Does the Monetary Unit Determine the Value of Bullion?

Does the Monetary Unit Determine

the Value of Bullion?

Thomas Allen

    One of the debates that economists had during the era of the gold-coin standard[1] was whether the monetary value of the gold coin determined the value of gold bullion or gold bullion determined the value of the gold coin. Is the value of each unit of money determined by the value of the bullion in each unit? Or, is the value of bullion in each unit of money determined by the value of the monetary unit? In other words, is the monetary unit the independent variable, or is gold bullion the independent variable?[2]
    In his book Money (1882), George Weston argues that the value of bullion is determined by the value of coin, the monetary unit. The value of coin is determined by the quantity of coins and paper money. Weston is a proponent of the quantity theory of money. Other things being equal, the quantity of money fixes the value of the monetary unit, which he usually seems to mean its purchasing power. This is true not only for inconvertible fiat government paper notes, it is also true of full-weight gold coins and other types of money. According to him, governments can keep their government notes from deprecating by properly controlling their quantity. Moreover, he seems to prefer fiat paper government notes to full-weight gold coin. (A full-weight gold coin is a coin whose monetary value equals the value of its gold content.)
    Weston believes that a parity between full-weight coin and paper money can be permanently maintained by limiting the quantity of paper money. Moreover, he contends that controlling the quantity of paper money is more reliable than redeeming paper money in coin on demand, which he considers to be “hopelessly treacherous as it is costly and clumsy.” He adds that using the requirement to redeem bank notes in gold coin on demand to regulate the issue of bank notes is “false and fraudulent . . . and had proved itself in practice one of the worst scourges which has ever afflicted mankind.” Such a system causes the quantity of money to fluctuate too much. A superior system is to use the price of gold to regulate the issue of inconvertible paper money. Perhaps, he is correct, but no government has ever achieved the goal of maintaining parity or near parity of paper money with coin or bullion for more than a few years without redemption. Furthermore, rarely does a government use the price of gold to regulate the issue of inconvertible paper money. Such methodology is too restrictive and obviates the purpose of resorting to inconvertible paper money, which is to issue money based on politics and not on economics.
    Weston prefers a static supply of bank notes as the banking systems of England and most other European countries had where nearly all bank notes were backed by gold coin. A major problem with this static money supply is that to fit periods of high demand for notes, such as around Christmas, a large quantity of notes has to remain unused in vaults for most of the year. European countries overcame this inelasticity problem with checkable deposits, which Weston rejects as money. By expanding checkable deposits when demand was high and contracting them when demand was low, banks satisfied the markets’ monetary needs.
    Moreover, Weston believes that the law gives gold its value. Furthermore, the value of gold as merchandise is not an element constituting its value as money. This monetary value of gold can be regulated by varying the quantity of paper money in circulation. Increasing the quantity of paper money decreases the value of gold coin. Here he seems to confuse value with purchasing power. The two are different. Besides, increasing the quantity of paper money does not always lead to a decline in purchasing power of gold coin. In the United States, during the last quarter of the nineteenth century, the purchasing power of gold coin rose while it was accompanied by a rising supply of paper money (some fiat like the U.S. note[3] and some not like national bank notes[4]) and legal-tender silver dollars.[5] However, fiat paper money and fiat silver dollars may have prevented prices from declining more than they did.
    Also, Weston seems to believe that gold and silver are not money (Murray Rothbard strongly disagrees; he declares that gold is money, whatever its form.) People desire them because of ease of converting them to money — presumably, he means coin and possibly bullion as reserves for paper money. However, gold bullion has been used as money, and not merely as backing for paper money, before and after coinage.
    According to him, civilized people today (1884) do not desire gold for ornamentation but solely for its use as money. If true, the manufacturing of gold jewelry would be an unprofitable undertaking.
    Weston claims that silver coin can be kept at parity with gold coin by limiting the quantity of silver coins. He cites several examples in Europe. Silver coins in the countries that he mentions were either subsidiary coins to gold coin or soon became subsidiary coins. These countries were on the gold standard, and their silver coins were convertible to gold either directly or indirectly. This convertibility — not their quantity — kept the monetary value of these coins at par with gold coin, although the silver content of these coins was worth less than the monetary value of the coin. (If the monetary value of a coin fixes the value of its bullion content as Weston contends, why did not the value of silver rise to match the monetary value of the silver coin?)
    Weston seems deceitful about subsidiary coins and uses them to support his contention that the metal content of a coin does not determine the value of the coin, but the value of the coin determines the value of its metal content. Subsidiary coins are token coins used for transactions so small that full-weight gold coins cannot be used without receiving change in token coins. Moreover, token coins can be redeemed in gold coin. If a subsidiary coin is to circulate, the value of its metal content has to be less than its monetary value or else it will be melted for its metal.
    Nevertheless, his comments on the European silver coins fit the silver dollar in the United States at that time. The silver dollar was fiat money whose quantity was fixed by Congress and the Secretary of the Treasury. According to Weston, it was kept at par with the gold dollar by limiting the quantity of silver dollars manufactured. Although the value of the metal content of the silver dollar was worth less than a dollar, Congress declared the silver dollar to have a legal-tender value of one dollar. Although the silver dollar could not be directly converted to gold, it could be converted indirectly to gold. One means of achieving this conversion was to deposit silver dollars in a bank and then withdraw the money in gold coin. This indirect conversion to gold kept the silver dollar at par with gold.
    Historical examples argue against Weston’s position. As shown below, the value of bullion controls the value of the coin, and not the monetary value stamped on the coin.
    In 1985, Congress authorized the minting of a one-ounce gold coin with a legal tender value of $50 and a one-ounce silver coin with a legal tender value of $1. This action occurred 14 years after gold had ceased having any formal part of the world’s monetary systems. Likewise, it occurred decades after silver had any formal part of the world’s monetary system except as subsidiary coins, which use ended in the mid-1960s.
    If the monetary value of gold coin determined the value of its gold bullion content, which was $327 at end of 1985, then the gold coin should have pulled the value, price, of bullion down to $50 per ounce. Instead of the coin pulling the value of bullion down, bullion raised the value of the coin up. Likewise, silver bullion in the one-ounce $1 silver coin raised the value of the coin instead of the silver coin pulling the value of bullion down to $1 per ounce.
    Under the  Bretton Woods system, the US government guaranteed the US dollar to have the value of one thirty-fifth of an ounce of gold and exchanged one ounce of gold at the rate of $35 per ounce when a foreign government or its central bank redeemed its dollars. During the 1960s, the value, price, of gold bullion rose above $35 per ounce. If Weston were correct in that the value of the monetary unit determines the value of bullion, such a dichotomy could not have occurred. The price of gold could not have risen above $35 per ounce. As a result of the divergence between the monetary unit and bullion, the Bretton Woods system was abandoned in 1971.
    The same effect occurred in Weston’s day when Congress authorized the issuance of government notes called US notes and nicknamed greenbacks. Soon after issuance, the $10 US note began trading at a discount to the $10 gold coin. Although the magnitude of the discount varied, the US note did not exchange at par with gold coin until it became redeemable in gold. If the monetary unit determines the value of bullion, then the $10 US note should have remained at par with the $10 gold coin. Moreover, if the monetary unit determined the value of bullion, then subsidiary silver coins should have remained in circulation. They did not. For several years subsidiary silver coins ceased circulating because their value as bullion exceeded their value as money.
    According to Weston, the value of the dollar is determined by the quantity of coin and paper money. As S. McLean Hardy’s statistical study shows, during the War, the value of the dollar had more to do with Confederate victories and defeats than with its quantity. Confidence, not quantity, gives inconvertible paper money its value, although its quantity affects confidence. Convertibility gives paper money its value whatever its quantity.
    Weston does acknowledge that paper money can depreciate against gold coin and cause gold coins to cease circulating. How can this be if the value of money determines the value of gold bullion in the coin? How can the value of the bullion content of a $10 gold coin rise above the $10 monetary value stamped on the coin, if the monetary value of the coin determines the value of its bullion content? The experience that he witnessed with the US note proves that the value of the monetary unit does not fix the value of its bullion content.
    Centuries before the first precious metal coin was ever minted, people bought and sold goods and services with gold and silver bullion. Genesis 23:16 records such an event when Abraham bought a burial plot for his deceased wife by weighing out silver.
    More proof that a coin’s bullion content governs its monetary value is that well-worn coins exchange by their weight rather than by the monetary value stamped on them unless the law prohibits such discounting. In which case, the law is often ignored by refusing to accept the worn coin in trade at its full monetary value. (Unfortunately, creditors often had to accept worn coins in payment of debt.) Some countries under the gold standard allowed by law exchanges of well-worn coins by weight rather than by tale. Even in some countries that prohibited such discounting guaranteed the full-weight of their coins by exchanging new full-weight coins for worn coins.
    Weston asserts that suspension of the gold standard, i.e., the suspension of convertibility of paper money, in one country adds to the number of gold coins in other countries. The resumption of the gold standard, i.e., returning to convertibility of paper money in gold coin, draws gold coins from other countries. He ignores the large sink of hoarded coins, gold bullion, jewelry, ornamentation, plate, and other gold products that can absorb the excess gold under suspension and can return it under resumption. Thus, according to him, the abandonment of the gold standard in one major commercial country causes the value of gold in other countries to fall. Resumption of the gold standard causes the value gold in other countries to rise.
    When a country suspends species payments, Weston claims that its coins flow to other countries and reduce the value of money, and by that, the value of gold, in these countries. If so, the effect is only temporary. The value of gold as bullion and in coin is nearly equal worldwide. Moreover, the global quantity of gold available for monetary use is so massive compared with what may flee one country that the effect of the fleeing gold would be small or even insignificant. Weston would counter that this new supply of gold is sufficient to lower its value worldwide.
    If Weston is correct in that whatever gold that flees a country that has suspended the gold standard flows into the monetary system of other countries, only a small part will end up in circulating gold coins. Most will go to banks as deposits and become the basis for credit expansion. Most of the money created by this expansion will be as checkable deposits while some will be as bank notes. This credit expansion is what causes monetary inflation and the resulting rising prices. Its contraction results in deflation and decline in prices. However, many problems associated with credit expansion can be avoided by using sound banking practices (not fractional reserve banking practices, which allows multiple parties to use the same money simultaneously). Sound banking practices include not borrowing short and lending long and backing all checkable deposits 100 percent with full-weight coin or commercial money.[6] (Commercial money is a real bill of exchange that is self-liquidating usually within 90 days or less; it can only function under a commodity standard like the gold standard.)
    The decline in purchasing power, Weston contends, results from a reduction in demand for gold as coin when the gold standard is suspended. However, he claims that the loss in purchasing power results from a loss of the value of gold coin. The reverse occurs when the gold standard is resumed and paper money is again convertible in gold. Purchasing power of coin and paper increases because the value of gold increases. He ignores the quality of money theory, which explains the fall and rise of money’s purchasing power, which he calls value. When the gold standard is suspended, low-quality inconvertible paper money, which has less value and purchasing power than gold, replaces gold coin. When the gold standard is resumed, a high-quality money, gold coin and paper money convertible in gold, replaces low-quality inconvertible paper money.
    Moreover, he seems to credit the rise and fall in prices mostly on changes in the supply and demand for monetary gold. He sees the changes in prices being caused by changes in the value of gold. He ignores changes in credit money, except bank notes, which he considers to be real money and not credit money,[7] have much more effect on prices than changes in the supply of gold.
    Weston fails to explain how the monetary unit gets its initial value. Under the gold standard, the monetary unit gets its value from gold. The monetary unit is defined as a specific weight of gold and the monetary unit has the value of that weight of gold. For example, the Gold Standard Act of 1900 defined the dollar as 23.22 grains of gold. Therefore, the dollar had the value of 23.22 grains of gold. This is more proof that the monetary unit derives its value from its metal content as the value of bullion precedes the monetary unit.
    This notion Weston rejects. He claims that the value of the monetary unit, the dollar, gives the 23.22 grains of gold its value. The dollar may give 23.22 grains of gold its price, but it does not give the gold its value. Value and prices are not the same things. Value is subjective; price is objective. Moreover, not everything that has value, has a price; for example, love of one’s mate and children has great value but no price.
    An example of the difference between price and value is that, under the gold standard, when a person buys a shirt for $10, the shirt has the value of 232.2 grains of gold and a price of $10. (Today, when one buys a shirt with a $10 federal reserve note, what is the value of the shirt? Without defining the dollar in terms of itself, which is a poor and unsatisfactory definition that should be unacceptable and not used, such as the value of the dollar is a dollar’s worth of goods, no one can definitively define the value of the dollar.)
    Before any commodity became money, a medium of exchange, it had to have value independently of its monetary use. Its monetary use adds to its value as a commodity, but does not create it. Weston acknowledges that gold had value as ornamentation, etc. before being coined, and its uses as coin add to that value and even gives gold its highest actual value. If true, no gold coin would ever be melted for use as ornamentation, for the highest value of gold is that in the form of a coin. However, as gold coins were often melted for their gold and that gold was used for other purposes, gold as coin is not always its highest use.
    Moreover, Weston is unclear about how paper money gets its value other than the government limiting its quantity. How this limitation initially gives paper money, especially inconvertible paper money, its initial value, he does not explain. Convertible paper money derives its value from the gold that it represents. Inconvertible paper money derives its value from the gold coin that it replaces. Quantity has nothing to do with this initial value.
    In his argument to prove that coin fixes the value of bullion, Weston shows that government can easily manipulate their monetary systems and the purchasing power of their money — usually to the detriment of the people. However, he fails to identify or to describe a governmentally manipulated monetary system that works better than, or even as well as, the gold-coin standard accompanied by a well-functioning credit system, although as an example, he offers Brazil, which used the price of gold as an index to regulate its fiat paper money supply.
     Under the gold-coin standard, the government does not regulate the quantity of gold coins produced. However, it often intervenes to restrict the quantity of bank notes issued, although such intervention is not necessary and probably undesirable as it can distort the markets. Market forces decide the quantity of gold coins minted and gold coins melted. When the government does not intervene, and to some extent, even when it does, market forces regulate the quantity of bank notes issued.
    Whether bank notes and government notes[8] are convertible or inconvertible to full-weight gold coin, Weston argues that they are money in their own right. They are real money and are not merely forms of credit money. True, they are used as a medium of exchange. Also, when they are inconvertible, they nearly always become the unit of account, especially if the government makes them legal tender. However, real money like full-weight gold or silver coin performs one monetary duty that these notes cannot perform. That is, full-weight coin not only discharges debt, it also extinguishes debt because it is no one else’s liability. Bank notes and government notes can only discharge debt. They do so by passing the obligation to another, which is ultimately the person or entity responsible for the note.[9] For example, the US government is the responsible party for today’s federal reserve note. Contrary to Weston’s assertion, bank notes and government notes are not real money; they are credit money and cannot extinguish debt.
    Weston rejects the notion that bills of changes and checkable deposits are money. According to him, they do not have the effect as bank notes and do not increase the quantity of money. Today, as checkable deposits far exceed bank notes as money in industrialized countries, most monetary disturbances like inflation comes from changes in checkable deposits than fluctuation in bank notes.
    Therefore, Weston’s quantity theory of money ignores commercial money, real bills of exchange, as part of the quantity of money. Like bank notes, commercial money is a form of credit money that can be used to purchase goods and discharge debts. Unlike bank notes, commercial money has a specific life, usually 90 days or less, before it expires. Commercial money often exceeds bank notes in quantity and even exceeds the quantity of coins and paper money. If the quantity of money is the sole determinant of the value of money, other things being equal, as Weston asserts, or even the primary determinant, then how can he ignore commercial money? Nevertheless, Weston rejects the notion that bills of exchange are money and, therefore, need no consideration as part of the quantity of money or any quantity of money theory.
    Likewise, Weston’s quantity theory of money also ignores checkable deposits, checkbook money, as part of the quantity of money. Like bank notes, checkable deposits are a form of credit money that can be used to purchase goods and discharge debt. Unlike bank notes, which can pass through many hands before returning to a bank, checks usually pass through only one or two hands before returning to a bank. The major difference between a bank note and checkbook money is that a bank note is an order drawn on a bank to transfer gold from the bank’s account to the bearer and a check is an order to transfer gold from the drawer’s account to bearer. In Weston’s time (1884), in the United States, checkable deposits exceeded bank notes and coin in purchasing goods and discharging debt. He acknowledges that checks are used for most transactions. Moreover, under fractional reserve banking, which was practiced in his day as it is today, checkable deposits exceed species, commercial money and in Britain bank notes and in the United States silver dollars and US notes held by the bank; thus, they exceed what Weston considers real money. Any quality of money theory that ignores checkable deposits is a highly deficient theory. Nevertheless, Weston rejects the notion that checkable deposits are money and, therefore, need no consideration as part of the quantity of money or any quantity of money theory.
    A bank note is merely a check that a bank writes on itself. (Under the system advocated by Weston as modeled after the British system after 1844, this is not the case. Under the British system, what were called bank notes were similar to gold certificates issued in the United States. Whereas gold certificates were fully backed by gold, a fraction of the British notes was backed by nontradable government securities. Like gold certificates, they were warehouse receipts promising to pay the bearer in gold. Unlike US gold certificates, which were not legal tender, British notes were legal tender. Although Weston implies that making bank notes legal tender makes them real money, he seems to accept gold certificates as real money though they were not legal tender.) A bank note, even if it is merely a warehouse receipt, is a credit instrument because it is someone else’s liability. Weston rejects the notion that bank notes are credit instruments: a check that the issuer writes on itself to pay the bearer money, i.e., gold coin. To him, bank notes are money in their own right and are not promises to pay money, i.e., gold coin.
    An interesting note cited by Weston is that John Stuart Mills mused that under the right conditions, deposits and checks might replace currencies altogether. Weston thought that such a replacement was absurd. However, today, most countries are moving to eliminate currency and to force people to use bank deposits and checks, preferably with debit cards instead of paper checks. If this happens, the quantity of money, according to Weston’s theory, goes to zero: Money would cease to exist by his definition of money. Then what would fix the value of gold bullion?
    Weston displays inordinate confidence in the government to manage the country’s monetary system. As the history of the last 100 years shows, governments are highly incompetent in managing their monetary systems if the objective is to avoid inflation, hyperinflation, panics, depressions, recessions, and other economic and monetary disturbances and disasters. If the objective is to transfer wealth and power from the common people to the rich and powerful, they has been highly successful.
    When his quantity theory of money fails, Weston has an out, which is “everything else being equal.” When it fails, it is because “everything else is not equal.”
    In conclusion, Weston argues that the value of gold bullion does not control the value of gold coin or paper money kept at par with it. To the contrary, the opposite is true: The maximum value of gold bullion fluctuates with and is regulated by the value of gold coin and paper money at parity with gold coin. Moreover, the value of the monetary unit depends, other things being equal, on the quantity of monetary units, both coin and paper money.
    Weston errs when he claims that the value of the monetary unit gives gold bullion its value. To the contrary, the value of gold bullion gives the monetary unit its value. The value of gold preceded its use as money, and its use as money preceded its use as coin. Weston confuses value with price. The monetary unit gives gold its price, which is objective, but it does not give gold its value, which is subjective.

