DISEASE X, THE WORLD ECONOMIC FORUM AND THE UN SUMMIT OF THE FUTURE

Last weekend “60 heads of state and government and nearly 300 ministers and other political leaders…”  - see this link  - flew out of Davos, Switzerland, in their private jets following their 15-19th January annual World Economic Forum (WEF) get together with business leaders to discuss the WEF theme for 2024 “rebuilding trust”. I wonder if they discussed how they lost trust?

Feeling assured that after the WEF meeting, the world was now in good hands and that we could count on these guys, I returned to United Nations Policy Briefs that I discussed in my 5 January post. I did note from the WEF press release that this year in Davos they had the largest attendance of women – a record 28%! – see this link.

As I perused statements from various sources within the WEF, I noted an interesting theme of a coming crisis and the need for “improved digital architecture”, which has been previously highlighted by former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair – now a friend to the rich and powerful, as fits the profile of any modern socialist.

Blair had spoken at a previous World Economic Forum conference about the importance of “technology and digital infrastructure” because “you need the data, and you need to know who’s been vaccinated and who hasn’t been” -

These folks are obviously trustworthy, and we just need to give them our data and then line up, according to Sir Tony, to have our vaccines that require “multiple shots” – evidently to keep us safe.

I decided to return to the UN 11 Policy Briefs to see how the WEF themes integrate with the 17 Sustainable Development Goals of the UN and the coming excitement of the Summit of the Future - that will be held 22-23^rd September this year. It appears as though this is likely to be a rubber stamping operation to endorse the ideas outlined in the UN 11 Policy Briefs.

The UN spin doctors have come up with the visionary catchphrase: “Multilateral Solutions for a Better Tomorrow”. Who could be against that? Given that the phrase “multilateral solutions for a better tomorrow” was probably thought up by AI, I asked ChatGPT this question: “what are multilateral solutions for a better tomorrow?”

Chat GPT seemed across this type of language and knew immediately what was being proposed. This is ChatGPT’s response:

"Multilateral solutions for a better tomorrow" typically refer to approaches or strategies that involve collaboration and cooperation among multiple countries or entities to address global challenges and achieve positive outcomes for the future. This concept emphasizes the importance of working together on an international scale to tackle issues such as climate change, poverty, inequality, conflict resolution, public health crises, and more.

These solutions often involve diplomatic negotiations, international agreements, and collective action to promote peace, stability, and sustainable development worldwide. Multilateralism recognizes that many contemporary issues transcend national boundaries and require coordinated efforts involving various stakeholders to achieve meaningful results.”

I suspect that ChatGPT may have written the 11 UN Policy Briefs.

I intend to do a survey locally to find out how people here in the Snowy Mountains feel about “multilateral solutions for a better tomorrow” so that I can pass the information on to António Guterres. Guterres is the UN Secretary-General who promoted the phrase “global boiling” last year because global warming didn’t seem to be causing sufficient anxiety in the world population.

My feedback to António may be important for the UN deliberations in September.

As I revisited the UN 11 Policy Briefs, my eyes alighted on Policy Brief 2 – An Emergency Platform. This policy brief refers to unknown future “complex global shocks” and recommends more power for the UN! This is how the policy brief frames the ideas:

• A rapid, predictable and structured international response;

• Maximizing the unique convening role of the United Nations;

• Catalysing political leadership through networks of willing Member States;

• Multisectoral, interdisciplinary coordination across the multilateral system;

• Multi-stakeholder engagement and accountability in the global response;

• Strengthened accountability for delivering against commitments and bringing coherence to the international approach.

Summarizing this word fruit-salad: more power to the UN!

The Emergency Platform would be activated in the case of a new horrific pandemic such as – Disease X!

Then, presumably, the WHO would take over the management of the emergency platform and mandate lockdowns and vaccines for all member countries.

Disease X!

It seems that the only thing that could stand in the way of a bright future for mankind as we hand over our data, biometrics and responsibility for our health to a global cabal, is a coming pandemic – notably Disease X. 

We have to take Disease X seriously as I have discovered that it has been referred to on multiple platforms over the past week. Disease X  has been raised at the WEF and there have been articles in the media including the Sun newspaper – this recent headline - I imagine written so as not to alarm people – was:

 “TERROR OF X - World leaders gather over chilling ‘Disease X’ threat amid fears hypothetical outbreak could kill 20x more than Covid”

The Sun has provided a helpful list for us to consider:

Figure 1. Biggest Pandemic Threats. From The Sun Newspaper - 17th January 2024 - see this link. I thought that the blood on the notepaper was a nice touch.

