The lords of finance are losing their touch.  Institutions which dragged the world from its worst depression since the early 20th century are finally seeing their magic desert them, if conventional wisdom is to be believed.  –UK Telegraph

We have read a deluge of mainstream media articles about central banking problems and the article quoted above is no exception.

When the mainstream media trumpets something all at once, we have learned from experience that it signals something of significance.

Central bankers are changing the institution dramatically and offering consumers a good deal more "benefit" from the central banking mechanism itself.

This means a push for "basic income." That means – quite literally – giving away money to whole populations.

That's what central bankers are setting up to do via "helicopter money" and the issuance of "electronic" money.

Once the process is in place, governments can pass the enabling legislation. Of course, no one is admitting it right now. The reason for helicopter money and electronic money is to stabilize the monetary system.

But that's not really true. This is "directed history" at work.

From the article:

Faced with political intransigence, central bankers are openly talking about the previously unthinkable: "helicopter money".

A catch-all term, helicopter drops describe the process by which central banks can create money to transfer to the public or private sector to stimulate economic activity and spending.

Long considered one of the last policymaking taboos, debate around the merits of helicopter money has gained traction in recent weeks.

The article goes on to remind us that top ECB banker Mario Draghi just this past week "refused to rule out the prospect" of helicopter money.

Is all of this a coincidence? As we just reported HERE, central banks have embarked on a campaign of further monetary control.

The idea is that negative interest rates, cashless societies and a "basic income" will combine to make central banks a good deal more integral to people's daily lives than they are now.

For instance, we've reported on RSCoin, which is a central bank variant bitcoin and is being actively considered for use by the Bank of England. Other variants are being considered elsewhere.

These central bank bitcoin variants are likely to be issued directly by the central bank, which will receive payment in turn directly from buyers.

Thus central banks will go into the business of commercial and consumer banking.

Combine a banking bitcoin with helicopter money and you essentially have a distribution method for a "basic income."

And a basic income may be necessary if central banks continue to offer negative interest rates. It's a way to compensate people for increasingly ludicrous and costly central banking policies.

We mentioned that the third part of this central bank strategy is the basic income, but we never fully explained how it fit together.

Cashlessness is a program generated by negative interest rates because people will try to take their funds out of banks and put their wealth in cash.

So central bankers must confiscate cash.

People will be increasingly incensed by cash confiscation and negative interest rates. But by offering people a "basic income," central banks may be able to alleviate anger.

After all, people will see the money as "free" for the most part. In such an instance, people will also be likely to accept reasons that central banks have confiscated cash and imposed negative interest rates.

A basic income may be central to pacifying people regarding the many other dramatic changes that central banks are trying to introduce via the governments they work with or control.

None of the choices faced by central bankers are especially "safe" ones. As we predicted years ago, after the crash of 2008, the top men running these banks had no idea of how to defend them.

What we didn't understand fully at the time, but do now, is that the dialectical system utilized by Western elites accommodates even the most significant failures in the system.

And failures there are because, in fact, the system itself is built to fail. It's supposed to be unstable.

People have a hard time understanding this but if the system is not constantly in motion, dialectical solutions become much less necessary to an outside observer.

The current system is incredibly unstable. It has in fact become unstuck. And – suspiciously – the mainstream media is quite vocal in recognizing its instability and lack of credibility.