reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Speaker 0 describes digital identity as not just a passport on your iPhone but something that entails “just about everything the government would like to know about you.” He cites a Dutch media example where the CEO of one of the largest Dutch banks proposed a “personal carbon credit,” calling it a “carbon wallet.” He notes this aligns with plans some say the World Economic Forum has for us. She suggested that if everyone gets an individual personal carbon credit, rich people who “wanna go on holiday a little too often” could buy personal carbon credit from others who “can’t afford buying plane tickets or eating meat too often,” thereby swapping credits. Speaker 1 elaborates with a concrete scenario: if Bill Gates or Leonardo DiCaprio’s carbon footprint becomes too large, “some peasant living in his hovel upcountry somewhere” could sell his carbon allowance to Leonardo DiCaprio, so DiCaprio can park his yacht in Saint Tropez for a couple of extra days. The exchange is described as “Exactly right,” illustrating that the rich would buy from the poor in order to indulge in travel or activities that emit more carbon. Speaker 0 concludes that “the rich will get richer, the poor will get poorer,” and notes that these ideas are being stated openly as if they’re not controversial. He characterizes the concept as neo feudalism, labeling it as such.

"While many people rightly say that money is already digital, when world leaders say digital money today, it means cryptocurrency, which is now part of a worldwide scheme to monitor your actions and control your money." "This new form of currency will require you to have a unique digital wallet, which is essentially a digital ID." "Last spring, European Central Bank president Christine Lagarde said that the ECB will be ready to launch the digital euro by this October." "According to the Atlantic Council, a 137 countries and currency unions are preparing for a crypto digital currency." "Three countries have already launched theirs, The Bahamas, Jamaica, and Nigeria." "CBDCs in the advanced stages are the digital euro, China's digital yuan, India's e rupee, The United Kingdom's digital pound, Brazil's digital reel, and Russia's digital ruble." "The Trump family even have their own stablecoin, the USD 1 stablecoin from World Liberty Financial."

The speaker discusses the lack of knowledge regarding what happens to our digital identities when creating new accounts or logging in through large platforms. To address this issue, the speaker mentions that the commission will soon propose a secure European digital identity. This identity can be trusted and used by citizens across Europe for various activities, such as paying taxes or renting bicycles. The speaker emphasizes the importance of a technology that allows individuals to control the data exchanged and its usage.

Speaker 0 discusses what central bank digital currency (CBDC) might look like, noting that many people won’t like its appearance. He claims several central banks have already fully developed the final stage of CBDC, which would come in stages—initially through a mobile phone, but the final stage being small, the size of a grain of rice. He says this grain of rice is the entire wallet and digital ID, serving as your wallet, passport, and key. Speaker 1 asks if that grain of rice is the entire wallet. Speaker 0 confirms: yes, it’s your digital ID and wallet. He observes that debit and credit cards have moved to RFID chips for contactless payments, conditioning people to wave instead of swiping. He suggests the next rationale is that waving is faster, but raises concerns about losing or having cards stolen, implying a broader move toward implanting a microchip under the skin. He argues this would be a step too far for many due to human dignity concerns, requiring persuasion. Speaker 0 then connects universal basic income (UBI) to this technology, noting UBI has been discussed for a century, but billionaires and the World Economic Forum only supported it in recent years. He states that since February 2015, big billionaires and the World Economic Forum have endorsed UBI. He claims Bill Gates stated in February 2017 that UBI is a good idea but too early to introduce it, and he asserts the missing element then was a digital ID. He attributes the timing to the COVID agenda, arguing the sequence was to develop the technology first, then the ID. Speaker 0 explains a supposed usual game plan: central banks create boom-bust cycles and economic crises, then present a new idea as the solution. He contends that resistance to an implant would be high, so they sought another approach. He claims there is a World Economic Forum insight that once people accept electronic implants, there is a legal angle under which those with implants could be encouraged to be viewed as enhanced and not necessarily human, while the transhumanist movement entertains the idea of humanoid robots. Speaker 1 asks about a potential consequence, and Speaker 0 reiterates the idea that once someone has a microchip implant, the next question is whether they will still have human rights. He claims the World Economic Forum has conducted surveys asking whether humanoid robots should have human rights, and that most people say yes once the implant is accepted. In summary, the speakers discuss CBDC progression to a grain-sized digital ID wallet, RFID conditioning, the push for implantable chips, UBI advocacy by elites, a COVID-era trigger, a crisis-based rollout tactic, transhumanist legal considerations, and potential human-rights implications for humanoid robots.

