"The Same Totalitarian Program is being rolled out" everywhere

"The Same Totalitarian Program Is Being Rolled Out" Everywhere Around The World

CJ Hopkins

The Consent Factory

Jun 28, 2023

Our descent into City Airport was like the drop-ship scene in the movie Aliens. The BA CityFlyer Embraer 190, a narrow-body twin-engine airliner, rolled over into a 40-degree bank and started bucking like a mechanical bull. Simulated “chimes” began chiming frantically. Flight attendants bolted for their seats. The German businessman in the seat beside me, obviously a nervous flyer, immediately adopted the “brace” position. I gripped his shoulder reassuringly and shouted into his ear like a drunken redneck, “WE’RE ON AN EXPRESS ELEVATOR TO HELL! GOING DOWN!”

And so began my latest trip to London. This time, I wasn’t there to talk to “the Left” or to hunt down endoparasitoid xenomorphs. I was there on Serious Conspiracy Theorist Business, which I explained to the chirpy MI6 operative posing as a “survey taker” that followed me out of Border Control asking questions about my “nation of residence” and my “experience with the passport scanners,” and so on. She was wearing one of those rubber “Mission Impossible” masks that made her look like a middle-aged British woman. I waited for an opportunity, head faked, juked right, and lost her in the crowd. As I entered the “Arrivals” lobby, I turned and shouted in her general direction, “NOT MY FIRST RODEO, MR. PHELPS!”

I don’t know what was up with all the shouting. I’ve been experimenting with different types of medication for this sinus condition I’ve had for months. My Sinus Specialist diagnosed me with “long” or possibly “permanent Covid,” or some yet-to-be-named debilitating syndrome caused by some other bio-weapon that produces cold-and-flu-like symptoms and has a survival rate of 99.8 percent. So, maybe it was bad reaction to my meds. Whatever it was, I was feeling jumpy.

And the climate-change apocalypse didn’t help. Emerging from the Tube in Westminster was like walking into an enormous open-air sauna. Bodies were lying all around on the sidewalks. AFP photographers in hazmat suits were taking pictures of the carnage. Herds of corpulent American tourists staggered through the streets in semi-fugue states sweating profusely and thumbing their phones like an invasion of alien albino hippos trying to call up to their UAPs and arrange for immediate emergency extraction. I pushed and shoved and elbowed my way down Tothill Street to my pod hotel, checked in, and proceeded to get hopelessly lost in the maze of identical Kubrickian hallways that eventually led me to my luxury pod, and cleaned myself up for the night’s festivities.

What was I doing back in London in the middle of a heat wave? Well … OK, I’m allowed to tell you about it now. As you are probably aware, Michael Shellenberger, Matt Taibbi, and Russell Brand were doing this public event last Thursday …

… but that’s not what I was really there for.

Not that the Thursday event wasn’t fun. It was. Despite the rather pricey tickets, there was a good size house and spirits were high. Russell Brand was in top form, pouring out torrents of intellectual free-association like an English Neal Cassady and nailing the punchlines of all the jokes. Michael was also firing on all cylinders. He worked the house like a seasoned politician, whipping the crowd into a veritable frenzy of anti-totalitarian fervor. Stella Assange took the stage at one point and briefed us on the official crucifixion of her husband, which, sadly, now looks like a fait accompli. Matt, who had just made it to London that morning, and so was jet-lagged and delieriously sleep-deprived, dispensed with the speech he had rewritten on the plane, and just winged it, and somehow pulled it off … because that, as they say, is show biz.

Here’s the money part of Matt’s speech, which he paraphrased in London (emphasis mine):

    “What Michael and I were looking at was something new, an Internet-age approach to political control that uses brute digital force to alter reality itself. We certainly saw plenty of examples of censorship and de-platforming and government collaboration in those efforts. However, it’s clear that the idea behind the sweeping system of digital surveillance combined with thousands or even millions of subtle rewards and punishments built into the online experience, is to condition people to censor themselves.“

Early the next morning, Michael, Matt, and a secret cabal of international journalists, editors, organizers, political satirists, academics, and other Very Serious People whose names I am not at liberty to mention gathered in an undisclosed location and spent the better part of the day sharing harmful misinformation and strategizing about how to defeat (or marginally disrupt) the network of governments, Intelligence agencies, global corporations, NGOs, and so-called disinformation experts known as the Censorship Industrial Complex. There were delegates from the United States, the United Kingdom, Ireland, Germany, Italy, Spain, Brazil, Australia, New Zealand, and other nominally sovereign countries.

