The fact that the government intend to maintain jury trials only for murder, manslaughter and rape shows us that the government doesn’t care about these crimes.
No, the government agenda is much more insidious: they want control over what we say and think. They want control over who is punished and who is not.
The government is no longer prepared to allow the populace to decide which laws are fair and which should be ignored. No, the government wants to mark its own homework: to pass and enforce any legislation they choose. The objective of dictators throughout the ages is now being grasped.
Once governments have banned jury trials, they will have free reign to bring in any legislation they like, safe in the knowledge that no jury will be able will be able override it in court.
Legislation will become more authoritarian, more anti-citizen in its nature. It’s an inevitable consequence once the shackles of checks and balances have been removed.
Let’s take a look at who else banned jury trials…
• Vladimir Lenin: 1917-1922
• Benito Mussolini: 1931
• Adolf Hitler: 1934
• Francisco Franco: 1939
• Mao Zedong: 1949
• Fidel Castro: 1959
• Pol Pot: 1975
• Idi Amin: 1971-1972
• Saddam Hussein: 1970s
• Muammar Gaddafi: 1973
• Ayatollah Khomeini: 1979
• Hugo Chávez: 1999 onward (intensified under Maduro)
• Hafez al-Assad: 1970s
• Keir Starmer: 2025
‘The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on Earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but only to have the law of nature for his rule’ – Samuel Adams
The Margins of Error That Lead To Record Temperatures
The Met Office captures temperature data from over 300 Climate Stations located across the UK. From this data, the Met Office produces climate summaries for each year and other metrics such as average annual temperatures for the UK plus long-term averages. From this data it is also possible to glean the highest temperature recorded in each UK country during each year.
https://catalogue.ceda.ac.uk/uuid/9244f715ecfd4e74b0b6200de55e1b1a/
The period of 10 years between 2016 and 2025 is, therefore, covered by 40 annual high temps (10 for each country). These 40 annual high temps – have come from just 20 Climate Stations.
The Met Office uses the CIMO classifications, from 1 to 5, for each Climate Station where a Class 1 site would indicate an ideally exposed station that produces reliable temperature information. However, at the other end of the scale, a Class 5 site is blighted by factors that might affect the temperature recorded by up to 5°C and a Class 4 site has location effects up to 2°C. Class 3 locations could lead to inaccuracies of up to 1°C. The class ratings penalise sites that are near any artificial heat sources such as buildings and concrete surfaces.
Of the 20 UK sites that have recorded annual record temps over the last 10 years, 16 (80%) are comprised of Classes 4 & 5. Here is the classification breakdown for all 20 sites:
• 7 are class 5 sites (Aviemore, RAF Northolt, Cambridge Botanical Gardens, Santon Downham, Bute Park Cardiff, Motherwell, Castlederg).
• 8 are class 4 sites (Faversham, Goggerdan, Hawarden Airport, Charterhall, Aboyne, Edinburgh, Glasgow Bishopton, Balliwatticock)
• 4 are class 3 sites (Heathrow Airport, RAF Coningsby, Charlwood (Gatwick), Magilligan)
• 1 is class 1 (Cambridge).
This means that 95% (19/20) of annual record temperatures come from stations that are known to be subject to man-made heat sources.
Eagle-eyed readers will have noticed that 5 (25%) of the 20 sites are associated with aeroplane runways where the man-made heat sources are jet engines (2 RAF bases and 3 airports).
In the UK as a whole:
Class 1 comprises just 6.3% of sites while Class 2 comprises 7.4% of the total.
Class 3 stations form 8.4% of the total.
Class 4 comprises a massive 48.7% of the total 380 stations while 29.2% U.K. Met Office temperature measuring stations are Class 5.
Thus, 86.3% of stations that the Met Office uses to compile UK temp information are known to be sited in locations that produce inaccurate readings. This compares to a 95% figure for stations that have recorded a record temperature over the last 10 years.
Here is a Daily Sceptic article highlighting the inappropriate locations for the vast majority of temperature recording stations:
Despite these levels of inaccuracy, the Met Office produces annual ‘average’ UK temperatures to 2 decimal places. This infers a level of accuracy to one hundredth of a degree which is simply not a reflection of reality.
The Met Office is responsible for setting the classifications for its own weather stations.
Ray Sanders, a citizen journalist, has visited most Climate Stations in the UK and produced reports describing his observations.
Heathrow Airport (Class 3):
The map shows that the Heathrow station is at the junction of the M4 and the North runway.
