Tag: australia

Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) Projects Are Foundering in Five-Eye Nations. What Gives?

Canada and Australia shelve plans for retail CBDCs while the US could soon become the first country to explicitly ban the central bank from issuing a CBDC.   

As we warned in May 2022, a financial revolution is quietly sweeping the world (or at least trying to) that has the potential to reconfigure the very nature of money, making it programmable, far more surveillable and centrally controlled. To quote Washington DC-based blogger and analyst NS Lyons, “if not deliberately and carefully constrained in advance by law,… CBDCs have the potential to become even more than a technocratic central planner’s dream. They could represent the single greatest expansion of totalitarian power in history.”

At the time of writing that post, around 90 countries and currency unions were in the process of exploring a CBDC, according to the Atlantic Council’s CBDC tracker. Today, just two and a half years later, that number has increased to 134, representing 98% of global GDP. Around 66 of those countries are in the advanced stage of exploration—development, pilot, or launch.

But they do not include the United States. In fact, the US is not just trailing most countries on CBDC development; it could soon become the first country to explicitly ban the central bank from issuing a CBDC, to the undisguised horror of certain think tanks.

“CBDC Anti-Surveillance State Act.”

In May, the US House of Representatives passed HR 5403, also known as the “CBDC Anti-Surveillance State Act.” The bill, first introduced in September 2023 and sponsored by US Senator Ted Cruz, proposes amendments to the Federal Reserve Act to prohibit the US Federal Reserve from issuing CBDCs. It also seeks to protect the right to financial privacy and prevent the U.S. government from “weaponizing their financial system against their own citizens.”

If passed, HR 5403 will prevent the Fed from:

  1. Offering products or services directly to individuals.
  2. Maintaining accounts on behalf of individuals.
  3. Issuing a central bank digital currency or any digital asset that is substantially similar under any other name or label directly to an individual.

To become law, the bill still needs to clear the Senate, which is by not means guaranteed. But it is likely to receive added impetus from a new Trump administration, assuming Trump wins the election and isn’t assassinated before taking office or thwarted by a colour revolution, as Lambert posited yesterday. In January, Trump announced, to thunderous applause, at a New Hampshire that as president, he would “never allow the creation of a central bank digital currency.” Such a currency, he said, “would give a federal government, our federal government, absolute control over your money.”

Even a Kamala Harris administration is unlikely to fast-track a digital dollar, with progress set to continue to lag other jurisdictions, according to an article in The Banker. US voters — particularly Republican ones — are increasingly aware — and wary — of the threat posed by CBDCs, as demonstrated by the crowd’s reaction to Trump’s announcement. This, if nothing else, stands as testament to the power of social and independent media, and goes a long way to explaining why governments across the West are trying desperately to muzzle them.

Keep reading

THE LAST KING? Britain’s Charles III Will Not Oppose Australia Becoming a Republic, as the Future of the Windsor Monarchy Appears Uncertain

Many feared (or hoped) that when the late Queen Elisabeth passed away, the British Monarchy of the Windsor dynasty would have its days numbered.

And in many ways, these ‘worst-case scenario’ fears (other people’s hopes) seem to have become an actual possible outcome, as the relentless infighting in the Royal family and the apparent lack of relevance of their work to the present-day reality of Britain are a constant object of debate.

Now, reports arise that ailing King Charles has stated that ‘he will not stand in the way’ if Australia wishes to replace him as the country’s head of state.

Ahead of his visit down under later this month, the Monarch is said to be adopting a soft, ‘anti-confrontational approach’ to the Australian republican campaigners.

“In response to the Australian Republican Movement’s (ARM) request for a meeting with the monarch, the king’s assistant private secretary is understood to have emphasized his ‘deep love and affection’ for Australia.

Nathan Ross reportedly told the anti-monarchists: ‘His majesty, as a constitutional monarch, acts on the advice of his ministers and whether Australia becomes a republic is, therefore, a matter for the Australian public to decide’.

