«In reality, we should right now already be living in a social credit system, where we would pay for everything with microchips implanted in our palms or through the recognition of our eye retinal patterns.
We would use a digital currency consisting of tokens, which our employer or the state could program, so that we could spend them only on specific goods, in certain places, or at specific hours», wrote Kit Knightly.
That was the plan: programmable central bank digital currencies, known as CBDCs (e.g., the digital euro).
An idea that first appeared in the media five years ago, during the same month, and became a subject of debate.
Where do CBDCs stand, then, five years later?
Evidently, they remain under development.
In certain respects, their implementation has been postponed, while in others it has been derailed.
Their progress is exceptionally slow, and the excitement surrounding them has markedly waned.
Why, though? Did intense public backlash force their architects to change plans, as discussed in the review regarding the «climate change lockdown»? Not entirely.
It was more of a gradual retreat rather than an abrupt halt.
Perhaps it is yet another instance where an aspiring tyrant attempted to bite off more than they could chew. We have seen it before.
General Wesley Clark argued in a memo that the American Empire would conquer seven countries in five years.
Ultimately, it succeeded with only six, and it took twenty years to reach that point.
The trajectory of CBDCs may follow a comparable path.
As the proverb goes, a python can suffocate trying to swallow an alligator.
Or, perhaps, the technology is not yet sufficiently mature.
The ambitious plans presented by the media five years ago may have resembled the expectations of an inventor who already saw profits ahead, before achieving the slightest milestone: rushing to patent a rough sketch drawn in pencil on a napkin, without possessing even elementary proof that the idea could work, let alone reliable results.
Most likely, the truth lies in a combination of some or all of these factors.
However, it is also a fact that, over this period, the way the media operated changed.
It appears that back then the belief prevailed that public opinion had been manipulated to such a degree that the ruling class could say whatever it wanted and the masses would silently comply.
Now, however, they know this is not the case. And they know it because we showed them.
Thus, they learned to conceal their message within an ocean of noise and endless nonsense.
The tactic of openly and unabashedly revealing their intentions has now been replaced by an effort to bury the substantive message beneath a barrage of irrelevant information.
They no longer speak so openly about what they seek, because it turned out that some people were indeed listening and understood what was being planned.
This, however, does not mean that anything essential has changed.
We must not forget that the CBDC agenda continues to exist.
A quick search on Google is enough to reveal ongoing developments surrounding the digital yuan, the digital ruble, the digital won, and the digital rupee. Simultaneously, work on the digital euro proceeds steadily.
The desire to control every financial transaction and determine how, where, and when we can spend our money remains alive.
Total control. That is what they still pursue, even if they no longer proclaim it so frequently.
The first step was taken with Bitcoin
Based on the model of Bitcoin, central banks plan to create their own «digital currencies».
According to critics of this development, such a shift could abolish any remaining margin of financial privacy, grant authorities complete control over transactions, and potentially restrict even the ways ordinary citizens can spend their money.
Since the initial appearance of Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies, which were presented as independent and alternative mediums of exchange outside the established financial system, it was largely a matter of time before an attempt was made to integrate this new alternative into the state apparatus through absorption, adaptation, and restructuring.
The time has come, then, to meet «central bank digital currencies» (Central Bank Digital Currencies, CBDC): the official response of central banks to Bitcoin.
For those who have not yet heard of them, central bank digital currencies are exactly what their name suggests: digital forms of currencies, such as the British pound, the dollar, and the euro, issued by central banks.
Just like Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies, CBDCs will operate exclusively in digital format, further accelerating the global campaign against cash.
Unlike cryptocurrencies that permit certain forms of pseudonymity and privacy, however, CBDCs are not designed to guarantee transaction anonymity.
On the contrary, they could facilitate transaction tracking and place the very concept of financial privacy in severe jeopardy.
You may not have heard much about plans to establish CBDCs, as the discussion was overshadowed by the chaos of the ongoing «pandemic».
Nevertheless, the relevant campaign is in full swing and has occupied the press for months.
Just today, articles on the matter appeared in both Reuters and the Financial Times.
It is a prolonged and gradual process that, according to its critics, is advanced in a manner that obscures its true ramifications.
The countries where this concept has progressed the furthest are China and the United Kingdom. The Chinese digital yuan has been in development since 2014 and has been tested repeatedly on a large scale.
The United Kingdom is still quite far from that stage, yet then Chancellor of the Exchequer Rishi Sunak warmly supported the idea of a digital pound, dubbed in the press as «Britcoin».
Other countries, such as New Zealand, alongside Australia, South Africa, and Malaysia, are closely monitoring developments and exploring their own options.
The United States is examining the exact same concept.
Jerome Powell, former head of the Federal Reserve (Fed), had announced that a detailed report on the potential creation of a «digital dollar» would soon be released.
Proposals regarding how these digital currencies would function ought to cause serious concern, even among those most skeptical of such warnings.
Most people, probably, would not feel comfortable with the idea of the government being able to «monitor all spending in real time».
Yet, this is not necessarily the most alarming prospect.
Even more dangerous, according to critics, is the concept that future digital currencies could be «programmable».
In other words, they could embed rules determining where, when, and for what purposes money is permitted to be spent.
This is not merely an interpretation or a «conspiracy theory».
