- A war against farmers has emerged, threatening to push them off the land they’ve farmed for generations
- As small and mid-sized farms close their doors, governments and corporate entities can scoop up the land
- Those in control of the land control the food supply and, along with it, the people
- Much of this threat is cloaked under Agenda 2030, which includes 17 sustainable development goals with 169 specific targets to be imposed across the globe, in every country, by 2030
- The push to eat insects is part of this plan; in 2021, the European Commission authorized mealworms as food, releasing a news release touting “the growing role that insects will play as part of a healthier, more sustainable diet”
(Mercola)—Are green policies around the world, targeting everything from too much nitrogen to protection of endangered species, all part of a plan to get small farmers off the land, paving the way for totalitarian control of the food supply — and insects as part of your daily diet?
These and other tough questions are posed by Roman Balmakov, Epoch Times reporter and host of Facts Matter, in “No Farmers, No Food: Will You Eat the Bugs?”1 Balmakov says:2
“The people in charge of some of the most powerful organizations on the planet have determined that agriculture, specifically animal agriculture is to blame for global warming, and global warming is to blame for the high prices of food as well as food shortages.
And so by switching our diets from beef, chicken and pork, to crickets and mealworms, we’ll be able to stop temperatures from rising, lower the price of food and possibly to even save the planet.”
But in interviews with farmers around the world, including in Holland and Sri Lanka, a very different story is told, one that began with a decades-old environmental policy.
Agenda 2030 Threatens Farmers
In 1972, a United Nations meeting about climate change was held to come up with a plan to manage the planet in a sustainable manner. This led to the creation of Agenda 21 (Agenda for the 21st Century)3 — the inventory and control plan for all land, water, minerals, plants, animals, construction, means of production, food, energy, information, education and all human beings in the world.
Agenda 21 is now more commonly referred to as Agenda 2030, the year the plan’s goals are slated to be met. In 2019, the World Economic Forum (WEF) entered into a strategic alliance with the United Nations, which called for the U.N. to “use public-private partnerships as the model for nearly all policies that it implements, most specifically the implementation of the 17 sustainable development goals.”4
Agenda 2030 is composed of these 17 sustainable development goals with 169 specific targets, including ending poverty and achieving gender equality, to be imposed across the globe, in every country, by 2030.
“Very comprehensive document if you read it,” says international journalist Alex Newman. “We’re talking hundreds of pages governing really every facet of life, everything from education to land use policy to economics to law. Every area of life was found there.” But hidden underneath these green-sounding initiatives, Newman says, may be a more sinister motive:5
“There is absolutely no way for the sustainable development goals to be implemented, to be tracked, to be monitored, without the total obliteration of individual freedom. Some of the goals sound nice — ending hunger, who could possibly be against ending hunger? The problem is, when you set a nebulous goal like that, it requires total power from the state to be able to accomplish that.
And of course, they will never accomplish that, right? There is no way to literally eradicate all poverty from the face of the Earth, but it gives government and global institutions, like the U.N., an easy excuse to basically do whatever they want under the guise of meeting these goals.”
Is the Nitrogen Crisis Real?
Dutch farmers are in crisis as their government has stepped up plans to move them off the land. You can hear about this in-depth via Dutch investigative journalist Elze van Hamelen’s report and podcast for The Solari Report — Dutch Farmers and Fishermen: The People Who Feed Us.6
“In 2021, the European Union’s Natura 2000 network released a map of areas in the Netherlands that are now protected against nitrogen emissions. Any Dutch farmer who operates their farm within 5 kilometers of a Natura 2000 protected area would now need to severely curtail their nitrogen output, which in turn would limit their production,” Balmakov explains.7
Dutch dairy farmer Nynke Koopmans with the Forum for Democracy believes the nitrogen problem is made up. “It’s one big lie,” she says. “The nitrogen has nothing to do with environmental. It’s just getting rid of farmers.” Another farmer said if new nitrogen rules go into effect, he’d have to reduce his herd of 58 milking cows down to six.
Nitrogen scientist Jaap C. Hanekamp was working for a government committee to study nitrogen, tasked with analyzing the government’s nitrogen model. He told Balmakov:8
“The whole policy is based on the deposition model about how to deal with nitrogen emissions on nature areas. And I looked at the validation studies and show that the model is actually crap. It doesn’t work. And doesn’t matter. They still continue using it, which is, in a sense, unsettling. I mean, really, can we do such a thing in terms of policy? Use a model which doesn’t work? It’s never about innovation, it’s always about getting rid of farmers.”
