Hello Project Icebreaker, Goodbye Financial Freedom: “The Orwellian Nature of CBDCs Cannot Be Overstated”

by Brandon Smith, Birch Gold Group
published April 6, 2023

There has been extensive discussion in the past couple of years within alternative media circles about the dangers of Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs); a currency framework very similar to blockchain based products like bitcoin but directly controlled by central bankers.

CDBCs are a threat that some analysts including myself have been writing about for more than a decade, so it’s good to finally see the issue being addressed more in the mainstream.

The economics of enslavement

The Orwellian nature of CBDCs cannot be overstated.

In a cashless society people would be dependent on digital products for exchanging goods and labor, and this would of course mean the end of all privacy in trade. Basically, everything you buy or sell or work for in your life would be recorded, and this lack of anonymity could easily be used to stifle your freedoms.

For example, say you like to eat steak regularly, but the “green” government decides to list red meat as a health risk and a “climate change risk,” due to carbon emissions from cows. They determine by your purchase history (which they now have full access to) that you have contributed more carbon pollution than most people by eating red meat often. They declare that you must pay a retroactive carbon tax on your past purchases of red meat. Not only that, but your insurance company sends you a letter indicating that you are now a risk and they cut off your health coverage.

Other products you might consume and services you use can be tracked to create a psychological profile on you, which could then become a factor in determining your social credit score as they do often in China.

Maybe you refuse or forgot to purchase your annual mRNA booster shot, and the tracking algorithm makes a note of this. Now you are under suspicion for being “anti-vax” and your social credit score plummets, cutting you off from various public venues. Maybe you are even fired from your job.

In the worst case scenario, though, economic access is the greatest oppressive tool.

With CBDCs in place and no physical cash in existence, your savings will never truly be yours and you never be able to hold your purchasing power in your hands.

The means of exchange would be firewalled by the banks. Any (or all) government agencies would be able to freeze your ability to transact.

If one day you get angry about a particular government policy or a stupid thing a politician says, and openly call the system “corrupt” in public? The Bureau of Tolerance in Public Discourse could simply suspend your access to your digital money… Temporarily, of course. Only until you submit and change your tune – if it’s your first offense.

Repeat offenders might be required to attend a Sensitivity Training Boot Camp – at your own expense, of course! With CDBCs, any government bureaucrat could not only prevent you from making any purchases, they could also allow you to only make specific purchases, like a train ticket to Sensitivity Training Boot Camp where you’d spend eight to twelve weeks being “reeducated” in order to regain your rights to buy food.

This is every authoritarian’s dream come true.

Imagine this power even in the hands of a benevolent leader! It would be so easy to nudge citizens to live healthier, more productive lives… (In fact, in China, one of the documented uses of their combination “social credit score” and cashless transactions is denying individuals the ability to buy junk food because they’re considered to be overweight.)

In the hands of a callous, ruthless government? Much, much worse.

CBDCs give government bureaucrats the ability to starve their political opponents with algorithmic precision. It would be a new world of technocratic oppression – allowing раскулачивание or “dekulakization” of individuals or entire regions at the push of a button. At any time, for any reason.

Imagine living under the threat of possible “liquidation” every single day for the rest of your life.

This power that Stalin or Hitler or Chairman Mao could only dream of has only become possible relatively recently. Over the past few years, the combination of powerful computing, unimaginably advanced data analysis and extraction techniques and universal spying devices (also known as “smartphones”) have created the opportunity for autocrats to create the ultimate tool of control and oppression.

That “opportunity” is rapidly becoming a reality.

Project Icebreaker

It’s important to understand that central bankers are moving at breakneck speed to develop and introduce digital currencies. It’s not a matter of experimentation, they already have these systems ready to implement. In my investigations of various CBDC programs and how quickly they are progressing I came across an interesting program called Project Icebreaker managed and developed by the Bank for International Settlements (BIS).

For those not aware, the BIS is a globalist institution with a clandestine past known as the “central bank of central banks.” It is the policy-making hub for most of the central banks in the world. If you ever wondered how it was possible for so many national central banks to operate in tandem with each other instead of in the interests of their home countries, the BIS is the answer. In other words, organizations like the Federal Reserve are not necessarily loyal to Americans or to American officials, they are loyal to the dictates of the BIS.

The BIS is at the forefront of the CDBC movement. They’ve funded a vast array of projects to test and refine CBDC technologies for some time. Right now, the BIS estimate that at least 81 central banks around the world are in the process of introducing their very own CDBC.

Now, there are only 195 countries in the whole world, and more than 2/3 of them are pursuing this freedom-destroying, autocrat’s-dream-come-true.

Project Icebreaker in particular grabbed my interest for a number of reasons. The BIS describes the project as a foreign exchange clearing house for Retail CBDCs (retail CBDCs are digital currencies used by the regular public and businesses), enabling the currencies to be traded from country to country quickly and efficiently. This is accomplished using the “Icebreaker Hub”, a BIS controlled mechanism which facilitates data transfers for an array of transactions and connects banks to other banks.



Investigating further I realized that the Icebreaker Hub in theory functions almost exactly like the SWIFT payment system used currently by governments and international banks. More than 10,000 financial institutions in 212 different countries use the SWIFT network to transfer funds overseas for their clients; it is an incredible centralized hinge or fulcrum that gives its controllers considerable power.

As a point of reference, after the start of the war between Ukraine and Russia, the expulsion of Russia from the SWIFT network was used as a weapon in an attempt to crash the Russian economy. Russia has found ways around using SWIFT, but some damage has indeed been done to their financial structures. Consider this, however – What if all monetary transactions were centralized through CBDCs and the BIS controlled the hub in which all retail CBDCs are exchanged globally? That’s exactly what Icebreaker is.

Now imagine that you operate a business that relies on international transactions. Say you need to pay manufacturers in Vietnam to produce your products. With CBDCs in place your entire business would be completely dependent on a system like Icebreaker to move than digital money to Vietnamese banks,  into your manufacturer’s account.

Say the BIS, for whatever reason, decides that all Vietnamese manufacturing illegally use child labor. Or the Ngân hàng Nhà nước Việt Nam (State Bank of Vietnam) doesn’t toe the BIS policy line, and BIS technocrats decide to “teach them a lesson.” Or maybe the BIS doesn’t approve of your products – or maybe they just don’t like you…

With Icebreaker, any BIS factotum can implement Russian-style sanctions. Your access to international commerce? Denied. Your business is now functionally dead – at the push of a button.

But Icebreaker isn’t just a reactive system – it can be a proactive system, too…

What if you had to meet certain standards in order to be allowed use of the hub, and the BIS dictates the standards?

What if the BIS decides that your company needs to meet woke ESG requirements before you can get permission for Icebreaker transactions? Insufficiently diverse board of directors? Denied. Using commodities that aren’t ethically, sustainably sourced by war refugees? Denied. Offering a product or service insufficiently aligned with globalist goals? Denied.

The BIS itself can actively manipulate social, cultural and economic decisions –  using millions of businesses as their missionaries.

The entire global economy would, essentially, be held hostage.

For the average American who does most of their shopping locally, this might not seem like a big deal.

For the business world, an economic firewall could easily be used to control all international trade.

Any larger organization or business would require slavishly obeying the whims of the BIS.

It gets worse, though.

Part of the process of the “spoke and wheel” exchange method used by Icebreaker includes the exploitation of a “bridge currency” to fill gaps in exchange rates and liquidity. On the surface this seems like a clever way to speed up transactions by avoiding cross-currency shortages at banks.

That said, I want readers to think about the long-term path that this kind of “bridging” sets in motion in the realm of CBDCs.

Let’s say there is a global scale economic crisis which causes many currencies to fluctuate wildly. We’ve already seen three events that meet this definition in the last 20 years – so they really aren’t that uncommon.

Let’s say, for example, that the U.S. dollar loses its global reserve role (as it’s already lost its petrodollar exclusivity). Or, say, a debt ceiling standoff calls into question the market value of those $7.5 trillion in U.S. Treasury bonds owned by global central banks…

This would send the $7.5 trillion/day foreign exchange market into a historic panic.

Price inflation becomes rampant and banking institutions falter under liquidity pressures.

Central bankers, who have a “solution” in search of a crisis to address, push CBDCs as the antidote. The BIS Icebreaker becomes the middleman for every single international transaction.

The populace, terrified by the economic crash, immediately embrace the digital framework. But the BIS claims they can’t find a currency they consider stable enough to act as an intermediary…

Well, “luckily” for all of us the BIS and IMF have been working on their own global CBDC. In the case of the IMF, this one-world currency would be based around the Special Drawing Rights (SDR) basket in use for decades to broker currency transfers between governments.

The BIS now uses this one unified, centrally controlled currency as the linchpin for world trade.

Eventually the BIS, IMF and various central banks will ask the public the inevitable question: “Why are we bothering with these national currencies when we have a perfectly good bridge currency in the form of this one-world CBDC? Why don’t we just get rid of all these superfluous separate CBDCs and have one currency for everyone?”

Thus, total global financial centralization would be achieved. And once you have a one-world currency, a completely centralized and micro-managed global economy and the most vital trade systems in the world controlled by a tiny handful of faceless unelected bureaucracies, why then have nations at all? Global government would be the next and final step.

I can see the nightmare play out when I look at projects like Icebreaker. They are seemingly innocuous, but they act as the DNA for economic tyranny that would make even the worst historic genocides pale in comparison.

What’s the solution? The last bastion of financial privacy, barter. Physical precious metals (gold as a store of value, silver for transacting and trade) would very likely become increasingly the preferred form of money for all truly free individuals for as long as the corrupt globalist regime has its tentacles in everyone’s digital wallets.

Brandon Smith has been an alternative economic and geopolitical analyst since 2006 and is the founder of Alt-Market.com.

Connect with Birch Gold Group

Cover image credit: Leonhard_Niederwimmer

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

Excerpt:

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.”

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

“Salamanders, toads and frogs have more vitality than other forms of life. The density of their strings — their meridians — that connect them to earth and sky is greater. It is why they rarely (and salamanders never) get cancer: both their external and internal communication systems are too strong for their cells to escape control. It is why frogs can partially regenerate lost limbs, and salamanders can regenerate them completely. It is why salamanders can even regenerate their heart — and do it within hours — if half of it is cut out — an astounding fact discovered by Dr. Robert O. Becker and written about in chapter 10 of his classic book, The Body Electric.

It is also why amphibians are dying out. Animals with such a strong connection to Earth’s orchestra — who are so attuned to it that they have survived for 365 million years — cannot withstand the chaos that we have superimposed on it during the past half century and more — the chaos that we have injected into the living circuitry with our radio and TV stations, our radar facilities, our cell phones and cell towers, and our satellites. “

[…]

“It is why wireless technology, which has placed a source of lethal radiation into the hands of almost every man, woman and child on earth, is such an emergency and must come rapidly to an end if we are so save our planet and the millions of other species who are still trying to share it with us. The frogs and salamanders are telling us that it is not a matter of choice, and it is not a matter of how far from our heads we hold our phones. It is a matter of their survival and ours.”

Amphibians in the Mine

by Arthur Firstenberg, Cellular Phone Task Force
March 29, 2023

“Amphibians were here when the dinosaurs were here, and they survived the age of mammals. If they’re checking out now, I think it is significant.”

–   David Wake, Director of the Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, Berkeley, 1990

They are ancient animals with abilities to survive beyond belief. They live both in water and on land. They can breathe through their skin. They can regenerate limbs and organs. They don’t get cancer. They have been around for 365 million years, and have survived four mass extinctions during the history of life on Earth. Yet today, they are disappearing more rapidly than any other class of animals. By their death, they are screaming: Turn off your cell phones! Now, before it is too late!

Even before cell phones, the proliferation of radio and TV towers, radar stations, and communication antennas in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s began killing off these most hardy, well-adapted, and important forms of life.

• The northern leopard frog, Rana pipiens – the North American green frog that croaked from every marsh, pond and creek when I was growing up — was already extremely rare by the end of the 1980s.

• In the Colorado and Wyoming Rocky Mountains, boreal toads used to be so numerous that, in the words of Paul Corn of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, “You had to kick them out of the way as you were walking down the trail.” By 1990 they were difficult to find at all.

• Boreal chorus frogs on the shores of Lake Superior, once innumerable, were extremely rare by 1990.

• In the 1970s David Wake could turn up eighty or more salamanders under the bark of a single log in a pine forest near Oaxaca, Mexico. In the early 1980s he returned and was able to find maybe one or two after searching the forest all day.

• Until 1979 frogs were abundant and diverse at the University of São Paulo’s field station at Boracea, Brazil, according to Stanley Rand of the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute. But when he returned in 1982, of thirty common frog species, six had disappeared entirely and seven had decreased in number drastically.

• In 1974 Michael Tyler of Adelaide, Australia discovered a new frog species that brooded its young in its stomach. It lived in a 100-square-kilometer area in the Conondale Ranges, 60 kilometers north of Brisbane, and was so common that he could collect a hundred in a single night. By 1980 it was extinct.

• The golden toad lived only in a 320-acre stunted forest in Costa Rica’s supposedly pristine, protected Monteverde Cloud Forest Preserve. In the early 1980s Marc Hayes of the University of Miami typically counted 500 to 700 males at one of the species’ breeding sites. After 1984 that site never had more than a dozen males. At another site Martha Crump observed a thousand males in 1987, but only one in 1988 and another single male frog in 1989. Today the species is extinct.

In 1990, when I began researching this magical class of vertebrates, there were not many amphibians left in all of Europe. Out of more than five thousand known species worldwide, about a dozen were doing well.

By the time I wrote Microwaving Our Planet in 1996, every species of frog and toad in Yosemite National Park had become scarce. Seventy-five species of the colorful harlequin frogs that once lived near streams in the tropics of the Western Hemisphere from Costa Rica to Bolivia had not been seen in a decade. Of the 50 species of frogs that once inhabited the Monteverde Cloud Forest Preserve, 20 were already extinct.

Similar population crashes were occurring in North, Central and South America, Europe, and Australia. Only in Africa and Asia, when I wrote that book, were amphibians doing well. That has since changed. On March 15, 2023, a team of 19 American scientists published a paper titled “Continent-wide recent emergence of a global pathogen in African amphibians.” Amphibians, say the authors, were doing fine on the dark continent until about the year 2000 — which coincidentally is when telecommunications companies began lighting up that continent with cell phone signals in earnest.

A couple of years earlier, in December 1997, I had published an article titled “The Informationization of the Third World.” I quoted President Clinton, who had lamented that “More than half the world’s people are a two days’ walk from a telephone.” I highlighted Bangladesh, where there were plans to bring cell phones to 40,000 of the country’s 68,000 villages over the next four years. In Africa, where several countries still had less than one conventional phone per one thousand people, some two dozen countries were introducing cellular systems. The debate, in the world’s press, was about what this would do to the traditional village, and whether this was a desirable thing from a cultural point of view. I took a broader view:

“An even more important question is what will happen to nature? Can nature survive at all in a distanceless world? I think the answer, if ecologists and environmentalists brought their knowledge to bear, would be a resounding no. Biodiversity depends on distance. What is not often acknowledged is that cultural diversity also depends on distance, and that culture is nature-based. Local dialects, and local handicrafts, and local dress, and local economies, and local varieties of crops, and local varieties of plants and animals — i.e. local ecosystems — depend on the village’s being a two days’ walk from a telephone. The most basic reason for the disappearance of species is that very few of them can withstand the global exploitation that must come when there is instantaneous transportation and communication.”

And then there is the radiation. The effects of microwave radiation in Africa, as cell towers began serving larger numbers of its residents, are now apparent: amphibians have been disappearing all over the continent. This has been blamed on a type of fungus called Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis (Bd), rare in Africa prior to the year 2000. But whether it is the fungus that is killing frogs, toads and salamanders, or whether it is the radiation that is killing them, and that is allowing a fungus to grow in their devitalized bodies, is a question no one is asking. For example, why, in Cameroon, where 83 percent of the population own mobile phones, and four cell phone providers cover a lot of the country, is the fungus found in 17 percent of all amphibians collected — while in neighboring Equatorial Guinea, where only 40 percent of the population own mobile phones and there are no cell towers except in the coastal city of Bata, there is zero fungus? Why, in South Africa, where 90 percent of the population own mobile phones, and coverage is good in most of the country, is the fungus found in 23 percent of amphibians collected — while in neighboring Mozambique, where only 43 percent of the population has a mobile phone, zero fungus has been found among the amphibians collected? Could it be because cell phones are still useless in much of northern Mozambique, and that is where all the amphibians in that country have been collected: Mount Mabu, Mount Namuli, Mount Ribáuè, and Balama?

Most of the suggested explanations for the global die-off make little sense. Climate change is being widely blamed, yet scientists looking for an association of population crashes with temperature or other weather factors have found none. Why, worldwide, are amphibians declining faster at high altitudes than at lower elevations where the climate is warmer? Could it be because the higher elevations receive more radiation, and because many antennas are found on mountains? Scientists have found no evidence that fish or non-native amphibians have caused native amphibians to go extinct. Land use change does not explain sudden population crashes in pristine protected areas. Pesticide use does not correlate with the population declines.

These inconsistencies seem to be escaping the scientists who are looking for answers. They are escaping them because they have a terrific blind spot: they do not see the radiation at all, it does not exist for them.

The single most rapid and catastrophic crash in amphibian populations occurred in the year 1988 in the Monteverde Cloud Forest Biological Preserve in Costa Rica, a location that has long puzzled scientists because it is strictly protected and supposedly untouched and pristine. This is what I thought as well until I began to do research for this article. I just found out, to my astonishment, that right in the middle of this two-square-mile preserve, on top of a hill called Cerro Amigos (“Friends Hill”), is an antenna farm called Las Torres (“The Towers”). A photo of the top of that hill is at the top of this article. As of 2012, there were 17 radio, TV, cell phone, and other types of communication towers on that hill, a few of them dating from the 1970s and 1980s. I am making inquiries to try to pin down what was added in 1988. If you live in Costa Rica and know some of this history, please contact me.

More Connected Means More Vulnerable

“Is It a Hazard to Be Healthy?” asked Dr. D. B. Armstrong in the Boston Medical and Surgical Journal in 1918. If you were undernourished, physically handicapped, anemic, or tuberculous, you were much less likely to get influenza and much less likely to die from it if you did. The vast majority of people who died from the Spanish influenza were pregnant women and healthy young adults. Doctors were seriously discussing whether they were actually giving their patients a death sentence by advising them to keep fit!

Amphibians are dying for the same reason. What is completely neglected in the sciences of biology, medicine and ecology, is our electrical connection to earth and sky. As I discuss in chapter 9 of my book, The Invisible Rainbow, we are all part of the global electrical circuit that courses through the sky above us, flows down to earth on atmospheric ions and raindrops, enters the tops of our heads into our bodies, flows through our meridians, exits into the earth through the soles of our feet, travels along the surface of the earth, and flows back up to the sky on lightning bolts during thunderstorms. Those of us who are most vital and have the strongest connection to earth and sky — healthy, vigorous young adults and pregnant women — died in the largest numbers in the 1918 flu, which was caused not by a virus but by the use of enormously powerful VLF radio stations by the United States when it entered the First World War. The same thing happened in 1889 (introduction of AC electricity), 1957 (first construction of civil defense radars), and 1968 (first constellation of military satellites).

“In each case—in 1889, 1918, 1957, and 1968—the electrical envelope of the earth, to which we are all attached by invisible strings, was suddenly and profoundly disturbed. Those for whom this attachment was strongest, whose roots were most vital, whose life’s rhythms were tuned most closely to the accustomed pulsations of our planet — in other words, vigorous, healthy young adults, and pregnant women — those were the individuals who most suffered and died. Like an orchestra whose conductor has suddenly gone mad, their organs, their living instruments, no longer knew how to play.” 

Salamanders, toads and frogs have more vitality than other forms of life. The density of their strings — their meridians — that connect them to earth and sky is greater. It is why they rarely (and salamanders never) get cancer: both their external and internal communication systems are too strong for their cells to escape control. It is why frogs can partially regenerate lost limbs, and salamanders can regenerate them completely. It is why salamanders can even regenerate their heart — and do it within hours — if half of it is cut out — an astounding fact discovered by Dr. Robert O. Becker and written about in chapter 10 of his classic book, The Body Electric.

It is also why amphibians are dying out. Animals with such a strong connection to Earth’s orchestra — who are so attuned to it that they have survived for 365 million years — cannot withstand the chaos that we have superimposed on it during the past half century and more — the chaos that we have injected into the living circuitry with our radio and TV stations, our radar facilities, our cell phones and cell towers, and our satellites.

It is why, in 1996, when parades of cell towers were marching from coast to coast in the United States, and sprouting at tourist destinations, mutant frogs were turning up by the thousands in pristine lakes, streams and forests in at least 32 states. Their deformed legs, extra legs, missing legs, missing eyes, misplaced eyes, misshapen tails, and whole body deformities frightened school children out on field trips.

It is why developing frog embryos and tadpoles exposed by researchers in Moscow in the late 1990s to a (wired) personal computer developed severe malformations including anencephaly (absence of a brain), absence of a heart, lack of limbs, and other deformities that are incompatible with life.

It is why, when tadpoles were kept for two months in a tank on an apartment’s terrace in Valladolid, Spain, 140 meters from a cell tower, 90 percent of them died, versus only 4 percent mortality in an identical tank that was shielded from radio waves.

It is why wireless technology, which has placed a source of lethal radiation into the hands of almost every man, woman and child on earth, is such an emergency and must come rapidly to an end if we are so save our planet and the millions of other species who are still trying to share it with us. The frogs and salamanders are telling us that it is not a matter of choice, and it is not a matter of how far from our heads we hold our phones. It is a matter of their survival and ours.

Selected Bibliography

Balmori, Alfonso. The incidence of electromagnetic pollution on the amphibian decline: Is this an important piece of the puzzle? Toxicological & Environmental Chemistry 88(2): 287-299 (2006).

Balmori, Alfonso. Mobile phone mast effects on common frog (Rana temporaria) tadpole: The city turned into a laboratory. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine 29: 31-35 (2010).

Becker, Robert O. and Gary Selden. The Body Electric (NY: William Morrow 1985).

Berger, Lee, Rick Speare, Peter Daszak, et al. Chytridiomycosis causes amphibian mortality associated with population declines in the rain forests of Australia and Central America. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 95: 9-31-9036 (1998).

Berger, Lee, Alexandra A. Roberts, Jamie Voyles, et al. History and recent progress on chytridiomycosis in amphibians.  Fungal Ecology 19: 89-99 (2016).

Bittek, Jason. Half of all amphibian species at risk of extinction. National Geographic, May 8, 2019.

Blaustein, Andrew R. and Pieter TJ Johnson. The complexity of deformed amphibians. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 1(2): 87-94 (2003).

Collins, James P. Amphibian decline and extinction: What we know and what we need to learn. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms 92: 93-99 (2010).

Drost, Charles A. and Gary M. Fellers. Collapse of a regional frog fauna in the Yosemite area of the California Sierra Nevada, USA. Conservation Biology 10(2): 414-425 (1996).

Firstenberg, Arthur. The Informationization of the Third World. No Place To Hide 1(3): 1-2 (Dec. 1997).

Firstenberg, Arthur. Microwaving Our Planet: The Environmental Impact of the Wireless Revolution (NY: Cellular Phone Task Force 1996, 1997).

Firstenberg, Arthur. The Invisible Rainbow: A History of Electricity and Life (White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green 2020, 560 pages).