Endnotes:
1. See “What is the Gold Standard” by Thomas Allen.

2. See “Is the Price of Gold Fixed Under the Gold Standard” by Thomas Allen.

3. See “The U.S. Note, 1862-1879" by Thomas Allen.

4. See “National Banking System” by Thomas Allen.

5.  See “The Silver Dollar 1873-1900" by Thomas Allen.

6. See “Real Bills Doctrine” by Thomas Allen.

7. See “Differences Between Real Money and Fiat Money” by Thomas Allen.

8. See "Difference Between Bank Notes and Government Notes" by Thomas Allen.

9. See “Extinguishing Debt” by Thomas Allen.

Copyright © 2017 by Thomas Coley Allen.

For more articles on money.

Some Thoughts on Gun Control

Some Thoughts on Gun Control

Thomas Allen

    The following appeared as a letter-to-the-editor:
    A friend of mine told me that when he was in school, the boys carried their rifles and shotguns to school so that they could hunt after school. Also, he said that a girl in his class brought her pistol to school for him to repair and gave it to him in the classroom. Several days later, he returned it to her in the classroom. There were no shootings in the school. Thus, the problem is not guns; it is people.
    Could prescribed psychiatric drugs be behind most of these mass shootings? Nearly all, if not all, the mass shooters were or had recently been taking these drugs. These drugs are known to cause violent behavior. However, since big pharma controls the old media (look at how the old media pimps vaccines), the old media ignores the drug issue. Besides, drugs do not fix the antigun agenda of the old media.
    Because of previous gun control laws, most schools are now gun-free zones. Gun controllers promised that no one would carry a gun into a gun-free zone. However, gun-free zones are safe places for killers to hunt because no one can shoot back.
    Many antigun progressives believe that President Trump is Hitler incarnated. Still, they want him to disarm them. Disarmed Jews did not fare well under Hitler. Why do disarmed progressives believe that they will do any better under Trump? If every Jew were heavily armed, Hitler would not and could not have sent them to concentration camps. To protect themselves from Trump, progressives should be demanding that gun laws be relaxed so that they can more easily arm themselves to defend themselves from Trump.
    There was a time when mass shootings were unheard of. What has changed between then and now? We need to find out and eliminate the change. The difference is not the availability of guns. Guns were much easier to obtain then than they are now.

