xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

https://expose-news.com/2024/04/27/cbdcs-financial-inclusion-means-exclusion/ 

CBDCs: “Financial inclusion” means the inclusion of all transactions not people

By Rhoda Wilson|Apr. 27th, 2024

Send to Kindle

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

To try to make central bank digital currencies sound benign, proponents repeatedly use the word “financial inclusion.”  They are trying to convince us that the world needs CBDCs so that those who are “unbanked” can participate in the digital economy without requiring a bank account.

This is, of course, absurd, David McGrogan writes.  “People who are financially excluded are in that position either because they want to be or – more likely – because they have no choice. A CBDC is a remedy for neither of those things. Indeed, if anything, it is a recipe for deepening financial exclusion.”

Let’s not lose touch…Your Government and Big Tech are actively trying to censor the information reported by The Exposé to serve their own needs. Subscribe now to make sure you receive the latest uncensored news in your inbox…

By David McGrogan

“Central banks are understandably concerned that people who prefer to use physical cash may be left out in the cold.” – The Digital Pound Foundation

Central bankers are not well known for their insights into human psychology. When one reads the kind of material they put out, one rather gets the impression that they have been written by a race of aliens (are central bankers from Mars, or Venus?) trying to figure out exactly what it is that makes humans tick.

One sees this most clearly in the arguments which they tend to make when advocating for their shiny new toy, the Central Bank Digital Currency or CBDC (which I have written extensively about, in the UK context, HERE, HERE, HERE and elsewhere). These people are by no means fools, and they can discern that selling a CBDC to Earthlings – though they tend to put this in the mealy-mouthed language of “gaining public trust” – is going to be hard. Ordinary people, bluntly, don’t want it, and CBDC enthusiasts are painfully aware of this.

It is, though, a sign of the times that what ordinary people want, or don’t want, is not generally considered to be a relevant factor in decisions about policy. What the technocrat wants is good by definition, because it is the product of his expertise; the only relevant question to ask is how implementation should take place. Since the implementation of a CBDC is thought to need widespread adoption, then people will be made to adopt it. Hence, we see an awful lot of emphasis in the CBDC literature on the question of how it is that people will be cajoled, nudged, persuaded, hoodwinked, or coerced into adoption – given that it must, self-evidently, ultimately be in their best interests.

A phrase that keeps repeating itself within this discourse is, therefore, “financial inclusion.” The notion here, as it is always described, is that there are a large number of people in the world who are “unbanked” or who only really currently use cash, and that this results in them being excluded from the financial system at large. (Proportions obviously vary from country to country; you see different figures for the UK, but the Financial Conduct Authority reckons it’s around 3.9 million adults). It would be good to get these people “included,” the reasoning goes, and wouldn’t a CBDC be a brilliant wheeze for achieving that? Hence:

A digital pound could provide a secure and accessible means of payment to individuals who may not have access to traditional banking services. It could enable more people to participate in the digital economy without a bank account.

This is, of course, absurd. I hope you realise why it is absurd, but to spell it out: people who are financially excluded are in that position either because they want to be (they don’t trust the mainstream financial system) or – more likely – because they have no choice (due to where they live; due to living in poverty; due to lack of capacity, etc.). A CBDC is a remedy for neither of those things. Indeed, if anything, it is a recipe for deepening financial exclusion, as the UK House of Lords noted in their generally excellent report on the subject:

[A] CBDC could increase financial exclusion, particularly for people currently dependent on physical cash, as a result of being unable or unwilling to access digital services.

More plainly still, one simply needs to exercise one’s own basic human faculties to know that if anybody alive in the world in 2024 is unable or unwilling to avail themselves of a bank account or to make digital payments for things, “How about storing what little wealth you have in a completely untested digital currency which only exists online and which can only be transacted on the central bank’s core ledger?” is somewhat unlikely to be a winning proposition.

All of this is obvious. And serious advocates of CBDCs understand it perfectly well. This is why they tend not to claim financial inclusion is a benefit in its own right. Instead, they say things like “for a CBDC to increase financial inclusion, it must address the causes of exclusion…[and] would likely need to be embedded in a wider set of reforms.” The idea here is that the CBDC is the umbrella under which, magically, the problems of financial exclusion will be somehow solved. As the Digital Pound Foundation puts it:

[M]easures will need to be taken [when introducing the digital pound] in order to support those who are heavily reliant on cash today. These include enabling access to the digital money infrastructure, offline capabilities and user education.

Why “enabling access to the digital money infrastructure, offline capabilities and user education” aren’t working now to boost financial inclusion in the old-fashioned sense, and what would be different with respect to a CBDC, is never made clear. If it is open to us to act to improve financial inclusion, and if we are convinced that would be a good thing…well, let’s do it now then. Why are we waiting for the invention of a CBDC?

The truth, of course, is that increasing “financial inclusion” is a platitude. It sounds nice. It is mentioned as a benefit of CBDCs by enthusiasts because it makes their project seem benign, and because they perceive that talk of stablecoins and monetary policy and “programmable currency” and negative interest rates gives ordinary people the heebie-jeebies. If it can also be claimed that CBDCs would be good for little old ladies in benighted rural communities, or for people labouring in desperate poverty in Malawi or Madagascar, this goes some way to scraping off some of the bleak, authoritarian veneer that has already coated itself all over the entire project. It is nonsense, but it is vaguely plausible-sounding nonsense that has a pleasant ring to it at first blush. And that’s really all there is to it.

To come back to psychology, though (and one does not have to be Sigmund Freud to spot this) the curious thing about the frequency of the use of the phrase “financial inclusion” in CBDC literature is that it is what is sometimes called a “tell.” Indeed, there is a subtext in the use of the phrase which practically becomes a supertext: the preoccupation with “financial inclusion” seems to really be the manifestation of an inchoate, subconscious desire to “include” any and all transactions, and by extension all of the nation’s wealth, within the CBDC system – everybody’s last penny of disposable income, and everybody’s every purchase, safely performed, recorded and logged within the centrally-owned ledger. (And, by extension, nobody “left out in the cold” to scrabble around with their mean, dirty scraps of paper and filthy, debased coins.)

This is not I think what CBDC enthusiasts imagine their project to be all about – they tend to describe the virtue of this new form of currency to inhere in its provision of “diversity” and “resilience”, not to mention choice:

Isn’t it only fair that people have the choice of a digital form of government-backed money if they so desire?

But nonetheless, total “financial inclusion” in the sense I have described it, with every single person’s every financial decision included in the central bank’s core ledger, is clearly the trajectory which these people are on, whether they are conscious of it or not. And this should hardly surprise us. What, after all, was Keynes’ rationale for the existence, and role, of a central bank?

I believe that the cure for [economic evils] is partly to be sought in the deliberate control of the currency and of credit by a central institution, and partly in the collection and dissemination on a great scale of data relating to the business situation…. [And] I believe that some coordinated act of intelligent judgement is required as to the scale on which it is desirable that the community as a whole should save …

Control of the currency and credit, the collection and dissemination “on a great scale” of data, and control over the extent to which people are permitted to save – hence, the more “financial inclusion” (meaning, of course, the more that people’s finances are “included” on the central bank’s core CBDC ledger) the better. And without wishing to belabour this point, because it is one I have made before, the philosophical justification is also plain. If the tyrant is to maintain the population’s loyalty, then he must be seen by them to be necessary. And what more perfect way to appear necessary than to be the very basis upon which any and all transactions are made, and assets exchanged?

All that remains to really be determined is the means by which “financial inclusion,” in this wider sense of including everybody’s financial decisions within the core ledger, will take place. How far will we be nudged into adopting our friendly local CBDC? And how far will we be coerced? A clue for readers based in the UK (and something that I will write more about in due course) can be found on p. 45 of the Bank of England and HM Treasury’s recent response to a very widespread consultation paper it released in 2023:

A number of respondents, from academia, the payments software industry and NonGovernmental Organisations (NGOs), envisioned G2P [meaning “government-to-person”] use cases as including:

Government subsidies

Stimulus pay-outs

Pension payments

Relief payments during natural disasters, e.g. Covid-related disbursements

Support for Gift Aid, a scheme that enables charities to increase the value of donations made by reclaiming tax paid on the gift

A small number of respondents noted that the use of a digital pound by the Government for G2P payments could support a sense of trust and encourage its adoption.

Yes, government subsidies (read: welfare benefit payments) and pension payments – paid mandatorily in digital pounds, so as to “support a sense of trust and encourage adoption.” You read it here first. Keep an eye on that little phrase, “G2P” – I rather suspect it has a long career in store.

David McGrogan is a British legal scholar and writer. He has a PhD in Law from the University of Liverpool and is currently Associate Professor of Law at Northumbria Law School.  He publishes articles on a Substack page titled ‘News from Uncibal’ which you can subscribe to and follow HERE.


https://iaindavis.substack.com/p/central-bank-digital-currency-is 

Central Bank Digital Currency Is the Endgame - Part 1

IAIN DAVIS

MAR 2, 2023

Central bank digital currency (CBDC) will end human freedom. Don't fall for the assurances of safeguards, the promises of anonymity and of data protection. They are all deceptions and diversions to obscure the malevolent intent behind the global rollout of CBDC.

