Unleashing the Potential: Top 10 Ways to Make Money with AI
Introduction:
Artificial Intelligence (AI) is rapidly transforming the business landscape, offering lucrative opportunities for entrepreneurs and investors alike. Its ability to analyze data, make predictions, and automate processes has opened up a myriad of ways to generate revenue. In this article, we explore the top 10 ways to capitalize on AI and unlock its money-making potential.
1. AI-Powered Products and Services:
Developing and selling AI-powered products and services is a lucrative venture. Businesses can create AI-driven applications, chatbots, or virtual assistants to streamline operations, enhance customer experiences, and sell them to a wide range of industries.
2. Data Analysis and Insights:
AI excels at processing massive amounts of data and deriving valuable insights. Building data analysis platforms or offering data consulting services can provide a profitable avenue for monetizing AI expertise.
3. Automated Trading and Investing:
AI algorithms have shown remarkable success in the financial markets. Creating AI-driven trading systems or robo-advisors for investment management can attract clients seeking enhanced returns and reduced risks.
4. AI in Healthcare:
AI’s potential in healthcare is vast, from medical imaging analysis to personalized treatment plans. Building AI-based healthcare solutions or partnering with healthcare institutions can create significant revenue streams.
5. AI for Marketing and Advertising:
AI can optimize marketing campaigns, target audiences, and personalize content. Launching AI-driven marketing platforms or consultancy services can help businesses enhance their marketing efforts and drive revenue growth.
6. Smart Home and IoT:
As smart homes and Internet of Things (IoT) devices become more prevalent, AI can power smart assistants and automation systems. Creating AI-integrated IoT devices or providing smart home solutions can be a profitable business venture.
7. AI in Education:
AI-driven educational tools can enhance learning experiences and automate administrative tasks for educational institutions. Developing AI-powered e-learning platforms or educational software can be a lucrative opportunity.
8. Natural Language Processing (NLP):
NLP-based applications have become essential for businesses seeking to understand customer sentiments and automate customer support. Building NLP tools or offering sentiment analysis services can generate revenue in this domain.
9. AI for Agriculture:
Agriculture can benefit from AI-driven solutions for crop monitoring, pest detection, and precision farming. Developing AI-powered agriculture tools or partnering with farmers can yield considerable profits.
10. AI Consulting and Training:
As businesses embrace AI, there is a demand for AI consulting and training services. Offering workshops, seminars, or one-on-one consultations can be a lucrative way to share AI knowledge and expertise.
Conclusion:
AI has emerged as a transformative force, reshaping industries and offering diverse opportunities for making money. From AI-powered products and services to data analysis and insights, the potential for generating revenue with AI is vast.
Entrepreneurs and investors keen on capitalizing on AI’s money-making potential should identify their strengths and interests within the AI landscape. Leveraging AI’s capabilities to solve real-world problems and meet market demands can lead to successful and profitable ventures.
As AI continues to advance, staying informed about the latest developments and trends in the AI industry is crucial for unlocking its full potential for revenue generation. With the right approach and innovative ideas, embracing AI can lead to a prosperous and exciting entrepreneurial journey in the era of artificial intelligence.
To learn more about making money from AI, visit 21stCenturyu.com
Australian Securities and Investment Commission: Revisiting Allegations of Gross Incompetence and Investor Losses
Introduction:
The Australian Securities and Investment Commission (ASIC) is entrusted with the responsibility of safeguarding the interests of investors and maintaining the integrity of Australia’s financial markets. However, recent events have brought to light concerning allegations of gross incompetence within ASIC, leading to direct financial losses for investors, including high-profile figures like Jamie McIntyre. In this article, we delve into the allegations and actions that have raised questions about ASIC’s effectiveness and its impact on investors.
1. Allegations of Inaction:
One of the key criticisms against ASIC is its alleged inaction in identifying and addressing fraudulent practices and unscrupulous entities within the financial market. This perceived lack of proactivity has left investors vulnerable to various investment scams and schemes, resulting in significant financial losses.
2. Failure to Detect Misconduct:
ASIC’s failure to promptly detect misconduct and fraudulent activities has raised concerns about the regulator’s effectiveness. Investors, including prominent figures like Jamie McIntyre, have reportedly suffered direct financial losses due to ASIC’s inability to detect and prevent such activities in a timely manner.
3. Lack of Enforcement:
Critics argue that ASIC’s enforcement actions have been inadequate in dealing with perpetrators of financial misconduct. The perceived leniency in penalizing wrongdoers may embolden fraudulent actors, putting investors at risk of falling victim to similar schemes in the future.
4. Impact on Jamie McIntyre:
Jamie McIntyre, a well-known entrepreneur, and investor, has publicly stated that he has experienced significant financial losses due to ASIC’s actions and alleged incompetence. This high-profile case has brought widespread attention to the regulator’s shortcomings and the need for improved investor protection.
