The Council on Foreign Relations

Government and Media Globalists hidden in plain sight

Nothing to see here:

Nothing to see here either:

The media has definitely not been co-opted at all, but you can click the image below to enlarge it and decide for yourself what you think!

We’re all just friends:

Michael Bloomberg, Katie Couric, Tom Brokaw, Dan Rather, Andrea Mitchell, Leslie Stahl, Fareed Zakaria, David Brinkley - all Council on Foreign Relations (Photos from Daniel Estulin’s, ‘The True Story of the Bilderberg Group’)

From the New American:

“The CFR lists only 4,338 members. But these individuals sit atop the worlds of business, mass media, academia, military, foundations and government. They are, as Washington Post writer Richard Harwood once noted, America’s “Ruling Class.” But they aren’t supposed to admit that they have the power to direct U.S. policy. Now, however, Secretary of State Clinton has stated in very clear terms that what critics of the CFR have always maintained is correct. The CFR, she admits, tells her what to do and what to think. In following its lead, she is not alone.

Americans who wonder why our nation’s policies are so self-defeating, even un-American, must begin to understand that the Council on Foreign Relations is their main author.  Repudiation of this organization, its members, and those who willingly accept direction from it (such as Mrs. Clinton) is not just a good idea; it’s a matter of national survival.”

---

“We get a lot of advice from the Council, so this will mean I won’t have as far to go to be told what we should be doing and how we should think about the future.”

Secretary of State Hillary R. Clinton speaking in 2009 at the CFR

---

Let’s take stock: Hillary Clinton and also Barack Obama, per the YouTube video further down, would both have us believe that the CFR is a mere think-tank, which simply offers government advice. At the same time, the CFR has hundreds of its members residing in government at the highest levels in perpetuity. On what planet are these two things compatible and why do Obama, Clinton, and all senior U.S. officials chronically neglect to mention the second point? I understand there are revolving doors between government and political think-tanks. However, I am also learning that there is a lot more to these organizations than meets the eye, and that the CFR represents something extreme, which warrants closer examination. Mr. President. Madam Secretary. I think, perhaps, you take the American people for fools.

---

There is definitely nothing to see from this point onwards:

Presidential Candidates (CFR Members)

John W. Davis (1924), Herbert Hoover (1928-32), Wendell Wilkie (1940), Thomas Dewy (1944, 1948), Adlai Stevenson (1952, 1956), Dwight Eisenhower (1952-56), John F. Kennedy (1960), Richard Nixon (60, 68, 72), Hubert Humphrey (68), George McGovern (72), Gerald Ford (76), Jimmy Carter (76, 80), John Anderson (80), George H.W. Bush 80, 88, 92), Walter Mondale (84), Michael Dukakis (88), Bill Clinton (92-96), John Kerry (04), John McCain (08)

Every person in this image is CFR, except for George W. Bush, whose father, and whose Vice President, National Security Advisor, Secretaries of State, Defense, and Treasury, and 200 other Administration appointees were CFR.

Secretaries of State (CFR Members)

Since 1920 there have been 26 Secretaries of State, at least 19 have been Council on Foreign Relations members:

Kerry, John F. (Obama administration), Clinton, Hillary R. (Husband and daughter are CFR - Obama Administration) Albright, Madeleine K. (Clinton administration); Christopher, Warren M. (Clinton administration); Baker, James A., III (Bush administration); Eagleburger, Lawrence S. (Bush administration); George P.. (Reagan administration); Haig, Alexander M., Jr. (Carter administration); Muskie, Edmund S. (Carter administration); Vance, Cyrus R. Nixon administration (also served Ford)); Kissinger, Henry A.. (Nixon administration); Rogers, William P. (Kennedy and Johnson administrations); Rusk, Dean (Eisenhower administration); Herter, Christian A. (Eisenhower administration); Dulles, John Foster (Truman administration); Achenson, Dean G. (Truman administration); Marshall, George C. (Truman administration); Byrnes, James F. (Roosevelt administration); Hull, Cordell. (Hoover administration); Stimson, Henry L. (Coolidge and Hoover administrations); Hughes, Charles E. (Wilson administration)

Secretaries of Defense (CFR Members)

Neil McElroy (57-59 Eisenhower), Thomas S. Gates (59-61 Eisenhower), Robert S McNamara (61-68 Kennedy, Johnson), Melvin Laird (79-73 Nixon), Elliot Richardson (73 Nixon), Donald Rumsfeld (75-77 Ford), Harold Brown (77-81 Carter), (Casper Weinberger (81-87 Reagan), Frank C. Carlucci (87-89 Reagan), Richard Cheney, (89-93 Bush) Les Aspen (93-94 Clinton) William J. Perry (94-97 Clinton) William Cohen (97-01 Clinton), Donald Rumsfeld (01-06 Bush), Robert M. Gates (06-11 Bush, Obama)

Secretaries of The Treasury (CFR Members)

