Return-Path: X-Original-To: jzube@acenet.com.au Delivered-To: jzube@acenet.com.au Received: from localhost (mail1 [127.0.0.1]) by mail1.acenet.com.au (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69A6823323 for ; Sun, 27 Apr 2003 17:26:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail1.acenet.com.au ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail1 [127.0.0.1:10024]) (amavisd-new) with ESMTP id 12192-01 for ; Sun, 27 Apr 2003 17:25:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail07a.vwh1.net (mail07a.vwh1.net [209.238.9.57]) by mail1.acenet.com.au (Postfix) with SMTP id DD0CE23357 for ; Sun, 27 Apr 2003 17:25:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from www.butterbach.net (208.55.102.142) by mail07a.vwh1.net (RS ver 1.0.80vs) with SMTP id 0436817418 for ; Sun, 27 Apr 2003 03:10:21 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030402112453.00a21290@butterbach.net> X-Sender: butter@butterbach.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 09:10:15 +0200 To: "John Zube" From: Christian Butterbach Subject: Re: 030402 FB, War, Central Banking, Dollar, Euro Re: Neuer Aspekt des Irak-Kriegs In-Reply-To: <000001c2f88f$cff755a0$3d3ecacb@e1d9k7> References: <5.1.0.14.2.20030401112728.024d55f0@butterbach.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====================_8863399==_.ALT" X-Loop-Detect: 1 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new X-UIDL: PR-#!D$7!!o%E!!Wmb!! --=====================_8863399==_.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable At 02:02 02.04.03 +1000, you wrote: >Dear Christian, > there are all kinds of "conspiracy" and "cause" >ideas on war. The Nazis, too, had their own, on a supposed international >"Jewish" conspiracy and their own anti-capitalism and anti-laissez fair >"philosophy" was, among other things, expressed by their attacks against= the >international financial conspiracy of the "plutocrats". > >Those who ascribe all to "oil interests", "international corporations" or >"multi-nationals" or "globalism", to the "almighty" dollar, the World Bank, >the IMF, or, as here, to a currency conspiracy, are all in the same vein. CB: There is not a word said here of a conspiracy. The only question is=20 whether a reported fact, which I had not heard of so far, is indeed a fact,= =20 and if, it is indeed a very good and sufficient reason for the American=20 government and those powers it really represents (=3D not the people) to=20 loose all control and reason and just hit around like mad. Morals have=20 never guided them. >I read somewhere that there are now between 1000 and 1500 different >conspiracy theories. Absolutely expressed none is right. By their very >contradictions and differences in their "exclusive" or "main cause" >presentations or "explanations" they refute each other, just like the >various religions, churches and sects do. CB: This is an excellent argument. Nevertheless, could it not also be=20 turned against us? Our theories are also in contradiction to a large number= =20 of others... :-) What can we really prove? Not that much finally. Some=20 certainly. It is our philosophy, our reality tunnel (cf. R. A. Wilson),=20 other people have other ones. It is what we want. Others want something=20 different. I concede that theirs is not much independent thinking, it is=20 mostly influenced by what they think is "reality", facts existing since too= =20 long and imposed by others, not by nature, but considered by our=20 adversaries as being natural. >Is that "theory" a fact based one, or a mere hypothesis? Is it an informed >or another wild guess? CB: This should not be too difficult to verify. There must be documents to= =20 be found somewhere. I had no time to search and for me it is enough that it= =20 is plausible. If it is also true, then what can I do about it? Nothing! You= =20 apparently can (see my next remark). >Does it accept the current situation as an unchangeable "given" or as an >imposed condition, that could, with a large effort in the right directions, >be changed? > >Is good money everywhere free to drive out the bad? > >Are we everywhere free enough to drive out the bad rulers, as far as our= own >affairs are concerned? Or are they given legal tender and cours forc=E9= over >out fate? Also a monopoly position? > >As for me, I choose full monetary, financial, clearing, credit and >investment freedom over any despotic system in these spheres, as part of my >general panarchistic stand. CB: So you choose. How? In theory! Not in practice. It is not enough to=20 have the right theories. People want changes. So you need also the right=20 theories about how to overcome that power that imposes the wrong theories.= =20 How to secede. To do it partially will be available to a few individuals.=20 Sometimes people find a few clever means to have a larger number of people= =20 withdraw from the system on some limited issue, unfortunately not so far=20 very much on those more basic questions of monetary freedom or of=20 panarchist freedom of choice of political system (legal community). Some=20 people try though. It seems to be starting. We do not know of all that is=20 going on. But even if enough people would know about the panarchist=20 solutions (That would help a lot!), it is not the indians that you have to= =20 convince alone, it is the chiefs. They will often refrain from change, even= =20 if they know that it will be their own death. They are mentally ill,=20 addicted, dumb, incapable or whatever. History is full of those (just think= =20 of Hitler or of Louis XVI). >That often some little truths and natural trends are behind the >generalizations of them, does not justify their generalizations. Hitler,= for >instance, got SOME capitalist backing from Germany and perhaps also some >from overseas. He and the Weimar Republic before him, were also, for a >while, collaborating militarily, with the Soviet Union, to circumvent the >restrictions of the Versailles Treaty. > >Early and quite just and liberating interventions against Lenin, Mussolini, >Hitler, Mao and others would have saved the world much trouble. But >territorial governments are, probably, not capable of quite rightful and >timely interventions, at least not of pursuing optimal and quite just >programs against despotic territorial regimes, seeing that