Catherine Austin Fitts - Bitcoin Op, Digital Slavery & Space Economy...

[norman]

Dark Journalist

85z5hkXVfE8


[ my computer won't play this or complete the page to allow me to get the blurb to post here]

[Kristin]

Watched this last night, it was excellent. I would be interested in Paul's comments.

[RunningDeer]

Dark Journalist[ my computer won't play this or complete the page to allow me to get the blurb to post here]

DarkJournalist
Published on Dec 13, 2017

Visit http://www.DarkJournalist.com

Human Society vs Digital Slavery & Transhumanism

In this fascinating episode Dark Journalist Daniel Liszt welcomes back Former Assistant Housing Secretary and Solari Report Publisher Catherine Austin Fitts for a deep and insightful look into the perils and possibilities of the digital age and what lies ahead.

Catherine points out that the leadership in Global affairs believe in slavery and that their policies of controlling economic growth, harvesting the citizen's wealth. developing entrainment through technology and building a massive surveillance grid of humanity represent a dangerous hazard to the entire Globe.

The Bitcoin Op

Catherine sees most of the upper level financial elites moving into buying Gold and Land while they entice the general population into an unstable cryptocurrency that, although it may hold short term capital gains, will ultimately be the a contrived pump and dump of historic levels.

She points out that Bitcoin is not the currency for the people it pretends to be and that much of the hype around it is devised to help the Central Banking powers consolidate their gains and entice the population to use a digital currency. She outlines the danger of using digital money when the current system of finance has no integrity and that people who work with Bitcoin, Blockchain and Cryptocurrencies know it's unsafe and subject to hacking with FDIC insurance.

[indigopete]

I realise that Catherine is held in high esteem and affection by the community in general, not least as an authoritative figure in financial matters, but I suggest this appraisal on bitcoin have a huge great health warning slapped on it due to the almost undetectable due diligence she's done.

For a start, why exactly should people not be allowed to create their own money just because it's "electronic" ? I'm perplexed by the bald faced conflation she makes between central bank created debt-based fiat and counterparty-free, anyone-can-mine it, electronic cash.

Secondly, she seems to have taken one of the most successful decentralised co-operative oriented industrial sectors of modern times (the open-source software movement) and "trashed" it as a "centralising force", amongst other things because it took her more than 100 hours to do her due diligence ??!!! Does she have to do first principles due diligence on the structural design of every building she walks into before entering ? Does she have to do due diligence on the aerodynamic design of aircraft she flies in ?

The whole ethos of the open source software movement is due diligence, that's why it places transparency as its highest priority so that expert and lay opinion alike can be brought to bear. In that context, anyone looking for "consensus" as to its integrity is going to be disappointed because it comes with the package that there is a diversity of opinion about how things should work which has led, for example to multiple alternative "flavours" of the Linux operating system and multiple alternatives to the bitcoin cryptocurrency.

In that sense, the fact that her "trusted" referees had issues with bitcoin is a GOOD thing, not a bad thing. The fact that there is all out war over its development is a GOOD thing, not a bad thing.

Transparency of the code, transparency of the mathematical theories on which that code is based, accountability of the people that write it and of those who deploy it. Why is there no mention of any of this in her commentary ?

Physical monetary media have been rendered impotent by central banks for one reason only: they have up until now managed to prevent any form of electronic cash. It's all been electronic credit. But this distinction is not made in Catherine Austin Fitt's commentary. She alludes to the idea that all electronic money is credit and centrally controlled when in fact that is no longer the case after the advent of cryptocurrencies. It was only the case until 2009. She highlights the case of much of the bitcoin supply being in the hands of a small number holders but omits to mention the fact that "Bitcoin" now only represents barely more than half of the total cryptocurrency market capitalisation. The cost of hedging against the types of adversity that she predicts in her commentary is therefore very low because the market has already shown that other cryptocurrncies represent good insurance policies against adverse bitcoin-dollar exchange rates.

But there is no mention of any of this in her commentary.

She takes an "us and them" approach to what is in fact just a highly useful tool that is at once as ubiquitous as it is powerful. Catherine seems to be implying that we should leave it alone, not take control of it and not seek to deploy it to the public benefit. It's all about the exchange rate for her, whereas for most bitcoin projects it's all about the utility.

There are hundreds of cryptocurrencies out there. Whoever's "pumping it" only has control of the exchange rate with the dollar for one cryptocurrency in particular, not the cryptocurrency industry in general because the genie's out of the bottle and anyone can create these things. Further, markets are free to arbitrate over their value and software engineers can debate all day long about the veracity and security of their code. So we therefore have free markets, redundancy, decentralisation and accountability but somehow CAF has managed to project her hobby horse vision of "world slavery" onto it ?! That takes some doing IMO.

All in all, this is an appallingly ill-informed commentary by someone with a mind-set too close to the people she claims to be opposing to see a solution when it's staring her in the face.

[ThePythonicCow]

I realise that Catherine is held in high esteem and affection by the community in general, not least as an authoritative figure in financial matters, but I suggest this appraisal on bitcoin have a huge great health warning slapped on it due to the almost undetectable due diligence she's done.

Maybe, indigopete, Catherine has done more due diligence than either of us, and maybe the reason that she doesn't repeat and endorse the usual explanations for the benefits of cryptocurrencies is that she doesn't think they're right. Maybe instead she thinks that the current popular explanations for the benefits of cryptocurrencies are part of a major psyop, including the usual propaganda of selling something as having benefits that turn out to be nearly the exact opposite of the negatives that will eventually unfold.

