This post was made in response to the individual the previous post was responding to: rather than consider my points they simply chose to call me crazy, certifiably insane and the usual disinteresting hysteria that the heteronomy likes to whip up when it can’t deal with being triangulated.

This was my response.

-well, that was rather unsurprising, resorting to verbal abuse and insult instead of considering the points I was making regarding fictions. Ad hominem attacks are always a winning go to for this kind of response, as are appeals to authorities (in this case ‘the govt’) and strawman deflections (ignoring the subject matter of my post by focusing on your own insistence about gold money rather than looking at and addressing the deeper fiction I was addressing).

I don’t need to resort to derogatory assertions about ‘sanity’ and insults about intelligence, I’ll simply point to some more history.

In response to your assertions regarding ‘providing SERVICE’ I’d like to direct your attention to Executive Order 6102, which I’m sure you’re familiar with. Given that the ‘service providing’ govt you reference made this order- and thus criminalised the possession of more than $100 in gold coin- I’m wondering how this sits in your particular observance of that only ‘fiat currency’ can be controlled by the banksters: are you suggesting that this order was *not* made because of global banking interests and demands? That would be an interesting assertion to substantiate.

 

Are you also suggesting that the current- or any future- government would *not* issue another such Order if it was told to, or considered it useful to do so? What happens to the gold money in this case? Are you going to hand it over as ordered and be ‘compensated’ the amount that the govt decides is ‘fair’? Or are you going to advocate that you’re not a citizen or any such thing and engage the authorities on this?

How is this engagement in general going for individuals? Are they winning in the courts? Are individuals managing to avoid being arrested, harassed, convicted by jury because the ‘jury’ don’t know who they are (as the recent case with Ed Tertelgt); are such individuals *not* being shot or experiencing other painful outcomes?

Who is in control here? The individual- or the agency the individual is relying on to protect their interests (in this specific case gold money)- an agency which has demonstrated repeatedly that it does not have the ‘interests’ of inhabitants at heart, including with attacks on its own population and orders such as 6102? What happens if the agency such individuals are relying on to maintain the gold money standard decides to screw them over like it did in 1933? Where is the remedy then?

Any individual is of course absolutely free to insist that the govt is honourable, that any remedy suggested by Chap. 48, 48 Stat. 112 does actually work, that gold money will continue to be honoured and available, that the ‘govt’ keeps its word, that only FRNs are bad, etc etc. History begs to differ, but then why bother paying attention to that? The govt such ones point to as being the guardians of their interests- like all other heteronomies- is one that has broken almost every treaty it’s ever made from the very beginning (it’s broken *all* the ones it made with the Native inhabitants of the invaded lands: with non-Native Americans, government only keeps its word while it profits them to do so); it violates its oaths, it lies through its teeth, it has no hesitation in poisoning the water, land and food of the inhabitants. Declaring oneself ‘not a citizen’ is not going to somehow create a magic bubble around the individual so that the airborne chemicals, the water borne toxins and biological agents aren’t going to get *them personally*, so I’m puzzled as to how any heteronomy based, external authority remedy is applied in any way that actually works.

There is a world of difference between looking for a partial remedy that serves the individual’s interests and looking for a remedy that *actually dissolves the heteronomy*. I have no interest in maintaining the status quo for personal gain, no matter how good I can make that position look.

The upshot of my observation regarding the perceived differences in fiction regarding ‘gold money’ and ‘FRNs':  neither is more ‘honourable’ than the other because both are built on *different* fictions that stem from the same foundational fictions;

neither is more reliable, both require an external authority and force to maintain the infrastructure upon which the illusion of soundness is maintained;

using one over the other does not incur any lesser or greater degree of ‘taintedness': only the *individual involved* can accept or decline ‘taintedness’ based on their own embodiment of their sui generis due to there being no ‘superior authority’ in sui generis;

(as an example of this acceptance or decline of taintedness: a government can ‘ban’ homosexual acts due to its own brand of morality by decreeing that heterosexual sex is ‘clean’ but homosexual sex is not: their declaration of such does not make it so. The creation of such ‘laws’ will not stop an individual *being* homosexual, loving members of the same sex, seeing this as beautiful and natural and that it is those who think they can ‘ban’ an emotion and way of Being that are actually deluded. Only the individual/s can accept or decline the ‘taintedness’ of their natural Being; only the individual can decide for themselves how they wish to proceed in the face of fiction.

