Thursday, May 28, 2020

Gold says "No" a lot


[The following is an] excerpt from the Senate Banking Committee hearing on the nomination of Preston V. Mathews to be a member and Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. . . .

Chairperson MASON: You’re saying the Federal Reserve is not politically independent. Are you also saying we’re forever subject to the economic problems I named?  

Dr. MATHEWS: Not at all, though a look at the Fed’s record for the first 70 years might suggest otherwise. 

One of the Fed’s jobs was to eliminate the crises that occasionally struck the economy prior to its inception. It’s also true that prior to the Fed’s inception government intervened in the economy, our money and banking system included. Nevertheless, the national banks decided the existing system was too open and competitive and thus lobbied for more intervention. From the mid-1890s, if not earlier, their goal was to win support for a central bank with a monopoly of the note issue and to serve as a lender that never ran dry. 

The bankers needed government to make a central bank work – a free market precludes central banking. Most people, of course, being staunchly pragmatic, don’t care whether it does or not. What they want to know is: How effective has the Fed been? When it began operations in 1914 the Comptroller of the Currency boasted that the new Federal Reserve “supplies a circulating medium absolutely safe” and will render financial and commercial crises such as occurred in 1873, 1893, and 1907 “mathematically impossible.” Was his statement true? Have we averted economic crises? Has the Fed preserved the value of the dollar? 

[Mathews stands and reaches into his pants pocket.] If you will, Senator . . . catch. [He tosses a coin at Chairperson Mason. She claps it into her hands and looks at it. He takes his seat.] 

You’re holding in your hand a nickel, which is roughly what remains of the dollar since the Fed went to work. So much for the dollar as a store of value. As for economic crises, instead of identifying them by year, perhaps we should give them names like Camille or Katrina. They seem to occur at about the same frequency as killer storms, and both are generally regarded as beyond human control, as acts of God. What do these facts say about our central bank?

Fed chairman Alan Greenspan is regarded by many people today as the greatest Fed chairman ever for steering the economy through several major crises. He’s been knighted by the queen and awarded numerous honorary doctorates from some of the world’s most prestigious universities. 

In December 2002 he gave a speech to the Economics Club of New York that offered an interesting perspective on our country’s monetary systems. In the 50 or so years following the abandonment of the gold standard in 1933, he said, prices rose by approximately 750 percent, as measured by the Consumer Price Index. The CPI, as it’s called, is a basket of household goods that excludes certain items because of their volatility. He also noted the fact, startling to some, that in 1929 prices were about the same as they had been in 1800, though there were price fluctuations during that period. In other words, the gold standard held the line on prices over a 129-year period. Throughout most of this period, as we know, the country experienced spectacular growth, rising real wages, and miniscule government debt. 

But Mr. Greenspan’s speech suggests another observation. If we take his period and cut it off at 1912 instead of 1929 – 1912 of course being the year before the Fed was born – we find the CPI falling by roughly 57 percent. Put another way, 19th century Americans, whose dollars were defined as a weight of gold or silver, experienced falling prices and economic prosperity at the same time, a state of affairs we have a hard time even imagining today. 

Let me say that again: Americans once understood falling prices and prosperity as natural bedfellows. And the reason is quite simple. In those days the production of goods and services outpaced the production of money.  

So what happened after 1933 that drove prices through the roof? Chairman Greenspan said: “Monetary policy, unleashed from the constraint of domestic gold convertibility, had allowed a persistent overissuance of money.” 

The Fed’s eager printing press could have led to our destruction, but fortunately it didn’t. “The adverse consequences of excessive money growth provoked a backlash,” he said. Beginning in 1979, the Federal Reserve, under new leadership and with the support of the government, “dramatically slowed the growth of money.” Consequently, we went through a sobering recession and the pace of inflation eased up.

Following this, the economy rebounded vigorously, and “the progress made in reducing inflation was largely preserved,” Mr. Greenspan told his audience. “Although pressures for excess issuance of fiat money are chronic,” he concluded, “a prudent monetary policy maintained over a protracted period can contain the forces of inflation.”

In other words, when the Fed stops inflating, inflation stops. 

But is this what Mr. Greenspan meant? Mr. Greenspan, you will remember, was famous for using words in such a way that no one was ever quite sure what he was talking about. For example, what did he mean by “contain the forces of inflation”? With little imagination it’s possible to assign four or five meanings to that expression. And he used the words “can contain the forces,” not “would contain” those forces. Nor did he say how the Fed would or could contain those forces, because we still operate without the constraint of gold convertibility. 

But taking him in good faith, we assume he meant something positive, like “the Fed knows better than to push too hard on the peddle because we don’t want another ‘backlash.’” As long as the Fed has a backbone, with the will to resist the “excess issuance of fiat money,” we’ll stay out of trouble economically. So, while it makes no sense to talk of a political entity such as the Fed being politically independent, it makes a great deal of sense to talk of the determination of Fed officials to “just say no” when conditions warrant. 

Chairperson MASON: You have some impressive notes at your disposal, Dr. Mathews. We all remember Mr. Greenspan, of course, but it’s helpful to be refreshed on some of his comments. He had a fondness for gold. 

Dr. MATHEWS: Yes, he did. 

Chairperson MASON: In connection with your last comment – “just say no” – someone once wrote that gold says “no” a lot. Is that an expression you would agree with? 

