What Is the Difference Between Commodity and Fiat Money

What Is the Difference Between Commodity and Fiat Money
Thomas Allen

Monetary systems can be divided into two major categories. One category is fiat money, which is sometimes called managed money, debt money, forced paper money, or irredeemable paper money. The other is commodity money, which is sometimes called full-bodied money, metallic money, specie, hard money, or precious metal money.

Commodity money is “that sort of money that is at the same time a commercial commodity.”[1] Gold and silver are the premier commodities used as money.

Fiat money “is a legal claim, since it derives all its properties from the law.”[2] It is simply a purchase voucher, whose purchasing power varies, that can be exchanged for goods and services. The settlement of debts is its only fixed right.

Webster’s New International Dictionary (second edition, unabridged) defines fiat money as “paper currency of government issue which is made legal tender by fiat or law, does not represent, or is not based upon, specie, and contains no promise of redemption.” The government or its central bank issues fiat money, and the government declares it to be legal tender. Currently, in the United States fiat money occurs as federal reserve notes.

Commodity money differs from fiat money in two important ways. First, under a commodity monetary system, the money supply adjusts automatically to monetary needs. “[T]he demand for, and supply of, money react simultaneously, through market prices for all goods and services and the monetary metal, to determine a given quantity of money.”[3] The markets decide how much money to create and issue. Under a fiat monetary system, the money supply is regulated artificially. The government or its central bank regulates the money supply. The government decides how much money to create and issue. Second, the value of commodity money is directly related to the material of which it is made. For fiat money, value is independent of its material and depends solely on the demand for and supply of money. Of these two differences, the most important lies in the method used to regulate the supply of money.

Johnson makes the following comparison between commodity money and fiat money: “(1) commodity money, or money made out of material of which the free use is permitted as money, so that its value is the product of two sets of utilities, namely its utility as money and its utilities as an ordinary commodity; (2) fiat money, or money the value of which has no relation to the value of the material out of which it is made, being the product solely of its utility as money.”[4]

Many people often confuse commodity money with fiat money when the fiat monetary system incorporates gold or silver. A money backed by gold is not necessarily commodity money. (Under the true gold standard, gold does not back the money. Gold is the money.) For example, legal tender federal reserve notes between 1933 and 1968 were legally required to be backed by gold. Yet it was not commodity money. No American citizen could redeem federal reserve notes for gold. The Federal Reserve decided how many federal reserve notes to issue instead of the markets. The value of gold backing them was much less than the monetary value of the notes. Hoppe makes this error.

Hoppe compares fiat money with commodity money as follows: “Fiat money is the term for a medium of exchange which is neither a commercial commodity, a consumer, or a producer good, nor title to any such commodity: i.e., irredeemable paper money. In contrast, commodity money refers to a medium of exchange which is either a commercial commodity or a title thereto.”[5] Hoppe’s description overlooks an important feature of fiat money, and, that is the issuance of fiat money is arbitrary. Under Hoppe’s description, silver dollars issued in the 1880s and 1890s were commodity money as they contained a commercial commodity. They were money in their own right and were not directly redeemable in gold on demand. However, as Congress and the Secretary of the Treasury arbitrarily fixed the amount issued, they were fiat money. Moreover, the coin’s face or monetary value was greater than the value of its metal content.

Rist explains the difference between commodity money and fiat money as follows:

[I]t must be recognised that the belief in gold arises not from age old superstitions of a more or less magical character, but from age old experience. A claim on gold—a cheque or a banknote—is something clear and precise that everybody understands, just as everybody understands a mortgage on a piece of land or a house that he knows. Paper [fiat] money is a claim on something unknown, on a country or a government, whose political, social or financial escapades and arbitrary decisions nobody can be sure of beforehand.[6]

Vieira compares commodity money with fiat money as follows:

With commodity money, the actual commodity, the silver or the gold, is both the medium of exchange and the standard of value. The supply of commodity money is self-limited because of the costs of minting, refining, and coining the silver and gold. New supplies of commodity money will be coined only to the extent that coinage is economically profitable. The market will simply not produce more gold and silver coin than is necessary compared to all the other uses of that capital. . . . [F]iat money is composed of some intrinsically valueless substance which the issuer does not promise to redeem in a commodity or in a fiduciary money. Because fiat money has no legal connection to a commodity money, and, therefore, has no real economic cost in terms of production, the supply of fiat money is never self-limiting and is always largely a matter of public confidence in the economic or political stability of the issuer.[7]

Vieira's description of commodity money and fiat money fails to account for silver dollars of the 1880s and 1890s. They contained a valuable substance, silver, which seemed to make them commodity money. However, the government decided the quantity to issue instead of the markets, which makes them fiat money.

It also fails to account for U.S. notes between 1879 and 1933. U.S. notes were redeemable in gold on demand during those years. However, Congress decided the quantity to issue. Also, the gold backing them varied between about one-third and one-half. Thus, they were not genuine warehouse receipts as were gold certificates, which were required to be fully backed by gold.

Mises describes the difference between commodity money and fiat money as follows:

. . . it is the commodity in question that constitutes the money, and that the money is merely this commodity. The case of fiat money is quite different. Here the deciding factor is the stamp, and it is not the material bearing the stamp that constitutes the money, but the stamp itself. The nature of the material that bears the stamp is a matter of quite minor importance.[8]

Mises’ description accounts for silver dollars of the 1880s and 1890s The stamp instead of the metal content gave these silver dollars their value. His description also accounts for U.S. notes between 1879 and 1933. The stamp and not the metal backing gave them their value as they were not fully backed by gold.

With commodity money, the commodity makes the money. “The value of a coin has always been determined, not by the image and superscription it bears nor by the proclamation of the mint and market authorities, but by its metal content.”[9] With fiat money, the stamp and force of government make the money. Fiat money derives its power to make purchases and to pay debt solely from words printed on the currency, i.e., it derives its power from governmental fiat.

Fekete notes that commodity money is “tied to a positive value: the value of a well-defined quantity of a good of well-defined quality.”[10] Fiat money is “tied not to positive but to negative value—the value of debt instruments.”[11]

Commodity money is the only form of money that is a present good. All paper money, including certificates and fiat money, is a promise to pay; it is a future obligation. With fiat money the payment is never made; it is only discharged. Payment with commodity money completes the transactions; payment with fiat money is an extension of credit. (In this respect a gold certificate is like fiat currency. The gold certificate is credit, a promise to pay in gold, and the transaction is not completed and the debt retired until the certificate is redeemed in gold.) With irredeemable fiat currency, the transaction can never be completed because the currency is irredeemable. The transaction is discharged by a transfer of credit.

Under a fiat monetary system, debt, promise, or obligation is used as money and as final payment. Fiat money is basically paper money and its electronic equivalent representing nothing but a promise or an obligation. Under a fiat monetary system, a final payment can never really occur as one is always paid with debt, promise, or obligation, a representation that something else is owed. Thus, fiat money can only discharge debt; it can never retire debt.

Under a pure commodity monetary system, the final payment is always in the commodity being used as money in the transaction. The commodity can function as final payment because it is no one’s obligation. Receipt of the commodity in payment ends all further obligations. Thus, it retires debt.

In fiat monetary systems, the monetary unit is a nebulous abstraction, a legal fiction. Fiat money is not tangible, lacks definition, and has no defined unit of measure. It is an illusion with no connection to reality.

In commodity money systems, the monetary unit is tangible and measurable. It is a specific and definable weight of a particular commodity, usually gold or silver. Unlike fiat money, commodity money has value in and of itself independent of its monetary use.

Under a commodity monetary system like the gold or silver standard, the quantity of money is not subject to governmental manipulation. With fiat money, the government maintains control of the money and can change the money supply to suit political considerations.

With a commodity monetary system like the gold standard, market forces determine the quantity of gold coined. The people decide how many gold coins that they need by the quantity of gold brought to the mint for coinage and by the quantity of gold coins melted for other usages. Thus, a commodity monetary system uses the knowledge and wisdom of all the people to regulate the money supply.

