The 'New World Order'
 
Digital ID Or Digital Prison
Home Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 Page 7 God's Plan
The New World Order
It's An Evil And Sinister Conspiracy That Involves Very Rich And Powerful People Who Mastermind Events And Control World Affairs Through Governments And Corporations And Are Plotting Mass Population Reduction And The Emergence Of A Totalitarian World Government!   By Using Occult Secret Societies The ILLUMINATI Will Bring All Of The Nations Of This World Together As One.   We'll Have No Recourse But To Submit And Be Under Their Control Utilizing Their Digital Central Bank Currency Or To Reject This Ill-Fated Digital Identification.   The Goal Is UN Agenda 2030!   This Is The Beginning Of The End!

The World Is Accelerating Towards Digital IDs For All


The coronavirus pandemic has triggered a new focus on a global ID system. But if we're unlucky, it could be an Orwellian nightmare.

The coronavirus outbreak has accelerated initiatives focused on creating a global digital ID system.


Governments and Big Tech are building surveillance apps to control the spread of COVID-19.


But if the apps aren't built with privacy in mind they could be a dystopian disaster.


The United Nations, World Economic Forum, and Big Tech have been working together to create global digital IDs since 2014, in an effort recognized by the World Bank as important for sustainable development. Now the coronavirus is pushing this development even further.

The coronavirus pandemic has already prompted a shift towards a digital everything—including digital ID. With many people working from home, conferences are now being held virtually, work is being done remotely and people are having to sign documents electronically. But to prove that you’re you, digital ID is a must.

With more than 1.6 million confirmed cases of coronavirus and the death total set to hit 100,000 deaths in the next 24 hours, the effects of the virus haven’t stopped there. COVID-19 has had a huge impact on the global economy, with the US Federal Reserve resorting to printing money at a rate of $1 million a second just to keep it afloat.

Towards a technological surveillance regime


According to Jacob Nordangård, PhD student at Linköping University in Sweden and a speaker at the Eighth International Conference on Climate Change, this shows the world needs a global pandemic response.

“The COVID19 outbreak, with all its tragic consequences, happened to be the perfect trigger event to show the world the need for a global coordination and management of the planet, as well as the need for [a] technological surveillance regime in order to track and monitor all people and diseases (and the global value chains),” he said, in a blog post on April 6.

Tech companies and governments are already working together to build surveillance apps in order to control the spread of the coronavirus. There are at least 60 apps trying to collect this data—but while some are privacy-first, others are dystopian hellscapes.

Microsoft founder Bill Gates said, in a TED Talk last month, “Eventually we will have some digital certificates to show who has recovered or been tested recently or when we have a vaccine who has received it.”

A global identity system


Microsoft is already a founding member of a platform designed to create a global identity system, which could be used to track the spread of outbreaks, called ID2020.

ID2020 launched an alliance, funded by the Rockefeller Foundation and consulting firm Accenture, in 2017. The alliance’s main goals were also defined that year: to develop and test technological solutions for digital identity, and to work with governments and “existing, established agencies to implement these solutions.”

In the same year, the World Economic Forum stated, in a report called Digital Borders, that its goals—including for a global digital ID technology—should be prioritized because of threats such as pandemics.

The report identified key problems with the growing global population—in particular, the expected growth of international travel over the next decade. But in order to find a solution to such global problems, it said that a global digital ID is necessary.

“Yet, the proposed solutions are based on the premise that individuals have a recognized identity, when 1.5 billion people today do not,” the report stated. To ensure that such a framework is inclusive, the report added, “the broader issue of identity and digital identity has to be addressed to determine how to create effective and efficient digital identity management through acceptable global standards and norms.”

“The objective is to combine and enable the customer’s sharing of data and verified identity through a platform which, in turn, creates an effortless experience by connecting systems, facilitating passage and improving security,” it said.

Could a global digital ID threaten privacy?


A global digital ID could be used to track the spread of the coronavirus, to monitor travel and restrict the movement of those who are infected. In China, it’s already common to have your body temperature checked when you enter a building, if this data was matched to your ID—then you would have an identity that proved you weren’t infected.

But here’s the catch. It would give governments a lot of information and control over their citizens—which could be a bad idea.

NordangÃ¥rd argues that the “utopian smart society” that is currently being built by ID2020 and its partners around the world may lead to people losing access to all basic human services—unless they opt-in and have their digital identity recorded.

“Just like the Social Credit system in China,” he added.''

On the other hand, it’s possible for this information to be collected and stored in a privacy-preserving way. For example, Elastos is building a blockchain-based system that will log certain health information but where you own your own data.

Likewise, privacy-first protocol Enigma is building a coronavirus monitoring app that shares location data and infection status without revealing the personal data of the people involved.

“It is possible to leverage the power of highly detailed, accurate and widespread data to fight viral infections, without putting individuals at risk by exposing this sensitive data,” it stated, in a blog post.

With governments around the world stepping up work on digital currencies, the world might be digital before we know it.


Coronavirus Surveillance May Mean The End Of Personal Privacy


Authorities around the world are launching increasingly intrusive mass surveillance systems to track COVID-19. But will they step back afterwards?

Governments around the world are increasing surveillance.


This surveillance will be used to help stop the spread of the coronavirus.


But once over, will governments stop acting like Big Brother?


Numerous governments around the world are beginning to roll out mass surveillance systems in an attempt to slow the pandemic.

But privacy advocates are worried that when these measures have been introduced, there will be no going back. Once governments have this ability to track the population, they may be loath to give it up, begging the question, is it worth the risk?

According to The New York Times, various governments around the world are taking increasingly drastic measures in their attempt to slow the coronavirus’s spread. Many countries are currently working on or already have implemented various tracking systems that could potentially help to identify people who came in contact with positive-tested individuals.

Per the report, South Korea’s government started to post disturbingly detailed location histories of people who tested positive for the coronavirus in January. The information included when individuals went for work, whether they wore protective masks in the subway and at what stations they changed trains. Even more uncanny, people’s favorite massage parlors and karaoke bars were also publicly disclosed.

Unsurprisingly, this patient data was soon exploited and used to identify the individuals. Later on, the South Korean government made a u-turn on the decision, stating they would revise the data-sharing guidelines “to minimize patient risk.”

“We will balance the value of protecting individual human rights and privacy and the value of upholding public interest in preventing mass infections,” said Jung Eun-kyeong, the director of South Korea’s Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Yet, South Korea is just one example as mass surveillance related to the coronavirus is getting traction in many more countries around the world. EUobserver reports that people under home quarantine in Poland are required to take geo-located selfies within 20 minutes of receiving the corresponding SMS-request. Fail to comply, and you risk to face a police squad on your doorstep.

Meanwhile, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has recently approved a surveillance program that uses the domestic security agency’s data cache to track the locations of people potentially infected with the virus. The system, initially designed to fight terrorism, has now been turned against the country’s own people.

An amendment to an emergency bill in France is proposing to enable telecoms data collection for six months, in Belgium—for three months. At the same time, Austrian telecom operator A1 has reportedly granted limited government access to anonymized location data for the first two Saturdays in March.

The US is not too far behind. According to the NYT, the White House is currently in talks with Google, Facebook and other tech companies that could potentially provide aggregated location data captured from Americans’ mobile phones to help track the coronavirus.

“We could so easily end up in a situation where we empower local, state or federal government to take measures in response to this pandemic that fundamentally change the scope of American civil rights,” Albert Fox Cahn, the executive director of the Surveillance Technology Oversight Project, told the NYT.

Big Brother gets out of control


Experts around the world are expressing concerns that mass surveillance on such a scale might not stop with the outbreak. When the governments are given such power during times of crisis, who can be sure that they’ll easily let go of it when the pandemic starts to decline? 

There are a lot of ways even location data could be used for political or other gains—to track political opponents and their acquaintances, for example.

"We need to make sure it doesn't lead to surveillance after the outbreak," Estelle Massé, a senior policy analyst at the Access Now, told EUobserver.

The outlet also reports that Belgium, France and the United Kingdom are already facing the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg for their “Big Brother approach” to the pandemic.

“We need to have a framework that would allow companies and public authorities to cooperate, to enable proper response for the public good. To reduce the risk that coronavirus surveillance efforts might violate people’s privacy, governments and companies should limit the collection and use of data to only what is needed,” noted Mila Romanoff, data and governance lead for United Nations Global Pulse.

But how much data is enough?

The Point of No Return: Climate Change Nightmares Are Already Here

Walruses, like these in Alaska, are being forced ashore in record numbers. Corey Accardo/NOAA/AP

Historians may look to 2015 as the year when things really started getting worse. In just the past few months, record-setting heat waves in Pakistan and India each killed more than 1,000 people. In Washington state's Olympic National Park, the rainforest caught fire for the first time in living memory.

