Entry Submitted Anonymously at 3:08 PM EDT on September 6, 2016
When a preliminary matter is settled, it's good to move on to deeper and often harder questions. It surely seems that the currencyland community wrestles with a number of questions - hard for different reasons. Perhaps the hardest question is one which takes us back to what we thought was settled.
Problem analysis in it's most useful form requires, very much like the "scientific method", that the asking party not begin with a preformed conclusion in mind - it makes for bias in the analysis. Sure, it's fine to have a hypothesis - something which you think may be true - but it's critical that the questions asked about your hypothesis may honestly and equally answered in either the positive or negative. In other words, honest inquiry means you are just as willing to accept your hypothesis as right or wrong.
Here are my questions:
1. Exactly what language in the recent Paris climate change agreement do currencyland blogists rely on as proof of a planned RV/GCR or any primary goal of currencyland investors?
2. What reason to we have to believe that any one person, or group of people, are able to "flip a switch" to "activate" the RV/GCR?
3. Except without making material presumptions of motive and meaning, what action has been taken by the government of Iraq which states their intention to announce a 1000% to 3000% (or more) increase in the value of their currency?
4. When "movement" is spoken of by currency gurus as indicating progress toward an imminent revaluation of one or many currencies, to what exactly do they refer? What is "moving" or changing?
5. Why does the currencyland culture not collectively dismiss and discredit "sources" which have wrongly specified major revaluation events consistently for months or years?
6. What motivates seemingly otherwise sensible, often Christian, currency investors to embrace space alien involvement, spiritual "evolution", channeling, or similar "new age" concepts in the name of the RV/GCR?
7. Why is there no public acknowledgment that "one day closer" may be meaningless today as it was 10 years ago for those who wait for the RV/GCR?
8. Under what honest analysis is it inherently "negative" to courteously challenge poor logic or reasoning found in RV/GCR theories?
9. Why are gurus not collectively dismissed by currency holders when they systematically ban anyone who challenges their theories and logic?
By the way, "proof" of any hypothesis is universally considered unreliable if it is not possible for anyone else to repeat the "proof". Thus, "secret" information, or single-source, one-time "intel" is not, in fact, "proof" at all. We all want to see positive change in our economy, culture, and world. I think this tends to muddle our drive for a clear and precise view of our world. This is a rough time in a zealous currency culture for clear thinking and honest questions.