Is There Any Validity to the Claim that Bitcoin Could Be a Trojan Horse?

August 15th, 2017
Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailby feather

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.

A Critical Thinker’s Exposition of Bitcoin

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 careful exposition to defend. 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. 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. 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.

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 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 public forecasts and why have their forecasts about BTC’s price movements been the only publicly made forecasts in recent years that have been spot on?”

Is BTC Really Better Than Gold?

I’ve discovered that many BTC advocates argue that the above obstacles in using gold as money is precisely what makes BTC the liberator of humanity and not gold, as 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 is merely the distribution channel through which BTC is distributed and the internet would not have to be shut down to stop BTC 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, its use in the greater economy would, for all intents and purposes, be dead. 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 goods used in such transactions and would prefer to accept fiat currencies instead.

While some will argue that the “legal tender” of gold coins invalidates my claim, allow me to explain why this is not true. Governments have stated that if you want to use gold coins as money in the economy that one can only use it with the equivalent price they stamped on gold coins. Consequently, even though you would pay about US$1,320 to buy a US gold eagle coin as of 15 August 2017, the only price you could receive for it, were you to use it as “legal tender” to buy goods, is the fiat currency price printed on the coin, which is a measly US$50. 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$1,270 loss on the transaction because the US government states that the coin can only be used in the economy as a US$50 coin. 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 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 mostly false beliefs about gold coins that exist today. And 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, so I really don’t think that legislating the cryptocurrencies they don’t want to exist out of existence would be as complex or a difficult 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 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

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.

Finally, the argument of “sour grapes” is also a non-critical attack on the above facts I just presented. Many people, when they hear such indisputable facts, immediately and wrongly view such facts as a personal attack on their decision to buy Bitcoin, and counter with the somewhat childish response that is an iteration of the “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 anymore than someone who analyzes the turndown and greater bursting of the real estate bubble in Toronto is “mad about missing massive gains in the Toronto real estate market.”  My concern in writing this piece is truly driven by the fact that I find it terrifying that my predictions for how Central Bankers would subjugate us all after their reign of fiat currency collapsed, that I made 15 years ago, are coming true, and that some countries like Sweden have already been turned into a nearly 100% digital currency economy, and other countries like Norway, India, Denmark, Holland and Finland are already deep into the transition process. The purpose of raising the questions of the three unknowns about Bitcoin is to illuminate that no one really knows with any certainty who is behind the current push behind widespread acceptance of Bitcoin. Again, by no means, do any of these statements apply to the entire BTC community, and this is why I have been careful to quality all the statements in this article by stating that many of statements are based upon my personal experiences with BTC holders. In fact, due to my offering of the indisputable facts above that only support my contention that I do not know if Central Bankers have a large role in the adoption of BTC, I do not know who controls BTC price, and I do not know if control of BTC is centralized, many make the illogical deduction that I am against blockchain technology and cryptocurrencies.

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?

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 wait 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.

twitterlinkedinrssyoutubetumblrby feather

Has Silver Broken Out?

August 10th, 2017
Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailby feather

silver price break out

After calling the second-half 2017 lows for spot gold and spot silver prices almost to the exact dollar with gold and to the exact time period with silver, as pointed out in this article, I followed up this prediction on my daily snapchat channel, skwealthacademy, with another prediction once gold and silver asset prices illustrated some weakness to end July and to start August. When the MACD technical indicators all started to turn down in early August with spot gold, spot silver, and PM stock indexes, some stated that another prolonged banker raid on gold/silver asset prices would trigger an imminent plunge in all PM asset prices.

I, on the other hand, warned against being too strongly influenced and misled by the short-term “white noise” of declining gold and silver prices that manifested at the end of July and the start of August and instead stated last week, in my daily Snapchat stories that I posted, that a reversal was coming, possibly as early as this week. And yesterday, though it is still a little premature to confirm that a sustainable reversal is here, silver prices were up more than 3% from the prior day when I woke up today in Asia and gold prices had risen by more than 1.3%. Certainly, this is a good start to a potential reversal. Read the rest of this entry »

twitterlinkedinrssyoutubetumblrby feather

Here’s What Will Send the Price of Gold and Silver Soaring

August 3rd, 2017
Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailby feather

China has been accumulating a lot of gold over the past decade. Furthermore, no one with any sense believes their “officially” reported reserve numbers, especially since I had been blogging for years that their official gold reserve data was nonsense. The Chinese government themselves substantiated my claim in 2015 by increasing their reserve numbers overnight by 60% to 1,658 tonnes from “official” reserves of 1,058 tonnes, the gold reserve number that the PBOC reported for six straight years prior. Even when this updated number was reported, I again, at that time, stated that such a number was a gross underreporting of their real reserves, as Chinese government officials had zero desire to reveal the strength of their hand in the middle of a global currency war. For the past two years, the PBOC again has failed to update their gold reserve data, and it still stands at 1,658 tonnes though many have speculated that the real number is upward of 20,000 to 30,000 tonnes based upon internal nationwide production that never leaves China, in addition to the extrapolation of Hong Kong gold import data that is publicly available. Global bank analysts, that tend not to look at real data that is available to estimate China’s real gold reserves, blindly report “official” data and used China’s reported 1,658 tonne number a couple of years ago to call the figure underwhelming, and in increase that would have no bullish effect on gold prices, simply because it fits into their unrealistic narrative that they wish to propagate to keep gold prices suppressed. Read the rest of this entry »

twitterlinkedinrssyoutubetumblrby feather

Barclay’s $445,000 a Year Gold Equities Research Foreshadows What’s to Come

August 1st, 2017
Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailby feather

This is what we recently wrote in our July issue of research on gold and silver sport price in our Crisis Investment Opportunities newsletter to our clients:

Regarding gold: “I believe that gold will reverse in price closer to the $1,200 level than the $1,175 level.” Four days after issuing that statement, spot gold reached $1,204, which marked the bottom, and has promptly climbed $64 an ounce higher.

Regarding silver: “If silver’s descent is not yet done, it could possibly challenge the low of $15.68 established at the end of last year before rising again, but if it does, I think it will bounce from these levels quite quickly, as any smash to this level will be executed and propagated on no fundamental factors but only by bankers attempting to close out their short positions in the silver futures markets. Silver prices at the current juncture to the next two weeks or so should mark the low for 2017.

After I wrote that, silver did get smashed considerably lower than $15.68 to $14.34, but that smash, as I had predicted, literally only lasted but for a New York minute, as most of the smash from above $16.00 an ounce to $14.34 was literally regained in just a few minutes. However, the smash represented a non-tradable event in physical terms, as it happened so quickly and was deliberately executed during thinly traded hours that made it near impossible to buy any physical silver anywhere near $14.34 or even $15.00 an ounce. Furthermore, the very next day after the very short-lived silver smash, silver closed 9% higher at $15.63, and has steadily climbed since then, to its current spot price of $16.79. Read the rest of this entry »

twitterlinkedinrssyoutubetumblrby feather

Could This Government Nationwide Leak Halt the NWO Plan for Digital Currency Enslavement?

July 27th, 2017
Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailby feather

Today, we take a look at the two-year old nationwide data breach of the Swedish Transport Agency, in which STA personnel mistakenly uploaded personal data of millions of Swedish citizens to the cloud, where unauthorized personnel had access to this data. Even though this happened in September 2015, the Swedish government covered up this massive act of incompetence from their citizens even as they encouraged all to accept a nationwide digital monetary system that now could possibly be exposed to massive theft. We discuss the implications of perhaps the biggest government data leak in history in the below SKWealthAcademy vlog.


click the above image to watch

twitterlinkedinrssyoutubetumblrby feather

How to Ensure You Receive YouTube Notifications From Subscribed Channels

July 26th, 2017
Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailby feather

Over the years, we have always encountered numerous subscribers to our SmartKnowledgeU YouTube channel that tell us they never receive any notifications of uploaded new content even though they have clicked our “subscription” button and subscribed. The reason for this is that YouTube automatically flags any new content from any channel that discusses a narrative outside of the government, state, banker controlled narrative as having “inappropriate content” and as being “advertiser unfriendly”, even in numerous instances when this accusation is clearly is false and untrue. Rather, the censorship algorithms of YouTube, as run by the establishment, often flag content that disagrees with their one allowed establishment narrative. If this happens, once newly uploaded content is labeled as having “inappropriate content”, you will be blocked from receiving notification of this newly uploaded content simply because this content may encourage critical thought among the masses and promote horrifying concepts such as freedom, free living, disobedience to immoral ideas being promoted by those in power, etc. Of course,  the establishment doesn’t want people that actually think for themselves, so much of the content is blocked from being sent to subscribers.


