The Predatory Male Behavior Of So-Called Transgender Women…

William Thomas AKA Lia Thomas

By Eleanor Dashwood

How do you know so-called transgender women aren’t real women? Because they act just like predatory men who, rather than having sympathy for women concerned when physically intact men invade their territory, revel in the ability to impose their will on these women.

I once had a conversation with a strapping, athletic, and tall young man I was dating about how I, and women in general, feel vulnerable walking or traveling alone in many situations he took for granted. He had never thought about that wary anxiety women feel walking through a dimly lit parking lot at night, or turning around at footsteps, assessing the environment, noticing men eying them and, in response, feeling vulnerable and unprepared and instantly calculating how to respond if things go south.

The man wasn’t naïve or insensitive, but the emotions I described were unfamiliar to him. He had never pondered how different women’s day-to-day experiences were from his own. He enjoyed unthinking confidence due to his strength, size, and sex.

Of course, men can be vulnerable, but it should go without saying that their reality is different than women’s. Women are generally smaller and physically weaker than most men, so savvy women learn to be careful.

Women also rely on the traditional social contract ensuring single-sex privacy in places in which they may be naked or exposed, such as dressing rooms, bathrooms, or locker rooms. She expects that, in these spaces, she’ll be in the company of women and free from voyeurs or exhibitionists.

Sadly, this social contract has been broken because mixed-up or opportunistic men claiming to be women are allowed to invade these private spaces. These men’s insensitivity to women’s fear and discomfort is additional proof that they are not women.

They don’t understand women’s fear, vulnerability, and discomfort because they come from the same perspective as my male friend. It has never been a part of their experience because their point of view is male.

Ironically, my male friend would never have tried to invade a female space and would have respected women’s feelings, unlike many trans activists. Rather than respecting women’s feelings of vulnerability, many of these men in dresses enjoy the power of being in those settings, where they can view exposed women and show their male genitalia with impunity (something other cannot do legally), all because they claim to be women. They behave exactly like predatory men, overtly pressuring women with their power and dominance, and leaving the women unable to fight back. Examples abound.

Julie Jaman, an 80-year-old liberal feminist in Port Townsend, Washington, became uncomfortable while naked in a locker room at her local YMCA when she heard a male voice. She observed a man in a woman’s swimsuit assisting little girls who were changing into their bathing suits. When she complained that this was inappropriate, she was punished.

Instead of the Y addressing and respecting her reasonable feelings, Jaman was labeled a “transphobe,” booted from the pool, and permanently barred from the Y where she had swum without incident for 30 years. When she protested publicly, trans activists stormed the stage, physically intimidating her to disrupt her speech.

The mayor and city council rewarded the activists and announced the city’s “allyship” with the trans community. The message to Jaman and other women was that trans rights supersede women’s rights and that women must take it and shut up about their discomfort.

A guy who has been wearing a dress for about a year has more rights in a women’s locker room than an 80-year-old lifelong female. The alliance between the government and a trans guy with no compassion for women, despite claiming to be one, will create a chilling denial of privacy for women.

Riley Gaines a swimmer from the University of Kentucky, described the shock and discomfort she and other women swimmers felt when having to change clothes in a locker room in front of a male swimmer, Will Thomas, who claims to be female. Women coming in from a pool have no choice but to become naked as they change clothes. The only privacy they can seek is toilet stalls.

Will Thomas, who identifies as “Lia Thomas,” has male genitalia, is tall and broad-shouldered, and is built like a male swimmer. Oh, and he’s sexually attracted to women. By calling himself female, he was empowered to stroll around a female locker room despite the women made uncomfortable as he looked at them and strolled about naked, his “female” penis in full view.

When women complained, they were told to accept the situation or not swim at all—and they were offered counseling. As with Port Townsend, Thomas behaved like a classic predatory male, insensitive to women’s feelings and discomfort, while the universities helped enforce their humiliation and abuse.

At Wi Spa in Los Angeles, a man claiming to be a woman entered the female-only areas where women are completely nude. A mother with her young daughter was horrified to see a man sitting with his legs spread in front of all the women. He seemed to be enjoying their discomfort. (Turns out he’s a serial sexual offender.) The helpless spa had to comply with California law requiring facilities to accommodate people’s “gender identity.  Antifa responded to women’s complaints with rioting.

In New Jersey, a so-called transwoman in prison for manslaughter was sent to a women’s prison and, despite being “female,” magically impregnated two other inmates with his external vagina, which looked and functioned just like a penis. In prison, predatory men who claim to be female are allowed unfettered access to completely helpless women.

There are many travesties in the trans movement, from the deranged parents eager to be the parent of a trans child to the corrupt doctors and mental health professionals now claiming that children can know they are trans in utero (even though, simultaneously, they’re just a clump of cells), to the teachers lying to parents and manipulating confused children, to Big Pharma creating a lifetime of misery for huge profits. This is a hideous war on reality, but it is also a hideous attack on the safety and sanctity of women’s spaces, and politicians, universities, and activists, spurred by ideology and profit, are telling women to shut up and take it.

When my daughter was in high school, she participated in a wonderful program that took teenage girls on a wilderness backpacking trip. It was a life-changing experience for her. It gave her personal confidence and was the first step in many more possibilities for her.

Recently, I thought about this same program for a lovely young woman I know who could benefit from an empowering experience. Sadly, when I went online to find the link for her, I discovered (unsurprisingly) that this all-girls program now emphasizes nonbinary and trans girls.

Gone is the safe space my daughter enjoyed. It has been highjacked by boys who call themselves girls and girls who have no idea what they are. It is no longer a female-only space. I couldn’t recommend it to this young woman as I felt it would harm her. One by one, women are being bullied out of their own spaces by dudes in dresses and their misguided enablers. We must fight back.

About Those ‘Right Wing’ Threats of Violence

Picture

Ooooh. Such scary-looking people.

AUGUST 15, 2022

NY Times:As Right-Wing Rhetoric Escalates, So Do Threats and Violence

Both threats of political violence and actual attacks have become a steady reality of American life. Experts blame dehumanizing and apocalyptic language.

In the wake of that very strange “FBI raid” on Trump’s Florida estate last week, the “latest thing” talking points — with Sulzberger’s Times at the fore — have been dutifully distributed to the deranged denizens of the tyrannical kingdom of Libtardia. From the hallowed halls of quackademia, to the camous coffee shops, to printed propaganda, to the tell-lie-vision, to the Social Media activists, to the homosexual bath houses — the thoughtless Marxist Mantra now is all about “right wing violence.”

From the article:“Scholars who study political violence point to a common thread: the heightened use of bellicose, dehumanizing and apocalyptic language, particularly by prominent figures in right-wing politics and media.

Several right-wing or Republican figures reacted to the search of Mar-a-Lago not only with demands to dismantle the F.B.I., but also with warnings that the action had triggered “war.”

This “latest thing” about “right wing violence” offers us an excellent “teachable moment” to set the historical record straight as to the history of political violence in America — a murderous phenomenon that always has been, and still is, almost exclusively a left wing problem.

A trip down memory-hole lane for just a few past events.

There are plenty more incidents of Leftist violence — worldwide as well — always committed under the orders of and with the protection of “higher powers” that we can add to that list; but you get the point. This “right wing violence” theme is just another classic case of psychopaths and liars projecting their evil and their insanity onto us.

And mind you, that’s just the low-level violence carried out by the foot soldiers. Far more serious and deadly is the state-ordered military violence that has been imposed upon so many millions of innocent people by the very same Globalist Cabal that is now sanctimoniously wringing its hands over the mere language that some us “right wing” patriots are using.

Have a look at this list of “violent” acts — all of them genocidal and all of them enthusiastically cheered on by the oh-so peace-loving “paper of record” and the rest of the Jurisprudence while we of the true “far right” were yelling “Stop!”

  • World War I
  • Russian (Bolshevik) Revolution & Civil War
  • World War II
  • Korean War
  • Vietnam War
  • Afghanistan Proxy War Against the USSR
  • Bombing & Invasion of Panama
  • Gulf / Iraq War I
  • Deadly Sanctions (20 years)
  • First Lady Hillary’s Siege & Firebombing at Waco, Texas
  • Bombing of Serbia
  • Gulf War / Iraq War II & the War on Terror
  • Drone Strikes on multiple countries
  • War on Libya
  • War on Syria
  • Proxy Wars (ISIS, Ukraine etc)

Oceans of blood! Ah, so “non violent” is the Globalist-Marxist Left, eh? Frankly, a bit of actual violence directed at the devils who have been physically and mentally torturing innocent humanity for so long wouldn’t be such a bad thing. But let’s leave the killing to the White Hats — who will do it legally. I just hope we get to see some of these characters executed on TV one day — journalists included.

The Secrets of Societal Mind Control

Edward Bernays was one of those relatively unknown characters of history who, from “behind the scenes,” helped to shape American society — and, by logical extension, the world in general — more so than any president could have. A nephew of the famed sex-mad quack Sigmund Fraud, Bernays understood the science / art of manufacturing “public opinion” better than anyone.

During World War I, Woodrow Wilson called upon the services of the legendary ad man who would later train women to become smokers by linking the dirty habit with the women’s suffrage movement (here) — and who also trained many of us to crave “Bacon & Eggs” for breakfast (here). Under Bernays’ influence, the wartime Committee on Public Information instantly and successfully transformed the public image of the cultured peace-loving Germans into one of marauding, blood-thirsty, warmongering “Huns.” Reflecting upon his success with psychological manipulation during wartime, Bernays later described how the same tactics could be used to control the masses during peacetime.

Bernays:

“There was one basic lesson I learned in the CPI—that efforts comparable to those applied by the CPI to affect the attitudes of the enemy, of neutrals, and people of this country could be applied with equal facility to peacetime pursuits. In other words, what could be done for a nation at war could be done for organizations and people in a nation at peace.”

At the behest of his government paymasters, Bernays and his gang of Society Shapers got Americans to suddenly hating Germans.

