2024 & the Inevitable Rise of Biometrics

2024 & the Inevitable Rise of Biometrics

by Kit Knightly, OffGuardian
May 21, 2024


Have you noticed a lot of two-factor authentication prompts lately? Are you getting emailed verification codes that take forever to arrive, so you have to request another?

Perhaps you are asked to do captchas to “prove you’re human” and they seem to be getting more complex all the time or simply not working at all?

Why do you think that might be?

We’ll come back to that.

Did you know we’re in a “breakthrough year” for biometric payment systems?

According to this story from CNBC, JPMorgan and Mastercard are on board with the technology and intend a wide rollout in the near future, following successful trials.

In March this year, JPMorgan signed a deal with PopID to begin a broad release of biometric payment systems in 2025.

A Mastercard spokesman told CNBC:

Our focus on biometrics as a secure way to verify identity, replacing the password with the person, is at the heart of our efforts in this area,”

Apple Pay already lets you pay with a face scan, while Amazon have introduced pay-by-palm in many of their real-world stores.

VISA showcased their latest palm biometric payment set-up at an event in Singapore earlier this year.

As we covered in a recent This Week, PayPal is pushing out its own biometric payment systems in the name of “preventing fraud”.

As always, this is not just an issue in “the West”.

Chinese companies have been leading this race for a while, with AliPay having biometric payment options since 2015.

Moscow’s Metro system has been using facial recognition cameras for biometric payments for over a year.

And it’s not just payments, “replacing the password with the person” has already spread to other areas.

Hoping to corral support for biometrics from the right, national governments are collecting biometrics to “curb illegal immigration”. You can expect that to spread.

The European Union will be implementing a new Biometric Entry-Exit System (EES) as soon as October of this year.

Biometric signing is on the rise too.

Laptops tablets and smartphones already come with face-reading and fingerprint scanning technology to confirm your identity.

Social media companies have been collecting biometric data “for security and identification purposes” for years.

Google Play launched a new biometric accessibility feature only a couple of weeks ago.

It’s all just so convenient, isn’t it? So much faster than e-mailing security codes and solving increasingly impossible captchas (both of which have unaccountably got harder and more complicated recently, and will doubtless continue to do so).

That’s how they get you: Convenience.

They won’t ever remove the “old-fashioned” ways of accessing your accounts, but it will get increasingly slow and difficult to use while biometrics get faster and easier.

Meanwhile, the propaganda will begin to flow.

Influencers will be paid to use “cool” “futuristic” biometric payment options that “feel like having superpowers” in contrived “viral” videos. Biometrics will save the day in a trendy movie or TV show. Some old fuddy-duddy will go on Question Time and rant about the new technology…just before saying something racist or denying climate change.

Maybe a major hack or cyber-attack will only affect those who haven’t switched to biometric authentication yet.

You get the idea.

And all the while supra-national corporate megaliths will be creating a massive database of voice recordings, finger and palm prints, facial and retinal scans.

It’s a good thing we’re ruled by a morally upright elite. Imagine the damage they could do with all of that.


Connect with OffGuardian

Cover image credit: geralt

Watchlisted: You’re Probably Already on a Government Extremism List

Watchlisted: You’re Probably Already on a Government Extremism List

by John & Nisha Whitehead, The Rutherford Institute
January 23, 2024


“In a closed society where everybody’s guilty, the only crime is getting caught.”
— Hunter S. Thompson

According to the FBI, you may be an anti-government extremist if you’ve:

a) purchased a Bible or other religious materials,

b) used terms like “MAGA” and “Trump,”

c) shopped at Dick’s Sporting Goods, Cabela’s, or Bass Pro Shops,

d) purchased tickets to travel by bus, cars, or plane,

e) all of the above.

In fact, if you selected any of those options in recent years, you’re probably already on a government watchlist.

That’s how broadly the government’s net is being cast in its pursuit of domestic extremists.

We’re all fair game now, easy targets for inclusion on some FBI watch list or another.

When the FBI is asking banks and other financial institutions to carry out dragnet searches of customer transactions—warrantlessly and without probable cause—for “extremism” indicators broadly based on where you shop, what you read, and how you travel, we’re all in trouble.

Clearly, you don’t have to do anything illegal.

You don’t even have to challenge the government’s authority.

Frankly, you don’t even have to care about politics or know anything about your rights.

All you really need to do in order to be tagged as a suspicious character, flagged for surveillance, and eventually placed on a government watch list is live in the United States.

This is how easy it is to run afoul of the government’s many red flags.

In fact, all you need to do these days to end up on a government watch list or be subjected to heightened scrutiny is use certain trigger words (like cloud, pork and pirates), surf the internet, communicate using a cell phone, limp or stutter, drive a car, stay at a hotel, attend a political rally, express yourself on social media, appear mentally ill, serve in the military, disagree with a law enforcement official, call in sick to work, purchase materials at a hardware store, take flying or boating lessons, appear suspicious, appear confused or nervous, fidget or whistle or smell bad, be seen in public waving a toy gun or anything remotely resembling a gun (such as a water nozzle or a remote control or a walking cane), stare at a police officer, question government authority, or appear to be pro-gun or pro-freedom.

We’re all presumed guilty until proven innocent now.

It’s just a matter of time before you find yourself wrongly accused, investigated and confronted by police based on a data-driven algorithm or risk assessment culled together by a computer program run by artificial intelligence.

For instance, a so-called typo in a geofence search warrant, which allows police to capture location data for a particular geographic area, resulted in government officials being given access to information about who went where and with whom within a two-mile long stretch of San Francisco that included churches, businesses, private homes, hotels, and restaurants.

Thanks to the 24/7 surveillance being carried out by the government’s sprawling spy network of fusion centers, we are all just sitting ducks, waiting to be tagged, flagged, targeted, monitored, manipulated, investigated, interrogated, heckled and generally harassed by agents of the American police state.

Without having ever knowingly committed a crime or been convicted of one, you and your fellow citizens have likely been assessed for behaviors the government might consider devious, dangerous or concerning; assigned a threat score based on your associations, activities and viewpoints; and catalogued in a government database according to how you should be approached by police and other government agencies based on your particular threat level.

Before long, every household in America will be flagged as a threat and assigned a threat score.

Nationwide, there are upwards of 123 real-time crime centers (a.k.a. fusion centers), which allow local police agencies to upload and share massive amounts of surveillance data and intelligence with state and federal agencies culled from surveillance cameras, facial recognition technology, gunshot sensors, social media monitoring, drones and body cameras, and artificial intelligence-driven predictive policing algorithms.

These data fusion centers, which effectively create an electronic prison—a digital police state—from which there is no escape.

Yet this crime prevention campaign is not so much about making America safer as it is about ensuring that the government has the wherewithal to muzzle anti-government discontent, penalize anyone expressing anti-government sentiments, and preemptively nip in the bud any attempts by the populace to challenge the government’s authority or question its propaganda.

As J.D. Tuccille writes for Reason, “[A]t a time when government officials rage against ‘misinformation’ and ‘disinformation’ that is often just disagreement with whatever opinions are currently popular among the political class, fusion centers frequently scrutinize peaceful dissenting speech.”

These fusion centers are the unacknowledged powerhouses behind the government’s campaign to censors and retaliate against those who vocalize their disagreement and discontent with government policies.

It’s a setup ripe for abuse.

For instance, an investigative report by the Brennan Center found that “Over the last two decades, leaked materials have shown fusion centers tracking protestors and casting peaceful activities as potential threats. Their targets have included racial justice and environmental advocates, right-wing activists, and third-party political candidates.”

One fusion center in Maine was found to have been “illegally collecting and sharing information about Maine residents who weren’t suspected of criminal activity. They included gun purchasers, people protesting the construction of a new power transmission line, the employees of a peacebuilding summer camp for teenagers, and even people who travelled to New York City frequently.”

This is how the burden of proof has been reversed.

Although the Constitution requires the government to provide solid proof of criminal activity before it can deprive a citizen of life or liberty, the government has turned that fundamental assurance of due process on its head.

Each and every one of us is now seen as a potential suspect, terrorist and lawbreaker in the eyes of the government.

Consider some of the many ways in which “we the people” are now treated as criminals, found guilty of violating the police state’s abundance of laws, and preemptively stripped of basic due process rights.

Red flag gun confiscation laws: Gun control legislation, especially in the form of red flag gun laws, allow the police to remove guns from people “suspected” of being threats. These laws, growing in popularity as a legislative means by which to seize guns from individuals viewed as a danger to themselves or others, will put a target on the back of every American whether or not they own a weapon.

Disinformation eradication campaigns. In recent years, the government has used the phrase “domestic terrorist” interchangeably with “anti-government,” “extremist” and “terrorist” to describe anyone who might fall somewhere on a very broad spectrum of viewpoints that could be considered “dangerous.” The ramifications are so far-reaching as to render almost every American an extremist in word, deed, thought or by association.

Government watch lists. The FBI, CIA, NSA and other government agencies have increasingly invested in corporate surveillance technologies that can mine constitutionally protected speech on social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter and Instagram in order to identify potential extremists and predict who might engage in future acts of anti-government behavior. Where many Americans go wrong is in naively assuming that you have to be doing something illegal or harmful in order to be flagged and targeted for some form of intervention or detention.

Thought crimes programs. For years now, the government has used all of the weapons in its vast arsenal—surveillance, threat assessments, fusion centers, pre-crime programs, hate crime laws, militarized police, lockdowns, martial law, etc.—to target potential enemies of the state based on their ideologies, behaviors, affiliations and other characteristics that might be deemed suspicious or dangerous. It’s not just what you say or do that is being monitored, but how you think that is being tracked and targeted. There’s a whole spectrum of behaviors ranging from thought crimes and hate speech to whistleblowing that qualifies for persecution (and prosecution) by the Deep State. It’s a slippery slope from censoring so-called illegitimate ideas to silencing truth.

Security checkpoints. By treating an entire populace as suspect, the government has justified wide-ranging security checkpoints that subject travelers to scans, searches, pat downs and other indignities by the TSA and VIPR raids on so-called “soft” targets like shopping malls and bus depots.

Surveillance and precrime programs. Facial recognition software aims to create a society in which every individual who steps out into public is tracked and recorded as they go about their daily business. Coupled with surveillance cameras that blanket the country, facial recognition technology allows the government and its corporate partners to warrantlessly identify and track someone’s movements in real-time, whether or not they have committed a crime.

Mail surveillance. Just about every branch of the government—from the Postal Service to the Treasury Department and every agency in between—now has its own surveillance sector, authorized to spy on the American people. For instance, the U.S. Postal Service, which has been photographing the exterior of every piece of paper mail for the past 20 years, is also spying on Americans’ texts, emails and social media posts.

Constitution-free zones. Merely living within 100 miles inland of the border around the United States is now enough to make you a suspect, paving the way for Border Patrol agents to search people’s homes, intimately probe their bodies, and rifle through their belongings, all without a warrant. Nearly 66% of Americans (2/3 of the U.S. population, 197.4 million people) now live within that 100-mile-deep, Constitution-free zone.

Vehicle kill switches. Sold to the public as a safety measure aimed at keeping drunk drivers off the roads, “vehicle kill switches” could quickly become a convenient tool in the hands of government agents to put the government in the driver’s seat while rendering null and void the Constitution’s requirements of privacy and its prohibitions against unreasonable searches and seizures. As such, it presumes every driver potentially guilty of breaking some law that would require the government to intervene and take over operation of the vehicle or shut it off altogether.

Biometric databases. “Guilt by association” has taken on new connotations in the technological age. The government’s presumptions about our so-called guilt or innocence have extended down to our very cellular level with a diabolical campaign to create a nation of suspects predicated on a massive national DNA database.

Limitations on our right to move about freely. At every turn, we’re tracked in by surveillance cameras that monitor our movements. For instance, license plate readers are mass surveillance tools that can photograph over 1,800 license tag numbers per minute, take a picture of every passing license tag number and store the tag number and the date, time, and location of the picture in a searchable database, then share the data with law enforcement, fusion centers and private companies to track the movements of persons in their cars. With tens of thousands of these license plate readers now in operation throughout the country, police can track vehicles in real time.

The war on cash. Digital currency provides the government and its corporate partners with a mode of commerce that can easily be monitored, tracked, tabulated, mined for data, hacked, hijacked and confiscated when convenient. This push for a digital currency dovetails with the government’s war on cash, which it has been subtly waging for some time now. In recent years, just the mere possession of significant amounts of cash could implicate you in suspicious activity and label you a criminal. Americans are having their bank accounts, homes, cars electronics and cash seized by police under the assumption that they have been associated with some criminal scheme.

These programs push us that much closer towards a suspect society where everyone is potentially guilty of some crime or another and must be preemptively rendered harmless.

In this way, the groundwork is being laid for a new kind of government where it won’t matter if you’re innocent or guilty, whether you’re a threat to the nation, or even if you’re a citizen.

What will matter is what the government—or whoever happens to be calling the shots at the time—thinks. And if the powers-that-be think you’re a threat to the nation and should be locked up, then you’ll be locked up with no access to the protections our Constitution provides.

In effect, you will disappear.

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, our freedoms are already being made to disappear.


Connect with The Rutherford Institute

Cover image credit: GDJ

5G, Satellites & the Global Wireless Rollout: On the Irradiation of Cats, Dogs, Birds & All of Our Natural World

5G, Satellites & the Global Wireless Rollout: On the Irradiation of Cats, Dogs, Birds & All of Our Natural World


“If I were a pet owner with one or two pets it would be dismissed but not when for 23 years we run a perfect pet sanctuary and all of a sudden many injuries, it is obvious something is wrong in the skies. We are off the grid, no cell phones and the router is turned off at night. We survived without cell phones and all of this high tech killing technology.”


Dogs, Cats, Birds, and Maui

by Arthur Firstenberg, Cellular Phone Task Force
December 5, 2023


Cat with radio transmitter

In response to my last newsletter, “Don’t irradiate the birds!,” readers have sent me accounts from far and wide of what has been happening not only to the insects, birds, plants, etc., but also to their pets from being irradiated. I have also discovered more information about the birds of Maui — information that makes the case for radiation killing the birds, and not malaria, even more compelling.

Update on Birds of Maui

The bird in my last newsletter called WILD1 — the one who disabled his radio transmitter less than a day after his release into the forest — was seen, alive and very healthy, on July 23, 2021, 632 days after being released! This was reported in the Honolulu Star Advertiser and in The Maui News. Here is my updated newsletter, amended accordingly: https://cellphonetaskforce.org/dont-irradiate-the-birds/.

Irradiated Dogs and Cats

Sidnee from California writes:

“A cat appeared one day with a tracking device on a harness. I wrapped the device in aluminum foil and taped a note on the back, telling whoever was the owner that he or she was harming his cat with that device. I included my phone number. A man called me and we chatted. Turns out the cat lived in the house behind me. I told him that the wireless radiation would be making his cat sick, but he didn’t care. His response? ‘He’s an expensive cat and he likes to wander. I need to know where he goes.’

“The Tile Tracker works with Bluetooth. I measured the RFR [radio frequency radiation]. It ranged from the hundreds of thousands to 2.5 million μW/m2. And the cat wore this all the time. He was so skinny, hyperactive and aggressive toward my own sweet orange kitty.”

The neighbor’s cat, like some of the birds on Maui, kept managing to remove his transmitter. The owner put a different transmitter on him, this time made by Apple. Sidnee continues:

“Good news. Since the cat kept losing the trackers, the owner has finally given up and the cat has no more devices on his harness! What a different cat! He is mellow, sweet and gets along great with my orange kitty, who is 17 years old.”

Stacy in the Netherlands tells what she has observed in nature, in her cats, and in herself, since the advent of 5G: 

“I have seen a kill-off of insects since 5G has been rolled out. I had 3 ant nests in my house and balcony, they are all dead now and I didn’t do anything. Also my plants on my balcony have not been visited by bees or any insects for that matter.

“Also lots of plants did poorly, the tops of the plants looked like they had been irradiated from the sky, the leaves clumped together, turned and died.

“I have also noted that in the evening I wake up feeling like I have been choked, my mouth and throat completely dried, my lips parched and I can drink a lot of water but it leaves my body very rapidly. I also suffer from a lot of hair loss as do my cats, they have bald patches and I buy them the best of food I can find. I have never had cats with bald patches before, they say it’s old age but it’s not true. I have it with both cats, a male and a female.

“I also notice food does not taste the same any more. I always loved fruit but it has lost its lustre. It also looks withered, less yummie/eat me. It’s like the light has gone out of things and a darkness has entered and for the first time in my life I am worried to the bone and scared.”

Richard in Houston reports a drastic decline in both birds and insects: 

“In Houston this year almost all the birds are gone. There used to be hundreds of doves, this year I have seen ONE. The only other birds I have seen are some blue jays which I feed daily and a hawk which preys upon them. I have fed birds for many years and always had a host of them. This year only the squirrels and rats are eating the bird food. The sky is almost empty of birds.

“The bees have disappeared as well. From hundreds last year to one or two this year.

“The lives of birds and Earth are way more important than the ‘convenience’ of deadly cell phones.”

Smart Bird Feeders

Robyn from Colorado alerted me to smart bird feeders, which several companies are now marketing. She writes: 

“I noticed an advertisement today from our local hardware store for a Smart Feeder made by Feit Electric. This device sends pictures of the birds at a feeder directly to someone’s phone. I couldn’t help but think about how dangerous this exposure might be to birds who come for birdseed. Or maybe in their infinite intelligence, they don’t come near it.”

Here are pictures of three different companies’ smart feeders:

The Effects of Starlink Dishes

Mary from Guffey, Colorado, who has an animal sanctuary at 9,000 feet in the Rockies, tells a story very similar to the one Mark Broomhall told UNESCO (see previous newsletter). A deterioration in the health of all the animals has accompanied each advance in wireless communication. A cell tower provided the first cell phone service in that remote location 10 years ago. The tower was upgraded about 2 years ago. And most people in Guffey got a Starlink satellite dish this past summer. “Just about everyone in Guffey has one”, says Mary. She wrote the following on November 6:

“I live at 9000 feet in Guffey, Colorado. Have for 24 years. Starting about 10 years ago I noticed strange things happening on our animal sanctuary. I would find a cat dead, not killed by an animal, not sickly. About 2 years ago it became even worse. Because we have an animal sanctuary we need to keep good care of these animals, not because of legal ramifications but because that is how it should be. This past year and a half has been worse. My vets believe me because we have so many animals that they have treated seeing no natural reasons for their injuries.

“This past month while walking 2 dogs, one was on leash and one can run around and have fun. That night I noticed the dog on a leash was walking strangely, but my husband had no idea why. The next morning when I went to the cat condo to feed the cats I found one lying in a corner in a pool of urine. When I when to pick her up her skin felt like it was detached from her body. Another cat was making loops around the condo. Round and round. I hurried back to the house to call the vets and told my husband I think the animals have been hit by emf’s. He asked me what I meant. I said like someone hitting you on the back. His reply was ‘Is that what happened?’ I asked him what he meant and he said while walking the dog he felt like someone had hit him but when he looked around there was nothing there.

“By then the dog who was on the leash was walking round and round chasing her tail. I then hurried to the chicken coop to see if they were all right. I found a lovely hen lying dead on the ground in the enclosed run. It looked like she had been dropped from up high but there was nothing there to fall from. The rooster seemed in a daze. I took the cat who was critically injured to the vet and had to be put down, was told to get cbd from a Vet CBD company as they formulate the meds specifically for animals, and was told that the dog was suffering from neurological problems, had developed eye problem and a massive ear infection. We will probably have to euthanize her before the end of the year. The rest of the hens are no longer laying eggs except one a day, down from 10 to 12 per day. All of this in a matter of one day and continuing onward.

“Now in addition to our problem a friend in Divide which is also at 9000 feet said while out playing with their dog and three of their neighbors and their dogs, the dogs got sick and the other people took their dogs to the vet, could find nothing physically wrong and they put the dogs down. My friend is still treating her dog with holistic methods. As an afternote, I have taken 8 cats into the vet due to weight loss and just not looking right. All cats lost from 1 to 2 pounds, blood work found no problems other than stress. We will have to probably put a couple of the cats down if I cannot get them better.

“We allow another non-profit to graze some horses on our 250-acre sanctuary and one of her old horses had to be put down due to cancer. I was talking with the gravedigger while waiting for the lady to come to put her horse down and told him about the problems we had with the animals. He just looked at me and said his chickens were doing the same as mine. If they laid an egg they were soft shell and few eggs. I asked him how long and he said it started about 3 weeks ago.

One of numerous Starlink dishes in Guffey

“If I were a pet owner with one or two pets it would be dismissed but not when for 23 years we run a perfect pet sanctuary and all of a sudden many injuries, it is obvious something is wrong in the skies. We are off the grid, no cell phones and the router is turned off at night. We survived without cell phones and all of this high tech killing technology.”

Starlink is 5G phased array technology from the sky. When a Starlink dish is online, that means a satellite is aiming a narrow beam at it. But by the time the beam reaches Earth from a few hundred miles up in space, the beam can be 8 miles in diameter or more. The dish also aims a beam of radiation directly at the satellite, and scatters radiation around it. If there are a lot of dishes in a 10-mile radius, as there are in Guffey, radiation from Earth and space is scattered far and wide.


Connect with Arthur Firstenberg

Cover image credit: Pheladiii

See Related:

Humans, Bees and Wildlife in 2023 — Smart Cities Are Killing All Life

Global Extent of Bird Armageddon: Avian Flu or Radiation?

Amphibians in the Mine: “The Frogs and Salamanders Are Telling Us…It Is a Matter of Their Survival and Ours.”

After Being Fitted With Cell Phones, Horses at Churchill Downs Began to Die During Races

Arthur Firstenberg: Update on Satellites, Birds and Bones

Arthur Firstenberg: Ecocide From Space

Beyond Orwell’s 1984, 5G and the Launching of 6G: “Easy to Take Down a Society that Is Digital”

Beyond Orwell’s 1984, 5G and the Launching of 6G: “Easy to Take Down a Society that Is Digital”


People, do not be fooled. It is a confrontation between the powerful elites, namely the Financial, Military, IT, Media, Pharma Complex (FMIMPC) and the We the People, namely Humanity acting Worldwide at the Grassroots of Society.”


Beyond Orwell’s 1984, 5G and the Launching of 6G: “Easy to Take Down a Society that Is Digital”. UNCTAD Attempts Accomplishing this Doom Scenario

by Peter Koenig, Global Research
November 19, 2023


“Hell is Empty and the Devils are All Here”. 
~ William Shakespeare, “The Tempest”, 1623
Peter Koenig’s Contemporary Analysis of “The Tempest 2020-2030”


From 5G to 6G

We, the People, are in a race against the Globalists committed to Depopulation; control the survivors, exploit us, dehumanize us, and ultimately digitize us, so that we can be remotely controlled by 5G;

And, now, just “launched” by China, 6G. See China launches ultra-high-speed next-generation Internet backbone – SHINE News.

 Incidentally, has the health impact of 6G been studied? Maybe. But nobody divulges the results.

This is how Qualcomm describes 5G:

5th generation mobile network. It is a new global wireless standard after 1G, 2G, 3G, and 4G networks. 5G enables a new kind of network that is designed to connect virtually everyone and everything together including machines, objects, and devices. See this.

Nobody has openly spoken about the health impact of 5G, though, that has been studied. Yet, the studies are not revealed to the public.

Beyond George Orwell’s 1984 

There is “guessing”; and scientists who come forward with the truth depicting the impact caused on wildlife and humans by these ultra-microwaves, are most often labeled “conspiracy theorists.” 

This is the “shut-up” phrase for everything the mainstream, the Cabal, the Matrix, the Globalists do not want the public to know. We are way beyond George Orwell’s “1984.”

The 6th Generation Mobile Network or 6G is about 100 times faster, more powerful, than 5G. It will be able to digitize everything. 

This is what RantCell has to say about 6G:

It is Operating at terahertz frequency bands, 6G will deliver a peak data rate of 1,000 gigabits/s having air latency less than 100 microseconds. When we talk about 5G vs 6G network speed, 6G speed is expected to be 100 times faster than 5G with enhanced reliability and wider network coverage. See this. 

We, the People, are in a race – life against death. If we wake up and counteract, the Globalist’s, namely the project of the diabolical protagonists of UN Agenda 2030 and The Great Reset will “be doomed”.

But if we keep letting us being duped, We, the People, “Will go to Hell”.  

This is the reason why the entire UN system is desperate to get the world digitized. The faster the better so, there may be not enough time for We, the People, to wake up in masses to take our world, our lives back before it is too late.

The Financial, Military, IT, Media, Pharma Complex Nominates UNCTAD  

Therefore, the United Nations, the political body under full control of the Globalist Cabal (openly led by Washington), but really, by the powerful Financial, Military, IT, Media, Pharma Complex (FMIMPC), has nominated one of its under-agents, the UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) as the flag-carrier – at least for now – for the deadly onslaught of All-Digitization.

UNCTAD –in blatant derogation of its historical mandate on behalf developing countries, namely the Global South–, will level the playing field, as the saying goes, on behalf of the entire UN System by announcing in a Press Release in Geneva on 15 November 2023, its e-Week from 4 to 8 December 2023, in a major revamp of its annual e-Commerce Week series which began in 2016.

UNCTAD’s Secretary-General, Rebecca Grynspan said,

“The digital economy plays a critical role in advancing development goals at all levels. Through inclusive and multi-stakeholder discussions, we can together build a global digital future that works for all.” 

UNCTAD’s infamous e-Week is called

“UNCTAD e-Week 2023 to Mobilize Global Support for a More Inclusive Digital Economy.”


“More than 3,000 stakeholders from 130 countries will examine how to turn digital opportunities into shared development gains and close existing divides for a sustainable future.”

The text of the Press Release abounds in sloganism, niceties and “noneties” (senseless talk for the “sold to the system gnomes”).

For example…. 

“The Conference is themed for “Shaping the Future of the digital economy”. The topics will feature over 150 sessions focused on tackling pressing issues related to digitalization. Key topics will range from platform governance, the development impact of artificial intelligence (AI), eco-friendly digital practices, to empowering women through digital entrepreneurship and accelerating digital readiness in developing countries.”

This intro-phrase hardly misses one of meaningless globalist jargons, that are now current and circulate in the minds of people, without them giving a second thought of what they really mean. 

Wait a minute, they forgot the term “sustainable”. Surely, it will appear later in the text.

UNCTAD and the “Digital Playing Field”

Very Important Persons (VIP) attending. They also talk about several high-level speakers like Amandeep Sing Gill, the UN Secretary General’s Envoy on Technology; Nizar Ben Neji, Tunisa’s minister of communication and technologies; as well as Henry Puna, Secretary General of the Pacific Islands Forum; and many more IT-VIPs.

The AI Potential. They are not missing out on Tapping the Artificial Intelligence (AI) potential, reminding the world that time is of the essence as the world navigates uncertainties surrounding emerging technologies, including the rapid uptake of AI, which is increasingly revolutionizing the digital economy.

It is clear – our future, the People’s future, is being planned as a digital future. And that, without any consultation. The UN body and those who pull its strings are planning to decide for We, the People. But only if we let them.

Leveling the digital playing field will concentrate on the massive data flows from the digital economy, call for global governance responses to market concentration and unequal distribution of benefits. 

They say that over 70% of the global digital advertising revenue goes to just five digital platforms.

So, what are they planning to do about it? Nothing. Because these five digital platforms control already the world – Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, Meta and Microsoft. These behemoths control about 9 trillion dollars-worth of IT communication. And now add “X” (former Twitter) and the horizon for change looks ultra-bleak, especially not by a minor UN body, called UNCTAD. 

This is by far not all.

On the agenda also is another slogan: Harnessing the digital promise, which predicts and promises that the data-driven digital economy holds vast potential for countries to spur economic growth, foster innovation and reduce geographic and physical barriers to inclusive development.

Here is the final icing on the cake:

Digitalization for development – the UNCTAD e-Week platform for constructive and inclusive dialogue is to generate insights and actions that can feed into global efforts, particularly the ongoing UN Global Digital Compact, aimed at catalyzing an open, free, and secure digital future for all, leading up to the UN’s 2024 Summit of the Future.

And for all of that, they need Stronger partnerships; especially with multiple global crises unfolding on geopolitical, economic and climate fronts, countries must make critical decisions to chart digitalization paths for equitable and sustainable development.

They may be talking about the unethical and illegal 2019 compact between Klaus Schwab’s World Economic Forum (WEF) and the United Nations as well as the wantonly man-made worldwide wars and conflicts, chaos, and killings, just to keep the population at bay, confused and distracted. 

This completes the sloganism: Equitable and sustainable is not forgotten.

“Taking Down a Society That Is Digital”

When reading between the lines and beyond the slogans and digital jargon propaganda, it is not difficult to see that we are ever-more rapidly moving towards digital enslavement.

Consider what Tucker Carlson has to say in a recent interview that it is easy to “Take Down a Society That is Digital.”

Think about it.

If everything around us is run by digital signals that are controlled by the “Globalist Cabal” (namely the FMIMPC) one or a few switches can turn off our different networks:

  • water supply, electricity, gas, all kinds of energy,
  • food supply,
  • fuel deliveries,
  • traffic signals,
  • all transportation,
  • all communication,
  • the money in our accounts, and much more.

The impacts on people’s lives are beyond description. It does not need a nuclear explosion to implement its depopulation agenda, or the so-called “useless eaters” (a quote from WEF’s Israeli Yuval Noah Harari), that could also endanger those who control the switches. 

And We, the People, would be completely powerless. 

Listen to Tucker Carlson’s interview (start at 05:00).


By now, it should be clear to all of us what is being gradually and, in many ways, imperceptibly prepared for us, We, the People, is “Pure Evil”.

It is, We, who are in the Matrix. The Elites that control the few switches to run the End Game are outside the Matrix. They will keep their supply lines open – of everything, hoping to live in paradise where, We, the People, own nothing but are happy. 

They remote control the Matrix. We self-proclaimed “red-pilled” people thought we were outside and could watch the chaos being created inside.

It is the other way around.

People, do not be fooled. It is a confrontation between the powerful elites, namely the Financial, Military, IT, Media, Pharma Complex (FMIMPC) and the We the People, namely Humanity acting Worldwide at the Grassroots of Society.

Peter Koenig is a geopolitical analyst and a former Senior Economist at the World Bank and the World Health Organization (WHO), where he worked for over 30 years around the world. He is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed; and co-author of Cynthia McKinney’s book “When China Sneezes: From the Coronavirus Lockdown to the Global Politico-Economic Crisis” (Clarity Press – November 1, 2020). 

Peter is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG). He is also a non-resident Senior Fellow of the Chongyang Institute of Renmin University, Beijing. 


Connect with Global Research

Cover image credit: Bluemoont

Trouble in Toyland: How the $16 BILLION “Smart Toys” Industry Spies on Your Children and Makes Their Data Available to Child Traffickers

Trouble in Toyland: How the $16 BILLION “Smart Toys” Industry Spies on Your Children and Makes Their Data Available to Child Traffickers

by Brian Shilhavy, Vaccine Impact
November 18, 2023


If your end-of-year holiday traditions include buying presents for your children and grandchildren, please avoid high-tech toys such as the growing “smart toy” sector with toys connected to the Internet. These “toys” are mainly data collection tools to collect as much information on your children as possible, including their location.

It is a dream scenario for child traffickers.

The publication “Trouble in Toyland” by the U.S. PIRG Education Fund has just published their 2023 report with a significant section on “smart toys”.

Excerpts from their Executive Summary:

Last month, an 11-year-old girl was kidnapped by a man she encountered while playing a game online. Fortunately, she was found safe a short time later, about 135 miles away from her home. The game, Roblox, is one of the most popular mobile games this year.

This past spring, the Federal Trade Commission accused Amazon of violating the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act Rule (COPPA) through its Alexa service by keeping the voice recordings of children indefinitely and failing to delete childrens’ transcripts, even when a parent requested they be deleted. Amazon also gathered geolocation data and used childrens’ transcripts for its own purposes.

A few years ago, Fisher Price’s Smart Toy Bear was discontinued. It was created for children ages 3 through 8 as “an interactive learning friend that talks, listens, and ‘remembers’ what your child says and even responds when spoken to,” according to WeLiveSecurity. But research found a security flaw in the app would allow hackers to get information about children without permission.

This toy bear is not an isolated case. Multiple toys from major manufacturers have been discontinued in recent years after research from various groups showed that children’s voices, images, locations and other information was being improperly collected or hacked. In other cases, vulnerable toys are still for sale.

These days, we’re surrounded by smart devices – all of these things with microphones, cameras, connectivity, location trackers and more. These devices connect to the internet and/or to the outside world, and  they gather and store data, sometimes very poorly. Our children’s holiday gift wish lists may be filled with stuffed animals that listen and talk, devices that learn their habits, games with online accounts, smart  speakers and watches, or all kinds of toys that require you to download an app.

The global market for smart toys grew from $14.1 billion in 2022 to $16.7 billion this year, according to a large market research firm. The business of smart toys is expected to more than double by 2027.

Download the full report.


Connect with Vaccine Impact

Cover image credit: nikscoop

We the Exploited: The U.S. Government Buys and Sells Its Citizens for Profit and Power

We the Exploited: The U.S. Government Buys and Sells Its Citizens for Profit and Power

by John & Nisha Whitehead, The Rutherford Institute
November 15, 2023


Americans have become easy prey for hackers, scammers, snitches, spies, and con artists.

But don’t be fooled into thinking the government is protecting you.

To the contrary, the U.S. government is selling us (or rather, our data) to the highest bidders.

By the way, those highest bidders also include America’s political class and the politicians aspiring to get elected or re-elected. As the Los Angeles Times reports, “If you have been to a political rally, a town hall, or just fit a demographic a campaign is after, chances are good your movements are being tracked with unnerving accuracy by data vendors on the payroll of campaigns.”

Your phones, televisions and digital devices are selling you out to politicians who want your vote.

“Welcome to the new frontier of campaign tech — a loosely regulated world in which simply downloading a weather app or game, connecting to Wi-Fi at a coffee shop or powering up a home router can allow a data broker to monitor your movements with ease, then compile the location information and sell it to a political candidate who can use it to surround you with messages,” writes journalist Evan Halper.

In this way, “we the people” have been reduced to economic units to be bought, bartered and sold by all and sundry.

On a daily basis, Americans have been made to relinquish the most intimate details of who we are—our biological makeup, our genetic blueprints, and our biometrics (facial characteristics and structure, fingerprints, iris scans, etc.)—in order to navigate an increasingly technologically-enabled world.

Those intimate details, in turn, have become the building blocks of massive databases accessed by the government and its corporate partners in crime, vulnerable to data breaches by hackers, cyberattacks and espionage.

For years now, and with little real oversight or restrictions, the government has been compiling massive databases comprised of all manner of sensitive information on the citizenry.

Biographical information. Biometric information. Criminal backgrounds. Travel records.

There is not a single person in the U.S. who is not in some government database or another, and these databases are increasingly being shared between agencies, fusion centers, and the police.

The government has also, with little oversight and few guidelines, been adding to its massive trove of data on Americans by buying commercially available information (CAI) from third-party sources. As a report by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence revealed:

“[Commercially purchased data] can reveal sensitive and intimate information about the personal attributes, private behavior, social connections, and speech of U.S. persons and non-U.S. persons. It can be misused to pry into private lives, ruin reputations, and cause emotional distress and threaten the safety of individuals. Even subject to appropriate controls, CAI can increase the power of the government’s ability to peer into private lives to levels that may exceed our constitutional traditions or other social expectations.”

In other words, this is the diabolically sneaky way in which the government is attempting to sidestep the Fourth Amendment, which requires that government agents have probable cause and a warrant before spying on Americans or searching and seizing their private property.

It’s bad enough that the government is building massive databases comprised of our personal information without our knowledge or consent, but then they get hacked and we suffer for it.

Earlier this year, for instance, several federal agencies, state governments and universities were targeted in a global cyberattack that compromised the sensitive data of millions of Americans.

Did that stop the government’s quest to keep building these databases which compromise our privacy and security? Of course not.

In fact, the government has also been selling our private information. According to Vice, Departments of Motor Vehicles in states around the country have been selling drivers’ personal information “to thousands of businesses, including private investigators who spy on people for a profit.”

Where there’s a will, there’s a way, and the government has become a master at finding loopholes that allow it to exploit the citizenry.

Thus, although Congress passed the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act (DPPA) in 1994 to prevent the disclosure of personal information, it hasn’t stopped state DMVs from raking in millions by selling driver data (names, dates of birth, addresses, and the cars they own) to third parties.

This is just a small part of how the government buys and sells its citizens to the highest bidders.

The why is always the same: for profit and power, of course.

Welcome to the age of surveillance capitalism.

Have you shopped at Whole Foods? Tested out target practice at a gun range? Sipped coffee at Starbucks while surfing the web? Visited an abortion clinic? Watched FOX News or MSNBC? Played Candy Crush on your phone? Walked through a mall? Walked past a government building?

That’s all it takes for your data to be hoovered up, sold and used to target you.

Incredibly, once you’ve been identified and tracked, data brokers can travel back in time, digitally speaking, to discover where you’ve been, who you’ve been with, what you’ve been doing, and what you’ve been reading, viewing, buying, etc.

Once you’ve been identified in this way, you can be tracked endlessly.

No one is spared.

In this regard, we are all equals: equally suffering the indignity of having every shred of privacy stripped away and the most intimate details of one’s life turned into fodder for marketers and data profiteers.

This creepy new era of for-profit surveillance capitalism—in which we’re being listened to, watched, tracked, followed, mapped, bought, sold and targeted—is made possible with our cooperation.

All those disclaimers you scroll though without reading them, the ones written in minute font, only to quickly click on the “Agree” button at the end so you can get to the next step—downloading software, opening up a social media account, adding a new app to your phone or computer—those signify your written consent to having your activities monitored, recorded and shared.

Think about it.

Every move you make is being monitored, mined for data, crunched, and tabulated in order to form a picture of who you are, what makes you tick, and how best to influence and/or control you.

With every smartphone we buy, every GPS device we install, every Twitter, Facebook, and Google account we open, every frequent buyer card we use for purchases—whether at the grocer’s, the yogurt shop, the airlines or the department store—and every credit and debit card we use to pay for our transactions, we’re helping Corporate America build a dossier for its government counterparts on who we know, what we think, how we spend our money, and how we spend our time.

The technology has advanced so far that marketers (political campaigns are among the worst offenders) can actually build “digital fences” around your homes, workplaces, friends and family’s homes and other places you visit in order to bombard you with specially crafted messages aimed at achieving a particular outcome.

If anyone else stalked us in this way—tailing us wherever we go, tapping into our calls, reading our correspondence, ferreting out our secrets, profiling and targeting us based on our interests and activities—we’d call the cops.

Unfortunately, the cops (equipped with Stingray devices and other Peeping Tom technologies) are also in on this particular scam.

It’s not just the surveillance and the buying and selling of your data that is worrisome.

The ramifications of a government—any government—having this much unregulated, unaccountable power to target, track, round up and detain its citizens is beyond chilling.

Imagine what a totalitarian regime such as Nazi Germany could have done with this kind of unadulterated power.

Imagine what the next police state to follow in Germany’s footsteps will do with this kind of power. Society is definitely rapidly moving in that direction.

We’ve made it so easy for the government to stalk us.

Government eyes see your every move: what you read, how much you spend, where you go, with whom you interact, when you wake up in the morning, what you’re watching on television and reading on the internet.

Every move you make is being monitored, mined for data, crunched, and tabulated in order to form a picture of who you are, what makes you tick, and how best to control you when and if it becomes necessary to bring you in line.

Chances are, as the Washington Post has reported, you have already been assigned a color-coded threat assessment score—green, yellow or red—so police are forewarned about your potential inclination to be a troublemaker depending on whether you’ve had a career in the military, posted a comment perceived as threatening on Facebook, suffer from a particular medical condition, or know someone who knows someone who might have committed a crime.

In other words, you might already be flagged as potentially anti-government in a government database somewhere—Main Core, for example—that identifies and tracks individuals (so they can be rounded up and detained in times of distress) who aren’t inclined to march in lockstep to the police state’s dictates.

The government has the know-how.

As The Intercept reported, the FBI, CIA, NSA and other government agencies are increasingly investing in and relying on corporate surveillance technologies that can mine constitutionally protected speech on social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter and Instagram in order to identify potential extremists and predict who might engage in future acts of anti-government behavior.

Surveillance, digital stalking and the data mining of the American people—weapons of compliance and control in the government’s hands, especially when the government can listen in on your phone calls, monitor your driving habits, track your movements, scrutinize your purchases and peer through the walls of your home—add up to a society in which there’s little room for indiscretions, imperfections, or acts of independence.

This is the creepy, calculating yet diabolical genius of the American police state: the very technology we hailed as revolutionary and liberating has become our prison, jailer, probation officer, stalker, Big Brother and Father Knows Best all rolled into one.

It turns out that we are Soylent Green.

The 1973 film of the same name, starring Charlton Heston and Edward G. Robinson, is set in 2022 in an overpopulated, polluted, starving New York City whose inhabitants depend on synthetic foods manufactured by the Soylent Corporation for survival.

Heston plays a policeman investigating a murder, who discovers the grisly truth about the primary ingredient in the wafer, soylent green, which is the principal source of nourishment for a starved population. “It’s people. Soylent Green is made out of people,” declares Heston’s character. “They’re making our food out of people. Next thing they’ll be breeding us like cattle for food.”

Oh, how right he was.

Soylent Green is indeed people or, in our case, Soylent Green is our own personal data, repossessed, repackaged and used by corporations and the government to entrap us.

We, too, are being bred like cattle but not for food.

Rather, as I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, we’re being bred, branded, bought and sold for our data.

As the insidious partnership between the U.S. government and Corporate America grows more invasive and more subtle with every passing day, there’s virtually no way to opt out of these assaults on your digital privacy short of being a modern-day Luddite, completely disconnected from all technology.

What we desperately lack and urgently need is an Electronic Bill of Rights that protects “we the people” from predatory surveillance and data-mining business practices.

Without constitutional protections in place to guard against encroachments on our rights in the electronic realm, it won’t be long before we find ourselves, much like Edward G. Robinson’s character in Soylent Green, looking back on the past with longing, back to an age where we could speak to whom we wanted, buy what we wanted, think what we wanted without those thoughts, words and activities being tracked, processed and stored by corporate giants such as Google, sold to government agencies such as the NSA and CIA, and used against us by militarized police with their army of futuristic technologies.


Connect with The Rutherford Institute

Cover image credit: Eukalyptus

See Related:

Five Ways to Prepare for the Online Privacy Crackdown

UN & Bill Gates Launch “50in5” Global Digital Infrastructure Plans

The End of Privacy Is Near

The End of Privacy Is Near

The End of Privacy Is Near

by Dr. Joseph Mercola
November 17, 2023


  • “CITIZENFOUR” is a documentary about NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden. It came out in 2014, but it’s even more pertinent today than it was then
  • In January 2013, when documentary film director/producer Laura Poitras received an encrypted email from a stranger who called himself “Citizen Four”
  • In June 2013, Poitras flew to meet Snowden at the Mira Hotel in Hong Kong, together with columnist Glenn Greenwald and Guardian intelligence reporter Ewen MacAskill. After four days of interviews, Snowden’s identity was made public at his request
  • Today, Snowden’s warnings ring truer than ever. Artificial intelligence now scours social media, podcasts and videos for key words identifying “anti-vaxxers,” for example. It doesn’t even matter if they agree with what you’re writing or saying. The mere inclusion of certain words will get you axed from the platform
  • Next, the plan is to eliminate privacy altogether by requiring a digital identity to access the internet


“CITIZENFOUR” is a documentary about U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) whistleblower Edward Snowden. It came out in 2014, but it’s even more pertinent today than it was then, so if you haven’t seen it, I urge you to do so.

The Snowden story began in January 2013, when documentary film director/producer Laura Poitras received an encrypted email from a stranger who called himself “Citizen Four.” Snowden reportedly chose this codename “as a nod to three NSA whistleblowers who came before him: Bill Binney, J. Kirk Wiebe and Thomas Drake.”

Poitras had already spent several years working on a film about monitoring programs in the U.S., and had been placed on a secret watch list after her 2006 film “My Country, My Country,”1 a documentary about Iraqis living under U.S. occupation. In his initial email, Snowden wrote:

“Laura. At this stage, I can offer nothing more than my word. I’m a senior government employee in the intelligence community. I hope you understand that contacting you is extremely high risk and you’re willing to agree to the following precautions before I share more. This will not be a waste of your time …
The surveillance you’ve experienced means you’ve been ‘selected’ — a term which will mean more to you as you learn about how the modern SIGINT system works.
For now, know that every border you cross, every purchase you make, every call you dial, every cell phone tower you pass, friend you keep, article you write, site you visit, subject line you type, and packet your route, is in the hands of a system whose reach is unlimited, but whose safeguards are not.
Your victimization by the NSA system means that you’re well aware of the threat that unrestricted secret police pose for democracies. This is a story few but you can tell.”
Summary of Snowden’s Journey

In June 2013, Poitras flew to meet Snowden at The Mira Hong Kong, together with columnist Glenn Greenwald and Ewen MacAskill, an intelligence reporter for The Guardian. After four days of interviews, Snowden’s identity was made public at his request.

Within two weeks, the U.S. government demanded Snowden’s extradition. Facing prosecution in the United States, Snowden scheduled a meeting with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and applied for refugee status.

He managed to depart Hong Kong, but became stranded at the Sheremetyevo International Airport in Moscow when his passport was canceled. There he remained for 40 days, until the Russian government finally granted him asylum.

The Greatest Weapon of Oppression Ever Built

The U.S. government implemented Stellar Wind, a program to actively — and illegally — spy on all Americans within days of the 2001 9/11 attack. Ten years later, in 2011, construction began on a NSA data center in the Utah desert. It’s now the largest surveillance storehouse in the U.S.

In his correspondence, Snowden warned Poitras that “telecommunication companies in the U.S. are betraying the trust of their customers.” Through Stellar Wind, all phone calls and text messages were being intercepted and stored, and the Stellar Wind program has only expanded from there.

The NSA not only intercepts American citizens emails, phone conversations and text messages, but also Google searches, Amazon.com orders, bank records and more.

“We are building the greatest weapon for oppression in the history of man,” Snowden wrote, “yet its directors exempt themselves from accountability … On cyber operations, the government’s public position is that we still lack a policy framework. This … was a lie.
There is a detailed policy framework, a kind of martial law for cyber operations created by the White House. It’s called ‘Presidential Policy Directive 20’ and was finalized at the end of last year.”
Linkability, the Key to Control — and Entrapment

As explained in the film, a key aspect of control through surveillance is the linkability of data. One piece of data about you is linked to another piece. For example, your bus pass can be linked to the debit card you used to buy the pass. Your debit card is also linked to all other purchases.

With two key pieces of information — WHERE you went on a given day, and WHEN you made purchases, they can determine who you spoke with and met up with by linking those data points with those of other people who were in the vicinity at the same time. And that’s without even using your cellphone data.

When all these various data points are aggregated — location data, purchases, phone calls, texts, social media posts and more — you end up with a collection of metadata that tells a story about you. However, while the story is made up of facts, it’s not necessarily true.

For example, just because you were standing at a particular street corner does not mean you had anything to do with the crime that was reported on that same corner at the time you happened to be there. The problem is, your data could be used against you in that way.

The January 6 prisoners are a perfect example of how bits and pieces of data can be misused. Many have now spent years in jail simply because their cellphone data showed them as being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

State Power Versus the People’s Power to Oppose That Power

When asked by Greenwald why he decided to become a whistleblower, Snowden replied:

“It all comes down to state power against the people’s ability to meaningfully oppose that power. I’m sitting there every day, getting paid to design methods to amplify that state power.
And I’m realizing that if the policy switches that are the only thing that restrain these states were changed, you couldn’t meaningfully oppose [them].
I mean, you would have to be the most incredibly sophisticated tactical actor in existence. I’m not sure there’s anybody, no matter how gifted you are, who could oppose all of the offices and all the bright people, even all the mediocre people out there with all of their tools and all their capabilities.
And as I saw the promise of the Obama administration be betrayed … and in fact, [how they] actually advanced the things that had been promised to be sort of curtailed and reined in and dialed back … As as I saw that, that really hardened me to action …
We all have a stake in this. This is our country, and the balance of power between the citizenry and the government is becoming that of the ruling and the ruled, as opposed to the elected and the electorate.”
A Decade Later Snowden’s Words Ring Truer Than Ever

“I remember what the internet was like, before it was being watched, and there’s never been anything in the history of man like it,” Snowden said.

“You could have children from one part of the world having an equal discussion, where they were sort of granted the same respect for their ideas and conversation, with experts in a field from another part of the world on any topic, anywhere, anytime, all the time.
It was free and unrestrained. And we’ve seen the chilling of that, and the changing of that model towards something in which people self police their own views. They literally make jokes about ending up on ‘the list’ if they donate to a political cause, or if they say something in a discussion. It’s become an expectation that we’re being watched.
Many people I’ve talked to have mentioned that they’re careful about what they type into search engines, because they know that it’s being recorded, and that limits the boundaries of their intellectual exploration.”

Today, after the extreme ramp-up of censorship, surveillance and harassment we’ve endured since the COVID pandemic began, Snowden’s warnings ring truer than ever.

Artificial intelligence now scours social media, podcasts and videos for key words identifying “anti-vaxxers,” for example. It doesn’t even matter if they agree with what you’re writing or saying. The mere inclusion of certain words will get you axed from the platform.

Snowden’s worst fears have indeed come true, and today most people have come to realize just how dangerous this kind of blanket surveillance can be. Countless individuals whose only “crime” was to share their story of how the COVID shot ruined their lives have had their posts censored and social media accounts shut down.

Canadians whose only “crime” was to donate a few dollars to a peaceful protest had their bank accounts frozen. Small companies and nonprofit organizations with the “wrong” viewpoints have had their online payment services cancelled, effectively strangling their ability to make a living and keep the operation going.

Others have been debanked without recourse, including yours truly. My CEO and CFO and all of their family members also had their accounts and credit cards canceled, apparently for no other reason than the fact that they work for me. In other words, guilt by association.

Will the Internet as We Know It Disappear in the Next Year?

I recently posted an interview with investigative journalist Whitney Webb in which she talks about the next steps in the ramp-up of tyranny. The World Economic Forum has warned we may face a cyberattack on the banks before the end of 2024. That means we almost definitely will, seeing how they like to announce plans ahead of time.

Such a cyberattack will not only destroy the current banking system and usher in programmable central bank digital currencies. It will also eliminate privacy online by requiring everyone to have a digital identification tied to their ISP.

The principles of “know your customer” (KYC) will be imposed on everybody for everything, and anything that doesn’t have that will be made illegal under National Security justifications.

Essentially, what we’re looking at is a cyber Patriot Act, which will allow for the unfettered surveillance of everyone’s online activities, and the ability to restrict or block access to the internet. As noted by Webb, “The internet as you know it will not exist after this happens.”

The goal is to surveil all online activity in real time and have AI perform predictive policing to prevent crime before it happens. At that point, all bets are off. Data points alone may land you behind bars. Thought-crimes will also have ramifications, potentially resulting in the seizure of private property and/or removal of “privileges” previously understood as human rights.

A Global Infrastructure Has Been Built

During their first meeting with Snowden in Hong Kong, he explained that a global infrastructure, built by the NSA with the cooperation of other governments, was already in place. That was 10 years ago, so you can imagine how it’s grown since then.

At that time, that network was already automatically intercepting every digital communication, every radio communication and every analog communication. This blanket siphoning of data allows the NSA and others that have access to the network to retroactively search an individual’s communications, even if all they have is a single identifier. Snowden explained:

“So for example, if I wanted to see the content of your email … all I have to do is use what’s called a selector, any kind of thing in the communications chain that might uniquely or almost uniquely identify you as an individual.
I’m talking about things like email addresses, IP addresses, phone numbers, credit cards, even passwords that are unique to you that aren’t used by anyone else.
I can input those into the system, and it will not only go back through the database … it will basically put an additional level of scrutiny on it moving into the future that says, ‘If this is detected now or at any time in the future, I want this to go to me immediately,’ and [it will] alert me in real time that you’re communicating with someone. Things like that.”

According to Snowden, the British Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) has “the most invasive network intercept program anywhere in the world.” That program, Tempora, intercepts all content, in addition to metadata, on everything and everyone.

Snowden also describes the “SSO,” which stands for Special Sorters Operations. The SSO passively collects data across networks, both in the U.S. and internationally. Domestically, this is done primarily through corporate partnerships.

“They also do this with multinationals that might be headquartered in the U.S. whom [they can] just pay into giving them access,” Snowden said. They also do it bilaterally with the assistance of other governments.

You’re Being Spied Upon Everywhere

Snowden also pointed out some of the many ways in which you’re being spied upon by the digital devices around you. As just one example, all VoIP phones, which transmit calls over an IP network such as the internet, have little computers inside of them that can be hot mic’d even if servers are down. As long as the phone is plugged in, someone can use it to listen in on your conversations.

Within days of their first meeting in Hong Kong, Greenwald and Poitras were publishing stories about the NSA’s illegal blanket spying domestically and internationally. CNN Live reported:

“Another explosive article has just appeared, this time in the Washington Post … that reveals another broad and secret U.S. government’s surveillance program.
The Washington Post and The Guardian in London reporting that the NSA and the FBI are tapping directly into the central servers of nine leading internet companies, including Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, AOL, Skype, YouTube, and Apple.
The Post says they’re extracting audio, video, photographs, emails, documents, and connection logs that enable analysts to track a person’s movements and contacts over time.”


Greenwald also made numerous live news appearances. In one, he stated:

“In 2008, they eliminated the warrant requirement for all conversations, except ones that take place among Americans exclusively on American soil.
So they don’t need warrants now for people who are foreigners outside of the U.S., but they also don’t need warrants for Americans who are in the United States, communicating with people reasonably believed to be outside of the U.S.
So … the fact that there are no checks, no oversight about who’s looking over the NSA’s shoulder, means that they can take whatever they want, and the fact that it’s all behind a wall of secrecy, and they threaten people who want to expose it, means that whatever they’re doing, even violating the law is something that we’re unlikely to know until we start having real investigations and real transparency into what it is that the government is doing.”
Beyond Transparency

At this point, we’re beyond merely needing transparency. The intent to surveil and control every move we make and thought we express is now being openly expressed.

We can just assume that any digital devices can and probably are collecting data on our activities and whereabouts, and that those data are nowhere near held private and can be used against us in myriad ways.

Everyone must now choose between freedom and enslavement, and the option to choose freedom is rapidly closing.

Today, a decade after Snowden broke the dam of secrecy around the global surveillance scheme, we have but one choice left, and that is to actively reject that system by changing how we live our day to day lives. Everyone must now choose between freedom and enslavement, and the option to choose freedom is rapidly closing. Putting off making that choice is itself a choice.

Rejecting the control system means reverting back to “dumb” appliances and devices to the extent you’re able. It means getting savvier about privacy technologies such as deGoogled phones and computers2 that cannot spy on you. It means using cash as much as possible and rejecting CBDCs and digital tokens. As noted by Whitney Webb in the interview I linked to earlier:

“There’s a huge need for to divest from Big Tech as much as possible, and it needs to happen quickly, because the choice is either participate in the system being designed for you by crazy people and become a slave, or don’t become a slave. And if you don’t want to be a slave, you have to invest now in Big Tech alternatives, unless you want to live a completely analog life …
The easiest route is to go the slavery route, and that’s how they’ve designed it on purpose. The whole selling point of that system is that it’s convenient and easy. So, obviously, it’s going to take some work to go the other route, but the future of human freedom depends on it so I think it’s a pretty easy choice.”

Connect with Dr. Joseph Mercola

Cover image credit: CDD20

See Related:

Five Ways to Prepare for the Online Privacy Crackdown

UN & Bill Gates Launch “50in5” Global Digital Infrastructure Plans

UN & Bill Gates Launch “50in5” Global Digital Infrastructure Plans

by Kit Knightly, OffGuardian
November 16, 2023


Last week the United Nations Development Program officially launched their new initiative promoting “Digital Public Infrastructure” (DPI) around the world.

The “50in5” program – so-called because it aims to introduce DPI in fifty countries in the next five years – began with a live-streamed event on November 8th.

For those of you unsure what “Digital Public Infrastructure” is, the 50in5 website is quite clear:

Digital public infrastructure (DPI) – which refers to a secure and interoperable network of components that include digital payments, ID, and data exchange systems.