This heretofore clandestine meeting was conducted in what appeared to be a WWII-era air-raid shelter that had been converted into a private BDSM club under military-level OPSEC protocols (i.e., the meeting was conducted according to the protocols, not the architectural conversion). I’m not entirely sure why that was. We weren’t doing anything even remotely illegal. However, given that I’m under criminal investigation here in Germany for tweeting the cover art of my book, and the IRS’s sudden interest in Matt, and Kit Klarenberg’s recent experience in Luton, perhaps the abundance of caution was warranted. The last thing we needed was the UK Thoughtpolice goose-stepping in like Basil Fawlty and dragging everyone off to Room 101.

Anyway, that’s what I was actually there for. I had never met most of the people in attendance, except online on the double-encrypted Russian-backed dark-web conspiracy-theorist channels where we hatch our right-wing-extremist plots to defend people’s rights to freedom-of-speech and engage in other harmful anti-Democracy behaviors. I’m still not sure who I actually met in London, as we were all wearing identical Mickey-Mouse masks and speaking through portable voice modifiers. (In any secret meeting like this, you have to assume you’ve been infiltrated!)

After the obligatory arguing about the agenda, we settled in and shared our country reports, which, unsurprisingly, were all variations on a theme. I won’t go into all the details. Michael Shellenberger’s non-profit has been tracking those developments. Matt Taibbi and Racket News are reporting it. Other alternative media outlets are reporting it. Millions of people all around the world are talking about it, writing about it, and arguing with each other about it. Your Twitter feed is probably full of it. Alex Gutentag just published a huge article about it.

So, what is it, exactly, that is going on?

The thing that was horrifying about listening to my colleagues reporting on the state of things in their countries — or, rather, the thing that should be horrifying but is becoming a mundane fact of life — is that more or less the same totalitarian program is being rolled out in countries throughout the world.

    The censorship.

    The official propaganda.

    The criminalization of dissent.

    The pathologization of dissent.

    The manipulation of our perception of reality.

    The coordinated transformation of the world into a smiley-faced neo-Orwellian police state in which politics no longer matters because society has been divided into two basic classes, i.e., “the normals,” who are prepared to mindlessly follow orders and parrot whatever official propaganda they are fed, and “the deviants,” or “extremists,” who are not.

Seriously, all satire aside, think about the implications of that.

As you sit there in whichever nominally sovereign country you’re sitting there reading this in, ask yourself, “how and why is this happening?” Then ask yourself, “why is it happening now?”

If you do not have answers to those questions, it might behoove you to attempt to come up with some. That is basically what I’ve been trying to do — in a satirical and sometimes not so satirical manner — in these Consent Factory essays for the last seven years. I’m not going to summarize it all again here. I’ve done that, repeatedly, in my essays and books. I did it the last time I visited London to give a talk at the Real Left Conference.

I did it again at this gathering in London. It did not go over all that well.

The thing is, most of us are so laser-focused on the trees that we cannot see the forest. But our adversaries see the forest. They see the forest like fucking eagles. They own the fucking forest and everything in it. While we hop like squirrels from tree to tree, distracted from distraction by distraction, from limited hangout by limited hangout, they are building a big fucking fence around it and deploying the Forest-Ranger Sturmabteilung.

I’m reminded of that infamous Karl Rove quote. He was referring to the USA, of course, but it was GloboCap (i.e., the Corporatocracy) that he was really speaking for whether he knew it or not …

    “That’s not the way the world really works anymore … we’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality — judiciously, as you will — we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors, and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.” [The New York Times Magazine]

If we do not want to end up “studying that reality,” the global, pathologized-totalitarian reality that is being subtly and not so subtly implemented simultaneously in countries throughout the world, at some point we had better come up with some actual answers to those questions above.

The supranational, globally-hegemonic, post-ideological system of power that runs our world — whatever you need to call it — has answers to those questions. It has a story. It is a story about a beneficent global empire governed by authoritative scientific experts who are trying to save the world from Whatever and protect everyone from “disinformation” and “harmful” speech, ideas, and so on. Like every good story, it has an antagonist. Us. We are the official enemy. Right, Left, libertarian, anarchist, Islamic fundamentalist, Christian fundamentalist … it does not make one iota of difference. There is only the Empire, and those who oppose it. The Empire does not give a shit why. It is conducting a global “Clear-and-Hold” operation, wiping out internal resistance and establishing ideological uniformity. It could not care less what you think you believe in. All it wants is mindless obedience and rote repetition of its propaganda. That’s how totalitarianism works.

And there I go with my story again. If anyone has a different story that makes sense of the last seven years — and arguably the last 30 years — honestly, I would love to hear it. My story fills me with fear and loathing, but the only other coherent story I’m hearing at the moment is the Empire’s story, and I think we all know how that one ends.