Robert B. Anderson (Eisenhower), Douglas C. Dillon (Kennedy/Johnson), Henry Hamill Fowler (Johnson), David M. Kennedy and George P. Schultz (Nixon), Willaim Edward Simon (Nixon/Ford), W. Michael Blumenthal (Carter), G. William Miller (Carter), James A. Baker III (Reagan), Nicholas F. Brady (Reagan/G.H.W. Bush), Lloyd M. Benstsen (Clinton),  Robert E. Rubin (Clinton), Paul H. O’Neill (G.W. Bush), John W. Snow (G.W. Bush), Henry Paulson (G.W. Bush), Timothy Geithner (Obama)

CIA Directors (CFR Members)

Richard Helms (66-73 Johnson), James R. Schlesinger (73 Nixon), William E. Colby (73-76 Nixon), George H.W. Bush (76-77 Ford), Stansfield Turner (77-81 Carter) William J. Casey (81-87 Reagan) William H. Webster (87-91 Regan), Robert M. Gates (91-93 Clinton), George Tenet (97-04 Bush), Porter Gross (04-06 Bush), Michael V. Hayden (06-09 Bush)

Appointments to The Supreme Court

Justices appointed under Presidents who belonged to the CFR: Burger (Nixon 1969), Douglas (Roosevelt 1939), Brennan (Eisenhower 1956), Stewart (Eisenhower 1958), White (Kennedy 1962), Marshall (Johnson 1967), Blackmun (Nixon 1970), Powell (Nixon 1971), Rehnquist (Nixon 1971).

Three presidents, two vice presidents, three Secretaries of State, two National Security Advisors, two foreign heads of state - all Trilateral Commission members

You should definitely NOT look at this list of names here below:

CFR Members in Presidential Administrations from 1900 to 2014

Note: the CFR was founded in 1921. Those in prior administrations were subsequent members.

---

Today’s Essay regarding the Council on Foreign Relations and other Globalist Organizations:

It is easy to overlook the significance of the Council on Foreign Relations or to dismiss those who have concerns about it. That is how we have been conditioned and the CFR’s existence and progress towards achieving its unspoken, yet long-standing agendas depend on this. However, as anyone can see from even a modicum of research, untold thousands of CFR members have occupied important positions in US administrations over the past hundred years right up to the present day. As such, surely a responsible citizenry that values its liberty cannot rationally consider this organization’s existence and lack of transparency to be trivial matters that do not concern it.

On the contrary, shining a light on the CFR and on all such globalist organizations is of paramount importance. This is true now more than ever, as it is increasingly clear that the Covid era has brought us all into the latter stages of a dangerous globalist game that has been many decades in the making. The globalists are signalling as much themselves with their ready-made ‘Great Reset’ and ‘New World Order’ mantra.

Many of our most prominent globalists are psychopaths, all of them share a common agenda and ideology that represents a serious threat to We the People. Yet, the term ‘globalist’ means something very different to what the public understands. The ‘educated’ classes seem particularly handicapped in this regard as they tend identify with the Establishment, and are thus more trusting of government and the mainstream media. This makes them more susceptible to manipulation, which is designed to discourage curiosity and scrutiny of Power. Conversely, working class cross-sections of society have bared the brunt of globalist agendas for decades and are therefore more inclined to harbor a healthy distrust of authority. Regardless, here are some pointed questions concerning the CFR, which we ignore at our collective peril:

1. Given its ubiquitous presence in government and across all major levers of power in the United States, why do we not hear more about the CFR from the mainstream media? Seriously! Why not? We should all want to know. Why don’t we want to know?

2. Why are CFR members omnipresent in the media and what does this say about supposed media independence? Does it not convincingly demonstrate that such independence is an outright fallacy? If so, what are the implications of this and are they not profound? Will you start distrusting the media as a result?

3. What is really behind the CFR’s origins? (Read Carroll Quigley) What are its ultimate aims? (Read Patrick M. Wood) Why all the secrecy? (Read Daniel Estulin) What has it been doing for the past 100 years? (Read G. Edward Griffin) What does the CFR hold up as its major achievements and primary failings during that time? (Not much.) Will it open its books from the past 100 years for the People’s perusal, or even the government’s, just to give us peace-of-mind? How about even for the last 5 years? How about this year? (No. No. And, no.)

4. Every four years, when a fresh cavalry of 150 to 250 CFR members moves into a new administration in D.C., how can we know for certain where their allegiances lie? Assuming the president is not also CFR, how can we know their allegiance lies with the president instead of the CFR? How can we be sure that the allegiances of CFR members in government up to and including the president do not conflict with or even trump their obligations to the U.S. Constitution and the American people? Given the CFR’s ill-defined, yet clearly enormous and undeniable influence on government, is its lack of transparency remotely compatible with the Constitution? Is it compatible with nation-state sovereignty and a Constitutional Republic founded on democratic principles, governed by the people, for the people, and with the consent of the people?

