CBDC Central Bank Digital Currency
Ursula von der Leyen Consolidates Power. What this teaches us about the push for single global government

Suppose you want to glimpse the political future that the globalist movement seeks to impose on the Western world. In that case, you should pay attention to current developments in the European Union, particularly the European Council- the appointed body that administratively manages the EU. Most think the European Union is an alliance between independent Westphalian nation-states that have banded together to form a trade partnership sharing a common currency. This certainly was the original justification (or marketing) for this political structure. But not the current reality.
The fact is that the organizational, administrative and political structure of the EU has evolved to yield a privileged political caste, based in Brussels, Belgium, which exerts unilateral political and financial authority over the formerly autonomous member nation-states. Of course, this process has developed under the careful guidance and watchful hidden influence of the United States and NATO.
As currently structured, Western Europe under the EU is more akin to the federal structure of the United States, but with a weaker central constitution and body of law (routinely disregarded) and less autonomy for each member state. Yes, there is the election of Members of Parliament of the European Union by the citizens of each state, but those MEPs have little of no actual power. Power is concentrated entirely in the European Council’s central authority and its President, Ursula Von der Leyen- all of whom are appointed rather than elected. And, as recently covered by both Politico and Unherd, although the center-right populist movements of Europe, including France, Italy, Germany and other countries have made great gains in the recent EU parliamentary elections, their growing power was not sufficient to disrupt the reappointment of Ursula Von der Leyen as President of the EU.
Unsurprisingly, upon reappointment, Von der Leyen swiftly moved to consolidate power by controlling the appointments to the European Council, which is the structure that actually makes EU policy and has the power to override any local decisions by the formerly sovereign legislatures of member states. To the surprise of virtually no one paying attention to what has been happening in the EU.
Key references for further reading include the following:
Politico: From queen to empress: Inside Ursula von der Leyen’s power grab
After unveiling her new team, the European Commission president holds more influence than ever.
BRUSSELS — When Ursula von der Leyen unveiled her team for the next European Commission, she simultaneously silenced the doubters about who was really in charge in Brussels.
As she revealed the 26 commissioners and their roles to the public, one point was immediately clear: she would have unfettered control over European Union politics. In a matter of minutes, she introduced a big title with little responsibility for one of the most powerful countries in the European Union, she propped up her buddies, and she diluted powerful portfolios by dividing them among multiple people.
The power grab was complete.
“She will be even more in control of everything,” said one EU official who, like others quoted in this piece, was granted anonymity to speak freely. “Who thought that was even possible?”
It was the culmination of months of public and private strategy to remove the dissenting voices of her first term as European Commission president. From the first team, none of the naysayers remain. Big personalities such as France’s Thierry Breton and the Netherlands’ Frans Timmermans are now gone.
During her first term — in which she faced a global pandemic and a war on the EU’s doorstep — she developed a reputation for making unilateral decisions, overstepping her job description, cutting other EU leaders out of the decision-making, and speaking only to a handful of advisers. As a result, she gained the nickname Queen Ursula in Brussels.
The morning of von der Leyen’s announcement of her second top team, she refused to tell the European Parliament, her partners in the process of approving commissioners, who she was assigning to which job. Instead, she left a meeting with the Parliament’s top leaders and went straight into a press conference in which she revealed all the details. She was later accused of “contempt” for the Parliament.
Hours before, she convinced the French she would give their commissioner nominee an exceptionally important job if they swapped out Breton. On Tuesday, as she revealed job descriptions, they realized they’d been bamboozled into a watered-down position.
“Anyone who thought that she could have changed her style, her will to keep tight control, was at the very least naive,” said an EU diplomat.
Unherd: Von der Leyen’s authoritarian plot
National democracies will be subordinate to her Commission
The European Union is about to enter what could prove to be the most ominous phase in its troubled history. In a few weeks, Ursula von der Leyen’s new European Commission will officially take office, at which point she will have almost unfettered control over the bloc’s politics.