Dr. MATHEWS: It does say “no” because of its limited supply. Gold says “no” to a lot of bad ideas. It says “no” to deficit spending, which is precisely the reason it was ditched. As history makes clear, people in the twentieth century were sold on the idea of big government, so they needed a debt-based monetary unit to provide the “liquidity” needed to pay for it. 

Fiat currencies have been very dangerous because there’s no limit to their supply. They’ve also been very profitable to some people. Fiat currencies are monetary yes men and go along with just about anything. But saying “yes” has painful consequences, as Mr. Greenspan acknowledged. The nickel I tossed you is one of those consequences. If we allow ourselves to be taken in by “liquidity,” as other countries have for over three centuries, it will be our downfall. But the United States is not just another country. As you’re well-aware, we play a pivotal role in the global economy by virtue of the popularity of the American dollar. To a large extent it underpins the world economy. A dollar collapse, therefore, would have global consequences.

Chairperson MASON: Dr. Mathews, this “liquidity,” what has it cost us in the past? Can you give us some examples? . . .

George Ford Smith is the author of eight books, including The Flight of the Barbarous Relic, Eyes of Fire: Thomas Paine and the American Revolution, and The Fall of Tyranny, the Rise of Liberty.  He is also a filmmaker whose latest work is a whimsical tale about the threat of nuclear annihilation, Last Day.


Friday, April 3, 2020

The cocktail solution

People know government can spend astronomical amounts of money, crisis or not, and who cares where they get it as long as they’re in on the deal.  They also believe to the depths of their souls that the ones running the show are well-educated with the best of intentions since they have a stake in the outcome of their policies.  Since their leaders are not psychopaths, at least clinically, unless Keynesianism is now a clinical disorder, they wouldn’t deliberately sink the ship that keeps them and their families afloat living a life of splendor and privilege.

They therefore trust government, trust that it will act in their interest.  But that’s where they repeatedly make a critical mistake.  It’s the free market that serves them, not the government.

Government as it exists discourages people from acting responsibly.  Being dependents, they find it natural to scream for help every time they find a boogey man under their beds.  You could argue that their plea is aligned with the libertarian notion of government as our protector.  The Declaration said men have certain inalienable rights, and that “to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men . . .”  Thus, the nearly-universal cry for government to do something about an invisible threat amounts to calling on it to do its job: Protect our right to life.

The idea that government should also protect our liberty at the same time passes by the wayside.  Turning dependents free would endanger their lives and would violate government’s duty to protect them.

As government’s only tool is force, through which it maintains its own monopoly and creates many others, you might wonder how we’re going to recover from the current crisis.  The Fed’s counterfeiting machine is too busy racking up debt to bother eradicating a virus.  The only other possibility is the free market which in today’s world is never free.  Yet the willingness of smart people to experiment and innovate is still alive, with many encouraging results, in spite of government threats.

The Cocktail
    
The administering of HCQ (hydroxychloroquine) and CQ (chloroquine) in combination with azithromycin and zinc have emerged not from the FDA, CDC, or WHO but from physicians around the world trying to find ways to keep patients alive.  One of the best-known practitioners in the US has been Dr. Vladmir Zelenko, who so far is batting a thousand treating patients diagnosed with COVID-19.  As of March 29, 2020, of the 699 reported cases treated in an outpatient setting, none have died, been intubated, or sent to the ICU.  His recommendation: Once a diagnosis of COVID-19 is confirmed, hit it hard immediately with his cocktail of drugs: HCQ (200mg 2X daily), azithromycin (500mg 1X daily), and zinc (220mg 1X daily).

As he reports in an extensive interview with Rudy Giuliani, the cost is about $20 for the five-day treatment.  He emphasizes that “this is all new” and that “I’m developing this stuff as I go along” — meaning he’s ready to make changes as needed.  “This is like battlefield medicine.  I’m giving you a report from the front lines.”  For older people he plans to hit them harder with HCQ to prevent them from going to the hospital. 

Will patients be all better at the end of treatment?  No, they will likely still feel miserable.  But success in this case is “not to die,” in Dr. Zelenko’s words.  The treatment is “not going to take away your fever, you’re still going to be coughing, you’re still going to be tired, you’re gonna have a headache, you’re going to be upset, you’re going to call me ‘It’s not working’ — but I’m looking at it differently. If you can call me, that’s a good sign.”

What does this cocktail actually do if it doesn’t relieve the symptoms?  “Let me tell you what I believe it does,” Dr. Zelenko said.  “It reduces the amount of virus the body is infected with by interfering with its growth, giving the immune system time to overcome it before it destroys the lungs.”

He goes on to say that “We’re running out of capacity to treat patients in the hospital.  You need to stay out of the hospital!”  He further adds that “many doctors are coming on board.  They are having similar results.”  He thanks President Trump for approving the use of this drug — “We have to make America healthy again,” he said.

Government might be exploiting the crisis, but the virus is a real killer.  If it gets into the lungs, its effect on the tissue is like “napalm or carpet-bombing.”  Once the virus kills the cells it invades, there are dead bodies, so to speak, that “get shed down instead of up.  It’s like pouring cement into the lungs.”  In most cases, however, the immune system will overcome the infection before the infection kills the lungs.

For information on how to strengthen your immunity see this Bill Sardi article.

George Ford Smith is the author of eight books, including The Flight of the Barbarous Relic, Eyes of Fire: Thomas Paine and the American Revolution, and The Fall of Tyranny, the Rise of Liberty.  He is also a filmmaker whose latest work is a whimsical tale about the threat of nuclear annihilation, Last Day.
     

