Truth is My God

Truth is My God

By Marc Gauvin

Copyright © 03/2024
Reproduction expressly granted provided attribution is given and original link is provided.

If the world was created by an external intelligent entity, the purpose could hardly be of this world. That purpose is the will of the "creator". The question is if the will of the creator is "good" or "evil".

The idea that good and evil are two sides of the same coin is just an idea that to be true, they should be perfectly homologous. But as C.S. Lewis points out, there is at least one fundamental difference between good and evil which is not homologous, i.e. good is done for its own sake while evil is always done for ulterior motives, we rarely if ever lie, cheat and harm for the sake of doing so. If the homology is lost then one of the two must

If this is the case then evil is deri is measured in terms of good but never the other way round and therefore only good can be the meta standard that ultimately defines evil never the other way round. What is true is above all that can be true or false.

Now comes the tricky question of us being created with free will, can we create "truth" or can we only perceive it? That is, do we do good for its own sake or do we do it for ulterior motives? Do we fear truth or do we love truth? Do give ourselves to truth or do we hide from it? Do we pretend to know how to judge it or do we accept its judgement? Do we serve Truth or do we use it? Is Truth not the Holiest of Spirits? Do we choose Truth as our God omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, all just, all forgiving, all giving,

The Way It Could Be

The Way it Could Be

By Marc Gauvin

Copyright © 03/2024
Reproduction expressly granted provided attribution is given and original link is provided.

"...Why would one conclude that using money under its current misrepresentation is a valid means to ensure against abuse when misrepresentation is itself a legal offence as laid out in You Have Been Served? Why would one conclude that other extant social mechanisms are insufficient,  making the coercive property of money's misrepresentation a requirement for society to function in a satisfactory way, when doing so necessarily invalidates money as a valid reference of value according to the logic and requirements of the science of measure?"

Referring to the day-to-day operation of a Passive money system as required by Resolution 2 of the MSTA Resolutions, where money is formally defined as solely a record/measure of value and strictly operated on accordingly,  Micheal Haines asks: 

"Can you describe how a person would set up a new business with new suppliers, including new logistics suppliers, new premises, new power and water, new staff, and new customers? Given the person has no 'units' to start with?"

First, all can open accounts under the definition and specification of Passive money as laid out on pages 8-11 of "A Systems Engineering Approach to Formal Monetary and Financial Stability Without the Vagaries of “Austerity”. Secondly, all participants of any new activity will be required to satisfy all legal and professional criteria, agreements and certifications in order to operate in most areas that carry social liability or require expertise.  Next, the creation of a proposed enterprise will need the appropriate ratification of by all local, social, urban and environmental norms, contracts and expertise, as well as by the individual suppliers and participants of any related value chains. 
All this will be undertaken without any "supply of money" being required to "enable" economic enterprise on criteria exogenous to real world needs and requirements, yet any sums will be recorded in participant accounts immediately and as required for all (collectively) condoned, governed and ratified transactions. 

Without money acting as a universal enabling trump card as is commonly the case today under money’s misrepresentation, common systemic corruption experienced by all at all levels, is made impossible.  Instead, economic activity is enabled as desired according to the knowledge and expertise of the participants themselves, providing a most comprehensive and rigorous governance on the basis of the best available real world expertise of the needs and requirements of the activities themselves as opposed to the imperatives and vagaries of our current dysfunctional and inherently unstable haphazardly defined money system.

Governance will not only manifest  at the level of formal legal and professional requirements but also at the level of social mores and cultural responsibility, in communities where individuals are empowered free of the vagaries of money’s misrepresentation

Why would one conclude that using money under its current misrepresentation is a valid means to ensure against abuse when misrepresentation is itself a legal offence as laid out in You Have Been Served? Why would one conclude that other extant social mechanisms are insufficient,  making the coercive property of money's misrepresentation a requirement for society to function in a satisfactory way, when doing so necessarily invalidates money as a valid reference of value according to the logic and requirements of the science of measure?

