Disclaimer: Safe Tech International is comprised of a diverse group of people from various countries who have come together to advocate for safer digital technologies. We do not have a uniform stance on all global political issues, nor do we feel this is necessary in advocacy for safer internet and telecommunications technologies. We support diversity of thought, and feel that well-researched blogs and outreach materials that both awaken and inspire others to seek the greater good are essential in our times. In light of that, please note that all members of Safe Tech International do not necessarily agree with every political statement made in the following excellent and well-researched blog.

The world would be a different place without smart technology, which is personified by the ubiquitous smart phone. However, more than that, the world would be a different place if smart technology didn’t come first – in every political decision.

These technologies have helped to create the police state of today. It is nurtured by the political climate in which Digital ID is being sold to us. Governments are digitally dividing society into an “us and them” equation – through AI-driven smart technology. In that world, the smart phone – a data-mining surveillance tool for the police state – is made conveniently mandatory.

Digital surveillance and Digital ID

The potential of the smart phone to disempower society, piece by piece, is no secret – phones are being tracked and personal information is leaking via Bluetooth and Wi-Fi. It may shock people to realise that Wi-Fi “sensing” enables AI to see us through walls and monitor our movements in real time with 5G.

Our data, in a multiplicity of forms commonly derived from routine smart phone activity, is the prized possession of government agencies and, the corporations and organisations that profit from it, who are lobbying for Digital ID, which enables more intrusive data-mining. There are numerous consequences of this vast “data-mining”, proving that the smart phone is anything but an “empowering” device.

Some social groups more than others received a taste of this reality during the “pandemic” – notably activists, journalists and other campaigning professionals using social media and smart phones to raise political awareness when human rights were under assault. Reliance on smart phones exposed their data to increased scrutiny, left them open to international government, military and police efforts to target social media, control information, monitor persons of interest and deter protests. Society witnessed a hike in intrusive data-driven surveillance and algorithmic censorship, as well as calls for Digital ID in the form of digital “Vaccine Passports”, all of which could now be empowered by AI and 5G wireless infrastructure.

Climate of social and racial manipulation

Among the targets in the climate of social unrest was the “Woke” organisation Black Lives Matter (BLM), protesting in 2020, and invested in “smart phone activism”. However, soon BLM discovered that their smart phones were an “Achilles Heel”. Big Tech had been aiding the police, with social media surveillance and facial recognition technologies (FRTs), targeting protesters.

BLM had known social media surveillance for many years (targeted by police through the social media intelligence platform Geofeedia). However, they had never highlighted this technological side of “colonialism” in their midst.

In September 2020 – according to the BBC – officers at a [Black Lives Matter] protest in Washington’s Lafayette Square “…requested a “heat ray” weapon for possible use against protesters in a park next to the White House…The heat ray weapon [Active Denial System] uses a microwave beam [millimeter wave energy] to make human skin feel like it is burning.” That same month, Facial Recognition Technologies (FRTs) had also been deployed against the protesters.

BLM supporters toppling colonialist statues in recent times, have liberally targeted the past. However, they didn’t target the Big Tech companies, Big Tech figureheads or smart phones/smart surveillance technology, or microwave weapons of the present. An opportunity to highlight digital/electronic colonialism as the threat of contemporary Imperialism – exemplified by the symbiosis of Big Tech and the police to target and ID protesters with data-driven technologies – was ominously missed when unprecedented global attention was on the organisation in 2020.

BLM, it can be argued, avoided the technological “elephants in the room” and thus seemed to change very little for civil rights, because policing is inseparable from microwave and smart technologies.

A technological, data-gathering warzone

Predatory, data-driven policing is today at the heart of recent anti-ICE protests in Los Angeles, as are identity politics. The surveillance of and confrontations with protesters are portrayed as a crackdown on those in the US who may not have the necessary Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) documents that prove their identity.

Police brutality (with military tactics and manpower) aligned to “technological supremacism” characterises the “sweeps” on the streets of LA, which are fuelled by data from smart surveillance infrastructure and tools.

Biometric Update author Anthony Kimery, in the article “Police, federal video surveillance of anti-ICE protests in Los Angeles raise alarms”, observes that, “In the wake of escalating protests in Los Angeles over U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids and broader immigration enforcement policies, civil liberties advocates and technologists are sounding the alarm over the scale and scope of surveillance that’s been deployed against demonstrators…While aerial footage and law enforcement presence dominate the visible landscape of the protests, a quieter form of monitoring is unfolding in the digital realm where facial recognition tools, [Amazon] Ring camera footage, and social media surveillance intersect to create a sprawling matrix of protester identification.”

Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) has made significant investments in wireless Internet of Things (IoT) technologies – as admitted by Deputy Chief John McMahon who believes, “Virtual reality and technologies like the [wearable] Apple Vision Pro goggles, which double as a computer, offer endless possibilities for enhancing law enforcement operations.”

(The same has been said about smart glasses, wearables that are currently being used by law enforcement in China and the Middle East, and will be coming to a town near you, with facial recognition technology built in. According to Greenbot, “facial recognition in wearables may soon become common despite ethical concerns.” As Harvard Technology Review observes, “…while European regulations have restricted the use of real-time facial recognition, no such protections exist in the United States.”)

Smart technology automates much of policing, and supports the militarisation of the police, which has continued since 9/11 when “surplus combat equipment [was] procured and assigned to local police departments”. Source. The trend has seen units that “mimic Special Forces”. According to stopspying.org, in the US amidst anti-ICE demonstrations, “federal immigration enforcement have flown Predator drones, Black Hawk helicopters, and other military aircraft typically deployed in warzones overseas above the protests.”

Reports of “masked, unmarked agents” assigned to work with ICE that are targeting demonstrators and others reinforce the “Special Forces” dimension to the technologically assisted ICE policing. Arguably this is a terrorising tactic, and one that is challenging legal frameworks, undermining transparency and creating fear.

In a discussion in bylinetimes.com concerning the “militarisation of police departments, and the domestic deployments of armed units trained and staffed by Special Forces soldiers to our cities”, Professor Timothy Snyder of Yale – author of On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons From the Twentieth Century – is quoted as saying, “This is a classic way that violence happens in authoritarian regimes… The people who are getting used to committing violence on the border are then brought in to commit violence against people in the interior.” Source.

MSN reported that, “Some city and Police Commission leaders have called on the LAPD to do more to identify masked individuals who are taking part in immigration sweeps.” The streets are becoming a technological, data-gathering warzone.

Smart technology for health, or authenticating ID?

As this “militarised” climate of fear over “proving identity” is raised to fever pitch, I’m sure it won’t be long before the subject of Digital ID becomes centre stage issue the US – targeting Americans with smart phones. Digital ID in the US is sold as “more convenient, secure, privacy-protective, and usable than a physical ID”.

A centralised database built by Big Tech data-mining firm Palantir is already proving more than attractive to the Trump government – which would support a Digital ID framework, and, ICE deportations. As Vice observes, “In a CNBC interview at Davos, Palantir CEO Alex Karp admitted that his company “[finds] people in our country who are undocumented.” Source.

For Digital ID to be a success, biometrics are a key dataset. Currently, “Palantir gathers biometric and behavioral data for removal operations“. The function-creep of smart phones has ensured this dataset can be obtained with ease, “conveniently”, for biometrics capture is hardwired into the technology – as it is in fashionable smart “wearables”.

In the US, health secretary RFK Junior recommends that all citizens own wearables, “envisioning that every American will use them within four years“. Like smart phones, wearable devices are a desirable “data-mine” for the police, and governments – and such data would greatly assist Palantir. Wearables offer many opportunities for “tapping” rich sets of data.

The safety of sensitive, personal health data remains in question, however, when Big Tech is greedy for it and is prepared to breech data guidelines. Fines seem inconsequential. For example, facial recognition company Clearview AI “was fined just over €30M (close to $32M) by the Netherlands’ data protection authority in September 2024. In 2022 it was also fined the maximum possible (€20M or around $22M, based on its revenue at that time) a full three times by DPAs in Italy, Greece and France.” Source.

AI-driven smart technology: who wants your data?

Influencers who are outspoken on social issues, like RFKJnr and Patrisse Marie Khan-Cullors Brignac (formerly of BLM), must see that smart technologies are invasive surveillance tools. However, RFKJnr believes that wearables are vital for health, which is questionable. Meanwhile, former Black Lives Matter (BLM) leader Patrisse Marie Khan-Cullors Brignac helped empower a movement against colonialism in the 21st century yet the movement hasn’t spoken out against targeted smart phone surveillance, Facial Recognition Technologies (FRTs) Digital ID, or AI algorithms that can be inherently racist or disciminatory, (proven in study after study).

Failing to politically highlight the invasive data-driven surveillance underway courtesy of smart technology has consequences. A centralised database of Americans is now on the cards whether US citizens of any colour agree or not. Murals of 2020 supporting BLM are torn up and military installations are renamed in support of the Ku Klux Klan, as the Whitehouse makes deals with Big Tech and data-mining company, Palantir. Meanwhile, wearables for every American is promoted as a mantra.

There is a deep political desire to control the public’s data, and to keep mining it, intrusively though smart technologies – something the police are relying on more and more. The “terrorising” policing tactics and data-driven technologies being rolled out at demonstrations today take on a different dimension when we realise that the US and UK police alike are being trained in Israel, a country that reinforces apartheid through surveillance technologies, and is engaged in ethnic cleansing in Gaza.

According to Amnesty International, “Public or private funds spent to train our domestic police in Israel should concern all of us.” Yet how many of us know that the police are adopting Israeli tactics? Consider also, that Israeli technologies like those made by Israeli spytech company Cellebrite – a digital forensics company that sells tools to access and extract data from smartphones – which has “contracts with the British police” may access “police and security surveillance data”, because they are part of the “The 2030 roadmap for UK-Israel bilateral relations” signed off by the British Government.

Concerningly, Cellebrite has a “disastrous human rights record” and assists repressive regimes. For example, in 2021, as the Business and Human Rights Resource Centre reported, “Evidence of surveillance technology being used by the Myanmar state [formerly Burma]…was revealed when it surfaced that the military used phone-hacking technology from Israeli spyware firm Cellebrite to arrest two Reuters journalists for investigating a military massacre of ten Rohingya Muslims in Rakhine State in 2017.”

Cellebrite is interested in more than access to and data from smart phones, however. According to Cellebrite, “Digital wearables, such as Fitbit, record seemingly mundane activities — the number of steps we take in a day, our heartbeats, sleep schedules, locations, and distance traveled. To the trained eyes of criminal investigators, the data from wearables can be used to document our daily lives, right down to the last footstep and heartbeat. This data can prove invaluable when investigating crimes….extraction of data from wearable devices [has] led to arrests and prosecutions.”

Techno-anarchy in the UK

Clearly smart phones and wearables enable a society governed by Digital ID, underpinned by AI. It’s the direction the US, and UK, is headed, with the tragedy of racial unrest continuing, driven by technology that promotes over-policing and racially biased targeting.

In the UK as in the US, Palantir are at the centre of data-mining activities. According to Liberty, the “…controversial US spy tech firm [Palantir] has landed a contract with UK police to develop a surveillance network that will incorporate data about citizens’ political opinions, philosophical beliefs, health records and other sensitive personal information.”

In the UK, Digital ID is increasingly in the news. As the political dimensions around it are comparable with those of the US in so many ways, they deserve our attention.

The UK government launched “Gov.uk Wallet, a digital identity system that will consolidate government-issued credentials into a centralized mobile application. The initiative marks a significant advancement in the UK’s broader digitization strategy, following the country’s recent engagement with private sector stakeholders on digital identity solutions…The technical implementation will use facial recognition capabilities available on most contemporary smartphones for identity verification.” This offers clues as to how the UK’s vision of Digital ID will look.

The Digital ID initiative progresses as racial unrest in the form of Gaza protests and continuing immigration-related “troubles” spark police controntations where facial recognition technologies (FRTs) and smart phone surveillance are hastily rushed out (without ethical regulations) and serve to deter public demonstrations and “dissent”.

Regarding the Gaza demonstrations, these events are democratic rights that communicate to us all how unpopular Israel’s “genocidal” war is, and also show us that predominantly in the media, protesting against the killing of Palestinians and waving their flags in demonstrations is being sold as “anti-Israel” as if that type of protesting were “antisemitic”. UK Foreign Office “staff officials [questioning] the UK’s continued arms sales and what they called a “stark… disregard for international law” by Israel,” have been warned that they should consider resigning if they “disagree” over Gaza.

