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

‘BritCard’, the UK government’s proposed mandatory digital ID

The BritCard system actively enables the government to monitor your every move, track your online activity, identify the protests you attend, and record your spending habits, storing this vast amount of data permanently. The state is deliberately designing this system to exclude any option for citizens to opt-out, effectively making every individual digitally visible to the authorities in all their transactions. If you choose to defy some future directive, will the government actively cut off your access to your own funds, or will they restrict your freedom of movement? The implementation of BritCard is actively paving the way to a future where privacy is not just impossible, but explicitly forbidden, eroding the very foundation of personal autonomy.

Digital ID is Blair’s baby. One of the authors works for the Tony Blair Institute. Labour Together was founded by Blairite MPs and is staffed with ex-members of Blair’s cabinet. This is pure Blairite sleight-of-hand. Tony Blair’s Institute for Global Change has been pushing digital IDs as a fix for everything since forever, and now Starmer’s mulling a “Gov.uk wallet” for digital docs amid a Home Affairs Committee inquiry. Illegal migration? That’s the smokescreen—just like how the BIS uses “efficiency” for CBDCs in Project Mariana. BritCard won’t stop dinghy arrivals; it’ll track your movements, banking, and even vax status, paving the way for social credit, CBDCs, and carbon taxes. it’s a “slave collar like the COVID vax pass as a trial run. it’ll evolve into an app tying your bank and everything else, eroding freedoms. This dovetails perfectly with the Web3 hijack we discussed yesterday: blockchain digital identities from JPMorgan’s Onyx to Billions’ ZK proofs, all feeding into a globalist net where your “proof-of-personhood” locks you into compliant ecosystems.

The Quiet Rebranding of CBDCs as “Digital-ID”

The US has issued an Executive Order banning Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs), yet elements typical of a CBDC system are emerging, though not from the Federal Reserve. The US Treasury Department is now inviting public comments on the role of Digital ID in decentralized finance (DeFi). They aim to gather input on innovative methods to combat illicit finance risks tied to digital assets, as part of the GENIUS Act and in alignment with Donald Trump’s initiative for responsible digital asset growth. The Treasury’s request covers various topics, including using APIs to enforce access controls, monitor transactions, and enhance the security of financial institutions dealing with digital assets. It also explores employing Artificial Intelligence to identify illicit financial patterns and trends, as well as blockchain monitoring to assess high-risk activities and trace transactions across different blockchains. Additionally, the Treasury is seeking feedback on introducing portable digital identity credentials. These would support anti-money laundering (AML) and counter-terrorism financing (CFT) measures, promote user privacy, and lessen the compliance burden on financial institutions. Such credentials could enable DeFi services to verify user identities before processing transactions. This approach mirrors the Bank of International Settlements’ (BIS) proposal to assess individual crypto wallets for AML compliance, leveraging the history of crypto assets to calculate an AML compliance score. This score would indicate the likelihood of a crypto asset being linked to illicit activities, allowing authorities to enforce a duty of care among crypto market participants.

Digital ID verification in DeFi – Transparency or control?

The US Treasury’s potential integration of digital ID verification is poised to fundamentally alter the core of decentralized finance, a concept that was never truly decentralized to begin with. By embedding IDs directly into smart contracts, Know Your Customer and Anti-Money Laundering regulations will be strictly enforced on-chain, effectively closing the loophole for money laundering activities, but also sparking significant concerns about privacy. At this juncture, decentralized finance will be indistinguishable from traditional finance, as it will be subject to the same regulatory oversight. This development could potentially pave the way for cryptocurrency to become more integrated with traditional finance, resulting in lower compliance costs and fostering trust with major institutions. However, the drawbacks of this approach far outweigh the benefits, as stringent regulations will inevitably lead to the elimination of non-compliant protocols. In response, compliant stablecoins and DeFi platforms will emerge as the new standard, becoming institutionalized at an accelerated rate. Ultimately, DeFi will be forced to operate within the boundaries of the law, but the underlying question remains: is this regulatory push genuinely aimed at combating money laundering, or does it serve a more ulterior motive? Whitney Webb breaks down the coordinated global push for a new, dystopian system of control, marrying digital ID with CBDCs.

Governments and financial institutions are actively constructing a comprehensive digital surveillance system, with Digital Identity and Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) serving as the two primary components that lock individuals into this framework. This system is being designed to replace traditional government-issued IDs with Digital IDs that are deeply rooted in immutable biometric data, including fingerprints, facial structures, and iris patterns. By harnessing this biometric data, authorities are creating an unbreakable link between individuals’ physical bodies and their digital identity credentials, effectively rendering their bodies as passwords. The United Nations and the Bank for International Settlements are openly acknowledging that Digital IDs and CBDCs are being integrated to form the backbone of a new financial system. This biometric digital ID is crucial for the implementation of Know Your Customer (KYC) protocols, which require the identification and verification of every participant in the digital financial system. Digital wallets are being tied to Digital IDs, which are, in turn, mapped to individuals’ biometrics, establishing a total linkage between financial transactions and biological data. Prototypes of this system are already being rolled out, with initiatives like Sam Altman’s WorldCoin 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 programmable 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. The new global financial system is being built on the foundation of total surveillance, where individuals’ every move is monitored and regulated. The implementation of Digital IDs and CBDCs is a deliberate attempt to create a framework of control, where authorities can dictate who can participate in the financial system and who cannot.

That brings us into Project Mariana, a cozy little collab between the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) Innovation Hub, the Bank of France, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS), and the Swiss National Bank (SNB). These unelected technocrats are “exploring” – that’s code for piloting – the use of decentralized finance (DeFi) tools for cross-border trading of wholesale central bank digital currencies (CBDCs). And get this: they’re borrowing tech from Curve Finance’s Curve v2 Hybrid Function Market Maker (HFMM) to power on-chain liquidity pools for these digital fiat monstrosities.