With a fiat monetary system, a definite governmental monetary policy is needed to regulate the quantity of the fiat money. Development of this policy requires the opinions of “experts” on the desirable goals. Thus, this policy is nothing more than the personal value judgment of these experts. Once they have selected a policy, the force of government is needed to carry it out. Neither the experts who develop the policy nor the governmental agents who impose it can accurately foresee the long-term effects of the policy. Adolph Miller, a member of the Federal Reserve Board, in his testimony before Congress, summed up this major problem with fiat money: “Up to this day it has never yet been demonstrated that any agency can be invented to which power to govern the currency could be entrusted without ultimately disastrous consequences.”[12]

Commodity money is an economic currency. The needs of the economy determine its quantity. It is directly connected with the production of real goods and services.

Fiat money is a political currency. The needs of politics determine its quantity. It is directly connected with government debt even if the government issues the currency directly and interest-free. (When the government issues a currency like U.S. notes, it is issuing interest-free government debt that is used as money. Often such debt is never paid.)

With fiat money, the government gains a monopoly over money. Using its monopolistic control of money, it can inflate until the money becomes completely worthless. With legal tender laws, it can force people to accept ever-depreciating money.

Under a commodity monetary system, the value of the monetary commodity comes from its production. Under a fiat monetary system, the value of money comes from its legal obligation.

With fiat money, people trust politicians, bureaucrats, and bankers. They trust paper and promises. With commodity money, people trust gold and silver. They trust that which is no one’s obligation or promise.

Fiat money is totally dependent on commodity money, at least initially, for its value. Greaves describes this dependency as follows:

The original value of any money was the use value that commodity had in its other uses before it was first used as a medium of exchange. It then had an objective exchange value based on some other use or uses. This historical link is absolutely necessary, not only for commodity money, but also for every legally sanctioned credit or fiat money. No fiat money ever came into use without first satisfying this requirement. It is absolutely impossible to start a new money without an historical use value, or without its being related to some previous money or commodity with a prior use value. Before an economic good or a “paper money” begins to function as money, it must possess, or be given, an exchange value based on some use or good other than its own monetary value.[13]

“Money cannot originate as a new fiat name, either by government edict or by some form of social compact.”[14] Fiat money grows out of commodity money. “Money must emerge as a commodity money because something can be demanded as a medium of exchange only if it has a pre-existing barter demand. . . .”[15]

Unlike commodity money, fiat money does not come into use spontaneously. Conversion from commodity money to fiat money requires coercion. People do not naturally and freely abandon commodity money for fiat money.

Fiat money rests upon the premise that the power of government is enough to give value to a piece of paper that has no intrinsic value. Fiat money adherents firmly believe that a government can create value by simply proclaiming that a piece of paper has value. Evidence of this is seen in the federal reserve note. Originally, the note promised to pay in gold. Now it just declares itself to be so many dollars. It went from being a legitimate substitute for real money, gold, to being fiat money.

Gold and silver protect the people. Fiat money enslaves them. Frederick von Hayek remarks:

With the exception only of the period of the gold standard, practically all governments of history have used their exclusive power to issue money to defraud and plunder the people. What is dangerous and ought to be eliminated is not the government's right to issue money, but its exclusive right to do so and its power to force people to accept that money at a particular rate.[16]

Commodity money limits the power of the government.

Gold and silver money limits the size of the government by restraining its growth. Fiat money allows the government to expand almost without limits.

Endnotes
1. Ludwig von Mises,. The Theory of Money and Credit (New edition. Translator H.E. Batson. Irvington-on-Hudson, New York: The Foundation for Economic Education, Inc., 1971), p. 61.

2. Charles Rist, History of Monetary and Credit Theory from John Law to the Present Day (1940; reprint. Translator Jane Degras. New York, New York: Augustus M. Kelly, 1966), p. 337.

3. Richard H. Timberlake, “Gold Standards and the Real Bills Doctrine in U.S. Monetary Policy,”Econ Journal Watch, II (August 2005), 199.

4. Joseph French Johnson, Money and Currency: In Relation to Industry, Prices, and the Rate of Interest (Revised edition. Boston, Massachusetts: Ginn and Company, 1905), p. 32.

5. Hans-Hermann Hoppe, “How is Fiat Money Possible?—or, The Devolution of Money and Credit,” The Review of Austrian Economics, VII (1994), 49.

6. Rist, p. 434.

7. Edwin Vieira, Jr., “Restoring the Dollar,” http://www.citizensforaconstitutionalrepublic.com? Vieira_Restoring_the_Dollar.html, Apr. 23, 2008.

8. Mises, p. 62.

9. Mises, p. 62.

10. Antal E. Fekete, “Whither Gold?”, Oct. 29, 1996, http://www.sagold.com/whithergold.html, Sept. 13, 2007.

11. Ibid.

12. Percy L. Greaves, Jr., Understanding the Dollar Crisis (Belmont, Massachusetts: Western Islands, 1973), p. 231.

13. Ibid., p. 157.

14. Murray N. Rothbard, The Case for a 100 Percent Gold Dollar (Washington, D.C.: Libertarian Press, 1974), p. 10.

15. Hoppe, p. 51.

16. Antony C. Sutton, War on Gold (Seal Beach, California: ‘76 Press, 1977), p. 65.

Copyright © 2010 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More articles on money.

What Are the Functions of Money

What Are the Functions of Money
Thomas Allen

Money has four basic functions. They are a medium of exchange, standard of exchange value, store of value, and payment of debt.

As a medium of exchange or purchasing medium, money is used to buy goods and services. It is immediately available in its existing form to the buyer and immediately acceptable by the seller. Not only is money a means of payment; it is also the thing used as final payment for purchases. After a purchase has been made, money involves no continuing or further obligation. As a medium of exchange, money can transport value through space.

Fiat money is a failure as a medium of exchange. When a person buys something with fiat money, he pays with credit (the fiat notes). Buying goods and services with fiat money is more like nothing-for-something than something-for-something that occurs when commodity money is used. Fiat money is a poor semblance as a medium of exchange.

When a person buys with commodity money, he exchanges a real asset whose material value equals its monetary value for assets. Even if he buys with a form of credit money, such as a bank note or check, instead of commodity money itself, he still buys with a real asset. The credit money that he uses quickly converts into the underlying commodity. Fiat money can only be converted into another obligation.

Besides being a medium of exchange, money also serves as the standard unit of exchange value, i.e., as a standard of prices and of account and debt. Money is the standard by which the value of various things is measured and compared. Thus, money is a measure of value. As a standard of value, money can transport value through time. It enables people to estimate the present value of future acts.

With commodity money, the standard of value is objective. It is the value of the commodity in its nonmonetary use. With fiat money, it is an arbitrary arithmetical abstraction.

Being the standard of value, money is the common denominator by which the value of things is compared. It is the measure. As a measure of value, money simplifies the comparison of contemporaneous values of goods and services. By comparing prices of various goods and services, a buyer can determine their relative value to each other. For example, if a haircut costs $15 and a hamburger costs $3, then a haircut has the value of five hamburgers. Money becomes the common denominator by which the values of things are reduced to their prices. Price is simply “the exchange value of an article in terms of the monetary unit.”[1] Price makes possible the keeping of general accounts. Thus, as the standard of value, money becomes the unit of accounts.

However, for money to function properly as the common denominator by which values are compared, the monetary unit itself must have value. The monetary unit must have a specific definition and made of something that has value.[2] To measure value, it must be a unit of concrete value. For example, a silver dollar, the dollar mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, is 371.25 grains of fine silver or 412.5 grains of standard silver (nine-tenths fine). Money should contain material that is in itself valuable. It ought not to be an abstraction. It must be able to move value from one place to another and from one time to another.

The value of paper fiat money becomes an abstraction. Initially, its value is based on the commodity money that it replaces. No paper fiat money spontaneously comes into existence without a relationship to a preexisting commodity or tangible asset.