5. Even as a poor joke, why would the then Secretary of State Clinton, who we were told so many times, was the most qualified person to ever run for president, make the above quoted subservient remark she did in her speech at the CFR? There must be some substance behind it. Otherwise, the joke would not have made any sense to the audience and as such it would not have been made. Or, at least, it would not have been made without making so-called conspiracy theorists the butt of the joke, which did not happen. So, what’s going on here, exactly? Was Donald Trump onto something when he doggedly challenged Clinton in vein to publicly release the many private speeches and presentations she gave to the world’s major financial houses for large sums of money?

6. How many presidential nominees of either party over the past 50 years were free of clear globalist conflicts-of-interest, i.e., not members of or not verifiably ‘owned’ by any of the following organizations: the CFR, the Trilateral Commission, or the Bilderberg Group? Follow up question for when you find the answer: don’t you find the answer astonishing and profoundly concerning?

Most of the above questions are answerable. Like the CFR itself, the answers are hidden in plain sight. Similar questions should be asked of all the major globalist organizations, whether they be the CFR, which hides in plain sight, the World Economic Forum, which gaslights us in plain sight but operates behind closed doors, the Bilderberg Group, which simply hides, or the Trilateral Commission, which is a veritable chameleon. Why all the mystery in these corridors of unofficial, yet astronomical power? How can We the People be silent, let alone sanguine about this?

In this Substack, I generally strive to distinguish between what I know and what I believe, and if I am speculating, I try to say so. While I am by no means infallible in this, as far as I am aware, I have yet to assert anything that is whimsical and not at least backed by extensive reading and research. Indeed, one of the primary motivations of starting this Substack page was to share with friends and other readers, in a fast-track way, key learnings and insights that have taken me 2.5 years of non-stop book-reading to acquire and to triangulate sufficiently enough to be comfortable in communicating them with confidence.

What you do with what I share, if anything, is entirely up to you. Having said that, I am going to break some of my own rules in the remainder of this essay. I will start by stating clearly in the paragraph below something I believe I know on this matter of the globalists. I will then increasingly weigh into speculative territory. However, I will still be doing so with a few dozen related books and other extensive research supporting me. I will also be drawing on over twenty years experience working extensively in technology, and in particular in carrier-grade telecommunications, mobile communications, and web applications, all of which are helpful to me now, for reasons which should become evident shortly.

First, I believe I know that studying the world’s major globalist organizations, which operate both in the shadows and ostensibly in plain sight, can tell us much more about Covid-19, and the collective responses of governments to the alleged coronovirus that descended upon us in 2019/2020, than any government authority or public health figure on government payroll has ever done. I believe it can also provide a reliable guide for things to come, including those ostensibly related to Covid-19 and otherwise. In my experience thus far, it is doing so with astonishing precision.

Now for the speculation:

It is fascinating and chilling to ponder the scale of the power and to attempt to parse the hierarchy, respective roles, and interoperability between the different globalist organizations or nodes of the globalist cabal. Reading and piecing together different information and insights from various authors and so-called conspiracy theorists alike suggests something like the following dynamics at work between the major globalists groups. Much of this can be compellingly argued, much is speculation on my part, and none of it can presently be discounted. Nor is it convincingly denied by the organizations themselves:

The Bilderbergers sit near the top of the hierarchy and are a highly secretive central committee of sorts where key decisions are taken and delegated out for execution. The Trilateral Commission, the CFR, the WEF and others are execution arms of those decisions. The TC is tasked with creating a foundation for world government that is to be run through the levers and structures of the UN which are being strengthened and fortified at lightening speed and seemingly with no expense spared. The CFR is charged with perpetrating the slow but inexorable demise of the United States as a confident and prosperous sovereign nation. The country’s super power status and its Constitution are both major impediments to the world government globalist agenda.

Perhaps you have noticed that the Constitution and the American way of life, the country’s history, its people, and status as a nation, are all increasingly under attack in the mainstream media and establishment circles in recent years? The purported aim, when the time comes, is for the American people to be so worn down, dumbed down, disillusioned, confused, impoverished, and fearful, that they will mount little or no serious resistance when Power attempts to take our Constitutional Republic away from us in exchange for the false promise of a world government that will save us all in a grand Kumbaya moment that will never come.

The hope is that we will be so browbeaten that we will welcome our globalist ‘saviours’ and their ‘Great Reset’ with open arms. Not without foundation, an argument can be made that the creation of the EU, something, which took place over many decades, and which the globalists had an undemocratic hand in largely behind closed doors at every step, was a smaller scale precursor to this. EU history is fascinating to revisit from this perspective.

The WEF is the marketplace where globalist agendas are laundered and normalized much more widely across lower, but still high echelons of political and corporate power. These echelons function as conduits that push the globalist agendas and their corresponding narratives into the mainstream where they matasticize and are propagated via the co-opted mainstream media and multi-national corporations, as well as through gullible useful fools and willing opportunists in academia, the media and other lower-down echelons of the Establishment around the world.

