Decade after decade, a new wave of moral panic sweeps the nation, often accompanied by so-called “solutions” that blatantly erode our civil liberties. The roots of today’s surveillance state can be traced back to the fear that gripped the country on September 11, 2001, when the government seized on that fear to push through unconstitutional measures like The PATRIOT Act, real-time crime centres, and the TSA. By doing so, the government successfully imposed security measures that would have otherwise been met with fierce resistance. As the public grew increasingly comfortable with surveillance, it became remarkably easy to expand these measures from airports to city streets, fuelled by sensationalized stories of gang violence and other societal issues. Moreover, the divisive rhetoric surrounding illegal immigration has further accelerated the growth of surveillance, normalizing egregious privacy violations and touting technologies as solutions for non-violent offenses like littering and traffic infractions. Government programs are also utilizing surveillance to micromanage travellers’ behaviour under the guise of protecting the environment from climate change. The average citizen is being gradually conditioned to view the surveillance state as a necessary evil, with some even embracing it as a means to feel safer. However, this acceptance comes at a steep cost to our civil liberties, making it imperative to recognize the dangers associated with this expanding surveillance apparatus. Authorities are deliberately manipulating fear and misinformation to justify the growth of surveillance, and it is essential for citizens to stay informed about these tactics and demand greater transparency and accountability from their governments. The future of our civil liberties hangs in the balance, and addressing these issues is crucial before it’s too late.

The rapid expansion of the surveillance state is a complex issue, driven by a multitude of factors. One primary motivator is the age-old tactic of exploiting fear to consolidate power, a strategy that governments and institutions have long employed. By magnifying narratives surrounding crime, terrorism, and other threats, authorities can rationalize the enforcement of security measures that would typically face intense public backlash. Technologies like surveillance-enabled streetlights and Automatic License Plate Reader cameras are being promoted as solutions, but they pose serious risks to our civil liberties. As the surveillance state continues to grow, it is vital to expose the ways in which authorities are manipulating fear and misinformation to justify this growth. By doing so, we can demand greater transparency and accountability from our governments and work towards a future where our civil liberties are protected. The time to act is now, before the surveillance state becomes an irreversible reality. Citizens must take an active role in staying informed and pushing back against the erosion of their rights, or risk losing them forever. The government must be held accountable for its actions, and the true cost of the surveillance state must be laid bare. Only then can we hope to reclaim our civil liberties and build a future where freedom and security coexist.

The normalization of privacy violations

The surveillance state is actively eroding civil liberties, and its growth is being fueled by the normalization of privacy violations, which is a key factor in this alarming trend. As the government and other institutions increasingly use surveillance to control citizens’ behavior, they are severely impacting individual freedom and autonomy. By enforcing laws and regulations through surveillance, authorities are generating significant revenue, which is then being reinvested into further enhancing surveillance capabilities, creating a self-perpetuating cycle where the growth of surveillance leads to increased revenue, and subsequently fuels additional surveillance initiatives. The implications of the surveillance state on civil liberties are profound, and as citizens become more accustomed to being monitored, they are becoming less inclined to assert their rights and freedoms. Furthermore, the use of surveillance to generate revenue is raising additional concerns, as it creates a troubling incentive for governments to continue expanding surveillance measures.

Advanced technologies are being actively used by governments to jeopardize the privacy and safety of citizens, and this is a threat that requires immediate attention. The media is frequently overlooking this unprecedented risk, which echoes historical patterns seen around the world, and ignoring this issue could lead to severe repercussions for society. The technologies currently being used in our communities are mirroring those that oppress citizens in countries like China, where systems like social credit and ethnic cleansing are prevalent. Journalists and political dissidents who expose government corruption are suffering harsh penalties, including being denied basic resources, suitable housing, and the freedom to travel. Governments are using facial recognition technology to hunt down and execute political opponents, and entrusting such significant power to even small governments can be dangerous.

Advanced Technologies can Seriously Jeopardize the Privacy and Safety of its Citizens

Historical abuses, such as civil asset forfeiture, are revealing how easily a surveillance state can be misused, often under the guise of judicial protection. Artificial intelligence is identifying real crimes, but the evidence it provides is often unreliable, and another major threat is arising from the widespread collection of data without proper consent or oversight. The everyday activities of average Americans are being closely monitored and analyzed with minimal regulation, creating vulnerabilities not just from state agents but also from corporations that handle this data. Individuals are risking having their personal information exposed due to security breaches, often without ever having shared that information willingly. If someone becomes a target, state actors are compiling extensive details about their life while pursuing a crime to charge them with. It’s crucial to have an open conversation about surveillance, and focusing too much on certain fears has eroded personal freedoms, while other valid concerns—especially those related to government intrusion into citizens’ private lives—have largely gone unaddressed. The government must be actively held accountable for its actions, and citizens must be actively protected from the dangers of the surveillance state.

Authorities are actively building an all-encompassing digital surveillance system, with Digital Identity and Central Bank Digital Currencies serving as the core components that trap individuals in this framework. This system is being designed to replace traditional government-issued IDs with Digital IDs deeply rooted in unchangeable biometric data, including fingerprints, facial structures, and iris patterns, effectively creating an unbreakable link between individuals’ physical bodies and their digital identity credentials. By utilizing this biometric data, governments and financial institutions are rendering individuals’ bodies as passwords, establishing a total linkage between physical characteristics and digital identity. The United Nations and the Bank for International Settlements are openly acknowledging the integration of Digital IDs and Central Bank Digital Currencies to form the backbone of a new financial system, which requires the identification and verification of every participant through Know Your Customer protocols. Digital wallets are being tied to Digital IDs, which are mapped to individuals’ biometrics, creating a direct connection between financial transactions and biological data. Initiatives like Sam Altman’s WorldCoin are already rolling out prototypes of this system, encouraging people to scan their irises to obtain a unique identifier and a digital wallet.

Similarly, the UN’s Building Blocks program is forcing refugees to scan their irises to receive food rations, with the value being deducted from a wallet linked to their biometric ID. Under the guise of addressing the identity gap, authorities claim that digital IDs are necessary for the world’s poor to access essential services like banking and healthcare. However, the reality is that this system is being designed to exert total control over individuals, with their access to society and their own money being permissioned and revocable based on their compliance. This digital surveillance system is not about convenience; it’s about control, with the new global financial system being built on the foundation of total surveillance, where individuals’ every move is monitored and regulated. The implementation of Digital IDs and Central Bank Digital Currencies is a deliberate attempt to create a framework of control, where authorities can dictate who can participate in the financial system and who cannot, effectively rendering individuals’ autonomy and freedom obsolete.

Citizens are witnessing a dramatic expansion of the surveillance state, driven by the ruthless exploitation of fear, the gradual normalization of egregious privacy invasions, and the lucrative monetization of surveillance. This alarming trend poses a significant threat to civil liberties, with far-reaching consequences that imperil the very foundations of democracy. Governments must be held accountable for their actions, and citizens are demanding greater transparency and robust safeguards to protect their rights and freedoms. As the surveillance state continues to grow in power and scope, it is crucial that citizens remain vigilant and proactive, confronting these challenges head-on to prevent the erosion of their liberties. The clock is ticking, and the future of civil liberties hangs in the balance, making it imperative for citizens to take a stand against this insidious threat before it’s too late.