The Federal Reserve and its allies are debasing currencies, and Project Mariana reeks of their old playbook: disguising control as innovation. This project, backed by the “central bank of central banks,” aims to make international settlements faster and cheaper using digital currencies. They’re testing a digital version of the US dollar, euro, and other currencies on a private Ethereum network, cutting out traditional middlemen. But who’s building this new system? The same institutions that created the current economic mess. Mariana is using Curve Finance’s technology to swap currencies without the chaos of traditional markets. Curve’s system is perfect for institutional-scale digital currency pools, making it a key player in this project. But don’t be fooled – this isn’t about liberating the masses; it’s about the traditional financial system co-opting decentralized finance to build a programmable money system that’s traceable, taxable, and controllable. This project is part of the World Economic Forum’s “Great Reset” plan, which leads to a system where every transaction is tracked and controlled. The ultimate goal is to create a digital currency that can track your every purchase, including your morning coffee, and penalize you for “carbon overuse.” Mariana is building on earlier projects, pushing for a global digital currency platform that spans borders, all under the guise of “financial inclusion” and “reduced costs.” The irony is that Curve, a protocol born from crypto anarchy, is now lending its technology to the establishment’s surveillance ledger. If this project scales, say goodbye to cash anonymity and hello to a world where governments and banks can freeze your assets in an instant. This is the establishment’s endgame: hijacking blockchain’s promise to entrench their power and control over the global economy. So how does XRP tie into all this? Ripple has a Secret Plan to make your Biometric Identity Control Money and Healthcare.

Written By Tatenda Belle Panashe

JPMorgan and WEF Pushing Blockchain Digital ID as Cornerstone for Web3

Meet JPMorgan, the banking giant that’s been slapped with billions of dollars in fines for manipulating markets and facilitating large-scale fraud. This behemoth is now aggressively pushing Web3 narratives through its blockchain arm, Onyx, rebranded as Kinexys. In a video and article series, “The Big Shift: Digital Identity in Web3,” JPMorgan explicitly claims that Web3 will revolutionize the way we create, store, and manage assets and identity information, transitioning to decentralized blockchain models. The bank envisions a future where your digital identity, stored in a blockchain “wallet,” enables you to seamlessly navigate digital realms like DeFi, the metaverse, and NFTs, all while proving ownership without relying on centralized servers. On the surface, this sounds incredibly empowering, as you’re in control of your data, sharing only what you want, and blockchain’s immutability keeps it secure.

JPMorgan’s Digital ID intentions are not at all altruistic

However, JPMorgan’s true intentions are not at all altruistic like the video tries to sell. The bank is building a permissioned blockchain, which is centralized enough for them to control access and comply with government regulations. They’ve already processed over $300 billion in transactions on this platform and are now exploring digital identity wallets that tie your assets, credentials, and even offline payments to this system. JPMorgan claims this is all about efficiency, faster loans, and reduced fraud, but it’s clear that banks like JPMorgan don’t innovate without a profit motive. They’re using this “decentralized” identity to extract fees and data, funnelling it through their ecosystem, where they can monitor transactions, enforce know-your-customer rules, and integrate with global payment systems like their JPM Coin. This isn’t about giving users sovereignty; it’s about establishing JPMorgan’s sovereignty, with blockchain as the shiny new ledger for their financial empire. Jordan Peterson on digital ID, and the social credit systems it facilitates.

JPMorgan is actively trying to shape the future of digital identity, but it’s crucial to examine their motives and the implications of their actions. By doing so, we can better understand the true nature of their Web3 ambitions and what they mean for the future of finance. The bank’s aggressive push into Web3 is a calculated move to expand its reach and consolidate its power, and it’s essential to consider the potential consequences of their actions. As JPMorgan continues to drive the development of digital identity wallets and permissioned blockchains, it’s vital to ask: what does this mean for the future of financial sovereignty, and who will ultimately benefit from these innovations?

In comes the World Economic Forum, stepping into the fray, and the alarm bells warning of a globalist agenda ring louder than ever. Led by BlackRock’s Larry Fink now and unelected billionaire powerbrokers, the WEF has been aggressively promoting blockchain technology as the cornerstone of their controversial “Great Reset” initiative for years. The organization’s Blockchain Toolkit, launched in 2019, devotes entire modules to the concept of digital identity, emphasizing its crucial role in facilitating every transaction across supply chains and beyond. By advocating for “trusted digital identities” that seamlessly integrate the physical and digital realms, the WEF envisions a future where blockchain technology is used to verify and authenticate actors within complex networks, encompassing governments, corporations, and even IoT devices, all interconnected and interdependent. Queen Máxima of the Netherlands tells the WEF why digital ID is necessary for verifying vaccination status, accessing financial services and distributing government subsidies.

the WEF’s Digital ID Initiative

In a 2023 article, the WEF’s Digital ID Initiative is pushing for the development of privacy-preserving systems that leverage decentralized technologies, such as verifiable credentials and zero-knowledge proofs, allowing users to store metadata on public blockchains while keeping their personal information secure in offline wallets. The WEF even cites the concept of “soul-bound tokens,” introduced by Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin, as a means of binding non-transferable identities to individual blockchain profiles. According to the WEF, this initiative is designed to provide a solution to global problems, including the estimated 850 million people who lack official identification, by granting them access to essential services such as finance, healthcare, and social benefits, while also curbing the exploitation of personal data. However, a closer examination of the WEF’s true intentions reveals a more sinister agenda – the implementation of stakeholder capitalism on a global scale. The organization is actively promoting the development of interoperable systems that standardize identities across borders, effectively merging public blockchains with regulatory oversight. The WEF’s ultimate vision is that of a “decentralized society” where blockchain technology enables the tracking of compliance across a wide range of areas, including carbon credits, and more. JPMorgan is already on board, collaborating with the WEF on pilot projects such as Project Mariana and integrating with SWIFT for tokenized assets. Recent rumors have also linked this initiative to Ripple’s XRP Ledger, with leaked non-disclosure agreements suggesting ties to BlackRock ETFs and even health tech initiatives from the current US administration, highlighting the complex web of connections that underpin this global financial agenda. Listen to this from ‘The Agenda: Their Vision, Your Future’ by OracleFilms.