We can prove money's misrepresentation,  how it creates systemic instability and how when agents at all levels of society rich and poor unwittingly abide by the imperatives of that misrepresentation,  the dynamics of said instability become a "hidden hand" governing society beyond the will of anyone no matter their station in life. Thus, we are all prone to increasingly assume and accept what otherwise most all would consider unconscionable. If all this is true, why would we conclude that freeing the many other extant mechanisms for social control and governance from the vagaries of such systemic instability, would not lead to a vast improvement for all? 

Who or what decides?

The current system is based on a misrepresentation, a primary cause of the ills that the system bills itself as its purpose to address.  Since the measure of value is corrupted by the system itself, all other calculations in terms of it are also invalidated.  So, correcting the misrepresentation is in and of itself a bonified solution.

"Money" as a mere record of value cannot be used as a control of economic activity because the moment it is used that way, the function of measure of value becomes biased and the system is rendered unstable and therefore unmanageable for the purpose of valid measure.

With a Passive system, we are guaranteed that the system itself cannot be responsible for what it registers but can only the activity it records can.   Since, users expect reciprocation of their value  from the system as a whole, the real concern is the risk of system wide catastrophic non reciprocation of value in general endemic of systems governed under money's misrepresentation. Control of risk cannot be reduced to merely distinguishing negative balances against positive ones, but rather identifying unstable activity that generates both "excessive" negative and positive balances. In this regard and should there be any marked increase of unreciprocated value in the system,  a Passive system offers two mechanisms that the current system cannot, because its data is categorically invalid see (Risk Without Austerity):

  1. Reduce type B transactions. (Negative or zero buys from positive or zero (increases system balance)
  2. Increase type A transactions. (Positive buys from negative (reduces system balance)

Otherswise, what people can or cannot "afford" beyond fully adequate and quality minimums for all, can only be evaluated and awarded according to non monetary merits by a society free of money's misrepresentation.


1) What does it mean to have a balance?

A balance simply represents a measure of value given or received in the form of “goods and services” pending future reciprocation of “goods and services” of commensurate value.

2) Why bother keeping records?

To provide a valid measure of the relative value of a broad array of goods and services particularly those goods and services whose value is otherwise non divisible (non fungible).

3) Are there consequences flowing from the record?

The first consequence is the provision of a valid measure facilitating the evaluation of a broad array of goods and services over time, particularly non fungible goods/services.   Secondly, identification of the origin and destination of value over time and overall performance and responsiveness of different agents’ and their productivity.  Thirdly, the ability to optimise resource use and managing risk in general.  Actuarial calculations will provide the means of identifying which transactions are potentially problematic given the circumstances and profiles of the parties involved.

4) Does every transaction have to be assessed?

All transactions are assessed by at least the parties to the transactions, most all of whom are knowledgeable of the exact purpose and utility of keeping value measure.  All have access to common knowledge and data (e.g. the system balance) as well as  particular information (e.g. participants’ balances and other data),  in conjunction with relevant specialised knowledge and expertise of the requirements and effects of a responsible use of the corresponding products and services.  Finally and depending on the circumstances of different goods and services with different associated risks,  more elaborate and formal actuarial studies may be required to determine whether a particular transaction should or needs to take place or not. 

Note: the financial risk component of actuarial calculations will be greatly reduced compared to today under money’s misrepresentation where finance itself produces the lion’s share of risk.

5) Is there a 'cumulative' assessment over time to assess risks based on past behaviour?

All with a history will be assessed by their peers to some or other degree,  many transactions will require objective assessment and proof of past capabilities, successes and failures.

6) How does society guard against fraud?

By eliminating the misrepresentation of money and its nefarious consequences financial fraud as is known today, will carry far less risk.  Nonetheless,  all stakeholders (e.g. Central Bank, associated banking or credit institutions, public administrators and interested parties etc.)  will be issued with periodic reports, audits and statements as required.

7) What are the consequences if a person fails to honour their commitments?

Depending on the extent,  causes,  consequences to others, presence or not of malfeasance or fraud, etc.,  the consequences  may be any of a broad array of legal and social measures to redistribute assets when possible and take preventative measures. 