Citizens opposing Israel’s “genocide” can be labelled antisemitic for expressing alarm, or demonstrating – though when 100,000 Israelis take to the streets to oppose the war, the popular media either has no name for it, or avoids highlighting it. “Antisemitism” describes “bigotry, prejudice or discrimination against Jews“. “Bigotry, prejudice or discrimination against Palestinians” who are also “semitic” people is defended by the British State. In Israel the oppression of Palestinians has been progressed over decades of the authorities collecting biometric data on Palestinians (and even Jews) to control both populations, helped by growing smart phone use, and the rise of facial recognition technologies being developed in Israel.

Britcard: for silencing voices?

In the UK a Digital ID could equally be employed to silence criticism to the government line. “Government officials have suggested that digital IDs could be linked to facial recognition technology and biometric data, creating a system that closely monitors every citizen’s movements and interactions.”

In the context of this “autocratic” UK government stance, where political divides arise over Israel/Gaza and immigration-fuelled controversies, we’re seeing a biometric Digital ID emerge with the proposition of “Britcard”.

It is a proposition progressing from a speculative and “voluntary” status towards being pushed as mandatory – on the back of Britain’s infamous “Immigration” and protesting problems.

Immigration problems in the UK have fuelled protests and dissatisifaction for some time – but only after protests against wars (that have been causing the refugee crisis) failed, falling on the deaf ears of governments determined to support or wage them. Deterring protest with AI’s assistance has since become a priority of governments and the police. Silkie Carlo, director of Big Brother Watch (BBW), believes “…AI surveillance turns members of the public into walking ID cards, is dangerously inaccurate and has no explicit legal basis in the UK.” BBW found that “Over 60% of UK residents are concerned about the use of facial recognition in public spaces.”

Britcard should be viewed as an extension of this desire to control, for who would protest if their data could instantly be assigned to a “watch list” courtesy of an AI driven app and deprive one of essential services? It is an existential threat, along with the growing arsenal of FRTs and Drones to support the program.

“Britcard”, is presented as a proposition for a national Digital ID, and is being advertised a solution for “immigration out of control” though deserves closer scrutiny. As CCN reports, Britcard is touted as a way to “help Britain control illegal migration and secure its borders.”

“What else could Britcard be used for?” is a question everyone should be asking. What about backing a national conscription program? National ID cards introduced in 1939 assisted in conscription – the last time a mandatory ID system was introduced in the UK. Could that happen with Digital IDs? Its happening in Europe which seeks to conscript 300,000 troops as a deterrent to Russia.

Beyond the obvious and advertised

Talk of resuming UK conscription was in the air recently, concerning Vladimir Putin who is seen as a threat because “Britain sees its number of soldiers dwindling“. Europe also appears to be preparing populations for conflict aimed at Putin.

However, according to inews.co.uk, “Downing Street has dismissed a warning from the head of the British Army that members of the public could be called up to fight in the event of a war with Russia.” Governments have been known to U-turn. The UK government seems desperate to implement national Digital ID. Any war might help achieve that, from the “immigation war” to the world war three scenario suggested by the spectre of Putin.

War is spoken of a lot today, though some seek to create it casually through their influence. Big Tech attempted to fan the flames of immigration discontent in the guise of Elon Musk, partner in the techno-eugenecist rebrand of politics under President Donald Trump who is deliberately engineering a racially tense atmosphere in the US, in every way possible (while Elon promotes the idea of “Smart-people” enhanced by smart technology). “Sir Keir Starmer [became] embroiled in a war of words with Elon Musk, after the tech billionaire suggested that “civil war is inevitable” following violent unrest in the UK”, as the BBC reported in 2024.

Britcard remains a politically divisive “us and them” type of proposition. CITIZENS vs IMMIGRATION is currently the main narrative to convince people to accept a life where digital proof of ID permits access to private and public sector services digitally. Fear and “othering” are the UK government’s usual tried and tested ways of introducing more surveillance on the population, and biased AI algorithms ensure that will continue be the case.

No doubt “othering” comes into play in conscription as well, as it did in the UK in 1939 when ID Cards were forced on the population, and resisting conscription was frowned upon. In a similar way, Digital ID could be used as a coercive tool for purposes beyond the obvious and advertised, empowering governments in gaining the compliance of citizens for a multiplicity of political goals.

The UK and US governments are funding energy guzzling data centres and utilise Real Time Crime Centres (RTCC) (spearheaded by Fusus “the most widely used and trusted real-time crime center platform in US public safety”). Here police use all the latest bells and whistles of surveillance technology and data analytics, so we are seeing the foundations of a Digital ID being built.

The RTCC system brings together the smart technology platforms of Big Tech to policing to carry out the State’s divide and rule political and strategic tactics on society. Digital ID will be a critical data-driven tool linking to these systems. According to breechmedia, “While creating the centres, police forces have sought out advice and technology from major corporations like Motorola, IBM, and Palantir, many with controversial ties to military and spy agencies.”

The UK’s future – who is allowed to join it?

We’re at the threshold of the QR code society, which is a surveillance economy – where you are the product, giving your profitable data through every digital transaction with a smart phone Digital ID app. Like a product on a shelf, a human acquires an ID number and barcode (QR code), to be tracked anywhere like a pet or a prisoner with a GPS bracelet. Wearables can only assist in the “progressive” Digital ID world.

A think tank closely aligned with the government called Labour Together believes that “For a progressive society to work, it needs to be able to collectively agree who is allowed to join it. Because it will exclude those who cannot join it, it needs to give its members proof that they belong.” This is the logic behind the UK’s Digital ID scheme “Britcard”.

According to The Week, “Number 10 appears to be…rolling out [the] voluntary scheme that could become mandatory at a future date. Labour Together has estimated the BritCard system would cost up to £400 million to build and around £10 million a year to administer as a free-to-use app.”

State in a Smart Phone

A Digital ID is already being used in the UK-backed Ukraine as the country endeavours to achieve a state of technological supremacy, and guard against Russia. A Digital ID backed by a government app drives the Ukraine into deeper autocracy, and an “us and them” world. The “State in a Smartphone” project handled by the Ukrainian Ministry of Digital Transformation passed a Digital ID law and now all authorities and private business are equipped “to be able to scan the relevant QR-code of the New Digital IDs” to verify identities.

Ukraine, by adopting Digital ID places itself on a par with other repressive regimes that have imposed the same with the aid of profit hungry Big Tech companies like Palantir. “Currently, Diia, the national government’s app which is used by over 20 million people.

Today, nearly all of Kyiv’s adult population relies on the apps”. This ensures complete digital dependency, meaning that with immediacy, access to healthcare, resources, and vital services can be refused and withheld, on the basis of the political control of a person’s data. Victoria Itskovych, Chief Information Officer of Kyiv City (CIO) said: “For any emergency – be it floods, earthquakes, or pandemics –…cities need a trusted channel of communication that cannot be hijacked to spread fear and panic.” Clearly only the voice of the State matters, when State-driven apps come into town.

Digital ID, for the Ukraine, establishes a questionable form of technology for a questionable “democracy” that has faced massive protests over government corruption, and brought “draconian” anti-protest laws that curb protest rights, free speech and NGO involvement in these processes. Deterring protest is also an agenda in the UK and US, today, with governments employing Facial Recognition Technologies (FRTs) and social media surveillance to build watch lists and target protesters or “dissidents” – a police state gaining power.

Can a Digital ID promote “Humanness”?

This interpenetrating Digital ID surveillance system, wherever it is implemented, UK or Ukraine, requires sustaining fast wireless networks (5G for example) and massively expanding data-centres, a drain on earth’s resources – fundamentally in the name of mass surveillance – and, it means sacrificing our freedom and “humanness” to “belong”, when our existence is digitally organised by AI algorithms.

Firmin DeBrabander, the Cambridge University Press author of Life after Privacy: Reclaiming Democracy in a Surveillance Society, believes that, “In the digital net that envelops our everyday lives, it will become increasingly more difficult and rare to perform any task without revealing ourselves, and opening our lives to spying eyes. And our spies are not content to watch us from without; they will install sentinels in our very bodies, and monitor us from within.” Source.

This is the future being constructed. Digital ID is a political choice, and it advertises that a fascist surveillance state is the preferred existence, above all other possibilities. Where is that future going to lead us?

Moonshot R&D calls the intensely surveilled future we’re heading towards a new world of inspiration “where people, robots, and biological cyborgs collaborate and co-evolve”. It’s the so-called “fifth stage of human evolution”, a prospect Japan is embracing, where a “Super-smart” Society 5.0 (an agenda evolved since the advent of 5G in 2016) represents “a visionary roadmap for the future of human civilization”, as described by innovaromorir.com.

Sounds like the endgame of the “Great Reset” which advances the Fourth Industrial Revolution, and, dictates technological evolution. How does that work? Sociable.co asserts that, “…the unelected globalists at the World Economic Forum (WEF) are envisioning an “augmented society” ruled by digital identity and transhumanism via the Internet of Bodies….They want digital identity…embedded into every aspect of our lives — even under our skin…” where sensors on or inside the body “monitor, analyze, and even modify human bodies and behavior.”

Such views and observations no longer seem outlandish. Smart technology, and in particular wearables and implants, are posing many ethical questions, though Big Tech companies are banking on what Klaus Schwab calls “a fusion of our physical, our digital, and our biological identities” while no ethical oversight can prevent any movement in that direction.

Put in this light, we can see how an acceptance of Digital ID is like throwing “humanness” onto the trash heap in favour of inhabiting a “post-human society” (discussed by the Global Posthuman Network) where people are, through new markets like smart dust and implants, technologically augemented (which in today’s parlance means people are being “progressive”).

People accepting of a Digital ID are trading any other alternative life for a digitally “remastered” and reinforced “self” (as populations under repressive regimes have discovered) consenting to centralised surveillance, and technologically targeted control over individuals, using health data (digital health), and mental health status or any other data of strategic value that can set limits and reinforce Big Tech monopolies and government policies.

Digital ID is not about setting anyone free, but nudging the population to a place where AI comes to dominate life more. Government has a revolving door with Big Tech companies which accelerates the pace of digital surveillance transformations, which are about implementing AI for profit and control.

AI and the lens of repression

Keir Starmer of the UK Labour government said, with AI “…there are huge opportunities and risks, and we need to marry the two…We need to push it through”. Today, the UK like everywhere we know, is a surveillance economy, being pushed through, which can be measured in the sheer density of data-collecting CCTV cameras alone which are, to be clear, a technology invented by the Nazi regime.

CCTV cameras are now enhanced by AI, and are the eyes of the AI-data-driven State today, using facial recognition and other algorithmic surveilance tools – biased towards destroying dissent and activism, while proving inherently “racist”.

Speaking out on the issue of AI’s racist interpretations and language models, Timnit Gebru was fired by Google in 2020. She had been “supporting rigorous research on AI ethics and algorithmic auditing” while the company romanced Black Lives Matter (BLM), Diversity politics, and Civil Rights to bask in “political correctness”, to promote products to a wider audience. This is a road that Big Tech in general has walked profitably, though now distances itself from as the political climate changes towards one of technologically assisted intolerance, a climate which Big Tech arguably now exploits, and assists.

Google’s credibility to “Do No Evil” has waned immensely with the development of Project Nimbus, which is enabling data-driven AI surveillance for Israel. As Middle East Monitor explains, “Beyond the sphere of social media, Google and Amazon’s collaboration with the Israeli military under Project Nimbus casts an even darker shadow over the tech industry’s role in this conflict [the war in Gaza]. The $1.2 billion cloud computing contract…provides critical infrastructure to power Israel’s AI-driven Lavender and Gospel targeting systems – systems that are directly linked to the mass civilian casualties in Gaza [and use facial recognition].” It’s a lesson for us all, especially when it is clear that Israel has a grip on our police and governments, and seeks to influence strategies and technologies.

Israel’s grip on Western police forces

In April 2025, aoav.org.uk reported that “In a delayed response to a Freedom of Information (FOI) request submitted by Action on Armed Violence (AOAV)”, Essex Police in the UK “…refused to confirm or deny whether any of their officers have met with representatives from Corsight AI, a controversial Israeli facial recognition technology company whose software has reportedly been used in IDF military operations in Gaza….a practice that human rights organisations have condemned as constituting “automated apartheid”.

This lack of transparency is similar to the US government refusing to be open about its facial recognition agenda, a policy of secrecy that raises concerns. The UK appears reliant on intrusive surveillance tactics and tools from Israel. It is worth asking, to what extent?

What power do Israeli tech firms have over police in the UK?

According to Inside Telecom, “Over 500 Israeli tech and non-tech companies operate in the United Kingdom (UK), and the UK Israel Tech Hub is located within the British Embassy in Israel…This raises multiple questions about the relationship between the UK and Israel. The main aim of the organization is to secure private and public sector contracts for Israeli technology companies in the UK. Earlier reports from Palestine have also suggested that several Israeli tech firms act as fronts for Zionist intelligence agencies.”

