As I have demonstrated, the technocratic agenda is not about saving the earth, nor about helping the public and nor even about making money. In reality, its grand overarching purpose is the complete control over every aspect of our daily life, so as to institute a formidably inescapable neofeudalistic structure to administer society and all its countless affairs. To achieve this, the globalist cabal and their sycophants have eagerly and diligently been at work, trying out various scares, boogeymen and humbugs to manipulate the populace to acquiesce, willingly, their liberty and natural rights to the progressively collectivist governments. Amazingly, even though all those cabal-promoted hoaxes having been debunked, for being so preposterous and baseless, a long time ago, they have never vanished popular consciousness. Au contraire, they have been crucial, to this day, in forming the core of public opinion, permitting the elite to carry out their totalitarian agenda on a planetary scale. Hardly has a hobgoblin been more useful to the globalist agenda than the alleged prospects of environmental catastrophe. Whenever resistance and disagreement to their initiatives appears, the politicians, scholars and talking heads compliant to the NWO institutions pushing for their globalist-driven policies whip out their trump card. Somewhere along these lines, they reply that their policies must be enacted to protect the environment or to fight climate change. In recent years, this has even gone to the ludicrous extreme of calling climate change systemically racist and, thus, we must seek ‘climate justice’. Therefore, more welfare programmes and wealth redistribution schemes have to be implemented, especially from the rich to the poor countries. Undoubtedly, more efforts for a global consolidation of powers would have to be pursued. We are grateful to the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries.” Remarkably, despite the fact that the main sponsors of the world government movement have for several occasions confessed their true intentions, the population at large has incredibly dismissed it entirely. On one of such occasions, albeit a disputed one, the scion David Rockefeller admitted to having been working for the formation of a world government commanded by “an intellectual elite and world bankers”. Regardless, in his memoirs he avowed to being an ‘internationalist’. Recalling the previous posts, the UN has always been intended to eventually acquire the functions of a proper world government. Building upon the Club of Rome’s “world problematique”, which they considered “humanity itself” the culprits, and a myriad of other ‘oiligarchy’-sponsored environmental conferences, the infamous 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro spawned off, besides the despicable United Nation Framework Convention on Climate Change – which limited the terms of reference to the possible causes of climate change as being solely anthropogenic –, the Agenda 21. To engender a policy framework to fulfil their plan for a sustainable world, at the Earth Summit they came out with a series of objectives to preserve, not just the global commons, but “human settlements” too. Obviously, as time passed, every economic activity and aspects of human behaviour have been regarded as part of or impacting the global commons to justify their totalitarian aspirations. Hence global commons began to mean anything that the globalist cabal wanted to govern. In the September 2011 issue of Our Planet, the UN offered a simple description of the global commons as “the shared resources that no one owns but all life relies upon.” Then, in 2013, the UN Systems Task Team expanded on this and published Global governance and governance of the global commons in the global partnership for development beyond 2015 where it was asserted that, according to international law, the four global commons are “the High Seas, the Atmosphere, the Antarctica and the Outer Space”; notwithstanding, the list had casually been enlarged, containing “[r]esources of interest or value to the welfare of the community of nations — such as tropical rain forests and biodiversity”; however, the UN admitted that it could be defined “even more broadly, including science, education, information and peace.” As the Covid-19 ‘scamdemic’ raged on, the globalist institutions showed us their true colours and shamelessly displayed their ambitions, intensifying their efforts and resolve to achieve their technocratic goals. On that account, the definition of global commons had to be extended. In April 2020, the Rothschild-backed bank, called the Global Environment Facility (GEF), took the view “to protect our global commons [. . .] humanity must develop new ways of doing business to deliver transformational change in food, energy, urban, and production and consumption systems.” That being said, because every aspect of human activity affects the environment and potentially hinders sustainable development, nothing is left outside of their scope. A few months later, in December 2020, Secretary General of the UN Antonio Gutteres really fleshed out the global commons concept. Speaking to an audience gathered at Columbia University, the pivotal academic institution in the 1930’s development of the Technocracy, Inc. movement, in addition to agreeing with the GEF definition, he declared that they “have a blueprint: the 2030 Agenda, the Sustainable Development Goals and the Paris Agreement on climate change.” From the multitude of environmental and climate conferences held in the 1980’s and 90’s, the UN adopted the