A Cashless Society Enslaves You to the System

Less than a week after India's surprise move to scrap its highest demonstration cash notes, another war on cash has intensified in Australia. Yesterday, the banking giant UBS proposed that eliminating Australia's $150 bill would be good for the economy, eliminate black market money and strengthen banks so they only have to deal in digits, not actual money.

"You want to talk about true power? True power comes from everyone knowing exactly where you've spent your money, every penny, you not having the ability to make any transaction at all in cash. So somebody wants to stop you, all they have to do is freeze your funds. All they have to do is wipe out your bank account," Glenn said Thursday on his radio program.

Cash is one of the few remaining options for financial privacy that doesn't create a permanent record of every purchase or transaction you make. It's also an easy way to reduce your exposure to risk in the broader financial system. Without cash, you are an absolute slave to the system.

Read below or listen to the full segment for answers to these valuable questions:

• What happens in the event of a catastrophic failure if everything is digitized?

• Will every transaction require approval, like selling a car or gun?

• Will purchasing with cash become illegal?

• Can banks use your money to pay off their debt?

• What would be the biggest heist in human history?

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it might contain errors:

GLENN: This is absolutely incredible. Less than a week after India's surprise move to scrap its highest demonstration cash notes, another war on cash has intensified now in Australia. Yesterday, the banking giant UBS proposed that eliminating Australia's 150-dollar bills would be good for the economy and good for the banks.

Now, here in America, we've been hearing -- and nobody in the mainstream media is talking about this. And I'm telling you, there's going to come a time -- I promise you this: There's going to come a time that no one will be talking about this. And within two weeks, it will be the only thing that anyone is talking about: America going cashless.

Yesterday, they said that -- UBS said that it would be good for the economy and good for the banks. The reason why they say it will be good for the economy is because you'll stop any black market. You'll stop the, you know, drug trade, et cetera, et cetera. And good for the banks, because the banks won't have to handle all that money. It will all be digits.

This is the real reason -- I'm sorry. No. This is one of the real reasons why this is happening, is because it will save the banks a lot of money.

And, remember, the banks are the ones who are ruling the world. But you want to talk about true power -- true power comes from everyone knowing exactly where you've spent your money, every penny, you not having the ability to make any transaction at all in cash.

So somebody wants to stop you, all they have to do is freeze your funds. All they have to do is wipe out your bank account.

In a time where our Pentagon is being hacked by the Russians, the banks are saying, "Let's digitize everything."

You want to wipe out the debt? You want to wipe out the trillion dollars of debt? Digitize everything, and then have some catastrophic failure. Well, I guess we all have to start over again. Well, I guess everything's been equalized now.

In -- yes.

STU: Isn't that the plot from Mr. Robot?

GLENN: Yes, it is.

STU: Essentially.

(laughter)

GLENN: In September 2015, Australian bank Westpac published its free credit report -- its cash-free credit report, suggesting that the country would become cashless by 2022.

In July 2016, Australian payments from Tyro published an enormously self-serving blog touting the benefits of a cashless society, saying, quote, it's only a matter of time. The media and the political establishments have now chimed in as well.

Two days ago, Citibank -- yes, the Citibank that we have -- announced it was going cashless at its Australian branches.

In February of this year, Sydney Morning Herald released a series of articles, some of which were written by officials from Australia's Department of Treasury, suggesting that eliminating cash will save billions of dollars and moving to a cashless society is the next step -- is the next step for the Australian dollar.

The government, media, and banks and academia now have formed a single unified chorus to push the idea to consumers that cashless is good for everyone.

It's happening across the planet now: Australia, India, Europe, and in North America, partially right. Going cashless will save a lot of money. Paper currency is costly to transport in large quantities, due to the need of security. But it is also accurate to suggest that going cashless will be good for the banks.

As UBS pointed out yesterday, demonetizing Australia's 50 and 100-dollar bills would force anyone holding those notes to deposit them back into the banking system.

So bank deposits would rise as a result. So would bank profits. Now, let me think: If we're going to negative interest rates, which means that I would want to pull my money out of the bank because it's costing me money to put it in the bank. And that's the only way the bank survives, is by bleeding me dry, what could the bank possibly do?