Further, “…NICE Systems, [is] another Israeli company with a contract with the British police to handle parts of their investigations. NICE Systems also holds a contract in Scotland for facial recognition in CCTV.”

A freedom of information request asking “Has the Met Police run training or exchange programmes with Israel’s police or military from 2020 to present?” received the following reply from the government:

“Confirming or denying that…information is held relating to the types of training, meetings and exchange programmes provided to other countries between The Metropolitan Police Service and the Israeli Police, Israeli Civil Administration or Israeli Defence Forces between 2014-present, would provide terrorists with a greater understanding of where specific training and exchange programmes are provided…In a partial answer to your first and third answer, On Wednesday 18 May 2022, the Met’s Central East Command Unit hosted an Israeli police delegation.”

Further information reveals that “The purpose of the visit from the Israeli Police delegation was so they could learn from the MPS about how we work with communities…Policing authorities rely on international co-operation when combatting crime, particularly that which is cross-border in scope.” A meeting was held at Stoke Newington Police Station. An official redacted PDF disclosed an agenda concerning the policing of “Faith and Hate Crime” and “Policing COVID” and centred on “Community Key stakeholders and partners”. Stoke Newington (an area in the northwest part of the London Borough of Hackney) has a high white demographic with black and other ethnic minorities, and a history of police brutality against minorities, suspicious deaths, and alleged police cover-ups. “Stoke Newington Police Station in Hackney, east London, was infamous in the 1980s and 1990s for police corruption and racism,..” according to Socialist Worker in a very revealing article where the behaviour London police forces echoes violent law enforcement tactics of Israel that for years has brutalised Jews and Palestinians.

Further involvements with Israel have been disclosed by aoav.org.uk. “The UK government has confirmed it is actively training Israeli soldiers on British soil…[casting] fresh light on Britain’s ongoing military relationship with Israel amid continued conflict in Gaza and military escalation in southern Lebanon….Dr Iain Overton, Executive Director of Action on Armed Violence (AOAV), said: “The UK’s training of Israeli forces during a period of alleged war crimes raises serious questions of moral complicity. The British public deserves transparency when our armed forces are directly engaged with a military accused of violations that have left thousands of civilians dead.”

Other links to Israel influencing UK police are reflected in a report by Global Research, concerning the policing of 7/7 bombings in London, which can be read here.

What power do Israeli tech firms have over police in the US?

According to Forbes, “If you’re in New York City today, there’s a very good chance your face will be captured by surveillance cameras and run through facial recognition software. If you’re in a predominantly Black, Asian or Hispanic community in New York City, that chance is even greater.” Forbes also highlights “…the NYPD’s purchase of more than $277 million in secret surveillance equipment that had previously been hidden from the public.” According to incarcernation.com, since 2012, the NYPD has a “strategic partnership” with Israel, “…focused on counterterrorism, urban warfare, and crowd control.”

truthlytics.com goes further, “The NYPD, one of the largest and most well-funded police departments in the world, has long faced criticism for its use of excessive force and discriminatory policing, particularly in communities of color. These patterns of behavior, critics argue, echo the tactics used by the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) in the occupied West Bank and Gaza—ranging from mass surveillance to brutal crowd control techniques.”

NYPD: employing Israeli technologies and approaches

In the US, policing approaches are influenced by Israel. We may recall that Israel’s NICE Systems has a contract with the British police to handle parts of their investigations and holds a contract in Scotland for facial recognition in CCTV. Supply Chain Market in 2007 reported that “NICE Systems Ltd., the global provider of advanced solutions that enable organizations to extract Insight from Interactions to drive performance, recently announced that it has won a $9M contract from the City of New York (NYC), on behalf of the New York Police Department (NYPD) for NICE Inform, multimedia incident information management solution for its next generation 9-1-1 emergency call centers…NICE Inform will enable the City to capture, manage, analyze and reconstruct multimedia incidents.”

According to haaretz.com, in 2023, “New York City Mayor Eric Adams lauded security technology developed by Israel Police…vowing to bring Israeli tech to the New York Police Department.” moguldom.com reported in 2022 that, “Crime has increased by 23.5 percent in New York City during New York City Mayor Eric Adams’ first year in office, and the former cop-turned-mayor — a fan of facial recognition technology — is promising to implement new policing technology that he said more accurately identifies common criminal patterns and develops profiles of perpetrators….Adams has promoted the use of cameras and championed facial recognition devices…“

Adams said in an interview with Politico. “…Big Brother is protecting you.” Albert Fox Cahn, head of the Surveillance Technology Oversight Project, said, “The NYPD has a decade-long history of abusing its surveillance operations to target Black New Yorkers, Muslim New Yorkers, political protests and every aspect of dissent,” Cahn said. “These are technologies that would be chilling in anyone’s hands. But to give an agency with such a horrifying record of surveillance abuse even more power, at a time when they face dwindling oversight, is a recipe for disaster.” Source.

Howard syndrome and rejection of technological tyranny

It is interesting to hear a Jewish perspective concerning the brutality of Israel’s regime (now influencing our governments and police). In Israel as any society, there are those who are authoritarian and corrupt, and those who want peace and to denounce tyranny. The Israeli historian Shlomo Sand asks, “Is not the very fact of defining oneself as a Jew within the State of Israel an act of affiliation to a privileged caste which creates intolerable injustices around itself?” Source.

Sand’s observation of a “priveleged caste” that “creates intolerable injustices around itself” evokes the actions of our governments too, which are always employing deeper surveillance and eroding human rights, which can lead to brutality and racism.

In the UK, we are experiencing technological authoritarianism through the new Labour Party. It is almost a replay of the authoritarian zeal exhibited by the UK’s Home Office under Conservative Home Secretary Michael Howard, an authoritarian figure who imposed expensive CCTV installations all over the UK, pursued a National ID card scheme, and established controversial DNA databases in the 1990’s.

Britain, under successive Labour governments, interestingly, has inherited that “vision”, which takes on a notable complexion through Starmer’s “vision” of “Putting AI into the veins of Britain“. What did Howard do that Starmer continues to ardently pursue? He pursues a CCTV, ID-based police state.

Howard believed in cutting edge CCTV surveillance technology, operating with racial biases, at the expense of eroding privacy and human rights for society at large, reinforcing the vulnerabilities of minorities in the process. He used technology as a solution, without tackling first the underlying problems influencing crime, like rising unemployment. Technology seemed to be the priority, as now.

Howard established, while neglectful of privacy concerns and consequences for human rights, an intrusive police state in the midst of soaring unemployment and social unrest, which spied on people and held as much information on guilty and innocent alike. Howard, like many progressive politicians and futurists felt human rights policies, an obstacle to his ideals.

Howard felt that the Human Rights Act (which passed in UK law in 1998) and the the Regulations of Investigating Power Act (RIPA) of 2000, (affecting powers of surveillance and communications interception) placed “inhibitions on the ability of the police to tackle crime effectively” and thought adjustments should be made.

The Home Secretary didn’t entirely get his own way, and some of his policies were successfully legally challenged by the public. An ID card was passionately advocated by Howard, though despite his campaigning, became voluntary, not mandatory.

National ID had faced immense public resistance (a wartime card was abolished in 1952). CCN reports that “In the past, when the government tried to centralize the U.K.’s national identity system, it was met with stiff opposition.” From 2006 to 2010 as more mandatory ID card schemes were being planned, thankfully, public resistance stopped them.

Resurfacing, over and over

The ID card idea constantly resurfaces. The government has been keen to calm fears concerning the Digital ID agenda. According to www.gov.uk, “No, there are no plans to introduce national digital ID cards…Using a digital identity will be voluntary. People will be in control of their data and who it is shared with…People will still be able to prove their identity using physical documents if they choose.”

However, according to enablingdigitalidentity.blog.gov.uk, “On 19 June [2025], the Data (Use and Access) Act received Royal Assent. As well as putting the National Underground Asset Register on a statutory footing and supporting the future of smart data schemes…The new UK legislation formalises the system that is currently operating as a pilot. This will pave the way for trusted digital identities to be used in more places.” According to thinkdigitalpartners.com, “and has set digital ID as a key focus area for 2024. It will be a critical part of the UK’s national infrastructure.”

Labour Together have stated, Britcard “could lay the foundations for a fully-functioning digital identity system…building on the existing One Login and Gov.UK Wallet. Our polling suggests it would be immensely popular; around 80% of the public support use of digital identity for a range of use cases.” The aim is to “…rebrand the Gov.UK App and Gov.UK Wallet as the “BritCard app””. That is, to make Britcard from an existing placeholder entity, the Gov.UK App and Gov.UK Wallet being the “Trojan Horse” that was always meant to bring in a mandatory Digital ID.

Criticism

“Britcard”, was criticised by David Frost (who served as a Minister of State at the Cabinet Office between March and December 2021) who believes, “A normal ID card, bad as it is, is proof of your identity and status. A digital ID is also an instrument of control – because it can shape-shift according to the government’s wishes. That’s why introducing digital ID is to cross a Rubicon. It changes forever the relationship between government and citizen….Think back.

Have we forgotten the lessons of the pandemic, when we all had to have proof of our Covid test status on our phone before we could go certain places or access certain buildings? Briefly, at the end of 2021 – the issue that finally forced me to resign from the Cabinet – we introduced a “vaccine passport” system, which actually denied you access to certain environments unless you had a full vaccination record. This was all done via an app – in effect a digital ID. The government could change the conditions at will and you had no choice but to comply.”

Frost has a point, and as the World Health Organisation and other “Stakeholders” in the smart future relish achieving more gains with more powers, from mining our data, including the police and governments dismissive of concerns over AI ethics and the insecurity of our data.

A stake in the heart of freedom and privacy

People must not forget how controlling governments can be, obsessively, ideologically. With xenophobic overtones, Britcard has been sold in the UK on the basis of an “us and them” proposition, reinforcing “discrimination” to help “sort out” a persistent problem, namely the UK’s problematic Immigration crisis, that feasibly could have been prevented or managed in other ways beyond the scope of a “Digital ID solution”. Certainly, all the CCTV money could buy wasn’t enough.

“Today, police surveillance cameras disproportionately installed in Black and Brown neighborhoods [in the US] keep a constant watch” just as do they in the UK. According to National News, the “United Kingdom has the dubious honour of having the most CCTV cameras per head of any country in the world; the British Security Industry Authority has claimed that there is one camera for every 11-14 people.”

According to Liberty, the UK is “most intrusive mass surveillance regime of any democratic country.” With smart phones requiring mandatory status to make a national, mandatory Digital ID function, one smart phone to every person linking them to their digital self, would spell a definitive blow against freedom.

Big Tech and countless other corporate entities want your data, more of it than you can imagine, and Digital ID would serve it up without any problems through every QR code scanned to prove you exist. This enhanced data grab will not solve immigration and will more likely exclude large swathes of the population who rightfully live here, as happens in repressive regimes where any individual, or minority, suspected of dissent or any not acting as the government demands can be digitally disempowered, or, disappeared.

As salzburgglobal.org observes, “…the developing world has seen the rise of….national digital identity systems, promoted by the World Bank…not enough is done to shield privacy, embed protection safeguards…The implementation of Digital ID is a high risk territory for human rights.” This article lists some excellent cases that describe why. It covers developing countries and Digital ID issues, but could the same “issues” happen in the UK? Or US?

Most likely, they will. Because, “Digital IDs, especially those that integrate biometric data, can be used to track individuals’ movements, purchases, and online activities without their knowledge or consent. Governments may also unduly target specific individuals, using Digital ID blockage or other methods as a weapon against political opponents or vulnerable groups such as migrants.” We know this is happening already.

Collecting information without limits

As the UK government becomes increasingly autocratic and presents technology as the solution for everything, UK citizens should thoroughly question the motivations behind any Digital ID proposition, especially as the government goes to great lengths to erode data privacy, and becomes more repressive.

The UK now has the “Snooper’s Charter” to assist in massive datamining. As Liberty asserts, the Snooper’s Charter allows “State authorities to collect information about everything we do and say online and order private companies to store it…[with] wide-ranging powers to scoop up and store all of our emails, texts, calls, location data and internet history. They can also hack into our phones and computers and create large ‘personal datasets’ on us – all without needing to suspect us of any criminal wrongdoing.” It has many implications for UK citizens, leaving nothing private.

A Digital ID system can only add to this concerted effort for government and corporate stakeholders to control and own data on the population. Clearly this goes well beyond any Immigration policies and drives a stake into the heart of freedom and privacy for all.

That our governments and police enlist the tactical help of Israel (viewed by many as an ideological, repressive regime) has been revealed and can’t be left out of the current political technological situation in which we find ourselves.