There is a significant difference between cash and Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC). With cash, we don't know who is using specific bills, but with CBDC, the Central Bank will have complete control over the rules and regulations governing its use. They will also have the technology to enforce these rules. These differences make CBDC distinct from cash.

Speaker 0: De discussie over CBDC’s is volgens hem een verkeerde kant opgegaan. Hij beschrijft CBDC’s als een claim op de ECB: in essentie een gewone bankrekening, maar publiek. Problemen ontstonden door het woord “programmeerbaar”. De angst is dat CBDC’s programmeerbaar geld worden dat vergelijkbaar is met wat in crypto “colored coins” worden genoemd: een muntje dat alleen aan brood kan worden uitgegeven, of alleen aan groene doelen. In dat idee zit de programmering in het geld zelf; het muntje “weet” waarvoor het kan worden gebruikt, wat je ziet bij betalen doordat het muntje controleert welke kant van de betaling mogelijk is. Hij stelt dat niet alle systemen hetzelfde zijn. Hij noemt ook “programmeerbare betalingen” die account-based zijn, wat hij vergelijkt met een CBDC als normale bankrekening: de programmering ligt als een laag bovenop elke bankrekening. Daarbij noemt hij voorbeelden zoals de ING- of Rabobankrekening, met technische koppelingen zoals een REST-API: er komt een request binnen, en op basis daarvan kan er allerlei programmatuur worden toegepast die wel of niet in de ledger wordt bijgeschreven. Volgens hem begon de grote verwarring bij dit onderscheid, waardoor “angstporno” ontstond. Men vreesde dat een CBDC straks een muntje zou zijn dat je alleen maar aan specifieke doelen kunt uitgeven. Hij zegt dat zijn CBDC-idee dat niet is en niet zou werken, omdat geld dan niet meer neutraal zou zijn: het zou niet meer fungibel zijn. In zijn beeld zou een muntje voor zijn leven lang alleen aan brood kunnen worden uitgegeven, wat zou leiden tot stagnatie in de economie. Hij benadrukt dat dit nog nooit op schaal is geprobeerd. Wat hij beschrijft, is eerder te zien als een publieke bankrekening met dezelfde mogelijkheden en onmogelijkheden.

A discussion centers on a new proposed law, HR 8250, which would require operating system providers to verify the age of any user of an operating system and for other purposes, covering Windows, macOS, iOS, and Android, with open-source Linux considered in the debate. The claim is that this could serve as a Trojan horse to control people through a digital ID system, rather than being merely safety-focused. Speaker 1 references Catherine Austin Fitz, who says that if global elites deploy digital ID systems, they will control all aspects, including health freedoms and financial transactions. She argues that once financial transaction control is in place, all protections in health and food freedoms could be negated, and a 100% digital system with a digital ID and programmable money would allow authorities to dictate health decisions, vaccine status, gender-transition decisions for children, and other policies by turning off funds. Speaker 0 notes that Fitz is not hyperbolic and mentions Austin Steinbart, founder of the Quantum Party of America, who is joined by Speaker 0 to discuss the issue further. Speaker 2 (Austin Steinbart) asserts that the HR 8250 proposal is a disaster and goes beyond a digital ID concept by embedding age verification into the core of every device. He says the bill is six pages long and delegates enforcement to the FTC, creating ambiguity about whether biometrics, ID cards, or face scans would be used, leaving the mechanism up to the executive branch. He points out that the proposal could coordinate with companies like Apple (potentially via Face ID) and Microsoft to embed verification, while raising questions about how open-source Linux distributions would be forced to comply. He notes that Linux is open-source and typically users have root access, enabling workarounds or removal of such core files, and questions how a retrospective integration would work on devices like POS systems or hotel front-desk computers. Speaker 0 asks how the implementation would occur and whether the digital ID is the core objective beyond age verification. Speaker 2 confirms that the core goal is a universal digital ID across platforms, tying to privacy and cybersecurity concerns by requiring every service to interact with core OS files to verify age, with California already moving toward age verification that apps and websites would rely on. Speaker 0 links this to a broader move toward a central bank digital currency (CBDC) and a digital ID, quoting a sound bite from Catherine Austin Fitz about health identifiers affecting travel and other activities. Speaker 3 (a figure from the World Economic Forum) is cited, emphasizing tokenization of financial assets and the rapid rollout of a digital wallet and digitized currencies globally, with a critique that many countries are unprepared for such changes. Speaker 2 clarifies that blockchain or tokenization per se isn’t inherently bad, but concerns arise when centralized actors with anti-freedom aims design and control the system, shaping speech and policy. They discuss the potential benefits of tokenized assets in theory, while warning that centralized control could enable censorship and restricted financial activity. Speaker 0 ends by urging viewers to contact members of Congress to oppose HR 8250, urging them to “burn this thing down,” and thanks Speaker 2 for the analysis.

