Is There Any Validity to the Claim that Bitcoin Could be a Trojan Horse? (v2.0)

by

by JS Kim

This article is copyrighted, and subject to all international copyrighting laws. Republishing of this article is strictly prohibited unless expressed written consent has been given by SmartKnowledge Pte Ltd. First published on 15 August 2017 and updated on 14 September 2017.

Is There Any Validity to the Claim that Bitcoin Could Be a Trojan Horse, v2.0

I am presenting this article again here for the following reason. Though the original article remains intact, the additions to the original article are substantial and significant to merit re-releasing this article for those that wish to read the significant additions. In addition, please subscribe to our smartknowledgeu YouTube channel here, as we will soon upload an audio transcript on our YouTube channel, in the next few weeks, with links in the show notes to the podcast version of this article for those that want to listen to an audio version of this article.

A Critical Thinker’s Exposition of Bitcoin

This will not be an article that gains a lot of likes because it will present a challenge for people to think and we live in a world where our thoughts have been co-opted by those that tell us what to think and trick us into believing that our beliefs are based upon our own critical thoughts. Being trapped within “the matrix” without realizing it is a constant theme I address in my vlogs, so if this topic interests you, please check out and subscribe to my youtube channel here, youtube.com/smartknowledgeu. I could choose to write an article that would be overwhelmingly “liked” and “thumbed up” and has a chance of going viral just by repeating the most widely held beliefs about BTC , because human nature dictates that people love to hear the very things they want to be told, but then I would have to omit my most pressing concerns and any critical analysis about the rapidly growing adoption of BTC and other currencies from such an article. We should all know by now that in the financial world, when new technologies are presented as black and white, that there are always shades of grey that exist out of the scrutiny of the public eye. We have all been fooled in the past by things presented to us in the past by the banking establishment as “anti-banking”, and bankers have pooled this psychological heist upon us literally dozens of times, so our ability to be fooled again should not persist. But yet it does. Therefore, the bigger, much more complex challenge, and the one I undertook in this article, was not to regurgitate the widely-accepted “feel-good” narratives accepted by most in the BTC community, but to challenge them with a thoughtful and critical eye. Yes, I know that such an article will receive a lot more hates than likes, but the exercise of raising critical valid questions about BT that still remain unanswered or answered incorrectly today is much too important to just ignore.

Recall that the Federal Reserve Act, the legislation that created the US Central Bank, was originally vehemently opposed as a bill promoted by establishment interests, because of the heavy anti-banking sentiment that prevailed at the time. Paul Warburg of Kuhn, Loeb, & Co., one of the primary authors of the Aldrich Plan that later morphed into the Federal Reserve Act, carefully noted, ” If it were to be exposed publicly that our particular group had gotten together and written a banking bill, that bill would have no chance whatever of passage by Congress,” and indeed original iterations of the bill were heavily opposed and received little to no Congressional support exactly due to Warburg’s fears. Of the final bill that passed, the American Institute of Economic Research noted, “Progressive Democrats demanded a reserve system and currency supply owned and controlled by the Government in order to counter the “money trust” and destroy the existing concentration of credit resources in Wall Street. Conservative Democrats proposed a decentralized reserve system, owned and controlled privately but free of Wall Street domination. No group got exactly what it wanted. But the Aldrich plan more nearly represented the compromise position between the two Democrat extremes, and it was closest to the final legislation passed.” In fact, the decentralized narrative spread by bankers about the Federal Reserve was a key ploy in getting their bill passed. When powerful bankers realized that if they were transparent, their bill to create a private, centralized Central Bank had zero chance of passing, they engaged in a campaign aimed at presenting a new bill, which contained all the essential elements of the original hated bill, as an anti-banking bill, so much so, that in the new bill, they presented the Federal Reserve as a decentralized, government run bank that addressed all the fears that Congressmen possessed of the original bill, and New York bankers engaged in a public campaign against the “new” bill, telling people not to support it, and even slandering the new bill in the New York Times as “the Oklahoma bill, the Nebraska bill”, a reference to the home states of the Federal Reserve’s biggest most prominent opposition leaders, Senator Robert L. Owen and US Secretary of State William Jennings Bryan. In fact, Owens himself disputed the New York Times claim that he supported the “new” bill, which was just the old bill in disguise, by stating that New York bankers deliberately were slandering the new bill in full knowledge that most Congressmen were opposed to them, in the hopes they could trick the Congressmen to vote in favor of legislation that would help them consolidate their control of the US monetary system by framing it as anti-banking legislation.

Does any of this sound familiar to JP Morgan CEO Jamie Dimon’s recent rants against BTC as a currency that no government will support because it is “a fraud”. There are several ironies inherent in Dimon’s recent anti-BTC rants. One is that it has galvanized BTC advocates even further into believing that BTC is an anti-banking establishment currency, even though this is an unprovable theory at the moment (which I will explain later in this article). I have even spoken to one person who in the past has expressed his hatred for “criminal, lying” Jamie Dimon, but now believes Jamie Dimon to be honest, open and transparent in his anti-BTC statements, and takes his statements as proof of BTC’s disruptive, anti-banking status. Secondly, it is massively ironic that Jamie Dimon has criticized as a “business where people can invent a currency out of thin air”, as if one did not know Dimon was speaking of the process of mining BTC, I might have mistakenly believed that Dimon was describing all Central Bankers, as Central Bankers continuously create more dollars, Euros, and yen “out of thin air.” If Jamie Dimon really believed what he publicly states, then his “critccism” of BTC would also be an endorsement for the permanent closure of all Central Banks, and we all know that Dimon will never call for the permanent shuttering of the hands that feed him. I have no idea if Dimon is mimicking the disinformation tactics of his predecessors in privately supporting BTC and publicly expressing disdain for it, but since this is a favorite psyop tactic of bankers, I am astounded that to this date, I have only met one, out of perhaps 50 BTC advocates to whom I have spoken, that will even consider this possibility. Others have literally told me, even after hearing this story, that such things happened back then, and that historically old events have no relevance to what is happening in the rapidly developing disruptive technology world today. However, the point is, that although the pysop trickery that brought the Federal Reserve into existence is over 100-years old, the trickery has never ceased, as is proven by the publicly available, verified and leaked email communications among dozens of Wall Street bankers. In these emails, bankers mocked the stupidity of their own clients after they sold their clients financial products that they assured their clients were solid and likely to turn a profit, while they privately discussed such products among themselves as toxic and crap. Here is just one of literally dozens of articles full of documentations and citations that prove such deceptions are still taking place (Taibbi, Matt. “The $9 Billion Witness: Meet JP Morgan’s Worst Nightmare.” Rolling Stone. 6 November 2014).

Here is the irony. Many people are smart enough to acknowledge the massive disinformation campaigns taking place today that George Orwell predicted in his seminal book 1984 and that Carol Quigley later acknowledged as well in his book Tragedy and Hope. Consequently, many people realize that if they hold the majority view that they should question this majority view, because if the disinformation campaigns that they know to exist have been successful, and they hold the majority views about BTC, then they should acknowledge that these viewpoints are susceptible to being wrong. Unfortunately, psychology is not so clear cut and does not operate so cleanly. Usually what occurs is that people dismiss other widely held beliefs that they know not to be true and mock those that still hold these beliefs spread by disinformation campaigns, while refusing to introspectively evaluate their own widely held beliefs that may or may not also be unduly influenced by the same disinformation campaigns they mock. Of course, this does not mean that all widely held beliefs are wrong, as there are plenty of beliefs that hold a majority consensus of opinion that are true. However, this also does not make arguments of “this article is full of so many inaccuracies and inconsistencies that I stopped reading it” or “this person doesn’t know what he or she is talking about” arguments that are hollow and with zero substance either. Such arguments fall into the category of unsubstantiated opinions.

As it stands right now, in August of 2017, I believe that the topic of cryptocurrencies is one that I can use to explore the realm of critical thinking that I stress throughout all SKWealthAcademy courses, as well as the topic of cognitive dissonance, which I explore in depth in a single course. In this case, I am going to explore a minority opinion that exists against a majority consensus in the realm of Bitcoin, as exploring an opinion that opposes the accepted narrative requires not only an open mind but also careful exposition to defend. The irony of this article is that I am quite sure that many people will stop reading this article at some point they encounter an idea with which they disagree. Note that I said an idea, and not a fact, as a fact is indisputable. Some people likely have already stopped reading this article because they already realize that, after the introductory paragraph, they are going to encounter ideas that challenge their pre-conceived and already embraced notions about BTC, and they would rather avoid this process versus exposing them to critical thought. Before doing so, let me provide a quick update regarding the status of SKWealthAcademy. Right now, the stumbling block in having even a soft launch of several of our SKWealthAcademy courses is an efficient distribution system, so we are working out the details of the best possible distribution system that will also efficiently connect all of our members in a global community. I have contacted several different companies regarding this development and once we can settle on a satisfactory solution, then I will finally launch my SKWealthAcademy. I have spent the last 10 years developing all the coursework for SKWealthAcademy, so delaying its launch by a few months to find an adequate solution to this obstacle makes the most sense to us. Now back to the topic at hand.