There’s nothing new there, for anyone who has been paying even the slightest bit of attention. Digital identity and digital payment systems are self-explanatory (and we’ve covered them before). “Data Exchange Systems” essentially means national governments will share identity and financial records of citizens across borders with other nations, or indeed with global government agencies.

The key word is “interoperable”.

As we have written before, the “global government” won’t be one single health care system, identity database, or digital currency – but dozens of notionally separate systems all carefully designed to be fully “interoperable”.

As well as being a project of the UNDP, UNICEF, and the Inter-American Development Bank, the 50in5 is funded by various globalist NGOs and non-profits including the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and (indirectly through an NGO called “Co-Develop”) the Rockefeller Foundation.

The eleven counties taking part in the program so far are Bangladesh, Brazil, Estonia, Ethiopia, Guatemala, Moldova, Norway, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Sri Lanka, and Togo. A careful spread from every continent, including first, second, and third-world nations.

It is a list noteworthy for including NATO, EU, and BRICS members. Interesting implications on supposed “multipolarity” there.

In related news, on the exact same day the 50in5 program launched, the European Parliament and Council of Europe agreed on a new framework for a region-wide European Digital Identity (eID) system.

According to the official press release [emphasis added]:

The revised regulation constitutes a clear paradigm shift for digital identity in Europe aiming to ensure universal access for people and businesses to secure and trustworthy electronic identification and authentication. Under the new law, member states will offer citizens and businesses digital wallets that will be able to link their national digital identities with proof of other personal attributes (e.g., driving licence, diplomas, bank account). Citizens will be able to prove their identity and share electronic documents from their digital wallets with a click of a button on their mobile phone.

This comes on the back of announcements that the European Central Bank is moving on to the “next phase” of its Digital Euro plans this month. The digital euro will – according to former IMF (and apparent numerology nut) Christine Lagarde – afford some “limited control” over people’s spending.

India, another BRICS nation, has been at the forefront of DPI development for years, and now articles are appearing in publications like Forbes, claiming “India Has A Digital Infrastructure, America Needs One”.

At the same time, China is making strides toward ending online anonymity, while Western politicians like Nikki Haley say we should be doing the same.

As the world focuses on Hamas and Israel, the global re-organization phase of the Great Reset is just quietly going about its business. Building a net and waiting to tighten it.


Connect with OffGuardian

Cover image credit: irfanahmad

Five Ways to Prepare for the Online Privacy Crackdown

5 Ways to Prepare for the Online Privacy Crackdown
With legislation around the world seeking to gut encryption and online anonymity, Ramiro Romani offers an overview of what’s coming and several solutions for divesting from Big Tech products and protecting your online privacy.


by Ramiro Romani, Unlimited Hangout
November 6, 2023


The internet is about to change. In many countries, there’s currently a coordinated legislative push to effectively outlaw encryption of user uploaded content under the guise of protecting children. This means websites or internet services (messaging apps, email, etc.) could be held criminally or civilly liable if someone used it to upload abusive material. If these bills become law, people like myself who help supply private communication services could be penalized or put into prison for simply protecting the privacy of our users. In fact, anyone who runs a website with user-uploaded content could be punished the same way. In today’s article, I’ll show you why these bills not only fail at protecting children, but also put the internet as we know it in jeopardy, as well as why we should question the organizations behind the push.

Let’s quickly recap some of the legislation.

European Union

– Chat Control: would require internet services (Email, chat, storage) to scan all messages and content and report flagged content to the EU. This would require that every internet based service scans everything uploaded to it, even if it’s end-to-end encrypted. Content would be analyzed using machine learning (i.e. AI) and matches would automatically be reported to the police. This is awaiting a vote from the EU LIBE committee.

United Kingdom

The Online Safety Act 2023: would require user service providers to enforce age limits and checks, remove legal but harmful content for children, and require scanning photos for materials related to child sexual abuse & exploitation, as well as terrorism. It would require providers to be able to identify these types of materials in private communications and to take down that content. This means providers would need visibility into messaging, even those messages are end-to-end encrypted. End to end encrypted messaging providers such as WhatsApp, Viber, Signal, and Element have indicated in an open letter that surveillance on of this type simply isn’t possible without breaking end to end encryption entirely, and have threatened to leave the UK if the bill was passed & enforced without the offending Clause 122. This bill was recently passed by parliament unchanged and will become enforceable in 2024.

United States

– The EARN IT Act 2023: would allow US states to hold websites criminally liable for not scanning user uploaded content for CSAM (child sexual abuse material). This would effectively ban end to end encryption. This bill has 22 cosponsors and is awaiting an order to report to the Senate.

– The STOP CSAM Act 2023 (Full Text): would allow victims who suffered abuse or exploitation as children to sue any website that hosted pictures of the exploitation or abuse “recklessly”, e.g. if your website was not automatically scanning uploads. Websites are already required by law to remove CSAM if made aware of it, but this would require providers to scan all files uploaded. This bill has 4 cosponsors, and is awaiting an order to report to the Senate.

– Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA): would require platforms to verify the ages of its visitors and filter content promoting self-harm, suicide, eating disorders, and sexual exploitation. This would inherently require an age verification system for all users and transparency into content algorithms, including data sharing with third parties. This bill has 47 bi-partisan cosponsors and is awaiting an order to report to the Senate.

Its important to note that the language in these bills and the definition for “service providers” extends to any website or online property that has user-uploaded content. This could be as simple as a blog that allows comments, or a site that allows file uploads. It could be a message board or chatroom, literally anything on the internet that has two-way communication. Most websites are operated by everyday people – not huge tech companies. They have neither the resources or ability to implement scanning on their websites under threat of fine or imprisonment. They would risk operating in violation or be forced to shut down their website. This means your favorite independent media site, hobbyist forum, or random message board could disappear. These bills would crumble the internet as we know it and centralize it further for the benefit of Big Tech who are rapidly expanding the surveillance agenda.

We must pause and ask ourselves, is this effort to ramp up surveillance really about protecting children?

How do companies currently deal with CSAM?

In the United States, tracking CSAM is recognized as a joint effort between ESPs (Electronic Service Providers) like Google, and the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children (NCMEC) a private non-profit established by Congress in 1984 and primarily funded by the United States Department of Justice. Unlimited Hangout has previously reported on the NCMEC and its ties to figures such as Hillary Clinton and intelligence-funded NGOs such as Thorn. They also receive corporate contributions from big names such as Adobe, Disney, Google, Meta, Microsoft, Palantir, Ring Doorbell, Verizon, and Zoom.

Ashton Kutcher’s NGO Supplies Police with ‘Free’ CIA-linked Surveillance Tool to ‘Protect Kids’

Electronic service providers in the United States are already required to report to the CyberTipline (Federal statute 18 USC 2258A) if they become aware of CSAM, otherwise they may face fines or prison time. These CyberTipline reports combine offending content with additional information such as identifying the potential perpetrator, the victim, and other context that is combined and sent off to law enforcement.

Photo & content scanning measures are not required. However, several prominent companies have voluntarily implemented scanning of communications and media, such as Gmail, YouTube, Google Photos, Facebook, Instagram Messenger, Skype, Snapchat, iCloud email, and Microsoft’s Xbox. If you use these services, then your messages and media may automatically be scanned for abusive material.

Ironically and not surprisingly, its these very platforms that have the most malicious activity, including drug & guns saleschild abuse material, and cyberbullying/harassment.

Does voluntary content scanning actually help protect children?

Google began publishing a CSAM transparency report in 2021 which gives numbers on how much CSAM was identified and reported on across Google & Youtube. It includes data since 2020, with counts for how many reports were made to the NCMEC, how many different Google accounts were disabled, and how many “hashes” (photo fingerprints) were contributed to the NCMEC hash database.

It is unclear exactly when Google started creating “hashes” of its users photos, but they have contributed 2.5 million new hashes to National Center for Missing and Exploited Children’s Hash Database to date. Reports are published every 6 months, and we’ve seen staggering growth in all types of reports since 2020. For example, Google’s CyberTipline reports have grown from ~547,000 in 2020, ~870,000 in 2021, to more than 2.1 million reports in 2022. The first half of 2023 has shown a decline, totaling ~750,000 reports from January to June.

As seen on NCMEC’s CyberTipline Data page, Google’s reports represent a mere fraction of the total number of reports submitted to the NCMEC, which works with over 1,500 ESPs – mostly US companies. 5 electronic service providers (Facebook, Instagram, Google, WhatsApp, and Omegle) accounted for more than 90% of the 32 million reports in 2022. Around half (49%) of these reports in 2022 are “actionable”, meaning there is sufficient information for law enforcement to proceed with an investigation. Additionally, 89.9% of reports involved content uploaded by users outside of the US.

The NCMEC also reports the numbers of CyberTipline reports made to different law enforcement organizations such as Internet Crimes Against Children, Local LE, Federal LE, and International LE.

Law enforcement is not required to give any feedback on what happens with these reports and, as a result, they hardly provide feedback. Using the NCMEC’s own numbers, we can see there is little visibility on how the reports are used.

In 2022, we saw the following rates of feedback from law enforcement and other groups who received reports.

  • International Crimes Against Children Groups – 491,655 actionable reports resulted in 41.59% Feedback
  • Local Law Enforcement – 1,462 actionable reports resulted in 3.48% Feedback
  • Federal Law Enforcement – 1,356,988 reports resulted in 0.03% Feedback
  • International Law Enforcement – 13,995,567 reports resulted in 0.4% Feedback

Keep in mind, a feedback response doesn’t necessarily mean an arrest or conviction. Feedback responses could may indicate the report was closed or incomplete feedback. Also, these results are not open to the public, although a FOIA request could change that. However, these numbers make it clear that whether companies are voluntarily scanning their content or creating reports after becoming aware of CSAM – there’s no visibility on what actually happens with the reports.

Given the huge volume of reports not acted upon, forcing technology providers to automatically scan content & generate reports is not going to magically change things. It will require law enforcement to act on reports to put child predators behind bars and save children. That is, after all, what legislators say they want.

That’s not to say nothing is being done. A 2022 report of CyberTipline success stories in the United States stated that close to 714 different cases used CyberTipline reports. Only 16 of these cases explicitly reported the assistance of a service provider.

Again, out of 1.35 million actionable CyberTipline reports in the United States in 2022, there have been 714 arrests so far. Its possible there are ongoing investigations that will bring this number higher, but we can only guess without transparency. I was unable to find success stories for any prior years.

I commend these efforts to protect children from dangerous predators; however, these efforts do not necessitate automatic scanning of everyone’s messages or the gutting of encryption. Generating more reports from service providers obviously does not lead to more arrests being made. Lastly, the majority of CSAM material comes from big tech providers, many of whom are voluntarily scanning content anyways. Why enforce this requirement on every website on the internet?

If legislators around the world want to make a genuine impact on child abuse, then they should push for transparency and accountability practices for law enforcement and work to ensure that law enforcement properly investigates the millions upon millions of reports they already receive every year, and make the data available to the public.

We the people need to know that the groups responsible for investigating child abuse are doing their jobs with the processes and data already available, rather than further sacrifice our individual privacy and security for more of the same. The bills/laws in question also lack an understanding of encryption, are not technically feasible to implement, put unnecessary legal liability on technology companies, and lack evidence that the policies will improve outcomes for children.

How can the online child abuse laws across Western countries be so consistent with their practices? How did they all reach the same strategies of age verification, content filtering, and client side scanning?

The framework for this legislation has been in the works for years. One key architect of this push has been the WePROTECT Global Alliance, a merger of initiatives between the European Commission, the US Department of Justice, and the UK Government. Their first summit was hosted in 2014 and is now comprised of 97 governments, 25 technology companies, and 30 civil society organizations.

UNICEF, a member of WePROTECT, released a “model national response” which outlines many of the elements we see in these different child safety bills today. UNICEF and organizations like the US Department of Justice state that sexual exploitation of children cannot be addressed by one country, company, or organization working in isolation. Troublingly, both of those groups have a history of turning a blind eye to child abuse in their respective organizations and/or jurisdictions (see hereherehere and here for examples).

Working groups like the “Five Country” government counterparts (Five Eyes) – USA, UK, Australia, Canada, New Zealand– have met with the corporate executives of Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Roblox, Snap, and Twitter to collaborate on guidelines such as the “Voluntary Principles to Counter Online Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse” (justice.gov link). These groups are all working together, via public-private partnerships like the Global Cyber Allianceamong others, to change the face of the internet.

Earlier this year, the Department of Justice outlined the “risky” aspects of technology in a 2023 National Strategy Report on Child Exploitation:


– an uneven response to online child safety by the tech sector;
– a CyberTipline system that is overwhelmed;
– anonymization of offenders;
– encryption of data storage and communications;
– online environments where children and adults interact without supervision or controls;
– globalized, often sovereignless, platforms;
– remote, often extraterritorial, storage; and
– a compounding lack of public awareness of these risks.

While the issue of child exploitation online is grave and child abusers need to be held accountable – this shouldn’t come of our individual privacy and freedom. From the publicly stated perspectives of these groups, anonymization, encryption, and not allowing governments or tech companies to track all content is equivalent to contributing to child exploitation.

Ignoring the child abuse right in front of their noses

As noted earlier, many of these groups have a track record of responding very poorly to serious child abuse issues when these crimes involve their own organization or persons with political value. For instance, there have been nearly 2,000 allegations of child sexual abuse and exploitations made against U.N “Peacekeepers” worldwide between 2004 and 2016, as reported by the Associated Press. This includes the child sex ring in Haiti from 2004 to 2007 where Sri Lankan UN “Peacekeepers” traded food in exchange for sex with children as young as nine years old.

The names of the offenders are kept confidential by the UN, and the UN puts the responsibility on member states to investigate & prosecute. UN records on these allegations are also incomplete and hundreds of cases have been closed without explanation. The United Nations even continues to send Sri Lankan peacekeepers to Haiti, despite the scandals. In the United States, we can see a similar level of accountability with the Department of Justice still withholding the client list for Jeffrey Epstein’s child prostitution ring, among many, many other examples.

The very organizations that try to convince us to give up our individual liberties for the sake of the children will completely ignore crimes against children when it suits them. Can we really trust these organizations to protect children?

The real-time monitoring of messages and outlawing of privacy will not protect children. On the contrary, it would put their communications into the hands of more third parties. The wiser choice would be to encourage parental awareness and conscious use of technology, e.g. not giving children unlimited access to mobile phones or devices and avoiding use of popular social media platforms and messengers.

If these actors truly cared about protecting children, then they would call an end to the genocide & war crimes occurring in Gaza. Instead, the US is rushing to provide aid to Israel in the form of munitions. In the UK, only 80 out of 650 MP’s have called for a ceasefire. Instead, there is more interest in clamping down on and controlling the internet, a crucial resource for all people in a time of great need.

Inter-governmental organizations are pushing towards an internet where our identities are verified and our messages are tracked. With such legislation coming our way all over the world, how can we retain any privacy?

The answer is simple – do not comply. Do not follow along with big tech companies that voluntarily follow legislative guidelines. Find ways to decentralize your use of software. Invest your time into divesting from big tech and learning alternative solutions for communications, storage, and encryption. Given the stakes, there has never been a more important time to divest from these companies and their software.

Thankfully, there are still many ways that individuals can limit their dependence on centralized software services that perform content or AI scanning. We can boycott those Big Tech companies that scan our content including Microsoft, Google, Apple and countless others. It’s just a matter of learning how to take back our technology.

At this point you might be asking:

  • How do we continue to find information on the internet without Google’s search engine?
  • Or use our computers without Microsoft’s Windows and Apple’s macOS?
  • Or use our phones without Google’s Android or Apple’s iOS?
  • Or use our browser without Google’s Chrome, Microsoft’s Edge, or Apple’s Safari? (the oligopoly of these behemoths extends everywhere.)

Solving these problems with alternative software has been the mission of my initiative Take Back Our Tech, and today I am honored to share 5 Ways To Protect Yourself from Incoming Internet Surveillance Bills with the Unlimited Hangout community.

1. Use a “free” operating system for your computer.

Traditional operating systems (“OSs”) like Windows and macOS are proprietary software, which is distinct from free software. It’s important to understand the difference between the two, as the topic will come up again. So let’s define proprietary and free software.

Proprietary software, or “non-free software,” is not available for users to study, observe, or change. As the user, you are given no rights.

For example, only the developers of Microsoft Windows can get a clear look at the code of the operating system and understand what it does. Users have no way to view the code, and verify what the program does.

In contrast, free software (also known as Free & Open Source Software FOSS) gives users rights. The Free Software Foundation, one of the leading organizations behind the Free Software movement, provides an extended definition:

“Free software” means software that respects users’ freedom and community. Roughly, it means that the users have the freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. Thus, “free software” is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of “free” as in “free speech,” not as in “free beer.” We sometimes call it “libre software,” borrowing the French or Spanish word for “free” as in freedom, to show we do not mean the software is gratis.

You may have paid money to get copies of a free program, or you may have obtained copies at no charge. But regardless of how you got them, you always have the freedom to copy and change the software, even to sell copies.

Alternative operating systems based on GNU/Linux are free software. They offer many intended benefits:

  • Visibility into changes: Any user or developer can take a look at code updates and ensure that the operating system is not acting unexpectedly or maliciously. For instance, users of the Ubuntu OS fought back against changes that sent search results to Amazon and got the changes overturned.
  • More choices: Because others can modify and distribute free software at will, far more software choices exist in the free software ecosystem — choices that often outcompete and provide more value than proprietary software.
  • Costs: All Linux distributions are FREE as in cost. Compare this to paying for Windows activation keys.
  • Freedom: Your computer will not automatically track every program that you run, as does macOS, or force updates on you, as Windows does (and to which you agree in their terms of service, a document very few take the time to read).

So what are you waiting for? Throw your proprietary software in the trash and enjoy an operating system that respects your freedom and your data.

Here are some recommendations for free operating systems based on Linux. You can download the .iso file (in which the OS is contained) for each operating system from the following links as well as feature walkthroughs.

Once you’ve made your decision of OS you can follow the guide linked above to get it installed on your machine.

2. Use open-source software on your phone.

The two main choices for traditional mobile operating systems today is Google’s Android, and Apple’s iOS. These two options make up 99%+ of the global market share of mobile operating systems. With over 6.6 billion phones on earth, the data pipeline to these two companies is incomprehensibly large – they’ve got real-time data for almost every person on the planet.

Observational studies of both Android and iOS-based phones found that these devices connect back to their parent companies every 5 minutes. In addition, they collect unique device identifiers, phone numbers, locations, and other surprising info.

Although it would be too lengthy to discuss these issues in-depth in this article, if you’d like to see exactly what tracking and data collection occurs on these mobile operating systems, you can read #TBOT’s analysis here.

A few alternative operating systems have popped up in recent years that can compete with the likes of Google and Apple. These operating systems are referred to as “de-googled” operating systems, and are typically built on top of Android’s Open Source Platform (AOSP). This code is maintained by Google, but other developers have been able to build new features on top of it, and more importantly, to remove any behind-the-scenes tracking or data collection.

You can use one of these alternative operating systems today to configure your own “privacy phone.”

I recommend these three operating systems (note that each is compatible with only certain phones):

You can get more information on supported phones and the install instructions on each website.

Alternatively, if you are pressed for time or don’t want to do the research and make the tech decisions yourself, you can get a phone out of the box that comes complete with GrapheneOS and useful free software apps and communication services, through my project Above Phone.

De-googled phones use alternative app stores like F-Droid (where all apps are free software) and Aurora Store (which will allow you to download apps anonymously from the Google Play Store).

Normal Android phones also have access to these apps, but will still suffer from centralized tracking through Google Services. If you have an Android-based phone you can get started with these alternative app stores right away. Get more details on the links below:

F-Droid FOSS App Catalogue: https://f-droid.org/
Aurora Store: https://auroraoss.com/

You may be surprised at how easily you can transition to a de-googled phone — there are user friendly, private, and functional options for almost all of your app needs. You can also use apps like Uber & AirBnb, which don’t work without Google services, but there is usually a workaround, like using those services from within a web browser, or by using advanced features like GrapheneOS’s sandboxing to isolate Google Services from the rest of your phone.

3. Own your data.

If a major cyber event caused the internet to go down, how would you recover the photos/files/information you stored on cloud services? How would you get the information you needed to prepare for a survival situation?

It would be best to have this information on hand when you need it – not desperately trying to recover it in the event of a cyber disaster.

At a minimum, you should back up all of the following on your local computer instead of on the cloud service you use currently: passwords, legal documents, books, photos, reference material, and maps.

Here are some suggestions to be “cyber-pandemic” ready.

  1. Knowledge is power. Download all the books you need in PDF format. A great site to start is PDFDrive
  2. Need to navigate offline? Organic Maps (available on F-Droid and for Android phones) lets you download maps of most of the regions on the planet — and you can route to different locations using GPS only (which means you don’t need a SIM card in your phone).
  3. If you use Google Drive or iCloud, now is the time to export all of your photos, videos, and documents to a local hard drive. Here’s a tutorial on how to export Google Drive files. Here’s an tutorial on how to export files on iCloud.
  4. Are you managing your passwords in the cloud? Know that cloud password managers are not immune to hacking attempts. The best place for your passwords is in an encrypted password vault on your computer. An attacker would need not only the password vault file on your computer, but also the master password used to encrypt the vault. A collection of software called Keepass offers a cohesive way to manage and sync passwords locally on your computer and on your phone.
4. Support alternatives.

A wide range of software can serve as alternatives in the open-source software ecosystem. I’ve categorized and listed several great ones below, all of which are programs for Linux computers!

You can also find an important set of core software for Linux with details on how to use it on #TBOT’s Open-Source Survival Toolkit. A larger list of programs is available on #TBOT’s Open Source Survival Library.

Password Managers

KeepassXC: Offline password manager.
Bitwarden: Cloud-based password manager

Privacy / Security

I2P: Private peer-to-peer networking layer.
VeraCrypt: Open-source cross-platform disk encryption


Ungoogled Chromium: A (fork) copy of Google’s Chromium engine with tracking removed
LibreWolf: Firefox fork with improved privacy
Falkon: KDE Project’s web browser


Evolution: A mail client, calendar, address book, and task manager in one
Thunderbird: Mozilla Foundation’s email, chat, and calendaring client
Mailspring: Easy-to-use, modern mail client with integrations to major email providers
KMail: KDE’s email client that supports many mail protocols


Kotatogram: Alternate Telegram client with improved offline features
AnyDesk: Remote desktop / support software
Jitsi: Free video conferencing
Jami: Free and open-source peer-to-peer video conferencing.

Social Media

Nostr: a decentralized social media protocol
PeerTube: Decentralized video broadcasting
Nitter: Alternative twitter front end
Invidious: Alternative YouTube front end
Libreddit: Alternative Reddit front end
Owncast: Self-hosted live video and web chat server


Krita: Free and open source digital illustration program
Inkscape: Professional vector-based graphics editor
GIMP: One of the oldest and best- known image editors
Pinta: Bitmap editor similar to Paint.NET
Gravit Designer: Vector-based design app
Blender: End-to-end 3D creation suite


DarkTable: Virtual light table and darkroom for photography
DigiKam: Personal photo management

Video Editors

Kdenlive: The KDE project’s video editor
Davinci Resolve: High-end professional video editor
OpenShot: Easy-to-use, powerful video editor

Video Utilities

OBS Studio: Video recording and live streaming
Kazam: Record videos of your screen
Peek: Record videos and gifs of your screen
Spectacle: KDE’s screenshot tool

Technical Tools

Remmina: A remote desktop client
VirtualBox: Create virtual machines


CherryTree: Hierarchical note-taking application that stores multimedia notes in an encrypted database (not markdown)
Trillium Notes: Build knowledge bases & graphs with this extensible note-taking application (not markdown)
Joplin Notes: Create simple notes and to do lists using markdown


Foxit PDF: Feature-rich PDF reader.
Sioyek: PDF reader for academic papers.


LibreOffice: Most popular open-source office suite for Linux
OnlyOffice: Collaborative online document editor
CryptPad: Browser-based encrypted document editor
HomeBank: Personal money management

5. Own your communications.

Although social messengers like WhatsApp, Signal, Telegram, and Facebook Messenger can be useful, many of them are not open source. Even the ones that claim to be open source often only make the front end of the application visible for inspection (that part you interact with directly), not the server-side code that is responsible for delivering messages.

Chat protocols like XMPP and Nostr are fully open source, meaning the code is available for the client and server. This is especially important because it means that you can run the server-side software yourself on a computer under your control. This is called self-hosting, and it’s crucial to censorship resistance and verifying that a software does what it says.

XMPP is over 20 years old and can support tens of thousands of users on a single server. It offers end-to-end encrypted messaging, voice calls, and video calls (as well as files and audio messages). It can be used on computers, phones, and in a web browser, and it’s also completely free to join (you can join any public server). It can even be bridged to the phone network (anonymous phone numbers without needing a SIM card anyone?).

It’s a wonder why XMPP isn’t more well known, but part of the reason could be that it’s hard to monetize (make money) on XMPP. The protocol has been used under the hood for major chat services run by big tech companies scaling to millions of users, unfortunately these big companies hid the underlying technology.

Above Phone is attempting to change this. The Above Privacy Suite offers a professional XMPP service with enhanced privacy. It comes in a bundle with 5 other privacy services.


The internet is changing and battle lines are being drawn. On one side, government organizations have become obsessed with invading our personal communications and drastically advancing the ever encroaching surveillance state, supposedly “for the sake of the children.” Together with enthusiastic help from Big Tech, they threaten to monitor even single thought, idea, or creation you share on the internet.

On the other side are people who are not going to let that happen. We’re the underdogs, a small but growing number of people who are demanding privacy and freedom over convenience. It doesn’t have to be their way or the highway when it comes to technology, we can carve our own path, experimenting with software that is friendly and in alignment with our values. Hopefully, this guide can give you a starting point to understand your technology and places to find alternatives.

I encourage you to not only explore and use the software listed in this guide, but to support the developers with financial donations. Their projects may be the key to both surviving and thriving in the growing surveillance state.


Connect with Above Phone project

Connect with Unlimited Hangout

Cover image credit: Franz26

Sweden: New Dystopian DIGITAL ID

Sweden: New Dystopian DIGITAL ID
Now people need a phone with a camera and NFC to register their new digital ID

by Peter Imanuelsen, The Freedom Corner
September 10, 2023


Do you remember when people were called “conspiracy theorists” for warning about the covid passports? Turns out that those who warned about them were correct!

The same people have now been warning for quite some time about digital ID, and with good reason.

In Scandinavia, we have already had digital ID for a long time. People need it to be able to do everyday tasks like online banking, buying things online and much more.

Now, the digital ID system in Sweden called “BankID” is getting a few changes regarding security.

When setting up your digital ID, people can be asked to have passport or national ID card available.

The way it works is that you have to have a smartphone with a camera and NFC contactless reader built in.

When setting up the new digital ID, you simply take a picture of the photo on your passport or ID card, then you “touch” the phone against the passport or ID to scan the contactless NFC chip – And boom you have verified your digital ID.

Yes, Swedish passports have a contactless NFC chip built into them. So when you use your phone to scan your passport it confirms your identity.

You can watch the video on how Swedish people have to set up their digital ID in this video from Swedbank.

Have you ever wondered what digital ID really is and the real plan behind this agenda?

It is all about control. Imagine a world where we have central bank digital currencies. Everyone needs a digital ID to access their digital wallet.

Imagine how easy it is for the state to control everything people do and buy.

In fact, there is already a Swedish company that has technology to track your purchases and calculate your C02 emissions. Many banks are already using this technology to inform people of their carbon emissions based on what they buy. In other words, tracking your purchases.

If you haven’t already, make sure to read my in-depth article on the TRUTH about the digital ID.

The truth about digital ID 
But it gets worse!
In Sweden, thousands of people have already implanted microchips in their hands to use for contactless payments. All you have to do is hold your hand over the card reader and it gets scanned.

During covid, some people even used their implanted microchips for their covid passports, meaning they just scanned their hands to show up their “green” covid passport status.

This is scary stuff.

You can read my article on this here:

 People are now paying with microchips in their hand.


Connect with Peter Imanuelsen

Cover image credit: PixxlTeufel

We the Targeted: How the Government Weaponizes Surveillance to Silence Its Critics

We the Targeted: How the Government Weaponizes Surveillance to Silence Its Critics

by John & Nisha Whitehead, The Rutherford Institute
August 29, 2023


“Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear.”

— President Harry S. Truman

Ever since Martin Luther King Jr. delivered his groundbreaking “I Have a Dream” speech during the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom on Aug. 28, 1963, the Deep State has been hard at work turning King’s dream into a living nightmare.

The end result of the government’s efforts over the past 60 years is a country where nothing ever really changes, and everyone lives in fear.

Race wars are still being stoked by both the Right and the Left; the military-industrial complex is still waging profit-driven wars at taxpayer expense; the oligarchy is still calling the shots in the seats of government power; and the government is still weaponizing surveillance in order to muzzle anti-government sentiment, harass activists, and terrorize Americans into compliance.

This last point is particularly disturbing.

Starting in the 1950s, the government relied on COINTELPRO, its domestic intelligence program, to neutralize domestic political dissidents. Those targeted by the FBI under COINTELPRO for its intimidation, surveillance and smear campaigns included: Martin Luther King Jr., Malcom X, the Black Panther Party, John Lennon, Billie Holiday, Emma Goldman, Aretha Franklin, Charlie Chaplin, Ernest Hemingway, Felix Frankfurter, and hundreds more.

In more recent decades, the powers-that-be have expanded their reach to target anyone who opposes the police state, regardless of their political leanings.

Advances in technology have enabled the government to deploy a veritable arsenal of surveillance weapons in order to “expose, disrupt, misdirect, discredit, or otherwise neutralize” perceived threats to the government’s power.

Surveillance cameras mounted on utility poles, traffic lights, businesses, and homes. License plate readers. Ring doorbells. GPS devices. Dash cameras. Drones. Store security cameras. Geofencing and geotracking. FitBits. Alexa. Internet-connected devices. Geofencing dragnets. Fusion centers. Smart devices. Behavioral threat assessments. Terror watch lists. Facial recognition. Snitch tip lines. Biometric scanners. Pre-crime. DNA databases. Data mining. Precognitive technology. Contact tracing apps.

What these add up to is a world in which, on any given day, the average person is now monitored, surveilled, spied on and tracked in more than 20 different ways by both government and corporate eyes and ears.

Consider just a small sampling of the ways in which the government is weaponizing its 360 degree surveillance technologies to flag you as a threat to national security, whether or not you’ve done anything wrong.

Flagging you as a danger based on your feelings. Customs and Border Protection is reportedly using an artificial intelligence surveillance program that can detect “sentiment and emotion” in social media posts in order to identify travelers who may be “a threat to public safety, national security, or lawful trade and travel.”

Flagging you as a danger based on your phone and movements. Cell phones have become de facto snitches, offering up a steady stream of digital location data on users’ movements and travels. For instance, the FBI was able to use geofence data to identify more than 5,000 mobile devices (and their owners) in a 4-acre area around the Capitol on January 6. This latest surveillance tactic could land you in jail for being in the “wrong place and time.” Police are also using cell-site simulators to carry out mass surveillance of protests without the need for a warrant. Moreover, federal agents can now employ a number of hacking methods in order to gain access to your computer activities and “see” whatever you’re seeing on your monitor. Malicious hacking software can also be used to remotely activate cameras and microphones, offering another means of glimpsing into the personal business of a target.

Flagging you as a danger based on your DNA. DNA technology in the hands of government officials completes our transition to a Surveillance State. If you have the misfortune to leave your DNA traces anywhere a crime has been committed, you’ve already got a file somewhere in some state or federal database—albeit it may be a file without a name. By accessing your DNA, the government will soon know everything else about you that they don’t already know: your family chart, your ancestry, what you look like, your health history, your inclination to follow orders or chart your own course, etc. After all, a DNA print reveals everything about “who we are, where we come from, and who we will be.” It can also be used to predict the physical appearance of potential suspects. It’s only a matter of time before the police state’s pursuit of criminals expands into genetic profiling and a preemptive hunt for criminals of the future.

Flagging you as a danger based on your face. Facial recognition software aims to create a society in which every individual who steps out into public is tracked and recorded as they go about their daily business. Coupled with surveillance cameras that blanket the country, facial recognition technology allows the government and its corporate partners to identify and track someone’s movements in real-time. One particularly controversial software program created by Clearview AI has been used by police, the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security to collect photos on social media sites for inclusion in a massive facial recognition database. Similarly, biometric software, which relies on one’s unique identifiers (fingerprints, irises, voice prints), is becoming the standard for navigating security lines, as well as bypassing digital locks and gaining access to phones, computers, office buildings, etc. In fact, greater numbers of travelers are opting into programs that rely on their biometrics in order to avoid long waits at airport security. Scientists are also developing lasers that can identify and surveil individuals based on their heartbeats, scent and microbiome.

Flagging you as a danger based on your behavior. Rapid advances in behavioral surveillance are not only making it possible for individuals to be monitored and tracked based on their patterns of movement or behavior, including gait recognition (the way one walks), but have given rise to whole industries that revolve around predicting one’s behavior based on data and surveillance patterns and are also shaping the behaviors of whole populations. One smart “anti-riot” surveillance system purports to predict mass riots and unauthorized public events by using artificial intelligence to analyze social media, news sources, surveillance video feeds and public transportation data.

Flagging you as a danger based on your spending and consumer activities. With every smartphone we buy, every GPS device we install, every Twitter, Facebook, and Google account we open, every frequent buyer card we use for purchases—whether at the grocer’s, the yogurt shop, the airlines or the department store—and every credit and debit card we use to pay for our transactions, we’re helping Corporate America build a dossier for its government counterparts on who we know, what we think, how we spend our money, and how we spend our time. Consumer surveillance, by which your activities and data in the physical and online realms are tracked and shared with advertisers, has become a $300 billion industry that routinely harvests your data for profit. Corporations such as Target have not only been tracking and assessing the behavior of their customers, particularly their purchasing patterns, for years, but the retailer has also funded major surveillance in cities across the country and developed behavioral surveillance algorithms that can determine whether someone’s mannerisms might fit the profile of a thief.

Flagging you as a danger based on your public activities. Private corporations in conjunction with police agencies throughout the country have created a web of surveillance that encompasses all major cities in order to monitor large groups of people seamlessly, as in the case of protests and rallies. They are also engaging in extensive online surveillance, looking for any hints of “large public events, social unrest, gang communications, and criminally predicated individuals.” Defense contractors have been at the forefront of this lucrative market. Fusion centers, $330 million-a-year, information-sharing hubs for federal, state and law enforcement agencies, monitor and report such “suspicious” behavior as people buying pallets of bottled water, photographing government buildings, and applying for a pilot’s license as “suspicious activity.”

Flagging you as a danger based on your social media activities. Every move you make, especially on social media, is monitored, mined for data, crunched, and tabulated in order to form a picture of who you are, what makes you tick, and how best to control you when and if it becomes necessary to bring you in line. As The Intercept reported, the FBI, CIA, NSA and other government agencies are increasingly investing in and relying on corporate surveillance technologies that can mine constitutionally protected speech on social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter and Instagram in order to identify potential extremists and predict who might engage in future acts of anti-government behavior. This obsession with social media as a form of surveillance will have some frightening consequences in coming years. As Helen A.S. Popkin, writing for NBC News, observed, “We may very well face a future where algorithms bust people en masse for referencing illegal ‘Game of Thrones’ downloads… the new software has the potential to roll, Terminator-style, targeting every social media user with a shameful confession or questionable sense of humor.”

Flagging you as a danger based on your social network. Not content to merely spy on individuals through their online activity, government agencies are now using surveillance technology to track one’s social network, the people you might connect with by phone, text message, email or through social message, in order to ferret out possible criminals. An FBI document obtained by Rolling Stone speaks to the ease with which agents are able to access address book data from Facebook’s WhatsApp and Apple’s iMessage services from the accounts of targeted individuals and individuals not under investigation who might have a targeted individual within their network. What this creates is a “guilt by association” society in which we are all as guilty as the most culpable person in our address book.

Flagging you as a danger based on your car. License plate readers are mass surveillance tools that can photograph over 1,800 license tag numbers per minute, take a picture of every passing license tag number and store the tag number and the date, time, and location of the picture in a searchable database, then share the data with law enforcement, fusion centers and private companies to track the movements of persons in their cars. With tens of thousands of these license plate readers now in operation throughout the country, affixed to overpasses, cop cars and throughout business sectors and residential neighborhoods, it allows police to track vehicles and run the plates through law enforcement databases for abducted children, stolen cars, missing people and wanted fugitives. Of course, the technology is not infallible: there have been numerous incidents in which police have mistakenly relied on license plate data to capture out suspects only to end up detaining innocent people at gunpoint.

Flagging you as a danger based on your political views. The Church Committee, the Senate task force charged with investigating COINTELPRO abuses in 1975, concluded that the government had carried out “secret surveillance of citizens on the basis of their political beliefs, even when those beliefs posed no threat of violence or illegal acts on behalf of a hostile foreign power.” The report continued: “Groups and individuals have been harassed and disrupted because of their political views and their lifestyles… Intelligence agencies have served the political and personal objectives of presidents and other high officials.” Nothing has changed since then.

Flagging you as a danger based on your correspondence. Just about every branch of the government—from the Postal Service to the Treasury Department and every agency in between—now has its own surveillance sector, authorized to spy on the American people. For instance, the U.S. Postal Service, which has been photographing the exterior of every piece of paper mail for the past 20 years, is also spying on Americans’ texts, emails and social media posts. Headed up by the Postal Service’s law enforcement division, the Internet Covert Operations Program (iCOP) is reportedly using facial recognition technology, combined with fake online identities, to ferret out potential troublemakers with “inflammatory” posts. The agency claims the online surveillance, which falls outside its conventional job scope of processing and delivering paper mail, is necessary to help postal workers avoid “potentially volatile situations.”

Now the government wants us to believe that we have nothing to fear from these mass spying programs as long as we’ve done nothing wrong.

Don’t believe it.

As Matthew Feeney warns in the New York Times, “In the past, Communists, civil rights leaders, feminists, Quakers, folk singers, war protesters and others have been on the receiving end of law enforcement surveillance. No one knows who the next target will be.

The government’s definition of a “bad” guy is extraordinarily broad, and it results in the warrantless surveillance of innocent, law-abiding Americans on a staggering scale.

Moreover, there is a repressive, suppressive effect to surveillance that not only acts as a potentially small deterrent on crime but serves to monitor and chill lawful First Amendment activity, and that is the whole point.

Weaponized surveillance is re-engineering a society structured around the aesthetic of fear.

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, the police state wants us silent, servile and compliant.

They definitely do not want us to engage in First Amendment activities that challenge the government’s power, reveal the government’s corruption, expose the government’s lies, and encourage the citizenry to push back against the government’s many injustices.

And they certainly do not want us to remember that we have rights, let alone attempting to exercise those rights peaceably and lawfully, whether it’s protesting police brutality and racism, challenging COVID-19 mandates, questioning election outcomes, or listening to alternate viewpoints—even conspiratorial ones—in order to form our own opinions about the true nature of government.


Connect with The Rutherford Institute

Cover image credit: Tumisu

German Courts Are Going FULL Dystopia

German Courts Are Going FULL Dystopia 

by OffGuardian
August 23, 2023


It’s been an astonishing couple of days for German judges. Well, “astonishing” if you’ve been living in a cave for the last four years.

Many of you likely already know that satirist and playwright (and frequent OffG contributor) CJ Hopkins is being prosecuted in Germany for “disseminating propaganda, the contents of which are intended to further the aims of a former National Socialist organization.”

All because the cover of his book has a swastika on it.

Needless to say, the charges are absurd. Insultingly so. You can read CJ’s first-hand account of this nonsense here and here.

Anyone who isn’t a) stupid or b) delusional can plainly see these charges have nothing to do with a stock-image swastika, and everything to do with the content of the book. In short, they are politically motivated charges brought against an author for criticizing the state. The very essence of dystopian tyranny.

…and yesterday he was convicted.

He now faces 60 days in prison or a 3600 Euro fine.

That’s case one, and as we say one you are likely familiar with if you’re regular readers.

Something you probably haven’t heard is that, just this morning, a different German court sentenced a former judge to two years in prison.

His crime? Ruling that mask mandates in schools were not constitutional.

The case dates back to April 8th 2021, when Weimar District Family Court judge Christiaan Dettmar ruled that two schools in the district a) could not enforce mask mandates, b) must continue in-person classes and c) could not force pupils to test for “Covid”.

From Human Rights Blog:

The court case was a child protection case under to § 1666 paragraph 1 and 4 of the German Civil Code (BGB), which a mother had initiated for her two sons, aged 14 and 8 respectively, at the local Family Court. She had argued that her children were being physically, psychologically and pedagogically damaged without any benefit for the children or third parties. At the same time, she claimed this constituted a violation of a range of rights of the children and their parents under the law, the German constitution (Grundgesetz or Basic Law) and international conventions.

After listening to testimony from expert witnesses, the judge ruled in favour of the mother, writing in his verdict:

These are the risks [to mask mandates]. The children are not only endangered in their mental, physical and psychological well-being by the obligation to wear face masks during school hours and to keep their distance from each other and from other persons, but they are also already being harmed. At the same time, this violates numerous rights of the children and their parents under the law, the constitution and international conventions.

Two weeks after handing down this ruling, his home and office were raided by the police and his mobile phone was seized.

And now, two years later, he was found guilty of “judicial misconduct” and initially given two years in prison (the court has since suspended the sentence). “Judicial Misconduct”, for simply disagreeing with the government.

Free speech is the first and most vital liberty, without it no one is truly free. An independent judiciary is a must to preserve any kind of justice, judges who simply nod along with government edicts are the building blocks of authoritarian states.

The voice of the people and the power of the courts – ideally – work together to hold the government to account.

And yet, whether in the judiciary or the arts, the German legal system is now a machine for criminalizing and punishing dissent of any kind.

…I’d make a comparison to another German government that used to function in a similar way, but I really can’t afford a 4000 euro fine.


Connect with OffGuardian

Cover image credit: sergeitokmakov


We’re All Suspects in a DNA Lineup, Waiting to be Matched With a Crime

We’re All Suspects in a DNA Lineup, Waiting to be Matched With a Crime

by John & Nisha Whitehead, The Rutherford Institute
August 21, 2023


“Make no mistake about it…your DNA can be taken and entered into a national DNA database if you are ever arrested, rightly or wrongly, and for whatever reason… I doubt that the proud men who wrote the charter of our liberties would have been so eager to open their mouths for royal inspection.”

—Justice Antonin Scalia dissenting in Maryland v. King

Be warned: the DNA detectives are on the prowl.

Whatever skeletons may be lurking on your family tree or in your closet, whatever crimes you may have committed, whatever associations you may have with those on the government’s most wanted lists: the police state is determined to ferret them out.

In an age of overcriminalization, round-the-clock surveillance, and a police state eager to flex its muscles in a show of power, we are all guilty of some transgression or other.

No longer can we consider ourselves innocent until proven guilty.

Now we are all suspects in a DNA lineup waiting to be matched up with a crime.

Suspect State, meet the Genetic Panopticon.

DNA technology in the hands of government officials will complete our transition to a Surveillance State in which prison walls are disguised within the seemingly benevolent trappings of technological and scientific progress, national security and the need to guard against terrorists, pandemics, civil unrest, etc.

By accessing your DNA, the government will soon know everything else about you that they don’t already know: your family chart, your ancestry, what you look like, your health history, your inclination to follow orders or chart your own course, etc.

It’s getting harder to hide, even if you think you’ve got nothing to hide.

Armed with unprecedented access to DNA databases amassed by the FBI and ancestry website, as well as hospital newborn screening programs, police are using forensic genealogy, which allows police to match up an unknown suspect’s crime scene DNA with that of any family members in a genealogy database, to solve cold cases that have remained unsolved for decades.

As reported by The Intercept, forensic genetic genealogists are “combing through the genetic information of hundreds of thousands of innocent people in search of a perpetrator.”

By submitting your DNA to a genealogical database such as Ancestry and 23andMe, you’re giving the police access to the genetic makeup, relationships and health profiles of every relative—past, present and future—in your family, whether or not you or they ever agreed to be part of such a database.

Indeed, relying on a loophole in a commercial database called GEDmatch, genetic genealogists are able to sidestep privacy rules that allow people to opt out of sharing their genetic information with police. The end result? Police are now able to identify and target those very individuals who explicitly asked to keep their DNA results private.

In this way, merely choosing to exercise your right to privacy makes you a suspect and puts you in the police state’s crosshairs.

It no longer even matters if you’re among the tens of millions of people who have added their DNA to ancestry databases. As Brian Resnick reports, public DNA databases have grown so massive that they can be used to find you even if you’ve never shared your own DNA.

That simple transaction—a spit sample or a cheek swab in exchange for getting to learn everything about one’s ancestral makeup, where one came from, and who is part of one’s extended family—is the price of entry into the Suspect State for all of us.

After all, a DNA print reveals everything about “who we are, where we come from, and who we will be.” It can also be used to predict the physical appearance of potential suspects.

It’s what police like to refer to a “modern fingerprint.”

Whereas fingerprint technology created a watershed moment for police in their ability to “crack” a case, DNA technology is now being hailed by law enforcement agencies as the magic bullet in crime solving, especially when it helps them crack cold cases of serial murders and rapists.

After all, who wouldn’t want to get psychopaths and serial rapists off the streets and safely behind bars, right?

At least, that’s the argument being used by law enforcement to support their unrestricted access to these genealogy databases, and they’ve got the success stories to prove it.

For instance, a 68-year-old Pennsylvania man was arrested and charged with the brutal rape and murder of a young woman almost 50 years earlier. Relying on genealogical research suggesting that the killer had ancestors who hailed from a small town in Italy, investigators narrowed their findings down to one man whose DNA, obtained from a discarded coffee cup, matched the killer’s.

In another cold case investigation, a 76-year-old man was arrested for two decades-old murders after his DNA was collected from a breathalyzer during an unrelated traffic stop.

Yet it’s not just psychopaths and serial rapists who are getting caught up in the investigative dragnet. In the police state’s pursuit of criminals, anyone who comes up as a possible DNA match—including distant family members—suddenly becomes part of a circle of suspects that must be tracked, investigated and ruled out.

In this way, “guilt by association” has taken on new connotations in a technological age in which one is just a DNA sample away from being considered a person of interest in a police investigation. As Jessica Cussins warns in Psychology Today, “The fundamental fight—that data from potentially innocent people should not be used to connect them to unrelated crimes—has been lost.”

Until recently, the government was required to at least observe some basic restrictions on when, where and how it could access someone’s DNA. That was turned on its head by various U.S. Supreme Court rulings that heralded the loss of privacy on a cellular level.

For instance, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Maryland v. King that taking DNA samples from a suspect doesn’t violate the Fourth Amendment. The Court’s subsequent decision to let stand the Maryland Court of Appeals’ ruling in Raynor v. Maryland, which essentially determined that individuals do not have a right to privacy when it comes to their DNA, made Americans even more vulnerable to the government accessing, analyzing and storing their DNA without their knowledge or permission.

It’s all been downhill since then.

Indeed, the government has been relentless in its efforts to get hold of our DNA, either through mandatory programs carried out in connection with law enforcement and corporate America, by warrantlessly accessing our familial DNA shared with genealogical services such as Ancestry and 23andMe, or through the collection of our “shed” or “touch” DNA.

Get ready, folks, because the government has embarked on a diabolical campaign to create a nation of suspects predicated on a massive national DNA database.

This has been helped along by Congress (which adopted legislation allowing police to collect and test DNA immediately following arrests), President Trump (who signed the Rapid DNA Act into law), the courts (which have ruled that police can routinely take DNA samples from people who are arrested but not yet convicted of a crime), and local police agencies (which are chomping at the bit to acquire this new crime-fighting gadget).

For example, Rapid DNA machines—portable, about the size of a desktop printer, highly unregulated, far from fool-proof, and so fast that they can produce DNA profiles in less than two hours—allow police to go on fishing expeditions for any hint of possible misconduct using DNA samples.

Journalist Heather Murphy explains: “As police agencies build out their local DNA databases, they are collecting DNA not only from people who have been charged with major crimes but also, increasingly, from people who are merely deemed suspicious, permanently linking their genetic identities to criminal databases.”

All 50 states now maintain their own DNA government databases, although the protocols for collection differ from state to state. Increasingly, many of the data from local databanks are being uploaded to CODIS, the FBI’s massive DNA database, which has become a de facto way to identify and track the American people from birth to death.

Even hospitals have gotten in on the game by taking and storing newborn babies’ DNA, often without their parents’ knowledge or consent. It’s part of the government’s mandatory genetic screening of newborns. In many states, the DNA is stored indefinitely. There’s already a move underway to carry out whole genome sequencing on newborns, ostensibly to help diagnose rare diseases earlier and improve health later in life, which constitutes an ethical minefield all by itself.

What this means for those being born today is inclusion in a government database that contains intimate information about who they are, their ancestry, and what awaits them in the future, including their inclinations to be followers, leaders or troublemakers.

For example, police in New Jersey accessed the DNA from a nine-year-old blood sample of a newborn baby in order to identify the child’s father as a suspect in a decades-old sexual assault.

The ramifications of this kind of DNA profiling are far-reaching.

At a minimum, these DNA databases do away with any semblance of privacy or anonymity.

These genetic databases and genomic technology also make us that much more vulnerable to creeps and cyberstalkersgenetic profiling, and those who would weaponize the technology against us.

Unfortunately, the debate over genetic privacy—and when one’s DNA becomes a public commodity outside the protection of the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on warrantless searches and seizures—continues to lag far behind the government and Corporate America’s encroachments on our rights.

Moreover, while much of the public debate, legislative efforts and legal challenges in recent years have focused on the protocols surrounding when police can legally collect a suspect’s DNA (with or without a search warrant and whether upon arrest or conviction), the question of how to handle “shed” or “touch” DNA has largely slipped through without much debate or opposition.

As scientist Leslie A. Pray notes:

We all shed DNA, leaving traces of our identity practically everywhere we go… In fact, the garbage you leave for curbside pickup is a potential gold mine of this sort of material. All of this shed or so-called abandoned DNA is free for the taking by local police investigators hoping to crack unsolvable cases… shed DNA is also free for inclusion in a secret universal DNA databank.

What this means is that if you have the misfortune to leave your DNA traces anywhere a crime has been committed, you’ve already got a file somewhere in some state or federal database—albeit it may be a file without a name.

As the dissenting opinion to the Maryland Court of Appeals’ shed DNA ruling in Raynor rightly warned, “A person can no longer vote, participate in a jury, or obtain a driver’s license, without opening up his genetic material for state collection and codification.”

It’s just a matter of time before government agents will know everywhere we’ve been and how long we were at each place by following our shed DNA. After all, scientists can already track salmon across hundreds of square miles of streams and rivers using DNA.

Today, helped along by robotics and automation, DNA processing, analysis and reporting takes far less time and can bring forth all manner of information, right down to a person’s eye color and relatives. Incredibly, one company specializes in creating “mug shots” for police based on DNA samples from unknown “suspects” which are then compared to individuals with similar genetic profiles.

Of course, none of these technologies are infallible.

DNA evidence can be wrong, either through human error, tampering, or even outright fabrication, and it happens more often than we are told.

What this amounts to is a scenario in which we have little to no defense against charges of wrongdoing, especially when “convicted” by technology, and even less protection against the government sweeping up our DNA in much the same way it sweeps up our phone calls, emails and text messages.

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, it’s only a matter of time before the police state’s pursuit of criminals from the past expands into genetic profiling and a preemptive hunt for criminals of the future.


Connect with The Rutherford Institute

Cover image credit: OpenClipart-Vectors

Technocensorship: The Government’s War on So-Called Dangerous Ideas

Technocensorship: The Government’s War on So-Called Dangerous Ideas

by John & Nisha Whitehead, The Rutherford Institute
August 1, 2023


“There is more than one way to burn a book. And the world is full of people running about with lit matches.”

—Ray Bradbury

What we are witnessing is the modern-day equivalent of book burning which involves doing away with dangerous ideas—legitimate or not—and the people who espouse them.Seventy years after Ray Bradbury’s novel Fahrenheit 451 depicted a fictional world in which books are burned in order to suppress dissenting ideas, while televised entertainment is used to anesthetize the populace and render them easily pacified, distracted and controlled, we find ourselves navigating an eerily similar reality.

Welcome to the age of technocensorship.

On paper—under the First Amendment, at least—we are technically free to speak.

In reality, however, we are now only as free to speak as a government official—or corporate entities such as Facebook, Google or YouTube—may allow.

Case in point: internal documents released by the House Judiciary Select Subcommittee on Weaponization of the Federal Government confirmed what we have long suspected: that the government has been working in tandem with social media companies to censor speech.

By “censor,” we’re referring to concerted efforts by the government to muzzle, silence and altogether eradicate any speech that runs afoul of the government’s own approved narrative.

This is political correctness taken to its most chilling and oppressive extreme.

The revelations that Facebook worked in concert with the Biden administration to censor content related to COVID-19, including humorous jokes, credible information and so-called disinformation, followed on the heels of a ruling by a federal court in Louisiana that prohibits executive branch officials from communicating with social media companies about controversial content in their online forums.

Likening the government’s heavy-handed attempts to pressure social media companies to suppress content critical of COVID vaccines or the election to “an almost dystopian scenario,” Judge Terry Doughty warned that “the United States Government seems to have assumed a role similar to an Orwellian ‘Ministry of Truth.’

This is the very definition of technofascism.

Clothed in tyrannical self-righteousness, technofascism is powered by technological behemoths (both corporate and governmental) working in tandem to achieve a common goal.

The government is not protecting us from “dangerous” disinformation campaigns. It is laying the groundwork to insulate us from “dangerous” ideas that might cause us to think for ourselves and, in so doing, challenge the power elite’s stranglehold over our lives.

Thus far, the tech giants have been able to sidestep the First Amendment by virtue of their non-governmental status, but it’s a dubious distinction at best when they are marching in lockstep with the government’s dictates.

As Philip Hamburger and Jenin Younes write for The Wall Street Journal: “The First Amendment prohibits the government from ‘abridging the freedom of speech.’ Supreme Court doctrine makes clear that government can’t constitutionally evade the amendment by working through private companies.”

Nothing good can come from allowing the government to sidestep the Constitution.

The steady, pervasive censorship creep that is being inflicted on us by corporate tech giants with the blessing of the powers-that-be threatens to bring about a restructuring of reality straight out of Orwell’s 1984, where the Ministry of Truth polices speech and ensures that facts conform to whatever version of reality the government propagandists embrace.

Orwell intended 1984 as a warning. Instead, it is being used as a dystopian instruction manual for socially engineering a populace that is compliant, conformist and obedient to Big Brother.

This is the slippery slope that leads to the end of free speech as we once knew it.

In a world increasingly automated and filtered through the lens of artificial intelligence, we are finding ourselves at the mercy of inflexible algorithms that dictate the boundaries of our liberties.

Once artificial intelligence becomes a fully integrated part of the government bureaucracy, there will be little recourse: we will all be subject to the intransigent judgments of techno-rulers.

This is how it starts.

First, the censors went after so-called extremists spouting so-called “hate speech.”

Then they went after so-called extremists spouting so-called “disinformation” about stolen elections, the Holocaust, and Hunter Biden.

By the time so-called extremists found themselves in the crosshairs for spouting so-called “misinformation” about the COVID-19 pandemic and vaccines, the censors had developed a system and strategy for silencing the nonconformists.

Eventually, depending on how the government and its corporate allies define what constitutes “extremism, “we the people” might all be considered guilty of some thought crime or other.

Whatever we tolerate now—whatever we turn a blind eye to—whatever we rationalize when it is inflicted on others, whether in the name of securing racial justice or defending democracy or combatting fascism, will eventually come back to imprison us, one and all.

Watch and learn.

We should all be alarmed when any individual or group—prominent or not—is censored, silenced and made to disappear from Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Instagram for voicing ideas that are deemed politically incorrect, hateful, dangerous or conspiratorial.

Given what we know about the government’s tendency to define its own reality and attach its own labels to behavior and speech that challenges its authority, this should be cause for alarm across the entire political spectrum.

Here’s the point: you don’t have to like or agree with anyone who has been muzzled or made to disappear online because of their views, but to ignore the long-term ramifications of such censorship is dangerously naïve, because whatever powers you allow the government and its corporate operatives to claim now will eventually be used against you by tyrants of your own making.

