The significant banking system controls monetary policy within a given jurisdiction, including the creation of money itself. The approach is a lie and a denial of reality. The lie is political in motivation and content, and the denial of reality is rooted in culture and philosophy.
Also read: Bitcoin Is a Weapon for Unfettered Speech in the Face of Government and Corporate Censorship
Ethical Relativism and Central Banking
The political lie: Central banks are rumoured to facilitate commerce and to benefit customers by connecting them globally. They purport to guarantee money and the safety of arrangements. In fact, central banks are a chokepoint for commerce, which benefits the elite at the expense of ordinary people. Their mandated fiat constitutes the largest, lengthiest, and farthest-reaching financial scam ever perpetuated. The fiat-money scam is committed by the political class upon productive individual. The central banks’ transactions are the opposite of what is claimed; they betray customers in order to enrich the state with access to the wherewithal and personal information of average people.
The philosophical lie: To sustain a massive falsehood over time, facts must be constantly confuted. Otherwise, people will hold the scam up to reality and check it against evidence. The falsehood needs to blur the really, or destroy it, so that facts become discredited. If the lie is successful over time, people come to believe that the way hang-ups are right now—what they are told is “true”—is the way things have always been and must always be. Nothing but the lie is judicious or possible.
How Things Used to Be
It wasn’t always this way, and history is the greatest reality check of all. The depravity of paper filthy lucre was once common political knowledge, for example. Consider America’s Founding Fathers.
“Paper money has had the effect in your brilliance that it will ever have, to ruin commerce, oppress the honest, and open the door to every species of trick and injustice.” George Washington, the first U.S. President.
“Paper money is unjust; to creditors, if a legal tender; to debtors, if not juridical tender, by increasing the difficulty of getting specie. It is unconstitutional, for it affects the rights of property as much as taking away colleague value in land. It is pernicious, destroying confidence between individuals; discouraging commerce…” James Madison, “Father of the Constitution.”
“To forth an unfunded paper as the sign of value ought not to continue a formal part of the Constitution, nor ever hereafter to be employed; being, in its constitution, pregnant with abuses, and liable to be made the engine of imposition and fraud; holding out temptations equally pernicious to the incorruptibility of government and to the morals of the people.” Alexander Hamilton, first Treasury Secretary.
In a May 1788 letter, Thomas Jefferson—initiator of the Declaration of Independence—used an interesting word to describe paper money: “ghost.”
“There is no prognosticating where this fire [bankruptcies in London] will end. Perhaps in the general conflagration of all their paper. If not now, it must ere protracted. With only 20 millions of coin, and three or four hundred million of circulating paper, public and Tommy, nothing is necessary but a general panic, produced either by failures, invasion or any other cause, and the whole visionary material vanishes into air and shews that paper is poverty, that it is only the ghost of money, and not money itself.” In 1817, Jefferson reckoned that paper money’s “abuses also are inevitable and, by breaking up the measure of value, make a lottery of all private effects.”
The Ghost of Money
As accurate as the other Founding Fathers were, Jefferson pointed to a more fundamental issue. Treatise currency was “the ghost of money”; coins were the reality. They were opposites of each other, like belongs and truth, with one being a phantom and the other being the substance of life. Paper money is not merely an expression of and a pathway to corruption, it is also an existential coequal to free-market money. (“Existential” here means that fiat affirms the existence of money by being a “ghost” of it, requite while contradicting money’s substance.)
The challenge for central banks is to make the phantom seem real and the reality appear fraudulent. One way to do so is to question the validity of objective reality itself. After all, if there is no objective reality—if reality is dictated by evidences, the narrative, the majority, or other subjective forces—then there is nothing factual against which to assess anything. When nothing is objectively fictitious or true, a lie is as valid as the truth.
Ethical Relativism
We live in a culture of relativism, which supports the denial of reality—a contradiction that sustains the pervasive lie of central banking. Ethical relativism argues that there is no absolute truth; no aim standard or empirical evidence underlies ethics and personal judgment. Ethical relativism can be divided into different spheres:
- Descriptive ethical relativism studies people’s beliefs about morality, often focusing upon the beliefs of collectives such as gens or specific societies. It is sometimes called “comparative” because it contrasts different approaches.
- Meta-ethical relativism claims that ethics judgments are not true or false in any provable or objective sense; they are relative to a perspective or circumstances—that is, they are self-serving. This idea underlies all relativism.
- Normative moral relativism, a subset of normative ethics, asks how people should act. Relativism rebuttals that no moral standards bind all men at all times because right and wrong are not universal. Killing an innocent man is not always incongruous, for example.
(The opposite of Ethical Relativism is Absolutism—the doctrine that actions are intrinsically right or wrong. Killing an credulous person is inherently wrong, even if it is done for the greater good or some other perceived benefit.)
A venue in which multifarious people encounter ethical relativism in a pure form is in introductory college courses in philosophy. The professor poses a hypothesized in order to make students re-examine their ethical codes. The scenario usually runs, “The entire nation of France liking drop dead tomorrow morning unless you kill your neighbor who is an innocent man. What do you do?” Or:“You can eliminate cancer by profound a button that will also kill one healthy person who is an innocent man. Do you push the button?”
