Four Scenarios

“Central banks will have absolute control on the rules and regulations that will determine the use of that expression of central bank liability [currency] and also we will have the technology to enforce that.”

~ Agustín Carstens, “Cross-Border Payments—A Vision for the Future” (October 2020)

Programmable Money

Four Scenarios

June 30, 2026

By Catherine Austin Fitts

Introduction

A major, multipronged push is underway by both public and private players to move currency, bank deposits, and stocks and bonds onto distributed ledgers (digital transaction databases “stored and synchronized across multiple sites, institutions, or geographies”). There, the potential exists to make the transactions programmable—that is, able to use smart contracts and vulnerable to third-party rules and control. Central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) are programmable, but so are stablecoins and digital tokens being used to add these features to currencies and financial assets.

What are the goals of the fast-moving push for programmability? To answer that question, a useful tool is scenario planning—a strategic planning method that makes it possible to envision and prepare for multiple plausible futures.

Before we present our scenarios, however, we need to define a handful of key terms.

Two-lock transactions: In a basic two-lock transaction (for example, a cash transaction), the buyer and seller each have a “lock”—that is, each has the power to agree to or veto the transaction. If both buyer and seller agree, the two locks “click,” and the transaction proceeds. No third parties are involved.

Three-lock transactions: In the U.S., “know your customer” (KYC) regulations and the anti-money laundering (AML) provisions of the Bank Secrecy Act impose reporting and other requirements on financial institutions. These and other regulations have introduced a third “lock” into the banking system. The stated aim of these requirements is to keep banks from allowing transactions by “bad actors,” but the third lock has also metastasized to the retail level. In recent years, we have seen the rise of phenomena such as “debanking” (the “sudden and often unexplained closure of individuals’ or organizations’ financial accounts”) as well as other mechanisms and pretexts for denying transactions. Debanking’s “cascading effects,” says Thomson Reuters, “demonstrate the profound power that financial institutions hold in determining who can fully participate in the modern economy.”

Automated third lock: Until recently, third-lock intercession has been “manual” in the sense of requiring compliance by human beings, one by one, at thousands of financial institutions. However, the advent of technologies that permit granular “one person at a time” surveillance, as well as AI and the hyperscale data centers that support it, now make an automated third lock possible. Complex algorithms can be built into currency (or even into digital wallets) so that code, rather than human beings, becomes the gatekeeper of all financial transactions.

Technocracy: Technocracy is a system to implement central resource management and control through micromanagement by rules and algorithms. Although technocracy’s progenitors first envisioned their technocratic system of global control over a century ago, it is the digital systems and AI introduced in the 21st century that are making technocratic control mechanisms like programmability and an automated third lock possible.

The “whipping machine”: In his 2014 book, The Half Has Never Been Told: Slavery and the Making of American Capitalism, author Edward E. Baptist describes how slavery’s “entrepreneurs” perfected the application of whipping and other systematized forms of physical torture to increase slaves’ profitability and productivity, making torture a “factor of production.” In Baptist’s telling, the “whipping machine” has become a broader metaphor for the use of technology “to force people to focus their minds on inventing new ways to perform repetitive and mind-numbing labor at nearly impossible speed.” In our fourth scenario below, central bankers replace slavers, using the automated third lock to enforce central control over labor, travel, capital, and resources in a manner that can shift ownership and control of time and assets and extract labor and value.

Four possible programmable money scenarios (see Table 1) that attempt to frame the intent of the people and institutions implementing these systems result from the intersection of two expressions of two variables:

• Financial Transactions: Financial Transaction Freedom vs. Financial Transaction Control
• Level of Centralization: Decentralized vs. Centralized

Table 1. Four Programmable Money Scenarios

The Republic (Decentralized – Financial Transaction Freedom) represents the founding vision of distributed power combined with genuine economic freedom. Politics and economics are local—communities govern themselves, accountability flows through constitutional structures, and human beings make the decisions that affect other human beings. Privacy is protected, free speech is robust, and local markets and enterprise thrive. Individuals have real choices among analog and digital options for financial transactions. No automated third lock constrains what people can buy, sell, or save. This is the scenario to defend or restore—the baseline against which all others are measured. This is a high-trust society.

