A Discusssion of What is going on at the border and its potential for chais in this country:
Chris and Tim Kennedy discuss the migrant crisis on the southern U.S. border. What’s the current state of the U.S.- Mexico border according to Tim Kennedy? How does Tim Kennedy think the border crisis should be handled? What strategies are the cartel running that’s contributing to the border crisis according to Tim Kennedy?
Sars-Cov-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, came from a laboratory. While there are some legitimate differences of opinion about who exactly released it, where, and for what exact reason, it is clear that Sars-CoV-2 was described in a certain 2018 financing proposal.
Who is Peter Daszak, president of EcoHealth Alliance, who submitted the proposal? Some new material surfaced about his early criminal life that may shed light on what kind of person Peter is.
While young, Peter Daszak apparently stole stuff he needed instead of paying for it, such as the above-mentioned TV set and a hi-fi radio. For entertainment, he broke off and stole the “head of a Madonna statue” and even painted its lips with lipstick. (Daily Post: The Paper for Wales, Thu, Jun 26, 1986 ·Page 3)
Why, of all things, did Peter decide to paint her lips? Was it for some perverse sexual gratification he wanted from Madonna’s head?
The drunkenness mentioned above, offered as an excuse for his behavior, may be fabricated to reduce his punishment. Generally, petty criminal behavior is typical for a growing sociopath. (other signs include harming animals, which is easy for a biology student to do)
Peter’s career led him to found EcoHealth Alliance, a venture to manage the health of the entire planet—not just the health of humans. The approach he champions is called “One Health.”
At EcoHealth Alliance we’re governed by a clear and direct philosophy; we call it One Health: that the health of humans, animals, and their environment are all connected. It’s that principle which guides our work from our headquarters in New York all the way to southeast Asia and everywhere in between. Those connections are apparent in everything we do.
“One Health” is an umbrella term for messing with the lives of humans and animals, an approach endorsed by Bill Gates, the World Economic Forum, and the United Nations:
I personally never signed up to be governed by criminal psychopaths wanting to control the health of people and animals, who started their lives by breaking Madonna statue heads and painting Madonna’s lips with lipstick.
Should we be thankful to Bill Gates, the World Economic Forum, and Peter Daszak for caring so much about our health?
Is it anti-science to mention prior sociopathic, criminal acts by leading proponents of “planetary health”?
What about you? Do you want convicted psychopaths to be heading efforts to govern planetary health?
from: https://www.igor-chudov.com/p/drunken-student-stole-madonna-statues?utm_source=substack&utm_campaign=post_embed&utm_medium=web
The southern border of the United States is wide open, and the Federal government has been conducting a wide-scale criminal operation of flooding the country with unvetted foreigners, distributing them across the United States, and providing them with homes and financial support. The GOP’s talking point has been that this is all about election fraud, but this has been happening all across the Western world for over a decade. This is something far more sinister than election fraud.
The Population Division of the United Nations concerns themselves with international migration. In the year 2000, they published Replacement Migration, a solution put forth to deal with declining and ageing populations. For years we were told that this was a conspiracy theory, but now that we are seeing tens of millions murdered by the experimental shots, it is becoming more clear what the objective is.
We are told that these are poor families fleeing tyranny, but there are massive amounts of healthy young men without any families. And time and time again we have seen them act violently against the native population, with very little repercussions from the law. As we are expecting the announcement of Disease X, and another lockdown, a recent report from the UK’s Jim Ferguson provides a plausible explanation of what we are seeing.
“This isn't normal. There's something not right. This isn't just refugees coming, these aren’t people fleeing from some kind of war zone. These are predominantly men aged between 25 and 35, young fighting age man, as my old boss, Nigel Farage once referred to them. And I think he's right. John, what do you think's going on here mate?”
~ Jim Ferguson
“So I can tell you, these are UN soldiers and they will be deployed by the W.H.O. when they announce the next pandemic lockdown. That's what's going to happen. They've been trained by British soldiers. Been trained by the Black Watch Regiment. They were trained in Antalya, in Turkey, and in the east of Ukraine. They're predominantly down to sergeant ranks. They're then shipped to France. They all signed the Official Secrets Act, then they're ferried over. If you were fleeing war and tyranny, I don't know about you, but I would certainly take my wife and children with me. The most precious, They're my prized asset, you know, they're everything to me. If you're going to war, you go to war with lads. They gonna be deployed, they will be deployed.”
~ John O' Looney
“John, I mean you say you spoke to people in the Black Watch. I mean, Black Watch, a very famous yellow regiment. Are they actually going along with this?”
~ Jim Ferguson
"They've got no choice. I kind of said, you know, why are you doing it? And he said, soldiers follow orders. What you're going to see is the following, we'll have a minister somewhere in cabinets, suddenly come up with a great idea on how we're going to get these guys to contribute to help us. And they're going to put them in uniforms. A couple of people have told me these uniforms are burgundy. Others have told me they're U.N. blue. I really don't know. I guess we'll see when they deploy them. They are gonna be deployed. Because otherwise, if they announce another lockdown, what would everyone say? They'd say bollocks. And they’d go about their business wouldn’t they? They're gonna need armed young men in uniform to try and enforce it. Why did they import young men from the East? Because, traditionally, if you want to kill and tyrannize white people, you put black soldiers in. Because there's a cultural disassociation. And that's their method. That's the way these globalists are gonna do it.”
~ John O' Looney
“You know, in America, when it was a colony of the United Kingdom of Britain, there was a revolution against British colonial rule.”
~ Jim Ferguson
“That's right.”
~ John O' Looney
“And, you know, a lot of people don't realize, but it was only 3% of those people in America that overthrew the British forces and basically got rid of them. 3% of the population, John.”
~ Jim Ferguson
“I look forward to it. I'm ready, I'm ready. I can't wait because I know it's gonna be the beginning of the end for them. I do foresee victory. I see that at a very great cost. But we will see it. And people, I think the world will become closer than ever when we do see victory. It’s gonna come on the back of a load of bloodshed. And unfortunately, it has to. Once people of all colors come together and recognize their common enemy, We’ll walk over these people in ten minutes.”
~ John O' Looney
from: https://gregreese.substack.com/p/un-troops-being-brought-in-as-migrant?initial_medium=video
The disastrous situation at the US-Mexico border is, and has been, intentionally produced. Throughout the last several administrations, regardless of campaign and other public rhetoric, the porous nature of the border has remained unresolved. On several occasions, the situation as it has developed has been blamed largely on incompetence and government inefficiency. Though some administrations have been tougher than others in regards to terrestrial migration (under some metrics), the US-Mexico border has not been sealed off so to force entrants to cross through officially recognized and managed ports of entry.
Under the current administration, it has been pointedly obvious that even the sections of the border that do contain physical barriers are being dismantled on purpose, all the while illegal crossings have risen to unprecedented levels. Whatever the motives for this deliberate policy on the part of the Biden administration, the end result has been the widespread characterization of the crisis as an “invasion,” priming the voter bloc usually most concerned with border security – the American Right – for military-style “solutions.”