The ARM says it is ‘the peak body advocating on behalf of the Australian people for an Australian republic with an Australian as our head of state’. Australia held a referendum in 1999 on the issue of becoming a republic, in which 54.9% voted against.”

Keep reading

Don’t Let the ‘Infaux Thugs’ Close Down Debate

Today’s censors wield cudgels with the word ‘information.’ Content they don’t like they call ‘misinformation’ or ‘disinformation.’ The justification is fake. The protection is faux protection. Pretending to protect people from bad information by means of censorship may be called infaux thuggery.

The cudgels are hidden, of course, but it is not hard to see through the pretence and discern the underlying message: knuckle under or we will hurt you.

The UK’s Online Safety Act exemplifies infaux thuggery, as does Brazil’s recent action against X (formerly Twitter). The Australian government is dominated by another gang of infaux thugs. The UK, sadly, not only practices infaux thuggery at home, it tutors the world in infaux thuggery.

The same goes for where I live, the United States. Kamala Harris threatens: ‘If you act as a megaphone for misinformation… we are going to hold you accountable.’ Hillary Clinton calls for criminalization of speech not to her liking. Harris’ running mate Tim Walz threatens: ‘There’s no guarantee to free speech on misinformation and hate speech.’

Thankfully, that’s not true, at least in the US. As Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. responded, the US Constitution ‘is exactly what prevents the government from stifling dissent by labeling something “hate speech” or “misinformation.”’ Alarmingly, former Secretary of State John Kerry recently lamented that the First Amendment ‘stands as a major block to…hammer it [“disinformation”] out of existence,’ and implied that that ‘is part of what this race, this election is all about.’

Of course, malicious actors, including enemy states, may spread lies to sow discord – especially online. So too can those who are simply ill-informed. Yet in the absence of censorship, big lies will be torn to shreds. In this battle, the infaux thugs are on the wrong side.

The infaux thugs use ‘information’ to confuse matters. The content they suppress is more aptly termed narratives, interpretations, opinions or judgments. Those terms are more capacious, befitting frank and open debate and controversy.

In their hostility to open debate, the infaux thugs are mounting an attack on modern civilisation. They evoke our crude instincts from pre-modern life, instincts for a small, simple society, in which the leader’s narrative must be believed by all and enforced upon the members of the band. If you don’t share the leader’s narrative, you are a miscreant. You are to be corrected, expelled or destroyed. At the very least, you are to shut up.

Keep reading

Scientists Say “Substantial Risk” of Cancer from mRNA Vaccines

The Australian Government should immediately suspend the use of Pfizer and Moderna Covid vaccines due to accumulating evidence of high levels of synthetic DNA contamination in the shots.

which present a “substantial risk” of genomic integration and long-term health impacts, including cancers, say leading scientists and academics.

In a letter to Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, Russell Broadbent, independent MP for the federal seat of Monash, said that “immediate action through a suspension of these products is critical to mitigate further risk”,.

After independent testing of Australian vials of modified RNA (mod-RNA) Covid vaccines detected residual synthetic DNA at levels up to 145 above the legal limit.

The letter, circulated to all Australian MPs and Senators, is co-signed by 52 scientists and academics, many at the top of their fields, including Professor of Oncology Angus Dalgleish.

Emeritus Professor Wendy Hoy, an expert in chronic disease, Emeritus Professor Robert Clancy, an immunologist who developed a bronchitis vaccine, geneticist Professor Alexandra Henrion Caude and microbiologist Professor Sucharit Bhakdi MD.

An accompanying science summary describes the concerns of Broadbent and co-signatories, who are asking the PM to adopt a “precautionary approach”, with the recommendation that “the Minister for Agriculture initiate a Biosecurity Import Risk Analysis of these products, potentially leading to the suspension of these products due to the risks they pose to human health”.

“Excessive synthetic foreign DNA encapsulated in lipid nanoparticles can integrate into human cells, potentially leading to genomic instability, cancers, immune system disruption and adverse hereditary effects,” explains the summary, which details the results of independent testing of the vaccines to date.

