Climate Taxes, Energy Chokepoints, and Engineered Famine

Climate Taxes, Energy Chokepoints, and Engineered Famine

Mike Adams

The key that unlocks every technocratic slogan from the fourth industrial revolution to Build Back Better is a single historical fact: in 1957, Julian Huxley rebranded eugenics as transhumanism. Huxley was no innocent academic -- he was the first director of UNESCO and a central figure in the postwar eugenics movement, and he deliberately changed the name because 'eugenics' had become unspeakable after the horrors of the Third Reich. The same people who wanted to control who could breed simply changed the vocabulary but kept the agenda ^[9]. Klaus Schwab's language about merging the physical, digital, and biological worlds is not a description of progress -- it is a rebranded eugenics program with better marketing.

Digital identity, digital twins, programmable central bank digital currency, a social credit system, human augmentation, and the Internet of Bodies are all part of the dystopian future being rolled out by the globalist cabal under the banner of equity, and each of them is designed to thin the herd while concentrating power ^[10].

Robinson reveals that the climate agenda has always been two-fold: depopulation and a global carbon tax funding mechanism for a new world order. When the climate cultists could not sell enough carbon taxes to finance their ambitions, the same interests pivoted to war and energy chokepoints in the Persian Gulf and the Red Sea. 'Owning the weather' is a deadly serious attempt to take natural life-supporting climatic cycles out of the hands of nature and into the hands of a small clique of obsessive psychopaths ^[16]. Bill Gates' stratospheric aerosol injection for global dimming is an attack on the food supply itself, reducing crop yields across Africa, the Middle East, and Central and South America ^[4].

Michael Yon's 'gigafamine' warning for 2027 is credible because fertilizer, LNG, and crude supply chains are being strangled. The book The Hunger Clock warned that the Strait of Hormuz crisis will starve millions by 2027 -- not because of oil, but because of the natural gas that is the feedstock for nitrogen fertilizer ^[17]. Most people look at Hormuz and see oil. The real weapon is fertilizer, and when the LNG supply is cut, the harvests collapse. The engineered famine is not an accident of war; it is the objective. The World Health Organization's own anti-fertility vaccine program and the UN's food-rationing schemes point in the same direction ^[14].

The climate change narrative is also dishonest because carbon dioxide is good for plants. CO2 is the gas of life, the raw material of photosynthesis, and any honest agriculturalist knows that higher CO2 concentrations increase crop yields. The climate narrative has been used to crush domestic energy production, destroy competitiveness in energy-intensive sectors, and justify the rationing of food and fuel ^[16]. In my analysis, starvation in South Asia and Africa is not an accident. It is a calculated outcome that intends to redraw maps after the die-off.

The AI systems being built by Anthropic and OpenAI are not simply advanced calculators or helpful assistants -- they are tools of mass manipulation engineered to compress human experience into deterministic outputs that serve the globalist agenda of depopulation, surveillance, and control ^[18]

As Robinson explained in our interview, Elon Musk's high basic income talk is a sales pitch for global communism, not a serious plan for human dignity. Universal basic income is the sedative that buys public acceptance of mass joblessness while the technocrats consolidate ownership of the machines.

Robinson's warning about transhuman legal status is absolutely real. If biology can be patented, then patented biology can strip you of your human rights. You become a licensed product rather than a person with inalienable rights. The same technocrats planning to replace workers also plan to replace the voters and the 'useless eaters,' and the legal architecture of digital ID, CBDCs, and programmable money is the scaffolding for that plan ^[20]. The right to exist, the right to work, and the right to own property are all on the chopping block, and the people who see it clearly need to act now.

Russia Threatens Nuclear Response If NATO Moves To Isolate Kaliningrad

Russia Threatens Nuclear Response If NATO Moves To Isolate Kaliningrad (Worthy News Briefing)

Stefan J. Bos

Russia has warned NATO that it could use nuclear weapons if the Western military alliance tried to cut off Kaliningrad, a heavily militarized Russian exclave on the Baltic Sea, as fighting continued in Ukraine killing and injuring numerous people.

