You don't have to go that far. Look what has happened to Iran because it opened its own oil bourse (e.g. stock exchange):
http://www.policymic.com/articles/4754/ ... ar-program

If Bitcoin were an actual threat to the US dollar, it would be dealt with in a serious way. So it's either not a threat ... or it's a vehicle to convert dollar assets to cryptodollar assets. And that speaks to opportunity for those who already control much of the dollar assets, e.g. to retain value when the dollar collapses.

Who actually designed Bitcoin? That's a key question that needs to be answered. My best guess: the same interests that seized control of the issuance of money a long time ago. They're at it again. I mean, the quote from Amschel Rothschild in (1790) ... makes it quite clear that the Rothschild war room will not admit any mind but their own, especially on the matter of the issuance of currency.



Agreed.

Crypto-currences are problematic but largely because of the lack of oversight in the issuance and management. In theory, they can be part of the solution. But that will first require evolution away from current fiat schemes and monopolies; and implementation of controls to protect against future fiat schemes and monopolies. IMO.

Pax

That's the same thing. Excluding the U.S. dollar is just another way of competing with it. And the U.S. has been looking to brutally crush Iran ever since. Same thing with Libya, overthrowing and killing Gadaffi, then installing a Rothschild central bank almost immediately. Gadaffi was planning on a gold dinar for all of Africa, which would be used to purchase oil, in place of the paper dollar. As we have seen throughout recent history, any competitor to the dollar hegemony gets "neutralized".

But it's nice to see that we do agree on the role the banksters play in this con-game. Bitcoin is a variant (a messy mixture) of controlled opposition, and you are right that its mysterious origins probably speak to its true deceptive purpose. And we shouldn't forget that those banksters are all sociopaths, which is the real root problem. Unless, of course, there's a bigger problem than sociopathy, something beyond human, which a few whistle-blowers have claimed, like Phil Schneider (murdered) and Mark Richards (imprisoned 1 2 3 ).

This came up on the forum at saltfound.org:


Wow! Incredible article. It is indeed a clear, concise, succinct collection of my own thoughts coming from someone else completely independent of me. I am grateful to you for bringing this to my attention. It certainly adds clarity to my own investigation into crypto-currency.

From the article:




My interest is in removing the sociopaths' control structure that is essentially enslaving us. Money is their primary tool of control over us. The crypto-currencies are the next iteration of this control over us, and the ruling sociopaths are surely behind the whole operation. I want a solution that will solve the problem. Community-based localized currencies are a step in the right direction, as the article correctly points out.



But, and this is absolutely critical, localized currencies DO NOT solve the problem. They address the major symptom (the monetary control system), but they DO NOT address the root problem, which is the ruling sociopaths themselves. Even if we were successful at introducing localized currencies that we controlled, the ruling sociopaths would figure out another way to control us. They are the problem, and until we come up with a working system that 1) publicly identifies sociopaths, and 2) disqualifies them from positions of power and control, we will always be, to a large degree, under their control.

Many people in the crypto-currency community should be congratulated for recognizing the danger the existing money system represents, and for wanting to break free of it. But the sociopaths still have us outmaneuvered. They are way ahead of us, as witnessed by their Bitcoin psy-ops, which we are falling for like a bunch of backwoods rubes. Addressing the symptoms of their control will not produce any permanent solution. We must solve the root problem, which is the unfettered access to positions of power and control that sociopaths currently enjoy.

This comment pretty much sums up the nature of crypto-currencies:




Crypto-currencies a scam? "It's an absurd insinuation."

No, I'd say it makes you the unwitting victim of a scam, given the rest of the story.



I bet some of the "Jimmy Kimmel terrible presents" are looking pretty attractive to those Centcoin recipients right about now.

Here is the Bill Still endorsement of Quark (originally posted by Andy) and the interview Bill does with Kolin Evans, known in the Quark and Bitcoin forums as Digitalindustry. I've been debating with him extensively on one of the Quark forums (http://forum.qrk.cc). Andy has joined the angry mob there (as kmonk) to discredit Chicodoodoo, who just isn't saying the right things!





"They convinced me, and I bought in," says Bill Still, speaking of the Quark cheerleaders. He means they bought him, and he accepted their bribes. Digitalindustry (hereafter abbreviated DigIn) called for people to send Bill "donations" beginning on November 23, donations that DigIn would even reimburse you for, with a little extra added on as a reward! Send Bill 200 quark, and DigIn sends you 400 quark! No ethics, no shame, and no responsibility will be forthcoming from DigIn, an admitted and observable sociopath, for that blatant manipulation. This "Quark developer" is willing to doubly reimburse all contributions to Bill Still, but publicly claims he's "really a Cryptohobo". Two days after the bribes begin, Bill Still endorses Quark, and Quark's price rises from the dead. During the week leading up to that famous Quark endorsement by Bill Still, Bill Still's new Quark account saw five 50,000 quark deposits and one 100,000 quark deposit (among others), for a total of 350,000 quarks. I wonder where all that came from? Keep in mind that the top 10 Quark wallets control over 60 million quarks, so a little bribe of 350,000 quarks is no sweat off of their backs.

