Tag: mass surveillance

China’s technocratic surveillance state, brought to you by American Big Tech and designed for global application

Daniel Corvell has an excellent analysis of the U.S.-China collaboration on what amounts to the creation of a coming globalized surveillance state. Of course it all hinges on countries adopting biometric digital IDs, tied to our bank accounts and tokenization. Once that’s in place, it’s game over for freedom. Below is an excerpt from the article, at The Conservative Playbook, which is a must read for understanding the symbiotic relationship between communist China, Silicon Valley, and “democratic” Washington.

China’s surveillance regime is often depicted as a uniquely authoritarian system — a dystopian fusion of cameras, algorithms, and totalitarian ambition. But a growing body of evidence shows that the foundation of Beijing’s digital panopticon was not built in isolation. It was quietly funded, equipped, and technologically enabled by the very institutions that claim to defend freedom: American corporations and the U.S. government.

According to a recent report by the NGO C4ADS and the Intercept, American tech giants and defense-linked suppliers have been directly feeding China’s expanding surveillance apparatus through sophisticated biometric, semiconductor, and AI technologies.

The report maps out how dozens of U.S. companies, some operating through intermediaries or “shell” distributors, have supplied the Chinese Communist Party’s surveillance infrastructure — from facial recognition components to data-processing software that powers state monitoring of its 1.4 billion citizens.

At the center of this web are biometric technologies — tools that scan faces, track movements, and identify individuals in real time. Many of these systems were originally designed for security or retail analytics but have been absorbed into China’s “public safety” network, a euphemism for omnipresent state surveillance. In regions such as Xinjiang, these tools have been weaponized to monitor and detain Uyghur Muslims, tracking everything from gait patterns to smartphone activity. But the scandal is not only what China has done with the technology — it’s how easily American firms helped make it possible.

Researchers discovered that many U.S. suppliers, including major chipmakers and sensor producers, continued selling hardware and software to Chinese entities long after Washington imposed export restrictions. They did so indirectly — by routing shipments through subsidiaries or rebranding products under “neutral” names. Some contracts were even facilitated through government-backed programs encouraging “U.S.-China technological collaboration,” showing that the American national security establishment has, at times, spoken out of both sides of its mouth.

It is a hypocrisy that runs deep. Publicly, Washington condemns Beijing’s human rights abuses and warns about “digital authoritarianism.” Privately, many agencies and corporations have viewed China as too profitable to restrain. The result is a moral paradox: American taxpayers fund defense and intelligence programs to “counter Chinese influence” while their own technology firms supply the infrastructure for the CCP’s surveillance state.

Unfortunately, it’s far worse than just hypocrisy that’s affecting the Chinese people. The same tech deployed in China is quickly integrating with America’s burgeoning Surveillance Industrial Complex. It’s as if they’re testing it in a known authoritarian state ahead of becoming our own authoritarian state.

Keep reading

Dick Cheney (1941–2025): The Dark Legacy of a War Criminal

Former U.S. vice president Richard “Dick” Cheney died on 3 November 2025 at age 84; his family said he had suffered from pneumonia and cardiac and vascular disease. Best known for steering national security policy after the 9/11 attacks, he became the dominant force behind a “war on terror” that unleashed torture, preventive war and mass surveillance. Amnesty International has described him as one of the principal architects of a program that amounted to torture, while the Brown University Costs of War project attributes more than 900,000 deaths and trillions of dollars in spending to the post‑9/11 wars he championed. Cheney’s legacy is one of unprecedented destruction and the erosion of civil liberties.

From prudence to preemption

During the 1991 Persian Gulf War, Defense Secretary Dick Cheney and Joint Chiefs chairman Colin Powell resisted calls to topple Saddam Hussein. Cheney argued that invading Baghdad would force the U.S. to occupy Iraq alone, risk its territorial integrity, and require unacceptable casualties: “It’s a quagmire if you go that far,” he told PBS’s Frontline in 1994, asking how many additional dead Americans Saddam was worth. Those words reflect a prudence that vanished after the attacks of September 11, 2001. Within days, the vice president laid out a radical new doctrine. On NBC’s Meet the Press he said America must operate on the “dark side,” spend time in the shadows, and use “any means at our disposal” to achieve its objectives.