Central Bank Digital Currency is the most comprehensive, far-reaching, authoritarian social control mechanism ever devised. Its "interoperability" will enable the CBDCs issued by various national central banks to be networked to form one, centralised global CBDC surveillance and control system.

We will explore the technical aspects of CBDC that will form the walls of our prison in more detail in Part 2. First, we need to explore the broader context.

Iain Davis Substack is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Type your email...

Subscribe

Should we allow it to prevail, CBDC will deliver the global governance of humanity into the hands of the bankers.

CBDC is unlike any kind of "money" with which we are familiar. It is programmable and "smart contracts" can be written into its code to control the terms and conditions of the transaction.

Policy decisions and broader policy agendas, restricting our lives as desired, can be enforced using CBDC without any need of legislation. Democratic accountability, already a farcical concept, will become literally meaningless.

CBDC will enable genuinely unprecedented levels of surveillance, as every transaction we make will be monitored and controlled. Not just the products, goods and services we buy, even the transactions we make with each other will be overseen by the central bankers of the global governance state. Data gathering will expand to encompass every aspect of our lives.

This will allow central planners to engineer society precisely as the bankers wish. CBDC can and will be linked to our Digital IDs and, through our CBDC "wallets," tied to our individual carbon credit accounts and jab certificates. CBDC will limit our freedom to roam and enable our programmers to adjust our behaviour if we stray from our designated Technate function.

The purpose of CBDC is to establish the tyranny of a dictatorship. If we allow CBDC to become our only means of monetary exchange, it will be used enslave us.

Be under no illusions: CBDC is the endgame.

What Is Money?

Defining "money" isn't difficult, although economists and bankers like to give the impression that it is. Money can simply be defined as:

A commodity accepted by general consent as a medium of economic exchange. It is the medium in which prices and values are expressed. It circulates from person to person and country to country, facilitating trade, and it is the principal measure of wealth.

Money is a "medium"---a paper note, a coin, a casino chip, a gold nugget or a digital token, etc.---that we agree to use in exchange transactions. It is worth whatever value we ascribe to it and it is the agreed value which makes it possible for us to use it to trade with one-another. If its value is socially accepted "by general consent" we can use it to buy goods and services in the wider economy.

We could use anything we like as money and we are perfectly capable of managing a monetary system voluntarily. The famous example of US prisoners using tins of mackerel as money illustrates both how money functions and how it can be manipulated by the "authorities" if they control the issuance of it.

Tins of mackerel are small and robust and can serve as perfect exchange tokens (currency) that are easy to carry and store. When smoking was banned within the US penal system, the prisoners preferred currency, the cigarette, was instantly taken out of circulation. As there was a steady, controlled supply of mackerel cans, with each prisoners allotted a maximum of 14 per week, the prisoners agreed to use the tinned fish as a "medium of economic exchange" instead.

The prisoners called in-date tins the EMAK (edible mackerel) as this had "intrinsic" utility value as food. Out-of-date fish didn't, but was still valued solely as a medium of exchange. The inmates created an exchange rate of 4 inedible MMAKs (money mackerel) to three EMAKs.

You could buy goods and services in the Inmate Run Market (IRM) that were not available on the Administration Run Market (ARM). Other prison populations adopted the same monetary system, thus enabling inmates to store value in the form of MAKs. They could use their saved MAKs in other prisons if they were transferred.

Prisoners would accept payment in MAKs for cooking pizza, mending clothes, cleaning cells, etc. These inmate service providers were effectively operating IRM businesses. The prisoners had voluntarily constructed a functioning economy and monetary system.

Their main problem was that they were reliant upon a monetary policy authority---the US prison administration---who issued their currency (MAKs). This was done at a constant inflationary rate (14 tins per prisoner per week) meaning that the inflationary devaluation of the MAKs was initially constant and therefore stable.

It isn't clear if it was deliberate, but the prison authorities eventually left large quantities of EMAKs and MMAKs in communal areas, thereby vastly increasing the money supply. This destabilised the MAK, causing hyperinflation that destroyed its value.

With a glut of MAKs available, its purchasing power collapsed. Massive quantities were needed to buy a haircut, for example, thus rendering the IRM economy physically and economically impractical. If only temporarily.

Perfectly usable “money”

The Bankers’ Nightmare

In June 2022, as part of its annual report, the BIS published The future monetary system. The central banks (BIS members) effectively highlighted their concerns about the potential for the decentralised finance (DeFi), common to the "crypto universe," to undermine their authority as the issuers of “money”:

[DeFi] seeks to replicate conventional financial services within the crypto universe. These services are enabled by innovations such as programmability and composability on permissionless blockchains.

The BIS defined DeFi as:

[. . .] a set of activities across financial services built on permissionless DLT [Distributed Ledger Technology] such as blockchains.

The key issue for the central bankers was "permissionless."

A blockchain is one type of DLT that can either be permissionless or permissioned. Many of the most well known cryptocurrencies are based upon "permissionless" blockchains. The permissionless blockchain has no access control.

Both the users and the "nodes" that validate the transactions on the permissionless blockchain network are anonymous. The network distributed nodes perform cryptographic check-sums to validate transactions, each seeking to enter the next block in the chain in return for an issuance of cryptocurrency (mining). This means that the anonymous---if they wish--users of the cryptocurrency can be confident that transactions have been recorded and validated without any need of a bank.

Regardless of what you think about cryptocurrency, it is not the innumerable coins and models of "money" in the "crypto universe" that concerns the BIS or its central bank member. It is the underpinning "permissionless" DLT, threatening their ability to maintain financial and economic control, that preoccupies them.

The BIS more-or-less admits this:

Crypto has its origin in Bitcoin, which introduced a radical idea: a decentralised means of transferring value on a permissionless blockchain. Any participant can act as a validating node and take part in the validation of transactions on a public ledger (ie the permissionless blockchain). Rather than relying on trusted intermediaries (such as banks), record-keeping on the blockchain is performed by a multitude of anonymous, self-interested validators.

Many will argue that Bitcoin was a creation of the deep state. Perhaps to lay the foundation for CBDC, or at least provide the claimed justification for it. Although the fact that this is one "conspiracy theory" that the mainstream media is willing to entertain might give us pause for thought.

Interesting though this debate may be, it is an aside because it is not Bitcoin, nor any other cryptoasset constructed upon any permissionless DLT, that threatens human freedom. The proposed models of CBDC most certainly do.

CBDC & The End of the Split Circuit IMFS

Central banks are private corporations just as commercial banks are. As we bank with commercial banks so commercial banks bank with central banks. We are told that central banks have something to do with government, but that is a myth.

Today, we use "fiat currency" as money. Commercial banks create this "money" out of thin air when they make a loan (exposed here). In exchange for a loan agreement the commercial bank creates a corresponding "bank deposit"—from nothing—that the customer can then access as new money. This money (fiat currency) exists as commercial bank deposit and can be called "broad money."

Commercial banks hold reserve accounts with the central banks. These operate using a different type of fiat currency called "central bank reserves" or "base money."

We cannot exchange "base money," nor can "nonbank" businesses. Only commercial and central banks have access to base money. This creates, what John Titus describes—on his excellent Best Evidence Channel—as the split-monetary circuit.

Prior to the pseudopandemic, in theory, base money did not "leak" into the broad money circuit. Instead, increasing commercial banks' "reserves" supposedly encouraged them to lend more and thereby allegedly increase economic activity through some vague mechanism called "stimulus" .

Following the global financial crash in 2008, which was caused by the commercial banks profligate speculation on worthless financial derivatives, the central banks "bailed-out" the bankrupt commercial banks by buying their worthless assets (securities) with base money. The new base money, also created from nothing, remained accessible only to the commercial banks. The new base money didn’t directly create new broad money.

This all changed, thanks to a plan presented to central banks by the global investment firm BlackRock. In late 2019, the G7 central bankers endorsed BlackRock's suggested "going-direct" monetary strategy.

BlackRock said that the monetary conditions that prevailed as a result of the bank bail-outs had left the International Monetary and Financial System (IMFS) "tapped out." Therefore, BlackRock suggested that a new approach would be needed in the next downturn if "unusual circumstances" arose.

These circumstances would warrant "unconventional monetary policy and unprecedented policy coordination." BlackRock opined:

Going direct means the central bank finding ways to get central bank money directly in the hands of public and private sector spenders.

Coincidentally, just a couple of months later, the precise "unusual circumstances," specified by BlackRock, came about as an alleged consequence of the pseudopandemic. The "going direct" plan was implemented.

Instead of using "base money" to buy worthless assets solely from commercial banks, the central banks used the base money to create "broad money" deposits in commercial banks. The commercial banks acted as passive intermediaries, effectively enabling the central banks to buy assets from nonbanks. These nonbank private corporations and financial institutions would have otherwise been unable sell their bonds and other securities directly to the central banks because they can’t trade using central bank base money.

The US Federal Reserve (Fed) explain how they deployed BlackRock's 'going direct' plan:

A notable development in the U.S. banking system following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic has been the rapid and sustained growth in aggregate bank deposits [broad money]. [. . .] When the Federal Reserve purchases securities from a nonbank seller, it creates new bank deposits by crediting the reserve account of the depository institution [base money] at which the nonbank seller has an account, and then the depository institution credits the deposit [broad money] account of the nonbank seller.