While the justifications for the frenzied media coverage are based on the actual reality that the border is indeed highly insecure (and has been for some time), the policy responses from American politicians reveal that there is a bipartisan consensus about what must be done. Tellingly, the same “solution” is also being quietly rolled out at all American ports of entry that are not currently being “overrun”, such as airports. That solution, of course, is biometric surveillance, enabled by AI, facial recognition/biometrics and autonomous devices.
This “solution” is not just being implemented throughout the United States as an alleged means of thwarting migrants, it is also being rapidly implemented throughout the world in apparent lockstep. The reasons for the unspoken, but obvious, global consistency in implementing invasive, biometric surveillance is due to the fulfillment of global policy agendas, ratified by nearly every country in the world, that seek both to restrict the extent of people’s freedom of movement and to surveil people’s movements (and much, much more) through the global implementation of digital identity. Those policy agendas include mainly the UN’s Agenda 2030 or Sustainable Development Goals, specifically SDG 16, as well as Interpol’s Global Policing Goals.
While the American Right has been rather outspoken in its rejection of the UN’s Agenda 2030, and the digital ID project at large, the distress over the border situation is being used to manufacture consent among this specific group for “solutions” that are focused on expanding surveillance and biometric collection as opposed to the implementation of physical barriers.
The Hawaiian shirt-wearing inventor of the VR headset Oculus Rift, Palmer Luckey, has become the face of America’s “virtual border wall.” Luckey, the brain behind the defense tech firm Anduril, is a long-time associate of Palantir co-founder Peter Thiel, with Luckey having met Thiel at 19 when Luckey presided over his first company Oculus Rift, which was later sold to Facebook. Thiel was then on Facebook’s board and was also instrumental in the rise of the social media company. Luckey’s Anduril is also backed by Thiel’s Founders Fund and another Palantir co-founder, Joe Lonsdale, is also an Anduril investor.
Anduril is one of the main beneficiaries of government contracts to build autonomous surveillance towers along the US-Mexico border, which are now also being rolled out along the US-Canada border. As a consequence, they are likely to be among the beneficiaries of the Senate’s current proposal for “border security,” which sets aside $170 million for additional towers to be build.
Under the Trump and now Biden administrations, Luckey has been vocal about how Anduril will create “a digital wall that is not a barrier so much as a web of all-seeing eyes, with intelligence to know what it sees.” As noted by WIRED in 2018, Luckey and Anduril has long been pitching its technology “as a complement to – or substitute for – much of [then] President Trump’s promised physical wall.”
Luckey was a donor to Trump’s inaugural committee and his apparent mentor, Peter Thiel, was a key figure on Trump’s transition team, particularly for defense. The company dresses itself in “America First” rhetoric, especially when it comes to border security, framing itself as a beacon of “Western democracy” and nationalism in an age of globalism. Despite this, Anduril is part of a network that fronts for the long-standing surveillance ambitions of the same American “Deep State” that Trump supporters revile.
Luckey’s Anduril would not exist without the assistance of Thiel and several executives from Thiel’s Palantir. As Unlimited Hangout has reported in multiple articles, Palantir is a CIA front explicitly aimed at resurrecting the controversial surveillance dragnet once housed by the Pentagon’s DARPA known as Total Information Awareness (TIA), which sought to use warrantless, dragnet surveillance of Americans to prevent crime and terrorism before it happens (i.e. pre-crime, a field which Palantir has since pioneered and which was essentially made DOJ policy by Trump’s Attorney General William Barr).
One of those Palantir executives who later came to Anduril, Trae Stephens, worked at a government intelligence agency (he declines to specify which one) before joining Palantir. From there, Stephens joined Thiel’s Founders Fund and ended up on the boards of some of the most controversial Founders Fund-funded companies, such as Carbyne911. Financed in part by Jeffrey Epstein and the brainchild of former Israeli Prime Minister (and Epstein associate) Ehud Barak, Carbyne’s platform also involves invasive data collection from civilians and “predictive policing” functionalities. On Carbyne’s board, Stephens originally sat alongside Barak as well as Israeli intelligence-linked figures like Pinchas Buchris (former commander of Israel’s Unit 8200), Lital Leshem (“former” Israeli intelligence operative who know works for documented CIA asset and former head of the infamous mercenary group Blackwater, Erik Prince), and Nicole Junkermann (an Epstein associate who has since rebranded as a venture capitalist in emerging technologies and FinTech). Stephens remains on Carbyne’s board, where he now sits alongside former US Homeland Security chiefs Michael Chertoff (Bush administration) and Kirstjen Nielsen (Trump administration).
Thanks in part to Thiel’s influence over the early Trump administration, Stephens was chosen to oversee Trump’s transition team for the Defense Department, where he “steered” Trump’s early Pentagon policies. At the time, Stephens was also in talks with Luckey to create a new company. After Luckey left Facebook under a cloud of controversy in late March 2017, he and Stephens created Anduril and other Palantir executives were recruited to join the company. Within a year of its existence, Anduril had already netted millions in contracts from the Department of Homeland Security. Stephens has remained at Thiel’s Founders Fund since co-founding Anduril.
Not unlike Palantir, Anduril is also a modern reboot of a failed DHS initiative from around the same time as TIA. The Secure Border Initiative Network (SBInet) was a Bush-era DHS effort that sought to build a virtual border wall that could not only deter and detect illegal border crossings, but also automatically designate those illegal crossers a “threat level” as well as predict “illegal border activities” before they occur. Like Anduril, it relied on surveillance towers and a litany of sensors spread throughout the environment. The program, though shuttered by DHS in 2011, never actually ended, as the DHS report announcing the “end” of SBInet stated the following:
DHS is currently developing a comprehensive border technology deployment plan that will build upon successful technology currently deployed and provide the optimum mix of proven surveillance technologies by sector. Where appropriate, this technology plan will also include elements of the former SBInet program that have proven successful.
Just like Anduril’s marketing strategy, SBInet was pitched as a cheaper, more cost-effective and “faster” means of securing the border than the construction of physical barriers. Anduril has openly laid out its strategy to avoid the pitfalls of SBInet; whereas SBInet was doomed to fail by hiring incompetent contractors to build and sell the system to the government, Anduril plans to own the system it builds and lease it to the government, which – according to Trae Stephens – “creates an incentive to keep development costs low.” Despite claims it is “low” cost, since 2017, massive DHS contracts have been given to Anduril to fulfill many of the original ambitions of the SBInet project and, despite the construction of hundreds of towers and millions spent, the border remains more insecure than ever.
One of Anduril’s earliest advocates was Congressman Will Hurd, a former officer in the CIA’s clandestine operations division who now represents Texas in the House of Representatives. With Hurd’s help, Anduril was able to place their first prototypes for the “virtual wall” on the border-adjacent private property of an anonymous rancher. Custom and Border Protection (CBP) then conducted their first official pilot of Anduril towers in 2018, leading to the Trump administration’s approval to deploy Anduril’s towers along the entirety of the south-western border in 2020. That approval saw Anduril awarded a five-year and still-ongoing contract and also saw the contract designated a “program of record,” meaning it is deemed essential enough to be a dedicated item in the DHS budget.