In 1928, Bernays, in his book titled, “Propaganda,” really “let the cat out of the bag” for us “conspiracy theorists .” The “Father of Spin” as one biographer described him, wrote this:

“The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country….. If we understand the mechanism and motives of the group mind, it is now possible to control and regiment the masses according to our will without their knowing about it.”

Bernays knew what he was talking about because he himself was very, very close to the Society Shapers and Culture Creators who relied upon his evil expertise at manipulation.

1. The Easter Sunday March, 1929: Bernays got silly women smoking by branding cigarettes as “Freedom Torches.” // 2 & 3. Bernays’ books about propaganda and public opinion give valuable insight into the tactics of the Society Shapers who rule over us.

Bernays’ words teach us, from direct knowledge, that the “the masses” at large are like so many bits of malleable clay in the hands of the Society Shapers. Indeed, in the grand lobby of Rockefeller Center in New York, which houses the headquarters of the very Jewish NBC TV & Radio network, a billboard with the images of famous historical personages of NBC news and TV shows actually reads: “NBC: Shaping American culture since 1926” (bottom right corner). So, we know, by their own arrogant admission, that (((they))) do indeed shape society and create culture by getting “the masses” to passionately believe whatever the heck (((they))) bloody want them to perceive and believe — no matter how counter-intuitive or absurd (Think “modern art” or “the Holocaust” or “climate change” or “man-on-man marriage” or “choose your own gender” or “Social Distancing,” etc). That’s the “what” of the matter.

With that knowledge in mind, the remainder of this piece shall address the “how” of the phenomenon, from a psychological / philosophical perspective. If you’re an anti-conspiracy theorist who doubts that so many people — including those of high intelligence and accomplishment — can be so easily duped into believing this or that falsehood, then the following description of the Society-Shaping dynamic should, we hope, help you to understand that it’s really not all that difficult to “brainwash” 85-90% of the public — which is really all that (((they))) need in order to move their agenda items forward.

1 & 1a. If you’re ever in New York, check out the lobby at Rockefeller Center and see how proud NBC is of “shaping American culture since 1926” (their words!). // 3. The King of NBC from 1926 to 1970 was David Sarnoff (cough cough). During World War 2, Sarnoff headed up “psychological warfare” efforts in Europe and was ranked as a “Brigadier General” for that sneaky service. Through his News and TV Shows, Sarnoff, like Bernays, used the same tactics during peacetime to manipulate Americans. In accordance with his wishes, the fake “general” was buried with his medals.

Think of society as a large ballroom floor full of people buzzing about from one end to the other. In each of the four corners of the room, four “respected” speakers with mighty bullhorns scream out false information from atop elevated platforms. Unbeknown to the stirring “masses,” the Big Four, though seemingly situated far apart from one another, are actually all members of the same elite club and working in concert. They are part of a Mafia-like network of Society Shapers who incestuously associate and often inter-marry with other such high-end muckety-mucks.

In one corner, Big Newsmedia (Fake News) shouts out lies and half truths to the credulous crowd circulating around him — never mentioning certain “inconvenient” facts which could contradict the hidden agenda.

And in another far corner, Big Academia, in oh-so-serious tones of “gravitas,” echoes and reinforces what Big News is shouting. Smaller Academia (colleges, high schools, middle schools, K-5 elementary schools) all follow the lead of Big Academia.

From a third corner, Big Government, subtly or overtly backed by the threat of force, again shouts from the same script as his co-conspirators.

And finally, in the fourth corner, with perhaps the loudest bullhorn of them all, Big Hollywood — by way of cleverly embedded propaganda inserted into TV shows, movies and music — reaches the ears, hearts and empty minds of even the simplest dumb asses who neither finished High School, nor follow politics, nor watch the Nightly News.

By the time one of the unsuspecting and confused mob has finished a cycle of walking about from one end of the crowded floor to the other, his malleable mind will have been blasted, marinated and saturated in the most stupefying propaganda imaginable. Only Norman Normie won’t realize that the room is steeped in fakery because he has never been exposed to an opposing viewpoint. And if he does happen to chance across an awakened activist with another opinion, he’d probably denounce him as an “extremist”  or “uneducated” or a “conspiracy theorist”  simply because he has never heard such an opinion before. And should that errant truther begin to “red pill” more than a few normies, the Bullhorns of Bullshit will inevitably unload their toxic cannon fire at him — thus cowering other active truthers and curious initiates into silent submission.

* THE 4 CORNERS OF SOCIETY SHAPING

And yet, in spite of being mind-raped from all four corners of deceit, the brainwashing of the people is not yet complete. One final critical reinforcement step has to occur — and the beauty of it, from the perspective of the Society Shapers above, is that this final stage of the process will happen all by itself.

After having been prepped from all four corners, a target will inevitably hold a conversation with another unsuspecting boob about something that one or more of the Four Bullhorns had been blaring about. Maybe this talk will occur near a water cooler, or maybe over lunch in the building’s cafeteria. Deprived and devoid of any alternative information or opinion, Boob # 1 will inevitably repeat something that was blasted into his head. In response, Boobs # 2, 3 etc will all nod their empty heads in agreement. Here’s a real world example — which all of you have surely witnessed in real life — of how the reinforcement process worked to support the absurd fairy tale that was the “official explanation” behind 9/11 False Flag:

Normie #1: “They’re saying now that there were 19 suicide hijackers with box-cutters that hijacked those four planes.”

Normie #2: “That’s correct. And the fire from the jet fuel was so intense that it melted the steel support structures of the Twin Towers.”


Normie #3: “Bastards! They hate us for our freedom!”

Now, let’s try one related to the Stupid-19 scamdemic:

Normie #1: “I hear that the death toll now is up to 1,000,000 in the United States.”


Normie #2: “You’re not following the 6-foot social distancing rule. Step back, please.”


Normie #3: Why is our office even open, anyway? We should all be home sheltering-in-place.

You see, notwithstanding our advanced “intellects,” we humans – regardless of IQ’s, “education,” or professional accomplishments – remain social animals by nature. In this respect, we are very similar in our core impulses to cows, sheep, lemmings, fish or birds. It is the peer-approved validation of our opinions — even more so than the original and deafening blare of the Four Bull Horns of Bullshit which created it — that will not only mentally and emotionally seal the erroneous belief in concrete — but also automatically induce fear and loathing for the stray “conspiracy theorist” who dares to question it. That’s how Bernays’s grand game of mass deception and manufactured “consensus” works its Black magic on the group mind. And so, my dear newbies and normies, now that you understand the philosophical underpinnings of the surprisingly simple “secret” of Society Shaping, ask yourself this question: “How did I really come to “know” what I think I know?”

After the Four Bullhorns have numbed the people into a stupor, their reinforcing conversational consensus with one another makes the brain damage permanent. The sheeple fallaciously reason that if everyone else has also “independently” arrived at the  opinion / attitude as they have, then it MUST BE “correct.”

The Great Reset Is Turning Back The Clock On Civilization

The covid-19 pandemic featured an unprecedented fusion of the interests of large and powerful corporations with the power of the state. Democratically elected politicians in many countries failed to represent the interests of their own citizens and uphold their own constitutions and charters of rights.

great reset john bush

Specifically, they supported lock-down measures, jab mandates, the suppression of a variety of early treatment options, the censorship of dissenting views, propaganda, interference in the private spheres of individuals, and the suspension of various forms of freedom. All of these policies and measures were centrally designed by the social engineers of the pandemic.

Globalists, who are obsessed with societal control, decided to take advantage of the pandemic in order to increase their authoritarian power. Prominent among them was, Klaus Schwab, founder and executive chairman of World Economic Forum (WEF). In June 2020, he stated that “the pandemic represents a rare but narrow window of opportunity to reflect, reimagine, and reset our world.” According to him, “every country, from the United States to China, must participate, and every industry, from oil and gas to tech, must be transformed.”

It is no secret that the WEF has focused on accelerating the implementation of central planning for the entire global population since the early days of pandemic. This plan to establish a new world order, known as the Great Reset, was a key theme at the recent annual meeting of the WEF, which was held during May 22–26 in Davos, Switzerland.

Drastic changes to the world order like the Great Reset do not happen spontaneously; rather, they are designed by global policy makers, including influential billionaires, politicians, celebrities, biased academics, wealthy philanthropists, and the bureaucrats of international organizations and institutions. These types of people support social engineering, because it will enable them to acquire control over the world’s wealth and natural resources, and strengthen their ability to shape society as they see fit.

Like their predecessors across history, the social engineers of the WEF believe that “there must be no spontaneous, unguided activity, because it might produce results which cannot be foreseen and for which the plan does not provide. It might produce something new, undreamt of in the philosophy of the planner.”1

Based on the WEF agenda, the successful completion of the current industrial transformation will require redesigning and controlling every minuscule aspect of human life and behavior, including the private spheres of individuals, the economy, politics, and societal organizations, without the possibility of voluntary and spontaneous cooperation between individuals based on their will, values, thoughts, and beliefs.

We were warned almost two centuries ago that when this type of tyrannical power succeeds, it will be “busy with a multitude of small” tasks penetrating “into private life,” governing families, and dictating the “actions” and “tastes of individuals.”2

In fact, some of the most ridiculous controls proposed by the WEF included limiting the washing of jeans to no “more than once a month” and “pyjamas once a week.” The WEF also advocates for transforming entire food systems by encouraging people to consume insects, arguing that “insect protein has high-quality properties and can be used as an alternative source of protein throughout the food chain, from feed for aquaculture to ingredients for nutritional supplements for humans and pets.”

Reforming the food system would also involve eating “cultured meat,” referring to “meat product created by cultivating animal cells in a controlled lab environment.”

The WEF also supports the elimination of “car ownership,” as “paying for a ride or delivery is as easy as tapping a smart phone app,” and “renting a vehicle” means that “car loans and insurance payments shrink or disappear.” Ultimately, the Great Reset aims to create a world where “you will own nothing, and will be happy” by 2030, as people will not possess any private property and rent everything they “need in life.”

However, this premise ignores the fact that private property ownership is associated with the advancement of civilizations, higher stages of material and moral development, and the development of modern family life. The WEF scenario would also diminish the sense of security, which is strengthened by the possession of private property.

