“In a nutshell, they are to cull a large percentage of the human race and to turn the survivors into a completely controlled army of slaves who own nothing and are dictated to and tracked, traced and monitored 24 / 7 everywhere, even inside their own homes, which of course they will no longer own.”
“It only starts to make sense when you understand that everything that has happened and is happening is due to a meticulously planned and sinister plot being implemented by the narrow clique of gangsters who now control our world.”
The period from 1945 to 2019 was for many a “Golden Age” – a period of relative peace, prosperity, stability, and freedom. This has now ended as the most dangerous and destructive timeline in the history of the World has begun, initiated by malevolent and extremely ruthless Plutonian forces characterized by a complete lack of empathy intent on creating a global totalitarian regime. If this timeline is not derailed soon – and there is little sign that it will be – the result will be death, destruction, and enslavement on a biblical scale for the majority of humanity and we are already seeing this starting. Examples of other such inflection points in history that lead to catastrophe are the shooting of Archduke Ferdinand in Sarajevo that triggered the onset of the 1st World War and the declaration of war on Germany by Britain in 1939, using the excuse that it had a pact with Poland, but what we are seeing now is an order of magnitude higher and truly global in nature so that nowhere on Earth will escape the dragnet. This time around the trigger is the timed release of a relatively harmless virus that has been heavily hyped by the media non-stop to make the public think it is akin to the Black Death. With respect to the timing of the release of the virus and attendant media hysteria, this was determined by two factors. One was that the global debt situation had become critical with the world economy on the verge of collapse – they needed a crisis to provide the excuse for another orgy of money creation, so they crashed world markets into March and put the blame on the virus.
This guide below can help you in a survival situation
If society collapses, you can bet that the foods the pioneers ate will become dietary staples
The way the heist works couldn’t be simpler. Those in control collapse the world economy and force the majority of its population into massive debt just to survive. Those with any assets worth stealing are then given an ultimatum – hand them over or starve or be sent to the debtors’ prison, which in the US will doubtless mean utilization of the vast sprawling network of FEMA camps. Around this time a large proportion of the world’s population deemed surplus to requirement and an unnecessary burden on the environment and a nuisance will be culled (meaning killed) either by lethal injection or starvation…
—
We now have almost the entire world population unknowingly engaging in occult rituals that are designed to transport them into a new subservient reality. This is the first time this has ever happened in the history of the world… It is important to understand that this narrow but extremely wealthy and powerful clique at the top of the pyramid already controls everything – Central Banks including and especially the Fed, governments, politicians, and judiciaries, who are nearly all “for sale”, the clergy, the media, etc.
(left, Clive Maund) They don’t entirely control the internet yet …but they are working on it, and soon they will close this window. As for their objectives, in a nutshell, they are to cull a large percentage of the human race and to turn the survivors into a completely controlled army of slaves who own nothing and are dictated to and tracked, traced, and monitored 24 / 7 everywhere, even inside their own homes, which of course they will no longer own.
The era of all-powerful central banks is over for a simple reason: they failed: they failed their citizens, their nations, and they failed the world. Their policies have pushed wealth and income inequality to extremes that have destabilized the planet’s social, political, economic and environmental spheres.
As I have endeavored to explain for many years, this is the only possible outcome of central bank dominance. Once Finance becomes the primary mover of everything else, then it distorts everything into a skimming machine that benefits the few with access to central bank funding at the expense of everyone else.
Once finance dominates, then both the “market” and government become servants of finance. I say “markets” because once markets have been financialized, they serve the interests of cartels and monopolies and cease to be markets at all.
Government, regardless of the advertised “brand”, becomes an auction where the highest bidder gains control of governance and regulation, which are bent to serve the interests of the few with access to central bank largesse.
As the charts below illustrate, this is the top 0.1%, with a substantial “trickle down” to the top 1% and top 10%. The bottom 90% have lost ground not just economically but also politically and socially.
The Federal Reserve’s most important payment system, FedACH, which processes over 50 million transactions per day, still takes 2-3 days for payments to clear. It’s so outdated, it’s as if they’re still sending satchels full of cash via Pony Express.
It’s also ridiculous that the people who have failed in every possible aspect of their responsibility think that they’re qualified to administer a brand new financial system.
These Central Banks failed to anticipate inflation. They failed to recognize it. They failed to do anything about it for more than a year. And now they’re hellbent on causing a recession.
