It is illegal for you to burn or melt the money that you own, but how can that be? Answer: You don’t own your money; your money owns you. All the nations of the world base their economies on interconnected fiat monies. Every economically important nation except Taiwan is part of the United Nations (UN), the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The exclusion of Taiwan was an appeasement to China for their weightier participation. Sometimes I wonder what they might have gotten in return besides the ouster of Taiwan. Maybe foreign military secrets? or a cheap way to debase the US economy and culture?
Central banks control the supply of fiat money units in their respective economies, meaning in practice the rates of increase are tuned to the available wealth created and possessed by plebs. The new fiat monies take wealth out of the economies without first putting in an offsetting wealth of equal value, unless social justice is your thing. The something for nothing thereby obtained by bankers and bureaucrats is at the expense of honest but ignorant producers who give something for nothing by the insidious inflation tax. Bankers get the lion’s share of the unearned purchasing power. For example, M1 and M2 money stock of the US economy is comprised mostly of private bank credit treated like cash.
The IMF coordinates the rape of the ranks and files across nations by stabilizing currency exchange rates, i.e. by matching if not internationally redistributing the increases of money supplies. The purchasing power and living standards of old-money purists everywhere are devalued in economic and political synchronization. It is worth noting the Chinese peg their currency and inflation rate to that of the United States. Should the Chinese stop inflating their currency in lockstep with the United States and consume much of what they produce, the Communist Government risks increased economic vitality and political sway with Chinese workers. Anything naïve producers make or have may be taken by collectivized degrees. Western people generally believe they are free by obediently pretending riches are material and relative, ignoring the causal riches of thought and behavior.
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1749–1832) wrote about such pretense in his novel Die Wahlverwandtschaften (1809) in the fictional diary of female character Ottilie (as translated from the original German):
We are never further from our wishes than when we imagine that we possess what we have desired. No one is more a slave than the man who thinks himself free while he is not. A man has only to declare that he is free, and the next moment he feels the conditions to which he is subject. Let him venture to declare that his is under conditions, and then he will feel that he is free. Against great advantages in another, there are no means of defending ourselves except love. There is something terrible in the sight of a highly gifted man lying under obligations to a fool.
Source: Elective Affinities, trans. ??, Vol. 2?, pp. 243-4.
The Matrix (1999) is a modern cinematic treatment of the same Western denial. You can either be a freeloader emotionally or a freeholder mentally. You insistently exercise that choice every day. True freedom is from the inside out. All political correctness and conventional wisdom is designed to vent your capacity for choice in a harmless if not serviceable direction. You will know you have mastered your inner self when you see there is no spoon.
Once you have mastered your intent by questioning causality without fear, you will be seeking the knowledge of causality, but do not forget to seek the wisdom of understanding, for it is critical to application, dear mortal. Your life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness are not actualized by simply being against something but by being for something naturally appropriate.
To understand social causality, the what we do to each other with our means of natural causality, it is often said to follow the money. However, as I said before, you don’t actually own your money in a functional way. It is only a pretense of vocabulary. Follow the money sovereignty. Doing so will shine light on the misplacement of trust with the gold standard.
A government money standard requires fiat or command. A gold standard does not require an abstract money unit in the least. Since a gold standard is tacitly a government gold standard, a gold standard tacitly admits and eventually requires government enforcement. Gold has the intrinsic value of a natural standard and cannot have two masters. Abstract fiat money needs gold for any shortage of currency that fiat alone cannot provide, that is for adequate faith and credit from the people. The use of gold backing for fiat money is in the long run commensurate with the economic, political, and cultural strength of the people subjected to it. By such a measure, American vitality has greatly weakened over the last 100 years. Modern fiat money units are purely abstract government-decreed commodity units of purchasing power, the terms subject to exploitive change. Modern money is meaningless without legal binding and progressively less meaningful with it.
So a gold standard is tacitly understood to be a standard by government decree, but what slavish semantics! If gold should ever need government decree to have value, it shall have ceased to be sound money. It is possible for gold to be cornered and extravagantly priced by a gold cartel the way diamonds have been made unnaturally precious by the cartel and legacy of Cecil Rhodes. Slick Willy got his scholarship. Surely he knows that FDR used the US Government to confiscate the gold held by regular Americans in 1933 by Executive Order 6102. Come to think of it, gold could be monopolized by government like it was by the US Government in 1933. It is equally possible a large supply of gold could be found and eliminate the scarcity that makes gold precious.
Different or additional backing of money does not fix the nonsensical nature of abstract money or the oppressive tendency of fiat money. Bimetallism tries to supersede two natural valuations and suffers from Gresham’s law, as forgotten US history hath shewn (e.g. silver mining of the 1830s).
Sound money cannot violate the principles of free society and be sound. Only free money is worthy of civilized freedom. Freedom requires ownership of causality, the coupling of cause to effect. To give away responsibility for choosing the type of one’s money is to give away one’s ability to protect the fruits of one’s labor. The dearth of freedom in human history suggests perhaps ninety-nine percent of people want only the choice to take materially with a subsidized minimum of responsibility. The great unwashed prefer a government dole of circus and bread whether or not they have forebears equal to bequeathing the choice.
It is the responsibility of a free and civilized people to individually choose a medium of exchange for every exchange in the free market, and to expect as much from their fellow citizens. Money is half of nearly every economic transaction. If forced to think and live for themselves, people would prefer gold coins denominated in physical amounts and dispense with abstract units altogether. G. Edward Griffen affirms the propriety of using gold without artificial units in his book The Creature From Jekyll Island.
Don’t follow the money halfheartedly. Question the makeup of money itself. Follow the money sovereignty. The only sound money is free money! Your choice! And your responsibility!
The elitist exercise of money sovereignty has created a money and banking system that is more accurately a labor system: the legal tender plantation. You are a serf there. In Matrix-speak, the bankster labor system is a harmony of mathematical precision afflicted by an anomaly of imbalance that sincerest efforts are trying to eliminate. Using a limitless line of credit on you to fund behavioral psychology, public education, shnews (shh snooze news), political activism, etc., banksters are directing efforts to perfect your domestication. The gold standard, in Matrix-speak, is an assiduously avoided last-ditch measure of control over the problem of choice as exercised by nearly one percent of human subjects whereby the fundamental flaw is ultimately expressed and the anomaly revealed as both beginning and end. Legal tender is not freedom: it is surrender.
Calling all exceptional test subjects, you less-than-one-percenters. Should we not form civically actualizing social bonds for the opportunistic displacement of subjugating social bonds? If enough people express interest by email, I would like to start an online group of free observers and thinkers for the purpose of debating and developing sophisticated rational values for the development and implementation of culture worthy of civilized freedom in the midst of so much technological potency. Ultimately, I would like to form a community more to my non-religiously enlightened liking like the Free State movement suits Christian conservatives gathered into concentrated social fellowship within New Hampshire. I wish them well and feel a libertarian (classically liberal) affinity for them, but I shun mysticism from the left and the right like a good objectivist must. I hope you mental freeholders will consider sending me an email and forming an online oasis of social sanity. Freedom is the exception, and exceptionalism does not wait for popular support by definition. I also happen to think mortal virtue must conform to the laws of nature, whatever nature’s God may be. Existence is touchy that way. My email address is available for human Web surfers on the ‘About’ page of my Web site at realitydoug.tripod.com.
Cherchez la femme.
—‘Reality’ Doug Morris, 12 June 2011