As a standard of value, fiat money also fails. It is useless as a long-term accounting unit without adjustments. These adjustments are poor substitutes for sound money. Furthermore, “business profits are widely overstated because historically determined depreciation charges are inadequate in terms of current replacement costs. Likewise for inventory accounting and charges for goods sold.”[3]

Money is also a store of value, i.e., wealth can be held in the form of money. As a store of value, money must be able to retain its value when moved from one place to another and from one time to another. It transports value over time and space. Money serves “as a standard of deferred payments.”[4] It “stores up the value of future goods and services sold”[5] and bridges the present with the future. People expect today’s money to serve as payment ten to thirty years from now. Such expectations make long-term contracts practical. The expectation is that today’s money will retain its purchasing power over the long term. Also, as a store of value, money serves as insurance against the uncertainties of the future.

To serve as a store of value, money must be stable in value for an indefinite time. As a store of value, fiat money is a miserable failure. In the United States since 1933, the dollar had lost 93 percent of its purchasing power by 2005. Since its complete divorce from gold in 1971, it had lost 79 percent of its purchasing power by 2005.

On the other hand, gold has retained its value through the millennia. The ancient Babylonian and Hebrew gold shekel contained about 252 grains of gold or about as much gold as an American eagle (a $10 gold coin).[6] Those 252 grains of gold are still worth 252 grains today.

If a time traveler carried a $10 gold coin back two thousand years, he would have the buying power equivalent to about 58 days of wages of a common laborer. A common laborer’s wage at that time was about 17¢ per day.[7] Moreover, because a double eagle (a $20 gold coin) contains twice the gold of an eagle, it would have twice the buying power. If he carried a $100 and a $1 federal reserve note with him, he would get only what he could trade his bills for as a curiosity. He would find the $1 bill worth more than the $100 bill if the person with whom he is trading finds that the occult symbols on the back of a $1 bill have great value whereas a picture of Independence Hall on the back of a $100 bill has none. Unlike commodity money, fiat money fails to maintain its value over time.

Nevertheless, the purchasing power of gold and silver does fluctuate. At times their purchasing power rises; at other times it declines. Gold and silver’s value tends to rise for about 10 to 20 years and fall for about 10 to 20 years. However, compared to fiat money, whose purchasing power usually trends downward, gold and silver are stable.

Money is not the only store of value. Commodities, financial assets, land, and collectibles can serve as a store of value. However, there is a cost to converting money into other assets and these assets into money. Money is merely the most liquid asset for a store of value as no conversion is needed.

Finally, money must be able to pay debt. It provides a means to pay debt.

When a person pays a debt, he either retires it or discharges it. If he pays with commodity money, such as a full-weight gold coin, he retires the debt. He has paid the debt with something that is no one else’s obligation.

If a person pays with paper money (gold certificates, bank notes, or government notes), a check, or any other kind of money substitute (credit money or representative money), he merely discharges the debt. He has paid the debt with another obligation or debt. The debt is not retired until the paper money is converted into commodity money or the check transfers the commodity money to the creditor’s account.

Although the same substance can perform all four functions of money, it does not have to do so. Much convenience is often found in one substance performing all four functions. For example, a 10-pennyweight gold coin can be a medium of exchange, the standard by which value is measured, a store of value, and a payment for debt.

Under bimetallism, gold and silver were used as money with a legally fixed exchange rate or ratio between the two. In the United States, silver was the standard of value until 1862. In 1834 Congress changed the exchange rate or ratio between gold and silver. The new ratio reduced the value of gold in terms of silver. Thus, full-weight silver coins soon ceased circulating, and gold coins became the medium of exchange. Silver was the standard of value. Gold was the medium of exchange. Both were a store of value.

Endnotes
1. E.C. Harwood, Cause and Control of the Business Cycle (Great Barrington, Massachusetts: American Institute for Economic Research, 1974), p. 58.

2. J. Laurence Laughlin, The Elements of Political Economy (New York, New York: American Book Co., 1887), pp. 61, 68.

3. Ernest P. Welker, editor, Why Gold? (Great Barrington, Massachusetts: American Institute for Economic Research, 1978), p. 11.

4. Joseph French Johnson, Money and Currency: In Relation to Industry, Prices, and the Rate of Interest (Revised edition. Boston, Massachusetts: Ginn and Company, 1905), p. 15.

5. Charles Rist, History of Monetary and Credit Theory from John Law to the Present Day (1940; reprint. Translator Jane Degras. New York, New York: Augustus M. Kelly, 1966), p. 84.

6. Madeleine Miller and J. Lane Miller, Harper’s Bible Dictionary (New York, New York: Harper & Brothers Publishers, 1959), pp. 454-455.

7. John D. Davis, The Westminister Dictionary of the Bible (Revised by Henry Snyder Gehman. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: The Westminster Press, 1944), p. 630.

Copyright © 2010 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More articles on money. 

What Is Money?

What Is Money?
Thomas Allen

In Money and the Mechanism of Exchange, Jevons discusses the difficulty in defining “money.”[1] Jevons was an Englishman, and his comments are directed at England in the late nineteenth century. He states that a full-weight legal-tender gold coin was undoubtably money. Today such a coin is not money in the legal sense although one can buy more with a gold British sovereign from an Indian peasant than he can with an equivalent quantity of today’s British paper money. He is inclined to include legal-tender bank notes converted on demand into gold coins. Should U.S. bank notes, which were never legal tender before 1933 but could be redeemed in gold on demand, except between 1862 and 1879, be considered money? (Between 1862 and 1879, most banks redeemed bank notes into legal-tender inconvertible government notes, U.S. notes, commonly called greenbacks.) Should inconvertible legal-tender government notes like U.S. notes between 1862 and 1879 be considered money? They were a common medium of exchange and used to discharge debt during this era. Should everything used to pay a debt that a debtor is willing to use and the creditor is willing to accept be considered money? For example, if a debtor pays a debt with a stock certificate and the creditor accepts it as payment, does that make stock certificates money?

Gold as a full-weighted coin seems as it should obviously be money although not in the legal sense. Some economists, such as Gary North,[2] argue that today gold coins are not money because one cannot walk into a department store and buy stuff with it. As more stores begin to accept silver coins at bullion value for payment, North’s argument loses its weight. At least one store in Texas refuses payment in federal reserve notes and only accepts silver in payment.

Is gold bullion money? What about Asian gold bullion jewelry, is it money? George, who wrote under the gold standard, claims that they are not. For example, in the United States, a person could not go to the ticket counter and buy a train ticket with a small bullion bar or Asian bullion jewelry. He probably could not even do it with a British sovereign. He would have to use a U.S. gold coin. Yet under the gold coin standard and to some extent under the gold exchange standard, gold bullion was used to settle foreign accounts. It can easily be coined with minimal cost. As Rothbard notes, the material makes the money and not its shape.[3]

As can be seen from the above brief introduction, economists disagree about what is money. They have been debating money and what it is for more than 200 years. They have not yet come to a consensus.

Most people call what they use to buy everyday goods and services and to pay their debts money. This is what money means in the popular sense and, as we shall see, how some economists define it.

In the legal sense, money is whatever the law declares it to be legal tender. Usually, whatever the law declares to be legal tender, a creditor must accept as payment of debt.

Let’s see how some economists define money.

Webster’s New International Dictionary (second edition, unabridged) defines money as “1. Metal, as gold, silver, or copper, coined, or stamped, and issued by recognized authority as medium of exchange; coinage in general. . . . 4. Any particular form or denomination coin or paper which is lawfully current as money;—now chiefly pl. 5. Anything customarily used as a medium of exchanged and measure of value, as sheep, wampum, copper rings, quills of salt or of gold dust, shovel blades, etc.; hence, Econ., anything having a conventional use either (1) as a medium of exchange or a measure of value, or (2) as a measure of value alone. In the latter case, it is often called a money of accounts, and may be any arbitrary amount of property or wealth of any kind, as a flock of sheep of determined size or a lac (100,000) of rupees. 6. Any written or stamped promise or certificate, such as government note or bank notes (often called paper money), which passes currently as a means of payment.”