London reached 98 degrees Fahrenheit during the hottest July day ever recorded in the U.K.; The Guardian briefly had to pause its live blog of the heat wave because its computer servers overheated. In California, suffering from its worst drought in a millennium, a 50-acre brush fire swelled seventy fold in a matter of hours, jumping across the I-15 freeway during rush-hour traffic. Then, a few days later, the region was pounded by intense, virtually unheard-of summer rains. Puerto Rico is under its strictest water rationing in history as a monster El Niño forms in the tropical Pacific Ocean, shifting weather patterns worldwide.

On July 20th, James Hansen, the former NASA climatologist who brought climate change to the public's attention in the summer of 1988, issued a bombshell: He and a team of climate scientists had identified a newly important feedback mechanism off the coast of Antarctica that suggests mean sea levels could rise 10 times faster than previously predicted: 10 feet by 2065. The authors included this chilling warning: If emissions aren't cut, "We conclude that multi-meter sea-level rise would become practically unavoidable. Social disruption and economic consequences of such large sea-level rise could be devastating. It is not difficult to imagine that conflicts arising from forced migrations and economic collapse might make the planet ungovernable, threatening the fabric of civilization."

Eric Rignot, a climate scientist at NASA and the University of California-Irvine and a co-author on Hansen's study, said their new research doesn't necessarily change the worst-case scenario on sea-level rise, it just makes it much more pressing to think about and discuss, especially among world leaders. In particular, says Rignot, the new research shows a two-degree Celsius rise in global temperature — the previously agreed upon "safe" level of climate change — "would be a catastrophe for sea-level rise."

Hansen's new study also shows how complicated and unpredictable climate change can be. Even as global ocean temperatures rise to their highest levels in recorded history, some parts of the ocean, near where ice is melting exceptionally fast, are actually cooling, slowing ocean circulation currents and sending weather patterns into a frenzy. Sure enough, a persistently cold patch of ocean is starting to show up just south of Greenland, exactly where previous experimental predictions of a sudden surge of freshwater from melting ice expected it to be. Michael Mann, another prominent climate scientist, recently said of the unexpectedly sudden Atlantic slowdown, "This is yet another example of where observations suggest that climate model predictions may be too conservative when it comes to the pace at which certain aspects of climate change are proceeding."

Since storm systems and jet streams in the United States and Europe partially draw their energy from the difference in ocean temperatures, the implication of one patch of ocean cooling while the rest of the ocean warms is profound. Storms will get stronger, and sea-level rise will accelerate. Scientists like Hansen only expect extreme weather to get worse in the years to come, though Mann said it was still "unclear" whether recent severe winters on the East Coast are connected to the phenomenon.

And yet, these aren't even the most disturbing changes happening to the Earth's biosphere that climate scientists are discovering this year. For that, you have to look not at the rising sea levels but to what is actually happening within the oceans themselves.

Water temperatures this year in the North Pacific have never been this high for this long over such a large area — and it is already having a profound effect on marine life.

Eighty-year-old Roger Thomas runs whale-watching trips out of San Francisco. On an excursion earlier this year, Thomas spotted 25 humpbacks and three blue whales. During a survey on July 4th, federal officials spotted 115 whales in a single hour near the Farallon Islands — enough to issue a boating warning. Humpbacks are occasionally seen offshore in California, but rarely so close to the coast or in such numbers. Why are they coming so close to shore? Exceptionally warm water has concentrated the krill and anchovies they feed on into a narrow band of relatively cool coastal water. The whales are having a heyday. "It's unbelievable," Thomas told a local paper. 
"Whales are all over the place."

Last fall, in northern Alaska, in the same part of the Arctic where Shell is planning to drill for oil, federal scientists discovered 35,000 walruses congregating on a single beach. It was the largest-ever documented "haul out" of walruses, and a sign that sea ice, their favored habitat, is becoming harder and harder to find.

Marine life is moving north, adapting in real time to the warming ocean. Great white sharks have been sighted breeding near Monterey Bay, California, the farthest north that's ever been known to occur. A blue marlin was caught last summer near Catalina Island — 1,000 miles north of its typical range. Across California, there have been sightings of non-native animals moving north, such as Mexican red crabs. 

No species may be as uniquely endangered as the one most associated with the Pacific Northwest, the salmon. Every two weeks, Bill Peterson, an oceanographer and senior scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Northwest Fisheries Science Center in Oregon, takes to the sea to collect data he uses to forecast the return of salmon. What he's been seeing this year is deeply troubling.

Salmon are crucial to their coastal ecosystem like perhaps few other species on the planet. A significant portion of the nitrogen in West Coast forests has been traced back to salmon, which can travel hundreds of miles upstream to lay their eggs. The largest trees on Earth simply wouldn't exist without salmon.

But their situation is precarious. This year, officials in California are bringing salmon downstream in convoys of trucks, because river levels are too low and the temperatures too warm for them to have a reasonable chance of surviving. One species, the winter-run Chinook salmon, is at a particularly increased risk of decline in the next few years, should the warm water persist offshore.

"You talk to fishermen, and they all say: 'We've never seen anything like this before,' " says Peterson. "So when you have no experience with something like this, it gets like, 'What the hell's going on?' "

Atmospheric scientists increasingly believe that the exceptionally warm waters over the past months are the early indications of a phase shift in the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, a cyclical warming of the North Pacific that happens a few times each century. Positive phases of the PDO have been known to last for 15 to 20 years, during which global warming can increase at double the rate as during negative phases of the PDO. It also makes big El Niños, like this year's, more likely.

The nature of PDO phase shifts is unpredictable — climate scientists simply haven't yet figured out precisely what's behind them and why they happen when they do. It's not a permanent change — the ocean's temperature will likely drop from these record highs, at least temporarily, some time over the next few years — but the impact on marine species will be lasting, and scientists have pointed to the PDO as a global-warming preview.

"The climate [change] models predict this gentle, slow increase in temperature," says Peterson, "but the main problem we've had for the last few years is the variability is so high. As scientists, we can't keep up with it, and neither can the animals." Peterson likens it to a boxer getting pummeled round after round: "At some point, you knock them down, and the fight is over." 

Attendant with this weird wildlife behavior is a stunning drop in the number of plankton — the basis of the ocean's food chain. In July,another major study concluded that acidifying oceans are likely to have a "quite traumatic" impact on plankton diversity, with some species dying out while others flourish. As the oceans absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, it's converted into carbonic acid — and the pH of seawater declines. According to lead author Stephanie Dutkiewicz of MIT, that trend means "the whole food chain is going to be different."

The Hansen study may have gotten more attention, but the Dutkiewicz study, and others like it, could have even more dire implications for our future. The rapid changes Dutkiewicz and her colleagues are observing have shocked some of their fellow scientists into thinking that yes, actually, we're heading toward the worst-case scenario. Unlike a prediction of massive sea-level rise just decades away, the warming and acidifying oceans represent a problem that seems to have kick-started a mass extinction on the same time scale.

Jacquelyn Gill is a paleoecologist at the University of Maine. She knows a lot about extinction, and her work is more relevant than ever. Essentially, she's trying to save the species that are alive right now by learning more about what killed off the ones that aren't. The ancient data she studies shows "really compelling evidence that there can be events of abrupt climate change that can happen well within human life spans. We're talking less than a decade."

For the past year or two, a persistent change in winds over the North Pacific has given rise to what meteorologists and oceanographers are calling "the blob" — a highly anomalous patch of warm water between Hawaii, Alaska and Baja California that's thrown the marine ecosystem into a tailspin. Amid warmer temperatures, plankton numbers have plummeted, and the myriad species that depend on them have migrated or seen their own numbers dwindle.

Significant northward surges of warm water have happened before, even frequently. El Niño, for example, does this on a predictable basis. But what's happening this year appears to be something new. Some climate scientists think that the wind shift is linked to the rapid decline in Arctic sea ice over the past few years, which separate research has shown makes weather patterns more likely to get stuck.

A similar shift in the behavior of the jet stream has also contributed to the California drought and severe polar vortex winters in the Northeast over the past two years. An amplified jet-stream pattern has produced an unusual doldrum off the West Coast that's persisted for most of the past 18 months. Daniel Swain, a Stanford University meteorologist, has called it the "Ridiculously Resilient Ridge" — weather patterns just aren't supposed to last this long.

What's increasingly uncontroversial among scientists is that in many ecosystems, the impacts of the current off-the-charts temperatures in the North Pacific will linger for years, or longer. The largest ocean on Earth, the Pacific is exhibiting cyclical variability to greater extremes than other ocean basins. 

While the North Pacific is currently the most dramatic area of change in the world's oceans, it's not alone: Globally, 2014 was a record-setting year for ocean temperatures, and 2015 is on pace to beat it soundly, boosted by the El Niño in the Pacific.

