The Great Reset

[aenyc]

James Roguski | Substack

Exposing MDM (Mis-Information, Dis-Information and Mal-Information). Click to read James Roguski, a Substack publication with tens of thousands of subscribers.

jamesroguski.substack.com

Screw The WHO

The World Health Organization has ended its public comment period, which means that the #ScrewTheWHO public comment period just KICKED INTO OVERDRIVE!

jamesroguski.substack.com

 

[aenyc]

The Secret Message
​

Are you ready? Let's see if you can discern what these would-be controllers of humanity are really saying:



"In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, to contribute something to solving overpopulation." —Prince Philip, Interview



"The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it." —Margaret Sanger, Woman and the New Race.



"Countless people, from maharajas to millionaires and from pukkha sahibs to pretty ladies, will hate the new world order, be rendered unhappy by the frustration of their passions and ambitions through its advent and will die protesting against it." —H. G. Wells, The New World Orderhttps://corbettreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/opalogo.jpg



"And there's too many of us, and most of us are living incorrectly. If we had a much smaller population, and over time we could have an ethic where we had only one child, and over maybe 300 or 400 years we could cut back to 250 million – 350 million people." —Ted Turner, Interview



"In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill. In their totality and their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which must be confronted by everyone together. But in designating these dangers as the enemy, we fall into the trap, which we have already warned readers about, namely mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention in natural processes, and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy then is humanity itself." —Alexander King & Bertrand Schneider, The First Global Revolution: A report by the Council of the Club of Rome



"Professor Pianka said the Earth as we know it will not survive without drastic measures. Then, and without presenting any data to justify this number, he asserted that the only feasible solution to saving the Earth is to reduce the population to 10 percent of the present number. He then showed solutions for reducing the world’s population in the form of a slide depicting the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse. War and famine would not do, he explained. Instead, disease offered the most efficient and fastest way to kill the billions that must soon die if the population crisis is to be solved. Pianka then displayed a slide showing rows of human skulls, one of which had red lights flashing from its eye sockets." —Forrest Mim's account of a speech by University of Texas evolutionary ecologist Eric Pianka.



"An ABC website has been accused of portraying farmers and forestry workers as evil and telling kids how much carbon they can produce before they die." —"ABC website tells kids when they should die"



"To date, there has been no serious attempt in Western countries to use laws to control excessive population growth, although there exists ample authority under which population growth could be regulated. For example, under the United States Constitution, effective population-control programs could be enacted under the clauses that empower Congress to appropriate funds to provide for the general welfare and to regulate commerce, or under the equal-protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Such laws constitutionally could be very broad. Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society." —Paul Ehrlich et al., Ecoscience



"To put it bluntly: in earlier times, it was easier to control one million people than to physically kill one million people; today, it is infinitely easier to kill one million people than to control one million people." —Zbigniew Brzezinski, "Major Foreign Policy Challenges for the Next US President."

 

[aenyc]

So, did you catch the subtle message that the crafty cabal carefully coded into their public communiqués?

No? Oh, OK, you got me! There's no secret message. It's right there in the open.

For the completely clueless, the points that pop up again and again in the oligarchs' oratory are:

• Humanity is the enemy.
• We must reduce the population.
• Billions of commoners must die that we and our progeny may live.

That's it. It's right there in black and white in their major publications, security memoranda, white papers and speeches. Heck, it's even engraved in stone . . . or at least it used to be until some enterprising individuals turned that stone into rubble. The point is: there is no secret message. There's only a completely out-in-the-open one.

And, once you truly understand this message and the ruthless, psychopathic, eugenicist, elitist, anti-human mindset of the kakistocrats that promulgate it, you can finally make sense of world events.

Why is the environmental movement stewarded over by murderous, human-hating wackos who desire to see billions of people die? Because the conservation movement (and all of the mainstream environmental organizations that grew out of that movement) was pioneered by murderous, human hating eugenicists and funded by the eugenicist royals who wanted to keep their beautiful natural vistas clear of the riff-raff scurrying around beneath them.

Why do nation after nation appear to be in a seeming race to the bottom, implementing policies that will actively hinder the productivity of their own populations and making it more and more difficult for those on the lowest rung of the economic ladder to eke out a subsistence living on the corporate-governmental fascist plantation that we call the developed world? And why is it now increasingly in vogue for governments to offer "medically assisted dying" as their "solution" to the strain and stress of this deliberately degraded world? Because those same governments are stewarded over by elitist eugenicists who hate you and want you dead, of course.

And why do The $cience™ (a registered trademark of the AstroPfizerDernica corporation, as we all know) and academia and the mainstream press and Hollywood and every other pusher of establishment propaganda mindlessly parrot anti-human narratives? Because they are funded and populated by the same elitist, eugenicist, human-hating depopulationists, naturally.

As I say, once you see the "super secret" message in the psychopaths' public statements for what it is, none of the actions they take are particularly difficult to figure out.

And yet, when you spell out this blindingly obvious reality to the masses, you get massive pushback. It seems they have so internalized the "humans are a cancer on the planet" meme that they've been duped into believing that this idea is their own original thought and that they are somehow brave and transgressive for articulating it.

Which leads to the question:

Why, Then, Do People Not See This Message?
​

There's a bit of advice that gets passed around online these days: "When someone shows you who they are, believe them."

Just type that phrase into your search engine of choice and you'll discover two things: firstly, the quote is commonly attributed to Maya Angelou; and secondly, it is oft-cited relationship advice that is posted in reddit fora and self-help blogs and other places where one is likely to encounter trite, pop culture truisms.

Like so many of those pop psy clichés, it appeals because it's seemingly simple but actually profound. As Maya Angelou explains, people will sometimes tell us that they're mean or they're crazy. Our first response in such cases is often one of reassurance: "Oh, you're not crazy," or "Oh, I don't think you're unkind!" Then, when the person turns out to actually be nasty or deranged, they can rightly protest that we have no right to be angry at them; after all, they told us what they are.

In a similar way, the globalists are not hiding their intentions behind some secret cypher. They're telling us openly that we are their enemy. That they want us to eat bugs. That they want us herded up into 15 minute cities, where they plan to monitor, track and control us. And that their end goal is to get rid of billions of us.

Yet here, too, the average, non-psychopathic person's response to such admissions is one of reassurance. "That's not what they're really saying. They're just demonstrating that there's a problem. They're not talking about killing us. And even if they were, it's because they care for us!"

When the globalists proceed to do the very things they announced they were going to do, we can hardly act surprised, can we? After all, they did warn us!