they are also >authoritarian by degrees. > >What annoys me about most libertarians and anarchists is that they do not >seriously enough consider their libertarian and anarchist alternative >platform, action and enlightenment programs against totalitarian and >authoritarian regimes overseas, although only they could offer rightful and >effective programs against them. They rather criticise the more obvious >wrongs and mistakes of territorial governments on "their" side. >Territorialists can only offer territorial non-solutions, that make for= more >and more crises and problems. CB: Well, also anarchists have to learn and advance their concepts. Some=20 basic still valid concepts were found a long time ago, others were changed= =20 over time and offer now better interpretations than in their original form= =20 (present libertarians are often better in some of their theories than=20 classics like Bakunin or Kropotkin or even Proudhon or Mackay), but new=20 ones have to be added, mainly exterritoriality. Only this is little known.= =20 If the word does not spread enough, either we use the wrong methods of=20 propaganda or we address ourselves to the wrong type of humans among those= =20 calling themselves anarchists or libertarians or even other people not=20 calling themselves such a thing but maybe readier for it. Mary Lou Seymour= =20 for instance wrote me not long ago "I thought Exterritorial was excellent,= =20 BTW, I've never seen it used before." Is that now her fault or ours??? >Freedom and peace lovers should seriously consider the case for >interventionism and for non-interventionism. CB: As you know, they do. Increasingly. But of course they should go more=20 into the details and choices you are writing about below and in your=20 publications. >Both are not absolutes but >relative notions. Numerous fundamental questions have to be asked about >both. Intervention by whom? Governments or volunteers? For or against what >cause, persons, principles or institutions? Using what means, methods and >weapons and in what ways? Using publicity or secrecy? Using boycotts and >bombing indiscriminately against whole populations, countries, cities or is >it a "war to the palace, peace to the huts" intervention or liberation? CB: It seems obvious to me that it should be the latter and that is what=20 libertarians I deal with advocate... >Have completely rightful war and peace aims been declared and are they >strictly adhered to in practice already, even before it comes to a war, on >the own side? >Is democratic "voting" and "representation" good enough as a war aim? >Can anyone's territoria ideal serve as the ideal for all in that territory? >At least the simple questions of Aphtonios should all be anwered, instead= of >proceeding in the conventional and traditional way, based on numerous false >premises and assumptions. > >Jumping to conclusions and taking assertions for facts, adopting seeming >opposites as only alternatives and mere hypotheses as sound theories and >considering only one-factor "explanations" - can lead us from one crisis= to >another. > >This theorist presupposed that one central banking system, competing with >another central banking system, would be the main cause for this war. >The truth lies, I believe, closer to the observation or generalisation that >ALL central banking systems greatly contribute to wars, civil wars, >revolutions and dictatorships. CB: Of course, that is clear to me (if not to most people ~~ yet),=20 nevertheless if an enormous power like the American=20 military-industrial-political complex which wants to remain so and wants to= =20 expand and is even "forced" to (there is an inbuilt compulsion in the=20 monopolist monetary system via compound interest and the will to have=20 unearned income ~~ a thing you obstinately refuse to recognize), a=20 challenge to them like this switch from the dollar to the Euro is enough=20 within the existing power system, without even having to resort to the more= =20 basic general explanations. >I will not attempt to prove that here, since I have expressed myself often >and at length on this subject. > >The "Almighty Dollar" was never "almighty" and for a long time it hasn't >even been a properly defined "dollar". Nevertheless, since most national >currencies, run by their central banks, are even worse, CB: By "properly defined" you mean gold backed? I do not fully agree. All=20 the fuss with gold in Libertarian circles may be correct within a monetary= =20 freedom situation, but whether gold is that good in a situation with no=20 monetary freedom, but centralized compulsory state money, I am not so sure.= =20 History speaks a different language (1929). Libertarians are all the time=20 stirring things up regarding that awful "fiat" money of the Federal Reserve= =20 Bank. They did not prove to me that well managed "fiat" paper money run by= =20 a voluntary legal/economic community (Freie Rechtsgemeinschaft) cannot=20 work. Money is not a natural phenomenon. In universities it is studied like= =20 a natural law of physics. That is rubbish. But people get Nobel prizes for= =20 that. Money is a manmade invention. And depending on what exactly you=20 intend to bring about with this means, there can be totally different types= =20 working satisfactorily side by side. Not the greatest genius, even you, can= =20 decide in theory all aspects correctly. This has to be done by experiment=20 to find out for sure. So we should only work towards monetary freedom,=20 competition in the field, and then we will see further. People will use the= =20 money which then shows how good it is. And even then there will probably=20 continue to exist different systems side by side. Unless one wants to=20 reinstitute territorial collectivism. >most of the time, it >has become an internationally widely accepted means of exchange, officially >or unofficially, as well as a value standard. This in spite of the fact, >that neither its acceptance nor its value is enforced, internationally, as >it is internally, in the USA. > >Indeed, internationally, other currencies might come to compete with it, as >formerly did the Pound Sterling and as, for some years in parts of Europe, >did the DM and may, in the future, the Euro do, internationally, if this >paper exchange medium, with its forced value and forced