Well, if I'm taking my money out because they're giving me a haircut -- they're just taking two -- one, two, three percent -- or if the government so deems it, 10 percent of whatever I have in my bank, I could either take my money out, or the banks could make it so I couldn't take my money out.

Now, they're already doing that by saying you can't make a big deposit -- or, a large withdrawal. They're already trying to make it impossible. But this traps the money because your money won't have any value on the street.

It's not like if you have the money, I can still go out and buy things. I take it out of the bank. No, no. They will outlaw all cash transactions. So no one will take cash, and cash will have zero meaning.

So it would be like trading in toilet paper. That way, I have to do business with the bank. They are able then to give all of us a haircut because all of us have to have our money in the bank.

PAT: And every transaction you ever make will be tracked. So if you ever wanted to be off the grid for whatever reason, you can't be. You just can't be.

GLENN: You can't.

If you want to let's say close the loophole on I want to sell my gun to my friend Steve for $200 -- that's totally legal to do. The gun show loophole. I'm just a private citizen, and I'm selling my private -- I'm selling like a chair. And I'm selling it to this guy. You don't have to worry about that gun show loophole anymore. Because I won't be able to sell even my car on the street with a sign that says, "For sale, call this number."

I can't say it's $800. Just give me $800, and I'll give you the title of the car and go drive away. He won't have the $800. I will have to go to a bank, who will then be paid to make that transaction for me.

Even policy wonk academics would have the rare opportunity to take their lousy theories and PHD dissertations for a test-drive. This means, your politicians have more control over your savings and fewer obstacles to impose capital controls and engage in civil asset forfeiture.

Remember what we were fighting against a year ago or so? Civil asset forfeiture, where already the government is just taking it?

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: And saying, "Well, we don't know where this money came from." Oh, well, you have been charged with a crime, so we're just going to take it from you.

And then you're guilty. They don't give it back. You have to go to court to get it back from them.

JEFFY: Prove that you're not a criminal.

GLENN: Prove that you're not a criminal. Prove that that money -- prove that that asset was yours. And we've been railing on this saying, "This is a really dangerous precedent." Well, what happens when somebody wants to stop you and nothing -- nothing is of value except a digital? You are an absolute slave to the system. Boy, you want to talk about bitcoin becoming through the roof and gold.

STU: It is up, by the way.

GLENN: Bitcoin is up?

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: Cash is one of the few remaining options for financial privacy that doesn't create a permanent record of every purchase or transaction you make. It's also an easy way to reduce your exposure to risk in the broader financial system.

Think about this: The banking system is full of institutions that never miss an opportunity to demonstrate they can't be trusted with our money.

Hardly a month goes by without some major baking scandal. They're caught colluding on exchange rates, manipulating interest rates, fraudulently establishing fraudulent accounts. It's disgraceful.

In many banking systems across the world, especially in Europe right now, banks have precariously low levels of capital and already suffering the effects of negative interest rates. In the United States, banks routinely employ very clever accounting tricks to conceal their true financial condition.

You won't have a say in the matter. Here's what could happen, and all of these things are contingent on a thousand different things. And it doesn't have to be this way. But what could happen is a major global financial disaster, where the markets all around the world are hit and hit hard. A global banking holiday, where everything has shifted so much, they've got to get a handle on the global markets because somebody hacked into the market. Somebody did something wrong. Somebody made a policy that was bad. A country collapsed. There was a terror strike. It doesn't matter what happened.

But there is a global impact on the markets. And we have a global depression. And a collapse of confidence in the banks, in the governments, and in currency.

And so the government says, "Banking holiday, okay. We're set. Two weeks later: Everybody bring all cash in. We're banning all cash. Bring it in. And we're resetting this as a global market. Global cash. It's all in digits. And, by the way, if you don't bring your cash in and you're caught trying to buy anything in cash, you're trying to buy anything without digits, you'll be thrown into jail."

It's pretty much what happened in the Great Depression. Don't think that it can't happen now. This is the kind of thing -- all you need is an excuse. What is -- you know, I just asked the financial adviser that we had on yesterday or day before. I said, "So is there another TARP?" Yeah, it's this.

