Bullion Bozos: Tally Sticks, Fiat, Bill Still, Gold, Silver, and Banksters

The linked article is from "28 November 2010." I'm covering it here now because I missed it at the time and have some observations that I'll share below. Max Keiser and Stacy Herbert pointed to it in episode 100 of "The Keiser Report" on RT (Russia Today TV), so I took a look at it for the details. There was a video with it that's no longer available. Here's a text excerpt:

EU ministers tonight spelt out the terms of Ireland's €85bn international financial rescue package, and revealed the Dublin government will have to raid its national pension fund and other cash reserves for €17.5bn as a condition of the deal to bail out its banks and debt-laden economy.

...

Within minutes of the announcement, Ireland's embattled prime minster, Brian Cowen, was facing questions about whether his country could afford the interest on the loans, which will average 5.8%, as the repayments will amount to 20% of annual tax revenue. But he was unrepentant. "Can Ireland do without this package? The answer to that is no," he told reporters last night.

via Ireland must find €17.5bn from its pension fund and reserves for bailout | Business | The Guardian.

There's Brian Cowen saying, "Can Ireland do without this package? The answer to that is no." The answer, however, was a resounding yes, just as it has been and remains a resounding yes concerning all the nations of the world when it comes to national and global monetary issues, crashes, bailouts, and all the rest.

Ireland could have reformed its national currency: the currency itself, monetary policy an practices, and the banking sector, etc. It could have started over from scratch. It could have created a new currency that was not a debt-currency, just as United States Notes were debt-free. The banksters, of course, hated that, so they did everything they could to kill United States Notes and effectively did.

Federal Reserve Notes are debt-laded. Federal Reserve Notes are not created without corresponding Treasury Bills being created thereby indenturing the US tax payers to bond holders. It's buy now pay later. However, the US government and all governments could issue currency without creating debt or bonds and thereby "buying now and being done with it" {buy now, pay now, zero-percent financing — no national debts, no interest payments (no taxes) on any such national debts}. That's the direction of United States Notes (USN).

USN would not need to be backed by bullion or any other commodity any more than tally sticks (and split tally sticks when a matched pair) had to represent bullion or any other commodity. Currency is whatever the people agree to use as a medium of exchange for goods or services.

Metal coins were long-lasting, could be reasonably conveniently small given the technology of the time, and could bear the imprint of the issuing authority to help with authenticity. Cheaper more abundant metals historically made for less scarcity of money, whether artificially induced or not.

In very general terms, scarcity of money in circulation is deflationary. Over supplying the circulatory system is inflationary if it circulates enough and depending upon where it circulates. There are situations where supply can increase but circulation slows or is blocked. When the circulation is restored, there can then be too much money. Therefore, the issue is a balance of quantity, placement, and rate of circulation.

From a decent-human standpoint, the most important thing in this is jobs. People are suffering when it doesn't have to be.

What we have now is high unemployment and new debt-money going into pools where it doesn't circulate to help in increasing employment but rather to further enrich the richest of the rich (the global Plutocrats and their minions and sycophants). It's a triple-edged sword and a vicious downward spiral for those not at or near the top of the crime syndicate.

A quick, easy, clearly explainable and salable solution that is expedient for the American people in general is direct public-employment paid for via United States Notes. It would instantly end this depression. It would end the unnecessary suffering caused by debt money and deficit-hawk approaches (austerity).

The only people doing "well" in this current iteration of the Robber Baron Era are those at the very top of the Ponzi scheme that is the global-monetary-pyramid who, as the linked article makes somewhat clear, are raiders of pools of money belonging to others, such as the Irish pension funds. The other people are the indentured ones — further indentured to those who deliberately caused this whole situation for the very reason to make out like the bandits they are.

Now, in researching this article, it came to my attention that there is at least one disinformationist going about claiming the following:

Daniel /Istanbul
Dec 28, 2010 at 10:04 pm

@farang

Don't worry F. Beard is a BILL STILL follower.

They think that tally sticks were an alternative to using gold or silver as money. What haven't understood is that tally stick are just a PRELITERATE form of double entry book keeping. The tally sticks were used by bankers and goldsmiths and even by Nathan Rothschild himself whom they claim to dislike so much. Tally sticks were never used as a substitute for gold or silver. They were a way of accounting for gold and silver debts. Bill Still is too stupid to understand this even though a museum curator explains it to his face in his own video, The Secret of Oz, an exercise in magical thinking.

BILL STILL FOLLOWERS ARE 100% RETARDED. DON'T LISTEN TO THEM.

Now they are in favour of phony baloney 100% unbacked fiat paper. They are going to starve us of oxygen by cutting all the world's trees down.

BILL STILL HAS MENTAL PROBLEMS. Just watch some of his video carefully and you'll see.

via: "The double dip in home prices which started in June, is persisting."

Tally has been used since pre-history. Before ripping Bill Still as an idiot, it behooves one to check around. The Wikipedia article, as it stands as of the date of this blog post, is definitely serviceable.

As is clear, tally was used in many cases as currency not backed by gold or silver. Regardless, many things other than gold and silver have been used as media or mediums of exchange. Gold and/or silver as sole currency is a completely arbitrary choice. Neither is required. Only extremely ignorant dupes believe otherwise. Non-gold and non-silver materials used as money is simply a matter of agreement between the parties who agree to honor the given material. Now, that can even take the form of magnetic bits or laser burns or any number of other forms for record keeping. It's a matter of trust.

I don't know who this "Daniel /Istanbul" is, but his knowledge of the historic and prehistoric use of tally and tally sticks appears limited to his taking the comment of one person in Bill Still's video and doing so out of context. The museum curator was not speaking all-inclusively concerning tally or tally sticks. He was speaking specifically about a particular split-tally-stick use. The tally in that case may have been a receipt and receipt copy for gold. I'm not going to re-watch Bill's video just to find out whether this Daniel person has gotten even that right, as it's moot. Tally in general was never limited to such. It could be used for that purpose while being used to tally whatever the parties involved wanted. In the case of the split tally sticks as most refined and latest in history, they were use concerning gold. That in and of itself says nothing about the viability or efficacy of tally or fiat money in general.

In addition, advocates of fiat currency, such as myself, are not advocating going back to split tally sticks. Tally sticks are only mentioned by fiat-money (over gold and silver) advocates by way of reminding people that for some 700-plus years, they were use quite successfully as currency in their own right and did not have to represent gold but rather could represent any commodity or promise for that matter.

Here's Bill. He's no idiot. I don't agree with every last thing I've seen him write or heard him say, but he's far from an idiot. He has done a yeoman's job and received way too little credit for it. Of course, the powers that be don't like Bill's idea because relative to what the powers that be do and want, Bill's idea is much better for the people in general ("...promote the general welfare...."; You know, The Preamble of the Constitution of the United States of America).

YouTube - Bill Still's Speech at Bromsgrove 2010.

"Bill Still" - Search Results - RealLiberalChristianChurch.org

"United States Notes" - Search Results - RealLiberalChristianChurch.org

Donate


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe


  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in United States Notes. Bookmark the permalink.