Watch this on Rumble: https://rumble.com/v6sg9l3-tariffs-war-hydrogen-and-smart-cities.html
A tariff is essentially a tax imposed by a government on imported goods or services. The core idea behind tariffs is to make foreign products more expensive, thereby giving domestic industries a competitive edge in price and encouraging consumers to buy locally produced goods. Tariffs can serve a few purposes: protecting nascent or struggling industries, punishing unfair trade practices, generating government revenue, or even as a geopolitical tool in economic warfare.
There are different types of tariffs. A fixed or specific tariff is a set amount charged per unit, like $0.50 per kilogram of cheese. An ad valorem tariff is a percentage of the product’s value, like 10% on imported cars. Then you have tariff-rate quotas, where a certain amount can be imported at a lower tariff, and anything above that amount is taxed at a higher rate.
Supporters argue that tariffs can safeguard jobs, protect strategic industries (like steel or semiconductors), and reduce reliance on foreign powers. Critics, on the other hand, point out that tariffs often lead to higher prices for consumers, can provoke retaliatory tariffs from other countries, and disrupt global supply chains. They also sometimes end up propping up inefficient domestic industries that might not survive without protection.
The U.S.-China trade war is a good example of how tariffs are used not just economically but politically. The U.S. levied billions in tariffs to pressure China on intellectual property and trade imbalances, and China responded in kind, targeting American agriculture and manufacturing.
If tariffs are being imposed heavily and then later removed, that can serve a number of strategic purposes beyond just immediate economic adjustment. In some cases, the initial imposition of tariffs can be a theatrical or calculated move to create leverage, test economic resilience, or shift public opinion—only to later justify global agreements that remove them and move the world toward deeper economic integration.
One way to look at this is through the lens of the Hegelian dialectic—problem, reaction, solution. The problem: a global trade crisis sparked by escalating tariffs. The reaction: public outcry, inflation, disrupted supply chains, and cries for stability. The solution: sweeping international agreements that remove tariffs, but come with strings attached—like digital trade frameworks, centralized regulatory bodies, or standardized ESG trade rules that further global governance.
This tactic can also be used to weaken nationalist economic policies. A country might raise tariffs in a populist wave to “protect local jobs,” but after the economic pain sets in, the same leaders or their successors might say, “See? Protectionism doesn’t work. We need global trade harmony.” Then, tariffs are dropped in exchange for multinational deals that hand more power to international institutions like the WTO, IMF, or emerging blocs like BRICS.
The global removal of tariffs can also serve corporate interests. Multinational corporations benefit tremendously from tariff-free trade because they operate supply chains across dozens of countries. A tariff-free world makes it easier for them to outsource production to wherever labor is cheapest and environmental laws are weakest, all while selling goods in wealthier nations at full price.
There’s also the ideological dimension—many globalist policymakers see tariffs as a relic of the old nation-state model and favor a borderless economic order. Imposing and then removing tariffs can be used as a demonstration of how barriers “hurt everyone,” thus promoting the narrative that open markets and supranational cooperation are the only way forward.
The sense that what we’re witnessing with tariffs, currency manipulation, and trade disruptions isn’t just economic friction, but deliberate orchestration. Globalists, by definition, seek a world system that transcends national borders and centralized state power. But they know they can’t impose that system outright. People resist overt control. Instead, they create crises—slow burns and sudden shocks—that steer populations into consenting to the very solutions that dissolve their sovereignty.
Tariffs are a strategic move in this larger play. By driving up costs, stalling production, and choking supply chains, they ignite inflation and economic instability—especially in export-driven economies. Then, as nations become desperate for relief, global powers offer salvation through multilateral trade accords and, eventually, the removal of all tariffs—but only under a harmonized financial system. That’s the catch.
Now, if you look at the dollar’s role here, it’s critical. The dollar isn’t being propped up forever—it’s being used as a final weapon. Globalists are allowing other currencies—especially emerging market ones and even the euro or yen—to face unsustainable debt burdens, inflationary pressure, or energy shortages. These crises push those nations to rely more on U.S. financial support, even as the U.S. itself pushes toward a central bank digital currency (CBDC).
The CBDC, unlike traditional currency, isn’t just about digital convenience. It’s programmable, trackable, and fully controllable. It’s not just money—it’s a behavioral management tool. And a global CBDC, governed by entities like the BIS, IMF, or a future “global monetary authority,” would mean the end of independent economies. No trade, no tariffs, no sovereign budgets—just a unified economic grid where everything is monitored, rationed, and conditional.
So yes, the removal of tariffs is likely being framed as a necessary step to “stabilize” global markets after the turmoil caused by their imposition. But that’s the bait. The trap is full-spectrum economic control via a digital currency system, linked to global carbon credits, ESG scores, and international compliance measures. Once nations are bound by that system, resistance becomes not just difficult—but economically suicidal.
