Autogenerated Transcript (0:00 - 2:13) Among the many attacks upon our rights, our freedoms, and our future being perpetrated by the globalists, perhaps the greatest threat to our health and freedom is the attack upon our food supply. The science fiction author Robert Heinlein is often credited with having said, any society is only three meals away from revolution. By destroying our capacity to grow food, and by controlling food supply chains, the globalists create instability. And that instability is their lever for control. Most of you are aware of event 201, which took place in the fall of 2019 in New York City, where globalist entities planned the COVID narrative. But there have been other exercises, other planning sessions, which most of us have never heard of. Ontario lawyer Lisa Miron was recently on my show with an expose of Bill C-293, our government's so-called Pandemic Prevention and Preparedness Act, where Lisa revealed the planned legislation that will bring Canada fully on board with the WHO's draconian One Health Initiative. Lisa and others have been working very hard to stop this bill, and we can only hope they will succeed. But now, Lisa joins me again to reveal the globalist agenda and timeline to destroy our food security. In 2015, the UN sponsored Food Chain Reaction, an exercise in which representatives from governments around the world met to plan how they will reduce global food output and in the process give the UN dictatorial power, in much the same way that pandemics are being used to increase the power of the WHO. Food Chain Reaction set out a four-step plan, beginning in 2020 and running to 2030. This interview is different from most that I do. (2:13 - 7:44) It is more of a discussion between Lisa and myself, because in the coming months, Lisa and I will be working together to produce my first documentary, which will be a full expose of Food Chain Reaction, the predictions they have made that have already happened, most of them right on cue, with the outline which came out of the Food Chain Reaction sessions, but more importantly, the ones which have not yet happened. This interview and documentary, the documentary which we hope to release before the end of this year, will give you the timeline of what the globalists are planning and in the process, leave you forewarned and forearmed so you can take the necessary steps to protect yourself and your family. You can consider this interview, as informal as it is, as Lisa and I sometimes break into a discussion of our plans for the documentary as a preview, not just of the documentary itself, but of the nefarious plans the globalists have to create revolution through food insecurity. Lisa, it's a pleasure to have you back on the show. Thank you, Will, and it's a pleasure to be here. It's an interesting topic that we're getting into today. I don't know how much your viewers know about Event 201, but it's a planning exercise. Yes. It's essentially like a war game too. It's hard to configure of these games sometimes as war games, but the one we're going through, I would like your viewers to think of as a war game that surrounds food and climate and around who gets to control what we eat and what we do, who comes in our countries, what kinds of attacks we have to do. The game that I'm going to be showing you today and your Yes, it's from 2015, and I think it's important to note, they've been planning this a long time, and I liked what you said. This isn't rhetoric. This isn't discussion. This is planning, and when you go through the documents and you sent them to me, the two huge PDFs of what they did over the course of these two, three days back in 2015, this is very much a planning exercise of how they're going to control the world's food supply. Right, and it's also where we get the narrative of extreme weather amounts to climate change because they also came out of nowhere, and so I thought, you know what? Let's bring this information to the public, and they themselves, the public, can assess it and decide how many of these extreme weather events are landing, and when does it get creepy? So, the first thing I'd like to do is, if you allow me to share screen, is play an introductory video for our audience. There are significant risks as we look at the problems we face with regard to food security, especially going forward. Some of the most complicated and some of the most extraordinary challenges that the world has faced in all of its history. Food chain reaction is an effort to put some of the major actors on this planet who have to deal with a global food crisis. Food chain reaction was really to create these scenarios based on scenarios that have happened in the past, but how do countries respond to them? We had eight teams. We had four rounds spanning from 2020 to 2030. Our real hope was that we would get really great participants in the room, which we did, players from all around the world to elevate a more global conversation among all of those different worldwide experts. The game itself created an opportunity to live into the future. It caused people to think through what the possibilities are, and in that process, I think they realized what they have to start to do today to prepare for the future. We began the decade in 2020. Food prices in 2020 and 2021 are climbing. The world in 2020 is a world with increasing pressures from urbanization. It's a world where it's getting hotter and it's getting drier. We're also seeing increased social unrest because of the volatility in the food system. All of those factors coming together creating that perfect storm. Food security is an issue that affects all of us. If you eat, then you're a stakeholder in how people feed the world. The challenges and crises that we were assigned are exactly what we expect to see in the future. So you've got famine, you've got increased pests, you've got the role of climate change in the world. As we face food shortages, it can cause major political unrest. We need to be prepared to address these challenges. There'll be huge pressure to focus more domestically, but I think collectively as the United States, if we diminish our support for overseas activities, that will be a tremendous signal to the rest of the world to similarly reduce their contributions. (7:44 - 8:57) We could send someone over to the Africa room and try to negotiate some at least soft targets on climate smart agriculture. Africa is the future breadbasket of the world. It has the potential, but it hasn't fulfilled that potential. We would like to discuss opportunities to promote private sector investments, and we would like your support in identifying how we can leverage private investments into the sector to grow it. In the first round, we saw the players in a goal-setting mode, and they weren't necessarily being really active in their implementation of some of the things that they thought might be able to address a food-insecure world. The problem is getting worse. The actions are remaining static. That's as bad as you can get. The world doesn't change just by saying good ideas. You have to move forward and actually do things, not just talk about them. Things turn worse in 2023. Stress continues to mount in the global food system. Round two was where we really put the heat on players. That's when we really saw them get action-oriented. Food prices are going up 400 percent. We've got a flood of migrants coming in. The world is starting to fall apart. In the short term, we give countries in sub-Saharan Africa a large gift of fertilizer. (8:58 - 11:22) Nitrogen fertilizers will severely affect the soil quality in the long term. Will we rather avoid new wars or large-scale starvation to save three years or four years of ecosystem services? There are no good choices in the situation they put us in. Everything we do is going to have some negative effect. A lot of teams started during the first round looking at their own countries, but the situation got so dire that they were forced into bilateral and even trilateral negotiations and meetings. We created a new global coalition on agricultural technology. We got every party who joined it to agree to double their research and development budget, and we were able to get all the other major parties to agree to a price on carbon and then to immediately start moving towards trading. As the momentum's filled up, there's more of a sense of countries stepping up to support other countries. If that could be the new normal, it would really be a game-changer. Scientists report that 2028 and 2029 are two of the hottest years on record, and they serve as reminders of the degrading impact of higher temperatures on food production. The game designers through a very difficult scenario had us in the last round with multiple crashes and disturbances all over the world. We organized an impromptu global summit trying to deal with those kinds of crises, recognizing that they were only going to get worse. The point of this meeting is to discuss whether or not we can come up with a response to the growing frequency of climate-driven crises around the world. We are going to have a pretty hard world to live in, so I propose an organization for response to disaster and emergency relief. There might be the possibility of