Posted by editors 02-14-’22  Antonius Aquinas@antoniusaquinas https://antoniusaquinas.com

A half century ago one of the most disastrous monetary decisions in U.S. history was committed by Richard Nixon.  In a television address, the president declared that the nation would no longer redeem internationally dollars for gold.  Since the dollar was the world’s reserve currency, Nixon’s closing of the “Gold Window” put the world on an irredeemable paper monetary standard.

The ramifications of the act continue to this very day.  America’s current financial mess, budget deficits, the reoccurring booms and busts, the decline of living standards (particularly the middle class), all have their genesis with Nixon’s infamous decision in August, 1971.

Abandoning the last vestiges of the gold standard was the culmination of a long-term goal of the banksters, politicians, financial elites, and deceitful economists.  The first step was the establishment of the Federal Reserve in 1913 whose primary purpose was to allow its member banks to inflate the money supply without fearing the consequences – bank failures/panics, bank runs, recessions/depressions.  The Fed could, and still does, through the control of the money supply enrich itself, the government, and its aligned financial elites at the expense of the public at large. 

The next step on the road to monetary debasement was Franklin Roosevelt’s  draconian measure of outlawing the private ownership of gold.  This was not only an unprecedented and outrageous attack on private property, but it also eliminated gold redemption of dollars domestically, which gave the Fed unlimited power to print money without fear of its notes being redeemed.

The specious justification for the law, enacted shortly after the start of FDR’s first tyrannical term in office, was to fight the Great Depression.  Of course, the measure did nothing to mitigate the Depression which, in fact, was not caused by Americans’ ownership of gold, but rather the Fed itself and its wild inflationary policies throughout the “Roaring 20s.” 

FDR’s action, like Nixon’s, demonstrated how much the power of the presidency had expanded.  It shows again the flawed and frankly naïve argument put forth by Constitutionalists and conservatives of every ideological persuasion that the celebrated “separation of powers” theory that supposedly checks the aggrandizement of federal power could not prevent the audacious acts of FDR and Nixon.   Despite what is taught in social sciences courses, a true gold standard is a greater protector of individuals’ economic well being and, ultimately, their political liberty than any legislation, bills of rights, or constitution ever penned.  Hard money limits state power!

The primary reason why President Nixon closed the Gold Window was to fund the nation’s “guns & butter” economic and social policies which had begun under his predecessor Lyndon Johnson.  Johnson’s “War on Poverty” and his escalation of the war in Vietnam caused the Fed to print vast amounts of money which began to drain the Treasury of gold. 

While U.S. citizens and financial institutions could not redeem dollars for gold, foreign central banks could.  The U.S.’s inflationary policy to fund its domestic and foreign objectives was why the Gold Window was closed.  In effect, the U.S. was reneging on its commitment which had been in place since Bretton Woods.  It was not as President Nixon announced as part of his new economic policy initiative entitled “The Challenge of Peace,” “to take action necessary to defend the dollar against the speculators.”* Instead, it was the type of monetary chicanery that banana republic’s often pursue. 

Culturally, the eradication of hard money was part of the transformation of a mature, frugal, hardworking, and future-oriented people into an infantile, self-absorbed, dysfunctional, and hedonistic collection of individuals.  While many consequences of this change could be cited, one of the most telling is that America has gone from a creditor nation (in 1971) to a debtor nation within a couple of generations.  Not only has the national debt exploded (which now exceeds $30 trillion!), but personal and corporate debt are at dizzying heights.    

At this point, a reversal of President Nixon’s decision would do little to confront the immense problems which the U.S. economy faces.  A “Great Reset” of the economic system is in order, but not the kind envisioned by the world’s financial elites. 

An honest-to-goodness reset would begin with a return to a metallic monetary standard where all national currencies would be redeemable in gold/silver.  Such a move would put a real check on banks’ ability to create money “out of thin air.”

