Every day, we hear more and more about digitalisation, which the media say is meant to serve humanity, to make life easier for all of us. Digital banking, HOME OFFICE jobs, remote-controlled robotic surgeons, robotic judges, self-driving cars, smart "gadgets" with artificial intelligence to help you at home, chips implanted in your body, 3D printing of organs... the possibilities are endless.
But where are the humans? Is he even needed?
Has the 20th century been about a technological advance that has opened up possibilities in all our lives that were unimaginable before, or have we created a techno-evolution whose sole purpose is to replace carbon-based life with silicon-based life, strange as that may sound?
Accelerated evolution in which man is just a middle player between monkey and robot? Do we think we are making the world a better place while unconsciously creating the next species after us? The robot that develops robots?
So far, there have been four industrial revolutions: The first was the emergence of human-powered machines, the second was the spread of mass production, the third was the emergence of automation, and the fourth was the birth of information technology, which is what we are living in now.
Klaus Schwab, the founder of the World Economic Forum and author of the book The Great Reset, spoke about the importance of digitalisation as early as 2016 and it was the central theme of the World Economic Forum in Davos, where every year the leaders of the conglomerates and the most important politicians gather to discuss, or rather "plan", the future. In the leader's own words, this revolution will change "the way we live, work and relate to each other, the concept of family.
Technological evolution also brings social change.
What exactly he meant here, he did not explain, but what is being mantraised everywhere every day is that we should not think in terms of a traditional family model, but in terms of a male-male, female-female model, (rainbow propaganda) possibly single, and not white, but of people of colour (African-American, Asian, Latino, etc.) Native mixed with immigrants. We need a society of color, both ethnically and sexually.
Two thirds of current jobs will be lost within 5 years progress is so rapid, many studies support this. Let's not forget that buying a robot in a factory is a huge investment, but you only have to buy it once, and then it can replace human labour completely. AMAZON's high-end production robot can distinguish 2 million objects. The assembly industry is facing difficult years ahead, as the need for factory workers is diminishing, as is the need for ancillary jobs:
No need for: security guards, clerks, cafeteria workers, cafeteria workers, delivery drivers (self-driving cars), assembly operators, sports managers, PR, HR, software developers. But we do need: what we need now is a computer scientist to control the robots, an electrician,.....and that's about it. A factory that needs, say, a hundred people will go with five in the future.
Then the next step: factories produce because they satisfy people's needs with products. If people have no jobs, no income, no purchasing power, who does the factory produce for? The few remaining workers?
That's where basic income comes in, because the question that many people have asked in the past is, if there is no need for human labour, what will they live on? An unconditional basic income would be a basic right, and this has already been tried in practice: in Finland it was EUR 370 and in Poland it was PLN 106,000. It is not possible to live on these amounts, but only to vegetate. To exist from day to day in a vulnerable, pre-planned way.
As American financier Greg Mannarino says:
The aim is to keep the masses alive day by day, because those who are concerned about whether they will have enough to eat will not rebel against the system, because rebellion requires a reserve... on the other side is endless wealth, and those who live in it are satisfied with the system.
The following sentences are from the propaganda film of the Great Reset:
In short: I have nothing, no car, no clothes, no possessions. I have access to everything: transport, accommodation, food. Everything is free and available to everyone, so there is no point in private property.
First Digital Communications (the most easily observed) became free, then Energy, which brought with it free transport, no polluting factories, everything is recycled. I'm always being watched, my thoughts and dreams are being recorded, it's a bit disturbing and there are many people who don't participate in this system they live in remote places in small communities. No pollution, no traffic jams, no industry.
To achieve all this, it is inevitable to introduce a monitoring system and to abolish private property, with high taxes that do not require the property to be taken away, but given away by the owner because he cannot pay the taxes imposed by the ever increasing environmental pressure (the need for energy modernisation, the spread of solar panels and heat pumps.
In addition, the media propagate the acceptance of digital money:
Because of Covid, there was also a general view that we need a cashless world, because money is a killer virus.
Digital money is the most powerful instrument of control, the digital handcuff itself. An example:
Citizen X keeps posting, talking, writing about how he doesn't like party Z, he likes party Y. If his money exists on a digital screen, it is not his money. He doesn't have it in his hand as a kp, his balance can be cancelled because he doesn't like party Z....principally the bank and the state are independent of each other, but with such a concentration of power, isn't it worth not combining the two if the goal is to force citizens to obey? Of course.
Or if the citizen doesn't want to live in a sexually or racially coloured society, or simply doesn't like something and speaks out? Then the citizen's balance sheet goes down to 0 and then he becomes penniless, something he wants to avoid at all costs, so he prefers to remain silent.
Also, digital money is programmable so that it can only be spent on such and such goods, and can only be used within a certain time interval.
If you have a reserve, you are freer. This is not in the interest of the system operators. Very little is said about how the e-Naira, one of the world's first digital currencies to have been introduced, is being received by the people of mainland Nigeria. It has not been an undivided success: only 0.5% of the population use it, even though they get discounts on purchases and taxi fares.
Since the hook of the discount was not taken up by the residents, the government decided to reduce the amount taken from the vending machines to a maximum of 225 dollars per resident per week. Money can be withdrawn on top of that, but with a hefty 5-10% vending machine user fee deducted from the amount withdrawn.
The aim is to create a cashless society, says the head of the local central bank. And how do they explain the need to introduce digital money? Unintelligible, meaningless concepts such as: increasing the efficiency of the financial system, reducing the cost of banking services....
More than 100 countries in the world are currently developing digital money, including Hungary, according to visualcapitalist.com, and it is currently not yet active, in a so-called "development status".
In conclusion, I would like to note that this article can also reach the reader through technological development, it encourages to think about the problem, so it can be used to approach an issue in a different way, but it has become certain to me that technoevolution is either stopped or the evolutionary masters are breaking/ensnaring humanity.
Source:
