In old day’s called Enemies of humanity, who want to burn up the Earth, destroy and control the remaining population after depopulation . Sounds like a sci-fi plot really , but if people would pay much closer attention to what is going on in the world today, the distances control the Globalist and deep State have and use now , how much shady and detrimental things go on behind the scenes and pushed on the not expecting electorate it wouldn’t seem so far fetched of a plot.
The start:
The unveiling on June 3rd by the World Economic Forum of ‘The Great Reset‘ agenda appears on the surface to be a newly devised concept created directly in response to Covid-19. As it turns out the first soundings of a ‘reset‘ were actually made as far back as 2014.
Dr. Steven Greer It’s happening again and I got it on film… PREPARE NOW!
Interface with directed though and influences and quanta and field consciousness. Click for link with information here!
To appreciate the significance of the WEF’s intervention, it is important first to recognise the years leading up to 2020 and how they laid the foundations for where we are today.
2014
Each January the WEF host their annual meeting in Davos, Switzerland. In 2014, Christine Lagarde, who was then the managing director of the IMF, called for a ‘reset‘ of monetary policy, the financial sector regulatory environment and structural reforms of global economies.
Lagarde was adamant that a reset was required ‘in the way in which the economy grows around the world‘. Fleshing this out, Lagarde cited the dangers to financial stability due to ‘bubbles developing here and there‘, the over 200 million globally who were unemployed and economic growth being too slow.
Despite these concerns, Lagarde’s view was that fiscal consolidation within national economies was still necessary in order to control spending and ensure the post 2008 ‘recovery‘.
In January 2019 I posted an article that went into detail about the monetary policy aspect of the ‘reset‘ promoted by Lagarde (Monetary Policy ‘Reset’: From Rhetoric to Actuality). I raised how at the time of Lagarde’s intervention the Federal Reserve were tapering their asset purchasing scheme (quantitative easing), introduced in the aftermath of the collapse of Lehman Brothers that triggered the 2008 financial crisis.
Come the end of 2014, the Fed had called a halt entirely to QE. A year later in December 2015, they began to raise interest rates for the first time in over a decade and would later go on to introduce an asset reduction programme where the central bank began to roll off assets from its balance sheet.
For Lagarde, international cooperation would be essential for a reset to succeed. Without nations cooperating, it would likely be fraught with instability and market turbulence. In an interview with Bloomberg at the time of the WEF meeting, Lagarde stressed the importance of the ‘medium term‘ when it came to achieving the reset:
The short term collides with the medium term but the question is to bring the medium term into the personal, political and corporate equation. And that’s the job of the IMF.
2015
Looking back, 2015 was a highly significant year that saw global planners state quite openly their ambitions for a New World Order to be implemented over the next decade and a half.
First came the unveiling of the United Nation’s derived Agenda 2030 in September, and with it seventeen main objectives known as the Sustainable Development Goals. Agenda 2030 was adopted by the 193 members of the UN, with adoption coinciding with the 70th anniversary of the institution’s existence.
Chief amongst the seventeen goals were to end poverty by 2030 and for there to be zero hunger. Action on climate change was also needed, as was the creation of sustainable cities and communities and good health and wellbeing (which the UN directly associate with vaccinating families).
Agenda 2030 replaced the Millennium Development Goals, which were introduced in 2000 and encompassed a series of targets to be completed by 2015. According to the UN, ‘enormous progress‘ had been made ‘but more needs to be done‘.
To get a sense of what the UN means by ‘more‘, when the Sustainable Development Goals were signed off Claire Melamed, who in 2015 was Director of the global think tank Overseas Development Institute, told the BBC:
If they’re going to be met we’re going to have to see huge amounts of money. We’re going to have see governments behaving in a completely different way. We’re going to have to see companies totally changing their business practices. It can be done, but the real question is whether we want to do it enough.
Melamed is now the Chief Executive Officer of Global Partnership for Sustainable Development Data. Amongst the organisation’s funding partner’s are the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which is a prominent organisation in the drive for a vaccine to immunise people against Covid-19.