Residual synthetic DNA, a byproduct from the mod-RNA vaccine manufacturing process, is allowed under TGA regulations in levels of up to 10 nanograms (ng) per vaccine dose, a regulatory limit that was set for traditional vaccines and was not amended for mod-RNA products using lipid nanoparticles (LNPs).

The summary goes on to explain why the LNP packaging of residual synthetic DNA makes these products different to traditional vaccines that may contain “naked” residual DNA.

“Crucially, naked DNA has no ability to cross cell membranes and enter cells. In contrast, synthetic DNA encapsulated in LNPs possesses a high transfection efficiency, meaning, the LNP-modDNA complexes are efficient at delivering synthetic DNA into human cells,” the summary states.

The summary cites research indicating that the presence of foreign DNA within the cell alone can induce cancer, but the risk is increased if the DNA enters the cell nucleus.

This can occur in dividing cells, and the presence of an SV40 enhancer sequence (in Pfizer only), which is “long known to assist entry into the nucleus, even when cells are not undergoing cell division”, increases the risk further.

Once synthetic DNA is inside the cell nucleus, genomic integration is possible, the summary explains.

Keep reading

The Australian Government Reboots the Misinformation Bill

This week Australia’s Labor Party reintroduced its misinformation and disinformation bill. I did a deep dive into the bill last May. Among its many flaws, the biggest is its very origins.

As Communications Minister Michelle Rowland said in Parliament on September 12, “This bill seeks to strengthen the voluntary code by providing a regulatory backstop.” That code was co-written by First Draft, participants in the Aspen Institute’s coordinated effort to suppress the Hunter Biden laptop story.

If that story is new to you, the Twitter Files revealed that in August 2020 the Aspen Institute organised a “table-top” exercise with Twitter, Facebook, First Draft, and a host of media organisations including the New York Times and Washington Post, that ran through a day-by-day playbook of how they would respond to the release of a Hunter Biden laptop. The story didn’t break publicly until October, so how did the Aspen Institute know two months in advance?

Keep reading

Proposed Australian plans for “energy efficient” homes will destroy private home ownership

The ClimateWorks Centre has devised a “renovation wave” plan for household upgrades and preparing occupants for more frequent extreme temperatures, heatwaves and climate-related events.

It is claimed that upgrading homes built before 2003 to be more energy efficient with better insulation, electrifying appliances and heating, and adopting rooftop solar can save Australian households up to $2,200 annually on energy bills. The majority of existing residences across Australia (11 million homes) can benefit from thermal efficiency upgrades, making a renovation wave a feasible and impactful initiative, so it is claimed.

It is also claimed that by designing or renovating homes to account for expected climate impacts, such as increasing temperatures and extreme heat events, can mitigate the effects of climate change.

ClimateWorks Centre’s report identifies 16 archetypes of homes that cover approximately 80% of single-storey detached homes and townhouses, and over 50% of apartments. These archetypes provide a framework for homeowners, policymakers, and industry stakeholders to prioritize renovation efforts.

By investing in climate-ready homes, Australia can create a more resilient and sustainable built environment, while also addressing the cost-of-living crisis and mitigating the impacts of climate change, so they say.

Keep reading

Genetically edited food to be deregulated in Australia and NZ

If this goes through it will remove our right to know if our food is natural or genetically edited. And yes, this includes organic food. FSANZ is Australia and New Zealand’s Food Authority.

They have a current proposal open (ending COB Tuesday 10th September) to allow genetically edited food to be grown and sold without any safety testing or labelling. FSANZ Proposal P1055 – Definitions for gene technology and new breeding techniques can be found here: https://www.foodstandards.gov.au/food…

Answer questions on the FSANZ portal here: https://consultations.foodstandards.g…

Or email FSANZ your own submission- submissions@foodstandards.gov.au FSANZ asserts that genetically edited food is the same as natural- conventional food, that it has the same “characteristics”.

Under this definition lab meat may be seen as the same as meat, as the lab meat has added synthetic vitamins and minerals which match the natural levels of vitamins and minerals in meat.