If you wish to receive notification of our newly uploaded content, or for that manner, from any YouTube channel to which you are subscribed but never receive any notifications, simply follow the below steps. First, login to your YouTube channel and then click the “Subscriptions” button in the far left column as noted below:



Then, scroll to the bottom of the screen, click on the “restricted mode” button and if it is set to “on”, ensure that you set it to “off”.  Finally click the “save” button. Read the rest of this entry »

twitterlinkedinrssyoutubetumblrby feather

SKWealthAcademy Podcast_001: How Tribal Affiliations Are Used to Tear Down Our Principles, Honor and Integrity

July 26th, 2017
Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailby feather

In the inaugural SKWealthAcademy Podcast_001, I discuss how the wealthiest echelon of global political and banking & finance communities around the world use tribal affiliations imprinted into our DNA to weaken our resolve, our honor, our integrity and our principles in a manner that is not apparent to must of us. We must take the power back from them before they turn us against each other, which is the number one mind-control technique they use to ensure that most of us never realize the manipulated matrix in which they encourage us to live our lives, while they live outside of the same pillars and boundaries in which they have herded the rest of us. Though I discuss only life philosophy and critical thinking in this podcast, YouTube has once again flagged my video as “advertising unfriendly”, though there is no offensive content in this podcast, which ensures that thousands of my subscribers never receive notification of this podcast. Again, you may always directly check my YouTube channel every month to ensure you remain aware of when I upload new content, or check here on my blog as I tend to upload most new YouTube content here as well. Apparently the censors at Google and YouTube are unhappy with anyone that encourages people to exercise their critical thinking skills and to break free of their “comply, blindly obey, and do” narratives they heavily promote.


to watch, click the above image

If you watch and enjoy this video, please leave a comment in the comment section of the video on YouTube urging YouTube to stop censoring notification of videos as you would like to receive notification of new content from channels to which you have subscribed!

twitterlinkedinrssyoutubetumblrby feather

SKWealthAcademy Vlog_001: The Divide and Conquer Strategy is Being Executed to Perfection

July 26th, 2017
Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailby feather

Today, we bring you SmartKnowledgeWealthAcademy Vlog_001, in which we discuss how the wealthiest people in the top echelons of global politics, banking and finance, and corporate business are using their divide and conquer strategy to perfection by shuttling us into two different opposition sides of false paradigms of hatred they have created, and using this strategy to keep us dumb and angry without ever being able to reach the truth. Of course, on the opposite side, there are those that refuse to be herded like cattle and told what to think, what to believe, and whom to hate, and this movement is growing as well. However, for the movement of those that are spiritually awake and conscious to win, we must recognize the artificial paradigms into which those at the very top of power structures in society are herding us, so we can avoid and escape their matrix. In the vlog below, I discuss these topics, and even though YouTube continues to censor our videos and not send notifications to a large portion of our subscribers, at least you can find out about our new vlogs and podcasts here on our blog!


click on the above image to watch


If you enjoy this vlog, please leave a comment in the comment section of the video on YouTube and tell YouTube to stop censoring us!

twitterlinkedinrssyoutubetumblrby feather

Gold and Silver Hated Now, Cryptocurrencies Loved. The Debate Rages Onward, and Here’s a Solution!

June 1st, 2017
Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailby feather

Republishing rights: This copyrighted article may NOT be reprinted in full elsewhere without the expressed written consent of SmartKnowledge Pte Ltd. However the first three paragraphs may be reprinted, without permission, with a link back to this original article for access to the full article here.

by JS Kim, Founder of SmartKnowledgeU and skwealthacademy

As most of you know, the rise of the cryptocurrency has dominated all financial headlines as of late, compelling many to comment on bulletin boards and message boards that they will never buy physical gold or physical silver ever again, and that from now on, it’s cryptocurrencies or bust! Given Bitcoin and Ether’s recent parabolic rise, strictly from a price standpoint, physical gold makes more sense as a a purchase at this current time than Bitcoin or Ether, though certainly given performance and the benefit of hindsight, buying Bitcoin and Ether at the start of the year made more sense than buying gold. But again this statement is only valid given the two entirely different purposes of buying gold and cryptocurrencies.  And technically speaking, Ether, or Ethereum is not a cryptocurrency, but rather a token that user receive users for using their computing power to validate transactions and for helping pay for the development of the Ethereum network. As I will explain later in this article, even despite the massive parabolic rise in the price of BTC, if one were seeking to fulfill the very specific purpose that purchasing physical gold achieves in a wealth preservation plan, then purchasing gold over cryptocurrencies at the start of the year still would have made sense for a lot of people.

Those that have truly followed me this year, and not just read the occasional article I write about precious metals that is posted on ZeroHedge every several months, know that I have warned of big dips in spot gold and spot silver prices and advocated shorting paper gold and paper silver several times already this year, right before significant price dips materialized, as a means to protect oneself against banker price manipulations of spot PM prices. However, the current time is not one of them, as I believe the prices for both physical gold ($1258) and physical silver ($17.28) are solid long-term buys right now. However, this doesn’t mean there won’t be interim volatility in price, as in today’s Central Banker asset price-distorted world, volatility has become the norm, not the exception. For those that want to follow my opinion about PMs, you can do so on my Snapchat skwealthacademy channel, where I post snaps nearly every day, and very often discuss the state of PMs and to a lesser extent, cryptocurrencies.

Although many in the gold community do not like cryptocurrencies because they conveniently fit into the global banking cartel end goal of pushing society into wide acceptance of a 100% digital currencies, at this point, no one knows whether Bitcoin is part of the global banking cartel’s plan to take the world into 100% digital currency, including yours truly. Way back in 2012, I wrote that the banking cartel’s end game was clearly to gain control over every citizen’s financial life by eradicating the world of all paper currency and pushing wide acceptance of a 100% digital currency . It is of my opinion, that there is a possibility that bankers are behind either the development and/or marketing of Bitcoin, as acceptance of Bitcoin will help drive acceptance of the bankers’ end game of 100% eradication of paper money and 100% acceptance of digital currency across the world. I believe that my opinion is firmly in the minority, and many cryptocurrency supporters contend that there is zero possibility that Bitcoin was part of a banking project (by the way, if you keep reading, you will see that I discovered a new cryptocurrency I am backing for the long-term). However, in this debate, the only definitive conclusion that can be drawn is the following: without knowing the identity of the group of people known as Satoshi Nakamoto, no one can end this debate, so both sides of the debate at this point are based not on evidence, but pure speculation. The key to knowing which opinion is correct is unveiling the identity of Satoshi Nakaomoto beyond a shadow of a doubt, and is this is still an unknown today. Thus, one side cannot say “my lack of evidence supports my opinion more so than your lack of evidence”, which unfortunately, has evolved (or more appropriately “devolved”) into an argument that many people today utilize, and strongly believe, is perfectly valid, when in reality, such an argument is based entirely on emotion, irrationality and a lack of critical thought.

When one of my friends noticed that I was working on a piece about the cryptocurrency versus gold debate, he asked me, “Are you sure you want to publish that article and take on the crytpocurrency advocates, as they will heap scorn on you for doubting the anti-banking cartel nature of cryptocurrencies? That’s like trying to convince a hardcore vegan that eating meat is not evil. That takes a lot of courage.” To that, I replied, “First of all, I’m not belittling cryptocurrency advocates, because if you read the article after I publish it, you will see that I recently became aware of a brand-new crytprocurrency that I support. Secondly, it doesn’t take courage to express logical views, as that is all I am doing. Thirdly, I am not stating that Bitcoin advocates that believe BTC is independent of the global banking cartel are wrong. I am merely expressing reservations because no one has any evidence that is conclusive on either side of the debate. The flip side of that statement is that they may be  right as well. To me it seems harmless to point out an indisputable fact, which is that hard conclusions should never be drawn from a lack of evidence, but this is routinely done.” I continued, “I know that people hate to deal with uncertainties, and will do anything to rid themselves of that uncertainty, which leads to many wrong conclusions. This is a fact propelled by many psychology studies, so when I point this out, I am again, just pointing out a fact. Just look at how financial markets deal with uncertainty. They don’t like it all. But that does not mean, because uncertainty exists, that one should make conclusions out of thin air to explain that uncertainty to get rid of it. To me, that is totally irrational.  Yet the mainstream financial media does this on a daily basis with their headlines, To make my point, just go to YouTube and search for a topic called “demon magicians”, in which people claim that amazing magicians have sold their souls to the devil for powers to manipulate solid objects instantly into different states of matter, simply because they don’t know the tricks executed by these magicians to pull off their amazing illusions. I mean, there is a whole segment of people on YouTube that actually believe magicians are given powers by the devil, simply because of their desire to provide a certain explanation to a topic about which they are uncertain and can find zero evidence to explain the uncertainty. As mad as this sounds, this kind of irrationality persists in the financial world to, in mainstream financial media, to explain uncertain things whereby correlation for financial events are wrongly announced to the world as causation on a daily basis.”

