Niteowl News Links: Gold-backed Currency

"We have met the enemy and he is us." --Pogo

This is a commentary in response to Ed Griffin’s espousing

gold-backed currency whilst remonstrating Bill Still for not

being a proponent of it, but of fiat currency instead.

I have taken comments from Mr. Griffin’s “analysis” of

MEET BILL STILL, FIAT-MONEY ADVOCATE if one wishes

to reference the full article.

E.G.: “The proposal is that we should take the power to create

money-out-of-nothing away from big, bad bankers and turn

it over to nice, trustworthy politicians.”

Still advocates what the Constitution advocates—that of

allowing Congress the power to coin and print money.

The government is corrupted--few, if any, would doubt that-- but a gold standard will not throw that problem into oblivion.

E.G.: “He praises Lincoln for issuing debt-based money, called

Greenbacks, during the Civil War even though this was a

blatant violation of the Constitution.”

This was an emergency. Another emergency is the ongoing one

we have with not only a central bank that we don’t need

but one which has blatantly horded gold after deceiving

several nations out of theirs and then refusing to honor

their debts to them. For more on this issue, I would recommend

David Wilcock’s well researched Financial Tyranny and a read up

on the Neil Keenan case.

E.G.: “In a similar vein, he approvingly surveys the early colonial

period in which colonial governments resorted to printing-press

money without silver or gold backing. It led to disastrous

inflation and was devastating to the common man;”

This argument falls through in terms of a gold backed solution

for the reason given above--that the gold is all too controlled

by the powerful interests and not just in terms of what they

hoodwinked out of other nations but the obvious up and down

fluctuations in the market and their ability to control the supply.

If they can manipulate the price of oil, they can do this with

metals as well and have been doing it since before the time of

Cecil Rhodes. Obviously, a government can manipulate a currency without metal backing as well, but what is to stop the government from doing what central banks have been doing in deceiving people into thinking they have something they don't? In financial terms, one can simply call it cooking the books and making it appear there's a proper measure of metal to back the currency in print.

E.G.: “Still claims that it would be a mistake to return to a gold-backed monetary system because most of the world’s gold now is held by the bankers.

Central banks do hold more gold than any other single entity; but

the total inventory of gold in the hands of private citizens, as

bullion or coins or jewelry or known deposits in working mines,

is much larger.”

There is a fallacy in at least two places here. The first is the obvious ability to manipulate the commodity when it is held by a cartel and a concerted effort can be effected to produce a price manipulation just like a “shortage” was created when people were standing in line for fuel while tugboat captains were exclaiming that they were tied up at the docks unable to unload. Another fallacy is the mere mention of working mines without the acknowledgement of yet the ability to manipulate them as well. Any commodity, or in the case of usury, the lack thereof, can be manipulated. Another point is that there are those, such as Walter Burien, who would argue that the populace does not hold more gold than the bankers.

E.G.: “In addition to that is the vast reserve of gold in the earth and

oceans that has not yet even been located or measured. If money were to be restored to a precious-metal base, this largely invisible reserve would be more than adequate to supply the demand. We must remember that the limited supply of gold as a monetary base is an advantage, not a disadvantage. If it were not scarce, it would not have utility as money. The smaller the supply, the more valuable it is”

Shall I state the obvious that this argument seems to overturn itself? Let me once again recommend Wilcock’s Financial Tyranny and his exposing the fact that there is more gold than we have been led to believe—much more.

E.G.: “Bill Still does not make this argument but comes close to it when he says that most of the world’s gold is held by the bankers. Even if this were true (which it is not) we need to ask a question: If gold is so useless, why are the bankers trying to acquire it as fast as they can? And why are central bankers so strongly opposed to gold or silver-backed currencies? The answer is obvious. It is because precious metals still are, and will continue to be, a universally recognized storehouse of value, and that value cannot be manipulated by bankers OR free-spending politicians. But fiat money CAN be –and always will be. “

The statement that gold cannot be manipulated by bankers is flat out FALSE! I would say it once again as the desire to control a means of exchange—something they’ve been doing for one hell of a long time, and I would recommend an article by Walter Burien to pound this point home:

SO YOU WANT A GOLD BACKED CURRENCY - THE 50-YEAR PLAN IS COMING TO A CLOSE..

E.G.: “having the money supply based on gold is the LAST thing they want because that hampers their ability to earn a profit from their activities.”

So far they’ve been doing a real good job of getting one—from, yes, gold and silver.

Griffin’s proposed solution: “The only solution that the power brokers fear is a system that does not allow bankers OR politicians to manipulate the money supply – and the only system that prevents that is one based on something of tangible value…”

Excuse my impertinence Mr. Griffin, but history doth repeat itself a little too much. We had a central bank once, no one liked it and no one wanted another one except the goddamn banking interests. So once again they got one by deception. When the Federal Reserve Act was passed, well we know the whole story of Jekyll Island and your great book, but then one can go back to the Templars and perhaps see the beginning of banking and how they began to see that few would come in to claim their gold and so they would make loans beyond that which they actually had. From there it gets extrapolated out into the millions, billions, and today trillions and so what can we say about gold being a true counter measure to corruption in financial transactions—NOT! The hand of the mortal has created a philosopher’s stone that Biddle and Jackson duked it out over, that Hamilton and Jefferson did as well, and the pope probably wanted the Templars gone partly because of his envy of their power due to their financial status gotten by usury.

My point here is that anything—fiat money, gold backed money or anything else—can be manipulated and government and society corrupted because of it. This is not a federal problem and indeed not even a cabal problem. It is a human one. And for one to see the gobsmacking reality of that, they have only to look at the dual sets of books that states have or the corruption engaged in by rural planning committees who charge the taxpayer for something they may do but have already been paid for. i.e., they pocket the money and the taxpayer gets stiffed twice.