Shock’ Needed to Usher in ‘World Order Transformation'

World Government Summit: ‘Shock’ Needed to Usher in ‘World Order Transformation’
Frank Bergman
February 16, 2023

Globalists have been gathering at the World Government Summit in Dubai to discuss advancing plans for a single global government.

World leaders and powerful elites have been flocking to the event this week to pitch ideas for expanding globalism by uniting sovereign nations’ governments.

During a panel discussion at the summit, Professor Arturo Bris from the IMD World Competitiveness Center argued that a “shock” is needed to shift global society away from the current “world order.”

He insisted that the “transformation” of the “world order” “cannot be gradual.”

Bris told attendees that elites and world leaders need to address how to use a “shock” so the world can “go through this transformation.”

“How is this transition going to happen?” Dr. Bris asked

“I totally agree that the world order, the way it is built today, doesn’t make any sense,” he explained.

“That is not in line with the economic powers like India, Brazil, or Germany.

“They don’t have a massive role in the international order.

“But to me, the big question is how we are going to go through this transformation.

“It cannot be gradual,” he asserted.

“It has to be, has to be, driven by a part, by a certain shock that will happen.

“So now we will reconsider this entire…”

Elsewhere at the event, World Economic Forum (WEF) founder and chairman Klaus Schwab addressed attendees on his vision for a global government to “master” the human race.

As Slay News reported, Schwab has called for elites attending the World Government Summit in Dubai to come together globally in order to “master” advanced technologies.

He warned the summit’s attendees that the world could “escape our power” if they don’t act swiftly.

Schwab highlighted how “fourth industrial revolution technologies” will play a role in his “Great Reset” agenda.

He then declared: “Who masters those technologies – in some way – will be the master of the world.”

“Ten years from now we will be completely different,” Schwab said.

“My deep concern [with] fourth industrial revolution technologies, if we don’t work together on a global scale, if we do not formulate, shape together the necessary policies, they will escape our power to master those technologies.”

Meanwhile, Twitter boss Elon Musk also spoke at the World Government Summit.

However, Musk didn’t exactly tell the globalist attendees what they wanted to hear, as Slay News reported.

Musk warned that trying to form a “single world government” could cause “civilization” to “collapse.”

World Economic Forum: The New Fascism

Klaus Schwab’s World Economic Forum: The New Fascism
Frank Bergman
December 31, 2022

Since founding the World Economic Forum (WEF) in 1971, Klaus Schwab has grown his organization into arguably the most powerful entity in on the planet.

Yet most of the world’s population has never even heard of Schwab or the WEF, despite the group’s influence over global nations’ elected leaders.

Schwab, the WEF’s founder and sole chairman, is the original international man of mystery.

Despite Schwab openly gloating that he has world leaders in his pockets, or that he instructs presidents and prime ministers on his agenda for their countries, very little is known about him

Basic information is available — “He was born in Ravensburg, Germany in 1938 …” — but almost nothing about the man behind the facts.

In his Leftist book titled Davos Man: How Billionaires Devoured the World, New York Times journalist Peter S. Goodman offers an insider’s perspective on the doings of the rich and famous at the WEF’s annual conference at Davos, Switzerland.

Goodman has attended the event himself for the better part of a decade.

And yet, in a book that is meant to be an exposé on Schwab and his WEF, Goodman tells us little about Schwab beyond anecdotes:

    “Schwab has frequently told his colleagues that he anticipates receiving a Nobel Peace Prize…. Like the people he gathers annually in the Alps, Schwab is an exemplar of the force of pious words as prophylactic against the consequences of unsavory deeds.”

And criticisms are mostly petty in nature:

    “When a Forum employee who was late for a meeting once pulled into Schwab’s spot in the parking lot, aware that the boss was overseas, he caught wind of it, and insisted that she be fired …”

It’s not that these stories are meaningless but Goodman’s central criticism is one of elitism and hypocrisy, and these illustrate his thesis.

But as far as exposé material goes, it’s pretty thin.

When it comes to biography, Schwab is like a cardboard cutout: the outline of a man is there, but an enormous hole remains.

Even so, all of this tells us something important about Schwab: his biography appears to be carefully guarded by an army of monitors.

Consider the WEF’s “About Klaus Schwab” webpage.

It merely lists degrees, honors, books, and so on.

Wikipedia, which loves to indulge rumor and speculation of every kind, is rather mum on Schwab.

His entry is roughly 1,400 words, which is about the same word count as Screen Actors Guild president Gabrielle Carteris‘s page.

George Floyd more than doubles Schwab at 3,100 words while the fictional Mr. Bean gets 6,400.