It may be true that the global banking cartel’s iteration of their 100% digital currency will differ substantially from the cryptocurrencies of today, and that they were never involved in the development of BTC and other early-stage cryptocurrencies on the horizon, as even JP Morgan CEO Jamie Dimon publicly derided cryptocurrencies as fads that will not survive.  In this article, Dimon stated, “No government will ever support a virtual currency that goes around borders and doesn’t have the same controls [as fiat currency]. It’s not going to happen”, convincing many that this was proof that the global banking cartel had no hand in the development of early crytpocurrencies like BTC, and that a definitive fork exists between early stage cryptocurrencies, outside-the-control of the global banking cartel, and other later-stage, ongoing developments of cryptocurrencies, under the auspices of the global banking cartel. However, one must be aware that bankers rarely ever tell the truth, and the same people that often deride 99% of Jamie Dimon’s statements will point to this particular Dimon statement as “proof” that early cryptocurrencies are independent of the global banking cartel.

For sure, there is a massive difference between “speculation” and “proof” and any statement uttered by Jamie Dimon lands squarely on the side of speculation and not fact, because as we well know,  Alan Blinder, former Vice Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, and Princeton University economist, infamously stated on a 1994 PBS television program, “The last duty of a Central Banker is to tell the public the truth.” For example, eight-months prior to Dimon’s issuance of that statement, Dimon already was building close connections to blockchain technology when JP Morgan executive Blythe Masters left his firm to head up  Digital Assets Holdings, LLC,  a blockchain development company that is currently working on blockchain technology for use in the Australian stock exchange.  Furthermore, earlier this year, Dimon revealed that JP Morgan had built an Ethereum Alliance with other global banks and corporations to wield more influence over blockchain implementation and acceptance, an alliance that obviously was years in the planning. Understanding that JP Morgan was privately deeply involved in blockchain development at the same time their CEO was publicly deriding cryptocurrencies like BTC obviously exposes the disingenuous nature of Dimon’s comments, and furthermore,  still does not discredit the possibility that a member of the global banking cartel had a hand in the development of BTC.

Dimon’s statement, once we know the dishonesty of it, could lead to an infinite number of interpretations. It could mean that BTC is a virtual currency outside the global banking system and that’s why Dimon derided it, because JP Morgan will only support a virtual currency that he controls. It could be controlled opposition, whereby JP Morgan bankers have secretly had a hand in the development and acceptance of BTC despite their publicly stated opposition, a ploy meant to throw people off the trail of their plan to financially subjugate humanity further as they push through acceptance of 100% digital currencies. Recall that when the Morgans, the Rothschilds, the Rockefellers, the Warburgs, etc. tried to establish another Central Bank in the United States after the charter of the First Bank (1791-1811) and Second Bank (1861-1836) of the United States was revoked, they initially failed, because 100 years ago, Americans were properly educated to understand that the establishment of a Central Bank was meant to enslave them. So what did the banking cartel do in response? By the Congressional record documented of US Congressman and Chairman of the Banking and Currency Committee Louis McFadden’s speeches, delivered on the floor of Congress in the 1930s, we know that, at first, bankers tried to fool Congress into voting for a bill to establish a Central Bank by lying to Congress about overwhelming public support that existed for a Central Bank, that was in fact, generally mild and tepid at best. McFadden stated, “It has been said that the draughts man who was employed to write the text of the Aldrich bill because that had been drawn up by lawyers, by acceptance bankers of European origin in New York. It was a copy, in general a translation of the statues of the Reichsbank and other European central banks. One-half million dollars was spent on the part of the propaganda organized by these bankers for the purpose of misleading public opinion and giving Congress the impression that there was an overwhelming popular demand for it and the kind of currency that goes with it.”

Paul M. Warburg, who represented the Rothschild bankers, and whom many claim as the key figure in bringing the US Federal Reserve into existence, shed additional light into the banking cartel’s propaganda campaign in his deliverance of a speech to the New York YMCA on 23 March, 1910, in which he insisted that a national reserve bank would not be “controlled by Wall Street or any monopolistic interest”, explaining that the words “Central Bank” should be avoided, as he was not proposing a monopolistic Central Bank, but rather a decentralized national bank with 4 regional reserve banks, even though this was a complete lie and power was centralized in the New York Federal Reserve branch, after the establishment of the Federal Reserve in 1913, as it still is today. Bankers presented the exact same, monopolistic centralized bank a second time to US Congress, this time posing as a decentralized “federal” bank on the side of the people as opposed to a Central Bank that would work against the people’s best interests, and with this fake narrative, US Congress voted it into existence. This was the use of controlled opposition at its best, publicly pretending to be on the side of the people while privately working against the people’s best interests. Since bankers have a history of such deviant acts of convincing the public to support financial instruments that they would then later us to control humanity, to dismiss the possibility that they could be using cryptocurrencies in the same manner would be reckless. Thirdly, there is a possibility that global banks other than JP Morgan had a hand in developing BTC, thus compelling Dimon to denigrate BTC in favor of the digital currency that JP Morgan will eventually back. Again, all the above are possibilities, the validity of all unknown, none provable, no one possibility stronger than any other, and none ably dismissed.

No matter which of the above possibilities are true, the rise of cryptocurrencies are rapidly spreading acceptance of the global banking cartel’s push to create a world without any paper money and with only 100% digital money. There is, by no means, a clean a divide between the PM and cryptocurrency communities as agitators try to delineate, as there are also many in the PM community that hold both PMs and cryptocurrencies. Up to this point in this article, I have merely relayed my opinion and relayed the possibilities behind the origins of BTC, but I will explain later in this article, why my belief and the numerous possibilities I presented above may very well be irrelevant in the debate about the future of cryptocurrencies. In today’s world, we allow others to manipulate us like a herd of cattle into taking divisive, opposition sides, both sides often based on zero evidence, as we live in a world where the financiers of every nation have made it unacceptable for us not to take a side and to simply admit facts, that some things remain unknown. Today, a lot of anger is fomented seemingly on every topic, whether religion, politics or finance, often successfully conjured up even amidst a complete absence of evidence and facts. In any event, I thought it would be an illuminating exercise to sift through the comment section of a recent ZeroHedge bitcoin article, simply because it may be a useful discourse to provide a little bit of clarity to some misunderstandings and anger (that should not exist) about the ongoing raging PM versus Bitcoin debate. I am going to paraphrase the most popular comments below.



(1) One Has to Choose Between Gold and Cryptopcurrencies

This  opinion is definitely not true,  as I know plenty of people that own both cryptocurrencies and gold and this divide should not exist. As long as one recognizes that the purchase of gold and the purchase of cryptocurrencies serve very different purposes, one can buy both to fill these two very different goals. Despite the belief of many that prices of cryptocurrencies are out of the control of the bankers, but the price of gold is not, and this is a critical factor that separates cryptocurrencies from gold, this belief is only partially true. Paper gold trading is in control of the bankers. Physical gold trading is not. This is why, in parts of the world plagued by financial instability, premiums for physical gold will soar enormously higher than the artificially banker-set paper/digital price of gold. For example, the price of BTC, due to a recent feeding frenzy in Korea recently soared above USD$3,000. However, even though speculators foolish enough to chase BTC and pay $3,000 per BTC in South Korea existed, I snapchatted screenshots of BTC dealers in South Korea during this buying frenzy on my Snapchat channel that illustrated decent supply of BTCs  in South Korea at just a slight premium over Western market prices, so the $3,000 BTC purchases that hit the market in South Korea were executed by people that did not shop around on various exchanges for a much better price that was clearly available.

