Central Bank Digital Currencies - Gaining Momentum

As my long time readers know, I have a fixation with the global move toward a cashless society, something that has fascinated me for decades although the technology needed for such a seismic shift in the economy has really only existed for roughly a decade.  A recent publication on what are now being termed central bank digital currencies or CBDCs by the Bank for International Settlements, the central bank for central banks given that it is owned by 63 central banks which account for 95 percent of global GDP provides the world with an update on the evolution of the technology which will prove to be a global game-changer.

 

To put all of the information in this posting into perceptive, we need to start by looking at the BIS definition of central bank digital currencies:

 

"A CBDC is central bank-issued digital money denominated in the national unit of account, and it represents a liability of the central bank."

 

There are two types of CBDCs as follows:

 

1.) Retail CBDCs: Retail CBDCs are intended for use by the general public and are referred to as a “general purpose” CBDC. As such, it offers a new option to the general public for storing value and making payments. A retail CBDC is different from existing forms of cashless payment instruments for consumers and businesses, such as credit transfers, direct debits, card payments and e-money, as it represents a direct claim on a central bank rather than the liability of a private financial institution.

 

2.) Wholesale CBDCs: Wholesale CBDCs are intended for use by financial institutions.  A wholesale CBDC is similar to today’s central bank reserves and settlement accounts in that it is intended for the settlement of large interbank payments or to provide central bank money to settle transactions of digital tokenised financial assets in new infrastructures

 

Here is the cover page of the report which, tellingly, is entitled "Gaining momentum":

 

 

The report outlines the results of a survey of 81 central banks which was conducted in the fall of 2021.  The survey asked central banks about their engagement in working toward CBDCs and their motivations and intentions regarding the implementation of CBDCs.  It is important to keep these developments in mind:

 

"After The Bahamas launched a live retail CBDC (the Sand Dollar) in 2020, Nigeria followed in 2021 with the issuance of eNaira, and the Eastern Caribbean and China released pilot versions of their respective DCash and e-CNY."

 

The central banks of the 81 jurisdictions that relied to the survey represent nearly 76 percent of the world's population and 94 percent of global economic output.  Twenty-five of the respondents are classified as advanced economies and 56 are in emerging markets/developing economies.

 

Here is a graph showing the very significant growth in the share of central banks that are actively engaged in some form of CBDC development over the past five years:

 

 

Here is a graph showing how the focus of the development by type of CBDCs has evolved over the past five years:

The development of retail CBDCs is significantly more advanced than the development of wholesale CBDCs with almost 20 percent of central banks developing or testing a retail CBDC, twice the share of central banks developing a wholesale CBDC.

 

Here is a graph showing the focus of the development of CBDCs in 2021:

 

 

In 2021, 26 percent of central banks are either currently developing a CBDC or running a pilot project, up from 14 percent in 2020.  In addition, 62 percent are conducting either experiments with or proofs-of-concepts of CBDCs. 

 

There are two mechanisms by which central banks can distribute CBDCs to the public as follows:

 

1.) One-tiered model: Central banks directly distribute CBDCs to the public, providing both the CBDC account and wallet services.

 

2.) Two-tiered model: Central banks work with trusted private sector intermediaries (i.e. retail banks) to distribute CBDCs to the public.  In this case, the private sector would be responsible for onboarding clients and performing know-your-customer and anti-money laundering/combating the financing of terrorism procedures.  The private sector would also record retail transactions and handle retail payments.

 

The report notes that 70 percent of central banks that are involved in some form of CBDC issuance are considering the implementation of a retail CBDC that involves the private sector.

 

In case you were wondering, there are several motivations for issuing a retail CBDC as follows:

 

1.) financial stability

 

2.) monetary policy implementation

 

3.) improving domestic payments efficiency

 

4.) improving cross-border payments efficiency

 

5.) payments safety and robustness

 

We might also add the following reason for implementing a retail CBDC right from the mouth of BIS General Manager Augsten Carstens:

 

Here's the punchline:

 

"The central bank will have absolute control on the rules and regulations that will determine the use of that expression of central bank liability and also we will have the technology to enforce that." 