JPMorgan has explicitly stated that digital identity is the foundation of Web3, while the World Economic Forum (WEF) is linking it to healthcare, compliance, and global settlements. The WEF is even recommending its own reports on “trustworthy verification” of digital IDs, emphasizing its importance for a sustainable tech landscape. This push for digital identity is dark. When giants like JPMorgan and the WEF are at the helm, it’s not about decentralization, but rather centralizing control under the guise of tech utopianism. Digital IDs on the blockchain would create a permanent and tamper-proof record of an individual’s life, including their finances, health, location, and purchases, all of which could be accessed by anyone with the right keys. This would essentially eradicate privacy and open the door to total surveillance, allowing governments and corporations to blacklist individuals for their beliefs or actions.

The WEF’s focus on “redesigning trust” in supply chains is a euphemism for globalist micromanagement

The WEF’s focus on “redesigning trust” in supply chains is actually a euphemism for globalist micromanagement, where every transaction would be subject to ESG scores and carbon tracking, eroding national sovereignty and individual rights. This ties in with the development of Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs), which would give governments and corporations unprecedented control over individuals’ financial lives. JPMorgan is already experimenting with blockchain settlements, and a universal digital ID would make programmable money a reality, where individuals’ dollars could expire if they don’t comply with certain requirements. While JPMorgan and the WEF spin this as empowerment, it’s actually a trap for the masses. We need to resist this globalist digital leash and push for truly decentralized alternatives that don’t involve these players, protect cash, and keep the internet free from ID mandates.

Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso

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

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 referral, spearheaded by Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL), a fierce Trump ally, accuses Powell of lying under oath on two occasions regarding the Fed’s jaw-dropping $2.5 billion renovation of its Eccles Building headquarters in Washington, D.C. Let’s put that number in perspective: $2.5 billion is more than the cost of building brand-new NFL stadiums in Nashville or Buffalo. This isn’t pocket change—it’s a taxpayer-funded palace for unelected bureaucrats who already wield way too much control over our economy. Luna’s letter to the DOJ reveals that Powell misled the Senate Banking Committee on June 25, 2025, by downplaying lavish amenities like VIP dining rooms, premium marble, special elevators, water features, and rooftop gardens—features he flat-out denied existed. Strike one.

Then, in a letter to Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought, Powell allegedly misrepresented cost escalations from $1.9 billion to $2.5 billion as “minor” changes, despite evidence of significant upgrades that should’ve required new approval from the National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC). Strike two.

This is classic Fed behaviour—obfuscate, overspend, and operate above the law. The Eccles project, greenlit in 2017, was supposed to cost $1.9 billion, but “unforeseen conditions” like asbestos and a high-water table supposedly jacked up the price. Sounds like a convenient excuse for mismanagement, doesn’t it? Powell’s defence? He’s ordered a “formal watchdog probe” into the costs and insists the changes were minor and compliant with regulations. But the Fed’s own submissions to the NCPC tell a different story, detailing extravagant additions that Powell conveniently left out of his testimony. If this isn’t perjury—knowingly lying under oath, which carries up to five years in prison—then what is?

For those of us who’ve long distrusted the Fed, this is a smoking gun. The Federal Reserve isn’t just a monetary policy machine; it’s a symbol of the Deep State’s unchecked power. It prints money out of thin air, manipulates interest rates, and fuels inflation that crushes the working class—all while Powell and his cronies sip coffee in their soon-to-be-marble-clad offices. President Trump, who appointed Powell but has since called him out for keeping interest rates “ridiculously high,” has been banging this drum for years. He’s even floated firing Powell, though he recently said it’s “highly unlikely” he’d pull the trigger. Still, Trump’s frustration is spot-on: why is the Fed blowing billions on a lavish HQ while dragging its feet on rate cuts that could ease the burden on American businesses and families?

The timing here is no coincidence. With Trump and his allies like Luna and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent pushing for a full audit of the Fed’s operations, this referral is a shot across the bow. Bessent recently told reporters the Fed needs to be “critically examined” for its effectiveness, and he’s right.. The Fed’s been hiding behind its “independence” for too long, acting like it’s untouchable while making decisions that ripple through every American’s wallet. Luna’s move, backed by whispers from congressional insiders like Bill Pulte, signals a growing revolt against this opaque institution.

The Fed’s track record of secrecy and excess demands scrutiny. Powell’s denials and his scramble to launch an internal probe only underscore how desperate he is to cover his tracks. If the DOJ takes this seriously—and with Attorney General Pam Bondi at the helm, there’s a chance it might—Powell could face real consequences.

As a finance person who sees the Fed for what it really is, I say it’s time to turn up the heat. This referral isn’t just about one man’s alleged lies: it’s about dismantling a system that’s been gaming the people for decades. Whether Powell resigns, gets prosecuted, or skates, the message is clear: the Fed’s days of operating in the shadows are numbered. Luna’s courage in calling out this nonsense deserves a nod, and if it leads to lower rates or a broader reckoning for the central bank, all the better. Keep your eyes on this one—it’s a fight worth watching.

Mass Layoffs Continue Across Big Companies

In 2025, mass layoffs are sweeping through major corporations, from tech giants like Intel, Meta, and Microsoft to legacy industries like retail, manufacturing, and finance. Over 159 companies have slashed approximately 80,000 jobs this year alone, with tech leading the charge. Years of corporate overreach, government meddling, and the looming threat of AI-driven disruption are driving this upheaval.

The Layoff Surge: What’s Happening?

The numbers are stark. Intel’s cutting up to 20% of its global workforce—around 10,000 jobs—despite pocketing over $2 billion in federal CHIPS Act funding. Microsoft axed 9,000 employees, roughly 4% of its staff, while Meta trimmed hundreds from its marketing and Reality Labs divisions. Outside tech, Disney’s shedding hundreds in film and TV marketing, Estée Lauder is slashing 5,800–7,000 jobs, and UPS is eliminating 20,000 roles, citing global trade policy shifts. Even federal agencies aren’t spared, with over 128,000 government workers laid off or targeted under the Trump administration’s push to shrink the state.

These aren’t isolated incidents. Layoffs.fyi reports that 2025 has already seen over 22,000 tech job cuts, with February alone accounting for 16,084. Retail’s been hammered too, with 64,000 jobs lost in the first four months, driven by bankruptcies at Joann Fabrics (19,000 jobs) and Party City (16,000). Manufacturing giants like General Motors and Nissan are also scaling back, with GM cutting 1,695 at its Fairfax plant and Nissan slashing 9,000 due to tariffs and slumping sales in China. Why Are These Layoffs Happening? These layoffs stem from a mix of market realities, government-induced distortions, and technological shifts that expose the rot of centralized control and corporate bloat.