5. Complex Legal Processes:
Navigating the legal process for investors seeking redress for their losses can be complex and challenging. Some argue that ASIC’s regulatory and legal framework may be too cumbersome for investors, leading to delays and limited chances of recovering their losses.
6. Calls for Accountability and Reform:
As the allegations against ASIC continue to mount, calls for greater accountability and structural reform within the regulator have intensified. Stakeholders demand more robust oversight, transparency, and a proactive approach in tackling fraudulent activities to safeguard investor interests effectively.
Conclusion:
The Australian Securities and Investment Commission’s role as a regulator is paramount to fostering trust and confidence in Australia’s financial markets. However, recent allegations of gross incompetence and inaction have put ASIC’s effectiveness under scrutiny, resulting in direct financial losses for investors, including individuals like Jamie McIntyre. Mr McIntyre is reportedly claiming $100 million in compensation for himself and his investors, who he says ASIC fraudulently run his case to cause deliberate losses to his land projects to frame, blame and defame him for losses, that only ASIC had the power to cause, (why would McIntyre destroy his land projects) by deceiving Supreme Court Judges that there were large investors losses (despite the only losses were losses created by ASIC to create victims to win the case).
It’s alleged this is a common strategy ASIC uses to fool ministers and Judges, after they lost the high-profile case against Andrew Forrester, as no losses had been incurred by investors. Thus, ASIC then knew to win, it had to create investor losses, hurting mum and dad investors to frame investment promoters such as McIntyre.
The land ASIC took and had sold in a fire sale has since risen dramatically in the last 10 years, costing McIntyre and his investors tens of millions. One project was worth $300 million dollars alone in Bendigo.
McIntyre said ASIC colluded with Fairfax Media and banks including even in Singapore to destroy McIntyres business’s, destroy his ability to get finance which he says has cost him $50-$100 million alone from assets he had to sell because he couldn’t refinance or get finance for new assets, that banks due to ASIC refused to lend or lower rates on existing loans.
ASIC Senior Investigator at the time, Rosemary Pendergast stated in writing to investors who raised misconduct allegations against ASIC for destroying their investments, said “investor losses are not ASIC’s primary concern.” Despite causing deliberately and maliciously hundreds of millions in losses.
Some question whether this was a deliberate attack on McIntyre, to silence him, and destroy his ability to fund Independent Media, as he had previously started the Australian National Review, launched a political party, and ran against former Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce in the 2013 Federal Election.
To restore faith in ASIC’s capabilities, there is a pressing need for accountability, transparency, and a commitment to identifying and addressing fraudulent activities proactively. Strengthening enforcement actions, improving investor education, and streamlining legal processes are essential steps in providing investors with greater protection.
As the regulatory landscape evolves, it is imperative for ASIC to rise to the challenge and prioritize investor interests above all else. By doing so, ASIC can reinforce its vital role in safeguarding Australia’s financial markets and securing the investments of individuals and businesses across the nation.
The Rise of AI: Top 10 Industries Facing Job Disruption
Introduction:
The advent of Artificial Intelligence (AI) has ushered in a new era of innovation and automation across various sectors. While AI presents numerous benefits in terms of efficiency and productivity, it also poses challenges for the workforce. As AI continues to advance, certain industries are facing the prospect of job disruption. In this article, we explore the top 10 industries where AI is expected to replace jobs in the near future.
1. Manufacturing:
Manufacturing industries are at the forefront of AI-driven automation. AI-powered robots and machines can perform tasks with greater precision and speed, leading to a reduced need for human workers on assembly lines and in warehouses.
2. Retail:
AI is reshaping the retail landscape with automated checkout systems, personalized shopping recommendations, and inventory management. As AI-powered technologies become more sophisticated, traditional retail roles, such as cashiers and stock clerks, may be replaced or redefined.
3. Transportation:
Self-driving vehicles and autonomous drones are revolutionizing the transportation industry. While this technology promises increased safety and efficiency, it could lead to job displacement for truck drivers, delivery personnel, and taxi drivers.
4. Customer Service:
AI-powered chatbots and virtual assistants are becoming increasingly prevalent in customer service roles. These AI systems can handle customer inquiries, troubleshoot problems, and provide support, potentially reducing the need for human customer service representatives.
5. Banking and Finance:
AI is transforming the banking and finance sectors with automated trading algorithms, AI-based fraud detection, and customer service bots. Jobs in data entry, risk assessment, and routine financial tasks may be streamlined or replaced.
6. Agriculture:
AI-driven drones and robots are revolutionizing agriculture by optimizing planting, monitoring crop health, and automating harvesting. As AI technologies become more sophisticated, traditional agricultural labor could see a decline.
