GOV/MIL Main "Great Reset" Thread

marsh

On TB every waking moment

What Drives The Mind Of A Technocrat?
Screen-Shot-2022-01-22-at-10.27.57-AM-777x437.png
Adobe Stock
POSTED BY: TESSA LENA VIA MERCOLA.COM JANUARY 23, 2022

PDF
Technocracy News & Trends has posted several articles over the years on the Technocrat mind, such as Mind of a Technocrat: The Post Human World and The Technocrat Mind: Pfizer’s Unconscionable Crimes, Past and Present. Here is another writer trying to sort it out and it adds an fresh perspective. ⁃ TN Editor

STORY AT-A-GLANCE
> Technocracy is rule by algorithm, or a bureaucracy run by technologists
> It is based on the Taylorist principle of “scientific management”
> Technocrats proclaim that convergence of people with AI is both inevitable and good for us
> In the past, there have been attempts to establish a formal religious belief based on AI worship
> The advanced technology that powers technocracy is new but the mindset behind it is centuries old, and in order to fight technocracy it’s important we look at both the past and the present

This story is about the mind of a technocrat and my personal journey that led me to make some sense of that mind.

Recently, I had a great conversation with Charles Eisenstein. We talked about totalitarianism, bullying, and courage as an antidote to bullying. Among other things, Charles said something that resonated with me very strongly — something that probably resonates with many of us today. He said that he felt like his entire life had prepared him for this moment in time, as if prior to 2020 he had been rehearsing — and now everything was for real. I thought, wow, that’s exactly how I feel!

Since the beginning of COVID, I’ve been feeling like my entire life preceding 2020 was suddenly useful: my childhood spent in Moscow, at the ruins of the USSR, my trying to understand the generation of my grandparents who had been broken by the totalitarian system of their time, the dreams about robots and corporate holograms in the sky that I had as a kid, my abusive marriage that taught me about the cost of self-betrayal, my research into Big Tech and transhumanism that I did for years preceding COVID — all of it suddenly fell into place and made sense.

Those experiences — some of them painful — suddenly formed a mosaic helping me understand the current moment with relative clarity. I feel compelled to share my understanding of the psychological force that we are dealing with because understanding that powerful managerial force can help us stand up to it with intelligence and courage — and that’s what we need.

Ray Kurzweil: Joy! Joy! People and Machines Will Be One, at Last!
Here’s directly from the horse’s mouth, namely from the mouth of Ray Kurtzweil, who is the poster child for the technocratic vision and also the official “father of singularity.” Publicly, Kurzweil espouses the belief that humans and machines will inevitably and necessarily converge — and soon — and that the physical integration with AI will significantly improve the human race and promote our evolution gloriously.

Kurzweil’s other selling proposition is immortality — as in, we will live forever, or at least some of us will. Given the extreme nature of his public statements, Kurzweil private views are anyone’s guess. In the past, I used to think that Kurzweil was mostly sincere when talking about his vision of the future — but today I suspect that he knows that he is selling us a bridge. Even so, the act of selling this bridge pays him very well, and so he keeps upping his marketing pitch, such as the below:

View: https://youtu.be/JR57633ztYc
1:12 min

Way of the Future: An Inglorious Attempt at Formalizing AI Worship
Another ambitious gentleman, Anthony Levandowski, formerly of Google, went as far as starting an official church of AI, called Way of the Future. He started it in 2015 — and then in 2020, he quietly closed it, while narrowly avoiding a prison sentence related to a case of stolen intellectual property for self-driving cars and citing being moved by Black Lives Matters as an inspiration for changing his mind (things can’t get any weirder):

“The first church of artificial intelligence has shut its conceptual doors. Anthony Levandowski, the former Google engineer who avoided an 18-month prison sentence after receiving a presidential pardon, has closed the church he created to understand and accept a godhead based on artificial intelligence.“ As they say, sic transit gloria mundi!

‘Plug and Pray’
Before we dive in the anxious mind of a technocrat, let’s listen to the wise and sobering words by Joseph Weizenbaum, a famed German computer scientist who passed away in 2008, and who was credited with the invention of the first “AI” program called Eliza. The program, created in the 1960s, was a simple chatbot mimicking a therapy session.

Weizenbaum created it as a scientific exploration. To his great surprise, people interacting with Eliza started reacting to it in an emotional manner, as if they were talking to a human being. Weizenbaum didn’t like that development and made it very clear that his program was merely a predesigned algorithm, and that it was dangerous to ascribe feelings to it.

Sadly, many of his contemporaries found the concept of “humanized” AI very tempting and lucrative, and Weizenbaum was eventually pushed aside by his enthusiastic colleagues.

The statement below is from the trailer for a great documentary about him called “Plug and Pray”: “It is disastrous that most my colleagues believe that we can create an artificial human being. This immense nonsense is related to delusions of grandeur. Maybe, if I had known back then what I know now, that I’d have said, ‘I don’t like being in this bunch.’”

View: https://youtu.be/X1-2e484u1A
1:43 min

Man as an Imperfect Machine
To a technocrat, a human being is an imperfect machine, a humble meat bag that is operated by software, which is produced by the brain. The technocrat’s understanding of life is based on a very primitive, linear vision; it’s void of spiritual mystery.

The mind of a technocrat is stuck in a place where it can’t move past the mechanical principle. It’s almost as if like he has never developed an organ to sense or know spiritual beauty, and so he resents that beauty and tries to destroy it in everything, with cold-minded efficiency.

Much like religious fanatics of the centuries past, who mocked and denounced other cultures’ spiritual traditions, based on their own sensory limitations, technocrats feel like they have figured out the principle of human existence, that it’s a matter of time for the science to decode the software of life and create it from scratch. They think it’s inevitable, and they are making it our problem.

Frederick Taylor and ‘Scientific Management’
Technocrats apply the principles of Frederick Taylor’s scientific management to every aspect of human life, while viewing their fellow citizens as a resource to be managed with maximum efficiency.

Scientific management was a method of industrial optimization developed by Taylor in the late 19th and early 20th century. The essence of his method was extreme fragmentation and compartmentalization of the production process.

It required taking a complex process, breaking it down into very simple tasks, timing each task, optimizing it to the maximum using the stopwatch, and then assigning each of those simple tasks to different workers, while insisting that the workers should only use the pre-optimized motor patterns and work as efficiently as possible. Under scientific management, there was no room for workers’ creativity.

Famously, Taylor’s method was adopted — and perfected — by Ford who hired Taylor to help optimize his auto production. Working together, they were able to cut the production times and increase the profits dramatically. Of course, what was lost in the process was the creative sovereignty of the worker who was effectively turned into a human robot.

To compensate for the stress and emotional emptiness and depletion that came with the speedup, and to prevent what in today’s language we call “worker burnout,” Ford offered competitive pay to his workers on the condition of becoming an obedient robot. No rebellion was tolerated. The vibe of the speedup was portrayed very poignantly by Charlie Chaplin in “Modern Times”:

View: https://youtu.be/17PkUsTVa7g
6:57 min

Seeking Total Control
The force driving the mind of a technocrat is the overbearing emotional need for total control, combined with mistrust for other people in general. They seemingly look to compensate for their emotional poverty. (In other words, there is no reason to admire their successes as their successes are based on theft of other people’s right to free will.)

The technocrats’ desire to fully control their surroundings is anxiety-driven. They simply can’t stand the feeling of uncertainty that comes with allowing other people’s subjective choices to play any role. They don’t trust others to do the right thing, much like a very neurotic parent doesn’t trust his child’s ability to choose wisely without supervision — but far less benevolently.

Their desire for control is intensely neurotic. They are sitting on needles, so to speak (a Russian idiom and a pun in the light of today) — and in order to dampen their anxiety, they resort to trying to implement their controlling ambitions.

A rhetorical question: Does Bill Gates believe that our planet cannot sustain a growing population — and therefore, he has to step in and do something about it in order to prevent a total collapse of the human civilization (because he is the man for the job)? Does he believe himself to be a saint and a savior?

Short answer: I don’t care whether Bill Gates self-identifies as a saint or a villain.'

Regardless of whether he believes himself to be a successful saint or a successful villain, he has no legitimate business in my relationship with the world — and while his mindset and his wealth allow him to de facto impose his vision with force, he remains an intruder as far as I am concerned, and I don’t want to comply with his vision of my future.

Technocrats may think they are the cream of the crop. They may think that their brilliant vision is good for the world. But regardless of whether they believe themselves to be the good guys or the bad guys, their thirst for total control is a pathological, anxiety-driven expression. They can’t stand being dependent on other people’s free will, and so they aspire to squash it, which is not existentially right.

An Old Problem
While the technocrats of today have finally found their perfect managerial companion in the form of AI — which they can have programmed in any way that suits their interests, and then pretend that AI is objective — their broken mentality is an old one.

We are not the first generation facing this challenge, and we can learn a lot from the past. The Great Reset brought to us by the technocrats of the 21st century is the same old attempt at domination, wearing new shoes (or rather, new digital boots).

One of the best analyses of the underlying malaise was done by Steven Newcomb, the scholar of the System of Domination. Steven is Shawnee and Lenape, and his roots allow him to look at the issue from a unique perspective that I find very wise and enlightening.

Among other things, Steven Newcomb looks at the linguistic differences between the concept of nature-based “free and independent existence” that was largely prevalent among people everywhere on Earth for thousands if not millions of years — despite the inevitable imperfections of the human condition and the existence of wars — and the relatively new paradigm of “domination” which maintains that in order to be “human” or “civilized,” one has to denounce one’s spiritual and physical sovereignty and one’s internal relationship with nature, and submit to a mechanical principle, the Machine — be it the state, an institutional religion, a corporate council, or a communist party committee (the latter examples are mine). Steven’s work is crucial for the understanding of technocracy.

A Sensory Problem
I believe that the real reason for the way a technocrat’s mind works the way it works is broken sensory circuitry. Human beings need to go through certain experiences in order to develop humility and awe — both qualifies sorely lacking in technocrats — and in their case, those experience never happened. They are metaphorically two-dimensional, lack depth.

Thus, we can’t fix them, and it’s not our job — but it certainly helps to understand their thinking so that we can protect ourselves from their follies as much as we can. Personally, I pray for their healing just like I pray for the healing of all — but I accept my limitations as far as saving the technocrats. Probably not my priority!

As an interesting visual illustration of this psychological state, here is young Steve Jobs with a proud shine in his eyes, announcing the famous 1984 launch of a Macintosh computer. Both his announcement and the strikingly weird “1984” commercial that he shows to promote his new product — where his computer saves the world from the bleak Orwellian future — are worth checking out:

View: https://youtu.be/zlQvMp5rB6g
6:41 min

Man Worshipping His Brain
I’d like to end the story about technocrats with an allegory that I wrote in 2017 BC (before COVID):

Lord Brain, create a lie for me, a lie so grand and tempting that it will be impossible to resist.

The world as it was created before me, feels suddenly boring. I want something new, even if it’s a lie. A place where I don’t know any other God but me. A place where there is no vulnerability, a place where I don’t have to give or be grateful to anybody, a place where there is no uncertainty of love but only predictability of ownership – of everything and everybody, by me.

I want to forget the world in which I am a part of the so called ‘whole,’ something that I did not design. May there be no roots, only Holy Innovation. May there be no responsibility, only Holy Disruption.

May everything around me become inanimate, and may I be perpetually trapped in re-living my greatness, so that nothing reminds me of what I am about to lose. And thus, the man who asked for everything to be inanimate – because only inanimate things can be owned – lost his soul and became a robot.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

JANUARY 13, 2022 DREDDYMD DISEASES & DISORDERS, MENTAL WELLNESS, NEWS & REVIEWS

LA psychologist: Mask wearers sick with mass formation psychosis

LA psychologist: Mask wearers sick with mass formation psychosis

On “The Ben Armstrong Show,” Dr. Mark McDonald talked about people who are suffering from the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) mass formation psychosis. “I would say the masks were the beginning point and/or the ongoing point of the fear and of the fuel that’s driving this car of terror and psychopathy in our country,” he said.

McDonald explained that the problem of wearing masks in this stage of the pandemic is the psychology of it. “The problem is mass delusional psychosis,” he said, adding that it should be addressed.

As a therapist, he shared that instead of trying to beat people over their heads with data, it is important to acknowledge that they are living in fear and allow them to talk about it.

“Once you understand where that person is coming from, and once that person acknowledges and accepts that you care about how he or she feels, now you’re in a much, much better position to offer advice, to offer solutions, to offer alternative ways of thinking that are more rational, that is more healthy and that is more agentic, meaning more autonomous. That’s the way to start the conversation,” McDonald said.

In discussing mass delusional psychosis, McDonald likened it to working in a psychiatric ward, where, when he entered a locked ward in a psychiatric inpatient unit, he would see that anyone around him who wasn’t wearing a badge was most likely psychotic or otherwise mentally ill, and it was the same feeling he’s had when he left his house in Los Angeles in May 2020. “I knew something was wrong. I knew this was not a medical illness. This was a psychological illness. And so I began to document and I began to notice it in my patients, and I began to speak out about it.”

McDonald said it felt like a visceral feeling, and with his years of training, he saw the loss of rational faculty and ability to create critical thought decisions that allow people to weigh risks and benefits to evaluate evidence or otherwise think for one’s self.

United States of fear
In his book, McDonald stated that he grew increasingly concerned by the negative mental health effects that he witnessed among his patients, such as stress, anxiety, depression, addiction and even suicidal ideation, all of which are directly traceable to the climate of fear stoked by health authorities and amplified by national media. Because of this, there has been hysterical overreaction from the government in the form of mask mandates, draconian lockdowns and even vaccine mandates that are of questionable value.

McDonald explained that America is actually suffering from two pandemics: the COVID-19 – a viral one – and mass delusional psychosis, a psychological one that is driven by a pandemic of fear in response to COVID-19.

This is rooted in the natural anxieties of women on behalf of their children and families and has been inflamed and amplified by sensational media and driven over the top by people in power. The malady in itself is very real, according to McDonald. The question remains, however, whether or not people can regain their collective sanity as a society.

Armstrong pointed out that the loss of critical thinking that is coming out in society is due to public schools and universities, not the fear of the pandemic in itself. He pointed out that public schools and universities do not teach people to think critically but to obey. If the government is supposed to be the expert on COVID-19, or if the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention does not question the contradictory statements made by the government, nobody would question it because people have been taught to follow, not think critically.

As Armstrong pointed out: Masks don’t work. What is happening now is has a lot to do with psychology, and it is a serious issue that needs to be addressed.

Watch below the full January 7 episode of “The Ben Armstrong Show.”

Are People Who Still Wear Masks Suffering From a Mental Illness? 25:27
min

Are People Who Still Wear Masks Suffering From a Mental Illness?

channel image
The New American


Dr. Mark McDonald explains covid mass formation psychosis. May this show help people overcome their Fear.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

Bwaahahaha… Climate change activist suffers electric car calamity…
Posted by Kane on January 25, 2022 2:38 am

View: https://youtu.be/qukfma9S2o8
2:03 min

Former San Luis Obispo mayor and climate change activist Heidi Harmon attempted to “do the right thing,” and travel to a rally in San Francisco in an electric car. After multiple attempts to find a working charging station in San Jose, Harmon realized charging the car would take up to seven hours and there was no way she could make the rally. Harmon posted multiple videos about her difficulties in traveling in an all-electric vehicle. She discusses calling the police or asking someone to send a helicopter to rescue her.

Harmon spearheaded an effort last summer to enact a city energy policy requiring all-electric new buildings. At that time, Mayor Harmon sat on the Central Coast Energy Board of Directors, the electric energy company she was promoting. Harmon stepped down from her mayoral seat in August to battle climate change, Harmon said. Harmon is now working as a senior public affairs director for the Romero Institute’s Let’s Green CA initiative, a nonprofit affiliated with Central Coast Community Energy.

Harmon posted multiple videos during her attempt to charge the electric car she was driving on the Lets Green CA Instagram page, which she later shared to her own Instagram page. Since then, some of the videos have been deleted, and Harmon disabled her personal Instagram page.

SOURCE — CAL COAST NEWS

1643146625287.png
 

glennb6

Inactive

JANUARY 13, 2022 DREDDYMD DISEASES & DISORDERS, MENTAL WELLNESS, NEWS & REVIEWS

LA psychologist: Mask wearers sick with mass formation psychosis

LA psychologist: Mask wearers sick with mass formation psychosis

On “The Ben Armstrong Show,” Dr. Mark McDonald talked about people who are suffering from the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) mass formation psychosis. “I would say the masks were the beginning point and/or the ongoing point of the fear and of the fuel that’s driving this car of terror and psychopathy in our country,” he said.

McDonald explained that the problem of wearing masks in this stage of the pandemic is the psychology of it. “The problem is mass delusional psychosis,” he said, adding that it should be addressed.

As a therapist, he shared that instead of trying to beat people over their heads with data, it is important to acknowledge that they are living in fear and allow them to talk about it.

“Once you understand where that person is coming from, and once that person acknowledges and accepts that you care about how he or she feels, now you’re in a much, much better position to offer advice, to offer solutions, to offer alternative ways of thinking that are more rational, that is more healthy and that is more agentic, meaning more autonomous. That’s the way to start the conversation,” McDonald said.

In discussing mass delusional psychosis, McDonald likened it to working in a psychiatric ward, where, when he entered a locked ward in a psychiatric inpatient unit, he would see that anyone around him who wasn’t wearing a badge was most likely psychotic or otherwise mentally ill, and it was the same feeling he’s had when he left his house in Los Angeles in May 2020. “I knew something was wrong. I knew this was not a medical illness. This was a psychological illness. And so I began to document and I began to notice it in my patients, and I began to speak out about it.”

McDonald said it felt like a visceral feeling, and with his years of training, he saw the loss of rational faculty and ability to create critical thought decisions that allow people to weigh risks and benefits to evaluate evidence or otherwise think for one’s self.

United States of fear
In his book, McDonald stated that he grew increasingly concerned by the negative mental health effects that he witnessed among his patients, such as stress, anxiety, depression, addiction and even suicidal ideation, all of which are directly traceable to the climate of fear stoked by health authorities and amplified by national media. Because of this, there has been hysterical overreaction from the government in the form of mask mandates, draconian lockdowns and even vaccine mandates that are of questionable value.

McDonald explained that America is actually suffering from two pandemics: the COVID-19 – a viral one – and mass delusional psychosis, a psychological one that is driven by a pandemic of fear in response to COVID-19.