What's going to save the banks? Because the minute you get scared, you're going to pull your money out, and then it all collapses. Well, they already have the right. Check your bank. Call your bank. Ask for the fine print. Almost all of the banks have changed their fine print to where a bail-in is now their right, that if the bank becomes insolvent, they can take the same percentage of everybody's account to pay off the debts that they have.

So you're the last line. You're the last creditor that they have to pay. You think that you're the first creditor. Because what you're doing is you are loaning your hard-earned money to the bank. The bank then takes that and makes more money on your money by lending that money out to somebody else.

But the bank also has made investments in the stock market, in -- in mutual funds, in treasuries, in all kinds of different things. So they've made investments.

They've also made loans to other people that they can't cover if everybody starts to default on their loans. So there's a hierarchy of who gets paid back. You are now the creditor of last resort. You are the last person the bank has to pay back. You lose your money. And that's all in the -- in writing now.

If they want to make sure the rich get richer -- if you want to see the biggest heist in human history, it's this: Force everyone to put their money into the bank, and then they'll pay off who they will. And then they'll divvy the rest out to you.

[break]

GLENN: You know, it's really amazing how this has just creeped up on the world. And what have we been doing? We have been arguing over --

PAT: Other things.

GLENN: -- nonsense.

JEFFY: Yeah.

GLENN: No, not even other -- we're not even talking -- we haven't been arguing for the last year and a half about anything important.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: We've been arguing about, you know, Miss Universe.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: We haven't been talking about anything important. And look at what happened: This week, in -- have we --

STU: Who is we?

GLENN: I know. I know. I'm saying the western world. Generally speaking, the western world. And especially North America has not been paying attention to what's happening.

STU: Yeah, that's fair.

GLENN: Really happening.

PAT: And people from Australia -- that this is happening at Citibank branches in Australia and think, "Eh, it's Australia."

JEFFY: Right.

GLENN: I want to make sure it's clear. I want to clarify something. This is not all branches. I thought it was all branches.

PAT: Yeah, it's some branches.

GLENN: It's some branches. So they're just starting this now at Citibank.

PAT: But they say the government, media, banks, and even academia have formed this single unified chorus to push the idea to consumers --

JEFFY: Yeah.

PAT: -- cashless is good for everybody. And it's happening across the planet from Australia to India, Europe to North America.

JEFFY: Right.

PAT: This isn't limited to Australia.

GLENN: Nobody is paying attention to what's happening in India. I mean, gold prices in India shot through the roof because they didn't go cashless. They just took everything over a 50-dollar bill. And it almost stopped the country. This week, they just did it. This cashless society is closer than any of us think, and if you think somebody is not going to -- they're going to let a crisis go to waste, you're mistaken.

Featured Image: Indian people wait in a queue to withdraw money from a mobile ATM machine in New Delhi on November 15, 2016. India is to use indelible ink to prevent people from exchanging old notes more than once, the government said, a week after the withdrawal of high-value banknotes from circulation in a crackdown on 'black money'. (Photo Credit: CHANDAN KHANNA/AFP/Getty Images)

Why the White House restoration sent the left Into panic mode

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Presidents have altered the White House for decades, yet only Donald Trump is treated as a vandal for privately funding the East Wing’s restoration.

Every time a president so much as changes the color of the White House drapes, the press clutches its pearls. Unless the name on the stationery is Barack Obama’s, even routine restoration becomes a national outrage.

President Donald Trump’s decision to privately fund upgrades to the White House — including a new state ballroom — has been met with the usual chorus of gasps and sneers. You’d think he bulldozed Monticello.

If a Republican preserves beauty, it’s vandalism. If a Democrat does the same, it’s ‘visionary.’

The irony is that presidents have altered and expanded the White House for more than a century. President Franklin D. Roosevelt added the East and West Wings in the middle of the Great Depression. Newspapers accused him of building a palace while Americans stood in breadlines. History now calls it “vision.”

