in his first term, by the preponderance of neo- con forces that surround him.”
Listen; Larry Johnson: Ukraine Attacks 2,500 Miles Inside Russia; Judging Freedom, 2 June 2025
Judge Napolitano; “How confident are you of the fingerprints of CIA, MI6 and perhaps Mossad on this?”
Larry Johnson; ” One hundred percent, just the operation of initiating, turning the drones on. Just think of the process, you’ve got them hidden under this roof, so the roof has to open up, that requires an external command. Now the reports are that they were using the Russian phone network, maybe, but I think Starlink, an Elon Musk operation was involved with this as well. You can’t rule out satellite communications as a source of overhead imagery. It was reported, and I’ve seen no confirmation of it, that Pete Hegseth was watching the attack real time, which means he absolutely knew it was coming off. And the Ukrainians had other drones with video capability, which in part explains why you’re seeing some of the drone footage that’s out there. But some of it has also been genned up by artificial intelligence.
What was the strategy in this? To destroy Russia’s strategic bomber force in order to weaken Russia so that Russia would feel compelled to surrender? Well, if that was the strategic goal, it failed. In fact, you have to look at the opposite consequence. It has now emboldened Russia to pursue the war in a more aggressive fashion to the detriment of Ukraine. And that’s the problem, what you have here with Ukrainians is complete lack of strategic thought, they are all focused on tactics, they basically have the brain of a teenager, thinking only about immediate gratification, immediate pleasure, not thinking about if I do X is going to lead to Y & Z and what will be my preparations to deal with that outcome. So they are not taking steps to shore up their ability to stop the Russian advance on the ground. And now they have basically energised the entire Russian population to a greater degree than was the case, say, two months ago about the need to destroy Ukraine.”
Watch; ‘Stop World War III Now!’: Spain Explodes in Rage Over EU-NATO War Spending Frenzy! Times Now World, 8 June 2025
‘Hundreds took to Madrid’s streets in a fiery protest against NATO’s proposed 5% defence spending hike, accusing the EU of blindly serving Washington’s war agenda. Chanting “No to NATO, bases out,” demonstrators warned that rearmament would drag Europe into World War III. Spain’s government distanced itself from the NATO target, while protesters slammed the militarisation push as a path to mass destruction.’
Please donate
Forgive me for pointing out that, while we receive some one-off donations, I am funding Farms Not Factories myself, and if we are to continue to fight the cruel, antibiotic-led factory farm system, we will need some regular donations from like-minded people. Please consider a monthly subscription of £2/month and help us support a network of smaller scale, humane and healthy UK pig farms, local abattoirs and butchers.
“Our message is simple, we want to help bring an end to this dangerous, inhumane system. Vote for real farming over factory farming.”
– Tracy Worcester, Director
Contents
Share This Article
Related ArticlesView All
Find A Farmer
The purpose of our newsletter is to give you important information that is censored in the mainstream media. “The way… Read More
Zionist Money Rules
The purpose of our newsletter is to give you important information that is censored in the mainstream media. “The way… Read More
The Price of Progress
The purpose of my newsletter is to give you important information that is censored in the mainstream media. “The way… Read More
Ukraine and Israel – A United Force
The purpose of my newsletter is to give you important information that is censored in the mainstream media. If you… Read More
Buy From UK Farms, Or Lose Them
The purpose of my newsletter is to give you important information that is censored in the mainstream media. If you… Read More
Group Think
The purpose of my newsletter is to give you important information that is censored in the mainstream media. If you… Read More