This is rooted in the natural anxieties of women on behalf of their children and families and has been inflamed and amplified by sensational media and driven over the top by people in power. The malady in itself is very real, according to McDonald. The question remains, however, whether or not people can regain their collective sanity as a society.

Armstrong pointed out that the loss of critical thinking that is coming out in society is due to public schools and universities, not the fear of the pandemic in itself. He pointed out that public schools and universities do not teach people to think critically but to obey. If the government is supposed to be the expert on COVID-19, or if the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention does not question the contradictory statements made by the government, nobody would question it because people have been taught to follow, not think critically.

As Armstrong pointed out: Masks don’t work. What is happening now is has a lot to do with psychology, and it is a serious issue that needs to be addressed.

Watch below the full January 7 episode of “The Ben Armstrong Show.”

Are People Who Still Wear Masks Suffering From a Mental Illness? 25:27
min

Are People Who Still Wear Masks Suffering From a Mental Illness?

channel image
The New American


Dr. Mark McDonald explains covid mass formation psychosis. May this show help people overcome their Fear.
I've said it since the masks started. They are pure social(ist) conditioning and a sign of obedience training and fear.

Wonder what happens if their god ever and finally tells them it's an all clear and they no longer are required to wear masks... ?
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDZvzF_P6E8
11:59 min

If big banks do THIS, the American economy could be OVER

Jan 25, 2022


Glenn Beck


The Federal Reserve — America’s central banking system — is pushing central banks around the world to relinquish control. Why? So the Fed can pave the way for a new, digital currency, Glenn explains. It could all result in the abandonment of the U.S. dollar as the world's reserve currency. And if THAT happens, Glenn explains, our economy could become very much like Venezuela’s OVERNIGHT...

^^^^
1643164699958.png

How the Yuan Could Become a Global Currency
China's Plan to Replace the U.S. Dollar•••
Updated May 29, 2021

IMF Proposing New World Currency to Replace U.S. Dollar & Other National Currencies! (+72K Views)
Lorimer Wilson August 1, 2021

US Dollar’s Status as Dominant “Global Reserve Currency” at 25-Year Low. And USD Exchange Rates?
by Wolf Richter • Dec 30, 2021
 
Last edited:

marsh

On TB every waking moment

Joe Biden's Gasoline Problem Is Back

TUESDAY, JAN 25, 2022 - 07:11 PM
By Bloomberg Markets Live commentator Jake Lloyd-Smith

Costly crude oil means runaway gasoline. With Brent now threatening to hit $90/bbl, pressure on the vital motor fuel remains to the upside. In this environment, look for governments trying to protect hard-pressed consumers -- aka voters -- from pain at the pump.

The latest salvo came in Asia this morning. Japan said it will give oil refiners subsidies that are designed to help processors maintain margins without passing on the rising costs to customers. The strategy also applies to diesel and kerosene oil, and may be followed by other measures.

The same dynamic is at play in the U.S., where gasoline futures have surged more than 50% over the past 12 months. A worried Joe Biden has already orchestrated a crude release from strategic reserves, an initiative joined by Japan among others. That bought some time, but didn’t turn the tide. Average retail prices are a few cents below the seven-year high hit in November.



The next focus will be the Feb. 2 OPEC+ meeting, when producers will review the market and decide on supply policy. The Biden administration will likely step up diplomatic efforts to get members that still have spare capacity to deliver more crude.



Whether they’ll listen is quite another matter.
 

1-12020

Senior Member
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDZvzF_P6E8
11:59 min

If big banks do THIS, the American economy could be OVER

Jan 25, 2022


Glenn Beck


The Federal Reserve — America’s central banking system — is pushing central banks around the world to relinquish control. Why? So the Fed can pave the way for a new, digital currency, Glenn explains. It could all result in the abandonment of the U.S. dollar as the world's reserve currency. And if THAT happens, Glenn explains, our economy could become very much like Venezuela’s OVERNIGHT...

^^^^
View attachment 315893

How the Yuan Could Become a Global Currency
China's Plan to Replace the U.S. Dollar•••
Updated May 29, 2021

IMF Proposing New World Currency to Replace U.S. Dollar & Other National Currencies! (+72K Views)
Lorimer Wilson August 1, 2021

US Dollar’s Status as Dominant “Global Reserve Currency” at 25-Year Low. And USD Exchange Rates?
by Wolf Richter • Dec 30, 2021

Couple this with the 10 Electors thing....i wonder if this is all to put things into crazy town in the good ol USA.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

Militant ESG Has Become The Biggest Threat To Solving Climate Change & Energy Transition

TUESDAY, JAN 25, 2022 - 05:00 AM
Authored by Bill Blain via MorningPorridge.com,

“Without Energy-Security, no nation is sovereign.”

It’s easy to say no to an investment likely to generate hostile news. It’s simple to go along with increasingly Militant ESG rhetoric on gas to avoid negative headlines. But – we will fail to reach Carbon Net-Zero unless gas remains part of the transition equation and governments get a grip on energy strategies.



Yet again I’m going to highlight how blinkered ESG (Environment, Social and Governance) thinking could be driving us all towards climate and economic disaster..

Let me share a few snippets from what’s been a fascinating week for Energy, climate change and energy transition.
  • Oil headed for $100.
  • Chinese coal production has hit a record high.. up 7.2% yoy to 390 million tonnes in Dec 2021. It will use over 4 billion tons this year. It used less than 50 million tons per month in 2000.
  • France, Germany and the UK all fired up coal stations due to a January blocking high shutting down the wind.
  • 1/5th of France’s nuclear power stations are currently “under repair”. Germany’s are closed. The UK’s new ones look stalled in cost overrun.
  • UK consumers face a brutal cost of living crisis on the back of soaring energy bills.
  • The Scots’ government is celebrating a windfall £700mm from selling a clutch of offshore wind licences.
  • The EU may withdraw low Co2 Natural Gas and Nuclear power from its green energy taxonomy.
  • A La Nina cooling event meant 2021 was only the 7th warmest year on record – but the last 7 years have been the warmest series on record..
And, Larry Fink (the brains behind the biggest investor on the planet; Blackrock) was lambasted by ESG and environmental zealots for the heinous thot-crime of suggesting Gas might be part of ongoing energy transition.

Shock. Horror… Burn the Heretic!

I genuinely fear the tail is wagging the dog when it comes to climate change and energy transition.

There is a distinct lack of joined-up planning to solve the complex issues of a) weaning the global economy off fossil fuels while b) maintaining economic growth. Governments are failing to direct energy transition strategies necessary for part a. They have effectively surrendered the narrative to populists and environmentalists, who completely ignore the economic growth (part b) of transition.

The populists now own the climate change agenda – and I congratulate them for raising awareness. They are well-intentioned, but have set a Militant ESG tone oblivious to the reality that a chaotic mass shutdown of energy sources they object to, (primarily fossil fuels but also nuclear), could leave the global economy shuttered and in an even worse state than rising global temperatures. They have seized the agenda because no one was willing to object.

There are solutions, and net-zero can be achieved.

Recently I covered how we can get to Carbon Net-Zero in the Morning Porridge.

We can innovate a mix of the downright obvious and relatively cheap schemes to save us from climate change chaos. We can become more efficient, reforest vast swathes of land, improve soils, build more renewables, while saving costs, time, effort and resources by defocusing the expectations being placed on expensive unproven technologies. My note was written based on research from the top energy analysts; Thunder Said Energy. You can read the article here: “Energy Transition and Why We Should Not Panic.”

One of the key points for an affordable and effective Net-Zero Carbon by 2050 plan would be to swiftly replace the worst carbon polluter, Coal, with cleaner Natural Gas, and over the coming decades gradually replace Gas with new more efficient and diverse renewable power. To speed up the process we could invest more and more thoughtfully in Nuclear.

Unfortunately, as we saw at the COP26 conference, Militant ESG is close to achieving a stranglehold on investment decisions. Gas is Fossil therefore Gas is Evil. Nuclear is not much better.

In every single discussion I have with fund management professionals – my day job – the subject of ESG comes up. Chief investment officers and senior fund managers all tell me the same things. Their investors insist on knowing how their money is being invested in a green and sustainable manner – because their investors apparently want to be green. Their investment committees block anything with a whiff of ESG difficulty. ESG is now the single most important investment parameter when making investments. And no Asset Management or Corporate CEO wants to risk facing down angry environmental protesters because he/she has proposed or funded gas or nuclear investments.
It’s easier to say no than it is to say yes when it comes to “challenging investments” – which leads to underinvestment.

Which is broadly the reason why Gas prices in Europe spiked 800% at one point last year, and are likely to spike again in the next freeze. (It’s also why the price of oil-major stocks have soared.) Lack of investment leaves Europe vulnerable to energy insecurity, facing ruinous energy bills and potential stagflation following what is clearly an energy-price-shock.

It was one remarkable line in a recent Morningstar sustainability report that set me off yesterday afternoon. I read Morningstar’s Head of Sustainability saying: “I was disappointed Fink saw fit to tout the ongoing importance of natural gas as a transition fuel..” It shows how firmly established the anti-Gas lobby within finance has established itself. The Morningstar guy then whittered on about the importance of stopping all fossil fuel finance to get to net-zero faster. It’s all utter Bollchocks!

Fink has done much to reset the way we think about investment. He appeals to wishy-washy champagne socialists (like myself), allowing us to gloss over the evils of capitalism by embracing it in the guise of Stakeholder Capitalism: the belief if everyone in any venture gets consideration; communities, employees, and shareholders then we all win. The gist is shareholders will benefit most when all stakeholders benefit by ensuring effective and efficient allocation of capital and sustainable returns and profits for the long run. Simple stuff – everybody benefits – and I subscribe to it.

But, I draw the line at Militant ESG.

Fink made the unforgivable mistake of daring to suggest it’s in interest of companies to think about gas as part of their energy transition plans. A campaign manager from the Sierra Club is quoted in the article: “Fink is insisting on continuing to prop up dirty fuels like fracked gas and peddling the dangerous and outdated view gas has a place in energy transition, despite the scientific consensus we need to stop expanding fossil fuels immediately.”

What was Fink supposed to say? Did the truth hurt? Should he support Morningstar’s false narrative and self-appointed role of being ESG’s fanatical Sustainability Inquisition? Play along with the falsehood that we can only save the planet by dropping hydrocarbons to invest quintillions in more wind farms, hydrogen, and anything else that might work, while dooming us all to negative growth by switching off every fossil fuel power plant yesterday?

Sadly, ESG has become a straightjacket rather an enabler of energy transition.

We are now in danger of investing our climate “eggs” into either a very limited number of unreliable, but easy to achieve baskets delivering short-term happiness, and a host of medium term improbables, which will not solve the long-term need for sustainable new power security to keep the wheels of the global economy rolling.

Militant ESG has stifled debate on how to reach carbon neutrality while keeping global growth, literally, fuelled!

Increasingly it feels like we’re making the mistake of thinking we can replace fossil fuels overnight by placing our climate bets on attractive sounding, but very expensive, unproven and improbable climate solutions because they sound exciting, look sexy, and offer apparently unlimited economic upside. Lots of climate change projects are getting bandwidth because the world has become a very credulous place, believing whatever a well-constructed social media/marketing campaign tells them.

Take the Scottish licences this week. They will create jobs and result in very expensive floating wind platforms – delivered at far greater price, but no more reliable or even maintainable as current fixed wind farms. They will no doubt they will provide nice clean energy… when the wind blows – but a massive cost.

On the other hand, the failure to move on Nuclear power makes zero sense.

Large power stations are proving too complex and unreliable (see France and China) or too expensive (the UK). Yet, plans from Rolls Royce to develop smaller, cheaper, safe mini-nukes seem to be going nowhere. Is it because Govt isn’t willing to address the nuclear issue for fear of protests?

Meanwhile, we seem intent on rolling down a whole series of distracting tech paths to carbon neutrality – like steel without coal, CO2 air extraction and ecofuels. But not all tech works or is economic. Look at the discard pile in any patent office. The number of industrial solutions that become long-term is very limited. There is no such thing as a perpetual motion machine, and when it comes to gambling on our environment – we need better.

Some of the potential failure points are becoming obvious. In Tesla’s case, Elon Musk has become the world’s richest man convincing us EVs are a critical part of greening the global economy, but lithium batteries are old tech (basically torch batteries linked up in series), and an evolutionary and recycling dead end. Lithium is scarce and its price is shooting up – meaning EVs will likely price themselves out the market – unless we find something else.

Everyone thinks Hydrogen will be the next big thing – but the costs of building hydrogen infrastructure to charge fuel cells will be huge! (Even more expensive than the complete rebuild of national grids 50% EV adoption will require.)

Hydrogen engines are going to be massively over-built because the hydrogen atom is so tiny it can seep out of any containment structure. As I said earlier this week – forget Hydrogen powered aircraft.

I do appreciate that writing about the failures of climate change and energy transition and how ESG threatens to derail the process will probably get me cancelled. My views on the subject means much of the media is now closed to me. I have been dismissed as crank by the emerging ESG industry that’s sprung up to service the multitude of ESG roles that have sprung up across the financial industry.

Before you cancel me as a climate sceptic – I absolutely accept the science of climate change. It’s critical we address the world heating up because of the industrial age spike in carbon emissions and greenhouse gasses has triggered a chaotic rise in temperatures. I’m also happy to accept the clear evidence the Earth also has natural warming and cooling cycles, but on the basis real climate scientists think the consequences of 200 years of “Anthropocene” activity are not normal – I’m prepared to take it very seriously.

Addressing the damage being done by pumping greenhouse gases into our perilously thin atmosphere gets my vote – every time. But we need to address it pragmatically – not emotionally as ESG is now doing.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

Report: Critics Sound Alarm on IRS Move to Use Facial Recognition Tech
31
facial recognition tech
NICOLAS ASFOURI /Getty
KATHERINE HAMILTON25 Jan 202222

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) will begin requiring taxpayers to use facial recognition to check their account online or get a transcript online — a move critics warn “without sufficient guardrails” could lead to information being “easily reused in other way,” Axios reported Monday.

“This announcement signals one of the largest expansions of facial recognition technology in the U.S. and there is no question that it will harm peoples’ privacy,” said Caitlin Seeley George, campaign director at Fight For the Future.

The IRS will use a third-party company called ID.me for those select online services and will involve using a combination of documents and a video selfie to confirm their identity before interacting with the agency. According to the report, the IRS announced the move last November but has gained more attention last week on a security expert’s blog.

Seeley George said that ID.me’s terms of service allow the company “the right to share people’s data with police, government, and ‘select partners.'” She further noted that when ID.me was used for state unemployment benefits, taxpayers reported having problems with the system.

She said, though the company said its own research did not find disparities based on skin color:

Not only is it an issue that ID.me misidentifies people of color, gender-nonconforming people and women, but this system requires people to have a smart phone or a web camera in order to submit photos, which means economically disadvantaged and older people are going to have greater challenges getting through the system.

Jay Stanley, a senior policy analyst with the ACLU, said the policy will put a “private company between people and the government services they need” and could cause issues for people who have limited access to technology.

“They are forced to use this company if they want to access services to which they are entitled,” Stanley said.

ID.me CEO Blake Hall said the company addresses these concerns and has developed a new option for people to verify who they are in person at more than 650 U.S. locations.

“In 90 percent of cases, Hall said, people are able to get verified on their own, with about 10 percent needing to use the company’s live video chat option,” the report states. Hall added that the company matches a face to a known document rather than picking a face from a crowd.

The IRS claims the move will help fight fraud, which has reportedly surged in recent years. According to Axios, the U.S. government has been “increasing its use of facial recognition technology overall.” The publication cited a recent GAO report, which found that at least ten federal agencies “plan to expand adoption of face recognition.”

Hall said he would support legislation curtailing how the government could use facial recognition information.

“There are things around tracking and surveillance that absolutely need to be regulated,” Hall told Axios.

The IRS in a statement emphasized that taxpayers can still pay or file taxes “without submitting a selfie or other information to a third-party identity verification company.” However, the agency said the use of the technology could expand.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

International Finance Leaders Hold ‘War Game’ Exercise Simulating Global Financial Collapse. Should We Be Worried?

High-level international banking officials and organizations gathered last month for a global “war game” exercise simulating the collapse of the global financial system. The tabletop exercise was reminiscent of “Event 201,” the pandemic simulation exercise that took place just before COVID-19 entered the global scene.

by Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D.
January 8, 2022

International Finance Leaders Hold ‘War Game’ Exercise Simulating Global Financial Collapse. Should We Be Worried_


High-level international banking officials and organizations last month gathered in Israel for a global “war game” exercise simulating the collapse of the global financial system.

The tabletop exercise was reminiscent of “Event 201” — the pandemic simulation exercise that took place in October 2019, shortly before COVID-19 entered the global scene.

The “Collective Strength” initiative was held for 10 days, beginning Dec. 9, 2021, at the Israeli Finance Ministry in Jerusalem. It was relocated to Jerusalem from the Dubai World Expo over concerns about the Omicron variant.

Israel led a 10-country contingent that also included treasury officials from the U.S., Austria, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Thailand and the United Arab Emirates.

Representatives from supranational organizations, such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank and Bank of International Settlements (BIS), also participated.

Described as a simulated “war game,” the exercise sought to model the response to various hypothetical large-scale cyberattacks on the global financial system, including the leaking of sensitive financial data on the “Dark Web,” hacks targeting the global foreign exchange system, and subsequent bank runs and market chaos fueled by “fake news.”

However, the main theme of “Collective Strength” appears not so much the simulation of such cyberattacks but, as the name of the initiative implies, the strengthening of global cooperation in cybersecurity and the financial sector.

As reported by Reuters, participants in the simulation discussed multilateral responses to a hypothetical global financial crisis.

Proposed policy solutions included debt repayment grace periods, SWAP/REPO agreements, coordinated bank holidays and coordinated delinking from major currencies.

The idea of simulated delinking from major currencies raised some eyebrows because of its timing — on the same day participants gathered to launch “Collective Strength,” reports circulated that the Biden administration was considering removing Russia from the global electronic-payment-messaging system known as SWIFT, short for Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication.

This measure would be part of a package of economic sanctions the U.S. would levy against Russia should it attack Ukraine.

However, what may raise even more eyebrows is the list of participants in the “Collective Strength” simulation, which includes: the IMF and World Bank, and indirectly, the World Economic Forum (WEF).