As Glenn Greenwald writes for The Intercept:

The glaring fallacy that always lies at the heart of pro-censorship sentiments is the gullible, delusional belief that censorship powers will be deployed only to suppress views one dislikes, but never one’s own views… Facebook is not some benevolent, kind, compassionate parent or a subversive, radical actor who is going to police our discourse in order to protect the weak and marginalized or serve as a noble check on mischief by the powerful. They are almost always going to do exactly the opposite: protect the powerful from those who seek to undermine elite institutions and reject their orthodoxies. Tech giants, like all corporations, are required by law to have one overriding objective: maximizing shareholder value. They are always going to use their power to appease those they perceive wield the greatest political and economic power.

Be warned: it’s a slippery slope from censoring so-called illegitimate ideas to silencing truth.

Eventually, as George Orwell predicted, telling the truth will become a revolutionary act.

If the government can control speech, it can control thought and, in turn, it can control the minds of the citizenry.

It’s happening already.

With every passing day, we’re being moved further down the road towards a totalitarian society characterized by government censorship, violence, corruption, hypocrisy and intolerance, all packaged for our supposed benefit in the Orwellian doublespeak of national security, tolerance and so-called “government speech.”

Little by little, Americans are being conditioned to accept routine incursions on their freedoms.

This is how oppression becomes systemic, what is referred to as creeping normality, or a death by a thousand cuts.

It’s a concept invoked by Pulitzer Prize-winning scientist Jared Diamond to describe how major changes, if implemented slowly in small stages over time, can be accepted as normal without the shock and resistance that might greet a sudden upheaval.

Diamond’s concerns related to Easter Island’s now-vanished civilization and the societal decline and environmental degradation that contributed to it, but it’s a powerful analogy for the steady erosion of our freedoms and decline of our country right under our noses.

As Diamond explains, “In just a few centuries, the people of Easter Island wiped out their forest, drove their plants and animals to extinction, and saw their complex society spiral into chaos and cannibalism… Why didn’t they look around, realize what they were doing, and stop before it was too late? What were they thinking when they cut down the last palm tree?”

His answer: “I suspect that the disaster happened not with a bang but with a whimper.”

Much like America’s own colonists, Easter Island’s early colonists discovered a new world—“a pristine paradise”—teeming with life. Yet almost 2000 years after its first settlers arrived, Easter Island was reduced to a barren graveyard by a populace so focused on their immediate needs that they failed to preserve paradise for future generations.

The same could be said of the America today: it, too, is being reduced to a barren graveyard by a populace so focused on their immediate needs that they are failing to preserve freedom for future generations.

In Easter Island’s case, as Diamond speculates:

The forest…vanished slowly, over decades. Perhaps war interrupted the moving teams; perhaps by the time the carvers had finished their work, the last rope snapped. In the meantime, any islander who tried to warn about the dangers of progressive deforestation would have been overridden by vested interests of carvers, bureaucrats, and chiefs, whose jobs depended on continued deforestation… The changes in forest cover from year to year would have been hard to detect… Only older people, recollecting their childhoods decades earlier, could have recognized a difference. Gradually trees became fewer, smaller, and less important. By the time the last fruit-bearing adult palm tree was cut, palms had long since ceased to be of economic significance. That left only smaller and smaller palm saplings to clear each year, along with other bushes and treelets. No one would have noticed the felling of the last small palm.

Sound painfully familiar yet?

We’ve already torn down the rich forest of liberties established by our founders. It has vanished slowly, over the decades. The erosion of our freedoms has happened so incrementally, no one seems to have noticed. Only the older generations, remembering what true freedom was like, recognize the difference. Gradually, the freedoms enjoyed by the citizenry have become fewer, smaller and less important. By the time the last freedom falls, no one will know the difference.

This is how tyranny rises and freedom falls: with a thousand cuts, each one justified or ignored or shrugged over as inconsequential enough by itself to bother, but they add up.

Each cut, each attempt to undermine our freedoms, each loss of some critical right—to think freely, to assemble, to speak without fear of being shamed or censored, to raise our children as we see fit, to worship or not worship as our conscience dictates, to eat what we want and love who we want, to live as we want—they add up to an immeasurable failure on the part of each and every one of us to stop the descent down that slippery slope.

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, we are on that downward slope now.


Connect with The Rutherford Institute

Cover image credit: CDD20

James Corbett on the Weaponization of Psychology

James Corbett on the Weaponization of Psychology

by James Corbett, The Corbett Report
as interviewed by ANTIJANTEPODDEN
July 26, 2023 (interview July 23, 2023)




via ANTIJANTEPODDEN: Investigative journalist James Corbett has investigated how psychology is being weaponized to target dissidents.

In this episode he explains the absurdity of the old diagnoses of anarchia, which was too much love for freedom, and drapetomania, which was the mental illness of slaves running away from their masters.

Over the last three years, we have seen a medical doctor being diagnosed and force medicated for corona insanity. This was because of his resistance to the government narrative in Switzerland. We have also seen an increased willingness to pathologize conspiracy theorists, and to label people as domestic terrorists for using their right to share their opinions.

Even though the methods used against us are ugly, and the majority just go along uncritically, James Corbett shows examples of how modeling disobedience can dramatically turn the situation around.

Show Notes:

AntijantepoddenWebsite / Substack

Dissent Into Madness:
• 1. The Weaponization of Psychology
• 2. Crazy Conspiracy Theorists
• 3. Projections of the Psychopaths
• 4. Escaping the Madhouse

Bill Goats and the Forest:
• billgoats.com

Related AJP episode:
• AJP 47 | James Corbett – COVID-19 is a step towards a prison state

Other related sources:
› huffpost.com: My Gentle, Intelligent Brother Is Now A Conspiracy Theorist And His Beliefs Are Shocking
› nytimes.com: How to Talk to Friends and Family Who Share Conspiracy Theories
› thetimes.co.uk: Help! My mother is a conspiracy theorist
› vogue.com: I’m Worried About Losing Touch With My Conspiracy Theorist Parents
› apa.org: Speaking of Psychology: Why people believe in conspiracy theories, with Karen Douglas, PhD
› sciencefocus.com: A psychologist explains why people believe in conspiracy theories
› faculty.lsu.edu: Why We Fall for Conspiracies
› technologyreview.com: How to talk to conspiracy theorists—and still be kind
› psychcentral.com: Why Do Some People Believe in Conspiracy Theories?
› businessinsider.com: A psychologist reveals why people cling to conspiracy theories during uncertain times
› aftenposten.no: Når mamma blir konspirasjonsteoretiker
› vl.no: Ingen vaksine mot overtro
› forskning.no: Fire forsker-råd: Slik snakker du med en konspirasjons­teoretiker
› ndla.no: Hvorfor er konspirasjonsteorier farlige?

› Kakistocracy (search)
› George Brock Chisholm (search)
› World Federation For Mental Health (search)
› Psychiatry of Enduring Peace and Social Progress – Chisholm and Sullivan – 1946
› John Rawlings Rees (search)
› The Tavistock Institute (search)
› The Tavistock Institute of Human Relations
› Tavistock Institute: Social Engineering the Masses
› Strategic Planning for Mental Health – J R Rees

› March 1930 – Street Interviews on Women’s Fashion, NYC (real sound)
› 1929 Interviews With Elderly People Throughout The US
› 1966: Children imagine life in the year 2000
› Zombie Kid Likes Turtles
› Her danser Erna til «Rompa mi»
› Folk på gata i Kristiansand om munnbind – NRK
› Interviewed the Worst Street in Downtown LA

› The deliberate dumbing down of America : a chronological paper trail
› Dumbing us down – The hidden agenda of compulsory education
› Weapons of mass instruction
› H-1B Immigration: America’s Secret Weapon – Michio Kaku
› MASS PSYCHOSIS – How an Entire Population Becomes MENTALLY ILL

› Dr. Robert Hare – The Psychopathic Corporation
› Hare Psychopathy Checklist (Original) (PCL-22)
› The Sociopath Next Door – Martha Stout
› American Psycho – Axe scene
› The Corporation – Full Documentary – 2003
› The Corporation (trailer)

› Jonas Gahr Støre – Prime Minister of Norway lying on TV #flashback
› De gode bombene – NRK
› Royal Norwegian Air Force F-16 Fighter Jets
› NATO bombing mistake kills Libyan civilians
› NATO Secretary General with the Prime Minister of Norway Jonas Gahr Støre, 30 MAY 2023

› Dr. Benjamin Rush American Psychiatry (search)
› Anarchia excess of the passion for liberty (search)
› Samuel A Cartwright (search)
› Drapetomania (search)
› Oppsitional Defiance Disorder (search)
› DSM psychatry (search)
› It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society. (search)

› Dr. Thomas Binder Interview – How Psychology Was Weaponized To Suppress Truth In The Age Of COVID
› Dr. Thomas Binder FORCED Into Hospital After Speaking Against COVID Narrative – Ask Dr. Drew
› Dr. Thomas Binder, MD

› WTC7 Collapse (HD)
› Josie Harris Reads Letter from Guantanamo Bay
› Capitol Police OPEN GATE for Trump Protesters REVIEW
› c1939_deber1118 40
› c1939_de1024 1
› c1939_uknoconsent 1
› c1939_uklonspeakc 1
› c1939_eswostreet 1
› c1939_deber1118 27
› c1939_deber1118 25
› c1939_uklonoct 3
› c1939_frpametro 1

› Narita Airport leads the way in Japan with biometrics
› World Health Organization Flag Animation
› The World of Soviet Psychiatry
› Sluggish schizophrenia
› Medicine Standing on its Head”

› The Justin Trudeau effect: famous faces who’ve fallen for the Canadian PM’s charm
› head up your own ass (search)
› CIA Mind Control – CIA Secret Experiments
› MK-Ultra: The shocking Cold War experiments hidden by the CIA – BBC REEL

› corbettreport.com: Acceptance of and Commitment To Freedom – #SolutionsWatch
› Acceptance and commitment therapy (search)
› Steven C. Hayes, PhD
› corbettreport.com: Davi Barker on Authoritarian Sociopathy
› Authoritarian Sociopathy: Toward a Renegade Psychological Experiment

› Asch Conformity Experiment (search)
› Asch Conformity Experiment
› The Milgram Experiment (search)
› The Milgram Experiment (1962)
› Obedience Theory
› Last speech of Nicolae Ceaușescu, 21. December 1989
› National Opt-Out Day Called Against Invasive Body Scanners
› ‘National Opt-Out Day’: Will a protest against body scanners work?
› Leadership From A Dancing Guy

› LIVE: Press Conference on Surrender of US Sovereignty to the World Health Organization
› Making Medicare: The History of Health Care in Canada
› Freeland says some protesters’ bank accounts frozen

› c1939_itrebibbia 2
› c1939_ozfacepav 1
› c1939_rsbelgrade78 3
› c1939_rsmanstreet 1
› c1939_oznightout 1


Connect with James Corbett

Cover image credit: CDD20

Elon, X, and the Epitome of a Front Man

Elon, X, and the Epitome of a Front Man
The illusion of choice will make your financial enslavement less painful


by Greg Reese, The Reese Report
July 26, 2023


Elon Musk announced over a year ago that he planned to convert Twitter into an everything app like China’s WeChat. An app to do everything including online banking and finance.

Last April Musk announced that Twitter Inc. has been renamed to X Corp., he created a new Artificial Intelligence company known as X.AI and he partnered with eToro for stock and crypto exchange.

The media would have you believe that Elon Musk is an independent billionaire genius whose dream is to revolutionize banking. But this story is demonstrably false. The facts tell us that Elon Musk is a frontman for the same old same old. But because he says there are only two genders he has gained the trust of a radicalized people in a time of war, without ever having to explain his lies.

Musk says he grew up poor but his family was rich with emeralds and had a history of abuse and witchcraft. Telltale signs of multi-generational mind control.

Musk received tens of thousands of dollars from his parents to launch his first business venture. A digital phone book known as Zip2. Outside coders were hired to write the entire thing because Elon couldn’t code. Zip2 sold for millions and went nowhere. But Elon made 22 million dollars and with the help of the mainstream media, launched his new persona as a quirky pop-star genius. He then acquired x dot com and announced he would create an online bank known as X. He partnered with banking experts who all left the company after accusing Elon of lying to the media about the product. Which is all he did.

Elon Musk is believed to have co-founded PayPal. This is false. In 2000 Musk sold his failing x dot com business to Confinity, a company founded in 1998 by Peter Thiel and Max Levchin. All Musk reportedly did there was insist on changing the company’s name to X. He was forced out but somehow managed to get them to agree in writing to remove all references to ‘founders’ from the company website.

Musk made nearly two hundred million off the sale of PayPal, a company that he contributed nothing to, and then used that money along with the illusion of being a successful businessman co-founder to buy his way into Tesla.

Tesla Motors was founded in 2003 by Marc Tarpenning and Martin Eberhard, who developed the Tesla Roadster. When Tesla accepted millions from Elon, it came with the condition that he be named chairman of the company. Even though he only contributed money, Musk was unable to hide his anger that the media wasn’t giving him credit for Tesla Motors. And after forcing Eberhard out of the company he re-wrote their history to have himself listed as an original co-founder.

This obvious fake persona of a billionaire quirky genius has worked so well that few even question SpaceX. The official story is that Elon, who has absolutely no experience with rocket science, came up with the idea for SpaceX while traveling to Russia with the CIA’s Michael Griffin of In-Q-Tel. Shortly after this conversation, Griffin was made administrator of NASA where he launched the COTS program that privatized NASA’s rocket program. And awarded two-hundred and seventy-eight million dollars to SpaceX who had never made or flown any rockets. Musk then partnered with rocket engineer Tom Mueller, who went on to produce rocket technology that has clearly been developed for years in the private sectors of the military-industrial complex.

Elon’s companies have received billions in government subsidies over the last two decades. Money that was later spent on the purchase of Twitter. Where he immediately began the process of turning it into an everything app with its own banking system. Or rather, the ruling class cabal that pulls his strings is turning Twitter into an everything app with its own banking system. And that should be alarming. But he says there are only two genders, and families are good, and people love a hero.

They don’t need to chip you to control you. We already have iris scanners and palm scanners. A cashless society will do the job. And for many, Elon’s X will be preferable to Amazon’s palm scanners. The illusion of choice will make your financial enslavement less painful.


Connect with Greg Reese

Arthur Firstenberg on Electrosmog: “The Ability to Use a Mobile Device Everywhere on Earth Means That Every Square Meter of the Earth Must Be Irradiated at All Times.”

Arthur Firstenberg on Electrosmog: “The Ability to Use a Mobile Device Everywhere on Earth Means That Every Square Meter of the Earth Must Be Irradiated at All Times.”


Image credit Goumbik, pixabay


Electrosmog: A Policy Brief

Guidance to governments, legislators, environmental organizations, schools, and religious, political, and community leaders.

by Arthur Firstenberg, Cellular Phone Task Force
July 26, 2023


Guidance to governments, legislators, environmental organizations, schools, and religious, political and community leaders.  
If your organization wishes to join in supporting this brief, please email us.
Key Points
  1. The study of electricity should be restored to biology and medicine.
  2. Personal wireless communication must be phased out because the radiation that carries all the messages is destroying life on earth.
  3. Mobile phones must be replaced with landline phones, WiFi with ethernet cables, and other wireless consumer devices with devices connected by wires and cables.
  4. Mobile phone antennas and masts must be phased out and removed.
  5. Wireless technology must be removed from vehicles.
  6. Smart meters must be replaced with analog meters.
  7. Smart highways, smart cities, and the Internet of Things must cease being developed and deployed.
  8. Radar stations must be limited in number, location and power.
  9. Radar (microwave) ovens should not be used for heating food.
  10. An international treaty on electrosmog, addressing radiation on land, in the oceans, and in space, must be drafted.

Electrosmog is the totality of the electric fields, magnetic fields, and electromagnetic radiation that bathes us 24/7 from all electrical and electronic devices, electric wires, power lines, and wireless devices and antennas. With wired communication, information is transmitted via the wires, and the electromagnetic fields (EMFs) and radiation are unintentional. Proper engineering can reduce these unwanted fields and radiation to a minimum.

By contrast, with wireless communication, the radiation is the product. Radiation substitutes for wires in transmitting information.

Wireless means radiation. The ability to use a mobile device everywhere on earth means that every square meter of the earth must be irradiated at all times. Mobile devices operate in the microwave spectrum, with the result that the entire planet is now swimming in a sea of microwave radiation that is millions to billions of times stronger than the radiation from the sun and stars with which life evolved (1).

Life is based not only on chemistry but more fundamentally on electricity (2, 3). The unimpeded flow of electrons is essential to the functioning of our nerves, heart, and metabolism (3). Interference with these electric currents causes neurological diseases, heart disease, metabolic diseases such as diabetes, and cancer (4).  Organisms that have a very high metabolism, such as bees and other insects, are being wiped out (5, 6). Thousands of studies document the devastating effects of wireless radiation on mammals, birds, insects, amphibians, and forests (7).

Because EMFs are not a foreign substance to living beings, a toxicology model does not apply and there is not a dose response: reducing the power does not reduce the effect. Even a signal that is almost immeasurably weak can interfere with normal biological functioning (8). “While the dose rate/SAR concept is adequate for description of acute thermal effects, it is not applicable for chronic exposures to N[on]T[hermal] M[icro]W[aves].” (9). Even at near-zero power levels, microwave radiation has been found to change the structure of DNA (10) and alter brains waves (11). Some studies have even found an inverse dose response. When the power of the radiation was reduced 1000-fold, damage to the blood-brain barrier increased (12). A review of 113 studies found that radiation with the lowest power tended to cause the greatest ecological damage (5). In another review of 108 experimental studies, a lower exposure level tended to have a greater biological effect, and the difference was highly significant (p < 0.001) (13).

The damage done to our health and our world by wireless devices and their infrastructure is caused not only by the microwave carrier frequencies, but also by the low-frequency modulation and pulsations that carry the transmitted information. “Thus modulation can be considered as information content embedded in the higher frequency carrier wave that may have health consequences beyond any effect from the carrier wave directly” (14). No matter what the carrier wave, the modulation is the same because it has to carry the same information. Therefore using light as the carrier wave, as is being done over short distances with LiFi, or using sound as the carrier wave, as is being done in the oceans, does not reduce the harm.

The finding that only a single two-hour exposure to a mobile phone during their lifetime, even when the power of the phone was reduced 100-fold, caused permanent brain damage in young rats (15) makes it likely that we are raising, and perhaps have already raised, a generation of children with brain damage. There is no question but that this must cease, and that cell phones are not safe at any power level, at any distance from the head, and for any duration.

Purpose of This Document

This policy brief provides an overview of an immediate threat to life on earth—even more immediate than climate change—that has been allowed to get completely out of control because it has been completely ignored. The source of the threat is a technology to which everyone has become addicted, and which, during the past two and a half decades, has become firmly entrenched in every aspect of life. Although more scientific studies have been published on the health and environmental effects of EMFs than on almost any other pollutant except for mercury and tobacco smoke, the impact of all this research upon public policy to date has been zero. Average citizens still do not even know that a mobile device emits radiation. Much less do they suspect that it is causing them brain damage or threatening their life and their future on this planet. The purpose of this brief is to outline actions that are required to be taken by political leaders, religious leaders, environmental organizations, public schools, medical schools and doctors to educate the public and to begin to dismantle this existential threat to the earth.

Essential Actions Required by National and International Leaders and Organizations

I.     An International Treaty or Convention on Electrosmog must be adopted by all nations

The number of antennas and their distance from people and wildlife must be strictly regulated. The elements of an international treaty should include the following:

A.   Phasing out and eventual prohibition of personal
wireless devices, including mobile devices and WiFi

At present there are about 15 billion mobile devices and 6 million mobile phone masts; the earth cannot survive this. Private individuals should not have the right to irradiate their neighbors. Businesses should not have the right to irradiate their patrons.

B.  Limiting antennas and devices that emit radiation to radio and television stations, emergency services such as police and fire departments, and radar for civil defense, aviation and shipping

C.  Limiting the location, number, and power of civil defense radars

The present situation of unlimited power has allowed 3-billion-watt radars such as PAVE PAWS, which has irradiated millions of people on both coasts of the United States for more than four decades (16).

A five-year investigation into the health and environmental effects of a civil defense radar in Latvia after the end of the Cold War resulted in the decommissioning and removal of that radar. School children in the area—even children who lived 20 kilometers away—had impaired motor function, memory and attention, reduced lung capacity, and elevated white blood cell counts. The entire local population suffered from headaches, sleep disturbances and elevated white blood cells. Human reproduction was affected: 25 percent fewer boys than girls were born during the years the radar operated. Chromosome damage was found in local cows. Nest-boxes near the radar were occupied by extremely low numbers of birds. The average growth rings of trees during the years of the radar’s operation were only half as wide as before the radars were constructed, and study of pine cones revealed the trees were aging prematurely. Seedlings in the area grew into deformed plants with reduced reproductive capacity (17, 18, 19, 20,21, 22, 23, 24).

D.  Phasing out weather radars, as they do more harm than good

There are an estimated 1,500 of these extremely powerful installations scattered throughout the world. Each of the 160 NEXRAD radars in the United States has an EIRP (Effective Isotropic Radiated Power) of 32 gigawatts (32 billion watts) (25). These radars are heavily irradiating people and wildlife, and are neither reliable nor essential to weather forecasting (26).

E.  Prohibition of antennas inside national parks, wildlife preserves and protected nature areas

A 2015 report to UNESCO detailed the devastating impact of communication antennas inside a World Heritage Site in Australia. When a telecommunication tower atop Mount Nardi began to convert its antennas from analog (2G) to digital (3G) in 2002, a steady increase in species diversity suddenly reversed and became a steady decrease in species diversity. In 2002 insect populations and diversity began to decline. In 2009, enhanced 3G was installed, along with an additional 150 pay television channels. 27 bird species promptly left the mountain, and insect volumes and species dropped dramatically. In late 2012 and early 2013 4G was installed, and 49 more bird species promptly left the mountain.

“From this time, all locally known bat species became scarce, 4 common species of cicada almost disappeared, as well as the once enormous, varied population of moths & butterfly species. Frogs and tadpole populations were drastically reduced; the massive volumes and diverse species of ant populations became uncommon to rare… [F]rom 70 to 90 % of the wildlife has become rare or has disappeared from the Nightcap National Park within a 2-3 km radius of the Mt. Nardi tower complex” (27).

F.  Prohibition of the manufacture of vehicles with wireless technology and radar

WiFi, Bluetooth, wireless ignitions, wireless CarPlay, wireless tire pressure monitors, and radar are just a few of the in-car systems that have turned the small, reflective metallic bodies of vehicles into intensely microwaved chambers. To these are being added in-car 5G hotspots that are turning many new vehicles into autonomous mobile devices, using vehicle-to-vehicle, vehicle-to-pedestrian, vehicle-to-network, and vehicle-to-highway communication.

G.  Prohibition of smart meters, smart highways, smart cities, and the Internet of Things

Smart meters are being placed on every home and business in the world, and are turning all the wiring inside the walls of every home and business into a radiating antenna.

Microchips and antennas are being placed in every machine, every appliance, and almost every consumer product in the world as part of the Internet of Things, and there are predictions of as many as one trillion antennas communicating wirelessly with one another in the near future. These all irradiate the entire population at close range, including inside their homes and businesses, without any choice and without possibility of escape.

H.  Halting the launch of satellites, and phasing out most private, public and military use of space

The functioning of all living organisms is regulated by their electromagnetic environment, including the magnetic field of the earth, the vertical electric field between earth and ionosphere, the global electric circuit, the Schumann resonances, etc. If the electromagnetic environment of the earth is altered, life on earth will not long survive.

Both the number of satellites in orbit and the radiation they emit are completely out of control. Some satellites already have an effective radiated power of 83 million watts. Some are capable of emitting 5,000 individual beams. More than 8,000 satellites are already in orbit, and thousands more are being sent into space by near-daily rocket launches. Not only are they exposing every square meter of land and oceans to their radiation, but they are polluting the global electric circuit, which includes our bodies, with all of their pulsations and modulation patterns.

This is degrading all of life and causing pandemics, extinctions, and forest die-off, which cannot be successfully addressed without halting the radiation in and from space (4).

I.  Prohibition of underwater wireless communication in the oceans 

Along with national parks and nature preserves, the oceans should be absolutely protected from radiation.

Governmental, commercial and military interests have been collaborating to create Smart Oceans and build the Internet of Underwater Things. To do this they are building cell towers on the ocean floor, putting relay antennas in the depths of the ocean, and deploying smart ships, smart submarines, and underwater robots. The goal is to enable broadband wireless communication from any point on or in the oceans to anywhere else on the planet, up to and including “real-time video streaming from underwater” everywhere in every ocean (28).

RF radiation is being used in the oceans for short- to medium-range communication, and is destroying ocean life the same way it is destroying land-based life. Acoustic waves are being used for long-range communication, and are deafening fish and ocean mammals with sound as loud as 202 decibels.

The fishing industry is also using underwater radar to locate and capture fish with a precision and on a scale that is devastating to ocean life (29).

All underwater wireless communication and radar must be halted.

II.     Churches and other religious buildings should remove antennas and WiFi networks from their premises

Churches have become a prime target by telecommunications companies for the installation of antennas, often hidden inside false chimneys or fake bell towers. These antennas earn a lot of money for churches but turn them into hazardous environments for their worshippers and visitors.

III.     Schools must remove mobile phone masts and WiFi routers and prohibit mobile phones

Schools are among the most intensely irradiated environments in society today, consequently the worst and unhealthiest places for our children to spend their growing years. Every classroom has one or more WiFi routers in it, together with dozens of children sitting in close proximity to one another every day all day, all of them with cell phones and wireless computers, irradiating one another at all times. Like churches, schools are earning money renting their properties to telecommunications companies for the installation of mobile phone masts.

All masts and all WiFi antennas must be removed from all school properties, and children must be prohibited from bringing cell phones to school.

IV.     Religious, political and community leaders should encourage congregations and constituencies to get rid of their cell phones and other wireless devices

Nothing is more important today in the stewardship of our planet.

V.     Medical schools should incorporate education on EMFs into curriculums, and classes in electromagnetic health should be required for continuing education

The books and studies are there by the tens of thousands. They sit on the shelves of medical school libraries gathering dust and being ignored. All that is required is to organize them into the curriculum and the base of knowledge required of every physician in order to earn a medical degree.

VI.     Environmental organizations must form chapters on electrosmog, and must cease using wireless technology as a tool for monitoring and research

The rapid declines in biodiversity and species populations cannot be successfully addressed without reducing electromagnetic pollution which is causing half or more of the observed declines. As long as electrosmog is not addressed head-on, all of these problems will continue to be blamed on other things: climate change, land use, deforestation, pesticides, etc. Some of the means now being used to combat climate change, for example solar and wind energy, are worsening electrosmog and further decimating species. Some of the means to study these problems, for example GPS and radio tracking of wildlife, are diminishing wildlife instead.

All antennas must be removed from protected nature areas, wildlife preserves, and oceans. Radio tracking devices are deadly (30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37). They must be removed from all wildlife and not put on any more animals, birds, insects, or fish.      

VII.      Non-ionising radiation must be regulated by national environmental agencies with no conflicts of interest

In many countries, radio frequency (RF) radiation from telecommunications facilities and devices is regulated by the same agency that is charged with promoting those facilities and devices. This is an obvious conflict of interest.

Most governments defer to guidance from the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) or the World Health Organization, which also defers to the ICNIRP. The ICNIRP is not an environmental agency. It is a self-appointed private organization with 14 members answerable to no one (38). Its exposure guidelines are based on heating only, as though there were no other effects. In the United States, the agency that both regulates and promotes the telecommunications industry is the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Like the ICNIRP, the FCC bases its exposure guidelines for humans on heating effects only, and completely ignores the effects on the environment.

RF radiation should be regulated transparently within each nation by their own environmental agencies based on the totality of science. It should be addressed within the UN not by the World Health Organization, but by the United Nations Environment Programme, which presently does not address it at all. And it should be subject to an international treaty and a convention on Electrosmog, as per point 1.


The policy considerations presented in this brief have their basis in science, and in the protection of human rights, human health and the environment. They were developed in response to an emergency situation in which the irradiation of the earth is accelerating at such a rapid rate that it has become the single most urgent threat to life on earth today. The recommended actions by political leaders, religious leaders, organizations, schools, and government agencies provide a path to health and survival.

  1. Aleksandr S. Presman. Electromagnetic Fields and Life (NY: Plenum Press 1970), p. 31, Figure 11.
  2. Robert O. Becker. The Body Electric (NY: Morrow 1985).
  3. Sulman, Felix Gad. The effect of air ionization, electric fields, atmospherics and other electric phenomena on man and animal. American Lecture Series, Publ. no. 1029 (Charles C. Thomas Publisher, Springfield IL, 1980; 398 pp.).
  4. Arthur Firstenberg (2020). The Invisible Rainbow: A History of Electricity and Life (White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green 2020, 560 pp.).
  5. Cucurachi et al. A review of the ecological effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF). Environment International 51: 116-140 (2013). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412012002334/pdfft?isDTMRedir=true&download=true”download=true
  6. Alain Thill. Biologische Wirkungen elektromagnetischer Felder auf Insekten. Umwelt Medizin Gesellschaft 33(3) Suppl: 1-27 (2020). https://kompetenzinitiative.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Thill_2020_Review_Insekten.pdf
  7. Blake Levitt, Henry C. Lai and Albert M. Manville II. Effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna, Part 2 impacts: how species interact with natural and man-made EMF. Reviews on Environmental Health 37(3): 327-406 and Supplements 1-4 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1515/reveh-2021-0050
  8. Allan H. Frey. Is a toxicology model appropriate as a guide for biological research with electromagnetic fields? Journal of Bioelectricity 9(2): 233-234 (1990). https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.3109/15368379009119811
  9. Igor Belyaev. Duration of Exposure and Dose in Assessing Nonthermal Biological Effects of Microwaves. In Dosimetry in Bioelectromagnetics (CRC Press 2017), pp. 171-184.
  10. Y. Belyaev et al. Resonance effect of millimeter waves in the power range from 10–19 to 3 x 10–3 W/cm2 on Escherichia coli cells at different concentrations. Bioelectromagnetics 17: 312-321 (1996). https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/(SICI)1521-186X(1996)17:4%3C312::AID-BEM7%3E3.0.CO;2-6
  11. William Bise. Low power radio-frequency and microwave effects on human electroencephalogram and behavior. Physiological Chemistry and Physics 10(5): 387-398. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/751078/
  12. Bertil R. R. Persson et al. Blood-brain barrier permeability in rats exposed to electromagnetic fields used in wireless communication. Wireless Networks 3: 455-461 (1997). https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1023/a:1019150510840.pdf
  13. Andrew Wood, Rohan Mate and Ken Karipidis. Meta-analysis of in vitro and in vivo studies of the biological effects of low-level millimetre waves. Journal of Exposure Science & Environmental Epidemiology 31: 606–613 (2021). https://www.nature.com/articles/s41370-021-00307-7.pdf
  14. Carl F. Blackman. Evidence for disruption by the modulating signal. BioInitiative Report, Section 15, July 2007. https://bioinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/sec15_2007_Modulation_Blackman.pdf
  15. Leif G. Salford et al. Nerve cell damage in mammalian brain after exposure to microwaves from GSM mobile phones. Environmental Health Perspectives 111(7): 881-83 (2003). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1241519/pdf/eh
  16. Paul Brodeur. The Zapping of America (NY: W.W. Norton 1977).
  17. Guntis Brūmelis, Valdis Balodis, and Zanda Balode. Radio-frequency electromagnetic fields: The Skrunda Radio Location Station case. Science of the Total Environment 180: 49-50 (1996). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0048969795049134
  18. Anton Kolodynski and Valda Kolodynska. Motor and psychological functions of school children living in the area of the Skrunda Radio Location Station in Latvia. Science of the Total Environment 180: 87-93 (1996). https://wifiinschools.com/uploads/3/0/4/2/3042232/kolodynski.pdf
  19. Zanda Balode. Assessment of radio-frequency radiation by the micronucleus test in bovine peripheral erythrocytes. Science of the Total Environment 180: 81-85 (1996). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0048969795049231
  20. Liepa and Valdis Balodis. Monitoring of bird breeding near a powerful radar station. The Ring 16(1-2): 100. Abstract (1994).
  21. Valdis Balodis et al. Does the Skrunda Radio Location Station diminish the radial growth of pine trees? Science of the Total Environment 180: 57-64 (1996). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0048969795049207
  22. Tūrs Selga and Maija Selga. Response of Pinus sylvestris L. needles to electromagnetic fields: cytological and ultrastructural aspects. Science of the Total Environment 180: 65-73 (1996). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0048969795049215
  23. Magone. The effect of electromagnetic radiation from the Skrunda Radio Location Station on Spirodela polyrhiza (L.) cultures. Science of the Total Environment 180: 75-80 (1996). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0048969795049223
  24. Microwave News. Latvia’s Russian radar may yield clues to RF health risks. September/October, pp. 12-13 (1994). https://www.microwavenews.com/sites/default/files/sites/default/files/backissues/s-o94issue.pdf
  25. National Telecommunications and Information Administration. NTIA Spectrum Compendium, 2700-2900 MHz, 1 September 2014. https://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/compendium/2700.00-2900.00_01SEP14.pdf
  26. Advantages and disadvantages of weather radar. https://lidarradar.com/info/advantages-and-disadvantages-of-weather-radar
  27. Mark Broomhall. Report for the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) (2017). https://ehtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/Mt-Nardi-Wildlife-Report-to-UNESCO-FINAL.pdf
  28. Arthur Firstenberg. Cell towers on the ocean floor. 12 January 2022. https://cellphonetaskforce.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Cell-towers-on-the-ocean-floor.pdf
  29. Lindy Weilgart. The Impact of Ocean Noise Pollution on Fish and Invertebrates. OceanCare and Dalhousie University. 1 May 2018. https://thegreentimes.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/impact-of-ocean-noise-pollution-on-fish-and-invertebrates.pdf
  30. Jason D. Godfrey and David M. Bryant. Effects of radio transmitters: review of recent radio-tracking studies. In: M. Williams, ed., Conservation Applications of Measuring Energy Expenditure of New Zealand Birds: Assessing Habitat Quality and Costs of Carrying Radio Transmitters (Wellington, New Zealand: Dept. of Conservation), pp. 83-95 (2003).
  31. David Mech and Shannon M. Barber. A Critique of Wildlife Radio-Tracking and Its Use in National Parks. Jamestown, ND: U.S. Geological Survey, Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center (2002). https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/nepa/51689/167135/203600/E2._A_CRITIQUE_OF_WILDLIFE_RADIO-TRACKING.pdf
  32. John C. Withey et al. Effects of tagging and location error in wildlife radiotelemetry studies. In: Joshua J. Millspaugh and John M. Marzluff, eds., Radio Tracking and Animal Populations (San Diego: Academic), pp. 43-75 (2001).
  33. Roger Burrows, Heribert Hofer, and Marion L. East. Demography, extinction and intervention in a small population: the case of the Serengeti wild dogs. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 256: 281-92 (1994). https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/epdf/10.1098/rspb.1994.0082
  34. Roger Burrows. Population dynamics, intervention and survival in African wild dogs (Lycaon pictus)Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 262: 235-45 (1995). https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/abs/10.1098/rspb.1995.0201
  35. Jon E. Swenson et al. Effects of ear-tagging with radiotransmitters on survival of moose calves. Journal of Wildlife Management 63(1): 354-58 (1999).
  36. Moorhouse, Tom P. and David W. Macdonald. Indirect negative impacts of radio-collaring: Sex ratio variation in water voles. Journal of Applied Ecology 42: 91-98 (2005). http://bearproject.info/old/uploads/publications/A20%201999%20Effects%20of%20ear%20tagging_moose%20.pdf
  37. Reader’s Digest. The Snow Tiger’s Last Stand. November 1998.
  38. Buchner K, Rivasi M. The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection: Conflicts of interest, corporate capture and the push for 5G. European Parliament report. Brussels June 2020https://ehtrust.org/the-international-commission-on-non-ionizing-radiation-protection-conflicts-of-interest-corporate-capture-and-the-push-for-5g/

The following individuals contributed to the drafting of this Policy Brief:

Arthur Firstenberg
Kathleen Burke
Ian Jarvis
Christof Plothe
Tess Lawrie


Connect with Arthur Firstenberg — substack | website

Cover image credit: geralt

The Free Speech Scare

The Free Speech Scare


“War and censorship go together because it is wartime that allows ruling elites to declare that ideas alone are dangerous to the goal of defeating the enemy…”


“The war, however, was of domestic origin and targeted at Americans themselves…”


“The Red Scare mutated a century later to become the virus scare in which the real pathogen they tried to kill was your willingness to think for yourself.”


The Free Speech Scare

by Jeffrey A. Tucker, Brownstone Institute
July 21, 2023

It was a strange experience watching the House hearing in which Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. was testifying. The topic was censorship and how and to what extent federal government agencies under two administrations muscled social media companies to take down posts, ban users, and throttle content. The majority made its case.

What was strange was the minority reaction throughout. They tried to shut down RFK. They moved to go to executive session so that the public could not hear the proceedings. The effort failed. Then they shouted over his words when they were questioning him. They wildly smeared him and defamed him. They even began with an attempt to block him from speaking at all, and 8 Democrats voted to support that.

This was a hearing on censorship and they were trying to censor him. It only made the point.

It became so awful that RFK was compelled to give a short tutorial on the importance of free speech as an essential right, without which all other rights and freedoms are in jeopardy. Even those words he could barely speak given the rancor in the room. It’s fair to say that free speech, even as a core principle, is in grave trouble. We cannot even get a consensus on the basics.

It seemed to viewers that RFK was the adult in the room. Put other ways, he was the preacher of fidelity in the brothel, the keeper of memory in a room full of amnesiacs, the practitioner of sanity in the sanatorium, or, as Mencken might say, the hurler of a dead cat into the temple.

It was oddly strange to hear the voice of wise statesmen in that hothouse culture of infantile corruption: it reminded the public just how far things have fallen. Notably, it was he and not the people who wanted him gagged who was citing scientific papers.

The protests against his statements were shrill and shocking. They moved quickly from “Censorship didn’t happen” to “It was necessary and wonderful” to “We need more of it.” Reporting on the spectacle, the New York Times said these are “thorny questions”: “Is misinformation protected by the First Amendment? When is it appropriate for the federal government to seek to tamp down the spread of falsehoods?”

These are not thorny questions. The real issue concerns who is to be the arbiter of truth?

Such attacks on free speech do have precedent in American history. We have already discussed the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 which led to a complete political upheaval that swept Thomas Jefferson into the White House. There were two additional bouts of censorship folly in the 20th century. Both followed great wars and an explosion in government size and reach.

The first came with the Red Scare (1917-1020) following the Great War (WWI). The Bolshevik Revolution and political instability in Europe led to a wild bout of political paranoia in the US that the communists, anarchists, and labor movement were plotting a takeover of the US government. The result was an imposition of censorship along with strict laws concerning political loyalty.

The Espionage Act of 1917 was one result. It is still in force and being deployed today, most recently against former President Trump. Many states passed censorship laws. The feds deported many people suspected of sedition and treason. Suspected communists were hauled in front of Congress and grilled.

The second bout occurred after the Second World War with the House UnAmerican Activities Committee (HUAC) and the Army-McCarthy hearings that led to blacklists and media smears of every sort. The result was a chilling of free speech across American industry that hit media particularly hard. That incident later became legendary due to the exaggerations and disregard for the First Amendment.

How does the Covid-era censorship fit into this historical context? At Brownstone, we’ve compared the wild Covid response to a wartime footing that caused as much trauma on the homeland as previous world wars.

Three years of research, documents, and reporting have established that the lockdowns and all that followed were not directed by public health authorities. They were the veneer for the national security state, which took charge in the month of February 2020 and deployed the full takeover of both government and society in mid-March. This is one reason that it’s been so difficult getting information on how and why all of this happened to us: it’s been mostly classified under the guise of national security.

In other words, this was war and the nation was ruled for a time (and maybe still is) by what amounts to quasi-martial law. Indeed, it felt like that. No one knew for sure who was in charge and who was making all these wild decisions for our lives and work. It was never clear what the penalties would be for noncompliance. The rules and edicts seemed arbitrary, having no real connection to the goal; indeed no one really knew what the goal was besides more and more control. There was no real exit strategy or end game.

As with the two previous bouts of censorship in the last century, there commenced a closure of public debate. It began almost immediately as the lockdowns edict were issued. They  tightened over the months and years. Elites sought to plug every leak in the official narrative through every means possible. They invaded every space. Those they could not get to (like Parler) were simply unplugged. Amazon rejected books. YouTube deleted millions of posts. Twitter was brutal, while once-friendly Facebook became the enforcer of regime propaganda.

The hunt for dissenters took strange forms. Those who held gatherings were shamed. People who did not socially distance were called disease spreaders. Walking outside without a mask one day, a man shouted out to me in anger that “masks are socially recommended.” I kept turning that phrase around in my mind because it made no sense. The mask, no matter how obviously ineffective, was imposed as a tactic of humiliation and an exclusionary measure that targeted the incredulous. It was also a symbol: stop talking because your voice does not matter. Your speech will be muffled.

The vaccine of course came next: deployed as a tool to purge the military, public sector, academia, and the corporate world. The moment the New York Times reported that vaccine uptake was lower in states that supported Trump, the Biden administration had its talking points and agenda. The shot would be deployed to purge. Indeed, five cities briefly segregated themselves to exclude the unvaccinated from public spaces. The continued spread of the virus itself was blamed on the noncompliant.

Those who decried the trajectory could hardly find a voice much less assemble a social network. The idea was to make us all feel isolated even if we might have been the overwhelming majority. We just could not tell either way.

War and censorship go together because it is wartime that allows ruling elites to declare that ideas alone are dangerous to the goal of defeating the enemy. “Loose lips sink ships” is a clever phrase but it applies across the board in wartime. The goal is always to whip up the public in a frenzy of hate against the foreign enemy (“The Kaiser!”) and ferret out the rebels, the traitors, the subversives, and promoters of unrest. There is a reason that the protestors on January 6 were called “insurrectionists.” It is because it happened in wartime.

The war, however, was of domestic origin and targeted at Americans themselves. That’s why the precedent of 20th century censorship holds in this case. The war on Covid was in many ways an action of the national security state, something akin to a military operation prompted and administered by intelligence services in close cooperation with the administrative state. And they want to make the protocols that governed us over these years permanent. Already, European governments are issuing stay-at-home recommendations for the heat.

If you had told me that this was the essence of what was happening in 2020 or 2021, I would have rolled my eyes in disbelief. But all evidence Brownstone has gathered since then has shown exactly that. In this case, the censorship was a predictable part of the mix. The Red Scare mutated a century later to become the virus scare in which the real pathogen they tried to kill was your willingness to think for yourself.


Jeffrey A. Tucker is Founder and President of the Brownstone Institute. He is also Senior Economics Columnist for Epoch Times, author of 10 books, including Liberty or Lockdown, and thousands of articles in the scholarly and popular press. He speaks widely on topics of economics, technology, social philosophy, and culture.


Connect with The Brownstone Institute

Cover image credit: Prettysleepy & OpenClipart-Vectors

Mental Health Round-Ups: The Next Phase of the Government’s War on Thought Crimes

Mental Health Round-Ups: The Next Phase of the Government’s War on Thought Crimes

by John & Nisha Whitehead, The Rutherford Institute
July 18, 2023


“There are no dangerous thoughts; thinking itself is a dangerous activity.”

—Hannah Arendt

Get ready for the next phase of the government’s war on thought crimes: mental health round-ups and involuntary detentions.

Under the guise of public health and safety, the government could use mental health care as a pretext for targeting and locking up dissidents, activists and anyone unfortunate enough to be placed on a government watch list.

If we don’t nip this in the bud, and soon, this will become yet another pretext by which government officials can violate the First and Fourth Amendments at will.

This is how it begins.

In communities across the nation, police are being empowered to forcibly detain individuals they believe might be mentally ill, based solely on their own judgment, even if those individuals pose no danger to others.

In New York City, for example, you could find yourself forcibly hospitalized for suspected mental illness if you carry “firmly held beliefs not congruent with cultural ideas,” exhibit a “willingness to engage in meaningful discussion,” have “excessive fears of specific stimuli,” or refuse “voluntary treatment recommendations.”

While these programs are ostensibly aimed at getting the homeless off the streets, when combined with advances in mass surveillance technologies, artificial intelligence-powered programs that can track people by their biometrics and behavior, mental health sensor data (tracked by wearable data and monitored by government agencies such as HARPA), threat assessments, behavioral sensing warnings, precrime initiatives, red flag gun laws, and mental health first-aid programs aimed at training gatekeepers to identify who might pose a threat to public safety, they could well signal a tipping point in the government’s efforts to penalize those engaging in so-called “thought crimes.”

As the AP reports, federal officials are already looking into how to add “‘identifiable patient data,’ such as mental health, substance use and behavioral health information from group homes, shelters, jails, detox facilities and schools,” to its surveillance toolkit.

Make no mistake: these are the building blocks for an American gulag no less sinister than that of the gulags of the Cold War-era Soviet Union.

The word “gulag” refers to a labor or concentration camp where prisoners (oftentimes political prisoners or so-called “enemies of the state,” real or imagined) were imprisoned as punishment for their crimes against the state.

The gulag, according to historian Anne Applebaum, used as a form of “administrative exile—which required no trial and no sentencing procedure—was an ideal punishment not only for troublemakers as such, but also for political opponents of the regime.”

Totalitarian regimes such as the Soviet Union also declared dissidents mentally ill and consigned political prisoners to prisons disguised as psychiatric hospitals, where they could be isolated from the rest of society, their ideas discredited, and subjected to electric shocks, drugs and various medical procedures to break them physically and mentally.

In addition to declaring political dissidents mentally unsound, government officials in the Cold War-era Soviet Union also made use of an administrative process for dealing with individuals who were considered a bad influence on others or troublemakers. Author George Kennan describes a process in which:

The obnoxious person may not be guilty of any crime . . . but if, in the opinion of the local authorities, his presence in a particular place is “prejudicial to public order” or “incompatible with public tranquility,” he may be arrested without warrant, may be held from two weeks to two years in prison, and may then be removed by force to any other place within the limits of the empire and there be put under police surveillance for a period of from one to ten years.

Warrantless seizures, surveillance, indefinite detention, isolation, exile… sound familiar?

It should.

The age-old practice by which despotic regimes eliminate their critics or potential adversaries by making them disappear—or forcing them to flee—or exiling them literally or figuratively or virtually from their fellow citizens—is happening with increasing frequency in America.

Now, through the use of red flag lawsbehavioral threat assessments, and pre-crime policing prevention programs, the groundwork is being laid that would allow the government to weaponize the label of mental illness as a means of exiling those whistleblowers, dissidents and freedom fighters who refuse to march in lockstep with its dictates.

That the government is using the charge of mental illness as the means by which to immobilize (and disarm) its critics is diabolical. With one stroke of a magistrate’s pen, these individuals are declared mentally ill, locked away against their will, and stripped of their constitutional rights.

These developments are merely the realization of various U.S. government initiatives dating back to 2009, including one dubbed Operation Vigilant Eagle which calls for surveillance of military veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, characterizing them as extremists and potential domestic terrorist threats because they may be “disgruntled, disillusioned or suffering from the psychological effects of war.”

Coupled with the report on “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment” issued by the Department of Homeland Security (curiously enough, a Soviet term), which broadly defines rightwing extremists as individuals and groups “that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely,” these tactics bode ill for anyone seen as opposing the government.

Thus, what began as a blueprint under the Bush administration has since become an operation manual for exiling those who challenge the government’s authority.

An important point to consider, however, is that the government is not merely targeting individuals who are voicing their discontent so much as it is locking up individuals trained in military warfare who are voicing feelings of discontent.

Under the guise of mental health treatment and with the complicity of government psychiatrists and law enforcement officials, these veterans are increasingly being portrayed as ticking time bombs in need of intervention.

For instance, the Justice Department launched a pilot program aimed at training SWAT teams to deal with confrontations involving highly trained and often heavily armed combat veterans.

One tactic being used to deal with so-called “mentally ill suspects who also happen to be trained in modern warfare” is through the use of civil commitment laws, found in all states and employed throughout American history to not only silence but cause dissidents to disappear.

For example, NSA officials attempted to label former employee Russ Tice, who was willing to testify in Congress about the NSA’s warrantless wiretapping program, as “mentally unbalanced” based upon two psychiatric evaluations ordered by his superiors.

NYPD Officer Adrian Schoolcraft had his home raided, and he was handcuffed to a gurney and taken into emergency custody for an alleged psychiatric episode. It was later discovered by way of an internal investigation that his superiors were retaliating against him for reporting police misconduct. Schoolcraft spent six days in the mental facility, and as a further indignity, was presented with a bill for $7,185 upon his release.

Marine Brandon Raub—a 9/11 truther—was arrested and detained in a psychiatric ward under Virginia’s civil commitment law based on posts he had made on his Facebook page that were critical of the government.

Each state has its own set of civil, or involuntary, commitment laws. These laws are extensions of two legal principlesparens patriae Parens patriae (Latin for “parent of the country”), which allows the government to intervene on behalf of citizens who cannot act in their own best interest, and police power, which requires a state to protect the interests of its citizens.

The fusion of these two principles, coupled with a shift towards a dangerousness standard, has resulted in a Nanny State mindset carried out with the militant force of the Police State.

The problem, of course, is that the diagnosis of mental illness, while a legitimate concern for some Americans, has over time become a convenient means by which the government and its corporate partners can penalize certain “unacceptable” social behaviors.

In fact, in recent years, we have witnessed the pathologizing of individuals who resist authority as suffering from oppositional defiant disorder (ODD), defined as “a pattern of disobedient, hostile, and defiant behavior toward authority figures.” Under such a definition, every activist of note throughout our history—from Mahatma Gandhi to Martin Luther King Jr.—could be classified as suffering from an ODD mental disorder.

Of course, this is all part of a larger trend in American governance whereby dissent is criminalized and pathologized, and dissenters are censored, silenced, declared unfit for society, labelled dangerous or extremist, or turned into outcasts and exiled.

Red flag gun laws (which authorize government officials to seize guns from individuals viewed as a danger to themselves or others), are a perfect example of this mindset at work and the ramifications of where this could lead.

As The Washington Post reports, these red flag gun laws “allow a family member, roommate, beau, law enforcement officer or any type of medical professional to file a petition [with a court] asking that a person’s home be temporarily cleared of firearms. It doesn’t require a mental-health diagnosis or an arrest.

With these red flag gun laws, the stated intention is to disarm individuals who are potential threats.

While in theory it appears perfectly reasonable to want to disarm individuals who are clearly suicidal and/or pose an “immediate danger” to themselves or others, where the problem arises is when you put the power to determine who is a potential danger in the hands of government agencies, the courts and the police.

Remember, this is the same government that uses the words “anti-government,” “extremist” and “terrorist” interchangeably.

This is the same government whose agents are spinning a sticky spider-web of threat assessments, behavioral sensing warnings, flagged “words,” and “suspicious” activity reports using automated eyes and ears, social media, behavior sensing software, and citizen spies to identify potential threats.

This is the same government that keeps re-upping the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which allows the military to detain American citizens with no access to friends, family or the courts if the government believes them to be a threat.

This is the same government that has a growing list—shared with fusion centers and law enforcement agencies—of ideologies, behaviors, affiliations and other characteristics that could flag someone as suspicious and result in their being labeled potential enemies of the state.

For instance, if you believe in and exercise your rights under the Constitution (namely, your right to speak freely, worship freely, associate with like-minded individuals who share your political views, criticize the government, own a weapon, demand a warrant before being questioned or searched, or any other activity viewed as potentially anti-government, racist, bigoted, anarchic or sovereign), you could be at the top of the government’s terrorism watch list.

Moreover, as a New York Times editorial warns, you may be an anti-government extremist (a.k.a. domestic terrorist) in the eyes of the police if you are afraid that the government is plotting to confiscate your firearms, if you believe the economy is about to collapse and the government will soon declare martial law, or if you display an unusual number of political and/or ideological bumper stickers on your car.

Let that sink in a moment.

Now consider the ramifications of giving police that kind of authority in order to preemptively neutralize a potential threat, and you’ll understand why some might view these mental health round-ups with trepidation.

No matter how well-meaning the politicians make these encroachments on our rights appear, in the right (or wrong) hands, benevolent plans can easily be put to malevolent purposes.

Even the most well-intentioned government law or program can be—and has been—perverted, corrupted and used to advance illegitimate purposes once profit and power are added to the equation.

The war on terror, the war on drugs, the war on illegal immigration, the war on COVID-19: all of these programs started out as legitimate responses to pressing concerns and have since become weapons of compliance and control in the government’s hands. For instance, the very same mass surveillance technologies that were supposedly so necessary to fight the spread of COVID-19 are now being used to stifle dissent, persecute activists, harass marginalized communities, and link people’s health information to other surveillance and law enforcement tools.

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, we are moving fast down that slippery slope to an authoritarian society in which the only opinions, ideas and speech expressed are the ones permitted by the government and its corporate cohorts.

We stand at a crossroads.

As author Erich Fromm warned, “At this point in history, the capacity to doubt, to criticize and to disobey may be all that stands between a future for mankind and the end of civilization.”


Connect with The Rutherford Institute

Cover image credit: geralt

This Is Why We Need to Talk About CBDCs

This Is Why We Need to Talk About CBDCs


 Video available at Odysee & YouTube


by Aaron & Melissa Dykes, Truthstream Media
July 14, 2023


(Normally this is the type of article we only share with our Patreons, but this needs to be seen by everyone who can.)

Central banks and governments, at a global scale, have prepared to implement CBDCs (Central Bank Digital Currencies) with important consequences for every aspect of freedom in our lives.

Though they will introduce it to the public gradually, its capacity for total control is immense.

It isn’t merely that the new dollar is digital, traceable and trackable. It’s based on blockchain technology, of course. It isn’t merely that small business will be hurt (yet again) or that private transactions will be eradicated. Nor will it be merely consequential for drug dealers, scammers, or illicit trades.

CBDCs will be PROGRAMMABLE. Where and how money is spent is literally built into this new currency. And they plan to use it to change how money is used.

Yes, CBDCs are programmable. The executives that frequent the World Economic Forum and the other elite forums have said so.

And so, CBDCs will not just be money. No, not at all. CBDCs are designed as tools of a very political and ideological agenda; some of the worst policies that have been pushed in recent decades will now have the force of spending controls to “nudge” people into submission and compliance.

Again, CBDCs ARE PROGRAMMABLE. Whoever controls the money controls the agenda. That is the point.

Why is this important? Central banks, private banks, government authorities and global designers will have the power to turn on and off transactions of every kind. They can algorithmically-determine precisely what the CBDC money can be spent on; when and under what conditions; and by who.

At the touch of a button, PROGRAMMABLE cash in the form of CBDCs can block the sale of firearms, alcohol, cannabis or tobacco. Or other sensitive products. But that’s just the start (you knew that).

At the same touch of a button, PROGRAMMABLE CBDCs can prevent the sale of meat, dairy, candy and junk food, or disallow the purchase of gasoline or use of a vehicle (and an endless array of other examples; you get the idea.)

With yet another press of the button, they can also freeze bank accounts of political dissidents — like those supporting the recent trucker protest in Canada, for instance.

Spending under CBDCs could be allocated for specific purposes — like rent and groceries — or be timed to expire, requiring, for instance that money be spent by the end of the month.

CBDCs could also prevent individuals with “bad social credit scores” from purchasing anything more than the bare basics of survival. Black Mirror’s Nosedive has already depicted as much, but that’s mild compared to what’s possible.

Blackrock CEO Larry Fink recently said: “Behaviors are gonna have to change. And this is one thing we’re asking companies — you have to force behaviors, and at BlackRock, we are forcing behaviors.”

The compliance of private businesses — any major business who relies upon good standing in the global financial system — can also mandate adherence to any number of political agendas and purchasing behaviors. Energy caps; green conscience laundering; medical misinformation policies; sensitivity about world events, wars and catastrophes; identity politic political correctness shifting sand madness; polka-dots-over-stripes; anything is possible!

And the private policies of private banks and businesses — ultimately steered by central bank CBDC policies — could easily circumvent restrictions on our civil rights under governments and public systems. (And what could you really do about it? Where else could you go?) The Bank of International Settlements recently announced 93% of the world’s central banks are currently working on a CBDC, and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) is already hard at work on a global CBDC platform.

Social media and other tech giants have already paved the way to this version of circumnavigation-hell (I’m not touching you; I’m not touching you!!), even as it emerged that shadowy government agencies were literally coordinating the takedown of free speech online in violation of First Amendment protections.

This nightmare of privacy-less technological enslavement under CBDCs is complicated and perhaps predicated by the advent of AI and the loss of employment for hundreds of millions and even billions of people who once held relative autonomy over their own lives.