They’ve pretty much been a complete disaster. Yet now they want to be in charge of crypto too. Are these people serious??
On the First of May in the year 1716, a swashbuckling Scottish entrepreneur was making this pitch of his lifetime to the head of the French government in Paris.
The entrepreneur’s name was John Law. By all accounts he was incredibly charismatic and had a flamboyant, larger than life personality. He was something like Adam Neumann, formerly of WeWork… the kind of person who could talk anyone into anything.
And John Law’s pitch that day was to launch an entirely new financial system.
King Louis XIV had just died eight months before, leaving France in terrible financial ruin. Decades of endless wars, palaces, and profligate spending had bankrupted the French government.
The situation was so dire, in fact, that there was hardly any gold left in the French treasury. So the new head regent of the government, Duke Philippe II of Orleans, was desperate for a solution.
Law made him a bold proposal: the Duke would provide Law with a special banking license. And in exchange, Law would create a new system of paper money that would bring more gold into France and help pay off the crippling national debt.
Philippe agreed. And, only a few weeks later, John Law’s new Banque Generale Privee was in business.
It turned out that people loved the idea of paper money. And within a year, his paper bank notes were circulating widely throughout the French economy, and the government even accepted them for tax payments.
Law made his paper money even more valuable in late 1717, after he had taken control of the Mississippi Company.
The French Mississippi Company was something like the Dutch East India Company; it was a private enterprise that had received a royal monopoly over all the land and resources in France’s American colonies.
Almost immediately after securing rights to the monopoly, Law offered shares of the Mississippi Company to the public; it was like a giant IPO.
But Law sweetened the deal by allowing people to pay up to 75% of the share price using his bank’s paper money.
The Mississippi Company IPO was a smashing success. It was so popular that Law was offered bribes, sex, and political favors from French nobles in exchange for the opportunity to buy a few extra shares.
The famous philosopher Voltaire was eye witness to this, and wrote, “I myself saw him pass through the galleries of the Palais-Royal followed by dukes and peers, Marshalls of France, bishops of the Church.”
And at first the share price soared. Bear in mind the Mississippi Company had zero activity. Hardly anyone was living in France’s southern colonies in America, and there was virtually no trade or commerce going on.
The government even tried deporting criminals to America, trying to increase the population of the colonies. They offered hundreds of acres of land for free to anyone who would go. Yet economic activity still failed to transpire.
Eventually the French public realized the truth; there would be no gold, no gems, and no riches coming from the Mississippi Company. And the stock price began to quickly collapse.
Law tried to prop up the stock price by creating more paper money (backed by absolutely nothing), and using that new money to buy shares of the Mississippi Company.
But all he ended up doing was creating inflation; with so much new paper money circulating in the economy, prices everywhere rose.
Demand for goods arises because of perceived benefits. For instance, individuals demand food because it nourishes them. This is not so, however, about pieces of paper we call money, so why do we accept them?
According to Plato and Aristotle, the acceptance of money is a historical fact endorsed by government decree. It is government decree, so it is argued, that makes a particular thing accepted as the general medium of the exchange. Carl Menger, however, doubted the soundness of that view, writing:
An event of such high and universal significance and of notoriety so inevitable, as the establishment by law or convention of a universal medium of exchange, would certainly have been retained in the memory of man, the more certainly inasmuch as it would have had to be performed in a great number of places. Yet no historical monument gives us trustworthy tidings of any transactions either conferring distinct recognition on media of exchange already in use, or referring to their adoption by peoples of comparatively recent culture, much less testifying to an initiation of the earliest ages of economic civilization in the use of money.
Why Conventional Demand—Supply Analysis Fails to Explain the Price of Money
How does something the government proclaims become the medium of the exchange, acquiring value? We know that the price of a good is the result of the interaction between demand and supply. From this, we could reach a conclusion that the price of money is also set by the laws of demand and supply.
While demand for goods emerges because of perceived benefits, people demand money because of its purchasing power with respect to various goods. The demand for money depends upon the purchasing power of money while the purchasing power of money depends on the demand for money.
We are caught in a circular trap. (The demand for money is dependent on its purchasing power while the purchasing power is dependent for a given supply on the demand for money). The circularity seems to vindicate the view that the acceptance of money is the result of the government decree.
Mises Supports Menger’s Insight
Ludwig von Mises’s regression theorem supports Menger’s insights. Mises not only solved the money circularity problem, but he also confirmed Carl Menger’s view that money didn’t come from a government decree.