I found a similar story in USA Today – where the editors had the extraordinary accompanying assessment:

“Disease X doesn't exist, at least not yet. That's why health officials are taking the steps to ensure the world is prepared for an unknown deadly virus that could trigger another pandemic.”

In essence, Disease X doesn’t exist – but run for your lives!

I then did several hours research, and the earliest report that I could find about the crisis of the coming “Disease X” was a paper from The Lancet (reportedly the most prestigious medical journal in the world but whose colours as a globalist mouthpiece have now been firmly nailed to the mast). This paper published in 2020 was titled: “Disease X: accelerating the development of medical countermeasures for the next pandemic” and was written by Simpson, Kaufman, Glozman and Chakrabarti – Lancet Infectious Diseases 20 (5):E108-E115 – see this link.

The authors provide the following information in relation to the hypothetical Disease X:

“WHO has listed several priority diseases with epidemic potential for which there are no, or insufficient, medical countermeasures. In response, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (with support from PricewaterhouseCoopers) coordinated subject matter experts to create a preparedness plan for Disease X. Disease X is caused by Pathogen X, an infectious agent that is not currently known to cause human disease, but an aetiologic agent of a future outbreak with epidemic or pandemic potential.”

Alarm bells should start going off – the Gates Foundation and PricewaterhoueCoopers are throwing a lot of cash at a disease that doesn’t exist. It reminds you of Event201 – a simulation that was hosted in October 2019 by the ”Johns Hopkins Centre for Health Security in partnership with the world”. This tabletop simulation, funded by the WEF and the Gates Foundation, promoted the idea of a global pandemic that was caused by a pig coronavirus spreading into the human population.

Then, apparently by coincidence, just 3 months later, there was a coronavirus pandemic originating in China that was claimed to be from the Wuhan wet food market. How fortunate that the planning exercise had been held so that all the key players knew their roles: spreading fear and instituting control.

The paper in the Lancet postulates that there are a range of circumstances that will lead to the emergence of Disease X: proximity of human population to wildlife, food from animal sources without sufficient oversight, insect and tick vectors of disease, increased population density, and lack of surveillance and access to laboratories.

Remarkably, the authors didn’t propose that this was all related to climate change. However, the UN and its Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) -  makes up for the deficiency because the contention is that everything is related to the “climate crisis”.

The Lancet article provides the following perspective about Disease X:

“we can hypothesise that the advent of a catastrophic outbreak involving Disease X is likely to result from the zoonotic transmission of a highly virulent RNA virus from an area where a convergence of risk factors and population dynamics will result in sustained person-to-person transmission. This premise does not negate the need for measures against other types of pathogens of pandemic importance, but the work on Disease X that we have done is modelled on the development of medical countermeasures against this particular pathogen archetype.”

It is worthwhile noting the date of publication of the Lancet article was 17 March 2020. The paper was published after the declaration of a “pandemic” but presumably written before the pandemic declaration by the WHO. The notification of an international “pandemic” caused by SARS-CoV-2 occurred on 11 March 2020.

In the Lancet article, the authors note the long timeline for diagnostic tests and vaccines and suggest “technological and process opportunities for shortening the development times of diagnostics, vaccines, clinical trials, and small molecules for Disease X”. These guys were prescient because just a few months later, we had Operation Warp Speed (announced 15 May 2020).

It is important to take note of the “warnings” provided because the globalists issuing the warnings are remarkably prescient. So, Disease X, unknown at this stage but already declared to be 20x deadlier than COVID, is being prepared for or perhaps even prepared.

In the UK, a special “secret lab” to undertake Disease X was set up in Wiltshire in 2023 - see this link.

One of the aims of setting up the laboratory is to create a vaccine for Disease X that could be developed in 100 days rather than the 6 months needed for the SARS-CoV-2 “vaccine”. Clearly, various public health authorities plan to rush a vaccine into production with even fewer safety checks than the disastrous and damaging COVID-19 “vaccines”.

Get ready for Disease X and the “safe and effective vaccines” that will trail shortly after. All the tools are in place for population surveillance and a vaccine passport system to ensure compliance. It could be such a serious disease that it will need shutting down of social media accounts to prevent “misinformation” and “disinformation”. Certainly this is what the WEF seems to believe is the biggest challenge facing society.

