Previous: The End for Now
Interacting with crypto projects throughout this book might have painted a picture of an unstoppable technology whose time has come. Freedom, prosperity, and decentralization must be just around the corner. I’m confident that if left alone, crypto would go from strength to strength unchallenged by legitimate competitors.
Unfortunately, having too much certainty would be unwise. It seems evident that the organizations we will discuss in this section have plans that don’t involve a free, decentralized, empowering crypto ecosystem. So, I will try to guard against over-optimism and help you recognize and understand, if you don’t know already, where the threats come from, hopefully making us nimble on our crypto journey.
In this afterword, we will find out what The Woke Pivot is and review the connections between the social, political, and financial worlds and how we got where we are.
The Woke Pivot: ESG, The Great Rest & CBDCs
As I just implied, only some people are excited about the potential for crypto. On the contrary, some see it as a threat to their control. Understanding this will enable us to see why money is how it is and how Bitcoin might help.
I will try and describe what my instincts have been alerting me to for some years. The direction we are all being pushed doesn’t seem quite right to me, but it is hard to put your finger on. Although this vagueness, I believe, is by design. For millions of years, instincts have guided us to survive, unite, progress, and prosper. Sometimes, because we are humans, we should try to rise above our instincts, but I can’t help but feel that my instincts tell me something is wrong with where we are all headed.
You might wonder why I talk so much about Bitcoin when the book is titled as it is. Some people think there is no place for any crypto other than Bitcoin. Their arguments are hard to disprove, but I think even they will come to realize that the whole ecosystem is necessary. However, it is true; If any crypto is unstoppable, it is Bitcoin. If governments and corporations cannot destroy crypto, Bitcoin underpins this strength. But many crypto-related technologies and blockchains will hopefully thrive through Bitcoin’s social, network, and monetary value. That is why this book is about crypto and not just Bitcoin.
So, who wouldn’t want this wonderful enlightenment that is crypto?
A few narratives are being pushed as an excuse to usher in what I consider a radical, irreversible change. The first part of this afterword will concentrate on the corporate ESG narrative already being used against us and the underpinning of the United Nation’s SDGs and the World Economic Forum’s Great Reset. Then, the second part will focus on the likely next steps to finish the job of irreversible change with Central Bank Digital Currencies or CBDCs.
The Woke Pivot
Post-2008, corporations, especially the banks, were in big trouble. Society at large blamed them, with justification, for what had just happened. And, as we saw in Chapter 2, Occupy Wall Street was not going away. So the Occupy movement, politicians on the left, NGOs that funded much of the protests, their rich philanthropist friends, and the money managers did a deal. Wall Street and everything it represented got a free pass in exchange for supporting sweeping, radical, and irreversible change —and lots of cash.
This change is the United Nations SDGs, enacted through corporate ESG policy.
The United Nations, or UN, is an intergovernmental organization established in 1945 to promote international peace and security. The UN is governed by its 190+ member states, however, it makes decisions through the General Assembly, the Security Council, the Economic and Social Council, and the International Court of Justice – not through individual government decisions. That’s the charitable description, but what do they really do?
Rewind about 25 years; the United Nations Millennium Development Goals or MDGs were a set of goals agreed upon by what the UN refers to as the “international community.” I was around in 2000, and I don’t recall voting for the UN to lay out the goals for my children’s future, noble and just as the plans might have appeared on the surface. When the UN refers to the “international community,” they mean our heads of government, none of which sought a democratic mandate to sign up for the MDGs.
Anyway, the noble-sounding goals of the MDGs were to reduce poverty “and improve the quality of life for people worldwide by 2015.” The MDGs covered mainly social, economic, and environmental issues through global partnerships for development.
The MDGs failed to achieve their intended targets due to a lack of political will, limited resources, and inadequate implementation. Remember those three problems. Political will can be translated as not having a democratic legitimacy, which translates to insufficient implementation and limited resources means nobody was prepared to pay. What was needed was a way to implement and pay for change without the need for governments to be seen as imposing change directly. Hmm.
The problem with the UN’s MDG goals is that they were probably impossible. To fully achieve them, resources would need to be much cheaper. Men and women would need to be the same and desire the same things; people with different cultures would need to be interchangeable, the weather would have to stop being so bloody awkward, especially in developing countries, and the rich countries would need to pay for it, not just with their money but by opening their borders and accepting mass resettlement. In short, the MDGs needed dramatic legislation at a national level that voters would never accept.
But what if there was a way of ensuring implementation via unelected institutions, and then the legislation would be unnecessary? All the changes would seem organic, inevitable even. Furthermore, at least one generation – the generation currently being “educated” – could be made to think it was all morally justified and essential for their survival.
The UN observing the woke pivot decided to try again.
Next came the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals or SDGs, also known as the Global Goals. There are 17 goals adopted by the UN in 2015 supposedly to end poverty, protect the planet, and ensure peace and prosperity for all, specifically by 2030.
The SDGs cover a range of social, economic, and environmental issues regarding redistributing wealth, making resources more expensive in developed countries, reducing demand, and therefore making them cheaper in poorer countries.
How would they ensure the SDGs succeeded where the MDGs failed so spectacularly? First, of course, this would all need to be coordinated.
The World Economic Forum, or WEF, signed a strategic partnership agreement with the UN in 2019 to jointly accelerate the implementation of the 2030 agenda.
You can think of the WEF as the corporate and Non-Governmental Organization or NGO division of the UN. They work hand in glove, even if they try to be subtle about it. As we will see, Environment Social and Governance, or ESG policies, is UN SDGs via corporate and NGO enforcement.
The WEF is a coordinating body for many NGOs, governments, and corporations, especially the fund managers and Wall Street. But, make no mistake, the WEF is not a think-tank, as sometimes described; it is a policy strategy department for globalism.
The WEF pushes so-called Stakeholder capitalism. This is the public-private partnership of government, NGOs, and corporations. Not coordinated by the voters of the democracies but by the WEF and their bond-villain-esque leader, Claus Schwab. As 20th-century fascist Mussolini said, “Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power.”
Schwab received a Knighthood from then Prime Minister of the UK, Tony Blair, just about the highest honor a foreigner can ever receive. Even the King of England is a member of the WEF.
So, what is the plan? First, the WEF plans to use the “predicted poly-crises” to implement its Great Reset.
Republican DeSantis, one of the few US politicians who get votes from across the political spectrum despite being a Republican and despite his opponents calling him far-right, says the WEF wants to run everything for themselves – I think he is correct. So first, we will look into the poly-crisis so confidentially predicted, and then we will find out more about the WEF and the Great Reset.
The Eternal Crisis or Poly-crisis
H. L. Mencken, author and political commentator (born 1880), said of politics, “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed – and hence clamorous to be led to safety – by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”
Have you noticed recently endless problems that only government can solve? As Menken implied, there always has been, but what is new is that the problems, these recent problems, have all been framed as global with only global solutions. Financial crises, Pandemics, racism, misogyny, the weather, hate speech, “anti-democratic forces” in the United States, and more. Let’s explore a few of these.
Claus Schwab stated of the Covid-19 lockdowns, “The pandemic represents a rare and narrow window of opportunity to reflect, reimagine, and reset our world.” Did he realize people were listening? At their 2023 meeting in Davos, they tried to gaslight the world, saying that all the grim stories about the WEF were an antisemitic conspiracy theory and that they, the poor old WEF were victims of misinformation.
Governments will use pandemics claiming that the rules, lockdowns, masks, and vaccine mandates are not within their control. How will they get away with this? The World Health Organization, or WHO, a specialized agency of the United Nations established in 1948, is responsible for promoting global health and coordinating health programs.
The WHO is supposed to provide leadership on global health and its findings are considered authoritative and carry significant weight in the international community. Throughout the pandemic, people, even elected politicians and qualified doctors, were banned from social media for disagreeing with the WHO. However, it didn’t previously have the authority to enforce its decisions on member states.