Instead, the central scenario is surely that the Fed has flooded the system with so much money (only some of the excess removed during the period of hawkish turn and taking account of cumulative price rises) that the natural downward rhythm of prices will not show up in outward reality. Rather, the Fed will use the relief from symptoms of inflation in the consumer price data to double down on monetary inflation. This would show up at first in a new episode of asset inflation.
Under any remotely sound money regime the aftermath of war and/or pandemic is highly likely to feature a sharp decline in the prices of goods and services on average. Even under unsound money regimes there are powerful forces operating towards lower prices once the war/pandemic recedes. Strong injections of monetary inflation, however, can overpower them.
The Fed and all the foreign central banks which follow its lead and/or doctrines are apparently of the intention that this time the decline in prices will not take place. Instead, they state the aim of their monetary policies, to be achieved within two years, as a decline of the inflation rate from present near-term highs to 2 percent.
In combatting the powerful “natural rhythm” of prices downwards in the aftermath of pandemic and war we should expect the Fed and foreign central banks to marshal a tremendous amount of monetary power. That will occur beyond an intermission where central banks are ostensibly trying to rein back the monetary inflation which has reached its peak virulence in 2021–22.
Precise measurement of monetary inflation, including its stages, is impossible under the present monetary regime where the supply and demand conditions for monetary base—and the attributes of base money—have been deeply corrupted. In thinking about the next monetary inflation injections, history provides considerable insight.
The aftermaths of supply shocks are full of inflation danger, even though recession intervenes and mitigates this for some time. Monetary inflation has accompanied all the great supply shocks and sometimes preceded them as in the present case of pandemic and war. Here monetary inflation stretches all the way back to 2012/13.
In the aftermath of World War I and the Spanish flu pandemic (1918–19), US consumer prices fell by around 20 percent (from mid-1920 to end-1921). The fall in prices stemmed both from deliberate monetary deflation (starting in late 1919 as the Benjamin Strong–dominated Fed sought to reverse the monetary inflation in the half-year following the armistice) and the easing of supply restraints (with huge gluts developing for many primary commodities).
After World War II there was an almost 5 percent decline in CPI from mid-1948 to the end of 1949, overlapping the recession of November1948 to October 1949. There was no sudden substantial monetary policy tightening during that time. But the around 30 percent rise of consumer prices during 1946–47 coupled with the constancy in outstanding supply of high-powered money stock meant this shrunk far in real terms. Accordingly, the overhang of excess money supply dwindled.
Towards the end of the Korean War (1950–53) and into its aftermath consumer prices were relatively flat (mid-1952–55), having risen by almost 12 percent between mid-1950 and the end of 1951. That was despite the McChesney Martin Fed following an inflationary monetary policy as evident first in asset inflation and later in an eruption of consumer price inflation (the second half of the 1950s). In effect the “natural rhythm” downward of prices as wartime constraints eased and a sustained leap in productivity growth got under way meant that monetary inflation did not produce at first the symptom of consumer price inflation.
It is all about control. What tells more about you than where you go an what you buy? Woe unto you when you do something some faceless bureaucrat doesn’t like.
Keep using that plastic.
Every central bank in the world is rushing to launch a digital currency…but why? And who is pulling the strings behind the scenes? As it turns out, we don’t need a ‘social credit score’ when money itself is used to control our behavior. Christian breaks down the reality behind this global, synchronous push for digital currencies and the elimination of cash in this Ice Age Farmer broadcast.
This momentous fact has not escaped the attention of socialist theorists. The Saint-Simonians in France had already grasped it at the beginning of the nineteenth century. They understood that the economy of a country could be controlled particularly easily and safely with the help of the printing press. A few years later, the demand for the “centralization of credit in the hands of the state through a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly” soon also held center stage in the 1848 Communist Manifesto by Marx and Engels.
It is well known that socialism is a shortage economy. It is the economy of inefficiency and corruption, of indifferent workers and of bigwigs, of lacking spare parts, of lacking funds, of failure, of permanent reform needs and of constantly unsuccessful reforms. This concerns in particular total socialism, as it was realized in the Soviet Union or under National Socialism. But it is no less evident in the numerous partial socialisms that are featured in the real existing welfare state, in its numerous state “systems.” Budget deficits year in, year out despite high contributions—that is the reality in the state pension system and in the state health system. The state education system is similar: declining student performance and growing illiteracy despite sky-rocketing expenditure. No private entrepreneur could afford to let the costs get out of hand in such a way. Anyone who is in competition has to keep improving. Only those who have a legal monopoly and can make use of taxpayers’ money if necessary do not need it.
