Tag Archives: Bill Gates

Mar 29 2024

Lara Logan | Lara Logan On NGOs Role In America’s Downfall: “They Operate As A Shadow Government”


Posted originally on Rumble By Bannons War Room on: Feb 28, 2024 at 05:30 pm EST

Mar 29 2024

Liz Collins Discusses What She Learned That Shocked Her About the Post-Floyd Downall of Minneapolis


Posted originally on Rumble By Charlie Kirk show on: Mar 1, 2024 at 8:02 pm EST

Mar 28 2024

FDA Clears Ivermectin and Backtracks on COVID-Era Propoganda


Posted originally on Mar 28, 2024 By Martin Armstrong

Horses.fda ivermectin 2 1024x808 1

We all recall the FDA and mainstream media gaslighting the public into believing there was no available treatment for the coronavirus. They laughed at those who believed in holistic methods or the parasite treatment Ivermectin. Social media platforms were strongarmed by the government to remove any post related to Ivermectin treatment, commentators who discussed successful treatment with Ivermectin were silences, and the FDA launched its own campaign to dispel “misinformation” that they are now admitting was true all along.

The FDA even posted a picture of a horse online, taunting COVID-deniers by saying they were taking a medication only intended for horses and livestock. “You are not a horse. You are not a cow. Seriously, y’all. Stop it,” the FDA posted on social media platforms in August 2021. “Hold your horses, y’all. Ivermectin may be trending, but it still isn’t authorized or approved to treat COVID-19,” another post read in April 2022.

“Never use medications intended for animals on yourself or other people. Animal ivermectin products are very different from those approved for humans. Use of animal ivermectin for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19 in humans is dangerous,” FDA said a few years ago.

Yet, 101 separate studies on Ivermectin treatments for the coronavirus have shown that it is an effective treatment. Some sources even say that it has a 62% chance of reducing symptoms if taken early. Worse, the FDA approved ivermectin for human consumption back in 1996.

A group of doctors, who would have lost their careers for speaking out a few years ago, filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for blocking this effective treatment, which likely resulted in countless preventable deaths. “We’re suing the FDA for lying to the public about ivermectin,” said Dr. Mary Bowden, supported by Drs. Paul E. Marik and Robert L. Apter.

The FDA is now agreeing to remove all social media posts denying the effectiveness of ivermectin. Lawyers for the corrupt government agency deny that the FDA made any recommendations. “They were not mandatory. They were recommendations. They said what parties should do. They said, for example, why you should not take ivermectin to treat COVID-19. They did not say you may not do it, you must not do it. They did not say it’s prohibited or it’s unlawful. They also did not say that doctors may not prescribe ivermectin.”

Now, Dr. Bowden was forced to resign during the COVID-19 fiasco for speaking out against mRNA vaccines and pleading with the public that alternative treatments were available. She claimed that she successfully treated hundreds of patients, often with co-morbidities, and none were forced into hospitalization. Her work went directly against the narrative that the only way to “stop the spread” was to take the experimental vaccine, stay home, or wind up on a ventilator.

Simply removing social media posts does not seem like a sufficient sentence for what the government did. Their “misinformation” caused people to lose their livelihoods and, worse, caused unnecessary deaths. The FDA had known since at least 2015 that ivermectin was safe for human consumption, but they dismissed it as a veterinarian medication throughout the pandemic and promoted dangerous propaganda.

Mar 28 2024

Francis Scott Key Bridge Collapse – Black Swan Event


Posted originally on Mar 28, 2024 By Martin Armstrong 

The Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore collapsed on March 26, 2024, at 01:28 EDT after being struck by a cargo ship owned by Brawner Builders Inc. The ship named the Dali was operated by Synergy Marine Group. This black swan event was extremely strange, catastrophic for the US supply chain, and certainly a black swan event. For the purpose of this post, I will refrain from speculation and stick to the facts at hands to explain how crucial this bridge was to the US.

Official reports say that what happened was simply an unfortunate accident. “We’re going to send all the federal resources they need as we respond to this emergency. I mean all the federal resources — we’re going to rebuild that port together,” Biden said after promising to use federal aid to rebuild the bridge, a feat that will take years to achieve. “Everything so far indicates that this was a terrible accident,” he added. “At this time, we have no other indication, no other reason to believe there’s any intentional act here.”

The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency stated that there was a “power issue” that caused the crew to lose control of the ship. There was a loss of propulsion from the motor, several tests failed, and the pilots notified the Maryland Department of Transportation and the Maryland Transit Authority. There was an attempt to deploy anchors but it was far too late, especially for a ship of that size and weight.

