Only cash is king! We are all familiar with this popular saying.
This is based on the conviction that only cash has true value and can be relied on, in contrast
to "digital money" or "payments" in an account.
In a street survey conducted by Easy German, people in Berlin were asked why a comparatively
large number of Germans still like to pay with cash.
Here is a brief summary of some of the answers:
Um, I think the Germans don't want the state to know what they spend their money on.
Probably because they are somehow suspicious and think: "Only cash is king".
Maybe it's a feeling of security. I don't know!
Yes, can I pay now ... I also like to pay in cash.
I also like to have small change, because I still give a lot of people who ...
Earlier there were three more who wanted money and then I gave them some.
If I didn't have any more cash, I wouldn't be able to do that. I think cards are stupid!
Yes, because somehow that's something you can still feel.
I think ... many Germans are a bit suspicious of all this e-banking and paying for everything by card.
Probably because the Germans are so traditional.
They know what they have. Card is just plastic.
I think some people have the feeling that they have a better overview.
If they say they know they have 50 euros and then I spend them, then 50 euros are gone.
For example, I feel like I'm being monitored non-stop by cashless payments.
Yes, right? Because then you can, if the police or someone wants to track them, then it's very clear
where and when they were and what they were doing.
Everyone is talking about the new General Data Protection Regulation, but where is it?
Where does this apply if my personal rights, which are enshrined in the German Basic Law, are ultimately being
abrogated again via this cashless cash flow? Ad absurdum!
Before Corona, I mainly paid in cash, now mainly by card due to Corona.
I actually think cash is better because it cannot be controlled.
And I would continue to oppose the idea of putting everything on a card, so to speak.
Because this makes the flow of money transparent, and I don't want it to be transparent because then it can be controlled.
Then I would lose part of my understanding of democracy.
These answers clearly show that using cash has many advantages.
Keywords such as freedom, security, elimination of control and surveillance by third parties were mentioned.
However, more and more efforts are being made to ensure that every citizen can shape many aspects of their lives digitally.
The issue of cash is just one of many.
In more and more areas, in public as well as private and professional life, there are no longer any analog options.
Here are just a few examples: Ticket subscriptions that can only be booked and checked via app
No ticket purchase with cash on many buses
Postal stations that can only be operated via an app
Account management - only possible in online banking at some banks
Making doctor's appointments - only possible online at many practices
Applications to many companies and universities can only be made online
In some grocery stores, swimming pools, leisure centers, concerts, doctors' surgeries
and restaurants, only card payment is possible
Some public parking spaces, parking garages and toilets can only be used with a card
Hotel and event bookings largely only possible online
Children can no longer run errands independently with cash, learn no tangible, real handling
of money and no control over their own spending.
They need digital access from an early age. What does this mean in practical terms?
With regard to the topic of cash, an evaluation by the consumer advice center on the
rejection of cash payments sums this up very aptly:
"While non-cash payment methods can facilitate processes and increase profits for companies (nudging, profiling,
higher revenues, new technologies), consumers not only lose the option of freely choosing their means of payment.
They sometimes also bear additional burdens (additional effort, additional costs, complications, risks), lose the
qualities of cash payments (simplicity, spending control, anonymity) and are sometimes excluded from benefits.
The participation of all social groups is then no longer guaranteed.
This also applies to the use or non-use of digital devices.
People who do not own a smartphone or do not want to use online banking, for example,
are denied public participation in all areas.
The reasons for this can be complex. For example, there are people who simply cannot afford such devices or
who are cognitively incapable of using them properly.
In addition, there are people who consciously decide not to use them, for example because of the mobile phone radiation from
digital devices, which has been proven to be harmful to health.
The taz writes about this in an article from December 2024:
"According to figures from the Federal Statistical Office (Destatis), a good 5 percent of people in Germany between
the ages of 16 and 74 were so-called offline users last year.
This means that they have never used the Internet.