Thursday, March 26, 2020

Civilization’s Savior?

President Trump and Congress plan to send up to $1,200 to most American adults to help them recover from the economic shock of being told not to work.  “Individuals making $99,000 or above or married couples making $198,000 or more would receive no check. People would receive an additional $500 per child.”  The so-called stimulus package would total $2 trillion, roughly 9% of the country’s GDP.  
Are you curious about the source of the $2,000,000,000,000?  Had government put it aside for just such an emergency?  Not a chance.  Though it’s not clear at this point exactly where the money will come from, it will likely roll off the printing press, the banking industry’s greatest invention.  

Long ago, money had its roots in honest production much like other economic activities, such as growing wheat, making cars, or teaching calculus.  Money, like cars or ventilators, couldn’t be willed into existence.  By virtue of banking fraud, today it can be.  So the government will call upon the esteemed bureaucratic entity it created for just such emergencies — the Federal Reserve — and assign it the task of pulling $2,000,000,000,000 from the great vault of its imagination. 

Today, under a central banking regime such as ours, money is no object.  Today, the Fed gods create it by fiat — “Let there be money.”  It is not tied to anything tangible.  Yes, the Fed talks of purchasing assets, which are government debt.  The government creates IOUs, or debt instruments, and the Fed creates money to buy them.  It sounds so very proper.  The government then funds certain programs such as the upcoming handout, and night continues to follow day.  To the world, an IOU from the federal government is an asset.  It’s a prized asset because of its power to shake down those responsible for it — people like you and me.  

Let’s be clear.  As a parasitical entity government produces nothing, therefore earns nothing.  What it calls tax revenue is properly called loot — money lifted from those who work for a living.  Governments are looters, and their debt has come to be regarded as assets.  Because Americans are wealthy compared to the rest of the world and therefore represent a plump goose, the federal government’s assets are highly prized.  

Money was once the most marketable commodity as determined by buyers and sellers engaging in voluntary exchange.  Government and central bankers have thoroughly corrupted it to their advantage.  Take a look at what a dollar was worth before and after President Wilson signed the Federal Reserve Act into law in 1913.  Note: You can’t use the BLS inflation calculator because it doesn’t allow us to compare pre-1913 prices (I wonder why).  Using a calculator found here, comparing prices in 1870 and 1900, for example, we discover that:
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics consumer price index, prices in 1900 are 35.88% lower than average prices since 1870. The U.S. dollar experienced an average deflation rate of -1.47% per year during this period, meaning the real value of a dollar increased.In other words, $1 in 1870 is equivalent in purchasing power to about $0.64 in 1900, a difference of $-0.36 over 30 years. (my emphasis)
And the years from 1870-1900 were some of the most productive in mankind’s history.  Workers at all levels could get richer simply by stuffing money in a mattress.  Why?  Productivity increases outpaced the supply of money. 
Comparing prices in 1970 and 2000, on the other hand, we learn that “prices in 2000 are 343.81% higher than average prices since 1970. The U.S. dollar experienced an average inflation rate of 5.09% per year during this period . . .” (emphasis mine)
Central banking is a great racket because almost no one in a position of power sees it that way — and because central bankers take care of people in power.  Central bankers are legal counterfeiters protected by the governments they serve and the big banks they bail out.  They make some people very rich — early receivers of the newly printed money, before inflation kicks in.  By means of the stimulus bill a few regular Americans will soon be among the early birds.

Repercussions down the road?  Speculators and other scapegoats (including Trump) are lined up and ready to hang at a moment’s notice.  Legal counterfeiting is a scheme that can only self-destruct.  It’s virtually immune to intellectual criticism because most economists are in on the racket.   Conceivably people could rise up and demand honest money, but they have no idea what honest money is.  They won’t find it explained in the government schools they attended.  On the contrary, they’re likely to hear the hard stuff once passed around as money has long been considered a barbarous relic.  (See Gary North’s article Deadly Assumption #6: Gold Is a Barbarous Relic for a brilliant but brief discussion of gold and government.)

So here we are again, looking to the Fed to buy government debt with money it doesn’t have so that the government can send money it never had to select subjects, all the while assuming enough someones will keep producing goods and services so that the fiat digits can buy real things.  

Monday, January 27, 2020

Kobe Bryant Tribute

Kobe Bryant exhibited all the values that make for a great man, and for me his passing was nothing less than devastating.

I have put together a short video in his honor.

George

Monday, December 23, 2019

Roger Williams and the birth of American liberty

“Without freedom of conscience no other freedoms are possible.”
                 — George H. Smith, Freethought and Freedom

The State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, otherwise known as “Rhode Island,” brought forth to the world a product often talked about but rarely achieved: personal liberty.  Since its founding in 1636 as a refuge from Puritan persecution, it has compromised its libertarian purity for a perceived need to establish a compulsory social order.  But unlike other settlements in early America, it offered true freedom of conscience.  A person could express his religious convictions in early Providence without fear of reprisal, at least from other residents.  In a world long dominated by fanatical religious intolerance this was unthinkable.  

But one man did think that way: Rhode Island’s founder, Roger Williams.  He exemplified the toughness of body and spirit, and especially the fearlessness of thought, that proved necessary to give liberty a chance in a world hostile to its existence.