Evidence that the Rockefellers and the Rothschilds continued to rule the roost (in consortia with other Robber Barons, bankers, and industrialists ) for most of the 20th century is robust. Evidence that Rockefeller fingerprints are all over every one of the globalist organizations listed above for at least a half a century leading up to the relatively recent past is undeniable. I have tried to find recorded history or even sound documented arguments suggesting that this power was somehow wrestled away from either or both of these famous and mysterious families but it does not exist. To be sure, neither the Rockefeller nor the Rothschild descendants retired to the beach writ large. Neither has given up their empire, both of which are so vast it is doubtful that either can ever be accurately quantified. As such, one suspects that these dynastic families still wield the most power and therefore still ultimately call the shots. If you really believe Elon Musk is the world’s wealthiest person, I may have a bridge to sell you.

Much may remain unknowable forever. However, what cannot be verified is less important when what can be verified, along with the inherent questions it raises and the possibilities it creates, is already more than sufficiently alarming. Much of the remainder of this essay will focus on such questions and possibilities.

Regardless of hierarchy, respective roles, and how decisions are taken, the overarching agendas of the globalists are clear - namely a one-world government that works for them, but also in deeply problematic ways for We the People, including for our once presumed democratic way of life, and the liberty and individual freedoms we still take for granted. The more one investigates these globalists and their organizations through books, historical records, independent investigative journalists, and not least by virtue of simply paying attention to their own words and actions when they do manage to pierce the public domain, the more concerning and problematic they appear. It seems beyond doubt at this point that their existence and their intentions pose a clear and present threat to free people everywhere.

Do I believe these organizations are all broadly working together towards the same general goals and have been doing so away from the public eye for many decades? Absolutely. Without any doubt whatsoever. The different globalist organizations are nodes in a loose network, all sharing the same values and working towards the same goals, and there are simply too many of the same names and faces in multiple organizations across the global cabal network to be coincidental.

Their primary blueprint and the means to their end at this point seems to be UN Agenda 21 from 1992, and all of its subsequent derivatives, including The 2030 Agenda and the whole sustainability agenda. Careful investigations into the history and nature of Totalitarianism, the history and nature of Technocracy, the history and science of propaganda, the origins and nature of our central banks, as well as the mechanics and true motivations behind Central Bank Digital Currencies and their implications, provide invaluable context to all of it.

---

“This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model, for the first time in human history. This is the first time in human history we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic model that has been reigning for at least a 150 years, since the industrial revolution. That will not happen overnight and it will not happen at a single conference on climate change, be it COP 15, 21, 40 - you choose the number. It just does not occur like that. It’s a process, because of the depth of the transformation”

Ms. Christina Figueres, Former Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) Feb. 2015

---

My question to Ms. Figueres and her ilk: Who the hell do you think you are?

While I think Ms. Figueres certainly had tremendous gall when she made that statement, I also think we should take her words seriously. These were not casual or isolated remarks spoken by an inconsequential representative of a bloated, beleaguered, and ineffective bureaucratic institution, which many of us mistakenly wrote the UN off as a long time ago. No, they were carefully chosen words on the part of a now erstwhile senior official of a UN that has been quietly strengthened and empowered to remake the world a particular way at the behest of its most powerful people. Similar words to Figueres’s have been echoed many times before and since by other senior UN representatives and globalists more broadly.

Most people would agree that today’s world is comprehensively interconnected. Most would also recognize that its most powerful people are vastly greater in number and vastly wealthier and more powerful than their predecessors in many ways, with few exceptions. Most would also accept that today’s most powerful elites are infinitely more intimate with one another than their predecessors were, and that the technologies and tools at their disposal are also unparalleled and advancing all the time. With consensus hopefully achieved on those important points, we should immediately, at the very least, out of an abundance of caution, dispense with any blind-faith presumption of good intentions.

Furthermore, we would be absolutely foolish to dismiss out of hand the question of whether today’s highest elites have the means and capabilities to subjugate world order. They do! They themselves have names for this, which I referenced above and we are seeing bandied about by the media and politicians alike with increasing frequency since Covid. They call it their ‘New World Order’ or ‘The Great Reset’ and we are all being conditioned into becoming inured and ultimately accepting those terms, whatever their true meaning; meanings which are obviously being left deliberately open-ended and ambiguous by those using the terms.

Having tried to establish that the most powerful among us have the ability to subjugate world order with dramatic consequences for the rest of us, follow on questions should be centered around whether they have the motives, whether they are the kind of people (for example, narcissistic sociopaths and psychopaths) who might be tempted by such motives, and whether their modus operandi seemingly aligns with such an agenda. They do, they are, and it does.

Returning to Figueres’ words, their meaning is enshrined in Agenda 21 (and its subsequent UN accords) which over 190 nations were duped into signing when the document was dumped on their representatives in haste after a carefully orchestrated set up and sequence of events at the UN summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992.

Figueres’s words are now common currency in UN speeches, on its website, and in multiple legally binding documents. But they are not simply words, either. The actions of the UN and globalists of the past 30 years while we have been sleeping match the words. As part of its efforts, the UN has been simultaneously undermining nation-state sovereignty and extending its tentacles in stealth into our lives and local communities for decades, usurping local and regional governments in the process. Now, further empowered by the The New Urban Agenda of 2016, unless stopped, they will continue to encroach locally on all of us with ever greater intensity and to ever increasing extremes between now and 2030, per The 2030 Agenda, and beyond.