Trump, in the latter years of his presidential term, began to embrace the type of virtual wall that Anduril would enable even more so than the physical barrier he had campaigned on. In January 2019, for example, Trump stated “The walls we are building are not medieval walls. They are smart walls designed to meet the needs of frontline border agents.” The “smart walls”, Trump went on to say, would include “sensors, monitors and cutting-edge technology.”
Under the Biden administration, Anduril’s star has continued to rise. This is partially due to the millions the company has spent lobbying Congress, but also facilitated by the long-standing bipartisan love affair with building a “smart wall” on the Southern border. CBP was given millions for autonomous surveillance towers along the border in the 2021 US Citizenship Act and then again in the 2022 omnibus bill, with millions more granted last year. The lion-share of that money is destined for Anduril’s coffers. This year, if the Senate’s bipartisan “border security” efforts are any indication, Anduril stands to gain even more contracts to build ever more autonomous towers, which are now accompanied by autonomous drones and other connected devices. Luckey, despite Anduril’s claims that there will always be human oversight of its products, has stated that his vision for the future of warfare that Anduril is helping to build will soon result in humans playing ever more insignificant roles.
While Anduril is one of the main companies building the “virtual wall,” they are not alone. General Dynamics, a defense firm deeply connected to organized crime, espionage scandals and corruption, has developed several hundred remote video surveillance systems (RVSS) towers for CBP while Google, another Big Tech firm with CIA connections, has been tapped by CBP to have its AI used in conjunction with Anduril’s towers, which also utilize Anduril’s own AI operating system known as Lattice. Anduril is merely the visible face of the “virtual wall” that has positioned itself in close proximity to Trump’s political movement and is sure to benefit if Trump is re-elected later this year. However, Anduril has been more than happy to cozy up to the Biden administration, having praised Biden for calling to develop border protection measures using “high-tech capacity,” which they have say they’ve “delivered.”
Yet, despite support from both political parties, millions upon millions of funding and several hundreds of towers and supporting devices deployed, this “virtual wall” has done nothing to stop the drastic increase in illegal migration into the United States. Why, since the towers were deployed, are illegal crossings skyrocketing? Why is it that the proposed solution to this “invasion” is to build even more towers? One could argue that the answer to those questions lies in the fact that the border crisis is being used to manufacture consent amongst Americans for the implementation of a surveillance panopticon, not just on the border, but well into the interior of the country.
Anduril’s other government contracts suggests that the company’s installations on the border are only a small component of what a completed “smart wall” might entail. In addition to their contracts with CBP, Anduril is a major contractor for the Department of Defense and supplies (or is soon to supply) the military with autonomous aircraft, such as its Ghost platform and autonomous underwater vehicles. Like the drones that interface with their surveillance towers on the border, they are framed as useful for surveillance and reconnaissance, but are also able to deliver payloads, i.e. they are able to be outfitted with weapons of war. They have also been developing weapon systems that appear to fall under the controversial category of autonomous weapons, meaning that the unmanned device could kill without meaningful human oversight. These drones utilize Lattice, the same AI-enabled operating system as those that run Anduril’s border towers and surveillance drones. Last year, Anduril unveiled a new version of Lattice that “is designed to foster dynamic collaboration among autonomous systems,” e.g. allowing surveillance drones/towers and weaponized ones to be interoperable and conduct missions together without necessarily needing a human to coordinate them.
Anduril’s ambitions go far beyond dominating the Pentagon’s push into autonomous vehicles and AI and the Southern border’s “virtual wall.” Anduril’s website describes how Lattice can be deployed to surveil and protect the 16 critical infrastructure sectors that have been identified in the United States, including “dams, energy, nuclear reactors, transportation systems, water and wastewater, and communications.” “Securing critical infrastructure is vital for the U.S. and beyond, and, similar to our border security solution, Lattice can take over the dull work of monitoring cameras and sensors for threats to critical infrastructure sites and free up humans to do something about it,” the company states on their website. The company has also pitched Lattice for use in detecting and responding to wildfires and conducting civilian search and rescue missions. Luckey has stated that Anduril ultimately plans “to turn American and allied warfighters into invincible technomancers.”
The potential dangers of Anduril can only fully be fleshed out when considering the family of Thiel-backed defense/intelligence companies as a whole. For instance, Thiel’s Palantir, which has numerous ties to Anduril aside from just Thiel, is the engine that intelligence agencies and militaries (in the US and beyond) use to analyze drone footage, satellite imagery, and open-source data and turn that visual and non-visual data into actionable intelligence. It has been openly described by mainstream outlets like Bloomberg as “using War on Terror tools to track American citizens” and has long been a major driver of “predictive policing”, i.e. pre-crime. Another Thiel-funded venture, Clearview AI, has developed AI-powered facial recognition tools that were trained off of billions of photos scrapped from the internet, many of them from the Thiel-backed social media platform Facebook and the Facebook-owned Instagram. Despite being a favorite of US law enforcement and DHS, Clearview AI has been sued numerous times over privacy violations and its database has been banned in numerous countries including Australia, Britain, Italy and Canada. Like Palantir, which mainstream media has acknowledged for years as knowing “everything about you” and even called an “all-seeing eye,” Clearview AI’s tools are allegedly able to “identify activists at a protest or an attractive stranger on the subway, revealing not just their names but where they lived, what they did and whom they knew.”
In looking at the overlap shared between Palantir, Anduril, Clearview AI and even Elon Musk’s SpaceX (which has been backed by Founders Fund since 2008 and is tied to Anduril co-founder Trae Stephens), one wonders if this Thiel-backed family of companies could eventually serve as an interoperable system for total AI surveillance. Troublingly, there are numerous indications this is already happening. Furthermore, given their common links to Thiel, it seems that such an outcome was likely always the intent.
For instance, as Stavroula Pabst previously reported for Unlimited Hangout, Anduril and Palantir, both contractors to military and intelligence agencies, are currently collaborating on the Army’s Tactical Intelligence Targeting Access Node (TITAN) program. In addition, Anduril has announced that its Lattice AI system “is now for everything” and designed to be interoperable with the products of other contractors. All three of these Thiel-backed companies have been testing the interoperable use of their products already in the Ukraine conflict and appear to be using Israel’s war on the Gaza Strip for the same ends.
Often, these technologies are tested and used abroad first before they are deployed at home, something that even mainstream media has acknowledged that Palantir has been doing for years. The so-called War on Domestic Terror has long been about retooling the weapons of the War on Terror as a means of curbing domestic dissent and Palantir is just one of several companies aiding that shift. Similarly, Clearview AI, despite claims that the company is Trump-linked and tied to right-leaning political circles, has bragged about its utility to the US law enforcement community by highlighting the company’s role in identifying those involved in January 6th, which the company’s CEO refers to as an “insurrection.” After January 6th, Clearview AI’s use by US law enforcement jumped by 26%.