It was the WEF, along with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, which ran the simulated “Event 201” in October 2019.

As previously reported by The Defender, the WEF also supported the development of financial instruments, such as credit and debit cards, that would track “personal carbon allowances” on an individualized basis.

An executive summary issued in November 2020 by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, in collaboration with the WEF, provided a rundown of just the type of scenario that was simulated as part of “Collective Strength.”

The report’s authors, Tim Maurer and Arthur Nelson, described a world whose financial system is undergoing “an unprecedented digital transformation … accelerated by the coronavirus pandemic.”

In such a world, the authors argued, “cybersecurity is more important than ever.”

Describing protection of the global financial system as an “organizational challenge,” the report pointed out there is no clear global actor in charge of protecting the global financial system or its digital infrastructure.

The executive summary went so far as to describe a “disconnect between the finance, the national security and the diplomatic communities.”

The solutions identified by Maurer and Nelson included:
  • The need for “greater clarity” regarding roles and responsibilities
  • Bolstering international cooperation
  • Reducing fragmentation and increasing “internationalization” among “siloed” financial institutions
  • Developing a model that can then be used in unspecified “other” sectors.
But which “other” sectors?

This set of recommendations was classified by the authors in their report under “Digital Transformation: Safeguard Financial Inclusion.”

One such recommendation reads as follows:

“The G20 should highlight that cybersecurity must be designed into technologies used to advance financial inclusion from the start rather than included as an afterthought.”

Technology that is “used to advance financial inclusion from the start” would appear to include digital “health passports” and accompanying “digital wallets.”

It also seems to be aligned with the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals — in particular, Goal 16.9, which calls for the provision of a digital legal identity for all, including newborns, by 2030.

Goal 16.9 also brings to mind the European Union’s insistence that its vaccine passport, the so-called “Green Pass,” which is used in numerous European countries to bar the unvaccinated and those with natural immunity from all sorts of public and private spaces, protects individuals’ privacy.

In a further connection between two distinct issues — security of the global financial system and public health — the GAVI Vaccine Alliance called for “innovations that leverage new technologies to modernize the process of identifying and registering the children who are most in need of life-saving vaccines.”

However, the use of these technologies would not stop with registering childhood vaccinations. GAVI described potential uses of these “new technologies” as encompassing “access to other services,” including the broadly defined “financial services.”

The authors of the Carnegie Endowment executive summary mirrored their proposals in a spring 2021 article that appears on the IMF’s website, although issues of “financial inclusion” are left out.

While the two authors of the Carnegie report, and the participants in the “Collective Strength” initiative, emphasize the need for the financial system and its digital data to be better protected, it remains unclear how a continued transformation toward a fully digital, cloud-based environment can indeed be considered “secure.”

Consider, for instance, the following remark by Micha Weis, financial cyber manager at the Israeli finance ministry, in reference to “Collective Strength”: “[a]ttackers are 10 steps ahead of the defender.”

Such words don’t offer much comfort to those who are already wary of “FinTech,” or the increasing proximity between “Big Tech” and “Big Finance.”

Similarly, yet another “simulation” of a large-scale and destructive global catastrophe will, for some, bring back recollections of “Event 201” and what followed thereafter — infamously described on March 20, 2020, by then-U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo as a “live exercise.”
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

Will the Global Economy Collapse in 2022?

bank-buildings-falling-like-dominos-522041860-b5107a2c68eb472189118f20c52387df-1-800x492-1 Will the Global Economy Collapse in 2022?

By Sarah Westall | SarahWestall.com | Encouraged to Share with Links

Whether the global economy will collapse in 2022 is a question many of us have on the top of our minds. The answer is that no one knows for sure when or if the economy will collapse, but we should be aware of the myriad of red flags that suggest a collapse is on the horizon. Let’s look at some of those.

10 Country Simulation of Global Financial Cyber Attack and Economic Collapse

Back on Dec. 9th, 2021, 10 countries participated in a simulation of a major cyberattack on the global financial system. The simulation was led by Israel and, according to reports, was “an attempt to increase cooperation that could help to minimise any potential damage to financial markets and banks”. Reuters reported the following:

Participants in the initiative, called “Collective Strength”, included treasury officials from Israel, the United States, the United Kingdom, United Arab Emirates, Austria, Switzerland, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Thailand, as well as representatives from the International Monetary Fund, World Bank and Bank of International Settlements.

The narrator of the film in the simulation said governments were under pressure to clarify the impact of the attack, which was paralysing the global financial system.

“The banks are appealing for emergency liquidity assistance in a multitude of currencies to put a halt to the chaos as counterparties withdraw their funds and limit access to liquidity, leaving the banks in disarray and ruin,” the narrator said.

The participants discussed multilateral policies to respond to the crisis, including a coordinated bank holiday, debt repayment grace periods, SWAP/REPO agreements and coordinated delinking from major currencies.


A simulation conducted by the globalist controllers should raise a very large red flag. Many should remember Event201; a simulation conducted by Johns Hopkins, the World Economic Forum, and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. This event simulated a global pandemic in October 2019, only a few months before COVID19 hit the global stage.

collectstr Will the Global Economy Collapse in 2022?

Read more about the 10-country simulation…

Klaus Schwab Predicts Cyber Pandemic will Usher in Economic Collapse
Klaus Schwab, leader of the Global Economic Forum, sponsored Cyber Polygon 2021 which, according to its website, “is an international online training aimed at increasing global cyber resilience”. Schwab spoke at the event and gave a chilling prediction:

“We all know, but still pay insufficient attention to, the frightening scenario of a comprehensive cyber attack, which would bring a complete halt to the power supply, transportation, hospital services, our society as a whole,” he said.

“The COVID-19 crisis would be seen in this respect as a small disturbance in comparison to a major cyber attack.”


View: https://youtu.be/EOvz1Flfrfw
11:06 min

(read the rest on website)

[COMMENT: My ears perked up when ole Klaus made the point that COVID had enabled them to advance their anticipated progress toward digitizing work and school by about 3 years.]
 
Last edited:

marsh

On TB every waking moment
(Klaus referenced "Cyber Polygon" Global infection of malware )

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4AfnL8NUzs
55:06 min

Cyber Polygon – summarizing the results

Jul 30, 2019


ICC.MOSCOW

The briefing will be devoted to summing up the results of the online training Cyber Polygon, as well as discussing the prospects for joint resilience to cyberthreats. https://icc.moscow/program/21/main-21...

******
2020

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfFcOM7Hq1Y
42:24 min

Global Cybersecurity Outlook | DAVOS 2020 | January 23d

Jun 9, 2020


World Economic Forum


Session recorded: 23/01/2020 The annual cost of cyberattacks is expected to reach $6 trillion by 2021. What trends will shape cybersecurity in the near future? On the Forum Agenda: - Threats and opportunities of emerging technologies - New models of public-private information exchange - Improving organizational management and talent development Speakers: Jürgen Stock, David Garfield, André Kudelski, Laura Deaner, Samir Saran The World Economic Forum is the International Organization for Public-Private Cooperation. The Forum engages the foremost political, business, cultural and other leaders of society to shape global, regional and industry agendas. We believe that progress happens by bringing together people from all walks of life who have the drive and the influence to make positive change.

*****
2021
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7E00PocVkys
5:41:48 min

Online Conference Cyber Polygon 2021

Jul 14, 2021


BI.ZONЕ

****
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WiGp8vIU9b4
1:26 min
Cyber Polygon 2021 Highlighs

Nov 10, 2021


BI.ZONЕ


******


DHS says U.S. on "heightened alert" for Russian cyberattack

Christina Ruffini - Yesterday 9:19 AM

With more than 100,000 Russian troops poised at the Ukrainian border, the Department of Homeland Security is warning that Russia could conduct a cyberattack against the United States if it feels threatened by further actions the U.S. takes in response to a possible Russian invasion of Ukraine.
gettyimages-1237729106.jpg
© Photo Illustration by Pavlo Gonchar/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Imagesgettyimages-1237729106.jpg

According to a DHS Intelligence and Analysis bulletin sent to law enforcement partners nationwide, the U.S. government assesses that Russia would consider a cyberattack if "a US or NATO response to a possible Russian invasion of Ukraine threatened its long-term national security."

"Russia maintains a range of offensive cyber tools that it could employ against US networks—from low-level denials of service to destructive attacks targeting critical infrastructure," the bulletin issued Sunday and obtained by CBS News, continued.

The advisory follows the U.S.' decision to surge lethal weaponry to Ukraine's military in an effort to shore up its defenses.

Last week, the Biden administration approved a proposal by NATO members Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia to send Javelin anti-tank weapons and Stinger air-defense systems to Ukrainian forces, as well as the transfer of light anti-tank weapons from the United Kingdom.

DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas told CBS News Thursday, "it's very difficult to calibrate the likelihood" of a cyberattack launched by the Russian government or its proxies in response to American support to Ukraine. But the secretary conceded the U.S. is currently on "heightened alert by reason of the geopolitical landscape."

****

Homeland Security warns that Russia could launch cyberattack against US
Josh Meyer
USA TODAY


WASHINGTON – A new Department of Homeland Security bulletin warns that Russia could launch a cyberattack against U.S. targets on American soil if it believes Washington’s response to its potential invasion of Ukraine threatens its long-term national security.

DHS blasted out the memo Sunday to U.S. critical infrastructure operators and state and local governments around the country, warning that “Russia maintains a range of offensive cyber tools that it could employ against U.S. networks” that make everything from planes to hospitals to dams and bridges operate.

Separately, a well-respected private cybersecurity firm leader warns that while “cyber espionage is already a regular facet of global activity, as the situation deteriorates, we are likely to see more aggressive information operations and disruptive cyberattacks within and outside of Ukraine.”

“The crisis in Ukraine has already proven to be a catalyst for additional aggressive cyber activity that will likely increase as the situation deteriorates,” wrote John Hultquist, vice president of threat intelligence for Mandiant, a cybersecurity firm that provides services to private enterprises, governments and law enforcement agencies worldwide.

“At Mandiant, we have been anticipating this activity, and we are concerned that, unlike the recent defacements and destructive attacks, future activity will not be restricted to Ukrainian targets or the public sector," Hultquist wrote in his Jan. 20 online report.

Paul Rosenzweig, a former senior Homeland Security official, said the DHS Intelligence and Analysis bulletin underscores how even U.S. efforts to help avert a potential military conflict thousands of miles away has the potential to cause real harm to Americans here at home.


“In a globally connected world, conflicts are no longer geographically isolated. As DHS is warning, Russia may respond to U.S. actions in support of Ukraine by using offensive cyber tools against U.S. networks,” Rosenzweig told USA TODAY.

“We have seen how vulnerable American systems are – think of the criminals who disrupted gas pipelines and meat packing last year. Now imagine that an angry Russia decides to take it to the next level – wastewater treatment; agriculture; transportation are all potential targets.”

If Russia were to launch such a cyberattack against U.S. targets, Washington would likely retaliate with defense or even offensive cyberweapons of its own. And that could trigger a potentially dangerous escalation that could threaten to draw the United States directly into the conflict between Russia and its neighbor Ukraine.

“That’s why the Russian attack on Ukraine is so dangerous,” Rosenzweig said. “It seems quite possible that the conflict will spin out of control – both on the ground and in the cyber universe.”

In its memo, DHS said Russian government cyber actors have spent years targeting and gaining access to critical infrastructure in the United States. In one particularly alarming campaign, Russian hackers have compromised U.S. energy networks since at least 2016, conducted network reconnaissance and collected the kind of information needed to gain control of those systems if they wanted to, it said.

More:Dam releases, bank failures and poisoned water: Cyber pros warn worst cases are possible

"Separately, Russian state-sponsored cyber actors have successfully compromised routers, globally, and U.S. state and local government networks, according to a CISA alert and a joint US-UK report," the new DHS memo said.

Despite those capabilities, the DHS memo said U.S. intelligence officials believe that Russia's threshold for conducting disruptive or destructive cyber attacks in the homeland "probably remains very high," in part because Moscow hasn't engaged in such confrontational behavior in the past.

In a statement issued late Monday, a Department of Homeland Security official declined to elaborate on the intelligence bulletin, but said that DHS regularly shares threat information with federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial officials and the private sector to help ensure their safety and security.

More:Hackers targeted US drinking water and wastewater facilities as recently as August, Homeland Security says

"We have increased operational partnerships between private sector companies and the federal government to strengthen our nation’s cyber defenses, including through CISA’s newly established Joint Cyber Defense Collaborative," or JCDC, the official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss operational details.

"The JCDC brings these partners together to help us understand the full threat landscape and enable real-time collaboration to empower our private sector partners to gain information and take action against the most significant threats to the nation.”

The DHS bulletin is just the latest indication that the U.S. government is worried about Russian cyberattacks, even as Washington says it's ready to deploy military and intelligence assets to the region in anticipation of a Kremlin military incursion.

A joint Cybersecurity Advisory – authored by CISA, the FBI and the National Security Agency – was sent out nationwide on Jan. 11 in an effort to prepare state, local and private sector officials of Russian cyberattack capabilities, including “commonly observed tactics, techniques, and procedures.” It also included detailed instructions on how potential victims could response to such cyberattacks and reduce their exposure.

And a month earlier, on Dec. 15, the Homeland Security cyber agency sent out another report with the ominous title, “Preparing For and Mitigating Potential Cyber Threats” that warned of sophisticated threat actors, including nation-states like Russia and their proxies, that have proven their ability to compromise U.S. networks and develop “long-term persistence mechanisms” that can lurk in their systems even after the most intensive efforts to root them out.

More:The next big cyberthreat isn't ransomware. It's killware. And it's just as bad as it sounds.

Officials warn that efforts to stop such cyberattacks on U.S. targets are virtually impossible, given their sophistication – and the relatively lax security protocols that most U.S. companies use. Many, if not most, elements of U.S. critical infrastructure are also vulnerable, and have been victimized by Russian cybercriminals in recent years.

There are 16 critical infrastructure sectors whose assets, systems, and networks, whether physical or virtual, are considered so vital to the United States that their incapacitation or destruction would have a debilitating effect on U.S. security, including the economic well-being and health and safety of Americans.

Last year, Russia-based cybercriminals were behind two of the most destructive cyberattacks in recent history, including a ransomware attack that caused the operators of the massive Colonial Pipeline to shut down in May 2021, leading to widespread gas shortages. Soon after, hackers linked to Russia targeted the meat supplier JBS. In both cases, the companies paid millions of dollars in ransom in order to get their systems up and running again.

Russia was also responsible for one of the most devastating hacks involving U.S. government agencies in late 2020. Known as the SolarWinds breach, U.S. officials say Russian-backed cybercriminals gained access to 10 U.S. government agencies including DHS and the Department of Commerce.

And Russian military intelligence assets have launched devastating cyberattacks against Ukraine's power grid for years, succeeding in shutting down elements of it and knocking out power to millions of people. In recent months, Ukrainian officials have accused Moscow of being responsible for another cyber outage afflicting many government websites.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzBS5Dr-qrY
35:27 min
Resetting Digital Currencies Part 1 | DAVOS AGENDA 2021

Apr 30, 2021


World Economic Forum


COVID-19 has accelerated the long-term shift from cash, with an 8% increase in non-cash payments in the euro area in 2020. Meanwhile, central bank digital currencies are emerging, potentially transforming how people use money worldwide. What policies, practices and partnerships are needed to leverage the opportunities posed by the rise of digital currencies? Speakers: Sheila Warren, Elizabeth Rossiello, Hikmet Ersek, Andrew Bailey, Her Majesty Queen Máxima of the Netherlands, Glenn H. Hutchins



^^^^^
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ct3f6ztOJs

40:07 min

Resetting Digital Currencies Part 2 | DAVOS AGENDA 2021

Mar 6, 2021


World Economic Forum


COVID-19 has accelerated the long-term shift from cash, with an 8% increase in non-cash payments in the euro area in 2020. Meanwhile, central bank digital currencies are emerging, potentially transforming how people use money worldwide.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

John Kerry Warns “We’re in Trouble”; Urges Faster Action on Climate Change

by James Murphy January 24, 2022

John Kerry Warns “We’re in Trouble”; Urges Faster Action on Climate Change
AP ImagesJohn Kerry
At a U.S. Chamber of Commerce event designed to begin building momentum for the COP27 climate conference, scheduled to be held in Egypt in November of this year, President Joe Biden’s climate envoy, former Secretary of State and failed presidential candidate John Kerry, sounded dire warnings, saying that the world is “in trouble” when it comes to climate change.

“Let’s be factual, above all, but let me also be blunt and hopefully motivating.
We’re in trouble, I hope everybody understands that. Not trouble we can’t get out of, but we’re not on a good track,” Kerry said at the event.

COP26, which was held in Scotland in November of last year, was somewhat of a disappointment to climate zealots who were looking for far-reaching global agreements on emission targets. Speaking about COP26, Kerry said, “a lot of good things are happening, a huge amount of good came out of Glasgow.”

Of course there was a “but” in Kerry’s praise of the Scotland summit. Citing research claiming that the Arctic is warming at a rate quadruple that of the rest of the planet, the former secretary of state lamented, “We’re already seeing tipping points arrived at.”

“We’re also seeing the impacts in floods and fires and mudslides and the extraordinary heat, which is growing in various parts of the world,” Kerry complained.

Kerry also expressed concern about the recent uptick in coal production and use during the past year. Coal is considered the “dirtiest” of fossil fuels, yet countries, most significantly the People’s Republic of China, have been building more coal-fired plants to keep up with energy demands.

“Most countries have the ability to deploy very significant additional amounts of renewables and they’re not choosing to do that,” Kerry lamented.

Unfortunately for Kerry, many of those in his audience — the U.S. Chamber of Commerce — are actually in favor building more coal-fired plants and using other fossil fuels.

“If it’s abated — terrific. If you can capture 100 percent [of emissions] and it makes it affordable — that’s wonderful. But we’re not doing that,” Kerry said.

The failed 2004 Democrat nominee for president scolded humanity for its failure to act on climate change: “We need to be compelled as human beings, as leaders particularly, to respond to this.”

Leading by example might be a good start for Kerry. For starters, instead of flying to various conferences and award ceremonies in carbon-spewing jets, which emit more carbon in one trip than the average citizen does in a full year, Kerry could attend these events virtually.

