‘admit the facts of life in international political relationships.” Brexit and facts of geo politics

This is a blog post incorporating a comment I made in a long discussion I became involved in on the Golem XIV blog in January this year, the original Blog by David malone ( currently contesting the Green Party leadership of the UK  is here. http://www.golemxiv.co.uk/2016/01/re-branding-dissent/
I have been juggleing with notions of the Spanish inquisiton   1480 and 1530. The desolution of the monastries 
between 1536 and 1541 and the rise of Neo Liberalism since 1971 and the so called Nixon shock 
These 3 cut and pastes set out the main drive of my anaologies of the 3 events to what Brexit means in the washington Consensus context which I feel is missing form the binary EU / UK context which I set out in this blog. https://notthegrubstreetjournal.com/2016/03/10/brexit-smexit-why-we-should-all-be-feelin-the-bern-and-the-uk-referendum-on-eu-is-of-no-consequence-in-or-out/

Thomas Madden describes the world that formed medieval politics: “The Inquisition was not born out of desire to crush diversity or oppress people; it was rather an attempt to stop unjust executions. Yes, you read that correctly. Heresy was a crime against the state. Roman law in the Code of Justinian made it a capital offense. Rulers, whose authority was believed to come from God, had no patience for heretics”.[19] The monarchs decided to introduce the Inquisition to Castile to discover and punish crypto-Jews, and requested the pope’s assent. Ferdinand II of Aragon pressured Pope Sixtus IV to agree to an Inquisition controlled by the monarchy by threatening to withdraw military support at a time when the Turks were a threat to Rome. The pope issued a bull to stop the Inquisition but was pressured into withdrawing it. On 1 November 1478, Pope Sixtus IV published the Papal bullExigit Sinceras Devotionis Affectus, through which he gave the monarchs exclusive authority to name the inquisitors in their kingdoms. The first two inquisitors, Miguel de Morillo and Juan de San Martín, were not named, however, until two years later, on 27 September 1480 in Medina del Campo.



Dissatisfaction with the general state of regular religious life, and with the gross extent of monastic wealth, was near to universal amongst late medieval secular and ecclesiastical rulers in the Latin West. Bernard says there was
widespread concern in the later fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries about the condition of the monasteries. A leading figure here is the scholar and theologian Desiderius Erasmus who satirized monasteries as lax, as comfortably worldly, as wasteful of scarce resources, and as superstitious; he also thought it would be better if monks were brought more directly under the authority of bishops. At that time, quite a few bishops across Europe had come to believe that resources expensively deployed on an unceasing round of services by men and women in theory set apart from the world [would] be better spent on endowing grammar schools and university colleges to train men who would then serve the laity as parish priests, and on reforming the antiquated structures of over-large diocese such as that of Lincoln. Pastoral care was seen as much more important and vital than the monastic focus on contemplation, prayer and performance of the daily office.[4]
Erasmus’s criticisms of the monks and nuns of his day were threefold:
  • that, in withdrawing from the world into their own communal life, they elevated man-made monastic vows of poverty, chastity and obedience above the God-given vows of sacramental baptism; and elevated man-made monastic rules for religious life above the God-given teachings of the Gospels;
  • that, notwithstanding exceptional communities of genuine austere life and exemplary charity, the overwhelming majority of abbeys and priories were havens for idle drones; concerned only for their own existence, reserving for themselves an excessive share of the commonwealth’s religious assets, and contributing little or nothing to the spiritual needs of ordinary people;
  • that the monasteries, almost without exception, were heavily involved in promoting and profiting from the veneration of relics, in the form of pilgrimages and purported miraculous tokens. The cult of relics was by no means specific to monasteries, but Erasmus was scandalised by the extent to which well-educated and highly regarded monks and nuns would participate in the perpetration of obvious frauds against gullible and credulous lay believers.
Summarising the state of monastic life across Western Europe, David Knowles said,
The verdict of unprejudiced historians at the present day would probably be—abstracting from all ideological considerations for or against monasticism—that there were far too many religious houses in existence in view of the widespread decline of the fervent monastic vocation, and that in every country the monks possessed too much of wealth and of the sources of production both for their own well-being and for the material good of the economy.

In February 1965 President Charles de Gaulle announced his intention to exchange its U.S. dollar reserves for gold at the official exchange rate.[5]
By 1966, non-US central banks held $14 billion, while the United States had only $13.2 billion in gold reserve. Of those reserves, only $3.2 billion was able to cover foreign holdings as the rest was covering domestic holdings.[6]
By 1971, the money supply had increased by 10%.[7] In May 1971, West Germany left the Bretton Woods system, unwilling to revalue the Deutsche Mark.[8] In the following three months, this move strengthened its economy. Simultaneously, the dollar dropped 7.5% against the Deutsche Mark.[8] Other nations began to demand redemption of their dollars for gold.Switzerland redeemed $50 million in July.[8] France acquired $191 million in gold.[8] On August 5, 1971, the United States Congress released a report recommending devaluation of the dollar, in an effort to protect the dollar against “foreign price-gougers”.[8] On August 9, 1971, as the dollar dropped in value against European currencies, Switzerland left the Bretton Woods system.[8] The pressure began to intensify on the United States to leave Bretton Woods.