In Christianity’s formative years during the Roman Empire, toleration had its spokesmen.   George H. Smith (no relation) in Freethought and Freedom mentions Tertullian (c. 145-225), sometimes called “the founder of Western theology,” who believed that 
Every man should worship according to his own convictions: one man’s religion neither harms nor helps another man.
Somewhat later, Lactantius (c. 240-320) held that any god that demanded worship by violent means would be unworthy of our worship.  He also rejected the “for their own good” argument, because it “is not a kindness which is done to one who refuses it.” 

Religious toleration reached its zenith with the Edict of Milan in 313, but was overturned in AD 380 when Roman Emperor Theodosius issued the Edict of Thessalonica, decreeing that Nicene Christianity would be the state religion of the Roman Empire and other variants would be regarded as heresies, subject to persecution.  

As Smith observes, “Thus did a religion born in opposition to the state become its friend and ally.”  So much for “live and let live.”

Theologians favoring intolerance

Augustine (354-430), who some adorn with the title of saint, began his intellectual life by defending religious toleration then switched to “righteous persecution,” a phrase he used to justify saving people from the torments of hell.  Unlike Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, and others who followed, Augustine opposed killing heretics for their own good, favoring fines and banishment instead.  The “for their own good” argument, in its modern variant, has proven indispensable to governments seeking to justify invasions of privacy.

Exterminating heretics received major intellectual support during the Middle Ages and after.  Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) argued that heretics are worse than wrong; they are stubbornly wrong, a result of egoistic pride, and “should be submitted even to bodily compulsion.”  

Martin Luther (1483-1546) defended toleration early in life then later “turned from persecuted to persecutor,” as Smith tells us.  Luther famously wrote:
Heretics are not to be disputed with, but to be condemned unheard, and whilst they perish by fire, the faithful ought to pursue the evil to its source, and bathe their hands in the blood of the Catholic bishops, and of the Pope, who is a devil in disguise.
John Calvin (1509-1564), a believer in predestination who apparently thought of himself as one of the elected, called for the extermination of heretics and blasphemers because they violated God’s honor.  He arranged for his Spanish friend Michael Servetus, a philosopher and physician credited with discovering the pulmonary circulation of the blood, to be burned at the stake — slowly, using green wood — for publishing The Restoration of Christianity in which he rejected the trinity and predestination.  

Being alive was not necessarily a qualification for being persecuted.  Earlier, John Wycliffe (c. 1320s-1384), “the Morning Star of the English Reformation,” the first person to have the Bible translated into English (1382), was persecuted well after his death.  Unlike other priests who recited Mass in latin, Wycliffe preached and lectured in English so that commoners could hear his messages and tell others about them.  He regarded monks, friars, priests, and every other species of cleric as corrupt representatives of Christianity and considered the pope an Antichrist.  For Wycliffe, it was the Bible (Scripture) alone that revealed the truth about God.  In 1427, forty-four years after Wycliffe’s death, the pope ordered his bones exhumed and burned, with his ashes tossed in a river.

Whether one would be persecuted as a heretic depended largely on who was in power.  Under the five-year reign of “Bloody” Mary I of England (1516-1558), over 280 Protestants were burned at the stake.  Her successor and half-sister Elizabeth I (1533-1603) returned the nation to Protestant when she became queen in 1558.  Pope Gregory XIII excommunicated Elizabeth and declared that killing a heretic such as she was no sin.  In 1588, King Philip II of Spain, her brother-in-law, sent his seemingly invincible Armada against her for the purpose of making England Catholic again.  Protestants viewed the English victory as a sign that God had blessed them.  

Elizabeth established a spy system aimed at Catholic enemies, and many Catholics were executed or died in prison.  But as John Barry explains in Roger Williams and the Creation of the American Soul, Elizabeth did not kill because of religion, as Mary had.  “Acts, not thoughts, concerned her. She said she would ‘open no window into men’s souls.’” 

Elizabeth’s tolerance spawns rebellion

It was under Elizabeth’s reign (1558-1603) that certain Calvinists criticized the Church of England for its Catholic-like practices, such as its Book of Common Prayer, which they rejected as rote worship.  These people wanted a purer worship based solely on Scripture and became known derisively as Puritans.  The most radical of the Puritans, known as Separatists, wanted nothing to do with the Church of England, which they regarded as the Antichrist.  Though small in number they were regarded as a threat to the state, and Elizabeth hanged several of them.

James Stuart, Elizabeth’s successor, wanted to end the war between Catholics and Protestants, and began by curtailing the persecution of Catholics during his first two years.  Still, Catholic plots against him were uncovered, including the infamous Gunpowder Plot of 1605 when Guy Fawkes and followers attempted to blow up Parliament and the king.  

Under Magna Carta the king was under the law, but James declared otherwise, saying as king he took orders only from God.   Puritans and other Protestants were unnerved by James’s move.  When Charles I became king in 1625 following James’s death “he continued his father’s expansion of royal power and impulsion of the Church of England toward Catholic practices.”

For Separatists it was time to get out of Dodge.  And for the crown, it was past time that they did.  Purging the church was considered necessary for the survival of the state.  

Not only religious persecution, but the violence and crowding resulting from the enclosure of lands motivated people to look for an escape.  Through enclosure, the poor were driven from the royal forests to the cities.  In London, hordes of beggars and prostitutes flooded the streets.  To some Puritans this was God’s punishment for England’s sin.  

They looked to America for salvation.  In America Puritans could build a New Jerusalem, they believed.