The topic of cryptocurrencies is an ideal topic to illuminate critical thinking and cognitive dissonance because it is one that is often overrun with cult-like emotions, in which many cryptocurrency owners and advocates are not only unwilling to consider the possibility that cryptocurrencies may be used to provide a much more damning financial control mechanism of humanity than even fiat currencies, but also are often compelled to attack those that propose this very realistic probability with attacks rooted in emotion, but devoid of facts. I have seen similar cult like emotions with some, but certainly not all gold bugs, that always feel anytime is a good time to buy gold, even in the face of evidence that gold has been persistently manipulated lower in price by the banking cartel. I am not one of these gold bugs as my gold and silver concentrated portfolio in my Crisis Investment Opportunities newsletter has yielded a cumulative return of 79.30% since inception whereas our benchmark Philadelphia gold and silver index has lost 36.35% over the same time period. We have even significantly outperformed the incredible bull market of the S&P500 over this time period as well, and believe that this outperformance will continue over time as gold and silver are now poised for another very significant bull run while US stock markets are very fragile at the current time, which is 12 September 2017.

If you make it to the end of this article, you will actually discover that I believe that a cryptocurrency, but only one that fulfills all the qualities of sound money, can liberate humanity and that I furthermore am a big fan of the untapped, yet undeveloped applications of blockchain technologies. In addition, I also believe that BTC prices could move even higher from this point. Of course, they could also crash. But the point is no one knows where the price is headed and some falsely extrapolate that just because I have some valid criticisms of the group-think mentality that often surrounds BTC, that I necessarily must believe that prices will crash and don’t believe that BTC is a currency or has any staying power. Of course, these are illogical extrapolations that only fit into a preconceived notion of what people that question anything about Bitcoin must believe. So to clear the air, let me state that I firmly believe that cryptocurrencies are currencies that will endure. I have never once questioned this, although many BTC advocates always counter with these points that I have never opposed. I only oppose the fact that no cryptocurrency in existence at the top of the market cap share as of 12 September 2017 fit the qualities of sound money, so therefore they cannot liberate humanity as is often contended.

The claimed anonymity of cryptocurrencies like BTC has long since been disproven as a myth, and in fact, Sarah Meiklejohn, a computer scientist at University College London, stated in early 2016 that law enforcement agents have been using the blockchain, because it provides a public record of all cryptocurrency transactions, as a “tool for prosecuting crimes” because of the increased transparency and trackability of all cryptocurrency transactions that eventually allow law enforcement agents to unmask the identity of end user of most cryptocurrency transactions, as most cryptocurrency users usually perform one transaction in the transaction chain that allows for unmasking. Because the past and present ownership of every 10-millionth of a Bitcoin—is recorded in the public ledger “blockchain shared across the Internet” even the IRS, the tax collection agency in the US, has warned BTC holders in the US to pay taxes on their capital gains as it has a means to unmask the so-called hidden identities of those that do not and to go after them. Even the mixing game, the process of swapping many people’s Bitcoin stashes with each other in a shell game in an attempt to obscure the identity of the BTC owner conducting transactions has flaws that will identify the owner if the owner commits any type of mistake in this process and does not hide his or her tracks properly. In other words. BTC owners can still remain anonymous, but the majority of owners are not well-versed enough to understand all the weakness in the process of trying to retain anonymity, and usually make mistakes that reveal their identity to someone that really wants to know the identity associated with a supposedly anonymous address.

In fact, the only differences between the current fiat currencies which so many cryptocurrency advocates state they hate, as they should and say Bitcoin, is a limitation on the amount that can be created, the trackability, and decentralized creation. The overwhelming amount of fiat currencies exist already in purely digital form so the digital form of cryptos and fiat currency is practically the same. I addressed above that cryptocurrencies may actually be much more trackable than fiat currencies (when fiat is used in cash, not digital form), so in this case, fiat currencies may be more private than “cryptos” ironically. Secondly, though decentralized creation is a big selling point among many BTC advocates, I will explain why decentralized creation does not necessarily mean decentralized control, and why the distinction between these two concepts is critical to understand. Whether prices rise or crash from this point forward depends on how Central Bankers’ plans fit into the unknowns of the BTC universe at the present time. However, that does not negate the current problems I still have with the current state of cryptocurrencies, as the cryptocurrency I advocate must possess very specific parameters, as I will reveal. To me, critical thinking is not just about being able to construct a logical, fact-based argument to prove one’s point, but it is also about being smart enough to understand when positions are indefensible due to a lack of supporting evidence. In this investigation of BTC, I myself do not have the answers to the questions I am broaching, so I am willing to state that I definitively do not know the answers, and can only offer my thoughts and speculations. However, in the cryptocurrency world, specifically in regard to Bitcoin, I have encountered many Bitcoin owners that emotionally defend what I find to be indefensible positions with declarations of zero doubt about their declarations, despite no concrete evidence or proof of their allegations.

Before I continue, let me stress that I am not referring to all Bitcoin advocates. I have met a few Bitcoin advocates that have conveyed to me that they will convert BTC into physical gold after very large spikes in price for the very reasons I am raising in this article. On the other side of the spectrum, there are BTC advocates that state they will never ever sell BTC because they agree with John McAfee’s proclamation that BTC will rise to $500,000 by 2020. However, the majority of BTC advocates I’ve spoken to, which number in the dozens of people, embrace beliefs about BTC that they defend as facts even though I find many faults with the claims that these beliefs are indeed facts.

Is Bitcoin Definitively an Invention Outside the Realm of Central Banking?

Many Bitcoin advocates provide some iteration of the same response when I raise the possibility with them that Central Bankers could possibly be behind the origins of Bitcoin as a ploy to spread acceptance and adoption of a 100% digital currency worldwide. In response to this possibility, almost all BTC advocates to whom I’ve spoken immediately deny that this scenario is even possible with cult-like fervor, stating that because the creation of BTCs is a decentralized process, it is impossible for Central Bankers to have created BTC. What I found odd was that nearly every single Bitcoin owner provided some type of variation of this same answer, as if they had all been programmed to provide the exact same response if questioned by anyone about Bitcoin possibly being a tool of Central Bankers. Normally, when people overwhelmingly give the same objection to a possibility, and not a varied range of objections, this objection is being programmed into the populace, much as there is a very large group of people that refuse to view gold as money because they believe it is a “barbarous relic.”

I also found it interesting that almost every single Bitcoin owner who I questioned about this topic also provided some iteration of the exact same answer to further probing questions I posed. For example, if I asked a Bitcoin owner why they believe that Bitcoin was an invention to fight the current Central Banking fiat currency system, most replied that its decentralized creation meant that no central organization or entity could control the flow of Bitcoin in the global economy. Decentralized, open source creation meant it was the people’s money, I was informed. On the surface that explanation sounds great. A central organization that has a monopolistic control on currency creation and flow in a nation is a central tenet of Communism, and if decentralized creation indeed meant decentralized control, then this would at least be a start for the creation of “free” money. However, I also found it interesting that over the years, this narrative became much louder and stronger the more the price of BTC rose. Again, if you are reading this article, you may very well have been an early adopter of BTC that decided to buy BTC because you believed its origins were anti-Central Banking from the start, but regarding my experiences with some of the same BTC owners over time, which I realize is a very tiny sample size, I never heard them mention the anti-banking narrative as a reason to buy BTC until the price started going parabolic, which led me to conclude that they were repeating a narrative they had been told instead of this narrative being one which they had formulated on their own from the start.