The Ultimate Agenda: No Land Ownership for the People
As farmers shut down, the government can swoop in and take the land, which may be what the agenda is really about. According to Eva Vlaardingerbroek, former member of Forum for Democracy and a political commentator:9
“I’ve always said that the nitrogen crisis is, first of all, a made-up crisis. It’s manufactured, and the only solution that has ever been proposed is forced expropriation. So, it is the government that will take hold of their land … We have a housing crisis in the Netherlands, as you know, this is a very tiny country. We have a lot of people, and we have a growing population because of immigration. And we need places to house those immigrants.
And I think that that’s partly why the government wants that land. They need houses, and they need to build houses, which is funny, because apparently building houses is also what emits nitrogen. But that’s not the people they’re coming after. They’re coming, specifically, after the farmers because they want the land. So that is the ultimate goal.”
But it’s not only farmers in the Netherlands who are being affected. In 2020, California became the first U.S. state to commit to a 30 by 30 goal, pledging to put 30% of its land and water under government control by 2030. But as Margaret Byfield, executive director of American Stewards of Liberty, says, this paves the way for private land ownership to disappear:10
“The concept in America is self-rule. We the People will rule our government and our Founding Fathers understood that the small landholder is the most important part of the state. The idea was that the land would be distributed among the people so they could always control their government. California has developed a 30 by 30 plan. They’re pushing 30 by 30 in the state …
The ultimate agenda is that there is no ownership of land so that we don’t own anything. We either own property, or we are property. That’s really what we’re fighting from the global governance perspective. They have to eliminate our ability to control our government, which means they have to take our land.”
Other seemingly sustainable government regulations may also be wrapped up in this plan. Rep. Doug LaMalfa, farmer and California representative, explains:11
“A lot of this came about in the early ‘70s Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, which were good things, you know, the Endangered Species Act, but it’s been abused from what the original intent was. Congress did not intend for it to be abused the way it is and manipulated. The way it is these days, when they wrote those bills, they would have never passed them.”
The Globalists Have It All Planned Out
Much of the new world order’s plans are based on crisis management, and the idea that a great crisis will occur that will lead to the great transition, where globalists will swoop in to save the day, transforming society into the promised paradise. “At some point down the line, the narrative changed to be around climate,” Balmakov says.
Prior to this, it was the Cold War, but this changed after a 1991 Club of Rome meeting. Both the Rockefellers and early WEF affiliations can be tied back to the Club of Rome, a think tank that aligned with neo-Malthusianism — the idea that an overly large population would decimate resources — and was intending to implement a global depopulation agenda.
“They came up with this incredible document where they actually said, We need a new justification for this all-powerful state,” Newman says. “So, the new excuse is going to be because the environment is going to be harmed and because climate is going to hurt us.”12 Balmakov continues:
“I could not believe what I just heard, that world leaders really laid out this globalist plan in plain English in a physical book, way back in 1991.
I went on Amazon. And there it was. ‘The First Global Revolution,’ which states, and I quote, ‘In searching for a common enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine, and the like, would fit the bill. And therefore, the real enemy is humanity itself.’”
Reading between the lines, the key players in this globalist agenda become clear. Newman says:13
“The World Economic Forum was actually a critical part of implementing this U.N. agenda. Some years ago, they became a strategic partner of the U.N. in the implementation of agenda 2030. And then you start looking at the connections between the World Economic Forum and China. Klaus Schwab and Xi Jinping, they’re like old buddies.
They put out press releases about how much they love each other. So, you’ve got the super capitalists, represented by the World Economic Forum, and then on the government side, you have communists. after Agenda 2030 was adopted, become the Party of China, put out through all their propaganda organs.
… you had Javier Solana, the head of NATO, saying this was going to be the next great leap forward, right? The last great leap forward in China killed millions of people. Why would we want another one of those? That’s crazy.
So, you have communists and super capitalists all coming together and working on this one, sustainable development agenda. And that should make us all pause and say, ‘Wait a minute, that doesn’t make sense on the surface. What’s going on here?’”
Bring On the Bugs
Globalists suggest eating bugs will protect the planet by eliminating the need for livestock, cutting down on agricultural land use and protecting the environment.14 The U.N.’s Food and Agriculture Organization also encourages the consumption of insects and insect-based foods.15
In June 2021, WEF also published an article, categorized under “food security,” in which they promote the use of insects, writing we “need to give insects the role they deserve in our food systems.”16 They justify this proposal by saying it will address an impending food crisis.
