US-military and FBI teach total war on Islam...

It is near impossible to counter this psychopathic viewpoint, because it is become institutionalized.

Islam has being actively and continuously framed as "the enemy" by the US media, from newspapers to TV, radio to Hollywood movies, the military and government agencies, largely since the creation of Israel in 1948. Because of this broad and lengthy program of racism and ethnic character assassination by the US powers-that-be, middle America is now totally comfortable in seeing that Muslim (and Arab) peoples are being portrayed as subhuman, or worse. And Middle America is being actively denied the facts in this scenario by the media - because those who own and direct our major media organizations happen to be people who support this agenda.

This crusade by the "Judeo-Christian" power structure in the US, against Islam is so pervasive and invasive - like tasteless, colorless, odorless poisonous gas - that anyone who even gives voice to this horror show is very publicly slammed by that same structure as being "Jew haters", "Holocaust deniers", or "conspiracy theorists". Many people in the US are so biased against Arabs and Muslims (especially Palestinians) that they comfortably accept and justify massacres, acts of state sponsored terrorism, false flag attacks, ethnic cleansing, illegal land grabs, illegal wars, torture, carpet bombings, war crimes, and more - by the US and its allies - because such acts are promoted as being "legitimate", against a group which has been so publicly and broadly demonized. 

Then consider that since 2001, both Bush Administrations and the Obama Administrations have been loaded to the rafters with dual US-Israeli citizens, many of whom are avowed "Zionists" - people who promote the establishment of a "Greater Israel" in the Middle East by force - it is hardly surprising that the cancer of institutionalized hatred of Islam has now metastasized within the government in the US to the very highest level. Question: to which nation are dual Israeli-US citizens most loyal?

People then come at you and say... "well, they attacked us on 9/11". And in response, we tar and feather 1.5 billion people, on account of an alleged, unproven, mythical conspiracy yarn that defies all sense... but which we all believed because it conformed to our pre-programmed, preordained comfort zone.

The true enemy is myth-informed public policy decisions (pun intended, motherfuckers).

Or:

A bad enemy is ignorance.

A worse enemy is ignorance plus arrogance.

The very worst enemy is ignorance plus arrogance plus power.

Honestly, I think you're blowing this out of proportion.  We had a class here that apparently included some materials that were inappropriate and/or inflammatory, as well as one instructor (a high ranking officer) who was espousing an inflammatory view.  He is now under investigation:  

 The class has since been canceled, and was an elective to begin with.  It's hardly "US Military and FBI teach total war."  You make it sound like that was an is official policy.   In fact, policy was just the opposite....

You're dealing with a man that's clearly off his rocker here.   Of course, that doesn't stop Wired from freaking out that people might have actually heard this guy. Both of these are disingenuous:  

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

Or:

 

A bad enemy is ignorance.

 

A worse enemy is ignorance plus arrogance.

 

The very worst enemy is ignorance plus arrogance plus power.

Precisely why it's so dangerous for creationists to have any say over the science curriculum.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR 

Precisely why it's so dangerous for creationists to have any say over the science curriculum.

Which is why we should have separation of school and state.

Nope.  It's good to have a society that gives everyone an equal opportunity to learn real science.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR 

Nope.  It's good to have a society that gives everyone an equal opportunity to learn real science.  

Thanks for revealing your bias toward state-directed indoctrination and against liberty. I'm not surprised of course. This is a recurring theme with you.

Against liberty?  Learning about the world is against liberty?  Laughable.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR 

Against liberty?  Learning about the world is against liberty?  Laughable.

No, your advocacy of government schools is against liberty.

Nah, what Nightcrawler pointed out about the military is against liberty.  What I said is quite decidedly for it.  In the information age, knowledge is power.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR 

Nah, what Nightcrawler pointed out about the military is against liberty.  What I said is quite decidedly for it.  In the information age, knowledge is power.

Of course you're missing the point. I suspect willful ignorance.

No, it's not.  You just have a fucked up definition of liberty.  Anyway, back on topic...PZ Myers has an excellent analysis of the situation Nightcrawler described.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/05/11/good-bad-were-the-ones-with-the-big-guns/

Quote:

Watch this little sketch first, and think about it.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=JEle_DLDg9Y  (The embed is borked for some reason with this video)

I am relieved to say that skulls are not an official motif in US military uniforms, although some units do use them. However, we instead have Nazi-like minds at work in our military. Here’s an excerpt from a presentation at the Defense Department’s Joint Forces Staff College, composed by Lt. Col. Matthew A. Dooley as a proposed model for how to deal with Islam.

