...
...
Governments and global institutions are rapidly moving toward a system of biometric digital identification, tightly integrated with central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) and carbon market infrastructure. Framed as tools of “inclusion” and sustainability, these digital IDs link facial recognition, iris scans, and fingerprint data to a centralized profile—tied directly to your ability to transact, receive aid, or even exist within the modern economy. But beneath the language of innovation and equity lies a troubling consolidation of surveillance and control. This video explores the coordinated global rollout of digital ID systems—backed by entities like the UN, World Bank, and major tech figures like Sam Altman—and how these IDs are foundational to broader digital finance ecosystems. From iris-scanning refugee camps to tokenized rainforest assets, we trace how biometric identity and programmable money converge into a unified system of traceable, conditional access. As retail CBDCs face political resistance, private banks are quietly constructing a two-tier system using stablecoins and deposit tokens—functionally identical in their surveillance potential.
There's a coordinated global policy push
for digital IDs as the new form
governmentisssued identification
credentials and they're essentially all
based on your biometric data which can
be your fingerprints, your face, your
iris of your eyeball and the idea is
essentially to collect all of that data
and have it housed or have it tied
directly to your digital ID. So your
physical ID will be mapped to the
digital ID. Digital IDs are not really a
separate project from CBDC's and this
new digital financial system and UN
documentation and also documentation
from the Bank of International
Settlements. They very overtly state
that CBDC's 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 the know
your customer protocols. they have to
know who you are and so they want to
have your wallet tied to a digital ID
and have that digital ID be mapped to
your physical ID through the biometric
data collection. So there's different
efforts to make digital IDs either as
NFTTS nonfgeible tokens. There's also
the efforts of Sam Alman of Open AI and
his Worldcoin project whereby you scan
your iris, you give them your your the
biometric credentials of your eyeball,
they give you a unique identifier, a
digital ID and it's inherently tied to a
digital wallet. That is the same model
the UN is using. They've already
implemented it for refugees getting food
assistance from the World Food Program.
It's called Building Blocks. It's on
blockchain. It involves refugees
scanning their irises and in order to
buy food or receive their rations, they
have to check out of a grocery store
style place in the refugee camp. They
check out biometrically with a an
eyeball scan. And then the amount of
food they have, the monetary value of
that is subtracted from their digital
wallet connected to their digital ID and
their iris. It doesn't matter what
country you're in or whether you're part
of bricks or part of the collective
west. This is being rolled out across
the board. One of the main reasons for
this coordinated global push to develop
digital IDs is because it's deemed
essential to the entire sustainable
development agenda which is the UN
sustainable development goals or SDGs
also known as agenda 2030. And the
specific part dealing with digital IDs
is within SG16 which is about building
peaceful and inclusive societies. One of
the indicators of SUGG16 16.9 calls for
legal identification for everyone in the
world from the time they're born
essentially the leading alliance that
was launched under the opices of the UN
to accomplish that is known as ID2020
and has since been folded into what is
called the digital impact alliance which
essentially has the same funders and
founders as ID2020.
So ID2020 the UN and other stakeholders
in this particular sphere often argue
that the reason this is necessary is
because of what they call the identity
gap and the identity gap is the claim
that the lack of digital ID is
preventing people mainly the world's
poor from accessing essential services
whether it's banking whether it's
education whether it's healthcare they
claim the only way for these people to
be able to access these services is to
onboard them to these identity schemes
So what they mean by essential services
is you know they say without these forms
of recognized identity people in the
world mainly the world's poor are unable
to access bank accounts unable to access
healthcare unable to access government
services a variety of things because
they don't have ID or they don't have
bank accounts things of that nature so
in order to allow everyone to access all
of these things and include them hence
the frequent word of inclusion usion in
all these documents they say digital ID
is is the necessary way to bridge this
identity gap and if you look at how the
UN sponsored groups like ID2020 are
constructing this they're trying to hide
behind a a facade of decentralization
and construct digital identity in a way
that they call is vendor agnostic
meaning that any private company in
theory could develop a digital ID system
that people could use so you'll have a
variety of companies or government
agencies issuing digital ID and it will
not look like a centralized digital ID,
but it will be based on what's been
developed so far by these entities. It
seems like that database is meant to be
housed at the World Bank and it's called
ID4D and is sort of cloaked in the same
rhetoric that ID2020, you know, cloaks
their own project claiming it's
decentralized and all of this, but it's
a centralized global data set that can
where all these different digital ID
systems can export their data to. The
World Bank's interesting in in the sense
that you know the World Bank, the IMF,
they essentially use a debt slavery
model to enforce policy objectives on
national governments and the World Bank
has openly said that debt is a critical
form of financing for the sustainable
development goals. So basically saddle a
country in debt and instead of having it
enact austerity policies and things like
that, it's to get them to enact digital
ID. needs to get them to enact, you
know, financial inclusion as they call
it with the CBDC's and and you know, in
their public private sector equivalents,
you know, things of that nature. So
that's how they force nation states to
act as these enabling environments for
these policies. A lot of it is through
the same is through debt slavery
essentially. One thing people don't
realize about the digital ID thing too
is that there's a push not just to have
people have digital ID, but literally
everything alive have a digital ID. So
Larry Frink talked about this when he
recently talked about how he views the
tokenization of real world assets moving
forward. Everything's going to be on
this universal ledger and have its
unique identifier. He recently was very
overt about how there's going to be a
universal ledger where all transactions
are tracked essentially and that this is
key to this new financial system that's
being created that involves digital IDs.