✽✽✽✽✽✽✽

    The following is a summary of “Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide?” (Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, Vol. 30, No. 2, pages 649-694) by Don B. Kates and Gary Mauser. They show that the antigun, gun-controller dogma of “fewer guns, fewer homicides, suicides, and violent crimes” is false — a propaganda lie. Fewer guns are associated with more homicides and violent crimes.
    According to Kates and Mauser, the murder rate in the 1960s and 1970s of the gunless Soviet Union equal or exceeded that of the gun-ridden United States. While the murder rate in the United States declined, the murder rate in the Soviet Union rose. By 1998-2004, the murder rate in Russia was nearly four times higher than it was in the United States. Furthermore, the suicide rate in Russia was about four times higher than in the United States.
    In Europe, countries with relatively high gun ownership have relatively low murder rates. Generally, where guns are more concentrated, violent crime rates are lower.
    Studies done by the U.S. National Academy of Science and the U.S. Center for Disease Control show that gun control laws did not reduce violent crimes, suicides, or gun accidents. If anything, the strict gun control laws may have contributed to the rising crime rate.
    Before gun control laws were enacted in Great Britain, little violent crime occurred there. Now with extremely strict gun control laws, violent crime have grown. Even violence using firearms has increased. Although handguns are banned, criminals have no problem in obtaining them and are more willing to use them. With handguns and many types of long guns banned, violent crime in England and Wales is the highest in Europe and even exceeds that of the United States.
    Since 1990, in the United States, as gun ownership has risen, violent crimes have declined. In Great Britain, gun ownership declined drastically and violent crimes soared. Thus, overall, more guns equal less crime. (Other contributors to the decline in the United States are the large number of Black babies aborted, more executions, and a drastically growing prison population.)
    Criminologist Hans Toch, who once favored the prohibition of handguns, but later recanted, notes that “it is hard to explain that where firearms are most dense, violent crime rates are lowest and where guns are least dense, violent crime rates are highest” (p. 675).
    As for demographics, Kates and Mauser write:

Contrary to what should be the case if more guns equal more death, there are no “consistent indications of a link between gun ownership and criminal or violent behavior by owners;” in fact, gun ownership is “higher among whites than among blacks, higher among middle-aged people than among young people, higher among married than among unmarried people, higher among richer people than poor” — all “patterns that are the reverse of the way in which criminal behavior is distributed” (p. 676).

    Historically, in England, as firearms became more efficient and more widely owned, the murder rate seemed to have fallen sharply until gun control laws began restricting ownership. Then gun violence began to rise.
    In colonial America, nearly every household was required to own guns. During this time, murders were few. The homicide rate only began to rise when the universal ownership of guns disappeared. In the decades following the War for Southern Independence, guns glutted the market, and homicides fell sharply.
    Areas in the United States, Canada, England, and Switzerland where gun ownership is the highest have the lowest rate of violence. Thus, fewer guns in private hands equal more violent crime and more violent deaths.

✽✽✽✽✽✽✽

    The following are some random thoughts, in no particular order, about gun controllers and anti gunners.
    – Alcohol is responsible for more deaths than guns, even among school children. If saving lives is the real objective, then outlawing alcohol will save more lives — assuming that prohibition works this time.
    – One should beware of the mental health issue in the gun control debate. President Obama wanted to declare all veterans de facto mentally ill and by that deny them of their inalienable, God-given right to own the means of defending themselves. Nevertheless, he did succeed in declaring everyone on social security mentally ill if he had someone else manage his money and, therefore, ineligible to own a gun. Fortunately, for liberty, President Trump revoked this order. For this action, liberals, progressives, and other gun controllers and anti gunners accused him of allowing all mentally ill people to own guns.
    – One should always remember cui bono. Who ultimately benefits from a disarmed America? The beneficiaries are the statists: The Puritans who want to micromanage everyone’s life. The losers are those who love and cherish liberty.
    – Chicago proves the idiocy of gun-free zones. In Chicago, only people with the political influence can legally possess a firearm. Yet, Chicago has the highest murder rate in the country.
    – If eighteen-year-olds are old enough to vote for their enslavement and to go to war and kill people, they are old enough to buy and own handguns, rifles, and  other firearms, including real assault weapons.
    – Gun control is nothing more than people control, which is why liberals and progressives adore it. Liberals and progressives are Puritans who have an uncontrollable, nay, a necessity, to micromanage the lives of others. Naturally, they believe that such control is for the benefit of the enslaved victim.
    – Why do celebrities who preach disarming the American people surround themselves with armed bodyguards? Obviously, they are hypocrites who know that firearms save lives. When in the hands of civilians, firearms save more lives by orders of magnitude than they take.
    – Gun control is really people control. Inanimate objects that cannot move unless someone moves them cannot be controlled. However, people can be controlled and denied their God-given inalienable right of possessing the means of defending themselves.
    – Before people start their irrational ranting to ban assault rifles, which are extremely difficult to acquire legally, they should know what an assault rifle is. The Free Dictionary by Farles defines “assault rifle” as “a rifle that has a detachable magazine and is capable of both automatic and semiautomatic fire, designed for individual use in combat” (emphasis added).
    – Why do the old matrix media only present one side of the gun debate — the antigun side? If they do have anyone to speak for the other side, the speaker is usually a stereotypical, inarticulate red neck who speaks like he has marbles in his mouth with tobacco juice dripping down his chin and who has difficulty in speaking in sentences of more than three words. Moreover, why do the old matrix media hate liberty, including freedom of the press, so much that they lead the charge to destroy the only liberty that can guarantee freedom of the press and all other freedoms?
    – If people really want to reduce death by firearms in the broadest sense, they would disarm governments. Since 1900 governmentally owned or controlled firearms have killed around a half billion people — probably more. Stalin and Mao Zedong account for about a fourth of this number by themselves.
    – When a policeman shoots someone, the policeman is blamed — not the gun. However, when someone else shoots several people, the gun is blamed — not the shooter. Why the difference? Should not the blame be placed on the shooter in both incidents?
    – Why do liberals and progressives want to give young, strong males a decisive advantage over women, old men, children, and the handicap? Outlawing firearms, or even restricting their availability, gives the criminal a great advantage.
    – Liberals and progressives claim that they are for the little man. Yet, they do the bidding of billionaires like Soros and Bloomberg by pushing their disarmament agenda. Why do these billionaires want to disarm the American people? Is it because armed Americans thwart the agenda of these billionaires to establish a one world government that they plan to control and use to transfer ever more wealth and power to themselves?
    – These few notables have favored gun control and a disarmed citizenry: King George III, V.I. Lenin, Leon Trotsky, Josef Stalin, Mao Zedong, Gorbachev, and Castro. They are the philosophical brethren of the anti gunners and other who clamor for gun control. They all agree with the criminal who said, “Any gun in the hands of citizens is a menace as far as I am concerned.” All of them agree with this criminal because they themselves are criminals in their heart. They want to steal, and the gun owner and the presence of guns hinder their theft. Otherwise, they are dupes, stooges, ignoramuses, useful idiots, lackeys, and the likes.
    – According to Jesus, peace and safety exists in a household of a fully armed man (Luke 11:21-22). Jesus also notes that the first thing an enemy seeks to do is to disarm the household. Furthermore, Jesus commanded his followers to arm themselves with military weapons (Luke 22:36).
    – Whenever the communists take over a country, the first order of business is to disarm the people so that they cannot resist the tyranny, theft, and slaughter that follow.
    – Anti gunners imply that guns kill people and, therefore, people do not kill people. Thus, they imply that if people did not have guns, they would not kill others or themselves. The first murder recorded in the Bible was done without a gun. Moreover, of all the killings recorded in the Bible, a firearm was used in none of them. Until a few hundred years ago, no one ever used a gun to kill another. Therefore, people kill people.
    – Progressivism is a mental disorder and, therefore, progressives should be denied the ownership and use of firearms. Progressivism is merely a political version of Puritanism. Progressives have an uncontrollable desire to force other people under the penalty of death to live the way that progressives want them to live.
    – More guns are in the United States than are cars, yet cars kill more people than guns. Moreover, drivers are required to have a license, and cars are required to be registered.
    – If the objective is to save lives, then beaches, pools, streams, lakes, and bathtubs should be outlawed. Outside war zones, more people die of drowning than of gunshots. Moreover, if it will save one life, vaccines should be outlawed,using the gun controllers reasoning.
    – Gun controllers should disown and condemn the Clintons. Even with the elimination of Bill’s killing of thousands in Serbia and Hillary’s killings of thousands in Lybia and the Middle East, the number of people whom they have murdered may well exceed several dozen.
    – Why do not the anti gunners disarm themselves and then post a sign in their yards that their home is not defended by firearms?
    – Those who advocate banning guns need to reflect on how well prohibition worked and how well the war on drugs has worked. The prohibition of guns will fare no better.
    – Nearly all murders have a history of violent crime. Why do liberals and progressives believe that these people will obey gun laws when they are already disobeying laws against violent crimes?
    – If no one less than 21 is allowed to own or use a firearm, then on one less than 21 should be allowed in the armed forces. Moreover, no one less than 21 should be allowed to drive because one hundred times more teenagers die of automobiles than of gun. Further, no child should be allowed in a motor vehicle of any kind — if it will save one life. Such are the logic and reasoning of progressives, anti gunners, and gun controllers.
    – Nothing exceeds a firearm as an equalizer.
    – A government that cannot trust a heavily armed citizenry is a government that cannot be trusted.

Copyright © 2018 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social articles.


                         

Gun Control

Gun Control

Thomas Allen

[Editor's note: This article was written in 1988.]