Once the Great Reset is complete, individuals will essentially have their thinking and decision-making “done for them by men much like themselves, addressing them or speaking in their name.”3 Such a “desire to force upon the people a creed which is regarded as salutary for them is … not a thing that is new or peculiar to our time.”4

However, as various totalitarian regimes throughout history have demonstrated, the oppressive central planning of social engineers leads to the masses’ losing their sense of autonomy, freedom, dignity, creativity, and strength. Also lost is the incentive to improve one’s own condition and contribute to the progress of society.5

If the social engineering of the WEF is successful, then, by 2030, one will not be able to rely on oneself, family members, relatives, friends, or the community. This is because the supporters any absolutist regime want traditions and customs to be corrupted, “memories obliterated, habits destroyed, … liberty, chased from the laws.”6

In other words, they want to design a societal order where sympathy and mutual assistance will be rendered obsolete and where every citizen of the world is equally powerless, poor, and isolated, so that people will be unable to oppose the organized strength of global governance and become dependent on governments and their allies for their survival.

Eventually, nothing will protect citizens any longer, and citizens will no longer protect themselves.

Social engineers of the WEF are essentially advocating for natural freedom, which would allow the strong to exercise their power while subjugating the weak.

In doing so, they are basically calling for the world to move backward in the development of human history toward the re-institution of feudalism and slavery.

It is important to remember that economic freedom, positive freedom, political freedom, freedom of thought, freedom of speech, and freedom of the press are not attributes of primitive man or serfdom; rather, they are products of the most advanced stages of society.

To be more precise, these types of freedom are outcomes of the efforts of countless thinkers, social movements, revolutions, and wars throughout human history.

However, social engineers are not interested in the history and struggles of our civilization, as they believe that they possess expertise in all areas, which is the line of thought at the heart of all dictatorial regimes.7 They do not think that social engineering is alien to the true nature of human beings, even though it is based on “mechanical exactness” and does not “spring from a man’s free choice.”8

Furthermore, advocates of social engineering ignore the fact that “the progress of mankind, in powers of mind and heart, in well-being and in technique, in law and morality, necessarily involves the participation of the lower classes.”9

Anyone who believes that the social engineers of the WEF have noble intentions at heart as they design and implement the Great Reset should heed the warning of President Franklin D. Roosevelt (1935), who (ironically) declared:

The doctrine of regulation and legislation by “master minds” in whose judgment and will all the people may gladly and quietly acquiesce, has been too glaringly apparent at Washington during these last 10 years. Were it possible to find “master minds” so unselfish, so willing to decide unhesitatingly against their own personal interests or private prejudices, men almost godlike in their ability hold the scales of justice with an even hand, such a government might be to the interests of the country; but there are no such on our political horizon, and we cannot expect a complete reversal of all the teachings of history.

References:

1. F.A. Hayek, The Road to Serfdom (1944; repr., New York: Routledge, 2006), p. 166.
2. Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America: Historical-Critical Edition of “De la démocratie en Amérique,” ed. Eduardo Nolla and trans. James T. Schleifer, bilingual ed., 4 vols. (Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Fund, 2010), 1:223.
3. John Stuart Mill, On Liberty (Kitchener, ON: Batoche Books, 2001), p. 261.
4. Hayek, The Road to Serfdom, p. 168.
5. Hayek, The Road to Serfdom.
6. Tocqueville, Democracy in America, 2:156.
7. Hayek, The Road to Serfdom.
8. Wilhelm von Humboldt, The Limits of State Action. (1792; repr., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969).
9. Gustav Friedrich Schmoller, “Class Conflicts in General.” (American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 20, No. 4, 1915), p. 519.

Source: MISES.org

Exposing The ‘Digital ID Is A Human Right’ Scam

A major component of the Great Reset-Technocratic Agenda is the implementation of a worldwide digital identity scheme. One of the first steps to realize this goal is to convince the public that digital identity programs are a “human right” worth fighting for.

exposing the 'digital id is a human right' scam

Why is the push for digital identity absolutely vital to the Technocrats visions?

The world of 2030 — the one in which the World Economic Forum imagines “you will own nothing and be happy” — depends on an all-encompassing digital id program. This digital ID will allow a track and trace society where the authorities can see every purchase and every move you make.

One could argue much of society has already handed over this data with the ubiquitous use of credit cards which track purchases, and phones which log GPS data.

However, the digital ID scheme will also be linked to a digital wallet holding the local Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC), the digital currency of governments which will be needed for all legal transactions. Eventually, this digital ID and the digital wallet will be connected to, and impacted by, your individual social credit score.

As I have reported since March 2020, these initiatives were already in the works prior to COVID-19. However, it was the beginning of the COVID-19 panic that allowed governments around the world to push further towards their vision of Technocracy.

For example, we have been told that use of cash should be greatly reduced or eliminated altogether because of reports claiming COVID-19 spread through dirty old money. This conveniently leads into the calls for digital currency programs such as CBDCs.

Of course, we see the push for “contact tracing” apps to track the alleged spread of disease, and jjab passport/health passport apps have begun to acclimate the public to carrying a digital ID card with them everywhere they go.

The jjab passport is simply a gateway to a digital identity which has already been in the works in the United States, to one degree or another, since at least 2005 with the passing of the controversial REAL ID Act.

UN Sustainable Development Goal 16

This push towards a digital identity has its roots in the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals and the 2030 Agenda. The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are a collection of 17 interlinked objectives adopted by the United Nations in 2015 with the ostensible goal of ending poverty, protecting the planet, and spreading peace and prosperity to all people by 2030. Their actions, however, regularly belie their stated intentions.

The SDGs were part of a larger resolution known as the 2030 Agenda, or Agenda 2030, with the stated purpose of fighting climate change.

While the United Nations SDGs and Agenda 2030 are often touted as a tool for establishing healthy multilateral relationships between nations, in truth, they are based in a deeper agenda to monitor, control, and direct all life on the planet.

The 17 SDGs each tackle a different area of their ostensible fight for justice and equality. UN SDG 16 focuses on “Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions” and states that “by 2030, provide legal identity for all, including birth registration.”

One document from the United Nations titled “United Nations Strategy for Legal Identity for All” further defines what is meant by “legal” and “digital identity.” A legal identity is essentially a form of registration with a civil body (a government).

The UN document makes it clear that “legal identity is widely acknowledged to be catalytic for achieving at least ten of the SDGs“, and the data generated by the registration supports the measurement of more than 60 SDG indicators. “Legal identity has a critical role to ensure the global community upholds its promise of leaving no one behind as espoused in the 2030 Agenda,” the UN report states.

When it comes to digital identity, the document says digital identity is generally understood as a unique and constant identity — a virtual identification card, for example — assigned to individuals that authenticates them as users of all their portable digital devices.

This identity can apply to the digital and physical worlds. Using a digital identity involves passwords, cryptographic key, biometrics such as fingerprint or iris scanning.

Digital Identity As A Human Right

As we approach 2030 the “digital identity as a human right” meme is increasingly being planted in the minds of the masses. I would expect this trend to become a standard talking point amongst corporate media hacks and their followers.

Not only is the public being primed to accept digital identity as a method of tracking illness (and the population), but digital identity is being sold to the bleeding hearts of the Western world as a necessity for helping the so-called “unbanked” of the world and bringing them into modern financial systems.

The term unbanked refers to those people who, for one reason or another, lack bank accounts and credit cards. This apparent lack is often reported as a flaw of modern society, an example of another poor population being left behind. What goes unquestioned is whether integration into the banking system is the best thing for an individual or not.

It is assumed that all people should need or want to be involved in the debt based banking system, allowing the criminal banks behind The Great Reset to fund their projects with the people’s money.

Many of these people live in the developing world, and in places like Mexico there exists a thriving counter or informal economy of people trading, buying, and selling goods without taxes, regulations, or a digital record of any kind.

This type of economic and social activity is the exact behavior the Technocrats want to eliminate, precisely because it flies in the face of the Great Reset vision.

Thus the media must do its job to convince the public that colonization is not colonization when it involves sustainability and diversity. The people need to be convinced that those poor Mexican farmers won’t be complete until they have a digital ID, with a digital wallet for receiving the digital currency as part of the Universal Basic Income program. These gushing stories promoting digital identity as the savior of the developing world fail to mention the dark side to the digitization of all life, specifically the coming terror of social credit and social impact finance tools.

Instead we get headlines like, “Digital Inclusion. The Human Right to Have an Identity” from the Thales Group, a French multinational with ties to the French government and one of the largest military weapons contractors in the world.

“The lack of identity is not just a loss in terms of being seen by the system and society. It is an exclusion that prevents people from achieving their full potential. They cannot be educated, they cannot access healthcare services, and their children inherit this legacy as they’re born outside the system,” the group wrote in February 2021. Again, the general assumption is that there is no life to be had “outside the system”.

Meanwhile, Impakter Magazine, known for promoting the SDGs, published a piece titled “Digital Identity As a Basic Human Right” in May 2018. The Impakter piece promotes blockchain based ID’s and putting children’s birth certificates on the blockchain as well.

Thankfully there are some examples of pushback to the commonly held narratives surrounding digital id.

In April 2021, the Center for Human Rights and Global Justice published a skeptical piece titled “Everyone Counts! Ensuring that the human rights of all are respected in digital ID systems.” This article looked at some of the ways marginalized populations are further marginalized by digital systems. They warn of the “need for the human rights movement to engage in discussions about digital transformation so that fundamental rights are not lost in the rush to build a ‘modern, digital state’.”

The group Access Now published a report, Busting the dangerous myths of Big ID programs: cautionary lessons from India, focused on the concerns surrounding India’s implementation of their digital ID system, Aadhaar. The report concludes that so-called “Big ID programs” — that is programs implemented by governments with the help of Big Tech — are not needed to give people a legal identity. Further, the report found that Big ID creates space for surveillance to flourish, as demonstrated by India’s Aadhaar system.

In May 2021, the ACLU released a blog in response to concerns around jjab passports. The ACLU warned about digital identities, including recent efforts to mandate digital drivers licenses“A move to digital IDs is not a minor change but one that could drastically alter the role of identification in our society, increase inequality, and turn into a privacy nightmare,” the ACLU wrote.