Written By Tatenda Belle Panashe

The Proposal: Taxing Your Home to “Solve” a Crisis of Their Own Making

Australia is currently grappling with a severe housing crisis, as young families are being priced out of the market due to soaring prices and rents. The Albanese Labor government has made a commitment to construct 1.2 million new homes over the course of five years, but as of August 2025, they are already facing a significant shortfall of 250,000 homes, primarily attributed to construction delays, regulatory obstacles, and a shortage of skilled labour. In a bid to address this issue, property research firm Cotality has proposed a radical concept, known as the “spare bedroom tax”, which was recently presented at the government’s Economic Reform Roundtable in mid-August 2025, sparking a new wave of debate and discussion.

Eliza Owen and Cotality is pushing for a tax on unused bedrooms, claiming over 60% of Aussie households have just one or two people, yet most homes have three or more bedrooms. This proposed tax, potentially paired with scrapping stamp duty and introducing a land tax, aims to encourage downsizing and renting out spare rooms, supposedly shifting demand towards smaller units. However, critics argue that this tax won’t add new dwellings, instead punishing hardworking Aussies who’ve saved for their dream homes. The real issue, they claim, is years of unchecked mass immigration, foreign investor speculation, and stifling zoning laws, which have manufactured the housing crisis. The public is fiercely opposing the tax, with many calling it a “crazy idea” that targets retirees and families, rather than addressing the root causes of the crisis. Critics, including opposition figures, argue that the tax would hit middle-class asset holders hardest, pitting generations against each other, while foreign investors would snap up freed-up properties at inflated prices. With over 13 million spare bedrooms nationwide, taxing them won’t solve poverty or supply shortages, and instead, would be a regressive move that ignores real fixes like cutting immigration or easing building regulations. Treasurer Jim Chalmers is considering reforms, but the proposed tax has sparked outrage, with many calling for a reality check on the true causes of the housing crisis.

The Globalist Great Reset: Erasing Ownership for Elite Control

Here’s the bigger picture: the spare bedroom scheme is just the tip of the iceberg, exemplifying the World Economic Forum’s (WEF) “Great Reset” agenda, a master plan unveiled by WEF founder Klaus Schwab in June 2020 to radically transform global economies into a “stakeholder capitalist” model. The Great Reset is actively pushing for a major overhaul of taxes, regulations, and investments, prioritizing “equity” and sustainability, often at the direct expense of individual property rights. Klaus Schwab is using the pandemic as a catalyst to build back a greener and fairer world, with governments working together to implement wealth taxes, eliminate fossil fuel subsidies, and leverage cutting-edge technologies like AI and surveillance for what he calls the “public good.” Meanwhile, Klaus Schwab’s daughter, Nicole Schwab, is actively promoting the WEF’s ‘Great Reset’ plan, which is deliberately designed to exploit crises to gain control. Nicole Schwab explicitly reveals their strategy: use crises as a smokescreen to dismantle the existing economy and replace it with a so-called “sustainable” system, which would be firmly controlled by the elite.

Here’s the lowdown: the clique of powerful, unelected elites gathering at Davos is secretly orchestrating a massive power play, backed by over 1,000 gigantic corporations like Google, Apple, and BlackRock. Under the guise of combating inequality and climate change, they’re actually working to centralize control and reshape the global economy. The World Economic Forum’s infamous slogan, “You’ll own nothing and be happy,” is the smoking gun that exposes their true intentions. This mantra originated from a 2016 essay by Danish politician Ida Auken, published on the WEF’s website, which envisioned a world by 2030 where people would rent everything – from homes and cars to appliances and clothes – through shared services and drones. Auken painted a picture of a city where “I don’t own anything… everything you considered a product has now become a service.” The WEF amplified this idea in a video summarizing their predictions for 2030, sparking a global debate. Although Auken later backtracked, claiming it was just a thought-provoking scenario to discuss the pros and cons of technology, the damage was already done. Whether or not you believe in conspiracy theories, the fact remains that this concept perfectly encapsulates the Great Reset’s push for a subscription-based economy, where corporations own all the assets and individuals are forced to lease them, lining the pockets of Big Tech and finance giants while stripping away the security and freedom that comes with ownership.

The Great Reset ties directly to housing: Schwab’s plan emphasizes “green urban infrastructure” and ESG (environmental, social, governance) metrics to force denser living and reduce private land use, aligning with UN Sustainable Development Goals for 2030. In Australia, this manifests as the bedroom tax, which would coerce downsizing into high-rise rentals—echoing the UK’s failed 2013 “bedroom tax” that harmed vulnerable tenants without boosting supply. Pauline Hanson of One Nation have called Labor’s housing tweaks a “first step” toward this Reset, where government stakes in homes (up to 40%) morph into outright control. Globally, it’s the same script: Tax private property to fund “equitable” redistribution, while elites like amass billions during crises.  This isn’t about fairness—it’s about dependency. When you own nothing, you rent from the state-corporate nexus, losing the autonomy that homeownership provides. As property theory shows, ownership isn’t just financial; it’s tied to human dignity and happiness, fostering personhood and security. The Reset rejects that, promoting a “happy” serfdom where surveillance tracks your every move for “sustainability.” Ex-investment banker Catherine Austin Fitts says that the ‘Great Reset’ is a plan “to sell to people a vision of a world where the average person has a much smaller command on resources and assets and is subject to complete central control.”

Defending Personal Values Against Globalist Overreach

From a finance standpoint, homeownership has always been the great equalizer—building equity, hedging inflation, and passing wealth to heirs. Australia’s “homeowners’ welfare state” (as economists dub it) has fuelled middle-class prosperity, but the Reset views it as inequality’s root. Taxing spare bedrooms would accelerate wealth transfer from families to governments and corporations, widening the gap while claiming to close it. It’s politically suicidal—polls show Aussies cherish their quarter-acre dream—but globalists thrive on top-down imposition, bypassing democracy via forums like Davos.

The USA Housing Crisis: A Man-Made Supply-Demand Nightmare

But it’s not just Australia. This thing takes different shapes in different places. America’s housing market is in freefall for the average citizen, with affordability at its worst since the 2008 crash. As of mid-2025, the median sale price for an existing home stands at $435,300, a staggering 48% jump from June 2020’s $294,400. Rents average $1,382 monthly, consuming over 30% of income for half of all renters—a record high. And first-time buyers? In cities like Portland, Maine, a two-bedroom starter home lists for $400,000+, outbidding young families with cash-flush investors. The crisis spans urban, suburban, and rural areas: 76% of Americans see it worsening, with rural folks (80%) hit hardest by skyrocketing costs. At the heart is a supply shortage of 3.7-4.5 million units, per Freddie Mac and Zillow estimates. Construction starts for single-family homes dropped 6.9% in October 2024 to just 970,000 annually, far below the 1.5 million needed. Inventory sits at a 4.7-month supply—below the balanced 5-6 months—keeping prices elevated despite high mortgage rates (6.74% for 30-year fixed as of July 2025).

US housing market hijacked by BlackRock, Vanguard & State Street – RFK Jr.

The US housing market is being aggressively dominated by Wall Street giants BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street. According to US Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr, inflation is only part of the problem, as these corporate behemoths are actively driving up prices by paying 20-50% over the asking price for single-family homes. BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street are quietly buying up every available property, with a clear goal of controlling a massive 60% of all single-family homes in the US by 2030. RFK Jr. sounded the alarm, warning that these giants are deliberately targeting the middle class as part of their “Great Reset” agenda, which aims to leave individuals with no assets and no control. The CEO of BlackRock, Larry Fink, is actively pushing this agenda as now the chairman of the World Economic Forum. The result is a deliberate and systematic takeover of the US housing market, with the middle class firmly in the crosshairs.