Cheney’s longtime counsel, David Addington, and Justice Department lawyers John Yoo and Jay Bybee drafted memos arguing that the Geneva Conventions did not apply to detainees captured in the war on terror. The State Department’s legal advisor warned that claiming the president could suspend the Geneva Conventions was legally flawed and would reverse over a century of U.S. policy. Cheney pressed ahead, telling the Washington Times that he “signed off” on the CIA’s secret detention and rendition program and, as a principal participant in National Security Council meetings, he authorized the agency’s interrogation program, including waterboarding. In 2006 he called waterboarding a “no‑brainer,” and in 2009 he acknowledged knowing about the practice “as a general policy that we had approved.”

Torture and the repudiation of law

The vice president’s embrace of waterboarding ignored that the technique has long been treated as torture under U.S. and international law. Amnesty International notes that Japanese officials were convicted at the Tokyo War Crimes Trials for subjecting U.S. pilots to waterboarding, and U.S. courts have sentenced sheriffs to prison for using the technique. Amnesty stresses that its status as torture is “not a matter of opinion.” The Senate Armed Services Committee concluded that approving aggressive interrogation techniques sent a message that physical pressure and degradation were acceptable treatment for detainees. Amnesty calls Cheney “one of the principal architects of a policy that amounted to torture.”

Cheney’s legal defense of the program was rife with distortions. He misrepresented Justice Department opinions, falsely suggested Japanese waterboarders were never prosecuted, overstated detainee recidivism, insisted detainees had no rights under the Geneva Conventions, and repeated unproven claims of ties between Saddam Hussein and al‑Qaeda.

The road to Baghdad and the case for war

He cautioned against occupying Iraq in 1994 but became the administration’s leading voice for war nine years later. On March 16, 2003 he declared that Saddam had “reconstituted nuclear weapons” and that Americans would be greeted as liberators. These claims proved false. He insisted there was “no doubt” Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and ties to al‑Qaeda, yet evidence was lacking. Retired colonel Lawrence Wilkerson later alleged the administration manipulated intelligence to justify invasion and suggested that Cheney’s push to ignore the Geneva Conventions may constitute a war crime.

Cheney’s radicalism was not limited to Iraq. He championed a “unitary executive” theory contending that the president alone decides matters within the executive branch. Legal scholar Martin Lederman observed that he sidelined dissenting views in the military and intelligence agencies. Chip Gibbons, writing in Jacobin, describes him as an enemy of democracy whose agenda included war, indefinite detention, warrantless surveillance, and torture.

Human cost: war, death, and permanent surveillance

The human toll of Cheney’s policies is staggering. Brown University’s Costs of War project estimates that more than 940,000 people have been killed by direct post‑9/11 violence in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen and Pakistan, including over 432,000 civilians. Indirect deaths raise the toll into the millions. In Iraq alone, about 29,199 bombs were dropped, causing heavy civilian casualties, and a 2006 survey estimated over 600,000 civilian deaths. Current Affairs compares Cheney’s record to that of serial killer Samuel Little, concluding that “Little was strictly an amateur.”

The costs extended beyond foreign battlefields. Ryan McMaken of the Mises Institute writes that in a more reasonable world, people like Cheney would be forgotten, shamed, and disgraced. The post‑9/11 wars did nothing to enhance freedom, yet thousands of American families paid with their blood and millions continue to pay through taxes and inflation. McMaken lists domestic infringements such as the Patriot Act, warrantless surveillance, TSA groping, and FISA abuses, and none of the architects have been held accountable.