In December 2015, three months after the announcement of Agenda 2030, came the founding of the Paris Climate Agreement at the COP21 conference. The agreement ties directly into the United Nations and operates within the bounds of the UN’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, and was the first ever universal and legally binding agreement adopted on the subject.
To achieve the goals of the agreement, one of which is limiting global warming to below two degrees, ‘appropriate financial flows, a new technology framework and an enhanced capacity building framework will be put in place, thus supporting action by developing countries and the most vulnerable countries, in line with their own national objectives.’
So far, 189 countries have ratified the agreement out of 197 that were present at the Paris conference. In October 2016, the required threshold was reached for the accord to enter into force.
2016
With Agenda 2030 and the Paris Climate Agreement now set in motion, the World Economic Forum (which fully endorses the United Nation’s Sustainable Development Goals) ran with the Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR) as the theme for it’s annual meeting. I wrote about this in 2018 (Fourth Industrial Revolution: Mission Creep towards a New World Order – Part One) and picked up on how the executive chairman of the WEF, Klaus Schwab, described the impact that the Fourth Industrial Revolution would have on the world.
First, it would be all encompassing and involve all stakeholders of the global polity, meaning full engagement with the public and private sectors, academia and civil society. Some aspects to the revolution include disruption to jobs and skills, business disruption, innovation and productivity, agile governance and security and conflict.
Second, connecting through these areas are a whole raft of concerns which comprise the rise of blockchain technology, global governance, the future of enterprise, workforce and employment, the future of government, the future of production, sustainable development and social protection systems.
The revolution is dubbed as a digital revolution, one where the ‘fusion of technologies‘ embodying the physical, digital and biological spheres come together. Artificial intelligence, robotics, nano and bio technology are all part of the vision for 4IR.
Schwab made it very plain that the world can expect the revolution to be a ‘symbiosis between micro-organisms, the human body, the products people consume and the buildings we inhabit.’ One consequence of this is that human beings will no longer just be users of technology, rather they will start to converge with both the digital and biological worlds to become part of it. A second consequence is that every industry on the planet will be subjected to a degree of ‘disruption‘ as the 4IR advances, resulting in the systems of production, management and governance being transformed.
It does not stop there. Outside of jobs, human identity, privacy, notions of ownership, consumption patterns, the time devoted to work and leisure, how we develop as individuals and how we meet people and nurture relationships will all have to change to accommodate 4IR. Since the onset of Covid-19, many of these things have already undergone significant ‘disruption‘
Soon after the 2016 WEF meeting, the world experienced substantial geopolitical ructions with the UK voting to leave the European Union and Donald Trump being elected as the United States’ 45th President.
2019
Three years after they signalled major technological, political and societal change was coming, the World Economic Forum were back with a new theme – ‘Globalization 4.0: Shaping a New Architecture in the Age of the Fourth Industrial Revolution‘. It was a subject I covered in an article published around the time (Why Dismissing Globalist Warnings as ‘Project Fear’ May Prove a Mistake).
Executive chairman Klaus Schwab was at it again, reiterating that ‘our systems of health, transportation, communication, production, distribution, and energy – just to name a few – will be completely transformed.’ Included in the breadth of transformation would be blockchain and distributed ledger technology, two fundamental components in the drive towards a global digital currency network.
In talking about ‘Globalization 4.0‘, Schwab described the present day as an ‘era of widespread insecurity and frustration‘, and went on to blame this environment for a rise in populism.
What Schwab did not make direct mention of is how a resurgence of protectionist tendencies was assisting the WEF in being able to push the argument for 4IR. The greater the level of global disunity, the more opportunity that groups like the WEF have in being able to cultivate the concept of a New World Order and convince people of its necessity. Globalization 4.0 is a facet of 4IR, a vision that Schwab is unreservedly committed to:
Globalization 4.0 has only just begun, but we are already vastly underprepared for it. Clinging to an outdated mindset and tinkering with our existing processes and institutions will not do. Rather, we need to redesign them from the ground up, so that we can capitalize on the new opportunities that await us, while avoiding the kind of disruptions that we are witnessing today.
‘Ready or not‘, Schwab warned, ‘a new world is upon us‘.
