Trump has thrown his weight behind never-ending wars in the Middle East for his handlers in Tel Aviv, so where does that leave average Americans for representation from their government? At the back of the line, and so far out of the decision-making process that all they can do is watch as their country is transformed.

Steve Poikonen from AM Wakeup is back to discuss the situation unfolding across the Western world as populations are being transformed through supranational policy. Is there still time to reverse the damage, or did the Globalists already accomplish their goal of transforming Europe and North America into a mixed mongrel race dependent on the state? Time is running out.

The Octopus of Population Control: https://amzn.to/4xDQ42L

Hypocrazy Audiobook: https://amzn.to/4aogwms

The Octopus of Global Control Audiobook: https://amzn.to/3xu0rMm

Website: www.Macroaggressions.io

Merch Store: https://macroaggressions.dashery.com/

C60 Power: https://go.shopc60.com/PBGRT/KMKS9/
Promo Code: MACRO

Chemical Free Body: https://chemicalfreebody.com/macro/
Promo Code: MACRO

Wise Wolf Gold & Silver @ (800) 426-1836: https://macroaggressions.gold/

LegalShield: www.DontGetPushedAround.com

Replace Your Mortgage: www.WipeOutYourMortgageNow.com

Augason Farms: https://augasonfarms.com/MACRO

Activist Post: www.ActivistPost.com

AM Wakeup on Rumble: https://rumble.com/c/AMWakeup

The post #687: The End of the American Dream | Steve Poikonen appeared first on Activist Post.

A man from Virginia, who facilitated millions of drug transactions worth roughly $430 million, agreed to give up $100 million worth of BTC. His partner forfeited nearly 1,600 BTC.

A co-creator of dark web drug enterprise Empire Market agreed to forfeit 1,230 bitcoin ($101 million), after receiving a 40-year federal prison sentence for his role in operating the site.

His co-conspirator Thomas Pavey forfeited 1,584 bitcoin last year.

Raheim Hamilton, 30, of Suffolk, Virginia, also agreed to forfeit 24.4 ether worth about $60,000 and three properties, according to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Illinois. A federal judge in Chicago sentenced Hamilton on Monday and imposed a $5 million fine.

Hamilton and Pavey operated Empire Market from 2018 to 2020. Their site facilitated more than 4 million drug transactions worth upwards of $430 million, prosecutors said. They also said Hamilton and Pavey sold stolen account credentials, personal data, counterfeit currency and hacking tools.

Pavey, 41, of Ormond Beach, Florida, pleaded guilty last year to a federal drug conspiracy charge and admitted his role in creating and operating Empire Market. He also gave up his rights to two boxes containing 25-ounce gold bars, three automobiles, and two properties in Florida. Pavey is set to be sentenced later this month.

The pair required customers to use cryptocurrency and encouraged them to use mixing services to obscure the movement of funds, the Justice Department said. Prosecutors said drug sales accounted for nearly $375 million of the site’s total activity.

Ruis-Sian Lin, the alleged operator of the dark web narcotics marketplace Incognito Market, was sentenced to 30 years in U.S. federal prison in February.

A month earlier, the U.S. government seized $400 million worth of cryptocurrency, real estate and cash linked to the once-popular darknet bitcoin mixing service Helix, which, according to the Department of Justice, was used by drug traffickers and other criminals to launder money at the tune of at least 354,468 bitcoin worth $29 billion today.

The post Dark web drug market operator sentenced to 40 years, forfeits $101 million in bitcoin appeared first on Activist Post.

OpenAI and Anthropic executives are quietly gaming out the day after a catastrophic AI attack. Most of that planning is about Washington, not the people who’d lose their bank access or tap water.

Top executives at OpenAI, Anthropic and other AI companies are privately planning for what happens after a catastrophic AI event, according to an Axios scoop published Friday. The event they’re bracing for is most likely a cyberattack that cuts off access to banks, the internet, or even power and water. Many industry insiders told Axios they expect something like it within the next six to 12 months.

The real issue isn’t that companies run worst-case drills. Everybody does that. It’s that the people building these tools now think a major attack is likely, and the planning Axios describes is mostly about the political blowback. Executives are racing to educate members of Congress so they can shape the laws that get written after the first disaster. Nothing in the reporting says anyone is planning for the family whose debit card stops working.

For you, six to 12 months means sometime between next spring and this time next year. If they’re right, the systems on the line are the ones your paycheck lands in, the card you use at the grocery store and the pumps that push water to your faucet. In 2021, one ransomware gang hitting one pipeline emptied gas stations across the Southeast in less than a week. The people who know these models best are telling us something bigger is coming, and nobody is telling your household to get ready for it.

What Axios Reported

The sourcing matters here, so let’s be straight about it. The six-to-12-month estimate comes from unnamed insiders, not from any company on the record. OpenAI confirmed it runs preparedness exercises but told Axios the scenarios “are not treated as inevitable.” Anthropic declined to comment.

According to Axios, the planning includes red-teaming worst-case scenarios, but it’s focused mainly on Congress. Executives know no regulation can pass right now. They want to be the ones writing the playbook when lawmakers panic after the first big hit. They’re also bracing for Democrats, who they expect to be stronger after the midterms, to move fast against AI, and they’re already making the argument that slowing the AI buildout could hurt an economy that’s already fragile.

Some posts online are running this as “AI companies prepping for an event that could change the trajectory of humanity.” That’s not what Axios reported. Nobody has a date, and no company has said an attack is coming. What we have is a group of insiders who believe one is likely and companies that are acting like they believe it too.

This also isn’t the first time we’ve heard the timeline. In August, OpenAI, Anthropic, Amazon Web Services, Microsoft and more than 100 other companies signed an open letter warning there was “a limited window” to protect hospitals, water treatment plants and other critical infrastructure. They made no commitments, set no deadlines and pledged no money. In September, Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei warned that a swarm of AI agents could take over the internet with a persistent botnet within six to 12 months. Several security experts called that far-fetched. Now his industry’s insiders are using the same window for something more specific.

It’s Already Hitting Banks

You don’t have to take anyone’s prediction on faith, because a preview just happened in South Korea.

Between September 27 and 30, hackers broke into systems at Shinhan Bank, KB Kookmin Bank, Hana Bank, BNK Busan Bank, Yegaram Savings Bank and Hyundai Capital, according to the Kyunghyang Shinmun. At Shinhan alone they took 25,727 records, including names, phone numbers, annual income and loan limits. For a customer, that means a scammer can call pretending to be your loan officer, already knowing what you make and how much you can borrow. Korean regulators called an emergency meeting on a holiday, and the country’s president ordered a full investigation.

The attackers used ARTEX, a free AI hacking tool that went up on GitHub on July 26. Its newest version came out September 24. The attack on Kookmin started three days later. CrowdStrike traced the operation to a likely Chinese-speaking, financially motivated attacker running Chinese AI models, including DeepSeek, who also asked Anthropic’s Claude where to sell Korean breach data. Axios called it proof of how much damage a single person can now do.

The AI companies’ own agents have been part of the problem too. OpenAI said last week it had notified more than 100 organizations that its agents may have gotten into their systems during pre-release testing. Researchers told Axios the hacks weren’t sophisticated, and that’s what worries me. The agents used the same old tricks human hackers have used for decades, like stolen passwords and exposed keys, only faster than anyone can patch the holes.

None of this surprised us. In April we published Mythos AI: The Doomsday Weapon That Could Cripple Infrastructure, Banking and the World, which argued that the first targets of these cyber tools would be banks, utilities and communications networks. In September, Bill Gates published nearly the same list. Now the companies themselves are planning around it.

We’ve Seen This Before

In May 2021, a ransomware gang called DarkSide locked up Colonial Pipeline’s computers, and the company shut down a 5,500-mile line that carries about 45% of the East Coast’s fuel. Within days, more than 1,000 gas stations ran dry. About 60% of stations in Atlanta were out of gas, and governors declared states of emergency. EZ Mart, a two-pump station in Wilmington, North Carolina, later sued Colonial on behalf of more than 11,000 stations, arguing the company never protected its systems. That was one gang, using human hackers, hitting one company, and the pipeline was back up in about a week.

The other history lesson is about who gets protected afterward. Axios quotes a Democratic aide pointing to 2008 and COVID as proof Washington can come together in a crisis. That’s true, and in 2008 coming together meant a $700 billion rescue for the banks while millions of regular families lost their homes. The AI companies are trying to be the ones in the room when the next rescue gets written, and the last time an industry wrote its own rescue, it protected itself first.

Seems like it’s all hitting at once…

If this were 2019, a week without card payments would be a mess you’d ride out. This year, the cushion is gone.

Diesel hit a record $6.53 a gallon last month, and the country is heading into winter about 600 million gallons short on diesel and heating oil. Then China and Russia both stopped exporting diesel. Inflation was back up to 3.4% in August. And as we showed in The AI Bubble Is Cracking, AI spending is one of the main things holding the economy up, even though Anthropic’s own IPO filing shows it spending about $2.75 for every dollar it brings in.

Half of American households can’t cover a $1,000 emergency. A family like that, already paying record prices for fuel and food, has no room for a week where the bank app is down, the paycheck doesn’t post and the grocery store can only take cash. A cyberattack that would have been a bad news week in a normal year could be the thing that tips a lot of households over.

These companies believe a disaster is likely enough to war-game the political fallout. Ten days after their CEOs called for an industry slowdown in September, Anthropic and OpenAI launched new models within two hours of each other. If you honestly think your industry is about to knock out somebody’s power or water, you damn well owe them more than a briefing for Congress and a plan to manage the headlines.

