THE WAR ON CASH # The World’s FIRST CASHLESS SOCIETY Is Here

The World’s First Cashless Society Is Here – A Totalitarian’s Dream Come True
By Nick Giambruno
November 19, 2015

Central planners around the world are waging a War on Cash. In just the last few years:
- Italy made cash transactions over €1,000 illegal;
- Switzerland proposed banning cash payments in excess of 100,000 francs;
- Russia banned cash transactions over $10,000;
- Spain banned cash transactions over €2,500;
- Mexico made cash payments of more than 200,000 pesos illegal;
- Uruguay banned cash transactions over $5,000; and
- France made cash transactions over €1,000 illegal, down from the previous limit of €3,000.

The War on Cash is a favorite pet project of the economic central planners. They want to eliminate hand-to-hand currency so that governments can document, control, and tax everything.

This is why they’re lowering the threshold for mandatory reporting of cash transactions and, in some instances, simply making it illegal to pay cash.

In the U.S., central planners ratchet up the War on Cash every time the government declares a made-up war on something else: a war on crime, a war on drugs, a war on poverty, a war on terror.

They all end with more government intrusion into your financial affairs.

Thanks to these made-up wars, the U.S. government is imposing an increasing number of regulations on cash transactions. Try withdrawing more than $10,000 in cash from your bank. They’ll treat you like a criminal or terrorist.

The Federal Reserve is at the center of the War on Cash. Its weapons are inflation and control over the currency denominations.

Take the $100 note, for example. It’s the largest bill in circulation today. This was not always the case. At one point, the U.S. had $500, $1,000, $5,000, and even $10,000 notes. But the government eliminated these large notes in 1969 under the pretext of fighting the War on Some Drugs.

Since then, the $100 note has been the largest. But it has far less purchasing power than it did in 1969. Decades of rampant money printing have inflated the dollar. Today, a $100 note buys less than a $20 note did in 1969.

Even though the Federal Reserve has devalued the dollar over 80% since 1969, it still refuses to issue notes larger than $100. This makes it inconvenient to use cash for large transactions, which forces people to use electronic payment methods.

This, of course, is what the U.S. government wants.

It’s exactly like Ron Paul said: “The cashless society is the IRS’s dream: total knowledge of, and control over, the finances of every single American.”

CONTINUE: http://www.activistpost.com/2015/11/...come-true.html

cashless in total
cameras installed everywere
voice and face recognition everywhere
implemented chips in hands for admission control to many place (all places)
bio-data at your health insurence card
body position detection by your handy via gps scanning
thought detection of terrorist-thought or impolite thought; every morning put your head inside the brainwave scanner connected to the internet
...
...
...



a singularity jump into the matrix

Sounds nightmarish.

No wonder old people such as me must die. The implications of such changes are more than we can bear; less and less freedom each decade.

This Is Why The Mega Banks Are Promoting A Cashless Society
by Ken Jorgustin
February 11, 2016

In case you haven’t noticed, the mega banks are promoting a cashless society. For those of you who may say, “Who cares?” “I already only use debit cards, credit cards, and online banking for 99% of my transactions – so what does it matter?”…

Here’s why it matters:

Negative Interest Rates
The number one reason in my estimation has everything to do with ‘negative interest rates’.

Most people haven’t heard much (or any) of this term yet, but those who have been paying attention already know that it IS HAPPENING and is already implemented in some places around the world.

“What is ‘negative interest rates’, and why should I care?”

It’s simple. YOU will be charged interest for keeping money in the bank. Not the other way around…

You might then (logically) ask, “Well if they’re going to charge me to keep MY money in THEIR bank, then I’m taking it out!”. And this is a primary reason why ‘they’ want a cashless society, because if cash is banned, then you wouldn’t be able to take it out! If you want to transact, you will be required to transact electronically. Period.

Once that requirement is in place, then you will have no choice but to succumb to their ‘negative interest rate policies’ (NIRP) in which the bank reaps enormous revenue streams – further separating you from your money.