    Gun controllers are out to disarm the country. They use many false arguments to support their untenable position. They seek to disarm private citizens and leave them at the mercy of criminals and omnipotent government, which is the ultimate criminal.
    Most gun controllers are liberals, and nearly all liberals are gun controllers. All gun controllers are statist, and most are political, social, and economic egalitarians, who abhor the physical equality that guns bring.
    Gun controllers display their hypocrisy by advocating harsh laws against law-abiding gun owners while cuddling criminals. They have a lax attitude toward real crime. They persist in putting dangerous criminals back on the streets as quickly as possible. Then they propose to disarm the law-abiding citizens, who are threatened by these thugs. (The American Civil Liberties Union shows the perverse hypocritical mind of a good liberal. It has advocated registering firearms and licensing owners, yet it is ready to go to court to prevent school officials from checking student lockers for illegal weapons.) Their objective appears to be to use criminals to frighten a disarmed populace into demanding more oppressive laws and a stronger police state.
    Gun controllers plan to disarm the population piecemeal until all handguns and long guns are removed from the general population. If they were to try to ban all guns at once, their opposition would be too great; and they would be trounced and routed.
    Gun controllers usually take the approach of advocating banning “Saturday night specials” (whatever that is) in the name of fighting crime. (Is it not amusing that these worshipers of the “poor” want to disarm the poor, who are victimized by criminals more than the well-to-do, by outlawing cheap guns?) Eliminating this class of firearm will not reduce crime. Then the gun controllers will push for abolishing all handguns in the name of reducing crime. Even this ban will not reduce crime — as will be shown below. Next, the gun controllers will go after rifles and shotguns. He can now achieve his goal of banning all privately owned guns, but crime will still not be reduced.
    If everyone, except the police and military, were completely disarmed, the government (police and military) would possess a monopoly of legal firepower. The disarmed civilians would stand naked before the government and would become, like the Chinese peasants, defenseless victims of whatever the government wishes to do with or to them. To have a defenseless populace is the gun controllers’ goal. Only when the people lack the means to resist effectively oppressive government will the liberals feel secure in remaking mankind in their own image. (A government that cannot trust an independently heavily armed citizenry is a government that cannot be trusted and is in need of replacement.) Even if criminals were initially disarmed along with the law-abiding, they would soon rearm themselves by stealing weapons from the police and military. The disarmed population would be easy prey for them.
    Great Britain has very stringent gun laws. Private ownership of a gun is allowed only under the most extraordinary circumstances. Carrying a gun is illegal. Since Great Britain abolished the death penalty in the late 1960's, the use of firearms in the commission of crimes has risen dramatically: thus evidencing the deterrent effect of capital punishment.
    Great Britain also depicts the path followed by gun controllers. Handguns were banned to curb violent crime. Naturally, this ban proved a failure. So the government did what governments are prone to do; instead of admitting that it was wrong and repealing its bad laws, it extended controls to long guns. There is much greater use of guns in crimes today with stringent gun control laws than there was before 1920 when there were no gun control laws.
    To conceal their real reason for disarming private citizens, gun controllers resort to a number of sophisms.
    Gun controllers often claim that much of today’s crime problem arises from a heritage of frontier violence and lawlessness. This myth is debunked by a study done by Roger McGrath, a professor of history at UCLA.
    McGrath’s study shows that shootings generally occurred among roughnecks, badmen, hoodlums, and other similar characters. The law-abiding citizens, the young, the old, and women (except prostitutes) were seldom involved in shootings. These people have now become the principal victims of many of today’s shootings.
    His study also shows that the crimes that are most common today — robbery, theft, burglary, and rape — were of no great significance in the old west. Rape was almost nonexistent. A principal reason for the lack of these crimes was the widespread ownership of firearms. This widespread ownership of firearms and the willingness to use them contributed greatly to the relative safety of the average citizen.
    Highwaymen hesitated to rob stagecoaches with armed guards. Instead, they held up unguarded coaches. Then they usually limited their theft to the express box. They feared taking money and valuables from passengers, for they knew such action would put an angry posse of citizens ready to turn to vigilantism on their trail. Fear of swift and sure penalty deterred their greed.
    Banks were seldom robbed because employees were armed. Individuals were seldom robbed because most were armed and willing to fight. Most victims of robbery were staggering drunk. Again fear of swift and sure penalty deterred the thief's greed.
    McGrath’s study shows that instead of encouraging crime and violence, the widespread private ownership of guns discourages them. The law-abiding citizen is more secure armed than he is disarmed.
    Gun controllers claim that guns need to be controlled to prevent accidental death by shooting. They claim that accidental death by gunshot is at or near the top of the list of accidental deaths. On the contrary, accidental death by shooting is near the bottom. Less than 2 percent of all accidental deaths are caused by firearms. Almost 27 times as many people die of automobile accidents as from accidental shootings. More than six times as many die of falls; and three times as many, from drowning. If the objective is to reduce accidental death, causes other than firearms need to be emphasized.
    Gun controllers claim that registration and licensing will reduce death by shooting as well as the number of violent deaths in general. Unfortunately, this claim is false. Two deadly objects exist in the United States in approximately the same number. One object is registered, and its users are licensed while the other object is seldom registered and its users are seldom licensed. Which object is involved in the greater number of deaths? The gun controllers would claim that the unregistered object with unlicensed users would cause a greater number of deaths. They would be wrong. More people in the United States die by automobiles than by firearms. There are about as many privately owned firearms in the United States as automobiles. Most firearms are unregistered and most of their users are unlicensed. Automobiles are registered, and their users are licensed. Yet the automobile is involved in more deaths. Almost 40 percent more people die of automobile accidents than from gunshots, including murder and suicide. Registration and licensing do not deter death.
    Registration is often more of a hindrance to police than a help. Criminals steal most guns used in crime. Registration does not lead police to the criminal but to the unfortunate person whose gun has been stolen and who must now prove his innocence.
    Cuba and Germany offer examples as to why the registration of firearms needs to be opposed. In Cuba Batista, who ruled Cuba before Castro, required gun owners to be licensed and to register their guns. The police records contained a description of the weapon along with its owner’s picture and fingerprints. When Castro overthrew Batista, he confiscated all the guns in Cuba: A task that Batista’s registration system made very easy.
    In Germany, Hitler enacted a law that required a person to have a permit to buy a gun and another permit to own a gun. Of course, Jews and other undesirables, those in the greatest need of weapons to protect themselves from Hitler’s oppression, were denied permits. The permits left a paper trail that made the confiscation of guns very easy. Hitler was, however, thoughtful enough to exempt high-ranking governmental officials, the police (regular and secret), and certain other governmental agents from his gun control law. Thus, he disarmed the victims of his oppression while arming their oppressors.
    Gun controllers claim that homeowners are safer if they offer no resistance to burglars and that homeowners are more likely to be injured if they resist with a gun. Gun controllers often claim that a person who uses a gun for protection is more likely to be injured than someone who offers no resistance. They also claim that private ownership of guns does not deter crime. A study by Dr. Gary Kleck of Florida State University refutes these claims.
    He estimates that firearms are used defensively by private citizens about one million times per year in the United States. In more than 60 percent of these incidents, handguns are used. He has found that guns are used more often defensively than criminally. Most of the time the weapon is not fired and the criminal is not injured. Less than 2 percent of the time is anyone killed or wounded. Between 1500 and 2800 criminals are killed annually by private citizens using firearms in self-defense. This is about two and a half to seven times as many as are killed by police.
    Kleck’s study shows that victims of robbery or assault who use guns for protection are less likely to be attacked or injured than are victims who respond otherwise, including not resisting at all. There is a much greater chance of being hurt during an assault (two and a half times as great) or robbery (one and a half times as great) by not resisting at all than by using a gun for protection. In a majority of cases where a person who uses a gun for protection is injured, the injury preceded the use of the gun to resist. Also, those who use guns against would-be robbers are less likely to lose their property than those who use other means of resistance or who do nothing.
    The chances of a burglar or other violent criminal encountering a private citizen who will use a gun against him is as great as being arrested. Of course, the potential victim wielding a gun is much more of a deterrent than the future threat of an arrest because the consequence is immediate and potentially more severe than any punishment offered by the legal system.
    In the United States where many households are armed, burglars tend to avoid occupied dwellings. In countries where private gun ownership is much less than in the United States, burglars are much more likely to enter occupied houses. Burglars fear facing an armed homeowner. This fear reduces confrontations between burglars and victims. The result is fewer deaths and injuries. Thus, firearms reduce death and injury.
    The armed homeowner and storekeeper offer a much greater deterrent to crime than do the police and court system. The police and court system are not designed to prevent crime, but to apprehend and punish after a crime has been committed. The armed homeowner and storekeeper offer a quick, sure, and severe penalty that is directly and immediately related to the crime. This action is a much greater deterrent to crime than the police and court system where arrest and conviction are lengthy and uncertain.
    Kleck’s study also shows that where gun ownership and training are highly publicized, crime tends to decline. His study clearly demonstrates that laws that reduce the ownership of guns by law-abiding citizens would benefit the criminals of society. Widespread ownership of guns by the law-abiding reduces crimes and their concomitant injuries and deaths.
    Gun control laws make self-defense a crime. Perhaps the most notable case is the Bernhard Goetz case. Goetz shot four men in self-defense on a New York subway. The jury found him innocent of all charges brought against him except violating New York’s gun law. For violating that law he was sentenced to six months in prison, fined $5000, and directed to undergo psychiatric treatment (shades of the Soviet Union) plus other penalties. There are other examples of people being punished for using a gun in self-defense. A man in the District of Columbia holds three burglars with his pistol until the police arrive to take them into custody. The three thieves are set free while the man is charged with possessing an improperly registered handgun. In Massachusetts, a man shoots and kills another man who is trying to knife him. The jury acquits him of all charges, but the judge sentences him to the mandatory one-year imprisonment for failing to obtain a license for his handgun. In Oak Park, Illinois a filling station operator is arrested for possessing a handgun (private ownership of handguns is prohibited in Oak Park) when he used it to shoot at some robbers that held him at gunpoint. The result of gun control laws is to penalize an otherwise law-abiding citizen.
    Firearms are the “great equalizer.” They enable a small weak person to stand on equal footing with a larger, stronger adversary. Is it not odd that the same egalitarians who constantly aver the political equality of democracy, economic equality of socialism, and social equality of integration object so strongly to the greatest physical egalitarian invention of man, the gun? They oppose private ownership of guns because they realize that their mad dreams of equality can only be achieved by oppression. If the victims of their egalitarian nightmare are armed, then the victims are on more equal footing with the government and are more capable of successfully resisting oppression.
    In the present union, which Yankeedom controls, law-abiding Southerners must always fear having their guns confiscated and, thereby, being placed at the mercy of criminals and despotic government. The time has come to alleviate this fear. The time has come for a free and independent confederation of free and independent Southern States in which law-abiding Southerners may possess guns without fear of molestation and may use them to protect themselves from criminals and despotic government.

Copyright © 1988 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More articles on social issues.

The Results of Supporting Zionism and Israel

The Results of Supporting Zionism and Israel
Thomas Allen

[Editor’s note: The following is the “Epilogue” from Zionism: A Brief History, 1800-1949 by Thomas Coley Allen (Franklinton, North Carolina: TC Allen Co., 2007)].

If Zionism is of God, why is it every great country that has been an active supporter of Zionism has faded? Great Britain was the greatest power in the world before World War I. During that war, it threw its lot with Zionism, and its empire was lost during the following decades. Nazi Germany supported Zionism and died shortly afterwards. The Soviet Union covertly supported Zionism, and it is no more.

The most ardent supporter of Zionism today is the United States. With a nearly omnipotent, omnipresent government, the United States are no longer the country to which the Declaration of Independence gave birth. They are rapidly fading as the economic giant of the world. With unlimited immigration, the population is quickly becoming that of a third-world country. Zionism is swiftly reducing the United States to an impotent third-world corrupt police state.

For fear of the Jews, American political leaders gravel at the altar of Zionism. They place the interest of Israel ahead of America’s interest. Because of this slavish support of Zionism, America is no longer a Christian country. It is much closer to the old Soviet Union than the country to which the Declaration of Independence gave birth.

Judeo-Christians[1] like to quote Genesis 12:3[2] and claim that America must support Israel without hesitation or question. If America supports Israel, it will be blessed. If not, it will be cursed. They ignore 2 Chronicles 19:2 and 1 John 2: 22, 23.[3]

No country comes close to supporting Israel as much as America has. Without American succor, Israel would not exist. How has America been blessed?

Here is a short list of blessings. Tens of millions of babies have been sacrificed to Lucifer in the abortion mills. Homosexuals are now considered normal and acceptable, even to the point of having their unions legally recognized. Miscegenation (adultery) is accelerating. Nonwhites are overrunning the country and will soon be a majority. Divorce is rampant. With Waco, Oklahoma City, and 9-11, the United States government has declared war on the American people so that the American people will give those who control the government absolute power over their lives. America has become a police state. Patriotism has been subverted from doing what is best for the country to unquestionable obedience to the President. Christianity, Western Civilization, and the Aryan people are dying. Children are no longer educated but are taught to be slaves of the illuministic controlled government. America is the greatest debtor country in history. Decadence, moral decay, crime, gambling, pornography, and drug abuse are growing. Self-reliance, freedom, security, and prosperity are fading. Even the United States themselves are on the verge of vanishing as one treaty and international agreement after another strip them of their sovereignty. It sounds more like America has been cursed rather than blessed for its support of Israel.

