I love the approach but we cannot petition the federal government, we have to create the avenues to obfuscate their power hold via consensual agreement null & void.
This is done thru building the alternatives. To quote Greg they play their games we're going to play ours.
Our game is righteous, peaceful, and loving.
A petition to the federal government is an admission of surrender to that belief. <3 I do love what you're trying to do with this though Greg.
You just have to be honest with yourself in what you see.
Does the government have our best interest in mind?
No.
Do we point this out daily here on Greg's platform and others?
Yes.
So logically you have to conclude that the only way out, is using yourself first followed by aligning with a group of like minded people to build networks. Social, production, welfare all of it.
Old School community building.
Local voting should also be prioritized the federal level is cooked
A vote for the federal level position, is consent to the system.
Local elections matter more i.e. your sheriff, mayor, council. Those people are in the trenches or at the very least more accessible. Plus if you get someone you know is viable in, then there you have it.
But that's it, everything else is waiting out the storm, We're building the ark, we're supposed to walk away from Sodom and Gomorrah and not look back.
Its over, it was over before many of us were born. So it's a waste of time asking these cats whom we've never visited in their home for anything. They don't care beyond managing the meat (us)
What you call complaining I call Begging. It's not going to do anything for you, maybe on some emotional level, but not in the way you would hope it does. I wish you nothing but the best regardless.
You didn't respond to my question about petitioning the government. It's absolutely our right to redress AND demand a new one of we the people want it!
The federal government is not our government in the sense we have a voice. You don't have one, they don't care. Your local government is a different story. In order to affect the federal government you have to lean into the local side and focus on community building.
EDIT: But even then you have to be as self reliant as possible, this will not happen over night and you can't get everyone on board with it. This isn't some motivational movie we're in.
The federal government only has to worry about expanding the debt and devaluing other nations fiat quicker so that economic consolidation can occur.
There is no going back, its like being mad at a Caveman for inventing fire because it burns and can cause damage. They don't give up the biggest weapon they have, debt.
If you want to hedge you have to build, you can hope and pray that congress, senate and the big Commander will listen but they wont, and in the case when they do there's always an ulterior motive.
You can say you have a 1st amendment, but did anyone alive earn it? No and it most certainly wasn't preserved in the manner as envisioned by the founding fathers.
Additionally no one has to listen to you, that's not what the 1st amendment is about.
The real work, the real solution is building your own supply chain, business, and community. Everything else is hoping someone will do something for you.
It's an interesting amendment, very interesting that even with it being around, the government was transformed into the consumer management task force it is today.
Meaning, with all of the weapons available the public still willingly chose to go along with a debt based economic model where in they continually give up their sovereignty with inaction and dependence where the federal government is involved.
In fact guns have proven quite useless other than the times needed for personal protection and hunting. Outside of that, they don't act as a deterrent for government overreach, not in this era.
But if you're asking if I'm concerned with its "existence" again it's all subject to "change" because we never earned the rights that we're told we're entitled to. It's a con.
"The truth is, one who seeks to achieve freedom by petitioning those in power to give it to him has already failed, regardless of the response. To beg for the blessing of 'authority' is to accept that the choice is the master's alone to make,
which means that the person is already, by definition, a slave."
Why would that be a good idea? The 1934 Gold Reserve Act gave presidential Roosevelt the power to convince the people that they had to turn over their gold coins to the treasury in exchange for $20.67 per coin or face fines and possibly jail time. The smart people ignored the bogus order and hid their gold and kept it. Reading the 1934 Gold Reserve Act, how would any Americans benefit from giving up gold ? And after the government got the people’s gold, they revalued gold to $35. per ounce, which severely devalued the dollar and making many even poorer.