F.A. Walker defines money as “that which passes freely from hand to hand throughout the community in final discharge of debts and full payment for commodities, being accepted equally without reference to the character or credit of the person who offers it and without the intention of the person who receives it to consume it or enjoy it or apply it to any other use than in turn to tender it to others in discharge of debt or payment for commodities.” [4]

Johnson defines money as “that valuable thing or economic good which possesses in any country or community universal acceptability as a medium of exchange or means of payment.”[5]

Ely defines money as “whatever passes freely from hand to hand as a medium of exchange and is generally received in final discharge of debt.”[6] Ely considers this definition to be the popular definition. He defines money in the economic sense as:

Money, according to the economic conception, must first serve directly and immediately as a measure of value; secondly, it must serve as a medium of exchange; in the third place, it must be capable of serving as a means of making payments; and fourthly, it must be a store or receptacle of value.[7]

Mises defines money as “the thing which serves as the generally accepted and commonly used medium of exchange.”[8]

George defines money as “whatever in any time and place is used as the common medium of exchange. . . .”[9]

Hawtrey defines money as “the means established by law (or custom) for the payment of debts.”[10]

Duesenberry defines money as “something that people are willing to accept in exchanges, even if they have no use for the thing themselves. . . . [M]oney is something people accept in exchange for goods, in the expectation of passing it on to someone else in a further exchange.”[11]

Klien defines money as “anything generally acceptable as a means of paying off debt.”[12]

Robertson defines money as “anything which is widely accepted in payment for goods, or in discharge of other kinds of business obligation.”[13]

Gnazzo defines money as “the commodity that has the most stable value, and which can be exchanged in value or kind, for any other commodity, or service in the market place.”[14]

As can be seen from these definitions, money is defined primarily by its functions, especially its function as a medium of exchange. These basic functions of money are a medium of exchange, a standard or measure of value, a store of value, and a payment of debt. These functions are discussed later. Hawtrey remarks, “Money is one of those concepts which, like a teaspoon or an umbrella, but unlike an earthquake or a buttercup, are definable primarily by the use or purpose which they serve.”[15]

Money is that thing that people accept as final payment for their labor and products. It is whatever a community uses to exchange for goods and services and to discharge debts and other monetary obligations. It can be fiat money or commodity money. These two types of money are discussed later.

People use a thing as money for one of two reasons. One is that the markets prescribe its use. (The markets are the people acting spontaneously in their economic activity according to their economic contribution.) The other is that the government forces its use. Market activity leads to commodity money whereas governmental coercion leads to fiat money.

The thing that the markets choose to be money is (or becomes) the most marketable or saleable thing in that economy. The more marketable or saleable that a thing is the less it changes value when it changes hands. For example, when one buys a car and immediately tries to sell it even without moving it from the dealership, he cannot sell it for the price that he paid just moments earlier. An immediate sale results in a noticeable, and possibly significant, drop in price (value or purchasing power). Likewise, with stock, when one buys a stock, he pays the higher ask price. When he sells it, he sells it at the lower bid price. However, when a person sells (exchanges) a product for money, he can immediately use that money with no noticeable loss in value or purchasing power. Thus, one can buy money by selling his labor or goods and immediately sell it by buying another’s labor or goods with no risk of a noticeable loss in value. That is because of the marketability or saleability of money. It is so marketable that it can change hands without a loss of value. With all other items, a person risks a noticeable loss if he immediately sells that which he has just bought.

Money has only one real utility and that is its exchangeability. People want it because of this utility. Like a hammer, money performs a specific service, and people want it because it performs that service. They can easily exchange it for goods and services that they want to consume. People want money not to consume it, but to exchange it for things that they want to consume.

Money has no inherent value in and of itself. Its value lies within the goods and services for which it can be exchanged. It represents purchasing power and is a receipt for value. It represents the value of the thing for which it is exchanged. Because money is only useful for buying and selling goods and services, the more that a given amount of money can buy, the greater its purchasing power.[16]

According to Alchian and Allen, “Money is a device that lowers costs of exchange and enlarges productivity via specialization.”[17] Rothbard states, “[Money enables] goods and services to travel more expeditiously from one person to another.”[18] George writes, “. . . [money] may be passed from hand to hand in canceling obligations or transferring ownership. . . .”[19] George adds, “. . . the use of money, no matter of what it be composed, is not directly to satisfy desire, but indirectly to satisfy desire through exchange for other things.”[20] Duesenberry remarks, “Unlike most things, money isn’t used up when it is used.”[21] People acquire money not to consume it or to employ it in their own productive activity, but to exchange it in the future for goods and services.

In conclusion, money is whatever a community accepts as payment for goods and services and as payment of debt. It is also the standard by which the values of goods and services are measured and compared. It can vary with time and place. What a community uses for money at one time may differ from that used at another time. What one community uses for money may differ from that which another community uses.

Some commodities possess characteristics that other commodities lack giving them an advantage in the use of money. Such commodities become money when the markets are left free to choose their money.

Money should not be confused with wealth. It is not wealth; it is a tool to acquire wealth. Things like food, cars, houses, and factories are wealth. Money can reduce wealth to a single number, price.

Nevertheless, because gold and silver are desirable in themselves, they are part of wealth even when in the form of coins. Gold and silver coins can be thought of as wealth in circulation. Being merely legal claims, paper money, whether redeemable or irredeemable, is not a part of wealth.

Fiat money adherents mistakenly believe that money creates wealth. They believe that inflating the money supply increases wealth. The opposite is true. Inflation destroys wealth. Inflation drives down the purchasing power (value) of money.

Wealth causes an increase in the value of money. If productivity increases faster than the money supply, the purchasing power of money increases. With commodity money, as wealth increases, general prices decline, and the value of money rises. This increase in money’s value gives the incentive to search for more of the monetary commodity.

Endnotes
1. W. Stanlely Jevons, Money and the Mechanism of Exchange (New York, N.Y.: D. Appleton and Co., 1896), pp. 248-250.

2. Gary North “What Is Money? Part 2: Precious Metal Coinage,” Oct. 1, 2009, http://www.goldseek.com/tools/print.php, Nov. 26, 2009.

3. Murray N. Rothbard, The Case for a 100 Percent Gold Dollar (Washington, D.C.: Libertarian Review Press, 1974), p. 12.

4. C.F. Bastable,“Money,” Encyclopedia Britannica, R.S. Peale Reprint (1890), XVI, 720.

5. Joseph French Johnson. Money and Currency: In Relation to Industry, Prices, and the Rate of Interest (Revised edition. Boston, Massachusetts: Ginn and Company, 1905), p. 7.

6. Richard T. Ely, An Introduction to Political Economy (Revised edition. New York, New York: Eaton & Mains, 1901), p 177.

7. Ibid., p. 178.

8. Ludwig von Mises, Human Action: A Treatise on Economics (3rd revised edition. Chicago, Illinois: Henry Regnery Company, 1963), p. 401.

9. Henry George, The Science of Political Economy (1897; reprint. New York, New York: Robert Schalkenbach Foundation, 1962), p. 494.

10. Ralph George Hawtrey, Currency and Credit (London, England: Longsmans, Green and Co., 1919), p. 17.

11. James S. Duesenberry, Money and Credit: Impact and Control (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1964.), p. 6.

12. John J. Klein, Money and the Economy (4th ed. New York, New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc., 1978), p. 3.

13. D.H. Robertson, Money (Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press, 1957), p. 2.

14. Douglass V. Gnazzo, “Honest Money: What It Is and What It Isn’t,” part 1, 2006, http://www.honestmoneyreport.com/archives/2006/0312.php, Jan. 1, 2007.

15. Hawtrey, p. 1.

16. Douglass V. Gnazzo, “Honest Money: What It Is and What It Isn’t,” part 2, 2006, http://www.honestmoneyreport.com/archives/2006/0319.php, Jan. 1, 2007.

