A few thoughts on U.N. Agenda 21 and how Bitcoin reverses authoritarianism.

As a starting point it is reasonable to believe that all individuals attempt to solve problems, at least from their own understanding of how things work.

Central planners will favor authoritarian solutions while voluntarists will favor compelling win-win arguments that can inspire people to be convinced of something.

Politicians tend to align with the 'ethics' of the Trolley Problem; that if they believe they can help the many (or the planet), that this warrants sacrificing some groups of people.

In 1992, 178 nations signed up for Agenda21.

The Trolley Problem however, is deeply unethical; the assumption is that it is virtuous to sacrifice some for some believed 'greater good'. We have seen this tried time and time again throughout history with devastating consequences.

To start with; how could central planners possibly know that X will happen if Y is not sacrificed?

There are both corrupt assumptions combined with plausible power motives mixed into this mental model.

The U.N. Agenda21 can set policy in 178 countries for the simple reason that they signed up for this global policy program in 1992. Coordination in policy between nations is therefore built in.

The fractional reserve banking system is a global, ticking time bomb. Most governments favor a new system of CBDC's to keep their power intact, as well as expanding their control tools.

Governments basically have two choices:

1. Allow free agency and liberty for all. This is the free market path.

or

2. Restrict liberties and use coercion, force or herding via narratives to keep control. This is the central planning path. CBDC's are required to achieve this.

If government bureaucrats are attempting to 'solve' the problem of complete management of society, as they are inclined to do - that's their own, believed main purpose of central planning - then the implementation of social credit score systems appears to them as tempting tools of absolute control. As Jabba Carsten the BIS banker like to say: absolut kontroll.

If 178 nations chose the central planning path in 1992 by signing up for U.N. Agenda21, it's not unreasonable to think they saw it as the only possible path forward for governments to stay in control as the economic system of printing money and growing national debts was heading toward certain catastrophy.

This doesn't excuse governments for pursuing a central planning path.

In 2009, money that cannot be inflated was invented, solving the problem of how to end moneyprinting. Bitcoin became the alternable to dystopian central planning.

Yet, moneyprinting + CBDC's keep governments in control, so there is a clear power motive involved. CBDC's are also necessary for social credit score systems and carbon allowance restrictions, as per the U.N. Agenda2030 goals.

As the Club pf Rome observed: they imagined that there was a need for a global, cross-national threat that could pull nations together to reach unified policy agreements.

They came up with (false) climate concerns as a unifying threat. This is the building block of U.N. Agenda21; climate alarmism.

Zooming out, the Trolley Problem is visible:

1. Belief in a climate disaster that is always 5-10 years ahead.

2. Belief in the justification of sacrificing X, Y or Z in order to avoid the believed doomsday scenario.

What could go wrong when power ambitions enter this equation. Secondly, what could possibly go wrong even if we assumed no power ambitions, naive though as that would be.

The Trolley Problem is unethical at its core. It assumes that central planners are all-knowing & incorruptible, while they justify their power by assuming that humans are greedy and incompetent. Greed certainly have a way of rising to power.

It is in this context that we need to understand the authoritarianism of Covid-19, lockdowns, movement licenses, Covid-passports, mandated injections and movement-regulating discrimination. Discrimination based on whether or not an individual have injected a poorly tested product with obvious risks of side-effects that the government demand to force upon individuals via false narratives, coercion, threat or force.

Movement licenses are clearly goals by themselves; to tie your liberties to central databases - social credit scores - which can and will be used to centrally manage your options in life based on your compliance with the fickle beliefs and whims of either incompetent or malevolent central planners, often times both.

This is also one of many reasons why Bitcoin matters. Bitcoin is the only monetary protocol that can bring down the emerging CBDC control tools and the social credit systems that depend on CBDC's, while also preserving the savings and freedom of everyone to transact without discrimination.

Witout moneyprinting and CBDC's, social credit systems have no future. Bitcoin solves core systemic problems of central planning tyranny and overreach.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

When speaking of governments, I often hear the β€œnever attribute to malice that which can be explained with stupidity” quip.

The people who control governments are smart enough to know that they must control the money. Otherwise, they would replace their money with Bitcoin and there would be no discussion of CBDCs.

So if they are smart enough to know this, what degree of malice are they willing to commit in order to keep their power?

Right, it comes back to the Trolley Problem.

My view is that the Trolley Problem is malevolent in itself: sacrificing innocent individuals for some believed cause is a form of malevolence, regardless of intentions. Harming innocent people does not redeem destructive actions by proclaiming lofty goals.

Exactly, except in the case of government, the Trolly Problem always involves millions of citizens on one side, and the government’s cronies on the other.

I believe politicians actually do have malevolent intentions because they only allow the most cunning of sociopaths and psychopaths into their club.