Finally, the organization Privacy International directly challenged the United Nations SDGs and asked, “The Sustainable Development Goals, Identity, and Privacy: Does their implementation risk human rights?.” The report states:

“If actors fail to consider the risks, ID systems can themselves threaten human rights, particularly the right to privacy. They can become tools for surveillance by the state and the private sector; they can exclude, rather than include.

There are thus risks in the implementation of an ID scheme – not only that it fails to meet the promise of SDG 16.9, but that it also builds a system for surveillance and exclusion. It is thus essential to critically engage with the interpretation of the goal, and the uses to which it has been put.”

The World Economic Forum, The United Nations, And The World Bank

The United Nations is not the only supranational body lobbying for digital identity. In January 2021, the World Economic Forum met for their annual meeting to discuss the “Davos Agenda.” As TLAV previously reported, the January meeting was focused on restoring trust and outlining the plan for The Great Reset. In the lead up to the January 2021 meeting the WEF published an article titled “How digital identity can improve lives in a post-COVID-19 world.”

The article notes, “while government’s role is key, regulators have understood that they don’t hold all the cards and that solutions are needed across the public and private sectors. Digital identity trust frameworks led by governments working with the private sector are emerging.” This discussion of “frameworks led by governments working with the private sector” is exactly the public-private partnership the WEF has been promoting for decades.

We should also remember that the WEF was one of the first organizations to begin promoting the idea of jjab passports as part of a “new normal.” The WEF would officially announce The Great Reset initiative in June 2020, only 3 months into the COVID-19 panic.

Of course, the WEF’s Great Reset plan is ultimately a refinement of the UN’s Agenda 2030 and SDGs. Thus it should come as no surprise that the UN is also working on a form of digital identity. The UN Digital Solutions Centre (UN DSC) has developed an “innovative digital identity solution for UN personnel.”

The UN DSC, a pilot project of the UN World Food Programme (WFP) and the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), says they are working on a suite of digital solutions that can be shared among UN Agencies to “transform common business operations and streamline time-consuming transactional tasks.”

The UN Digital ID will use blockchain and some form of biometrics. It has been described as a digital wallet for UN personnel. The UN DSC website describes the project as “based on a blockchain, biometrics and a mobile app solution, this pilot will look to offer a unique digital ID for every UN employee for end-to-end lifecycle management from on-boarding through to retirement that will be immutable, protected, transparent and portable.”

While the UN and WEF have been promoting the acceptance of digital identity, the World Bank has been funding the development of such programs as part of the Identification for Development (ID4D) initiative. The World Bank is funding digital biometric ID programs in Mexico, pushing digital ID in poorer countries with the ostensible goal of providing legal identity to the 1.1 billion people who do not currently have one.

Luis Fernando García, the director of the Mexican digital rights organization R3D, says the programs are being funded by those interested in exploiting Mexico’s human data. “Sophisticated intelligence agencies in rich countries are delighted that poor countries are creating these databases of people that they can exploit for their benefit. They have offensive capabilities that allow them to attack, obtain, and collect information that less-developed countries create through these databases,” he stated in a 2021 interview.

“Like many other Global South national identity projects — whether in Kenya, Uganda, or Mexico — the World Bank is behind it. The World Bank is giving Mexico a loan of $225 million to implement the system. It is not promoting this approach in Germany or Canada or the U.S.: countries that do not have a national identity system. But they are promoting it in the Global South, which is very telling.”

At the same time an alliance of Microsoft, GAVI — the Global Vaccine Alliance which is funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation — and the Rockefeller Foundation have organized their efforts under the ID2020 project. The ID2020 project is an attempt to create digital identification for every single person on the planet. In 2018, Microsoft announced a formal partnership with the ID2020 project at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.

The usual cast of characters — the WEF, the UN, the World Bank, the Gates Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation — have spent the recent years lobbying for the need to create a digital identity for every person on the planet. During the COVID-19 crisis, these organizations promoted the use of jjab passports, which itself is a form of a digital identity.

Now, they are poised to use economic turmoil and fears of pandemic 2 to promote the value of digital identity, whether to receive a digital currency in exchange for dollars, or to prove vaccination status. One way or another, the Technocrats will force their digital identity prisons on the masses.

Colonization 3.0 And The Future Of Identity

The colonization of the Americas and Africa took place in the obvious forms — physical slavery, murder, rape, erasing of language, customs, and culture, etc. — and in less obvious ways — psychological trauma, isolation, loss of identity. The exploits of the European empires were the first wave of the colonization, with later colonization in the form of weaponized financial aid and assistance designed to trap developing nations in debts which require them to sell their natural wealth and resources.

Now, digital colonization is on the horizon. Once again, Africa and Latin America are on the list of targets for digital id schemes. As Impakter Magazine reported, there are plans for placing infant identity on a blockchain so there may be a permanent record of the person. These programs are already taking place in South Africa. Dr. Aaron Ramodumo says the country is on a “progressive transition” towards using biometrics for an infant identity with unique ID numbers.

South Africa’s new program will begin in 2024, and provide capabilities for palm prints, fingerprint, footprint, face and iris biometrics. Ramodumo told Biometric Update he hopes it will be available for infants soon. “While we want to build a policy around biometric capture of infants and children, we still have not made a selection of the specific technology,” Ramodumo said. “And that continues to be a subject of research, and I hope researchers will provide other options to choose from.”

Another organization which has been calling for a “legal identity” in Africa is ID4Africa. Coincidentally, the organization received 3 grants totaling $600,000 USD from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation in 2019 and 2021.

Despite the attempts to colonize Africa with digital identity, there is some hope. In late 2021, Kenya’s digital ID program, the National Integrated Identity Management System (NIIMS), was ruled illegal by the highest court because the government did not clearly establish the data privacy risks, nor did they outline a strategy for measuring and mitigating risks.

Ultimately, the crux of this discussion centers around identity and what is needed for a person to operate in the world today.

For example, in many nations a person already cannot open a bank account, attend school, rent a house, take out a loan, or drive a vehicle legally without presenting some form of identification. These are conditions that many people in the modern world have come to accept as norms.

However, there is a growing skepticism of the incoming digital systems, and, in some cases, even the “traditional” systems most people are familiar with.

Why should we have to show a government approved ID to be recognized as a person? Why must we submit to the government sanctioned identity if we do choose to carry a form of identity (digital or physical)?

These are important questions to ask and the assumptions we hold must be questioned. As we push further into the digital world of 2030, I encourage all readers to alert your friends and family to the dangers posed by digital identity.

Help them understand how digital id will inevitably be connected to digital currency, and eventually, a social credit score. This infrastructure, along with widespread facial recognition cameras, will be the invisible enforcement arm of the Technocratic State.

Together, facial recognition, digital identity, digital currency, and social credit scores represent a giant leap forward towards digital totalitarianism.

Leftists Hate Free Speech Because They Fear Dissent, Not ‘Disinformation’

I think one of the most bizarre social developments of the past 10 years in the US has been the slow but steady shift of the political left as supposed defenders of free speech to enemies of free speech. The level of mental gymnastics on display by leftists to justify their attacks on freedom and the 1st Amendment is bewildering.

leftists hate free speech because they fear dissent, not 'disinformation'

So much so that I begin to question if liberals and leftists ever actually had any respect for 1st Amendment rights to begin with? Or, maybe the only freedom they cared about all along was the freedom to watch pornography…

One can see the steady progression of this war on speech and ideas, and the end game is predictable:

Is anyone really that surprised that the Biden Administration is implementing a Ministry of Truth in the form of the DHS Disinformation Governance Board?

Can we just accept the reality at this point that leftists are evil and their efforts feed into an agenda of authoritarianism? Is there any evidence to the contrary?

Before I get into this issue, I think it’s important to point out that it’s becoming tiresome to hear arguments these days suggesting that meeting leftists “somewhere in the middle” is the best and most desirable option. I see this attitude all over the place and I think it comes from a certain naivety about the situation we are facing as a country.

Moderates and “normies” along with people like Bill Maher and Russell Brand are FINALLY starting to realize how bag-lady-crazy leftists are and the pendulum is swinging back slightly. But, it was conservatives that were calling out the social justice cult and their highway to hell for years.

While everyone else was blissfully ignorant, we were fighting the battles that stalled the leftist advance. This is not to say I’m not happy to have moderates and reformed liberals on board, it’s a great thing. However, the time for diplomacy and meeting leftists halfway is long dead.

There is no such thing as a “center” in our society anymore, either you lean conservative and you support freedom, or you lean left and support authoritarianism. There is no magical and Utopian in-between that we need to achieve to make things right. We are not required to tolerate leftist authoritarianism because of “democracy.”

Sometimes certain ideologies and certain groups are mutually exclusive to freedom; meaning, they cannot coexist within a society that values liberty.

We need to be clear about where the lines are drawn, because sitting on the fence is not an option. Walk in middle of road? Get squished like grape.

To understand how leftists got to the point of enthusiastic hatred of free speech rights there are some psychological and philosophical factors that need to be addressed. These include specific ideals that leftists value that are disjointed or simply irrational:

Hate Speech Is Real And Must Be Censored?

First, as I have argued for many years, there is no such thing as “hate speech.” There is speech that some people don’t like and speech they are offended by. That is all.

Constitutionally, there is no hate speech. People are allowed to say any offensive thing they wish and believe however they wish as long as they are not slandering a person’s reputation with lies or threatening them with direct bodily harm. If you are offended by criticism, that is your problem.

Leftists believe the opposite. Instead of growing a thicker skin they think that “hate speech” should be illegal and that they should be the people that determine what hate speech is.

This is a kind of magical door to power, because if you can declare yourself the arbiter of hate speech you give yourself the authority to control ALL speech. That is to say, as the thought police all you have to do is label everything you don’t like as hate speech, no matter how factual, and you now dictate the course of society.

No one is capable of this kind of objectivity or benevolence. No person alive has the ability to determine what speech is acceptable without bias.

Like the One Ring in the Lord of The Rings, there is no individual or group capable of wielding such power without being corrupted by it. Either there is no hate speech, or everything becomes hate speech.

