Digital Troika
“Democracy is like a train. You take it where you have to go and then you get off.” Recep Tayyip Erdogan
“They” never rest; even (especially) the season of goodwill must be utilized. It's an elongated version of a bad news day; a good time to make big announcements, whilst our attention is elsewhere. While we've been indulging in the usual bucolic holiday practices, they have been in the process of launching the final push. They have no intention of waiting until 2030 or even 2025; the framework that will be necessary for our effective enslavement will be erected well before then. Some of it already exists, in one guise or another, but much of it is still at the “pilot” stage, otherwise defined as the toe-in-the-water, normalization process. The troika of digital tyranny is rushing towards us inexorably and nobody but us can stop it.
I am referring to the three constructs that, not so long ago, were vague, distant apparitions that belonged in the fevered imaginations of the tin foil hat brigade – mandatory Digital ID, Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDC) and Social Credit Scores, the latter currently disguised as a proposal to measure our personal carbon footprint. The combined effect of all three, when allied to tech that already exists and some current WHO activity, will be a devastating blow against whatever freedoms we still retain and yet they are firmly in the front rank of “their” priorities. Allow me to elucidate.
First things first. There is absolutely no justification for a 'vaccine' passport, yet that is the chosen pathway that is being leveraged in the drive for global Digital ID. At the risk of boring you rigid; if the jab cannot prevent a person contracting Covid (because it's not a vaccine), nor can it prevent that person infecting others, what use is a passport of this type? This is blindingly obvious, both to us and to “them”. And so, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that it has nothing to do with the prevention of disease but, rather, with some other concern.
If we were really serious about stopping Covid and still wished to indulge our authoritarian gene, we should instead mandate that the great unwashed, the deplorable 'unvaccinated' should be the group that get a Covid pass and the jabbed sheeple are the group that should be penalized. Natural immunity is still a thing, after all, no matter how studiously “they” ignore it. As long as all the various viral strains are descended from the original Wuhan virus (rather than freshly introduced new viruses, which appears to be the case with Omicron (see Vital To The Narrative)), then the 'unvaccinated' will only get Covid once. We know this because, until there is at least a 20% difference is viral genome, those with natural immunity will be protected. And we know that because those people unfortunate enough to have contracted the original SARS in 2002/3 – which was, in all likelihood, an earlier attempt at a manufactured pandemic – still had natural immunity 20 years later when infected with SARS-COV-2 (see Back To Basics).
However, the 'vaccinated' can catch Covid any number of times, because the jab destroys the immune system in around five months, rendering them vulnerable to all the ailments that they were previously protected from.(1) A recent study from Cleveland has confirmed that somewhat obvious outcome.(2) Clearly then, the jabbed should be regarded as the group that presents more of a risk for disease transmission than the unjabbed.
It's also worth asking ourselves an even more fundamental question; exactly what is a 'vaccine' passport notionally intended to achieve in the first place, because it clearly isn't what “they” are saying it is? Even if we were to assume that Covid is uniquely problematic and worthy of special attention (which we emphatically cannot), the passport makes no sense, unless we additionally embrace the concept of asymptomatic spread. In other words, an 'unvaccinated' person must be able to contract the disease and transmit it to others, without exhibiting symptoms themselves. This is also contrary to what we know of viruses in general and Covid in particular.(3) Even a layperson, employing a modicum of critical thinking, would surely come to the conclusion that asymptomatic spread seems an unlikely mechanism.
Nonetheless, this linkage must be made because, if Covid was genuinely that dangerous to human health, those who contracted it would overwhelmingly self isolate or be hospitalized and quarantined – this is what happens during an Ebola outbreak, for instance. There would be no need of a passport in this scenario, either. The risk of asymptomatic spread must, therefore, be part of the rationale. The reality, however, is that the passport is not backed by any legitimate science. It is simply a symbol of compliance and, additionally, the framework that is a precursor to digital tyranny. If it truly connected to the prevention of Covid, then those who were the recipients of a temporary Covid pass (for contracting the disease and acquiring natural immunity) would also join the jabbed as part of the cohort who are automatically eligible for an upgrade to the permanent version – but they're not. And “they” are resisting the considerable temptation to sign them up. “They” really are very keen for us all to consent to be poisoned.