“Smart City” initiatives are also part of the wider agenda. Our billionaire class is obsessed with and investing massively into them, no doubt because such ‘cities’ take surveillance and population control to new heights, which will clearly deliver enormous, guaranteed, revenue streams for them in perpetuity. So-called ‘re-wilding’ is all the rage, including making the countryside increasingly difficult to inhabit through onerous regulations, the ever ratcheting up of taxation, and the gradual withdraw of sufficient public services, in order to browbeat and corral ever more people into major cities. Is it not curious how the central business districts of most cities suddenly have a lot of freed up rental space the last few years?

In case you missed it, the UN’s World Health Organization recently attempted an unsuccessful land grab of nation-state sovereignty the world-over. It wanted, and still wants to be able to not only declare pandemics, but to dictate responses globally, irrespective of nation-state governments and their laws. In other words, it wants the legal ‘authority’, on command, to be able to mask us, to mask our kids, to take our kids out of school, to stop us from working, to keep us apart from each other, to lock us down, to bankrupt our businesses, to incarcerate us, and to coerce us into taking more experimental mRNA injections. This, after 2.5 years of playing a leading role in destroying the world’s economy and, in particular, small and medium businesses everywhere, not to mention the loss of millions of lives due to the systematic suppression and prevention of alternative treatments that were widely available; and of course through lockdowns and other restrictions, which saw hundreds of millions of people fall into poverty, particularly in the developing world. I will now ask a rhetorical question of friends and readers: Who do you think really runs the WHO?

Friends should understand sooner rather than later that UN Agenda 21, and its overarching so-called Sustainable Development agenda, entails systematically dismantling capitalism, nation-state sovereignty, and property rights - essentially our way of life in democratic societies as we know it. Why? There are reasons! Here below is my synthesis of variations on a theory that many have compellingly argued with extensive supporting evidence. Ultimately, their arguments are based on the UN’s own charters and actions, as well as those of the globalists and their organizations:

In short, the powerful people at the very top who have gotten insanely rich by sabotaging and bankrupting the global financial system for over a century know that their game is nearly up. How this was done and the mechanics behind it are utterly fascinating to study. (Read G. Edward Griffin.) In any event, these elites, namely the people in the shadows who run our central banks, and those whom they really work for, know the world’s financial system is insolvent, as do all the other globalist elites. All are preparing accordingly while, with the help of their media, they keep We the People who will bear all the brunt of the fall-out in the dark.

They know the system is bankrupt because they and their predecessors knowingly made it that way while enriching themselves in the process. They know that ever increasing levels of unsustainable debt and quantitative easing have just about run their course. They also know that they have extracted about as much wealth as they can from the current system, or at least that the insatiable growth in wealth and power they and their masters have come to expect, is no longer sustainable under the nation-state structure. Actually, they and their predecessors have known for at least 110 years that this was the case or that it eventually would be. Finally, even in the best of times, they know, and have always known, that despite all their efforts and all their power, there are still large swathes of the world’s wealth and resources, which they cannot access or exploit under the current structures of democracy, nation-state sovereignty, free market capitalism, Common Law or the rule of law. Namely, these areas include:

a) the enormous post-tax wealth and assets already in the possession of the world’s still affluent, yet steadily diminishing middle class in democratic nations;

b) vast public lands and protected natural resources around the world, and

c) off-the-books economic activity - globally.

Therefore, they need an ‘emergency’. Think Co2 and man-made global warming. Only a perceived existential crisis for all of mankind, whether real or manufactured would be formidable enough to challenge all that.

About 25% of the world’s annual economic activity occurs off-the-books and beyond the reach of governments and globalists alike. Much of this activity occurs in developing nations where many people are still undocumented. Such people often have no debit/credit cards, no bank accounts, and no formal property assets. They, therefore, pay no taxes. But they do transact, and they do often have mobile phones. Or, they easily could, with a bit of help from governments or globalists! However, for now, they are for all intents and purposes financial ghosts as far as our elites are concerned. Of course, there is also significant off-the-books trade, which occurs in cash in developed nations. Think of this and of cash as FREEDOM and fight to keep both! While not generally off-the-books, the wealth and independence of Small to Medium Businesses everywhere is also resented, as it collectively represents direct competition in nearly every globalist sphere of activity and concern.

All of the above constitutes untold trillions of dollars in economic activity or value that is either lost, unexploited, or otherwise competes with the cynical interests of the world’s most powerful elites in some way shape or form each year. The globalists have little or no access to this wealth, and despite their own already unfathomable wealth and power, they cannot stand this. Why? Because, as I have been trying to tell you on this Substack from the start… ultimately, they are totalitarians. We simply don’t recognize them as such yet. However, few would likely dispute that they are monopolists with exceptional skills, with virtually unlimited means at their disposal, and insatiable thirsts for ever more wealth and power. Did I mention most of them display characteristics of narcissistic socio-paths and psychopaths? When following that continuum to its logical conclusion, I suspect many will see where it leads, particularly if left unchecked, as it currently is. There is also the question of a globalist ideology, which is definitely totalitarian and seemingly looms large in the eyes of many of them.