8) What is the basis for assessing risk? Is it income and/or assets based and/or history/character?

Operations research (OR) has proven highly successful in decision making on the basis of a wide range of categories of risk, e.g. risk of producing certain products vs others,  enterprise failure,  reliability, environmental consequences, rates of depreciation, force majeur. etc..

Note:  In a system where money only represents a record/measure of the  value of goods and services pending reciprocation  oscillations of balances around a mean value of  zero are clearly  more efficient than those that oscillate around a non zero mean.   Also,  value measure on account is only of what is pending reciprocation not of all free-hold assets producers may accumulate in exchange for their added value (work and knowledge).

9) Who does these calculations?

Those trained in OR and actuarial science (simplified by eliminating compounding in finance)

10) Who pays them to do the calculations?

Like any good/service transacted there is a provider and a recipient.

11) How is their pay calculated? Is it dependent upon the 'size' of the transaction?

Like any other transaction of goods or services, it is based on a measure of value of the service itself not that of the value for which the service is provided.

12) Who checks that actual experience conforms to their calculations over time?

Everyone will be able to evaluate the goodness of any service given its specification and warranty.

13) How is this check done?

Evaluating experience vs specification and warranty.

14) Who pays for the check?

Like any good/service transacted the agreed value is summed to the providers balance and subtracted from the recipient balance.

15) How is the cost of the check calculated?

Like any other goods or services, it is based on the cost and value of providing the service.

16) What if actual experience results in a 'shortfall' vs the assessed risk?

If a good/service fails,  then the previous answer 7) applies.

17) Who determines there is a shortfall, and the size of the shortfall?

Depending on the failure either it is obviously assessed by most anyone and if required expert witnesses and a court of law may be required.

18) What happens when it is determined that the shortfall can never be recovered

Value lost is a fact of life and only compensated by doing things better in the future using valid measures.

Break out of  "The Money PSYOP" and give your kids

a future they can be proud of you for by supporting the MSTA




By Marc Gauvin

Copyright © 09/2023
Reproduction expressly granted provided attribution is given and original link is provided.

You Have Been Served!

Only when the "logical" alternative seems worse, does bullying and the real threat of war become an option for any empire.  Economic collapse is such a dreaded alternative outcome.  The US is in such a situation,  if the promise of "finance" is required to be "honoured",  then the US will not only lose its prominence but its whole economy and current infrastructure will collapse producing mass poverty and misery, not to speak of the devastation of the real prospect of civil war.

All you have to do to see this, is to divide the US $33 trillion public debt by the US population and you get $100,000 per capita debt or $400,000 for a household of four and then calculate the rate of inflation required to offset that debt, you quickly understand how that would bring the economy to tatters and how collapse of the social order and widespread poverty and misery become inevitable. 

Compounding is another term for exponential, literally a doubling per unit of time. While it might seem possible to offset with greater and greater production of value, the reality is that by definition it is unstable and therefore wholly unmanageable not to mention that perpetual growth is simply a pipe dream. The proof is in the pudding,  the US can no longer offset its financial excesses with its industrial and technological prowess, the numbers show that the output has always been unstable (unbounded), hence we have no proof or precedence that it has ever been "manageable". This explains the US recourse to increased bullying and now the real threat of WWIII, likely to become nuclear!

Notice how all this is predicated on the validity of financial contracts and agreements at all levels. But are they valid and what to do if they turn out not to be?  Does the world end?  No and here is why:

Here and at the MSTA, we have unequivocally proven that the very notion of money we ALL use by rote and that therefore underpins all money contracts, constitutes a logical and mathematical absurdity, that we refer to as money's logical core misrepresentation. Simply put, the notion that money can be both a measure/record of value AND an article of trade/commodity is wholly untenable under the scrutiny of formal logic as both concepts are mutually exclusive and logically contradictory.  Since that is necessarily the case, then any pretense of any valid measure within said contracts is categorically denied.  As a direct consequence of this,  all money contracts that assume said misrepresentation or any of its imperatives, must also be unactionable at least in terms of said misrepresentation. 

