BITS AND PIECES: THE MORE THINGS APPEAR TO CHANGE, THE MORE THEY STAY THE SAME
Crystal Clark, April 12, 2013
I am often privately asked for my perspective on bitcoin, so I have posted my personal assessment here for others with a similar curiosity. That said, this article isn’t solely focused on bitcoin, but rather the role it would have played in shoring up a greater social construct, including an in-depth look at that construct and whom it will ultimately serve.
In a reality where everything is connected to everything else in one way or another, attempting to place value on a singular segment or piece without the perspective of associations found in the broader overview, is similar to again drinking from the same well in which phrases about repeating history and the value of hindsight, originally sprang.
Where bitcoin is concerned we find another form of *virtual* currency that is backed by belief—the belief that because it is an alternative to our current system it is therefore actually safer and better. However, are we looking at a genuine alternative or simply more of the same through effective political spin and rebranding? Did aspartame become safer and better when it was relabeled neotame and provided in containers that didn’t force the consumer to use it in premeasured increments? Was the reality of weather modification unearthed when global warming was relabeled climate change? Is something really better just because a marketing guru versed in the ways of perception management slapped the word “green” or “sustainable” or “alternative” on it?
Bitcoin being a fully virtual currency, how even semi-virtual currencies have served us in the past is certainly a necessary component of the discussion. Another equally pressing and relevant component to the dialogue, is how virtual currencies are the preferred mechanism of the totalitarian future being planned by the only people it will actually benefit.
It’s important to remember that social engineering uses endless forms of psychological manipulation for the sole purpose of getting the general populace to come to *pre-determined* views, conclusions and therefore participation in pre-planned outcome(s), and do so in ways that allow them to feel as though they chose it for themselves. Moreover, the willing transition to an entirely virtual monetary system happens to be one of those pre-determined choices/outcomes, with one primary objective: installing and enforcing a system with more effective means to monitor and control every aspect of (y)our lives.
An especially telling example popped up when DHS began using the main stream media to seed ideas into the collective mind (through fear mongering) that people who pay for a cup of coffee with cash might be terrorists. In other words, in the overall scheme of things, people being demonized for failure to support and use a cashless system—before the system is fully implemented—is synonymous with being told that a cashless system is in your future, and if you refuse to go along with it, you WILL be ostracized and singled out as a potential terrorist to force your conformity. These ominous overtones of things to come can be directly connected back to numerous public statements made by several well-known social engineers, including Henry Kissinger’s proclamation that who they refer to as terrorists, are simply those opposed to their version of a new world order. What we should be asking ourselves then, is what that version will look like, and where we fit into it.
The Power of Rebranding: What Was Old Becomes New Again
It is said that absolute power corrupts absolutely, but I agree with other philosophers who insist this isn’t really the problem, rather it’s that power has a tendency to attract the wrong kind of people to begin with. But what IS power, and who decides? Is it really money? To a large degree it is at the moment, but the underbelly of the beast is actually based on the self-proclaimed notion of noble birth—the same ideology behind divine right of kingship claims—both being the central core or hub in the global wheel of class warfare. This is about making sure we know who our imposed “betters” are, and not much else.
Knowing the media, which includes news, film, commercial and television producers, serve as parroting, trumpet-blowing mouthpieces in the royal court of our noble ‘betters’, I remain unconvinced that the destruction of the middle class, the rise of the police state and loss of more freedoms, and relentless film/television programming reminding the common man of his true place, are all happening simultaneously out of sheer coincidence. This is doubly true when considering the brazen and recent reemergence of thought police (censorship and penalties), witch-hunts and inquisitions in the form of no-fly lists, unwarranted searches and confiscation of personal property without conviction, and mass surveillance with the stated goal of weeding out heretics and dissenters commonly referred to as terrorists or extremists. This began with the mythical Al Qaeda and associated Muslims/Arab stereotyping and vilification, and has since expanded to include everyone from returning veterans, constitutionalists, raw milk and organic food farmers, and even evangelical Christians.