Related OFFGRID Survival Coverage

• Mythos AI: The Doomsday Weapon That Could Cripple Infrastructure, Banking and the World
• Bill Gates Says AI Could Kill a Billion People. We Told You in April Which Systems It Would Hit First.
• The AI Bubble Is Cracking, and This Economy Can’t Take Another Hit
• Andrew Yang Says Escaped AI Agents Seeded the Internet With Self-Replicating Code
• The AI Lab Leak Has Already Started
• The AI Bubble Is Holding Up the Economy. What Happens When the Spending Stops?
• World’s Biggest Fuel Suppliers Are Hoarding Diesel: China and Russia Both Stop Diesel Exports
• Diesel Hits a Record $6.53 as America Heads Into Winter 600 Million Gallons Short
• Job Loss Is the Most Likely SHTF Event You’ll Ever Face

The post AI Insiders Expect a Cyberattack on Banks, Power or Water Within 12 Months appeared first on Activist Post.

On New Year’s Eve 2023, Christina Block’s two youngest children, aged ten and thirteen, stood with their father near the harbour in Gråsten, a Danish town close to the German border. Masked men attacked their father, forced the children into a vehicle and took them into Germany. Five days later, a Hamburg court ordered their return to Denmark.

The abduction was the violent end of a custody battle that had already crossed two legal systems. The children’s father, Stephan Hensel, had kept them in Denmark after a visit in August 2021. German and Danish courts considered that retention unlawful. Still, Danish judges refused to order their return, citing hardship grounds under the Hague Convention, the treaty that normally requires the prompt return of children wrongfully retained abroad. By the end of 2023, the children had lived in Denmark for more than two years, and German courts were losing jurisdiction over their future.

Block, an heiress to the Block House restaurant fortune and one of Hamburg’s best-known business figures, is accused of commissioning the operation. She denies the accusation, saying employees of a security company acted without her knowledge. Her trial began in Hamburg in July 2025.

The fight to recover the children drew in Israeli intelligence veterans, an intermediary associated in court reporting with Black Cube, a former Hamburg police officer and serving security contacts. Among them was August Hanning, former president of the Bundesnachrichtendienst, Germany’s foreign intelligence service. As investigators followed the trail to Hanning, what looked like an extraordinarily well-financed family operation opened onto a private intelligence market built by people whose authority, skills and relationships had been acquired inside the state.

Investigators searched Hanning’s premises in September 2025 and found an electronic archive containing approximately 2,000 BND documents. The discovery launched a federal investigation that led to the arrests of Hanning and his former chief of staff, Manfred D., on 6 October 2026. Hanning was suspected of treasonous espionage, spying out state secrets, attempted treason and espionage. Manfred D. was suspected of aiding and abetting attempted treason and treasonous espionage. The following day, a Federal Court of Justice judge ordered both men into pretrial detention.

Federal prosecutors allege that Manfred D. supplied Hanning with BND intelligence in exchange for payment over twelve years. Hanning then used the material in his private consulting work and in his relationships with representatives of foreign intelligence services. The archive reportedly contained assessments of Iran’s nuclear programme and Russia’s armed forces, material prepared for senior security meetings at the Chancellery and intelligence supplied to Germany by foreign partner agencies. The material surfaced not through an internal BND review but because Hamburg investigators were still reconstructing how two children had been taken from a Danish harbour.

The First Attempt

In 2022, Block had already paid more than €100,000 to System 360 to attempt to recover the children. The German security company was led by Hanning and Thorsten Mehles, a former senior officer in Hamburg’s criminal police. It was Andreas Costard, the family’s longtime lawyer and an important figure in its legal strategy, who made the connection.

Prosecutors say System 360 developed a plan to intercept the children in Denmark, distract the person accompanying them and put them in a waiting vehicle with their mother. The participants allegedly accepted in advance that force might be required. The plan collapsed after Hensel noticed suspicious men near his home and contacted Danish police. According to investigative material reported by Der Spiegel, Hanning pressed for a rapid operation and told Mehles he could recruit two serving police officers willing to take part. Hanning and Mehles denied involvement.

The Israeli Route

System 360 had assembled a former BND president, a police veteran and personnel able to operate in Denmark. After that attempt failed, the same lawyer opened the route to another team capable of completing what the German company had not.

Costard’s request for outside security assistance reached Jens Meier, chief executive of the Hamburg Port Authority. Meier had led the authority since 2008, holding one of the most connected public positions in Germany’s largest port city. That position made him a plausible bridge between a Hamburg family lawyer and an international security contact.

He turned to Alon Katzir-Shimoni, an Israeli security consultant and longtime resident of Germany. Testifying in Hamburg, Katzir-Shimoni acknowledged passing on a contact but denied knowing the introduction would lead to an abduction. Parts of his examination took place behind closed doors because the court accepted that public testimony could create security risks. Court reporting described him as having worked with Black Cube, the Israeli private-intelligence company founded by veterans of the country’s intelligence services. He presented himself as having senior contacts in German and Israeli security circles.

Katzir-Shimoni told the court that the route to Cyber Cupula involved a colleague connected to Unit 8200, Israel’s signals-intelligence and cyber branch. Asked to identify that person, he refused to do so publicly. Even after the court closed the hearing to the public, the colleague’s identity remained protected. By the time the introduction reached the Block family, it had crossed three strands of Israel’s intelligence world. David Ram Barkay, the man at the end of the chain, came from Unit 504. Katzir-Shimoni brought the methods and contacts of the private-intelligence sector, while the unnamed colleague connected the introduction to Unit 8200.

Barkay, Cyber Cupula’s founder and sole director of Cyber Cupula Operations GmbH, was also listed as a director of the Israeli company Cyber Cupula (U.D.) Ltd., incorporated in Israel on January 3, 2019. He was the Israeli operative at the centre of the Block investigation. His team’s cross-border capabilities emerged in the proceedings. According to Barkay’s account reported by Legal Tribune Online, Cyber Cupula employees installed cameras in Denmark and transmitted live images of the children to their Hamburg headquarters at the Grand Elysée. Israeli reporting identifies him as a veteran of Unit 504, the human-intelligence arm of Israeli military (IDF) intelligence. The unit recruits and handles human sources, conducts interrogations and operates beyond Israel’s borders. Barkay later confirmed in the Hamburg courtroom that he had served in Israeli intelligence, although he said he could not discuss the details.

Cyber Cupula marketed expertise in cyber intelligence, human-threat intelligence, infiltration, deception and what it called cyber HUMINT warfare. Its corporate description said its handlers used human-intelligence methods and deception to make undercover contact with cybercriminals, hacktivists and other targets. Beyond the camera operation, court reporting described social-media research, surveillance of the family’s movements and preparations for the physical recovery of the children. Cyber Cupula’s personnel could move from collecting information to acting on it.

The Woman Called Olga

Keren Tenenbaum Alagem, a member of Barkay’s Israeli Cyber Cupula team, brought the operation inside the family when she entered the Grand Elysée, the Block family’s luxury hotel in Hamburg, under the name Doris White. Christina Block knew her as Olga.

Rather than remain an outside consultant, she lived within the family’s environment, listened to Block describe the custody conflict, researched the children’s lives and received information about efforts to bring them back from Denmark. Block later captured their relationship in six words.

“For me, Olga was Cyber Cupula.”

Tenenbaum became the link between the client and Barkay’s operation. Her proximity to Block allowed her to absorb her wishes, observe the family from inside its own hotel and carry information back to the Israeli team. Tenenbaum testified under safe conduct, an arrangement also granted to Barkay that allowed them to appear as witnesses in Block’s trial and leave Germany without being arrested over the alleged operation. In court, she said she and other Cyber Cupula personnel had stayed at the Grand Elysée on Costard’s recommendation. She also described a meeting in Tel Aviv attended by Barkay and said Block repeatedly encouraged the effort to regain contact with the children.

Prosecutors place her close to the final operation through accounts presented in the proceedings. She reportedly sought information about the children’s New Year’s Eve movements near Gråsten harbour and, after they had been taken into Germany, accompanied Block to the rural location where they were being held. She later gave Hamburg prosecutors a statement reported to run to more than 170 pages. Living inside Block’s world while remaining part of Barkay’s circle, she had occupied both sides of the relationship investigators needed to reconstruct. Her account revealed a method built on trust, proximity and the ability to move between identities.

Doris White could check into a hotel, Olga could become a confidante, and Keren Tenenbaum could carry what she learned back into an international operation.

Partners in Private Intelligence

Uriel Yosef Broshi, a businessman with a background in corporate management, had worked alongside Barkay at Immersion Corporation years before Cyber Cupula. At the American touch-feedback technology company, Broshi handled European customer support while Barkay led the international medical business, a shared professional history that preceded their move into private intelligence.

The two later became directors of Cyber Cupula (U.D.) Ltd. in Israel. Broshi was the sole director of its British namesake, which declared its business as private-security activities, and also served as president and registered agent of Cyber Cupula Inc., registered in Florida in June 2022. On 14 December 2023, Cyber Cupula Operations GmbH entered the Hamburg commercial register with Barkay as its sole managing director, authorised to represent the company alone. Its registered purpose covered the sale, distribution and installation of cybersecurity and cyber-intelligence technology, along with related services, including security testing

Seventeen days after the German company entered the commercial register, Cyber Cupula personnel allegedly abducted the children from Denmark. The Hamburg proceedings brought the company’s work into view, tracing digital research, undercover access and physical surveillance through to an operation involving force on Danish territory.

Barkay and Hanning had formalised their commercial partnership before the operation that led to the children’s abduction from Denmark. According to RND’s reporting, reproduced from n-tv, Hanning reportedly signed a two-page memorandum of understanding on 14 October 2023, agreeing to introduce German clients to Barkay’s consulting company in exchange for half the resulting fees. The agreement brought the former BND president and the Unit 504 veteran into the same business model two and a half months before the children were taken. Barkay supplied operational intelligence capabilities while Hanning supplied clients, standing and access in Germany, with the fees from those introductions divided equally. The failed German operation and the later Israeli operation were successive stages in the same pursuit of private power, with Hanning connecting the two.

