Regulatory Democracy, Central Banking, and Brexit

In response to my post last week on Brexit, I was asked the following:

C. Stayton June 24, 2016 at 5:15 AM

BM, I'm curious - do you have a conspiracy theorist streak in you? You talk about One World Government, and in an article earlier this week you used the term "false flag." Do you think the EU is part of a greater plot by the globalists (or the cult elite, or the illuminati, or whatever you want to call them) to gain universal control? I'd love to hear your thoughts on this.

bionic mosquito June 24, 2016 at 9:43 PM

There is an "elite." They are not God, they are not gods. They don't always have the same objectives, but they take advantage of the same toolkit: central banking, regulatory democracy, etc.

Their plans work better the larger and fewer the political entities that must be controlled - hence the "success" of the EU is one pillar.

Yet, Britain's vote came out this way. Why? Interesting...

Eventually, central planning fails. The elite have convinced us that "we" are in charge. Their whole act falls apart if "we" see that we are not.

For this reason they will give up much in order to protect central banking and regulatory democracy. They also fear nuclear war (and the beast they created in the US may be getting a little out of control).

All of these factors help to shape my view on events, rightly or wrongly.

I feel it worthwhile to expand on these thoughts, especially as I put together the Brexit post rather quickly and almost immediately after the results were known; I have since had some time to further reflect on both the event of Brexit and the question. 

There is an "elite." They are not God, they are not gods.

Steve Rogers (aka Captain America) is getting ready to jump into a tangle with and between Thor, Loki and Iron Man, two of the three of whom (Thor and Loki) are other-worldly (and dressed like they are performing Shakespeare in the Park):

Natasha Romanoff: “I'd sit this one out, Cap.”

Steve Rogers: “I don't see how I can.”

Natasha Romanoff: “These guys come from legend. They're basically gods.”

Steve Rogers: “There's only one God, ma'am, and I'm pretty sure he doesn't dress like that.”

 

There is an elite; they are not gods. 

Paraphrased (and I wish I can remember where I first read it): Democracy is the system where you falsely believe that you and your wife have twice the political pull of someone named Rockefeller.

There are a relatively small handful of individuals with extraordinary pull in this world.  This is so obvious that it need not be elaborated.  This handful of people work covertly together on many manipulations; conspiracies, if you will.  I know it is shocking to some, but individuals who intend to leverage their pull in self-serving ways tend not to discuss their plans and objectives openly.

Specific objectives may differ by individual member in this class – such individuals are highly competitive, after all, and compete amongst each other.  They are also individuals – each with their own subjective value scale.  They are, after all, human – but if you believe they are gods, well the gods were a pretty competitive bunch, were they not?  They don’t always agree on everything.

They don't always have the same objectives, but they take advantage of the same toolkit: central banking, regulatory democracy, etc.

What they have in common is the desire to maintain and extend the system – what I once coined “the toolkit.”  A key element of this toolkit is central banking as this is where the theft comes into play; equally important is regulatory democracy, as this extends the possibility of theft with the consent of the victims.  (Public education is equally important, but not extremely relevant to this discussion of Brexit.)

I think I need not expand on the theft that is central banking.  We have witnessed it in its most overt and brazen form since 2008; if it ain’t obvious to you by now, more words from me won’t help.  As to regulatory democracy, I will take each word individually.

Regulatory: laws, rules, and regulations passed under the guise of benefitting the consumer, protecting the citizens, aiding small business, and improving society; the real purpose is to limit competition, gain political favor, and control the masses – enhancing the value of assets owned or otherwise controlled by the elite while keeping the rest of us in a passive state.

Democracy: fooling the people into thinking that they are in charge, that they are the government.  This way the people willingly and happily pay enormous sums for the privilege of whitewashing the fences of the elite and their tools (politicians and the like).

Central banking and regulatory democracy: this is how the elite get to steal from the masses without using overt force.  Much more effective (and lucrative) than the brute force of communism.

But there is one more thing, not included in my initial, brief comment: the politicians keeping their promises.  Your standard of living will increase; you will be taken care of in sickness and health; you will live comfortably in retirement; a good middle-class job awaits you upon completion of your education; we will keep you safe; you are the government; we are public servants.  The list is pretty long.

We have to admit that in the west we have had it pretty good.  Our standard of living is the envy of much of the world.  No major wars on western soil in over 70 years.  Not a bad run.  The politicians, on behalf of the elite, have – mostly – kept their promises (the ones that get them re-elected and keep the citizenry reasonably passive, anyway).

At least so far…but the lies came openly into view beginning in 2008…the promises overtly began to break.

Their plans work better the larger and fewer the political entities that must be controlled - hence the "success" of the EU is one pillar.

In this specific context, it is the EU pulling together dozens of countries that not very long ago were a hundred tribes and a thousand principalities.  Go to Europe even today and you will find there is no such nation (I don’t say state) as Germany, or the United Kingdom, or tiny Belgium, or Spain.  In each of these (and virtually every other European state) people can very easily speak of an even more regional “national” culture: Bavarian and Swabian and Saxon, Scottish and Welsh and Irish, Flemish and Walloon, Basque and Catalan.