Millennium Development Goals, giving way, in 2015, to the United Nation’s full adoption of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). While the former included 8 goals, the latter consists of “17 goals broken down into 169 targets and seeks to realize inclusive and equitable economic, social and environmental sustainable development.” In spite of its intentions appearing honourable to the unsuspected crowd, the truth is these goals serve the tyrannical and megalomanic wishes of the cabal. As I am going to show, these vague platitudes can be molded to legitimise any proposed collectivist initiative. This is the point the World Economic Forum (WEF) enters the picture. Founded in 1971, as the European Management Forum, by Ernst Stavro Blofeld impersonator Klaus Schwab, changing to its current name in 1987, it has strived to be “the International Organization for Public-Private Cooperation.” Initially, Schwab focused the meetings on how European firms could catch up with US management practices. He also developed and promoted the ‘stakeholder’ management approach, which based corporate success on managers taking account of everyone’s interests: not merely shareholders, clients and customers, but employees and the communities within which they operate, including government. Nevertheless, he realised he had the chance to develop and promote his own vision of management, which went beyond the traditional profit-maximisation motive. In an interview recorded in 2007, at the WEF’s headquarters in Geneva, Schwab affirmed that to tackle the planetary issues affecting the global commons, “we need today in the world […] corporations which are engaging into making this world a better place, not only to serve the shareholders” and customers, but their employees and communities within which they operate, including government. Moreover, he laid out the vision of his Forum, stating that the WEF is “a foundation bringing together key decision makers from all walks of life to address the challenges on the global agenda.” Discernibly, the global agenda he hints at is the Agenda 2030 and its SDGs as waypoints along the path to completion of the master plan for the 21st century: Agenda 21. To achieve this, Schwab proposed a new economic model, dubbed stakeholder capitalism. In a December 2019 article titled What Kind of Capitalism Do We Want?, this concept “first proposed a half-century ago, positions private corporations as trustees of society, and is clearly the best response to today’s social and environmental challenges.” All the same, this model has been around since the beginning of the Forum/Symposium. Indeed, in 1973, participants spontaneously took the initiative to draft a “Code of Ethics” based on Schwab’s stakeholder philosophy, with the text being unanimously approved in the final session of the Symposium. This Davos Manifesto declares that corporations must serve the interests of all stakeholders, with negotiations and concessions amongst the various parts to reach some form of harmony. A. The purpose of professional management is to serve clients, shareholders, workers and employees, as well as societies, and to harmonize the different interests of the stakeholders.” Perhaps, before we move on, I ought to take a little detour to expose the real, unauthorised history of the WEF. After attaining doctorate degrees in engineering and economics, Schwab went to Harvard in 1965 to study government and business. Whilst being there, he would attend Kissinger’s “International seminar” which was funded by the CIA via a known conduit. Through this process, Klaus Schwab would be introduced to a group of men who were actively trying to influence European public policy by any and all methods, including using the fear of impending nuclear doom. Recognising his potential straight away, they would be there for Schwab all through the founding of the World Economic Forum, with Herman Kahn, Henry Kissinger and John Kenneth Galbraith bringing perceived credibility to the project. It was not easy for Schwab alone to explain to European elites what he intended to do, so he would bring Kahn and Galbraith to Europe to persuade other important players to become part of the project. Owing to those three individuals being instruments of the Deep State Milieux, namely the Council on Foreign Relations, they sought to subject the world under the Anglo-American establishment. As a result, they wanted to keep Europe under their sphere of influence, being a steppingstone so that they would go on to unite Europe with America, followed by the remaining superstates, into a New World Order designed by the powerful and obsequious globalist agents. Getting back on track, since stakeholder capitalism means looking out for the interests of society at large, one may wonder how this is any different from the numerous branches of collectivism that were explored on the last episode of this series. The answer is, plainly, the differences boil down to the irrelevant minutiae. What really matters is that, just like the socialist, progressive and technocracy movements have attempted to abolish individuals’ liberties and natural rights in favour of a despotic form of government ruled by the intellectual and monied elites, so does Schwab’s stakeholder capitalism. To my understanding, stakeholder capitalism is the conceptual amalgamation of Frederick Taylor’s scientific management, Benito Mussolini’s corporatism, Fabian socialism and the ‘oiligarchs’’ environmentalism. Who are these stakeholders, then? Simply put, by taking a look at its partners, this moniker involves