Wikipedia is a reflection of public interest rather than public importance.

In that sense, it’s more like Yelp than Encyclopedia Britannica.

Still, for a man who regularly meets with heads of state and expects to be treated like one, this is more than a little curious.

Schwab, it seems, has managed to do what almost every drunk spring breaker has tried to do but couldn’t: scrub something negative about themselves from the Internet.

Perhaps rubbing elbows with executives in Big Tech has its advantages.

Most of what Google prioritizes in search results on the octogenarian is glowing.

Negative press about Schwab and his agenda is often swept away by his allies in Big Tech and the media and labeled “conspiracy theories.”

USA Today, Newsweek, Reuters, and many others all ran predictable “fact check” stories on some of the so-called “conspiracy theories” about Schwab.

BBC seized upon these “conspiracies” as an opportunity to publish this bizarre defense of Schwab and his “Great Reset” agenda.

In their telling of it, it’s all a rather benign attempt to create a better world.

Nothing to see here, people.

The BBC attempted to characterize all opposition to the globalist agenda as “dangerous conspiracy theories” that are linked to the MAGA crowd:

    “Believers spin dark tales about an authoritarian socialist world government run by powerful capitalists and politicians—a secret cabal that is broadcasting its plan around the world….

    “In the hands of a diverse group of online activists, the Great Reset has been transformed from a call to encourage people to think about a sustainable future, to a sinister plot against humanity.”

Either the BBC has never read Schwab, heard Schwab, or they are in on the plot against humanity.

Consider this Schwab-ism:

    “To achieve a better outcome [in the post-pandemic era], the world must act jointly and swiftly to revamp all aspects of our societies and economies, from education to social contracts and working conditions.

    “Every country, from the United States to China, must participate, and every industry, from oil and gas to tech, must be transformed.

    “In short, we need a ‘Great Reset’ of capitalism.”

If your neighbor said this, you’d write him off as a whack job.

But according to The Hill, the Biden administration has expressed “devotion” to Schwab’s plan.

This is about more than putting paper and plastic in the right waste bin.

It’s nothing less than a total global overhaul.

In an academic paper that inspires the goals of the WEF, apocalyptic warnings of every type emerge, global overpopulation most of all.

The writers say it will be necessary for leaders to make “appalling” decisions in the future.

Klaus Schwab is confident he and the elitist members of his World Economic Forum are the people for that job.

UN Preparing to Expand into Single-World Govt

United Nations Preparing to Expand into Single-World Government
Frank Bergman
July 12, 2023

The globalist United Nations (UN) is preparing to massively expand its powers to overrule individual sovereign nations and position itself as an unelected single-world government.

The UN is planning to unveil proposals for the unprecedented expansion of its influence during the upcoming “Summit of the Future” conference in 2024.

Included in the proposals are policies that would grant the organization an “emergency platform” during “global crisis” events.

Such “crises” would be determined by the UN itself and “emergencies” would be declared by the agency.

Should a global “emergency” be declared by the UN, it would enable the agency to deploy “emergency powers” to meet “climate change” goals or enforce restrictions during, or even before, pandemics.

The plans also include a “digital code of ethics” that would allow the UN to censor “misinformation” to prevent a “climate” or pandemic-related “crisis.”

The UN has dubbed the spread of information that conflicts with the official “climate crisis” or pandemic narrative as an “infodemic.”

The “Summit of the Future” conference will bring together UN allied nations and non-governmental organizations, such as the World Economic Forum (WEF) and World Health Organization (WHO), to discuss a sweeping policy agenda.

The agenda speaks to left-wing initiatives such as increasing the size of government to operate on a global level, digital censorship, and drastic pandemic and climate proposals.

These policies signal a concerning expansion of the UN’s influence over individual sovereign nations, according to policy experts.

By allowing the UN to expand its powers in this way, the unelected organization will be able to overrule the laws of counties around the world to pursue its own globalist agenda.

The powers would enable the United Nations to violate Americans’ constitutional rights, for example, by stripping citizens of their free speech rights with radical censorship policies.

Michael Chamberlain, director of Protect the Public’s Trust, a government watchdog organization, warns that the proposals will see America “relinquish its sovereignty” and allow the UN, WEF, and WHO “the power to rule over us.”

“Back when Americans called themselves Englishmen, we couldn’t abide being ruled by people we didn’t vote for and never saw,” Chamberlain explains.

“Self-government is in our national DNA.

“We elect representatives to enact the laws we live by… not so with the United Nations and other international and foreign organizations.

“That is why it is exceedingly dangerous for the United States to relinquish its sovereignty and allow any of these organizations the power to rule over us.”