James Mercante, the president of the New York Board of Pilot Commissioners, said that the Dali became “a dead ship just being carried by the current or its own momentum.” US Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg did not say what caused the power outage and does not have a timeframe for when the bridge will be rebuilt. “The impact of this incident is going to be felt throughout the region and really throughout our supply chains,” Buttigieg said. Baltimore is currently under a state of emergency, and Mayor Brandon Scott believes it will last for “the foreseeable future.”

Others believe this was a deliberate attack of US infrastructure based on various factors that do not seem to add up. Could it have been an inside job or a foreign agent? The truth will come to light, as it always does.

Let me begin by explaining how crucial the Francis Scott Key Bridge was to America’s supply chain. Around 52.3 million tons of international cargo estimated to be worth $80.8 billion passed through the port in 2023. Around 4,900 trucks, carrying around $28 billion in goods, must be rerouted due to the bridge collapse. It is the second busiest strategic roadway in the US for hazardous materials. These hazardous materials include diesel fuels. Did you know that diesel fuel is not permitted to be transported via tunnel? Fuel prices will rise, fertilizer prices will rise. The bridge was built to handle hazardous materials like propane, nitrogen, highly-flammable materials, large cargo materials, and more.

The timing could not have been worse for American agriculture.

Baltimore is the largest entry point for all large agricultural and construction equipment, and this will have a ripple effect across US agriculture in general. It has been noted that this collapse occurred during the peak of planting season for Midwest region as the ground has begun to thaw. Our entire food supply is at risk.

The bridge helped to link major cities from Baltimore like Philadelphia, Washington, and New York. Over 15,000 people are employed directly through the port, and 139,000 have indirect jobs in connections. All of this amounts to $3.3 billion in personal income, as noted by Axios.

Analysts are saying this will cripple Baltimore, but it will send ripple effects throughout the entire US economy.

The angle the cargo ship took is extremely confusing. Engineers are perplexed by the situation. How did it manage to take out one of the two major anchor points? The video makes it look as if the ship deliberately steered into an anchor point. The cargo ship never made it into the approach land in the channel. Where was the harbor pilot? There was no horn blast or warning tug. There was no tug boat, but they say that it was not needed once the ship entered the channel. There happened to be a full moon that enabled maximum tidal shift. My eyes may deceive me, but the video footage makes it look like the captain steered directly into the support beam at the last minute.

Half a mile of  the bridge simply collapsed. It looks more like a strategic demolition based on how the bridge crumbled. Now, here in Tampa Bay, a cardo ship hit the Sunshine Skyway Bridge over 40 years ago. A portion of the bridge came down but it did not simply fall into the waters in the same manner. This is reminiscent of the 9/11 collapse, but of course, people did not have smart phones back then. This event happened in the middle of the night when few people were around to witness it. Some say this passage is hard to navigate but cargo ships managed just fine for nearly half a century up until this week.

Baltimore Police Commissioner Richard Worley said, “There is absolutely no indication that there’s any terrorism, or that this was done on purpose.” The US government insists this was simply a tragic unpreventable accident. Official reports say there were no signs of explosives and no foreign terrorist agency is claiming responsibility for the event.

The same ship collapsed a bridge in Belgium back in 2016, and I do not think this was an act of foreign terrorism.

This event divided the US along the Mason-Dixon line, bringing us back to the pre-Civil War era. Did US intel have a role in this “accident” that happened at the worst possible time? Klaus Schwab of the World Economic Forum stated that an attack on infrastructure – a cyber pandemic — would cause the COVID-19 crisis to look like a “small disturbance” in comparison. Carefully watch the video below and note how they explain these events to us long before they take place.

Mar 28 2024

How to make a mint: the cryptography of anonymous electronic cash


Posted originally on Mar 27, 2024 By Martin Armstrong 

HowtoMakeaMint2

In 1996, the US government released a white paper entitled, “How to make a mint: the cryptography of anonymous electronic cash.” Released by the National Security Agency Office of Information Security Research and Technology, this document basically explains how a government agency could create something like Bitcoin or another cryptocurrency.

I encourage those interested to read the contents of the link above. This document was released during the dawn of the dot.com bubble before the technology existed to create such a currency. The NSA quickly realized that it could weaponize this technology to create a cashless society.