businesses, governments, banking institutions and alike, hedge funds and other investment firms, “philanthropic” foundations, NGOs, media, as well as trade unions, academia, religious leaders and social entrepreneurs – the latter is a nicer term for activists like Greta Thunberg –; not to mention think tanks, though only indirectly represented. As Herr Schwab proudly confessed, “we penetrate the cabinets.” When we discover that the WEF’s Young Global Leaders programme has actually been tied to the CIA since its inception, it becomes clear why Klaus is so proud of all that penetration. Seeing that Schwab’s WEF is simply the leading front organisation to push and pursue the goals set on the Agenda 21, we quickly find out that this economic model is one of the SDGs. Scrolling to the last one of the 17 SDGs, specifically item 17.16, the UN claims that multi-stakeholder partnerships are essential to “mobilize and share knowledge, expertise, technology and financial resources, to support the achievement of the sustainable development goals in all countries”. Once again, this is just an evolution of an idea formulated on the Agenda 21. On item 8.2, the basis for action for integrating environment and development at the policy, planning and management levels, “the responsibility for bringing about changes lies with Governments in partnership with the private sector and local authorities, and in collaboration with national, regional and international organizations,” all aiming at “global partnership for sustainable development” (Preamble). Furthermore, item 17.13 of the SDGs, states that “global macroeconomic stability” has to be enhanced “through policy coordination and policy coherence”. Interestingly, keeping to their Orwellian tradition, the definition of macroeconomic stability has changed to suit their agendas. Whereas it used to mean “full employment and stable economic growth, accompanied by low inflation,” the UN has announced that is no longer the case. Governments and legislators must “develop smart economic policies that foster sustainable and inclusive economic growth, and address challenges to economic stability including climate change” so as to meet SDG requirements. A first step towards the integration of sustainability into economic management is the establishment of better measurement of the crucial role of the environment as a source of natural capital[. . . .] A common framework needs to be developed whereby the contributions made by all sectors and activities of society, that are not included in the conventional national accounts, are included[. . . .] A programme to develop national systems of integrated environmental and economic accounting in all countries is proposed.” Following the broad instructions embedded on the Agenda 21 to the letter, the WEF has played a crucial role in revolutionising the whole economic system. Written in 1992, the clearly stated plan was to create “natural capital” that shifts “sustainability into economic management”. All sectors and all society will be involved in this effort to transform nature into financial capital. By proposing the development of “national systems of integrated environmental and economic accounting in all countries”, the cabal seeks to complete the transformation of Earth and all of its natural resources into a centralised system of economic control. As Whitney Webb explained in her excellent article, Wall Street’s Takeover of Nature Advances with Launch of New Asset Class, that is precisely what has happened. By once again misusing the concept of the global commons, the banksters have created Natural Asset Companies (NACs). These will allegedly “[p]reserve and restore the natural assets that ultimately underpin the ability for there to be life on Earth.” This allusion to caring for the global commons all sounds wonderful, but when we consider its impact upon the oceans’ depths by deep-sea mining, for example, it is really just the creation of new markets, while concern for environmental destruction barely registers. Being an anarcho-capitalist myself I am all for the privatisation of all land, all bodies of water and every commodity, provided that the laws are applied and judged equally. Unsurprisingly, this is not the opinion of the globalists. Due to being enlightened geniuses, boasting superior knowledge and skills, in comparison to the rest of us common mortals, they would rather have an unelected, international agency, which they would design and finance. On that account, the decision to give the green or red light to projects that relate to their jurisdiction and purview would be extremely swayed by the interests of these globalist, stakeholder capitalists. After all, this clique is the “trustee of the material universe for future generations.” Continuing with the case of the oceans, the International Seabed Authority (ISA) has been given the responsibility to manage the high seas, including the seabed where it has the distinct duty to “organize and control all mineral-resources-related activities in the Area for the benefit of humankind as a whole.” On their document presenting their strategic plan for the period 2019-2023, they say that to stick to the UN’s 2030 Agenda, their most relevant SDG is number 14 – Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources. Complying with its “role as custodian of the common heritage of mankind,” ISA vows it will “[s]trengthen cooperation and coordination with other relevant international organizations and stakeholders in order to [. . .] effectively safeguard the legitimate interests of members of ISA and