In case you haven’t noticed, the banks, especially the ‘too big to fail’s, are in very big trouble right now. The central banks of the world are desperately trying to keep their ’empty shell’ system from crashing. They’ve used ZIRP (zero interest rate policies) and QE 1,2,3 (quantitative easing – printing money) since 2008 and now the gig is up. It has not worked… In fact it’s worse than ever before! They are now implementing negative interest rates in a desperate attempt to stay afloat!

It’s not here in the U.S. yet, but believe me it’s going to be floated.

Cash Ban
They have been on a determined mission (along with .gov) to demonize ‘cash’. Associating cash with ‘bad’ ‘dirty’ ‘suspicious’ transactions (terrorism, drugs, and other illicit activity). This will be their underlying rationale to swing over the sheeple to their side. I’m telling you as sure as I’m sitting here that if the system manages to stay afloat awhile longer (although not looking too good at all right now!), this WILL become a reality one day.

There are already measures in place between the banks and .gov whereby YOU will be under great suspicion when withdrawing any ‘significant’ amount of cash from your own account! They will also ‘flag’ you if you try to circumvent any single ‘significant’ amount by regularly withdrawing smaller amounts to get around it! Even though it is YOUR money, you will be flagged.

What are the ‘significant’ amounts? Most of us know that there’s an automatic stream of government paperwork for anything $10K and above, however the actual amount whereby a bank may notify .gov is MUCH LESS. It apparently is discretionary. Even if you handle a few grand, you may very well be flagged…

Track, Tax, and Confiscate
ALL electronic transactions are tracked. It enables a system of 100% profiling and a system of control. The track of your electronic debits is a signature of who you are, what you have bought, the implied reasons why you bought it, what you have done, what you will likely do, where you’ve been, when you’ve been there, your political leanings, the kind of person you are, your ‘normal’ history revealing any ‘abnormal’ activity, and so on…

CONTINUE: http://modernsurvivalblog.com/curren...hless-society/

Clamp Down on Cash Is the Ultimate Surveillance State
By Mac Slavo
March 7, 2016

The war on cash is more than just a currency war to clamp everyone down on the electric grid. It is also a war on your privacy, and the nail in the coffin for the free market of low level transactions.

Soon, restrictions on cash will become so severe that even spending $100 will arouse suspicion, despite the constant inflation on the value of such a denomination. One day, physical currency may become obsolete.

When that day comes, they will know everything you do.

Conducting transactions in anything but digital creds will be not only increasingly difficult, but seen as outright criminal behavior. It might even make you a terrorist.

Don Quijones argues on Wolf Street: There are two sides in the global war against cash. On one side are many of the world’s governments, central banks, fintech firms, banks, credit card companies, telecommunication behemoths, financial institutions, large retailers, etc. According to them, the days of physical currency are numbered, so why not pull the plug already, beginning with the largest denomination bills such as the $100-note and particularly the €500-note?

On the other side are people who like to use cash – most of whom, according to the dominant official narrative, are either criminals or terrorists. After all, they must have something to hide; otherwise, why would they use a private, untraceable (not to mention archaic, dirty, dangerous and unhygienic) form of payment like cash?

Although it may seem like a foregone conclusion, cash still accounts for a majority of transactions in many European countries, and still factors in significantly in the U.S., though use of cash is in decline.

Many leaders overseas are calling out the moves to kill cash – albeit in slow motion – as nothing more than an attempt to impose a police state where every transaction, every purchase and every activity is monitored and databased.

Likewise, the use of cash is linked with terrorists and criminals, every bit as much as using pagers was linked with drug dealers in the pre-cell phone days.

CONTINUE: http://www.activistpost.com/2016/03/...nce-state.html

Bundesbank Defies Elites: Warns That "Plans To Abolish, Criminalize Cash Out Of Line With Freedom"
by Tyler Durden
04/17/2016

With everyone from ivory tower academics to sin-street hookers proclaiming the need for and benefits of a "war on cash" to save the world from criminals and tax-evaders (oh yeah and to stop NIRP-driven savers from hording cash and crushing central planners' dreams), it is perhaps shocking that Bundesbank board member Carl-Ludwig Thiele warned at an event this week that the attempt to abolish and criminalize cash is out of line with freedom. He said that citizens should continue to decide how and in what form they want to use their money.

