In this post I show logic failures in the words of Judge Anna von Reitz, an esteemed thought leader in the Sovereignty Movement who has [correctly] identified the worship of money as idolatry but casually stated that money is crazy and believes that a wide basket of commodities is the solution to backing a good/fair currency. Money per se is morally neutral as it is simply a unit of measurement; and those who think things through correctly and fully must conclude that the removal of commodities or services as a backing of a currency is the best, true and biblical solution. Trust is the ultimate backer of any currency and money is necessary for any meaningful social engagement.
Anna von Reitz is a vocal and prolific thought leader in the Sovereignty Movement, primarily focused on the North American situation. Her journey of truthseeking, applying logic onto fact in her research into what really happened with the creation of Corporations following the US Civil War, and their various bankruptcies over the years since (1863, 1907, 1933 and more recently) has mirrored mine. Her discipline and areas of interest have been on different areas than mine, but it is the same elephant we blind researchers have been exploring – she’s just got the tail and I have the trunk, or visa versa!
First, Anna says:
I don’t believe in money – I never have. To me it’s a ridiculous concept. It’s just absolutely stupid – Give me this little piece of metal stamped with something on it and tell me that that’s worth 3 bushels of wheat – Yeah right, to who, why, how? This makes no sense …
I think that what Anna is thinking and saying is not rightly aligned. I say this because she uses money herself (she mentions buying petrol elsewhere); she has a logical mind thus this failure in logic and apparent hypocrisy needs amplification to understand her concerns properly, and her solution shows a lack of depth to her analysis.
Anna is a Christian speaking to Christian interviewers and brings her faith into her analysis, shortly discussing idolatry. Anna drives and trades with others herself thus she uses money. Money of some sort then is clearly necessary. What she is saying is explained later on but I think she is making the point that gold, or silver, or a peanut, or a piece of paper in and of itself it not the item of value. Thus her words here are not logical. They are emotionally based.
Now the second area of logical failure is that a piece of gold or paper with a unit on it is determined to be worth something FOR Anna BY somebody else. This is not the case in practice nor in theory. The critical thing is to determine who and how that measurement of value is made. If it is done by the same people who issue the currency and who control the backing of the currency then you can be dead sure that corruption will occur as the conflict of interest outworks. Think gold-backing of the USD and the ask yourself who controls that gold. Please don’t ask who owns the gold-mines if you want to minimise any conspiracy talk, but you can guess the answers to both questions!
In the real world, it is only ever traders that determine the value of a unit of measurement. As a trader it is me who determines if my [hypothetical] pound of apples is worth one fish or two fish and if say one ounce of gold is worth my car, or even 1,000 hours of my labour as a chippie.
If I am really thirsty and I’m totally out of juice, I’ll gladly pay a high price for a liquid refreshment from a local store. On any other day, I’ll take a swig from a jar of water that I got free from the tap, thank you very much! The point is that I am the one who assesses the value to me of the currency and at the point of decision too. Nobody tells me what something is worth to me.
When money is seen what it truly is (a unit of measurement like a litre or metre) then we can apply that knowledge into our own trading situation and ‘spend our penny’ or not. Money is a measurement of a half completed transaction. Nothing more. Nothing less.
Now Anna and I agree on the next topic. She gets right into the big error, one that I highlight in my book Mistakes of the Monetary Reformers, the error of considering money (which is simply a measurement of debt), as a commodity, which it is NOT!
All debts (thus coins or money) have a debtor AND a creditor, and as Anna rightly points out, ignoring the fact that there is a creditor associated with every Dollar, Yen or Euro permits deception and enslavement. More on this in a minute.
I call it idolatry because what is people don’t have the sophistication and the discernment to make a distinction between a symbol of value and actual value. Whatever that’s being used as the symbol of value becomes synonymous with the actual value in their minds. And that’s a logic mistake of MAJOR PROPORTIONS that then offers the opportunity for flim flam artists and conmen to come in and profit for themselves
Yes! Yes! and Yes, Anna! BTW, the emphasis in full caps was hers.
Anna knows by sense that there is something wrong here and that crooks are afoot. This is her style, to sense that something is wrong, then to investigate it using logic to validate her intuition. BTW, this is much more the feminine way; to sense something wrong first. My masculine approach is to bring logic into a situation first, then get all upset as a result of my research that shows me that I’ve been fooled, and usually for so long too!