Five months on from the WEF meeting, the Bank for International Settlements introduced a new concept called the ‘BIS Innovation Hub‘, also known as ‘Innovation BIS 2025‘. This is a topic I have also written about previously (Innovation BIS 2025: A Stepping Stone Towards an Economic ‘New World Order’).
The BIS described the Hub as a medium term strategy consisting of three main elements:
- Identify and develop in-depth insights into critical trends in technology affecting central banking
- Develop public goods in the technology space geared towards improving the functioning of the global financial system
- Serve as a focal point for a network of central bank experts on innovation
When launching the hub, BIS General Manager Agustin Carstens spoke of ‘reshaping the financial landscape‘ following ‘the scars left by the financial crisis‘. According to Carstens, now was the time to set about reforming the way that the central banking community operates.
When digging down into the BIS Innovation Hub, it becomes clear that at the core of the project is the creation of central bank digital currency (CBDC). In practice, this would mean the abolition of tangible assets such as banknotes and coins and see the creation of a new form of digital money issued by central banks.
Global payment systems are in the process of being reformed to accommodate the use of blockchain and distributed ledger technology, and central banks are now beginning to disseminate technological detail for how a CBDC could be issued.
As it stands, a volatile geopolitical climate, exacerbated by Covid-19 and the unproven fear that handling physical money could transmit the virus, is assisting the BIS in their ambitions for completely resetting how the general public will interact with central bank money over the coming years.
In a follow up article, we will look specifically at what the World Economic Forum have termed ‘The Great Reset‘and what exactly global planners are seeking to achieve.
The Defender:
‘Paving a Digital Road to Hell’: Digital ID Systems Could Lead to Severe, Irreversible Human Rights Violations
The authors of a New York University’s Center for Human Rights and Global Justice report on digital identity systems warned of “severe and potentially irreversible” human rights violations and argued for open debate “with full transparency and involving all relevant stakeholders.”
By
Miss a day, miss a lot. Subscribe to The Defender’s Top News of the Day. It’s free.
The authors of a new report on digital identity systems warned “the actual and potential” human rights violations arising from the digital ID model can be “severe and potentially irreversible.”
The 100-page report — “Paving the Road to Hell? A Primer on the Role of the World Bank and Global Networks in Promoting Digital ID” — published by New York University’s (NYU) Center for Human Rights and Global Justice urged human rights organizations to heed the threats posed by a global push for digital IDs.
The NYU researchers said many proponents — including the World Bank — portray digital IDs as a means to achieving greater inclusivity and environmental sustainability when, in fact, the systems are likely to do just the opposite.
According to the report, the digital ID has been dressed up as an “unstoppable juggernaut and inevitable hallmark of modernity and development in the 21st century,” causing dissenting voices to be “written off as Luddites and barriers to progress.”
The authors argued for open debate “with full transparency and involving all relevant stakeholders,” including the most marginalized and most vulnerable.
The authors, who include Christiaan van Veen, L.L.M., special advisor on new technologies and human rights to the United Nations, urged the human rights community and related civic society organizations to ensure that global decisions about the adoption of digital ID systems are not hastily made but are based on “serious evidence and analysis.”
Where digital ID systems threaten human rights, the NYU researchers said, such endeavors should be “stopped altogether.”
Who’s really profiting?
“Governments around the world have been investing heavily in digital identification systems, often with biometric components,” the authors said in a statement.
Digital ID systems that frequently collect biometric data — such as fingerprints, iris or other facial feature recognition — are being adopted to replace or complement non-digital government identification systems.
According to an Access Now special report, in India in October 2021, digital ID systems — or “Big ID programs” as Access Now called them — are being pushed by a market of actors who sell and profit from digital ID systems and infrastructure, often while endangering the human rights of the people they’re supposed to benefit.
The NYU researchers reached the same conclusion:
“The rapid proliferation of such systems is driven by a new development consensus, packaged and promoted by key global actors like the World Bank, but also by governments, foundations, vendors and consulting firms.”
Digital ID proponents argue the systems can contribute to inclusivity and sustainable development, with some going so far as to consider the adoption of digital ID systems a prerequisite for the realization of human rights.