To be equally fair, I am also not raising the questions in this article because I heard other people raise them, but I have had these same questions, which I have been unable to definitively answer, for many years. In fact, I first proposed that the end game of Central Bankers would be to push the entire world on to a 100% digital currency platform more than 15 years ago in a screenplay I wrote called “Vipers and Thieves”, several years before BTC was even invented (a Creative Artists Agency executive based in Los Angeles that read my screenplay in 2005 in which I discussed this concept can confirm this). Though he didn’t read my screenplay until 12 years ago, I had completed writing it 15 years ago, and this was my vision for where Central Banking was heading way back then, as my screenplay was set in the future in the year 2020. Then, after BTC was invented, I wrote another article online, reiterating my belief that the end game for the global banking cartel was to ban all cash and coins and to eventually push the entire global economy onto a 100% digital currency platform. In any event, when many BTC advocates told me that control of BTC’s price was totally decentralized, this concept, of course, interested me, and I read several white papers about the invention of cryptocurrencies to further understand exactly how they worked. If BTC operated under total decentralized control, then indeed, this currency would offer a far superior system than a centrally controlled currency. However, just like the insistence of early BTC adopters that BTC users would always remain 100% anonymous turned out to be untrue, I was likewise disappointed by my findings when I investigated claims that decentralized creation of BTC meant decentralized control.

Is Control of Bitcoin Definitely Decentralized?

After researching this topic, here is what I discovered about Bitcoin’s decentralized control allegations. There is no evidence that proves this allegation to be false and no evidence that proves this allegation to be true. Therefore, this belief is not a fact but it is mere speculation. Nearly all, but not all Bitcoin owners, acknowledge my argument that the anonymity of its inventor, Satoshi Nakamoto, likely a conglomerate of people and not a single person, is problematic for the following reason. Without any verified proof of Satoshi’s identity, one cannot know whether Satoshi is someone with close ties to Central and commercial banking, or someone completely independent from the influence of the same bankers that have subjected us to their immoral fiat currency system. Some Bitcoin owners vehemently insist Satoshi’s anonymity proves that Bitcoin is an anti-banking invention, because they insist Satoshi remains anonymous for his own safety, and if his identity were known, that he/they would be murdered, or at a minimum, jailed. And this reason for Satoshi’s anonymity is offered up as “proof” that BTC is anti-banking. However, this explanation is mere speculation and speculation can never serve as “proof” of one’s thesis. No one knows why Satoshi has remained anonymous, and that is a fact.

In any event, let’s return to the argument that I’ve heard from nearly every single Bitcoin advocate that Bitcon’s decentralized creation process equates to decentralized control. Again, the fact that I’ve heard so many Bitcoin advocates make a claim that is entirely unprovable at the current time, leads me to believe that false narratives around Bitcoin are being created to encourage widespread adoption of it. A quick look at the gold market would quickly dispel the notion that decentralized creation/production equates to decentralized control. Production of gold is decentralized throughout the world, but yet, for decades, Central Bankers centralized control of gold’s fiat currency price through their executed dumps of billions of paper gold and paper silver in London and New York futures markets. But let’s return to why this equation is unprovable for BTC as well. My research uncovered that during the first year of Bitcoin mining in 2009, 1.5 million BTCs were created, of which BTC’s inventor, Satoshi Nakamoto is alleged to possess up to 1 million of these 1.5 million of BTCs. As of June 2017, 16.4M of the total limitation of 21M BTCs had been mined. If Satoshi indeed owned 6% of the total BTC supply, this amount would be the equivalent of several billions dollars in US fiat currency valuation as of August 2017.

With control of 6% of all BTC supply, Satoshi could likely significantly move the price of BTC up and down by himself during thinly traded market times, and by colluding with a few other large BTC holders, this possibility would become a certainty. Furthermore, as far as anything publicly reported on the internet, though I haven’t confirmed this myself (and someone can correct me if this next statement is wrong), but there isn’t any evidence from tracking BTC transaction records, that anyone has cashed out several hundred million or a billion of BTC at this point, even if such large transactions had to occur across multiple BTC wallets. If I were Satoshi, and Satoshi’s identity were a single person, wouldn’t it make sense to at least cash out of several hundred million or even one billion dollars at this point with such a massive parabolic rise in price, and let my other several billion dollars in BTC ride at this point? The fact that there is no evidence to massive withdrawals at this point, for someone that likely owns several billion dollars in BTC today, also supports my contention that Satoshi is not a single individual, but likely an institution, or a group of people.

Some people inquire why nobody knows the exact amount of BTCs owned by Satoshi or the largest amount of BTCs held by a single individual, but the answer is simple. The identity of BTC wallet holders remains unknown from the general public, and Satoshi is alleged to possess his BTCs across several wallets. Though one of the prime benefits of using BTC that was marketed to users of BTC was complete anonymity, by now this myth has been completely debunked, as not every part of the BTC transaction chain, in the manner in which most people buy and sell BTCs, is anonymous. Consequently, there are vulnerabilities at certain points in the transaction chain that governments can exploit to pin an identity to most BTC owners and can do so quite easily. Because most BTC users, in the way they conduct BTC transactions, expose their identity to anyone with a vested interest in identifying them, alphabet agencies probably have a good read on the possible identity of Satoshi Nakamoto, if they themselves are not part of his identity. However, to the non-hacker, and non-alphabet agency employee, most BTC users will still remain anonymous to the general public. Thus, there is no way to prove if there is a small group of people controlling most BTC flow, or not, as the largest owners of BTC could be the same person or part of the same institution.

If a small group of people control a significant portion of all existing BTCs, and work together to control its price, then by definition, its price is under central control, and it does not matter at all if its creation is “open source” and “decentralized”, which are two terms I constantly hear as the reasons that control of BTC cannot possibly be centralized. Though I certainly have not provided a single piece of evidence that control of BTC is centralized in the hands of a few people or a single institution, the lack of this evidence does not disprove this possibility either. Nor does the anonymity of Satoshi Nakomoto serve as proof that BTC control is decentralized, though I have also heard this claim as well. What we do know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, is that the answer to this question remains an unknown. This much is a fact.

Is Bitcoin an Anti-Banking Industry Currency?

Finally, let’s look at the last argument that I’ve often heard from BTC advocates regarding their belief that BTC is a currency whose purpose is to liberate humanity and that it is anti-New World Order, anti-establishment and anti-Central Banker. This argument is built on the following faulty thesis. Since the blockchain software on which BTC runs exists on the internet, governments and bankers can never stop BTC from trading unless they ban the internet, which will never happen. We only need to extrapolate this argument to gold to reveal the faults of this argument. Though no one really knows the private gold holdings of citizens around the world, as there is no public ledger of private gold transactions at the retail level, the World Gold Council has estimated Indian citizens cumulatively hold between 18 to 20,000 tonnes of gold (of course I don’t find the World Gold Council’s numbers to be credible as it is not a credible organization, but this is an argument for another day).

According to “official” numbers, Japan is often reported as having the largest retail demand for gold and may be the number one country in the world in terms of private gold ownership. If so, then citizens of Japan and India would comprise the largest subset of private gold holders in the world, even cumulatively owning perhaps more than the PBOC (People’s Bank of China), which is believed at the current time to own at least 20,000 tonnes of gold. Despite “official” gold reserve numbers placing the United States on top of the State gold holdings list at 8,133 tonnes of gold, anyone that has performed any critical research into these “official” gold reserve holdings can poke enough holes in Central Bankers’ reporting procedures to cast serious doubts as to the legitimacy of these reported numbers.

In any event, the black market of smuggled gold in both Japan and India has been so large in recent years, that again, the unknown data of this market makes it next to impossible to compile accurate numbers regarding the cumulative private holdings of gold in these countries, and all numbers are estimates based upon speculation. However, if the argument that it is impossible for governments to stop BTC use without declaring use of the internet illegal were viable, then this same argument should apply to physical gold use as well. Because there is no possible way in which governments can stop people from the act of using their private physical gold reserves to buy and sell goods in private unreported transactions, then there should be no feasible way for governments to stop a movement towards the widespread use of gold as sound money in the economy. But yet governments have done so, and we must then come to an understanding of how they have accomplished this.

To explain how governments and bankers have prevented the use of sound money like gold from gaining systemic acceptance and use by the citizens they control in their nation States, they merely only had to pass regulations to prevent gold not from being traded or owned, but from being accepted as money in their State run and planned economies. In every nation in the world that has a Central Bank operating within it (which is nearly every nation in the entire world), Central Bankers have made the use of any currency they do not 100% control illegal. Thus, they only had to make the use of gold illegal as payment for goods and services to kill its use in the economy without ever having to kill the ability of anyone to freely own and trade gold.