Free Speech Is Negated By Property Rights?

This is in direct reference to social media websites and it’s an oversimplification of the issue of free speech and large social media platforms. Here is the conundrum or “false paradigm” if you will:

Leftists argue for private property rights, but only when it comes to vast corporate big tech platforms like Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, etc. They like private property rights for companies that they think are on their side politically; they hate private property rights for everyone else. Just look at their response to Elon Musk’s recent Twitter buyout; the leftists are demanding that Musk be stopped at all costs, and they demand that the SEC and FCC step in to disrupt the sale because they claim Musk’s purchase is a “threat to democracy.”

The media itself is clamoring to disrupt Musk’s takeover of Twitter. Whether or not you trust him, Musk’s acquisition of the platform has at least exposed the totalitarian attitudes of mainstream journalists for everyone to see. They are now even admitting on air that THEY control public discussion; that it is “their job,” and they see Musk as a threat to that monopoly.

Why are Elon Musk’s private property rights less important or protected than the original shareholders of Twitter (Vangaurd, BlackRock, Morgan Stanley and a Saudi Prince)? Because Musk does not claim to represent leftist designs and interests?

Leftists have no principles, they only care about manufacturing consent. Their method of winning requires that they never restrict themselves within the boundaries of values or morals. Again, this is the epitome of pure evil.

Beyond that irony, though, is the deeper issue of government intervention vs business rights. Many people seem to think that government power is supposed to balance out corporate power when the truth is that governments and corporations work hand in hand; they are often one in the same entity.

Twitter and other Big Tech platforms receive billions upon billions of dollars in government stimulus and tax incentives every year. Corporations as a concept are essentially a socialist creation. They enjoy limited liability and corporate personhood along with other special protections under government charter.

With all these protections, incentives, bailouts and stimulus measures it is almost impossible for small and new businesses to compete with them. They represent a monopoly through cartel; they control the marketplace by colluding with each other and colluding with the government.

A perfect example of this would be the coordination between multiple Big Tech companies to bring down Parler, a conservative leaning competitor to Twitter.

This required some of the biggest companies in the world working in unison along with the blessing of government officials to disrupt the ability of a new company to offer an alternative, and all because Parler was getting too big.

In the case of a private person’s home or their small business or small website, it’s true that there are no free speech rights.

They can kick you out and they don’t have to give a reason. But when it comes to massive conglomerates that receive billions in OUR tax dollars in order to stay alive, no, they do not deserve private property rights.

They have now made themselves into a public utility, and that means they are subject to constitutional limitations just as public schools and universities are.

This is a concept that leftists just don’t grasp. They view corporate power as sacrosanct…as long as it serves their interests.

Consider global corporations like Disney and their open intention to undermine the passage of Florida’s anti-grooming bill; this represents Disney’s vocal support for the sexualization and indoctrination of children in Florida schools.

Leftists cheered the announcement and claimed that without Disney, Florida’s economy would be wrecked. Instead, the state turned the tables and took away incentives they had been giving to Disney for decades.

Leftists responded by accusing Governor DeSantis of being a “fascist” and attacking free speech.

But let’s break this down: Leftists happily supported Disney, a massive conglomerate, and their efforts to undermine the will of the voters in Florida.

The state government stops them from undermining the voters by taking away the money and special incentives that belong to the voters. In turn, leftists claim this is a violation of Disney’s rights?

The disparity between leftist arguments on Elon Musk’s takeover of Twitter vs. Disney’s attempted sabotage of Florida law could not be more confused.

When it comes to Twitter they love the idea of censorship and react with panic when the mere prospect of free speech (within the confines of US law) is presented.

When it comes to Disney, they say they love the idea of free speech, and anyone that wants to limit the corporation’s influence within Florida, no matter how criminal, is accused of fascism.

The difference is obvious – Musk appears to be an uncontrolled element, while Disney is an “ally.” Free speech and property rights are only allowed for one side of the cultural divide. Leftists attacking freedom is free speech; defending ourselves against those attacks is a threat to democracy. It’s absurd.

Disinformation Is A Threat And Censorship Is The Solution?

The holy grail of censorship is not website filters and algorithms, because as we have seen with Twitter, those platforms could be built or purchased by someone that does not share in the leftist agenda.

Instead, government intervention and the ability to define what is proper and improper discourse is the ultimate goal. The end game of authoritarians is always to write mass censorship into law, as if it is justified once it is codified.

Corporate elites and political puppets like Biden pontificating about the threat of “disinformation” is hilarious for a number of reasons, but mainly because it is the power brokers and the media that have been the main purveyors of disinformation for a long time. Suddenly today they care about the spread of lies?

I think it is obvious that such people are far more worried about the spread of facts, evidence and truth. They cannot debate on fair ground because they will lose, so, the only other option is to silence us.

The institution of the Disinformation Governance Board is a clear indication that the establishment and the useful idiots on the political left are becoming DESPERATE.

Their grip on the public mind is slipping, and we saw this during their recent attempts to enforce medical tyranny across the country in the name of covid.

Luckily, conservatives in at least 20 red states fought against the implementation of covid lockdowns, mandates and jjab passports which would have annihilated our constitutional rights forever.

For years I heard the argument that when the jackboots arrived conservatives would do nothing, and now we know this is nonsense.

Some of the few free places in the world during two years of pandemic fear mongering were red states in America, which coincidentally also have the highest concentration of conservatives.

If you want to know what our country would look like had conservatives not stopped the tide of tyranny, just take a gander at China today.

They have some of the strictest covid mandates on the planet and yet they are once again locking down millions of citizens due to “high infection rates.” Not only that, but they are starving their own people in the process.

It’s madness, and it’s exactly what leftists were arguing in favor of just a few months ago. The US is mostly open today, just as red states like mine have been free for almost the entirety of the pandemic, and what has changed? Half the country is still unvaccinated – Is there mass death in the streets? Nope.

Nothing has changed in terms of covid. The mandates made no difference whatsoever, other than to disrupt the economy and reduce people’s freedoms.

Not long ago, pointing out this fact was considered “disinformation” that needed to be silenced in order to “save lives.” The Hunter Biden laptop story was called disinformation.

The Wuhan Lab story was called disinformation. Fauci’s gain of function research on covid at the Wuhan lab was called disinformation. The fact that vaccinated people still contract and die from covid was called disinformation.

In other words, what the government and corporate oligarchs call “disinformation” today is eventually called reality tomorrow.

I would be happy to enter into a fair debate with White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki on any of the above issues and her views of what constitutes “disinformation,” but she would never do such a thing because she knows she would be crushed like a bug.

It is not the government’s job to protect the public from information, whether real or fake. It is not their job to filter or censor data or ideas. They are not qualified to do this. No one is.

Leftists operate from a collectivist mentality and this makes them believe that society is a singular entity that needs to be managed and manipulated to achieve a desired outcome.

They have no concept of individual responsibility and discernment, but that is a side note to the real problem. They support information control because facts and ideas outside of their narrative could possibly damage that narrative. And, if the narrative is damaged they lose their feeling of power, which is all they really care about.

If your narrative is so fragile that it does not hold up to scrutiny or alternative viewpoints then it must not be worth much of a damn. If you have to force people or manipulate people into believing the way you do, then your ideology must be fundamentally flawed.

The truth speaks volumes for itself and eventually wins without force. Only lies need to be forced into the collective consciousness. Only lies require tyranny.

Eventually reality wins over propaganda, unless total censorship and totalitarianism can be achieved. Nothing has changed in the 200+ years since the creation of the Bill of Rights.

Free speech is still integral to a functioning society. Without it, society crumbles. They will claim that today things are different and that society needs to be “protected from itself.” This is what tyrants always say when trying to steal power.

Most people reading this know by now that this is a war. It’s not a political debate that requires give-and-take, but a full-bore winner-take-all conflict. A DHS faction which is mandated to monitor our speech and propagandize the public is unacceptable and must be eliminated.

Leftist and globalist monopoly of social media communications platforms is unacceptable and must be eliminated. The imposition of leftist and globalist ideology into the media narrative while censoring any contrary information is unacceptable and must be eliminated.

This is about saving the remaining embers of American culture. If we do not take an aggressive stand now, the next generation may never know liberty. Everything we hold dear is at stake.

By Brandon Smith, Alt-Market.us

Here’s What The ‘Great Reset’ Means And What The Globalist ‘Elites’ Want To Achieve

I first heard the phrase “Great Reset” way back in 2014. Christine Lagarde, who was head of the IMF at the time, was suddenly becoming very vocal about global centralization. It was an agenda that was generally only whispered about in the dark corners of institutional white papers and the secretive meetings of banking elites, but now these people were becoming rather loud about it.

here's what the 'great reset' means and what the globalist 'elites' want to achieve

Lagarde was doing a Q&A at the World Economic Forum and the notion of the “Reset” was very deliberately brought up; what the project entailed was vague, but the basic root of it was a dramatic shift away from the current economic, social and political models of the world into a globally centralized and integrated system – A “New World Order,” if you will…

It’s important to remember that we had just jumped through the fires of an international credit collapse which started in 2008 and had continued to cause uncertainty in markets for years. The central banks had dumped tens of trillions of dollars worth of stimulus into the system just to keep it on life support.

Some of us in the alternative media believed that these actions were not meant to save the economy, only zombify the economy through currency devaluation and inflation. Not long down the road, this zombie creation would turn on us and try to eat us alive, and only the central bankers new exactly when this would occur.

Think of the crash of 2008 as Stage 1 of the Reset agenda; the globalists were getting cocky and were ready to unveil their plans to the public.

Lagarde’s discussion at the WEF was also held around the time that Klaus Schwab was introducing his 4th Industrial Revolution concept, which is a little more forward with what the globalists really want.

He talks excitedly of a true “global society” and a world in which people turn to Artificial Intelligence (AI) as a better means of governance. He even suggests that laws would eventually be dictated by AI and that courts would be run by robots.

Of course, he admits that this cannot happen without a period of economic deconstruction in which people and governments will have to choose between sacrifice for the sake of stability or continued pain in the name of holding on to the “old ways.”