Ray Sanders’ analysis on the suitability of Heathrow’s weather station:
If Heathrow is class 3, imagine how unsuitable class 4 and class 5 stations are.
RAF Coningsby (Class 3): Another station located next to a runway hosting jet engines. Coningsby set a new English temp record in 2022 at 40.3°C, beating the previous record by 1.6°C as a result of a temperature spike that lasted less than 1 minute. The Met Office refuses to divulge whether this minute coincided with Typhoon Jets taking off or landing.
Here is Ray’s analysis:
And here is an article about this ‘record’ from the Daily Sceptic:
Charlwood (Class 3): Charlwood happens to be next to Gatwick airport and the weather station is located in direct flight path line of the runway. Independent assessors of this station have judged it to be better suited to Class 5 than Class 3.
Ray’s analysis:
Magilligan (Class 2 or 3) Another site that researchers believe should be classed as Class 5).
Analysis from Ray Sanders:
Cambridge (Class 1): possible proximity to electrical sub-station. The MO covertly moved this station in 2009 and, thereafter, spliced data from the original and current locations. Since the move, the Cambridge station is consistently recording hotter temps.
Ray’s analysis:
Furthermore, these junk sites, with known errors of up to 5°C feed into the Met’s calculation of average UK temps, they also feed into long term temp averages.
Sanders had made several inquiries to the weather authority to obtain more detailed information about the weather stations. He reported:
‘Of the 302 locations mentioned, over a third (103) do NOT exist. The Met Office refused to tell me exactly how or where the alleged ‘data’ for these 103 non-existent sites came from.”
https://dailysceptic.org/2025/05/12/the-met-office-is-unable-to-name-the-sites-providing-estimated-temperature-data-for-its-103-non-existent-stations/
The Met Office has hundreds of ‘Climate Stations’ dotted around the country the role of which is to record metrics associated with the weather (mainly temperature and rainfall). How many Climate Stations exist is a matter for debate since the Met Office have admitted to a Freedom of Information request that over 100 Stations don’t exist, yet still contribute to weather records. The Met Office estimates temperatures for these ‘zombie’ sites from other sites in the area that the Met Office feels are ‘correlated’. Yet the Met Office refuses to reveal how they calculate such estimates.
Some Are More Equal Than Others
I have only just discovered that MEPs have automatic immunity from prosecution.
I learnt this through reading about the case of Ilaria Salis.
In February 2023, Ilaria Salis, an Italian national, was, allegedly, a member of a group of 20 Antifa activists who attacked Far Right attendees at an event in Budapest commemorating the anniversary of the siege of the Buda castle by the Soviet forces in 1945.
Antifa members launched their attack using steel batons, rubber hammers and gas sprays, wearing gloves lined with lead, and on one occasion, an unidentified sharp object to inflict stab wounds.
Salis was arrested and imprisoned in Budapest. Ilaria’s imprisonment became a high-profile cause in Italy.
In response to this the Italian ‘Alleanza Verdi e Sinistra’ (AWS) coalition party picked Salis, who had no prior political experience, as their leading EP candidate in the June 2024 EP elections.
170,000 Italian voters voted for AWS in the knowledge that, if Salis were to be elected, she would, as an MEP, gain automatic immunity from criminal prosecution. AWS took sixth place and, thus, the final MEP position in the election went to Salis.
In October 2024, Hungary lodged a request to revoke Salis’ immunity. In September 2025, the EP’s Legal Affairs Committee rejected the request.
Due process was subverted. The idea that the law applies equally to everyone is sacrosanct to any civilised society. The EU Establishment have placed themselves above the law. This is not an attribute of a healthy society.
As Aristotle wrote:
‘The only stable state is the one in which all men are equal before the law.’
But then, as we know:
‘Equality under the law is the slow triumph of hope over history.’ (Jim Cooper).
9/11 Insider Trading
On September 12, 2001, the SEC opened an investigation into whether an unknown group of equities traders had made millions of dollars betting against the companies involved in the attacks.
For example, on Thursday, Sep 6, two thousand contracts betting that United Airlines’ stock would go down were purchased. Ninety times more in one day than in three weeks of normal trading. The price of these contracts soared after the attacks.
Many other companies were similarly affected.
There was also a six-fold increase in ‘call’ options on Raytheon, the defence contractor.
The SEC investigation examined 9.5 million securities transactions across 103 different companies trading in seven markets across 32 exchange traded funds while working in co-ordination with the FBI among other agencies.