 

The issuance of a CBDC requires that a nation have in place a legal framework which provides its central bank with the legal authority to do so.  On a year-over-year basis, the share of central banks with legal authority increased from 18 percent to 26 percent in 2021 and an additional 10 percent of jurisdictions are in the process of changing their laws to authorize CBDC issuance.  This means that in the near future, 36 percent of the world's central banks will soon have the legal authority to issue CBDCs.

 

To summarize, 68 percent of central banks consider that they are likely to or high possibly issue retail CBDC in the short- or medium-term.  The self-reported likelihood is higher among emerging market/developing economy nations than it is for advanced economies.  Here is a summary showing how the likelihood of issuing both a retail and wholesale CBCD has increased markedly over the past four years:

 

If you wish to educate yourself further on CBDCs, here is a video from BIS outlining the "uncharted waters of retail CBDCs":

 

Let's close with a few thoughts.  As I have stated in the past and given Augsten Carstens' comments and Chrystia Freeland, Canada's Deputy Prime Minister, recent moves to freeze the bank accounts of those that it deemed "wrong thinkers" as shown here:

 

...do you really think that retail CBDCs will work to the greater benefit of society as a whole?  Or, will it just give more power to the ruling class who will be able to record and control our every expenditure, particularly if a programable CBDC ecosystem is implemented?

CBDCs - gaining momentum indeed.

The Individual Carbon Footprint Tracker - Another Step Toward A Surveillance Society

At the recent WEF groupthink (aka a gathering of the Kult of Klaus) in Davos Switzerland, Alibaba Group president J. Michael Evans boasted that his company was developing an "individual carbon footprint tracker" that is just one additional step toward the universal surveillance that we know is coming (at least those of us that are paying attention to such things).

 

For those of my readers who aren't familiar with Alibaba Group, it was established in 1999 by Jack Ma, a former English teacher from Hangzhou, China.  The company was formed to allow small- and medium-sized enterprises to grow and compete in China's economy as well as the global market.  It has grown into a massive digital ecosystem (think a Chinese version of Amazon) with businesses including cloud computing, digital media, entertainment, commerce and innovation initiatives.  In December 2021, the Alibaba Group announced a "...pledge to achieve carbon neutrality in its own operations by 2030 as well as a pioneering initiative to facilitate 1.5 gigaton of decarbonization across its business ecosystem by 2035". 

 

Here is a graphic which outlines Alibaba's culture:

 

To give you some sense of the size of Alibaba, in the quarter ended March 31, 2022, it served one billion annual active consumers in China and 1.31 billion consumers globally.  Over the fiscal year ending March 31, 2022, the company had revenues of $US 134.567 million with net income of $US 9.774 billion.

  

Now that you have some sense of the massive size (and potential influence) of Alibaba, here are the comments from the company's president regarding the carbon footprint tracker that Alibaba is being developed:

 

 

Here is a transcript of his comments:

 

'We’re developing, through technology, an ability for consumers to measure their own carbon footprint.  What does that mean? That's where they are traveling? How they are traveling? What are they eating? What they are consuming on the platform? So, individual carbon footprint tracker. Hmmm, stay tuned.  We don't have it operational yet but this is something that we're working on.”

 

Here is the news announcement of the "carbon ledger" as found on Alibaba's Alizila corporate news website dated March 21, 2022:

 

 

Here are some excerpts from the announcement:

 

"Alibaba Cloud launched the Energy Expert platform in February this year, allowing people to monitor their carbon footprint and receive credits worth money when making low-carbon choices.

 

Expect to earn 200 carbon credits when you lick your plate clean, and 554 credits if you take the subway, according to the measurement system devised by Guangzhou-based certification body CEPREI, in partnership with Alibaba Cloud.

 

“The platform is designed to encourage people to adopt low-carbon behaviors and be environmentally accountable,” Chen Lijuan, General Manager of Product and Solution at Alibaba Cloud, told Alizila.

 

The trick is to develop a model that translates individual activities into carbon credits and builds up a community that promotes a low-carbon lifestyle based on the carbon credits system."  