Now there is one partial socialism that stands out from the usual array of failures. Here we see gains instead of losses. Here we often find all the other signs of a successfully run company, from the private legal form to the pinstripe-filled boardroom. We are talking about central banking. The term “central bank” actually refers quite clearly to a centrally planned economy. But when people talk about the Fed, the ECB or other central banks today, hardly anyone thinks that they are talking about an offspring of the socialist spirit. On the contrary, central banks are typically viewed as particularly “capitalist.” After all, what would be more capitalist than money? And what would be more closely related to money than a bank?
Upon closer inspection, however, it appears that this connotation may not be entirely correct. In the unbridled market economy, private property and competition prevail. Central banks, on the other hand, are usually state institutions. Even those central banks that are private-law organizations (as in the United States, Japan, and Switzerland) are subject to special laws and their directors are appointed by national governments. In addition, central banks always and everywhere enjoy a legal monopoly. Their banknotes and their deposit money are largely withdrawn from free competition. The market participants are compelled to use the money of the central banks.
This money is one of a kind. Indeed, it can basically be produced in unlimited quantities. The production of money by the private commercial banks is limited by their equity capital and also by the cash deposits of their customers. But central banks do not need equity or cash deposits. It is they who create cash. They can generate cash out of nothing and practically for free. Certain legal limits are set for them, but in times of crisis, as in 2008–09 and in 2020–21, these limits can be relaxed quickly and dramatically. If necessary, they can also be abolished entirely.
Central banks therefore have potentially tremendous power. If only let loose, they can control all of the economy and society. There is almost no limit to the number of new loans they can issue. The can provide these loans to some and deny them to others. And by implication they can also control the use of all available resources. After all, labour usually moves where it is best paid. Raw materials and capital goods are typically sold to those who offer the highest prices. If you control the printing press, you can also let the real resources flow exactly where you think it is right. Whether this use of funds is also profitable plays a rather subordinate role for central banks (unlike commercial banks). You do not have to work hard and invest well to cover losses. One push of a button is enough.
Central banks are therefore made for do-gooders. He who runs a central bank does not need to do painstaking educational work in order to bring about any social change. The humanitarian with the printing press can finance all changes he wishes for at the push of a button. He can just pay other people to do what he wants. He does not need any savings or capital for this. He does not need a democratic majority either. As long as he has the printing press under control, he could by and large give a damn about what other people think or wish.
This momentous fact has not escaped the attention of socialist theorists. The Saint-Simonians in France had already grasped it at the beginning of the nineteenth century. They understood that the economy of a country could be controlled particularly easily and safely with the help of the printing press. A few years later, the demand for the “centralization of credit in the hands of the state through a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly” soon also held center stage in the 1848 Communist Manifesto by Marx and Engels.
Unsurprisingly, the enormous possibilities of creating money from nothing have been used again and again to finance state industrial policy and socialist experiments. In the 1970s, British historian Antony Sutton reported that some of New York’s Wall Street banks had financed the radical transformation of traditional European societies. They supported Lenin and Stalin as well as Adolf Hitler with billions of dollars. That would not have been possible without the refinancing from the American central bank.
In our day, too, the historical connection between the central banking system and political utopias is being brought back to life. This time it appears in the form of a “green” and egalitarian transformation of the economy and society. The directors of the ECB [European Central Bank] and the Fed have already officially committed to this.
The new humanitarians with the printing press are undoubtedly a great danger to humanity. They threaten everyone’s prosperity by channeling scarce resources into unprofitable (and therefore unsustainable) uses. But they also threaten the free social order as a whole, in that they are preparing to disempower the open competition of all social forces. They want to replace this competition with the rule of a nonelected leadership caste.
However, green central bank policy is not to be condemned primarily because it supposedly pursues ecological goals, but because a central bank comes into its own here. Central banks are by their very nature destructive. Even if they are not led by self-proclaimed ecologists and socialists, they favor the cousin, favoritism and the bigwig economy. The economists of the Austrian school have shown, among other things, that central banks always and everywhere weaken economic growth by undermining the propensity to save; that they are destabilizing the economy by fueling a debt economy; that they incite greed and avarice; and that they create blatant inequalities in income and wealth. Central banks cannot be reformed, they must be abolished.