Governments and bankers cannot stop people in their countries from buying gold, and even when they attempted to kill retail purchases in India by increasing gold import taxes a whopping tenfold in just 19 months, from a negligible 1% in January 2012 to a ridiculous 10% by August of 2013, people still found a solution around this regulatory attempt to prevent retail ownership of gold. When these regulations were enforced, gold smuggling to circumvent this tax soared in India, and citizens still continued to trade crumbling rupees for gold. Thus, I understand the argument that governments and bankers cannot stop people from buying and trading BTC, because similarly, they cannot stop people from buying and trading physical gold. However, to prevent gold’s use as money in their economy, Central Bankers simply only had to declare gold as illegal to use as payment for goods and services to ensure that they maintained an iron fist of control over their currency monopoly in every nation in the world. By declaring gold illegal as a payment source, bankers still cannot actually prevent a private party from accepting physical gold as payment for goods and another private party from using physical gold to pay a merchant. In fact, doing so in India didn’t work and Indian citizens still used gold as payment in the economy.

To prevent this from happening, PM Narendra Modi, had to take cash off the streets of India by declaring the 1000 and 500 rupee note illegal at the end of 2016 in order to get this cash to return to Indian banks, and then engage in a plot to convert what had been a nearly pure cash based economy in India a year ago into a digital currency based economy. Before Modi’s ban, 98% of India’s economy ran on cash-based transactions, but Modi’s ban on 1000 and 500 rupee notes banned 86.4% of the total cash in India at the time (Source: the Reserve Bank of India). This deviously caused an immediate surge in the adoption of BTC use in India in November of 2016 as Modi imposed a cash liquidity crisis overnight on India. Furthermore, even though a Mastercard report in 2015 named India as one of the countries least ready in the entire world to adopt digital cash, after the Modi cash ban, $80 billion of cash was removed from the streets in just 6 months, and the RBI and PM Modi continue to push India into the fastest transition ever from a nearly 100% cash based economy into a purely digital currency based economy. The single fact that bankers and the elite like Bill Gates are pushing a false narrative that 100% digital currency will help the poor get out of poverty is enough to make me distrust any 100% digital currency that is not backed by anything. However, Bill Gates also stated in 2015 that BTC is not the solution, so this statement is either a reverse psychology ploy, or an affirmation that while Central Bankers definitely want to ban cash and coins all over the world, they are not behind the development of BTC, but are only using its success to gain acceptance of the idea of a 100% digital currency world.

However, given the very high distrust Indians have for bankers, though the RBI and Modi are pushing very hard to transition India into a 100% digital currency economy, I still have massive doubts as to whether this scheme can ultimately succeed. I suppose that bankers want use India as a testing ground to prove that if they can transition/force the ultimate skeptics of modern day banking, Indian citizens, into a 100% digital currency economy, then they can replicate this achievement in any nation State in the world. Remember, this is not my first warning to Indian citizens to view all government-sponsored programs sold to them as being for their benefit with heavy suspicion, as I warned Indian citizens of Modi’s wolf-in-sheep’s clothing plan to forever confiscate their physical gold holdings one year prior to his rupee ban, in this article here. Of course, it was the very failure of Modi’s plan to confiscate Indian citizens’ massive private gold holdings that led him to then enact the harshly punitive-on-the-poor rupee ban just one year later in November of 2016.

The fact that no Central Bank in the history of the world has ever allowed a competitive form of currency to exist in the economy that posed a threat to their fiat currency monopoly alone should be extremely worrisome to those that believe that BTC is an invention independent of Central Banking. Again, this is not proof that Central Bankers have a hand in the creation of BTC at all, but it is a fact that BTC is the first currency in the history of the world that Central Bankers have not only allowed to co-exist with their monopolistic fiat currencies, but have also aggressively encouraged people to adopt on a more widespread basis through their minion global commercial banks like Goldman Sachs. For those that point to the period of time known as Bretton Woods and state that gold was allowed to exist as an alternate currency during this time, these people have only adopted the banker promoted view that Bretton Woods was a “gold standard” and do not understand how the Bretton Woods system operated at all.

I find it extremely odd that more BTC advocates do not even consider the possibility, just the mere possibility, that Central Bankers could be behind the creation of BTC and its growing acceptance among global citizens, especially since I predicted today’s popularity of cryptocurrencies more than 15-years ago in my screenplay, Viper and Thieves. In fact, in my screenplay, State officials rejoiced and declared the adoption of 100% digital currency that backed my hypothetical National Electronic Monetary Act (NEMA) as the greatest advancement in US history since the Industrial Revolution and declared that the people’s acceptance of 100% digital currency would create an unprecedented economic boom for everyone, even the poor. This is exactly how bankers and politicians are promoting digital currency to people everywhere around the world today, 15-years later. However, the reality is that transition to 100% digital currency would compound economic hardships for the great majority of those that live in poverty, a conclusion backed by former Indian PM Manmohan Singh for the exact reasons I outlined in my 2012 critique of this end game. Singh called Modi’s ban outrageous “legalized plunder” that “caus[ed] grievous injury to the honest Indian who earn[ed] his/her wages in cash and a mere rap on the knuckles to the dishonest black money hoarder”, and one that thrust grave, undeserved and unnecessary hardships upon the poor.

To add fuel to the speculative fire, I find it very curious as to why Goldman Sachs is so hell-bent on promoting BTC, even predicting that BTC would recover to $4,000 at the exact time it fell to the $1,830 level just four weeks ago. Then, when BTC recovered all of its losses in no time at all after their prediction of a $4,000 price and cleared the $3,000 level, this inspired Goldman Sachs’s Sheba Jafari to increase her BTC forecast from $4,000 to $4.800. Given that Goldman Sachs bankers are known for releasing notoriously poor and wrong, but very public forecasts, year after year after year, I find it extremely curious that their BTC predictions have been spot on (see this article titled “Goldman Capitulates: Closes out 5 of its Top 6 Trades for 2016 [By February] at a Loss” , including a recommendation to short gold at the start of 2016 as a top trade idea, after which gold promptly rose 30% in the first six months of the year). It’s not that I think Goldman Sachs bankers are dumb and that is the reason why year after year, most of their top recommended trades spectacularly fail.

To the contrary, I believe that they know exactly what they are doing, and very publicly release such doomed “top trades” in an attempt to dishonestly fleece the very naïve segment of their clients that they derisively refer to as “muppets” in their own internally leaked emails. In fact, this theory has been confirmed in past years, as various entities discovered that Goldman Sachs bankers historically made “fortunes” by betting against their clients’ positions. So again, I ask, “Why have Goldman Sachs bankers gone against their modus operandus with accurate, instead of deliberately innacurate public forecasts specifically with BTC, and why have their forecasts about BTC’s price movements been their only publicly made forecasts in recent years that have been spot on?” Of course there is also the very real possibility that Satoshi indeed invented BTC as an anti-banking currency, and this will be proven to be true beyond a shadow of a doubt if Central Bankers eventually ban BTC altogether.

Is BTC Really Better Than Gold?

I’ve discovered that many BTC advocates argue that there are many obstacles in using gold as money that BTC does not possess, and this is precisely what makes BTC the liberator of humanity and not gold. BTC is massively more convenient to use as money than gold, many argue due to its 100% digital nature. No one wants to lug around heavy gold bars to make payment. However, even this argument is a false one, as nothing prevents gold from being repriced at $50,000 or even $250,000 an ounce and then using the blockchain to record all transactions in gold by weight only, in units that can amount to fractions of a gram of gold.

Furthermore, many BTC advocates argue that BTC can never be regulated out of widespread use in the same manner bankers have regulated gold out of widespread use. In order to do so, one would have to shut down the internet, many argue. However, this argument makes no sense at all. The internet merely houses the distribution channel through which the public ledger that records BTC transactions is distributed and recorded, and the internet would not have to be shut down to stop BTC’s use in the greater economy. As BTC is closing in on nearly a decade of existence, it is not like Central Bankers have not had adequate time to implement regulations to kill the use of BTC if they sincerely desired to do so.

All they would have to do to shut down its use is to pass regulations making its use in the economy illegal, as they did with gold, and attach significant jail time for anyone caught using it as payment for goods and services. Though BTC would continue to freely trade over the internet, such a declaration, for all intents and purposes, would kill its use in the greater economy as ver few people would be foolish enough to risk going to jail for 10 years by paying for anything in BTC and then having a public record of that transaction forever available for anyone to see. Central Bankers killed the use of gold as money in every economy in the world simply by regulating its use out of the economy and by spreading propaganda to ensure people do not understand the value of gold, though the propaganda was just icing on the cake.

By making the direct use of physical gold illegal as money, people simply are too scared to use it as money in a transaction for fear that this could lead to confiscation of the gold and/or the goods involved in such transactions. Therefore today, even people that would prefer to accept gold in exchange for goods sold or services rendered still accept fiat currencies instead. To ensure that no one violates their current money monopoly, governments and bankers have made examples out of anyone that ignored their warning with heavy fines and jail time. Consider this true story about a man that paid his employees in gold and silver coins and told his employees that for tax purposes, they could claim the official government stated value of the coins, the face value, which was a fraction of the melt value of the coins.