the formation of peacekeeping-like forces. The United Nations could articulate some common standards for things such as logistics planning, for communications, so that when these forces come together in crises, the ability to interoperate has already been predetermined. The final consequence of the game was to bring together all the countries and all the multilateral institutions and really establish a new environment of global governance. The world needs stronger cooperation to meet the challenges that the future will throw at it. Over the last couple days, we've learned that alone we can't do it, but together we have all the confidence that this is a problem that we can solve. (11:23 - 11:43) International cooperation on these kinds of issues is much more possible than people might think. There is a wide diversity of opinions in all countries, and therefore there are always like-minded people with whom you can start the conversation. I have learned how difficult it is to really think out of the box, to imagine something really new. (11:43 - 18:32) It is so easy to fall back to the old recipes. To be innovative, it wasn't that easy as I thought. I think I've learned about institutional inertia. How much of a crisis do we need to unlock some of that inertia so that people say, that's not going to work anymore. We have to try something radically different. The new normal is volatility. The end of the game indicated a world with greater swings that are closer together, that require attention on a more regular basis. The world at the end of this game looks pretty dire, but now we can look backwards from 2030 to today and we can look at that 15-year time span that lies ahead of us and figure out strategies of getting an early start in addressing these issues. The world can get it right. The simulation showed us that we really need to get ahead of the curve. Keep working on these ideas and expanding them. Talk about this exercise and the lessons you learn from it. I hope this is the beginning of a great global food security network focused on solving the most important security challenge in the years ahead. As I was watching this and as I was going through the documentation that you had sent to me, something that really jumped out was they're talking once again about these carbon taxes. We know here in Canada that our government has been going after the farmers with these carbon taxes in order to shut them down, in order to reduce their productivity. Now the carbon tax is all based upon this false climate change narrative, this very easily disprovable idea that CO2 emissions are increasing global temperatures, when in fact that's a scientific impossibility. They've got this rhetoric that they're using to say, well, we're going to have these carbon taxes to save the planet, but what they're actually doing is they're reducing food production. They are. And I think one of the things that jumped out at me, and how about you, was that it ended up with in the third and last round or the fourth round, that it ended up with global governance. And so we've just had the UN pact for the future. We have just seen the WHO pandemic treaty being advanced these past few years and the international health regulation amendments. And when we get into the documents, well, we're going to be able to show just how diabolic the plan is because the last round, and we should go and discuss the players, and I'm going to share a screen about the players because we need to do the context of that. The last round, they got rid of team agriculture. So there's Big Ag there. And there is a criticism video that we'll be able to play where Big Ag indicates that they were taken out of the last round and they could have offered a lot of solutions to address hunger. And instead, the teams were NGOs and the countries, like multilateral institutions and the game runners, and they came up with global governance. And the documents themselves say that the UN, right, this is the decade 2020 to 2030, ends up with the world's military and non-military resources. And that's how they solve for this. So if that's a frightening conclusion, the only way to really address whether that's a likely conclusion for us is to break down the individual documents themselves and see how much of the facts that they set out actually land as events that we've seen and then likely events that we should expect. So there was a play that I read in high school. It was Rosencrantz and Gilderstern are dead and they open up and Rosencrantz is tossing, you know, coins. And there's a 50-50 chance that it's going to land heads or tails. And each time it lands heads. So after a while, what are the chances that they always land heads? And so for me, when I'm looking at the fact pattern in these games and then establishing for the viewers of this documentary that these facts are occurring. So I'm going to start now with sharing a little bit about the players in the game. So participants can see my screen. So Food Chain Reaction Game was, as we indicated, held in November 2015 in Washington, DC. And the players came from what wiki spooks indicates are deep state entities such as the Albright Stone Ridge Group, corporate media. So corporate media that attended is Thomson Reuters and Bloomberg News. Now as news agencies, I am surprised that they don't find the elements of this game rather interesting because now these elements of the game keep coming true. So they have not been reporting on that. Carter Ham, the former commander of the U.S. Africa Command, think tanks such as Cato Institute, the Aspen Institute, several European think tanks. (18:33 - 24:40) And it's, you know, the World Bank was there. And it's interesting to note that one of the Gates Network was there. Bill Gates Network was represented through the Alliance for Green Revolution in Africa. And so it's a simulation game that for me, right, strikes hard on 2020 to date. So we're, you know, we're in 2024, you know, in early fall. And we're seeing quite a lot of the incidents already taking place. So we have here extreme weather. Remember hearing also it was the new normal is volatility. Well, if we look back, we'll find, yeah, it's in this game, but it becomes a buzzword that Bloomberg and Reuters starts using later on that the new normal is volatility. And extreme weather came out of nowhere. Climate change scientists didn't use extreme weather as proof of climate change. It's in the game. And now it's part of the regular mantra that we hear. It's been part of an evolution, Lisa. If you go back a few years and you watch the news when they start talking about, okay, let's call an extreme weather event. If it was cold, a cold weather event, it was weather. And if it was warm, it was climate. But now what they're trying to do is co-opt the whole vocabulary. It's not just climate, it's weather, it's everything in this just ongoing barrage of other scientific BS to convince people that we're all going to die of global warming. If we extend the horizon on how weather has been occupied soon, it will be the setting sun is proof of climate change. Can we stop the sun from setting? Yes. And let's not even get into the Brazil-sized Mylar raft that they talked about putting up in space to block sunlight. Oh, right. It gets there. It gets there. So we're going to go to this one now. Good evening. It's November 8th, 2020. And this is Dan Cronkite with your nightly news. With food prices rising around the world, tonight, a look at our increasingly vulnerable food system. Food is getting more expensive. Forecasts indicate that prices will soon exceed one and a half times long-term averages. In parts of Asia in particular, the costs of rice and soybeans are rising at a concerning rate. This trend is raising alarms among some experts about the well-being of millions of people and the stability of entire nations. Warning signs about the fragility of our global food supply have been mounting. Back in 2010, the United Nations predicted that in order to feed a population of more than 9 billion people by mid-century, agricultural production will need to increase as much as 70%. Developing nations in particular will feel pressure to double their output. There have been some successes. Since the early 1990s, the world has seen a decrease in undernourished people. Today, the world's hungry are mostly clustered in fast-growing developing countries in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. But the rising costs of food and the deepening impact of climate change and extreme weather events is creating a growing concern about worldwide availability. But this is not just a concern for the world's poor. The changing climate is also impacting food production in traditional bread baskets such as the United States, Canada, Brazil, and Australia. And monsoons that enable farm production from India to Indonesia are becoming less reliable. By 2030, 60% of the world's population is projected to live in cities, leaving fewer farmers to feed the growing population. There is a risk that population growth will outpace agricultural production in some areas. In the past decade, we've seen mounting challenges to governments, international organizations, and the private sector in providing access to affordable