Majorityrights News > Category: Global Elitism

Last weekend’s F1 event in Miami was a palm-scanning every fan for who visited.  The revolution starts here!

After the implanted chip then the Health Passport ...the next iteration of the digital control project

Believe or not, there is a trade publication for people working “to make us all safe”.  It’s called Biometric Update, and it has just run a piece on the emergence of palm-printing at retail point of sale:

J.P. Morgan Payments’ system leverages a familiar one-time mobile biometric enrolment process in which users can register their palm or facial scan, which is then matched at point of purchase, either at an on-site shop or via a newly launched e-commerce retail store. Takis Georgakopoulos, global head of J.P. Morgan Payments, says the company’s biometric tools will “demonstrate how a modern, unified payments system can help businesses grow by reimagining their entire retail experience.”

Part of that reimagining involves making better use of data. The expanded relationship also gives SFM access to J.P. Morgan Payments’ Commerce Center, which allows the company to configure payment settings, search transaction history and access customer purchase data. In other words, it brings aspects of fintech into a trusted banking ecosystem, allowing merchants to tailor experiences based on insights and trends.

… The biometric payment machines will simplify payment processes to reduce transaction times, leading to shorter lines and a more streamlined shopping experience. Cost, of course, is also a factor, and Telpo says the P105’s interface requires minimal training and can replace human workers to reduce labor expenses.

… What makes the contactless biometric system unique is the magic of its scanning mechanism, which enables customers to “effortlessly hover their palm over a device to make payments.” Designed for easy integration into existing POS systems, the service promises biometric palm authentication that is 1300 times more secure than facial recognition methods.

For the avoidance of doubt, cash bestows anonymity; anonymity bestows freedom.

This last week the Oklahoma legislature has joined Louisiana in passing a law prohibiting the enforcement of dictates from supranational bodies within state boundaries.  Most particularly, it nullifies the monopoly power over global health sought by the World Health Authority.

SECTION 1. NEW LAW

A new section of law to be codified in the Oklahoma Statutes as Section 6301 of Title 74, unless there is created a duplication in numbering, reads as follows:

A. The World Health Organization, the United Nations and the World Economic Forum shall have no jurisdiction in the State of Oklahoma. The state and its political subdivisions, including, but not limited to, counties, cities, towns, precincts, water districts, school districts, school administrative units, or quasi-public entities, shall not engage in the enforcement of, or any collaboration with the enforcement of, any requirements, instructions, mandates, recommendations, or guidance provided by the World Health Organization, the United Nations or the World Economic Forum.

B. Any mandates, recommendations, instructions, communications or guidance issued by the World Health Organization, the United Nations or the World Economic Forum shall not be used in this state as a basis for action, nor to direct, order or otherwise impose, contrary to the constitution and laws of the State of Oklahoma any requirements whatsoever, including those for masks, vaccines or
medical testing, or gather any public or private information about the state’s citizens or residents, and shall have no force or effect in the State of Oklahoma.

SECTION 2.

This act shall become effective June 1, 2024.

SECTION 3.

It being immediately necessary for the preservation of the public peace, health or safety, an emergency is hereby declared to exist, by reason whereof this act shall take effect and be in full force from and after its passage and approval.”

Passed the House of Representatives the 24th day of April, 2024.

In a number of countries there has been opposition to the WHO’s pandemic treaty, some governmental, some not.  All see in it a naked bid for technocratic totalitarianism in health:

■ New Zealand’s new coalition government will reserve against proposed amendments to IHR.
■ Slovakia’s prime minister announced the government will not support strengthening the WHO.
■ A comprehensive bill by a congressman is gaining traction and public support in the Philippines.
■ Two South African parliamentarians champion the WHO Withdrawal Bill and mobilise on it.
■ A Parliamentarian in the Netherlands filed a letter making a reservation due to lack of due process.
■ Eleven European Union parliamentarians are formally challenging procedural failures in IHR amendments.
■ Bill HR 79 (to defund and exit WHO) was introduced by United States Congressman Andy Biggs.
■ Parliamentarians continue advocating to reject IHR amendments and question the WHO in Japan.
■ A letter from the Australian people communicates rejection of the WHO’s proposed amendments to the IHR.

Inevitably, the British government describes itself as a leading force in the formation of the pandemic treaty.  It was a signatory to the original joint-letter proposing the treaty.  The other signatory governments were a motley group of twenty-two, namely Fiji, Portugal, Romania, Rwanda, Kenya, France, Germany, Greece, Korea, Chile, Costa Rica, Albania, South Africa, Trinidad and Tobago, Netherlands, Tunisia, Senegal, Spain, Norway, Serbia, Indonesia, and Ukraine.  The Chinese and US governments did not sign but indicated strong support.