While Kyle Bass warned that "I think this is where the academics are kind of clashing with the practitioners. I think on paper negative rates make a lot of sense if you're running academic models, but in reality they make no sense. Having seven or eight trillion dollars of debt trading at negative rates, having thirty year JGB's trading at fifty basis points is absolutely ludicrous. This experiment that's going on we all know will end poorly at some point in time, I just don't know when that time is."

"I think that one of the fears that they have is a run on cash. If they told you and I that they're going to tax your deposits by a hundred basis points, well it's better to put it in a safe or under your mattress. And that's why you see a resurgence in gold. The more they move to negative rates, the more gold is gonna take off because there's no carrying cost."

Perhaps Buba's Thiele is more concerned about the longer-term social unrest that a war on cash will unleash - as opposed to the short-term monetary planners' "whatever it takes"-ism of today. As Martin Armstrong summarizes, Thiele’s main arguments were:

Every citizen has the right, with his money to proceed as he wants. If action is taken at this point in the right to freedom of the citizen, it must be well-grounded. And so the question arises: How does a cash limit restrict crime in other countries? Thiele said he was not aware of any support where a cash limit, such as Italy or France, prevents crime. Crime should be correspondingly lower than in countries with no upper limit on cash, but that is simply not the case.

The arguments that are made against cash and cash payments, are unconvincing, Thiele said. He went on to argue that cash protects the privacy of the population. That benefit is not a reason to twist into a benefit for criminal ignoring the majority of honest citizens. The right to informational self-determination and respect for private life is a valuable asset which should not be watered down or abandoned. “Cash is coined liberty” – this modified Dostoevsky quote has not lost any of its validity.

It is clear that Schaeuble (abolish EUR500 note), Draghi (ECB consider cash withdrawal limits), academics (abolish cash to save the people) and Japan (fingerprints as currency) - among many others - have an establishment enemy who prizes freedom over repression (perhaps ironic that this is from zee Germans then).

This is an odd position for 'the establishment' to be taking, as Charles Hugh-Smith recently explained:
Why are governments suddenly so keen to ban physical cash?
The answer appears to be that the banks and government authorities are anticipating bail-ins, steeply negative interest rates and hefty fees on cash, and they want to close any opening regular depositors might have to escape these forms of officially sanctioned theft. The escape mechanism from bail-ins and fees on cash deposits is physical cash, and hence the sudden flurry of calls to eliminate cash as a relic of a bygone age — that is, an age when commoners had some way to safeguard their money from bail-ins and bankers’ control.

Forcing Those With Cash To Spend or Gamble Their Cash
Negative interest rates (and fees on cash, which are equivalently punitive to savers) raise another question: why are governments suddenly obsessed with forcing owners of cash to either spend it or gamble it in the financial-market casinos?

The conventional answer voiced by Mr. Buiter is that recession and credit contraction result from households and enterprises hoarding cash instead of spending it. The solution to recession is thus to force all those stingy cash hoarders to spend their money.

CONTINUE: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-0...t-line-freedom

Money? If You Can't Hold It, You Don't Own It

I use cash all the time. Wouldn't economies slow without cash? It's the quickest transaction.

Am I looking for reason where there is only :crazy:?

A bit off topic but very interesting reading:

Why the S.E.C. Didn’t Hit Goldman Sachs Harder
By Jesse Eisinger
April 21, 2016

In the late summer of 2009, lawyers at the Securities and Exchange Commission were preparing to bring charges in what they expected would be their first big crackdown coming out of the financial crisis. The investigators had been looking into Goldman Sachs’s mortgage-securities business, and were preparing to take on the bank over a complex deal, known as Abacus, that it had arranged with a hedge fund. They believed that Goldman had committed securities violations in developing Abacus, and were ready to charge the firm.