The Layoff Surge: Over hiring During the Pandemic Bubble:

The early 2020s saw companies like Amazon, Meta, and Google go on hiring sprees, fuelled by cheap money and lockdown-driven demand for tech, e-commerce, and remote work solutions. With interest rates near zero, corporations binged on debt and overstaffed, expecting endless growth. Now, with demand cooling and inflation biting, they’re shedding excess. This is basic market correction—businesses bloated by artificial stimulus are now forced to tighten up. Easy-money policies from the Federal Reserve created this bubble, encouraging reckless expansion while shielding companies from real-world consequences.

The Layoff Surge: AI and Automation Disruption

A World Economic Forum survey predicts 41% of companies will cut jobs over the next five years due to AI. Firms like CNN, Dropbox, and Chegg have already cited AI as a factor, with Amazon’s CEO Andy Jassy admitting fewer humans will be needed for certain roles as generative AI takes over. Some would say that this is the free market at work—technology drives efficiency, cutting fat from overstaffed operations. But let’s not kid ourselves: the Deep State loves AI for its surveillance and control potential, and their cronies in Big Tech are all too happy to push automation while dodging accountability for the human cost. The result? Workers in customer service, marketing, and IT support are getting replaced by algorithms, and entire industries like finance and retail are seeing AI chatbots and trading systems take over.

The Layoff Surge: Tariffs and Trade Policy Shocks

The Trump administration’s reciprocal tariffs, particularly on imported vehicles and goods from China, are hitting companies like Nissan (facing a $4.5 billion loss) and UPS, which cited “global trade policy changes” for its 20,000 job cuts. Yes, folks cheer tariffs for protecting American jobs and countering China’s economic dominance, but the short-term pain is real. Tariffs raise costs, disrupt supply chains, and force some companies to downsize to stay competitive. The Deep State’s globalist agenda—pushing free trade deals that gutted U.S. manufacturing—set the stage for this correction. Trump’s policies are a pushback, and they are squeezing corporations that got cozy with cheap foreign labour and imports.

The Layoff Surge: Economic Uncertainty and Cost-Cutting:

Induced Inflation, high interest rates, and recession fears are forcing companies to prioritize profitability overgrowth. The Fed’s rate hikes in 2022–2023, aimed at curbing 40-year-high inflation, jacked up borrowing costs, hitting debt-laden tech firms hardest. Companies like CrowdStrike (5% workforce cut) and PwC (1,500 U.S. jobs) are streamlining to meet financial targets, while retailers like Big Lots cut jobs to avoid bankruptcy. From a conservative lens, this is what happens when markets are distorted by government overreach—years of low rates and stimulus bloated balance sheets, and now firms are paying the price. The Deep State’s economic mismanagement, from printing trillions to funding endless wars, has fueled this instability.

The Layoff Surge: Copycat Layoffs and Wall Street Pressure

Wall Street’s rewarding layoffs with stock bumps, as seen with Microsoft, Meta, and Alphabet hitting record highs after cuts. Stanford’s Jeffrey Pfeffer calls it “copycat layoffs”—when one tech giant downsizes, others follow to signal cost discipline to investors. This herd mentality isn’t just market-driven; it’s egged on by a financial system rigged by Deep State insiders who prioritize shareholder value over workers. Conservative finance guys see through this: corporations are cutting jobs not just for efficiency but to appease Wall Street cronies who thrive on short-term gains while Main Street suffers.

The Deep State—unelected bureaucrats, globalist elites, and their corporate allies—has a hand in this mess. For decades, they’ve pushed policies that hollowed out the American worker: free trade deals that sent jobs overseas, loose monetary policy that inflated bubbles, and now AI surveillance tech that’s replacing humans. The Federal Reserve’s money-printing spree enriched Big Tech and Wall Street while leaving companies overleveraged and workers vulnerable. The same elites cheering AI adoption are the ones cozying up to globalist institutions like the World Economic Forum, which predicts massive job losses while preaching “you’ll own nothing and be happy.” Trump’s tariffs and DOGE initiative are challenge to this system, aiming to restore American sovereignty and cut government fat. But the collateral damage—layoffs, economic uncertainty—hits hard. The Deep State’s influence lingers in corporate boardrooms, where executives mimic each other’s cuts to please investors, not to build a stronger economy. And AI, a tool for control, with Big Tech and government colluding to monitor and manipulate data under the guise of innovation. Skilled professionals are left jobless, and communities where federal agencies or tech firms dominate face unemployment spikes (e.g., Washington, D.C.’s rate could hit 9.6% from 2.8%). The answer isn’t more government handouts or Deep State bailouts—it’s unleashing free markets, cutting red tape, and letting American ingenuity thrive. Companies must stop chasing Wall Street applause and focus on long-term value. Workers, meanwhile, need to adapt to a world where AI and automation are rewriting the rules. In short, 2025’s layoffs are a reckoning—corporations correcting past excesses, markets reacting to government distortions, and technology reshaping labor. The Deep State’s fingerprints are all over the chaos, but the path forward lies in dismantling their influence, embracing market discipline, and empowering workers to navigate the storm.

Written By Tatenda Belle Panashe

The Significance of the Resignation of Klaus Schwab

Earlier in the month of April, we discussed the announcement from Klaus Schwab communicating his intention to transition from his role as executive chairman of the WEF to a non-executive position by 2027. That announcement had also followed one made in 2024, in which he communicated that he would be stepping back from his role of running the global gathering of weak leaders since he founded it in 1971. Well, now, Klaus Schab has announced his immediate resignation, and we ought to address this further in light of the significance of his resignation.

PETE HEGSETH BLASTS MAINSTREAM MEDIA FOR PUBLISHING FAKE NEWS

United States Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth, has blast mainstream media for publishing fake news. This comes after several media outlets announced made claims that the U.S president is considering firing Pete Hegseth over the signal chat rumors.