As explained in the introduction:

“Among the most important uses of this technology is electronic commerce: performing financial transactions via electronic information exchanged over telecommunications lines. A key requirement for electronic commerce is the development of secure and efficient electronic payment systems. The need for security is highlighted by the rise of the Internet, which promises to be a leading medium for future electronic commerce.

Electronic payment systems come in many forms including digital checks, debit cards, credit cards, and stored value cards. The usual security features for such systems are privacy (protection from eavesdropping), authenticity (provides user identification and message integrity), and nonrepudiation (prevention of later denying having performed a transaction) .

The type of electronic payment system focused on in this paper is electronic cash. As the name implies, electronic cash is an attempt to construct an electronic payment system modelled after our paper cash system. Paper cash has such features as being: portable (easily carried), recognizable (as legal tender) hence readily acceptable, transferable (without involvement of the financial network), untraceable (no record of where money is spent), anonymous (no record of who spent the money) and has the ability to make "change." The designers of electronic cash focused on preserving the features of untraceability and anonymity. Thus, electronic cash is defined to be an electronic payment system that provides, in addition to the above security features, the properties of user anonymity and payment untraceability..

In general, electronic cash schemes achieve these security goals via digital signatures. They can be considered the digital analog to a handwritten signature. Digital signatures are based on public key cryptography. In such a cryptosystem, each user has a secret key and a public key. The secret key is used to create a digital signature and the public key is needed to verify the digital signature. To tell who has signed the information (also called the message), one must be certain one knows who owns a given public key. This is the problem of key management, and its solution requires some kind of authentication infrastructure. In addition, the system must have adequate network and physical security to safeguard the secrecy of the secret keys.”
Crypto.1996.1

The introduction goes on to discuss the reasons they could present to the public to switch to a cashless society, including money laundering, convenience, and security. “The term electronic commerce refers to any financial transaction involving the electronic transmission of information. The packets of information being transmitted are commonly called electronic tokens,” the paper continues.

The NSA states that it would like to use “user identification” and “message integrity” to protect privacy in “nonrepudiation” transactions. “Eavesdropping” concerns appear numerous times throughout the document, which could be prevented by “not just privacy but anonymity” in the form of “payer anonymity” and “payment untraceability.” The government clearly states that hard currency, cash, provided these luxuries but could not be traced by the banks and, therefore, the government.

Again, this was released in 1996 before basic online banking. The document outlines basic online banking but takes it a step further by explaining how they could seemingly make payments seem “untraceable” to the public using “blind signatures” that allegedly cannot be seen by the bank. “This step is called “blinding” the coin, and the random quantity is called the blinding factor. The Bank signs this random-looking text, and the user removes the blinding factor.”

PROTOCOL 3: Untraceable On-line electronic payment.

Withdrawal:

  •      Alice creates an electronic coin and blinds it.
  •      Alice sends the blinded coin to the Bank with a withdrawal request.
  •      Bank digitally signs the blinded coin.
  •      Bank sends the signed blinded coin to Alice and debits her account.
  •      Alice unblinds the signed coin.

Payment/Deposit:

  •      Alice gives Bob the coin.
  •      Bob contacts Bank and sends coin.
  •      Bank verifies the Bank’s digital signature.
  •      Bank verifies that coin has not already been spent.
  •      Bank enters coin in spent-coin database.
  •      Bank credits Bob’s account and informs Bob.
  •      Bob gives Alice the merchandise.

“This makes remote transactions using electronic cash totally anonymous: no one knows where Alice spends her money and who pays her.” Full “payment anonymity” would be “too much to ask”, thus, “we are forced to settle for payer anonymity.” In other words, the illusion that no one knows who is making the transaction.

PROTOCOL 5: Off-line cash.

Withdrawal:

  •      Alice creates an electronic coin, including identifying information.
  •      Alice blinds the coin.
  •      Alice sends the blinded coin to the Bank with a withdrawal request.
  •      Bank verifies that the identifying information is present.
  •      Bank digitally signs the blinded coin.
  •      Bank sends the signed blinded coin to Alice and debits her account.
  •      Alice unblinds the signed coin.

Payment:

  •      Alice gives Bob the coin.
  •      Bob verifies the Bank’s digital signature.
  •      Bob sends Alice a challenge.
  •      Alice sends Bob a response (revealing one piece of identifying info).
  •      Bob verifies the response.
  •      Bob gives Alice the merchandise.

Deposit:

  •      Bob sends coin, challenge, and response to the Bank.
  •      Bank verifies the Bank’s digital signature.
  •      Bank verifies that coin has not already been spent.
  •      Bank enters coin, challenge, and response in spent-coin database.
  •      Bank credits Bob’s account.