Ghose, Sonia L., Tiffany A. Yap, Allison Q. Byrne, et al. Continent-wide recent emergence of a global pathogen in African amphibians. Frontiers in Conservation Science 4: 1069490 (2023).

González-del-Pliego, Pamela, Robert P. Freckleton, David P. Edwards, et al. Phylogenetic and trait-based prediction of extinction risk for data-deficient amphibians. Current Biology 29: 1557-1563 (2019).

Hoperskaya, O.A., L.A. Belkova, M.E. Bogdanov, and S.G. Denisov. The action of the “Gamma-7N” device on biological objects exposed to radiation from personal computers. In Electromagnetic Fields and Human Health: Proceedings of the Second International Conference, Moscow, Sept. 20-24, 1999, pp. 354-355, Abstract.

Houlahan, Jeff E., C. Scott Findlay et al. Quantitative evidence for global amphibian population declines. Nature 404: 752-755 (2000).

Laurance, William F. Global warming and amphibian extinctions in eastern Australia. Australian Ecology 33: 1-9 (2008).

Lips, Karen R., Patricia A. Burrowes, Joseph R. Mendelson III, and Gabriela Parra-Olea. Amphibian declines in Latin America: Widespread population declines, extinctions, and impacts. Biotropica 37(2): 163-165 (2005).

McCallum, Malcolm L. Amphibian decline or extinction? Current declines dwarf background extinction rate. Journal of Herpetology 41(3): 483-491 (2007).

Norris, Scott. Ghosts in our midst: Coming to terms with amphibian extinctions. BioScience 57(4): 311-316 (2007).

Pound, J. Alan and Martha I. Crump. Amphibian declines and climate disturbance: The case of the golden toad and the harlequin frog. Conservation Biology 8(1): 72-85 (1994).

Rose, S. Meryl. Regeneration (NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts 1970).

Souder, William. An amphibian horror story. New York Newsday, Oct. 15, 1996, p. B19+.

Souder, William. Deformed frogs show rift among scientists. Houston Chronicle, Nov. 5, 1997, p. 4A.

Stuart, Simon N., Janice S. Chanson, Neil A. Cox, et al. Status and trends of amphibian declines and extinctions worldwide. Sciencexpress, October 14, 2004 (5 pages).

Toledo, Luís Felipe, Sergio Potsch de Carvalho-e-Silva, Ana Maria Paulino Telles de Carvalho-e-Silva, et al.  A retrospective overview of amphibian declines in Brazil’s Atlantic forest. Biological Conservation 277: 109845 (2023).

Vogt, Amanda. Mutant frogs spark a mega mystery scientists worry could be an early warning of environmental danger. Chicago Tribune, August 4, 1998, sec. 4, p. 3.

Vredenburg, Vance T., Ronald A. Knapp, Tate S. Tunstaff and Cheryl J. Briggs. Dynamics of an emerging disease drive large-scale amphibian population extinctions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107(21): 9689-9694 (2010).

Wake, David B. and Vance T. Vredenburg. Are we in the midst of the sixth mass extinction? A view from the world of amphibians. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105(Suppl. 1): 11466-11473 (2008).

Watson, Traci. Frogs falling silent across USA. USA Today, August 12, 1998, p. 3A.

Arthur Firstenberg
President, New Mexicans for Utility Safety
President, Cellular Phone Task Force
Author, The Invisible Rainbow: A History of Electricity and Life
Administrator, International Appeal to Stop 5G on Earth and in Space
Caretaker, ECHOEarth.org (End Cellphones Here On Earth)

Connect with Arthur Firstenberg

Cover image credit: Bubblejuice

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 RESTRICT Act, S.686 – 118th Congress (2023-2024), being pushed through congress against TIKTOK will give the US government total control of all things connected to the internet. Cars, Ring cams, refrigerators, Alexa devices, your phone, etc. A sentence of 20 years in prison,… pic.twitter.com/KTntOxOF0f

— Conspiratorial Report (@CnsprtrlRprt) March 26, 2023

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.

@underthedesknews

#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

Connect with The Free Thought Project

Cover image source: The Free Thought Project

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:

• Prophets Roll Out The New Freedom
• Does Predictive Programming Create Reality?
• The Climate Change Deception
• Operation Regionalization
• Hijacking Parental Rights. Do You Consent?

Connect with Rosanne Lindsay

Cover image credit: StockSnap

There Is No Nanotechnology In the Nanotechnological C19 Shots? That Is Not Logical

by Ana Maria Mihalcea, MD, PhD, Dr. Ana’s Newsletter
March 20, 2023

My subscribers are still letting me know of comments by people like Dr. Ryan Cole and others who claim there is no nanotechnology in the Covid 19 shots.

I want to explain to my readers how illogical that is, and how irrelevant for your continued consideration. In this article, I want to review and explain what nanotechnology is. I also want to make you aware of politics in medicine. You have already seen in this plandemic how doctors have misused their power by telling people “Trust me, I am the expert”. That has been proclaimed by Dr. Cole too. I don’t trust experts, I trust my own research. I don’t want you to trust me. I do not want to create “followers”.

The safest thing you can do for yourself in this age of deception, is to become a researcher yourself – so you will never ever be mislead by any “expert” again. If I can teach you to reason for yourself, look at things differently, understand how to evaluate problems from many different angles – which nobody around you may even see or consider – then my time writing all these articles was worth it.

Additionally, if you see what happened to Astrid Stuckelberger, PhD at the medical conference in Stockholm, where this renown scientist was prohibited to speak about nanotechnology and graphene in the C19 shots – you realize that all of those doctors unfortunately paid a lot of money not to be free thinkers, but followers. Freedom is exactly that – the freedom to think and express your views. Suppression of freedom is to prohibit alternate views and thereby influence and control a narrative. Any scientific organization or group that prohibits the discussion of scientific data is corrupted – be that by personal motives or political agendas. Science allows all viewpoints and observations, that is how it evolves. At some point recognizing deception of any kind is like knowing what fake news is and how to deal with it – it is simply time to change the channel. We must evolve to a level where nobody censors us, nobody undermines and prohibits discussion and explorations into new fields of understanding. The prohibition of the exploration of ideas is continued control of the evolution of our mind – and we have had enough of that.

Remember, it was claimed that all we see is cholesterol. Cholesterol is the very building block of the nanotechnology – another illogical comment. The technology is at a nano scale, hence invisible to a light microscope.

I have in detail explained why his points and analysis of the C19 vials are very limited – please review my rebuttal here:

You Can’t Find What You Are Not Looking For: Analysis of Dr. Ryan Cole’s Claims on Del Bigtree: “There Is No Nanotech and No Graphene” in C19 vials

I am not interested in what those who are not experts in this field of nano technology claim. I am interested in my subscribers becoming informed with different viewpoints, and see for yourself if you can wrestle with these ideas. Become a free thinker. Nobody can enslave people who think for themselves.

For your information and education, lets review the prestigious Nature Nanotechnology literature. Note, that I do not read the corrupted medical literature like the Lancet, New England Journal of Medicine or British Medical Journal. You cannot find answers to the questions we are discussing there. I read the technological literature that actually deals with matters of nano technology, artificial intelligence, robotics and quantum computing.

What is the definition of Nanotechnology? According to the CDC :

Nanotechnology is the manipulation of matter on a near-atomic scale to produce new structures, materials and devices. The technology promises scientific advancement in many sectors such as medicine, consumer products, energy, materials and manufacturing. Nanotechnology refers to engineered structures, devices, and systems. Nanomaterials have a length scale between 1 and 100 nanometers. At this size, materials begin to exhibit unique properties that affect physical, chemical, and biological behavior.

The first reason why all C19 shots ARE nanotechnology is their size. They are organic and inorganic materials manipulated at the level of a billionth of a meter:

Characterization of nanoparticles-based vaccines for COVID-19

Several vaccines against COVID-19 use nanoparticles to protect the antigen cargo (either proteins or nucleic acids), increase the immunogenicity and ultimately the efficacy. The characterization of these nanomedicines is challenging due to their intrinsic complexity and requires the use of multidisciplinary techniques and competencies. The accurate characterization of nano vaccines can be conceptualized as a combination of physicochemical, immunological and toxicological assays.

My comment: Anyone who wants to say there is no nano technology in the shots, please note that nobody to date has used the right equipment to negate this. We cannot see on a nano scale in a live environment. We can see what has self assembled on a micro scale and postulate from there the beginnings of this technology on a nano scale.

Several COVID-19 NVs have been developed^2,10; they can be grouped into three main categories based on their functional components: virus (not addressed here), protein based or nucleic acid based (Fig. 1a). Almost all the NCs share several components, such as ionizable lipids, polyethylene glycol (PEG)–lipids, structural lipids and cholesterol (Fig. 1a), assembled as NPs of 50 to 150 nm in size.

My comment: Note, here is your cholesterol. Its not just a harmless molecule, it is an intrinsic component of the nano technology.

Nanotechnology can be made from any material. It can be organic like RNA, proteins or inorganic like certain hydrogel polymers and metals. Here is an explanation of nano technology based on proteins that can be configured and genetically engineered into any shape. Because it is at a nano scale, these materials have unique quantum properties that can manipulate subatomic force fields and structures, not just cells.

Many materials like Graphene are extremely versatile at a nano scale, so it can be used for medical purposes but also for quantum computing processing. Because of its small scale, we are now entering the realm of quantum phenomena like quantum entanglement, quantum computation and quantum cloaking. These are very different laws of physics compared to what governs the larger world. Relativistic quantum phenomena in graphene quantum dots

Back to how proteins can be configured and manipulated into geometric forms on a nanoscale that can manipulate cellular matter:

Protein-based antigen presentation platforms for nanoparticle vaccines

Nanoparticles have the ability of self assembly. This means from a nano scale they can be programmed to grow into any type of structure. Nano scale technology can grow via self assembly to very large macroscopic sizes. These nano platforms can build pathogenic sequences like the spike protein that science would call “virus like”. It is simply a building block that can make an organism like a human sick. Biological nano technological warfare – a hot topic given the US operated Ukrainian and other biolabs – manipulates matter at a nano scale to create a weapon. It can use sequences from a vast library of computational materials some would call “gain of function pathogens” or “directed evolution” and combine it with any other material like gold metals or quantum dot technology. Either way, it is an ARTIFICIALLY ENGINEERED TECHNOLOGY with the purpose to alter an organism, make it sick or kill it. You can combine a pathogenic sequence with biosensor, quantum dot technology and encapsulate it in a cellular delivery system called a lipid nanoparticle. Regardless how you call it, it is still nano technology. If is is programmed to fuse with the human cells, you are now also in the realm of transformation into synthetic biology, soft robots and cyborgs. This means the human cellular tissue is modified by artificial structures that fuse with the organism to create an artificial hybrid.

All of this is simply engineered on the computer – its like playing Lego on a nano scale. It is possible to program matter and nano robots and have them 2 and 3 D printed or program them for infinite self assembly. It is easy to create nano robot swarms that replicate within the body. Uncontrolled self replication is like the nuclear bomb of nano scale weapons. Its just a different kind of warfare.

Engineered nanoparticle platforms

Through rational or computational design, dimeric, trimeric, tetrameric, or pentameric proteins have been engineered to assemble into larger, highly oligomeric complexes that offer greater control over antigen stoichiometry, spacing, and particle size. These engineered particles present additional platforms for vaccines beyond the limited number of natural platforms. In order to develop novel platforms several methods and techniques of generating self-assembly have been developed. There are several design parameters for designing self-assembling proteins for use as a platform. First, the geometric symmetry and shape of the desired nanoparticle are determined by type of building blocks used. Second, self-assembly must be promoted by either fusing two different building blocks or engineering an interface between building blocks. Lastly, at least one terminal should be exposed and accessible for antigen attachment. Described below are the design and evolution of novel self-assembling proteins that have led to engineered platforms.

Reasons for success and lessons learnt from nanoscale vaccines against COVID-19

These robotic platforms can have artificial intelligence. They can operate like a brain, can be self learning. Engineers put tens of thousands of artificial brain synapses on a single chip The design could advance the development of small, portable AI devices.

Hopefully this was helpful. Never listen to anybody that tells you there is no nanotechnology in the C19 shots. The shots ARE nanotechnology.

Above all, think for yourself.

Connect with Ana Maria Mihalcea

Cover image credit: qimono

Unvaccinated Blood Unrecognizable After Application of Low Level Electrical Current and Structures Rapidly Grow – Clifford Carnicom’s Findings Confirmed

by Ana Maria Mihalcea, MD, PhD, Dr. Ana’s Newsletter
March 19, 2023

I have drawn many parallels in what we are seeing now with the synthetic biology since the C19 shots era and the historical research of Clifford Carnicom. He wrote a series of six scientific papers that I find highly important to consider for anyone seriously investigating what is happening to human blood since the roll out of the C19 injections and how this alteration fits into the Transhumanist depopulation agenda.

In my mind these papers are a must read for any human being on this planet:

Blood Alterations : A Six Part Series

He gave the historical Morgellons the new name “Cross Domain Bacteria”, after he found that this new synthetic engineered life form had features of all three biological classes of life – archaea, bacteria and eucaryotes. Normal life forms belong to one of the three domains, never to all three. Additionally, he did detailed analysis which showed that the Ribbon structures were chemically composed of Poly Vinyl Alcohol, which is Hydrogel and – Metals. Here is the presentation Clifford and I made in December:

Synthetic Biological Life Forms – Cross Domain Bacteria, Morgellons, and Correlation to Current Live Blood Findings in Post C19 Injection Era – My Conversation with Clifford Carnicom

I have written extensively about the abnormal blood findings in unvaccinated blood that I have been seeing with exponential severity and frequency. A few months ago, I would still see people for their first live blood analysis that were uncontaminated. In the last couple months, I have not seen anyone who does not have these structures. My sounding the alarm about this shedding and environmental assault on human blood is important to take note of, for I foresee an unprecedented silent accelerated aging epidemic due to these findings that affects all humans. Most people do not know that this is in their blood, but it is evident that it causes micro clotting, acidity and inflammation, all components that accelerate aging.

While mainstream healthcare admits that the causes of long Covid are not fully understood, I have seen with darkfield live blood microscopy synthetic biology structures in unvaccinated blood with long Covid symptoms that were also found to develop from C19 vaccine vials.

Is The Answer To The C19 Deceptions In Live Blood? 

The Long Covid epidemic in America shows the assault on population health:

Long COVID has potentially affected up to 23 million Americans, pushing an estimated 1 million people out of work. The causes of long COVID are not fully understood, complicating diagnosis and treatment. Among people who have had COVID, 11% are currently experiencing long COVID but an additional 17% had long COVID in the past and are no longer reporting symptoms, suggesting that more people have recovered from long COVID than currently report symptoms.gs. The total “ Covid” Cases registered in the United States has reached 103 Million according to the CDC. Long COVID: What Do the Latest Data Show?

Clifford Carnicom showed last year that in four unvaccinated people not only did they have abnormal rouleaux formation ( stacking of red blood cells) – but after applying an extremely low voltage current, the same structures I see in everyone appeared. My findings were confirmed by Dr. David Nixon in Australia in live blood of vaccinated and unvaccinated people. Around the world, people have called this Graphene Oxide – they see what we see, long Ribbon structures. Calling this Graphene Oxide may be a misnomer of the Hydrogel Polymer which encapsulates the payload within the shots – it can be mRNA, toxins, Quantum dots that magnetically alter the human genetic information by modifying the spin states of subatomic particles. Clifford Carnicom called his findings CBD as mentioned above – Cross Domain Bacteria, his name for Morgellon’s, which is a Hydrogel Polymer synthetic life form with many similarities to what we see in live blood of injected and un injected people since the C19 shot rollout.

This is very similar to what I have been seeing in unvaccinated blood in my office.

A few months ago, I would still see unvaccinated people who had uncontaminated live blood. I no longer see normal blood samples now, unless it is after EDTA Chelation treatment – which I found to clear the blood of these structures.

Most recently on Telegram, there has been someone by the name of LAC microscopy who has been confirming and replicating Clifford Carnicom’s analysis. The gentleman is a farmer and not a scientist, but has some remarkable research findings. He used low level electrical current on his unvaccinated blood and found the growth of abnormal structures. I completely agree with him, that concerned citizens with an open mind have to look at questions that “reputable” scientists and doctors refuse to analyze – for the answers affect the entire human species.

The issue is this: If there is a synthetic hydrogel based artificial intelligence biology that is transforming humanities blood – causing disease, illness and accelerated aging – we need to identify this. This is why I am now working with Clifford Carnicom and Dr. David Nixon to do some very specific experiments and compare the electrical properties of vaccinated and unvaccinated blood – as well as to analyze the chemical composition of the structures growing in vaccinated and unvaccinated blood. WE HAVE TO CHEMICALLY ANALYZE THIS TO REALLY SEE WHAT THE STRUCTURES ARE MADE OF – Hydrogel? Graphene Oxide? So far, nobody knows.

We all know of the athletes that have been dying suddenly, including children. Hydrogel polymers grow with electrical and EMF exposure. Exercise in the body creates a powerful electrical field. This could be part of the mechanism of why athletes are dying.

In her new brilliant interview with Maria Zeee, Karen Kingston discusses the synthetic biological spike protein and how it is changed and modified in electrical fields. I believe she and I are speaking of the same thing. The Lipid Nanoparticles, which are the Hydrogel that carry the payload of possible spike toxin, can grow from nano size to centimeter size in minutes. Please watch this important interview: Karen Kingston – Russian MoD Confirms mRNA Injections Are Bioweapons!!! Globalist Plan for Nanotech Revealed!

We are in need of some very specific technical equipment for further experiments. If you would like to support our effort, please donate to the Carnicom Institute.

I absolutely trust and support Clifford Carnicom, as I have found him to be an impeccable human being and meticulous scientist. He and I can spend hours on the phone discussing mechanisms and experiments and I value his decades of research and use of many different experimental modalities, like voltammetry, visible light spectrometry, near infrared spectrometry, microscopy, protein detection (reagent based), enzyme analysis, magnetism analysis and more.

We are recording a video update on our discussion of the Transhumanist Agenda – correlations between geoengineering synthetic biology and C19 vax nanotechnology which will be released next month and include Clifford Carnicom, Harry Blazer, Dr. David Nixon, Elana Freeland and myself.

Source

Connect with Ana Maria Mihalcea

Psychotronic and Electromagnetic Weapons: Remote Control of the Human Nervous System

by Mojmir Babacek, Global Research
March 18, 2023

This incisive article by Mojmir Babajek predicted more than 10 years ago, what is happening today, namely the development of informational weapons and the remote control of the human brain.

It was originally published by Global Research on January 31, 2013. As a result of online censorship, this important article is not being picked up by the search engines.

In March 2012 the Russian defense minister Anatoli Serdjukov said:

“The development of weaponry based on new physics principles; direct-energy weapons, geophysical weapons, wave-energy weapons, genetic weapons, psychotronic weapons, etc., is part of the state arms procurement program for 2011-2020,”Voice of Russia

The world media reacted to this hint on the open use of psychotronic weapons by the publication of scientific experiments from the 1960‘s where electromagnetic waves were used to transmit simple sounds into the human brain. However, most of them avoided saying that since then extensive scientific research has been carried out in this area throughout the world. Only a Colombian newspaper, El Spectador, published an article covering the whole scale of the achievements of this (computerized English translation).

Britain’s Daily Mail, as another exception, wrote that research in electromagnetic weapons has been secretly carried out in the USA and Russia since the 1950’s and that „previous research has shown that low-frequency waves or beams can affect brain cells, alter psychological states and make it possible to transmit suggestions and commands directly into someone’s thought processes. High doses of microwaves can damage the functioning of internal organs, control behaviour or even drive victims to suicide.”

The influence of microwaves on living creatures’ behavior

In 1975, a neuropsychologist Don R. Justesen, the director of  Laboratories of Experimental Neuropsychology at Veterans Administration Hospital in Kansas City, unwittingly leaked National Security Information. He published an article in “American Psychologist” on the influence of microwaves on living creatures’ behavior.

In the article he quoted the results of an experiment described to him by his colleague, Joseph C. Sharp, who was working on Pandora, a secret project of the American Navy.

Don R. Justesen wrote in his article:

“By radiating themselves with these ‘voice modulated’ microwaves, Sharp and Grove were readily able to hear, identify, and distinguish among the 9 words. The sounds heard were not unlike those emitted by persons with artificial larynxes”  (pg. 396).

That this system was later brought to perfection is proved by the document which appeared on the website of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in 1997, where its Office of Research and Development presented the Department of Defense’s project:“Communicating Via the Microwave Auditory Effect”.In the description it said:

“An innovative and revolutionary technology is described that offers a low-probability-of-intercept radiofrequency (RF) communications. The feasibility of the concept has been established using both a low intensity laboratory system and a high power RF transmitter. Numerous military applications exist in areas of search and rescue, security and special operations” (See web.iol.cz)

In January 2007 the Washington Post wrote on the same subject:

“In 2002, the Air Force Research Laboratory patented precisely such a technology: using microwaves to send words into someone’s head… Rich Garcia, a spokesman for the research laboratory’s directed energy directorate, declined to discuss that patent or current or related research in the field, citing the lab’s policy not to comment on its microwave work. In response to a Freedom of Information Act request filed for this article, the Air Force released unclassified documents surrounding that 2002 patent — records that note that the patent was based on human experimentation in October 1994 at the Air Force lab, where scientists were able to transmit phrases into the heads of human subjects, albeit with marginal intelligibility. Research appeared to continue at least through 2002. Where this work has gone since is unclear — the research laboratory, citing classification, refused to discuss it or release other materials“

Remote control of the human nervous system

We can only stress again that the world media avoid publishing the full scale of the progress in the research of the remote control of human nervous system. Dr. Robert Becker, who was twice nominated for Nobel Prize for his share in the discovery of the effects of pulsed fields at the healing of broken bones, wrote in his book “Body Electric” about the experiment from 1974 by J. F. Schapitz, released due to the Freedom of Information Act request.

J.F. Schapitz stated:

“In this investigation it will be shown that the spoken word of hypnotist may also be conveyed by modulated electromagnetic energy directly into the subconscious parts of the human brain – i. e. without employing any technical devices for receiving or transcoding the messages and without the person exposed to such influence having a chance to control the information input consciously.”

In one of the four experiments subjects were given a test of hundred questions, ranging from easy to technical ones. Later, not knowing they were being irradiated, they would be subjected to information beams suggesting the answers to the questions they had left blank, amnesia for some of their correct answers, and memory falsification for other correct answers. After 2 weeks they had to pass the test again (Dr. Robert Becker: Body Electric: Electromagnetism and the Foundation of Life, William Morrow and comp., New York, 1985,.

The results of the second test were never published.

It is rather evident that in those experiments the messages were sent into human brain in ultrasound frequencies which the human brain perceives, but of which the subject is unaware. Dr. Robert Becker, due to those publications and his refusal to support the building of the antennae for the communication with submarines in brain frequencies, lost financial support for his research which meant an end to his scientific career.

Transmitting human speech into the human brain by means of electromagnetic waves is apparently, for the researchers, one of the most difficult tasks. It must be much easier to control human emotions which motivate human thinking, decision making and actions. People who claim to be victims of experiments with those devices complain, aside of hearing voices, of false feelings (including orgasms) as well of aches of internal organs which the physicians are unable to diagnose.