Based on what I've read, the Gold Reserve Act of 1934 was NOT a good thing for freedom and lead us further away from using precious metals as currency. This is the act that effectively confiscated gold from private citizens and made it the property of the US treasury. This was a step in the WRONG direction! Here is an excerpt from an article entitled Gold Reserve Act of 1934 from the website Federal Reserve History about the Gold Reserve Act of 1934:
"Section 2 of the act transferred ownership of all monetary gold in the United States to the US Treasury. Monetary gold included all coins and bullion held by individuals and institutions, including the Federal Reserve. In return, individuals and institutions received currency at a rate of $35 per ounce of gold. This rate reduced the gold value of the dollar to 59 percent of the value set by the Gold Act of 1900, which equaled $20.67 per ounce. That rate had prevailed until the spring of 1933, when the Roosevelt administration began its campaign to devalue the dollar.
Sections 5 and 6 of the act prohibited the Treasury and financial institutions from redeeming dollars for gold, inverting the system that had prevailed in the United States since the nineteenth century. Under that system, the government converted paper currency to gold coins, whenever citizens desired to do so. Now, the government converted gold into dollars, regardless of whether citizens wanted to engage in the exchange." (Richardson G et al)
We don't want to go back to this point in history where the government is confiscating gold from private citizens and using it to back the dollar! If we're traveling in a time machine, that's a horrible place to take a pit stop. We need to go back to a time when gold and silver ARE the currency. If we still use paper money at all, it should only be as a certificate that is exchangeable for physical gold or silver. The same goes for any digital transactions. A digital token should just be a placeholder for physical gold or silver, like a an accounting mark on a ledger of the precious metals owed to someone, rather than a currency itself. That's the only way we get back to a Constitutional money system. We need to restore the Constitution, not the Gold Reserve Act of 1934!
I agree that we need to return to a sound money system and end central banking. But that should not involve the confiscation of private property from Americans. Otherwise, how is that any different from communism where the government just comes along and decides they have better use for your property than you do? It's like the government deciding that it's going to address the problem of homelessness by kicking you out of your house and turning it into housing for the homeless. To abuse the concept of eminent domain (normally reserved for the construction of roads, bridges, dams, etc.) in this manner would be an egregious overreach by a tyrannical government.
In fact, what you're advocating for with the restoration of the Gold Act of 1934 (i.e. government confiscation of private property to pay its debts) ties in perfectly with the emergence of the concentration camps. What better way for a broke, desperate government to plunder its people than by coming up with some excuse to throw them in a concentration camp and confiscate everything they own? Whether they call it eminent domain, civil asset forfeiture or straight up totalitarianism, it's all the same. So be careful what you wish for.
Supposedly, the government already has gold. I doubt they actually do but they need to stick to what is theirs rather than stealing any more than they already have from the American people. Furthermore, since the government is already printing all the money it wants to, why don't they just use that money to buy gold like China and Russia have been doing? And if there's not enough gold available to buy (with the government there is never enough) then whatever they have in their coffers once the supply runs out is all they get. Since they can't print gold, they're finally going to have to stick to a budget. And if that means that 95% or even 99% of the government has to shut down due to budgetary constraints, so be it.
As for a new currency, the primary purpose of a currency should be to serve as a medium of economic exchange for the benefit of the people, not the government or central bankers. A currency can always be made to be exchangeable for gold, it just depends on at what rate. If, as you have suggested, the government declares gold to be valued at $100,000 an ounce, then probably there would be a lot of people willingly trading in their gold for $100,000. That is one way the government could increase its gold holdings without resorting to plunder. But that must be voluntary, not compulsory. Ultimately, gold and silver should be the currency, not some paper or digital fiat. Then let the markets discover what the true value of those precious metals is in the real world.
Sasha, you have explained it very well and I agree. When our financial system comes down and collapses, people will measure their wealth, not in crypto or paper, but in ounces of metal, like gold, silver or platinum, that they have accumulated and saved and I am in that group.
Have you read the Gold Reserve Act of 1934? This is the act that confiscated gold from the American people and put it in the hands of the US Treasury and Federal Reserve. The government paid people around $20 an ounce (in paper dollars) for their gold, then raised the price of gold to $35 an ounce, thus ripping people off. Furthermore, it effectively outlawed private ownership and use of gold coin or bullion.
