The Dystopian NEW World Economic Forum Plan
Video available on:
- Government control, censorship, and loss of freedom with CBDCs.
- Government-led censorship and surveillance practices.
- Government, Big Tech, and third parties in censoring speech.
- Implications for CBDCs and financial transactions.
- Risk of the surveillance state and loss of personal freedoms.
Imagine a world where your money is no longer in your control. A world where governments and banks have the power to determine when, where, and how your hard-earned cash is spent. This seemingly dystopian concept was discussed at the World Economic Forum’s (WEF) “Summer Davos” meeting in China, where elites openly admitted the potential for a “darker world” with government-controlled Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs). Programmability, a key feature of CBDCs, allows authorities to manipulate currency expiration dates and restrict purchases they deem undesirable. Let’s delve into the details and explore the implications of this revelation.
During the 14th Annual Meeting of the New Champions in Tianjin, China, Cornell University professor Eswar Prasad shared his thoughts on the impending disappearance of physical currency.
“You could have […] a potentially better – or some people might say a darker world – where the government decides that units of central bank money can be used to purchase some things, but not other things that it deems less desirable like say ammunition, or drugs, or pornography, or something of the sort, and that is very powerful in terms of the use of a CBDC, and I think also extremely dangerous to central banks.”
Eswar Prasad, WEF
Christine Lagarde, among others, emphasized the significance of CBDC programmability during the discussion. This programmability aspect dictates who can own CBDCs and the specific ways in which this digital money can be utilized. However, this level of centralized authority raises concerns among many individuals who fear a loss of personal control and a potential slide into totalitarianism. If a central authority possesses the ability to program and control money, including deciding what constitutes appropriate use, it could have alarming implications for individual freedoms.
In July 2021, Bank of Russia deputy governor Alexey Zabotkin provided a tangible example of CBDC programmability during the annual cybersecurity training exercise, Cyber Polygon. Zabotkin described how a digital ruble could enhance traceability of payments and money flow, enabling authorities to set conditions on the permitted use of the currency. He proposed an example where parents could give their children digital rubles with restrictions on purchasing junk food. Zabotkin highlighted that this functionality could be beneficial for customers, and many other similar use cases could be imagined.
The programmability feature of CBDCs grants governments and banks an unprecedented level of control over people’s finances. The potential consequences are evident, especially considering recent events. Nigel Farage, a prominent UK politician, faced a distressing incident when all banking companies in the country blocked his account following supposedly controversial commentary. This case, reported by The Telegraph, reveals the increasing concern about banks targeting individuals for their political beliefs.
The Yorkshire Building Society, a leading institution, disclosed that it closes customers’ accounts if they engage in rude or discriminatory behavior. This revelation emerged after allegations that the society severed ties with a client questioning the use of Pride flags in their branches. Nigel Farage, who had his account shuttered, approached seven other banks, all of which rejected him as a customer. The power wielded by these financial institutions and their ability to punish individuals based on perceived errors or deviations from their values is alarming. It highlights the politicization of the corporate sector and raises the question: if they come for one today, who’s to say they won’t come for you tomorrow?
The admission by WEF elites regarding the potential “darker world” of government-controlled CBDCs has sparked concern and raised questions about personal freedoms and individual financial autonomy. Programmability, a key feature of CBDCs, enables authorities to dictate the terms of currency usage, raising worries about government overreach and potential totalitarian control. The recent incident involving Nigel Farage and the Yorkshire Building Society exemplifies the real-world consequences of such centralized authority. As society continues to navigate the complexities of digital currencies, it becomes crucial to strike a balance between technological advancements and safeguarding individual liberties in financial transactions.
One of the most alarming aspects of Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) is the inherent power it grants to governments. With CBDCs, governments can exercise control over individuals’ money, regulate financial transactions, and potentially impinge on personal freedoms. Recent events have fueled concerns about the spread of totalitarianism, exemplified by government-led censorship and increasing surveillance practices. These issues, coupled with the potential manipulation of CBDCs, have ignited a heated debate about the future of digital currencies and the impact on individual liberties.
A recent report revealed the disturbing collaboration between the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), Big Tech companies, and government-funded entities in surveilling and censoring Americans’ speech on social media platforms. The investigation highlighted how CISA, initially established to protect critical infrastructure from cyberattacks, expanded its mission to monitor and control public discourse. This collusion raises the question of whether the same censorship tactics could extend to monetary transactions.
The growing power of governments to censor speech raises concerns that they may eventually seek control over financial transactions. If the government can regulate and manipulate speech, it’s not a stretch to imagine a future where they extend this control to money. The implications of such a scenario are far-reaching, potentially leading to a dystopian reality where citizens’ financial choices are tightly monitored and restricted.
The ongoing debate surrounding the dangers of increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere adds another layer of complexity to the CBDC discussion. Varying viewpoints exist, with some arguing that elevated CO2 levels may not be as detrimental as claimed, citing the fact that CO2 is essential for plant growth. However, a majority insists that all CO2 emissions must be eliminated immediately to avert a catastrophic environmental disaster.
In this context, it is not far-fetched to envision governments imposing carbon taxes on products they deem environmentally damaging. While the necessity of such measures remains debatable, the creation of a CBDC could provide authorities with a powerful tool to enforce their environmental policies. The potential consequences include restricted access to certain products, varying interest rates and prices based on personal identities, and automatic deductions of taxes and fines.
The creation of a centralized digital currency, such as a digital pound, raises concerns about the erosion of privacy and the encroachment of a surveillance state. A central authority would have access to every financial transaction, effectively becoming an “all-seeing eye.” The elimination of cash, the most privacy-preserving form of currency, further exacerbates these concerns.
The surveillance benefits of a CBDC are explicitly acknowledged by government entities. The Treasury’s policy document states that “competent authorities” may require access to digital pound transactions for intelligence gathering. Financial transactions, once the most private aspect of one’s life, would be subject to scrutiny. The potential for abuse, coupled with the increasing trend of governments and corporations targeting financial assets based on political beliefs, is deeply troubling.
While the Treasury has promised that a CBDC would not be programmable or controllable, such assurances should be met with skepticism. The absence of clear technical and legal guarantees leaves room for potential abuses of power. Programmability could lead to the imposition of expiration dates on funds, limits on the amount of CBDC an individual can hold, and discriminatory interest rates and prices based on identity. Moreover, purchases could be restricted or subject to automatic deductions.
In light of the potential dangers posed by CBDCs, it is crucial to carefully consider whether such a path is necessary or desirable. The creation of a CBDC without adequate safeguards and guarantees would gift a future government with a web of financial surveillance and control. While a Britcoin could be created without invoking Orwellian levels of financial censorship, the specter of increased state surveillance and control demands our attention and consideration.
The concerns surrounding CBDCs encompass issues of government control, censorship, and the loss of personal freedom. The recent revelations of government-led censorship and surveillance practices, coupled with the potential manipulation of CBDCs, have sparked a justifiable alarm. We must actively engage in the conversation and assert our voices to prevent a future where governments have unfettered control over our money and lives. The preservation of individual liberties and the balance between technological advancements and personal freedoms must remain at the forefront of the ongoing discussions surrounding CBDCs.