In November 2000 the Committee on Security of the Russian State Duma stated that capabilities enabling remote control of the human nervous system or the remote infliction of health impairment are available to many modern governments .See web.iol.cz

It is rather evident that those technologies are used, in conflict with the Nuremberg code, for experiments on unwitting human subjects. In 2001 the newspaper of the U.S. army, Defense News, wrote that Israel was experimenting with those weapons on Palestinians. Ibid 

As well ousted Honduran president Manuel Zelaya, while under siege in Brazilian embassy in Honduras, complained that he had been subjected to an “electron bombardment with microwaves” which produces “headache and organic destabilization” The Guardian, October 2008

When asked by Amy Goodman from Democracy Now: „

As president, do you know about this in the Honduran arsenal?” He replied: „Yes, of course“

The use of those weapons is time and again reemerging in times of political crisis. According to Russian daily newspapers, during the failed putsch against Mikhail Gorbachov in 1991, general Kobets warned the defenders of the Russian White House that mind control technology could be used against them (Komsomolskaya Pravda, September 7,1991, O. Volkov, „Sluchi o tom chto nam davili na psychiku nepotverzdalis. Poka“).

After the putsch, the vice president of the League of Independent Scientists of the USSR, Victor Sedlecki, published a declaration in the Russian daily Komsomolskaya Pravda where he stated:

As an expert and a legal entity I declare that mass production … of psychotronic biogenerators was launched in Kiev (this is indeed a very serious issue). I cannot assert for sure that that were exactly Kiev generators that were used during the putsch… However, the fact that they were used is obvious to me. What are psychotronic generators? It is an electronic equipment producing the effect of guided control in human organism. It especially affects the left and right hemisphere of the cortex. This is also the technology of the U.S. Project Zombie 5“. He further stated that due to the inexperience of the personnel who operated them the attempt to use the generators failed

(Komsomolskaya Pravda, August 27,1991, “Avtory programy Zombi obnaruzheny v Kieve”,

See also http://web.iol.cz/mhzzrz/img/Authors_of_project_zombie.gif).

In the USA, at present several hundred people complaining of the remote manipulation of their nervous system are preparing a class action lawsuit against the FBI, Department of Defense and other agencies, requesting them to release files pertaining to their persons, detect the harmful radiations aimed at their bodies and sources of those radiations. As well perhaps over 2000 people are complaining in Russia, over 200 in Europe, over 300 in Japan and tens of people in China and India. Russian politician, Vladimir Lopatin, who was working on Committee on Security of the Russian State Duma and introduced there a bill banning the use of those technologies, admitted in his book „Psychotronic Weapon and Security of Russia“ (publishing house Sinteg, Moscow, 1999) that in Russia experiments on unwitting citizens are carried out, when he wrote: „

Compensation of damages and losses connected with social rehabilitation of persons suffering from destructive informational influence must be realized in legal trial“ (excerpts from the book in English

(http://mojmir.webuda.com/Psychotronic_Weapon_and_the_Security_of_Russia, pg. 113).

It should be understood that most of those people pass through mental hospitals. Vladimir Lopatin visited the USA in 1999 as a chairman of the Military Reform Subcommittee of the USSR Supreme Soviet Committee for Issues of Defense and State Security and met with Richard Cheney. At that time he was described as the “leader of a new breed of Soviet dissidents”. Then he disappeared from top ranks of Russian politicians.

Why has this research remained classified until present time?

There are two explanations for this: First there is a secret arms race in progress in the world where the superpowers compete to gain decisive supremacy in this area and in this way master the control of the whole world. Second the governments keep those technologies in store for the case that they would not be able to control, by democratic means, the crisis that may arise as a result of their poor decisions. In both cases the era of democracy and human freedom in history will come to an end. According to the declaration of the former Russian Defense minister Serdjukov, there are maximally eight years left within which those weapons will officially become a part of the Russian military arsenal. For democracy this would mean a beginning of the end.

Anyway, in the past Russians were not resolved to put those means to work. When the construction of the American system HAARP was launched, with the system supposedly being able to target large regions of the planet by vibrating the ionosphere in brain frequencies (in this experiment the brain frequencies were not used, but the HAARP system can transmit in brain frequencies as well), Russia declared its willingness to ban mind control technologies.

The Russian State Duma and consequently , the Interparliamentary Assembly of the Union of Independent States addressed the United Nations, OBSE and the European Council with a proposal for an international convention banning the development and use of informational weapons. According to the Russian newspaper Segodnya in March 1998, the matter was discussed with U.N. secretary general Kofi Anan, and included on the agenda of the General Assembly of the U.N. web.iol,cz, op cit

The ban of mind control technology

It is most likely the USA refused to negotiate this convention and in consequence the ban of informational weapons was not discussed by the United Nations General Assembly. Even in the U.S. congress appeared a bill proposing the ban of mind control technologies http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?c107:chemtrails.

But this was only for a very short period of time. The bill was then changed and in the new bill the ban of those technologies was left out of the Space Preservation Bill. Neither the U.S. congress nor the U.S. president made ever an effort to ban mind control weapons. The European Parliament reacted as well to the launch of the HAARP system construction, when it called in 1999 for the ban of manipulation of human beings.

The resolution was passed after the testimony of the American author of the book “Angels Don’t Play this HAARP”, Nick Begich, which apparently convinced the European Parliament of the possible use of this system to manipulate minds of whole populations. In the report by the European Parliament’s STOA (Science and Technological Options Assessment) panel “Crowd Control Technologies” the originally proposed text of the European Parliament’s resolution is quoted. There the European Parliament calls “for an international convention and global ban on all research and development , whether civilian or military , which seeks to apply knowledge of the chemical, electrical, sound vibration or other functioning of the human brain to the development of weapons which might enable any form of manipulation of human beings, including a ban on any actual or possible deployment (stressed by the author of the article) of such systems“. (40, pg CII, ref. 369). But apparently at the same time the European countries resigned on this intention when accepting the NATO politics of non-lethal weapons.

The same STOA report claims that the USA is a major promoter of the use of those arms and that:

“In October 1999 NATO announced a new policy on non-lethal weapons and their place in allied arsenals” (pg. xlv) and it goes on:

“In 1996 non-lethal tools identified by the U.S. Army included… directed energy systems” and “radio frequency weapons”European Parliament

(at the bottom of the page, second reference pg. Xlvi).

Directed energy system is further defined by the STOA document:

“Directed energy weapon system designed to match radio frequency source to interfere with human brain activity at synapse level”  (at the bottom of the page, first reference, Appendix 6-67). Since 1999 those weapons have been upgraded for another 13 years. European Parliament

In 1976 the future National Security advisor to president Carter, Zbygniew Brzezinski, wrote a book “Between Two Ages, America’s Role in the Technetronic Era” (Penguin Books, 1976, Massachusets). In the book he predicted “more controlled and directed society” based on the development of technology, where an elite group will play a leading role, which will take advantage of persisting social crises to use “the latest modern techniques for influencing public behavior and keeping society under close surveillance and control”.

The use of mind control technologies was predicted as well in the publication of Strategic Studies Institute of the U.S. Army War College, published in 1994

http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/display.cfm?pubID=241.

The scenario for the year 2000 expected the growth of terrorism, drug trafficking and criminality and drew a conclusion:

“The president was thus amenable to the use of the sort of psychotechnology which formed the core of the RMA (revolution in military affairs)… it was necessary to rethink our ethical prohibitions on manipulating the minds of enemies (and potential enemies) both international and domestic…

Through persistent efforts and very sophisticated domestic ”consciousness raising”, old-fashioned notions of personal privacy and national sovereignty changed. As technology changed the way force was applied, things such as personal courage, face-to-face leadership, and the ‘warfighter’ mentality became irrelevant.”…

“Potential or possible supporters of the insurgency around the world were identified using the comprehensive Interagency Integrated Database. These were categorized as ‘potential’ or ‘active’, with sophisticated personality simulations used to develop, tailor and focus psychological campaigns for each“. So the Institute of Strategic Studies supposed that in the year 2000 those technologies would be that advanced that it will be possible to deprive human being of his freedom and adjust his personality to the needs of ruling elite. Most probably those technologies were at this level already in 1994.

Censorship

The attempts to make the general public acquainted with the existence of those weapons are, with respect to the fact that it is evident that democratic public would require immediate ban of those technologies, systematically suppressed. Vladimir Lopatin wrote:

„The arms race is speeding up as a consequence of classification. Secrecy – this is in the first place the way to secure cruel control over the people… the way how to curtail their creativity, turn them into biorobots…”, and that psychotronic war “is already taking place without declaration of war, secretly… Only if the work on mind control problem is no more covered by the screen of secrecy, extraordinariness, mysteriousness, if complex, open scientific research with international participation, is carried out, the psychotronic war including the use of psychotronic weapon can be prevented”.

The article “Informacni zbrane ohrozuji demokracii a lidstvo” was deleted from the website of the Czech internet newspaper Britske Listy (www.blisty.cz). The sharing of the original web address of the English version of the same article – Means of Information War Threaten Democracy and Mankind – is blocked on Facebook and a similar article was deleted from the webpage of the Australian magazine “New Dawn”.

There exist no legislations punishing the use of those technologies by governments. Only in Russia and some of the states in the USA there are legislations punishing the ownership or trading with those technologies by non governmental entities. For example in the state of Michigan the sentence for this crime is equal to the sentence for ownership or trading with weapons of mass destruction.

The readers who will be reached by this article and prefer democratic political system would help its preservation if they forwarded the article to their friends.

Copyright © Mojmir Babacek, Global Research, 2023

Connect with Global Research

Cover image credit: Placidplace

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

EuroVPS

Qortal.org

What is the Qortal Project? 

Ernest Hancock Interview’s Jason Crowe – Freedom’s Phoenix

Bastyon.com/corbettreport

About Bastyon

Salting Your Data – #SolutionsWatch

nostr.com

Nostr Explained Visually for Beginners

BTC111: Nostr – Decentralized Social Media & Bitcoin w/ William Casarin

minds.com/corbettreport

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.”

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

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 #2: If 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)

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?

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

[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

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

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?

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)

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

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

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

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

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?

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

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

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

Whitney Webb on the Globalist Overlords Meeting in Davos

by Dr. Joseph Mercola
March 4, 2023



Story-at-a-Glance

• Investigative journalist Whitney Webb reveals the inner workings of the World Economic Forum (WEF), the driving force behind The Great Reset
• Beneath WEF’s benevolent surface, it becomes clear that corporatism and, more aptly, fascism, are its modus operandi
• WEF’s Board of Trustees is packed with powerful and prominent representatives from government and multinational corporations like BlackRock, Salesforce and Nestlé
• WEF supports the “merging of man and machine,” or transhumanism, and its Fourth Industrial Revolution aims to use wearable and implantable technology to surveil your thoughts and launch a digital dictatorship
• Once implemented, a digital dictator ship will be almost impossible to escape from; one way to stop it is to not comply or utilize these technologies

Curious about the inner workings of the World Economic Forum (WEF), the driving force behind The Great Reset? Set aside 30 minutes to watch investigative journalist Whitney Webb speak with MintPress News in the video above.¹ Every year in January, WEF holds its annual meeting in Davos, Switzerland.

The 2023 theme was “cooperation in a fragmented world,” with WEF noting, “The world today is at a critical inflection point. The sheer number of ongoing crises calls for bold collective action.”²

Their actions, however, while carefully packaged to appear altruistic — and steeped in warm-and-fuzzy buzzwords like “green” and “sustainable” — will ultimately propel its small circle further into power while all but guaranteeing a downtrodden populace. If you so much as dip your finger beneath WEF’s surface, it becomes clear that corporatism and, more aptly, fascism, are its modus operandi.

WEF Promotes Fascist Ideology

WEF often speaks about the “transformative potential of public-private partnerships.” According to WEF:³

“The private sector needs to speak the language of social change, and the public sector needs to create economic incentives to harness the private sector’s innovation and expertise to address society’s challenges. With shared goals, targeted action and monitored impact, we can move beyond dialogue and aspiration to the co-creation of a more inclusive, prosperous and sustainable future.”

It sounds good in theory. But what, exactly, is a public-private partnership? It’s when private entities like multinational corporations join with the public sector, putting the two on equal ground. The problem is that most politicians receive money and other favors from these same multinational corporations, so many facets of the government are essentially owned by these corporations.

In this way, Webb says, “It’s really more of a private-private partnership, and what you have there is essentially a means of implementing specific policies being controlled, more often than not, by the corporate sector and promoting what is essentially a fusion of the private and public sector.”⁴ Webb compares this ideology to that of Benito Mussolini, founder of Italy’s National Fascist Party:⁵

“Mussolini … defined his particular brand of fascism in the early and mid 20th century as corporatism emerging of private and public power. Looking at it through that frame of reference essentially the World Economic Forum … is promoting a fascistic ideology around the world.

They have a habit of creating policies through both the public-private partnerships that are housed within the World Economic Forum and affiliated with but external to the World Economic Forum.

Those policies are given then to governments around the world, and many governments around the world have a lot of prominent officials who in the past have been trained by the “leadership programs” of the World Economic Forum and its affiliates.”

A Closer Look at WEF’s Board of Trustees

Many have heard of Klaus Schwab, WEF cofounder and chairman. But it’s also important to delve into WEF’s Board of Trustees, which is packed with powerful and prominent representatives from multinational corporations. It includes:⁶

“These are the people that are essentially driving this public partnership model around the world, and they have very specific policy agendas that, again, the WEF drafts — policy papers and white papers. These are sent and then implemented by governments around the world,” Webb says.⁷

This includes a strategic alliance WEF entered into with the United Nations in 2019, which called for the UN to “use public-private partnerships as the model for nearly all policies that it implements, most specifically the implementation of the 17 sustainable development goals, sometimes referred to as Agenda 2030.”⁸

Agenda 2030 is composed of 17 sustainable development goals with 169 specific targets to be imposed across the globe. While “sustainable development” sounds like a perfectly reasonable goal, this noble sounding verbiage hides a hideous truth, as these plans are not what they claim to be.

Agenda 2030 is aimed at reducing middle-class’ consumption of basic goods and energy, which includes limiting, with an eye toward eliminating, property rights and private ownership for future generations, along with targeting such “luxuries” as ownership of electric appliances and motor vehicles along with suburban housing and air conditioning. Webb adds:⁹

“It’s worth pointing out that in the late ’90s at the World Economic Forum annual meeting, the then-head of the UN, Kofi Annan, essentially said that the World Economic Forum had been in part responsible for what he referred to as a silent revolution at the UN, where the UN, instead of championing the public sectors of the world, which is how most people think of the UN, they would instead begin to prioritize the needs of the businesses of the world …

So multinational corporations … over the past several decades — the World Economic Forum being a major part of this — the United Nations has been pushed to essentially prioritize corporate needs over public needs.”

Who Is Klaus Schwab?

Investigative journalist Johnny Vedmore has dug deeply into Schwab and his family history, revealing that Schwab’s father, Eugen Schwab, ran the Ravensburg branch of a company called Escher Wyss during WWII, producing “different components needed by the Nazi war machine … and the Nazi atomic bomb program.”¹⁰

Vedmore revealed three of Schwab’s mentors — John K. Galbraith, a Canadian-American economist, diplomat and public policy maker, Herman Kahn, who created concepts on nuclear deterrence that became official military policy, and Henry A. Kissinger, who recruited Schwab at a Harvard international seminar, which was funded by the U.S. CIA.

“If you have a decent knowledge of Klaus Schwab’s history, you will know that he attended Harvard in the 1960s where he would meet then-professor Henry A. Kissinger, a man with whom Schwab would form a lifelong friendship,” Vedmore explained. Further:¹¹

“There were three extremely powerful and influential men, Kissinger among them, who would lead Klaus Schwab towards their ultimate goal of complete American Empire-aligned global domination via the creation of social and economic policies.

In addition, two of the men were at the core of manufacturing the ever-present threat of global thermonuclear war … their paths would cross and coalesce during the 1960s … they recruited Klaus Schwab through a CIA-funded program, and … they were the real driving force behind the creation of the World Economic Forum.”

Early WEF affiliations can also be tied back to the Club of Rome, which aligned with neo-malthusianism — the idea that an overly large population would decimate resources — and was intending to implement a global depopulation agenda.

Transhumanism and the Fourth Industrial Revolution

No discussion of WEF would be complete without delving into transhumanism, a term coined by Julian Huxley — brother of Aldous Huxley, who wrote “Brave New World.” Julian Huxley, however, was the president of the British Eugenics Society and an ardent supporter of eugenics ideology, Webb says.

A decade later, he wrote a book, “New Bottles for New Wine,” explaining that advances in technology had led to a “new eugenics,” which he referred to as the “merging of man and machine,” or transhumanism.¹²

“Ever since then,” Webb says, “transhumanism has picked up steam. A lot of its supporters were people that historically have had ties to the eugenics movement. The Rockefeller Foundation is a really good example of that.”¹³ Schwab is another, who developed the term the Fourth Industrial Revolution, which brings in human-machine symbiosis.

One of Schwab’s top advisers, transhumanist Yuval Noah Harari, Ph.D., openly admits data might enable globalists to do more than “just build digital dictatorships.” Via technology in the form of wearables and implants — like brain chips — the idea is to one day surveil your very thoughts.

“Humans are now hackable animals,” Harari said. “Humans have this soul or spirit and they have free will, and nobody knows what’s happening inside me, so whatever I choose, whether in the election or whether in the supermarket, this is my free will — that’s over.”¹⁴ Webb explains:¹⁵

“Harari has made the point that the Fourth Industrial Revolution is different from past industrial revolutions because … in the late 19th century you had two classes — the exploited and the unexploited. And he says, in contrast, now the Fourth Industrial Revolution will mean there will be three classes — the unexploited, the exploited and the irrelevant.

And he argues that it’s much better to be exploited than irrelevant. In this scenario, the unexploited would be the oligarchs of society … he’s essentially admitting that the Fourth Industrial Revolution is a recipe for neo-feudalism, one that’s managed by extremely invasive, advanced technology.”

Eventually, the goal is to make implantable devices capable of reading your thoughts as commonplace as cellphones are today:¹⁶

“Harari, at World Economic Forum meetings, says the point that technology gets into your body and is capable of surveilling your thoughts is the line that the world crosses into digital dictatorship — where the leadership will be able to know what you really think about them and what you really think about issues. And if you don’t agree — to use his words — you’ll end up in the Gulag the next morning.”

Your Right to Dissent Is Threatened

The implications of mass surveillance policies being promoted by WEF is an unconstitutional monitoring of dissent, with the intent of stamping it out. Big Tech is working with military and intelligence agencies toward this end, including using what’s known as “predictive policing” to detect “pre-crime.”

This describes the use of AI algorithms that comb through data on individual’s internet activity to “profile you and decide if you ay commit some sort of crime in the future.” “If we invite surveillance onto and into our bodies, we are crossing a red line into a tech-fueled dystopia that … would result in a digital dictatorship that, once implemented, will be almost impossible to escape from,” Webb says.¹⁷

So, what can you do? “The most obvious way to stop it would be to not comply or utilize these technologies that can be used to surveil you in these ways,” she explains. “A lot of this technology is marketed as convenient,” such as biometric data, but “the more of us that don’t comply, the less successful this agenda will be.”¹⁸

Connect with Dr. Joseph Mercola

Cover image based on a public domain & creative commons image

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 — substack — website

John Podesta: The Trilateral Commission Link to UFO/Alien Mania?

by Patrick Wood, Technocracy News & Trends
February 14, 2023

All of a sudden, UFO mania is sweeping America after the shootdown of some unknown object in Alaska. NORAD says it doesn’t rule out aliens. Washington creates a UFO Task Force to investigate if it was aliens. A top 4-star general in charge of US airspace says he isn’t ruling out aliens. Well, this was unexpected, wasn’t it? Not really.

This writer was watching closely when Trilateral Commission member John Podesta left the Obama Administration in 2015 where he served as Counselor to the President. He is currently Senior Advisor to President Joe Biden for clean energy innovation and implementation; that is, he is in charge of doling out all Green New Deal spending in the United States. Actually, Podesta is credited as being the chief architect of the entire US climate policy starting way back when he served as President Bill Clinton’s Chief of Staff.

When Podesta exited his stint with Obama in early 2015, Washington Post carried a story, Obama aide John Podesta says ‘biggest failure’ was not securing the disclosure of UFO files. I listened to the interview and heard him say this with his own mouth.

What? The architect of all climate policy and the creator of the Green New Deal policies is worried about UFOs and aliens and having not released the UFO files from places like Area 51 in New Mexico?

This struck me as being completely out of context, out of nowhere. I have scratched my head ever since… until now: The UFO/Alien card is finally being played.

This UFO/alien nonsense has been brewing for a long time and Podesta’s name keeps coming up. In a 2022 article by TMZ, Yep, I Sent Officials To Area 51 In Search Of Aliens, Bill Clinton flatly admitted his search for evidence of aliens:

Former President Bill Clinton made a pretty stunning and important revelation … he said during his time in office he sent federal agents to Area 51 in Nevada to find if aliens were among us.

Clinton told James Corden on ‘Late Late Show’ … he and Chief of Staff John Podesta “sent people to Area 51 to make sure there were no aliens.” He also said he wanted a full briefing on Roswell.

In 2016, Podesta’s email account was hacked. NBC News reported this on October 31, 2o16,

When hackers broke into Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman John Podesta’s private email account, little did they know they were entering the Twilight Zone.

There, amid the grist and gossip about the inner workings of the campaign — and some pedestrian tidbits about Podesta’s personal life — was irrefutable proof that UFOs were on the radar of one of Washington’s best known power brokers.

Today, this Trilateral Commission operative is in the center of the Biden Administration, rubbing shoulders with fellow Commission member Susan “Benghazi Sue” Rice, who is Biden’s Director of the Domestic Policy Council.

It isn’t too much of a leap to figure that the current outbreak of UFO mania has something to do with John Podesta and Trilateral Commission strategy to conquer the world for Technocracy. Podesta pushed both Clinton and Obama to open up the UFO files, and now he is likely working on the Biden Administration.

The question remains, Why now?

First, it’s a huge slight-of-hand that masks other events taking place; think staging of WWIII, global financial collapse, another WHO-orchestrated pandemic, Great Reset, etc. Second, it conditions the world for a unified, global response to a new, unseen enemy that can only be spearheaded by the United Nations.

The key here is the “unseen” enemy: global warming is unseen; Covid virus is unseen; aliens are unseen.

However, Trilateral Commissioner John Podesta is not unseen, and I would suggest that Technocracy’s war on the world is about to get a lot more intense in 2023.

Connect with Technocracy News & Trends

Aliens in cover image based on creative commons work of: baggeb

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 21^st 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. Terrans. He expects it to pop off within a few generations. “This war will use the most destructive weaponry ever devised, based on late 21^st 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 20^th 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

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

Artificial Intelligence Caught Lying About Viruses

by Dr. Sam Bailey
January 28, 2023

“Viruses” have been used as a cover story for over a century now. There are so many vested interests and smoke screens that it can be difficult to get people to look into the “science” for themselves. They are content to believe second hand accounts from the media, governments and so-called health institutions.

Artificial Intelligence or AI platforms have been on the rise recently and millions of people are now engaging with them. We decided to put some questions about “viruses” to one of the most powerful chatbots currently in existence – ChatGPT. Are these platforms independent arbiters of truth or have they already been corrupted?

Is Artificial “Intelligence” even possible?



