TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

The speaker sets out to “clear up” fascism, communism, and totalitarianism by arguing they are not simple opposites but rival forms arising from the same collectivist impulse. He cites Mussolini’s definition of fascism as corporatism—the merger of corporate and government power—and the view that “for the fascist, everything is the state and nothing human or spiritual exists, much less has value outside the state.” He then paraphrases Ayn Rand, saying “Fascism and communism are not two opposites, but two rival gangs fighting over the same territory” based on the collectivist principle that man is the rightless slave of the state. He notes that the Nazis’ National Socialism fused unions, industry, and state into a totalitarian system, and labels that form of totalitarianism as fascism. Turning to today, he argues Mussolini’s corporatist definition best fits recent developments, with “the corporate and governments joining into a merger” aided by the World Economic Forum (WEF), United Nations (UN), and related entities. He traces a historical lineage: in the late 1950s, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund funded the Special Studies Project, with Nelson Rockefeller and Henry Kissinger involved, aiming to “shape a new world order” across spiritual, economic, political, and social dimensions. The CFR (Council on Foreign Relations) and David Rockefeller are described as coordinating global leaders to build a globalist system, identifying global challenges—health, pandemics, population, climate change—as pathways to global governance. He emphasizes climate change as an opportunity to promote globalism, noting Harvard’s International Seminar (funded by Ford, Rockefeller, and others) and Klaus Schwab’s rise to prominence, leading to the European Economic Forum in 1971 and its evolution into the World Economic Forum (WEF). Key players and structures are listed: Barbara Ward’s push for sustainable development and climate focus; the Club of Rome and its Limits to Growth; Giovanni Agnelli linking banking and big oil with Rockefeller figures; the Davos forum’s shift to sustainability, stakeholder capitalism, and climate. He highlights funding and influence from major banks and financial institutions, the Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission, and Bilderberg participants, asserting a broad network guiding global policy. From the 1970s onward, he covers milestones: the 1972 Stockholm conference on climate, the 1987 World Commission on Environment and Development (Brundtland) and Our Common Future; Agenda 21 (1992) from Rio; Bilderberg meetings; the 1990s and 2000s’s Davos and the emergence of the Global Leaders of the WEF; the 2020 initiative and the identification of pandemics, climate risk, and digital governance as future imperatives. He notes the 2006 Global Risks report’s mention of a pandemic and misinformation, arguing they anticipated the 2020 pandemic and the censorship that followed. He argues that public-private partnerships represent totalitarianism, with “the state and corporate power” merged and “the politicians… taking orders from the top levels.” He contends the UN Global Goals and the 2019 formal joining of WEF with the UN formalize a global government, promoting the Fourth Industrial Revolution to reshape the physical world, environment, space surveillance, and digital technology. The Decade of Action (2019) culminates in a 2020 pandemic as part of a planned sequence toward global governance. He concludes that fascism, communism, and totalitarianism are effectively the same at core: “the state” or “the corporate governmental” structure controlling individuals, with “fascism and communism” as rival narratives used to advance a single collectivist end. The closing thanks acknowledge supporters and invite further contributions.

In the past, there were concerns about air pollution causing an ice age, but now the focus has shifted to global warming. The media and the United Nations have been promoting alarmist rhetoric about man-made climate change for decades. However, these predictions of doom have not come true. The purpose of this messaging is to instill fear, allowing governments to gain centralized power and control over people's actions. This serves the agenda of globalism led by the United Nations and the Chinese Communist Party, which is not in the best interest of Australia. These entities aim to control and weaken us, and that is the real emergency.

