“Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation, and I care not who makes its laws...” Mayer Rothschild
My interest, thusfar, has been in several manufactured crises which, rather than existing in isolation, are instead interconnected and far from random. Ensuring that resources are unavailable, after an initial period when they increase in price exponentially, is the best way to ensure that people cannot have them. The energy shortage is a precursor to problems across the board due to the fact that energy is a vital component of any industry. The coming food shortages – which will seem to arrive in slow motion – are baked in; if the crops haven't been planted, we will have the entire growing season in which to brood about impending disaster. And who, in their right mind, would be reducing energy production in the midst of a fuel crisis? Who would allow a harvest to be sabotaged despite twelve months advance warning? Who would impose sanctions that punished their own side more than the alleged enemy? People who are aiming to reduce us to chattel, that's who.
The war in Ukraine has served to distract us, to enrich another sector of globalists (it's the military industrialists turn at the trough, now that Big Pharma has temporarily taken a breather) and to push Western economies further into unsustainable debt. It may yet lead to a wider conflict involving NATO and Russia - officially, rather than secretly - as that seems to be the plan. I am fairly confident that the Western elites will not seek to provoke a nuclear confrontation, if only because they couldn't guarantee whether they themselves could survive the initial onslaught and, in any event, there are more sophisticated plains in train to deal with what they consider to be the global overpopulation crisis. This doesn't mean that they won't stumble into it by accident, but if they do we would all do well to remember that Putin is the devil incarnate, not the Americans or their best buds, China.
It's one thing to recognize all of the above as engineered situations that serve to create chaos and discontent. It's easy enough to calculate that shortages in vital commodities will likely increase our dependence on those who work the levers of power. Further, given the globalist obsession with climate change (as a Trojan horse), it doesn't take the brains of a Mensa member to draw a connection; less available fuel will mean less human produced atmospheric CO2, less real food will mean more fake food – that latter narrative is starting to gain momentum and will be rammed down our throats incessantly in the immediate future.
There is still a need for co-ordination if the harm that is to be done to us can be maximized as part of a grand strategy. We can know the direction of travel and even what the final destination looks like - because they haven't been shy about telling us - but exact mechanics, the framework that will need to be put in place to ensure that we arrive, is partially obscured. However, the veil is slowly lifting. The recent shenanigans at the WHO were especially revealing.
The fact that those particular plans were kept under wraps until so late in the piece is significant. Had we known about the proposed Pandemic Treaty and the amendments to the WHO constitution six months ago, the possibilities that it allows the authoritarians would have been examined in exhaustive detail, which may very well killed it stone dead. Not because countries would have had their eyes opened as to its true purpose (those that support it know perfectly well what the plan is), but because the hue and cry would have made it more difficult for them to trample all over national sovereignty so openly. As it is, they've kicked the can down the road, but they'll try again later this month. However, in revealing their hand they have clarified something fundamental; what they consider to be the must haves and the nice to haves.
There are a substantial number of things that are desirable and which ensure that people are herded in the requisite direction, but which can be achieved in a variety of ways. For instance, food production plants can be taken offline by arson or by some infraction concocted by the Feds and, indeed, both tactics have been utilized. Twenty plus fires (instead of two the previous year) and a prolonged investigation of a huge baby formula factory that found nothing untoward, will play havoc with food supply, but the effects of both tactics are identical. Or, if there is a desire to sabotage other supply chains, new trucker regulations can be introduced, or diesel prices can skyrocket or the unions can make trouble on the docks. Again, the effects of all three tactics would be pretty much the same.
Even if it's initially difficult to see why a certain set of circumstances has been brought into being, the very fact that it has (when it didn't have to be) is enough for us to surmise that it fits into the grand plan somewhere; all that remains is to figure out where. But there are three elements that are of fundamental importance, without which the authoritarian framework cannot be constructed. Firstly, there needs to be a sanctioned takeover of nation states by a pliable, unelected global entity. Secondly, paper money must be abolished and replaced with programmable digital currencies and, lastly, there must be universal 5G. Every other part of the plan is subordinate to those key requirements.
If countries retain national sovereignty, the globalists will never have full control. There will always be an element of choice for states and a need for a modicum of humility from the cabal. Nations can still be squeezed; they can have loans turned down by the IMF, multinational corporations can boycott them, sanctions can be imposed. There will still be holdouts (Brazil, Hungary and Turkey spring immediately to mind) and those countries will be sanctuaries for what remains of the opposition. More than anything, the act of having to ask, rather than tell will chafe the most. To that end, it has become apparent that the United Nations, in the guise of the WHO, has been cast in the role of our future global government and, as we know, that part of the plan is currently stalled on the grid.