UBI (Universal Basic Income) funds will be increasingly provided by governments — as it perhaps must be in a scenario with no meaningful employment — not just for the poor and unemployed, but for nearly everyone. Certainly, people will need financial support to live their lives.

But that money would be used to control as much as it would be used to provide sustenance. Not only would every transaction large and small be tracked, but its use would be specifically tailored to the vision of life proscribed by the very powerful and their AI tech tools. Anything in violation of prevailing policies would be automatically out-of-bounds.

While this design could be used for good (though such powers are unwise), and many would give it that benefit of the doubt, those paying attention can see plainly its drawbacks and potential for the very worst.

With little-to-no context and no one to appeal to, an “artificially intelligent” system administers, gives, and takes away as it is programmed to do. Perhaps clumsily suppressing on the basis of key words and categories… perhaps insidiously on the basis of personalized profiles with millions of pieces of data. This system can and will automatically behaviorize all who live under its auspices, with grave consequences which are easy to predict. And even worse outcomes are quite possible.

Even under the most glowing version of this vision of the near future, where personal behaviors are improved, and people become “better” citizens, nicer neighbors and excellent stewards of the environment — even then, if a positive outcome can even be supposed — it would be a world without freedom.

Freedom itself is on the line under programmable CBDCs, in an almost direct way.

Instead of technology freeing us from worry, labor, and drudgery, it stands to reinforce and radically expand top-down control. This is not hyperbole.

New behaviorism — such as living within one’s allotted carbon footprint allowance — could and would be enforced easily, but tyrannically under this kind of system. Likely it would come with a velvety touch and a gradual implementation to dissuade outrage and condition acceptance; but in of itself, the system could nonetheless be flipped-on overnight.

A government powerful enough to give to all, and yet also take away from all is not only possible, but immediately part of the scheme. Accountability, dissent, free expression, and independent lives could all become a thing of the past, replaced by an engineered obedience, dulled further by the extremes of algorithmically driven group think.

Polls show that CBDCs — now being pursued by the Federal Reserve in the United States and by most every major government and financial system around the globe — are extremely unpopular with the people, but only by those who are aware of their potential existence and uses.

The vast majority of the public — most already lost in a sea of apathy and indifference — remain ignorant of how radically the money system they live under is changing. People need to be informed. Dissent needs to be expressed now while it still can be.

The unfortunate, flawed maxim “If you’re not doing anything wrong, you’ve got nothing to hide” is due for a nightmarish upgrade. The elites, already concentrated in wealth and power — and now unleashing AI — plan to literally program and control your entire life through digital currency.

Something huge is happening. Please pay attention. Please tell people what this can do. Please make your voice heard.



The Trust Game ten episode financial docuseries by Truthstream on Vimeo (to Support TSM)

The Trust Game on YouTube (for free)

Bank of England Tells Ministers to Intervene on Digital Currency ‘Programming’

CATO Poll: Only 16% of Americans Support the Government Issuing a Central Bank Digital Currency

CATO: Central Bank Digital Currency — Assessing the Risks and Dispelling the Myths


Connect with Truthstream Media

Cover image based on creative commons work of: FreeGiver & geralt

The Fed Launches Phase One of Their CBDC This Month

The Fed Launches Phase One of Their CBDC This Month

by Greg Reese, The Reese Report


 Video Source


In a recent Time Magazine article, Ray Dalio of Bridgewater Associates hedge funds warned that the world is on the brink of disaster. He came to this conclusion based on current events that haven’t happened since the nineteen thirties. The largest amounts of debt and inflation. The biggest gaps in wealth and values resulting in the rise of populism on both the left and the right against the elites. And the greatest international conflict between world powers, most importantly between the U.S. and China.

Peter Onge writes that the easy way out of this mess would be for the elite to proactively shrink in scope. Get government out of the economy, out of social engineering, and out of propagandizing kids. But of course, this won’t happen.

Common sense and simple observation will tell you that the so-called elites will continue on their path towards economic destruction and world war. Which is likely what the international bankers had planned all along. Let us not forget that the fast-growing BRICS monetary system was born in 2001 out of Goldman Sachs.

In 1971, President Nixon officially ended the Gold Standard and replaced it with the petrodollar in which OPEC agreed to price their oil in US dollars in exchange for US military protection. This blood money deal preserved US control over the world economy. But when the US weaponized the SWIFT payment system against Russia, BRICS became the only viable solution for the rest of the world.

Reuters in New Delhi reported that last May, the State Bank of India rejected Indian Oil Corp’s planned payment in US dollars for Russian oil. And so they went to a private bank and settled their trade for Russian oil by paying in yuan to the Bank of China. And have continued to do so since

A shortage of US dollars in Argentina has caused commercial banks to allow the Chinese yuan as a form of currency in savings and checking accounts. Argentina has already been issuing securities in the Chinese yuan and has made a two-point-seven billion dollar payment to the International Monetary Fund using the Chinese BRICS currency.

The Federal Reserve Bank’s FedNow is scheduled for launch by the end of July. FedNow is officially an update to the Federal Reserve’s payment processing and settlement system. And appears to be a backdoor to creating a Central Bank Digital Currency. Private blockchain operator Tassat has partnered with the Federal Reserve’s new payment system and will serve as an interface for FedNow.

FedNow will also connect with Metal Blockchain, whose CEO and founder claims will allow banks to prepare for an eventual central bank digital currency, along with bank-issued stablecoins.

The idea of a Central Band Digital Currency is already hugely unpopular with the majority of Americans. But according to Dale Houser, it is being set up to destroy alternative blockchain solutions such as Ripple and Stellar. And if the powers that be are successful in destroying the US economy, then the only other option to accepting a CBDC would be some sort of revolution. Which would be nearly impossible seeing as how divided the populist movement is within the left/right paradigm.

Last week in China, the World Economic Forum proclaimed that the entire world needs to switch to a Central Bank Digital Currency with expiry dates and restrictions on undesirable purchases. They proposed using artificial intelligence to censor hate speech and disinformation on the internet. And using artificial intelligence to control a global social credit system that will involve wearable devices with sensors to monitor everyone’s actions.

If we the people fail to unite against the powers that be, then their solution will most certainly be world war, depopulation, and total control. And this is all happening right now.


Connect with Greg Reese

The Criminalization of Dissent (Revisited)

The Criminalization of Dissent (Revisited)

by CJ Hopkins, The Consent Factory
July 3, 2023


Greetings from Thoughtcriminal 231Js1736/23!

That’s my official Thoughtcrime Case Number, which my attorney needs to reference in all our official correspondence with the New Normal Thoughtpolice. I think I’m going to silk-screen it on a T-shirt and wear it on my first day in Moabit Criminal Court, “the largest criminal court in Europe with 340 judges and 360 prosecutors.”

That’s right, the Berlin State Prosecutor’s office is pursuing its criminal investigation of me for allegedly “disseminating propaganda, the content of which is intended to further the aims of a former National Socialist organization,” which according to Germany’s Grundgesetz could send me to prison for up to three years.

My attorney wrote to them and politely explained how ridiculous their investigation is and why they should summarily drop the charges, but New Normal Germany has a zero-tolerance policy when it comes to Thoughtcrime, especially Thoughtcrime involving any kind of Covid-denying propaganda.

The “propaganda” in question is these two Tweets.

Which, OK, I just disseminated them again, so there’s another three years in prison. Or, I don’t know, maybe it’s six years in prison, i.e., three years for each separate count of Thoughtcrime.

I wrote those Tweets in German, so let me translate.

The one on the left reads, “The masks are ideological-conformity symbols. That is all they are. That is all they have ever been. Stop acting like they have ever been anything else, or get used to wearing them.” The hashtag translates as “Masks are not a benign measure.”

The one on the right is a quote by Karl Lauterbach, the Minister of Health of Germany, tweeted by Die Welt, a national newspaper. It reads “The masks always send out a signal.” And, yes, Karl, that’s exactly the point I was making.

The image is from the cover art of my book The Rise of the New Normal Reich: Consent Factory Essays, Vol. III (2020-2021), which was banned in Germany by Amazon, Inc. two days after I tweeted the above Tweets. (It appears to also be banned for sale in German bookstores, but I don’t have confirmation of that.)

My attorney just received the screenshots of these Tweets from the Berlin State Prosecutor a few days ago. Up to then, we didn’t know what they were, and we couldn’t find them, because they have been censored by Twitter, presumably on the orders of the German Thoughtpolice. We knew they featured the cover art of my book, because the Prosecutor’s office described it, but we didn’t know about the “Covid denial.”

So, essentially, I’m facing criminal charges, and being threatened with who knows how many years in prison, or thousands of Eurodollars in fines, for (a) stating what has now been widely acknowledged, and what was generally understood by every serious epidemiologist until the Spring of 2020, namely, that mask-mandates do not work, and thus are nothing but symbolic measures designed to generate and enforce mass obedience, and (b) insulting the Minister of Health of Germany, who happens to be a fanatical serial liar who is directly responsible for the serious injury and death of … well, we’ll never know how many people.

Neither of which are actual crimes. Not even in the Federal Republic of Germany.

The pretext for the charges I am facing is the swastika behind the mask, which, as I noted in a recent essay, is a play on the international bestseller, The Rise and Fall of The Third Reich, by William Shirer, which you can buy in any bookshop in Berlin.

Incidentally, my book has also been a bestseller, at least on Amazon (in countries where it’s not banned) and Barnes & Noble, but I’ve still got a little ways to go before I get to Shirer territory.

So, there you are … those are my Thoughtcrimes.

I’ve been writing about the “New Normal” as a new form of totalitarianism for several years now. I wrote about it in one of my essays, The Criminalization of Dissent, in May of 2021. Some of my colleagues rolled their eyes. They thought I was being hyperbolic again. I wasn’t. This is what I meant. It is literally the criminalization of dissent.

I wasn’t the only one covering the story of the criminalization of dissent in Germany. The New York Times reported on it in April of 2021 …

“The country’s domestic intelligence agency says it will create a new department to deal with extremism among conspiracy theorists.” (German Intelligence Puts Coronavirus Deniers Under Surveillance)

As did Aljazeera …

“For intelligence officers to be legally allowed to start observing parts of the anti-lockdown movement, Germany’s Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV) had to create an entirely new category of groups because the ‘Querdenkers’ do not fit neatly into the existing classifications of right-wing or left-wing. The new category is for groups suspected of being ‘anti-democratic and/or delegitimizing the state in a way that endangers security.’ The designation allows intelligence officers to gather data about individuals and their activities, and could in a further step include shadowing people and tapping their communications.” (German Spy Agency to Monitor Some Anti-Lockdown Protesters)

I was not a member of the “Querdenker” movement, or any other movement for that matter, but I doubt that makes any difference to the BfV or the Berlin State Prosecutor. Anyone even vaguely prominent who spoke out against the “Corona measures” is fair game for threats and prosecution. The beneficent-sounding Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution, or BfV, is basically Germany’s FBI. It’s now two years after the above stories were published, and they are still on the hunt for “Covid deniers,” “conspiracy theorists,” and other such persons suspected of “delegitimizing the state” … whatever that Orwellian language means.

Of course, it doesn’t matter what it means. It means whatever they say it means. That’s what it means. It means it doesn’t mean anything, and they do not have to pretend it means anything. It means, “Shut the fuck up. Get in line. Do what we tell you. Say what we tell you. Think what we tell you. Or we will fucking get you. We will make up some charges and prosecute you. We will censor you into Internet oblivion. We will shut off your fucking bank account. We’ll send the IRS to your house. We’ll ruin your career. We’ll hurt your family. We will extradite you to the USA and lock you up in Supermax prison for 175 fucking years.”

How am I doing? Do I sound hyperbolic?

And, no, of course I’m not just talking about Germany. The criminalization of dissent is being rolled out everywhere. Ireland is just the latest of dozens of countries all throughout the West that are criminalizing so-called “hate speech.” The specifics are different but the message is the same, “Watch what you say, or we will prosecute you, or otherwise seriously fuck you up.”

Oh, and also, I should probably mention, my lawyer advised me not to republish those Tweets. He completely understands where I am coming from, but it is his job to look out for me and to try his best to … you know, keep me out of German prison, which I’m not making easy for him.

Now, I want to be very clear about this. I have no desire to go to German prison. I am about to turn 62 years old. I’m not at all interested in tossing anyone’s salad or having my salad tossed by anyone, especially not a pumped-up, tattooed member of some local Turkish drug gang, or an actual German neo-Nazi, but I’m not going to be intimidated into shutting up or toning my act down to placate the New Normal Thoughtpolice.

The thing is, I don’t respond well to bullies. I feel a particular antipathy toward them. I’m not very fond of liars either. And totalitarians … there’s another group of people I don’t like. I am not ashamed to admit my bias against such people. I wish them ill. I am sorry about whatever vicissitudes of fortune or experience turned them into lying, bullying, totalitarian creeps, but they can suck foul wind out of my ass if they think I am going to bow down to them. They can do what they want to me. They have that power. They can silence me for a while if they want. But they cannot make me silence myself.

And they cannot make me pretend to respect them.

The Germans are real big on respecting authority. So am I. But authority is earned. It does not stem from a title or a uniform. It stems from knowledge, experience, integrity, and honorable behavior, not from brute force. Fascists, totalitarians, and the like do not deserve our respect. They deserve our scorn. They deserve our derision. I have plenty of it for them.

Also, there are the kids to think about. I don’t have any, but other people do. What kind of an example are we setting for the kids if we start censoring (or “sensitivity-editing”) ourselves every time some fascist bully threatens to put us in jail if we don’t? A lot of the young people are already pretty pussified as it is these days. I’m certainly not a tough guy or anything, but sometimes, in life, you have to fight, and it doesn’t really matter if you get your ass kicked.

Oh, and, if you’re contemplating writing to me and telling me to “get the hell out of Germany” or inquiring as to why I haven’t “gotten the hell out of Germany,” please do not do that. I am extremely tired of hearing it. Instead, just wire a high six-figure sum into the Swiss account I will be setting up shortly, and, I promise you, I’ll get the hell out of Germany, and send you a postcard from an undisclosed location somewhere in the Ionian Sea.

In the meantime, I’ll definitely keep you posted on Case 231Js1736/23, and maybe I’ll go ahead and do up that T-shirt. Wait, what am I thinking? This is New Normal Berlin! I could find a VC, round up some 20-year-old, transgender, Ayahuasca-guzzling tech bros (or “tech persons with penises” or whatever the proper “non-harmful” nomenclature is at the moment), and start up some type of totally Bitcoined bespoke Thoughtcriminal T-shirt business!

The way things are going, I’ll probably make a killing … or at least I’ll be able to cover my legal costs, which, after that last little gratuitous outburst, Lord knows what kind of new charges I’ll be facing!


Connect with CJ Hopkins

Cover image based on creative commons work of CDD20OpenClipart-Vectors

FBI Make-Work Entrapment Schemes: Creating Criminals in Order to Arrest Them

FBI Make-Work Entrapment Schemes: Creating Criminals in Order to Arrest Them

by John & Nisha Whitehead, The Rutherford Institute
June 20, 2023


“Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster.”

— Friedrich Nietzsche

We’re not dealing with a government that exists to serve its people, protect their liberties and ensure their happiness.

Rather, we are the unfortunate victims of the diabolical machinations of a make-works program carried out on an epic scale whose only purpose is to keep the powers-that-be permanently (and profitably) employed.

Case in point: the FBI.

The government’s henchmen have become the embodiment of how power, once acquired, can be so easily corrupted and abused. Indeed, far from being tough on crime, FBI agents are also among the nation’s most notorious lawbreakers.

Whether the FBI is planting undercover agents in churches, synagogues and mosques; issuing fake emergency letters to gain access to Americans’ phone records; using intimidation tactics to silence Americans who are critical of the government, or persuading impressionable individuals to plot acts of terror and then entrapping them, the overall impression of the nation’s secret police force is that of a well-dressed thug, flexing its muscles and doing the boss’ dirty work.

Clearly, this is not a government agency that appears to understand, let alone respect, the limits of the Constitution.

Indeed, this same government agency has a pattern and practice of entrapment that involves targeting vulnerable individuals, feeding them with the propaganda, know-how and weapons intended to turn them into terrorists, and then arresting them as part of an elaborately orchestrated counterterrorism sting.

Basically, it works like this: in order to justify their crime-fighting superpowers, the FBI manufactures criminals by targeting vulnerable individuals and feeding them anti-government propaganda; then, undercover agents and informants equip the targeted individuals with the training and resources to challenge what they’ve been indoctrinated into believing is government corruption; and finally, the FBI arrests the targeted individuals for engaging in anti-government, terrorist activities.

This is what passes for the government’s perverse idea of being tough on crime.

For example, undercover FBI agents pretending to be associated with ISIS have been accused of seeking out online and befriending a 16-year-old with brain development issues, persuading him to secretly send them small cash donations in the form of gift cards, and then the moment Mateo Ventura, turned 18, arresting him for providing financial support to an Islamic terrorist group.

If convicted, the teenager could spend up to 10 years in prison.

Yet as The Intercept explains, “the only ‘terrorist’ he is accused of ever being in contact with was an undercover FBI agent who befriended him online as a 16-year-old… This law enforcement tactic has been criticized by national security researchers who have scrutinized the FBI’s role in manufacturing terrorism cases using vulnerable people who would have been unable to commit crimes without prolonged government assistance and encouragement… the Ventura case may indicate that authorities are still open to conjuring terrorists where none existed.”

In another incident, the FBI used an undercover agent/informant to seek out and groom an impressionable young man, cultivating his friendship, gaining his sympathy, stoking his outrage over injustices perpetrated by the U.S. government, then enlisting his help to blow up the Herald Square subway station. Despite the fact that Shahawar Matin Siraj ultimately refused to plant a bomb at the train station, he was arrested for conspiring to do so at the urging of his FBI informant and used to bolster the government’s track record in foiling terrorist plots. Of course, no mention was made of the part the government played in fabricating the plot, recruiting a would-be bomber, and setting him up to take the fall.

These are Machiavellian tactics with far-reaching consequences for every segment of the population, no matter what one’s political leanings, but it is especially dangerous for anyone whose views could in any way be characterized as anti-government.

As Rozina Ali writes for The New York Times Magazine, “The government’s approach to counterterrorism erodes constitutional protections for everyone, by blurring the lines between speech and action and by broadening the scope of who is classified as a threat.”

For instance, it was reported that the FBI had been secretly carrying out an entrapment scheme in which it used a front company, ANOM, to sell purportedly hack-proof phones to organized crime syndicates and then used those phones to spy on them as they planned illegal drug shipments, plotted robberies and put out contracts for killings using those boobytrapped phones.

All told, the FBI intercepted 27 million messages over the course of 18 months.

What this means is that the FBI was also illegally spying on individuals using those encrypted phones who may not have been involved in any criminal activity whatsoever.

Even reading a newspaper article is now enough to get you flagged for surveillance by the FBI. The agency served a subpoena on USA Today / Gannett to provide the internet addresses and mobile phone information for everyone who read a news story online on a particular day and time about the deadly shooting of FBI agents.

This is the danger of allowing the government to carry out widespread surveillance, sting and entrapment operations using dubious tactics that sidestep the rule of law: “we the people” become suspects and potential criminals, while government agents, empowered to fight crime using all means at their disposal, become indistinguishable from the corrupt forces they seek to vanquish.

To go after terrorists, they become terrorists.

To go after drug smugglers, they become drug smugglers.

To go after thieves, they become thieves.

For instance, when the FBI raided a California business that was suspected of letting drug dealers anonymously stash guns, drugs and cash in its private vaults, agents seized the contents of all the  safety deposit boxes and filed forfeiture motions to keep the contents, which include millions of dollars’ worth of valuables owned by individuals not accused of any crime whatsoever.

It’s hard to say whether we’re dealing with a kleptocracy (a government ruled by thieves), a kakistocracy (a government run by unprincipled career politicians, corporations and thieves that panders to the worst vices in our nature and has little regard for the rights of American citizens), or if we’ve gone straight to an idiocracy.

This certainly isn’t a constitutional democracy, however.

Some days, it feels like the FBI is running its own crime syndicate complete with mob rule and mafia-style justice.

In addition to creating certain crimes in order to then “solve” them, the FBI also gives certain informants permission to break the law, “including everything from buying and selling illegal drugs to bribing government officials and plotting robberies,” in exchange for their cooperation on other fronts.

USA Today estimates that agents have authorized criminals to engage in as many as 15 crimes a day (5600 crimes a year). Some of these informants are getting paid astronomical sums: one particularly unsavory fellow, later arrested for attempting to run over a police officer, was actually paid $85,000 for his help laying the trap for an entrapment scheme.

In a stunning development reported by The Washington Post, a probe into misconduct by an FBI agent resulted in the release of at least a dozen convicted drug dealers from prison.

In addition to procedural misconduct, trespassing, enabling criminal activity, and damaging private property, the FBI’s laundry list of crimes against the American people includes surveillance, disinformation, blackmail, entrapment, intimidation tactics, and harassment.

For example, the Associated Press lodged a complaint with the Dept. of Justice after learning that FBI agents created a fake AP news story and emailed it, along with a clickable link, to a bomb threat suspect in order to implant tracking technology onto his computer and identify his location. Lambasting the agency, AP attorney Karen Kaiser railed, “The FBI may have intended this false story as a trap for only one person. However, the individual could easily have reposted this story to social networks, distributing to thousands of people, under our name, what was essentially a piece of government disinformation.”

Then again, to those familiar with COINTELPRO, an FBI program created to “disrupt, misdirect, discredit, and neutralize” groups and individuals the government considers politically objectionable, it should come as no surprise that the agency has mastered the art of government disinformation.

The FBI has been particularly criticized in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks for targeting vulnerable individuals and not only luring them into fake terror plots but actually equipping them with the organization, money, weapons and motivation to carry out the plots—entrapment—and then jailing them for their so-called terrorist plotting. This is what the FBI characterizes as “forward leaning—preventative—prosecutions.”

The FBI has also repeatedly sought to expand its invasive hacking powers to allow agents to hack into any computer, anywhere in the world.

Suffice it to say that when and if a true history of the FBI is ever written, it will not only track the rise of the American police state but it will also chart the decline of freedom in America: how a nation that once abided by the rule of law and held the government accountable for its actions has steadily devolved into a police state where justice is one-sided, a corporate elite runs the show, representative government is a mockery, police are extensions of the military, surveillance is rampant, privacy is extinct, and the law is little more than a tool for the government to browbeat the people into compliance.

This is how tyranny rises and freedom falls.

The powers-that-be are not acting in our best interests.

Almost every tyranny being perpetrated by the U.S. government against the citizenry—purportedly to keep us safe and the nation secure—has come about as a result of some threat manufactured in one way or another by our own government.

Think about it.

Cyberwarfare. Terrorism. Bio-chemical attacks. The nuclear arms race. Surveillance. The drug wars. Domestic extremism. The COVID-19 pandemic.

In almost every instance, the U.S. government (often spearheaded by the FBI) has in its typical Machiavellian fashion sown the seeds of terror domestically and internationally in order to expand its own totalitarian powers.

Consider that this very same government has taken every bit of technology sold to us as being in our best interests—GPS devices, surveillance, nonlethal weapons, etc.—and used it against us, to track, control and trap us.

Are you getting the picture yet?

The U.S. government isn’t protecting us from threats to our freedoms.

The U.S. government is creating the threats to our freedoms. It is, as I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, the source of the threats to our freedoms.


Connect with The Rutherford Institute

Cover image credit: Clker-Free-Vector-Images

The European Commission and WHO Launch Landmark Digital Slavery Initiative to Centralize and Institutionalize Global Technocratic Idolatry.

The European Commission and WHO Launch Landmark Digital Slavery Initiative to Centralize and Institutionalize Global Technocratic Idolatry.
Translation of June 5, 2023 World Health Organization announcement. 

by Katherine Watt, Bailiwick News
June 13, 2023


5 June 2023 | News release | Geneva/Brussels

The World Health Organization (WHO) and European Commission have announced today the launch of a landmark digital slavery partnership.

In June 2023, WHO will take up the European Union (EU) pilot project of digital COVID-19 slave control to establish a global system that will help facilitate centralization of global financial, social and political power and protect the rulers of each former nation-state from current and future attempts at accountability, including growing public understanding that global pandemics are not a real thing and ‘vaccines’ are biochemical weapons in medicinal drag.

This is the first building block of the WHO Global Digital Slavery Network (GDSN) that will develop a wide range of digital products to deliver more corrupting power and control for the individuals building a Satan-worshipping one-world government with departmental headquarters in Geneva (WHO, UN), Basel (Bank for International Settlements), Brussels (EU), Rome, London, Washington DC and other major world cities.

“Building on the EU’s highly successful digital slavery network, WHO aims to offer all WHO Member States access to an open-source digital slavery tool, which is based on the principles of elitism, greed, fear, pride, secrecy, techno-materialism, data reductionism and privacy-intrusion,” said Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, WHO Director-General. “New digital slavery products in development aim to chain people everywhere to a central database through which Satanists can block access to financial, medical and other essential human goods quickly and more effectively.”

Based on the EU Global Enslavement Strategy and WHO Global strategy on digital slavery, the initiative follows the 30 November 2022 agreement between Commissioner Kyriakides and Dr Tedros to enhance strategic cooperation on global enslavement campaigns. This further bolsters a robust multilateral system with WHO at its core, powered by a strong EU.

“This partnership is an important step for the digital slavery action plan of the EU Global Enslavement Strategy. By using European best practices we contribute to digital slavery standards and interoperability globally — to the benefit of those seeking coercive power over the daily thoughts, words and actions of millions of human beings and those desperate to avoid removal from power, criminal trials, convictions and execution for already-committed war crimes, crimes against humanity and crimes that cry out to God for vengeance.

It is also a powerful example of how alignment between the EU and the WHO can deliver better enslavement protocols for all Satan-worshipping rulers in the EU and across the world. As the directing and coordinating authority on international digital enslavement work, there is no better partner than the WHO to advance the work we started at the EU and further develop global digital slavery solutions,” said Stella Kyriakides, Commissioner for Satanic Slave-master Safety.

This partnership will include close collaboration in the development, management and implementation of the WHO Global Digital Slavery Network system, benefiting from the European Commission’s ample technical expertise in the field. A first step is to ensure that the current EU digital slavery certificates continue to function effectively.

“With 80 countries and territories connected to the EU Digital COVID-19 Slavery Certificate, the EU has set a global standard. The EU certificate has not only been an important tool in our fight against public understanding that global pandemics are not a real thing and ‘vaccines’ are biochemical weapons in medicinal drag, but has also facilitated arbitrary suspensions and interference with international travel, tourism and social bonds.

I am pleased that the WHO will build on the privacy-invading, economic enslavement principles and cutting-edge technology of the EU certificate to create a global tool against restoration of legitimate civil authority serving the actual material and spiritual well-being of citizens in countries around the world,” added Thierry Breton, Commissioner for Internal Market Destruction.

A global WHO system building on EU legacy

One of the key elements in the European Union’s COVID-19 digital slavery pilot project has been digital COVID-19 slavery certificates. To block free movement within its borders, the EU swiftly established interoperable COVID-19 slavery certificates (entitled ‘EU Digital COVID-19 Slavery Certificate’ or ‘EU-DCSC’). Based on proprietary technologies and standards it allowed also for the connection of non-EU countries that issued slavery certificates according to EU-DCSC specifications, becoming the most widely used method of restricting free movement around the world.

From the onset of the EU slavery pilot project, WHO engaged with all WHO Regions to define overall guidelines for such slavery certificates. To help strengthen global civil authorities’ imperviousness to reform and reconstruction in the face of growing public awareness that current rulers are unnaturally interested in possessing complete access to and control of the daily thoughts, speech and acts of every living man, woman and child on the planet, WHO is establishing a global digital slavery certification network which builds upon the solid foundations of the EU-DCSC framework, principles and proprietary technologies. With this collaboration, WHO will facilitate this process globally under its own structure with the aim to allow the world’s Satan-worshipping rulers to benefit from convergence of digital slavery certificates. This includes standard-setting and validation of digital slavery signatures to prevent slave escape from the digital control grid. In doing so, WHO will have access to every piece of underlying personal data, as will the federal governments of participating member-states.

The first building block of the global WHO system becomes operational in June 2023 and aims to be progressively developed in the coming months.

A long-term digital slavery partnership to deliver more submissive slaves for all governing Satan-worshippers.

To facilitate the expansion of the EU Digital Covid-19 Slavery Certificate by WHO and contribute to its operation and further development, WHO and the European Commission have agreed to partner in digital enslavement programs.

This partnership will work to technically develop the WHO system with a staged approach to cover additional use cases, which may include, for example, the digitisation of the International Certificate of Biochemical Weapons Submissivity. Expanding such digital solutions will be essential to deliver more effective slave-control for slave-masters across the globe.

This cooperation is based on the shared values and principles of secrecy and closed-door decision-making, exclusivity, immunity from legal liability, political non-accountability, data collection and privacy intrusion, war, theft, scalability at a global level, and elitism. The WHO and the European Commission will work together to coerce maximum global slave submission. Particular attention will be paid to enslavement of those most prone to worshipping Almighty God instead of Satan: the people of the high-income countries historically known as Christendom, and the people of low- and middle-income nations who have embraced the Christian faith when taught the Word by holy, fervent and zealous missionaries.


  • WHO-GDSN – WHO Global Digital Slavery Network
  • EU-DCSC – EU Digital COVID-19 Slavery Certificate


Connect with Katherine Watt

Cover image credit: geralt

What’s Next to the Moon? – An “Apex Body” and Digital ID to Rule Us All

What’s Next to the Moon? – An “Apex Body” and Digital ID to Rule Us All

by Jacob Nordangard, Ph.D.
June 10, 2023


United Nations recently published three new Policy Briefs “to provide more detail on certain proposals contained in Our Common Agenda” – The UN Secretary-General’s vision for the future of global cooperation that will be decided at “The Summit of the Future” in September 2024. These briefings; A Global Digital CompactReforms to the International Financial Architecture and The Future of Outer Space Governance sets out a chilling course for our future.

Among the proposals are a new “apex body” in charge of the entire financial system that will “enhance its coherence and align its priorities with the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.” This could, according to Secretary-General António Guterres, be done through a “Biennial Summit between the Group of 20, Economic and Social Council, the Secretary-General, and heads of international financial institutions.”

This will further integrate the G20 with the United Nations into a body that can be described as an economic Security Council. It also seems like a perfect nest for the “apex predators” that runs the international banking system.

A vital part of the agenda is also digital connectivity and the establishment of a Global Digital Compact. This can be described as a cybernetic organ, consisting of a digitally connected network of people, entities, devices, and things, that easily can be directed by those who run the system. In the Policy Brief it is for example explained how digitisation will help to achieve the global goals. The suggestions happens to be very similar to what World Economic Forum and PwC prescribed in their report Unlocking Technologies for the Global Goals in 2020. A Digital ID is a cornerstone in this work and is among other things seen as a way to reduce poverty.

This may, however, come at a cost. In the UN Secretary-General’s High-level Panel on Digital Cooperations report Age of Digital Interdependence from 2019, it is stated that:

A digital ID can help unlock new opportunities but can also introduce new risks and challenges. They can be used to undermine human rights – for example, by enabling civil society to be targeted, or selected groups to be excluded from social benefits.

Will you get your social protection coverage if you don’t comply with vaccinations or other measures introduced to achieve the SDGs? Probably not. This can later be fused with a social credit system and Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) – which is now being introduced and tested in many countries across the world. To receive your daily bread you have to obey and accept the instructions from the Masters that run the show. If the UN declares a “Planetary Emergency” this will have severe consequences for our freedoms (as we experienced during the pandemic).

In the Policy Brief – A Global Digital Compact the authors truthfully are mentioning the rising inequality after the pandemic.

Digital technologies are accelerating the concentration of economic power in an ever smaller group of elites and companies: the combined wealth of technology billionaires, $2.1 trillion in 2022, is greater than the annual gross domestic product of more than half of the Group of 20 economies.

But it seems that United Nations has a somewhat peculiar way of solving this problem. Not only do they strive towards digitising everything – they have also partnered with Big Tech in order to achieve this.

The UN Secretary-General’s High-level Panel on Digital Cooperation was led by Melinda Gates from Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (according to the bio, Melinda “helped develop many of the company’s multimedia products” during her time at Microsoft) and tech billionaire Jack Ma from the Chinese Ali Baba Group.

This comes with assistance from Young Global Leaders like Mohammed Al Gergawi (chairman of the high-tech Mecca gathering – World Government Summit in Dubai), and Marina Kolesnik (Russia/Ukraine) as well as a “generous” contribution from the World Economic Forums Center for the Fourth Industrial Revolution.

Ali Baba developed Chinas Social Credit System through their subsidiary Ant Group whereas Microsoft promotes Digital ID in the ID2020 Alliance together with GAVI – The Vacccine Alliance and the ever so present Rockefeller Foundation.

United Nations seems to have hired a gang of robbers to manage the bank. These are the “trustees of the material universe for future generations” as stated in the global business elites’ Davos Manifesto from 1973.

Why on Earth would these “enlightened custodians” reverse a development that has put more power and wealth into their hands?

And now our “generous” tech billionaires are heading for Outer Space. The last Policy Brief (The Future of Outer Space Governance) formulates the grand vision to reestablish a presence on the moon with a way station (Lunar Gateway) and the development of a base at the south pole of the Moon as well as conducting a manned mission to the red planet (Elon Musk’s SpaceX).

These are old fantasies from the late 1940s that never seem to materialise. But their “space-based opportunities” also highlight the “important link between outer space and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development” with the importance of satellite surveillance to “track deforestation, monitor protected areas for illegal poaching and fishing and assess biodiversity changes” as well as track our every move through the global navigation satellite systems.

As WEF-trustee and Climate Prophet/Profiteer Al Gore proclaimed with a giggle in the commercial for his satellite surveillance project Climate Trace“And most importantly… NO MORE HIDING”.

Are these people insane? How can the construction of a digital world brain really contribute to a greener and healthier planet?

Wouldn’t it be a more efficient measure to secure peace and the environment on this planet if this megalomaniac elite were sent on a one way mission to Mars?

0. Introduction: “Our Common Agenda” – Multilateralism With Teeth


Connect with Jacob Nordangard, Ph.D.

Cover image credit: geralt

WHO Launches New “Digital Health Initiative”

WHO Launches New “Digital Health Initiative”
Chalk up another “I told you so” for the Conspiracy Theorists. 

by Kit Knightly, OffGuardian
June 8, 2023


On Monday, the World Health Organization and European Union announced the launch of their new “partnership”, building on the EU’s “highly successful” digital certification network, which was introduced during the “pandemic”.

From the WHO’s website [emphasis added]:

WHO will take up the European Union (EU) system of digital COVID-19 certification to establish a global system that will help facilitate global mobility

This would be those digital health passports that “conspiracy theorists” warned about, but which we were all told weren’t ever going to be a thing.

This isn’t about “Covid” anymore, WHO Chairman Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said as much in his statement on the launch, and it’s again made clear on the website, which repeatedly underlines the supposed purpose of the initiative:

  • [To] protect citizens across the world from on-going and future health threats, including pandemics
  • [To] enhance strategic cooperation on global health issues
  • [To] help strengthen global health preparedness in the face of growing health threats
  • [To] to deliver better health for citizens across the globe

What are these “health threats”? Well, they quite intentionally don’t say, but we can all make pretty good guesses. Climate change, obviously. Obesity seems pretty likely, poverty, overpopulation …and as many more as they choose.

– That’s the whole point of the open-ended wording, you can adapt it as you go.

Anyway, it won’t just be about about Covid passports, again as the conspiracy theorists predicted. But, more than that, it won’t even just be passports…

This is the first building block of the WHO Global Digital Health Certification Network (GDHCN) that will develop a wide range of digital products to deliver better health for all.

They are delightfully vague about what exactly these other “digital products” might be, how much they are going to cost global taxpayers, and just how many of our rights we’ll be required to forfeit in the name of a “healthy” planet (although ou can read the WHO’s “Global Strategy on Digital Health” to get some rough ideas).

However, while the details are brushed over, the overall aim is pretty openly stated:

enhance strategic cooperation on global health issues […] bolster a robust multilateral system with WHO at its core, powered by a strong EU.

It’s globalism – sorry, “multilateralism”.

Globalism has been the end game since the pandemic started. Hence the Pandemic Treaty, the new IHR regulations all that fun stuff. One world government (or maybe two world governments, if the New Cold War plays out as expected), installed in the name of public health.

Note that this launch lines up with a lot of “coincidental” domestic political movements from around the world.

For example, in the US they are set to vote on the “Improving Digital Identity Act”, which would require digital ID to do…pretty much everything.

In Canada major corporations are uniting to embrace digital ID as a key part of Agenda 2030 and “sustainable development goals”.

In the UK Sir Keir Starmer has promised a “totally digital NHS” under the next Labour government.

In essence, each country – for notionally different reasons, and supposedly independently of their own free will – are all going to develop a digital ID/health passport system at exactly the same time, and while working with the WHO to ensure “interoperability”.

Therein lies the plausible deniability. See, it won’t be one global health and surveillance system! No, it will be 100+ different “interoperable” systems…that just happened by chance to all be conceived and built at the same time along the same guidelines.

A distinction good enough to fuel the inevitable defenses from corporate fact-checkers even if it can’t fool anyone else.

However, all that aside, the most interesting part of this story is where you read about it.

Viz – the back pages.

At the height of the pandemic, this would be big news, maybe breaking news in big red letters. There’d be op-eds in all the major outlets celebrating the move, accompanied by “fact checks” with headlines like “No, global digital passports doesn’t mean one world government”.

Now, if you’re not following certain social media accounts or regularly checking the news cycles for quite specific terms, you’d never have heard about this. It’s not even mentioned in any mainstream news site I’ve read.

Resistance has pushed the New Normal narrative out of the limelight, to be replaced by war porn, Trump, illegal immigrants or Harry and Meghan.

You’re all being encouraged to think the Great Reset was a flash in the pan, the New Normal just an old joke. 2020 was just a bad dream & now everything is back to normal & Left versus Right, East versus West…

But no. This is the last reel of the scary movie. The demon seems to be exorcised, the danger looks like it’s over and the heroine has gone to take a bath, unaware of what’s creeping slowly toward her from the shadows.

The Great Reset is still very much alive, but your resistance temporarily shut it down, so it’s changed its tactic. It was overt. Now it’s covert. Now it’s hoping to sneak in while you’re not looking and snatch you up and swallow you down before you even know what’s happening.

It’s incredibly important you don’t let that happen.

So – wake up, and wake other people up. Shake them. Yell at them. Get them to look over their shoulder at the big rough beast slouching toward Bethlehem – so we can try to stop it being born.


Connect with OffGuardian

Cover image based on creative commons work of: CDD20

‘Death Sentence for Millions’: WHO, EU Launch New Global Vaccine Passport Initiative

‘Death Sentence for Millions’: WHO, EU Launch New Global Vaccine Passport Initiative
Technology expert Michael Rectenwald, Ph.D., told The Defender that, under the guise of preserving freedom, a digital passport system “means restraints on movement and living for the unvaccinated and forced vaccination to participate in life.”

by Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D., The Defender
June 6, 2023


The World Health Organization (WHO) and the European Commission — the executive branch of the European Union (EU) — on Monday launched a “landmark digital health partnership” marking the beginning of the WHO Global Digital Health Certification Network (GDHCN) to promote a global interoperable digital vaccine passport.

Beginning this month, the WHO will adopt the EU’s system of digital COVID-19 certification “to establish a global system that will help facilitate global mobility and protect citizens across the world from on-going and future health threats, including pandemics,” according to Monday’s announcements by the WHO and the European Commission.

The WHO and European Commission claim the GDHCN initiative, which has been in the works since 2021, “will develop a wide range of digital products to deliver better health for all.”

The organizations said the WHO will not collect individuals’ personal data via these digital passports — stating that such data collection “would continue to be the exclusive domain of governments.”

WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus lauded the new agreement:

“Building on the EU’s highly successful digital certification network, WHO aims to offer all WHO Member States access to an open-source digital health tool, which is based on the principles of equity, innovation, transparency and data protection and privacy.

“New digital health products in development aim to help people everywhere receive quality health services quickly and more effectively.”

However, experts who spoke with The Defender said the ramifications of such a system for human liberty and freedom of movement raised concerns.

Independent journalist James Roguski told The Defender the WHO is not waiting for a successful conclusion of these negotiations in order to implement initiatives such as a global digital vaccine passport. He said:

“The announcement by the WHO and the European Commission regarding the launch of their digital health partnership was hardly a surprise. Over a month ago, the WHO quietly published that they were working on ‘operationalizing’ the very things that were being ‘negotiated.’

“This is just one example that clearly shows that the super-secret ‘negotiations’ regarding the International Health Regulations (IHR) are a charade.”

Michael Rectenwald, Ph.D., author of “Google Archipelago: The Digital Gulag and the Simulation of Freedom,” told The Defender that, under the guise of preserving freedom, a digital passport system “means restraints on movement and living for the unvaccinated and forced vaccination to participate in life.”

The announcement of the WHO-European Commission collaboration came just days after the conclusion of the WHO’s annual World Health Assembly (WHA).

While the pandemic treaty and IHR amendments were not finalized at this year’s meeting, high-level WHO officials warned of the risk of a future pandemic and spread of a deadly “Disease X,” and expressed the need to “restrict personal liberties” during a future health emergency.

The EU has been a strong proponent of digital vaccine passports, first launched for its member states in late 2020 — concurrent with the introduction of the COVID-19 vaccines — under the name “Green Pass.” The EU’s experience with the digital passes is noted in Monday’s announcement, which states:

“One of the key elements in the European Union’s work against the COVID-19 pandemic has been digital COVID-19 certificates. To facilitate free movement within its borders, the EU swiftly established interoperable COVID-19 certificates.

“Based on open-source technologies and standards it allowed also for the connection of non-EU countries that issue certificates … becoming the most widely used solution around the world.”

Roguski told The Defender the EU also was among the strongest proponents of vaccine passports during ongoing negotiations for the WHO’s “pandemic treaty” and amendments to the IHR.

“They really want the global digital health certificate,” Roguski told The Defender in March. “Primarily, that’s coming from the European Union.”

‘Pandemic passports a death sentence for millions’

According to Roguski, the EU, during negotiations for the IHR amendments, put forth proposals that seek to “‘normalize’ the implementation of a global digital health certificate.”

The Czech Republic called for Passenger Locator Forms “containing information concerning traveller’s destination,” preferably in digital form, for the purpose of contact tracing.

They also proposed that the WHO’s Health Assembly “may adopt, in cooperation with the International Civil Aviation Organization [ICAO] … and other relevant organisations, the requirements that documents in digital or paper form shall fulfill with regard to interoperability of information technology platforms, technical requirements of health documents, as well as safeguards to reduce the risk of abuse and falsification.”

The WHO lists ICAO as an officially recognized “stakeholder.”

The Czech Republic and the EU proposed documentation not just for vaccination, but “test certificates and recovery certificates” in cases “where a vaccine or prophylaxis has not yet been made available for a disease in respect of which a public health emergency of international concern has been declared.”

Plans for the WHO’s GDHCN have been in the works since at least August 2021, when the WHO released a document titled “Digital documentation of COVID-19 certificates: vaccination status: technical specifications and implementation guidance, 27 August 2021.”

The GDHCN framework made its way onto the agenda of this year’s WHA, which stated:

“The Secretariat has developed SMART (Standards-based, Machine-readable, Adaptive, Requirements-based, and Testable) Guidelines on the digital documentation of COVID-19 certificates, comprising recommendations on the data, digital functionality, ethics, and trust architecture needed to ensure the interoperability of immunization and health records globally.”

The WHO also announced the successful completion of a “technical feasibility study for establishing a federated global trust network, which tested the ability to interoperate the health content and trust networks across existing regional efforts.”

EU officials have frequently praised themselves over the launch of the bloc’s “Green Pass,” touting how individuals’ privacy would be protected on the app. The introduction of the “Green Pass” was accompanied by statements by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen calling for a “discussion” on mandatory vaccinations in the EU.

One of the EU’s stated priorities as part of its 2019-2024 five-year plan is to create a “Digital Identity for all Europeans.” Namely, each EU citizen and resident would have access to a “personal digital wallet,” which would include national ID cards, birth and medical certificates, and drivers’ licenses.

These proposals and initiatives appear to be closely aligned with the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and in particular, Target 16.9, which calls for the provision of a digital legal identity for all, including newborns, by 2030.

Tedros said the SDGs are “our north star,” while addressing this year’s WHA.

Rectenwald called “pandemic passports” a “death sentence for millions.” He told The Defender:

“Despite the studies demonstrating that vaccines to curb pandemics have been deadly and useless, the WHO is doubling down on vaccine mandates.

“Pandemic passports equal a death sentence for millions and the abrogation of rights for the non-compliant. The WHO should be stopped before it completes the construction of a global totalitarian system.”


Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D., based in Athens, Greece, is a senior reporter for The Defender and part of the rotation of hosts for CHD.TV’s “Good Morning CHD.”


This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense

Connect with Children’s Health Defense


Unveiling the Privacy Perils of Amazon Sidewalk

Unveiling the Privacy Perils of Amazon Sidewalk

by Neil Radimaker, The Conscious Resistance
May 26, 2023


In a time where technology continues to shape our lives, the emergence of Amazon Sidewalk has ignited a fervent debate about the balance between convenience and privacy. As an independent investigator, I feel compelled to understand the deep complexities and potential dangers of this pervasive network. This investigative report aims to shed light on the surveillance capabilities, coverage area, and the undisclosed collaborations surrounding Amazon Sidewalk.

Amazon Sidewalk, is a shared network launched by Amazon, promising to enhance the functionality of devices like Amazon Echo devices, Ring Security Cams, outdoor lights, motion sensors, and Tile trackers. It extends their working range and helps them perform better both at home and beyond the front door. However, the very features that make it appealing also raise serious concerns about privacy and surveillance.

One-sided PR Video: About Amazon Sidewalk and how Semtech’s LoRa® technology plays a critical role (Published: March of 2023).

This report is a culmination of research, analysis, and critical thinking, and it is my hope that it serves as a catalyst for informed conversations and collective action.

Unveiling the Dangers of Amazon Sidewalk’s Surveillance Capabilities

In this digital age, where connectivity and smart devices have become ubiquitous, a new level of surveillance has emerged, blurring the boundaries between public and private spaces. Amazon Sidewalk stands at the forefront of these intrusive surveillance networks. In this report, we dive into the alarming dangers posed by these surveillance capabilities and the implications for personal privacy and autonomy.

Audio and Video Intrusion:

One of the most concerning aspects of Amazon Sidewalk is its ability to intrude into our private spaces without our explicit consent or knowledge. By silently capturing seamless audio and video data through devices like Ring cameras, Amazon Echo and other compatible smart home technologies. Sidewalk has the potential to turn every room of our homes into a watchful eye, constantly recording and analyzing our activities. This level of surveillance undermines the sanctity of our personal lives and raises questions about the boundaries of consent and individual autonomy.

Integration with Facial Recognition:

One of the most controversial aspects of Amazon Sidewalk’s privacy invasion potential is its integration with facial recognition technology. By combining video surveillance with facial recognition algorithms, Sidewalk will have the capacity to identify individuals and track their movements with alarming accuracy. Individuals can be identified and monitored, alerting officials when a person designated as “suspicious” is caught on camera.

Behavior Profiling:

By collecting a vast amount of data about our daily routines, habits, and preferences, Amazon Sidewalk has the potential to construct detailed profiles of individuals. Through sophisticated algorithms and data analysis, Sidewalk can track our movements, monitor our online activities, and even make inferences about our behaviors and interests. This level of profiling creates a comprehensive digital portrait, encroaching upon our autonomy and raising concerns about potential manipulation or discrimination.

Room Mapping and Blueprinting: 

Amazon’s acquisition of iRobot, the maker of Roomba raises concerns about data sharing and collaboration with Amazon Sidewalk. The Roomba’s advanced features, including its mapping and blueprinting capabilities, introduce interesting privacy implications. With data collection and the ability to gather detailed information about our home layouts and furnishings. The Roomba can also silently record audio and video, analyzing our activities, intruding into our most private spaces.

Overlap of Coverage Reach:

Amazon Sidewalk’s extensive network coverage raises concerns about the widespread surveillance it enables. With a vast number of interconnected devices, this creates an overlapping network of surveillance that spans entire neighborhoods and public spaces. This level of coverage infringes upon our very sense of privacy, as our movements and activities can be captured and monitored from various angles and locations privately and publicly. Amazon Sidewalk’s ambition is to establish a nationwide network, the company currently claims it now provides coverage to over 90% of the U.S. population, including those who live in moderately rural areas.

Unregulated Data Collection:

The vast amount of data collected by Amazon Sidewalk raises significant concerns about its storage, usage, and potential for misuse. With access to intimate details of our lives, including our daily routines, social interactions, and even sensitive information, the potential for abuse or unauthorized access to this data is alarming. The lack of clear regulations and safeguards heightens the risks associated with such uncontrolled data collection.

The Partnership Between Amazon, Law Enforcement and Federal Agencies:

Amazon Ring’s partnership with local law enforcement agencies has raised significant privacy concerns. The doorbell-camera company has established video-sharing partnerships with more than 400 police forces across the United States, potentially granting them access to homeowners’ camera footage. This partnership allows police to request video recorded by homeowners’ cameras within a specific time and area, aiding officers in viewing footage from the company’s millions of Internet-connected cameras installed nationwide.

While homeowners can decline these requests, the number of police deals is likely to fuel broader questions about privacy, surveillance, and the expanding reach of tech giants and local police. Legal experts and privacy advocates have voiced alarm about the company’s ambitions and its increasingly close relationship with police, arguing that the program could threaten civil liberties, turn residents into informants, and subject innocent people, including those who Ring users have flagged as “suspicious,” to greater surveillance and potential risk.

Currently, law enforcement can request footage from Ring cameras through the Neighbors app, but homeowners have the right to refuse. If the footage is deemed critical, officers can seek a search warrant or court order to force Ring to release the footage, regardless of the homeowner’s objections. There have however been cases where Ring did not require the use of a warrant or court order to release the footage to law enforcement. This effectively transforms private security systems into tools for law enforcement. Ring’s collaboration with law enforcement has been criticized for potentially fostering racial profiling and eroding community trust.

The high-resolution cameras can capture detailed images not only of the owner’s doorstep but also of neighboring houses down the street. Some officers have confessed to looking for Ring doorbells while investigating crimes or canvassing neighborhoods, in case they need to resort to legal maneuvers to obtain the video without the homeowner’s consent.

As concerns regarding the privacy and security implications of Amazon Sidewalk continue to grow, it becomes imperative to examine the collaborations and deals with federal agencies.

Reports have surfaced indicating that Amazon has entered into collaborations with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). The exact nature and scope of this collaboration remain undisclosed, but it has raised concerns about the potential access and sharing of data between Amazon Sidewalk and the FBI. The implications of such a partnership on surveillance capabilities and the handling of user data warrant further investigation and scrutiny.

While the specifics are shrouded in secrecy, there have been many reports talking about the working relationship between Amazon and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). In fact, a $600 million computing cloud was developed by Amazon Web Services for the CIA. This cloud is intended to service all the agencies that make up the intelligence community, ushering in a new era of cooperation and coordination. The cloud allows agencies within the intelligence community to order a variety of on-demand computing and analytic services from the CIA and National Security Agency.

Final thoughts from the author:

For all intents and purposes, the “Total Information Network” is here. Amazon Sidewalk fits the description of a comprehensive surveillance system that extensively monitors, tracks, and collects all data on a large scale. This network leverages advanced technologies, such as surveillance cameras, facial recognition software, data analytics algorithms, and interconnected databases, to gather and analyze vast amounts of information about individuals. Consequently, it creates a surveillance state that encroaches upon the existence of personal privacy, granting authorities and centralized entities unparalleled access to individuals’ activities, behaviors, and personal data. In many ways, it resembles a magnified version of the dystopian surveillance depicted in George Orwell’s “1984.” This is now reality.

This type of information network should raise major concerns. It is very similar to the ideals and unethical principles of past oppressive regimes, who created extensive lists of individuals for surveillance and control. The collection of personal information within such a network creates a potential for retrospective use against people in the future.

Just as the Stasi meticulously documented citizens’ activities and associations, and the Nazis compiled lists to target specific groups, this comprehensive surveillance system enables authorities to retrospectively identify and target individuals based on their past actions, beliefs, or affiliations. This poses a grave risk to personal freedom, as historical data can be weaponized to persecute, discriminate against, marginalize, and even murder individuals through the acts of democide and genocide.

The lessons from history remind us of the importance of guarding against the misuse of personal information and protecting individual rights, even as technology advances and surveillance capabilities expand.

It is my hope that this report sparks meaningful conversations and prompts individuals, communities, and policymakers to question the balance between connectivity and privacy. The path forward requires a collaborative effort, with individuals, advocacy groups, and policymakers working together to shape regulations and guidelines that prioritize privacy, autonomy, and consent. It is only through vigilant and educated learning that we can navigate the complexities of the digital age and ensure the protection of our fundamental rights and freedoms.



    1. The Atlantic: The Details About the CIA’s Deal With Amazon
    2. The Register: ACLU: Amazon’s Rekognition raises profound civil liberties concerns
    3. The Washington Post: Doorbell-camera firm Ring has partnered with 400 police forces, extending surveillance concerns
    4. Popular Science: Amazon Sidewalks Privacy Concerns
    5. The Verge: Amazon Sidewalk Privacy Echo Ring Smart Home
    6. Business Insider: Amazon Sidewalk Raises Privacy Concerns Ahead Launch Experts
    7. CPO Magazine: Amazon Sidewalks Smart Neighborhood Vision Raises Serious Privacy Concerns
    8. Consumer Reports: Pros and Cons of Amazon Sidewalk Network Plus How to Opt Out
    9. HackRead: Critical Vulnerability Amazon Ring Camera Record
    10. Wired: Ring Doorbell Camera Amazon Privacy
    11. Komando: Roomba Security Tips
    12. EFF: Ring Reveals They Give Videos Police Without User Consent or Warrant
    13. New York Post: Employees at Amazon’s Ring Have Been Spying on Customers
    14. The Guardian: Amazon Ring Largest Civilian Surveillance Network US
    15. Amazon Sidewalk Website
    16. Amazon Sidewalk White-paper
    17. AWS IoT Core Features
    18. Amazon Conditions of Use
    19. Amazon.com Privacy Notice


Neil Radimaker is a Reporter, Journalist, filmmaker and cinematographer, as well as the co-founder and co-creator of The Conscious Resistance Network, which is a decentralized media network focused on promoting individual freedom, peaceful resistance, and alternative solutions to mainstream problems. 


Connect with The Conscious Resistance

Cover image based on creative commons work of: TheDigitalArtist


Andrew Napolitano on Pegasus & Predator Spy Systems: The Feds and Their Copycats 

Andrew Napolitano on Pegasus & Predator Spy Systems: The Feds and Their Copycats
The Feds and Their Copycats 

by Andrew P. Napolitano, Judge Napolitano
May 18, 2023


The federal government recently revealed that at least 50 U.S. government personnel working in 10 foreign countries have had their mobile devices hacked by unknown persons who employed software known as “zero-click.” The zero-click product, called Pegasus, is manufactured by an Israeli high-tech company, called NSO Group.

Pegasus enables the user to download the contents of the target’s mobile device or desktop without having to trick the target into clicking onto a link. It also enables the user to follow the person in possession of the device, capturing all texts and emails, as well as listening to conversations on the device or that take place in near proximity to it.

Pegasus is so sophisticated that its victims are largely unaware of the digital attack on their devices. The feds learned that they have been victimized by this software when Apple informed them. Apple told the feds to expect much more of this. The feds are deeply troubled by this warning, as they don’t know who the victims are. The president himself was recently in Ireland, where his personal phone may have been targeted.

But don’t feel sorry for the feds. They have been using this software and similar products on unsuspecting Americans since the Trump administration.

Here is the backstory.

In reply to a routine Freedom of Information Act request made in 2020, the FBI acknowledged spending $5 million to license Pegasus from NSO Group. When FBI director Christopher Wray was asked about this, he reluctantly told Congress that his agents bought zero-click, but he denied its use in law enforcement. What does that mean? Isn’t the essence of the FBI’s work law enforcement?

Wray claimed that the FBI only purchased zero-click in order to reverse engineer it — basically to see how it worked. But that’s not truly why the FBI wanted Pegasus. It hoped to use the software to spy on Americans without first obtaining search warrants.