Note that, in this protocol, Bob must verify the Bank’s signature before giving Alice the merchandise. In this way, Bob can be sure that either he will be paid or he will learn Alice’s identity as a multiple spender.

The government begins to explain basic blockchain concepts, or at least how they’d like them to occur.

“When Alice spends her coins with Bob, his challenge to her is a string of K random bits. For each bit, Alice sends the appropriate piece of the corresponding pair. For example, if the bit string starts 0110. . ., then Alice sends the first piece of the first pair, the second piece of the second pair, the second piece of the third pair, the first piece of the fourth pair, etc. When Bob deposits the coin at the Bank, he sends on these K pieces.

If Alice re-spends her coin, she is challenged a second time. Since each challenge is a random bit string, the new challenge is bound to disagree with the old one in at least one bit. Thus Alice will have to reveal the other piece of the corresponding pair. When the Bank receives the coin a second time, it takes the two pieces and combines them to reveal Alice's identity…

Zero-Knowledge Proofs. The term zero-knowledge proof refers to any protocol in public-key cryptography that proves knowledge of some quantity without revealing it (or making it any easier to find it). In this case, Alice creates a key pair such that the secret key points to her identity. (This is done in such a way the Bank can check via the public key that the secret key in fact reveals her identity, despite the blinding.) In the payment protocol, she gives Bob the public key as part of the electronic coin. She then proves to Bob via a zero-knowledge proof that she possesses the corresponding secret key. If she responds to two distinct challenges, the identifying information can be put together to reveal the secret key and so her identity.”

The document then discusses ways to blind the signature, so that the payee may remain anonymous. Now, why would the government allow that to occur? “Even in anonymous, untraceable payment schemes, the identity of the multiple-spender can be revealed when the abuse is detected. Detection after the fact may be enough to discourage multiple spending in most cases, but it will not solve the problem. If someone were able to obtain an account under a false identity, or were willing to disappear after re-spending a large sum of money, they could successfully cheat the system.”
Crypto.1996.2

The document even discusses what we now would refer to as a crypto wallet. A seemingly safe offline method to store these electronic coins. They explain that at least one party must always reveal their hand. “When a coin is spent, the spender uses his secret to create a valid response to a challenge from the payee. The payee will verify the response before accepting the payment. In Brands’ scheme with wallet observers, this user secret is shared between the user and his observer. The combined secret is a modular sum of the two shares, so one share of the secret reveals no information about the combined secret.”

Crypto.1996.3

Who is the “observer” in this scenario? “An observer could also be used to trace the user’s transactions at a later time, since it can keep a record of all transactions in which it participates. However, this requires that the Bank (or whoever is doing the tracing) must be able to obtain the observer and analyze it. Also, not all types of observers can be used to trace transactions.”

In the event that a transaction was compromised, the bank would have to change its secret key and “INVALIDATE ALL COINS.”

The authors explain that tax evasion, per usual, is the key concern. They mention money laundering and “old crimes such as kidnapping and blackmail” as reasons to allow backdoor entry. Restoring traceability was a proposed solution, and if they could restore traceability in the first place, one must question if the payments were ever truly anonymous. Using Alice as their example, they explain that they could simply issue a warrant and track all her payment history. “Back~ard traceability is the ability to identify a withdrawal record (and hence the payer), given a deposit record (and hence the identity of the payee). Backward tracing will reveal who Alice has been receiving payments from.”

So, while the bank only sees the deposit in encrypted form, the public key must be used for withdrawal. “The ability to trace transactions in either direction can help law enforcement officials catch tax evaders and money launderers by revealing who has paid or has been paid by the suspected criminal. Electronic blackmailers can be caught because the deposit numbers of the victim’s ill-gotten coins could be decrypted, identifying the blackmailer when the money is deposited.”

“In conclusion, the potential risks in electronic commerce are magnified when anonymity is present. Anonymity creates the potential for large sums of counterfeit money to go undetected by preventing the identification of forged coins. Anonymity also provides an avenue for laundering money and evading taxes that is difficult to combat without resorting to escrow mechanisms. Anonymity can be provided at varying levels, but increasing the level of anonymity also increases the potential damages. It is necessary to weigh the need for anonymity with these concerns. It may well be concluded that these problems are best avoided by using a secure electronic payment system that provides privacy, but not anonymity.”

