The United States is resisting the push for retail Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) due to a strict executive order from Trump. Meanwhile, many countries around the world are eagerly exploring these digital currencies. we’ve spent years analysing financial reports and the ongoing discussions from the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), and the situation appears concerning. Currently, 11 countries have successfully launched CBDCs, while an additional 49 are experimenting with pilot programs. Digital IDs are also gaining traction, with at least a dozen countries implementing biometric systems that monitor citizens, effectively turning them into data points for global organizations. This is not a distant possibility; it is currently unfolding and presents a clear framework for increased control. But thanks be unto God, we have overcome them.

And right now, the globalist cabal—the World Economic Forum’s Klaus Schwab cult, the Bank for International Settlements’ shadowy overlords, and their Soros-slicked puppets in every bloated bureaucracy—is unleashing their endgame: Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) fused with Digital IDs. This isn’t “progress” or “convenience,” you gullible sheep—it’s a full-frontal assault on your God-given sovereignty, a digital iron fist designed to choke out freedom, family, and faith. They peddle it as a shiny app for your phone, but it’s the noose around every person’s neck, tightening with every supranational summit. No isolated CBDC exists without its Digital ID Siamese twin; they’re the interconnected tentacles of a beast that devours nations whole.

Let’s break this down by country to understand the situation better. Starting with the CBDC adopters, there are nations where your money is now under the control of central banks. Three countries have fully launched operational CBDCs: The Bahamas, the Sand Dollar was introduced in 2020 and is now essentially required for financial access. While it has a catchy name, it continuously tracks transactions. Jamaica; The JAM-DEX was launched in 2022. Although it aims to enhance financial inclusion, it also serves to monitor and potentially restrict individuals who deviate from expected behaviour. In Nigeria, that failed attempt since 2021, the eNaira has gained over 13 million wallets. While it appears inclusive, it poses risks of freezing funds for political dissent or protests. By early 2025, the number of full CBDC launches has risen to 11, with China’s e-CNY leading the charge. Since its pilot in 2020, it is now operational in 26 cities, where the government controls your currency based on a loyalty score. They have even tested the concept of expiring money to encourage spending, integrating it with their social credit system. Additionally, 49 countries are currently piloting their own CBDCs, serving as testing grounds for broader implementation. India’s e-Rupee is circulating in four cities and can be programmed to withdraw stimulus funds if certain conditions aren’t met. Brazil’s Drex is incorporating identification technology for enhanced surveillance. South Korea is experimenting with deposit tokens, Nepal recently launched its basic system in April, and other countries like Thailand and the Philippines are also exploring similar initiatives. The European Union plans to roll out its CBDC—the digital euro—in October of this year, despite overwhelming opposition from the majority of EU citizens.

Let’s talk about Digital IDs, which play a crucial role in making Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) effective. In various regions, these IDs utilize your facial recognition, fingerprints, or iris scans for a wide range of services. Singapore; Since 2003, Singpass has facilitated 41 million logins each month for 5.7 million users, covering everything from taxes to health records—essentially a comprehensive life management tool. India: With Aadhaar established in 2009, 1.3 billion people have biometric identification. The system processes 446 million verifications monthly, linking welfare benefits to biometric scans. Estonia; Digital cards have been mandatory since 2002, achieving a 99% adoption rate. They even offer e-Residency for expatriates, allowing them to access digital services as if they were citizens. Sweden: BankID, introduced in 2003, handles 6.8 billion signatures annually, with 99% of adults using it for various documentation needs. It’s efficient but raises privacy concerns.

Germany: The Personalausweis, implemented in 2010, integrates with the EU’s eIDAS framework, utilizing biometrics for secure access, though its adoption is gradual. Japan: Since 2016, the My Number system has achieved a 67% adoption rate for taxation and emergency services, moving towards comprehensive tracking. Canada: The PCTF wallet promotes “user control” for inter-provincial benefits, but it can feel like a polite form of surveillance. China: The upcoming “voluntary” National Online ID, launching in July 2025, will monitor your online activities for potential issues—voluntary in the same way a root canal might be. Additionally, new initiatives are emerging, such as Costa Rica’s digital card set to launch in September 2025, which will create a physical-digital hybrid. Other countries like Denmark, the UAE, South Korea, Austria, and Bosnia are also rolling out similar systems. The UK is exploring a “BritCard,” and Thailand is gradually introducing its system through 2027. Ex-investment banker Catherine Austin Fitts says it perfectly. Digital ID—once linked to AI and programmable money—enables authorities to monitor, manipulate, and ultimately control every aspect of human behaviour.

The digital currency and the digital ID are directly connected to the mark of the Beast

The trend is clear: these implementations are not random; they reflect a coordinated effort by organizations like the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) and the World Economic Forum (WEF) to ensure that CBDCs are seamlessly integrated with Digital IDs for comprehensive surveillance. The e-CNY in China parallels systems like Aadhaar, while European pilots are connected to eIDAS. This creates a centralized platform managing everything from your finances to voting and personal choices.

No Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) can operate independently without a Digital ID framework. The Bank for International Settlements (BIS) emphasized the importance of “interoperability” at its Innovation Summit in September 2025, highlighting how your FedCoin could connect with Europe’s euro through a universal ID system, facilitated by leading digital innovators. The World Economic Forum’s EDISON Alliance aims to promote “digital inclusion” for one billion people by 2025, but it risks excluding those who resist conformity.

Written By Tatenda Belle Panashe

STANFORD UNIVERSITY, BARACK OBAMA AND A PROXY-CENSORSHIP MODEL

In spring 2022, former President Barack Obama delivered a keynote speech at Stanford University’s Cyber Policy Center, outlining a broad plan for government oversight of social media via the proposed Platform Accountability and Transparency Act. Just six days later, the Biden administration’s Department of Homeland Security unveiled its “Disinformation Governance Board,” intended to monitor and shape online information in (frankly) a manner that can be likened to an authoritarian truth ministry.

Central to Obama’s framework was a provision empowering the National Science Foundation to finance ostensibly independent nonprofits tasked with moderating online content. This proxy-censorship model—pioneered by DHS in collaboration with Stanford’s Internet Observatory—had actually already been deployed in 2020 to flag election-related posts and in 2021 to target vaccine-skeptic narratives, sidestepping First Amendment constraints.

Now, president Donald Trump’s 2024 victory markedly curtailed these initiatives; and this is considering that his administration stripped funding from key elements of the Censorship Industrial Complex. In addition, the Platform Accountability Act (which sought to hold the owners of social media platforms accountable for content posted on their platforms) stalled in Congress. And at Twitter (now X), Elon Musk dismissed the bulk of its content-moderation team, broadening permissible speech. Meanwhile, even prior to the election, Stanford donor Frank McCourt withdrew support from the Internet Observatory after investigative reporting by research and free speech advocacy platform Public and Racket News, alongside probes led by House Weaponization Subcommittee Chairman Jim Jordan, revealed its pivotal role in the DHS proxy scheme.

But now, foreign governments, including Europe, the UK, Brazil, Australia, and others are demanding censorship, including of the American people. The risk is that US tech companies will find it significantly less expensive to have a single global censorship regime and just go along with foreign censorship requests. We saw this, for instance, when Facebook complied with the Biden-Harris administration’s demands to censor speech because Facebook needed Biden’s help in dealing with European censorship officials. Similarly, the Brazilian government tried to force Elon Musk to censor the Brazilian people after it froze Starlink’s assets. And so, this is the fundamental issue with this proxy-censorship model—pioneered by the DHS in collaboration with Stanford’s Internet Observatory.

Now, an investigation has revealed that the Stanford Cyber Policy Center—directed by Michael McFaul, the former U.S. Ambassador to Russia during the Obama administration—is central to a secretive and potentially unlawful censorship program that surpasses in scope the one Obama floated in 2022. In particular, on September 24th, the Center convened a closed-door dinner involving its leadership and senior censorship regulators from Europe, the UK, Brazil, California, and Australia. Dubbed “Compliance and Enforcement in a Rapidly Evolving Landscape,” the event was funded by Frank McCourt—the founder of the Stanford Internet Observatory—via his Project Liberty Institute (or PLI), to which he has committed $500 million to apparently “bolster democracy” and promote “ethical technology.”

Well, the research and free speech advocacy platform Public contacted all 21 attendees and organisers of the closed door dinner dubbed “Compliance and Enforcement in a Rapidly Evolving Landscape” by email but received responses from only four: being the PLI, the Australian government, the UK government, and the European Union. The EU declined to comment, citing insufficient time (despite a 24-hour window), with a spokesperson stating, (quote) “We would need several days.”

The UK government also responded to state that (quote): “The legal framework gives Ofcom power to enforce the duties in the Act which are related to securing protections for people in the UK; it does not give Ofcom powers to enforce under any other legal regimes…. Ofcom has always engaged with various international forums and networks across all of the sectors we regulate, including online safety, spectrum, telecommunications, post, and broadcast and media. Regulators around the world regularly exchange insights, experience, and best practice.”

I’d like for us to then discuss why Regulators like Ofcom do NOT meet regularly to share what can be thought to be plausible insights, experience, and best practice. In fact, when you look at the Online Safety Act in the UK, you get to understand that these gatherings among regulators are about devising their respective roles in a proxy-censorship model.

THE ONLINE SAFETY ACT IS A TOOL OF A PROXY-CENSORSHIP MODEL

As you’d be aware, the Online Safety Act is legislation in the UK that gives the relevant Secretary of State the power to designate and suppress or record a wide range of online content that is “illegal” or “deemed harmful to children”.