Colonel Wilkerson, Powell’s former chief of staff, told ABC News that Cheney “was president for all practical purposes” during Bush’s first term and feared being tried as a war criminal. The Washington Post dubbed him the “vice-president for torture,” and Wilkerson said his push to disregard the Geneva Conventions amounted to an international crime. Chip Gibbons asserts that he “reduced nations to rubble, shredded the Bill of Rights, and enacted programs of surveillance, abduction, detention, and torture.”

The culture of impunity Cheney helped foster has not faded. Politicians continued to accept his endorsements despite his record, while he insisted the CIA’s interrogation techniques did not violate international agreements and his allies still argued for expansive presidential war powers.

An opinion essay by law professor Ziyad Motala in Al Jazeera argues that Cheney is the architect of some of the most disastrous foreign and domestic policies of the early twenty‑first century. Motala contends that Cheney’s policies left “a trail of death and destabilization” and that the havoc unleashed by the Iraq War and the broader “war on terror” continues to reverberate, causing “suffering and instability far surpassing anything Trump has wrought.” He notes that estimates of Iraqi civilian deaths range from hundreds of thousands to well over a million and that the war destabilized an entire region, paving the way for extremist groups like ISIL and ongoing cycles of violence and displacement. The war drained trillions from the U.S. economy and left thousands of U.S. troops dead and many more with life‑altering physical and psychological wounds.

The economic burden of these wars is also staggering. Nearly twenty years after the United States invaded Afghanistan, the global war on terror had cost about $8 trillion. That figure includes not only Department of Defense spending but also State Department expenditures, care for veterans, Department of Homeland Security funds, and interest payments on war borrowing. Brown’s Cost of War Project Co‑director Catherine Lutz said the Pentagon now absorbs the majority of federal discretionary spending, yet most people do not realize the scale of this funding. She warned that these costs will continue for decades as the country pays for veterans’ care and the environmental damage wrought by the wars.

Cheney championed the Patriot Act as a key pillar of the “war on terror” and campaigned aggressively to renew its provisions. In January 2006 he and President Bush launched a “double‑barrelled assault” on critics of domestic surveillance and opponents of the law; Cheney told the Heritage Foundation that Americans could not afford “one day” without the Patriot Act. Civil liberties groups argue that the Patriot Act dramatically expanded government surveillance powers at the expense of constitutional freedoms. Under the law, investigators can monitor online communications on an extremely low legal standard, and secret court orders can compel companies to hand over lists of what people read or which websites they visit. The American Civil Liberties Union notes that the law is enforced in secret, weakens judicial review, and allows agents to seize business and communications records without probable cause. By 2004 the ACLU had filed lawsuits challenging these provisions and denounced the administration’s claim that there were no abuses as a “red herring.” The Patriot Act turned ordinary Americans into subjects of a vast dragnet, chilling free speech and giving the executive branch powers reminiscent of past crises.

Keep reading

AI drones used in Gaza now surveilling American cities

AI-powered quadcopter drones used by the IDF to commit genocide in Gaza are flying over American cities, surveilling protestors and automatically uploading millions of images to an evidence database.

The drones are made by a company called Skydio which in the last few years has gone from relative obscurity to quietly become a multi-billion dollar company and the largest drone manufacturer in the US.

The extent of Skydio drone usage across the US, and the extent to which their usage has grown in just a few years, is extraordinary. The company has contracts with more than 800 law enforcement and security agencies across the country, up from 320 in March last year, and their drones are being launched hundreds of times a day to monitor people in towns and cities across the country.

Skydio has extensive links with Israel. In the first weeks of the genocide the California-based company sent more than one hundred drones to the IDF with promises of more to come. How many more were delivered since that admission is unknown. Skydio has an office in Israel and partners with DefenceSync, a local military drone contractor operating as the middle man between drone manufacturers and the IDF. Skydio has also raised hundreds of millions of dollars from Israeli-American venture capitalists and from venture capital funds with extensive investments in Israel, including from Marc Andreessen’s firm Andreessen Horowitz, or a16z.