It's also the case that the push for a global ID predates the 'pandemic' by at least five years. The UN's ID2020 (in partnership will Bill Gates) was launched in 2016.(4) The EU started its own project even earlier, in 2014.(5) It seems that the 'vaccine' passport is simply the Trojan Horse of choice. Indeed, Digital ID is already a fact of life in a number of European countries including Italy, Austria' France and the Netherlands; all of whom were amongst the most draconian imposers of Covid mandates. Biometric surveillance in the form of facial recognition software is also on the rise. There are currently projects underway in 32 different states and the EU has spent billions in an attempt to merge all the separate databases into one ventral hub.(6) It's this development that constitutes the reddest of red flags.
“It does three key things that lead to catastrophe: 1. It forces everyone to join. 2. It can aggregate data from any source to "enrich" your profile. 3. It is in the hands of the government, and we all know how trustworthy they are.”(7)
While it's true that our personal data is scattered all over the net, from app stores, commercial sites such as Amazon and elsewhere and it's also true that many government databases hold our records – not to mention medical records and so forth – it is the random dispersal of this siloed data that provides safeguards. If all this information was to be merged into a single database and then further combined with what Google, Twitter, YouTube et al knows about us, it would not be good. Privacy concerns aside (although those cannot be ignored), how can the agglomeration of all this information in one location be necessary unless some plan is afoot? And how can that reason be anything other than malign in nature? Why would the EU be spending billions of taxpayer euros-without so much as a by-your-leave – in doing just that?
One might make the case that nothing malign can happen without some sort of enforcement ability; that possession of this information by “them”, while troubling, is essentially non-threatening. I don't think that's a sustainable theory, though. Why else would “they” be doing it if they weren't planning to use the information in some way? In that light, it may not surprise you to learn that, with the addition of the other digital technologies (CBDCs and Social Credit Scores), there is indeed a way of utilizing this information – it is the work of a moment to add extra functionality at the back end. Any and all personal data can be added at that point. But it is the framework provided by the Digital ID that is the key. Without that, the other measures are dead in the water.
The 'vaccine' passport, on its face, is a transparent attempt to punish the 'unvaccinated' by preventing them from travelling abroad (and enjoying much of what society can offer at home, as well). But it isn't just the Awkward Squad who are going to suffer; the vast majority of the 'vaccinated' will, too. It's worth remembering that booster take-up by the sheeple has dropped off the proverbial cliff. For most, the penny seems to have dropped after the third inoculation. Is there any chance that “they” will be accommodating to the unboosted?
Can you see airlines being content with a motley crew of double and triple vaxxed hopping on a flight, if said flight hasn't already been cancelled? I can't. I think they'll want every one up to date with the kill-shots. For “them” it's a win-win, after all. Either more people consent to risk further incapacitation or they don't and, instead, lose their freedom of movement and much else besides.
Predictably, it's the central bankers and the UN banks that are in the vanguard of CBDCs. At their prompting, there are now 105 CBDCs in development; in fact, eleven of them have already been launched. These countries represent over 95% of global GDP.(8) This is in contrast to May 2020 when, allegedly, only 35 countries were considering them.(9) Amongst themselves, the bankers are open about what the functionality will be:
“CBDC can improve financial inclusion [ ] through what we call programmability. That is CBDC can allow government agencies and private sector players to program, to create smart contract, to allow targeted policy functions. For example, welfare payment, for example, consumption coupon, for example, food stamp. By programming CBDC, those money can be precisely targeted for what kind of people can own and what kind of use this money can be utilised, for example, for food.”(10)
Just don't expect it to be the lead story on the BBC or CNN. Especially that “programmability” part; that might wake too many people up. There is the usual verbiage about money laundering, naturally. Firstly, it isn't proportionate, nor is it necessary to impose digital currency on everyone, simply because of the activities of a small minority of criminals. I've always felt that this is the lamest of excuses for digital currencies.