WEF and BlackRock’s public plans to ban single-family homes and private cars

The Reset rejects homeownership as “inequality’s root,” promoting “happy serfdom” via surveillance and shared assets. It destabilizes markets, forces renting, and widens gaps.  Elites benefit from scarcity; policies like zoning preserve it for the wealthy.

Ownership builds equity, hedges inflation—key to middle-class prosperity. The Reset views it as a threat, pushing dependency on small space rentals. It’s the Globalist plan to have you own nothing. Alex Jones also exposed the WEF and BlackRock’s public plans to ban single-family homes and private cars, tax families, and herd us into tiny “smart cities” using a fake climate emergency.

The WEF will not control the nations

Don’t let globalist mantras like “own nothing and be happy” become policy. Happiness comes from freedom and ownership, not enforced sharing. If Australia falls for this, it’ll be a cautionary tale for the world: The Reset isn’t reset—it’s regression to feudalism, where elites own everything, and we’re just happy to rent. Stand firm; your home is your castle, not their experiment.

Written By Tatenda Belle Panashe

We have discussed severally how governments worldwide are attempting to erase the foundational principles of personal liberty and financial independence. The latest assault on these values is unfolding in Australia, where policymakers are floating a “spare bedroom tax” to supposedly “free up housing supply.” This isn’t just bad economics—it’s a blatant intrusion into private life that aligns eerily with the globalist blueprint of the World Economic Forum’s (WEF) “Great Reset.” Let me break it down for you step by step, drawing on the facts and why this should concern every freedom-loving individual who values owning a home as the cornerstone of stability and prosperity.

AUSTRALIA FLOATS ‘SPARE BEDROOM TAX’ IN RADICAL HOUSING CRACKDOWN

The Proposal: Taxing Your Home to “Solve” a Crisis of Their Own Making

Australia is in the grips of a housing crisis, with skyrocketing prices and rents leaving young families locked out of the market. The Albanese Labor government pledged to build 1.2 million new homes over five years, but as of August 2025, they’re already 250,000 short due to construction delays, regulatory hurdles, and labour shortages. Enter the “spare bedroom tax”—a radical idea floated by property research firm Cotality at the government’s Economic Reform Roundtable in mid-August 2025.

Cotality’s head of research, Eliza Owen, argues that over 60% of Australian households consist of just one or two people (based on 2021 Census data), yet three-quarters of homes have three or more bedrooms. She points to “inefficiencies” like empty nesters clinging to family-sized homes, suggesting a tax on unused bedrooms to encourage downsizing or renting out spare rooms. This could be paired with scrapping stamp duty (a transaction tax on property sales) to make moving cheaper, while introducing a broad-based land tax that scales with property size. Proponents claim this would shift demand toward smaller units like apartments and townhouses—the so-called “missing middle” housing—and free up larger homes for growing families. Treasurer Jim Chalmers hasn’t ruled it out, calling Australia’s tax system “imperfect” and hinting at reforms in upcoming budgets.

 But here’s the reality check: This crisis isn’t caused by “underutilized” bedrooms; it’s manufactured by years of unchecked mass immigration (over 500,000 net arrivals annually under Labor), foreign investor speculation, and zoning laws that stifle new builds. Taxing spare rooms won’t add a single new dwelling—it just punishes hardworking Aussies who’ve saved and sacrificed to own a home big enough for their dreams, like space for kids, grandkids, or a home office.

Public backlash has been fierce, with social media erupting in memes and outrage.  Critics, including opposition figures like Sarah Henderson, call it a “crazy idea” that targets retirees and families, ignoring real fixes like cutting immigration or easing building regulations. From a finance perspective, this tax would hit middle-class asset holders hardest—empty nesters on fixed pensions who can’t afford to downsize without losing equity to high transaction costs or capital gains taxes. It’s regressive, pitting generations against each other while foreign investors snap up freed-up properties at inflated prices.  Australia already has over 13 million spare bedrooms nationwide, per earlier studies, but taxing them won’t solve poverty or supply shortages.

The Globalist Great Reset: Erasing Ownership for Elite Control

Now, let’s connect the bigger picture. This spare bedroom scheme isn’t isolated—it’s a textbook example of the WEF’s “Great Reset” agenda, a blueprint launched in June 2020 by WEF founder Klaus Schwab to “reset and reshape” global economies toward “stakeholder capitalism.” The Great Reset calls for overhauling taxes, regulations, and investments to prioritize “equity” and sustainability, often at the expense of individual property rights. Schwab’s vision included using the pandemic as a “rare window” to build back greener and fairer, with governments coordinating on wealth taxes, ending fossil fuel subsidies, and harnessing the Fourth Industrial Revolution’s tech (like AI and surveillance) for the “public good.” Let’s throwback to Klaus Schwab’s daughter as she pushed for the WEF’s ‘Great Reset’. The project isn’t about saving the planet — it’s about exploiting crises to seize control. Nicole Schwab, literarily unveiled their plan: use crisis to dismantle the old economy and replace it with a “sustainable” system (run by elites, of course?)

Sounds noble but let me tell you what it really is: a power grab by unelected global elites at Davos, funded by a consortium of over 1,000 mega-corporations like Google, Apple, and BlackRock, to centralize control under the guise of fighting inequality and climate change. The smoking gun is the WEF’s infamous mantra: “You’ll own nothing and be happy.” This stems from a 2016 essay by Danish politician Ida Auken, published on the WEF site, envisioning a 2030 world where people rent everything—from homes and cars to appliances and clothes—via shared services and drones. Auken described a city where “I don’t own anything… Everything you considered a product has now become a service.” The WEF promoted it in a video summarizing predictions for 2030, including that line, sparking global debate. Auken later tried to take it back saying  it was a provocative scenario to discuss tech’s pros and cons, not a utopia, but the damage was done. Conspiracy or not, it perfectly encapsulates the Reset’s push for a subscription-based economy where corporations own assets, and individuals lease them—profiting Big Tech and finance giants while stripping away the security of ownership.

The Great Reset ties directly to housing: Schwab’s plan emphasizes “green urban infrastructure” and ESG (environmental, social, governance) metrics to force denser living and reduce private land use, aligning with UN Sustainable Development Goals for 2030. In Australia, this manifests as the bedroom tax, which would coerce downsizing into high-rise rentals—echoing the UK’s failed 2013 “bedroom tax” that harmed vulnerable tenants without boosting supply. Pauline Hanson of One Nation have called Labor’s housing tweaks a “first step” toward this Reset, where government stakes in homes (up to 40%) morph into outright control. Globally, it’s the same script: Tax private property to fund “equitable” redistribution, while elites like amass billions during crises.  This isn’t about fairness—it’s about dependency. When you own nothing, you rent from the state-corporate nexus, losing the autonomy that homeownership provides. As property theory shows, ownership isn’t just financial; it’s tied to human dignity and happiness, fostering personhood and security. The Reset rejects that, promoting a “happy” serfdom where surveillance tracks your every move for “sustainability.” Ex-investment banker Catherine Austin Fitts says that the ‘Great Reset’ is a plan “to sell to people a vision of a world where the average person has a much smaller command on resources and assets and is subject to complete central control.”

Defending Personal Values Against Globalist Overreach

From a finance standpoint, homeownership has always been the great equalizer—building equity, hedging inflation, and passing wealth to heirs. Australia’s “homeowners’ welfare state” (as economists dub it) has fuelled middle-class prosperity, but the Reset views it as inequality’s root. Taxing spare bedrooms would accelerate wealth transfer from families to governments and corporations, widening the gap while claiming to close it. It’s politically suicidal—polls show Aussies cherish their quarter-acre dream—but globalists thrive on top-down imposition, bypassing democracy via forums like Davos.