First lady Nancy Reagan faced the same hysteria. Headlines accused her of spending taxpayer money on new china “while Americans starved.” In truth, she raised private funds after learning that the White House didn’t have enough matching plates for state dinners. She took the ridicule and refused to pass blame.

“I’m a big girl,” she told her staff. “This comes with the job.” That was dignity — something the press no longer recognizes.

A restoration, not a renovation

Trump’s project is different in every way that should matter. It costs taxpayers nothing. Not a cent. The president and a few friends privately fund the work. There’s no private pool or tennis court, no personal perks. The additions won’t even be completed until after he leaves office.

What’s being built is not indulgence — it’s stewardship. A restoration of aging rooms, worn fixtures, and century-old bathrooms that no longer function properly in the people’s house. Trump has paid for cast brass doorknobs engraved with the presidential seal, restored the carpets and moldings, and ensured that the architecture remains faithful to history.

The media’s response was mockery and accusations of vanity. They call it “grotesque excess,” while celebrating billion-dollar “climate art” projects and funneling hundreds of millions into activist causes like the No Kings movement. They lecture America on restraint while living off the largesse of billionaires.

The selective guardians of history

Where was this sudden reverence for history when rioters torched St. John’s Church — the same church where every president since James Madison has worshipped? The press called it an “expression of grief.”

Where was that reverence when mobs toppled statues of Washington, Jefferson, and Grant? Or when first lady Melania Trump replaced the Rose Garden’s lawn with a patio but otherwise followed Jackie Kennedy’s original 1962 plans in the garden’s restoration? They called that “desecration.”

If a Republican preserves beauty, it’s vandalism. If a Democrat does the same, it’s “visionary.”

The real desecration

The people shrieking about “historic preservation” care nothing for history. They hate the idea that something lasting and beautiful might be built by hands they despise. They mock craftsmanship because it exposes their own cultural decay.

The White House ballroom is not a scandal — it’s a mirror. And what it reflects is the media’s own pettiness. The ruling class that ridicules restoration is the same class that cheered as America’s monuments fell. Its members sneer at permanence because permanence condemns them.

Julia Beverly / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump’s improvements are an act of faith — in the nation’s symbols, its endurance, and its worth. The outrage over a privately funded renovation says less about him than it does about the journalists who mistake destruction for progress.

The real desecration isn’t happening in the East Wing. It’s happening in the newsrooms that long ago tore up their own foundation — truth — and never bothered to rebuild it.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Trump’s secret war in the Caribbean EXPOSED — It’s not about drugs

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

The president’s moves in Venezuela, Guyana, and Colombia aren’t about drugs. They’re about re-establishing America’s sovereignty across the Western Hemisphere.

For decades, we’ve been told America’s wars are about drugs, democracy, or “defending freedom.” But look closer at what’s unfolding off the coast of Venezuela, and you’ll see something far more strategic taking shape. Donald Trump’s so-called drug war isn’t about fentanyl or cocaine. It’s about control — and a rebirth of American sovereignty.

The aim of Trump’s ‘drug war’ is to keep the hemisphere’s oil, minerals, and manufacturing within the Western family and out of Beijing’s hands.

The president understands something the foreign policy class forgot long ago: The world doesn’t respect apologies. It respects strength.

While the global elites in Davos tout the Great Reset, Trump is building something entirely different — a new architecture of power based on regional independence, not global dependence. His quiet campaign in the Western Hemisphere may one day be remembered as the second Monroe Doctrine.

Venezuela sits at the center of it all. It holds the world’s largest crude oil reserves — oil perfectly suited for America’s Gulf refineries. For years, China and Russia have treated Venezuela like a pawn on their chessboard, offering predatory loans in exchange for control of those resources. The result has been a corrupt, communist state sitting in our own back yard. For too long, Washington shrugged. Not any more.The naval exercises in the Caribbean, the sanctions, the patrols — they’re not about drug smugglers. They’re about evicting China from our hemisphere.

Trump is using the old “drug war” playbook to wage a new kind of war — an economic and strategic one — without firing a shot at our actual enemies. The goal is simple: Keep the hemisphere’s oil, minerals, and manufacturing within the Western family and out of Beijing’s hands.