MK PARTY ACCUSE KLEINFONTEIN OF TRYING TO CREATE ANOTHER WHITE AFRIKANER ENCLAVE LIKE ORANIA

The Umkhonto Wesizwe (MK) Party visited the illegal white Afrikaans-only settlement of Kleinfontein in a fact-finding mission. The Party believes the community of Kleinfontein is trying to create another white Afrikaner enclave like Orania. Furthermore, in 2024, the Pretoria High Court declared the settlement of Kleinfontein as illegal due to City of Tshwane municipality zoning regulations.

TRIBUTES POUR IN AFTER POPE FRANCIS PASSED ON

Tributes pour after Pope Francis passed on yesterday at the age of 88.  Israeli President Isaac Herzog offered his condolences on the loss of Pope Francis. Herzog called Francis “a man of deep faith and boundless compassion,” and praised his dedication to the poor and to the cause of peace.

And now onto our main discussion, and as we have established, Klaus Schab has announced his immediate resignation, and we ought to address the significance of this development. First and foremost, the significance of this development is rooted in its being an inherent necessity. The WEF, which is the brainchild of Klaus Schwab, had a number of principled and practical errors that made its existence as a platform that served to consolidate Klaus Schwab’s vision intrinsically detrimental; and we can highlight this on numerous fronts.

First, the WED was an elitist cabal structure, lacking a people-centric approach. It was often criticised for being a “club” of global elites, with limited participation for voices outside of big governments, corporations, and civil society actors who often financed lobby initiates. And this lack of representation in approach to global politics meant that the WEF’s decisions did NOT reflect the best interests of the global population. Furthermore, the WEF’s “multi-stakeholder” approach can sideline governments and empower unelected actors, further undermining democratic processes. More specifically, while the multilateral system is rightly accused of being ineffective, too bureaucratic and skewed towards the most powerful nations, it is at least theoretically democratic because it brings together democratically elected leaders of countries to make decisions in the global arena, based on the mandate they receive from their citizens. But, instead of reforming the multilateral system to deepen democracy, the WEF’s vision of multi-stakeholder governance entails further removing democracy by sidelining governments and putting unelected ‘stakeholders’ – mainly corporations – in their place when it comes to global decision-making. ANd so, put bluntly, multi-stakeholder partnerships are public-private partnerships on the global stage. Which should be a concern, because private-public partnerships are a liability to citizens.

The second reason highlighting the significance of Klaus Schwab’s resignation is based on the ‘Great Reset’ agenda he communicated. The WEF’s “Great Reset” agenda, which advocates for a transformation of the global economy, is actually a push for a dystopian future where people own nothing and are happy – as proclaimed by Schwab himself. It is in principle and practically a terrible culmination of socialist and communist doctrines.

More specifically, the plan from which the Great Reset originated was called the Global Redesign Initiative. Drafted by the WEF after the 2008 economic crisis, the initiative contains a 600-page report on transforming global governance. The great reset finds its inspiration from marxism and communist ideals

According to Karl Marx, human rights create an order for granting more privileges to a specific class (specifically the bourgeoisie) to the disadvantage of those who are oppressed (being the proletariat) in the society. Furthermore, rights are contextualised in Marxism by the logic of socialist development rather than capitalism. This attitude towards problematising individual rights in part explains why many communist is not all communist governments – especially in the past – are responsible for gross human rights violations, including the death of many.

And yet, the WEF has adopted this inclination to problematising individual rights like the freedom to speak freely and even to own property, while advocating for a system where people are robbed of private property, while the WEF determined what people need and how it is

Then, thirdly, some argue that the WEF is influenced by corporate interests and may prioritise corporate agendas over the needs of the public and the environment.

There are also concerns about the WEF’s role in promoting institutional whitewashing initiatives, which could shield corporations from accountability and harm. Additionally, there are concerns about the WEF’s lack of financial transparency and the unclear decision processes and membership criteria. Here’s more.

THE WEF’S UNDERMINING OF SOVEREIGNTY THROUGH THE PENETRATION OF CABINETS

In addition to all of this, the WEF has prided itself on the penetration of government cabinets. In fact Klaus Schwab himself is on record for making this statement.

Well, what is also worthwhile to note is that this capturing of government cabinets was not through a mere propagation of the WEF’s ideals. This was often done through the manipulation of election processes in nations as well. For instance, On one of our programmes here on LN24 International, called ‘Starting Point’, we addressed how that in 1996, long before the unelected globalists were vainly predicting a future where people would own nothing and be happy, they were working on ways to get the unpopular then-Russian president Boris Yeltsin re-elected for a second term. This was not an easy feat considering, in the early months of ‘96, Yeltsin’s popularity had plummeted to the extent that he was ranked fifth among Russian presidential candidates, receiving a mere 8 percent of support. Communist Party of the Russian Federation (CPRF) leader Gennady Zyuganov was ahead in the race with 21 percent of support.

He was the odds-on favourite to replace Yeltsin. That didn’t sit well with the Davos-dwelling so-called elites. Although Zyuganov promised to eliminate corruption and enhance conditions for foreign investment, the WEF wasn’t convinced. Moreover, at the annual meeting, the Russian delegation – especially the business leaders – expressed growing apprehension regarding Zyuganov’s rising popularity and the potential triumph of the Communist party. In response, the delegation and WEF heavyweights colluded, throwing full support behind Yeltsin’s campaign by leveraging their financial influence. This informal agreement among them became famously known as the “Davos Pact”. Well, Yeltsin was re-elected in July of 1996. This meant that communism was defeated – but at the cost of Russian sovereignty and electoral integrity.

All of this is to say, there were numerous reasons – both on principle and practical considerations – for why the resignation of Klaus Scwab, as the person who birthed the diabolical WEF, is significant. Subsequently, we then ought to look at additional nuances that emphasise the role of prophecy in the demise of the WEF, especially in light of the issues we’ve recently highlighted.

THE WEF’S GATHERINGS WERE NEVER FOR STRONG LEADERS

Firstly, some years ago now, the WEF was proclaimed through prophecy to be a gathering of weak men. God’s prophet to the nations, the highly esteemed Rev. Dr Chris Oyakhilome DSc. DSc. DD. declared that strong leads do not attend the WEF’s meetings. Let’s kindly revisit that moment.