According to the “Strengthening the International Response to Complex Global Shocks – An Emergency Platform” policy proposal, in the event of a global crisis, such as a “major climactic event” or “future pandemic risk,” the emergency platform policy would give the U.N. the ability to “actively promote and drive an international response that places the principles of equity and solidarity at the center of its work.”

Note the wording of “future pandemic risk” rather than during an actual pandemic – the UN would be able to exercise its sweeping powers if it claims it is acting to prevent something from happening.

To prevent a “major climatic event,” the UN could block the public from buying meat and dairy products with their digital dollars to stop “global warming.”

The proposal was written by U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres.

It would grant Guterres the authority to declare an emergency platform and extend it on his own whim if the policy was ratified.

Brett Schaefer, senior researcher in International Regulatory Affairs at Heritage Foundation, is warning that Guterres and the UN will be able to overrule the leaders of once sovereign nations around the world.

“It is clearly an effort to empower the Secretary-General and the United Nations,” Schaefer warns.

“The Emergency Platform policy brief would grant the Secretary-General ‘standing authority to convene and operationalize’ a response to a broad array of international crises with minimal consultation with the member states, including the U.S.”

The emergency platform would also ensure “that participating actors make clear commitments that directly and immediately support the global response to a complex shock.”

These participating actors include the UN’s member states like the U.S., China, European Union countries, and the U.K.

“While the member states would not be compelled legally to abide by the recommendations of the Secretary-General, the pressure to ‘contribute meaningfully to the response and [be] held to account for delivery on those commitments’ would be immense,” said Schaefer.

“The U.S. should be willing to respond positively to assist other nations in times of crisis, but this should be a decision made by our elected leaders, not driven from Turtle Bay.”

Another one of the “Summit of the Future” proposals would seek to develop a “code of conduct” online that would demonetize and censor what the UN considers “misinformation.”

The sweeping censorship policy is titled “Information Integrity on Digital Platforms.”

The “code of conduct” is informed by work from groups that actively push to censor conservative speech online.

The UN and the UN-funded Global Disinformation Index (GDI) cite multiple conservative news outlets as sources of “misinformation”

However, they accrediting left-leaning sources as highly reliable, according to the GDI’s “Disinformation Risk Assessment.”

For example, the GDI gave the New York Times, the Washington Post, and BuzzFeed News “low” risk levels, while giving the Daily Wire, the New York Post, and the American Conservative “high” risk levels.

“From health and gender equality to peace, justice, education, and climate action, measures that limit the impact of mis- and disinformation and hate speech will boost efforts to achieve a sustainable future,” the UN Secretary-General wrote in the “Information Integrity on Digital Platforms” proposal.

The UN’s definition of “misinformation” poses a major risk to free speech, Schaefer said.

“We have seen firsthand how efforts to repress ‘disinformation’ and ‘misinformation’ instead are misused to silence opposing opinions and repress inconvenient evidence – such as the Chinese lab leak theory on the origin of Covid,” Schaefer said.

“It is hard to see any UN Code that would not run roughshod over the First Amendment.”

Chamberlain agreed, adding that the UN has no basis to establish the policy in any democratic country.

“Americans still have the protections of the First Amendment that prohibit the government from infringing on their rights to free speech,” said Chamberlain.

“Not only is the government barred from trampling on those rights, it is not allowed to outsource that trampling to others, not even to large, powerful international organizations, regardless of how highly regarded those organizations may be.”

Other policy proposals include a mandatory global vaccination plan for COVID-19.

The plan would seek to administer a minimum of 11 billion doses worldwide and increase funding and authority to the WHO, the health agency of the UN.

“The independence, authority, and financing of WHO must be strengthened,” wrote Guterres in the “Our Common Agenda” report.

“This includes greater financial stability and autonomy, based on fully unearmarked resources, increased funding, and an organized replenishment process for the remainder of the budget.”

Another proposal seeks to enforce “climate change” initiatives by reaching “net zero carbon emissions” by 2050 “or sooner.”

The plan involves abolishing fossil fuels and coal energy worldwide, and coercing financial actors to shift away “from high-emission sectors to the climate resilient and net zero economy.”

“We should be shoring up our populations, infrastructure, economies, and societies to be resilient to climate change, yet adaptation and resilience continue to be seriously underfunded,” Guterres said in the “Our Common Agenda” report.

However, experts warn that meeting the globalist green agenda goals seems impossible with drastic actions.

“China’s priority – and the priority of many other countries, especially developing countries – is to maximize economic growth and increase standards of living,” Schaefer said.

“To the extent that net zero and phasing out fossil fuels impede those goals, they will not abide by limitations.”

