Russell Brand has done a terrific job of getting people who otherwise wouldn't be interested in these topics to pay attention. I've heard a lot of chatter in the freedom movement (for want of a better term for this loose coalition of unherdable cats!) that he's controlled opposition, but my gut tells me that he's legit. I hope so.
Any video that trashes the globalist trash is a top video as far as I'm concerned.
I was surprised nevertheless not to hear Brand mention Sunak's wife's tax avoidance problem. Or that his in-law's company, Infosys, is marketing software, which facilitates the introduction of CBDCs. No transparency there. Just a naked conflict of interest.
It's been suggested that Sunak's skin colour makes him the right person to pull this off, because there will be significant reluctance in woke Britain to give him a good serve in case you get jumped on for being racist, which as we all know by now is a fate worse than death.
That's quite a significant omission. I wonder if RB is aware of it?
And yes, the deployment of women (not that anyone can define what a woman is, any more) and people from ethnic minorities to implement these abhorrent policies is rather conspicuous. Now we're not even allowed to talk about people who are suffering from post-stroke cognitive impairment, or dementia, being unfit to hold public office, because it's ableist.
Who would have thought a Christian satire outfit would be producing some of the best comedy of our era??? Their 'What Is A Man?' documentary is also next-level: https://youtu.be/nqG_YE1x1sI
Who would have thought a man was so simple to define, and that both sexes would be pretty much in agreement:
Adam: yeah, it's simple alright, I'm defined by my dick, especially when it's a big, swinging one, sayeth the First Man as he struggled to articulate the First Thought.
Eve: yeah, he's simple alright. And he's a dick! And he should be swinging, sayeth the First Smart-Mouth Woman.
Well, here's an interesting development: Monica Smit, reporting from a Jordan Peterson event in Brisbane, says that when Peterson was asked to define a woman, he replied: "If you have a prostate, you're not a woman."
Now, this doesn't sound quite right. It must be around twenty years ago that I remember reading about researchers working with a fair number of female cadavers, cutting behind the vaginal wall at the G-spot location to discover the presence of prostatic tissue. What was further interesting about the discovery was that the amount of prostatic tissue varied from woman to woman. Some women had more than their fair share, while some had none; and there was every other amount in between.
I tried to google it, but after a while I gave up. Nevertheless, I found an article of similar interest, which deals, especially in the comments section, with the question of whether Skene's glands is the female prostate. Annoyingly, however, it shows more concern with political correctness than anatomical correctness.
This is a great video - thanks Robyn. My fear is that a lot of the asleep people I know would likely think it's perfectly fine for the government to control things in the way portrayed. eg "John shouldn't be breaking the rules and putting everyone in danger by shopping more than 1 mile from home, so it's a good thing that his wallet won't work." They are the "greater good" enthusiasts who think the government has our best interests at heart. I suppose the potential restriction on buying coffee might make them stop and think!
This is an issue which has occupied a lot of my mental energy - and yours too, I have no doubt - is it possible to bridge the divide between those of us who believe that it's our responsibility to assess risk for ourselves, and make decisions on the basis of our personal tolerance of risk, and those who believe that it's government's job to manage risk on our behalf and we are obliged to passively comply? I suspect that it's not possible, because this difference arises out of very fundamental differences in personality between the two groups. Individualists see themselves as responsible for their own choices and outcomes, while collectivists downplay the importance of individual action. We're seeing this tussle play out in the political arena too. Although I think that the left-right political divide is quite outmoded now, and functionally they've become the uniparty, the philosophical underpinnings of leftist and rightist parties do rest on this question of individual vs collective responsibility. Even if the party apparatchiks have moved away from it, their supporter base has not, and those who embrace the philosophy of personal responsibility are increasingly going to punish politicians who claim to represent their interests, but clearly aren't. We sure do live in interesting times!
This is something I'm quite concerned about, and the only "solution" I've come to is to prepare for multiple systems. So, if you can, open a foreign bank accounts, get some precious metals, maybe a Wise or Revolut account.