I first stumbled across agenda 21 in about 2008, and my first reaction was to dismiss what I was reading because I didn't believe that any government in Australia would take us down this road. Then I began to see a legislative pattern emerging in parliament which concerned me greatly, and I also started to see the tenor of legislation that we were passing. I did air those concerns in parliament, and it was dismissed and ignored. The words agenda 21, ladies and gentlemen, were never meant to be spoken. And if they were, then, of course, it would be dismissed as a conspiracy theory. Because if people knew agenda 21 and what it stood for, there's plenty of information out there where they could actually learn what the end game was, and governments didn't want that to be known. My dad always said to me that people only lie for two reasons. One reason is because you're ashamed of what you're doing, and the second reason is that you don't want people to be warned just before you screw them. And I honestly believe that these secrets have been kept for both of those reasons. Ladies and gentlemen, the origins of the environmental movement as we see it began back in 1968 when the Club of Rome was formed. The Club of Rome has been described as a crisis think tank which specializes in crisis creation. The main purpose of this think tank was to formulate a crisis that would unite the world and condition us to the idea of global solutions to local problems. In a document called the first global revolution authored by Alexander King and Bertrand Schneider on pages 104 and 105, it stated, in searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine, and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers, of course, will be caused by human intervention that will require a global response. That's the origin of global warming, ladies and gentlemen. In 1975, Australia agreed to bring in a new economic order via the Lima Declaration on the second conference of the United Nations Industrial Development Organization. The outcome of this was, as I said, the Lima declaration which was a blueprint for the redeployment of tools, jobs, and manufacturing to the developing nations, leaving countries like Australia short of technology, a manufacturing base, and jobs. Blind Freddy can now see what the outcome of that has been for our country with their unworkable trade and tariffs agreements hand in hand with this that have followed as a matter of course. This has now become a reality with around 90% of our agriculture and manufacturing just gone. Australia signed the Lima declaration in 1975 and hundreds of others with the support of all major political players, Whitlam, Fraser, Hawke, Keating, Houston, Howard, Rudd, the democrats, the greens, and even the Nationals. It has been put to me that all of these treaties were the foundation for the rollout of agenda 21. And it seems that Australia has been moved around the global chessboard, and our so called leaders were either complicit or naive to the long term consequences. And now we're almost at checkmate. Sorry. In 1992, former president of The United States George Bush senior said, effective execution of agenda 21 will require a profound reorientation of human society unlike anything the world has ever experienced. A major shift in the priorities of both governments and individuals and an unprecedented redeployment of human and financial resources. This shift will demand that a concern for the environmental consequences of every human action will be integrated into individual and collective decision making at every level. Cutting through the code, I want everyone here tonight not familiar with agenda 21 to consider what the words profound reorientation of all human society and unprecedented redeployment of human and financial resources actually means. For everyone here tonight not familiar with agenda 21, I would suggest that this is the beginning of your learning curve, not the end. In 1992, Morris Strong, secretary general of the UN Earth Summit and member of the Club of Rome said, it is clear the current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class involving high meat intake, consumption of large amounts of frozen and convenience foods, use of fossil fuels, ownership of motor vehicles, small electrical appliances, home and workplace air conditioning, and suburban housing are not sustainable. Put those statements together with the previous one, and it must become clear that agenda 21 is about controlling every aspect of our lives, how we eat, what we eat, how much we eat, how we move around, food production, the amount of food, and where we even live. Dixie Ray, former Washington state governor and assistant secretary for oceans and international environmental and scientific affairs stated, agenda 21 seeks to establish a mechanism for transferring the wealth from citizens to the third world. Fear of environmental crisis would be used to create a world government and UN central direction. From a report in the September Habitat One Conference, land cannot be treated as an ordinary asset controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principal instrument

The narrative prior to the focus on climate was centered around the Cold War, which served as a pretext for a powerful federal government. In 1991, the Club of Rome, including influential figures like Mikhail Gorbachev and Al Gore, met and proposed a new justification for an all-powerful state: the environment and climate change. A book called "The 1st Global Revolution" outlined this plan, stating that pollution, global warming, and other threats would be used as a common enemy to unite humanity. Critics argue that this top-down approach, driven by scientism, disregards other important aspects of society and places too much emphasis on science. The World Economic Forum, in partnership with the UN, plays a crucial role in implementing this agenda, with connections to China. Critics question the motivations behind this agenda, suggesting that it is more about control and power than genuine environmental protection.