contractors.” All of this “in order to promote investment […] in deep sea mining activities”. In the space of a few short decades, broad concepts have evolved into narrow principles of international law that, when applied, create a regulatory framework for controlled access to all resources in the oceans. What was once a genuinely global resource is now the sole province of the network of stakeholder capitalists. Essentially, this is the global governance sought by the elite. As the UN think piece aforementioned declared, “stewardship of the global commons cannot be carried out without global governance.” In short, the offer from our overlords is straightforward. In exchange for submitting to their will and allowing them sole possession of everything (the global commons), they will take care of us. As far as they are concerned, “[y]ou’ll own nothing” and you’d better “be happy” with it. Although the WEF did insist that this was based on an article , written by the young global leader Ida Auken, merely entertaining an hypothetical scenario for the near-future, the truth is that the-powers-that-be are seriously advancing and implementing such a scenario, in the form of “smart cities”. Be that as it may, this may or may be not have the design of 15-minute cites, at least we can safely bet this idea is inspiring the WEF-associated urban planners’ futurescape – wait till you get to the 2060-90 period, that is when it gets extraordinarily bizarre, like something out of Huxley’s Brave New World. Not to dwell too much on this topic, but these cities look awfully a lot like Jeremy Bentham’s panopticon template of a prison. Curiously, is it not a spectacular case of serendipity that the Covid-19 ‘scamdemic’ opened the window of opportunity for Schwab and the rest of the stakeholder capitalists to execute their long-awaited plan? As soon as the first meaningless PCR tests in Europe and North America were coming back positive, Schwab began to salivate just thinking about what this would entail. Almost immediately, the Great Reset was launched. As you may guess, this initiative is just more of the same globalist smooth-talking banalities. In addition to “help inform all those determining the future state of global relations, the direction of national economies, the priorities of societies, the nature of business models and the management of a global commons”, it will “build a new social contract that honours the dignity of every human being.” Evidently, in view of being the “trustees of society”, they do not need the commoners’ signatures or consent to validate that contract. By abiding to the overarching Agenda 21, where it is laid out how “human settlements” will be planned, constructed and managed by a public-private partnership, we are being increasingly being shoved around like cattle, while our governments and policymakers have been taking over every economic aspect, even the most elemental ones. Unmistakably, under the veil of environmentalism, sustainability, equality or some other vacuous buzzword, they are transforming society into a technocratic prison planet. Just remember what has been happening in the Netherlands, the second biggest exporter of agricultural products. Because of the paranoia prompted by the climate change alarmism, the Dutch government has been fiercely trying to shut down 3,000 farms. The rationale is “to cut nitrogen oxide emissions” that, for being an ostensible greenhouse gas, are supposedly contributing to the warming of the planet (and sometimes cooling and other times to extreme weather events). Perhaps I should take another detour to briefly explain my scepticism, though still very relevant for today’s topic. Despite being regarded nowadays as an axiomatic and unassailable fact, becoming de facto sacrilegious to doubt it, the truth of the matter is that the anthropogenic climate change (ACC) – it used to be anthropogenic global warming until round about the noughties – theory is just that, a theory; and a rather risible one, if its consequences had not been so horrific. As James Corbett put it, “climate change is unfalsifiable woo-woo pseudoscience”. At its basis, the ACC theory leans on the atmospheric greenhouse effect hypothesis. When the greenhouse gases (GHGs), such as water vapor, carbon dioxide and nitrogen oxide, absorb infrared radiation and re-emit it back to the Earth’s surface, they increase the Earth’s energy balance, leading to warming; or so the story goes. Therefore, the more GHGs in the atmosphere, the more warming will ensue. However, there is a slight problem with this hypothesis. As Ned Nikolov and Karl Zeller brilliantly demonstrated, the belief that atmospheric gases regulate the planets’, not just Earth’s, average temperature is complete nonsense. Go ahead and watch Nikolov give his presentation on his findings, where he elucidates the audience on how it is all about the energy received by solar activity and the atmospheric pressure at each planet. As a result, they did humanity a huge service by proving, using the laws of thermodynamics, that the globe’s temperature and climate are utterly independent of atmospheric composition. Needless to say, since the climate alarmism camp only has biasedly programmed computer models, a mass propaganda apparatus (mainstream media) and fallacious arguments, like appeals to authority and circular reasoning, as weapons, they attack the detractors with absurd pseudoscience. Be careful with what you believe or they might diagnose you with science denialism. By exploiting the deception of climate change and, consequently, their crafty mission of pursuing “sustainable development”, a planetary system of global governance is currently being established under the auspices of technocratic-esque stakeholder capitalism. Whether their propagandists market it as Build Back Better, the Great Reset or the Green New Deal, or whatever slogan they choose to sell it as, they are all the same dystopic agenda. Concerning these initiatives that purport to transition the energy system into a green one, “the idea that windmills, solar panels and unicorn farts are a magical pixie dust capable of transforming the human population from greedy, fat-cat crapitalists [sic] raping the planet for fun and profit into peace-loving, Kumbaya communists living in perfect harmony with nature” is unquestionably a scam. Naturally, the ‘oiligarchs’ and their watermelon comrades have not changed their old ways. Nevertheless, in view of managing to conceal the reality that the environment movement has been fuelled, quite literally, by oil, while calling any critic a “Big Oil shill!”, the masses have fallen for it hook, line, and sinker. Despite the energy transition agenda costing trillions of dollars, and wholly disrupting and ruining our well-being and way of life, the globalist boffins assure us that executing their “green energy” plans will actually save us trillions of dollars. To reach this conclusion, all these experts had to do was to employ outrageous assumptions on their models and studies that have no basis in reality. By doing this, they can fabricate the evidence that support their predetermined conclusions. Incredibly, the truth is just the complete opposite of their claims. Switching to the “green economy” (another term for sustainable development) not only severely hinders the economic structure, resulting in lower productivity and, ergo, purchasing power and material welfare, but it gravely harms the environment. Adhering to the technocratic ideals, by making energy even more scarce, those with their hands on the energy spigot will have the ultimate control over society, deciding when, where and how to allocate scarce energy supplies to the public. Obviously, this greenwashing hype involves more than virtue-signalling to consumers. Even if business executives are in total disagreement with this strategy, they are being corralled into the globalist agenda. If they want to keep their doors open, they must comply with the stakeholder capitalism model. The law has been perverted by the influence of two entirely different causes – stupid greed and false philanthropy.” Indeed, the transformation of the global economy is well underway. The entire stakeholder clique is, understandably, committed to the project. What disagreements exist only extend to who gets what. On the whole, there is no opposition to the new global economic model. As Whitney Webb pointed out, “[t]he ultimate goal of NACs is not sustainability or conservation — it is the financialization of nature, i.e., turning nature into a commodity that can be used to keep the current, corrupt Wall Street economy booming under the guise of protecting the environment and preventing its further degradation.” By enabling investors to acquire assets primarily in developing nations, multinational corporations and financial funds will hoover up the global commons and other resources. According to the Intrinsic Exchange Group (IEG), the Rockefeller-backed entity responsible for devising the new-fangled NACs, which aims at converting Earth into a commodity market underpinning a new global asset portfolio, nature is projected to be worth $4,000 trn. Through putting their guile to “good” use, every time the cabal wants to take charge of some market or commodity, the list of global commons subject to global governance just gets a little bit larger. Which, with the justification that sustainability, equality and inclusivity have to be guaranteed, is something fairly simple to do. This will be achieved using Stakeholder Capitalism Metrics, where assets and business ventures will be rated using environmental, social and governance (ESG) benchmarks for sustainable business performance. Any business requiring market finance, perhaps through issuing climate bonds, or maybe green bonds for European ventures, will need a healthy ESG rating to issue those bonds. In combination, financial initiatives like NACs and ESGs are converting SDGs into market regulations. In the midst of the legendary 2015 COP21 summit, where the infamous Paris Agreement was born, and already building upon the Agenda 2030, which was passed at the September 25, 2015 United Nations Summit on Sustainable Development, the then Bank of England Governor, Mark Carney, got the ESG ball rolling. Simultaneously acting as chairman of the Financial Stability Board (FSB), the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) was founded under the leadership of billionaire, former NYC mayor and the UN special envoy for cities and climate change Michael Bloomberg. Keeping to the agenda, the TCFD “will develop voluntary, consistent climate-related financial risk disclosures for use by companies in providing information to lenders, insurers, investors and other stakeholders.” Fast forwarding to the post-Great Reset paradigm, in preparation to the 2021 COP26 summit in Glasgow, the pivotal character Mark Carney once again took the lead at taking another step to the fulfilment of the globalist nightmare. This time acting as the UN special envoy for climate action and finance, substituting Bloomberg, besides being on the Board of Trustees of the WEF, he established, still with the help of