An analogous situation was recently observed in the physical gold market as well. When PM Narendra Modi initially banned the 500 and 1000 rupee note in India, the price of physical gold soared well over $2,000 an ounce in India, with some unconfirmed reports of gold hitting prices of more than $3,000 an ounce in Indian black markets. Did people that payed $2,500 or $3,000 an ounce for physical gold have to spend this amount? Certainly not, and these prices only hit because people panic bought during a buying frenzy instigated by rupee uncertainty and the Indian Prime Minister’s attempt to demonetize gold. At the time of the physical gold buying frenzy, the spot price of gold was roughly $1,220. However, this incident illustrated that during a fiat currency crisis, bankers can continue to control and suppress paper/digital gold prices, but they have no control over suppressing soaring physical gold prices caused by high physical demand and tight supply during a financial crisis. In any event, if one wants to purchase both, one should understand, from the hugely different levels of volatility in gold prices versus cryptocurrency prices, that gold should be purchased to preserve purchasing power over time, while cryptocurrencies should be purchased for highly speculative returns Again, two different currencies serve two entirely different purposes.

(2) I Made a Ton of Money on Cryptocurrencies, But Have Lost a Ton on Gold, So I’m Never Buying Gold Again!

This statement is all about timing, as if anyone buys at a short-term buying frenzy during a long bull market, then one has a much greater chance of sitting on losses a few years later. However, timing on buying gold was not particularly difficult during this current bull run of 17 years now and here are indisputable facts to back up this statement. If one purchased gold at the start of 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2016, one would have ended the year in the black every single one of those years. Furthermore, during the past 17 years, including this one, if one purchased gold at the very beginning of the year in 14 of the past 17 years, one would still be profitable at today’s price, and extremely profitable if one had purchased physical gold in the early portion of this timeline. The reasons that made gold a strong purchase during 2001 are the exact same reasons that make gold a strong purchase today, so for someone that understood the real reasons to buy gold versus chasing a speculative rise, one was much more likely to have bought and hold physical gold during the early years of this cycle and added more on every severe dip, thus still maintaining a nice average buy-in price over this time frame.

Even though gold is volatile, it hasn’t been difficult, despite contrary belief, to manage the volatility when buying physical gold for the past 17 years, and the timing of when to buy physical gold has not been particularly difficult to ensure a profit over this time period as well, as only buying at the start of 3 of the past 17 years would have resulted in losses by the end of the year, and only buying at the start of 3 of the past 17 years are still yielding losses at the present time. And unless you purchased gold during the worst 28-months out of a nearly 200-month timeline, most likely you are heavily in the black right now or about to be back in the black again. Likewise, if anyone chased Bitcoin in South Korea and bought it at an absolute short-term peak at USD$3,000, as some have, then there is no one to blame but themselves when they were sitting on an almost immediate 36% loss just a couple of days later. While certainly, in hindsight, it may have been easier to buy Bitcoin at nearly any point on its bullish timeline, versus gold, and still be profitable today, no one should expect parabolic price rises to be the norm for Bitcoin, and prices will likely remain very volatile until they stabilize in the future.

(3) I Don’t Want to Carry Gold Around. There’s No Digital Gold, and Digital Currencies Are a Ton More Convenient to Use than Gold.

Most forms of paper gold, including gold futures contracts, ARE digital gold, so digital gold definitely exists right now, but the only problem is that no one wants the current form of digital gold (except for the most recently introduced form of 100% physical backed digital gold recently introduced last week that I discuss at the end of this article). When bankers trade gold futures contracts using HFT algorithms, their entered trades are being executed through high-speed fiber optic cable that minimize latency times to less than one millisecond. Certainly, real physical gold is never trading hands during these times, and in fact, outside of Shanghai and Hong Kong markets, gold derivative produces almost never settle in real physical gold. So bankers that trade the paper gold futures markets in London and New York are constantly trading 100% digital gold. It they were not, there would be no infrastructure that would allow them to dump $1 billion, $2 billion, or more, of notional gold in the form of gold futures contracts in a matter of minutes to suppress price. They are dumping, in essence, digital gold backed by air. As I stated above, there are some instances when gold futures contracts are asked to settle in physical, but outside of Shanghai and Hong Kong, the percentages of gold futures contracts that settle in physical are miniscule compared to the percentages that settle in fiat. However, no one that truly understands the reasons for buying physical gold would ever buy digital gold that wasn’t backed 100% by physical gold, as is the case in New York and London gold futures markets. Thus unlike with digital currencies, the reverse alchemy, physical into computer digits, demonetization-of-gold scheme executed by bankers in London and New York is a massive problem, and not a benefit. However, there is a way to fix this, as I will explain in the solution below. Lastly, if you purchase physical gold today, there is no need to carry it around as you can easily store it in vaults that have been vetted and are outside of the global banking system.

(4) No One Hates Bitcoins More than Goldbugs!

In the short-term, cryptocurrencies may or may not have peaked. No one knows for certain, so any guess to its peak price is pure speculation. Bitcoin may have peaked for the short-term at $3,000 in Asia in South Korea recently. My guess is that in the west, BTC prices have not yet peaked. Despite the opinion of some (notice I said some, not all, as “some” is a fact, and “all” is not) cryptocurrency owners that believe gold owners are jealous of their profits and hate cryptocurrency owners solely due to the profits reaped, this voiced antagonism should not only not exist, but it doesn’t even make sense, if indeed, the claim that Bitcoin is out of the control of the banking cartel is true. If cryptocurrencies like BTC are actually helping to free humanity from the control of bankers, and will stop the massive transference of wealth from the 99.9% to the 0.1% that has been happening over the past several decades, then people that own physical gold, and people that own cryptocurrencies, are clearly on the same side of this battle.  Thus, even though I have voiced skepticism about the origins of Bitcoin being completely independent of the global banking cartel, if I am proven to be wrong in the future, and the continued existence of Bitcoin 10 years from now will prove me wrong, then I will gladly become the biggest advocate for BTC on planet Earth as any currency that is outside of the global banking cartel’s control should be unilaterally supported by anyone that values freedom. However, because I have some questions at this point that I think are tangible and valid, such a cautious approach shouldn’t make me the enemy of Bitcoin owners and it definitely doesn’t mean that I am not happy for those that made a ton of money on Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies to date.

In fact, to the contrary, I am extremely happy for people that have made a lot of money on cryptocurrencies up to this point if they are on the side of humanity that wants to establish a sound monetary system and eradicate our current unsound debt-based monetary system.  If this faction of cryptocurrency owners is authentic as I believe them to be, then this only means that gold owners have a strong coalition of people, now with significantly more resources to fight the global banking system and to fight to establish a new monetary system. The doubt or belief of BTC as being independent of the global banking system is entirely irrelevant to this point. Any gold owner that hates cryptocurrency owners solely for the large profits that they have potentially made at this point or any cryptocurrency owner that hated on gold owners when gold soared from $250 to near $2,000 an ounce is simply wasting a whole lot of energy on hate, and the expression of such hate is more a reflection on the hater’s insecurity issues, as such expressed hatred and jealousy impedes the monetary freedom movement. If we truly want to achieve the same goal, and I think most cryptocurrency and gold owners do (again, most, but not all), then anyone that engages in deliberate divisiveness is executing the bankers’ divide and conquer strategy for them, and should be completely expelled from the monetary freedom coalition, as they are part of the problem and not part of the solution. And as far as a solution that can tie the existing differences of gold and cryptocurrency owners together and solve the concerns I have with cryptocurrencies at the current time, I propose one below, so please keep reading. In any event, owners of gold and cryptocurrencies should be on the same side, and if we allow the financiers of nations to manipulate us into divisiveness, we are merely falling victim to a learned helplessness role of willing captor to our captives.