The Act creates a new duty of care for online platforms, requiring them to take action against illegal content, or legal content that could be “harmful” to children where children are likely to access it. Platforms failing this duty would be liable to fines of up to £18 million or 10% of their annual turnover, whichever is higher. It also empowers Ofcom to block access to particular websites. Ideally, the act is also supposed to oblige large social media platforms NOT to remove, and to preserve access to, journalistic or “democratically important” content such as user comments on political parties and issues.

Then, the Act also requires platforms, including end-to-end encrypted messengers, to scan for child pornography, despite warnings from experts that it is not possible to implement such a scanning mechanism without undermining users’ privacy. To which the UK government has claimed that it does not intend to enforce this provision of the Act until it becomes “technically feasible” to do so. And then lastly, the Act also obliges technology platforms to introduce systems that will allow users to better filter out the “harmful” content they do not want to see… So this is a more idealistic presentation of what the Online Safety Act seeks to accomplish, and it is presented this way by the Labour-led UK government, so that anyone who opposes it can be dismissed as a child predator sympathiser and an enemy of progress. BUT, here’s what the Act fundamentally contributes, as far as trying to shift the jurisprudence in the UK is concerned.

The Online Safety Act hands sweeping and incredibly dangerous powers to the relevant secretary of state, allowing them to interfere directly with Ofcom’s operations including the authority to dictate the content of its so-called “codes of practice”. This thus represents a dangerous centralisation of power that compromises Ofcom’s supposed independence and opens the door to government control over online speech. And these powers, which can be exercised with minimal oversight and under vague emergency justifications, indicate a government with aspirations that are ultimately authoritarian and dystopian in nature.

Now, in light of this act and its part in the proxy-censorship complex, I’d like to rehash a crucial point about the UK in particular. The point is this: Beyond the authoritarian and dystopian nature of the Online Safety Act, how the Labour-led government is going about with it, further exposes its big government inclinations. And the difference here is how the labour-led government is responding to the dissent resulting from the Act. More specifically, governments receive their operational mandate from the governed (at least that is how it should be). This means we measure a government’s political legitimacy and efficacy based on how well it enacts what the people demanded, as opposed to imposing its dictates on the people. This is why for instance, the UK government has an explicit obligation to implement Brexit because the majority of the country voted for it through the referendum, irrespective of what an incumbent government may think of Brexit.

HOWEVER, when the people of the UK signed a petition that has received over four hundred thousand signatures (as we speak) to repeal the “Online Safety Act”, the government’s response, in a nutshell, was “We hear you and know you’re upset, but think of the children” (which we’ll get to in a moment). But, this number of petition signatures is important because, in the UK, Parliament considers all petitions that get more than 100,000 signatures for a debate – and so clearly, many people want to see repeals of the Online Safety Act.

More broadly, this petition was created by Alex Baynham, and the aim of the petition is stated as being based on the belief that the scope of the Online Safety act is far broader and restrictive than is necessary in a free society. And that those signing it think that Parliament should repeal the act and work towards producing proportionate legislation rather than risking clamping down on civil society.

 Well, on the 28th of July, the UK government responded – and they gave a categorically big government response. The government stated that (quote): “It is right that the regulatory regime for in-scope online services takes a proportionate approach, balancing the protection of users from online harm with the ability for low-risk services to operate effectively and provide benefits to users.” (end quote). In other words, the government concedes to the correctness of the mandate that citizens are demanding it fulfil in light of proportionality, and not infringing on freedoms in a free society.

BUT, then immediately after the government states in its response that (quote): “The Government has no plans to repeal the Online Safety Act, and is working closely with Ofcom to implement the Act as quickly and effectively as possible to enable UK users to benefit from its protections.” It continues to say “Proportionality is a core principle of the Act and is in-built into its duties. As regulator for the online safety regime, Ofcom must consider the size and risk level of different types and kinds of services when recommending steps providers can take to comply with requirements. Duties in the Communications Act 2003 require Ofcom to act with proportionality and target action only where it is needed.” In other words, the government concedes that proportionality is important not to infringe on rights in a free society, but insists that the expanded oversight powers through the Online Safety Act are necessary to protect this free society from itself. 

But, this is nothing short of an aggravating and patronising response! If there is no enjoyment of free speech, then there is no free society period! Free speech is quite literally the yardstick, because it is the difference between constructive and open debate on matters of importance, and fearing to speak up. And if society is governed by a fear to speak up, then what they say is likely not a reflection of what they stand for but of what they think is acceptable to the incumbent government. Therefore, it can never be acceptable for a government to claim to protect a society by expanding its powers to govern speech – proportionately or disproportionately. Free speech is an inalienable freedom, that no government has the power to limit or take away because it is God-given… Well, Zia Yusuf says Reform UK (the party led by Nigel Farage) will repeal the Online Safety Act.