Look at it this way: The Great Reset is the action or the chaos, and the 4th Industrial Revolution is the intended result or planned “order.” That is to say, it’s a new order created out of engineered chaos.

Yeah, it sounds like bad science fiction, but remember these are the people that enjoy the undivided attention of many of our political leaders and they rub elbows with the central bankers at the Federal Reserve.

I’ll say it again: The proponents of the Great Reset and the 4th Industrial Revolution, who want to completely undermine and reconstitute our society and way of life, are close partners with our national leaders and the very bankers that could force such a reset to happen through a deliberate collapse.

The globalists have been trying to rebrand and repackage their New World Order agenda for many years, and the Reset was what they came up with. Rather than being innocuous sounding, the term threatens systemic upheaval and an erasure of the past.

When you “reset” something it usually goes back to zero – A blank slate that the engineers can use to rewrite the code and the functions. But what does this really mean?

What do the globalists REALLY WANT? Here are the details, so far as I can prove or support with evidence, of what the “Great Reset” actually is and what programs they hope to enforce:

Total Global Economic Centralization

Some people might claim that we already have global economic centralization, but they don’t understand what this really means. While national central banks are all members of the IMF and the Bank for International Settlements and take their marching ordersfrom these institutions, what the globalists want is open global governance of finance, probably through the IMF.

In other words, it’s not enough that they manipulate economies secretly by using national central banks as proxies; what they want is to stop hiding and to come out into the light as the magnanimous rulers they think they are.

The ultimate goal of full centralization is to erase the very idea of free markets and to allow a handful of people to micromanage every aspect of trade and business. It’s not just about influence, it’s about economic empire. But in order to achieve a global central bank they must first implement a one world currency plan.

A One World Digital Currency System

The IMF has been talking about using their Special Drawing Rights basket as the foundation for a global currency for years (since at least the year 2000). Around a decade ago China started taking on trillions of dollars in debt just to qualify as a member of the SDR system, and the IMF has hinted that when all is said and done that system will go digital. All that is needed is the right kind of crisis to shock the public into compliance.

This was evident at the height of the covid pandemic lockdowns and the threat of economic disaster when globalist institutions began to suggest that the IMF’s SDR could be used as a safety net for nations, with strings attached, of course. But beyond the stresses of the pandemic there is a much bigger crisis; namely the stagflationary crisis now on our doorstep. With multiple national currencies in decline and the dollar’s world reserve status increasingly in question, I have no doubt that the globalists will take the opportunity to offer the public their digital currency as a solution.

The new system would be more like a phantom currency for a time. The SDR would be the glue or the backing while national currencies remain in circulation until the digital framework becomes pervasive. The IMF and the people behind it would become the defacto world central bank, with the power to steer the course of all national economies through a single currency mechanism.

On the micro-economic side, each and every individual would now be dependent on a digital currency or cryptocurrency which removes all privacy in trade. All transactions would be tracked, and by the very nature of blockchain technology and the digital ledger this would be required. The money elites wouldn’t have to explain the tracking, all they would have to say is “That’s how the technology functions; without the ledger it doesn’t work.”

A Global Social Credit System

The evil inherent in globalism was readily apparent during the recent lockdowns and the violent push for medical tyranny. Despite the fact that covid only had a median Infection Fatality Rate of only 0.27% according to dozens of official studies, the WEF contingent of politicians and world leaders were frothing at the mouth, proclaiming that the existence of covid gave them the right to take total control of people’s lives.

Klaus Schwab and the WEF happily announced that the pandemic was the beginning of the “Great Reset” and the 4th Industrial Revolution, stating that the covid crisis presented a perfect “opportunity” for change.

The jjab passports were thankfully defeated by numerous conservative red states in the US, leading to the complete reversal of such policies across most of the western world. We were free for years while many blue states and other countries were facing authoritarianism and this caused a lot of problems for the globalists. It’s hard to institute a global medical dystopia when people around the world can look at the conservatives in the US and see that we are living just fine without the controls.

The vax passports need to be understood as a first step towards something else – The beginning of a massive social credit system much like the one being used in China right now. If you think cancel culture is a nightmare today, just think what would happen if the collectivist mob had the power to drop a review bomb on your social credit account and declare you to be untouchable? Imagine if they had the power to simply shut down your ability to get a job, to shop in grocery stores and even shut down access to your money? Without your compliance to the collective, access to normal survival necessities would be impossible.

This is what the globalists want, as they openly admitted at the start of the pandemic, and the vax passports would have been an introduction to that technocratic horror had we conservatives not stood our ground.

You Will Own Nothing And Be Happy By 2030

The “Sharing Economy” (also sometimes referenced in parallel with “Stakeholder Capitalism”) is a concept that has been making the rounds in the WEF for a few years now. The media has attempted at every turn to spread lies and disinformation claiming that the plan does not exist; but again, it is openly admitted.

The sharing economy is essentially a communistic economy, but distilled down to a bizarre minimalism even people who lived in the Soviet Union did not have to experience. The structure is described as a kind of commune based society in which people live in Section 8-style housing, with shared kitchens, shared bathrooms, and barely any privacy. All property is rented, or borrowed. All cars are borrowed and shared, most transit is mass transit, basic personal items such as computers, phones, and even cooking utensils might be shared or borrowed items. As the WEF says, you will own nothing.

Being happy about it is another matter.

Learn more here: The Great Reset Will Render All Products As Services, to Implement ‘You Will Own Nothing’ by 2030.

The argument for this kind of society is of course that “climate change” and the frailties of consumer economics demand that we reduce our living standards to near zero and abandon the sacred ideal of property ownership for the sake of the planet.

Set aside the fact that carbon based global warming is a farce. The world’s temperatures have only risen by 1 DEGREE CELSIUS in the span of a century, according to the NOAA. This was data that climate scientists had attempted to hide or gloss over for years, but now it is out there for everyone to see. There is no proof of man made global warming. None.

500 Climate Scientists & Professionals Sign Letter to UN: ‘There Is No Climate Emergency’.

Over 30,000 Scientists Declare Climate Change A Hoax.

Top Scientist Resigns: ‘Global Warming is a $Trillions Scam — It Has Corrupted Many Scientists’.

The globalists have been scheming to use environmentalism as an excuse for centralization since at least 1972, when the Club Of Rome published a treatise titled ‘The Limits To Growth’. Twenty years later they would publish a book titled ‘The First Global Revolution.’ In that document they specifically recommend using global warming as a vehicle:

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

The statement comes from Chapter 5 – The Vacuum, which covers their position on the need for global government. The quote is relatively clear; a common enemy must be conjured in order to trick humanity into uniting under a single banner, and the elites see environmental catastrophe, caused by mankind itself, as the best possible motivator.

They present the solution of the shared economy concept as if it is a new and bold idea. What the globalists ultimately want for their Great Reset, however, is a tidal wave reversal from freedom and individual prosperity back to a very old manner of doing things, similar to ancient feudalism. You become a peasant working on land owned by the elites, or by the state, and you will never be allowed to own that land.

The only difference would be that in a feudal empire of the past peasants could not own land because of the class system. This time around, you won’t be allowed to own anything, including land, because wanting to own anything is “selfish” and destructive to the planet.

Total Information Control

The truth is a rare commodity these days, but nowhere near as rare as it will be if these elitists get what they want. The globalists are far more open about their agenda today than they have ever been before, and I suspect this is because they believe they will be able to rewrite the history of today’s events with impunity after the Reset unfolds. They think they will own the world of information and will be able to edit our cultural memory as they go.

The mainstream media calls all of this “conspiracy theory.” I call it conspiracy reality. It’s hard to deny openly spoken admissions by the globalists themselves, all they can do is try to spin the information as much as possible to keep the public on the fence in terms of what needs to be done, which is a purge of the globalists from our country and perhaps the entire world.

If we do not do this, there will come a time when nothing I say here is remembered and no evidence of the Reset plan will exist. The establishment will have eliminated all notions of it from written history, leaving only a fantasy tale of how the world collapsed and a small organization of “visionary” globalists saved it from oblivion through a new religion of centralization.

Source: Alt-Market.us

UK Government To Launch Digital ID Technology In April 22

The UK government is pushing ahead with its nationwide digital ID plans, despite half of the responses to its public consultation on digital identity opposing the idea.

uk government to launch digital id technology in april 22

Source

On April 6, 2022, new digital identity document verification technology (IDVT) that enables data sharing between public bodies and businesses for the purpose of identity verification will be introduced. It will be made available to UK employers, landlords, and letting agents who can use it to digitally carry out pre-employment criminal record checks, right to work checks, and right to rent checks.

The introduction of this digital IDVT is part of the government’s far-reaching digital ID plans which were announced in March. The government has framed these digital ID plans as a way for UK citizens to “easily and quickly prove their identity using digital methods instead of having to rely on traditional physical documents.”

Under these digital ID plans, UK citizens will be able to “create a digital identity with a trusted organisation” which can be used “in-person or online” and “via a phone app or website.” These trusted organisations will then be given a “legal gateway” to “carry out verification checks against official data held by public bodies to help validate a person’s identity.” The government will also allow the “trust” generated by a single successful digital identity check to be passed to other organisations “where appropriate.”

The trusted organisations that provide these digital identity solutions will need to get accredited and certified under legislation that the government plans to introduce. Once accredited and certified, they’ll be “given a trust mark to demonstrate their compliance and will be defined as being a trust-marked organisation.”

A new interim governing body, the Office for Digital Identities and Attributes (ODIA), will be set up in the Department for Digital, Culture, Media, and Sport (DCMS) and it will have the power to issue these trust marks. The ODIA will also publish a publicly viewable list of trust-marked organisations.

new legislation set to make digital identities more trustworthy and secure

Source

Other companies that rely on the digital identity solutions provided by trust-marked organizations won’t need to be certified but may be subject to “flow-down conditions” such as agreements to not share the information they receive.

Before announcing these digital ID plans, the government sought views and feedback on its proposed approach to digital identity via a public consultation.

50% of the responses to this consultation were “against digital identity in principle” but the government didn’t include these responses in its statistical analysis of responses to the consultation because they “did not engage with the questions.”