So, how dose this help us to remove the looming threat of WWIII? 

By recognising the invalidity of the financial promises that threaten destruction of the US, the doomsday alternative no longer serves as a worse alternative to war. This doesn't mean that balance of trade need not be reciprocated, just that the distortion introduced by money's misrepresentation once removed, will enable us doing so with valid stable measures manageable over more  flexibly negotiated periods of time and without the need for the vagaries of "austerity" i.e. managing risk without austerity.  Creditors will gladly accept, because a third world war risks either their subjugation in the case of a US victory,  or in the case of US defeat,  not being able to offset unprecedented damage incurred.   


  • Money in contracts has the function of measure i.e. measure of the value of goods and services. 

  • But treating money also as an asset subject to market supply and demand destroys its function of measure.

  • The balance of trade of the value of real goods and services can be measured* to reveal a truer more realistic "balance of trade".

  • Once a balance of trade in terms of valid (stable) measures of value has been established,  any outstanding balances on the part of any party can be honoured within negotiated periods of time that avoid the need for implementing damaging and debilitating "austerity".

To learn more of how to achieve this and your personal role see: You Have Been Served!

*The science of dynamical systems theory as applied to money,  provides a fully valid and relevant means for defining and specifying stable currency units
for the representation of value over time that economic and financial theory has shown to be incapable of providing. 

Break out of  "The Money PSYOP" and give your kids

a future they can be proud of you for by supporting the MSTA




A Timely Solution to the Millenary Problem of Money’s Core Misrepresentation

(An urgent communique to all economic agents public and private, particularly all levels of government, public administration, public and private financial entities and institutions.)

V.03 FINAL Sept 22nd 2023 (rev. 10 Nov 2023)


As a matter of utmost urgency we call for the adoption of the MSTA Resolutions (Annex I), for which we summarise the salient facts and consequences as follows:

1) Money/currency unit symbols are not formally defined as required for any determinate application of any mathematical expression in terms of said units to any independent common reality.

Consequence: Financial system imperatives are at best indeterminate vis a vis any real world societal needs and to claim any scientific/rational imperatives of these is a serious and perilous error.

2) By conflating the concepts of measure and commodity without consideration of how and/or when these two concepts are mutually exclusive, the colloquially and commonly assumed informal notion of money being used in lieu of any requisite formal definition, constitutes a logical incongruence. Such inconsistency is referred to as money’s core misrepresentation (Annex II).

Consequence: Any process no matter how compelling that in any way incorporates what can be shown to be invalid, cannot itself be considered valid.

3) Given said misrepresentation has been assumed universally by rote in all manner of money contracts and agreements and according to formal systems theory and proven practice (Annexes III, IV), said misrepresentation can be shown to cause systemic instability by allowing incoherent relations whereby money is used as a unit of measure to determine its own unit value in terms of variable quantities of itself, wholly invalidating any pretence of it acting as a valid measure/record/reference of value.

Consequence: Pursuant to formal systems theory and proven practice, imperatives that arise from using said misrepresentation by rote and as a foundational axiom, will lead to destabilisation of all concomitant processes and real world systems that incorporate the imperatives arising from said misrepresentation.

Such instability incites all agents to adopt evermore extravagant and otherwise unconscionable strategies, measures and policies, exacerbating overall systemic instability and risk (Annex IV). Thus leading to increased risk of harm, suffering, deterioration of life support systems and unwarranted exhaustion of vital resources.

4) The MSTA Resolutions provide an immediate remedy to all the above not only without cost or penalty to anyone but eliminating the vast majority of current financial risk [3]. By framing the money system in terms of formal control and stability theory and adhering to proven requirements for system stability, monetary stability is shown to be attainable by correcting money’s misrepresentation, formally defining currency symbols as only arbitrary units of value measure and strictly operating on them accordingly (Annexes III).