When von der Leyen introduced the new Commission’s lineup and organizational structure last month, even the typically Brussels-friendly mainstream media was forced to admit that what she had pulled off was nothing short of a coup. By placing loyalists in strategic roles, marginalizing her critics, and establishing a complicated web of dependencies and overlapping duties that prevent any individual from gaining excessive influence, the Commission President has set the stage for an unprecedented supranational “power grab” that will further centralize authority in Brussels — specifically in the hands of von der Leyen herself.
She is busy transforming the Commission “from a collegial body into a presidential office”, noted Alberto Alemanno, EU law professor at HEC Paris. But this is the culmination of a longstanding process. The Commission has been stealthily expanding its powers for a long time, evolving from technical body into full-blooded political actor, resulting in a major transfer of sovereignty from the national to the supranational level at the expense of democratic control and accountability. But this “Commissionisation” is now being taken to a whole new level.
Consider the bloc’s foreign policy, and its defence and security policy in particular. It has gone relatively unnoticed that von der Leyen has used the Ukraine crisis to push for an expansion of the Commission’s top-down executive powers, leading to a de facto supranationalization of the EU’s foreign policy (despite the fact that the Commission has no formal competence over such matters), while ensuring the bloc’s alignment with (or, rather, subordination to) the US-Nato strategy.
“The Commission is evolving from technical body into full-blooded political actor.”
A signal aspect of this move has been the appointment to key defence and foreign policy roles of representatives from the Baltic States (total population: a bit more than 6 million), which have now been bumped up the political food chain because they share von der Leyen’s über-hawkish stance toward Russia. One particularly important figure is Andrius Kubilius, former Prime Minister of Lithuania, who, if confirmed, will take on the role of the EU’s first Commissioner for Defence. Kubilius, known for his close ties to US-funded NGOs and think tanks, will be responsible for the European defence industry and is expected to push for greater integration of military-industrial production. Furthermore, Kubilius served on the advisory board of the International Republican Institute and is a former member of the Atlantic Council’s EuroGrowth Initiative — two Atlanticist organizations whose primary objective is to promote US corporate and geopolitical interests around the world.
For those Western nation citizens left pondering why they should care about the political machinations of Angela Merkle’s protege Ursula Von der Leyen, they should consider the broader context. The structure of the EU is basically a test bed for ‘New World Order” political structure being incrementally advanced for the (literally) unholy alliance of the Socialist United Nations with the Corporatist World Economic Forum, both of which are allied as the proudly self-proclaimed new global government structure.
Quoting from our book “PsyWar Enforcing the New World Order”:
By globally synchronizing the public health response across the United Nations member states, new powers were granted to the UN and its organizations at the cost of national sovereignty. These universally applied regulations and multilateral agreements have given birth to an enlarged, globalized administrative state. Although this power grab has percolated for many decades, the COVID crisis acted as an accelerant to synergize international agreements that advance the UN as a world government.
The United Nations has morphed into a leviathan. Its various agreements and goals seek to centrally dictate the world’s economy, migration, “reproductive health,” monetary systems, digital IDs, environment, agriculture, wages, climate modifications, one world health, and other related globalist programs. To be clear, these are the goals of an organization seeking a globalized command economy, not an organization focused on world peace, ending wars or human rights!
This UN aims to regulate every dimension of our personal and national lives. It is working to reduce and eliminate national sovereignty across the world, and thereby to decrease our diversity, our traditions, our religions and our national identities.
The UN has partnerships and strategic agreements with member nations, as well as other globalist organizations such as the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the World Bank, CEPI, The World Trade Organization, The European Union and the World Economic Forum, known as the WEF.
An Example of How the United Nations Operates
The WEF and the UN signed a strategic agreement and partnership in 2019. Remember that the WEF has a commitment to “stakeholder capitalism,” by which private-partnerships work to control governments. The WEF developed a plan in 2020 to use the COVID-crisis to reorganize global governance around social issues, including climate change—this plan was called the Great Reset.