America beckons the persecuted

A group of Separatists, whom we call the Pilgrims, originally abandoned England for Holland but they found life there too routine, too easy.  Life should be a challenge, and they weren’t being tested enough.  According to William Bradford, their leader, a few preferred the prisons of England to the liberties of Holland, which they considered an affliction.  

They left Holland, passed through England, and sailed on the Mayflower for America.  When they arrived on the Massachusetts coast they found an abandoned Indian village decimated by a three-year plague that began in 1617.  As author John Barry writes,
The English did not fear this plague. They believed God had used it to clear the land for them. They called it Plymouth Plantation. Ninety-nine passengers disembarked from the ship. In less than a year only fifty were still alive. 
Unlike the Separatists, who had no backing in England, a ship of financed Puritans arrived in 1624 on the northern tip of Massachusetts Bay with ambitions to build a new world.  Their investors, known as the Massachusetts Bay Company, or simply the Bay Company, hoped the Puritans would establish a flourishing economy, convert the Indians, and establish the right kind of Protestant religion, as they defined it.  

The arrivals established a settlement in Salem, Hebrew for “peace,” forty miles by sea north of Plymouth.  The settlers were families with livestock and supplies, most of them Puritans.  Five years later, in 1629, the Bay Company sent five ships of families, 350 people total, to Salem.  They consisted of “governors, able Ministers, Physicians, Soldiers, Schoolmaster, Mariners, and Mechanics of all sorts . . .”  

Later in 1629 the Bay Company sent another ship to Salem, with John Winthrop chosen as governor, that included combat veterans.  Winthrop told the passengers they were establishing a “City upon a Hill” and that the “eyes of all people are upon us.”  When they arrived in Salem on June 12, 1630, they found more than 80 of the previous fleet dead and many others weak and sick.   

Because of the debilitated condition of the settlers, Winthrop decided the settlement was vulnerable militarily and ordered the inhabitants to disperse.  They moved to Charlestown and what is now Boston.  People continued to die in the new settlements.  Winthrop wrote his wife “that God had only ‘stripped us of our vain confidence in this arm of flesh, that he may have us rely wholly upon himself.’”  

Winthrop formed a government consisting of assistants known as magistrates.  They met for the first time in October, 1630, and dealt with a troublemaker by the name of Morton.  For this they built a jail, forbade dice and card playing, and forbade smoking in public.  Another agitator, Henry Lynn, was whipped and banished for writing “slanderous” letters against the plantation’s government and churches.  

Roger Williams looks for a home

Back in England, William Laud intensified his campaign to rid the English church of “unworthy” ministers, one of which was Roger Williams.

Williams knew that his convictions made him more than eligible for imprisonment and torture.  Sailing on the ship the Lyon, Williams and his wife, along with John Winthrop Jr., left Bristol December 1, 1630 and anchored in Boston harbor on February 5, 1631.  Writes author Barry:
Williams entered a world of hardship but hardship limned with promise. No inns had yet been built, so leading citizens of Boston or Charlestown entertained him and his wife. He was a most desirable guest.
The Boston church offered Williams the position of teacher.  For Williams, 28, it would’ve been a great opportunity, but he declined, telling them “I dare not officiate an unseparated people.”  The church took offense at his reply.  

According to Williams, the state had no authority to govern an individual’s relationship with God.  None whatsoever.

Salem, considered a backwater by the rest of the settlements, offered Williams a position, and he accepted.  But political pressure from Boston led them to withdraw the offer.  

Williams then joined the settlement in Plymouth, home of the Mayflower Pilgrims, to become a farmer.  He was received with open arms by everyone, including the two governors, Bradford and Winslow.  He became active in the church and soon became an unpaid assistant pastor.  He also maintained a good relationship with Winthrop Sr., telling him in a letter that he had no desire to be an Elder in any church, and that all he wanted was “the natives Soules.”  

To the Puritans, converting the Indians was their most important mission, for two reasons.  One, they wanted to prevent Catholics from gaining more converts, and two, they believed Christianizing the world was necessary for Christ’s return.  

But so far, not a single converted Indian could be found.

Williams uprooted

Williams began his proselytizing not by preaching but with learning the Indians’s language.  He developed friendships with them, began trading with them, and traveled among several tribes.  He entertained them in his home.  He reached the unpopular conclusion that the Indians owned the land they occupied, and that the English had no title to it unless granted by the Indians.  He charged King Charles for telling “a solemn public lie” for claiming it belonged to the settlers.

Later in early fall of 1633, with Governor Bradford’s encouragement, Williams and a few supporters left Plymouth and returned to Salem.  He settled into a spacious home and lived an active social life.    

Meanwhile, the Boston magistrates were quite upset at Williams having called the king a liar.  In a treatise he wrote on request, Williams implied that the king sided with the Antichrist and “committed fornication with the whore” — the Catholic Church as represented by the queen.  They talked to Williams about his treatise, and Williams suggested they burn it if they thought it was so dangerous.  And they did.

Conformity was central to the City upon a Hill.  It spread even to the stabilizing of profits and wages.  It especially applied to childrearing.  If possible, children should not know they possess a will of their own.  Education lay in humility and tractableness.  

Any offenders were subject to excommunication or banishment from the settlement.  Any banished person who returned to Massachusetts was subject to punishments ranging from fines to death.  

