"For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect."
The linked page
has some interesting information, but its readability and therefore credibility suffers from lack of organization. It's like a lot of buckshot, or a scatter-bomb of vaguely related propositions.
You have to really hunt for the categories announced, "Blue Beam Project has four different steps," and some of the steps have "different aspects" like
"There are two different aspects of step two." This gives the reader the impression that the whole is organized with a well thought-out plan but after reading all the parts, it isn't really all that well planned after all. It's more like the APPEARANCE of organization was the main goal of the "steps" and the "different aspects."
The bulk of the page is dated material, having been written in 1994, but you have to read it carefully to notice that. If you don't pick up on the date of its composition you'll wonder about the "predictions" it makes for the "future" when the "future" is the year 2,000, and the "predictions" have not come to pass 13 years AFTER that.
Leaving all that to be as it may, the page does touch on some themes that are not being made public or widely acknowledged. And there are a number of professionals (scientists and engineers -- which today involves computers in one way or another) whom I know who are in possession of information that they are not at liberty to share, lest they risk losing their career, information regarding the overall purpose of the projects they are working on or even a description of their own understanding of what the projects are intended to be used for. It's like the BIG PLAN is TOP SECRET, and those in charge of making decisions at the top are deliberately segmentalizing all the work afoot into components, such that people working on each component don't ever really get to see how the other components are going to be put together with their own. All they know is the objectives of their own department.
This quasi-relationship is reflected in the organization of the linked page, ironically, for there are things about these various "different aspects" of the "four different steps" that seem to be the same but are being treated as if they are not the same, as if the author either hasn't put them together in his own mind or else he is missing key links from his sources that would enable ANYONE to put them together.
One thing is for sure, technology keeps getting more and more sophisticated, and yet people are suffering from more and more mysterious problems these days. If it were properly ordered, the technology would seem to be able to help people, but it appears the opposite is the case -- the more convenience we would seem to have by technological improvements, the more difficulties we then face that intensify the demands on the technology.
The linked page attempts to frame all of its contents in a sort of apocalyptic picture, saying that all this points to the rise of the antichrist, and that the New World Order cannot achieve its aims unless a One World Religion is first established.
It's worth thinking about, that anyone who would use such a concept today as a platform of his political campaign isn't going to win the election.
He that readeth let him understand (Matt. xxiv. 15).
All in all, readers should not discard the whole thing just because some predictions didn't come true. It is possible that the objectives of the planners at the top might not have fallen into place quite as quickly as it may have seemed by others to have been the planner's intention. But we are not getting the BIG PLAN directly from the BIG PLANNERS themselves. They are keeping that very close to their chest. That is to say, it might have been articles like the linked page going public that convinced the "powers that be" that the time was not yet right for them to put into motion the next phase of their agenda.
One data point I have to offer is, that in 1985 I had a friend who was in the upper administration of a major bank in the western united states, who told me that by the year 2005 or maybe 2010 at the latest, all cash in paper currency or coins would be obsolete, and the only acceptable or even legal form of money would be electronic, by either credit card and/or computer ID chip, perhaps by such a chip implanted under the skin of your body, either "in their right hand or on their foreheads" (Apoc. xiii. 16-17).
Well, that didn't happen, did it?
What we got instead was the planned demolition of the World Trade Center and the "official" excuse that it was a "FOREIGN terrorist attack," while all the real evidence points directly to it being a terrorist attack that was not "foreign" at all.
Therefore, all their ducks are not quite in a row, just yet.
One thing that did change is that the $500 Fed. Reserve Notes were removed from circulation. As of about 2002, the largest denomination has been $100, but even that might be withdrawn before too long, perhaps under the excuse that counterfeit sophistication has increased to leave no alternative other than going to electronic money. But first the reliability of electronic money has to be improved. It presently leaves too much to be desired. Hackers are still able to falsify transactions and steal money by means of electronic fraud. Therefore, that gap in security has to be patched first, and public confidence in the medium itself, being improved, will then make possible the planned obsolescence of the Franklin C-note.
We might still have the Grant $50 for a while, but who knows? Maybe they'll come out with a Roosevelt $200 for a time, first?
As it is, the denominations of paper money don't make much sense:
1 x 5 = 5 .................. 5 ones make the next higher denomination
5 x 2 = 10 = 1 x 10 ... 2 fives or 10 ones make the next
10 x 2 = 20 = 4 x 5 ... 2 tens or 4 fives or 20 ones make the next
20 x 2.5 = 50 = 5 x 10 ... 2-1/2 twenties or 5 tens or 10 fives or 50 ones make the next
50 x 2 = 100 ... 2 fifties or 5 twenties or 10 tens or 20 fives or 100 ones
So it's like this -- the relative factors of paper money denominations are:
2, 5, 10, 20, 100
2-1/2, 5, 10, 50
2, 4, 20
The 50 is the only one that doesn't fit. Remove it, and you have:
5, 10, 20, 100
2, 4, 20
See how the pattern is improved: take the diagonals of each level, and they are the same as the horizontals: starting at the bottom with 5 and going up on the right you have 10, then up on the right again there is 20, and finally 100. That's the same as the top row: 5, 10, 20, 100. And do it on the next diagonal, as well: 2, 4, 20 is the same as the second row down from the top. Also, the next higher diagonal, 2, 10, matches the 2, 10 of the third row down from the top. So it really makes a harmonic whole. But if the $100 bills are removed and the 50s are kept in circulation, this harmony will be entirely disrupted.
Add to that the fact that 50-dollar bills are not very popular. And I think people don't like them because they do not fit the general scheme of paper money denominations, as shown above. Even so, banks have been trying to get people accustomed to using them. It seems like the plan may have been to remove the 100s and just rely on the 50s for a time, before paper money is entirely withdrawn (you'll be given a deadline, beyond which time your paper money will be of no value as "legal tender for all debts public and private") and must be turned in at the bank for credit on your account, to which you will only have access by means of electronic transfer. But since people "just don't like 50s" they've been unable to avoid the problems they would face by removing the 100s. That's why I think they might come out with a $200-bill before the elimination of the 100.
But like I said, the reliability of electronic transfers has to be improved first, and public sentiment about the reliability has to be improved, before they can extinguish paper money altogether.
I can't even begin to guess what the numismatic value of 100 bills will be once they are withdrawn. There probably will be some kind of value for a while but it might actually DECREASE over time, rather than increase. The old silver certificates are worth more today than face value, but not by much, in general, unless they are in excellent condition. But "today" paper money is still acceptable in commerce. The day that paper money is no longer acceptable might well be the same day that our current Fed. Res. Notes lose even their numismatic value, again, unless they are in UNCIRCULATED condition. Sets of several bills or bundles of 100 with serial numbers in sequence, for example, still retaining their stickiness between sheets as they did 'out of the box' might become collectible. Collectors have strange criteria for desirability of things.