Some things that provide hope are;
1. The blockchain isn't fast enough. The world first 'super' blockchain project, the replacement of the ASX's Chess system keeps getting delayed. Maybe it's not possible ? Visa can process thousands of transactions per second , blockchain ???? I'm not an expert but it's not there yet.
2. Countries like Sweden which almost went 100 digital brought in a law to prevent 'cashlessness". Check out cashmatters.org. If Sweden reversed it, then perhaps there hope, though they aren't as tyrannical as ours. Play the disadvantaged card hard i.e. disproportionately affects the most vulnerable. Debt counsellors tell their clients to use cash ...as it prevents impulse spending.
3. I suspect there will lots of unforeseen consequences, like stifling innovation, a rise in barter (black market), perhaps rise in the use of precious metals, and perhaps bitcoin. Possibly supply shortages.
4. For me, the biggest 'drawback' would be that this would allow the banks to charge negative interest rates - this means you can't take your cash out and stuff it under your mattress. (I know, we already have that with inflation).
I suspect there will be a lot more resistance to switching to central bank digital currency than the powers-that-shouldn't-be anticipate. Monica Smit has found that out of all the Global Walkout steps, the ones related to using cash have got the greatest engagement.
Yet another reason to close accounts with CBA and the other members of the Big Four bankster gang, and transfer banking to credit unions and small local banks - after thoroughly vetting their policies and T&Cs, of course.
Something that has eluded me so far is what will happen to the private banks and even credit unions when a CBDC system is implemented, which would appear, at first glance, to render them redundant. And why are banks seemingly facilitating the introduction of the CBDC system? What future role do they believe they will have, if any? What incentive do they have to commit financial suicide, to be part of an engineered banking crisis that incentivises private bank customers to transfer funds to the central bank?
My mind immediately wanders towards the idea of the great grift that is now underway to usher in the New World Order, the supposed $300 trillion upward transfer of wealth, which will leave most of us owning nothing and being happy about it. That's right, we're going to get free money in the form of a universal basic income shit sandwich to compensate, hemmed in by a totalitarian, Chinese-style social credit system, though I don't think the global elite will want to be up for the bill until they can cull the human herd back to under a billion at least.
Now I don't profess to have any real expertise in the modus operandi of elite grifting, although it was an education to watch the Wall Street banks during the GFC; but apparently governments are ready for them next time, and will now expect bail-ins rather than doing bail outs, because well...governments are now broke, you know - a self-inflicted wound by any reckoning, unless you're a fully-paid-up member of the pandemicists' propaganda cult. Much better, I think, to stick with us 'conspirators' who see method in the seeming madness of chaos creation and the wilful economic destruction going on around the world.
Fascinatingly, there is still a hold-out view among some on our own side that politicians and technocrats were simply caught flat-footed, not really knowing what to do and just panicked themselves into previously unparalleled, totalitarian overreach in full ignorance of established public health protocols, and are now in full face-saving mode, ably assisted by MSM censorship and misinformation spread; that is, when they're not still lying to our faces about the safety and efficacy of the 'vaccines'. It's a seductive view alright, because we all know just how stupid and incompetent politicians and technocrats can be when they put their minds to it, so no malfeasance to see here then. Don't make me laugh.
But I've digressed. It's a full-time job trying to keep abreast of what's going on, and I don't have that sort of time. Inevitably, then, I don't have many fine details to hand, like what will happen to banks after the introduction of a CBDC regime. Will they still be the institutions that conjure money out of thin air and charge interest on it? That sounds too much like the present system whereby banksters get the fraudball rolling, and keep it rolling until it transmutates into a tidal wave of economic devastation so bad that only governments can rescue the situation.
So, any thoughts on the future of private banks and credit unions after CBDC implementation? Maybe I've just missed it, or maybe there's something obtuse about the question that I can't quite see. For a while now my brain seems to have decided it wants to impersonate a bowl of porridge. Too little sleep I'm afraid.
