Sunday, March 16, 2014

The Past Rings True

As with all things REAL and TIMELESS, the past rings true. And just as FOFOA's greatest asset is his unyielding devotion to the past truths of "A", so have I added the Galmarley archives ... which, sadly, appear to have all but ended around 2002.

2002 is an interesting time in history. The Asian Currency crisis, the LBMA clearing reports being made public, the tech boom and bust, and even the World Trade Center events of 911 had already passed. Another had just passed the torch to his friend ...

And yet this was 12 years ago now, and the great derivatives failure of 2008 had not yet even begun.

And the author at Galmarley back then writes not just of his present, or recent past, but also of a time some 70 years before, with an unusual yet simple spin on a very "relevant to today" topic. He writes in much the same style as Another.

Add our 12 most recent years, to today, and it is but 82 years ago (the span of but a single lifetime) when, during the "Great Depression":
"... Roosevelt’s new deal put more paper dollars into the system. America's savers saw the risk of their being unable to replace their share of this expanding supply of paper with a constant supply of gold. As was their right at that time they started to demand gold in exchange for their paper money.
What the savers of America were doing was exercising exactly the same control over their government as the bank exercises over the incautious shopper. They had realised that with this type of government, their gold, the physical guarantor of their freedom, was safer buried in their fields. 
Experiencing a rupture of its gold reserve, the response of the Roosevelt government was to outlaw the personal ownership of gold in 1933. Naturally it was never intended as a tyrannical act, but it was nonetheless the first and far from obvious step on the road to the end of liberty."
Perhaps you have not heard of this particular "take" on the reason for Roosevelt's gold confiscation. It is seldom cited that American savers running and gunning their own domestic bullion market was the cause for his executive order. In most descriptions of that time, it is simply implied that Roosevelt had to acquire the people's gold for the good of the people, and the country, in light of "extraordinary circumstances".

With this perspective, do you not see Nixon's intervention in 1971 as the Roosevelt "confiscation" on a truly global scale?

The entire Galmarley article must be read to understand how the subject of private property is elemental to the freedom of gold, a topic covered at length at (no longer available online). I especially like the quote from Warren Buffet's father regarding the politician as a fireman with an impotent hose.

But in the context of today, we have a third "intervention".

We have the producers of the world acting as the savers of America once did, during the Roosevelt era. See if my change of words below does not "rhyme" with a past that Galmarley describes above:
"What the producing nations of the world are doing today is exercising exactly the same control over their global wealth reserve issuer as the bank exercises over the incautious shopper. They had realised that with this type of dollar centric fiat system, their gold, the physical guarantor of their freedom, was safer buried in their fields."
Truly, the U.S.A. was given FULL license to "govern the world" by virtue of it's debt as a global wealth reserve. And so it has "governed".

Is this not the same historic pattern, which China, Russia, India, Iran and the BRICS find themselves repeating in the context of today? Is not the response of the United States completely analogous to the Rooseveltian or Nixonian reactions, essentially to place sanctions upon the monetary freedom of those who seek it, through sanctions and restrictions of their greatly exalted paper proxy of economic freedom?

Even the situation in the Ukraine rhymes with the patterns of so many layers of the past.

Think about the repatriation of Germany's gold in this context also, as a great rift in the EU is not unlikely. "Savers and producers" may soon be strange bedfellows of different stripes, as "debtors and spenders" truly find their common camps at opposition.

It is but a measure of acceptance in each and any case is it not? When a group stops accepting dollars, the dollar fights back. First the American people during the Depression, then other nations during the pre Nixon expansion. Today, it is the producers/savers of the modern world and their expanded gold holdings.

The weak are plundered, like Iraq and Libya ... but it is too little too late, as Syria and Ukraine begin to tell.

Of course all dollar sanctions now are destined to backfire, as the screw has finally turned, and the politically blind are absurdly prepared now to "confiscate dollars" (through electronic sanctioning) in a perverse standoff.

But the paper MUST have a showdown with gold in order that it's issuers can once and for all claim their dominance over it, or be defeated in a final act of sedition against it. This is the final play now at hand.

You are witnessing this third and final intervention as I write this, and may even live to tell your grandchildren of it, if you survive the change it brings.

No comments:

Post a Comment