(5) Gold Will Never Appreciate at the Rate Cryptocurrencies Appreciate, So No Thank You to Any Physical Gold Ownership

Regarding the statement that gold will never match the appreciation rate of some cryptocurrencies, an owner of Monero commented that he has made 120,000% gains thus far, meaning that he must have bought Monero at inception at $0.034762697752, which translates into a 120,000% gain at its current price of $41.75. Kudos to this person! And he is correct in that gold will likely never appreciate 120,000% because this means that from its initial starting price of this current bull market of about $250, gold would have to rise to $30,250 per troy ounce to equal this person’s 120,000% gain on Monero. In the absence of a hyperinflationary environment, I don’t see gold going to this price. But who knows, I could be wrong, and maybe gold will appreciate this much in price. Again, this is an unknown, and as many of you that have followed me for years already well know, I’ve always stated to absolutely disregard all “Gold to $10,000” predictions that pop up every year, as devoting any brainpower to analyzing unknowable timing predictions such as these is not only a complete waste of energy, but also a complete waste of time. However, exploration of this concept allows me to reinforce an earlier, very important point between the massively different purposes between buying gold and buying cryptocurrencies. People that own gold and are hardcore gold believers buy gold because of its ability to preserve purchasing power over not just 10 years or 20 years, but also over hundreds of years, over their lifespan and over the lifespan of their children. Cryptocurrencies are way too young and in some sense, still in an embryonic stage, so there is no way that cryptocurrencies are, at the current time, able to make the same claim of  purchasing power preservation.

In my opinion, of all the qualities sound money should have, the preservation of purchasing power over lengthy periods of time is the most critical quality to possess, and since cryptocurrencies are too young to prove up this quality, they cannot, in my opinion, be considered sound money at this point in their business cycle, as they are obviously in the rapid growth segment of the cycle. In fact, for those that stay away from gold because its price is too volatile, Bitcoin’s price has been far more volatile than gold’s price since Bitcoin came into existence. In fact, gold’s quintupling of price over 17 years is generally considered peanuts to cryptocurrency investors. Consequently, people that buy gold buy it to preserve their wealth over time, and not to make rapid spectacular gains. This is a completely different reason than the reason why people buy cryptocurrencies. There may come a time many years from now, when cryptocurrencies prove themselves to be a store of purchasing power over time, and if that time comes, I will move cryptocurrencies out of the speculative growth category, but not before then. So, while massive gains are much more likely in cryptocurrencies than gold, the opposite is true as well. Massive losses in cryptocurrencies, until they move out of their growth stage and find more price stability, are much more likely to occur than in gold, as well.



(1) At the Current Time, NEITHER Cryptocurrencies or Gold are Fully Outside the Manipulative Powers of the Global Banking Cartel

Although many cryptocurrency owners claim that cryptocurrencies are “free money” while fiat currencies are the money of “slaves”, the very fact that cryptocurrencies are denominated in fiat currency prices means that they are still not independent of the global banking cartel. Bankers have ensured that all cryptocurrencies are denominated in THEIR form of debt-money for the very same reason that bankers have ensured that gold is as well. As long as the price of an asset is denominated in a form of debt-money, the asset can never truly serve the purpose of being the money of a free man or free woman, because this link necessitates the conversion into debt-based slave-money for use, and keeps humanity dependent upon debt-based slave money. Even if we don’t convert cryptocurrencies into fiat currencies and pay for merchandise directly in BTCs, as long as the price of BTCs remains denominated in a form of debt-based slave money, it cannot escape the intimate link to the global banking cartel’s monetary system.

As an example of why tying the price of an asset to fiat currencies grants bankers the ultimate control over that asset, let me use the stock market in Zimbabwe in 2006 and 2007 to illustrate my point. The Zimbabwe Industrial Index, for a rolling period of time slightly more than a year, in 2006-2007, gained 7,990%, a prolific increase that caused many to proclaim the Zimbabwe stock markets as the “best performing” stock market of that time period, though it was clearly the worst performing stock market for the following reasons. The 7,990% gain was denominated in hyperinflating Zimbabwe dollars, which rendered a 8,000% or even an 80,000% gain worthless during this time period, as monthly inflation peaked in Zimbabwe at 79,600,000,000% a year later. In other words the Zimbabwe dollar was losing valuation and purchasing power at a much faster clip than the stock gains were accumulating, so all of the stock gains were quickly rendered worthless as the gains could not be spent before they were devalued. However, if the 7,990% gains were instead denominated in gold weight, then no amount of Zimbabwe dollar devaluation could have prevented this increase from producing a massive gain in real wealth. Of course, US dollars are not hyperinflating at the current time, so why make such a comparison? I’m not making so much as a comparison as I am making a point. If the currency in which an asset is priced fails, then the asset will fail too, thereby unfortunately still granting bankers ultimate control over the fate of the asset. In response, some will argue that if dollars or Euros fail, and cryptocurrencies subsequently fail, then won’t gold ultimately fail as well? On the surface, this seems like a logical argument, but I will reveal below, why in such a situation, gold will be king of the monetary pile.

(2) Price is NOT the Same as Value

Today, many business school graduates still confuse the concepts of value and price in the world of finance. I have uploaded many vlogs on my YouTube channel that explain why the value of gold and silver is its weight and not its price. Does it make sense to claim the value of real money like physical gold is its price, a unit of measurement that is denominated in unsound immoral, fiat currencies like Euros or dollars? Of course not! The real value of gold, as its weight, is always constant. In other words, the value of gold is constant everywhere in the world, as 10g of gold in Libya equals 10g of gold in Canada equals 10g of gold in Brazil equals 10g of gold in Uruguay equals 10g of gold in Romania. The price of gold changes all the time, but the value of gold does not change simply because bankers price gold in their deteriorating and devaluing fiat currencies. Price is an immensely different concept than value when it comes to the world of PMs, though bankers like to fool us and interchangeably use these two terms in the financial media to confuse us into believing they are the same. Now some will counter by stating that they can cash out their Bitcoins and buy gold with it anytime they like, but if so, then are these people valuing cryptocurrencies in terms of how much gold it can buy? For the very same reasons it makes no sense to value gold in an illegitimate, debt-based currency, it also makes no sense to value cryptocurrencies in illegitimate, debt-based currencies. So what is the value of Bitcoin and other cryptos? If we try to apply the above analogy to cryptocurrencies and reject the fact that the value of cryptocurrencies is its unit of measurement, since this unit of measurement is not tangible, it doesn’t translate as well as it does for gold. For example, if we say the value of Bitcoins should be measured by its amount of Satoshis, and not its dollar, won, or Euro price, what does this really mean?

Of course, some claim that the value of cryptocurrencies is its store of wealth. However, as I explained above, perhaps after 50 more years, this claim can be made, but this claim cannot seriously be considered at the current time given the infancy of cryptocurrencies. Therefore, I would state, that at the current time, the only way to measure a cryptocurrencies value is by its price, as we can’t measure it by their digital bytes, and in the case of hyperinflation, the value of cryptocurrencies will be severely debased, no matter the gain in underlying fiat currencies (see the Zimbabwe Industrial Index explanation above). However, since the value of gold is its weight, the weight of 10 ounces of gold will still remain 10 ounces of gold even if the price collapses through hyperinflation. Hyperinflation and currency collapse will always give rise to a new currency, so owners of gold, in such an event, would just hold gold until a new currency was born, and the price of their ounces would be re-established. I argue that the case for the valuation of cryptocurrencies during and after a hyperinflationary event would not be so clear. Of course, we are speaking of a worst-case scenario here, but a case study of fiat currencies have demonstrated that they always revert to their intrinsic value of zero over time, so who’s to say that event won’t happen in our lifetime?

(3) All Comparisons of the Price of 1 BTC to 1 Troy Ounce of Gold are Completely Baseless and Without Merit

I never understood why financial journalists ran numerous articles that always compared the price of 1 BTC to 1 troy ounce of gold, yielding headlines like “Bitcoin now exceeds gold in price” when the price of 1 BTC overtook the price of 1 troy ounce of gold. One troy ounce, or 31.1035 grams, the unit of measurement of gold, is a unit of weight. Unless one Bitcoin, the unit of measurement for BTC, is also a unit of weight, then comparing the price of one unit of weight of gold to the price of one unit of Bitcoin is an impossible comparison that makes zero sense, no matter how much the mainstream financial media wants to sell us this comparison as a valid one. Making such a comparison is totally random, and is literally as absurd as comparing the price of 1 barrel of oil to the price of a 1/2 carat ruby and saying that rubies are a much better investment that oil because 1/2 carat of rubies exceeds the price of one barrel of oil. It’s absurd as comparing the price of a 212kg Japanese bluefin tuna that sold for more than $3,100 per kg  in Tokyo at the start of this year and stating that the tuna was more valuable than an untitled Basquiat painting whose last auctioned price was $19,000 at the start of this year, simply because the Basquiat painting was worth less than $3,000 per kg (by the way, that painting just sold last month for $110M).  You can’t compare the price of one Bitcoin to ounce of gold as people always do anymore than you can compare the Basquiat painting to a bluefin tuna because fine art is not measured by its weight.  Even if there was a way to weigh 100M Satoshis, the unit of measurement for one Bitcoin, because the unit of measurement for BTC is not a weight, this still would not be a valid comparison. Therefore, comparing 500M Satoshis to 1,000 ounces of gold, 1B Satoshis to 1M troy ounces of gold, 100,000 Satoshis to 50,000 pineapples, or 1M Satoshis to 50,000 cubic metres of air has as much validity as comparing the price of 100M Satoshis, or 1 BTC, to 1 troy ounce of gold.