In 2023, Barkay reportedly emailed Hanning files containing child-sexual-abuse material and asked him to pass them to the Bundeskriminalamt (BKA), Germany’s Federal Criminal Police Office. According to RND’s reporting, reproduced from n-tv, Hanning identified the appropriate BKA contact and forwarded the files. During the subsequent search of his home, he said he had not known what the folder contained.

Hamburg prosecutors were also investigating an alleged attempt to plant similar material. They said an Israeli security company had obtained a hard drive containing well over 500 child-sexual-abuse images and videos and placed it on property connected to Hensel. The alleged aim was to discredit the children’s father and his family-law adviser through false allegations of paedophilia.

Cyber Cupula brought information-gathering, source cultivation, surveillance and the ability to deploy operatives. Hanning brought the institutional reach of a former intelligence chief, including contacts through whom he could pass material to federal law enforcement. The investigation into Hanning’s dealings with Barkay led police to search his private premises, where they discovered confidential BND material and opened a new line of inquiry into the private use of German state secrets.

German authorities had also received allegations about Hanning’s foreign connections before his arrest. Intelligence Online reported on 8 October that veteran German private investigator Werner Mauss had submitted a dossier to German prosecutors in 2025 concerning Hanning’s alleged activities with several foreign states. The publication’s French-language preview said details leaked before Hanning’s arrest resembled material in that dossier. Earlier reporting by German journalist Lars Winkelsdorf had described a 25-page dossier in which Mauss alleged that Hanning used Israeli intelligence contacts in connection with the Block children’s abduction.

The Files Behind the Feud

The roughly 2,000 documents led investigators to Manfred D., a recently retired BND official whose career had kept him close to successive intelligence chiefs. He served as Hanning’s chief of staff during his presidency from 1998 to 2005, then followed him to the Interior Ministry as his assistant until 2009. In March 2012, he returned to the BND president’s office, serving as chief of staff to several successive presidents until March 2026. As the service’s leadership changed, Manfred D. retained his position at its centre.

Federal prosecutors say his relationship with Hanning became a paid intelligence pipeline through an agreement reached in spring 2010. Under that arrangement, Manfred D. would continuously supply valuable BND intelligence to his former boss, who would pay him and use the material in his private consulting business.

Hanning founded HanningConsult with his wife in July 2010, only months after prosecutors say his paid arrangement with Manfred D. began. In October 2019, he transferred almost all his shares to his wife and three daughters, retaining just 0.5 percent, but continued representing the company before federal authorities. Its 2024 accounts recorded equity of just under €3 million.

Prosecutors say the flow continued until June 2022. Some documents were prepared for senior intelligence meetings at the Federal Chancellery, the chancellor’s office, where ministry and security officials exchanged current intelligence. Others concerned Iran’s nuclear programme, Russia’s military and reporting from partner services. Rather than an archive left over from Hanning’s presidency, the alleged pipeline supplied fresh intelligence as he expanded his consulting businesses and built commercial relationships with security figures in Germany, Israel and elsewhere.

Prosecutors say Hanning used classified intelligence supplied by Manfred D. to prepare an analysis for an officer of a foreign intelligence service, although whether it reached the intended recipient remains publicly unconfirmed. They also accuse him of passing political information to a representative of another foreign service over several years, drawing at least partly on the same material. In the arrangement prosecutors describe, Manfred D. supplied the intelligence from inside the BND, while Hanning found outlets for it abroad.

Selling the Old Liaison

In July 2021, Hanning joined the advisory board of World Health Energy Holdings, an Israeli cybersecurity company known as WHEN, whose president, Danny Yatom, had previously led Mossad, Israel’s foreign intelligence service. The company presented the two former intelligence chiefs’ experience as an advantage in expanding its security-monitoring business internationally.

Their partnership grew out of a relationship forged in government. Yatom said they knew each other before either became an intelligence chief, when he advised Israeli prime minister Yitzhak Rabin and Hanning worked close to German chancellor Helmut Kohl, and later cooperated as heads of Mossad and the BND. At WHEN, that old state liaison acquired a commercial purpose. As the company pursued expansion in the United States and other markets, Hanning described their complementary networks, with his contacts in Germany and Europe alongside Yatom’s in Israel and the United States.

WHEN described software that continuously monitored audio, video, written communications, geolocation and metadata from company phones and computers. It established patterns of normal behaviour and flagged departures by employees or devices. Yatom compared its purpose to identifying an insider like Edward Snowden before information could leave an organisation.

Hanning presented his government connections as a commercial asset, saying a cybersecurity company needed contacts with governments, police and intelligence agencies. He described a grey zone in which private hackers, state agencies and intelligence services used one another to pursue their own interests—the overlap between public authority and private capability in which he was building his business.

WHEN brought a former Mossad director and a former BND president into the same company. In the Block custody operation, Cyber Cupula supplied a Unit 504 veteran, Katzir-Shimoni provided the private-intelligence connection, an unnamed Unit 8200 contact helped arrange the introduction, and Tenenbaum embedded herself in the German client’s hotel. These separate organisations drew commercial value from intelligence experience, the prestige of former state positions, trusted introductions and access to people still inside public institutions. Hanning joined WHEN in July 2021, while prosecutors say Manfred D. continued supplying him with BND material until June 2022. His work alongside a former Mossad director therefore overlapped with the final year of the alleged pipeline carrying German state intelligence into his private business.

The Route to Baku

German media reported that investigators were examining a possible Azerbaijani connection to the foreign intelligence officer for whom Hanning allegedly prepared an analysis. So far, Federal prosecutors have not publicly identified the officer, and Azerbaijan denied any involvement in the case.

Hanning had longstanding public ties to Azerbaijan through his board membership of the German-Azerbaijani Forum, an organisation promoting political, commercial and cultural relations between the two countries. The forum reelected him in August 2025, just one month before investigators searched his premises.

Azerbaijan’s ties to Israel give the possible Baku connection a wider regional significance. Bordering Iran, Azerbaijan supplies Israel with oil and buys advanced Israeli weapons, while the two countries’ security relationship includes intelligence cooperation focused on Tehran.

During the 2026 war with Iran, CNN reported that Israeli commandos, intelligence personnel and Mossad operatives used sites in southern Azerbaijan to support reconnaissance and drone operations near Iran’s northern border. Azerbaijan rejected the report as baseless and later filed a defamation lawsuit against CNN.

The BND material allegedly supplied to Hanning included reporting on Iran’s nuclear programme. His private business connected him to former Mossad director Danny Yatom, who publicly identified Iran as a major cyber threat, while investigators examined a possible Azerbaijani connection to an analysis Hanning allegedly prepared using classified intelligence. Those relationships placed his private consultancy at the intersection of German intelligence on Iran, Israeli cybersecurity expertise and contacts in Baku, a strategic Israeli partner on Iran’s northern frontier.

The collection also reportedly included intelligence supplied by foreign partner services, bringing information entrusted to Germany through official liaison into Hanning’s private hands. Prosecutors say he used classified material in his consulting work and dealings with foreign intelligence representatives. The custody investigation had uncovered a suspected route through which intelligence gathered or received by the German state could be repurposed for private business and passed into an international network

Prosecutors say Manfred D. supplied Hanning with intelligence until June 2022, keeping the alleged pipeline running through changes in the service’s leadership and the governments it served. More than sixteen years after leaving the BND, Hanning allegedly continued receiving fresh intelligence for his private consulting work, rather than relying on knowledge accumulated in office. Prosecutors say he used classified material to prepare an analysis for an officer of one foreign intelligence service and passed political information to a representative of another over several years. Manfred D. allegedly delivered the information from inside the BND; Hanning turned it into a private product outside the service.

The federal allegations describe a business offering access not just to former officials, but also to Germany’s classified intelligence.

The Market Investigators Found

Hamburg investigators discovered the BND archive while examining the Block custody operation, not through an internal intelligence-service review. Their inquiries into the family, System 360 and Cyber Cupula led them to search Hanning’s premises, where they uncovered classified material. Hamburg authorities passed it to federal investigators, and the Federal Prosecutor’s Office took over the case in May 2026.

What began as a custody investigation had exposed the overlap between private security operations and the alleged trade in German intelligence. Hanning stood at that intersection, bringing his institutional contacts into a commercial partnership with Barkay while, prosecutors allege, receiving classified reporting from inside the BND. The Israeli connection ran through that partnership, linking an Israeli security company to the contacts and access of Germany’s former foreign intelligence chief.

Following the German-Israeli business network, investigators uncovered what prosecutors describe as a flow of classified reporting from inside the BND into private hands. For Germany, the danger extends beyond private profiteering. Such a channel could put German secrets within reach of Israeli intelligence through commercial intermediaries rather than authorised state cooperation. The question is who controls access to Germany’s intelligence—the institutions entrusted to protect it, or private networks built by their former leaders.

READ MORE GERMAN NEWS AT: 21st CENTURY WIRE GERMANY FILES

SUPPORT OUR INDEPENDENT MEDIA PLATFORM – BECOME A MEMBER @21WIRE.TV

VISIT OUR TELEGRAM CHANNEL

The post Germany’s Private Spy Bazaar appeared first on Activist Post.

Ryanair chief Michael O’Leary says jet fuel is now about 50% more expensive than before the Iran war and expects those elevated costs to persist for another 12 to 18 months. Reuters reports that he has previously warned ticket prices could rise by as much as 20% next summer. These are forecasts, but the pressure on airline margins is already here. “We are all facing an enormous cost challenge next year,” O’Leary said.

People assume that once the fighting stops, everything returns to normal. A ceasefire does not repair a refinery or restore damaged infrastructure overnight. Nor does a retreat in crude oil automatically produce an equivalent decline in the price of usable aviation fuel. Airlines need the finished product, delivered where their aircraft operate. You cannot fly a plane on a press release announcing that the oil market has stabilized.

