OK, so here's my random thought of the day...

There's a move afoot to prohibit a central bank digital dollar from ever being issued by the Fed - without "authorization" that is - according to this article shared by E.G.(with our thanks):

US lawmakers advance legislation blocking the digital dollar

When I read this article (the first time) I thought, "Well, that's good, someone out there realizes what Catherine Fitts and many others including yours truly have been warning about: a central bank digital currency is too easy to couple to a social engineering  system, and affords no privacy. It's a sure, certain, and swift route to slavery and feudalism, and it's nothing but a corporate coupon. It's a method to prohibit wealth accumulation much less passing it along, because a wholly digital 'currency' could be made with an 'expiration' date. Use it or loose it." And so on. Yet, reading it, I had to admit that something about the article gnawed away at me.  Something was missing. So I re-read it...

See if you can spot it, for here's the article in full:

The United States House Financial Services Committee is moving forward with legislation aimed at preventing the issuance of a central bank digital currency.

According to an announcement from chairman Patrick McHenry, the committee will mark up two bills about a potential digital dollar on Sept. 20. Markups are sessions in which lawmakers discuss the details of a bill. It is a crucial step before legislation moves to the House floor.

One of the bills is the Digital Dollar Pilot Prevention Act, or H.R. 3712, which prohibits the Federal Reserve from initiating pilot programs to test CBDCs without approval from Congress.​​ The legislation was introduced by Representative Alex Mooney in May.

The Fed recently denied any decision on whether to issue a CBDC, claiming it “would only proceed with the issuance of a CBDC with an authorizing law.” However, the Federal Reserve of San Francisco has sought to fill technical positions for a CBDC project over the past few months, indicating that the digital dollar remains on the table.

The second legislation is an amendment to the Federal Reserve Act prohibiting Fed banks from offering certain products or services directly to an individual, along with prohibiting the use of CBDCs for monetary policy and for other purposes.

"A Federal reserve bank shall not offer a central bank digital currency, or any digital asset that is substantially similar under any other name or label, indirectly to an individual through a financial institution or other intermediary," reads the bill.

The prospect of a digital dollar has stirred controversy in the United States. Presidential candidates Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Ron DeSantis have spoken out against the establishment of a CBDC in the country, citing financial privacy concerns. Supporters of CBDCs claim it would help the United States to keep the dollar’s global relevance, as well as boost cryptocurrency adoption. (Emphasis added)

I imagine that regular readers of this website can easily spot all the openings in the laws as summarized or quoted in the article: the language is so loose and leaves such big holes that they're big enough to drive a panzerarmee through.  Besides that, something tells me that those countries which still value real production from real factories, real mines, real wells, and real power plants are not going to be too swayed by keeping a dollar "relevant" by making it represent none of those things and backed by... well, by what, exactly? What does the USA make besides endless wars, lots of GMO "food-like products" (to cite the contemporary labeling conventions), and dubious financial "instruments"? With the BRICS nations continuing to talk about a gold-backed currency (even though not one of them is talking about that all-important issue of convertbility), something tells me they're not going to be too impressed with a "relevant dollar" just because it's digital, and subject to all the problems that corporate coupons have, including expiration dates. Lesson number one: corporate coupons always have expiration dates. Lesson number two: anything with an expiration date is not a currency, because currencies are supposed to be relatively stable stores of value (hence the whole idea of bullion as a backing for currencies, but I digress).

Certainly I find myself in strong agreement with Mr. Kennedy and Mr. DeSantis: digital currencies are a privacy nightmare, and in a country with an out of control, lawless, and completely insane goobernment like the USSA, even more so.

But my concern isn't privacy, nor the inherent danger that a digital "currency" is a ticket to perpetual slavery and the impossibility of any wealth accumulation via a corporate coupon with an expiration "use by" date, my concern is something else entirely, something that no one seems to be addressing, and probably for very good reason: what is the constitutionality of a digital currency?

I rather suspect it's next to nil, because how does one "make" and "coin" something digital? Granted, some digital "currencies" might have the world "coin" in their names, but the word "coin" in that instance would seem to invoke the same sort of word-twisting alchemy used by the supreme court in some landmark money cases. Consider, for example, the following "explanation" of some Supreme Court cases involving Article I, Section 8, Clause 5, concerning the coinage and currency power of the Congress:

The Supreme Court has also held that the power to coin money imports authority to maintain such coinage as a medium of exchange at home, and to forbid its diversion to other uses by defacement, melting, or exportation.9 Consistent with this power, Congress may require holders of gold coin or gold certificates to surrender them in exchange for other currency not redeemable in gold. The Supreme Court denied recovery to a plaintiff who sought payment for gold coin and certificates thus surrendered in an amount measured by the higher market value of gold on the ground that the plaintiff had not proved that he would suffer any actual loss by being compelled to accept an equivalent amount of other currency.(

So what's going on? How many silver certificates did Franklin Delano have to swap for all those gold coins and gold certificates? Gold certificates are no longer convertible into gold, but into silver certificates (which also eventually were no longer convertible?) For those recalling my books The Financial Vipers of Venice, or Babylon's Banksters, that gold-to-silver ratio can be a bit tricky, or was the stated convertibility already a moot point, if the ambiguity implied by the above paragraph is any indicator ... In any case, I can see at least some clever attorneys arguing that a "digital central bank currency" would constitute a modern technological method of "diversion to other uses by defacement, melting, or exportation," as even, perhaps, a bit of "electronic annihilation," and therefore perforce, criminally unconstitutional.