The speaker discusses the European digital identity and the decision to disregard a motion from the Dutch Parliament regarding it. They explain that the digital identity is important because all EU member states want it, and the Dutch government wants to ensure certain aspects are regulated. However, the surprise came when the Parliament stated they didn't think it should be pursued. The speaker emphasizes that the government believes in the importance of secure digital transactions and maintaining control over personal data. They mention that the decision to disregard the motion was made because the European identity will be implemented, and they want to have influence in the upcoming negotiations. The speaker acknowledges the concerns and assures that it will remain voluntary.

There's a coordinated global policy push for digital IDs, as the new form of government issued identification credentials. Digital IDs are not really a separate project from CBDCs and this new digital financial system. And UN documentation and also documentation from the Bank of International Settlements, they very overtly state that CBDCs and digital IDs are meant to go together. And without digital IDs, the CBDC digital finance system cannot exist. One of the reasons it can't exist without that is because of the KYC functionality built into this digital financial system. They have to know who you are. They give you a unique identifier, a digital ID, and it's inherently tied to a digital wallet. It's called building blocks. It involves refugees scanning their irises.

The speaker explains that understanding the digital control grid requires grasping three parts: programmable money, digital IDs, and a supporting hardware infrastructure. First, programmable money is presented as the most important element. The speaker argues that guardrails are needed to prevent programmable money from interfering with “financial freedom.” Second, programmable money is said to depend on a digital ID. The speaker claims they fought against digital IDs and lists excuses used to justify them, including online safety, vaccinations, election fraud, and immigration. The speaker says tight borders existed before digital technology and asserts there is no need for digital IDs. According to the speaker, proponents want a high-quality, globally interoperable digital ID in order to implement a “third lock,” and that digital IDs are required for that third lock. Third, the speaker says the final requirement is hardware infrastructure. They describe this as increasingly visible in America, citing FLAC cameras, drones overhead, and large data centers. The speaker references an approval of a data center in Utah described as 63 miles wide or long, with an estimate that full capacity would use three times more energy than the entire state of Utah currently uses. They add that the United States has approximately 4,500 data centers, while China has about 368, claiming the U.S. has more than ten times as many despite having a much smaller population. The speaker connects these data centers to collecting data and implementing the “third lock,” not only on American citizens but also on people worldwide who have stable coins or trade digital tokens. The speaker concludes that as hardware becomes more present and visible, more people—especially young people—start objecting and pushing back, saying they do not want to be part of it.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss the UK government’s rollout of a national digital ID, presenting it as imminent and not merely a future possibility. Speaker 0 states that the government is rolling out a national digital ID in the UK and asserts it is happening now, not something to consider for someday. Speaker 1 reinforces the opposition to digital ID, urging a rejection of it. Speaker 0 reports that they are outside BBC Broadcasting House for a digital ID protest, framing the event as a mobilization against the rollout. Speaker 1 warns that saying yes to digital ID could lead to an inability to say no to the government ever again, not just to the current government but to future ones unknown. Speaker 0 recalls assurances that national ID cards were dead and not representative of Britain, noting that the modern version is not a plastic card but a “live connection.” Speaker 1 calls on people to raise their heads out of complacency, asserting that humans are not data and emphasizing that the issue concerns everyone’s freedom. Speaker 0 contends that what is happening is an attempt to funnel humanity into being a number, implying a loss of individuality. Speaker 1 describes a future where the ability to earn, move, buy, or speak is not a right but a permission, and permissions can be switched off, framing this as a consequence of Digital ID. Speaker 0 summarizes the topic as Digital ID: how it started, how it is being sold, and what life looks like behind a biometric paper.