The SEC’s conclusion of its investigation into suspicious option trading activity just prior to 9/11 was as follows:
‘We have not developed any evidence suggesting that those who had advance knowledge of the September 11 attacks traded on the basis of that information.’
This is an oddly worded statement. This is not saying that the SEC found no evidence of insider trading only that ‘those who had advance knowledge of the September 11 attacks’ did not engage in insider trading.
This suggests that the SEC was able to identify those who had advance knowledge of the attacks.
9/11 researcher Kevin Ryan has uncovered details of a particular suspicious trade that was investigated by the FBI: 56,000 shares of Stratesec were purchased in the days immediately prior to 9/11. Strategic provided security systems to airports. The Stratesec trade traced back to Mr and Mrs Wirt Walker. Wirt is a distant relative of the Bush family and a business partner of Marvin Bush, brother of George W. Wirt and his wife Sally were not interviewed by the FBI because the FBI’s investigation into the couple ‘revealed no ties to terrorism or other negative information’.
Evidence for Informed Trading on the Attacks of September 11
However, as Ryan notes, this isn’t true: ‘Walker hired a number of Stratesec employees away from a subsidiary of The Carlyle Group called BDM International which ran secret projects for government agencies. The Carlyle Group was partly financed by members of the Bin Laden family’
Furthermore, Walker has multiple connections to the CIA:
‘Mr Walker ran a number of suspicious companies that went bankrupt, including Stratesec, some of which were underwritten by a company run by a 1st cousin of former CIA Director (and President) George H W Bush. Additionally, Walker was the son of a CIA employer and his first job was at an investment firm run by former US intelligence guru James Forgan where he worked with another former CIA director, William Casey.
There are many similar stories involving connected non-al Qaeda actors suggesting foreknowledge of events. None of which were never followed up by intelligence services.
As James Corbett has commented in his book ‘Reportage’:
‘If those with foreknowledge of the attacks weren’t connected to al-Qaeda, what does that say about the identity of the real 9/11 perpetrators?’
The Future of Food – The Short Version
I wrote this very short overview of Sainsbury’s ‘Future of Food report in order to post on LinkedIn. However, some might prefer it to the very long overview that I published on WordPress a couple of days ago…
In 2019, Sainsbury’s commissioned a ‘Future of Food’ report that predicted how food systems may evolve over the next 150 years.
Here is the report so you can read for yourself:
http://www.department22.uk/uploads/2/2/2/7/22275778/future-of-food.pdf
It’s worth taking a close look at this report to see what the powers-that-be have in mind for our food in the future
• The report hits all of the right Globalist touchpoints. Hence, there are lots of references to diet changes being required to prevent Climate Change. Transhumanism is touched upon as are high-profile ‘Degrowth’ policies.
• There are lots of references to what exciting things are happening in the non-meat alternative protein market right now. Spoiler alert: it’s fake meat and insects.
• The report calls for increases in the diversity and reduction in the uniformity of the vegetables we eat (which is exactly the opposite of Supermarkets’ practises of the last 60 years).
• Our vegetables could be grown in tunnels lit by LED lights fed by inorganic chemical compounds.
• All ‘marine stock’ in the future could be farmed.
• The report discusses the importance of ‘food as medicine’. However, the report also states that: ‘It’s likely that we’ll be consuming our key nutrients through implants. While nutrition patches and drips could replace our day-to-day intake.’ So it seems we will take processed health supplements to accompany nutritionally-dead food.
• We are told several times that food consumers of the future will choose food based on its carbon footprint or calorfic content or the chemicals used in its production. Not once does the report mention ‘taste’ or ‘cost’ in relation to future food.
• There are multiple references to ‘investors’ throughout the report as in: ‘Mushroom-based products, algae milk, seaweed caviar and insects are just some of the increasingly sophisticated options whetting investor appetite.’. It is clear that consumers will not have what they want but what the investors want them to have.
• Sainsbury’s want you to believe that fake meat production in 2050 will take place in ‘artisan’ factories – complete with ‘vats’ and ‘robots’ – owned by small businesses where customers can watch their meat being assembled and printed. As if food production will be a cottage industry rather than in the control of conglomerates.
• There are multiple references to the need to change consumer’s perceptions of food so that consumers can accept the radical changes that investors have lined up for them. For example, the report states that consumers must be convinced that growing meat in a lab is no different to brewing beer.
• ‘Waste wasn’t just eliminated, it is a word no longer in use.’ No packaging? No bottles? Sainsbury’s does not explain how that will work.