Paraphrasing Angelou, then, perhaps we can come up with some apt "relationship advice" for those stuck in a Stockholm Syndrome bond with their elitist captors:

When genocidal, anti-human psychopaths tell you who they are, believe them!

 

[aenyc]

So, What is Our Message?
​

You didn't think I would leave things there, did you? Of course not. The real point of parsing the globalists' (not-so-) secret message is that doing so helps us to clarify our own position.

When you boil it down, it’s actually pretty basic. The globalists hate life and want to end it. To counteract them, we must cherish life and seek to preserve it.

Allow me to quote myself at length from my 2016 editorial on "The Greatest Blessing":

We are programmed to look out for danger and respond to threats. It’s instinctual, and well it should be. We live in a dangerous world and our family line wouldn’t have made it this far if there weren’t an eternal vigilance against potential perils.
But always focusing on the threats and dangers can send us off the deep end. Especially when dealing in the doom and gloom that pervades so much of the alternative media, it can be all too easy to dwell on the negative and forget why it is we’re fighting for truth and justice in the first place. In fact, it can become difficult to remember that we’re fighting for anything at all and just focus on fighting against. Against our enemies. Against the politicians and banksters and globalists and fraudsters and psychopaths. But, just like the returning war vet who can’t stop fighting the war in his head or the homicide detective who assumes everyone is a murder victim in waiting (or a murderer in waiting), this perspective starts to ruin our appreciation of the world until we forget why it is we even cared in the first place.
Sadly, this isn’t some theoretical problem. I get dozens of emails a week from people who are frightened and angry and at their wits’ end, asking me how I manage to keep doing this work given all the evil that we are facing. The answer is so simple that I’m not sure it can be taught, only perceived. In short, the answer is that I love my life. I love my family and my friends and watching clouds roll by on a lazy summer afternoon and reading a good book and hearing the sound of my son’s laughter and, yes, hearing my daughter’s cry. The cry of a healthy, growing newborn. This is why I care. I care because life is worth living, and I see that deep down most people are the same; they just want to enjoy their families and their friends and their time on this planet, too. I’m not fighting against the powers that shouldn’t be. I’m fighting for all of those things in the world that are worth saving.

That's my not-so-secret message. What's yours?

 

[TommySr]

That's my not-so-secret message. What's yours?

do no harm

 

[D71]

AMERIGEDDON 2016 cheap movie;

They are not ashamed… of what they are doing. Alex Jones is in it. Cheap movie. The Great Reset is about population reduction….they openly planned it for decades… or longer.

Just look how many movies they have made in the past. The conspiracy think part ….. they use these cheap movies to send messages.

Covid like events was made into movies….movie after movie build up. 12 Monkey movie shows a person deliberately exposing ppl.

Best Movies About Pandemics and Viruses, Ranked

Sometimes art imitates life, and the most horrific plots are actually inspired by reality. Here are the best pandemic movies ever made.

movieweb.com

A forecast thread for massive sun spot taking out grid. This is projected now. They are right we could harden our electric grids very cheaply but won’t. All these military age men coming across the border is intentional too.

Post in thread 'Can Solar & Wind Fix Everything (e.g., Climate Change) with a battery break-through?'
https://diysolarforum.com/threads/c...th-a-battery-break-through.25299/post-1038383

Hmmmm… Con spiracy.

 

[aenyc]

And just like with Chemtrails, when it becomes too obvious, they flip the switch and its "See, its true now, and its awsome! For your safety" LOL

Turns out we DO have a Deep State…and it’s “awesome”

Kit Knightly After years of denials, the mainstream media has decided to admit the Deep State does exist…and apparently it’s “awesome”. At least, according to this new video…

off-guardian.org

ter years of denials, the mainstream media has decided to admit the Deep State does exist…and apparently it’s “awesome”.

At least, according to this new video from the New York Times:

It Turns Out the ‘Deep State’ Is Actually Kind of Awesome

The video itself is a six-minute strawman, presenting interviews with rocket scientists – as if they genuinely think that’s what people mean when they refer to the deep state – then piling on insanely manipulative attempts to “humanise” the concept of the Deep State by talking about these guys’ hobbies and interests.

It’s cheesy and flippant and every bit as cringe as it sounds:

We went on a road trip to find out. As we met the Americans who are being dismissed as public enemies, we discovered that they are … us. They like Taylor Swift. They dance bachata. They go to bed at night watching “Star Trek” reruns. They go to work and do their jobs: saving us from Armageddon.

Let’s state the obvious – when we talk about the Deep State, we’re not talking about people protecting children from exploitation in Chicago and we’re not talking about amiable Star Trek fans building life-saving rockets – and the New York Times video production team know this as well as we all do.

We’re talking about corrupt military and intelligence agencies, with ties to big business, who really control the government using “elected” politicians as sock puppets.

We’re talking about the machinery put in place which impoverishes the poor and undermines human rights to further authoritarian control over the people whilst facilitating and accelerating the transformation of public money into private profits.

Maybe the people that do all that are also Spock-loving marathon runners, maybe not. I don’t care, I’d just like them to stop.

The propaganda bait-and-switch is as pathetic as it is clumsy. They think that by putting human faces on the lowest and most amiable rungs of Federal power they can pretend it’s nothing but love and light all the way through. By defending the defensible, they hope to give the indefensible a pass.

The clumsy message of the video couldn’t be clearer, in fact here it is word-for-word from the NYT:

When we hear “deep state,” instead of recoiling, we should rally. We should think about the workers otherwise known as our public servants, the everyday superheroes who wake up ready to dedicate their careers and their lives to serving us. These are the Americans we employ. Even though their work is often invisible, it makes our lives better.

Golly gee. How adorable.

Personally, I am old enough to remember all the way back to 2017 and the dozen different articles all explaining, in great detail, why the US does not have a deep state at all. I wrote a long response to this at the time.

Turns out they were all wrong anyhow, the US does have a Deep State after all – it’s peopled by bachata dancing Swifties who “save us from Armageddon” – and we should be very grateful for it.

It’s all reminiscent of the meme that’s been doing the rounds for years, on how the formerly unthinkable is normalised in public discourse.

1. That doesn’t happen, and everyone who says it does is a conspiracy theorist.
2. That happens sometimes but it’s very rare.
3. That should actually happen more.
4. That is happening a lot and it’s a good thing (we are currently here)
5. People who don’t like this happening are the problem.

Guess that means we’ve got number five to look forward to.