But why pull them together into ever-larger political units?  The answer can be found in the conqueror’s demand: “Take me to your leader.”  The fewer the number of leaders to conquer, the easier to conquer the people (what would the would-be conqueror do if there was no “leader”?  Go house to house?  We see how well that works in places like…oh…Afghanistan.).  Taking control of one political apparatus in Brussels is much easier than taking control of 25 or 30 in Europe, or 200 or more if Europe was divided into its still-identifiable tribes and regions.

Yet, Britain's vote came out this way. Why? Interesting...

In this, the hope for decentralization is the beauty to be found in the Brexit vote; yet, it raises an interesting (and perhaps quite dangerous) question: why?  Why did Brexit succeed (to the extent one can call the action-to-date success – as an actual Brexit is still nowhere near certain)?

Is there a sinister plan waiting to be hatched by the elite – allowing this apparent success only to use it to drive a collapse that would allow them to usher in more tyranny – get us to beg them to become more tyrannical?  Maybe. 

But if they wanted to collapse the system in order to usher in tyranny, they could have easily manipulated events in 2008 to achieve that end.  Even more recently, they could have allowed the market panic that immediately followed the vote to continue into free-fall.

Stop the payment system for two days; that would do it.  They could easily have done this in 2008 if they desired societal collapse.  Talk about a war of all against all – and the elite safely tucked away in their fortresses.

In any case, I need not know the answer to this question to know that they have tools at their disposal to turn lemons into lemonade; even if they did not desire this Brexit outcome, they are working to find ways to turn it to an outcome they desire (whatever that might be).

Eventually, central planning fails.

But is their success certain?  Will the elite be able to turn another trick?  I think not; certainly not in the long run (and the long run is getting shorter all the time, maybe quickly so).  First and foremost, central planning fails; one cannot say when, but it fails – always.  Eventually the promises (see above) cannot be kept.

It happened in the Soviet Union, it happened in Communist China; it will happen in the west – it will just take longer because “we” are brainwashed into believing (there is the public education thing for you) that “we” are in charge; also because we in the west truly have it pretty good.  People don’t buck the system (or withdraw their support) when things are going good and when they believe their vote counts.

But here is the rub: one reason the vote turned out this way (and if it was 48% Brexit and 52% remain, I would have written the same thing) is that things are no longer going pretty good in the west – for sure not since 2008.  Whether the economy, lack of jobs, immigration, continuous war and threat of war, terrorism brought home, whatever – and whether based in fact or feeling – the people are restless and anxious.  What control they (falsely) thought they had under democracy they are finding they no longer have.  The promises they received are beginning to fall to the wayside.

So, things aren’t going so well for the masses – and now, on top of this, the elite will take away faith in democracy?  I don’t think so.  Rule by overt force was never the best solution – it never lasts long and doesn’t produce nearly the same amount of wealth to be skimmed by the elite.  The Soviet Union lasted all of 70 years, and as to wealth available for skimming…well…their leaders were never as well-dressed as the elite of the west.

Sure, the elite might find a covert way – manipulations and all; I touched on this above.  But in the end, central planning fails.  If they had a solution to the economy, retirement, immigration, etc., don’t you think they would have trotted it out by now?  They have been juggling balls in the air with 2008 – not by choice, I am certain.

Why would they purposely take the chance on frustration building to a level that a Brexit vote – and now maybe a dozen others – would take hold and even succeed?  Why would they expose themselves to having to rule by overt force when covert force was working so well (and was more successful than overt force and made them wealthier than overt force ever could)? 

I know some in the alternative community believe the passing of Brexit is a covert plan to finally bring us all under overt and total subservience, forcing us back into subsistence living at its worst.  I don’t buy it.  Remember, they could have brought the rest of us to our knees in 2008…and didn’t.

In any case, the advancements made available through a developed division-of-labor economy cannot be easily reversed; from Rothbard:

The clock cannot be turned back to a preindustrial age….We are stuck with the industrial age, whether we like it or not.

But if that is true, then the cause of liberty is secured.  For economic science has shown, as we have partially demonstrated in this book, that only freedom and a free market can run an industrial economy.  In short…in an industrial world it is also a vital necessity.  For, as Ludwig von Mises and other economists have shown, in an industrial economy statism simply does not work.

The people won’t consent to going backwards, and consent is a crucial part of the elite’s system of control; our consent matters – else they wouldn’t bother with brainwashing us into believing that they acted with our consent.

The elite have convinced us that "we" are in charge. Their whole act falls apart if "we" see that we are not.

There is no going back; the people will withdraw their consent.  From Étienne de La Boétie:

Resolve to serve no more, and you are at once freed. I do not ask that you place hands upon the tyrant to topple him over, but simply that you support him no longer; then you will behold him, like a great Colossus whose pedestal has been pulled away, fall of his own weight and break into pieces.