Well, this prophecy was fulfilled. We saw its fulfilment, first, when critics of the WEF and alternative media went to Davos not to share in their ideologies and focuses, but rather to question, probe and even to undermine the efforts of the WEF at building concessions on its issues of focus. First, we saw this when Argentine president, Javier Milei, challenged the WEF’s socialist inclinations in 2024; and even the ideas of wokeism in 2025.

Another manifestation of the fulfilment of this prophecy was when conservative think tanks were challenging the underlying assumptions and misguided narratives communicated at the WEF, during their panel discussions. For instance, we saw Kenvin Roberts of the Heritage Foundation, when he pushed back of the audacity of members of the Davos elite to attempt to sway what were then upcoming presidential elections in the US.

But, perhaps best of all was when God’s choice for the US presidency and His sign in the end-times, actually DID NOT attend the WEF in person, but delivered a strong message, directly opposing the agenda and focus of the WEF. You’d recall that the same Trump that the WEF had worked hard to prevent from entering into office for a second term spoke to the Davos elite this year.

Why this address was interesting is because of the notable fact that the WEF’s agenda is diametrically opposed to leaders and nations who protect their sovereignty and prioritise the wellbeing of their respective nations. You’d recall that dispossession and disenfranchisement are at the top of their modus operandi, towards the futile and vain plan for a great reset. On the other hand, Trump prioritises making America a strong, wealthy and secure nation through his America first agenda. For instance, president Trump is taking bold action to secure the US border and protect American communities; which includes ending Biden’s catch-and-release policies, reinstating Remain in Mexico, building the wall, ending asylum for illegal border crossers, cracking down on criminal sanctuaries, and enhancing vetting and screening of aliens. In addition, president Trump’s energy policies will end leasing to massive wind farms that degrade our natural landscapes and fail to serve American energy consumers; AND in his direction, the State Department will also have an America-First foreign policy – just to name a few.

Trump knew his victory of the unelected officials over at the WEF as well. You’d recall that he delivered a fiery message directly to the so-called elites at the World Economic Forum. First, he detailed the issues in the US, resulting from the Biden administration which was friendly with the WEF. he then announced an end and utter disregard for the WEF’s favoured endeavours. For instance, he spoke of freezing foreign aid; dismantling climate policies like the “Green New Deal”; withdrawing from the Paris Climate Accord; ending the EV mandate; and fast-tracking fossil fuels to put America first. It was really a slap on the face from a man whose influence they thought they could stifle, and hinder from coming into office.

SCHWAB’S INTERIM REPLACEMENT IS FORMER NESTLE CEO, PETER BRABECK-LETMATHE

Well, in light of all of this which contextualises the significance of Klaus Scwab’s resignation, but also the additional nuances on why prophecy made this inevitable, we then ought to discuss what the WEF has announced as the succession plan. And interestingly, former Nestle Chairman and CEO Peter Brabeck-Letmathe was unanimously selected as interim chairman by the forum’s board at a special meeting on the 20th of April. Meanwhile, a search committee has been set up to choose a permanent successor.

So, who is Peter Brabeck-Letmathe? In short, and much like the president of the WEF, being Børge Brende, he is not very different from Klaus Schwab. More specifically, and especially during his time with Nestle, Peter Brabeck-Letmathe became notorious for his elitist profit over people approach, particularly, when he declared that water was not a human right.

PETER BRABECK-LETMATHE FITS THE WEF’S PLANS ON RESTRICTING WATER ACCESS

But, it should surprise no one that in denouncing water as a human right, which makes Peter the ideal person to champion the WEF and UN Agenda 2030 aspiration on taxing natural resources. In fact, it has been an idea echoes in the WEF that all nature that is easy to quantify should be charged, beginning by adding tax to water”

In previous discussions, we’ve highlighted the role of prophecy in the demise of the WEF, first in consideration of the spiritual truth that 225 is the year of Completeness, bringing with it the suspension of all satanic and globalist agendas; but also in light of the numerous prophecies that have come out throughout the years concerning the demise of the WEF. What we are seeing today is continuous proof that God’s Word does not fall to the ground. And indeed, the prophecies that have gone forth had long announced the demise of the WEF.

Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso

RECAPITULATION: THE DARK HISTORY OF THE W.H.O

And now onto our main discussion, and we ought to begin with a recapitulation of some crucial historical context. So, the WHO was set up after the Second World War as the health arm of the United Nations, to support efforts to improve population health globally. Based on the concept that health went beyond the physical (encompassing “physical, mental and social well-being”), its constitution was premised on the concept that all people were equal and born with basic inviolable rights. The world in 1946 was emerging from the brutality of colonialism and international fascism; the results of overly centralised authority and of regarding people to be fundamentally unequal. The WHO’s constitution is generally said to be intended to put populations in charge of health. However, in recent decades the WHO has proven this to be a disingenuous pronouncement of their constitution and functionality, especially because what we see instead is that its support base of core funding allocated by countries (based on GDP) has evolved into a model where most funding is directed to specified uses, and much is provided by private and corporate interests. And the priorities of the WHO have evolved accordingly, moving away from community-centred care to a more vertical, commodity-based approach. This has the inevitable and unfortunate outcome in which the funds follow the interests and self-interests of these funders, and not necessarily the needs of those who were supposed to be served. And yet, this is what was announced to the world at the inception of the WHO.

Looking at the history of the WHO, we must also look at the first director general of WHO, which was Canadian physician Brock Chisholm, who served from 1948 to 1953. Now, his importance to this discussion is that as the first DG, he obviously contributed significantly to the philosophy of the WHO, but also quite curiously – he was nicknamed the “prophet of disaster”, and it is not difficult to appreciate why. Dr Brock Chisholm very infamously advocated for “bacteriological warfare”! He (very infamously) told a meeting of teachers in Toronto in 1947, “that bacteriological warfare promotes any little group of people or any little nation to a degree of proficiency in offensive warfare which makes it a competitor of any of the greater nations.” he added that “It is obsolete now to gauge a nation’s war strength by its capacity to produce aluminium, guns, tanks and so on.” And so, as far as he was concerned, the ability to weaponise biology was the ultimate means of measuring the strength of an entity or nation.