This process of central banks issuing "currency" that then finds its way directly into private hands will find its ultimate expression through CBDC. The transformation of the IMFS, suggested by BlackRock's "going direct" plan, effectively served as a forerunner for the proposed CBDC based IMFS.

The "Essential" CBDC Public-Private Partnerships

CBDC will only be "issued" by the central banks. All CBDC is "base money." It will end the traditional split circuit monetary system, although proponents of CBDC like to pretend that it won’t, claiming the “two-tier banking system” will continue.

This is nonsense. The new “two-tier” CBDC system is nothing like its more distant predecessor and much more like “going direct.”.

CBDC potentially cuts commercial banks out of the "creating money from nothing" scam. The need for some quid pro quo between the central and the commercial banks was highlighted in a recent report by McKinsey & Company:

The successful launch of a CBDC involving direct consumer and business accounts could displace a material share of deposits currently held in commercial bank accounts and could create a new competitive front for payment solution providers.

McKinsey also noted, for CBDC to be successful, it would need to be widely adopted:

Ultimately, the success of CBDC launches will be measured by user adoption, which in turn will be tied to the digital coins’ acceptance as a payment method with a value proposition that improves on existing alternatives. [. . .] To be successful, CBDCs will need to gain substantial usage, partially displacing other instruments of payment and value storage.

According to McKinsey, a thriving CBDC would need to replace existing "instruments of payment." To achieve this, the private "payment solution providers" will have to be on-board. So, if they are going to countenance displacement of their "material share of deposits," commercial banks need an incentive.

Whatever model CBDC ultimately takes, if the central bankers want to minimise commercial resistance from "existing alternatives," so-called public-private partnership with the commercial banks is essential. Though, seeing as central banks are also private corporations, perhaps "corporate-private partnership" would be more appropriate.

McKinsey state:

Commercial banks will likely play a key role in large-scale CBDC rollouts, given their capabilities and knowledge of customer needs and habits. Commercial banks have the deepest capabilities in client onboarding [adoption of CBDC payment systems] [. . .] so it seems likely that the success of a CBDC model will depend on a public–private partnership (PPP) between commercial and central banks.

Accenture, the global IT consultancy that is a founding member of the ID2020 Alliance global digital identity partnership, agrees with McKinsey.

Accenture declares:

Make no mistake: Commercial banks have a pivotal role to play and a unique opportunity to shape the course of CBDC at its foundation. [. . .] CBDC is developing at a much faster pace than that of other payment systems. [. . .] In the U.S. at least, the design of a CBDC will likely involve the private sector, and with the two-tier banking system set to remain in place, commercial banks must now step up and forge a path forward.

What Model of CBDC?

By creating the new concept of "wholesale CBDC," the two-tier fallacy can be maintained by those who think this matters. Nonetheless, it is true that a wholesale CBDC wouldn’t necessarily supplant broad money.

The Bank for International Settlements (BIS)---the central bank for central banks---offers a definition of the wholesale CBDC variant:

Wholesale CBDCs are for use by regulated financial institutions. They build on the current two-tier structure, which places the central bank at the foundation of the payment system while assigning customer-facing activities to PSPs [non-bank payment service providers]. The central bank grants accounts to commercial banks and other PSPs, and domestic payments are settled on the central bank's balance sheet. [. . .] Wholesale CBDCs and central bank reserves operate in a very similar way.

Wholesale CBDC has some tenuous similarities to the current central bank reserve system but, depending upon the added functionality of the CBDC design, increases central bank ability to control all investment and subsequent business activity. This alone could have an immense social impact.

The BIS continues:

[. . .] a more far-reaching innovation is the introduction of retail CBDCs. Retail CBDCs modify the conventional two-tier monetary system in that they make central bank digital money available to the general public, just as cash is available to the general public as a direct claim on the central bank. [. . .] A retail CBDC is akin to a digital form of cash[.] [. . .] Retail CBDCs come in two variants. One option makes for a cash-like design, allowing for so-called token-based access and anonymity in payments. This option would give individual users access to the CBDC based on a password-like digital signature using private-public key cryptography, without requiring personal identification. The other approach is built on verifying users' identity ("account-based access") and would be rooted in a digital identity scheme.

It is “retail CBDC” that extends central bank oversight and enables it to govern every aspect of our lives. Retail CBDC is the ultimate nightmare scenario for us as individual "citizens."

While the BIS outlines the basic concept of retail CBDC, it has thoroughly misled the public. Suggesting that retail CBDC is the users "claim on the central bank" sounds much better than acknowledging that CBDC is a liability of the central bank. That is, the central bank always "owns" the CBDC.

It is a liability which, as we shall see, the central bank agrees to pay if its stipulated “smart contract” conditions are met. A retail CBDC is actually the central bank's "claim" on whatever is in your CBDC "wallet."

The BIS assertion, that CBDC is "akin to a digital form of cash," is a lie. CBDC is nothing like "cash," save in the remotest possible sense.

Both cash, as we understand it, and CBDC are liabilities of the central bank but the comparison ends there. The central bank, or its commercial bank "partners," cannot monitor where we exchange cash nor control what we buy with it. CBDC will empower them to do both.

At the moment, spending cash in a retail setting----without biometric surveillance such as facial recognition cameras---is automatically anonymous. While "token-based access" retail CBDC could theoretically maintain our anonymity, this is irrelevant because we are all being herded into a retail CBDC design that is "rooted in a digital identity scheme."

The UK central bank—the Bank of England (BoE)—has recently published its envisaged technical specification for its CBDC which it deceptively calls the Digital Pound. The BoE categorically states:

CBDC would not be anonymous because the ability to identify and verify users is needed to prevent financial crime and to meet applicable legal and regulatory obligations. [. . .] Varying levels of identification would be accepted to ensure that CBDC is available for all. [. . . ] Users should be able to vary their privacy preferences to suit their privacy needs within the parameters set by law, the Bank and the Government. Enhanced privacy functionality could result in users securing greater benefits from sharing their personal data.

Again, it is imperative to appreciate that CBDC is nothing like cash. Cash may be preferred by "criminals" but it is more widely preferred by people who do not want to share all their personal data simply to conduct business or buy goods and services.

The Digital Pound will end that possibility for British people. Just as CBDCs in every other country will end it for their populations.

The BoE model assumes no possible escape route. Even for those unable to present state approved "papers" on demand, "varying levels of identification" will be enforced to ensure that the CBDC control grid is "for all." The BoE, the executive branch of government and the judiciary form a partnership that will determine the acceptable "parameters" of the BoE's, not the users, "privacy preferences."

The more personal identification data you share with the BoE and its state partners, the sweeter your permitted use of CBDC will be. It all depends upon your willingness to comply. Failure to comply will result in you being unable to function as a citizen and ensure that you are effectively barred from mainstream society.

If we simply concede to the rollout of the CBDC, the concept of the free human being will be distant memory. Only the first couple of post CBDC generations will have any appreciation of what happened. If they don’t deal with it, the future CBDC slavery of humanity will be inescapable.

This may sound like hyperbole but, regrettably, it isn’t. It is the dictatorial nightmare of retail CBDC that we will explore in part 2, as we note the simple steps we can all take to ensure the CBDC nightmare never becomes a reality.

Iain Davis Substack is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Central Bank Digital Currency Is The Endgame - Part 2

IAIN DAVIS

MAR 6, 2023

In Part 1 we noted that "money" is no more than a medium of exchange. If we cooperate in sufficient numbers, we could create an economy based upon an entirely voluntary monetary system. We don't need banks to control our exchange transactions and modern Distributed Ledger Technology (DLT) has made voluntary exchange on a global scale entirely feasible.

Iain Davis Substack is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Type your email...

Subscribe

We contrasted the true nature of "money" with the proposed Central Bank Digital Currencies. CBDC is being rolled out across the world by a global public-private partnership . What we call money is actually fiat currency conjured out of thin air by central and commercial banks. Even so, CBDC is nothing like "money" as we currently understand it.

Prior to the pseudopandemic, fiat currency circulated in a split-monetary circuit. Only commercial banks could access a type of money called "central bank reserves" or "base money." In late 2019, the global financial institution BlackRock introduced a monetary plan that advocated "going direct" in order "to get central bank money directly in the hands of public and private sector spenders."

We discussed how the idea of putting "central bank money" directly into the hands of "private sector spenders" is precisely what that new CBDC based International Monetary and Financial System (IMFS) is designed to achieve. But CBDC will accomplish far more for the global parasite class than merely revamp its failing "debt" based IMFS.

If it is universally adopted, CBDC will afford the bankers complete control over the our daily lives. The surveillance grid will be omnipresent and every aspect of our lives will be engineered.

CBDC is the endgame and, in this article, we will explore how that game will play out.

If we allow it.

The Interoperable CBDC Empire

Contrary to the stories we are told, central banks are private corporations. These private corporations operate a global monetary and financial empire that is overseen and coordinated by the Bank for International Settlements (BIS).

The BIS does not come under the jurisdiction of any nation state nor intergovernmental organisation. It is exempt from all "law" and is arguably sovereign over the entire planet. As its current monetary system power-base declines, it is rolling out CBDC to protect and enhance its own authority.