So for those new to my blogging and publishing, the essence of the money thing is that “True Money” is morally neutral. Money is simply a record of a partially completed transaction. The government uses our vote to gain our authority as citizens to give our Reserve Bank (the Federal Reserve in the USA, or the Reserve Bank of whatever country we are operating in) the capacity to issue coinage which is then loaned at interest to the retail banks then to us as individuals (again at interest) to use for the payment of taxes and/or among ourselves in trade – buying goods, services etc. That Dollar has been issued to us but the government owes it back to the Reserve Bank with interest of course.
Now there are a hundred scams for as many people as are out there in the financial word and Anna’s words, “flim flam artists and conmen” are her style. She also calls them rats, vermin and similar elsewhere. The primary enslavement does not come from the debt owed though, it comes from the charging of interest. IMHO, this is where Michael Hoffman and Anthony Migchells stand head and shoulders above the rest of us in their understanding and sharing of usury being an ungodly enslavement technique.
Let’s get practical then. In Samoa, when I caught a bus into town I gave a $2 coin to the driver in return for the service. I got that coin by providing value to someone previously. He takes that coin happily because he knows that he can spend it somewhere else to get value. In the end of the cycle that coin (or Dollar note) goes back to the issuer and (except for interest) the original debt is erased and the coin/note becomes valueless. Why? Because the transaction is completed. Thus the coin represents a measurement of debt. That debt may be transferred to or from others in a range of ways and sometimes for a VERY long time but at all times it can be and should always correctly be seen as simply a measurement of a half completed transaction.
The deception comes when (as Anna is so right to point out) the unit of measurement becomes perceived as the commodity itself.
I keep encountering people who can’t think and because they can’t think they can’t feel, and because they can’t feel they can’t properly value anything, and this is a scary, gigantic problem worldwide.
Agreed, but this is a big tricky issue to grapple with. And it’s also the reason that I constantly encourage people through my writing to engage brain – to apply sound logic onto fact, for that’s from where truth comes!
Now comes the real tricky one where Anna loses it because she hasn’t carried her thinking all the way . . . the backing of a currency. Her solution is to find an answer to this issue (or problem) by widening the backing of a true (or good) currency further than one substance (such as gold) to include a basket of products or services. This is not only impractical, indeed impossible, it is also the opposite to where the real solution lies. Let’s hear again from Anna in her own words before I explain why the solution to this backing problem is a lot narrower. Following the above condemnation of money per se, but probably not well elucidated, she was asked this question:
How do you do commerce without money?
Her reply detailed the obvious problems with pride & greed:
We’ve only had one quasi-successful monetary system in the history of the world and that was based on precious metals but the problem with that is that people mistake the symbol of value for the value and whatever we choose, whether it is gold, silver or peanuts is the standard of value – whatever the commodity you choose to establish that benchmark against is going to be subject to hoarding and manipulation of all kinds, and counterfeit ting and blah,blah, blah … whoever has the commodity is going to dominate and control and benefit and everybody else is going to suffer So it doesn’t matter whether it is OPEC with the oil or it’s the Queen of England with the gold … it doesn’t matter as long as it is based on a commodity or even a basket of commodities this is the kind of runaround that we get
And we also have the problem of elasticity … these problems accrue when the need for a medium of exchange exceeds the supply of that … fiat currency is elastic; you can print more of it to meet the demands of the marketplace … I think all of this is crazy. …
Now she comes to her solution, the one I take issue with and the reason for this post:
The only way you can have a ‘possibly’ honest system [currency] is to include the value of ALL commodities and ALL labour and ALL natural resources; roll it up in one big wad …
No Anna, No! This is not possible. Both practically and conceptually the concept of a commodity backing a currency will always (as you admit) create opportunity for crooks to manipulate and benefit!
… if you’re a producer of a commodity then you have an unfair advantage in the commodity markets but it doesn’t matter what commodity it is because …
So Anna, you should NOT have a commodity as the backing of a currency. I’ve already detailed my thinking on this one in my book and blogging.
In order to have a world that’s thriving and healthy and everybody has what they need and you don’t have poverty, starvation and disease and all the miseries that we currently have is if everybody can bring something to the marketplace and be a producer. So if we would set up a system where all these elements that we trade were in a ‘basket’ of commodities including labour [indeciperable] then we could have an honest currency. Until we do that we’re going to have [trouble].
I have an enormous respect for Anna, but on this topic of backing a currency, she’s out of her depth. The best way to understand this issue of how to back a true currency is to look at a hypothetical real-life situation and analyse what actually happens in a trade, then the best solution will come to us, naturally and logically.
To spill the beans though up front, all currencies are ultimately backed by individual trust. We trust that a USD, or an ounce of gold, or a peanut will be worth what we think it will be BEFORE we exchange our goods for it. Trust then, is the ultimate backer of any currency. It doesn’t matter if I trade in apples, my time, or indeed even my soul, I always trust that the currency I accept is “good for it”.