The USA Housing Crisis: A Man-Made Supply-Demand Nightmare

But its not just an Australia. This thing takes different shapes in different places. America’s housing market is in freefall for the average citizen, with affordability at its worst since the 2008 crash. As of mid-2025, the median sale price for an existing home stands at $435,300, a staggering 48% jump from June 2020’s $294,400. Rents average $1,382 monthly, consuming over 30% of income for half of all renters—a record high. And first-time buyers? In cities like Portland, Maine, a two-bedroom starter home lists for $400,000+, outbidding young families with cash-flush investors. The crisis spans urban, suburban, and rural areas: 76% of Americans see it worsening, with rural folks (80%) hit hardest by skyrocketing costs. At the heart is a supply shortage of 3.7-4.5 million units, per Freddie Mac and Zillow estimates. Construction starts for single-family homes dropped 6.9% in October 2024 to just 970,000 annually, far below the 1.5 million needed. Inventory sits at a 4.7-month supply—below the balanced 5-6 months—keeping prices elevated despite high mortgage rates (6.74% for 30-year fixed as of July 2025).

US housing market hijacked by BlackRock, Vanguard & State Street – RFK Jr.

The US housing market is being aggressively dominated by Wall Street giants BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street. According to US Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr, inflation is only part of the problem, as these corporate behemoths are actively driving up prices by paying 20-50% over the asking price for single-family homes. BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street are quietly buying up every available property, with a clear goal of controlling a massive 60% of all single-family homes in the US by 2030. RFK Jr. sounded the alarm, warning that these giants are deliberately targeting the middle class as part of their “Great Reset” agenda, which aims to leave individuals with no assets and no control. The CEO of BlackRock, Larry Fink, is actively pushing this agenda as now the chairman of the World Economic Forum. The result is a deliberate and systematic takeover of the US housing market, with the middle class firmly in the crosshairs.

WEF and BlackRock’s public plans to ban single-family homes and private cars

The Reset rejects homeownership as “inequality’s root,” promoting “happy serfdom” via surveillance and shared assets. It destabilizes markets, forces renting, and widens gaps.  Elites benefit from scarcity; policies like zoning preserve it for the wealthy.

Ownership builds equity, hedges inflation—key to middle-class prosperity. The Reset views it as a threat, pushing dependency on small space rentals. It’s the Globalist plan to have you own nothing. Alex Jones also exposed the WEF and BlackRock’s public plans to ban single-family homes and private cars, tax families, and herd us into tiny “smart cities” using a fake climate emergency.

The WEF will not control the nations

Don’t let globalist mantras like “own nothing and be happy” become policy. Happiness comes from freedom and ownership, not enforced sharing. If Australia falls for this, it’ll be a cautionary tale for the world: The Reset isn’t reset—it’s regression to feudalism, where elites own everything, and we’re just happy to rent. Stand firm; your home is your castle, not their experiment.

Written By Tatenda Belle Panashe

Food and agriculture as another of the 7 areas targeted by globalists; and to begin with, knowing that COVID was a diabolical hoax, we ought not to miss the curious relationship between COVID lockdown and the food chain system, in that the COVID lockdowns revealed the weakness of overly centralised supply food chain on a global level. Government-mandated shutdowns disrupted food distribution hubs and shuttered meat processing plants, causing chaos, riots, and unrest worldwide as people scrambled to find food for their families. So much so that in 2023, 282 million people globally experienced high levels of acute hunger – which is an increase of 8.5 percent from 2022’s already elevated levels. In the United States (alone), the US Department of Agriculture reported that one in eight American households lacked adequate food in 2022.

You’d think this would be the time to support farmers around the world, and to encourage local food systems that are resilient in the face of supply-chain disruption. Instead, in country after country, cabal-affiliated leaders proceeded to crack down on independent farmers and force them to comply with draconian new rules in the name of combating climate change – which marked the beginning of consolidated efforts to weaponise laws in a bid to target food and agriculture.

THE WEAPONISATION OF LAWS TO DISRUPT THE AGRICULTURAL SECTOR

For instance, in Ireland, the agricultural sector was ordered to cut carbon emissions by 25% in seven years. This was a requirement that would obviously drive many farms into bankruptcy and would force the culling of hundreds of thousands of cows.  Meanwhile, in Canada, the goal became a fertiliser reduction of 30%, including reductions in manure use on organic farms – while manure was the only viable alternative to chemical fertiliser. Farmers proceeded to ring the alarm bells that this policy will devastate the food supply. And even though milk prices were hitting record levels, Canadian officials still forced farmers to dump their milk if they produced more than an arbitrary quota. Dairy owners were further banned from giving the milk away to neighbours or homeless shelters. For instance, in Ontario, farmers could not even sell their milk directly to consumers at all, but were rather mandated to sell it to a single government-approved body which then decides how it is distributed.

Then, in the Netherlands, the government required a 30% reduction in livestock and mandated cuts in nitrogen of up to 95% – and this is the nitrogen that is released from cow manure and, if used properly, is an earth-friendly fertiliser. In any case, the government also promulgated plans to seize and shut down up to 3,000 farms to meet climate objectives. During this time, protests by Dutch farmers have been met with force, including the police firing live ammunition rounds at protesters. Denmark, Belgium, and Germany considered similar nitrogen reduction policies. And, both the UK and US had already put schemes into place to pay farmers not to farm. In fact, in huge areas of the Midwest, large corporations were seizing prime farmland through the law of eminent domain to install solar farms – despite the fact that these installations could instead be built in sunny, arid deserts where they would not disrupt the food supply, thus proving that this was a deliberate measure to disrupt the work of farmers, as opposed to being about alternative sources of energy.

But, it was not just large corporations who were front and centre of the seizure of land in the US – the government was a key stakeholder during the Biden-Harris administration. You’d recall that Biden’s “climate czar” John Kerry, remarked that small farms are significant emitters of nitrogen, necessitating a push for the US federal government to crack down on farming in America allegedly to combat “global warming.” Kerry further insisted that the United States must massively reduce farming to meet the radical “green agenda” goals laid out by the World Economic Forum and the United Nations. According to the former Secretary of State, the world can’t tackle climate change without first addressing the agriculture sector’s emissions – and farmers in the US were front and center of his plans.

Of course, we mentioned that this weaponisation of laws to disrupt the agricultural sector is not exclusive to the US, and has included measures from the UK as well. In late 2024, this was seen with the target of specifically family farms, through the introduction of a tax on inherited agricultural assets. And concerningly, how this plays out is that (essentially) a typical family farm would have to put 159% of annual profits into paying the new inheritance tax every year for a decade and could have to sell 20% of their land, and this is according to analysis by the Country and Land Business Association. This is to say that a typical 200-acre farm owned by one person with an expected profit of £27,300 would then face a £435,000 inheritance tax bill.

But, doubling down on their efforts, the Labour government has also paused the Post-Brexit subsidies paid to farmers to boost food production and the environment without warning! And the news of the pause came amid protests to Labour’s changes to agricultural inheritance tax rules. Clearly, pause leaves thousands of farmers at a crossroads as to how they can plug the subsidies, which are being phased out. Meanwhile, under the SFI scheme, farmers are paid for actions aimed at boosting NOT ONLY food production, but also nature, including by improving the condition of their soil as well as planting hedgerows, trees and wildflowers.