acceptance and >monopoly position - in Europe - may under as good or least evil >administration as this system permits, gain a similar role in the rest of >the world. So what? CB: Ask that the Americans. >Should we support either of these kinds of monetary despotism? That means >support for all the evils that they do lead to, internally and >internationally, causing a permanent crisis, already considered to be >"normal", with occasional flare-ups, considered as crises but still not >ascribed to monetary despotism. CB: No, we should not. But does that prevent us from recognizing that an=20 affront by Saddam and other oil countries to switch to the Euro (if it is=20 true) is strong enough to add to the determination of the Americans to use= =20 their weapons? If you observed well, the war is not against Iraq alone. A=20 lot more is going on. Listen to the warnings of Powell etc. Like the other= =20 warnings they will be implemented. I wish them though to fall on their nose= =20 like in Vietnam. But that you won't understand I guess. >Nobody should be forced to accept these exchange media and "value= standards" >at all, internally, nor should people of other nations be put monetarily >into such desperate situations, by their "guardians of the currency", that >they come to prefer either the Dollar or the Euro to their own nationally >enforced exclusive currency or forced currency. CB: Yes, yes, yes. But we do not have the means (as we are not blackmailing= =20 people into paying us two taxes) to drop 35 millions leaflets from planes=20 on any country (like the USA did these day in Iraq) informing the people=20 about these things and asking them to get rid of their central bank. >All people should be free to issue and to refuse to accept or discount the >currency of others and obliged only to accept the own always and at their >face value. > >All should also enjoy full freedom in the choice of value standards. >That means, among other things, that anyone should be free to offer better >value standards - and exchange media and clearing and credit avenues - than >are offered by the Dollar and the Euro, also for international= transactions. >No capital or power is required for that but merely informed agreement >between two or more trading partners who are free enough to make their own >deals undisturbed by governments, bureaucrats and powerful lobbies or >pressure groups. > >Add to this full financial freedom, which means absence of compulsory >taxation, compulsory loans and compulsory investments in governmental >insecurities and some of the main root causes for wars, poverty and= despotic >regimes would be cut. > >Free Trade and free foreign investments would be just part and parcel of >that monetary and financial freedom. >Free migration would be a natural consequence, with more immigrants being >wanted as workers almost everywhere. > >No monetary despotism is without wrongful and harmful consequences, >internally and internationally. > >Nor is any monopolistic disposal rights of any government or corporation >over natural resources. > >Least of all should any territorial government be allowed to consider all >"its" inhabitants to be considered and treated and exploited at its natural >resource. CB: Mit all dem Gesagten rennst Du nat=FCrlich bei mir offene T=FCren ein.= Dein=20 Gesamtkonzept is richtig und vollst=E4ndig, aber es geht darum, es in die=20 K=F6pfe der Hammelherde zu bringen; zu denen auch viele Intellektuelle=20 geh=F6ren, damit was geschieht. Haupts=E4chlich gilt es die geeigneten=20 Multiplikatoren zu finden, die das Wissen auf die geeignete Art an den Mann= =20 (oder dei Frau) bringen. Dann wird es zum Schneeballlsystem. (In dem=20 Zusammenhang werde ich Dir noch einen eben erhaltenen Vorschlag zum =D6lprei= s=20 weiterleiten.) >If overseas hoarded millions or thousands of millions of US dollars or= Euros >would suddenly stream back, increasing the local circulation of national >legal tender or forced currency, correspondingly, an inflation of the price >level will be inevitable as long as the pricing of all prices, wages and >contracts in that currency can be enforced. >To the extent that people are free to price their goods, services and= labour >otherwise, and free to issue, accept, refuse means of payments and value >standards or discount alternative issues of private or cooperative >currencies, in their own payment and clearing communities, they will be >independent of the fate of any of the governmental currencies. >The sooner they begin this monetary revolution the better, the less= friction >and difficulties will arise when a national currency finally collapses >totally or almost totally. > >Instead of speculating whether one or the other form of monetary despotism >will win world-wide or will be worse or better than the other, we should do >away with our dependence on all of them. > >For all too long have we allowed the rulers of and exploiters of central >banking systems to determine our fates to a very large extent. >I for one don't want to be ruled by an exclusive and forced Dollar any more >than by an exclusive and forced Euro. > >To each his own or a voluntarily chosen exchange medium, clearing process, >value standard and credit system. CB: How right you are. But unfortunately, it is difficult to convince=20 people that they should take those things into their own hands. Still too=20 many have a religious feeling about money. It comes from above, it has=20 mostly the picture of a king or similar on it. And the Bible told them that= =20 that is right ("gib dem Kaiser was des Kaisers ist" oder so =E4hnlich, you= =20 know what I mean, I cannot quote exactly, as I do not have a German bible,= =20 only French ones). Der gew=F6hnliche B=FCrger sieht Fehler des Geldes (seit= dem=20 Euro deutlicher als zu Zeiten der DM), kritisiert, aber hat trotzdem tief=20 innerlich eine heilige Angst vor diesem Medium, vor allem vor der=20 Institution die es verwaltet (so geheimnisvoll wie Gott, so schwer zu=20 verstehen). Die Bundesbank, etwa deren Filiale hier in Hamburg just next=20 door of me, ist sowohl eine Burg als auch ein Tempel. Respekteinfl=F6=DFend.