Keep reading

Excess Deaths in Australia Correlated to Covid Vaccine Uptake — Study

A peer reviewed study has found a correlation between Covid vaccine administration and excess mortality in Australia. While correlation does not imply causation, it indicates a plausible causation that should be further researched, which it has previously and causation has been confirmed including in Australia.

“The study explores the relationship by Australia State between COVID Booster Vaccinations and excess deaths. There is evidence of a very strong correlation in ordinary least squares regression analysis. Cross-validation tests support the strength of the regression relationship. The results suggest that it would be worthwhile to explore these associations in greater depth as it is an important public health issue,” the study said in the ‘Abstract’ section.

A positive correlation between the shot and extra deaths has been discovered.

A positive correlation describes how when one factor increases or decreases (Covid vaccination) the other factor (excess mortality) moves in the same direction. While correlation does not verify a direct cause-effect relationship between the first and second factor (causation), it does indicate a causal factor may be at play.

Booster doses have the biggest effect on death rates it appears.

Keep reading

Trans advocate Roxy Tickle wins discrimination case after being banned from women-only app Giggle in Australian court

An Australian male has won his case against the female founder of women’s only app Giggle for Girls after she said the male, who identifies as a woman, was not permitted on the app due to his being male. A judge has awarded the male, who goes by Roxanne Tickle, $10,000 in compensation for being kicked off the platform. Giggle founder Sall Grover has vowed to continue fighting, and the decision can be appealed. 

She wasn’t surprised by the ruling, writing “Unfortunately, we got the judgement we anticipated. The fight for women’s rights continues.”

The court determined that Tickle, in the case called Tickle v. Giggle, has been “indirectly discriminated against” in being disallowed from accessing Giggle. “The indirect discrimination cases succeeded because Ms Tickle was excluded from the use of the Giggle app because she did not look sufficiently female according to the respondents,” said Justice Robert Bromwich. 

He said that Giggle could not be an app for women only and had to accept men who identify as women, thought he attempted to differentiate discrimination by gender identity from discrimination based on sex. Tickle had sought $20,000, but Bromwich only awarded half of that, $10,000. Tickle had been blocked from the app in 2021 despite his birth certificate having been changed to reflect his gender identity. Tickle claimed that “Up until this instance, everybody has treated me as a woman.”

Tickle had sought the excessive damages after claiming that Grover had been, essentially, too vocal about the case, and Tickle, on Twitter, later renamed X. In a clip posted to X, Tickle can be seen explaining the transformation from presenting as a man to presenting as a woman. On the Australian show Insight, Tickle was asked “Roxy, you’re a transgender woman from regional New South Wales. You played hockey for 10 years when you were 16-years-old, but you stopped when you 26. Why?”

Keep reading

Unveiling Australia’s World Economic Forum’s Shadow Network

The WEF’s influence over Australian politics is both deep and broad, permeating various levels of government through a network of high-profile politicians who have become key advocates for its globalist agenda. These figures, often celebrated for their visionary leadership and international stature, have played crucial roles in integrating the WEF’s ideology into the fabric of Australian governance. Their participation in WEF forums, as well as their alignment with its objectives, has facilitated the introduction of policies that reflect the WEF’s broader goals of global cooperation, sustainable development, and digital transformation. This alignment is not merely coincidental but is a result of the WEF’s strategic efforts to position its agenda at the forefront of political discourse in Australia, ensuring that its principles are embedded in national policy-making.

These influential politicians have not only endorsed the WEF’s vision but have actively worked to implement its principles within Australia’s political and economic frameworks. Figures such as former Foreign Ministers and Prime Ministers have used their platforms to champion WEF-aligned initiatives, from climate change policies to economic reforms that prioritize global interconnectedness over national interests. Their involvement with the WEF has often been portrayed as part of a broader commitment to internationalism and progressive governance, yet it also raises questions about the extent to which these globalist ideologies align with the needs and desires of the Australian public. As these leaders continue to shape policy and public opinion, the WEF’s influence becomes more entrenched, subtly guiding Australia’s political trajectory in ways that may increasingly reflect global priorities at the expense of local autonomy and sovereignty.

Keep reading