Though the bankers have stamped 50 US dollars on a one-ounce gold coin, there is nowhere in the world you can buy a $50 American Eagle gold coin for $50. Instead, one has to ante up more than US$1,390 to buy that official $50 coin at September 2018 gold prices. Ironically, the government filed multiple lawsuits against this employer for running a “fraudulent” cash payroll and accounting scheme for valuing the gold coins he used as payment to his employees at the “official” US government/banker mandated price stamped on the coins. This is truly rich, as during his prosecution, US lawyers stated that it was fraud for the employer to use the “bogus amount” stamped on the gold coins, even though the US government mandates that their “official” and “bogus” US$50 USD price is the one to be used in all instances the coin is used as legal tender if it is used to purchase goods in a store, for example. In other words, the government states that legally a merchant can only accept a US$50 price for a 1-oz gold coin if someone wants to use the coin as money for purchases, but if an employer wants to pay his employees with gold coins, then their mandated $50 legal tender fiat currency USD price is “bogus” and “fraudulent.”

Obviously, no person in the world is going to use gold coins to pay for goods and services if every time he uses a one-ounce gold coin, he is going to take a US$1,320 loss on the transaction, as would be the case as of September 2017. Furthermore, due to the deceptive price bankers mint on all US gold and silver coins, when I’ve asked Americans to tell me how much a US gold eagle coin is worth, most merely look at the price stamped on the coin and falsely reply US$50. Thus, even if bankers allowed gold coins to be used at their fiat currency melt price, an enormous amount of education would be necessary to convince merchants to accept them as payment in order to counter the numerous false beliefs about gold coins that exist today. And this is not even to mention that NO fiat currency price should ever be stamped on gold coins, as the fair standard of value is its weight AND not a fiat currency price. But this is a story for another day.

For those that counter with an argument that any cryptocurrency not created by the Central Banking consortium that rules the world can never be legislated out of existence in every nation in the world, this undertaking is not as daunting as most people believe. Central Bankers, not governments, dictate all monetary and financial laws in every nation in the world, and they have colluded in the past through international organizations like the BIS, the Bilderberg group, the World Bank, etc. to roll out and enact similar financial legislation across the world at the same time. The act of legislating the cryptocurrencies they don’t want to exist out of existence is not nearly as complex or as difficult an achievement as most believe it would be.

If governments declared that the use of Bitcoin to buy and sell any goods and services in the greater economy as illegal, as they have done with gold, and if Goldman Sachs bankers released perpetually negative forecasts for BTC, as they have done with gold, then this would serve as a much stronger argument that Central/Commercial bankers have had no hand in its creation and its current rise in popularity than any other argument I’ve heard thus far.

Things We Still Do Not Know About Bitcoin, and Debunking the Sour Grapes Argument

To summarize, here are the key indisputable facts in the above article.

(1) No one knows if Satoshi Nakamoto is a member of the global banking cartel or not. Therefore, no one can argue that the anonymity of Satoshi Nakamoto is “proof” that Satoshi invented BTC to liberate humanity from fiat currencies.

(2) The identity of the institutions or individuals that hold the greatest amount of BTCs currently in existence, that can be used to significantly move BTC prices up and down, is unknown. Therefore, no one can say with 100% certainty that control over BTC’s price is decentralized. The price movements of BTC may very well be centralized even though the creation of BTCs remains open source and decentralized.

(3) Stating that the nation State-banker conglomerates will never shut down the internet is not “proof” that these same institutions cannot regulate the use of BTC entirely out of any State’s economy if they truly desired to do so.

You’re Just Mad!

Finally, the trendy current argument of “sour grapes” is also a non-critical attack on the above facts I have thus presented in this article. Yes a lot of the facts I’ve presented above are unknowns, but that is the point of this entire article – that we are wrong to assume that unknowns are knowns. By now, anyone that has dared question that motivations behind the rise in BTC popularity has likely heard the somewhat childish, ego-driven response of “You’re just mad that you missed out on BTC’s huge price move!” An honest exploration of the unknowns of Bitcoin does not mean the analysis is motivated by emotional reasons any more than one can state that someone who analyzes the down turn and bursting of the Toronto real estate bubble is “mad about missing massive gains in the Toronto real estate market.”

I find the sour grapes argument to have much in common with the emotionally charged arguments raised by those that strongly disagreed with my negative speculations about Indian PM Modi that I presented earlier in this article. I have spoken to a few Indians who really objected to my theory that Modi could be working cooperatively with Central Bankers to further enslave Indians and that had evidently heavily bought into Modi’s massively popular public image that he is a fighter of corruption. “My God. How could you possibly be opposed to fighting corruption?” one gentleman stated, upon hearing my theory. “If you are against corruption, you must be on their side!” he went on, refusing to listen to any further explanation I have for doubting Modi’s public statements.

Unfounded emotional claims such as “You must be on the bankers’ and corrupt elite’s side if you don’t think Modi is fighting corruption” or “You only have doubts that BTC is an anti-Central Banking disruptive currency because you missed out on the parabolic price rise” are unfounded and false accusations that never address my points. While it may be true that some people that disparage BTC’s parabolic price rise suffer from sour grapes syndrome, to unilaterally lump everyone into the same category illustrates a complete lack of critical thought. Secondly, to believe that in the absence of such an explicitly stated reason, that one has the psychic ability to know, without asking, the reasons that motivated someone’s argument literally demotes a valid debate to kindergarten playground levels of ad hominem attacks.

In fact, I’ve been on record in previous snapchat stories earlier this year, that although I had no idea where BTC price was heading at the start of the summer, a definite possibility was that it could keep rising. However, the materialized parabolic price rise does not prove or disprove any of the questions I’ve thus far raised about BTC. Likewise, to make unfounded accusations like “this person knows nothing about ___ (fill in the blank here)” or “this person clearly doesn’t know anything about BTC so I stopped reading” without providing any factual refutation of the topic being debated is an unsubstantiated argument with zero foundation at worst, and a non-intellectual argument at best.

Finally, I expressed great concerns and skepticism about the future of a nation’s citizenry that would willingly adopt a 100% digital currency platform in a screenplay I completed in 2003 called Vipers and Thieves that was read by an agent at Creative Artists Agency, one of the largest talent agencies in Los Angeles, and thus can be verified. As my expressed skepticism preceded the actual introduction of BTC by 6-years solely due to my belief that this manifestation, should it happen, would be the next level of control exerted by Central Bankers over the world’s citizens, surely my expressed skepticism 6-years before the first ever BTC was mined cannot be explained by the sour grapes syndrome. Since then, my skepticism, in the absence of facts that disprove my skepticism, has not waned or waxed, but merely remained steady.

I’ve Tackled Controversial Widely Held Beliefs Before Head On to the Same Skeptical Reaction

In October, 2010, I questioned in this article, “Inside the Illusory Empire of the Banking Commodity Con Game”, whether the industry-wide belief in the “Peak Oil” theory of limited oil resources, based entirely on the unproven fossil fuel origin story of oil, was another scam invented by the oil/finance industry to manipulate oil prices. The questions I raised were primarily due to the research I had performed about a growing alternative abiotic origin of oil theory that was gaining traction, but much like the questions I have raised with Bitcoin in this article, despite stating that I was merely raising questions and did not have the answers, many Peak Oil supporters lost their minds when confronted with this question, due to a revealed vested financial interest in Peak Oil theory being valid. Back then, several people responded to my article by stating that the abiotic theory was stupid and that “anyone with any intelligence knows that the peak oil theory is true”, after revealing large investments in oil companies as proof of their belief in the Peak Oil theory.

However, not once in their response to my raised questions did they ever refute or address the scientific literature that supported a possible abiotic origin of oil theory. When the stock prices of these oil companies rose over the next couple of years following my publication of the above article, these same people gloated about how they were obviously correct about peak oil. Unless oil supply was shrinking and oil demand was growing, how could their oil stocks have increased in price? they claimed! Again, rising oil stock prices were not proof that the Peak Oil theory was correct, anymore than the considerable sell offs in oil stocks that happened during the years that followed my article were proof that the abiotic oil theory was correct.