The exceptional number of films and television shows with themes harkening back to the days of serfdom and feudal societies being so heavily marketed and broadcast at the same time these other events are taking place, in conjunction with things like Agenda 21, the NDAA and Patriot Act, should more than raise an eyebrow in a “free” society. I can only assume our global handlers were convinced that by throwing in some fantastical sorcery, zombies and dragons, we wouldn’t notice the underlying yet consistent theme trending in our edutainment of late. To some degree, maybe they were right.
This includes (but is not limited to) the Merlin series, The Tudors, Game of Thrones, and of course the recent box office hit The Hunger Games. In every case the viewer is presented with endless versions of subjects being forced to consistently bend their knees, backs and wills to the self-serving, spoiled and bizarre whims of a ruling class, or face the dire consequences of defiance. The best life that persons of non-noble birth can hope for in this type of scenario is to be chosen to serve the nobles in their courts doing exactly that—becoming servants. Their noble and royal highnesses neither cook, clean, labor in the field, fill their own glasses or dress themselves—that’s what everyone else is for. Additionally, after having achieved this power, nearly every moment of their lives is spent scheming and worrying over how to keep it. This often necessitates arranged marriages to ensure global alliances are kept that will maintain a system whereby ONLY those of noble birth can rise to the top and become rulers. Their thrones and financial dynasties are passed on to their sons, not because they have proven themselves to be just and capable leaders, but because they have the same last name.
But what IS noble birth, and what could it possibly have to do with a cashless society? Noble birth is whatever those in power say it is, and have the wealth needed to secure the minions and armies necessary to force compliance with that belief on others. For the Nazi’s it was the German race, and apparently Zionist Jews feel similarly self-entitled. There are others of course, as a 12-year old girl recently discovered that all of our US Presidents (with the exception of Martin Van Buren) have been related to John Plantagenet, the King of England in 1166.
There are several underlying issues in this regard, the most obvious being that when it comes to the majority of the people on this planet living under the rule of self-professed nobility, between then and now, only the dates and names have changed. Class warfare begins and ends with this form of elitist narcissism, and at some point, genocide becomes the result. We saw it with the Nazi’s and we’re seeing it now in Gaza. Those are not the only examples by any means, and the common theme is always the same: Those who believe themselves to be the betters of others will inevitably take more and more drastic measures to prove it by putting their lessers in their proper place at the bottom, out of fear of losing their own place at the top.
Spreading the Cancer of Elitism
Further, this phenomenon has a tendency to give rise to another, equally disturbing trend: creating false friendships and alliances that instill the same beliefs in others. They will intentionally befriend certain of their (perceived) lessers and teach them to behave the same way as though they are equals, for the sole purpose of having them do their dirty work; for the sole purpose of having their new-found friend kill off or enslave what he now believes to be his own lessers. Should this individual cease to be of use in this regard, he will immediately “lose their favor” and discover, likely on the chopping block, that they never thought of him as equal—he was manipulated into serving them the same way all of their other lessers are.
Does this explain why so many friends who were once treated as allies and dignitaries, seen smiling in photographs taken with our leaders as they shook hands, were later publicly vilified, branded dictators and murdered? Is this what happened to Saddam Hussein and Kaddafi? Probably. Is that why (y)our leaders are taking (y)our rights away to protect us from the evil (and mythical) terrorists one day, and then funding those very same terrorist groups the next? Most certainly—the “enemy of my enemy is my friend” kind of thing. There is of course a little more to it, especially in the “if you can’t turn them, burn them” department, which also goes back to previous flag-waving and patriotic fervor insisting that whoever isn’t for them is against them. This exact same ideology was also expressed a moment ago when referring to Kissinger’s definition of a terrorist.
Another important factor in the manipulation process goes back to how an extremely deep-seated personal need to be accepted by groups we wish to part of, is one of the most easily and consistently manipulated desires a human being has. And, we should never underestimate how far a person will go to “prove” they are as good as others, nor how far those others will go to use that to their benefit. Additionally, intentionally creating a consumer society was achieved using the same approach.