Six percent of the world's reefs could disappear before the end of the decade, perhaps permanently, thanks to warming waters.

Since warmer oceans expand in volume, it's also leading to a surge in sea-level rise. One recent study showed a slowdown in Atlantic Ocean currents, perhaps linked to glacial melt from Greenland, that caused a four-inch rise in sea levels along the Northeast coast in just two years, from 2009 to 2010. To be sure, it seems like this sudden and unpredicted surge was only temporary, but scientists who studied the surge estimated it to be a 1-in-850-year event, and it's been blamed on accelerated beach erosion "almost as significant as some hurricane events." 

Possibly worse than rising ocean temperatures is the acidification of the waters. Acidification has a direct effect on mollusks and other marine animals with hard outer bodies: A striking study last year showed that, along the West Coast, the shells of tiny snails are already dissolving, with as-yet-unknown consequences on the ecosystem. One of the study's authors, Nina Bednaršek, told Science magazine that the snails' shells, pitted by the acidifying ocean, resembled "cauliflower" or "sandpaper." A similarly striking study by more than a dozen of the world's top ocean scientists this July said that the current pace of increasing carbon emissions would force an "effectively irreversible" change on ocean ecosystems during this century. In as little as a decade, the study suggested, chemical changes will rise significantly above background levels in nearly half of the world's oceans.

"I used to think it was kind of hard to make things in the ocean go extinct," James Barry of the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute in California told the Seattle Times in 2013. "But this change we're seeing is happening so fast it's almost instantaneous." 

Thanks to the pressure we're putting on the planet's ecosystem — warming, acidification and good old-fashioned pollution — the oceans are set up for several decades of rapid change. Here's what could happen next.

The combination of excessive nutrients from agricultural runoff, abnormal wind patterns and the warming oceans is already creating seasonal dead zones in coastal regions when algae blooms suck up most of the available oxygen. The appearance of low-oxygen regions has doubled in frequency every 10 years since 1960 and should continue to grow over the coming decades at an even greater rate.

So far, dead zones have remained mostly close to the coasts, but in the 21st century, deep-ocean dead zones could become common. These low-oxygen regions could gradually expand in size — potentially thousands of miles across — which would force fish, whales, pretty much everything upward. If this were to occur, large sections of the temperate deep oceans would suffer should the oxygen-free layer grow so pronounced that it stratifies, pushing surface ocean warming into overdrive and hindering upwelling of cooler, nutrient-rich deeper water.

Enhanced evaporation from the warmer oceans will create heavier downpours, perhaps destabilizing the root systems of forests, and accelerated runoff will pour more excess nutrients into coastal areas, further enhancing dead zones. In the past year, downpours have broken records in Long Island, Phoenix, Detroit, Baltimore, Houston and Pensacola, Florida.

Evidence for the above scenario comes in large part from our best understanding of what happened 250 million years ago, during the "Great Dying," when more than 90 percent of all oceanic species perished after a pulse of carbon dioxide and methane from land-based sources began a period of profound climate change. The conditions that triggered "Great Dying" took hundreds of thousands of years to develop. But humans have been emitting carbon dioxide at a much quicker rate, so the current mass extinction only took 100 years or so to kick-start.

With all these stressors working against it, a hypoxic feedback loop could wind up destroying some of the oceans' most species-rich ecosystems within our lifetime. A recent study by Sarah Moffitt of the University of California-Davis said it could take the ocean thousands of years to recover. "Looking forward for my kid, people in the future are not going to have the same ocean that I have today," Moffitt said.

As you might expect, having tickets to the front row of a global environmental catastrophe is taking an increasingly emotional toll on scientists, and in some cases pushing them toward advocacy. Of the two dozen or so scientists interviewed for this piece, virtually all drifted into apocalyptic language at some point.

For Simone Alin, an oceanographer focusing on ocean acidification at NOAA's Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory in Seattle, the changes she's seeing hit close to home. The Puget Sound is a natural laboratory for the coming decades of rapid change because its waters are naturally more acidified than most of the world's marine ecosystems.

The local oyster industry here is already seeing serious impacts from acidifying waters and is going to great lengths to avoid a total collapse. Alin calls oysters, which are non-native, the canary in the coal mine for the Puget Sound: "A canary is also not native to a coal mine, but that doesn't mean it's not a good indicator of change."

Though she works on fundamental oceanic changes every day, the Dutkiewicz study on the impending large-scale changes to plankton caught her off-guard: "This was alarming to me because if the basis of the food web changes, then . . . everything could change, right?"

Alin's frank discussion of the looming oceanic apocalypse is perhaps a product of studying unfathomable change every day. But four years ago, the birth of her twins "heightened the whole issue," she says. "I was worried enough about these problems before having kids that I maybe wondered whether it was a good idea. Now, it just makes me feel crushed." 

Katharine Hayhoe, a climate scientist and evangelical Christian, moved from Canada to Texas with her husband, a pastor, precisely because of its vulnerability to climate change. There, she engages with the evangelical community on science — almost as a missionary would. But she's already planning her exit strategy: "If we continue on our current pathway, Canada will be home for us long term. But the majority of people don't have an exit strategy. . . . So that's who I'm here trying to help."

James Hansen, the dean of climate scientists, retired from NASA in 2013 to become a climate activist. But for all the gloom of the report he just put his name to, Hansen is actually somewhat hopeful. That's because he knows that climate change has a straightforward solution: End fossil-fuel use as quickly as possible. If tomorrow, the leaders of the United States and China would agree to a sufficiently strong, coordinated carbon tax that's also applied to imports, the rest of the world would have no choice but to sign up. This idea has already been pitched to Congress several times, with tepid bipartisan support. Even though a carbon tax is probably a long shot, for Hansen, even the slim possibility that bold action like this might happen is enough for him to devote the rest of his life to working to achieve it. On a conference call with reporters in July, Hansen said a potential joint U.S.-China carbon tax is more important than whatever happens at the United Nations climate talks in Paris.

One group Hansen is helping is Our Children's Trust, a legal advocacy organization that's filed a number of novel challenges on behalf of minors under the idea that climate change is a violation of intergenerational equity — children, the group argues, are lawfully entitled to inherit a healthy planet.

A separate challenge to U.S. law is being brought by a former EPA scientist arguing that carbon dioxide isn't just a pollutant (which, under the Clean Air Act, can dissipate on its own), it's also a toxic substance. In general, these substances have exceptionally long life spans in the environment, cause an unreasonable risk, and therefore require remediation. In this case, remediation may involve planting vast numbers of trees or restoring wetlands to bury excess carbon underground.

Even if these novel challenges succeed, it will take years before a bend in the curve is noticeable. But maybe that's enough. When all feels lost, saving a few species will feel like a triumph.        
Odds are good that the worst wildfire disaster in U.S. history might not happen in the West – but in New Jersey.

‘No Cash’ Signs Everywhere Has Sweden Worried It’s Gone Too Far


“No cash accepted” signs are becoming an increasingly common sight in shops and eateries across Sweden as payments go digital and mobile.

But the pace at which cash is vanishing has authorities worried. A broad review of central bank legislation that’s under way is now taking a special look at the situation, with an interim report due as early as the summer.

“If this development with cash disappearing happens too fast, it can be difficult to maintain the infrastructure” for handling cash, said Mats Dillen, the head of the parliamentary review. He declined to give more details on the types of proposals that could be included in the report.

Sweden is widely regarded as the most cashless society on the planet. Most of the country’s bank branches have stopped handling cash; many shops, museums and restaurants now only accept plastic or mobile payments. But there’s a downside, since many people, in particular the elderly, don’t have access to the digital society.

“One may get into a negative spiral which can threaten the cash infrastructure,” Dillen said. “It’s those types of issues we are looking more closely at.”

Last year, the amount of cash in circulation in Sweden dropped to the lowest level since 1990 and is more than 40 percent below its 2007 peak. The declines in 2016 and 2017 were the biggest on record.

An annual survey by Insight Intelligence released last month found that only 25 percent of Swedes paid in cash at least once a week in 2017, down from 63 percent just four years ago. A full 36 percent never use cash, or just pay with it once or twice a year.

In response, the central bank is considering whether there’s a need for an official form of digital currency, an e-krona. A final proposal isn’t expected until late next year, but the idea is that the e-krona would work as a complement to cash, not replace it completely.

Riksbank Governor Stefan Ingves has said Sweden should consider forcing banks to provide cash to customers. In its annual report on Monday, the Riksbank said the question is what role it should play in a future with even fewer cash payments.

“The Riksbank is carefully analyzing this development,” Ingves said. “Overall, I think we are facing structural changes in areas that have previously been stable. This is a development which will affect all the Riksbank’s departments and we will need to make strategic decisions regarding the way forward.”
 