The Jewish historian Schlomo Sand is critical of that regime. Of it, he says Zionism, “…was an ideology deeply rooted in a European vision of the nation-state, one which had a racial dimension, required a demographic majority and was permeated by European colonialism and orientalist thinking.”

Arguably, Israel is marred by exlusionist politics, with colonialist baggage. Exclusionist politics reinforce the “digital colonialism” at work in Israel and across the world, which includes campaigns involving smart technologies and biometrics databases, moving towards achieving Digital ID. Politicians and the media so often highlighting border control and other immigration issues seek to drive support of Digital ID, often in divisive language. Keir Starmer, for instance, in relation to immigration issues warned of an “island of strangers“.

Digital ID is being implemented at scale in the EU “mandating compliance from Big Tech and member countries in supporting the EU Digital Identity (EUDI) Wallet”) Source. “Many countries have already announced wallet project and pilots, and some have even rolled out production digital ID wallets at population scale.” Source.

Digital IDs can bring many risks worth noting. According to Reclaim the Net, “…these IDs are susceptible to hacking and identity theft, placing individuals at risk of financial and reputation damage. Often, citizens are coerced into participating without genuine consent, and the lack of transparency and oversight in these systems increases the risk of misuse.”

Digital colonialism

Michael Kwet, observing the strategies of domination waged through digital technologies, states, “…just as they did in 20th-century South Africa, today’s largest U.S.-based technology corporations see an opportunity to profit from Israeli apartheid—a by-product of U.S.-driven digital colonialism.”

Author Renata Avila, also recognises that we are living in times of “digital colonialism” “referring to the deployment of imperial power over a vast number of people, which takes the form of rules, designs, languages, cultures and belief systems serving the interests of dominant powers. In the past, empires expanded their power through the control of critical assets, from trade routes to precious metals.”

Big Tech has long been under scrutiny over its “conflict minerals” supply chains from oppressed, developing colonies in countries like the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the Central African Republic, South Sudan, Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi, Tanzania, Zambia and Angola. Big Tech companies have regularly been accused of complicity in slavery and abuse of ethnic labour forces, as well as fuelling conflict, and assisting repressive regimes. This represents racial abuse in order to achieve infrastructure targets, and technological supremacy in global geopolitics.

Author Renata Avila, asserts that, “Today, it is not states but technology empires that dominate the world through the control of critical digital infrastructures, data and the ownership of computational power. By collecting the personal data of citizens on a scale unprecedented in human history, companies can serve as conduits of misinformation campaigns that can alter the flow of global geopolitics and even change the outcome of elections.”

According to www.europeandatajournalism.eu, “Far from the free and open platforms they were upon their inception, Big Tech companies and social networks have risen to an unprecedented level of power from which they play an active role in politics through vested financial and political motives, exerting influence through algorithmic alterations, subjective censorship and calls to action on their platforms.”

For control of everyone’s data

The “….emerging trend of data colonialism (Couldry & Mejias, 2019) is of critical importance given the fundamental reliance of AI technologies on data, and because organizations gain access to, control data, and develop algorithms in ways which not only emphasize the digital divide but increase data inequality (Zheng & Walsham, 2021). Source.

“Data colonialism” according to Ulises A. Mejias and Nick Couldry in their book Data Grab is “the continuation of colonialism’s inherited inequalities and colonialism’s acquisition of new tools that potentially affects human life in radically new ways…” This “toolset” which exploits data-driven surveillance enables the companies to “explore, expand, exploit, and exterminate.” As lawfaremedia.org highlights from Mejias and Couldry’s research, data colonialism facilitates “the [harmful] classification of people into disadvantageous categories”.

Today, the UK government is arguably advancing data colonialism’s harms by pushing ahead with a Digital ID “with major financial and tech companies, government agencies and regulators and the likes of the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change, among the prominent forces behind the push…”, according to Reclaim The Net.

The UK government sees digital identity as “one of the cornerstones of a modern digital economy [a surveillance economy]” and seeks to promote adoption of “these secure and trusted [data-mining] technologies.” Digital ID remains a controversial idea, for many reasons. As Rebecca Vincent of Big Brother Watch points out, “The debate about digital ID isn’t really about immigration; it’s about access to, and control of everyone’s data.” Source.

Case of digitally-assisted genocide

We know now that the UK’s ID initiative is called “Britcard”. Marketing an ID system to the public has always been a challenge of governments, and in recent times the public has become divided over immigration which relates to UK government inolvement in more overseas war efforts (colonialism) whicle the public reaps the refugee crisis (fuelling data-driven suerveillance at home).

With datamining becoming so expansive and intrusive, and, with governments and other agencies like the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change and Big Tech pushing for Digital IDs in the UK (which can link together numerous datasets including biometric data), are any of these corporate political actors really acting in our best interests, and, if not, are they able to be held legally accountable if found aiding and abetting genocide, through abuse of our data, for example? Is a Big Tech company able to be held accountable if discovered complicit in the killing of citizens?

You might be shocked to know the answer…

Michael J. Kelly, Professor of Law at Creighton University School of Law states in “Prosecuting Corporations for Genocide”, that, “While corporations can realize enormous profits from such complicity [in genocide], they are immune from international prosecution in The Hague…As key participants in the world economy, corporations have been accorded tremendous latitude and granted extensive rights…If a state or a person commits genocide, they are punished. International law demands such. But corporate actors have successfully avoided this through an array of legal arguments…”



Kelly makes it clear that, “while multinational corporations have been complicit in genocides over many years, none have been prosecuted.” Source.

Today Big Tech companies, assisted by US and UK support, together are an asset to Israel supplying high-tech data driven systems and weapons. International condemnation grows over what is clearly a case of AI fuelled, biometrical oriented techno-genocide against the Palestinian people – demonstrating that this could, and most likely will, happen again.

There is plenty of historical precedence for utmost caution regarding National ID programs, and especially regarding trusting Big Tech with any data on the population.

Blast from the past

According to the British Medical Journal, “Eugenics is too frequently overlooked in histories of both the United States and Europe, even though the story is a fascinating and important one.” Social changes brought about by Eugenics and “Big Tech” in the US fascinated the Nazi regime which aquired IBM’s Hollerith Machines, (punch card computer systems) being used in America (which gave the US government important population data and assisted in evolving “the quantified self” (a being defined by computers and collected data)).

Collecting population data with Hollerith Machines, the US of the 1930s was steeped in eugenics (a “racist” pseudo-science). At this time Americans performed the “Bellamy salute” that inspired the Nazi salute, and sought to oppress black communities, (leading to discrimination and sterilisation programs inflicted on Blacks and minorities which ultimately gave rise to pushback and the civil rights movement years after the Second World War).

With IBM’s assistance, the fascist government of Nazi Germany exploited stratified datasets on the public sorting people into groups. According to historian Edwin Black, “IBM technology was used to organize nearly everything in Germany and then Nazi Europe, from the identification of the Jews in censuses, registrations, and ancestral tracing programs to the running of railroads and organizing of concentration camp slave labor.”

In Nazi Germany, segments of the populace simply had no right to live and were considered by the eugenicist technocracy as “life unworthy of life”. Nazism fuelled social divides, fanned flames of hate, and facilitated euthanasia programs like Aktion T4, organised round-ups of targeted populations, and “discretely” sterilising selected groups. All was the result of enforced structural racism by “supremacists” using eugenics and technology hand in hand to re-organise society along technocratic lines – with much of it financed by US corporations. Nothing has changed, today Big Tech still assists and profits from apartheid regimes and exploiting data in ways that create harmful discrimination, which conforms with a technocratic, eugenicist outlook.

Dehumanisation into data points

We may remember the Rwandan genocide, characterised by the use of data to eliminate people. As KTPress reports, Rwanda saw genocide facilitated by National ID data. Despite the “hard lesson”, today, as reported by Biometric Update, “The government of Rwanda is investing 12.2 billion Rwandan francs (approximately US$8.5 million) in the upcoming 2025-2026 fiscal year to advance the rollout of the nation’s digital identity program, including fingerprint and iris biometrics enrollment.” KTPress reports that, “At the World Economic Forum, Minister Ingabire announced that Rwanda expects AI to contribute up to 6% of GDP in the near future.” Turning people into data points is the future, in the context of the Internet of Things (IoT), a system connecting everyone to an infrastructure of smart technology.

Anasuya Sengupta, Fellow at the Robert Bosch Academy and co-director and co-founder of “Whose Knowledge?” addressing issues of power, privilege, and accessibility, states that, “…the Internet not only helps to promote solidarity and connect people in different places, but also reinforces existing injustice, discrimination, and violence. Technology and algorithms are not neutral, they are political. Technology follows a certain architecture, which is why it reinforces discrimination and prejudice – depending on who designs it…the majority of the world is not represented on the Internet…People have turned from consumers into data points – and therefore into products.”

Ulises A. Mejias and Professor Nick Couldry from the State University of New York in their book “Data Grab” show that little has really changed since the Nazis or Rwandan governments exploited machine data, as technological empires utlising the IoT “…explore, expand, exploit, and exterminate”. In an interview with the London School of Economics (LSE) Couldry explained that, “human experience, potentially every layer and aspect of it, is becoming the target of profitable extraction.”

Demand the end of Digital ID

From the UK to Ukraine, and from the past to the present, we can see what is becoming of our world. Through intrusive forms of smart surveillance allied to military-style policing, the streets of some cities are becoming technological, data-gathering warzones.

In this authoritarian atmosphere, of technological “supremacism” smart phones – as demanded by industry and governments, for Digital ID-based digital transformations – are gravitating towards becoming mandatory devices. This is to guarantee one’s very existence, and, extract the profitability of one’s identity, with AI algorithms that contain uncomfortable biases and are known to be highly discriminatory.

This trajectory, devoid of any ethical oversight, promotes the predatory data-mining environment of the Big Tech companies and other corporate “stakeholders” exploiting the unfettered digital monitoring of everyone’s lives. This is life in a “surveillance economy” powered by “Digital Colonialism” – which operates to the benefit of dominant powers while limiting individual autonomy.

This AI-driven digital colonialism amounts to unprecedented surveillance of the population, or “datafication” driven by profit, where corporations and governments claim ownership of data generated by individuals. Nobody owns their data, or knows for sure how it may ultimately affect their lives.

As I said at the start, the prospect of a national Digital ID should amplify myriad questions, highlighting, in addition to any notions of convenience, the inescapable darker sides, that we dismiss at our peril.

With wireless radiation still posing a threat to black and white communities alike – in terms of posing a health risk – as well as being the means by which data is conveyed to empower the AI-surveillance society we never wanted, we have every reason to challenge the erosion of our rights and demand the end of Digital ID which, if made mandatory, brings huge potential to disempower more of our freedoms, choices, and human rights, including activism and protest itself, which will push us further into darkness.

The future: Turning people into transmitters

Through the ubiquitous wireless connectivity promised by the Internet of Things (IoT) humanity and every living thing is turned into a wireless “transmitter.” As this is currently being done without full consent of the population, across the globe – it raises concerns from a health perspective, and a human rights perspective.

Governments rapidly rolling out 5G tell us that exposure guidelines backed by the World Health Organisation (WHO) ensure we are all safe within “set limits” and, that they readily support the wireless IoT for the purpose of developing a data-driven future epitomised by the smart city, a “vision” of a new society propelled by the UN’s politics of “climate change” and “sustainability”.

The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has already achieved a data-driven society. However, the CCP is technologically suppressing individual ideas, voices and social groups to align all minds and actions to the “goals” of the Chinese authorities.

Not surprisingly, “China now plays a significant role in shaping the IoT.” Spurred by China, the UK governments are already introducing facial recognition technologies, configuring internet censorship legislation and for their own benefit have even planned to overhaul the Human Rights Act, which allows citizens to hold the government to account. The world is changing rapidly, and unfortunately technological advancements favour unprecedented opportunities for a totalitarian government system to emerge. The late social theorist Paul Virilio, once said that “Totalitarianism is latent in technology”. Clearly he has a point.

One World – Under “wireless”

The United Nations (UN) and the World Health Organisation (WHO) seek to shape the IoT, and governments, in accordance with a globalist “one world” view and conceive of the worlds nations as finally dissolving into a centralised global order. Wireless technology is presenting opportunities to change society rapidly.

Governments around the world are responsive to UN technological and environmental policies aligned with the UN’s concept of “sustainability” and these are driving 5G expansion, and datafication anticipating an increasingly automated technological society heavily dependent on the wireless networks.

The UN wishes to conform the whole of society to live in an environment high in radiofrequency radiation (RFR) and subordinate to “sustainability” doctrines, while the WHO is focused on digital health solutions and conforming nations to its “pandemic preparedness” and “technological solutions” doctrines. Both organisations neglect widespread concerns concerning potential health impacts from RFR – even though it is widely accepted that children, the elderly and people with electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) are highly vulnerable to RFR. Not all people are treated equally in this globalist “one world” view of health and human rights.