Even so, Williams remained in Salem, planting and harvesting crops and continuing his relationships with the Indians.  He acquired fluency in their language and wrote a book about it.  The Salem church made him its teacher, further irritating the Boston magistrates.  When the Boston Court wanted to impose a loyalty oath, in response to pressure from England, Williams objected.  He also attacked forced tithes and the policy of giving tax money to ministers.  He found widespread agreement with his views, but not among the magistrates.

The Boston Court ordered Williams to appear.  They admonished him for his statements but deferred on a decision about banishing him.  He was ordered to appear a second time and refused to recant.  The court then ordered him to depart Massachusetts within six weeks.  

Williams escapes capture in a blizzard

He thought about where would he go.  Returning to England would mean prison, being whipped, having his ears cut off, and his tongue bored.  Returning to Plymouth wouldn’t work because they would fear offending a powerful colony that had banished him.  As he thought about his destiny his thoughts turned toward freedom.  Weeks later his wife bore him a daughter who he named Freeborne.  

In early November he got sick.  The magistrates agreed to delay his banishment because of his illness and winter.  A few supporters began gathering in his home, some praying there.  Word reached Boston.  The magistrates debated executing him but his popularity would upset too many people.  They decided to send him back to England.

The governor ordered a party of soldiers to capture Williams and put him on a boat to England, but a fierce blizzard delayed them for days.  While they waited, Williams was tipped off by a secret messenger sent by Winthrop that he was targeted for arrest and deportation.  

Sick and alone, leaving his family behind, Williams entered the forest and blizzard on foot.  With the snow already deep it was an exhausting trek that lasted for miles.  He survived only because Indians took him in.  

In early spring he found a place near Narragansett Bay, but the Plymouth governor Winslow ordered him and a few others from Salem to move.  He scouted out country owned by the Narragansett Tribe, with whom he had a close relationship.  Canonicus, the tribe’s sachem, and his nephew Miantonomi, gave him permission to settle there.  

Providence 

Williams was fully free in the wilderness.

He attributed God’s merciful providence for leading him there during his darkest hours.  He called the place Providence, so that “it might be for a shelter for persons distressed for conscience.”

As others straggled in they realized they had no agreement about how to govern themselves.  Williams, the owner of the land, drew upon his experience as an understudy with English jurist Sir Edward Coke (pronounced “cook”), who said every Englishman’s home was his castle, and from Elizabeth, who sought no window into men’s souls.  

Williams sent Winthrop a draft compact that incredibly did not mention God at all, nor did the final version refer to God in any way.  The scant Providence inhabitants unanimously agreed to his compact.  As the government grew its essential nature remained true to the original compact.  John Barry tells us:
Providence would neither impose a religious test for voting nor would it require church attendance of those living there. This was a costly step, since virtually every other government in England and New England collected significant revenues from fines on those who did not attend worship.
Williams went even further.  He maintained that governments governed only with the consent of the governed, rejecting both the divine right of kings and the Puritan view that governors were accountable only to God, not the people.  

He could never forget that savages had saved his life, not his friends and fellow Christians.

Return to England

In Providence, people worshipped in their homes, not a church, and their homes were arranged in a straight line not around a town common, as found in the Massachusetts settlements.  A meeting place would not be built in Providence for another half century.

As the English expanded in New England the Indians became more of a nuisance.  After a war with the Pequots (1636-1638) they proved more adept at slaughtering Indians than converting them, basing their aggression on Scripture, on the belief they were slaying God’s enemies.  Williams later negotiated a peace to save the Narragansetts in 1645, but could not intervene on behalf of the Pequots.  

Roger Williams returned to England twice, the first time in the spring of 1643 to secure a written charter that would authorize liberty of conscience.   While he was away the Puritan colonies of New England organized into the United Colonies and began meddling with claims about ownership of Providence itself. Williams eventually heard about it, and he knew that unless he could gain the support of England Massachusetts would devour his settlement. 

On March 14, 1644 Williams secured his charter, which gave the colony the power and authority to govern and rule themselves.  It also left all decisions about religion to itself.  

Providence Plantations thereby became the freest known state in the world.

As he left England in June, 1644 Williams left behind a book waiting to be published in which he argued for the separation of church and state, based on the New Testament.  It also struck down the idea that Scripture required the destruction of heretics and blasphemers.  The people were sovereign, and that “All true civill Magistrates have not the least inch of civill power, but what is measured out to them from the free consent of the whole . . .”

Not surprisingly, Parliament ordered the public burning of his book eight weeks after its publication, including the typeset.  As Barry writes, “The book did not bring Williams’ ideas to England.  They were already there, raised by persecuted sects.  His book brought the issues into prominence.”

Conflicting governments

When Williams arrived in Boston harbor he was ordered to leave.  As he approached Providence in a canoe, a flotilla of canoes emerged on the horizon.  They were his Providence neighbors, coming to pay him tribute. They gave him a hero’s welcome, something entirely new to him.

But the tranquility didn’t last long.  William Coddington, the richest man in the colony, tried to get Massachusetts and Plymouth to absorb the Aquidneck Island towns of Newport and Portsmouth. His ally, William Arnold, tried to provoke the Massachusetts magistrates by telling them that Rhode Island viewed them as witches and devils.  Still, all the United Colonies deferred, declaring the proposal to seize the settlements “full of confusion and danger.”

Coddington then went to London and received a new charter for Aquidneck Island, which included making him governor for life.  Violence erupted back home as the two governments clashed.  The United Colonies declared the Coddington’s charter overruled Williams’s charter.