THERE ARE CORPORATIONS (DELIBERATELY) HINDERING FOOD SUPPLY

But, finally, since 2020 there has been a significant increase in the number of unexplained fires and other events damaging farms, barns, food warehouses, food pantries, and the food supply chain in general, prompting the FBI to warn that the food system is under threat from cyberattacks. So why was this happening? In other words, why was the food supply system being disrupted, seemingly on purpose? And who is behind this global assault on our farmers? Well, this brings us to a discussion about corporations that have been functioning as a hindrance to food supply. And for anyone who delved into the entities behind the tyrannical COVID policies, you may also note that many of the corporations we’ll discuss are quite familiar.

Let’s start with Bayer/Monsanto. Bayer merged with Monsanto in 2018, effectively combining the companies responsible for Agent Orange and pioneering chemical warfare. And just for some added context, Agent Orange, was a mixture of herbicides that US military forces sprayed in Vietnam from 1962 to 1971 during the Vietnam War for the dual purpose of defoliating forest areas that might conceal Viet Cong and North Vietnamese forces and destroying crops that might feed the enemy.

In any case, in 1999, Monsanto’s CEO, Robert Shapiro, bragged that the company planned to control (and I quote directly here): “three of the largest industries in the world—being agriculture, food, and health—that now operate as separate businesses.” Also adding that (quote): “there are a set of changes that will lead to their integration.” Well, today these chemical manufacturers control a huge percentage of the world’s food supply. And Monsanto has already been in the news a number of times in relation to their war on food, especially news relating to lawsuits affecting farmers.

More specifically, since Monsanto began selling their patented ‘Roundup Ready’ genetically modified (GM) seeds they have sued hundreds of farmers for patent infringement. Their heavy-handed investigations and ruthless prosecutions have been nothing less than an assault on the foundations of farming practices and traditions that have endured for millennia, including one of the oldest, the right to save and replant crop seed. Michael White, who is a fourth generation farmer and seed cleaner living in the northeast corner of rural Alabama never imagined that he would become the target of the conglomerates aggressive legal tactics. But unlike other farmers who could not afford the legal battle or faced demoralisation of other kind, in his area Michael White refused to give in to Monsanto and in doing so became one of only a handful of farmers to maintain the ability to speak publicly about his case.

The second corporation we will look at is Cargill, alongside the US Department of Agriculture (also known as the USDA). Cargill is a World Economic Forum partner and the largest private company in the United States. It monopolises unimaginably vast swaths of the global food industry, including meat processing in the United States. And Cargill’s business practices, along with bigger-is-better policies enforced by their cohorts at the United States Department of Agriculture, have led to the closures of many local abattoirs which forced farmers to depend on a few corporate mega-slaughterhouses. This leaves farmers waiting 14 months or longer for butchering slots, for which they often must transport their animals hundreds of miles—and indeed, farmers and ranchers must book processing dates up to a year before the animal is even born! Furthermore, the high fees charged by Cargill’s slaughterhouses contribute to the skyrocketing price of meat—all while the farmers themselves are barely paid enough to cover the cost of raising the livestock. And the USDA, meanwhile, made sure that their policies prevent farmers from processing meat themselves on their own farms.

Then there’s the Wellcome Trust. The Wellcome Trust, which was the former owner of Glaxo before it merged with SmithKline, played a major role in Britain’s Covid debacle and is unapologetic about its goal of reducing food sovereignty! Now, interestingly, the Wellcome Trust also funds “Livestock, Environment and People” (also known as LEAP), which is an organisation dedicated to developing and testing behavioural modifications to coerce the public into removing meat and dairy from their diets. However, LEAP’s co-director Susan Jeffs bemoans that motivating people with environmental impact labels on their foods does not seem to work: stating that “People are already settled into very established habits”. She also went on to suggest altering what the industry provides, thereby forcing consumer choice. And of course, the industry referenced here tends to be pro veganism and eating insects. But, this attitude from Susan Jeffs is ultimately because the Wellcome Trust researchers recommend “availability interventions” that “rely less on individual agency” to reduce access to animal food products.

Then there is, of course, the World Health Organization and the World Economic Forum. Starting with the WHO, Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, the WHO’s Director-General, would like you to believe that food production is responsible for almost one-third of the global burden of disease. Then subsequently, he calls for transforming the global food system toward plant-based foods, reducing meat and dairy in our intake, and enforcing policies to save the climate through restricting diet. In fact, a WHO 2022 report concluded that (quote) “considerable evidence supports shifting populations towards healthful plant-based diets that reduce or eliminate intake of animal products.”

And of course, you are likely familiar with the World Economic Forum and their Great Reset agenda. Part of their messaging has been why eating insects could reduce climate change, why we need to give insects the role they deserve in our food systems, and even why we might be eating insects soon. Suffice it to say that their plans for your dietary future are clear. However, in addition to this, there is a link between a limitation on food intake and their sinister plans for “smart cities.

Then, finally, we then have to talk about the Rockefeller Foundation, because members of the Rockefeller family may carry more blame than anyone else in history for turning agriculture away from independent family farms towards corporate conglomerates. Essentially, in 1947, Nelson Rockefeller founded the International Basic Economy Corporation (also known as IBEC) to modernise and corporatise agriculture in South America, particularly in Brazil and Venezuela. The IBEC transformed farming to depend on expensive machinery and inputs that priced subsistence peasant farmers out of viability. The American International Association for Economic and Social Development (also known as AIA), which is a Rockefeller-funded philanthropic organisation, also helped build the market through which IBEC could enrich its owners. And while the IBEC’s promotional literature claimed that the company was generously assisting the “Third World” by providing necessary consumer products while turning a profit, on closer examination, it was simply a business enterprise built on the Rockefellers’ old Standard Oil model, in which smaller competitors are forced out using monopolistic practices before prices are raised!

However, this tactic was taken to a whole new level with the so-called Green Revolution, first in Mexico in the 1940s, then in the Philippines and India in the 1960s, as well as in the United States. Traditional farming practices such as the use of manure as fertiliser for heirloom native crops were then replaced with a model of mechanised chemical farming, using Rockefeller-funded new seed varieties which had been developed to require petrochemical fertilisers and pesticides to produce significantly increased crop yields compared to the traditional crops grown by peasant farmers in these countries.

And it is worth noting that the Rockefellers, as oil oligarchs, stood to profit from the petroleum-based fertilisers and pesticides that this new method demanded. The crops grown were almost all cereal crops like rice and unfortunately replaced more nutrient-dense, traditional crops like millet. And there were consequences for this. For example, India experienced an increase in food but a decrease in nutrition: with more empty calories but fewer fruits, vegetables, and animal proteins, micronutrients essentially disappeared from the diet. In addition, illnesses such as anaemia, blindness, fertility problems, low birth weight, and immune impairment increased in the country. Therefore, while the Green Revolution was hailed as the solution to world hunger and poverty, it actually poisoned local water supplies, depleted the soil, and left farmers drowning in debt as they could no longer independently produce the fertiliser and seeds they needed. And I believe you would have also deduced that the latter Monsanto GMO Roundup-Ready seed model followed this playbook established by the Rockefellers. But this is a reminder to South American, Asian and African countries (as we are about to discuss) to sever themselves from these organisations  especially because people who profit from your suffering, cannot be your helpers. In addition, these regions are wealthy and have intelligent people, enough for us to be self-sufficient.

However, the Rockefeller Foundation did not end in the Americas or Asia – they also launched an attack on the African continent. More specifically, in 2006, the Rockefeller Foundation, Bill Gates, and others pushed the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa, or AGRA, and they again followed this proven playbook. Since AGRA’s launch, African biodiversity has been lost, and the number of severely undernourished people in sub-Saharan Africa has increased by nearly 50 percent, even by the UN’s own reports. Just as in India, farmers are being tricked into abandoning nutrient-dense, drought-resistant crops like heirloom millet in exchange for the empty calories of GMO corn. And in response, hundreds of African organisations have demanded that this neocolonial project end, leaving the future of African agriculture in the hands of the native farmers who know the land best.