Surely, if today’s Jews are God’s chosen people and if God wanted them to return to Palestine, God would have rewarded those countries that were obedient to His plan. These countries would have prospered in peace and spiritual growth. Instead, they have undergone wars, moral decay, economic decline, and oppressive governments.

Why? God says in 2 Chronicles 19:2, “. . . Shouldest thou help the un-Godly? And love them that hate the Lord; therefore is wrath upon thee from before the Lord.” Thus, countries that have allied themselves with Jews in general and Zionists in particular, both of whom hate the Son of God and therefore his Father, have suffered God’s wrath.

In spite of the overwhelming evidence that God does not bless supporters of Israel or Zionism, Zionists, both Jew and Judeo-Christian, continue to show their arrogance. They proudly proclaim, “I will be like the Most High” (Isaiah 14:14b) as they insist on placing their will above God’s as He inflicts them with one curse after another.

Isaiah summed up the Zionist movement when he wrote, “Their feet run to evil, and they make hast to shed innocent blood: their thoughts are thoughts of iniquity; wasting and destruction are in their paths. The way of peace they know not; and there is no judgment in their goings: they have made them crooked paths: whosoever goeth therein shall not know peace.” (Isaiah 59:7-8)

“Zionism is a man-made scheme which is doomed for failure. . . .”[4]

ENDNOTES
1. About “Judeo-Christians,” Joshua Jehouda, a spiritual leader of Judaism, remarks, “The current expression ‘Judaeo-Christian is an error which has altered the course of universal history by the confusion it has sown in men’s minds, if by it one is meant to understand the Jewish origin of Christianity; for by abolishing the fundamental distinction between Jewish and Christian messianism, it seeks to bring together two ideas that are radically in opposition. . . . If the term ‘Judaeo-Christian’ does not point to a common origin, there is no doubt that it is a most dangerous idea. It is based on a ‘contradictio in adjecto,’ which has set the path of history on the wrong track. It links in one breath two ideas which are completely irreconcilable, it seeks to demonstrate that there is no difference between day and night or hot and cold or black and white, and thus introduces a fatal element of confusion to a basis on which some, nevertheless, are endeavoring to construct civilisation. . . . It is the obstinate Christian claim to be the sole heir to Israel which propagates anti-Semitism” (Poncins, Judaism and the Vatican, pp. 30-31).

2. Genesis 12:3 reads, “And I [God] will bless them that bless thee [Abraham]; and curse him that curseth thee.” What the Judeo-Christians ignore is that God made this promise to Abraham, not his descendants. Even if it applied to his descendants, they ignore that Abraham is a Hebrew, not a Jew. If this promise carries any weight today, Christians should support the Arabs of the Middle East and oppose the Jews of Israel. Many Arabs in the Middle East have a plausible claim to being descendants of Abraham. Only a few Jews have such a plausible claim.

Verse 3 ends with “and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.” Does this blessing come through the Jews as the Zionists and Judeo-Christians claim? Or does it come through Christ?

Judeo-Christians and Zionists who use this verse for unquestionable, unhesitating support of Zionism and Israel in reality demand blessing those, Jews, who curse Christ and seek to destroy Christianity.

Far too many Christians ignorantly confuse “the Israel of God,” the Israel of the Bible, with the modern state of Israel, a state brought into existence by political maneuvering, terrorism, and military might. Their Judeo-Christian leaders, who seem to place Zionism and Jews above Christ, encourage and feed this ignorance. Actually, the European Aryans more closely fit the description of God’s chosen people than the Jews. European Aryans have been the people who have blessed mankind with their creativity and by spreading the teachings of Jesus. (See Genesis 28:14)

Much of the ignorance of Christians and corruption of Christianity comes from Jewish control of the Christian Church. As Harold Rosenthal remarked, “Judaism is not only the teaching of the synagogue, but also the doctrine of every ‘Christian Church’ in America. Through our propaganda, the Church has become our most avid supporter. This has even given us a special place in society, their believing the lie that we are the ‘chosen people’ and they, gentiles. These deluded children of the Church defend us to the point of destroying their own culture.” (“The Harold Wallace Rosenthal Interview, 1976").

3. This passage is one of the many texts that Zionists, Jews, and Judeophiles, use to prove that the New Testament is anti-Semitic. Perhaps the most anti-Semitic passage is John 8:44 where Jesus tells the Pharisee leaders that “Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. . . .” This passage proves that Jesus is an anti-Semite.

4. Gordon Mohr, The Enemy Within, p. 34.

Copyright © 2007 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More articles on politics.

Gold-Exchange Standard

Gold-Exchange Standard
Thomas Allen

[Editor’s notes: Footnotes in the original are omitted.]

When forced to be on a gold standard, governments promote the gold exchange standard— especially if it is the government whose currency is to be the world’s reserve currency. The gold exchange standard is a pseudo gold standard that gives the illusion and prestige of being on the gold standard without the discipline of the gold standard. Governments like the gold exchange standard because it allows them to manipulate their currency domestically. It allows the reserve currency country to export its inflation.

Greaves gives the following description of the gold exchange standard:

(1) The domestic monetary unit is legally defined as the equivalent of a certain fixed weight of gold, called the parity rate; (2) Only money-substitutes are held by individuals and used in domestic business transactions, i.e., there are no domestic gold coins; (3) The national monetary authority maintains the value of all money-substitutes at the legally set parity rate by redeeming in gold such money-substitutes as a holder desires to use abroad at the legal parity rate or at rates between the gold export and import points . . . of such parity; (4) The national monetary authority, as the only official domestic holder of gold and foreign exchange, exchanges all imports of gold and foreign exchange into domestic legal tender money substitutes at the legal parity rate or at rates between the gold export and import points of such rates.

The gold exchange standard makes it possible for the national monetary authority to keep a part of its reserves not in gold but in foreign bank balances which are redeemable in gold.[1]

After World War I, the term came “to mean a monetary system for which reserves are held in foreign currencies convertible into gold, as well as in gold itself.”[2]

Bradford describes the gold exchange standard as follows:

Under a full gold exchange standard, the moneys of the country are not redeemed in gold coin or bullion, but in drafts payable in gold in some foreign gold standard country. As a result, although gold can be exchanged for the money of the country at a fixed price, it is impossible to turn the money into gold on the spot except by the payment of a premium equal to the cost of shipping gold from the foreign gold standard country to the country on the gold exchange standard.

The price of gold in a gold exchange standard country may vary, therefore, by an amount equal to the cost of importing the gold. Nevertheless, these limits are rigidly fixed and relatively narrow, so that it is really the value of a given weight of gold which fixes the value of the moneys of the country.[3]

Governments created the gold-exchange standard. It is a politically created system and not a product of the markets. It allows governments and their central banks to manipulate international gold flows for political reasons. The government holds the reserves of its foreign claims in gold. Most of the world’s gold ends in the vaults of a few central banks. Gold is subordinated to governmental policies and goals. Because of domestic inflation, against which it offers little resistance, the gold-exchange standard becomes unstable and dysfunctional. Although it offers little resistance to the inflation that a government can generate, it offers enough to cause governments to abandon it within a decade or two.

Under the gold exchange standard, the domestic economy operates on a fiat paper monetary system. Domestically, paper money is not redeemable in gold coin or bullion.

The only way that paper money can be converted into gold is for a foreign government, its central bank, or another approved institution to demand that the country whose currency it holds redeem it in gold. Then the government redeeming the currency has to pay the cost of shipping the gold.

Under the gold exchange standard as operated in the twentieth century, the currency of one country is declared to be the reserve currency. (During the 1920s, the reserve currency was the British pound. Between 1944 and 1971, the U.S. dollar was the reserve currency.) The reserved currency country defined its monetary unit to equal a certain weight of gold. Other countries defined their monetary unit to equal so many units of the reserve currency. In reality the gold exchange standard of the 1920s was a British pound standard. The one after World War II was really the U.S. dollar standard.

Before World War I, a few countries that were not on the gold-coin standard had adopted some form of the gold exchange standard. Among them were Austria-Hungary, Russia, Japan, Argentina, and India. They did not want to adopt a gold-coin standard. Yet they wanted the stability in foreign trade and exchange that the gold-coin standard provided. They sought this stability in the gold exchange standard.

After World War I other European countries adopted a gold exchange standard. Many countries, such as Germany, Italy, and Russia, had depleted their gold stock. They did not want to or could not acquire enough gold to maintain a gold stock sufficient to redeem their domestic currencies. An advantage identified by Robertson is that the reserve currency “can easily and speedily be released for investment in more lucrative securities, and again built again out of the proceeds of the sale of such securities, in accordance with the changing needs of the situation; whereas the trundling of gold to and from market is a relatively cumbrous and expensive proceeding.”[4] Thus, the gold-exchange standard can be a convenient and profitable system for the government involved. It can be so convenient and profitable for governments that even countries with adequate gold stocks, such as France, turned to it.

During World War I, Great Britain had suspended the gold standard. Like the other warring countries, it paid for the war with inflation. After the war, it wanted to regain the monetary prestige that it had before the war. To do this, it believed that it had to return to the gold standard at its prewar rate, about $4.86 per ounce of gold. However, because of its wartime inflation, it could not without a significant devaluation of its currency. It did not want to devalue the pound. To avoid devaluation, Great Britain persuaded the other European countries to adopt the gold exchange standard. This was accomplished at the Genoa Conference of 1922.

In 1925, Great Britain initiated the system outlined at the Genoa Conference. During the following three years, most important countries join the gold exchange system. The notable exception was the United States. However, the Federal Reserve did conspire with the Bank of England to ensure the system would operate without formal devaluation of the pound. To prevent devaluation of the pound, the Federal Reserve had to inflate, i.e., devalue the dollar.

Rothbard described the adopted standard as follows:

Instead of each nation issuing currency directly redeemable in gold, it was to keep its reserves in the form of sterling balances in London, which in turn would undertake to redeem sterling in gold. In that way, other countries would pyramid their currencies on top of pounds, and pounds themselves were being inflated throughout the 1920s. Britain could then print pounds without worrying about the accumulated sterling balances being redeemed in gold.[5]

Great Britain could export its inflation almost without penalty. The inflation could continue as long as no country demand redemption or until the economies became so distorted that they broke down. The system finally collapsed in 1931 into the Great Depression. (The inflation caused under the gold exchange standard lead to the Great Depression.)

The gold exchanged standard adopted after World War I was a partial gold exchange standard. Countries maintained part of their reserves in gold and part in foreign currencies. “In such instances, if gold was wanted for use in the arts it could be obtained at a fixed price for that purpose. On the other hand, if the gold was needed for export, the central bank had the option of redeeming its notes in a draft payable in gold in a foreign center.”[6] Thus, in theory at least, “the value of the gold in the money unit fixed the value of the other moneys as closely as in a gold coin or gold bullion standard country.”