But the NYU researchers said they believe the “ultimate objective” of digital ID systems is to “facilitate economic transactions and private sector service delivery while also bringing new, poorer, individuals into formal economies and ‘unlocking’ their behavioral data.”
“The promises of inclusion and flourishing digital economies might appear attractive on paper,” the researchers said, “but digital ID systems have consistently failed to deliver on these promises in real world situations, especially for the most marginalized.”
The authors added:
“In fact, evidence is emerging from many countries, most notably the mega digital ID project Aadhaar in India, of the severe and large-scale human rights violations linked to this model. These systems may in fact exacerbate pre-existing forms of exclusion and discrimination in public and private services. The use of new technologies may furthermore lead to novel forms of harm, including biometric exclusion, discrimination, and the many harms associated with ‘surveillance capitalism.’”
The benefits of using digital ID are “ill-defined” and “poorly documented,” the NYU authors said.
“From what evidence does exist, it seems that those who stand to benefit most may not be those ‘left behind,’ but instead a small group of companies and governments,” they wrote.
They added:
“After all, where digital ID systems have tended to excel is in generating lucrative contracts for biometrics companies and enhancing the surveillance and migration-control capabilities of governments.”
More harm than good, especially for world’s most marginalized
The authors did four things in their report.
First, they examined the human rights impact of national digital ID systems and argued that a cost-benefit analysis of digital ID systems suggests they do more harm than good — especially for the world’s most marginalized individuals.
“Through the embrace of digital technologies, the World Bank and a broader global
network of actors has been promoting a new paradigm for ID systems that prioritizes what we refer to as ‘economic identity,’” the authors wrote.
They added:
“These systems focus on fueling digital transactions and transforming individuals into traceable data. They often ignore the ability of identification systems to recognize not only that an individual is unique, but that they have a legal status with associated rights.
“Still, proponents have cloaked this new paradigm in the language of human rights and inclusion, arguing that such systems will help to achieve multiple Sustainable Development Goals.”
The authors added:
“Like physical roads, national digital identification systems with biometric components (digital ID systems) are presented as the public infrastructure of the digital future.
“Yet these particular infrastructures have proven to be dangerous, having been linked to severe and large-scale human rights violations in a range of countries around the world, affecting social, civil, and political rights.”
Prioritizing ‘economic identity’
Next, the researchers looked at how an “identification for development” agenda driven by multiple global actors came into being.
They discussed the digital ID system called Aadhaar that is currently being tried out by the government of India and the digital ID system promoted by the World Bank — Identification for Development, commonly called the ID4D Initiative.
The ID4D Initiative draws inspiration from the highly criticized Aadhaar digital ID system in India.
In the Aadhaar system, individuals are voluntarily assigned a 12-digit random number by the Unique Identification Authority of India — a statutory authority backed by the government of India — that establishes the “uniqueness” of individuals with the help of demographic and biometric technologies.
This digital ID model, NYU report authors said, is dangerous because it prioritizes an “economic identity” for an individual.
The model is not about an individual’s identity alone, confirmed Joseph Atick, Ph.D., executive chairman of the influential ID4Africa, a platform where African governments and major companies in the digital ID market meet.
It’s about their economic interactions, Atick said.
The ID4D model “enables and interacts with authentication platforms, payments systems, digital signatures, data sharing, KYC systems, consent management and sectoral delivery platforms,” Atick announced at the start of ID4Africa’s 2022 annual meeting in mid-June, at the Palais de Congrès in Marrakesh, Morocco.
The authors of the NYU report criticized this model:
“The goal then, is not so much identity as it is identification. The three interlinked processes of identification, registration, and authorization are an exercise of power.
“Through this process, one actor acknowledges or denies another actor’s identity attributes. Individuals may be empowered through the process of identification, but such systems have long been used for the opposite purpose: to deny rights to certain groups and exclude them.”
Third, the authors assessed the nitty-gritty details of how the World Bank and its network of proponents of digital ID systems worked to implement an “identification for development” agenda around the globe.
They explained how the funding and governance of the ID4D Initiative operate, and claimed the World Bank and its corporate and governmental partners are “manufacturing consensus” by presuming that the shift to a digital ID model is inevitable, desirable and required for human progress.