MILITARY AND INTELLIGENCE ORGANISATIONS CREATED THE CENSORSHIP INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX

But, information has also come to the fore regarding the historical and intensive involvement of military and intelligence organisations in the war on free speech! More specifically, a whistleblower last year provided us with a trove of documents proving that US and UK military & Intelligence employees and contractors adapted counter-terrorism tactics developed abroad, including censorship, debanking, and cross-platform bans – really rivalling or exceeding the Twitter Files and Facebook Files in scale and importance. Now, they describe the activities of an “anti-disinformation” group called the Cyber Threat Intelligence League, or CTIL, that officially began as the volunteer project of data scientists and defence and intelligence veterans but whose tactics over time appear to have been absorbed into multiple official projects, including those of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

The CTI League documents offer the missing link answers to key questions not addressed in the Twitter Files and Facebook Files. Combined, they offer a comprehensive picture of the birth of the “anti-disinformation” sector, or what we have called the Censorship Industrial Complex. Now, the whistleblower’s documents describe everything from the genesis of modern digital censorship programs to the role of the military and intelligence agencies, partnerships with civil society organisations and commercial media, and the use of sock puppet accounts and other offensive techniques.

But, here’s where it gets even more interesting: the CTIL files reveal that US and UK military contractors developed and used advanced tactics — including demanding that social media platforms change their Terms of Service — to shape public opinion about Covid-19, and that getting content removed was just one strategy used by the Censorship Industrial Complex. The CTI League, which partnered with the Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), THEN aimed to implement something called “AMITT,” which stood for “Adversarial Misinformation and Influence Tactics and Techniques.” Kindly have a listen to Michael Shellenberger as he exposes a key figure involved in this operation, and her name is Renee Teresita and even the “partnerships” that were formed to create this censorship industrial complex.

THE CENSORSHIP INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX’S WAR ON X AND ELON MUSK

Well, so the Department of Homeland Security’s AMITT project was ultimately, therefore, a disinformation framework that included many offensive actions, including discrediting alternative media, using bots and sock puppets, pre-bunking, and pushing counter-messaging AND working to influence government policy. This emphatically tells us that politicians are (once again) not the primary actors behind the war on free speech!

In any case, the specific counters to so-called “disinformation” in AMITT and what became its successor framework, called DISARM, include many tactics that we have observed, such as: “name and shame people who disagree with the narrative of the government of the diabolical conglomerates behind certain agendas, like the vaccine holocaust”; simulating misinformation and disinformation campaigns, AND “using banking to cut off access”, which is something Europe is considering against Elon Musk! In addition, the DISARM framework has included creating policy that makes social media police disinformation”. This especially became notable with the opposition towards X – which has exposed that the war on X and Elon Musk itself has a broader history involving diabolical non-state actors – in particular the UN.

Kindly have a listen as Paul Coleman explains how the global war on X, free speech, and Elon Musk was actually years in the making and includes a UN effort to impose Islamic blasphemy laws on the West.

Paul Coleman points out a terrible irony there towards the end, which is that these diabolical tactics aimed at censorship are coming from the people who pretentiously parade themselves as being in the front seat of defending free speech. Which is why I always tend to emphasise that it is a mistake to assume that the state is not an absolute moral actor or a yardstick to measure ethical conduct, especially when we consider that atrocious policies like slavery, the holocaust and apartheid were all legal!

And true to form, in the status quo entities like the EU are weaponising laws against Musk and the X platform in order to fabricate justification for aggressive actions towards Musk. For instance, you’d recall that the European Union sent a letter to Elon Musk, demanding him to censor Donald Trump during their interview in early August 2024, ahead of the US presidential election in November. The EU proceeded to threaten Musk with legal consequences if he does not prevent the spread of what they label as “disinformation.” But, even that threat followed a pattern of autocratic figures looking to have more censorship on the X platform, in light of what they say is a problem consistent with the ills of what they have defined as mis and dis information. And so, what we are seeing now is that in addition to the EU feeling comfortable demanding censorship in a US election to comply with the Digital Services Act, the UK is continuing on a similar trajectory.

Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso

Mara, who served as prime minister from 2014 to 2015, was found guilty of “undermining state security” after publishing a post that accused Mali’s junta of curbing political rights and silencing dissent. His defense team argued that the post represented legitimate political expression and announced plans to appeal the verdict.

“This decision is politically motivated and represents a dangerous precedent for free speech in Mali,” said Mara’s lawyer, Boubacar Kone, following the sentencing.

The ruling comes amid growing concerns over shrinking civic space and crackdowns on opposition voices under Mali’s military government, which seized power in a 2021 coup.