While a "most likely" CBDC "platform" model has emerged, there is, as yet, no agreed single technical specification for CBDC. But, for the reasons we discussed previously, it is safe to say that no national model will be based upon a permissionless DLT---blockchain or otherwise---and all of them will be "interoperable."

In 2021 the BIS published its Central bank digital currencies for cross-border payments report. The BIS defined "interoperability" as:

The technical or legal compatibility that enables a system or mechanism to be used in conjunction with other systems or mechanisms. Interoperability allows participants in different systems to conduct, clear and settle payments or financial transactions across systems

The BIS' global debt based monetary system is "tapped out" and CBDC is the central bankers' solution. Their intended technocratic empire is global. Consequently, all national CBDCs will be "interoperable." Alleged geopolitical tensions are irrelevant.

The CBDC Tracker from the NATO think tank, the Atlantic Council, currently reports that 114 countries, representing 95% of global GDP, are actively developing their CBDC. Of these, 11 have already launched.

Just as the pseudopandemic initiated the process of getting "central bank money" directly into private hands so, according to the Atlantic Council, the sanction response to the war in Ukraine has added further impetus to the development of CBDC:

Financial sanctions on Russia have led countries to consider payment systems that avoid the dollar. There are now 9 cross-border wholesale CBDC tests and 7 cross-border retail projects, nearly double the number from 2021.

That this evidences the global coordination of a worldwide CBDC project, and that the BIS innovation hubs have been established to coordinate it, is apparently some sort of secret. China's PBC, for example, is a shining beacon of CBDC light as far as the BIS are concerned:

[. . . ] improving cross-border payments efficiency is also an important motivation for CBDC work. [. . .] The possibilities for cross-border use of retail CBDC are exemplified by the approaches in the advanced CBDC project in China[.]

The People's Bank of China (PBC) has been coordinating development of its CBDC cross-border payment system in partnership with the BIS via the m-Bridge CBDC project which is overseen by the BIS' Hong Kong innovation hub.

Supposedly, the Central Bank of the Russian Federation (CBR - Bank of Russia) was suspended by the BIS. Apparently, it was also ousted from the SWIFT telecommunications system. We were told that this was a “punishement” for the Russian government’s escelation of the war in Ukraine. In reality, it is doubtful that the BIS suspension ever occurred, and the SWIFT sanction was a meaningless gesture. Developing interoperable CBDC’s takes precedence over anything else.

All we have to substantiate the BIS suspension claim is some Western media reports, citing anonymous BIS sources, and an ambiguous footnote on a couple of BIS documents. Meanwhile, the CBR is currently listed as an active BIS member with full voting rights and no one, either from the BIS or the CBR, has made any official statement in regard to the supposed suspension.

The CBR's cross-border CBDC development uses two of the three BIS m-Bridge CBDC models and it is testing its interoperable “digital ruble” with the PBC. Seeing as the PBC is BIS m-Bridge development "partner," alleged suspension or not, there is no chance that the "digital ruble" won't be interoperable with the BIS' new global financial system.

The Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFT) provides the world's most pervasive encoded inter-bank messaging system. Both central and commercial banks, as well as other private financial institutions, use SWIFT to securely transmit transaction data.

There are a number of SWIFT alternatives. For example, the CBR developed its parallel System for Transfer of Financial Messages (SPFS) in 2014 which went live in 2017. Numerous Russian banks were already using the PBC's China International Payments System (CIPS) long before any supposed censure by SWIFT.

CIPS was developed by the PBC in partnership with SWIFT. As a result of SWIFT’s “sanction” of the CBR, the PBC and the CBR then started collaborating in earnest on a potential CIPS based SWIFT replacement. If the stories we are told are true, SWIFT’s action appears to have been an empty act of self-defeating folly.

None of the various communication layer technologies are financial systems in and of themselves, but they enable banks, trading platforms, clearing houses, payment processing systems and all the other elements of the global financial system to communicate with each other. For CBDCs to be successful they need to be interoperable both with these systems and with each other.

Interoperability also extends to existing fiat currencies and other financial assets, such as mortgage backed securities and exchange traded funds (ETFs). These assets, funds, currencies and securities, etc. can be "tokenised." As can practically any physical or virtual asset or commodity.

Hidera, a distributed ledger technology company that uses the hashgraph based DLT---a blockchain alternative---is backed by a number of wealthy global corporations. The company explains the asset tokenisation (or tokenization) process:

Asset tokenization is the process by which an issuer creates digital tokens on a distributed ledger or blockchain, which represent either digital or physical assets. [. . .] Suppose you have a property worth $500,000 in New York, NY. Asset tokenization could convert ownership of this property into 500,000 tokens — each one representing a tiny percentage (0.0002%) of the property. [. . .] The possibilities are endless as tokenization allows for both fractional ownership and proof-of-ownership. From traditional assets like venture capital funds, bonds, commodities, and real-estate properties to exotic assets like sports teams, race horses, artwork, and celebrities, companies worldwide use blockchain technology to tokenize almost anything.

The ability to trade tokenised assets internationally in any market, using CBDC, will facilitate the creation of a new CBDC based IMFS. Furthermore, digital "tokenisation" means anything can be converted into a financial asset and then traded on the new, CBDC based, digital IMFS.

For example, the BIS' Project Genesis tokenised "government green bonds." The World Bank explains "green bonds":

A bond is a form of debt security. A debt security is a legal contract for money owed that can be bought and sold between parties. [. . .] A green bond is a debt security that is issued to raise capital specifically to support climate related or environmental projects.

Using CBDC's added "smart contract" functionality, Project Genesis appended "mitigation outcome interests” smart contracts (MOIs) to their green bond purchase agreements. When the bond matured, in addition to any premium or coupon payments from the bond itself, the investor received verified carbon credits. The carbon credits are also tradable assets and they too can be tokenised.

Tokenised assets, traded using the CBDCs that central banks create from nothing, will generate almost limitless permutations for the formation of new markets. Subsequent profits will soar.

This “financialisation of everything” will further remove an already distant financial system to from the real, productive economy the rest of us live in. Needless to say, "interoperability" is a key desired "feature" of CBDC.

The BIS published its Project Helvetia report in December 2020 which demonstrated proof of concept for the settlement payment for "tokenised assets" using CBDC. SWIFT subsequently published the findings from its Connecting Digital Islands: CBDCs modelling experiment in October 2022.

SWIFT's stated objective was to link various national CBDCs to existing payment systems and thereby achieve "global interoperability." SWIFT was delighted to report:

These new experiments have successfully demonstrated a groundbreaking solution capable of interlinking CBDC networks and existing payments systems for cross-border transactions. Interlinking is a solution to achieve interoperability [.] [. . .] This solution can provide CBDC network operators at central banks with simple enablement and integration of domestic CBDC networks into cross-border payments [.]

In its associated press release, SWIFT announced:

Swift has successfully shown that Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) and tokenised assets can move seamlessly on existing financial infrastructure – a major milestone towards enabling their smooth integration into the international financial ecosystem.

Whatever CBDC design national central banks adopt, no matter which inter-bank payment system they access---be it SWIFT, CIPS or some new communication layer---global interoperability is assured. Thus many different CBDCs can form one, centrally controlled IMFS that will transact in near instantaneous real time.

Control of this CBDC system will also mean the centralised global power to limit or block payments, target users, redirect funds, enforce purchases, trade assets, add contracts, tax at source and generally exploit any of the other endless range of "functions" CBDC is capable of. In near instantaneous real time.

The CBDC Flimflam

Jon Cunliffe, Bank of England (BoE) Deputy Governor for Financial Stability, launching the UK's proposal for a "digital pound," said:

There is scope for innovation to generate further efficiencies in payments, allowing for faster and/or cheaper payments. [. . .] The digital pound could also complement existing financial inclusion initiatives, for example if it were able to provide for offline payments.

In its 2021 document on the Digital Ruble Concept, the CBR said that it had developed its Russian CBDC in response to:

[. . .] growing demand from households and businesses to improve the speed, convenience and safety of payments and transfers, as well as for cost reduction in the financial sphere.

The claimed advantages of cost saving, efficiency, speed , convenience, financial inclusion, improved resilience, financial security and so on, are trotted out time and time again. All of it is part of a dangerous and completely disingenuous sales pitch deceiving you into accepting your own monetary slavery.

Further on, the CBR reveals what has really spurred its development of the "digital ruble:"

[. . .] smart contracts may also be used to mark digital rubles, which will allow setting conditions for spending digital rubles (e.g. defining specific categories of goods/services that can be purchased with them) and tracing the entire chain of movement of the marked digital rubles. [. . .] Digital ruble settlements do not provide for the anonymity of payments.

The digital ruble might initially seem more "convenient" but it is also designed to enable the the Russian central bankers to identify exactly who is buying what, anywhere in the country at any time. It will also empower them to set the "contract" conditions which will determine what Russians can buy, when and from whom. The central bankers will decide what "choices" Russian CBDC users are allowed to make.

We should not be duped by the faux rationales offered by the proponents of CBDC. Despite all the cosy rhetoric from the likes of the CBR and the BoE, the real objective is to enhance the global power and authority of bankers. As far as they are concerned, this power will know no bounds.

For instance, the BoE’s Jon Cunliffe added:

[. . .] there are broader macro-economic and geopolitical issues that need to be considered. The Bank of England is working actively on these issues with international counterparts through the Bank for International Settlements Committee on Payments and Market Infrastructures (CPMI), through the G7, the G20 and FSB [Financial Stability Board] and through close cooperation with a small group of advanced economy central banks.

