DON’T SAY WE DIDN’T WARN YOU: PROGRAMMABLE DIGITAL By Joseph P. Farrell for Giza Death Star
Every now and then one of our regular “story spotters” finds a story we missed or that for whatever reason we did not blog about when it first appeared. That’s the case with this story, but it’s also a case of “don’t say we didn’t warn you.”
“Warn us about what?” some might ask.
Answer: Warn you about the dangers of trusting in digital “currencies,” especially those coming from central banksters. Why? Because in their hands, if wedded to “programmability,” such currency will not be a genuine currency at all, but a “corporate coupon” – as Catherine Fitts has been warning for some time now – whose value can be adjusted, and whose use for certain purchases can actually be controlled. Want to buy that shiny new car on the lot? Sorry. Your carbon footprint is too big. You’re only eligible to purchase a pair of motorized roller skates. Want to buy that genuine beef ribeye for dinner? Sorry. Your methane emissions are way too high. You’ll have to settle for ground crickets-and-soy patties and chocolate covered ants for desert. Of course, Ms. Globaloney herself – think of Ursula von der Lying, who wants to do away with the Nuremberg code to force everyone to take the jab – won’t be subject to any such restrictions. She’ll continue to fly to her conferences in a private jet, where she’ll eat real food, get gas, and contribute to climate change. And that’s just when her mouth is open.
If you thought, or continue to think, the world of digital currencies is just wonderful, consider the following find by P.T. (and thank you for spotting this one):
And in case you missed it, here it is:
Tom Mutton, a director at the Bank of England, said during a conference on Monday that programming could become a key feature of any future central bank digital currency, in which the money would be programmed to be released only when something happened.
He said: “You could introduce programmability – what happens if one of the participants in a transaction puts a restriction on [future use of the money]?
“There could be some socially beneficial outcomes from that, preventing activity which is seen to be socially harmful in some way. But at the same time it could be a restriction on people’s freedoms.”
A digital currency could make payments faster, cheaper and safer, but also opens up new technological possibilities, including programming: effectively allowing a party in a transaction, such as the state or an employer, to control how the money is spent by the recipient. (Boldface emphasis added)
Of course, Ms. von der Lying and her ilk (think Dr. Ernst Stavro Klaus Blohschwab of
SPECTRE … er… the World Economic Forum, here) will be the ones deciding what is a “socially beneficial outcome” and what is “socially harmful in some way”, and the ones determining how you spend “your” money, which now turns out not to be “money” at all, since they’re the ones determining how you use it and what its “value” may be.