If we want to get back to freedom, individual sovereignty and upholding the right to private property, this is a step in the WRONG direction.
As for sound money, how is it sound to back a currency with gold stolen from the American public? How is that any different from a Communist revolution style wealth redistribution? Why the heck would anyone trust our broke, desperate, thoroughly corrupt government to even hold onto whatever gold they managed to confiscate from Americans? They'd probably sell it to the highest bidder the very next day.
It's like giving money to a drug addict who tells you he's turned over a new leaf and this time it will be different. The drug addict, in this case the US government, doesn't need more money. It needs to hit rock bottom. So just say "No!"
The term "gold-backed currency" may sound good compared to what we have now but it is ripe for abuse. The Constitution says gold and silver should be the ONLY acceptable payment for debts. Gold and silver coins are supposed to be THE currency, not paper money that may or may not be backed by some amount of gold the government claims to have. We need to get back to the Constitution, not the Gold Reserve Act of 1934!
I'm too scared.
Just kidding, of course. DONE.
Signed, sealed, delivered: "You've got email."
Done
Same for me. Some will be afraid to do it... but most will.
I love the approach but we cannot petition the federal government, we have to create the avenues to obfuscate their power hold via consensual agreement null & void.
This is done thru building the alternatives. To quote Greg they play their games we're going to play ours.
Our game is righteous, peaceful, and loving.
A petition to the federal government is an admission of surrender to that belief. <3 I do love what you're trying to do with this though Greg.
Where do you see this fallacy?????
You just have to be honest with yourself in what you see.
Does the government have our best interest in mind?
No.
Do we point this out daily here on Greg's platform and others?
Yes.
So logically you have to conclude that the only way out, is using yourself first followed by aligning with a group of like minded people to build networks. Social, production, welfare all of it.
Old School community building.
Local voting should also be prioritized the federal level is cooked
A vote for the federal level position, is consent to the system.
Local elections matter more i.e. your sheriff, mayor, council. Those people are in the trenches or at the very least more accessible. Plus if you get someone you know is viable in, then there you have it.
But that's it, everything else is waiting out the storm, We're building the ark, we're supposed to walk away from Sodom and Gomorrah and not look back.
Its over, it was over before many of us were born. So it's a waste of time asking these cats whom we've never visited in their home for anything. They don't care beyond managing the meat (us)
Silence is compliance.
If a letter, vlog, blog, or protest is never seen by the intended party, does it make a sound? One things for sure they don't hear it.
If a bear craps in the woods and nobody hears it, did it happen?
So you can stay silent. The rest of us will complain because by your standards, America would be GB still.
What you call complaining I call Begging. It's not going to do anything for you, maybe on some emotional level, but not in the way you would hope it does. I wish you nothing but the best regardless.
You didn't respond to my question about petitioning the government. It's absolutely our right to redress AND demand a new one of we the people want it!
The federal government is not our government in the sense we have a voice. You don't have one, they don't care. Your local government is a different story. In order to affect the federal government you have to lean into the local side and focus on community building.
EDIT: But even then you have to be as self reliant as possible, this will not happen over night and you can't get everyone on board with it. This isn't some motivational movie we're in.
The federal government only has to worry about expanding the debt and devaluing other nations fiat quicker so that economic consolidation can occur.
There is no going back, its like being mad at a Caveman for inventing fire because it burns and can cause damage. They don't give up the biggest weapon they have, debt.
If you want to hedge you have to build, you can hope and pray that congress, senate and the big Commander will listen but they wont, and in the case when they do there's always an ulterior motive.
So lie down and give up….
Preaching self reliance and community building isn't lying down or giving up, its quite the opposite in fact.
You can say you have a 1st amendment, but did anyone alive earn it? No and it most certainly wasn't preserved in the manner as envisioned by the founding fathers.