The WEF is a trade organization representing the world’s largest corporations. It repeatedly exploits disruptive technologies to enhance economic growth opportunities for its corporate members. The WEF is specifically designed to advance the economic power of its global elite members, otherwise known as the “billionaire class.”
As the WEF feeds money into the United Nations through their 2019 strategic agreement, who is managing the conflicts of interests that come with this partnership? Where is the transparency?
The UN has fourteen specialized organizations under its leadership, all involved in global governance, including the World Health Organization or WHO.
None of these organizations is related to the scope of the original UN charter, which was focused on ending wars, promoting world peace, and protecting human rights. The UN had been quietly building power for years prior to the pandemic through various agreements and treaties.
For instance, the “2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development” is a recent example of such an agreement.
Agenda 2030 has seventeen goals and 169 targets, which vary widely in scope and topic, but almost all of these goals directly affect world governance. Here are just a few examples from the Agenda 2030 treaty. Is this what the United Nations should be concerned with, or are these issues more properly addressed by the policies of sovereign nations?
‘We are determined to protect the planet from degradation, including through sustainable consumption and production, sustainably managing its natural resources and taking urgent action on climate change.
Achieve full and productive employment and decent work for all women and men.
Eliminate discriminatory laws, policies and practices.
Adopt policies, especially fiscal, wage and social protection policies, and progressively achieve greater equality.
Facilitate orderly, safe, regular and responsible migration and mobility of people.
By 2030, provide legal identity for all, including birth registration.
This is an Agenda of unprecedented scope and significance. It is accepted by all countries and is applicable to all . . .”
Agenda 2030 is essentially a totalitarian socialist manifesto. This United Nations Treaty contains many more forceful statements regarding the reduction of national rights. The UN has signed strategic agreements with the largest organizations, corporations, and world powers to fulfill its utopian vision for the world.
This is a new world order—with unelected officials in control. That means that we all will be ruled by a nondemocratic UN administrative bureaucracy. This is a form of inverse totalitarianism. A world order based on a command economy; one that is at its core both socialist and totalitarian.
Now, these goals and targets may be fine for any single nation to undertake but this is a restructuring of the United Nations beyond its charter.
Early in the pandemic, the UN—through its surrogate the WHO, declared that a global vaccine passport was needed, and provided extensive guidance to member nations to standardize vaccine passports worldwide. In response, the leaders of the G20 issued a declaration in 2022 supporting development of a global standard of vaccination for international travel and the establishment of “global digital health networks” to be built on existing digital COVID-19 vaccine passports.
In June 2023, a new initiative between the EU and the WHO for strategic cooperation on global health issues was announced. This agreement seeks to “bolster a robust multilateral system with the World Health Organization at its core, powered by a strong European Union.”
The pandemic has allowed world leaders to coalesce global administrative power under the guise of public health through the administrative bureaucracy of the UN. Public health has been weaponized to gain control of passports, travel, banking, the environment and the international economy. This is a gross violation of the individual’s right to privacy, national sovereignty and the UN charter.
It is just a matter of time before these vaccine passports will be coupled with central bank digital currencies. Then, the passports can be used to deny the unvaccinated or other political dissenters access to travel and use of their own money.
Once international passports, central bank digital currencies, command economy aspects of the UN’s Agenda 2030, and the WHO amendments to the IHRs are implemented, the groundwork for a new world order will be complete. A global administrative state, whose core power resides with the UN. The US deep state views its relationship with the UN as one where it has kept some degree of organizational control. This new world order will become a spiderweb of rules, regulations, agreements, and treaties within which individuals and nations will be trapped like flies. This new global governance will be virtually unbreakable. From there, it is only a matter of time before national sovereignty becomes obsolete. This is a reality unless we fight to stop this madness.