17. Armen A. Alchian and William R. Allen, University Economics: Elements of Inquiry (3rd edition. Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing Co., Inc., 1972.), p. 572.

18. Murray N. Rothbard, What Has Government Done to Our Money? (Santa Ana, California: Rampart College, 1963), p. 11.

19. George, p. 483.

20. Ibid., p. 484.

21. Duesenberry, p. 3.

Copyright © 2010 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More articles on money. 

Black Nationalism

Black Nationalism
Thomas Allen

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

Soon after the Communists consolidated their position in Russian, they exported their revolution to the United States. Stalin sent Joseph Pogany to the United States to promote the Negro Revolution and Black Nationalism. The goal of Black Nationalism was to carve a Negro nation out of the United States. Pogany sought to convert American Negroes into Communist revolutionists and to use them to destroy the United States and to kill as many Aryan Americans as possible during the process. Black Nationalism grew into the Black Muslim and Nation of Islam movements. The “Million Man March” of 1995 and demands for reparations movement (the demand that today’s American Negroes be paid large sums of money and be given additional legal privileges because Negroes were slaves 150 years ago) are also out growths of Black Nationalism. Unlike most Communist revolutions, the Negro Revolution was more covert than overt. It was a revolution concealed in the crime statistics and frequent riots.

Part of the communist plan for Negro liberation was to agitate for “full racial, social, and political equality for the Negro people.”[1] The right of national self-determination, i.e., carving of an independent Negro nation out of the United States, was to supplement the struggle for equality.

Initially the Communist tried to get equality and independence for blacks in the South. In 1930, Stalin ordered that the Negroes in the North be included in the agitation for “equal rights.” However, the Communist did not advocate a Negro state outside the South.

Many leaders in the Negro Revolution and Black Nationalism were the Black Muslims. The Black Muslims were born in 1930 with the arrival of Farrad Mohammad, whose real name was Wallace Dodd and who was also known as F. Mohammad Ali, Professor Ford, Wali Farrad, and W.D. Fard. He came as a peddler in Negro neighborhoods. First he began teaching Negroes about their homeland. He began to preach hatred of the Aryan race and attacking the Bible. Negroes were not Americans and owed no allegiance to the United States. He taught that Negroes were gods and that Aryans were devils; in the Last Days, God (Allah) would separate his Negro people from their Aryan enemies. Then he began proclaiming himself as “the Supreme Ruler of the Universe.”

Dodd was not a Negro but was an Aryan from New Zealand, who had acquired a criminal record in the United States.[2] Dodd claimed his radical teachings were a scheme to extract money from gullible Negroes. Dodd, who as prophet W.D. Ford, became the God and Savior of the Muslims; he was Allah incarnated.[3] He appointed Elijah Muhammad (Robert Poole) as the leader of his new religion and returned to New Zealand.

Muhammad began proclaiming that several States in the South should be turned over to the Negro as an independent Negro country in America. He and the Black Muslims wanted the races to be separated. The United States owed these States to the Negro as payment for slave labor —so asserted James Baldwin. Under the leadership of Elijah Muhammad, the Black Muslims aligned themselves with Communists and began using criminal violence against Aryans (and Negroes) to achieve their goals.

Open revolt began in the early 1960s in New York City. Leading the revolt was the Blood Brothers. This revolt differed from most historical revolts. It was not an arm rebellion. It was an intensified crime wave with Negro riots and Negro perpetrating violent crime against Aryans. The Black Muslims wanted to annihilate the Aryan race.

An object of Negro revolutionary criminals was to force the police to kill a Negro criminal. Then provocateurs moved in and incited a Negro riot. Riots led to consolidating power in the United States government and the accompanying lost of freedom—a major goal of the Illuminists.

For the most part, the leaders and organizers of the “civil rights” movement and other Negro movements, Negro riots, and Negro organizations were Communists or communist sympathizers. Backing these leaders and organizers were Illuminists.

One reason that Communist opposed segregation was that it caused the development of a Negro bourgeoisie. Pepper (Pogany) rightly blamed segregation for “. . . a rapid development of a Negro petit-bourgeoisie, a Negro intelligentsia and even a Negro bourgeoisie. The very fact of segregation of the Negro masses creates the basis for the development of a stratum of small merchants, lawyer, physicians, preachers, brokers, who try to attract the Negro workers and farmers as consumers. . . .”[4] The Communists wanted to replace this independence and prosperity of the Negro people with hatred toward Aryans—and they succeeded remarkably well.

Furthermore, because Illuminism lives on crisis and turmoil, segregation was turned into a great social crisis. This crisis was one of the most artificial crises ever created in the United States. Illuminists, primarily through Communists, instigated it to add racial hatred to class hatred. (Integration also served the purpose of hastening the demise of the Aryan people as it facilitated breeding them out of existence through miscegenation.)

About Illuminists instigating the Negro Revolution, Lewis N., a prominent New York businessman, wrote to Strom Thurmond:

Roosevelt dismantled one American liberty after another and now Truman is trying to set up a Soviet land. The real problem is a cabal of Jewish lawyers behind the NAACP who are using the Negro for their own agenda. Washington is dominated by a handful of wealthy Jews and their hirelings. This is a struggle between Jews and Communists on the one hand and Christian Americans on the other. Please stick to your guns in this struggle to save the White race.[5]

Most promoters of the Negro Revolution were Communists or communist sympathizers. They included Herbert Aptheker (a Communist), Revels Cayton (a Communist and executive secretary of the National Negro Conference), Benjamin Davis (a Communist), W.E.B. DuBois (a Communists and a founder of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People), William Epton (a Communist), James Farmer (a national director of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, national director of Congress of Racial Equality), Jesse Grey (a Communist, organizer of the Harlem riot), Martin Luther King, Jr. (president of Southern Christian Leadership Conference), Malcolm X, Hunter Pitts O’Dell (a Communist, King’s secretary, executive director of Southern Christian Leadership Conference), William L. Patterson (a Communist and executive secretary of the Civil Rights Congress), Bayard Rustin (member of Young Communist League, King’s secretary and advisor, a field secretary for Congress of Racial Equality), Fred Shuttlesworth (vice-president of Southern Christian Leadership Conference, president of the Southern Conference Educational Fund), Aubrey Williams (a Communist, president of the Southern Conference Educational Fund, director of the National Youth Administration under President Franklin Roosevelt), Robert F. Williams (a Communist and a leader of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People), Max Yergan (a Communist and president of the National Negro Congress), and Andrew Young. All these men were Illuminist of varying degrees, mostly lower level Illuminists.

The leading Negro organizations were founded, organized, and controlled by Communists and communist sympathizers. These organizations included the National Negro Congress (NNC), Civil Rights Congress, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), National Urban League, Congress of Racial Equality (CORE), Southern Conference Educational Fund (SCEF), and Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC).

Not only were Illuminists using the financial might of their foundations to foment the Negro revolution, they also used the money and power of the United States government. President Johnson’s civil rights laws and War on Poverty were merely weapons that Illuminists used through the Negro revolution to destroy the constitutional government of the United States and the Aryan people.

One of the ostensible objects of the War on Poverty was to eliminate slums that agitators exploited to get Negroes to riot. Yet Communists and other agitators were hired to administer the War on Poverty. Actually, the real purpose of the War on Poverty was to create turmoil. (Before the riots of 1967 broke out, Sargent Shriver, director of the United States Office of Economic Opportunity, knew that the United Community Corp., an agency of the Office of Economic Opportunity, was organizing the riots.) Negro riots served the purpose of expanding the size, power, and intrusiveness of the United States government.

Black revolutionaries gave the Illuminists an excuse to carry out compulsory racial integration in the United States. Organization of racial integration was assigned to Ronald Lippert of the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) and the American Jewish Congress. His program called for the destruction of the individual’s personal identity and his racial heritage—especially the destruction of Aryan racial identity. The National Education Association was employed to execute this program. Controlling the National Education Association was the Stanford Research Institute. Controlling the Stanford Research Institute was the Tavistock Institute. The Tavistock Institute specialized in developing, teaching, and employing mind control and brainwashing techniques.