But this “manufactured consensus” lacks a basis, they said.
“Concrete and robust evidence of the purported benefits associated with digital ID systems is rarely provided, it is merely asserted that digital ID will lead to inclusion and development,” the authors wrote.
3 steps privacy advocates can take
Finally, the authors outlined what human rights organizations and other civil society actors can do by highlighting three modes of action:
- “Not so fast!” Organizations can demand that governmental adoption of digital ID systems not be rushed.
The authors wrote:
“Before any new or augmented digital ID systems are rolled out nationwide, it is vital to establish an evidence base and take all necessary steps to anticipate and mitigate possible harms in advance. Baseline studies, research into the specific context, cost-benefit analyses, value for money analyses, and impact assessments are necessary and should be demanded every step of the way.”
- “Make it public.” The design and possible implementation of a digital ID system need to be thoroughly discussed in democratic forums, including public media and Congress or parliaments.
“Civil society organizations should demand openness with regard to plans, tenders, and the involvement of foreign governments and international organizations,” they said.
- “We are all stakeholders.” While the World Bank presents itself as a respected advisor to governments who should be allowed to shape and create governments’ digital ID policies, it is only one actor.
“It is important to realize,” the authors wrote, “that, ultimately, everyone has a stake in systems of identification, digital or otherwise, which are essential to recognize individuals and effectuate their human rights.”
They added:
“More and more organizations and experts are beginning to grapple with the rapid spread of digital ID around the world, from digital rights organizations to groups representing people with disabilities, and from experts working on social and economic rights to development economists.
“As this range of organizations grows, it will be crucial to share experiences, learn from one another, and coordinate advocacy.”
Human rights alliances can ‘reimagine’ the ‘digital future’
According to the report, multidisciplinary and geographically diverse alliances can not only help to ensure digital ID systems are not deployed “in the harmful ways described in this primer,” but can “also help reimagine what the digital future without the particular model of ID systems promoted by the World Bank and others could look like.”
They said:
“As digital ID systems are determining the shape of governments and societies as we hurtle into the digital era, questions as to their form and design — and their very existence in the first place — are critical.
“What alternative visions can we offer that will better safeguard human rights and preserve the gains of countless years of struggle to improve the recognition and institutionalization of rights?
“When we bring together actors who want a society where the human rights of every individual and group are protected, what kinds of digital ID systems might we imagine? How might digital ID systems be designed to truly promote human well-being?
“How would this alternative, rights-fulfilling vision differ from the economic, transactional identity described here, as promoted by the World Bank and others? Indeed, would we have digitalized identification systems at all?”
The authors did not provide answers to these questions.
Rather, they aimed to “bring together the excellent work that our partners, colleagues, and others have tirelessly undertaken around the world” and facilitate collaboration “to ensure that the future of digital ID enhances, rather than jeopardizes, the enjoyment of human rights.”
Links:
Ashtar Sharon gfl W Asar Sharon & New Earth.
Religions, The State/Media and humanity.
Remote viewing and Alien interventions on planet earth
Baba Vanga and the predictions for Europe/West.
The Chemtrail mystery?
E.U. Parliament in Action.
Child trafficking.
The silent monetary Revolution.
Two video’s, please click on link!
Bill Cooper illuminati people not able to see their enemy. Adam and Eve where prisoners
If they think overpopulation is a problem, why INSIST that everyone get vaccinated to save lives? Why not just let us die naturally? They are contradicting themselves.
Something is wrong.
Planet earth is hollow at most of it’s inner part. Between inner and utter core.
NASA, would you trust them again after Mars?
The great Awakening & Alien blood users?
“We are the Borg. Resistance is futile. Your race will be assimilated and service to us.”
“A Covenant With Death”, by Bill Cooper.
The great Awakening, Plandemic 3 Video, please click on link:
The Great Awakening (Full, Unedited Movie) (rumble.com)
rumble.com/v2s0gp8-plandemic-3-the-great-awakening-full-unedited-movie.html
Cabal or deep State& Alien connection. Stranger science fiction.