The date for agreeing the text of the new instrument is at the World Health Assembly at the UN in New York in May 2024.

A residential apartment block in Dnipro hit by a Russian missile on 14th January 2023

This morning the DT’s live Ukraine feed carried a brief report of comments by Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s, revealing the Kremlin’s real interest in peace talks with Ukraine, ie, it doesn’t have any.  The war is for empire and geopolitics, not for ethnic Russians in Ukraine (or in Russia).  The Kremlin’s interest is that the United States “negotiates” giving up of its status as global hegemon in exchange for Putin making nice with Zelensky for five minutes.  Lavrov actually means that American maintenance of the rules-based international order has to be ended so Russia can upgrade its non-rules-based, eurasionist model of imperial power to a global level.

I would remind readers that the Kremlin power elites define multipolarity as a collection of economic blocs, each led by a dominant power.  The model allows the Kremlin to piggy-back (with “no limits”) off the China’s inevitably global hegemony - as close as it can get to hegemon itself.

Here is the report:

Any Ukraine peace talks should be about ‘new world order’

Moscow wants any Ukraine peace talks to focus on creating a “new world order”, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said on a visit to Turkey on Friday.

He also threatened to abandon a landmark grain deal, which Turkey helped broker, if obstacles to Russian exports remain.

“Any negotiation needs to be based on taking into account Russian interests, Russian concerns,” Lavrov said.

“It should be about the principles on which the new world order will be based.”

He added that Russia rejects a “unipolar world order led by ‘one hegemon’”.

... but, of course, it’s all just a consultation process with absolutely no set agenda.  Nothing to do with Davos, no no.  Perfectly sensible, really, when cash use is falling (actually it’s rising) and when the economy is digitising (even if Sterling fully meets that requirement already).  And, of course, expectations that the new currency will be, y’know, programmable are just conspiracy theories.  Naturally.  I mean, who would think that any freedom-loving, not at all totalitarian and globalist Western government could ever contemplate, oh, say freezing peoples’ bank accounts?

Here is the meat of the DT’s characteristically anodyne article:

‘Digital pound’ possible by 2030 in bid to combat falling use of cash
State-backed virtual currency ‘likely’ as Bank of England and Treasury back ‘Britcoin’ project

The Bank of England and Treasury will next week throw their weight behind a “digital pound” as they set out a roadmap to introduce a new central bank currency by 2030.

Andrew Bailey and Jeremy Hunt are expected to say it is “likely” that a new form of money will be needed as cash use continues to decline in an increasingly digital economy.

It is understood that any new state-backed digital currency – which has been dubbed “Britcoin” in the press - would sit alongside cash. However, the plans are likely to fuel fears that physical currency could one day be phased out altogether.

The decision by Mr Hunt and Mr Bailey to throw their weight behind the project comes almost two years after Prime Minister Rishi Sunak set up a taskforce as Chancellor to explore whether to create a so-called central bank digital currency (CBDC).

“On the basis of our work to date, the Bank of England and HM Treasury judge that it is likely a digital pound will be needed in the future,” the Bank of England Governor and current Chancellor say in extracts of a consultation paper seen by The Telegraph.

“It is too early to commit to build the infrastructure for one, but we are convinced that further preparatory work is justified,” Mr Hunt and Mr Bailey will say ...

The Bank and Treasury will launch a four-month consultation in which businesses, academics and the wider public will be invited to share their views on the launch of a digital pound ...

Officials have identified 2025 as “the earliest” date the Bank could start building and testing a currency prototype. No decision on whether to go ahead with a CBDC is expected until then. The Bank has previously said that the earliest date for launch of a UK CBDC was “the second half of the decade”.

Other countries are already trialling national digital currencies, with China an early trailblazer. Trials of the digital renminbi first began in 2021.

Will it transpire that the British public - the real one, ethnically - will stand and fight government for its money and economic freedom, and for its ancient civil rights in a way it has signally failed to do for its own life and land?  Could be.

The following quotes are from an interesting (paywalled) article at the Telegraph, and speak to the impact of Putin’s failure in Ukraine and the resurgence of Western confidence.

China has extended the olive branch to Western democracies and global capitalists alike, promising a new era of detente after the coercive “wolf warrior” diplomacy of the last five years.

Vice-premier Liu He, the economic plenipotentiary of Xi Jinping’s China, told a gathering of business leaders and ministers in Davos that China is back inside the tent and eager to restore the money-making bonhomie of the golden years. 

