Now, from the blockbuster piece, The Court That Rules the World:
Some on the left are proposing the elimination of currency bills larger than $10. This may seem like an insignificant matter, but if adopted, the proposal would be a giant step in the direction of totalitarianism.
By forcing Americans to use an electronic means of payment, government would gain the power to monitor and manipulate every aspect of one's finances. Washington would know what you buy, where and when you buy it, where you travel and eat, and whom you associate with. Granting government this kind of power is madness unless you're one of the political elite. They seem to be lining up in favor of a cashless society.
In a recent article, "The Sinister Side of Cash," Harvard economist Kenneth Rogoff argued the case for drastically reducing the supply of cash currency – eliminating all bills above $10 and thereby forcing consumers and businesses to rely on electronic exchange. Rogoff claims that his plan would reduce money-laundering and thereby reduce crime while at the same time exposing tax cheats who deal in cash payments.
As I see it, Rogoff's argument for a cashless society is nothing less than creepy. As Rogoff himself admits, eliminating the supply of cash would raise privacy issues since information about electronic transactions can easily be recorded and stored. Beyond that, the very "advantages" that Rogoff lists should be a matter of deep concern. Taken together, the potential for government abuse is practically unlimited.
Most importantly, there is the matter of privacy and the threat to our liberties posed by a cashless society. That's a topic that proponents of a cashless society are loath to examine. Maybe I have a legitimate reason for not wanting an electronic record of all of my transactions. Maybe my reason is not legit. It doesn't matter. I have the right to live my life free from government surveillance.
That right is guaranteed under the Fourth Amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated[.] "Papers, and effects" includes currency – and government has no right to force an accounting of those "effects" by eliminating a practical means of cash transactions.
Make no mistake: government will always abuse the powers citizens cede to it. Government has already stepped vastly beyond its constitutional limits. The Obama administration has not even made a pretense of constitutionality for many of its executive actions. The elimination of cash currency would be another large step, along with repeal of the Second Amendment, in the direction of totalitarianism.
Looking every bit like an aged matron who flew the convent coop during the aftermath of Vatican II (all Catholic readers of a certain age know exactlywhat I mean), Ms. Soros looks a bit peaked, though still quite fetching in her charcoal gray pantsuit.
I know that most people refer to George Soros as "Mr. Soros," but far be it from me to pigeonhole a public figure's gender identity, especially
After all, Soros has contributed millions of dollars to undo the very scientific binary understanding of sex and gender. So one must at least consider the possibility that deep down inside, there is something unseen by the rest of us that drives the
man person – some set of unresolved sexual identity issues – and this is no doubt why, now that Soros is well beyond eighty years old, his herxyr/hir/pers/vis/eir outward appearance is likewise becoming increasingly sexually ambiguous.
"Soros" is a rare palindrome, just like 666. It also happens to be a feminine noun found in Greek New Testament manuscripts meaning "an open coffin" or "receptacle for keeping the bones of the dead." Interesting. Many would agree that this is curiously, queerly fitting and that it explains a lot. A whole lot.
The only other twentieth-century
man person who has had as much of an impact on our culture and politics is Saul Alinsky. While Alinsky died 44 years ago, he has proven more influential – some would say more dangerous – sincehis death. Perhaps this is his postmortem reward for having dedicated his landmark work, Rules for Radicals, to Lucifer, aka Satan. Perhaps Alinsky has been afforded the opportunity to continue to have a hand in community organizing from beyond the grave? It's not unthinkable, but who really knows for sure how these things work?
This might also explain the unlikely durability of the candidacy of the unpopular Hillary Rodham Clinton, one of Alinksy's chief acolytes. And let's not forget: just as Damian Thorn had a huge multinational organization – Thorn Industries – behind his quest for the United States presidency, so too does Hillary Clinton have the Clinton Foundation and its Clinton Global Initiative. Sometimes truth is just as strange as fiction, and fiction can be an omen, a portent, a warning from the past of what is to come.
In a 1972, Playboy Magazine interview, Alinsky said: "[I]f there is an afterlife, and I have anything to say about it, I will unreservedly choose to go to hell[.] ... Hell would be heaven for me." That also explains a whole lot.
The links run deeper than anyone knows: Saul Alinsky, Hillary Clinton's lifelong hero, interviewed for Hugh Hefner's Playboy Magazine; Hefner enjoys wearing his PJs and bathrobe in public, as does Clinton.
Back to Soros:
Soros will soon leave behind a huge, beastly mark on our world via a massive scorched earth policy inflicted on civil society. But why? It's a head-scratcher. And the obliteration of gender is just one component among many in Soros's strategy.
What motivates a person to make this sort of vast anti-human quest one's life's goal? To purposefully leave a trail of societal destruction in the wake of one's life? It sure would be nice to know what has actually been driving Miss Sorosall these years.