The goals of the elite are very old and well established. Have you ever seen Metropolis?

Agreed, I do believe there are actual malevolent Malthusian ideologies involved in our governments, although probably not at the lower 99%, but rather the top 1%.

Corruption rises to power. Psychopaths can always game whatever system is in place since they have no morals. They merely repeat the expected slogans of a given social system with sufficient conviction and no criticism.

This works because loyalty always trumps competence in social hierarchies. Competence can be bought on a need-to-have basis. Loyalty is harder to come by.

I believe I saw parts of Metropolis if you refer to the black-white movie, I don't remember seeing it in full so I probably didn't.

I agree that 99% of the politicians have no idea what’s going on. They naively believe they are making a change, and probably doing some shady shit on the side to enrich themselves. I’m not worried about them.

However, there is a group of people who have a sort of God complex, and believe they are ushering in a new and better world. So their intentions are technically good in their own mind, but they wish to accomplish this under any means necessary.

You are thinking about the correct movie. Metropolis was made in the 20s, and it’s a favorite film of the elite. These people are not stupid by any means. Check out this article about the movie:

https://vigilantcitizen.com/musicbusiness/the-occult-symbolism-of-movie-metropolis-and-its-importance-in-pop-culture/

Well formulated.

Bureaucrats generally attempt to solve what they believe to be management problems. Since all freedoms comes with risks, the logical result of combating risks, then, is by abolishing free agency, one step at the time.

This is the tragic but predictable trajectory of bureaucracy and central planning, if allowed to proceed without course correction.

We have to judge harmful actions from their observable consequences rather than merely intentions. Intentions remain an area of speculation while actions are measurable. The road to hell is paved with central planning in the guise of good intentions.

I will check out Metropolis.

"My view is that the Trolley Problem is malevolent in itself"

Dude, that's a pretty strange flex to try to gatekeep contemplating a logical or moral conundrum holy fuck

Not sure how I am able to gatekeep anything. How about countering my arguments instead.

Governments that are willing to harm innocent individuals by assuming some probability thesis that can be both flawed in its probabilities and also impacted by power motives, is definitely in the malevolence spectrum.

If I am willing to pull a lever that can harm innocent individuals, that is a malevolent action even if I have or make up some motives for why it is necessary. Who am I to assume that I have sufficient data in the first place to justify harming innocent people. Central planners don't have access to most of the data and their ideology and power motives will also impact how they define a Trolley Problem.

Fuck countering your argument. I'll state an opinion. The Trolley Problem is a choice between choosing the least amount of harm, if given so. Pure logic. Concepts such as malevolence should not even enter the equation if dealing with something pragmatically.

'I call anything that harms or destroys a thing evil, and everything that preserves and benefits it good.'

/ Socrates (via Plato's Republic)

That's the classical definition of good versus evil and it's purely logical.

Do you agree or disagree that the Trolley Problem can be used for motives of power and control? If there is agreement then we are debating situations and applications that can be explored individually.

"Hitler is on the default track. If you flip the switch, it smears 5 alphabet people" - Is this what you are asking?

Those are your assumptions, not mine.

Governments using the Trolley Problem is very risky and the potentials for harm and undermining individual liberties are evident.

Is this clear enough as to how I used the term?

Dude goes and quotes Socrates, but turns into a shrinking violent the second I go full Godwin in 1 post.

Nice place for genuine intellectual debate.

I have to assume you have some severe problems at this point. πŸ€£πŸ˜…

"I have to assume you have some severe problems at this point"

Fair enough. I have to assume you are intellectually bankrupt at this point.

I often circle back to the parable of a broken window. So many aspects of govt seem to follow this concept. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window.

Interesting parable by FrΓ©dΓ©ric Bastiat.

Right, there are so many assumptions made by the central planning model that are obviously incorrect.

Future potentials are mostly unseen, at least to observers. Interventions in the free agency of individuals have both a negative effect directly as well as impossible-to-measure downstream consequences.

When and if we have individual liberties this allow us to focus all our attention on being productive; we can plan ahead knowing that our property and the fruits of our labor is safe 5 or 10 years from now.

If we are robbed of our liberties and thereby our future, or if coming generations are robbed of their future, our focus will inevitably be spent on fight or flight; to regain freedoms.

Correction: I meant to write alternative, not alternable. I was reformulating a few sentences and wanted to finish this up a bit too quickly.πŸ™ƒ

Great article. Thanks!

Thanks Sikto, just a few reflections.πŸ™

Yes. We are being asked to once again trust the central planners to solve a problem we can not see, we can not measure, and is too complex for most to understand. We will be asked to bend the knee to the β€œcommon good” and for the β€œprotection” from ourselves. Yet, I care more deeply about the land than any bureaucrat. It is a part of me. I agree with you that we are building the tools to resist such a future.