 

[aenyc]

Global CBDC Rollout Continues Apace

Kit Knightly Terror attacks in Moscow, ongoing genocide in Gaza, and cancer in the Royal family are dominating the headlines. Meanwhile, on the financial back pages, all over the world the implemen…

off-guardian.org

Terror attacks in Moscow, ongoing genocide in Gaza, and cancer in the Royal family are dominating the headlines.

Meanwhile, on the financial back pages, all over the world the implementation of Central Bank Digital Currencies draws nearer.

China, whose digital Yuan was the major flagship CBDC, is in the middle of an immense trial covering over 25 million people. This week they released new guidelines for tourists using CBDCs for the first time.

A journalist for the crypto-focused DLNews wrote of her experience using it, and while functionality might seem limited right now we should note that she talks up the “de-dollarization” aspect of CBDCs, aligning digital currency with the “multilateral world” plan.

Hong Kong has its own CBDC program, the second trial stage of which launched last week. They are developing the ability to use “tokenised deposits” to add $160bn to their GDP.

In Europe, following late February’s Digital Euro Conference (DEC24), the European Central Bank has announced the development of the “digital euro rulebook”.

In Sweden, the Riksbank’s e-Krona program published its final report on its CBDC pilot a few days ago. Coin Telegraph reports they working on making its CBDC available offline.

The Central Bank of the UAE announced they are launching their own CBDC pilot a few days ago.

That’s just the technical developments, saying nothing of the ongoing propaganda campaign.

As I already said, in order to appeal to the anti-Imperialist left, we’re being told that CBDCs will help the world “de-dollarize”.

Another angle is that CBDCs will help developing nations prosper. For example, BusinessMagnates.com reports that CBDCs will help “revive Latin American economies”.

All this is just from the past week. It goes on and on and on.

The only slight hold-out seems to be the US, where CBDCs remain somewhat contentious.

The e-dollar has stuttered along in progress compared to the rest of the world, with contradictory reports from officials emerging all the time.

This could be genuine opposition from US Imperialists due to the threat of de-dollarisation, it could be a natural response to a far more cash-based economy than most of the developed world, or it could be a deliberate propaganda campaign designed to promote CBDCs in anti-America quarters.

Of course, it’s an election year state-side, and Presidential candidates Donald Trump and Robert Kennedy Jr have both come out against CBDCs. While RFK jr is doubtless sincere, this would not be the first time the “deep state” has tried to discredit an opinion by having Trump endorse it.

But America or no America, the global CBDC roll-out is coming.

According to the Atlantic Council’s CBDC Tracker, 134 countries representing 98% of global GDP are currently working on their own digital currency.

While an Atlantic Council report from March 14th underlines the importance of “interoperability”:

Central banks and international financial institutions are realizing that uneven and dispersed technological advancements in digital currencies could actually create further fragmentation of the financial system, deepen digital divides, and create systemic risks. This would undercut the premise of digital currencies, which are supposed to create more efficiency in the existing system. Fortunately, there are some new models of interoperability across borders.

Interoperability isn’t just an important part of the CBDC plan, according to the Atlantic Council, it is the whole point.

Just yesterday, reported by Business Wire, SWIFT published their findings on “Seamless Introduction of CBDCs for Cross-Border Transactions”:

Interoperability is critical to Swift’s strategy for instant and frictionless transactions. The cooperative has focused its innovation agenda on interoperability between digital currencies and tokenised assets to overcome the potential risk of fragmentation, caused by the development of digital currencies on different technologies and with different standards and protocols. Swift’s solution has already been shown to enable cross-border transfers and connect CBDCs on different networks with each other, as well as with fiat currencies.

As we wrote in 2024: The Year Global Government Takes Shape, interoperability is the name of the game – there is no real practical difference between 195 interoperable digital currencies and one global currency.

Global currency is coming. It’s not on the front pages, but that’s hardly surprising.

 

[aenyc]

You'll never guess what just happened. Politico published an article about a real solution!

Yes, an honest-to-goodness solution!

Shocking, isn't it?

Even more shocking: it's a solution that details how we can free ourselves from the clutches of the UN!

And the most shocking thing of all: this proposed solution isn't a "don't throw us in the briar patch" trick to get the public to back some alternative plan for global enslavement. It's a solution that attacks the root of the problem and, by extension, threatens the globalist agenda itself.

Now, let's not get carried away here. Naturally, the establishment lapdogs over at Politico have only reported on this solution in order to disparage the idea and those who are forwarding it. But still, to see an actual solution being discussed on a dinosaur media platform at all is itself an amazing development.

So, what on earth is going on here? Let's put on our reading glasses and take a look.

How Not to Exit Paris
​

If you exclusively follow mainstream news and establishment propaganda, you might have heard of the Paris Agreement, the accord adopted at the UN's annual "Conference of the Parties" climate talks in Paris in 2015. And, if you do exclusively follow those sources of misinformation, then you'll have some vague, woolly-headed idea that the Paris Agreement is a magical parchment that will—through some mystical process you can't quite explain—placate the weather gods enough to limit future global temperature increases to 1.5°C (2.7°F).

If, however, you are a dedicated Corbett Reporteer, then you'll know that:

• the so-called "Paris Agreement" is in fact the demon spawn of that linchpin of global governance, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change;
• "The magic 1.5" goal of said agreement is in fact arbitrary, unscientific clap-trap; and
• the very concept of an average global temperature is itself a canard.

But, like it or not, unless you happen to be a resident of Iran, Libya or Yemen—the only three nation-states on the planet that have not ratified this net zero death pledge—you are subject to this agreement.

Enter Trump. Back in 2017, Trump announced Washington's withdrawal from the Paris Agreement. However, by a strange coincidence, the earliest date that the US could actually withdraw from the treaty was November 4, 2020, the day after the American presidential (s)election. And, as we all know, Sleepy Uncle Joe won the (s)election and promptly signed up the US to rejoin the agreement.

So, what lessons can we learn from this ordeal? Given the fact that this on-again, off-again withdrawal charade accomplished precisely nothing, how can we ensure that a subsequent withdrawal attempt actually works?

Well, we could choose to believe that the Orange Man is our MAGA saviour and, in order to end all climate nonsense forever, Americans will just have to vote even harder in 2024!

. . . But that is an aggressively stupid take, one which fundamentally misunderstands the reality of the situation and thus arrives at a "solution" that is no solution at all. Even if you believe Trump is actually against the globalists—which / is, needless / to / say, an / easily / demonstrable / lie—then the only thing that the US' failed Paris withdrawal demonstrates is that what can be arbitrarily struck down by one president can be arbitrarily resurrected by another.