If cash is allowed to survive, the consumer will always have privacy and choice. They can spend their money where they want and, provided the use the folding stuff, the state won't know where that is. Not only that, but any effort to bring the people into line, to exert control over their lifestyle choices, to reduce their individuality, will fail if they still have access to cash. The dynamics are identical to requirement number one – global governance - but at a societal (rather than national) level. The regimes will be unable to exert maximum control if we still have the ability to choose where we spend our money and that is something only cash can give us. I will deal with 5G in detail in the next but one offering; for now, it's enough to say that they aren't introducing it just so that we can download movies quicker. As is usual, the veneer of convenience covers their true purpose.
Having written on the subject of the WHO, I now turn to digital currencies. And not just any digital currencies; not Bitcoin or any other crypto that functions in a decentralized way. These currencies will be the centrally controlled version and they (it) will be programmable. It must be programmable; without that, it's merely an intelligence gathering tool and a blunt instrument, which can only be turned on and off. But, if it's programmable, a world of possibilities is opened up, all of them good for the regimes and bad for individuals. As I shall demonstrate, we could be coerced into a wide array of behaviors simply through the manipulation of our money. I say could; I mean will. Plans are already afoot and, as was the case with the Pandemic Treaty, they are further along than most of us realize. First though, a swift recap on what a digital currency is.
Crypto
A cryptocurrency exists only on a computer and it is transferred between peers; there's no middleman, such as a bank, which is a problem for the bank, less so for the crypto user. With most cryptos, transactions are recorded on a digital public ledger, known as a blockchain. Everything is encrypted. It can be used to buy and sell goods and services online and it's decentralized, controlled by users not government.(1)
Transactions are made using cryptocurrency wallets (hot for current account, cold for savings) which transfer funds from one account to another, via the use of a password and encryption. These deals are then added to the public ledger. The three groups most enthusiastic about crypto are the idealists, the speculators and the money launderers – the idealists because they want to have an alternative to inflated fiat currencies, speculators because they are looking to make a quick buck and criminals because they can circumvent banking laws anonymously.
There are some inherent problems. While the list of enterprises accepting Bitcoin (the main crypto) is growing, it's still short. Further, crypto is notoriously volatile; values fluctuate wildly. As it stands, it isn't a currency that can be used for everyday expenses in the way that a national currency can but, given that there is a limited supply, at least one method of devaluation is removed. No such guarantees are available with fiat currencies, which can be (and are) deflated simply by an increase in the money supply by the central bank, which is privately owned.
So, to the legitimate investor, crypto is a way of wresting a measure of financial control from the regimes and as a hedge against the continual erosion of the spending power of their national currency. The appeal of the system is the very fact that it is decentralized, has no bank involvement and is a respecter of privacy. Naturally, this state of affairs cannot be allowed to continue unmolested. The world's central banks are concerned, you see. There's a danger that the rise in the use and utility of cryptocurrencies may threaten domestic currencies and that clearly cannot be allowed to happen. Were this actually the case, it would obviously be prudent to take precautions, but this alleged fear is not one that is supported by any evidence; it's just one of those statements that elites make that we are expected to take on trust.
So, the central banks' solution to a problem that doesn't exist is entirely predictable; they are going to create their own digital currencies, which we will be invited to partake of. At first, anyway. It's worth noting that the solution proposed doesn't attempt to address the primary (legitimate) reason for crypto's nascent popularity; the decentralized nature of it combined with the fact that it isn't a national currency is the whole point of it. A Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) lacks both characteristics and is not, therefore, a like for like replacement, which is the way it's being presented. The only thing both have in common is that they are both digital. This is the first iteration of digital currency gaslighting, but there are plenty more on the way.
The central banks' stated objective (not their actual objective) is to replace our current automated payment methods with digital money. They aren't saying that it will replace cash; they're saying it's an alternative to it.(2) It's important to note the 'Central Bank' component of the name, also. At present, our money exists either as cash or as numbers on a screen (which can be converted to cash) and which will be held in a bank of our choice. The fact that the money was originally issued by our central bank at the government's request is lost in the mists of time. A digital currency, on the other hand, will be issued direct to the customer by the central bank – apparently.