Since I stated my doubts about Peak Oil Theory 7 years ago, I have discovered additional scientific findings that suggest the possibility that the abiotic origin of oil theory may be correct. According to an article posted at ScienceDaily,

“Researchers at the Royal Institute of Technology (KTH) in Stockholm have managed to prove that fossils from animals and plants are not necessary for crude oil and natural gas to be generated. The findings are revolutionary since this means, on the one hand, that it will be much easier to find these sources of energy and, on the other hand, that they can be found all over the globe. “Using our research we can even say where oil could be found in Sweden,” says Vladimir Kutcherov, a professor at the Division of Energy Technology at KTH.Together with two research colleagues, Vladimir Kutcherov has simulated the process involving pressure and heat that occurs naturally in the inner layers of the earth, the process that generates hydrocarbon, the primary component in oil and natural gas. According to Vladimir Kutcherov, the findings are a clear indication that the oil supply is not about to end, which researchers and experts in the field have long feared.”

These new findings have quelled some of the massive ridicule that was at first heaped upon anyone that dared to dispute the consensus Peak Oil theory just years prior. Just to be clear, there is also considerable scientific literature that still refutes the abiotic theory. To this date, I have not conducted enough in-depth research to know whether or not the abiotic or fossil fuel theory has more evidence to support it. Perhaps a 2015 article in Decoded Science best sums up this debate:

“The truth could prove to be that both mechanisms [abiotic and fossil fuel theories] are correct, or that neither provides a completely accurate picture of how crude oil comes to us. What is certain is that scientists need to avoid letting previous ideas, politics, or even scientific competition prevent them from accepting the truth, whatever that proves to be.”

However, the point of revisiting this topic that I first raised in 2010 is the following. An investor-based emotional denial of a non-mainstream view is not a critical refutation of a view point. Furthermore, the generation of profits based upon one’s beliefs does not serve as “proof” that one’s view is correct anymore than does the manifestation of losses prove that one is incorrect. Lastly, in multiple topics I’ve broached in this article, despite my statements that I am only raising questions about topics in which the answer is unknown, I’ve been met multiple times by fanatical responses in which people claim they know the answer when such a claim remains impossible to prove, and that anyone that disagrees with them has a hidden agenda or is stupid. Just to clarify my involvement in the gold and silver arena, I don’t deal in physical gold and physical silver in any manner, I don’t make money ever if anyone personally chooses to buy physical PMs because I am not a dealer of PMs, and I only continue to advocate physical PMs over crytpocurrencies as the only form of sound money because decades of historical research have convinced me that gold and silver, and not 100% digital currencies, have all the qualities necessary of sound money. The only logical debate about any topic is a debate that revolves around facts.

Yes, I Support Blockchain Technologies and the “Right” Kind of Cryptocurrency

Let me be clear. I am not. Blockchain technologies have many applications outside of just currencies and the financial market and I firmly believe that blockchain technologies are a massive growth market. Secondly, if a cryptocurrency 100% backed with physical gold was developed and marketed for global use, then this could solve the massive problems of fraud that occur in the physical gold market today regarding re-hypothecated gold, the process in which the same good-for-delivery gold bar is sold multiple times to different buyers in pooled accounts in massively fraudulent acts. Therefore, I would welcome a 100% gold backed cryptocurrency that uses blockchain technology, and is solely valued by weight and not in fiat currency denominations, as a way to re-introduce sound money into the global economy for widespread adoption.

Stating that jealousy of missing the parabolic price move of BTC is the reason anyone questions the great unknowns of BTC that may make it a Trojan Horse to usher in the adoption of 100% digital currencies is not an intelligent or logical argument. Just because BTC’s price has parabolically risen higher does not negate any of my above points. The corollary to stating BTC’s price move higher is “proof” my above points are wrong would be the claim that silver’s parabolic price move from $9 to $50 from 2009 to 2011 proves that the claims bankers manipulated silver prices for years were all wrong. The obvious explanation of the parabolic silver price move during those two years was a short-squeeze of the existing shorts in the silver futures market, upward manipulation of silver prices to benefit from a rise (as prices can also be manipulated higher and not just lower), or a combination of these two factors. Just because silver parabolically rose in price from 2009 to 2011 did not negate or prove wrong any contention that the silver price was manipulated for years prior to that move and if further did not invalidate claims in the following years that the silver price was continuing to be manipulated. In fact, Deutsche bankers’ admissions in the years that followed, that they indeed manipulated silver prices lower, proves my exact point.

To Understand Why Central Bankers May Secretly Desire or Contribute to a Parabolic Price in BTC Price, One Must Think Link a Criminal

Those that have been following my articles for over a decade now know that I always state that to catch a criminal, you must think like a criminal. Nothing in the banking world is ever exactly as it seems on the surface. To understand the truth, one has to strip away the many public layers bankers present to the public for rapid consumption as the truth never lives at this level. BTC’s parabolic price move higher ironically seems to lend more credence to my suspicion about Central Banker’s involvement in BTC, whether indirectly or directly. Even if they had zero hand in its development, one would be extremely hard pressed to argue that Central Bankers have not identified a massive opportunity to take advantage of BTC’s parabolic price rise to further their agenda in two ways:

(1) increase widespread acceptance of 100% digital currency, which has always been their end game; and

(2) use BTC’s parabolic price rise to increase impatience with lagging gold and silver prices and use the spotlight on cryptocurrencies’ performance to tarnish favor of gold and silver possession.

If I were a Central Banker, understanding that the reign of my global fiat currency platform is likely coming to an end, due to the immoral devastating economic effects of my deliberately enforced purchasing power declines in fiat currencies upon citizens’ financial well-being all over the world, what would be my first and primary goal? The answer to this very critical question is actually quite simple.

My primary goal would be to ensure that people did NOT turn to widespread buying and adoption of physical gold and silver, as their alternate choice of currency, and the only choice of sound money at the present time, in the global economy, to replace dying fiat currencies. This act would ensure that I, as a Central Banker, would lose my power to create near unlimited wealth for myself with little to zero labor and effort, simply by manipulating the purchasing power of fiat currencies and artificially inflating and deflating them at will, as my family and ancestors have done for centuries. What would be my solution to this conundrum that threatened my ability to control all of humanity? My solution, 100%, would be to invent an alternate currency, that I would present as anti-banking, that would be 100% digital, and to send its price parabolic in order to ensure the lowest possible purchase of physical gold and silver during a time fiat currencies’ purchasing powers were dissolving rapidly. In other words, I would want to create the maximum amount of disinterest in people’s desire to own physical gold and physical silver while simultaneously creating the maximum amount of interest, excitement, and acceptance about a 100% digital currency platform that I would later be able to use to crush all dissent to any of my ideas and beliefs in the future.

This is why I titled my article in the manner I did. There is definitely a possibility that BTC is a Central Banking Trojan Horse, and that we are welcoming in the very system that will lead to the demise of our freedom. As former US Central Bankers have admitted that the first topic of discussion in every meeting was the gold price, it is enormously naïve to believe that Central Bankers are still not intent on controlling gold’s price. Remember, before Alan Greenspan was turned, in the 1960s, he wrote a paper stating the obvious, that gold and economic freedom are inseparable. Given that fiat currencies always have existed in two forms, paper and coin, and purely digital, even back in the 1960s, Alan Greenspan was well aware of the digital currency element built into the US dollar. He easily could have stated that digital currency and economic freedom are inseparable if he believed that digital currencies could free humanity. But he did not. He stated that gold and economic freedom are inseparable.

Granted blockchain technology did not yet exist, but blockchain technology did not exist either in 2005 when I predicted that such a technology would eventually be developed that would allow widespread trust and acceptance of it. By so quickly adopting BTC today, we may very well be pulling the Trojan Horse into our homes with welcome arms, a Trojan Horse that may play a major role in ending our financial freedom. As I stated above, even if Central Bankers are later proven to have no connection at all to Satoshi Nakamoto, as is a real possibility, I doubt that it will ever be proven in the future, that Central Bankers did not use the parabolic rise of BTC’s price to condition people to lower their guards and embrace acceptance of cryptocurrencies, even if BTC is not the centrally controlled cryptocurrency that they will unleash upon the global economy at a later point and time.

Will BTC Exist 10 Years From Today?

I am 100% certain that if Central Bankers do not have a personal stake in the success and sustainability of BTC, that they will replace it with their own developed cryptocurrency that they 100% control. This doesn’t mean that they have to legislate all other cryptocurrencies that they do not control out of existence. It only means that they will legislate the use of competing cryptocurrencies in the global economy out of existence. Eventually, their legislated disuses will lead to their demise. Given Edward Snowden’s higher level of understanding of the inner workings of the alphabet agencies, I am going to reach out to him to get his take on the concepts I’ve presented in this paper as I would love to hear his take, but please, if any of you are journalists and are also interested on his take of the points I make about cryptocurrencies, please reach out to him and forward my paper to him if you feel compelled to do so as well. Furthermore, though I have studied cryptocurrencies in depth and read several 50-page whitepapers about their creation and operational platform, it is quite possible that there are aspects I have misunderstood that have led to faulty conclusions about the three “unknowns” of BTC I have referenced.