For this reason, the power of the United Nations must be exposed and curtailed. Globalists seeking to advance their agendas are using the model of the European Union, whereby rules and regulations stymie national sovereignty, to build a worldwide system of control. All must fight this takeover at the local, national, and international level. We must use the courts, our legislatures, media, public protests, and the power vested in our national and state sovereignty to fight this. If all else fails, individual nations may need to withdraw from the UN’s New World Order in order to remain free.
“True Believers” like Corporatist EU President Ursula Von der Leyen or Socialist UN Secretary-General António Guterres always resort to heavy-handed totalitarian responses when threatened by alternative opinions or political movements. What can be observed with Von der Leyen’s response to the populist center-right political surge in Europe is precisely what will happen as the Socialist/Globalist agenda of the UN and its leader António Guterres is threatened by populist movements in the United States, Argentina, and across the world.
Let’s work together to keep our personal and national sovereignty safe for future generations. A New World Order is not needed, is not acceptable, and we the people and our sovereign governments should unequivocally reject this globalized takeover.
Who is Robert Malone is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Thanks for reading Who is Robert Malone! This post is public so feel free to share it.
Banks
International Monetary Fund paper suggests CBDCs could turn society cashless

From LifeSiteNews
A working paper by the International Monetary Fund suggests that cash may disappear from society entirely once central bank digital currencies become mainstream.
Digital currencies like CBDCs could make cash extinct, whether by design or through market preference, according to an IMF working paper.
With widespread digital currency adoption, cash may go the way of the dodo bird, and it would be “challenging and costly” to revive it if a society were to go fully cashless, according to the IMF working paper, Could Digital Currencies Lead to the Disappearance of Cash from the Market? by Marco Pani and Rodolfo Maino.
The disappearance of cash, according to the authors, could come about either through direct policy or as a natural part of innovation and digital currency adoption.
They say that “the introduction of a DC [Digital Currency] in a diverse payment ecosystem—comprising cash, traditional payment cards, and modern electronic money—where the use of physical cash has already declined significantly, could lead to the complete disappearance of cash, even if such an outcome were not an intentional policy objective.”
READ: Financial expert warns all-digital monetary system would enable ‘complete control’ of citizens
The authors looked at how merchants and customers use physical cash and cards, and simulated how the introduction of digital currencies could either complement cash and cards or wipe them out completely.
According to the report, the introduction of a new currency can alter the market equilibrium in several qualitatively different ways:
- It may displace one of the exiting currencies (either cash or cards);
- It may replace both currencies; or
- It may continue to be used indefinitely alongside the other two currencies.
"You could have a potentially […] darker world where the government decides that [CBDC] can be used to purchase some things, but not other things that it deems less desirable like say ammunition, or drugs, or pornography, or something of the sort": Eswar Prasad, WEF #AMNC23 pic.twitter.com/KkWgaEWAR5
— Tim Hinchliffe (@TimHinchliffe) June 28, 2023
Programmable digital currencies like Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) cannot operate without pegging every user to a digital identity.
What’s more, these programmable digital currencies can be controlled remotely, so that taxes and fines could automatically be taken out of accounts, or so that restrictions could be placed on what you could buy, where you could buy it and when.
Last year, the IMF published a policy brief acknowledging that CBDCs could be used for state surveillance while posing risks to privacy and cybersecurity that could undermine trust in central bank money.
According to the November 2024 IMF brief, Central Bank Digital Currency: Progress And Further Considerations:
CBDC, as a digital form of central bank money, may allow for a ‘digital trail’—data—to be accessed, collected, processed and stored.
In contrast to cash, CBDC could be designed to potentially include a wealth of personal data encapsulating transaction histories, user demographics, and behavioral patterns.
Personal data could establish a link between counterparty identities and transactions.
While the IMF acknowledges the risks to privacy, the potential for government surveillance, and how public and private entities could leverage user data for nefarious means, it is still plowing ahead with a CBDC Handbook for central banks and governments to follow during their rollouts.