It’s a little worse than decorative skulls.

When I hear the phrase “politically correct”, I’m afraid my knee tends to jerk, usually in the direction of some jerk’s groin. It is the tired excuse of the fanatic trying to rationalize the unforgivable. “Oh, excuse me, I’m going to talk about incinerating civilians in a nuclear holocaust, take your ‘politically correct’ objections out of the room.”

And that’s exactly what he’s discussing. Let’s forget civilized accords limiting the conduct of war, and frankly discuss nuking Mecca and Medina. It’s OK, we’re going to remove protections for those caught fighting out of uniform, and pretend that every inhabitant of those two cities is a spy, a terrorist, or a criminal.

You can download the whole presentation; it’s an awful mess of jargon and pointlessly busy military diagrams that say pretty much nothing at all, and it’s main point is to redefine every Muslim in the world as a military combatant who deserves everything we do to them.

It closes with this message:

It is therefore time for the United States to make our true intentions clear. This barbaric ideology will no longer be tolerated, Islam must change or we will facilitate its self-destruction. Let it be known that the United States remains, and will forever be, a beacon of freedom, self-determination, hope, and representative democracy. The American people will not be converted. We will not submit. We will not be intimidated, and we will not be driven from this earth.”

That is remarkably tin-eared and hypocritical. It accuses the other side of being a barbaric ideology while planning to nuke the civilian population centers of the Muslim world…oh, wait, “facilitating their self-destruction.” So we’re going to drop a bomb on them and then innocently declare that it was their own fault?

It rather deflates the grand ideals of “freedom, self-determination, hope, and representative democracy” when you use them as buzzwords to justify the murder of millions.

But perhaps that scale of terror is too immense for your brain to absorb. How about this little morsel, instead?

The American military claimed responsibility and expressed regret for an airstrike that mistakenly killed six members of a family in southwestern Afghanistan, Afghan and American military officials confirmed Monday.

…

The victims were the family’s mother and five of her children, three girls and two boys, according to Afghan officials.

This family was just quietly living in this house in Afghanistan, when the full weight of American freedom, self-determination, hope, and representative democracy dropped into their living room in the form of a military airstrike.

I think we’re the baddies.

But at least we apologized nicely. I’m sure that made it all better.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR 

No, it's not.  You just have a fucked up definition of liberty.

My definition of liberty is based on the principles of non-aggression and voluntary exchanges.

Yes...my definition of liberty is "fucked up."

The principles of let the wealthiest country in the world have dozens of yearly preventable 9-11s because of Randian selfishness (while proclaiming to love Jesus and deny evolution).

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR 

The principles of let the wealthiest country in the world have dozens of yearly preventable 9-11s because of Randian selfishness (while proclaiming to love Jesus and deny evolution).

What the **** are you babbling about?

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR 

The principles of let the wealthiest country in the world have dozens of yearly preventable 9-11s because of Randian selfishness (while proclaiming to love Jesus and deny evolution).

Face it, BR.  You're a Socialist.  Just come out and admit it. 

Looks like this subject falls outside of peoples' comfort zones - 14 of the 17 replies have been off topic.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

 

 

Face it, BR.  You're a Socialist.  Just come out and admit it. 

How about you first define what you think a Socialist is first so we are on the same page.  Also, out of respect to Sammi and Nightcrawler, respond to the PZ Myers piece I posted.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sammi jo 

Looks like this subject falls outside of peoples' comfort zones - 14 of the 17 replies have been off topic.

  Yes, sammi.  We're not comfortable discussing it.  Got it.  

SDW, I wasn't referring to you... your reply was on topic. However, you disregarded the episode as "anomalous", unlike the mistranslated comment attributed to Iranian president Ahmadinejad - (to which you have referred more times than I can remember) - re. "wanting to wipe Israel off the map". This is, of course is *not* what he said, but lets not let the facts get in the way of an effective piece US corporate media/Israeli propaganda. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by sammi jo 

SDW, I wasn't referring to you... your reply was on topic.