= =20 Wie Papa Staat im allgemeinen. Man nimmt doch seinem Papa keine=20 Verf=FCgungsgewalt =FCber die Familienangelegenheiten weg... Der Ansatz der= =20 68er Linken, die traditionelle Familie zu kritisieren, war in diesem=20 Zusammenhang ja gar nicht so schlecht... ;-) Eigentlich m=F6chte ich nur betonen, da=DF der Staat (denk an die Monarchien= =20 und an die sich so monarchisch gebenden Republiken =E0 la USA derzeit) und= =20 die Kirchen und die Linke so viel besser mit der Psychologie der Leute=20 umgehen k=F6nnen als wir. Deshalb finde ich es so gut, was Mary Lou Seymour= =20 sagt, da=DF wir uns mehr bem=FChen m=FCssen, zuerst einen cultural change=20 herbeizuf=FChren bevor wir mit unseren "politischen" Forderungen mehr Geh=F6= r=20 finden. Obschon sich ja nicht alles in die schlechte Richtung entwickelt,=20 es gibt viele Hoffnungszeichen, die Bev=F6lkerung ist sehr gespalten. Eine= =20 Krise ist n=F6tig, um Einsichten voranzubringen. In Usa ist alles derzeit=20 sehr zugespitzt. Eine Methode ist neue freedom memes zu s=E4en. Wir machen weiter! Liebe Gr=FC=DFe Christian >PIOT, John. > >(Panarchy In Our Time or: To each the government or non-governmental= society >of his or her dreams. That is certainly not yet offered, by either side, to >the people of Iraq or any people anwhere. It is not even yet part of a >wide-spread public discussion as an alternative to what it happening now. >Everywhere the territorialist totalitarians and territorial imperialists >prevail, largely with their consent of their victims, the civilian and the >uniformed ones.) > >=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Christian Butterbach" >To: "John Zube" >Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2003 7:27 PM >Subject: Neuer Aspekt des Irak-Kriegs > > >CB: Ist das nicht erstaunlich? Ich sto=DFe heute zum ersten Mal darauf. >Nirgendwo, wo ich bisher etwas =FCber den Irak-Krieg gelesen habe, war= dieser >interessante W=E4hrungsaspekt erw=E4hnt... > > >=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D >Kriegsursache nicht =D6l sondern der Euro- 106 - >=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D >Normalerweise bringe ich in meinem Rundbrief keinen Artikel zur Politik. >Da die Kriegsursache "Euro" mir hier einleuchtet und vielen nicht >bekannt sein d=FCrfte, mache ich eine Ausnahme: >Zwei Ausz=FCge aus einem Artikel aus der FAZ ? (Frankfurter Allgemeine >Zeitung), Autor Guido Schwelm, Quelle m=FCsste noch =FCberpr=FCft werden: >Weil der einzige Grund Saddam zu st=FCrzen, seine Entscheidung vom >November 2000 ist, statt Dollar in Zukunft Euro zu nehmen. Damit hatte >er sein Schicksal besiegelt. Bush - als der =D6l-Industrie verpflichtet - >hat sozusagen deren geostrategische Sicht bez=FCglich des =D6ls, womit ein >"fabrizierter" zweiter Golfkrieg seither in der Luft liegt, dar=FCber >hinaus droht der ohnedies schwerstens angeschlagenen US-Wirtschaft der >t=F6dliche Sto=DF, wenn der Euro zur =D6l-W=E4hrung avancieren sollte. Dass= der >Irak auch seine 10 Mrd.$ Reserven bei der UNO (vom Programm >"=D6l-f=FCr-Nahrung") in Euro umwandelte, war eine Draufgabe. >In diesem Krieg geht es eben nicht um Saddam oder MVW, sondern auch >darum, die OPEC einzusch=FCchtern (auch den anderen Regierungen k=F6nnte >das Schicksal Saddams drohen) bzw. direkt zu hindern, dem Beispiel des >Iraks zu folgen. Dieser hatte sich zum Euro entschlossen, als er bei 80 >Cents lag, um wie viel eher liegt ein Umstieg nahe, nachdem der Dollar >an die 28% seines Wertes gegen=FCber dem Euro seit 2002 einb=FC=DFte? Was >w=E4re wenn die OPEC pl=F6tzlich - statt geordnet (d.h. schrittweise) - auf >Euro umstiege? - Nun, alle =D6l-verbrauchenden Staaten und deren >Zentralbanken m=FCssten die "W=E4hrungs-Reserven" von Dollar auf Euro >umstellen. Der Dollar w=FCrde sofort bis zur H=E4lfte seines Wertes >verlieren - mit den entsprechenden Folgen (u.a. ungeheurer Inflation) >f=FCr die US-Wirtschaft, die ein derartiger Zusammenbruch der W=E4hrung= nach >sich z=F6ge. Eine Flucht aller ausl=E4ndischen Anlagen aus dem Dollar - den >Aktien und Dollar-bezogenen Wertpapieren - w=FCrde einen Sturm auf die >Banken wie in den 30-er Jahren ausl=F6sen, das Au=DFenhandelsdefizit w=E4r= e >nicht mehr. >.. > Was die (US-)Eliten ja verstehen, aber sonst nicht allgemein bekannt >sein d=FCrfte, ist der Umstand, dass die St=E4rke des Dollars per se nicht >auf der Leistung der US-Volkswirtschaft beruht. In Wahrheit beruht sie >seit 1945 auf dem Privileg, internationale Reserve-W=E4hrung zu sein - und >als fiat-W=E4hrung f=FCr die weltweiten =D6l-Transaktionen (Petro-Dollar) >verwendet zu werden. Die USA drucken Hunderte Milliarden dieser >fiat-Petro-Dollar, die dann von den Nationalstaaten zum Kauf von >=D6l/Energie bei den OPEC-Produzenten (mit Ausnahme des Irak und einiger >noch zaghafter Versuche Venezuelas und demn=E4chst wohl des Iran) >verwendet werden. Diese Petro-Dollar werden dann von der OPEC zur=FCck in >die USA =FCber Treasury-Bills oder andere Dollar-bezogene Werte wie >US-Aktien, Immobilien, etc. rezykliert. Dieses Rezyklieren der >Petro-Dollars ist der Preis, den die =D6lproduzenten zu bezahlen und den >sich die USA f=FCr ihre bisherige Duldung des OPEC-Kartells ausbedungen >haben. . >http://www.staatsbriefe.de/1994/2003/kriegsgruende1.htm > >[aus: Gute Ideen von Rolf Keppler, M=E4rzrundbrief 2003, >Spreuergasse 24, D-70372 Stuttgart >Tel.: +49 (0)711 / 55 93 87 >Fax: +49 (0)89/2443 54701 >Rolf Keppler ; >http://www.s-line.de/homepages/keppler >http://home.arcor.de/rundbriefe >http://www.rolf-keppler.de] > >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >Christian Butterbach~~~cb@butterbach.net >P.O. Box 11 21 21~~~~~~www.butterbach.net >D-20421 Hamburg~~~~~~~~Fax +49-40-37501769 >(Germany)~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Phone +49-40-37501760 >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >Visit http://www.butterbach.net/ (latest update: 30-MARCH-2003) >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ --=====================_8863399==_.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable At 02:02 02.04.03 +1000, you wrote:
Dear Christian,
            &nbs= p;            &n= bsp; there are all kinds of "conspiracy" and "cause"
ideas on war. The Nazis, too, had their own, on a supposed international
"Jewish" conspiracy and their own anti-capitalism and anti-laissez fair
"philosophy" was, among other things, expressed by their attacks against the
international financial conspiracy of the "plutocrats".