Of course, none of this is meant to demoralise anyone and keep them from engaging in speedbump activity like trying to keep cash viable for as long as possible.
The globalist criminal cabal appears to have stepped up the pace for implementing the CBDC regime, so using cash as far as possible might just slow things enough to get the right people into power sooner rather than later.
People like Danielle Smith in Alberta, who seems determined to get the WEF out of Albertan affairs. That'll please Monsewer Turdeau no end. Also Giorgia Meloni in Italy. It's hard to imagine Italy getting rid of cash, even as European Commission President and henchwoman of the WEF Ursula von der Lyin' has threatened them with "tools" if they don't toe the EC line. And the new Swedish Government has junked Agenda 2030 entirely.
A word to our state governments as well: just shut down the casinos if you really want to do something about money laundering.
Here's a video of Danielle Smith getting grilled in two segments by an MSM marionette. Of course, there's nothing wrong with the media grilling politicians, I just want to know where they've been for nearly three years.
Or, while it's tempting to think Klaus might spend an inordinate amount of time listening to Richard Strauss' Alpine Symphony up there in Davos, maybe he's an Elvis fan instead. We do know he's a sensitive guy who cares about minorities, women and the planet, so maybe this is his song. Just move the video along 3-5 minutes, as you please.
Ursula von der Lyin' hasn't got nearly enough coverage for her role in the scamdemic, so here's probably most of what you need to know. Just love that photo of her with Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla.
And, finally, an interview: Maria Zeee interviewing Prof. Dolores Cahill about Agenda 21. There's a noisy two- minute music introduction, followed by some background on Cahill, then it gets really interesting. She discusses at one point digital money that will be phased in over what sounds like decades, a different timeframe to what is implied by the cartoon video. Cahill has read the timeline of the Agenda 21 document, with her comments only three weeks old. So why are the globalists seemingly scrambling to get the CBDC regime up and running now?
I've wondered about what will happen to the banks and credit unions if CBDC is introduced too. Here's a little snippet of info that may (or may not) shed light on the subject: My husband recently withdrew a sizeable amount of cash from NAB (I know, I know - I've tried to get him to disinvest from the Big 4, but he has multiple personal and business accounts and it's a bit complicated). For security reasons, he was asked to go into the branch before they opened to the public, and consequently he witnessed the Monday morning staff briefing. Apparently NAB has been intimately involved with developing Australia's national digital ID system, and has now been tasked with selling it to their customers. Bank staff are now under instruction to spruik the wonderful benefits of having government, banks and no doubt, all sorts of other entities, know absolutely everything about them. My husband noted that the staff didn't look too enthusiastic about their new role. Perhaps they're starting to get a glimpse of the future.
On the UBI front, I think you're spot on: I'm sure the powers-that-shouldn't-be have done their sums and figured out that if they have less people on the planet, they can afford to be a bit more generous when it's brought in, which will mollify many of the sceptics. Then they can rachet it down over time, using other manufactured crises as the pretext.
On the incompetence vs maleficence front, there's a dialogue between Eugyppius (whom I subscribe to here on Substack) and Daniel Miller at https://im1776.com/2022/10/14/the-great-reset-dialogues/ which I found very thought-provoking. Eugyppius does make some valid points, including the fact that none of the pandemic 'preparedness' exercises, including Event 201, floated the idea of lockdown; in fact they all emphasised the importance of maintaining trade and travel. I noticed this myself when I read the documents produced for these exercises, going back to the late 1990s. Eugyppius takes this as evidence that lockdowns were implemented locally, driven by the administrative state, against the will of the would-be overlords. I suspect though that once the Chinese mass containment strategy became publicly known (and was promoted via a coordinated campaign of tweets generated by troll farms), the puppet-masters saw the advantaged of this over their own strategy, and pivoted to it. It's also noteworthy that the mass containment strategy was initially promoted in the mid-noughties by US data scientists, who managed to get the ear of George Bush (finding this considerably easier to access than his brain). It was this spasm of lockdown fever that prompted Donald Henderson (famous for developing the smallpox eradication strategy) to coauthor this paper https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17238820/ rejecting mass containment. Interestingly, one of his coauthors on the paper, Tom Inglesby, was MC for Event 201, and another, Tara O'Toole, went on to become CEO of InQTel, CIA's venture capital fund.