Beyond Venezuela

Just east of Venezuela lies Guyana, a country most Americans couldn’t find on a map a year ago. Then ExxonMobil struck oil, and suddenly Guyana became the newest front in a quiet geopolitical contest. Washington is helping defend those offshore platforms, build radar systems, and secure undersea cables — not for charity, but for strategy. Control energy, data, and shipping lanes, and you control the future.

Moreover, Colombia — a country once defined by cartels — is now positioned as the hinge between two oceans and two continents. It guards the Panama Canal and sits atop rare-earth minerals every modern economy needs. Decades of American presence there weren’t just about cocaine interdiction; they were about maintaining leverage over the arteries of global trade. Trump sees that clearly.

PEDRO MATTEY / Contributor | Getty Images

All of these recent news items — from the military drills in the Caribbean to the trade negotiations — reflect a new vision of American power. Not global policing. Not endless nation-building. It’s about strategic sovereignty.

It’s the same philosophy driving Trump’s approach to NATO, the Middle East, and Asia. We’ll stand with you — but you’ll stand on your own two feet. The days of American taxpayers funding global security while our own borders collapse are over.

Trump’s Monroe Doctrine

Critics will call it “isolationism.” It isn’t. It’s realism. It’s recognizing that America’s strength comes not from fighting other people’s wars but from securing our own energy, our own supply lines, our own hemisphere. The first Monroe Doctrine warned foreign powers to stay out of the Americas. The second one — Trump’s — says we’ll defend them, but we’ll no longer be their bank or their babysitter.

Historians may one day mark this moment as the start of a new era — when America stopped apologizing for its own interests and started rebuilding its sovereignty, one barrel, one chip, and one border at a time.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Antifa isn’t “leaderless” — It’s an organized machine of violence

Jeff J Mitchell / Staff | Getty Images

The mob rises where men of courage fall silent. The lesson from Portland, Chicago, and other blue cities is simple: Appeasing radicals doesn’t buy peace — it only rents humiliation.

Parts of America, like Portland and Chicago, now resemble occupied territory. Progressive city governments have surrendered control to street militias, leaving citizens, journalists, and even federal officers to face violent anarchists without protection.

Take Portland, where Antifa has terrorized the city for more than 100 consecutive nights. Federal officers trying to keep order face nightly assaults while local officials do nothing. Independent journalists, such as Nick Sortor, have even been arrested for documenting the chaos. Sortor and Blaze News reporter Julio Rosas later testified at the White House about Antifa’s violence — testimony that corporate media outlets buried.

Antifa is organized, funded, and emboldened.

Chicago offers the same grim picture. Federal agents have been stalked, ambushed, and denied backup from local police while under siege from mobs. Calls for help went unanswered, putting lives in danger. This is more than disorder; it is open defiance of federal authority and a violation of the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause.

A history of violence

For years, the legacy media and left-wing think tanks have portrayed Antifa as “decentralized” and “leaderless.” The opposite is true. Antifa is organized, disciplined, and well-funded. Groups like Rose City Antifa in Oregon, the Elm Fork John Brown Gun Club in Texas, and Jane’s Revenge operate as coordinated street militias. Legal fronts such as the National Lawyers Guild provide protection, while crowdfunding networks and international supporters funnel money directly to the movement.

The claim that Antifa lacks structure is a convenient myth — one that’s cost Americans dearly.

History reminds us what happens when mobs go unchecked. The French Revolution, Weimar Germany, Mao’s Red Guards — every one began with chaos on the streets. But it wasn’t random. Today’s radicals follow the same playbook: Exploit disorder, intimidate opponents, and seize moral power while the state looks away.

Dismember the dragon

The Trump administration’s decision to designate Antifa a domestic terrorist organization was long overdue. The label finally acknowledged what citizens already knew: Antifa functions as a militant enterprise, recruiting and radicalizing youth for coordinated violence nationwide.

But naming the threat isn’t enough. The movement’s financiers, organizers, and enablers must also face justice. Every dollar that funds Antifa’s destruction should be traced, seized, and exposed.