“We must let the market play the fundamental role in the allocation of resources, and let the government play a better role. Some people say China will go for the planned economy. That’s by no means possible,” he said.

“All-round opening-up is the basis of state policy and the key driver of economic progress. China’s national reality dictates that opening up to the world is a must, not an expediency. We must open up wider and make it work better,” he told the World Economic Forum ...

It is a subtle way of telling the world that the neo-Maoist fever of Xi Jinping’s second term has subsided since the 20th Party Congress in October. Xi’s third term is going to be a giant pivot back to international harmony.

China is calling off its ruinous assault on technology companies – the country’s most dynamic entrepreneurs, but also the regime’s most powerful political foes ...

Vice-premier Liu He’s conciliatory pitch is also a signal that China will return to its longstanding position as a stakeholder of the existing Davosian global order rather than a revisionist power determined to overthrow it.

“We need to uphold an effective international economic order. We have to abandon the cold war mentality,” he said, pledging a push for “economic re-globalisation”. There was not a whiff of criticism of the US or the West. No speech of this kind has been delivered by a top Chinese leader for years ...

It goes well beyond the first signs of a tentative thaw at a US-China summit late last year, suggesting that China’s 20th Party Congress marked a watershed moment in Chinese strategic thinking. Whether it is authentic or tactical remains to be seen.

In a sense, the new policy is a recognition by the Communist Party that the democracies are not as weak as they looked a year or two ago. The West still controls the machinery of global finance, technology transfer, and maritime trade. The war in Ukraine has revealed that it can be remarkably unified and has a backbone of steel when seriously provoked.

Xi’s profession of friendship “without limits” for Vladimir Putin is surely an embarrassment he would rather forget – though there are some advantages for Beijing in a dependent Russia with nowhere else to turn. Russia’s military has been exposed as a paper tiger. Its value as an ally is enormously degraded.

Above all, Xi Jinping discovered that the US controls the global supply of advanced semiconductor chips, the primary fuel of the 21st century technological economy.

Without that you are nothing. China’s repeated efforts to close the chip gap have all faltered, and the latest has just been abandoned due to prohibitive costs ...

Deng Xiaoping long pursued a policy of “bide your time and hide your strength”. When Xi Jinping abandoned this restraint and switched suddenly to a posture of impatient menace he revealed what China might be like as the global hegemon.

This reached its apotheosis in pandemic triumphalism. It was not an attractive spectacle. Switching back even more suddenly to global happy talk will be a hard sell.

As to the Western feeling about Xi’s “impatience”, compare the above with the following boilerplate from the Daily Mail, published on 19th October last year:

Get ready for China ‘on steroids’: Xi Jinping will complete his totalitarian spy-state, take on the US and aim to break Western world order if he is given historic third term as leader, experts predict
● Xi Jinping set to become Chinese leader for third term this week, the first since Mao to rule for so long.
● Experts predict he will use term to complete ‘totalitarian’ spy-state using technology to repress all opposition.
● Xi will also take aggressive stance with the West and try to put China on equal footing with the US, they added.
● Ultimate aim is to break Western world order and establish another system with China at the centre, they said.

My immediate take on the change of strategy?  This pivot is almost certainly the result of Putin’s big gambit in Ukraine and the surprise of the West’s unified response to it, allied to the (for Beijing) straitening success of the Western economies in surviving Putin’s energy war.  Since the party’s 20th conference last October, when the threat to Taiwan was at its height, there appears to have been a decision that Putin has failed and there are costs to forging ahead with that “unlimited friendship” which a pragmatic Chinese leadership is unwilling to pay.  Probably at this time.  Probably because formal international support elsewhere for Putin is limited to Iran, North Korea and some fly-blown African place.  Support for Glazyev’s dollar reserve replacement is strong across the southern hemisphere, and probably now includes Lula’s Brazil in addition to Saudi.  But then the Western elites are not at all hostile to it, either.  Quite the contrary.  So Beijing is returning to geo-economics, because it is a stronger suite to play.  I don’t think that the Middle Kingdom goal has or will be dropped.  But the Chinese are good at patience.

Next week, as Breitbart has reminded us, the global movers and shakers will gather at Davos for the 53rd annual meeting of the World Economic Forum.  One quite expects that green virtues will be signalled as never before.  But what was not expected was a very firm contrary statement yesterday from US Federal Reserve chairman, Jerome Powell:

Central banks risk undermining independence by wading into social issues and seeking to tackle climate change, the head of the US Federal Reserve has warned.

Jerome Powell said it was essential that institutions “resist the temptation” to wade into “social issues” that go beyond their remit.