To further clarify: the use of ‘gold money’ because gold is ‘real’ does not make the money real; the money is made real because *the dominant paradigm agrees this is so*. If you were to take your gold to a land where gold was of no importance would your money be ‘real’? No, it would not: ‘value’ and ‘worth’ are concepts that are entirely contextual. Would your insistence on the gold being valuable make it so to those individuals? No. This is again how the dominant invaders were able to take what they wanted, because the indigenous cultures did not have the same aquisitive, ownership based perspective that the invaders had; if the indigenous *did* protest (generally due to veneration of certain objects that were being appropriated) they were generally murdered.

Guns and force are NOT ‘proofs’ of the legitimacy of a fiction, they’re just the means by which individuals and groups enforce such fictions.)

At the very core of things, ALL money is based on a conversion of *planetary resources* into something else: does this mean that the core energy that has been transformed is itself transformed during the conversion? In my view, no: planetary energy is what fuels the entire ‘economy’- how ‘valuable’ will gold money be when there is no food? No drinkable water? No eco-system? There are examples even in the bible of how individuals were throwing their ‘valuables’ out into the street because the famine was so great- what matters gold when there’s nothing to buy with it?

This manipulation of resources is at the heart of the constant manipulation of the controllers, so that they’re always on the winning side: the side with the food, the water, the arable soil, the wealth of the planet pouring towards them constantly because individuals are willing to trade the sacred- the Life of all things- for the profane, the fictions.

Am I suggesting that individuals stop using any form of currency? Not at all. Do I advocate the cessation of using any form of remedy that one wishes to try? Absolutely not. What I *am* pointing to is that all such actions can only be at best temporary because the controlling authorities have the ability- and constantly demonstrate their willingness- to change rules, laws, the operation of courts, control money and its availability, shut banks, outlaw the possession of gold, the growing of food, the protesting against violation after violation- only while the individual believes that the controllers have this ability. 

Given that this is the case, does it not then behoove the intelligent and observant to discover what, if any, remedy *might* actually be more powerful than squeezing one’s eyes shut and wishing it to be so?

I am pointing out that only *I* can decide if using FRNs is some kind of pollution of my Being- which it isn’t. Only *I* can decide what does- and does not- taint me; just as the homosexual is not tainted by the declarations of others regarding their sexual orientation unless they believe the consensus opinion, I am not tainted by the declarations of manipulators who seek to devour an entire planet.

It is the nature of the individual’s belief in the right of another to dominate them by any means- including economically- that I am writing about, that I am pointing to with the idea of dissolving. Others are utterly free to do whatever they wish, think whatever they want, follow whatever path they feel is right for them.

The control paradigm operates on the fiction that it has the right to do these things because, at the heart of it, individuals support this domination through the wish to maintain *their* rights to dominate others as they desire or rationalise. This is why the entire control paradigm keeps going: individuals want to *keep believing* that they can OWN bits of the planet, they can OWN stuff, they can control *others* through the ‘ownership’ of this stuff, that they have the right to abuse, denigrate, belittle, humiliate, dismiss, ban through ‘law’ and ignore the experience and perspective of others- and they don’t want to shift from this perspective.

Do I care that they don’t want to shift? Not at all, because I have observed historically that the fiction of the heteronomy that this ownership fiction is based on is the path of extinction: it’s what is at the heart of the planetary environmental, social and spiritual crisis, but does the majority care about that? Not if it’s going to interfere with their fictional right to a prosperity that they’ve gotten used to or the ‘right’ to dominate and control others.

It doesn’t matter to me how much an individual wishes to heap scorn on my head for my perspectives, for observing and commenting on the fictions or for pointing out that the Emperor has no clothes; it doesn’t change my perspective, it doesn’t change the nature of fictions and it doesn’t make the Emperor any less naked.

~*~