In 1944 under the lead of the United States, the leading countries of the world again adopted a gold exchange standard. This system became known as the Bretton Woods international monetary system. Under this system, foreign countries fixed (pegged) their currencies in the U.S. dollar. They maintained this fixed rate of exchange by buying and selling dollars in foreign-exchange markets. The U.S. dollar was fixed (pegged) in gold at $35 per ounce of gold. “Only the United States undertook to buy and sell gold at a fixed rate of exchange in transactions with foreign monetary authorities.”[7] Devaluation was only allowed when a country had inflated at a rate so much greater than the United States that it had depleted its dollar reserves.

The Bretton Wood system collapsed because during the 1950s and especially the 1960s the United States were inflating faster than most other countries. As a result, these countries accumulated excessive quantities of dollars. When they had accumulated too many dollars, they began to demand gold for dollars. Collapse of the system came in 1971 when the United States refused to redeem in gold the dollars for which foreign countries demanded redemption. This action ended the Bretton Wood gold exchange system. (Before 1960, the U.S. monetary gold stock exceeded the liabilities of the U.S. government. By 1971, its monetary stock was less than one-sixth of its liquid liabilities.[8]) With the collapse of the gold exchange system, the world entered the realm of pure fiat money with floating exchange rates determined by supply and demand on foreign-exchange markets.

Under the gold exchange standard as it operated in the 1920s and under Bretton Wood, countries were not on a gold standard. They were on the British pound standard in the 1920s and the U.S. dollar standard under Bretton Wood. Their reserves were mostly British pounds and U.S. dollars, and not gold.

Furthermore, the gold exchange standard allows double counting of gold. Each ounce of gold backing the reserve currency is counted as backing the reserve currency. It is also counted as backing the currencies of foreign countries whose currencies the reserve currency backs.

Because countries fixed their currencies to the reserve currency, the gold exchange standard tied the together all their currencies. This fixed exchanged caused the prices and incomes of the difference countries to be interconnected.

Countries on the gold exchange standard do not adjust their currencies to the market valuation of gold. They adjust their currency to the reserve currency, which is based on gold. Thus, one purported advantage is that during financial crisis, these countries do not have to import gold. The crisis is resolved with the domestic currency, which has no direct dependency on gold. (If the country had been operating of the gold-coin standard, the crisis probably would not have occurred.)

Under the gold exchange standard, governments control the international movements of monetary gold. This control allows governmental leaders to conspire to coordinate their domestic inflation of paper money. They do this because only governments or their central banks can redeem the reserve currency in gold. The reserve currency country can inflate with little danger of losing gold because their currency expansion increases the reserves of other countries. This increase allows the other countries to inflate. Only when the reserve currency country begins inflating at a rate much greater than other countries does it begin to loss gold, which eventually leads to the collapse of the system.

The gold exchange standard encourages the reserve currency country to pay for its welfare-warfare state through inflation instead of taxation. Under the gold exchange standard, the reserve currency country exports much of the excess currency to buy foreign goods. Foreign governments need to obtain the reserve currency to pay for their imports. To prevent the system from collapsing, they must accumulate the excess reserve currency. Thus, domestic prices in the reserve currency country, such as the Untied States between 1944 and 1971, do not rise as high as they otherwise would.

The gold exchange standard encourages devaluation of currencies because it makes devaluation easy. A country has no gold coins to call in, i.e., to steal from the people, or outlaws as money as Roosevelt did in 1933. Gold coins do not circulate in most countries on the gold exchange standard. Thus, it allows the devaluating country to cheat its international creditors by reducing the gold that it was obliged to pay.

Individual holders of the reserve currency cannot redeem their paper money. They may be allowed to own gold and gold coins, but neither the banks nor the government will redeem either the reserve currency or its own currency in gold on demand. Only foreign governments and their central banks or other governmentally approved agencies can exchange the reserve currency for gold and then only for large bars, 400 ounces or more. This restriction on redemption takes the control the money supply from the people and gives it to those who really control the government.

A major problem with the gold exchange standard is that it gives the government the power to manipulate its currency. Of coarse, this is a major reason that governments prefer the gold exchange standard to the gold-coin standard, which greatly restricts government’s ability to manipulate the country’s money. Governments have used the gold exchange standard to carry out their inflationary monetary policies.

The gold exchanged standard relies on a country’s monetary gold being concentrated in a single institution. A central bank places the country’s gold under its control and usually in its possession. (During the gold exchange standard under Bretton Wood, the U.S. government possessed the country’s monetary gold.) Thus, central banking is a prerequisite to the gold exchange standard.

The gold exchange standard bridges the gap between the gold-coin standard of the nineteenth century and the pure fiat monetary standard of today. Under the gold-coin standard, the exchange rate of foreign currencies is fixed in the weight of gold in the coin. Under the gold exchange standard, countries fix their exchange rate in the reserve country’s currency, which in turn is fixed in gold. This system allowed a great deal of inflation until countries start redeeming the reserve currency for gold.

ENDNOTES
1. Percy L. Greaves, Jr., Mises Made Easier: A Glossary for Ludwig von Mises’ Human Action (Dobbs Ferry, New York: Free Market Books, 1974), p. 53.

2. Ibid., p. 54.

3. Frederick A. Bradford, Money and Banking (New York, New York: Longmans, Green and Co., 1938), pp. 25-26.

4. D.H. Robertson, Money (Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press, 1957), p. 64.

5. Murray N. Rothbard, The Mystery of Banking (Second ed. Auburn, Alabama: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2008), p. 244.

6. Bradford, p. 26.

7. Lawrence H. White, Competition and Currency: Essays on Free Banking and Money (New York, New York: New York University Press, 1989), p. 144.

8. Ibid., p. 145.

[Editor’s note: List of references in original is omitted.]

Copyright © 2010 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More articles on money.

The Great Depression

The Great Depression
Thomas Allen

[Editor’s note: Footnotes in original are omitted.]

An important aspect of World War I was that it had transferred enormous wealth to the international financiers while enslaving the American people. World War I was the cap stone of a process that began with the Great Depression to transfer massive amounts of wealth to the Illuminists and to convert the United States into a fascist country controlled by the Illuminists.

The most important actor in causing the Great Depression was the Bank of England, headed by Montagu Norman, who was called “the currency director of Europe,” in conjunction with the British government and the international financiers in the City of London. Benjamin Strong, the governor of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, was Norman’s chief American coconspirator in this endeavor. Strong had great influence over Andrew Mellon, Secretary of the Treasury for Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover. In Germany, Norman’s chief coconspirator was Hjalmar Schacht, Governor of the German Reichsbank and later Hitler’s Finance Minister.

In 1925, Montagu Norman, Hjalmar Schacht, and Charles Rist (deputy governor of the Bank of France) came to New York and met with Benjamin Strong. The purpose of this meeting was to inflate the money supply in the United States, which was done by lowering the interest rate in the United States. Norman returned in 1927 to promote once again inflation and speculation. Again the Federal Reserve System cut the interest rate. The 1928-1929 bull market resulted. In 1929, Norman visited Mellon in Washington. Soon after this visit, the Federal Reserve System abandoned its easy money policy, began raising interest rates, and contracting the money supply. Furthermore, to collapse the speculative bubble in the United States, the Bank of England began raising interest rates in Great Britain. The bubble burst.

The Illuminists put Franklin Roosevelt, who was a high degree Illuminist and a shrewd servant of the international financiers, into office in 1933 to do their bidding. They were through with President Herbert Hoover and wanted to replace him with Roosevelt. They wanted Roosevelt to bring fascism to the United States, which he did by building on and expanding programs that Hoover had started. Once in office, Roosevelt processed to complete the work begun by President Woodrow Wilson to reduce the American people to slavery under the crushing power of the international financiers.

The Illuminists created the Great Depression and used it to make Roosevelt President. The Great Depression started during Hoover’s first year as President. Between 1923 and 1929, the Federal Reserve System greatly expanded (inflated) the money supply. Then the bankers who controlled the Federal Reserve System started the Great Depression by greatly contracting the money supply. Although the Federal Reserve System could have alleviated much of the misery by expanding the money supply, which the law required it to do so, it did not. (If it had complied with the law, it would not have expanded the money supply during World War I and the 1920s.) When Roosevelt took office, the Federal Reserve System began expanding the money supply by creating money to buy government securities.

Congressman Louis McFadden, Chairman of the House Banking and Currency Committee, correctly explained the Great Depression, “It was not accidental. It was a carefully contrived occurrence. . . . The international bankers sought to bring about a condition of despair here so that they might emerge as the rulers of us all.”[1]

To ensure that Roosevelt would do their bidding, the Illuminist surrounded him with their agents. Among them were five communist agents: Alger Hiss, John Abt, Nathan Witt, Nathaniel Weyl, and Charles Kramer. Another agent was Stuart Chase, a Fabian, who believed in executing people who did not obey the government’s economic edits and who is credited with writing Roosevelt’s order stealing the gold owned by Americans.

Through Roosevelt and their other agents in his administration, the Illuminists destroyed most of what remained of the United States Constitution. One of the biggest achievements of the Illuminists was transferring legislative powers from Congress to “independent” presidentially controlled boards and commissions, which the Illuminists could more easily control than they could control Congress.

Another coup achieved by the Illuminists was to control that they gained over the States, universities, and farmers with federal aid and over business and labor unions with contract money. They also gained controlled over business, labor unions, farmers, and universities through new regulatory agencies. (Illuminists used these controls to prolong the Great Depression.) The success of this illuministic coup was guaranteed when Roosevelt appointed four Illuminists to the United States Supreme Court: Hugo Black, Felix Frankfurter, Stanley Reed, and William O. Douglas.

Once in office, Roosevelt raised taxes enormously. By greatly increasing public indebtedness, he transferred debt from the rich to the poor.

He outlawed gold as domestic money and forced Americans to exchange their gold for federal reserve notes. While Americans received $20.67 per ounce of gold that they were forced to sell to the Federal Reserve System, foreigners received $35.00 an ounce after Roosevelt devalued the dollar.

Claiming that he was going to bring prosperity, he greatly increased federal expenditures. Yet, he and the bankers knew that the Federal Reserved System, which they controlled, would not allow prosperity to return until the war that they wanted occurred. War was to the way to prosperity that they chose. Posing as the protector of the common man and as a great philanthropist, he gave the people insufferable debt and taxes.

The purpose and result of the Great Depression were (1) to punish the American people for not joining the League of Nations, (2) to increase greatly Illuminists’ control over business and finance in the United States, and (3) to bring about an enormously larger intrusive government. Illuminists who knew in advance that the international financiers were going to crash the stock market and economy, many lesser Illuminists lack this knowledge, sold their stock holdings early. Then, after the average stock price fell 90 percent, they bought blue chip companies far below their natural price. They were able to consolidate industries under their control.

Roosevelt prolonged the Great Depression to give the Rockefellers and other Illuminists more opportunity to buy stocks cheaply. It was also prolonged so that the United States government could usurp more power. The more people suffered, or perceived themselves suffering, the more willing they would be to sell their birthright and enslave themselves to the Illuminists, who controlled the United States government, for a morsel of security. The longer the misery lasted, the more willing the people would be to exchange their liberty for the security of slavery—though they would not perceive, or admit, that they were slaves.

