by Joseph P. Farrell, Giza Death Star:
Today begins my attempt to outline a hypothetical scenario that very much concerns me. Before I get to that, however, I have to state here that I have no “outline” or understanding of how many parts it may take me to outline that hypothesis, though at this juncture I suspect it will only take two: today’s installment, and next week’s. But however many it may eventually take, I think the scenario itself is worth putting forward as a speculation, if for no other reason than to warn people of its possibility. So I envision today’s blog as laying out, in as cursory and simple a fashion as possible, the various types of money with which one must deal, and in the next part, the scenario itself.
TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/
But first a word about the headline to this blog: what, the reader may be asking, is the “con con con”? Is Dr. Farrell perhaps taking sinus medicine again, and thus, loopier than normal and losing track of what he’s typing?
Alas, yes, I have taken some sinus medicine and, for that matter, some back pain medicine, and, yes, I am loopier than usual as a result. But I am not so loopy that I’ve lost track of what I’m typing, and that I indeed meant to type “con con con.” For those who may not know, however, the first two “cons” in “con con con” stand for “constitutional convention” and the last con stands for “con”, the grift, the fraud, the swindle, at the heart of the idea of holding another constitutional convention. You may or may not have heard about such calls and proposals. These often are coming from the “right”, and such calls are often couched in such a fashion as to appeal to a typical “conservative” voter: we need a constitutional convention to address areas of federal government overreach, to help eliminate the galloping debt, to put a break on out of control judicial activism, to close the border, to put our monetary system back on a sound constitutional money basis, &c &c &c. Pick your favorite “conservative” issue, and there will be someone out there advocating a new constitutional convention to resolve the problem.
That sort of French “logic” should be the first clue that something is drastically wrong, for if at every political issue being debated or slated for resolution the solution is to amend or change the constitution, we shall soon end up like France, with more constitutions than elections or actual laws. Is this the fifth, sixth, or seventh Republique de la France? I’ve lost count.
Thus many of us – myself included – are strongly opposed to the whole notion of a “con con” because we think it is a “con”, a “con con con.” Our reasons for this opposition are simple and usually boil down to two major concerns: why do we need a new constitution? Why not simply observe the old one? In a culture of non-observance and of a double standard of the application of law, a new constitution will no more be observed than the old one. Add on top of this the worrisome precedent established by the last constitutional convention, that of Philadelphia in 1787-1798 which gave us our current system.
Whatever the merits or demerits of that system, one fact overrides all others: the Philadelphia convention was convened for the purpose of adjusting the previous constitution, the Articles of Confederation. What it ended up doing was giving us an entirely different and new constitution. In other words, it established a precedent, and like it or not, the precedent was a dangerous one: for the convention completely threw aside its mandated purpose, and widely, and wildly reinterpreted its scope of authority. It established the precedent that once convened, anything goes. In that context I and others have pointed out that convening a constitutional convention in the current circumstances and culture would be an abject disaster, if for no other reason than the very obvious and simple ones that we have no James Madisons, Ben Franklins, Thomas Jeffersons, John Adams or even (ugh) Alexander Hamiltons to steer the process. Instead, we have an even more entrenched plutocratic and oligarchical class, with nowhere near the brains or talents of the Philadelphia founding fathers. What we have instead are Hillary Clintons, Barack Obamas, the Bush famdamnly, Mitch McConnells and (up)Chuck Schumers and Lindsay Grahamcrackers, not to mention ne’er-do-wells like the Soros crowd and other brainless bloviators of that ilk. Turn over the crafting of a new constitution to people like that!?!? You must be mad. Hamilton’s Horror was bad enough. One can only imagine the clotted diction of the preamble of any constitution such a group would come up with.
But there have been deeper concerns, and this brings us to the serious point of these blogs: Catherine Austin Fitts has long maintained her belief that any such Con Con Con is really for the purpose to enable the plutocrats and oligarchs that have been recently running Hamilton’s Horror to walk away from their obligations, and literally rob the remaining wealth of the country. And with this, we are dealing with the “money” part of this blog headline.