Who then? Be direct.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

 

Thanks for revealing your bias toward state-directed indoctrination and against liberty. I'm not surprised of course. This is a recurring theme with you.

"State-directed indoctrination" is a term generally meant to mean the "state" is teaching it's citizens a falsehood that is counter to facts generally accepted by educated people with no state-related agenda. In a free society, such as the USA, the government has a responsibility to give it's citizens accurate information and teach critical thinking so as to equip them to be fully functional individuals.

In addition, our government has a directive within our constitution to not favor or include any religious education within what it mandates as necessary basic knowledge. Religious training is the province of the various religious leaders the student is being brought up to believe in. In this way the student has the freedom to accept either the secular world view or the religious view of various topics.

Without both views, the student may be left with no understanding of how either view came to have authority. I cannot understand how crippling a young thinker's mind so they lack the ability to do critical thinking gives them any ability to have the freedom of thought. 

Whether it is an oppressive state government, or a micro-managing religious order, where either are attempting to control a young developing mind from knowing and understanding the broader world view... there can be no individual liberty. 

I'm 69 years old and have seen the evolution of my government in its increasing awareness of its previous missteps with regard to religion, cultural sensitivity, and historical bias. We, as a body of citizens, are more aware and more inclusive then we were in the 1950s. While it's a good trend it does bring with it more energy for more change back toward the way things once were. There is now, in the USA, a strong push to make the predominate religion, Christianity, a pseudo-State religion. This is being promoted by many conservative political leaders who are willing to forgo the constitutional separation of church and state. There is, along with this idea a desire to "dumb down" science, eliminate many of the arts, and move toward a more state-controlled press. Now, to me THIS is more like the "State-directed indoctrination" and less like the liberty you profess to hold to. Those within the military or FBI that want to indoctrinate other people within the military or the FBI have a hopeless desire due to the critical reasoning their target audience has been allowed to develop during their growing process. 

In a pluralistic society we cannot have liberty for some people and not others... especially when some people's idea of liberty is the right to control what and how young minds may do critical reasoning. We are all free when we have the ability to think freely and question freely and make judgments based on all the evidence available.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sammi jo 

SDW, I wasn't referring to you... your reply was on topic. However, you disregarded the episode as "anomalous", unlike the mistranslated comment attributed to Iranian president Ahmadinejad - (to which you have referred more times than I can remember) - re. "wanting to wipe Israel off the map". This is, of course is *not* what he said, but lets not let the facts get in the way of an effective piece US corporate media/Israeli propaganda. 

I'm pretty sure you've brought up the Ahmadinejad comment more than I have.  And no, I didn't call it "anomalous."  I said it was being blown out of proportion.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by Macky the Macky 

In a free society, such as the USA,

Well, I'm not so sure how "free" a society the US is any longer.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Macky the Macky 

the government has a responsibility to give it's citizens accurate information and teach critical thinking so as to equip them to be fully functional individuals.

I disagree that the state has this responsibility at all. But this is a difference in the philosophy go government we must have.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Macky the Macky 

In addition, our government has a directive within our constitution to not favor or include any religious education within what it mandates as necessary basic knowledge. Religious training is the province of the various religious leaders the student is being brought up to believe in. In this way the student has the freedom to accept either the secular world view or the religious view of various topics.

OK

Quote:

Originally Posted by Macky the Macky 

I cannot understand how crippling a young thinker's mind so they lack the ability to do critical thinking gives them any ability to have the freedom of thought.

Who is proposing to do that? Who is it that wants to cripple a young person's mind so they lack the ability to do critical thinking? Based on outcomes, I would guess it is those who are running the public education systems today.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Macky the Macky 

I'm 69 years old and have seen the evolution of my government in its increasing awareness of its previous missteps with regard to religion, cultural sensitivity, and historical bias. We, as a body of citizens, are more aware and more inclusive then we were in the 1950s.

In some ways, yes. In some ways things aren't all that different.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Macky the Macky 

There is now, in the USA, a strong push to make the predominate religion, Christianity, a pseudo-State religion. This is being promoted by many conservative political leaders who are willing to forgo the constitutional separation of church and state.

Really? By whom? Where? Who is making this "strong push?"