food, pressure from a shrinking rural labor force, limited availability of new farmland, increased urbanization, social and political unrest, and climate change-induced risks have led to global food supply disruptions. The stakes are clear. How will our leaders in government, business, and international aid react to this growing food security challenge? The world is looking to them for answers. Yeah, he might've been the same guy that did the 2001 simulation. I think so. And once again, I have to point out just how ridiculous the narrative is. Actually, I want to point out a couple of things that jumped out at me. First, they talked about 150% increase in food prices. Well, we've already exceeded that. And if you go and look at those documents that you dug up on this food chain reaction exercise, they're predicting 300% to 400%. And now when they say predicting, what they mean is planning. (24:41 - 26:07) They're planning to make groceries so unaffordable that most people can't afford it. And we know the impacts of this are already hitting us because we've got people here in Canada going to food banks and asking about medical assistance in dying because it's too expensive to live. Too expensive to live, right? And I don't think it's the growth of food that we have the problem with because as we have the greening of the Sahara, we have record corn and soy this summer because of the heat conditions and wet conditions that we had. We had a real bumper crop this summer. I think when you and I share the individual fact patterns, I think people are going to come to their own conclusions about whether it's really plausible that they keep tossing heads on each fact pattern. Yes. And another thing that jumped out at me there where they're talking about having to increase food production by 70%. Well, global hunger is another clearly false narrative, demonstrably false to anybody who wants to pay attention because let's go back to 2015 when they did this food chain reaction exercise. And anybody could look up the data from that time and discover that global obesity was a much, much bigger problem than global hunger. Clearly, we have lots of food. Now let's add to that. They're talking about a 70% increase in food production. (26:08 - 27:14) And yet, if you go and you look at the population charts, the educated ones, not the BS ones from the UN and the WHO, we are, if we're not already, we are within a few years of the population peaking and starting to go down. And by the way, that was actually predicted back in 2019 by a couple of Canadian authors who wrote an excellent book called Empty Planet, where they pointed out that these population growth curves where we had the UN and the WHO saying, well, by the end of the century, we're going to have 11 billion people. First of all, that another false narrative suggesting the planet can't support 11 billion people. Yes, it can. In fact, the educated estimates I've read say 17 billion. But the point is we'll never get there. Because what these researchers did, and it was very, very smart, what they did was instead of just graphing it forward as the UN and WHO do, they went and they looked at what were the actual birth rates in countries around the world. Experts vary on whether you need 2.1 or 2.3 babies per woman to maintain the population. It depends upon how many of them don't reproduce or die before they reach adulthood. (27:14 - 27:29) Yeah. But what they found was there were almost no places in the world that still had that 2.1, 2.3 or above. Here in Canada, it's 1.3. In the US, it's 1.6. Yeah. (27:29 - 28:58) And they looked at that and they said, no, we're not going to hit 11 billion. We're never going to hit 11 billion because around about 2050, and that was before the pandemic and all of the outfall from that, that sped things along. They said around about 2050, we're going to peak at 9 billion and this is going to start to go down. And the reason is, and this makes all kinds of sense, in order to have that kind of population growth, you have to have a technological society in order to have the infrastructure and the logistics to move around food and supplies and energy. To have that, you have to have computers. But once you have computers, now women become equals in the workforce. Braun has nothing to do with it anymore. So any woman can do any job that any man can do. It's not about going out into a field and being able to plow more hectares than a woman can. It's got nothing to do with that. So once women get education and equality, amazingly, they decide to stop being baby factories and self-correcting, it comes back down. So anytime we get that kind of population, getting up 8, 9 billion up around there, it's going to turn around and go back down all on its own. So they're telling us they need to grow 70% more food while we are on the verge of a population crash. And so it would be interesting to add some of those graphs up and then the resources for everybody to take a look at. Yeah, and I think that would be really excellent material. (28:59 - 33:56) And what I noticed was that, who were they quoting? They were quoting the UN. Who gets all the power at the end of this game? It's the UN. So it's a little self-serving, in my view, for a massive power grab to go from countries to, we're talking about global governance. We're talking complete global governance by the UN of military and non-military resources. So to use the data from the UN as the basis for the conclusions that result in, wow, the UN gets to run all of this. So for me, that's another red flag that I don't need to believe what the UN tells me if this is all about eliminating the nation state and putting the UN and so what I'd like to do is take a look at the technical report. So I think it's right here. And the technical report of the game is 47 pages and CNA runs other games. They will run war games, all kinds of games. And I think there would be interesting to look at. And I think we should start for our viewers at this narrative 2020 to 2021. And the reason is we are going to be able to establish that we keep tossing coins that land heads. So we begin the decade 2020 with a global economy and oil prices at 75 a barrel. That happened. And food stocks were tighter than average. Yes. Global food commodity prices while below the record heights of a decade ago remain nearly 1.5 times long term averages. Now, keep in mind, we're talking about 2020 to 2021. Okay, and so the food prices start climbing. And scientists believe there's a strong link to El Nino and La Nina events. And we did see those scientists say so. And then we have in 2020, El Nino causes warm and dry conditions in South and Southeast Asia and Australia. And in fact, that not only did that occur, but we had the Australian wildfires as a result of those droughts that were plotted in 2015. So Australian wildfires occurred and then Australia did lose almost half its wheat harvest, which, you know, that is a kind of odd thing to have happened. And then Asian soybean rust, that is plotted. And again, during that time period, we can show articles that that also happened. So what are the chances that we would have that? Then they indicate that they had the largest stressor on global food because of the North American drought of 2021. Do you remember much about that time period? You remember seeing those cows in Texas, right, that all had died? Well, that was manufactured, but yes. Right. They very intentionally put them out into the slaughtering lots in extreme heat without enough water. And of course they died, but they don't usually do that. Well, right. But isn't it interesting too that when that happened, and we can show photos of that now, that indeed it was plotted to have happened in the game. So what are the chances that we have the Australian wildfire, a drought in Southeast Asia, this weird pathogen on soybean rust, and then all of a sudden we have the drought with these horrific images that were circulating on social media with respect to this North American drought. And so indeed the USDA is plotted to have declared a disaster. And the USDA does declare a disaster. (33:57 - 37:44) And during that time period, it was Kansas and Texas. And there may have been a couple other that had the most suffering with respect to corn and corn yields were down by 10 to 15 percent. So another coincidence, I suppose, with the game that we have all of these layers, we have USDA declaring emergency, we have these pictures of the cows, and we have corn and soybean yields going down. Actually soybean didn't go down as much, but U.S. did suffer in corn. And if you treated this game like investment advice, you might actually do well in the commodities market. They are so precise with what 1 percent short of expectations and stocks decreased from 25, 20.5 percent to 19 percent. And then food goes up 262 percent of long-term averages. And I think we have some data from Larry Webber to show right now to contrast how that happened. And this one, I'm hoping you remember this. Remember there was this social unrest in poorest food-importing countries. Either there was the president, he was chased right out of his country because he decided to go net zero green, and they were starving. Do you remember that