Imagine a universe in which the voting machines had declared Trump the winner in 2020 and the US withdrawal from the Paris Agreement had stuck. Americans would be in the exact same boat today that they were then: hoping that Trump's appointed successor wins the next (s)election in order to keep the US out of Paris.

No, leaving the United States'—or any other country's—participation in the climate scam up to the caprice of a would-be ruler's whims is no solution at all.

So, how can the US exit Paris for good?

​

 

[aenyc]

How to REALLY Exit Paris
​

Enter Politico.

Earlier this month, the Washington propaganda rag published an article on "How Trump could exit Paris—and make it stick," which purports to reveal a new idea cooked up by "prominent conservatives":

The idea, included in a 920-page policy report, is to pull the United States out of the 1992 treaty that underpins the Paris deal, known as the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. That would be a serious step beyond what Trump did during his first term, when he exited the Paris Agreement but continued sending delegations to the annual UN climate talks.
While a president can unilaterally reenter the Paris deal (as President Joe Biden did), rejoining the underlying convention could require a two-thirds majority vote in the Senate — a tall order.

That "could" in the last sentence is doing a lot of heavy lifting, but for the time being let's take the idea at face value: rejoining the UNFCCC after a withdrawal from that convention would require a (difficult to obtain) two-thirds majority Senate vote.

At first glance, proposing that the US withdraw from the UNFCCC seems like a refreshingly radical idea. ("Radical" as compared to the usual milquetoast platitudes and meaningless gestures that generally accompany American political campaigns, anyway.) No doubt, this suggestion is closer to being a solution to the problem of the growing UN climate tyranny than the withdrawal charade that Trump teased the public with during his administration.

But the devil, as always, is in the details. Upon further inspection, it turns out that this "withdrawal" is—exactly like Trump's ineffectual action—part of a parlor game being played by the political establishment. This time, the globalists on the right are reading the anti-establishment mood of the average voter and are deciding to cosplay as crusading anti-globalist populists in order to win votes.

Specifically, this UNFCCC withdrawal strategy—first reported on by E&E News—sources back to "Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise," a "policy roadmap" put together by an organization called Project 2025.

Project 2025 describes itself as a "broad coalition of conservative organizations that have come together to ensure a successful administration begins in January 2025." It is being spearheaded by The Heritage Foundation and bankrolled by the likes of Leonard Leo and Pierre Omidyar, among many others.

As an elitist group of Beltway insiders funded by questionable Deep State operatives, you might expect that they have embedded a booby trap in their policy roadmap . . . and you'd be correct. You see, Project 2025 isn't actually advocating for the US to reject the Paris Agreement and the UNFCCC and the entire climate hoax narrative. Instead, it's merely complaining that the agreement is "inimical to the prosperity of the United States."

No, Project 2025 doesn't want to question the climate narrative itself and consign the entire $100 trillion house of cards that is the green swindle to the dustbin of history. They just want to negotiate a bigger slice of that $100 trillion pie for Uncle Sam.

Lest there be any doubt on this point, Project 2025 member Mandy Gunasekara recently explained to E&E News what the group wants to see happen with this climate deal in the future:

Let’s create a better agreement that’s focused more on tangible solutions and expanding the reach of innovative technology, instead of the current Paris climate accord and the UNFCCC that has China designated as a developing country permanently

Ah, I see. No, let's not reject the UNFCCC and the climate scam itself. Instead, let's "create a better agreement" that will give the American corporatocracy a chance to reap greater profits from the scam!

This is of course exactly the way Trump framed the problem when he failed to withdraw from Paris the first time. Speaking about his decision to pull out of Paris in 2017, Trump stressed that the agreement "disadvantages the United States to the exclusive benefit of other countries." That's why he refused to rebuke the entire climate hoax and withdraw from the UNFCCC altogether.

In fact, he was eager to make clear that he was not seeking to end US participation in the climate hoax, but rather to "begin negotiations to reenter either the Paris Accord or a really entirely new transaction on terms that are fair to the United States, its businesses, its workers, its people, its taxpayers."

So, just to be clear, neither Politico nor Project 2025 nor Trump nor any of the other lying, manipulative globalist insiders in the corrupt political system are going to save Americans (or anyone else) from the climate tyranny of the UNFCCC and its insidious Paris Agreement.

Having said that, the underlying idea that they are teasing the public with is a first step toward a real solution to this UN tyranny.

Yes, the US and every other country on the planet should withdraw from the UNFCCC. Not just because pulling out of the UNFCCC will automatically end the Paris Agreement, and not just because these agreements are economically disadvantageous to American workers, but because the UNFCCC is a blatant political power grab masquerading as concern for Mother Earth (that is, in fact, based on psuedoscientific woo-woo).

 

[aenyc]

Considering the incredible power of this simple idea, the next logical question is . . .

Why Stop There?
​

Why stop with the UNFCCC? Why not withdraw from the World Health Organization (WHO), too? After all, as Corbett Reporteers are aware by now, the WHO is planning a political power grab of its own at the upcoming World Health Assembly in Geneva this May.

Specifically, the WHO technocrats are hoping to rubber stamp a raft of amendments to the International Health Regulations and a new Pandemic Agreement that may or may not include a slew of new tyrannical biosecurity measures (although no one can be sure, because they are still negotiating the details behind closed doors).

So, if member states can withdraw from the UNFCCC in order to bring down the Paris Agreement, can they also withdraw from the WHO in order to escape the clutches of the Pandemic Agreement? Of course they can.

For those who are concerned about the legalities and procedures involved with such a move: fret not! There are lawyers working on this very problem as we speak. Dr. Francis Boyle, for example—the man who drafted the US legislation implementing the Biological Warfare Convention and someone who has been calling out the scamdemic since day one—provides his own assessment of the legalities of member state withdrawal from the WHO in "Exiting The World Health Organization":

A Withdrawal from the WHO Constitution can be accomplished by invoking the Doctrine of Fundamental Change of Circumstances under Article 62 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Article 62 codified the rule of customary international law then known and still known today as rebus sic stantibus. Therefore, all States should be able to invoke the Doctrine of Fundamental Change of Circumstances/rebus sic stantibus even if they are not parties to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. It was never known or contemplated or even suspected that at the time States became contracting parties to the WHO Constitution that the WHO would someday attempt to transform itself into a totalitarian worldwide medical police state by means of the proposed Amendments to the International Health Regulations and/or the proposed Pandemic Treaty.