Lucy introduces her digital ID wallet, which serves as a convenient tool for proving and safeguarding her identity online and in person. This wallet, issued by the government, offers various identity services. One of its key functions is assisting governments in effectively communicating with citizens. Currently, Lucy's wallet is reminding her to schedule an appointment that is mandatory for her.

"We tend to establish the equivalence with cash, and there is a huge difference there." "For example, in cash, don't know, for example, who's using a $100 bill today." "We don't know who is using a 1,000 peso bill today." "A key difference in with the CBDC is that 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." "Those are those two issues are extremely important, and that makes a huge difference with respect to what to what cash is."

The European Union has reached an agreement on the implementation of digital identity, which is concerning news. Commissioner Breton has also mentioned the possibility of introducing the digital euro, or Central Bank Digital Currency. This connection between digital identity and digital currency is worrying, as it goes against previous promises and has raised concerns among privacy and security experts. However, there is still a chance to voice opposition to this development by contacting your Member of European Parliament (MEP) and expressing your disagreement with this tool.

There is a significant difference between cash and central bank digital currency (CBDC). With cash, we don't know who is using specific bills, but with CBDC, the central bank has complete control over the rules and regulations governing its use. Additionally, the central bank has the technology to enforce these rules. These differences make CBDC distinct from cash.

There is a significant difference between cash and central bank digital currency (CBDC). With cash, we don't know who is using specific bills, but with CBDC, the central bank has complete control over the rules and regulations governing its use. Additionally, the central bank has the technology to enforce these rules. These differences make CBDC distinct from cash.

Speaker 3 zegt dat zijn grootste zorg niet de techniek is, omdat die volgens hem optimaal is “uitgedokterd”. Zijn grootste vrees is de governance: op EU- en commissie-niveau zitten “apparatjieks” ver van het volk, niet gekozen en met vage bevoegdheden. Hij stelt dat bij één crisis al die beschermingsmaatregelen en afspraken van tafel geveegd kunnen worden, zoals volgens hem gebeurde bij de truckers in Canada. Daardoor verwacht hij dat er programmatically ruimte ontstaat om rekeningen te sturen en dingen mogelijk te maken die niet in het concept zitten en niet ontworpen zijn, maar wel gaan gebeuren. Hij wil daarom zo min mogelijk bevoegdheden leggen op een governance-niveau dat hij niet vertrouwt. Speaker 0 vraagt of hij enthousiaster zou zijn als het lokaal per land zou zijn. Speaker 3 antwoordt dat hij dan enthousiaster zou zijn, en noemt dit ook in relatie tot digital ID. Hij erkent dat men vertrouwen in de politiek kan hebben of niet, maar stelt dat er op nationaal niveau in elk geval een soort afrekenmechanisme is, terwijl hij op Europees niveau dat niet ziet. Hij vindt dat “hele EU gebaseerd…” op dit punt onvoldoende aansluit. Speaker 4 vindt het een logisch verhaal, maar wijst op een andere kant: naast governance ontbreekt een strategische risicoanalyse om te bepalen waar de grootste risico’s liggen. Zij verwijst naar de truckers die door de private sector en private banken werden geraakt. Speaker 1 brengt voorbeelden binnen Europa en met de VS: mensen in Europa worden gedebankt vanuit Amerika; Francesca Albanese wordt genoemd, net als rechters uit Den Haag bij het internationaal strafhof, die vanuit Amerika worden gedebankt. Speaker 2 bevestigt dat dit niet vanuit de EU gebeurt, maar noemt dat de EU ook een eigen lijst heeft met 70 mensen en bedrijven. Volgens hem staan die ook op die lijst en hebben ze extra beperkingen zoals inreisverboden en uitreisverboden. Hij zegt dat er wekelijks verslag van wordt gedaan. Speaker 0 zegt: “Ik ben zelf debankt.”

I just left the negotiations on digital identity, and I have concerning news. The member states and the European Parliament reached an agreement, meaning the digital identity will soon be implemented in the EU. Commissioner Breton announced that we now have the digital identity wallet, which he intends to fill with the digital euro, or central bank digital currency. This is troubling, as they previously assured us there would be no connection between the two. Privacy and security experts have warned that this development poses significant risks to our privacy and freedom.