Those who ascribe all to "oil interests", "international corporations" or
"multi-nationals" or "globalism", to the "almighty" dollar, the World Bank,
the IMF, or, as here, to a currency conspiracy, are all in the same vein.

CB: There is not a word said here of a conspiracy. The only question is whether a reported fact, which I had not heard of so far, is indeed a fact, and if, it is indeed a very good and sufficient reason for the American government and those powers it really represents (=3D not the people) to loose all control and reason and just hit around like mad. Morals have never guided them.

I read somewhere that there are no= w between 1000 and 1500 different
conspiracy theories. Absolutely expressed none is right. By their very
contradictions and differences in their "exclusive" or "main cause"
presentations or "explanations" they refute each other, just like the
various religions, churches and sects do.

CB: This is an excellent argument. Nevertheless, could it not also be turned against us? Our theories are also in contradiction to a large number of others... :-) What can we really prove? Not that much finally. Some certainly. It is our philosophy, our reality tunnel (cf. R. A. Wilson), other people have other ones. It is what we want. Others want something different. I concede that theirs is not much independent thinking, it is mostly influenced by what they think is "reality", facts existing since too long and imposed by others, not by nature, but considered by our adversaries as being natural.


Is that "theory" a fact based one, or a mere hypothesis? Is it an informed
or another wild guess?

CB: This should not be too difficult to verify. There must be documents to be found somewhere. I had no time to search and for me it is enough that it is plausible. If it is also true, then what can I do about it? Nothing! You apparently can (see my next remark).

Does it accept the current situation as an unchangeable "given" or as an
imposed condition, that could, with a large effort in the right directions,
be changed?

Is good money everywhere free to drive out the bad?

Are we everywhere free enough to drive out the bad rulers, as far as our own
affairs are concerned? Or are they given legal tender and cours forc=E9 over
out fate? Also a monopoly position?

As for me, I choose full monetary, financial, clearing, credit and
investment freedom over any despotic system in these spheres, as part of my
general panarchistic stand.

CB: So you choose. How? In theory! Not in practice. It is not enough to have the right theories. People want changes. So you need also the right theories about how to overcome that power that imposes the wrong theories. How to secede. To do it partially will be available to a few individuals. Sometimes people find a few clever means to have a larger number of people withdraw from the system on some limited issue, unfortunately not so far very much on those more basic questions of monetary freedom or of panarchist freedom of choice of political system (legal community). Some people try though. It seems to be starting. We do not know of all that is going on. But even if enough people would know about the panarchist solutions (That would help a lot!), it is not the indians that you have to convince alone, it is the chiefs. They will often refrain from change, even if they know that it will be their own death. They are mentally ill, addicted, dumb, incapable or whatever. History is full of those (just think of Hitler or of Louis=20 XVI).

That often some little truths and natural trends are behind the
generalizations of them, does not justify their generalizations. Hitler, for
instance, got SOME capitalist backing from Germany and perhaps also some
from overseas. He and the Weimar Republic before him, were also, for a
while, collaborating militarily, with the Soviet Union, to circumvent the
restrictions of the Versailles Treaty.

Early and quite just and liberating interventions against Lenin, Mussolini,
Hitler, Mao and others would have saved the world much trouble. But
territorial governments are, probably, not capable of quite rightful and
timely interventions, at least not of pursuing optimal and quite just
programs against despotic territorial regimes, seeing that they are also
authoritarian by degrees.