See it in film: It’s a Wonderful Life (1946)

The Invisible Fence (Decentralized – Financial Transaction Control) is a dangerous scenario precisely because it is the most likely to be marketed as “freedom.” Communities appear autonomous. Free speech and privacy nominally survive. Decentralization looks intact. But the financial transaction layer has been captured—an all-digital technocracy with an automated third lock means that economic freedom is an illusion. You can speak freely; you cannot act or transact freely. Labor, travel, and access to capital and resources are highly managed. Your ability to transact, accumulate, or exit is governed by terms and conditions rather than constitutional rights. The cage is invisible because it is built into the infrastructure, not announced as policy. Private payment stablecoins and programmable money systems that appear pro-freedom may in practice deliver this scenario. This is a low-trust society.

See it in film: The Circle (2017)

The Permitted Life (Centralized – Financial Transaction Freedom) combines centralized political and economic power with the absence of privacy and free speech, but preserves—for now—some degree of financial transaction freedom. Analog and non-programmable options still exist. People can still transact outside the fully digital system. However, this residual freedom functions as a managed release valve, not a right: it is tolerated by the central authority because removing it entirely would cause disruption, not because the authority lacks the will or capability to close it. The window can be closed at any time. This scenario has historical precedents in certain predigital authoritarian economies, which permitted cash and informal markets within limits. The critical question is always: what will trigger the closing of the window? This is a low-trust society.

See it in film: The Lives of Others (2006)

High-Tech Feudalism (Centralized – Financial Transaction Control) represents full-spectrum convergence: centralized political and economic power, no privacy, no free speech, no analog exits, and automated third-lock AI enforcement of every financial transaction. No analog or non-programmed transaction options exist. The Constitution is effectively subordinated to code and terms of service. Labor, travel, and access to capital and resources are under central control and are used to extract value in a high-tech “whipping machine.” AI and software algorithms make material decisions about who can transact, on what terms, and for what purposes—without human accountability and without legal recourse. Nothing inside the system is voluntary; nothing outside the system is possible. The feudal analogy is precise: serfs were not always legally prohibited from owning property, but their practical ability to accumulate, transfer, or exit was controlled by the lord. The technology changes the mechanism; the power relationship is ancient. Central banks control monetary and fiscal policy, with negative interest rate options and taxation without representation. This is a no-trust society.

See it in film: Elysium (2013)

Watch Agustín Carstens—General Manager of the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) from December 2017 to June 2025—describe the central bankers’ perspective on programmable money:

Source: https://solari.com/programmable-money-four-scenarios/

Fight the Censorship Join the Hopegirl Mailing List and get my free AudioBook: The QEG Chronicles Free Energy Full Disclosure: https://bit.ly/HGQEGBook

HopeGirl Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/@hopegirlblog
HopeGirl Telegram Channel Chat and Groups: https://t.me/Hopegirl587 
Get Our Free EMF Survival Guide : https://bit.ly/FTWEMF
10 Percent Off our EMF Protection Products with this Link: https://www.ftwproject.com/ref/tenoff

The post Programmable Money appeared first on HopeGirl Blog.

Imagine waking up to discover that the U.S. military has quietly been granted the authority to assist in domestic law enforcement activities—including the use of lethal force against U.S. citizens in certain circumstances. Now consider that this change was enacted just weeks before an election, already surrounded by concerns about unrest, civil liberties, and potential government overreach. This is the reality of DoD Directive 5240.01, reissued on September 27, 2024.

Quick Summary

• New provisions: The updated directive expands the circumstances under which the DoD can assist law enforcement, including the use of lethal force.

• Assassination explicitly forbidden: While assassination is banned, the new language allows for lethal actions under “imminent threats.”