It also involves global carbon markets
and you know the CBDC digital currency
model all of that is going to be on the
centralized database. That's what is
saying and a lot of this new system is
tied up with the push for global carbon
markets whereby natural assets which is
a new asset class they're creating are
also going to have these unique
identifiers. So for example there
there's a lot of efforts right now for
example to tokenize rainforest for the
purpose of using it in this global
carbon market. So that rainforest will
also be given a unique identifier
digital ID. So just like digital IDs are
inherently exclusionary and being sold
as a tool for inclusion, CBDC's and and
also digital IDs are being framed as
decentralized when in reality they're
very centralized. So in the case of
digital IDs, there's this push to create
decentralized IDs. They call it where
your credentials are only unencrypted on
a need to know basis. And you know that
sounds great in in practice. Uh but in
reality these rely on what they call
trusted third parties to verify those
credentials. And those are the same
government agencies and and big banks
and other entities that are those same
trusted third parties. So it's really
not as decentralized as a lot of their
proponents would like to claim. You move
into this digital currency era where the
banks are issuing these stable coins,
these deposit tokens that are
programmable money. It's not just
programmable. 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. This is like baking
in warrantless spying on Americans into
the new system to come. So there's no
more Congress needing to pass, you know,
the laws that facilitate FISA warrants
and stuff like that that have sort of
been the existing infrastructure to
institutionalize warrantless spying on
Americans. This is a way to literally
make it a part of the infrastructure
from the get-go. No more secret visa
courts or you don't need any of that
infrastructure anymore. It is the new
system.
And then so can you explain the whole
the CBDC tier model a little bit?
Yeah. So much of the public rhetoric on
CBDC's by those that claim to oppose it
is really about retail CBDC which means
that it's a CBDC that the public
interacts with directly whereby for
example um a central bank would directly
issue a CBDC and then that's the
currency that the people would be using
in wallets that are managed by the
central bank. Retail CBDC is not nearly
as common today as wholesale DB CBDC and
wholesale CBDC works as this two-tier
system. So in this two-tier system, one
of the tiers, the tier that involves the
CBDC is between the central bank and
financial institutions whereby the CBDC
really only serves as a means of
interbank settlement and isn't public
facing at all. And so the second tier
there is the private banks, the
financial institutions are issuing the
money that actual people use, but all
the interbank settlement is being done
in a CBDC. And this is the model that's
set to be followed in the United States
because Fed now for example of the
Federal Reserve that was launched solely
as a means of interbank settlement
really. It's not meant to interact with
the public at all and the Federal
Reserve has been very open about that.
So that Fed now is essentially the
infrastructure for a wholesale CBDC
model, not a retail CBDC model. So when
you have people like Trump and Ronda
Santis say no CBDC, they mean no
public-f facing CBDC. They don't mean no
wholesale CBDC. And what this second
tier managed by the private banks is
likely to be are things like tokenized
deposits, stable coins, things of um
financial products of of that nature.
And it people will be interacting with
that and thinking it's a private sector
thing, not necessarily something managed
by the federal government or managed by
the central bank. But if you are
concerned about CBDC's because of the
programmability and surveillance
aspects, tokenized deposits and
bankisssued stable coins can do all of
those things too. You can program them
with smart contracts. You can use the
same controls on them and and surveil
them. So the idea that this is any
better for financial liberty. A lot of
people are hesitant about a CBDC because
they see it as centralized government
control and so they're selling it this
way. So we, you know, will look at it
as, oh, this is coming from the private
sector. This is free market innovation
and all of this stuff. But people forget
that the Wall Street banks time and
again have been caught engaging in
brazen criminality. You know, these are
essentially they operate as cartels, not
as capitalists. And so what we're doing
here is entrusting essentially banking
cartels to, you know, manage digital
dollars and these stable coins and these
tokenized deposits that are part of this
two-tier CBDC system. And I don't see I
mean I honestly don't see how people can
think that is preferable or any better
than a CBDC system where the the central
bank is directly issuing it. And people
also forget that in the United States,
the Federal Reserve is owned by the Wall
Street banks. So of course, the Wall
Street banks don't want to be left out
of the new financial system to come.
They are going to have it set up so that
they have a very important role to play
and their existing business models are
allowed to continue into the new era
being that we're being ushered into. So
the Rockefeller Foundation and the
Interamerican Development Bank, which is
part of the multilateral developing
development banking system that includes
like the World Bank and the IMF, for
example, uh partnered to create this
entity called the intrinsic exchange
group, which then partnered with the New
York Stock Exchange to launch this new
asset class. Basically built around what
they refer to as natural assets and uh
create this vehicle for them called
natural asset corporations or NAC's. And
basically the intrinsic exchange group
defined a natural asset as things like
ecosystem services that produce clean
air, water that you know like how trees
produce turn carbon dioxide into oxygen.
All of those services and the parts of
the natural world that facilitate those
services can be monetized and you know
turn into this new asset class which
they refer to as nature's economy.
Essentially, how natural asset
corporations work is that they identify
the asset that they want to build the
natural asset corporation around and
then the natural asset corporation
issues shares in that asset out of thin
air essentially and they can sell it to
financial institutions, asset managers,
sovereign wealth funds and then they go
public and have an IPO and generate
funding that way and that funding is
they say meant to preserve the natural
asset but elsewhere they say that Their
main profit, like so much else, is to
generate profit for shareholders. This
is like the new Wall Street casino they
want to make. It has nothing to do with
preserving the environment. That is
literally just the talking point they
think will stick and and sell. We're all
in it together. We got to save the
planet. So, let's allow the bankers to
create a new racket that makes the
natural world collateral. I mean, that's
essentially what's going on here. And so
in order part of the infrastructure of
this is to surveil the natural world to
ensure that nothing happens to the
natural asset. No one is accessing or
using these forests, lakes, or rivers
that aren't authorized to do so. Whether
it's by a natural asset corporation or
some other financial entity that claims
to manage that resource on behalf of the
carbon markets.