International human rights organizations have repeatedly urged the transitional authorities to restore democratic governance and guarantee freedom of expression ahead of long-delayed elections.

Her “crime”? Telling the world what was really happening in Wuhan at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and later, continuing to report on human rights abuses by the Chinese state.

Rather than being celebrated as a whistleblower or journalist, Zhang has been criminalized for doing what journalists everywhere are supposed to do: hold power to account.

Speaking Truth to Power and Paying the Price

In early 2020, while the Chinese government was tightly controlling the narrative around the COVID-19 outbreak, Zhang Zhan traveled to Wuhan and used her smartphone to show the world the real conditions on the ground.

She posted videos of overcrowded hospitals, food shortages, and frightened citizens evidence that contradicted Beijing’s claims of calm and control.

For this, she was arrested, tried, and sentenced to four years in prison under the vague and politically motivated charge of “picking quarrels and provoking trouble.”

Now, just months after finishing that sentence, she has been sentenced again for the same “offense” this time, for continuing to expose human rights violations and question official narratives. Her reporting posed no harm to society only to the fragile egos of those in power.

China’s War on Free Speech

The charge used against Zhang is often described by rights groups as a tool for silencing dissent. It does not refer to a specific criminal act but is regularly deployed to punish activists, journalists, lawyers, and citizens who speak out.

In Zhang’s case, there was no incitement to violence, no threats to national security, no disinformation. Her videos were straightforward, factual, and often quiet a stark contrast to the loud propaganda of the state.

This sentencing is part of a broader pattern of repression where independent voices are crushed, and government critics disappear into prison cells. It sends a chilling message to anyone in China who dares to tell the truth.

Freedom of Speech is Not a Crime

Across the world, freedom of speech and a free press are cornerstones of open, democratic societies. Zhang Zhan’s case is a test of the international community’s willingness to defend those principles.

She has not harmed her country she has only asked it to do better, to be transparent, to respect its own people. For that, she has been punished twice.

Zhang’s courage stands in stark contrast to the cowardice of the authorities who fear even the slightest criticism. By silencing her, China only amplifies her voice on the global stage.

The World Must Speak Up

Human rights organizations, democratic governments, and ordinary citizens must condemn this injustice loudly and without hesitation.

Remaining silent allows authoritarian governments to believe they can imprison journalists and activists without consequences. Zhang Zhan is not alone but without international pressure, she may well suffer alone, again, behind bars.

The State of Global Internet Regulations

Across the globe, governments are enacting laws to regulate online content, access, and user behaviour. According to Freedom House’s 2023 Freedom on the Net report, internet freedom has declined for 13 consecutive years, with 70% of the world’s internet users facing some form of censorship. From China’s Great Firewall to the European Union’s Digital Services Act (DSA), the trend is clear: states are asserting unprecedented authority over digital spaces. Listen to a conversation between Joe Rogan and Mike Benz.

Starting with Asia: China and India lead with AI-driven censorship and mandatory identity verification for online access. China’s “National Information Network” isolates users from global content, while India’s laws require platforms to remove content deemed “illegal” under vague criteria, often targeting dissent.

In the Middle East: Countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia impose broad bans on platforms hosting dissenting voices, using facial recognition and surveillance tech to track users.

In Europe: The EU’s Digital Services Act enforces strict content moderation, with inconsistent application across member states. Age-verification systems for adult content in France, Germany, and the UK signal creeping restrictions on anonymity. In United States Debates over Section 230 and state-level laws create a fragmented regulatory landscape. The absence of federal data privacy laws leaves the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) scrambling to address commercial surveillance, while misinformation crackdowns raise concerns about free speech. A record 296 internet shutdowns occurred across 54 countries in 2024, often tied to elections or protests, costing economies over $7 billion. Myanmar and India led with 85 and 84 shutdowns, respectively

Privacy Under Siege

A Censorship Tool To Surveil & Silence Everybody

Privacy is eroding at an alarming rate. Governments and corporations are harvesting data with impunity, often under the pretext of “protecting citizens.” Deep Packet Inspection (DPI), AI-driven moderation, and mandatory digital IDs are becoming standard tools for tracking online behaviour. In the U.S., the lack of comprehensive data privacy legislation allows Big Tech to amass troves of personal information, while the proposed American Data Privacy and Protection Act (ADPPA) risks being watered down by corporate lobbying. Globally, authoritarian regimes export surveillance tech creating a web of mass monitoring. Then there is the threat of digital IDs being used to freeze bank accounts for non-compliance with government mandates, such as vaccinations or speech restrictions. This isn’t just about data—it’s about control over your financial freedom and personal autonomy.