• Concerns about civil liberties: The expanded definition of “national security threats” is raising alarms, particularly given DHS’s broader definition of domestic terrorism threats.

• High-level approval required: Any intelligence-sharing that could lead to lethal force must be approved by the Secretary of Defense, but Component Heads can act immediately for up to 72 hours before obtaining approval.

Introduction

As the U.S. prepares for one of the most controversial and closely watched elections in its history, a concerning update to DoD Directive 5240.01 has quietly been put into effect. Reissued on September 27, 2024, this directive governs the Department of Defense’s (DoD) intelligence activities and now includes provisions authorizing lethal force in certain circumstances when assisting civilian law enforcement. While the directive forbids assassination, it opens the door to lethal interventions under “national security” conditions, albeit with stringent restrictions on how such interventions are to be authorized.

This directive, reissued under the authority of the Secretary of Defense as per standard Department of Defense procedures, carries significant weight in shaping military operations and intelligence activities. While DoD Directives are typically internal policy documents, the implications of this particular update extend far beyond the walls of the Pentagon, potentially affecting civilian life and constitutional rights.

A Quiet Update With Loud Implications

The reissuance of DoD Directive 5240.01 repealed previous versions, including the 1982 DoD 5240.1-R. While the update might seem routine, the changes regarding the use of lethal force in domestic operations are significant.

In the 2016 version, the directive primarily focused on intelligence collection and ensuring civil liberties protections for U.S. persons. It emphasized strict oversight and the need for authorization before collecting U.S. person information.

However, the 2024 version expands the military’s role, particularly in assisting civil law enforcement, and authorizes lethal force under specific conditions, raising questions about its use during potential civil unrest surrounding the election.

Read the DoD Directive 5240.01 here.

The Differences Between the 2016 and 2024 Versions

1. Focus of the 2016 Version

The 2016 version of the directive did not mention the use of lethal force. Instead, it focused on:

• Civil liberties protections: Ensuring strict oversight for operations involving U.S. citizens.

• Intelligence collection restrictions: Limiting when and how U.S. person’s information (USPI) could be collected.

• Privacy safeguards: Protecting privacy rights and preventing unauthorized data collection.

The 2016 directive centered around intelligence gathering, with no mention of lethal force.

2. New Provisions in the 2024 Version

The 2024 update introduces a dramatic shift, particularly regarding domestic operations. Section 3.3.a.(2)(c) now explicitly permits lethal force in cases of imminent threats or national security emergencies, provided the action complies with legal oversight, specifically DoDD 5210.56, which governs the use of deadly force by DoD personnel.

Key updates include:

• Use of lethal force: The directive allows military intelligence components to assist law enforcement in operations that involve lethal force.

• Conditions for force: The directive specifies lethal force can be used under conditions involving imminent threats.

• Legal oversight: Any use of lethal force must comply with DoDD 5210.56, ensuring proper legal frameworks are followed.

Framing the 2024 Directive as a Restriction, Not an Expansion

Although the directive expands the DoD’s powers, some interpret it as more restrictive than it appears. Section 3.3 places tight limitations on when intelligence-sharing can occur and requires approval from the Secretary of Defense before any action involving lethal force is taken. The requirement for high-level approval may serve as a check on potential misuse of military force.

The 72-Hour Provision: A Time-Sensitive Response Mechanism

Paragraph 3.5 introduces a 72-hour provision, allowing Component Heads to provide immediate intelligence assistance in time-sensitive circumstances without prior approval from the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and Security (USD I&S) or the Secretary of Defense (SECDEF).

Key points:

1. Immediate action: Component Heads can act in situations where time constraints prevent obtaining prior approval.

2. Relevance to lethal force: This applies in scenarios where lethal force might be necessary to prevent imminent harm.

3. 72-hour limit: The authority is valid for up to 72 hours, after which formal approval is required.