In a document sent to NATO, Moscow accused the alliance of pursuing a “dangerous and reckless course” carrying “high risks of the outbreak of a direct armed conflict.”

The warning raised the prospect of Russian strikes against decision-making centers in NATO member states from the outset of such a conflict.

“Russia will be ready to use the entire arsenal of forces and capabilities at its disposal, including nuclear weapons,” Moscow warned if NATO countries attempted to isolate Kaliningrad from the rest of Russia.

The message was contained in a so-called “non-paper,” the diplomatic term for an informal communication, and came amid sharply rising tensions between Moscow and European NATO members.

NATO spokesperson Allison Hart confirmed receiving the Russian document but declined to disclose its contents.

“We have sent a response, noting that NATO is a defensive Alliance and none of our activities or exercises pose a risk to any part of Russia,” Hart explained. “We strongly denounce the threat of force, including any irresponsible nuclear rhetoric.”

She also called on Moscow to end its invasion of Ukraine.

A senior European defense official described the Russian message as the most serious threat of its kind since the Cold War, while a NATO diplomat characterized it as another attempt by Moscow to intimidate European nations.

Kaliningrad lies between NATO members Poland and Lithuania and is separated geographically from the Russian mainland. The territory hosts significant Russian military forces and has long been regarded as one of the most sensitive potential flashpoints between Moscow and NATO.

As the war intensifies, Russia has also stepped up economic pressure on European interests, placing the Russian operations of several major Western companies under temporary administration amid worsening relations with Europe.

Recent targets include Swiss food giant Nestlé, French retailer Auchan and German wholesaler Metro AG. Moscow has linked such measures to European support for Ukraine and Western sanctions against Russia.

Since the war began, 135 foreign-affiliated companies, predominantly linked to European Union countries, have been subjected to temporary administration, according to Russian state media.A senior Russian government source said the widening crackdown was an “asymmetric” response to European sanctions and suggested other European companies could face similar measures.

The latest moves highlight how the Ukraine war is extending beyond the battlefield, with Moscow warning NATO over Kaliningrad and exerting economic pressure on Western companies while fighting Ukrainian troops in Europe’s bloodiest conflict since World War Two.

The Next Bioweapon Could Attack Our Genes

The Next Bioweapon Could Attack Our Genes

Darren Orf

• The confluence of synthetic biology and artificial intelligence is lowering the technical barrier for bioterrorism, according to some experts.

• Developing a weapon capable of attacking the human genome remains technically challenging—especially devising the means to do widespread damage

• The next threat may be mutagenic, teratogenic, or something else entirely, and the world is likely entering a new era of heightened vigilance against biological weapons.

  
  

  We live in an age of seemingly unending crises. The world continues to warm, pushing Earth into the sixth mass extinction event in its history. Intractable wars and conflicts rage on multiple continents. The U.S. life expectancy is now at the lowest it's been in 30 years. Then, there's artificial intelligence, a massive uncertainty bomb with the equal possibility to help solve—or exacerbate—all of the above.

  Nowhere is this more obvious than in the biomedical field, where AI's ability to pore over massive data sets, recognize patterns, and design novel viruses and bacteriophages is already reshaping research. This is only the beginning of what scientists call "synthetic biology," and like so many human breakthroughs, it could be critical to tackling medical crises, such as the rise of antimicrobial-resistant superbugs. But those tools could just as easily fuel a new age of bioweapons, a threat serious enough that Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei recently called for a slowdown of AI development.

  Arms control experts have warned for decades about weapons that attack the human genome instead of the human body. And unfortunately, those warnings aren't hypothetical, since cruder chemical versions have already been used in warfare. Between 1962 and 1971, U.S. aircraft sprayed nearly 19 million gallons of herbicide across Vietnam. Much of it was Agent Orange, tainted during manufacture with TCDD—the most toxic dioxin ever identified, and a known human carcinogen. It causes birth defects and abnormalities in developing embryos.