With the Great Depression and World War II, Roosevelt crushed the American people under undreamed of federal control for the benefit of the Illuminists and their New World Order. He enslaved them for the Illuminists.

To transfer enormous amounts of wealth to the Rothschilds and other international financiers, the Bretton Woods pact was created. Its documents were made inviolable and placed beyond the reach of any government or court. It was exempted from taxation, so no government could levy taxes on any of its earnings. Furthermore, its officers and personnel were placed above the law in that they were immune from legal processes. Out of the Bretton Wood pact came the general agreement on tariffs and trade (GATT), which destroyed the British Empire and is now destroying the American empire.

More importantly than leading the United States into war, was Roosevelt’s deathblow to the Constitution. Roosevelt completed the work of converting the United States from a federal republic under common law to a fascist democratic state governed by bureaucratic fiat. Collective responsibility replaced individual responsibility.

Endnote
Gary Allen, None Dare Call It Conspiracy (Seal Beach, California: Concord Press, n.d.), p.55.

References
Allen, Gary. None Dare Call It Conspiracy. Seal Beach, California: Concord Press, n.d.

Allen, Gary. The Rockefeller File Secret. Seal Beach, California: '76 Press, 1976.

Cuddy, Dennis L. The Globalists: The Power Elite Exposed. Oklahoma City, Oklahoma: Hearthstone Publishing, 2001.

Cuddy, Dennis L. Now Is the Dawning of the New Age New World Order. Oklahoma City, Oklahoma: Hearthstone Publishing, 2000.

Davidson, Mary M. The Profound Revolution. Omaha, Nebraska: The Greater Nebraskan, n.d.

Griffin, Des. Anti-Semitism and the Babylonian Connection. Clackamas, Oregon: Emissary Publications, 1992.

Larson, Martin A. The Federal Reserve and Our Manipulated Dollar. Old Greenwich, Connecticut: The Devin-Adair Company, 1975.

Mullins, Eustace. Secrets of the Federal Reserve. 1991.

Mullins, Eustace. The World Order: Our Secret Rulers. Second edition. Staunton, Virginia: Ezra Pound Institute of Civilization, 1992.

Roberts, Archibald E. Emerging Struggle for State Sovereignty. Fort Collins, Colorado: Betsy Ross Press, 1979.

Still, William T. New World Order: The Ancient Plan of Secret Societies. Lafayette, Louisiana: Huntington House Publishers, 1990.

Stormer, John A. The Death of a Nation. Florissant, Missouri: Liberty Bell Press, 1968.

Stormer, John A. None Dare Call It Treason. Florissant, Missouri: Liberty Bell Press, 1964.

Copyright © 2010 by Thomas Coley Allen.

   More articles on history.

World War II

World War II
Thomas Allen

[Editor’s note: Footnotes in the original are omitted.]

Through their international banks and multinational corporations, the Illuminists had prepared Germany and Hitler for the upcoming war. The Illuminists wanted a world war among the Aryan people, and they wanted it to last long enough to slaughter tens of millions as sacrifices to Lucifer. They wanted war to scare the American people into accepting world government to prevent such a war from occurring in the future. They had brought Hitler to power in Germany so that he would lead Germany to war and bring about another world war that would lead to the establishment of world government. Consequently, British and American bankers, industrials, and politicians supported Hitter up to and, in some cases, through World War II.

To provide Germany with funds necessary for war, the Illuminists had to end the crippling debt that they had forced on Germany. To end the debt payments, they got Hoover elected President. Paul and Felix Warburg financed much of Hoover’s campaign for the presidency. They were acting on behalf of Kuhn, Loeb and Co., J&W Seligman Co., and J. Henry Schroder Banking Co. They put Hoover in office so that he could place a moratorium on German war debts, which he did in 1931. The purpose of the debt moratorium was to intend not to help Germany, but to provide Germany money for rearming.

After Hitler became Chancellor of Germany, Illuminists in the British government began pushing for war with Germany. Jewish Illuminists also began planning a war against Germany. (Jews saw war as the means to achieve two of their goals, which Emil Ludwig, a German Jewish writer, described as “socialism as the national expedient, and the United States of Europe as the international policy.”[1])

To entice Hitler into war, he was allowed to occupy the Rhineland and Sudetenland of Czechoslovakia. (The illuministic Round Table Group prevented the British government from stopping Hitler’s annexation of the Rhineland and Sudetenland.) France had provoked Hitler into occupying the Rhineland. Under the Treaty of Locarno, the Rhineland was to remain free of Germany troops. By remilitarizing the Rhineland in 1936, Hitler violated the treaty. However, France had violated the treaty earlier in 1936 when it ratified a military pact with the Soviet Union. This pact violated the Treaty of Locarno. Czechoslovakia also violated the Treaty of Locarno when it entered into a military pact with the Soviet Union. After this violation, Hitler occupied the Sudetenland while the British Round Table Group supported and encouraged his occupation. His occupation of the Rhineland and Sudetenland were unopposed. Neville Chamberlain went as far as to sign a pact with Hitler in 1938. So, Hitler thought that he would receive no opposition to his invasion of Poland.

Hitler believed that Communism was a conspiracy of the Jewish international bankers to enslave mankind to maintain their credit monopoly. He saw Communism as a great threat to mankind and wanted an alliance with Great Britain to oppose the Soviet Union. Apparently, he failed to realize that Great Britain and the Soviet Union were controlled by the same people—who were the same people that had brought him to power. When Great Britain refused an alliance with Germany against the Soviet Union, Hitler made a pact with Stalin.

Further to entice Germany into war, Stalin signed a nonaggression pact with Hitler. A week later Hitler invaded Poland, and World War II began. Two days later Stalin also invaded Poland. Yet Great Britain, which had a treaty with Poland to defend it from all European aggressors, only declared war on Germany in the name of defending Poland. (If Great Britain and France went to war to defend the integrity of Poland, would they have not also declared war on the Soviet Union? Since they did not declare war on the Soviet Union, they must have gone to war for some reason other than defending Poland.) Playing on Hitler’s lust for power and territory, Illuminist maneuvered him into war. Provoking Hitler to war was easy, for he glorified war.

A necessary ingredient in the war was to convince France to carry the brunt of the war against Germany. To trick France into war for which it was ill prepared, the Illuminists employed enormous deceit. France was convinced that a highly armed Great Britain and the United States backed it and that Hitler’s regime would collapse within days of a war. All the time, the Illuminists knew that France would suffer great losses in the war and might even be conquered by Germany for a while.

Moreover, to encourage Germany to go to war, Polish troops fired on German border guards, and the Polish government claimed that it was marching on Berlin. As a result, Hitler attacked Poland. After invading Poland, Hitler offered peace to Great Britain and France. His only condition was that they not interfere with his expansion to the east. The Illuminists that controlled them wanted war, so they chose war over peace. Mandel, Paul Reynaud, and Maurice de Rothschild led the war faction in France. In Great Britain the principal leaders of the war faction included Winston Churchill and Rothschild.

When war broke out, the Illuminists protected their beloved communist state, the Soviet Union. They made sure that Hitler sent his army west against the Christian countries instead of east against the Soviet Union. (Hitler did not attack the Soviet Union until the war was well under way—and then only after Stalin was massing his troops along his western border in preparation to invade Germany.) They prevented the West from declaring war on the Soviet Union, which was Hitler’s ally at the beginning of the war. The Illuminists also ensured that the Soviet Union was well supplied. Their objective was the advancement of Communism (Illuminism), which was controlled from New York, not Moscow. After World War II broke out in Europe, the next step was to bring the United States into the war against Germany. To accomplish this goal, the British Secret Intelligence Service set up an illegal unit, the British Security Coordination, in the United States to bring Americans into the war against Germany. In charge was Sir William Stephenson. Assisting the British in this project was John D. Rockefeller, Jr.

Through front groups, such as Fight for Freedom, and newspapers and radio networks that it subsidized, the British Security Coordination smeared and demonized people who wanted the United States to stay out of the war and praised and supported people who wanted the United States to enter the war. It collaborated with Franklin Roosevelt and the Jewish community to bring the United States into the war. Working with Fight for Freedom and British Security Coordination to push the United States into the war were the New York Post (owned by Dorothy Schiff, a Jew), New York Times (owned by A.H. Sulzberger, a Jew, CFR member), PM (a New York Communist paper), Baltimore Sun, and the Jewish Telegraph Agency. Columnists who support the British Security Coordination by smearing Americans who opposed the United States going to war included Walter Lippman, Drew Pearson, Dorothy Thompson, and Walter Winchell (a Jew).

To ensure that a Republican president would not interfere with the British plans for the United States warring against Germany, British Security Coordination rigged the Republican convention and got Wendell Willkie nominated as the Republican presidential candidate for the 1940 election. As late as 1939, Willkie had been a Democrat. As Willkie was a pro-war candidate, he ensured that many antiwar electors would not vote. Thus, Roosevelt would win his third term. After he lost the election, Willkie became an executive for Fight for Freedom and an unofficial envoy for Roosevelt.

However, Hitler had no intentions of involving the United States in the war, and a vast majority (80 to 88 percent) of Americans opposed the United States entering the war—although most Jews wanted war with Germany. Try as they may, the Illuminists could not provoke Germany into attacking the United States or inflame the American people with the desire to war against Germany. (When in the summer of 1941 President Roosevelt ordered United States destroyers to attack German submarines, Hitler ordered his submarines not to fight back.) The solution was to provoke Japan to attack the United States.

To provoke Japan to attack, Roosevelt froze Japanese assets. He refused a visit from the Japanese Prime Minister, Prince Konoye. (This rebuff led to the fall of Prince Konoye, who wanted peace with the United States, and his cabinet and the rise of General Tojo and his military dictatorship.) He closed the Panama Canal to Japanese ships. An oil embargo was placed on Japan (the United States provided more than 90 percent of Japan’s oil) while United States ships violated Japanese waters transporting oil to the Soviet Union. The government seized major Japanese assets in the United States. He approved the recruitment of American “volunteers” (the “Flying Tigers”) to fight for Chiang Kai-Shek against Japan. To dare Japan to attack, Roosevelt ordered United States warships into Japanese territorial waters. He even threatened military action if Japan did not change its Pacific policy.

To entice Japan to attack, Roosevelt moved the United States fleet from the West Coast to Hawaii. Pearl Harbor was difficult to defend because it could be effectively attacked from any direction. (Several days before the attack, the aircraft carriers and the most modern ships were ordered to leave Pearl Harbor. Thus, most modern ships were saved, and the old World War I vintage ships that remained were left even more vulnerable to attack.) With the fleet in Pearl Harbor and a large number of troops in the Philippines, Roosevelt boxed in Japan. If Japan wanted the oil fields in Indonesia, which it needed to fuel its armed forces and industry, it had no choice but to attack Pearl Harbor.

To reduce the chances of the commanders at Pearl Harbor discovering the Japanese fleet, they were provided only a third of the aircraft needed for adequate reconnaissance.
Furthermore, intelligence directed them to concentrate to the southwest, away from the actual direction of the attack. To ensure further that the planned surprise attack would not be discovered and Pearl Harbor warned, the United States Navy forbade United States and allied shipping in the North Pacific about an hour after the Japanese fleet left port for Hawaii.

