Digital identity is not just a passport that you will have on your iPhone in digital form. It involves almost everything the government would want to know about you. And yesterday in a Dutch media outlet, we saw a perfect example of what it could entail in the near future. We had the CEO of one of the largest banks in the Netherlands saying, why don’t we start with a personal carbon credit? Oh, a carbon wallet, she actually called it. So it’s in line with the plans that the people at the World Economic Forum have for us. And she said it in a way that was particularly funny. She said, well, if everyone gets a personal carbon credit, why don’t we make it so that rich people who, for example, want to go on vacation a little too often, can buy personal carbon credits from other people who, for example, can’t afford to buy plane tickets or eat meat too often? “So we can swap them out that way.”
Tag: police state
American journalist handcuffed & forcibly removed from Blinken’s last presser
A journalist was dragged out of US Secretary of State Antony Blinken’s final press briefing on Thursday, after trying to ask a question about the Gaza ceasefire.
Blinken claimed that the past four years have seen successful diplomacy, including the truce, even though both Israel and Hamas gave President-elect Donald Trump the credit for the deal.
Sam Husseini, a well known reporter focused on the Middle East, began to put questions to Blinken on his personal reaction to the ceasefire, and reminded the official of the findings of genocide against Israel by multiple international NGOs.
Blinken responded that journalists had to “respect the process” and that he would take questions after he was done with his speech.
In a video posted by Ryan Grim of DropSite News, several uniformed Diplomatic Security Service (DSS) officers can be seen approaching Husseini, who is seated in the briefing room.
“Get your hands off me!” Husseini cried out as the guards seized him. “Answer my damn question.”
“You pontificate about a free press!” he called out. “I am asking questions after being told by [State Department spokesman] Matt Miller that he will not answer my questions.”
Animal Farm Politics: The Deep State Wins Again
“No question, now, what had happened to the faces of the pigs. The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.”—George Orwell, Animal Farm
It cost the American taxpayer $24 million to find out what we knew all along: politics is corrupt.
After four years of being subjected to special prosecutor Jack Smith’s dogged investigation into alleged election interference by Donald Trump, the Justice Department has concluded that Trump would have been convicted of breaking the law if only he hadn’t gotten re-elected.
In other words, the Deep State wins again.
The revelation here is not that Trump broke the law but the extent to which sitting presidents get a free pass when it comes to misconduct.
None of this is news.
The Deep State has been operating from this exact same playbook for decades, regardless of which party has occupied the White House.
Indeed, Richard Nixon let the cat out of the bag when he explained that the very act of being president places one beyond the rule of law (“when the president does it … that means that it is not illegal”).
This is how we ended up with an imperial president—empowered to act as a dictator, above the law and beyond any real accountability—and why “we the people” keep finding ourselves mired in a political swamp of lies, graft, cronyism and corruption.
George Orwell, who died 75 years ago on Jan. 21, 1950, must be rolling in his grave.
In the 75 years since George Orwell died, his works of dystopian fiction—which warn against rampant abuse of power, mind control and mass manipulation coupled with the rise of ubiquitous technology, fascism and totalitarianism—have become operation manuals for power-hungry political regimes wedded to the corporate state.
While Orwell’s novel 1984 foreshadowed the rise of an omnipresent, modern-day surveillance state, his novel Animal Farm aptly sums up the state of politics today, propped up by a two-party system designed to maintain the illusion that voting matters.
Orwell understood what many Americans, caught up in their partisan flag-waving, are still struggling to come to terms with: that there is no such thing as a government organized for the good of the people—even the best intentions among those in government inevitably give way to the desire to maintain power and control at all costs.
As Orwell explains:
“The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from the oligarchies of the past in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites. The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives. They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just around the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal. We are not like that. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship.”
No doubt about it: the revolution was successful.
That January 6, 2021 attempt by President Trump and his followers to overturn the election results was not the revolution, however.
Those who answered President Trump’s call to march on the Capitol were merely the fall guys, manipulated into creating the perfect crisis for the Deep State—a.k.a. the Police State a.k.a. the Military Industrial Complex a.k.a. the Techno-Corporate State a.k.a. the Surveillance State—to amass even greater powers.
It took no time at all for the switch to be thrown and the nation’s capital to be placed under a military lockdown, online speech forums restricted, and individuals with subversive or controversial viewpoints ferreted out, investigated, shamed and/or shunned.
It was a set-up, folks.
The Justice Department’s policy of not prosecuting a sitting president was the tell.
United States Activates TikTok Ban Starting Sunday
The US government has confirmed that the TikTok ban will take effect this Sunday as part of a measure to protect national security from alleged espionage risks posed by ByteDance, the app’s Chinese parent company.
App stores will be required to remove the app, preventing new downloads within the country. Existing users may continue using it temporarily, but additional restrictions could be imposed soon. According to the Department of Commerce, the decision is necessary to safeguard the data of US citizens from unauthorized access by the Chinese government.