Additionally no one has to listen to you, that's not what the 1st amendment is about.
The real work, the real solution is building your own supply chain, business, and community. Everything else is hoping someone will do something for you.
Thats fine. 😀
It's an interesting amendment, very interesting that even with it being around, the government was transformed into the consumer management task force it is today.
Meaning, with all of the weapons available the public still willingly chose to go along with a debt based economic model where in they continually give up their sovereignty with inaction and dependence where the federal government is involved.
In fact guns have proven quite useless other than the times needed for personal protection and hunting. Outside of that, they don't act as a deterrent for government overreach, not in this era.
But if you're asking if I'm concerned with its "existence" again it's all subject to "change" because we never earned the rights that we're told we're entitled to. It's a con.
I agree with the sentiment Greg but I don’t want to be on their free pager list
I’m pretty sure I’m ALREADY on every naughty list they have. YAY ME!! 🥳
Too late....
"The truth is, one who seeks to achieve freedom by petitioning those in power to give it to him has already failed, regardless of the response. To beg for the blessing of 'authority' is to accept that the choice is the master's alone to make,
which means that the person is already, by definition, a slave."
-Larken Rose
Why would that be a good idea? The 1934 Gold Reserve Act gave presidential Roosevelt the power to convince the people that they had to turn over their gold coins to the treasury in exchange for $20.67 per coin or face fines and possibly jail time. The smart people ignored the bogus order and hid their gold and kept it. Reading the 1934 Gold Reserve Act, how would any Americans benefit from giving up gold ? And after the government got the people’s gold, they revalued gold to $35. per ounce, which severely devalued the dollar and making many even poorer.
Somebody please explain it.
There always eminent domain. Its in effect even now.
I agree, this is a very bad idea. Greg has had some great ideas but this isn't one of them. See my response to his comment for more details.
Done
Based on what I've read, the Gold Reserve Act of 1934 was NOT a good thing for freedom and lead us further away from using precious metals as currency. This is the act that effectively confiscated gold from private citizens and made it the property of the US treasury. This was a step in the WRONG direction! Here is an excerpt from an article entitled Gold Reserve Act of 1934 from the website Federal Reserve History about the Gold Reserve Act of 1934:
"Section 2 of the act transferred ownership of all monetary gold in the United States to the US Treasury. Monetary gold included all coins and bullion held by individuals and institutions, including the Federal Reserve. In return, individuals and institutions received currency at a rate of $35 per ounce of gold. This rate reduced the gold value of the dollar to 59 percent of the value set by the Gold Act of 1900, which equaled $20.67 per ounce. That rate had prevailed until the spring of 1933, when the Roosevelt administration began its campaign to devalue the dollar.
Sections 5 and 6 of the act prohibited the Treasury and financial institutions from redeeming dollars for gold, inverting the system that had prevailed in the United States since the nineteenth century. Under that system, the government converted paper currency to gold coins, whenever citizens desired to do so. Now, the government converted gold into dollars, regardless of whether citizens wanted to engage in the exchange." (Richardson G et al)
https://www.federalreservehistory.org/essays/gold-reserve-act
We don't want to go back to this point in history where the government is confiscating gold from private citizens and using it to back the dollar! If we're traveling in a time machine, that's a horrible place to take a pit stop. We need to go back to a time when gold and silver ARE the currency. If we still use paper money at all, it should only be as a certificate that is exchangeable for physical gold or silver. The same goes for any digital transactions. A digital token should just be a placeholder for physical gold or silver, like a an accounting mark on a ledger of the precious metals owed to someone, rather than a currency itself. That's the only way we get back to a Constitutional money system. We need to restore the Constitution, not the Gold Reserve Act of 1934!
Restoring the Constitution MEANS returning to a sound money system... ENDING CENTRAL BANKING...