Censorship: Silencing the Sovereign Voice

Censorship is no longer just a government affair; it’s a public-private partnership. Platforms like YouTube, X, and Google are remove content under vague definitions of “hate speech,” “misinformation,” or “extremism.” In 2024, 48 countries pursued legal action against tech companies to enforce censorship, often targeting political dissent or marginalized voices. Meanwhile, countries like Ukraine, Turkey and Belarus heavily censor political media, with journalists and activists facing imprisonment for their posts. This has a chilling effect: creators and commentators self-censor to avoid deplatforming, limiting open discourse on economic policies or government overreach. This isn’t safety—it’s narrative control.

Surveillance: The Globalist Panopticon

Surveillance is the backbone of these regulations. From Russia’s SORM technology to China’s facial recognition systems, governments are building infrastructures to monitor every click, post, and transaction. In 2024, Myanmar’s junta rolled out VPN-blocking tech to trap citizens within censored networks. Even in the West, the push for digital IDs—touted as a way to “secure” online spaces—raises red flags. We have warned of IDs being linked to financial systems, enabling governments to punish dissent by cutting off access to funds. The export of surveillance tech by companies like France’s Amesys and Germany’s Trovicor, often to authoritarian regimes, shows how complicit Western firms are in global repression.

Why the Australian Online Safety Act needs to be shut down

Liberal Senator Maria Kovacic has revealed Australia’s eSafety Commissioner makes her own policies and rules, without review of parliament! Govt gave her unchecked powers, forcing Aussies to ID themselves and have their every online movement monitored. The eSafety Commissioner in Australia, who has the authority to develop, regulate, and enforce her own policies without parliamentary oversight, a power granted by the Online Safety Act 2021, which significantly expands online safety protections but also concentrates authority in one unelected position. This concentration of power is problematic because the eSafety Commissioner’s decisions do not require parliamentary scrutiny, and her role, including mandates like requiring adults to log into accounts to browse the internet, exceed the original intent of the legislation, potentially infringing on personal freedoms and privacy.

These are futile efforts towards Globalist Control

Let’s connect the dots. These regulations—sold as protecting national security or curbing misinformation—are a stepping stone to a globalist framework where unelected entities dictate what you say, see, and spend. The UN, EU, and even U.S. policymakers are flirting with centralized digital governance, from coordinated censorship to digital currencies (CBDCs). For those of us who value sovereignty, this is lurid. Digital IDs tied to financial systems could mean governments freezing your accounts for wrongthink—criticizing migration, questioning mandates, or exposing economic mismanagement. Well, they can’t do that. The Lord gave us the Internet. Nobody can hold it from us

Global Digital Outreaches and Crusades (GDOC) 2025

Since we have established that the internet is for us to use freely; in comes activism on the internet. GDOC stands for Global Digital Outreaches and Crusades  a global mission and structure contributing actively to the full preaching of the Gospel in 2025, as mandated by our dear Man of God, Pastor Chris Oyakhilome. Starts Monday, August 4^th. It represents our united and strategic efforts to ensure the Gospel reaches every nation, city, village and every device.

In a groundbreaking ruling, the European Court of Justice has ordered the European Commission to release the private text messages between European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla, after four years of secrecy and controversy surrounding a massive €35 billion vaccine deal. The EU Commission is now required to make these texts public, which allegedly contain details of the clandestine negotiations for the lucrative vaccine contract, paid for by European taxpayers. Investigations by Investigate Europe have uncovered that the cost per dose was a staggering 15 times the production cost, potentially resulting in billions of euros being overpaid. Furthermore, it has been revealed that Bourla failed to appear for his scheduled testimony before the EU Parliament in 2022, while von der Leyen’s husband holds a prominent position as Medical Director of Orgenesis, a biotech firm that receives EU funding and has a significant partnership with Pfizer. This complex web of relationships and dealings raises serious concerns about potential corruption at the highest levels of the European Union, with possible conflicts of interest that directly benefit von der Leyen’s family and may have resulted in the misappropriation of billions of euros in public funds through clandestine agreements. The situation appears to be a clear case of alleged fraud on a massive scale, and the European public is eagerly awaiting the release of the incriminating texts, which could shed light on the truth behind this scandal. As the European Union watches with bated breath, the release of these texts is expected to have significant implications for von der Leyen’s tenure and the future of the EU.

MEP Christina Anderson speaks on Pfizer Gate verdict

Ursula Von Der Leyen, we will hold you accountable: Christina Anderson

German MEP Christina Anderson reacted to the stinging rebuke to European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, who secretly negotiated a massive contract with Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla for 1.8 billion doses of the coronavirus vaccine, worth a staggering 35 billion euros. What’s more, these backroom deals were made not through official channels or formal documentation, but rather through casual SMS text messages exchanged between von der Leyen and Bourla. Following a recent ruling by the General Court of the European Union, it has been confirmed that von der Leyen has indeed broken the law, and now the EU Commission is being forced to make her incriminating text messages public, shedding light on the shady dealings that have sparked widespread outrage and calls for greater transparency.