• Sainsbury’s suggests ‘that traditional social moments – such as birthdays or weddings –
could be bigger and better than ever before, with the pleasures of food strengthening the bonds of community.’ No explanation is provided to support this theory.
• The report makes repeated references to sustainability. However, what is sustainable about entirely artificial food systems – hydroponics, fake meat and farmed fish – that are entirely disconnected from age-old farming and fishing practices and entirely dependent on technology and energy for their existence? If your food system cannot survive an energy crisis or a cyber-attack, in what way is it sustainable?
• In summary, the report is basically saying that the only natural foods we have today – meat, fish and vegetables – are going to be made unnatural and that is going to make us, and the planet, healthier. And if we don’t embrace these changes, the govt taxation stick will nudge us in the right direction.
The Future of Food
In 2019, Sainsbury’s celebrated their 150 year anniversary by commissioning a report that imagines how the UK’s food systems could change over the next 150 years. Specifically, the report focuses on 3 points in the future: 2025, 2050 and 2169.
Here is the report so you can read for yourself:
http://www.department22.uk/uploads/2/2/2/7/22275778/future-of-food.pdf
We are now, in 2025, at the first of those future dates. Furthermore, the Establishment across the World are engaged in a war on farming. As such, I thought it would be a good idea to take a close look at this report and see what the powers-that-be have in mind for our food in the future.
Page 2: ‘Meat, as we know it today, could instead start to become a luxury product.’
Atticus: Yes, it has been clear for a number of years now that meat is being demonised for being somehow unsustainable. At the moment, govt policy is still at the ‘nudging’ stage but it won’t be long before policies are implemented that limit our ability to eat meat.
Page 2: ‘It’s likely that we’ll be consuming our key nutrients
through implants. While nutrition patches and drips could replace our day-to-day
intake.’
Atticus: I’m guessing that such ‘key nutrients’ will have been made in a factory.
Here’s the first food scenario, 2025:
Atticus: There are references to diet being used to manage illnesses which is good to see. However, such philosophy is entirely at odds with the direction of travel in society where medication is prescribed for every ailment. And it is at odds with the quote from page 2 about receiving our nutrients from implants.
Page 6: ‘According to scientists, diet is the single biggest way for people to reduce their environmental impact…’
Atticus: All scientists?
Page 6: ‘… with the rise of an ecologically aware new generation, driven by health concerns and environmental determination, vegetarians
(including vegans) look set to make up a quarter of British people in 2025, and flexitarians just under half of all UK consumers.’
Atticus: Massively misguided predictions which smacks of behavioural ‘nudging’.
Atticus: Page 6 is inconsistent in that it lauds how global ingredients have made UK diets more diverse yet it also tells us we should be buying sustainable local produce.
Page 7: Hydroponically grown plants, cultivated without soil, can be grown in spaces that would otherwise be unused –
underground tunnels, disused warehouses etc., offering new opportunities for urban food
growing. The technology is also twice as space efficient than conventional farming, requires fewer inputs of agrochemicals like pesticides and uses
significantly less water.
When powered by LED lights and renewable energy, the environmental and cost savings make it an attractive investment’
Atticus: What is the source of vitamins for plants grown in tunnels without soil or sunlight? I suspect that ‘agrochemicals’ will be used. Don’t worry, folks, these will be the ‘good’ agrochemicals! Note of the reference to ‘investment’! More on this later.
Page 7: ‘The consolidation of environmental footprinting
apps will also help make our food planet friendly in 2025 by providing much more clarity
to customers about the biggest impacts of our food… will provide accurate, tailored information to customers –
whether they be interested in carbon, calories or chemicals – cutting through the complexity and delivering personalised information. With all the
information in one place, making the right choices for the health of the planet will be far easier for both retailers and their consumers.
Atticus: No mention of taste or cost, it’s all about ‘making the right choices for the health of the Planet’. Isn’t it obvious that if you want to eat sustainably, you shouldn’t be eating advocadoes in the UK, nor should you be eating strawberries in January? Do you really need an app to tell you that?
Page 9: ‘Mushroom-based products, algae milk, seaweed caviar and insects are just some of the increasingly sophisticated options whetting investor appetite.’
Atticus: It’s odd that the report doesn’t refer to demand for these products from their customers. It’s all about the investors. Of course the investors are on board with the idea of making another gazillion pounds by cornering the market in a new product and then convincing us to use that product. I’m reminded of Billy Gates who invested heavily in fake meat and then heavily promoted how it is essential that we all switch to fake meat. However, only a few misguided saps were convinced by Billy and these fake meat products are now languishing in the Bargain Bin.
