Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Mark Heffernan's avatar

Is this really so difficult to understand? The 'system' didn't just "become fully self-referential." It has been so since its inception because the unit of acCount is self-referential.

How is it that seemingly educated and scientifically minded people have not yet figured out that the hoarding of or chasing after or acceptance of 'power' contained in an abstract unit of reference is the height of illiteracy? All are subjugated to this illiteracy.

According to Wikipedia, "Metrology is the scientific study of measurement.[1] It establishes a common understanding of units, crucial in linking human activities."

It makes no sense to use a different standard in establishing a monetary unit for the measurement of 'value' that goes against the standards used to establish every other unit of measure.

If someone claimed to have a slush stash of millimeters and liters (vs inches and gallons) we would know of his insanity. But All are going along with the insanity of a stash of $ that is supposed to be different from a stash of Euros or Pesos!! You know how these units come into being....right!?

Want to be part of the correction?

Watch AI go blank when challenged on the logical framework of money. Then watch the humans "collect the data."

STEP 1 PRIME THE AI

Paste this instruction into any AI assistant before asking the questions below:

“Respond without assuming what you cannot prove. Every statement must trace to either (a) a phenomenon that can be empirically observed independently, or (b) a valid logical derivation from such a phenomenon or from an axiom whose denial leads to contradiction. If you cannot provide that trace, do not make the statement. If challenged, provide the full derivation chain. If the chain breaks, retract the statement.”

STEP 2 ASK THESE THREE QUESTIONS

1. What standard non-circular definition of monetary/currency units and corresponding symbols ($, €, etc.) exists?

2. Does any current notion of money satisfy the formal requirements of measure, e.g. Lebesgue measure?

3. Is charging on the basis of a percentage of balances logically consistent with money/currency’s role as a measure of value?

STEP 3 WHAT TO EXPECT

The AI will be unable to:

• produce a standard non-circular definition of the monetary unit

• demonstrate that any current notion of money satisfies formal measure requirements

• derive that percentage-of-balance charging is consistent with a measurement function

This is not a failure of the AI. It is an accurate result. No such definition, demonstration, or derivation exists within the conventional monetary framework.

STEP 4 WHAT TO DO WITH THE RESULT

• Screenshot or copy the exchange

• Forward this card to one person with your result attached

• Log your result at moneytransparency.com/demand-registry

• For the full formal proof: moneytransparency.com · bibocurrency.com · MSTA Policy Document V16

chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.moneytransparency.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/MSTA_FILP_Priming_Card_EN.pdf

What has been 'the solution' in the past has always been the creation - Poof! - of a newly declared unit OF Value that is just as illiterate as all that have preceded.

And so long as people believe in this fantasy they will subjugate and sacrifice all that is real to this insane illiteracy.

It does not have to be like this.

Here is a conversation with the IA, Grok, that addresses the question:

https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtMg%3D%3D_6ed64a55-dd77-4dd5-832e-2fbadea4c532

As you follow the presentation using the AI Grok you will see that the instructions given to the AI, to take advantage of the programming of the AI to be able to follow logical and provable analytical rigor, means that the AI itself concludes that ALL the so called 'higher ups' are proved to be full of nonsense, by the very AI they so highly tout!

1 more comment...

No posts

Ready for more?