In one such instance, Kerry took his family’s private jet to Iceland to receive the Arctic Circle award for his leadership on climate issues. Asked by Icelandic reporter Jóhann Bjarni Kolbeinsson if that journey was an environmental way to travel, Kerry answered, “It’s the only choice for somebody like me who is traveling the world to win this battle.”

“I believe the time it takes to get me somewhere, I can’t sail across the ocean. I have to fly to meet with people and get things done,” Kerry explained.

Because you’re more important than the rest of us, right Mr. Kerry?

The New York Post reported last August that the Kerry family jet had taken at least 16 trips in the previous year, although a spokesperson for the State Department assured us that “Secretary Kerry travels commercially or via military air in his role as Special Presidential Envoy for Climate.”

Why fly anywhere at all? If emissions are such a serious problem — and Kerry assures us that they are — why not hold Zoom meetings to accomplish the endless conferences and meetings that people such as the former secretary of state say are vital to saving the world from climate change? Certainly, such Zoom meetings would have their own environmental impact, but that impact would far less than world leaders and their minions from hundreds of nations flying their jets to meet in Scotland or Egypt.

Despite their rhetoric, climate hysterics such as Kerry aren’t really concerned about the environmental impact that their various meetings and conferences are responsible for. Until they drop the hypocrisy and start practicing what they preach, be assured that the climate-alarmist movement is a political one and not a scientific one.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxXf_ZWrg60
11:59 min

Elites are designing a global PLAYBOOK and not telling YOU

Jan 25, 2022


Glenn Beck


Israel led a 10-country simulation last December, so the global financial system could prepare for a possible cyberattack on markets or banks. But the playbook designed as a result of this simulation leaves out one, very important player: YOU. In this clip, Glenn explains how the world IS changing, elites ARE designing the future, and WE are being left out of all the discussions: ‘It REALLY makes me angry that no one will talk to us about it.’

^^^^^

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnmNfPrM-AQ
11:30 min

EXPLAINED: Why Biden’s Build Back Better bill is FASCISM

Jan 26, 2022


Glenn Beck


President Biden is meeting with several of the nation’s most powerful CEO’s today to discuss why his ‘Build Back Better’ bill apparently is great for the country and world. But Glenn explains why it’s anything but. In fact, this bill IS the Great Reset and it will enact fascism throughout America at a rate from which we may not recover. A major shift is coming, Glenn says, and we MUST stop it now.

^^^^^^
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNXvN1_nRCQ
8:06 min

Sorry, far-left elite! Our American spirit is STILL ALIVE.

Jan 26, 2022


Glenn Beck


The hypocrisy and the arrogance of far-left elites are here to stay. In fact, they're both currently on full display as our leaders in Washington, D.C. continue to lie about skyrocketing inflation and encourage us to alter our lives in order to deal with it. They’re COUNTING on us to forget who we — Americans — really are. Because Americans don’t settle, and in this clip, Glenn shares several stories that prove it. We don’t quit, our spirit is STILL alive, and it will survive as long as it lives inside even just ONE of us. So, don’t let the far-left convince you otherwise...
 
Last edited:

marsh

On TB every waking moment

We’re Probably in a Simulation. How Much Should That Worry Us?

By Farhad Manjoo/New York Times
January 26, 2022

Imagine that when your great-grandparents were teenagers, they got their hands on a groundbreaking new gadget, the world’s first fully immersive virtual-reality entertainment system. These weren’t those silly goggles you see everywhere now. This device was more Matrix-y — a stylish headband stuffed with electrodes that somehow tapped directly into the human brain’s perceptual system, replacing whatever a wearer saw, heard, felt, smelled and even tasted with new sensations ginned up by a machine.

The device was a blockbuster; magic headbands soon became an inescapable fact of people’s daily lives. Your great-grandparents, in fact, met each other in Headbandland, and their children, your grandparents, rarely encountered the world outside it. Later generations — your parents, you — never did.

Everything you have ever known, the entire universe you call reality, has been fed to you by a machine.

This, anyway, is the sort of out-there scenario I keep thinking about as I ponder the simulation hypothesis — the idea, lately much discussed among technologists and philosophers, that the world around us could be a digital figment, something like the simulated world of a video game.

The idea is not new. Exploring the underlying nature of reality has been an obsession of philosophers since the time of Socrates and Plato. Ever since “The Matrix,” such notions have become a staple of pop culture, too. But until recently the simulation hypothesis had been a matter for academics. Why should we even consider that technology could create simulations indistinguishable from reality?

And even if such a thing were possible, what difference would knowledge of the simulation make to any of us stuck in the here and now, where reality feels all too tragically real?

For these reasons, I’ve sat out many of the debates about the simulation hypothesis that have been bubbling through tech communities since the early 2000s, when Nick Bostrom, a philosopher at Oxford, floated the idea in a widely cited essay.

But a brain-bending new book by the philosopher David Chalmers — “Reality+: Virtual Worlds and the Problems of Philosophy” — has turned me into a hard-core simulationist.

After reading and talking to Chalmers, I’ve come to believe that the coming world of virtual reality might one day be regarded as every bit as real as real reality. If that happens, our current reality will instantly be cast into doubt; after all, if we could invent meaningful virtual worlds, isn’t it plausible that some other civilization somewhere else in the universe might have done so, too? Yet if that’s possible, how could we know that we’re not already in its simulation?

The conclusion seems inescapable: We may not be able to prove that we are in a simulation, but at the very least, it will be a possibility that we can’t rule out. But it could be more than that. Chalmers argues that if we’re in a simulation, there’d be no reason to think it’s the only simulation; in the same way that lots of different computers today are running Microsoft Excel, lots of different machines might be running an instance of the simulation. If that was the case, simulated worlds would vastly outnumber non-sim worlds — meaning that, just as a matter of statistics, it would be not just possible that our world is one of the many simulations but likely. As Chalmers puts it, “We are probably sims.”

Chalmers is a professor of philosophy at New York University, and he has spent much of his career thinking about the mystery of consciousness. He is best known for coining the phrase “the hard problem of consciousness,” which, roughly, is a description of the difficulty of explaining why a certain experience feels like that experience to the being experiencing it. (Don’t worry if this hurts your head; it’s not called the hard problem for nothing.)

Chalmers says that he began thinking deeply about the nature of simulated reality after using V.R. headsets like Oculus Quest 2 and realizing that the technology is already good enough to create situations that feel viscerally real.
Virtual reality is now advancing so quickly that it seems quite reasonable to guess that the world inside V.R. could one day be indistinguishable from the world outside it. Chalmers says this could happen within a century; I wouldn’t be surprised if we passed that mark within a few decades.

Whenever it happens, the development of realistic V.R. will be earthshaking, for reasons both practical and profound. The practical ones are obvious: If people can easily flit between the physical world and virtual ones that feel exactly like the physical world, which one should we regard as real?

You might say the answer is clearly the physical one. But why? Today, what happens on the internet doesn’t stay on the internet; the digital world is so deeply embedded in our lives that its effects ricochet across society. After many of us have spent much of the pandemic working and socializing online, it would be foolish to say that life on the internet isn’t real.

The same would hold for V.R. Chalmers’s book — which travels entertainingly across ancient Chinese and Indian philosophy to René Descartes to modern theorists like Bostrom and the Wachowskis (the siblings who created “The Matrix”) — is a work of philosophy, and so naturally he goes through a multipart exploration into how physical reality differs from virtual reality.'

His upshot is this: “Virtual reality isn’t the same as ordinary physical reality,” but because its effects on the world are not fundamentally different from those of physical reality, “it’s a genuine reality all the same.” Thus we should not regard virtual worlds as mere escapist illusions; what happens in V.R. “really happens,” Chalmers says, and when it’s real enough, people will be able to have “fully meaningful” lives in V.R.

To me, this seems self-evident. We already have quite a bit of evidence that people can construct sophisticated realities from experiences they have over a screen-based internet. Why wouldn’t that be the case for an immersive internet?

This gets to what’s profound and disturbing about the coming of V.R. The mingling of physical and digital reality has already thrown society into an epistemological crisis — a situation where different people believe different versions of reality based on the digital communities in which they congregate.

How would we deal with this situation in a far more realistic digital world? Could the physical world even continue to function in a society where everyone has one or several virtual alter egos?

I don’t know. I don’t have a lot of hope that this will go smoothly. But the frightening possibilities suggest the importance of seemingly abstract inquiries into the nature of reality under V.R. We should start thinking seriously about the possible effects of virtual worlds now, long before they become too real for comfort.

See ORIGINAL STORY at New York Times.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment
1643352369489.png


White House Wants Crypto Rules as a Matter of National Security



im-475397

An executive order would aim to bring order to the government's approach to regulating cryptocurrencies.
Brendan Smialowski / AFP via Getty Images

The Biden administration is preparing to release an executive action that will task federal agencies with regulating digital assets such as Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies as a matter of national security, a person familiar with the White House’s plan tells Barron’s.

The national security memorandum, expected to come in the next few weeks, would task parts of the government with analyzing digital assets and assembling a regulatory framework that covers cryptos, stablecoins, and NFTs, or non-fungible tokens, this person said.

“This is designed to look holistically at digital assets and develop a set of policies that give coherency to what the government is trying to do in this space,” the person said.

The State Department, Treasury Department, National Economic Council, and Council of Economic Advisers would be involved in the initiative.

The White House National Security Council would also be involved, the person said, since crypto has economic implications for national security. Along those lines, the administration would instruct agencies to work on harmonizing regulations of digital assets between countries.

“Because digital assets don’t stay in one country, it’s necessary to work with other countries on synchronization,” the person said.

The White House wouldn’t issue recommendations. Agencies would be given three to six months to come up with proposals, and the White House would act as a policy coordinator.

White House officials declined to comment.

Bloomberg earlier this month reported on the White House’s plan.

The White House aims to bring order to the haphazard approach that the government is now using to regulate crypto, the person said. Various agencies oversee the industry, including the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. But there’s no consensus on matters such as whether some tokens should be registered as securities, or how to oversee exchanges, stablecoins, and high-yield lending products.

Congress has held multiple hearings on cryptos in recent months, exposing partisan divides between Republicans and Democrats on how to regulate the industry.'

The Biden administration is also urging Congress to draft rules. The White House released a report on stablecoins in November, recommending that Congress act promptly to regulate the industry.

The Federal Reserve has also weighed in on digital currencies. The Fed released a report on a central-bank digital currency, or CBDC, earlier in January that laid out the pros and cons of digitizing the dollar. The report said that the Fed could start work on the project with support from the White House and Congress. A Treasury Department spokesman called the report an important step forward in discussions about a CBDC.

Other countries are ramping up scrutiny of crypto, seeing it as a matter of national economic security. Russia’s central bank and finance ministry said this week that Bitcoin mining and trading activity should be more tightly regulated. Russian President Vladimir Putin called on regulators to form a unanimous opinion on regulating the space Wednesday.'

Write to Daren Fonda at daren.fonda@barrons.com
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

war room.JPG
Just 1% Of The Population Owns The Majority Of Assets (Christopher Leonard)
January 27, 2022

Christopher Leonard, the author of the Fed expose “The Lords of Easy Money,” talks to host Steve Bannon about how the Fed destroyed the U.S. economy, in particular by increasing the amount of wealth in the hands of the very few, going against the very foundations of the American republic.

Just 1% Of The Population Owns The Majority Of Assets 1:01 min

^^^^^

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PG33bpfw2PE
1:05:27 min

(Live Archive) Christopher Leonard: How the Federal Reserve Broke the American Economy

Streamed live on Jan 18, 2022


Commonwealth Club of California

The gap between the rich and the poor has grown dramatically, stock prices are trading far above what many consider justified by actual corporate profits, corporate debt in America is at an all-time high, and this debt is being traded by big banks on Wall Street, leaving them vulnerable—just as they were during the mortgage boom. Middle-class wages have barely budged in a decade, and consumers are buried under credit card debt, car loan debt, and student debt. If you asked most people what forces led to today’s unprecedented income inequality and financial crashes, no one would say the Federal Reserve. However, Christopher Leonard is here to tell you otherwise.

^^^^
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bve59FY_IPU
1:05:20 min

Christopher Leonard: How the Federal Reserve Broke the American Economy

Premiered Jan 11, 2022


The Realignment
 
Last edited:

marsh

On TB every waking moment
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUF08pP3csY
9:58 min

HOW MUCH money was printed?! Here’s where our INSANE inflation comes from

Jan 27, 2022


Glenn Beck


Inflation is going insane. But it’s not 'corporate greed' that's causing it, as Democrats have been telling you. The Biden administration wants to continue to spend trillions of dollars to 'reinvent capitalism,' and that’s in addition to the trillions that are being pumped out by the Federal Reserve. But this goes way beyond Biden. Glenn heads to the chalkboard (and the very top of his studio ceiling) to explain what’s really happening to inflation and why it’s so hard for your family to afford basic goods and groceries. He exposes what the Fed has been doing behind closed doors to feed the tidal wave that’s about to hit… Watch the full Glenn TV episode here:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lgw6IHSj-pg
48:09 min
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

Hidden Alliance of former WEF Young Global Leaders working in Lockstep to enforce the Great Reset include Macron, Trudeau, Ardern, & Boris Johnson

BY THE EXPOSÉ ON JANUARY 27, 2022 • ( 29 COMMENTS )

How is it that more than 190 governments from all over the world ended up dealing with the Covid pandemic in almost exactly the same manner, with lockdowns, mask mandates, and vaccination cards now being commonplace everywhere?

The answer may lie in the Young Global Leaders school, which was established and managed by Klaus Schwab of the World Economic Forum (“WEF”), and that many of today’s prominent political and business leaders passed through on their way to the top.


A hidden alliance of political and corporate leaders is exploiting the pandemic with the aim of crashing national economies and introducing a global digital currency, and these leaders include President of France Emmanuel Macron, Prime Minister of Canada Justin Trudeau, Prime Minister of New Zealand Jacinda Ardern, and Prime Minister of the United Kingdom Boris Johnson.

This isn’t fiction, it’s fact. Just listen to the President of the World Economic Foum, Klaus Schwab, himself say the following –

“I have to say when I mention or names like Mrs Mirkle, Vladimir Putin and so on they have all been Young Global Leaders of the World Economic Forum, but what we’re really proud of now is the young generation like Prime Minister Trudeau, the President of Argentina and so on. So we penetrate the cabinets.

“So yesterday I was at a reception for Prime Minister Trudeau, and I know that half of his cabinet are Young Global Leaders of the World Economic Forum.”

Video 1:06 min

The story begins with the World Economic Forum (WEF), which is an NGO founded by Klaus Schwab, a German economist and mechanical engineer, in Switzerland in 1971, when he was only 32. The WEF is best-known to the public for the annual conferences it holds in Davos, Switzerland each January that aim to bring together political and business leaders from around the world to discuss the problems of the day.

Today, it is one of the most important networks in the world for the globalist power elite, being funded by approximately a thousand multinational corporations.

The WEF, which was originally called the European Management Forum until 1987, succeeded in bringing together 440 executives from 31 nations already at its very first meeting in February 1971, which was an unexpected achievement for someone like Schwab, who had very little international or professional experience prior to this.

The reason may be due to the contacts Schwab made during his university education, including studying with no less a person than former National Security Advisor and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger.

The Forum initially only brought together people from the economic field, but before long, it began attracting politicians, prominent figures from the media (including from the BBC and CNN), and even celebrities.

In 1992 Schwab established a parallel institution, the Global Leaders for Tomorrow school, which was re-established as Young Global Leaders in 2004. Attendees at the school must apply for admission and are then subjected to a rigorous selection process.

Members of the school’s very first class in 1992 already included many who went on to become important liberal political figures, such as Angela Merkel, Nicolas Sarkozy, and Tony Blair.

image-322.png
Source
There are currently about 1,300 graduates of this school, and the list of alumni includes several names of those who went on to become leaders of the health institutions of their respective nations. Four of them are former and current health ministers for Germany, including Jens Spahn, who has been Federal Minister of Health since 2018. Philipp Rösler, who was Minister of Health from 2009 until 2011, and was then appointed the WEF’s Managing Director by Schwab in 2014.

Other notable names on the school’s roster are –

  • Jacinda Ardern, the Prime Minister of New Zealand whose stringent lockdown measures have been praised by global health authorities;
image-324.png
Source
  • Emmanuel Macron, the President of France;
image-325.png
Source
  • Sebastian Kurz, who was until recently the Chancellor of Austria;
  • Viktor Orbán, Prime Minister of Hungary;
  • Jean-Claude Juncker, former Prime Minister of Luxembourg and President of the European Commission;
  • Annalena Baerbock, the leader of the German Greens;
  • Vladimir Putin, the President of Russia;
  • Justin Trudeau, the Prime Minister of Canada;
We also find California Governor Gavin Newsom on the list, who was selected for the class of 2005, as well as former presidential candidate and current US Secretary of Transportation Peter Buttigieg, who is a very recent alumnus, having been selected for the class of 2019.

All of these politicians who were in office during the past two years have favored harsh responses to the COVID-19 pandemic, and which also happened to considerably increase their respective governments’ power.

But the school’s list of alumni is not limited to political leaders. We also find many of the captains of private industry there, including Microsoft’s Bill Gates, Amazon’s Jeff Bezos, Virgin’s Richard Branson, Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales, and the Clinton Foundation’s Chelsea Clinton.

Again, all of them expressed support for the global response to the pandemic, and many reaped considerable profits as a result of the measures.

And if you don’t believe Boris Johnson, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom isn’t in on it with his “build back better” slogans, then just take a look at this image of him taken at a World Econimic Forum Young Global Leaders event.

image-323.png

Leaders who have been groomed by the WEF have infiltrated Governments around the world and they have worked in lockstep to implement ridiculous, Draconian restrictions under the guise of an alleged virus that kills less than 0.2% of those it infects.

The following text is taken from a document released by the Rockefeller foundation in 2010 titled ‘Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development’. It describes a future scenario playing out which the document terms as the ‘Lockstep Scenario’.

image-326.png

Source

In 2020, the pandemic that the world had been anticipating for years finally hit. Unlike the 2004 SARS epidemic, this new coronavirus strain—origin unknown—was extremely virulent and deadly. Even the most pandemic-prepared nations were quickly overwhelmed when the virus streaked around the world, infecting nearly 20 percent of the global population and killing millions in just seven months.