What's interesting about Dr. Boyle's proposed approach is that it is not specific to the WHO itself and does not rely on appeal to any particular clause of the WHO Constitution or withdrawal procedure in the WHO playbook. Merely by making the point that the WHO has undergone a fundamental change of circumstances—a transformation into "a totalitarian worldwide medical police state by means of the proposed Amendments to the International Health Regulations and/or the proposed Pandemic Treaty," as Dr. Boyle puts it—any state could enact a unilateral and immediate withdrawal from the organization.

Indeed, the legal mechanics of a withdrawal from the WHO are fascinating . . . but they seem to me to miss the point. In the final analysis, who cares what legal mumbo jumbo can or can't be invoked to complete a withdrawal? Withdrawal from the WHO or from the UNFCCC isn't the end result of a magical legal incantation, it's a unilateral action. And—much like the phoney baloney paper money Ponzi scheme being run by the central banks of the world—the only thing keeping the UN's whole house of cards from coming down is that every country plays along with the fiction that they are legally obligated to participate in these organizations.

After all, if the US or another major member simply pulled out of the WHO, what are they going to do? Send their lawyers? Oooh, scary.

So, once we've formed the widespread, grassroots movement that will be responsible for effecting our withdrawal from the UNFCCC and the WHO—because, needless to say, neither Project 2025 nor any other group of partisan Beltway insiders will actually accomplish any of this for us—why stop there? Why not press forward and withdraw from all the global treaties and organizations?

Given that both the UNFCCC and the WHO are merely organs of the United Nations beast, so why not cut off the head of the snake and withdraw from the UN altogether? And, once newly liberated from the UN, why not start extracting ourselves from all the other talons of the globalist bird of prey?

Bye-bye, World Trade Organization!

Arrivaderci, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development!

Sayonara, NATO!

Hasta la vista, European Union!

Smell ya later, International Parliamentary Union!

Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out, Earth Federation! (What, you don't know about the Constitution for the Federation of the Earth? You need to watch more Corbett Report!)

Of course, after we've uncorked this bottle and let the withdrawal genie out, we might as well take it all the way. In other words, once we've removed our federal governments from all these globalist agreements and organizations, we need to remove the next layer of involuntary, top-down control. We can get to work organizing the secession of the states from the USA, of the provinces from the dominion of Canada, of the prefectures from Japan, and of the countries from the UK. And then we can begin declaring sovereignty of counties. And then it's time to devolve power down to the municipalities, and next to neighbourhoods, and finally . . . to sovereign individuals?

Well, one can always dream.

But, until people wake up and reclaim their individual sovereignty, we can at least start withdrawing from the WHO and the UNFCCC and all the other globalist death pledges that we find ourselves bound to.

I say: "Enough with half-measures and tinkering around the edges of the globalist scam! It's time to withdraw from all the international treaties and institutions!"

 

[aenyc]

Debt From Above: The Carbon Credit Coup​

Latin America is quietly being forced into a carbon market scheme through regional contractual obligations – enforced by the satellites of a US intelligence-linked firm – which seeks to create an inter-continental “smart grid,” erode national and local sovereignty, and link carbon-based life to the debt-based monetary system via a Bitcoin sidechain.

Debt From Above: The Carbon Credit Coup

Latin America is quietly being forced into a carbon market scheme through regional contractual obligations – enforced by the satellites of a US intelligence-linked firm – which seeks to create an inter-continental "smart grid,” erode national and local sovereignty, and link carbon-based life to...

unlimitedhangout.com

THE CLUB OF ROME’S GLOBAL FOOTPRINT​

While CC35 is the most visible face of GREEN+’s governing body, it is actually chaired by a group called the Global Footprint Network (GFN). The GFN exists to promote “the Ecological Footprint, which tracks how much nature we use and how much we have, as an accounting tool” for green finance initiatives and originated the concept of “ecological debt” based on that metric. Elsewhere, the GFN calls for “one-planet prosperity” and emphasizes climate finance, a field dominated by predatory Wall Street banks and billionaires, as an economic imperative. They work with governments at both the national and subnational level and establish the carbon emissions limits for localities, states and countries that programs like GREEN+ seek to enforce with satellite surveillance and binding contractual obligations.

The GFN is intimately connected to the Club of Rome. For instance, GFN’s founder and a member of its board, Mathis Wackernagel, who also co-created the Ecological Footprint concept, is a member of the Club of Rome. Wackernagel’s former mentor and the other developer of the Ecological Footprint, William Rees, was a member of the Club of Rome until 2018. Heiko Specking, a GFN board member, is also affiliated with the Club of Rome as is another GFN board member, Lewis Akenji.

The Club of Rome was founded in 1968 by the Italian industrialist Aurelio Peccei and Scottish chemist Alexander King. Its earliest success was the 1972 report and later book “The Limits to Growth,” which was based on an MIT study and claimed that “if the world’s consumption patterns and population growth continued at the same high rates of the time, the earth would strike its limits within a century.” The book was heavily promoted by the earliest annual meetings of the World Economic Forum, particularly in 1973.

Peccei, who spent a large part of his life living in Argentina, had previously been a member of ADELA, the Atlantic Community Development Group for Latin America. ADELA was composed of powerful Western companies that pooled money to invest in Latin American companies of their choosing, essentially “king-making” the titans of the Latin American corporate world. ADELA’s backers included Bank of America, IBM, Fiat (where Peccei was an executive), and the Rockefeller family’s Standard Oil. The group was part of the Rockefeller-dominated network in Latin America, which also included the International Basic Economy Corporation (IBEC), which has been linked to the 1973 CIA-backed military coup in Chile through the Chilean Rockefeller associate Agustín Edwards, and Deltec, best known today as a main bank for the failed crypto exchange FTX and its close relationship with the stablecoin Tether. Modern iterations of this network include Endeavor and the Council of the Americas (CoA), which will be discussed in the second part of this series. Notably, it was Peccei’s speech at an ADELA conference that spurred his partnership with Alexander King and led to the Club of Rome’s formation.

At the time he got involved with Peccei and made the Club of Rome, King was head of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). The OECD was originally established as the OEEC to help administer the post-WWII, US-developed Marshall Plan and was later expanded to become a global organization in 1961. The US remains the OECD’s main funder by a significant margin. The group has long claimed to promote “sustainable economic growth” and “consistently improving standard of living in its member countries,” but – in practice – it routinely favors neoliberal policies that enrich Western-based multi-national corporations. It is closely partnered with entities like the IMF, the World Bank and the broader multi-lateral development banking system that has used debt slavery sold as “economic development” to privatize state-owned assets and sell them off to privileged corporate interests. That system has also been considered by the US military to be part of its arsenal of “financial weapons” used to protect US interests abroad.

