It is a truism that people are more inclined to accept something they don't like if it comes from someone they consider to be a friend.

Or at least not an enemy.

Will people who like and trust Trump be more accepting of digital money if it comes from Donald Trump?

Trump has said things that suggest he likes the idea of digital money and he has teamed up with Elon Musk, who also likes it. Elon Musk also likes grift, though he now acts as if he doesn't. Probably because he's already gotten his grift to the tune of many billions - so what's the loss of that $7,500 per device tax-kickback grift?

He also says he likes free speech but we know he likes shekels more, having agreed to suppress the speech of people in Brazil that the Marxist thugs-in-charge demanded be suppressed. It is also true that "X" - the new name for the speech suppression platform formerly known as Twitter - continues to marginalize the reach of people whose speech triggers the algorithms that still control what people are allowed to see.

You are, of course, free to post whatever you like.

Digital money would work similarly. You'd be allowed to possess it - in the sense that your device (which is already under their control) could be used to purchase things, with them knowing every detail of each transaction, down to the digital penny. And them having the ability to control what you're allowed to spend - and on what. All of that controlled by an algorithm that determines what you're allowed to spend - and on what - so long as you are obedient.

Perhaps according to the size of your carbon footprint.


It is worth a mention here that Elon Musk has stated publicly that he favors a tax on "carbon," which you ought to understand means a tax on consumption. If you have consumed too much energy this month - them deciding how much is enough - next month your digital money will not be available to buy more.

See how that works?

Or - rather - how it could work?


Imagine how it could work during the next "pandemic," i.e., the next contrived mass-panic event that will be far more effective than the last one if money is digitized because it will be much harder to question let alone defy the "guidelines" and "mandates" emanating from the government-corporate tag team, which craves nothing more than total compliance for the sake of total control.

During the last manufactured mass-panic event, they had much less control, which is why the "pandemic" did not last forever.

One could easily ignore their "guidelines" and "mandates" because the engineers of the mass panic didn't yet have control over our ability to buy life-necessities using cash money. They tried mightily to frame cash money as "dirty," pushing what was styled (and continues to be styled) contactless transactions. Just wave your device - i.e., your "smart" phone - at another device and pay that way.

It so much safer. So much more convenient.

Indeed, it is. For them.

Cash money is fundamentally out of their control. You have it in your physical possession but no one knows it is in your possession. It cannot be taken away from you absent physically taking it away from you - and that requires the sort of overt thuggery that cannot be soft-sold as some other thing. People tend to resist being physically relieved of the money they have.

Much more relevant - as regards thuggery - is that cash money is anonymous money. More finely, it allows anonymous transactions. The government-corporate tag team does not know, as a for-instance, that the country store down the road allowed you to buy food from the owner of the store - whom you know and who is willing to accept cash - even though you are not wearing what they styled "your" mask. Even though you have not presented - via your device - proof that you have been "vaccinated."

That kind of mutual defiance of thuggery becomes much more difficult when the only money is digital money and those in control of it can fine-tune and micromanage every transaction as well as know about each one in real time.

It is all very creepy.

So also the opacity of digital money. The fact that no one can explain in simple terms the source of its value and no one seems to know who is behind it suggests that whoever or whatever is may not have our best interests in mind.

Donald Trump, perhaps.

The narrative accepted by many is that he won the late election because he was able to overcome the cheat many suspected occurred last time. Maybe so. I certainly hope so. Because the alternative explanation - that he was allowed to win, in order to quiet down the growing outrage over election processes (and results) that smelled very fishy to many - and to further what's been started by quieting down what otherwise might have been firm opposition to it is creepier than discovering that late Queen of England really was a shape-shifting reptile, per David Icke.

Is Trump?

Were the factors that facilitated the cheat last time really absent this time? How did Trump expect to win this time if he believed he really won last time?

Keeping in mind Trump was also the one who declared - but never ended - the "emergency" that legally empowered the pushing of drugs on people, a crime he has yet to atone for.

But if he was allowed - if he was anointed - to win the late election because it has been decided he's the one - a "businessman"! - to sell digital money to the people as he tried to sell "vaccines" to the people, it will be a crime without precedent because it will enable the ultimate crime: The total subjection of formerly free (or at least, sort-of free) people by establishing an invisible but inescapable digital-financial panopticon in which everything we're allowed to do is under their control because they will have control over everything we're allowed to do.

Staying alert is important.

Most especially when you believe you're safe.
Source link