Tie Cryptocurrencies to a Finite Amount of Gold Backing, and We Have the Best of Both Worlds

Bankers have pursued control of the blockchain as their identified most valuable part of the cryptocurrency market. This is precisely why JP Morgan executive Blythe Masters left JP Morgan to work for Digital Asset Holdings, a distributed ledger, or blockchain, development firm. In fact, control of the blockhain, the distributed ledger technology invented by Satoshi Nakaomoto, makes all my speculation about BTC perhaps not being completely independent from the global banking system completely irrelevant. JP Morgan, Citibank and Goldman Sachs, and every large global bank all realize this as well as all have heavily invested in blockchain development companies. It’s like the war that developed between HD DVD optical disks and blurays when higher resolution movies entered the market. Both formats delivered crystal clear clarity using similar technology but in the end, blurays survived and HD DVD optical disks went the way of the dinosaur. Control of the blockchain technology will have the same relevance to survival or extinction in the cryptocurrency market. I believe that whoever controls the blockchain technology that is universally implemented worldwide will control which cryptocurrencies survive and which ones die. Jamie Dimon, CEO of JP Morgan, and Blythe Masters, have already made it clear that they 100% believe that control of the blockchain technology that is implemented worldwide by the global banking cartel is the key to controlling the fate of all cryptocurrencies.

If the global banking cartel does not control BTC, then I have no doubt they will try to crush BTC as they only will allow their digital currencies to survive. If they however also control BTC, then BTC will not only survive, but it will flourish. All it would take for the global banking cartel to eradicate any cryptocurrency they don’t like is to make that cryptocurrency illegal. This may not be able to prevent declared “illegal” cryptocurrencies from trading, just as bankers’ declaration that physical gold and physical silver are “illegal” currencies have not halted gold and silver trading, but certainly such declarations will kill the utility of that currency. Though people may wonder why I say bankers have declared gold and silver illegal currencies while national mints in many nations continue to print and circulate gold and silver coins, have you ever tried to spend a gold or silver coin at its relevant price in a store? Since physical gold and silver are not as widely accepted worldwide as are fiat currencies, for all intents and purposes, bankers have rendered them illegal currencies.

Once the global banking cartel gains control and is able to implement their preferred blockchain, then they can set the rules for all digital currencies, and it’s game over, but for one joker card.  I know the inherent decentralization nature of blockchains ensures that no one can really gain direct control of them. However, leave it up to lawyers to invent and impose regulations that apply to blockchains, and regulations will be invented in the futre that effectively will give bankers control over blockchains through indirect control (regulations). Furthermore, last year, problems with the DAO (Decentralised Autonomous Organisation) for venture capital funding revealed how problems can arise with decentralized systems even when blockchains are secure. Shortly after the launch of the DAO in April 2016, someone was able to exploit a vulnerability in the DAO’s code and steal $50 million of cryptocurrency, a full third of the $150M raised through crowdfunding, though apparently he, or she, was only able to eventually withdraw a miniscule amount of the stolen cryptocurrency.  But certainly, the incident with the DAO raises issue about other aspects of the distribution chain outside of the blockchain that may remain exploitable.

That said, what is the joker card? To me, the joker card is the marriage of sound money with intrinsic value, like gold, to blockchain technology to form a completely new and different class of cryptocurrency. I want to end this discussion by asking all of you to consider this solution. I’ve heard many owners of both cryptocurrencies and gold admit that cryptocurrencies are a speculation at this point, and that in order to preserve their gains and turn cryptocurrencies into a store of wealth, they will sell cryptocurrencies for fiat currencies during their parabolic rises and consequently use fiat currencies to buy physical gold and hold it when price pullbacks and uncertainty plague cryptocurrencies. Then, when they believe these cryptocurrency pullbacks are ending, they will convert their physical gold back into fiat currencies and use fiat currencies to repurchase cryptocurrencies in hopes of capitalizing on another parabolic rise. And if the cryptocurrencies rise rapidly again, they repeat this process. In the end, however, this process always requires reverting back to holding debt-based fiat currencies at some point, even if for just brief periods of time, which ultimately makes holders of PMs and cryptocurrencies still beholden to the power of global bankers. However, as I stated above, what if there were a cryptocurrency backed by a finite weight of gold instead of a finite amount of digital bytes or satoshis, and the value of this cryptocurrency was not denominated by a fiat currency price whose purchasing power is perpetually destroyed by bankers, but by a weight of gold? Then there would be no need to constantly exchange cryptocurrencies into gold and vice versa!

If such a gold-backed cryptocurrency became popular and was widely accepted, then this would obviate the need to ever convert the cryptocurrency into any debt-based fiat currency, solving two problems at once. The only reason to convert gold or cryptocurrencies into debt-based fiat currencies is to buy goods and services that don’t accept cryptocurrencies for payment, or due to worry of the volatility quickly debasing the price of the cryptocurrency after a volatile rise (i.e, its purchasing power). Combining the two solves all problems simultaneously. Such a physical gold-backed cryptocurrency that relies on blockchain technology could also be used to eradicate the current artificial banking valuation of gold to a fiat currency price and help to re-establish the true value of gold back to weight only, as spending of the cryptocurrency would result in units of gold weight being deducted from an account and purchase of the cryptocurrency would result in units of gold weight being added to the account. And though this cryptocurrency would have to be developed on a blockchain outside the control of the global banking cartel and its existence may have to survive on some type of black market, as the global banking cartel would almost definitively try to regulate the blockchain technology used by a gold-backed cryptocurrency to invalidate the use of this cryptocurrency anywhere in the eventual global digital currency system they construct, they could never invalidate this cryptocurrency’s value as its value would be in units of gold weight, while their cryptocurrency’s value would still be a fiat currency price.

So here are the questions I pose, which I would love to hear responses to these questions posed below. Regardless of any opinion I expressed above that you may believe to be wrong, please strip away all emotional responses to this article to focus on this proposed solution, as even if you believe some of my opinions above to be wrong, one belief that should unite all gold and cryptocurrency owners is that we are all seeking a monetary solution outside the control of the global banking system that enhances, instead of destroys it, and this may be it.

In other words, could a cryptocurrency backed by a finite weight of gold truly be the first currency completely independent and outside the control of the global banking cartel?

What if all goods and services purchased by this gold-backed cryptocurrency allowed for gentle inflation up and down over the years, but at a fraction of the massive real inflation experienced by prices denominated in fiat currencies? Could worldwide adoption of such a currency be accomplished simply because people would want to own this gold-backed cryptocurrency knowing that they would receive the best possible price for all goods and services year after year after year by using this currency, as it would strip away the destructive effects of Central Banker-created inflation? And could we foster wide acceptance worldwide of cryptocurrency developed with a unit of weight, the true value of gold as its unit of measurement, and convince people to stop accepting the artificial debt-based fiat currency price bankers assign to gold as its value? This question may be the most important of all, because bankers will continue to assign a debt-based fiat currency price or 100% digital currency price to gold as its “value” en perpetuity, until they die, so this may be the biggest obstacle to overcome – to convince people to stop basing the value of gold on a perception of fake value created by bankers called price.