7. Healthcare:
AI is making significant strides in healthcare, assisting with medical imaging, diagnostics, and drug development. While it enhances patient care, it could also impact certain administrative roles and radiology positions.
8. Journalism:
AI-generated content is becoming more prevalent, especially for data-driven reports and news briefs. While AI can assist with content creation, it may lead to job displacement for entry-level journalism roles.
9. Legal Services:
AI-powered legal research tools and chatbots are transforming the legal industry. Routine legal tasks, such as contract review and document analysis, could be automated, affecting the demand for some legal professionals.
10. Customer Support:
AI-driven virtual agents are becoming common in customer support roles, handling routine inquiries and ticketing. This trend may reduce the need for human call center operators in certain areas.
Conclusion:
The rise of AI presents a transformative force across various industries, promising increased efficiency, productivity, and innovation. However, it also raises concerns about job displacement and the future of work. As AI continues to evolve, it is crucial for businesses and policymakers to address these challenges and find ways to reskill and upskill the workforce.
Rather than viewing AI as a threat, embracing it as a powerful tool can lead to new opportunities and advancements. By focusing on a collaborative approach between AI and human capabilities, we can build a future where both technology and the workforce complement each other, driving progress and prosperity in the global economy.
Cancellation of Bank Accounts Belonging to Customers Who do Not Hold Corporate-sanctioned Views is a Sign We’re on the Road to Orwell’s Dystopian Nightmare
ByRHODA WILSON
Coutts cancelling Nigel Farage’s bank account for holding unfashionable views should be a wake-up call for us all – it is just the tip of the iceberg. This politically motivated cancellation born out of “woke capitalism” is alarmingly widespread.You don’t have to agree with Farage’s politics to agree with him that something has gone terribly wrong in the institutions.
Banks de-banking customers for their views is also a forewarning of the totalitarian regime that will be ushered in if central bank digital currencies (“CBDCs”) become the sole form of “currency” to buy and sell.
Reclaim the Net: The CBDC De-banking Dystopia, 26 July 2023 (15 mins)
Writing for The Telegraph yesterday, Farage said: “In recent years this bank – 39 per cent owned by taxpayers, remember – has morphed into a woke warrior. It has become obsessed with public displays of political correctness rather than focussing on the business of managing and making money … Now it seems that other British banks are also marching down this one-way street.”
Reporting live from Bury, Nigel Farage promised to form a lobby group to get the rules on banking changed, to get the politics out of banks and building societies. “Don’t underestimate me, I mean this. We are going to fight and get justice for all of these wronged people,” he said. “Banking should be about banking and not becoming the moral arbiters for everybody else.”
GB News: Nigel Farage warns banking industry – ‘Don’t underestimate me, I mean this.’ 27 July 2023 (4 mins)
De-Banking Should Sound the Alarm
Having a bank account is like having access to running water and a heated home. It’s impossible to function without one, wrote Matt Goodwin.
Removing this basic legal right from citizens, removing their financial freedom, simply because they happen to hold views that are unfashionable among the elite class is something you’d expect to find in communist China – not modern Britain.
“But if you think it’s just the banks then I’m afraid to say you’re wrong – this is just the tip of a very big and a very ugly iceberg,” Goodwin added and quoted from an article published by The Times earlier in the day:
Something strange has happened over the past few years in [UK] boardrooms up and down the country. Chairmen and chief executives have surrendered their common sense and succumbed to a form of corporate capture, otherwise known as the woke agenda.
The Coutts scandal can be traced back to two years ago when the bank proudly announced that it had achieved ‘B Corp’ status – a scheme a bit like Stonewall’s Diversity Champions Programme.
“When Coutts announced itself a B Corp, it was essentially saying that the bank had been politicised, which should have been a warning of what was to follow. Nigel Farage was excluded from the bank as part of its inclusivity agenda. His politics did not align with the bank’s values, so he was punished and ‘de-banked’,” The Spectator wrote. And continued:
“This is not a row about Farage. It is a shocking exposé of the culture that has prevailed in Coutts and NatWest. The banks sought to exercise political power and abandoned their duty to their clients. This mentality, sometimes described as ‘woke capitalism’, is alarmingly widespread.”
Banks are cancelling accounts at will in America as well
On 13 July, JP Morgan Chase Bank informed Dr. Joseph Mercola they are closing all of his business accounts, along with the personal accounts of his CEO, CFO and their respective spouses and children. Dr. Mercola’s CEO has been informed his young children also will never be allowed to bank with Chase in the future. No reason for the decision was given, other than there was “unexpected activity” on an unspecified account.
“This is what the new social credit system looks like, and what every soul on the planet can expect from the central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) that are being rolled out. Go against the prevailing narrative of the day, and your financial life will be deleted,” Dr. Mercola wrote.