4. Immediate reporting: Component Heads must report their actions to the USD I&S and SECDEF.

5. Approval required for continuation: Any further assistance must be formally approved beyond the initial 72 hours.

Why Timing Matters: Implications for the 2024 Elections

The timing of this update—just six weeks before the election—raises concerns. With debates surrounding election integrity, civil unrest, and political manipulation, the expanded powers granted by the directive could lead to military intervention in domestic affairs if civil unrest arises.

Adding to the concern is the Department of Homeland Security’s recent expansion of what constitutes domestic terrorism. The DHS has flagged individuals questioning COVID-19 origins, vaccine efficacy, or election integrity as potential threats. [Read our previous report on this topic here: The ‘Vaccine Hesitant’ & ‘Conspiracy Theorists’ a Domestic Terrorism Threat – New Homeland Security Report Implies].

This raises questions about how the DoD’s new authority to use, or assist civil law enforcement to use, lethal force might be applied in future domestic situations.

Civil Liberties Concerns

The expanded role of the military in domestic affairs, as allowed by the updated directive, raises several civil liberties concerns:

1. Right to protest: There are fears that expanded authority could suppress legitimate protests.

2. Privacy rights: Increased military involvement in domestic intelligence gathering could infringe on privacy.

3. Due process: The military’s role in law enforcement could bypass standard due process protections.

4. Freedom of speech: The broad definition of “national security threats” could target individuals for their political beliefs.

5. Civilian control: The expanded military role could erode civilian oversight of the military.

Constitutional Crossroads: Fundamental Rights at Stake

The recent reissuance of DoD Directive 5240.01 represents a significant legal shift that could potentially compromise core Constitutional protections that we hold dear. This directive opens the door to scenarios that may threaten these freedoms:

1. Challenging the Posse Comitatus Act: This Act traditionally limits the powers of the federal government in using military personnel for domestic law enforcement. The new DoD directive, by permitting the use of lethal force through military assistance in civilian law enforcement, may push the boundaries of these limitations.
2. Potential First Amendment Concerns: Natural health advocates and others exercising their First Amendment rights, such as questioning the government’s response to COVID-19 or the integrity of elections, have been labeled as potential domestic extremists and/or terrorists by some agencies. This directive could expand those classifications into scenarios involving lethal force interventions, potentially chilling free speech under the guise of national security.
3. Fourth Amendment Considerations: This directive also allows intelligence sharing between military and law enforcement under emergency conditions, raising questions about the right to privacy and the potential for expanded surveillance.
4. Due Process Implications (Fifth Amendment): The possibility of military use of lethal force in domestic scenarios introduces concerns about how due process protections might be maintained before potentially life-altering decisions are made.

These Constitutional considerations underscore the far-reaching implications of the directive and highlight the urgent need for public scrutiny and debate.

Conclusion: A Shift Toward Militarization of Domestic Affairs

The 2024 update to DoD Directive 5240.01 represents a significant shift in the military’s role in domestic law enforcement. While proponents argue that high-level approvals add oversight, critics see it as an expansion of military power in domestic affairs.

As the election approaches, maintaining a balance between national security and individual rights becomes ever more crucial. The implications of this directive may reshape the relationship between military power and civilian governance in the U.S. All the more reason why the conspicuous absence of reporting on the subject is further concerning, and why open, public debate on this change of DoD policy should be engaged as soon as possible. We hope this article contributes towards that goal. 

Source:  https://greenmedinfo.com/content/dod-directive-524001-stealth-expansion-military-intelligence-powers-life-or–0

Bitchute: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/YBM3rvf5ydDM/

Gab: https://gab.com/hopegirl

Telegram: https://t.me/Hopegirl587

EMF Protection Products: www.ftwproject.com

QEG Clean Energy Academy: www.cleanenergyacademy.com

Forbidden Tech Book: www.forbiddentech.website

The post DoD Directive 5240.01: The Stealth Expansion of Military Intelligence Powers in Life-or-Death Domestic Scenarios appeared first on HopeGirl Blog.