References:

1. “Secrets of Influenza”, Dr Sam Bailey, 21 Apr 2021
2. “Spanish Flu”, Wikipedia
3. “SARS-CoV-2”, PubMed search
4. Human Action, Ludwig von Mises
5. ChatGPT
6. “The Measles Myth”, Dr Sam Bailey, 9 Nov 2021
7. “Stefan Lanka: “Virus, It’s Time To Go.”“, Dr Sam Bailey, 12 Aug 2022
8. “FLASHBACK: The 5th Annual Fake News Awards! (2022)”, James Corbett 22 Jan 2023
9. Nick Cave response on The Red Hand Files

Connect with Dr. Sam Bailey

Cover image credit: geralt

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

https://archive.is/mlXhj

Why We Shouldn’t Underestimate China’s Petro-Yuan Ambitions

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Why-We-Shouldnt-Underestimate-Chinas-Petro-Yuan-Ambitions.html

PDF: “War and Currency Statecraft”

http://www.amarketplaceofideas.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/221230_Zoltan.pdf

BRICS mulling alternative to dollar-dominated payment system: South Africa

https://www.business-standard.com/article/economy-policy/brics-mulling-alternative-to-dollar-dominated-payment-system-south-africa-123011900244_1.html

How To REALLY Defeat Globalism

https://www.corbettreport.com/how-to-really-defeat-globalism/

Story #2: Appliance Makers Sad That 50% of Customers Won’t Connect Smart Appliances

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2023/01/half-of-smart-appliances-remain-disconnected-from-internet-makers-lament/

LG, Whirlpool Target Customers Disconnected From ‘Smart’ Appliances

https://archive.is/ohAqz

“idk about a future where i pay A LITERAL GARBAGE CAN a monthly subscription fee.”

https://twitter.com/internetofshit/status/1616506150471741440

CIA Chief: We’ll Spy on You Through Your Dishwasher

https://www.wired.com/2012/03/petraeus-tv-remote/

Smart Tyranny: How to resist the smart grid

https://www.corbettreport.com/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)

https://mediamonarchy.com/nurses-fired-for-refusing-flu-shot/

Story #3: Utah Doctor Allegedly Destroyed Vaccines, Gave Fake Shots to Children

https://www.eastidahonews.com/2023/01/utah-doctor-allegedly-destroyed-vaccines-gave-fake-shots-to-children/

Vermont Town Employee Quietly Lowered The Fluoride In Water For Years (Oct. 8, 2022)

https://mediamonarchy.com/nwnw497-video/

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)

https://mediamonarchy.com/nwnw504-video/

Connect with The Corbett Report

Connect with Media Monarchy

Mastering the Future: The Megalomaniacal Ambitions of the WEF

by Michael Rectenwald, 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 Agenda, Thought Criminal, Beyond Woke, Google Archipelago, and Springtime for Snowflakes. He is a distinguished fellow at Hillsdale College. Contact Michael Rectenwald

Connect with Mises Institute

Globalist Cabal Meets Again to Prepare for World Domination

by Dr. Joseph Mercola
January 24, 2023



Story-at-a-Glance

• 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.”

Meat will be a special treat. Read more: https://t.co/RiQP6tpkfp pic.twitter.com/7BcRHgnWTx

— World Economic Forum (@wef) April 9, 2018

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

Summary

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

A prescient warning from 1975. We now live in this abyss! pic.twitter.com/NLOU8KFh2r

— Robert F. Kennedy Jr (@RobertKennedyJr) January 9, 2023

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

And Still the People Didn’t See

poem and video by Klokkenluiders
sourced from klokkenluiders telegram channel
January 23, 2023

Video mirrored at TCTL Odysee & Brighteon channels.

Transcript provided by Truth Comes to Light

The first to arrive were the cameras,
installed to protect both you and me,
in places that we weren’t that threatened.

And yet the people didn’t see.

And what followed were traffic restrictions
to keep the roads quiet and clean.
The maths didn’t add up nor the science.

But still the people didn’t see.

And next came the 15-minute neighborhoods
to make our lives easier. Decreed.
To some it seemed like restrictions.

But still the people didn’t see.

And then came the digital ID.
So convenient, easy and free.
Your life in one chip on a mainframe.

And still the people didn’t see.

The cars they sold were electric,
all wired to the government PC.
And they switched off the driving on Sundays.

And still the people didn’t see.

And the banks moved their money to digital.
And the government banned cash the next week.
And the ability to fly was restricted.

And still the people didn’t see.

They linked up your money and profile
to the ID on the government PC.
And connected it to social media.

And still the people didn’t see.

And then came a new cure, a new virus.
Safe and effective and free.
They linked these jabs to your profile
and connected the government PC.

And when the people were locked in their cities,
policed by their digital ID.
Unable to visit their loved ones.

Now, finally, the people can see.

Restricted and tracked with no money —
to go further, a permit you’ll need.
Contained in your digital city.

Oh. Why did the people not see?

These steps they’ve sold us as progress
never looked to be quite what they seemed.
And if you don’t ask the questions in protest
then your children will never know free.

Cover image credit: hunt-er

A Million Mengeles? Dr. Reiner Fuellmich With Patrick Wood and Joseph Molitorisz — On the Self-Appointed Elites Obsessed With Playing God & the Chilling Origins of Technocracy

by Dr. Reiner Fuellmich, International Crimes Investigative Committee
January 22, 2023



In this episode of ICIC, Reiner Fuellmich, his co-host, philosopher Joseph Molitorisz, and their guest, economist and author Patrick Wood, take us on a journey through the chilling origins and evolution of Technocracy, the nefarious figures and ideologies behind its mechanistic power structures and its cunning and covert implementation through social engineering.

Self-appointed “Elites” have hijacked politics and established “puppet nations” from the comforts of their NGOs. They disguise their evil intentions with appealing catchphrases and Orwellian-Speak while insidiously luring the masses into their dystopian world of Transhumanism.

Obsessed with playing God and drunk with power, they have emerged from the shadows and are arrogantly hiding in plain sight.

It is high time for mankind to wake up, stand up, expose and reject their anti-human agenda and co-create a beautiful New World.

Connect with International Crimes Investigative Committee

An Unholy Invasion – Chatbots Are Colonizing Our Minds

Legacy humans must erect cultural barriers now, before we’re overwhelmed

by Joe Allen, Singularity Weekly
January 3, 2023

Chatbots are at the front lines of an unrelenting AI invasion. The steady increase of artificial minds in our collective psyche is akin to mass immigration—barely noticed and easily overlooked, until it’s too late. Our cultural landscape is being colonized by bots, and as with illegal aliens, much of our population welcomes this as “progress.”

The bots will keep us company. They will learn and absorb our personalities. And when we die, they will become our digital ghosts. It’s a morbid prospect, but the process is already underway.

E-learning institutions regularly deploy AI teachers. Chatbot companions are seducing lonesome souls by the millions, including religious chatbots who function as spiritual guides. At the end of the road, various start-ups are developing cyber-shrines where families can commune with their departed loved ones and find comfort in the digital undead.

In the minds of tech enthusiasts, AI chatbots of all sorts will be our soulless companions on the trek toward the Future™. These ephemeral “friends” are key psychological components of what many describe as human-AI symbiosis. They will be like artificial guardian angels in our palms—and by extension, in our heads—answering questions and steering decisions.

One thing is certain. Whatever you think about this invasion, AIs are falling to earth like stars from a godless heaven. And with each successive wave, their voices are that much more convincing.

These bots are crafted to push our cognitive buttons, giving the illusion of personhood. Before long, they will come to be widely trusted—even loved. Among early adopters, they already are. Our emotional minds are being hardwired for control.

The recent roll-out of ChatGPT, created by OpenAI, has been heralded as the second coming of the Google God. As with previous GPT programs, the user types in a question and the bot onscreen spits out a reasonably coherent, if occasionally inaccurate answer.

A few days ago, I asked ChatGPT about one of OpenAI’s founding investors: “Will Elon Musk chip our brains?”

“No,” the bot responded, “Elon Musk does not believe in chipping brains. He has said that he believes that ‘abundance is our future’ and that technology should be used to empower people, not replace them.”

Like the slanted Google God before it, ChatGPT may not be entirely truthful, but at least its loyal to political allies. In that sense, it’s quite human.

Speaking at “The History of Civil Liberties in Canada Series” on December 13, the weepy maker-of-men, Dr. Jordan Peterson, warned his fellow canucks about ChatGPT’s godlike powers:

So now we have an AI model that can extract a model of the world from the entire corpus of language. Alright. And it’s smarter than you. It’s gonna be a hell of a lot smarter than you in two years. …

Giants are going to walk the earth once more. And we’re gonna live through that. Maybe.

You hear that, human? Prepare to kneel before your digital overlords. For all the public crying Peterson has done, he didn’t shed a single tear about humanity’s displacement by AI. Maybe he believes the Machine will devour all his trolls first.

Peterson did go on to ride Elon Musk’s jock, though, portraying the cyborg car dealer as a some sort of savior—which, to my disgust, is the embarrassing habit of almost every “intellectual dark web” icon these days. What’s odd is that the comparative mythology professor failed to note the archetypal significance of the Baphomet armor Musk still sports in his Twitter profile.

Anyone urging people to trust the world’s wealthiest transhumanist is either fooling himself, or he’s trying to fool you.

This is not to say Musk and Peterson are entirely wrong about the increasing power of artificial intelligence, even if they’re far too eager to to see us bend the knee. In the unlikely event that progress stalls for decades, leaving us with the tech we have right now, the social and psychological impact of the ongoing AI invasion is still a grave concern.

At the moment, the intellectual prowess of machine intelligence is way over-hyped. If humanity is lucky, that will continue to be the case. But the real advances are impressive nonetheless. AI agents are not “just computer programs.” They’re narrow thinking machines that can scour vast amounts of data, of their own accord, and they do find genuinely meaningful patterns.

A large language model (aka, a chatbot) is like a human brain grown in a jar, with a limited selection of sensors plugged into it. First, the programmers decide what parameters the AI will begin with—the sorts of patterns it will search for as it grows. Then, the model is trained on a selection of data, also chosen by the programmer. The heavier the programmer’s hand, the more bias the system will exhibit.

In the case of ChatGPT, the datasets consist of a massive selection of digitized books, all of Wikipedia, and most of the Internet, plus the secondary training of repeated conversations with users. The AI is motivated to learn by Pavlovian “reward models,” like a neural blob receiving hits of dopamine every time it gets the right answer. As with most commercial chatbots, the programmers put up guardrails to keep the AI from saying anything racist, sexist, or homophobic.

When “AI ethicists” talk about “aligning AI with human values,” they mostly mean creating bots that are politically correct. On the one hand, that’s pretty smart, because if we’re moving toward global algocracy—where the multiculti masses are ruled by algorithms—then liberals are wise to make AI as inoffensive as possible. They certainly don’t want another Creature From the 4chan Lagoon, like when Microsoft’s Tay went schizo-nazi, or the Google Image bot kept labeling black people as “gorillas.”

On the other hand, if an AI can’t grasp the basic differences between men and women or understand the significance of continental population clusters—well, I’m sure it’ll still be a useful enforcer in our Rainbow Algocracy.

Once ChatGPT is downloaded to a device, it develops its own flavor. The more interactions an individual user has, the more the bot personalizes its answers for that user. It can produce sentences or whole essays that are somewhat original, even if they’re just a remix of previous human thought. This semi-originality, along with the learned personalization, is what gives the illusion of a unique personality—minus any locker room humor.

Across the board, the answers these AIs provide are getting more accurate and increasingly complex. Another example is Google’s LaMDA, still unreleased, which rocketed to fame last year when an “AI ethicist” informed the public that the bot is “sentient,” claiming it expresses sadness and yearning. Ray Kurzweil predicted this psychological development back in 1999, in his book The Age of Spiritual Machines:

They will increasingly appear to have their own personalities, evidencing reactions that we can only label as emotions and articulating their own goals and purposes. They will appear to have their own free will. They will claim to have spiritual experiences. And people…will believe them.

This says as much about the humans involved as it does about the machines. However, projecting this improvement into the future—at an exponential rate—Kurzweil foresees a coming Singularity in which even the most intelligent humans are truly overtaken by artificial intelligence.

That would be the point of no return. Our destiny would be out of our hands.

In 2021, the tech entrepreneur Sam Altman—who co-founded OpenAI with Musk in 2015—hinted at something like a Singularity in his essay “Moore’s Law of Everything.” Similar to Kurzweil, he promises artificial intelligence will transform every aspect of society, from law and medicine to work and socialization.

Assuming that automation will yield radical abundance—even as it produces widespread unemployment—he argues for taxation of the super rich and an “equity fund” for the rest of us. While I believe such a future would be disastrous, creating vast playgrounds for the elite and algorithmic pod-hives for the rest of us, I think Altman is correct about the coming impact:

Bots are invading our minds through our phones, our smart speakers, our educational institutions, our businesses, our government agencies, our intelligence agencies, our religious institutions, and through a growing variety of physical robots meant to accompany us from cradle to grave.

We are being primed for algocracy.

Past generations ignored mass immigration and environmental destruction, both fueled by tech innovations, until it was too late to turn back the tide. Right now, we have a “narrow window of opportunity” to erect cultural and legal barriers—family by family, community by community, and nation by nation.

If this social experiment is “inevitable,” we must insist on being part of the control group.

Ridiculous as it may seem, techno-skeptics are already being labeled as “speciesist”—i.e., racist against robots. We’d better be prepared to wear that as a badge of honor. As our tech oligarchs and their mouthpieces proclaim the rise of digital deities, it should be clear that we’re not the supremacists in this equation.

Connect with Joe Allen at Singularity Weekly

Cover image credit: D5000

Analysis of a Single Drop of the Pfizer “Vaccine” as of December 26, 2022

Recorded December 26, 2022
Presenter: Richard Delgado, Biostatistician

by La Quinta Columna
December 31, 2022



Analysis of a single drop of the Pfizer «vaccine», as of December 26, 2022.

Graphene-based carbon nanotubes, graphene microfilaments, graphene sheets. Only and exclusively graphene.

There is no mRNA in the «vaccine». What is inside is not biological.

Full video:

https://www.laquintacolumna.info/videos-de-interes/nuevas-imagenes-de-la-vacuna-comirnaty-pfizer-26-diciembre-2022/

Connect with La Quinta Columna
website
odysee
rumble

Excerpts from transcript (prepared by Truth Comes to Light):

See here how that formation is dragged by a little dot. These are already single-walled carbon nanotubes, more elaborately shaped, which is graphene, geometrically arranged in a tubular fashion. It’s used in the field of neuroscience as branches or neural networks.

What it’s going to do is establish connections between one neuron and another. And from there, since this material absorbs radiation, the phenomenon of neuromodulation and neurostimulation is possible, as well as altering certain brain areas to obtain certain patterns of behavior in the population.

This isn’t science fiction, this is science. Neuroscience and nanotechnology that go hand in hand here.

[…]

We also have to count on the complicity of a series of individuals who called themselves to be dissidents and groups called for the truth. Not all of those who were part of these groups. Most of them had good intentions. But their heads were directed towards certain focuses of interpretation, such as certain nonexistent proteins, or even the official version of a biological pathogen such as SARS-CoV-2 etc. They’ve been people who are really part of the ruling party, and that the ruling party sends as the front line to directly battle with the real dissidents that was going to discover exactly what is inside the injectables. I’m referring to the famous groups for the truth, doctors for the truth, biologists for the truth. False dissidents. Criminals sent directly by the pro- government political forces to precisely combat the evidence in the face of their real misinformation. They’re the guardians of the truth, precisely to allow concealing the introduction of the interface. Remember that there’s a lot of money here — all they want and more — just to cover, cover and cover.

[…]

Notice how curious it is that indeed these quadrangular patterns are pulled by tiny particles, micro and nanoparticles and just towards one direction.

It is as if they knew exactly where they have to go and what they are going to form or assemble.

[…]

And these quadrangular patterns, well, they’re not crystals either, as someone else told us. Right?

[…]

Graphene would give intracorporal coverage, that is, oxidative stress, apoptosis, DNA damage, cancer, collapse of the immune system. Remember that this material is eliminated, among others, via the lungs. It also has a hepatic phase, generating hepatitis of unknown origin.

[…]

More graphene filaments. Now we have a view, let’s say a panorama with low magnification, only 100 magnification here. And these are single-walled carbon nanotubes, used in the neuroscientific field as neural networks. Here we see it at a wider wheel. Look at what’s going on. We’re looking at a single drop, right? Not ten drops, not four or five. A single drop of one half square centimeter under the Haxon Aquiles II optical microscope, an upper midrange microscope, but which would be visible under even a low end microscope…

We’ve looked at over 400 injectables already. We have over 1000 hours of observation with optical microscopy.

[…]

And now the question is: do you know what happens when you illuminate with ultraviolet blue radiation, graphene nanotubes and micro sheets? …

Well, the ultraviolet radiation — the one that they are placing all over the cities in the long-distance buses — what it does is degrade graphene oxide and convert it into nanoparticles of reduced graphene oxide.

Therefore, by miniaturizing the size, they already have the capacity to cross the blood-brain barrier and settle in neurons. Remember the article on the toxicity of the material, where from 45 nm it crossed the blood brain barrier, which is the barrier that separates the brain from the external pollution environment, both biological and inorganic and toxic chemicals, which in this case is graphene.

See related:

La Quinta Columna Issues Report on Microtechnology Found in Pfizer Vials

La Quinta Columna: Graphene Oxide in Covid Vaccines, Self-Assemblies and MAC Addresses

La Quinta Columna: Research Paper From 2015 — “CORONA: A Coordinate and Routing System for Nanonetworks”

Dr. Pablo Campra on Graphene, Weird Morgellons-Like Elements & Possible Microbiota in Covid Vaccines

Vaccines as Vectors for the Installation of Nanotechnology: Evidence That Nano Receiving Antennas Are Being Inoculated Into the Human Body

The Weaponization of the WHO: James Corbett With Meryl Nass

by Meryl Nass, MD,  Children’s Health Defense TV
December 15, 2022

Solve the intentionally confusing puzzle about what the WHO’s 2023 plans are regarding the “zero draft” for a new and potentially legally binding pandemic treaty, International Health Regulation amendments, recent Intergovernmental Negotiating Body Meetings and more.

Learn all about the corrupt public health organization “with teeth” with guest James Corbett and Meryl Nass, M.D on ‘Good Morning CHD.’



Ecocide From Space

by Arthur Firstenberg,  Cellular Phone Task Force
sourced from Cellular Phone Task Force December 14, 2022 newsletter
December 14, 2022

Number of Operating Satellites Passes 7,000

On the evening of Thursday, December 8, 2022, OneWeb launched 40 satellites from Cape Canaveral, Florida, bringing the total number of active satellites in orbit around the Earth to more than 7,000. These cell towers in space are altering the electromagnetic environment of the entire planet and are debilitating and exterminating all life on it.

Even the first fleet of 28 military satellites launched by the United States caused a worldwide pandemic of influenza when they became operational on June 13, 1968.

The Hong Kong flu began in June 1968, lasted through April 1970, and killed up to four million people worldwide. To understand why requires a proper understanding of our connection to the universe and what it is that really gives us life and health, and makes our bodies move.

In a sense, we are all puppets on invisible strings that connect us to heaven and earth, strings that resonate at the age-old frequencies of the biosphere in which we live, the space between Earth and Sky, whose dimensions never change. And when we modulate and pulsate those strings at random from thousands of locations in space, we change the beautiful music of the earthly orchestra into a discordant chaos that scatters bodies all over the world, helpless before it.

On March 24-25, 2021, the chaos was brought to a new level, that the world now accepts as normal. In that 24-hour period, a record 96 satellites were launched into space on a single day—60 by SpaceX and 36 by OneWeb—and on the same day SpaceX dramatically increased the speed of its satellite internet connections.

On that day, people all over the world suddenly could not sleep, were weak and exhausted, had muscle spasms, and hurt and itched all over, especially in their feet and legs. They had skin rashes, were dizzy and nauseous, and had stomach aches and diarrhea. The ringing in their ears was suddenly amplified. Their eyes were inflamed, and their vision suddenly worsened. They had heart arrhythmias, and their blood pressure went out of control. Some had nosebleeds, or coughed up blood. They were anxious, depressed or suicidal, and irritable. Their cats, dogs, chickens, goats and cows were sick at the same time.

My newsletter of April 15, 2021, Survey Results, quoted from some of the thousand letters I received from people young and old, from people who called themselves electrosensitive and from people who did not, from people who had no wireless technology and from people who had smart meters and 5G antennas outside their homes and who emailed me from their cell phones, all reporting the same experiences, commonly reporting that not only they, but their spouse, children, parents, neighbors, friends, coworkers, clients, and everyone else they knew were sick, exhausted and irritable on March 24 or 25 and had trouble sleeping. The reports came from 42 states and 50 countries.

Deaths of blue titmice spiked in Germany beginning on March 25, 2021. March 25 registered the second highest number of COVID-19 deaths in 2021, and the fifth highest since the pandemic began. The number of mass shootings in the US rose suddenly on March 25 and remained high for three weeks. An average of 6 shootings involving 4 or more victims occurred every day between March 25 and April 13. Photographs of hundreds of worms, and of hundreds of sheep, moving silently in perfect spirals, were taken on March 25 and March 26.

Long-term pain, sickness, and debility has become so common that it is now accepted as a normal part of life that the world thinks it can address with endless vaccinations, mask-wearing, and the wiping of all hands and surfaces with toxic disinfectants.

Last week, on December 8, 2022, on the day OneWeb launched satellites that will expand its coverage across the US, Europe, the Middle East and Asia, I experienced within my body, and heard from some other people both locally and far away that the pains and debilities from which we have been suffering at some level for the past 20 months suddenly intensified. I was almost crippled for three days. As on March 24-25, 2021, I would like to find out how widespread this is. Please reply to this email if you have experienced something similar.

Although SpaceX and OneWeb are (so far) building the largest fleets of Earth-destroying satellites, they are far from the only entities launching them.

The 7,000 satellites presently operating were launched by governments or private companies of the following countries:

Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Ecuador, Egypt, European Space Agency, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Laos, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Mexico, Monaco, Morocco, Multinational, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Slovenia, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, Thailand, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay, Venezuela, Vietnam

And they were launched from the following spaceports:

Baikonur Cosmodrome (Kazakhstan)
Cape Canaveral (Florida, USA)
Dombarovsky Air Base (Russia)
Guiana Space Center (French Guiana)
Jiuquan Satellite Launch Center (Inner Mongolia, China)
Kodiak Launch Complex (Alaska, USA)
Kwajalein Island (Marshall Islands)
Naro Space Center (South Korea)
Palmachim Launch Complex (Israel)
Plesetsk Cosmodrome (Russia)
Rocket Lab Launch Complex 1 (New Zealand)
Satish Dhawan Space Centre (India)
Pacific Ocean (from Odyssey Sea Launch vessel)
Shahroud Missile Range (Iran)
Svobodny Cosmodrome (Russia)
Taiyuan Launch Center (China)
Tanegashima Space Center (Japan)
Uchinoura Space Center (Japan)
Vandenberg Air Force Base (California, USA)
Vostochny Cosmodrome (Russia)
Wallops Island Flight Facility (Virginia, USA)
Wenchang Satellite Launch Center (China)
Xichang Satellite Launch Center (China)
Yellow Sea (from a mobile sea platform)

Other Satellite News

European IRIS Satellites

The European Union just got into the act with its own program to provide high-speed broadband from space to all of Europe and Africa. On December 5, 2022, the Council of the EU and the European Parliament reached a provisional agreement to launch 170 new satellites called Infrastructure for Resilience, Interconnection and Security (IRIS). “This new component of the EU Space Programme will put an end to dead zones in Europe as well as the whole of Africa using the constellation’s North-South orbits through a resilient and ultra-secure space and ground-based system,” says the EU’s Space Program (EUSPA) website.