Many of us assume that United Nations and the World Health Organisation are defenders of our liberties and welfare. However, first and foremost they are a “forum” for members to influence policy. Therefore, it is more accurate to say that these organisations allow industries and political organisations to steer political outcomes that affect our liberties and welfare, through their memberships, donations, and funding. From this perspective the wireless industry has great influence on the UN and WHO (if not carte blanche to shape politics to their advantage), as we will see.

Workhorses of the wireless industry

Both the UN and the WHO are invested in technological empowerment and at the same time are affecting our liberties and welfare by reforming policies and engineering social behaviours to the tune of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and “Digital Health (DH)”. These are far reaching projects that rely first and foremost on expansive digital infrastructure and wireless networks.

The SDG and DH projects are sustained through the development of the Internet of Things (IoT), a project which electronically connects physical devices, vehicles, manufactured goods, and other physical objects in society – and the natural world – across the expanse of the earth to wireless networks facilitating the sharing and collection of data.

The UN and the WHO are very dependent on the wireless industry – to a phenomenal degree – as are their stakeholders and members. All are invested in SDGs and DH expecting significant profits and are guiding the political agendas of the UN and WHO into the wireless “smart” future. (UN) Secretary-General António Guterres is even “An engineer who has taught telecommunications so what better leader to facilitate a wireless agenda and sustain the wireless industry into the future.

With the UN and WHO so dependent on wireless technology, and their stakeholders so invested in it too, can they be relied on to protect health and human rights? Or are they biased, and “bought” by investing so deeply in the promise of the IoT and the 5G infrastructure?

The UN and WHO are aligned in pursuing increased powers. They encourage an authoritarian data-driven future – a surveillance economy (like China’s), and at any cost it would seem. They do not want to acknowledge the harm that rapid technological and social transformations will cause – the economic consequences and divides – nor the health impacts. In fact, as the “pandemic” shows, catastrophe spurs technological agendas, especially when technology is always offered as part of “the solution”. The pandemic 5G roll out was an example of “seizing opportunity in a crisis”, increasing the power of the wireless industry manifold, as well as accelerating the IoT.

Both the UN and the WHO are deeply invested in the wireless industry – but how deep is deep?

The Wireless Health Agenda

Following its inception after the Second World War, the UN incorporated the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) as a specialist agency for advancing wireless telecommunications internationally.

The ITU is “…committed to connecting the world” and helping the UN with ICT (Information and Communications Technology) aspects of Agenda 2030, promoting universal internet access, and assisting other digital goals. As a result, Europe embraces the “Digital Decade“, and the “global community” follows suit with parallel objectives of “digital transformation” for sustaining wireless technologies into the “smart” future.

Nothing helped kickstart the IoT more than the “pandemic”, during which the ITU announced that, “Smart sustainable cities worldwide are fully leveraging information and communication technologies (ICTs) to enhance the digital health and wellbeing of their inhabitants. These cities are utilizing digital infrastructure to deliver vital health information, track health trends, and locate essential health resources.” Source.

It is within this “post-pandemic” digitally “interconnected” smart world that WHO advances its “Digital Health” goals, pursuing these objectives in partnership with the European Commission (EC) which tables laws for adoption in the European Union.

The WHO’s “One Health” exemplifies the widening reach of WHO’s anticipated technological forays, and is described as “an integrated, unifying approach to balance and optimize the health of people, animals and ecosystems. It uses the close, interdependent links among these fields to create new surveillance and disease control methods….The C0VID-19 pandemic put a spotlight on the need for a global framework for improved surveillance and a more holistic, integrated system.” The language emphasises treating the “whole” not just a part. It all feeds back into a “power grab” called the “Pandemic Treaty” which emphasises control over the whole population, with “…no public debate on the ramifications of such far-reaching encroachments on national autonomy, state sovereignty, and human rights”. Source.

Wireless technology has arguably encouraged WHO’s agenda of enhanced global surveillance. Smart phone’s were made for tracking us (accommodating GPS, AI tools and sensors). Our data a political and economic currency. WHO and the UN want everyone to have a smart phone as a citizen of “the global community” – preferably as surveilled and as compliant as Chinese Communist society is, thanks to AI and 5G.

According to the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, “At least seventy-five out of 176 countries globally are actively using AI technologies for surveillance purposes…[and]…Liberal democracies are major users of AI surveillance…The most important factor determining whether governments will deploy this technology for repressive purposes is the quality of their governance.”

As the UN and WHO model their appetite for “global change” on China’s technological social and economic “gains” – espousing smart cities and digital monitoring of the population – we’d be advised to keep a close eye on developments.

Smart Phones For Health

The WHO is promoting health markets that sustain mobile phone use as a health measure. Many would argue that promoting exposure to radiofrequency radiation doesn’t seem like something the WHO should be doing. Yet the WHO facilitates the “datafication” of health and supports wireless technology markets to achieve it.

WIreless technology is hailed as the future of “healthcare.” The WHO incentivises the public to invest in wireless devices, like smart phones, to optimise health. According to the WHO, the “Public Digital Health Technology (PDH) team engages with a variety of stakeholders in digital health…to…provide support to countries to adopt and scale quality digital health technologies.”

Digital Health has long been in the pipeline. We know because WHO states that the “Be He@lthy, Be Mobile (BHBM) initiative was set up by the World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Telecommunication union (ITU) in 2012.”

The use of a mobile phone to access digital health treatments (apps, text messages, etc) is called “MHealth”. According to the ITU, “This technology, coupled with the fact that the wellness and non-communicable diseases (NCDs) mobile health market is projected to garner revenue of US$23 billion in 2017 means that there are exciting business opportunities for the 8 focus countries during the initiative.” Source.

WHO and the ITU couldn’t wait for 5G’s implementation. We all know when it arrived – throughout the WHO’s “pandemic” along with a truckload of other necessary technologies to advance Digital Health, and promote data surveillance.

The WHO’s commitment to 5G and smart phones

The WHO stated in 2020 that, “5G is expected to increase performance and a wide range of new applications, including strengthening e-Health (telemedicine, remote surveillance, telesurgery).” Source. 

According to the WHO, “The use of mobile and wireless technologies has the potential to transform the face of health service delivery across the globe. There are reportedly more than 7 billion mobile telephone subscriptions across the world, over 70% of which are in low- or middle- income countries. In many places, people are more likely to have access to a mobile telephone than to clean water.” Wireless needs are catered for, above essentials like clean water?!?

WHO promotes wireless wearables

The WHO is promoting studies advocating (wireless) mHealth and wearable health technologies (mobile phones are also considered “wearable health technologies”) which are advertised as “improving personal health.” They typically use radiofrequency (RF) transmitters meaning that “wearable health devices” expose the user to radiofrequency radiation, at very close range.

Though they may initially reduce the workload of clinicians, wearable health technologies may expose problems that don’t exist, having a negative effect on health and wellbeing. Doctors already recognise they can give false positives, worsen health anxieties – and can in some users feasibly become part of a cycle of “digital addiction” (for users feel compelled to share their personal health tracking data on social media).

The WHO’s motivation for promoting “digital health” is arguably for the collection of health data to influence policies. Data is the currency of our times, providing stakeholders in the health market (and third parties) with insights that can be exploited and can quickly add up to profits.

Under the influence

For a long time it has been questioned whether the WHO is impartial and objective concerning wireless radiation research, especially when the scientific literature increasingly shows a range of bio-effects and non-thermal health impacts from radiofrequency radiation.

Is the WHO to be trusted, or is it vulnerable, and open to manipulation from the powerful wireless industry which can benefit from the dampening public concerns about wireless radiation?

It was observed in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) that “WHO has a funding problem [and] reliance on voluntary donations exposes WHO to the undue influence of contributors.” Is it outside influence, inner influences, or both that leave the WHO vulnerable to conflicts of interest in the shaping of its scientific information and recommendations for health?

The WHO’s conflicts of interest (including in the assessment of potential harms from electromagnetic fields (EMFs) and radiofrequency radiation) have been widely condemned.

Many scientists see how deeply the wireless industry influences the WHO. But what can they do?

Many scientists consider it a big problem for health that the WHO hasn’t acted to support the precautionary principle with regards international roll outs of 5G. Concerns about 5G are ignored (by the EU, the UN for example), even when 438 medical scientists and doctors urgently request a moratorium “until proper scientific evaluation of potential negative consequences [of 5G] has been conducted.” Source. The scientists have been requesting this since 2017.

Oncologist Lennart Hardell is clear about the issues. He informs us that, “In May 2011 the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) evaluated cancer risks from radiofrequency (RF) radiation. Human epidemiological studies gave evidence of increased risk for glioma and acoustic neuroma. RF radiation was classified as Group 2B, a possible human carcinogen. Further epidemiological, animal and mechanistic studies have strengthened the association. In spite of this, in most countries little or nothing has been done to reduce exposure and educate people on health hazards from RF radiation.”

People are largely uninformed about the health risks of 24/7 exposure to 5G, a new technology that is still underpinned by 4G LTE networks and brings new radiofrequency modulations and millimetre waves into the environment, something of an experiment on humanity with total disregard for those most vulnerable to RFR impacts, like children and the electrohypersensitive – a huge section of the population. Some agencies remind us that millimetre waves are used in airport scanners, and are therefore not a health risk, however, people pass through an airport scanner for a few seconds, so there is no comparison to longer exposures of the population to 5G. Studies already suggest public health is at risk.

Managing the public mind

Extensive control of health information regarding RF exposure is a priority of the wireless industry. This creates a filter system for suppressing certain findings, pointing the public towards a reassuring “safety” narrative, where the public largely believe continuous exposure is harmless.

A private NGO called the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation (ICNIRP), which has “formal relations” with WHO, influences the scientific reviews of the WHO concerning RF health matters. ICNIRP’s views influence government agencies and sustains the view in the media that wireless radiation isn’t harmful.

ICNIRP, which describes itself as “independent and non-profit” produces RF exposure guidelines that are adopted by governments globally. Microwave News reported that in the 2020 RF Guidelines ICNIRP reported that there is no evidence for cancer. However, the U.S. National Toxicology Program found “clear evidence” that exposure to RFR can lead to cancer. Source.

The guidelines crafted by the “industry loyal NGO” set the tone of public policy on radiofrequency exposure levels. ICNIRP promotes the opinion that, other than thermal health effects there is only “suggestive, but unconvincing evidence” of biological and non-thermal health effects. ICNIRP rejects the view that bio-effects are a concern.

ICNIRP’s perspectives on existing research are used by governments, not in the sense of RF exposure “guidelines”, but as a “gospel” that has become empowered to such a degree that it is utilised to approve roll outs of wireless technology and to influence public expectations to the point of suggesting that 5G is safe.

The population, as a result, is misinformed about the potential risks because of ICNIRPs scientific biases that omit biological findings that are very significant. It’s a veritable boon to the wireless industry, promoting information that ultimately sustains a plethora of economic gains for the industry. What about the WHO and its commitment to the global community’s health?

The promise

Before the “pandemic” WHO had promised “a health risk assessment from exposure to radiofrequencies, covering the entire radiofrequency range, including 5G, to be published by 2022” courtesy of the WHO’s “International EMF Project” team of researchers. It was delayed, and the review has been published in 2024 asserting that “Mobile Phones Are Not Linked to Brain Cancer According to a Major Review of 28 Years of Research.”

Some of the review’s authors have close ties with ICNIRP, including Ken Karipidis, Sarah Loughran, Maria Blettner, Mark Elwood, Susanna Lagorio Dan Baaken, Martin Roosli and Maria Feychting who wasn’t listed as an author but designed it. Source.

In all the “biased” review gives a green light to digital health as a “safe” product, as well as possibly influencing global exposure policy for a very long time. It comes at a critical time, because stakes are high in getting the digital wireless agenda firmly in gear, and profitable, so industry stakeholders, member states and the UN will be pleased to chug ahead with their technological agendas. 

Questions are already being asked about the review (published in Environment International). According to Microwave News, “The results of this review were never in doubt. The WHO managers, who selected the Karipidis team, knew what to expect —and they got what they wanted.”

The late Michèle Rivasi and Klaus Buchner of the European Parliament commissioned a damning report about the activities and behaviour of ICNIRP called “The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection: Conflicts of interest , corporate capture and the push for 5G” Here, we confront the reality that “ICNIRP pretends to be scientifically neutral, and free from vested interests of the Telecom industry. We show with this study that this is ‘playing with the truth’ or simply a lie.”