And by the way, the Rockefeller Foundation has also set its sights on the US food system with its Reset the Table agenda, handily launched in 2020 just weeks after the Great Reset was announced. This is another sinister plan to watch, and pray against.

However, what is incredibly dangerous and important to note is that a number of these corporations waging a war on food tend to project themselves as pillars for good. They have invested a lot into curating a public image that makes their evil works either go unchecked or even be covered by the promulgated message that their actions are for the greater good. And to say this was intentionally done is not a mistake – their philanthropic (or more accurately, philantro-capitalistic) works are nothing more than a public image campaign. For instance, the corrupt wealth and influence of figures like John D. Rockefeller was resented by Americans who knew its source. And to counter that, John D. Rockefeller embarked on a campaign of so-called philanthropy, primarily to redeem his public image; and not because he is inherently a philanthropist.

SECRET MANIPULATIONS OF CROPS, TO MAKE THE PUBLIC CONSUME GMO FOODS

So, here’s another manipulative tactic that has been used in the war on food and agriculture – especially pertaining to wheat. Wheat itself in its organic form is not the issue in question; the issue especially relates to genetically modified wheat; and this is because the Big Fake Food Corporations are NOT ONLY dumping this GMO wheat in massive quantities into the food supply, but also that in doing so they have actually known for 40+ years now what gluten has been doing to the digestive system of consumers. More specifically, there is something that’s found IN the gluten that is VERY IMPORTANT to these fake food corporations: which is a protein called Gliadin. They discovered this protein in gluten was highly addictive. When you eat GMO wheat, the gliadin in the gluten goes straight to your brain and makes you CRAVE MORE FOOD, and also  makes you HUNGRIER.

And once they discovered what this gliadin protein does to your brain, the Big Fake Food Corporations started dumping their GMO/gluten/gliadin-filled-wheat into just about everything they make that ends up on your grocery store shelves. Essentially, gliadin stimulates your appetite and makes you hungry for more sugar and more grains! Which means that the more you eat their genetically modified wheat, the more you’ll want! Now, you’d recall that with the COVID-19 jabs, government bureaucrats working in conjunction with Big Pharma had to sabotage HCQ and Ivermectin for their profits.

Well, similarly, some governments are not only NOT doing anything to prevent this harm to the public, but a number of lawmakers have all been bought off and are colluding with these big fake food corporations – the same food companies that do not care about you and have been selling you toxic, addictive fake food that they have tinkered with to make you constantly want to eat more of it in order to increase their profits. Obviously, this relationship between lawmakers and Big Food is diametrically opposed to the government’s mandate to act in the best interests of its people.

However, when you follow the development of the genetically modified week, what is utterly concerning is also the revelation that many believe that there was no genetically modified wheat, especially in northern America. And yet, people found illegal strains of wheat in different parts of North America.

WE ALSO HAVE A PART TO PLAY IN SUPPORTING LOCAL FOOD PRODUCERS

Then finally, while the issues we have discussed today are systemic and a consequence of the plans of sinister actors, we must also not miss an opportunity to compound on our activist efforts to ensure a clean, organic, cost-effective and functional food supply system. And honestly, it begins with supporting local food producers! First, we need to demand this on a legislative front though engaging the relevant stakeholders and policy makers, but also with the choices we make. It is jarring the extent to which consumers have also substituted the support for things like local farmers markets for convenience stores. And we saw this, for example, when American farmers across the country were reported to be struggling because the so-called elite class only wanted imported foods, instead of buying foods from American farmers and American companies.

Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso

The rise of the surveillance state

The rise of the surveillance state is becoming increasingly evident, as cameras now monitor individuals walking through public streets and sidewalks in various urban and suburban settings. A simple stroll around the neighbourhood, complete with conversations, can easily be recorded if cities employ surveillance-equipped streetlights. Even front yards are not shielded from surveillance; neighbours with “smart” doorbells can share footage with law enforcement. This intrusion extends beyond city limits, as Automatic License Plate Reader cameras are cropping up along rural highways and county borders, while audio and video surveillance infiltrates remote regions like the Amazon Basin. With advancements in satellite technology, it seems unlikely that any corner of the globe will remain unmonitored in the future. The modern surveillance state wields unprecedented power, and the notion that there is no expectation of privacy in public no longer stands against the vast amounts of data being collected, stored, and analysed.

Despite the looming threats posed by this “Big Brother” phenomenon, critics often find themselves underrepresented in mainstream media. When news outlets do discuss citizen surveillance, they frequently frame it as a necessary solution, while glossing over the potential risks to civil liberties. So, why aren’t more citizens voicing concerns about these invasions of privacy, and in some cases, even endorsing them? One explanation may lie in the way these systems are marketed as protective measures for society, even though they may actually represent the greatest threats to freedom. The tactic of using fear to consolidate power is nothing new, and despite having more access to information than ever, citizens still find themselves susceptible to manipulation.

Each decade has brought its own wave of moral panic, often accompanied by “solutions” that encroach upon civil liberties. The justification for today’s surveillance state traces back to September 11, 2001, when fear stemming from those events led to the acceptance of unconstitutional provisions like The PATRIOT Act, real-time crime centers, and the TSA. The government managed to enforce security measures that would have faced strong resistance under normal circumstances. With the public increasingly accepting surveillance, it became easy to extend these measures from airports to city streets, fueled by sensational stories of gang violence and other societal issues. Additionally, divisive rhetoric surrounding illegal immigration has further driven the expansion of surveillance, normalizing privacy violations and promoting technologies as solutions for non-violent offenses such as littering and traffic infractions. Government programs are also leveraging surveillance to micromanage travelers’ behavior while claiming to protect the environment from climate change. The average citizen is gradually being conditioned to view the surveillance state as a necessary evil, with some even embracing it as a means to feel safer. However, this acceptance comes at a significant cost to civil liberties, making it crucial to recognize the dangers associated with this expanding surveillance apparatus. Authorities are manipulating fear and misinformation to justify the growth of surveillance, and it is vital for citizens to stay informed about these tactics and demand greater transparency and accountability from their governments. The future of civil liberties hinges on this awareness, and addressing these issues is essential before it’s too late.

The swift expansion of the surveillance state is a multifaceted issue, driven by various factors. A primary motivator is the age-old tactic of using fear to consolidate power, which governments and institutions have long employed. By magnifying narratives surrounding crime, terrorism, and other threats, authorities can rationalize the enforcement of security measures that would typically face public backlash. Technologies like surveillance-enabled streetlights and Automatic License Plate Reader cameras are promoted as solutions, but they pose serious risks to civil liberties.

The normalization of privacy violations

The normalization of privacy violations is another key factor in the surveillance state’s growth. As citizens grow accustomed to being constantly watched, they become less likely to challenge the expansion of surveillance. This trend is alarming, as it can result in a significant erosion of civil liberties and a shift toward a more authoritarian society. The government, along with other institutions, is increasingly using surveillance to control citizens’ behavior, which can severely impact individual freedom and autonomy. Furthermore, the use of surveillance to generate revenue raises additional concerns, as it creates a troubling incentive for governments to continue expanding surveillance measures. By enforcing laws and regulations through surveillance, authorities can generate significant income, which is then reinvested into further enhancing surveillance capabilities. This creates a self-perpetuating cycle where the growth of surveillance leads to increased revenue, which subsequently fuels additional surveillance initiatives. The implications of the surveillance state on civil liberties are profound. As citizens become more accustomed to being monitored, they may become less inclined to assert their rights and freedoms. Additionally, the micromanagement of behavior through surveillance can lead to a loss of individual autonomy, forcing citizens to conform to specific norms and expectations. The normalization of privacy violations can also erode trust in institutions and disrupt social cohesion.