AST SpaceMobile

On September 10, 2022, AST SpaceMobile launched the largest, and probably the most powerful, commercial communications array ever put into space. It is the first of a planned fleet of 243 Bluebird satellites designed to connect directly with people’s existing mobile phones, no matter where on Earth they may be located. The size of its solar array — 64 square meters — is causing alarm among astronomers because it is as bright as the brightest stars during the hours after sunset and before sunrise.

So far AST SpaceMobile is working with Rakuten Mobile, AT&T, Bell Canada, Telecom Argentina, Africell, Liberty Latin America and Orange, for a potential customer base of 1.8 billion mobile phone subscribers.

The immensely powerful signals from the Bluebird satellites are also worrying radio astronomers, as well as human beings who are concerned for their well-being. The effective radiated power of each satellite, according to AST’s filings with the FCC, will be up to 83 million watts, and the exposure level at the surface of the earth from such beams, according to my calculations, will be up to 3 nanowatts per square centimeter, which is 100 times more radiation than what I am exposed to in my house in Santa Fe from the nearest cell towers.

“Every person should have the right to access cellular broadband, regardless of where they live or work. Our goal is to close the connectivity gaps that negatively impact billions of lives around the world,” said Abel Avellan, CEO of AST SpaceMobile.

We beg to differ, Mr. Avellan. Every person, every animal, and every plant should have the right to drink from the Earth’s natural frequencies, and not to be bombarded with artificial radiation from space.

Arthur Firstenberg

President, Cellular Phone Task Force
Author, The Invisible Rainbow: A History of Electricity and Life
Administrator, International Appeal to Stop 5G on Earth and in Space
Caretaker, ECHOEarch.org (End Cellphones Here On Earth)
P.O. Box 6216, Santa Fe, NM 87502 USA

The last 51 newsletters, including this one, are available for viewing on the Newsletters page of the Cellular Phone Task Force. To subscribe, go to www.cellphonetaskforce.org/subscribe.

Connect with Arthur Firstenberg

Cover image credit: pixabay

Here We Go Again: Bill Gates, Johns Hopkins, and WHO Simulate Another Deadly Pandemic

by Amy Mek, RAIR Foundation
December 13, 2022

Marxist-tied WHO boss announced this week that WHO member states have agreed on the development of a legally binding pandemic treaty that will allow them to take over governmental power in the event of a pandemic.

The Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security and the World Health Organization (WHO), and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation simulated another deadly pandemic, this time in Brussels, Belgium, on October 23, 2022. Catastrophic Contagion is the ominous title of the project, reports Nine For News.

The guest list included ten current and former health ministers and officials from Senegal, Rwanda, Nigeria, Angola, Liberia, Singapore, India, and Germany. Billionaire and self-proclaimed ‘pandemic expert’  Bill Gates participated in the simulation of a ‘fictitious’ pandemic that would break out in the near future. One which, in the simulation, would be much more deadly than Covid, especially for children.

Participants discussed how to deal with an epidemic that emerges in a certain part of the world and then quickly spreads to become a pandemic, with a higher mortality rate than Covid. In this case, children and young people were particularly affected.

The Globalists completed a desktop simulation for a new enterovirus originating near Brazil. Every choice the participants made had far-reaching consequences.



Pandemic treaty

The WHO boss, Marxist revolutionary Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesu, announced this week that WHO member states have agreed to develop a legally binding pandemic treaty. This treaty is supposed to ‘protect’ the world against future pandemics.

There is a lot of resistance to this pandemic treaty. MEP Christine Anderson (AfD) warned the treaty aims to give WHO de facto governing power over its member states in the event of a pandemic without involvement or consultation with national governments or national parliaments. The WHO can then restrict fundamental rights as it sees fit “almost like a world government,” explained the MEP.

According to WHO whistleblower Dr. Astrid Stuckelberger, it is extremely dangerous. It will be a kind of global constitution, she said in the podcast Jerm Warfare. Individual countries can no longer determine how they fight the next ‘pandemic.’ She spoke of a centralization of power. “This is terrible.”

World Governance

The whistleblower pointed out that billionaire Bill Gates has been working on a global vaccination plan since 2012. The WHO has handed over leadership to GAVI (an international vaccine alliance), says Stuckelberger, who himself worked for the World Health Organization for many years. She pointed out that GAVI, is the second largest donor to WHO.

And now there is talk of global governance. “It’s organized tyranny in a golden cage,” she said. “We didn’t know how they were going to do it. They use health policies to create this global governance.”



[TCTL editor’s note: Watch full video “Astrid Stuckelberger on the WHO’s ‘Pandemic Treaty'” at Jerm Warfare]

Pandemic Simulation Games

These are not the first pandemic simulation games.  They have already been carried out regularly over the past few years by various groups ranging from politicians, scientists, financiers, and oligarchs. However, until recently, they have gone relatively unnoticed by the public.

Below are some of the previous “games” that have taken place (listed from oldest to most recent):

• DarkWinter (2001) – The Dark Winter exercise, held at Andrews AFB, Washington, DC, June 22-23, 2001, portrayed a fictional scenario depicting a covert smallpox attack on U.S. citizens.
• Global Mercury (2003) – The Department of State participated with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the Health Ministries of seven other member nations of the Global Health Security Action Group in a tabletop Bioterrorism Exercise from September 8 – 10, 2003. The exercise, known as Global Mercury, simulated a smallpox bioterrorism attack on member countries.
• Atlantic Storm (2005) – was a ministerial exercise simulating the top-level response to a bioterror incident. The simulation operated on January 14, 2005, in Washington, D.C. It was created to reveal the current international state of preparedness and possible political and public health issues that might evolve from such a crisis.
• Clade X (2018) – The Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security hosted the Clade X pandemic tabletop exercise on May 15, 2018, in Washington, DC. The exercise aimed to illustrate high-level strategic decisions and policies that the United States and the world will need to pursue to prevent a pandemic or diminish its consequences should prevention fail.
• The decisive event 201 (October 2019), based on the events of the past two years
• The SPARS Pandemic 2025-2028 (May 2020)
• Monkeypox: March 2021: The World Health Organization and Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation simulated the outbreak of a monkeypox pandemic. Also taking part in the exercise was the American, and Chinese RIVM, along with pharmaceutical giants Janssen and Merck
• Leopard Pox – (May 2022) The World Health Organization and the health ministers of the G7 countries held pandemic simulation games based on a smallpox outbreak in 2023. The meeting featured a pandemic simulation, with the concept being that a new smallpox-like epidemic had suddenly emerged after someone was infected with the disease via a leopard bite.

Connect with RAIR Foundation

Cover image credit: Myriams-Fotos

15-Minute City Insanity Is Only ‘Climate Change’ Lockdown Madness

by Gary D. Barnett
December 10, 2022

“We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force.”

~ Ayn Rand

While the masses continue to happily accept any and every tiny bit of ‘permission’ to have a miniscule amount of ‘freedom,’ all at the whim of the rulers, the drive toward more ‘climate change’ lockdown policy and societal regulation and total control are going forward quickly and without restriction. The candy offered to the herd in the form of temporary lifting of draconian mandates is meant only to satisfy the short-term longing of the proletariat so as to gain future compliance and obedience from the sheep in order for the state to create a true slave society. One of the  linchpins of this plot is to concentrate the population into so-called ‘smart’ cities, with 15 minute zones, where no travel outside this time frame is allowed without very restrictive monitoring. This is true insanity sold in the form of convenience, safety, and the bogus claim of protecting the earth.

Preparation, trials, and implementation of these atrocious prison-system cities are fully underway, and are being planned and sold as a public ‘good,’ an atrocious and deceptive lie. As I write this, 15-minute cities are being actively planned in Saudi, Arabia called “The Line,” Dubai, UAE, Oxford, U.K., Australia in Melbourne and Brisbane, in Spain in Barcelona, Buenos Aries, and even in Portland, Oregon in the Fascist U.S. While most have been asleep and basking in ignorance believing that totalitarianism has lessened, the master technocratic plot has never slowed. For those who are feeling left out, worry not, as a 15 minute prison system will soon be in a city or town near you.

Oxfordshire County in the U.K. is moving very fast to set up the first complete 15-minute city scam, and has announced a full “TRIAL” for January 2024. This is simply a climate lockdown trial meant to prepare the citizenry for continuous lockdowns, or more accurately, a minor existence in incarceration centers. Keep in mind that the plot to control the world depends on concentrating populations into smaller centers, with exhaustive technological measures of government regulation and authority that will require complete and total surveillance of all. This will be based on the ‘climate change’ lie, and world domination depends on a controlled, digital monetary system, that is also being structured by the central banking systems worldwide, and privately run by the ruling class. This is the same deep state that controls all government. Once the centralized bank digital currencies become reality, all freedom will end. The idea and implementation of controlled digital currencies is anathema to all liberty, and is mandatory for state control.

Once again I must mention the “big picture,”  as everything going on from ‘virus lies,’ ‘variants,’ staged wars, ‘climate change,’ CBDCs, 15-minute cities, transgender nonsense, fake racism, bioweapon injections, and a myriad of current and future control scenarios, are all meant to accomplish but one thing, and therefore, they are all linked, and all part of the singular agenda of total technocratic control of all people on earth. This is exactly what the ‘great reset,’ the new one world government, and the monetary takeover are all about. Regardless of which particular plot is the news item of the day, it is simply all meant to achieve but one end. Do not disregard all of the minor plots, but recognize that the single plot desired is to control you and all on earth, and nothing less.

The case addressed here can be summed up with one statement coming from the World Economic Forum (WEF) weforum.org on March 15, 2022.

“As climate change and global conflict cause shocks and stresses at faster intervals and increased severity, the 15-minute city will become even more critical.”

This single statement connects the entire fake ‘climate change’, and Ukraine (all war) scenarios and agendas as reasoning to lockdown the world. Make no mistake, this is the plan that is and has been in high gear for decades, but especially so since the bogus ‘covid’ lockdown terror levied at the hands of the state in 2020.

Without mass resistance to this totalitarian push, be prepared for more and more restrictions on every aspect of life; including movement, travel, thought, communication, health decisions,’ medical care,’ money and spending, carbon tracking, total and complete surveillance, social credit systems, and renewed climate lockdowns.

Considering the U.S. government and American citizens, remember that this government and all its controlling rule system is nothing more than an organized crime syndicate; an operation based on the mass cooperation and acceptance of a nearly universal, compliant, and submissive population, intent only on getting by and being able to survive with their smart phones, TVs, games, bread and circuses, and dependence on rule. This general attitude will be the death knell of this society, but it does not have to remain as such given the huge numbers of us, and the few who claim ownership of the bulk of the pathetic inhabitants that make up the vast majority in this country.

Remember that the term ‘climate change’ is the basis of all future plans to take total control over everything, and that is and will be the weapon of fear used to round up the masses. Every time you hear the word “sustainable” and accept it as legitimate, every time the state claims to be protecting the earth to ‘save it,’ every time ‘sustainable development’ is the term used to create and enforce government policy, you have lost all, while the state has gained more power and control over you. The final agenda of fear called ‘climate change,’ is the hammer, while each of you are only a nail, but acting as one, you can hold everything together.

As I stated in an article earlier this year:

“The intentional manmade ‘climate change’ fraud is continually gaining steam, as it will always be the linchpin to future abuses and control by the rulers and their pawns in politics and mainstream media. While the controllers are destroying economies, decimating all quality food sources and production, eliminating vast amounts of life-sustaining energy, greatly harming the environment and its vital resources necessary for life, pursuing eugenics agendas, and advancing depopulation efforts, the majority of people continue to acquiesce to all orders and propaganda, while completely attached and addicted to their cell phones and their apathetic and pitiful pretend lives. All this is indicative of the downfall of humanity, and the rise of the technocratic oligarchs.”

Reference links:

Oxford County to introduce climate lockdown trial

United Nation Climate Change – The 15 minute city

Climate lockdowns coming

Construction begins on The Line: Controlled City

Connect with Gary D. Barnett

Cover image credit: geralt

Digital Currency: The Fed Moves Toward Monetary Totalitarianism

by André Marques, Mises Institute
December 9, 2022

The Federal Reserve is sowing the seeds for its central bank digital currency (CBDC). It may seem that the purpose of a CBDC is to facilitate transactions and enhance economic activity, but CBDCs are mainly about more government control over individuals. If a CBDC were implemented, the central bank would have access to all transactions in addition to being capable of freezing accounts.

It may seem dystopian—something that only totalitarian governments would do—but there have been recent cases of asset freezing in Canada and Brazil. Moreover, a CBDC would give the government the power to determine how much a person can spend, establish expiration dates for deposits, and even penalize people who saved money.

The war on cash is also a reason why governments want to implement CBDCs. The end of cash would mean less privacy for individuals and would allow central banks to maintain a monetary policy of negative interest rates with greater ease (since individuals would be unable to withdraw money commercial banks to avoid losses).

Once the CBDC arrives, instead of a deposit being a commercial bank’s liability, a deposit would be the central bank’s liability.

In 2020, China launched a digital yuan pilot program. As mentioned by Seeking Alpha, China wants to implement a CBDC because “this would give [the government] a remarkable amount of information about what consumers are spending their money on.”

The government could easily track digital payments with a CBDC. Bloomberg noted in an article published when the digital yuan pilot program was launched that the digital currency “offers China’s authorities a degree of control never possible with cash.” A CBDC could allow the Chinese government to monitor mobile app purchases (which accounted for about 16 percent of the country’s gross domestic product in 2020) more closely. Bloomberg describes how much control a CBDC could give Chinese authorities:

The PBOC [People’s Bank of China] 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.

(Details on China’s social credit system can be found here.)

The Chinese government is waging war on cash. And they are not alone. In 2017, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) published a document offering suggestions to governments—even in the face of strong public opposition—on how to move toward a cashless society. Governments and central bankers claim that the shift to a cashless society will help prevent crime and increase convenience for ordinary people. But the real motivation behind the war on cash is more government control over the individual.

And the US is getting ready to establish its own CBDC (or something similar). The first step was taken in August, when the Fed announced FedNow. FedNow will be an instant payment system and is scheduled to be launched between May and July 2023.

FedNow is practically identical to Brazil’s PIX. PIX was implemented by the Central Bank of Brazil (BCB) in November 2020. It is a convenient instant payment system (using mobile devices) without user fees, and a reputation as being safe to use.

A year after its launch, PIX already had 112 million people registered, or just over half of the Brazilian population. Of course, frauds and scams do occur over PIX, but most are social engineering scams (see here, here, and here) and are not system flaws; that is, they are scams that exploit the public’s lack of knowledge of PIX technology.

Bear in mind that PIX is not the Brazilian CBDC. It is just a payment system. However, the BCB has access to transactions made through PIX; therefore, PIX can be considered the seed of the Brazilian CBDC. It is already an invasion of the privacy of Brazilians. And FedNow is set to follow suit.

Additionally, the New York Fed has recently launched a twelve-week pilot program with several commercial banks to test the feasibility of a CBDC in the US. The program will use digital tokens to represent bank deposits. Institutions involved in the program will make simulated transactions to test the system. According to Reuters, “the pilot [program] will test how banks using digital dollar tokens in a common database can help speed up payments.”

Banks involved in the pilot program include BNY Mellon, Citi, HSBC, Mastercard, PNC Bank, TD Bank, Truist, US Bank, and Wells Fargo. The global financial messaging service provider SWIFT is also participating to “support interoperability across the international financial ecosystem.” (This video details the pilot program and how the US CBDC would work.)

The IMF is also thinking of a way to connect different CBDCs under a single system. In other words, the IMF plans to create a PIX/FedNow for CBDCs around the globe:

Things could change as money becomes tokenized; that is, accessible to anyone with the right private key and transferable to anyone with access to the same network. Examples of tokenized money include so-called stablecoins, such as USD Coin, and central bank digital currency.

The reception of Brazil’s PIX shows that FedNow will likely be widely adopted due to its convenience; however, this positive economic and technological element should not overshadow the increased control instant payment systems will give to central banks. The BCB has access to all transactions made by Brazilians through PIX, and this would only get worse should a CBDC be implemented. With a CBDC, it would be easier for the government to carry out expansionary monetary policies (which cause misallocations of resources and business cycles) and exert greater control over citizens’ finances.

Connect with Mises Institute

Cover image credit: geralt

Arthur Firstenberg: Is Our Tech Making Us Sick?

by World Council for Health
December 5, 2022



Speaking at General Assembly Meeting #68 on Monday, December 5, Arthur Firstenberg () gave an eye-opening presentation on the harmful effects of wireless technology.

Who is Arthur Firstenberg?

• Arthur Firstenberg is a scientist, journalist and author who is part of a growing worldwide movement to bring attention to the most ignored threat to life on Earth. His book, The Invisible Rainbow: A History of Electricity and Life, is the first book to tell the history of electricity from an environmental point of view.

• The Cellular Phone Task Force, an organization he co-founded in 1996, provides a global clearinghouse for information about wireless technology’s harmful effects, and a support network for the millions of people injured by this tech.

• Firstenberg is the Administrator and Co-author of the International Appeal to Stop 5G on Earth and in Space. To date, the Appeal has more than 300,000 signatures from 214 countries and territories, including 3,000 environmental organizations, 7,000 scientists, 4,300 medical doctors, 13,900 engineers and 1,500 beekeepers.

• After graduating Phi Beta Kappa from Cornell University with a B.A. in mathematics, he attended the University of California, Irvine School of Medicine from 1978 to 1982. Injury by x-ray overdose cut short his medical career.

• For the past 41 years, Arthur Firstenberg has been a researcher, consultant and lecturer on the health and environmental effects of electromagnetic radiation.

Find this video to share on Rumble, Odysee, and Bitchute.

This is an edited segment from the weekly live General Assembly meeting on December 5, 2022. Ramiro Romani and Prof Ian Brighthope also spoke at the meeting.

Connect with World Council for Health

Cover image credit: Goumbik

Catherine Austin Fitts & Dark Journalist: The CDBC (Central Bank Digital Currency) Biometric Control Grid

by Daniel Liszt, Dark Journalist
November 30, 2022

Former Assistant HUD Secretary Catherine Austin Fitts returns for a deep discussion with Dark Journalist Daniel Liszt and reveals how the Central Bankers have implemented a Worldwide surveillance and financial transaction infrastructure to harvest humanity physically, economically and spiritually.

Catherine has been warning on the development of the Central Bank Digital Currency and its implications for loss of freedom.

Today she’ll go deep on how the crash of FTX is an op designed at the top of the money pyramid to bring in the new system.

Dark Journalist Breakthrough Interview With Former Asst. HUD Secretary Catherine Austin Fitts: CDBC Biometric Control Grid!



Connect with Dark Journalist

Connect with Catherine Austin Fitts

cover image credit: fotoblend

The Revolt in China: What It Means

How the chief propagandists are trying to derail the story and kill it

by Jon Rappoport
November 30, 2022

We’re on the cusp of potentially enormous changes.

China, the great superpower, is experiencing a human earthquake at its roots.

The revolt in China has huge implications for the West and the world — unless we’re convinced to pass it off like a car crash on a highway thousands of miles away. China’s version of fake COVID science has resulted in enormous blowback; they’re building the tightest Surveillance State on Earth and now huge cracks are showing.

Actions have consequences. For decades, the Chinese regime has been trying to avoid what’s coming to them. We in the West have been treated to outrageous propaganda designed to show us that China “is doing quite well with its model.”

The truth is, their COVID restrictions have imposed a new and even more frightening version of their police state.

And those restrictions have gained widespread support from Western elites!

The last thing these elite globalists want now is EXPOSURE. Exposure for praising and trying to copy the Chinese “model” of slavery in the West.

That EXPOSURE is EXACTLY what can happen now.

Because the Chinese people are sending a message to the world. They’re saying, “What our leaders are doing has nothing to do with health or protecting us from harm. They’re building a Brave New World, and to them we’re the guinea pigs who fit into assigned slots. Don’t fall for the con.”

And globalist leaders in the West, who have been supporting China’s Brave New World, are trembling.

Buckle up and listen to this podcast.

Connect with Jon Rappoport
substack
website

cover image credit: CDD20

This Is Huge: Rebellion in China Now

Support the Protesters in China

by Jon Rappoport
November 28, 2022

Suppose the idea of REVOLUTION instead of SOCIAL CREDIT SCORE now spreads from China to Western countries?

When people who protest against the government in China can be tortured and killed, and yet they keep protesting, that tells you something big is happening now.

AP, 11/27:

Crowd angered by lockdowns calls for China’s Xi to step down

Protesters angered by strict anti-virus measures called for China’s powerful leader to resign, an unprecedented rebuke as authorities in at least eight cities struggled to suppress demonstrations Sunday that represent a rare direct challenge to the ruling Communist Party.

Police using pepper spray drove away demonstrators in Shanghai who called for Xi Jinping to step down and an end to one-party rule, but hours later people rallied again in the same spot. Police again broke up the demonstration, and a reporter saw protesters under arrest being driven away in a bus.

The protests—which began Friday and have spread to cities including the capital, Beijing, and dozens of university campuses—are the most widespread show of opposition to the ruling party in decades.

The predators at the WEF, Gates Foundation, the WHO, who keep bloviating praise for the Chinese regime and its COVID lockdowns and surveillance and social credit score policies—

Those Globalist predators suddenly have something else to think about: the possibility of revolution in China against the government and against those policies.

We need to show overwhelming solidarity with the Chinese protestors.

Of course, the Chinese regime has the firepower to put down these protests. But, against a background of brutal long lockdowns, and with many of their citizens beyond all patience and on the edge of rebellion, is firepower a good idea?

This sets up a rock and hard place for the Chinese government.

Media reports indicate that in some local areas, officials are starting to lift COVID restrictions—hoping to avoid wider protests.

Certainly, Xi Jinping is starting to feel the heat. If high officials in the regime perceive he can’t handle the situation, they’re going to consider looking around for another leader. That could spell destabilization.

Regardless, it’s clear the vaunted and highly praised Chinese model of “dealing with COVID” is failing.

The past two years of elite Western bullshit about China’s unqualified success is being exposed as sheer propaganda and fraud.

Bill Gates and Klaus Schwab, two of China’s strongest supporters, are suddenly looking like morons.

The Western press Lefties are nervously waiting for their marching orders. How should they handle this story? How should they slant it?

“Does the CIA want us to attack Xi Jinping? Or support him?”

“How the hell should I know? I’m waiting for something from the State Department.”

“What is Biden saying?”

“Are you kidding? He’s saying, ‘Where is my bathrobe? How do I get from the shower to my bed’?”

The string pullers who manage Biden are earnestly hoping the protests in China are viewed in the US as “something happening far away over THERE, and have nothing to do with us HERE.”

Which is a lie. The entire effort of the Western Left to praise China is part and parcel of holding up the Chinese regime as a shining model of The Great Reset and all it implies—as that model is brought on board in the West.

Realizing the model is collapsing before our eyes in China spells disaster for the Globalists, if enough people connect the obvious dots.

The Chinese regime is a stone cold tyranny, period. Nothing about it should be welcomed on our shores. Its Great Reset, a gigantic punitive wall to wall Surveillance State, is a living nightmare.

THAT’S what the Chinese people are now protesting, at the risk of losing their lives.