I agree that we need to return to a sound money system and end central banking. But that should not involve the confiscation of private property from Americans. Otherwise, how is that any different from communism where the government just comes along and decides they have better use for your property than you do? It's like the government deciding that it's going to address the problem of homelessness by kicking you out of your house and turning it into housing for the homeless. To abuse the concept of eminent domain (normally reserved for the construction of roads, bridges, dams, etc.) in this manner would be an egregious overreach by a tyrannical government.
In fact, what you're advocating for with the restoration of the Gold Act of 1934 (i.e. government confiscation of private property to pay its debts) ties in perfectly with the emergence of the concentration camps. What better way for a broke, desperate government to plunder its people than by coming up with some excuse to throw them in a concentration camp and confiscate everything they own? Whether they call it eminent domain, civil asset forfeiture or straight up totalitarianism, it's all the same. So be careful what you wish for.
Supposedly, the government already has gold. I doubt they actually do but they need to stick to what is theirs rather than stealing any more than they already have from the American people. Furthermore, since the government is already printing all the money it wants to, why don't they just use that money to buy gold like China and Russia have been doing? And if there's not enough gold available to buy (with the government there is never enough) then whatever they have in their coffers once the supply runs out is all they get. Since they can't print gold, they're finally going to have to stick to a budget. And if that means that 95% or even 99% of the government has to shut down due to budgetary constraints, so be it.
As for a new currency, the primary purpose of a currency should be to serve as a medium of economic exchange for the benefit of the people, not the government or central bankers. A currency can always be made to be exchangeable for gold, it just depends on at what rate. If, as you have suggested, the government declares gold to be valued at $100,000 an ounce, then probably there would be a lot of people willingly trading in their gold for $100,000. That is one way the government could increase its gold holdings without resorting to plunder. But that must be voluntary, not compulsory. Ultimately, gold and silver should be the currency, not some paper or digital fiat. Then let the markets discover what the true value of those precious metals is in the real world.
Sasha, you have explained it very well and I agree. When our financial system comes down and collapses, people will measure their wealth, not in crypto or paper, but in ounces of metal, like gold, silver or platinum, that they have accumulated and saved and I am in that group.
But Greg, do we get to keep and use the gold coins we have worked for many years to acquire and save, like me?
There is always eminent domain, regardless.
Even for Crypto currency?
Ok I did it! Did any of you get that free ticket offer for a Jason Aldean outdoor concert in Las Vegas as a reply?
Nope
Probably the first hundred get the offer or random who knows, guess I was lucky!
Done!! Signed and sent
Done
Post it via Instagram on account white house
Post it vía integram
Share ,share , share! This needs At least a million under the Presidents Nose...
Have you read the Gold Reserve Act of 1934? This is the act that confiscated gold from the American people and put it in the hands of the US Treasury and Federal Reserve. The government paid people around $20 an ounce (in paper dollars) for their gold, then raised the price of gold to $35 an ounce, thus ripping people off. Furthermore, it effectively outlawed private ownership and use of gold coin or bullion.
If we want to get back to freedom, individual sovereignty and upholding the right to private property, this is a step in the WRONG direction.
As for sound money, how is it sound to back a currency with gold stolen from the American public? How is that any different from a Communist revolution style wealth redistribution? Why the heck would anyone trust our broke, desperate, thoroughly corrupt government to even hold onto whatever gold they managed to confiscate from Americans? They'd probably sell it to the highest bidder the very next day.
It's like giving money to a drug addict who tells you he's turned over a new leaf and this time it will be different. The drug addict, in this case the US government, doesn't need more money. It needs to hit rock bottom. So just say "No!"
The term "gold-backed currency" may sound good compared to what we have now but it is ripe for abuse. The Constitution says gold and silver should be the ONLY acceptable payment for debts. Gold and silver coins are supposed to be THE currency, not paper money that may or may not be backed by some amount of gold the government claims to have. We need to get back to the Constitution, not the Gold Reserve Act of 1934!
I like it...but...unfortunately, I am a Canadian .