Since the recent global health problems, you might be surprised that member nations have unanimously signed up to follow the guidelines of the WHO in any future pandemic. That includes The US, UK, EU, Canada, and more. If you were concerned that you were not given any choice in how your family or community dealt with the health implications of the Covid-19 pandemic, then you should be concerned that the WHO, at every stage, was calling for the strictest policies. In the next pandemic, they will be running the whole thing. Interestingly it is not just nation-states who fund the WHO. The US is the number one donor, Germany is number two, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is three, the UK is four, and GAVI the vaccine alliance is the fifth biggest. And don’t speak out about their policies, or you will be banned from social media. Isn’t there a word for undemocratic alliances between governments, elites, and big business? We do appear to have a problem.
Climate change is another one of the crises of the poly-crisis. Research is only commissioned when it is likely to yield the right results. What do I mean? During a WEF discussion panel, Melissa Fleming, the United Nations Under-Secretary-General for Global Communications, stated, “We own the science [around climate change]” and that Google is working with the WEF to provide climate change results. She went on to say that Google “prioritize what the UN wants to in climate change related results.” And that “If you Google climate change at the top of the results, you will get UN resources … we own the science, and we think the world should know it and the platforms themselves also do.” Finally, the UN representative alluded, “We will be deploying our influencers… as they will be more effective than the message coming from New York…”
She was probably referring to the WEFs 100,000 global influencers, which we will discuss further when we talk about the Great Reset shortly. But, incredibly, the discussion was titled the “Anti-disinformation panel.”
Suppose you wholeheartedly believe that climate change will destroy humanity. In that case, I suggest reading the excellent book Apocalypse Never, which demonstrates that climate-related deaths and costs fall every year and that the level of development of a nation determines levels of death and economic loss. Developing nations and poor people within more prosperous countries indeed suffer most from extreme weather, but the solution is development, not forced social control and socialism.
My aim is not to argue that I am right. My point is that alternative opinion is rarely heard in mainstream media, even less frequently heard in political debate, and is totally silenced in education and scientific studies.
For example, as early as 1998 the government of the UK changed the guidelines for the broadcasting regulatory body, Ofcom, which was supposed to ensure unbiased discussion on TV programs. The guideline changes made it unnecessary for the TV studio to provide a debate participant who didn’t think the end of the world was imminent. Prime Minister at the time was Tony Blair, the same guy who gave WEF leader Schwab a knighthood. Yet the public remains skeptical mainly about the hard-line narrative of impending doom.
We are brainwashing a generation into believing it will die unless they accept being much poorer. This is done simultaneously with the same generation being taught to feel entitled more than any other to be helped if they are poor. This is a dangerous combination.
Crypto enables science crowdfunding, where autonymous online organizations can fund research without a political agenda. A DAO or decentralized autonomous organization can issue grants and fields of research autonomously from governments and global organizations. This can be entirely philanthropic, or if a valuable industrial breakthrough results, profit can be channeled back to the DAO investors through the immutable smart contracts on the blockchain. Members can make a profit or reinvest in more research. Scientists can be hired even if they don’t have the same opinions as every other scientist and the government, but instead, because they have an exciting theory.
Racism, sexism, and all the other isms
Democrat politician Iana Presley said, “We don’t need any more black faces that don’t want to be a black voice” She continued, “We don’t want any brown faces that don’t want to be a brown voice.” The chilling speech was an explicit admission of what the world, especially the Western world, has been observing for over a decade, since the Woke Pivot, to be precise. Moreover, the speech was a terrible admission that significant parts of the political system view, judge, and treat people based on their skin, gender, and sexuality. Of course, individuals have always been racist and always will be, but the system is supposed to be above feelings. Now, it seems, the system will be legislating based on emotions – and only the feelings of the radicals will be respected.
It wouldn’t be so bad if it were just junior politicians like Presley and the odd corporate who acted like this. President Biden said Corona Virus relief payments would focus on “women and communities of color.” He just said it. He didn’t do it surreptitiously and then try and deny it. Surely Coronavirus relief should focus on people affected by Coronavirus? He also said the same about Hurricane Nicole’s relief in November 2022. At the time of writing San Francisco is making unconditional $1000 monthly payments to “non-white people” and “woman-led households” only. The same thing is happening across Europe and Canada, with administrations on the left and the right. Citizens not lucky enough to be of the correct skin color or gender seem to be catching on, and there appears to be political pushback. I guess these biases will become more covert, and I suspect CBDCs will be how they discriminate more discretely in the future. We will explore CBDCs soon.
So with the problems clearly defined, it is time to implement the solutions whether the voting public agrees with the premise of the issues or not and definitely with complete disregard to whether they have voted for the solutions. So the first solution is the Great Reset, then we will look at ESG.
The World Economic Forum and the Great Reset
In 2010, Claus Schwab, head of the WEF, published The Great Reset, a book outlining Schwab’s vision for change worldwide. Later in 2020, the WEF launched an initiative with the same name with the tagline – “You will own nothing and be happy.” Remember that phrase as we proceed.
Author, Life Science entrepreneur, and Global Investment Manager and, on the day of editing, now US presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy said that the Great Reset could be summarised as the dissolution of boundaries between the public and private sectors. This is the same as stakeholder capitalism wrapped up in a pretty bow. The Great Reset comes under various guises and is often linked to phrases like “Build back better” or Agenda 2030, Ireland 2030, Canada 2030, etc. Let us explore.
The WEF is a coordinated global network of the wealthiest, most educated, radical non-governmental organizations, governments, young global leaders, strategic global shapers, mega-corporations, especially fund managers, central banks, and governments.
The most recent, most important, most controversial plan is to “… improve the state of the world; the World Economic Forum is starting The Great Reset initiative.” The above is the headline on this webpage: https://www.weforum.org/great-reset/ at the time of writing.
The WEF also said that “…capitalism needs a dose of Marxism..”. The statement was posed as a question, but the article clarified that they meant it. You can read it on the WEF website here: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/06/could-capitalism-need-some-marxism-to-survive-the-4th-industrial-revolution/. But who voted for them to improve the world with a dose of Marxism?
According to the WEF, you will also eat less meat; you will only have it “as an occasional treat” I assume they will choose the cut and the frequency too. But it’s all for the good of the planet, apparently. If you think I exaggerate, read the WEF article about eating more bugs here: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/07/good-grub-why-we-might-be-eating-insects-soon/. And if you think I am cherry-picking, there is another article here: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/02/how-insects-positively-impact-climate-change/. And yet another here: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/07/why-we-need-to-give-insects-the-role-they-deserve-in-our-food-systems/. There are probably more, but you get the idea.
Depending upon whom you ask, the Great Reset is either blindly staring you in the face or a “far-right” conspiracy theory.
In September 2022, Haarlem, Netherlands, became the first city to ban meat advertising – not junk food like burgers, candy, or alcohol – all meat! This came just weeks after the Dutch farmers had their protests quashed, including incidents of live gunfire against tractors. The farmers were protesting because the Netherlands recently announced the forced purchase of more than 3000 of the most efficient farms on the planet amid a global cost of living and food supply crisis. The farms were to be shut down in the name of the environment.
The farms were being shut down to prevent fertilizer use which, in the farmers’ view, was the best product for the job and to free up land for an inter-country mega-city. The Netherlands was one of the most productive farming nations in the world. But apparently, the fertilizer gives off too much gas, which wasn’t suitable for central government targets. So shutting the farms down certainly wasn’t helpful for the global food crisis either, let alone the well-being of the farmers.
Six months previously, Sri Lanka had recently tipped into a failed state for financial reasons partly caused by poor crop yields after implementing the same fertilizer ban. It’s almost as if they wanted to make problems on purpose.
Christina Figueres, the Executive Secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, said at a WEF panel discussion in 2022, “How about restaurants in 10-15 years start treating carnivores in the same way that smokers are treated? If they want to eat meat, they can do it outside”. So first, although scientifically accurate, the language of “carnivore” is meant to dehumanize the disgusting meat eater, but second, does she realize we can hear her?