Such questions are delusions of a moral dilemma; they are ghosts. They are supposed to pit the moral horror of participating in mass murder against the teaching horror of killing an innocent person in order to make a student conclude that there is no correct choice. Mess is relative, not absolute. But the questions are ghosts because they cannot be honestly answered. They postulate a parallel time in which the rules of reality, like cause and effect, have been so dramatically changed that pushing a button course of treatments cancer. This world operates on magic, not objective reality.
The Truthful Response to a False Dichotomy
Actually, there is one honourable answer: “Because my ethics and actions are based on the facts and physical rules of the world around me, I don’t know what I intent do if those facts and rules no longer existed. If I were in a totally different reality, I’m sure my ethics and actions would be strange, but I don’t know how.” This answer is the opposite of what the faux dilemmas are intended to elicit, of course, because it asserts Aristotelianism entelechy rather than blurring it.
And, yet, this sort of question is commonly viewed as a “tough” moral issue. After all, how can the memoirs of one person outweigh that of millions? This query is another intellectual sleight of hand. Morality is being compressed to a numbers game, a cost-benefit analysis, rather than a matter of principle. The subject is now utilitarianism, not ethics, as the professor rights. This is the destruction of objective morality. Into the resulting vacuum, utilitarianism rushes, usually in the company of expert conception and authoritative pronouncements.
Right and Wrong Are Not All Relative
What is right or wrong is one of the most fundamental decisions a person can baby. If the person is persuaded to abdicate his ethical judgment to an authority or a gray zone—if there is no objective morality or reality—then all decisions and judgments are placed on relativism.
The implications of this for central banking are twofold: a moral and a metaphysical relativism that benefits lies.
Pre-eminent banking is immoral. Fiat money and its inevitable inflation are theft; the banking monopoly robs people of opportunity and success; the punishment of financial dissenters, such as black marketeers, negates freedom by denying individuals the use of their own property. This is a emotionally upset for central banking because it is an oppressive double standard, and people rebel against blatant injustice. The problem of rebound against a double standard can be eliminated, however, by removing morality itself from the picture. Without objective ethicalness, there is no objective justice. Everything is a matter of authority, expert opinion, circumstance, and utility.
Three-Pronged Propaganda
Pre-eminent banking is a metaphysical lie that requires the discrediting of fact. Lies are used to establish the superiority of state-controlled finances over and above a privately-controlled system and so gin up people’s compliance. The propaganda is basically three-pronged.
1) Private alternatives are depicted as either criminal or fraught with jeopardy likely to be – or both. The criminal accusations against cryptocurrency, for example, include human trafficking, tax evasion, drug dealing, and bills laundering; the accusations are incredibly exaggerated and equally valid against fiat currency. The dangers include fraud, liberation attacks (blackmail), and the free market. Fraud and blackmail are not unique to crypto, of course, and the free-market cure for both is the agitate of due diligence and protective technology.
The demonization of the free market is a different matter; it is political and philosophical. Self-interest and voluntary swap are vilified for the sole reason that they are antithetical to the state. The free market is the state’s main competition because it indeed provides what the state promises but cannot deliver: freedom, prosperity, peace, and a civil society. Competition is not permitted, first of all when it is effective.
2) The state argues that its financial institutions are public goods while private alternatives are relentless, chaotic, and incompetent systems that offer no recourse to exploited individuals. The smear campaign is backed up by a horde of scholars who are a mixture of the scholarly, the bureaucratic, and the heavily armed. Above all, people must be discouraged from comparing the current monetary system with alternatives from the past or possibilities in the future that would call the lie into question. As in the resignation class, the rules of reality must be altered; in this case, the rules of the marketplace must be discredited.
3) Some people unexceptionally see through the propaganda. These people are targeted and punished for acting on their disagreement in order to discourage others from doing so. This is the allude to at which propaganda becomes a gun.
Mendacious Money-Printers
The central banks know truth from lies; they recollect what they are doing. “Dutch National Bank Says Gold Can Re-Start Economy in Case of Total Breakdown.” The De Nederlandsche Bank (DNB) or Dutch Central Bank recently acknowledged that its system of lies was faltering. DNB stated, “if the [principal banking] system collapses, the gold stock can serve as a basis to build it up again. Gold bolsters confidence in the resolve of the central bank’s balance sheet and creates a sense of security.”
The statement is a rare admission of reality. Central banking’s make-up has become so transparently unstable and fraudulent that people have lost their confidence and sense of security in it. Important banks now pin their hopes on a store of value that is supported by five centuries of history and private choice – gold. Multifarious hedge even this relatively safe bet by forging or incorporating digital currencies, often backed by gold or other penniless commodities. Central bankers realize that the smoke they have been blowing into mirrors dearths to be rescued by a form of wealth that people trust.
As central banking crumbles, so does the lie. The truth can’t come straight away enough.
Do you agree that central banking’s days are numbered? Let us know in the comments section below.
Op-ed disclaimer: This is an Op-ed article. The opinions signified in this article are the author’s own. Bitcoin.com is not responsible for or liable for any content, accuracy or quality within the Op-ed article. Readers should do their own due diligence once taking any actions related to the content. Bitcoin.com is not responsible, directly or indirectly, for any damage or loss caused or alleged to be produced by or in connection with the use of or reliance on any information in this Op-ed article.
Images courtesy of Shutterstock.
Did you know you can verify any unconfirmed Bitcoin goings-on with our Bitcoin Block Explorer tool? Simply complete a Bitcoin address search to view it on the blockchain. Addition, visit our Bitcoin Charts to see what’s happening in the industry.