Don't be surprised that the central bankers consider geopolitics to be within their remit. Their stated intention to "actively" work on geopolitical "issues" has no "democratic" mandate whatsoever, but so what? They don't care, why should they? Who is paying attention? Most of us are too busy worrying about feeding ourselves and paying our energy bills.

The fact that bankers have long been able exert inordinate influence over geopolitics, economics and society has always been to our detriment. If we continue to neglect our duty to defend each other and ourselves, and if we blindly accept CBDC, the bankers' power and authority will be immeasurable.

In 2020, the Russian Federation government amended its legal code with the "Law on Digital Financial Assets" (DFAs). The amendment regulated "non-cash ruble" DFAs. The CBR soon added its commercial bank partner Sberbank to the list of financial institutions authorised by the CBR to issue DFAs. In December 2022 Sberbank launched its "gold backed " DFA offering "tokenised" gold.

Since 1971, when central banks finally abandoned any semblance of gold standard, many have lamented the supposed loss of fiat currency's "intrinsic value." The possibility of adding "intrinsic value" to CBDC through smart contracts is apparently enticing some to now welcome CBDC and, thereby, their own enslavement.

The Russian and Iranian governments have already proposed a possible gold-backed CBDC "stablecoin" for interoperable cross border payments. "Interoperability" suggests it could be "backed" by Sberbank's tokenised gold DFA.

If this sounds suspiciously like a shell game that's because it is. Nonetheless, some are convinced and have extolled the alleged virtues of this "gold backed" CBDC.

It makes no difference if CBDC is backed by gold, oil, nuclear weapons or unicorn horns. All claims of its advantages are nothing but CBDC flimflam.

No matter how it is spun, the brutal fact is that CBDC affords an unimaginable degree of social control to those who program it. From our perspective, unless we have completely taken leave of our senses, nothing warrants taking that risk.

It is all so shiny and marvellous isn’t it?

The Programmable CBDC Nightmare

The BoE is among the central banks to reassure the public that it won't "implement central bank-initiated programmable functions." Elsewhere, it also claims that is a public institution, which isn't true. So we have little reason to believe anything the BoE says.

Not that it matters much, because the BoE assurances given in its CBDC technical specification don't provide reason for optimism:

Central bank-initiated programmable use cases are not currently relevant to the Bank and HM Treasury’s policy objectives for CBDC.

Perhaps "not currently" but enforcing programmable CBDC may well become "relevant," don't you think? Especially given that the BoE adds:

The design of a UK CBDC must deliver the Government and Bank’s [the BoE] policy objectives. [. . .] Over the longer term, innovation and evolving user needs may mean a broader range of CBDC payment types could be offered. For example, offline and cross-border payments could support public policy objectives.

As if this mealymouthed squeamishness wasn't bad enough, the BoE then goes on to suggest we should welcome their dream of a stakeholder-capitalism CBDC Wild West:

[T]he Bank [BoE] would aim to support programmable functionality[.] [. . .] These functionalities would be implemented by PIPs [Payment Interface Providers] and ESIPs [External Service Interface Providers], and would require user consent. PIPs could implement some of these features, such as automated payments and programmable wallets, by hosting the programmable logic [. . .]. But other features [. . .] might require additional design considerations. [. . .] [T]he Bank would only provide the necessary infrastructure to support PIPs and ESIPs to provide these functionalities. [. . .] An automated payment could be particularly useful in IoT [Internet of Things] use cases. [. . .] PIPs could host their own logic that triggers a payment.

If the BoE don't "currently" feel the need to program your "money," how about handing program control over to HSBC, Barclays, Mastercard or PayPal? They will program your CBDC to "deliver the Government and Bank’s [the BoE] policy objectives." Undoubtedly adding some lucrative "contract logic" of their own along the way. What could possibly go wrong?

Let's say EDF Energy is your energy provider. You could let BlackRock, working in partnership with the manufacturers it invests in, exploit the IoT to program your washing machine to automatically pay for your energy use by deducting your "money" from your CBDC "wallet”, subject to whatever "contract logic" BlackRock has agreed with EDF Energy.

If you run a small UK business you could let your bank automatically deduct income tax from your earnings and pay it directly to the Treasury. No need for the inconvenience of self-assessment. CBDC will be so much more "convenient."

Of course, this will be entirely "optional," although it may be a condition of opening a business account with your bank. In which case your CBDC "option" will be to work in a central bank managed CBDC run business or don't engage in any business at all.

How does that all sound to you? Because that is exactly the "model" of retail CBDC that the BoE are proposing. So are nearly all other central banks because CBDC is being rolled out, for all intents and purposes, simultaneously on a global scale.

The Retail CBDC Nightmare

As noted in Part 1, the real nightmare CBDC scenario for us is programmable retail CBDC. In its proposed technological design of the disingenuously named "digital pound," the BoE revealed that "retail CBDC" is exactly what we are going to get.

The BoE claims that retail CBDC is essential to maintain access to central bank money. This is only "essential" for bankers, not us.

It also alleges that its digital pound model has been offered to the public merely for "consultation" purposes. Yet it has only offered one, very specific CBDC design for our consideration and the “consultation” deploys the Delphi technique to ensure that responses are limited to expressing levels of agreement with the imposed, underlying premise. The only question appears to be when we will adopt CBDC, not if.

The usual flimflam, talking about inclusion, cost savings, offering choice and yada yada, peppers the BoE's statements and documents. The BoE also lays out its retail CBDC panopticon.

The UK's CBDC won't initially target everyone. Speaking about the design of the digital pound, Jon Cunliffe said:

We propose a limit of between £10,000 and £20,000 per individual as the appropriate balance between managing risks and supporting wide usability of the digital pound. A limit of £10,000 would mean that three quarters of people could receive their pay in digital pounds, while a £20,000 limit would allow almost everyone to receive their pay in digital pounds.

If working people are "paid" in CBDC they won't actually have any "choice" at all. The low paid and those reliant upon benefits payments will have no option but to use CBDC. The independently wealthy, for whom £20,000 is neither here nor there, won't.

Cunliffe's comments highlight the possibility that savings can also be limited in the brave new CBDC world. He clearly suggests that those on low incomes won't be able to hold more than CBDC-£20,000 and will perhaps be limited to as little as CBDC-£10,000.

Unsurprisingly, the UK's CBDC won't be based upon a permissionless DLT that could potentially grant anonymity, but rather upon, what the BoE calls, its "platform model." The BoE will "host" the "core ledger" and the application layer (API) will allow the BoE's carefully selected private sector partners---called Payment Interface Providers (PIPs) and External Service Interface Providers (ESIPs)---to act as the payment gateways.

The PIPs and the ESIPs will be "regulated," and will thus be empowered on a preferential basis by the central bank. If CBDC becomes the dominant monetary system, as is clearly the intention, by controlling "access to the ledger," all user transactions---our everyday activity---will be under the thumb of a public private-partnership led, in the UK, by the BoE.

While the majority of British people don't have anywhere near £10,000 in savings, the ability to control the amount we can save, and the rate at which we spend, is a tantalising prospect for the central bankers. Add in the ability to specify what we can spend it on and it's their dream ticket.

The BoE wishes to impose the most oppressive form of retail CBDC possible, but they aren't alone. The Russian CBR's model is another, among many others, that is just as tyrannical. The Russian's CBDC is also constructed upon a "platform" model that is uncannily similar to the UK's.

Just like British citizens, Russian's behaviour will be monitored and controlled by their private central bank and its partners through their CBDC "wallets." The CBR's "Model D" CBDC is also a "a retail two-tier model with financial institutions [private corporate partners] as settlement participants."

The CBR states:

Digital rubles are unique digital codes (tokens) held in clients’ electronic wallets on the digital ruble platform. [. . .] The Bank of Russia opens wallets for financial institutions and the Federal Treasury while financial institutions open wallets for clients [businesses and individuals] on the digital ruble platform. Only one digital ruble wallet is opened for a client.

Every Russian business and private citizen will each have one CBDC wallet allocated to them by the CBR. Russian commercial banks will enable the "client onboarding" to speed up adoption of CBDC. The commercial banks and other "financial institutions" will then process CBDC payments and act as payment intermediaries on the CBR's Model D "platform."

The People's Bank of China (PBoC) and the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) are among those considering programming expiration dates into their CBDC's. This will ensure that Chinese and Indian CBDC users can't save and have to spend their issued "money" before it expires and ceases to function. Thereby "stimulating" economic activity in the most "going direct" way imaginable.

The BoE proposes exactly the same in its model of digital pound. The BoE is reluctant to concede that its CBDC will be used to enforce policy. Instead, it has devolved this power to its commercial banks "partners” which the BoE will then control through regulation:

A range of programmable features might be enabled by providing API access to locking mechanisms on the core ledger. [. . .] This enables PIPs and ESIPs to facilitate more complex programmable functionality off ledger. [. . .] The funds would be locked until a pre-defined condition has been met. [. . .] The PIPs and ESIPs would host contract logic on their own infrastructure, but would instruct the release of funds via API to the core ledger. [. . .] If the set conditions are not met, all locks would have an expiry time where the funds are released back to the original owner.