In 1972, the Club of Rome released the "Limits to Growth" report, predicting societal collapse by 2030 due to resource scarcity and population growth. The World Economic Forum (WEF) and the Club of Rome share the same views on humanity and have been working towards their 2030 plan since the 1970s. The WEF originated from the Council on Foreign Relations and Henry Kissinger, with the 3rd meeting in 1973 setting everything in motion. The WEF's sustainable development goals, along with the UN's Agenda 2030, have led to global chaos, economic destabilization, and the rise of authoritarian governments. The WEF and the Club of Rome manipulate public sentiment through environmental issues, using it to control people. They believe in a centralized global authority and view human sacrifice as necessary for their utopian vision. Elon Musk spoke against world government at the World Government Summit, emphasizing the importance of civilizational diversity to prevent collapse.

The narrative prior to the focus on climate was centered around the Cold War, which justified a powerful federal government. In 1991, the Club of Rome, including leaders like Mikhail Gorbachev and Al Gore, met and proposed a new justification for global control: the environment and climate change. This plan was outlined in the book "The 1st Global Revolution." Scientists now emphasize the urgency of the climate crisis, but this top-down approach based on scientism disregards other important aspects of society. The World Economic Forum, in partnership with the UN, plays a critical role in implementing the agenda. Surprisingly, there are connections between the World Economic Forum and China, raising questions about the true motivations behind the sustainable development agenda. It appears that power and control, rather than genuine environmental concern, drive this agenda.

Very wealthy people have been planning for generations to take over the world and remove the freedoms of ordinary people, who they regard as useless eaters. They intend to strip freedoms by persuading people that frightening events require their leadership for safety. The Club of Rome was commissioned to develop scenarios that would require supranational solutions. They proposed pandemics of infectious diseases, which are claimed to be impossible, and climate change crises. The claims about carbon dioxide, global boiling, and net zero are a scam from the same people who created the COVID scam and dangerous injections. These people want one world government, to deprive people of liberty, and to kill people using injections. Factories are being built worldwide to make mRNA-based materials, and billions of doses are being made. If allowed, these injections will sicken and kill people.

The climate agenda is not actually about the climate, but rather a means to exercise tyrannical power. It is compared to a religious cult, with little connection to the actual climate. The Spanish Inquisition is used as an example, highlighting that it was more about power, dominion, and punishment than anything else.

Global warming is seen as an opportunity for governments to expand their power globally. Climate activists unknowingly empower governments to control every aspect of our lives. Environmentalists, even radical ones, inadvertently support mainstream narratives. The climate narrative influences consumption, travel, social interactions, diet choices, and more.