Consequence: Adopting the MSTA resolutions offers an immediate avenue to monetary stability validating its use as a reference of value and without any cost or penalty to any agent yet eliminating vast amounts of risk to the whole economy (Annex III). By money no longer acting as an article of trade, thus freeing the real economy from perilous financial cost and otherwise arbitrary risk, competition in terms of quality over quantity will be enhanced, while enabling a greater and more flexible inclusion, diversity of production, made impossible under money’s misrepresentation.

5) Principles of legal validity such as Quae ab initio non valent, ex post facto convalescere non possunt (what is initially invalid cannot be made valid by subsequent acts) [1] must supresede all considerations in order to determine justice. (Annex V)

Consequence: Common practice can only serve as a source of law if and only if said practice is not shown to be invalid and/or to contravene fundamental principles of law (truth, logic, natural law) (Annex V). Thus, the use of money’s misrepresentation as a foundational premise cannot be validated by appealing to “common practice” no matter how long standing that practice might be.

6) By logic and as explicitly set out in Anglo/American law [2] misrepresentation carries three levels of liability:

    1. Innocent (didn't know) e.g. most lay people;
    2. Negligent (didn't know but it is my job to know) e.g. all economic and financial experts and;
    3. Fraudulent i.e. all those with a reckless disregard for the misrepresentation.

Consequence: All those alerted to the existence of any claim of misrepresentation and who do not act to determine the truth of such a claim, are acting recklessly and therefore become potentially liable for fraudulent misrepresentation and any subsequent civil and penal charges.


From the above, it follows that it is the responsibility of ALL agents public and private habitually operating under money’s misrepresentation, to attend to the formal claim and proof of said misrepresentation and to either provide proof (of commensurate rigour and detail) to the contrary, or act in good will to remedy it by calling for the adoption of the MSTA Resolutions or their logical equivalent. To do otherwise, is to be delinquent in one’s civil duty and to become liable for “reckless disregard” as outlined in point 6) above. With respect to public entities, given their mandates to represent, serve and protect their constituents and their legitimate interests, any such reckless disregard is most harmful.

We therefore call on all to respond appropriately and consequentially by alerting others to the contents by sharing the link to this document as widely as possible.

Download the urgent communique with the annexes and suggested (editable) cover letter text, and share with all your contacts and public representatives.

Also see: Stop WWIII


[1] Black's law dictionary. HENRY CAMPBELL BLACK, M. A.. 1990.

[2] 2023 - Thomson Reuters Practical Law

[3] A WORLD AWASH IN MONEY Capital trends through 2020 Bain and Company. 2012 fig. 1.1. page 7.

Break out of  "The Money PSYOP" and give your kids

a future they can be proud of you for by supporting the MSTA



"Saving the Planet" or Survival and What about "Money"?

By Marc Gauvin (c) 27/08/2022

Reproduction expressly granted provided attribution and original link are given.

Isn't abundance having more than you strictly need? Can we speak of an "end of abundance" for the case where we no longer are able to sustain what we never really needed? If we have confused desire with need, technology with knowledge, subtle fallacy with truth and want with power, then isn't the problem one of a lack of truthfulness rather than of some dire circumstance?

Isn't it a question of realising that we really don't know what we are doing, instead of rationalising whatever we do as a sort of adaptation to motivate ourselves into doing "whatever it takes to survive"?

Consider the following:

Humanity didn't create itself, the universe did. So ultimately, we are not responsible for existing. What then is our true nature? Is it to be whatever we prove to be?

No other creature apologises for its nature, but simply pursues their natural impulses wherever those may lead, if it turns out that such brings them to extinction, then so be it,  they certainly won't be the first nor the last. 

The rate of net extinction of species, can only be calculated if we know the total numbers dynamically arising and dying. We are constantly discovering hundreds of new species every year.  In only 2018, 229 new species have been reported to have been discovered [1], that means that at that rate and over the last five centuries 114,500 new species potentially have been added, yet we have only detected the extinction of 900 species in those 5 centuries [2]. Even if that rate is an underestimate that is still only 1.8 species a year. 