THEY’RE the people we should be supporting, not their leaders.

MAKE YOUR VOICE HEARD.

— Jon Rappoport

Connect with Jon Rappoport
substack
website

cover image credit: CDD20

CBDCs (Central Bank Digital Currencies): Beyond the Basics

by James Corbett, The Corbett Report
November 22, 2022

We all know that central bank digital currencies are bad news.

But do you know the difference between retail and wholesale CBDCs?

And do you know why the American Bankers Association is against the implementation of retail or intermediated CBDCs?

Today James takes you beyond the basics and begins introducing you to the split circuit monetary system as we dive deeper down the programmable money rabbit hole.

 Watch on Archive / BitChute / Odysee / Rokfin / Rumble / Substack / Download the mp4

Documentation

Connect with James Corbett

cover image based on creative commons work of mono2mono and geralt

Enormous 5G Towers Being Installed in NYC Neighborhoods Despite Reports of Illness, People Moving After 2018 5G Activation

by BN Frank, Activist Post
November 9, 2022

Widely reported issues associated with 5G include aviation equipment interference (see 1, 2, 3, 4, 5), cybersecurity risks (see 1, 2), biological and environmental health risks, and poor service (see 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9).  In regard to health, since 2018 there have been reports of people and animals experiencing symptoms and illnesses after 5G was activated (see 1, 2, 3) including in some New York City neighborhoods.  This was documented in a video posted by Dr. Naomi Wolf as well as on Twitter:



Naomi Wolf

A comment about 5G: Amelia Immel:” It is being erected in our area….we are being fried nightly and unable to sleep in our bedroom with the windows covered. Electrical sensations, tingling numbness, extreme nausea, headaches , ears burning and ringing. Have been hospitalized twice for severe dehydration from sweating( signs of electro hypersensitive) and temps of 103 without infections found. Literally cooking my organs inside out. Please read in depth the physical symptoms of being in too close contact. Our home is up for sale and surprisingly 4 other homes as well on my street alone. Very unusual. This is a nightmare which cost us last month 1100$ of hotel expenses. This is devastating our lives. My pets can barely walk as well.

@naomirwolf Jun 22

READ EVERY WORD. Int’l Firefighters Org uses TOP QUALITY peer-reviewed scientific journals to OPPOSE fighters being near 5G and other cellphone towers as this poses a DIRECT THREAT to health. WHY should U be OK w it? Postingon http://Dailylout.io  http://www.iaff.org/hs/Facts/CellTowerFinal.asp …

12:50 PM – 20 Jun 2018

Wow — 5G really is very bad for our health. I had no idea. Small cell EMF frequencies every few hundred yards to enable “the internet of things”, driverless cars…but a mass of health problems. http://emfsafetynetwork.org/how-to-oppose-small-cell-5g-towers/ …

6:46 PM – 19 Jun 2018 from Manhattan, NY

@naomirwolf

Yep, T-Mobile “fired up” 5G in NYC and 30 cities are due to get 5G by end of year. Soon there will be no escape from these health hazards, sense of pressure and irritability and maybe even weirdly affected clouds.https://techcrunch.com/2018/02/27/these-will-be-the-first-cities-getting-5g-from-sprint-and-t-mobile/ …

Since 2018 5G opposition has increased worldwide and deployment has been banned, delayed, or limited in some locations but obviously not in The Big Apple.

From ZeroHedge:

“Monstrosities”: New York Has Started Erecting Thousands Of Giant Gray 5G Towers

by Tyler Durden

Look around, you can’t miss them.

Giant ugly new 5G towers are starting to take over New York City and, despite attempting to look futuristic, many can’t help but notice just how much of an eyesore the additions to city streets have become.

The columns are gray and color and about 32 feet high, according to a new report by the New York Times, with some dwarfing three story buildings. And they’re popping up with little to no warning.

“We were shocked because we had no idea what it was,” one store owner in the Bedford-Stuyvesant neighborhood of Brooklyn said. Marion Little, who owns Stripper Stain & Supplies, says that his customers and neighbors have asked about it.

“I wasn’t even quite sure what it was,” another resident told The Times about a tower popping up in his neighborhood. “The buses turn here. It’s going to be easy to miscalculate and hit the thing,” he said of the tower’s placement at a B26 bus stop.

“Never have I heard one mention of residents asking for a tower to be placed where we live,” said Democratic liaison for the 57th Assembly District in Fort Greene Renee Collymore. “Before this tower came, I had fine service. What, a call dropped every now and then? So what. You keep going.”

Chelsea Formica, who lives on the Upper East Side, got a call from her husband about it while she was out: “He was like, ‘Hey, you know, they put something up outside of our window. I’m just laying here on the couch and it’s pretty big.’”

When she returned home, she was in disbelief: “I was like, ‘Oh, my God,’ freaking out. It’s huge. It’s so big.”

The towers are part of a deal that New York City has with CityBridge and LinkNYC, who is going to be installing 2,000 of the towers in the city over the next several years. Many of the towers are taking the place of where old payphones used to be. The towers have not been activated yet.

Other towers are going to be placed on top of traffic lights and street lamps, according to the report.

The Times notes that 90% of the new towers will be in “neighborhoods in the Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens, Staten Island and above 96th Street in Manhattan”. They will provide residents with free access to digital calling and Wi-Fi. Carriers like AT&T and Verizon will also be able to use the towers to compliment existing infrastructure.

In 2019, telecom executives gave U.S. congressional testimony that they had NO independent scientific evidence that 5G is safe and the majority of scientists worldwide oppose deployment (see 1, 2, 3, 4).  In 2021, a federal court ruled in favor of petitioners who sued The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for not updating wireless radiation guidelines (including 5G) despite scientific evidence of harm submitted to the agency.  Some researchers have also warned that activation may be contributing to COVID-19 infections as well as hundreds of thousands if not millions of bird deaths!

Regardless, the regulatory agency (see 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8) as well as other American government and state agencies and committees (see 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7) have continued to promote and fund 5G deployment and densification (see 1, 2) as well as that of 4G and public Wi-Fi (which also poses known health and environmental risks).

In 2019, telecom executives gave U.S. congressional testimony that they had NO independent scientific evidence that 5G is safe and the majority of scientists worldwide oppose deployment (see 1, 2, 3, 4).  In 2021, a federal court ruled in favor of petitioners who sued The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for not updating wireless radiation guidelines (including 5G) despite scientific evidence of harm submitted to the agency.  Some researchers have also warned that activation may be contributing to COVID-19 infections as well as hundreds of thousands if not millions of bird deaths!

Regardless, the regulatory agency (see 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8) as well as other American government and state agencies and committees (see 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7) have continued to promote and fund 5G deployment and densification (see 1, 2) as well as that of 4G and public Wi-Fi (which also poses known health and environmental risks).

Good luck, New Yorkers.

Activist Post reports regularly about 5G and other unsafe technologies.  For more information, visit our archives and the following websites:

• Americans for Responsible Technology
• Environmental Health Trust
• Physicians for Safe Technology
• Wireless Information Network

Connect with Activist Post

cover image credit: Tdorante10

David Icke: Twitter Has Suspended Me AGAIN

by David Icke
October 30, 2022

Twitter has suspended me AGAIN. We tested out the ‘new’ Musk ‘free speech’ Twitter by starting a new account, DavidickeOfficial, but almost immediately Musk’s Twitter deleted it.

This meme was my first post before suspension …

Connect with David Icke

Do as We Say or Lose Your Money and/or Your Account

by Joseph P. Farrell, Giza Death Star
October 19, 2022

You may recall the “Occupy Wall Street” movement from a few years ago that occurred in the wake of the 2008 “bailouts” and the subsequent exposure of corporate shenanigans in Congress and by a few intrepid reporters. Our very own friend and colleague Catherin Austin Fitts was warning about missing money in the federal budget, to the tune of trillions of dollars. Another friend of mine was close to the scene of the action in New York City, and joined the protests, and informed me that they were not really a group of radical people, but simply people of all political stripes and varieties, and pretty much all demographics, that were saying “enough!” to government-issued corporate privilege and power.

Thus, what was unique about the protests at the time – though few noticed it and even fewer commented about it – was that the protests were genuinely populist.  Populism is usually taught as a “bad thing” in modern American quackademia, and the Occupy Wall Street protests were a living lesson in why, for the protests brought together people both of left-wing and of right-wing political and cultural leanings, and all under the banner of protest against growing corporate power, and its indifference to the country and culture as a whole. It was the first outward and visible sign of an inward and cultural transformation that was beginning to take place: everyone was fine with ‘capitalism,’ but there were limits, and corporations and the government itself had crossed the line of those limits.

Occupy Wall Street, like all such movements, was quickly targeted by radical elements and agents provocateurs in an effort to radicalize what was otherwise a spontaneous movement and derail it. From a certain standpoint, those efforts were successful, but the movement and, more importantly, the perceptions and sentiments behind it, did not disappear, the merely reemerged in another guise, and when they did reemerge, lo and behold, the numbers had grown: the perception and sentiments had spread, and gained new recruits.

This past Monday I blogged about a French intelligence analysis that places the USSA as the principal enemy of France, and in the article about that report, I also noted that globaloneyism itself is implicated in that analysis, i.e., that globaloneyism is a principal enemy of the national and cultural interest of France. Whether or not this is an accurate assessment of the French intelligence analysis, I believe it to be an accurate representation of the basic paradigm shift represented by the Occupy Wall Street movement, and whatever it may have transformed into at present, namely, the perception that the roots of globaloneyism are in the international business class; their own publications have emphasized that they want a borderless (and hence, culture-less) world in which to conduct business and transact freely. It sounds nice, but the reality of it is that it means everything is oriented only for profit, and anything standing in the way of that – religion, culture, family, ethnicity, sex, you name it – must be weakened and destroyed. And such cultural expressions as freedom are also a threat. The cultural and political commentator Dr Steve Turley sums up this whole approach – of both sides – with the very apt aphorism: Globalism is not a civilization, it’s a system, and that is ultimately why it is rapidly losing its appeal. It’s merely the “businessman’s” version of Communism, with all its international pretentions and aspirations.

The cancel culture has emerged from this whole approach, and we’re seeing examples recently with Paypal’s sudden announcement that if you used their service and espoused “views” they didn’t like, they’d fine you $2500.00.  Paypal’s stock quickly suffered, with the company backtracking a bit, but nonetheless, a corporation had arrogated to itself the right to decide what you think, and to fine you if you didn’t think appropriately: welcome to the world of the World Economic Forum, the world of BIS chief Augustin Carstens, the world of der Hochklaus von Blohschwab, of Baal Gates, George Soros… of SPECTRE.

Now apparently JP Morgan Chase has cancelled the checking account of a religious charity for being… well, a religious charity that they apparently don’t like:

JP Morgan Cancels Religious Nonprofit’s Checking Account, Demands Donor List as Condition for Reconsideration

The charity is headed by former Republican US Senator Sam Brownback from Kansas, who noted:

In a post at Restoring America, Brownback, a former Republican U.S. senator and governor from Kansas, said that CCRF is “diverse” and “bipartisan,” and represents “people from every faith and walk of life. Its Advisory Board, he noted, “includes members who are Christian, Hindu, Jewish, Latter-Day Saints, and Muslim.”

Worse, Chase gave Brownback and the charity no real explanation as to why the account was closed:

To this day, the NCRF does not have a clear reason as to why our account was closed after only three weeks. We certainly hadn’t made any transactions in that short amount of time that would have triggered any regulatory red flags.

Brownback said that he was “shocked and surprised” to learn that “someone from Chase eventually reached out to our executive director and informed him that it would be willing to reconsider doing business with the NCRF if we would provide our donor list, a list of political candidates we intended to support, and a full explanation of the criteria by which we would endorse and support those candidates.”

He argued that the demands for “this type of information” was “entirely inappropriate,” and unfortunately, not the first time a religious organization “has found itself facing sudden and unexplained account closures.”

Oh… we’ll reconsider doing business with you, just supply us your donor list!

Or to put that point differently: tell us everyone you associate with, and we might allow you to have an account.

That, folks, is tyranny… and let’s remember, it’s a Rockefailure bank.

You might want to think about this for a moment:

JP Morgan Fines and Penalties paid since 2000

And just in case you didn’t look closely:

Current Parent Company Name: JPMorgan Chase
Ownership Structure: publicly traded (ticker symbol NYSE: JPM)
Headquartered in: New York
Major Industry: financial services
Specific Industry: banking & securities
Penalty total since 2000: $36,129,269,434
Number of records: 222

TOP 5 OFFENSE GROUPS (GROUPS DEFINED)	PENALTY TOTAL	NUMBER OF RECORDS
financial offenses	$26,619,328,020	112
consumer-protection-related offenses	$6,363,346,750	37
competition-related offenses	$1,855,919,125	13
government-contracting-related offenses	$614,000,000	1
employment-related offenses	$521,399,028	45

TOP 5 PRIMARY OFFENSE TYPES	PENALTY TOTAL	NUMBER OF RECORDS
toxic securities abuses	$13,459,785,714	7
investor protection violation	$6,212,471,206	75
mortgage abuses	$5,362,675,000	5
banking violation	$4,262,350,341	14
anti-money-laundering deficiencies	$2,161,000,000	2

That small local credit union is looking better and better… maybe it’s time to start cancelling the cancellers. No one wants Communism, and by the same token, no one wants corporatism and its version of soulless tyranny either.  The old bailout adage has it that some banks are just “too big to fail.” I think the lesson is that some are just too big to function efficiently and within the law.

See you on the flip side…

Connect with Joseph P. Farrell

cover image credit: Clkr-Free-Vector-Images

Meet Elon Musk, Technocractic Huckster 

by James Corbett, The Corbett Report
October 17, 2022

Elon Musk is back in the headlines again (not that he ever really went away). He’s going to save free speech on Twitter (honest)! He’s going to end the war on Ukraine (that he supported with Starlink)! He’s going to give Taiwan to the Chinese (and not just because of Tesla’s Shanghai factory)! Yes, Elon Musk is a WEF Young Global Leader and a self-promoting charlatan who would have amounted to absolutely nothing without unrelenting support from government and his globalist pals, and he is the next white hat saviour that is being set up to mislead the masses with their next hopium fix. But as James peels back the layers of this technocratic huckster, you’ll find that it’s even worse than that . . .

Watch on Archive / BitChute / Odysee / Rokfin / Rumble / Substack / Download the mp4

Documentation

Connect with James Corbett

Predictive Programming, HG Wells and the Clash of Two Creativities

by Matthew Ehret, Matt Ehret’s Insights
October 17, 2022

In this interview conducted in January 2021 with Patrick Timpone on One News Network, I details the historical precedents of the Orwellian paradigm threatening to undermine the nation state system and broader multipolar alliance. Special focus is given to the often overlooked matter of cultural warfare and the new techniques in predictive programming in the field of science fiction innovated by HG Wells which shaped the zeitgeist for over 120 years and continues to shape popular culture and cinema to this day.

[Video available at Canadian Patriot 1776 & Patrick Timpone BitChute channels.]

Topics Covered:

What are the roots of the Great Reset?

What was H.G. Wells’ connection to British eugenicists Julian Huxley and Leonard Huxley?

Why was The British Empire’s Round Table Movement such an important tool of Anglo-Saxon globalism?

How was World War 2 just act 2 of World War 1? aka: global division for the profiting of corporations and banking institutions.

Why did the British Empire require a cultural matrix rooted in pessimism?

How are pessimistic movies like Soylent Green and Planet of the Apes products of a deliberate global divide-and-conquer strategy?

How is dystopian science fiction different from the optimistic world of Jules Verne, who was happy with technology as long as it included morality?

Connect with Matthew Ehret

See related:

H.G. Wells’ Dystopic Vision Comes Alive With the Great Reset Agenda

Matthew Ehret – H.G. Wells’ Dystopic Vision Comes Alive With the Great Reset Agenda; How Darwinism Took Over the World – January 5, 2021

C.S. Lewis vs H.G. Wells: A Journey out of the Deep Black Void (and Invitation to lecture #2)

People Strike Back Against Paypal & Important Info on Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDC):  “This Is the Key Issue for the Human Species at This Time.”

“The Changeover of the World Monetary Paradigm Is Happening Right Under Our Nose.”

by James Corbett, The Corbett Report, with James Evan Pilato, Media Monarchy
October 13, 2022

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 / Substack or Download the mp4

Story #1: Ground-Breaking SWIFT Innovation Paves Way For Global Use Of CBDCs

https://www.yahoo.com/now/ground-breaking-swift-innovation-paves-083000949.html

Connecting Digital Islands: Paving The Way For Global Use Of CBDCs, Tokenised Assets

https://www.swift.com/news-events/news/connecting-digital-islands-paving-way-global-use-cbdcs-and-tokenised-assets

US House Committee Turn To DoJ For CBDC Development As SWIFT Resolves Cross-Border Transfer Hurdle

https://www.fxstreet.com/cryptocurrencies/news/us-house-committee-turn-to-doj-for-cbdc-development-as-swift-resolves-cross-border-transfer-hurdle-202210060022

China, Russia Creating “Alternate” Banking System

https://www.corbettreport.com/china-and-russia-creating-alternate-banking-system/

Story #2: PayPal Backtracks On Fining Users For “Misinformation,” Calls It An “Error”

https://reclaimthenet.org/paypal-backtracks-on-fining-users-for-misinformation/

PayPal Stock “Fined” 6% After Flood Of Users Cancel Over $2,500 ‘Misinformation’ Debacle

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/paypal-stock-fined-6-after-flood-users-cancel-over-2500-misinformation-debacle

Corbet Report: Membership

https://www.corbettreport.com/members/

Story #3: Vermont Town Employee Quietly Lowered The Fluoride In Water For Years

https://www.npr.org/2022/10/08/1127681843/fluoride-lowered-vermont-town-richmond

French Gen. Praises Unjabbed Citizens: “You Embody The Best Of Humanity, You Are Superheroes”

https://newspunch.com/french-general-praises-unjabbed-citizens-you-embody-the-best-of-humanity-you-are-superheroes/

Corbett Report Search: “Fluoride”

https://www.corbettreport.com/?s=fluoride

Media Monarchy Search: “Fluoride”

https://www.mediamonarchy.com/?s=fluoride

“Does Corbett have an alternative to Paypal that works internationally?”

https://www.corbettreport.com/the-story-of-the-century-just-broke-and-no-one-noticed/#comment-141036

The New World Next Week Store

https://newworldnextweek.com/

Become a member of Corbett Report (https://corbettreport.com/members) and Media Monarchy (https://mediamonarchy.com/join) to help support independent media.

Connect with The Corbett Report

Torturing the Truth

by James Corbett, The Corbett Report
October 10, 2022

We all know that torture is bad, but are we really aware of how much of the narrative of the past two decades was constructed on torture testimony? Do we know the CIA contractors who developed the torture program or the steps that the intelligence agencies took to cover up their illegal activities? And, when we connect the dots, are we prepared to face the parallels between the torture regime and the biosecurity regime? If you haven’t followed the twists and turns in the torture story since my 2008 podcast on the subject, buckle up. It’s going to be a wild ride.



Watch on Archive / BitChute / Odysee / Substack or Download the mp4

Connect with James Corbett

Tracked and Traced: The Rise of the Digital Beast

by Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms
Octover 2, 2022

 [Original video available at Justice Centre Rumble channel.]

Do you want to live in a country where Digital ID is a prerequisite for access to essential private and public services? Do you want your physical and financial behaviors to be tracked by governments and corporations? Do you want the government to be able to freeze your bank accounts at the flick of a switch?

Canadians must participate in the conversation about how Canadian governments and businesses ought to use Digital ID. The first step is to become informed about Digital ID and the Charter.

Connect with Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms

Truth Comes to Light editor’s notes:

Excerpt from speech by Christine Anderson, German Member of European Parliament

The majority of MEPs, for whatever reasons unbeknown to me, obviously support oppression of the people, while claiming shamelessly to do it for the people’s own good.

But it is not the goal that renders the system oppressive. It is always the methods by which the goal is pursued.

Whenever government claims to have the people’s interest at heart, you need to think again. In the entire history of mankind there has never been a political elite sincerely concerned about the well-being of regular people.

Always question everything any government does.

Let’s be clear about one thing. No one grants me freedom; for I am a free person.

It violates constitutionally-guaranteed fundamental rights and it constitutes the first step towards the insufferable Chinese social credit system.

Excerpt from speech by Frederik “Freek” Jansen, Member of the House of Representatives, Netherlands

Imagine, with one button press, that your access to social media can be denied because you spread ‘fake news’. Your driver’s license invalidated because you drive an environmentally unfriendly car. Your plane ticket canceled because you’ve emitted too much CO2. Denied access to public transport because you are unvaccinated.

It may sound unrealistic, but it will all be possible shortly. After all, in June 2021 the European Commission announced plans for a European Digital Identity.

This European Digital ID is an app that saves your personal data centrally. It’s more than a supposed online passport — the EU will have access to your banking information, driving license, diplomas, tax data, social media accounts, eye color, fingerprint and facial features. This is mentioned by the letter from the Secretary of State.

Based on this data, governments and companies can provide or deny access to their products and services. For now, this is supposedly voluntary. But we all know how the Covid QR code turned out. If you don’t have one, your freedom is removed.

Excerpt from video clip by Christian Westbrook, Ice Age Farmer

Iran is said to be the first country to roll out a biometric digital ID needed in order to buy food. Needed in order to eat. Right? Needed. In order to survive, you must go get your digital ID from the government. The same digital ID that central banks are telling us are needed in order to roll out the central bank digital currencies.

In two months citizens will be given digital coupons that will give access to a small number of subsidized bread purchases.

Now you can call it digital coupons all you want. What this describes is limiting people to a small number of bread purchases at affordable prices. The bottom line is people aren’t going to eat unless they go to the government and get these digital biometric cards.

It’s planning to expand to cover other foods too. It is the wet dream of technocrats. They don’t want you to eat meat. That’s the bottom line here.

A lot of the agenda that’s described by the Great Reset, the fourth industrial revolution, is being wrapped up in assistance to hungry people — because that’s how they’re ramming this agenda through.

We’re gonna cause a tremendous run up in food prices. When people can’t afford to eat, we will offer them food tied to the exact system of slavery that we’ve been wanting to roll out.

This is a classic problem-reaction-solution, a galleon dialectic played out using the most potent form of controlling people.

As Henry Kissinger said ‘if you control food, you control people’.

The most important part is that that is their goal. It’s to get everyone tracked and traced and tied in. That’s why we have satellites in the sky watching us called climate tracing. That’s why we have biobots in our sewers sampling the waste water to know what we’re eating. They’ve announced these things. They said it wasn’t just for pandemic detection it was for monitoring diets.

The clip above about Iran’s Digital Food Rationing was taken from the excellent work by Christian Westbrook, Ice Age Farmer. See that video here:



Connect with Ice Age Farmer

[“Tracked and Traced” video mirrored at TCTL Odysee, BitChute and Brighteon channels.]

©2022 Truth Comes to Light. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is granted, provided full credit and a live link are given.

cover image credit: PixxlTeufel

“Green” Energy Is a Scam. It Isn’t MEANT to Work.

by James Corbett
September 24, 2022

Good news, everybody! A new report from the eggheads at Oxford University assures us that switching to renewables will actually save us trillions of dollars!

You heard that right. It won’t cost us trillions of dollars to build out a completely new global energy grid infrastructure based on technology that is still under development and then switch the entire global economy onto it. No, don’t be silly! It’s going to save us trillions of dollars. TRILLIONS, I tell you!