Speaker 0 outlines a narrative linking the origins of the environmental movement to the Club of Rome, described as a crisis think tank that purportedly specializes in crisis creation. The speaker cites a document, The First Global Revolution by Alexander King and Bertrand Schneider, claiming it states that pollution, global warming, water shortages, famine and similar dangers would fit the bill as a new enemy to unite the world and justify a global response to local problems, thereby claiming “the origin of global warming.” The speaker then connects this to Australia, asserting that in 1975 Australia accepted a new economic order via the Lima Declaration at the UNIDO conference. The Lima Declaration, they say, was a blueprint for redeploying tools, jobs and manufacturing to developing nations, leaving Australia short of technology, a manufacturing base and jobs, and that unworkable trade and tariffs agreements followed. They claim these treaties were the foundation for the rollout of Agenda 21 and contend Australia has been moved on a global chessboard with leaders either complicit or naive to long-term consequences. The segment cites 1992 remarks by former U.S. president George Bush Sr. about Agenda 21, describing it as requiring a profound reorientation of human society and an unprecedented redeployment of human and financial resources, integrating concern for environmental consequences into decision making at every level. The speaker urges the audience to consider the implications of “profound reorientation of all human society” and “unprecedented redeployment of human and financial resources.” The speaker references Morris Strong, then secretary-general of the UN Earth Summit, stating that affluent middle-class lifestyles are not sustainable, including high meat intake, frozen foods, fossil fuels, vehicle ownership, and other consumption patterns. The implication drawn is that Agenda 21 is about controlling every aspect of life—what and how we eat, how we move, food production, quantity of food, and where we live. Dixie Ray, former Washington state governor and assistant secretary for oceans and international environmental and scientific affairs, is quoted as saying Agenda 21 seeks to transfer wealth from citizens to the third world. A fear-based trajectory is described where fear of environmental crisis would be used to create a world government with UN central direction. The speaker quotes a Habitat One report suggesting land cannot be treated as an ordinary asset and that private land ownership contributes to social injustice, implying a redistribution of wealth through land and resource control. A report from the president’s council on sustainable development is cited as advocating a new collaborative decision process for better decisions and more rapid change in resource use. Harvey Ruben of the Wildlands Project and Jay Gary Lawrence are invoked to suggest that individual rights would be subordinated to the collective, and that participating in UN-planned processes would provoke conspiracy-minded groups to resist, leading to alternative labels like comprehensive planning or sustainable development. The narrative claims that costs are rising for citizens while services are cut, portraying this as wealth redistribution and redeployment of resources that harms the working poor. It references debates over land rights and water allocation, the native vegetation act, and development and planning acts as threats to food producers and long-term security, with alluding to heritage status used to justify control over land titles. The speaker argues for legislative Council checks and balances as a safeguard against parties colluding to pass restrictive policies, urging public participation to restrain erosion of common law, and portraying agenda 21 as an ongoing threat since 2008. The account then traces the Club of Rome’s 1972 Limits to Growth and its environmental alarmism, linking Ted Turner and Mao to early endorsements of the movement, and cites 1987 and 1996 statements about a new world order and an environmental crisis unlocking a one-world government. It asserts the Earth Summit produced the Earth Charter, co-written by Morris Strong and Mikhail Gorbachev, as a new set of commandments with environmentalism as a new world religion, and connects this to Agenda 21. Ted Turner’s 1996 reductionist population statements are included, along with a 1998 Baltimore Sun report on Turner’s donations to the UN aimed at stalling population growth and supporting sterilization to “save mother earth.”

Ned Ryan, CEO of American Security, joins to discuss the World Economic Forum's tactics in creating panic around climate change, similar to what they did with COVID. He describes the organization as a fanatical political group that manipulates fear to establish themselves as saviors. Their ultimate goal is to create a global public-private fascist movement, merging big government, big tech, and big money to form a technocratic ruling elite. Ryan suggests that the World Economic Forum aims to establish a new form of feudalism, where they are the ruling lords and we are the serfs.

The narrative prior to the focus on climate was centered around the Cold War, which served as a pretext for a powerful federal government. In 1991, the Club of Rome, including Mikhail Gorbachev and Al Gore, met and decided to use the environment as a new justification for an all-powerful state. A book called "The 1st Global Revolution" outlined this plan, stating that pollution, global warming, and other environmental threats would be used as a common enemy to unite humanity. However, some argue that this approach is dangerous and disregards other important aspects of society. The World Economic Forum and China have played significant roles in implementing the UN's Agenda 2030, with both capitalists and communists working together on sustainable development. Critics question whether the true motivation behind this agenda is environmental protection or the pursuit of power.

The narrative prior to the focus on climate change was centered around the Cold War, which justified a large and powerful federal government. In 1991, the Club of Rome, including influential figures like Mikhail Gorbachev and Al Gore, met and proposed a new justification for global control: the environment and climate change. This plan was outlined in the book "The 1st Global Revolution." Scientists now emphasize the urgency of the climate crisis, but this top-down approach based on scientism disregards other important aspects of society. The World Economic Forum, in partnership with the UN, plays a crucial role in implementing the sustainable development agenda. Surprisingly, there are connections between the World Economic Forum and China, raising questions about the true motivations behind this agenda. It appears that some proponents of environmental protection are more interested in power and control than in genuinely safeguarding nature.