In 2021, the European Commission authorized mealworms as food, releasing a news release touting “the growing role that insects will play as part of a healthier, more sustainable diet, as well as the benefits for the environment for years to come.”17 Victor Davis Hanson, a military historian and almond farmer, notes:18
“There’s this top-down globalist idea that certain Western countries have diets that they do not approve of. In other words, they’re more meat-based. And they feel that humans don’t need meat-based protein. And they want to either force people to follow their paradigms, or they want to buy or accumulate farmland. And that’s how they’re going to farm it. It’s sort of like the Soviet Union or Mao’s Cultural Revolution. It’s top down. And it results in disasters.”
Without Farmers, There’s No Food
If government and corporate entities are able to take control of the land, they can control the food supply and, with it, the people.
“Everywhere you look small and medium sized farms being gobbled up by these corporate mega farms, because they can’t keep up anymore. They can’t comply with these endless streams of regulations that are coming down,” Newman says.
“We’re seeing that in China now where these giant mechanized corporate, big government-controlled mega farms are displacing all these little small family farms that families have been farming for hundreds of years — in some cases longer.”19 Without land, people lose their autonomy, freedom and independence. Hanson says:20
“When the American nation was founded, 95% of the people were homestead citizens. They had their own land, and they were completely independent, autonomous. They raised their own food. They were outspoken, they were economically viable. Farming serves two purposes. It doesn’t just produce food, but it produces citizens.”
Ultimately, the war against farmers is a war on the whole of humanity, one that threatens what it means to be free. “We are headed into, I think, a time of very significant food shortages. Can we expect to see massive increases in food prices next year? Oh, no question about it,” Newman says, adding:21
“I think the end goal of the war on farmers that we’re seeing, which is guided at every step by the sustainable development goals and Agenda 2030, is going to be a total consolidation of agriculture, a total consolidation of the food supply. And as every communist tyrant of the last 100 years understood, if you control the food, you control the people. That’s ultimately the end goal.”
- 1 The Epoch Times, No Farmers, No Food
- 2, 10 The Epoch Times, No Farmers, No Food, 1:19
- 3 YouTube, Ivor Cummins, The Greatest History Never Told June 24, 2023, 57:31
- 4 YouTube, MintPress News, Whitney Webb, What Is the World Economic Forum? February 8, 2023, 4:30
- 5 The Epoch Times, No Farmers, No Food, 1:05
- 6 The Solari Report August 17, 2023
- 7 The Epoch Times, No Farmers, No Food, 1:09
- 8 The Epoch Times, No Farmers, No Food, 1:16
- 9 The Epoch Times, No Farmers, No Food, 1:17
- 11 The Epoch Times, No Farmers, No Food, 1:21
- 12 The Epoch Times, No Farmers, No Food, 1:40
- 13 The Epoch Times, No Farmers, No Food, 1:43
- 14, 16 World Economic Forum, June 12, 2021
- 15 BI.edu January 4, 2022
- 17 European Commission June 2, 2021
- 18 The Epoch Times, No Farmers, No Food, 1:50
- 19 The Epoch Times, No Farmers, No Food, 1:54
- 20 The Epoch Times, No Farmers, No Food, 1:56
- 21 The Epoch Times, No Farmers, No Food, 1:58
Bypass Big Tech Censors
Safeguarding Your American Dream: Discover the Power of America First Healthcare
In today’s economy, healthcare costs remain one of the biggest threats to financial stability and family security. Americans work hard to build a better life, yet rising medical expenses can quickly erode savings, force tough trade-offs, and even push families toward debt or bankruptcy. Medical bills continue to rank as the leading cause of personal bankruptcy in the United States, with millions facing underinsurance or unexpected out-of-pocket burdens that no one plans for. Many turn to government-run marketplace plans under the Affordable Care Act, hoping for relief, only to discover that what appears affordable on paper often delivers higher long-term costs, limited real protection, and coverage that may not align with personal values or family needs.
America First Healthcare stands out as a private insurance agency dedicated to helping conservatives and families secure better coverage and better rates through customized, values-aligned options. By conducting free insurance reviews, the agency uncovers hidden gaps in existing policies and connects clients with private alternatives that emphasize personal responsibility, small-government principles, and genuine affordability—often delivering up to 20% savings while providing stronger protection for the American Dream.
The allure of marketplace plans is easy to understand: open enrollment periods, premium tax credits for many households, and the promise of “comprehensive” benefits mandated by law. Yet recent data reveals a different reality, especially after the expiration of enhanced premium subsidies at the end of 2025. Enrollment for 2026 dropped by more than one million people compared to the prior year, with many shifting to lower-tier bronze plans to keep monthly premiums manageable.