The pandemic also had a deadly effect on economies: international mobility of both people and goods screeched to a halt, debilitating industries like tourism and breaking global supply chains. Even locally, normally bustling shops and office buildings sat empty for months, devoid of both employees and customers. The pandemic blanketed the planet—though disproportionate numbers died in care homes, where the virus spread like wildfire in the absence of official containment protocols.

The United Kingdom’s initial policy of “strongly discouraging” citizens from flying proved deadly in its leniency, accelerating the spread of the virus not just within the U.K but across borders. However, a few countries did fare better—China in particular. The Chinese government’s quick imposition and enforcement of mandatory quarantine for all citizens, as well as its instant and near-hermetic sealing off of all borders, saved millions of lives, stopping the spread of the virus far earlier than in other countries and enabling a swifter post-pandemic recovery.

China’s government was not the only one that took extreme measures to protect its citizens from risk and exposure. During the pandemic, national leaders around the world flexed their authority and imposed airtight rules and restrictions, from the mandatory wearing of face masks to body-temperature checks at the entries to communal spaces like train stations and supermarkets.’


You will have noticed a few words within the article which we highlighted in bold. These are words that we changed in order to bring the document in line with the current scenario playing out across the world – the alleged Covid-19 pandemic.

A grand total of just 9 words is all that we needed to change to ensure the full text; written in 2010 by the Rockefeller Foundation, fully represented the alleged Covid-19 pandemic. Just nine words.

We’re either living in the age of coincidence or we are watching a very carefully thought out plan play out before our eyes.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

Authoritarian Madness: The Slippery Slope From Lockdowns To Concentration Camps

FRIDAY, JAN 28, 2022 - 11:40 PM
Authored by John W. Whitehead & Nisha Whitehead via The Rutherford Institute,
“All the Dachaus must remain standing. The Dachaus, the Belsens, the Buchenwald, the Auschwitzes—all of them. They must remain standing because they are a monument to a moment in time when some men decided to turn the Earth into a graveyard. Into it they shoveled all of their reason, their logic, their knowledge, but worst of all, their conscience. And the moment we forget this, the moment we cease to be haunted by its remembrance, then we become the gravediggers.”
- Rod Serling, Deaths-Head Revisited
In the politically charged, polarizing tug-of-war that is the debate over COVID-19, we find ourselves buffeted by fear over a viral pandemic that continues to wreak havoc with lives and the economy, threats of vaccine mandates and financial penalties for noncompliance, and discord over how to legislate the public good without sacrificing individual liberty.



The discord is getting more discordant by the day.

Just recently, for instance, the Salt Lake Tribune Editorial Board suggested that government officials should mandate mass vaccinations and deploy the National Guard “to ensure that people without proof of vaccination would not be allowed, well, anywhere.”

In other words, lock up the unvaccinated and use the military to determine who gets to be “free.”

These tactics have been used before.

This is why significant numbers of people are worried: because this is the slippery slope that starts with well-meaning intentions for the greater good and ends with tyrannical abuses no one should tolerate.

For a glimpse at what the future might look like if such a policy were to be enforced, look beyond America’s borders.

In Italy, the unvaccinated are banned from restaurants, bars and public transportation, and could face suspensions from work and monthly fines.

Similarly, France will ban the unvaccinated from most public venues.

In Austria, anyone who has not complied with the vaccine mandate could face fines up to $4100. Police will be authorized to carry out routine checks and demand proof of vaccination, with penalties of as much as $685 for failure to do so.

In China, which has adopted a zero tolerance, “zero COVID” strategy, whole cities—some with populations in the tens of millions—are being forced into home lockdowns for weeks on end, resulting in mass shortages of food and household supplies. Reports have surfaced of residents “trading cigarettes for cabbage, dishwashing liquid for apples and sanitary pads for a small pile of vegetables.

One resident traded a Nintendo Switch console for a packet of instant noodles and two steamed buns.”

For those unfortunate enough to contract COVID-19, China has constructed “quarantine camps” throughout the country: massive complexes boasting thousands of small, metal boxes containing little more than a bed and a toilet.

Detainees—including children, pregnant women and the elderly— were reportedly ordered to leave their homes in the middle of the night, transported to the quarantine camps in buses and held in isolation.

If this last scenario sounds chillingly familiar, it should.

Eighty years ago, another authoritarian regime established more than 44,000 quarantine camps for those perceived as “enemies of the state”: racially inferior, politically unacceptable or simply noncompliant.

While the majority of those imprisoned in the Nazi concentration camps, forced labor camps, incarceration sites and ghettos were Jews, there were also Polish nationals, gypsies, Russians, political dissidents, resistance fighters, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and homosexuals.

Culturally, we have become so fixated on the mass murders of Jewish prisoners by the Nazis that we overlook the fact that the purpose of these concentration camps were initially intended to “incarcerate and intimidate the leaders of political, social, and cultural movements that the Nazis perceived to be a threat to the survival of the regime.”

As the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum explains:
“Most prisoners in the early concentration camps were political prisoners—German Communists, Socialists, Social Democrats—as well as Roma (Gypsies), Jehovah's Witnesses, homosexuals, and persons accused of ‘asocial’ or socially deviant behavior. Many of these sites were called concentration camps. The term concentration camp refers to a camp in which people are detained or confined, usually under harsh conditions and without regard to legal norms of arrest and imprisonment that are acceptable in a constitutional democracy.”
How do you get from there to here, from Auschwitz concentration camps to COVID quarantine centers?

Connect the dots.

You don’t have to be unvaccinated or a conspiracy theorist or even anti-government to be worried about what lies ahead. You just have to recognize the truth in the warning: power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

This is not about COVID-19. Nor is it about politics, populist movements, or any particular country.

This is about what happens when good, generally decent people—distracted by manufactured crises, polarizing politics, and fighting that divides the populace into warring “us vs. them” camps—fail to take note of the looming danger that threatens to wipe freedom from the map and place us all in chains.

It’s about what happens when any government is empowered to adopt a comply-or-suffer-the-consequences mindset that is enforced through mandates, lockdowns, penalties, detention centers, martial law, and a disregard for the rights of the individual.

The slippery slope begins in just this way, with propaganda campaigns about the public good being more important than individual liberty, and it ends with lockdowns and concentration camps.

The danger signs are everywhere.

Claudio Ronco, a 66-year-old Orthodox Jew and a specialist in 18th-century music, recognizes the signs. Because of his decision to remain unvaccinated, Ronco is trapped inside his house, unable to move about in public without a digital vaccination card. He can no longer board a plane, check into a hotel, eat at a restaurant or get a coffee at a bar. He has been ostracized by friends, shut out of public life, and will soon face monthly fines for insisting on his right to bodily integrity and individual freedom.

For all intents and purposes, Ronco has become an undesirable in the eyes of the government, forced into isolation so he doesn’t risk contaminating the rest of the populace.

This is the slippery slope: a government empowered to restrict movements, limit individual liberty, and isolate “undesirables” to prevent the spread of a disease is a government that has the power to lockdown a country, label whole segments of the population a danger to national security, and force those undesirables—a.k.a. extremists, dissidents, troublemakers, etc.—into isolation so they don’t contaminate the rest of the populace.

The world has been down this road before, too.

Others have ignored the warning signs. We cannot afford to do so.


As historian Milton Mayer recounts in his seminal book on Hitler’s rise to power, They Thought They Were Free:
“Most of us did not want to think about fundamental things and never had. There was no need to. Nazism gave us some dreadful, fundamental things to think about—we were decent people‑—and kept us so busy with continuous changes and 'crises' and so fascinated, yes, fascinated, by the machinations of the 'national enemies', without and within, that we had no time to think about these dreadful things that were growing, little by little, all around us.”
The German people chose to ignore the truth and believe the lie.
They were not oblivious to the horrors taking place around them. As historian Robert Gellately points out, “[A]nyone in Nazi Germany who wanted to find out about the Gestapo, the concentration camps, and the campaigns of discrimination and persecutions need only read the newspapers.”

The warning signs were there, blinking incessantly like large neon signs.

“Still,” Gellately writes, “the vast majority voted in favor of Nazism, and in spite of what they could read in the press and hear by word of mouth about the secret police, the concentration camps, official anti-Semitism, and so on. . . . [T]here is no getting away from the fact that at that moment, ‘the vast majority of the German people backed him.’”

Half a century later, the wife of a prominent German historian, neither of whom were members of the Nazi party, opined: “[O]n the whole, everyone felt well. . . .
And there were certainly eighty percent who lived productively and positively throughout the time. . . . We also had good years. We had wonderful years.”

In other words, as long as their creature comforts remained undiminished, as long as their bank accounts remained flush, as long as they weren’t being locked up, locked down, discriminated against, persecuted, starved, beaten, shot, stripped, jailed or killed, life was good.

Life is good in America, too, as long as you’re able to keep cocooning yourself in political fantasies that depict a world in which your party is always right and everyone else is wrong, while distracting yourself with bread-and-circus entertainment that bears no resemblance to reality.

Indeed, life in America may be good for the privileged few who aren’t being locked up, locked down, discriminated against, persecuted, starved, beaten, shot, stripped, jailed or killed, but it’s getting worse by the day for the rest of us.

Which brings me back to the present crisis: COVID-19 is not the Holocaust, and those who advocate vaccine mandates, lockdowns and quarantine camps are not Hitler, but this still has the makings of a slippery slope.

The means do not justify the ends: we must find other ways of fighting a pandemic without resorting to mandates and lockdowns and concentration camps. To do otherwise is to lay the groundwork for another authoritarian monster to rise up and wreak havoc.

If we do not want to repeat the past, then we must learn from past mistakes.

January 27 marks Remembrance Day, the anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz-Birkenau, a day for remembering those who died at the hands of Hitler’s henchmen and those who survived the horrors of the Nazi concentration camps.

Yet remembering is not enough. We can do better. We must do better.
As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, the world is teetering on the edge of authoritarian madness.

All it will take is one solid push for tyranny to prevail.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

Biden Admin To Regulate Bitcoin 'As A Matter Of National Security'; Report

FRIDAY, JAN 28, 2022 - 09:00 PM
Authored by 'NAMCIOS' via BitcoinMagazine.com,

The White House wants to bring order to the ‘haphazard approach’ that is currently being employed by regulators to Bitcoin and cryptocurrency.



The White House wants to set out a cohesive set of policies to regulate Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies as currently legislation and its enforcement are scattered across sectors and agencies, according to multiple reports.

The Biden administration will release an executive order in the coming weeks to task federal agencies with assessing the risks and opportunities that Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies pose, Bloomberg first reported.

The order is set to come under the umbrella of national security efforts as the administration seeks to analyze cryptocurrencies and employ a cohesive regulatory framework that would cover Bitcoin, cryptocurrencies, stablecoins, and NFTs, Barron’s reported Thursday.
“This is designed to look holistically at digital assets and develop a set of policies that give coherency to what the government is trying to do in this space,” a person familiar with the White House’s plan told Barron’s.
“Because digital assets don’t stay in one country, it’s necessary to work with other countries on synchronization.”
The regulatory efforts would reportedly involve the State Department, Treasury Department, National Economic Council, and Council of Economic Advisers, as well as the White House National Security Council as the administration gauges that cryptocurrencies have “economic implications for national security,” per the Barron’s report.

The White House’s plan is to “bring order to the haphazard approach that the government is now using to regulate crypto,” the person told Barron’s.

Currently, different aspects of the cryptocurrency market are dealt with by different agencies, including the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, but there’s little coordination and consensus when it comes to the classification of the many different assets in the market.

According to the Bloomberg report, senior officials at the administration had held multiple meetings on the plan, and the directive is expected to be presented to President Joe Biden in the coming weeks.

[ZH: So let's just remind ourselves of how perceptions of bitcoin have changed over the years...]

1643441324972.png


[ZH: May we dare to suggest crypto has only become a 'matter of national security' for the US since the idea of Putin using it to get around US sanctions and the nuclear-threat of SWIFT-deactivation started to circulate.]
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

War On Cash: The Digital Dollar

FRIDAY, JAN 28, 2022 - 05:40 PM
Via SchiffGold.com,

Last week, the Federal Reserve released a “discussion paper” examing the pros and cons of a potential US central bank digital dollar. According to the Federal Reserve press release, the central bank hopes to get public feedback on the idea.
“We look forward to engaging with the public, elected representatives, and a broad range of stakeholders as we examine the positives and negatives of a central bank digital currency in the United States,” Federal Reserve Chair Jerome H. Powell said.
Government-issued digital currencies are sold on their promise of convenience and security. But there is a darker side – the promise of control.


Digital dollars would be similar to bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies. They would exist as virtual banknotes or coins held in a digital wallet on your computer or smartphone. The difference between a government digital currency and bitcoin is the value of the digital currency is backed and controlled by the state, just like traditional fiat currency.

The digital dollar could ultimately replace physical cash. Proponents tout its convenience and security. A Business Insider article gushed over the idea.
A Fed-backed digital dollar would then provide many of the benefits touted by cryptocurrencies without their wild price swings and usage fees. In theory, a CBDC would meld the best aspects of physical and digital currencies for the average American.”
Last year, China launched a digital yuan pilot program. The Chinese government-backed digital currency got a boost when the country’s biggest online retailer announced the first virtual platform to accept the Chinese digital currency. China isn’t the only government exploring the possibility of digital money. Sweden has developed a digital currency of its own. The European Central Bank is pushing for a digital euro. And Russian central bank governor Elvira Nabiullina told CNBC that digital currency is “the future of our financial system.”

Ultimately, it would take a congressional act to establish a digital dollar as legal tender.

US officials toyed with the possibility of a digital dollar at the height of the pandemic. A Democratic proposal for stimulus payments in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic featured digital currency deposited into digital wallets.

Government digital currency is sold to the public as a safe and convenient alternative to physical cash. We’re also told it will help stop dangerous criminals who like the intractability of cash.

But at the root of the move toward government digital currency is “the war on cash.” Fundamentally, it’s about control.


The elimination of cash creates the potential for the government to track and even control consumer spending, and it would make it even easier for central banks to engage in manipulative monetary policy such as negative interest rates.

Imagine if there was no cash. It would be impossible to hide even the smallest transaction from government eyes.
Something as simple as your morning trip to Starbucks wouldn’t be a secret from government officials. As Bloomberg put it in an article published when China launched its digital yuan pilot program, digital currency “offers China’s authorities a degree of control never possible with physical money.”

The government could even “turn off” an individual’s ability to make purchases. Bloomberg describes just how much control a digital currency could give Chinese officials.
The PBOC has also indicated that it could put limits on the sizes of some transactions, or even require an appointment to make large ones. Some observers wonder whether payments could be linked to the emerging social-credit system, wherein citizens with exemplary behavior are ‘whitelisted’ for privileges, while those with criminal and other infractions find themselves left out. ‘China’s goal is not to make payments more convenient but to replace cash, so it can keep closer tabs on people than it already does,’ argues Aaron Brown, a crypto investor who writes for Bloomberg Opinion.”
Economist Thorsten Polleit outlined the potential for Big Brother-like government control with the advent of a digital euro in an article published by the Mises Wire. As he put it, “the path to becoming a surveillance state regime will accelerate considerably” if and when a digital currency is issued.

Governments around the world have quietly waged a war on cash for years. Back in 2017, the IMF published a creepy paper offering governments suggestions on how to move toward a cashless society even in the face of strong public opposition.

As with most things the government does, you should be wary of the digital dollar. It has a dark side you can be sure the mainstream will mostly ignore.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

Is Democracy Dying Or America Disintegrating?

FRIDAY, JAN 28, 2022 - 04:20 PM

Authored by Pat Buchanan,
“What do we mean by the Revolution? The war? That was no part of the revolution; it was only an effect and consequence of it. The revolution was in the minds of the people.”
What did John Adams mean when he wrote this to Thomas Jefferson in 1815, after both had served as president?

Adams was saying that America, the country that took up arms and fought for its independence from the British, was already a nation — before 1775.

America preexisted the Constitution, Adams is saying. America had been conceived and born before he and Jefferson began to write its Declaration of Independence in Philadelphia in 1776. America had come into being even before Lexington and Concord in 1775.

A corollary of what Adams wrote is that America, and the republic created by the Constitution, are not the same thing.

While America is a country, a republic is the form of government created for that country in Philadelphia in 1787.

“A republic if you can keep it,” said Ben Franklin to the lady who had asked what kind of government they had created for the already existing nation, when he emerged from that constitutional convention.

What, then, are our elites bewailing when they say that populists, rightists and Trumpists have put “our democracy” at risk?


Answer: It is not America the country or America the nation they are referring to, but our political system as it has evolved.

And what is the nature of the threat they see?

A precondition of democracy is that the results of elections be recognized and respected, and if repeatedly challenged, this is a mortal threat. And this is the present peril.

Yet, there are other preconditions, not only for democracies but for countries, that were enumerated in The Federalist Papers:
“Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people — a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs … ”
“This country and this people seem to have been made for each other, and it appears as if it was the design of Providence, that an inheritance so proper and convenient for a band of brethren, united to each other by the strongest ties, should never be split into a number of unsocial, jealous, and alien sovereignties.”
John Jay was describing the preconditions of a nation, a country, a people.

Do these preconditions still exist in America?


“One united people”? “A band of brethren”? A common ancestry, common religion, common language, common customs and manners?

That may describe the America of 1789. Does it describe the America of 2022? Or does Jay’s phrase, “a number of unsocial, jealous and alien sovereignties,” better describe the America of today?

Hillary Clinton once wrote off half of Trump’s supporters, nearly one-fourth of the nation, as “a basket of deplorables … racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic … bigots,” who are “irredeemable.”

Assume that our elites, who often echo what Hillary Clinton said of the populist Trumpist right, agree with her.

Why would virtuous liberals wish to continue in political association with people like this?

Why would they not declare that, if an election again delivers rule to such people, we want no part of the system or polity that produced so intolerable an outcome?

Why would the capture of all three branches of government by people such as Hillary Clinton describes not be cause for dissolving the Union?

How could democracy be a superior form of government, if it could deliver the republic to people such as these, and perhaps twice?

If the progressives’ enemies are “Nazis” and “fascists,” why would progressives not rise in resistance and reject their rule, rather than cooperate with them in the governance of the country?

Why would good people not battle to overturn an election that produced a majority for such “deplorables”?

Do the commands of democracy take precedence over the demands of decency?

Rather than govern in concert with people like this, why not get as far removed from them as possible?

The point here: Not only may the preconditions of democracy be disappearing, but the preconditions of nationhood may be disintegrating.