Secondly, if the authorities are majorly focused on getting involved in the prevention of crime at that late stage (and it would be impossible to argue otherwise, given the massive undertaking CBDCs will be), their overall competence must be in doubt. All the physical and societal damage has already been done by the money laundering stage. All that's left is the wages of sin. That's not what they get paid to do. There is also a further excuse; the prevention of tax evasion. Or, the much more likely motive, which would be to give themselves the ability to impose as many extra taxes as they want and make it impossible to avoid payment.
A third argument may also be deployed, after we have suffered the inevitable financial crash that awaits. Central bankers will say that they lack the tools to properly regulate economies (code for “it's not our fault”), as they can only manipulate the money supply and interest rates. They'll probably also blame speculators in the market and then gravely inform us that other cryptocurrencies must be regulated and that their CBDC must be programmable, so that they can avert any future disaster.
The two facts that you won't hear trumpeted in the press is the aforementioned programmability element and the impending death of cash. While the CBDC will initially run alongside cash (which only comprises around 3% of all money, anyway), they will swiftly assume primacy and cash will disappear. How can it be otherwise? If we use “their” own logic and trust that their true purpose is to eliminate tax fraud and money laundering, then it makes absolutely no sense to leave criminals a loophole. Alternatively, if we apply our own reserves of critical thinking and draw some conclusions as to their future actions based on their past behavior (not unreasonably) and also on the utterances of the looser lipped among “them”, it is perfectly clear that they cannot achieve the control they desire (over us, not criminals) if we are left with a get-out. So cash must die; it's been dying for years already – the introduction of a digital currency is just the coup de grâce.
The US dollar, the world's reserve currency, is closer to oblivion than most. Fedcoin, the Federal Reserve's digital currency, was already at the testing phase in November.(11) It is still unclear (to me, anyway) how the central bankers are going to get the commercial banks to step aside or whether there is a plan to incorporate them into the system somehow, but it makes no sense to expend huge amounts of time and treasure on the development of a CBDC if it's not going to be introduced. Plus, the digital tyranny that “they” envisage cannot be accomplished without it. Plus, the likes of Wells Fargo, Citi and HSBC are involved in the trial, so some accommodation must have been reached.
The likelihood that the government will have a backdoor into the digital currency and/or spyware deployed, in percentage terms, is a three figure number. Why would they be referred to as programmable otherwise? How could they be used to ensure you bought certain items and couldn't buy others, as our Chinese fried at the IMF pointed out, without programmability? It's not going to be the Federal Reserve who tinkers with your account according to whether you're behaving or not. It'll be “them”.
And we already know, from the release of the Twitter files, that governments (the US one, in particular, but also the UK and others too, undoubtedly) have “portals” with social media companies, through which they cajoles executives to censor any speech with which they disagree. There is also an ongoing lawsuit in Massachusetts which concerns an app that was downloaded onto a million mobile phones without the user's consent or knowledge – it didn't even appear on the home screen but was, instead, hidden in the settings menu.(12) So, we know that it is not only possible for the authorities to exercise secret and undue digital influence – they've already done it.
So far then, we have simultaneous advocacy, testing and introduction of two digital wolves dressed up as sheep – an ID and a currency. The introduction of the currency is clearly dependent on the existence of the ID, although that is not to say that it has to be ID first, currency after. “They” could potentially bring in the CBDC and abolish cash; at that point, if we wish to prolong our increasingly put upon existence, the digital ID will be effectively mandatory. Rather as they tried to do with the 'vaccine'.
The EU is also pioneering another initiative. “They” want to set up an asset register which keeps track of whatever it is we possess – it'll be voluntary, of course.(13) Until it isn't. It's merely another brick in the wall; a necessity. If they are to control us, they need to know every little detail. The Americans, as is their wont under Biden, are taking it to a whole new level. They are asking people to even register their vegetable gardens.(14) And the reason these measures won't be voluntary for long is because of the third element of this attempted digital takeover, the third horse in the troika; the bastard child of the ESG framework (Environmental, Social and Governance), a personal carbon footprint regime, directed at individuals rather than business (see The Incipient Social Credit System).