 

This will give you a sense of how the system will work:

 

"The neighborhood of Xinqiao Shiju, located in the southern city of Shenzhen, was one of the first to partner with Alibaba Cloud. Since piloting late last year, the community’s 589 residents have been able to save 37.77 tons of carbon emissions.

 

Every Xinqiao Shiju resident has a personal carbon account to monitor power use and carbon emissions. A household account combines the totals for everyone living in the same house.

 

The emissions are calculated based on electricity, water and gas use, which can be balanced by solar or wind energy use, with facilities available in the neighborhood.

 

After showing users their energy consumption, Energy Expert provides customized suggestions, such as installing solar panels to offset a high electricity bill or collecting rainwater to reduce water use.

 

To be sure, there is more at stake here than infrastructure upgrades. 

 

As individuals gain awareness of their environmental impact, they become more connected to the carbon neutrality cause, said Zhou Fanke, the project’s architect at Alibaba Cloud."

 

While all of this sounds just marvellous on the surface, what happens when this type of carbon footprint tracking is mandatory?  What if a similar individual carbon tracking system is used by governments to ration or cap hydrocarbon consumption, for example, limiting the amount of petrol/gasoline that you can purchase, setting limits for the use of both heating and cooling equipment in your homes and/or telling you that you can't purchase certain foods or items because the purchase is deemed too carbon intensive?

 

In closing, remember that the announcement of an individual personal carbon tracker was made at a World Economic Forum annual conference with the global ruling class in attendance, many of whom travelled to and within Switzerland (and elsewhere in the world) using private jets and limousines and who have lifestyles that are far more carbon intensive than anything that the lifestyles of the serf/useless eater class will ever emit.

Government Support for the World Economic Forum - How Taxpayers Are Funding Klaus Schwab's Dystopian Dreams

There is little doubt that the ruling class members of the World Economic Forum believe that it is their birthright to change the globe into something that suits their needs. In contrast, while they may pay lip service to the sweaty masses/serf class, we are merely pawns in their Global Reset game.  With the ruling class holding its annual meeting in Davos, there is no time like the present to gain a better understanding of how the WEF is funded using your tax dollars.   

As background, in this posting, I outlined the most publicly visible members of the WEF; it is these corporate members who pay homage to the great and mighty Klaus Schwab through fees paid to the organization that he founded and rules over.  This is not terribly surprising given that the corporate world stands to benefit from the new reality that they are about to foist on us through the implementation of digital identities among other things. What surprised me was to find out that governments are also using taxpayers' funds to ingratiate themselves to this unelected "lord of the world".  In this posting, we'll look at one example of how tax revenue gleaned from millions of taxpayers is being used to further Schwab's dystopian/1984-like vision of the future.

 

From the Canadian government's Public Accounts of Canada transfer payments website:

...we find the following for total amounts spent in fiscal 2020 - 2021 which are scattered throughout a 350 page document:

 

1.) Under the Contribution in support of Conserving Nature (page 46):

 

2.) Under the Contribution to Support Establishment and Management of Conservation Measures (page 80):

3.) Under the Contributions from the International Development Assistance for Multilateral Programming section (page 90):

 

4.) Under the Grants from the International Development Assistance for Multilateral Programming section (page 94):

 

 

The donations to the World Economic Forum for fiscal 2020 - 2021 totalled $2,915,095.

 

This is not the first year that the Trudeau government has donated Canadians' tax dollars to the World Economic Forum as listed here keeping in mind that fiscal years run from April 1st to March 31st each year:

 

Fiscal 2019 - 2020 - $3,674,191

 

Fiscal 2018 - 2019 - $2,000,000

 

Fiscal 2017 - 2018 - $4,000,000

 

Fiscal 2016 - 2017 - $4,000,000

 

Fiscal 2015 - 2016 - $3,000,000

 

Since Trudeau Jnr. took office in October 2015, his governments have donated a total of $21,589,286 to the World Economic Forum to assist the group that represents the world's most wealthy individuals in implementing their Orwellian plan for the world.