Justifications
We are informed that there are, unsurprisingly, a vast array of advantages to a CBDC. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) have produced a long paper on just how necessary they are.(3) The language used is fairly opaque at times, but the gist of it (with my observations) is as follows:
Small holdings of CBDCs could be held alongside cash and accessing the digital currency would be a simplified procedure, provided the risk of money laundering and terrorist financing is low, of course; certainly the ID element will be streamlined. Of course, the current onerous ID procedures – multiple passwords, paused transactions because of 'suspected fraud' and so forth – are systems that the banks themselves have put in place. And what constitutes the definition of a 'terrorist' seems to have broadened somewhat of late. I'd just note that the overwhelming majority of us aren't financing terror or laundering drugs money and our financial histories would not suggest otherwise. However, don't expect the bank's algorithm to notice that. It'll still be finding reasons to stop us spending our money, as it is now.
The IMF also reckons CBDCs will promote financial inclusion, by which they mean that people who don't have access to a physical bank or bank account will benefit. Apparently, being denied 'financial services' is a bad thing and the IMF is keen to help out, although it's disingenuous to infer that banks ever do anything that isn't, first and foremost, in their best interests. It's also unclear how this would be accomplished without a cellphone and continuous broadband and more tech besides.
It'll also improve our 'access to payments' and make them more efficient. I'm not sure that people have difficulty finding ways to pay for things, generally speaking. A CBDC will just be a different way of doing so. And it'll only be more efficient if it's actually allowed to happen. More on that shortly.
CBDCs also improve payment resilience, we are told. The example used is that of people in the aftermath of a disaster when they can't get access to cash. There's a big assumption being made here; in a disaster, electricity and Wi-Fi are also unavailable. A reliance on digital payments is not, therefore, a sensible plan.
The flow of illicit money will be disrupted, allegedly. If so, it won't be for long. There will be workarounds for criminals with the funds to pay for them and, in any event, what's that issue got to do with the man in the street?
A CBDC will also guarantee monetary sovereignty. No, not yours and mine; the country's, because that pesky Bitcoin will be a thing of the past and the national currency will have been liberated from the threat of collapse until, as is inevitable, it collapses anyway for reasons wholly unconnected to Bitcoin and the money we might have invested in a hedge digital currency is, instead, flushed down the lavatory.
I believe that it's worth reiterating the fact that banks are businesses and are there to make money – at all times – which necessitates attempting to separate you from yours. They are not to be trusted, as they don't do anything that benefits us unless it benefits them more. They charge up to 40% annual interest on overdrafts and, if you happen to be in the black, they lend your money out and earn yet more interest. Therefore, if they want CBDCs, it's because it's better for them than it is for us.
And central banks are even less worthy of trust. The IMF states that, because the digital currency will be issued by these types of banks, it will be safer than holding your money in a regular bank, because they can go bust and central banks can't because they are the lender of last resort and, therefore, inviolable. Once again, the truth is somewhat different. The primary job of central banks is to manage the economy so that it runs smoothly. When they signally fail to do that, they have to bail banks out.
But it's not with their own money; it's with money they've magicked into existence via a few strokes of the keyboard, but this fake money is paid back in real money – our taxes. I don't know whether these digital funds will be safer than bank deposits; it depends on the trustworthiness of the particular bank. I do know that central banks are also private entities and I'm at a loss to explain why I'd want a currency that they alone control.
Incrementalism
Again, CBDCs are being sold as an alternative to cash, not a replacement. It might be a little easier to believe that declaration, if the banks weren't trying so hard to eliminate cash entirely. The same goes for claims of enhanced financial inclusion; banks have been making access to physical banking more and more problematic for a decade or more. In the UK, 34% of bank branches have been shuttered in the past ten years.(4) In the US, over 5,000 branches have been closed in just the past two years.(5)
It's happening all over, as well. Germany has closed a quarter of its bank branches since the turn of the century,(6) Australia has closed nearly 500 since the start of the 'pandemic' and, equally importantly, taken 3,800 cash points (ATMs) out of commission.(7) These are not the actions of bankers who give a fig about physical access to banking services. They are explicable, however, if the pursuit of profits – by lowering overheads – is the game. There is also a further effort to diminish the role of cash.