President Roosevelt, Bernard Baruch (presidential advisor), Cordell Hull (Secretary of State), Henry Stimson (Secretary of War, a member of Skull and Bones and CFR), General George Marshall (Chief of Staff and a Freemason), and Admiral Harold Stark (Chief of Naval Operations and CFR member) knew of the Japanese plan to attack Pearl Harbor. Yet they did nothing to warn the American commanders at Pearl Harbor. They feared that if they sent a warning, Japan would cancel the attack and war would be averted. War was the goal. So Roosevelt deliberately sacrificed American soldiers, sailors, and marines to force the United States into a war that most Americans did not want. The conspiracy worked. The United States entered World War II. (Roosevelt had worked closely with and had relied heavily on the British Secret Intelligence Service to bring the United States into World War II.)

(In 1940, the United States government had broken the Japanese code. It knew about the intelligence that the Japanese consulate in Honolulu was sending Japan. It also knew about the Japanese fleet movement toward Hawaii. [At a secret press briefing held on November 25, 1941, General Marshall told selected news reporters that “the United States is on the brink of war with the Japanese”[2] He predicted an attack sometime during the first ten days of December.] Furthermore, shortly before Japan hit Pearl Harbor, Churchill informed Roosevelt that the Japanese fleet was heading to Pearl Harbor with the intent of attacking it on December 7. Churchill’s information came from British agents in the Japanese military and foreign services and from Japanese messages that the British had decoded. Later Churchill wrote that Roosevelt and his top advisors “knew the full and immediate purpose of their enemy,”[3] i.e., Japan’s intent to attack Pearl Harbor. Likewise, the Soviet Union had learned of the forth coming attack from its spy in Japan and gave this information to the United States government. The Dutch also warned Marshal a few days before the attack that the Japanese fleet was close to Pearl Harbor. The day before the attack, the United States Naval Intelligence had spotted the Japanese fleet 400 miles northwest of Honolulu; Pearl Harbor was not notified of the sighting.)

Four days after Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, Germany declared war on the United States. Probably the deciding factor for Hitler’s declaration of war was “Rainbow Five.” Rainbow Five was the United States’ plan for war against Germany, which leaked out just before the Battle of Pearl Harbor. Roosevelt had arranged for this plan to leak out in hope that it would provoke Hitler to declare war against the United States.

Like all major, and most minor, conflicts, the Illuminists supported, and thereby had a great deal of control over, both sides in the conflict. Many major United States corporations, of which nearly all were (and still are) controlled by Illuminists, supplied both sides at the beginning of World War II.

Finally, the Allies invaded Italy. They quickly conquered most of Italy, but Roosevelt stopped the Allied advancement within a few hundred miles of Germany’s southern border. The Allied army in Italy was broken up and redeployed. The official reason was to prepare for the Normandy invasion, which would not happen for another nine months. The actual result was prolonging the war. Prolonging the war cost millions more Aryans their lives, and transferred billions more to the coffers of the international bankers and corporations supplying the war machine. It also gave the Soviet Union time to drive the Germans from Russia, which it needed to do before it could occupy Eastern Europe. (Churchill wanted to continue the southern invasion and move into the Balkans, which would have kept those countries out of Stalin’s hands. Roosevelt wanted to invade Normandy. Stalin also advocated an invasion of northern France.) Once the Allies invaded Normandy, Eisenhower held back the Western front as much as he could to give Stalin time to consolidate his position in the east. More often than not, military decisions were made to give long-range political advantage to the Communists and the Soviet Union instead of making them based on tactical needs or to take advantage of the enemy’s weaknesses.

Contrary to the claims of apologists for Roosevelt, Roosevelt did not go to war to end totalitarianism or to revenge the victims of concentration camps. His support of the Soviet Union proves these were not his reasons. Stalin’s regime was far more brutal than Hitler’s, and Stalin killed far more people. Roosevelt went to war to bring about a world government and the concomitant New World Order.

If Roosevelt, and his advisors, Baruch and Morgenthau, had accepted offers from high ranking German military officers, the war with Germany would have ended in 1943, at least on the western front, and hundreds of thousands of lives could have been saved. However, at this time Germany had not been completely destroyed, and the Soviet Union had not penetrated Central Europe. Furthermore, the United States government had not acquired enough debt to satisfied the Illuminists. The Illuminists had to prolong the war to kill more Aryans, to advance Communism, and to complete their debt enslavement of Americans.

World War II was another splendid sacrifice on the altar of Lucifer. When it ended, more than 100 million people had perished. Many of these people died of bombings of residential areas that had no real military value. Housing of workers were preferred targets because they were small and compact. Again the British led the way in barbaric warfare as strategic bombing of civilian housing became part of the British war plan months before the Germans adopted this strategy in retaliation. Among the most savoring offerings were the fire bombings of Dresden and Cologne, which sent more than a hundred thousand innocent children and women up in smoke.

The war also served the Illuminists by silencing Americans who wanted to preserve the traditional American foreign policy that began with Washington of not getting involved in foreign disputes. Anyone who spoke in favor of America’s traditional foreign policy was branded a fascist or Nazi during the war and even afterwards. (Anyone who openly supported American traditional foreign policy during the war risk prosecution for sedition.) After the war, these American traditionalists were smeared as “isolationists” and blamed for the war. (The implication being that if the United States had gone to war against Japan and Germany sooner, there would have been no war.) After World War II, the United States abandoned America’s traditional foreign policy and have since being meddling in the affairs of nearly every, if not every, country on the planet. American troops are scattered across the planet as the United States have been involved in most conflicts that have occurred since the end of World War II.

Despite what the establishment history books claimed to be the causes and purposes of the two world wars of the twentieth century, their basic goal was to destroy as much of Christendom and the Aryan race as possible. This goal they achieved remarkably well.

When the American army entered Germany after the end of the war, one of its first tasks was to reestablish the Masonic lodges. The Office of Strategic Services (OSS) and later the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) financed the reestablishment of these Masonic lodges.

What saved (postponed) the United States from entering into an illuministic one world government following World War I was knowledge of the objectives and schemes of the Illuminists. The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and the Rockefeller Foundation were determined that this error would not be repeated following World War II. They were determined to prevent close examination of official statements and propaganda. Roosevelt’s war measures and policies were not to be critically analyzed. They were to remain secret. In this endeavor, the Illuminists were, and still are, highly successful.

A result of World War II was the achievement of one of the great goals of the Illuminists —the establishment of the United Nations. The charter of the United Nation embodied the essence of Illuminism. It is, as S. de Madariaga, a Spanish liberal, wrote, “in the main a translation of the Russian system into an international idiom and its adaptation to an international community.”[4] The United Nations has served as the hub around which Illuminists have been building the world government for their New World Order.

During the war, the illuministic Council on Foreign Relations gained control of the United States government. Through the Council on Foreign Relations and its control of the government, the Illuminists could now implement their program to destroy the United States. Smoot summaries this program of destruction:

(1) the redistribution to other nations of the great United States reserve of gold which made our dollar the strongest currency in the world;

(2) the building up of the industrial capacity of other nations, at our expense, thus eliminating our pre-eminent productive superiority;

(3) the taking away of world markets from the United States producers (and even much of their domestic market) until capitalistic America will no longer dominate world trade;

(4) the entwining of American affairs—economic, political, social, educational, and even religious—with those of other nations until the United States will no longer have an independent policy, either domestic or foreign. . . .[5]

These goals have been mostly accomplished.

Endnotes
1. Comte Leon de Poncins, State Secrets: A Documentation of the Secret Revolutionary Mainspring Governing Anglo-American Politics (Translator Timothy Tindal-Robertson. 1975), p. 24.

2. Cuddy, Globalists, Dennis L. Cuddy, The Globalists: The Power Elite Exposed (Oklahoma City, Oklahoma: Hearthstone Publishing, 2001), p. 73.

3. “Pearl Harbor: Mother of All Conspiracies.”

4. Billy James Hargis, Communist America Must It Be? (Tulsa, Oklahoma: Christian Crusade, 1960), p. 117.

5. Dan Smoot, The Invisible Government (Dallas, Texas: The Dan Smoot Report, Inc., 1962), p. 26.

References
Allen, Gary. None Dare Call It Conspiracy. Seal Beach, California: Concord Press, n.d.

Cuddy, Dennis L. Cover-Up: Government Spin or Truth? Connecting the Dots—September 11 . . . Iraq . . . and Our Vanishing Constitutional Rights. Oklahoma City, Oklahoma: Hearthstone Publishing, 2003.

Cuddy, Dennis L. The Globalists: The Power Elite Exposed. Oklahoma City, Oklahoma: Hearthstone Publishing, 2001.

Cuddy, Dennis L. Now Is the Dawning of the New Age New World Order. Oklahoma City, Oklahoma: Hearthstone Publishing, 2000.

Cuddy, Dennis L. Secret Records Revealed: The Men, the Money, & the Methods Behind the New World Order. Oklahoma City, Oklahoma: Hearthstone Publishing, 1999.

Davidson, Mary M. The Profound Revolution. Omaha, Nebraska: The Greater Nebraskan, n.d.

Hargis, Billy James. Communist America Must It Be? Tulsa, Oklahoma: Christian Crusade, 1960.

Hoar, William P. Architect of Conspiracy: An Intriguing History. Belmont, Massachusetts: Western Islands, 1984.

Larson, Martin A. The Federal Reserve and Our Manipulated Dollar. Old Greenwich, Connecticut: The Devin-Adair Company, 1975.

Marrs, Jim. Rule by Secrecy: The Hidden History That Connects the Trilateral Commission, the Freemasons, and the Great Pyramids. New York, New York: Harper Collins Publishers, 2000.

Mohr, Gordon. The Hidden Power Behind Freemasonry. Second edition. Burnsville, Minnesota: Weisman Publication, 1993.

Monteith, Stanley. Brotherhood of Darkness. Oklahoma City, Oklahoma: Hearthstone, 2000.

Mullins, Eustace. The Curse of Canaan: A Demonology of History. Staunton, Virginia: Revelation Book, 1987.

Poncins, Leon de, Comte. State Secrets: A Documentation of the Secret Revolutionary Mainspring Governing Anglo-American Politics. Translator Timothy Tindal-Robertson. 1975.

Smoot, Dan. The Invisible Government. Dallas, Texas: The Dan Smoot Report, Inc., 1962.

Still, William T. New World Order: The Ancient Plan of Secret Societies. Lafayette, Louisiana: Huntington House Publishers, 1990.

Stormer, John A. None Dare Call It Treason. Florissant, Missouri: Liberty Bell Press, 1964.

Sutton, Antony C. How the Order Creates War and Revolution. Phoenix, Arizona: Research Publications, Inc., 1984.

Sutton, Antony C. National Suicide: Military Aid to the Soviet Union. New Rochelle, New York: Arlington House, 1973.

Webster, Nesta H. The French Revolution: A Study in Democracy. Second edition. Hawthorne, California: Christian Book Club of America, 1919, reprinted 1969.

Copyright © 2010 by Thomas Coley Allen.

 More articles on history.