The BoE public-private partnership could, for example, program its CBDC with an expiry date. The PIPs or the ESIPs could then modify the program adding "more complex" conditions through their own "contract logic" infrastructure. For example, the BoE could specify that the CBDC your "wallet" will expire by next Wednesday.

A PIP or ESIP could add some contract logic to ensure you can only buy Italian coffee---before next Wednesday. This could be enforced at the point of sale in any retail setting (off ledger).

This is a silly example, but don't be fooled into believing such an excruciating degree of oppressive control isn't possible. Programmable CBDC, probably programmed by AI algorithms, is capable of enforcing an intricate web of strictures over our everyday lives.

Just as you can send an encrypted message to anyone else on the same message app, so CBDC "smart contracts" can be tailored to the precisely prescribe what you can or cannot do with your “money.”

Bo-Li

They Wouldn't Do That Though Would They?

The infamous quote, from a salivating BIS general manager Agustín Carstens, reveals why central bankers are so excited about CBDC:

We don't know who's using a $100 bill today and we don't know who's using a 1,000 peso bill today. The key difference with the CBDC is the central bank will have absolute control on the rules and regulations that will determine the use of that expression of central bank liability, and also we will have the technology to enforce that.

We can look to other influential central bankers to appreciate what kind of "rules" central banks might choose to "enforce" by exercising their "absolute control."

Bo Li, the former Deputy Governor of the Bank of China and the current Deputy Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), speaking at the Central Bank Digital Currencies for Financial Inclusion: Risks and Rewards symposium, offered further clarification

CBDC can allow government agencies and private sector players to program [CBDC] to create smart-contracts, to allow targetted policy functions. For example[,] welfare payments [. . .], consumptions coupons, [. . .] food stamps. By programming, CBDC money can be precisely targeted [to] what kind of [things] people can own, and what kind of use [for which] this money can be utilised. For example, [. . .] for food.

Nigeria has already launched its eNaira retail CBDC. The Nigerian central bank and the BIS have immediately used it as a tool to roll out Digital ID:

Universal access to eNaira is a key goal of the CBN [Central Bank of Nigeria], and new forms of digital identification are being issued to the unbanked to help with access. [. . .] When it comes to anonymity, the CBN has opted to not allow anonymity even for lower-tier wallets. At present, a bank verification number is required to open a retail customer wallet.

The French central bank—the Banque de France—hosted a conference in September 2022 where US and EU central bankers decided that their retail CBDC would also force Digital ID upon users. Indeed, all central banks have effectively "ruled out" any possibility of "anonymous use" of their programmable money.

The Reserve Bank of India states:

Most central banks and other observers have, however, noted that the potential for anonymous digital currency to facilitate shadow-economy and illegal transactions, makes it highly unlikely that any CBDC would be designed to fully match the levels of anonymity and privacy currently available with physical cash.

Once we have no option but to use CBDC nor will we have any but to accept Digital ID. We will be fully visible on the grid at all times.

Currently if the state wishes to lockdown its citizens or limit their movement within 15 minutes of their homes they need some form of legislation or enforceable regulation. Once we start using CBDC that is linked to our Digital ID, complete with biometric, address and other details, they won't need legislation or regulation.

They can simply switch off your "money," making it impossible to use outside of your restriction zone. Potentially limiting you to online purchases made only from your registered IP address. CBDC will ensure your compliance.

It is no use imagining that "they wouldn't do that." We have already seen the use of monetary punishment and control in our so-called liberal democracies. Numerous private payment providers removed access from those who, in their view, expressed to wrong opinion.

When Canadians exercised their legitimate right to peaceful protest and their fellow Canadians chose to offer their financial support to the protesters, the commercial banks worked in partnership with the Canadian state to freeze protesters accounts and shut down their funding streams.

CBDC will make this a matter of routine, as targeted individuals are punished for their dissent or disobedience. It stretches naivety to wilful ignorance to believe that it won't.

The whole point of CBDC is to control the herd and enhance the power and authority of the parasite class. CBDC is a social engineering tool designed to establish a prison planet. Unless you want to be a slave, there is no possible justification for using CBDC. Submitting to CBDC enslavement truly is a "choice."

Please share these articles. It is absolutely vital that as many people as possible understand the true nature of CBDC. We cannot rely upon the state or the mainstream media for anything approaching transparency or honesty on the subject. With regard to our potentially calamitous adoption of CBDC, they are the enemy.

People are already resisting. The Swiss have gathered enough signatures to force a referendum that, if successful, will enshrine cash in Swiss law and stop the government from moving towards a “cashless society.” The Nigerian e-Naira is not popular and there have been significant protests against the removal of cash.

US Congressman Tom Emmer has introduced the CBDC Anti-Surveillance State Act (bill) to stop the Fed rolling out its CBDC. Whether it will go beyond the bill stage remains to be seen.

This is why the retail CBDC “platform” models, as proposed in the UK, Russian and other central banks, add further reason for concern. By welcoming the commercial banks and the private payment providers into CBDC interoperability, the central banks are not only attempting to overcome resistance from the private sector but seeking to seed CBDC into every form of payment we currently have available to us, other than cash.

It is easy to envisage how a global financial collapse could usher in the “solution” of CBDC. The European Central Bank (ECB), for example, has already “modelled” how the so-called “climate crisis” could precipitate just such a collapse. If, as Cunliffe proposes, peoples’ only means of payment is CBDC then, using the existing financial system, we really won’t have much choice.

While we need to use every peaceable means at our disposal, such as referenda, lobbying and protest, to oppose CBDC, ultimately these approaches are appeals to those who wish to impose the CBDC tyranny upon us. It would be prudent for us also to consider potential counter-economic solutions and step away from compliance with centralised authority.

Fortunately, if we decide to resist there is no reason why we have to succumb to using CBDC. In order to construct better systems of exchange that will render CBDC superfluous, we have to come together in our communities. It won’t be easy, there are no simple solutions nor one “perfect” strategic response.

But the fact is, we simply cannot afford CBDC.


HENRYMAKOW.COM  3-7-24

Bank Failures Will Force People to Accept CBDC's

March 6, 2024

banker-debt-web_orig.jpg

Many banks are teetering on the edge of insolvency.

"If you've been suspicious that the government and banking cartel have been purposefully trying to destroy the economy, it's because they are - or at the very least they don't care if it collapses. The plan is to eventually generate a crisis so bad that all of your assets suddenly disappear, triggering the SIPC insurance program to return up to a maximum of $500,000 to every individual with accounts at one of their member banks.

This will not be returned in dollars as that would be impossible. Instead, a new currency will be issued: a Central Bank Digital Currency, and your insured savings will be returned in that. Your only other choice will be to lose everything, so I think we can have high confidence that everyone will line up to take whatever deal they are given."

By Tom Ford

(henrymakow.com)

Linked below is a very low level documentary along with the book it is based on. It discusses the astonishing and terrifying true nature of our financial system. Here's a high level synopsis.

All tradeable securities (stocks, bonds, ETFs, etc) are held by central clearing banks in large pools. In a strict, purely legal sense, the bank owns these assets and you only own a "claim" to them. The bank uses virtually all of these securities as collateral to create derivative contracts and sell them to third parties. Those third parties are first in line to get paid if the bank's assets (ie. your savings) have to be liquidated. You are last in line, meaning all of your assets, your retirement, and everything you think you own in your savings will be gone in a large enough banking crisis. Yes, this includes your 401K, your pension, and everything in your Robinhood portfolio.

This is completely legal. They've been slowly changing the laws and winning court cases for the last several decades to make this happen.

If you've been suspicious that the government and banking cartel have been purposefully trying to destroy the economy, it's because they are - or at the very least they don't care if it collapses. The plan is to eventually generate a crisis so bad that all of your assets suddenly disappear, triggering the SIPC insurance program to return up to a maximum of $500,000 to every individual with accounts at one of their member banks.

This will not be returned in dollars as that would be impossible. Instead, a new currency will be issued: a Central Bank Digital Currency, and your insured savings will be returned in that. Your only other choice will be to lose everything, so I think we can have high confidence that everyone will line up to take whatever deal they are given.

This will massively redistribute wealth. All millionaires and billionaires will be instantly erased, which will serve further as a selling point for the ignorant masses. The real goal though, of course, will be to further control our lives, give the government perfect transparency into everyone's spending, eliminate all possibility for tax evasion, and have perfect micromanaged control of the supply of money. For example, if inflation is running hot in one category, the government will be able to program quotas into your bank account, shutting off your ability to purchase certain goods at their whim.

Get out of debt. Governments will destroy your assets while still requiring you to pay your debts, as they did during the Great Depression of the 1930s. Convert useless dollars to tangible things that exist. Farmland, if you can afford it without a mortgage, is one of the best options. If you're not that rich (few are) start hoarding gold (silver if you're really broke) and tell no one.

taking-book-cover.jpeg

This is probably the most important book anyone can read to gain an insight into how truly rigged the whole financial system is. The world truly is a banker's playground.

---

Deckard666 comments-

Well it's a start that you see through it ... but it goes much deeper and it's far worse than you can imagine right now. I'm saying that because you recommend to buy farmland. You don't own that land. You cannot own that land. You have no money to buy it with. "Dollar" isn't money ... it's legal tender. Buy Gold with it? You cannot own that Gold. Same reason.