The return of prosperity will only come about when gold is again a part of the monetary order and reasserts its critical role in the limitation of central bank power.

*Richard M. Nixon, “Address to the Nation Outlining a New Economic Policy: ‘The Challenge of Peace.’”  The American Presidency Project.  15 August 1971.

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws?pid=3115

Antonius Aquinas@AntoniusAquinas

https://antoniusaquinas.com

Gold Coinage of the Latin Monetary Union

After Brexit, there has been a growing number of voices within the European Union and among various nationalistic groups arguing that English should be replaced as the official language since now only Ireland and Malta retain English.

The loudest quarter calling for a change has come from the French who, not surprisingly, want their own tongue to become the lingua franca of the EU.  Eric Zemmour, a French conservative commentator, asserts, “I think this is the time to launch a counter-offensive in favour of French, to recall that French was the original language of EU institutions.”*

A return to French, however, has its difficulties with other nationalist groups particularly those from the EU’s dominant economic power, Germany.

An interesting and most logical solution to the seemingly intractable problem has been suggested by an article in the magazine Le Figaro,** which calls for a return to Latin as the EU’s lingua franca. 

Why Latin?

A return to Latin makes the most sense since the Romance languages of the EU nations – Italy, France, Spain – developed out of Latin, and the Germanic tongues contain a large amount of Latin words in their vocabularies.  It would thus be relatively easy to bring back Latin as an international language. 

Latin has a long and successful history stretching back to Antiquity as the language of law, commerce, science, and religion.  Latin fostered social cohesion among ethnic groups and cultures while it facilitated the exchange of ideas and customs.   

While Latin is par excellence a lingua franca, an international monetary system based on gold would accomplish many of the same benefits for the economies of Europe (and for that matter the world) that Latin has done for communications and interrelations.  Many of the same arguments which have been applied to Latin can be used for a metallic monetary order. 

Why gold?

A one-world commodity standard allows for integration and the extension of the division of labor since all prices are expressed in terms of gold/silver.  Costs, too, would be calculated in terms of one general medium of exchange which makes economies more efficient.  National currencies, fully backed and redeemed in gold, would do away with the cumbersome exchange ratios which currently exist. 

Just as important, a monetary order based on a gold standard would make it extremely difficult for governments and central banks to inflate the currencies which ultimately leads to the dreaded boom and bust cycle.  The inability to create “money out of thin air” would reduce governments’ debt-creation powers since central banks could no longer monetize debt by simply printing money and expanding credit.

With an inexhaustible supply of paper money that can fund and underwrite any state project, government power and control over the economy and social life has grown exponentially once the gold standard was eliminated. A world on a gold standard would reduce state power.  The vast social engineering schemes and war making capacity have been made possible through unrestrained money printing and debt creation. 

If the nations of Europe would adopt a gold standard, it would attract foreign capital since creditors would be assured that their investments would not be debased through inflation.  Domestic savings, too, would sizably increase which would generate an authentic economic boom based on wealth generated not by money printing, but through the abstention of consumption – savings. 

Gold and Latin are both “natural” mediums which do not require state largesse and involvement for their use.  Artificial monolithic political constructs like the EU and monetary institutions like the IMF and World Bank, which are nothing less than engines of inflation, are unnecessary under a monetary order based on gold. 

It would be difficult to deny that gold and Latin did not possess Providential qualities.  The amount of gold in the world and its inherent qualities have made it the “perfect” medium of exchange.  Its supply is not too plentiful nor too scare while its qualities – durable, portable, divisible – satisfy all the qualities that a money requires. 

That Rome and its language would rise and become the greatest empire to have existed which paved the way for the spread of Christianity and the development of European civilization is not by happenstance.  Latin bounded Rome and its provinces together no matter how far apart geographically and culturally.  Some authors have noted that the appearance of the Savior came at the time of the Pax Romana – “the Roman Peace” – which provided the perfect conditions to accomplish His mission.