As with the 'vaccine' passport, this will involve a soft launch. I can imagine “them” attempting to blackmail us morally, but it can't be made mandatory without the passport. That alone provides the framework upon which all other functionality can (and will) be built in the rapidly incremental fashion of which they are so fond. Nonetheless, the introduction of the carbon footprint concept, designed for virtue signalling liberals who are members of the Hard of Thinking Club, will assuredly accrue adherents.
This is not paranoia, a conspiracy theory that will never come to fruition. It's already happening. A Canadian credit union has already launched an app (15) and Sweden has a carbon limit credit card that won't work any more once you've reached your allowance for the month.(16) Incredibly, a 2018 survey found that 81% of Swedes are way dumber than we might have imagined, as they think that climate change is going to impact their country and that there is actually something that they can do to reduce its impact.(17) Hence, the credit card.
This is what I think will happen to the rest of us, going on “their” past behavior and their stated goals. They will introduce Digital ID, a CBDC and a “voluntary” carbon footprint scheme. Before we know it, and in order to save the planet and after a period when the refuseniks have had life made very difficult for them (sound familiar?), personal carbon allowances will be mandatory. If we follow the arc of the scam, we will remember that we only have a handful of years before man-made global warming becomes unstoppable. How could any responsible person allow that to happen? How could any government allow those that still insist on acting “irresponsibly” harm others?
That's how the argument will go. We've already had the beta test with the 'pandemic'; for carbon footprint think mandatory lock-downs and masking and, nearly, de facto mandatory 'vaccination'. Naturally, many governments now contend that the jabs were never compulsory, conveniently forgetting that conspiring with the private sector to exclude the “hesitant” from large swathes of what still passes for society and proposing fines for those that refused to comply with government edicts (as was the case in parts of Germany and in Italy and Austria) amounts to the same thing. As does compulsory isolation and quarantine when travelling, which Canada, Australia and New Zealand implemented.
It doesn't take much imagination to envisage a circumstance whereby spreading “misinformation” (otherwise known as telling the inconvenient truth) will be punishable by rather more than a temporary ban from Twitter. “Disinformationists” and any other poor innocents deemed a threat to the regime are already secretly added to no-fly lists without any explanation and also without the authorities being obliged to reveal their criteria for making such a judgement.(18) A centralized database in combination with a Digital ID, CBDC and a social credit score calculated, as least in part, on “their” opinion of your opinions and associations (by this time your carbon usage will be being kept in check by digital means) will result in a society chock full of emasculated liars. Our entire existence will be reliant on one app, remotely controlled by the state in whimsical, arbitrary and deliberately remote ways, in order that we are left with no effective way to appeal. Think bank “help lines”, only much worse.
Do you think it won't happen that way? If you do, I have two rebuttals for you. Firstly, check out China, which is a US ally not a cardboard cut-out of an enemy, as demonstrated by the recent renewal of favorable trading terms for Chinese companies doing business in America.(19) The dystopian regime I describe already operates there. It isn't difficult to see how it could be engineered in the West. And, secondly, “they” are already in the process of bringing in all three of these technologies. I know that because they've told us they are and, if they succeed in doing so, they will have the powers that I describe. They will have worked hard to make that situation come about. As always, it's not about what you think they'll do. It's about what they could do.
Oxford City Council, in the UK, are the unlikely pathfinder in this regard. They have decreed that, in 2024, residents will endure a trial climate lock-down in 2024.
“Oxfordshire County Council yesterday approved plans to lock residents into one of six zones to ‘save the planet’ from global warming. The latest stage in the ’15 minute city’ agenda is to place electronic gates on key roads in and out of the city, confining residents to their own neighbourhoods.