The narrative prior to the focus on climate was centered around the Cold War, which justified a powerful federal government. In 1991, the Club of Rome, including leaders like Mikhail Gorbachev and Al Gore, met and proposed a new justification for an all-powerful state: the environment and climate change. This plan was outlined in the book "The 1st Global Revolution," which stated that humanity itself was the enemy. Scientists now emphasize the urgency of the climate crisis, but this top-down approach based on scientism disregards other important aspects of society. The World Economic Forum, in partnership with the UN, plays a critical role in implementing the agenda. The connections between the World Economic Forum and China raise concerns, as China's environmental record is poor and their control over their population and politics seems to be the real motivation behind their environmental efforts.

The "Great Reset," also known as Agenda 21 or the New World Order, is not a true reset but a transformation of society into a dystopian reality. Klaus Schwab of the World Economic Forum promotes this agenda under the guise of sustainability and equality, while actually advocating for increased surveillance and control over individuals. The pandemic was a catalyst for this plan, with global warming as a backup crisis to further the agenda. This manufactured crisis aims to justify sacrifices like property rights and forced compliance with technology. The irony lies in empowering the same elites who contributed to the planet's issues to now claim they can save it.

Several speakers present a cohesive, alarmist view of a global move toward centralized, technocratic governance: - A long-standing desire to control others is fueling a push toward globalization and centralization of power in unelected officials at supranational bodies. They claim the aim is to have all the world’s resources “in their pocket.” - The larger project is described as an attempt to collapse liberal democracy and replace it with a global technocracy. A “coup” is alleged, with the argument that rules could replace currency, creating a system of control without money. - The situation is likened to an inverted prison: people may seem free to roam, but “everything you want to access is behind lock and key.” The potential for social control is described as gigantic and potentially irreversible. - The plan reportedly includes commandeering land, reducing farming, radically changing the food we eat, transforming the electricity supply, and dictating how it is used, while replacing currency with a system of credits. All three strategies are said to be premised on a climate-crisis narrative centered on carbon dioxide. - One speaker disputes the climate-crisis premise, stating they do not think there is a climate crisis and that the government pushes a catastrophic story; another adds that no single science paper proves conclusively that humans control all or most of the climate. - Europe is criticized for a “mad dash towards net zero,” described as economic suicide that deliberately impoverishes ordinary people and de-industrializes Europe, raising questions about what is being saved if it’s being paved over. - A global war on agriculture is claimed, with many farms selling up and concerns about looming food shortages. There is a suggestion that shifting people from “real food” to “pharma food” would enable control through publicly traded stocks. - The speakers call the movement “the biggest public relations scam in the history of the world” and, more broadly, a blueprint and action plan. They warn that life on Earth will be radically changed and that everything will be monitored, with environmental consequences of every human action. - A chilling point is made that once a digital ID is in place, “it's game over for humanity,” and that the general population cannot fathom the psychopathy of the vision they describe. Overall, the discussion centers on a perceived coordinated effort to centralize power globally, erode traditional democracy, redefine currency, reshape agriculture and energy systems, and surveil all human activity under a climate-justified technocracy.

The narrative prior to the focus on climate was centered around the Cold War, which served as a pretext for a powerful federal government. In 1991, the Club of Rome, including leaders like Mikhail Gorbachev and Al Gore, met and decided to use the environment as a new justification for a strong state. A book called "The 1st Global Revolution" outlined their plan, stating that pollution, global warming, and other threats would be used as a common enemy to unite humanity. However, this approach is criticized for its top-down forcefulness and the belief that only science matters, disregarding culture, history, and religion. The World Economic Forum, in partnership with the UN, played a role in implementing the Agenda 2030, with connections to China. Critics argue that the environmental agenda is more about power and control than genuine concern for nature.