However, Thiel, Luckey and others in this network who are building the domestic panopticon often claim that they are defending “Western values” and “democracy” by embracing military and intelligence contracts. They also rely heavily on “America First” rhetoric. These companies contrast themselves to companies like Google, where employees have previously scuttled the big military contracts over ethical concerns, even though figures like Eric Schmidt, the former Google CEO who is a big backer of the Democrats and the Biden administration, are similarly developing autonomous weapon technology also under the guise of “defending democracy.” These Big Tech oligarchs ultimately agree about the plan, though Thiel and his ilk are much more vocal about their willingness to overlook ethical quandaries in the pursuit of ever more lucrative government contracts and cloak themselves in right-leaning, “America First” rhetoric.
This intelligence-linked web of Thiel-backed companies is poised to follow this same trajectory with respect to the “smart wall” being erected on the southern border as well as the northern border. While framed as only surveilling border crossings, the surveillance towers, drones and related devices being deployed are able to spy beyond the border and into American border cities and towns. While Anduril’s towers in particular are often framed as being placed in rural, sparsely populated parts of the southern border, there are several that are located close to major urban centers.
There is also the issue of the so-called “Constitution Free Zone,” which refers to the “border region” claimed by the US government that extends roughly 100 miles inland from all of the US’ terrestrial (including coastal) borders. It is estimated that 2/3 of all Americans live within this “border region”, which also includes 9 of the 10 largest US cities. The blatant overreach has been criticized by left-leaning (e.g. the ACLU) and right-leaning groups (e.g. the CATO Institute) alike. Whenever there are frenzied pushes in the media (mainstream and alternative alike) demanding new border security measures, many forget or are simply unaware that the government defines “the border” as much, much more than just the physical US-Mexico border and – thus – military-style measures rolled out on “the border” could also be rolled out much more inland.
The “Constitution Free Zone” may soon have implications for the border “smart wall.” Those surveillance devices could also be utilized, once they are capable, to surveil within the government-defined “border region,” where the violation of basic civil rights by law enforcement and CBP is a well-documented phenomenon. Given that intelligence agencies have been known to engage in the warrantless wiretapping of Americans for well over a decade, it seems likely that the “smart wall” could be used for much of the same.
Though some recent US court cases have tackled modern video surveillance tactics by law enforcement, it is still possible for them to collect data from surveillance cameras without a warrant if the intent is to “guard against […] crime.” The precarious state of civil liberties in the US, combined with the growing dominance of a small, close-knit and intelligence-linked group over the surveillance infrastructure of the State, should be carefully scrutinized, not rapidly rubber-stamped on the back of media-generated panic.
The bipartisan consensus around an Anduril-built “smart wall” likely has its roots in the same global agenda that is spurring the rapid implementation of biometric entry/exit systems at ports of entry throughout the Western world. For instance, this is the year where the European Union’s biometric entry/exit system is due to launch, whereby travelers crossing the EU’s new “digital border” system – whether terrestrial or aerial – will have to provide their fingerprints and submit to facial scans if they wish to enter an EU member state. Despite claims that the “digital border” would facilitate easier travel and reduce wait times, current estimates reveal that the new system is likely to take almost ten times longer per entry. The UK, despite leaving the EU, is also poised to “make its borders digital” by 2025, i.e. next year, with Canada implementing similar policies.
In the US, the move toward the “real ID” system, which is to come into force in 2025, will see biometric collection in the US become a requisite for domestic flights and any other “official purposes” that the DHS Secretary can unilaterally determine require a “real ID.” The “real ID” also provides favorable provisions for digital IDs, such as digital drivers licenses (such as the “Florida smart ID” being piloted in Ron DeSantis-governed Florida) and other “mobile digital documents and digital cards.” Elsewhere in the US, in airports, the push for digital IDs and facial biometric scans continues to rapidly advance.
It is quite obvious that the “smart wall” being built on the US’ southern and northern borders is intended to be part of the same “digital border” system that DHS has been designing and gradually implementing for most of the past 20 years. For instance, CBP currently utilizes the same biometric facial comparison technology used at numerous land, sea and air ports of entry throughout the country and plans to continue to expand its use nationwide. As noted above, Anduril’s towers or its affiliated drones could easily be equipped with facial recognition or other related technologies, while official terrestrial port of entries are already using the same biometric system being rolled out at American airports. In addition, many of those seeking to cross the southern border are being onboarded to the CBP One app, which CBP initially claimed would result in a “safe, orderly and humane” border processing when it was launched in January 2023. That app also collects biometric information from applicants of certain nationalities, a functionality CBP will likely expand in the future as reliance on its app increases.
The apparent global coordination of biometric entry/exit systems is no coincidence, as it is a policy initiative deeply connected to the UN’s Agenda 2030, or the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Specifically, it is tied to the implementation of SDG 16, which contains provisions for digital identity systems, among other things. The UN has chosen the global law enforcement entity Interpol as its “implementing partner” of SDG 16, a decision that ultimately spawned Interpol’s SDG-aligned Global Policing Goals (GPGs). The GPGs were approved and adopted by Interpol’s 196 member countries in 2017. As previously noted by Unlimited Hangout, Interpol is a dangerous organization to trust with the vast power these goals and their associated policies will bestow upon them, as they operate as a “pay-to-play” organization and have been embroiled in several significant corruption scandals.
One of the GPGs, GPG No. 2, is to “promote border security worldwide.” Interpol specifically notes that the implementation of this goal will involve establishing “advanced global standards for an intelligence-led border management, including standards for border surveillance, border checks and related equipment.” These standards, they continue, “should be underpinned by technology and digital advancement and risk analysis.” Elsewhere, they discuss how the implementation of this goal will also involve “managing and sharing biometric data, including with the use of the Interpol’s Biometric Hub [“a state-of-the-art system for identifying criminals˝] and other hubs.” Interpol has teamed up with biometric digital ID companies Idemia and Onfido as part of this effort. Both of those companies facilitated vaccine passports during Covid-19 and are currently helping to create digital driver’s licenses in some US states.
Interpol is mainly funded by the European Commission and the governments of Germany, the US and Canada, all of which – as noted above – are implementing the same biometric entry/exit systems on similar timelines. However, many other Interpol member countries are similarly ramping up their adoption of biometric, digital IDs for foreign travel and domestic use, including the West’s ostensible adversary countries, like Russia and China. The vast majority of the world’s countries, whether West or East, have signed onto Interpol’s GPGs and the UN’s SDGs, both of which push for comprehensive, biometric digital IDs interfaced with a digital currency wallet (whether a CBDC or private sector-issued equivalent). Globally, these agendas are being rolled out rapidly, forming the foundation for the next era of highly centralized global governance.
However, in some countries, such as the United States, where a significant portion of the population has become wary of digital IDs and digital, programmable money, unprecedented efforts are being made to sell these globalist policies via right-leaning talking points in contrast to years prior. For instance, digital, programmable money is being developed in the US, not as a CBDC, but a mix of regulated stablecoins and tokenized bank deposits. Even global carbon markets are being framed, not as being about climate change, but about innovation and profiting off a new class of assets. Now, it seems, the biometric “digital border” tied to the UN’s SDGs – a key component of the infrastructure for digital ID – is being sold mainly to the populist right and being rolled out under the guise of tackling illegal immigration. Not unlike Israel’s “smart wall,” these walls can be “turned off” when a crisis needs to be manufactured and, just like so much else, used to sell the same agendas that are pushing us all into a global, public-private panopticon.