Why not accept the simple answer behind Brexit (and Trump and all other similar movements throughout the west) – all around the western world, this is exactly what people are doing?  People are withdrawing their consent – in the only way most of them know, for now, but withdrawing consent nonetheless. 

Why not accept the reality that with decentralized information – the internet – people have been exposed to narratives that are not controlled by the gatekeepers, and people are acting on this information?

For this reason they will give up much in order to protect central banking and regulatory democracy.

Central banking and regulatory democracy: if you had your hands on these tools, wouldn’t you do just about anything to ensure that these were not challenged?  Even take a step back from your grand plans (to steal a concept I first came to understand at the Daily Bell)?

The answer to me is rather obvious.  But maybe this is based on hope and not reason.

They also fear nuclear war…

As an aside, I introduced this in my brief response above.  I am rather certain that the elite do not want a nuclear war – who wants to kill off hundreds of millions if not billions of their own wealth-producing sheep, let alone destroy any hope of a future life on earth (for them and their descendants) for several generations?  What king wants to preside over the destruction of 90% (or more) of his kingdom?

They have no Genesis Device.  Even if they did, do you think they prefer a world of 50 million (or 500 million) to shear instead of 7 billion and growing?  Where would they keep these 50 million safe while they hatched their deed?  On Mars?  I find the idea farcical.

Does today’s generation of global masters want their descendants to curse them for shrinking the fortune, for confining them to life in underground shelters?  With third eyes growing through their foreheads and a second, smaller head growing out of their right shoulder?  Is this the legacy or path you would choose to leave if you had your hands on the best levers of manipulation ever invented by man?

But what of a limited conflict – lob a few, get the people to chew each other up in a non-nuclear war of all against all for survival of the fittest?  I think not.  They are not God, they are not gods; they cannot control events and outcomes so neatly. 

In the immortal words of Mike Tyson: “Everyone has a plan 'till they get punched in the mouth.”  Once the first bomb is lobbed, control is gone.  Dozens of nuclear submarine commanders, bomber pilots, and silo commanders – each will interpret events and circumstances in their own way.  Maybe 99% of them will follow protocol – but once a few of them do not, then what do the rest do?

We have all seen WOPR, from the movie War Games – there is no winning scenario once the bombs start flying.  Winner: None.  A disaster waiting to happen; even a limited nuclear war is a risk not worth taking.  Not if you have trillions (and a life and a multi-generational plan of control) to lose if you bet wrong.

… (and the beast they created in the US may be getting a little out of control).

I tend to think that many of the founders of the UN and other such entities actually desired world peace; their means were obviously all wrong, but I think their desired ends (at least for many) were exactly this.  They thought they could achieve this with one-world government; exactly the opposite of what is necessary if one desires to minimize conflict and minimize the magnitude of conflict.

The US (which is their means to achieve one-world government) has grown too big for its britches.  The beast needs to be reined in, because the elite see that it is out of control – this beast cannot help but antagonize.  The elite (at least some / many) want to rein the US government in, turn it down a notch or three.

This is why I once believed Rand Paul had a chance of taking the Republican nomination and then the presidency – until he got looney and tried to fit in to a mold that many of the elite no longer wanted.  This is why I believe Trump has significant support from many of the elite.

Is it controversial to state that the US is pushing the world into war – pushing Russia into a corner?  Is it silly to consider the possibility and even probability that such a confrontation ends in nuclear catastrophe?  Maybe to the naïve or the tools, but not to any rational thinking individual on the planet.  And most certainly not if you have trillions at stake.

All of these factors help to shape my view on events, rightly or wrongly.

I think we are in the beginning phases of a great decentralization; it will be very visible in Europe.  If not due to Brexit (say they find enough duct tape to hold things together a while longer), it will be Spain, Greece, etc.  It will be the lack of jobs; it will be immigration; it will be fear of war with Russia. 

The failure of central planning is inevitable.  Central planning does not work; the promises will be broken.  People will lose faith; they will withdraw their consent.

The tools of central banking and regulatory democracy are too important to lose, so they will do anything they can to not lose them.  But to not lose them requires that they attempt to maintain the consent of the governed.

The elite will take a step back.  We are living through these times.  Dangerous and exciting – because not all elite are on the same page, and not all of their creatures and minions will necessarily agree.

I have read much analysis on the Brexit event (both mainstream and alternative) since my first post, written just hours after the results were known.  From the alternative sources, the analysis is all over the map – ranging from a victory over the elite to just want the elite wanted.  I find neither extreme completely satisfying, yet I lean significantly toward the former. 

Every action since 1945 – and perhaps one can say even thirty years before this – has been to drive the world further and further toward centralization; no matter the setbacks, they have continued on this path.  All of a sudden they decide that decentralization is the best way?

Maybe.  Maybe they want to make an example of the Brits, thus killing off nationalist movements throughout the west.  Certainly some will work toward this end – lemonade out of lemons.

But purposefully losing the vote?  I don’t think so.  And utilizing this vote as a means toward successfully furthering centralization and overt suppression of people who have grown accustomed to a lifestyle only possible in a relatively free market?  No chance.

And that’s how I see things.