What annoys me about most libertarians and anarchists is that they do not
seriously enough consider their libertarian and anarchist alternative
platform, action and enlightenment programs against totalitarian=20 and
authoritarian regimes overseas, although only they could offer rightful and
effective programs against them. They rather criticise the more obvious
wrongs and mistakes of territorial governments on "their" side.
Territorialists can only offer territorial non-solutions, that make for more
and more crises and problems.

CB: Well, also anarchists have to learn and advance their concepts. Some basic still valid concepts were found a long time ago, others were changed over time and offer now better interpretations than in their original form (present libertarians are often better in some of their theories than classics like Bakunin or Kropotkin or even Proudhon or Mackay), but new ones have to be added, mainly exterritoriality. Only this is little known. If the word does not spread enough, either we use the wrong methods of propaganda or we address ourselves to the wrong type of humans among those calling themselves anarchists or libertarians or even other people not calling themselves such a thing but maybe readier for it. Mary Lou Seymour for instance wrote me not long ago "I thought Exterritorial was excellent, BTW, I've never
seen it used before." Is that now her fault or ours???

Freedom and peace lovers should seriously consider the case for
interventionism and for non-interventionism.

CB: As you know, they do. Increasingly. But of course they should go more into the details and choices you are writing about below and in your publications.

Both are not absolutes but
relative notions. Numerous fundamental questions have to be asked about
both. Intervention by whom? Governments or volunteers? For or against what
cause, persons, principles or institutions? Using what means, methods and
weapons and in what ways? Using publicity or secrecy? Using boycotts and
bombing indiscriminately against whole populations, countries, cities or is
it a "war to the palace, peace to the huts" intervention or liberation?

CB: It seems obvious to me that it should be the latter and that is what libertarians I deal with advocate...

Have completely rightful war and peace aims been declared and are they
strictly adhered to in practice already, even before it comes to a war, on
the own side?
Is democratic "voting" and "representation"  good enough as a war aim?
Can anyone's territoria ideal serve as the ideal for all in that territory?
At least the simple questions of Aphtonios should all be anwered, instead of
proceeding in the conventional and traditional way, based on numerous false
premises and assumptions.

Jumping to conclusions and taking assertions for facts, adopting seeming
opposites as only alternatives and mere hypotheses as sound theories and
considering only one-factor "explanations"  - can lead us from one crisis to
another.

This theorist presupposed that one central banking system, competing with
another central banking system, would be the main cause for this war.
The truth lies, I believe, closer to the observation or generalisation that
ALL central banking systems greatly contribute to wars, civil wars,
revolutions and dictatorships.

CB: Of course, that is clear to me (if not to most people ~~ yet), nevertheless if an enormous power like the American military-industrial-political complex which wants to remain so and wants to expand and is even "forced" to (there is an inbuilt compulsion in the monopolist monetary system via compound interest and the will to have unearned income ~~ a thing you obstinately refuse to recognize), a challenge to them like this switch from the dollar to the Euro is enough within the existing power system, without even having to resort to the more basic general explanations.

I will not attempt to prove that here, since I have expressed myself often
and at length on this subject.

The "Almighty Dollar" was never "almighty" and for a long time it hasn't
even been a properly defined "dollar".  Nevertheless, since most national
currencies, run by their central banks, are even worse,

CB: By "properly defined" you mean gold backed? I do not fully agree. All the fuss with gold in Libertarian circles may be correct within a monetary freedom situation, but whether gold is that good in a situation with no monetary freedom, but centralized compulsory state money, I am not so sure. History speaks a different language (1929). Libertarians are all the time stirring things up regarding that awful "fiat" money of the Federal Reserve Bank. They did not prove to me that well managed "fiat" paper money run by a voluntary legal/economic community (Freie Rechtsgemeinschaft) cannot work. Money is not a natural phenomenon. In universities it is studied like a natural law of physics. That is rubbish. But people get Nobel prizes for that. Money is a manmade invention. And depending on what exactly you intend to bring about with this means, there can be totally different types working satisfactorily side by side. Not the greatest genius, even you, can decide in theory all aspects correctly. This has to be done by experiment to find out for sure. So we should only work towards monetary freedom, competition in the field, and then we will see further. People will use the money which then shows how good it is. And even then there will probably continue to exist different systems side by side. Unless one wants to reinstitute territorial collectivism.

most of the time, it
has become an internationally widely accepted means of exchange, officially
or unofficially, as well as a value standard. This in spite of the fact,
that neither its acceptance nor its value is enforced, internationally, as
it is internally, in the USA.

Indeed, internationally, other currencies might come to compete with it, as
formerly did the Pound Sterling and as, for some years in parts of Europe,
did the DM and may, in the future, the Euro do, internationally, if this
paper exchange medium, with its forced value and forced acceptance and
monopoly position - in Europe - may under as good or least evil
administration as this system permits, gain a similar role in the rest of
the world. So what?

CB: Ask that the Americans.

Should we support either of these kinds of monetary despotism? That means
support for all the evils that they do lead to, internally and
internationally, causing a permanent crisis, already considered to be
"normal", with occasional flare-ups, considered as crises but still not
ascribed to monetary despotism.

CB: No, we should not. But does that prevent us from recognizing that an affront by Saddam and other oil countries to switch to the Euro (if it is true) is strong enough to add to the determination of the Americans to use their weapons? If you observed well, the war is not against Iraq alone. A lot more is going on. Listen to the warnings of Powell etc. Like the other warnings they will be implemented. I wish them though to fall on their nose like in Vietnam. But that you won't understand I guess.