The speaker discusses Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC), specifically the digital euro, and its upcoming introduction planned for 2029, noting that the European Parliament has some resistance. Rapporteur Naharete Rogas opposes the plan, arguing that the current design adds nothing for ordinary people, i.e., ordinary citizens like you and me. The speaker counters a common claim that CBDC is not a replacement for cash and that the digital euro is not programmable. The speaker argues that, by definition, central bank money can be programmable. The explanation focuses on how the central bank’s balance sheet works when money is spent. When the central bank issues money (spends), it increases its balance sheet. Cash sits on the right side of the balance sheet. To keep the balance, on the asset side there are government bonds (and potentially other bonds) that earn interest, which means the central bank collects money from society. The Dutch central bank has written in a report about design choices for a digital euro that the central bank can influence society by increasing the money supply, because it earns interest, a process often referred to as seigniorage. The speaker emphasizes that if cash exists in a given quantity and the central bank issues CBDC in addition to that cash, the central bank’s balance sheet grows. To prevent this imbalance, the only way to keep the totals equal is implied: every time you issue 1 euro of CBDC or even a 10-euro note in digital form, you would need to keep the physical cash in ATMs from being replenished or refreshed. Under the digital euro scenario labeled “scenario 4,” CBDC would thus be the replacement of cash, with the overall sum being kept in balance through this mechanism. The speaker concludes with “Dus dut,” underscoring that the outcome depends on how the total money supply is managed and whether CBDC is deployed in a way that maintains or replaces cash.

First speaker asks what happens if the government issues digital currency. Second speaker responds that they’re talking about central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) and acknowledges their appeal due to ease, but believes a lot will happen as this develops. Second speaker explains that with digital currency, transactions are easy, and it will be similar to money market funds in terms of practical use. A key question is whether CBDCs can offer interest. There is a debate on this; if CBDCs cannot offer interest, they may be less effective as a hold-in vehicle, since depreciation could make alternatives like money market funds or bonds more attractive. There will be no privacy with CBDCs, making them a very effective government controlling mechanism: all transactions would be known. This close surveillance could be beneficial for countering illegal activity but would also give the government substantial control. Examples include tax collection, the ability to take money, and the establishment of foreign exchange controls. These controls could be particularly challenging for international holders of CBDCs; for instance, sanctions could enable authorities to seize funds held by individuals in other countries. Privacy concerns relate to the possibility that politically disfavored individuals could be shut off. Second speaker reiterates that these privacy and control issues are part of the broader picture. He suggests that, for those reasons, CBDCs will not become a magnitude that changes everything; development will occur, but he does not expect CBDCs to be a huge deal in scale, even though growth is likely.

The speaker explains that there is a significant difference between cash and Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC). With cash, it is unknown who is using specific bills. However, with CBDC, the Central Bank will have complete control over the rules and regulations governing its use, and the technology to enforce them. This distinction is crucial and sets CBDC apart from cash.

Many people are a little worried about what will happen to them with the digital euro. Can you encourage them? Why is the digital euro good for people like you and me? The digital currency, where it has been piloted, and there is only one which is clearly now launched in in a very small country, but it is piloted on a fairly large scale in in China, is of use and of service to all citizens. So it is not something that is good for the elite or is good for the young or is good for some versus others. If it is well done and if it is well implemented, it would be of service to all citizens.

Have digital ID. It's been taken up on a voluntary basis in huge numbers, not least because it means that you can access your own money, make payments so much more easily than is available with others. So I think now we need to go out and make that case of the

The speaker discusses the analysis of Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) and its comparison to cash. They highlight a significant difference between the two: while cash transactions are anonymous, CBDC allows the central bank to have complete control over the rules and regulations governing its use. Additionally, the speaker emphasizes that the central bank will possess the necessary technology to enforce these regulations. These factors distinguish CBDC from cash and make it a unique form of central bank liability.

"We move into this digital currency era where the banks are issuing these stable coins, these deposit tokens that are programmable money." "They're going to be sharing this data in the same database that the CIA and any other intelligence agency can access whenever they want without a warrant." "No more secret FISA courts or you don't need any of that infrastructure anymore. It is the new system." "Retail CBDC is not nearly as common today as wholesale CBDC." "Wholesale CBDC works as this two tier system." "the CBDC really only serves as a means of interbank settlement and isn't public facing at all." "FedNow, for example, of the Federal Reserve, that was launched solely as a means of interbank settlement, really." "When you have people like Trump and Ron DeSantis say no CBDC, they mean no public facing CBDC. They don't mean no wholesale CBDC."