“Once everything is digitised, cash eradicated and the social credit system completely integrated and automated, this kind of retaliatory action for wrongthink could be a death sentence for some people.”
You can read Dr. Mercola’s full article in the file attached below or visit his archives HERE.
“With cash disappearing and with governments, including here in Australia, pushing for the creation of a central bank digital currency, de-banking is set to become a weapon for punishing those who do not subscribe to the approved narrative,” James Macpherson wrote.
“Digital currency means a person’s funds could be frozen or disappeared in an instant. And, without a bank account, it would literally be impossible to buy or sell. The infrastructure for a worldwide totalitarian regime is being constructed and road tested in our day.”
CDBCs are a Weapon for De-banking
The following is extracted from the article ‘CBDCs: A Weapon for De-banking the Banked’ published by American Institute for Economic Research.
As of the time of writing, CBDCTracker.org lists three countries or regions with retail CBDCs already “launched” – Bahamas, Jamaica and Nigeria – another five in the “pilot” stage, and another twenty in the “proof of concept” stage. Many more have at least researched wholesale CBDCs. “Wholesale” CBDCs are intended for commercial and central bank use and the like, while “retail” CBDCs are intended for the rest of us.
A report by the Bank for International Settlements (“BIS”) released just this month summarises the results of a survey of 86 central banks and concludes that “there could be 15 retail and nine wholesale CBDCs publicly circulating in 2030.”
When you read statements from high-level officials of the BIS, central banks, and governments, you get the impression that CBDCs are an exciting development in the evolution of money. The BIS, for example, calls them “a new tool in the financial inclusion toolkit.” An op-ed co-authored by BIS General Manager Agustín Carstens and Queen Máxima of the Netherlands frames them in the title as “CBDCs for the people.” An IMF working paper asserts that CBDCs can “bank large unbanked populations” in developing countries.
But when a CBDC was thrust upon the Nigerian people, adoption rates were abysmal at best – below 0.5 per cent even a year after its launch – and Nigerians took to the streets to demand access to cash.
CBDCs are widely unpopular in the United States as well. A CATO Institute national survey published in May found that only 16 per cent of Americans support the idea, and over twice as many (34 per cent) oppose it. 78 per cent responded that if a CBDC were offered, they would be unlikely to use it altogether.
CBDC Carry Enormous Risks
Risks CBDCs present include:
the loss of settlement finality that comes with physical cash (as abandoning cash accompanies the push for CBDCs);
loss of financial privacy;
easy seizure of assets;
loss of the ability to resolve problems at a local level with a commercial bank (as it would be doubtful that a central bank would come to be known for its customer service);
outright prohibition on spending or purchase limits with certain merchants or on certain products; and perhaps most importantly,
the paradigm shift from money as an exercise of economic freedom to one of social engineering by central banks and their respective governments.
The last point, social engineering, could manifest itself in various ways, including (to name just a few) negative interest rates (essentially a confiscation of one’s savings), the expiry of one’s money (with a date determined by the issuing central bank or its government) – or even discouraging the consumption of products like gasoline, plane tickets or red meat to enforce a climate agenda.
Another CATO resource dedicated to identifying the risks of CBDCs rightly points out that a CBDC could reduce credit availability, disintermediate banks, and challenge the rise of cryptocurrencies.
Finally, the increased surveillance also has a chilling effect on the public – even for legal activities. Enjoy vice (gambling, pornography)? Or, for Americans, want to buy a gun? Maybe you’ll avoid living your life as you presently do.
The timing of a global CBDC initiative is also suspicious given the present cultural and political climate of “cancelling” people with dissenting opinions and of Big Tech’s alignment with the Government to orchestrate something that resembles more of a PsyOp than “public health” as we have traditionally known it (as evidence from a FOIA request revealed).
Even if you think that a CBDC is a good idea, consider that its power may be turned against you when the political pendulum shifts in another direction and your views or activities are suddenly considered taboo or illegal by those in power. Real financial inclusion requires an economic system where financial censorship is harder to accomplish in the first place. (Paper cash helps here).
Oh, and by the way, the BIS itself calls physical cash “the most inclusive form of money we currently have.” With all the talk of financial inclusion, the global push to phase it out is, well, ironic. SEC Chair Gary Gensler was right when he declared that “we already have digital currency. It’s called the US dollar.” We can address the many shortcomings of the traditional financial system without introducing another digital dollar in the form of a CBDC.
The vast power that a CBDC would place in the hands of a nation-state or its central bank points in the direction of an unprecedented level of financial surveillance, censorship, and potentially de-banking the banked whenever it may serve certain political objectives. Thus, it is hardly an overstatement to say that we are at a crossroads for civilization.