That corresponds to 3.1 million people in Germany."
The journalist Franz-Josef Hanke, who himself has multiple disabilities, including blindness, comments on this:
"An obligation to use cell phones or even smartphones denies the reality of a wide range of skills and lifestyles.
A downright obligation to be digitally flexible, as has unfortunately long existed in practice, is an exclusion of
all those who cannot or do not want to use this technology.
Digital exclusion" is not only hostile to people with disabilities, but also disrespectful of the
fundamental right to free personal development.
To prevent digital exclusion, the state must also guarantee access to all services and information via other channels.
The principle of equal treatment therefore also requires a commitment to freedom of choice for all services
and administrative processes, whether the citizen wants to handle them digitally or in analog form."
Apart from the issue of digital exclusion, there are other important reasons for the right to an analog life.
This can be seen very clearly in the example of cash usage.
Richard Koller explains this in the Kla.TV program: Yes - to the popular initiative "Cash is freedom" :
No anonymity and no resilience in crises without cash!
"So: cash is something very essential.
It gives people the opportunity to be free, to pay anonymously, to be untraceable.
But it is also very important because of the crises - in the name of crisis resilience, as the Swiss National Bank calls it.
The crisis is a moment when the technology may not be available.
We have no electricity, we have no internet and in situations like this, the population and the economy must be able
to continue to exist and that can only happen with cash."
Devastating consequences if cash disappears!
"If a situation were to arise in Switzerland like in Sweden or Norway, where we no longer have cash, then we can actually see
from these countries what kind of situations that would cause.
In Sweden and Norway, an aggressor could paralyze the electricity infrastructure or the Internet infrastructure today
and the country would be in chaos within four to six weeks.
The two countries have now realized this and are therefore trying to rebuild cash."
No possession without cash!
"So, one difference that few people realize is that cash is property, and it is also my property.
If I have cash in my hand, then that is my property.
If I can only access cash via my cell phone or money via my cell phone, then that is only
access to my property. It is not possession.
It can be interrupted at any time due to a lack of electricity or internet.
I'm no longer free and can't buy anything, I can no longer move around, I no longer have access to my money."
It became clear that citizens have many advantages from using cash.
So why is everyone working flat out to abolish cash completely?
The majority of citizens would like to be able to continue paying with cash.
So who has an interest in abolishing cash? Who benefits from it?
Numerous educationalists, financial experts and investigative journalists, including Ernst Wolff , David Icke and
James Corbett , have been warning against the introduction of a digital central bank currency for years.
The dangers of such a currency are immense.
What would the handling of this digital currency look like in practice?
Everyone would be forced to have an account with the central bank.
The bank is thus in a position to check and control every transaction made.
In addition, the bank could program what can and cannot happen with this money.
It could also be controlled by politicians and stipulate that you can only buy a certain amount of meat per month.
This, of course, under the pretext of climate protection.
We can all imagine numerous other horror scenarios of how much power and control can be exercised over this digital currency.
Any opinion or undesirable action that does not conform to the government, such as "false statements" in
public or on social media, could be punished immediately, so to speak, through financial sanctions.
For more information on this topic, watch David Icke's lecture: "Exposing world tyranny and
its war strategy", which he gave at the 20th AZK.
Don't miss the program by Ivo Sasek on the topic: "Cashless - door handle to hell (by Ivo Sasek)" .
This will then be broadcast again.
Dear viewers, control, total surveillance, restriction of freedom of expression - none of us want that.
But you still have the choice today to make a very clear statement against this.
Make the saying "Only cash is king" your own motto.
Pay in cash wherever possible and support stores that still give you this option.
Consciously avoid self-service checkouts and checkouts where you can only pay by app.
Ask critically at stores that only accept card payments and make it clear that you would like to pay in cash!
Consciously choose the analog option and be prepared to take detours! It's worth it.
In short: Be the change you want to see in this world!