Gold or fascism? It's decision time

When even shadow home office ministers are looking over their shoulders at routine persecution, kidnapping, and terrorism, instigated by the gestapoid numskulls of Zanu New Labour, I think it becomes clear that an important crossroads in British history has been reached.

That is to say, the choice between a commodity money standard, based upon real values, or a fiat paper money standard, based upon notional values backed up by the use of Mao's gun; a.k.a. fascism.

It has been a long road getting to this point, with perhaps the decision to declare war against Germany, in 1914, the major one, authorised as it was by a mere handful of cabinet ministers. The British government then issued enough fiat currency to float a Dreadnought in, to 'pay' for their war, but then refused to drop the amount of gold each pound was supposed to be worth after the war, despite this vast inflation of the currency supply. This led, inevitably, to the British government's break with the gold standard on the 21st of September, 1931, with this overvaluation of the pound having brought misery to millions in the 1920s.

Before 1914, though with many suspensions and obfuscations, particularly during the Napoleonic era, if an Englishman ever thought his government was monkeying around with the money supply, he could simply exchange his pound notes for gold, at the rate of 113 grains of 22-carat gold, per pound (or 7.3 grammes in the French specification).

I would never go as far as to say that this ability to turn paper into gold ever kept the government honest. But it certainly kept them a lot less dishonest, though they had been itching to get off the gold and the silver standard for centuries, particularly that boorish drunken gangster, Henry the VIIIth. The ruling powers finally saw their chance, in 1931, and grabbed it with both feckless hands. Ever since, with the ephemeral complication of the failed Bretton-Woods agreement, British government pounds have been worth whatever the British government have said they were worth.

Our lords and masters have thus been able to print up billions upon trillions of pounds, at whim, to fund whatever programmes they felt like wasting them on, be it the welfare state (which has produced entire towns full of, to quote a government minister, 'feral' children), the warfare state (which has invaded innumerable countries around the world often based upon the most outrageous lies - e.g. Iraq - making the world less safe for English people), or for whatever pensions, salaries, and other imposts they felt commensurate with their vainglorious importance. And all without worrying about ordinary English people turning up at the Bank of England and demanding gold for their pounds. Splendid!

To break off at a tangent, at this point, let us consider what a 'government' is.

Karl Marx was a spectacularly successful plagiarist, whose ideas have been responsible for the deaths of millions, but one thing he plagiarised well, stealing it from earlier French classical liberals, such as Adolphe Blanqui and Jean-Baptiste Say, was the class system. Blanqui and Say postulated that there are two classes in most societies that have governments. The first is the tax generator class; the second is the tax consumer class.

Sometimes in history, particularly around revolutions, the two classes swap places, but their functional natures remain the same. One smaller class, the expropriating tax consumer class, basically rob the tax generator class, on a regular basis, milking them like cattle. They are Uncle Murray's band of robbers writ large.

The larger class tolerate this shocking behaviour, and all the criminality associated with it, because the smaller class have persuaded them that this is the way it should be.

The methods involved in this persuasion often involve force, of course, but in the long run force is not enough. The larger tax generator class must be at least partially convinced that this is the way it should. Hence, the special tax consumer subsidisation of one of their main sub-classes, the intellectual elite. In return for a godly portion of the loot, the intellectuals must justify this two class system criminality. They can use God (as with the Normans using the Churches and Cathedrals as their main weapon to enslave the Anglo-Saxons), they can use the bribery of key groups (as in the welfare state and handouts for farmers), or they can use ideology (as they have been devastatingly successful with, when defending the idea of 'democracy').

Whatever method they use, the two classes remain distinct. The organisation, of course, which keeps the whole kaboodle in place, is 'the government'. It is the structural entity, or 'Matrix', if you will, which keeps the tax generators in their place, and which organises the distribution of the spoils to the tax consumers.

Think of the tax consumers as being a giant stag beetle upon the back of a tax generator, and the government as this nauseous insect's brain.

But this relationship between the two classes is about to enter another period of dramatic revolution. They may have killed the gold standard in 1931 (with the same occurring in the US in 1933), but the paper pound/dollar standard that was then created to allow the massive growth of total government, total welfare, and total war, is collapsing around our ears. They will NOT be able to revive it.

There are only two choices. We can either go back to gold, and liberty, and freedom, and putting the government back in a cage (which as an anarchist I am hoping we can later shrink down to an insignificant mouse trap) or we can adopt the only other way of preserving their ability to bleed us dry through inflation, and that route will be force.

This is how evil and stupid these people in the tax consumer class are. Despite condemning even themselves and their offspring to a potentially hazardous future based upon police state fascism, they would rather still go that way to keep their temporary spoils now.

I have news for them, of course. You may be able to steal all of my money, you thieving maggots. You may even be able to prevent me from leaving the country, so that you can pin me ever more deeply into the fleecing pen. And you may be able to silence me by threatening me with the consequences of speaking out. But what are you going to do when the money runs out? What are you going to do when I do just enough to survive myself, but produce absolutely no extra loot for you to steal from me? You can jump up and down all you like, but I will simply sit down in the street (or the Gulag), if it should reach that point, and just refuse to initiate or originate the creation of anything you can then take from me. And if you imprison us all, or even kill us all, who is going to do your work for you then?

That you would rather get to this point, rather than fix the money supply, makes you even more despicable to me than I thought previously. But I think your days are numbered. And when we do get to a commodity standard, hopefully within my lifetime, I will know this for a fact. We will have turned a corner.

It cannot come soon enough.

Fortunately, unless you do kill us all, even the road to fascist serfdom eventually leads back to the path to liberty, because fascist governments always collapse in the end, due to their complete inability to manage anything other than a basic agrarian economy (which in Britain would take us back to a population of around two million, mostly starving in most winters.)

Though sometimes I get the feeling that the tax consumers would rather even have this than actually become private producers in a free market. Ecomentalism may even be the outpouring of this emotion of refusing to embrace the free market. Thankfully, I don't think they will have the choice.

Freedom is coming.

I just wish it would hurry up getting here.