In the video, Bill Still explains "I've thought this over for the last few days. Does this news story make me more like a pump and dump stock picker, by doing a positive report on something I now personally own, Quark? But on the other side, if I don't treat this like a news item for my audience, reporting what I think is about to happen, then I may be depriving you guys from an opportunity to secure your financial future, just like I've been given by this group of developers."

All those "donations" surely helped Bill think it over. And yes Bill, it does make you a self-interested market manipulator of poor moral character. Your ethics are clearly on par with sociopath DigIn, who dreamed up this whole unethical scheme, who laughs it off and sees nothing whatsoever wrong with it. Insider trading is taken for granted nowadays, doncha know. Crime is the new norm.

Watch DigIn (Kolin Evans) carefully in this interview. He starts off buttering up Bill, which is how sociopaths always begin their manipulation. Bill Still literally lifted the veil of the Matrix off of DigIn, to hear DigIn describe it. Note the fake smile DigIn likes to superficially flash.

DigIn says Quark is a fairer system with better distribution and better security than Bitcoin. This might be true, but just barely. Initial Bitcoin distribution was highly unfair with very concentrated distribution in the hands of very few, so if Quark does it slightly better, we do have the lesser of two evils, but evil nevertheless.

Crypto-currencies aren't going away, says DigIn. He loves repeating this (The Big Lie). His message reminds me of the Borg. Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.

Quark is set up on a different paradigm? "Exactly right," says DigIn. Sorry, exactly wrong. Quark is a copy of Bitcoin with a few minor changes, and it is just as centralized and poorly distributed as Bitcoin. "Most Bitcoins are held by 100 people. Quark is completely different," says DigIn. Wrong again. I think it was 63 wallets that held 50% of all the quarks in early December, so there's another sociopathic trait -- bold-faced lying. It would take the world's wealth to buy up all the quarks, adds DigIn. Another lie.

Nationalized fiat paper currency is broken, so the answer according to DigIn is a one-world fiat digital currency. Same fiat worthlessness, but now trans-national so everyone can be equally duped. Great idea, Einstein! You are truly amazing, as are your wide-eyed followers.

And Quark is just one of over 200 copy-cats of the Bitcoin design, a design that originated from bankster funded agencies like DARPA. What, we're supposed to believe that Satoshi Nakamoto mystery crap?

So if you think you're sticking it to the banks by using crypto-currency, or that your encryption protocols are unbreakable, or that your digital currency is perfectly secure, you are thinking exactly the way they want you to think.

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

Not at all. I'm fine. How are you?

I would encourage anyone interested to check out the debate between kmonk (Andy) and Chicodoodoo on the Quark forum using the link Andy provided. I am certainly seeing a side of Andy that I never knew existed. You think you know someone and they surprise you with a 180 degree reversal. What kind of personality does that kind of thing, anyway?

The trouble with you, Chico ... is that you have trouble spotting the many agents and agent varieties of the bankster empire.

Andy is ... and has always been ... someone who obstructs truths; collects data on other members (betraying a Stasi-style mindset); protects other agents of the empire; attacks genuine truthseekers; etc. He has the good life in the Bahamas. Whether he has been commissioned by the Cass Sunstein bankster loyalists; or whether he is acting on his own to protect the good life in the Bahamas ... is immaterial. The fact of his complicity with the empire is inescapable.

His position on cryptocurrencies is further evidence of this complicity. He is wheat chaff, short staff, and riff raff in terms of a scholastic undertaking of economics, but that's not a big surprise ... most people on this good Earth - including most professional economists - have no clue about the bigger picture much less a desire to understand. They are just parrots squawking the bankster lines and walking the bankster lanes.

The people who do understand economics competently are the mathematicians, the poets,and the philosophers (amateur and professional) ... for these classes genuinely have man's interests in mind ... and they see a charade when presented with one. The current global economics system is a charade.

Crypto-currencies are the next fluffy rabbit in the greyhound race. Around and around and around ... Indeed, it's nothing more than a money-laundering scheme to wash all the ill-gotten fiat cash and hang it out to dry in the bright Sun. From moon shadows to the bright glow of legitimacy.

In any event, here's one question (of many) towards which angels fear to tread but which draws fools like moths to the flame: if the average internet-surfing Joe is able to invest a few dollars in cryptocurrency, how much is George Soros or Jay Rockefeller or Nathaniel Rothschild able to invest?

Correct.

Indeed, any new cryptocurrency merely shifts the old con game to a new gameboard ... with the same inequities ported over.

Real change requires a whole new paradigm of economics and economic fuel. Cryptocurrencies are the antithesis of a working solution, for they merely change the camouflage on the old economic fuel (e.g fiat money). What is badly needed is fiscal nudity. Transparent money. Transparent economics. Short of that, the hidden plays (and insider manipulations) will continue to wreak havoc on global economics and socioeconomics.


Pax