Story at a Glance:
•Repeatedly forcing the public (e.g., through mandates) to use unsafe and ineffective therapies (that injured millions) has created a public relations disaster for the establishment.
• Various attempts have been made to do the impossible—restore the public’s trust in our medical institutions without any of them admitting fault.
•Here, I review each of the previous attempts and how they were used to create the recent infamous article by the NYT—which while monumental for bringing attention to the COVID vaccine-injured, also repeats a variety of strategic and very harmful lies to protect the vaccine industry.
•One of the mysteries of the COVID-19 response is what could have possibly justified breaking the public’s trust in the medical institutions our society revolves around. Here I will review the most compelling explanations we’ve come across after three years of investigating this commonly asked question.
For decades, I’ve noticed propaganda campaigns in the media will subtly signal what is in the works and it’s been a longstanding challenge for me to see if I can use those signals to accurately predict the future (e.g., this is how I predicted the course of the pandemic at the end of 2019).
In organic chemistry, one of the common subjects students are tested on is chemical synthesis. In synthesis problems, students are given a set of chemical reactions that can be performed, and are then expected to deduce how a combination of those reactions can be sequentially performed to transform a starting chemical to the desired final product.
The reason it’s essentially possible to “predict” the future by studying a public relations (propaganda) campaign is that like the synthesis problems, the PR field has a fairly limited number of tools to accomplish its agenda, and as a result, if you see one step being enacted, it often cleanly fits into a 10-step campaign you’ve seen conducted before (e.g., if it matches the 4th step of the previous campaign, you can reasonably infer the 10th step will likely to come to pass in the future).
As a result, I tend to view many media campaigns as “synthesis” problems. I consider their sponsors’ likely goals, the sequential steps that would need to be taken to enact those goals, and then see if what I’m currently observing fits into one of those sequences.
In turn, I’ve been amazed at how frequently this process has allowed me to know what’s in the pipeline, and over the years, I’ve reached a few key conclusions:
1. Synthesis problems are something college students typically struggle with (while not that complicated, they differ from the typical “first-order” thinking students are typically tested on, where they are just expected to memorize things and then regurgitate them). I believe this same blind spot is what prevents people from recognizing that when the same propaganda “synthesis” campaigns are conducted in the media again and again.
2. While propaganda is incredibly effective and appears monolithic (e.g., consider the complete insanity it made people unshakably believe throughout COVID-19), the majority of people who orchestrate it typically aren’t that intelligent or creative. Instead, they tend to use the same proven steps again and again, which while not optimal, are effective enough to accomplish their goals because they always have the weight of the mass media behind them.
Note: one of the best illustrations of this was Trump’s interactions with the media, as he regularly gave the response which effectively countered the current PR campaign against him. Yet rather than adapt and effectively respond to Trump’s response, the entire media would double-down on its initial message, frequently leading to their PR campaign boosting rather than undermining Trump’s popularity. Yet, despite this approach clearly not working, the media kept on doing it, which I took as a sign their adaptability within their campaigns was actually quite limited.
3. One of the biggest “red flags” for me is seeing a propaganda campaign unfold that is structured in a significantly different way from the baseline I’ve come to expect from watching previous iterations of those campaigns.
For example, I am used to the media whipping up hysteria about an inconsequential infectious disease (e.g., bird flu) every few years. The key thing which told me COVID was going to turn into a global disaster was the fact during the first few months (November 2019-March 2020) the media instead downplayed it as much as possible (e.g., the “it’s just a flu bro” meme was everywhere and anyone who raised concerns about it was accused of being racist towards Chinese people). Given that the entire biosecurity apparatus has been begging for something like COVID-19 for decades to justify their existence (and funding), the fact that they were downplaying it signaled that something much more nefarious was in the works.
Note: years ago, I learned that Corporate America would often commission “Tiger Teams” composed of talented employees to solve a problem (e.g., how to monopolize a sales market), and like tigers tearing apart a piece of meat, relentlessly attack the problem until a solution was found. Since these “solutions” often required complex multi-year campaigns, it was easy for me to wrap my head around the idea that PR firms would conduct similar endeavors.
When I observed the campaign used to sell the COVID vaccines, a few things jumped out at me:
•A lot of work went into setting up the campaign (e.g., the lockdowns, the messaging around the lockdowns, an immense effort to discredit any off-patent therapy that could treat COVID-19, and historically unprecedented online censorship to monopolize the narrative).
Note: the key thing all of the approaches we took to “addressing” COVID-19 had in common was that they were useless, and in many cases made things much worse.
•Before the vaccines came out, we repeatedly heard messaging stating that if you felt awful, that meant “it was working.” This for context was not something I’d heard from any other vaccine.
•The campaign was done in sequential stages where once a “softer” approach (e.g., gift cards) had maxed out how many sales it could get, a “harder” one was immediately implemented (e.g., pseudo-mandates like being unable to go to concerts without being vaccinated).
•Give or take, every stop that could be pulled out was used to sell the vaccines. Before long, this included ridiculous things like Krispy Kreme giving everyone who was vaccinated a free donut each day for the rest of the year, and CNN not only covered it but also covered it again when this was changed to two donuts rather than one. Not long after, it pivoted to draconian mandates that permanently broke many people’s trust in the medical system.
Note: I compiled some of the most ridiculous vaccine promotions here (e.g., lotteries, drugs, alcohol, and complementary brothel visits).
From all of this, I inferred that a decision had been made to do whatever was needed to vaccinate as many people as possible as quickly as possible (as best as I can guess, due to Biden’s repeated messaging on it, the goal was 70% of Americans 6 months into the campaign). Additionally, it appeared the people who chose to push the vaccines were fully aware of how unsafe and ineffective they were,
I hence concluded that the people pushing the vaccines knew they had a limited window to get everyone vaccinated and were willing to do whatever was necessary to vaccinate the world before that window closed—even if it was immensely costly for them in the long term.
Note: as best as I can gather, the “window” was either due to people inevitably becoming aware of the adverse effects of the vaccines (particularly the medium and long-term ones), people realizing the vaccine didn’t work, or COVID-19 becoming extinct (something which happened in many of the African countries which didn’t vaccinate).
from: https://www.midwesterndoctor.com/p/dissecting-the-new-york-times-plea?publication_id=748806&post_id=144482508&isFreemail=true&r=19iztd&triedRedirect=true&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
It is important to know what government officials are saying. This is scary.
September 25, 2023
… Almost 34,000 pigs were culled in Italy last week after a cluster of outbreaks in Lombardy, a region known as Italy’s pork belt and one of Europe’s main pig-producing areas.
“The cluster of outbreaks [in Lombardy] was the largest in Italy caused by the ASF virus genotype II,” said Francesco Feliziani, who leads Italy’s national reference lab for [African] swine fever.
He said the Lombardy outbreak had been “quickly extinguished” but “posed a major threat to the entire sector as the region is the largest producer of pigs in our country”.
Because there is no vaccine for ASF, Feliziani said culls to contain the disease were compulsory. The underlying problem, he said, “remains the presence of the virus in the wild boar populations”, which provide a reservoir for the virus.
