Connect with us

CBDC Central Bank Digital Currency

Ursula von der Leyen Consolidates Power. What this teaches us about the push for single global government

Published

22 minute read

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 LeyenĀ unveiled her teamĀ 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:Ā 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.

ā€œShe will be even more in control of everything,ā€ said one EU official who, like others quoted in this piece, was granted anonymity to speak freely. ā€œWho thought that was even possible?ā€

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,Ā noneĀ 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.Ā As a result, sheĀ gainedĀ 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,Ā  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 ā€œcontemptā€ 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.

ā€œAnyone who thought that she could have changed her style, her will to keep tight control, was at the very least naive,ā€ 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 supranationalĀ ā€œpower grabā€ that will further centralize authority in Brussels — specifically in the hands of von der Leyen herself.

She is busy transforming the Commission ā€œfrom a collegial body into a presidential officeā€,Ā  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 ā€œCommissionisationā€ 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 aĀ de factoĀ  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.

ā€œThe Commission is evolving from technical body into full-blooded political actor.ā€

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 ā€˜New World Orderā€ 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 ā€œPsyWar Enforcing the New World Orderā€:

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, ā€œreproductive health,ā€ 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 ā€œstakeholder capitalism,ā€ 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 ā€œbillionaire class.ā€

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 ā€œ2030 Agenda for Sustainable Developmentā€ 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?

ā€˜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 . . .ā€

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 ā€œglobal digital health networksā€ 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 ā€œbolster a robust multilateral system with the World Health Organization at its core, powered by a strong European Union.ā€

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.

ā€œTrue Believersā€ 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.

Share

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Business

Global elites insisting on digital currency to phase out cash

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By David James

The aim is to have the digital euro fully in place by 2030 in order to move Europe fully into the United Nations’ post-capitalist system described in Agenda 2030.

It always pays to scrutinize closely the comments of financial elites because they are rarely honest about their intentions. An instance is the comments of Christine Lagarde, president of the European Central Bank (ECB) whoĀ saidĀ there will be a vote next month in the European Union parliament on the next step toward creating a digital euro, which would be a central bank digital currency (CBDC).

A central bank digital currency is money issued by the central bank in digital form as opposed to digital credit issued by banks, which is the dominant form of money in Western societies. She claims that it will mean more freedom for Europeans and that there is nothing to fear.

Lagarde anticipates launching the digital euro in about 18 months. The aim is to have it fully in place by 2030 in order to move Europe fully into the United Nations’ post-capitalist system that is described inĀ Agenda 2030.

Lagarde’s blandishments about what the digital euro represents do not survive close examination. She acknowledged that the main concern of the population is the privacy implications, claiming the ECB is looking at a technology that will offer protections. The private banks, she said, will apply the ā€œrules of scrutinyā€ that already have access to the transactions. ā€œWe are not interested in the data. The private banks are interested in the data.ā€

Lagarde also said that the ā€œpeople have dictatedā€ the transition to a digital euro. This looks dubious. Neither the EU Commission nor the ECB is democratically elected. And if the main concern people have with a CBDC is privacy, then why would people prefer it over cash, which is immune to scrutiny? It is not as if a digital euro would satisfy an unmet need. Digital money – credit and online transactions – is already freely available in the banking system.

The ECB is also speaking out of both sides of its mouth, saying on one hand that the digital euro will only complement cash and on the other that cash will be eliminated.

Lagarde made it clear that the aim is to phase out cash completely. Agenda 2030, she claims, ā€œcan only be enforced in a cashless economy.ā€ Why? What is it about cash that makes environmental policies impossible to implement? The answer is surely that a digital euro is needed to control people’s behavior, forcing them to comply with environmental rules.

Previous comments by central bankers suggest there is good reason for Europeans to be extremely suspicious. In 2021, the general manager of the Bank for International Settlements, AgustĆ­n Carstens,Ā said: ā€œWe don’t know who’s using a $100 bill today and we don’t know who’s using a 1,000-peso bill today. The key difference with the CBDC is the central bank will have absolute control on the rules and regulations that will determine the use of that expression of central bank liability, and also we will have the technology to enforce that.ā€

The pretext for the financial power play is climate change and the push toward net zero. A European CBDC is not, as implied by Lagarde, the creation of a new digital monetary mechanism. As economist Richard WernerĀ points out, that already exists – credit and debit cards, for example. The significance of a digital euro is that it threatens the banking system.

That problem does not seem to concern the ECB, however. Indeed, fundamentally altering the banking system may be what they are aiming for. Lagarde said ā€œclimate complianceā€ will become a core element of bank supervision, not a separate initiative, ā€œbecause climate change presents significant, material financial risks to banks and the entire financial system.ā€

The ECB’s supervision will mandate that banks integrate the management ofĀ climate-related and environmental risksĀ into their existing risk management processes, particularly through newĀ prudential transition planning requirementsĀ under what is calledĀ CRD VI. European banking, it seems, will no longer be defined by profitability and fiscal soundness but also by the politics of climate change.