We would also be wise to consider the words of FA Hayek, from The Road to Serfdom:
Economic control is not merely control of a sector of human life which can be separated from the rest; it is the control of the means for all our ends. And whoever has sole control of the means must also determine which ends are to be served, which values are to be rated higher and which lower – in short, what men should believe and strive for.
Have a Listen to How Disgustingly Josh Peters and His Family Were Treated by the People Insisting on 4 shots to Save His Daughter’s Life
By Dave Oneegs Aussie Chat
Have a listen to how disgustingly Josh Peters and his family were treated by the people insisting on 4 shots to save his daughter’s life.
This interview was about 2 months ago.
The Citizen’s Starter Kit to the Top 50 Organizations in the Global Censorship Cartel
ByRHODA WILSON
The following is a list of the top 50 organisations in the global Censorship Industrial Complex. You may be shocked to realise that the UK Army’s 77th Brigade is ranked a lowly number 42. That should tell you something!
The following are excerpts from ‘Report on the Censorship-Industrial Complex: The Top 50 Organisations to Know’ published by Racket News on 10 May 2023. In the main, our excerpts serve to provide a simplified list of the organisations included in Racket News’ comprehensive Report. For ease of reference, the numbers in our list correlate to the numbers in the original Report. We recommend readers at the very least select one or two organisations of interest and read the details the Report contains HERE. It will be eye-opening.
“The Top 50 List” is intended as a resource for reporters and researchers beginning their journey toward learning the scale and ambition of the “Censorship-Industrial Complex (“CIC”).” Written like a magazine feature, it tries to answer a few basic questions about funding, organisation type, history, and especially, methodology. Many anti-disinformation groups adhere to the same formulaic approach to research, often using the same “hate-mapping,” guilt-by-association-type analysis to identify wrong-thinkers and suppressive persons.
A democratic society requires the nourishment of free debate, disagreement, and intellectual tension, but the groups below seek instead a “shared vocabulary” to deploy on the hybrid battlefield. They propose to serve as the guardians of that “vocabulary.”
1. Information Futures Lab (IFL) at Brown University (formerly, First Draft News)
You may have read about them when: You first heard the terms Mis-, dis-, and malinformation. The term was coined by FD Director Claire Wardle. IFL/FD are also the only academic/non-profit organisation involved in the Trusted News Initiative, a large-scale legacy media consortium established to control debate around the pandemic response.
What we know about funding: First Draft was funded by a huge number of entities including Craig Newmark, Rockefeller, the National Science Foundation, Facebook, the Ford Foundation, Google, the Knight Foundation, the Wellcome Trust, Open Society Foundations, and more. Funding for the IFL includes the Rockefeller Foundation for a “building vaccine demand” initiative.
Closely connected to: Almost all the leading lights of the CIC, including the Stanford Internet Observatory, the Trusted News Initiative, Shorenstein Centre, DFRLabs, the World Economic Forum, the Aspen Institute, Meedan, and Bellingcat.
2. Meedan. You may have read about them when: Meedan ran a range of Covid-19 misinformation initiatives “to support pandemic fact-checking efforts” with funding from Big Tech, the Omidyar Foundation, the National Science Foundation and more. Partners included Britain’s now-disgraced Behavioural Insights Team, or “nudge unit.” In sum: Meedan exemplifies the NGO-to-Stasi stylistic shift, where spying and snitching on private messages in the name of “anti-disinformation” is now considered a public good.
3. Harvard Shorenstein Centre on Media, Politics and Public Policy (Technology and Social Change Project). Type: An elite academic project once regarded as one of the leading centres in the “anti-disinformation” field. In sum: An “anti-disinformation” project that got it wrong so often, even the centre that housed it cut ties.
4. The Public Good Projects. Type: Non-profit consultancy, specialising in health communications, marketing, technology and “disinformation.” In sum: A sophisticated communications and technology outfit with close Big Tech and Big Pharma partners, and a mission to stop “misinformation.”
5. Graphika. Type: For-profit firm with defence connections specialising in “digital marketing and disinformation & analysis.” In sum: With deep Pentagon ties and a patina of public-facing commercial legitimacy, Graphika is set up to be the Rand Corporation of the Anti-Disinformation age.
6. Digital Forensic Research Lab (DFRLabs) of the Atlantic Council. Type: Public-facing disinformation research arm of highly influential, extravagantly funded, NATO-aligned think tank, the Atlantic Council.
7. Stanford Internet Observatory (SIO). In sum: The Stanford Internet Observatory may or may not continue to have a high-profile role in building out the CIC, but figures like Renee DiResta and Alex Stamos have already fulfilled a substantial historical function by organising cross-platform content sweeps for Covid-19 and the 2020 election.