The US government released this document in 1996, 27 years ago. Bitcoin was allegedly anonymously created in 2009, and numerous other blockchain-based payment coins have followed. This, paired with the push for CBDC, where the government simply does not need to pretend payments are anonymous, should make one question the security and longevity of cryptocurrencies.

Mar 28 2024

NTSB Give Update on Baltimore Bridge Collapse, Investigation and Current HAZMAT Concerns for Baltimore Harbor


Posted originally on the CTH on March 27, 2024 | Sundance 

The NTSB gives an update on the Francis Scott Key bridge collapse in Baltimore, Maryland, following the impact of a Singaporean-flagged cargo ship, the Dali.

According to the update, 56 containers of hazardous materials were on board, including corrosive flammable cells, lithium ion batteries, and other hazardous materials.  Some of the HAZMAT containers were compromised and some fell into the water.  The briefing also gives a preliminary outline as an outcome of an initial review of the voyage data recorder (VDR) for six hours 00:00 to 06:00 on the morning of the impact. The timeline discussion occurs at 11:00 of the video below.  WATCH:

(Via Fox News) -[…] Homendy said the investigation would be a “massive undertaking” that is expected two take one to two years. She added that the NTSB will not hesitate to issue urgent safety recommendations during that time frame. A preliminary report is expected in only two to four weeks.

Part of the investigation will be determining what caused the ship to lose power before hitting the bridge. The source of that outage remained unknown as of Wednesday, Homendy said.

Homendy said tugboats were called to help the vessel leave the port and get to the main channel. The vessel does not have any tugboats at this time. Homendy confirmed that vessel did not have any tugboats helping it navigate through the waters before it hit the bridge. The VDR showed that the pilot called for tugboats just before 1:30 a.m. after the vessel hit the bridge.

The NTSB has confirmed that there were 21 crewmembers on board the vessel at the time of the accident plus two pilots. (LINK)

Mar 27 2024

Could the Francis Scott Key bridge Collapse be a False Flag event to start World War III ?


We know that the Klaus Schwab’s World Economic Forum is trying to take over the world. with their Great Reset and Build Back Better program. We also know that Klaus’s Young Global leaders are impeded in high places in every major country and probably some of the US Neocons are with him. So what does this have to do with the Francis Scott Key bridge being destroyed by being hit my a cargo ship that just happens to be out of the channel and having a “power” failure and hitting one of the two main support column taking down the entire span over the Chesapeake Bay.

(Via MSM) – […] The Singapore-flagged 948 ft. Dali vessel crashed into a column supporting the Francis Scott Key Bridge at around 1:30 a.m. local time in Baltimore, causing part of the bridge to collapse and catch fire before sinking.

The port of Baltimore is a key port in the US and it is now shut down until all the debris in the bay can be removed. Shutting this port down is a major blow to the US economy and also to the EU which gets coal and LNG to make up for what that they can no longer get from Russia. We also know the the US was involved in taking out Nord Stream 1 and 2 pipe lines into Germany. And that was blamed on Russia even though it made no sense.

Why do I think this is a False Flag event? Well we know the US Neocons what war with Russia so what if they used CIA resources to hack into the ships systems and steer in into the bridge support. Then claim it was the Russians that did it. This would be a direct attack on the US and would mean Biden could declare War on Russia. This would be a perfect False Flag event!

Look at the bow of the container ship there is no damage to it how is that possible?

This is my personal opinion based on education and knowledge of the operations of the IC community.

Mar 27 2024

Poland Feels Consequences of Ukraine-First Policies


Posted originally on Mar 27, 2024 By Martin Armstrong 

Tusk Donald

Prime Minister Donald Tusk initially promised to double the annual tax-free income allowance to 60,000 zloty (€13,929), but now “there is no room” in the budget. Why? All of the money is going to Ukraine.

Poland increased its defense budget to 3% of GDP in 2022, followed by a raise to 4% in 2023. Poland provides NATO with more funding as a percentage of GDP than any other European nation.

The reason that Poland is unable to say when or how they will decrease taxes is WAR. Finance Minister Andrzej Domański is promising the people that the government will fulfill its promises by 2026. “In my opinion, at the moment, there is no room for the tax-free amount to increase to PLN 60,000 next year,” he told Polsat News. “We are in a near-war situation. We have rapidly increasing defence spending …The scale of incoming defence spending is really high,” the prime minister said, highlighting how much the Polish government is currently spending on Ukraine.