Let’s explore some of the different groups on the WEF global network and delve into this Great Reset thing a bit.
The WEF states on its website – “To shape global agendas by supporting institutions that share their agenda and replace capitalism with stakeholder capitalism.” The stakeholders can be anyone who supports the WEF’s ideas -like the biggest investment managers on the planet like Black Rock and Vanguard, governments, invited billionaires like Bill Gates, and their volunteer young global leaders, strategic global shapers, and 100,000 global influencers.
Global influencers will scour social media, reporting users they disagree with, most likely because they are racist, sexist, climate deniers, or pushing so-called misinformation. These heinous-sounding crimes usually boil down to opposing illegal immigration, opposing biased ESG hiring, holding the controversial opinion that men can’t also be women, or expressing that they don’t think the world is about to end through bad weather.
In 2020 Microsoft announced that their XBOX games machine’s basic online service, Live Gold, was being replaced by the much more expensive service, Game Pass. This effectively meant that if you wanted to use the Internet with your XBOX, you would have to start renting your games. They backed down but seemed to be preparing for another shot at guaranteeing a monthly payment from all gamers instead of letting players own the games they want to play. My prediction for 2024 is that Amazon will make a Kindle Direct monthly subscription the only way to read digital books. I am writing this on a rented copy of Microsoft Word that suggests pronoun-based “improvements.” Remember that phrase?
Other ESG-focused companies are fully onboard with the great reset and will all push for the rental/service model. For example, Apple announced its “Hardware as a service.” These will be subsidized handsets where the monthly rental will be lower than the monthly repayment on a purchased handset -where the battery is designed to die after three years and is nearly impossible to replace. As a result, more people will rent their iPhones until Apple proudly announces that there is no longer needed to sell iPhones – Like Microsoft did with Office – and will try to do again with video games.
Once everybody is renting, the price will go up. As a result, innovation, device diversity, and replacement frequency will decrease, all to save the planet.
Even if you own a physical product, you could be forced into rental options whether it works properly or not. You might think I am being ridiculous, but Mercedes currently charges a monthly fee for going a little bit faster, which can be switched on and off via your online subscription. Mercedes also offers a monthly charge to heat your seat. Yes, Mercedes is a stakeholder member of the WEF.
I fully expect cars themselves to go the same way before 2030 as many Western nations ban new petrol(gas) powered car sales. Electric cars are easy to control and monitor remotely, and current estimates suggest insufficient raw materials for everyone to own an electric vehicle. This will keep prices high or even send them higher- guaranteeing that most people will car-share, probably a government, or corporate-owned car, or rent at best. If you are rich enough or lucky enough to drive you will likely be monitored constantly for speed and behavioral offenses. Amazon delivery drivers are already targeted for violations that result in wages being docked. It is implemented with multiple cameras and sensors that detect things like if a seatbelt is secure before pulling away or a sip of coffee is taken while waiting at a junction, even (admittedly anecdotally) one driver was docked for scratching his beard too vigorously while driving. This technology will help keep people within their prescribed areas as per the WEF-sponsored 15-minute cities we will come to soon.
The most apparent recent trend that exemplifies this forced rental model is streaming TV services. The plan goes something like this: Offer a fantastic range of programs at great prices, collapse the physical disc ownership market – I.e., the competition. Then, once there is no competition, reduce content and quality to cut costs, offer advert-based services at a discount, increase the price of the ad-free services, push everyone to advert-ridden packages, discontinue the add-free services, increase the cost of the add-ridden services – voila; everyone is paying monthly to watch adverts – sounds a bit like YouTube and YouTube Premium. Sky even offers a subscription service where the TV is included in the rental. As an option, this is great; but I am sure it will soon become the only option, I.E., not an option. Replacements and upgrades will be at the behest of the TV corporation.
Owning nothing will not be abruptly forced on us lest we rebel as consumers did to Microsoft and the game rental scam. Instead, we will slowly have our options whittled away until we wake up one morning in our rental 8×8 pod to an alarm clock that advertises the latest Marvel movie and the self-driving electric minibus toots its eco-friendly horn outside to take us to the transport hub to get the train to work.
And you might think I’m exaggerating, but why is Black Rock buying up domestic real estate? Why did the city of Berlin mandate force purchases below the residential property market price, effectively nationalizing the rental market? As the population gets poorer by design and importation, pressure will mount for housing solutions. The prominent investment managers will likely heroically step up to help by buying up ever more domestic housing, probably with the virtually free money they received from central banks worldwide.
As big companies buy more property, they retain and control more access to the vital services that the remaining homeowners need to maintain their properties, such as plumbers, electricians, roofers, builders, etc. If you can’t maintain your home affordably, don’t worry, Black Rock will buy it from you and rent it back to you. Remember that phrase? If you can maintain your house, expect higher ownership taxes in the name of equality. I have already seen news reports in the US of prospective buyers being outbid by corporates buying to let and one report, on left-leaning MSNBC, suggested corporate-owned letts could be as high as 60% by 2030. My guess is it could be much worse than this.
The Great Reset means decarbonizing, digitizing, stakeholder capitalism, and perhaps most eerie, implementing a “new social contract.”
The WEF state on its website and on numerous occasions in public that they will enact their agendas through the assistance of the WEFs global shapers, partner organizations, and young leaders. Here is a picture of a few Global shapers from the WEF so you can keep an eye out for them and make sure they don’t get into power. I am being a little sarcastic. They are already running the world.
The images I selected were the first I came across. Almost every elected Western global leader is a global shaper member of the WEF, with few exceptions.
WEF global shapers
Almost every International organization is a partner organization to the WEF. Let’s look at a few starting with the IMF and the World Bank.
The International Monetary Fund, or IMF, advertises itself as an international organization that aims to promote international monetary cooperation, facilitate international trade, and promote economic growth and employment.
The IMF lost any good reputation it might have had years ago. The IMF provides loans and “technical assistance” to member countries facing economic difficulties – when they are vulnerable, and its policies and decisions since the 1970s it has been issuing unrepayable loans and demanding social change, austerity measures, and structural adjustment programs in return, usually to make the victim loan recipient more welcoming of the banks, corporations and the policies they prefer- even when the societies and cultures of that nation don’t want it.
The World Bank is an international financial institution providing loans, grants, and technical assistance to developing countries to reduce poverty and promote economic growth. It is connected to the IMF as both are part of the Bretton Woods system, created in 1944 to rebuild the post-World War II international monetary system. The World Bank and IMF complement each other, with the IMF focusing on macroeconomic stability and the World Bank promoting economic development.
In short, the World Bank is the more charitable wing of the IMF. Still, instead of demanding repayment, they usually insist on even greater deregulation and the opening up of markets, always at the expense of the host peoples and their culture.
Next up with a significant seat at the WEF are the BIS and the FATF. The Bank of International Settlements or BIS is a Bank of 60+ central banks—It Formulates policies for all central banks to adopt and coordinate. Even the Federal Reserve takes instruction from the BIS. The BIS hates crypto and loves the WEF and ESG. The BIS believes that the populace, that’s you and me, are realizing the flaws in fiat currency and are looking for something better. Specifically, its answer to this skepticism is central bank digital currencies or CBDCs. CBDCs will be discussed in more detail soon, but a CBDC makes the monetary system more controllable and opaque. When you can’t see what your government is printing, you can’t complain about it. Governments can more easily blame unacceptable inflation on external forces. The BIS also founded and influences the FSB the Financial Stability Board which writes reports and recommendations which tend to turn into government policy around the world. At the recent WEF meeting in Davos, they suggested the solution to controlling crypto was to “…ban, regulate, and isolate…”. The BIS and its henchman at the FSB are not our friends.
