Anyone Who Goes To Work For A Central Bank Coin Is A Traitor

There’s a time and place for just about everything, and this is a time to be blunt:

Anyone who takes a job for a central bank or any similar entity, building a cryptocurrency, quasi-cryptocurrency or kind-of-blockchain-thing, is a traitor.

Not just a traitor to Satoshi (though that’s very certainly true), and not just to the crypto community, but a traitor to mankind.

This is how rulers enslave us. When we build some great new thing, they try to get rid of it. And if they can’t, they just hire us, build a version that suits them, and order everyone to use it. If compliance isn’t immediate they post a few heads on pikes.

It has happened over and over, but we can’t fall for it this time.

Anyone who builds a central bank coin will be forging the chains of mankind for mere paychecks.

Say it loud and say it proud.

Banning Cash: Serfdom in Our Time

Over the last few months a stream of articles have crossed my screen, all proclaiming the need of governments and banks to eliminate cash. I’m sure you’ve noticed them too.
It is terrorists and other assorted madmen, we are told, who use cash. And so, to protect us from being blown up and dismembered on our very own street corners, governments will have to ban it.


Over the last few months a stream of articles have crossed my screen, all proclaiming the need of governments and banks to eliminate cash. I’m sure you’ve noticed them too.

It is terrorists and other assorted madmen, we are told, who use cash. And so, to protect us from being blown up and dismembered on our very own street corners, governments will have to ban it.

It would actually take some effort to imagine a more obvious, naked attempt at fearmongering. Cash – in daily use for centuries if not millennia – is now, suddenly, the agent of spring-loaded, instant death? And we’re supposed to just accept that line?

But there are good reasons why the insiders are promoting these stories now. The first of them, perhaps, is simply that they can: After 9/11, a massive wave of compliance surged through the West. It may not last forever, but it’s still rolling, and if the entertainment corporations can pump enough fear into minds that want to believe, they may just get them to buy it.

The second reason, however, is the real driver:

Negative Interest Rates

The urgency of their move to ban one of the longest-lasting pillars of daily life means that the backroom elites think it will be necessary soon. It would appear that the central banks, the IMF, the World Bank, the BIS, and all their backers, see the elimination of cash as a central survival strategy.

The reason is simple: cash would allow people to escape from the one thing that could save their larcenous currency system: negative interest rates.

To make this clear, I like to paraphrase a famous (and good) quote from Alan Greenspan, back from 1966, during his Ayn Randian days: The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves.

That was a true statement, and with a slight modification, it succinctly explains the new war on cash:

The preservation of an insolvent currency system requires that the owners of currency have no way to protect it.

Cash is currency that you hold in your own hands, that stands more or less alone. It is primarily external to bank control. Electronic money – bank balances, credit, etc. – remains inside the banking system and fully subject to bank control.

A combination of no cash and negative interest rates would be a quiet, permanent version of what was done in Cyprus, where the government simply shut down everything, allowed only the smallest deductions via ATMs, and then stole money from thousands of bank accounts at once.

The Cypriot spectacle was fairly large, however, and that tends to undermine the legitimacy of rulership. So, it is much better to have no ATMs and no cash at all. There would be no lines of angry people talking to each other, only isolated losers with no recourse, licking their wounds while the talking heads on television tell them to stay calm and watch the flashing images.

Negative interest rates would give the banks 100% control over your purchases. They could, even in the worst pinch, allow you to purchase food while freezing the rest of your money. The average person would have no recourse and would simply be robbed… but very smoothly and with no human face to blame on.

Negative interest rates mean that your bank account shrinks day by day, automatically. Your $1000 in January becomes $950 by December. And where does that money go? To the banks, of course, and to the government. They syphon your money away, drip by drip, and there’s nothing you can do about it. This accomplishes several things for them at once:

  • It finances government, limitlessly and automatically. Forget tax filings; they can just take as they please.

  • It pays off the bad debt of the big banks. (And there are oceans of debt.)

  • It forces you to spend everything you’ve got, as soon as you get it. (Otherwise it will shrink.)