The Club of Rome was criticized for many decades for embracing neo-Malthusian thought (i.e. eugenics and specifically population control measures in the developing world) as well as for promoting greater global governance. Some of its members have championed the imposition of a “benevolent” global dictatorship. Criticisms of the Club of Rome have been voiced by academia as well as independent and mainstream media. The group’s attempt to rebrand as an environmental group in order to gain popular support for those same policies was discussed in their 1991 book “The First Global Revolution,” which states:

“In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill. In their totality and their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which must be confronted by everyone together. But in designating these dangers as the enemy, we fall into the trap, which we have already warned readers about, namely mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention in natural processes, and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy then is humanity itself.”

 

[aenyc]

The Global Footprint Network’s methods, products and ideology are very much aligned with the neo-Malthusian “Limits to Growth” view of the Club of Rome as well as the efforts to incorporate nature into financial markets via so-called “nature-based solutions.” Indeed, the GFN’s ecological footprint metric is promoted by groups like the World Economic Forum and the World Wildlife Fund (where Peccei served on the board and which has long been tied to European oligarch and corporate interests). GFN also provides the statistical means of imposing Limits to Growth-style models that control both population levels and industrialization levels on governments by developing “ecological budgets” that, as evidenced by GREEN+, are now interfacing directly with carbon markets.

BUILDING A “GREEN” POWER MONOPOLY​

The other member of the GREEN+ governing committee that will control the program as well as Satellogic’s surveillance data is The Energy Coalition (TEC). Notably, it was TEC’s executive director Craig Perkins who said that GREEN+ would also enable the surveillance of carbon emissions of populated areas, presumably via satellite. TEC was founded by John Phillips, who ran Phillips Energy – an oil and gas company, in 1975. Since 1979, it has been closely partnered with local California governments via its Community Energy Partnership program. Currently, TEC is partnered with, and some of its key initiatives are financed by, major California gas companies, referred to by TEC as California’s “investor-owned utilities.” These include Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison, SDGE and SoCalGas.

With the backing of these major oil and gas companies, TEC assures us it is “creating the building blocks for a new energy economy.” One of its main partners in doing so is Community Electricity, which claims to be “building the NASDAQ of the clean energy field.” TEC and Community Electricity, which is backed by Google, have co-designed “a master plan” financed by the California Energy Commission “to implement the largest and first-of-its-kind decarbonization by electrification protocols using DERs [distributed energy resources], carbon emissions management, blockchain, AI and IoT [internet of things] all connected under one plug-and-play platform.” Community Electric designs, funds and develops this technology for GluHomes (formerly GluEnergy), its parent company which shares the same founder as Community Electricity – Felipe Cano. The program is being piloted in the poorest neighborhoods of Los Angeles as well as in disadvantaged communities in Colombia. The goal, per Cano, is to “bring the Americas together” through an inter-continental, “clean” smart grid.

Helena Donoso, Samuel Garcia, Felipe Cano, Santiago F. Maldonado, and Sebastian Navarro – Source
The blockchain involved in these efforts is RSK, the smart contract-oriented sidechain that runs on top of the Bitcoin network. As previously mentioned, RSK is a founding member of GREEN+. The initiative involving TEC, Community Electricity, California’s government, and RSK also seeks “to digitize carbon credit reporting” and to “create opportunities for businesses to redeem credits.” The Community Electricity/TEC program also uses the RSK blockchain to record a person’s energy usage “with the help of RIF, an identity product [i.e. digital identity] developed by RSK Labs.” The Community Electricity system requires a digital ID tied to a digital wallet that “is embedded to store daily profits derived from surplus energy sales” that allow electricity consumers to trade energy credits and become what the company calls “prosumers,” with the goal of creating “an energy social network.” The Community Electricity hardware produced with GluHomes also “utilize AI and machine learning to transform any home intro a smart micro electricity generation utility.”

 

[aenyc]

Cano was also, until recently, the president of Global Carbon Parks, which is a consortium of companies, the only known members of which all happen to be companies that founded GREEN+, with the one exception being Cano’s Community Electricity. Global Carbon Parks, unsurprisingly, is now one of the main implementers of the GREEN+ program. Global Carbon Parks is also partnered with Aclima, a start-up backed by Microsoft and the foundation of former Google CEO Eric Schmidt. Global Carbon Park’s stated mission is to “transform protected areas into natural equity” via public-private partnerships, essentially admitting that the GREEN+ program it now helps manage is about financializing protected natural assets and resources.

Felipe Cano – GluHomes Inc – Source
Global Carbon Parks “transforms” these forests into “natural equity” by measuring, certifying and trading carbon credits in conjunction with the carbon credit certification Cercarbono (discussed later in this article). Their partnership with Satellogic, which goes beyond but also includes the GREEN+ program, uses satellite surveillance “to ensure the integrity of the preserved area” which contains the carbon represented by the carbon credits. The company also promotes their integration with The Energy Coalition and Community Electricity to develop “advanced electricity communities” that develop “renewable energy credits,” which the company claims will “contribute to local wealth creation.” The company is partnered with a financial firm, which does the actual trading of carbon credits for both Global Carbon Parks and presumably GREEN+. However, Global Carbon Parks declines to reveal their identity, merely stating that “They are a financial firm that integrates technical, economic, and environmental solutions.”

In summary, the governance of the GREEN+ program and the group with control over its satellite surveillance data; are tied to or funded by groups that have long used debt as a form of control over the Global South in particular; seek to control the population size and the degree of industrialization in countries; are tied to globalist efforts to economically and politically integrate the Americas; are building a Bitcoin blockchain-based smart grid that surveils and limits energy usage and links energy usage to currency; and are integrating and tokenizing the natural world, including endangered or protected areas, into the financial system under the guise of conservation. Through CC35’s Alcades por el Clima (Mayors for the Climate) initiative, over 15,000 local governments in Latin America have signed agreements with CC35 related to carbon emission trading schemes and limits, led by Brazil (5,564 local governments), Argentina (2,457 local governments), and Mexico (2,481 local governments). Presumably, those carbon neutrality/trading agreements will allow CC35 to push those municipalities into the GREEN+ program, if they aren’t already planning to participate directly (many are).