Since Rhode Island lacked the military strength to make the United Colonies back off, Williams left for England a second time to nullify Coddington’s charter.  Oliver Cromwell had become dictator of England, Scotland, and Ireland.  Fortunately, Williams was on good terms with Cromwell, and he eventually reaffirmed Williams’s charter in 1653.  A charter signed by the powerful Cromwell ended the feud with the United Colonies.

The zealous Quakers

The first Quakers in America were two Englishwomen who arrived in Boston in July, 1656.  After hearing one of them say “thee,” authorities knew they were heretics and immediately imprisoned them, keeping them locked up for five weeks.  As Murray Rothbard tells us in Conceived in Liberty, the women were denied visitors, light, and reading material, and were almost starved to death.  They were finally shipped back to Barbados.

Though Williams personally despised Quaker beliefs, his colony’s charter guaranteed their safety.  The rejected the Puritan belief in predestination and the Puritan contention that “careful, scholarly study of Scripture was necessary to understand God’s desires and their own tasks in the world.” The Quakers instead believed in universal redemption and denied the doctrine of original sin.  They discarded all outward forms of worship and believed in an inner light that came from God and was part of themselves.  As John Barry tells us,
They substituted human judgment for Scripture and the rule of law. They eliminated the ministry and all forms of worship. They considered men and women virtually equal and allowed women to speak in worship. They also justified riotous behavior and even disobedience to the law. . . Any one of these beliefs was, to Calvinists, blasphemy; taken together they certainly justified a death sentence.
More Quakers arrived at Newport in 1657, and the United Colonies demanded that Rhode Island banish the Quakers and forbid any new arrivals.  Failure to cooperate would result in an embargo on all trade to and from Rhode Island.  But the little colony didn’t back down, pointing out that Quakers were allowed their freedom in England.  

Thus began Quaker missionary operations in Massachusetts, using Rhode Island as a base.  Quakers used novel ways to draw attention to their beliefs.  One Quaker woman stripped naked and paraded down the aisle in the Newbury church during service, another walked nude through the streets of Boston, another woman was stripped to her waist and whipped so hard her nipples split.  

Quakers Mary Dyer and two men were sentenced to be hung on October 27, 1659.  The men were duly executed, but Mary gained a reprieve, though only after the rope was around her neck.  She was sent back to Rhode Island but defiantly returned to Massachusetts, where she was hanged on June 1, 1660.  

Massachusetts then passed the Cart and Whip Act.  Women, especially, were subject to this punishment.  In one case three women were stripped to their waists, “tied to a cart’s tail, and whipped through eleven towns, through deep snow, and lashed up to ten times apiece in each town. And yet the tortured women met their fate by singing hymns as they went.” [Rothbard]

Finally, in 1664, King Charles II sent a commission to New England to put an end to the persecution of Quakers.  As Rothbard notes, the Massachusetts theocracy, successful in driving out Roger Williams, failed to stop the indomitable Quakers.  

Conclusion

Rhode Island’s legacy as a staunch defender of freedom was not completely lost with the passage of time.  On May 4, 1776 it became the first colony to repudiate its allegiance to England, the fourth among the newly independent states to ratify the Articles of Confederation on February 9, 1778, and it became the last state to ratify the Constitution on May 29, 1790, but only after assurances that a Bill of Rights was forthcoming and under threats of crushing tariffs from other states.  It was also the only state to boycott the Constitutional Convention.  (For those who think the boycott was a blight on Rhode Island’s record, I invite them to consider the research of Leonard L. Richards in his Shays’s Rebellion: The American Revolution’s Final Battle.)

Like all US states, Rhode Island today suffers from politics, debt, and taxes, more so than most states.  Taking money out of the hands of those who have earned it and putting it in a political pot to redistribute is still regarded as sound policy and morally respectable.  Yet I find hope for its future.  One might think the state’s full name would be regarded by most as obsolete in the 21st Century’s free lunches, political correctness, identity politics, and war.  But residents don’t think so.  In 2010 they voted 78% - 22% to retain the full name - the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations.  

Retaining the original name keeps current Rhode Islanders connected to the tough, libertarian thinker who founded their state.


George Ford Smith is a former mainframe and PC programmer and technology instructor, the author of eight books including a novel about a renegade Fed chairman (Flight of the Barbarous Relic), a filmmaker (Do Not Consent), and an advocate of stateless market government.  He eagerly welcomes speaking engagements and can be reached at gfs543@icloud.com. 

Monday, October 28, 2019

A State that went deep in the night

The Deep State is an outgrowth of the democratic State, without which it could neither expand nor exist.  In a totalitarian regime there is no distinction between the two; there is just the State as the autocratic ruler of the territory it claims as its own.  As democratic states become more totalitarian the line between State and Deep State fades, as you would expect.

States have been around for so long it seems there is no other way to organize society, and therefore the best we can do is control them.  For that purpose constitutions have been imposed, though it hasn’t worked because the State itself turns out to be the constitution’s enforcer, the fox that takes charge of the henhouse.  Still, the myth persists that the people can hold the State to its purpose of protecting their rights.   

This is a futile strategy.  Natural rights are those conditions necessary for an individual’s survival.  Since we need to sustain our lives through productive work, we need protection of “persons, liberties, and properties,” as Bastiat made clear.  Men formed societies for this purpose, to protect what they already have by virtue of being alive, and since individuals have the right to self-defense, States cannot have any purpose other than to protect us.

But in fact they do.  