James Kidney, a longtime S.E.C. lawyer, was assigned to take the completed investigation and bring the case to trial. Right away, something seemed amiss. He thought that the staff had assembled enough evidence to support charging individuals. At the very least, he felt, the agency should continue to investigate more senior executives at Goldman and John Paulson & Company, the hedge fund run by John Paulson that made about a billion dollars from the Abacus deal. In his view, the S.E.C. staff was worried about the effect the case would have on Wall Street executives, a fear that deepened when he read an e-mail from Reid Muoio, the head of the S.E.C.’s team looking into complex mortgage securities. Muoio, who had worked at the agency for years, told colleagues that he had seen the “devasting [sic] impact our little ol’ civil actions reap on real people more often than I care to remember. It is the least favorite part of the job. Most of our civil defendants are good people who have done one bad thing.” This attitude agitated Kidney, and he felt that it held his agency back from pursuing the people who made the decisions that led to the financial collapse.

While the S.E.C., as well as federal prosecutors, eventually wrenched billions of dollars from the big banks, a vexing question remains: Why did no top bankers go to prison? Some have pointed out that statutes weren’t strong enough in some areas and resources were scarce, and while there is truth in those arguments, subtler reasons were also at play. During a year spent researching for a book on this subject, I’ve come across case after case in which regulators were reluctant to use the laws and resources available to them. Members of the public don’t have a full sense of the issue, because they rarely get to see how such decisions are made inside government agencies.

Kidney was on the inside at a crucial moment. Now retired after decades of service to the S.E.C., Kidney recently provided me with a cache of internal documents and e-mails about the Abacus investigation. The agency holds the case up as a success, and in some ways it was: Goldman had to pay a five-hundred-and-fifty-million-dollar fine, and a low-ranking trader was found liable for violating securities laws. But the documents provided by Kidney show that S.E.C. officials considered and rejected a much broader case against Goldman and John Paulson & Company.

Kidney has criticized the S.E.C. publicly in the past, and the agency’s handling of the Abacus case has been previously described, most thoroughly in a piece by Susan Beck, in The American Lawyer, but the documents provided by Kidney offer new details about how the S.E.C. handled its case against Goldman. The S.E.C. declined to comment on the e-mails or the Abacus investigation, citing its policies not to comment on individual probes. In a recent interview with me, Muoio stood by the agency’s investigation and its case. “Results matter,” he said. “It was a clear win against a company and culpable individual. We put it to a jury and won.”

Kidney, for his part, came to believe that the big banks had “captured” his agency - that is, that the S.E.C., which is charged with keeping financial institutions in line, had become overly cautious to the point of cowardice.

The Abacus investigation traces to a moment in late 2006, when the hedge fund Paulson & Company asked Goldman to create an investment that would pay off if U.S. housing prices fell. Paulson was hoping to place a bet on what we now know as “the big short”: the notion that the real-estate market was inflated by an epic bubble and would soon collapse. To facilitate Paulson’s short position, Goldman created Abacus, an investment composed of what amounted to side bets on mortgage bonds. Abacus would pay off big if people began defaulting on their mortgages. Goldman marketed the investment to a bank in Germany that was willing to take the opposite side of the bet - that housing prices would remain stable. The bank, IKB, was cautious enough to ask that Goldman hire an independent asset manager to assemble the deal and look out for its interests.

This is where things got dodgy. Unbeknownst to IKB, Paulson & Company improved its odds of success by inducing the manager, a company called ACA Capital, to include the diciest possible housing bonds in the deal. Paulson wasn’t just betting on the horse race. The fund was secretly slipping Quaaludes to the favorite. ACA did not understand that Paulson was betting against the security. Goldman knew, but didn’t give either ACA or IKB the full picture. (For its part, Paulson & Company contended that ACA was free to reject its suggestions and said that it never misled anyone in the deal.)

CONTINUE: http://www.newyorker.com/business/cu...n-sachs-harder

CASHLESSNESS, CYBER-SECURITY, AI, AND INSANITY
May 25, 2017
By Joseph P. Farrell

Finally someone is saying it: the idea of a cashless society is nuts. No, not just nuts, it's insane. Of course, the plutocrats and technocrats that constitute "Mr. Globaloney," the "elite" of the west, will continue pushing the idea, but that only raises the issue of their sanity, not the wisdom or practicality of their ideas. We all know, of course, why Mr. Globaloney wants such a thing and the "selling points" used to advance it: it will cut down on crime, terrorism, everyone will be tracked and hence crime will not pay and the world will be a bright and sunny place of peace, happiness, and brotherhood being run by transnational corporations and peace-loving pro-humanity international banksters like the late David Rockefailure. The only thing it will mean is that the criminals will continue to hide their criminal activity, the banksters will continue to profit from it, and everyone else will be reduced to serfdom.