This article is a translation of an article that has appeared in the German edition of the Epoch Times, in October 2021. Author:
Jörg Guido Hülsmann is senior fellow of the Mises Institute where he holds the 2018 Peterson-Luddy Chair and was director of research for Mises Fellows in residence 1999-2004. He is author of Mises: The Last Knight of Liberalism and The Ethics of Money Production. He teaches in France, at Université d’Angers. His full CV is here.
The fiat money system, the creation of money through circulation credit expansion, has brought about a new kind of debt slavery on a grand scale. Consumers, corporations and, of course, governments, too, have become highly dependent on central banks continuously churning out ever greater amounts of credit and money, provided at ever lower interest rates. In numerous countries, central banks have de facto become the real centers of power: Their monetary policy decisions effectively determine the weal and woe of economies and whole societies.
In his “Manifesto of the Communist Party” (1848), published together with Frederick Engels, Karl Marx calls for “measures” — by which he means “despotic inroads on the rights of property” –, which would be “unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionising the mode of production,” that is, bringing about socialism-communism. Marx’s measure number five reads: “Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.” This is a rather perspicacious postulation, especially as at the time when Marx formulated it, precious metals — gold and silver in particular — served as money.
As is well known, the quantity of gold and silver cannot be increased at will. As a result, the quantity of credit (in terms of lending and borrowing money balances) cannot easily be expanded according to political expediency. However, Marx might have fantasized already, what would be possible once the state is put in a position where it can create money through credit expansion; where it has usurped and monopolized the production of money. Long before Marx, the English churchman and historian Thomas Fuller had elaborately expressed the power of money: “Money is the sinew of love as well as war.”
The Origins of Modern Central Banking
The idea of central banking has a long history. For instance, the Swedish central bank, the Sveriges Riksbank, was founded in 1668, and the English central bank, the Bank of England, was formed in 1694. The fraudulent operations of such institutions came to light soon, at the latest with the writing of the British economist David Ricardo. In his 1809 essay “The High Price of Bullion” he pointed out that it was the increase in the quantity of money — in the form of banknotes not backed by gold — that caused a general rise in prices, an effect we know as (price) inflation.
Unfortunately, however, the political-economic insight that central banks holding the money production monopoly would misuse their power time and again, engage in cronyism, and cause an anti-social debasement of the currency has not — to this very day — sufficed to discredit the monstrous idea of central banking. It seems that as far as monetary affairs are concerned, Marx’s concept of Dialectical Materialism has made quite an impression: What is appears to form peoples’ consciousness (not vice versa). This has certainly helped in creating central bank Marxism on a world-wide scale.
Cutting the Last Ties with Commodity Money
On 15 August 1971 Marx’s vision became true: The US administration single-handedly terminated the redeemability of the US dollar into physical gold – and so gold, the currency of the civilized world, was officially demonetized. Through this coup de main, in the United States of America, as well as all other countries in this world, an unbacked paper money — or fiat money system was established. Since then, all currencies around the globe represent fiat currencies: representing money creation by circulation credit expansion, not backed by real savings or deposits, monopolized by central banks.
The fiat money system, the creation of money through circulation credit expansion, has brought about a new kind of debt slavery on a grand scale. Consumers, corporations and, of course, governments, too, have become highly dependent on central banks continuously churning out ever greater amounts of credit and money, provided at ever lower interest rates. In numerous countries, central banks have de facto become the real centers of power: Their monetary policy decisions effectively determine the weal and woe of economies and whole societies.
By issuing fiat currencies, created out of thin air, a rather small clique of central bankers, together with their staffers, causes — to borrow from Friedrich Nietzsche — a “revaluation of values.” Chronic monetary inflation, for instance, discourages savings; running into ever greater amounts of debt gets cultivated; by central banks’ downward manipulation of the interest rate, the future needs get debased compared to present needs; the favoring of a sort of monetary “Deep State” comes at the expense of demolishing civil and entrepreneurial liberties.
A Supranational Central Bank
In Europe, central bank Marxism has accomplished a rather astounding feat: 19 nation states with a total of around 337 million people have given up their right to self-determination in monetary affairs, submitting to the monetary policy dictate of a supra-national central bank entirely beyond effective Parliamentary control that issues a single fiat currency, the euro. While central bank Marxism has been reasonably successful in Europe, however, its true spearhead has always been the US central bank: The Federal Reserve (Fed).