  • It gives the system full control over your financial life. Everything is monitored, everything is tracked, and every single transaction must be approved by them (or not). If they decide they don’t like you, you’re instantly reduced to begging.

In short, this is a direct return to serfdom.

I suggest that you start talking to your friends and neighbors about this now, before it’s too late. Don’t let them comply without a fight.

Paul Rosenberg

How Democracy Made Central Banking Possible

It is slowly dawning upon the people of the West that central banking cartels have been draining away their wealth. What they haven’t yet understood is that these money cartels were only made possible by what we call democracy.


It is slowly dawning upon the people of the West that central banking cartels have been draining away their wealth. What they haven’t yet understood is that these money cartels were only made possible by what we call democracy.

Given that democracy is almost a sacred dogma these days, it’s understandable that people have been slow in grasping this fact. Nonetheless, central banking, and giant banks in general, were impossible until democracy was instituted in the West.

Here’s why:

Prior to democracy, loans were undertaken by monarchs, who were personally responsible for their loans. As Meir Kohn of the economics department at Dartmouth University writes:

The debt of a territorial government was essentially the personal debt of the prince: if he died, his successor had no obligation to honor it; if he defaulted, there was no recourse against him in his own courts.

Sometimes princes paid their loans, and sometimes they didn’t. For example, the Peruzzi were a leading Florentine banking house in the 14th century. At one point, they lent Edward III of England 400,000 gold florins, which, for a variety of reasons, was never repaid. This led to the collapse of the Peruzzi Bank in 1343.

Deals were quickly made when a prince died, of course, but the bankers had a weak position. They had to negotiate the balances and promise to make more loans in the future.

On top of that, many rulers simply refused to pay loans they had taken. Probably the most prolific deadbeat was King Philip II of Spain. He refused to pay back his loans at least a dozen times.

Because of this, banks were seriously limited. They developed techniques of dealing with sovereign defaults, but central banking as we know it was more or less impossible. Bankers didn’t dare make the kinds of loans they do now.

Democracy, however, solved that problem for them. Under democracy, loans are not debited to an individual, but to the nation as a whole. All the citizens, and their children, become responsible for repaying the loan.

From the institution of democracy onward, loaning money to a government gave the banker a claim against the taxes of the people… a claim that never expires.

This was a clever trick: The person who signs for the loan ends up bearing almost no responsibility, and gets to spend all the money. At the same time, millions of people who never approved the debt—who probably had no way of even knowing about it—are left holding the bag… and passing on the obligation to their children.

This is how 18 trillion dollars of debt can be piled up on top of a populace. Without democracy, it couldn’t have happened.

Modern “Democracy”

I can’t help pointing out that what we call democracy bears almost no resemblance to the democracy of ancient Athens. I’ll go through the particulars in a future Daily Dispatch, but it’s important to understand that democracy vanished from Earth between about 300 BC and 1800 AD, and for good reason.

The arrangement we call “democracy” consists of three main parts:

  1. Elected representatives.
  2. Legislation.
  3. Police departments.

This (plus the ever-present bureaucracy) is the rulership we encounter on a daily basis, but it was never part of Western civilization until it showed up in the decades surrounding 1800 AD.

There were some representatives before 1800 in European cities, but they weren’t much like modern representatives. Mostly they were businessmen appointed to oversee things. Even Parliament was composed primarily of nobles (all nobles at first), not representatives in any modern sense.

Legislation was almost unknown before 1800. For example, when English philosopher Jeremy Bentham died in 1832, he was revered as “the founder of modern legislation.” Before that time, legislation was mainly a collection of laws that were condensed into a group for convenience. “Law” referred to the findings of judges, or to the process of judging actions that were just or unjust.

Permanent, government-owned police departments played no part of Western life until this new triumvirate was installed at about 1800. Before then, there were sometimes city guards, temporary forces, and even private guards, but the first police force we would recognize was created in Paris, in 1800 AD. London didn’t have a police department until 1829.

I’ll close with three quotes on the effects of democracy on the people of the West:

Alvin Toffler, in The Third Wave, writes this:

Voting provided a mass ritual of reassurance …. Elections symbolically assured citizens that they were still in command ….