 
  
 
In Sweden, A Cash-Free Future Nears
 

Parishioners text tithes to their churches. Homeless street vendors carry mobile credit-card readers. Even the Abba Museum, despite being a shrine to the 1970s pop group that wrote “Money, Money, Money,” considers cash so last-century that it does not accept bills and coins.

Few places are tilting toward a cashless future as quickly as Sweden, which has become hooked on the convenience of paying by app and plastic.

This tech-forward country, home to the music streaming service Spotify and the maker of the Candy Crush mobile games, has been lured by the innovations that make digital payments easier. It is also a practical matter, as many of the country’s banks no longer accept or dispense cash.

At the Abba Museum, “we don’t want to be behind the times by taking cash while cash is dying out,” said Bjorn Ulvaeus, a former Abba member who has leveraged the band’s legacy into a sprawling business empire, including the museum.

Not everyone is cheering. Sweden’s embrace of electronic payments has alarmed consumer organizations and critics who warn of a rising threat to privacy and increased vulnerability to sophisticated Internet crimes. Last year, the number of electronic fraud cases surged to 140,000, more than double the amount a decade ago, according to Sweden’s Ministry of Justice.

Older adults and refugees in Sweden who use cash may be marginalized, critics say. And young people who use apps to pay for everything or take out loans via their mobile phones risk falling into debt.

“It might be trendy,” said Bjorn Eriksson, a former director of the Swedish police force and former president of Interpol. “But there are all sorts of risks when a society starts to go cashless.”

But advocates like Mr. Ulvaeus cite personal safety as a reason that countries should go cash-free. He switched to using only card and electronic payments after his son’s Stockholm apartment was burglarized twice several years ago.

“There was such a feeling of insecurity,” said Mr. Ulvaeus, who carries no cash at all. “It made me think: What would happen if this was a cashless society, and the robbers couldn’t sell what they stole?”

Bills and coins now represent just 2 percent of Sweden’s economy, compared with 7.7 percent in the United States and 10 percent in the euro area. This year, only about 20 percent of all consumer payments in Sweden have been made in cash, compared with an average of 75 percent in the rest of the world, according to Euromonitor International.

Cards are still king in Sweden — with nearly 2.4 billion credit and debit transactions in 2013, compared with 213 million 15 years earlier. But even plastic is facing competition, as a rising number of Swedes use apps for everyday commerce.

At more than half of the branches of the country’s biggest banks, including SEB, Swedbank, Nordea Bank and others, no cash is kept on hand, nor are cash deposits accepted. They say they are saving a significant amount on security by removing the incentive for bank robberies.

Last year, Swedish bank vaults held around 3.6 billion kronor in notes and coins, down from 8.7 billion in 2010, according to the Bank for International Settlements. Cash machines, which are controlled by a Swedish bank consortium, are being dismantled by the hundreds, especially in rural areas.

Mr. Eriksson, who now heads the Association of Swedish Private Security Companies, a lobbying group for firms providing security for cash transfers, accuses banks and credit card companies of trying to “price cash out of the market” to make way for cards and electronic payments, which generate fee income.

“I don’t think that’s something they should decide on their own,” he said. “Should they really be able to use their market force to turn Sweden into a cashless society?”

The government has not sought to stem the cashless tide. If anything, it has benefited from more efficient tax collection, because electronic transactions leave a trail; in countries like Greece and Italy, where cash is still heavily used, tax evasion remains a big problem.

Leif Trogen, an official at the Swedish Bankers’ Association, acknowledged that banks were earning substantial fee income from the cashless revolution. But because it costs money for banks and businesses to conduct commerce in cash, reducing its use makes financial sense, Mr. Trogen said.

Cash is certainly not dead. The Swedish central bank, the Riksbank, predicts it will decline fast but still be circulating in 20 years. Recently, the Riksbank issued newly redesigned coins and notes.

But for an increasing number of consumers, cash is no longer a habit.

At the University of Gothenburg, students said they almost exclusively used cards and electronic payments. “No one uses cash,” said Hannah Ek, 23. “I think our generation can live without it.”

The downside, she conceded, was that it was easy to spend without thinking. “I do spend more,” Ms. Ek said. “But if I had a 500 krona bill, I’d think twice about spending it all.” (Five hundred kronor is about $58.)

The shift has rippled through even the most unlikely corners of the Swedish economy.

Stefan Wikberg, 65, was homeless for four years after losing his job as an I.T. technician. He has a place to live now and sells magazines for Situation Stockholm, a charitable organization, and began using a mobile card reader to take payments, after noticing that almost no one carried cash.

“Now people can’t get away,” said Mr. Wikberg, who carries a sign saying he accepts Visa, MasterCard and American Express. “When they say, ‘I don’t have change,’ I tell them they can pay with card or even by SMS,” he said, referring to text messages. His sales have grown by 30 percent since he adopted the card reader two years ago.

At the Filadelfia Stockholm church, so few of the 1,000 parishioners now carry cash that the church had to adapt, said Soren Eskilsson, the executive pastor.

During a recent Sunday service, the church’s bank account number was projected onto a large screen. Worshipers pulled out cellphones and tithed through an app called Swish, a payment system set up by Sweden’s biggest banks that is fast becoming a rival to cards.

Other congregants lined up at a special “Kollektomat” card machine, where they could transfer funds to various church operations. Last year, out of 20 million kronor in tithes collected, more than 85 percent came in by card or digital payment.

“People give more money to the church now because it’s electronic and easy,” said Mr. Eskilsson, adding that the church saved on security costs by handling less cash.

Despite the convenience, even some who stand to gain from a cashless society see drawbacks.

“Sweden has always been at the forefront of technology, so it’s easy to embrace this,” said Jacob de Geer, a founder of iZettle, which makes a mobile-powered card reader.

“But Big Brother can watch exactly what you’re doing if you purchase things only electronically,” he said.

But for Mr. Ulvaeus, the music magnate, such concerns are overblown.

“Everything speaks in favor of a cashless society,” he said as he strolled past the Abba Museum to retrieve his car. “It’s a utopian thought, but we’re very close to it.”

He paused at a hot-dog stand for a snack. But when he was ready to pay, the card reader was broken.

“Sorry,” the vendor said. “You’ll have to use cash.”

Prepare To Be Scanned


I am whoever I say I am?

The claim that biometrics are not ready for widespread application may seem puzzling, given the advances in computer technology. To understand the reservations of the experts, it is necessary to take a closer look at how biometrics work. Biometrics can be used in two ways. The first is identification (“who is this person?”), in which a subject's identity is determined by comparing a measured biometric against a database of stored records—a one-to-many comparison. The second is verification (“is this person who he claims to be?”), which involves a one-to-one comparison between a measured biometric and one known to come from a particular person. All biometrics can be used for verification, but different kinds of biometric vary in the extent to which they can be used for identification. They also vary in cost, complexity and intrusiveness. So which biometrics have been chosen for the new passports, visas and identity cards, and why? The oldest biometric is the one we use most frequently—a person's face. But while recognising faces is something that people can do easily, computers find it very difficult. Most computerised face-recognition systems work by building a template based on 30 or so “markers”—the positions of the edges of the eyes, the cheekbones, the base of the nose, and so on. These markers are chosen so that they are unaffected by expression or the presence of facial hair. Matching faces is then a matter of matching the templates. “Biometrics still do not work well enough for many applications in which they are being deployed” However, the results of an American government test released in March cast doubt on the accuracy of face-recognition systems. The test, called the Face Recognition Vendor Test, used systems from ten leading firms and a database of 121,589 images of 37,437 people. None of the systems worked well in a formal identification mode when shown a face and asked to identify the subject; nor did they work well when trying to recognise a face surreptitiously. However, three of the systems could be used for verifying identity in a controlled environment, such as the booths used to take passport photos. Joseph Atick of Identix, a biometrics vendor based in Minnetonka, Minnesota that took part in the test, insists that the deployment of his company's system by customers such as the state of Colorado, which is using it to try to prevent individuals from obtaining multiple driving licences, attests to the viability of facial biometrics. But Joel Lisker, a biometrics consultant who has worked extensively with America's Transportation Security Administration (TSA), says face-recognition systems have yet to prove themselves. In the TSA's own tests, not a single wanted person was spotted. 