Quote:

Originally Posted by Macky the Macky 

There is, along with this idea a desire to "dumb down" science, eliminate many of the arts...

Really? By whom? Where? Who wants to "dumb down" science and eliminate the arts?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Macky the Macky 

...and move toward a more state-controlled press.

Yes, it would be bad if the state controlled the media. If, for example the President of the United States was suggesting or telling them what they should say about him and his campaign (or his opponent and his opponent's campaign).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Macky the Macky 

...less like the liberty you profess to hold to.

I profess to hold a liberty in in which everyone is free. Everyone's basic rights of life, liberty and property are protected by their government. Not one in which some people's rights are trampled or infringed or ignored because some other people simply think they should be in order to apply this own set of values upon everyone. I profess to hold a liberty where the vast majority of interactions among people are voluntary rather than coerced.

This is the liberty I profess.

Do you have a problem with the kind of liberty where a) the government's job is to protect the basic rights of life, liberty and property of its citizens, b) the government does not infringe upon or ignore or restrict the basic rights of life, liberty and property of some of its citizens for the benefit of other citizens, and c) voluntary interactions, exchanges and arrangements are the order of the day rather than coerced interactions, exchanges and arrangements?

Do you have a problem with this kind of liberty?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Macky the Macky 

Those within the military or FBI that want to indoctrinate other people within the military or the FBI have a hopeless desire due to the critical reasoning their target audience has been allowed to develop during their growing process. 

Their target audience is immune to this stuff because if the critical reasoning skills they've developed?! Now that's just laughable. That statement right there appears to demonstrate a disconnection of the reality in modern America.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Macky the Macky 

In a pluralistic society we cannot have liberty for some people and not others... especially when some people's idea of liberty is the right to control what and how young minds may do critical reasoning.

I agree. Who is it that you think wants to have "right to control what and how young minds may do critical reasoning"? Is is the people who wish to force every kid to be subject to the government schooling system or is the people who believe parents ought to have more choice in how, where and what their children are educated?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Macky the Macky 

We are all free when we have the ability to think freely and question freely and make judgments based on all the evidence available.

I agree. I don't believe the government schools are actually teaching, supporting or promoting that kind of thing at all.

More fun stuff at DoD:

We have truly lost our way as a country.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Northgate 

We have truly lost our way as a country.

Yes, we have.  We've gotten away from everything that was intended for us.  We were a nation where people had the opportunity to succeed and provide for themselves absent an omnipresent government that ran our lives.  Now we're a nation that is ever more dependent on Daddy Government for housing, food, clothing, transportation, healthcare, retirement and protecting us from ourselves.  We once celebrated success, now we vilify it.  We once believed adversity taught us how to be better through struggle...now we cry for a government handout.  Our cities are now filled with fatherless children, because Daddy Government provides the paycheck.  We've lost our way indeed. 

What I don't understand, SDW, is how you can write something like you did above and at the same time advocate paper money and government control of the economy via the Federal Reserve.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru 

What I don't understand, SDW, is how you can write something like you did above and at the same time advocate paper money and government control of the economy via the Federal Reserve.

The problem here is that to most people:

a) The Fed is a big mystery they know little about, but, if they "know" anything, they "know" is necessary to create economic stability and that any socialist/fascist/central planning* characteristics is has are far outweighed by the stability it allegedly brings to the economy. They fail to see it for what it is which is a socialist/fascist/central planning institution designed deliberately to make banks richer by backing up the fraudulent fractional reserve banking system and printing money and a creating credit (for them) out of thin air.

b) They think money (and banking) is something particularly special in the economy different from every other commodity/good (or service).

And:

a) Comes from a flawed interpretation of history.

b) Comes from a flawed or incomplete understanding of economics and proper monetary theory.

*It's interesting to me that people who are (rightly) opposed to socialism, fascism and central planning for all of its many failings are so quick to defend (vigorously!) the biggest, most central and most critical socialist/fascist/central planning apparatus in the entire economy.

delete  

wrong thread.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru 

What I don't understand, SDW, is how you can write something like you did above and at the same time advocate paper money and government control of the economy via the Federal Reserve.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

 

The problem here is that to most people:

 

a) The Fed is a big mystery they know little about, but, if they "know" anything, they "know" is necessary to create economic stability and that any socialist/fascist/central planning* characteristics is has are far outweighed by the stability it allegedly brings to the economy. They fail to see it for what it is which is a socialist/fascist/central planning institution designed deliberately to make banks richer by backing up the fraudulent fractional reserve banking system and printing money and a creating credit (for them) out of thin air.