I share your cheer on the recent election of individuals who appear not to be on board with the WEF agenda. Despite the weapons-grade propaganda directed at us over the last (almost) 3 years, it does seem that more and more people are getting the memo and expressing their displeasure at being railroaded into massive social, economic and political changes that they were never consulted on. Gaslighting can only succeed for so long.
Thanks for the video links. Here's some you might be interested in, on the Agenda 21/2030 front - the indomitable UK Column did an interview with Sandi Adams which starts here: https://www.ukcolumn.org/video/agenda-2030-part-1
Just wondering if it’s true Germany ( cash is used widely) ending cash withdrawal and deposit by Dec 22? Do you think this is a trial , similar to banning fertiliser in Netherlands ( big) farming country?
We are encouraging family, everyone really, to save and use cash as much as possible.
I'm checking with a German contact, and will let you know when I hear back. I think that there will be a manufactured crisis (or more likely, a series of crises) which will be used to force through central bank digital currency, rather than a trial.
Yes, I have heard this too ... two degrees of separation, if you count an "person you know" in the internet. CBDC is all ready to go. Not that the EU have to manufacture a crisis, though they have done great job with their reliance on imported energy :)
Yes, agreed - trial the wrong word. Germans are prolific cash users so it wouldn’t surprise me if they at least start shutting all the ATMs - happening in many places already. The irony not realised by most people - cash is King in the wake of a crisis. A mini example - recently our local supermarkets couldn’t operate systems except with cash due to banks eftpos down. It was very quiet. I guess propagating the story that cash carried the virus was a stealth incremental part of the process. Thanks for reply.
That's fantastic. More power to them. I bought my first car with cash that I'd saved from my part-time job (which paid cash - those were the days). It certainly wasn't 50000 euros though :) - it was a 1975 Holden Gemini which had been through many, many owners before it became my pride and joy.
Scrolling through the comments, it seems that there's one German bank that won't be accepting cash deposits or giving cash withdrawals, but no other German banks are following suit (at this stage).
Yes I did see that after posting. I can’t see how they can stop cash immediately or in short term especially as people are waking up and using it more often. Thank you!
The British PM's speech on G7 cooperation towards CBDC & Russell Brand's accompanying commentary is informative and entertaining:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTOYJ4QCPnI
Russell Brand has done a terrific job of getting people who otherwise wouldn't be interested in these topics to pay attention. I've heard a lot of chatter in the freedom movement (for want of a better term for this loose coalition of unherdable cats!) that he's controlled opposition, but my gut tells me that he's legit. I hope so.
Any video that trashes the globalist trash is a top video as far as I'm concerned.
I was surprised nevertheless not to hear Brand mention Sunak's wife's tax avoidance problem. Or that his in-law's company, Infosys, is marketing software, which facilitates the introduction of CBDCs. No transparency there. Just a naked conflict of interest.
It's been suggested that Sunak's skin colour makes him the right person to pull this off, because there will be significant reluctance in woke Britain to give him a good serve in case you get jumped on for being racist, which as we all know by now is a fate worse than death.
That's quite a significant omission. I wonder if RB is aware of it?
And yes, the deployment of women (not that anyone can define what a woman is, any more) and people from ethnic minorities to implement these abhorrent policies is rather conspicuous. Now we're not even allowed to talk about people who are suffering from post-stroke cognitive impairment, or dementia, being unfit to hold public office, because it's ableist.