one? Yes, I do. I can't remember which country it was, but yes, I do remember that. Yeah, that would be interesting to play there. And then here's the narrative that we start for migration. So Africans migrate seeking refuge for better conditions. Now we're having mass migration in Europe and elsewhere, and this game is full of this mass migration, and the reasons they get is climate change. But irrespective of whether it's climate change or mass migration, because that's the desire, that's what we're experiencing in real time in 2020 to 2030 so far. Yes, and it's Wednesday and we should point out that these mass migrations have absolutely nothing to do with climate change. What they have everything to do with is the European Union, North American countries like Canada, basically adopting an open-door policy. There's always been millions and millions of people in poor countries who want to move to countries. They just couldn't because we had a cap on our immigration. That cap has basically been removed. Well, and we don't seem to have immigration policies anymore. There's nothing wrong with an immigration policy, but if you have an open border like they have in the US, that's no policy whatsoever. And the other thing that maybe if it was a climate migration, you'd see moms and dads, their kids, aunties and uncles, it would be the family moving. And we're largely seeing men, fighting-age men coming to countries. And so that doesn't strike like a climate emergency. You wouldn't leave your loved ones behind, I don't think, in a climate emergency. Now, this is another, what are the chances of it happening? So on top of migration, what are the chances? They have here Bangladesh experiencing flooding, which they did. (37:45 - 38:55) But the bigger one here was flooding in Pakistan. So this lands, and we should put up an image there now how horrific it is, because Pakistan was, one-third of its country was underwater. So is this game happening? And if it is, is it happening by coincidence? Or is someone, some group deliberately flooding Pakistan? And then how would Pakistan and its farmers react to the idea that globalist elite flood their country for a game? I'm not saying, right now I'm just suspending my disbelief that the year that Australian had the droughts had those wildfires. And I'd like to have your opinion, because you have a lot of opinion and research on the Canadian wildfire. Well, that's, yeah, and that gets into, we're still at 2021. So the stuff I have is from 2023. (38:55 - 39:30) Did you want to bring that in yet? Well, we don't have, I think, forest fires plotted here in Canada. So it might be nice to talk about what are the chances that fires could possibly have been lit in Australia to play out the game scenario. Yeah, I'd have to go back to the EFFIS and see if they've got the Australian data. So I think maybe what we should do is just leave that for the documentary, because I don't know. I haven't looked at the Australian data. When you look at the Canadian data, it's blindingly obvious. (39:31 - 39:51) Right, that forest fires can be sent. So if this is just beyond coincidence and people are taking what looks like it might be a plot and flooding countries, some people might consider that an act of war against their country and their people. At the very least, treason. (39:54 - 41:09) Yeah, if it's against your own country. So price increases lead to several agencies and international agencies to examine the way to address short-term and long-term food security challenges. And one such study sponsored by the EFFIS, the Food and Agriculture Association, comes from the International Institute of Applied Analysis. And the study authors reiterate that barely trapped potential needs in the sub-Saharan Africa, echoing other organizations that emphasize the need for infrastructure development to strengthen Africa's connectivity to global input and output markets. Now this was plotted in 2015. Let's put up that article now that ended up getting written. Because again, what are the chances that they plot an authorship that also happens? Yes. And once again, you have to be extremely dubious of this. While yes, it is true that Africa is a net exporter of some specialty types of foods, overall, they're a net import and always have been. (41:10 - 43:15) I think that the actual issue with Africa is they haven't been given the technology infrastructure with respect to having diesel tractors, right? They don't have the infrastructure that we have here. And that's why it really can feed a lot more people than it can if it was given oil and gas, right? Instead, they're trying to put a green economy on Africa. And you can make Africa quite wealthy. They have a lot of minerals. And if they were given fertilizers and diesel and the same kind of infrastructure, they can more than feed their people and be an exporter. But that's not happening because we're pushing the green narrative and making Africa poor. So it's a double-edged sword to talk about whether or not Africa can increase based on what it's done to date. Because the globalists haven't enabled oil and gas infrastructure to go through Africa to make them wealthy. And you make a very good point about the technology is without machinery, without tractors and combines and harvesters and all of that, and modern irrigation techniques, it doesn't matter if they've got the land and land is fertile. They're going to be extremely limited in the amount of food they can grow on it. And it's not just a matter of giving them those things and giving them the oil to run it. You also have to have people who can maintain that machinery. You've got to have the parts and the knowledge to repair it when it breaks down. And they don't have any of that infrastructure in most African countries. Right. Here's one that I also find interesting, and we will have to get our environmental specialist to comment on this. And this is that the sixth Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC, this is supposed to be the gold standard of climate change. Apparently the report, they're plotting what the report is going to say in 2021. (43:15 - 44:49) They're plotting what the report is going to say in 2015. That's easy to do when the entire narrative is false anyway. Well, okay. Well, let's suspend our disbelief and let our audience come to that conclusion. Maybe they'll, despite everything that they're showing them, believe the narrative. But what are the chances, Will, that in 2015, they say what the IPCC says and the IPCC says it? Kind of interesting, isn't it? What, you know. So what did we end up with then in the game? US and EU biofuel mandates phase out. India investment to reduce food spoilage. Africa regional trade agreements increase. So a bunch of things happen. But what I was more interested in was not the scorecard in terms of what they did with it, but what were the stressors? Because those stressors are things we saw during that time period. So here we have some new stressors. Significant droughts scattered across major production areas. Oil prices rise dramatically. And this is 2022 to 2024. This is where we're at. Unrest and migration intensify. Have we seen any of that, Will? I actually want to back up to the oil prices rising because I can connect a dot here. (44:50 - 45:02) I'm sure you are aware of the BRICS nations. Most of the viewers would be aware of the BRICS nations. Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa. They've recently been joined by four more. So there's now nine of them. There's about a dozen more that are applying. (45:03 - 45:10) Yes. Saudi Arabia joins BRICS. The BRICS nations will control more oil than OPEC. (45:12 - 45:56) That's interesting. And it's quite likely Saudi Arabia will join. The precise amount that ... The BRICS thinks that we did see oil hit $100 a barrel right when they said it was. And so that's why I'm saying, all right, do insiders know what's going to happen? Not only in terms of climate disasters, do insiders know what's going to happen with prices and can short the market or buy early? And so maybe, Will- Let's answer that question from something you showed the viewers earlier of the players that were involved. And who were three of the major players? Brazil, China, India. Three of the major BRICS nations. (45:58 - 46:09) Yeah. And from a globalist perspective too, right? Yes. So in 2020- But we also know that those countries, especially China, are cooperating with the globalist agenda. (46:11 - 46:16) Yeah, we do. So I don't want to take so much of a stretch to say, yes, they do know because they're planning it. They're making it happen. (46:17 - 46:56) What an interesting thing to do also would be is to compare the player names with the names on the IPCC reports. And one of the biggest player that jumps out to me is John Podesta is playing this game. He was part of Clinton's administration. He was part of Bill Clinton's administration. So he's been a long player and now he's the new replacement for John Kerry. And so it doesn't strike him as kind of odd that the game he played in 2015 keeps having scenarios that are actually coming true. Come on. Come on, John. That doesn't strike you as a little odd. (46:58 - 47:11) So 2022 starts without crop problems, but