Tuesday, January 1, 2008
More on Ron Paul and the Gold Standard
It is good that people are becoming more aware of the "Federal" "Reserve" racket and that there is a movement forming around the idea of abolishing it. But the timing is conspicuous. The "Fed" racket, which cannot be sustained forever, may very well be near collapse anyway. What I am attempting to do is anticipate the revolution-makers' next move. These are people who use the Kabbalistic/Hegelian dialectic against opponents who never seem to identify it, much less understand it. It's as if a child was playing chess against a master. The chess master has a large bag of gambits to draw from, the best of which feign a weak move which entices an anticipated reaction from the child opponent which results in disaster a few exchanges later. The child opponent is not only tricked into losing the game, he is tricked into participating in his own defeat.
We are fighting an enemy that thinks and we don't think. This is the "horrible anti-semitic canard" stated so well by the Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad in 2003. This is great wisdom that he tried to impart to others which was drowned out by the screeching and howling of the Zionists of the U.S. media as is so often the case.
The bankers are not just watching the collapse of the "Fed" racket figuring they had a good thing going for a while and that the party will soon be over. They intend to maintain control and further consolidate it. They have contingency plans. The debt-based "Fed" central banking racket is not the only system in their bag of tricks. The gold standard is another system that they have mastered and thrived under in the past. Supporters of Ron Paul must take note of this fact.
St. Thomas explained the role of money for Christians: it is an exchange medium for the good of the people which should serve the people, not bankers. As an exchange medium, money should not fluctuate in value as we are so accustomed. St. Thomas wrote that: "Money must keep the same value, since the value of all things must be expressed in terms of money."
Gold is a commodity with an arbitrary value which is subject to manipulation as is any commodity. The price of gold rises and falls as it becomes dear or common; as it is hoarded or circulated. Chaining a nation's money to gold is to chain it also to the fluctuations in volume and price of gold. This is a poor means of reaching the ideal objective of an exchange medium which has a stable value. Look at a price chart for gold over the past 2 years if you need confirmation of this fact.
Ideally, the exchange medium would be issued by the nation's government, as the U.S. founders provided, but it is not possible for a government to completely control all gold. If the exchange medium was backed by gold it would be subject to manipulation by forces outside the body issuing it. The economy of the nation could be manipulated by manipulating the gold market.
The problem also arises: if specie currency is redeemable in gold, it would be possible for the gold to be drained from reserve by demanding exchange of currency for gold as the Rothschilds did in England. If the currency is not redeemable for gold, then the system is a farce. Why bring gold into the equation at all?
The U.S. Constitution allows the government to issue currency by fiat. This is a sound system as long as the volume of currency issued is carefully controlled to be directly proportionate to the nation's production. The hucksters who attack the "Federal" "Reserve" in favor of the gold standard generally focus their rhetoric on the fact that the "Fed" issues paper money. This itself is not the problem however. The problems with the "Fed" system are that it is a debt-based, fractional reserve racket controlled by private individuals whose interests are their own, not the interests of the nation; that it is unsound and inevitably results in debt that cannot be paid; that it enslaves the people rather than serving them.
The argument generally is, "well I don't want those corrupt politicians in charge of issuing currency." But the fact is that any system no matter how perfectly laid out cannot function well if it is peopled by corrupt individuals. It's the responsibility of the people to monitor the performance of politicians and hold them responsible for their performance. Better to have the issue of currency handled by politicians who the people have recourse to, as the system was intended, than some untouchable private organization.
The answer to the debt-based federal reserve system is not backing the currency with a commodity. This is a non-sequitur. Fiat currency is not debt-based by nature. The government can issue currency without incurring any debt, for no more cost than the price of printing or stamping the currency. This is the answer to the "Fed": U.S. government-issued fiat currency.
If fiat currency is handled correctly it's not subject to the fluctuations of value of any other commodity, it is a stable exchange medium, and there's no debt incurred in issuing it other than the cost of printing/stamping it. Further, the volume of government-issued fiat currency can be increased as productivity of the nation increases thereby maintaining price stability and assuring sufficient currency to facilitate exchange as the economy grows. In the gold standard system the volume of currency is dictated by the amount of gold in reserve. I leave it to the reader to decide which system is more natural to a healthy economy.
Many of you may be aware that the gold that's supposed to be in Fort Knox is not there. You may also be aware that whatever gold the nation does have possession of would only back a tiny fraction of the value of our present economy. Even if it were possible to acquire enough gold to back an economy measured in trillions of dollars, as it is today, where do you think that gold is going to come from? How much debt are you willing to put the nation into in order to "return to the gold standard"?
Talk about a debt-based system! Just obtaining the gold would put the nation into crushing debt. The gold would have to be acquired through loan at interest. If our currency must be backed by gold and the gold must be acquired by loan at interest, there would be no way to pay even the principle of the loan without giving the gold back, but even then there would still be debt left based on the interest. Who would be served by this arrangement? The people?
Ron Paul supporters are on notice. Ron Paul is an energetic promoter of the gold standard. If you're fighting to put Ron Paul in office, you are responsible to understand the effect his policies would have if they're put into practice. If you're not dissuaded by this aspect of Paul's ideology, then I challenge you to make this an issue that Ron Paul and his supporters must address. Let the facts come out in a healthy debate on the matter. When the time comes to deal with the collapse of the Federal Reserve, let people be educated on this issue so they don't play into the Kabbalistic gambit prepared for them.
__________________________________________________________
Wednesday, January 2, 2008
Ron Paul: For a One-World Currency?
In this informal interview Ron Paul seems to promote not only adoption of a gold-backed currency for the U.S., but a one-world gold-backed currency (at approximately 3:08 in the video). I wonder who he figures will issue this one-world currency, if I understand him correctly: