Today is an usual blog, in that I want to write about two seemingly disparate articles, in order to point out an emerging contradiction in the "officially promoted and sponsored narratives" of globaloney. The first of these articles was shared by Mr. J.K., and the second by Mr S.D. to whom we are grateful for bringing them to our attentioN:
While one encounters such articles as the first from time to time, with the usual arguments that coins and paper money, i.e., actual physical or "analogue" media of exchange(and please note, the two are not the same: electronic blips in a computer accounting system are not the same thing as analogue entries in actual physical ledgers), are obsolete, costly, and with the usual argument that a cashless society would actually allow the underground criminal economies to dry up, I suspect the truth is the exact opposite. The only thing that would be entirely transparent in such a system would be the public economy, the hidden economies would become even more opaque to public examination and governmental oversight and scrutiny than ever before. The only ones benefitting from such a restriction of the types of money in circulation would be the financial oligarchs and the associated criminals associated with them. I have more observations to make on this subject, but that will have to await its due time and circumstance. But suffice it to say, such a move to a cashless society would not eliminate any hidden systems of finance nor any hidden economies, but only make them even more hidden.
Which brings us to the second article, and to the contradiction of the official "memes" being promoted (really folks, you'd think Rockefailure, Buffet, Rottenchild, Soros, Ilk & Associates would hire better "experts" and at least concoct better-coordinated memes). It goes without saying that if Russia, China, and whoever else might be posing threats to various Western banks through their non-stop cyber-warfare and hacking schemes, then no matter how secure one might make such networks, one can never guarantee that the probability of successful hacks is zero. It may be vanishingly small, but never zero, and hence, one would be extremely ill-advised to have an entirely cashless, digital-currency society. Would would always want and need, in such circumstances, continued physical and analogue media of exchange, including such old fashioned and "obolete" media like coins, paper money, and ledger books, with real accountants dipping real quills into real bottles of ink and making real entries in said books (so to speak). Otherwise, one exposes an entire financial system - reduced to only one type of currency - to a needless risk of overwhelming and decisive compromise.
To put it country simple: would one wish to promote a "cashless" society in the face of the current international situation, with terrorists and nation-state-sponsored cyber-attacks on western banks?
I think not, for in the end, even those oligarchs stupidly pushing for such a scheme could literally be wiped out, and literally at the push of a button.
Which brings us to ask an important question, one full of potential implications for "high octane speculation." Knowing this - as "they" surely do, why would "they" be pushing for such a scheme, in spite of the risks? For once, I will forego the temptations to offer my own speculations, which I withhold for a future moment. Suffice it to say, however, that the extreme risks posed by such a cashless scheme would have to be outweighed by even more extreme risks... and in that, there may lie quite a tale...
See you on the flip side...