It is important to note that Dr Chisholm made these remarks in 1947, which was before he was appointed as the first DG of the WHO in 1948 – and so clearly, his philosophy was seen as plausible to enshrine into the fabric of an organisation that would be responsible for world health. And by the way, it must not be missed that his philosophy was meant for global application because Dr Chishom was one of 16 international experts consulted in drafting the WHO’s first constitution. He even recommended the WHO’s name, with emphasis on the inclusion of the word “world”, which differentiated the WHO from the League of Nations’s Health Organization, which the WHO succeeded. And so, the history of the WHO reveals an entity that was founded on and influenced by a philosophy to ultimately weaponise biology across the globe, and not necessarily function for the health of many. But interesting about Dr Chisholm is his theories about children.

Once again, Santa Claus is an evil construction, and so I do not oppose children not being taught to believe in him. However, what was conveniently left out of this clip and hidden from many is that Dr Chisholms did not only oppose Santa. Instead, he drew much criticism from the Canadian public for his comments inspired by communist beliefs in the mid-1940s AND also his comments that children should not be taught the Bible or anything that he regarded as supernaturalism. At the core of these beliefs is challenging the dependent relationship children had with their parents (which is really support for the agenda of children of the state).

THE W.H.O IS A BUREAUCRACY INCLINED TO PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS

But, having looked at this historical context, let’s proceed to look at the functionality of the WHO in the status quo. First, the WHO is not alone in the international health sphere. While certain organisations such as UNICEF, private foundations and non-government organisations have long partnered with the WHO, the past two decades have seen an increase in collaboration from multiple organisations, particularly ‘public-private partnerships’ (PPPs) growing in influence. Notable among these public-private partnerships are the Gavi – the Vaccine Alliance (focused specifically on vaccines) and CEPI, an organisation set up at the World Economic Forum meeting in 2017 to apparently manage pandemics; set up by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Wellcome Trust and the Norwegian Government. Gavi and CEPI, along with others such as Unitaid and the Global Fund, include corporate and private interests directly on their boards. The World Bank and G20 have also increased involvement in global health, and especially the so-called pandemic preparedness. But, when you follow the money, you see that this comes

In addition, the WHO is primarily a bureaucracy, not a body of experts. Recruitment is based on various factors, including technical competency but also country and other equity-related quotas. These quotas serve a purpose of reducing the power of specific countries to dominate the organisation with their own staff, but in doing so require the recruitment of staff who may have far lower experience or expertise. Recruitment is also heavily influenced by internal WHO personnel, and the usual personal influences that come with working and needing favours within countries. Furthermore, the DG and Regional Directors (RDs – of which there are six) are elected by member states in a process subject to heavy political and diplomatic manoeuvring – and the result is likely not plausible. For instance, the current DG is Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, an Ethiopian politician with a chequered past during the Ethiopian civil war and made headlines for allegedly blocking rebels in the conflict with Tigray rebels.

THE W.H.O’S WAR ON THE HEALTH OF THE YOUTH IN PARTICULAR

We have noted a vaccination agenda from the WHO which takes place alongside the weaponisation of viruses towards the agenda of bacteriological warfare; well it is important to note that this vaccination agenda disproportionately affects children – really, the youth in general.  Primarily, this is in light of two crucial reasons: first, governments and big pharma use school enrollment at nearly all levels of education as a key mechanism to push the ever-growing vaccine agenda. More specifically, if you are a college student today, the number of childhood vaccines you would have been required to receive may be 2 to 3 times the number your parents received. If you have a younger sibling who is below 10 years of age, the number may be even greater for them. Meanwhile there are also plans to increase the number of vaccines, especially with the bird flu and M-POX vaccines that have been developed.

However, as you may know, children’s health is significantly worse for this generation than it was for the previous ones, with dramatic increases in autism, allergies, and other chronic illnesses, among other problems. Autism in particular has increased alarmingly and in direct proportion to the increase in childhood vaccines. Meanwhile, governments and the medical establishment continue to push for more vaccines.

The second reason why the WHO’s vaccination agenda matters for students is that young people are at most risk to suffer the ramifications of the vaccination agenda. During Covid, millions of college students were mandated to get the experimental Covid injections to be allowed to attend school. Colleges mandated the shots despite the facts that: (a) these injections did not stop infection or transmission of the virus; and (b) healthy young people had essentially zero risk of serious illness and death from Covid. But as a result of this, since the Covid mRNA “vaccines” were given to the public, over 1.6 million adverse events and over 38,000 deaths related to these injections have been reported to the CDC’s own Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS). Among these toxicities, increased rates of myocarditis – sometimes fatal – in young people, especially boys, have been demonstrated in recipients of the mRNA injections.

That said, about 550 colleges in the US never required Covid vaccines for undergraduate students. However, some of those colleges would have mandated them if state law had not forbidden it, and still pressured their students to take the shots. A great many students in health care fields are still required to get these Covid injections to continue their studies. And according to the student advocacy group No College Mandates, 20 American colleges and universities still mandate the Covid shots for their undergraduates. Ultimately, there is zero legitimate medical indication for healthy children or young adults to get the Covid mRNA injections. None. Any institution insisting upon this, especially at this late date, demonstrates a total disregard for the physical health and well-being of its students. ANd this is not just a statement made on principled ground; there is evidence showing that children have been harmed as a result of the jabs. In fact recently, there are teenagers dying at home from vaccine-induced myocarditis.

THE DECEPTIVELY CONSTRUCTED MINOR CONSENT FOR THE VACCINATION AGENDA

But, this issue is not exclusive to universities or colleges, as you would have observed. In fact, it is even more sinister when it comes to children in elementary, middle or high school because of the deceptively constructed minor consent doctrine in a number of states. At present, five US states (namely: California, New York, Maine, Connecticut, and West Virginia) allow no religious or conscience exemption from vaccination for children to attend public schools. In some of these states, significant pressure is put on physicians not to write medical exemptions either.