Some Negro leaders, such as former Communists Helen Wood Birnie and Manning Johnson, had the intelligence to oppose the evils of integration and to realize that Illuminists were using Negroes to advance their communistic, illuministic New World Order. These Negro leaders were ignored or smeared with vile epitaphs. (Probably many Negro leaders, such as King and DuBois, who had sold their souls to Illuminism were aware of these evils and that their people were merely tools used to advance the illuministic New World Order.)

To show Americans, especially Southerners, that the Illuminists controlled the United States government and that resistance to their despotic edits would be futile, the Illuminists had President Eisenhower to federalize the Arkansas national guard and use it to invade Little Rock in 1957. They had President Kennedy to federalize the Mississippi national guard in 1962 and use it to invade Mississippi. Thus, Illuminist used these national guards against their own States.

One of the most effective weapons used by Illuminists in the Negro Revolution in America was the creation of the so-called radical right-wing groups, such as the National States Rights Party and the American Nazi Party, both of which Illuminists controlled, to vilify. These organizations were labeled as neo-Nazi, fascist, or the like. They were often associated with noble causes, such as states’ rights, so that these noble causes, which blocked Illuminism, could be vilified or subverted. Then members of these groups, who were provocateurs, agitated Aryans into violent acts against Negroes. Thus, Illuminists won a public relation coup in favor of the revolutionists and against the real interest of the community. They drew support away from the true and legitimate opposition.

A major source of funding for the Negro Revolution was Carnegie’s foundations. Carnegie’s money also paid for Gunnar Myrdal’s study that purported to prove that segregation caused all the problems of the Negro. If it were not for segregation, the Negro would be the Aryan’s intellectual equal. Myrdal held that liberty must be sacrificed for the sake of social equality. He was a Communist who considered the United States Constitution to be a plot against the common people. Aiding him in his study were 16 people associated with communist fronts. At least four of them were Communists. The United States Supreme Court relied on Myrdal’s study to reject the United States Constitution and to impose integration.

Carnegie’s money also supported Whitney Young, a racial extortionist, and the National Urban League. Besides Carnegie’s foundations, Young and the National Urban League also received money from the Ford Foundation when McGeorge Bundy was its president. Young threatened the United States government into funding a social revolution to prevent an armed revolt. Actually, the political leaders and their illuministic superiors wanted to increase spending on social programs. Social programs make people dependent on the government, which Illuminists control. Thus, social programs facilitated Illuminists’ control of the masses.

Young was not the only militant black revolutionist to receive money from the Ford Foundation under Bundy’s leadership. The Ford Foundation also funded Milton A. Galamision, LeRoi Jones, and Floyd B. McKissick and the Congress of Racial Equality.

The whole civil rights movement was a hoax. Its purpose was not to grant Negroes “equal rights” per se. Its purpose was to enslave Aryans. The common excuse for Negro crime and Negro riots was that Negroes were rebelling against Aryan oppression. Aryans had denied Negroes their “rights.” Well, Negroes were not only granted “equal rights,” they were given superior rights. They became the new aristocracy, a privilege class. Yet Negro crime grew, and the riots still occurred. However, Aryans had surrendered enormous freedom in the name of “equal rights.” The more “equal rights” Negroes acquired, the more socialistic (fascistic) the United States became. (Wyatt Tee Walker, Kings chief-of-staff said, “If the Negro is to be given equality, our whole economy will have to be changed—probably to some sort of Socialism,”[6]) The more “equal rights” Negroes acquired, the more political power was concentrated in the United States government and in the Presidency— and less real rights anyone, Negro or Aryan, had.

The civil rights acts reduced the States, especially the Southern States, to little more than administrative districts of the United States government. They gave the President almost absolute control over every business in the country, public education, housing, and the media. In the name of eradicating the vestiges slavery, the civil rights acts reduced all to slavery.

According to King, slavery placed man’s services under the control of other men as masters, which is exactly what the civil rights acts that he supported did. Furthermore, Aryans were cowered into allowing their race and culture to be destroyed—the ultimate goal of the Illuminists, the annihilation of the Aryan race.

Realizing that it had ridden the black mule about as far as it could in fomenting a civil war, the Ford Foundation began financing a Mexican revolution in the United States. In 1968, it began funding the Southwest Council of La Raza. Its president, Maclovio Barraza, was a Communist. La Raza’s goal was to place the territory that Mexico lost to the United States in the Mexican War under the control of Mexicans. To expedite this revolt, Illuminists opened the border with Mexico virtually to uncontrolled Mexican immigration.

Endnotes
1. Alan Stang, It’s Very Simple; The True Story of Civil Rights (Belmont, Massachusetts: Western Islands, 1965), p. 31.

2. Ibid., p. 40.

3. William J. Petersen, Those Curious New Cults in the 80s (New Canaan, Connecticut: Keats Publishing, Inc., 1982), p. 238.

4. Stang, p. 140.

5. “History of Strom Thurmond’s 1948 States’ Rights Party Campaign for President,” The Truth at Last, issue no. 439, p. 6.

6. Stang, p. 145.

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

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, Bob. Larson’s Book of Cults. Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc. 1982.

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

Petersen, William J. Those Curious New Cults in the 80s. New Canaan, Connecticut: Keats Publishing, Inc., 1982.

Skousen, W. Cleon. The Naked Capitalist: A Review and Commentary on Dr. Carroll Quigley’s Book Tragedy and Hope. Salt Lake City, Utah, 1971.

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

Stang, Alan. It’s Very Simple; The True Story of Civil Rights. Belmont, Massachusetts: Western Islands, 1965.

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

Copyright © 2010 by Thomas Coley Allen.

 More articles on history. 

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.

Years Following World War II

Years Following World War II
Thomas Allen

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

Two great events following World War II were the Cold War and the establishment of the United Nations. The Cold War was a fictitious war although real but limited wars, such as the Korean War and Vietnam War, did occur during it.

Wars are necessary for the Illuminists to control people. To avoid the destructiveness of wars like the two world wars, the Illuminists resorted to fictitious wars and limited wars. Limited wars are necessary to make the fictitious wars convincing—thus, the war with Iraq and Afghanistan to make the War on Terrorism convincing. Furthermore, fictitious wars with their limited wars are easier to control and their out comes are more certain for the Illuminists, who control both sides of the conflicts.

The Cold War
The Cold War that followed World War II was the creation of the Illuminists working primarily through the Council on Foreign Relations. A principal component of the Cold War was the containment plan written by George Kennan. This plan became the official foreign policy of the United States toward the Soviet Union. It guaranteed the borders of the Soviet Union and the Soviet Union’s control of eastern Europe. Nevertheless, the Illuminists did not let the bellicose talk of the Soviet Union toward the United States and of the United States toward the Soviet Union interfere with trade between the two. Such verbal hostilities did not halt lending money to the Soviet Union. (Of coarse, the American taxpayers guaranteed these loans if the Soviet Union defaulted.)

The Cold War did not stop the selling military equipment, nuclear reactors (used to make plutonium for nuclear weapons), chemical plants and technology (used to make chemical weapons and other war material), transportation equipment (used to transport troops and munitions), and machinery (used to make components for weapons) to the Soviet Union. United States companies also supplied communist countries with chemicals, electronic equipment, food, medicines, machinery, metal products, metal ores and scrap, petroleum, plastics, radars, rubber, and textiles.

The Soviet Union had to be built up and maintained to make it a credible enemy of the West. Having a perpetual enemy is necessary for the Illuminists to maintain and expand their power over the people and to transfer wealth from the people to the Illuminists.