  Of course, Vietnam wasn't the only theater of war where weapons were used that caused prolonged medical issues, whether cancer or reproductive problems. In the early 1980s, U.S. Secretary of State Alexander Haig accused the USSR of using Trichothecene mycotoxins (a known teratogen), otherwise known as "yellow rain," in Southeast Asia and Afghanistan. In 1995, Saddam Hussein's regime admitted to the U.N. that Iraq had developed aflatoxins—chemicals produced by the fungi Aspergillus flavus and Aspergillus parasiticus—for use in aerial bombs and Scud missile warheads. The toxin wasn't meant to kill troops. Instead, its main method of destruction is an insidious one: It causes the rapid development of liver cancer, particularly in children.

  "From a moral standpoint, aflatoxin is the cruelest weapon," Richard Spertzel, the chief weapons inspector for the now-defunct United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) told Slate in 2002. "It means watching children die slowly of liver cancer."

  These fears are only exacerbated today by gene editing technologies and artificial intelligence. In February 2016, the U.S. Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, added gene-editing to a list of "weapons of mass destruction and proliferation," and a year later, China's People's Liberation Army noted in an authoritative textbook that "specific ethnic genetic attacks" could become increasingly possible. In 2024, the Washington Post reported that Russia was expanding an old bioweapons lab in the midst of its ongoing invasion of Ukraine.

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

Tehran’s Regime Launches Mobilization Campaign Targeting Child Recruitment

Tehran’s Regime Launches Mobilization Campaign Targeting Child Recruitment

Mark Hitchcock

The war in Iran has moved to the forefront of the global stage, having a dramatic impact on the world economy and geopolitics. The impact has been most substantial in the Middle East and the Gulf states. The U.S. economy is being affected by skyrocketing oil prices, contributing to escalating inflation.

In his recent speech at the United Nations General Assembly, President Trump focused on the future of Iran, laying out various options to end the conflict. While the President clearly desires a peaceful resolution, at the other end of the spectrum, he contemplated the “total annihilation” of Iran, readying for an all-out assault if no deal is reached by the midterm elections. President Trump hinted that upcoming elections on November 3rd will be a tipping point.

Interestingly, as President Trump addressed the U.N., giving the different options at his disposal, the Iranians were preparing for a massive escalation

It seems clear that both Iran and the U.S. now have November 3rd circled on their calendar—and after that, all bets are off.

One of Iran’s most desperate preparations is the launching of a new mobilization effort called “Janfada,” which means “self-sacrifice.” This IRGC campaign carries the slogan, “We have one life, and we give it for Iran,” and, disturbingly, it is especially directed towards recruiting children.

This doesn’t sound like a nation that wants to come to the negotiating table for peace! Iran is beating the drums of war.

General Jack Keane, speaking on Fox News, emphasized: “[The Iranians] are convinced that they are winning here. Their mindset is that they can outlast us. War is a test of wills. I don’t think they have any intention of making a deal with us that meets our objectives; if they did, the reality is that they wouldn’t comply with it. They already showed us that.”

“I would have a problem with any deal that even meets our objectives, because what happens here is you finance their recovery, you throw a lifeline to the regime, you pass this to the next administration for the next five to ten years, and that is not why we started this thing,” he underscored. “We started this thing to actually finish these guys, per their behavior.”

“Anyone sitting here thinking today that the Iranian regime’s behavior will change, and they will fundamentally reverse course, doesn’t understand who they really are,” General Keane stressed. “That’s the path I think we are on. It is inevitable that we will need military operations, likely, that will support the economic pressure that the blockade and Bessent have applied in isolating this regime economically. And I think the objective when we go back to military operations should not be to state a deal; the objective would be that we set the conditions to put this regime on a path to its collapse.”

