The supernote stumper - Who could it be?

Who's been following the story of the North Korean supernotes? It's a cracker. These supernotes are the best forgeries the world has ever seen. In fact, so perfect are these forgeries that to all intents and purposes the notes are real. Until they turn up in the US and then they're spotted instantly, ha ha.

There have been some ripping exposés written. Like this one by Gregory Elich. Read it and see the impossibility of the official American story. As it stands none of it makes any sense at all. But then, neither do Elich's alternative propositions either. Best not wonder too hard at his counter theory that it's the CIA because it falls at the first hurdle. But then, that's limited hangout for you. It works best if you don't think about.

Consider the logic. Elich clearly proves it makes no sense for North Korea to print the supernotes because the machines cost more than the notes that have been printed. Doesn't this logic apply to the CIA too? Who on earth would spend $200M to buy the machines to make a lousy $50M? It's idiotic - why not just spend the $50M? The logic is inescapable. The only people who could or would sensibly make this money are those who already own the printing presses. Honestly, it would have to be the first thing you'd think of. Wouldn't it?

Wonder also at the uses this supernote money was put to. The article spends half its length detailing an insanely complex and utterly relentless campaign to choke off the North Korean money supply, the justification for which pivots utterly on the supernotes. In spite of not a single UN or Interpol representative believing the US's supernote story the US persists in forcing economic strangulation on North Korea. Does this mean the CIA, on its own, wishes to strangle North Korea? Why would they do that? And how do they get the State department and Secret Service to jump through their hoops? Note that Elich doesn't posit the CIA as subject to the government proper. He merely hints at them operating on their own.

Carefully read the last two paras of Elich's piece. After two thousand words odd, up pops the concept that it's law enforcement agencies tracking criminals and terrorists. A single sentence is enough! We have it. It's 'enforcement agencies', whoever that is. Or maybe not. Best not to be too specific. Best to trail off with meaningless blatherings like - 'As with all stories that the public is asked to accept on blind faith, the topic should be examined with critical thinking.' Ha ha ha ha. Top stuff! Elich's piece is a cracker. It's full of every kind of thing except critical thinking.

Forget the nonsense. Why don't I pose a far more obvious possibility? This article is, misdirection aside, a clear depiction of how international banking goes about smashing a nation that refuses to play ball. It's the ugly side of a monopolistic, privately-owned money supply. No business in a street gets out of paying protection and no nation that possesses wealth worth having will be allowed to control its own currency.

Keep in mind here that the US is not the prime mover. The US is merely the biggest business on the block. Their money supply is owned and they too dance to the banker's tune. And what tune is that precisely? How many times have you heard commentators on the television say (particularly lately) that nothing is as important to the Fed as the sanctity of the banking system? Well there you have it. This is the biggie, the sine qua non. In any discussion about what takes place at a global scale, on the question of motive, one should always look first to the 'sanctity' of the banking system. It is above all else. It may not be challenged and heaven and earth will be moved to ensure that no alternative is possible.

Provided this prime directive is served, the US may do anything it likes. As the made-to-order wars are carried out, those who nominally run the US are free to make money in any way they can - oil, weapons, drugs, speculation, it's all good. This serves two purposes. Sure enough, it keeps the old guard from overthrowing their money masters. They have the guns and the manpower and could do it if they really wanted to. So they have to be kept happy. The second purpose is that this lower tier criminality hides the true reason we are at at war with Krablapistan. Thus may all those punters, smarter than the average bear and not fooled by the media drivel, cleverly know that it's actually all about oil, weapons, drugs, etc. We shake our fist at the sock puppet and dream of throwing him down.

Meanwhile the media is free to say whatever they like, provided they do not interfere in, or otherwise name the architects of, a sanctity-of-banking campaign, which is to say economic strangulation and war. Clever (or not so clever perhaps) pieces of limited hangout aside, invariably the media will fulfil its role as maidservant of international banking and blame the victims. Subsequently everyone knows that the North Koreans are very wicked villains who starve their own people. Our sanctions on North Korea are perfectly understandable. We do it for their own good.

Same-same for everyone currently suffering under sanctions and warfare. But me, I wonder at the guilt of those whom the media says we're meant to hate. I wonder if the list of those we must hate isn't the same as those who refuse to succumb to a privately owned money supply. If this is the case, perhaps the shit-list is the hit-list - those we should cheer for. Ayah! Does this mean I have to cheer for Kim Jong Il?