Buying and Selling What Isn’t Theirs

By Anna Von Reitz

I have been asked to review several new monetary systems over the past few weeks.  The fundamental flaws are quick to sum up: 

(1) Transfer systems — the “pipelines” that allow interbank transfers for money are still under the control of who-knows-who, most likely Rockefellers or organizations controlled by Rockefellers like DHS, the current “stop-go”, which regularly abuses its position to do everything from confiscate assets that don’t belong to the Perps to blocking financial transactions that they have no plausible reason to block, or only self-interested reasons to block.  

So there is Flaw Number One — no open-source control of the bank transfer system and no Public Oversight of the Bank Transfer System, either.  

If they can keep you from transferring your money or can intercept your money and shunt it into other accounts than you intend or can stop your money altogether and hold it for months and then, after making interest on it, return it to your account — what else can they do with it?  Bail in.  Bail out.  Confiscate.  And on and on and on.  

The transparency and reliability and fairness of the Bank Transfer System is something that affects us all and which affects all aspects of international trade.  If you leave crooks in charge of it, all the present problems plaguing this function remain. All the proposals I have seen have been notably silent on who runs the bank transfer system and what kind of oversight applies to them.

Next, all these proposals come with solemn promises that remind me of the “Good Faith and Credit of Congress”.  We are assured that, for example, no currency will be created unless it’s asset backed.  We aren’t told “exactly” what assets it will be backed with, and we aren’t told who will be making sure that no currency is created without appropriate backing, and we aren’t told who will be supervising and providing oversight to make sure that the currency generation process is clean and sane.  In short, there’s really nothing in any of these plans to keep the same thing from happening over again.  We are told to “just trust them” — again, which is clearly not an option. 

Third, strangely enough, though this should be obvious, all these proposed “asset-backed” currencies are still represented as “notes” — as in Promissory Notes.  Hello?  I’m sorry, but asset-backed money is either: (1) a certificate of ownership tied to an actual commodity, or (2) actual money with the commodity integrated into the money itself.  There’s no sense or reason on Earth for any asset-backed money to be processed as a “debt note”, unless of course, the value of the “asset” backing the money has already been stolen or sold to other parties unknown.  

The sum total impression of these discussions is that nobody knows what they are doing, or if they do know what they are doing, they are tremendously crooked and think that the rest of us are equally stupid.  Maybe we deserve that, as we let them get away with so much for so long.  

As I keep explaining to the jaw-dropped purveyors — there’s a difference between dealing with a bear that is hibernating and a bear that is fully awake. 

And when you step back from all of this and just look at it — what do you see? 

Men who are buying and selling and trading what isn’t theirs to start with, men controlling the assets and labor of others, which they have no right to do, men who have manipulated everything — every commodity and delivery system you can think of — for so long, that they just assume that that is their right and role in the world.
It doesn’t enter their heads that you and the actual government might have something else in mind, new business standards, new institutions, new ways of transferring money, new means of accounting, new means of oversight, or even other organizations in mind for the jobs.   


See this article and over 2400 others on Anna’s website here:

To support this work look for the PayPal buttons on this website. 
How do we use your donations?  Find out here.  

Others are saying the same things Anna is. They don’t quite get at the cause but the outcome will be the same. Here is one example from Mike Maloney of