[CLIP] Agenda 2030: A Recipe for a Farming Disaster and Man-Made Famine—Roman Balmakov | ATL:NOW

The country, I believe, was not set up for the administrative state to rule every aspect of people's lives. It was actually set up directly against that, but obviously over the last 260 years, we've moved towards a very strong administrative state. If you took off the labels and you just showed what's currently happening to some of the founding fathers, I think they would just go, oh, okay, so this is the royalty. Basically, this is the king's court here that determines what people can and cannot do. I mean, there are several linings, like the pandemic is one example where it woke a lot of people up. The other is that the Chevron deference, the Supreme Court decision that you mentioned that gives so much decision-making authority to these administrative agencies, it's actually on the docket for the U.S. Supreme Court in this upcoming session. So we'll see what happens. I mean, if it gets struck down, that would be a huge blow to Agenda 2030 in its implementation here in the U.S. Yeah, and then one other thing I want to mention is that there are the trappings of Agenda 2030, which are very colorful and fun and smiling, happy. I mean, even if you ever see the pins that they wear, it's like a circle with all the colors of the rainbow going around it. They have a lot of advertisements around New York and in the airports as well, very colorful, you know, people drinking water and they're like, you know, wouldn't you want to support the sustainable development goals, you know, mothers with their babies? So it has this trapping, which I think really does speak to people's compassion. And it's in the name too, it's the sustainable development goals, like who wouldn't want to be part of the sustainable development goals? But I think one is that it's not clear that any one of the specific projects that are being enacted to, you know, meet one of these sustainable development goals, whether or not it will actually have the effect it's supposed to have. Like there was another dam destruction project that was similar to the one currently being enacted in California. Ten years later, they don't see a salmon recovery in that area, right? But it's like, OK, so what do you do? Do you learn from that? No, you do it again. You do it again in California. And so like, will these projects have the intended effect of restoring water quality, restoring air quality, restoring fish populations? It's dubious at best. When you dig into each one, it's really dubious whether it'll have that effect. That's the first thing. The second thing, we mentioned in the documentary as well, but, you know, if you go back to the 1940s and 1950s China, they had something known as the Great Leap Forward. That was when Mao Zedong, you know, after he came into power and consolidated control over the country, he instituted this initiative called the Great Leap Forward, wherein the country was supposedly going to leapfrog many years of development and catch up to the industrialized nations of America, England, and so on in terms of steel capacity. So within the country, even outside of the fact that it's, you know, a totalitarian communist nation, it was widely accepted. The propaganda was very strong. And even outside of China during that period of time, during the late 40s, early 50s, a lot of fellow travelers outside of China, they also thought like, oh, it's the Great Leap Forward, you know, it'll be phenomenal. The communist nations will show the rest of the world how strong communism can be. But now, you know, you fast forward 70 years, and the Great Leap Forward is synonymous with a famine that killed 50 million people, right? Because they took the farmers off the field and put them into these makeshift steel production plants, if you can even call them that, and it was a disaster, right? Total crop failures, largest man-made famine in world history, killed 50 million people. And so what I really want to do with this documentary is equip people with a language and a nuanced view of things so that when they hear a politician speak, or they hear a news report or some kind of policy being proposed, they go, wait a minute, I think I know what's behind this. I think I know what this language really means. And I think I know where this leads to. And maybe they'll vote accordingly, which is, by the way, not Democrat versus Republican. Republicans are just as much implementing this stuff as Democrats. But they vote at the local water boards, the local city councils against this sort of thing, if they are inclined to do so, such that, let's say 100 years from now, we won't look back on today and go, yeah, Agenda 2030, that was a famine that killed a billion people, right? Because there might be a corollary. If you remove enough farmers to save the planet, well, you know, you might not have any food. So that's sort of what we're trying to avoid, having another Great Leap Forward situation. You talk about this book written by the founders and president of the Club of Rome back in 1991. They're saying, it was necessary to locate a common enemy against whom we can unite. And they're actually saying that this should be climate change or these kinds of policies. And then they say, but in fighting this enemy, global warming, water shortages, famine, and the like, we must not mistake symptoms for causes. All these dangers were caused by human intervention and natural processes, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then is humanity itself. And these are some incredibly powerful people that have this view. Back in 1991, is this what's being enacted now? Jan, throughout the course of this one-year-long investigation, I was really surprised to read documents like the one you just quoted. That one was over 30 years ago now. There were others. The one you quoted was extremely powerful, but there was another document. It was a UN document released in the year 2013, so exactly 10 years ago now. It was called Edible Insects. Right now, more people have edible insects on the mind. It's more in the zeitgeist. But back then, nobody was talking about edible insects. But the UN came out with this document, and they said, well, in order to solve the problems with not enough food or the agriculture sector creating too many emissions, we need to move society towards edible bugs, eating bugs. And one of the things they said, one of the challenges, was that people are not ready at a society level to switch to bugs, especially in the West. And so they said, in order to overcome this challenge, we need to get the media on board, and we need to get celebrities eating the bugs. And isn't that interesting? You move forward 10 years, and what do you have? Hundreds of news headlines from media saying, hey, this is why bugs are the future of food. This is why bugs are great. And you also have celebrities going on media to eat the bugs. It all seems kind of natural, like, oh, it's just happening. Maybe they want to be avant-garde. But it's so funny, when you go back 10 years, and you read that document, and it said exactly that. To overcome this challenge, we need to get people eating bugs. And just as an aside on the bugs front, there's a large bug processing plant opening up in Illinois. It's going to be the largest plant in the world. It's opening up in Illinois. It's going to be online in the year 2025. So just as an aside. So that's just one example of a shorter period of time. Document implementation. So that document you mentioned earlier, it was part of a book called The First Global Revolution, if I'm not mistaken. It came in 1991, which was a turning point, because in 1991 was, of course, the fall of the Soviet Union. Well, I mean, ostensibly, it was a move to counter the Soviet Union. But in order to counter the Soviet Union, one of the biggest ironies that occurred was that they needed to consolidate more power and become more like the Soviet Union. That was one of the ironies of history. But as the Soviet Union fell, they saw a lot of their machinations losing their ideological foundations. Because if you don't have a Soviet Union as the enemy to have everyone move forward in this direction of more centralized control in order to fight against this enemy, well, you don't need the centralized control anymore. And then you can devolve power back into the individual nations, states, and counties, and then people. And so, yeah, they published that document, and they had that discussion, saying that natural disasters, famines, water shortages, the environment, the climate, those are going to be the next things that are going to unite us with humanity itself being the common enemy. I think you can look at that in two different ways. One is the more sympathetic view, which is like, well, these people are rich, and they're the elites, and so maybe they have a vantage point that's different from all of us on the ground. And they really understand that, yeah, climate change is happening, and we need to move in order to end it to save the planet. That's sort of a more sympathetic view. A more cynical view is like, okay, they want to keep consolidating more and more control for themselves and their families and their generational trust, wealth, whatever, and this is just the next excuse they're going to be using. And when I went into the documentary, into this year-long investigation, I was looking at it a lot more sympathetically. I was like, well, I think a lot of these people really believe that climate change needs to be solved, and that's why they need to enact all these policies. But after this investigation and discovering documents like that, I've shifted a lot more to a cynical view, which I believe that a lot of these individuals, they're using the climate to consolidate power, win votes, have themselves be signaling virtue, that they're the kind of good, compassionate people who deserve to stay in power and be elected. But in the process, they are stripping rights and powers away from you and me, the common person.