“In Europe, the threat [of ASF] is very strong; the pressure of the virus is high and it seems inevitable that the disease will involve other domestic herds,” he said.
ASF was disrupting pig breeding around the world, Feliziani said, but he warned that non-intensive, traditional livestock farming models, which might not have sufficient levels of biosecurity, were particularly at risk and could disappear altogether.
“This would have strong economic repercussions on many social strata and would also affect the biodiversity of rural areas where intensive livestock farming is not possible, and which survive thanks to the typicality of products reared according to traditional methods,” he said…
Even though the cooked meat is fine to eat and humans do not catch the virus—Nass
from: https://merylnass.substack.com/p/italian-govt-official-said-traditional?publication_id=746368&post_id=144571724&isFreemail=true&r=19iztd&triedRedirect=true&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
Much has been written on the current proposals putting the World Health Organization (WHO) front and center of future pandemic responses. With billions of dollars in careers, salaries, and research funding on the table, it is difficult for many to be objective. However, there are fundamentals here that everyone with public health training should agree upon. Most others, if they take time to consider, would also agree. Including, when divorced from party politicking and soundbites, most politicians.
So here, from an orthodox public health standpoint, are some problems with the proposals on pandemics to be voted on at the World Health Assembly at the end of this month.
The Pandemic Agreement (treaty) and IHR amendments have been promoted based on claims of a rapidly increasing risk of pandemics. In fact, they pose an ‘existential threat’ (i.e. one that may end our existence) according to the G20’s High Level Independent Panel in 2022. However, the increase in reported natural outbreaks on which the WHO, the World Bank, G20, and others based these claims is shown to be unfounded in a recent analysis from the UK’s University of Leeds. The main database on which most outbreak analyses rely, the GIDEON database, shows a reduction in natural outbreaks and resultant mortality over the past 10 to 15 years, with the prior increase between 1960 and 2000 fully consistent with the development of the technologies necessary to detect and record such outbreaks; PCR, antigen and serology tests, and genetic sequencing.
The WHO does not refute this but simply ignores it. Nipah viruses, for example, only ‘emerged’ in the late 1990s when we found ways to actually detect them. Now we can readily distinguish new variants of coronavirus to promote uptake of pharmaceuticals. The risk does not change by detecting them; we just change the ability to notice them. We also have the ability to modify viruses to make them worse – this is a relatively new problem. But do we really want an organization influenced by China, with North Korea on its executive board (insert your favorite geopolitical rivals), to manage a future bioweapons emergency?
Irrespective of growing evidence that Covid-19 was not a natural phenomenon, modelling that the World Bank quotes as suggesting a 3x increase in outbreaks over the next decade actually predicts that a Covid-like event will recur less than once per century. Diseases that the WHO uses to suggest an increase in outbreaks over the past 20 years, including cholera, plague, yellow fever, and influenza variants were orders of magnitude worse in past centuries.
This all makes it doubly confusing that the WHO is breaking its own legal requirements in order to push through a vote without Member States having time to properly review implications of the proposals. The urgency must be for reasons other than public health need. Others can speculate why, but we are all human and all have egos to protect, even when preparing legally binding international agreements.
The burden (e.g. death rate or life years lost) of acute outbreaks is a fraction of the overall disease burden, far lower than many endemic infectious diseases such as malaria, HIV, and tuberculosis, and a rising burden of non-communicable disease. Few natural outbreaks over the past 20 years have resulted in more than 1,000 deaths – or 8 hours of tuberculosis mortality. Higher-burden diseases should dominate public health priorities, however dull or unprofitable they may seem.
With the development of modern antibiotics, major outbreaks from the big scourges of the past like Plague and typhus ceased to occur. Though influenza is caused by a virus, most deaths are also due to secondary bacterial infections. Hence, we have not seen a repeat of the Spanish flu in over a century. We are better at healthcare than we used to be and have improved nutrition (generally) and sanitation. Widespread travel has eliminated the risks of large immunologically naive populations, making our species more immunologically resilient. Cancer and heart disease may be increasing, but infectious diseases overall are declining. So where should we focus?
Investment in public health requires both evidence (or high likelihood) that the investment will improve outcomes and an absence of significant harm. The WHO has demonstrated neither with their proposed interventions. Neither has anyone else. The lockdown and mass vaccination strategy promoted for Covid-19 resulted in a disease that predominantly affects elderly sick people leading to 15 million excess deaths, even increasing mortality in young adults. In past acute respiratory outbreaks, things got better after one or perhaps two seasons, but with Covid-19 excess mortality persisted.
Within public health, this would normally mean we check whether the response caused the problem. Especially if it’s a new type of response, and if past understanding of disease management predicted that it would. This is more reliable than pretending that past knowledge did not exist. So again, the WHO (and other public-private partnerships) are not following orthodox public health, but something quite different.
Twenty-five years ago, before private investors became so interested in public health, it was accepted that decentralization was sensible. Providing local control to communities that could then prioritize and tailor health interventions themselves can provide better outcomes. Covid-19 underlined the importance of this, showing how uneven the impact of an outbreak is, determined by population age, density, health status, and many other factors. To paraphrase the WHO, ‘Most people are safe, even when some are not.’
However, for reasons that remain unclear to many, the WHO decided that the response for a Toronto aged care resident and a young mother in a Malawian village should be essentially the same – stop them from meeting family and working, then inject them with the same patented chemicals. The WHO’s private sponsors, and even the two largest donor countries with their strong pharmaceutical sectors, agreed with this approach. So too did the people paid to implement it. It was really only history, common sense, and public health ethics that stood in the way, and they proved much more malleable.
The WHO IHR amendments and Pandemic Agreement are all about detection, lockdowns, and mass vaccination. This would be good if we had nothing else. Fortunately, we do. Sanitation, better nutrition, antibiotics, and better housing halted the great scourges of the past. An article in the journal Nature in 2023 suggested that just getting vitamin D at the right level may have cut Covid-19 mortality by a third. We already knew this and can speculate on why it became controversial. It’s really basic immunology.
Nonetheless, nowhere within the proposed US$30+ billion annual budget is any genuine community and individual resilience supported. Imagine putting a few billion more into nutrition and sanitation. Not only would you dramatically reduce mortality from occasional outbreaks, but more common infectious diseases, and metabolic diseases such as diabetes and obesity, would also go down. This would actually reduce the need for pharmaceuticals. Imagine a pharmaceutical company, or investor, promoting that. It would be great for public health, but a suicidal business approach.
All of which brings us, obviously, to conflicts of interest. The WHO, when formed, was essentially funded by countries through a core budget, to address high-burden diseases on country request. Now, with 80% of its use of funds specified directly by the funder, its approach is different. If that Malawian village could stump up tens of millions for a program, they would get what they ask for. But they don’t have that money; Western countries, Pharma, and software moguls do.
Most people on earth would grasp that concept far better than a public health workforce heavily incentivized to think otherwise. This is why the World Health Assembly exists and has the ability to steer the WHO in directions that don’t harm their populations. In its former incarnation, the WHO considered conflict of interest to be a bad thing. Now, it works with its private and corporate sponsors, within the limits set by its Member States, to mold the world to their liking.