But there's a fly in Mr. Globaloney's ointment, and it's hinted at in this short article shared by Mr. V.T. and it raises issues I've raised before. But today, I want to throw something else into the high octane mix. In any case, here's the article:

Cyberattacks & the Vulnerability of a Cashless Society
by Martin Armstrong

The WannaCry ransom attack is actually variant from a February 2015 sample attributed to the Lazarus Group, a Kaspersky-tracked actor tied to the North Korean government. Parts of the code go beyond shared code. It appears to be written by the same programmer.

Let’s get something straight here. At the core of those responsible is really the NSA and Microsoft itself. The attack exploited a Windows networking protocol to spread within networks, and while Microsoft released a patch nearly two months ago, it’s become very clear that patch didn’t reach all users particularly because institutions often do not install patches fearing that proprietary software may not function.

If behind the curtain we have government demanding back-doors into iPhones and computer so they can listen to everything everywhere, well guess what – so can everyone else. Patches will work for individual users, but not major institutions. Trying to upgrade their operations is a real effort. They are slow to act and thus vulnerable.

The NSA was well aware of this little trick. The real answer is the NSA and FBI must do investigation the old fashion way. Stop asking for secret back-doors that never remain secret very long. The entire world will become vulnerable and they use to counterfeit an adversary’s currency to undermine their economy. Today, if we keep this nonsense up, they will hack into the entire thing and shut it down.

The idea of moving to a cashless society is just insane. Somebody has to give up something here. Trust me – the intelligence community will not take responsibility.
SOURCE: https://www.theburningplatform.com/2...hless-society/

Note carefully what Mr. Armstrong states, for it is a crucial point:

Let’s get something straight here. At the core of those responsible is really the NSA and Microsoft itself. The attack exploited a Windows networking protocol to spread within networks, and while Microsoft released a patch nearly two months ago, it’s become very clear that patch didn’t reach all users particularly because institutions often do not install patches fearing that proprietary software may not function.

If behind the curtain we have government demanding back-doors into iPhones and computer so they can listen to everything everywhere, well guess what – so can everyone else. Patches will work for individual users, but not major institutions. Trying to upgrade their operations is a real effort. They are slow to act and thus vulnerable.

In other words: (1) software is constantly having to be upgraded because (2) hackers and state and/or corporate and/or organizationally-sponsored cyber-warfare specialists are constantly probing various governments and institutions, which institutions are (3) slow to upgrade with patches lest their whole system go down.

The bottom line: no cyber-system of information exchange, including those of financial clearing, is safe. Indeed, a few years ago I blogged about cyber attacks on financial clearing houses and banks, where accounts were drained in milliseconds. The idea is not, of course, new, being the subject of movies and television series episodes (like Person of Interest), and of very real world stories. Recall, for a moment, that even the Federal Reserve has been hacked. Then there's Sony... on and on we could go. The bottom line is that in any proposed cashless society, everyone is exposed to a risk that they otherwise would not be exposed to, including Mr. Globaloney. As I've indicated in discussions with Catherine Austin Fitts and others, and as I have suggested in some of my books, one may be absolutely certain that Mr. Globaloney keeps hard copy records of his holdings - the stock certificates, the bonds, the liens, the mortgages, deeds, and so on, and yes, probably a pile of money - somewhere, and probably uses such hard copy as the actual basis of his dealings in my hypothesized "hidden system of finance."

SOURCE: https://gizadeathstar.com/2017/05/ca...y-ai-insanity/

Here is my view on cash and a cashless society. Personally - we currently live in a created fiscal paradigm so cash is essential. While we have cash, we can control, to a certain extent, how we live our lives. When every transaction is via waving a card at a small technological device - You become completely controlled. It's the same as the self service checkouts at some supermarkets. It is a complete control mechanism and many are falling straight into the 'trap' and they don't even realise.