And now these drones, tested in genocide and refined on Palestinians, are swarming American cities.

According to my research, almost every large American city has signed a contract with Skydio in the last 18 months, including Boston, Chicago, Philadelphia, San Diego, Cleveland and Jacksonville. Skydio drones were recently used by city police departments to gather information at the ‘No Kings’ protests and were also used by Yale to spy on the anti-genocide protest camp set up by students at the university last year.

In Miami, Skydio drones are being used to spy on spring breakers, and in Atlanta the company has partnered with the Atlanta Police Foundation to install a permanent drone station within the massive new Atlanta Public Safety Training Center. Detroit recently spent nearly $300,000 on fourteen Skydio drones according to a city procurement report. Last month ICE bought an X10D Skydio drone, which automatically tracks and pursues a target. US Customs and Border Protection has bought thirty-three of the same drones since July.

The AI system behind Skydio drones is powered by Nvidia chips and enables their operation without a human user. The drones have thermal imaging cameras and can operate in places where GPS doesn’t work, so-called ‘GPS-denied environments.’ They also reconstruct buildings and other infrastructure in 3D and can fly at more than 30 miles per hour.

The New York police were early adopters of Skydio drones and are particularly enthusiastic users. A spokesman recently told a drone news website that the NYPD launched more than 20,000 drone flights in less than a year, which would mean drones are being launched around the city 55 times per day. A city report last year said the NYPD at that time was operating 41 Skydio drones. A recent Federal Aviation Authority rule change, however, means that number will undoubtedly have increased and more generally underpins the massive expansion in the use of Skydio drones.

Prior to March this year, FAA rules meant that drones could only be used by US security forces if the operator kept the drone in sight. They also couldn’t be used over crowded city streets. An FAA waiver issued that month opened the floodgates, allowing police and security agencies to operate drones beyond a visual line of sight and over large crowds of people. Skydio called the waiver ground-breaking. It was. The change has ushered in a Skydio drone buying spree by US police and security forces, with many now employing what is called a ‘Drone As First Responder’ program. Without the need to see the drone, and with drones free to cruise over city streets, the police are increasingly sending drones before humans to call outs and for broader investigative purposes. Cincinnati for example says that by the end of this year 90% of all call outs will be serviced first by a Skydio drone.

Keep reading

Google Adds Age Check Tech as Texas, Utah, and Louisiana Enforce Digital ID Laws

Google is preparing for a new era of digital age checks as state-level rules in Texas, Utah, and Louisiana begin to reshape how app stores operate.

To get ahead of these requirements, the company has introduced the Play Signals API in beta, a system built to help developers adapt to laws that will soon mandate age-based controls.

Starting in early 2026, each of the three states will enforce its own version of the App Store Accountability Act.

Texas’s law takes effect first, followed by Utah and Louisiana a few months later. Each statute requires app marketplaces to confirm the age range of their users through “commercially reasonable” verification methods.

Developers will be responsible for interpreting those signals and tailoring their apps accordingly. In some regions, they will also have to inform Google Play if a product update could require new parental consent.

For testing purposes, the company is providing a FakeAgeSignalsManager so that developers can simulate data before the laws officially apply.

Google’s rollout of its new Play Signals API is part of a broader shift toward a verified internet, one where digital access is increasingly tied to proof of identity.

The company’s beta API is being framed as a neutral compliance tool, but its function sets the stage for a more monitored web.

While the stated purpose is child safety and regulatory compliance, the architecture being built threatens to erode one of the internet’s core principles, pseudonymity.

The data points that determine whether someone is over 13 or over 18 can easily evolve into a persistent set of identifiers, linking activity across apps, accounts, and even devices. Once these signals are standardized, nothing prevents them from being combined with advertising, analytics, or behavioral tracking systems.

The result could be a world where age verification quietly becomes identity verification, and where “commercially reasonable” checks amount to permanent user profiling.