The FATF, or Financial Action Task Force, formulates rules for governments to implement, usually via policy but often directly through the banks or central banks. They were supposedly founded to combat financial crimes like money laundering. However, now they have de facto influence over bank rules and policy because if a nation’s institutions don’t follow or at least go through the motions of following FATF rules, they leave themselves open to sanctions. The FATF hates crypto. It regularly publishes reports on crypto’s environmental or criminal concerns while seemingly oblivious to the crimes committed with and for fiat currencies – even by some of its member central banks.
Central banks have varying purposes, but most like The Federal Reserve is the central banking system of the country they represent. They are responsible for carrying out a range of duties that should promote the stability, safety, and soundness of the financial system and the economy of the nation they represent. Some of the critical responsibilities of the typical central bank include the following:
- Implementing monetary policy: Set interest rates to influence the economy and control inflation.
- Regulate banks: They supervise banks and other financial institutions to ensure stability and prevent financial crises. Make sure important FATF and BIS rules and policies are followed.
- Conducting research and collecting data: Central banks research innovations such as CBDCs and collect data on the economy and financial system to inform its decisions and policies.
However, now they have a new task. As per BIS instruction, 90% of all central banks worldwide are researching or actively working on a central bank digital currency, CBDC. The Bank of England is the latest to announce (admit) what they are doing. They have even named the private company that will implement this dystopian technology— The anti-Bitcoin Ripple Labs, whose founder actively campaigns to change the Bitcoin PoW consensus to save the planet; why else?
The point I am making about all these seemingly independent organizations is that they still serve their masters and their policies are usually presented as recommendations that give governments and central banks a kind of plausible deniability when attacking industries like crypto. They can say they are just following recommendations for stability, safety, etc. When really it is an organized attack.
The WHO and UN are also stakeholders of the WEF – as you would expect, as they are coordinated.
In addition to the global shapers and partner organizations, I mentioned the young global leaders, of which there are more than 1000. Their mission is to implement the WEFs agenda in a seemingly – but not– organic way by influencing society with who gets hired, fired, or banned on social media, booed or cheered at local political events, etc. By the way, Google is a member of the WEF, as are Microsoft, Meta (Facebook), and Twitter.
The cohort of fellows from these organizations is described in a WEF document that can be explored here: https://www.weforum.org/pages/fellows. In quick summary, the average fellow has two master’s degrees, is 34 years old, is 67% female, and 63% part or full-time government sector employed. So a bunch of 34-year-old government girls is shaping your future with an average of 7.5 years of work experience. This is WEF data; I’m not making this up. When the world is in crisis, do you want to rely on bureaucrats who have never had a proper job, with only 7.5 years of experience – some part-time?
Here is a link to the details of 109 new appointees who have kindly volunteered to lead you when their turn comes: https://www.younggloballeaders.org/new-class. If you visit the website, you can scan down the mini-bios and notice how many are in banking, equities, investment, media, politics, powerful, unaccountable NGOs, United Nations, etc. Next, click on the drop-down tab to see the appointed leaders for your continent and notice they are all in influential, powerful, pivotal roles. But almost none were ever elected. Finally, for example, click the dropdown and select North America. You will find “leaders” from Black Rock, PayPal, the Democratic party, Merrill Lynch, HSBC, The Blackstone Group, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and so on.
On a side note, did you know that CNN, NBC, NPR, and Atlantic receive 300 million pounds from Bill and Melinda gates foundation, but they’re not charities or poverty-stricken? Are they being paid for control of the narrative?
Claus Schwab, at his annual Davos meetings, has repeatedly stated that The WEF will use its global shapers and young leaders network to implement the Great Reset in every country.
If my opinions seem too strong, perhaps misguided, please spend ten minutes on the WEF website.
You could argue that WEF-shaped globalization is good or that the Great Reset is necessary, even justified. Still, I hope you agree that arguing it is a conspiracy theory is no longer viable.
At the time of writing, the WEF has just announced 100,000 social influencers who will scour social media to influence, moderate, and most likely pursue bans of influencers (independent) and regular users on social media who say things against the WEF agenda.
Oh, dear! What can be done? My objection to pursuing these agendas is not founded on it being radical; although it is, and I do oppose it, my complaint is that it is all irreversible. If any significant and irreversible change, this dramatic, being openly discussed and aggressively pursued, is to be enacted, it should be explicitly voted upon and freely discussed.
The other wing of the WEF is all the corporations. Corporations generally like globalism because it gives them access to a larger market, customers, and resources. Corporations benefit from the actions of the IMF, World Bank, etc., because by changing nations with non-commercial cultures into viable markets, they have more people to sell the products to. The same is true for uncontrolled mass migration to wealthy countries. So the new migrants are often funded with welfare, and the corporations can supply their required products.
Corporations will help bring about the Great Reset with their new religion – ESG.
Environment Social Governance
ESG is a rewriting of the rules of capitalism, turning it into stakeholder capitalism – that changes the free market to a controlled one with radical neo-Marxist restraints and obligations on companies and investors. It does so through the control of investment, which means that massive societal change can be enacted without the pesky nuisance of getting people to vote for it. Of course, the most affected sector is fossil fuels, but nothing is left untouched. What is most pernicious is the lack of democracy and the top-down dictation by the wealthiest people on the planet.
ESG is race, gender, sexuality, and environmental socialism by unelected billionaires dictating who will succeed and forcing consumers to think, act, buy, and live how they dictate. ESG is the corporate manifestation of the United Nations SDGs or sustainable development goals. And if you argue against them, you are a racist, sexist, homophobic climate-denier.
But ESG isn’t just immoral; it is inefficient and inflationary. When you base your hiring and firing decisions on race and gender, you limit your hiring options. As a result, managers get stuck with unproductive employees who cannot be moved or fired because the likely outcome will be a lawsuit or being overruled by more radical superiors. In case you think I am exaggerating, let’s dig a little deeper.
For example, in October 2022, PayPal announced it would fine users up to 2500 USD per “incident” for spreading or supporting disinformation or hate speech. Let that sink in. The company founded to simplify buying crap on eBay will now determine whether it agrees with what you say on social media and then steal your money if it does not. Of course, even the government must first make law and take you to court before it can relieve you of your money! But somehow, PayPal can make an arbitrary moral judgment and fine you without discussion or appeal!
The backlash of canceled accounts and a social media campaign made PayPal backtrack – a little. PayPal claimed it was an editorial mistake and had no such intention. The number of news outlets that didn’t cover the story was also concerning. Eventually, it turned out PayPal would only be fining people for “hate speech,” which might not sound as bad. Still, PayPal gets to define what constitutes hate speech – and the UK’s Online Protection Act is passed later in 2023, the EU’s DSA or Digital Services Act, and Canada’s C11 censorship bill will define it and make enforcement mandatory. Even the US, which is supposed to have protected free speech, is getting censorship of the wrong opinions through government collaboration with social media companies. Governments already make 90% of content takedown requests on social media.
ESG is the corporate sanctioning of these ideologies. PayPal’s privatized economic justice system is the corporate world’s ideological support of these politicians, and frankly, most of the Democrat party, much of the Republican party, the entirety of the UK Labour Party, most of the UK Conservative Party, most parties in the European parliament, and most parties of most countries in Europe. ESG is Wall Street paying, promoting, and, most importantly, implementing niche political theories that the politicians can’t explicitly get away with passing laws yet, while simultaneously funding the radical NGOs.
Wall Street does it so they will be left alone by the activists and radical politicians who were seriously beating down their doors after the 2008 crisis. It has worked. ESG is the pseudo-religious corporate support of political bigotry. As a warning to Wall Street, I will remind Black Rock, State Street, Vanguard, and the rest, what Winston Churchill said of fascism, “An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile hoping it will eat him last.”
ESG is falsely promoted to protect the environment and make society fairer, specifically along environmental, race, gender, and sexuality criteria.
Black Rock, State Street, and Vanguard, with their mandated ESG policies, are turning inefficiency into profitability because nobody has any alternative but to invest in ESG. Although ESG companies are successful, any company would be if all the money in the world, almost literally, had no option but to be invested in ESG.