To summarize, while it’s sensible to prepare for outbreaks and pandemics, it’s even more sensible to improve health. This involves directing resources to where the problems are and using them in a way that does more good than harm. When people’s salaries and careers become dependent on changing reality, reality gets warped. The new pandemic proposals are very warped. They are a business strategy, not a public health strategy. It is the business of wealth concentration and colonialism – as old as humanity itself.
The only real question is whether the majority of the Member States of the World Health Assembly, in their voting later this month, wish to promote a lucrative but rather amoral business strategy, or the interests of their people.
Published under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
For reprints, please set the canonical link back to the original Brownstone Institute Article and Author.
The currency in Argentina has been devalued and people are being pushed into dollar-denominated stable coins like Tether that allows the FBI to spy on users. The goal is programmable currency, whether it is issued by central banks or private companies, that allows bankers to control the money and spending over all people.
Every capital city of latin America has eagerly signed on, unaware of the strings attached to the partnerships, paving the way for a sweeping surveillance apparatus tied to American intelligence under the guise of combating climate change.
.Latin America is quietly being forced into a carbon market scheme through regional contractual obligations – enforced by the satellites of a US intelligence-linked firm – which seeks to create an inter-continental “smart grid,” erode national and local sovereignty, and link carbon-based life to the debt-based monetary system via a Bitcoin sidechain.
Sweeping across the shores of Latin America comes a scheme from some of the most predatory figures in the venture capital ecosystem of the United States. It is a brazen attempt to assert foreign influence across Latin America and threatens to reshape the very fabric of the region and the day to day lives of its people. At its core is a serpentine set of contractual obligations, held at the municipal level, cast throughout Central and South America, upheld by an intelligence-linked satellite company, and controlled by a private sector consortium of green-washed financiers aiming to turn the region’s forests into equity and carbon credits. At the same time, it obliges local governments to spend “conservation” funds on projects that further financialize nature and aid the construction of an inter-continental “smart” grid. One of its key ambitions appears to be further entrenching the debt load of the region through the multi-lateral development banks and the dollarization of the continent from the subnational level up through carbon markets upheld by a digital ledger. What seems like a technological marvel aimed at progress and connectivity harbors a darker agenda — one that intertwines planetary surveillance, financial predation, geopolitical maneuvering, and the domination of a resource-rich continent buried in debt.
This grand design, known by the acronym GREEN+ and conceived by stalwarts of the digital dollar and debt schemes of the private sector, has quietly taken root through a web of political entanglements at the local level. Even a key figure in the Drexel Burnham Lambert junk bond scandal plays a role. Astonishingly, every capital city of Latin America has eagerly signed on, apparently unaware of the strings attached to these seemingly benign partnerships, while a majority of municipalities in the region have also made commitments with these same groups that will push them to join GREEN+, potentially in a matter of weeks. The (hopefully) well-meaning regional governments have unwittingly paved the way for a sweeping surveillance apparatus tied to American intelligence that threatens to erode privacy and civil liberties under the guise of progress and combating the climate crisis.
Upon further observation, GREEN+’s connections reveal a disturbing narrative of financial interests melding with geopolitical ambitions. The backers of the satellite company share ties with former members of the highest offices of US financial policy and regulation alongside the key architects and profiteers of private capital creation, aiming to consolidate control over monetary flows in Latin America within the redistribution of distressed government debt from the public to the private sector. As this two-part series will show, this concerted effort is not merely about surveillance – it’s a calculated move towards further dollarization, tightening the grip of corporate and technological monopolies over the economic landscape of the Americas.
The scheme’s proponents also speak of how it will significantly advance the “economic” and “regional” integration of the Americas, invoking visions of unity while obscuring the true nature of their agenda for economic domination and stronger regional governance. Their model, eerily reminiscent of the EU’s transition from a free trade union to a bureaucratic behemoth yoked to the US through the Eurodollar, sets the stage for unelected entities to enforce policies through programmable money, enabled by smart contracts on blockchains and designed to benefit the few at the expense of the many. What materializes before us is not just a technological evolution but a quiet banker coup — one that lays the groundwork for land grabs and invasive surveillance under the guise of progress and conservation. It’s a narrative that echoes throughout history, where intelligence-linked figures and predatory financial interests converge to prey upon the Global South, leaving a trail of economic exploitation and geopolitical manipulation in their wake. What masquerades as progress for individuals and the environment at large may very well be the harbinger of a new era of subjugation and control.
In 2022, several groups came together to launch the GREEN+ (Government Reduction of Emissions for Environmental Net + Gain) Jurisdictional Programme, the “first program that will monitor by satellite all subnational protected areas of the planet” and – through contracts with numerous local and state governments – propel and deepen the economic integration of the Americas through the quiet imposition of a continent-wide, blockchain-based carbon market.
GREEN+ has been piloted in a handful of Latin American cities since its founding and is due to launch globally in just a few weeks time. Most of the GREEN+ agreements with “subnational” governments have remained focused on Latin America. Per the program, the subnational agreements have established the “rules and requirements to enable accounting and crediting with GREEN+ policies and measures and/or nested projects, implemented as GHG mitigation activities,” with GREEN+ being described as “the planet’s new subnational government advisory mechanism.”
Key to the program are the services provided by GREEN+ founding member Satellogic, an Argentina-founded company closely aligned with Peter Thiel’s Palantir and Elon Musk’s SpaceX that specializes in sub-meter resolution satellite surveillance. Satellogic, a contractor to the US government and whose founders were also previously contactors for the US’ DHS, NSA and DARPA, will provide surveillance data of the entire world’s “protected areas” to GREEN+’s governing coalition, composed of the NGOs CC35, the Global Footprint Network, The Energy Coalition and other “respected stakeholders.”
According to the press release that details Satellogic’s alliance with GREEN+, the satellite surveillance data “will enable individuals, organizations, and global markets to accurately monitor the compliance of signatory jurisdictions to avoid deforestation.” However, other information in the press release reveals that forests will actually be monitored for the purpose of generating “credible” carbon credits to be traded on exchanges by GREEN+ on behalf of subnational governments. The press release also states that the GREEN+ alliance with Satellogic will “advance the future measurement of energy emissions in the most populated areas of the planet,” i.e. the surveillance of carbon emissions from space. Satellogic launched some GREEN+-affiliated satellites in 2022 as part of its pilot and is due to launch the remainder this April during Miami Climate Week. Satellogic’s past and upcoming launches of GREEN+ satellites were/will be conducted in collaboration with Elon Musk’s SpaceX, also a contractor to the US military and US intelligence agencies.
Though framed as a way to develop economic incentives to mitigate climate change, the program is based on California’s controversial and grift-prone cap and trade program and has been created (and is being implemented by) individuals and companies that are seeking to covertly dollarize Latin America and/or have deep ties to US intelligence. Its ultimate ambitions go far beyond carbon markets and seek to use satellite surveillance to enforce carbon emission levels in both urban and rural areas. It also seeks to impose a new financial system centered around energy, commodity, and natural resource “credits” that are underpinned by extensive and invasive surveillance, underscored by the motto: “Earth observation is preservation.”