Keep reading

The EU’s Two-Tier Encryption Vision Is Digital Feudalism

Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI, recently showed a moment of humanity in a tech world that often promises too much, too fast. He urged users not to share anything with ChatGPT that they wouldn’t want a human to see. The Department of Homeland Security in the United States has already started to take notice.

His caution strikes at a more profound truth that underpins our entire digital world. In a realm where we can no longer be certain whether we’re dealing with a person, it is clear that software is often the agent communicating, not people. This growing uncertainty is more than just a technical challenge. It strikes at the very foundation of trust that holds society together. 

This should cause us to reflect not just on AI, but on something even more fundamental, far older, quieter and more critical in the digital realm: encryption.

In a world increasingly shaped by algorithms and autonomous systems, trust is more important than ever. 

Encryption is our foundation

Encryption isn’t just a technical layer; it is the foundation of our digital lives. It protects everything from private conversations to global financial systems, authenticates identity and enables trust to scale across borders and institutions.

Crucially, it’s not something that can be recreated through regulation or substituted with policy. When trust breaks down, when institutions fail or power is misused, encryption is what remains. It’s the safety net that ensures our most private information stays protected, even in the absence of trust.

A cryptographic system isn’t like a house with doors and windows. It is a mathematical contract; precise, strict and meant to be unbreakable. Here, a “backdoor” is not just a secret entry but a flaw embedded in the logic of the contract, and one flaw is all it takes to destroy the entire agreement. Any weakness introduced for one purpose could become an opening for everyone, from cybercriminals to authoritarian regimes. Built entirely on trust through strong, unbreakable code, the entire structure begins to collapse once that trust is broken. And right now, that trust is under threat. 

Keep reading

U.S. government allowed and even helped U.S. firms sell tech used for surveillance in China: AP

U.S. lawmakers have tried four times since September last year to close what they called a glaring loophole: China is getting around export bans on the sale of powerful American AI chips by renting them through U.S. cloud services instead.

But the proposals prompted a flurry of activity from more than 100 lobbyists from tech companies and their trade associations trying to weigh in, according to disclosure reports.

The result: All four times, the proposal failed, including just last month.

As leaders Donald Trump and Xi Jinping prepare for a long-heralded meeting Thursday, the sale of U.S. technology to China is among the thorniest issues the U.S. faces, with billions of dollars and the future of tech dominance at stake. But the tough talk about China obscures a deeper story: Even while warning about national security and human rights abuse, the U.S. government across five Republican and Democratic administrations has repeatedly allowed and even actively helped American firms to sell technology to Chinese police, government agencies and surveillance companies, an Associated Press investigation has found.

And time after time, despite bipartisan attempts, Congress has turned a blind eye to loopholes that allow China to work around its own rules, such as cloud services, third-party resellers, and holes in sanctions passed after the Tiananmen massacre. For example, despite U.S. export rules around advanced chips, China bought $20.7 billion worth of chipmaking equipment from U.S. companies in 2024 to bolster its homegrown industry, a report from a congressional committee this month warned.

This reluctance to act reflects the tremendous wealth and power of the tech industry, which is more visible than ever under the Trump administration. And in recent months, the president himself has struck grand deals with Silicon Valley firms that even more closely tie the U.S. economy to tech exports to China, giving taxpayers a direct stake in the profits for the first time.

In August, Trump announced a deal with chipmakers Nvidia and AMD to lift export controls on sales of advanced chips to China in exchange for a 15% cut of the revenue, despite concerns from national security experts that such chips will end up in the hands of Chinese military and intelligence services. That same month, Trump announced that the U.S. government had taken a 10 percent stake in Intel worth around $11 billion.

Longtime Chinese activist Zhou Fengsuo said the U.S. government is letting American companies set the agenda and ignoring how they help Beijing surveil and censor its own people. In 1989, Zhou was a student leader during the Tiananmen protests, where hundreds and possibly thousands were shot and killed by the Chinese government. Zhou was arrested and imprisoned.