If and when the world’s financial system fails and, in my view, there is every indication that globalists and their puppet governments are now actively trying to precipitate this, as they seek to impose their not-so-new new plans on us, many believe they are worried about maintaining control and retaining their power. The so-called Covid restrictions have proved to be a phenomenal testing grounds for this in a multitude of ways. This begs the legitimate question as to whether this was the driving motivation behind them in the first place. (Hint: It was.) Even now, outrageous restrictions persist in many jurisdictions and radically different restrictions and oppressions are still being tried and tested from one jurisdiction to another. Furthermore, few governments, if any of sizable jurisdictions anywhere, have actually formally rescinded the emergency powers they abruptly seized in near unison in 2020 under highly dubious circumstances. All these facts put the intentions of our so-called authorities in a very bad light to say the least.

Finally, the motivations, which I and many others are ascribing to the globalists also provide a very instructive explanation for why we are all being slowly conditioned to accept the seemingly fast approaching obsolescence of cash and why we are increasingly being made slaves to our mobile phones. The explanations which follow may sound preposterous, but they are far more logical and plausible than the narratives that we have been fed, narratives which are ultimately taking us down the same path anyway.

As I have already argued above, Power has plenty of its own reasons to be readying a new financial system for us and they are doing precisely that. The current system was designed by them to serve them, and it has done this exceptionally well since the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 (Griffin). We should expect that the new and ‘improved’ system our elites have planned is intended to do the same on steroids, but this time with far greater costs and implications for We the People. If our elites have their way between now and 2030, here are some things we can potentially expect, many of which are already visible on the horizon:

1. Goodbye free market capitalism: Monopolists actually despise free market capitalism and they always have. Capitalism is increasingly being given short shrift by many leaders. Few are defending it. This is not a coincidence.

2. Goodbye property rights as we know them: Hello California! Hello Gavin Newsom! Hello Dutch farmers! Hello increasingly onerous regulations and unaffordable property taxes. Hello rising interest rates that pull properties out from under middle class families in their millions. Hello to the world’s largest asset management firms such as Vanguard, BlackRock, and Invitation Homes to name several, which, with the support of government subsidies, are already in the process of swooping up such homes in their hundreds of thousands, often at well above market value for now, but likely soon at bargain basement prices. The aim here is to then turn-around and rent our homes back to us in perpetuity at prices dictated not by a functioning competitive market, but by monopolists in control of a captive market.

3. Goodbye rule of law: It is already gone. Hello to the outlawing or attempted outlawing of freedom of movement and of peaceful protest in democracies across the world. Hello Justin Trudeau. Hello seized bank accounts of ordinary Canadian citizens who committed no crimes. Hello internment camps in Australia and elsewhere. Hello government threats of prison time and loss of one’s children in Austria for not subjecting themselves and/or their 12-year olds to experimental mRNA injections.

4. Hello Central Bank Digital Currencies: We’re already being primed for them. This has been going on in a serious way for at least 5 years and it is certainly picking up steam with each passing day.

5. Hello Social Credit Score system: This is already a stark reality in China. In the UK, the government regularly gaslights us about it. So, we are being primed for this too.

6. Hello Smartphones that rules our lives: Remember “Track and Trace” apps? How quaint they were. What did the UK government, for instance, actually blow that £64 BN on that seemingly achieved nothing? That was also a test or experiment - both a psychological one for us and a technological one for them and it was just the beginning. Remember how Big Tech, out of the kindness of its heart, was so eager to assist with this effort? Was that not truly generous of them?

With 5G deployed, the way forward is comprehensively paved for the so-called ‘Internet of Things’ or IoT. 5G is an almost incomparably more powerful telecommunications standard than anything which has come before it. It therefore has radically different implications that must be considered. However, instead of considering such things, Power has Big Tech and its media busy distracting the public at large from these concerns in the usual way, by convincing people that only conspiracy theorists would concern themselves with such things.

In any event, in the future, microchips and other implants have the clear potential to make mobile phones obsolete. However, for now at least, Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) and Social Credit Score systems, which are the lynch-pin to the whole damn power grab, cannot be forced on us without the help of our smartphones. While with great lament I know it will never happen, if we were to all destroy our so-called smartphones now, all of this would instantly come to a halt and at least be stymied for many years which would buy crucial time to mount a stronger resistance.