Iran is preparing for war. We must remember that the regime in Tehran is the same regime that slaughtered 72,000 of its own people. They are not going to give up willingly. Their current actions reinforce this conclusion. Tehran despises the United States and Israel. Any form of surrender to what they consider the “great Satan” and the “little Satan” seems to be out of the question.

Iranian authorities assert that more than 1 million people are expected to sign up for their new “Janfada” mobilization campaign, with a claimed initial 1,000 units—which they describe as battalions—prepared. As stated earlier, to boost the numbers, Iran is even recruiting children.

The Jerusalem Post, on September 22nd, published the headline: “Iranian Children To Be Recruited For Islamic Republic’s ‘Self-Sacrifice’ Campaign.”

Newsmax reported that “Iran has launched a military recruitment effort targeting boys as young as 12, offering military training that reportedly includes drones, surveillance, and weapons as the Islamic Republic seeks to bolster its security forces.”

Campaign spokesperson Sasan Zare said age 15 and up have begun the military training, and due to high demand, ‘special training appropriate for younger ages will also be arranged,’ the Iranian Labor News Agency reported.

The training would see the children learning the basics of  “ensuring local security, general war preparations, observation, surveillance, and intelligence measures,” Zare added.

It would also include teaching the kids how to pilot drones and even how to fire shoulder-mounted weapons.

The training is expected to be overseen by the Basij, which is Iran’s volunteer militia under the auspices of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps. Basij played a major role in enforcing the Islamic Republic’s rule at home, including crackdowns on anti-government protesters. They’re behind the deaths of a significant portion of the tens of thousands who were killed.

Among all the propaganda, everything in Iran ultimately comes back to their eschatology. Even their reported goal of recruiting the symbolically numbered march of 313,000 recruits—313 being the number of core companions of the “Mahdi” in Islamic beliefs.

This Islamic eschatology is something many leaders fail to take into account. The radical Iranian regime believes the Mahdi will return in a time of warfare, bloodshed, and chaos, and they view the current conflict as putting out the welcome mat.

As this is taking place, President Trump is threatening annihilation of Iran. The monthly review has an astonishing headline: “Trump readies 40,000 bombs for Israel, wider war after Nov. 3”

Many people are forecasting that if there’s no peace by the midterms, a massive offensive is going to be brought against Iran. According to the article, “the Trump administration is preparing a $2.8 billion transfer to Israel containing 40,000 one-ton bombs and 20,000 penetrator warheads.”

While I do believe that President Trump genuinely desires peace, the direction is looking more and more like war. Iran’s short-term future is up in the air.

This poses some interesting questions. Will some form of peace deal be hammered out? Will the Strait of Hormuz reopen, oil begin to flow to world markets, and inflation come down? Will Iran rein in the Houthis down in Yemen, who have usurped control of much of the Red Sea? Will the regime survive? Will President Trump launch a decisive onslaught after (or before) the midterms? Will Israel enter into the fray?

While we don’t know what will happen to Iran in the near term, the Bible provides us with a sure answer about what Iran will do in the future.

In Ezekiel 38-39, we read that Iran will join and help lead a deadly coalition against Israel—including the increasingly aggressive Russia and Turkey. There is no doubt that what we are seeing take place is part of the buildup or stage setting for that great end-time war predicted over 2,500 years ago. All signs point to the Gog-Magog war.

The players are in place, consumed with aggression towards Israel and the United States. Iran’s constant domination of global headlines is no accident or coincidence—it’s providence.

Government Censorship: When Digital ‘Safety Measures’ Become A Power Grab Targeting Freedom Of Speech

Government Censorship: When Digital ‘Safety Measures’ Become A Power Grab Targeting Freedom Of Speech

Dean Dwyer

When it comes to the legal obligations of individuals and institutions, there is a well-known principle called “duty of care.” To meet duty of care obligations, individuals and institutions must take all reasonable steps to prevent harm, avoid injury, and ensure the safety and wellbeing of others. Because these obligations are intended to protect the welfare of others, duty of care obligations may be seen as generally positive. 