The masses are constantly told that unless they have and use specific products, society will shun them and they will miss out. This form of marketing (marketing=emotional manipulation) has been so successful that it actually came true simply because people bought into it, something that has been proven over and over in social experiments. A poorly dressed man lying in the street pretending to be unconscious will rarely be approached to see if he needs aid, but if you dress him up in a suit he’ll attract a crowd of helpful do-gooders within minutes. But, even then, there are still some things that no amount of money can buy—still some clubs you can’t bribe or pay your way into—like the Noble Birther Club.
Catering to the Imaginary Gap between Noble & Ignoble Ensures a Bereft Future
Members of the NBC (Noble Birther Club) go by several other names, and I remember being confused the first time I heard them referred to as MJ12—a term I had previously only heard in relation to ufology. My confusion was cleared up straight away when it was explained to me (by an individual in a very high station) that there are twelve ruling families that run the planet and there’s nothing anyone can do about it. Some refer to them as TPTB (the powers that be), others call them the shadow government or the hidden hand. This is something most people are aware (or becoming aware) of, so I feel more compelled to focus on how far a person might actually go to please the NBCers when driven by the psychological need to be (considered) one of them. Further, I find it important to ascertain who the eager-to-please individuals might be, because it will be their actions as facilitators that are the most telling in terms of which *pre-determined* direction all things life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are intended to go.
Aside from having a net worth over $60 billion dollars and investing large portions of it into bio-technologies that have been documented to cause disease and infertility, and aside from his public statements that global population could be reduced with vaccines or even how we need to sacrifice the middle class to save the planet (!), I find Mr. Gates’ recent project, the Better Than Cash Alliance, to be especially significant in this regard. It’s based on the idea that the best way to help the poor people on this planet, is to give them immediate access to a central bank. It hasn’t escaped my attention that this is being done in combination with wars against countries considered part of the axis of evil that coincidentally, were the only ones who didn’t have a central bank before we liberated them.
This is happening at the same time the head of Google, Mr. Schmidt, has recently been traveling the world to share his vision of the future with the public. That vision includes cyber-terrorists murdered with drone strikes, the theft or virtual kidnapping of online identities, and understanding that in a future in which no “delete” button or privacy exists, because everything can and will be used against us at some point, parents will feel compelled to address the subject of online privacy with their children before addressing the subject of sex. [Note: A myriad of articles on the subject can be found by searching for the phrase Erich Schmidt’s vision of the future—you can also pre-order the book due out this month.].
Writers from memeburn.com captured more on this from the vision Schmidt presented at the World Congress in Barcelona: http://memeburn.com/2012/02/eric-schmidt-offers-his-vision-of-the-future/print/
“In Schmidt’s vision, societies will be split into three strata in the future and will be divided by how they use technology and how much access to it they have.”
Schmidt referred to the first class (here rebranded as “strata”) as the hyper-connected, the second class as the well-connected who will ultimately form the new global middle class and focus less on building and producing things (?), and the third class as the aspiring majority who will have limited or no access to technology at all. Through deliberately defining the three new classes of the future we find absolutely no evidence of attempts to honorably use these advanced technologies to bridge the gap between classes as a means to prevent or remove class barriers and distinctions in this visionary new future, and we shouldn’t pass over the inclusion of the word “majority” when defining the third class of aspirers.
Many astute reporters in the tech industry attending one of several venues at which Schmidt was a guest speaker, noted early on that individual privacy was missing from most of what he had to say regardless of the consistent and liberal application of Orwellian spin. Even techies know that denial isn’t a river in Africa and realize, due to the times we live in, privacy double-speak about protecting us from all the bad hackers and terrorists out there, has a tendency to end up violating more privacy than it actually protects. Those nasty (and likely pre-arranged) threats will have to be dealt with of course, and that will require an online ID to prove you are who you say are; anonymous is synonymous with terrorism now—would-be whistleblowers take note.