8. Poynter Institute / International Fact-Checking Network
What we know about funding: Over $4 million a year goes from Facebook to IFCN partner organisations. Poynter and Politifact meanwhile list the Craig Newmark Foundation, the Koch Foundation, the Knight Foundation, the Omidyar Network, the National Endowment for Democracy, Microsoft, and the Washington Post as funders, among others.
What they do/What they are selling: At-scale, enterprise effort to fact-check earth.
Gibberish verbiage: Little to none. IFCN/Politifact are mostly operated and maintained by people with relationships to journalism, and its products are designed to be consumed by broad audiences.
In sum: The IFCN in particular is a huge-scale fact-checking operation whose conflicted relationship with Meta/Facebook may provide a template for future truth contractors.
9. Integrity Initiative / Institute for Statecraft. Type: Shady-as-F spook world surveillance and information control plan that will send you voiding in terror. In sum: Straight Outta Orwell! The Integrity Initiative documents represent one of the most consequential intelligence leaks of all time — the very dirty underpants of NATO.
10. National Conference on Citizenship / Algorithmic Transparency Institute. You may have read about them when: Via its Junkipedia initiative. ATI also runs the “Civic Listening Corps,” “a volunteer network of individuals trained to monitor for, critically evaluate, and report misinformation.”
11. Park Advisors. In sum: A now defunct (and hard to find) disinformation advisory group, connected to GEC, that created a digital testbed for “counter-disinformation” tools.
12. New Knowledge AI, rebranded as Yonder AI, was acquired by Primer. Type: For-profit internet company that worked for brands and national security entities searching platforms for narrative control, along with detecting narrative manipulation from malign actors.
13. Moonshot CVE. Type: For-profit tech company working with public and private industry partners to detect and prevent online hate.
14. Annenberg Public Policy Centre (home of Factcheck.org). Type: Privately funded Public Policy Research Centre affiliated with the Annenberg School of Communication at the University of Pennsylvania. In Sum: The Annenberg Public Policy Centre is one tentacle of the Annenberg Foundation’s larger influence operation masquerading as a think tank. Its analysis is informed by and ultimately loyal to the ghosts of Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, Queen Elizabeth and Walter Annenberg.
15. German Marshall Fund’s Alliance for Securing Democracy. In sum: The German Marshall Fund is a large pass-through for funding from the US and other NATO governments as well as the largest industrialists in those nations to try to shape public perception through front organisations.
16. Ad Council. In sum: An advertising behemoth created by the largest corporations in WWII to sell war is still, well, doing that.
17. Clemson University Media Forensics Hub. In sum: Communications professors at Clemson managed to secure a lot of funding from a retired academic and defence contractor who played a very critical role in the Strategic Defence Initiative under the Reagan Administration for a social media analysis/disinformation centre, built largely to feed information to journalists that Twitter’s own analyses consistently refuted.
18. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA). In sum: A new sub-agency of Homeland Security with a monster budget, strong university connections, and a giant purview to the middle of a bureaucratic morass of various other federal agencies and departments, all of whom also have a piece of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure protection portfolio; has rivals in DoD, Department of Energy, FBI, Secret Service and among the intelligence community.
19. Bellingcat. Type: For-profit Netherlands-based investigative journalism organisation that seems mostly to investigate and/or denounce the practitioners of journalism. In sum: The “independent” journalist consortium’s spook-a-rific investor group and malodorous contributor roster call into question its agenda-free reporting.
20. Centre for European Policy Analysis (CEPA). Type: CEPA is a non-profit public policy institution based in Washington, D.C. In sum: CEPA seeks to advance transatlantic political “values” and strengthen transatlantic cooperation to “ensure our collective defence and future security.”
21. Centre for an Informed Public at the University of Washington. In sum: Through public and private financing, the CIP used its academic status to help with some of the largest censorship efforts targeting speech relating to the 2020 election and Covid-19.
22. Aspen Institute. Type: It has the reputation (and the geographical profile) of an American Davos. In sum: The Aspen Institute is an influential organisation that receives tens of millions of dollars in funding from the US government to comprehensively advance solutions to the world’s problems so that we don’t have to.
23. Trusted News Initiative. Type: Trusted News Initiative is a partnership “founded by the BBC” that includes media and technology organisations from around the world, including Google and YouTube, Microsoft, Facebook, Twitter, The CBC, The Washington Post, AP, Thomson Reuters, the Information Futures Lab/First Draft, and several more. In sum: A mammoth anti-disinformation initiative bringing together the biggest media and tech companies on the planet.
24. Automated Controversy Detection. In sum: Automated Controversy Detection takes anti-misinformation mission creep to the next level with its open and explicit AI-driven approach to the surveillance of the “content that triggers you.”