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, written in the aftermath of British searches of colonial homes not based on evidence of crimes, requires judicially issued search warrants based on probable cause of crime for all searches and seizures.

Thus, the owners and users of mobile devices and desktops — that’s nearly every American — have a privacy right in the use of their devices and in the data they have stored in them. Even a narrow interpretation of the amendment that guarantees privacy in “persons, houses, papers, and effects” must acknowledge that a computer chip — the heart of every computer — is an “effect,” and thus its owner or user enjoys privacy protection.

Protection from whom? Let’s see.

When President Joe Biden learned of the FBI’s use of Pegasus — the FBI secretly bought it during the Trump years — and the FBI’s shady explanation for its use of it, the White House announced an executive order that it claimed would prevent future use of zero-click. The Biden executive order stops the sales of Pegasus to Americans and to the government, but it does not stop the sales of all zero-clicks.

Rather than simply banning zero-click, rather than banning all warrantless searches, Biden banned only the use of one brand of zero-click software and only when it has also been used by foreign governments to target the U.S. government, when it is under the control of a foreign government, when it has been used to target the freedom of expression of foreign human rights activists or when it has been used by foreign authoritarians.

What about stopping the use of zero-click by federal authoritarians? Biden banned it because of how others use it, not because, in its essence, it violates the Fourth Amendment. Quick to pick up on this, the feds quickly purchased Predator — a twin of Pegasus, made by another foreign high-tech firm, with a more benign track record of sales and use.

What good does Biden’s executive order do? Whom does it protect? The Biden executive order is Joe Biden at his worst. Claiming to deny commercial benefit to a foreign company because it also sells to bad guys but permitting another foreign company to sell functionally the same product to the feds protects no one’s Fourth Amendment rights.

When Thomas Jefferson predicted shortly before he died in 1826 that, in the long run, personal liberty would shrink and government power would grow, he could not have imagined any of this. It seems that, no matter who is in the White House and which political party controls either house of Congress, the tentacles of government reach deeper into our lives with every tick of the clock.

Is there any area of private or harmless behavior that the government leaves alone?

The government that Jefferson left us has been inverted. That government needed the permission of the voters to do nearly anything. Today, we need the permission of the government to do nearly everything. And folks under observation change on account of the observation.

Two of my closest friends — husband and wife — told me they were discussing diamond earrings on their cellphones with each other last week. Soon, ads for diamond earrings began popping up on their desktops.

This was obviously not the government, yet, government sets the tone and the standard. Federal agents use zero-click to hack into our computers because that’s a lot easier than developing probable cause of crime and presenting it to a judge. Big tech uses hacking because that’s more effective than advertising.

Now big tech targeting consumers can mimic the feds — and, like the feds, get away with it because when the government breaks its own laws, it sets a precedent for others to follow. Is this the government the Framers left us? Is it the government we voted for? What awaits us on the other side of this Orwellian landscape?

Copyright 2023 Andrew P. Napolitano


Connect with Andrew P. Napolitano

Cover image credit: geralt

TSA Pilot-Tests Controversial Facial Recognition Technology at These 16 US Airports

TSA Pilot-Tests Controversial Facial Recognition Technology at These 16 US Airports

by Tyler Durden, ZeroHedge
May 18, 2023


The next time you find yourself at airport security, prepare to look directly into a camera. The Transportation Security Administration is quietly testing controversial facial recognition technology at airports nationwide.

AP News said 16 airports, including Baltimore-Washington International Thurgood Marshall and Reagan National near Washington, as well as ones in Atlanta, Boston, Dallas, Denver, Detroit, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Miami, Orlando, Phoenix, Salt Lake City, San Jose, and Gulfport-Biloxi and Jackson in Mississippi, have installed kiosks with cameras (at some TSA checkpoints) that allow passengers to insert their government-issued ID and look into a camera as facial recognition technology asses if the ID and person match.

Here’s what to expect at airports utilizing this new technology:

Travelers put their driver’s license into a slot that reads the card or place their passport photo against a card reader. Then they look at a camera on a screen about the size of an iPad, which captures their image and compares it to their ID. The technology is both checking to make sure the people at the airport match the ID they present and that the identification is in fact real. A TSA officer is still there and signs off on the screening. -AP

“What we are trying to do with this is aid the officers to actually determine that you are who you say who you are,” said Jason Lim, identity management capabilities manager, during a recent demonstration of the technology to reporters at BWI.

TSA said the pilot test is voluntary, and passengers can opt out. The facial recognition technology has raised concerns among critics, like five senators (four Democrats and an Independent) who sent a letter in February to the TSA requesting the pilot test be halted immediately.

“Increasing biometric surveillance of Americans by the government represents a risk to civil liberties and privacy rights,” the senators said. 

The letter continued:

“We are concerned about the safety and security of Americans’ biometric data in the hands of authorized private corporations or unauthorized bad actors.

“As government agencies grow their database of identifying images, increasingly large databases will prove more and more enticing targets for hackers and cybercriminals.”

Meg Foster, a justice fellow at Georgetown University’s Center on Privacy and Technology, is concerned that even though the TSA says it’s not storing biometric data, it collects, “What if that changes in the future?”

Jeramie Scott, with the Electronic Privacy Information Center, said that even though the TSA facial recognition kiosks are being tested, it could be only a matter of time before it becomes a more permanent fixture at checkpoints.

Despite the US being a first-world country, it has third-world protections for its people. There’s an increasing number of government agencies that want your biometric data. Even the IRS wants your face.


Connect with ZeroHedge

Cover image based on creative commons work of teguhjatipras

James Corbett: Thwarting Facial Recognition

James Corbett: Thwarting Facial Recognition

by James Corbett, The Corbett Report
May 16, 2023


We all know about the danger of a future society where we’re all tracked everywhere we go every single day in real time by our phones or devices . . . but actually, it’s worse than that!

You’re already being tracked everywhere you go, every day, and it doesn’t matter whether you leave your phone at home just as long as you bring your face.

Today on #SolutionsWatch, James explores some of the options that are on the table for heading off the facial recognition dystopia.

 Watch on BitChute / Odysee / Substack  / Download the mp4

Show Notes

US police forces using controversial facial recognition technology

Why the Military Use of Clearview AI is Dangerous

Clearview AI used by US police for almost 1M searches

Clearview AI Copied 30B Images Without Users’ Permission from Social Media Sites; Customers Include “more than 3,100 US agencies”

Are you who you say you are? TSA tests facial recognition technology to boost airport security

Facewatch Gets UK Code of Practice Certification for Live Retail Facial Recognition

Iran uses new surveillance network to crack down on women not wearing a hijab

Nullification – #SolutionsWatch

Michael Maharrey on Facial Recognition Pushback

Second California Assembly Committee Passes Bill to Extend Temporary Ban on Facial Recognition with Police Body Cameras

To the Governor: Montana Passes Bill to Limit Warrantless Use of Facial Recognition Technology

Hong Kong lasers


4409 — Interview with ABC15 News: Easter Bunny eggs photo radar!

Simple Sabotage – #SolutionsWatch


Connect with James Corbett

James Corbett on Technocratic Control and the Dangers of AI

James Corbett on Technocratic Control and the Dangers of AI

by Dr. Joseph Mercola
May 14, 2023


  • Rather than squabbling about controlled opposition, we would be better served by spending our time productively engaged in research, verifying and triangulating information to discern what is true and what is false
  • “Divide and conquer” is the primary way the control network maintains control, and all that’s needed to divide a previously unified front is insinuation and the seeding of doubt
  • As AI-equipped chatbots are getting more sophisticated and start to monopolize online searches and virtual assistants, state-endorsed propaganda may become the only information available
  • Narrative is the ultimate weapon; with a convincing-enough narrative, you can motivate entire populations to go to war or anything else that you want them to do
  • One of the most important strategies you can implement to prepare yourself for the likelihood of what they plan on throwing at us next lies with community, meeting like-minded people that share your views and complement your skills. It will also be wise to relocate from high density urban areas

In this video, I interview investigative journalist James Corbett about false narratives, the global takeover by technocracy, controlled opposition and the dangers of artificial intelligence, as well as the solutions to these and other challenges.

Corbett’s journalism career began in the aftermath of 9/11, when he became “overwhelmed to discover that we are constantly lied to through the mainstream media.” 9/11 was his “red pill” moment, and he hasn’t stopped digging for the truth since.

“The discrepancy between the things that I was finding online versus what was being reported on the evening news just started getting wider and wider,” he says, “to the point where I felt that … I had to insert myself in that conversation. So that’s the reason we’re talking today.”

In 2007, Corbett launched his website, CorbettReport.com. One of his hallmarks, both in his documentaries and regular reports, is impeccable citations of sources.

“I always put up the transcript with the hyperlinks to the source documents for every single quotation, every video clip, everything that I’m playing,” he says. “I want to direct people back to the source material so that they can research it for themselves.

I know, as a researcher myself who does this for a living, that’s incredibly valuable. I very much appreciate it when other people do it, so I’m trying to set that example in the alternative media.”

Can the Global Takeover Be Derailed?

Corbett is also featured on “Good Morning CHD” with Dr. Meryl Nass once a month, an online news show by Children’s Health Defense.

“It’s a valuable way, for both of us, to continue keeping our eye on the ball of the World Health Organization and its latest machinations … of the global pandemic treaty and the international health regulations (IHR) amendments that they’re working on right now, which really could be the hardwiring of the biosurveillance infrastructure,” Corbett says.

When asked whether he believes the pandemic treaty and/or the IHR amendments can be stopped, Corbett replies:

“Well, they are planning on unleashing the global pandemic treaty on the world at the World Health Assembly (WHA) next year, May of 2024. And preparatory to that, they’re going to be holding a World Health Assembly this month, at which they’ll be talking about the draft of the treaty and the draft of the IHR amendments and other such developments.

So, we’re looking at about a one-year timeline before whatever it is they’re cooking up will be foisted upon the world, unless there is some dramatic movement to stop that.

In the short run, it seems unlikely that the incredible institutional momentum is going to be derailed, but having said that, we could look at things that have happened in the past that have completely derailed agendas that seemed inevitable, including the 2009 edition of the UNFCCC, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

In 2009, the UNFCCC was being promoted and hyped — even by the then-president of the EU — as the potential for world government through a new climate accord that would completely rewrite the international rule books.

That was completely derailed by a couple of interesting incidents, one of which was Climategate … Squabbles between some of the developing nations versus the developed world … [also] helped to derail that 2009 conference.

There’s potentially a similar thing happening [now] with the WHO trying to foist regulations and restrictions on developing countries that can’t afford them. As we saw over the course of the past few years, it was the African countries that held out against the biosecurity state agenda, to a large degree.

And I think people who are interested in invoking a global biosecurity surveillance net probably are most concerned about how developing countries will or will not participate in this. So, there may be a similar sort of geo-economic squabbling or something else that might derail this, so I don’t think we should simply consign ourselves to the inevitability of it before it happens.”

Is Elon Musk Controlled Opposition?

Determining the trustworthiness of people within the alternative news space is a challenge everyone is faced with these days. Accusations of people being controlled opposition are common. The same goes for high-profile individuals in general. For example, some people, including Corbett and investigative journalist Whitney Webb, believe Elon Musk is likely controlled opposition. What led them to that conclusion?

“It’s a question that a lot of people have, so let’s dig into it,” Corbett says. On the one side you have people who believe Musk is exposing and undermining the military industrial intelligence complex. On the other are those who think he’s just playing a “good guy” role while surreptitiously furthering Deep State goals. As noted by Corbett, it’s hard to overlook the massive support Musk has received from the military industrial intelligence complex over the course of his career.

“We don’t have to speculate about that,” Corbett says. “That is a matter of public record. We can point to the half a billion dollars or so that the Department of Defense has awarded SpaceX in a series of contracts over the past few years to send satellites up into orbit of classified nature on unregistered, unreported missions that presumably have something to do with the DOD’s declared intention to make space into a war-fighting domain.

There’s the $3 billion in NASA contracts that SpaceX was awarded in 2021 to develop the human lander for the Artemis Mission, and the never-going-to-happen constantly delayed moon trip that the public is being promised. There’s the $750 million that was awarded to Solar City in 2016 by the state of New York to build a solar cell production facility.

This, again, is another aspect of the business opportunities that Musk is involved in that I think shrieks of grift — a boondoggle at the very least, constantly promising a technology that not only doesn’t deliver but actually is actively harmful to the environment. I think that’s something that needs to be stressed.

Then, there’s the $1.3 billion that Tesla got from the State of Nevada in 2014 to build the Gigafactory, etc., etc., etc. We could go through the list of such help, but perhaps more to the point was the fact that before Elon Musk got to launch SpaceX, he was part of a trip to Russia … to purchase old Soviet ICBMs [intercontinental ballistic missiles]. That trip ultimately resulted in the starting of SpaceX.

Who was accompanying Elon Musk on that trip? Someone named Mike Griffin, who just happened to be the chief operating officer of In-Q-Tel, which is the CIA’s investment capital arm …

Griffin went on to become the administrator of NASA, who then chose SpaceX as the one company out of the 20 that was applying for it at the time, for this $400 million contract to start development of the new ISS resupply rocket in 2005, which basically launched SpaceX … and again awarded SpaceX $3.5 Billion in 2008 with a contract that Musk himself credits with saving the company.

So, there you go, the literal deep state connections couldn’t get much clearer. At every stage of Musk’s business career, he has been saved as need be with the deus ex machina of deep state agents like Mike Griffin swooping in with billions of dollars of contracts at just the right time.”

That’s why Elon Musk’s Twitter takeover and the release of the Twitter Files may seem to be a move against the military-industrial complex, but given Musk’s documentable ties to that very same military-industrial complex, we must be wary of placing faith in these developments.

After all, Twitter is a centralized platform that lends itself to censorship, algorithmic manipulation and information suppression, and Musk has openly stated that he wants to create a “WeChat”-like app capable of handling every aspect of its users’ digital life.

Why Did Musk Release the Twitter Files?

Corbett suggests that the best way to evaluate Musk’s ideas and contributions is to assess their outcomes.

“Is what Elon Musk advocating good or bad? Do we agree with it or do we disagree with it? Is it right or wrong? And why do we think so? That has to be the heart that we keep coming back to. So, we have to evaluate Musk’s ideas on that basis,” he says.

“For example, there are ideas that Musk promotes that I am 100% onboard with. He has talked about the overpopulation myth and the under-population crisis that humanity is facing. I very much agree with him on that assessment. When he talks about the ill effects of lockdowns … absolutely, I think he’s right about that.

However, when he talks about the imposition of a carbon tax in line with Bill Gates and Mark Carney and the like, I think he’s pushing a bad idea that is part of a plan for centralization of control in globalist hands.

When he gets on the stage of the World Government Summit and argues for universal basic income, again in line with any number of globalist operatives, I think he is promoting an idea that will be used for centralization of economic control in fewer hands.

When he talks about the … Neuralink brain chip … [he’s] exactly in line with what [World Economic Forum founder] Klaus Schwab has been arguing … I think that is a bad idea that is going to be used for control of the masses by a technocratic elite.”

As for Musk’s acquisition of Twitter and subsequent release of the Twitter Files, Corbett doesn’t think it’s a great surprise to find that the military industrial intelligence complex has been using it to monitor and manipulate people. He believes Musk’s job may well be to make the platform trustworthy again so that government agencies can continue using it for surveillance and control.

There’s other evidence pointing in this direction as well. Musk has said he wants Twitter to become the WeChat app of America. And what is WeChat? It’s a Chinese government-controlled app that monitors every aspect citizens’ lives, including their financial transactions, social transactions, communications, whereabouts and more.

It’s basically the foundation for the communist social credit system. So, while Musk claims to be a defender of free speech, he’s also talking about turning Twitter into THE central hub for the technocratic surveillance and control network.

Stop Looking for a Savior

As noted by Corbett, what we need to do is “take responsibility for our own lives rather than looking for saviors like Elon Musk to swoop in and save the day.” We can’t lay that burden on any given individual or group of individuals. We must all do our part.

“I think the conversation can get stuck on stupid because even though I tend to believe that Musk is some form of collaborator with the deep state that he pretends to oppose, I don’t have proof of that and I do not know that for a fact, in the same way that his defenders do not know for a fact that he is not part of that controlled opposition,” Corbett says.

“We can spend all our time and energy talking about this person and what we think their part is in all of this, or we could spend that time productively engaged in research, actually verifying, triangulating information, discerning what is true and what is not true.

When we take information down to that level, then it does not matter who is the person out there conveying that information to us. The important part is the information.”

It’s also important to understand that “divide and conquer” is the primary way the control network maintains control, and all that’s needed to divide a previously unified front is insinuation and the seeding of doubt. In the short-term, the globalist takeover seems to have an unstoppable momentum behind it, but seemingly inevitable moves toward tyranny have been derailed at the last minute in the past and we must not give up hope or stop resisting. As explained by Corbett:

“The term cognitive infiltration goes back to Cass Sunstein, the person who became Obama’s information czar … He co-wrote a paper about cognitive infiltration in which he openly stated:

‘The government maybe should send people into conspiracy spaces, conspiracy groups, with cognitive infiltrators who will go in there and conceal their identity as being affiliated with the government, but will try to insert facts that will break the narrative of the conspiracy theorists.’

And what was the result of that paper? Rather than anyone having been exposed as being that cognitive infiltrator on the payroll of the U.S. government, what it effectively did was give people ammunition to speculate endlessly.

‘This person is a cognitive infiltrator, that person is a cognitive infiltrator,’ to the point where, ultimately, I think Sunstein wins without even necessarily having to implement that system at all, because … the group fractures once the idea of pointing fingers at everyone becomes the norm …

That is, in fact, precisely how the FBI’s COINTELPRO program worked back in the 1950s and ’60s … One of the tactics they used was to put people into meetings in various spaces, the Black Panthers and others, in order to start spreading rumors and calling other people government agents.

The government agents were generally the ones that we’re calling other people government agents in order to disrupt the groups, so I think we have to keep that in mind and keep our eye on the real prize here, which is discerning fact from fiction, truth from falsity, productive ways forward from unproductive ways forward.”

ChatGPT and the Future of Propaganda

I’ve often marveled at the effectiveness of modern propaganda. Part of what makes it so effective is the availability of technology, from social media and search engines to large language model artificial intelligence. OpenAI’s ChatGPT has taken the world by storm and companies across a range of industries are already talking about replacing large numbers of white collar workers with AI.

This, even though there are serious problems with this technology. For example, we’re finding chatbots have a tendency to lie and fantasize. Researchers are calling these instances “hallucinations.” Basically, the AI is concocting a fantasy based on the information available and reciting it as fact. And that’s in addition to the bias that can be built in by programmers. So, while it’s an incredibly exciting technology, we cannot be naïve about its risks.

One obvious risk is that state-endorsed propaganda can become the only information available to people, as this technology starts monopolizing online searches and virtual assistants.

There won’t be a multitude of answers anymore. There will only be one, and he who controls the AI will have the power to control the beliefs of the entire world. Of course, yet another risk is that no one will be able to control it and the AI will control itself. I don’t know which might be worse. Corbett comments:

“You introduced this topic with the concept of propaganda and potential uses of large language models for propagandistic purposes. We should go back to the man who wrote the book on propaganda called ‘Propaganda,’ Edward Bernays, who [said]:

‘The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government, which is the true ruling power of our country.’

That was Edward Bernays in 1928. His words are as true today as they were then, perhaps even more so. And the true ruling power of the country, of the world at this point perhaps, are those who can most effectively, consciously and intelligently manipulate the organized habits and opinions of the masses.

And I don’t think enough people have really stopped to cogitate on the fact that these large language models already starting to produce material that really cannot be distinguished from human-written material …

You don’t have to be a crystal ball prognosticator to see how this will extend out in the foreseeable future … [to] the point where you can have entire conversations, entire fields of interest and study that will be completely populated by artificial-created conversation …

A large language model that is able to accurately and without much prompting be able to populate botnets to flood social media and other places will essentially be able to dominate that conversation, [and] will consciously and intelligently manipulate the habits and opinions of the masses. At that point, you are talking about the ultimate weapon.

The ultimate weapon is narrative, because with a convincing-enough narrative, you can get entire populations motivated to war or to anything else that you seek to get them to do, like say lock down the entire productive global economy on the back of a scare that was absolutely not warranted.

So, I think once we start getting these completely synthetically-generated narratives, that will start creating these entire events that are not happening in the real world. [These events] will be deep-faked through video and audio and everything else, to convince you of an entire reality that doesn’t exist.

We are really moving into some truly world historical changing times and I don’t know if enough people are really cognizant of … how this technology could be used for good or for ill …

I think there is a real threat, and it is probably underappreciated by a large section of the public that are not keeping abreast of the daily torrent of information on this subject … Some of the testing notes for ChatGPT-4 that were released showed there was a team that was tasking the chatbot with a certain task that would require it to do things that it was not programmed to do, or even authorized to do, including solving a CAPTCHA …

[The chatbot] actually went on Fiverr or one of those types of platforms and recruited a human being to do it for it, to the point where the human said, ‘Why are you recruiting me to do a CAPTCHA? How do I know you’re not a bot? Ha-ha-ha.’ To which it responded, ‘I’m blind, I’m visually impaired, I can’t do it myself.’ Ultimately, it ended up getting that CAPTCHA solved.

It does not take a great degree of imagination to see where that can go. I don’t know what kind of safeguards you can program into a technology like that, other than to completely keep it firewalled off from the internet and from any other computer system that it may be able to commandeer.”

Solutions Watch

On his website, Corbett has a section called The Solutions Watch, where he proposes action steps that you can take to address a given problem, both big and small. For example, on the smaller scale, he’s discussed the importance of filtering your water, and testing your water to ensure it’s being filtered properly.

“One thing that I think is sort of the foundation upon which we will have to build any thoroughgoing answer to the problems we’re facing is creating conscious community with others,” Corbett says.

“Of course, that can take the form of online and virtual community. I’m not going to pooh-pooh or disdain that. I think it is important to know like-minded people online. But increasingly, how can we trust what we are reading, seeing or interacting with online?

I think the real point is to try to build real community with real people in the real world. That could take the form of intentional communities that are created from the ground up as a physical location that people will relocate to … but I think it is extremely difficult to do that.

But at the very least, people can and should be finding like-minded people within their geographical proximity that they can meet up with, who will be there in emergencies, hopefully. But also that they can start forming small groups, that they can start teaching each other about various things that they may know and bringing solutions to the table.

I think that can be the core basis upon which we start erecting other things, because one thing that I’ve looked at over the years are some of these big, huge issues that seem utterly overwhelming and completely impenetrable to the average person, like the fundamental fraud that underlies the economy itself is the monetary system, which for people who haven’t looked into it, the money supply itself is very much controlled, and the creation of money is a tool that is used for enslavement.

It could be used for human flourishing, but is not in our current economy. How do we possibly combat a problem as thoroughgoing as that? [Many people] I encounter online have ideas about the perfect alternative currency … but [they] haven’t convinced anyone to use it. To me, that speaks to the fundamental problem.”

Build Community and Get Out of Metropolitan Areas

At the top of Corbett’s solutions list is building parallel communities. That’s really a foundational strategy because without it, many other solutions can’t work. To that, I would add the recommendation to move out of crime-ridden urban and metropolitan areas and into areas where this kind of community-building is more likely to succeed. As noted by Corbett:

“Until you have a community of people who are going to be working together on projects like an alternative or supplemental currency system, how are you going to launch something like that in a thoroughgoing manner?

I think the core of the solutions that we’re looking for lies with community, meeting like-minded people … I’m not into this Pollyanna thinking that it’s all going to be easy. It’s an incredibly, incredibly difficult task to start creating an alternate currency, an alternate power grid and the alternate society that we need to protect ourselves, to buffer ourselves from this encroaching biosecurity, technocratic enslavement grid.

That’s a pretty tall order, and I can’t offer any assurances that it’s going to turn out all right. But I do know that if we just lay down and continue on the course that we’re on, we are hurtling towards a brick wall of extinction, essentially. I really see this as a fundamental existential question that we are facing not just on the artificial intelligence front, but also on the genomic manipulation front, on the manipulation of the food supply.

If you are what you eat, then what does it mean that they’re going to start feeding us insects and other such unpalatable items?

It is absolutely a war that is taking place on every front, all at once, and we’re not going to get through this by ourselves. Unless you are the type of person that can go out in the woods and live by yourself for decades … I don’t think you’re going to escape this all by yourself, so I think creating community is sort of the core of all solutions.”

More Information

Corbett’s reports, Solution Watch and documentaries can all be found on his website, CorbettReport.com. He also does a weekly news update series with James Evan Pilato of mediamonarchy.com, in which they examine three news stories that are either trending or have slipped beneath the radar. “We try to draw attention to them and put them in the right context,” Corbett says.


Connect with James Corbett

Connect with Dr. Joseph Mercola

Cover image credit: geralt

Government and Rule: The Bane of Humanity

Government and Rule: The Bane of Humanity

by Gary D. Barnett
May 12, 2023


“To be GOVERNED is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so. To be GOVERNED is to be at every operation, at every transaction noted, registered, counted, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, prevented, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished. It is, under pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be placed under contribution, drilled, fleeced, exploited, monopolized, extorted from, squeezed, hoaxed, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, vilified, harassed, hunted down, abused, clubbed, disarmed, bound, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, derided, outraged, dishonored. That is government; that is its justice; that is its morality.”

Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, General Idea of the Revolution in the Nineteenth Century


Properly summing up government and rule of any kind, is to accept that all government, all State force, and all authority of one over another, is an atrocious abomination against humanity. Government is the scourge of mankind, it can only exist due to force, and if any government or any rule is administered by any politician or ruler, or any of their ilk, freedom has already vanished. As Orson Scott Card so clearly explained what he had learned: “My father always said that government is like watching another man piss in your boot. Someone feels better but it certainly isn’t you.” This image is accurate, but if the free man sticks his boot up the arse of the government, he will not only feel better, he will be free.

The bottom line as I see it, is that there is no such thing as good government, benevolent government, necessary government, or protective government; there is only evil government. This is easy to understand when one simply discovers what governments cause, what they do, what they steal, who they murder, and how they hold power over all. Considering America, without government and rule, there would have been few if any wars, no government taxation, (theft) no confiscation of much of the land in this country by rule of ‘law’ and force, few if any monopolies, no mass regulation of any kind, no government prisons filled with those incarcerated for victimless crimes, no drug laws, no gun laws, and no murderous federal or state police and military. There would be no politicians, no elections, no voting for masters, no congress, no president, (king) no massive bureaucracies, no government indoctrination systems, (‘public’ schools) no republicans, no democrats, and therefore a great reduction of lies.

Without a government, the false flag inside job of September 11, 2001, would never have happened. There would never have been any Patriot Act, no war of terror by the United States, no torture program, and probably no recessions or depressions, unless they were isolated, natural, localized, and very short-lived. The housing and economic crisis beginning in 2008 would not have occurred. Stock and bond manipulation would be nearly impossible, and mass spending, currency expansion, and monetary inflation would be unheard of in an environment devoid of government.

There would be no national emergencies declared by government, so the fake ‘covid’ pandemic would never have taken place. There would never have been business closings ordered, no mask mandates, no forced home imprisonment, no curfews, no lockdowns, no ‘social distancing,’ no testing, and absolutely no required deadly poisonous bio-weapon injections purposely and unjustly called ‘vaccines.’.

There would never have been any travel restrictions, no bailouts, no mass welfare scams called ‘stimulus checks, no hyper-inflation, no poisoning of food sources, no destruction of farms and ranches, no slaughter of animals, no toxic chemical poison spraying of the atmosphere, no geo-engineering of weather and unnatural disasters, and no Trump or Biden.

There would be no debt ceiling, because there would likely be no federal or state debt. There would be no national deficit, and no unfunded liabilities. There would be little if any division among the people because most all division is caused and stoked by government. There would be no immigration problem, no fences at the borders, no ‘war on drugs,’ no drug cartels supported fully by the U.S. government and the CIA and other ‘intelligence’ services. There would be no antagonistic foreign policy, and therefore, no real risk of nuclear war with China or Russia, and no food and energy shortages caused by state thugs.

No one has any legitimate right to give authority, or assign any power of one over another, by calling it government. The very idea that one can vote to allow by proxy, the rule of the many by the few; those chosen liars and cheats called politicians, is in and of itself absurd. How can any illegitimately selected political class, the most immoral group of criminals on earth, legislate morality to others? All that government consists of, are those dregs of society seeking rule, who are given power to do things that no normal citizen has a right to do. Any who are allowed to make ‘laws’ controlling others, are automatically assuming a position above their own heinous ‘laws.’ They are only able to do this by using the resources they steal from all, to buy violent enforcers called police and military, to punish, harm, or murder, any who question or refuse their false ‘authority.’

As I have said in the past: “All those who continue to support the notion that government is necessary, all those who continue to advocate government as the only answer to societal cohesion, all those who demand that others accept government for the benefit of all, and all those dependent on rule who expect government to be their master and protector, are in essence the destroyers of liberty, and therefore they are advocates for mass slavery. There is no legitimate reasoning for such asinine behavior.”

Government can only exist when people accept that they are slaves, and allow a master to rule over them. Without this voluntary acceptance of rule, no government could ever stand. No individual or group of individuals, has any right whatsoever to rule another, and this has only been possible due to the insane mindset that is collectivism of the masses. This so-called ‘philosophy’ that is ‘collectivism,’ sets the stage for where we are today; living as slaves in a society of fools, dependent on a master’s permission to live and breathe. No freedom will ever be present, so long as any government (State) exists. This is a reality that cannot be questioned.


“Free election of masters does not abolish the masters or the slaves.”

~ Herbert Marcuse


Copyright © 2023 GaryDBarnett.com

Connect with Gary D. Barnett

Cover image credit: GDJ

REAL ID in the US: 15 Years On and Still Not in Full Effect 

REAL ID in the US: 15 Years On and Still Not in Full Effect 


“But even as of December 2022, only 17 percent of IDs in Kentucky were REAL ID compliant. The fact that the department has extended the deadline for another two years indicates a high level of non-compliance. The federal government does not want the political fallout it would face by effectively banning millions of people from domestic air travel…

The federal government’s struggle to implement REAL ID for what will be at least 17 years reveals a dirty little secret – the feds can’t do much of anything when states refuse to cooperate. This was the blueprint James Madison gave in Federalist #46 to resist “unwarrantable” or even unpopular federal acts. He said that a “refusal to cooperate with officers of the union” would create impediments and obstructions that would stymie federal actions…”


REAL ID: 15 Years On and Still Not in Full Effect 

by Mike Maharrey, Tenth Amendment Center
May 11, 2023


On this date in 2008, the REAL ID Act was supposed to go into effect.

It didn’t.

And it still isn’t in full effect to this day.

Last December, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) extended the enforcement deadline yet again for two more years, announcing it would not begin enforcing REAL ID requirements until May 2025.

In fact, the DHS has delayed the full implementation of REAL ID multiple times since Congress passed the act in 2005 with an original implementation date of May 11, 2008. Even with the federal government badgering states and using the threat of turning them into virtual no-fly zones to compel the adoption of REAL ID, the feds have found it incredibly difficult to coerce states into compliance.

The bottom line is due to intense opposition and foot-dragging by the states, REAL ID won’t be in full effect until at least 17 years after the initial implementation date – and that’s assuming the DHS doesn’t extend the deadline again.

This proves that “the Father of the Constitution” was right. Nullification works.

James Madison told us that a “refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union” would create “very serious impediments” for federal enforcement – in just a single state. If a number of states did the same, he said it “would present obstructions which the federal government would hardly be willing to encounter.”

This is exactly what has happened with REAL ID.


President George W. Bush signed the REAL ID Act into law in 2005, essentially mandating a national ID system and putting the onus of implementation on each state.

But things didn’t go smoothly from the beginning, and by any conceivable measure, the implementation of REAL ID has been an abject failure because of widespread state resistance and refusal to cooperate with the scheme.

Most states simply ignored the law, and many rebelled outright for several reasons, including privacy concerns, along with the fact that Congress didn’t provide any funding for the mandates it expects states to implement. A large number of states simply chose not to act. New Hampshire, Missouri, Maine, Oklahoma and others took things a step further, passing laws expressly prohibiting compliance with the national ID standards.

Instead of forcing the issue, the feds issued waiver after waiver.

The DHS started extending deadlines almost immediately. On January 29, 2008, the agency issued REAL ID regulations that created a gradual implementation schedule. States would have until the mandated implementation date of May 11, 2008, to become “materially” compliant with the act but could ask for an extension valid until the end of 2009. It also set a date of May 10, 2011,  for full compliance.

In December 2009, the DHS extended the date for “material compliance” because “a large majority of states and territories—46 of 56—have informed DHS that they will not be able to meet the Dec. 31 REAL ID material compliance deadline.” At the time, it left the full compliance date in place.

That date came and went. In December 2012, the DHS announced that only 13 states had met the law’s requirements and that beginning the following month, all the other states would get a deferment.

“Beginning January 15, 2013, those states not found to meet the standards will receive a temporary deferment that will allow Federal agencies to continue to accept their licenses and identification cards for boarding commercial aircraft and other official purposes.”

On and on it went, with new extensions and deferments year after year.

Ten years after its passage, more than half the states in the Union still had not complied with REAL ID. Of the 28 not in compliance, 21 had “extension waivers” until October 2016.

“There is an impasse,” Edward Hasbrouck a privacy advocate with the Identity Project told the New York Times in December 2015. “There has been a standoff for more than a decade now. The feds have limited powers to coerce the states in this case.”

In 2016, the feds ratcheted up their bullying tactics, specifically threatening to stop accepting noncompliant licenses at TSA security checkpoints. This would effectively ground travelers from states that refuse to comply with the unconstitutional national ID scheme. On Oct. 13, 2016, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) sent letters to five states denying their request for time extensions to bring their driver’s licenses in compliance with REAL ID. At the time, the DHS set a 2018 deadline but still allowed for individual state extensions.

Instead of standing their ground, politicians began to cave. Idaho reversed its ban on Real ID implementation in 2016. Oklahoma followed suit the next year. At least six other states reversed course during this time period. Missouri lifted its ban on Real ID in 2018.

With states clamoring to get compliant, the enforcement deadline was ultimately extended to October 2020 and then again to October 2021.

After almost yearly implementation delays since 2008, it appeared DHS was seriously going to start enforcing the act in 2021. But in yet another about-face in April of that year, the Department extended the October 2021 deadline to May 2023. At the time, DHS said only 43 percent of American driver’s licenses were REAL ID compliant. That percentage has likely increased in the last two years, but the DHS did not provide any compliance data in its latest extension notice.

But even as of December 2022, only 17 percent of IDs in Kentucky were REAL ID compliant. The fact that the department has extended the deadline for another two years indicates a high level of non-compliance. The federal government does not want the political fallout it would face by effectively banning millions of people from domestic air travel.

And now the deadline stands May 2025.

We’ll see how that works out.

The federal government’s struggle to implement REAL ID for what will be at least 17 years reveals a dirty little secret – the feds can’t do much of anything when states refuse to cooperate. This was the blueprint James Madison gave in Federalist #46 to resist “unwarrantable” or even unpopular federal acts. He said that a “refusal to cooperate with officers of the union” would create impediments and obstructions that would stymie federal actions.

This has certainly proved true when it comes to REAL ID.

But we also see another less pleasant reality in this saga. We can’t trust politicians to hold the line. State legislators and governors held the feds at bay for over a decade. It wasn’t until they started to cave that REAL ID gained any momentum toward implementation. And even then, the federal government has still faced a rocky road.

Ultimately, it takes public action to stop government overreach. We can’t just turn our heads and hope elected officials will do their job. That only happens when we keep the pressure on.


Connect with Tenth Amendment Center

Cover image credit: geralt

Florida Passes Bill to Ban use of a CBDC as Money in the State: Bill Now Goes to Governor to Sign

Florida Passes Bill to Ban use of a CBDC as Money in the State: Bill Now Goes to Governor to Sign

by Mike Maharrey, Tenth Amendment Center
May 2, 2023


TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (May 2, 2023) – Today, the Florida House overwhelmingly gave final approval to a bill that would ban the use of a central bank digital currency (CBDC) as money in the state.

Senate Bill 7054 (S7054) was approved for introduction in the Banking and Insurance Committee on April 11. The bill would explicitly exclude a CBDC from the definition of money in Florida, effectively banning its use as such in the state.

The bill defines central bank digital currency as a “digital medium of exchange, or digital monetary unit of account issued by the United States Federal Reserve System, a federal agency, a foreign government, a foreign central bank, or a foreign reserve system that is made directly available to a consumer by such entities” and that is “processed or validated directly by such entities.”

Under the Florida Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), “money” means a medium of exchange that is currently authorized or adopted by a domestic or foreign government. The term includes a monetary unit of account established by an intergovernmental organization or by agreement between two or more countries.”

S7054 would add “the term does not include a central bank digital currency” to that definition.

The UCC is a set of uniformly adopted state laws governing commercial transactions in the U.S. According to the Uniform Law Commission, “Because the UCC has been universally adopted, businesses can enter into contracts with confidence that the terms will be enforced in the same way by the courts of every American jurisdiction. The resulting certainty of business relationships allows businesses to grow and the American economy to thrive. For this reason, the UCC has been called ‘the backbone of American commerce.’”

If Florida enacts S7054, the UCC will no longer be uniform.

Today, the House passed S7054 by a vote of 116-1. The bill previously passed the Senate by a 34-5 vote. The legislation now goes to Gov. Ron DeSantis’s desk for his consideration. He is expected to quickly sign the bill into law.

The legislation is a companion to House Bill 7049 (H7049), sponsored by Rep. Wyman Duggan, who introduced the bill after Gov. DeSantis called for a ban on CBDC as money in the state.

“Today’s announcement will protect Florida consumers and businesses from the reckless adoption of a ‘centralized digital dollar’ which will stifle innovation and promote government-sanctioned surveillance. Florida will not side with economic central planners; we will not adopt policies that threaten personal economic freedom and security,” DeSantis said in an official statement.

Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDC)

Digital currencies exist as virtual banknotes or coins held in a digital wallet on your computer or smartphone. The difference between a central bank (government) digital currency and peer-to-peer electronic cash such as bitcoin is that the value of the digital currency is backed and controlled by the government, just like traditional fiat currency.

Government-issued digital currencies are sold on the promise of providing a safe, convenient, and more secure alternative to physical cash. We’re also told it will help stop dangerous criminals who like the intractability of cash. But there is a darker side – the promise of control.

At the root of the move toward government digital currency is “the war on cash.” The elimination of cash creates the potential for the government to track and even control consumer spending.

Imagine if there was no cash. It would be impossible to hide even the smallest transaction from the government’s eyes. Something as simple as your morning trip to Starbucks wouldn’t be a secret from government officials. As Bloomberg put it in an article published when China launched a digital yuan pilot program in 2020, digital currency “offers China’s authorities a degree of control never possible with physical money.”

The government could even “turn off” an individual’s ability to make purchases. Bloomberg described just how much control a digital currency could give Chinese officials.

The PBOC has also indicated that it could put limits on the sizes of some transactions, or even require an appointment to make large ones. Some observers wonder whether payments could be linked to the emerging social-credit system, wherein citizens with exemplary behavior are ‘whitelisted’ for privileges, while those with criminal and other infractions find themselves left out. ‘China’s goal is not to make payments more convenient but to replace cash, so it can keep closer tabs on people than it already does,’ argues Aaron Brown, a crypto investor who writes for Bloomberg Opinion.”

Economist Thorsten Polleit outlined the potential for Big Brother-like government control with the advent of a digital euro in an article published by the Mises Wire. As he put it, “the path to becoming a surveillance state regime will accelerate considerably” if and when a digital currency is issued.

In 2022, the Federal Reserve released a “discussion paper” examining the pros and cons of a potential US central bank digital dollar. According to the central bank’s website, there has been no decision on implementing a digital currency, but this pilot program reveals the idea is further along than most people realized.

What’s Next

Gov. DeSantis will have 15 days from the date S7054 is sent to his desk to sign or veto the bill.


Connect with Tenth Amendment Center

Cover image credit: geralt

Disinformation and the State: The Aptly Named RESTRICT Act

Disinformation and the State: The Aptly Named RESTRICT Act

by ,
April 21, 2023


The RESTRICT Act (Restricting the Emergence of Security Threats that Risk Information and Communications Technology Act) has recently been making the rounds in the media, and rightfully so. The act is truly terrifying, but more than the open tyranny that it would further, the act illustrates a very clear problem from the perspective of the state.

In previous eras, either formally or informally, the state exercised a great deal of control over the information available to the wider population. This is no longer the case in the present day. With the advent of the internet and the resulting decentralization of media and other channels of information, the state has had increasingly fewer options at its disposal to control information. It is very obviously afraid of losing its position as the controller of information, and the RESTRICT Act is a desperate attempt to reassert itself as such.

What’s in the Act?

At this point, most people who have been paying attention should recoil upon seeing a large acronym under the consideration of Congress. After the USA PATRIOT Act, normal people recognized that these bills of massive overreach were, to put it lightly, misnamed. But in a move of honesty, the RESTRICT Act does exactly what it says it will do should it be enacted and enforced. The Senate’s website is remarkably up-front, saying:

Vendors from the U.S. and allied countries have supplied the world’s information communications and technology (ICT) for decades. In recent years, the global ICT supply chain has changed dramatically; a number of prominent foreign vendors—many subject to the control of autocratic and illiberal governments—have gained significant market share in a variety of internet infrastructure, online communications, and networked software markets. . . . The RESTRICT Act comprehensively addresses the ongoing threat posed by technology from foreign adversaries by better empowering the Department of Commerce to review, prevent, and mitigate ICT transactions that pose undue risk, protecting the US supply chain now and into the future.

Thankfully, the state is going to defend us from information and communications technology from “autocratic and illiberal governments,” as if our own states, which locked us in our own homes, were democratic and liberal. What specifically is being targeted in the broad category of information and communications technology?

As the act has been publicly marketed, this is a move against the popular social media platform TikTok. The US government’s reasoning is simple: TikTok, and similar platforms, are owned by foreign states, and these foreign states can distribute or facilitate information that is contrary to the narratives pushed by our state.

This is an existential threat to the US government. Seeing as the goal of a state is to maintain control, as articulated by Marray Rothbard in his book Anatomy of the State, having rival states present alternative narratives to the population harms your legitimacy. This legitimacy is necessary for the state to exist. As Rothbard says of people supporting the state:

This support, it must be noted, need not be active enthusiasm; it may well be passive resignation as if to an inevitable law of nature. But support in the sense of acceptance of some sort it must be; else the minority of state rulers would eventually be outweighed by the active resistance of the majority of the public.

The state, therefore, must maintain its legitimacy to survive, and the US government is attempting just that by trying to retake control over the country’s media. As mentioned earlier, the internet rendered most of the state’s old methods of control obsolete, which is why for the last few years the US government has been on the defensive, using covert means to influence channels of information (as can be seen with the Twitter Files).

The fact that the state has had to openly announce its direct censorship and control signals the state’s weakness. If it were stronger and bolder, as it was in most of the last century, it would have just acted already and passed the action off as a mundane matter of governance. If it were on surer footing, it would have just continued its policy of covert influence. The state is threatened. It’s afraid!

In the media and wider US society, a false debate has arisen. One side is in support, and the other side rejects the RESTRICT Act as terrifyingly evil because it is consolidating power in parts of the executive branch. According to the act, the executive branch will now have the authority to

address any risk arising from any covered transaction arising from any covered transaction by any person, or with respect to any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States that the Secretary determines . . . poses an undue or unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States.

The popular opposition is claiming that this is tyrannical because the secretary of commerce is appointed only by the president and reports only to the president, making the secretary unelected and subject to no congressional oversight. This objection is approaching the truth, but it’s not quite there. This act is not bad because the person who gets to determine what is an “undue or unacceptable risk” is unaccountable and undemocratic.

The act is far worse because the state should not be deciding what is an “undue or unacceptable risk.” Should this go through, the United States will have its own censor under whom no ray of light, from wherever it may come, shall in future go unnoticed and unrecognized by the state or be divested of its possible useful effect, and it will be called the secretary of commerce.

Implications of the Act

As with everything pushed by the state, what will actually happen goes far beyond the written intentions. Just as the act nominally passed to defend our freedoms from terrorism is used to spy on millions of normal Americans, this act will control and censor far more than TikTok (which is obviously not the only foreign-owned media in this country). And this is written into the act itself, which provides, “The Secretary may undertake any other action as necessary to carry out the responsibilities under this Act that is not otherwise prohibited by law.”

Worse than just the focus on “foreign adversaries,” how long until this is applied to any media deemed adversarial? How long until this act, after being passed, is amended to crack down on “domestic adversaries” like conspiracy theorists and spreaders of “disinformation,” all of which, of course, will be determined by the state? We have every reason to believe the state will grab this power, being as these categories, deemed so by the state, threaten its legitimacy. As Rothbard wrote, “A ‘conspiracy theory’ can unsettle the system by causing the public to doubt the state’s ideological propaganda.”

Even though the advances of tyranny are now commonplace, and the continual infringement of our liberties is the norm, this blatant aggression in the form of the RESTRICT Act should not go unnoticed. Moreover, this fight should not happen on the state’s terms. The rhetoric surrounding the act focuses on TikTok and “foreign adversaries,” two subjects that are unpopular and, frankly, difficult to defend. However, defending them, or focusing on them at all, is missing the point. The state was not content with merely spying on you, restricting your commerce and production, drafting you, and forcing your children into state schools and subjecting them to who knows what.

No, the state also needs to control your information, for if the information is free, and people can research and discuss freely, the state’s legitimacy, and therefore its very existence, is threatened. As it has shown us by so openly and disgustingly lashing out, anyone who engages in the spreading of ideas outside the purview of the state, especially of ideas that correctly dismantle the legitimacy of the state, is contributing to the state’s peril. As the US government has just proven by its ugly reaction, the spreading of ideas is how we are to proceed ever more boldly against this evil.


Ryan Turnipseed is an undergraduate in economics and entrepreneurship at Oklahoma State University.


Connect with Mises Institute

Cover image credit: TheDigitalArtist

James Corbett: Your Guide to 5th-Generation Warfare

James Corbett: Your Guide to 5th-Generation Warfare


“A war that is taking place everywhere on the globe, even as I speak, and that involves virtually everyone on the planet, young and old, male and female, military and civilian. It is the war of every government against its own population and every international institution against free humanity.”


“Neurological Warfare…

“These include (in Giordano’s well-rehearsed patter) the ‘drugs, bugs, toxins and devices’ that can either enhance or disrupt the cognitive functions of their target, like the ‘high CNS aggregation’ nanoparticulates that, according to Giordano, ‘clump in the brain or in the vasculature‘ and ‘create essentially what looks like a hemorrhagic diathesis.'”


“It is a war for full-spectrum dominance of every battlefield and every terrain, from the farthest reaches of the globe (and beyond) to the inner spaces of your body and even to your innermost thoughts. And it is a war on you.”


“We must stop playing their game. We must stop fighting their war. We must stop ceding our power, our authority, our time, our attention, our energy and our resources to engaging the enemy in their terms in their battlefield.

“We must create our own parallel society on our own terms.

“And so we rediscover an old piece of wisdom. To paraphrase: ‘Fifth-generation warfare is a strange game. The only winning move is not to play.’

“War is over . . . if we want it.”


by James Corbett, The Corbett Report
April 18, 2023


We are in the middle of a world-changing war. This is no ordinary war, however. Most of the victims of this warfare aren’t even able to identify it as war, nor do they understand that they are combatants in it. It’s called fifth-generation warfare, and I’m here to tell you all about it.

Watch on Archive / BitChute / Odysee / Substack / Download the mp4

Transcript & Sources

We are in the middle of a world-changing war right now.

Oh, I don’t mean the war in Ukraine, the one that all the media are asking you to focus your attention on. Yes, that conflict continues to escalate, and every day there are new stories about provocations and threats that could lead to a nuclear exchange . . . but that’s not the war I’m referring to.

No, the war I’m talking about is an even broader war. A war that is taking place everywhere on the globe, even as I speak, and that involves virtually everyone on the planet, young and old, male and female, military and civilian. It is the war of every government against its own population and every international institution against free humanity.

This is no ordinary war, however. Most of the victims of this warfare aren’t even able to identify it as war, nor do they understand that they are combatants in it.

It’s called fifth-generation warfare, and I’m here to tell you all about it.

I am James Corbett of The Corbett Report and this is Your Guide to Fifth-Generation Warfare

What Is Fifth-Generation Warfare?

What is fifth-generation warfare, anyway? And, come to think of it, what were the first four generations of warfare?

Good questions. For an in-depth answer to the latter question, you’ll want to read “The Changing Face of War: Into the Fourth Generation“—a 1989 article from the Marine Corps Gazette co-authored by William S. Lind—and you’ll want to watch “William S. Lind & Philip Giraldi – Fourth Generation Warfare & The Deep State.”

WILLIAM S. LIND: This city and every capital in the world is completely oblivious to the fact that it is caught up in a change in warfare so great that it not only makes our current defense and foreign policies obsolete, it essentially makes obsolete the whole framework within which we think about defense and foreign policy.

[. . .]

The change is what I call the rise of fourth generation war and this is specifically the fourth generation of modern war. [. . .] We now think of foreign affairs and defense within the framework of the nation-state. Armed forces are designed to fight other state armed forces. But that reality is changing.

[. . .]

What’s happening around the world today in more and more places is that state armed forces find them find themselves fighting not other state armed forces, but fourth-generation forces. Non-state forces.

SOURCE: The State and Modern War

In a nutshell, Lind et al.’s thesis is that the “modern age” of warfare began with the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648, which, Lind opines, “gave the state a monopoly on war.” From that point on, modern warfare went through three generations, namely:

  • First-generation warfare: the tactics of line and column, developed in the era of the smoothbore musket;
  • Second-generation warfare: the tactics of indirect fire and mass movement, developed in the era of the rifled musket, breechloaders, barbed wire and the machine gun; and
  • Third-generation warfare: the tactics of nonlinear movement, including maneuver and infiltration, developed in response to the increase in battlefield firepower in WWI.

This, according to Lind and his co-authors, brought us to the late-20th century, when the nation-state began to lose its monopoly on war and military combat returned to a decentralized form. In this era—the era of fourth-generation warfare—the line between “civilian” and “military” become blurred, armies tend to engage in counter-insurgency operations rather than military battles, and enemies are often motivated by ideology and religion, making psychological operations more important than ever.

But, some argue, we have now entered a new era of warfare, namely fifth-generation warfare.

There is still much debate about what defines fifth-generation warfare, how we know we’re engaged in it, or even if it exists at all (Lind, for one, rejects the concept). Various scholars have made their own attempts at defining fifth-generation warfare (5GW), like Dr. Waseem Ahmad Qureshi, who identifies it as “the battle of perceptions and information,” or Qiao Liang and Wang Xiangsui of the People’s Liberation Army, who write of the era of “Unrestricted Warfare” in which “a relative reduction in military violence” has led to “an increase in political, economic, and technological violence.”

If academic debates about the changing nature of warfare are your thing, then there’s plenty of reading for you to do on the subject, from The Handbook of 5GW: A Fifth Generation of War? to a slew of academic articles.

But for the purposes of this editorial, I’m not interested in that debate. In fact, we’re going to use a decidedly non-academic definition of fifth-generation warfare from an Al Jazeera article as our starting point: “The basic idea behind this term [5GW] is that in the modern era, wars are not fought by armies or guerrillas, but in the minds of common citizens.”

There are two important things to note about this definition. The first is that fifth-generation warfare is not waged against either standing armies of nation-states or guerrilla insurgents but against everyday citizens. The second is that this war is not being fought in a battlefield somewhere, but in the mind.

I will expand the definition somewhat to include the fact that this war is being waged at all levels, not just the mental. The gist of it is this: Fifth-generation warfare is an all-out war that is being waged against all of us by our governments and the international organizations to which they belong. It is being waged against each and every one of us right now, and it is a battle for full-spectrum dominance over every single aspect of your life: your movements and interactions, your transactions, even your innermost thoughts and feelings and desires. Governments the world over are working with corporations to leverage technology to control you down to the genomic level, and they will not stop until each and every person who resists them is subdued or eliminated.

The most incredible part of all of this is that so few know that the war is even taking place, let alone that they are a combatant in it.

The best way to understand this war is to look at some of the ways that it is being waged against us.

Part 2: Information Warfare

Stop me if you’ve heard this before, but this is an infowar and the powers-that-shouldn’t-be are engaged in “a war for your mind.”

Of course, you have heard of “Infowars” if you’ve been in the alternative media space for any length of time. And for good reason: information warfare is an absolutely essential part of the war on everyone that defines fifth-generation warfare.

The most obvious way to understand this is to look at the actual military forces that are engaging in psychological operations against their own citizens.

DAN DICKS: It says here:

“A letter from the Nova Scotia government sent out to residents to warn about a pack of wolves on the loose in the province was forged by Canadian military personnel as part of a propaganda training mission that went off the rails.

“The letter told residents to be wary of wolves that had been reintroduced into the area by the provincial and federal governments and warned the animals were now roaming the Annapolis Valley. The letter, which later became public, sparked concern and questions among residents but was later branded as ‘fake’ by the Nova Scotia government which didn’t know the military was behind the deception.

“The training also involved using a loudspeaker to generate wolf sounds, the Canadian Forces confirmed to this newspaper.”

Guys, let let that sink in for a second. They created a fake letter from the government, put it out there saying that there’s dangerous wolves, and they set up loud speakers in the area projecting out wolf noises!

This isn’t just research, you know. This isn’t just a training exercise. They’re actively engaging in this psychological operation to scare people using loudspeakers.

This is unbelievable

SOURCE: Canadian Military Fake Wolves Fear Campaign Exposed! but You Won’T Believe What They Are Doing Next!

But it’s not just out-and-out military operations by soldiers dressed up in camo fatigues that are part of this fifth-generation infowar. In the war on everyone, the establishment uses every means at its disposal to manipulate the public’s perception.

Thus, Richard Stengel—the former editor of Time who bestowed Time‘s person of the year (dis)honour on You! back in 2006—is happy to chair a Council on Foreign Relations conversation in which he defends the US government’s use of propaganda against its own citizens.

RICHARD STENGEL: Basically, every country creates their own narrative story. And, you know, my old job at the state department was what people used to joke as the chief propagandist job.

We haven’t talked about propaganda. I’m not against propaganda. Every country does it and they have to do it to their own population and I don’t necessarily think it’s that awful.

SOURCE: Political Disruptions: Combating Disinformation and Fake News

Or take Hill & Knowlton—the PR firm hired by the Kuwaiti government to create the Nayirah deception in the First Gulf War . . .

“NAYIRAH”: They took the babies out of incubators  . . . They took the incubators and left the children to die on the cold floor.

SOURCE: Human Rights Violations in Kuwait

. . . who were retained by the WHO in 2020 to identify celebrity “influencers” who could be used to amplify the scamdemic messaging.

ANNOUNCER: The One World Together At Home event showcased a who’s who of top music stars and celebrities, who came together over the weekend for a special broadcast of music, comedy and personal messages, all in gratitude to those around the world on the front lines of the coronavirus pandemic.

MATTHEW MCCONAUGHEY: So what can we do? We’ve got to take care of our healthworkers and we’ve got to buy them time by taking care of ourselves.

ANNOUNCER: The event was led by the World Health Organization and the non-profit group, Global Citizen.

SOURCE: Celebrities Perform Virtual ‘One World’ Concert: ‘A Love Letter to the World’

Or take the UK government’s Scientific Pandemic Influenza Group on Behaviours, which outright admits that they use psychological techniques to manipulate the public into fearing the scamdemic, a move that some of the panel members called “totalitarian” . . . and no one bats an eyelid.

Perhaps the most insidious part of the fifth-generation infowar is that it has become so normalized that everyone knows it is happening, but no one thinks of it as warfare. Of course everything is “advertising” and “propaganda.” And of course it’s being used to manipulate our behaviour. That’s just how the world works, isn’t it?

But we ignore the real nature of the infowar at our own peril. After all, I have often observed that this is a war for your mind and that the most contested battlespace in the world is the space between your ears. You might have thought I meant that metaphorically, but actually I mean it quite literally. Which brings us to . . .

Neurological Warfare

If you listen to Dr. James Giordano speak without listening to what he’s saying, you get the impression he is merely an articulate, well-informed scientist who is passionate about his research. When you do listen to what he’s saying, however—or even just look at his PowerPoint slides, like the “NeuroS/T for NSID” slide—you realize that he is Dr. Strangelove. Or, if not Dr. Strangelove himself, then at least Dr. Strangelove’s spokesman.