Bill Gates’ Fake Meat Company ‘Almost Worthless’ After Stock Plunges
Page 9: ‘…scientists are calling for a change in our diets and
the way we consume our protein.’
Atticus: All scientists?
Page 9: ‘Though there are more than 50,000 edible plants in the world, still nearly two-thirds of our food comes from just
four crops – wheat, maize, rice and soybean. According to the FAO, since the 1900s, some 75 per cent of plant genetic diversity has been lost as global markets favour genetically uniform, high-yielding varieties over indigenous varieties…’
Atticus: Supermarkets like Sainsbury’s are one of the main culprits pushing for uniformity and high yield!
Page 10: ‘…chefs such as Senegal-based Pierre Thiam and Danish star Rene Redzepi are
distinguishing themselves through novelty and
experimentation, finding culinary delights in unlikely places, seeking out ancient foods such as lichen or incorporating neglected grains such as fonio. This is helping open up new markets for forgotten crops
Atticus: Yes, that’s what chefs do in an attempt to make a name for themselves but I don’t understand how such niche, low yield food stuffs are going to be the foods of the future. Is Sainsbury’s hoping to increase the yields of these foods? Foods have normally been ‘forgotten’ for a reason.
Page 10: ‘Insect and algae protein sources represent a potential viable, sustainable and radically less
resource-intensive alternative to conventional livestock feed.’
Atticus: It won’t just be humans that will be expected to eat insects.
Page 10: ‘By 2025, it is likely we will feed ourselves, and potentially our livestock, a much broader range of planet-friendly proteins in the UK, in a way that helps mitigate deforestation, supports biodiversity and readdresses the balance of our diets.’
Atticus: how or why our diets need to be readdressed is not explained. The planet-friendly proteins are not flying off the shelves.
Page 11: ‘The idea of food-as-medicine has been around for some time. Medicine and diet, from the medieval period onwards, were seen as inseparable to ensure good health. This link was well known to our ancestors but was forgotten when medicine was professionalised outside the domestic setting.’
Atticus: This short paragraph was an unexpected truth amongst the marketing pitch. Are Sainsbury’s advocating to overthrow the Medical Industrial Complex?
Page 11: ‘…food businesses are beginning to support customers in making healthy choices, in addition to offering products such as bio-fortified foods with potential health benefits.’
So when report nentioned ‘food as nedicine’ on this same page, what they neant was ‘We will add medicine to your food’. I disagree with the practise of adding additives to food by way of making that food ‘healthier’. We passed through the stage of adding Folic acid to bread (2021) and are now at the point where known carcinogens – via Bovaer – are added to cattle feed in order to save the planet by making cows fart less (2024).
(Bovaer is a feed additive composed of silicon dioxide, propylene glycol, and the active ingredient 3-nitrooxypropanol). There has been talk of adding vaccines and other medical products to the food supply ‘for our own good’. These practises remove free choice and must stop.
Page 13: ‘By 2025… our palates, hungry for ‘ecological public health’, will become more and more adventurous in using food as a tool for environmental action.’
Atticus: Oh dear…someone let the office Graduate trainee write the copy.
Second future food scenario (2050):
‘…watch the meat being
printed out…Alongside cultured meat, she offers jellyfish, seaweed and algae…
At one end of the property is a farm, cultivating plants that will provide the growth serum in
which cells are developed… the giant meat-growing vats lead to small conveyor belt where the meat is “assembled” with 3D printing… The artisan factory has a number of its own robots and the only humans involved in the process walk between the belts performing quality control. Her customers really value the
complete transparency of the whole process. The whole process is visible to them, both digitally and physically…Julia receives an alert on her personal robot assistant that links her to real-time data about some marine stocks that are due to come in later that week. She will be able to prepare some customer offers, promoting
the ocean area the stock comes from and the fishermen who harvested it.’
Atticus: Sainsbury’s want you to believe that food production in 2050 will be performed in ‘artisan’ factories complete with ‘vats’ and ‘robots’ where customers can watch their meat being assembled and printed. This is delusional and deliberately misleading. These are industrial scale processes that will be owned by conglomerates yet Sainsbury’s would have you believe that fake meat production will be a cottage industry with an artisan factory in every village. You know, where the butcher’s used to be. Why will we know the name of the fisherman who catch our ‘marine stocks’ in 25 years time?
The report is making an increasingly dystopian food system seem appealing by adding contrived human elements to it.