Again, the American right is today routinely compared to Nazis, fascists and Klansmen. Why would good liberal Democrats accept an electoral victory and future rule by Nazis and fascists rather than seek to overturn it, by whatever means necessary?

And how do you hold up American democracy as a model to mankind if, after two centuries, it has produced scores of millions of citizens like those described by Hillary Clinton?

And, again, if the preconditions of democracy are vanishing, and the preconditions of nationhood are disappearing, is not secession of some kind inevitable and even desirable?

Ultimately, the logic of our situation must lead us to consider something like this.

Western Maryland’s attempt to secede and join West Virginia, and Eastern Oregon’s attempt to secede and join Idaho, may be harbingers of what is to come.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

January 28, 2022

The Democrat Party’s Application of Mass Formation Psychosis
By Jeff M. Lewis

These past few months, we have witnessed a confluence of events in which the grandest hopes and desires of the radical left and Oval Office’s installed occupant have been stymied or faced outright defeat. Their desperation should be clear for all to see, summed up in their desire is to govern against the will of the People, campaign against the People’s majority concerns, and inflict psychological (and, in some cases, physical) abuse against all who dissent from their governance and incompetence. To win anyway, leftists are creating a false sense of panic across America.

At the ignominious one-year anniversary of the current regime, it is essential that We the People look at what they are doing on every issue, every story, and listen carefully to every word of their sustained propaganda campaign for they are responsible for creating a Mass Formation Psychosis and mob mentality.

World-renowned psychiatrist Dr. Peter Breggin was the first to examine the psychological impacts of the global response to the COVID pandemic. An October 6, 2021, article for American Greatness reported his views on how a cabal of billionaire elites is behind a global propaganda campaign to keep us all separated from one another, afraid, then docile and, finally, obedient under their control

Dr. Robert Malone (who was one of the inventors of the mRNA vaccine) has spoken out against the way in which vaccines have been employed and distributed. Recently, on Joe Rogan’s show, he discussed Ghent University (Belgium) professor Dr. Mattias Desmet’s hypothesis and studies of Mass Formation Psychosis and governments’ responses to the global COVID pandemic. This resulted in his Twitter account being suspended, while Google searches on the topic apparently crashed their search algorithms.

This informative 13-minute video from Dr. Malone succinctly sums up the Mass Formation theory as applied to America’s COVID reaction:

What are these eminent doctors revealing that results in social media instantly censoring them? Let’s use their analysis and “connect the dots.”

These doctors’ knowledge of human psychology and their analysis of how Mass Formation Psychosis is being employed are spot-on. Once we understand these basic concepts ourselves, it is not hard to identify and comprehend how the Democrat Party majority in our federal government and each Democrat majority-run state share a strategic vision and are using the same tactics in their attempts to divide, manipulate, and control us, not just with COVID but in everything.

COVID-19 lockdowns and the “Pandemic of the Unvaccinated”
First, Democrats scared the pants off everyone with their faulty, unrealistic models predicting millions of deaths in the United States alone. As the pandemic progressed, the loss of lives and livelihoods, and the ancillary damage to our citizens’ and our nation’s well-being, created intense anxiety that has compounded the loss of a collective belief in what connects us and makes sense in the world. Our fear opens an avenue for leftists to exert their control.

The medical establishment’s and media’s relentless fearmongering have further heightened our sense of doom, as total case numbers are reported without meaningful context. They have insisted upon our complete reliance upon an ineffective “vaccine.” As vaccine-resistant variants arise, they have pivoted to further isolate us from one another by blaming “the unvaccinated.”

Alarmingly, we have forsaken individual freedom and international legal precedent for the false security of getting “jabbed.” Consequently, our sharply focused attention is on who they say are the “villains,” instead of their failure to employ a variety of simple and effective preventatives and therapies that, if used, would have saved hundreds of thousands of lives.

More than any other issue, the pandemic is the global elites’ springboard to implementing a totalitarian vision of their power and our prevailing misery, to keep us in our place and under their rule.

235474_5_.jpg

Image: Panicked man by katemangostar. Freepik license.

“Climate Emergency” and the “Green New Deal”
Can anyone definitively say what the ideal global average temperature is, or should be? Can anyone explain why the most intelligent former president in human history, Barack Obama, has made the tragic mistake of buying waterfront property on an island if, truly, there is an “existential threat” from rising sea levels?

Leftists cannot answer those questions. Why, then, must we accept the premise that we face a “climate emergency,” let alone that it is “man-caused?” We are constantly told we have 10 years, 12 years (whatever) to “save the planet” and ourselves, but all those predictions continue to be wrong. So, the climate change purveyors ignore actual “science” and ignore the data that does not fit their premise and desired outcome, reporting only the modeling that will support the conclusions they want.

Beware the “existential threat” and apocalyptic language that terrify us into demanding a “solution.” Their desire is to enact a Green New Deal and deal a death blow to capitalism, personal freedom, and America’s global economic dominance.

“Voter Suppression” and “Voting Rights”
I spoke with a Christian pastor last year about the 2020 riots and the race-related upheaval, and he told me there are some sensitive topics and issues that are “burned into the psyche” of our African American/black friends and neighbors.

Yes, he is black and grew up in the Jim Crow south, so he should know. I will never forget what he said.

The left already knows this and will always use what has been “burned into the psyche” of black Americans for leftist political power and nothing more.

Therefore, leftists have falsely claimed Republicans are racist and are intent on “voter suppression,” while their bid to federalize elections is about “voting rights.” Even the phrase “voter suppression” incites an understandably reflexive fear in the black community.

Just last week, as Democrat mid-term election prospects worsened (they are predicted to lose, bigly), teleprompter-Joe is preparing the minds of the nation to cast doubt on election results.

Democrats hate that they must earn our vote, but they never accept the results if they lose. So, they incite fear and a sense of danger, striving to use the slimmest of legislative majorities to enact into law every measure they need to cheat and to stay in power.

“Our Democracy”
The left has made no secret of its strategic desire to overthrow our representative Republic and implement one-party majority rule over the United States. “Our democracy,” they call it. Therefore, the Republican Party is a “danger” to democracy; the filibuster is “racist” and a “threat” to democracy; packing the court is required to “protect” democracy; and our constitutional right to dissent is “disinformation” and a “threat” to democracy.

Remember Ben Franklin: “A Republic, if you can keep it.” Our Founders knew history and evil men’s unquenchable thirst for power, to rule as our “betters” instead of governing as our equals.

“Insurrection”
I detest any illegal activity that occurred on January 6, 2021, while acknowledging evidence that government operatives incited such activity. Regardless of cause, all but a relative few were peaceful. Nevertheless, that day will be used against America’s patriots in perpetuity.

It fits the leftists’ scheme and their quest for a one-party totalitarian government to villainize every dissenting voice. Therefore, hundreds have been arrested and imprisoned, violating their constitutional rights. Biden’s inaugural address and first state of the union speech to Congress emphasized a contrived threat of “white supremacy,” and “domestic terrorism.” The leftists’ most trusted “ace in the hole” is the ad hominem attack, calling every opponent a “racist,” “fascist,” or “terrorist.” Their goal is the isolation and silencing of any dissenting voice(s).

The radical Left has no shame, and no concern for us or our futures. It’s about gaining power, then deceiving and demoralizing the electorate by engaging in a sustained psychological warfare campaign that supplants reasoned, rational thought with an unreasonable, irrational, and fearful psychosis.

In all human history, America is a shining gem and worth fighting for! Be unapologetically American and fight back through every respectful and peaceful means possible.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

Waking Up And Derailing The Great Reset

SATURDAY, JAN 29, 2022 - 06:30 PM
Submitted by QTR's Fringe Finance Gold

This week, I had to opportunity to speak to one of my all time favorite podcasters, Tom Bodrovics from Palisades Gold Radio about my arguments from my latest article on inflation, called “Inflation Is The Kryptonite That Will End Our Decades-Long Monetary Policy Ponzi Scheme”.

The Age Of Censorship
First, on the podcast, I talk about how we live in an age where narratives can’t be questioned without you being considered a conspiracy theorist and how Substack is filling an important free market demand for uncensored content. I first touched on this when I started writing on Substack back in August of 2021 in this article called “Ending Social Media Censorship And The Meteoric Rise of Substack”.

On the podcast, I also point out that there are two narrative shifts occurring right now: Covid and inflation.



Inflation Marks An Impasse For the Fed
Regarding inflation, the Fed is at a fork in the road between popping the stock market bubble or allowing persistent inflation to brutalize the middle and lower class (or, as Jerome Powell put it this week, ‘some people are prone to suffer more’).

I tell Tom that the Fed is trapped, and unlike in the past, they don’t have a viable way out. In the past they were able to avoid inflation and the Fed was able to pretend to successfully engineer the appearance of monetary prosperity, I told Tom. Now, there is no way for the average person to ignore Fed policy with high inflation. The Fed is running out of excuses and room to wiggle.

“The Fed’s feet are being held to the fire in a way that has never occurred before…politicians aren’t going to be able to overpromise anymore, as reality takes hold. Inflation is now the number one political issue in the country,” I tell Tom.



I also tell Tom that crypto has brought financial understanding to a new generation who want to understand monetary policy. Despite my criticisms of crypto, namely that (1) many of its advocates are charlatans, (2) it is most certainly a risk asset and (3) we can never be certain a cataclysm in crypto won’t occur, it is helping a younger generation quickly understand the flawed nature of our existing system.

This, in turn, is a huge problem for the Fed because the new generation understands the Central Banking ponzi scheme.

A Hyperinflationary Mindset Is Right Around The Corner
I also tell Tom that we’re not far from a hyperinflationary mindset in the country and that our leaders, who believe they can micromanage the economy and are stunned when their actions don’t work, are terribly ignorant. I wrote about this months ago when President Biden shut down the nation’s oil pipeline projects and then mulled the high price of gas in the coming months.

Instead, Harris Kupperman in a recent interview with me told me that oil traders “will break the Fed” and will make Jerome Powell “cry uncle”. Kupperman thinks oil prices are going higher and simply cannot be stopped.

The Covid Pivot Is Next, And Beware Of The Great Reset
I also spoke to Tom about why I think capitalism and common sense are going to end vaccine mandates and intrusion into our lives - something I wrote about at length just hours ago.

Finally I talk about Klaus Schwab’s “Great Reset” idea. I note that a large amount of people are seeing the global elite’s future plans for a system that will strip us of civil liberties while enriching central planners. I tell Tom that I don’t believe globalists have a viable way out of the system as it stands today.



This runs hand-in-hand with Part 1 of an interview with George Gammon I did this week, where George reminded us that the global only care about “usurping control”.

The more educated people become to the system, the fewer options will be left for the elite, I tell Tom.

“We’re all just in different stages of waking up.”

You can listen to my entire interview with Palisades Gold Radio, for free, here:

View: https://youtu.be/O3GobLW7pHY
52:44 min
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

Macleod: Bitcoin, Bullion, & Why 'FedCoin' May Never Happen

SATURDAY, JAN 29, 2022 - 09:20 AM
Authored by Alasdair Macleod via GoldMoney.com,

The Fed has just released its first public consultation paper on a dollar-based central bank digital currency. For many, central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) are a means of heading off private sector cryptos, but coincidentally the prices of bitcoin and others have collapsed, losing half their value since early November.

The CBDC proposition is being sold to us by the central banks as keeping up with the times and taking advantage of the opportunities presented by new technologies to evolve payment systems.

The Bank for International Settlements has been coordinating research into CBDCs, and this article gives a brief description of how the BIS and its committee members sees them evolving. It is early days, and there are several important issues yet to be tackled, such as will CBDCs pay interest, and what will be the likely reaction of commercial banks to seeing central banks muscle in on their territory.

There are also two separate CBDC functions to consider. There is retail, whereby individuals have direct access to their central bank as counterparty, and a wholesale function for financial intermediaries for international settlement.

Whether CBDCs will come into existence is doubtful. To have credibility, their introduction will have to be coordinated at G20 level, and they are unlikely to be widely issued before the end of the decade. That will probably be too late to save the world from a developing financial and monetary crisis which threatens to change everything. Furthermore, the Americans will need to be convinced that their dollar hegemony will not be compromised. And what will almost certainly stop it is the powerful US banking lobby, likely to remind politicians presented with the necessary legislation, that a political survivor is one who once bought, stays bought.


Introduction
This month, the credibility of cryptocurrencies came into question as the price of bitcoin and those of its imitators continued to fall heavily. Bitcoin has halved from its peak, which was only two months ago.

It leaves everyone involved with headaches. As the private sector replacement for failing fiat currencies, the credibility of bitcoin may have suffered a mortal blow, with many observers now comparing it not in the context of rapidly expanding quantities of fiat, but with the wilder tech stocks which coincidentally have taken a battering as well. But a few state actors on the fringes have become strong supporters, notably El Salvador.

As El Salvador hoovers up bitcoin, there are other governments seeking to ban or to restrict them. While appearing to be keen to develop its own digital currency, the Russian central bank recently proposed restrictions on crypto trading — admittedly this is an ongoing debate. China, being the ultimate authoritarian state, banned crypto exchanges long ago, and is already testing its own state-sponsored digital currency.

Other governments are treading more carefully, aware that the formally $3 trillion (now $2 trillion) market capitalisation of cryptocurrencies reflects considerable private sector wealth in their own jurisdictions. Surely, major central banks would love to follow the Russians and Chinese in banning bitcoin and its imitators. But instead of a full-frontal attack on distributed ledgers and the threat they mount to their fiat currencies, major governments everywhere appear to be deploying a strategy of gradual strangulation, hoping the crypto phenomenon will subside. After all, currency is the preserve of the state and other than mavericks like El Salvador, who wants a private sector alternative?

This is the statist’s view. But just in case, research is being conducted into central bank digital currencies — CBDCs. Cynics can anticipate how the relationship between private sector distributed ledgers and a centralised state version will evolve. As the development of national CBDCs progresses, increasing restrictions on bitcoin and other rivals will be introduced. There is one thing that governments and central banks cannot abide, and that is private sector rivals to their currency monopolies.

Research into the development of CBDCs is being coordinated by a committee at the Bank for International Settlements, led by the major central banks (with the notable exception of the Peoples Bank of China) and the BIS itself. All other central banks can expect to benefit from the project and follow its recommendations.

Only last week, the US Fed issued the first in what promises to be a series of consultation papers on a US CBDC. The importance of the Fed’s strategic approach is paramount, since the dollar is the big daddy of all currencies through which America controls the world. A CBDC replacement must not threaten the dollar’s hegemony. If it does, then we can assume the whole CBDC concept will end up being stillborn.

What is a CBDC?
A CBDC is a digital form of central bank money that is different from balances in traditional reserve or settlement accounts. It is a digital payment instrument, denominated in the national unit of account and is a direct liability of the central bank.



Two separate functions have been identified. There is a general purpose, or retail function, whereby a CBDC is an alternative to currency cash and commercial bank deposit money. And there is a wholesale function for use between financial intermediaries, incorporating cross-border settlements. Figure 1 above illustrates the flows of these two different functions.

The adoption of a CBDC requires a central bank to upgrade their banking systems to deal with tens or even hundreds of millions of depositors and businesses — a task whose sheer scale and technological challenges should not be underestimated.

Figure 2 illustrates the relationship between a retail CBDC and existing currency liabilities.



CBDCs are intended to be an addition to current settlement systems and currency quantities. Declining use of banknotes and coins, which are a bearer form of central bank liability and a direct claim on it, is being claimed as a justification for a new electronic settlement medium with the same currency standing in the form of a retail CBDC.

The widespread use of debit cards has blurred the distinction between the cash notes and coins issued by a central bank, and deposit money which is a liability of commercial banks. Users of currency in retail transactions are generally unaware of the distinction, and bank regulators believe that their oversight provides justification for the seamless operation between these different risk categories.

Nevertheless, central banks are aware of the potential disruption a CBDC might cause to existing settlement systems, and for this reason amongst others are certain to proceed cautiously.

The wholesale function of a CBDC is a different one to being purely an alternative to bank notes, being more attuned to reserves on a central bank’s balance sheet. If a wholesale CBDC is introduced it will be with the objective of extending a central bank’s function into cross-border settlements, with the intention of making them more efficient with lower transaction fees. That will require the same operational and legal standards between different CBDCs, necessitating international cooperation in the way they are set up — hence the likely future role for the BIS, which already sets out the global regulatory framework under the Basel Committee to which commercial banks must adhere.

Undoubtedly, cross-border cooperation in CBDCs is a multiyear project. All that the BIS committee can do for now is come up with guidelines to which individual central banks can make long term plans, so that different CBDCs might eventually be integrated into a global settlement system. This is also behind an initial phase of designing CBDCs for retail, or domestic use with a view to them being compatible with wholesale use.

The benefit of a retail CBDC for the state
Augustin Carstens, General Manager at the Bank for International Settlements made the following comments in an IMF sponsored video about central bank digital currencies:
“We intend to establish the equivalence with cash, but there is a huge difference there. For example, with cash we don’t know who is using a $100 bill today, we don’t know who is using a MX$1,000 bill today.

A key difference with a CBDC is that a central bank will have absolute control under the rules and regulations that will determine the use of that expression of central bank liability, and we will have the technology to enforce that. Those two issues are extremely important and make a huge difference with respect to what cash is.”
Clearly, the attraction to Carstens is that CBDCs offer the potential for central banks to increase their controls over how currency is used, control not only over markets and economies, but over individuals and businesses. Carstens seems completely unfazed by the issues for personal liberty. However, Figure 1 above suggests there is an option of token based CBDCs to provide anonymity.

But given all central banks’ desire for control to minimise criminal transactions and tax evasion, it is unlikely that anonymity will be preserved. And for any jurisdiction where personal freedom might be regarded as important, there’s always the pull of international conformity to ensure that in the name of preventing international fraud and tax evasion personal freedom cannot be protected.

The issue of individual freedom to buy and sell goods and services with the state being automatically informed of every transaction is a huge departure from using banknotes and coin. This could become an impediment to the widespread adoption and success of a retail CBDC in some countries. But for individuals there may be no option if retail CBDCs become the pretext to do away with cash entirely.

Furthermore, while some central banks will be wary of a CBDC interfering with the implementation of monetary policy, other central banks have expressed the desire to use them to extend control over economic outcomes. For example, by deploying CBDCs with an expiry date beyond which they become worthless, it would enable a central bank to accelerate capital spending, employment expansion, or consumer demand in favoured industries, such as green energy, or other sectors deemed worthy of state promotion and protection.