At the time, the U.S. also had an unemployment rate of 6.1% (August 1971)[9][notes 1] and an inflation rate of 5.84% (1971).[10]
To combat these issues, President Nixon consulted Federal Reserve chairman Arthur Burns, incoming Treasury Secretary John Connally, and then Undersecretary for International Monetary Affairs and future Fed Chairman Paul Volcker.
On the afternoon of Friday, August 13, 1971, these officials along with twelve other high-ranking White House and Treasury advisors met secretly with Nixon at Camp David. There was great debate about what Nixon should do, but ultimately Nixon, relying heavily on the advice of the self-confident Connally, decided to break up Bretton Woods by suspending the convertibility of the dollar into gold; freezing wages and prices for 90 days to combat potential inflationary effects; and impose an import surcharge of 10 percent,[11] to prevent a run on the dollar, stabilize the US economy, and decrease US unemployment and inflation rates, on August 15, 1971:[12][13]
  1. Nixon directed Treasury Secretary Connally to suspend, with certain exceptions, the convertibility of the dollar into gold or other reserve assets, ordering the gold window to be closed such that foreign governments could no longer exchange their dollars for gold.
  2. Nixon issued Executive Order 11615 (pursuant to the Economic Stabilization Act of 1970), imposing a 90-day freeze on wages and prices in order to counter inflation. This was the first time the U.S. government enacted wage and price controls since World War II.
  3. An import surcharge of 10 percent was set to ensure that American products would not be at a disadvantage because of the expected fluctuation in exchange rates.
Speaking on television on August 15, the Sunday before the markets opened, Nixon said the following:
The third indispensable element in building the new prosperity is closely related to creating new jobs and halting inflation. We must protect the position of the American dollar as a pillar of monetary stability around the world.
In the past 7 years, there has been an average of one international monetary crisis every year…
I have directed Secretary Connally to suspend temporarily the convertibility of the dollar into gold or other reserve assets, except in amounts and conditions determined to be in the interest of monetary stability and in the best interests of the United States.
Now, what is this action — which is very technical — what does it mean for you?
Let me lay to rest the bugaboo of what is called devaluation.
If you want to buy a foreign car or take a trip abroad, market conditions may cause your dollar to buy slightly less. But if you are among the overwhelming majority of Americans who buy American-made products in America, your dollar will be worth just as much tomorrow as it is today.
The effect of this action, in other words, will be to stabilize the dollar.[14]
Shortly after taking the Treasury post, Connally famously told a group of European finance ministers worried about the export of American inflation that the dollar “is our currency, but your problem.”[25]
Exhorbitant privelidge.
And from here to neo Liberalism. The post ends with this quote from Tragedy and hope about the narratives which had mislead the electorates to devastating war and could not be admitted after the event and the need for reconcilliation.  ”No settlements could ever have been made on any other bases. The failure of the chief negotiators (at least the Anglo-Americans) to admit this is regrettable, but behind their
reluctance to admit it is the even more regrettable fact that the lack of political experience and political education of the American and English electorates made it dangerous for the negotiators to admit the facts of life in international political relationships.”
With Brexit we same the same problems a binary procrusteun lie to settle what is infact an integral problem AQAL. 
Ken Wilber’s AQAL, pronounced “ah-qwul”, is the basic framework of Integral Theory. It suggests that all human knowledge and experience can be placed in a four-quadrant grid, along the axes of “interior-exterior” and “individual-collective”. According to Wilber, it is one of the most comprehensive approaches to reality, a metatheory that attempts to explain how academic disciplines and every form of knowledge and experience fit together coherently.[20]
Without all quadrants and all levels which are discrete to the essential identity of this mathematical equation being made explicit solutions will not be seen by the blind and deaf elites who no longer see or hear what the elcetorate is shouting at them, The emperor has no clothes!
Roger January 14, 2016 at 8:18 pm # 
Believe it or not this is a nice bit of light relief as I am in my Third day of reading in detail Tragedy and Hope which touches on all aspects of Wesley´s ire and is also quite good on looking at the left as well up until now. As an Anarchist from the Kropotkin mould Quiggley does not spare me either with his short shrift for alledged Russian Nihilism and Christian Orthodoxy.and the necessary cultural flaws in Bolchevism and Anarchist ideology.
Quiqgley Dismisses Marx as well but I would say the period from 1966 when the Book was published to now has actually seen history moving more in Marx’s favour.
All of our Arguments are really with Neo Liberalism today, Neo Liberalism didn´t really exist in quiggleys day as the force it is today but of course Classical liberalism did.Neo Liberalism is the hedgemonic ideology across western power and business elites also in Academia lack of balance leaves us in the mess we are in.
If most Libertarians identify with the Austrian School, what Quiggley has to say about German(Teutonic) Nobility and also my earlier comment about Frank Harris is quite interesting vis the German Nobility versus the British Oligarchy and Aristocracy. The distinctions are subtle on paper but the social fabric of different cultures is a great driver of what ultimately provides the straw that breaks the camels back, the Masses under most systems are pretty much ignored always.
Libertarianism in the US is quite different i think to its conception in Europe and in Europe its conception in England, France or Germany would be very different to each other and of course to that of an American context. I do wonder how different its conception is in the US. Quiqqley is very good in bringing out the Southern states and their mistrust of Republicanism post the civil war and the machinations of the Oligarchy to get control of the US congress without the South. There is a Libertarian Party in the US, so its perfectly easy to look at its manifesto, Ron Paul is its most well known representative I think this side of the pond, some of us remember Ross Perot, His running mate was I recall a Famous Stoic philisophically, always a plus point for me given my weakness for Epictetus.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-g1TaYYGv8Q This Ron Paul speech is interesting, also this article in which Skousen and Quiggley discuss interpretation of Tragedy and hope in The Naked Capitalist, Ron Pauls is Skaussian in a Naked Capitalist sense. Paul has his own Agenda to advance and dissembles as much as Clinton I think, The American problem is huge , that we seem to be adopting their customs in politics is hugely worrying.