Page 15: ‘But while ‘cultured meat’ has captured the imagination of some of the world’s food technology investors, in the eyes of the consumer, there are unanswered questions. How will plant-based ‘growth serum’ be free from allergens, and
how might this be labelled?’
Atticus: Another mention of investors! Those investors are doing all this for our benefit, don’t you know! Meanwhile, I don’t think labelling and allergens are the top priorities when it comes to eating chemical sludge that has been packed full of additives to approximate the taste and texture of meat.
Page 15: ‘The big shift in 2050 is predicted to come through
a concerted effort to change social norms and make such products appeal to consumers.’
Atticus: They’ve been trying behavioural nudging for a few years now and it hasn’t worked. I suspect that in the near future that ‘concerted effort’ will come in the form of sticks rather than carrots – i.e. meat taxes and carbon credits. Sainsbury’s won’t be giving the customers more of what they want. Instead, they’ll be giving customers what Sainsbury’s and the govt feel is good for the Planet.
Page 15:
‘This [the Big Shift, referenced above] will possibly involve a radical shift from perceiving
meat as innate to animals to perceiving cultured meat as a healthy and efficient protein tissue that is lab-grown, much in the same way we would brew beer.’
Atticus: Not a very good analogy. Humans didn’t create beer to taste like something else that already existed. The entire reason for the existence of fake meat is to look, feel and taste like an existing organic product. Plus, beer isn’t ‘lab-grown’.
Page 15: ‘That’s not to say we won’t have any meat from slaughtered animals, but it will no longer be the dominant form of meat.’
Atticus: Only the rich – Billy Gates, for example – and politicians will eat meat in the future (if the rich and the politicians get their way).
Page 16 ‘Hosting beautiful photography and graphic videos, interviews with visionary scientists, experts,
renowned chefs and critics, the design fiction platform aims to provoke discussion on the ethics, aesthetics and prospects of lab-grown meat, with a view to making a new food culture possible. It illustrates how by 2050, restaurants and retailers
will have perfected their in-vitro [scientist phrase meaning ‘outside a natural biological environment’] offerings with a playful creativity that tests the boundaries of our current ethics around meat.’
Atticus: Massive amounts of propaganda and marketing are incoming to convince us to eat something we don’t want to eat. There are lots of references to restaurants in Sainsbury’s ‘Future of Food’ report. However, I’ll make a prediction: if meat and fish become rare treats due to restrictions, most restaurants will close. People will not be as keen to spend time and money eating fake food.
Page 16: ‘By 2050, there is no doubt that this [fake meat] will be a genuine market competitor to farmed meat’
Atticus: Only if they thumb the scale by reducing accessibility to meat. Beyond Meat has shown that people would rather have the real thing than an inferior chemical imitator.
Page 21 ‘Using the latest mobile technology, consumers can already scan products on the shop floor to bring up information about the origin and journey of food and other products they are interested in
purchasing. This additional layer of intelligence is likely to become increasingly common in 30 year’s time.’
Atticus: Could be useful if you want to boycott food from a certain country.
Page 21: ‘We will be able to
discover everything there is to know about the apple we are looking at: the tree it grew on,
the CO2 it produced, the chemical treatments it received, and its journey to the supermarket shelf.’
Atticus: I’d be interested in the chemical treatments but I don’t believe that info would ever be made available.
Page 21: ‘Lee predicts that uniform, mass production and
marketing will have fallen out of favour and food will be highly tailored to each individual customer. With every customer having their own Food ID, diets could be extremely customised, with fruit such as mangoes offered to us at our preferred
stage of ripeness, and 3D printed savoury snacks on demand according to our exact spice tolerance.’
Atticus: Sainsbury’s is predicting that, in parallel with big growths in population, customers will be offered more choice than ever: more products and more info. Whilst, simultaneously, mass oroduction will be replaced by small, bespoke batches. Is this what technology will bring? We’ll see. Technology requires a lot of energy which seems inconsistent with the utopian tableau of man living in perfect harmony with nature that is envisaged by the Future of Food report.
Third future food scenario (2169):
Atticus: Resuscitating the desert reversed Climate Change? I’d like to see the science behind that theory!
Page 23: ‘In the last 50 years, communities around the world have worked tirelessly to re-introduce the plants and vegetables that were once indigenous to their regions.’
Atticus: I think the inference here is that Climate Change killed off indigenous plants.
Page 23: ‘Waste wasn’t just eliminated, it is a word no longer in use.’
No packaging? No bottles? No explanation for how this will work?