A hands-on approach


The first biometric technology to become widely used was hand geometry. It involves scanning the shape, size and other characteristics (such as finger length) of some or all of the hand. Users are required to make some claim about who they are—by swiping a card, for example—before a scan. The biometric template of the person they claim to be (in some cases, stored on the card itself) is then compared with the scan. Because it relies on comparatively simple sensors, hand geometry does not require the fancy technology that underpins other biometric systems, which gave it a head start. Bill Spence of Recognition Systems, a biometrics company based in Campbell, California, says San Francisco's international airport has used hand-geometry systems to control employee access since 1993. Another system, at Ben Gurion airport in Israel, uses hand geometry to allow trusted passengers to pass security control. A similar system deployed in America, called INSPASS, allows frequent travellers to the United States to skip immigration queues at several large airports. Hand-geometry systems are already used to control access and verify identities at many airports, offices, factories, schools, hospitals, nuclear-power plants and high-security government buildings. They are also used in “time and attendance” systems, in which shift workers clock on and off using their handprints—preventing time-card fraud through “buddy punching”. One benefit of hand geometry is that unlike fingerprint scanning, it is not stigmatised by an association with law enforcement. However, hand geometry has a key problem: people's hands do not differ enough for it to be used as an identification system. As a result, says Dr Atick, hand geometry's market share is plunging. The technology which is perhaps most responsible for the decline in hand geometry is finger scanning. Ink-based fingerprints have been in use for over a century, but in recent years they have gone digital. Modern electronic systems distil the arches, loops and whorls of conventional fingerprints into a numerical code. This can be compared with a database in seconds and with an extraordinary degree of accuracy. Identix, which sells such a system, was recently selected by America's Department of Homeland Security to provide fingerprint scanners at Citizenship and Immigration Services offices across the country. The remarkable success of fingerprints as a forensic tool for law-enforcement agencies has come about because these agencies take fingerprints very meticulously. All ten fingers are used, and each finger must be rolled back and forth, to get “nail-to-nail coverage”. Such thoroughness is appropriate in a police station, however, but not in an airport. Another problem is that around 5% of people do not have readable fingerprints, either because their fingerprints are genetically indistinct or because years of manual labour have worn them down. And while the technology is now relatively cheap—basic digital fingerprint readers cost less than $100—it is not foolproof. Some fingerprint scanners can be spoofed with nothing more than a breath of hot air, which reactivates latent prints left on the scanner. And Tsutomu Matsumoto, a researcher at Yokohama National University, was able to fool fingerprint scanners around 80% of the time using fingers made of moulded gelatin. 


An eye for an eye


Another option is to scan the eye. Such systems date back to the 1970s, when the retina, the surface of the back of the eye, was considered the useful bit, mostly because medical techniques for probing it had been developed. The iris, the coloured part surrounding the pupil, had been less thoroughly investigated. However, almost all experts now agree that the iris makes a better biometric than the retina, because it can be more easily examined. The use of cameras to measure the fibres, furrows and freckles in the iris is familiar from numerous spy films, with good reason: iris scanning is generally deemed to be the most reliable biometric. According to Peter Higgins, a biometrics consultant, the most widespread use of iris biometrics to date has been in Afghanistan, where the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) is using iris scans to attempt to prevent refugees from collecting benefits more than once. Though the system has logged over 7m transactions, Mr Higgins points out that, because it is impossible to collect meaningful statistics in such an uncontrolled environment, no one has any idea how well the system has performed. Smaller-scale tests of other state-of-the-art iris systems, described in a GAO report, indicate that the rate of false non-matches can be as a high as 6%. This would mean that one in 20 attempts to claim benefits twice would be successful. Given the paltry sums being given to each refugee, it is not clear that the cost of deploying this anti-fraud system was justified. However, the UNHCR points out that it may have had a useful deterrent effect. Other biometrics include voice recognition, which is cheap, but not terribly reliable; gait recognition, which attempts to recognise people from the way they walk; dynamic signature-recognition, based on analysis of the shape of a signature and the way the pen moves while it is being written; and thermal imaging, which seeks to identify people by the pattern of heat which their bodies emit. But none of these technologies is taken seriously enough for use in a passport. Given all the limitations of individual biometrics, the best way forward in the long run, according to a forthcoming paper by Anil Jain, a biometrics expert at Michigan State University, will be the use of “multibiometric” systems. These combine several different biometrics in a single security system with almost universal coverage. For even if someone's fingerprints cannot be read, it is likely that his irises can be, and vice versa. Furthermore, Dr Jain points out that combining several different systems can lead to substantial improvements in error rates. 


And the winner is...


So it is only logical to expect biometric passports and visas to take a multibiometric approach. America has decided on a combination of finger scanning and face recognition, and Europe seems to be leaning towards the same combination. Oman and the United Arab Emirates will issue biometric identity cards based on finger-scanning technology, to which Britain plans to add iris scans. All of these plans accord with the recommendation of the International Civil Aviation Organisation, which recently proposed that finger scanning should be adopted as an international standard, chiefly because fingerprint readers are much cheaper than iris scanners. However, America is also adopting face recognition because, say officials, they do not have the fingerprints of many terrorists, but they do have pictures. While this sounds like a logical explanation, Mr Higgins notes that, given the high error rates of facial-recognition systems, in relying on such a system, “you would really be exposing yourself.” The other critical choice, driven by the limitations of biometric technology, is that these biometrics will be used for verification, not identification. That is because identification is simply not feasible with databases containing millions of users. There are two key measures of how good a biometric system is: the false match rate, and the false non-match rate. These two can be balanced against each other. Tune the system to be tolerant, so that everything matches, and you have a false non-match rate of zero, but a very high false match rate; conversely, in a system that is so strict that it allows no matches, the false match rate is zero, but the false non-match rate is 100%. In an identification system, particularly one that has to search a large database of millions of templates, the task is much harder. Even a false match rate of one in 10,000 would produce thousands of false matches. And if you are trying to spot members of a small group of known terrorists, even the best of today's biometric systems produce hundreds of false matches for every correct match with a terrorist. The result is that the system is flooded with false alarms, which are routinely ignored, providing almost no additional security. As a result, the new border-control systems now being implemented at American border posts are merely verification systems. 


Now for the catch


The trouble is, it is not clear that these identity-verification systems are worth the cost and trouble of introducing them. All 19 of the September 11th hijackers entered the United States using valid visas, on their own passports, for example. Verifying their identities using biometric visas would have made no difference. Worse, spending the billions of dollars that the GAO estimates will be necessary to implement biometric systems at border-crossing points—$1.4 billion to $2.9 billion initially, and $700m to $1.5 billion annually thereafter—may mean there is less to spend on other areas of security. America has long land-borders with Canada and Mexico, and tens of thousands of miles of coastline. Using biometrics at airports does little to reduce the level of illegal immigration, since most such entries do not occur at airports, but over the far more porous land and sea borders. The new system will, however, be ideally suited for spotting tourists or students who overstay on their visas, but that is a trivial issue. The cost of the new system will not just be financial. All visas will now have to be issued face to face, so that scanning can take place. This will put a huge administrative load on America's consulates around the world, which currently issue two-fifths of visas by post. Given the limitations of current biometric technology, the Big Brotherish concerns raised by privacy advocates are largely misplaced, at least for the time being. Other technologies, such as internet wiretapping and the ability to track the location of mobile phones, will arguably make much more substantial encroachments on privacy over the next few years. However, in the long term, biometrics, by their very nature, will compromise privacy in a deep and thorough fashion. If and when face-recognition technology improves to the point where surreptitious cameras can routinely recognise individuals, privacy, as it has existed in the public sphere, will in effect be wiped out. No doubt there will be some benefits: fraud, in particular the persistent and increasingly annoying problem of identity theft, might be substantially reduced if biometric-identification systems, introduced in the form of passports, visas and identity cards, become widespread. But privacy advocates argue that such benefits are not worth the risk of “function creep”—that once biometric passes have been issued by governments, it will be tempting to use them for all sorts of things, from buspasses to logging on to your office PC. Spurred by the misplaced enthusiasm of governments around the world, biometrics seem headed for dramatic growth in the next few years. But calm, public discussion of their benefits and drawbacks has been lamentably lacking. Such discussion is necessary both to prevent the waste of public money in the short term—for the most part, the private sector has been wiser in its adoption of biometrics—but also to regulate what will eventually have the potential to become a powerful mechanism for social control.

SUBSEQUENT TO UN AGENDA 2030: AGENDA 21




The United Nations (UN) is an intergovernmental organization that was set up by the winners of World War II to maintain global peace and security, foster friendly relations among nations, achieve international cooperation, and coordinate harmonic interactions between nations. The UN’s primary goal was to prevent future wars.

Since its debut and in spite of its founders’ best intentions, the UN has become nothing short of a dictatorial body of New World Order totalitarian globalists. This elite consortium wants to micro-manage every human’s daily affairs and has enacted international pacts to get their way.

For decades, the UN has been pushing a concept they continue to promote which they call “sustainable development.” It is the driving force behind everything else on Agenda 21 which, for the first time in international politics: “recognized each nation’s right to pursue social and economic progress and assigned to States the responsibility of adopting a model of sustainable development.”