Australia isn't the only country closing ATMs. Which magazine, in the UK, recently warned that government inaction on that score would lead to a collapse of the cash system, seemingly oblivious to the fact that this is the entire point.(8) Britain's hole-in-the-walls are closing at a rate of 300 a month.(9) Nearly a quarter have gone since 2018 and LINK, the biggest ATM network in the country, cut the fees that banks earn on transactions; the likely outcome of that action is a 20% loss of their cash-points too (they currently have 55,000).(10)
“The ATM Industry Association in Europe lays much of the blame for LINK’s recent move on the major banks that LINK represents, which want to cut service costs and boost their profits by encouraging the use of alternative payment methods.”(11)
The UK (along with Canada, France and Sweden) is already one of the most cashless societies in the world.(12) Spain isn't far behind, as they are also cutting ATM provision and, in some cases, even limiting the time customers can withdraw money in person to the hours of 0815 – 1100. 40% of branches have disappeared since 2012.(13) It's clear that there is a concerted effort to wean populations off cash, whether we like it or not. Until now, the alternative payment methods, while growing steadily more perfunctory in their operation, have still been rooted in the same basic concept; money in our accounts that can be converted to cash, should we so desire. CBDCs are a different concept entirely.
How far along?
It may not surprise you to learn that, instead of first making the case, persuading the target audience of its benefits and then moving onto research and implementation, the research was done before the general public had an inkling of what was coming and we are in the partial implementation phase before anybody bothered trying to cobble together a justification to feed to the proles. This is explicable, from an elite perspective at any rate, as they are the experts and we are here to do as we are told. They also seem to have a tight timeline that they feel they need to stick to.
Consequently, we find that the Ukraine crisis is accelerating the CBDC transition (allegedly)(14), with the narcissist from Ottawa in the vanguard, along with those other bastions of democracy, Russia and China. There are pilot schemes running in the Bahamas and Nigeria (15) and Jamaica's is imminent.(16) They are far from the only ones because, as the IMF informs us:
“We have moved beyond conceptual discussions of CBDCs and we are now in the phase of experimentation. Central banks are rolling up their sleeves and familiarizing themselves with the bits and bytes of digital money.”(17)
Which is nice to know. Apparently, around 100 countries are either in the process of researching CBDCs or implementing them.(18) This includes the usual suspects, who seem to be two of the most insistent national drivers of societal change; the US and the UK.(19) As is also now commonplace, a slew of deathless, aspirational management speak is deployed as justification; the UK wants to “remain at the forefront of technology and innovation”, while addressing the “most pressing gaps in the regulatory framework”.
It might be said that being ascendant in innovation, per se, is neither positive nor negative as it rather depends on what the technology is. It could also be said that the only regulatory gaps that the UK wants to fill are those that stifle an existing innovation (Bitcoin et al)(20) and that, far from guiding us forward into a techo-nirvana, they instead aim to restore the state's monetary monopoly, and then some.
Direction of travel
If it all feels a bit sudden, it's because it is – to us. Not to the globalists. It cannot be a coincidence that so many countries are simultaneously exploring CBDCs and, with the benefit of hindsight, it now seems that we have been heading in this direction for some time. It's conceivable that the waves of bank closures were simply an exercise in boosting profits and forcing customers to manage their own accounts online and that the creeping waves of automation – debit cards, contactless payments etc – was more of the same.
However, the drive to remove ATMs speaks to a wider motive and that is, clearly, a desire to move towards increasingly cashless societies. One might protest that the banks and government are not coterminous. Perhaps that's technically true, but the business practices of one have enabled the policies of the other. And there are two elements to regime plans for CBDCs that they absolutely don't want to acknowledge; the first is that these currencies will be programmable and the second is that they won't exist alongside cash; they'll replace cash.
Don't believe me? How about the head of the Bank of International Settlements (BIS, the central bankers' central bank) on the first point?
“The key difference [with a CBDC] is that the central bank would have absolute control on the rules and regulations that will determine the use of that expression of central bank liability, and then have the technology to enforce that. Digital cash could be programmed to ensure it is only spent on essentials, or goods which an employer or Government deems to be sensible. You could introduce programmability […] There could be some socially beneficial outcomes from that, preventing activity which is seen to be socially harmful in some way.”(21)
Or a director of the Bank of England:
“You could introduce programmability […] There could be some socially beneficial outcomes from that, preventing activity which is seen to be socially harmful in some way.”(22)
Any alarm bells ringing yet? How do you fancy giving government the ability to decide how you spend your money? For deciding what is sensible and/or not harmful? These will be the same faceless bureaucrats who were responsible for recommending all the authoritarian restrictions during the 'pandemic', those arbiters of essential and non-essential; the unelected 'experts' that our governments use as cover in order that they may impose their own will. Those people will have the ability to decide what you're allowed to buy. Because it's not just a 'could', as coyly phrased by the banking elites. If they can, they will. The mistake would be to allow them the ability in the first place.