Concomitant with building up the Soviet Union was disarming the United States. President John Kennedy began the disarmament movement in earnest when he delivered his disarmament speech to the United Nation in 1961. A few days later the State Department formalized the United States government’s program for disarmament in Freedom From War: The United States Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World. This program contained three stages: (1) banning nuclear tests, (2) ending production of nuclear weapons and their delivery systems (bombers and missiles), and (3) transferring all existing nuclear weapons to the United Nations, which was the real goal. Additionally, anti-missile missiles and other defensive weapons would not be developed. Congress immediately created an agency to carry out Kennedy’s disarmament program. Kennedy appointed John J. McCloy (CFR member) as Director of Disarmament. To this day, the United States government has continued to carry out Kennedy’s disarmament program. Only the Reagan administration provided a slight reversal.

Another important function of the Cold War was “perpetual war for perpetual peace.” To carry out this program, the United States government implemented the “no win” policy against Communism. Presidents Johnson and Nixon carried this policy to its height with the Vietnam War. Although the United States could have won this war within a month, Johnson and Nixon dragged it out for 10 years. Nixon eventually allowed the North Vietnam too win it.

(George W. Bush’s never-ending War on Terrorism replaced the Cold War as the “perpetual war for perpetual peace” in 2001. With his War on Terrorism, he was able do what none of his predecessors could do with the Cold War. He was able to lay the foundation and build the structure necessary to turn the United States into a police state of which even Stalin and Hitler could not dream.)

The Cold War was necessary to maintain American support of the United Nations. If no threat to peace existed, Americans and other people might lose their enthusiasm for the United Nations — especially when its record of fostering wars rather than ensuring peace was considered.

Furthermore, to maintain the United Nations, the United States and its European allies had to maintain a strong Soviet Union. The United Nations had to be maintained, for it was the hub around which the New World Order was to be built. The United Nations had to be maintained so that a central authority existed to which the United States could surrender their weapons. A central global authority was needed to redistribute the wealth of the United States. It was needed to socialize the economy of the United Stats and the rest of the world and to bring the economies of the world under one authority, which the Illuminists would control. World government is needed to achieve world domination.

During the Cold War, few leaders in the United States really saw the communist Soviet Union as a real enemy. Why? Because the Illuminists controlled the Communists who ran the Soviet Union, just as they controlled most of the leaders in government, business, labor, the media, education, and religion in the United States. (The same is true with communist China.) Because the advancement of Communism benefitted the Illuminists, the United States adopted a policy of containment and appeasement toward the Soviet Union, China, and other communist countries. The United States strove never to defeat Communism or to overthrow a communist regime.

When the Soviet Union collapsed, Communism did not die. It merely entered a new phase. Mikhail Gorbachev, who oversaw the dismantling of the Soviet Union, adamantly admitted that he was a Communist and continued to support Communism. The dismantling was being done to advance Communism by lulling gullible Westerners into believing that Communism had been defeated. Communists still dominate much of the politics of Russia and the former communist countries of Eastern Europe.

The real reason for dismantling the Soviet Union and its obvious communistic government was to make consolidating Russia and other (former) communist countries with the United States and Western Europe into the New World Order easier. (Former communist countries of Eastern Europe are now being incorporated into the European Union.)

United Nations
The Council on Foreign Relations was instrumental in organizing the United Nations, which was the reincarnation of the defunct League of Nations with expanded powers. Its goal had always been to establish a world government, an essential element of the illuministic New World Order. Of the American delegation to the U. N. Conference at San Francisco in 1945, 47 were members of the Council on Foreign Relations. They included Dean Acheson (Assistant Secretary of State, head of the pro-Soviet group in the State Department, former employee of J.P. Morgan and Co., and later Truman’s Secretary of State), Ralph Bunche (Negro, official of National Negro Congress and Institute of Pacific Relations, both Communist fronts), John Foster Dulles, Thomas K. Finletter (State Department official, later Secretary of the Air Force and ambassador to NATO), Alger Hiss (Communist spy and secretary general of the United Nation’s founding conference), Clark M. Eichelberger, Philip Jessup (Soviet agent, member of Round Table Group, former chairman of the Institute of Pacific Relations), Joseph E. Johnson (chief of International Security Affairs division of the State Department, later trustee of Carnegie Endowment and director of the CFR), Owen Lattimore (communist sympathizer and fellow-traveler, Soviet agent), John J. McCloy (later president of the World Bank, head of the Rockefeller’s Chase Bank, chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations), Leo Pasvolsky, Nelson Rockefeller, Robert Schuman, Harold Stassen, Adlai Stevenson, Edward Stettinius (Secretary of State), John Carter Vincent (security risk), and Harry Dexter White (Soviet agent). John D. Rockefeller, Jr. donated the land for the United Nations building.

The United Nations and treaty organizations made under its authority severe to create a method to bypass Congress in making war, i.e., to bypass the constitutional charge that only Congress may declare war. The Council on Foreign Relations was able to violate the constitutional provision by concocting a false theory that treaties could be used to commit the United States to war without a congressional declaration. Thus, treaties, not the Constitution, became the supreme law of the land.

The charter of the United Nations is more than a treaty; it is a constitution for world government. It commits each member country to become a socialist country and to support socialism in all other countries. It creates a global political, social, economic, cultural, and education alliances. Its agencies have acquired the features of ministries in world governance. The United Nations has striven to abolished individual nationalities, cultures, political systems, and economies. A primary objective of the United Nations is to destroy nationalism, pride in one’s nation. Monsignor Michel Schooyans described the dangers of the ascendancy of the United Nations and globalism:

. . . the plan to govern the world via the UN has inherited a number of features from the Communist “International.” . . . Along with this plan for a world government, there is the process of globalization, or economic interdependence. . . . Globalization is dangerous because control of goods signifies control of workers. . . . New Age influences, including holistic theories which perceive man as only a particle of the universe, are challenging Christian values of human dignity. According to these theories, man is a result of evolution . . . [and] this transient being should, above all, respect nature and honor the Earth-Mother, Gaia. . . . Once more attempts are made to limit population growth and national sovereignty in the name of new pantheist and monist philosophies. . . .[1]

Korean War
The first important limited war that the Illuminists created was the Korean War. It was done to advance the United Nations and to secured Communist control of China. It was the first war of the United States’ policy of never again wining any war of any importance unless it advanced the cause of Illuminism.

The foundation for the Korean War was laid at the Yalta Conference. The United States and the Soviet Union agreed to partition Korea; the Koreans had no say in this partition. China and the Soviet Union were given control over North Korea. At least a year earlier, the Council on Foreign Relations was promoting a divided Korea.

To encourage war, Dean Acheson, Secretary of State and one of the conspirators turning China into a communist country, had declared South Korea to be outside the United States’ defense perimeter. To make South Korea more inviting, it was not allowed to have military aircraft or tanks. As the Soviet Union built up North Korea’s army, the United States restricted South Korea to light arms. As North Korea massed troops along the border with the intent of conquering South Korea, the Council of Foreign Relations controlled Truman administration did nothing.

To ensure that war would take place, the Soviet Union’s delegates walked out of the United Nation Security Council in protest when the issue of the North Korean invasion came before it. Had they remained, they could have vetoed involvement of the United Nation in Korea. After the Security Council voted to involve the United Nations in Korea, the Soviet Union’s delegation return. Using the United Nation’s declaration, Truman bypassed Congress and committed American troops to the Korean War.

To assure the Chinese Communists that the Illuminists of the West had given them China, President Harry Truman, a 33rd degree Freemason, dismissed General Douglas MacArthur because MacArthur made public that he was fighting Chinese in Korea. Several hundred thousand Chinese “volunteers” had entered North Korea to fight Americans and their allies. MacArthur also wanted to bomb Chinese supply lines, but Marshall, Secretary of Defense, would not allow him to do so. MacArthur’s superiors had placed Manchuria off limits to his forces. Within days after China’s involvement came public, Truman dismissed him. Secretary of Defense Robert A. Lovett, a member of the Skull and Bones and CFR, had urged Truman to recall MacArthur. Also urging his dismissal were John J. McCloy, who had also pressed for General Patton’s dismissal, and Averell Harriman, a banker and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and Skull and Bones. General Ridgway, who was a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and who supported a stalemate in Korea, replaced MacArthur, who wanted to defeat the Communist in Asia, as Supreme Commander. (MacArthur was not going along with the Illuminists’ policy of “containing” Communism; instead, he wanted to defeat it.)