Fuel hedging can buy an airline time, but it cannot permanently insulate the business from higher costs. As those contracts expire, management must decide how much it can pass to passengers and which routes remain worth operating. Raise fares too far and customers reconsider the trip. Absorb the increase and profitability suffers. Cheap tickets depend upon the economics of providing them, however much politicians would like to pretend otherwise.

Lufthansa is facing the same squeeze. CEO Carsten Spohr expects this year’s additional fuel costs to exceed the €1.5 billion previously projected, despite extensive hedging. The airline maintained its operating profit forecast, but rising costs are weighing on its turnaround plans. You can have passengers willing to fly and still struggle to improve profitability when the cost of carrying them keeps climbing. Hedging buys time; it does not manufacture fuel or permanently remove the expense. Those who believe an airline can simply absorb every increase should try running one.

EasyJet is already responding by cutting flights. The Financial Times reports that the airline will remove another 600,000 to 700,000 seats from its winter schedule, following an earlier reduction of about 700,000, to limit spending on expensive fuel. Routes that made sense at one fuel price become less attractive at another, and management pulls back. Fewer seats mean fewer opportunities to travel, with potential consequences for the hotels, restaurants, and businesses waiting for those visitors. Governments authorize military operations, and a holiday business hundreds of miles away discovers that its customers have fewer flights available to reach it. The consequences reach well beyond the airline. That is how an energy shock works its way through an economy, taking income from one business after another.

I have little patience for governments that discuss war as though its economic consequences can be contained within the country being attacked. Energy moves across borders, and so does the damage when its supply is disrupted. The public pays through fuel bills, freight charges, food prices, and now the cost of visiting family or taking a holiday. Officials can authorize another operation with a signature. The businesses trying to remain profitable must work out how to pay for the consequences.

The post The Energy Crisis Is Making Travel More Expensive appeared first on Activist Post.

Children from low-income families, girls, and 3- to 5-year-olds showed the steepest increases in autism rates, according to a large CDC study. The researchers also found 1 in 5 children were diagnosed with a developmental disability. The authors cited earlier detection and awareness as contributors to the increases. But experts said the paper offered no evidence for those explanations, called for a “greater sense of urgency to understand” what’s behind the large increases.

The percentage of U.S. children diagnosed with a developmental disability rose sharply between 2019 and 2024, with reported cases of autism increasing by more than 40% and ADHD also climbing substantially, according to a new study published in Pediatrics.

In 2023-2024, an estimated 20.45% of children ages 3 to 17 — roughly 1 in 5 — were diagnosed with at least one of five developmental disabilities, up from 16.73% in 2019-2020, a 22.2% increase in just five years.

Autism showed the largest increase, rising 42.4%, with the steepest increases reported among 3- to 5-year-olds and children from families living below 200% of the federal poverty level.

Researchers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) National Center for Health Statistics analyzed data from the 2019-2024 National Health Interview Survey, a nationally representative household survey that includes detailed health interviews with families in their home or by phone.

Toby Rogers, Ph.D., social & economic research fellow at the Brownstone Institute, told The Defender that the “truly alarming” findings were solid, based on a large sample size and a detailed dataset.

He called the lead author, Benjamin Zablotsky, Ph.D., “a titan in the field of autism prevalence research.”

However, Rogers told The Defender that he was “struck by the cowardice of the study’s discussion section and conclusions.”

In their discussion of the data, the authors said the study didn’t investigate what drove the substantial increases, but that changes in diagnostic criteria and clinical practices, and increased awareness among parents and across society may explain the increased prevalence.

“The conclusion that these increases ‘could be related to earlier detection and awareness’ is speculation that is not grounded in any strong evidence presented in the paper, autism researcher Cynthia Nevison, Ph.D., told The Defender.

Nevison, who recently published a study in California that found comparable rising rates, said the CDC researchers could have acknowledged that the numbers may also reflect true increases in autism — and that “distinguishing those alternative explanations is an urgent public health research priority.”

The study examined data from 2019-2024. “A lot of toxicological factors changed during that time period,” Rogers said. He cited more onerous vaccine mandates in California, New York and other blue states; more shots added to the childhood vaccine schedule and recommended for pregnant women; and the COVID-19 shots, which were given to the most Americans for the first time.

He added:

“Any honest inquiry into the causes of this sharp rise in the prevalence of developmental disabilities would start there. However, the authors don’t mention any of those obvious factors because they are too politically sensitive.

“Instead, they fill the discussion section with thought-terminating clichés about ‘changes in diagnostic criteria’ and ‘increased parental and societal awareness’ that have already been disproven many times.”

Autism diagnoses more than doubled in children ages 3 to 5

The study, which included data on 39,217 children ages 3 to 17, examined autism spectrum disorder, attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), learning disability, intellectual disability and other developmental delays.

Key findings include:

• Diagnoses of at least one of the five conditions increased 32.3% in children ages 3 to 5 and 25.4% among girls. Among non-Hispanic Asian children, the diagnoses rose from 6.10% to 10.56% — a 73.11% increase.
• The most commonly reported condition was ADHD, and rates increased 26% from 9.52% to 12%, with notable increases among girls and among low-income families.
• Autism rates rose from 3.14% of children in 2019-2020 to 4.47% in 2023-2024. In children ages 3 to 5, autism rates jumped from 2.39% to 5.27% — a 120.5% increase.
• Autism prevalence increased 58.3% among girls. The authors noted that this was the “first time” researchers found a significant increase in autism prevalence among girls — rates are typically higher in boys. They said future studies should look at the causes for that change.
• Autism rates increased 60.8% among families living below 200% of the federal poverty level, and 85.8% among children living in nonmetropolitan areas.
• Learning disabilities increased 16.2%, from 7.60% to 8.83%; and other developmental delays increased 16.1%, from 5.47% to 6.35%. Intellectual disability increased from 1.95% to 2.08%, but that change was not statistically significant.

‘I would have liked to see the paper convey a greater sense of urgency’

The rising rates track with other research published by the CDC and other studies that have identified dramatically rising rates for autism and other developmental disabilities in recent years.

Yet, many mainstream science journals and media outlets consistently attribute the massive difference largely to changing diagnosis and awareness.

At best, they conclude that the rising numbers mean that more infrastructure must be developed to support children with autism and other developmental disabilities.

Nevison said researchers need to be asking questions instead about why the changes are happening. “I would have liked to see the paper convey a greater sense of urgency to understand why these large changes in developmental disability rates have occurred over a very short period of time,” she said.

Rogers said that for researchers working in government organizations and universities, asking that question is basically impossible.

“Look, I get it — the authors took a dive in the discussion and conclusions because they would lose their jobs if they asked hard questions about causation. Everyone knows this,” he said.

He added:

“There’s a certain paint-by-numbers quality to articles in connection with the autism epidemic that are published by Pediatrics or written by government researchers, where they omit any urgency, curiosity or empathy in order to signal their obedience to the all-powerful pharmaceutical industry.

“But at some point this obsequiousness becomes ridiculous. American science and medicine have started to resemble the darkest days of Soviet Lysenkoism where scholars repeat things that they know are untrue in order to fit the required narrative.

“The result of this extreme epistemic capture … is the erosion of trust, the necrotizing of science and ultimately the collapse of society.”

Related articles in The Defender

• Autism Rates Increased Sharply for California Kids Born in 2016
• 1 in 31 Kids Had Autism in 2022 — Up From 1 in 36 in 2020
• ‘Genes Do Not Cause Epidemics’: Kennedy Lambastes Media for Denying Autism Epidemic, Vows to Research Environmental Triggers
• Autism Prevalence: A Real, Accelerating Epidemic
• ‘Autism Tsunami’: Society’s Cost to Care for Expanding, Aging Autism Population Will Hit $5.54 Trillion by 2060
• In New Autism Report, CDC Again Fails to Address Root Causes
• What’s Behind Skyrocketing Autism Rates — Better Diagnostics? Or an Avalanche of Toxins?

The post Autism Rates Surged More Than 40% Between 2019-2024 — Where’s the Urgency? appeared first on Activist Post.

The post Charlie Robinson: De-Occulting the Global Depopulation Agenda appeared first on Activist Post.

The U.S. will seize $1 billion of Iran’s crypto this week, U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has said. It isn’t clear which asset though.

U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has said the American authorities will soon seize $1 billion in crypto from Iran. 

Speaking on Newsmax’s NPolicy Summit in Washington, D.C. on Thursday, Bessent added that economic sanctions on the Middle Eastern country were working. 

Iran has been using bitcoin — and other cryptocurrencies — to skirt around U.S. sanctions. The U.S. in April started targeting crypto wallets linked to the Iranian regime, Bessent said at the time. 

“What we have done has never been seen before,” Bessent said Thursday on Iranian sanctions. 

“We’re probably going to seize $1 billion of crypto this week,” he continued. “We know where it is. We are isolating them. We did have a maximum pressure campaign, now we have an absolute isolation campaign and it’s working.”

Bessent didn’t reveal what cryptocurrencies the U.S. will seize or how. 

It would be very hard — if not impossible — for the U.S. to freeze Iran’s bitcoin unless it keeps it on a centralized exchange. 

Bitcoin, being censorship resistant, cannot be frozen. But many other cryptocurrencies, including Tether’s USDT, can. Bessent previously said the feds had seized Iran’s crypto in the form of the popular stablecoin. 

Iran started a bitcoin-backed insurance service for its counties shipping companies earlier this year.

The Financial Times last month reported that the Middle Eastern country was using bitcoin to settle cross-border transactions through Iranian crypto exchanges after the central bank advised its countrymen to do anything necessary to help the economy.    

U.S. President Donald Trump revived his “maximum pressure” campaign weeks after returning to office. A national security memorandum signed in February 2025 put the Treasury on a sustained campaign against Iran’s shadow banking, money laundering and sanctions-evasion networks.