Agenda 21 was signed and supported by more than 178 governments at the UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, from June 3-14, 1992. The “21” in Agenda 21 refers to the 21st century.

Critics regard Agenda 21 as the action plan implemented worldwide to inventory and control all land, all water, all minerals, all plants, all animals, all construction, all means of production, all energy, all education, all information, and all human beings in the world.

UN Agenda 21, in short:

Calls for governments to take control of all land use and not leave any of the decision making in the hands of private property owners; Assumes that people are not good stewards of their land and the government will do a better job if they are in control; Individual rights, in general, are to give way to the needs of communities as determined by the governing body; People should be rounded up off the land and packed into human settlements, or islands of human habitation, close to employment centers and transportation.

Before Agenda 21 came the United Nation’s Millennium Declaration, “signed in September 2000 (and) commits world leaders to combat poverty, hunger, disease, illiteracy, environmental degradation, and discrimination against women. The MDGs (Millennium Development Goals) are derived from this Declaration, and all have specific targets and indicators.”

The notion underlying sustainable development is that humankind is already damned by and guilty of irrecoverable socioeconomic and climate conditions – which is itself debatable – and that there are too many people living on earth for the resources available to them in their specific localities.

Therefore, according to this thinking, large populations of impoverished, third-world citizens must be moved to first- and second-world countries to equal opportunity for everyone. This will solve global poverty, say the UN pundits.

In fact, the recent migrant influx into European Union countries has paid off in rising crime and an unwillingness to integrate into the host communities and culture. Yet, the UN sustainability goals are still the driving force behind much of the international policy-making.

AGENDA 2030

The United Nations 2030 Agenda is a blueprint for the global enslavement of humanity under the boot of corporate masters. The UN trotted out its latest Agenda 2030, also known as the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG’s) for approval during the UN Sustainable Development Summit in 2015. Agenda 2030 is a continuation and further refinement of the eight “Millennium Development Goals,” (MDGs) adopted in 2000, as well as the goals specified in Agenda 21, approved in 2012 with its outcome document called “The Future We Want.”

Since 1 January 2016, the 17 “Sustainable Development Goals Post-2015” (SDGs) of UN Agenda 2030 have been in force. These goals cover seven broad categories that govern pretty much everyone and everything on earth:

Water and sanitation

Water resources
Transboundary integrated management (river borders)
Energy
Climate change
Sustainable consumption and production – lifestyles
Deforestation

Tom DeWeese, president of the American Policy Center, called Agenda 21 “a new kind of tyranny that, if not stopped, will surely lead us to a new Dark Ages of pain and misery yet unknown to mankind.”

Many critics believe that Agenda 2030 is leading the world toward a New World Order with a One World Government hell-bent on steam-rolling individual nations’ rights for the “common good” and “sustainability.”

Furthermore, the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals may be “actively dangerous” and “a missed opportunity” because they “lock the global development agenda around a failing economic model.”

The document describes nothing less than a global government takeover of every nation across the planet. The “goals” of this document are nothing more than code words for a corporate-government fascist agenda that will imprison humanity in a devastating cycle of poverty while enriching the world’s most powerful globalist corporations. To interpret this document, you need to understand how globalists disguise their monopolistic agendas in “feel good” language.

Notice carefully that nowhere does this document state that “achieving human freedom” is one of its goals. Nor does it explain how these goals are to be achieved. As you’ll see here, every single point in this UN agenda is to be achieved through centralized government control and totalitarian mandates that resemble communism / socialism:

Goal 1) End poverty in all its forms everywhere

Translation: Put everyone on government welfare, food stamps, housing subsidies and handouts that make them obedient slaves to global government. Never allow people upward mobility to help themselves. Instead, teach mass victimization and obedience to a government that provides monthly “allowance” money for basic essentials like food and medicine. Label it “ending poverty.”

Goal 2) End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture

Translation: Invade the entire planet with GMOs and Monsanto’s patented seeds while increasing the use of deadly herbicides under the false claim of “increased output” of food crops. Engineer genetically modified plants to boost specific vitamin chemicals while having no idea of the long-term consequences of genetic pollution or cross-species genetic experiments carried out openly in a fragile ecosystem.

Goal 3) Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages

Translation: Mandate 100+ vaccines for all children and adults at gunpoint, threatening parents with arrest and imprisonment if they refuse to cooperate. Push heavy medication use on children and teens while rolling out “screening” programs. Call mass medication “prevention” programs and claim they improve the health of citizens.

Goal 4) Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all

Translation: Push a false history and a dumbed-down education under “Common Core” education standards that produce obedient workers rather than independent thinkers. Never let people learn real history, or else they might realize they don’t want to repeat it.

Goal 5) Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls

Translation: Criminalize Christianity, marginalize heterosexuality, demonize males and promote the LGBT agenda everywhere. The real goal is never “equality” but rather the marginalization and shaming of anyone who expresses any male characteristics whatsoever. The ultimate goal is to feminize society, creating widespread acceptance of “gentle obedience” along with the self-weakening ideas of communal property and “sharing” everything. Because mainly male energy has the strength to rise up against oppression and fight for human rights, the suppression of male energy is key to keeping the population in a state of eternal acquiescence.

Goal 6) Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all

Translation: Allow powerful corporations to seize control of the world’s water supplies and charge monopoly prices to “build new water delivery infrastructure” that “ensures availability.”

Goal 7) Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all

Translation: Penalize coal, gas and oil while pushing doomed-to-fail “green” energy subsidies to brain-dead startups headed by friends of the politicians who all go bankrupt in five years or less. The green startups make for impressive speeches and media coverage, but because these companies are led by corrupt idiots rather than capable entrepreneurs, they always go broke. (And the media hopes you don’t remember all the fanfare surrounding their original launch.)

Goal 8) Promote inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment and decent work for all

Translation: Regulate small business out of existence with government-mandated minimum wages that bankrupt entire sectors of the economy. Force employers to meet hiring quotas of LGBT workers while mandating wage tiers under a centrally planned work economy dictated by the government. Destroy free market economics and deny permits and licenses to those companies that don’t obey government dictates.

Goal 9) Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization and foster innovation

Translation: Put nations into extreme debt with the World Bank, spending debt money to hire corrupt corporations to build large-scale infrastructure projects that trap developing nations in an endless spiral of debt. See the book Confessions of an Economic Hit Man by John Perkins to understand the details of how this scheme has been repeated countless times over the last several decades.

Goal 10) Reduce inequality within and among countries

Translation: Punish the rich, the entrepreneurs and the innovators, confiscating nearly all gains by those who choose to work and excel. Redistribute the confiscated wealth to the masses of non-working humans that feed off a productive economy while contributing nothing to it… all while screaming about “equality!”

Goal 11) Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable

Translation: Ban all gun ownership by private citizens, concentrating guns into the hands of obedient government enforcers who rule over an unarmed, enslaved class of impoverished workers. Criminalize living in most rural areas by instituting Hunger Games-style “protected areas” which the government will claim are owned by “the People” even though no people are allowed to live there. Force all humans into densely packed, tightly controlled cities where they are under 24/7 surveillance and subject to easy manipulation by government.

Goal 12) Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns

Translation: Begin levying punitive taxes on the consumption of fossil fuels and electricity, forcing people to live under conditions of worsening standards of living that increasingly resemble Third World conditions. Use social influence campaigns in TV, movies and social media to shame people who use gasoline, water or electricity, establishing a social construct of ninnies and tattlers who rat out their neighbors in exchange for food credit rewards.

Goal 13) Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts

Translation: Set energy consumption quotas on each human being and start punishing or even criminalizing “lifestyle decisions” that exceed energy usage limits set by governments. Institute total surveillance of individuals in order to track and calculate their energy consumption. Penalize private vehicle ownership and force the masses onto public transit, where TSA grunts and facial recognition cameras can monitor and record the movement of every person in society, like a scene ripped right out of Minority Report.

Goal 14) Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development

Translation: Ban most ocean fishing, plunging the food supply into an extreme shortage and causing runaway food price inflation that puts even more people into economic desperation. Criminalize the operation of private fishing vessels and place all ocean fishing operations under the control of government central planning. Only allow favored corporations to conduct ocean fishing operations (and make this decision based entirely on which corporations give the most campaign contributions to corrupt lawmakers).

Goal 15) Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss

Translation: Roll out Agenda 21 and force humans off the land and into controlled cities. Criminalize private land ownership, including ranches and agricultural tracts. Tightly control all agriculture through a corporate-corrupted government bureaucracy whose policies are determined almost entirely by the rich globalists and the large corporates. Ban woodstoves, rainwater collection and home gardening in order to criminalize self-reliance and force total dependence on government.