 

Let's compare the Trudeau government's generosity to Klaus Schwab to that of the preceding Harper government:

 

Fiscal 2014 - 2015 - $1,000,000

 

Fiscal 2013 - 2014 - $zero

 

Fiscal 2012 - 2013 - $zero

 

Given the generosity of the Trudeau government toward the very, very needy World Economic Forum, one has to wonder if this:

 

 

....this:

 

...this:

....and this ( and since watching Klaus pontificate is about as exciting as watching paint dry, you will be excused if you skip ahead to the 1 hour 8 minute mark):

 

 

...may just have something to do with the reasoning behind the wasting of $21.6 million Canadian tax dollars which ended up in an organization with a balance sheet that looks like this:

 

...compared to Canada's federal debt which has done this since Justin Trudeau took office in 2015:

 

I wonder how Canadians and people of other nations feel about their hard-earned tax dollars that have become assets of the Kult of Klaus?  While I realize that $21 million is relatively insignificant when it comes to overall government spending, it is the message that governments are sending to their useless eaters/taxpayers that concerns me.  Since the World Economic Forum's Great Reset agenda will benefit the wealthy/parasite class at the same time as the serf class owns nothing and is happy about it, shouldn't the oligarchy be paying the entire shot?

The Monkeypox Exercise - Is History Repeating Itself?

For those of us that were really paying attention during the COVID-19 pandemic and accompanying fear porn, we realize that a pandemic desktop exercise took place just months prior to the official declaration of a pandemic.  As you will see in this posting, that particular template worked so well for the ruling class that, coincidentally (or not), there is yet another interesting relationship between the most recent viral threat to human life and a previous simulation that took place only months ago.

 

For those of you that weren't aware, on Friday, October 18, 2019, Event 201 took place at The Pierre Hotel in New York, New York sponsored by the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, the World Economic Forum and Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (aka the Bill Gates World Health Organization) as shown here:

 

The exercise which simulated the global outbreak of a zoonotic coronavirus consisted of the following:

 

"...pre-recorded news broadcasts, live “staff” briefings, and moderated discussions on specific topics. These issues were carefully designed in a compelling narrative that educated the participants and the audience."

  

The purpose of the exercise was to:

 

"...educate senior leaders at the highest level of US and international governments and leaders in global industries.

 

It is also a tool to inform members of the policy and preparedness communities and the general public. This is distinct from many other forms of simulation exercises that test protocols or technical policies of a specific organization. Exercises similar to Event 201 are a particularly effective way to help policymakers gain a fuller understanding of the urgent challenges they could face in a dynamic, real-world crisis."

 

The exercise was also funded by funding from the Open Philanthropy Project which is funded by billionaires Cari Tuna and Dustin Moskovitz who co-founded Facebook.

  

To put the timing of the Event 201 coronavirus pandemic scenario into context, the World Health Organization declared COVID-19 as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern on January 30, 2020 and a pandemic was declared on March 11, 2020.

 

With the COVID-19 pandemic fading into the background as the dinosaur media focussed its attention on the actions in Ukraine which really isn't that much of a fear-inducing, rectal puckering event for most of the world, there was an obvious need for another health-related issue to crop up as fertilizer for the cultivation of fear porn.  Thank goodness that monkeypox appeared on the scene to take COVID-19's place as the latest and greatest viral threat to all of humanity.

 

Here are three recent headlines showing how the dinosaur media is working society into a lather about this rare virus:

 

1.) CBC News (aka the Trudeau/Freeland Broadcasting Corporation):

 

 

2.) BBC News:

3.) ABC News:

 

 

Here is a table from BNO News showing the small number of cases of monkeypox that have led to an apoplectic media:

In case "monkeypox science" should change rapidly, here is what the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has to say about the transmission of monkeypox:

 

 

Of course, in the interest of fear cultivation, the CDC is certainly going to change "the science" on transmission of monkeypox and we will all find ourselves repeating the masking, lockdown, shutdown and physical distancing experiences of the past two years even though the current science shows that very close physical contact is necessary for transmission.