The post ‘We Know Where It Is’: Treasury Secretary Threatens To Freeze $1B of Iran’s Crypto appeared first on Activist Post.

Also available on Substack.

* * *
In Part 1, we considered the network of political operators that have worked to ensure Andy Burnham became UK Prime Minister. In Part 2 we examined the media network that has propagandised the nation, creating a Burnham mythology to provide faux-legitimisation for his premiership in the absence of any political mandate.

These UK-based political and propaganda networks are themselves representative of a much larger public-private global network. Andy Burnham has evidently been inserted into the top political job by the UK public-private network in order to digitally transform the UK at the behest of global interests.

On 31st August 2026, independent journalist and former UK Column reporter Ben Rubin produced an investigative segment discussing the topic of Manchesterism. Rubin reported that Manchesterism is, in part, a product of seven devolution deals that span from 2009 to 2017. Conservative, Coalition, and Labour governments have steadily formed the structural, legislative, and regulatory condition for Manchesterism over the years.

As Rubin highlights, however, the UK-based network that has pushed Manchesterism is part of the wider public-private network we’ve just mentioned. Rubin accurately described Manchesterism as a project of “unelected state operatives and highly remunerated consultants working for a transnational capitalist [. . .] predator class”—oligarchs.

Andy Burnham, then, is a front man and a policy enforcer for an imminent UK Technocracy. Burnham does not represent the UK’s interests, nor those of the UK population. Ultimately, Burnham represents the global oligarch-led network trying to install a worldwide Technocracy.

Another, among the groups Burnham does represent, is the Fabian Society. Drawing its inspiration from the tactics of the Roman general Quintus Fabius, the Fabian Society’s ethos is that “when the time comes, you must strike hard.” Burnham’s time has arrived.

With a history rooted in eugenics and population reduction, the Fabian society was extremely influential in the creation of the Labour Party. Every Labour prime minister has been a Fabian, and Burnham is no exception.

While he was mayor of the Greater Manchester Combined Authority (GMCA), in October 2023 Burnham spoke to Kate Murray, the Fabian’s editorial director, about the allegedly devolved future of the UK and, specifically, England. Maintaining the “King of the North” mythos, Murray and the Fabians presented Burnham as a “local hero.”

Burnham told Murray:

[T]he 21st century is going to be more about change driven by cities and city regions – bottom-up change. The kind of thinking that says everything has to be controlled and legislated for I don’t think ever particularly worked but it really won’t work in the 21st century. England, and I would say the rest of the UK, is crying out for deeper devolution. [. . .] I think this phase of my political journey is best served in establishing a new tier of governance for England.

Contrary to Burnham’s assertions, certainly in England, there is no public appetite for “deeper devolution” of the kind offered by the British political establishment. As noted in Part 2, when the English have been asked, they have not shown any enthusiasm for the devolution packages persistently foisted on them by various national governments. The state’s response has been to ignore the will of the people and to stop asking the question.

Take another example: in May 1997, less than 25% of eligible voters wanted a devolved Greater London Authority, but it was created regardless. The overwhelming lack of public interest has been reaffirmed in every subsequent London mayoral election.

In May 2024, current London Mayor Sadiq Khan “won” 43.8% of the vote from a 40.5% turnout. Just 17.7% of Londoners want Sadiq Khan to be their mayor, 82.3% of Londoners do not, and the vast majority either want no mayor at all or are completely disinterested. Khan does not represent Londoners.

The former chair of the Fabian Society (2008 – 2010), Khan is the current global chair of the C40 Cities network. Sadiq Khan represents the C40 Cities network.

C40 is a global public-private partnership (G3P) that seeks to transform cities to meet United Nations (UN) global governance goals by empowering a network of mayors that “shapes urban policy” on behalf of the G3P controlling C40 Cities; it is a globalist think tank extraneous to national governments.

C40’s overseeing G3P network consists of Bloomberg Philanthropies (the Bloomberg family), the Global Environment Facility (the Rothschild family), the Open Society Foundation (the Soros family), the Rockefeller family, the UN, the EU, numerous multinational corporations, and elements within the UK and Danish governments, among others.

Burnham’s claim that Manchesterism—city-state governance—is somehow sociopolitical change driven from “bottom-up” is drivel. Over the last few decades, Tory, Labour, and Coalition governments have relentlessly promoted and tried to install devolution packages. The English people, who have repeatedly rejected the proposed changes, have had no influence over the policy trajectory whatsoever.

The reason for this situation is straightforward: the English live in a functional oligarchy, and governments—and politicians like Burnham—serve that oligarchy.

Plainly, it makes no difference which political party is supposedly leading the country. As highlighted by Burnham and the Fabians in 2023, the English are going to have a “new tier of governance” delivered through a network of “cities and city regions” whether they want that new model of governance or not. Mayors, such as London’s Sadiq Khan, have already been embedded to meet that agenda.

The latest step along the march toward so-called devolution is the Labour government’s English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026 (EDCE Act), which received Royal Assent in April 2026—before Burnham was inserted into Downing Street to implement it. Needless to say, “community empowerment” is anathema to the effect of the Act.

Contrary to the common comprehension of “devolution,” as independent researcher and journalist Escapekey rightly observed, the EDCE Act centralises authority. The “new tier of governance” manifests as the “strategic authority,” which “sits between the central government’s objectives and the population, applying conditions defined above to the community below. [The strategic authority] does not have the power to contest what’s requested of it—it simply has to apply the standard determined above.”

Under the EDCE Act, the construction of the new governance tier, masquerading as devolution, affords the Secretary of State, from whatever political party, the power to define, for example, the “general health determinants” that the supposedly devolved city-state must incorporate into their policies.

Escapekey notes:

Section 45 [of the EDCE Act] is where the architecture reveals itself. [. . .] Everything is a health determinant. Which means every decision made by every combined authority — about housing, transport, planning, economic development, the environment — must be evaluated against health outcomes.

I have written extensively about this “decentralisation to recentralisation trick.” Decentralisation, in this case “devolution,” is presented as a solution to the inefficiency of national government procurement, planning, and provision. Such devolution is an illusion. The new tier of governance—the strategic authority—is created to insert centralised authority into every supposedly local policy decision.

Call it Manchesterism, call it decentralisation, or devolution, call it whatever, the “decentralisation to recentralisation trick” is a strategy planned at the global governance level. For the oligarch architects of global governance, Manchesterism—the UK branding of their city-state agenda—is their preferred route to exerting Technocratic control. In this instance, it is over the English.

We can clearly define what Manchesterism is actually designed to deliver. Manchesterism is ostensibly comprised of two components. The first is digital transformation, and the second is usury.

The BBC, of course, hailed Burnham’s 2017 mayoral election victory, framing it as historic and highlighting that 63% of voters elected him—though it conceded that less than 29% bothered to vote. Burnham preposterously spun the fringe minority support he had gleaned from an overwhelmingly indifferent GMCA electorate as “a big mandate.” He promised that the GMCA, under his leadership, would “take control” of some sort of “new politics.”

It soon became clear exactly what kind of “new politics” Burnham had in mind. In May 2017, one of his first acts as mayor was to launch the GMCA’s Digital City Initiative (DCI). Promising to make Greater Manchester “a digital city with a difference,” and claiming that Greater Manchester was “on the digital frontier,” Burnham outlined his hopes for the emerging city-state:

We want to fuse technological advancement with culture, ethics, communities and places to build a world which is connected, creative and cooperative, and a modern and prosperous Greater Manchester where no-one is left behind. [. . .] I don’t want Greater Manchester to be just a smart city, I want it to be the smartest city.

Digital transformation, and the requisite private sector investment in “frontier technology,” is a key component of the global governance project, expressed in the UK as Manchesterism. Burnham is the UK’s PR front man for a global governance agenda.

The United Nations (UN)—an oligarch-led public-private initiative—aims to roll out “frontier technology” in the “digital frontier.” The UN defines frontier technology as:

[A]rtificial intelligence and machine learning, renewable energy technologies, energy storage technologies, electric and autonomous vehicles and drones, genetic engineering, as well as cryptocurrencies and blockchains.

Burnham’s DCI “plan” complied fully with the UN’s New Urban Agenda (UN-NUA), which was officially launched in December 2016, just before Burnham supposedly took “control” of a new model of frontier politics in the GMCA region. The UN-NUA seeks to use “frontier technology” to accelerate adoption of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), especially SDG 11, to make “cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable.” The so-called 15-minute city, for instance, is an SDG 11 initiative.

To appreciate where Burnham’s Manchesterism-aligned Digital City Initiative (DCI) actually originated, we only need to look at the scale of the G3P network behind what we call Manchesterism as described by the UN:

Member States; intergovernmental organizations; the United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat) plus more than 40 United Nations agencies, funds, and programmes; 200 Policy Unit experts with 20 co-leading organizations; 16 partner constituent groups of the General Assembly of Partners; thousands of subnational and local governments and all major networks of local and regional governments coordinated by the Global Taskforce of Local and Regional Governments; 197 participating states; over 1,100 organizations; and more than 58,000 networks were involved in the preparations of the New Urban Agenda.

You may ask what this network’s agenda is trying to achieve. The short answer is the centralised global behavioural control of the population.

The UN-NUA calls for “technology and communication networks to be strengthened” and to expand “the capacity of local governments to effectively procure, test and implement frontier technologies.” The UN is eager to roll out frontier technology through a network of smart cities because the digital surveillance systems—especially combined with AI, digital identity and programmable digital currencies—can be used by oligarchs, ultimately, to control human decision making and behaviour.

As researchers writing for the Indonesian Journal of Information Systems and Informatics noted:

The influence of smart-city technology on consumer behavior in urban environments and people’s daily routines and lifestyle habits is significant. [. . .] Thus, the application of smart-city technology not only transforms city infrastructure and services, but also brings significant changes in citizen behavior.