Elsewhere in the UN’s proposal are calls for mandatory globalized “digital IDs.”

As Slay News previously reported, Guterres demands in the “Our Common Agenda” report that all individuals under the UN’s control would have a digital ID that is linked to their bank account.

With the eventual rollout of Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs), authorities would be able to monitor and control the spending of citizens in cashless societies.

Those whose spending indicates that they pose a “risk” of contributing toward a “major climactic event” could be swiftly punished.

World Economic Forum’s emphasis on digital IDs

It aligns with the World Economic Forum’s emphasis on digital IDs in its vision for the Fourth Industrial Revolution.

The UN’s Global Digital Compact calls for banks to issue mandatory digital IDs, which could be used to refuse service to non-compliant individuals, under the guise of promoting a "human-centered digital future."

The centralisation and regulation of personal data, which would determine access to services, contradicts the UN’s claims that they are working towards an open, free, and secure digital future.

The UN’s overt push for greater global “co-operation” with digitalisation suggests a move towards a one-world government.

The potential for a centralised digital ID system linked to bank accounts and other services paves the way for a totalitarian social credit system, with all activities monitored and regulated by unaccountable officials.

globalist institutions such as United Nations (UN) and the World Economic Forum (WEF) are doing everything they can to ensure that there is global implementation of digital IDs; a move that would hasten the eventual emergence of a one-world government.

In May, the UN unveiled a new scheme to push a digital ID system on us.

In their document titled Global Digital Compact, they call for a whole host of various changes to be agreed upon and implemented to ‘regulate’ society’s digital future.

Chief among them is for it to be mandatory for banks to issue digital IDs to customers and, ostensibly, refuse service to anyone deemed non-compliant.

They say that the implementation of such policies will advance “an open, free, secure, and human-centered digital future, one that is anchored in universal human rights and that enables the attainment of the Sustainable Development Goals.”

That’s just plain, utter lies, I would say… except for the ‘sustainable’ part because reducing the majority to a state in which they will own nothing is certainly ‘sustainable’ albeit in the most grotesque of ways.   

It is beyond me exactly how centralising and regulating our personal data — which would be tied to what services we can (or cannot) access is supposed to represent “an open, free, secure, and human-centered digital future”, particularly when the centralisation and regulation might be overseen by unelected bureaucrats sitting somewhere in Switzerland.

In fact, this achieves the exact opposite of open, free, secure, and human-centred.

There have been warning bells ringing for some time for those who truly want to hear.

Last year, Simon Mercieca’s Free Press reported that Iran was introducing a digital ID system that would be linked to the purchase of food:

    Iran is the first country to roll out a biometric Digital ID needed in order to buy food, eat and survive. This Digital ID is the same one that controls banks which we are being told is needed in order to roll out the central bank digital currencies. As the Financial Times has reported on 5th May:

    “What CBDC (Central Bank Digital Currency, which is electronic money) research and experimentation appears to be showing is that it will be nigh on impossible to issue such currencies outside of a comprehensive national digital ID management system. Meaning: CBDCs will likely be tied to personal accounts that include personal data, credit history and other forms of relevant information.”[1]

    This is the same Digital ID that the World Economic Forum has established to be at the very crux of this Fourth Industrial Revolution.

    It is interesting to note that Iran is implementing this Digital ID through food rationing which is a bell-weather for how it is going to be rolled out around the rest of the world.

Way back in 2018, Brett Solomon, who is the head of a global non-governmental organisation that protects and defends digital rights, wrote a column on Wired in which he warned about what flows on from digital ID systems:

    … systems using artificial intelligence and machine learning are used to make decisions based on our identities. Those systems are often built on data that can reinforce bias and discrimination, and are wielded without sufficient transparency or human review. Ultimately, social credit systems, such as those that are currently being developed in China, will be based on digital ID, thereby enabling or disabling our full and free participation in society.

In the aforementioned Global Digital Compact, the UN doesn’t shy away from being overt about its scheme towards a one-world government, stating that “unilateral regional, national or industry actions are insufficient: this cooperation (towards digitalisation) must be global and multi-stakeholder.”

The question is, why exactly are sovereign, democratic and free enterprise systems “inefficient” (according to the UN) and in what what?

If you look at their document, you will find it is riddled with ambiguous and vague terms, never giving a clear-cut answer to how exactly the UN’s recommendations will actually help society.

Rather than relying on statistics, solid research work, and empirical evidence in support of their arguments, it all seems to be nonsensical corporate speak about how “inclusion,” “sustainability” and “universal human rights” will be enforced through “multi-stakeholder action” and “smart techniques” regarding “next-generation digital networks” as we navigate this “triple planetary crisis.”