Now, I know what some of you skeptical Corbett Reporteers out there are thinking: how can that be? After all, as The Manhattan Contrarian blog points out in a recent post on the “Cost of the Green Energy Transition,” the disruption to the European gas supply caused by the Ukraine kerfuffle is already wreaking havoc on Europe’s economy, with Germans bracing for a 13% rise in their regulated consumer gas bills this year and UK residents facing a near tripling of their own energy bills. And that’s before the Great Resetters start shutting off the pipes for real and forcing the hoi polloi on to the wind/solar/unicorn fart “green” energy grid.

But why believe the actual economic pain you’re experiencing (heating your own home this winter) when your Oxfordian overlords have big, fat reports (that no one will read) telling you how much money will be saved by switching over to a green energy grid? After all, the BBC and MSN and Nature World News are tripping all over themselves to repeat these findings unquestioningly, so who are you to bring up any of the pesky “facts” that contradict this comforting fairy tale?

Oh, OK, I’ll drop the act. The latest Oxford study—along with the many similar pronouncements made in recent years that the transition onto the green energy grid will be painless (or even profitable)—is easily debunkable propaganda. But it is pernicious propaganda. It’s designed to get the plebes to actively embrace their own enslavement in the name of saving Mother Earth, and—up to this point—it has been remarkably effective in that goal.

In truth, the green energy sustainable enslavement grid is a scam from top to bottom. But it is not simply a pie-in-the-sky pipe dream being sold to a gullible and ignorant public. It’s worse than that. It is a carefully crafted lie that is designed to lead us into our new role as serfs on the neofeudal plantation in the coming green dystopia.

Want to know the details? Let’s dig in.

The Green Energy Myth

I don’t know if you’ve been paying attention these last few decades, but the usual cadre of crimatologists, “activists,” sustainable enslavement-pushing banksters and corrupt politicians are desperately trying to sell the public on the idea that windmills, solar panels and unicorn farts are a magical pixie dust capable of transforming the human population from greedy, fat-cat crapitalists raping the planet for fun and profit into peace-loving, Kumbaya communists living in perfect harmony with nature.

Believe it or not, they’re lying!

Take the latest Oxford study I referred to above, for instance. Bearing the title “Empirically grounded technology forecasts and the energy transition,” it starts by simply assuming the truth of the fundamental lie that the entire green myth is constructed upon: “Rapidly decarbonizing the global energy system is critical for addressing climate change.”

This is, of course, not true, as I have demonstrated time and time and time and time and time and time and time again. (And again and again and again and again.)

But, after simply stating this bald-faced lie as fact, the Oxfordian boffins then have the gall to urinate on your face and tell you it’s raining: “Compared to continuing with a fossil fuel-based system, a rapid green energy transition will likely result in overall net savings of many trillions of dollars—even without accounting for climate damages or co-benefits of climate policy.”

As always, I encourage you to read the report for yourself to see how they fabricate the so-called “evidence” for this surprising “conclusion”—though I’m sure you can imagine most of their tricks before you even open the link. First, they abuse blatantly bias-prone models to “estimate” (read: make up) future energy system costs, which, they freely admit, “will change with time due to innovation, competition, public policy, concerns about climate change, and other factors.”

Then, after gazing into their magical crystal ball and seeing whatever they want to see with regard to future costs, they use “probabilistic methods” to “view energy pathways through the lens of placing bets on technologies.” I kid you not, this “empirically grounded” and totally “scientific” study tells us, in effect, that if we’re betting men we should put all our chips on green . . . “green” energy, that is. Go on, read it for yourself.

But here’s the rub: these types of “scientific” studies only come off as believable to the most credulous Joe Sixpacks and Jane Soccermoms out there, the type who get their news from CNN and believe everything Al Gore tells them. These pithy platitudes promising perfectly painless energy transitions—even when they are dressed up in the language of empiricism and bear the imprimatur of Oxford University—are not credible in the least to anyone with a technical background in these areas.

Indeed, the Oxford study and similar utopian predictions of green energy transitions rely on a stream of untenable assumptions and faulty logic. For example, as Manhattan Contrarian points out in his blog post on “Cost of the Green Energy Transition,” the Oxford researchers take the downward price trend of lithium-ion (li-ion) batteries over the past two decades and extrapolate those figures out based on the assumption that they will continue falling indefinitely without limit. As the study even explicitly says, “We know of no empirical evidence supporting floor costs [on green technology deployment] and do not impose them.”

This is so certifiably insane it’s difficult to know where to begin. First, let’s interrogate the actual economic argument here, shall we?

The researchers tip their hand when they show the current (2020) price of li-ion batteries as being about $100/kWh and “forecast” that it will drop to about $20/kWh by 2050. In actuality, the 2020 price for such batteries is (according to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory) about $350/kWh (see Figure ES-2), and those prices are predicted to drop to about $150/kWh by 2050. If that forecast is accurate, the actual 2050 price for li-ion batteries would still be 50% higher than the “current” price used in the Oxford study model.

The discrepancy between these figures, Manhattan Contrarian points out, “appears to lie mainly in elements of a real-world battery installation other than the core battery itself, like a building to house it, devices to convert AC to DC and back, grid connections, ‘balance of plant,’ and so forth.” In other words, the study’s authors didn’t look in any way at the real-world cost of actually installing, connecting, using and maintaining these batteries; they simply looked at the raw cost of the battery itself and ignored the rest.

This methodology becomes even more problematic when you learn that Energy & Environmental Science actually published a study in 2018 estimating the real-world cost of installing and running a lithium-ion battery storage system capable of handling a US energy grid that ran on 80% wind and solar. Their conclusion? It would cost a staggering $2.5 trillion to get such a system up and running! Oddly, the Oxford study doesn’t take these costs into account at all. They just tell you that the battery price will fall to $20/kWh and leave it at that.

And what of the materials required to construct these lithium-ion batteries and solar panels and windmills and other green energy components? In case you were under the impression that the components for these technologies just magically materialized out of fairy dust in an environmentally-friendly way and then disappeared back into the ether after these installations break down, here’s a 72-minute reality check from Simon Michaux, an associate professor of geometallurgy at the Geological Survey of Finland, in which he argues that:

The quantity of metal required to make just one generation of renewable tech units to replace fossil fuels, is much larger than first thought. Current mining production of these metals is not even close to meeting demand. Current reported mineral reserves are also not enough in size. Most concerning is copper as one of the flagged shortfalls. Exploration for more at required volumes will be difficult, with this seminar addressing these issues.

Perhaps this is why, in point of fact, lithium prices are surging right now, with prices tripling in the last year in places like China, not plummeting as the Oxford study predicts.

But the green energy myth goes well beyond the argument from economic impracticality.

It isn’t just that, in direct contradiction to the hogwash put out by the Oxford researchers and their ilk, such a transition will not save us trillions of dollars but actually cost us trillions of dollars.

And it isn’t just that—as country after country after country is now finding out—the transition to green energy production is pushing people further into poverty as they struggle to pay their increasing energy bills.

It’s not even that the green energy transition is provably already putting a strain on power grids that are struggling to keep up with electricity demand.

It’s that these “green” energy systems are not really green at all. In fact, wide-scale implementation of these renewable power technologies is actively harmful to the environment.

Take those lithium-ion batteries we examined earlier. The lithium for these batteries comes from a mining process that is wreaking untold havoc on habitats around the world. In Chile, for example, a full 65% of the water in the region surrounding the Salar de Atacama salt flat is being consumed by lithium miners, who require 500,000 gallons of water for every tonne of lithium produced. And in Tibet, a toxic chemical leak from a lithium mine caused a mass die-off of fish and livestock in a nearby villlage, sparking mass protests.

And that’s to say nothing about the bevy of toxic materials found in solar panels that leach into the environment and will eventually need to be disposed of. Or the long-known fact that wind turbines “take a toll on birds,” contributing to hundreds of thousands of avian deaths every year in the US alone. Or the oft-neglected environmental destruction that will come from clearing the millions of acres of land that will be required to run the solar and wind farms of the Oxfordians increasingly dystopian vision.

Are you starting to get the picture?

Yes, there is much more that could (and should!) be written about the green energy myth, but let’s boil it down to a soundbite for those poor souls suffering from today’s short attention span: So-called “green” energy is not about saving the planet. It’s about controlling the planet.

The Green Energy Reality

I realize a certain portion of the population—having been programmed by half a century of over-the-top, anti-human propaganda—will have a single, predictable, knee-jerk reaction to anyone deconstructing the green energy myth: “You must be a Big Oil shill!”

It’s particularly funny when the accusation is leveled at me, since I literally wrote the documentary on How Big Oil Conquered the World.

But even more to the point, I wrote the documentary on Why Big Oil Conquered the World, and those who have seen that documentary will know that the greatest trick the oligarchy ever pulled was convincing the public that all they were concerned with was oil. As those who delve deeply into the subject inevitably discover, the takeover of the world by these well-connected oiligarchs wasn’t about oil at all. It was about power.

This is precisely why the Rockefellers have divested from oil and why Saudi Arabia is trying to pivot to their robot citizens and Neom nonsense and why BP and Exxon and all the other members of the oiligarchy are setting “net zero” pledges. It’s because the green energy system of the future (and thus the global economy that relies on it) will be even more strictly controlled in the future, and those who are bringing this controlled, technocratic slave state of the future into reality are seeking to monopolize and control the resources of the earth.

To understand what is really happening here, we have to look past the low-level green energy propaganda that is meant for the fluoride-addled normies to lap up and look to the higher-level propaganda that is intended to bring the New World Order middle management up to speed on the new power paradigm. As usual, there’s no better place to turn for precisely that type of propaganda than the pages of Foreign Affairs, the journal of the Council on Foreign Relations. In a recent article on “The Green Upheaval,” they plainly admit what the green energy push is really about: “Talk of a smooth transition to clean energy is fanciful: there is no way that the world can avoid major upheavals as it remakes the entire energy system, which is the lifeblood of the global economy and underpins the geopolitical order.”

No, the green energy transition is not going to be a happy clappy cakewalk into a fantasy future, as the activists promise. And that particular rainbow will not lead to a multi-trillion dollar pot of gold, as the Oxfordians promise. What it will do is radically upend the lives and livelihoods of every person on the planet by taking away the one thing that has done more than anything else in all of human history to empower the population to proclaim their independence from the oligarchs: access to cheap energy.

Yes, the renewable energy grid will utterly fail to provide the energy needed to power our modern postindustrial society. That’s precisely the point. By making energy even more scarce, those with their hands on the energy spigot will have the ultimate control over society, deciding when, where and how to allocate scarce energy supplies to the public. Europeans who are wondering how they will be able to afford to heat their homes and businesses this winter are just starting to understand what this new “green” economy will really look like for those on the lower rungs of the economic ladder.

It is not difficult to discern the contours of the world that these energy transition advocates are driving us towards. It is a world in which all of the things we take for granted—the ability to travel freely, to buy and sell independently, to heat our own homes and even to turn on a lightbulb—will be privileges carefully rationed by our neofeudal overlords.

Think you’ll be able to control the thermostat in your own home once the new economic overlords have their “smart” “green” energy grid in place? Think again.

Think you’ll be able to eat as you normally do once the green mafia is in power? Think again.

Think you’ll be able to use your hard-earned digital energy credits to buy whatever you like or travel wherever you want in the technocratic tyranny of the future? Think again.

Welcome to the Green Leap Forward, where you will own nothing, live in a hovel, face the possibility of freezing to death every winter and struggle to make ends meet . . . but you’ll be happy! After all, you’ll be allowed to eat ze bugs and use the energy ration that the global government doles out for you each day. And if that’s not enough, then you can keep warm by vigorously patting yourself on the back for helping protect humanity from the wrath of the weather gods. You’re saving the earth!

Where We Go From Here

If you’re here reading these words, then perhaps you already know where the green energy myth is taking us. You know about the Great Reset and Agenda 2030 and the push for a global technocracy.

You probably even know precisely how they’re going to convince the public to go along with this insanity. You know about the “green” propaganda and the “sustainable development” scam, and you know that the climate scam will be the cornerstone for the global carbon tax that will be the backbone of the de facto global government.

Perhaps you take hope from the resistance to this green enslavement agenda that is taking shape around the world. Perhaps you take comfort seeing the Dutch farmers and the Sri Lankan farmers and the Argentinian farmers and the Irish farmers and their farmer friends around the globe rising up. Perhaps you take heart knowing that, with so many livelihoods being threatened by this sick, anti-human agenda, the agenda will be derailed. Or perhaps you take pity on the slumbering masses who are finally starting to rise in protest on the streets of Prague and Leipzig and London.

The slumbering masses are awakening!

I, too, think that these movements are, overall, a positive development . . .

. . . but by themselves they are not enough. What are the farmers protesting for, after all? The right to dump glyphosate and other toxic chemicals on their GMO crops? And what are energy price protesters hoping to accomplish, exactly? Are they merely demanding that the government step in with more subsidies and price controls to ease the economic burden of the oh-so-necessary green energy transition?

No, unless and until we start confronting this myth at its roots, we will continue to plunge headlong into the dystopic nightmare of the Great Resetters and their ilk.

Yes, we do need an alternative energy system to power the economy of free humanity. We do need to abandon the system that chains our economic livelihood to the whims of the oil cartel and puts us at the mercy of the government-sanctioned energy cartel. We do need a decentralized system that takes advantage of every technological development for creating and storing our own power, so we can truly get off the grid.

But that is not what is being sold to us in the name of the green energy hoax. The pushers of the Agenda 2030 nightmare do not want us to be independent and free; they want us to be even more tightly controlled and surveilled than before.

Green energy is a scam. It has nothing to do with saving the planet. It has everything to do with artificially limiting our access to power and thus making the population more dependent than ever on the oligarchs and their systems of control. We must reject this racket, and all of the pseudoscientific nonsense that is being used to push it on the public.

Spread the word. That’s how you can really save the planet.

Connect with James Corbett

cover image credit: sonnydelrosario

Government Pushs a “Digital Dollar” So It Can Seize Assets at Will & Enslave Humanity

by Mac Slavo, SHTFplan
September 24, 2022

The digital dollar is the endgame. No matter what side of the political spectrum you fall on, this will be the permanent and inescapable enslavement the ruling classes of the globe desperately need in order to remain in power.

You will own nothing, while a handful of people will own everything. You will exist if they allow it, be stolen from if they don’t like what you said, and be ruled over in a dystopia that makes our current situation pale in comparison.

Collapse Incoming? Pope Francis Orders Holy See to Transfer ALL Assets to Vatican Bank

A “white paper” published on the White House website calls for the creation of a “digital dollar” that, of course, will be controlled by the ruling class.  Much like the Federal Reserve currently has the sole role and responsibility to develop and print fiat currency with which they already control the population to some extent. But the difference here is that if all money was digital, the government and central banks will be one and the same. They could (and would) monitor our bank accounts; monitor all of our transactions; impose barriers to purchases of certain “unfavored” items, and even block access to our money or limit how much of it we could spend.

They will take what they want, and cut off your ability to spend for as long as they want.

“A United States central bank digital currency (CBDC) would be a digital form of the U.S. dollar. While the U.S. has not yet decided whether it will pursue a CBDC, the U.S. has been closely examining the implications of, and options for, issuing a CBDC,” the White House policy paper notes before touting the digital dollar’s “benefits.”

Of course, they’ve decided to pursue this. We all should know by now that they will need to fully control humanity if they expect to remain in power. Hopefully, enough people will see through this and the agenda will fail. “At last year’s Summit for Democracy, President Biden spoke about the importance of using technology ‘to advance democracies to lift people up, not to hold them down.’ If the U.S. launches its own CBDC, it should advance this democratic vision,” the authors wrote.

In a democracy, you’re supposed to get to choose your master and who to serve. That doesn’t make anyone any less a slave.

We had better figure out how to untie against these sociopaths or we face a very bleak future.

Connect with SHTFplan

Synthetic Salvation — On Genomics, Mind Uploads, and the Quest for Immortality

Our elites want to live forever. The rest of us will make for rich compost 

by Joe Allen, Singularity Weekly
September 23, 2022

Fear of death is intrinsic to human life. As our years accumulate, we watch friends and family drop off, one by one, disappearing from our presence and lingering only in memories.

Barring some miracle, divine or otherwise, we’re all soon to follow, down to the sweetest baby ever born.

Unfazed by this horror, the faithful are emboldened by belief in resurrection or reincarnation—a direct participation in the eternal. For religious people, the body is just a vehicle for a transcendent soul. The mystery of death is a rite of passage.

For the materialist, there is only this world, beyond which the dying meet total annihilation. The brain dissolves into black nothingness. Consciousness ends with the Big Zero at the end of our lives. And for all sentient beings, and all memory of our existence, there awaits the Big Zero at the end of the universe.

The cosmos is nothing but atoms and the void. To make matters worse, the atoms are slowly freezing to death.

Wallowing in this trance of sorrow, our elites, and most anybody else, would pay anything to live forever—or just a little longer. Held in thrall by old age, disease, and death, they put faith in biomedical protection racketeers who swear they can keep the Reaper at bay.

Today, it’s the vaxx-addicts and maskholes.

Tomorrow, it’ll be needle-pocked mutants with blinking devices stuck all over them, who pray to AI for a place in the cloud.

Transhumanism offers synthetic salvation through three basic methods—bio longevity, bionic continuity, and digital immortality.

Genomics will stop aging on the cellular level. Bionics will keep the body running with replacement parts. Once artificial intelligence is sufficiently advanced, mind uploads will allow eternal communion with the digital deities whom techies are busy creating.

“I think that there’s a good probability,” the human-reptile hybrid, Jared Kushner, recently said, “that my generation is—hopefully with the advances in science—either the first generation to live forever, or the last generation that’s gonna die.”

A more likely scenario? This is the first generation to merge with the machine, and the last generation to regret it.

Kushner is not alone. Many of our credulous elites, from Wall Street to the World Economic Forum, have been ensnared by a techno-religion. Its unfrocked priests are the scientists and futurists who push radical gene therapies, brain-computer interfaces, and various life-logging gadgets. As the actual technology becomes more and more sophisticated, you can be sure every atheist and his lapsed uncle will fall prey to this cosmic scam.

And for those who can’t afford it? Well, you know, there’s only so much room on the lifeboat.

—

Bio Longevity

In order to cheat death, at least for awhile, the first method is to preserve the body at the cellular level. One proposed line of attack is to correct defective genes and defuse the cell’s innate self-destruct programs. With the discovery of the CRISPR-Cas9 complex in 2012, geneticists now have the power to more easily knock out faulty genes, and even insert new, superior genetic codes.

Joe Biden’s recent executive order, the National Biotechnology and Biomanufacturing Initiative, has slated $2 billion for these “high-risk, high reward” projects to “write circuitry for cells and predictably program biology in the same way in which we write software and program computers.”

There are also less invasive procedures, to be used in conjunction with gene-editing, such as munching vitamins morning, noon, and night, or gaining self-knowledge through Internet of Bodies surveillance devices—wearable trackers which feed every biometric data point into an artificial intelligence system, putting flesh on the bones of your “digital twin.” In theory, the resulting simulation could be used as a reference for targeted gene-editing.

“By preventing 90 percent of medical problems,” Ray Kurzweil wrote in The Singularity is Near, “life expectancy grows to over five hundred years. At 99 percent, we’d be over one thousand years. We can expect that the full realization of the biotechnology and nanotechn

Inspired by this sort of statistical fantasy, Big Tech oligarchs are pouring billions into various life extension laboratories:

• SENS Research Foundation – Co-founded by the transhumanist Aubrey de Grey in 2009, this organization seeks to halt and reverse aging. “No matter what caused a given unit of damage in the first place,” they assure us, “the same regenerative therapeutics can be used to repair it.”
• Altos Labs – Founded by Jeff Bezos and the corporate transhumanist Yuri Milner in 2021, this is a “new biotechnology company focused on cellular rejuvenation programming to restore cell health and resilience, with the goal of reversing disease to transform medicine.”
• Calico Labs  – Acquired by Google in 2015 at the behest of Larry Page and Sergey Brin, this company is focused on “the convergence of biology and technology, coupled with a long-term perspective and funding” with high hopes of “curing death.”
• Methuselah Foundation – Bankrolled by Peter Thiel (along with many other immortality start-ups), this foundation is on a mission to “make 90 the new 50 by 2030.”

And the list goes on and on. By all appearances, billionaires fear death as if hell awaits, and they’ll pay any amount to avoid it. If you’re lucky, you too might add a few years to your life through trickle-down immortality.

Should these gene-therapies and 3D-printed organs fail to keep your carcass shambling along, there are always cryonic doctors who’ll freeze you right before you die, then thaw you out once these transhumanists finally get their shit together.

Alcor Life Extension Foundation, for example, charges $80,000 to freeze your head, and $200,000 for the full body treatment. It’s a small price to pay for a shot at immortality.

—

Bionic Continuity

The second method is to replace failing tissues and organs with mechanical parts. We do this already with pacemakers, prosthetic limbs, cochlear implants, dental implants, deep brain stimulation devices, and flag-raising penile implants. In a real sense, the entire plastic surgery industry—from hair transplants to rubber duck lips to silicone boobs—is a means to stave off our inevitable dissolution, if only on a superficial level.

Transhumanists foresee a day, just over the horizon, when more advanced prosthetics will offer superior functionality—including brain function. We’ll have Swiss Army knives for fingers and versatile artificial genitals, sort of like today’s transgenders, but presumably way better. Any prospective immortal had better hope so.

This cyborg dream was fleshed out in the early 20th century by the Marxist thinker J.D. Bernal. “Already we know the essential electrical nature of nerve impulses,” he wrote in 1929, “it is a matter of delicate surgery to attach nerves permanently to apparatus which will either send messages to the nerves or receive them. And the brain thus connected up continues an existence, purely mental and with very different delights from those of the body, but now perhaps preferable to complete extinction.”

Bernal compared this bionic transformation to the metamorphosis of a butterfly, albeit one with hideous wings. “Apart from such mental development as his increased faculties will demand from him,” he speculated, “he will be physically plastic in a way quite transcending the capacities of untransformed humanity.”

As we hurtle toward this nightmare in the 21st century, futurists claim it’ll soon be possible to model the entire human brain—down to the last electrochemical thought pattern—using artificial intelligence. The transhumanist guru Ray Kurzweil predicts this will be accomplished by 2029. (It’s unclear if that will be early in the year, or just in time for Christmas.)

Following an AI-created digital template, doctors will replace our dying neurons with artificial neurons. Bit by bit, our meat brains will be transformed into a latticework of lightning fast transistors. It’s an upgraded mind-brain that could last forever—so be sure to get a warranty.

Would this mechanical monster still be you, though? The idea is that a pattern is a pattern, and the human “soul” is just a pattern of information. It doesn’t matter what the medium may be. Think of it this way—if you replaced every thread in a sweater, strand by strand, with artificial wool, it would still feel like the same old sweater. Maybe even better.

In a similar manner, many believe your personal consciousness will survive the transition from gray matter to circuitry. This mind-machine merger would be like looking out at the world through your smartphone—forever. You’d hardly notice the difference.

“If you think about replacing the neurons one at a time by prosthetic neurons made of silicon,” explains the philosopher of consciousness and NYU-employed transhumanist, David Chalmers:

Just say I replace ten percent of my brain with silicon chips…do it one at a time, and keep going and keep going…and they interconnect with the other ones in a perfect way. … I think as long as you do it gradually, and replace the neurons one by one, then it’s gonna be like getting prosthetic limbs or [an] artificial heart.