In addition, “Minor consent” – which refers to a child being legally able to consent to vaccinations or other treatments without parental consent – exists in multiple US states. For example, in California, minor consent is legal for some vaccines beginning at age 12, while in New York, there is no set lower age limit for a child to consent to Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) vaccination. Washington State is among the most extreme. The pro-vaccine organisation Vaxteen describes Washington’s “mature minor doctrine” as follows. They state that: In Washington, minors of any age do not need their parent’s consent to receive all healthcare services, including vaccinations. This is called a “mature minor doctrine” and essentially means that if you talk to your doctor/healthcare provider and they decide you are “mature enough” to make your own health care decisions, you can.

Of course, it is still vague what mature enough would mean, and based on how proponents of child mutilation surgeries have run away from directly addressing the argument that children are not mature enough to make decisions on permanent or temporary health decisions, you can probably deduce that there is no objective metric to measure the maturity of a child. And this is a serious concern because even when these children who are allegedly mature enough would require compensation for vaccine injuries, governments are making it difficult to get this relief, meanwhile, children do not even have legal standing in court.

FEDERAL JUDGE RULES THAT ENABLES CHALLENGING VACCINE EFFICACY

Then, in addition to the deceptive argument on minor consent, there is also the weaponisation of laws to erode the rights of minors. As we recently discussed, the Vermont Supreme Court released a controversial decision in the case of Politella v. Windham, ruled that the government can vaccinate children without parental consent or legal recourse under some circumstances. As attorney John Klar explains: The Vermont Supreme Court ruled that the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act immunised school officials from “all state-law claims…as a matter of law.” The Court did not address state or federal constitutional privacy protections or bodily autonomy, merely swallowing these paramount individual rights in a perverse, all-entrusting servitude to federal preemption by an administrative state. Ironically, the Vermont Supreme Court immunised the federal government against children’s rights. But, ultimately, across all levels of education, governments are using school enrollment to push the ever-growing vaccine agenda.

But, this issue with leaders who serve the agenda of a WHO organisation that was never intent on acting in the best interest of global health is not exclusive to the Americas. We recently, as LN24 International, had the opportunity to speak to the Minister of Health in South Africa, and his perceptions of the WHO conveyed a defensive approach towards the functionality of the WHO and even the person of the Director General. And yet, the pandemic accord that the WHO tried to pass AND even the history of this organisation and Tedros Ghebreyasus reveal that the WHO is a liability to nations and the health of the people of the world. But kindly have a listen.

This is why we cannot be slothful in our work of praying for nations and their leaders. There are strongholds that we are breaking as we pray. And (indeed) we have surely prayed, and continue to pray. Therefore, in this glorious Year of Completeness, all satanic and globalist agendas are suspended; they will live in our world, and we will not live in theirs, as we wrap up the Church age. And so, let us keep fighting the good fight of faith, because we have truly already won.

A WHISTLEBLOWER’S ACCOUNT OF THE CORRUPTION OF THE UNITED NATIONS

Undoubtedly, you are aware of the corruption and utter inefficiency that has marked the United Nations for years, from the UNSC’s failure to respond in good time during the Rwandan genocide, to UNRWA’s support of Hama’s operations. Yes! In fact, evidence was presented at The Hague regarding the exploitation of UN resources to promote terrorism, Jihad and the murder of Jews by Palestinian Muslims. During the last decade, Britain, Canada, Australia, the US, Germany and France have donated billions of dollars to UN agencies, including UNRWA (the UN Palestinian Agency). But, instead of promoting peace, Western countries promoted terrorism and wars in the Middle East.

This, of course, is not a mistake. The UN has deviated from the purpose for which it was established. Today, the UN not only has agencies that fund and support conflicts, but the Secretary General, Anonio Gueterres, has taken to being an icon of the politically correct and ultra-liberal identity politics that serve a divisive and destructive agenda. For instance, while he will not condemn the October 7th attack by Hamas, he will lower the Un flag for the death of an Iranian leader.

However, beyond all of this, is that the UN has now become a conduit through which the globalists and so-called political elites try to control the world – what is often called the oligarch system. You’d recall that we previously discussed this And well, kindly have a listen to the following excerpt from a discussion with a former high ranking member of the United Nations, being Mr Calin Georgescu – who actually served as the executive director of the United Nations International Institute for Sustainable Development in Geneva and Vaduz for the period 2015–2016.

The United Nations certainly was established for a noble purpose; however, today, the United Nations has been captured by the WEF, and thus serves the WEF’s agenda of dispossession, and the elimination of the sovereignty of nations towards a one world agenda, curated through the WEF’s stakeholder capitalism, which has also been adopted by the United Nations under Antonio Gueterres.

Well, this is why it is no mystery why the United NAtions forms part of the trinity of evil alongside the WEF. And I certainly hope this does shed light into the historical context of its corruption.

Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso

Stakeholder capitalism is the WEF’s update of multilateralism, which is the current system through which countries work together to achieve common goals. The multilateral system’s core institution was supposed to be the UNm but under Atonio Guterres, the UN, has become a satellite organisation of the WEF. The multilateral system is often rightly accused of being ineffective, too bureaucratic and skewed towards the most powerful nations. But it is at least theoretically democratic because it brings together democratically elected leaders of countries to make decisions in the global arena. Instead of reforming the multilateral system to deepen democracy, the WEF’s vision of multi-stakeholder governance entails further removing democracy by sidelining governments and putting unelected ‘stakeholders’ mainly corporations in their place when it comes to global decision-making.

Put bluntly, stakeholder capitalism partnerships are public-private partnerships on the global stage. And they have real-world implications for the way our food systems are organised, how big tech is governed and how our vaccines and medicines are distributed. And these partnerships are ultimately about the disenfranchisement of the people. Ultimately, instead of corporations serving many stakeholders, in the stakeholder capitalism model of global governance, the global reset would entail corporations being promoted to being official stakeholders in global decision-making, while governments are relegated to being one of many stakeholders. In practice, corporations become the main stakeholders, while governments take a backseat role.

Stakeholder capitalism is the blueprint for WEF corporation. It makes it clear that not only does the WEF intend to undermine the sovereignty of nations, it intends to allow private interests to dictate the affairs of nations. This is why it amounts to nothing short of treason when heads of state and industry leaders align themselves with the WEF, and as you’ve seen from the documentary excerpt, there is ample evidence that testifies to this fact.

Excerpt from Starting Point By Lindokuhle Mabaso