Conversely, if power can dupe enough of us to cross the Rubicon by completely giving up cash and accepting central digital ID’s and CBDCs, then it is hard to see how we can escape the trap we will have walked into. The first thing one needs to understand with CBDC’s is that your money is no longer yours. It does not matter how you earn it or how much you have. You will simply be using assigned digital currency units, that are effectively glorified coupons, through a kind of SaaS service, that someone else owns and operates. That someone will be your government. Your money, like your car (and your house), and the autonomy that comes with those things, will have been ‘Uberized’. At that point, your government will permit you to hold and use its digital coupons at its pleasure. They (or the people who control them) can do anything they want with this so-called currency, anytime, in real-time.

The second thing to understand is that what little remains of privacy today between you and your government will be comprehensively gone - forever, but there are bigger problems with CBDCs’. For instance, it’s crucial to understand that there can be no such thing as a CBDC without a Social Credit Score system attached to it. I will have to explain why that is in another essay someday but the key takeaway is that your access and control over your money will depend on your behavior and your compliance. At first this will be gradual and seem relatively harmless. (It’s already happening!) Then, when certain thresholds and scale are achieved, it will suddenly become all-pervasive, and be used to control every aspect of our lives.

The fourth thing to remember, as I have highlighted previously, is that totalitarian China is already well down this path. Its Social Credit Score systems, currently about 25 of them, are being tested throughout the country and are already adding a whole new layer of totalitarian control over the lives of everyday Chinese people. It is a level of control the likes of which Hitler, Stalin, or Mao could hardly have imagined.

The fifth thing to note, as I have also highlighted previously, is that our western globalists revere totalitarian Xi Jinping, and many of our politicians and much of our establishment are financially compromised by him and the CCP. (Read Peter Schweizer, Kai Strittmatter, and Clive Hamilton.) None of our heads of state is questioning, let alone speaking out against what is happening with CBDC’s and Social Credit Score systems in China. Not a one, as far as I am aware. In fact, most seem to be softly steering us in these directions.

Incidentally, as many will likely already know, the CCP has the clear lead in 5G capability, and western leaders have been falling over themselves to procure it from CCP controlled Huawei. Donald Trump was a notable exception among senior leaders who stood strongly against this. In the UK, only a last minute back bench rebellion prevented totalitarian China from implementing our next generation of telecommunications infrastructure, despite its obvious national security implications, which Prime Minister Johnson and his cabinet seemed to have had no regard for whatsoever. It was only later, in hindsight, that I came to understand why. They were not simply incompetent idiots after-all. Well, not all of them anyway. They were acting with intent and a hidden agenda that was and remains far bigger than themselves or their power, Johnson, or any other PM included.

Returning to CBDC’s, which of course have significant dependencies on 5G: From the moment our mobile phones become our central digital ID’s and we are required to access and use CBDCs as our primary means of transacting or conducting commerce, Power will be well on its way to being able to tell us what we can and cannot do, where we can and cannot go, how much money we can have; how, where and whether we can spend it, and how long we can keep it. In addition to privacy being gone, inflation will be controlled and calibrated such that it functions perfectly as a systematic stealth tax which comprehensively prevents wealth accumulation.

I know how absurd all this sounds, but for good measure and to be on the safe side, consider the following questions as a kind of thought experiment:

a) Are the concerns I have highlighted technically possible? You can investigate and decide for yourself what you think. For my purposes here, I will answer my own question with some authority by saying, yes, they absolutely are.

b) What failsafe protections would you be relying on to prevent these concerns from occurring in a CBDC-world that do not ultimately depend on blind-faith trust in the good intentions, not just of your current government, but of all future governments in perpetuity?

c) If the situation I (and others) have described were to materialize: How, in your view, would We the People be able to extract ourselves from it and what might a world where we were all chaotically trying to do that at once look like?

All of these things I have suggested become possible with CBDCs and centralized digital IDs. If you genuinely believed that Covid-19 vaccine passports were about your health, I am sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but they were not. There is certainly an even further deeply sinister dimension, in that they will also provide tyrannical governments with the means to compel us to have regular mRNA injections against our will in perpetuity. Sadly, that is not the only aspect of this. Not by a long shot.

If you believe things have died down on the oppression front and that our governments, despite telling us otherwise, are not putting the infrastructure in place for so-called vaccine passports, that would also be mistaken. Case in point: 1) Justin Trudeau is still busy splashing a billion Canadian dollars around his country’s provinces to incentivize premiers to implement vaccine passports; 2) Here in the UK, about four months ago and just days or weeks after our former Secretary of Health told us the government was not pursuing vaccine passports any longer, that same UK government signed a multi-year, multi-million pound contract for the development of exactly that. The procurement record is disclosed as a matter of public record online. They do this kind of thing all the time, because they know most people will not notice, that the media will not report it, and that if it ever becomes a problem, Big Tech and the ‘Trusted’ News Initiative will quickly suppress it.

Like most of the Covid oppressions, ‘vaccine passports’ never made practical or logical sense for their espoused purpose and they most certainly did not when weighed against their obvious costs and harms to society. Even if we dismiss the practical concerns and accept that the ‘vaccine passports’ were genuinely meant to be as presented, they still directly contravene the Nuremberg Code and represent an abomination on humanity, on human rights, and on civilized society. As such, they should therefore be resisted at all costs on moral and ethical grounds alone. Alas, the problem and the threats are bigger. I have said it before and will say again, there is a much bigger agenda at work and there always has been.