... Mr Powell singled out climate change as an “inappropriate” topic for unelected central bankers to address.

He told the audience in Stockholm: “We should stick to our knitting and not wander off to pursue perceived social benefits that are not tightly linked to our statutory goals.

“We [Federal Reserve] are not and we will not be a climate policymaker.

“Taking on new goals, however worthy, without a clear statutory mandated would undermine the case for our independence.”

Powell is a registered Republican, appointed in 2018 by Donald Trump.  But it is difficult to see Powell’s statement as motivated by anything but the strict fiduciary duty of a financial servant of the American people, and difficult to see strict fiduciary duty as in any way consonant with the new global order which the Washington Establishment and, indeed, the entire Western Establishment is striving to bring into being.  I would like to be able to link this new regard for staying on the financial reservation to the defence of Western national interests which informs support for Ukraine.  But I can’t see the link, and Western national interests are absolutely not on the globalist play-list.

So, a simple question: why is Powell moving away from the Davos agenda?

Posted at YouTube two days ago, this self-explanatory video from the Israeli start-up Redefine Food showcases yet another attempt by food technologists to help the new technocratic overlords demonise nitrogen, ban livestock farming, and buy up all the farmland to re-forest and re-wild.  This is brave, considering “industry leader” Beyond Meat is all set to be the next failure.  Last month it was reported that its “stock has tumbled 74% this year and a whopping 93% from its all-time closing high”.  Nobody wants to buy this stuff.  If money actually means anything to “investors” (and there is no immediate sign that it does), Redefine Meat should be printing its own bankruptcy notice quite soon.  I mean, just look at the gunk they expect you to consume!

I am a racially and ethnically aware Englishman.  I am not, therefore, anti-monarchical, because monarchy is genuinely inherent to the culture of power among the English, and the Scots and Welsh, and the Scots-Irish too.  Those of us - the vast majority - who are conscious of the fact are not generally the shifty and lightweight beings who might disrespect it in order to parade their, of course, terribly different and daring, not to mention radical republican values.  Therefore one can grant the dead monarch and the new monarch a certain historical import and even respect.  France is foundationally revolutionary.  Britain is foundationally monarchical.  To some subtle but substantive degree, these things are in the way that every Frenchman and every Briton comports himself in the world.

But beyond that affirmational fact, the French do enjoy a certain advantage.  They have rid themselves of an ancient appendix and need make no exception to the rule of their own government.  So the question inevitably arises: why do we cleave to a constitutional monarchy which has long ago relinquished the possibility of command, and which, today, cannot even pass a public opinion on the exercise of power in this land?  Why, indeed, have a monarch who is not even of the people’s blood, and for whom even the notion of representation of the people is shooed away by that of representation of the emotionally stiff and cold, formal machinery of state?  It’s a very British conundrum.  Obviously, those of our kind who are given to novelty ... those who are estranged in the modern ... cannot be persuaded of the virtue of continuity.  Those who are given to the Judaic prescription of equal-ness cannot be persuaded of hierarchy by heredity.  But in the minds of the rest of the British, who are the vast majority, there is some good in carrying forward the old investment of identity and fealty that adhered to the kings and queens of the ancient British past.  Certainly, our age does not have the same, direct tribal or semi-tribal connection.  But then on to the person of the monarch we project our yearning for that connection, which is a yearning for who we English, we Scots, we Welsh, we Scots-Irish are in our own-most being.  It might be obscured by the dust-storm of the modern, but we have a sense of it.  We just need something to point out the way.

Good monarchs and bad in that respect come and go.  A faithful and good one, on balance, has now departed, and quite likely a bad one - an earnest man, a sincere man, but confused and apprehensive - has already, and without a moments’ pause, taken up the royal burden.  We natives of this land are not his subjects.  Constitutionally, we are his sovereign and have been so since 1649, a fact which modern parliamentarians too rarely concede.  But, regardless of his undoubted weaknesses, we will extend our sovereign’s consent to him, and offer our fealty in return for his modelling of the truth and continuity of our nation, our blood and kind.  The French may fairly consider that absurd and anachronistic.  But we might then consider their civicism jejune and artificial, and we might even suspect that in some quiet and reflective corner of their national psyche a little envy abides.

There will be national mourning, and then, at some point over the next months, there will be formal majesty and circumstance as the new King is crowned.  The king of climate alarmism, some will say ... even the king of Davos.  But perhaps he will realise that he is no longer free to champion that cause.  There is, of course, no chance at all that he will ever cease to champion the foreignisation of his people’s home.