While modern man vainly seeks to create unity through the dictates of the State with its countless laws and regulatory agencies to enforce them, there exists institutions and gifts of nature which if used can provide a natural universality.  For a just social order to be attained, the most sublime human language must once again return to its place of prominence while the most honest and efficient money ever used must again become the world’s general medium of exchange.  

*Tyler Durden, “French Call to Replace English with Latin as Europe’s Official Language,” Zero Hedge, 17 March 2021.  https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/french-call-replace-english-latin-europes-official-language

**https://www.lefigaro.fr/vox/culture/et-si-la-langue-officielle-de-l-union-europeenne-devenait-le-latin-20210208

Antonius Aquinas@AntoniusAquinas

https://antoniusaquinas.com

Late Medieval France

It is both surprising and infuriating that many conservatives, libertarians and those on the Right describe today’s political and financial order as “neo-feudalism.”(1)  Surprisingly, because many of these commentators are trained academics(2) who should know better and infuriating, since feudalism and the glorious age which it reigned – the Middle Ages – if rightly understood and not denigrated could provide a paradigm for the reconstruction of the present social order after its inevitable collapse. 

Many compare today’s political and economic configurations of vast wealth disparity and totalitarian democratic nation-states whose latest, and probably most egregious, abuse of power has been the lockdowns and compulsory face-mask edicts to combat a supposed deadly virus, with the conditions which existed under feudalism.

This is false.

Feudalism, and for most of the era which it existed, was characterized by political decentralization with little financial concentration of wealth.

Feudalism can be described as an arrangement between lords and monarchs with their underlings – vassals, dukes, earls, princes, counts, marquises, knights – in exchange for services.  “Feudal tenure, whatever its minor adaptations,” writes medieval historian Carl Stephenson, “was essentially military because the original vassalage was a military relationship.”(3)

In return for military service, the vassal would receive a “fief” in the form of land, money, goods, or other benefits.  “[A] fief,” Stephenson describes, “was the special remuneration paid to a vassal for the rendering of a special service.” 

The relationship, unlike what modern commentators would have many believe, was not one-sided.  While the vassal swore allegiance to his lord, the latter was obligated to provide his vassal with agreed upon “payment.”  If the lord failed to fulfill his obligation, the vassal was free to break the agreement and find another lord. 

The vassal, to receive his due from the lord, had to “faithfully give aid and counsel so that in every way the lord may be safeguarded as to person, rights, and belongings,” while the lord “has a reciprocal duty towards his faithful man.  If either defaults in what he owes the other, he may justly be accused of perfidy.”(4)

The feudal relationship between lords and vassals had immense consequences – mostly positive – for medieval life.  It helped shape the social order which impacted all aspects of society such as law, the political order (such as it was), war-making, and economics.  The arrangement between lord and vassal was not really “political” as in the modern sense; it was more of a “contractual relationship” than that of power. 

Lords and vassals and, for that matter, monarchs, did not create law or legislation but were subjected to the (natural) law.  There was no monopolistic justice system, but a number of courts which were for the adjudication of disputes where cases could be appealed to different courts for redress. The myriad of public legislation regulating every aspect of modern man’s life, where most laws are not even read by legislators until they are enacted was, happily, not a feature of the Middle Ages. Law had to be “discovered” and based on custom and tradition in which all sectors of society had to abide by. 

The feudal arrangement between lord, monarchs, and their vassals, where all had to live according to the law resulted, throughout the Western world, in a diffusion of power.  Professor Stephenson illustrates how this effected France for centuries:

France, obviously, had ceased to be a

state in any proper sense of the word.

Rather, it had been split into a number

of states whose rulers, no matter how

they styled themselves enjoyed the

substance of the regal power.(5)

The idea and reality of monarchial absolutism, which characterized the early modern era and which nation states would build upon for their own aggrandizement, was not part of the medieval period.  In many areas, authority was held by dukes, princes and earls not based on political power, but one of trust, loyalty and contract. 