Obviously, I don't know if RB was unaware of it, but David Hughes refers to it in his interview with Dr Ana.
How much more enigmatic can women get, now that they're beyond definable!
This is still my favourite short video on the subject:
https://youtu.be/5mnQTzhVgl8
Who would have thought a Christian satire outfit would be producing some of the best comedy of our era??? Their 'What Is A Man?' documentary is also next-level: https://youtu.be/nqG_YE1x1sI
Who would have thought a man was so simple to define, and that both sexes would be pretty much in agreement:
Adam: yeah, it's simple alright, I'm defined by my dick, especially when it's a big, swinging one, sayeth the First Man as he struggled to articulate the First Thought.
Eve: yeah, he's simple alright. And he's a dick! And he should be swinging, sayeth the First Smart-Mouth Woman.
And God saw that it was good.
I almost forgot about this clip; one of many great scenes from Monty Python's Life of Brian. Hard to believe they came up with it 43 years ago.
https://youtu.be/FfVKtVtTKX8
Well, here's an interesting development: Monica Smit, reporting from a Jordan Peterson event in Brisbane, says that when Peterson was asked to define a woman, he replied: "If you have a prostate, you're not a woman."
https://youtu.be/wPAQ5Uw9YzA
Now, this doesn't sound quite right. It must be around twenty years ago that I remember reading about researchers working with a fair number of female cadavers, cutting behind the vaginal wall at the G-spot location to discover the presence of prostatic tissue. What was further interesting about the discovery was that the amount of prostatic tissue varied from woman to woman. Some women had more than their fair share, while some had none; and there was every other amount in between.
I tried to google it, but after a while I gave up. Nevertheless, I found an article of similar interest, which deals, especially in the comments section, with the question of whether Skene's glands is the female prostate. Annoyingly, however, it shows more concern with political correctness than anatomical correctness.
https://pelvicpainrehab.com/female-pelvic-pain/4546/female-prostate/
Another shorter, definitional article instead.
https://www.ajog.org/article/S0002-9378(02)70196-8/fulltext#relatedArticles
There are a number of related posts on this substack. Just access the archive to see them.
https://libresolutionsnetwork.substack.com/p/tools-of-the-technocracy-10-cbdc
This isn't a video about cash or CBDCs but, once you get to the punchline, you'll understand why I posted it.
https://youtu.be/nTIfU4zMQWY
This is absolute genius!!!
This is a great video - thanks Robyn. My fear is that a lot of the asleep people I know would likely think it's perfectly fine for the government to control things in the way portrayed. eg "John shouldn't be breaking the rules and putting everyone in danger by shopping more than 1 mile from home, so it's a good thing that his wallet won't work." They are the "greater good" enthusiasts who think the government has our best interests at heart. I suppose the potential restriction on buying coffee might make them stop and think!
This is an issue which has occupied a lot of my mental energy - and yours too, I have no doubt - is it possible to bridge the divide between those of us who believe that it's our responsibility to assess risk for ourselves, and make decisions on the basis of our personal tolerance of risk, and those who believe that it's government's job to manage risk on our behalf and we are obliged to passively comply? I suspect that it's not possible, because this difference arises out of very fundamental differences in personality between the two groups. Individualists see themselves as responsible for their own choices and outcomes, while collectivists downplay the importance of individual action. We're seeing this tussle play out in the political arena too. Although I think that the left-right political divide is quite outmoded now, and functionally they've become the uniparty, the philosophical underpinnings of leftist and rightist parties do rest on this question of individual vs collective responsibility. Even if the party apparatchiks have moved away from it, their supporter base has not, and those who embrace the philosophy of personal responsibility are increasingly going to punish politicians who claim to represent their interests, but clearly aren't. We sure do live in interesting times!
This is something I'm quite concerned about, and the only "solution" I've come to is to prepare for multiple systems. So, if you can, open a foreign bank accounts, get some precious metals, maybe a Wise or Revolut account.