Today’s world depends on the fiat US dollar issued by the Fed more than ever. Effectively all other major currencies are built upon the Greenback, and it is the Fed that determines the credit and liquidity conditions in international financial markets. It effectively presides over a world central bank cartel which, if it is allowed to continue unimpededly, will eventually steer and control the world economy through its unassailable money production monopoly, effectively removing one of the most critical roadblocks against unrestricted state tyranny.
Ideas Have Consequences
So those favoring a free society can only hope that something will get in the way of central bank Marxism. This is by no means impossible. Socialism-communism is not the inevitable destiny of social life and historical evolution, as Marxists would like to make us believe. What truly matters are ideas or theories, if you will, as ideas — whatever their specific content, wherever they come from, whether they are right or wrong — underlie and drive human action.1Ludwig von Mises was acutely aware of this indisputable insight:
Human society is an issue of the mind. Social co-operation must first be conceived, then willed, then realized in action. It is ideas that make history, not the “material productive forces”, those nebulous and mystical schemata of the materialist conception of history. If we could overcome the idea of Socialism, if humanity could be brought to recognize the social necessity of private ownership of the means of production, then Socialism would have to leave the stage. That is the only thing that counts.2
Against the backdrop of Mises’s words one may add: Once people understand that Marxism (and all its particular forms of socialism) does not guarantee a higher living standard and that it does make a better or more just and reasonable world, it would usher in the end of central banking and fiat money. In other words: whether or not central bank Marxism and fiat money will prevail or be thrown out of the window (or flushed down the drain) will be determined by the outcome of the “battle of ideas.” So there remains reason for hope!
1. For a detailed explanation see Mises, L. v. (1957), Theory and History, Ludwig von Mises Institute, Auburn, US Alabama, Part Two, esp. Chapter 7, pp. 102 – 158.
2. Mises, L. v. (1981), Socialism. An Economic and Sociological Analysis, Liberty Fund, Indianapolis, p. 461.
By far the most dangerous idea is that any future digital currency should be “programmable”. Meaning the people issuing the money would have the power to control how it is spent.
The year is 2030.
To reduce your CO2 footprint, your food purchase with digital cash been declined because you went over your car mileage limit. Its all tracked with your digital ID.
15 social credit score points have been deducted from your climate change passport.
If you are allowed to buy ammo and firearms purchases may well be limited and certainly records will be kept.
Building on the bitcoin model, central banks are planning to produce their own “digital currencies”. Removing any and all remaining privacy, granting total control over every transaction, even limiting what ordinary people are allowed to spend their money on.
From the moment bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies first emerged, sold as an independent and alternative medium of exchange outside the financial status quo, it was only a matter of time before the new alternative would be absorbed, modified and redeployed in service of the state.
For those who have never heard of them, “Central Bank Digital Currencies” (CBDCs) are exactly what they sound like, digitized versions of the pound/dollar/euro etc. issued by central banks.
Like bitcoin (and other crypto), the CBDC would be entirely digital, thus furthering the ongoing war on cash. However, unlike crypto, it would not have any encryption preserving anonymity. In fact, it would be totally the reverse, potentially ending the very idea of financial privacy.
Now, you may not have heard much about the CBDC plans, lost as they are in the tangle of the ongoing “pandemic”, but the campaign is there, chugging along on the back pages for months now. There are stories about it from both Reuters and the Financial Times just today. It’s a long, slow con, but a con nonetheless.
The countries where the idea progressed the furthest are China and the UK. The Chinese Digital Yuan has been in development since 2014, and is subject to ongoing and widespread testing. The UK is nowhere near that stage yet, but Chancellor Rishi Sunak is keenly pushing forward a digital pound that the press are calling “Britcoin”.
The US is also researching the idea, with Jerome Powell, head of Federal Reserve, announcing the release of a detailed report on the “digital dollar” in the near future.
The proposals for how these CBDCs might work should be enough to raise red flags in even the most trusting of minds.
Most people wouldn’t like the idea of the government monitoring “all spending in real-time”, but that’s not the worst it.
By far the most dangerous idea is that any future digital currency should be “programmable”. Meaning the people issuing the money would have the power to control how it is spent.
That’s not an interpretation or a “conspiracy theory”, just listen to Agustin Carstens, head of the International Settlement Bank, speaking earlier this year:
Here’s that quote again, with some emphasis added:
The key difference [with a CBDC] is that the central bank would have absolute control on the rules and regulations that will determine the use of that expression of central bank liability, and the have the technology to enforce that.”