And if you can understand all of that then you’re doing better than I!

One common theme throughout their document is how they repeatedly emphasise greater international regulation of new technologies to “help safeguard peace and security online.”

The words freedom and regulation don’t mix together well, especially when it’s regulation that has its basis in safeguarding “peace and security”.

Just recall the massive expansion of the surveillance state and the pandemic-era lockdowns that were also done in the name of safeguarding “peace and security”.

Imagine if their plan is fully realised, especially the linking of a centralised digital ID system with our bank accounts and other services.

Effectively, it would pave the way for an even more totalitarian form of social credit system; one from which there will be no escape.

All your activities will be monitored and regulated by unaccountable officials.

Should you transgress their policies and protest for your freedom and that of your countrymen, you would find yourself effectively stripped of all your rights, including that of your person.

In the face of such concerning developments, it is essential for individuals around the world to remain vigilant and informed.

The potential for misuse of a global digital identity system is enormous, with serious implications for privacy and personal freedom.

It’s crucial to question the narratives presented by powerful organisations like the UN, the WEF, the corporate media, and even our own governments, and to demand transparency in their actions.

Each and every one of us has a role to play in shaping the future of our digital world.

Let’s stand up for our rights, challenge the unchecked power of institutions, and actively participate in creating a truly open, free, and secure digital future.

Such a future does not include any mandatory digital identity system, central bank digital currency, or social credit system.

And it certainly doesn’t include a one-world government.

Until next time, God bless you, your family and nation.

Take care,

George Christensen, with a Nation First staff writer

UN & WEF admit they CENSOR Search Results & pay Big Tech

“We own the Science and We think the World should know it” – UN & WEF admit they CENSOR Search Results & pay Big Tech & Influencers to shape Public Opinion on Climate Change & COVID-19
By The Exposé on July 25, 2023

The World Economic Forum held the Sustainable Development Impact Meetings towards the end of September 2022, convening at the same time as the United Nations General Assembly.

In those meetings, UN officials declared that they apparently “own the science”.

They also admitted to; among other things –

•     Partnering with Google to censor search results that don’t fit the official narrative and ensure their propaganda is top of the list in relation to things such as ‘Covid-19’ and ‘Climate Change’ in order to shape public opinion.
•     Partnering with Big Tech Social Media companies to boost propaganda messaging on things such as Covid-19 and Climate Change in order to shape public opinion.
•     Giving millions to social media influencers to spout their propaganda for them in order to shape public opinion.

    “We own the science, and we think that the world should know it, and the platforms themselves also do,”

    “If you Google ‘climate change,’ you will, at the top of your search, you will get all kinds of UN resources.”

    “Another really key strategy we had was to deploy influencers… influencers who were really keen, who have huge followings, but really keen to help carry messages that were going to serve their communities, and they were much more trusted than the United Nations”

    “This idea that all speech is equal is not true”

Welcome to The Great Reset...

During the World Economic Forum’s (WEF) Sustainable Development Impact Meetings in September 2022, the unelected globalists held a panel on “Tackling Disinformation” where participants from the UN, CNN, and Brown University discussed how to best control narratives.

Melissa Fleming, Under-Secretary-General for Global Communications at the United Nations, highlighted that the UN had partnered with several big tech companies, including TikTok and Google, to control COVID and climate narratives while claiming, “We own the science.”

On the topic of controlling the climate change narrative, Fleming remarked that the UN had partnered with Google so that the unelected globalists’ authoritative narratives would appear at the top of search results.

“We partnered with Google,” said Fleming, adding, “for example, if you Google ‘climate change,’ you will, at the top of your search, you will get all kinds of UN resources.

“We started this partnership when we were shocked to see that when we Googled ‘climate change,’ we were getting incredibly distorted information right at the top.

“We’re becoming much more proactive. We own the science, and we think that the world should know it, and the platforms themselves also do,” she added.

But the unelected globalists’ efforts on narrative control didn’t end with partnering with Google to manipulate search results on climate change.

Fleming also highlighted that the UN worked with TikTok on a project called “Team Halo” to boost COVID messaging coming from medical and scientific communities on the Chinese-owned video-sharing platform.

“We had another trusted messenger project, which was called ‘Team Halo’ where we trained scientists around the world and some doctors on TikTok, and we had TikTok working with us,” she said.

The UN claims to own the science, but if we take a closer look at who funds the UN’s “directing and coordinating authority on international health” — the World Health Organization (WHO) — we get a clearer picture of who is really calling the shots.

Historically, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, along with the Gates-backed GAVI vaccine alliance, have contributed more to the WHO program budget than all member nations, save two — the US and the UK.