food is still expensive. Yeah, that's true. Food, we've been complaining about the continuing rising of food prices, that public dissent continues. (47:13 - 47:44) When they say public dissent, this is the time period we're seeing BLM. This is the time period that we're seeing farmer protests. We're seeing trucker protests. We're seeing a bunch of protests right when they're saying public, we're expected to see protests. So we're even seeing protests over the war in the EU. So that's an interesting thing to note that when they're saying we get food prices going up, we get food prices going up. (47:44 - 48:20) When they say public dissent is happening, we get that. And then migration from food importing Africa persists. Again, this is why we're having elections in the EU that are almost based on immigration these days because the influx has been so great. So that also occurred. And they're saying that, you know, it has to do with free trade, that immigration or climate. No, it's just happening the way they plot it, but not the reasons for it. (48:21 - 48:35) And then there's an increased focus on social protection by multilateral organizations. And we're talking about the WHO pandemic treaty. We're talking about the UN pact for the future. (48:35 - 48:52) We're talking about, you know, the world program for animals and what have you. We're having that and we're experiencing that. This is, you know, these sentences all seem to link to our experiences. (48:54 - 52:00) Oh, and then I don't know if you've seen this, and we should put this up too. Fundraising means that relief agencies are running low on cash and are challenging to address rising hunger stress. Every day you hear something in the news about food banks, about food banks, about food banks. Food banks being overwhelmed, yes. Right. That's what you see it in the news. So I think just as an aside, it can be cut out. Each spot here, we can jump to a two-minute segment or 30-second segment on, you know, these events because, you know, you can show the EU elections on immigration, or you can show, you know, Africans coming through Europe or whatever else that you feel, you know, or stresses at the open border in the US because, you know, all of that is happening. We can be really rich in this area with the footage that shows what is happening. Like on the public dissent, we can show a whole bunch of, you know, farmer protests, our protests, BLM, right, or we'll have to do it when the year is. But now this is interesting. Well, um, things turn worse in 2023 and heavy rains flood the Mississippi, disrupting the orderly export flow. And later that year, contract disputes between labor unions and their members results in a strike and shipping in the Pacific Northwest. Now, what is incredibly interesting to me is that it was either floods or drought on the Mississippi did disrupt orderly export flow in 2023. So we had the result of disrupting orderly export flow. And then in another crazy coincidence, another just, I just tossed heads again, labor union members and their employees did go on strike in the shipping ports of the Pacific Northwest. And so, you know, again, let's take a look at that now. What are the chances that that happens? And then the, you know, world, world prices rise awaiting for supply relief, but more problems loom. China and India experienced drought. And Chinese scientists report that declines in underground water are disrupting irrigation and exasperated by policies focusing on achieving self-sufficiency in rice and wheat. So we can now show and go and show our viewers that yes, China did experience drought, exactly discussing this underground water issue. (52:01 - 53:28) So again, what are the chances that that drought would occur? Um, and now- Well, not so much that the drought would occur, but it would occur right on schedule. Bingo. Bingo. It's on, it's on schedule. From 2015 predicted years, eight years before. Eight years before. And the reason for the drought, the underground issue, everything, you know, that, that Mississippi thing for me, right? Well, the Australia wildfires, and Pakistan flood, prices on oil, you know, this weird parasite. But now dryness, hmm, that, you know, this happened. I want to stop here and look at this Russia and Ukraine experience heat stress that reduced grain supplies. By the end of 2023, tight global stocks push food prices upward even further beyond the 2007, 2012, 2012 peaks of 280%. And we can show, you know, footage exactly that this is occurring. And relief agencies issue pleas for contribution. And I don't know if we have any evidence of that. Boom, boom, boom. Oh, yes, we do. (53:28 - 54:14) And the org? We have just recently, and this was this year, the Mormon church in the US donated, I'm sorry, I can't remember if it was 1 million or $10 million to Toronto food shelters. Right, right. Because the news of Canadians going hungry is going global. And so we have this church in another country that is donating to feeding our poor. To feeding our poor. Yeah, I am seeing a lot of pleas for food banks and drives. (54:15 - 54:42) Here it says the organization of petroleum exporting countries OPEC members prompted by food import budget stress organized strict production controls driving petroleum above $100 a barrel. Now, when in 2023, we had OPEC going above $100 a barrel, you know, was that around the fist bump time with Biden? Could have been. I can't recall. (54:43 - 55:03) Yeah, so we should put some evidence up there. And despite the US and European Union's actions to reduce biofuels mandates, the production remains steady and that aggravates the food balance. So maybe that's the narrative of, oh, no, cars are bad for food. (55:05 - 55:23) And high prices accelerate land clearing in South America outside of Brazil. And so we'll have to look to see if that occurred and whether climate experts warn that CO2 will contribute to long term warming. I think we've seen a little bit of CO2 stuff going on. (55:25 - 55:45) Now, in 2024, this is what's going on now. Crop yields approach normal across the globe, except in the European Union and Russia and Ukraine, where heat and drought negatively impact production. Now, that's exactly what's happening. (55:46 - 56:01) That is exactly what is happening right now. And I think I've even sent to you, you know, some evidence of that and that they are praying for rain in Russia. So, again, here's another place that's, you know, maybe another coincidence. (56:01 - 56:19) What do you think, Will? Oh, it's not a coincidence, not at all. This, and I think I have to throw in a couple of comments about the whole Russia-Ukraine situation. I'm not sure that back in 2015, they were exactly predicting the Russia-Ukraine war. (56:19 - 56:36) They're certainly predicting that there's going to be conflict in several areas. But there's a lot of things going on here that, where we can see that they're pushing very hard to explode this conflict globally. I reported very recently on what they call the Ice Pact. (56:36 - 57:15) And that's Iceland, Canada, and I can't remember the third country. But they're now working together to patrol the Northwest Passage because China and Russia are now working together to have their icebreakers clear paths so that they can be shipping across there rather than going through the oceans that are next to them in order to have this greater control over goods that they can move around. So what you're seeing here already is a conflict coming between the BRICS nations and the NATO nations over a hotly contested area. (57:16 - 57:42) That's not just important for commerce, it's strategically very important. And the US is now even doing Arctic exercises with their soldiers and their aircraft to be prepared for war in the Arctic. Yeah, well, you know, what are the chances if this isn't a coincidence that all these teams who are at the play, at the game, are not, you know, China was in on it. (57:43 - 58:22) What are the, what are, you know, so, you know, looking at this next one, it says we're about to go into panic buying and stockpiling by some importers and it prevents the relief in stock levels and prices. So now we also had for, you know, briefly, we had the issue of the strike, the Longshoremen strike, and that had the possibility to drive up, you know, prices and deplete stock levels. But this is what the game is suggesting we're going to go into, and then concerned about its future supply. (58:23 - 58:43) This is the hint of how the Ukraine war ends. So concerned about his future food supply, South Korea quietly negotiates a long-term food access agreement with Ukraine. So are we going to see that? And Russia is asked by others to consider similar arrangements. (58:45 - 59:02) And Russia's people are agitated by higher prices, spreading the rumor of possible export embargoes. This is all what we're about to go into. And so far we have landed everything. (59:03 - 59:15) Yes. And I think the South Korea scenario there is extremely likely when we take into account the fact that North Korea already has agreements with Russia to supply them with ammunitions. Yeah. (59:15 - 59:43) So that we could, you know, it's interesting that it's plotted, though, in 2015. So is it a coincidence or is