The alliance that created GREEN+ includes the NGOs CC35, the Global Footprint Network (GFN), Arnold Schwarzenegger’s Catalytic Finance Foundation (CFF, formerly R20) and The Energy Coalition (TEC); the Gibraltar-based law firm Isolas; the global insurance giant Lockton; the satellite company Satellogic; the “green” blockchain company EcoRegistry; the dominant carbon credit certifier in Latin America, Cercarbono; and Rootstock (RSK), the bitcoin side-chain protocol responsible for “smart BTC.” Several members of the alliance, though how many is unclear, now operate as part of a consortium linked to a company called Global Carbon Parks, which is discussed in greater detail later in this article and now manages major aspects of GREEN+. The NGOs (i.e. CC35, GFN, CFF and TEC) involved in founding GREEN+ are those who actually govern the GREEN+ program from California.
As previously mentioned, the program takes carbon in “effectively conserved protected areas of a sub-national jurisdiction”, i.e. a city, county, province, or state/region, and converts them into carbon credits. Per the program, “these credits are traded on the [carbon] offset market, and income is deposited in a trust fund” that is controlled by GREEN+ and is known as the GREEN+ Trust. That trust is run by unspecified individuals who work for Lockton, Isolas and Rootstock. Alejandro Guerrero, head of Lockton’s Argentina & Uruguay branch, is the only publicly acknowledged member of the trust.
Another website tied to the GREEN+ initiative describes the initial process as follows:
Subsequently, “a partial release of trust funds is made periodically during the crediting period of the jurisdictional initiative.” From this “partial release,” “a percentage operational fee” is deducted (the percentage is undisclosed in the program’s documents) and paid to the GREEN+ program while a separate (and also undisclosed) fee is also deducted “for the operation of the GREEN+ Trust.” Disbursements of what remains are made annually over a ten year period and, per graphs produced by GREEN+, those payments remain the same, fixed value even if the value of the carbon credits of the protected areas grows.
Unlimited Hangout article: https://unlimitedhangout.com/2024/04/investigative-reports/debt-from-above-the-carbon-credit-coup/
from: https://needtoknow.news/2024/05/whitney-webb-bankers-use-climate-scam-in-latin-america-to-introduce-digital-currency-globally/
Once a bastion of traditional values, the Boy Scouts of America announced Tuesday that it will be changing its name to “Scouting America” to emphasize its commitment to inclusion. The name change will officially take effect in February of 2025.
The organization announced the name change as the organization celebrates the fifth anniversary of the decision to allow females scouts, and a decade after announcing that it would allow homosexuals to join.
Previously, in 2018, the group changed its name from Boy Scouts of America to Scouts BSA.
For many years, the organization has been under fire from left-wing activists who didn’t approve of the “God and country” values espoused by the group. The name change represents the group’s latest capitulation to far-left values and move away from its original ideals.
“Though our name will be new, our mission remains unchanged: we are committed to teaching young people to be Prepared. For Life,” said Roger Krone, the president of Scouting America. “This will be a simple but very important evolution as we seek to ensure that everyone feels welcome in Scouting.”
“Scouting America provides a welcoming, safe environment where youth can become the best version of themselves by learning from and respecting each other,” Krone stressed. “I encourage everyone to join us and experience the benefits of Scouting.”
When questioned by reporters about the name change, Krone explained, “Part of my job is to reduce all the barriers I possibly can for people to accept us as an organization and to join.”
The announcement to change names comes in the wake of the organization’s bankruptcy settlement, which will pay victims of sexual abuse in the group $2.46 billion. That settlement involves 82,000 men who claim they were abused by scout leaders over the years. Those settlements range from $3,500 to $2.7 million.
In 1972, the group boasted nearly 5 million members — all boys. Currently, it serves only a million members.
“Scouting America welcomes all of America’s youth into its programs. Our goal is to give them fantastic experiences in the outdoors, and elsewhere, where they can grow with us in a safe environment. More than 130 million Americans have been through our programs since our founding, and currently more than 1 million youth are served by 477,000 dedicated adult volunteers in local councils throughout the country,” the group’s website declares.
Angelique Minett, the first female chairperson of the group, believes the changes will be good for the group going forward.
“When we think scouts we think knots and camping, but those are a means to an end,” Minett said. “We are actually teaching kids a much bigger thing. We are teaching them how to have grit, and we’re teaching them life skills and we’re teaching them how to be good leaders.”
Thus far, the Girl Scouts remain the Girl Scouts but they appear to be affected with the same “woke” energy as their non-gender specific counterpart.
As X user Libs of TikTok points out: “If you don’t subscribe to the LGBTQ+ agenda, you’re not welcome at @girlscouts. Time to boycott @girlscouts and @boyscouts! They have both gone completely woke! Boys and girls both deserve their own spaces. Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts disagree and would rather cater to a far-left agenda.”
As further proof of the Girl Scouts’ commitment to all things woke, Libs of Tik Tok posted the Girl Scouts’ Camp Culture Code, which states that the organization is “committed to actively building a sense of inclusion for all of our community members. We ask all staff, volunteers, parents, caregivers, and youth commit to working towards LGBTQIA+ allyship, anti-racism and anti-oppression.”
The Scouts have strayed far from their original oath, “On my honor I will do my best to do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law; to help other people at all times; to keep myself physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight.” It’s an unfortunate loss in the culture war as a group once committed to God and country now appears committed in the opposite direction.
from: https://thenewamerican.com/us/culture/boy-scouts-officially-drop-boy-from-their-name/
What’s more rare than one white bison being born? How about two white bison being welcomed into the world in the same month?
The National Bison Association says that these bison births are truly unique. The odds of an all-white bison being born is about one in ten million. That’s about the same odds that you have of becoming President of the United States… though this might be the year to enter into the election with the choices we have.
But anyways, the birth of one of the white bison took place in Kansas on May 25th, and if you were looking for good news today, the birth of this bison and what it might mean just might be enough:
“The prophecy of the White Buffalo Woman is the most significant prophecy of the Lakota people. Others like Comanche and Navajo also see it as a sign of things changing in the world and better times coming.
A symbol of hope, and honoring that which is sacred, this is a reminder to pray and remember your relationship with the Creator, just as the White Buffalo Woman taught the Lakota people to pray with the 7 sacred ceremonies over 19 generations ago. And if the prophecy is true, many major changes this year will lead us to a better relationship with the Earth, with each other and with the Great Spirit in the sky.”
Good vibes!
And let the good vibes roll, because around the same time that the above birth took place, another white bison was born in Burnet, Texas. If white bison are supposed to bring good luck and prosperity, the American people are seemingly in good shape. This bison, named Unatsi (Cherokee word for “snow”), was the offspring of two blonde bison. Another calf that was born along with the white one matched its parents coat.
“Meet Unatsi. A rare white bison calf born about a week ago in Burnet! You can see here – two blonde moms, same blonde dad, two different calves.”
White bison are believed to represent harmony and peace, and I’m going to choose to be excited that two were born close to the same time in Kansas and Texas. Let’s have a year people… the bison have spoken!