…which tells you not only that they want and are seeking this power, but how they justify it to themselves. They transform other people’s money into an “expression of their liability”, and so consider it’s only right that they control it.
An article in the Telegraph, back in June, was just as candid [our emphasis]:
Digital cash could be programmed to ensure it is only spent on essentials, or goods which an employer or Government deems to be sensible
The article goes on to quote Tom Mutton, a director at the BoE:
You could introduce programmability […] There could be some socially beneficial outcomes from that, preventing activity which is seen to be socially harmful in some way.
Governments and employers making sure the money they issue can only be used on “sensible” things, and not be used in “socially harmful” ways? It doesn’t take much imagination to see just how this system could evolve and re-shape society into a truly dystopian nightmare.
In China the process is already beginning, with a trademarked lack of subtlety. As they progress toward the release of their digital currency, they are banning all cryptocurrencies to remove competition and it’s already known the digital yuan will be programmable.
The West’s approach will probably be less direct, but no less controlling for that.
Britcoin will likely be programmed in only “special circumstances”. Starting, as the Telegraph says, with state benefits. They will be flagged to be spent only on “essentials”. (Of course, if Universal Basic Income is put in place, then it’s possible the majority of people could end up on “state benefits”.)
It’s also not hard to see programmable money feeding into the “protect the NHS narrative”, where people aren’t allowed to spend state money on sugar, cigarettes or alcohol. Or people on organ waiting lists, or diagnosed with certain conditions, have their wages and spending controlled.
By and large, however, it is the nature of British tyranny to be unofficial. So the UK government will make a big show of renouncing their own power to program the money, thereby positively contrasting themselves with China…but at the time will take no steps to prevent large companies “programming” the wages they issue.
So, while the state controls the digital yuan in China, the digital pound will be subject to corporate control and used to enforce the unspoken state-corporate partnership that defines true fascism.
It will likely start in small, predictable ways designed to “limit competition”. McDonald’s, for example, will make it impossible to spend their wages at Burger King, and vice versa. Coke and Pepsi. Starbucks and Costa. You get the idea.
We’ve witnessed the rise of cancel culture, the cultivated age of identity politics, and virtue signalling. Well, imagine how programmable currency fits into that. Companies could commit to “combatting hate”, and stop their employees from donating money to black-listed political parties, religious groups, charities or individuals.
In the age of Covid we have seen how authors/actors/singers who step out of line are subject to poisonous witch hunts, but imagine a world where companies could “renounce those who spread misinformation”, by making it impossible to spend wages they issue on art/films/music/books by outspoken critics of the government.
Maybe companies will make it so that employees who aren’t vaccinated have more limitations placed on their wages than vaccinated ones. Maybe an unvaxxed paycheck can’t be spent at cinemas or nightclubs, to “stop the spread of the virus”.
John Cunliffe, deputy director of the Bank of England, told the Telegraph:
You could think of smart contracts in which the money would be programmed to be released only if something happened.
So maybe employers will remove choice altogether, and make a negative test and/or a vaccine booster a prerequisite for unlocking your wages. That could be applied to all kinds of behaviours moving forward.
The World Economic Forum has a clear vision of the future where people “own nothing and are happy”, combine that with a prolonged war on homeownership, and you can see employers and governments issuing money which can be spent on rent, but not on a mortgage.
Now imagine the nascent “Green New Deal”. Hard limits on how much money you can spend on petrol, plastic, or meat.
Only X dollars on flights per year. Only Y pounds on beef. All for the good of the planet.
Money will turn from an expression of independence into nothing but a voucher system operated completely at the whim of corporate monoliths.
The year is 2030.
To reduce your CO2 footprint, your food purchase with digital cash been declined because you went over your car mileage limit.
Its all tracked with your digital ID.
15 social credit score points have been deducted from your climate change passport.
All of this would have sounded like rampant paranoia just two years ago, but would you honestly be surprised to see that suggestion in the Guardian, these days?
A programmable digital currency would have, coded into it, the ability to control our entire society. And it looks like that’s where The New Normal is heading next.