Who owns the science again?

During the recent WEF panel, the UN global communications rep went on to admit that people didn’t trust institutions like the UN when it came to information related to COVID, and so to counter this, the UN looked to influencers to get its message across through the backdoor.

“Another really key strategy we had was to deploy influencers,” she said, adding, “influencers who were really keen, who have huge followings, but really keen to help carry messages that were going to serve their communities, and they were much more trusted than the United Nations telling them something from New York City headquarters.”

The idea of infiltrating and subverting online groups from within by targeting influencers mirrors recommendations coming out of a Google-backed RAND report published in April 2021.

According to the report’s policy recommendations:

“Conspiracists have their own experts on whom they lean to support and strengthen their views, and their reliance on these experts might limit the impact of formal outreach by public health professionals.

“Our review of the literature shows that one alternative approach could be to direct outreach toward moderate members of those groups who could, in turn, exert influence on the broader community.”

The report went on to say, “Commercial marketing programs use a similar approach when they engage social media influencers (or brand ambassadors), who can then credibly communicate advantages of a commercial brand to their own audiences on social media.”

Moderating the “Tackling Disinformation” panel was WEF managing director Adrian Monck, who in recent months has been name-calling critics of the WEF and components of its great reset agenda as white supremacists and anti-Semites engaged in far-right disinformation campaigns.

When addressing CNN’s Rachel Smolkin, Monck said that CNN was part of a political war strategy to “own the narrative.”

“CNN is both an organization that’s trying to make sense of the world and trying to establish the facts; it’s also part of a political war on who owns the narrative,” he said.

According to MintPress News, CNN received $3.6 million in donations from none other than the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation — the same organization that’s been heavily invested in the WHO.

The investigation revealed that Gates had also donated a whopping $319 million to many of the biggest and most influential corporate news outlets in the world.

Who’s really engaged in the “political war on who owns the narrative” again?

Speaking of owning narratives, last year, the WEF launched the great narrative initiative as a sequel to the great reset, with the goal of reshaping all aspects of society and the global economy.

The idea of a great narrative is something that the French philosopher Jean-Francois Lyotard called a “grand narrative,” (aka “metanarrative“) which, according to Philo-Notes, “functions to legitimize power, authority, and social customs” — everything that the great reset is trying to achieve.

Once the great reset has its great narrative implemented, any opposing narrative can be dismissed as disinformation, conspiracy, or extremism that must be censored and suppressed for the greater, collective good.

In one single WEF panel on “Tackling Disinformation,” we saw unelected globalists claim that they basically had a monopoly on science and that corporate media was embroiled in a battle to own the narrative.

At the same time, the UN rep claimed that people who questioned the vaccine narrative were “seizing the opportunity of people being afraid” to inject disinformation.

According to Fleming, “People who are very active in the anti-vaccine scene and others were seizing the opportunity of people being so afraid — injecting disinformation and misleading information — fueled also by some leaders and governments.”

However, it was the UK’s King Charles III, (Prince of Wales at the time of The Great Reset launch), who said in June 2020, “We have a golden opportunity to seize something good from this crisis — its unprecedented shockwaves may well make people more receptive to big visions of change.”

Similarly, WEF founder Klaus Schwab said that the pandemic represented “a rare but narrow window of opportunity” to initiate the great reset agenda.

If anyone was “seizing the opportunity” to exploit people’s fears during the pandemic, unelected globalists and the British crown would certainly be at the top of that list.

On the subject of free speech, Brown University’s Claire Wardle, who is self-styled as “one of the world’s leading experts on misinformation,” told the WEF disinformation panel that she was frustrated that people couldn’t have a “more nuanced conversation about speech” as she simultaneously engaged in a nuanced conversation about free speech.

Free speech is free speech. It allows for nuanced conversation by default.

However, that didn’t stop Wardle from complaining about free speech even as she was actively participating in it in real time.

“I just wish we could have a more nuanced conversation about speech,” she said.

“This idea that all speech is equal is not true, and I wish we could just have that conversation properly,” Wardle added, as she had exactly that type of conversation.

By declaring they “own the science,” partnering with big tech companies to manipulate search results to influence public opinion, and pouring millions of dollars into media outlets, the unelected globalists are once again showing their true colours for all to see.

Owning the science leads to owning the narrative.

Owning the narrative means controlling thought and speech.

Controlling thought and speech means the end of free society.

Welcome to The Great Reset.

The unelected globalists’ authoritarian attempts to remake society out of the destruction of the old are becoming increasingly more obvious and desperate as the people’s trust in the global elites continues to crumble.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnarHXcGN8M