I fail to see how Clinton could claim Quiqqley as a mentor, he took a two term course and was awarded a B Grade according to Wikipedia. Quiggley as a historian attempts to set out facts from research as such the commentary can be used as a handbook for different ways of doing things. I think Clinton will have learned a lot about how things were back in the 60´s which is a huge advantage in deciding where to focus ones efforts to achieve Power and Wealth, ”The value of goods,
expressed in money, is called “prices,” while the value of money, expressed in goods, is
called “value.” p.49 (Commercial Capitalism) Quiqqley shows how Bankers make the distinction and real power lays in the Value of money and not the prices of goods. Ruskin who Quiqqley cites as a huge influence on the Round Table and Rhodes etc ( Clinton Rhodes Scholar) says this in Unto this last. John Ruskin, Unto this Last 1860, Critique of Classical Political Economy.
Pardon me. Men of business do indeed know how they themselves
made their money, or how, on occasion, they lost it. Playing a
long-practised game, they are familiar with the chances of its
cards, and can rightly explain their losses and gains. But they
neither know who keeps the bank of the gambling-house, nor what
other games may be played with the same cards, nor what other
losses and gains, far away among the dark streets, are
essentially, though invisibly, dependent on theirs in the lighted
rooms. They have learned a few, and only a few, of the laws of
mercantile economy; but not one of those of political economy.´´
https://notthegrubstreetjournal.com/2014/08/25/government-of-the-poor-by-the-rich-for-the-corporations/ . My notes are evolving regarding the clear lapse back into 19th Century classical Liberalism, the present Neo Liberal Ideology seems sadly to apply all of the lessons which do not bear repeating and ignores all the ones which Quiggley warns against. If Clintons application of Quiggleys own Hopes were judged by his results I think the Viva voce ( practical examination sense) )would see Clinton Failing the course) .
I´m 3 days into Tragedy and Hope and will be working on it probably for another fortnight, I am making Notes as I go along and will probably write an essay when I have finished my analysis of it. Meanwhile Wesley and John g, dialogue is always fruitful, I don’t advocate a policy of appeasement but certainly one of dialogue. This is the challenge we face in Quiggleys words.p.232 tragedy and Hope.
´´but criticism should have been directed rather at the hypocrisy and lack
of realism in the ideals of the wartime propaganda and at the lack of honesty of the chief negotiators in carrying on the pretense that these ideals were still in effect while they violated them daily, and necessarily violated them. The settlements were clearly made by secret negotiations, by the Great Powers exclusively, and by power politics. They had to be. No settlements could ever have been made on any other bases. The failure of the chief negotiators (at least the Anglo-Americans) to admit this is regrettable, but behind their
reluctance to admit it is the even more regrettable fact that the lack of political experience and political education of the American and English electorates made it dangerous for the negotiators to admit the facts of life in international political relationships.”
To Change the money system we have to explain it to a much wider constituency than we have reached so far this task if accomplished will maybe one day make our political differences relevant again in a democratic context.

Author: rogerglewis

https://about.me/rogerlewis Looking for a Job either in Sweden or UK. Freelance, startups, will turń my hand to anything.

9 thoughts on “‘admit the facts of life in international political relationships.” Brexit and facts of geo politics

Leave a Reply