Digital Control Grid

Last June, I said on Money & Markets that the leaders of the push for a totalitarian control model and the central bankers had decided to back Trump because he could deliver the conservatives into the model. What is happening now has been in the planning at least since then; Trump and Musk are simply Kabuki theater. What I underestimated was the speed at which they would proceed with a full-on coup. However, given that the Department of Defense (DOD) and intelligence agency clouds have all been digitized and put into the hands of Silicon Valley, a complete reengineering of the U.S. government through the digital systems is now possible at high speed.

Weather warfare will continue to support the land grab on an ongoing basis and comes with the ability to manipulate the media—old and new—to suppress the death counts. The takeover of TikTok was necessary for this purpose.

As the general counsel at HUD (later governor of Oklahoma and executive director of the American Bankers Association) once said when it was pointed out that it was illegal to abrogate a binding contract with a private enterprise: “F**k ‘em! By the time they win in court, we will be gone.” If you know what you are doing, you could cancel all of this stuff relatively quickly on a legal basis, but it does not look like that is happening.

Doing lots of different actions to cancel all these things is so delighting Trump’s supporters that they have failed to notice the shredding of the Constitution and the illegal coup. This is combined with crypto speculative profits and massive entrainment pumping through TV and the Internet—likely through porn, gaming, and crypto sites as well as TV sports—to further support the coup and inspire the crowd to despise and/or ignore any liberal or person who tries to warn that DOGE’s access to and use of Treasury’s payment systems, and other actions underway, are massive violations of the Constitution and laws. All you have to do is shadow ban and deride anyone who suggests that the proper response is to enforce the law.

This is a coup. The goal is to destroy the Constitution once and for all. If they succeed, the central bankers will have complete control, as Bank for International Settlements (BIS) general manager Augustín Carstens has openly described.

The construction of the social rating can draw inspiration from three recently established rating systems: on the one hand, the internal rating systems (or credit rating—CR) introduced by banks in assessing creditworthiness and, on the other, the environmental, social and governance (ESG) rating and corporate social responsibility (CSR) rating. The credit rating is one of the main financial innovations of the last decades. It has favored the passage from a binary logic (grant or not to grant the loan) to a multidimensional approach that influences the conditions of the financing. Its introduction redesigns the content of the relationship between lenders and borrowers by requiring both actors to achieve a cultural leap (that is not yet fully expressed).

Lack of transparency. The CR, ESG and CSR rating systems do not offer complete and public information on the criteria and the evaluation process developed by them to assess company credit or sustainability performance [69]. This makes it difficult to understand what the evaluation systems are measuring and makes it difficult to compare the different results. The social impact assessment model is not meant to be a black box. The survey areas, the variables, their weighting, the threshold values and, in general, the methodological criteria of the evaluation analysis must be known and made public in order to make the rating assignment process readable and interpretable. The greater the degree of transparency of the evaluation process, the greater will be their reliability in the eyes of both the subject evaluated and those who use the rating in the portfolio allocation of social investments.

In our view, the key to making public digital infrastructure work hinges on striking the right balance between centralisation and decentralisation. While a grassroots approach would make it difficult to gain the requisite traction, a government-first approach would struggle to build sufficient public trust. To get the balance right, we propose the following three key ingredients: Democratic digital infrastructures: The Commission’s Data Governance Act (which calls for the establishment of data spaces to facilitate data sharing) and Strategy for Digital Identity, which aims for every European to have their own eID by 2030, should be leveraged to take a more decentralised and democratic approach towards developing these key new areas of innovation, which underpin our model for public digital infrastructure. Healthy interoperable ecosystems: The Commission should launch an ambitious FOSS Fund, which would provide the funding for user-friendly solutions on top of these new data sharing and identity mechanisms. Its main aim would be to create a fully interoperable suite of open alternative tools, which can compete with the mega-platforms, without exploiting users or infringing on public space online.  Collaborative, open governance models: The Commission should fund the establishment of a fully independent governance body, tasked with ensuring the data governance and digital identity models that underpin our public digital infrastructure remain secure and open.

Its integration with government welfare is allowing corruption in ration distribution leading to starvation and profiteering according to reports