However, the government insisted that “outside the context of producing the statistical analysis, we have taken these responses into account as part of this consultation exercise.”

The government also admitted that some respondents feared that “digital identities are going to be made mandatory for all people” but dismissed these concerns as “false” and said it will seek feedback on how to “encourage more inclusive digital identities.”

“As set out in the consultation, there are no plans to make digital identities mandatory, but we recognise they are an emerging technology and people may not be fully aware of the privacy and security benefits,” the government said.

“Therefore we will take steps to increase understanding amongst potential users and engage with civil society groups to receive their expert feedback on how to increase inclusion, now and into the future.”

The government added that it’s “committed to ensuring” that “people will still be able to use available paper documentation.”

The government’s digital ID framework has completed alpha testing. The next steps are a beta publication followed by beta testing before the framework is formalized in legislation.

The government cited “positive feedback received about the ability to conduct right to work and right to rent checks remotely during the COVID-19 pandemic” as one of its reasons for initiating its review of digital ID technology.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the UK government embraced jjab passports – a technology that shares many similarities with digital ID by requiring citizens to use a digital pass.

These jjab passports were used to scoop up large amounts of data from UK citizens, some of which was shared with private companies.

identity document validation technology in the right to work and right to rent schemes, and bs pre employment checking

Source

Vaccine passports are one of many examples of the UK government using or proposing the use of technology to surveil its citizens. Other examples include it secretly surveilling millions of COVID jjab recipients via their phones, proposing a social credit style app to encourage healthy eating, and proposing the increased use of surveillance drones to “protect” women.

Despite its history of surveillance, the government insists that this digital ID technology will have “strong security and privacy standards.”

The government’s digital ID plans were announced in the same month that the UK government’s Online Safety Bill began its legislative journey. This bill mandates the implementation of identity and age verification technology on many large online platforms.

This current attempt to introduce digital ID comes almost a decade after the UK government launched its 2013 digital ID project “Verify” which was blasted by the National Audit Office and internal Parliamentary committees for “failing the public” and missing all of its performance targets.

The Absolute HORRORS Of The Social Credit System That Is Coming To The Western World

A few years ago, in a book called The Game’s Afoot (published in 2018), the author wrote that the Chinese Government was giving people marks according to behavior. Its called social engineering, and citizens were being ranked and rated according to their behavior.

social credit system tyranny

‘ The Government,’ It said, ‘will measure people’s behavior in order to decide what services they are entitled to. Anyone who incurs black marks for traffic offences, fare dodging or jay walking will find that they are no longer entitled to the full range of public services and rights. Moreover, internet activity will also be used to assess behavior. Individuals who do bad things on the internet (or whose searches are considered questionable) will find themselves ‘black marked’. Individuals who have ‘responsible’ jobs will be subjected to enhanced scrutiny.’

It was called a social credit score and I wrote then that it was likely that Western Governments would soon follow suit.

And they are doing so with great enthusiasm. It might not have obviously reached your town just yet – but it will, oh it will.

China has led the way because the Chinese system is more ruthlessly efficient than anything the West can offer. The Chinese government has more control over everything and the people don’t have much control over anything.

It works very easily.

Everyone starts off with so many points.

And a smart app on every phone measures behavior and helps the authorities decide whether or not you are good citizen.

There are, of course, video cameras absolutely everywhere watching to see whether you cross the road at the wrong time, smoke in public, throw down litter or do anything considered anti-social or inappropriate. If you talk to the wrong sort of people you’ll find your credit rating goes down. Stand and talk to me and you’ll get black marks.

China has one camera for every two people and they’re equipped with facial recognition technology that can pick an individual out of a football crowd in less time than it takes to say `surely they can’t do that!’

Supermarket computers watch to see how much you spend on alcohol, cigarettes, sweets and fatty foods. You’ll lose points if you spend too much on the wrong sort of food.

Local authorities measure how much recycling you put out and cameras in the bins will tell computers how much food you’ve thrown away and how much excess packaging you’ve had to discard.

Of course, social credit scores are already here in the West and they have been introduced slowly.

In the UK for example, drivers of more expensive motor cars have to pay a special, massively increased tax to use a motor car on the roads. That’s a blatant punishment for spending a lot on a car.

On the other hand, citizens who drive electric cars do not have to pay anything towards the building, maintenance and repair of roads. They are exempt from the tax because they are `good’ citizens. Their cars use the roads just as much as cars which are powered with petrol or diesel but they are exempt. Drivers of petrol or diesel powered cars are punished for being `bad’ citizens and must pay ever-rising annual taxes to pay for the roads. The system ignores the fact that electric cars have been proven to be no better for the environment than petrol or diesel powered cars. Drive your car into a city and you’ll have to pay a special penalty.

If you live in a house that is bigger than you need then you will be marked down and your taxes will rise. If you have spare rooms you’ll be punished. If you do a useful job and give money to charity you’ll get extra points. If you criticise the Government then you’ll lose points.

When you’re away from home, the authorities will, of course, know where you are all the time.

Indeed, if you behave badly you won’t be allowed to go far from home. If you haven’t obeyed all the health regulations you won’t be allowed to travel on public transport, fly anywhere or go abroad.

If your social credit rating goes down you won’t be able to borrow money, buy a house or book a decent room in a hotel.

If your rating goes down too far you won’t be allowed to go into hospital, and if you get in by accident they’ll slam a Do Not Rescusitate notice around your neck before you can say `what’s that for?’

You’ll receive bonus points if you live in a tiny, modern, poorly built flat with thin walls and absolutely no privacy but you’ll lose those points if you keep a pet or complain about absolutely anything.

If you spend too much on clothes or shoes your rating will go down and saving money will mark you out as guilty of something or other and you won’t be able to hire a car, get a promotion at work, use a gym or get your children into a school with textbooks.

If you are a lot of trouble you’ll find that your internet speeds will slow to a crawl and if you have your own business and talk back to council officials you won’t get any help with planning problems or be able to obtain any official government contracts.

If you don’t dress appropriately when out in public or are spotted crossing the road when the lights are against you then you’ll be photographed and your picture displayed. If you have a row with a neighbour then your pictures will be put on a billboard near your home and you’ll be shamed. If you are late with your taxes you’ll be marked down for regular audits, your business will be inspected once a week and your picture will appear on a shame board on the internet. You’ll find it impossible to obtain licences, permits and loans you might need.

In restaurants the cameras will study your manners and your eating habits and the amount of food you leave on the plate – all likely to damage your social credit rating.

Snitches, sneaks, police officers and over-compliant government employees will mark you down for any sin of commission or omission.

And by now you probably think I’m making this up and I wish I were but I’m not. We’re not talking about the far distant future. We’re talking about the very new future.

You’ll receive points if you give blood, lose points if you associate with people with low scores, be punished if you spend frivolously or don’t praise the Government on social media.

Eating meat or indulging in unsuitable activities will result in a severe points loss, as will putting too much refuse into public bins. Facial recognition cameras in bins will see and punish you and reduce food credit.

Not having the correct number of children, being overweight and owning land will result in a loss of social credit points. In the UK the Office for National Statistics has already claimed that childless women will be a burden on the state because they’ll have no one to look after them).

Not having a smart meter will result in a loss of points as will any example of civil disobedience. Chronic sickness, mental illness, being old and being disabled will lose you points as will being arrested (it doesn’t matter whether you are found guilty).

Having too big a carbon footprint, being middle class or white or asking too many questions will all result in a loss of points as will being too protective of your family.

You’ll lose social credit points if you cause some `identity harm’, say something that makes someone feel uncomfortable about who they are, where they are from or what they look like – or don’t say something that causes them to feel good.

If you show any micro-aggression, exhibit white privilege or stir up hatred you’ll be punished. If you behave in a threatening or abusing or insulting manner you will be in trouble as you will if you communicate threatening abusive or insulting material to another person.

Your intention will be irrelevant. The complainant only has to say he was hurt. Writers, actors or film or stage directors could be charged if anyone finds any of their material offensive. Shakespearean plays won’t appear much in the future.

You probably think I’m really kidding now. If you do just check out what is happening in Scotland.

In the UK, the police now define a crime or incident as hateful based on the perception of the victim (and not on the intent of the offender).

Naturally, the police and politicians have been encouraging citizens to snitch on those breaking laws.

You can get into serious trouble for playing loud music or having trees in your garden. Trees are bad because they may interfere with communications and have no practical purpose. There will be no place for aesthetics or nature in the New World Order.

What else will be bad?

Eating on public transport, missing a medical appointment, parking in the wrong place, missing a job interview and jaywalking will all lose your points and make your life more difficult.

If you think I’ve gone mad you should know that cybersecurity experts have discovered that 32% of adults between 25 and 34 in 21 countries (a total of 10,000 individuals) have already had difficulty getting a mortgage or loan because of their social media activity.

So far around 4.5 billion people around the world use the internet and most have social media accounts.

A fairly scary survey found that two thirds of individuals are willing to share information about themselves or others to get a shopping discount while half are willing to do so if it helps them skip queues at airports. One in two individuals say they are happy for the government to monitor everyone’s social media behaviour if it means keeping the public safe.

Of course, it will be impossible to find out what your social credit score is, to find out exactly how scores are made up or to correct any error. And scores will be changed in real time. So you could join a queue thinking you are entitled to hire a car or board a train and find, when you get to the front of the queue that your rating has changed and you can’t do either of those things.

Governments, big companies and local authorities are already gathering information about you from facial recognition cameras, biometric studies at airports, drones, surveillance planes and social media. This is the technocratic state in full fly. Using a silly name or avatar on social media will provide you with absolutely no protection. They know exactly who stinkyfeet of Weymouth really is and they know the name, address and inside leg measurement of bumfluff from Colorado.

You can forget about privacy, freedom or rights.

We will soon all be living in China.

If one person in a family breaks the law, the whole family will be punished.

Taking an active part in a religious ceremony will result in punishment. You may, for example, be sent to an education and training centre where the inmates study political propaganda.

Every time you give information on line they are storing up information about you, your views, your personality and so on.