Ultimately, more surveillance will be necessary and then probably, programmable digital currencies. All the systems are in place to result in these tools being used to “keep us safe”.

It’s certainly no use asking your local doctor. I have discovered that almost the entire medical profession has been brainwashed by the government authorities to believe that the catastrophic COVID-19 “vaccines” have done a great job, and there is no acknowledgment of the dangers of the various “vaccine” products.

In Australia, a country with a population of 27 million people, 69.9 million doses of one of the COVID vaccines have been administered since the vaccines became available in 2021 - see this link. A report in March 2022 by Ausstralia’s SBS News provided a graph that showed that 94-99% of Australians received at least one or two doses of the “vaccines”.  Tasmania was the most compliant state with 99% of Tasmanians vaccinated. It is a state with a small population, and there may be just one resistant Tasmanian hiding out in the bush!

Figure 2. COVID-19 “vaccinations” in Australia by State. From SBS – updated July 2022 -see this link

The importance of Disease X and the plans being made by the UN, WHO and assorted global bodies is that these folks have the systems and processes to create the problem and provide “solutions”. It is the classical Hegelian Dialectic – problem-reaction-solution.

This old YouTube video provides a helpful understanding of the Hegelian Dialectic that is being used by the technocrats and New World Order to corral us. Don’t panic and get vaccinated when you hear that there is a new disease that will kill us all!

The UN Policy Briefs – for “their” Common Agenda

The success of the problem-reaction-solution strategy will result in its continued use as various “crises” – race riots, pandemics, food scarcity, gender wars, regional conflicts and then world wars – are used by globalist groups to impose a global solution via the UN -  for our own protection. This is why it is important to take note of the 11 UN Policy Briefs. We need to know what is coming.

In the remainder of this week’s newsletter, I will provide an overview and “highlights” of the final six policy briefs (Policy Briefs 6 to 11). If you need to understand Policy Briefs 1 to 5, here is a link to the 5th January newsletter.

UN Policy Brief 6 – Reforms to the International Financial Architecture - see this link

This policy paper commences with the statement:

“The international financial architecture, crafted in 1945 after the Second World War, is undergoing a stress test of historic proportions – and it is failing the test.”

The paper provides no evidence that the financial architecture is “failing the test” but the paper does offer the following commentary. The paper says that the financial system was designed after the second world war :

“at a time when neither climate risks nor social inequalities, including gender inequality, were considered preeminent development challenges..”

What climate change or gender inequality have to do with the design of a financial system is a mystery, but the UN seems convinced that there is a crisis. As they put it in Policy Brief 6:

“the international financial architecture entirely unfit for purpose in a world characterized by unrelenting climate change, increasing systemic risks, extreme inequality, entrenched gender bias, highly integrated financial markets vulnerable to cross-border contagion, and dramatic demographic, technological, economic and geopolitical changes”.

This is a classical problem-reaction-solution story. The UN is claiming a non-existent “crisis” which then needs the UN to step in with a “solution”. The “action-oriented recommendations” proposed in the Policy Paper are:

• Global economic governance;

• Debt relief and the cost of sovereign borrowing;

• International public finance;

• Policy and regulatory frameworks that address short-termism in capital markets, better link private sector profitability with sustainable development and the Sustainable Development Goals, and address financial integrity;

• Global tax architecture for equitable and inclusive sustainable development.

I think that this means complete financial control by the UN with a lot of handouts (for equity) that result from a “global tax architecture”. The paper also proposes to “massively scale up development and climate financing”. After all, the idea here is to push forward the 17 SGDs, and one of the aspects of the new financial architecture is to “phase out fossil fuel finance”.

Ultimately, compliance will be forced because: “banks should develop and transparently publish impact reporting, with internal incentives tied to maximizing Sustainable Development Goal impact, subject to risk and financial viability. This includes tracking and analysing data on the gender equality implications across all multilateral investment.”

It is clear that no one will be able to get loans without demonstrating that they are promoting and implementing the UN’s 17 SDGs and promoting “gender equality”. The UN wants to have central control of the whole financial system, and they may well be successful because they have the support of many of the Fortune 500 companies represented at the WEF meetings.