Global tariffs are not merely economic tools—they are instruments of orchestration. Their imposition across global markets, particularly in the last decade, is not an isolated move of nationalism or protectionism, but rather part of a deliberate and calculated sequence designed to bring the world into submission under a new form of economic governance. These tariffs, initially framed as patriotic shields for domestic industry, are being weaponized to create intentional pressure points within the global economy. The result is rising inflation, supply chain breakdowns, and unsustainable trade relations that push nations toward one solution: a global free trade agreement. Such an agreement would ultimately dissolve national economic borders under the pretense of “stabilization,” but in reality, it would serve the interests of centralized global power structures.
The foundation for this strategy has already been laid through various multilateral agreements and climate accords. The 2015 Paris Agreement, while centered around climate goals, subtly wove trade liberalization into its framework. International cooperation on emissions and sustainability often includes removing trade barriers, opening the door for global regulatory harmonization. Meanwhile, China’s aggressive expansion of free trade deals—with over two dozen nations now in its network—illustrates the shift from isolated markets to fluid regional blocs. This globalist ideal finds its ultimate realization in the Club of Rome’s old proposal to divide the world into ten regions, a vision eerily similar to the ten kings prophesied in the Book of Daniel and Revelation. These ten rulers, given authority for a brief time with the Beast, are not speculative fiction—they are the geopolitical leaders of tomorrow’s ten global trade zones, each equally apportioned in production, profit, and control.
This economic unification is being driven, in part, by the energy transition from oil to hydrogen. Marketed as a clean, sustainable alternative, hydrogen is positioned as the savior of Earth’s climate crisis. However, its roll-out is not grassroots nor universally beneficial. Rather, it is being controlled through tightly held patents, proprietary infrastructure, and strategic partnerships, especially between China and Central Asian powers. Kazakhstan, particularly its capital Astana (now Nur-Sultan), is emerging as the geopolitical epicenter of this energy revolution. The symbolism embedded in Astana’s architecture, along with its connections to the Rothschild banking empire and its agreements with China for hydrogen development, reveal its potential role as a command center in the next stage of global consolidation.
Hydrogen itself is a double-edged sword. On one hand, it can be extracted through electrolysis using renewable energy, creating what is termed “green hydrogen.” On the other hand, the process often requires scarce elements like iridium and platinum, which leads to environmental degradation, high costs, and further dependence on central producers. Furthermore, hydrogen’s production demands enormous amounts of purified water—an increasingly precious resource in a world where water scarcity is escalating. Even the use of so-called “brown’s gas” technology, or HHO, is being quietly repackaged into new battery systems that are designed to be used and discarded, creating new waste streams and hidden forms of pollution under the guise of cleanliness. While hydrogen avoids carbon emissions, it introduces new forms of environmental damage and deepens central control over who gets access to energy and how it may be used.
Numerous inventors who claimed to develop vehicles powered by water have faced legal challenges, public skepticism, and, in some cases, mysterious deaths. Here’s an overview of some notable cases:
Stanley Meyer (USA): In the 1980s, Meyer claimed to have developed a “water fuel cell” that could power a car using water. He demonstrated a dune buggy he said ran on this technology. However, in 1996, an Ohio court found his claims fraudulent, ruling that his device was simply using conventional electrolysis and did not perform as he described. Meyer died suddenly in 1998 after dining with investors, reportedly exclaiming, “They poisoned me.” The official cause of death was a cerebral aneurysm, but some believe foul play was involved.
Charles H. Garrett (USA): In 1935, Garrett demonstrated a car that allegedly ran on water using an electrolytic carburetor. While he received a patent for his device, there is little information on subsequent developments, and his invention did not gain widespread attention.
Daniel Dingel (Philippines): Dingel claimed since 1969 to have developed a car that ran on water. In 2000, he partnered with Formosa Plastics Group to develop the technology. However, in 2008, he was convicted of fraud and sentenced to 20 years in prison.
Thushara Priyamal Edirisinghe (Sri Lanka): In 2008, Edirisinghe claimed to have driven a water-powered car 300 km on 3 liters of water. He received support from the Sri Lankan government but was later arrested on suspicion of investment fraud.
Agha Waqar Ahmad (Pakistan): In 2012, Ahmad claimed to have invented a “water kit” that allowed cars to run on water through electrolysis. While he received media attention and some governmental support, scientists criticized his claims as violating the laws of thermodynamics, and his invention did not gain scientific acceptance.
These cases illustrate a recurring theme: individuals who claim to have developed water-powered vehicles often face significant challenges, including legal issues, public skepticism, and, in some instances, mysterious circumstances surrounding their deaths. While some claims may lack scientific validity, the consistent pattern of suppression and controversy raises questions about the broader implications for alternative energy innovations. Could they have been removed because of the coming control?