25. Centre for Countering Digital Hate. Type: An NGO cut-out engaged in brazen smearing, attacking dissenting views, de-platforming, censoring and pro-active shrinkage of the Overton window. You may have read about them when: They issued a report called the “Disinformation Dozen.” In sum: Institutional anger-merchant NGO with a murky background and bulldog mentality ready to attack all and sundry, to institute their regime of censorship.
26. Craig Newmark Philanthropies. Type: A large philanthropy founded by the inventor of Craigslist, with a special focus on journalism and disinformation. In sum: A mega-fund core to power the explosive growth of the Censorship-Industrial complex.
27. Omidyar Group. Type: A series of foundations from the founder of eBay providing a huge amount of funding to the Censorship-Industrial complex. In sum: This is a mega-fund and driving force behind the Censorship-Industrial Complex.
28. The Knight Foundation. In sum: A leading force in developing the ecosystem of anti-disinformation organisations, particularly in the US.
29. Google Jigsaw. In sum: Perhaps the slickest and most technically sophisticated of the censorship and speech control initiatives.
30. Full Fact.
Type: A leading UK “fact-checking” “NGO” with mountains of money from Big Tech.
You may have read about them when: Founded by Michael John Samuel, the son of an aristocrat, Full Fact epitomises the elitism and down-talking of the “fact-checking” industry. Full Fact was the first UK member of Facebook’s Third-Party Fact-Checking program. Full Fact led a successful campaign to have vaccine critic and Conservative MP Andrew Bridgen removed from the party. Full Fact has even developed its own AI-driven Robocop to police speech online.
What we know about funding: Full Fact takes huge amounts of Big Tech money, almost $2.5 million between 2019-2021 from Facebook alone. Another example of corporations funding the people who supposedly keep them accountable. They also receive strong support from Google, Poynter, and Omidyar.
What they do/What they are selling: Truth policing in the service of the powerful.
In sum: Leading candidate for the inevitable UK Big Brother award.
31. Media Matters For America.
32. Miburo/Digital Threat Analysis Centre. Anti-disinformation lives, even on Substack!
33. Credibility Coalition. An oddly vague group of researchers that has poured resources into trying to develop what it calls a “shared vocabulary for credibility.”
34. Factcheck.me/Botcheck.me.
35. Duke Reporters’ Lab.
36. Reveal. This EU-funded “social media verification” site is, like many European anti-disinformation projects, more overtly terrifying in its dystopian aims than some of its American counterparts.
37. Global Disinformation Index.
38. US Agency for Global Media/Polygraph/Factograph.
39. Institute for Strategic Dialogue Also funded by the US State Department, the Britain-based ISD offers another smorgasbord of content-suffocation tools, including a “hate-mapper” service and a product called Beam.
40. Wikipedia. Wikipedia, like many tech behemoths, plays the role of a defender of free speech in certain circumstances, but lately, it has become perhaps the most furious grindstone of digital conformity in Western media outside Twitter, Google, and Facebook, institutionalising a system of blockages that increasingly only let through information reported on in an approving way by large corporate or academic institutions.
41. EU Disinfo Lab.
42. UK 77th Brigade. It should tell the reader something that the formation of an active military unit by a key NATO partner which is openly devoted to fighting online “disinformation” and has been credibly accused of mass surveillance of its own citizenry is just the 42nd entry on this list.
43. Claim Buster.
44. DisinfoCloud. It featured a “continuously updated news feed” of disinformation-related items, often with fairly far-out recommendations to “nearly 300 organisations.” This blogged material was available to “select government, civil society, and private sector users.”
45. MythDetector. The fact-checking arm of the Media Development Foundation, funded by USAID and the German Marshall Fund.
46. Verified. The inevitable creep-tastic United Nations fact-checking initiative.
47. Foreign Malign Influence Centre.
48. Advance Democracy Inc.
49. DisinfoWatch.
50. Countering Disinformation.
Featured image left: Report on the Censorship-Industrial Complex: The Top 50 Organisations to Know, Racket News, 10 May 2023
The CBDCs Are Coming, And The Elite Plan To Use These “Digital Currencies” To Enslave Humanity
By Citizen Watch Report
Central bank digital currencies are feverishly being developed all over the globe, and this is something that should deeply alarm all of us. For a moment, I would like for you to imagine a world where the government instantly knows whenever you buy or sell something. No transaction would ever be truly private, not even your most personal or embarrassing ones. In addition, your money would not be truly your own under such a system. Your access to the digital currency system would be a privilege which could potentially be suspended or revoked with the click of a mouse. All of a sudden you would not be able to buy or sell anything and you would become an outcast from society. Under no circumstances should any government ever be given such power.
Unfortunately, the CBDCs are coming, and they are going to radically change how commerce gets done.