The narrative prior to the focus on climate was centered around the Cold War, which justified a powerful federal government. In 1991, the Club of Rome, including figures like Mikhail Gorbachev and Al Gore, met and proposed a new justification for an all-powerful state: the environment and climate change. This plan was outlined in the book "The 1st Global Revolution," which stated that humanity itself was the enemy. Scientists now emphasize the urgency of the climate crisis, but this top-down approach based on scientism is seen as dangerous and dismissive of other important aspects of society. The World Economic Forum, with connections to China, plays a role in implementing the UN's agenda for sustainable development. However, critics argue that the motivations behind this agenda are more about power and control than genuine environmental concern.

The lust to control other human beings is a story as old as time. There's a very strong drift in the direction of globalization, of the ultimate centralization of control in the hands of unelected officials at supernational organizations. They want all of the resources of the world in their pocket. The bigger picture is that an attempt is underway now to collapse liberal democracy and replace it with global technocracy. This is a coup. They're saying we can control with rules. We don't need currency anymore. It's like an inverted prison. You are supposedly free to roam about, but everything you want to access is behind lock and key. The potential for social control is gigantic and potentially irreversible. All three strategies are built on the premise of a climate crisis caused by carbon dioxide.

Ned Ryan, American CEO, joins the discussion on the World Economic Forum's tactics. He agrees that their goal is to generate the same level of panic about climate change as they did with COVID. He describes the World Economic Forum as a fanatical political organization that manipulates fear to portray themselves as saviors. However, their true objective is to establish a global public-private fascist movement, merging big government, big tech, and big money to create a technocratic ruling elite. They envision a feudal system where they are the lords and we are the serfs, and they expect us to be content with this arrangement.

Speaker 0: And they came up with this incredible document where they actually said we need a new justification for this all powerful state. So the new excuse is going to be because the environment is gonna be harmed and because climate is going to hurt us. Speaker 1: Wait. What? What? I could not believe what I just heard. Did world leaders really lay out this globalist plan in plain English, in a physical book way back in 1991? I went on Amazon, and there it was, the first global revolution, which states, and I quote, in searching for a common enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine, and the like would fit the bill. And therefore, the real enemy is humanity itself.

The Great Reset, also known as Agenda 21 or the New World Order, is not a genuine reset but a transformation of humanity into a dystopian future. Klaus Schwab and the World Economic Forum promote this agenda under the guise of sustainability and equality. In his book, Schwab discusses how the 4th Industrial Revolution enables surveillance and control, potentially intruding into our thoughts and behaviors. The COVID-19 pandemic was a catalyst for this agenda, with global warming as a backup crisis to push for sacrifices like property rights and smart cities. The irony lies in giving power to those who have harmed the planet, while society seems oblivious to the implications of these changes.

Climate change is a major concern, with the government prioritizing it over other threats like Russia or China. Activists have significant influence, and the issue has permeated all levels of government. Some link climate change to population control, believing it's a tactic to limit people's impact on the environment. This connection may not be obvious to everyone, but it's a key goal for those advocating for climate action.

We've found that the World Economic Forum is pushing a super globalist agenda, attempting to create a new world order that undermines the sovereignty of countries and our democracy. This organization, along with the UN, is controlled by the same ideas and oligarchs. They're creating leaders who will be elected by us, but these individuals are not employees of their people. They try to control people by salary and offers, ensuring they are politically correct. They aim to maintain a global rules-based order and compact dangerous extremist views on the internet to minimize the spread of misinformation and shape a great reset, believing nobody will be safe if not everybody is vaccinated. This involves a deep, systemic, and structural restructuring of our world.

The World Economic Forum's history is not as it seems. Klaus Schwab, the founder, had a team of influential Americans, including Henry Kissinger, working behind the scenes. These individuals were part of the Council on Foreign Relations and had ties to the CIA. They played a significant role in shaping the organization and its goals. Schwab's connections with these powerful figures helped him establish the World Economic Forum and push for global domination. The forum aimed to unite Europe and America and eventually create a new world order. Schwab's vision aligns with the predictions made by Herman Kahn in the 1960s. However, this technocratic movement faces opposition from those who value national identity and freedom.