 

b) They think money (and banking) is something particularly special in the economy different from every other commodity/good (or service).

 

And:

 

a) Comes from a flawed interpretation of history.

 

b) Comes from a flawed or incomplete understanding of economics and proper monetary theory.

 

*It's interesting to me that people who are (rightly) opposed to socialism, fascism and central planning for all of its many failings are so quick to defend (vigorously!) the biggest, most central and most critical socialist/fascist/central planning apparatus in the entire economy.

It's not that I "advocate" paper money and government control of the economy.  It's that it's a reality that is unlikely to change, and one that would be hard to change at this point if we wanted to.  As I've said, there is no political will to go back to a backed currency (be it gold or what not).  Secondly, given how inflated the money supply is and how dependent we've become on it, I think going back to such a constricted supply would be at least problematic if not potentially disastrous with our credit-driven economy.  I know your claim is that while things would be bad initially, they'd be so much better in the long run.  I really don't know about that, nor do I know what "long term" means.  

In reality, I'd much rather see better oversight of the Fed and much more limited spending/control by government.  These are reachable goals, whereas a complete tear-down and remaking of the system is not, in my opinion.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

It's not that I "advocate" paper money and government control of the economy.

I think you're playing semantics here as we'll in a moment.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

It's that it's a reality that is unlikely to change, and one that would be hard to change at this point if we wanted to.  As I've said, there is no political will to go back to a backed currency (be it gold or what not).

I agree about the present circumstance of reality. I agree about the political will. That doesn't me we ought not be educating and informing people about the ills of central banking and fiat money systems. Because political "will" comes when politicians realize people actually want something. People don't actually want something unless they've been educated, informed and convinced enough to want it. This is where Ron Paul is at.

All of that said, it could all come to an end whether anyone has the political will or not. But if it happens that way, it unlikely to happen very gracefully. :-(

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

Secondly, given how inflated the money supply is and how dependent we've become on it, I think going back to such a constricted supply would be at least problematic if not potentially disastrous with our credit-driven economy.  

First, it's about stopping inflating. That's step number one. The Fed must stop inflating first. If that's not going to happen any subsequent steps are useless to discuss.

Second, on what basis do you assume we must "go back to" a "constricted" supply?

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

In reality, I'd much rather see better oversight of the Fed and much more limited spending/control by government.  

So you don't "advocate" for paper money and central bank control of the economy, you just want better over sight over it. You want less government spending and control of the economy, but still fail to see how the Fed is the very institution that enables both of those by its very nature. That's what it does. That's its whole purpose.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

These are reachable goals, whereas a complete tear-down and remaking of the system is not, in my opinion.  

Not at the present time, with the level of education and knowledge of the general public (not to mention the politicians governing all of this). But perhaps in the future. But then, perhaps it will all fall apart on its own.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

 

I think you're playing semantics here as we'll in a moment.

 

 

 

I agree about the present circumstance of reality. I agree about the political will. That doesn't me we ought not be educating and informing people about the ills of central banking and fiat money systems. Because political "will" comes when politicians realize people actually want something. People don't actually want something unless they've been educated, informed and convinced enough to want it. This is where Ron Paul is at.

 

All of that said, it could all come to an end whether anyone has the political will or not. But if it happens that way, it unlikely to happen very gracefully. :-(

 

 

 

First, it's about stopping inflating. That's step number one. The Fed must stop inflating first. If that's not going to happen any subsequent steps are useless to discuss.

 

Second, on what basis do you assume we must "go back to" a "constricted" supply?

 

 

 

 

So you don't "advocate" for paper money and central bank control of the economy, you just want better over sight over it. You want less government spending and control of the economy, but still fail to see how the Fed is the very institution that enables both of those by its very nature. That's what it does. That's its whole purpose.

 

 

 

Not at the present time, with the level of education and knowledge of the general public (not to mention the politicians governing all of this). But perhaps in the future. But then, perhaps it will all fall apart on its own.