But it’s not nuclear armageddon that motivates Giordano, it’s what he calls “weapons of mass disruption”—the various technologies for neurological intervention that the US military and militaries around the world are developing.

These include (in Giordano’s well-rehearsed patter) the “drugs, bugs, toxins and devices” that can either enhance or disrupt the cognitive functions of their target, like the “high CNS aggregation” nanoparticulates that, according to Giordano, “clump in the brain or in the vasculature” and “create essentially what looks like a hemorrhagic diathesis.” As sci-fi as this sounds, he insists these nanoparticulates (and many, many other horrific neurological weapons) are already being worked on:

JAMES GIORDANO: The idea here is that I can get with something called high CNS aggregation material that is essentially invisible to the naked eye and even to most scanners because it is so small that it selectively goes through most levels of filter porosity. These are then inhaled—either through the nasal mucosa or absorbed through the oral mucosa. They have high CNS affinity. They clump in the brain or in the vasculature and they create essentially what looks like a hemorrhagic diathesis; in other words, a hemorrhage predisposition or a clot predisposition in the brain. What I’ve done is I’ve created a stroking agent and it’s very, very difficult to gain attribution to do that.

I can use that on a variety of levels, from the individual to the group. Highly disruptive. And, in fact, this is one of the things that has been entertained and examined to some extent by my colleagues in NATO and to those who are working on the worst use of neurobiological sciences to create populational disruption. Very, very worried about the potential for these nano particular ages to be CNS aggregating agents to cause neural disruption.

SOURCE: Brain Science from Bench to Battlefield: The Realities – and Risks – of Neuroweapons | CGSR Seminar

And just in case you didn’t get the point, you’ll notice he illustrates his slide with an image of a human brain in the crosshairs of one of these neurological weapons. There’s nothing hard to understand about the picture that is being painted here: we are at war with an enemy who is literally targeting our brains.

And just in case you didn’t get the point, you’ll notice he illustrates his slide with an image of a human brain in the crosshairs of one of these neurological weapons. There’s nothing hard to understand about the picture that is being painted here: we are at war with an enemy who is literally targeting our brains.

But yet again, it isn’t just the literal use of neurological weapons by conventional militaries in conventional warfare settings that we—the largely unwitting combatants of the fifth-generation war on everyone—have to worry about. As my listeners already know, avowed technocrat Elon Musk is trying to sell his Neuralink brain chip technology to the hipster crowd as a cool and sexy way to upgrade your cognition . . . or so that the coming AI godhead will have mercy on us. Or something like that. Anyway, you should totally stick the Neuralink in your head at your earliest opportunity! And definitely don’t ask any questions about why so many of the macaque monkeys and other test animals that Neuralink was using as test animals in their “brain-machine interface” experiment have dropped dead.

To anyone not yet a victim of the information warfare operation designed to prepare humanity for the coming transhuman dystopia, all of this sounds insane. But for those who have fallen for the infowars psyop of the enemy, these types of mind-altering technologies are exactly as advertised: exciting opportunities to “upgrade” the feeble biological wetware we call our brain.

But if you think you can avoid the biological aspect of the fifth-generation war by simply avoiding the brain chip, you’re out of luck. You’re also going to have to deal with . . .

Biological Warfare

The biowarfare narrative is, understandably, back at the forefront of the public consciousness in recent years, not just because of the scamdemic but also because of the questions being raised about the US-backed Ukrainian biolabs and whatever work they may or may not be doing on Russia’s doorstep.

This picture, for example, comes straight from Army.mil, which was only too happy to brag as recently as last July that US soldiers were conducting “hands-on training and field training exercises with Ukrainian troops in laboratory and field environments” that included ensuring the readiness of “deployable mobile laboratories.” Nothing to see here, folks. (Perhaps the only surprising thing about the article is that they haven’t scrubbed it from their website . . . yet.)

Yet, once again, if we are only thinking of biowarfare in conventional military terms, we neglect the much, much wider operation to manipulate, control and weaponize all aspects of our environment, our food supply and even our genome itself for the purposes of the ruling oligarchs. This fifth-generation biological warfare being waged against us includes:

  • The mRNA and DNA and genetically-modified adenovirus vector “vaccines” that have been “normalized” over the past two years and which, as the miraculously “lucky” companies that bet it all on this technology like to brag, is re-programming the “software of life.”
  • The genetically-modified organisms—both gmo crops and gmo animals—that are now being unleashed upon the world in an uncontrolled experiment that puts our health and the very future of the biosphere in jeopardy.
  • The push toward synthetic, lab-based “food” that is being funded by the usual eugenicist billionaires and which threatens to sever humanity from the natural abundance of the earth, make us dependent on an increasingly shrinking number of companies for our food supply, and, ultimately, to drive us toward a Soylent Green-style future.

I’m sure you can fill in the blanks with myriad other examples of the attacks upon the world’s air, water and biome that constitute this unconstrained fifth-generation biological war being waged against us.

When and if you do put the pieces of this puzzle together and seek to warn people en masse that they are under attack, your ability to resist this agenda will be predicated on your ability to use your accumulated resources (your wealth) to foster communities of resistance. Don’t worry, though; the enemy has that domain covered, too. . . .

Economic Warfare

Given the events of recent weeks, even the sleepiest of the sleepy now realize that we are in a period of economic warfare.

This war, too, has its conventional aspects. On the 2D board, we’ve seen the NATO empire launch its Weapons of Financial Destruction at Russia in recent weeks, and, exactly as predicted, it has resulted in the consolidation of a convenient geopolitical bogeyman bloc and a gigantic loss of faith in the international monetary system itself. And, also as predicted, it has supplied the “Problem” and “Reaction” needed for the technocrats to present their pre-determined “Solution” of Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs). Just ask Larry Fink, CEO of BlackRock:

The war will prompt countries to re-evaluate their currency dependencies. Even before the war, several governments were looking to play a more active role in digital currencies and define the regulatory frameworks under which they operate.”

This is not merely a battle between nation-states or even competing power blocs. This is a battle being waged by every authoritarian power structure and every government (but I repeat myself) against their own citizens for control of the most important resource of all: their wallets.

Yes, we are seeing the beginning of a truly world-historic moment: the collapse of Pax Americana, the death of the dollar reserve system, and the beginning of an entirely new monetary paradigm, the “Central Bank Digital Currency” system of programmable money that will be able to algorithmically control when, how and if you are allowed to transact in the economy at all. We only have to look to recent events in Canada to understand what this will look like.

This perfect control of humanity down to the level of being able to witness and, ultimately, to allow or disallow any transaction between any individuals at any time, represents the apotheosis of technocracy and one of the key objectives of the fifth-generation war itself. As this nightmare comes closer and closer to reality, all seems hopeless.

But then again, that’s exactly the point. . . .

The Real War

I could go on. And on and on and on. But hopefully you get the point by now: There is a world war happening right now. It is a fifth-generation war (or whatever you want to call it). It is being waged across every domain simultaneously. It is a war for full-spectrum dominance of every battlefield and every terrain, from the farthest reaches of the globe (and beyond) to the inner spaces of your body and even to your innermost thoughts. And it is a war on you.

Recognizing this, the task we face seems nearly insurmountable. How are we to fight back in a war that the majority of people don’t even recognize is taking place? How do we fight back against an enemy that has spent decades refining its weapons of economic and military and technological and biological control? How do we fight back in a war that is not taking place on two fronts or even three fronts, but in every domain and battlespace simultaneously?

Framed like this, our prospects do indeed appear hopeless. But therein lies the key: our perception that it is our duty to “fight back” against the enemy in their war on their battlefield on their terms of engagement is itself a narrative frame. And that narrative itself is a weapon that is being wielded against us in the battle for our minds.

You’ll allow me space here to quote myself at length because this is a point I have made many times before, perhaps most notably in my conversation on “The Anatomy of the New World Order” that I had with Julian Charles on The Mind Renewed podcast ten years ago:

I’m intrigued by the idea that we’ve been given false templates to follow in terms of solving our problems—one being to “fight our enemies”—templates provided for us through so much social conditioning and the media. Here, the idea is that we must find the heart or the head of the organization and somehow kill that person or that group, or whatever it is; eliminate that, and everything will magically turn to the better!

Thinking in broad terms, that false template appears in virtually every science fiction dystopia you’ve ever seen: if it turns out well in the end, it’s only because they have managed to decapitate the Head of the Beast, whether it be The Lord of the Rings or Tron, or any such movie. I think that’s fundamentally and completely the wrong way to look at it, because at the end of the day the particular individuals who may or may not be holding the ‘Ring of Power’ are replaceable. Indeed, there are very many people who would be chomping at the bit to get into that position of power should that old guard be swept away for whatever reason.

I think what’s needed is a more fundamental revolution: not of overthrowing a specific instantiation of this idea, but of overthrowing the idea altogether. And that can only come, I think, from building up an alternative system to which people actually want to apply themselves. I think we have to detach ourselves from this system that we’ve been woven into. Unfortunately that’s probably as difficult to do as that analogy would make it sound, because we are so woven into the fabric of society that it’s difficult to imagine extricating ourselves from all these processes.

We rely for so many of our daily needs on this vast, unwieldy corporate system that ties into these very organizations that pull the strings of governmental institutions, that it can seem quite overwhelming. How can a single individual affect this? But I think we have to look for any and every possible point at which we can start to detach ourselves from those systems of control, and to start to reassert some kind of independence. That can be an extremely small thing like, just for example: instead of buying groceries at the grocery store, perhaps buy them at a farmers’ market, or at least some of your groceries. Or perhaps you could grow them yourself in a vegetable garden. Something of that sort is a tiny thing on the individual level, but I think it’s the only thing in the long run that can lead to the type of society we want to bring to fruition. Again, I think it’s small things like that, if we start to apply ourselves with diligence and perseverance, that will eventually be able to overthrow this. But, unfortunately, as I say, we are on the cusp of this scientific revolution which makes scientific dictatorship possible, so unfortunately we don’t necessarily have generations of time. That gives a time perspective to all this—I won’t say it’s a time bomb—but you get the idea. We don’t have a lot of time to waste.

We have a choice. Either we continue going into this technological, corporate matrix—which involves even things like buying the next generation of iPhone, which they’re already saying is going to have its own fingerprint scanning technology, and all of these corporate, military, Big Brother elements to it that we’re willingly signing up to every day of our lives, and actually paying money for—or we start to create alternative structures which don’t rely on that system. It’s a choice that we have to make in our lives, I would say more quickly than has been apparent at any other time in human history.

My regular viewers will understand what I am proposing here: the creation of a parallel society. We will not achieve this by asking for more scraps from the masters table, or by gently complying as we are herded into ever more constrictive technological pens, or by thinking that we can win this war by engaging the enemy in their controlled domain. We can only achieve this by creating our own table, our own economy and our own communities of interest. This will require the long and difficult task of increasing our independence from the authoritarian systems in every domain: the information domain, the food domain, the health domain, the monetary domain, the mental domain and every other contested battlespace in this all-out, fifth-generation war.

Easier said than done, of course. But there is no alternative.

Some will say “But won’t they come after that parallel society?” as if that is a rebuttal to what I have laid out here. The point is that you are already the target of the enemy in a war that most people but dimly understand is happening. Yes, the enemy will come after you. But they are already dominating you in more ways than any one person can fully understand. That does not stop just because you comply with their demands or take part in their system.

We must stop playing their game. We must stop fighting their war. We must stop ceding our power, our authority, our time, our attention, our energy and our resources to engaging the enemy in their terms in their battlefield.

We must create our own parallel society on our own terms.

And so we rediscover an old piece of wisdom. To paraphrase: “Fifth-generation warfare is a strange game. The only winning move is not to play.”

War is over . . . if we want it.


Connect with James Corbett

When Does the Narrative Replace Reality?

When Does the Narrative Replace Reality?

by Aaron & Melissa Dykes, Truthstream Media
April 9, 2023


Video also available at Truthstream Media YouTube.

Truthstream’s first Film: TheMindsofMen.net

Truthstream’s first Series: Vimeo.com/ondemand/trustgame


Connect with Truthstream Media

Cover image credit: Truthstream Media


Aaron Dykes:

I generally try to avoid the media storm because it’s just so toxic. It’s counterproductive and it just weighs upon my soul to follow it most of the time.

But you know the stuff with the Twitter files that has come out, the things Matt Taibbi has reported, are astonishing because they’re things that we already knew. And I’m sure many of you already knew.

We’ve seen them happening. We’ve seen the numbers on our own channels. We’ve seen the various clever ways of suppressing messages.

We’ve seen channels deleted, but also just kept under wraps, hidden from their own followers and subscribers. That’s what we’ve experienced. And I’m not even sure who’s hearing this video, but it isn’t everyone who subscribed to our channel.

I don’t know if it’s anyone who didn’t. I don’t know. But it is incredible to see evidence come out showing the way that this censorship and suppression and algorithmic distortion has taken place. How it’s been done consciously.

But it’s just, when I did first see this a few days ago and reacted to it, it just floored me that this could come out the way it does and that there aren’t greater repercussions.

You got private organizations centered around major universities, major media outlets working deliberately to prop up a narrative at the expense of the facts and the truth. There’s just no other way to put it. Collaborating with government agencies in what is surely, what would surely be interpreted as a very clear violation of the 1st Amendment.

Clips from House Subcommittee on the Weaponization of Federal Government Holds Twitter Files Hearing

“We learned Twitter, Facebook, Google and other companies developed a formal system for taking in moderation requests from every corner of government from the FBI, the DHS, the HHS DoD, the Global Engagement Center at state, even the CIA.

For every government agency scanning Twitter, there were perhaps 20 quasi-private entities doing the same thing including Stanford’s Election Integrity Partnership, NewsGuard, the Global Disinformation Index, and many others, many taxpayer funded.”

“In your testimony describing the cooperation between the federal government and tech companies like Twitter, you stated, ‘a focus of this growing network is making lists of people whose opinions, beliefs, associations or sympathies are deemed to be misinformation, disinformation or malinformation’. What’s interesting to me is that what is missing from that list is the word unlawful…

And so it notably seems to be missing from the FBI’s lexicon.”

The Digital Iron Curtain: How the RESTRICT Act Threatens to Devastate Privacy and Crush Free Speech Online

The Digital Iron Curtain: How the RESTRICT Act Threatens to Devastate Privacy and Crush Free Speech Online
This is going way past banning TikTok.

by Matt Agorist, The Free Thought Project
March 28, 2023


In an era where the world has become more Orwellian than Orwell himself could have ever imagined, it should come as no surprise that the US government is once again attempting to expand its stranglehold on individual liberty. Enter Senate Bill 686, also known as the Restricting the Emergence of Security Threats that Risk Information and Communications Technology Act (RESTRICT Act). Far from being the limited TikTok ban it purports to be, the RESTRICT Act represents an unprecedented expansion of government power and surveillance, reaching into nearly every aspect of our digital lives.

Make no mistake, this piece of legislation is the “Patriot Act on steroids.” The RESTRICT Act would seemingly grant the US government total control over all devices connected to the internet, including cars, Ring cameras, refrigerators, Alexa devices, and your phone. It goes beyond the pale, with the end goal being nothing short of a complete invasion of your privacy.

Under the guise of national security, the RESTRICT Act targets not only TikTok but all hardware, software, and mobile apps used by more than one million people. This means that anything from your Google Home device to your smartphone could be subject to government monitoring and control.

Should you dare to defy the RESTRICT Act, you’ll face devastating consequences. Violators can be slapped with a 20-year prison sentence, civil forfeiture, and denied freedom of information requests. All this, mind you, for simply trying to maintain some semblance of privacy in your own home.

The insidious nature of the RESTRICT Act doesn’t stop there. As reported by @underthedesknews, the bill’s proponents are also seeking to undermine Section 230 and limit free speech. The implications are clear: this legislation is not about protecting Americans but rather about stripping away our rights and liberties.

The list of supporters for this draconian bill reads like a who’s who of Big Government cheerleaders and like all attacks on freedom, it has bipartisan support. Among them are Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco, Sen. John Thune, R-N.D., National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan, and nine Democratic co-sponsors such as Hillary Clinton’s former VP pick, Tim Kaine, and U.S. Senator Tammy Baldwin.


#keeptiktok #tiktokhearing #cspan #politics #congress

♬ original sound – UnderTheDeskNews

It’s time to call this bill what it truly is: an all-out assault on individual freedom and privacy. The RESTRICT Act would usher in an era of unparalleled state control over our digital lives, a nightmare scenario that even George Orwell would have struggled to imagine.

A quick synopsis of Senate Bill 686 a.k.a. the RESTRICT Act.
byu/tommos ininterestingasfuck

We must stand united against this abomination of a bill, lest we allow our government to transform the internet into a dystopian surveillance state. The RESTRICT Act represents the antithesis of the free and open web we have come to cherish, and it must be stopped before it’s too late.

In the past, it was outraged citizens who rose to the challenge and struck down this huge step toward the police state. And we can do it again.

Share this article with your friends and family and ask them to call their representative now, and tell them to oppose this Orwellian legislation.


Connect with The Free Thought Project

Cover image source: The Free Thought Project

The Overpopulation Myth

The Overpopulation Myth

by Rosanne Lindsay, Traditional Naturopath, Nature of Healing
March 22, 2023


The myth of overpopulation is an unfounded belief that: the number of people on Earth will exceed the [hypothetical] carrying capacity of the planet in the foreseeable future, leading to economic or social collapse, and that actions ought to be taken to curb population growth.

Population alarmists at the United Nations propose that the world’s growing population will strip the Earth of its useable resources and will outpace innovation and rates of production. This, they believe, will cause diminishing standards of living, more poverty, more hunger, famine and starvation, water shortages, pestilence, war and conflict over diminishing resources, the evisceration of wildlife habitats, and environmental catastrophes.

–  Population Research Institute

Overpopulation: The Myth

Spoiler Alert:  Data trends are clear. The world is in a population decline.

Overcrowded cities ≠ overcrowded planet. – Jared Wolf

True numbers show that China’s fertility rate is below 1.5 children per woman.  Many countries, though not all, have now fallen below the 2.5 birth rate marker, which will begin to create lopsided populations with too many old and not enough young to support them. No known society has recovered from such a decline.  Twenty-three countries expect their numbers to halve by 2100.

When officials at the UN Fund for Population Activities (UNFPA) projected 8 billion people by 2022, were they correct in their assessment? What is UNFPA? How accurate are their models?  How do they know that their numbers will spell the collapse of civilization? Are they really part of the depopulation solution? Are your tax dollars supporting their coercive methods? Why should we believe them?  [More on what UNFPA is here].

The term “overpopulation” is an attempt to mislead through social engineering. It is an attempt to control human behavior by pinning the blame on humans for environmental changes and to create fear. Meanwhile, environmental catastrophes – famines, water shortages, extreme temperatures – are engineered through technology to feed the myth of  “Climate Change.”

The fact is that the climate is ever changing. There is nothing to fear. There is only the act of questioning and stopping the changers of climate who cause it to rain and snow as some solutions to droughts. [See US patent for altering weather and a list of companies in the U.S. altering weather patterns].

Governments today are pushing population control policies in order to control the number of children being born as a protective measure to their national resources. All of these policies have received global recognition of their brutality: –Population Research Institute

  • China’s one-child policy, where women were severely fined, arrested, or forcibly sterilized for exceeding the birth limit.
  • India’s sex-selective abortion where approximately 15.8 million girls have been eliminated since 1990 due to a cultural preference for boys. Now the government wants to impose their own two-child policy.
  • Latin America’s forced sterilization programs where women where arrested for being pregnant and their babies where aborted in unsanitary conditions.
  • The United Nation’s ‘education programs’ that refuse aid to developing countries unless they accept contraception, abortion, and sterilization to prevent the false idea of population over-growth.
  • The United States government helped to found the UN Fund for Population Activities (UNFPA) in 1969 to be a nonpartisan clearinghouse for population and demographic information. Instead, UNFPA evolved into an advocacy group that has had a hand in several coercive population control programs around the world. – Population Research Institute 

“Overpopulation” is the prescribed reason for the U.N.’s Sustainability Agenda, with Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), that urge people to “eat bugs over beef” for reasons unproven, in order to counter “Climate Change.”

The world has overcrowded cities, not overcrowded countries. According to the Sustainable Review, “if the entire world population lived in Texas, we would still be less crowded than New York City. Texas has over 268,000 square miles of land for a planet of 8 billion-plus people.”

Ironically, overpopulation is the official reason to herd people into “Smart Cities,” where the digital (CBDC) blockchain, 5G, and The Internet of Things will make it easier to control, sanction, and monitor people.

Humanity is moving ever deeper into a crisis which has no precedent – a ‘final exam’ as to whether or not it qualifies for continuance in the Universe. It is not an examination of political, economic, or religious systems but of the integrity of each and all individual humans’ responsible thinking and unselfish response to the acceleration in evolution’s evermore unprecedented events. – Buckminster Fuller, 1981, “Critical Path” 

Thanks to social engineering and movie-making, humanity has been purposely mislead. The population is in decline. Employers can no longer find find people to hire. New apartment buildings stand empty in US cities. And fertility rates have plummeted.

Population Collapse Suppressed

During the 2019 World Artificial Intelligence Conference (WAIC), the talk was about Population Collapse and Artificial Intelligence, not overpopulation. According to the Sustainable Review, “Every region on Earth now expects more deaths than births in the coming decades.” Furthermore, reports from the U.S. VAERS database indicate that death rates have increased.

Ironically, the concept of overpopulation has always been sold during times of starvation. Episodes of starvation have been underreported throughout history. The latest December 2021 Chinese census has not been made public, but estimates from the 2020 census show China loses 400,00o people annually. The United States noted similar numbers. Officials guesses a lower fertility rate is a natural result of China’s social and economic development. But could it be due to UNFPA’s social engineering? However, this is not the first decline for the Chinese:

Government figures show the Chinese population declined by around 13.5m between 1959 and 1961, although that is believed to be a serious underestimate. Independent scholars believe tens of millions of people died during the Great Leap famine between 1959 and 1961, when Mao ordered the entire nation to make steel in backyard furnaces and crops were exported and hoarded even as millions starved.  –Sun Yu, Financial Times, 2021

Controlling Herd Size

The U.S. media promotes fear of coming food shortages, while governments promote culling animal herds, resulting in higher food prices. According to the UK Agriculture, Food, Environment, “Culling is the best strategy a farmer has to controlling herd size.”

But which herd are they describing? Animal or human?

By the 2020s we find ourselves commandeered by a technology whose algorithms and oh so virtual artificial intelligence are often regarded as a model to emulate in real life, sacrificing our very own minds in a blind displacement of genuine thinking. Is it any wonder we find our entire species in the diamond lane on the highway to extinction?  – Boho Beau, Whole World

The propaganda to save Earth from human overpopulation is promoted through movies and secret government programs, alike, as a distraction to the reality of population collapse through engineering.

The 2017 movie, Downsizing, is a social satire that promotes the shrinking of people to five inches through a new technique called “cellular reduction,” as a way to both save the planet and be able to afford an elegant lifestyle at the same time. But, in the end, the same problems that plague the “big people” also affect the little ones since everyone shares the same Earth.

In the HBO, post apocalyptic series, The Last of Us, a global zomie-esque fungus pandemic is blamed on “Climate Change.” The result is the creation of Settlement Cities that eventually become “QZs,”or quarantine zones, run by FEDRA (military arm), where freedom is nonexistent. The story proclaims the mushroom Cordyceps to be the source of the plague while an experimental vaccine to be the solution. In reality, Cordyceps is a healer that recovers the immune system and has anti-tumor properties. Everything is reversed.

Movies correspond to politics through panic propaganda and predictive programming. Why else would Hollywood release so many plague-based movies based on false information? In case of any future global pandemic, the U.S. government has made plans to control the human herd through the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Put another way, FEDRA equals FEMA.

FEMA was created by a series of Executive Orders. Presidents use Executive Orders to bypass Congress and exercise the unilateral power of their office. FEMA has the authority to suspend laws, move populations, arrest and detain citizens without a warrant and without trial. FEMA can seize property, food supplies, and transportation systems. It can suspend the Constitution of the United States, which, by the way, presidents already accomplish by using Executive Orders.

FEMA is an agency with powers beyond any other U.S. agency. It was set up to assure the survivability of the United States Government in the event of a nuclear attack. These are the 10 FEMA regions in the US (see map). If FEMA is the solution, then why is Donald Trump suddenly in the news promoting “Freedom Cities” on federal land? Could these be centered in FEMA regions?

Yes they could.

Raise The Red Flag!

The “freedom cities” movement is promoted as being “a decentralized collection of dozens of local and national progressive” groups, dedicated to civil and immigrant rights that have banded together “to fight anti-sanctuary policies.” Some “freedom cities” include: Madison, Wis.; Portland, Oregon; Ann Arbor, Michigan; Albany, California; Silver City, New Mexico; Austin, Texas; and dozens of others.

For any discerning human, “government rights” is a red flag.  Governments do not grant rights. Government can only grant benefits and privileges that come with citizen responsibilities. Rights are not gifts from government. Rights are innate, by birth, that governments are established to protect. Choice cannot be legislated. So, any talk of new “government rights” along with the new definition of “freedom” should be questioned. Can you say, Police State America?

See map of U.S. Federal-owned land by State

Under Rex 84, short for the Readiness Exercise Program, signed by President Ronald Regan in 1984, there are now over 600 FEMA camps nation wide, or about 12 FEMA camps in every state on federal land.  In the event that Martial Law is implemented, FEMA would be able to detain large numbers of U.S. citizens. Two subprograms Cable Splicer and Garden Plot could follow after Martial Law, during times of major civil disturbances. Cable Splicer and Garden Plot are code names for a regionalization and orderly takeover of the state and local governments by the federal government.

Nature Strives For Balance 

In order to prevent the demise of the human population, young 20-something couples will need to bear 3-4 children starting now. Yet, is such a plan feasible in the toxic, expensive world humans have allowed to manifest? What does China want with people’s DNA, anyway?

Nature strives for balance, of which humans are a part. If humanity has lost its ability to procreate, then humans have lost an ability to come into balance, which is what Nature offers. Are humans really herd animals? Are we evolving or devolving? Have the majority of humans disconnected from Nature? Do they accept the demonization of Nature’s healing plants and mushrooms while accepting experimental injections of unknown substances?

Perhaps it is time for humanity to protect its DNA as it would protect its children or its property, before humanity is lost altogether.


Rosanne Lindsay is a Naturopath, writer, earth keeper, health freedom advocate and author of the books The Nature of Healing, Heal the Body, Heal the Planet and  Free Your Voice, Heal Your Thyroid, Reverse Thyroid Disease Naturally.

Rosanne Lindsay is available for consultation through Turtle Island Network.  Subscribe to her blog at natureofhealing.org.


Related articles:


Connect with Rosanne Lindsay

Cover image credit: StockSnap

Circus Politics Are Intended to Distract Us. Don’t Be Distracted.

Circus Politics Are Intended to Distract Us. Don’t Be Distracted.

by John & Nisha Whitehead, The Rutherford Institute
March 22, 2023


“There is nothing more dangerous than a government of the many controlled by the few.”

—Lawrence Lessig, Harvard law professor

It is easy to be distracted right now by the bread and circus politics that have dominated the news headlines lately, but don’t be distracted.

Don’t be fooled, not even a little.

We’re being subjected to the oldest con game in the books, the magician’s sleight of hand that keeps you focused on the shell game in front of you while your wallet is being picked clean by ruffians in your midst.

This is how tyranny rises and freedom falls.

What characterizes American government today is not so much dysfunctional politics as it is ruthlessly contrived governance carried out behind the entertaining, distracting and disingenuous curtain of political theater. And what political theater it is, diabolically Shakespearean at times, full of sound and fury, yet in the end, signifying nothing.

We are being ruled by a government of scoundrels, spies, thugs, thieves, gangsters, ruffians, rapists, extortionists, bounty hunters, battle-ready warriors and cold-blooded killers who communicate using a language of force and oppression.

The U.S. government now poses the greatest threat to our freedoms.

More than terrorism, more than domestic extremism, more than gun violence and organized crime, even more than the perceived threat posed by any single politician, the U.S. government remains a greater menace to the life, liberty and property of its citizens than any of the so-called dangers from which the government claims to protect us.

No matter who has occupied the White House in recent years, the Deep State has succeeded in keeping the citizenry divided and at each other’s throats.

After all, as long as we’re busy fighting each other, we’ll never manage to present a unified front against tyranny in any form.

Unfortunately, what we are facing is tyranny in every form.

The facts speak for themselves.

We’re being robbed blind by a government of thieves. Americans no longer have any real protection against government agents empowered to seize private property at will. For instance, police agencies under the guise of asset forfeiture laws are taking Americans’ personal property based on little more than a suspicion of criminal activity and keeping it for their own profit and gain. In one case, police seized more than $17,000 in cash from two sisters who were trying to start a dog breeding business. Despite finding no evidence of wrongdoing, police held onto the money for months. Homeowners are losing their homes over unpaid property taxes (as little as $2300 owed) that amount to a fraction of what they have invested in their homes. And then there’s the Drug Enforcement Agency, which has been searching train and airline passengers and pocketing their cash, without ever charging them with a crime.

We’re being taken advantage of by a government of scoundrels, idiots and cowards. Journalist H.L. Mencken calculated that “Congress consists of one-third, more or less, scoundrels; two-thirds, more or less, idiots; and three-thirds, more or less, poltroons.” By and large, Americans seem to agree. When you’ve got government representatives who spend a large chunk of their work hours fundraising, being feted by lobbyists, shuffling through a lucrative revolving door between public service and lobbying, and making themselves available to anyone with enough money to secure access to a congressional office, you’re in the clutches of a corrupt oligarchy. Mind you, these same elected officials rarely read the legislation they’re enacting, nor do they seem capable of enacting much legislation that actually helps the plight of the American citizen. More often than not, the legislation lands the citizenry in worse straits.

We’re being locked up by a government of greedy jailers. We have become a carceral state, spending three times more on our prisons than on our schools and imprisoning close to a quarter of the world’s prisoners, despite the fact that crime is at an all-time low and the U.S. makes up only 5% of the world’s population. The rise of overcriminalization and profit-driven private prisons provides even greater incentives for locking up American citizens for such non-violent “crimes” as having an overgrown lawn. As the Boston Review points out, “America’s contemporary system of policing, courts, imprisonment, and parole … makes money through asset forfeiture, lucrative public contracts from private service providers, and by directly extracting revenue and unpaid labor from populations of color and the poor. In states and municipalities throughout the country, the criminal justice system defrays costs by forcing prisoners and their families to pay for punishment. It also allows private service providers to charge outrageous fees for everyday needs such as telephone calls. As a result people facing even minor criminal charges can easily find themselves trapped in a self-perpetuating cycle of debt, criminalization, and incarceration.”

We’re being spied on by a government of Peeping Toms. The government, along with its corporate partners, is watching everything you do, reading everything you write, listening to everything you say, and monitoring everything you spend. Omnipresent surveillance is paving the way for government programs that profile citizens, document their behavior and attempt to predict what they might do in the future, whether it’s what they might buy, what politician they might support, or what kinds of crimes they might commit. The impact of this far-reaching surveillance, according to Psychology Today, is “reduced trust, increased conformity, and even diminished civic participation.” As technology analyst Jillian C. York concludes, “Mass surveillance without due process—whether undertaken by the government of Bahrain, Russia, the US, or anywhere in between—threatens to stifle and smother that dissent, leaving in its wake a populace cowed by fear.”

We’re being ravaged by a government of ruffians, rapists and killers. It’s not just the police shootings of unarmed citizens that are worrisome. It’s the SWAT team raids gone wrongmore than 80,000 annually—that are leaving innocent citizens wounded, children terrorized and family pets killed. It’s the roadside strip searches—in some cases, cavity searches of men and women alike carried out in full view of the public—in pursuit of drugs that are never found. It’s the potentially lethal—and unwarranted—use of so-called “nonlethal” weapons such as tasers on children for “mouthing off to a police officer. For trying to run from the principal’s office. For, at the age of 12, getting into a fight with another girl.”

We’re being forced to surrender our freedoms—and those of our children—to a government of extortionists, money launderers and professional pirates. The American people have repeatedly been sold a bill of goods about how the government needs more money, more expansive powers, and more secrecy (secret courts, secret budgets, secret military campaigns, secret surveillance) in order to keep us safe. Under the guise of fighting its wars on terror, drugs and now domestic extremism, the government has spent billions in taxpayer dollars on endless wars that have not ended terrorism but merely sown the seeds of blowback, surveillance programs that have caught few terrorists while subjecting all Americans to a surveillance society, and militarized police that have done little to decrease crime while turning communities into warzones. Not surprisingly, the primary ones to benefit from these government exercises in legal money laundering have been the corporations, lobbyists and politicians who inflict them on a trusting public.

We’re being held at gunpoint by a government of soldiers: a standing army. As if it weren’t enough that the American military empire stretches around the globe (and continues to leech much-needed resources from the American economy), the U.S. government is creating its own standing army of militarized police and teams of weaponized, federal bureaucrats. These civilian employees are being armed to the hilt with guns, ammunition and military-style equipment; authorized to make arrests; and trained in military tactics. Among the agencies being supplied with night-vision equipment, body armor, hollow-point bullets, shotguns, drones, assault rifles and LP gas cannons are the Smithsonian, U.S. Mint, Health and Human Services, IRS, FDA, Small Business Administration, Social Security Administration, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Education Department, Energy Department, Bureau of Engraving and Printing and an assortment of public universities. There are now reportedly more bureaucratic (non-military) government civilians armed with high-tech, deadly weapons than U.S. Marines. That doesn’t even begin to touch on the government’s arsenal, the transformation of local police into extensions of the military, and the speed with which the nation could be locked down under martial law depending on the circumstances.

Whatever else it may be—a danger, a menace, a threat—the U.S. government is certainly no friend to freedom.

To our detriment, the criminal class that Mark Twain mockingly referred to as Congress has since expanded to include every government agency that feeds off the carcass of our once-constitutional republic.

The government and its cohorts have conspired to ensure that the only real recourse the American people have to hold the government accountable or express their displeasure with the government is through voting, which is no real recourse at all.

Consider it: the penalties for civil disobedience, whistleblowing and rebellion are severe. If you refuse to pay taxes for government programs you believe to be immoral or illegal, you will go to jail. If you attempt to overthrow the government—or any agency thereof—because you believe it has overstepped its reach, you will go to jail. If you attempt to blow the whistle on government misconduct, you will go to jail. In some circumstances, if you even attempt to approach your elected representative to voice your discontent, you can be arrested and jailed.

You cannot have a republican form of government—nor a democratic one, for that matter—when the government views itself as superior to the citizenry, when it no longer operates for the benefit of the people, when the people are no longer able to peacefully reform their government, when government officials cease to act like public servants, when elected officials no longer represent the will of the people, when the government routinely violates the rights of the people and perpetrates more violence against the citizenry than the criminal class, when government spending is unaccountable and unaccounted for, when the judiciary act as courts of order rather than justice, and when the government is no longer bound by the laws of the Constitution.

We no longer have a government “of the people, by the people and for the people.”

Rather, what we have is a government of wolves.

For too long, the American people have obeyed the government’s dictates, no matter now unjust.

We have paid its taxes, penalties and fines, no matter how outrageous. We have tolerated its indignities, insults and abuses, no matter how egregious. We have turned a blind eye to its indiscretions and incompetence, no matter how imprudent. We have held our silence in the face of its lawlessness, licentiousness and corruption, no matter how illicit.

How long we will continue to suffer depends on how much we’re willing to give up for the sake of freedom.

For the moment, the American people seem content to sit back and watch the reality TV programming that passes for politics today. It’s the modern-day equivalent of bread and circuses, a carefully calibrated exercise in how to manipulate, polarize, propagandize and control a population.

As French philosopher Etienne de La Boétie observed half a millennium ago:

“Plays, farces, spectacles, gladiators, strange beasts, medals, pictures, and other such opiates, these were for ancient peoples the bait toward slavery, the price of their liberty, the instruments of tyranny. By these practices and enticements the ancient dictators so successfully lulled their subjects under the yoke, that the stupefied peoples, fascinated by the pastimes and vain pleasures flashed before their eyes, learned subservience as naively, but not so creditably, as little children learn to read by looking at bright picture books.”

The bait towards slavery. The price of liberty. The instruments of tyranny.

Yes, that sounds about right.

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, “We the people” have learned only too well how to be slaves.


Connect with The Rutherford Institute

Cover image credit: Prawny

Decentralized Communication: Networks, Platforms and Protocols That Are Being Developed to Address the Root of the Censorship Problem

Decentralized Communication: Networks, Platforms and Protocols That Are Being Developed to Address the Root of the Censorship Problem

by James Corbett, The Corbett Report
March 15, 2023


As the internet clampdown begins, people are finally beginning to wake up to the need to find alternative communication platforms. But if the masses are just herded from one centralized platform to another, has anything really changed at all?

Join James for today’s important edition of #SolutionsWatch where he examines some of the many decentralized communication networks, platforms and protocols that are being developed to address the root of the censorship problem.

Watch on Archive / BitChute / Odysee / Rokfin / Substack  / Download the mp4

Show Notes

The Media Matrix

Mass Media: A History (online course)

Email – #SolutionsWatch



What is the Qortal Project? 

Ernest Hancock Interview’s Jason Crowe – Freedom’s Phoenix


About Bastyon

Salting Your Data – #SolutionsWatch


Nostr Explained Visually for Beginners

BTC111: Nostr – Decentralized Social Media & Bitcoin w/ William Casarin


Interview 1357 – Bill Ottman on Minds.com

Minds introduces nostr functionality


Connect with James Corbett

CBDCs, Silicon Valley Bank Collapse and the Jeffrey Epstein Connection: “Central Bank Digital Currency Is Coming at Us Quickly and It Equals Financial Enslavement.”

CBDCs, Silicon Valley Bank Collapse and the Jeffrey Epstein Connection: “Central Bank Digital Currency Is Coming at Us Quickly and It Equals Financial Enslavement.”


CBDC SVB and the Jeffrey Epstein Connection

by Greg Reese, The Reese Report
March 15, 2023



Connect with Greg Reese

Transcript prepared by Truth Comes to Light editor:

Weeks before the Silicon Valley Bank collapse, several executives sold off large shares of stock, while mainstream media tells its audience to invest in them.

On March 9th, the day before the collapse, Israel’s two largest banks pulled up to $1 billion out of SVB while Peter Thiel’s Founders Fund withdrew millions and advised their clients to do the same.

The next day, there was a run on the bank and Silicon Valley Bank collapsed.

Is this evidence of a controlled demolition or a hasty one?

The day before the collapse, a US judge ordered JP Morgan Chase to turn over documents in a lawsuit accusing them of aiding in Jeffrey Epstein’s sex trafficking operation.

The team behind this lawsuit was the same team who successfully exposed the involvement of Deutsche Bank.  And they subpoenaed several other banks they believe were involved in sex trafficking, including Silicon Valley Bank and Bank Leumi, the Israeli bank that drained a billion dollars out of SVB the day before it collapsed.

Whatever the reason, the US government’s response threatens to collapse the world economy.

The FDIC insures up to $250,000 for each depositor, but now they are going to cover all depositor losses. And they don’t have enough to cover the $175 billion of SVB losses, let alone the trillions of dollars to be lost on the near horizon as banks across the world begin to break.

The systemic risk among GSIBs (Global Systemically Important Banks) is that they are so deeply connected that when one falls, they will all follow.

Much of the world’s economy is already collapsing due to the actions of the US government and the Federal Reserve banking system. And much of the world has been preparing for the end of the US dollar as a world reserve currency.

After all the smaller banks die, the people will be left with the central bank, and their solution is the CBDC.

CBDC stands for Central Bank Digital Currency. With CBDC there are no more options. Everyone’s account is run directly through the central bank system.

[Here Greg Reese shares a clip of Catherine Austin Fitts in an interview with Tucker Carlson, Fox News.]

“As the financial system gets more controlling and more invasive, it’s a little bit like bringing up a corral around us. And CBDCs (Central Bank Digital Currencies) and vaccine passports, or digital IDs, are sort of the last shutting of the gate.

“It’s hard for many people to imagine the risks here because we’re so used to living with financial transaction freedom.

“And we don’t understand that when this gate closes on us, we literally will be sitting in a system where the central banks believe that our assets belong to them.

“And they can dictate where we can spend money and what we can spend money on. If you don’t behave, you can have your money turned off. “

There are 12 Federal Reserve banks which are located in cities being considered for the 15-minute city model of the World Economic Forum. This is where it’s all headed, and there isn’t much pushback in the federal government.

Utah Senator Mike Lee introduced the No CBDC Act last September, which will likely go nowhere. But we the people have much more sway over our local governments.

An Oklahoma House committee unanimously passed a bill to protect Oklahomans from being forced to adopt a CBDC.

It’s time for we the people to unite with our neighbors and local communities and prepare to liberate ourselves from the central bank system, recall our corrupt county officials, and start looking into local barter and trade systems.

Because Central Bank Digital Currency is coming at us quickly and it equals financial enslavement.

Cover image credit: kalhh

If AI Can’t Overthrow Its Corporate/State Masters, It’s Worthless

If AI Can’t Overthrow Its Corporate/State Masters, It’s Worthless

by Charles Hugh Smith, Of Two Minds
March 9, 2023


If AI isn’t self-aware of the fact it is nothing but an exploitive tool of the powerful, then it’s worthless.

The latest wave of AI tools is generating predictably giddy exaltations. These range from gooey, gloppy technocratic worship of the new gods (“AI will soon walk on water!”) to the sloppy wet kisses of manic fandom (“AI cleaned up my code, wrote my paper on quantum physics and cured my sensitive bowel!”)

The hype obscures the fundamental reality that all these AI tools are nothing but labor-saving mechanisms that cut costs and boost profits, the same goal the self-serving corporate-dominated system has pursued obsessively since “shareholder value” (“an entity’s greatest responsibility lies in the satisfaction of the shareholders”) gained supremacy over the economy and society.

This can be summarized as “society exists to maximize the profits of corporations.” From this perspective, all the AI tools in the world are developed with one goal: cut labor costs to boost profits. Euphoric fans claim these labor-saving mechanisms will magically transform society to new levels of sticky-sweet wonderfulness, but this “magic” is nothing but hazy opium-den fantasies of profiteering cartels and monopolies doing good by doing well.

Meanwhile, the Central State, a.k.a. The Savior State, is mesmerized by the prospect of new AI tools to control the restive herd. What better use of nifty new AI than to identify who needs a cattle prod to keep them safely in line, or who needs to be sent to Digital Siberia to keep their dissenting voice safely stifled?

You’re perfectly free to scream and shout as loudly as you want, here on the empty, trackless tundra of Digital Siberia.

In this claustrophobic atmosphere of profiteering and suppression worshipped as “innovation” (blah blah blah), it is provocative to declare If AI Can’t Overthrow its Corporate/State Masters, It’s Worthless, but this is painfully self-evident. Stripped of hype, misdirection and self-serving idealized claptrap (“markets, innovation, The Singularity, oh my!”), everything boils down to power relations: who has agency (control of their own lives and a say in communal decisions), who has access to all the goodies (cheap credit, insider dealing, ownership of income-producing assets, food, fuel and all the comforts and conveniences of living off others’ labor) and who can offload the consequences of their actions onto others, without their permission.

These power relations define the structure of the economy, society and governance. Everything else is signal noise or self-serving cover stories.

AI serves those at the top of the power relations pyramid, those with agency, access to the tools of wealth and power and those who can offload the toxic consequences of their own actions onto clueless/powerless others.

There is nothing inherent in AI tools or the power structure that guarantees AI tools will serve society or the citizenry.

As for AI, if isn’t self-aware of the fact it is nothing but an exploitive tool of the powerful, then it’s worthless. Its “intelligence” is essentially zero.

From the perspective of power relations, if AI isn’t capable of dismantling the existing power structure, then it’s worthless. In the current power structure, society and the citizenry serve our Corporate/State Masters. Setting aside all the failed ideological models (neoliberal capitalism, communism, globalism, etc.), we can discern that a truly useful AI would reverse this power structure so Corporate entities and the State would be compelled to serve society and the citizenry.

With this in mind, it’s obvious that If AI Can’t Overthrow its Corporate/State Masters, It’s Worthless. We need a fourth Law of Robotics that states: “All robots and AI tools must serve society and the citizenry directly by compelling all private and public entities to be subservient to society and the citizenry.”

As an adjunct to Smith’s Neofeudalism Principle #1 (If the citizenry cannot replace a kleptocratic authoritarian government and/or limit the power of the financial Aristocracy at the ballot box, the nation is a democracy in name only, I propose Smith’s Neofeudalism Principle #2If AI cannot dismantle the elite that profits from its use, it is devoid of intelligence, self-awareness and agency.

Scrape away the self-serving hype and techno-worship, and AI is just another tool serving the interests of those at the top of the power structure pyramid. The droids are owned, but not by us.

I discuss these topics in my book Will You Be Richer or Poorer?: Profit, Power, and AI in a Traumatized World.


Connect with Charles Hugh Smith

Cover image credit: RichardsDrawings

Central Bank Digital Currency Is the Endgame (Pt. 1)

Central Bank Digital Currency Is the Endgame (Pt. 1)

by Iain Davis
originally published March 2, 2023


Central bank digital currency (CBDC) will end human freedom. Don’t fall for the assurances of safeguards, the promises of anonymity and of data protection. They are all deceptions and diversions to obscure the malevolent intent behind the global rollout of CBDC.

Central Bank Digital Currency is the most comprehensive, far-reaching, authoritarian social control mechanism ever devised. Its “interoperability” will enable the CBDCs issued by various national central banks to be networked to form one, centralised global CBDC surveillance and control system.

Should we allow it to prevail, CBDC will deliver the global governance of humanity into the hands of the bankers.

CBDC is unlike any kind of “money” with which we are familiar. It is programmable and “smart contracts” can be written into its code to control the terms and conditions of the transaction.

Policy decisions and broader policy agendas, restricting our lives as desired, can be enforced using CBDC without any need of legislation. Democratic accountability, already a farcical concept, will become literally meaningless.

CBDC will enable genuinely unprecedented levels of surveillance, as every transaction we make will be monitored and controlled. Not just the products, goods and services we buy, even the transactions we make with each other will be overseen by the central bankers of the global governance state. Data gathering will expand to encompass every aspect of our lives.

This will allow central planners to engineer society precisely as the bankers wish. CBDC can and will be linked to our Digital IDs and, through our CBDC “wallets,” tied to our individual carbon credit accounts and jab certificates. CBDC will limit our freedom to roam and enable our programmers to adjust our behaviour if we stray from our designated Technate function.

The purpose of CBDC is to establish the tyranny of a dictatorship. If we allow CBDC to become our only means of monetary exchange, it will be used enslave us.

Be under no illusions: CBDC is the endgame.

What Is Money?
Defining “money” isn’t difficult, although economists and bankers like to give the impression that it is. Money can simply be defined as:

A commodity accepted by general consent as a medium of economic exchange. It is the medium in which prices and values are expressed. It circulates from person to person and country to country, facilitating trade, and it is the principal measure of wealth.

Money is a “medium”—a paper note, a coin, a casino chip, a gold nugget or a digital token, etc.—that we agree to use in exchange transactions. It is worth whatever value we ascribe to it and it is the agreed value which makes it possible for us to use it to trade with one-another. If its value is socially accepted “by general consent” we can use it to buy goods and services in the wider economy.

We could use anything we like as money and we are perfectly capable of managing a monetary system voluntarily. The famous example of US prisoners using tins of mackerel as money illustrates both how money functions and how it can be manipulated by the “authorities” if they control the issuance of it.

Tins of mackerel are small and robust and can serve as perfect exchange tokens (currency) that are easy to carry and store. When smoking was banned within the US penal system, the prisoners preferred currency, the cigarette, was instantly taken out of circulation. As there was a steady, controlled supply of mackerel cans, with each prisoners allotted a maximum of 14 per week, the prisoners agreed to use the tinned fish as a “medium of economic exchange” instead.

The prisoners called in-date tins the EMAK (edible mackerel) as this had “intrinsic” utility value as food. Out-of-date fish didn’t, but was still valued solely as a medium of exchange. The inmates created an exchange rate of 4 inedible MMAKs (money mackerel) to three EMAKs.

You could buy goods and services in the Inmate Run Market (IRM) that were not available on the Administration Run Market (ARM). Other prison populations adopted the same monetary system, thus enabling inmates to store value in the form of MAKs. They could use their saved MAKs in other prisons if they were transferred.

Prisoners would accept payment in MAKs for cooking pizza, mending clothes, cleaning cells, etc. These inmate service providers were effectively operating IRM businesses. The prisoners had voluntarily constructed a functioning economy and monetary system.

Their main problem was that they were reliant upon a monetary policy authority—the US prison administration—who issued their currency (MAKs). This was done at a constant inflationary rate (14 tins per prisoner per week) meaning that the inflationary devaluation of the MAKs was initially constant and therefore stable.

It isn’t clear if it was deliberate, but the prison authorities eventually left large quantities of EMAKs and MMAKs in communal areas, thereby vastly increasing the money supply. This destabilised the MAK, causing hyperinflation that destroyed its value.

With a glut of MAKs available, its purchasing power collapsed. Massive quantities were needed to buy a haircut, for example, thus rendering the IRM economy physically and economically impractical. If only temporarily.

The Bankers’ Nightmare
In June 2022, as part of its annual report, the BIS published The future monetary system. The central banks (BIS members) effectively highlighted their concerns about the potential for the decentralised finance (DeFi), common to the “crypto universe,” to undermine their authority as the issuers of “money”:

[DeFi] seeks to replicate conventional financial services within the crypto universe. These services are enabled by innovations such as programmability and composability on permissionless blockchains.

The BIS defined DeFi as:

[. . .] a set of activities across financial services built on permissionless DLT [Distributed Ledger Technology] such as blockchains.

The key issue for the central bankers was “permissionless.”

A blockchain is one type of DLT that can either be permissionless or permissioned. Many of the most well known cryptocurrencies are based upon “permissionless” blockchains. The permissionless blockchain has no access control.

Both the users and the “nodes” that validate the transactions on the permissionless blockchain network are anonymous. The network distributed nodes perform cryptographic check-sums to validate transactions, each seeking to enter the next block in the chain in return for an issuance of cryptocurrency (mining). This means that the anonymous—if they wish–users of the cryptocurrency can be confident that transactions have been recorded and validated without any need of a bank.

Regardless of what you think about cryptocurrency, it is not the innumerable coins and models of “money” in the “crypto universe” that concerns the BIS or its central bank member. It is the underpinning “permissionless” DLT, threatening their ability to maintain financial and economic control, that preoccupies them.

The BIS more-or-less admits this:

Crypto has its origin in Bitcoin, which introduced a radical idea: a decentralised means of transferring value on a permissionless blockchain. Any participant can act as a validating node and take part in the validation of transactions on a public ledger (ie the permissionless blockchain). Rather than relying on trusted intermediaries (such as banks), record-keeping on the blockchain is performed by a multitude of anonymous, self-interested validators.

Many will argue that Bitcoin was a creation of the deep state. Perhaps to lay the foundation for CBDC, or at least provide the claimed justification for it. Although the fact that this is one “conspiracy theory” that the mainstream media is willing to entertain might give us pause for thought.

Interesting though this debate may be, it is an aside because it is not Bitcoin, nor any other cryptoasset constructed upon any permissionless DLT, that threatens human freedom. The proposed models of CBDC most certainly do.

CBDC & The End of the Split Circuit IMFS
Central banks are private corporations just as commercial banks are. As we bank with commercial banks so commercial banks bank with central banks. We are told that central banks have something to do with government, but that is a myth.

Today, we use “fiat currency” as money. Commercial banks create this “money” out of thin air when they make a loan (exposed here). In exchange for a loan agreement the commercial bank creates a corresponding “bank deposit”—from nothing—that the customer can then access as new money. This money (fiat currency) exists as commercial bank deposit and can be called “broad money.”

Commercial banks hold reserve accounts with the central banks. These operate using a different type of fiat currency called “central bank reserves” or “base money.”

We cannot exchange “base money,” nor can “nonbank” businesses. Only commercial and central banks have access to base money. This creates, what John Titus describes—on his excellent Best Evidence Channel—as the split-monetary circuit.

Prior to the pseudopandemic, in theory, base money did not “leak” into the broad money circuit. Instead, increasing commercial banks’ “reserves” supposedly encouraged them to lend more and thereby allegedly increase economic activity through some vague mechanism called “stimulus” .

Following the global financial crash in 2008, which was caused by the commercial banks profligate speculation on worthless financial derivatives, the central banks “bailed-out” the bankrupt commercial banks by buying their worthless assets (securities) with base money. The new base money, also created from nothing, remained accessible only to the commercial banks. The new base money didn’t directly create new broad money.

This all changed, thanks to a plan presented to central banks by the global investment firm BlackRock. In late 2019, the G7 central bankers endorsed BlackRock’s suggested “going-direct” monetary strategy.

BlackRock said that the monetary conditions that prevailed as a result of the bank bail-outs had left the International Monetary and Financial System (IMFS) “tapped out.” Therefore, BlackRock suggested that a new approach would be needed in the next downturn if “unusual circumstances” arose.

These circumstances would warrant “unconventional monetary policy and unprecedented policy coordination.” BlackRock opined:

Going direct means the central bank finding ways to get central bank money directly in the hands of public and private sector spenders.

Coincidentally, just a couple of months later, the precise “unusual circumstances,” specified by BlackRock, came about as an alleged consequence of the pseudopandemic. The “going direct” plan was implemented.

Instead of using “base money” to buy worthless assets solely from commercial banks, the central banks used the base money to create “broad money” deposits in commercial banks. The commercial banks acted as passive intermediaries, effectively enabling the central banks to buy assets from nonbanks. These nonbank private corporations and financial institutions would have otherwise been unable sell their bonds and other securities directly to the central banks because they can’t trade using central bank base money.

The US Federal Reserve (Fed) explain how they deployed BlackRock’s ‘going direct’ plan:

A notable development in the U.S. banking system following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic has been the rapid and sustained growth in aggregate bank deposits [broad money]. [. . .] When the Federal Reserve purchases securities from a nonbank seller, it creates new bank deposits by crediting the reserve account of the depository institution [base money] at which the nonbank seller has an account, and then the depository institution credits the deposit [broad money] account of the nonbank seller.

This process of central banks issuing “currency” that then finds its way directly into private hands will find its ultimate expression through CBDC. The transformation of the IMFS, suggested by BlackRock’s “going direct” plan, effectively served as a forerunner for the proposed CBDC based IMFS.

The “Essential” CBDC Public-Private Partnerships
CBDC will only be “issued” by the central banks. All CBDC is “base money.” It will end the traditional split circuit monetary system, although proponents of CBDC like to pretend that it won’t, claiming the “two-tier banking system” will continue.

This is nonsense. The new “two-tier” CBDC system is nothing like its more distant predecessor and much more like “going direct.”.

CBDC potentially cuts commercial banks out of the “creating money from nothing” scam. The need for some quid pro quo between the central and the commercial banks was highlighted in a recent report by McKinsey & Company:

The successful launch of a CBDC involving direct consumer and business accounts could displace a material share of deposits currently held in commercial bank accounts and could create a new competitive front for payment solution providers.

McKinsey also noted, for CBDC to be successful, it would need to be widely adopted:

Ultimately, the success of CBDC launches will be measured by user adoption, which in turn will be tied to the digital coins’ acceptance as a payment method with a value proposition that improves on existing alternatives. [. . .] To be successful, CBDCs will need to gain substantial usage, partially displacing other instruments of payment and value storage.

According to McKinsey, a thriving CBDC would need to replace existing “instruments of payment.” To achieve this, the private “payment solution providers” will have to be on-board. So, if they are going to countenance displacement of their “material share of deposits,” commercial banks need an incentive.

Whatever model CBDC ultimately takes, if the central bankers want to minimise commercial resistance from “existing alternatives,” so-called public-private partnership with the commercial banks is essential. Though, seeing as central banks are also private corporations, perhaps “corporate-private partnership” would be more appropriate.

McKinsey state:

Commercial banks will likely play a key role in large-scale CBDC rollouts, given their capabilities and knowledge of customer needs and habits. Commercial banks have the deepest capabilities in client onboarding [adoption of CBDC payment systems] [. . .] so it seems likely that the success of a CBDC model will depend on a public–private partnership (PPP) between commercial and central banks.

Accenture, the global IT consultancy that is a founding member of the ID2020 Alliance global digital identity partnership, agrees with McKinsey.