Logically, of course, this level of control wouldn't be possible if cash was still an alternative. Therefore, the very fact that they are talking in these terms implies that cash will no longer exist in the era of CBDCs. It doesn't make sense otherwise. There are some further clues that might also guide us to that conclusion, in addition to the existing direction of travel, and Mastercard are setting the pace. They are introducing biometric payment methods; facial recognition and fingerprint scanning at the checkout. They say that this will mean shorter queues and less fraud and will be more hygienic, because customers won't have to run the risk of touching a keypad:
“Our goal with this new programme is to make shopping a great experience for consumers and merchants alike, providing the best of both security and convenience.
All the research that we’ve done has told us that consumers love biometrics.”(23)
They claim that over 70% of the customers surveyed are huge fans of biometrics, although possibly not in this case if they realized what the end goal is. It doesn't take a huge leap of the imagination to see that this innovation is intended to be the thin end of the technological wedge.
So, a cashless society is a must-have if CBDCs are to be used as they are clearly intended to be used – to ensure that we behave in proscribed ways. But how are these to be decided? The globalist trifecta involves a global UN override of national sovereignty (in the guise of the WHO), programmable CBDCs and universal 5G. The digital currency is also part of a trio – there are two other elements that, taken together, fully weaponize it; a social credit system which, in turn, requires a compulsory digital ID if it is to function to its fullest extent. And, sure enough, both are being pushed hard.
Social Credit Scores
I know. Yet another conspiracy theory that'll never happen. Except, of course, it already has in China. There, everybody starts off with a score of 1,000 although, even if they are the most compliant, ass kissing person in the country. they can still only score 950, for some reason. Perhaps because nobody is deemed perfect. Companies and individuals are assigned a score, but the latter are more susceptible to rapid fluctuations in their assessed virtue. If they spend too much time posting on social media, or play too many video games, perhaps drink too much beer, they will find their score downgraded by government employees.
Those who are discredited are prevented from travelling, booking hotel rooms or taking out loans amongst other punishments. They are also publicly shamed by having their picture plastered all over the place. But, how is it that government even knows what citizens are up to? Well, cameras on every street (equipped with facial recognition software) help in that regard, as do information collectors who patrol neighborhoods gathering tittle tattle.(24) The feather in the cap, however, will be the upcoming digital yuan, which is known to be programmable. Then, there will be no escape.
Do you think that something similar can't happen in the West? Do you believe that some people wouldn't inform on their neighbours when the information gatherers tipped up? When it happens, it'll happen stealthily, obeying the law of incrementalism, and it won't seem to be a precursor of anything draconian because it will initially be voluntary. And, lo and behold, countries in Western Europe are already at it. In the UK, government has introduced a pilot scheme (it's always a pilot scheme) that rewards people for making healthy changes to their lives.
These lucky pioneers are supplied with a wrist worn device and more walking is rewarded with gym passes, clothes and food vouchers (for the 'right' foods, mind you), all paid for with our tax dollars.(25) And please be reassured – your data will be protected and undisclosed, although presumably not from government or from the gyms and shops. Naturally, you'll have your own digital ID.