Goal 16) Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels

Translation: Grant legal immunity to illegal aliens and “protected” minority groups, which will be free to engage in any illegal activity — including openly calling for the mass murder of police officers — because they are the new protected class in society. “Inclusive institutions” means granting favorable tax structures and government grants to corporations that hire LGBT workers or whatever groups are currently in favor with the central planners in government. Use the IRS and other federal agencies to selectively punish unfavorable groups with punitive audits and regulatory harassment, all while ignoring the criminal activities of favored corporations that are friends of the political elite.

Goal 17) Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the global partnership for sustainable development

Translation: Enact global trade mandates that override national laws while granting unrestricted imperialism powers to companies like Monsanto, Dow Chemical, RJ Reynolds, Coca-Cola and Merck. Pass global trade pacts that bypass a nation’s lawmakers and override intellectual property laws to make sure the world’s most powerful corporations maintain total monopolies over drugs, seeds, chemicals and technology. Nullify national laws and demand total global obedience to trade agreements authored by powerful corporations and rubber-stamped by the UN.

TOTAL ENSLAVEMENT OF THE PLANET BY 2030

As the UN document says, “We commit ourselves to working tirelessly for the full implementation of this Agenda by 2030.”

If you read the full document and can read beyond the fluffery and public relations phrases, you’ll quickly realize that this UN agenda is going to be forced upon all the citizens of the world through the invocation of government coercion. Nowhere does this document state that the rights of the individual will be protected. Nor does it even acknowledge the existence of human rights granted to individuals by the Creator. Even the so-called “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” utterly denies individuals the right to self-defence, the right to medical choice and the right to parental control over their own children.

The UN is planning nothing less than a global government tyranny that enslaves all of humanity while calling the scheme “sustainable development” and “equality.”



 

Agenda 21 converted into 2030

War on terror:

The “war on terror” that never did seem to end turned out to be the perfect tool to rationalize permanent war against all citizens, everyone, War on terror False Flag-9-11-patriot-act1anywhere, everywhere, at anytime. Essentially setup to kill the human species, for the benefit of a tiny group known as the Illuminati, alias globalist, Rothschild Khazarian Mafia, in general the Archon bloodline families, acting in our today’s society as the financial elite.

If you didn’t like Agenda 21 that originally was planned for implementation by 2050 then you really are not going to like the 2030 Agenda, because the 2030 Agenda takes things to an entirely new level.

The original plan for Agenda 21 was written by Professor Weishaupt when he founded in 1776 the Order of the Illuminati; actually a fascist Nazi organisation, which employs as their frontman, government leaders, being their visible acting puppet. – Most of our ‘elected leaders sold their soul to the satanic bosses to keep them hidden from the public. Those leaders that commit treason or resign are disciplinary penalized by premature death.

Illuminati and the Agenda:

The Illuminati’s final objective is to obtain the planet for them, and being served by maximal 500 million people that are left alive to act as their serfs, the rest of the existing populace will be exterminated.

By recognizing what already is part of our daily live, you will be impressed how far they have succeeded.

The creation of racism offences
Continual change to create confusion
The undermining of schools and teachers’ authority
The teaching of sex and homosexuality to children
Huge immigration to destroy national identity
The promotion of excessive drinking
The promotion of drugs abuse
Emptying of churches – undermining any form of social cohesion
Legal system with bias against victims of crime
Dependency on the government or government benefits – and erasing these as is happening now
Control and dumping down of the media
Encouraging the breaking down of the family

The points about ‘huge immigration to destroy national identity’ – ‘teaching sex to young children’ – ‘undermining teachers’ authority’ – ‘emptying churches’ – and ‘controlling the media’, are clearly seen everywhere in the western world.

The recent most significant steps forwards were taken at the end of last month, during the 70th United Nations Assembly where all well-coordinated actions toward the one-world government were presented, but yet barely anyone is even talking about it.

Basically Agenda 21 has been converted and renamed in a “new universal Agenda” for humanity. Officially now known as the program of Agenda 2030, being hyped as a way to get the whole world to work together to make life better for all of us. And presented as an admirable new agenda the world is waiting for, with more globalisation and more centralisation!

Under the guise of interest for nation-states, the one umbrella of the New World Order, which must create sustainable life on the planet, and stop climate change. – Unfortunately today too many people are too complacent and squarely ignorant to the many warnings that are visible all around them. They still think that authorities are taking care of them, so, above view would be impossible and consequently are dismissed as conspiracy.

However importantly, the Pope gave his stamp of approval for this insidious new Agenda 2030. He is probably the most politically powerful religious leader on the entire planet, and so his endorsement is huge, because hundreds of millions of people follow him with unquestioning faith. But please do not let the Pope’s endorsement fool you. The 2030 Agenda is a tool that the elite plan to use to push us toward a one-world system, to be implemented not later than by the year 2030.

The UN says that this new Agenda is “voluntary”, and yet virtually every single-puppet-nation on the entire planet is willingly signing up for it. In the official document that all of these nations are agreeing to, there are 17 sustainable development goals and 169 very specific sustainable development targets. Read them for yourself here. The phrase “new universal Agenda” is right near the end of the preamble.

The program is being hyped for; who wouldn’t want to end global poverty? But look deeper into what the UN is trying to do; you’ll find some very disturbing trends.

Major alarm bells should start going off once stuff like this is read. People are now witnessing the last stages of the rise of the one-world regime, and eventually much of the planet is ultimately going to embrace it.

As Paul McGuire writes in his new book “The Babylon Code”

The UN is not asking permission, but issuing a command that the entire planet will commit to 17 sustainable development goals and 169 sustainable development targets designed to radically transform our world by 2030. The UN 2030 plan promoted by the Pope will advance Agenda 21 on steroids. Through a controlled media the mass populations will be told that this is all about saving the environment and “ending poverty.” But that is not the true agenda of Agenda 21. The true agenda of Agenda 21 is to establish a global government, global economic system, and global religion. When UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon spoke of “a dream of a world of peace and dignity for all” this is no different than when the Communists promised the people a “workers paradise.”

Despite many private initiatives by bloggers, independent journalists, truth seekers, revolutionaries, and alternative news sources that for many years are warning about dangers, the discrepancies, the out of control top-down financial and governmental corruption, all engineered by lies, and deception, the suffering of millions of people as result of the unnecessary austerity measures, culminating in today’s deliberately created economic crisis, etc. Too many people still are unworried and ignorant to see these warning signs. – If action is not taken NOW; we the people that live today are responsible for allowing the killing off of the human species in the billions, by not being alert and incompetent to undertake significant proper engagement to stop this agenda.

Agenda 21 was primarily focused on climate change and the environment, but the 2030 Agenda goes far beyond that. The 2030 Agenda addresses in far more depth economics, agriculture, education, gender equality, healthcare and a whole host of other issues. There are very few forms of human activity that do not fall under the goals of the 2030 Agenda.

The Illumnati want a one-world government, a one world economic system and a one-world religion, being implemented by not later than 2030!

They aren’t going to get there without some major bumps in the road, but this is what we are moving toward.

Sadly, we all are too preoccupied with so many other things than the Agenda 2030, so it isn’t seen that all this is starting to happen right in front of our eyes.

Sustainable Development Agenda:

The UN’s “Sustainable Development Agenda” is Basically a Giant Corporatist Fraud. It’s not a joke – Saudi Arabia is chosen to head the UN Human Rights Panel! – King Salman killed more than 70 of his close relatives in order to seize the throne; there may be more deaths in his immediate circle over the coming days, intelligence sources predict.

The official significance of the Agenda is expressed as:

This Agenda is a plan of action for people, planet and prosperity. It also seeks to strengthen universal peace in larger freedom. We recognize that eradicating poverty in all its forms and dimensions, including extreme poverty, is the greatest global challenge and an indispensable requirement for sustainable development. All countries and all stakeholders, acting in collaborative partnership, will implement this plan…

Innocent wording to take away any suspicion by the public, but it is a blatant lie and a total deception regarding the importance and implications The-Illuminati-Depopulation-Agendafor humanity, everyone living on the planet. – More precisely the UN Agendas 21 and 2030 “sustainable development” is an UN-led program where individuals will be stripped of personal rights and freedoms, cars will become scarce and the masses will be herded into large hellish cities and forced to live in tiny “sustainable” dorm-like apartments.

Further: “The United Nations seeks to co-opt, via individual governments, and eventually, a “one-world government,” confiscate privately held land under the auspices of “sustainability.” Worse still, the UN’s Agenda 21 has even laid out plans for “depopulation” or rather, “population control.”