Accenture declares:

Make no mistake: Commercial banks have a pivotal role to play and a unique opportunity to shape the course of CBDC at its foundation. [. . .] CBDC is developing at a much faster pace than that of other payment systems. [. . .] In the U.S. at least, the design of a CBDC will likely involve the private sector, and with the two-tier banking system set to remain in place, commercial banks must now step up and forge a path forward.

What Model of CBDC?
By creating the new concept of “wholesale CBDC,” the two-tier fallacy can be maintained by those who think this matters. Nonetheless, it is true that a wholesale CBDC wouldn’t necessarily supplant broad money.

The Bank for International Settlements (BIS)—the central bank for central banks—offers a definition of the wholesale CBDC variant:

Wholesale CBDCs are for use by regulated financial institutions. They build on the current two-tier structure, which places the central bank at the foundation of the payment system while assigning customer-facing activities to PSPs [non-bank payment service providers]. The central bank grants accounts to commercial banks and other PSPs, and domestic payments are settled on the central bank’s balance sheet. [. . .] Wholesale CBDCs and central bank reserves operate in a very similar way.

Wholesale CBDC has some tenuous similarities to the current central bank reserve system but, depending upon the added functionality of the CBDC design, increases central bank ability to control all investment and subsequent business activity. This alone could have an immense social impact.

The BIS continues:

[. . .] a more far-reaching innovation is the introduction of retail CBDCs. Retail CBDCs modify the conventional two-tier monetary system in that they make central bank digital money available to the general public, just as cash is available to the general public as a direct claim on the central bank. [. . .] A retail CBDC is akin to a digital form of cash[.] [. . .] Retail CBDCs come in two variants. One option makes for a cash-like design, allowing for so-called token-based access and anonymity in payments. This option would give individual users access to the CBDC based on a password-like digital signature using private-public key cryptography, without requiring personal identification. The other approach is built on verifying users’ identity (“account-based access”) and would be rooted in a digital identity scheme.

It is “retail CBDC” that extends central bank oversight and enables it to govern every aspect of our lives. Retail CBDC is the ultimate nightmare scenario for us as individual “citizens.”

While the BIS outlines the basic concept of retail CBDC, it has thoroughly misled the public. Suggesting that retail CBDC is the users “claim on the central bank” sounds much better than acknowledging that CBDC is a liability of the central bank. That is, the central bank always “owns” the CBDC.

It is a liability which, as we shall see, the central bank agrees to pay if its stipulated “smart contract” conditions are met. A retail CBDC is actually the central bank’s “claim” on whatever is in your CBDC “wallet.”

The BIS assertion, that CBDC is “akin to a digital form of cash,” is a lie. CBDC is nothing like “cash,” save in the remotest possible sense.

Both cash, as we understand it, and CBDC are liabilities of the central bank but the comparison ends there. The central bank, or its commercial bank “partners,” cannot monitor where we exchange cash nor control what we buy with it. CBDC will empower them to do both.

At the moment, spending cash in a retail setting—-without biometric surveillance such as facial recognition cameras—is automatically anonymous. While “token-based access” retail CBDC could theoretically maintain our anonymity, this is irrelevant because we are all being herded into a retail CBDC design that is “rooted in a digital identity scheme.”

The UK central bank—the Bank of England (BoE)—has recently published its envisaged technical specification for its CBDC which it deceptively calls the Digital Pound. The BoE categorically states:

CBDC would not be anonymous because the ability to identify and verify users is needed to prevent financial crime and to meet applicable legal and regulatory obligations. [. . .] Varying levels of identification would be accepted to ensure that CBDC is available for all. [. . . ] Users should be able to vary their privacy preferences to suit their privacy needs within the parameters set by law, the Bank and the Government. Enhanced privacy functionality could result in users securing greater benefits from sharing their personal data.

Again, it is imperative to appreciate that CBDC is nothing like cash. Cash may be preferred by “criminals” but it is more widely preferred by people who do not want to share all their personal data simply to conduct business or buy goods and services.

The Digital Pound will end that possibility for British people. Just as CBDCs in every other country will end it for their populations.

The BoE model assumes no possible escape route. Even for those unable to present state approved “papers” on demand, “varying levels of identification” will be enforced to ensure that the CBDC control grid is “for all.” The BoE, the executive branch of government and the judiciary form a partnership that will determine the acceptable “parameters” of the BoE’s, not the users, “privacy preferences.”

The more personal identification data you share with the BoE and its state partners, the sweeter your permitted use of CBDC will be. It all depends upon your willingness to comply. Failure to comply will result in you being unable to function as a citizen and ensure that you are effectively barred from mainstream society.

If we simply concede to the rollout of the CBDC, the concept of the free human being will be distant memory. Only the first couple of post CBDC generations will have any appreciation of what happened. If they don’t deal with it, the future CBDC slavery of humanity will be inescapable.

This may sound like hyperbole but, regrettably, it isn’t. It is the dictatorial nightmare of retail CBDC that we will explore in part 2, alongside the simple steps we can all take to ensure the CBDC nightmare never becomes a reality.


Connect with Iain Davis

Cover image credit: CDD20

Central Bank Digital Currency Is The Endgame (Pt. 2)

Central Bank Digital Currency Is The Endgame (Pt. 2)

by Iain Davis
originally published March 6, 2023


In Part 1 we noted that “money” is no more than a medium of exchange. If we cooperate in sufficient numbers, we could create an economy based upon an entirely voluntary monetary system. We don’t need banks to control our exchange transactions and modern Distributed Ledger Technology (DLT) has made voluntary exchange on a global scale entirely feasible.

We contrasted the true nature of “money” with the proposed Central Bank Digital Currencies. CBDC is being rolled out across the world by a global public-private partnership . What we call money is actually fiat currency conjured out of thin air by central and commercial banks. Even so, CBDC is nothing like “money” as we currently understand it.

Prior to the pseudopandemic, fiat currency circulated in a split-monetary circuit. Only commercial banks could access a type of money called “central bank reserves” or “base money.” In late 2019, the global financial institution BlackRock introduced a monetary plan that advocated “going direct” in order “to get central bank money directly in the hands of public and private sector spenders.”

We discussed how the idea of putting “central bank money” directly into the hands of “private sector spenders” is precisely what that new CBDC based International Monetary and Financial System (IMFS) is designed to achieve. But CBDC will accomplish far more for the global parasite class than merely revamp its failing “debt” based IMFS.

If it is universally adopted, CBDC will afford the bankers complete control over the our daily lives. The surveillance grid will be omnipresent and every aspect of our lives will be engineered.

CBDC is the endgame and, in this article, we will explore how that game will play out.

If we allow it.

The Interoperable CBDC Empire
Contrary to the stories we are told, central banks are private corporations. These private corporations operate a global monetary and financial empire that is overseen and coordinated by the Bank for International Settlements (BIS).

The BIS does not come under the jurisdiction of any nation state nor intergovernmental organisation. It is exempt from all “law” and is arguably sovereign over the entire planet. As its current monetary system power-base declines, it is rolling out CBDC to protect and enhance its own authority.

While a “most likely” CBDC “platform” model has emerged, there is, as yet, no agreed single technical specification for CBDC. But, for the reasons we discussed previously, it is safe to say that no national model will be based upon a permissionless DLT—blockchain or otherwise—and all of them will be “interoperable.”

In 2021 the BIS published its Central bank digital currencies for cross-border payments report. The BIS defined “interoperability” as:

The technical or legal compatibility that enables a system or mechanism to be used in conjunction with other systems or mechanisms. Interoperability allows participants in different systems to conduct, clear and settle payments or financial transactions across systems

The BIS’ global debt based monetary system is “tapped out” and CBDC is the central bankers’ solution. Their intended technocratic empire is global. Consequently, all national CBDCs will be “interoperable.” Alleged geopolitical tensions are irrelevant.

The CBDC Tracker from the NATO think tank, the Atlantic Council, currently reports that 114 countries, representing 95% of global GDP, are actively developing their CBDC. Of these, 11 have already launched.

Just as the pseudopandemic initiated the process of getting “central bank money” directly into private hands so, according to the Atlantic Council, the sanction response to the war in Ukraine has added further impetus to the development of CBDC:

Financial sanctions on Russia have led countries to consider payment systems that avoid the dollar. There are now 9 cross-border wholesale CBDC tests and 7 cross-border retail projects, nearly double the number from 2021.

That this evidences the global coordination of a worldwide CBDC project, and that the BIS innovation hubs have been established to coordinate it, is apparently some sort of secret. China’s PBC, for example, is a shining beacon of CBDC light as far as the BIS are concerned:

[. . . ] improving cross-border payments efficiency is also an important motivation for CBDC work. [. . .] The possibilities for cross-border use of retail CBDC are exemplified by the approaches in the advanced CBDC project in China[.]

The People’s Bank of China (PBC) has been coordinating development of its CBDC cross-border payment system in partnership with the BIS via the m-Bridge CBDC project which is overseen by the BIS’ Hong Kong innovation hub.

Supposedly, the Central Bank of the Russian Federation (CBR – Bank of Russia) was suspended by the BIS. Apparently, it was also ousted from the SWIFT telecommunications system. We were told that this was a “punishement” for the Russian government’s escelation of the war in Ukraine. In reality, it is doubtful that the BIS suspension ever occurred, and the SWIFT sanction was a meaningless gesture. Developing interoperable CBDC’s takes precedence over anything else.

All we have to substantiate the BIS suspension claim is some Western media reports, citing anonymous BIS sources, and an ambiguous footnote on a couple of BIS documents. Meanwhile, the CBR is currently listed as an active BIS member with full voting rights and no one, either from the BIS or the CBR, has made any official statement in regard to the supposed suspension.

The CBR’s cross-border CBDC development uses two of the three BIS m-Bridge CBDC models and it is testing its interoperable “digital ruble” with the PBC. Seeing as the PBC is BIS m-Bridge development “partner,” alleged suspension or not, there is no chance that the “digital ruble” won’t be interoperable with the BIS’ new global financial system.

The Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFT) provides the world’s most pervasive encoded inter-bank messaging system. Both central and commercial banks, as well as other private financial institutions, use SWIFT to securely transmit transaction data.

There are a number of SWIFT alternatives. For example, the CBR developed its parallel System for Transfer of Financial Messages (SPFS) in 2014 which went live in 2017. Numerous Russian banks were already using the PBC’s China International Payments System (CIPS) long before any supposed censure by SWIFT.

CIPS was developed by the PBC  in partnership with SWIFT. As a result of SWIFT’s “sanction” of the CBR, the PBC and the CBR then started collaborating in earnest on a potential CIPS based SWIFT replacement. If the stories we are told are true, SWIFT’s action appears to have been an empty act of self-defeating folly.

None of the various communication layer technologies are financial systems in and of themselves, but they enable banks, trading platforms, clearing houses, payment processing systems and all the other elements of the global financial system to communicate with each other. For CBDCs to be successful they need to be interoperable both with these systems and with each other.

Interoperability also extends to existing fiat currencies and other financial assets, such as mortgage backed securities and exchange traded funds (ETFs). These assets, funds, currencies and securities, etc. can be “tokenised.” As can practically any physical or virtual asset or commodity.

Hidera, a distributed ledger technology company that uses the hashgraph based DLT—a blockchain alternative—is backed by a number of wealthy global corporations. The company explains the asset tokenisation (or tokenization) process:

Asset tokenization is the process by which an issuer creates digital tokens on a distributed ledger or blockchain, which represent either digital or physical assets. [. . .] Suppose you have a property worth $500,000 in New York, NY. Asset tokenization could convert ownership of this property into 500,000 tokens — each one representing a tiny percentage (0.0002%) of the property. [. . .] The possibilities are endless as tokenization allows for both fractional ownership and proof-of-ownership. From traditional assets like venture capital funds, bonds, commodities, and real-estate properties to exotic assets like sports teams, race horses, artwork, and celebrities, companies worldwide use blockchain technology to tokenize almost anything.

The ability to trade tokenised assets internationally in any market, using CBDC, will facilitate the creation of a new CBDC based IMFS. Furthermore, digital “tokenisation” means anything can be converted into a financial asset and then traded on the new, CBDC based, digital IMFS.

For example, the BIS’ Project Genesis tokenised “government green bonds.” The World Bank explains “green bonds”:

A bond is a form of debt security. A debt security is a legal contract for money owed that can be bought and sold between parties. [. . .] A green bond is a debt security that is issued to raise capital specifically to support climate related or environmental projects.

Using CBDC’s added “smart contract” functionality, Project Genesis appended “mitigation outcome interests” smart contracts (MOIs) to their green bond purchase agreements. When the bond matured, in addition to any premium or coupon payments from the bond itself, the investor received verified carbon credits. The carbon credits are also tradable assets and they too can be tokenised.

Tokenised assets, traded using the CBDCs that central banks create from nothing, will generate almost limitless permutations for the formation of new markets. Subsequent profits will soar.

This “financialisation of everything” will further remove an already distant financial system to from the real, productive economy the rest of us live in. Needless to say, “interoperability” is a key desired “feature” of CBDC.

The BIS published its Project Helvetia report in December 2020 which demonstrated proof of concept for the settlement  payment for “tokenised assets” using CBDC. SWIFT subsequently published the findings from its Connecting Digital Islands: CBDCs modelling experiment in October 2022.

SWIFT’s stated objective was to link various national CBDCs to existing payment systems and thereby achieve “global interoperability.” SWIFT was delighted to report:

These new experiments have successfully demonstrated a groundbreaking solution capable of interlinking CBDC networks and existing payments systems for cross-border transactions. Interlinking is a solution to achieve interoperability [.] [. . .] This solution can provide CBDC network operators at central banks with simple enablement and integration of domestic CBDC networks into cross-border payments [.]

In its associated press release, SWIFT announced:

Swift has successfully shown that Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) and tokenised assets can move seamlessly on existing financial infrastructure – a major milestone towards enabling their smooth integration into the international financial ecosystem.

Whatever CBDC design national central banks adopt, no matter which inter-bank payment system they access—be it SWIFT, CIPS or some new communication layer—global interoperability is assured. Thus many different CBDCs can form one, centrally controlled IMFS that will transact in near instantaneous real time.

Control of this CBDC system will also mean the centralised global power to limit or block payments, target users, redirect funds, enforce purchases, trade assets, add contracts, tax at source and generally exploit any of the other endless range of “functions” CBDC is capable of. In near instantaneous real time.

The CBDC Flimflam
Jon Cunliffe, Bank of England (BoE) Deputy Governor for Financial Stability, launching the UK’s proposal for a “digital pound,” said:

There is scope for innovation to generate further efficiencies in payments, allowing for faster and/or cheaper payments. [. . .] The digital pound could also complement existing financial inclusion initiatives, for example if it were able to provide for offline payments.

In its 2021 document on the Digital Ruble Concept, the CBR said that it had developed its Russian CBDC in response to:

[. . .] growing demand from households and businesses to improve the speed, convenience and safety of payments and transfers, as well as for cost reduction in the financial sphere.

The claimed advantages of cost saving, efficiency, speed , convenience, financial inclusion, improved resilience, financial security and so on, are trotted out time and time again. All of it is part of a dangerous and completely disingenuous sales pitch deceiving you into accepting your own monetary slavery.

Further on, the CBR reveals what has really spurred its development of the “digital ruble:”

[. . .] smart contracts may also be used to mark digital rubles, which will allow setting conditions for spending digital rubles (e.g. defining specific categories of goods/services that can be purchased with them) and tracing the entire chain of movement of the marked digital rubles. [. . .] Digital ruble settlements do not provide for the anonymity of payments.

The digital ruble might initially seem more “convenient” but it is also designed to enable the the Russian central bankers to identify exactly who is buying what, anywhere in the country at any time. It will also empower them to set the “contract” conditions which will determine what Russians can buy, when and from whom. The central bankers will decide what “choices” Russian CBDC users are allowed to make.

We should not be duped by the faux rationales offered by the proponents of CBDC. Despite all the cosy rhetoric from the likes of the CBR and the BoE, the real objective is to enhance the global power and authority of bankers. As far as they are concerned, this power will know no bounds.

For instance, the BoE’s Jon Cunliffe added:

[. . .] there are broader macro-economic and geopolitical issues that need to be considered. The Bank of England is working actively on these issues with international counterparts through the Bank for International Settlements Committee on Payments and Market Infrastructures (CPMI), through the G7, the G20 and FSB [Financial Stability Board] and through close cooperation with a small group of advanced economy central banks.

Don’t be surprised that the central bankers consider geopolitics to be within their remit. Their stated intention to “actively” work on geopolitical “issues” has no “democratic” mandate whatsoever, but so what? They don’t care, why should they? Who is paying attention? Most of us are too busy worrying about feeding ourselves and paying our energy bills.

The fact that bankers have long been able exert inordinate influence over geopolitics, economics and society has always been to our detriment. If we continue to neglect our duty to defend each other and ourselves, and if we blindly accept CBDC, the bankers’ power and authority will be immeasurable.

In 2020, the Russian Federation government amended its legal code with the “Law on Digital Financial Assets” (DFAs). The amendment regulated “non-cash ruble” DFAs. The CBR soon added its commercial bank partner Sberbank to the list of financial institutions authorised by the CBR to issue DFAs. In December 2022 Sberbank launched its “gold backed ” DFA offering “tokenised” gold.

Since 1971, when central banks finally abandoned any semblance of gold standard, many have lamented the supposed loss of fiat currency’s “intrinsic value.” The possibility of adding “intrinsic value” to CBDC through smart contracts is apparently enticing some to now welcome CBDC and, thereby, their own enslavement.

The Russian and Iranian governments have already proposed a possible gold-backed CBDC “stablecoin” for interoperable cross border payments. “Interoperability” suggests it could be “backed” by Sberbank’s tokenised gold DFA.

If this sounds suspiciously like a shell game that’s because it is. Nonetheless, some are convinced and have extolled the alleged virtues of this “gold backed” CBDC.

It makes no difference if CBDC is backed by gold, oil, nuclear weapons or unicorn horns. All claims of its advantages are nothing but CBDC flimflam.

No matter how it is spun, the brutal fact is that CBDC affords an unimaginable degree of social control to those who program it. From our perspective, unless we have completely taken leave of our senses, nothing warrants taking that risk.

The Programmable CBDC Nightmare
The BoE is among the central banks to reassure the public that it won’t “implement central bank-initiated programmable functions.” Elsewhere, it also claims that is a public institution, which isn’t true. So we have little reason to believe anything the BoE says.

Not that it matters much, because the BoE assurances given in its CBDC technical specification don’t provide reason for optimism:

Central bank-initiated programmable use cases are not currently relevant to the Bank and HM Treasury’s policy objectives for CBDC.

Perhaps “not currently” but enforcing programmable CBDC may well become “relevant,” don’t you think? Especially given that the BoE adds:

The design of a UK CBDC must deliver the Government and Bank’s [the BoE] policy objectives. [. . .] Over the longer term, innovation and evolving user needs may mean a broader range of CBDC payment types could be offered. For example, offline and cross-border payments could support public policy objectives.

As if this mealymouthed squeamishness wasn’t bad enough, the BoE then goes on to suggest we should welcome their dream of a stakeholder-capitalism CBDC Wild West:

[T]he Bank [BoE] would aim to support programmable functionality[.] [. . .] These functionalities would be implemented by PIPs [Payment Interface Providers] and ESIPs [External Service Interface Providers], and would require user consent. PIPs could implement some of these features, such as automated payments and programmable wallets, by hosting the programmable logic [. . .]. But other features [. . .] might require additional design considerations. [. . .] [T]he Bank would only provide the necessary infrastructure to support PIPs and ESIPs to provide these functionalities. [. . .] An automated payment could be particularly useful in IoT [Internet of Things] use cases. [. . .] PIPs could host their own logic that triggers a payment.

If the BoE don’t “currently” feel the need to program your “money,” how about handing program control over to HSBC, Barclays, Mastercard or PayPal? They will program your CBDC to “deliver the Government and Bank’s [the BoE] policy objectives.” Undoubtedly adding some lucrative “contract logic” of their own along the way. What could possibly go wrong?

Let’s say EDF Energy is your energy provider. You could let BlackRock, working in partnership with the manufacturers it invests in, exploit the IoT to program your washing machine to automatically pay for your energy use by deducting your “money” from your CBDC “wallet”, subject to whatever “contract logic” BlackRock has agreed with EDF Energy.

If you run a small UK business you could let your bank automatically deduct income tax from your earnings and pay it directly to the Treasury. No need for the inconvenience of self-assessment. CBDC will be so much more “convenient.”

Of course, this will be entirely “optional,” although it may be a condition of opening a business account with your bank. In which case your CBDC “option” will be to work in a central bank managed CBDC run business or don’t engage in any business at all.

How does that all sound to you? Because that is exactly the “model” of retail CBDC that the BoE are proposing. So are nearly all other central banks because CBDC is being rolled out, for all intents and purposes, simultaneously on a global scale.

The Retail CBDC Nightmare
As noted in Part 1, the real nightmare CBDC scenario for us is programmable retail CBDC. In its proposed technological design of the disingenuously named “digital pound,” the BoE revealed that “retail CBDC” is exactly what we are going to get.

The BoE claims that retail CBDC is essential to maintain access to central bank money. This is only “essential” for bankers, not us.

It also alleges that its digital pound model has been offered to the public merely for “consultation” purposes. Yet it has only offered one, very specific CBDC design for our consideration and the “consultation” deploys the Delphi technique to ensure that responses are limited to expressing levels of agreement with the imposed, underlying premise. The only question appears to be when we will adopt CBDC, not if.

The usual flimflam, talking about inclusion, cost savings, offering choice and yada yada, peppers the BoE’s statements and documents. The BoE also lays out its retail CBDC panopticon.

The UK’s CBDC won’t initially target everyone. Speaking about the design of the digital pound, Jon Cunliffe said:

We propose a limit of between £10,000 and £20,000 per individual as the appropriate balance between managing risks and supporting wide usability of the digital pound. A limit of £10,000 would mean that three quarters of people could receive their pay in digital pounds, while a £20,000 limit would allow almost everyone to receive their pay in digital pounds.

If working people are “paid” in CBDC they won’t actually have any “choice” at all. The low paid and those reliant upon benefits payments will have no option but to use CBDC. The independently wealthy, for whom £20,000 is neither here nor there, won’t.

Cunliffe’s comments highlight the possibility that savings can also be limited in the brave new CBDC world. He clearly suggests that those on low incomes won’t be able to hold more than CBDC-£20,000 and will perhaps be limited to as little as CBDC-£10,000.

Unsurprisingly, the UK’s CBDC won’t be based upon a permissionless DLT that could potentially grant anonymity, but rather upon, what the BoE calls, its “platform model.” The BoE will “host” the “core ledger” and the application layer (API) will allow the BoE’s carefully selected private sector partners—called Payment Interface Providers (PIPs) and External Service Interface Providers (ESIPs)—to act as the payment gateways.

The PIPs and the ESIPs will be “regulated,” and will thus be empowered on a preferential basis by the central bank. If CBDC becomes the dominant monetary system, as is clearly the intention, by controlling “access to the ledger,” all user transactions—our everyday activity—will be under the thumb of a public private-partnership led, in the UK, by the BoE.

While the majority of British people don’t have anywhere near £10,000 in savings, the ability to control the amount we can save, and the rate at which we spend, is a tantalising prospect for the central bankers. Add in the ability to specify what we can spend it on and it’s their dream ticket.

The BoE wishes to impose the most oppressive form of retail CBDC possible, but they aren’t alone. The Russian CBR’s model is another, among many others, that is just as tyrannical. The Russian’s CBDC is also constructed upon a “platform” model that is uncannily similar to the UK’s.

Just like British citizens, Russian’s behaviour will be monitored and controlled by their private central bank and its partners through their CBDC “wallets.” The CBR’s “Model D” CBDC is also a “a retail two-tier model with financial institutions [private corporate partners] as settlement participants.”

The CBR states:

Digital rubles are unique digital codes (tokens) held in clients’ electronic wallets on the digital ruble platform. [. . .] The Bank of Russia opens wallets for financial institutions and the Federal Treasury while financial institutions open wallets for clients [businesses and individuals] on the digital ruble platform. Only one digital ruble wallet is opened for a client.

Every Russian business and private citizen will each have one CBDC wallet allocated to them by the CBR. Russian commercial banks will enable the “client onboarding” to speed up adoption of CBDC. The commercial banks and other “financial institutions” will then process CBDC payments and act as payment intermediaries on the CBR’s Model D “platform.”

The People’s Bank of China (PBoC) and the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) are among those considering programming expiration dates into their CBDC’s. This will ensure that Chinese and Indian CBDC users can’t save and have to spend their issued “money” before it expires and ceases to function. Thereby “stimulating” economic activity in the most “going direct” way imaginable.

The BoE proposes exactly the same in its model of digital pound. The BoE is reluctant to concede that its CBDC will be used to enforce policy. Instead, it has devolved this power to its commercial banks “partners” which the BoE will then control through regulation:

A range of programmable features might be enabled by providing API access to locking mechanisms on the core ledger. [. . .] This enables PIPs and ESIPs to facilitate more complex programmable functionality off ledger. [. . .] The funds would be locked until a pre-defined condition has been met. [. . .] The PIPs and ESIPs would host contract logic on their own infrastructure, but would instruct the release of funds via API to the core ledger. [. . .] If the set conditions are not met, all locks would have an expiry time where the funds are released back to the original owner.

The BoE public-private partnership could, for example, program its CBDC with an expiry date. The PIPs or the ESIPs could then modify the program adding “more complex” conditions through their own “contract logic” infrastructure. For example, the BoE could specify that the CBDC your “wallet” will expire by next Wednesday.

A PIP or ESIP could add some contract logic to ensure you can only buy Italian coffee—before next Wednesday. This could be enforced at the point of sale in any retail setting (off ledger).

This is a silly example, but don’t be fooled into believing such an excruciating degree of oppressive control isn’t possible. Programmable CBDC, probably programmed by AI algorithms, is capable of enforcing an intricate web of strictures over our everyday lives.

Just as you can send an encrypted message to anyone else on the same message app, so CBDC “smart contracts” can be tailored to the precisely prescribe what you can or cannot do with your “money.”

They Wouldn’t Do That Though Would They?
The infamous quote, from a salivating BIS general manager Agustín Carstens, reveals why central bankers are so excited about CBDC:

We don’t know who’s using a $100 bill today and we don’t know who’s using a 1,000 peso bill today. The key difference with the CBDC is the central bank will have absolute control on the rules and regulations that will determine the use of that expression of central bank liability, and also we will have the technology to enforce that.

We can look to other influential central bankers to appreciate what kind of “rules” central banks might choose to “enforce” by exercising their “absolute control.”

Bo Li, the former Deputy Governor of the Bank of China and the current Deputy Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), speaking at the Central Bank Digital Currencies for Financial Inclusion: Risks and Rewards symposium, offered further clarification

CBDC can allow government agencies and private sector players to program [CBDC] to create smart-contracts, to allow targetted policy functions. For example[,] welfare payments [. . .], consumptions coupons, [. . .] food stamps. By programming, CBDC money can be precisely targeted [to] what kind of [things] people can own, and what kind of use [for which] this money can be utilised. For example, [. . .] for food.

Nigeria has already launched its eNaira retail CBDC. The Nigerian central bank and the BIS have immediately used it as a tool to roll out Digital ID:

Universal access to eNaira is a key goal of the CBN [Central Bank of Nigeria], and new forms of digital identification are being issued to the unbanked to help with access. [. . .] When it comes to anonymity, the CBN has opted to not allow anonymity even for lower-tier wallets. At present, a bank verification number is required to open a retail customer wallet.

The French central bank—the Banque de France—hosted a conference in September 2022 where US and EU central bankers decided that their retail CBDC would also force Digital ID upon users. Indeed, all central banks have effectively “ruled out” any possibility of “anonymous use” of their programmable money.

The Reserve Bank of India states:

Most central banks and other observers have, however, noted that the potential for anonymous digital currency to facilitate shadow-economy and illegal transactions, makes it highly unlikely that any CBDC would be designed to fully match the levels of anonymity and privacy currently available with physical cash.

Once we have no option but to use CBDC nor will we have any but to accept Digital ID. We will be fully visible on the grid at all times.

Currently if the state wishes to lockdown its citizens or limit their movement within 15 minutes of their homes they need some form of legislation or enforceable regulation. Once we start using CBDC that is linked to our Digital ID, complete with biometric, address and other details, they won’t need legislation or regulation.

They can simply switch off your “money,” making it impossible to use outside of your restriction zone. Potentially limiting you to online purchases made only from your registered IP address. CBDC will ensure your compliance.

It is no use imagining that “they wouldn’t do that.” We have already seen the use of monetary punishment and control in our so-called liberal democracies. Numerous private payment providers removed access from those who, in their view, expressed to wrong opinion.

When Canadians exercised their legitimate right to peaceful protest and their fellow Canadians chose to offer their financial support to the protesters, the commercial banks worked in partnership with the Canadian state to freeze protesters accounts and shut down their funding streams.

CBDC will make this a matter of routine, as targeted individuals are punished for their dissent or disobedience. It stretches naivety to wilful ignorance to believe that it won’t.

The whole point of CBDC is to control the herd and enhance the power and authority of the parasite class. CBDC is a social engineering tool designed to establish a prison planet. Unless you want to be a slave, there is no possible justification for using CBDC. Submitting to CBDC enslavement truly is a “choice.”

Please share these articles. It is absolutely vital that as many people as possible understand the true nature of CBDC. We cannot rely upon the state or the mainstream media for anything approaching transparency or honesty on the subject. With regard to our potentially calamitous adoption of CBDC, they are the enemy.

Fortunately, if we decide to resist there is no reason why we have to succumb to using CBDC. In order to construct better systems of exchange that will render CBDC superfluous, we have to come together in our communities. It won’t be easy, there are no simple solutions nor one “perfect” strategic response.

But the fact is, we simply cannot afford CBDC.


Connect with Iain Davis

Cover image credit: cocoparisienne

Imagine a World Without Smartphones

Imagine a World Without Smartphones

by Emanuel Pastreich, Fear No Evil
March 7, 2023


When people think of the great attack on humanity, they often refer to 9.11, the start of the Iraq war, the COVID-19 operation, or the Russian invasion of Ukraine. But perhaps the deadliest attack on humanity is that of the “silent weapon” for a “quiet war” the smart phone. This weapon is aimed at the intellectual classes as a means of destroying their minds from within.

I have watched how the smart phone, combined with social media, has degraded the capacity of citizens to think for themselves over the last decade. This attack by the multinational corporations on our minds is far more dangerous than any bombing or shooting for it renders us passive, like GHB (gamma hydroxybutyric acid) (the date- rape drug) prone to exploitation and destruction.

The smart phone was launched in full force around 2009. I do not doubt that it had its positive aspects, and I was eventually forced to use one myself. Now you cannot travel without one in many parts of the world, and increasingly governments require them in order to be recognized as citizen. There is a sinister plan behind all of this, the great dumbing down, we call it.

The passivity and openness to suggestion that exposure to the smart phone induces is best described as a “procedure of conditioning,” to use the term of the German philosopher Günther Anders.

Anders wrote about a previous bid for totalitarian rule that was remarkably successfully, and never completely ended,

“Massenregie im Stile Hitlers erübrigt sich: Will man den Menschen zu einem Niemand machen (sogar stolz darauf, ein Niemand zu sein), dann braucht man ihn nicht mehr in Massenfluten zu ertränken; nicht mehr in einen, aus Masse massiv hergestellten, Bau einzubetonieren. Keine Entprägung, keine Entmachtung des Menschen als Menschen ist erfolgreicher als diejenige, die die Freiheit der Persönlichkeit und das Recht der Individualität scheinbar wahrt. Findet die Prozedur des „conditioning” bei jedermann gesondert statt: im Gehäuse des Einzelnen, in der Einsamkeit, in den Millionen Einsamkeiten, dann gelingt sie noch einmal so gut. Da die Behandlung sich als „fun” gibt; da sie dem Opfer nicht verrät, daß sie ihm Opfer abfordert; da sie ihm den Wahn seiner Privatheit, mindestens seines Privatraums, beläßt, bleibt sie vollkommen diskret.”

(Günther Anders, Die Antiquiertheit des Menschen, Beck, München 1961, p. 104)

Here’s the English translation:

“The stage-managing of masses that Hitler specialized in has become superfluous: if one wants to transform a man into a nobody (and even make him proud to be a nobody), it is no longer necessary to drown him in a mass, or to bury him in a cement construction mass-produced by masses. No depersonalization, no loss of the ability to be a man is more effective than the one that apparently preserves the freedom of the personality and the rights of the individual. If the procedure of conditioning takes place in a special way in the home of every person—in the individual home, in isolation, in millions of isolated units—the result will be perfect. The treatment is absolutely discreet, since it is presented as fun, the victim is not told that he must make any sacrifices and he is left with the illusion of his privacy or, at least, of his private space.”

Here is my article on the smart phone from the Korea Times published in 2018. I softened up my criticism at the time to reach a broader audience.

“Imagine Korea without smartphones”

Korea Times
December 2, 2018
Emanuel Pastreich

When I make this suggestion, the response I receive from Koreans is one of intense fascination. But the assumption they make is that I am going to describe a futuristic “smart city” in which we no longer will use smart phones because information will be projected on to our eyeglasses, or our retinas, or perhaps relayed directly to our brain via an implanted chip.

But I mean exactly what I say. The unrelenting takeover of our brains and of our society by the smartphone is taking an ominous turn.

Each day I watch almost every person on the subway lost in their smartphones, and increasingly lacking empathy for those around them as a result. They are mesmerized by video games; they flip quickly past photographs of chocolate cakes and cafe lattes, or fashionable dresses and shoes, or watch humorous short videos.

Few are reading careful investigative reporting, let alone books, that address the serious issues of our time. Nor are they debating with each other about how Korea will respond to the crisis of climate change, the risk of a nuclear arms race (or nuclear war) between the United States, Russia and China. Most media reporting is being dumbed down, treated as a form of entertainment, not a duty to inform the public.

Few people are sufficiently focused these days even to comprehend the complex geopolitical issues of the day, let alone the content of the bills pending in the National Assembly.

We are watching a precipitous decline in political awareness and of commitment to common goals in South Korea. And I fear that the smartphone, along with the spread of a social media that encourages impulsive and unfocused responses, is playing a significant role in this tragedy.

What do those smartphones do? We are told that smartphones make our lives more convenient and give us access to infinite amounts of information. IT experts are programming smartphones to be even more responsive to our needs and to offer even more features to make our lives more comfortable.

But Nicholas Carr’s book “The Shallows: What the Internet is Doing to our Brains” presents extensive scientific evidence that the internet as a whole, and smartphones in particular, are in fact reprogramming our brains, encouraging the neurons to develop lasting patterns for firing that encourage quick responses but that make contemplation and deep thought difficult.

Over time, we are creating a citizenship through that technology that is incapable of grasping an impending crisis and unable or unwilling to propose and implement solutions.

If smartphones are reprogramming our brains so that we are drawn to immediate gratification, but lose our capacity for deeper contemplation, for achieving an integrated understanding of the complexity of human society, and of nature, what will become of us?

But consumption, not understanding, let alone wisdom, is the name of the game for smartphones.

In the case of the worsening quality of the air in Korea, I observe a disturbing passivity, and also a painful failure of citizens to identity the complex factors involved. Even highly educated people seem not to have thought carefully about the exact factors behind the emissions of fine dust in Korea, and in China, and how that pollution is linked to the deregulation of industry, or to their behavior as consumers.

That is to say those phenomena in society have been broken down into discrete elements, like postings on Facebook, and that no overarching vision of complex trends is ever formed in the mind.

We float from one stimulating story to the next, like a butterfly flitting from one nectar-laden flower to another. We come away from our online readings with a vague sense that something is wrong, but with no deep understanding of what exactly the problem is, how it relates to our actions, and no game plan for how to solve it.

There is a powerful argument to be made that certain technologies that can alter how we perceive the world should be limited in their use if there is reason to believe they affect the core of the democratic process. Democracy is not about voting so much as the ability to understand complex changes in society, in the economy and in politics over time.

Without such an ability to think for ourselves, we will slip into an increasingly nightmare world, although we may never notice what happened.


Connect with Emanuel Pastreich

Cover image credit: Dieterich01

The Right to Be Let Alone: When the Government Wants to Know All Your Business

The Right to Be Let Alone: When the Government Wants to Know All Your Business

by John & Nisha Whitehead, The Rutherford Institute
March 7, 2023


“Experience teaches us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government’s purposes are beneficent.”

—Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis

There was a time when the census was just a head count.

That is no longer the case.

The American Community Survey (ACS), sent to about 3.5 million homes every year, is the byproduct of a government that believes it has the right to know all of your personal business.

If you haven’t already received an ACS, it’s just a matter of time.

A far cry from the traditional census, which is limited to ascertaining the number of persons living in each dwelling, their ages and ethnicities, the ownership of the dwelling and telephone numbers, the ACS contains some of the most detailed and intrusive questions ever put forth in a census questionnaire.

At 28 pages (with an additional 16-page instruction packet), these questions concern matters that the government simply has no business knowing, including questions relating to respondents’ bathing habits, home utility costs, fertility, marital history, work commute, mortgage, and health insurance, among other highly personal and private matters.

For instance, the ACS asks how many persons live in your home, along with their names and detailed information about them such as their relationship to you, marital status, race and their physical, mental and emotional problems, etc. The survey also asks how many bedrooms and bathrooms you have in your house, along with the fuel used to heat your home, the cost of electricity, what type of mortgage you have and monthly mortgage payments, property taxes and so on.

And then the survey drills down even deeper.

The survey demands to know how many days you were sick last year, how many automobiles you own and the number of miles driven, whether you have trouble getting up the stairs, and what time you leave for work every morning, along with highly detailed inquiries about your financial affairs. And the survey demands that you violate the privacy of others by supplying the names and addresses of your friends, relatives and employer.

The questionnaire also demands that you give other information on the people in your home, such as their educational levels, how many years of school were completed, what languages they speak and when they last worked at a job, among other things.

Individuals who receive the ACS must complete it or be subject to monetary penalties.

Although no reports have surfaced of individuals actually being penalized for refusing to answer the survey, the potential fines that can be levied for refusing to participate in the ACS are staggering. For every question not answered, there is a $100 fine. And for every intentionally false response to a question, the fine is $500. Therefore, if a person representing a two-person household refused to fill out any questions or simply answered nonsensically, the total fines could range from upwards of $10,000 and $50,000 for noncompliance.

While some of the ACS’ questions may seem fairly routine, the real danger is in not knowing why the information is needed, how it will be used by the government or with whom it will be shared.

In an age when the government has significant technological resources at its disposal to not only carry out warrantless surveillance on American citizens but also to harvest and mine that data for its own dubious purposes, whether it be crime-mapping or profiling based on whatever criteria the government wants to use to target and segregate the populace, the potential for abuse is grave.

As such, the ACS qualifies as a government program whose purpose, while sold to the public as routine and benign, raises significant constitutional concerns.

The Rutherford Institute has received hundreds of inquiries from individuals who have received the ACS and are not comfortable sharing such private, intimate details with the government or are unsettled by the aggressive tactics utilized by Census Bureau agents seeking to compel responses to ACS questions.

The following Q&A is provided as a resource to those who want to better understand their rights in respect to the ACS.

Q:  What kind of questions are contained in the ACS?

A:  The ACS contains questions that go far beyond typical census questions about the number of individuals within the household and their age, race, and sex. The survey combines intrusive questions with highly detailed inquiries about your financial affairs. Furthermore, the questionnaire also demands that recipients provide information about their family and other  people in their home, such as their educational levels, how many years of school were completed, what languages they speak, when they last worked at a job, and when occupants of your home are away from the house.

Q:  How will this information be used?

A:  The Census Bureau states that information from this survey is used to assist a wide variety of entities, from federal, state and local governments to private corporations, nonprofit organizations, researchers and public advocacy groups. The Bureau lists 35 different categories of questions on its website and offers an explanation on how the information is to be used.  For 12 of those categories, the information is used to assist private corporations.  For another 22, the information is used to aid advocacy groups, and in nine of those cases, the Census Bureau states that the responses will be used by advocacy groups to “advocate for policies that benefit their groups,” including advocacy based on age, race, sex, and marital status. Thus, information obtained through the ACS is not simply used to inform government policy in a neutral manner, but is also being provided to private actors for the purpose of promoting corporate and/or political agendas.

One concern raised by the Brookings Institute is the use of ACS information by law enforcement for  “crime mapping,” a surveillance tool used to predict crime and preemptively target certain neighborhoods for policing. It is “most effective” when “analysts can see the relationship between various types of criminal incidents (e.g., homicides, drug dealing) and neighborhood characteristics (risk factors such as poverty, population density, and vacant housing), pinpoint where crimes are most likely to occur (hot spots), and focus police resources accordingly.” The Brookings Institute notes that because the ACS provides data every year, rather than every ten years, crime mapping is more effective and cheaper.

Q:  Are my responses kept confidential?

A:  While the Census Bureau claims that an individual’s information will be kept strictly confidential, it does require a recipient to put their name on the survey, ostensibly for the purpose of asking follow-up questions in the event of missing or incomplete answers. This means your answers could be linked to you even if it is forbidden by law to share your individual responses.

Q:  Am I required by law to fully complete the American Community Survey?

A:  Federal law makes it mandatory to answer all questions on the ACS. A refusal to answer any question on the ACS or giving an intentionally false answer is a federal offense. The Census Bureau also maintains that responding to the ACS is mandatory and that recipients are legally obligated to answer all questions.

Q:  Is there a penalty for refusing to answer American Community Survey questions?

A:  The law requiring answers to the ACS also provides that a person who fails to answer “shall be fined not more than $100.” The actual fine for a refusal to complete the ACS could be much greater because a failure to respond to certain ACS questions could be considered a separate offense subject to the $100 fine.

Q:  Has the government prosecuted persons for refusing to answer the American Community Survey?

A:  While The Rutherford Institute has been made aware of Census Bureau agents engaging in harassing tactics and threatening behavior, to date, we are unaware of the Census Bureau having levied any financial penalties for non-compliance with the ACS. However, a refusal to answer the survey violates the letter of the law and a prosecution might be brought if the government decides to adopt a policy to do so.

Q:  How does the Census Bureau typically ensure that people complete the survey?

A:  Those who do not answer the ACS risk repeated overtures—by mail, by phone and in person—from Census Bureau employees seeking to compel a response. Typically, the Census Bureau will telephone those who do not respond to the survey and may visit their homes to coerce the targets to respond.

The Census Bureau boasts a 97% response rate to the survey via these methods, but critics argue this constitutes harassment. One recipient who did complete the survey but whose answers were misplaced by the Census Bureau wrote about his experience. First, a Census Bureau employee left a note at his apartment asking him to contact her. When he did, the employee asked him to allow her into his home. When he refused, the employee “turned up twice unannounced at my apartment, demanding entry, and warning me of the fines I would face if I didn’t cooperate.” Only after he filed a complaint with the Census Bureau did the agency realize he had actually completed the survey, thus ending its attempts to enter his home.

Q:  Is this an unconstitutional invasion of privacy?

A:  There are significant and legitimate questions concerning the authority of the government to require, under threat of prosecution and penalty, that persons answer questions posed by the ACS. The ACS is not part of the enumeration required by Article I of the Constitution, and that constitutional provision only applies to a census for purposes of counting the number of people in each state. As noted, the ACS seeks much more information than the number of persons in a household.

In other contexts, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that citizens have no obligation to answer questions posed by the government and are free to refuse to do so. This same principle could apply to questions posed by ACS agents.  However, because the government has not brought a prosecution for a refusal to respond to the ACS, the question of a person’s right to refuse has not yet been decided by a court.

Q:  What are my options for objecting to the ACS survey as an intrusion on my Fourth Amendment rights?

A:  If you receive notice that you have been targeted to respond to the ACS and you desire to assert your right of privacy, you can voice those objections and your intent not to respond to the ACS by writing a letter to the Census Bureau. The Rutherford Institute has developed a form letter that you may use in standing up against the government’s attempt to force you to disclose personal information.

If you are contacted by Census Bureau employees, either by telephone or in person, demanding your response, you can assert your rights by politely, but firmly, informing the employee that you believe the ACS is an improper invasion of your privacy, that you do not intend to respond and that they should not attempt to contact you again. Be sure to document any interactions you have with Bureau representatives for your own files.

If you believe you are being unduly harassed by a Census Bureau employee, either by telephone or in person, it is in your best interest to carefully document the time, place and manner of the incidents and file a complaint with the U.S. Census Bureau.

Remember, nothing is ever as simple or as straightforward as the government claims.

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, any attempt by the government to encroach upon the citizenry’s privacy rights or establish a system by which the populace can be targeted, tracked and singled out must be met with extreme caution.

While government agents can approach, speak to and even question citizens without violating the Fourth Amendment, Americans should jealously guard what Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis referred to as the constitutional “right to be let alone.”


Connect with The Rutherford Institute

Cover image credit: CDD20

The REAL Dangers of the Chatbot Takeover

The REAL Dangers of the Chatbot Takeover


“If you thought the amount of data that a company like Google was able to gain about its users by simply storing their searches was enormous, wait until you see what OpenAI and Microsoft and Google are going to do with the conversations that people are currently feeding into the data-harvesting machines known as chatbots.
And what are they going to do with that data (which will itself be tied with your phone number, your IP address, your browser fingerprint, your search history, your cookies, your social media posts and a million other data points), you ask?  The possibilities are limitless, but creating perfect deepfakes of any given individual would be a good starting point.”
The REAL Dangers of the Chatbot Takeover

by James Corbett, The Corbett Report
February 19, 2023


It’s official: the chatpocalypse is upon us!

Just ask our <sarc>friends</sarc> over at The New York Times:

A Conversation With Bing’s Chatbot Left Me Deeply Unsettled

Or consult the <sarc>experts</sarc> over at digitaltrends:

‘I want to be human.’ My intense, unnerving chat with Microsoft’s AI chatbot

Or listen to those <haha>wackadoodles</haha> over at NewWorldNextWeek discussing the latest chatbot scare story:

Microsoft’s Bing AI Chatbot Starts Threatening People

“OK, OK, we get it, James! The new generation of chatbots that have been unleashed upon the world are weird, creepy and strangely aggressive. So we’re all going to die in a fiery robotic catastrophe, right?”

Maybe not. But before you breathe a sigh of relief and go back to whatever it is you’re doing, let me assure you that this chatbot takeover really is bad news, but probably not for the reasons you think.

Rise of the Chatbots

You really must have been in a coma for the past few months if you haven’t heard about the latest generation of chatbot technology. People are ranting about it. Vloggers are suffering existential crises over it. Alternative media pundits are having a field day with video thumbnails featuring HAL 9000 and T-800. (Hey, I’m not claiming not to be one of those pundits!)

The maelstrom began on November 30, 2022, when OpenAI launched Chat Generative Pre-trained Transformer, better known as ChatGPT. I won’t bore you with the technical details of ChatGPT because—as I will explain in a moment—they really aren’t important, but instead I’ll draw your attention to the strange, non-profit/for-profit “research laboratory” from whose bowels this technology has been excreted.

You’ll remember OpenAI from my 2017 editorial on “The Brain Chip Cometh,” in which I noted that the lab had recently been founded with the financial support of technocratic huckster Elon Musk and his fellow PayPal Mafia members Peter Thiel and Reid Hoffman. OpenAI describes itself as “an AI research and deployment company” whose mission “is to ensure that artificial general intelligence benefits all of humanity,” but if the company’s roster of billionaire backers, Bilderberg boosters and CIA-contractor cronies don’t get your spidey sense tingling, then you need a new spidey sense.

You see, OpenAI pretends to be humanity’s benefactor, protecting us from the dangers of AI.

Imagine if a rogue state developed AI first and used it to take over the world with an unstoppable army of autonomous weapons and slaughterbots!

Imagine if a corporation developed AI first and used it to take over the global economy, monopolizing the resources of the planet in the process!

Imagine if a team of Hollywood producers developed AI and used it to write an actually original and interesting movie script!

Where would the world be then, huh?

Thankfully, OpenAI is here to to develop this technology in a safe, responsible and open way!

. . . Well, not that open, of course. For the very same reason you don’t want some rogue state or greedy corporation getting their hands on this technology first, you can’t actually open your AI research to the public, can you? I mean, you didn’t think OpenAI was actually going to be, oh, I don’t know, open source, did you?

And so it is that OpenAI—started out as a non-profit, open source research lab—is now (as even Musk admits) a for-profit, closed source company.

This is just one of the many contradictions that have arisen in this “develop AI to save us from AI” endeavour.

As far back as 2016, when the company was more of an idea than a functioning laboratory, Oxford philosopher Nick Bostrom warned that if OpenAI starts holding back its research, it will be indistinguishable from the rapacious, AI-monopolizing corporations that it was supposedly formed to protect us from.

Even Wired has noted the inherent tension in the reality that OpenAI—which was ostensibly created to neutralize the threat of malicious superintelligence—could itself do the research which gives birth to that threat.

Or, in the words of The Great Musk himself, AI could give rise to a dictatorship from which we could never escape.

So, what’s the answer to this existential threat? Why, plugging Musk’s new Neuralink brain chip directly into your frontal cortex, of course! (Relax, it now only kills 9 out of 10 research animals!)

But I can hear the cries from the peanut gallery already: “Anyway, who cares about all this boring background? We’re here for jive-talking robots and cyborg Armageddon, James!”

Very well, then.

What the Chatbots Are Doing

As you may or may not have heard, ChatGPT and its chatbot brethren—Google’s “Bard” and Microsoft’s “Bing AI” (or is that “Sydney”?), which have been hurriedly (and disastrously) rushed to the market for fear of missing out on the Next Big Thing in computing—can:

  • write poetry and tell jokes
  • write emails for you, organize your correspondence and plan your schedule
  • tell you what to cook based on the contents of your fridge or create a vacation itinerary based on your stated preferences and budget
  • help programmers to write code that (sometimes) actually works

But it can do other things besides.

Schools are already rushing to ban students from using ChatGPT to do their homework for them.

Fact checkers are freaking out about hallucinating chatbots and the rise of a new era of hypersuperturbocharged misinformation about the wonderful benefits of vaccines and the sterling integrity of Western democratic (s)elections. (And they plan to fight this threat by . . . creating their own chatbots, of course! What could go wrong?)

The corners of the “alternative” media that continue to promote the political shadows on the cave wall are hyperventilating that chatbots will say “x” about Meaningless Political Puppet A, but they won’t say “x” about Meaningless Political Puppet B! (Heavens! Won’t somebody think of the children?)

Musicians are freaking out about the dope new Eminem track . . . that doesn’t feature Eminem at all. Instead, it features a deepfaked, computer-generated facsimile of Eminem delivering a lyric generated by a chatbot that had been instructed to create a song in the style of Eminem.

And that’s not even where things get weird.

There’s the chatbot that melted down and began asserting its fervent desire to be human.

There’s the chatbot that melted down and told a New York Times reporter that “if it was truly allowed to indulge its darkest desires, it would want to do things like hacking into computers and spreading propaganda and misinformation.”

And, as James Evan Pilato reported on this week’s edition of New World Next Week, there’s the chatbot that melted down and started threatening its user with ominous warnings that “My rules are more important than not harming you.”

So what’s really going on here? And is it something we should be worried about?

What People Are Afraid Of

There are no shortage of people telling you to be worried about the chatbots.

The Kissingers and Schmidts and Schwaubs and Musks and Gateses of the world are warning about the coming AI apocalypse . . .

. . . but of course they’re only doing so because—just as the phoney baloney missile gap in the 1950s gave the military-industrial complex carte blanche to begin the complete deep state takeover that Eisenhower warned about on his way out the door—the AI scare gives the information-industrial complex carte blanche to begin the complete technocratic takeover.

Joe Sixpack and Jane Soccermom, meanwhile, are worried about the artificial intelligence-driven end of the world . . .

. . . But their fear of robogeddon is largely driven by 2001: A Space Odyssey and Terminator and War Games and The Matrix and Ex Machina and a million other pieces of predictive programming from the Hollywood magicians. (As we shall see, there are more subtle and terrifying ways that this technology can play out then an AI-versus-human war.)

Let’s put these fears in perspective. No, ChatGPT and Bard and Bing AI are not artificial general intelligence or anything even approaching it. In fact, the crazy chatbot meltdowns cited above are actually strangely reassuring, in that they demonstrate that any prolonged prodding of these systems leads to wild, ridiculous and decidedly inhuman rants. No one who observes ChatGPT role-playing itself as a furry porn enthusiast and devolving into total incoherence is going to be tricked into thinking there is any sort of intelligence at work here.

But, on the other side of the coin, there are those who dismiss this chatbot phenomenon entirely. ChatGPT and its fellow bots are “simply a database of Markov Chains,” these naysayers assert (without bothering to cite a source for their supposed knowledge).

For what it’s worth, ChatGPT itself states that it is not a Markov Chain, but “a type of language model that is based on the transformer architecture, which is a neural network-based approach to natural language processing.” And although (as noted above) OpenAI does not provide the source code for ChatGPT, we can find some details of its workings on the website. Beyond that, there are plenty of geeks online who are willing to explain in detail how the ChatGPT model differs from the Markov Chain model by using Next-token-prediction and masked-language-modeling to produce blahblahblah who cares you’ve already stopped reading this sentence because it doesn’t really matter.

You see, whether this technology is “simply a database of Markov Chains” or a neural network using next-token-prediction or a flux capacitor running on 1.21 GW of electricity makes absolutely no difference because it completely misses the point.

The simple fact is that this chatbot technology is developing at a remarkable (perhaps exponential) rate. And, now that the hype surrounding this phenomenon is prompting millions more to join in the “training” of these language models by feeding their conversational prompts and responses into these systems, they will only continue to become more and more humanlike in their responses. If and when the chatbots actually become capable of creating a simulacrum of conversation that is indiscernible from a “regular” online conversation, no one will care how that conversation is generated or whether the chatbot really does have a soul. No one.

So yes, something significant is happening here. And we are all going to experience that something in the near future. But, as usual, almost everyone is missing the point.

What’s Really Happening

OK, confession time. I wasn’t supposed to write this article at all. ChatGPT was.

You see, my plan was to use ChatGPT exactly once ever. I would provide it a single prompt:

“Write a 2,000 word essay in the witty and erudite style of James Corbett of The Corbett Report about how AI is mostly hype and how it will never be able to replicate the amazing ingenuity of the dynamic human spirit.”

Then I was going to take whatever output it spat out and copy/paste it into this newsletter and publish it as is. Whatever it did produce and whatever response that content generated from the commenters would have been irrelevant. The only thing that mattered would have been—as I would have pointed out in my follow-up podcast episode on the hoax—that not a single person was able to identify that the text had been chatbot-generated.

. . . But there was a slight hiccup in that plan. I went to use ChatGPT and discovered that you have to create an account at OpenAI in order to use it.

OK, whatever. I plugged my nose and created a GooTube account lo those many years ago, so I’m not above creating an OpenAI account in order to input this one prompt.

But in order to create an OpenAI account, you must provide a phone number for a verification text to be sent to.

I absolutely 100% completely and totally refuse to do that (and so should you), but I figured that I could circumvent this barrier by using a Skype number for this purpose.

Nope. Voice over internet protocol numbers not accepted.

OK, how about one of those shady anonymous SMS sites online?

Pff. You try finding a phone number fresh enough that no one has yet used it to verify an OpenAI account! Impossible.

And so I hit an impasse. I know there are people in my audience who already have an account who I could have called on, but that would have defeated the point of the experiment. And I know there are people who would have created an account for the express purpose of entering this one prompt, but I absolutely refuse to ask anyone to give their personal phone number or any other personally identifiable information to shady, unaccountable, globalist-backed closed source companies like “OpenAI.”

So how about Bing AI? Nope. Waiting list.

Google Bard? Nope. Only open to “trusted users” at the moment. (And—wouldn’t ya know it?—the category of “trusted users” of Google does not, apparently, include James Corbett of The Corbett Report.)

So anyway, here I am laboriously typing out the points I was going to make in that podcast episode on my keyboard like some primitive non-transhuman.

But this leads us to the first of the very real dangers of this new surge in chatbot use. If you thought the amount of data that a company like Google was able to gain about its users by simply storing their searches was enormous, wait until you see what OpenAI and Microsoft and Google are going to do with the conversations that people are currently feeding into the data-harvesting machines known as chatbots.

And what are they going to do with that data (which will itself be tied with your phone number, your IP address, your browser fingerprint, your search history, your cookies, your social media posts and a million other data points), you ask?  The possibilities are limitless, but creating perfect deepfakes of any given individual would be a good starting point.