These plans feature significantly higher deductibles—averaging around $7,500 nationally—and greater cost-sharing requirements. Families who once paid modest amounts after subsidies now face average premium increases of $65 or more per month, even as they accept plans that leave them responsible for thousands in upfront costs before meaningful coverage kicks in.
High deductibles create a dangerous barrier to care. Studies show that people in such plans are less likely to seek timely treatment for chronic conditions, attend preventive screenings, or fill necessary prescriptions. A seemingly minor illness or injury can balloon into major expenses when patients delay care until problems worsen. For a family of four, a single hospitalization, cancer diagnosis, or unexpected surgery can easily exceed the deductible, triggering coinsurance and out-of-pocket maximums that still leave substantial bills. One recent analysis noted that some proposed changes could push family deductibles toward $31,000 in future years, further exposing households to financial risk.
Beyond the numbers, marketplace plans often carry structural limitations. Coverage for certain critical services may include waiting periods or narrower networks that restrict access to preferred doctors and specialists. Preventive care is required to be covered without cost-sharing, but everything else—lab work, imaging, specialist visits, or ongoing treatment—typically waits until the deductible is met. This reactive model contrasts sharply with the proactive, holistic approach many families prefer, especially those focused on wellness, early intervention, and maintaining health to enjoy life rather than merely reacting to illness.
Values alignment represents another growing concern. Government-influenced plans operate within a framework shaped by federal mandates and political priorities that may not reflect conservative principles of limited government, personal freedom, and ethical stewardship. Families who want to direct their healthcare dollars toward providers and benefits that honor traditional values sometimes find marketplace options feel misaligned, forcing a compromise between affordability and conviction.
Private alternatives, by contrast, offer year-round flexibility without the restrictions of open enrollment windows. Independent agents can shop across a wider range of carriers to design plans tailored to specific family needs—whether that means lower deductibles for frequent medical users, broader provider networks, or add-ons that support wellness and preventive services from day one. Clients frequently report more stable premiums that do not automatically escalate each year, along with genuine cost savings once the full picture of deductibles, copays, and coverage depth is considered.
Take the experience of real families who made the switch. Amanda C. shared that her new plan felt “way better” than what she had through the marketplace. Johnny Y. noted his previous coverage kept increasing annually until he found a more stable private option. Sofia S. expressed delight with her plan and began recommending it to others. These stories echo a common theme: when families move beyond one-size-fits-all government marketplaces, they often discover customized protection that better safeguards both health and finances.
Founder Jordan Sarmiento’s own journey underscores the stakes. In 2021, a six-day hospitalization generated a $95,000 bill. Under a well-structured private “Conservative Care Coverage” plan, his out-of-pocket responsibility would have been just $500. That stark difference illustrates how thoughtful planning and private options can prevent a medical event from becoming a financial catastrophe.
Practical steps exist for anyone questioning their current coverage. Start with a no-obligation review of your existing policy to identify gaps—high deductibles, limited critical-care benefits, or escalating premiums. Compare total projected costs (premiums plus potential out-of-pocket expenses) rather than monthly premiums alone. Consider family health history, anticipated needs, and lifestyle priorities. Private agencies can present side-by-side options that include stronger wellness incentives, broader access, and plans built on shared values of self-reliance and freedom.
In an era when healthcare inflation continues to outpace general cost-of-living increases, relying solely on marketplace solutions carries growing risk. Families who proactively explore private alternatives frequently achieve meaningful savings while gaining peace of mind that their coverage truly works when needed most.
America First Healthcare makes this exploration straightforward through its free review process. Families and individuals receive personalized guidance to close coverage holes, reduce unnecessary expenses, and secure plans that align with conservative principles—protecting wallets, health, and the American Dream without government overreach. Many who complete a review discover they can enjoy better benefits for less, often saving up to 20% while gaining the customization and stability that marketplace plans struggle to deliver.
Ultimately, protecting your family’s future requires looking beyond the marketing of “affordable” government options. By understanding the long-term costs hidden in high deductibles, shifting coverage tiers, and values mismatches, Americans can make empowered choices. Private, values-driven insurance offers a smarter path—one that rewards diligence, supports wellness, and delivers real security. For those ready to move beyond the limitations of traditional marketplace plans, a simple review can reveal options designed to serve families, not bureaucracies. The American Dream thrives when individuals and families retain control over their healthcare decisions, and thoughtful private coverage plays a vital role in making that possible.