United Nations:

The United Nations is an infinitely corrupt body founded by the Rockefeller family in charge to enforce a new and centralized global order on behalf of the Archon bloodline families. However the Internet has dealt grievous blows to the secrecy that the cabal needs to carry out its centralizing plans. But the cabal still exists without doubt and despite defections controls the world’s money supply and most of its military forces.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), the “free trade” agreement between the United States and 11 other Pacific Rim nations, was finalized last week after years of knockdown, drag-out, and behind-closed-door negotiation. Not a single Politician that had to decide over its implementation has been allowed to read the content of this agreement!

This deal is a naked corporate bonanza. “Labor unions, among many others, have lined up to oppose the TPP based on concerns over a number of issues, including currency manipulation, environmental and health protections, food safety, pharmaceutical monopolies, offshoring of jobs, Internet privacy, government transparency and local control,” says RT. It adds, “Leaked drafts of TPP negotiations have suggested that corporations would be allowed to sue governments in private courts over lost profits due to regulation, elevating corporate entities to the status held by sovereign nations.”

Global corporations will tap taxpayers’ wallets if regulations cut into the bottom line. And deals will be set up to let that happen!

And last but no least: Fresh off the scene from those epic embarrassments, the UN now wants to tell governments of the world how to censor the Internet.

“The elite do not announce radical changes overnight. They prefer to make small moves, year after year, through boring technical changes that few notice or understand.”

Democracy:

In preparation for the implementation of the Agenda, and stripping every nation of its sovereignty, since the Cold War and its aftermath, democracy is not how U.S. politicians have used the term. When an American president uses the word “democracy,” he means a pro-American country following U.S. neoliberal policies, no matter if the country is a military dictatorship or its government was brought in by a coup (euphemized as a Colour Revolution) as in Egypt, Tunisia, Georgia, or Ukraine.

A “democratic” government has been re-defined simply as one supporting the Washington Consensus, NATO and the IMF, with a privately cabal-owned Central Bank implemented. It is a government that shifts policy-making out of the hands of elected representatives to an “independent” central bank, whose policies are dictated by the oligarchy centred in Wall Street, the City of London and Frankfurt.

Given this American re-definition of the political vocabulary, when President Obama says that such countries will not suffer coups, violent revolution or terrorism, he means that countries safely within the U.S. diplomatic orbit will be free of destabilization sponsored by the U.S. State Department, Defence Department and Treasury. Countries whose voters democratically elect a government or regime that acts independently – or even simply use the power to act independently of U.S. directives, will be destabilized, Syria-style, Ukraine-style or Chilean-style under General Pinochet. As Henry Kissinger said, just because a country votes in communists doesn’t mean that we have to accept it. This is the style of the “colour revolutions” sponsored by the National Endowment for Democracy.

As blatant examples look at the destruction the US has inflicted in former Yugoslavia, Ukraine, Georgia and South Ossetia, in various African countries, in Afghanistan, in Iraq, Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, and now in Syria that hopefully thanks to Russian intervention could be saved. Most people are too brainwashed by lies and political impotence to do anything about it, while Washington’s vassal states in Europe, UK, Canada, Australia, and Japan pretend that this policy of international murder was bringing freedom and democracy!

The UN Reaction from Putin:

In his United Nations reply, Russian President Putin warned against the “export of democratic revolution,” meaning by the United States in support of its local factotums. ISIL is armed with U.S. weapons and its soldiers were trained by U.S. armed forces. In case there was any doubt, President Obama reiterated before the United Nations that until Syrian President Assad was removed in favour of one more submissive to U.S. oil and military policy, Assad was the major enemy, not ISIL.

Agenda 21 Program:

The Archon bloodlines want us to accept the Agenda 21 program. Unfortunately for the people of the world so far everything is going according to the New World Order Plan. But what is this New World Order Plan?

Agenda 21 is called ‘the agenda for the 21st century’ and that refers to global fascism/communism. Here is a summary of what Agenda 21 includes: ‘Sustainable’ development – don’t use more than can be replaced – sounds sensible enough at first, until is realized what this and ‘biodiversity’ really mean in the context of the conspiracy. As, ‘Sustainable Development’ and ‘Biodiversity’ is seeking to impose:

Termination of national sovereignty
State planning and management of all land resources, ecosystems, deserts, forest, mountains, oceans, and fresh water; agriculture; rural development; biotechnology; and ensuring ‘equality’ – equal enslavement
States define the role of business, and financial resources
Abolition of private property – as it is not ‘sustainable’
‘Restructuring’ the family unit
Children raised by the State
Telling people what their job will be and where to live
Major restrictions on movements
Creation of ‘human settlement zones’
Mass resettlement as people are forced to vacate their land; homes, where they currently live
Dumbing down education – achieved
Mass global depopulation in pursuit of the above.

Agenda 21 termed already over two hundred years ago – indicates the completion phase during this century. The secret plan of the New World Order is to reduce the world’s population to a “sustainable” level “in perpetual balance with nature” by a ruthless Population Control Agenda via Population and Reproduction Control. A Mass Culling of the People via Planned Parenthood, toxic adulteration of water and food supplies, release of weaponised man-made viruses – like AIDS, EBOLA, etc. – man-made pandemics, mass vaccination campaigns and a planned Third World War.

Green is the new redThen, Agenda 21 will impose upon the drastically reduced world population a global feudal-fascist state with ‘one’ World Government, World Religion, World Army, World Central Bank, World Currency and a micro-chipped population. – In short, they will kill 90% of the world’s population in order to control all aspects of the human condition and thus rule everyone, everywhere from the cradle to the grave.

The world of Agenda 21:

This is the world of Agenda 21. People would exist, not live, in cashless poverty under Agenda 21 while the few that controlled them live in unimaginable high-tech luxury on for example Greek islands, obtained on the cheap. Children would be owned by the state and brought up in the way that Aldous Huxley foresaw from his inside knowledge in Brave New World. They would be technological bred in genetic caste systems and the idea of biological parents would be a page of the past – symbolically – that is, because history would be deleted.

Parents, were the father and mother… These are unpleasant facts, as I know it. But then most historical facts are unpleasant… In those days… children were brought up by their parents and not in State Conditioning Centres. Wrote Huxley.

Huxley described how these State Conditioning Centres programmed children to accept whatever the State decreed and anyone not conforming  Killuminatiwould be electroshocked until they did. He described babies crawling towards pictures of flowers and birds only to be shocked because the State didn’t want them to like nature. Children in Brave New World are also brainwashed even when they sleep with subliminal messages. Huxley said that eventually the child’s mind becomes, through psychological suggestions, the State ‘s mind, or, ‘Suggestions” from the ‘State’.

How many people are like that today? The constant erosion of parental rights to make decisions about their children, are the stepping-stones to the world that Huxley describes and Agenda 21 demands. As a transition to children being produced technologically by the state, parents would require state permission to have children according to strict genetic criteria. There would be no cars in this Archon world and the only transport would be local rail transit systems connecting homes and work places and high-speed trains between mega-regions.

People need permission to travel on the latter and even then they would be sitting in carriages amid wireless mind control fields and watched by the uniformed thugs of the State. People would work where they are told to work with no choice. The word ‘choice’ would be deleted from the vocabulary along with others like freedom, just as Orwell envisaged from his inside knowledge.

Robotic humans:

There is a massive attempt to program people to make them easier to control, and to bring an end to any vestige of the spiritual, religious, conscious human. The so-called ‘post-human race’ is being developed as slaves in the world of Agenda 21.

The Archons want a ‘machine controlled’ world, to be merged with technology into ‘robotic humanity’, creating sub-human robots with no compassion, empathy, or ability for free thought. The idea is to produce a robot military that will always follow orders and be part human and completely technological. Contracts are already awarded for robots that could search and detain ‘uncooperative people’. Watch this short video to understand what is meant, and how far development has come.

Among preparations everyone must make is getting out of electronic currency and into precious metals. Adding silver and gold to your private safe depot is the only way to ensure that your currency will be accepted following the collapse.

It starts with the surrender of national sovereignty of all nations, already fact for the EU-nations, which will culminate in the one-world government, with by the IMF issued world currency that devalues existing fiat currencies with up to 90%. – Imagine that you have to pay ten times more for everything, instead of €2 now, then €20 for a bread. Your € 200,000 mortgage would become a 2 million euro mortgage!

Because of the publicity over the Internet, the cabal must speed up this process, as the monetary system is completely failing too, and consequently runs out of their control.

It virtually means the push of the human population into giant “megacities” under arguments to allow nature to recapture much of what has already been settled by humanity. These factually is a blueprint for the transformation of global society and takes away people’s freedom.

Now it is of the highest importance to choose either way:

WAKEUP and SHAKEUP

Or otherwise accept a premature death, or indefinite enslavement.

Wake Up Call

To underline the urgency, the Pope announced at the UN the definite implementation of Agenda 21 for an orderly transition of the surrender of national sovereignty of all nations, which will culminate in the one-world government, with IMF issued world currency that devalues existing fiat currencies with up to 90%.