The most vilified institution of the Middle Ages was serfdom.  Yet, compared to the present epoch where the working classes are largely indebted, have had their individual liberties curtailed, and now many are dependent on the welfare state for their financial survival, could serfdom be worse? Charles Coulombe contrasts:

The serf, like laborers everywhere and

at all times, had a hard life.  He also could

not be forced off the land, worked about

30 days a year for his lord (as opposed to

the average American’s 167 for the IRS),

and could NOT work on Sundays and the

30-odd Holy Days of obligation and certain

other stated times.  One may compare that

to any current job description one wants to.(6)

The amount of taxation and its legitimacy in a society is ultimately determined by ideology.  And, the ideology of the era frowned on taxation and those that were laid were done so grudgingly.  It was the institutional framework of feudalism which limited taxation to the benefit of the social order.

Private property was considered sacrosanct and the violation of it an egregious offense.  In the medieval world, taxation was a “sequestration of property” which the monarch only had the right to tax when it had “become traditional.”  “The rights to property possessed by every individual member of the community,” according to historian Fritz Kern, “are an absolutely sacred part of the whole absolutely sacred legal order; the criterion of the rights in property of the individual as well as of the State is the good old law.”(7)

While many other passages could be cited, the existence of state power in feudal times is almost the polar opposite of the political situation which exists in the world today. It is inconceivable that the draconian measures taken by governments in response to the phony pandemic, which has ruined countless lives and allowed monetary authorities the world over to assume unseen power and control, could have never taken place during the Middle Ages.

Instead of naming the current age “neo-feudalism” it is far better categorized as “neo-Progressive,” a term which describes the era of American history at the beginning of the 20^th century.  The Progressive Era, despite the façade of supposed regulation of Big Business, was really the start of American corporativism – a cozy alliance between the State and Big Business to protect the latter, especially the financial sector, from competition.  Each successive generation saw this alliance become stronger leading to today’s situation of mega bailouts for the 1% at the expense of the middle class.

The learned detractors of feudalism who mischaracterize it are doing a great disservice to those who are seeking solutions to the myriad of social and economic crises which the Western world faces.  The prime lesson that can be gleaned from feudalism is the diffusion of power.  Attempts at reform of the current totalitarian democratic social order or the creation of alternative political parties to challenge the entrenched, corrupt, political order will result in failure.

Instead, all activities, movements, and more importantly, intellectual arguments should be directed toward the break-up of the nation state. Brexit, the recent victories of pro-independence parties in the Catalan elections, and the nascent Texas secession movement – TEXIT – should be encouraged and supported. 

Happily, the pages of history provide a paradigm of a decentralized social order which thrived for nearly a millennium.  Instead of bashing it, feudalism should be embraced and its principles incorporated into modern political discourse.

(1) The latest smearing of feudalism can be seen in Charles Hugh Smith, “The Coming Revolt of the Middle Class,” Zero Hedge, 28 January 2021.

(2) As an example, see Paul Craig Roberts, “Are We Brewing a New Feudalism?”  Paul Craig Roberts Institute for Political Economy. 16 April 2020. 

(3) Carl Stephenson, Mediaeval Institutions: Selected Essays, ed. Bryce D. Lyon (Ithaca, NY.: Cornell University Press, 1954, Cornell Paperbacks, 1967), 217.

(4) Carl Stephenson, Mediaeval Feudalism, 4^th ed. (Ithaca, N.Y.: Great Seal Books, 1960), 20.

(5) Stephenson, Mediaeval Feudalism, 78.

(6) Charles Coulombe, “”Monarchist FAQ.” Tumblar House.

(7) Fritz Kern, Kingship and Law in the Middle Ages, trans. S.B. Chrimes (New York: Frederick A Praeger Publishers, 1956), 186.

Antonius Aquinas@AntoniusAquinas

https://antoniusaquinas.com