One only needs to listen to what Agustín Carstens, head of the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), stated earlier that year:
Here is the relevant excerpt again, emphasizing the most critical point:
«The key difference [with a CBDC] is that the central bank will have absolute control over the rules and regulations determining the use of that expression of central bank liability, and also the technology to enforce that».
This statement, according to criticism directed at CBDCs, demonstrates not only the desire of responsible institutions to acquire such authority, but also how they perceive their own role.
Citizens' money is described as «liabilities» of the central bank, a framing that could be used to justify heightened control over its use.
An article in The Telegraph, in June, was equally revealing regarding potential applications of this technology.
The emphasis in the following excerpt is ours:
«Digital cash could be programmed to ensure it is only spent on essentials, or goods which an employer or government deemed sensible».
The article subsequently quotes statements by Tom Mutton, a director at the Bank of England:
«There could be some socially beneficial outcomes from that, preventing activity which is seen to be socially harmful in some way».
Could governments and employers, then, ensure that money held by citizens is spent exclusively on «sensible» causes and not on activities characterized as «socially harmful»?
It takes little imagination to realize how such a system, if implemented without substantive checks, could evolve into an extraordinarily coercive model of social organization.
The Western approach may be less direct, without that meaning it will necessarily be less intrusive.
Britcoin, for instance, could be programmed only in «special circumstances».
As The Telegraph reported, applying such logic could begin with state welfare benefits.
These funds could be designated as available exclusively for the purchase of «essential» goods and services.
If, indeed, a universal basic income were introduced in the future, the prospect would arise of an ever-larger portion of the population depending on benefits subject to such restrictions.
It is also not difficult to imagine how programmable money could be tethered to policies designed for «protecting the NHS», the British National Health Service (NHS).
For example, limits could be placed on using state benefits to purchase sugary foods, cigarettes, or alcohol.
Tracking the income and spending of people on organ transplant waiting lists or suffering from specific illnesses could likewise be considered.
Introducing such restrictions could start gradually, through measures initially presented as reasonable or even vital.
One possible objective, for example, would be «restricting competition» or boosting commercial loyalty.
McDonald's could, hypothetically, prevent its employees from spending their wages at Burger King, and vice versa.
The same could happen between Coca-Cola and Pepsi, or between Starbucks and Costa.
The example is simple, yet it captures the broader issue: the ability to tie access to money to specific commercial choices.
In recent years, we have witnessed the rise of cancel culture, identity politics, and public virtue signaling through displays of moral superiority.
One only needs to consider how the use of programmable money could fit into this landscape.
Corporations stating a commitment to «combating hate» could, theoretically, impose restrictions on employee donations to political parties, religious bodies, charitable foundations, or even specific individuals placed on a blacklist.
During the coronavirus pandemic, we saw authors, actors, and musicians who challenged the mainstream line become targets of intense public backlash and smear campaigns.
Let us imagine, however, a world where corporations could exclude individuals accused of «spreading disinformation» from economic activity, barring employees from using their paychecks to buy artwork, films, music, or books by creators offering documented and honest critique of the government.
Could we, perhaps, reach a point where corporations impose harsher spending restrictions on the wages of unvaccinated employees compared to vaccinated ones?
Could an unvaccinated worker be barred from using their salary to visit a cinema or a nightclub under the pretext that doing so would «prevent the spread of the virus»?
These are hypothetical scenarios, yet they raise a fundamental question: who will determine the rules for using digital money, and what limits will constrain the power of those enforcing them?
Smart contracts
John Cunliffe, Deputy Governor of the Bank of England, told The Telegraph: «You could think of smart contracts in which the money would be released only if a certain condition is met».
Employers may go so far as to eliminate employee freedom of choice altogether, requiring a negative test and/or a vaccine booster as a prerequisite for wage disbursement. And that could serve as a precedent for imposing restrictions on all kinds of behavior in the future.
The World Economic Forum (WEF) has articulated a clear vision of a future in which people «will own nothing and be happy».
Combine this mindset with ongoing restrictions on the ability to achieve homeownership, and it becomes easier to grasp how employers and governments could allow funds to be used for rent payments, but not for mortgage amortization.
Let us now picture the emerging «Green New Deal».
Strict caps on spending for gasoline, plastic goods, or meat. Specifically, one might be permitted to spend only X dollars annually on air travel and consume only Y kilograms of beef. All of this, supposedly, to protect the planet and ensure its prosperity.
Thus, money could cease to function as an instrument of financial independence and personal liberty, degenerating into a mere voucher system whose usage depends entirely on decisions and rules dictated by mega-corporations.
All of this might have been dismissed as pure paranoia just two years ago. Today, however, would it truly come as a shock to encounter similar notions or even related hints across the pages of The Guardian?
The year is 2030. To reduce your CO2 footprint, your food purchase with digital cash been declined because you went over your car mileage limit. Its all tracked with your digital ID. 15 social credit score points have been deducted from your climate change passport.
— PeterSweden (@PeterSweden7) September 29, 2021
A programmable digital currency could, through its built-in coding capabilities, provide the means to control major facets of our social and economic life.
And, as the argument above asserts, that appears to be the direction in which the so-called «new normal» may well be heading.
www.bankingnews.gr
Σχόλια αναγνωστών