So let’s get as many people’s input into this situation as possible. If you are watching this video or reading this article, please forward this article/video to 5 people and ask them each to forward this article to 5 additional people and so on. I recently watched a documentary about the pyramid schemes of MLM companies, and was amazed that it only took this process of asking 5 people you know to do something and having each of these 5 people ask another 5 people to do something, to be repeated 14 times before every single person on Planet Earth would have been asked to perform the same task! Again, because many BTC holders emotionally respond to any question about the origins and control of BTC, many BTC advocates very falsely conclude that I believe BTC prices will collapse. My dog in this fight is not whether BTC prices will move higher or crash, as I already stated my belief that BTC prices can continue moving higher if Central Bankers fit into the puzzle pieces of the BTC “unknowns”.

My desire is simply to raise questions about these unknowns so that every single BTC holder in the entire world will perform enough research into these “unknowns” on their own to ensure that we do not adopt a Trojan Horse that will make Stockholm Syndrome victims of us, in which we may be protecting and embracing our enemies by emotionally and aggressively defending the very platform that they will use to further financially subjugate and enslave us. I have witnessed many previously very vocal advocates of the narrative that gold as the only sound money in the world completely abandon this platform and switch to only advocating BTC and other cryptocurrencies today. However, the optics of abandoning the fight to re-establish sound money in this world to become an advocate of BTC would explain why they no longer hold a belief that they strongly advocated just 5 years prior, appear to be solely driven by a crusade for profits and not truth. One cannot be an advocate of gold as sound money and an advocate for wider spread adoption of BTC at the same time, as they serve different purposes. Again, I have stated that I believe that a cryptocurrency with the proper qualities, can serve the sound money movement, but BTC is not this cryptocurrency. Consequently, every BTC advocate and every BTC critic, if driven by a desire to understand truths about BTC, should agree with the basic premise of this article that we all need to keep digging deeper until we turn the 3 unknowns of BTC into 3 aspects that are definitively known.

Sometimes It Takes Years for My Theories to Be Proven, But I Have a History of “Crazy” Theories Being Proven Correct in the Past

All the above said, given a choice today, on 15 August 2017, of having $1M of BTC priced at $4,400 a BTC, or having $1M of physical gold and physical silver, respectively priced at about $1,320 and $18.90 an ounce, I’m still choosing physical gold and physical silver over BTC. This is not because I do not think BTC’s price can rise higher. Obviously, it may keep rising higher. However, my decision would merely be founded upon choosing something that is known and has a monetary history of thousands of years, over something that has many unknowns (as I’ve pointed out), and a monetary history of less than a decade. That said, even if BTC rises from this point onward to $10,000 per BTC, that still would not invalidate the points I made above, and likewise, if BTC dropped to $2,000 again, such an event would not validate my above points. Price moves do not invalidate or validate unknowns if they cannot serve as proofs in solving the unknown. In any event, I did not make my above points without a lot of thought and research, and often, it takes many years for the points I make to be proven. For example, in 2012, in this article I wrote, I speculated, based upon my decades of research into global banking cartels, that the global banking cartel was really the true impetus behind the French-led NATO disposal of Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi, due to Gaddafi’s publicly-expressed interest in liberating the African continent from Central Bankers and their fiat currency system. Though many of you may have heard of these theories since then, recall that I posted this theory more than five years ago, and stated five years ago the following:

“[In] the months prior to the 2011 civil war, Gaddafi announced plans for a unified African gold dinar currency, to challenge the dominance of the US dollar and Euro currencies. The African dinar would have been measured directly in terms of gold which would mean a country’s wealth would depend on how much gold it had rather than how many dollars it traded.” In fact, Gaddafi vowed to create a United States of Africa that would trade their resources with each other solely based upon the Islamic gold dinar. By October, 2011, in a NATO-assisted and allegedly covert US heavily-supported operation , Libyan forces captured and executed Gaddafi, thereby ending the possibility of a united African continent that used gold, and not the US dollar or the Euro, for international trade.

Back then, all consumers of mainstream media with whom I conveyed my theory laughed at this theory and called me a conspiracy theorist for my speculation, as they all bought into the mainstream narrative that NATO killed Gadaffi solely because he was a tyrant and because NATO wished to “liberate” Libya. For those that have not followed the aftermath of the Gadaffi assassination, Libya quickly devolved from having one of the most vibrant, relatively stable economies on the African continent to now being a poster child for a failed state and unstable, violent nation. So much for “liberation”. However, only last year, did a leaked email between then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her confidential adviser, Sid Blumenthal, with the subject “France’s client and Qadaffi’s gold” reveal the true intent of the Libya invasion to kill Gadaffi, which was exactly in line with the speculated reasons I gave 5 years ago.

Two paragraphs in a recently declassified email from the illegal private server used by then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton during the US-orchestrated war to destroy Libya’s Qaddafi in 2011 reveal a tightly-held secret agenda behind the Obama Administration’s war against Qaddafi, cynically named “Responsibility to Protect”. Blumenthal warned Clinton of Gadaffi’s plan to liberate the African continent from fiat currency and fractional reserve banking, and consequently providing perhaps a sound money system to the continent for the first time in centuries: “According to sensitive information available to this source, Qaddafi’s government holds 143 tons of gold, and a similar amount in silver… This gold was accumulated prior to the current rebellion and was intended to be used to establish a pan-African currency based on the Libyan golden Dinar. This plan was designed to provide the Francophone African Countries with an alternative to the French franc.” The email further identified French President Nicholas Sarkozy as leading the attack on Libya with five specific purposes in mind: to obtain Libyan oil, ensure French influence in the region, increase Sarkozy’s reputation domestically, assert French military power, and to prevent Gaddafi’s influence in what is considered “Francophone Africa.”

Demonizing Cash as the Currency of Criminals Fits In Nicely With the Rise of Cryptocurrency Prices

Finally, as many of you are likely aware, there has been a global banker/ government led effort worldwide to demonize cash as the preferred currency choice of criminals. However, one only has to look at the close ties of government officials and alphabet agencies all around the world to powerful cash-rich drug cartels in Mexico, to the golden triangle heroin trade in Asia consisting of Laos, Cambodia and Thailand, to the military occupation of Afghanistan that was responsible for the massive revival of their international leadership in the global opium trade, to the origin of HSBC bank as a launderer of the Chinese opium trade, etc. to understand the important connection between the billions of dollars of laundered drug money in the form of cash every year, the rocketing wealth of many government dictators, and the rise of global stock markets. Regarding this connection, I will leave you with one final question to consider. Would alphabet agencies and banks really be keen on destroying their connection to their greatest revenue stream outside of war, which cryptocurrency networks outside of their control would accomplish? Or are they perhaps pushing for cash to be replaced completely by cryptocurrencies to tighten their stranglehold over one of their greatest revenue streams and to make it impossible for black market money to escape their tentacles, as cash currently allows?

The India Case Study of Why We Still Need to Be Wary of Bitcoin’s Liberation Narrative

People that have known me for a long time have heard me speak multiple times about the Central Bankers’ ultimate plan to establish 100% digital currency worldwide in order to further enslave the global population, many years before the first 100% digital currency, Bitcoin, was even invented in 2009. In 1996, the NSA wrote a paper called How to Make a Mint: the Cryptography of Anonymous Electronic Cash, in which they described five key elements to their proposed 100% digital currency: a decentralized creation process, privacy, user identification, message integrity, and non-repudiation, all of which became essential elements for Bitcoin. However, I was unaware of this paper, or David Chaum’s earlier 1982 paper on digital cash, until this year. In fact, since David Chaum is the pioneer of cryptocurrencies, it would seem that Chaum would be a likely suspect of being the real Satoshi Nakamoto, or of being the person most likely to know Satoshi Nakamoto’s real identity. Again, just to be clear, I am not saying I believe that the NSA invented Bitcoin, as their 1996 paper is not evidence of this. Again, I am only stating that to this date, because no one knows who invented Bitcoin, which is an indisputable fact, no one can state beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Bitcoin was invented to liberate, and not to further enslave, humanity, especially since it lacks a couple of paramount qualities that all sound money necessarily must possess.