There are multiple ways people can live at the expense of others, and the State can serve as the instrument for making this happen legally.  How did it happen here, in the U.S.?  Check out the following: Shays's Rebellion: The American Revolution's Final Battle, Hamilton's Curse, The Real Lincoln, The Triumph of Conservatism, The Creature from Jekyll Island, War is a Racket, End the Fed, and my own The Flight of the Barbarous Relic.  That’s a lot of reading but if we want a better world we need to engage in “hard thinking and scholarship,” as Rothbard advised.

These works, though, while brilliant for illuminating State treachery, don’t question the legitimacy of the State itself.  One supposes that if presidents such as Lincoln and Wilson got the country into unjust wars that wrecked economies while killing hundreds of thousands of people, then it’s up to us to elect better people or encode better laws.  If central banking is a counterfeiting racket that funds unjust wars while making a few rich then we need to rally support to repeal the Federal Reserve Act.  

As both approaches seek to limit state power, I doubt they will work.  Through control of media and education, not only has the State escaped culpability for these initiatives but is widely seen as the champion of our well-being in times of crisis.  Thus, wars were fought to keep us free, the Fed exists to “promote the health of the U.S. economy and the stability of the U.S. financial system.” 

The authors of the foregoing works, in other words, don’t call for replacing the government structure we live under, notwithstanding its gross failure.  For radical treatments that expose the bedrock of the State, its legal monopoly of force, then good places to start are Rothbard’s Anatomy of the State and For a New Liberty, Rockwell’s Against the State, Murphy’s Chaos Theory, and Hoppe's The Private Production of Defense.

But these alone won’t get far into the details of the U.S. Deep State.  

For that, you can find scholarly treatments in Laurent Guyénot’s JFK-9/11: 50 Years of Deep State (2015) and Michael J. Glennon’s National Security and Double Government (2014).  Let’s examine some of Glennon’s points.

The survival of the State is supreme

He makes a distinction between the government Madison and his cohorts created and the one Truman set in motion that executes the “national security” policies of unelected insiders.  Under President Harry S. Truman, Congress passed the National Security Act of 1947, “which unified the military under a new Secretary of Defense, set up the CIA, created the modern Joint Chiefs of Staff, and established the National Security Council.” Glennon refers to these governments by their creators, as the Madisonians and the Trumanites.   

Two broad reasons were given for the Trumanite government: One, the need to respond quickly to anything mass murderer Joseph Stalin might try, and two, the desire of the U.S. military to spread democracy all around the globe.

At the time some conservative members of Congress were critical of this arrangement.  Republican Senator William Langer of North Dakota thought the real enemy was the Pentagon where “military leaders had an insatiable appetite for more money, more men, and more power.”  Conservatives talked about a garrison state, a police state, and a slave state. They invoked Washington’s Farewell Address, with his advice to “steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world,” they summoned the 1821 speech of John Quincy Adams who warned against going abroad in search of monsters to destroy, they pointed out the shifting of congressional responsibility to administrative policymaking. 

They spoke truth to power, but power won big.  Red Scare II, along with the awesome threat of the state they lived under, a state that lost no sleep over incinerating civilians with nuclear weapons and firebombing, frightened Americans into compliance.  

The Deep State keeps growing

Glennon sites a 2011 Washington Post article that, following a two-year investigation, 
identified forty-six federal departments and agencies engaged in classified national security work.  Their missions range from intelligence gathering and analysis to war-fighting, cyber-operations, and weapons development. Almost 2,000 private companies support this work, which occurs at over 10,000 locations across America.  The size of their budgets and workforces are mostly classified, but it is clear that those numbers are enormous—a total annual outlay of around $1 trillion and millions of employees.
He also refers to a 1970 article by Henry Kissinger: “The nightmare of the modern state is the hugeness of the bureaucracy, and the problem is how to get coherence and design in it.”  Kisssinger’s wrong.  The State, modern or otherwise, is coherently a leech upon free people and a psychotic bully in global affairs.

If the Deep State keeps growing, we will have just one State, deep and tyrannical in every respect, all in the name of “national security.”

The Deep State would fold if the State on which it depends couldn’t extract the necessary loot from the people it feeds on.  As a rogue organization the Deep State doesn’t have many fans outside of its ranks.  If people took a hard look at the State itself, they might find they don’t cherish that entity much, either.  But they’re reluctant to call for radical change because they’ve been told the free market is a jungle only the State can control.  This is patently false, as Rothbard points out: 
In the jungle, some gain only at the expense of others. On the market, everyone gains. It is the market—the contractual society—that wrests order out of chaos, that subdues nature and eradicates the jungle, that permits the “weak” to live productively, or out of gifts from production, in a regal style compared to the life of the “strong” in the jungle.
People are sick of the State’s taxing, counterfeiting, nannying, warmongering, lying, scandal-ridden, bureaucratic ways.  They need to break out some books and learn that pushing for an unfettered free market is the path to their deliverance from tyranny.

George Ford Smith is a former mainframe and PC programmer and technology instructor, the author of eight books including a novel about a renegade Fed chairman (Flight of the Barbarous Relic), a filmmaker (Do Not Consent), and an advocate of stateless market government.  He eagerly welcomes speaking engagements and can be reached at gfs543@icloud.com.


Thomas Paine, Liberty's Hated Torchbearer

  Thomas Paine, Liberty's Hated Torchbearer by George Ford Smith January 10 should be a special date in American history.  On January 1...