In other words, the vast majority of Latin America, unbeknownst to the vast majority of its populace, is already contractually yoked to one of the main organizations behind the GREEN+ program – run by interests tied to foreign banks, corporations and even intelligence services. The program is set to launch continent-wide in a matter of weeks. As this article and subsequent article will show, what has transpired is a brazen attempt to conduct a silent coup of the continent’s natural resources, energy production, local governments and economy.

 

[aenyc]

THE GREEN+ REGISTRY​

Working closely with the GREEN+ Trust is the carbon credit certification standard chosen by GREEN+, Cercarbono. In addition to certifying the carbon credits produced by the program, Cercarbono also has a role in choosing which initiatives participating jurisdictions can implement with funds received and are also involved in fund custody alongside the GREEN+ Trust. Cercarbono was launched in 2016, shortly after Colombia – where Cercarbono was formed – passed a law establishing a carbon tax. Cercarbono’s founders created the company because the law created a “need for a national certifying entity that would provide solutions to the climate problem.” Further Colombian legislation in 2017 spurred the company to expand into carbon markets. It has since become a leading voluntary carbon credit certifier in Latin America.

In 2018, Cercarbono formed a partnership with EcoRegistry, a blockchain registry that is also part of GREEN+ and “develops services and platforms for reporting, monitoring and registering environmental assets and carbon units.” The program says the company also “addresses the issuance, monitoring and cancellation of the carbon credits generated by the jurisdictions in close coordination with the certification standard and the Trust Fund.” EcoRegistry provides a unique serial number to each carbon credit issued and allows for close monitoring of that credit on-chain. As a consequence, it works closely with the lead of GREEN+’s monitoring unit, the intelligence-linked satellite surveillance firm Satellogic. EcoRegistry is also a part of the Climate Action Data Trust, or CAD Trust. The CAD Trust was discussed in previous reporting from Bitcoin Magazine and Unlimited Hangout and is an effort led by the World Bank and funded by Google (among others) in an effort to construct what they refer to as “climate wallets.” IETA, discussed below, is also a member of the CAD Trust.

Tokenized, Inc.
The World Bank has been exploring tokenization and digital ledger technology in order to create “a modular and interoperable end-to-end digital ecosystem for the carbon market.” Through the Digital for Climate (D4C) working group, the World Bank aims to build “the next generation of climate markets” by directing governments to create National Carbon Registries reliant on blockchain technology. The data produced by these registries will be “link[ed], aggregat[ed] and harmoniz[ed]” by the CAD Trust. D4C itself leverages the Chia blockchain, developed by BitTorrent inventor Bram Cohen. Part of the D4C’s “Climate Tokenization Suite” includes the aforementioned Climate Wallet to facilitate the exchange of carbon credit tokens, requiring an active connection to a Climate Action Data Trust node to function.

EcoRegistry is also part of the Climate Chain Coalition, whose other members include disgraced WeWork CEO Adam Neumann’s new venture Flowcarbon, the Cardano Foundation, the Google-backed oracle service Chainlink, and the Sustainable Bitcoin Protocol (SBP), which seeks to “encourage [bitcoin] miners to utilize environmentally friendly energy sources using tokenization.” The SBP aims to turn “sustainability into an investable asset” when they create what they refer to as a Sustainable Bitcoin Certificate (SBC), a verified “on-chain environmental asset” representing “bitcoin mined using clean energy.”

The SBP website further specifies the incentivized opportunity for additional revenue streams for Bitcoin miners, stating that “unlike carbon credits or RECs which are retired,” each individual SBC is a tokenized asset which “permanently represents the sustainability of one bitcoin.” Due to an upcoming 50% reduction in the rate of bitcoin issued per block – referred to as a “halving” – alternative sources of income for miners can be the difference between thriving and barely surviving in such an unforgiving market. While initially issued alongside the mining of every new bitcoin, the SBC itself can later be sold to other investors. Depending on future regulations of energy in relation to Bitcoin mining operations in the United States, non-mining businesses might look to purchase these certificates from miners as a means to offset the carbon footprint of their bitcoin holdings.

In effect, the SBP aims to incentivize carbon neutrality for Bitcoin miners while simultaneously allowing investors to meet ESG goals while holding bitcoin on their balance sheet, the latter exemplified in their partnership with Bitcoin custodian BitGo. Their website explains that they “believe Bitcoin has a unique potential to expedite the clean energy transition” and due to being “the world’s first commodity derived from a network,” every bitcoin mined is “fully fungible in both price and also carbon footprint” – culminating in a “sustainability opportunity unlike any other industry.” If a large company with a large carbon output due in large part to the sheer energy demands of being a multi-national company – traveling employees, large scale data centers, and simply offices that require electricity – was holding bitcoin on their balance sheet, they could purchase large amounts of SBCs to source yield on the appreciating certificate token while also generating accounting opportunities to reach metric-based ESG goals faster.

The co-founder of SBP, Matthew Twomey, previously worked at Goldman Sachs, OSL and Deutsche Bank, while Head of Climate Strategy Elliot David previously held positions at the US Department of Energy, as well as worked with the Clinton Foundation within their Clinton Climate Initiative on their Island Energy Program. Listed among the SBP Advisors are Natasha Barrientos (S&P Global and the United Nations), Dr. Julia Nesheiwat (the Atlantic Council), Emma Todd (World Economic Forum) and Kelvin Chang (Coinbase and Microsoft).

 

[aenyc]

Cercarbono and EcoRegistry share several noteworthy partners and affiliations. For example, both are members of Asocarbono, an alliance of different companies and actors running or supporting Colombian carbon markets, that has written about the issue of “carbon rights” within voluntary carbon markets. According to the UN, “carbon rights” “comprises two fundamental concepts: 1) the property rights to sequester and store carbon, contained in land, trees, soil, etc. and 2) the right to benefits that arise from the transfer of these property rights (i.e. through emissions trading schemes).” The issue itself portends the possibility that those who purchase carbon credits will obtain the “property rights” of the carbon sequestered in trees and other natural elements found in the area tied to those carbon credits, opening the door to land grabs through carbon markets. Notably, there is no clear definition of carbon rights and it is unclear, due to the fact that their contracts with jurisdictions/governments are not publicly available, how GREEN+ views the issue of carbon rights in relation to property rights.