Some things that provide hope are;
1. The blockchain isn't fast enough. The world first 'super' blockchain project, the replacement of the ASX's Chess system keeps getting delayed. Maybe it's not possible ? Visa can process thousands of transactions per second , blockchain ???? I'm not an expert but it's not there yet.
2. Countries like Sweden which almost went 100 digital brought in a law to prevent 'cashlessness". Check out cashmatters.org. If Sweden reversed it, then perhaps there hope, though they aren't as tyrannical as ours. Play the disadvantaged card hard i.e. disproportionately affects the most vulnerable. Debt counsellors tell their clients to use cash ...as it prevents impulse spending.
3. I suspect there will lots of unforeseen consequences, like stifling innovation, a rise in barter (black market), perhaps rise in the use of precious metals, and perhaps bitcoin. Possibly supply shortages.
4. For me, the biggest 'drawback' would be that this would allow the banks to charge negative interest rates - this means you can't take your cash out and stuff it under your mattress. (I know, we already have that with inflation).
Local currencies (scrips) are also a great solution, as are trading networks like https://www.communityexchange.net.au/home/.
I suspect there will be a lot more resistance to switching to central bank digital currency than the powers-that-shouldn't-be anticipate. Monica Smit has found that out of all the Global Walkout steps, the ones related to using cash have got the greatest engagement.
A year ago the Commonwealth Bank started getting the show on the road.
https://www.commbank.com.au/articles/newsroom/2021/10/CBA-launches-carbon-tracking-feature.html
Yet another reason to close accounts with CBA and the other members of the Big Four bankster gang, and transfer banking to credit unions and small local banks - after thoroughly vetting their policies and T&Cs, of course.
Something that has eluded me so far is what will happen to the private banks and even credit unions when a CBDC system is implemented, which would appear, at first glance, to render them redundant. And why are banks seemingly facilitating the introduction of the CBDC system? What future role do they believe they will have, if any? What incentive do they have to commit financial suicide, to be part of an engineered banking crisis that incentivises private bank customers to transfer funds to the central bank?
My mind immediately wanders towards the idea of the great grift that is now underway to usher in the New World Order, the supposed $300 trillion upward transfer of wealth, which will leave most of us owning nothing and being happy about it. That's right, we're going to get free money in the form of a universal basic income shit sandwich to compensate, hemmed in by a totalitarian, Chinese-style social credit system, though I don't think the global elite will want to be up for the bill until they can cull the human herd back to under a billion at least.
Now I don't profess to have any real expertise in the modus operandi of elite grifting, although it was an education to watch the Wall Street banks during the GFC; but apparently governments are ready for them next time, and will now expect bail-ins rather than doing bail outs, because well...governments are now broke, you know - a self-inflicted wound by any reckoning, unless you're a fully-paid-up member of the pandemicists' propaganda cult. Much better, I think, to stick with us 'conspirators' who see method in the seeming madness of chaos creation and the wilful economic destruction going on around the world.
Fascinatingly, there is still a hold-out view among some on our own side that politicians and technocrats were simply caught flat-footed, not really knowing what to do and just panicked themselves into previously unparalleled, totalitarian overreach in full ignorance of established public health protocols, and are now in full face-saving mode, ably assisted by MSM censorship and misinformation spread; that is, when they're not still lying to our faces about the safety and efficacy of the 'vaccines'. It's a seductive view alright, because we all know just how stupid and incompetent politicians and technocrats can be when they put their minds to it, so no malfeasance to see here then. Don't make me laugh.
But I've digressed. It's a full-time job trying to keep abreast of what's going on, and I don't have that sort of time. Inevitably, then, I don't have many fine details to hand, like what will happen to banks after the introduction of a CBDC regime. Will they still be the institutions that conjure money out of thin air and charge interest on it? That sounds too much like the present system whereby banksters get the fraudball rolling, and keep it rolling until it transmutates into a tidal wave of economic devastation so bad that only governments can rescue the situation.