Here is what may happen. Cash disappears and all transactions and medical records, everything connected to Your life will be contained within a microchip or series of microchips. I have a journal with an article that is based on a conversation with a member of the elite. The person who was directly connected to the elite stated very clearly that the plan is to remove cash and ensure that all Humans are connected to a 'microchip' system. Not just medical records and finances but right down to the front door of their home - all conducted with the microchip/wi-fi technology.

Here's what may happen. I like to use an example that brings the reality of the situation directly into the pre frontal cortex of anyone reading these words: Everyone is microchipped - via their physical body or their many plastic cards or their computer or the vehicle or their smart flatscreen television et cetera. One day the government states to everyone: We are overpopulated. Everyone has to kill their first born.

What will you do??? Just say no and think that by standing together the 99% will be able to stand up to the cabal/illuminati/whatever??? Anyone who does not comply with the directions of the government - will have their microchips turned off. No money, can't drive your car, can't even open the door to your home, no access to your medical records .... Think about this - visualise it in your mind. Consider what would happen. Take as long as you need to think about this. I shall endeavour to find the journal article that helped me understand what is happening and how it was planned well before we - here on this site and reading this post - were even a twinkle in someones eye and born onto this planet called Earth.


It is important to note that many many many members of our Global Society do not want to participate with regard to physically having a microchip implanted into their arm. So - the chips are now in the credit and debit cards and drivers licence et cetera.

I personally don't like cash but in our current paradigm we need it. Eventually as our Global Society enters the awakened state - fully - then the processes to change our current paradigm can be put into place. The journey 'Home' is a process - and - right now cash is an essential component of our survival. Eventually we can phase it out - but - as a Global Society who work together not by the cabal/illuminati/whatever - yes??

Much Respect & Much Peace - Amanda

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Amanda

[...]

Here is what may happen. Cash disappears and all transactions and medical records, everything connected to Your life will be contained within a microchip or series of microchips. I have a journal with an article that is based on a conversation with a member of the elite. The person who was directly connected to the elite stated very clearly that the plan is to remove cash and ensure that all Humans are connected to a 'microchip' system. Not just medical records and finances but right down to the front door of their home - all conducted with the microchip/wi-fi technology.

Here's what may happen. I like to use an example that brings the reality of the situation directly into the pre frontal cortex of anyone reading these words: Everyone is microchipped - via their physical body or their many plastic cards or their computer or the vehicle or their smart flatscreen television et cetera. One day the government states to everyone: We are overpopulated. Everyone has to kill their first born.

What will you do??? Just say no and think that by standing together the 99% will be able to stand up to the cabal/illuminati/whatever??? Anyone who does not comply with the directions of the government - will have their microchips turned off. No money, can't drive your car, can't even open the door to your home, no access to your medical records .... Think about this - visualise it in your mind. Consider what would happen. Take as long as you need to think about this. I shall endeavour to find the journal article that helped me understand what is happening and how it was planned well before we - here on this site and reading this post - were even a twinkle in someones eye and born onto this planet called Earth.

[...]

---

You are stating exactly what I have for years already been expecting to happen, Amanda.

Furthermore, I believe that this is also tangentially related to the whole "global warming" — my apologies, it must be called "climate disruption" now — hype, which was started by Al Gore after he lost the 2000 US elections to George W. Bush. Even Bill Clinton was already stating in the 1990s that Earth is getting overpopulated, and we all know that William Henry Gates III is a proponent of the sterilization of the citizens of third-world countries by way of vaccines.

With the "climate disruption" hype being linked to the emission of carbon dioxides — which, mind you, are by far not the most dangerous greenhouse gases in Earth's atmosphere, and make up for only 0.04% of the atmosphere, even — they can also tie this in with overpopulation, because human beings exhale carbon dioxide. As such, with enough spin and propaganda, the idea of depopulation will become acceptable in the minds of the sheeple.