AirCarbon. Note: Prices on October 7, 2022 – Source
EcoRegistry and Cercarbono are also both partnered with AirCarbon Exchange (ACX), “the world’s first fully digital carbon exchange,” established in 2019 with the Singapore Sustainable Energy Association – subsidized by the Singapore government’s Enterprise Singapore – and backed by the UN. ACX was founded by CEO Thomas McMahon, an over 30 year veteran of the commodities and derivatives industry, having spent over 20 years at the New York Mercantile Exchange before establishing himself in Singapore, where ACX is based. ACX is Singapore’s first international carbon credit exchange, chosen by McMahon “due to demand for carbon credits from the airline industry.” The exchange uses distributed ledger technology, specifically the Ethereum blockchain, to trade six different tokenized carbon credits, boasting settlement for “as low as $3 per 1,000 CO2 tonnes.” While ACX began mainly by focusing on the airline industry, the exchange now has over 160 clients ranging from financial institutions to project developers. Between January and August 2021, over 5.7 million CO2 tonnes were traded on the exchange. Mubadala, the Abu Dhabi sovereign wealth fund, acquired a 20% stake in the company, with the intent to build a carbon exchange in the UAE. ACX is also partnered with IETA (more on them below), as well as the Carbon Business Council, and the International Sustainability & Carbon Certification (ISCC). It can be assumed that ACX will be the exchange on which GREEN+ carbon credits will be traded due to its partnerships with GREEN+’s credit certifier and registry.

Both Cercarbono and EcoRegistry were also recently integrated into Xpansiv, which “operates the leading multi-registry, multi-asset environmental portfolio management system and market data service” as well as CBL, the “largest spot exchange for environmental commodities, including carbon credits and renewable energy certificates.” Xpansiv is backed by Blackstone, which poured $400 million into the company, with other investors including British Petroleum (BP) Ventures, Bank of America and Goldman Sachs. Xpansiv’s CBL has partnered extensively with CME (Chicago Mercantile Exchange) Group, which is one of the world’s main derivatives exchanges, and together they have produced several futures contracts on carbon markets.

Cercarbono and EcoRegistry also both share an affiliation with the International Emissions Trading Association, or IETA. Founded in 1999 under the auspices of the UN, IETA “is dedicated to the establishment of linked trading systems to ensure efficient and competitive GHG [greenhouse gas] markets.” Its inaugural members included the titans of the oil and manufacturing industries. Current members include AngloAmerican mining, Saudi Aramco, Bank of America, Bayer/Monsanto, Cargill, Chevron, Citi Group, Dow Chemical, ExxonMobil, Goldman Sachs, Koch Industries, PetroChina and the Mossad-linked commodities company Glencore. Another company that is a member of IETA is StoneX, which is partnered with the aforementioned exchange ACX and is sponsoring the launch of GREEN+ satellites in Miami later this month. IETA is also part of the aforementioned Climate Action Data Trust, along with EcoRegistry, the World Bank and others.

IETA is also notably behind the ICROA accreditation program, which Cercarbono and most other carbon credit certification standards of note have received. These include the world’s leading carbon credit certifier Verra, which was recently embroiled in a major scandal when it was revealed that 90% of their most common category of carbon credits were “worthless” despite being ICROA (and IETA) approved.

Satellogic

 

[aenyc]

BLOCKCHAIN – THE NEW ENABLING ENVIRONMENT​

The idea of green finance, in which private firms utilize data and physical elements from the real world to create novel economic instruments such as bonds based on carbon emissions, necessitates government-upheld agreements and eventual court-based litigation as the ability to find consensus, thus acting as the enabling environment, for the settlement of large values of securities between the public and private sector. Regulation and contractual agreements between governments and their commercial sector partners require not just the literal letter of the law, but vetted insurance brokers, data firms, legislative bureaucrats, and various other accredited lawyers to dictate the grounds in which business can be legally conducted. The private-public partnership has become continually blurred by the relaxing of regulation restricting how corporations can influence current and aspiring politicians via campaign fundraising. In turn, this group of purchased public sector employees must repay the corporations responsible for their successful attempts at gaining office, leading to the push for further dissolution of certain laws that prevented their donors from gaining footholds within a once-regulated market. No longer is the public sector primarily beholden to their constituents, but rather their corporate donors.

This ongoing dynamic has led to a runaway feedback of legal corruption and conspiracy between these ostensibly delineated sectors. The net result of the public-private partnerships that upholds the CC35, Green+ and Satellogic collaborations is due to the calculated focus on regional governments, thus finding their enabling environment through pacts and treaties at the subnational level.

Steve Mnuchin – Source
Once larger regulatory “fish are fried,” the fight for further interoperability of digital assets (such as dollar instruments) moves down to the regional governments of the Global South. For example, the regulation allowing US banks to custody digital assets and stablecoins was put forth by former OneWest official and Coinbase VP Brian Brooks while he served as comptroller of the currency under Mnuchin in the Trump administration. Once world governments, local and national, are forced onboard the universal ledger, the enabling environment will trend towards the ledger itself – a product of the private sector – and further out of the hands of the public sector.

This capturing of the commons by the private sector via a revolving door of public-then-private operators has been done before, such as during the Plaza Accord, the creation of Brady Bonds, the dissolution of Glass-Steagall, the demolition of Enron, the 2008 financial crisis, and the COVID-19 fiscal response. The intended future of blockchain – now that US regulators have embraced Bitcoin as an asset and universal ledger – is to serve as the new enabling environment, complete with its very own digital dollar instruments, most likely backed by US government debt.

There are very few people in the world more responsible for the digitization of the dollar than Steve Mnuchin and Howie Lutnick – the former’s VC firm now consists of several members from his stint at the Treasury, while the latter’s firm Cantor Fitzgerald holds the securities for Tether, the world’s largest dollar-denominated stablecoin that recently crossed $100 billion issued – and here they are partnering with the richest man in Argentina and the founder of the largest online marketplace (as well as crypto marketplace) in Latin America, Marcos Galperin.

The network of firms associated with Galperin’s MercadoLibre – Xapo, Paxos, Circle, Visa, among others – is rife with board members and venture capital from the “PayPal Mafia,” as well as the Argentine advisor group Endeavor. These powerful organizations, successors to groups like ADELA that spurred the creation of the Club of Rome and chose the winners of Latin America’s corporate landscape, have made it clear that they foresee this fundamental market transition. They have quietly positioned themselves to dominate the main pillars of the new financial system in Latin America and the world at large: regulated banking services, global marketplaces, payment processing, digital asset infrastructure, and capital creation monopolies. As we will see, this financial system is not about “inclusion” or “sustainability” as professed, but about using and deepening Latin America’s debt burden to force policy changes while enforcing foreign control over the region’s economic activity and governance, all under the watchful “eyes” of US intelligence-linked satellites.