EU Parliament’s shocking display of censorship

Questions have been asked in the EU Parliament but there is always a shocking display of censorship. European Union Parliament member Christine Anderson was once abruptly silenced on the floor after she boldly exposed the corrupt vaccine contracts between EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and pharmaceutical giant Pfizer. This outrageous move is a blatant attempt to stifle free speech and transparency, and it’s utterly disgusting. As Anderson’s microphone remained on until she dropped the bombshell that a parliament that covers up such corruption is equally corrupt and is robbing its people, her voice was suddenly and deliberately cut off. The moment she uttered those words, her microphone was swiftly turned off, sparking a wave of outrage. One courageous individual yelled out, demanding to hear the rest of Anderson’s statement, but his request was callously rejected, leaving many to wonder what the EU Parliament is trying to hide. Now we know what the EU Parliament was afraid of, and why they were so desperate to silence Anderson’s truth-telling voice?

€35 billion was secretly funnelled to the pharmaceutical cartel

Investigations have uncovered a complex web of deceit, revealing that a staggering €35 billion of taxpayer money was secretly funnelled into the coffers of a powerful pharmaceutical cartel, with no transparency, oversight, or accountability in place. This is not merely a scandal, but a blatant case of organized crime that has infiltrated the highest echelons of European power. Delving deeper into the heart of the matter, it becomes clear that this was not just a corrupt contract, but a meticulously coordinated operation orchestrated by the Medical Deep State – a shadowy alliance of unelected bureaucrats, pharmaceutical moguls, and globalist technocrats who have hijacked the scientific community, exploited fear, and amassed enormous profits from the masses. Ursula von der Leyen, a key player in this syndicate, has been found to be complicit in this scheme, using her position to push through policies, bypass democratic checks and balances, and channel billions of dollars into the hands of corporate giants like Pfizer, all under the guise of “public health.” A disturbing pattern of events has emerged, in which Pfizer dictated the terms, Bourla evaded testimony, Ursula sent clandestine texts, her husband’s company reaped the benefits, and millions of people were forced into compliance, silenced, coerced, vaccinated, and tracked. Remember when Ursula von der Leyen wanted to impose mandatory vaccination within the EU?

EU chief Ursula von der Leyen joined forces with Bill Gates

EU chief Ursula von der Leyen has joined forces with Bill Gates to “vaccinate 500 million children by 2030”. The organisation aims to vaccinate 500 million children in the next five years, including 50 million children with a malaria vaccine.

This is the very fabric of the Medical Deep State: a parasitic network that infiltrates governments, manipulates institutions, and exploits crises for financial gain. It silences medical professionals, censors dissenting voices, and only funds research that serves its agenda. The COVID operation was the crowning achievement of this syndicate, with Ursula von der Leyen serving as its European queenpin. However, the walls of secrecy are now crumbling, and the incriminating texts are being released, exposing the digital fingerprints of betrayal for all to see. This marks not only the end of a political career but also the beginning of a global reckoning, one that will hold the perpetrators of this massive scandal accountable for their actions. The people demand justice, and it is time for the truth to be revealed.

White House bans U.S. agencies from all work on G-20 in South Africa

The White House National Security Council has ordered U.S. agencies and departments to suspend work with the Group of 20 conference set to be hosted by South Africa this year, according to two people familiar with the matter, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe a government decision not yet made public. The move follows President Donald Trump’s public threats to boycott the summit over claims that White South Africans are having their land taken away by the government under a new expropriation law. The G-20 is an international forum of the world’s biggest economies and is designed to address the biggest financial issues around the globe. The Johannesburg summit is set to be held in November under the theme “Solidarity, Equality, Sustainability.”

Can the G7 take charge, or is global collaboration falling apart?

The G20’s power seems to be slipping. Can the G7 still steer the world, or is teamwork between countries falling apart? The G20, which includes both rich and developing nations, was designed to tackle big global issues together. But with different countries having different goals, reaching agreements has become harder. For instance, getting everyone to agree on climate change policies is tough. If the G20 can’t lead, the spotlight shifts to the G7. This group of wealthy countries has a track record of setting the agenda. Yet, some wonder if the G7 is truly able to handle today’s complex global challenges alone. Can they get other nations to follow their lead? Or are we entering an era where countries focus more on themselves, making it difficult to solve problems that affect everyone?