this going to be the reason Zelensky loses, you know, his government is toppled? So then it says the only relief comes from livestock systems, which plateau in most places in contracting a few. And I'm going to say here is Bill C-293. (59:44 - 1:00:04) Bill C-293, they're expecting to pass and it has the ability to restrict livestock systems. And, you know, if it wasn't for people pushing back on Bill C-293, we would have that livestock contraction. So here we are. (1:00:05 - 1:00:30) Once again, they're predicting livestock systems to plateau and contract at the same time, we're seeing our globalist Canadian government where we can have a picture of Justin Trudeau going to the UN and promising $4 or $5 billion, you know, last weekend at the UN, you know, when they pass a UN summit for the future on a Sunday. Yes. So, right? I actually have the video from that already. (1:00:31 - 1:00:43) But once again, I want to throw in something. Let's talk about these livestock systems contracting in certain areas. Well, first of all, many people already know about the culling, especially of chicken flocks. (1:00:43 - 1:01:07) There was a case that happens, and I think we talked about this in our last interview on C-293 in BC, a farmer there, one of the larger farmers in the area, a million birds. They were all destroyed when an FDA worker says they found a kilometre away from the farm in a ditch, a bird that had died from bird flu. Now, this part sounds like science fiction. (1:01:07 - 1:01:24) As far as I know, it still is, but we know the Canadian government is working on it because we've actually seen the contracts that they are looking for ways where they could actually kill an entire herd or flock by pressing a button. That's incredible. That's incredible. (1:01:24 - 1:01:34) I don't believe they actually have that technology yet, but they have contracted it. And like I said, I have seen the government contracts. They have contracted companies to find a way to do this. (1:01:37 - 1:01:59) So, we're seeing Bill C-293, and we're seeing the culling of herds in livestock systems. And livestock systems, would that include something like birds as well? I guess it would. Yes, and in fact, in Canada, that's majorly what it is, is they are killing tens of millions of chickens. (1:02:00 - 1:02:21) So, this sentence essentially predicts bird flu, right when bird flu comes. Yes, yes. And while it doesn't sound like much, I talked to an expert on this who actually crunched the numbers, and he told me that in BC last year, they culled 4% of the entire flock in BC. (1:02:22 - 1:02:49) Now, 4% might not sound like much, but what they're doing is they're setting up the farmers to believe that this is normal. Right. And one of the things that makes no sense about it is when you map out the farms that are being culled, there'll be one here, and then there'll be one, two they didn't touch, and then there's one here, and then there'll be three, four, five they didn't touch, and another one over here. (1:02:50 - 1:02:57) It makes no sense. If there's a disease spreading, you would think we'd all be in one area. Mm-hmm. (1:02:57 - 1:03:16) No, that's not the way it's happening. Mm-hmm. Here is, again, I keep thinking there must be a way to invest according to this game, because they say that anxiety about food security increases prices by another 51%. (1:03:16 - 1:03:39) That's pretty precise, right? From the beginning of 2022, rising to new records, reaching 395% of long-term averages. So we're about to get 400% of long-term averages, some prices, and go into some stockpiling and food insecurity for this winter. And there's two famines in this. (1:03:40 - 1:03:45) This is Hunger Games, right? They're plotting people's hunger. Yes. They're plotting people's hunger. (1:03:45 - 1:04:07) And this is the first famine. And while I don't have the numbers in front of me, Lisa, just based on my own grocery bill, and I think a lot of Canadians would resonate with this, since 2015, I'd say we're already getting pretty damn close to 200%, paying twice as much for groceries. Well, yeah, and it depends what long-term average numbers they pick, right? Right. (1:04:07 - 1:04:29) So we could have Larry Weber break that down and show how the models here are actually percent by percent happening. This, with stress felt across the world, the global economy slows, signaling the possibility of recession. Yeah. (1:04:30 - 1:04:42) Well, everybody's talking about it's a recession. So, you know, again- While the private central banks and governments around the world are buying up record amounts of gold and silver. And right on track, right? Right. (1:04:42 - 1:05:14) You know, right, again, you know, right on time, you know, they've got it plotted and it's happening. Is that something that, you know, the audience finds odd at all? And so I'm not going to go too much into the scorecard, but now we have 25 to 27. And this is easing of global market pressures. (1:05:15 - 1:06:07) OK, but we have isolated drought causing unrest in the Sahel region of Africa. Now, I say to, you know, the audience, if everything we saw, like the Australian wildfires, the Texas dead cow, the Mississippi followed by the, you know, the strike of union workers, you know, flooding of Pakistan, are they now planning a famine in Africa? Like, at what point does this get evil in order to establish, you know, extreme weather causes climate? And it's no mystery how they would do it. First of all, there's always been famines in Africa, happens every few years. (1:06:09 - 1:06:31) But, and this is where we have to get a little bit into what some people would see as being conspiracy theories. I'm going to qualify what I'm about to say. There's a lot of contested opinions on chemtrails, but one thing that we can prove, and there's public documentation for this, anybody can go look it up, is that for years, they've been spraying aluminum oxide into the atmosphere to make it rain. (1:06:32 - 1:07:02) Now that aluminum oxide is an aside, is extremely toxic to the soil, it's toxic to the plants, it gets into the plants, it gets into people, it crosses the blood brain barrier, it causes problems like Alzheimer's. But we know this, okay? So whether or not there might be other things in those chemical trails, I myself don't know, and I'm not going to render an opinion on it, but we know and can prove they're spraying aluminum oxide. And we also know that this is something they've been discussing, at least the US has, since the 1950s, where weather control was the ultimate weapon. (1:07:02 - 1:07:23) Because if you can make it rain in one area, you can prevent it from raining in another area, and you can starve out your enemy. Yes. So to that end, let's put up now some of the patents on, and we can just scroll through a few of the patents on weather modification. (1:07:23 - 1:08:14) So including the last one that's coming up now is a patent on hurricane directionality and increasing the hurricane. Yes, and that's something to question to both of us, whether or not they can do this, but it seems possible. Could they, by making it rain in certain areas, increase the severity of that hurricane by putting more water into the atmosphere, more rainfall from it? Yeah, and I think people are starting to think, hey, what are the chances of these FEMA not acting appropriately for the Helen, they're not on site, they're not taking care of the people in North Carolina, they're stopping, and that being another climate change thing. (1:08:14 - 1:08:43) People are starting to wonder whether climate is being, and now they're going after another red state with the new hurricane. I think we're fitting in at a great nexus in terms of the possibility that people see this. And this is something they have to do, this very poor response, this very poor emergency response, because part of their narrative, the climate change narrative, is that these natural disasters are getting worse all the time. (1:08:44 - 1:09:30) When in actual fact, if you look at the real data, they're not, the number of disasters and the severity of them are exactly the same as they've always been. Deaths are way down because we have way better warning systems now, but they have to keep up this narrative, and so one way to do that is to have an extremely poor emergency response, so we do see people in distress. It's not only that, the bodies are going to be degrading in the water, and they'll cause secondary cholera epidemics, which is what Tedros did to his own country, because then when cholera, people don't have access to clean water and they're getting cholera from the dead bodies in the water, then you just hold back antibiotics and you have mass death. (1:09:30 - 1:10:04) Right, and we know that they're working on holding back antibiotics, especially here in Canada. Yeah. Okay, so going back on, so in the third narrative here in 2025 to 2027, of course, we don't know what's going to happen if the world isn't plotted, but if it is plotted, we might be warning people in the Sahel region of Africa that they're going to go through drought and famine, and so that's difficult. (1:10:04 - 1:10:51) You know, what are the chances this is another coincidence? Should we think of this all as coincidence to