Advanced technologies can seriously jeopardize the privacy and safety of its citizens

While many people focus on issues like gangs, littering, and drunk driving, they often miss other important threats that require our attention. A government that employs advanced technologies can seriously jeopardize the privacy and safety of its citizens. Unfortunately, the media frequently overlooks this unprecedented risk, which echoes historical patterns seen around the world. Ignoring this issue could lead to severe repercussions for society. The technologies currently being used in our communities mirror those that oppress citizens in countries like China, where systems like social credit and ethnic cleansing are prevalent. Journalists and political dissidents who expose government corruption often suffer harsh penalties, including being denied basic resources, suitable housing, and the freedom to travel. In more authoritarian regimes, such as Myanmar, governments have used facial recognition technology to hunt down and execute political opponents. Entrusting such significant power to even small governments can be dangerous. Historical abuses, exemplified by practices like civil asset forfeiture, reveal how easily a surveillance state can be misused, often under the guise of judicial protection. Even when artificial intelligence identifies real crimes, the evidence it provides is often unreliable. Another major threat arises from the widespread collection of data without proper consent or oversight. The everyday activities of average Americans are closely monitored and analyzed with minimal regulation, creating vulnerabilities not just from state agents but also from corporations that handle this data. Individuals risk having their personal information exposed due to security breaches, often without ever having shared that information willingly. If someone becomes a target, state actors can compile extensive details about their life while pursuing a crime to charge them with. It’s crucial to have an open conversation about surveillance. Focusing too much on certain fears has eroded personal freedoms, while other valid concerns—especially those related to government intrusion into citizens’ private lives—have largely gone unaddressed.

Partner of Facebook and Google Admits Smartphone Microphones Listen to Conversations

Smartphone Microphones Listen to Conversations before Showing Ads

A Partner of Facebook and Google Admits Smartphone Microphones Listen to Conversations Before Showing Ads. The website 404 Media references a marketing presentation that reveals the use of “Active Listening” software. This technology uses a form of AI to “obtain real-time intent data by listening to conversations.” The presentation was made by Cox Media Group (CMG), a telecom giant that is one of Facebook’s marketing partners. CMG claimed that Amazon, Facebook, and Google are clients using “Active Listening.” However, after the publication on 404 Media, Google removed CMG from its list of partners. Amazon stated that it does not use this technology. Meta (Facebook’s parent company) said it has begun reviewing its relationship with CMG to ensure the group hasn’t violated any terms of service. The capabilities of Cox Media Group to listen in on users became known in December 2023, but without detailed information. Allegedly, the eavesdropping is permitted by the terms of use of certain apps. But in a congressional hearing in 2018, Mark Zuckerberg claimed that they don’t Use Mobile Device Microphones to listen in on users. So Zucks lied.

Surveillance capitalism is turning human beings into raw material

If they are just gathering this information to show me products, it sounds like a nice service! The issue is when it’s weaponized into a system of total control which turns the control into the next source of profits. Surveillance capitalism has its roots in the early days of the internet, when companies like Google and Facebook exploited the “ungoverned spaces” of the digital realm. The dot-com bust, the success of Apple’s consumer-centric approach, and the surveillance-friendly environment created by the US National Security Agency (NSA) and CIA’s investments in the “war on terror” all contributed to the rise of surveillance capitalism.

Surveillance capitalism is a novel economic system that has emerged in the digital era. It is characterized by the unilateral claim of private human experience as free raw material for translation into behavioural data. In this version of capitalism, predicting and influencing behaviour (political and economic) rather than producing goods and services is the primary product. This economic logic prioritizes extracting, processing, and trading personal data to predict and influence human behaviour by exploiting those predictions for various economic (marketing) and political objectives.

In essence, surveillance capitalism is turning human beings into raw material, but our data is extracted. That is the capital of today, big data is the new oil and then it’s used to try to manipulate us.

Surveillance Capitalism Is Powering the Modern Surveillance State

In many cases, surveillance capitalism merges with psywar tools and technologies to power the modern surveillance state, giving rise to a new form of Fascism (public-private partnerships) known as techno-totalitarianism. Leading corporations employing the surveillance capitalism business model include Google, Amazon, and Facebook. Surveillance capitalism has now fused with the science and theory of psychology, marketing, and algorithmic manipulation of online information to give rise to propaganda and censorship capabilities that go far beyond those imagined by the 20th-century predictions of Aldous Huxley and George Orwell.

There is loss of autonomy. Surveillance capitalism erodes individual autonomy as users are manipulated and influenced by algorithms designed to predict and shape their behaviour. It’s a threat to democracy. The concentration of power in the hands of surveillance capitalists undermines democratic processes, as they use their influence to shape public opinion and policy. It also leads to economic inequality: The wealth generated by surveillance capitalism exacerbates economic inequality, as those who own and control the data and algorithms reap the benefits while users are exploited as free commodities.

Covid was meant to normalize biometric surveillance

But it even goes beyond that. Advisor to the WEF, Yuval Noah Harari admitted that Covid was critical because this is what convinces people to accept total biometric surveillance, which will enable the Stalins of the 21st century” to monitor and analyse the brains of all the population, all the time.

In summary, the expansion of the surveillance state is a complex issue influenced by various factors, including the exploitation of fear, the normalization of privacy invasions, and the monetization of surveillance. The consequences for civil liberties are significant, making it imperative to acknowledge the risks associated with this trend. Citizens must remain vigilant, demanding greater transparency and accountability from their governments to safeguard their rights and freedoms. The future of civil liberties depends on this awareness, and it is essential to confront these challenges before it becomes too late.

Written By Tatenda Belle Panashe

The authorities are actively constructing a digital prison

Big Tech insiders are now exposing the alarming plan to confine humanity within smart cities, essentially creating a high-tech prison under the guise of security, convenience, and sustainability. Aman Jabbi, a whistleblower, reveals that our personal devices and smart appliances are constantly monitoring our every move, tracking our daily activities. As we step out of our homes, our cars are being tracked, and our smartphones, smartwatches, and other devices are being surveilled as we walk down the street. This pervasive surveillance allows for 24/7 data collection on every individual, effectively creating a digital prison. The concept of smart cities, which encompasses the idea of 15-minute cities, is designed to restrict our mobility and limit our access to resources like water, energy, and transportation. Moreover, initiatives like air monitoring, water management, and noise pollution are being used to ration our resources, limit our movement, and even surveil our speech. The notion of geofencing is also being employed, creating an invisible fence that restricts our movement and controls our access to digital currency, all tied to our face recognition, digital identity, and access control. In essence, our world has been transformed into a digital panopticon, where our every move is being watched, tracked, and controlled. The authorities are actively constructing a digital prison, and it’s imperative that we’re aware of the looming threat to our freedom and autonomy.

Surveillance capitalism erodes individual autonomy

Surveillance capitalists are actively manipulating users, stripping them of their autonomy by utilizing algorithms that predict and shape their behaviour, posing a significant threat to the very foundations of democracy. By concentrating power in their own hands, these surveillance capitalists are undermining democratic processes, leveraging their influence to mold public opinion and dictate policy. Furthermore, the unchecked wealth generated by surveillance capitalism is exacerbating economic inequality, as the corporations that own and control the data and algorithms are raking in profits, while users are being exploited as nothing more than free commodities, fuelling a system that perpetuates economic disparity.