Now a U.S. citizen, Zhou testified before Congress in 2024, calling on Washington to investigate the involvement of American tech companies in Chinese surveillance. An AP investigation in September found that American companies to a large degree designed and built China’s surveillance state, playing a far greater role in enabling human rights abuses than previously known.

“It’s driven by profit, and that’s why these strategic discussions have been silenced or delayed,” Zhou said. “I’m extremely disappointed. … this is a strategic failure by the United States.”

Keep reading

ECRI Pressures Ireland and Finland to Adopt New “Hate Speech” Laws and Speech Monitoring Systems

The European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) has issued another set of polite bureaucratic thunderbolts, this time aimed at Ireland and Finland, for not cracking down hard enough on their citizens’ conversations.

The group, operating under the Council of Europe, says both nations have been dragging their feet on what it calls “hate speech.”

In other words, they’re not censoring fast enough.

In Ireland’s case, ECRI was appalled to discover that the country’s “extremely limited” legal framework still leaves some room for public disagreement online.

The commission noted with concern that certain hate speech provisions were removed from the Criminal Justice (Hate Offences) Act 2024, and urged Dublin to correct the oversight by writing new laws to target such expression.

The report didn’t stop there. It called for a national data system to document “racist and LGBTI-phobic bullying and violence in schools” and a “comprehensive data collection” program for hate crimes and hate speech.

It even floated the idea of regulating “election-related misinformation, disinformation, and conspiracy,” which it deemed “critical to limit the spread of hateful ideas.”

So the plan is clear: build a bureaucracy that tracks words, ideas, and schoolyard insults, then hand election discourse over to regulatory authorities. What could go wrong?

ECRI did find time to congratulate Ireland for its National Action Plan Against Racism and inclusion programs for Roma and Traveller communities.

But after that brief applause, the hammer came back down. Hate speech, it concluded, remains “widespread.” More laws, more oversight, more policing of conversation.

Finland’s report read like a blueprint for speech management. ECRI announced that hate speech there “has increased and reached a critical level,” though it didn’t specify what exactly counts as hate speech, or how “critical” was measured.

The group praised Finnish police for maintaining “a regular presence in a web-based gaming platform” where officers act as “game police” and talk to young users about hate speech and online crime. It’s not satire, that’s in the official report.

ECRI proposed creating a national working group to design new policies against hate speech and advised police to unify their methods for “recognition, unmasking and official recording” of hate.

Schools, it said, should install systems to track “racist and LGBTI-phobic incidents,” while even non-criminal “hate incidents” should be formally recognized and logged.

Keep reading

While Germany Talks War With Russia, Romania’s Globalist Regime Conducts Mass Surveillance On Its Own People — 8,600 Secret Warrants, Zero Oversight

Germany’s globalist political class is once again talking about going to war with Russia. Officials in Berlin have suggested that Europe should “prepare for conflict,” a statement that’s raised alarms across the continent. But while Germany rattles sabers, another European Union member is already at war, not with Moscow, but with its own citizens.

Romania, one of NATO’s key Eastern members, has quietly constructed an enormous internal surveillance system under the banner of “national security.”

Documents obtained under Romania’s Freedom of Information law reveal that from the 2024 presidential elections through September 2025, the country’s Supreme Court issued 2,843 national security warrants. Every single request was approved. None were denied.

A Nation Surveilled 

Each warrant authorized Romania’s powerful intelligence agencies to monitor phone calls, intercept emails, track movements by GPS, and even enter private homes—all without notifying the citizens involved.

Experts estimate that more than 55,000 Romanians may have been surveilled under these programs, their private lives cataloged in the name of ‘protecting the state.’

During the last three years alone, Romania’s top court signed off on 8,603 such mandates, covering the tail end of President Klaus Iohannis’s term, the interim leadership of Ilie Bolojan, and the start of Nicușor Dan’s presidency.