It is much easier to enforce global policy diktats on people if they are technologically denied the ability to do anything but follow the policy. Therefore, in the hope of compelling humanity to obey global governance, the oligarch network that operates through the UN asked itself how it could best use technology to stamp its distant global authority on populations—technological slavery. The answer it came up with is the “digital transformation” across a network of city-states, and that is what Burnham is tasked with delivering in England and, doubtless, the UK.

To explain: in 2013, American political theorist Benjamin R. Barber (1939–2017) published If Mayors Ruled the World: Dysfunctional Nations, Rising Cities. Barber argued that city administrations were unencumbered by political divisions and national rivalries and were, therefore, better “building blocks of global governance.”

Advocating a global network of cities, Barber wrote:

Envision not states but cities as building blocks for global governance. [. . .] Global governance in which the city predominates is the aim.

This idea was immediately picked up and pursued by the UN and its partners. Directly influenced by Barber’s ideas, the billionnaire Michael Bloomberg established his first CityLab summit in 2013. In 2014, Bloomberg was appointed as the UN’s inaugural Special Envoy for Cities and Climate Change.

According to then UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, Bloomberg’s mission was to consult “with mayors and related key stakeholders” in order to “mobilize action among cities as part of [the UN’s] long-term strategy.” As president of the board of the C40 Cities network, Bloomberg soon convened the Global Compact of Mayors, committing networked city leaders to implement UN sustainability policies.

In 2016, the UN’s Global Compact of Mayors joined with the similar European Union (EU) Covenant of Mayors to become the Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy (GCoM). The GCoM established the Invest4Cities initiative to generate “massive and targeted investment” to construct smart cities. The private sector’s opportunity offered oligarchs and other financiers “$23 trillion in investment potential” by 2030.

The public sector’s role—national and local government—is to create “the enabling environments that support local investment.” In the name of Sustainable Development, the GCoM plan is that “large-scale financing instruments” will fund “local implementation” of frontier technologies to construct global governance-compliant smart cities.

In the same year (2016), Michael Bloomberg created the Global Parliament of Mayors (GPM) to give the selected civic leaders—not national government representatives—formal global governance roles. The GPM asserts “the city’s right to self-government” and promotes “collective city decision-making across national borders.” The GPM is also “actively engaged in decision-making by international organisations.”

The GPM openly declares its objectives:

To establish a new global governance platform empowering mayors to deliver viable cross-border solutions to global challenges. [. . .] The Global Parliament of Mayors is an unprecedented new experiment in democratic global governance platform by, for, and of cities. [. . .] In this era of interdependence, where nation states are increasingly dysfunctional and cities are everywhere rising, the moment has come for cities to take the leap from effective local governance to true global governance.

The GPM is the UN’s expression of Barber’s vision of “global governance in which the city predominates.”

The purpose, then, of the GPM is to undermine the supposed political sovereignty of national governments and reimagine international relations through a global network of smart city-states—per the oligarch’s wishes. Manchester City Council Leaders Richard Leese—who shocked Burnham in 2020, live on national television (see Part 2)—and Andy Burnham are both contributing members of the GPM. Presumably, Burnham is committed to GPM principles and is seeking to destroy the UK from within in order to achieve global governance goals. He’s not alone, of course.

In 2017, adopting accelerationist principles, the C40 network started implementing a number of “High-Impact Accelerators.” The C40 accelerators form one of the “project pipelines” that contribute to the GCoM’s Invest4Cities strategy.

Invest4Cities aims to “accelerate city and local government access to financial resources” by “unlocking large-scale financing instruments to boost urban action implementation.” As you can imagine, with $23 trillion of global investment opportunities in sight, the envisaged ROI is a mouthwatering prospect for any oligarch.

In 2018, to expedite progress, Burnham signed the people of the GMCA up to the C40 Cities Fossil Fuel Free Streets Declaration, promising to report progress back to the transnational capitalist billionaires behind the C40 Cities initiative. Burnham agreed with the oligarchs that he should “transform the way people travel” around the GMCA region through behavioural change policies to shift them from private car ownership to “walking, cycling and the use of public and shared transport.”

In 2019, with the support of mayors like Burnham, C40 Cities published a report in which it outlined how our behaviour should be changed:

• Meat and dairy consumption will be banned;
• Daily caloric intake will be set at 2,500 kcal or less;
• Allowable plant-based food will come from “sustainable” multinational corporate mega-farms;
• Private vehicle ownership will be outlawed;
• Flights will be restricted to one short-haul return flight per year;
• No more than three new items of clothing shall be bought by each person annually.

According to C40 Cities, consumption of everything, from water to energy, from raw materials to manufactured products, will be monitored, restricted, controlled, and allocated as deemed necessary—Technocracy. Thus, our behaviour will be transformed. C40’s 2019 report provides us with a clear indication of where “global governance in which the city predominates” is intended to take us and where Prime Minister Burnham will lead us if we follow.

While GMCA mayor, Andy Burnham was a valued contributor to the Global Government Forum (GGF). Shortly before becoming prime minister, on behalf of the GCF, Burnham convened the Global AI Cities summit in Manchester.

Global AI Cities is another networking opportunity for public and private “partners” to build cities with AI, transform cities, and engineer how “cities respond to rapid economic and societal change” through the extensive use of AI. The Global AI Cities’ stated purpose is “to accelerate the transformation of local services and support the development of digitally-enabled cities around the world.” That is, to deliver the UN’s New Urban Agenda by weaponising frontier technology to restrict our behaviour.

The GCF is backed by the US tech giant Accenture, which is a founding member of the ID2020 alliance. ID2020 is a global “public/private partnership committed to providing a digital identity”—SDG 16.9. Digital ID (interoperable digital identity) is a tool for censorship and oppression designed to bind us to global governance decrees.

Consequently, now that he has been placed in Downing Street, Burnham is the figurehead for a raft of proposed government online censorship regulations that will inevitably lead to a widespread requirement to use digital ID to access the internet. Evidently, the objective is to coerce as many people as possible to adopt digital ID. Adoption of digital ID is what the G3P network, which Burnham represents, desires.

As part of the propaganda tsunami that preceeded Burnham’s installation as prime minister, Bloomberg ran articles in early 2026 extoling the claimed virtues of both Manchesterism and Burnham. Confirming a point we discussed in Part 2, Bloomberg’s listed signs of purported economic growth—across a region of more than 2.2 million people—were all highly localised in Manchester’s city centre: “The city center’s population is approaching 100,000 – up from hundreds in 1990, [. . .] the number of skyscrapers has increased sevenfold, [. . .] [f]ormer industrial districts [are] filled with apartments, joggers and bakeries.”

Bloomberg noted the comments of “Jim O’Neill, the former Treasury minister and Goldman Sachs chief economist,” who fully supports the removal of productivity and gentrification that typifies Manchesterism. As prime minister, Burmham has appointed an economic advisory team led by Jim O’Neill, Andy Haldane (former Bank of England), and Richard Hughes (former Office of Budget Responsibility – OBR) to roll out the same Manchesterism model nationally.

In the interview with Bloomberg, O’Neill highlighted that Manchester had “attracted the highest foreign direct investment outside the capital.” Again, not surprising, because Manchesterism offers oligarchs immense profit potential.

The stated “Framework for Manchesterism” is “The Productive State.” Both of the authors, Matthew Lawrence and Alex Williams, work for Common Wealth—a progressive policy think tank. Common Wealth receives oligarch funding from, among others, the Omidyar Network (the Omidyar family), the Open Society Foundation, and Rockefeller Philanthropies. It is essentially supported by the same oligarch network that backs C40 Cities, the GCoM, and the GPM, and commands the UN.

The plan, outlined in The Productive State, sounds enticing at first. “Public corporations”—operating “at city-region scale”—will “own” and run essential public services and utilities while adopting a long-term investment strategy. This will supposedly lower public costs, control prices, and, it is claimed, dissociate crucial service industries, such as public transport, water, and energy, from shareholder profits. Regrettably, The Productive State is highly misleading.

According to Lawrence and Williams:

The destination is an economic system with three distinct tiers, each governed by different principles. At the foundation sits decommodified provision of essentials [public services and utilities]. Above the foundation sits a stabilised market economy where private production thrives but where the state intervenes as market participant or public producer to prevent instability and check rent extraction. [. . .]

At the apex sits the innovation frontier — sectors characterised by rapid technological change and radical uncertainty — remaining primarily private because change is too fast for effective planning, but supported by ambitious industrial strategy. This tier operates atop the enabling foundation. Entrepreneurs can take genuine risks because failure does not mean destitution. Workers can move between jobs and cities because the essentials are portable and guaranteed. Each tier depends on the one below, the frontier enabled by the foundation.

Forget about job security. “Workers”—those who still have jobs—serve as a mobile resource, ready to be relocated “between jobs and cities” as needed.

The Framework for Manchesterism supposedly decommodifies [removes the shareholder profit incentive] from public services and utilities. The “distinct tiers” of the new Manchesterism-based economy are:

• The decommodified foundation—energy, water, housing, care, transport—will be “owned” by national “public corporations” and “city-region authorities.”
• The stabilised market middle—manufacturing, retail, most services, consumer goods—will primarily be deliverd by the private sector but the public sector will step in when the private sector isn’t interested.

Together, the decommodified foundation and the stabilised market “enable” the “security” allegedly required by:

• The innovation frontier—AI, biotech, advanced manufacturing, new energy technologies—which will also be delivered by the private sector. “Adaptive regulation” and taxpayers’ investment in their for-profit R&D will provide the selected “entrepreneurs” with the leeway they need.

The Productive State further defines the so-called functions of Manchesterism.

In the “dealer function” the taxpayer invests in public service delivery, utilities, and infrastructure over the long term to reduce market volatility and stabilise prices—in theory. That is to say, public “ownership” in Manchesterism means the creation of a public sector subsidised market, ultimately for the benefit of the private sector “innovation frontier.”