Nobody should be forced to accept these exchange media and "value standards"
at all, internally, nor should people of other nations be put monetarily
into such desperate situations, by their "guardians of the currency", that
they come to prefer either the Dollar or the Euro to their own nationally
enforced exclusive currency or forced currency.

CB: Yes, yes, yes. But we do not have the means (as we are not blackmailing people into paying us two taxes) to drop 35 millions leaflets from planes on any country (like the USA did these day in Iraq) informing the people about these things and asking them to get rid of their central bank.

All people should be free to issue and to refuse to accept or discount the
currency of others and obliged only to accept the own always and at their
face value.

All should also enjoy full freedom in the choice of value=20 standards.
That means, among other things, that anyone should be free to offer better
value standards - and exchange media and clearing and credit avenues - than
are offered by the Dollar and the Euro, also for international transactions.
No capital or power is required for that but merely informed agreement
between two or more trading partners who are free enough to make their own
deals undisturbed by governments, bureaucrats and powerful lobbies or
pressure groups.

Add to this full financial freedom, which means absence of compulsory
taxation, compulsory loans and compulsory investments in governmental
insecurities and some of the main root causes for wars, poverty and despotic
regimes would be cut.

Free Trade and free foreign investments would be just part and parcel of
that monetary and financial freedom.
Free migration would be a natural consequence, with more immigrants being
wanted as workers almost everywhere.

No monetary despotism is without wrongful and harmful consequences,
internally and internationally.

Nor is any monopolistic disposal rights of any government or corporation
over natural resources.

Least of all should any territorial government be allowed to consider all
"its" inhabitants to be considered and treated and exploited at its natural
resource.

CB: Mit all dem Gesagten rennst Du nat=FCrlich bei mir offene T=FCren ein. Dein Gesamtkonzept is richtig und vollst=E4ndig, aber es geht darum, es in die K=F6pfe der Hammelherde zu bringen; zu denen auch viele Intellektuelle geh=F6ren, damit was geschieht. Haupts=E4chlich gilt es die geeigneten Multiplikatoren zu finden, die das Wissen auf die geeignete Art an den Mann (oder dei Frau) bringen. Dann wird es zum Schneeballlsystem. (In dem Zusammenhang werde ich Dir noch einen eben erhaltenen Vorschlag zum =D6lpreis weiterleiten.)

If overseas hoarded millions or thousands of millions of US dollars or Euros
would suddenly stream back, increasing the local circulation of national
legal tender or forced currency, correspondingly, an inflation of the price
level will be inevitable as long as the pricing of all prices, wages and
contracts in that currency can be enforced.
To the extent that people are free to price their goods, services and labour
otherwise, and free to issue, accept, refuse means of payments and value
standards or discount alternative issues of private or cooperative
currencies, in their own payment and clearing communities, they will be
independent of the fate of any of the governmental currencies.
The sooner they begin this monetary revolution the better, the less friction
and difficulties will arise when a national currency finally collapses
totally or almost totally.

Instead of speculating whether one or the other form of monetary despotism
will win world-wide or will be worse or better than the other, we should do
away with our dependence on all of them.

For all too long have we allowed the rulers of and exploiters of central
banking systems to determine our fates to a very large extent.
I for one don't want to be ruled by an exclusive and forced Dollar any more
than by an exclusive and forced Euro.

To each his own or a voluntarily chosen exchange medium, clearing process,
value standard and credit system.

CB: How right you are. But unfortunately, it is difficult to convince people that they should take those things into their own hands. Still too many have a religious feeling about money. It comes from above, it has mostly the picture of a king or similar on it. And the Bible told them that that is right ("gib dem Kaiser was des Kaisers ist" oder so =E4hnlich, you know what I mean, I cannot quote exactly, as I do not have a German bible, only French ones). Der gew=F6hnliche B=FCrger sieht Fehler des Geldes (seit dem Euro deutlicher als zu Zeiten der DM), kritisiert, aber hat trotzdem tief innerlich eine heilige Angst vor diesem Medium, vor allem vor der Institution die es verwaltet (so geheimnisvoll wie Gott, so schwer zu verstehen). Die Bundesbank, etwa deren Filiale hier in Hamburg just next door of me, ist sowohl eine Burg als auch ein Tempel. Respekteinfl=F6=DFend. Wie Papa Staat im allgemeinen. Man nimmt doch seinem Papa keine Verf=FCgungsgewalt =FCber die Familienangelegenheiten weg... Der Ansatz der 68er Linken, die traditionelle Familie zu kritisieren, war in  diesem Zusammenhang ja gar nicht so schlecht... ;-)

Eigentlich m=F6chte ich nur betonen, da=DF der Staat (denk an die Monarchien und an die sich so monarchisch gebenden Republiken =E0 la USA derzeit) und die Kirchen und die Linke so viel besser mit der Psychologie der Leute umgehen k=F6nnen als wir. Deshalb finde ich es so gut, was Mary Lou Seymour sagt, da=DF wir uns mehr bem=FChen m=FCssen, zuerst einen cultural change herbeizuf=FChren bevor wir mit unseren "politischen" Forderungen mehr Geh=F6r finden. Obschon sich ja nicht alles in die schlechte Richtung entwickelt, es gibt viele Hoffnungszeichen, die Bev=F6lkerung ist sehr gespalten. Eine Krise ist n=F6tig, um Einsichten voranzubringen. In Usa ist alles derzeit sehr zugespitzt. Eine Methode ist neue freedom memes zu s=E4en.