The Korean War was not a complete success for the Illuminists. South Korea was slated to fall to the Communists. Owen Lattimore of the Council of Foreign Relations and the Institute of Pacific Relations had written in 1949 that South Korea was to fall to the Communists.[2]
Nevertheless, Lucifer would again feast on a great blood sacrifice. At least 400 American soldiers were left in Chinese and Korean communist prison camps for the Communists to torture and use as slave labor and experimentation. So much for Eisenhower’s “peace with honor.” The Korean War did accomplish the goal of empowering and strengthening the United Nations.

Eisenhower’s acceptance of a divided Korea led to a divided Vietnam, the work of John Foster Dulles. A divided Vietnam led to a protracted no-win Vietnam War, which ended with the Communists conquering South Vietnam.

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


Endnotes
1. Dennis L. Cuddy, The Globalists: The Power Elite Exposed (Oklahoma City, Oklahoma: Hearthstone Publishing, 2001), p. 292.

2. W. Cleon Skousen, The Naked Capitalist: A Review and Commentary on Dr. Carroll Quigley’s Book Tragedy and Hope (Salt Lake City, Utah, 1971), p. 78.

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

Carr, William Guy. The Conspiracy to Destroy All Existing Governments and Religions.
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.

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.

Kah, Gary H. En Route to Global Occupation. Lafayette, Louisiana: Huntington House Publishers, 1992.

Kah, Gary H. The New World Religion. Noblesville, Indiana: Hope International Publishing, Inc., 1998.

Kirban, Salem. Satan’s Angels Exposed. Huntingdon Valley, Pennsylvania: Salem Kirban Inc., 1980.

Knight, Stephen. The Brotherhood: The Secret World of the Freemasons. Briarcliff Manor, New York: Stein and Day, 1984.

McCormick, W. J. McK. Christ, the Christian and Freemasonry. Carryduff, Belfast: Great Joy Publications, 1984.

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.

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.

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

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

Skousen, W. Cleon. The Naked Capitalist: A Review and Commentary on Dr. Carroll Quigley’s Book Tragedy and Hope. Salt Lake City, Utah, 1971.

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. 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.

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

Wardner, James W. Unholy Alliances: The Secret Plan and the Secret People Who Are Working to Destroy America. James W. Wardner, 1996.

Copyright © 2010 by Thomas Colely Allen.

  More articles on history.

China

China
Thomas Allen

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

At the conclusion of World War II, Illuminists began building up China as the next world power that the Illuminists planned to use to initiate their third world war. This war would eradicate the Aryan people, or at least reduce them to such insignificance that the postwar mop up could eliminate the few remaining ones.

Some believe that the buildup of China was intended to be a counter balance to the Soviet Union. Illuminists of the West could use China to keep the Soviet Union in line if the Illuminists of the Soviet Union started acting too independently. This was the claim of the Establishment media, which Illuminists control. Even people not controlled by Illuminists thought such was the reason. However, the greatest transfer of wealth and technology to China occurred after the dismantlement of the Soviet Union and during the administration of President William Clinton, a Rhodes scholar and CFR member, and continued by President G.W. Bush, a member of Skull and Bones.

The United States’ war with Japan aided communist advancement in China. Before the war, Japan had not only halted communist expansion in China, but had caused it to retreat.

While Chiang Kai-shek’s army was trying to drive the Japanese from China, the Soviet backed Chinese Communist Party was capturing the territory to Chiang’s rear. By 1943, the Communists had gained controlled of northern China.

After Germany’s defeat, Japan sought peace. However, Harry Dexter White and other Soviet agents of Stalin persuaded Truman to continue the war and to destroy Japan as a power in the Far East. The war continued long enough to drop nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki (one of the few centers of Christian missionary work in the Far East) and for the Soviet Union to declare war on Japan. (For its two days of war against Japan, the Soviet Union received the Kurile Islands and South Sakhalin and control of the Manchuria railroad.)

Among the Far Eastern experts whose advise Roosevelt and Truman used to force Communism on China were Lauchlin Currie (confidential administrative assistant to the President, Roosevelt’s personal emissary to Chiang, a CFR member, and a spy for the Soviet Union), Gregory Silvermaster (a Jew, Communist, and Soviet agent), Michael Greenberg (a Jew and Communist), and Alger Hiss (a CFR member, Communist, Soviet agent, and spy).

Following World War II, Marshall aided Mao Tse-tung in bringing the Communists to power in China by stopping the supplies of fuel and munitions to Chiang Kai-shek and the Nationalist Chinese, who had been allies of the United Sates in the war against Japan. At this time Marshall was under Henry L. Stimson, Secretary of War and a member of the Skull and Bones.

Marshall went to China shortly after World War II and told Chiang that if he did not allow the Communists to enter his government, all American aid would cease. Chiang refused to allow the Communists into his government, and Marshall stopped the aid. After Congress directed that aid be sent to Chiang, the Truman administration prevented the aid from reaching him. Thus, the Communists forced the Nationalists to retreat to Twain. By 1949, the Communists held all mainland China.

Meanwhile, Lattimore, a Soviet agent, and other pro-Communist writers were writing books and articles supporting the Chinese Communists and condemning Chiang. Through book reviews, Lattimore and his procommunist colleagues stifled objective and anticommunist books on the Far East. Mainline magazines, such as the Saturday Evening Post and Colliers, glorified Mao and the Chinese Communist as “agrarian reformers.”

Once Mao gained controlled of China, he began in earnest to carry out his reign of terror. During the first five years of communist rule, Mao had 40 million people liquidated.[1] Husbands were separated from wives, and children, from parents. To destroy the individuality of children, the Communists replaced their names with numbers. Using terror and torture, Mao sought to eradicate all Christians and vestiges of Christianity from China.

The next great advancement for Communist China came in 1971. In 1971, President Richard Nixon appointed George H. W. Bush as United States Ambassador to the United Nations. Bush was a member of the Skull and Bones, Council on Foreign Relations, and Trilateral Commission and became the 41st President. Bush allowed the United Nations to expel the Republic of China (Twain) and to give its seat to Communist China. After faithfully fulfilling his duty to his fellow Illuminists, he resigned and became Chairman of the Republican National Committee.

The build up of China began in earnest during the administration of Ronald Reagan. Bechtel Corp., a privately owned firm, was the company that the Illuminists used to spearhead the reconstruction of China. Among Bechtel’s employees were Richard Helms (Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, CFR member), George Shultz (Secretary of State), and Casper Weinberger (Secretary of Defense). Shultz was the president of Bechtel, and Weinberger was the vice-president and general counsel.

With the Clinton administration, the buildup of China accelerated with the transfer of advance military technology to China. The United States special forces trained Chinese special forces in tactics that could be used in an invasion of Taiwan. The United States intensified its campaign to demoralize the Taiwanese and the surrender of Taiwan to China.

Endnote
1. John A. Stormer, None Dare Call It Treason (Florissant, Missouri: Liberty Bell Press, 1964), p. 133.

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

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

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

Roberts, Archibald E. The Most Secret Science. Fort Collins, Colorado: Betsy Ross Press, 1984.

Skousen, W. Cleon. The Naked Capitalist: A Review and Commentary on Dr. Carroll Quigley’s Book Tragedy and Hope. Salt Lake City, Utah, 1971.

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.

Wardner, James W. Unholy Alliances: The Secret Plan and the Secret People Who Are Working to Destroy America. James W. Wardner, 1996.

Webster, Nesta H. World Revolution: The Plot Against Civilization. Editor Anthony Gittens. Seventh edition. Palmdale, California: Omni Publications, 1994.

Copyright © 2010 by Thomas Coley Allen.

 More articles on history.