And there are so, so many ways in which your social credit score can be adversely affected.

If you drop rubbish in a public place you will be shamed and will lose points. In Thailand, tourists who drop rubbish in a national park must give their name and address. If they leave rubbish behind they are in trouble.

All this is known as social engineering. It’s something politicians have been trying to do for many years since, when it works, which it does, it gives them complete control over the population. There is no longer any need to worry about opposition or criticism.

In China, citizens who do `good’ things for the State and their community are rewarded by having their photographs and names on a local wall. This is exactly what I remember seeing in East Germany in the 1970s. And back then people vied with one another to please the State and win a place on the wall.

So, again, if you want to know the sort of society you and your children will live in then look at China now where what people do, say and think is being monitored.

But our future won’t be so free and easy as life in China is at the moment.

We are moving rapidly into a dystopian, digital dictatorship.

Good behaviour will be rewarded and bad behaviour punished. But who defines what is good and what is bad?

Geotracking is the new normal now. Your financial records are combined with your criminal record, academic record, medical record and shopping patterns. They’re keeping an eye on the type of friends you have, the videos you watch, the people you date or marry or meet.

This is Big Brother on speed

In the brave new world, those with a low credit score won’t be able to move an inch.

People who speak out about corruption or who question the propaganda will be punished. If they are fined then their fine will be higher because they are seen as bad people.

And it’s already all happening.

Computer games are training us for our future.

the author is banned in China because he wrote a column for a Chinese newspaper which was considered unacceptable. His books in Chinese were instantly removed from sale.

I leave you with this fact.

There are public loos in China which won’t let you in without first checking your face and identifying you. Only then will the machine dispense the small quantity of loo paper you are allowed.

How many sheets will you be allowed if you have a low credit score? Two? One? None at all?

You may be smiling now.

But see if you’re still smiling in twelve months’ time.

Vernon Coleman’s book Endgame: The Hidden Agenda 21 explains how we got here and where the conspirators are taking us. If you want the truth about the past, present and future then read Endgame.

The Kids Online Safety Act Is A Heavy-Handed Plan To Force Platforms To Spy On Children

Putting children under surveillance and limiting their access to information doesn’t make them safer — in fact, research suggests just the opposite. Unfortunately those tactics are the ones endorsed by the Kids Online Safety Act of 2022 (KOSA), introduced by Sens. Blumenthal and Blackburn. The bill deserves credit for attempting to improve online data privacy for young people, and for attempting to update 1998’s Children’s Online Privacy Protection Rule (COPPA). But its plan to require surveillance and censorship of anyone under sixteen would greatly endanger the rights, and safety, of young people online.

KOSA would require the following:

  • A new legal duty for platforms to prevent certain harms: KOSA outlines a wide collection of content that platforms can be sued for if young people encounter it, including “promotion of self-harm, suicide, eating disorders, substance abuse, and other matters that pose a risk to physical and mental health of a minor.”
  • Compel platforms to provide data to researchers
  • An elaborate age-verification system, likely run by a third-party provider
  • Parental controls, turned on and set to their highest settings, to block or filter a wide array of content

There are numerous concerns with this plan. The parental controls would in effect require a vast number of online platforms to create systems for parents to spy on — and control — the conversations young people are able to have online, and require those systems be turned on by default. It would also likely result in further tracking of all users.

Data collection is a scourge for every internet user, regardless of age.

And in order to avoid liability for causing the listed harms, nearly every online platform would hide or remove huge swaths of content. And because each of the listed areas of concern involves significant gray areas, the platforms will over-censor to attempt to steer clear of the new liability risks.

These requirements would be applied far more broadly than the law KOSA hopes to update, COPPA. Whereas COPPA applies to anyone under thirteen, KOSA would apply to anyone under sixteen — an age group that child rights organizations agree have a greater need for privacy and independence than younger teens and kids. And in contrast to COPPA’s age self-verification scheme, KOSA would authorize a federal study of “the most technologically feasible options for developing systems to verify age at the device or operating system level.”

Age verification systems are troubling — requiring such systems could hand over significant power, and private data, to third-party identity verification companies like Clear or ID.me. Additionally, such a system would likely lead platforms to set up elaborate age-verification systems for everyone, meaning that all users would have to submit personal data. 

Lastly, KOSA’s incredibly broad definition of a covered platform would include any “commercial software application or electronic service that connects to the internet and that is used, or is reasonably likely to be used, by a minor.”

That would likely encompass everything from Apple’s iMessage and Signal to web browsers, email applications and VPN software, as well as platforms like Facebook and TikTok — platforms with wildly different user bases and uses.

It’s also unclear how deep into the ‘tech stack’ such a requirement would reach – web hosts or domain registries likely aren’t the intended platforms for KOSA, but depending on interpretation, could be subject to its requirements.

And, the bill raises concerns about how providers of end-to-end encrypted messaging platforms like iMessage, Signal, and WhatsApp would interpret their duty to monitor minors’ communications, with the potential that companies will simply compromise encryption to avoid litigation.

Censorship Isn’t The Answer

KOSA would force sites to use filters to block content — filters that we’ve seen, time and time again, fail to properly distinguish“good” speech from “bad” speech. The types of content targeted by KOSA are complex, and often dangerous — but discussing them is not bad by default.

It’s very hard to differentiate between minors having discussions about these topics in a way that encourages them, as opposed to a way that discourages them. Under this bill, all discussion and viewing of these topics by minors should be blocked.

The law requires platforms to ban the potentially infinite category of “other matters that pose a risk to physical and mental health of a minor.

Research already exists showing bans like these don’t work: when Tumblr banned discussions of anorexia, it discovered that the keywords used in pro-anorexia content were the same ones used to discourage anorexia. Other research has shown that bans like these actually make the content easier to find by forcing people to create new keywords to discuss it (for example, “thinspiration” became “thynsperation”). 

The law also requires platforms to ban the potentially infinite category of “other matters that pose a risk to physical and mental health of a minor.” As we’ve seen in the past, whenever the legality of material is up for interpretation, it is far more likely to be banned outright, leaving huge holes in what information is accessible online. The law would seriously endanger access to information to teenagers, who may want to explore ideas without their parents knowledge or approval.

For example, they might have questions about sexual health that they do not feel safe asking their parents about, or they may want to help a friend with an eating disorder or a substance abuse problem. (Research has shown that a large majority of young people have used the internet for health-related research.)

KOSA would allow individual state attorneys general to bring actions against platforms when the state’s residents are “threatened or adversely affected by the engagement of any person in a practice that violates this Act.” This leaves it up to individual state attorneys general to decide what topics pose a risk to the physical and mental health of a minor. A co-author of this bill, Sen. Blackburn of Tennessee, has referred to education about race discrimination as “dangerous for kids.” Many states have agreed, and recently moved to limit public education about the history of racegender, and sexuality discrimination.

Recently, Texas’ governor directed the state’s Department of Family and Protective Services to investigate gender affirming care as child abuse. KOSA would empower the Texas attorney general to define material that is harmful to children, and the current position of the state would include resources for trans youth. This would allow the state to force online services to remove and block access to that material everywhere — not only Texas. That’s not to mention the frequent conflation by tech platforms of LGBTQ content with dangerous “sexually explicit” material. KOSA could result in loss of access to information that a vast majority of people would agree is not dangerous, but is under political attack. 

Surveillance Isn’t The Answer

Some legitimate concerns are driving KOSA. Data collection is a scourge for every internet user, regardless of age. Invasive tracking of young people by online platforms is particularly pernicious — EFF has long pushed back against remote proctoring, for example. 

But the answer to our lack of privacy isn’t more tracking. Despite the growing ubiquity of technology to make it easy, surveillance of young people is actually bad for them, even in the healthiest household, and is not a solution to helping young people navigate the internet. Parents have an interest in deciding what their children can view online, but no one could argue that this interest is the same if a child is five or fifteen.

KOSA would put all children under sixteen in the same group, and require that specific types of content be hidden from them, and that other content be tracked and logged by parental tools. This would force platforms to more closely watch what all users do. 

KOSA’s parental controls would give parents, by default, access to monitor and control a young person’s online use. While a tool like Apple’s Screen Time allows parents to restrict access to certain apps, or limit their usage to certain times, platforms would need to do much more under KOSA.

They would have to offer parents the ability to modify the results of any algorithmic recommendation system, “including the right to opt-out or down-rank types or categories of recommendations,” effectively deciding for young people what they see – or don’t see – online. It would also give parents the ability to delete their child’s account entirely if they’re unhappy with their use of the platform. 

The answer to our lack of privacy isn’t more tracking. 

The bill tackles algorithmic systems by requiring that platforms provide “an overview of how algorithmic recommendation systems are used …to provide information to users of the platform who are minors, including how such systems use personal data belonging to minors.” Transparency about how a platform’s algorithms work, and tools to allow users to open up and create their own feeds, are critical for wider understanding of algorithmic curation, the kind of content it can incentivize, and the consequences it can have.

EFF has also supported giving users more control over the content they see online. But KOSA requires that parents be able to opt-out or down-rank types or categories of recommendations, without the consent or knowledge of the user, including teenage users.

Lastly, under KOSA, platforms would be required to prevent patterns of use that indicate addiction, and to offer parents the ability to limit features that “increase, sustain, or extend use of the covered platform by a minor, such as automatic playing of media, rewards for time spent on the platform, and notifications.” While minimizing dark patterns that can trick users into giving up personal information is a laudable goal, determining what features “cause addiction” is highly fraught.

If a sixteen year-old spends three hours a day on Discord working through schoolwork or discussing music with their friends, would that qualify as “addictive” behavior? KOSA would likely cover features as different as Netflix’s auto-playing of episodes and iMessage’s new message notifications. Putting these features together under the heading of “addictive” misunderstands which dark patterns actually harm users, including young people.

EFF has long supported comprehensive data privacy legislation for all users. But the Kids Online Safety Act would not protect the privacy of children or adults. It is a heavy-handed plan to force technology companies to spy on young people and stop them from accessing content that is “not in their best interest,” as defined by the government, and interpreted by tech platforms. 

Source: EFF.org