Social media platforms are buzzing with reactions. Influencers and content creators are lamenting economic losses and the limitation of their reach on a platform that has revolutionized the digital industry. Many are already migrating to alternatives like Instagram Reels and YouTube Shorts to maintain their market presence.
Far Left UK Government Proposes BANNING “Controversial” Conversations
The leftist Labour government in Britain has proposed radical reforms to the rights of workers that could include classing ‘sensitive’ topics of conversation in the workplace such as religion, women’s rights, or transgenderism as ‘harassment’.
The proposed legislation would force employers to prevent workers from being subjected to such subjects by third parties, such as customers.
If they are found to have failed to do so, they could face lawsuits under the legislation.
Watchdog The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has warned that if it comes into the force next year, the proposed law could significantly impact freedom of expression and even be applied to “overheard conversations” such as those between two or more people in a pub.
The EHRC has noted that applying the harassment law in cases involving a “philosophical belief” could lead to problems owing to the fact that many employers do not understand such topics are protected by equality law.
The Predictable Capitulation of Tulsi Gabbard
Well, Tulsi Gabbard now says she is all for the unconstitutional law that permits the national security state to surveil Americans without obtaining legal warrants beforehand — a law Donald Trump’s nominee for director of national intelligence has previously and vigorously pledged to repeal.
As President-elect Trump’s inauguration approaches and his cabinet appointments will be confirmed or rejected in Senate hearings, Gabbard’s in-your-face betrayal of public trust ought to focus our minds very sharply and very fast. Some of these minds, I will say straightaway, have drifted far from reality since Trump began announcing his nominees. This was especially so in the case of Gabbard.
As soon as Trump proposed Gabbard as his DNI, the shared expectation in some quarters, most of whose inhabitants I respect, was that she would — singlehandedly, I gathered from the commentaries — bring the hydra-headed monster euphemistically called “the intelligence community” under some semblance of political-civilian control.
And now this: Professing support for Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act after opposing it for years, Gabbard seems to have shocked a lot of people. Reading this in the large, she has just told America it’s the same old imperium after all.
Shall we join to sing “Up, Up, and Away” now that all the beautiful balloons have fallen to Earth and the world’s not a nicer place and doesn’t wear a nicer face?
Until her stunning volte-face last weekend, Gabbard had been single-mindedly steadfast in her opposition to many FISA provisions, notably but not only Section 702. A lot of people, I among them, put this among the most significant positions Gabbard, the former congresswoman, had taken on any policy question.
Did Keir Starmer destroy the Assange files, illegally pursue Assange for 14 years, and attempt to destroy Assange’s mind?
After nine years of legal battles, a British judge has finally challenged the wall of secrecy erected by British and Swedish authorities around the legal abuse of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange.
Judge Foss, sitting at the London First-Tier Tribunal, has ruled that the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) must explain how it came to destroy key files that would have shed light on why it pursued Assange for 14 years. The CPS appears to have done so in breach of its own procedures.
Assange was finally released from Belmarsh high-security prison last year in a plea deal after Washington had spent years seeking his extradition for publishing documents revealing US and UK war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The CPS files relate to lengthy correspondence between the UK and Sweden over a preliminary investigation into rape allegations in Sweden that predate the US extradition case.
A few CPS emails from that time were not destroyed and have been released under Freedom of Information rules. They show that it was the UK authorities pushing reluctant Swedish prosecutors to pursue the case against Assange. Eventually, Swedish prosecutors dropped the case after running it into the ground.
In other words, the few documents that have come to light show that it was the CPS – led at that time by Keir Starmer, later knighted and now Britain’s prime minister – that waged what appears to have been a campaign of political persecution against Assange, rather than one based on proper legal considerations.
It is not just Britain concealing documents relating to Assange. The US, Swedish and Australian authorities have also put up what Stefania Maurizi, an Italian journalist who has been doggedly pursuing the FoI requests, has called “a wall of darkness”.
There are good grounds for believing that all four governments have coordinated their moves to cover up what would amount to legal abuses in the Assange case.
Starmer headed the CPS when many highly suspect decisions regarding Assange were made. If the documents truly have been destroyed, it will be difficult, if not impossible, to ever know how directly he was involved in those decisions.
Extraordinarily, and conveniently for both the UK and Sweden, it emerged during legal hearings in early 2023 that prosecutors in Stockholm claim to have destroyed the very same correspondence deleted by the CPS.
The new ruling by Judge Foss will require the CPS to explain how and why it destroyed the documents, and provide them unless it can demonstrate that there is no way they can ever be retrieved. Failure to do so by February 21 will be treated as contempt of court.
The Conspiracy: A One World Government using technocracy to rule over all
The term, “conspiracy theory” became part of common parlance during the “Covid era,” but although all of us know what it refers to – and who are supposed to be the “conspiracy theorists” in question, namely those people who saw through the “pandemic” scam and everything it entailed – the precise nature of the “conspiracy” is probably less clear. When I ask people what they understand by it, they usually answer in more or less vague terms. So, what is it?