In any event, I have been consistent and unwavering in my view, since Bitcoin’s invention, that until we know the identity of Satoshi Nakamoto beyond a shadow of a doubt, that any conclusion of Bitcoin as an invention outside of the realm and control of Central Bankers is mere speculation and impossible to prove. I have been consistent in this view in extending my warning of caution to all citizens in all nations to not embrace the pleas of their leaders to ban cash and transition into a nation of 100% digital currency platform and to not embrace the propaganda that such a transition is one that benefits us and the economy. Despite my urgings of caution, everywhere I go, I encounter people that love the transition into 100% digital currency, with my most recent encounters a few Swedes that stated that they loved the fact that no one uses cash in Sweden anymore. For example, to illustrate my point of my consistent warnings, after I first identified Indian PM Narendra Modi attempting to institute this transition when he called for all Indians, in a fake patriotic plea, to turn over their physical gold to Indian banks in exchange for a piece of paper for safekeeping purposes and measly interest rates, I immediately wrote an article titled, “A Critical Warning to Indian Citizens About the Newly Introduced Indian Gold Programs. Could Bankers Be Duping Us Into a Reverse Alchemy Program?”

In this article, I warned that Narendra’s plea to trick Indian citizens into what amounted to a national physical gold confiscation program, disguised as a plan to help them, was a step to turn India into a digital currency nation. I stated, “Various Indian government officials are pushing their potential reverse alchemy schemes upon the public, urging them to turn over their physical gold holdings to bankers in exchange for digital credits to bank accounts and the issuance of paper certificates.” I made it crystal clear that Indian citizens should “refrain from participating in their physical gold into paper gold programs” and warned them of the next steps of currency digitization that were coming in the near future by concluding, “India may very well be a testing ground for bankers to discover if they can convince people to turn their physical gold into digital.” Unfortunately, bankers discovered 100% that they could convince people to turn physical gold into digital currencies as many people have lost patience with this multi-year, but temporary, lull in gold and silver prices, confused price with value, and sold their physical gold and physical silver stacks for cryptocurrencies since I wrote this article.

Granted, these people may have earned a boatload of fiat currencies with this exchange, but as I stated earlier in this article, profits do not support an argument of liberation. In fact, for those that follow me daily on my Snapchat channel, SKWealthAcademy, all of you are aware that at the start of the year, I stated my very firm belief that buying defense stocks such as Lockheed Martin and Boeing were as close to as possible of being a “sure thing” for gains in the stock market. Despite this, I stated that I would not recommend these stocks to any of my clients as I do not believe in war profiteering or earning money from blood money and companies that make weapons to kill people. Since that post, these stocks I referenced have risen between 20% and 50% as of August 2017 from the time of my post, but had you ignored my advice to stay away from these stocks for moral reasons, and purchased these stocks anyway, these large profits do not mean that these profits are a moral victory for humanity. Profits are simply that – profits – and while they may shore up your financial sense of well-being, profits from an investment in a company or currency does not prove that said investment is liberating humanity.

Furthermore, a little over a year after I wrote the above article, PM Modi further escalated his war against cash in India when he temporarily banned the two largest existing currency notes in India at the time, the 500 and 1000 rupee note. Though Modi presented this ban as a very one-sided, extremely biased and unfounded “war against corruption” that actually tricked many of the very poor Indians the ban hurt the most to embrace and support the ban, I exposed his ban as a Trojan Horse designed to fool his country in a video I immediately posted titled Why India’s War on Cash is a War on Gold, which I followed up a month later with a second video titled India PM Modi’s War on Cash and Gold, NOT Corruption, Intensifies. Again, I spoke to many Indians that vehemently disagreed with me about my assessment of Modi and that firmly supported Modi, because they told me that Modi was a good man for taking on a battle that his predecessors were afraid to tackle – that of massive corruption embedded in the wealthiest echelons of Indian society.

Despite my logical explanation to them that I had studied the Central Bankers’ desire to transition the world to a 100% digital currency platform for decades, and that Modi’s actions fit the actions of someone using a fake positive narrative to implement darker ulterior motives, I could not convince the Indians with whom I spoke that Modi was a wolf in sheep’s clothing to budge even a little bit to at least consider the possibility that Modi was using his “war on corruption” stance as a cover for a far darker motive. The reason I have presented this example as a case study is because the several Indians to whom I spoke about my suspicions of Modi’s scheme to return righteousness to India were just as vehemently steadfast in their rejection of this possibility as many BTC advocates to whom I have spoken about the possible deception of Bitcoin.

I have found many similarities not only between the initial rejection of my proposed theory about Modi’s war on corruption and my proposed theory about Bitcoin possibly being a Trojan horse, but also in the righteous tone in which this rejection is voiced. What is alarming about theses similarities is that what is being rejected is not a known claim, for I have always stated I do not know the answers to my questions, but what is being rejected are even the questions I raise, as if similar campaigns have been taken in both instances to make a populace intolerant of even accepting very valid questions. Fast forward another year, and again, my assessment has been proven to be the correct one, despite being the unpopular one many years ago regarding the mainstream view of Modi’s actions. Again, I do not publicly publish everything I believe on my blog, as I just don’t have the time to write down all my beliefs in the form of an article, but I occasionally publish such articles just so there is a public record that proves up the accuracy of some of my past warnings when I reference them to build a position about current warnings I make.

In September of 2017, ZeroHedge published an article that exposed Mod’s attempt to force digitization of currency upon India as “a colossal failure that ruined the economy” and further exposed his attempt to cloak his true banker-driven intentions as a “war on corruption” to gain widespread national acceptance as a complete farce. India’s own Central Bank revealed that Modi’s war on cash resulted this year in the worst GDP growth since Q1 2014 and that his war on corruption miserably failed to get rid of black market cash, as 99% of high denomination banknotes cancelled last year were merely deposited or exchanged for new currency. At the time Modi embarked on his war against cash, Modi boldly bragged that corrupt people that used cash would be left with “worthless pieces of paper” as he concluded that corrupt criminals would undoubtedly rather destroy or abandon their paper than deposit it and admit the illegal means by which they acquired it. In fact, the war against corruption was such an abject failure to stamp out corruption, just as I unequivocally stated it would be at the time it was launched, that Indian finance minister P. Chidambaram responded to this failure by tweeting that Modi’s actions only ultimately served as a successful money laundering operation that turned all the illegal black money in India into legal white money. The lesson from this incident is to heed the warnings of those that critically pick apart the glaring flaws of schemes presented as ones that will “free humanity” by not blindly dismissing such warnings.

There will, of course, be schemes to “free humanity” from the ongoing Central Banker currency wars, put forth by honest men or women of integrity, so I am not stating to be skeptical of all future proposed currency systems. I am merely stating to remain skeptical of those that merit skepticism. Ultimately, even if such skepticism is found to be unwarranted, skepticism is what will keep us from embracing devious schemes presented as ones to liberate us when indeed they may be used to further enslave us. My very criticisms of people blindly embracing Bitcoin as a liberating currency are exactly the same as my criticisms of the poor in India for exulting in Modi’s scheme and believing his false statements that his policy would cripple and punish the corrupt rich, when in reality, it only severely punished the poor and helped the corrupt rich successfully launder their black money.

I have consistently stated that many schemes presented in the banking world as schemes to free us are wolves in sheep’s clothing, and that until we 100% know for sure that such a scheme is meant to liberate us, if they are as many unanswered questions that exist as the ones I have raised in this article, we are in danger of embracing a “liberation” scheme that ultimately may lead to the destruction of not only our most essential freedoms but also the destruction of our financial health, as such an unquestioning and accepting mindset of the majority narrative did for the majority of people in India.

Conclusion

I have no idea if my speculation about BTC will be proven true five years from now, but the purpose of my narrative above is simply to prove that certain points taken as “certainties” and “facts” by BTC holders are nothing of the sort, and that many unanswered questions still surround BTC. One thing, however, that banking history has told us is certain is the following: if BTC is not controlled by Central Bankers, then five years from now, BTC will no longer exist as Central Bankers will legislate it out of existence by in favor of their preferred cryptocurrency. In conclusion, if blockchain technology were used to bring back sound money in the form of a 100% gold backed cryptocurrency that was valued in weight only, and not priced in any fiat currency, this would be the true cryptocurrency that could liberate humanity from the immorality of our current fractional reserve fiat currency based system. The one question that still remains unanswered is this, “Are BTC ownere being tricked into blindly and vociferously defending the very people they believe they are fighting by owning BTC?” Until we know the answer, this question remains worth exploring.

by