Under the new scheme if residents want to leave their zone they will need permission from the Council who gets to decide who is worthy of freedom and who isn’t. Under the new scheme residents will be allowed to leave their zone a maximum of 100 days per year, but in order to even gain this every resident will have to register their car details with the council who will then track their movements via smart cameras round the city.”(20)
It's difficult to believe, isn't it? While wholly focused on “climate change”, it's still an example of how easily freedoms can be curtailed by authorities that seemingly recognize no limits to their powers. Further, push-back does not seem to be on the agenda. At least, not yet. If this gross violation of citizen's rights is allowed to proceed, what do you think will happen next? My feeling is that it will open the floodgates and other councils will follow suit, because they won't want to be lambasted for a perceived lack of urgency. Remember, according to “them” we are teetering on the edge of the climate abyss. As long as that is the prevailing orthodoxy, any putative opposition will be wholly ineffective.
I strongly suspect that, if there is any opposition to Oxford's hare-brained scheme, it will center on complaints downstream of the whole premise of the overarching global warming scam; nobody will have the cojones to say that a fake climate change narrative is being used as a vehicle for curtailing people's freedoms.(21) More likely, someone will bemoan the fact that the measure is foolish because it'll make no difference to global warming as China and India are the world's biggest emitters of CO2 already and are increasing their output weekly – or similar.
Rather like the Dutch farmers who, when threatened with oblivion due to the government's war on fertilizer, based their initial opposition on the proposition that they shouldn't be the only people suffering. Inevitably, if they and any future Oxfordian opposition frame the problem as one of degree rather than of absolutes, they are on a hiding to nothing and deservedly so if their failure to defend themselves adequately is due to their own timidity.
As can be seen, it's the combination of all three digital technologies that will prove terminal to our lives as we know them. None of the three are what they seem. The 'vaccine' passport is a Digital ID. CBDCs will not exist alongside cash – at least, not for long. They will be programmable and their primary purpose will be put us in a hugely compromised position vis-a-vis the state. And any type of carbon footprint app is the precursor to a Social Credit System, which will swiftly expand its terms of reference to include all that is known about us in a centralized database.
If the state wishes to enhance its ability to monitor us – which it already does in twenty different ways (22) – and also acquires the power to turn our personal financial spigot on and off according to their wishes, how will 'vaccination' end up being anything but mandatory? I don't just mean the Covid jab; I mean any inoculation, with anything in it. If we chose to exercise our free will and kindly refuse whatever mRNA shot they have in mind for us next, the state will have the ability to force us to comply. Look at what Trudeau did to the truckers earlier in the year; he froze their accounts, the likes of GoFundMe jumped on the bandwagon by blocking donations to the protesters and even attempted to divert funds to causes that they themselves chose. And that was all accomplished without a CBDC – imagine how much easier it will for “them” in the future.
Nothing will be private. Buying patterns, associations both across the ether and in person will be assessed and scored by an algorithm. The state already has the necessary social media backdoor access and further information will be recorded every time we are required to use our Digital ID simply to visit a cinema or a restaurant (or pretty much anywhere else) in company. It will be possible to get a comprehensive picture of who we are and what we are about. Perhaps we will be assessed as an individual who spends too much time with people that the state views with a jaundiced eye. With a CBDC, “they” will be able to “encourage” a re-evaluation of friendships via punitive action; perhaps, a compulsory fine or a negative interest rate.
An American of sound mind might still find himself the unwitting victim of recently enacted red flag laws – allegedly intended to weed out domestic terrorists and the mentally unhinged - and find the ATF or the FBI presenting themselves at his door at an unsociable hour in order that they may relieve him of his firearms and, perhaps, his liberty. Or perhaps an “enemy of the state” - so designated due to an insufficiently subservient social media presence – may be punished by a reduction in their carbon allowance for the month, which then results in the state switching off his central heating via the SMART meter. Once again, it's not what you think they'll do. It's what they can do and they'll be able to do all of the above. Given that, do you think they won't, based on recent performance?