This is all of a piece; the UK government was already committed to pushing the concept of the nanny state to giddy new heights, requiring supermarkets to hide 'unhealthy' foods and banning TV advertising of those items prior to 9pm. As is the push for digital ID's. Back in the day, the UK government tried to introduce mandatory ID cards. This was not well received by the public and the plan died a death.(26) However, if you don't succeed, try, try again and this time do it on the quiet and, to that end, the UK regime is boosting the status of digital ID's to the same level as driving licenses and bank statements.(27)
In Vienna, from autumn this year, citizens will be offered an app that rewards those who save on CO2 emissions with 'Vienna Tokens'. It's completely voluntary, of course; merely a “digital bonus system which rewards environmentally conscious behaviour with free access to cultural events using an app.”(28) Having said that, this is the same country that voted to mandate Covid 'vaccinations'; the regime's propensity for authoritarianism should give pause. The Bavarians are doing something similar, as are the Belgians.(29) The Italians are trialing a “Smart Citizen Wallet” for virtuous citizens who cycle, recycle and manage energy well (we can probably guess that managing well means using less) and receive points in return; points mean prizes, as we know.(30)
The trend is an obvious one and is starting to come into sharper focus. Mastercard have launched a credit card called Doconomy (with the explicit backing of the UN and the WEF) that cuts off your spending when some arbitrary carbon footprint limit is reached.(31) I kid you not. It'll probably prove popular among the triple-vaxxed, mind you. Additionally, the president of Alibaba Holdings started the process of normalizing the concept of measuring our own personal carbon footprint with a few words at the WEF, the other day:
“We’re developing, through technology, an ability for consumers to measure their own carbon footprint. What does that mean? That’s where are they travelling, how are they travelling, what are they eating, what are they consuming on our platform. So: An individual carbon footprint tracker.”(32)
How thoughtful. Rabobank are launching a trial whereby 1,000 customers will see the impact that their purchases have on the environment.(33) Nature magazine published a paper which had this to say:
“Here we discuss how personal carbon allowances (PCAs) could play a role in achieving ambitious climate mitigation targets. We argue that recent advances in AI for sustainable development, together with the need for a low-carbon recovery from the COVID-19 crisis, open a new window of opportunity for PCAs.”(34)
You can tell that there's been some preparation and coordination when all parties have reached agreement on a new acronym. At this point, it's worth remembering two important truisms. Firstly, banks and businesses don't give a toss about climate change. They know (or should know) that more CO2 in the atmosphere would be good for mankind, that an increase wouldn't cause higher temperatures anyway, that we're living through an interglacial and the next temperature shift will be downwards and that global temperatures have barely deviated in the past eighteen years. And secondly, that what starts off as voluntary has a nasty habit of becoming mandatory in short order. A recent example, for those stricken with amnesia, would be the Covid 'vaccines'.
This is an exercise in suckering the unwary, by enabling one-upmanship and virtue signalling. There's no science behind any of it. For all we know, it'll be the same methodology that rewards electric cars and wind farms, which takes no account of the true costs. Who's going to be making the calculations behind the scenes? How would they even know what impact your purchase might have in the environment? Who are we relying on to provide that information? It makes me wonder whether this isn't, in part at least another effect of ESG; companies trying to prove how compliant they are so that they pass muster with the regulators.
The other thing that these trials and initiatives have in common is that they all depend on a digital ID if they are to function. Lest we forget, this was one of the primary outcomes of the 'pandemic', in the form of 'vaccine' passports. The regimes are having another stab at universalizing it here because the more people that they can entice voluntarily, the more critical mass they can achieve and the more pressure they can subsequently apply to the awkward squad further down the line. It's the same principle as the 'vaccines'. If they could achieve perhaps 85-90% compliance across the board, the minority would almost certainly have to fall in line.
So, once again, we see coordinated efforts across the EU, in the UK and in Canada. The UK is launching something called an IDVT (ID Verification Technology), which will be available to UK employers, landlords and letting agents for checks on criminal records and the right to work.(35) But never fear; individual privacy is still protected. The government will authorise trusted intermediaries who will deal with all the dirty work and, please be reassured. They have “no plans” to make it mandatory. Note the wording – they could have said that it will never be mandatory, but they didn't. They left themselves wriggle room, because they have every intention of using it.
The French rolled out a digital ID two days after Macron was re-elected. This segues with the EU push for an EU Digital Identity, available to all residents. But it's not mandatory, of course.(36) Not like those 'vaccine' passports that they were also calling for a couple of months ago, a position that they still haven't repudiated. The claim this time is that these IDs will have practical uses that exceed what ID cards and other forms of ID can provide; this is a lie. They add nothing. The Castro of the North, Monsieur Trudeau, is also in on the act, with a national digital ID rollout.(37)
Possibilities/Probabilities
Banks have already started telling us what we can and can't do with our money, often under the guise of 'protecting' us. Those who wish to buy digital currencies have often found their banks unwilling to process the transaction.(38) Look at what happened in Canada, when the banks and GoFundMe worked with government to block people's access to their own money if they were in any way connected to the Freedom Convoy. Regimes are already stealing people's money on the flimsiest of pretexts; anyone with a Russian accent is fair game, for instance. They are also banning other crypto-currencies; 51 countries, so far.(39)
The push for digital ID's is coming from many directions simultaneously. Remember ID 2020, the WHO and Gates? We can now add the WEF, the world's central banks and regimes around the world to the alliance.(40)(41) Forcing the compliance of a majority will probably be achievable. The methodology has already been proven with the banks and with lock-downs. If services are withdrawn and the only way to access them is remotely, it's difficult for even the recalcitrant to resist.