The 33 page Policy Brief 6 on financial architecture is one of the most alarming of the policy briefs because with control and redirection of the global financial system, no resistance will be possible. I think that there is awareness within the UN of public concern about central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) and the paper does not refer to CBDCs. However, it does propose: “new digitalized financial instruments to safeguard financial stability and integrity”. I think that these “instruments” are CBDCs.

To summarize this policy paper - watch out – the UN is coming for your money!

UN Policy Brief 7 – For All Humanity – the Future of Outer Space Governance - see this link

Sending the UN into outer space is an attractive proposition, but I couldn’t find this proposal anywhere in this 26-page Policy Brief.

The policy brief outlines: “the extraordinary changes underway in outer space and an assessment of the sustainability, safety and security impacts of these changes on present and future governance.”

Like all the policy briefs, the word “sustainability” is a feature, but this word, which we have all accepted as good and necessary, is just a code word for technocratic control, as outlined by Patrick Wood in his various presentations.

I did report in my post from last week - the interesting graphic of objects in orbit, with satellites launched and planned future launches. Near space will be very busy!

The UN is concerned about space-based debris and conflict in outer space. I’m concerned too! The UN wants to be in charge of outer space but phrases this in a less direct manner:

“United Nations entities to increase their collaboration, including through the Inter-Agency Meeting on Outer Space Activities (UN-Space), with a view to better coordinating their data-sharing, building United Nations system capacity and cooperating on the procurement of space-based information, to accelerate the application of space assets in order to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals.”

The paper proposes two options:

1. Option 1 – “The Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (see this link)  to develop a unified regime for space sustainability.” Not sure what this means but the use of the word “regime” seems ominous. Perhaps they mean regimen?

2. Option 2 – “the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space could consider developing new governance frameworks for various areas of space sustainability. Such frameworks, which would comprise separate, mutually reinforcing instruments, should also be developed in cooperation with relevant bodies of the United Nations system and incorporate a platform for broader operational stakeholder inclusion.”

I suspect UN members will vote for Option 2 because no one will be able to work out what it means!

The policy paper is clear – the UN wants to control and regulate outer space so that there can be “sustainability” and achievement of the UN’s 17 SDGs.

UN Policy Brief 8 -Information Integrity on Digital Platforms – see this link

This policy brief is one of the most dangerous of the policy papers because the focus, as at Davos this year for the WEF, is to combat “misinformation and disinformation”. This is a recurring theme by national governments in the West and various legislative bills are in place in the UK, Australia, Canada and the US to outlaw information that goes against government or global narratives.

World leaders are very concerned about this because the “sacred” SDGs are under threat. The paper even has a one-page graphic to shout out to us how important this is.

Figure 3. Graphic from UN Policy Brief 8 - see this link. The UN is very concerned about “misinformation” and “disinformation”.

As the paper says: “Across the world, the United Nations is monitoring how mis- and disinformation and hate speech can threaten progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals.”

The UN leaders must looking at China and their social credit score system and wondering how this could be implemented by the UN.

The UN policy brief does define misinformation, disinformation and hate speech. These are the definitions provided in the Policy Brief:

“For the purposes of the present policy brief, the difference between mis- and disinformation lies with intent. Disinformation is information that is not only inaccurate, but is also intended to deceive and is spread in order to inflict harm. Disinformation can be spread by State or non-State actors in multiple contexts, including during armed conflict, and can affect all areas of development, from peace and security to human rights, public health, humanitarian aid and climate action.

Misinformation refers to the unintentional spread of inaccurate information shared in good faith by those unaware that they are passing on falsehoods. Misinformation can be rooted in disinformation as deliberate lies and misleading narratives are weaponized over time, fed into the public discourse and passed on unwittingly. In practice, the distinction between mis- and disinformation can be difficult to determine.

Hate speech, according to the working definition in the United Nations Strategy and Plan of Action on Hate Speech, is “any kind of communication in speech, writing or behaviour, that attacks or uses pejorative or discriminatory language with reference to a person or a  group on the basis of who they are, in other words, based on their religion, ethnicity, nationality, race, colour, descent, gender or other identity factor”.

It is clear from this Policy Paper that the UN is very concerned about the digital environment and social media spreading disinformation, misinformation and hate speech, which it says, leads to “genocide”.

The paper claims that “75% of UN peacekeepers said mis- and dis-information impacted their safety and security”.  The paper also reports that “58.5% of regular internet and social media users worldwide are concerned about encountering misinformation online.” The precision of the statistic is impressive!