There are other pieces of the jigsaw worthy of comment and these are currently being trimmed to size. Chief among them is the ongoing attempt to invest the WHO will vastly increased powers, transforming it from an entity that largely (but not only) dispenses advice and guidance, into one that is empowered to override national sovereignty (see The WHO Pandemic Treaty). The much maligned Pandemic Treaty still has legs and the US proposals to re-imagine the WHO Charter will soon resurface. I know this because the recent G20 meeting said so. The Indonesian president proudly announced that they had
“with the Ministry of Finance G20, achieved to establish the global pandemic fund 1.4 billion US dollars has been pledged from 24 institutions. Clear result. And this is the largest [fund] ever in World Bank has ever created. so hopefully in the next five years, 10 years, it will increase the size of the fund to 10 billion US dollars.”(23)
Why would the World Bank require such funds unless its sister organisation (under the same UN mantle) was about to award itself the power to disburse them?
Things are moving quickly now. The curb on the freedom of movement made explicit by the Oxford City Council power grab finds its echo in France, where all internal short haul domestic flights are to be banned.(24) The UK must necessarily follow suit at some point soon, due to the state's headlong rush towards “net zero”. In fact, the UK will have to go much further. Not because of genuine climate change, but because of policies they say are framed to combat climate change, but which are clearly targetted at restricting yet more of our freedoms.
Think how far we have come in the past three years. Think how little resistance there has been. Recall that there hasn't been the faintest whiff of a reckoning for the 'pandemic' authoritarianism or the subsequent 'vaccination' campaign that has maimed and killed millions across the globe. Those same politicians and 'experts' are still walking free. The Deep State is still pulling their strings. “They” are seemingly made of Teflon – nothing sticks. And what always happens when bad actors and bullies get away with it? They keep going, over and over again.
Ask yourself once again; the digital troika will give them the power to do the things I've outlined in this paper. The technology already exists in most cases and, where it doesn't yet, it's being trialled. Why would “they” create technology that gives them these powers. Sure, they will say that they will use them wisely and they'll denounce anybody who espouses theories like mine as a conspiracy theorist – inevitably. However, it doesn't matter what they say their motivations are. You know the rest. Given their recent track record, it's that answer that matters.
I've said before and I can't promise that I won't say it again; if we don't call out the climate change scam, how are we going to resist “their” insistence that they need to track every purchase so that they can assign a (wholly manufactured) carbon score to it, because if they don't, the world is doomed? And cash will have to go because, otherwise, climate 'deniers' and other malcontents and disinformation artists will simply use it to destroy us.
At a bare minimum, I would suggest that fighting a battle according to rules invented by the enemy is a mug's game. It means embracing falsehood from the get go and framing all dissent with that lie in mind; it can never work. “They” have a plan and they mean to implement it, come what may. They are not for turning. We know this because when we object to any facet of the plan, they don't go away and change it. They don't react to any changed reality. They just wait a while and then try and reintroduce it again – witness the Pandemic Treaty and 'vaccine' passports. They don't listen to us at all. They're on autopilot.
All the data in one place, programmable money and the ability to impose their wokeness (for want of a better descriptor) upon us. What could possibly go wrong? We need to make some noise, people. By now, it should be obvious that no politician is going to save us. It's going to have to be down to us.
Citations
(1) https://expose-news.com/2022/09/30/5-months-to-kill-covid-vaccination/
(2) https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.12.17.22283625v1.full.pdf
(3) Zachary J Madewell, et al Household Transmission of Sars Cov 2. A Systematic Review & Meta Analysis 2020
(5) https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/eidas-regulation
(6) https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2021/05/the_covid_passport_fascism_at_hand.html
(7) https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2021/05/the_covid_passport_fascism_at_hand.html
(8) https://expose-news.com/2022/11/29/105-countries-are-exploring-cbdcs/
(9) https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/cbdctracker/
(11) https://www.zerohedge.com/personal-finance/fedcoin-it-starts-trial-run
(13) https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-9-2021-004119_EN.html
(18) https://apnews.com/article/us-news-courts-ca-state-wire-travel-b954e754b77c44d8853f3160caac7238
(20) https://clintel.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/WCD-version-06272215121.pdf
(22) https://expose-news.com/2022/12/04/preparations-to-implement-whos-pandemic-treaty/