In summary, what is emerging on this planet is a technopathic control grid from which no human being will be able to escape once it is fully up and running, and it will be more vicious than anything Orwell imagined. Moreover, it is being instituted by the only people who will actually achieve more power and benefit from it, which means it only applies to us. This is no different than a Congress that forces the people into a watered down health care system (complete with death panels) that they are personally exempt from. A similar and even more shocking example of this can be found in the recent Cypress bailouts (rebranded as “bail-ins”) in which their government is confiscating up to 10% of every citizen’s personal bank savings to cover the losses of corporations, but a long list of wealthy people took their own money out of the banks before it happened. This is happening at the same time you can bet on the weather in the stock market, but to date nobody has checked to see if any of the companies you can hire to modify the weather are betting (and profiting) from the very same changes they are making.
In the face of everything else going on, including consistent abuses of military and political power, outright theft of personal funds, loss of *trillions* of taxpayer dollars with no accountability, a massive global surveillance system already being used to assemble ‘disposition matrixes’ on private citizens to populate a kill list for drone strikes without the right to a trial first, and a host of other things too numerous to list here, I can’t for the life of me understand why anyone would willingly cooperate with the installation of a completely cashless system, and that includes the use of bitcoin.
The dutiful facilitators and builders of our cage are telling us, openly and repeatedly, that their intent is to move everything to a virtual system, and to do so in a way that we will ultimately have no privacy in, and no control over. I highly recommend taking them at their word in that regard, and doing everything you can to prevent it. As it stands now, if you think or feel that your money isn’t safe in a bank, you can remove it and place it elsewhere—especially before your government decides to steal 10% of it to bail out more of their associates.
If and when a completely cashless system is set up, we will lose even that ability, and once that happens, how exactly are we going to be doing all the “protesting” Mr. Schmidt goes on about, when our ability to access our money to buy food—or even the internet to make car, home and utility payments—is cut off because the folks in charge don’t appreciate us criticizing the way they are using their supposed diving right to rule over us?
At first, Al Qaeda (presented as Muslim extremists) was the terrorist threat—and people bought into it and all that went with it, including the Anglo-Christian superiority complex. Not long after, the definition of extremist/terrorist was expanded to include people who pay for things with cash. Now, the definition has been expanded to include hackers, constitutionalists, evangelical Christians, OWS protesters, whistle-blowers, survivalists and preppers, returning veterans and gun owners. More importantly, all of this was sold the same old way it always has been, either through false-flag fear tactics, and/or the betters selling their lessers on the idea that they have lessers of their own that need to be put in their proper place. This is the divide-and-conquer model the NBCers use to instill and infect their subjects with their sickness—we end up viewing our fellow man through the same filters of superiority that we are also viewed with, and end up doing to others exactly what is being done to us. This reminds me of a very famous poem, the history of which is below and comes from Wikipedia. I recommend adding the above words (in bold) to the poem to give it a modern perspective.
“First they came…” is a famous statement and provocative poem attributed to pastor Martin Niemoller (1892–1984) about the sloth of German intellectuals following the Nazi’s ‘s rise to power and the subsequent purging of their chosen targets, group after group.
First they came for the communists,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a communist.
Then they came for the socialists,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a Catholic.
Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me.
Lastly, having recently had this conversation with others and therefore in anticipation of the question that comes next, I would be remiss not to answer it here. Very much like the flexibility of the previous poem however, the answer applies to more than a virtual currency like bitcoin.
The Current Question: If the answer to a piece of paper used to create debt slavery, that is also backed by belief, isn’t a virtual currency created and traded by the people, then what is?
Examples of its Counterparts:
If the answer to resource-depleting and polluting fuels forced on us by those who maintain a monopoly over others, isn’t free energy technology made by and for the people, then what is?
If the answer to genetically modified foods and dairy products injected with antibiotics and hormones, isn’t people growing and/or buying from local organic farms, then what is?
The answer: Until the dichotomy of the master—slave construct is abolished, you will always know the answer when you find it, because if it really is the answer (consequently offering you more freedom than your assumed betters can tolerate), you will never be allowed to do it.
In other words, is the right question being asked?
Perhaps it is the gift and the curse of creative human beings to have already built an elaborate cart in their minds, long before acquiring the horse necessary to pull it.