AFP Contributor / Contributor | Getty Images

This fight transcends party lines. It’s not about left versus right; it’s about civilization versus anarchy. When politicians and judges excuse or ignore mob violence, they imperil the republic itself. Americans must reject silence and cowardice while street militias operate with impunity.

Antifa is organized, funded, and emboldened. The violence in Portland and Chicago is deliberate, not spontaneous. If America fails to confront it decisively, the price won’t just be broken cities — it will be the erosion of the republic itself.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

URGENT: Supreme Court case could redefine religious liberty

Drew Angerer / Staff | Getty Images

The state is effectively silencing professionals who dare speak truths about gender and sexuality, redefining faith-guided speech as illegal.

This week, free speech is once again on the line before the U.S. Supreme Court. At stake is whether Americans still have the right to talk about faith, morality, and truth in their private practice without the government’s permission.

The case comes out of Colorado, where lawmakers in 2019 passed a ban on what they call “conversion therapy.” The law prohibits licensed counselors from trying to change a minor’s gender identity or sexual orientation, including their behaviors or gender expression. The law specifically targets Christian counselors who serve clients attempting to overcome gender dysphoria and not fall prey to the transgender ideology.

The root of this case isn’t about therapy. It’s about erasing a worldview.

The law does include one convenient exception. Counselors are free to “assist” a person who wants to transition genders but not someone who wants to affirm their biological sex. In other words, you can help a child move in one direction — one that is in line with the state’s progressive ideology — but not the other.

Think about that for a moment. The state is saying that a counselor can’t even discuss changing behavior with a client. Isn’t that the whole point of counseling?

One‑sided freedom

Kaley Chiles, a licensed professional counselor in Colorado Springs, has been one of the victims of this blatant attack on the First Amendment. Chiles has dedicated her practice to helping clients dealing with addiction, trauma, sexuality struggles, and gender dysphoria. She’s also a Christian who serves patients seeking guidance rooted in biblical teaching.

Before 2019, she could counsel minors according to her faith. She could talk about biblical morality, identity, and the path to wholeness. When the state outlawed that speech, she stopped. She followed the law — and then she sued.

Her case, Chiles v. Salazar, is now before the Supreme Court. Justices heard oral arguments on Tuesday. The question: Is counseling a form of speech or merely a government‑regulated service?

If the court rules the wrong way, it won’t just silence therapists. It could muzzle pastors, teachers, parents — anyone who believes in truth grounded in something higher than the state.

Censored belief

I believe marriage between a man and a woman is ordained by God. I believe that family — mother, father, child — is central to His design for humanity.

I believe that men and women are created in God’s image, with divine purpose and eternal worth. Gender isn’t an accessory; it’s part of who we are.

I believe the command to “be fruitful and multiply” still stands, that the power to create life is sacred, and that it belongs within marriage between a man and a woman.

And I believe that when we abandon these principles — when we treat sex as recreation, when we dissolve families, when we forget our vows — society fractures.

Are those statements controversial now? Maybe. But if this case goes against Chiles, those statements and others could soon be illegal to say aloud in public.

Faith on trial

In Colorado today, a counselor cannot sit down with a 15‑year‑old who’s struggling with gender identity and say, “You were made in God’s image, and He does not make mistakes.” That is now considered hate speech.

That’s the “freedom” the modern left is offering — freedom to affirm, but never to question. Freedom to comply, but never to dissent. The same movement that claims to champion tolerance now demands silence from anyone who disagrees. The root of this case isn’t about therapy. It’s about erasing a worldview.

The real test

No matter what happens at the Supreme Court, we cannot stop speaking the truth. These beliefs aren’t political slogans. For me, they are the product of years of wrestling, searching, and learning through pain and grace what actually leads to peace. For us, they are the fundamental principles that lead to a flourishing life. We cannot balk at standing for truth.

Maybe that’s why God allows these moments — moments when believers are pushed to the wall. They force us to ask hard questions: What is true? What is worth standing for? What is worth dying for — and living for?

If we answer those questions honestly, we’ll find not just truth, but freedom.

The state doesn’t grant real freedom — and it certainly isn’t defined by Colorado legislators. Real freedom comes from God. And the day we forget that, the First Amendment will mean nothing at all.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.