date, or is this a plot, Will? Well, I think we know the answer. Will thinks it's a plot. What do you think, viewers? Are we going to see Pakistan political leadership struggling to maintain food security? We're going to see exactly that, and then are we going to see China's water infrastructure program leading to statements of concern from Vietnam and other Southeast Asian nations, so water wars? So we're going from Hunger Games to water wars in the same documentary. (1:10:52 - 1:11:16) I think the more interesting question is why Pakistan? Now, let's draw an allegory here to, say, Taiwan, which China has always said actually belongs to them, despite the fact that they've been recognized around the world as an independent state. Well, Pakistan is another one. India has often claimed, well, no, Pakistan actually belongs to them, and it's just this state that's split off from them, and they want it back. (1:11:17 - 1:11:26) Now, who's one of the major players of BRICS? India. Who's one of the major players in this food exercise? India. And Pakistan, yeah. (1:11:26 - 1:11:53) There's your answer to why Pakistan, because if they can destabilize Pakistan, now they've got political leverage to try to get Pakistan back as part of India. Okay. So we also will be able to show that Imran Khan of Pakistan, he was a leader that was deposed by the globalists. (1:11:53 - 1:13:04) He was taken out. So if he was a nationalist leader and he was ousted by the globalists, would he have allowed his country to flood, or would he allow his countrymen to have difficulty like this, struggling to maintain food security? Or would he not have been compliant? Was it necessary to remove Imran Khan in order to facilitate this part of the game and the previous parts of the game? And then it might be interesting to show too that Brazil plays an important narrative in this game, and the elections in Brazil, they're suspected to have been tampered with. And so to the extent that Brazil needs to have a food scenario in this game, is that important to have placed a pro-game globalist in their country? That's a question I have. (1:13:04 - 1:13:10) I think it's highly likely when you look at the fact that for years now, they've been placing their own operatives in governments. Trudeau. Right. (1:13:10 - 1:13:14) Zelensky. Right, right. What's the third? Netanyahu. (1:13:15 - 1:13:24) Yes. They're putting these people in positions of power because they are part of the globalist power structure, and they're going to go along with what we're told to do. So I think your theory on Pakistan makes a great deal of sense. (1:13:25 - 1:13:52) Well, it's just something that strikes me as a coincidence or odd to have Imran Khan ousted, and then we have these floods and food issues in Pakistan. So what does that mean? And then apparently generous donations are going to the World Food Program in 2024-25. We'll have to look that up. (1:13:52 - 1:14:16) I don't know. And then this is where it gets interesting specifically for Canada. Here we have a game that plots extreme weather, and we can just now show a whole bunch of clips of Trudeau and the Ministry of Environment and everybody else, all those wackos, talking about climate. (1:14:17 - 1:14:54) And we can talk about carbon, and we can play a lot of videos here about the carbon tax in Canada because this game plots out U.S. carbon tax, India's coal tax, and it ends with a global carbon tax. So the fact that we're suffering, the inflation we're seeing is causing those food price increases right on schedule, but it's caused by our carbon tax, right? Yes. So it's all so circular in here. (1:14:55 - 1:15:48) What else can we expect? It's going to be very interesting to see if there is an early election, which is possible, and Paul Yeo gets elected, will he stick to his promise to ax the carbon tax? And what effect will that have if it does? Well, and what effect will this movie have if we get it seen to a big enough audience to show that the 2020 to 2030 climate emergency, the extreme weather, volatility is the new normal, and all of the events were all in a game played in 2015 by people we can show are in power now. So now we have decreasing food prices, are decreasing the pressure on land clearing in 2025 and beyond. Apparently, poultry and livestock production increased. (1:15:49 - 1:16:00) I don't know about that. What I see with Bill C-293 and C-40 is that they don't want us eating livestock by 2030. No. (1:16:00 - 1:16:35) So I don't know if that's going to be later on in the game. I'd love to have somebody look at this IPCC issue, because if things that they're putting in the report in 2015 show up in our IPCC's verbatim, well, then it kind of taints IPCC too. So apparently here, IPCC, again, highlights the risk of deforestation, particularly in areas of Bolivia and Paraguay in its report. (1:16:36 - 1:16:48) And then the report apparently emphasizes the critical nexus between climate, energy, water, and food production. Okay. And then commends Brazil for its efforts against deforestation. (1:16:48 - 1:17:11) What is interesting is Bill C-239 has a bunch of information about reducing global deforestation and Canadians going around and increasing global reforestation, which is taking people out of rural areas and putting them in cities. Yes. Which is, you know, we can just play that clip. (1:17:11 - 1:17:28) I mean, that's what they're doing. And then here we have deforestation as part of the IPCC, and we can put up the provisions of Bill C-293 and its attack on agriculture through deforestation. Right. (1:17:29 - 1:17:42) And it's important for people to understand why there's this campaign against deforestation. It's got nothing to do with the climate. Why do people, especially in poor countries, cut down forests or farmland so they can grow food? Right. (1:17:43 - 1:17:51) So if they stop them from cutting down the farmland, they stop them from growing food. Yeah. The other thing is, yeah, they need it for fuel. (1:17:51 - 1:18:20) But we're also seeing, you know, the climate, the big green, cut down huge forests in Germany and elsewhere to put up solar panels and to put up windmills. So, you know, the credibility on this movement now that we're exposing it to this extent, just, it just doesn't seem right to me. Like, you tell me, you know, hey, climate's going to cause food shortages. (1:18:20 - 1:18:27) So you know what we're going to do? We're going to help with that. We're going to cause food shortages. I mean, it doesn't even make sense. (1:18:28 - 1:18:42) And they're self-contradictory in places. There was that ridiculous plan in the US last year to bury huge numbers of trees to prevent them from creating CO2. While at the same time, they're telling us that deforestation is bad. (1:18:42 - 1:18:54) Oh, yeah. And we can't log those trees, right? You can't log those trees because that's not environmentally friendly. I mean, I think these people think that humans are the problem. (1:18:54 - 1:19:02) And we should probably put something about the Malthusians up. But that's exactly the globalist message. Humans are the problem. (1:19:02 - 1:19:05) We're a disease. Humans are the problem. And we should be wiped out. (1:19:05 - 1:19:17) Well, I know which humans are the problem. They drafted this game. So then Ukraine, which saw its government toppled after its agreement with South Korea. (1:19:17 - 1:19:33) Boom. This is either a very valuable document to the who's who. The best kept secret of coincidences ever made, right? Ever. (1:19:34 - 1:19:55) Like, you know, well, this is incredible. And how many people in these countries would think of all of these things, you know, never mind the Ukraine war, as acts of climate, as acts of wars against their country. And then there's our record. (1:19:55 - 1:20:03) This is the last narrative. And it's the big famine. The huge famine. (1:20:03 - 1:20:30) If you're a prepper, this is the famine that enables the UN to get control over military and non-military resources. What's important to remember about this part of the game is Big Ag is out. And I really want to find the part in the video, the exact part where they complain about being pushed out and saying that they had a lot of solutions to offer. (1:20:30 - 1:20:45) Of course they do. They move food every day. You know, maybe a lot of people don't like Big Ag or they, you know, they want their food organic or what have you, but they still have the ability to move food, put it reliably, you know, in grocery stores. (1:20:45 - 1:21:03) And they've been doing it for a long time. And so why would the multilateral institutions kick them out, right? Because they wanted to come up with a result. And so that for me also stinks to high heaven. (1:21:04 - 1:21:32) Again, we're coming up heads. Why do you remove the most valuable players from the game? And it creates— It's important for people to remember, and especially the people who are aware of what's going on, that just because say Brazil, China are part of the BRICS nations, it doesn't mean they don't want to reduce their own populations. What you've got is governments working against their own people, not just on the global scale, but nationally. (1:21:35 - 1:22:02) Yeah. To the extent that the globalists end up