If big corporations on their own got together and plotted to go in a specific ideological or exclusionary direction, a less profitable yet ideologically advantageous direction, it would be called a Cartel. It would be a crime in many countries. But when a few colossal investment managers tell them they must go in a specific direction under the cover of an approving government, it’s not a crime because, allegedly, the investment manager is working on behalf of many disparate shareholders.
I suspect that most people do not favor this radical social change, but even if they do, I think they should have to vote for it. Radical billionaires like Larry Fink of Black Rock use our pension funds to force change upon us. It’s not just the shareholder power the big investment companies hold directly. They also own shares of national and regional banks that can impose lending bans on small and medium-sized businesses, particularly a ban on fossil fuel investment and the demand that there aren’t too many folks with the wrong gender or skin color in positions of power.
Cartels are wrong when they control business, but they are a new level of evil when they control society’s values. I am not saying that we shouldn’t constantly seek improvements to our energy supply and promote fairness. I am just saying that the heads of three big investment companies shouldn’t be able to enforce their interpretation of improvement and fairness on everybody.
Billionaire investor Charlie Munger, when asked what the effect of passive [ESG/Index] investing would be, he said, “… Huge, we have a new bunch of emperors, and they are the people who vote on the shares in their index funds, maybe we can make Larry Fink and the people of Vanguard, pope. All of a sudden, we have this massive transfer of voting power to the passive index funds. That is going to change the world. And I don’t know what the consequences will be, but I predict it will not be good.”
Furthermore, with ESG, you can’t argue about anything to do with the weather, the lockdown, vaccines, globalism, or immigration because if you don’t get censored by government-friendly, ESG-controlled social media, or WEF social influencers, then you will be ridiculed for not believing apparently clear, unanimous, scientific fact – or be called a racist, etc.
On the climate, specifically, this alarmism has been coming for a long time. In the 70s, it was the threat of a new ice age; the eighties were about global warming, and the nineties were about the ozone layer. But, unfortunately, the same institutions are behind the doom-mongering every time: the UN and its affiliates. If the West transitions to expensive green alternatives, it will be simultaneously weaker while freeing up resources for other nations. As an example, the UK is 1.9% of global energy consumption. The UK has fewer coal power stations than China opens every week! Yet every political party in the UK is heading headlong towards green oblivion – pushed by the ESG corporations profiting from it and cheered by the WEF and the UN.
This shift in direction, the woke pivot to ESG investing, and the SDGs will enforce change without mandate or government culpability. They erode the power of nation-states and prioritize the interests of multinational corporations and financial institutions over those of people and communities.
In addition, it won’t help developing countries or the favored classes in the long run. To get sustainably richer, people must be integrated willingly into a system. So firstly, they have to want to be integrated. I see many cultures that are happy with how they live and don’t want Western values thrust upon them. Secondly, if a specific group of people is to be made to pay for the destruction of their wealth, society, culture, and even their history, then they should have a say in the matter.
Globalization doesn’t fix anything. Unless it is done with consent – including an opt-out for any or all aspects.
All Western governments support ESG and, by extension, the SDGs, bar a few and all the top money managers. So naturally, all the most prominent corporations, including the media and, big tech, the education establishment, starting with the well-funded universities and spreading to schools, science funding, and international charities –have adopted the values of the radical woke left.
Money flows to their shared concerns, while Wall Street is left alone to continue strengthening its dominance. The change is fast, radical, and, most importantly, irreversible.
I don’t like using terms like left and right, but sometimes they serve a purpose. There is nothing wrong with advocating for the policies of the traditional left. However, I am not one to do so. My objection is to simultaneously radical, discriminatory, and, most of all, irreversible policies. I do not expect always to get my way – but I object when my way is being ruled out – forever!
Furthermore, ESG standards can only realistically be adhered to by the most prominent corporations and create a false picture of a caring organization that allows them to exploit communities while keeping out new entrants to the market, inflating the share price, and keeping them on the globalist agenda.
Worst, it allows elites running big investment companies to dictate which companies can receive investments and keeps their chosen “winners” at the top by default. As a result, ESG becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy of success, which no doubt the billionaire elites running the most prominent investment companies will one day tell us was down to their brilliance and, don’t forget, their virtue! When all they did was prevent any insurgents, marginalize their competitors, morally and financially, and prevent any evidence that they might be wrong about their investment picks, let alone that they might be pushing the world toward catastrophe.
Meanwhile, restaurants throw out elected senators because they are on the wrong side. In the UK, the BBC, the Royal Airforce, and even the secret service MI5 have an explicit anti-white, anti-male hiring policy.
ESG is a short circuit of democracy. Do not want to vote for radical, irreversible environmental change, that’s ok; it’s coming anyway because a tiny, minority, elite group of money managers and investment firms is forcing it through via your pension fund. Combining the top 3 investment managers, Black Rock, Vanguard, and State Street, collectively hold majority voting power (50%+) in 80% of the S&P 500. I couldn’t find definitive, collated stats for the Nasdaq, European, or Asian markets, but I suspect it is about the same. They use their collective voting power to force companies down their ideological path regardless of whether that is best for shareholders or society. They also appease radical protest groups with virtue signaling and hefty donations. These donations should be profits for shareholders who can choose who, if anybody, they want to donate to.
Erm, I thought this book was about crypto.
But what has this got to do with crypto? First, Crypto disrupts and opens investment opportunities. Anybody can launch a programmable crypto token, explain their business idea on a website, explain how the value of that token will accrue financial benefit from the success of the business, enshrine an immutable agreement in a smart contract, and then take their business costs from people buying and holding the tokens. Cost of launching a new token? Less than $5 in most cases, although the business idea itself will likely have most of the usual costs. No billion-dollar IPO required, no SPAC needed, Securities and Exchange Committee (SEC) – not needed, Wall Street can sit on the sidelines and watch for all most crypto-financed businesses care.
Unfortunately, the US government, via the SEC, is attacking the crypto industry by trying to classify crypto, like shares or bonds, as securities.
But the point is that investment companies are not required, and the banks are rendered flaccid by the tokenization of business investment. Investors are protected to the extent an investor can be by the smart contract, which controls the release of the funds as per agreement.
These new businesses can implement financial logic, de facto legal agreements, and digital product distribution and ownership using smart contracts on the blockchain. As we have seen, the main benefit of smart contracts is that they are censorship-resistant, and nobody can be stopped from creating a smart contract or interacting with one.
There are only a few ways to fight ESG. One is to talk about it, so people who disapprove can be aware of it. The second is to legislate, but across the world, there are so many vested interests in ESG, and even where a government is against it, the markets turn on them when they make a move.
For example, in October 2022, the UK government announced a change in its budget. It included a 1% reduction in the introductory tax rate and the top rate’s abolition. They say the money market didn’t like this because it is reckless, but I just think they don’t want regular people deciding what to do with their own money – or even their lives. The tax move cost 40 billion GBP and might have stimulated the economy. Yet the markets were OK with 140 billion GBP on fuel subsidies which hide the cost of green energy taxes, and an unnecessarily belligerent stance against Russia.
The Prime Minister concerned was promptly removed by the party that voted her in three weeks previously. Even more suspicious was that Rishi Sunak, former Chancellor of the Exchequer who printed half a trillion GBP to keep healthy people out of the workplace in 2020 was seen as the natural successor to ensure stability. Perhaps his father-in-law’s company being a stakeholder at the WEF and running India’s digital ID trial helped them make their minds up.
Although there is some evidence that the tide is turning against ESG in the regular economy, for example, The US state of Texas has already mandated that a portion of its investments be removed from ESG investment funds. Furthermore, several new non-ESG investment companies are offering investors an alternative. For example, Strive Asset Management has multiple funds which specifically avoid ESG. In addition, the rise in interest rates throughout 2022 has made many companies push back at wasting money on an ideological investment, and wasteful, highly paid jobs like Diversity Manager and token board hires employed to improve the company’s ESG score.