The slipperiness of the ECBā€˜s arguments point to a much darker ambition. WernerĀ saysĀ when CBDCs are connected to digital IDs ā€œwe are talking about the most totalitarian control system in human history … it gives you as a controller complete visibility on what everyone is doing, every transaction.

ā€œThe monitoring is only one aspect. These CBDCs are programmable and you can use big data algorithms, which they sell to us as artificial intelligence, in order to have rules about who can buy what and for what purpose, at what time and at what place – and therefore control all your movement. In the history of dictatorships, there never has been such a powerful control tool.ā€

There is a flaw, though, in the ECB’s push to change Europe’s financial architecture that may prove fatal to its ambitions. The EU and ECB do not have genuine central control. When the euro was established in 1998, the only way Germany was able to join was on the condition there was no consolidation of the government debt. So, although the ECB notionally sets interest rates for the zone, government debt is held at the national level and each country’s interest rate differs.

The ECB is thus a central bank in name only, unlike the U.S. Federal Reserve, or for that matter most country’s central banks, that oversee their national government debt. A European nation can choose to exit the EU, and each has to have its own monetary policy in spite of the ECB setting a uniform rate.

The push to create a digital euro is most likely an attempt to deal with these contradictions, but at best it will be a makeshift solution and it will take very little for it to fall apart. Disintegration of the European Union, and the common currency, is not out of the question.

Meanwhile, the U.S. is going in the opposite direction. In July, the U.S. House of Representatives passed theĀ Anti-CBDC Surveillance State Act, which prevents the Federal Reserve from issuing a retail CBDC directly to individuals.

European debt is becoming increasingly parlous, especially in France where there have even been suggestions that there might need to be assistance from the International Monetary Fund. Italy’s debt, which is 138 percent of GDP, is also problematic. Lagarde is hoping for a rollout of the digital euro in 2027 and completion in 2030. But the Euro zone, and the ECB that oversees it, may not last that long.

Continue Reading

Banks

Top Canadian bank studies possible use of digital dollar for ā€˜basic’ online payments

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

A new report released by the Bank of Canada proposed a ā€˜promising architecture well-suited for basic payments’ through the use of a digital dollar, though most Canadians are wary of such an idea.

Canada’s central bank has been studying ways to introduce a central bank digital currency (CBDC) for use for online retailers, according to a new report, despite the fact that recent research suggests Canadians are wary of any type of digital dollar.

In a new 47-pageĀ report titled, ā€œA Retail CBDC Design For Basic Payments Feasibility Study,ā€ which was released on June 13, 2025, the Bank of Canada (BOC) identified a ā€œpromising architecture well-suited for basic paymentsā€ through the use of a digital dollar.

The report reads that CBDCs ā€œcan be fast and cheap for basic payments, with high privacy, although some areas such as integration with retail payments systems, performance of auditing and resilience of the core system state require further investigation.ā€

While the report authors stopped short of fully recommending a CBDC, they noted it is a decision that could happen ā€œoutside the scope of this analysis.ā€

ā€œOur framing highlights other promising architectures for an online retail CBDC, whose analysis we leave as an area for further exploration,ā€ reads the report.

When it comes to a digital Canadian dollar, the Bank of Canada last yearĀ found thatĀ Canadians are very wary of a government-backed digital currency, concluding that a ā€œsignificant numberā€ of citizens would resist the implementation of such a system.

Indeed, a 2023 study found that most Canadians, about 85 percent, do not want a digital dollar, as previouslyĀ reported byĀ LifeSiteNews.

The study found that a ā€œsignificant numberā€ of Canadians are suspicious of government overreach and would resist any measures by the government or central bank to create digital forms of official money.

The BOC has said that it would continue to look at other countries’ use and development of CBDCs and will work with other ā€œcentral banksā€ to improve so-called cross border payments.

Digital currencies have been touted as the future by some government officials, but, as LifeSiteNews hasĀ reportedĀ before, many experts warn that such technology would restrict freedom and could be used as a ā€œcontrol toolā€ against citizens, similar to China’s pervasive social credit system.

The BOC last August admitted that theĀ creation ofĀ a CBDC is not even necessary, as many people rely on cash to pay for things. The bank concluded that the introduction of a digital currency would only be feasible if consumers demanded its release.

Conservative Party leader Pierre PoilievreĀ has promised, should he ever form the government, he would oppose the creation of a digital dollar.

Contrast this to Canada’s current Liberal Prime Minister Mark Carney. He has a history ofĀ supporting central bank digital currenciesĀ and in 2022 supported ā€œchoking off the moneyā€ donated to the Freedom Convoy protests against COVID mandates.

Continue Reading

Trending

X