 

Now, let's get to the "meat" of this posting.  In March 2021, a tabletop exercise was held at the Munich Security Conference in partnership with the Nuclear Threat Initiative or NTI with support from, you guessed it, Open Philanthropy, one of the funders of Event 201.  The report from this exercise was just released in November 2021 as shown here:

 

Interestingly, but not surprisingly, one of the participants in the exercise was Dr. Chris Elias, President of the Global Development Division of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.  Here is a listing of all participants for your perusal:

 

 

Here is the most interesting aspect of this particular tabletop exercise on reducing high-consequence biological threats:

 

According to the scenario, over the course of the pandemic which was caused by a terrorist attack which, ironically, used a pathogen engineered in a laboratory with "...inadequate biosafety and biosecurity provisions and weak oversight."  Does this sound familiar in any way given the likely source for the SARS-CoV-2 virus?  At the end of the pandemic, more than 3 billion earthlings were infected and there were 270 million fatalities.

Here is a graphic showing how the scenario was designed:

 

Please notice that the day of the "attack" was May 15, 2022.  The coincidence with reality is nothing short of stunning.

The exercise looked at two fictional nations; Cardus which kept their economy open and didn't undertake any non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) like masking and social distancing and Dranma which promptly adopted aggressive measures including shutting down mass gatherings, imposing social distancing and masking and implemented large-scale testing and contact-tracing, just like we saw in the West during the COVID-19 pandemic.  Here are two graphics from the report showing how Cardus fared much worse outcomes during the outbreak than Dranma:

 

 

I believe that is enough to digest for this posting.  Let's close with this "word of wisdom":

 

"History doesn't repeat itself but it often rhymes."

 

It's pretty hard not to see the connections between the Event 201 pandemic scenario and the COVID-19 pandemic and, in looking back, it seems more than a bit coincidental that the March 2021 Munich Security Conference/NTI exercise involved a monkeypox outbreak and the current threat of a monkeypox epidemic/pandemic.  Thanks to the dinosaur media which is just loving its newfound pandemic fear porn business model, the serf class has been set up for its next government-imposed, rights restricting reality.  And, let's not forget governments who have absolutely fallen in love with the powers that they have granted themselves over the useless eater class and, most certainly, do not want to see them come to a permanent end.

China's Response to Japan and the Concept of Nuclear Sharing

Back in early March 2022, a rather profound statement by one of Japan's former Prime Ministers has set the stage for a major and threatening change in the Far East.  Let's examine this potential change and how the major power in the region has recently responded.  

Here is the article from Asahi Shimbun, one of Japan's largest newspapers, dated February 28, 2022:

 

Here are some key quotes from Abe's appearance on Fuji Television Network which is discussed in the article with my bolds:

 

"Former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe floated the idea of Japan “sharing” in the possession of nuclear weapons, as is practiced by some NATO members, a possibility flatly rejected by Prime Minister Fumio Kishida. 

 

Abe expressed his belief on a TV program aired by Fuji Television Network Inc. on Feb. 27.

 

The former prime minister was discussing NATO’s nuclear deterrence concept with which multiple countries share nuclear capabilities, when debating the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Among NATO members, the United States has deployed nuclear weapons in certain countries in Europe for when they might need them.

 

“Although Japan is a signatory of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and has adopted the Three Non-Nuclear Principles, we should not regard a discussion on how the world’s security is maintained as taboo,” Abe said....

 

Abe said in the TV program, “As Shoichi Nakagawa was lambasted for saying we should discuss (possessing nuclear weapons), people avoid debating it. However, I believe that we should discuss the issue.”

 

Abe also said people are talking about how Ukraine’s fate might have been different if the country had not given up its nuclear weapons in the 1990s. 

 

Although he said that it is important to make progress toward achieving the goal of abolishing nuclear weapons, Abe also stressed, “We should discuss various options, as far as how defending this country (Japan) and its people is concerned.”...

 

Kishida (Japan's current Prime Minister) said nuclear sharing would mean that a country makes use of the U.S. nuclear deterrence capabilities for its own defense.

 

That would allow the United States to deploy its nuclear weapons in the country even in peacetime and maintain an arrangement in which the country can load nuclear weapons onto its own fighter jets in the event of emergencies."