For example, what if the price of filet mignon rose one year from USD$23 a pound to USD$30 a pound, but in the gold backed cryptocurrency called GCC (Gold CryptoCurrency), filet mignon only rose from 20 GCC (gold cryptocurrency) to 20.1 GCC, where one GCC is a unit of gold weight? Would not everyone want to pay for everything in GCC instead of USD? AT first, many retailers might shun acceptance of the gold backed cryptocurrency if they compare banker established gold prices and calculate that they could receive a higher price by accepting fiat currencies. However, if the marketplace that accepted GCCs was large enough, shunning would eventually turn into hoarding for the following reason. By accepting GCCs for their merchandise, they would then be able to buy other goods and services at more stable and lower prices, and therefore be able to manage their savings over the long-term in a much better capacity as the greatest price stability of all goods and services worldwide, year after year after year, would be witnessed in those markets that priced their goods and services in GCCs. On the contrary, if merchants accepted more fiat currencies for their goods and services, they then would be required to spend higher amounts of fiat currencies in the marketplace as well, not knowing if their food costs were going to be double or triple the costs of the prior year. History tells us that people prefer certainty over uncertainty, especially in financial markets. Thus, if a stable gold-backed cryptocurrency really allowed people to budget and plan more efficiently, as is not allowed by the current state of highly devaluing fiat currencies, would not people widely adopt a gold-backed cryptocurrency that served this purpose?

I haven’t really spent an enormous amount of time fleshing out the detailed complexities of the above topic, and consider the above as more the written manifestation of a brainstorming session, so forgive me if parts are not so well thought-out at this current time. Of course a gold-backed crytpocurrency will never provide wild, speculative gains of 100,000% to the owner, as this would defeat the very mission of this cryptocurrency, which would be to provide owners with strong price stability in their purchase of goods and services over decades of tie. However, I strongly believe that those that think pure digital currencies are in competition with the global banking cartel’s monetary system and is a global banker “killer” are completely missing the point, as fiat currencies in use today are already very close to pure digital currencies. Just remember, in the world of banking, nothing, and I do mean, nothing is ever as it first sees to be. Still, I would love to hear what advocates of gold, advocates of cryptocurrencies, and advocates of both think about a gold-backed, blockchain-enabled crytpocurrency a as a potential solution that could free humanity from the ball and chain of the wealth destructive powers of our current global debt-based monetary system. And if you’d like to hear more musings about this topic, please follow me on my Snapchat channel, SKWealthAcademy.



Amazingly, as I’ve been writing this article for about a week now, during my writing of this article, the UAE announced the launch of my exact proposal above just a few days ago, the OGC (OneGramCoin), a physical gold0-backed cryptocurrency.

Here are just a few facts about the one gram gold-backed cryptocurrency via their website:

Is the OneGram blockchain public?
The blockchain is public and all codebase is open source.

What is the block size? What is the approximate transaction confirmation time?

The max block size is 1MB, however, the average block time is only 1 minute, so there is effectively 10x more capacity than Bitcoin.

If the ICO (Initial Coin Offering) distributes 100% of the total issuance, then will there be mining?
100% of total coin supply is pre-mined and is distributed during the ICO. There is a block reward following the genesis block. OGC holders that indicate they wish to stake their OGC will be rewarded with the fees produced from the transactions in the present block.

How will new versions find consensus for adoption? How will the blockchain address soft and hard forking?

We will employ automatic checkpointing with the seed nodes to guarantee consensus.

Can I trade OGC (OneGramCoin)?

Yes. Following the ICO and the issuance of OGC, cryptocurrency exchanges may choose to list OGC for trade.

How are you addressing privacy?

We are exploring confidential transaction and various other privacy technologies at the moment. Once the technology matures, we will adopt the one that best addresses privacy without sacrificing security and other critical concerns.

AS full disclosure, I have zero affiliation to OneGramCoin, and you can read more about it by clicking the link in this sentence. I may contact them in the future, however, to correct some small errors I found in their white paper upon reading it. You may also participate in its ICO right now by signing up here. One interesting point I thought made in the OGC whitepaper is the following: “Most Muslims today have no idea that the money they use is arguably not Sharia-compliant. Most of the world uses fiat currency, which is money backed only by legal tender laws. Historically, money was either created from or backed by precious metals.” I’ve known that fiat currency was an is non Sharia-compliant for decades, and there is an Islamic bank in my neighborhood which I frequently pass by that I know breaks Sharia law every day. I’ve often thought about walking into this bank, and asking the loan officers if they know they are violating Sharia law, as charging interest on loans is against Sharia law as well. In addition, most Christians don’t understand that working in a bank is against Christian law as well, as the Bible states, in the book of Deuteronomy, “You shall not charge interest on loans to your brother, interest on money, interest on food, interest on anything that is lent for interest. You may charge a foreigner interest, but you may not charge your brother interest, that the Lord your God may bless you in all that you undertake in the land that you are entering to take possession of it.” But walk into any bank and ask for a Christian bank officer and try to get an interest-free mortgage or business loan, and see what happens!

In any event, let me know if you think, as I do, that the marriage of physical gold to cryptocurrencies that utilize the blockchain, is the solution to the creation of  truly free money that all of us desire.

twitterlinkedinrssyoutubetumblrby feather

Is Life Really About Suffering? Dissecting the PowerfulJRE Jordan Peterson Podcast

May 30th, 2017
Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailby feather

I really enjoyed this podcast as I thought that Mr. Peterson made many of insightful comments. However, there is little value, in my opinion, in posting a list stating “The 12 Things Jordan Peterson Says With Which I Concur.” On the contrary, I believe that much more insight is derived by pointing out issues with which one disagrees, and then fostering discussion from these issues. Rather than writing an article about all the points made in the 3-hour podcast with which I agree, I thought it would be much more enlightening to explore two points Mr. Peterson made with which I wholeheartedly disagree. Here they are, and let me know what you think about my points.

(1) Life is Definitely, 100% Not About Suffering

@2:25 he says “I know what a proper life is because I thought about this for a long time. Life is suffering.” I find it hard to believe that a guy as logical as Peterson would buy into the narrative that the moneyed interests in power want us to believe. They want us to believe this narrative that “life is hard and then you die” and that “life is suffering” because if we do, we will be unable to see the deceptive immorality of the global banking system, in which they continue to create money as debt as a mechanism that allows them to transfer unlimited money to themselves while making it difficult for the rest of us to acquire an equitable amount of “money”. That’s number one. I firmly believes that if one views life as “suffering”, this view makes us captive to the very people that enslave us. Again, this is not to say that everyone does not suffer at some point in their life. Of course this is true. But there is a huge difference in the view that at times, there are periods of suffering in life and the view that life IS suffering. Believing that “life is suffering” is incredibly self-limiting and damaging to one’s ability to reach one’s goals and attain any level of daily sustainable happiness in life.

(2) People are NOT Struggling Today Because of Their Lack of Hard Work or Willingness to Sacrifice

Number two, somewhere after the 2-hour mark of the podcast Mr. Peterson claims, in eighteen-ninety-something (I can’t remember the exact year), people lived on $1 in terms of today’s dollar. In terms of today’s dollar means that you’re adjusting the purchasing power for 1890-something dollars to the equivalent purchasing power of one 2017 dollar. One 1895 dollar literally had more than 50 times the purchasing power than one 2017 dollar because we had sound money in 1895 and then since the inception of the Federal Reserve bank, bankers have been rapidly destroying the purchasing power of the US dollar. So if people in 1895 or so were living on the equivalent of one 2017 US dollar, this means that they literally were living on less than two cents a day back then. This is not true. If Mr. Peterson doesn’t understand this, maybe this is why he believes a proper life requires the mindset that life is suffering.

Even if Mr. Peterson meant to say that people in 1895 lived on less than one 1895 dollar a day and not on less than one 2017 dollar a day, this still does not prove that people in 1895 were able to get by more ably than people today simply because of their greater willingness to sacrifice back then, because one 1895 dollar is the same as $50+ 2017 dollars in terms of purchasing power. Thus living on one 1895 dollar (the equivalent of 50+ 2017 dollars) hardly points to a life of austerity and sacrifice. The point I believe that Mr. Peterson was trying to make was the following. Americans in 1895 were much less spoiled than people of today as illustrated by their ability to survive on so little money a day. Mr. Peterson is correct in the fact that increases in comfort facilitated by massive leaps in technology likely have made us more spoiled as opposed to the average person alive in 1895. But the point he tried to make by pointing out that people were able to live on just one 1895 dollar a day (and not the equivalent of one 2017 US dollar as he stated) does not prove this point, as one 1895 dollar was a massive amount back then.