Central Bank Digital Currencies – CBDC
In June 2022, the BIS declared that interoperability standards for CBDCs should be ready within 12 months. At the time of writing, 11 CBDCs have launched, mainly in small nations yet, including China and Nigeria. In addition, 17 countries are at the pilot stage, 33 are in development, including the UK and the European Union, and 39 are actively researching them. The BIS said in January 2023 that crypto should be banned, contained, and regulated. But who elected them? Which community in which country are they representing? Of course, they represent the financial system – the banks, governments, biggest corporations, and fund managers.
What can CBDCs do for governments?
A CBDC is not a new currency but a new format for money. With it will likely come a government-issued wallet app. This will be a central place for everything financial and has the potential to appear quite convenient to the user. But the new format the currency comes in has significant potential drawbacks. The first is the eventual discontinuation of cash and the loss of privacy and autonomy that comes with it.
The next problem is that the government will see all transactions because, eventually, everything will be done through the government app. So, technically speaking, except for cash, the government can see everything already. Still, they have to make an effort and wait for institutions to hand over the data, and they must justify it with a court order or warrant.
The BIS “travel rule” means that transactions over 500 USD are collated by all banks globally and made available for government institutions to inspect. So, for instance, law enforcement can serve banks and institutions with legal orders for more details. But the CBDC offers instantaneous, live knowledge of transactions.
Perhaps most sinister, however, is the instantaneous, live, programmatic interaction and control that the CBDC brings to a government. Again, we will go into more detail soon.
CBDCs and social credit scores
Monitoring what you spend your money on would also mean your purchases could be rated. What do I mean?
Social credit scores are a system used in some countries to evaluate the trustworthiness and creditworthiness of individuals based on their behavior and personal data. The scores are calculated using a combination of data sources, such as financial information, social media activity, and purchasing history. The scores are used for various purposes, including determining creditworthiness for loans, eligibility for employment or housing, and access to certain services or “privileges.”
In some countries, the social credit score system is run by the government; in others, it is run by private companies. As a result, using social credit scores is controversial and will likely be pushed by governments as a tool for promoting the behavior they prefer.
As an example of the power of a social credit score combined with a CBDC, consider conditional for your next payment from the government: keeping within your carbon target, not buying too much meat, TV screen time rental, or travel. Don’t put the heating above a specific temperature or turn the lights on at peak times so the renewable energy grid can cope. Or even worse, you might be outright prevented from buying meat, traveling, etc.
Furthermore, the government could control the interest rate on your mortgage or other debt based on your social credit score, green credentials, vaccine status, political views, protest attendance, gender, or skin color.
Maybe even worse would be the lack of transparency. Through the central banks, governments could persecute one person they don’t like while pouring riches upon someone they do – completely opaquely – with no accountability.
It is uncertain who said, “Let me control the nation’s money, and I do not care who writes the laws,” and also, “I don’t care what stupid personal beliefs I have to pretend to go along with to get my candidates elected, provided when they get in government, we get to nominate the Secretary of the Treasury.” But whoever it was knew what they were talking about. They were referring to just the supply of money. CBDCs give more power than ever over the supply, but now also the use of the money once it has been supplied.
So political policy could dictate airdrop benefits to selected recipients potentially opaquely. Target money to people with certain opinions to encourage the right people to join specific jobs, like law enforcement, teaching, or even the military, or appease unions, corporations, or particular demographics.
Again, governments could completely opaquely create littoral working and supported classes based on their ideological biases. They could control what money is allowed to be spent entirely. Perhaps no gold, silver, or crypto purchases. They could take your money or just shut down your account.
They could set an expiry date for money to force spending. Even announce that existing “savings” must be spent by a specific date on a certain range of products or at ESG-approved retailers. In February 2023, the new Chancellor of the Exchequer for the UK, Jeremy Hunt, stated that “people would not be allowed to hoard” the central bank digital currency. He said this while discussing the benefits of a digital ID card linked to a CBDC wallet. All this happened in the same month Tony Blair, former Labour Prime Minister, and William Hague, former Conservative Party leader, held a joint interview calling for cross-party consensus on digital ID cards, including vaccination status.
CBDCs could enforce a negative interest rate on savings, like digital money burning to force spending. CBDCs would facilitate upfront payment of taxes, parking fines, student loans, and social media infringements like criticizing the current woke talking points, whatever they happen to be that week.
Perhaps an ongoing fee for not being vaccinated, driving through a low emission zone, or too many trips outside your 15-minute city.
A 15-minute city, according to the promotional video, is a city where everything you need is within 15 minutes walk. The idea is to deter vehicle use to reduce CO2 emissions. But what if your favorite restaurant or shop is outside the zone? What if you live in a bad neighborhood? What if your friends and family live outside the area? You will be allowed a set number of trips each year beyond the zone – for a small fee, no doubt levied via your digital ID and CBDC wallet.
Perhaps surprisingly, an even more sinister tyranny lurks beneath the surface of this idea. How will they enforce these 15-minute zones? They will need to monitor the identity and location of everybody. They will need constant surveillance as well as physical barriers. There are already several 15-minute cities planned in the UK. Canterbury and Oxford are two. Milan, Italy, is running a pilot, and Paris, France, is dividing into 15-minute zones later this year.
In Oxford, I have seen physical barriers erected across roads demarking the edge of the zones preventing travel and, in some places, automatically deploying barriers have been introduced. London is currently in a vicious war of words to prevent the radical Mayor, Sadiq Khan, from rolling out his plan for a ULEZ ultra-low-emission-zone that would prevent car use – without the significant extra expense – for 12 million Londoners. The ULEZ scheme would create beautiful empty roads for anybody who could afford the £12 per trip fee.
But it gets worse! At a 2023 WEF panel on 15-minute cities, they discussed how “rules” could be tailored to fit different districts in different cities. The magnitude of the implications that different people living 15 minutes apart will have different rules to live by is unthinkable – except it is happening soon.
Oxford surveyed its residents before going ahead. 97% of respondents were against the idea. Nevertheless, Ofxord authorities went ahead anyway, got social media to fact-check and censor opposition, and got the mainstream media to run stories about how “far-right climate deniers” were abusing the city’s leaders. While it does seem to be the case that Oxford Council received some verbal abuse, it was the only aspect of the story that got significant coverage. The phrase often used to make the idea more warm and fluffy is our old friend, “build back better… with a 15-minute city.”
It seems evident to me that, like the climate agenda, more generally and 15-minute cities are just ghettoization as a means of tighter control. Back to CBDCs more generally.
With a CBDC, you could be issued fines for using a VPN and therefore restricting citizens to a censored version of the Internet and ensuring you always participate online with your actual identity – so the social credit score can be accurate, on-the-spot fines without charge or trial by the behavior police, for protesting or arguing with the wrong type of people, complaining to a government employee about poor service, etc.
They can limit the amount spent on certain products, not just meat, gas, and holidays, but books or movies with the wrong opinions. They will be able to track and manipulate every transaction.
In January 2023, many big players from the crypto industry attended the WEF meeting at Davos. Ethereum, Ripple, and Polkadot had representatives at the shady meeting. Even representatives from the crypto press, including Coin Telegraph, attended. So while it is a reasonable argument that there is a case for attending, even if you don’t support the agenda, we can expect incoming environmental attacks on Bitcoin and exaggeration of the crypto terrorism, privacy coin, and money laundering narratives.
At the last meeting at Davos, we learned that the WEF is coordinating a metaverse where they will control it and use it to “meet, plan and educate the children.” They went on to discuss their goal of financial centralization. This discussion included the likes of three central bank governors, the CEOs of Swift (the global money transfer system), and Visa. After lamenting the rise in suspicion around CBDCs, they moved on to some of their difficulties building CBDCs. There was significant agreement around the possibility that crypto-based stablecoins might be an alternative.
As we already know, stablecoins are fiat-price-pegged coins like USDC that are issued on regular crypto networks but issued, controlled, and censored by centralized authorities. In addition, Circle administers the USDC stablecoin, holding mainly US debt as collateral to back its value. Circle is currently working on a centralized blockchain-based digital ID. The dots are being connected.