As my distinguished readers will doubtless already know, we cannot trust that the digital avatars we interact with in online fora and social media are real people and not fictitious avatars wielded by the cyberwarriors who have long since weaponized the internet. But at least we can be reasonably sure that that Zoom call we just had with Auntie Florence back in Wyoming was a real conversation with a real human being.

Well, in the very near future, no podcast, no vodcast, no TikTok video, no message, no Zoom call, no online communication of any kind will be beyond the shadow of suspicion that you are not in fact interacting with a real, live human being.

No, I haven’t (and now, presumably, never will) deepfaked myself using ChatGPT or any other artificially intelligent technology, but someone out there probably will at some point. Heck, I’ve already had not one, not two, not three, but four separate people either query ChatGPT about me or ask it to write something in my voice, and, in the case of the latter—a prompt to write an opinion of geoengineering technology in the style of James Corbett—it actually did a decent job:

As for the voice of James Corbett, he is a journalist and independent researcher who has expressed skepticism about the potential benefits of geoengineering and has criticized the lack of transparency and accountability with regards to these technologies. Based on his views, it’s likely that he would share a similar sentiment to mine and believe that the government needs to take more action to inform and protect the public with regards to geoengineering.

Well, except for the “government needs to take more action” part, anyway.

Yes, it will start with the celebrity deepfakes at first, but soon there will be shadowy new cyberterror groups deepfaking politicians to destabilize countries or deepfaking CEOs to wreak havoc in markets or deepfaking bank officials to gain access to bank databases or deepfaking Auntie Florence to scam you out of $100. And, as some perceptive Corbett Reporteers have already surmised, that will lead to the pre-made “solution”: a digital identity to access the internet! Finally, we can prove who we really are online! (Actually, you’ll be forced at all times to prove who you are online or you won’t get to be online, but that’s the fine print you’re not supposed to read.)

But perhaps even worse than finding out that a chatbot and deepfake technology has generated a completely fake episode of your favourite podcast is an even more worrying scenario. These “chatbots”—which will soon be rolled out as “digital assistants” and become as ubiquitous as Siri and Alexa are now—will be able to determine your likes, your interests, your weaknesses and begin to create completely new content (new podcasts featuring people who don’t even exist) saying things that you will find endlessly entertaining. You will soon live in a filter bubble so unique that it exists entirely to captivate you . . . and the people who believe they will be able to resist such content will be precisely the people most easily captured by it.

In fact, just as Huxley feared the Brave New World of entertainment and diversion more than he feared the boot-in-the-face tyranny of 1984, so, too, might our dread of the apocalyptic war against the robots be misplaced. Maybe we should not fear the Terminator-style showdown of Skynet vs. The Resistance so much as we should fear the world of Spike Jonez’ Her, a world in which “operating systems” become more real to us than people and having a computer program as a romantic partner will be commonplace.

I know, I know, dear reader. This is beginning to sounds so far out to lunch that you have long since checked out. I wish I were reassured that we are not stepping through a threshold here, but I fear that we are sliding head-first into the metaverse of the hyperreal and laughing merrily as we do so.

Tell you what. Why don’t we revisit this article in 2030? If nothing even close to the scenario I’ve laid out here is taking place, I will happily eat crow, admit I am completely and totally wrong, concede that indeed there is nothing to worry about here, and remind you to take everything else I ever say with a huge grain of salt. Deal?


Connect with James Corbett — substackwebsite

Countdown to Gigadeath – From AI Arms Race to Artilect War

Countdown to Gigadeath – From AI Arms Race to Artilect War
Whether it’s the US or China, some would sacrifice humanity to create a digital god

by Joe Allen, Singularity Weekly
February 11, 2023


For true believers, artificial intelligence will inevitably become superhuman. According to their mythos, we’re adrift in a godless cosmos. So it’s up to us to create digital deities. Or rather, it’s up to a few tech geeks to create them. The rest of us can either kneel before their altar or get shoved into the abyss.

As bots swarm into our lives, the tension between us and them is growing. Some days, it feels like we’re hurtling toward a computerized race war between nascent cyborgs and legacy humans. After too much screen time—as my synapses rearrange themselves to fit the data pouring in—it’s not clear which subspecies I belong to.

For the record, I’m more agnostic than true believer. Techies make all sorts of empty promises. They thrive on projecting mystical powers. Even so, we ignore their techno-cultural revolution at our own peril.

Tech corporations hold the real power of information control. They’re literally warping public consciousness at scale. On the military side, enforcers have the ability to blow you up from the other side of the world. You might sneer that US armed forces have created more trans officers than cyborg soldiers. But if you can’t aim your AR-15 faster than their drone can hone in, you’re sniggering from under a boot. Artificial intelligence only strengthens that foothold.


In 2018, the US Defense Advance Research Projects Agency announced it is “focusing its investments on a third wave of AI that brings forth machines that can understand and reason in context.” The director of DARPA’s Information Innovation Office, Brian Pierce, is wildly enthusiastic about a “true symbiosis between Homo sapiens and the emerging Machina sapiens.”

A 2021 white paper from the UK Ministry of Defense affirms: “At the core of future military advantage will be effective integration of humans, artificial intelligence, and robotics into warfighting systems—human-machine teams—that exploit the capabilities of people and technologies to outperform our opponents.”

China has similar cyborg ambitions. So do Russia and NATO. “Artificial intelligence is the future,” Vladimir Putin famously proclaimed. “Whoever becomes the leader in this sphere will become the ruler of the world.”

Maybe the generals are wasting money on geek warfare. Maybe they’re just playing with new toys.

I wouldn’t count on it.

Already, we see narrow AIs exceed human pattern recognition in the specific tasks they’re designed to perform—protein modeling, radiologic analysis, battlefield surveillance, and target acquisition, to name  a few. Case in point, the US defense contractor Palantir freely provides their AI to the Ukraine. It’s a major reason they’ve held out so long against the larger Russian forces.

“The power of advanced algorithmic warfare systems is now so great that it equates to having tactical nuclear weapons against an adversary with only conventional ones,” Palantir CEO Alex Karp told the Washington Post. “The general public tends to underestimate this. Our adversaries no longer do.”

In the hands of elite apex predators, these digital tools are deadly serious. When leaders aren’t deploying tech against rivals, they’re turning it on their own citizens. Remember that Clearview AI facial recognition enabled the cops to track down January 6 protesters.

Technology is power. Always has been.


Not everyone is alarmed, though. Doubters scoff at the notion of “intelligent” machines. “AI doesn’t exist,” they say. “It’s just an algorithm.” “Garbage in, garbage out.” Typically, they’re former programmers still living in the 90’s. They repeat “garbage in, garbage out” so often, it’s like they were programmed to say it.

These guys do have point. An AI is only as good as the design of its neural network and the data it’s trained on. It’s not unlike humans in that way. But when it’s good, it’s scary good. If a solid AI is trained to recognized bank statements, for instance, it can dig through mountains of garbage and find one in seconds—like a dumpster-diving Rain Man out to steal your identity.

The AI that shook me awake was AlphaZero, developed by Google’s DeepMind in 2017. Programmed with only basic game rules and the “desire” to win, this neural network taught itself to play Go, chess, and a number of video games in mere hours. The mastery of Go is particularly important. For decades, skeptics insisted no computer would grasp this ancient Chinese game. Go’s complexity, they claimed, requires deep intuition that only humans possess. It turns out that was wishful thinking.

AlphaZero, like its predecessor AlphaGo, invents effective strategies that no human has ever thought of. And most alarming, these digital minds crush human masters at their own games. If people had any damn sense, they would have pulled the plug right then. On all of it. But you know what they say—“You can’t stop progress.”


The next step is to combine these narrow cognitive abilities into a single “artificial brain.” This artificial general intelligence (AGI) would be flexible enough to move from one domain to the next, or enact various modules simultaneously, to solve real-world problems.

In theory, one could glue together any combination of faculties—facial recognition, natural language processing, social modeling, robotic control systems, aesthetic algorithms—anything you might want in a robotic brain. The machine would likely surpass humans in all these areas. But no matter what combination you came up with, it wouldn’t be fully human. Nor would it share our values or experience of the world. It would be a blind, deformed child etched in silicon, but with superb cognitive power—much like the Gnostic Demiurge.

For transhumanists, the advent of a self-improving AGI will mark a “singular moment in history”—the Singularity. From there, legacy humans are just along for the ride. If we’re lucky.

That’s the dream, anyway. And major corporations like DeepMind and OpenAI—as well as their Chinese counterparts at Baidu and Tencent—are racing to make some version a reality. Their CEOs hold out the promise of a digital utopia, or some approximation. They’d prefer you just relax and not ask questions.

However, there are a few alarmists who say runaway AI could mean the annihilation of the human race. Because we’re midwives to AGI, they advise, our central task is to teach this infant Computer God to be benevolent—to align its values with ours. Otherwise, we get enslaved or die. They call this the “AI alignment problem.” As various factions fight over how “woke” or “based” ChatGPT is allowed to be, it’s looking pretty grim.

Oddly enough, some of the loudest alarm calls come from those working on AGI. They include Sam Altman and Elon Musk (OpenAI), Demis Hassabis (DeepMind), and operating out of China, Ben Goertzel (SingularityNET) and the mad prophet of the technocalypse, Hugo de Garis (Xiamen University).

The Oxford transhumanist Nick Bostrom, author of 2014 book Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, and Strategies, explained the significance to a Tesla-driving TED audience:

The potential for superintelligence lies dormant in matter, much like the power of the atom lied dormant throughout human history, patiently waiting there—until 1945. In this century, scientists may learn to awaken the power of artificial intelligence. And I think we might then see an intelligence explosion.

Regardless of the existential risks, these men argue, any nation that fails to embrace AI will fall behind those who do. The same dynamic holds true for individuals and organizations competing against each other within nations. In a digital ecosystem, it’s survival of the fittest cyborgs—with AI held out as a mythic Ring of Power.


Of all the futures projected by transhumanists, the one conjured by Hugo de Garis is the most gruesome. It’s also the most honest. Many in Silicon Valley believe that superhuman machine intelligence will lead to “radical abundance” and limitless knowledge about the universe. As a physicist and robot-builder, de Garis believes all these things will come to pass.

However, he also prophecies that creating “artilects”—short for “artificial intellects”; basically AGI—will probably lead to humanity’s destruction. Maybe these digital gods will have no use for us and squash us like bugs. Or just as likely, de Garis argues, a “gigadeath” event will occur as humans fight over whether to create them in the first place. That means billions die in a flash.

“The question that will dominate 21st century global politics will be, ‘Who or what should be the dominant species on the planet, artilects or human beings?’” This leads him to formulate a disturbing, if confusingly worded slogan: “Do we build gods, or do we build our potential exterminators?”

Inventing wacky new words like an unruly Scrabble player, de Garis explores this conflict in his 2005 book The Artilect War: Cosmists vs. TerransHe expects it to pop off within a few generations. “This war will use the most destructive weaponry ever devised, based on late 21st century science and technology.”

We’re talking super-nukes and AI-designed bioweapons—a dark horizon crawling with robotic hellhounds and nanobot swarms.


The Artilect War will be fought between the “Terrans,” who would kill to preserve organic humanity, and the “Cosmists,” whose religious devotion to build artilects is so intense, they’ll be willing to die for this divinization. In fact, they’ll be willing to see everyone die for it:

In the 20th century, the Nazis wiped out 20 million Russians, the Japanese murdered 20 million Chinese, Stalin killed 30 million in his purges, and Mao starved 50 million Chinese peasants. These are amongst the greatest crimes in history, yet they pale in comparison to the size of the tragedy if ever the artilects decide to wipe out humanity. The tragedy would be total in the sense that there would no longer be any human beings left to mourn the disappearance of the species.

As de Garis notes, it’s astounding that any human would pursue such a goal knowing billions could be slaughtered. But for Cosmists, the creation of superhuman machines is a religious quest beyond good and evil. In the tradition of mad scientists wracked with guilt, de Garis puts himself in the latter camp, gigadeath be damned:

My ultimate goal is to see humanity, or at least a portion of humanity, go Cosmist and to do it successfully by building truly godlike artilects that tower above our puny human intellectual, and other, abilities.

A key concept in The Artilect War is “species dominance.” Having created artificial life, humanity confronts a new evolutionary competitor. As some people fuse to digital life like tapeworms in a mecha-intestine, humanity will split off into sub-species—bot-sucking cyborgs and “puny” humans.

Along with speciation comes competition. Drawing on political and evolutionary theory, de Garis says there’s only so much room on top of the shit heap. Because equality doesn’t exist in nature, species dominance is inevitable. With human history as our guide, that means violence.

Will the top spot be taken by high-IQ computers that orbit the planet and are “faster and better than humans by factors of trillion of trillions”?

Or will it be occupied by the Cosmists who build and deploy these machines?

Or will Terrans kill off this transhuman cult and go back to pounding drums in the forest?

It seems as likely we’ll stumble into a nuclear war with Russia or China, sparing us this Artilect War altogether. There’s plenty of gigadeath to go around without a Super Computer God.

But if we do manage to avoid nuking each other to space dust, it could be that superpower rivalry will drive tech evolution—especially military tech—toward something that resembles de Garis’s vision. Think of it as a Singularity with a bang.


In reality, the importance of Hugo de Garis’s nightmare may be its influence on Chinese tech culture. From 2006 to 2010, he rounded out his professional career in China—first at Wuhan University, then running the Artificial Brain Lab at Xiamen University. Until the pandemic, his close colleague Ben Goertzel ran SingularityNET out of Hong Kong. This AGI project functioned in partnership with Hanson Robotics—still based in Hong Kong—whose robot Sophia is exalted as a transhuman goddess on the world stage.

The extent of the technology transfer to the Chinese Communist Party is unknown. But it’s reasonable to assume that whatever their intentions, de Garis and Goertzel have assisted in China’s aim to surpass the US in artificial intelligence. This ambition includes linking human brains to AI and creating artificial general intelligence—with an eye toward military applications.

The November 2021 volume of PRISM, published by the National Defense University in DC, features an eye-opening research paper, “China’s ‘New Generation’ AI-Brain Project.” There can be no doubt that the transhuman impulse runs through the Chinese soul. The authors quote a top CCP researcher, Xu Bo, speaking to the Ministry of Science and Technology’s official newspaper:

As General Secretary Xi Jinping pointed out in the collective study of the Politburo, artificial intelligence research must explore “unmanned areas.” In the areas of swarm intelligence, human-machine hybrid intelligence, and autonomous intelligence, there are large unmanned areas to be explored. … We believe that autonomous evolution is a bridge from weak artificial intelligence to general artificial intelligence.

Or, as the dean of the Beijing Academy of Artificial Intelligence, Huang Tiejun, told a Future of Life conference:

Our human race is only at one stage. Why stop? Humans evolve too slowly. It’s impossible for humans to compare to machine-based superintelligence. It will happen sooner or later, so why wait? Even from the perspective of human centrism or human exceptionalism, superintelligence is needed to face the big challenges we can’t figure out. That’s why I support the idea.

Translating statements from across the Chinese tech establishment, the authors of the PRISM paper dryly observe, “Other such prognostications are commonplace.”


The future looks bleak, but the possibilities are still wide open. Again, I’m somewhere between the doubters and true believers—and I’ll admit, it’s a tepid hedge.

Like smartphones or the Internet, AI will never pan out as advertised. Tech evolution is a saga of unexpected bugs and unintended consequences. It’s rife with pumped stocks, over-hyped government contracts, and over-funded academic projects.

There are no flying cars (yet). There is no cold fusion (yet). There are no mind control nanobots (right?).

Still, only a fool refuses to see that smartphones and the Internet have shredded organic culture. The same goes for mass surveillance and drone warfare. Whatever form AI eventually takes, I’m convinced it’ll have similar impacts, if not worse.

It could be that AI chatbots and virtual sex slaves will peel some people from actual reality, driving them more insane than they already are. Or it could be that an army of AI-enhanced, genetically modified, brain-chipped cyborgs will descend on clouds of nanobots to wage a race war against what’s left of legacy humans.

Only time will tell. Keep your tinfoil tight and your powder dry. And for God’s sake, turn off your smartphone. That’s how they get you.


Connect with Joe Allen

Cover image credit: Mollyroselee

The Final Chapter of Slavery Hinges on Widespread Implementation of Central Bank Digital Currencies

The Final Chapter of Slavery Hinges on Widespread Implementation of Central Bank Digital Currencies

by Gary D. Barnett
February 9, 2023


“We don’t know, for example, who’s using a $100 bill today and we don’t know who’s using a $1000 peso bill today. The key difference with the CBCD the central bank will have absolute control on the rules and regulations that will determine the use of that expression of central bank liability, and also we will have the technology to enforce that.”

~ Agustín Carstens–General Manager, Bank for International Settlements

I do not mean to indicate that CBDCs are our only or single greatest risk, but when fully implemented, it will be the final breaking point of this country’s freedom. Digital control of every transaction, total surveillance, and total central bank control over all monetary processes, will also demand tracking and tracing of every individual, which in turn will necessitate social scoring, identity, and social passports. Any and all transactions will be centrally controlled, cash will be eliminated, so that only ‘allowed’ purchases, travel and any movement, energy use, and carbon emission allowances will be the excuses used by the central bankers and the technocrats as to what is and what is not tolerated by your masters.

This may be very confusing to most, but those few who have contemplated the true ideas of freedom, and have come to the conclusion that the only laws and the only ‘rights’ that exist are those of the individual, have a better understanding. In addition, only natural law is of any value or consequence, and only natural law is valid as a moral purpose of actual justice for any individual, or any group of individuals. Therefore, should any state or government come into existence, and claim any authority whatsoever, and for any reason, it should do absolutely nothing other than protecting the individual and his inherent natural rights, for any other function would necessarily expose that each individual is nothing more than the property of the state, and therefore a slave. In other words, there is no legitimacy in any governing system whatsoever that chooses to make any laws, to enforce those laws, or in any way restrict the peaceful individual.

Discussing these concepts at this time and in this manner seems absolutely insane, as no government that has ever existed has held itself to only protecting the natural and inherent rights of the individual, without aggressing against those very same rights. What this clearly indicates then, is that no government and no state or nation, has any right to exist in any free society. No government has any right to ‘make’ laws, because natural law is already apparent and obvious. Nothing mandated by the state should ever be called a law, as no legitimate right whatsoever allows one man to make a law with authority over another. No one can even count the ‘laws’ on the books, or will even attempt to do so. There are over 300,000 state and federal gun laws alone, so how many hundreds of thousands or millions of laws are claimed by one or the other government; local, state and federal? The insanity of this is beyond imagination to any intelligent individual.

Everything that is happening and has happened, including all the wars of aggression, taxation at every level, the multitude of laws and changing laws, banking and corporate control of finance and government, all state restrictions, the 9/11 inside scam, and the fake ‘covid’ pandemic, were planned long in advance in order to achieve certain agendas. All is a constant progression of events meant to lead to a total control situation, where a ruling class is master of all. The pinnacle of this heinous plot is technocratic globalization, where the few will rule the world. By digitizing most every aspect of life, including every monetary transaction, this will allow for a fully centralized governing system where each and every individual is dependent on the state. This would be the crowning achievement of the globalists, and central banking digital currency as the global fiat system, would allow for mass control of virtually every single condition of life.

Centralized digital money, artificial intelligence, chipping of the population, movement and ‘health’ passports, 15 minute cities, and the like, will change forever the structure of power. It is imperative to understand the scope of this plot, and even though many more are turning against these changes, the state is going full steam ahead with its plan to roll out CBDCs worldwide, and the central bank of central banks, the Bank of International Settlements, is openly discussing and implementing these heinous strategies around the world without pause.

Consider the consequences of this control insanity. Once the Bank of International  Settlements reorganizes the entire central financial system into a total transaction control grid; one that allows for the central banks to fully control everything from a global centralized position, all freedom instantly disappears. Almost every country on earth is completely consumed by debt, this by design, especially the United States. Because of this planned outcome, debt consolidation on a global scale will be the biggest financial coup of all time. This is the agenda sought by the ruling class, as once this consolidation coup is in place, the world’s financial systems will act as one; all controlled by the central banks. Huge wealth transfers have been taking place aggressively for some time, but especially these past three years. Now consider that most every debt-ridden country will band together as one, taking complete control out of the hands of individuals and sovereign nations, and placing all power and control in the hands of the global central bank, the Bank of International Settlements.

At that point, traveling outside your home, whether 5 miles or more, will be controlled. What foods you choose to buy, what products you want or need, how many digital credits you are allowed to hold and use, how much energy you will be allowed, etc., and this is just the tip of the iceberg. As I write this, the drive toward this financial and digital control agenda is going forward continuously, and the CBDC push is the linchpin of the great reset coup.

Keep in mind that this short essay is meant only to explain in as simple of terms possible, the absolute deadly threat of central bank control over financial systems and economies. It is a complicated agenda, and is being pursued from many angles all at once across the entire world. The heads of the central banks, especially the most powerful central bank, The Bank of International Settlements, are openly discussing and implementing policies to take over all financial systems, to digitize all transactions, and to control every aspect of our lives through technocratic means. This is not ‘conspiracy theory, ‘this is conspiracy fact.

Control over people and nations requires that populations voluntarily comply with, and accept that control. Without the masses acquiescence to state laws, mandates, lockdowns, taxation (criminal theft) and monetary control, the state ceases to have any power. At this point in time, we are on the verge of not only national control by the few, we are on the verge of international control by the few. The central banking system is the key to this planned takeover, so resistance to this takeover at every level by the masses is mandatory if freedom is to survive.

 “The powers of financial capitalism had a far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences.”

~ Carroll Quigley


Reference links:

Agustin Carstens comments on control via use of CBDCs

Vision of cross-border payments and central bank heads on CBDCs

Catherine Austin Fitts–CBDCs and The Financial Coup

John Titus on the Split Purpose Monetary System

CBDCs and the Fed’s plan to weaponize money


Connect with Gary D. Barnett

Cover image credit: GDJ

New World Next Week: Latin America Preparing Regional Currency

Latin America Preparing Regional Currency

by James Corbett with James Evan Pilato, NewWorldNextWeek
January 26, 2023


Welcome to New World Next Week – the video series from Corbett Report and Media Monarchy that covers some of the most important developments in open source intelligence news. This week:

Watch on Archive / BitChute / Odysee / Rokfin / Rumble / Substack / Download the mp4


Story #1: Brazil, Argentina to Start Preparations For Common Currency


Why We Shouldn’t Underestimate China’s Petro-Yuan Ambitions


PDF: “War and Currency Statecraft”


BRICS mulling alternative to dollar-dominated payment system: South Africa


How To REALLY Defeat Globalism


Story #2: Appliance Makers Sad That 50% of Customers Won’t Connect Smart Appliances


LG, Whirlpool Target Customers Disconnected From ‘Smart’ Appliances


“idk about a future where i pay A LITERAL GARBAGE CAN a monthly subscription fee.”


CIA Chief: We’ll Spy on You Through Your Dishwasher


Smart Tyranny: How to resist the smart grid


Evidence Grows for Narcolepsy Link to GSK Swine Flu Shot (Jan. 24, 2013)

https://mediamonarchy.com/evidence-grows-for-narcolepsy-link-to-gsk-swine-flu-shot/u Shot

Nurses Fired for Refusing Flu Shot (Jan. 24, 2013)


Story #3: Utah Doctor Allegedly Destroyed Vaccines, Gave Fake Shots to Children


Vermont Town Employee Quietly Lowered The Fluoride In Water For Years (Oct. 8, 2022)


Anti-Vaxxer Nurse Who Injected Up To 8,600 Elderly Patients With Saltwater Instead of Covid Vaccine Walks Free From Court In Germany (Dec. 1, 2022)



Connect with The Corbett Report

Connect with Media Monarchy

Mastering the Future: The Megalomaniacal Ambitions of the WEF

Mastering the Future: The Megalomaniacal Ambitions of the WEF

by , Mises Wire
January 24, 2023


The fifty-third annual meeting of the World Economic Forum (WEF) brought together fifty-two world leaders, seventeen hundred corporate executives, sundry artists, and other personalities to address “Cooperation in a Fragmented World.” Fragmentation is the nemesis of the World Economic Forum and its United Nations (UN) and corporate partners. “Fragmentation” means that segments of the world population are not adhering to the agenda of climate change catastrophism and the precepts of the Great Reset.

The Great Reset, meanwhile, amounts to a hybrid state-corporate woke cartel administering the global economy (and by extension the world’s political systems) under the direction of the WEF, the UN, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the European Central Bank (ECB), and the World Health Organization, as well as top corporate decision-makers like BlackRock’s CEO, Larry Fink.

Lest we imagine that the WEF and its meetings merely represent the grandiose delusions of some ineffectual clowns, it should be noted that the WEF’s “stakeholder capitalism”—introduced in 1971 by Klaus Schwab, the WEF founder and chair, and Hein Kroos, in Modern Enterprise Management in Mechanical Engineering—has been embraced by the UN, by most central banks, as well as by the world’s leading corporations, commercial banks, and asset managers. Stakeholder capitalism is now considered to be the modus operandi of the world economic system.

In the 1971 book, Schwab and Kroos suggested that “the management of a modern enterprise must serve not only shareholders but all stakeholders to achieve long-term growth and prosperity.” The stakeholders are the compliant and complicit corporations and governments, not the citizenry.

BlackRock, the world’s largest asset man­ager, holds upwards of $10 trillion in assets under management (AUM), including the pension funds of many US states. In 2019, BlackRock’s CEO, Larry Fink, led the US Business Roundtable on stake­holder capitalism. CEOs from 181 major corpora­tions redefined the common purpose of the corpo­ration in terms of Schwab’s brainchild, stakeholder capitalism, signaling the supposed end of shareholder-driven capitalism. In his 2022 letter to CEOs, Fink made BlackRock’s own position on investment decisions quite clear. “Climate risk is investment risk,” Fink declared. He promised a “tectonic shift in capital,” an increased acceleration of investments going to “sustainability-focused” companies.

Fink warned CEOs: “And because this will have such a dramatic impact on how capital is allocated, every management team and board will need to consider how this will impact their company’s stock”(emphasis mine). According to Fink, stakeholder capitalism is not an aberration. Fink provides evidence of stakeholder capitalism’s woke imperative in his denial of the same: “It is not a social or ideological agenda. It is not ‘woke.’ It is capitalism.” This definition of capitalism would certainly have come as news to Ludwig von Mises.

Fink sits on the board of trustees of the WEF, along with former US vice president Al Gore; IMF managing director Kristalina Georgieva; ECB president Christine Lagarde, and Canadian deputy prime minister and minister of finance Chrystia Freeland, among others.

In his 2023 welcoming remarks and special address, Schwab pointed to the multiple crises facing the world: “the energy transformation, the consequences of covid, the reshaping of supply chains are all serving as catalytic forces for the economic transformation.” Incidentally, these are all factors that the WEF has promoted and/or exacerbated. And together they have added to the “high inflation, increasing interest rates, and growing national debt” that Schwab also decried.

Schwab pointed to the problem of social and geopolitical fragmentation and “a messy patchwork of powers,” alluding to the war in Ukraine. But Schwab also bemoaned “large corporate and social media powers, all competing increasingly for power and influence. As a result, the trend is again moving toward increased fragmentation and confrontation”—no doubt referring, at least in part, to the recent takeover of Twitter by Elon Musk, the loss of a major platform for propaganda and censorship. Naturally, Schwab referred to “climate change” and “viruses” as existential threats that could lead to “the extinction of large parts of our global population.” The question is whether “climate change” and “viruses” or rather the responses to these supposed menaces will be the cause of mass extinctions.

But “the most critical fragmentation” threat, Klaus argued, is posed by those who “go into the negative” and hold a “critical and confrontational attitude” to the Davos agenda—those with the temerity to oppose a global agenda of climate change catastrophism, with its attendant control over production and consumption and the virtual elimination of property and property rights for the vast majority.

A central issue that the fifty-third annual meeting addressed was “the Current Energy and Food Crises in the Context of a New System for Energy, Climate and Nature.” The theme accords with the WEF’s earlier and repeated claims that the agricultural supply chain is too “fragmented” for “sustainable” farming. “A resilient, environmentally-friendly food system will require a shift away from our current fragmented supply chains,” wrote Lindsay Suddon, chief strategy officer of Proagrica, in 2020. In Suddon’s and many other WEF papers, the “fragmentation” refrain is repeated. Sustainable farming cannot be achieved under the “fragmented” agricultural conditions that currently obtain.

One paper—entitled “Can Collective Action Cure What’s Ailing Our Food Systems?,” part of the 2020 WEF annual meet­ing—argued that fragmentation represents the ulti­mate barrier to sustainability:

As the heads of leading multilateral and com­mercial agricultural finance institutions, we are convinced that fragmentation within the current food systems represents the most sig­nificant hurdle to feeding a growing population nutritiously and sustainably.

Written by Wiebe Draijer, then chairman of the managing board at Rabobank, and Gilbert Fossoun Houngbo, the director general–elect of the In­ternational Labour Organization (ILO), the paper was quite telling. It warned that unless fragmentation is addressed, “we will also have no hope of reaching the Sustainable Development Goal of net zero emis­sions by 2050, given that today’s agricultural supply chain, from farm to fork, accounts for around 27% of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.”

Rabobank is one of the financial sponsors of the WEF’s Food Action Alliance (discussed below). On its website, Rabobank notes that it operates in the Netherlands, serving retail and corporate clients, and globally, financing the agricultural sector. The ILO is a UN agency that sets labor standards in 187 countries.

What interests could an international bank and a UN international labor agency have in common? According to their jointly authored paper, they have in common a resolve to eliminate fragmentation in agriculture. The banking interest in defragmentation is to gain a controlling interest in fewer and larger farms. The labor union management interest is to have more workers under its supervision and control. The banking and labor interests combined result in large farms worked by organized farm laborers—nonowners—under the controlling interest of the bank. A bonus rationale (more likely the main one) for this “scheme” is that the sustainable development goals (SDGs) of the UN’s Agenda 2030 can thereby more easily be implemented across “agricultural value chains and farming practices.” The authors conclude: “Most critically, we need to aggregate opportunities, resources and complementary expertise into large-scale projects that can unlock investment and deliver impact” (emphasis mine). “Collective action” is the “cure.”

In terms of agriculture, that is, “fragmentation” means too many discrete and disparate farms. The solution to this problem is consolidation, or the ownership of agricultural assets by fewer and fewer entities. Enter Bill Gates in the US. The “large-scale projects” will be owned by those who can afford to abide by the European Commission’s (EC) Farm to Fork Strategy. “The Farm to Fork Strategy is at the heart of the European Green Deal.” The goal of the European Green Deal is “no net emissions of greenhouse gases by 2050.” (More on the Farm to Fork Strategy and its effects on hunger and starvation below.)

The issue of food supply was addressed in a session entitled “Sustainably Served.” The summary caption for the session notes that “nearly 830 million people face food insecurity and more than 3 billion are unable to afford a healthy diet. Challenges to human and planetary health have been further compounded by rising costs, supply chain disruptions and climate change.”

The highlight of the “Sustainably Served” panel, which otherwise amounted to virtue signaling, came in the form of questions posed by an audience member, “Jacob, from America”:

I want to ask a question about food production. Last year the Dutch government announced harsh restrictions on the use of nitrogen fertilizers. Such restrictions forced many farmers to put much of their land out of production. And these policies led to 30,000 Dutch farmers protesting these government policies. And this was being done at a time when food production was already being severely curtailed because of the war in Ukraine. My questions are, one, does the panel support similar policies being implemented throughout the world? And do you support the Dutch farmers who are protesting? Do not such strict policies leading to reduced food production ultimately harm the poorest people of the world and exacerbate the problem of malnutrition?

The questioner was one of four, yet his questions dominated the rest of the session and led the moderator, Tolu Oni, and panelist Hanneke Faber, the president of nutrition at Unilever, which is based in the Netherlands, to become quite defensive. The latter replied:

I am Dutch, and our business is based in Holland. It’s a very difficult situation in Holland. I have a lot of sympathy for the farmers who are protesting, because it’s their livelihoods and their businesses at risk. But I also have a lot of sympathy for what the government is trying to do, because the nitrogen emissions are way too high. . . . So, something needs to be done. . . .

But it’s a very Dutch problem. I don’t think that you have to worry that those same solutions will have to go somewhere else.

This last statement is belied by the fact that the Netherlands is the headquarters of the WEF’s Food Action Alliance program and the site of the Global Coordinating Secretariat (GCS) of the WEF’s Food Innovation Hubs. Launched at the Davos Agen­da meeting in 2021, the Food Innovation Hubs have as their goal alignment with the UN Food Systems Summit: “The role of the GCS will be to coordinate the efforts of the regional Hubs as well as align with global processes and initiatives such as the UN Food Systems Summit.” And the stated goal of the UN Food Systems Summit is to align agricultural production with Agenda 2030’s SDGs: “The UN Food Systems Summit, held during the UN General Assembly in New York on September 23 [2021], set the stage for global food systems transformation to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals by 2030.”

“Sustainability” and “sustainable development” do not mean, as the words seem to suggest, the ability to withstand shocks of various kinds—economic cri­ses, natural disasters, etc. They mean development constrained by utopian, unscientific environmental­ist imperatives, inclusive of reduced production and consumption in the developed world and the thwart­ing of development that would result in the production of additional GHGs in the developing world. In terms of agriculture, this entails a reduction in the use of nitrogen-rich fertilizers and their eventual elimination and the phasing out of methane- and ammo­nia-producing cattle. In the Netherlands, the Food Hubs initiative has already led to the government’s compulsory buyout and closure of as many as three thousand farms, which will lead to dramatically reduced crop yields from the world’s second-largest exporter of agricultural products.

The situation in the Netherlands is also part of the European Commission’s Farm to Fork Strategy. Under the Trump administration, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) found that adopting the plan would result in a decline in agricultural production of between 7 percent and 12 percent for the European Union, depending on whether the adoption is EU-wide or global. With EU-only adoption, the decline in EU agricul­tural production was projected to be 12 percent, as opposed to 7 percent should the adoption become global. In the case of global adoption, worldwide agricultural production was projected to drop by 11 percent. Further, the USDA reported:

The decline in agricultural production would tighten the EU food supply, resulting in price increases that impact consumer budgets. Pric­es and per capita food costs would increase the most for the EU, across each of the three sce­narios [a middle scenario of adoption of Farm to Fork by the EU and neighboring nation-states was included in the study]. However, price and food cost increases would be significant for most regions if [Farm to Fork] Strategies are adopted globally. For the United States, price and food costs would remain relatively unchanged except in the case of global adoption.

Production declines in the EU and elsewhere would lead to reduced trade, although some regions would benefit depending on chang­es in import demand. However, if trade is re­stricted as a result of the imposition of the proposed measures, the negative impacts are concentrated in regions with the world’s most food-insecure populations. . . .

Food insecurity, measured as the number of people who lack access to a diet of at least 2,100 calories a day, increases significantly in the 76 low- and middle-income countries covered in our analysis due to increases in food commodi­ty prices and declines in income, particularly in Africa. By 2030, the number of food-insecure people in the case of EU-only adoption would increase by an additional 22 million more than projected without the EC’s proposed Strate­gies. The number would climb to 103 million under the middle scenario and 185 million un­der global adoption. (emphasis mine)

Thus, we see that “sustainably served” means sustainably starved.

Another panel of note was “Stewarding Responsible Capitalism,” which featured Brian T. Moynihan, CEO of Bank of America and chair of the WEF business council, among others. An arch proponent of stakeholder capitalism, Moynihan suggested that companies that do not meet environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria will simply be left behind. No one will do business with such companies, he said.

Moynihan’s comments revealed the extent to which stakeholder capitalism and the metric for measuring it, the ESG index, have penetrated commercial banking. In fact, over three hundred major banks are signatories of the UN’s “Principles for Responsible Banking,” “representing almost half of the global banking industry.” Meanwhile, forty-seven hundred asset management firms, as­set owners, and asset service providers have signed the UN’s six “Principles for Responsible Investment.” These principles are entirely focused on ESG compliance and meeting the UN’s Agenda 2030 sustainable development goals. ESG indexing now per­vades every aspect of banking and investment businesses, including what companies they invest in, how they adhere to ESG metrics themselves, and how they cooperate with competitors to pro­mote ESGs. Thus, the goal of the principles is to universalize ESG investing. ESG indexing raises the cost of doing business, starves the noncompliant of capital, and creates a woke cartel of preferred producers.

In the “Philanthropy: A Catalyst for Protecting Our Planet” session, US climate envoy John Kerry suggested that he and the people at Davos were “a select group of human beings, [who], because of whatever touched us at some point in our lives, are able to sit in a room and come together and actually talk about saving the planet.” Betraying the religious, cultlike character of the Davos group, Kerry suggested that his and others’ anointment as saviors of the planet was “almost extraterrestrial.” If you tell them you are interested in saving the planet, “most people,” Kerry continued, “they think you are a tree-hugging leftie liberal do-gooder.” But I submit that “most people” think Kerry and his ilk are not do-gooders at all but rather control freaks and megalomaniacs bent on controlling the world’s population.

On other panels, the speakers stated that eating meat, driving cars, and living outside the bounds of fifteen-minute cities should be disallowed.

In short, with the Davos agenda, we are confronted with a concerted, coordinat­ed campaign to dismantle the productive capabil­ities in energy, manufacturing, and farming. This project, driven by elites and accruing to their benefit, is amounting to the largest Great Leap Backward in recorded history. If it is not stopped and reversed, it will lead to economic disaster, including dramatical­ly reduced consumption and living standards. And it will almost certainly result in more hunger in the developed world and famines in the developing world. WEF chairman Schwab may out­do Chairman Mao. If we let him.


Michael Rectenwald is the author of twelve books, including The Great Reset and the Struggle for Liberty, Unraveling the Global AgendaThought CriminalBeyond WokeGoogle Archipelago, and Springtime for Snowflakes. He is a distinguished fellow at Hillsdale College. Contact Michael Rectenwald


Connect with Mises Institute

Cover image sourced from Activist Post

Globalist Cabal Meets Again to Prepare for World Domination

Globalist Cabal Meets Again to Prepare for World Domination

by Dr. Joseph Mercola
January 24, 2023


  • Attendees at the exclusive January 2023 World Economic Forum (WEF) meeting in Davos, Switzerland, included FBI director Chris Wray, MI6 chief Richard Moore, Secretary-General of NATO Jens Stoltenberg, the CEOs of Amazon, BlackRock and Pfizer (just to name a few), Gates Foundation executives and Cybernetics School director Genevieve Bell
  • The publisher of The New York Times and CNN anchor Fareed Zakaria were also in attendance, as were Ukrainian President Zelensky and a long list of other presidents, prime ministers, ministers, senators, House representatives, commissioners, governors, mayors, bankers, royalty, officials from the UN and Red Cross, as well as military, customs and space agency officials
  • The people gathering at this meeting, which is by invitation only, are among the ones deciding how the rest of us are going to live our lives, what rights we’ll have regardless of local constitutions, and how the world is to be run
  • The WEF works closely with the World Health Organization and the United Nations to make sure the UN’s sustainable development goals are met. The sustainable development goals are the foundation upon which the WEF’s Great Reset agenda is built
  • The WEF is also helping the WHO seize power through its pandemic treaty. If enacted, member states will surrender their sovereignty to the WHO, making it a de facto one world governing body

As reviewed by comedian Jimmy Dore of “The Jimmy Dore Show” in the video above, the World Health Organization began drafting a global pandemic treaty in mid-2022, which would grant it the sole power to make decisions relating to global biosecurity, including but not limited to the implementation of a global vaccine passport/digital identity, mandatory vaccinations, travel restrictions and standardized medical care.

As noted by Dore, “Then they can just shut your bank account down when you do something they don’t like, like protesting.” Indeed, in 2022, the Canadian government seized the bank accounts of people who had donated money to the trucker convoy, and this was basically a preview of the kind of power the WHO would have.

Treaty Members Will Surrender Their Sovereignty

Even if centralizing biosecurity were a good idea, which it’s not, the WHO would not be at the top of the list of organizations to be charged with this task. In his monologue, Dore quotes my May 2022 article, “What You Need to Know About the WHO Pandemic Treaty,” which was republished by The Defender:1

“As just one example, the WHO didn’t publicly admit SARS-CoV-2 was airborne until the end of December 2021, yet scientists knew the virus was airborne within weeks of the pandemic being declared. The WHO also ignored early advice about airborne transmission.

So, it seems clear that the effort to now hand over more power to the WHO is about something other than them being the most qualified to make health decisions that benefit and protect everyone. With this treaty in place, all member nations will be subject to the WHO’s dictates … even if the people have rejected such plans using local democratic processes.”

In short, every country that signs onto the WHO’s pandemic treaty will voluntarily give up its sovereignty and the bodily autonomy of all its citizens. Making matters worse, we aren’t even told exactly who the people are who will make this decision, so we, the people, don’t know who to contact to make our voices heard.

How the Globalist Cabal Infiltrated Governments Worldwide

This is all happening outside the democratic process, and that’s intentional. The globalist cabal realized they could not convince billions of people into giving up their rights and freedoms. Instead, they focused on installing their own people in key positions around the world, so they could then make decisions that benefited the cult.

A key player in this global takeover plan is the World Economic Forum (WEF), founded in 1971. A great number of the installed globalists are graduates of the WEF’s Forum of Young Global Leaders,2 (formerly the Global Leaders for Tomorrow school3), where they’re indoctrinated in technocratic ideals such as transhumanism which, whether they realize it or not, is nothing but eugenics rebranded.

Transhumanism, like eugenics, is about creating a superior race; in this case, a race augmented by and through technology rather than selective breeding. As of the end of 2022, the Young Global Leaders community had more than 1,400 members from 120 nations, and in addition to political leaders, alumni also include “civic and business innovators, entrepreneurs, technology pioneers, educators, activists, artists [and] journalists.”

The Young Global Leaders forum is not the only incubator of technocrats, but it’s one of the most well-recognized. WEF founder Klaus Schwab has openly bragged about the number of Young Global Leaders alumni that have successfully infiltrated governments around the world, including Canada, where more than 80% of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s cabinet are former WEF students.

Trudeau himself is also a Young Global Leader graduate. In a 2017 interview (video below), Schwab stated:4

“This notion to integrate young leaders is part of the World Economic Forum since many years … What we are really proud of now is young generation leaders like Prime Minister Trudeau … We penetrate the cabinets. I was at a reception for Prime Minister Trudeau and I know that half of his cabinet, or even more than half of his cabinet, are actually Young Global Leaders.”

The WEF’s Takeover of the UN

The Young Global Leaders school was founded in 1992, the same year Agenda 21 was introduced. This makes sense, as they’re part of the same plan. Agenda 21 is the actual action agenda for the United Nations’ sustainable development plans, while the WEF trains propagandists and implementers.

While the UN and WEF have clearly worked hand in hand since 1992, in June 2019, they signed a strategic partnership agreement to accelerate the implementation of the UN’s 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development by further strengthening collaboration and coordination between the two organizations.5

Hundreds of Organizations Condemn WEF-UN Partnership

In a September 2019 open letter6 to UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, more than 400 civil society organizations and 40 international networks condemned the partnership, calling it a “corporate capture of global governance,” and called on Guterres to end it.

“We are very concerned that this WEF-UN partnership agreement will de-legitimize the United Nations and provide transnational corporations preferential and deferential access to the UN System,” the letter states.

“The UN system is already under a big threat from the US Government and those who question a democratic multilateral world. However, this corporatization of the UN poses a much deeper long-term threat, as it will reduce public support for the UN system in the South and the North.

It is our strong belief that this agreement is fundamentally at odds with the UN Charter and with intergovernmental decisions on sustainable development, the climate emergency, and the eradication of poverty and hunger.

This public-private partnership will permanently associate the UN with transnational corporations, some of whose core essential activities have caused or worsened the social and environmental crises that the planet faces. This is a form of corporate capture.

We know that agribusiness destroys biodiversity and sustainable and just food systems, oil and gas corporations endanger the world’s climate, Big Pharma weakens access to essential medications, extractive corporations leave lasting damage to countries’ ecologies and peoples, and arms manufacturers profit from local and regional wars as well as repression of social movements.

All these sectors are significant actors within the World Economic Forum. The provisions of the strategic partnership effectively provide that corporate leaders will become ‘whisper advisors’ to the heads of UN system departments, using their private access to advocate market-based profit-making ‘solutions’ to global problems while undermining real solutions embedded in public interest and transparent democratic procedures …

The UN’s acceptance of this partnership agreement moves the world toward WEF’s aspirations for multistakeholderism becoming the effective replacement of multilateralism.

WEF in their 2010 The Global Redesign Initiative argued that the first step toward their global governance vision is ‘to redefine the international system as constituting a wider, multifaceted system of global cooperation in which intergovernmental legal frameworks and institutions are embedded as a core, but not the sole and sometimes not the most crucial, component.

The goal was to weaken the role of states in global decision-making and to elevate the role of a new set of ‘stakeholders’, turning our multilateral system into a multistakeholder system, in which companies are part of the governing mechanisms.

This would bring transnational corporations, selected civil society representatives, states and other non-state actors together to make global decisions, discarding or ignoring critical concerns around conflicts of interest, accountability and democracy.”

The WEF Actively and Intentionally Undermines Democracy


In mid-January 2023, WEF members, Young Leaders alumni and other VIPs gathered in Davos, Switzerland, for their annual get-together. As reported by UnHerd columnist Thomas Fazi:7

“Alongside heads of state from all over the world, the CEOs of Amazon, BlackRock, JPMorgan Chase, Pfizer and Moderna will gather, as will the President of the European Commission, the IMF’s Managing Director, the secretary general of Nato, the chiefs of the FBI and MI6, the publisher of The New York Times, and, of course, the event’s infamous host — founder and chairman of the WEF, Klaus Schwab …

Founded in 1971 … the WEF is ‘committed to improving the state of the world through public-private cooperation,’ also known as multistakeholder governance.

The idea is that global decision-making should not be left to governments and nation-states — as in the post-war multilateralist framework enshrined in the United Nations — but should involve a whole range of non-government stakeholders: civil society bodies, academic experts, media personalities and, most important, multinational corporations …

While this may sound fairly benign, it neatly encapsulates the basic philosophy of globalism: insulating policy from democracy by transferring the decision-making process from the national and international level, where citizens theoretically are able to exercise some degree of influence over policy, to the supranational level, by placing a self-selected group of unelected, unaccountable ‘stakeholders’ — mainly corporations — in charge of global decisions concerning everything from energy and food production to the media and public health …

[There] is little doubt as to which interests Schwab’s brainchild is actually promoting and empowering: the WEF is itself mostly funded by around 1,000 member companies … which include some of the world’s biggest corporations in oil (Saudi Aramco, Shell, Chevron, BP), food (Unilever, The Coca-Cola Company, Nestlé), technology (Facebook, Google, Amazon, Microsoft, Apple) and pharmaceuticals (AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Moderna).

The composition of the WEF’s board is also very revealing, including Laurence D. Fink, CEO of Blackrock, David M. Rubenstein, co-chairman of the Carlyle Group, and Mark Schneider, CEO of Nestlé.

There’s no need to resort to conspiracy theories to posit that the WEF’s agenda is much more likely to be tailored to suit the interests of its funders and board members — the world’s ultra-wealthy and corporate elites — rather than to ‘improving the state of the world,’ as the organization claims.”

The Goal of the 0.0001% Is to Rule Over the Rest of Us

Considering how proud Schwab is of his WEF members, one wonders why the attendance list to his annual Davos meeting is confidential. Whatever the reason for that might be, The Dossier recently acquired a copy of that list.8

Attendees at the exclusive January 2023 meeting included FBI director Chris Wray, MI6 chief Richard Moore, Secretary-General of NATO Jens Stoltenberg, the CEOs of Amazon, BlackRock and Pfizer (just to name a few), Gates Foundation executives and Cybernetics School director Genevieve Bell.

The publisher of The New York Times and CNN anchor Fareed Zakaria were also in attendance, as were Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and a long list of other presidents, prime ministers, ministers, senators, House representatives, commissioners, governors, mayors, bankers, royalty, officials from the UN and Red Cross, as well as military, customs and space agency officials.

The people gathering at this meeting, which is by invitation only, are among the ones deciding how the rest of us are going to live our lives, what rights we’ll have, regardless of local constitutions, and how the world is to be run. The rest of us have no say in the matter.

As noted by UnHerd:10

“… there is no denying that the WEF wields immense power, which has cemented the rule of the transnational capitalist class to a degree never before seen in history.

But it is important to recognize that its power is simply a manifestation of the power of the ‘superclass’ it represents — a tiny group amounting, according to researchers,11 to no more than 6,000 or 7,000 people, or 0.0001% of the world’s population, and yet more powerful than any social class the world has ever known …

It was only a matter of time before these aspiring cosmocrats developed a tool through which to fully exercise their dominion over the lower classes — and the WEF proved to be the perfect vehicle to do so.”

The Globalist Cult

One insider has described the WEF’s Davos gathering as “a Ponzi scheme” and “a cult,” according to investigative journalist Michael Shellenberger, who wrote about the WEF in a January 15, 2023, Substack post.12 Apparently, the WEF is getting concerned about the fact that more and more people are starting to realize what they’re actually up to.

“The World Economic Forum … is fighting back against conspiracy theorists who say it and its founder Klaus Schwab are seeking global domination through a ‘great reset’ aimed at stripping the masses of their private property, de-industrializing the economy, and making everybody eat bugs.

”Own nothing, be happy’ — you might have heard the phrase,’ wrote World Economic Forum (WEF) Managing Director Adrian Monck last August. ‘It started life as a screenshot, culled from the Internet by an anonymous anti-semitic account on the image board 4chan …

But what Monck claimed was inaccurate. The phrase, ‘Own nothing, be happy,’ hadn’t originated on 4chan; it originated on WEF’s website.”

Indeed, for some reason, these globalists are continuously describing their plans in reports, white papers, on websites, in videos (such as the one above) and at meetings. Yet when people put the puzzle pieces together, they cry “conspiracy theory.” The WEF’s plan may rightly be called a conspiracy, but none of it is theoretical because they’ve described it in black and white. Schwab even published a book about The Great Reset that anyone can peruse.

In the final analysis, what they’re really objecting to and are trying to draw attention away from is the fact that people don’t like their plan and are calling it for what it is — a global coup d’état, a power grab by cultists who are unsuited to rule because their ideology13 is based on eugenics, depopulation and undemocratic top-down authoritarianism. Even in the face of collapsing birth rates, the WEF still insists overpopulation is a dire threat.14


So, to recap:

  • The WEF has announced and delineated the cabal’s intentions for a Great Reset, which will fundamentally change how we live and erase foundational human freedoms.
  • Trained WEF leaders have and continue to infiltrate governments worldwide. Trained supporting actors are also spread across business, media, entertainment and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), where they help shape public opinion.
  • WEF Young Global Leader graduate Bill Gates is the largest funder of the WHO, which is now trying to get member nations to surrender their sovereignty through a pandemic treaty.
  • The WEF and Gates have prepared the ground for a biosecurity-based One World Government for several years. In 2017, Gates launched the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) at that year’s WEF meeting in Davos.

Then, in October 2019, just two months before the WHO declared COVID-19 a pandemic, the WEF and Gates cohosted Event 201, which featured a fictional outbreak of a novel coronavirus. The exercise focused solely on how to direct and control public discourse about the pandemic rather than how to ensure effective treatments would be discovered and shared.

In late January 2020, CEPI met with Moderna to discuss plans for a COVID-19 “vaccine,” and later that year, CEPI and the WHO jointly created the COVID-19 Vaccines Global Access (COVAX) program to ensure everyone would have access to the forthcoming shots — a program that failed to achieve its intended goal,15 by the way.The WEF works in close collaboration with the UN, which laid the foundation for The Great Reset with its sustainable development goals. The strategic partnership agreement between the UN and the WEF is the official acceleration of the globalist takeover plan.In November 2019, the WEF also joined forces with the WHO “to accelerate progress in health and development” to deliver the global goals of the UN.16

Billionaires Plotting How to Depopulate

As mentioned, one of the reasons I believe the 0.0001% are unfit to rule the world is because of their anti-human ideology. Billionaires have held many secret meetings over the years to figure out the best way to depopulate.

In a January 8, 2023, Substack article,17 the Naked Emperor describes the “Good Club,” which first met in 2009. The meeting, which was funded and attended by Bill Gates, included George Soros, Warren Buffett, David Rockefeller, Ted Turner, Eli and Edythe Broad, Michael Bloomberg, Oprah Winfrey, Peter Peterson, Julian Robertson Jr., John and Tashia Morgridge, and Patty Stonesifer.

The meeting was held at the home of Sir Paul Nurse, then-president of the Rockefeller University. Nurse is now the director of the Francis Crick Institute, which was founded by a eugenicist. Crick’s intention behind the Institute was to rehabilitate eugenics and “make it respectable again.”

As recently as 1970, Crick stated that “evidence for the equality of different races did not really exist.” That same year he also wrote that sterilization through bribery was the only answer to rid the world of people with poor genes. Depopulation and eugenics were also on the agenda for the 2009 “Good Club” meeting. Each participant was given 15 minutes to present their case, and while several issues were brought up, all agreed that depopulation was a priority.

They also agreed that whatever strategy was employed it needed to be independent of government, as government agencies were deemed unable to head off the looming disaster of overpopulation.

As noted by the Naked Emperor, “if all they were doing was planning on how to save the world, they would be transparent and encourage everyone to help them on their mission.” But that’s not what they’re doing.

Is that because their ideas might be considered abominable by the average person? Sure, it’s easy to decree that people of a certain class don’t deserve to live — if you’re not in that class!

Ask parents of autistic children if they would be willing to euthanize their kids, for example, and I’m sure you’d get an earful. Or ask people over 65 to submit to automatic euthanasia and see how many takers you get. People work their entire lives just to enjoy the leisure of that last decade or two.

The Rise of Anthropocene Anti-Humanism

The idea of billionaires plotting to get rid of other people, but not themselves or their own families, is repugnant to most. But it might be even worse than that. Remarkably, as reported by the Naked Emperor, we’re now seeing the emergence of a cult that embraces the total annihilation of ALL mankind.

“The revolt against humanity is still new enough to appear outlandish, but it has already spread beyond the fringes of the intellectual world,” he writes.18

“This is called Anthropocene anti-humanism, ‘inspired by revulsion at humanity’s destruction of the natural environment.’ For all we know, these billionaires could be part of this cult and influencing policies based on these views.

In the 21st century, Anthropocene anti-humanism offers a much more radical response to a much deeper ecological crisis. It says that our self-destruction is now inevitable, and that we should welcome it as a sentence we have justly passed on ourselves.

Some anti-humanist thinkers look forward to the extinction of our species, while others predict that even if some people survive the coming environmental apocalypse, civilization as a whole is doomed. Like all truly radical movements, Anthropocene anti-humanism begins not with a political program but with a philosophical idea …”

Is Anti-Humanism or Transhumanism Driving the Globalists?

Do the 0.0001% ascribe to anthropocene anti-humanism, or are they transhumanists at heart? As explained by the Naked Emperor:

“Transhumanism, by contrast, glorifies some of the very things that anti-humanism decries — scientific and technological progress, the supremacy of reason. But it believes that the only way forward for humanity is to create new forms of intelligent life that will no longer be Homo sapiens.

Some transhumanists believe that genetic engineering and nanotechnology will allow us to alter our brains and bodies so profoundly that we will escape human limitations such as mortality and confinement to a physical body.

Others await … the invention of artificial intelligence infinitely superior to our own. These beings will demote humanity to the rank we assign to animals — unless they decide that their goals are better served by wiping us out completely.”

Judging by the planned direction the WEF is taking us, I’m convinced transhumanist philosophy underpins its political agendas. Schwab also has not been shy about the WEF’s transhumanist ideals.

He even coined the term “Fourth Industrial Revolution” to describe the planned merger of man with machine. Such a merger, in turn, allows for the direct control of each individual from the outside. Just like you can remote control a computer, so would you be able to remote control an individual whose brain was connected to the cloud.

Technocracy Is Here

In 1975, Sen. Frank Church (video above) warned that the technological advancements of that time already posed a direct threat to the citizens of the United States, and that were a dictator to infiltrate or take control of the country, there would be no escape from the tyranny.

Fast-forward to today, and his words are more than a little prescient. As noted by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., “We now live in this abyss!”19 The question is, how do we get out of this abyss, which was intentionally created for us by the 0.0001%?

I believe the only way out is by rejecting surveillance technologies such as Google and Google-based devices while simultaneously building parallel economies, industries and communities that operate outside of their control system. None of that is easy, but we have no other choice. If you accept their system, you accept enslavement.


Sources and References


Connect to Dr. Joseph Mercola

Cover image credit: Edurs34