In any case, more or less competent contemporaries of all kinds were immediately forced to be indignant at this. For example, Neos leader Beate Meinl-Risinger said that it would be more important to use the parliamentary constitutional majority to force changes to the spatial plan than cash. Surely, what is an embossed or stamped freedom compared to the Regional Planning Act? However, the London-based news agency Reuters shrugged off Nehmar’s demand by classifying it as “far-right” in severity.
The Chinese philosopher Confucius said, “When words lose their meaning, people lose their freedom.” If it is now considered an “overwhelming right” to be independent of electronic means of payment and thus not be at the mercy of central banks and state bureaucracies, then freedom is indeed not far off. In this context, I immediately and openly commit to right-wing extremism.
Since its successful march through the institutions, the Left has almost completely taken the state under its thumb, dominating education, state-owned enterprises and the media unquestionably. Full control over the production and use of money is still missing. The political landscape has shifted sharply to the left since the late 1960s. Bourgeois conservatives like Konrad Adenauer or Julius Raab probably see themselves as radical-reactionary right-wingers ostracized from their own parties. Since there are effectively only left-wing parties, anyone who was in the middle of the political spectrum 30 years ago is now suspect. Anyone who does not clearly and unequivocally prefer left-wing positions is a lousy person with whom the justice-milieu does not deal. Conservative, liberal, or libertarian positions are often equated with right-wing extremists without concern. To be off center is not an acceptable opinion, but is considered a crime.
Most of the intelligentsia – especially the members of the writing association – live directly or indirectly on tax money. As a result, they claim that salvation can only come from the state. Politicians act as “doers”, intellectuals as keyword givers and journalists as impassioned advocates and speakers. This trio is a threat to civil liberties. The citizen has only to pay and comply.
The current debate about the receipt of cash, which has flared up again, reflects the direction in front: on the one hand, the left-centrists who want to see all the power (the privilege of creating money belongs to the strongest!) ) on the one hand – ie their; Liberals, on the other hand, are bourgeois individualists who see the coming of total sovereign control, which will inevitably go hand in hand with the abolition of cash. All the arguments given for cashless means of payment – even recently for “digital central bank money” – are suspect. It neither curbs tax evasion and organized crime nor does it bring any benefit to the citizens.
Should centralists win the battle against cash, the European Union would have reached Orwell’s “1984”: “Big Brother” surveillance and control options would be virtually limitless. Citizens can not only be robbed of the fruits of their labor at will (keywords: negative interest, solidarity tax or special property tax) but also easily coerced to consume only in a way that suits Leviathan. If the government intends to fulfill some “higher goals” – for example, saving the world by reducing the devil gas CO2 – then one mouse click is enough and the next trip to the gas station or attempt to buy pork or beef cutlets will happen fail.
In case you haven’t noticed yet: what is possible will be done! always and everywhere. Once the state has the power to access electronic money assets, it will do so. Appeasement along the lines of “no one intends to build a wall” should not be taken seriously. EU leaders and central bankers have often lied – in fact, one prominent EU politician has even praised lying as a legitimate means of advancing certain projects.
After the end of cash, what can stop politicians from using the possibility of looting current accounts? A lofty goal is too soon found and published opinion – as is the case with the COVID 19 pandemic and the so-called “climate disaster” – will wallop politics. No criticism should be expected from this side.
Chancellor Nehmer is still discovering his love for cash, as elections are coming soon and Austria is still a nation of cash-payers – for free. One can do the right thing even for trivial reasons. Any initiative to conserve cash should be welcomed. However, it is questionable whether anchoring it in Biwi-G is the right means of doing so. As the economist and philosopher Anthony de Jaesse (1925 – 2019) said: “The constitution is like a chastity belt, the key to which lies with the woman herself: if it does not suit the winning coalition, ways will be found to circumvent it” Or change it.”