Now, Donald Tusk is under pressure for only fulfilling 12 of the 100 policies he planned to implement after taking power. Tusk has been a strong supporter of Ukraine and Zelensky’s position. “They say it to President Zelenskyy’s face that they no longer have the strength, that they are exhausted,” Tusk said, criticizing US Congress for failing to provide additional blank checks to Ukraine.

Polish exports to Ukraine rose 25% in 2017. In 2022, Ukraine exported $6.7 billion in goods to Poland, primarily in agricultural products, while Poland provided Ukraine with $9.07 billion in mainly energy and ammunition. The war in Ukraine has only strengthened trade between the neighboring coutries.

Russia has no intention of invading Poland, despite the government’s fearmongering. Instead, the people are being forced to fund an endless war on behalf of their government. The fact that the government cannot determine when funds will be free for use shows that they are planning for a prolonged battle on Ukrainian soil.

Mar 27 2024

From Beyond the Wire – The Information War, CBDCs and a Metaphor for Those Who Need


Posted originally on the CTH on March 27, 2024 | Sundance

After my latest outline on the looming probability of a dollar based CBDC {SEE HERE} I found myself saying, “I hate to say this, but most people really don’t care. For some, the issue is esoteric, abstract, and difficult to comprehend. For others, there is a massive blanket of comfortable ambivalence until the consequences hit. For the few who understand, this is extremely troubling.”

Then I step back, breathe and reevaluate my ability to communicate.

A few recent comments have me looking for something, anything, that will help people understand the scope and breadth of what I am trying to communicate, and the challenge therein.  EXAMPLES:

[COMMENT #1] – I don’t know, this is way over my head, and I consider myself at least somewhat intelligent and informed. Other than a few twenties I keep in my wallet, all money of consequence in my life is already just digits in computer networks as far as I can perceive. I never actually see a check for my wages, much less any dead presidents.

[…] Not that I disagree, I just don’t understand. I’m at a loss as to why this is so qualitatively different as far as my financial security goes. Maybe it’s because I’m a resident of Illinois and have some sort of Stockholm Syndrome from knowing they can already, and do, raise my taxes – as much as they want, any time they want – and there is nothing to stop them. {link}

[COMMENT #2]I apologize for this stupid question, but I’m confused. How do the grey countries fit into this digital money and “world order” Pippa refers to?

Pippa states “But what I see our superpowers introducing digital currency, the Chinese were the first the US is on the brink, I think of moving in the same direction the Europeans have committed to that as well.”

China is grey on the map, as is Russia. If we, the mapped yellow USA, are being boxed in by the Russian sanctions how is it China is grey yet they were the first to introduce a digital currency?  These insane, drunk with power “superpowers” – is their goal to color the entire world map yellow with the SWIFT network digital coin to control the entire world?  {link}

You come here for understanding the world that exists, not the one we may hope to exist.  If you are confused, I need to do a better job.

So, let me start.

I will start first with some information perhaps some do not know.

♦ Ever since the western sanctions against Russia were created, an entire new black market of finance has been created in the “grey zone” that circumvents the sanctions and assists the people trapped by them.

Almost no one, sans a handful of people I have met, really have a full scope understanding of what is going on.

You cannot discover this information within the yellow zone.  You cannot get this level of comprehension from behind a keyboard safely in your home office or den.  You have to put your boots on the ground, take some risks and see exactly how it works. {Example Here}

The Russian sanctions were not created to block the Russians.  The Russian sanctions were created to wall-in the West.

There are now networks of people who operate in various places that create proactive financial mechanisms for what you might call, “financial preppers.”

These people and groups set up bank accounts in foreign countries for you; they organize addresses (needed), phone numbers (needed), and create accounts that you can access that are outside the control of the dollar-based financial system.  You can even get an official passport in the process.

These people also sell hardware [to support the phone numbers (really digital ids)] that is completely different from what exists behind the wall of the yellow zone.

How many Americans know that an iPhone-15 sold in the USA is completely different from an iPhone-15 sold outside the yellow zone? Meaning the internal hardware is different.  How many Americans know that?

How many Americans know that an iPhone-15 sold inside the USA has different originating software than an iPhone-15 sold outside the USA?

How many people know that when you purchase one of these “ghost phones” the data network automatically identifies the disparity when the phone crosses into the yellow zone, and shortly thereafter the cellular network transmits a software update to bring the “ghost phone” into USA (yellow zone) compliance?

How many Americans know phone apps and internal app functions can exist on phones outside the yellow zone that do not exist inside the yellow zone?