It's easy to identify the slippery slope. I suspect the CBDCs will be introduced with little to no emphasis on the programmable aspect of them. That may depend on how successful the virtue signalling apps are. But, before long, regimes will make the argument that society requires quality of outcome and that, in these parlous times, restraint is required. Resources are limited and rationing is needed if we are to be fair to all. Perhaps then the introduction of a value judgement that seems superficially appealing (almost certainly some nonsense about the environment), perhaps credit scores for green friendly companies. That principle can then be extended to others in the supply chain and it won't take long before we are accepting access to resources in exchange for a reduction in our personal carbon footprint.
Extending such censoriousness to other alleged societal fails is not a huge step. Regimes have made plain their cynicism with their widespread use of behavioral science units and their sensitivity to any kind of opposition by their constant abuse of the word “misinformation”. The social credit system might be first deployed in the guise of climate change prevention, but it will extend rapidly into all the areas that the regime maintains are measures of a citizen's virtue.
Conclusion
All the old favorites are on parade. The emphasis on convenience and other potential advantages, which are usually overstated and frequently only an upside if government makes them so artificially; like cutting back on face to face services and telling us that a digital ID tied to an app on a cellphone will allow us to continue to receive what we were already receiving and, incidentally, what we are also paying for through taxes. Characteristically, none of the disbenefits of any particular action are acknowledged, let alone weighed in the balance.
The regimes acknowledge that loss of privacy may just possibly be a consequence of CBDCs, but then assume that simply by stating that they will be sensitive to the issue, it's immediately dealt with to the satisfaction of all. It's simply another manifestation of the phenomenon whereby somebody assures us that our views will be taken into account, but then do exactly what they were going to do all along. In this case, the steps governments will take to ensure that an individual's privacy is not violated are either unspecified or involve the government themselves, using whatever criteria they chose, utilizing intermediaries that they have selected. But it doesn't matter how generous the application of lipstick; the pig will still be a pig. There will be a loss of privacy and there is nothing the proto-authoritarians can say that will change that.
The lesser spotted 'pilot project' also makes an appearance as does the 'voluntary not mandatory' mantra. Other, more recent phenomena also get another run out – the appeal to the virtue signalling narcissists, the casual assumption that the government always knows best and re the sole arbiter of what is 'unnecessary' or 'irresponsible' and the slowly, slowly, catchy monkey strategy that aims to lull us into a belief that they have our best interests at heart. Historically, this is not accurate, wherever you may be. Governments always, and I mean always, try to accrue more power and I'm guessing that they always will.
In these end times for democracy (if they get their way), nothing that they say can be taken on face value. They are the same people who have just subjected us to over two years of lies and draconian policies over a 'pandemic' that should have been done and dusted within weeks, but which they leveraged so that they might force us to take experimental gene therapies that kill us. I assume they are hoping that we've forgotten that already and have gone back to trusting them, despite the fact that the tactics that they are using are instantly recognizable.
CBDCs are a hard sell; harder than 5G, at any rate. That is partly for reasons already enunciated and partly because the evidence that backs up these objections has been available since 2014 in China, for anyone who cares to look. The way in which a programmable central bank currency can be tied to a digital ID and, thence, to a social credit score is there for all to see.
I believe that, once the zealots, the gullible and the weak willed have been signed up, there will be considerable resistance in the West. Even those of us who have only recently seen the light, having colluded in the incremental abolition of cash (through inattention or ignorance), may feel compelled to dig our heels in when confronted with this final step. I think the stealthy but voluntary approach will only go so far. The hands off approach that some regimes will adopt – pretending that the private sector is the real driver, in an echo of the 'vaccine' mandates saga – may not be enough to force the refuseniks into the trap.