Elections took the steam out of protests from below.

Alan Bloom, in The Closing of the American Mind, wrote:

Sycophancy toward those who hold power is a fact in every regime, and especially in a democracy, where, unlike tyranny, there is an accepted principle of legitimacy that breaks the inner will to resist.

And John Kenneth Galbraith wrote this in The Age of Uncertainty:

When people put their ballots in the boxes, they are, by that act, inoculated against the feeling that the government is not theirs. They then accept, in some measure, that its errors are their errors, its aberrations their aberrations, that any revolt will be against them.

Paul Rosenberg

This article was originally published by Casey Research.

Why the Banksters Don’t Care About Your Gold

bankstersI regularly hear how important it is to hold silver and gold and how dangerous the central banks and their banksters (a combination of bankers and gangsters) really are. I’m sympathetic, of course, since I don’t like central banks and I do like silver and gold.

But these folks have a problem: Their plans never seem to bear any fruit. Mostly, they are waiting for the banksters to lose control, for the financial system to fall down, and for their silver and gold to save them from an apocalypse.

But it has been a lot of years now, and the banksters seem to have no concern about precious metals in the hands of average folks. In short, they don’t fear your silver and gold at all, and I think it’s important to examine why.

The Obvious Reasons

There are several obvious reasons why the banksters don’t fear metals in private hands, and then there’s a much bigger reason. Let’s start with the easy ones:

  1. The banksters already hold most the world’s silver and gold and control its pricing. The ‘official’ price of gold is set every day by a group of bankers in London.
  2. They lease it to each other and their friends.
  3. The largest bankers more or less control the gold futures markets. At last count, the big commodities market had 102 times more gold under contract than they had physical gold. Since this “paper gold” passes for real gold, manipulations can abound.
  4. Governments are very good at stealing gold from a populace. The US government did precisely that in 1933, and there’s no reason to think they wouldn’t try again when they want. Taking money is what governments do.

The Big Reason

All the reasons above are significant, of course, but there remains a vast amount of gold and silver in private hands. And this could present a serious problem to the banking monopolies, except for one thing:

The people who hold these metals never use them.

I regularly hear people asking, “How do we destroy the banks?” And the answer is obvious: Stop using their products.

That, of course, is where the inquiry usually ends.

The “gold bug” crowd already has the tool of victory in their hands – but they don’t use it. There is more than enough gold, silver, and copper in free circulation to conduct a great deal of commerce. And if they were serious about ending the reign of central banks, that would be the way to do it. (Bitcoin would more than suffice for international transactions.)

But they almost never use their metals. Rather, they hold them in safes, in drawers, and on shelves, treating them like little idols. Every so often they pull out their stacks, dust them off, appreciate them for a moment, then put them back into storage. Then they wait for the apocalypse to come, when they’ll finally do something with them.

Again, I like silver and gold; I think they are honest money and a good store of wealth. But if you want to great rid of central banking tyranny, you’ll have to USE your silver and gold. That’s the choice: Treat it like an idol or treat it like money.

As long as your coins remain static, they remain powerless. If you use them like money, big things can happen.

The Bitcoin Kids Have It Right

A lot of silver and gold people hate Bitcoin. But regardless of Bitcoin’s features or flaws, the Bitcoin community is doing one thing very well: They are using their currency, rather than merely admiring it.

This is why the banksters and governments are freaked out about Bitcoin and not about silver and gold. By using their currency, the Bitcoin kids are chipping away at the banksters. If left unmolested, these young people would seriously weaken the banksters and eventually render them obsolete.

  • The banksters fear Bitcoin, because people are using it in daily commerce.
  • The banksters don’t fear precious metals, because they are not used in daily commerce.

Silver and gold will start chipping away at the banksters when people pull their metals off their shelves and use them… and not before.

Paul Rosenberg

Is Bitcoin More Dangerous than “Cartel Money”?

bitcoin cartel moneyI’m going to use a couple of passages from the Bible (the original set of moral standards for our Western civilization), followed by an examination of both Bitcoin and cartel money, to see how they hold up in comparison.