The globalist agenda and the G20

The globalist agenda” tied to the G20 often comes up in debates about power, sovereignty, and who really calls the shots in the world. The G20 as a tool for pushing policies that erode borders, prioritize corporate interests, and centralize control under the guise of international cooperation. At its core, the G20 is about coordinating the world’s biggest economies—think US, China, EU, India, and others—to manage global systems like trade, finance, and climate. That mission naturally leans toward interconnectedness: open markets, harmonized regulations, and collective action. For supporters, this is just pragmatic economies don’t exist in a vacuum, and problems like pandemics or recessions don’t respect borders. But in actuality, it’s a stepping stone to something more sinister: a world where national identity and autonomy get swallowed by a borderless, elite-driven system. Let’s look at G20’s economic playbook. Since its post-2008 financial crisis glow-up, it’s championed free trade, deregulation, and global supply chains. Look at the 2016 Hangzhou Summit under China’s watch—it pushed hard for “inclusive globalization,” doubling down on cross-border investment and digital trade. Critics say this just hands more power to multinational corporations and technocrats, who rake in profits while local industries in smaller nations—or even G20 members like Argentina—get hollowed out. The G20’s own data backs this up indirectly: its members account for 80% of world trade, but the benefits skew toward the top dogs, leaving others scrambling for crumbs. Then there’s the climate angle, a favourite target of the globalist-label crowd. The G20’s been loud about “sustainable development”—think the 2021 Rome Summit’s net-zero pledges or the 2023 New Delhi push for green tech. This is a Trojan horse: centralized control over energy and resources, enforced by unelected bodies like the IMF or World Bank, which often tag along in G20 discussions. The counterargument is that climate change is a global mess needing global fixes but look at the fine print—carbon taxes or trade rules that hit poorer nations hardest while letting big emitters like China or the US off the hook with loopholes.

The G20 isn’t about sovereign nations

The inclusion of supranational players like the EU and, since 2023, the African Union, stirs the pot further. This proves the G20 isn’t about sovereign nations but about building a framework for regional blocs—eventually into one-world governance. Add in the guest list—heads of the UN, WTO, OECD and the WEF—and it’s easy to see the makings of a cabal. The G20’s own statements don’t hide this: the 2022 Bali Summit called for “multilateral reform” to “strengthen global governance.” That’s code for chipping away at national control.

The WEF Globalist Agenda drives the G20

The G20’s decisions aren’t binding, but its soft power is real—think peer pressure with trillion-dollar stakes. When it nudges policies like digital currencies (a hot topic in 2025 with India’s pilot and China’s e-yuan) or vaccine passports (post-COVID), you can see the globalist endgame: centralized surveillance and economic dependence. The 2019 Osaka Summit’s focus on “data free flow with trust” got tech giants salivating, but it also sparked fears of a world where citizens answer to algorithms over parliaments. With 19 countries plus a couple of unions calling shots for 8 billion people, the G20’s push for integration—trade, climate, tech—feel like a top-down power grab. That’s the rub: it doesn’t need a shadowy handshake to look like a globalist machine—it just has to keep doing what it’s designed to do.

Is the G20 simply another globalist climate cult group?

One could say the G20 is simply another globalist climate cult group. They push a radical climate agenda. They want to control every aspect of our lives. They demand we give up our freedom. This group has no real authority. It represents an attack on national sovereignty. We should refuse to fund this organization. Every dollar given empowers their destructive plans. They will use our money to push their harmful ideas. We must resist their influence. When you rope in their clandestine meetings under the guise of global welfare are mere facades for their true intentions. The WEF and the G20 weave a web of influence that stretches across continents, manipulating policies and economies to serve their own insidious purposes. Behind closed doors, a sinister plan unfolds, designed to shape the world according to their malevolent vision. But as the shadows of their agenda lengthen, whispers of resistance grow louder, challenging the darkness that threatens to engulf the nations.

Written By Tatenda Belle Panashe

According to the EFF, Malema had submitted his visa application well in advance and had paid for the UK’s priority processing service. However, the application was not completed in time, barring him from traveling to the UK for the event. The delay prompted strong criticism from both Malema and the EFF, who labeled the incident an “intentional political ban.”

British High Commissioner Antony Phillipson acknowledged the issue and offered an apology to Malema, stating that visa applications are processed by the UK Home Office and that he had no authority to influence decisions. Phillipson also confirmed that the application fees would be refunded.

Despite the apology, Malema condemned the delay as politically charged, accusing the UK of attempting to silence dissenting political voices from the Global South. “This is not just a bureaucratic failure; it is a political statement,” he said.

The EFF echoed this sentiment, stating in a release that the visa issue reflects a broader pattern of undermining critical voices on international platforms. “This incident serves as a stark reminder of how systems of power are weaponized to suppress alternative political narratives,” the party stated.

The Africa Together Conference is a prestigious event hosted by Cambridge University, bringing together African leaders, academics, and change-makers from across the continent and diaspora to discuss pressing socio-political issues.

While the UK government has not issued a broader statement on the matter, the controversy is expected to fuel further discussions on freedom of movement and political discrimination in international diplomacy.