How to solve this? Guterres proposes “The United Nations Code of Conduct for Information Integrity on Digital Platforms”. Unfortunately this doesn’t lend itself to an easy acronym. However, nine principles are proposed for the code of conduct:

• Commitment to information integrity;

• Respect for human rights;

• Support for independent media;

• Increased transparency;

• User empowerment;

• Strengthened research and data access;

• Scaled up responses;

• Stronger disincentives;

• Enhanced trust and safety.

It is difficult to know what these principles mean but I suspect that the plain English version means: disagree with the UN and its satellite organization at your own peril. It is evident that the UN sees itself as the bastion of truth.

It can’t be long until we have real Ministries of Truth set up in UN member countries.

UN Policy Brief 9 – A New Agenda for Peace -see this link

I was excited about this because the UN’s track record in peace is abysmal but now the UN is proposing “a new agenda”. Surely these guys have finally found the solution that fulfils the desire of all people, especially those in beauty pageants?

The policy paper says that in commemorating the seventy-fifth anniversary of the UN, “Heads of State and Government undertook to promote peace and prevent conflicts”. Mr Guterres believes that the solution is in “multilateralism”, which like many UN terms is difficult to define. In the policy paper, we are told:

“This new multilateralism demands that we look beyond our narrow security interests. The peace that we envisage can be pursued only alongside sustainable development and human rights.”

The UN actually makes the claim that international cooperation has made the world a more peaceful and safer place. The policy paper says:

“International cooperation – spanning from sustainable development, disarmament, human rights and women’s empowerment to counter-terrorism and the protection of the environment – has made humanity safer and more prosperous.”

The claim, though, is that despite the great work that the UN has done, “we are now at an inflection point”. We are on our way to what is described as “a new global order” (p3).

A number of threats are identified including: armed conflict increasing, violence outside of armed conflict, weaponizing new technologies, rising inequalities, “shrinking space for civic participation” (I think they mean censorship but it is hard to determine what is meant) and of course, “the climate emergency”.

The paper then has a section identifying the principles for an effective system for peace: trust, solidarity and universality. Mr Guterres outlines “A vision for multilateralism in a world in transition”. I couldn’t understand this section at all but the paper calls for “new ways to act collectively and cooperatively”. The areas that require attention are: ‘

“the (UN) Charter and international law; diplomacy for peace; prevention as a political priority; mechanisms to manage disputes and improve trust; robust regional networks and cooperation; national action at the centre; people-centred approaches; eradication of violence in all its forms; prioritizing comprehensive approaches over securitized responses; dismantling patriarchal power structures; ensuring that young people have a say in their future; financing for peace; strengthening the toolbox for networked multilateralism; an effective and impartial United Nations Secretariat.”

Translation of these ideas into plain English seems to me as follows: give the UN more power and eliminate all the violent people, who are mainly men. Give youth the keys of power and implement the immediate resignation of the UN Secretariat (because the current Secretariat has shown itself to be neither effective nor impartial).

This may be a misreading of the material in the Policy Paper, but it is my take on the situation. However, I am definitely for a “toolbox on networked multilateralism” if I could work out what it is.

There are 12 recommendations for action which commence with “eliminate nuclear weapons”. I don’t think that this will be backed by either Iran or Israel!

The policy paper provides a convenient graphic which outlines the recommendations

Figure 4. Twelve action steps for “a new agenda for peace”. See UN Policy Brief 9

UN Policy Brief 10 – Transforming Education - see this link

It is clear from James Lindsay’s important book: The Marxification of Education: Paulo Freire’s Marxism and the Theft of Education (see my post from January 5^th) that the plans for the transformation of education are already almost complete. The educational ideas of Paulo Freire, the Brazilian Marxist, have been warmly embraced as a foundational pedagogy across Western schools of education. Lindsay writes in his book:

“The overwhelming adoption of Paulo Freire’s crackpot theory of education, which has become known as “Critical Pedagogy,” may relate to but cannot directly explain the rise in school shootings, inexplicable failures of law enforcement, or many other tragedies. It does, however, almost completely explain why our schools are failing to teach our children basic skills like reading, writing, and mathematics while succeeding at turning them into a new activist class for Leftist—and only and explicitly Leftist—causes. This is what Freire’s educational theory is designed to achieve.” Lindsay, James. The Marxification of Education: Paulo Freire's Critical Marxism and the Theft of Education (pp. 8-9). New Discourses. Kindle Edition.