The armies of good people, including both those who have been mobilized into mistakenly believing they are saving public health by embracing censorship, denying alternative treatments, usurping medical autonomy and doctor-patient relationships and coercing populations into doing highly questionable things, as well as those who have been mobilized under the afore mentioned UN agendas who believe they are fighting climate change and saving the planet have all been duped. The powerful who are using such people and the millions of others in their orbit of influence have other plans, and they mean business. Their motives and their methods are clear and as I have stated previously, they relate to the UN, and Patrick M. Wood explains all this concisely, yet powerfully, and authoritatively, in ‘Technocracy: The Hard Road to World Order’.

Wood provides an excellent exposé on the UN’s actions of the past thirty years and shows how they fit like a glove with what Wood convincingly portrays as a very dark agenda, which I have tried to relay to you here. Wood also provides readers with a fascinating crash course on Technocracy and its highly relevant history. He argues persuasively that Sustainable Development is a back-end ruse designed by globalists to deliver Global Technocracy. Although it may have helped me that I had read several other related books before I found Wood, having read my paragraphs above, it will not surprise you to know that I agree with him. There is just one problem. While Wood’s book will explain much of this, the overwhelming majority of the public has no idea what Technocracy really is, where it leads, how far along it is, or what Power can really do with it once it is sufficiently achieved.

The term ‘Technocracy’ suffers the same pitfalls as ‘Instrumentarianism’. That’s the term, which Harvard Professor Shoshana Zuboff coined in her mammoth work, ‘The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power’. Zuboff uses her new term to describe what Big Tech has become and what the model it has embraced ultimately means for We the People if Big Tech and the Deep State that controls it are left to their own ends on their current course. Zuboff herself acknowledges in her book that what she is describing overlaps with Totalitarianism, and it does. For this reason, I also find the term ‘Instrumentarianism’ regrettable. Like Technocracy, it inadvertently conceals the true extent of the threats and dangers that lurk within the meaning of the term.

I have studied totalitarianism extensively as an educated lay reader and would argue vigorously, respectfully, and respectively with each of the above authors, that Technocracy and Instrumentarianism are both simply variations of totalitarianism, and therefore subsets of the same. I dare say if Hannah Arendt were alive today, she would concur. After-all, she did write about the banality of evil, and she prophetically spoke of the prospect of future world of a Technocratic Totalitarianism without the totalitarians. Technocracy and Instrumentarianism closely align with this. Furthermore, it is now widely recognized that the political ideology of China’s masters is no longer communism, which is so 20th century. No, today’s China is already a Totalitarian Technocracy. It is the model our globalists in the west are aiming at - for us!

Do I believe our globalists are ultimately totalitarians in one form or another? Yes, I personally believe that the rot at the top is made up of narcissistic sociopaths and psychopaths who are ultimately totalitarians, but you do not have to go nearly that far to justify being on high alert. In fact, most readers may disregard much of what I have written above. That is, of course, your prerogative and it’s fine with me. Not least, because there is plenty to be concerned about before we reach that point, which is easy to see in plain sight. Consider the fair and reasonable questions I listed above and these final questions here below and simply follow them where they lead:

One:

Is it even remotely plausible that there is not something important to see and know as it relates to the CFR? Ditto for the Bilderberg Group, the Trilateral Commission, and the World Economic Forum and its Forum for Young Global Leaders?

Two:

Since most will agree that the answer to the above question is ‘no’: why are we so incurious about the CFR and these other globalist organizations? Why have so many of us never even heard of most of them?

Three:

Who do these globalists ultimately work for? What do they really want? What is their endgame and how do their plans and activities relate to it? Assuming noble intentions, what possible justification can there be for the systematic lack of transparency and media silence in these matters?

Four:

The very real prospect of western governments moving their economies to CBDCs, arguably represents a far bigger event than the combined historic events of Bretton Woods and Nixon divesting the U.S. dollar from the gold standard. It is certainly much bigger and technologically infinitely more complex than the supposed Y2K Armageddon, which the media incessantly gaslit us over for years. Yet, our media is not properly covering CBDCs, our leaders are not speaking to us forthrightly about them, and no one with any real power in the Establishment anywhere is asking any serious questions about them. Why?

Five: Do you, in your heart of hearts, truly believe that it is our interests, our health, our economy, or the environment, that really concerns these powerful people and organizations? If so, on what basis do you believe that, especially considering that there are the very same people and organizations who have desecrated all those things up to this point? Regardless, considering the asymmetry of their wealth and power to our own and to everyone else on planet Earth, is it not in our interest to know as much about them as we possibly can?

Bonus question:

Even the mainstream media acknowledges that billionaires enriched themselves by Four Trillion Dollars during the first year of the pandemic alone. On what planet was this unfortunate transfer of wealth an unintended coincidence necessitated by a virus with a mortality rate on par with seasonal flu, give or take?

The End