patrick.net

A good example of a guy that would not have survived in historical China is Roy Larner, who would be considered just a soccer lout except for the fact that he fought back against Muslim terrorists armed with knives:

We’ve seen government’s freeze peoples assets if they went against the lockdown nonsense. We’ve seen companies like PayPal do the same.

How long will it be before people get their assets frozen because they don’t go along with the LGBTQ+ agenda? Or if they say the ‘wrong thing’ about mass immigration?

We are hurtling towards a Chinese-style social credit system whereby good citizens are allowed to receive money and bad ones have it taken off them. It quite literally buys compliance, it buys silence, it buys obedience, it buys…control.

I don’t want to live in a society where you’re one wrong word away from being bankrupt. And I dare say you don’t either.

But this campaign isn’t just about stopping the asphyxiating hand of totalitarian tyranny, it’s also about standing up for the rights of the marginalised.

Cash is a lifeline for the elderly. Many older people struggle with online banking. ...

What about people in rural communities with poor broadband or mobile connectivity? Cash can keep struggling rural communities going, the cogs of the local economy turning, and going digital will put a big spoke in the wheel.

What about the homeless? They survive on people walking past and giving them a bit of spare change, maybe even a note if they’re lucky. If we’re all walking around with digital wallets then what happens to them? Do they just starve or freeze on the streets?

What about the homeless? They survive on people walking past and giving them a bit of spare change, maybe even a note if they’re lucky. If we’re all walking around with digital wallets then what happens to them?

Banks trying to drive cash out of society, warns Nigel Farage

Former Ukip leader says he would welcome Royal Commission into sector, with more than 1,000 bank accounts a day being shut

The way I understand it:

If you have a debt, the store has to take cash. Says so right on the cash, valid for all debts.

But they can refuse to take cash before you incur a debt.

So if you eat at a restaurant, you can in theory always pay cash at the end, because you have a debt.

But if you try to buy something at a cafe, they can refuse cash because you don't have the debt yet.

Good sentiment, but two ironies:
1. The rich have more "ballots" and can out vote you.
2. The gov can take your "ballots" (taxes) and cast those votes how they like.

I suspect that favored businesses don't care about boycotts because somehow unlimited newly printed money is directed their way.

HeadSet says

Good sentiment, but two ironies:
1. The rich have more "ballots" and can out vote you.
2. The gov can take your "ballots" (taxes) and cast those votes how they like.

Both true.

I suspect that favored businesses don't care about boycotts because somehow unlimited newly printed money is directed their way.

They hypnotized us with the Beefy Crunch Burrito and other drive-thru Mexican delicacies, and now they're guiding us into the new globalist nightmare through cashless restaurants.

During an earnings call earlier this month, parent company Yum! Brands, Inc. addressed plans to eventually move to 100% digital sales at its restaurants.

This includes fast food chains like Taco Bell, Pizza Hut, and KFC.

If you're going to switch us off a cash-based society, this is the way to do it.

Just four weeks ago, I reported how a prediction by Australian “conspiracy theorists,” falsely debunked by the press, became reality in just three months.

That story was about certain Australians who predicted that the government would move their country to become a “cashless society.” Those people were soundly debunked and called crazy right-wing conspiracy theorists by the Australian press. Then, three months later, the Australian government decided to move towards a cashless society, indeed.




At the time, I thought that three months from a conspiracy theory being debunked to the same theory coming true was fast.

Boy, was I wrong! Australia just outdid itself.

According to an excerpt from the book, during an interview Musk asked biographer Isaacson, "How am I in this war?" He explained, "Starlink was not meant to be involved in wars. It was so people can watch Netflix and chill and get online for school and do good peaceful things, not drone strikes."

Well. I suspect Starlink also has a little something to do with a replacement digital currency, which can only possibly work as a cash replacement if there is 100% reliable connectivity everywhere all at once. But that’s a subject for a different post.