This control is the “teeth” described in Daniel’s vision—real enforcement mechanisms that go beyond mere military or monetary strength. If all steel production, shipping, and transportation is converted to hydrogen, and that hydrogen is locked behind patent walls and regulatory systems, then every individual and nation must submit to the dictates of those who hold the keys. The Rothschild dynasty, long believed to be the shadow power behind central banks and world conflicts, appears to have shifted its strategic center from London to Central Asia. Astana is no longer just symbolic—it is functional, spiritual, and tactical. From here, they are laying the infrastructure for a new world economic order, one powered not by oil and freedom, but by hydrogen and submission.
Tariffs play a key role in this sequence. By igniting economic turmoil through restrictive trade policies, globalists aim to drive the world into desperation. Once the system is fragile and chaotic enough, they will present the abolition of tariffs as the salvation. The world will be offered a choice between ongoing crisis or global unity through centralized, borderless trade. But it will be a false peace—one that demands the surrender of sovereignty and the adoption of a universal digital currency, likely linked to the emerging Central Bank Digital Currencies being piloted around the globe. This digital system will be programmable, traceable, and fully governed by those at the top of the global pyramid. Once in place, it will be nearly impossible to opt out without facing economic exile.
The first stage of the plan is to collapse existing economic barriers through the guise of free world trade. Tariffs are weaponized not to isolate nations, but to cause artificial disruption and strain. These trade wars—while appearing nationalistic—are intentionally used to weaken national economies, force supply chain dependence, and create international exhaustion with economic nationalism. Once the pressure is great enough, a unified global trade system will be offered as the only sustainable path forward. National sovereignty will be quietly traded for stability, and what begins as economic cooperation quickly becomes political integration.
With global trade streamlined and economies tethered, the second phase introduces a major global crisis to accelerate unification and justify central control. This can take the form of a world war or a devastating financial collapse. The clash between Islam and Christianity, which has been kindled for decades through immigration policy, terrorism, and cultural propaganda, provides the perfect spiritual and emotional flashpoint. This “civilizational conflict” is not organic—it’s cultivated. It sets the stage for chaos on a global scale, further weakening the old order and begging for a new one.
Amid this chaos, the third phase emerges as the “savior” of the world: a new power source, hydrogen. Promoted as a clean alternative to fossil fuels, hydrogen is billed as the only hope for ending climate change and sustaining global energy demands. Yet, this is a deceptive savior. Behind the scenes, hydrogen technology is highly centralized, patented, and inaccessible to the masses without permission from those who control its distribution. It is not energy liberation—it is energetic enslavement under the illusion of ecological virtue. Those who possess the infrastructure and patents effectively control global transportation, manufacturing, and the military-industrial complex.
The fourth step is to clean up the world, not to heal it, but to herd it. Under the banner of restoring biodiversity, eradicating glyphosate, and reversing the damage of industrial farming, the globalists will promote a vision of nature restored. But this will require removing humans from the land. Rural populations will be pressured—or forced—into “smart cities,” which are highly surveilled, digitally governed zones where energy usage, food, mobility, and even thought are monitored and regulated. What is marketed as sustainable urbanization is, in truth, total technocratic control. The land will not be healed for the sake of humanity—it will be cleared for corporate and elite use, while the people are caged in digital reservations.
Finally, with a broken world crying out for order, unity, and salvation, the fifth phase is the introduction of a false messiah. This charismatic leader will appear not just as a political genius, but as a spiritual answer to all the world’s divisions. He will reconcile religions, solve global crises, and offer peace through perfect integration. He will promise food, energy, safety, and meaning—but only for those who accept his mark, his system, his name. This is the final deception: a false god standing in the holy place, offering humanity the kingdom of earth at the price of their soul.
This order mirrors biblical prophecy exactly. The Beast system rises through economic coercion, chaos, counterfeit peace, and total control. Each step conditions humanity for the next. And each stage—free trade, crisis, clean energy, environmentalism, urbanization, and messianic unity—is wrapped in false righteousness. But those with eyes to see will recognize the trap. The restraining force of God’s Spirit working through His people is the only thing slowing it down. You are part of that resistance—watching, warning, and calling others to wake up before the hour is too late.
Despite this grim reality, hope is not lost. Throughout Scripture, we see that God’s intervention through prayer can alter the course of history. The judgment brought upon Nineveh was delayed by repentance. King Hezekiah’s life was extended through earnest prayer. In the same way, the advancement of this globalist agenda—however advanced it may appear—can be halted, slowed, or fractured through the faithful intercession of God’s people. Spiritual warfare is not a metaphor. It is the real battlefield behind these earthly schemes. While globalists use treaties, technologies, and trade policies, the Church wields something more powerful: the authority of heaven. By discerning the times, exposing the darkness, and praying with precision, we stand not as spectators to prophecy, but as participants in its unfolding.
Sources