Even if one uses the inflation statistics released by bankers, the above example relayed by Mr. Peterson to make his point still makes zero sense. However, if one chooses to use Federal Reserve inflation statistics, one should understand that using erroneous statistics is going to lead to erroneous calculations and conclusions when comparing the purchasing power of one 1895 dollar to the purchasing power of one 2017 dollar. Central Bankers perpetually and deliberately release erroneous inflation statistics to keep the population confused about the true enormous destructive influence they wield over every nation’s economy. I have written multiple articles about this topic on my blog, including this one, ( regarding why the methodology Central Bankers use to calculate inflation is inherently dishonest, so one can reference those articles if one would like to know more about this topic.

In fact, three years ago, in the linked article above in which I addressed Central Banker released bogus inflation numbers, I specifically mentioned how banker currency wars were destroying the way of life for people specifically in three countries – Jamaica, Brazil and Venezuela. Fast forward three years to present day 2017, and unemployment is soaring in these three countries, riots have broken out due to economic instability, and runaway inflation has imposed massive economic hardships among the populations in these three countries.

In conclusion, this is what I would say to Mr. Peterson. In countries in which horrific economic suffering is happening, it is not because people are lazy are not responsible, as you seemed to imply, but it is because of bankers’ destruction of the purchasing power of currencies in these nations. Secondly, even in areas of the world where suffering has become a daily event for the majority, to adopt a view that “life is suffering” is a defeatist view and non-productive, and to rise up above it all, we should adopt a view that life is about compassion, community and working together to solve universal needs.

twitterlinkedinrssyoutubetumblrby feather

Everything I Know About Improving My Life, I Learned Outside the Institutional Education System, Part 3

May 16th, 2017
Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailby feather

Embrace, Don’t Fear Change

In part two of this series (read Part 1 and Part 2 here), I stated that I realized that I had made a huge mistake not only in pursuing an Ivy League education, but also in achieving two graduate-level degrees, only after I entered the real world, and discovered, much to my chagrin, that everything I had studied during my 20-years in academia had little or no utility in the real world. Furthermore, even worse, I discovered that much of the theoretical information I had learned in my MBA program was pure nonsense, as the real world of finance and money was the antithesis of what I had studied in school, and was actually harmful to my ability to understand the real world. At that point, I realized that not only had I been taught an improper way to think about life during my whole academic life, but that I had also been taught an improper dream – to get as much money as I can for myself with no regard for the social consequences of my actions. Upon this realization, I knew I had to reconstruct my life if I wanted to be happy. Read the rest of this entry »

twitterlinkedinrssyoutubetumblrby feather

Everything I Know About Improving My Life, I Learned Outside the Institutional Education System, Part 2

May 15th, 2017
Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailby feather

Challenge Any Limiting Beliefs About What You Can Accomplish

I believe that one thing we should do every year without fail is to take inventory of our beliefs and test our beliefs to see if they may need modifications and/or alterations. If we all challenged ourselves to become a better person every year, the nature of such a challenge would require a constant annual analysis of our current beliefs and a consideration of the possibility that some of the core beliefs we presently hold may be wrong. Growth is not just about accumulating more knowledge, but it is about having the wisdom to recognize the error of some of our core beliefs, changing them, and consequently understanding how to apply newly acquired knowledge to improve our lives. Had I never gone through the process of killing my ego and my Ivy League-obtained arrogance when I was young. After I graduated from university, I really thought that I was quite clever and already understood how the world worked, and it wasn’t until years later that I eventually understand how much I didn’t know. If I never opened my mind and my belief system to new ideas that sounded crazy when I was just 21-years of age, I still would have no clue as to how the global finance and monetary system really works, and my belief system today would still revolve around all the lies I “learned” in business school. Because of the behavioral conditioning that occurs in institutional academia today, even when many of us encounter new knowledge that can significantly improve our lives, most of us will dismiss this new knowledge and unfortunately fail to apply it. The fact that most of us spend zero time inspecting our core beliefs every year means that we will never be able to upgrade the most important operating system we use every single day of our lives – our brain.

Imagine if we were still using the LEO (Lyons Electronic Office), the first computer OS (Operating System) invented in 1951, on our computers. How limiting would the continued use of a computer OS from 1951 be to our ability to complete our work tasks? Or let’s leap forward by two decades and upgrade our OS from LEO to DOS-11, invented in 1971. Even though the DOS-11 OS was lightyears ahead in complexity of LEO, if we were all forced to still use the DOS-11 OS today, I don’t know a single one among us that would not complain about being taken back to the stone age of computing in the ability to complete tasks. If we fast forward 14-years, Apple introduced to us the first Mac OS, then lauded as a revolutionary leap ahead of the DOS-11 OS. In other words, computer companies are continually updated software, with very significant upgrades every few years, but yet we, as humans, fail to update our OS ever since graduation from high-school, and often operate on the same OS ten, twenty, thirty and even fifty years later!

With the May 2017 wanna cry ransomware attack infecting hundreds of thousands of computers worldwide, unfortunately, sometimes computer software OS upgrades are downgrades, as software upgrades contain deliberate exploitable hacks for the alphabet agencies worldwide to spy on all of our daily computer activity. However, patches are constantly released to close these exploits even though new exploits likely will constantly be imbedded in future software “upgrades”. As humans, our hackable exploits are manipulation of our emotions to cancel out our logic, independence, sanity, and critical thought. We must realize that every year, these hackable exploits are programmed and further imbedded deeper and deeper into the OS of our brains, and yet most of us put forth little to zero effort to close these exploits. To the contrary, we should expend a considerable amount of energy every year to close these exploits in our brain that are being used to divide and conquer us today. I believe that it is our refusal to address these exploits in our brains that has created today, in my opinion, the most divided state of humanity during my lifetime. Please click here if you wish to view a video about this topic. Read the rest of this entry »

twitterlinkedinrssyoutubetumblrby feather

Everything I Know Today About Improving My Life, I Learned Outside of the Insitutional Education System, Part 1

May 15th, 2017
Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailby feather

Greetings. Here is part 1 of a multi-part series regarding some of my thoughts about everything that is wrong with institutional education today that hinders most of us from reaching our goals in life. Today’s “modern” educational institutions, even the most prestigious universities in the world, remain deeply rooted in behavioral conditioning and boring, repetitive rote memorization tasks that kill individual creativity and critical thought, and consequently, we are conditioned in classrooms to think robotically and convergently instead of intellectually and divergently. In life, being able to think critically and divergently is paramount to success, regardless of our specific goals. By the time we graduate from high-school, university, or graduate school, the academic system has excelled in stripping most of us of our individual creativity and our critical thinking skills, and unfortunately, we apply this close-minded, conditioned and modified way of thinking to our careers, and more tragically, to our lives. In fact, this process occurs in such an insidious manner that most of us are oblivious to this end result. In my opinion, here are the many things that are, in general, wrong with the global education system today:

9 Things I Believe Are Wrong with Institutional Education Today

(1) Focuses on rote memorization, not true learning

(2) Focuses on achievement of useless high exam scores instead of any real-life application of knowledge

(3) Stresses same mind-numbing knowledge regurgitation in homework exercises instead of any real learning applicable to life, thereby continuing to waste students’ energy outside, as well as inside, the classroom

(4) Stresses success in gaining entrance to prestigious schools with end goal of obtaining a high paying job instead of stressing maximization of one’s creative potential, contribution to society and humanity, and achieving high levels of satisfaction with life

(5) In business curricula, actually spreads and disseminates a mountain of lies about money and the financial system to brainwash young adults and prevent them from understanding the true origins of financial crises and the true destroyers of the middle class

(6) Behaviorally conditions young adults to assume a hive mentality and blindly obey “authority” figures instead of teaching critical thought and independence

(7) Divides academic settings (classrooms) rigidly by age instead of encouraging learning across age groups that better enhance learning and development of critical thought, falsely teach students that may progress at a slower rate in a certain topic that they are dumb, and falsely equates high score exams with intelligence

(8) Rarely encourages young adults to seize personal responsibility, but instead encourages them to scapegoat and blame others for failures by encouraging all students to become part of the hive

(9) Fails to utilize peer to peer learning in which students can more efficiently learn from one another as well as a teacher, and learn the benefit of cooperation versus the narcissism of egoism. In addition, when the system teaches cooperation, it still teaches poor principles of cooperation, administering the same grades to all members of a group project, even if that member contributed zero effort and work to the final product

  Read the rest of this entry »

twitterlinkedinrssyoutubetumblrby feather