Example: use a ghost phone and you can access a digital wallet in Telegram; you can transmit funds to other Telegram users. However, use a USA compliant phone and you cannot.  The function is there but the service is, “not available in your area.”

Why?

It’s about control.

If you don’t update the software, the function exists inside the yellow zone.  However, update the software and the function disappears.

This happens.

Another real-life example was recently missed by many people when the story of the Apple Watch Series 9, was found to have violated patent technology and banned for sale in the USA. {STORY}

To get into legal compliance, Apple transmitted a remote software update disabling the function of the patent technology in the USA.  Again, for emphasis, only in the USA.   Bring your non-compliant Series-9 into the range of a wifi network and bingo auto-compliance.  I mention this story only to highlight a modern compliance capability that many people do not know exists.

In essence, your tech devices -and the capability therein- are different than an identical tech device sold outside the western control zone.

♦ Technology is intertwined with Central Bank Digital Currencies.  Tech companies are regulated by the U.S/Western government, and the tech companies have to comply.  The regulatory compliance is part of the process of control.  There are regulatory walls around us that most do not understand.  The same regulatory principle applies to finance and banking. Hence, the origination motive of the yellow zone wall, built under the auspices of Russian sanctions.

Let me make one big point resoundingly clear before moving on.  When the WESTERN Central Bank Digital Currency system begins, all forms of cryptocurrency will be blocked and made unlawful, inside the western zone, either by regulation or by legislation.

Let me repeat this.  Cryptocurrency in all forms will be banned.

Crypto is not technically a currency, it is a barter based on trust.  However, at a certain point (origination or end) crypto must have the ability to transfer into currency value. Dollars (or another currency) are needed to purchase BitCoin,…. or BitCoin eventually sold or exchanged for Dollars (or another currency).  [BitCoin only used as a familiar type of crypto.]  This process is where crypto gets blocked.

Ownership of Crypto may not be unlawful, but any effort to use Crypto as an alternate digital currency to exchange value will be unlawful once the dollar based CBDC is launched.

A fully implemented govt controlled central bank digital currency will not allow competition.  Alternate crypto currency will be banned.  Without any doubt!

Back to the original questions:

“China is grey on the map, as is Russia. If we, the mapped yellow USA, are being boxed in by the Russian sanctions how is it China is grey yet they were the first to introduce a digital currency?”

The grey zone can trade amongst themselves however they want; the yellow zone (West) has no capability to stop them.  ex. if Russia wants to trade 1,000 barrels of oil with China for 100 boxes of intel microchips, they can.  Or if China and Russia want to exchange digital yen for digital rubles, they can; the West cannot stop them.  However, if China wants to interact with a yellow zone member, the yellow zone financial rule makers have rules.  China would have to be compliant with a dollar based CBDC to exchange value within the yellow zone.

Similarly, if you want to exchange a bushel of corn for 10 dozen eggs with your neighbor, you can; there is no mechanism to stop you.  However, if you need to pay your mortgage you will have to be compliant with a dollar based CBDC to exchange value, ie pay your bill.

Which brings me to the next question:

“all money of consequence in my life is already just digits in computer networks as far as I can perceive. … I’m at a loss as to why this is so qualitatively different as far as my financial security.”

This is the common mistake that most people make.

There is a big difference between “electronic transactions” of dollars, and the existence of a “digital dollar.”

Let me give you a metaphor using a casino as the reference.

♦ CURRENT – You go to the casino window and exchange $10,000 dollars for poker chips valued at $10,000.  You give the teller $10,000 in cash, bankers check, money order, a credit card or debit card transaction, and the teller gives you chips worth $10,000 in that casino.   You can use the chips gambling and perhaps win more chips.   Return to the window with $12,000 in casino chips and the teller exchanges the chips for $12,000 dollars, cash or check or deposit into your electronic card.

You meet a man in the casino willing to give you his fancy Rolex watch in exchange for $5,000.  You give the man $5,000 worth of your poker chips and he gives you his Rolex watch.  That man can then go to the teller window and exchange the chips for $5,000 in cash.  You have the watch.

♦ DIGITAL DOLLAR – You go to the teller window and produce your bank card containing a digital dollar balance.  You exchange $10,000 worth of your digital dollars for $10,ooo dollars’ worth of poker chips.  Except this time, with a digital dollar, each poker chip has your fingerprint on it.  You spend or bet your poker chips, and each chip you win also arrives to you with your fingerprint on it.  You win $12,000 dollars.  You return to the window with $12,000 in chips, each with your fingerprint, and the teller uploads your card with $12,000 digital dollars.