You’re gonna be replacing parts of me, but I’m gonna be present throughout, and I think I could even stay conscious.

Of course, these artificial neurons haven’t been developed yet—not even close—but they will be one day. You’ll see. Have a little faith. Scientists are working hard. It’s a solid investment.

—

Digital Immortality

The third method to attain quasi-eternal life is basically the digital side of bionic continuity. Rather than, or in addition to, replacing neurons with artificial neurons, the mind will be gradually uploaded to a computer, where the patterns of one’s personality can be entombed in perpetuity.

Transhumanists delight in pointing out we’re already doing this. Everyone from toddlers to creaky old codgers is feeding their inner self into Google, Facebook, Amazon, Microsoft, Apple, third-party data vultures, and any intelligence agencies with backdoor access to these companies. Perhaps one day they’ll sell our digital twins back to us so we can inhabit our virtual wraiths.

“Currently, when our human hardware crashes,” Ray Kurzweil wrote, “the software of our lives—our personal ‘mind file’—dies with it. However, this will not continue to be the case when we have the means to store and restore the thousands of trillions of bytes of information represented in the pattern that we call our brains.”

Kurzweil believes injectable nanobots are the key to this uploading process. These microscopic robots will travel through the brain, mapping every neuron and synapse, creating a perfect facsimile of the “soul” in a computer. But there’s more than one way to skin a cat.

As with most transhumanists, Kurzweil was deeply influenced by the Carnegie Mellon roboticist Hans Moravec, who in 1988 described a gruesome uploading procedure now known as the “Moravec Transfer.” Basically, the patient commits suicide by having his or her brain scraped off, like whittling an onion, with each skin copied in silico:

You are fully conscious. The robot surgeon opens your brain case and places a hand on the brain’s surface. This unusual hand bristles with microscopic machinery, and a cable connects it to the mobile computer at your side. …

The surgeon’s hand sinks a fraction of a millimeter deeper into your brain, instantly compensating its measurements and signals for the changed position. The process is repeated for the next layer, and soon a second simulation resides in the computer, communicating with the first and with the remaining original brain tissue.

Layer after layer the brain is simulated, then excavated. Eventually your skull is empty…your mind has been removed from the brain and transferred to a machine.

Some would call this biohorror, but transhumanists revere the “Moravec Transfer” as a pioneering vision of synthetic salvation.

One of Kurzweil’s distinguished disciples, the transgender tech innovator Martine Rothblatt, proposes a kinder, gentler man-machine merger by way of mind-cloning.

“This blessing of emotional and intellectual continuity or immortality,” she (he? whatever) wrote in Virtually Human, “is being made possible through the development of digital clones, or mindclones: software versions of our minds, software-based alter egos, doppelgängers, mental twins.”

In other words, with sufficiently detailed surveillance, our personal data can be processed through artificial intelligence to create a new, more durable “soul” in silico.

“When the body of a person with a mindclone dies,” Rothblatt goes on, “the mindclone will not feel that they have personally died, although the body will be missed in the same ways amputees miss their limbs but acclimate when given an artificial replacement. … The mindclone is to the consciousness and spirit as the prosthetic is to an arm that has lost its hand.”

Having been baptized in electromagnetic waves, you will become your digital ghost, floating forever among the AI angels.

The metaphysics of this process make no sense, but then, why should the transhuman techno-cult be any more realistic than traditional cults? Their delusions would be funny if they weren’t constantly intruding upon our lives through ubiquitous screens and surveillance devices, and blasted into our brains with wall-to-wall propaganda.

“If anything,” Rothblatt conceded in a TED interview, “I’m perhaps a bit of a communicator of activities that are being undertaken by the greatest companies in China, Japan, India, the U.S., Europe.”

You have to wonder if we’ll have social credit scores in heaven.

—

So You Want To Live Forever—Good Luck With That

Humanity is composed of three primary elements—the spiritual, the biological, and the technological. At best, we are eternal souls enshrined in bodies, with exceedingly powerful tools in our hands. At worst, we’re bumbling monkeys in the Machine.

As the materialist worldview erodes our spiritual consciousness, we’re left with nothing but mortal bodies. When God is dead, technology is exalted as the highest power, holding out the promise of free WiFi and synthetic salvation.

The delusion of physical immortality, whether bodily or digital—or both—is capturing our elites’ imaginations. It doesn’t take a mathematical genius to figure out that if they actually managed to live forever, and the planet has finite space and resources, some number of us will have to become compost for their biomechanical gardens.

Personally, I don’t mind the idea of being turned into mulch. That’s the fate of every man and woman ever born. What is eternal will endure.

My fear, writhing deep in my paranoid brain stem, is that our technocratic rulers, sweating over flawed calculations, are willing to huck us into the mulchers long before our time.

God will not be mocked. Nor will Mother Nature. I’m certain that, in the course of time, every billionaire cyborg and half-retarded upload will shuffle off this mortal coil. Unfortunately, I also suspect they’d happily push the rest of us offstage while they do their apocalyptic jig.

Connect with Joe Allen

cover image credit: physic17082002

Leaks Reveal Disgraceful Facebook and FBI Operation Supposedly Purposed to Counter Domestic Terrorism

by Adam Dick, Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity
September 16, 2022

On Thursday, I wrote about a Wednesday Washington Times article detailing allegations by current and former Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agents that FBI agents had been given quotas for investigations of “domestic terrorism” and “white supremacy” related crime. The results included a bunch of FBI agents spinning their wheels on trying to find crimes and criminals where none are, while surveilling and investigating plenty of people critical of government in the process.

Disturbingly, the investigations of these individuals would arise based on the individuals having exercised their right to criticize government. An FBI agent bluntly described the situation in the article: “If they have a Gadsden flag and they own guns and they are mean at school board meetings, that’s probably a domestic terrorist.”

Allegations by Department of Justice officials, reported in a Wednesday New York Post article by Miranda Devine, provide additional information about the FBI’s expansive efforts undertaken in the name of countering domestic terrorism. The allegations relate that Facebook repeatedly provided the FBI with customers’ private conversations in redacted form that the FBI then used to obtain subpoenas to seek more information from Facebook, and which Facebook then provided in spades. “But when the targeted Facebook users were investigated by agents in a local FBI field office, sometimes using covert surveillance techniques, nothing criminal or violent turned up,” the Post article reports.

What kind of people did Facebook turn over to the FBI? The article provides this answer:

The Facebook users whose private communications Facebook had red-flagged as domestic terrorism for the FBI were all ‘conservative right-wing individuals.’

‘They were gun-toting, red-blooded Americans [who were] angry after the election and shooting off their mouths and talking about staging protests. There was nothing criminal, nothing about violence or massacring or assassinating anyone.

‘As soon as a subpoena was requested, within an hour, Facebook sent back gigabytes of data and photos. It was ready to go. They were just waiting for that legal process so they could send it.’

It sure looks like investigation and surveillance targeting individuals due to those individuals’ political views — a disgraceful use of government power.

Connect with Ron Paul Institute

cover image based on creative commons work of Simon

The Right to Be Left Alone

by Judge Andrew Napolitano, Tenth Amendment Center
September 7, 2022

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right to privacy. Like other amendments in the Bill of Rights, it doesn’t create the right; it limits government interference with it. Last week, President Joe Biden misquoted the late Justice Antonin Scalia suggesting that Justice Scalia believed that the Bill of Rights creates rights. As Justice Scalia wrote, referring to the right to keep and bear arms but reflecting his view on the origins of all personal liberty, the Bill of Rights secures rights, it doesn’t create them; it secures them from the government.

Those who drafted the Bill of Rights recognized that human rights are pre-political. They precede the existence of the government. They come from our humanity, and, in the case of privacy, they are reinforced by our ownership or legal occupancy of property.

The idea that rights come from our humanity is called Natural Law theory, which was first articulated by Aristotle in 360 B.C. The natural law teaches that there are aspects of human existence and thus areas of human behavior that are not subject to the government. Aristotle’s views would later be refined by Cicero, codified by Aquinas, explained by John Locke, and woven into Anglo-American jurisprudence by British jurists and American revolutionaries and constitutional framers.

Thus, our rights to think as we wish, to say what we think, to publish what we say, to worship or not, to associate or not, to defend ourselves from crazies and tyrants, to own property, and to be left alone are all hard-wired into our human natures by God, the uncaused cause. Nature is the means through which God passes along His gifts to us. We come about by a biological act of nature, every step of which was ordained by God. His greatest gift to us is life, and He tied that gift to free will. Just as He is perfectly free, so are we.

In exercising our free wills, we employ rights. Rights are claims against the whole world. They don’t require approval of a government or neighbors or colleagues. The same rights exist in everyone no matter their place of birth, and each person exercises them as she or he sees fit. The government should only come into the picture when someone violates another’s natural rights. So, if someone builds a house in your backyard, you can knock it down and expel the builders or you can ask the government to do so.

Suppose the builders haven’t consented to the existence of the government? That does not absolve them. Though government is only moral and legal in a society in which all persons have consented to it — this is Thomas Jefferson’s “consent of the governed” argument in the Declaration of Independence — the only exception to actual consent is the use of government to remedy a violation of natural rights.

Professor Murray Rothbard examined all this under his non-aggression principle (NAP): Initiating or threatening force or deception against a person or his rights is always morally illicit. This applies to all aggression, even — and especially — from the government. The folks building a house in your backyard have either used force or deception to get there. Both violate your natural rights and the NAP.

Now, back to the Fourth Amendment and privacy. In a famous dissent in 1928, which two generations later became the law of the land, the late Justice Louis Brandeis argued that government surveillance constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment and thus, per the express language of the amendment, cannot be conducted by the government without a warrant issued by a judge. He famously called privacy the right most valued by civilized persons and described it as “the right to be let alone.”

Today, this is the most violated of personal rights; not by judges signing search warrants for surveillance, but by government officials — local, state and federal — ignoring and evading the natural right to privacy and pretending that the Fourth Amendment does not apply to them. The linchpin of the amendment is the judicial determination of the existence of probable cause — meaning that it is more likely than not that a crime has been committed, and that there is evidence of that crime in the place to be searched and in the things to be seized.

Today, the feds, and this has been picked up and mimicked by local and state police, have told themselves that so long as they are not looking for evidence of crimes, they needn’t follow the Fourth Amendment.

Today, the government rarely bothers to obtain a search warrant for surveillance because it is cumbersome to do so and because it is so easy to surveil folks on a massive scale without one.

Today, the National Security Administration — America’s 60,000-person strong domestic spying apparatus — captures every keystroke on every desktop and mobile device, and every conversation on every landline and mobile device, and all data transmitted into, out of or within the United States.

Moreover, you’d be hard-pressed to find a geographic area that is not covered by police using hardware that tracks the movement and use of mobile phones. When Edward Snowden passed on to journalists the facts of massive warrantless spying in the Bush and Obama administrations, he had the journalists put their mobile devices where his was — in his refrigerator, as anywhere else would have alerted his former colleagues of their collective whereabouts.

The government spends hundreds of billions of dollars annually just to watch and follow us. Who authorized this? Why do we tolerate a society where we have hired a government to secure our rights and instead it engages in aggression against them?

Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is the senior judicial analyst at Fox News Channel. Judge Napolitano has written seven books on the U.S. Constitution. The most recent is Theodore and Woodrow: How Two American Presidents Destroyed Constitutional Freedom. To find out more about Judge Napolitano and to read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit creators.com.

Connect with Tenth Amendment Center

cover image credit: StockSnap 

Smart Meters: An Intensely Personal Form of Surveillance



The Theft of Your Wealth and Freedom Is Accelerating

by Dr. Joseph Mercola
September 7, 2022

Story At-a-Glance

• Smart meters measure and record electricity usage at least every hour, if not more, and provide the data to the utility company and consumer at least once a day

• The data from smart meters reveal far more than you might think — and could even be used against you to control your individual energy use or, one day, to help ensure “net zero” compliance

• Smart meters do more than measure your energy usage; they’re also capable of distinguishing what type of energy you’re using, such as doing laundry or watching TV

• It’s an intensely personal form of surveillance — one that could easily be used against you, including to scrutinize your energy usage and even ration your energy

• Smart meters should also be avoided because they’re yet another source of electromagnetic fields, which include radio frequencies from smart meters, cellphones and Wi-Fi, and dirty electricity

• If you can, opt out of receiving a smart meter; be aware that you will likely be charged an extortion fee, in the form of one-time and monthly charges, to do so

Many people have embraced the convenience of wireless devices in their homes, but these devices come at a price — your privacy and your health. With each smart device that you welcome to your home — such as connected alarm clocks, vehicles, refrigerators and doorbells — another layer of your personal life is revealed and your health is sabotaged by the EMFs.

This is certainly true of smart meters, which are officially known in the U.S. as advanced metering infrastructure (AMI) installations. In 2020, 102.9 million such smart meters were installed by U.S. electric utilities, about 88% of them in personal residences.¹ AMI meters measure and record electricity usage at least every hour, if not more, and provide the data to the utility company and consumer at least once a day.

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, “AMI installations range from basic hourly interval meters to real-time meters with built-in two-way communication that is capable of recording and transmitting instantaneous data.”²

What could be wrong with transmitting every last detail about your real-time energy usage to an energy company? Those data reveal far more than you might think — and could even be used against you to control your individual energy use or, one day, to help ensure “net zero” compliance.

Smart Meters Aren’t There for Your Benefit

Before smart meters were widely available, your electricity usage was recorded by a meter reader, who would visit your property once a month and manually record your energy usage. Now, this data is tracked at hourly or half-hour intervals, which energy companies are billing as a way to save you, the customer, money. The U.K.’s Shell Energy, which describes smart meters as “the future of energy,” notes:³

“Smart meters bring a whole host of benefits: they’ll tell you how much you’re spending in real time, which means there are no nasty surprises when your bill turns up … But, perhaps best of all, smart meters give you real-time information on your energy use.

They let you know exactly how much it’s costing you to boil that kettle or charge your phone. Armed with this knowledge, you can make a more informed decision about whether to turn up the heating, or put another load in the tumble dryer.

… Smart meters are set to revolutionize the way we use electricity. They make it easier for suppliers like us to offer cheaper, off-peak rates for, say, charging your electric car. They tell us more about how you use your energy, which means we can offer you more suitable tariffs. It may be that, one day, you’re offered cheaper electricity on sunny or windy days, when clean energy is easier to come by.”

Smart Energy International also describes Comarch’s smart metering systems as a solution for “remote and automatic measurement of media consumption.” Note that their smart meters once only measured electricity and now are available for other utilities, including water, gas and heat, “the consumption of which should be constantly monitored.”⁴

Using the tactic of manufacturing fear, they spin smart meters as a necessity so that energy companies can keep close tabs on consumption and step in when needed:⁵

“A whole new era of readings has come. Smart metering systems provide companies in the utilities sector with the ability to monitor media supply networks and efficiently respond to current events. Data can be obtained even from meters that are difficult to access and those located at long distances from each other. They are sent periodically, informing the end-user about the reading, transmission data, and possible failures and errors.

This makes it possible to send teams almost immediately where they are needed at any given time. All this is to respond as quickly as possible if a problem arises.”

If They Control the Energy, They Control You

The technocratic elite, including both BlackRock CEO Larry Fink and Bill Gates, are pushing for “net zero” carbon emissions.⁶ While BlackRock is busy buying up houses, Gates is hard at work amassing farmland and is now the largest owner of farmland in the U.S.⁷

Gates is pushing for drastic, fundamental changes by 2030, including widespread consumption of fake meat, adoption of next generation nuclear energy and growing a fungus as a new type of nutritional protein.⁸ The deadline Gates has given to reach net zero emissions is 2050,⁹ and smart meters are already being positioned as an essential part of this plan. According to Shell Energy:¹⁰

“Indeed, the government considers smart meters key to the UK cutting its emissions and reaching net-zero by 2050. The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy has worked out that, if we all switch to smart meters, the UK can knock 45 million tonnes off its carbon emissions — the equivalent of taking 26 million cars off the road for a year.”

But according to many experts, including Vandana Shiva, new conditionalities are being created through net zero “nature-based” solutions in order to force the world to accept a new food and agricultural system, along with a new wave of colonization in the name of sustainability. Navdanya’s report, “Earth Democracy: Connecting Rights of Mother Earth to Human Rights and Well-Being of All,” explains:¹¹

“… ‘Net Zero’ is a new strategy to get rid of small farmers … through the burden of fake carbon accounting. Carbon offsets and the new accounting trick of ‘net zero’ does not mean zero emissions. It means the rich polluters will continue to pollute and also grab the land and resources of those who have not polluted — indigenous people and small farmers — for carbon offsets.”

In other words, the elite will continue to consume resources as always, including indulgences like polluting private jets, but will be able to purchase carbon credits to offset the emissions they create.¹² Meanwhile, the average person will face increasing scrutiny of their energy usage, to the point that it may one day be rationed in the name of “climate compliance.”

Will Smart Meters Be Used to Ration Energy Use?

Smart meters do more than measure your energy usage. They’re also capable of distinguishing what type of energy you’re using. So they know if you’re doing a load of laundry, watching TV or have left your home for the day. While this might not sound nefarious on the surface, it’s an intensely personal form of surveillance — one that could easily be used against you, including to ration your energy. Journalist Abby Martin explains:¹³

“If the notion about what you are doing and when you are doing isn’t disturbing enough — it’s worse. These devices are capable of regulating, controlling and even rationing your energy use. Take this example, you are running your fans in the hot summer months and the power company decides you are using too much power, they will take it upon themselves to lower it regardless of the consumer willing to pay for the extra usage.

A point to consider is what these companies will do with this information. Once this is shared with law enforcement, it can and it will be used against you. Cops will be able to know what you are doing in the privacy of your own home.

Secondly these companies can sell this information of our daily lives for data mining and advertising. It is disturbing at so many levels but these little surveillance units are being implemented across the country without the public’s consent and in many cases without their knowledge of being installed.”

It’s Time to ‘Think the Unthinkable’

It’s unthinkable that the powers that be could be intent on increasing surveillance and control, to the point that even your energy usage is under their thumb, but as GBNews host Neil Oliver put it in the video above, it’s time to “think the unthinkable”:¹⁴

“People raised to trust the powers that be, who have assumed, like I once did, that the state, regardless of its political flavor at any given moment, is essentially benevolent and well meaning, will naturally try to keep that assumption of benevolence in mind to make sense of what’s going on around them.

People like us, you and me, raised in the understanding that we are free, that we have inalienable rights and that the institutions of this country have our best interests at heart will tend to tie ourselves in knots rather than contemplate the idea those authorities may actually be working against us now.

… We are no longer being treated as individuals entitled to make the most of our lives, but as a barn full of battery hens — just another product to be bought and sold, sold down the river … treat yourself to the gift of understanding that the powers that be fully intend we should have less heat and less fuel, and that in the planned future only the rich will have cars anyway. The plan is not to fix it. The plan is to break it and leave it broken.

… If net zero and the rest was about the good of the planet and not about clearing the beaches and skies of scum like us, don’t you think those sainted politicians and A-listers would be lighting the way for us by their own example?”

Another Problem With Smart Meters — EMFs

Even if you put aside the surveillance and privacy issues and their potential for abuse, smart meters should be avoided because they’re yet another source of electromagnetic fields, which include radio frequencies from smart meters, cellphones and Wi-Fi. Smart meters also have the additional challenge of emitting dirty electricity which consists of transient voltage spikes as a result of switching mode power supplies. Adverse health effects linked to these EMF exposures include:¹⁵

• Excess oxidative stress
• Opening your blood-brain barrier, allowing toxins to enter your brain
• DNA damage and altered microbiome
• Impaired proton flow and ATP production
• Altered cellular function due to excessive charge

One way to reduce your exposure is to refuse smart meters as long as you can. Note that some states already prohibit opt-outs while others allow them but will charge you an extortion fee, in the form of one-time and monthly charges, to do so. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures:¹⁶

“In almost every case, customers who elect to opt-out of smart meter installation are charged to do so — often through a one-time “set-up fee,” followed by monthly fees associated with the cost of sending out meter-readers. The fees can vary considerably. A utility in Rhode Island charges a one-time fee of $27, while a Texas utility’s one-time fee is $171. The monthly fees range from around $9 to $32.”

If you can afford to do so, opting out will protect both your privacy and your health from this unnecessary intrusion. Alternatively, you can shield the meters with kits available online but those will not reduce the dirty electricity produced by the meters.

Connect with Dr. Joseph Mercola

cover image:  Smart Meter photo & Cellnet UtiliNet – Smart Utility Meter in Minneapolis, Minnesota

Who’s an Obedient Boy?

Big Tech wants to know everything about you, and use it against you.

by Jeremy Nell, Jerm Warfare
September 6, 2022

Connect with Jerm (Jeremy Nell)

Sinister-Looking, Facial-Recognition CCTV Cameras Quietly Installed Across Britain in Recent Months

It looks like a street lamp in a leafy London road… but this is actually a Chinese-made facial recognition camera – one of millions of sinister-looking CCTV cameras quietly installed across Britain in recent months

• Cameras made by a chinese-state affiliated company have been installed
• They are equipped with facial recognition and are used in totalitarian regimes
• The company, Dahua, has a track record of severe cybersecurity vulnerabilities

by Sian Boyle, The Daily Mail Investigations Unit
September 5, 2022

With its imposing red brick houses, neat gardens and red postbox, Baskerville Road in the borough of Wandsworth is a classic example of family residences in the more affluent areas of London.

But something is amiss. Just outside a house on the corner, which happens to be the former home of World War I-era prime minister David Lloyd George, is a new piece of infrastructure that would seem more suited to the perimeter of a maximum security prison or a detention camp.

It is a disturbingly anthropomorphic CCTV camera, with two lenses that resemble eyes and two other indeterminate features that serve as the nose and mouth; and it hangs from a pole ringed with spikes to protect its hardware from would-be thieves or vandals.

Indeed, two of these rather sinister-looking structures — which appear to double as street lamps — have been installed on Baskerville Road, where homes fetch up to £10 million.

A sign beneath them says that they are there ‘to prevent crime and promote public safety’.

This will no doubt reassure those who live on the street, who have experienced a spate of burglaries in recent years.

But the extra security comes at a high cost, to which most Wandsworth residents — and the rest of the nation — are utterly oblivious.

For the strange white cameras are just two of millions which have quietly been installed throughout Britain in recent months.

Made by Dahua, a Chinese state-affiliated company, they are equipped with controversial facial recognition software — a means of monitoring and controlling populations much favoured by Beijing and other totalitarian regimes around the world.

There are other causes for concern: Dahua has a track record of severe cybersecurity vulnerabilities that have already led to mass hacks of its cameras, and the company itself admitted last year that there is ‘very high potential’ for other such incidents.

The company has also been implicated in human rights abuses conducted by the Chinese government, with the facial recognition capabilities of its cameras used to pick out in crowds anyone with the distinctive features of a Uyghur Muslim — a persecuted ethnic minority in China — to alert police so the individuals can be rounded up.

This is a feature that Dahua calls, rather chillingly, ‘Real Time Uyghur Warnings’. Only last week, the extent of China’s human rights atrocities against Uyghur Muslims in Xinjiang Province were laid bare in a UN report, which found that there was ‘credible evidence’ of torture, possibly amounting to ‘crimes against humanity’.

Read the rest of the story here…

Connect with The Daily Mail

cover image credit: Peter-Lomas