The Nuremberg Code

In 2018 Karl Muller (an independent journalist and researcher, and licensed radio operator with the Eswatini Communications Commission, based in the southern African Kingdom of Swaziland) called for the removal of the International EMF Project because “…the WHO continues to deny that there is any sign of any danger whatsoever from wireless technology.”

His revealing article includes “a lengthy correspondence chain with the World Health Organization and the United Nations” that he accuses of complicity in “genocide”. Source.

Genocide is a strong term. Is it justified?

Scientists opposed to 5G roll outs and the inadequate radiofrequency exposure guidelines, have openly condemned WHO and ICNIRP for cherry-picking scientific studies that support industry-friendly findings which are not in the interests of protecting public health or the environment. Yet, they have always been reluctant to use the highly emotive term “genocide” in reference to the potential widespread harm to the population from what amounts to either a deliberate attack on public health, or an experiment.

In Karl Muller’s assessment “…the International EMF Project, the World Health Organization, the United Nations itself, all spit on the Nuremberg Code every day.” We may come to agree with this assertion as we come to terms with the fact that the global population are being subject to microwave technologies such as 5G in what can only be described as an experiment, with unknown long-term consequences for our species, or all others with which we share the planet.

Far from independent

It is the opinion of many scientists and researchers that biased ICNIRP copiously “self references“, contriving RF exposure guidelines and reviews to deliver exactly what the WHO wants to hear, invested as it is in the wireless industry for its digital services and, no doubt, its survival.

Headlines about the International EMF Project review, such as The Guardian’s here, will no doubt reassure the public, but to what avail?

The WHO’s new “science” distorts reality, denying us a balanced picture of health. In the context of the organisations long plan to emerge as a promoter of mobile phones and wireless trends, it may at last come as nor surprise to many, but amounts to a tragic insult to the public who look to their “guardians” to keep them “safe”.

Why the UN promotes and protects wireless interests

It’s a human right to own and use a smart phone. Is it now the most “politically” valuable human right that the UN wants to protect the most?

Smart phones are proudly advertised on WHO and UN web pages, which are designed to influence the public at large. It reflects how human augmentation by technology is made socially acceptable. The UN promotes a technologically augmented Human 2.0 society that relies on wireless products to exist, where “humans” are ID tagged and permanently tracked like a profitable product by the UN and its stakeholders. Many academics argue we are on the precipice, gravitating towards a post-human, post-human rights world where the currency is data, fuelling a surveillance economy, where the world, and “humans” are “smarter”.

Data (our personal information) means profit for organisations like the UN. The population are accepting technolgies of augmentation, acclimatising to the UN’s goals within a Big Data future. Member states, transnational corporations (stakeholders) and wealthy interests bank on the UN to deliver us all into an existence governed by the data we produce.

The augmenting of humanity, which will proceed towards implants beyond smart phones and “wearable” technologies (which are developed to collect a growing spectrum of personal data) reflects “transhumanist” aspirations shared by wireless technology industry cheerleaders like Klaus Schwab, founder of the cultic World Economic Forum (WEF).

He is a UN Agenda 2030 advocate and supports the view that humans are “hackable animals”. He has told the monopolising stakeholders invested in this “agenda” that “the future is built by us” for the “fusion of our physical, our digital, and our biological dimensions.”

The UN has long pursued a “one world” view incorporating a politically beneficial wireless digital agenda. Within that scope, “internet governance” plays the role of transforming society’s perceptions, digital freedoms, and expectations. The UN has long helped this process along through the ITU, but has seized the opportunity to “control knowledge” by developing censorious approaches.

The UN considers the public untrustworthy in cyberspace, it seeks loyalty, and condemns the “trafficking of lies, fear and hate.” It is a human right to be critical, have opinions, or to be in error. Yet the UN doesn’t want people with their smart phones engaging in free speech, especially in a crisis. Fundamentally it wants compliance with its ideological stance and statements.

Controlling Information to promote wireless interests

Are we not free to interpret and globally discuss the UN or world events as we see and understand them? Is the UN building digital walls to compartmentalise public access to information and knowledge? As we may already appreciate, the “pandemic” had two very well publicised objectives which were subject to virulent “damage control.” The campaign to roll out of “experimental” wireless technologies (5G infrastructure) and the campaign to inject people with experimental mRNA treatments promoted by “hand in glove with the wireless industry” WHO. Opposition to both campaigns – voiced on the internet during lockdowns, and further, voiced by reputable academics, physicians, politicians, scientists and in widespread global protests – caused concerted efforts to control public information (internet, media) through censorship, to bring “compliance”.

In its information targeting agenda – first outlined in the literature of a “fictional pandemic scenario” called Event 201 and sparked into reality by the “pandemic” – the UN lists information “crimes” and condemns “misinformation” and “disinformation”, seeking the cooperation of governments, Big Tech and transnational corporations to promote a commodity it calls “trusted information” – a bias towards promoting the discourse and opinions of the UN and its stakeholders, to the exclusion of counter arguments or opinions that do not serve the goals of the Digital Health or digital (wireless IoT) sustainability agenda.

The UN admits “…There is no clear definition of, or shared common understanding and approach to, the term “disinformation” but classifies it as “…information that is inaccurate, intended to deceive and shared in order to do serious harm.” The UN also states that “…digital platforms are being misused to subvert science.”

Policing what the UN, the WHO, and their stakeholders consider to be “harmful disinformation” or “subverted science” is part of a slippery slope to increasing the practice of censorship globally, which erodes democracy and free speech. This happened in 2020, for example, when celebrities were raising concerns about 5G, like John Cusack who “posted on Twitter…that he believes 5G would be harmful for humans.” Many scientists had also raised concerns about the technology causing ill health at the time. Censorship soon followed for these health-related hypotheses, and it proved an opportunity for WHO and the wireless industry to hike up opposition to any information that challenged the pandemic narrative, lockdowns and restrictions, and the concurrent 5G roll out. 5G is a technology with known health effects and no body of research exists confirming industry or government agency claims that it is safe everyone.

Throughout the period, telecommunications infrastructure related to 5G was seen as a threat, and was reported in the media being dismantled, burned and attacked, by authorities and citizens. The reality of the opposition caused the telecommunications industry alarm. According to the BBC, (which like most media outlets now calls all pushback against wireless interests a response to “conspiracy theories”) Vodafone called the problem “a matter of national security”.

In 2021, following media coverage of global pushback against 5G and lockdowns across the globe, 5G infrastructure was thus considered an “attack surface area” (for physical and cyber attacks) and was legislated into law as a matter of National Security, exemplified by the UK’s Telecommunications Security Act 2021.

The Act was created for a “more robust telecoms security framework, that will meet security challenges both now and in the future whilst ensuring the timely roll-out of the UK’s critical digital infrastructure. It suggested that as technologies grow and evolve the UK must have a security framework that is fit for purpose and ensures the UK’s telecoms critical national infrastructure remains safe and secure both now and in the future.”

Censorship and bias in the media was achieving a great deal for the wireless industry, and governments since haven’t relented in changing laws to favour the wireless industry and accelerate 5G across the globe. A Censored Planet study related to the period found “increasing censorship activity in more than 100 countries” reflecting a “proliferation of growing restrictions to online freedom.” (The study was highlighted by the University of Michigan).

The UN’s strategic partner, the World Economic Forum (WEF) is supportive of global information restrictions, especially to target “health misinformation”. Even military agencies are getting involved. Consider that, “DARPA’s Media Forensics Program is an initiative by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency aimed at developing advanced technologies to detect, analyze, and counter misinformation and disinformation in media.”

Since the “pandemic” fostered a climate of information hysteria, corporate coalitions have sprouted up to target what they see as information “threats” including the Coalition for Content Provenance and Authenticity (C2PA) – which has been influenced by DARPA, the Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM) [recently discontinued], WEF’s Global Coalition for Digital Safety and the UN’s Code of Conduct for Information Integrity on Digital Platforms.

The UN’s growing support of censorship strategies that can better serve its “sustainability” goals and WHO agendas – like the motivations of the Chinese authorities (CCP), for example – is a confirmation of its intent to control the global conversation.

The UN has already made progress using the internet. The UN targeted many communities during the “pandemic” with a coalition of in-person censors to safeguard the WHO’s pandemic agenda. The UN recruited indoctrinating “messengers” from across the globe through an initiative called “Verified“. This was led by the Department of Global Communications, a public relations outfit which promotes the “official” UN stories in the media and across digital platforms, to build the UN’s “positive” image.

The “information crisis” picked up on during the pandemic became known as an “infodemic” by organisations like the UN that infiltrated public forums and communities in order to sustain compliance with the “official pandemic narrative”. The excuse? The pandemic was considered “unusual” circumstances. However, the “pandemic” is over and the censorship drive aggressively continues.

Most recently “The United Nations launched new Global Principles for Information Integrity, “emphasizing the need for immediate action” and advertising the ideological sustainable development goals that the UN’s digital “censorship” agenda satisfies (see below). The UN is protecting its “sustainability goals doctrines”, Industry 4.0/5G infrastructure, the international policies it influences, and its stakeholders interests.

Rebranding the UN for the wireless “smart future”

It’s clear that the UN wants deeper control of information, to aid in the realisation of its political, globally impacting, aims. It is preparing for this by building data capacity (using more wireless technologies and energy guzzling servers) because “Nurturing modern data capacities is about making shifts in expertise, processes and technology so that entities improve how they collect, handle, govern and use data from more diverse sources to generate deeper insights for better decisions – powered by advanced analytics, machine learning and visualization techniques.” AI is going to play a deep role in “world peace” and the UN will rely on its predictive analytics and surveillance capacity.

This is all part of a huge rebranding exercise to improve public confidence. In recent statements we learn that the UN is rebranding as UN 2.0 and in its report “Our Common Agenda” stipulates that “behavioural science” (the psychology of persuasion) will be a core component in managing public expectations and driving compliance with its aims. The UN 2.0 Policy Brief rebrands the UN as “a powerful fusion of data, innovation, digital, foresight and behavioural science expertise.”

Behavioural science (BS) for corporate goals is rooted in, and assists, the creation of advertising campaigns and propaganda. BS espouses the work of social manipulators like Edward Bernays who worked for the tobacco industry, which helped destroy health. It provides the means to manipulate the behaviour of populations, and manufacture “consent”, something both the UN and WHO are so desperately trying to do in a concerted attempt to increase their powers.

There is a clear desire here to manipulate and transform society through the “sustainability” goals. That desire is becoming more aggressive. According to the World Economic Forum, “UN member countries [have] pledged their renewed commitment to accelerating the delivery of the goals…[SDGs]”

The (wireless) business of Global Health and “Sustainability”

The SDGs were released back in in 2012. It is known that “The mobile industry was the first sector to commit to the UN’s 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), including climate action, in 2016.” This coincides with the drive to roll out 5G, and was the beginning of “green-washing” and “ethics washing” the wireless industry, aligning it with a global “transformation” agenda that it would influence greatly. Orange is “…a founding member of the Net Zero Initiative, which sets out a vision of a carbon-free world with other large organisations. The list goes on….

Both the WHO and UN are, as a result of their technological pursuit of increased power over populations, knee deep in wireless contracts, and as always are protecting and funding the wireless industry on which their shared goals rest. Deutsche Telekom is a prime facilitator of the organisations’ digital agendas, particularly with regards to “United Smart Cities”, which is coordinated by the ITU.

“United Smart Cities (USC) is a programme set up by the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) and OiER in 2014. Building up smart and sustainable cities, improving life for all citizens and managing upcoming challenges are part of the United Nation’s Development goals.” “USC is aiming to set up a holistic ecosystem to support our cities of the future.” Source.

In 2022 Deutsche Telekom was chosen by WHO to create a “global health passport”, beginning the digital discrimination road to health app-artheid. Telecoms.com reported “The World Heath Organization, which had such a great pandemic, wants to ‘facilitate’ its 194 member states to introduce digital vaccination certificates. To do so it’s setting up a ‘gateway’ to standardize the issuing of QR codes that confer privileged health status to their owner. Deutsche Telekom subsidiary T-Systems has been chosen as an industry partner to develop the vaccination validation services.”

The control exerted on the UN and WHO by wireless interests is incongruent with any responsibility they may claim to have regarding the protection of human rights and health, for it renders the organisations at the beck and call of transnational corporate interests that steer the organisations’ agendas and funding.

As a result of the UN’s priority (its stakeholders’ needs, not the interests of the population), wireless interests have become aggressively expansive and politically protected. For society that means the wireless industry is at greater liberty to threaten health, privacy and, even what it means to be human.

The reality of Wireless Growth

UN and its profiteering stakeholders, see wealth as a means of reducing the impacts they have on the environment. Within the “sustainability” game’s rules they are permitted to calmly trade in carbon credits – a new system of impunity, where companies can purchase the reduction of their own “carbon footprint.” Some think that they will “save the planet” by planting more trees or investing in renewable energy”.