Perhaps we won’t have a Fed-controlled CBDC, just a grubby public/private – stakeholder-partnership. Next up on the stage at Davos were a couple more central bankers, the head of the S&P, and the leader of Credit Suisse. They agreed that the answer to ensuring more centralization is more ESG. Do they ever disagree with each other?
CBDCs will be the most efficient form of tyranny ever seen in whatever the final format. So what will we do? Could we all refuse to use CBDCs when they introduce them?
Forced adoption of CBDCs
CBDCs will be pushed with multiple excuses. First, they will claim to be banking the unbanked – seems reasonable until you consider that it could just be a way to get people into the system, to lend money, make them work/work more/perform certain occupations.
They will also force adoption by paying benefits exclusively via a CBDC app. Furthermore, they can force adoption by insisting that businesses pay their taxes via the app. They can incentivize adoption with policies like an interest rate on holdings, which will be more than eaten away by inflation but is better than leaving your money in the bank with no interest. Finally, they could bail out failed banks like in 2008, but this time only reimburse customers of the failed bank through the CBDC app with no route back to the old banking system.
Another approach, actually adopted by the Nigerian government to force its citizens to adopt the eNira CBDC was to legally limit cash withdrawals to 45 USD equivalent per day.
Carrots and sticks will eventually move everybody away from old systems. Once the transition is complete, auto-taxation windfall taxes, auto-fining for anti-regime behavior – without trial (like PayPal). If you don’t believe me, why haven’t the regulators gone after PayPal? It’s because PayPal is doing the government’s bidding to enforce the SDGs. Auto fining could start with simplistic low-level crimes like being in a particular place unvaccinated, with the option to appeal for a trial like low-level driving offenses today, and then escalate to having to pay for a trial, eventually to no trial option. Then the violations could be expanded to even more sinister things like social media hate crimes based on AI opinion, ammunition ownership, etc.
As a side note, did you know that ChatGPT is woke? Ask it to write a complimentary poem about good old Joe Biden, and it dutifully obliges. Ask it to write one about the evil Trump, and it will tell you it doesn’t like to “encourage hate.” Ask ChatGPT to write a poem about black people, and it writes genuinely beautiful poetry about the great things black folk have done over the centuries. Ask it to write one about white people, and it won’t “support white supremacy.” I have digressed again, but this does matter. ChatGPT is slated to be the most widely used tool in education in the next decade.
The government could control travel by location, social status, vaccination status, and social media comments. In addition, they could combine CBDCs with Digital ID, tracking, and facial recognition.
Think about small businesses. They could be taxed by the transaction upfront and then forced to claim back any excess rather than doing a return and then paying the government. I think most governments won’t want small businesses. They will try replacing them, just like during the covid lockdowns when big companies opened, and small ones were kept shut.
Tradespeople, for example, could be swept into bigger corporations as employees or on retainers. This would make it very hard for regular homeowners or motorists to maintain their properties and vehicles, perhaps making them more likely to sell and rent – with the knock-on effect meaning tradespeople are more likely to accept the corporate wage. You will own nothing for sure. But I am not so sure about being happy. All this becomes possible with a CBDC.
Of course, CBDCs will be sold to us with lies. For example, in July 2021, Rishi Sunak, now UK Prime Minister, then Chancellor, branded a proposed UK CBDC as Brit Coin, a play on “Brit” ain and “Bit” coin, hoping to evoke warm and fluffy sentiment by association with Bitcoin. His announcement heralded safety, security, inclusion, and, of course, energy efficiency.
Shortly after he “proudly announced on behalf of the G7”, no mention of control, inflation, tracking, bias, censorship, and centralization was made. He also said it would be used “alongside” the existing system. His tone was that of a TV show host excitedly introducing a pop star.
In March 2022, US President Joe Biden signed executive order 14067, which was not a CBDC creation but facilitated faster research and adoption. In December 2022, as a direct result, CitiBank, Bank of America, and Wells Fargo participated in a test trading stocks using a CBDC. The land of the free won’t save the world as it did in the 1940s. The US establishment is firmly on board with this tyranny. In April 2023 the UK government and the Bank of England formally noted in an interview about CBDCs that they were targeting limits of CBDC holdings “between 10,00 and 20,000 GBP” and that the CBDC should be deployed by 2025.
Resisting a CBDC because of its perceived social benefits, just like resistance to radical climate policies, will incur the wrath of shame inflicted by the media. School indoctrination of children will set young against old. Just as with climate change and all the various equality themes, support for CBDCs will be co-opted in exchange for false virtue.
It is hard to imagine that CBDCs won’t be used to control us, at least prod us in a particular direction and then justify it in the name of equality, keeping us safe and saving the planet. Anyone who disagrees and speaks out would not only be mocked, but they could also be more easily de-platformed and made poorer.
We would all (almost all) be made poor, and we would all need the government. But, unfortunately, even if I am wrong and every single government on the planet has nothing but good intentions, governments are notorious for being very bad at delivering on big projects, especially tech projects.
CBDCs will be rolled out stealthily.
It has been heartening to see the widespread negative coverage of CBDCs. Nobody can claim there not coming; you might disbelieve me about the power of the WEF, BIS, IMF, etc., but CBDCs are indisputable. Therefore, this raises a new problem; as they are unleashed upon society, it is almost certain to be done gradually and sneakily.
Therefore, they will likely be pushed out, without legislation, through banking regulations and crisis response. Most notably, they will not call them CBDCs, except for the most incompetent governments.
Since the 1st edition of this book, official but quiet updates have been given about CBDC adoption, trial, and development for Brazil, Australia, Saudi Arabia, Mexico, the US, Canada, Turkiye, UAE, Pakistan, India, the UK, Iran, Russia, Japan, Singapore, and even Ukraine. Perhaps most technologically notable is that the China CBDC trial has just rolled out smart contract-like functionality becoming the first fully programmable CBDC. Even more interestingly, Kazakhstan has started a CBDC trial on the BNB blockchain. I am not sure whether to laugh or cry. I would be interested to hear from any Kazakh citizens. The Turkey CBDC includes an integrated digital ID trial with the government-issued wallet. At the time I am updating the 2nd edition Indian TV channels ran a government propaganda piece about the UPI system which is the financial rails used by the likes of Google Pay, Apple, the banks, and PayPal in India. A charge ranging from 0.5 to 1.1% will soon be levied. The propaganda piece reassured Indian citizens that personal transactions would be exempt but failed to point out that all the businesses they transact with will obviously add their costs onto the products they buy – like food retailers- effectively adding a 1 % stealth government tax on eating.
Erm, I thought this book was about crypto – part 2
At this point, I would like to apologize if I come across as a bit of a Debbie Downer.
So, will I now explain how crypto will save the world from ever more tyrannical and incompetent governments, the WEF, investment managers, corporations, media, and their stooges at the top of the education establishment, civil services, and non-governmental organizations around the world? Probably not, unfortunately. But Crypto, DeFi, and related technologies might be our last and best chance. Crypto is about being financially self-sovereign and taking responsibility for your finances away from the system that has failed us.
Perhaps I am wrong, and the WEF, Black Rock, and the world’s governments will do a great job and shape the world into a beautiful place for everyone. But it seems unlikely.
Sorry if you think I am off-topic, misleading, or overly pessimistic. I put my thoughts at the back of the book because I know that not everybody will care for them. But the facts are staring me in the face, and I wanted to share them. I am nearly done now.
The roots of this whole problem go back to the radical Marxist theories of the 19th century, modernized by even more radical thinkers like Antonio Gramsci in Italy in the 1930s. First, Gramsci, despondent that Marxism didn’t catch on beyond Russia, reworked it to replace the oppressed worker with the oppressed class. Next, a German, Herbert Marcuse, and the so-called Frankfurt school brought the ideology to the USA in the 1960s, where ideas like Critical Theory were developed but remained niche. Finally, traction for these hateful ideas came in the fallout of the 2008 financial crisis.