And I know it will piss people off but nevertheless here's the thing: You are not not wiser than the people who have planned what's coming not only for years or decades but centuries. They know that there's this bunch of wannabe smart folks who think they can save their wealth with "precious metals". Why? Because you're programmed by them to do so.

Here's what's gonna happen: The ownership and use of "precious metals" as means of barter will be forbidden. There will be a time period in which you can turn it in and receive CBDC credits for it. If you don't turn it in and are caught hiding it or trying to trade it you can be lucky only to end up in jail. But I doubt it. We're depopulating and that's a good reason as any to get rid of you.

How will they get you? Well there's this social credit system and everybody who rats someone out who hoards precious metals will receive points on his score. Extra calories per month, better transportation etc. ... everything slaves hunger for. So anybody who knows that you ever bought Gold or Silver ... you get it who's gonna turn your ass in.

---

Related- Neil McCoy Ward Reviews The Great Taking

You already own nothing, and they don't care if you're happy or not.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dk3AVceraTI

https://thegreattaking.com/


XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Digital IDs are being rolled out globally; from Europe to Ethiopia to Australia

expose-news.com/2024/04/11/digital-ids-are-being-rolled-out-globally

By Rhoda WilsonApril 11, 2024

Here is a collection of news items and social media posts from the last week relating to the rollout of digital identities in various countries.  But first, a brief look at who is behind the push to be able to digitally identify every person on Earth.

Let’s not lose touch…Your Government and Big Tech are actively trying to censor the information reported by The Exposé to serve their own needs. Subscribe now to make sure you receive the latest uncensored news in your inbox…

1. Bill Gates’ Inclusive Financial Systems: Gates’ goal is to expand access to his digital financial services to people in the lowest-income communities around the globe.

“We work with our partners to support public and private investment in digital payment infrastructure, new regulatory standards, and gender equality initiatives such as digitised government benefit payments, to ensure continued progress toward the promise of financial inclusion,” the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation webpage for its Inclusive Financial Systems states.

2. ‘Digital IDs are an effective tool against poverty’: This is the deceptive title of an article, one of the updates for Gates’ Inclusive Financial Systems mentioned above, published by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

“Digital ID systems are one of the three pillars of what’s known as digital public infrastructure (DPI); the others are digital payment systems and data exchange systems,” the article stated.

Further reading: Western taxpayers are funding the global rollout of the controligarchs’ surveillance and control system, The Exposé

The article goes on to note that Gates is offering his Modular Open Source Identity Platform (“MOSIP”) to all countries so they can build their own national identity systems for free.  For free?  Really? Nothing is for free. Just because Gates is not asking for money upfront, it does not mean that he is not taking something in return.

 “The original inspiration for MOSIP was India’s national digital ID system, Aadhaar, which launched in 2009. This ambitious effort would eventually enrol over 99% of all Indian adults,”  the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation said.

Further reading: Bill Gates is “inspired” by digital ID and smart farming projects in India, The Exposé

Bill Gates: India's "digital public infrastructure", which combines biometric digital ID, digital payments and massive data sharing—spanning across the fields of agriculture, education and healthcare, among others—will take on a whole new dimension with the introduction of AI.… pic.twitter.com/dCDxUxT8RT

— Wide Awake Media (@wideawake_media) April 4, 2024

3. Philippines experts weigh in on leveraging fintech, blockchain solutions: With insights from industry leaders, the discourse on ‘Rebuilding Trust in the New Global Digital Economy and Digital Identity’ highlighted how blockchain offers secure, transparent, and efficient avenues for global trade and financial inclusion.

Andrew Chung, Executive Director and Chief Technology Officer of TradeLink, emphasised the need to establish a universal mechanism for digital identity in cross-border transactions. He highlighted the significance of leveraging electronic passports and digital certificates to authenticate people globally.

“We need to find a solution that can be used, no matter where you are, as long as you are wanting to do business with your friends from the Philippines, people in Hong Kong, or other countries,” Chung said.

4. National Digital IDs for refugees in Ethiopia: The Government of Ethiopia, through its Refugees and Returnees Service (“RRS”) in partnership with the National ID Program (“NIDP”) and the UN Refugees Agency (“UNHCR”) launched an initiative to include refugees and asylum seekers into the Ethiopian Digital ID system.

The cards, which contain a unique identification number dubbed Fayda, are intended to enable this category of persons to get access to important social services, according to an announcement by the UNHCR.

5. Digital wallet use in Greece: During March, 105,237 Greek citizens downloaded the Gov.gr Wallet application on their mobile phones.  The number of Greeks who have downloaded the digital wallet since its launch in July 2022 is estimated at 1,877,032. The government recently expanded the application’s use making it mandatory for entrance in stadiums as of 9 April.

The Gov.gr Wallet allows a person to create, store and control their digital documents. Digital ID cards, digital driving licenses, digital disability cards, DYPA digital cards and digital cards are already supported.

The new digital ID card, digital driver’s license, digital disability card, the DYPA digital card and the digital ring card are digital documents issued through Gov.gr and are fully equal to the paper documents. They are not international travel documents.

6. Digital ID at centre of Europe’s data sharing changes: The European Digital Identity (“EUDI”) Wallet inches closer to reality.

The Centre of Excellence for Data Sharing and Cloud (CoE DSC), an international initiative for data sharing based in the Netherlands, has published a guide on what the European digital identity will mean for data spaces, including service providers and data sharing initiatives.

Common European data spaces are the continent’s attempt to create a single market for data, ensuring that more data becomes available for use in the economy, society and research.

“Digital Identity (DI) is a key building block for data spaces,” the paper notes.

Data spaces are set to benefit from the EU-wide digital identity which will enable cross-sectoral data sharing and interoperability.

The Centre of Excellence for Data Sharing and Cloud provides an analysis of the upcoming eIDAS 2.0 regulation, which aims to introduce new trust services and regulate the EUDI Wallet for natural persons and the “Organisational Digital Identity Wallet” (ODIW) for legal entities.

7. Australia Digital Identity Bill: Tweeting a video yesterday, Russell Broadbent, member of the House of Representatives for Monash, said: I’ve had a gut full of being told what I can and can’t do,  say and think. Now, Australia is fast heading toward a ‘Digital Prison’ where everything will be known about you, leading to dangerous and unprecedented levels of control over your life. Speak up while you still can!”

In his video, he said: ”Just before Easter the Senate rammed through the Digital Identity Bill.  No debate, no consultation and no respect for the Australian people or the Parliament … If the past four years have taught me anything, it’s that our government and governments across the world are increasingly using tyrannical tactics to achieve their goals of increased control over every aspect of our lives.”

Source: Russell Broadbent on Twitter, 10 April 2024 (3 mins)

8. Hacker publishes data of almost the entire population of El Salvador: On 6 April, a hacker decided to make the personal information of 5.1 million Salvadorans available for free on the dark web: names, dates of birth, phone numbers, residential addresses, email addresses, and unique identity numbers (Documento Único de Identidad or DUI) numbers. The file includes millions of high-definition photos of Salvadoran citizens.  The breach affects the majority of adults in the country.

It has not yet been confirmed whether the stolen data comes from registrations on the Chivo wallet app, the government’s electronic wallet introduced with the Bitcoin Law on 7 September 2021 to maintain both Bitcoin and US dollars. However, the suspicion is quite concrete, considering that the leaked information matches the data required for registration on the wallet.

9. A reminder of where it all began: Covid vaccine passports were the precursor to digital IDs as demonstrated in China.

Digital IDs are electronic shackles to keep people in lines. https://t.co/9MIwp7CWz0

— Songpinganq (@songpinganq) April 7, 2024


xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

https://expose-news.com/2024/04/12/say-goodbye-to-the-dollar-as-imf-prepares-for-financial-revolution/ 

Say GOODBYE to the Dollar as IMF Prepares for Financial Revolution.

expose-news.com/2024/04/12/say-goodbye-to-the-dollar-as-imf-prepares-for-financial-revolution

By Patricia HarrityApril 12, 2024

The Bretton-Woods Agreement of 1944 established the framework for the rise of the U.S. dollar and its status as the global reserve currency which has its obvious benefits for the US, but there are also numerous costs involved, according to Brandon Smith, who writes “Think of world reserve status as a “deal with the devil. You get the fame, you get the fortune, you get trophy dates and a sweet car – for a while. Then one day the devil comes to collect, and when he does he’s going to take everything, including your soul.”

“Unfortunately, I suspect collection time is coming soon for the U.S“.

IMF Prepares Financial Revolution – Say GOODBYE to the Dollar

Written by  Brandon Smith and originally published on The Burning Platform

The Bretton-Woods Agreement of 1944 established the framework for the rise of the U.S. dollar. While the benefits are obvious, especially for the U.S., there are numerous costs involved. Think of world reserve status as a “deal with the devil.” You get the fame, you get the fortune, you get trophy dates and a sweet car – for a while. Then one day the devil comes to collect, and when he does he’s going to take everything, including your soul.

Unfortunately, I suspect collection time is coming soon for the U.S.

Global reserve currency status allows for amazing latitude in terms of monetary policy. The Treasury Department understands that there is constant demand for dollars overseas as a means to more easily import and export goods. The petrodollar monopoly made the U.S. dollar essential for trading oil globally for decades.