However, there is an obvious tipping point when it comes to duty of care in public governance. In particular, hyper-regulation, which begins to infringe on personal freedom, is an area of concern for those who cherish individual autonomy and common sense. Yet, governments often circumvent such concerns under the guise of public safety, often leading to the regulation of low-risk activities that limit personal choice beyond that which is reasonable.

The Australian Government has recently released a draft piece of legislation referred to as the Online Safety Amendment (Digital Duty of Care) Bill 2026. If passed as currently drafted, the Bill would completely overhaul Australia’s online safety regime and introduce a new statutory digital duty of care. Although the target of these reforms are the larger social media platforms the legislation broadly captures “online services” including messaging, designated internet services, hosting providers, search engines, app stores and equipment providers tied to those services. 

So, what is it that the Australian Government is aiming to achieve? One of the key initiatives is called “My Feed, My Way,” which supports user control over algorithmically curated content. But the proposed new laws will also put the onus on digital service providers to provide a safe online environment, setting minimum standards for the features and tools they use. They will also be required to protect those under the age of 18 from: 

• content that promotes, encourages or accelerates eating disorders;
• content that promotes hostile ideas about women and gender equality;
• pornography;
• content that glorifies crime or life-endangering stunts; and
• content that causes serious mental health distress, including abuse and bullying.

Although all of this sounds overwhelmingly positive, the breadth of the proposed legislation means the regime could apply to a much wider range of institutions than traditional online safety laws. This is what has immediately sparked concern amongst those who advocate for religious freedom and freedom of speech. 

In fact, the proposed laws are considered so Orwellian that they have caught the attention of the US Government, which, in a statement dated 22 September 2026, said: “The United States has serious concerns about the Australian government’s stated goal of mandating broad duty of care requirements that dictate how platforms manage content and users’ feeds.”

It is that word, “censorship,” that also has Australians concerned. In fact, along with the US Government, many are asking what safeguards will be written into the legislation to ensure that the biases and preferences of Australian government officials and regulators do not influence the censorship architecture in a way which disadvantages independent or minority views. 

This concern was heightened after recent statements by the Communications Minister.  When asked about the definition of “harm” in the legislation and who ultimately decides how the definition is interpreted, she responded by saying, “The test for what would constitute a new serious harm would ultimately be, I guess, made by me on the expert technical advice of the eSafety Commissioner” (emphasis added).  

Within Australia, reactions to the draft legislation have been swift and negative. Opposition Leader Angus Taylor has called the draft “a blank cheque for political censorship to the minister and to the government.” Andrew Bushnell of the Institute of Public Affairs wrote, “The proposed digital duty of care is an undemocratic and draconian government power grab that would crush freedom of speech on the internet.” Leader of the One Nation party, Pauline Hanson, accused the government of “copying the Chinese Communist Party’s censorship playbook” and warned that Australia “should be moving away from government censorship, not building the Orwellian machinery for it.”

To be clear, the draft does not ban Christian teaching. But it does fail to provide an objective legal limit to the government’s power to determine what is unlawful content. Additionally, because the laws would require online service providers to take proactive, reasonable steps to prevent reasonably foreseeable serious harm to their users, the terminology is so broad that it will likely encourage platforms to engage in pre-emptive censorship to avoid the risk of liability. As a result, lawful religious, political and conscience-based speech could become collateral damage if platforms consider them too controversial or risky.

Public debate over the draft legislation will no doubt intensify as the government considers individual submissions. What is already becoming clear is that there are significant concerns over the ability for Christians to maintain freedom of belief in the face of digital architecture that is no longer targeting crimes; it is targeting viewpoints.