Please don't petulantly ask for "the source"

Anyone is free to look for this information

[b][c=BF0000]
Tomorrow, November 8th 2023, a virtual launch event is to take place for what is termed the “50-in-5” agenda. The United Nations, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and partners of the Rockefeller Foundation are launching a campaign to accelerate digital ID, digital payments, and data sharing rollouts in 50 countries under the umbrella of digital public infrastructure (DPI) by 2028. The United Nations Development Program (UNDP) has announced plans to rollout “digital IDs” worldwide by the year 2030, and they will be mandatory for people who wish to participate in society, say Reclaim the Net, who advocate for free speech and individual liberty online.

The push for Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI) which includes ‘Digital IDs,’ vaccine passports, and central bank digital currencies (CBDC) is being championed by the globalist WEF and unsurprisingly is backed by Bill Gates along with the UN, and the European Union (EU).
[/c][/b]

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

ArishMell · 70-79, M

It's not "petulant" to [i]ask[/i] the source; but is petulant, in fact extremely rude, to [i]refuse [/i] it.

To be fair to you, this time you do cite at least its authors: "Reclaim The Net".

I would ask though what you really want everyone to believe, and why you do? You seem to hate anything internationally co-operative, no matter the purpose!

WalterF · 70-79, M

@ArishMell You believe, I think, that the motives of men in control are always pure and worthy.

Yet many writers and philosophers in the past have made strong and powerful cases for communism, marxism, authoritarianism, one-world government. Certain leaders have tried to apply their principles.

Why should it be different now? The saying "Power corrupts, etc." does not describe a condition that men have grown out of, does it? Men are NOT evolving into better people, are they!

If you think they are, can you give some proof?

If not, beware! One can be too trusting.

ArishMell · 70-79, M

@WalterF I didn't question the rights and wrongs of the organisations you mention, nor whatever policies or proposals they may or many not discuss - though you never have a good word for any of them.

I do agree that the notion of a "one-world government" - be it of the Left or Right or somewhere vaguely between - is pretty horrific but also so far-fetched that I cannot see it even being possible. The world is too fractured and fractious for that.

I also agree mankind as a whole is not much better now than it ever was. It is some ways, but not others, and power can corrupt no matter the system, dogma or puropse.

I questioned instead your manipulative behaviour.

WalterF · 70-79, M

@ArishMell Scarcely "manipulative"! Have I persuaded anyone along bad pathways? Or, to put it more crudely, in the bullying language of an authoritarian government with its media allies, have I "killed grannies?"

What makes me annoyed is how every believer in the official line, when confronted with an alternative points of view, trots out "Source?"

Why? So he can go to his beloved "fact-checkers", much as a baby searches for its dummy, to get "proof" that the source itself is rubbish, the author of the text is a misguided fool, and all is well in this artificial world we are now living in.

I have just posted another item, with the source clearly indicated, to placate all you petulant source-seekers.

ArishMell · 70-79, M

@WalterF No you've not done that and I have not accused you of that.

Much more subtle than that, you don't want people to read your source material for themselves.

Your fear might be real and justified from careful analysis of official documents, they might be from reputable news and current-affairs journalists who can tease fact from fiction, they might be complete rhubarb parroted from American "survivalist" blogs; but if don't want anyone to know their basis....,