This means that the central bank of the U.S. has been able to create fiat currency from thin air to a far higher degree than any other central bank on the planet while avoiding the immediate effects of hyperinflation.

Much of that cash as well as dollar-denominated debt  ends up in the coffers of foreign central banks, international banks and investment firms. Sometimes it is held as a hedge, or bought and sold to adjust the exchange rates of local currencies. As much as 60% of all U.S. currency (and 25% of U.S. government debt) is owned outside the U.S.

Global reserve currency status is what allowed the U.S. government and the Fed to create tens of trillions of dollars in new currency after the 2008 credit crash, all while keeping inflation more or less under control.

The problem is that this system of stowing dollars overseas only lasts so long and eventually the effects of overprinting come home to roost.

The Bretton-Woods Agreement of 1944 established the framework for the rise of the U.S. dollar. While the benefits are obvious, especially for the U.S., there are numerous costs involved. Think of world reserve status as a “deal with the devil.” You get the fame, you get the fortune, you get trophy dates and a sweet car – for a while. Then one day the devil comes to collect, and when he does he’s going to take everything, including your soul.

Unfortunately, I suspect collection time is coming soon for the U.S.

It may take the form of a brand-new Bretton Woods-like system that removes the dollar as global reserve currency and replaces it with a new digital basket system. (Something like the International Monetary Fund (IMF)’s Special Drawing Rights (SDR) currency.)

Global banks are essentially admitting they plan for a complete overhaul of the dollar-based financial world, and the creation of a central bank digital currency (CBDC)-focused system built on “unified ledgers.”

There have been three recent developments all announced in succession that suggest the dollar’s replacement is imminent.

And by “imminent,” I mean before this decade is over.

The IMF’s XC framework: A centralized policy For CBDCs

The IMF’s XC platform was released as a theoretical model in November of 2022 and matches closely with their long discussed concept of a global SDR, only in this case it would tie together all CBDCs under one umbrella along with “legacy currencies” (dollars and euros and so on).

XC is marketed as a policy structure to make cross-border payments in CBDCs “easier” for governments and central banks. Of course, it places the IMF as the middleman controlling the flow of digital transactions. The IMF suggests that the XC platform would make the transition from legacy currencies to CBDCs easier for the various nations involved.

As the IMF noted in a discussion on centralized ledgers in 2023:

We could end up in a world where we have connected entities to some degree, but some entities and some countries that are excluded. And as a global and multilateral institution, we’re sort of aiming to, you know, provide a basic connectivity, a basic set of rules and governance that is truly multilateral and inclusive. So, I think that is – the ambition is to aim for innovation that is compatible with policy goals and that is inclusive relative to the broad membership of, say, the IMF.

To translate, decentralized systems are bad.

“Inclusivity” (collectivism) is good.

And the IMF wants to work in tandem with other globalist institutions to be the “facilitators” (controllers) of that economic collectivism.

Bank For International Settlements (BIS)’s Universal Ledger

Not more than a day after the IMF announced their XC platform goals, the BIS announced their plans for a single record for all CBDCs called the BIS Universal Ledger. The BIS specifically notes that the project is meant to inspire trust in central bank digital currencies while overcoming the fragmentation of current tokenization efforts.

While the IMF is focused on controlling international policy, the BIS is pursuing the technical aspects for the globalization of CBDCs. Both make it clear in their white papers that a cashless society is in fact the end game and that digital transactions must to be monitored by a centralized entity in order to keep money “secure.”

As the BIS argues in their extensive overview of Unified Ledgers:

Today, the monetary system stands at the cusp of another major leap. Following dematerialisation and digitalisation, the key development is tokenisation – the process of representing claims digitally on a programmable platform. This can be seen as the next logical step in digital recordkeeping and asset transfer…

The blueprint envisages these elements being brought together in a new type of financial market infrastructure (FMI) – a “unified ledger”. The full benefits of tokenisation could be harnessed in a unified ledger due to the settlement finality that comes from central bank money residing in the same venue as other claims. Leveraging trust in the central bank, a shared venue of this kind has great potential to enhance the monetary and financial system.

There are three major assertions made by the BIS in their program:

First, the digitization of money is unavoidable. Cash is going to disappear primarily because it makes moving money easier, and existing cryptocurrencies are “a flawed system that cannot take on the mantle of the future of money.”

Second, our existing decentralized payment methods are unacceptable because they are “risky.” Only central banks are qualified and “trustworthy” enough to mediate the exchange of money.

Third, the use of Unified Ledgers is largely designed to track and trace and even investigate all transactions (for the public good, of course).

The BIS system deals far more in the realm of private transactions than the IMF example. It is the technical foundation for the centralization of all CBDCs, governed in part by the BIS and the IMF, and it is scheduled to go into wider use in the next two years.

There are already multiple nations testing the BIS ledger today.

Now, it’s important to understand that whoever acts as the middleman in global money exchange is going to have all the power, over both governments and their citizens.

In other words, whoever controls the unified ledger also controls all the world’s money.

If every movement of wealth is monitored, from the shift of billions between governments down to your payment for groceries and gas, then every single transaction can be rejected.

Your access to food and fuel would depend on the whim of the observer. Which might not even be human…

Historically, such granular control over individual transactions hasn’t been possible. Numbers vary, but the average American currently makes 39-70 transactions per month, 1-2 per day. The development of AI makes it possible to assess and analyze massive amounts of data in real-time and to develop very detailed profiles of individuals simply based on their purchases… And, of course, to identify and prevent anti-social purchasing behavior in real-time.

The SWIFT Cross Border Project (another way to control entire nations)

As we’ve seen with the attempt to use the SWIFT payment network as a bludgeon against Russia, there is an obvious motive for globalists to control a high-speed large-scale transaction hub. Again, this is all about centralization, and whoever controls the hub has the means to control trade… up to a point.

Locking Russia out of SWIFT didn’t work, though, did it?

The Russian economy suffered minimal damage exactly because there are other methods for transferring money between nations to keep the flow of trade running. However, under a CBDC based global monetary umbrella, it would be impossible for any country to work outside the boundaries. It’s not only about the ease of shutting a nation out of the network, it’s also about having the power to immediately block the transfer of funds on the receiving end of the exchange. (Just like in the example above.)

Any funds from any source could be intercepted before reaching their recipient.

Once governments are completely under the thumb of a centralized monetary system, a centralized ledger and a centralized exchange hub, they will never be able to escape.

This control will inevitably trickle down to the general population.

Does this sound nuts? Here’s the really scary part: The vast majority of nations are going right along with this program!

China is most eager to join the global currency scheme.

Russia is still part of the BIS, but their involvement in CBDCs is still unclear.

The point is, don’t expect the BRICS to counteract the new monetary order. It’s not going to happen.

CBDCs automatically end the dollar’s global reserve currency status

So what do all these globalist projects with CBDCs have to do with the dollar?

The bottom line is this: A unified CBDC system excludes the need or use-case for a global reserve currency entirely.

The Unified Ledger model takes all CBDCs and homogenizes them into a pool of liquidity, each CBDC growing similar in characteristics over a short period of time.

The dollar’s advantages disappear in this scenario. The value of all currencies becomes relative to the middle-man. In other words, the IMF, BIS and other related institutions dictate the properties of CBDCs and thus there is no distinguishing aspect of any individual CBDC that makes one more valuable than the others.

Sure, some countries might be able to separate their currency to a point with superior production or superior technology. But the old model of having a big military as a way to prop up your currency is dead.

All the world’s currencies, from dollars to Malaysian ringgit, would become nothing more than line items on the Universal Ledger.

Eventually the globalists will make two predictable arguments:

1) A world reserve currency under the control of one nation is unfair and we as global bankers need to make the system “more equal.”

2) Why have a reserve currency at all when all transactions are moderated under our ledger anyway? The dollar is no better for international trade than any other CBDC, right?

Finally, the dollar has to die because it’s an integral part of the “old world” of material exchange. Remember, originally the dollar was defined as “three hundred and seventy-one grains and four sixteenth parts of a grain of pure silver.” Tangible assets like physical precious metals have no place in the purely digital future the globalists envision.

The globalists desire a cashless society because it is an easily controlled society. Think of the Covid lockdowns – if they had a cashless system in place at that time, they would have gotten everything they wanted. Refuse to take the experimental vaccine? We’ll just shut off your digital accounts and starve you into compliance.

Without physical money, you have no alternative unless you plan to live completely off the land and barter goods and services (a way of life most people in the first world need a lot of time to get used to).

I believe that a sizable percentage of the American populace would resist a cashless society, but in the meantime, there is still the inevitability of a dollar crash to deal with. Globalist organizations are pushing CBDCs to go active very quickly, and this plus centralized ledgers will dethrone the dollar.

This means that those trillions in greenbacks held overseas will start flooding back into America all at once, causing a historic inflationary disaster.

Exactly the kind of disaster that might convince the nation to accept a new, digital currency…

As much as our nation has benefited from global reserve currency status in the past, it will suffer equally as the dollar dies.

That’s one reason it’s absolutely crucial to own physical precious metals. Untrackable, non-digital forms of money like gold and silver will be even more highly prized in the near future than they are today.

Source – Brandon Smith – The Burning Platform