Maybe I agree with Catherine on this, as can be seen when I posted this same interview of Catherine Austin Fitts, on another thread: Bitcoin, the war on cash, Clif High, and the NSA's long range plans -- Post #169 (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?99133-Bitcoin-the-war-on-cash-Clif-High-and-the-NSA-s-long-range-plans&p=1195919&viewfull=1#post1195919).

But ... thanks for posting your critique of her commentary on cryptocurrencies. It led me to listen to Catherine another time, and it also led me to further check out a book that she recommends: The Master Switch: The Rise and Fall of Information Empires, by Tim Wu (http://a.co/cRHUORG)

[ThePythonicCow]

Maybe instead she (Catherine Austin Fitts) thinks that the current popular explanations for the benefits of cryptocurrencies are part of a major psyop, including the usual propaganda of selling something as having benefits that turn out to be nearly the exact opposite of the negatives that will eventually unfold.
There's a good read over at Cognitive Dissonance (https://www.patreon.com/CognitiveDissonance), reposted here (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-12-17/bitcoin-greatest-story-ever-sold) on Zerohedge: Bitcoin: The Greatest Story Ever Sold (https://www.patreon.com/posts/bitcoin-greatest-15928794).

It calls out Bitcoin for being a sales scam for the ages, by someone who was himself a quite successful, if a bit cynical, salesman.

[Foxie Loxie]

I thought the Jesus Story was The Greatest Story Ever Sold!! :ROFL::ROFL:(Sorry...bad joke!)

[indigopete]

Maybe instead she thinks that the current popular explanations for the benefits of cryptocurrencies are part of a major psyop, including the usual propaganda of selling something as having benefits that turn out to be nearly the exact opposite of the negatives that will eventually unfold.

And maybe she - like just about every other commentator that's pontificated on the future of bitcoin this year - has not the slightest clue about what's going to happen next and simply sees her own priorities and agenda reflected in the bitcoin "mirror". That's what usually happens with new inventions. If it was the wheel, then Henry Ford would see dollar signs, Tony Hawk would see ollies, flips and slides and Catherine would see an "op" based on the co-opting of all of the above.

A much more constructive approach would be to make an instructive appraisal of the implications of cryptocurrencies across the board. For example, they do have centralising aspects in that they all use one of many cryptographic functions as their backbone and if this gets compromised then something will break. But they also have decentralising aspects in the sense that they are open to create, hold and use without the co-operation of a particular institutional or statutory body.

Her point about "pump and dump" for me is slightly confusing. I can see how people can loose money in that case but I don't really follow her logic as to how it leads to "centralisation'. CAF argues that they're going to basically "see where it goes and then co-opt it". But the process by which this happens is not explained. For example, banks cannot 'co-opt" blockchain assets by creating their own blockchains. What are they going to back those tokens with ? Fiat ? That's like giving your car a coat of paint and calling it a new car.

Her reasoning is ill thought through, and her logic basically amounts to "it's cryptographic, it's electronic, it's global so it will be co-opted'. What she should in fact be doing is encouraging people to get familiar with this sector, use the new tools that are emerging and empower themselves with knowledge instead of just blurting out "it's a centraliser" which is basically no use to no one. That doesn't mean anyone has to expose themselves to financial risk. You can spend $10 on some dirt cheap coin and start playing with it to open a new process of discovery.

[ThePythonicCow]

Maybe instead she thinks that the current popular explanations for the benefits of cryptocurrencies are part of a major psyop, including the usual propaganda of selling something as having benefits that turn out to be nearly the exact opposite of the negatives that will eventually unfold.

And maybe she - like just about every other commentator that's pontificated on the future of bitcoin this year - has not the slightest clue about what's going to happen next and simply sees her own priorities and agenda reflected in the bitcoin "mirror".
I'll grant that the views of Catherine Austin Fitts on cryptocurrencies, as you understand her, are seriously clue deficient.

I don't think you understand her views.

[Antagenet]

She's seen too much of how the inside controllers work to trust they would ever let the people of the world benefit by having a free currency. However I don't think she is aware of how many different crypto projects there are, how the crypto movement is also fueling the liberty movement and awakening peoples dreams. The desire for freedom, especially economic freedom, will never be stuffed back into little pieces of ugly fiats. I admire her warnings, but I have more faith in people to rise up and slay their oppressors.

[indigopete]

Thank goodness people are seeing through CAF's superficial and inaccurate appraisal. In particular that second comment below is more relevant than many because the real revolution of cryptocurrency isn't technological, it's monetary. In fact the very monetary solution that CAF herself has been advocating because the biggest "centraliser" in economic terms is debt since that is centrally created by governments and central banks. Only secondarily is it created by high street banks (even though they may be behind the bulk of it).

Therefore, having access to an electronic token that is trustless, can serve BOTH as a store of value and means of exchange, that is based on open source software and is NOT debt-backed is a massive decentralising move in its own right. No amount of "pumping and dumping" can mitigate those qualities.

She is an advocate for gold but gold has a huge weakness in terms of decentralising and liberating financial systems: it is immobile and illiquid. You have to trade it in public so it's easy to police. You possibly even need to find a 3rd party referee to make sure it's not tungsten. It doesn't travel through wires and it's not very fungible without a handy smelter. That illiquidity is what lets the central banks manipulate the price because it has to be traded in terms of securities which is what gives them unlimited control over the supply.

Bitcoin does not have this problem because it is LIQUID. It can travel through wires, be sent anywhere in the world, taken delivery of and held without the co-operation of a counterparty. Sure in a "mad max" scenario, gold may have some monetary utility but should we really be wishing for total destruction, misery and mayhem just to bring forth a decentralised, non-electronic physical financial system ? Surely finding a solution that solves financial problems while the "lights are on" is a better way forward.

https://i.imgur.com/jLIAQu0.png

https://i.imgur.com/uNYSKAF.png