This “logic” permeates wireless companies and is meant to score points with the public in support of UN sustainable development goals (SDGs). According to AZO Cleantech, “Through emissions offsetting reforestation, the company said it can essentially provide carbon-neutral calls, texts and data.” By the magical rules of the carbon credit system.

AZO Cleantech alerts us to a significant statistic. “The wireless communications industry is not the first industry that comes to mind when people talk about emissions or increased sustainability, but actually, it does represent a significant share of global carbon emissions. According to research published by mobile phone maker Ericsson, the overall telecommunications industry accounts for about 1.4% of emissions worldwide. By comparison, the aviation industry generates 2% of all global carbon emissions.” Not only that, a wireless device is a polluter because “…personal devices make up the biggest share of the telecommunications industry’s carbon footprint. About 50% of device-related emissions are associated with usage and the other 50% is associated with device life cycle. Networks and data centers account for the next biggest emission shares in the telecom industry.”

With the Internet of Things (IoT) such pollution is set to increase exponentially, but in its sustainable goals, the UN has no intention of releasing facts that sully the image of the wireless companies, and could scupper the sustainability project.

According to AZO cleantech, “Expert predictions have forecasted that internet usage will annually increase by 30-40%. If this comes to pass, there will be 30 times today’s internet traffic in just 10 years. This will translate to the telecom industry comprising 60% of global energy use.”

Though the UN esteems wireless developments, the reality is that “the wireless industry has not been very proactive with regard to emissions.” While the wireless industry claims it is cleaning up its act, there can be no doubts that it is pure “green-washing”. Such behaviours are not uncommon among industries playing the “sustainability game”, and we can appreciate how the facts contradict the stated aims of the UN’s “sustainability” project by contributing significantly to pollution.

The Club of Rome

The wireless industry along with political organisations like the Club of Rome have long controlled the direction of the UN, leading us up to this point where the human population is brought to kneel at the temple of wireless interests in the name of “sustainability”.

“Sustainability” is influenced by the Club of Rome, and has become a catalyst for ticking all the boxes necessary to advance wireless telecommunications infrastructure and technology integrating the activities of the wireless industry within a “green” sustainability narrative. The human race is the enemy and technology is here to redeem society.

For the Club of Rome, “The networked knowledge society is nothing less than a paradigm-shift form the industrial model of the two past centuries. It can introduce new patterns of social structure and behavior, of public and private organization, of production and trade. It can re-define the links and relationships between people, nations and religions.” It can also fuel a future of unprecedented “extractive” practices for rare earths and minerals, and other environmentally unhelpful impacts, as well as geopolitical impacts, to sustain the wireless infrastructure and technologies required to achieve such a socially transformative plan – but that isn’t acknowledged. Promoting the wireless networked society (data driven Internet of Things, ultimately) is the priority.

At the 2003–2005 World Summit on the Information Society The Club of Rome was a guest of the UN’s wireless agency – the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) – in support of the “emergence of a networked knowledge society” with “ICT (Information and Communications Technology) as an Innovator for Sustainable Development.”

The Club of Rome advocates “Taking advantage of the wireless communication facilities” and believes “education for ICT is necessary to promote the use of local knowledge with new technologies.” That is exactly what the UN’s wireless agenda (Agenda 2030) has put into motion. Its a “green” agenda that masks the true environmental cost of the wireless industry as the UN, influenced by the Club of Rome, “sustains” the industry’s impactful practices and future empowerment.

The wireless industry is “at home” in the UN 

The wireless industry has always felt at home within the decision-making apparatus of the UN. Shortly after its inception in 1945, the UN became responsible for helping nations adopt radiofrequency telecommunications and evolving new wireless technologies. This happened because The International Telegraph Union (formed in 1865) became an influential participating organisation. 

The ITU is an influential representation of wireless industry interests. It is now named the International Telecommunications Union and describes itself as “the United Nations specialist agency for information and communication technologies – ICTs.”

Because “the ITU membership includes hundreds of private-sector organizations, as well as 193 States” it has been very influential and effective in expanding wireless infrastructure and technology across the globe.

In 2005, as part of the World Summit on the Information Society held in Geneva and Tunis, The ITU advanced the Tunis Agenda for the Information Society (backed by the Club of Rome) to help stakeholders expand the information society (wireless telecommunications infrastructure and internet management) into developing countries and close global digital divides (between countries, not social classes).

This “information” agenda called for a multistakeholder internet governance and stressed a “development-oriented Information Society” as well as a commitment to achieving the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) – which were broadened in scope renamed sustainable development goals (SDGs) after the MDG effort had largely failed by 2015.

Then came the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (a.k.a. Millennium Development Goals, Round Two), which comprises 17 goals emerging from a report called “Realizing the future we want for all”.

Wireless development is visibly at the heart of all of these “sustainable” development goals and the ITU describes itself as an enabler in achieving the SDGs. Naturally, all wireless companies across the globe promote their activities accordingly in line with “sustainability” which the UN describes as supportive of accelerating technology for “ensuring information integrity in an era of deep-fakes and disinformation; and reinforcing the multi-stakeholder foundations of Internet governance”. All digital technology is promoted as “sustainable” today, and a wireless satellite features on the “Summit of the Future” poster where the public aren’t consulted about that future.

Advancing the “Information Society” for the ITU has now become advancing the Internet of Things (IoT) in all of its facets – which advances wireless infrastructure for the future of “digital everything”. Promoting smart technology and smart cities make it plain SDGs are for “sustaining” the wireless industry for digital technology development. This project “sustains” a wireless surveillance economy advanced by the UN/ITU and it’s stakeholders where reaping rewards from Machine Learning and Big Data translates into power and profits to the tune of a surveillance economy (epitomised by China’s IoT society).

In 2005 the ITU suggested World Internet Day to promote the ITU’s need of the internet, but sold as recognising “digital divides” and the need to heal them. In 2006 World Telecommunication and Information Society Day was invented by the ITU.

It’s all helped to promote wireless dependency, which binds stakeholders across the board to pursuing what the UN and ITU desire: the wireless interconnectivity of everything on earth for the IoT, in the name of “sustainability.” We know that this is a radiation grid formed from wireless infrastructure and devices, subjecting all living things and global resources to quantification and wireless surveillance.

Reimagining the social contract – for the erosion of democracy

In March 2021, when the roll out of 5G and IoT infrastructure was well under way, the UN called for a “New Eco-Social Contract” because the current social contract may not effectively empower the UN and its stakeholders to deliver “the transformative vision of the 2030 Agenda” and push onwards with the goal of expansive wireless interconnectivity and rolling out AI.

The UN has also called for improved education about its goals. According to UNESCOs pitch of a new social contract for education, “Education must also now be rethought to help respond to urgent and unprecedented new challenges such as the climate crisis, the emergence of generative AI technologies, the continued growth of inequalities, and the persistence of conflicts.”

The IMF has also supported the idea of a renewed social contract, and says it wants to “fix the system” for the global economy with a post-pandemic social contract. In the IMF’s view (which chimes with the UN’s, WEF’s and Industry 4.0 perspectives), post-pandemic “…disaffection stems from the failure of existing social contracts to deliver on people’s expectations for both security and opportunity.”

A research program called “The Digital Revolution and the New Social Contract” suggests that, “technological and economic transformations have reshaped the relationships between education, work, opportunities and welfare, rendering our previous social contract outdated, and making it necessary to establish a new one that benefits everyone.” This is the conclusion of research from The Center for the Governance of Change (CGC), an applied-research, educational institution based at IE University that aims at “improving the general public’s awareness and agency over the coming changes. All this for one purpose: to help building a more prosperous and sustainable society for all.” NATO, The UN and an array of other data-hungry organisations and transnational corporations are among the partners keen to transform the social contract, along these lines.

The idea is backed by the World Economic Forum (WEF), a close partner of the UN, which has long wanted to “go nuclear on climate change”. The NGO/think tank, based in Geneva, is keen to ensure stakeholder capitalism can thrive into the future. The dangers were spelled out by Open Democracy, which stated, “The idea of stakeholder capitalism and multi-stakeholder partnerships might sound warm and fuzzy, until we dig deeper and realise that this actually means giving corporations more power over society, and democratic institutions less…”.

The sustainability agenda has gained renewed urgency with the recently announced “Our Common Agenda” brought by the UN “to forge a new global consensus” even though it is clear not all people agree that the wireless agenda in store represents an “inclusive” or universally acceptable future vision.

The outcome will be an “…action-oriented Pact for the Future [that] is expected to be agreed by Member States through intergovernmental negotiations on issues they decide to take forward.”

The private sector will dictate a renewed social contract that state institutions and the individual are expected to accept. The United Nations 2.0 will emerge, powered by “data, strategic foresight, results orientation and behavioural science” to sustain wireless everything and an empowered WHO and “global vaccination plan. The rest of the key proposals for accelerating the SDGS are here.

Philanthropy, the Club of Rome, the UN and “unlimited” growth for 5G and IoT

The UN and WHO are investment opportunities. Philanthropists (Rockefeller and Gates Foundations, for example) and other vested interests including member states and the private sector exercise influence. Health governance and world governance are attractive prospects to powerful interests, with sustainability opening up opportunities for the powerful (aligned with wireless goals) to technologically transform society.

Agenda 2030 is a valuable tool for shaping society and advancing technology to support globalist aims – so is Digital Health, shaping the course of health governance, and selling Big Pharma and Big Tech “solutions”.

The Rockefeller Foundation branding its work as “sustainable development” with an initiative called Mission 300, “aims to accelerate the pace of electrification in Sub-Saharan Africa” and is partnered with the Global Energy Alliance to pursue a “sustainable” “solar” solution in line with the UN’s goals. The project anticipates a case for 5G in Sub-Saharan Africa where electricity is an issue. According to intelligentcio.com, “Africa’s lack of infrastructure, expensive hardware, and limited technological background are all issues impacting IoT deployment.”

According to, 5G in Africa: realising the potential “Operators and tower companies operating in the region have pointed to the following as the main barriers to using more solar: high upfront cost for solar panels and batteries; theft and vandalism, especially in remote locations; and space limitation on cell sites to assemble the solar components.”

The Rockefeller Foundation is actively invested in resolving these solar energy supply issues, a process that fits with the “green communications and networking paradigm” where solar/renewables assist the 5G infrastructure roll out. The Rockefeller Foundation is laying the groundwork for 5G networks and the IoT as part of “doubling down on the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)” prompted by the “pandemic”. Mission 300 is an “ambitious initiative to connect 300 million people to electricity in Sub-Saharan Africa by 2030.” Source.

This ultimately opens the door to “…a broad set of industry stakeholders, including Google Cloud, EdgeQ, Gigabyte, Marvell, Nvidia, NXP, Qualcomm Technologies, Dish Network, Vodafone, Accelleran, Mavenir, Parallel Wireless, Radisys, Saankhya Labs and Tech Mahindra.” Source: 5G in Africa: realising the potential, PDF.

As J.P. Morgan states, “When considering the future growth of 5G adoption, consumer demand will be key as it can be monetized.” Thanks to “sustainability” projects, and private investment, 5G is moving easily into place “…with forecasts anticipating mobile data traffic of almost 330 exabytes per month by 2028, more than three times the volume consumed in 2022.” Source.

Africa is experiencing new technological horizons and investment courtesy of the UN. Some of these technologies bring home how eager the UN is to accelerate societies towards a data-driven model like that of China. In Africa the push is towards a Digital ID framework and biometric solutions, all made possible by smart phones, internet connectivity and 5G developments. This is the UN’s testing ground for technologies to tag and monitor populations, as well as creat billions for investors. “The Africa and Middle East biometrics market is forecast to grow at an annual rate of 21%, with the global biometrics industry set to reach US$82 billion by 2027, according to the “Biometrics – Global Market Trajectory & Analytics 2020” report published by US-based research firm Global Industry Analysts.”

The Club of Rome is also helping “…African and European communities and organisations, towards a mutually just transformation for a regenerative future” believing that “Today, with eight billion people, the world is “Full” [and] …the world right now is set on a course for a potentially disastrous level of climate change.”

With all of its opinions about population size and premonitions about disaster, how can the well-informed Club of Rome think that steaming ahead with 5G and unlimited growth for the wireless industry, (heralding an IoT future to the tune of SDGs and “Net Zero” driven totalitarianism), isn’t a disastrous course?

Does the Club of Rome realise that there have been no public health or environmental risk assessments carried out in order to measure 5G’s “actual” impacts? With regards to energy consumption it is known that “…new 5G macro and especially small basestations dedicated to satisfying trends of ascending data volumes will have a significant impact in terms of increased energy requirements…” Source.