Page 24: ‘…human intelligence and coordinated global action could likely lead to a very different outcome: the
renaissance of a lush, biodiverse Planet Earth.’
Atticus: Rises in CO2 is already having that effect today.
Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds
Page 24: ‘As the reality of climate change sets in, society may be compelled to implement previously unthinkable measures such as a fully circular
economy, a ‘half-earth’ rule…’
Atticus: It seems that loss of property rights will be accompanied by ever increasing authoritarianism over the next 150 years.
Page 28: ‘Slow Food…where the food on offer reflects the
undeniable connection between plate to planet – to connecting virtual communities around the
world.’
Atticus: I am surprised that Sainsbury’s had the gall to compare their anti-human, anti-food vision of future food scenarios with the Slow Food movement. The Slow Food movement advocates for local foods, traditional gastronomy, and sustainable farming practices from small, local farms, aiming to preserve regional culinary traditions, and small-scale producers.
As such, Slow Food is the antithesis of Sainsbury’s anti-meat, anti-tradition, mega-farm vision.
The report makes repeated references to sustainability. However, what is sustainable about entirely artificial food systems – hydroponics, fake meat and farmed fish – that are entirely disconnected from age-old farming and fishing practices and entirely dependent on technology and energy for their existence? If your food system cannot survive an energy crisis or a cyber-attack, in what way is it sustainable? Also, energy costs are spiralling up across the West. Do we want a food system that is dependent on energy?
That’s all the main points.
In conclusion, I will make the observation that an ingenue would infer from the repeated references to health and food quality in this report that Sainsbury’s is a health food shop. There is no mention of either the aisles of sugar-laden cakes and sweets sold by Sainsbury’s, nor the aisles of processed foods that are choc-full of E numbers. What does Sainsbury’s predict about the future of these foods? Only meat, fish and vegetables are discussed in the report.
Globalists Want Your Food
The recently published report from the EAT Lancet Commission argues that controlling food systems is the key to controlling every major sector—linking nutrition, climate, economics, and governance under one unified global framework.
That is either a good thing or a bad thing, depending on your perspective.
If you want International authorities and private foundations to ‘redefine food as the central lever for solving global crises …where unelected institutions, under the banner of sustainability, unilaterally dictate how nations farm, trade, and eat.’ then the ‘top-down, totalitarian system of control over the most basic human necessity’ is a good thing
If you don’t fancy being limited to miserly daily rations of meat and milk through schemes such as carbon credits and social credit scoring because the Commission has decided that all humans must be forced into a largely plant based diet via a huge programme of financial reengineering then you are likely to think the report’s proposals are bad.
The report plainly shows that food inequalities are no longer assessed at national levels but at global levels, which explains why food mgt systems are now being designed on the assumption that everyone on the planet will eat the same amount of the same foods.
As such, the report proposes a ‘unified global framework to remake farming, finance, and diet around quantified “planetary” rules.’
A new global food system being designed and rolled out by Global Stakeholders? What could possibly go wrong?
‘By the Commission’s own wording, this transformation would entail worldwide diet targets, a half-trillion-dollar financial redirection, and continuous monitoring of nations’ food systems.’
Sounds groovy. If I had to make one minor criticism I would suggest that there’s nothing democratic about this. No power will reside with national governments so voters are powerless. The govt will in all likelihood sign up to such a scheme without any mandate from voters and, thereafter, unelected institutions will operate without transparency or accountability. As the Commission’s rules evolve – maybe in relation to genetic engineering, for example – there will be no opportunity for any pushback.
But that’s just me. On the other hand, lots of people will be excited about the job opportunities that this next stage of the New World Order will bring about. After all, that half a trillion dollars needs to be spent somewhere.
Once again sustainability comes wrapped in layers of Globalist control. It’s almost like sustainability is a golden ticket that gives Global Stakeholder a free pass to do whatever they want. 🤷🏽♂️
Here are some further details:
Here is The Lancet report
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(25)01201-2/fulltext
ESG: The Social Credit System
ESG – Environmental Social & Governance – is a social credit system for companies. ESG coerces companies into adopting certain Establishment narratives – eg DEI, Climate Change initiatives – in order to obtain financing.
ESG is purely political yet operates entirely outside of democratic control.
Global ESG rules are set by the International Sustainability Standards Board. Unelected, you won’t be surprised to discover.
This is what technocratic control looks like.
Governance without consent, without democratic representation, without accountability and without even oversight, or the possibility of appeal.
