Cash and Freedom

If you believe you are free, walk out your front door without any form of money in your pocket and see how far you get.

Business journalist Russell Cavanagh on the role of money in the face of a cashless technocracy.

A while back I wrote a post about how a cashless society edges ever closer towards becoming a universal reality. In response, a reader asked, “So what’s really stopping them?”

That’s a very good, very simple question. In putting together an answer, I pondered the following:

  • Omnipresent power elites such as the World Economic Forum and the International Monetary Fund consistently push for a society where private ownership of anything (cars, homes, near anything else except perhaps clothes!) no longer exists. The WEF and IMF repeatedly pump out propaganda encouraging us to share and make do with less. Why?
  • Such organisations also push the concept of a “citizens income’. This basically involves government (or central banks) making money out of nothing and dishing it out as a survival-level income for citizens – a hot topic at this time when fewer opportunities exist for people to prosper economically, such as by finding a decent job. Is it coincidence that a model of welfare state could be more willing to accept purely electronic currency controlled centrally and from afar?
  • Authorities display paranoia over how individuals spend their own money. Try withdrawing a sizeable stash of cash from your savings or current account and prepare to be grilled on what you plan to spend it on. Banks administer various money-laundering acts on behalf of their respective governments, supposedly to prevent crime, and have a duty to report.

So various powers-that-be are certainly trying to engineer us towards a cashless society. Of course, I’m not privy as to how coordinated or nefarious this phenomenon may or may not be – though the circumstantial evidence seems clear.

But we mortals largely cooperate as technology makes contactless purchases (debit and credit cards, etc) very easy for anyone with a bank account.

And it is the bank account itself which provides the answer to the above question!

We are paid when we do a job of work. We will have negotiated a price or accepted a salary as part of the job. The reward is ours in return for our labour, product or service.

But when that compensation is paid into a bank – as is the case with nearly every employer in Western society – none of it is legally ours until it’s withdrawn. It remains in the possession of a third party – a bank we have loaned it to.

Although we have a right to withdraw it, subject to availability, deposits and savings aren’t really ours whilst sat in a high-street safe.

Imagine then that we had no tangible form of reward for our labours, no coins or notes. Our earnings would never belong to us legally – never at any point.

Sure, such a cashless society would let us make electronic purchases with cards, smartphones, etc, so long as no glitch hits the system, but it would nonetheless become impossible to withdraw hard currency to spend later as we like.

Final hurdle

The existing legal framework on which banks contract with depositors would have to be re-drafted entirely in order to bring about a cashless economy.

All parties would need to agree explicitly to fundamental changes in the wider social contract in order for a cashless society to operate.

We’d have to accept state and bank as nannies who could control our spending should they want to, whether we agreed or not.

We would not only have to please our employers by working diligently, as is the case now, but would also be forced to give up all privacy when purchasing and in doing so behave appropriately according to prevailing social and political mores.

And this is exactly why supranational organisations such as the WEF and IMF consciously employ social engineering practices to change people’s values and attitudes towards property.

Those who seek a ‘global’ government and centralised economic system still face a few difficult hurdles, despite grooming us towards cooperating with their desires.

Short of a violent or systematic re-ordering of this world, only we can lower the bar for them.

And speaking of mass immigration …