in power and able to direct the policies, the laws, and here we're talking about directing the weather in order for people to get scared and want to get into their 15-minute cities, and want to get into their smart cities, and give up their vehicles, and stop eating meat, and stop having babies, and get vaccinated. Right. (1:22:02 - 1:22:06) The end. Yes. It's probably a lot worse than that. (1:22:06 - 1:22:23) And it's all part of a global depopulation destabilization agenda that ultimately, as you said right at the beginning of this interview, gives the UN control. Gives the UN control. And maybe this is a good spot to put the Malthusian video. (1:22:24 - 1:22:47) So here we're getting a drought in Brazil, and that's going to hurt everything. It's going to fall 15%. We're going to be short 39 million tons of normal, okay? And domestic is somewhat reduced, but I guess as an export, because Brazil's a big exporter, I guess they can export. (1:22:48 - 1:23:15) And then we get a weak monsoon in India, and we have insufficient moisture there. And that's another, coincidentally, another 10% drop loss, and that's 32 million tons. And this is where someone like Larry can say, that's a big loss that would really cause the food industry to suffer. (1:23:16 - 1:23:53) Desperate Indian farmers are blocking highways and demanding relief. So I think that's really interesting, because how much of the global disruptions and the political disruptions, everything from what we're seeing in Western countries, regarding the war in Israel, is also funded by the globalists. Like, are we meant to have these disruptions? Are they to a purpose? It's very polarizing. (1:23:53 - 1:24:02) China suffers a moisture deficit. And then they also, so we have one country after another. With the Chinese, they're out 46 million tons. (1:24:03 - 1:24:30) And they're having, again, falling water tables and groundwater pollution. So we can't use that. So if we see that, I'm hoping, Will, that you and I do our level best to get this documentary created and out to the world as quickly as possible. (1:24:31 - 1:24:40) Because we need to warn people of a really evil intent that is in here. This is Hunger Games. Yes. (1:24:40 - 1:24:52) This is famine. And it is extremely important, because while we might be able to ameliorate this somewhat, people around the world are waking up to the agenda. They're starting to elect conservative governments that aren't playing along. (1:24:52 - 1:25:11) But that is not going to take away all of their power. And so one of the things we're going to be able to achieve with this interview and this documentary that you and I are working on is to provide people with the timeline. The timeline that's provided to them by the very globalists who are making this happen so that people can be prepared, so they'll know what's coming and when it's going to happen. (1:25:12 - 1:25:17) Yes. And you know, I know who's going to help us is Jay. Look at this. (1:25:18 - 1:25:35) So Philippines, Indonesia, Australia, Northeastern Brazil, parts of Africa, causing a negative impact. That's damage for crops. So they fall 3% or 110 million tons over that. (1:25:36 - 1:25:43) So we can add up all that tonnage. That's a lot, short of normal. And then- And even if it's only 3%, it doesn't matter. (1:25:43 - 1:25:52) Because what matters is their narrative. They can control the flow of the food. So even if it's only a 3% drop, they can greatly magnify that. (1:25:52 - 1:26:05) Take a look at the narrative came in coming out of Asia with grain supplies as a result of the Ukraine war. Well, it really didn't affect their product. They still have full silos, but it doesn't matter. (1:26:06 - 1:26:21) They're using it to manufacture a grain shortage. And we're adding like 3% over all of these countries that are exporters of food. That 3%, that's a big, that's 110 million tons. (1:26:22 - 1:26:48) And so then they're saying, okay, so you know what? Rice in the Philippines is going to go up, right? This is a big famine in African and Asia. So I think, and then we have stuff about energy demand and petroleum prices going high. And the Gulf Cooperation Council is going to a buying spree across food commodities. (1:26:49 - 1:27:01) So, you know, we're talking about a massive spike in commodities for foods. And I'm now kind of wondering whether this is the plot. This is the plot. (1:27:02 - 1:27:17) And then we're talking about degraded lands in Brazil and Africa. Well, if we want to talk about why controlling the food is so important, let's remember that quote, and I can't remember who said it. Yeah. (1:27:17 - 1:27:24) Possibly some of the viewers can, maybe you can. Yeah. And it's society is only three meals away from revolution. (1:27:25 - 1:27:31) Oh, jeez. Well, there's only three days of food in a city. Is they want destabilization. (1:27:31 - 1:27:41) And what better way to do it than to make people hungry? You'll have riots. Yep, yep. You'll have riots, you'll have violence, you'll have destabilization. (1:27:41 - 1:27:57) You'll have every excuse they need to call in the military and to establish military control. Yeah. I'm not trying to rewrite history or change things, but look at how they conquered our natives. (1:27:59 - 1:28:12) Yes, there was disease that affected them with the Europeans. There was skirmishes over land and there was war. But the biggest thing was whether or not they had access to their buffalo. (1:28:12 - 1:28:35) And so if you eliminate the food and their ability to sustain their way of life, then you eliminate their ability to actually fight. So this hunger games is big. And then we can just, you know, put up the statistics here of the Holomador in where Russia starved Ukraine. (1:28:36 - 1:28:44) Right. So Russia starved Ukraine and, you know, millions and millions died. So it's, you're right. (1:28:44 - 1:29:07) It's well oiled way to control populations. And if you're weak, you know, you can't think, you can't do things to protect your family, you can't even make decisions. And that's really where it comes down to is a parent can go without food for days. (1:29:08 - 1:29:12) Yeah. But if their child is hungry. Yeah. (1:29:12 - 1:29:19) Oh, you watch people hit the streets. They'll be riding the streets once their children are starving. Yeah. (1:29:20 - 1:29:33) 18%, you know, we've got another drought in the US and they have an 18% loss in major grain. So, and oil seeds equating to 108 million tons. Like they're saying specifically what you can expect. (1:29:34 - 1:29:47) And if you're an investor in the commodity sector, I guess you know what to do. Well, and I think this is where I want to throw in another important point that connects some dots because you brought up Bill Gates earlier. Yeah. (1:29:47 - 1:30:02) And let's throw a few facts out there about Bill Gates. Yeah, let's. He now owns, I believe I have the figure correct, 297,000 hectares of farmland in the US, making him the single largest owner of farmland in the US. (1:30:03 - 1:30:12) And he's a huge investor in genetically modified seeds. Right, right. He's a huge investor in the vaccines. (1:30:13 - 1:30:20) Yeah, yeah. So, if you want to see a model of how they're tying all this together, you just look at what Bill Gates is doing. Yeah. (1:30:20 - 1:30:49) And I'm going to throw in one more fact about Bill Gates that most people don't know. His mother was a huge eugenicist, right down to the point where it wasn't her that said this, but a member of her organization said, and this is a direct quote, above all, we must kill the stupid people. Now, who do they mean by the stupid people? The useless eaters. (1:30:49 - 1:30:57) The useless eaters. You and me, that's right. Let's put in a Harari useless eaters point someplace in this. (1:30:57 - 1:31:19) Yes, yes, yeah. Because they're gaming it like humanity doesn't matter. They're gaming it like it's a doable thing to kill many people or displace people through events that they engineer and that it's okay to do that. (1:31:19 - 1:31:25) They have to think of us like cattle. They think of us all better than cattle or worse. Yes. (1:31:25 - 1:31:36) And I'm going to make a comment about that for our viewers just of this interview. Yeah. Let's use that old story about the two hikers who run into the bear and one of them starts running and the other guy says, you can't outrun a bear. (1:31:36 - 1:31:40) He says, I don't have to outrun the bear. I just have to outrun you. I know, it's so sad. (1:31:40 - 1:31:54) You don't have to have enough food stocked away to survive the apocalypse. You just have to have enough to survive longer than the average person. It's very dark. (1:31:55 - 1:32:03) It's very dark. It is, but this is why we do interviews like this. This is why we're going to do this documentary because if people know it's coming, they can prepare. (1:32:04 - 1:32:21) They can prepare. They can prepare. I really hope you think this discovery I made is significant and worthy of your time, Will, because- It's extremely significant, Lisa, and I'm very flattered that you brought this to me. (1:32:22 - 1:32:28) I'm pleased to be working with you on this project. It is extremely important that we put this knowledge into people's hands so they can prepare.