In that case, regimes will pull one final stunt, which will leave us no option. The engineered crisis, so familiar to us at present, will be deployed once more – the scenario where some unforeseeable disaster befalls us but, never fear, the government rides to the rescue. This time, it will be the controlled demolition of the financial system, perhaps twinned with a cyber-attack that has the unfortunate effect of wiping out our savings. This would not be totally implausible, after all. Equifax was hacked in 2014, with the resultant compromise of around 145 million US Social Security numbers.(42) TSB, in the UK, had a major outage in 2018 that affected the rest of western Europe too.(43) If no system is unhackable and all are vulnerable to other types of failure, putting all our financial eggs in a digital basket is clearly asking for trouble. For the regimes, on the other hand, it represents an opportunity.
At that point, when access to cash is severely curtailed and the ability to buy energy or food is the only concern people have, most will jump at any solution that is offered, even if it's the third way of CBDCs. It wouldn't be a hard sell then, when the need for rationing and the equitable distribution of domestic aid could be used as justifications.
Once again, to those of you who have a hard time conceiving of a world in which the elites' agenda involves effectively enslaving the rest of us, I draw your attention to the implicit effect of net zero emissions pledges, the UN's Agenda 21 and the explicit aims articulated by the likes of the WEF, with its worldwide influence. It is only six months (at most) since regimes were knee deep in proposals to make the unvaxxed second class citizens and to impose 'vaccine' passports upon us all. Or, put another way, in creating a digital ID for those who obeyed government edicts.
And, just to join the dots, Canada's government seized citizens' bank accounts - citizens engaged in lawful protest, until the regime changed the law and it suddenly wasn't anymore. The US went one better and seized Russia's reserves held in a central bank.
There is absolutely no overwhelming argument for CBDCs. There is also no benign reason for making them programmable. Whichever way you look at it, central banks are attempting to grant themselves the ability to claim sovereignty over the way society's money is spent. Why would they be designed with that characteristic if they didn't intend to use it? The result will be complete control over business and personal. Cronies and allies can be favored with a tweak of the algorithm, those in disfavor effectively locked out of society.
For the cabal, the three vital requirements are UN dominion over national sovereignty, 5G and CBDCs; but the greatest of these is the latter. They intend to introduce them, whether we like it or not. The battle to preserve cash is the hill to die on.
Citations
(1) https://cryptocurrencyfacts.com/how-does-cryptocurrency-work-for-beginners/
(4) https://inews.co.uk/news/lloyds-bank-closures-full-list-branches-1536479
(6) https://www.kfw.de/About-KfW/Newsroom/Latest-News/News-Details_436160.html
(9) https://wolfstreet.com/2018/08/15/why-atm-disappearing-after-wave-of-bank-branch-closures/
(10) Ditto
(11) Ditto
(12) https://www.paymentscardsandmobile.com/worlds-cashless-countries-infographic/
(13) https://wolfstreet.com/2018/08/15/why-atm-disappearing-after-wave-of-bank-branch-closures/
(14) https://www.zerohedge.com/crypto/ukraine-crisis-accelerating-rise-central-bank-digital-currencies
(16) https://cointelegraph.com/news/jamaican-central-bank-to-airdrop-jam-dex-cbdc-to-early-adopters
(20) https://expose-news.com/2022/04/05/uk-gov-announces-regulation-crypto-market-and-digital-currency/
(21) https://off-guardian.org/2021/10/01/programmable-digital-currency-the-next-stage-of-the-new-normal/
(22) Ditto
(24) https://thetenaflyecho.com/10636/news/chinas-social-credit-system/
(25) https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-pilot-to-help-people-eat-better-and-exercise-more
(26) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_Cards_Act_2006
(28) https://expose-news.com/2022/04/29/vienna-testing-ground-for-social-credit-system/
(29) https://tkp.at/2022/04/22/wien-als-labor-fuer-sozialkreditsystem/
(32) https://off-guardian.org/2022/05/24/davos-reveals-building-blocks-for-green-social-credit-system/
(33) https://expose-news.com/2022/04/30/social-engineering-through-banks/
(34) https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-021-00756-w
(35) https://expose-news.com/2022/03/31/uk-gov-digital-identity-launch-april-22/
(37) https://expose-news.com/2022/05/02/canada-moves-forward-to-implement-digital-ids/
(39) https://fortune.com/2022/01/04/crypto-banned-china-other-countries/
(40) https://intelligence.weforum.org/topics/a1G0X000005JJGcUAO
(41) https://www.bis.org/about/bisih/topics/cbdc.htm
(42) https://www.wired.com/story/social-security-number-replacement/
(43) https://www.itpro.co.uk/it-infrastructure/30990/tsb-outage-news