No one can calculate the exact abundance of species and how they can adapt to human folly,  we are constantly being surprised in this regard, for example in the highly radio-active Chernobyl forest ecosystem,  species are flourishing [3].  Also,  nature never ceases to surprise us with its ability to build life into the most unsuspected environments, producing life-forms that tolerate all sorts of "impossible" conditions e.g. volcanic snails [4].

So maybe the problem isn't "saving the planet" maybe it is preventing our own extinction i.e. what all creatures do with what nature gives them, and all ultimately fail sooner or later i.e. become extinct as "99% of all species that have existed are now extinct." [2]

But what is our nature? Is our nature to walk around with gadgets providing feedback from our environment, while suppressing our innate biological impulse processing? Is our nature  to be subjugated to harebrained dogma and group think? Is it to be governed by an unstable money system of our own creation but that we never factor into our calculations, even though it is the single major influence on our behaviour,  is that system here to ensure we become what we are "meant to be" i.e. gadget addicted geeks?

Is our penchant to "understand" our environment beyond immediate direct biological responses really our "nature"? The vast majority of mankind are not number wise and find themselves stifled by science and so called "progress" rather than feeling enabled, they are enslaved by progress more than they are freed. And the notion that "progress" and technology provides for mankind's success is simply a self-serving argument because it cannot factor in how we would otherwise have evolved. How do we really know that we are better off than how we might have otherwise evolved? Was our exodus from the paleolithic into the neolithic a fortuitous step towards a more meaningful "survival". Or was it a lethal step into collective enslavement and stupidity,  sealing our premature extinction as "the transition to agriculture had an overall negative impact on human oral health, increased the incidence of infectious disease and nutritional deficiencies, and contributed to an overall reduction in human stature."? [5]

What we do know for sure, is that what we are currently doing is not sustainable and our survival is threatened more by what we are doing as opposed to by what we aren't doing. The question is what of what we are doing needs to go?  Or should we continue trying to control the Universe (i.e. just do more) to compensate for our erred behaviour?  Shouldn't we instead be focused on why we are doing what we are doing? 

Currently a tiny percentage of humans are dictating that our nature and behaviour is wrong and if we do not deny our impulses by building and doing more to restrain the effect of our behaviour, we are doomed to extinction.  But what if the solution is modifying the behaviour of just one or our own systems not imposed by nature? To understand which system(s) must go,  we would need to apply our "systems science" to all relevant systems i.e. is it the SI system of units that is causing our erratic behaviour or is it some other system, like perhaps our money system?

One thing we will find is always missing in all these dictates and so called "science", is a thorough scientific analysis of "money" as a system.  Why? Is it because our otherwise "sages" are so subdued by that system [6] that they fear discovering its affect on them? Is it that they might find that their relationship with the world through money satisfies their immediate impulses in a way that they do not want to change?

Wouldn't omitting such a thorough analysis invalidate their dictates? Isn't it a massive failure of negligence on their part to model "reality" and just happen not to include the money system and its systemic (system wide) effects i.e. effects that override any human behaviour under its yoke?

Ask these so called "experts", if according to their analyses, the money system is "passive" in the formal systems science sense of the term. If it is active (stable or unstable) ask what are its systemic effects on society when its imperatives are assumed by rote and by most all [7]? 

If they refuse to answer, then you know that they are not being sufficiently thorough commensurate with their mandate and just like most of the rest of humanity, they are simply vying to satisfy their immediate impulses. Then all this business of "saving the planet" turns out to be just a ploy for some to ensure exclusive privilege and consideration over others. 

Notice, that if funding were not skewed,  UN officials weren't earning tax free six figure salaries plus travel and living expenses, there would be no UN let alone any IPCC.   Moreover, if the money system were Passive, there would be none of the many systemic issues that depend on the current money system to exist and that are in one way or other,  seen as threatening life itself.  I leave figuring out how many of such issues depend on money to come about to the reader as an exercise.








Break out of  "The Money PSYOP" and give your kids

a future they can be proud of you for by supporting the MSTA


Additional information