September 3, 2012 By Joseph P. Farrell

As you all probably know by now I like the folks over in the UK at The Daily Bell, though I am not on the adoring bandwagon of all things in the Austrian School of economics as are they. But there were two articles that really caught my eye. Article number one was about the new "transparency" at America's deepest cesspool of corruption and unearned oligarchical privilege, the Federal Reserve:

Federal Reserve Emphasizes Transparency, as If It Matters ...

Then there's the new "transparency" concerning the death of Osama Bin Laden (remember him? The man who, like General Kammler, died no less than four times under different circumstances? the man whose body had to be quickly disposed of to make damned sure no one could ever question the official story that it was indeed Osama bin Laden?  Yea...him):

Now the Real Killing of bin Laden Is Revealed?

Now, there is I suspect some "Deep Politics" in the Peter Dale Scott sense of the term going on here, and the "deep politics" is this: the oligarchs know that they have lost the people. All their "leading indicators," "market analysts", "sociological forecasts", "deep trend analysis", and of course, their endless coterie of lap poodles in the government, law enfarcement, and so on, will have told them this. The concept of a "vote of no confidence" in these two theatrically corny political parties is now, for example, being increasingly discussed on the internet, and a growing number of people are actually entertaining the idea. I've been casting a Vote of No Confidence since the first miserific experience with the corrupt Bush family, but only because I wasn't old enough to vote No Confidence under Lyndon Johnson. It is a concept that will only grow as the transparency of corruption only grows. There is a deep disatisfaction with Barmitt Obromneyack.

People are fed up with lies, crony capitalism, secrecy... and no institution of the oligarchical clowns more exemplifies the corruption, secrecy, cronyism, and class kookery - the "higher immortality" as C. Wright Mills called it - than does the Federal Reserve Bank. The old Allen Dulles playbook - the calm warm smile for the camera, the gentle stuttering grandfatherly voice saying "Well now that I don't really think would be helpful to get into here" - just isn't working any more, and the oligarchs know it. Best to come clean now, to tell the truth... well, maybe not all of it, just a little bit of it .. to reestablish those dissolving ties... maybe that will work, but in case not, we'd better stock up on hollow point bullets in the tens of millions of rounds...

The Daily Bell is right....much of the problem is monopoly central banking. But beware the obfuscated issues even there: there are gold bugs out there, that want to tell you that fiat currencies and monopoly central banking are one and the same thing. There are gold bugs out there that are telling you a return to "money with intrinsic value" - i.e., a gold standard - is the only solution. What they're not telling you - indeed, they never even raise the issue - of why paper money as a medium of exchange arose in the first place (ever hear of paper money called "gold certificates" and "silver certificates"? I remember spending the latter as a don't see them any more, not because they were real silver, or ever represented real silver, but quite simply because they weren't issued by the Federal Reserve).

To go back to any bullion backed currency would, in my opinion, be an economy-shattering experience. There is no magic formula "bullion=the end of central banking private currency monopolies". A little time spent with Venice will show anyone that. The Venetian oligarchs were masters at money, that is to say, bullion and coin, manipulation. The real question, it seems to me, remains what it always was and always will be. It is not, as I observed in Babylon's Banksters, so much what money is, but who it represents. If it represents a "who" that is chartered as a privileged monopoly, then the what of money will always be monetized debt, be that represented by bullion or not. If, on the other hand, it represents a "who" that is the public, then there is no logical necessity that compels that money be monetized debt, be it represented by bullion or not. Bullion is an important issue, a discussion that must be had, but it is not the deepest issue.

Money, and this returns us to the main philosophical point here, represents ultimate a trust, a faith, and increasingly the oligarchs realize they are losing the trust and support of the people. Regardless of how many drones, how many spy cameras on stoplights at intersections, how many tazers the law enfarcement officers have, spy satellites, and all the other technological means of potential repression, the inescapable fact remains that no government ultimately survives without the people. Can can expect, therefore, more "transparency," and more lies, more drones, more cameras,and more ammunition purchases... but they can expect less and less support, until finally, they hold a T-bill auction, and no  one shows up to buy, or an election, and no one comes out to "vote" for their pre-selected candidates.

See you on the flip side...