As we have already discussed, the world plunged into recession, and the radical left of politics, especially in the Western world, had significantly boosted credibility. As a result, it was suddenly much easier to pin the world’s ills on legitimate capitalism and the more powerful fake crony capitalism or corporatism. The most visual example of protest and discontent was, as we have discussed, the Occupy movement. In the US, the UK, and around the world, corporations needed to make concessions, big concessions, and fast.
ESG is those concessions. ESG is their tight grip on financial control. ESG is their moral hegemony over the world. Black Rock put this whole movement on steroids in 2020 with the de facto law that all corporations would go full ESG or lose funding. As we have seen, new EU and US ESG regulations will cement this direction in 2023 before a CBDC rolls out around the world’s nations.
There certainly are problems with racism, sexism, and equality, and I love the environment like most and want it to be sustained forever. But these problems should be solved by families and communities, not corporations and global institutions. I would argue that the governments, international organizations we have discussed, and the woke corporations are real racists, sexists, and climate destroyers.
It has become controversial to listen to Russian politicians, but they have a more extensive nuclear arsenal than the next three biggest combined. In late 2022, Dmitry Medvedev, the Deputy Chairman of the Security Council of Russia, predicted civil war in the US, with California and Texas becoming independent states, Northern Ireland breaking away from the UK, the UK re-joining the EU, and, worst of all, a fourth Reich comprised of pretty much the same protagonists as the third.
Western media largely ignored these predictions, but those who did report these scary ideas just mocked Medvedev. I don’t feel confident enough to disparage him so quickly, and I think we should listen and consider going in a different direction from what we are currently heading.
At the 2023 Davos meeting, the head honchos of State Street (number 2 to Black Rock), the NYSE, PayPal, the Gates Foundation, and the Finance Minister of Saudi Arabia agreed they must “control the blockchain and marginalize Bitcoin.” All also agreed that ESG, especially the G (fewer men and white people), was the key to success. None seemed bothered that, apart from one, they were all white men. Is it because what they say is so outrageous that they think anyone reporting them won’t be believed? Do you, dear reader think I am making this up?
They also discussed censorship. As mentioned, governments make 90% of content takedown requests on social media. Think about that. Not individual uptight moral do-gooders – the governments are censoring us. They went on to inform the audience that WEF influencers (referring to the 100,000 global shapers) will concentrate on controlling local media more because it is the only media that is still widely trusted. In addition, the EU’s digital services act (DSA) will make it impossible for media to put out disinformation to make money, and “children should be trained to spot disinformation from an early age.” The WEF also had deep discussions on how to tackle distrust. I could probably advise them to consider becoming trustworthy as one potential solution.
The WEF pondered why distrust was high for WEF stakeholders, i.e., big businesses and NGOs. The conclusion was that it was “extremist and far-right propaganda.” Having just admitted they controlled the mainstream media – it must be regular people they are referring to. In the US in 2022, mums complaining about politics in school were branded far-right and put on the FBIs radar. The exception to the cause of distrust, according to the WEF panel, was apparently amongst the non-white population – because “they can’t be extreme,” and for them, they all agreed; it was because they were poor and that UBI universal basic income -free money forever- was the solution, perhaps funded by a far-right tax. They also stated that to prevent the “inevitable dissent” from “extremists,” they will need to “end online anonymity” but “only in countries that aren’t oppressive.” Figure out that contradiction if you can.
Furthermore, censored hate speech and misinformation will include speech against the WEF and its stakeholders – i.e., all the rich and powerful. This WEF panel I have just described had the ministers in charge of censorship from the EU, UK, and Australia on it.
It seems evident that forces are aligning against ordinary citizens. There is already tyranny, and there is more coming. It will all be introduced with the disguise of saving the planet, equality, and safety.
We have learned about the history of money and seen that when the world or a nation has money they can trust, it gives people the confidence to invest, save, and trade. However, when the value is eroded by inflation and government manipulation, whole civilizations can be threatened. Furthermore, I have given my opinion about the potential threats, not just to the soundness of our money and property ownership but to freedom and the existence of nation-states.
The Great Reset is real, CBDCs are coming soon, and climate and fake equality will be used to control us via ESG wealth and WEF/UN coordination. Once again, you can argue whether it is good or bad if you like, but you cannot say it isn’t true.
We could push back by opting out of the financial system as much as possible and participating in the new one. We have already begun a journey into crypto. Still, suppose we will take control of the money for future generations. In that case, we must push back against central bank digital currencies, ESG, exaggerated – even manufactured – crises, and hate politics.
Crypto helps preserve agency and privacy in the coming onslaught; crypto may enable us to regain what we have already lost. A 2023 WEF panel of economists said that the Great Reset would fail unless crypto is regulated. They have suggested that even “positively regulated crypto can also threaten the Forum’s agenda” since it takes away power from members of the organization (the WEF) and that “crypto ownership places control” with those owning the assets. We can win, and I don’t want to consider the alternatives.
And if you wanted evidence that crypto might be a solution, you only have to look at how hard the organizations like the BIS, IMF, US government, etc., are trying to hobble this new industry. As we can see, crypto winning is far from a done deal.
At the conclusion of the WEF summit in Davos this year, Antonio Guterres, head of the United Nations, suggested that the SDGs were in “serious danger” of failing. This is brilliant news. They are all about wealth redistribution instead of creation, corporate control through ESGs, globalization, and destroying the nation-states of the Western world.
Guterres said that the inevitable consequence of deglobalization was World War 3. This unelected global tyrant ended his speech by urging governments and corporations to “ignore the people and do what is right.” Does he comprehend that we are listening?
My suggestion now would be to consider buying a tiny amount of bitcoin. Whatever tiny means to you and holding it in a self-custody wallet if you haven’t already. Not because it might make you rich because there is every chance it will go down, but hold it because it’s a middle finger to the controlling elites who don’t want you to have any.
They can see how many Bitcoin wallets there are, and the more there are, the more they will feel they are losing, the more desperate their rhetoric will get, and the more people will see them for what they are.
For example, if you hold 0.1 of a bitcoin, you hold 1:210,000,000 of all the bitcoin that will ever exist. There are too many people on earth by a factor of 16 for everyone to have that much. Not everyone in the USA can ever have that much; less than half the European people could have that much.
And if you think my hypothesis is a conspiracy theory, that’s OK. You can consider everything else that we discussed on this website as the most incredible, albeit risky, opportunity to develop and secure financial freedom by being early – very early to the potential future of finance, investment, art, gaming, music, and even culture itself; and perhaps just as an insurance policy against my silly conspiracy theories.
As a quick update as I am working on the 2nd edition on 23rd March 2023 Governor Ron DeSantis of Florida made a speech about the evils of CBDCs and how it could be used to control Americans. He referenced what is happening around the world, Biden’s executive order, and how Americans mustn’t give control to “these people.” I agree and it is a great relief to hear someone in power finally come out and criticize what is happening. Furthermore on the 6th of April Arkansas state passed a “right to mine” bill guaranteeing PoW mining in the state. On the downside, US regulators have just shut down another two crypto-friendly banks in the US. In the UK a supposedly crypto-friendly government has allowed some banks to limit inflows per customer to 1000 GBP per month and Binance has lost its only GBP service for UK customers. The Fed Now service, a possible precursor to a US CBDC is currently under “trial” and the UK is launching a government-controlled system that can lock mobile phones on mass under the guise of safety announcements. It’s hard to know where we will be in a year’s time.
If we are even to begin to solve these problems, we need something everybody trusts. Left and right, socialist, free-market capitalist, religious, atheist, and the majority in between. Something verifiable, unbreakable, and available to everybody; rich, poor, black, brown, white, male, female, gay, and straight. Something incontrovertible, undeniable, consistent, unbreakable, a truth everyone can trust in, free from the influence of politics. How about a future secured by mathematics?