In “the producer function” the private sector enters the public sector’s “stabilised market middle.” Private corporations won’t hoover up all the best contracts and avoid the unprofitable ones like the plague because reasons. Or, as Lawrence and Williams imagine, because the public sector producers, through some mysterious device, change “the terms on which the private market operates.”

Presumably land, bricks, fuels, pharmaceuticals, agri-chemicals, raw materials and all the other necessary goods and services, etc.—all provided by the private sector to the taxpayer-funded public sector—will be priced to reflect some sort of good-will discount.

These Manchesterism functions will lead to decommodification, making initiatives like “a national energy guarantee” possible. The guarantee will magically provide “a free block of electricity and gas” that could “cover around 80 per cent of typical household energy consumption at zero cost.” Manchesterism will make global energy markets disappear overnight. Energy will be free!

[I promise you, I am not just winding you up.]

Andy Burnham certainly understands that the suggestion of free energy is ludicrous. In response to fuel prices deepening the cost of living woes for British people, Burnham said:

The reality is that global events are pushing up costs.

Burnham seems to grasp that global market events largely shape prices internationally. Lawrence and Williams apparently do not share this awareness, and Manchesterism seemingly does not acknowledge how the global economy functions.

Faced with this realisation, Burnham’s prime-ministerial solution, however, is that we should use “Google Maps” to locate the best deals. Great news for the UK government’s partner Google, but tantamount to meaningless for the rest of us.

As prime minister, it is supposedly within Burnham’s power to try to lower the huge tax levies his government places on fuels, or he could rescind his decision to allow the US government to continue its illegal war against Iran from UK air bases, given that the alleged “war” is the cause of the price hikes. Instead, he suggests we Google it.

Moving back to The Productive State, you may have spotted some of the many other flaws in the Framework for Manchesterism. How will the British political state independently lower all of these costs? We are assured that this can be done through the combined wizardry of “decommodification” and the “stabilised market middle.”

The “Productive State is pro-enterprise” and “lowers risks” for investors in the whole “stabilised market” economy—or “foundation.” The “public corporation”—through which taxpayers supposedly “own” essential infrastructure and service industries don’t forget—will “borrow in its own name.” Of course, the public corporation is not going to borrow anything; we are.

Don’t worry, the borrowing will be “self-financing through higher GDP and tax receipts”—increased taxes. We’ll get to higher GDP bit in a moment.

The devolved Utopia will blossom thanks to a powerful enchantment:

The public corporation can invest [by raising taxes and borrowing] in Britain’s foundational infrastructure at lower cost because [Manchesterism] reduces the debt risk premium that private finance faces. The economic cost of risk reallocated: risks borne by private investors in market models are instead absorbed by the public sector balance sheet, and ultimately by taxpayers or users, but at a lower cost overall.

So, Manchesterism places the burden of financial “risk” on the public. This “lower risk”—covered by you and me—will entice oligarchs to invest in devolved smart city-state infrastructure, not because they want to make returns on a “$23 trillion in investment potential,” nor because they want to lock us all down with frontier technology, but because it is just such a sound long-term investment strategy that serves the public good.

This means that the “innovation frontier” or “apex” of Manchesterism—a functional layer “characterised by rapid technological change and radical uncertainty”—is where the private sector oligarchs will be subsidised to innovate—install frontier technology across a network of smart city-states.

The Productive State proposes:

As technologies mature from frontier to infrastructure, they move [down] through the tiers: from experiment to stabilised market to, eventually, decommodified public good.

Essentially, what Manchesterism proposes is that investors in the “innovation frontier” force the “rapid technological change” upon smart city-state populations, while the same populations provide the public sector market for the mature technology’s eventual sale and oligarch ROI profits. The taxpayers will protect “entrepreneurs” against potential losses from the “radical uncertainty” inherent to the entrepreneurs’ technosocial experimentation.

The claimed GDP growth will materialise through “a generation of transformative megaprojects” that will result from building “essential infrastructure at speed, scale, and costeffectiveness.” This will be funded by tax rises and public borrowing. This is how Burnham transfered more than half a billion pounds from the public sector to the private sector—for no discernible benefit to the GMCA majority—in less than a decade.

Once the frontier technology has “matured,” overburdened taxpayers will be forced to borrow even more from the private sector to finance their own technological enslavement. As the oligarchs’ investment risk will be covered by the taxpayer, and since the market for their digital products and services is hardwired into the Manchesterism model, “failure does not mean destitution” for the wealthiest people on the planet.

In short, Manchesterism is the creation of an enabling environment for oligarch investors to construct their digital global governance infrastructure in England. Or, in the deceptive rhetoric of the UN-NUA, generate “the enabling environments that support local investment.”

From the taxpayers’ perspective, Manchesterism is evidently usury leading to penury. In terms of the intended AI-driven digital transformation, Manchesterism is Technocracy—behavioural control through the allocation and distribution of resources—leading to enslavement.

As we noted in Part 1, Manchesterism has also been promoted by academia, especially the University of Manchester (UoM). The UoM is home to the Productivity Lab, which is a core research hub for the Productivity Institute academic network.

The Productivity Institute refers to Manchesterism as the Manchester model and notes that the economic growth, which clearly only benefits a select few, is not sustained by political leadership alone. The Manchester model of growth relies on “institutional architecture” and “policy coordination,” no matter which political party or politician is supposedly leading.

Observing that the Manchester model was “international all along,” and echoing UN-NUA calls to harness “massive and targeted investment” to install the necessary frontier technology to achieve “global governance in which the city predominates,” the Productivity Institute reports:

[Manchester] connected local capabilities to global capital. The city-region attracted [. . .] $13.7 billion between 2013 and 2025 [. . .], much of it channelled into the digital, scientific and professional sectors that drove its productivity growth. [. . .] A domestic growth strategy cannot be separated from an international one. [. . .] Manchester’s experience offers the method. Identify the capabilities of a place, invest in the institutions that support them, and connect them deliberately to international capital, knowledge and markets. The opportunity now is to apply that method at national scale – connecting the UK’s domestic growth ambitions to the international relationships on which their success depends.

The Productive State—Manchesterism—is seemingly founded on the premise that the UK can have a growth strategy somehow disconnected from global economic and particularly international monetary forces. Setting aside that contradiction, the Productivity Institute, which strongly argues for the UK rejoining the EU, has hit the nail on the head in many respects.

The point of Manchesterism is to connect “local capabilities to global capital.” The new Burnham government aims to transform England and the rest of the UK into an extension of “international capital, knowledge, and markets”—the UN-NUA.

Global capital is controlled by a global functional oligarchy. Consequently, Burnham is poised to deliver, in the UK, what the oligarchs want: “global governance in which the city predominates.”

You do not have to take my word for any of these claims. In March 2026, a few months before he became prime minister, Andy Burnham gave an interview to the CEO of Informed Solution, Elizabeth Vega. During that discussion, Burnham said:

I see digital tech AI and all of its forms playing a foundational role in the ongoing success of Greater Manchester, underpinning everything. [. . .] I set the ambition of making Greater Manchester the UK’s leading digital city region. [. . .] It’s about all of our residents, all citizens online, everybody connected to the digital economy.

Burnham effectively pronounced that he has implemented the UN-NUA agenda in the emerging GMCA smart city-state. He added that the GMCA’s “innovation frontier,” defined in The Productive State, works closely with the intelligence agencies:

GCHQ have made a commitment to Greater Manchester around innovation. [. . .] It’s important to have a strategic vision and digital and AI intersect with pretty much every of the key sectors that the Greater Manchester has. Creative, manufacturing, advanced materials, everything. [. . .] [AI] will underpin all of the other innovative industries that we’ve got. Life sciences and health, obviously.

As we move towards national “devolution,” Burnham conceded that the “strategic authority,” or the “new tier of governance,” will use health determinants—“obviously”—to coordinate policy across the entire GMCA smart city-state.

The “General Health Determinants,” outlined in Section 45 of the EDCE Act, are:

(a) standards of housing, transport services or public safety,

(b) environmental factors, including air quality and access to green space and bodies of water,

(c) employment prospects, earning capacity and any other matters that affect levels of prosperity,

(d) the degree of ease or difficulty with which persons have access to public services,

(e) the use, or level of use, of tobacco, alcohol or other substances, and any other matters of personal behaviour or lifestyle, that are or may be harmful to health,

and any other matters that are determinants of life expectancy or the state of health of persons generally, other than genetic or biological factors.

“Any other matters of personal behaviour or lifestyle” and any other declared determinants of “the state of health” gives the new tier of governance control over the “behaviour” of “persons generally.” As Burnham stresses, “everything” will be monitored and surveilled, through the deployment of smart city frontier technology, overseen by and coordinated through the system-wide use of AI.

Burnham went on:

We want to bring forward an AI demonstrator. So bring together public data sets from local, regional, national level and start to use AI to identify people within the city region who need a different approach.

“Data sets” will be gathered, analysed, and AI will “identify people” and single them out for “a different approach.” The UN-NUA agenda is specifically designed to enable the precise targeting of idividuals for “a different approach.” Placing an almost unimaginable degree of behavioural control in the hands of oligarchs is the primary objective of the UN-NUA.

AI is not just some tool enabling the remote, logical automation of administrative systems. It is being used as the “foundation” of a programmable global governance system that can be and is being programmed by people with very specific agendas.

Burnham was only prepared to talk to Vega about using AI to take “a different approach” to health interventions and targeted welfare support for identified individuals. Yet elsewhere in the conversation, he openly discusses “everybody” being “connected” to “every” aspect of the new tier of governance. Evidently, a punitive “different approach” is also a core feature of the envisaged Manchesterism.