I think the difference is what we see as the primary problem.  I think the primary problem is not central banking per se.  I think it's overspending and the policies that the central bankers are enacting.  Now, would I prefer another system?  Absolutely.  I just don't think it's realistic to expect it to change completely.  As for the constricted money supply, I'm surprised we're not connecting on that.  We have far more currency than we have, say, gold.  Therefore, the money supply must contract if pegged to a hard standard.   

Speaking of the primary problem.  Would you still be hellbent on ending the Fed if the U.S. had a low debt and balanced budgets?  

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

I think the difference is what we see as the primary problem.  I think the primary problem is not central banking per se.  I think it's overspending and the policies that the central bankers are enacting.  

You're right, we disagree on the primary or root problem(s). I consider the spending and debt we're concerned with a symptom of a deeper problem and cause.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

As for the constricted money supply, I'm surprised we're not connecting on that.  We have far more currency than we have, say, gold.  Therefore, the money supply must contract if pegged to a hard standard. 

That's just not true. Why do you assume that?

They would simply peg the dollar to a certain amount of gold just as it used to be.

At one point gold was $20 per ounce. Another way of saying this is that US$1 = 1/20th of one ounce of gold. In fact for at least 100 years (1833 - 1932) the dollar price of gold ranged from around $19 to $21 per ounce. Meaning that for 100 years one US$ was equivalent to about 1/19th to 1/21th of an ounce of gold. That is remarkable price stability. The price then jumped in 1934 to $35/ounce and remained that way (edging up to $40) until 1971. The US was still constrained by the gold standard internationally during this period. Then Nixon eliminated all tied between US dollars and gold. He basically unleashed the Fed's ability to inflate away.

Today that ratio would be just be different. It might be something like US$1 = 1/1500 of one ounce of gold. This, of course, would instantly lay bare the devaluation that has occurred with the dollar (about 95-99%) because of the constant inflation over 100 years. Another, more accurate method of valuation would be to divide the number of dollars in existence today by the amount of actual gold the US treasury owns to arrive at a current day value of the dollar in terms of gold.

Now the real reason that this is unlikely to ever be done voluntarily* is that this action would expose a hugely embarrassing situation for the US government.

*I say voluntarily, because I predict this will all happen eventually anyway...it just may not happen by choice. In that event, it will happen very badly,

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

Speaking of the primary problem.  Would you still be hellbent on ending the Fed if the U.S. had a low debt and balanced budgets?  

Yes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

 

You're right, we disagree on the primary or root problem(s). I consider the spending and debt we're concerned with a symptom of a deeper problem and cause.

 

 

 

That's just not true. Why do you assume that?

 

They would simply peg the dollar to a certain amount of gold just as it used to be.

 

At one point gold was $20 per ounce. Another way of saying this is that US$1 = 1/20th of one ounce of gold. In fact for at least 100 years (1833 - 1932) the dollar price of gold ranged from around $19 to $21 per ounce. Meaning that for 100 years one US$ was equivalent to about 1/19th to 1/21th of an ounce of gold. That is remarkable price stability. The price then jumped in 1934 to $35/ounce and remained that way (edging up to $40) until 1971. The US was still constrained by the gold standard internationally during this period. Then Nixon eliminated all tied between US dollars and gold. He basically unleashed the Fed's ability to inflate away.

 

Today that ratio would be just be different. It might be something like US$1 = 1/1500 of one ounce of gold. This, of course, would instantly lay bare the devaluation that has occurred with the dollar (about 95-99%) because of the constant inflation over 100 years. Another, more accurate method of valuation would be to divide the number of dollars in existence today by the amount of actual gold the US treasury owns to arrive at a current day value of the dollar in terms of gold.

 

Now the real reason that this is unlikely to ever be done voluntarily* is that this action would expose a hugely embarrassing situation for the US government.

 

*I say voluntarily, because I predict this will all happen eventually anyway...it just may not happen by choice. In that event, it will happen very badly,

 

 

 

Yes.

I understand your view on the primary cause.  Not sure I agree, but I understand.  As for a hard currency (so to speak), I see where you're going now.  I see no problem with that whatsoever.  I don't think it will happen politically....though as you say it may happen involuntarily.