Degrowth Is Coming
You probably haven’t heard of ‘Degrowth’, but you will soon start to experience it.
Degrowth is the new economic movement that will nudge us into accepting lower living standards as part of Net Zero and Sustainability initiatives.
Degrowth is being promoted by all the usual Globalist organisations, thereby showing that Globalists have recognised the need to manage the regression in living standards that will accompany the delivery of the UNs Sustainable Development Goals.
Here are 4 articles on Degrowth so you can discover what to expect:
1) World Economic Forum
https://www.weforum.org/stories/2022/06/what-is-degrowth-economics-climate-change/
‘Degrowth broadly means shrinking rather than growing economies, so we use less of the world’s energy and resources and put wellbeing ahead of profit.’
‘Society’s current model of economic growth is unsustainable.
‘It [Degrowth] might mean people in rich countries changing their diets, living in smaller houses and driving and travelling less.
2) Harvard Business Review:
https://hbr.org/2020/02/why-de-growth-shouldnt-scare-businesses
‘The start-up The 30 Year Sweatshirt sells high-quality, durable products that run counter to fast fashion principles.’
Patagonia — that explicitly follows an “antigrowth” strategy — is the poster child for this philosophy, offering a worn-wear store and providing free repairs for not only their own products, but also for those of other garment manufacturers.
3) Phys.org
https://phys.org/news/2023-07-degrowth-planet.html
‘Degrowth is possible, desirable and necessary to halt further ecological destruction and to build socially just and ecologically sustainable societies.’ [This isn’t consumer-driven]
‘Degrowthers [i.e. Globalists] are convinced that degrowth must and will happen, either by design or by disaster.’
‘It [Degrowth] is, as Kate Soper argues, about an alternative hedonism.’ [Because nothing says ‘hedonism’ like wearing a 30 year old sweatshirt and travelling less]
4) Medium
This article contains the most detailed and realistic description of what Degrowth will entail:
‘A Degrowth transition may experience less of an unemployment problem than anticipated as it is likely to be a more labour-intensive economy.’
‘Universal access to affordable housing, public transport and food, public healthcare and education as well as access to recreational activities and public spaces — could ensure that everyone has access to the goods and services required for a good life without needing high salaries.’ [Oh, I get it. It’s Communism]
‘To offset reductions in hours of paid work it is important for work-sharing to be accompanied by other interventions such as a Universal Basic Income (UBI), living wage policy and expansion of social services.’ [Definitely Communism]
Most people have no idea what’s coming.
From Democracy to Algocracy
One of the purposes of Digital ID will be to centralise a country’s data so that it can be fed into AI LLP (Large Language Programmes) which can analyse that data and make or adjust policy based on the results.
Yes, people,we are heading for a system of ‘Algocracy’, ie rule by algorithm.
This article in Gizmodo documents Ellison calling for the centralisation of national data that can then be fed into AI systems.
https://gizmodo.com/oracle-billionaire-encourages-world-leaders-to-funnel-all-of-their-data-to-ai-and-maybe-his-data-centers-2000563769
‘Fragmented sets of data about a population’s health, agriculture, infrastructure, procurement and borders should be unified into a single, secure database that can be accessed by AI models.’ Larry Ellison
The article references the quote about AI that Ellison’s made in 2024:
“We’re going to have supervision…Every police officer is going to be supervised at all times, and if there’s a problem, AI will report that problem and report it to the appropriate person. Citizens will be on their best behavior because we are constantly recording and reporting everything that’s going on.”
It is no coincidence that all the Tech Bros – Elon Musk, Larry Ellison, the Palantir Boys, Mark Andreessen etc are extolling the virtues of AI at the same time that Digital IDs are being rolled out all across the Western World: they are all angling to be at the centre of the new system of technocratic control that will emerge with the exponential increase in power for Tech Bros that will come with that. Why else would Musk have accepted a job at DOGE?
If you thought governments were over-reaching their remit now, wait until you see what they seek to incorporate once they have the power of AI fed by unlimited data at their disposal. A huge centralisation of control will follow thereafter. Governments will justify this expansion of remit in the usual ways: increased safety / economic benefits / better health/ reduced costs / the greater good.
Here is YouTube link to Ellison’s interview by Tony Blair at the World Government’s Summit in Dubai earlier this year:
https://youtu.be/lIYIKpvFQOM?si=d5zeVcFPjRaqorsm
There’s another term for Tech Bros that is much more apt: Oligarchs.
They are businessmen with immense wealth and close links to the heads of government. They are Oligarchs.
Atticus Fox 