Sorry Bankers, Government Won’t Ban Bitcoin, They Need it to Fund Secret Intelligence Operations – Trustnodes

Sorry Bankers, Government Won’t Ban Bitcoin, They Need it to Fund Secret Intelligence Operations


Every couple of months, some banker or some “economist” – more correctly described as politician – takes the microphone of New York Times, CNBC, or whatever other lamestream paper to tell us all that investing in bitcoin is a bad idea because the government will just ban cryptos.

After going through a buzzword of negativity, they then unintentionally give one of the biggest endorsement as far as smart men and women are concerned.

The story goes something like, if cryptos do really get popular and start to be used, then bankers can’t possibly allow their monopoly on money to be disrupted so they’ll lobby the government and try to appeal to bureaucrats’ own authoritarian instincts to ban cryptos.

The government will bring down the hammer, some nobel economist recently said. Adding with some glee something like: regulate it out of existence.

On that point, it is worth noting no country of size has banned cryptos. The Central Bank of China has, the Central Bank of India sort of has, but Central Banks are not really part of the government.

The Bank of England was created when a number of banks got together to co-ordinate themselves. Same for FED. Both are independent, with FED being partly owned by banks, and neither has any real political accountability under the justification of being independent from political interference when the decisions of central banks are one of the most political thing imaginable.

Nor have central banks hidden their disdain for cryptos, but government is a different thing. You see, we happen to elect our government in the free world, to fund it through taxes, and for many to work in it. So the suggestion our own fathers and mothers will bring down the hammer reveals something very interesting about whoever makes such suggestion.

Especially if they are the CEO of a major bank, or some “renowned” economist. For they are saying little more than we think we rule you, and we think we are so powerful we can even threaten prison.

Nonsense, of course. They’ve read Machiavelli, so they’re talking tough while being very weak. To the “uninitiated,” that might even fool them into thinking they are strong. To the smart ones, they’ve just confirmed their suspicions in revealing just how week they are.

Beyond the trillions of reasons why a government can not ban cryptos, besides the fact it is technically impossible, there is also the practical matter of: why on earth would they want to?

Edward Snowden, the former CIA spy and then NSA whistleblower who normalized global surveillance by revealing it at a pretty bad timing when hopy changy Obama had most fooled in utter deception, recently revealed he used bitcoin to buy VPNs and other infrastructure set-up for his whistleblowing operation.

Europol, of course, recently revealed not only that they have bitcoin, but that they have some blockchain leet skills.

And yesterday, in what looks like a highly political document with zero evidence included in a case where the evidence will probably never have to be presented for there probably will never be a trial, the US Justice Department says the Main Intelligence Directorate of the General Staff in Russia used bitcoin to undertake what seems to be both a highly sophisticated and a very simple hacking operation.

Who would have thought Hillary’s personnel was so smart, they clicked on e-mail links asking them to reset their google passwords, and then they actually entered the password.

If our democracy depends on foreign governments not sending phishing links, then one should think it has fallen long ago into an oligopoly or, better called, aristocracy, but it is not for us to pass judgment on these unsubstantiated allegations which do not even include the bitcoin address.

However, that bitcoin is probably used in intelligence operations, including by US agencies, British, German, Russian, probably even Chinese, and so on, is hardly something that can be doubted.

Cryptos are digital cash. Except for cryptos, digital cash does not exist. Digital cash has many uses. One of them is easy transfer of value in about seconds at a very low cost. Intelligence agencies, like everyone else, do from time to time need to make such transfers. Rather than moving actual paper from dead trees, you know, they can just enter their private key and send some bitcoin.

It’s rather simple, isn’t it. And who would have thought this thing has uses. No one. Especially when you’re speaking of highly technical probably geeks who spend all their day coding, albeit for intelligence agencies.

You think they’d allow the government to ban cryptos in a free country? They’d protest vocally by explaining the many uses.

The army, afterall, so paid by the people through taxes and made of the people, is the only guarantor of freedom after the pen has failed. Yet so often the army, especially in Arabia, has been quite unsuccessful. That’s probably in part because the questions there aren’t clear cut.

In crypto, however, save for the need to address some problems and of course there are problems as with any new tech, that this marvel of intellect not only should be allowed but should be encouraged to flourish is beyond question.

There may be the bankers, who like Blockbuster or Kodak or Nokia, fear, but where the government is concerned and where the people are concerned, isn’t Netflix, selfies, Smart Phones, a million times better?

The younger ones of bankers, who happen to actually know what any of this thing is because they bothered to look into it, do of course look up to cryptos.

The daughter of one mega banker, for example, herself is a bitcoiner. Because it makes sense. Because it’s a solution. The only one that has been proposed since the 1,500s.

What government can stand, or what banker or what priesthood can stand on its way? The one that nearly hanged Galileo? Who nonetheless said: E puoi si muove.



Comments (1)

  1. “The Bank of England was created when a number of banks got together to co-ordinate themselves. Same for FED. Both are independent,”

    Opening history books = good
    Quoting conspiracy sites = bad

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>