So, any thoughts on the future of private banks and credit unions after CBDC implementation? Maybe I've just missed it, or maybe there's something obtuse about the question that I can't quite see. For a while now my brain seems to have decided it wants to impersonate a bowl of porridge. Too little sleep I'm afraid.
Of course, none of this is meant to demoralise anyone and keep them from engaging in speedbump activity like trying to keep cash viable for as long as possible.
The globalist criminal cabal appears to have stepped up the pace for implementing the CBDC regime, so using cash as far as possible might just slow things enough to get the right people into power sooner rather than later.
People like Danielle Smith in Alberta, who seems determined to get the WEF out of Albertan affairs. That'll please Monsewer Turdeau no end. Also Giorgia Meloni in Italy. It's hard to imagine Italy getting rid of cash, even as European Commission President and henchwoman of the WEF Ursula von der Lyin' has threatened them with "tools" if they don't toe the EC line. And the new Swedish Government has junked Agenda 2030 entirely.
A word to our state governments as well: just shut down the casinos if you really want to do something about money laundering.
Here's a video of Danielle Smith getting grilled in two segments by an MSM marionette. Of course, there's nothing wrong with the media grilling politicians, I just want to know where they've been for nearly three years.
https://youtu.be/Yzn4jXmoHEc
I wonder where Klaus got his fondness for marionettes? Maybe here perhaps:
https://youtu.be/3qU2jGVdjZI
Or, while it's tempting to think Klaus might spend an inordinate amount of time listening to Richard Strauss' Alpine Symphony up there in Davos, maybe he's an Elvis fan instead. We do know he's a sensitive guy who cares about minorities, women and the planet, so maybe this is his song. Just move the video along 3-5 minutes, as you please.
https://youtu.be/wBSIpBpsQJQ
Ursula von der Lyin' hasn't got nearly enough coverage for her role in the scamdemic, so here's probably most of what you need to know. Just love that photo of her with Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla.
https://www.algora.com/Algora_blog/2021/12/03/ursula-von-der-leyen-is-the-wife-of-covid-vaccine-director
And, finally, an interview: Maria Zeee interviewing Prof. Dolores Cahill about Agenda 21. There's a noisy two- minute music introduction, followed by some background on Cahill, then it gets really interesting. She discusses at one point digital money that will be phased in over what sounds like decades, a different timeframe to what is implied by the cartoon video. Cahill has read the timeline of the Agenda 21 document, with her comments only three weeks old. So why are the globalists seemingly scrambling to get the CBDC regime up and running now?
https://rumble.com/v1osjuf-uncensored-prof.-dolores-cahill-were-in-the-mass-killing-phase-of-agenda-21.html
I've wondered about what will happen to the banks and credit unions if CBDC is introduced too. Here's a little snippet of info that may (or may not) shed light on the subject: My husband recently withdrew a sizeable amount of cash from NAB (I know, I know - I've tried to get him to disinvest from the Big 4, but he has multiple personal and business accounts and it's a bit complicated). For security reasons, he was asked to go into the branch before they opened to the public, and consequently he witnessed the Monday morning staff briefing. Apparently NAB has been intimately involved with developing Australia's national digital ID system, and has now been tasked with selling it to their customers. Bank staff are now under instruction to spruik the wonderful benefits of having government, banks and no doubt, all sorts of other entities, know absolutely everything about them. My husband noted that the staff didn't look too enthusiastic about their new role. Perhaps they're starting to get a glimpse of the future.
On the UBI front, I think you're spot on: I'm sure the powers-that-shouldn't-be have done their sums and figured out that if they have less people on the planet, they can afford to be a bit more generous when it's brought in, which will mollify many of the sceptics. Then they can rachet it down over time, using other manufactured crises as the pretext.