Across administrations, one thing never changed: zero judicial oversight.

Courts Rubber-Stamp Everything

According to official responses from both the General Prosecutor’s Office and the Supreme Court, not one surveillance request was ever rejected. Every application moved seamlessly from prosecutors to judges—and was instantly approved.

That’s not oversight—it’s obedience.

Unlike the United States’ FISA Court, which modifies or rejects a portion of surveillance requests each year, Romania’s allegedly independent judiciary appears to function as a rubber stamp for intelligence operations.

Even more concerning, Romanian officials admitted they don’t know—or won’t say—how many people were targeted. The Supreme Court said it “does not hold a statistic” on the matter. The Prosecutor’s Office said the data is “not public.”

Keep reading

Digital ID Black Pill Moment?

For those unclear on what a Black Pill Moment means, I’ll share my take on the definition:

Black Pill Moment: A “Black Pill Moment” is when someone grasps a harsh, pessimistic truth about the world, leading to despair or hopelessness if they let it sink in. It’s a grim realization that things may be beyond repair, hitting like a gut punch.

Red Pill Moment: A “Red Pill Moment” is when someone sees a tough truth about the world, shattering old beliefs but leaving hope that change is possible if enough people act. It’s like waking up to a challenging reality with resolve to fight for better.

Blue Pill Moment: A “blue pill moment” is when someone avoids a harsh truth, choosing the comfort of denial or ignorance, like believing “ignorance is bliss.” Some psychiatrists call SSRIs like Prozac “blue pills” for creating an “I don’t care” mindset, numbing people to reality.

In the 1999 movie, The Matrix, Neo is offered a red pill or a blue pill by Morpheus. The red pill means waking up to the harsh truth of reality, rejecting illusions (like the Matrix’s simulated world), while the blue pill means staying in comfortable ignorance, unaware of the truth.

I usually see myself as red-pilled, believing in tough truths/reality, but holding onto hope for change.

If we are not careful a black pill can can be so earth shattering that it may lead to taking a blue pill!

After reading editorials about Texas’s mandated digital ID for apps, supposedly to protect children, I researched how many states and countries have mandatory or voluntary digital ID systems. (Voluntary is the trojan horse for future mandatory)  What I found opened my eyes to what could be labelled a “black pill moment”—the global push for digital IDs is far advanced, likely past the point of no return, aligning with the UN’s 2030 goal of universal legal identity and enabling a globalist digital currency system that could control access to everything.

In September 2015, all 193 UN Member States adopted the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 16.9  aims to provide legal identity, including birth registration, for everyone by 2030. This goal supports a global push for universal digital identity. The World Bank’s Identification for Development (ID4D) Initiative, a key partner, consolidates civil registries and promotes digital ID services. ID2020, tasked with implementing SDG 16.9, works to ensure everyone has a digital identity by 2030. The World Bank, World Economic Forum, and companies like Palantir, have created a global partnership to build a unified digital identity system.

Currently there are approximately 8,300,000,000 people in the world.  According to the World Bank’s ID4D initiative the number of actual people without any “official” proof of identity is only 850 million.  Only 10% of the world’s population do not have a personal digital ID.

Based on the latest global reports, only 12 countries (out of 198 worldwide) still lack any foundational national digital ID system – such as electronic credentials, biometric verification, or programs that could eventually link to the World Bank’s ID4D framework for universal legal identity. In stark contrast, 186 countries already have at least basic digital ID elements in place, paving the way for interoperability with global systems.

I began my research by manually checking each country’s government website, but after the first 30 – all of which had ID4D digital ID systems – I realized the scale of adoption was overwhelming. Not wanting to waste time on the remaining 168, I did something I never imagined- I enlisted Grok to handle the nitty-gritty and time consuming work of scanning those government websites country by  country. Grok confirmed the relentless global march toward total coverage revealing that 186 countries out of 198 have digital ID systems already in place.