However, a little before that, we read this in the "explanation":

Inasmuch as every contract for the payment of money, simply, is necessarily subject to the constitutional power of the government over the currency, whatever that power may be, and the obligation of the parties is, therefore, assumed with reference to that power,7 the Supreme Court sustained the power of Congress to make Treasury notes legal tender in satisfaction of antecedent debts.

If you're sensing a whole lot of confusion and contradiction between this statement and the one cited above, join the club.

Do you, dear reader, sense the same "double legal standard" in these excerpts that I sense? Do we have in these epitomes of Supreme Court decisions the same two-tiered system of law regarding money itself, nakedly preserved for all to see because of stare decisis?

My point is this: before we start talking about central bank digital currency, especially in this country with such a dubiously scrambled legal track record,  we'd better have a very clear idea of what constituted "money" for the founding fathers, and question number one in this "back to basics" program has to be "if the Supreme court sustained the power of Congress to make 'Treasury notes' legal tender in satisfaction of antecedent debts" then (1) why did we even need monetized debt as money or a Federal Reserve (or even a First Bank of the United States?) with its worthless monetized debt federal reserve "notes" to begin with? and (2) what is the relationship of bullion to such a concept of money as a Treasury note?"

...just some random thoughts...

... and why do I keep hearing Andrew Jackson over and over in my mind, "You (The Second Bank of the United States) are a brood of vipers, and I will root you out"... and "Martin(Van Buren)... they are trying to kill me..."

...See you on the flip side...




Posted in

Joseph P. Farrell

Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and "strange stuff". His book The Giza DeathStar, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into "alternative history and science".

No Comments

  1. johnycomelately on September 26, 2023 at 10:42 pm

    I wonder how under CBDCs a parent is going to give money to their child for the tooth fairy or how is a Nanna going to slip 50 dollars in a birthday card. lol

    I can imagine an underground anonymous exchange mechanism being developed, of course precious metals being the only suitable mechanism of anonymous exchange.

  2. FiatLux on September 25, 2023 at 11:19 pm

    Just to enumerate a few of the holes in the (proposed) legislation, as presented above:
    1) Congress could still authorize a CBDC;
    2) private commercial banks could issue CBDCs;
    3) the Treasury could issue the equivalent of a CBDC;
    4) an executive order could promulgate the equivalent of a CBDC.

    • manhattan on October 11, 2023 at 3:01 am

      Very funny enumeration since you could see how they positioned their argument to hide the facts. You saw right through it.

  3. marcos toledo on September 25, 2023 at 7:12 pm

    One should not be surprised when Donald Trump entered the Whitehouse he put up a picture of Andrew Jackson on the wall of his office. He was making a clear statement with this action.

    • Sandygirl on September 26, 2023 at 11:09 am

      Marcos, I sent you a message, in case you didn’t see it.

  4. Barbara on September 25, 2023 at 3:02 pm

    It looks to me that somebody in Congress finally got some courage, and tries to end the fiasco of 1913 Fed running the money schemes in this country. Problem is that SCOTUS, is still captured by these forces, and in a future, most likely will side with feds if in doubt.

  5. CaireannW on September 25, 2023 at 11:11 am

    Do you feel it yet … that “all of this … all of these kinds of political machinations” is only a fight between factions over who is going to own your butt? I feel like meat on the table or the auction block. How does a practically powerless individual continue to be a law-abiding citizen? What is our responsibility to a corrupt political and financial system? Is our responsibility to a political and financial system or to the corporations that are in league with them the same as our responsibility to other people? What do we do when our only vehicle, elections, has been hijacked? How do we maintain and reconcile our ethics when the odds are corruptly stacked against us? Without meaningful money – coins that have intrinsic value of their own – gold, silver, quality jewels or something that I produce that others need … I’m just borrowing at the company store which only serves to keep me enslaved to a corrupt system. I’m not looking forward to the dollar failing and all that comes with that — but, could it be that this is precisely what is needed? The humbling of the USA is going to be a fierce sight with all the bridge burning that has been occurring over the past decades. We’ll be lucky to find any friendly faces in the global crowd – only those smiling because they’re being approached by representative of the USSA with their hat in hand. But, it’s okay because when things get bad enough – and they probably will – then those sleeping masses will awaken and we only have power in our numbers. Even if they manage depopulation (See JF’s last Tidbits post) … we’ll still out number them and those that survive will be our strongest and will have nothing to lose and much to gain.

    • manhattan on October 11, 2023 at 3:12 am

      We are entering an era of individual disobedience. If we comply, there will only be more demands to comply. It will be endless. And we will have to act alone. It will take incredible courage, I am aware. It will be a time where we find out who we are and what we’re truly made of. It could also be a time when we come to the aid of others and be a force for good. I like the concept that “fear” is mind control. I find it a useful perspective.

  6. Scarmoge on September 25, 2023 at 7:15 am

    …HaHaHaHaHa … OMG! … does anyone really think there’s a “problem” here? When was the last time, in recent memory, that it has appeared that anyone in “public service” above the level of County Dogcatcher has been concerned with any behavior possibly being “criminally unconstitutional”? To paraphrase a “recent memory”, that incredible whooshing you’re currently experiencing is this country circling the drain,

Help the Community Grow

Please understand a donation is a gift and does not confer membership or license to audiobooks. To become a paid member, visit member registration.

Upcoming Events