As for my use of the term “cartel money,” it’s the best short description I know for the dollars, euros, yen (and so on) that we use in our daily commerce. They are produced by secretive and monopolistic groups of private banks. That rather precisely matches the definition of cartel.

Principle #1: For wherein you judge another, you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things.

I think by now we have all heard the big accusation against Bitcoin – that it is used for “money laundering” – made especially by the money cartels (the European Central Bank first).

First off, that doesn’t make sense to me. A currency is supposed to be neutral – that is its purpose. So, accusing a currency of money laundering is like jailing a knife for murder. But, that’s not precisely the point we’re addressing here.

Rather, the question is: do the cartels do the same thing that they condemn?

You bet they do!

Read this story on HSBC. Then read this one on Wachovia. These banks laundered hundreds of billions of dollars – knowingly – for violent drug lords. And it gets worse: No one from either bank went to jail. Neither bank was shut down. Neither bank suffered more than a minor fine.

So, how much of a concern can money laundering really be to the cartels and their politician partners? Clearly none, or very close to none.

And, since the cartels accuse Bitcoin of being used for bad things, let’s be clear about the situation: Every mafioso on the planet uses cartel money. So do all the drug smugglers, terrorists, and pornographers.

Does Bitcoin accuse the money cartels? Nope. Bitcoin has no official operators to speak for it at all.

It is true that many Bitcoin users accuse the cartels of being manipulators, but, at least for now, there is no Bitcoin cartel that is even capable of manipulating the currency.

So, round one goes to Bitcoin: The cartels very clearly condemn themselves, and Bitcoin clearly does not.

Principle #2: Everyone who does evil hates the light, and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. But he who does what is true comes to the light.

When Bitcoin creator Satoshi Nakamoto posted his Bitcoin paper in 2008, he laid everything open for all to see. Then he wrote the Bitcoin program and left it “open source,” so anyone could see the programming.

The process of creating cartel money, on the other hand, is mostly hidden, purposely confused, and isn’t even taught to most Econ majors. And if you think that’s just my opinion, here’s one from the esteemed economist John Kenneth Galbraith:

The study of money, above all other fields in economics, is one in which complexity is used to disguise truth or to evade truth, not to reveal it.

The argument is made, of course, that the process of creating dollars, etc. is very complicated, and that people don’t understand it because of that.

I don’t think that’s true, but even so, let’s compare it to Bitcoin: Making bitcoins is also complex, but Bitcoin enthusiasts have been working night and day to explain their new currency and how it works. I’ve seen them cornering people at birthday parties, trying to make them understand.

Round two goes to Bitcoin also. Bitcoin wants to be seen and known, and the cartels surely do not.

It all comes down to the reason “why.”

Satoshi Nakamoto began the original Bitcoin document by saying that he wanted to, “allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution.” He goes on to say that he was creating,

an electronic payment system based on cryptographic proof instead of trust, allowing any two willing parties to transact directly with each other without the need for a trusted third party.

In other words, Satoshi wanted to remove the necessity of one man ruling another in the area of money. Furthermore, he did it, then went away.

As for the motives of the cartel, we can’t really tell. The visible heads of the Federal Reserve are certainly not the owners of the Federal Reserve, and the US government refuses to reveal the names of the owners.

Perhaps the closest real examination of their motives comes from a renowned professor who worked for them for a few years. Professor Carroll Quigley of Georgetown – and a major influence on none other than Bill Clinton, wrote this in his book Tragedy & Hope:

The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences. The apex of the system was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basle, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world’s central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank… sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent rewards in the business world.

So, was Quigley right? I have no solid proof that he is, but he would be an awfully hard witness to impeach. One substantiation that comes to mind is a recent comment by Illinois Senator Dick Durbin. In the midst of a political fight, he complained, “The banks own the Senate.”

That’s not really proof either, but it is interesting.

You can make up your own mind on the banks, but Satoshi’s motives are fairly well beyond question.

I think it is clear that from a moral standpoint, Bitcoin is far, far better than cartel money. (As are silver and gold.)

So, the next time you hear someone calling Bitcoin dangerous and evil, don’t let them get away with it!

Paul Rosenberg