Covid was meant to normalise biometric surveillance

But it even goes beyond that. Advisor to the WEF, Yuval Noah Harari admitted that Covid was critical because this is what convinces people to accept total biometric surveillance, which will enable the Stalins of the 21st century” to monitor and analyse the brains of all the population, all the time.

Understanding Smart Cities, 15-Minute Cities

In cities and towns across the word, our communities are being transformed by the implementation of so-called “smart” technologies said to create more efficient, safe, and sustainable environments. These smart cities use a range of devices such as cameras, sensors, and artificial intelligence to attempt central management of everything from traffic and public safety to environmental monitoring. Proponents of smart cities will sing songs about their efficiency. Traffic lights adjust in real-time to traffic conditions, reducing congestion and shortening commutes. Smart waste management systems notify city services when trash bins are full, optimizing collection routes and frequencies. Public safety could be enhanced by using networked cameras and environmental sensors that can detect crimes and so forth.

Moreover, the control and ownership of this data resides predominantly in the hands of corporations. This new era of surveillance isn’t just about privacy. It’s a profound shift in the power dynamics between the state and the individual. It tips the balance overwhelmingly in favour of the observer. In a society where everyone is watched, the watched are not free. This surveillance creates a chilling effect on behaviour, stifling dissent and discouraging participation in civil society. If you think about it, it’s a strange trade-off. We’re bartering away bits of our privacy for the convenience of not having to flip a light switch or remember where we parked the car. And the lessons from history are clear. Surveillance technologies, once introduced, are rarely rolled back. They tend to expand in scope and scale, often outstripping the original intentions behind their deployment. So we need to ask: Are we building a smarter world or just a more surveilled one?

The UN’s Diabolical Agenda for World Domination 

Under the United Nations’ plan for complete global control known as Agenda 21 (which Agenda 2030 is a mere milestone of), humans who once lived on farms and in rural areas are to be forcibly relocated into densely populated “smart” cities, known as “human settlements”. Watch this except from the documentary, ‘Unsustainable: The UN’s Agenda For World Domination’.

As we stand at the crossroads of technology and privacy, the choices we make today will define the legacy of our generation. It’s crucial that we strike a balance between leveraging technology for our own betterment and safeguarding the individual freedoms we hold so dear. The Documentary ‘The Agenda: Their Vision, Your Future’ by Oracle Films presents evidence that the global takeover is not only possible—it’s actually happening and has been decades in the making.”

Writtebn By Tatenda Belle Panashe

What are 15 Minute Cities?

What are 15 Minute Cities? It’s the agenda to divide cities into districts in which will limit movement within a radius of 15 minutes from the place of residence (a time of 15 minutes, i.e. the distance you can cover in a car, or in public transport in that amount of time). The excuse for that limited movement will of course be climate change, and for further movement you will need a permit.

Understanding Smart Cities, 15-Minute Cities

In cities and towns across the word, our communities are being transformed by the implementation of so-called “smart” technologies said to create more efficient, safe, and sustainable environments. These smart cities use a range of devices such as cameras, sensors, and artificial intelligence to attempt central management of everything from traffic and public safety to environmental monitoring. Proponents of smart cities will sing songs about their efficiency. Traffic lights adjust in real-time to traffic conditions, reducing congestion and shortening commutes. Smart waste management systems notify city services when trash bins are full, optimizing collection routes and frequencies. Public safety could be enhanced by using networked cameras and environmental sensors that can detect crimes and so forth.

Moreover, the control and ownership of this data resides predominantly in the hands of corporations. This new era of surveillance isn’t just about privacy. It’s a profound shift in the power dynamics between the state and the individual. It tips the balance overwhelmingly in favour of the observer. In a society where everyone is watched, the watched are not free. This surveillance creates a chilling effect on behaviour, stifling dissent and discouraging participation in civil society. If you think about it, it’s a strange trade-off. We’re bartering away bits of our privacy for the convenience of not having to flip a light switch or remember where we parked the car. And the lessons from history are clear. Surveillance technologies, once introduced, are rarely rolled back. They tend to expand in scope and scale, often outstripping the original intentions behind their deployment. So we need to ask: Are we building a smarter world or just a more surveilled one?

What exactly is a “Smart City” and how does it relate to a “15-minute city”? And what does any of this have to do with individual liberty and freedom of movement? You’ve likely heard the terms “Smart City”, or its more recent cousin, “15-minute city”, but do you truly understand what these concepts call for? Do you know which organizations are responsible for promoting the ideas?

Smart Cities and the Internet of Things

The term smart city typically describes an urban area which is outfitted with 5G towers (and soon, 6G) which allow the speed and bandwidth needed for autonomous vehicles, robot assistants, and sensors in the street to moderate streetlights and issue environmental warning alerts. All of this would be powered by Artificial Intelligence (AI). Collectively, the sensors, devices, and infrastructure are known as the so-called “Internet of Things” (IoT). To put it simply, the IoT is the network of digital devices, vehicles, appliances and other physical objects embedded with sensors that allow them to collect and share data. This real time data collection is central to smart city initiatives which claim to be stepping stones towards a digital utopia. Devices connected to the IoT range from smart phones to smart appliances to smart homes or buildings with smart thermostats. Even wearables like smartwatches, earbuds, and fitness tracking devices form part of the IoT.

A simple rule of thumb is that if your device is claimed to be “smart” or has Wi-Fi or Bluetooth capabilities it can be connected to the IoT. National Geographic describes a smart city as “a city in which a suite of sensors (typically hundreds or thousands) is deployed to collect electronic data from and about people and infrastructure so as to improve efficiency and quality of life.” It notes that residents and city workers may need to use apps to access city services, receive and issue reports of outages, accidents, and crimes, pay taxes, fees, etc. They also emphasize the potential use cases for reducing energy usage and making a city more “sustainable”. Overall, smart cities are being sold to the public as a futuristic cityscape with features like streetlights that automatically turn off when no one is around, or AI algorithms which optimize trash collection routes.

We are also being told that by combining AI with sensors and cameras everywhere, we will have autonomous, or driverless, vehicles which will lower traffic congestion.  Shocking evidence is emerging from Australia and New Zealand of how the climate scam is being used to impose a techno-totalitarian smart-city future. The globalist imperialists often use the Commonwealth colonies to try out the most insidious escalations of their tyranny – think of Canada, New Zealand and Australia during Covid. We can therefore assume that this is going to be the blueprint for the roll-out of their Fourth Industrial Revolution agenda across the world.

Exaggerated “modelling” of the imagined effects of “climate change”

Exaggerated “modelling” of the imagined effects of “climate change” is being used to define certain areas as unsuitable for human settlement. Working hand in hand with the state is the insurance industry – long a central part of the corrupt empire – which deems homes in these areas to be “uninsurable”. Banks are also playing their part (of course!) saying they are unwilling to provide mortgages for these “uninsurable” properties.

The UN’s Diabolical Agenda for World Domination 

Under the United Nations’ plan for complete global control known as Agenda 21 (which Agenda 2030 is a mere milestone of), humans who once lived on farms and in rural areas are to be forcibly relocated into densely populated “smart” cities, known as “human settlements”. Watch this except from the documentary, ‘Unsustainable: The UN’s Agenda For World Domination’. As we stand at the crossroads of technology and privacy, the choices we make today will define the legacy of our generation. It’s crucial that we strike a balance between leveraging technology for our own betterment and safeguarding the individual freedoms we hold so dear.

Written By Tatenda Belle Panashe