If I don’t trust that the fisherman isn’t selling me rotten fish from yesterday’s catch, I won’t give him my pound of apples. If I don’t trust that the USD that I’m offered to build a house will be worth my time, then before I start, I will ask for something else in payment, like a gold or silver coin or a car, or boat or something that I need or want. Likewise it even applies to the selling of our soul – if I don’t trust that the issuer of the IOU, or promissory note (Jesus) is good for it, then I will not buy what He’s offering. In a Christian context, I believe that He is indeed good for it and any worth that I gain by investing into His program will indeed be worth it. Same thing – It doesn’t matter what others say or think – it’s my individual trust and only at the time of the trade.
The key phrase is here then, repeated:
It’s always trust that I as a trader determine AT THE TIME OF THE TRADE, which backs a currency.
Nothing in the world will convince me that a pound of good, edible apples from my own orchard is worth a rotten fish. Same thing with that house-build if I know that the USD will be worthless next week. Same thing with any spiritual temptation – In my books God is good and cannot be mocked thus I ‘trade’ with Him.
The other thing is that we always tend to expect a balance or symmetry between countries, times or places whereas the world is not like that in reality. Gold to the Incas meant something different to the Spanish. Water in a desert has a different meaning to those living in the tropics. Food in summer has a different value in the winter and a bed-night at the Hilton in Sydney has a commercial difference to that of a thatched hut on my plantation in Samoa. It’s simply not the job of the issuer nor designer of a currency to determine how traders use it nor how they will value it. The measurement called a metre or a mile has ZERO influence on the building of a road. A true currency can never and should never address social issues.
Now the difficulty for Anna’s solution is that I may know all about apples, building and the Master but if the other dude I want to trade with knows nothing about any of these things, she’s got a bigger problem. If say, she wants her Muslim doctor who has always lived in a high-rise and thinks that apples grow on the supermarket shelves wants me to build him a house, or feed his family with my apples, then she’s got to find someone we can both trust. She’s now back to the same problem that has already been solved by the elite – enter the Central banking cabal!
So here’s the problem boiled down . . . from where does the assessment of the backing come from? The trader. When does it occur? At the point of the trade. That’s all!
Got It now?
So let’s go a little step further backward, away from technology and global things into the real world a long time ago before the Internet and globalisation. Let’s go before to the Garden of Eden and before greed and pride took their toll. If Adam and Eve had had a big family and had populated the world and there was a unit of measurement of value introduced for global use by agreement – it could measure value of ANYTHING you wanted but let’s use a day’s wages as our example. If you get one, call it say, a denarius for a day’s wages, what will that be backed by?
Individual trust that the person issuing the denarius will be good for it.
Remind you of anything from the Master?
When you consider money to be simply a unit of measurement and that it is therefore always a measurement of a half completed transaction; and that backing is always a matter of personal trust in the issuer of any coinage, note, or currency, then you have the correct picture emerging of the future of money. Individual currencies, each with their own backing, right down to an individual, trader to trader. That’s the future. Technology can help us but it is not the solution. Understanding the truth will though.
The best example where you can see the impact of this future currency backing is the perceived value of Social Media digital credits. In New Zealand we have an eBay equivalent TradeMe. I seek to obtain goods on that website from those who have shown their trustworthiness from a reasonable volume of previous traders. While not a currency that is converted into goods in a loyalty scheme, there is perceived value in our TradeMe credit score akin to the Word-of-Mouth situation in a small town setting years ago.
This is how a good currency will be backed by personal trust in the future. We will all have our personal trust that backs our own currency. All that awaits is a universal measurement system for value, like a litre, metre, yard, inch, kilogram, kilometre or mile is currently for distance, volume or weight. The elite though will do all in their power to retain control over this second to last area of deception.
My design of the perfect trader’s currency is a Club Credit, which is based on what they call in the accommodation industry a “bed-night”, but it could be anything. In the example above I used a denarius used for a day’s wages.
The true understanding of money as explained above is a door that opens a world of limitless opportunity. Apart from the primary question in life (the one that Jesus asked of His people about His identity) I consider this topic of the true nature of money to be the most important subject to study and to engage with.
What would or could you do if you were free from the obligations of paying interest; or the access to credit limited only by your genuine capacity to produce; or your freedom from the multiple pressures of a mundane or dysfunctional life on a treadmill that allowed you to live to your natural capacity?
Thank you for swinging by again today. I trust it was worth your while to read!