Liquidity injections are like a drug, and the financial markets just can’t get enough of them. But as they were endlessly juicing the stock market, officials at the Federal Reserve broke one of the cardinal rules of drug dealing. You never get high on your own supply. It turns out that quite a few of the big dogs over at the Fed have very large investments which greatly benefitted from all of the cash that the Federal Reserve was endlessly pumping into the marketplace. If that sounds “extremely corrupt” to you, that is because it is extremely corrupt, and it is another example that shows why the Federal Reserve should be completely abolished.
Earlier this week, the entire nation was stunned when news of this scandal first started to break…
Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell directed staff to review the central bank’s ethics rules for appropriate financial activities after disclosures that several senior central bank officials made multiple multimillion-dollar stock trades in 2020, while others held significant investments.
That sounds really bad, right?
But then more of the specific details started coming out and it got even worse…
Powell held between $1.25 million and $2.5 million of municipal bonds in family trusts over which he is said to have no control. They were just a small portion of his total reported assets. While the bonds were purchased before 2019, they were held while the Fed last year bought more than $5 billion in munis, including one from the state of Illinois purchased by his family trust in 2016.
Boston Fed President Eric Rosengren held between $151,000 and $800,000 worth of real estate investment trusts that owned mortgage-backed securities. He made as many as 37 separate trades in the four REITS while the Fed purchased almost $700 billion in MBS.
Richmond Fed President Thomas Barkin held $1.35 million to $3 million in individual corporate bonds purchased before 2020. They include bonds of Pepsi, Home Depot and Eli Lilly. The Fed last year opened a corporate bond-buying facility and purchased $46.5 billion of corporate bonds.
They knew that flooding the financial system with new money would cause the value of those investments to go up.
In other words, they made conscious decisions that they knew would make themselves even richer.
This is the sort of extreme corruption that we would expect to see in third world dictatorships, but it is happening right here in the United States of America.
But at least nobody got hurt, right?
Wrong.
As the Federal Reserve and other global central banks have been flooding their respective systems with unprecedented amounts of new money, food prices have been aggressively rising all over the globe…
Whether for bread, rice or tortillas, governments across the world know that rising food costs can come with a political price. The dilemma is whether they can do enough to prevent having to pay it.
Global food prices were up 33% in August from a year earlier with vegetable oil, grains and meat on the rise, data from the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization show. And it’s not likely to get better as extreme weather, soaring freight and fertilizer costs, shipping bottlenecks and labor shortages compound the problem.
You and I may be able to handle rising food prices (at least for now), but on the other side of the globe there are scores of people that are deeply suffering at this moment…
Filipino broom maker Gloria Hernandez longs for chicken and milkfish — big milkfish. She can only afford small ones now, and they don’t add up to a decent meal. She eats rice with coffee twice a day so she doesn’t feel hungry. Fried eggs and bread — those are the foods Nigerian clergyman Femi Oyekan Moses used to eat all the time and misses the most. Now he mainly eats beans and corn and often skips lunch.
Hernandez and Moses are part of an emerging group who could once provide regular meals for themselves and their families but are now struggling because of the pandemic. They’re not on the verge of starvation as so many millions are, but they’re suffering from what’s called “food insecurity” in moderate to severe degrees, unable to afford a balanced and nutritious diet because of income loss and rising prices.
In fact, it is being reported that the number of people around the world that are facing “food insecurity” increased by 320 million in just 12 months…
According to a July report from the World Food Programme and the World Health Organization, 2.37 billion people worldwide, or one in every three people, were in that latter category in 2020. That’s an increase of 320 million people in one year.
Hundreds of millions of people do not have enough food to eat tonight because global central bankers wanted to make themselves and their wealthy friends even wealthier.
You can call that whatever you want.
I call that “evil”.
The reason we still have a Federal Reserve is because the American people kept sending politicians to Washington that support the Federal Reserve.
In recent years there have been people running for office that were calling for the Federal Reserve to be abolished, but they didn’t get the kind of support that they deserved.
Hopefully these shocking new revelations about Fed officials will start to wake more people up.
I would love see a renewed “End the Fed” movement in this country.
Because the truth is that we do not need a central bank to prop up our financial system and run our economy. We are supposed to have a free market economy, and our financial markets are not supposed to be a rigged game.
What has been going on at the Fed should actually not surprise any of us, because it is simply a reflection of the deep corruption that we are seeing on just about every level of our society.
Without at least some basic level of morality, no society can survive for long.
Sadly, the level of morality in our society continues to sink, and it is often those that walk the halls of power that are the most corrupt of all.
MCViewPoint 