In his book, ‘HAARP: The Ultimate Weapon of the Conspiracy’ (2003) – followed in 2006 by ‘Weather Warfare’ – Jerry Smith indicates the importance he attributes to the concept by capitalising it throughout. Smith relates it to what he regards as a weapon for warfare; to wit, the “High-frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP),” and uncovers what the powers behind this project would have preferred to remain undisclosed, for obvious reasons, once one is apprised of the reasons for its establishment by the “Conspiracy.” Here I do not wish to delve into the specifics of HAARP but merely focus on Smith’s illuminating insights as far as the “Conspiracy” is concerned. His answer to the question about its “what?” is scattered throughout the first of the two books mentioned earlier. Here are some excerpts (Smith, 2003, p. 22-24):
Some people believe that there is one over-arching conspiracy, a cadre of incredibly powerful people who want to rule the world. Most of us dismiss such people as paranoid kooks. Still, there is no denying that for over a hundred years a movement has been developing among the world’s top intellectuals, industrialists and “global villagers” to end war and solve societal problems (like overpopulation, trade imbalances and environmental degradation) through the creation of a single world government. Whether this globalist movement is a diabolic “conspiracy” of the evil few or a broad “consensus” of the well-intentioned many, in fact matters little. It is as real as AIDS and potentially just as deadly, at least to our individual freedom, if not our very lives …
To grasp why Smith employs the term “deadly” with regard to the Conspiracy, one has to read the book, but here it is sufficient to point out that, if nations were to surrender their own sovereign right to deal with overpopulation, environmental problems and so on, as they see fit – even if this were to be done in cooperation with international agencies – a “one solution for all” system would mean that policies would be imposed on them which are not suitable, or acceptable, for their own needs.
Man Under Police Investigation For Tweet Accusing Welsh Authorities of Using Schoolgirls to Entice Migrants
A man is being investigated by police in Wales after a tweet reposted by Elon Musk accused the Welsh Refugee Council of using 12-year-old schoolgirls in an ad to “entice migrant men to come to Wales.”
The original video, posted by the Welsh Refugee Council (WRC) in 2023, shows a group of girls in school uniforms explaining why Wales is a welcoming place for migrants.
“Wales is seen as a nation of sanctuary, we welcome anyone and everyone,” states one of the girls in the video clip, which gives advice on how migrants can be helped in obtaining welfare benefits, applying for bank accounts and getting medical treatment.
Following sustained outrage over the grooming gangs scandal in the UK, the video went viral again on X over the weekend after it was shared by Elon Musk.
“In Wales, the Welsh Refugee Council is using 12-year-old girls in ads meant to entice migrant men to come to Wales. Most members of this council are from the Middle East, India and Pakistan. I think I’m going to throw up,” stated the tweet.
Sue Mi Terry: When FARA Applies to US Allies
Last week, I wrote a detailed analysis of how the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938 (FARA) has become a tool of government overreach, often used selectively to stigmatize inconvenient voices, control narratives, and criminalize ordinary interactions with foreign entities. Today, I explore how Dr. Sue Mi Terry’s recent indictment under FARA flips the script: a career insider and former CIA analyst accused of failing to register as a “foreign agent” of South Korea, one of America’s closest allies. Her case is both troubling and perplexing, highlighting the selective enforcement of FARA and its chilling effect on intellectual freedom and open exchange – principles essential to democracy.
Dr. Terry is not a natural candidate for libertarian sympathies. A staunch advocate of hawkish policies on North Korea, she has spent her career in Washington’s revolving door of government and think tanks. Adding to the irony, her husband, columnist Max Boot, once wrote that “Washington should ramp up enforcement” of FARA, a sentiment that now feels uncomfortably prophetic. While it might be tempting to indulge in a bit of schadenfreude, this isn’t a Menendez-style tale of gold bars and hidden cash. It’s a case built on think-tank funding and diplomatic dinners, routine activities in Washington’s policy circles.
What makes this case alarming isn’t the behavior itself, which, while ethically debatable, is typical for Washington. What is troubling is the inconsistent enforcement of FARA, a law so vague and expansive it can be used to target virtually anyone. Just as bookkeeping errors have been elevated to secure felony convictions against political opponents or tax evasion infamously took down Al Capone, FARA allows the government to transform minor infractions into significant criminal liabilities. Terry now faces up to a decade in prison – not for harming U.S. interests, but for failing to dot every “i” and cross every “t.”
Her case may be an exception but underscores a broader truth: FARA’s misuse threatens intellectual freedom, open dialogue, and fairness. Principles must outweigh personalities – even when the target is someone whose politics we may vehemently oppose. If the government can do this to a well-connected insider, what chance does anyone else have?
Hellbound and Down 
You must be logged in to post a comment.