READ: International Monetary Fund ‘working hard’ on a global Central Bank Digital Currency platform
The IMF consistently says that digital currencies should be complementary to physical cash and to not replace it, but all signs point towards the erosion of cash over time, whether through convenience or coercion — carrot or stick.
Speaking at the World Economic Forum’s (WEF) Special Meeting on Global Collaboration, Growth and Energy Development last year, Central Bank of Bahrain governor Khalid Humaidan told the panel “Open Forum: The Digital Currencies’ Opportunity in the Middle East” that one of the goals of CBDC was to replace cash, at least in Bahrain, and to go “one hundred percent digital.”
"We're probably going to stop calling it central bank digital currency [CBDC]. It's going to be a digital form of cash, and at some point in time hopefully we will be able to be 100% digital": Central Bank of Bahrain Governor Khalid Humaidan to the WEF https://t.co/Pspr0M1Uuq pic.twitter.com/N5aOkCpzh1
— Tim Hinchliffe (@TimHinchliffe) April 29, 2024
“If we think cash is the analogue and digital currency is the form of digital — CBDC is the digital form of cash — today, clearly we’re in a hybrid situation; we’re using both,” said Humaidan.
We know in the past when it comes to cash, central bankers were very much in control with all aspects of cash, and now we’re comfortable to the point where the private sector plays a big role in the printing of the cash, in the distribution of the cash, and with the private sector we use interest rates to manage the supply of cash.
The same thing is likely to happen with CBDC. Yes, the central bank will have a role, but at some point in time — the same way we don’t call it ‘central bank cash’ — we’re probably going to stop calling it central bank digital currency.
It’s going to be a digital form of the cash, and at some point in time hopefully we will be able to be one hundred percent digital.
"Is it [digital euro] going to be as private as cash? No. A digital currency will never be as anonymous and as protecting of privacy in many respects as cash, which is why cash will always be around": Christine Lagarde, BIS Innovation Summit, March 2023 #CBDC pic.twitter.com/BLMVOPax6a
— Tim Hinchliffe (@TimHinchliffe) April 11, 2023
While the IMF advises to not eliminate cash altogether, central banks and governments are already moving in that direction.
Furthermore, a WEF Agenda blog post from September, 2017 lists the “gradual obsolescence of paper currency” as being “characteristic of a well-designed CBDC.”
If cash were to go extinct, the latest IMF working paper warns, “reintroducing cash in a non-cash system would be challenging and costly.”
Therefore, the authors conclude:
To safeguard the continued utilization of cash and to uphold the equilibrium of the payment system, the study advocates for a proactive policy approach and for the implementation of measures aimed at ensuring the sustained relevance of physical currency, especially in scenarios where the introduction of new digital currencies might inadvertently lead to the extinction of traditional cash.
The IMF working paper Could Digital Currencies Lead to the Disappearance of Cash from the Market? was published on the IMF website in March 2025; however, the paper was first published in the International Advances in Economic Research journal on February 19, 2024 under its original title, Could CBDCs Lead to Cash Extinction? Insights from a ‘Merchant-Customer’ Model.
Reprinted with permission from The Sociable.
Note from LifeSiteNews co-founder Steve Jalsevac: This article is a must-read and view for all readers because of the profound personal impact a digital economy would have on every individual and every family.
The great Catherine Austin Fitts has strongly recommended that every citizen use cash as much as possible for purchases. She says that if millions did this, it would delay, if not stop, a forced digital economy. She should know. Fitts emphasizes, “In a highly leveraged financial system such as we have, a single individual counts for a lot.”
See her article, I Want to Stop CBDCs – What Can I Do
The increased use of credit and debit cards, including phone and other digital payment systems, is tempting because of their convenience. Still, it is also your cooperation in building your economic prison and total control of all that you say and do, where and when you travel, what you buy or subscribe to, and so on. We are facing a totalitarian control that has never before been experienced in human history. It is beyond frightening.
Carrying and using cash for purchases, and refusing to purchase anything from shops, restaurants or other services that do not accept cash or checks, is inconvenient and requires a little effort, commitment and some degree of courage.