The holdouts are often in regions with limited infrastructure or political instability. For example, North Korea is one of the holdouts because they have their own internal digital tracking system that is not set up to be “linked” (“interoperability”) to the ID4D digital ID Globalist World Bank system.

The countries not yet set up with digital ID’s that can be linked to the digital ID World Bank system in the future are: Somalia, South Sudan, Central African Republic, Yemen, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan, Chad, Eritrea, Tuvalu, Nauru and Oceania. [2] According to the World Bank ID4D website, adoption is accelerating and they expect this list to shrink by 2026.

Keep reading

The Hidden Risks of the Digital Euro

The European Central Bank has presented the digital euro as a symbol of financial autonomy and modernization. But, much like the Chinese model that seems to inspire ECB President Christine Lagarde, what is at stake is not just technology: it is the risk of turning a payment instrument into a mechanism of control over every citizen’s transactions. Across the Atlantic, the United States took the opposite path: it legalized stablecoins and banned a centralized digital dollar, strengthening freedom and competition instead of state control.

On September 26, the European Central Bank announced what had long been anticipated: it will conduct new experiments on what can be achieved with the digital euro.

This project, presented as an achievement of financial autonomy, has now been accelerated after the United States Congress approved the so-called GENIUS (“Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins”) Act, which authorizes stablecoins currencies pegged to stable assets, usually the dollar. At the same time, Congress also approved a prohibition on the Federal Reserve from creating an official digital dollar, ensuring that innovation remains decentralized and outside the direct control of the State.

In Brussels, the reaction was the opposite. The fear that these dollar-linked digital currencies could trigger a “digital dollarization” of the European economy served as justification to accelerate the digital euro. But instead of strengthening the diversity of existing solutions, the European Union is moving forward with a project directly controlled by the ECB. The narrative is one of “financial sovereignty,” but in practice it risks increasing citizens’ dependence on central power and undermines competition in the financial sector, especially when the Chinese model appears to serve as reference.

The ECB insists that the digital euro will be just another payment option, coexisting with cash. But President Lagarde has repeatedly praised the Chinese model, which looks very much like a declaration of intent. Even if it begins with promises of voluntarism, the reality is that models of this kind rarely remain optional for long. China’s case is illustrative: the digital yuan was presented as a complement to physical cash and a voluntary choice, but it quickly became a mass-use instrument, encouraged by the State and integrated into nearly all daily transactions.

In 2023, in cities such as Shanghai and Shenzhen, public salaries and subsidies were being paid through the digital yuan. After the 2022 Beijing Winter Olympics, its use expanded to such an extent that it became virtually impossible to avoid. In just five years, the digital yuan became unavoidable in many Chinese cities, with public wages, subsidies, and taxes processed exclusively this way.

By recording in real time all transactions through the People’s Bank of China, the government monitors in detail who buys, what, where, and when. This level of surveillance opens the door to direct conditioning of citizens’ behavior. Features such as “programmable money,” with an expiration date that forces people to spend within a certain timeframe instead of saving, have already been tested.

Added to this is the risk of social exclusion: those who do not join the system or lack access to the necessary digital tools are, in practice, shut out from a growing part of the economy. State incentives make adhesion inevitable if public salaries, subsidies, and even transport are processed via digital money; the space for private alternatives shrinks progressively.

In such a model, financial freedom ceases to exist: every payment ultimately depends on state approval.

Although official EU platforms highlight numerous advantages of the digital euro, such as lower cost payments, privacy protected by European law, and structures to prevent cyberattacks. One unavoidable question remains: Why is this system necessary at all? At present, the private sector offers multiple secure and reliable digital payment options.

Since the market already provides safe and efficient alternatives, the only possible incentive to develop this system lies in control through the centralization of power, at the expense of privacy while weakening the private banking system. In essence, the digital euro is not a technological advance, but a serious step backward in terms of freedom and privacy.

Keep reading