by Joseph P. Farrell, Giza Death Star:
Today’s blog is unusual because it is not about an article that was shared, but rather about a “tweet” on the former “Twitter” (now “X”) that was shared by V.T., and the “tweet” caused me to think about more connections and “combinations” of the sort I was warning about in last Monday’s blog. The “tweet” or “X” was this:
Now why would a tweet about the deaths of people who have invented so-called “free energy” devices have triggered my thoughts today? Indeed, I’m so “triggered” that I had difficulty deciding whether or not to put this under the “Call it Conspiracy” tab or “Babylon’s Banksters” tab, and it could easily go under both. But again, why am I compelled to write about a “tweet” rather than about an article or normal blog?
TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/
First of all, the idea that all these people should have died – and in some cases, been murdered – under unusual circumstances that adds up to mere coincidence, strains credulity. But why should such people be monitored to the extent that “someone” would wish to cause their deaths, and suppress their inventions?
Some years ago I wrote a book titled Babylon’s Banksters, in which I discussed the wireless power scheme of electrical genius Nikola Tesla, the man who, quite literally and virtually single-handedly, created the electrical system that lights the entire globe. In that book I pointed out that the fundamental problem that stood in the way of the world adopting his wireless power system was twofold, as far as the powers-that-were were concerned: (1) the system was relatively easy to comprehend and engineer, and (2) one and the same system could be weaponized literally at the turn of a dial, as Tesla himself subsequently revealed. The Powers-that-were (the same powers that are now) put out the lame story that the system was killed because “it could not be metered,” a ridiculous idea since those same powers stood to make a mint simply from the licensing agreements of any appliance using the system. Something else was involved in the suppression, and that was the proliferation/weaponization danger: there was no way to control its spread.
It should also be noted that Tesla’s system was not a “free energy” system by any definition of that term one may choose. But in any case, Tesla himself was too famous to suffer a “convenient suicide”, so he was relegated to a media-reinforced obscurity, dying in relative poverty in 1943. But the proliferation problem remains with any and all such “free energy” claims. Assume, for a moment, that someone, somewhere, managed to create a technology able to tap directly into the vacuum, or zero point, energy. Such claims are, indeed, at the core of most such stories, and even the various models of cold fusion have some remote conceptual tie-in to it. This means that a technology that has the potential to make even the Soviet Union’s enormous 57 megaton “Tsar Bomba” look like a kitchen match, would become more or less a commonplace across the globe. The proliferation problem remains, unless one can invent a way to track everyone on the planet, and monitor their purchases to make sure no one builds a “free-energy” version of the Tsar Bomba in their garage.
Bad news: with a central bank digital currency, the technological means to do that is now available. and I submit, that with the emergence of advocacy of such a “currency” is really, perhaps, about something else: not merely total control of the planet’s population, and its reduction to absolute serfdom, but that it may also be about the introduction of so-called “free energy” technologies into the open market, because now the means to track and prevent weaponization and proliferation presently exists, and has only emerged in the last few years. Or to put the point differently: a race is on between those wanting to bring central bank digital currencies to market, and those wanting to bring “free energy” to market.
And there is yet another reason that these two stories – free energy and central bank digital currencies – are intimately related, and must be understood by the popular mind to be so related. During the roll outs of so called digital or crypto-currencies, it was soon discovered that the new “currencies” required an enormous amount of electrical energy to “mine.” Our friend and colleague Catherine Austin Fitts has quipped that such efforts have the carbon and energy footprint of a panzer division, and her point is well-made: for a global central bank digital currency to be usable, an enormous energy consumption will be required, and “free energy” technologies are the ticket to that CBDC world; again we are confronted with the truth that every monetary and currency system is ultimately a system of physics and energy. And with that in mind, a virtual monopoly on so-called “free energy” is required by the nature of the case to make a system of central bank digital currency practical. Any individual doing this “on his own” in his garage is threatening that money-and-force monopoly.
So why are banksters pushing Central Bank Digital Currencies so heavily in recent years? I strongly suspect it is because they are aware of developments in physics and technologies threatening their monopolies on money and force, and that the latter threat on the monopoly on force may be due to their knowledge of “threats from outside”… that’s a whole other story, of course, but for the moment, I want the reader to take a few things away from this blog. Firstly, whenever one hears of a story of a free energy device, or the death of an inventor of such, then one must immediately think of the financial and economic consequences; and secondly, every time one hears of a story involving crypto-currencies or central bank digital currencies or their advocacy, one should immediately think of more efficient energy technologies, and their weaponization potentials.