Here in the United States, the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco has posted a job listing for a “Senior Crypto Architect” to work on the development of a digital dollar.
U.S. Representative Warren Davidson is very upset about this, because he believes that a CBDC issued by the Federal Reserve would be the “financial equivalent of the Death Star”…
The job description specified that the Federal Reserve seeks a technologist to “perform central bank digital currency (CBDC) research and development.”
The expert will work to “ensure the Federal Reserve is well-positioned to design, develop, and implement technology to support a CBDC as may be required by the Board of Governors.”
Although the job listing shows that the Federal Reserve is only working on CBDC research, Rep Davidson believes it is a sign of what is to come and described it as the “financial equivalent of the Death Star.”
Davidson added that CBDC would turn money into a tool of coercion and control.
Sadly, he is right on target.
Once “digital dollars” issued by the Federal Reserve become the dominant form of currency in our nation, whoever has power over that system would truly have an unprecedented “tool of coercion and control”.
So we must not allow this to happen.
Sadly, CBDCs are now in development all around the world.
For example, the UK has been moving toward the development of their own CBDC…
The de facto head of His Majesty’s Treasury announced this week that the Bank of England has begun consultations on implementing a Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) that could usher in the globalist vision of a cashless society in which all transactions are traceable by the government.
Chancellor of the Exchequer Jeremy Hunt revealed that, as a part of his ‘Edinburgh Reforms’ of Britain’s financial services, the Bank of England will begin consultations on the design of a Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) which would act as a digital version of the pound sterling.
Meanwhile, the EU is looking at creating a digital version of the euro. The following comes from the official website of the European Central Bank…
We are working with the national central banks of the euro area to investigate whether to introduce a digital euro. It would be a central bank digital currency, an electronic equivalent to cash. And it would complement banknotes and coins, giving people an additional choice about how to pay.
A CBDC is currently being tested in Brazil, and it turns out that it has hidden backdoor features that would actually allow the government “to freeze people’s funds and adjust their balances at will”…
Brazil, like most other masters, seeks to control the population with a central bank digital currency, or CBDC. Its pilot program made it possible for the ruling class to have complete control over the money of the slaves.
The new system contains hidden backdoor features allowing the Brazilian government to freeze people’s funds and adjust their balances at will. Even though these features are “hidden”, there is no secret as to why these sociopaths all so desperately need people to accept their enslavement through a CBDC scheme.
According to a blockchain developer by the name of Pedro Magalhaes, founder of the Web3 consulting firm Iora Labs, the ruling class will have access to every single slave’s bank account once they roll out the CBDC system.
Magalhaes claimed that he reverse-engineered the code behind Brazil’s CBDC program, which led him to this shocking discovery.
And in Russia, the “digital ruble” is already here.
Just a few days ago, Vladimir Putin signed “the digital ruble bill” into law…
Russia’s president Vladimir Putin signed the digital ruble bill into law today, allowing the country’s central bank to issue its own digital currency.
The digital ruble, which the Bank of Russia has long been mulling over, will be used for payments along with other methods, according to the new amendments to Russia’s Civil Code. The digital ruble accounts will be managed by the central bank, the law says. The bill passed its third, final hearing on July 11 and had been waiting for the president to be signed.
Digital ruble is a CBDC project the Bank of Russia has been working on since 2020, when the Bank of Russia published its first analytical report on the topic. Later, the regulator updated the report including the feedback from Russian banks and other financial market participants. The regulator announced it stared piloting the system with a number of Russian banks in February 2022, shortly before the country started a war in Ukraine.
This was a historic development.
So why did we barely hear anything about it in the news?
Overall, it is being reported that 130 different countries are now interested in potentially developing their own CBDCs…
Out of 195 countries in the world, 130 nations are moving towards building their Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC).
Wow.
Our world is changing so rapidly now.
Once a “digital currency” is introduced where you live, how will you keep your “digital wallet” safe?
After all, someone could just steal your “digital wallet” and spend all of the “digital currency” that you have saved up.
Well, one German economist is warning that eventually we could see “digital wallets” actually get implanted under the skin…
A well-known German economist has revealed that central banks around the world are planning to introduce central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) in the form of microchips implanted under the skin. This technology will enable complete government control over personal finances of its citizens.
“I was taught by a central banker [that] the CBDCs look like a small grain of rice that they want to put under your skin,” said Richard Werner in an interview with podcaster Ivor Cummins. Werner is known for developing the now commonly used bank practice of quantitative easing.
Let us hope that nothing like that happens any time soon.
But we truly are living in unprecedented times, and they are only going to get crazier with each passing year.
If we are going to object to the implementation of CBDCs, the time is now.
Hopefully we can get a lot more people in the general population to wake up, because the clock is ticking.