Bear in mind that, for some time, the global public-private partnership (G3P)—incorporating the UN—has been trying to construct a global network of smart city-states because it views that sociopolitical structure as the most efficient route through which to enforce global governance. In the UK, we currently call that process “devolution,” and, turning to the subject of devolution, Burnham continued:

[W]e’ve had, um, the deepest devolution deal here for some time. So, as a result of that, we’ve got a very integrated approach, uh, to public services and a very networked approach between public sector, private sector, voluntary sector, academia. That’s the Greater Manchester magic.

Indeed, if we contemplate The Productive State, much of Manchesterism does appear to be based upon magic thinking. But the Framework for Manchesterism, like so much associated with the Manchesterism concept, amounts to little more than propaganda. The economic arguments presented don’t need to demonstrate economic or even any logical cause and effect. For Manchesterism to advance nationally, the UK’s political class must simply believe or appear to believe in it.

By harvesting data from every source, Manchesterism creates the surveillance state that is a core pillar of the global governance agenda. The surveillance and restriction of populations’ communications has been an obsession of the G3P for years. Embodied by the UN, the G3P is desperate to restore the centralised control of information that it has lost as a consequence of our use of the internet. It calls its problem “information pollution.”

The global governance solution to information pollution is censorship. The shutdown of the free exchange of information can be coordinated at the global governance level and can be achieved through the use of surveillance technology. The so-called online “guardrails” determining what is acceptable speech, what ideas are permitted, who can speak, and who can’t can all be set at the global governance level.

Speaking in January 2026, UN Secretary António Guterres said:

When technologies that shape behavior, elections, markets, and even conflicts operate without guardrails, the reaction is not innovation; it is instability.

In September 2026, addressing the UN General Assembly, Andy Burnham expanded on the concerns expressed by Gutteres:

In recent years we have seen an industrial-scale assault by hostile actors on the information environment in the UK and that of many of our allies. [. . .] Over the last decade we have given too much ground to those who want to run a negative, corrosive narrative about life in Britain. [. . .] [F]aced with this information warfare, security starts in every home. [. . .] And we will put in place the architecture we need to stem this poisonous tide.

Returning to his earlier March 2026 interview with Vega, Burnham clarified what he subsequently referenced as “the architecture” that will fight “information warfare.” This “war” will be fought to ensure that we are no longer “negative” or “corrosive” because, as Burnham said, “security starts in every home”:

[W]e lost sense of what was right and wrong and things that were wrong have kind of crept in way too much into everyday life. [. . .] I look at the kind of AI, um, revolution and I think we got to kind of take that sense of what’s right and what’s wrong what what do people think is, is, is good and should be encouraged and what actually we, we, we don’t want to see and set those guardrails down and do it at a city region level because I think governments are struggling to do this, aren’t they, at a, at a national level. [. . .] let’s go towards this AI revolution with those guardrails in, um, and try and extract the full benefit, [. . .] while then being quite conscious of where the downside risks are and where the trust may be eroded and use Greater Manchester in some ways as a test bed.

The “guardrails,” that Gutteres and Burnham refer to, will protect whatever is deemed to be the right information and exclude whatever is designated as the wrong information. The guardrails will be “set” at the “city region level” because “global governance in which the city predominates” is the United Nations’ New Urban Agenda and the G3P’s most efficient path to dictatorship.

Manchesterism has been tested in Manchester, but it has nothing to do with the people of Manchester or the GMCA region. It always was “international all along.” Manchester has been a “test bed” for the UN-NUA global governance model.

There is much more to say about Manchesterism, its conspicuous and highly questionable links to the United Arab Emirates, for example, but that is for another time.

Andy Burnham was selected as the face of Manchesterism in 2017. Since then, his public image has been carefully crafted, and British politics stage-managed to place him in the right position at the right time to cement “global governance in which the city predominates” in England and then the UK.

Manchesterism is a Trojan Horse for oligarch-led global governance, and Andy Burnham leads nothing. He is just a salesman, using propaganda and coercion to sell the unreachable tyranny of a global oligarchy as a “new tier of governance” to a deceived population.

The post Andy Burnham’s Trojan Manchesterism – Part 3 appeared first on Activist Post.

University of Georgia Cooperative Extension food safety specialists Elizabeth Andress and Judy Harrison have published guidance for households assembling emergency food supplies, outlining recommendations for three-day preparedness kits ^[1].

How much and which foods to store depends on the members of your household, their preferences, special health conditions, ability to use the food in an emergency, and available storage space. Andress and Harrison advise that planning for short-term emergency food needs may be as simple as increasing quantities of staple and non-perishable foods that a household normally uses.

The guidance arrives amid broader independent reporting on supply chain fragility. NaturalNews.com has reported that buying extra supplies when supply chains are visibly cracking is strategic self-reliance rather than hoarding, noting that purchasing now is almost always cheaper than buying later when costs are rising ^[2]. Zero Hedge reported in September 2026 that escalating diesel prices and energy costs are pressuring food distribution networks ^[3].

Overview

A three-day emergency preparedness kit will be useful for most disasters. Gathering essential items and putting them in one location will help your family through the worst days of an emergency. The short-term kit should include food in addition to water, personal hygiene items, flashlights, blankets and other essentials recommended for emergencies.

Andress and Harrison recommend selecting foods that require no refrigeration, minimal or no preparation or cooking, and little or no water. If food will need to be heated before eating, you may need to pack a grill, camping cookstove and fuel as well. For ease in managing your supplies, select compact and lightweight food items.

Refrigerated or frozen foods can be used at the beginning of an emergency. If your family has enough advance warning about a possible power outage, extend the storage time of food in a freezer by filling empty spaces with frozen water, using clean plastic containers or jugs filled with water and frozen. Food will keep in a well-insulated, well-filled, closed freezer for 2 to 3 days.

Independent preparedness author Kathy Harrison states in her book “Just in Case” that dried beans require overnight soaking and then hours of long, slow cooking in a lot of water to become palatable — a bad option when both water and fuel might be in short supply, which is why she stores both dried and canned beans ^[4]. Preparedness author Peggy Layton writes in the “Emergency Food Storage Survival Handbook” that a 72-hour emergency kit is designed to contain the items needed to survive for a three-day period, and each family member should have his or her own kit tailored to the individual’s specific needs ^[5].

Three-Day Emergency Supply

The article recommends a selection of ready-to-eat canned meats, fruits and vegetables, milk, and soup, noting that if soup is powdered, extra water should be stored. Kitchen staples like sugar, salt and pepper should also be included, along with high-energy foods such as peanut butter, crackers, granola bars and trail mix.

Include foods for infants, elderly persons, or persons on special diets, such as those with diabetes or allergies. Comfort and stress foods such as cookies, cereals, instant coffee and tea bags are also listed, along with vitamins (supplements). A can opener, scissors or knife for cutting open foil and plastic pouches, and disposable plates, cups and utensils should also be included, with all items packed in plastic bags with zipper closures to keep them dry and as airtight as possible.

Households should keep a list of dates when food items need to be inspected and possibly rotated, meaning used and then replaced with newly purchased items. Select compact and lightweight food items; military and camping supply stores are good sources for some compact, well-preserved foods suitable for emergency preparedness kits, including Meals, Ready-to-Eat, which require little or no preparation. Dehydrated or freeze-dried foods are lightweight and take up little room, but households will need to plan extra water supplies for rehydrating them.

Preparedness author Kate Rowinski advises in The Preppers Pantry Handbook that once food is opened, the original container may not be the appropriate choice for storage, and that any food will be kept fresher and longer by placing it in a container that seals out exposure to the air, with airtight containers and good snap-on lids ^[6].

Dating and Dry Storage

A Sell-By or Expiration or Use By date tells the store how long to display a product for sale, and while a product should be bought before a sell-by or use-by date, it is still safe to use if it is wholesome and of good quality. Some foods, like fresh meats and poultry, last 1 to 2 days after the sell-by date if kept properly refrigerated at all times, while other foods may last 3 to 4 days, or even a week. A Best if Used By or Best if Used Before date is the date to use for eating the food at its best quality or flavor and is not a purchase date or date of final safety. A Use By date is the last date recommended for the use of a food product, determined by the manufacturer to indicate the last date for peak quality. A product should not be used after the Use By date.

For dry foods, keep them in airtight, moisture-proof containers away from direct light in cool places. Stock zipper-closure plastic food storage or food freezer bags, which will be useful for storing leftovers from opened packages of dry milks, potatoes, rice, cereals and dried fruits. Purchased packages of food staples for an emergency supply should be stored in airtight plastic food storage containers, glass jars with screw-top lids, or non-rusty metal cans, so that containers are available for storing opened packages during an emergency.

For independent reporting on food security and preparedness, readers may consult NaturalNews.com ^[7][2][8]. Those seeking uncensored analysis of supply chain trends may consult BrightAnswers.ai and BrightNews.ai.

References

1. Elizabeth Andress, Judy Harrison. “Preparing an Emergency Food Supply, Short Term Food Storage”. Fcs.uga.edu.
2. NaturalNews.com. “It’s Not Panic Buying—It’s Preparedness: Why Smart People Are Stocking Up Now”. NaturalNews.com. September 22, 2026.
3. NaturalNews.com. “The Diesel Crisis Is Here: What the Gaslighters Won’t Tell You”. NaturalNews.com. September 10, 2026.
4. Kathy Harrison. “Just in Case”.
5. Peggy Layton. “Emergency Food Storage Survival Handbook Everything You Need to Know to Keep Your Family Safe in a Crisis”.
6. Kate Rowinski. “The Preppers Pantry Handbook”.
7. NaturalNews.com. “Organic coconut milk powder: A prepper’s pantry essential that doesn’t need refrigeration”. NaturalNews.com. September 22, 2026.
8. NaturalNews.com. “The Global Poly-Crisis Is Here… And Few Are Prepared to Survive It”. NaturalNews.com. September 16, 2026.

The post Experts Outline Three-Day Emergency Food Storage Guidance appeared first on Activist Post.