The application of positive and negative interest rates selectively on retail CBDCs might be seen as a further tool for enhancing monetary policies by directing capital investment and economic management. This, surely, is one of several possibilities that will excite the planners as CBDC concepts develop.

That is in the future. For now, the CBDC concept needs to be consistent with promoting improved settlement options. Through commercial bank reserves, central banks supply the ultimate backstop for the banking system, and in respect of settlements generally, they offer guarantees of safety, integrity and access to currency and deposits. Central banks are also tasked with providing sufficient liquidity to ensure the smooth workings of the payments system, ultimately as the lender of last resort. Through their banking regulation, central banks oversee the integrity and efficiency of their national settlement systems.

The introduction of a CBDC must not undermine these functions but be seen to enhance them.
Part 1 of 2
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment
Part 2 of 2

The consequences for commercial banks

One of the problems that is yet to be addressed is the effect of an introduction of retail CBDCs on bank deposits.
The origin of bank deposits is always loan creation, acting as the double-entry bookkeeping liability counterpart of bank credit recorded on bank balance sheets as assets. As borrowers draw down their loans to make payments, deposits received by their payees are distributed throughout the banking network, and rebalancing is achieved through wholesale interbank markets.

A new class of central bank liability to be used for electronic settlements risks draining the commercial banking network of deposit money that would otherwise be recycled between them. And while it is tempting to think that deposits at the larger banks are likely to be safe, there will be many smaller ones around the world that could face deposit runs into the relative safety of a CBDC.

The effect of deposit flight into central banks from highly leveraged commercial banking systems, particularly the euro system and the Japanese sector, could be catastrophic. Both sport asset to equity ratios of over twenty times on average with some banks even more highly geared, so a shift of less than 5% of their deposits could tip them into crisis.

Furthermore, for bank depositors the convenience of transferring deposits electronically and immediately for a CBDC without the hassle of queuing up for cash which a bank refuses to release in quantity could turn a bank liquidity crisis into an intraday or overnight event.

For this reason alone, a CBDC giving access to the public without hinderance seems unlikely. Furthermore, when commercial bankers are presented with a CBDC scheme, they are likely to oppose it strongly because of the threat to their customer deposits. This is even likely to be more important to commercial banks than the risk that a CBDC will represent unfair competition with commercial banking, a possibility upon which views are likely to be divided.

In authoritarian regimes, the competition argument might not matter. But in the US, banks are powerful lobbyists paying for politicians’ election spending. It seems likely that their antipathy will become an insurmountable obstacle to the introduction of a dollar CBDC, if proposals get that far.

Practical and political considerations

While some central banks might find there is minimal political opposition, most jurisdictions will require enabling legislation to be passed without which a global CBDC regime cannot proceed. The course of action is probably as follows:
  1. With the agreement of the major central banks, the BIS finalises draft proposals for CBDCs to present to finance ministers at a G20 meeting. At the earliest, this initial step will be put before the G20 Summit in 2023 in India. More likely, it will be 2024 or 2025. Bear in mind that Basel 3, which was the response to the 2008—2009 financial crisis, is still not fully implemented more than a decade later.
  2. Central banks will want to reassure their legislators that their proposed systems are thoroughly tested, secure and robust before framing the necessary legislation. Testing by pilot schemes could start as early as next year in some cases but given the seriousness of this issue and the bureaucratic nature of the introduction and implementation of government IT systems, and the sheer scale of opening accounts for the entire population and its businesses, it is likely to take some time.
  3. The earliest an international agreement for CBDCs on common standards and the necessary legislation passed in the G20 nations and their implementation is unlikely to be before the end of this decade at the earliest, if not well into the 2030s.
To complicate matters, objections could arise from Russia and China. As a G20 member, Russia ploughs its own furrow, with the West periodically threatening to cut it off from SWIFT and imposing other penalties — hardly conducive to international cooperation. China is already testing her version of a CBDC, so is unlikely to conform to a BIS template which does not yet exist. But by far the most serious problem is likely to be with the US.

From remarks on the subject by Jay Powell, the Fed is taking a very cautious line. Earlier this month the Fed issued what promises to be only the first in a series of public consultation papers, and from reading it there emerges an impression of a reluctance to engage with the real issues. A suggested list of twenty questions to be answered makes the point, so that this CBDC plan is likely to be kicked into the long grass.

That the Fed is dragging its heels is obviously a matter of opinion. A crucial issue behind this opinion is the effect of CBDCs on the dollar’s existing hegemony. While the Fed might engage with a retail dollar CBDC, arguing it will offer the prospects of an improved settlement system, we can be reasonably sure that the Treasury will balk at the BIS setting the agenda for a wholesale version of the American currency. For international settlements, the dollar is already under attack from the renminbi and the euro, a rot which the Treasury will be keen to contain.

We cannot guess the outcome of this issue. And there are also the spanners to be thrown into the works by powerful commercial banking interests, which will not want to see their credit creation monopoly threatened because of the drain on their deposits.

The threat to state fiat currencies from bitcoin

That central banks are banding together to provide a viable alternative to bitcoin and its imitators before banning them from being used as media of exchange is a supposition supported by the interests and actions of the central banks.
If this is indeed the case, we should not be surprised, given that the monetary authorities have demonstrated that they do not admit to the relationships between money, currency, and credit. They are therefore unable to decide on whether bitcoin fits into any of these categories, and therefore the seriousness of the threat.

To act as the principal media of exchange as a replacement for government fiat, bitcoin must fulfil all these functions. Through millennia, gold has been money without counterparty risk, more recently as the backing for currency substitutes with only small quantities of physical gold actually circulating.

In theory, bitcoin in a wallet could fulfil that role of traditional money, backing a currency system based upon it.
This backing would also be fundamental to its backing for a new currency, perhaps in the form of an obligation to deliver bitcoin held in custody by a trusted counterparty. Where it will fail is as the medium of credit due to its inflexibility compared with gold.

Besides its physical qualities, gold’s success as money is because the quantity of above ground stocks used as money is flexible and demand for the money function is set by its users (not the state, which is the important distinction from fiat currencies). The quantity of gold circulating as money draws upon reserves used mainly for ornamentation. Consequently, over the centuries there has been remarkable price stability for commodities and products exchanged by those dividing their labour measured in gold.

This is not possible with bitcoin, whose quantity is finite, and if it was to be adopted as money its purchasing power measured in goods would rise inexorably as billions of people build their cash reserves. This would continue after the shock of the collapse of the fiat regime because of the hard limit on bitcoin’s quantity, while the purchasing power of gold and its substitutes can be expected to stabilise.

A borrower of bitcoin investing in production would be faced with repayments of uncertain value measured against his final output, making it impossible to conduct the economic calculations necessary for the investment.

Besides this hurdle the promoters of bitcoin would have to convince most of the inhabitants of this planet that it is the only replacement for fiat currencies when they fail. Unlike the promoters, people dividing their labour are not speculators, only seeking a stable means of exchange. Indeed, the speculators’ motives are to encourage as high a price for bitcoin as possible, which is not the function of money.

It should therefore be obvious that bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies are incapable of providing a monetary role because of their unsuitability as media of exchange. This being so we can only surmise that cryptocurrencies are little more than a concept which has succeeded in attracting speculation on a scale seen only when currency and credit to inflate it are available in unlimited quantities. In short, the phenomenon is a bubble that eclipses most of those seen hitherto.

As such, cryptocurrencies do not pose a threat to fiat currencies. It is gold the authorities should look out for, and there is no sign of them doing so.

The economic and monetary consequences of CBDCs

It is clear from Augustin Carsten’s comments quoted above that the objective is to use CBDCs to increase state control over how currencies are used.
That being the case, personal freedom and free markets will be further suppressed through their introduction. All the evidence is that state-determined economic outcomes are failures. We can explain this simply by pointing out that only acting individuals can take the decisions that lead to economic progress, while government plans always lack the basis of economic calculation.

Instead of providing solutions for failing economic and monetary policies, CBDCs are a continuing move in the same direction. Nowhere in all the literature emanating from the BIS, or in the Fed’s consultation paper, is there any suggestion that an expansion of the quantity of CBDCs will be offset by a contraction in central bank balance sheets or in the quantity of bank credit. The only offset is the declining use of banknotes and coins, which is a minor portion of the circulating currency.

Therefore, CBDCs represent an additional source of inflationary finance, reminding us of the fate of mandats territoriaux in revolutionary France in 1796, when they replaced the assignat which had become virtually worthless. The mandats lasted barely six months. The only material difference is that CBDCs are planned to be issued contemporaneously with existing fiat currencies while they still retain public credibility.

There can be no doubt that the expansion of currency and bank credit since the Lehman crisis in 2008 has instilled in all major states an enhanced dependency on inflationary financing of government spending. Rather than raising taxes or cutting spending, it is far easier to cover their deficits by expanding the media of exchange, and while notionally independent from the political class, central bankers have fully embraced this use of inflation.

But inflation is an invidious tax, eventually realised by those who suffer under it.

A lethal combination of the monetary arithmetic that an expansion of currency invokes, together with a loss of all confidence in the integrity of the issuer is always the death knell for fiat currencies. The only question remaining is the time taken for the public to realise that far from its government providing free lunches ad infinitum, they are not only paid for through their taxes but also through currency debasement.

There comes a point where this realisation leads to a widespread revulsion and rejection of the currency, when it then becomes worthless. The best that might be said of CBDCs is that by adding a layer of confusion, the final rejection of government fiat by the public might be delayed briefly. But as the experience of revolutionary France showed, the replacement of one fiat currency with it in another form changes nothing.

Existing currency problems are more immediate than plans for the adoption of CBDCs can possibly allow. In the coming months, a fatal destabilisation of fiat currencies is in prospect as central banks are forced to choose between submitting to the inevitability of interest rates rising to reflect the loss of their currencies’ purchasing power or continuing to provide inflationary finance for their governments. Without doubt, the problem is becoming urgent. Only this week, we have seen the hold fire in the face of rising interest rates, leaving US Treasuries on negative yields of over six per cent, according to official CPI figures.

[iv] On an independent estimate of price inflation, negative bond yields for US Treasury debt exceed double that.

Clearly, a consequence of monetary policies is that markets now fail to function. The Eurozone and Japan face the additional difficulty of surmounting negative interest rates as well as negative nominal yields on government bonds.

We can only surmise that these extraordinary conditions persist due to the success of central bank propaganda backed by false and misleading statistics, while the financial world is in thrall to the false gods of Keynesianism.

As pointed out above, a further falsity is the belief that cryptocurrencies could become a viable medium of exchange. It is those dividing their labour who decide their medium of exchange, and not a shadow issuer comprised of technology enthusiasts who have achieved no more than create a bubble to end all bubbles. Bitcoin is simply another form of fiat, and as fiat dies, we can expect bitcoin and its imitators to do so as well.

And given the time taken to introduce CBDCs, not only will we be writing a further chapter on extraordinary popular delusions and the madness of crowds over the entire cryptocurrency phenomenon, but we will have found CBDCs to be stillborn.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment
Klaus Schwab's Young Global Leaders School - Guess Who Attended 3:19 min

KLAUS SCHWAB'S YOUNG GLOBAL LEADERS SCHOOL - GUESS WHO ATTENDED
1643526816940.png

^^^^^
Flashback 2017: Klaus Schwab Admits WEF Penetration Into Governments & Cabinets The World Over 1:06 min

FLASHBACK 2017: KLAUS SCHWAB ADMITS WEF PENETRATION INTO GOVERNMENTS & CABINETS THE WORLD OVER
1643527202866.png

****

Klaus Schwab: "We won't go back to the good old world which we had" 1:16 min

KLAUS SCHWAB: "WE WON'T GO BACK TO THE GOOD OLD WORLD WHICH WE HAD"
1643527824293.png

******

Klaus Schwab: 'Turning Point of Human Kind' 2:20 min
KLAUS SCHWAB: 'TURNING POINT OF HUMAN KIND'
1643528494031.png

*****

Klaus Schwab about ESG metrics and stakeholder capitalism 1:04 min

KLAUS SCHWAB ABOUT ESG METRICS AND STAKEHOLDER CAPITALISM
1643529079732.png

^^^^^^
Klaus Schwab | 'get ready for a cyber attack' | Part II of the Great Reset? .56 min

KLAUS SCHWAB | 'GET READY FOR A CYBER ATTACK' | PART II OF THE GREAT RESET?
1643529349749.png
 
Last edited:

marsh

On TB every waking moment

Neo-Slavery World Order: The Great Reset is Not Great and Not New

JANUARY 8, 2021


By Insight History

The Great Reset is just the latest installment of the grand agenda to completely reorder global society by the end of the 21st century. Prior to the Great Reset for instance, the United Nations (UN) Agenda 21 was adopted by 178 governments in Rio in 1992, taking the form of a “comprehensive plan of action to be taken globally, nationally and locally by organizations of the United Nations System, Governments, and Major Groups in every area in which human impacts on the environment.”

Global, unelected special interests have a vision of what your future is going to look like, and these international networks of power ideally want you to blindly accept every aspect of your life being controlled by experts, with this system known as technocracy, or rule by experts (technicians).

Before we delve deeper into the insidious nature of the neo-slavery world order, a little context on the organization behind the reset is needed. It is the brainchild of the World Economic Forum (WEF) at Davos, led by Professor Klaus Schwab, the founder and Executive Chairman of the WEF, with other global organizations such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the UN pushing this initiative.

You Will Own Nothing
Back in 2016, the WEF featured a ridiculous article written by Ida Auken, that described a system akin to neo-feudalism:
Welcome to the year 2030… I don’t own anything. I don’t own a car. I don’t own a house. I don’t own any appliances or any clothes.
A system where you, as an individual, do not own anything, is a system where everything you have can be taken away from you at a drop of a hat. It essentially describes a neo-feudal, or neo-slavery, system.

In feudal systems in medieval Europe (5th to 15th century approximately), the serfs, who were the lowest class of people in a hierarchical system, were slaves in many ways. Serfs were bound to land and the lords who owned the land, and had little-to-no rights. A serf could not marry, move somewhere else, or change occupation without permission from their lord. So, keep all this in mind when you hear about how supposedly great this reset is going to be.

The Great Reset Explained
Yet what exactly is the Great Reset? As Schwab explained in a WEF article in June of 2020:

To achieve a better outcome, the world must act jointly and swiftly to revamp all aspects of our societies and economies, from education to social contracts and working conditions. Every country, from the United States to China, must participate, and every industry, from oil and gas to tech, must be transformed. In short, we need a “Great Reset” of capitalism. There are many reasons to pursue a Great Reset, but the most urgent is COVID-19.

In other words, Schwab is calling for the complete reordering of life on this planet. From the chaos generated by the response of governments to Covid-19, Schwab wants to impose his, and the elite networks of power intertwined in the WEF, version of order. As he writes:
The COVID-19 crisis is affecting every facet of people’s lives in every corner of the world. But tragedy need not be its only legacy. On the contrary, the pandemic represents a rare but narrow window of opportunity to reflect, reimagine, and reset our world to create a healthier, more equitable, and more prosperous future.
Considering that the Great Reset is being pushed on the world in an opportunistic way in response to Covid-19, it is important to highlight that the WEF was one of the main organizers of Event 201. This event took place in October, 2019, and it simulated, or war-gamed, a scenario where a coronavirus pandemic, that began in bats, engulfed the world.

Schwab and Kissinger Sitting in a Tree
It is also important to note how connected Schwab and the WEF are to key individuals and organizations that help shape the world. Schwab has known Henry Kissinger, one of the most globally connected individuals on the planet, for 50 years for instance. In a 2017 interview at Davos, Schwab gushed over Kissinger:
I’m delighted to see you Dr. Kissinger on the screen. For me it’s a very moving moment because actually I met Dr. Kissinger for the first time exactly 50 years ago at Harvard (from 0.07 into video).
In the same interview, when talking about a speech made by the Chinese President, Xi Jinping, Kissinger talks about globalization and the construction of a new international order:

I think that President Xi’s speech was of fundamental significance. It laid out a concept for globalization and some specific challenges and roads to a solution. But to me the most important aspect was that it was an assertion by China of participating in the construction of an international order. One of the key problems of our period is that the international order with which we were familiar, is disintegrating in some respects, and that new elements from Asia and the developing world are entering it. What President Xi has done is to put forward a concept of international order in the economic field that will have to be the subject of conversation and the substance of the creation of an evolving system (2:33 into video).

Kissinger has been a long-term member of an organization that has represented elite networks of power for around 100 years, an organization with a fascinating and intriguing history: namely, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).

Dr. Carroll Quigley, who was a Professor of History at Georgetown University for many years, and who also taught at Harvard and Princeton, wrote a book called Tragedy and Hope in 1966. In the book, he described a future system that has many similarities to our system today. Quigley noted that he had been given access to the private records and secret papers of the network behind the CFR (Quigley, 1966: 950). In relation to the potential of a future feudal-like system in the hands of elite networks of power, Quigley wrote that:

In addition to these pragmatic goals, the powers of financial capitalism had another 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 private meetings and conferences. The apex of the system was to be the Bank for International Settlements(BIS) in Basle, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world’s central banks which were themselves private corporations.

Each central bank, in the hands of men like Montagu Norman of the Bank of England, Benjamin Strong the New York Federal Reserve, Charles Rist of the Bank of France, and Hjalmar Schacht of the Reichsbank, sought to dominate its government by its ability to control treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the busines world (Quigley, 1966: p.324).

Sources:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Apjzjsa8AIg
  • Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) Membership K – Henry A. Kissinger Council on Foreign Relations
  • New York Times (5 Jan. 1977) Dr. Carroll Quigley DR. CARROLL QUIGLEY (Published 1977)
  • Carroll Quigley (1966) Tragedy and Hope (MacMillan Company, New York; Collier-MacMillan Limited, London – Third Printing, 1998, by George S. Gabric, GSG & Associates Publishers, San Pedro – p. 950, p.324 and p.866).
  • Bank for International Settlements (BIS) Member Central Banks BIS member central banks
Creative Commons Imagery:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Apjzjsa8AIg
When we share, everyone wins - Creative Commons
 
Last edited:

marsh

On TB every waking moment

SUNDAY SCREENING: ‘What’s Up With The Great Reset?’ (2021)

NOVEMBER 21, 2021 BY NEWS WIRE 0 COMMENTS

“It benefits Schwab and Fauci’s political agenda to continue lockdowns as long as possible. The same people who sell interminable lockdowns — by ignoring great science on pre-existing immunity, lack of asymptomatic spread, and flawed PCR tests — believe the lockdowns are the perfect agent to usher in the changes they desire.” – Stacey Rudin

In this two-part video presentation, commentator Kate Wand unravels the globalist agenda known as “The Great Reset” which is currently being pushed through western governments under the political slogan of “Build Back Better” repeated in unison by western political leaders and the corporate media, and designed by the technocrats at the World Economic Forum and their billionaire elite sponsors. Understanding what this new embryonic global government is configured is essential if one is to truly know where all of these corporativist-collectivist policies are leading towards: global totalitarianism.