On the incompetence vs maleficence front, there's a dialogue between Eugyppius (whom I subscribe to here on Substack) and Daniel Miller at https://im1776.com/2022/10/14/the-great-reset-dialogues/ which I found very thought-provoking. Eugyppius does make some valid points, including the fact that none of the pandemic 'preparedness' exercises, including Event 201, floated the idea of lockdown; in fact they all emphasised the importance of maintaining trade and travel. I noticed this myself when I read the documents produced for these exercises, going back to the late 1990s. Eugyppius takes this as evidence that lockdowns were implemented locally, driven by the administrative state, against the will of the would-be overlords. I suspect though that once the Chinese mass containment strategy became publicly known (and was promoted via a coordinated campaign of tweets generated by troll farms), the puppet-masters saw the advantaged of this over their own strategy, and pivoted to it. It's also noteworthy that the mass containment strategy was initially promoted in the mid-noughties by US data scientists, who managed to get the ear of George Bush (finding this considerably easier to access than his brain). It was this spasm of lockdown fever that prompted Donald Henderson (famous for developing the smallpox eradication strategy) to coauthor this paper https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17238820/ rejecting mass containment. Interestingly, one of his coauthors on the paper, Tom Inglesby, was MC for Event 201, and another, Tara O'Toole, went on to become CEO of InQTel, CIA's venture capital fund.
I share your cheer on the recent election of individuals who appear not to be on board with the WEF agenda. Despite the weapons-grade propaganda directed at us over the last (almost) 3 years, it does seem that more and more people are getting the memo and expressing their displeasure at being railroaded into massive social, economic and political changes that they were never consulted on. Gaslighting can only succeed for so long.
Thanks for the video links. Here's some you might be interested in, on the Agenda 21/2030 front - the indomitable UK Column did an interview with Sandi Adams which starts here: https://www.ukcolumn.org/video/agenda-2030-part-1
Just wondering if it’s true Germany ( cash is used widely) ending cash withdrawal and deposit by Dec 22? Do you think this is a trial , similar to banning fertiliser in Netherlands ( big) farming country?
We are encouraging family, everyone really, to save and use cash as much as possible.
I'm checking with a German contact, and will let you know when I hear back. I think that there will be a manufactured crisis (or more likely, a series of crises) which will be used to force through central bank digital currency, rather than a trial.
Yes, I have heard this too ... two degrees of separation, if you count an "person you know" in the internet. CBDC is all ready to go. Not that the EU have to manufacture a crisis, though they have done great job with their reliance on imported energy :)
Yes, agreed - trial the wrong word. Germans are prolific cash users so it wouldn’t surprise me if they at least start shutting all the ATMs - happening in many places already. The irony not realised by most people - cash is King in the wake of a crisis. A mini example - recently our local supermarkets couldn’t operate systems except with cash due to banks eftpos down. It was very quiet. I guess propagating the story that cash carried the virus was a stealth incremental part of the process. Thanks for reply.
I suspect it will be harder in Germany. People still rock up with say 50000 euros etc to pay for a car.
That's fantastic. More power to them. I bought my first car with cash that I'd saved from my part-time job (which paid cash - those were the days). It certainly wasn't 50000 euros though :) - it was a 1975 Holden Gemini which had been through many, many owners before it became my pride and joy.
I hope so! I see Italy is hoping to expand cash withdrawals…
When the Italian's protest, they really do :) On my recent trip to QLD it appeared to me that more people used cash than 'down south'.
I've heard back from my German contact, and it's not true as far as he is aware.
That’s good! Someone sent this but could be fake? I’m not on twitter.
https://publish.twitter.com/?query=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2FAlertChannel%2Fstatus%2F1587196307768221699&widget=Tweet
Scrolling through the comments, it seems that there's one German bank that won't be accepting cash deposits or giving cash withdrawals, but no other German banks are following suit (at this stage).
Yes I did see that after posting. I can’t see how they can stop cash immediately or in short term especially as people are waking up and using it more often. Thank you!
And during the fires, petrol station's eftpos machines didn't work. Folks couldn't get fuel.
https://www.gold.de/bargeld/