 

The nuclear sharing/deterrence concept is used by NATO to allow member nations without nuclear weapons to share nuclear weapons owned by the United States.  Beyond the alliances three nuclear states (the United States, United Kingdom and France), five other nations participate in the nuclear sharing program; Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey.  Seven other nations participate in the Support of Nuclear Operations With Conventional Air Tactics (SNOWCAT) which provide assistance in nuclear missions using conventional air support.  These nations include the Czech Republic, Denmark, Greece, Hungary, Norway, Poland and Romania.  While the United States and NATO do not disclose exact figures for its nuclear weapons deployed in Europe, it is estimated that there are 100 U.S.-owned weapons located at six bases; Kleine Brogel in Belgium, Büchel Air Base in Germany, Aviano and Ghedi Air Bases in Italy, Volkel Air Base in the Netherlands, and Incirlik in Turkey.

  

Currently, Japan, the only nation in the world that has been the "beneficiary" of nuclear weapons use, has a Three Non-Nuclear Principles philosophy to nuclear weapons which was implemented in 1967 as revealed in the following quote from then Prime Minister Eisaku Sato:

 

"My responsibility is to achieve and maintain safety in Japan under the Three Non-Nuclear Principles of not possessing, not producing and not permitting the introduction of nuclear weapons, in line with Japan's Peace Constitution." 

 

Obviously, the presence of nuclear weapons in Japan would have a profound impact on the balance of power in the Far East.  China has taken notice of this development and, given the instability of the region over Taiwan, the world should be paying attention.  A recent opinion piece in China Daily, a daily newspaper owned by the Chinese Communist Party, provides insight into China's interpretation of Shinzo Abe's suggestion:

 

 

Here are some quotes (with my bolds) from the opinion piece, keeping in mind that atrocities that imperialist Japan inflicted on China prior to and during the Second World War (between 1937 to 1945 aka the Second Sino-Japanese war):

 

"Some former Japanese politicians and senior officials of the Liberal Democratic Party have advocated "nuclear sharing", claiming that the deployment of nuclear weapons by the United States in Japan should not be a taboo subject for discussion. The Japan Restoration Party, a right-wing opposition party, also submitted a proposal to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan to discuss nuclear sharing.

 

Although the Japanese government has said it still adheres to the three non-nuclear principles of "no possession, manufacture and import of nuclear weapons", it has said that it is an issue for discussion. This attitude of the Japanese government undoubtedly shows its support for "nuclear sharing".

 

So-called nuclear sharing is a Cold War nuclear deterrent arrangement between the United States and its North Atlantic Treaty Organization allies.

 

The Cold War is long over, and "nuclear sharing" should have been relegated to the trash can of history. However, the US and its NATO allies continue to maintain the practice, despite many arguing that the policy violates the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons as these so-called shared nuclear forces are highly opaque, increasing the risk of nuclear proliferation and conflict....

 

The world cannot help but ask what does Japan want with nuclear weapons? The root cause is undoubtedly that Japanese militarism still lingers on. Some forces in Japan are still clinging to outdated security concepts. The international community must not condone Japan's nuclear ambitions.

 

Japan should abandon the idea of nuclear weapons, earnestly fulfill its international obligations on nuclear non-proliferation, honor its commitment to the three non-nuclear principles and safeguard global and regional peace and security with a responsible attitude."

 

That's pretty clear, isn't it?

 

When considering China's views on arming Japan, history must be our guide.  China was invaded and occupied by the imperialist Japanese military between 1931 when Japan invaded and occupied Manchuria and 1945 when Japan surrendered to Allied Forces.  Massive attrocities were committed (i.e. the Rape of Nanking which resulted in the deaths of at least 300,000 people in two months) and recent calculations by China show that at least 35 million military and non-military people were killed over the 14 year period.  It is any wonder that China still distrusts Japan?

 

Should Japan's leadership seriously consider tossing aside the Three Non-Nuclear Principles that it has upheld for over five decades all in the name of furthering Washington's goals in the Far East, particularly when it comes to Taiwan, we can assure ourselves that China's warning will be accompanied with actions that could ultimately lead to a nuclear war.