The Club of Rome also believes in “Inclusive Ai for a better future“, when “AI is energy-intensive” and “AI’s energy demands complicate efforts to decarbonize the grid as more electricity–generated with a mixture of carbon-free and fossil fuels–is required to support its growth.” Source. Does the IoT future really sound sustainable? “Tech insiders estimate more than one trillion devices will be connected over the next 10 to 15 years.” Source.

“Deloitte Global predicts that the number of FWA [fixed wireless access] connections will grow from about 60 million in 2020 to roughly 88 million in 2022, with 5G FWA representing almost 7% of the total (figure 1). While our analysis reveals a 19% 2020–2026 CAGR in total FWA connections, 5G FWA connections will grow even faster, at a CAGR of almost 88%, over the same period.²” Source. According to J.P. Morgan, “It is expected that 5G will exceed $180 billion in North America by 2030.”

The WHO “…relies heavily on private donors. One of those is the Gates Foundation, by far the largest private contributor to the WHO, accounting for some 10% of its budget.” Source. In 2018, Gates had been ruminating about the nature of a future pandemic at the Shattuck Lecture and in 2019 helped sponsor a pandemic preparedness event (Event 201) with the World Economic Forum (WEF) and John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health (Center for Health Security). The “event” necessitated “public-private cooperation for pandemic preparedness and response” and was described thus in 2019: “The next severe pandemic will not only cause great illness and loss of life but could also trigger major cascading economic and societal consequences that could contribute greatly to global impact and suffering.” Source.

Bill Gates has invested heavily in 5G wireless “solutions”, such as wireless birth control solutions, in wireless stock and 5G projects like “Pivotal Commware” which has secured $50 million funding for 5G mmWave infrastructure and as the World Economic Forum (WEF) has stated, Gates is invested in smart cities – building his own in Arizona.

By 2019, Gates had accumulated 5.3 million shares in Crown and Castle (CC) “…the company positioned to make a fortune from the coming 5G revolution.” CC is “a key player in the U.S. communications infrastructure market” which “operates in three primary segments: towers, small cells, and fiber.” Source. The 5G “revolution” was massively rolled out during the “pandemic”. Telecoms.com recognises 2020 as the “beginning of 5G implementation”. Crown and Castle is the “highest-yielding stock held by Bill Gates.”

All of these activities to promote 5G infrastructure and smart cities supports Club of Rome/UN/WHO political, even “colonialist” development aims – and involve significant investment in wireless telecommunications to advance the IoT.

The Artificial Future and its Fatal contradictions

With the rebranding of the UN, and the “damage control” exacted by the International EMF Project recently, you can be sure that WHO’s “health governance” agendas and Agenda 2030 are about to pick up pace.

With the immense investments, and the high stakes, can we really say that, politically and ethically, the UN and the WHO really “looking out for society”? Is Agenda 2030 really all about inclusivity, human rights and protecting the health of all – or is it an investment in increased censorship, population control, and social engineering tailored to ideological goals, delivering a technological society driven by data, biometric systems, and smart technologies modelled on China’s totalitarian template?

We should bear such questions in mind in light of a new social contract being developed by the UN, which will no doubt be putting the wireless industry and transnational corporate interests above the concerns and interests of the population.

Based on ideas from the Club of Rome to control and limit growth – including human populations – and to control society (and knowledge) through wireless networked technology into the future (IoT) on the basis of “human-caused climate change politics” – we can see that many aspects of the “sustainability” project are highly questionable. Under scrutiny, they favour the advancement of a “holistic” wireless digital agenda. It may look and feel “green and good” in the marketing (behavioural science) sense, and may sound like “progress” in “think tank” sponsored discourses, but in reality is full of fatal contradictions and prospects.

The “theories” holding up both the sustainability goals and RF exposure narratives that are promoted by the UN and WHO rely on synthetic models, hypotheses, conjecture, and contrivances to sell “sustainable solutions” that advance smart cities and a “Human 2.0” society that will take us so very far from an existence connected with the natural world, or a life in balance with nature.

The UN and WHO: “model” behaviours that are promoting wireless growth

The Club of Rome’s report of 1972, “The Limits to Growth” has been very influential on the UN’s Agenda 2030. It is a conceptual work, developing ideas about avoiding overpopulation and population collapse. By admission of the organisation, it represents an imagined future.

clubofrome.org supplies a short guide to the “The Limits to Growth”, which states, “The authors…identified a set of assumptions that produced a “stabilised world” scenario – called the “sustainability scenario” in which collapse was avoided and standards of living remained high.”

How did they come to their conclusions? “The MIT team fed data…into a global computer model and then tested the behavior of the model under several sets of assumptions to determine alternative patterns for mankind’s future.” Source.

Based on negative theories of population growth postulated since Victorian times courtesy of Thomas Malthus, The Club of Rome promoted a simulation, a narrative (like The Great Reset) to “get attention” and to be used to transform society. This informs current sustainability trajectories of the UN which are about blaming populations for destroying the environment and over-consuming resources, a theory that has provided the opportunity for the few to control the future of the many.

The “story” of Easter Island’s “ecocide,” – concerning a population consuming itself to extinction – is often regularly cited as evidence to support sustainability action. However, population genetics challenges the popularised Malthusian theories concerning population collapse that were projected onto our common understanding about what happened on the remote island. Such research inspires us to look at our history and context from different angles, and importantly, beyond myopically perceiving our world in terms of the influential Victorian ideas of Thomas Malthus (a theory that population growth will always tend to outrun the food supply and that betterment of humankind is impossible without stern limits on reproduction).

Through the narrative of sustainability much flawed thinking defines the UN’s aims, which are ultimately discriminatory and elitist in nature in the way our population is being viewed, and organised. The UN’s policies from its inception have played a role in limiting the global population, even pursuing policies of “replacement migration” – all ways of artificially and politically altering the population structures globally. Technology is also part of the logic of “replacement”. The global fertility rate has plummeted over decades and we are now at a point where technology such as AI, drones and robots are poised to “take over”.

According to the Financial Times, economic and social forces are to blame for plummeting fertility rates, but don’t worry, “AI and automation will…pick up the slack.” Advancing AI’s role in society is part of the UN’s vision. This vision, concerning population and development, is also applauded by industry.

There are so many contradictions in the sustainable political framework of the UN’s Agenda 2030. Clearly its not about “limiting growth” and favours “the “growth” for technological advancements and smart cities. Its about expanding wireless infrastructure, supporting semi-conductor technology markets and smart cities for a paradigm shift into a full blown IoT Big Data surveillance economy.

The UN says it promotes “safe and trustworthy” technologies. But we know it does not, and measures technology in utilitarian and profitable terms, which often throws concerns about health and important social impacts to the wind. Easing society into a false sense of security concerning habitual exposure wireless technologies, WHO-approved ICNIRP has been promoting the idea that they can make our world safer by setting limits to exposure to microwave telecommunications infrastructure with a novel “simulation”.

ICNIRP rejects research confirming radiofrequency-induced bio-effects, and the temporal factors related to such bio-effects. ICNIRP presents guidelines based exclusively on a “thermal hypothesis” while excluding the gamut of non-thermal and RFR-induced biological injuries that have been scientifically studied and established at or below the so-called “safe” levels of exposure.

To sell us “safe” exposure, ICNIRP prefers the “physics” of modelling, and not experiments that tell us what happens to RFR-exposed biological specimens. This is why ICNIRP derives its theoretical exposure guidelines from mobile phone RFR affecting a synthetic dummy filled with gel (a Specific Anthropomorphic Mannequin – SAM) to simulate thermal impacts of RFR.

ICNIRP’s (and therefore the WHO’s) bias against biological studies like the NTP study continues, and is putting public health at risk, for we are biological, have individual sensitivity to RFR, we are not synthetic, and come in all shapes and sizes, unlike the SAM.

UN sustainability politics relies on its selected climate scientists making predictions about the future, like the Club of Rome did, to convince us with simulations. It is said that “climate change is physics….[and that] modelling is our best window into the future.” Climate science is based on simulating the future on computers for “predicting global warming” in which AI will play an increasing role. The computer models are prone to failure, and can’t accurately predict.

The Hoover Institution states that, “The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the established global authority on climate change, acknowledges this in its most recent Assessment report, from 2013: The simulation of clouds in climate models remains challenging. There is very high confidence that uncertainties in cloud processes explain much of the spread in modelled climate sensitivity. [bold and italics in original] and…”According to a 2002 article by climate scientists Vitaly Semenov and Lennart Bengtsson in Climate Dynamics, climate models have done a poor job of matching known global rainfall totals and patterns.”

Astrophysicist and geoscientist Willie Soon has stated that “our current lack of understanding of the Earth’s climate system does not allow us to determine reliably the magnitude of climate change that will be caused by anthropogenic CO₂emissions, let alone whether this change will be for better or for worse.” Source.

In addition, all predictive climate simulations and computer programs (including AI itself) are subject to the biases of the persons interpreting data, giving input/hypotheses. They are not immune from political and ideological biases, and of course, errors. AI is also prone to “hallucinating” – making things up and presenting them as fact (producing “harmful” misinformation).

Both synthetic “SAM mannequins” and synthetic “modelling” not only sustain politicised theories that are managing public perceptions and expectations – they can produce data that isn’t fit for purpose, which puts the public at risk.

This political use of simulations to sell a convincing case for the “smart” future to the population, moulds the perception and expectations of the public. The WHO manipulates the science concerning exposure to wireless radiation and the UN seeks influence through amplifying the “predictions” of “climate science” to sustain “multilateral” international action (co-ordinated by stakeholders and member states) supporting rapid technological manufacturing (Industry 4.0) and rapid implementations (5G, 6G, Big Data, Internet of Things, Smart Cities, etc).

The UN and WHO present questionable biased theories to shape our futures, and our health. It is questionable whether is the UN is protecting human rights, or the WHO our health, in the future being planned, but it is abundantly obvious that the wireless industry is highly favoured in the UN’s and WHO’s vision of the future, and operates with impunity as it pollutes and continues to put the population’s health at risk.

According to the ITU (the telecommunications arm of the UN), they are glad they have a UN Secretary General that “speaks their language“. He is after all, a physicist and engineer who has taught telecommunications.

He is the “right” political and business choice, sympathetic to the telecommunications industry and it shows, as he is promoting a purely wireless future, which is being justified by prevailing climate change theories that rely largely on modelling to inform the UN’s dire environmental forecasting (which is so relentlessly being used as a political tool, and a social engineering opportunity).

The UN, soon to be rebranded as the UN 2.0 is incorporating behavioural science into its arsenal (because Agenda 2030 isn’t winning people over as much as needed?) is “teaching” (or rather preaching) that a global community governed through wireless technologies will bring a healthier, “sustainable” and inclusive future for all.

One world, but not for all

Is it true that loyalty to the SDGs or Digital Health can result in an inclusive future, for all? No, it isn’t for all. Today, the UN turns a blind eye to the human rights abuses happening in China, which includes slavery for the production of wireless technology components. This forced labour is for supply chains which many Western companies, and notable Big Tech firms rely on. According to Walk Free, “Forced labour is exacted under the guise of vocational training and poverty alleviation…”

It is true much can exacted when the ideological goals and the parties exacting them clothe them in the guise of “worthy causes”, but this political trend is ultimately promoting totalitarianism in the guise of “improving the world” – and wireless and Big Tech firms reliant on electronic components and minerals for manufacture, are influencing such a political trajectory, based on extracting astronomical profits through the IoT/Sustainability markets, as well as unprecedented power over the population.

As the UN is reluctant to address the issues the CCP has come to “enjoy a growing sense of impunity [and] tries to exploit the openness of institutions in democracies to impose its world view and silence its critics.” Sounds like the wireless industry! The behaviour of China and the UN’s response sets a disquieting precedent.

We are seeing the UN and WHO, in pursuit of their ideological imperatives – SDGs and DH – doing everything they can “to silence the critics” – who in their eyes have little to offer but “misinformation”. However, there is plenty to criticise about SDGs and DH, as well as the concurrent roll outs of IoT technologies and 5G infrastructure. For the UN, these are politically vital projects, however, this profitable political agenda could set future generations up for serious health and environmental consequences.

Rapid reformations are being invested in by those who are banking on technology and compliance with UN-backed “solutions” (SDGs) to be richer and empowered. The UN’s and WHO’s technological projects for the future society, if successful, will bring immense powers to these “guardian” organisations, and their private investors, but none of it could ever be achieved without the UN’s ties with the wireless industry, the Club of Rome, and the ongoing political manipulation of environmental issues and science to promote strategic technological implementations for domination and profit.

Featured opening illustration by Sean Alexander Carney.