The Powers That Be™ know that they can't control us by force, so their modus operandi has always been to have us play into their cards voluntarily, by manipulating and deceiving us. That's what all this propaganda is about, whether it's the promotion of chip implants and a cashless society or whether we're talking about (orchestrated) terrorist attacks.

http://users.telenet.be/stryder/Junk/corral.jpg

In the end, like you say, it's all about control. And the digitalizing of everything from finances over engine management systems to information itself — not that digital technology doesn't have its benefits, mind you — is providing The Powers That Be™ with more control over society.

A few years ago, it was even leaked out that the EU had held a secret meeting at which it was decided that all new vehicles must be equipped with a backdoor in their engine management systems by 2020, so that law enforcement would be able to remotely shut down the engine of any vehicle attempting to evade interception.

Just think of the internet itself — which started out as a US military computer network called ARPANET — and then think of all the cyber-weapons that were created by the CIA and the NSA, as has recently been brought into the public awareness by Wikileaks and by the hackers who call themselves "The Shadow Brokers". Furthermore, British Prime Minister Theresa May has just proposed the plan of controlling and censoring the internet in the West, as is already the case in countries like China and Turkey today.

The noose is tightening on all sides... :hmm:

Aragorn - You mention the vehicle 'chip' and the ability to remotely control a motor vehicle while a person is actually behind the wheel, as they say ....

In an episode of the British television show 'Spooks' the ability to remotely control a vehicle is clearly demonstrated. I refer to that as 'In Plain Sight' and when people learn to utilise their Lateral - Critical - Creative/Divergent thinking skills - they will start to understand why the world is the way it is ....

I always use the example of overpopulation and the killing of the first born because it is a powerful example. Makes people think even if they are only rousing and not quite ready to enter the awakened state.

I want to bring this message home and I want to make it as strong as I can: Even one person can change the course of what has been planned. No matter how bleak and dark and hopeless the situation appears - even one person can re-direct what is happening. I don't know his name but he is a part of my consciousness and I am deeply grateful for his actions - The Young Man who stood in front of the army tank in the Chinese public square. I owe it to him and what he so bravely did - to keep fighting the good fight.

Cash is still important but eventually we can live without it but under our terms - as a Global Society - not as an imposed and planned action by those who do not respect us or seek out our opinions and thoughts.

Much Respect - Amanda

War on Cash Proposals in Australia: Microchip Expiring $100 Bills, Forcing People to Keep Receipts
02 Aug 2017

Australia’s Black Economy Taskforce has come up with a list of 35 “consumer-focused” proposals to crack down on cash. The taskforce blames consumers for holding cash and for not getting receipts.

Michael Andrew, the head of the taskforce, proposes nanochips in $50 and $100 notes so the government knows where the cash is. Cash will expire after a designated period of time.

Australia’s Black Economy Taskforce has come up with a list of 35 “consumer-focused” proposals to crack down on cash. The taskforce blames consumers for holding cash and for not getting receipts.

Michael Andrew, the head of the taskforce, proposes nanochips in $50 and $100 notes so the government knows where the cash is. Cash will expire after a designated period of time.

Andrew believes “consumers are part of the problem”. He wants to punish people who pay in cash and don’t get a receipt.

A plan to strip consumers of their legal protections if they pay in cash and fail to get a receipt has been slammed as “completely unfair” by leading advocacy groups.

The proposal was one of 35 recommendations contained in the interim report from the federal government’s Black Economy Taskforce, which argued the need for “consumer-focused action” to crack down on cash payments.

According to Taskforce chair Michael Andrew, former global head of accounting firm KPMG and current chair of the Board of Taxation, while current anti-black economy laws focused on businesses, consumers are “part of the problem”.

“We intend to examine the merits of consumer focused sanctions, including the loss of consumer protections, warranties and legal rights for people who make cash payments without obtaining a valid receipt,” Mr. Andrew wrote. “This is not simply of matter of imposing new penalties, but part of a wider cultural change agenda.”

But he argued any new penalty regime “should be carefully calibrated”, with the strongest sanctions “applying to egregious behavior or repeat offenses”. “Lighter touch approaches (including ‘nudge’ techniques) will be more appropriate in many cases,” he wrote.

CONTINUE: https://mishtalk.com/2017/08/02/war-...keep-receipts/