However, the UN wants more! Guterres says the education system is a disaster. In the Policy Paper, Guterres says: “Today, however, beset by twin crises of equity and relevance, education as we know it is no longer fit for purpose.”

The fact that those emerging from High School can’t read or do basic mathematics is not the problem. The “twin crises” are “equity and relevance”. Paulo Freire would be proud of his Portuguese-speaking colleague.

The Policy Paper’s remedies for the “twin crises” are to “deliver” on previous UN commitments – or perhaps re-deliver!

The writers of the Policy Paper are clearly struggling to find great recommendations that would “transform education”, but here are the recommendations from the Policy Brief:

1. “Building an integrated system of education and lifelong learning in a world of uncertainty;

2. Ensuring equity, access and inclusion in and through education;

3. Making curricula and pedagogies relevant for today and for tomorrow;

4. Repositioning the teaching profession to ensure that teachers increasingly serve as creative guides and facilitators in the learning process;

5. Harnessing digital tools and resources to expand access, improve learning and increase capacities to navigate the future and avoid the digital divide;

6. Investing more, more equitably and more efficiently in education.”

Also to “Recognize education and lifelong learning as a global public good and galvanize international cooperation to invest in and transform education while achieving Sustainable Development Goal”

To summarize and translate, I think that these recommendations for “transforming education” are to put children in front of computers with “creative guides” to indoctrinate them with the values of the New World Order.

Policy Brief 11 – UN 2.0 – see this link

Just when you thought it couldn’t get any worse, the UN is proposing a UN 2.0!

Here is the big picture.

Figure 5. UN 2.0 - “turbocharging the 2030 agenda for sustainable developments. From UN Policy Brief 11 - see this link.

This is what is proposed:

“The Secretary-General’s vision of a modern United Nations system, rejuvenated by a forward-thinking culture, and empowered by cutting-edge skills fit for the twenty-first century. Leveraging our diversity, we are striving towards this vision with a powerful fusion of data, innovation, digital, foresight and behavioural science expertise – a dynamic combination that we call the “quintet of change”. Grounded in a stronger organizational culture, UN 2.0 signifies our transformation towards more agile, diverse, responsive and impactful United Nations entities – to accelerate systemic shifts that deliver for all, including women and girls.”

António Guterres has opted for an AI random phrase generator to promote UN 2.0 – a “quintet of change”.

Here is my plain English version: The UN will work with Big Tech to control and mine information and then work out how to manipulate people so that we do what they want.

Conclusions

It has been a tough slog through the 11 UN Policy Briefs over the past two weeks but I am glad that I took on the challenge. It is important to know what the New World Order has in store for us. It seems certain that the recommendations in the 11 Policy Briefs will be adopted at the UN meeting in September. Part of the problem for UN attendees will be to work out what the Policy Briefs mean. However, if delegates to the UN want to retain their great perks, they will just vote yes.

Something is coming during 2024 that will necessitate a global response by governments. It seems most likely that this is Disease X but the global cabal has many tools in their “toolbox”.

To be forewarned is to be forearmed. Many are proclaiming a time when all will be well and now there are many others who still believe “Trump will save us”. Don’t believe this for a minute. The forces of darkness are well-armed and have all the tools of power: government, media, entertainment, education, religion, business and is working to take over the family.

The Book of Revelation in the Bible sets out a complex scenario with many strange images but there are two key points:

1. A coming one-world government with an evil and deceptive ruler will arise (the antichrist) and will demand worship;

2. Jesus will return and destroy the antichrist and his supporters.

It is a good time to take a stand with Jesus and be prepared to resist taking the coming “mark of the beast”. This is a time when it will not be possible to “buy or sell” without taking some form of digital identification that demonstrates allegiance to a global leader. For those who take the “mark of the beast”, there is no way back. The mark demonstrates that you have thrown in your lot with the satanic powers.

The Book of Revelation puts it this way:

“He causes all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hand or on their foreheads, and that no one may buy or sell except one who has the mark or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.” Revelation 13:16-17

Over the last 2,000 years there has been much debate about what this mark means but in our day with the promotion of digital IDs and “vaccine passports”, it is not difficult to see a time when some digital ID will be required to “buy or sell”.

We need to be alert, watch the signs of the times and make provision (particularly spiritual provision) for the future.

The simplest advice - be on Jesus’ side!