Bloomberg, the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero. On its mission statement, these banksters pledge “to expand the number of net zero-committed financial institutions”. Speaking of which, “net-zero” is just another duplicitous buzzword that hides its true totalitarian and technocratic purpose; just wait until they start pursuing the “absolute zero” goal. On November 5, 2021, concurrently to the COP26, the International Business Council (IBC) of the WEF, the very same entity responsible for coming up, on September 2020, with the Stakeholder Capitalism Metrics, released a statement welcoming “the recent announcement from the IFRS Foundation on the establishment of the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB).” The International Financial Reporting Standards Foundation or IFRS Foundation is a nonprofit organization that oversees financial reporting standard-setting, having as main objectives the development and promotion of the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS), through the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB), for accounting standards and now the International Sustainability Standards Board for sustainability-related standards. Undeniably, the collective TCFD’s, GFANZ’s and IBC’s endeavour, in order to be successful, had to lobby the regulatory and standard-setting agencies to demand businesses to comply with these new rules and regulations inspired by Klaus Schwab’s stakeholder capitalism. Therefore, on May 12, 2021, the IBC, which is chaired by Bank of America’s chairman and CEO, Brian Moynihan, had vowed to support the IFRS Foundation in its efforts to establish a “co-ordinated, global comprehensive corporate reporting system that includes sustainability standards.” By the look of things, it seems that the financial elite is having their tyrannical wish come true. How nice for them! All the same, they still want more. As I have already mentioned, the Covid-19 scare allowed the enormously felicitous chance for the cabal to carry out their megalomaniacal plan. Showing a great sense of timing and clairvoyance, on June 2019, the UN and the WEF signed “a Strategic Partnership Framework outlining areas of cooperation to deepen institutional engagement and jointly accelerate the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.” Among other areas, this partnership focuses on “digital cooperation”. The objective is to address the challenges posed by the Fourth Industrial Revolution, which entails the transhumanist vison of “merging the physical, digital and biological worlds”. Moreover, this partnership seeks to advance “digital governance and digital inclusiveness.” In its 2015 Davos executive summary, the WEF illustrated how the stakeholder capitalists had manufactured a narrative to reshape the context of our daily lives. As the centre of attention, the objective was to institute the precepts for their claimed jurisdiction of the global commons. Lamentably, they were finding tremendous difficulty “to significantly improve the management and governance of critical global commons, most notably natural resources and cyberspace.” Thus far, we have already dealt with the natural resources, particularly the oceans and the seabed. Notwithstanding, the process for creating regulated markets for all global commons is the same. Firstly, the globalist elite, acting as “the trustees of society” and “of the material universe for future generations”, will administer the global commons. Once declared to be among the “shared resources all life relies upon”, some puppet organisation is appointed to oversee access to the new regulated market. Finally, if projects pass muster, regarding the ESG metrics, the authorities and the banks will approve and fund those initiatives. Even though the global Big Data market is projected to grow to $745.15 bn by 2030, from $271.83 billion in 2022, and the staggering value of all of our personal data is, believe it or not, inestimable, the monetary gain and wealth increment is not their main source of motivation. What they are truly after is to control the cyberspace, both its content and its access. Noticeably, it is no accident that the drive to tag every citizen with a Digital ID has been very active. Regardless of the Covid era’s contact tracing systems that achieved nothing in terms of public health, our neo-feudal busybodies have kept at it. Up to this point, this should be hardly surprising, given that this framework is critical to ultimately achieve the globalist agenda. In fact, by managing and monitoring the Internet’s usage, they can turn their biggest weakness into their greatest strength. Till now, the people have been fairly able to organise, share information and, most importantly, criticise the policies and agendas of the elites. By governing the cyberspace’s access, any dissent will not be tolerated. As punishment, once they manage to reform the international monetary and financial system (IMFS) under their totalitarian modules, instead of precluding you from using your IoT appliances and devices that are connected to the corporate-controlled “smart grid”, they could merely shut down your ability to purchase any good or service, or to send and receive money. Of course, the UN and the other New World Order institutions disguise their true intentions under virtuous and commendable wording, as depicted above. As I am going to bring to light on the next instalment, there is more to revolutionising the IMFS than the lame excuse of ending poverty.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorDaniel Gomes Luís Archives
March 2024
Categories |