You meet a man in the casino willing to give you his fancy Rolex watch in exchange for $5,ooo.  However, you cannot give the man your poker chips because they are unique to you and carrying your fingerprint.  If he takes your fingerprint poker chips to the window, his fingerprint does not match the chip, his request for $5,000 in digital dollars would be denied.  He cannot sell you his watch. Your transactional capability is limited by the digital fingerprint.

[If he was planning to sell his watch for $5,000 in order to purchase a motorcycle worth $5,ooo, it is possible for you to purchase the motorcycle, exchange it for his watch and then carry on.  However, the motorcycle would be digitally registered to you, and you would be digitally registered to the motorcycle.  A reconciliation process is needed.]

A digital dollar creates a unique id attached to that digital dollar.  Ultimately, the central bank that issues the digital dollar controls what the digital id can do (that’s you), and what those digital dollars can be used for (what you can do).

Digital dollars can be blocked from gun purchases, and digital ids can be used to stop unapproved users from purchasing guns; or a gas guzzling suv, or a house that’s too big, or the non-compliant fridge, or whatever.

Sellers of goods (or information) can have their ids banned from receiving digital dollars, just as VISA and MasterCard blocked sellers of guns from accessing their electronic transaction system.  With digital dollars, “demonetization”, an alarmingly familiar modern term, can become a function of a financial regulation system.  “Debanking” another alarmingly familiar term, also becomes much easier.

Ultimately, a dollar-based US-Central Bank Digital Currency, ie a “digital dollar,” is about control.

Every transaction has a unique digital fingerprint, and every digital dollar can be traced by the IRS to the digital id associated with it.

There is a BIG difference between electronic funds (current), and a digital dollar (future).

I hope that helps.

[SOURCE]

Mar 26 2024

The US Government’s Plan for Social Security


Posted originally on Mar 26, 2024 By Martin Armstrong 

Social Security Cards

When questioned about the future of Social Security by the Senate Finance Committee, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen admitted that Biden “doesn’t have a plan.” There could be no possible plan for an ongoing Ponzi scheme that will fail once the fund runs out of money.

Estimates believe Social Security will reach insolvency before 2034. “I don’t have that computation to offer you,” before saying, “The president doesn’t have a plan. He has principles.” Principles do not put food on the table.

Of course, lawmakers immediately look at raising our taxes. “I’ll note that there’s already been $4.9 trillion in new taxes proposed for those making over $400,000 a year. It seems to be the go-to place, fill in the blank, we’re going to tax those over $400,000 a year for whatever,” Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., told Yellen. “Of that $4.9 trillion, none of that has been dedicated to Social Security.” We are raising taxes to fund extravagant climate change packages and wars. None of the money we give to our government goes back into the community.

The likelihood of Social Security remaining as it is today is ZERO. There is more likely to be a huge split in interest rates from the private sector compared to the public at the federal level.

As I have stated before, I donated my time to work with Congress back in the ’90s in an attempt to reform Social Security, transforming it into a wealth fund that was allocated out among managers. I was even shuttling between the Chairman of the House Ways & Means Committee, Bill Archer, and the House Majority Leader Dick Army. I argued for the privatization of Social Security to allow it to become a wealth fund and allow it to invest in equities. The Democrats would not vote for it, so this is why Social Security today cannot survive. Social Security invests 100% in government bonds, meaning it does not even earn a fair interest rate.

The Democrats painted this private investment as “risky,” and they voted against it. So, Social Security invests 100% in government bonds. Let’s see. The Fed lowered the interest rates to “stimulate” the economy. The net effect is that Social Security is simply a slush fund with no possible economic growth. The loss has come at the “opportunity risk” of leaving the money in bonds.

I laid out the structure for allocating money according to the track record of the manager. I was doing this because I had no interest in managing money of this nature. The Democrats wanted to replace the fund managers at will when they retook the majority. I explained that this decision should not be political. I did not care if the fund manager voted Democrat or Republican. That just never sunk in. Had Social Security simply become a wealth fund as so many nations around the world have adopted, it would NOT be in danger of a financial crisis today.

Now, I do not believe they will stop paying Social Security, but they could reduce payments and continue raising the age at which recipients may receive benefits, especially since the average life expectancy for Americans is on the decline. Take Venezuela for example. They honor their pensions, but what you get today will buy only a cup of coffee. Yet another major government-created crisis that could have been avoided.