Watch:
PART 1: 13:16 min video on website

PART 2: 22:27 min video on website

Run time: Parts 1 & 2 approximately 34 min
Narrated and produced by Kate Wand (2021)

READ MORE GREAT RESET NEWS AT: 21st Century Wire COVID 19 Files
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

marsh

On TB every waking moment

Pinkerton: Biden’s ‘Big Shift’ on Climate Change Is the ‘Great Reset’ by Stealth
74
US Vice President Joe Biden gestures during his speech at the World Economic Forum (WEF) annual meeting in Davos, on January 20, 2016.. - Rising risks to the global economy and a string of jihadist attacks around the world overshadowed the opening of an annual meeting of the rich and …
FABRICE COFFRINI/AFP via Getty Images
JAMES P. PINKERTON29 Jan 2022123

From “Pen and Phone” to “Pretty Big Shift”
Remember back in 2014 when President Barack Obama said that he would conduct his presidency by “pen and phone”? He said that after he had lost control of Congress and was no longer able to pass legislation. His new idea was that he would continue to advance progressive goals by fiat: by executive order or just by doing things through the murky workings of the Administrative State.

It was this unilateral pen-and-phone approach that launched, for example, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals. DACA might sound like a formal thing, like some sort of actual statutory program, and yet it was mere freelancing; it represented the policy preferences of the Obama administration and nothing more.

Indeed, at the same time, the 44th president proceeded with other pen-and-phone gambits. As tabulated by the Cato Institute’s Ilya Shapiro, Obama charged ahead with more than ten of these, on topics ranging from education to the internet to the environment.

Pen-and-phone was a slippery and stealthy strategy, in which the president sought to hide the ball from Congress and the public. The Constitution doesn’t say a president can do it, but it also doesn’t say a president can’t do it. So Obama went ahead with it. In the end, pen-and-phone was a matter for the voters to resolve, as, of course, they did in 2016, when Obama’s chosen successor, Hillary Clinton, was defeated. Indeed, after the loss in the ’16 election, the phrase pen-and-phone fell out of the Democratic vocabulary.

GettyImages-462639929.jpg

President Barack Obama convenes a meeting of his cabinet on January 14, 2014, after telling reporters, “I’ve got a pen and I’ve got a phone” and would use them if Congress did not act. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

Yet now the concept—if not the exact words—is making a comeback under the 46th president. Having lost his mojo in Congress on big legislation, President Joe Biden is increasingly looking to his appointees to carry on the work of progressivism behind the scenes.

A good example is Biden’s quiet reworking of the Federal Reserve System. The Fed is an important body—it’s the central bank of the United States—and yet its actual operations are obscure. (How many American can name even one of the Fed’s seven governors?)

And so few beyond the DC Beltway noticed on January 24 when Politico headlined, “‘Big shift’: Biden moves to rewrite the rules on climate threat.”As the article detailed, Biden has nominated Sarah Bloom Raskin to be vice chair of the Fed. (She’s the spouse, by the way, of Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD), a leading figure on both the House Judiciary Committee and the January 6 investigating committee.)

As the Politico article details, the Biden plan is that the Raskin-ized Fed will join with other mostly obscure agencies, such as the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, to steer (read: scare) investors away from fossil fuel companies. Such scaring away would require a reworking of federal regulations, such that companies would have to take “environmental and social goals” (ESG), as defined bureaucrats and Democratic donors, into account.

ESG is, in other words, a substantial retooling of the venerable concept of fiduciary responsibility—the idea that the first loyalty of companies should be to manage their assets wisely and not put them at risk on government-mandated schemes.

Politico quoted David Arkush, managing director of the climate program at Public Citizen, a group founded by Ralph Nader, saying of the new ESG plan, “I expect it to be a pretty big shift.” Yes, it is a big shift. Politico summed it up:
The nation’s top financial regulators will all soon be headed by progressive regulators who are preparing to push the Biden administration’s climate agenda forward, even as the president has failed to get broader climate-related legislation through Congress.
Sarah Bloom Raskin herself has been quite emphatic about her big-shifting green goals. As she wrote two years ago in the left’s go-to bulletin board, the New York Times, “Climate change poses the next big threat. Ignoring it, particularly to the benefit of fossil fuel interests, is a risk we can’t afford.” Looking forward to her next job, she added, “The Fed’s unique independence affords it a powerful role”—that is, the power to crush Exxon and all the other oil, gas, and coal companies.
AP412819091024.jpg

Then-U.S. Deputy Treasury Secretary Sarah Bloom Raskin, center, chats with her delegation at the opening ceremony of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) finance ministers meeting in Beijing, China, on October 22, 2014. (AP Photo/Andy Wong)

Amusingly, Raskin tried to disguise her green ideology as just hard-nosed thinking about the future. Her carbon-fuel disinvestment plan, she wrote, “forestalls the inevitable decline of an industry that can no longer sustain itself.”

To which we can rejoin: Yes, it’s possible that the greens will kill the carbon-energy industry—they’re trying hard—and yet in the meantime, fossil or carbon-based fuel accounts for 79 percent of America’s energy. Indeed, carbon-fuels are such a good energy source that people keep relying on them even as supplies tighten. For example, oil prices are currently near $90 a barrel, up from barely more than $50 a year ago. And some projections suggest that oil could hit $100 a barrel.

Yet with Raskin on the Fed, such energy-necessity won’t matter. She and her allies, pursuing their green vision, will seek to starve exploration, production, and distribution. And if the economy suffers? To Raskin and her allies, slower growth is a feature, not a bug, because less economic activity means fewer carbon dioxide emissions. (Yes, Raskin might not be confirmed by the Senate, but Biden has a strong track record on confirmations; even Democrats such as Sens. Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema have mostly stayed on board with Biden nominations. And if Democrats all stay together, Republican opposition to Raskin won’t matter.)

In the meantime, of course, the Biden administration’s efforts to make energy scarcer and drive prices higher have hit home. In the words of Rupert Darwall of the RealClearFoundation:
High inflation is now the biggest threat to the economy. Woke central bankers and multi-trillion-dollar institutional investors are peas in a pod when it comes to their culpability for rising prices.
After a bruising 2021, the Biden people have realized that contractionary and inflationary policies are not popular. And yet as the Raskin pick indicates, they’re still hoping that they can achieve their ideological aims behind the scenes without kicking up a storm in Congress, let alone with the public.

We can step back and see that this has always been the method of the Administrative State: To operate through a hidden hand, high above the to-and-fro of politics—so that the voters never know what hit them.

Big Shift, Meet Great Reset
In fact, the doings of Raskin and her allies aren’t just an updating of the old Obama pen-and-phone strategy, they are also in keeping with the Great Reset.

That, of course, is the favored term of Klaus Schwab, head of the World Economic Forum, aka, Davos. You know, the folks who disdain national democracy and sovereignty, and seek instead to remake the world according to woke-capitalist wishes.

Call it whatever you want: pen-and-phone, big shift, Great Reset: the common thread is that our betters think they know what’s best for us—and if they have to, they’ll cram it down our throats.

We’ve been warned. Here’s historian and demographer Joel Kotkin, who first describes how the planned financialization of the Great Reset will make the rich richer and then adds:
For the middle and working classes, however, the Great Reset may prove somewhat less promising—if not disastrous. For most people, notes Eric Heymann, a senior economist at Deutsche Bank Research, the rapid “green” transition will mean “a noticeable loss of welfare and jobs.” The conscious policy of degrowth as a means of forcibly reducing greenhouse gas emissions will require getting most people out of their cars, and forcing them to travel far less and to live in tiny apartments.
So that’s the future that the Great Resetters see for the average American.

Interestingly, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) doesn’t agree with this vision for its people in China. Oh sure, the CCP is happy to see Americans impoverish themselves, in part because a poorer America couldn’t afford as big a military budget.

And while nobody will accuse the CCP of being a bunch of softies, the communists don’t want to risk a revolution against their rule—one revolution in China was enough, as far as they’re concerned.
GettyImages-631872052.jpg

China’s Communist Party Leader Xi Jinping delivers a speech on the opening day of the World Economic Forum, on January 17, 2017 in Davos.
(FABRICE COFFRINI/AFP via Getty Images)

So even as Biden and Raskin hatch their stealthy plan to cut the American standard of living, the CCP is going in the opposite direction, seeking to raise economic well-being in China. CCP chiefs have made clear that they have no intention of going along with any plan that reduces the Chinese standard of living, as the UK Guardian notes:
The cautious tone, according to Yan Qin, a lead analyst at Refinitiv financial analysis in Norway, has emerged since late last year, when China experienced a sudden power shortage that affected millions of households. “This in practice means less restrictions on fossil fuel. For example the policy goal in the 14th five-year plan is only to limit growth in coal consumption.”
In other words, the Chinese communists plan to burn more carbon fuels and thereby enrich their people, while our leaders plan to burn less and deprive Americans.

So at some point, perhaps Americans will be thinking that they are the ones who need a peaceful political revolution. Yes, it’s understandable that Americans might get riled up against Biden, Raskin, and the Great Resetters. After all, regular folks want a higher standard of living, not a lower one, and they are learning not to trust the Party of Davos elite.

Indeed, by now, the Great Reset might have become well enough known so as to be a liability to Biden and the Democrats, such that even arch-globalist George Soros’ recent infusion of $125 million won’t be enough to save them.
GettyImages-108431009.jpg

Financier George Soros looks on during a session entitled “Redesigning the International Monetary System: A Davos Debate” at the World Economic Forum annual meeting on January 27, 2011, in Davos. (FABRICE COFFRINI/AFP via Getty Images)

Yet Schwab and his fellow Davos Men and Women have a plan to deal with all these uppity populist challenges to their rule. They’re not going to change their ideology or policy, of course, but they are willing to let go of a name. And so the Great Reset is now becoming the Great Narrative. Same globalism, new label.

Yes, that’s always the plan: As soon as people wise up to one shell game, the Davosians start up another. And the globalists can afford plenty of shells.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

Great Reset: Globalist Klaus Schwab Explains Govt Takeover of Industry in Unearthed Video (Must See)
Renee Nal
January 29, 2022

Schwab-1200x630.png

Video from 2017 features World Economic Forum’s Klaus Schwab bragging about “penetrating” govt cabinets and other dangerous globalist schemes.

“Fourth Industrial Revolution” and “Great Reset” architect Klaus Schwab discussed the World Economic Forum’s ongoing private sector takeover, called for a Universal Basic Income, promoted “transhumanism” and celebrated his “Young Global Leaders” infiltrating government cabinets in an unearthed video from September 20, 2017.

The World Economic Forum leader’s comments bragging about “penetrating” government cabinets through his Young Global Leaders program received the most attention, but there was much more to his comments in the full video featured below.

David-Gergen.png
David R. Gergen

Klaus Schwab’s remarks were made during the 2017 Malcolm H. Wiener Lecture on International Political Economy titled “Strengthening Collaboration in a Fractured World” at the Harvard Kennedy School (Hashtag #SchwabForum). One quick look at the Malcolm Wiener Center website reveals that Harvard University is unapologetically and militantly radical left.

The discussion, which also featured globalist cellist Yo-Yo Ma (a Board Member at the World Economic Forum), was moderated by David R. Gergen. Gergen is a founding director of the Center for Public Leadership at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government who has served under several presidents.

Government Takeover of Industry
Dean of Faculty Doug Elmendorf introduced Klaus Schwab, explaining that the “mission” of the World Economic Forum is “about improving the state of the world through public private cooperation.”

The World Economic Forum is the driver of the concept of “stakeholders” (i.e. socialism) as opposed to “shareholders” in corporations. This removes a company’s profit motive and pushes industry naturally toward the government, who rewards compliance with leftist narratives.

Klaus Schwab’s stakeholder movement makes companies beholden to governments and squashes small businesses, which are unable to compete with corporations that have the backing of the taxpayer.
“The forum’s mission statement is about improving the state of the world through public private cooperation,” Doug Elmendorf says in his introduction. “The forum explains that organizations are accountable to stakeholders in all parts of society. And the forum brings together people from around the world, from the public and private sectors, from international organizations and from academic institutions.”
In what has been deemed a “public/private partnership”, corporations across the globe are now tightly intertwined with governments. This dangerous partnership picks winners (cronies) in industry. A very important example of this is epitomized in the so-called “First Movers Coalition“.
“I conceptualized probably for the first time what is called now the multistakeholder concept,” Schwab said in his remarks. “Which means that business leaders should not only be accountable to and serve shareholders, but stakeholders, which means all those communities who have a stake in the company. And here, of course, you have governments, you have employees, you have trade unions, you have civil society, and so on. And that’s the concept on which the World Economic Forum is built.”
Klaus Schwab’s blandly named “multistakeholder concept” is exactly why so many large companies are now propaganda arms for the left.

Young Global Leaders ‘Penetrate’ Cabinets
The comments that gained attention on social media relate directly to Klaus Schwab’s Young Global Leaders school (discussed in detail at RAIR Foundation USA here and here). Schwab references Angela Merkel and Vladimir Putin as former “Young Global Leaders of the World Economic Forum”.

Further, Schwab brags that he is “very proud” that the World Economic Forum “penetrate the cabinets” of Justin Trudeau and the President of Argentina Alberto Fernández. Schwab explained that at a “reception” for Trudeau, he noted that “even more than half of his cabinet are actually Young Global Leaders of the World Economic Forum.” David Gergen and Klaus Schwab also pointed out that Young Global Leaders have “penetrated” the cabinets in Argentina and also the President of France Emmanuel Macron.

(Start at around the 1:07:44 minute mark):
David Gergen: “…we want to thank you not only for what you’ve done for this school, but for what you’ve done for the world. You’ve devoted your life to making the world a better place. Something which goes to the heart of what the Kennedy School is all about. It’s been striking to us as we’ve had the pleasure, and this goes back to Dean Ellwood, that when you brought the Young Global Leaders program here [at Harvard University] for executive education and then the Schwab fellows, but there are two countries in the world now in which the Young Global Leaders have emerged… in terms of the governance.

Schwab: “Yes, actually, there’s this notion to integrate young leaders as part of the World Economic Forum since many years. And I have to say, when I mentioned now names like Mrs. [Angela] Merkel, even Vladimir Putin, and so on, they all have been Young Global Leaders of the World Economic Forum. But what we are very proud of now, the young generation like Prime Minister Trudeau, president of Argentina [Alberto Fernández], and so on, that we penetrate the cabinets. So, yesterday, 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 of the World Economic Form.”
Schwab’s comments rightfully generated outrage on social media, but Klaus Schwab made other notable comments during his presentation which also deserve attention. Importantly, he credits the Kennedy School as being “an essential pillar” in the existence of the World Economic Forum.
And I think the Kennedy School is an essential pillar in the build up of the World Economic Forum. And even if I go back, many people ask me, why is the World Economic Forum in existence? It’s the Kennedy School.
Universities have been irrevocably compromised, like most of America’s institutions.

The event was featured at the Harvard Crimson at the time, which focused on Klaus Schwab’s prediction of a “universal basic income” and his “optimistic” comments on Schwab’s so-called “fourth industrial revolution“.

Blockchain
Klaus Schwab praised himself for his role in foreseeing the power of blockchain.

“Two years ago I had to explain to everybody what blockchain is,” he said.

“Today every major bank has a research team to look how blockchain could impact the business model.” A 2019 article at MIT pointed out some very real dangers of blockchain:
Blockchain is used in a variety of industries, but what will happen if and when it’s used to record something a person would rather not have around forever?
Schwab is obsessed with technology, and claims that movements such as BREXIT are happening due to the “technological wave” that “most people do not understand”.
Just look at how the Internet has already changed, or big data is now changing the behavior of people. So, say affect our identity. And when we look for an explanation of the problems we have now in terms of BREXIT, or whatever you take, I think a lot has to do with the search of identity in a situation where you are confronted with the technology which most people do not always, technological wave, and changes which most people do not understand.
Can blockchain be used to monitor everything a person does? Only if bad actors have control of the information. But who is interested in blockchain and why? Could it be used in conjunction with digital IDs for all in order to create social credit scores that can shut down movements that contradict the authoritarian left?

The MIT report observed:
The trouble is blockchain itself is just a piece of data; it doesn’t do anything. It’s the software and the use of the software that makes the blockchain useful. Blockchain itself might be secure, but the use of the blockchain is where all of these weaknesses come through.
Klaus Schwab Wants To Put Chips in Your Brain
As reported at RAIR, Klaus Schwab said in 2016 that his so-called “Fourth Industrial Revolution” will “lead to a fusion of our physical, digital and biological identities:”

The so-called “technological wave” includes the Internet of Things, which connects household items and will eventually be connected to individuals through their clothes, skin, and even brains, according to Schwab.

Klaus Schwab: Great Reset Will “Lead to a Fusion of Our Physical, Digital and Biological Identity” 1:03 min

Also in 2016, Schwab explained that this fusion will ultimately lead to chips being put in people’s brains. This concept is largely known as “transhumanism“:

2016 Interview: Klaus Schwab Wants to Implant Chips in Your Brain 2:25 min

During his remarks at the Harvard Kennedy School, Klaus reiterated this sentiment:
“If we look at this revolution,” he said, “it’s not characterized by one technologies – you have so many technologies. You have nano technology, brain research, you have, I mean, you name it. In essence, in the long run, what is very essential is to see if this new revolution will lead to a fusion of our biological, our digital, and our material existence.”
Watch the whole thing (it starts at the 50:44 minute mark):

2017: 'Strengthening Collaboration in a Fractured World' 1:51:39 min

2017: 'Strengthening Collaboration in a Fractured World'
RAIRFoundationUSA Published January 27, 2022

Read selected articles at RAIR Foundation USA:
 
Top