Yesterday I blogged about an important article from The Daily Bell, an article that to my mind raised the important need for an expanded public discussion and debate on the nature of money, and who should issue it, and how (debt free, or as monetized debt), and how, or if, it should be backed by bullion. There is an equally important article in that newsletter, and I want to bring it to your attention, because the article focuses on another important philosophical discussion that needs to take place, and, thanks to the Internet, already is:
I draw your attention to some interesting and salient points. Commenting on the latest denunciation of conspiracy theory to come from the very elites perpetuating conspiracies the Bell notes:
"Articles like this, despite their scientific patina, are deeply illiterate. Why so? Because invariably such articles won't deal with the bedrock financial illiteracy of current economic and political paradigms.
"Imagine if the world were based on lies. Well, unfortunately, that's the truth. The lies go far beyond "who shot JFK" or whether the US government was directly or indirectly involved in 9/11.
When one uses the logical framework of Austrian, free-market analysis to analyze the Way the World Works in the modern age, one inevitably comes to the conclusion that modern society is built around fundamental untruths.
"The first one is economic: It is the idea that central bankers can efficiently and effectively set the price of money. They cannot.
"Every time central bankers decide on how much money to print or where short interest rates should be, the decisions are "fixing" prices – and price-fixing never works. Price-fixing distorts economies and causes a wealth shift from those who create it to those who don't and may not know what to do with it. Over time, aggressively mis-priced money causes first recessions and then depressions.
"The second lie is that laws and regulations are necessary and that they can save society from "anarchy." In fact, anarchy is only the absence of government. That's the real definition. And absence of government does not necessarily imply 'chaos.'"
True enough. It is a well-known (well, maybe not so well-known) fact that one reason for Islamic prosperity in the Middle Ages was precisely that markets in Muslim countries were so very little regulated by local governments. Nor did this restrict the Muslim world from carrying out a vast international trade. So far as Muslim markets were concerned, there was "anarchy" (no government) but little "chaos."
The fly in the central banking ointment, as I averred yesterday when I raised the speculative possibility of local markets evolving local currencies, and yet carrying on international trade with other local markets - perhaps in conjunction with bullion as a medium of exchange, perhaps without it - is the Internet, and the flow of information:
"It is what we call the Internet Reformation that has gradually shed light on the fundamental untruths permeating modern society in both the developed and developing world.
"The Internet, like the Gutenberg Press before it, is a revolutionary device that has allowed people access to information that was hitherto denied or covered up, especially in the 20th century when the power elite's control over society was perhaps at its apex.
"A conspiracy likely DOES exist. The Internet easily reveals not just facts that illuminate it, but also PATTERNS that show the same command-and-control strategies implemented throughout history, over and over."
I suggest that the Daily Bell may have missed something here, or perhaps saw it, but simply failed to state it explicitly, namely, the flow of information is itself an exchange of wealth, a kind of money, according to the old dictum that information is money, is power. Hence, the corporate elites, like the article avers elsewhere, seek to regulate it, for regulation is a form of wealth transference, in this case, the wealth being simply restrictions on the types of patterns in the banksters' "strategy and play book" that they have been using for millennia.
While I agree wholeheartedly with the Bell's conclusions -
"Articles that mock the looniness of "conspiratorialists" need to deal with the fundamental economic and sociopolitical dishonesty of their own assumptions. They should begin by admitting the evident and obvious logical fallacies of the "modern" society they celebrate."
- I disagree with its restricted focus on the merely financial or economic institutions or aspects of this emerging power structure. As I have repeatedly said here, and in numerous interviews, there are various factions beginning to emerge not only within this financial power structure, there are also competing ideologies and their mechanisms, and among these I would include religion, fraternities with various occult or esoteric doctrines and practices, and so on. In the final analysis, are there conspiracies? The simple and obvious answer is yes, but in their mutual contentions to come out on top, we would do well to remember that it is not just factions within a financial elite that are vying to power, but there are other mechanisms of power and influence as well, and no one perspective - financial or otherwise - is large enough to encompass the whole picture. The financial elites themselves know this, and hence have devoted an enormous amount of effort to build liaison institutions with representatives of other elites, with religion, with science, with the academy, with the military, and, yes, with esoteric fraternities.
See you on the flip side.