Carbon Tax
Mark Carney has history of supporting CBDCs, endorsed Freedom Convoy crackdown

From LifeSiteNews
Carney also said last week that he is willing to use all government powers, including “emergency powers,” to enforce his energy plan if elected prime minister.
World Economic Forum-linked Liberal Party leadership frontrunner Mark Carney has a history of supporting central bank digital currencies, and in 2022 supported “choking off the money” donated to the Freedom Convoy.
In his 2021 book Value(s), Carney said that the “future of money” is a “central bank stablecoin, known as a central bank digital currency or CBDC.”
He noted in his book that such a currency would be similar to current cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin, but without the private nature afforded to it by its decentralization.
“It is simply untenable in democracies that the core of the monetary system could be based on forms of electronic private money whose creators control large blocks of the currency, like Bitcoin,” he wrote. “Cryptocurrencies are not the future of money.”
Carney noted that a CBDC, if “properly designed,” could serve “all the functions to which private cryptocurrencies and stablecoins aspire while addressing the fundamental legal and governance issues that will, in time, undermine those alternatives.”
Expanding on his worldview in relation to CBDCs, Carney suggested that “fear” can be taken advantage of to shape the future of money.
“With fear on the march, people were willing to surrender to Hobbes’ ‘Leviathan’ such basic rights as the freedom to leave their homes,” he wrote. “And so it is with money. People will support the delegation to independent central banks of the tough decisions that are necessary to maintain the value of money provided the authorities deliver monetary and financial stability.”
Some Canadians are alarmed by the prospect of CBDCs, a fear that only worsened after the Liberals under Prime Minister Justin Trudeau froze hundreds of bank accounts it deemed were importantly linked to the 2022 Freedom Convoy.
During the Freedom Convoy, Carney wrote in an op-ed for the Globe and Mail, “Those who are still helping to extend this occupation must be identified and punished to the full force of the law,” adding that “Drawing the line means choking off the money that financed this occupation.”
Carney is a former head of the Bank of Canada and Bank of England. His ties to globalist groups have led to Conservative Party leader Pierre Poilievre calling him the World Economic Forum’s “golden boy.”
In addition to his comments on CBDCs, Carney has a history of promoting anti-life and anti-family agendas, including abortion and LGBT-related efforts. He has also previously endorsed the carbon tax and even criticized Trudeau when the tax was exempted from home heating oil to reduce costs for some Canadians.
Carney also said last week that he is willing to use all government powers, including “emergency powers,” to enforce his energy plan if elected prime minister.
The Liberal Party of Canada will choose its next leader, who will automatically become prime minister, on March 9, after Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced that he plans to step down as Liberal Party leader once a new leader has been chosen.
In contrast to Carney, Poilievre has promised that if he is elected prime minister, he would stop any implementation of a “digital currency” or a compulsory “digital ID” system.
When it comes to a digital Canadian dollar, the Bank of Canada found that Canadians are very wary of a government-backed digital currency, concluding that a “significant number” of citizens would resist the implementation of such a system.
-
Alberta2 days ago
Carney government should end damaging energy policies amid separatist sentiment in Alberta
-
Business2 days ago
Tariffs Get The Blame But It’s Non-Tariff Barriers That Kill Free Trade
-
conflict2 days ago
Trump: Billions sent to Ukraine were “pissed away”
-
Banks1 day ago
International Monetary Fund paper suggests CBDCs could turn society cashless
-
Business1 day ago
Canada’s finances deteriorated faster than any other G7 country
-
Automotive1 day ago
Tesla stock soars for fourth straight week on Musk Play plan, board shake-up
-
conflict1 day ago
Ukraine War may see breakthrough as Trump sets up Monday Morning call with Putin
-
Business24 hours ago
Breaking: Explosive FBI Warning—CCP, Iran, and Mex-Cartels Partnering in Canada to Move Fentanyl and Terrorists Into U.S.