Wir machen weiter!

Liebe Gr=FC=DFe

Christian


PIOT, John.

(Panarchy In Our Time or: To each the government or non-governmental society
of his or her dreams. That is certainly not yet offered, by either side, to
the people of Iraq or any people anwhere. It is not even yet part of a
wide-spread public discussion as an alternative to what it happening now.
Everywhere the territorialist totalitarians and territorial imperialists
prevail, largely with their consent of their victims, the civilian and the
uniformed ones.)

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
----- Original Message -----
From: "Christian Butterbach" <cb@butterbach.net>
To: "John Zube" <jzube@acenet.com.au>
Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2003 7:27 PM
Subject: Neuer Aspekt des Irak-Kriegs


CB: Ist das nicht erstaunlich? Ich sto=DFe heute zum ersten Mal darauf.
Nirgendwo, wo ich bisher etwas =FCber den Irak-Krieg gelesen habe, war dieser
interessante W=E4hrungsaspekt erw=E4hnt...


=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D
Kriegsursache nicht =D6l sondern der Euro- 106 -
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D
Normalerweise bringe ich in meinem Rundbrief keinen Artikel zur Politik.
Da die Kriegsursache "Euro" mir hier einleuchtet und vielen nicht
bekannt sein d=FCrfte, mache ich eine Ausnahme:
Zwei Ausz=FCge aus einem Artikel aus der FAZ ? (Frankfurter=20 Allgemeine
Zeitung), Autor Guido Schwelm, Quelle m=FCsste noch =FCberpr=FCft= werden:
Weil der einzige Grund Saddam zu st=FCrzen, seine Entscheidung vom
November 2000 ist, statt Dollar in Zukunft Euro zu nehmen. Damit hatte
er sein Schicksal besiegelt. Bush - als der =D6l-Industrie verpflichtet  -
hat sozusagen deren geostrategische Sicht bez=FCglich des =D6ls, womit ein
"fabrizierter" zweiter Golfkrieg seither in der Luft liegt,  dar=FCber
hinaus droht der ohnedies schwerstens angeschlagenen  US-Wirtschaft der
t=F6dliche Sto=DF, wenn der Euro zur =D6l-W=E4hrung avancieren sollte. Dass der
Irak auch seine 10 Mrd.$ Reserven bei der  UNO (vom Programm
"=D6l-f=FCr-Nahrung") in Euro umwandelte, war eine  Draufgabe.
In diesem Krieg geht es eben nicht um Saddam oder MVW, sondern auch
darum, die OPEC einzusch=FCchtern (auch den anderen  Regierungen k=F6nnte
das Schicksal Saddams drohen) bzw. direkt zu  hindern, dem Beispiel des
Iraks zu folgen. Dieser hatte sich zum Euro  entschlossen, als er bei 80
Cents lag, um wie viel eher liegt ein  Umstieg nahe, nachdem der Dollar
an die 28% seines Wertes gegen=FCber  dem Euro seit 2002 einb=FC=DFte? Was
w=E4re wenn die OPEC pl=F6tzlich - statt geordnet (d.h. schrittweise) - auf
Euro umstiege? - Nun, alle =D6l-verbrauchenden  Staaten und=20 deren
Zentralbanken m=FCssten die "W=E4hrungs-Reserven" von  Dollar auf Euro
umstellen. Der Dollar w=FCrde sofort bis zur H=E4lfte seines Wertes
verlieren - mit den entsprechenden Folgen (u.a.  ungeheurer Inflation)
f=FCr die US-Wirtschaft, die ein derartiger Zusammenbruch der W=E4hrung nach
sich z=F6ge. Eine Flucht aller ausl=E4ndischen Anlagen aus dem Dollar - den
Aktien und Dollar-bezogenen  Wertpapieren - w=FCrde einen Sturm auf die
Banken wie in den 30-er  Jahren ausl=F6sen, das Au=DFenhandelsdefizit w=E4re
nicht mehr.
..
  Was die (US-)Eliten ja verstehen, aber sonst nicht allgemein bekannt
sein d=FCrfte, ist der Umstand, dass die St=E4rke des Dollars per se nicht
auf der Leistung der US-Volkswirtschaft beruht. In Wahrheit beruht sie
seit 1945 auf dem Privileg, internationale Reserve-W=E4hrung zu sein - und
als fiat-W=E4hrung f=FCr die weltweiten =D6l-Transaktionen= (Petro-Dollar)
verwendet zu werden. Die USA drucken Hunderte Milliarden dieser
fiat-Petro-Dollar, die dann von den Nationalstaaten zum Kauf von
=D6l/Energie bei den OPEC-Produzenten (mit Ausnahme des Irak und einiger
noch zaghafter Versuche Venezuelas und demn=E4chst wohl des Iran)
verwendet werden. Diese Petro-Dollar werden dann von der OPEC zur=FCck in
die USA =FCber Treasury-Bills oder andere Dollar-bezogene Werte wie
US-Aktien, Immobilien, etc. rezykliert. Dieses Rezyklieren der
Petro-Dollars ist der Preis, den die =D6lproduzenten zu bezahlen und den
sich die USA f=FCr ihre bisherige Duldung des OPEC-Kartells ausbedungen
haben. .
http://www.staatsbriefe.de/1994/2003/kriegsgruende1.htm<= /a>

[aus: Gute Ideen von Rolf Keppler, M=E4rzrundbrief 2003,
Spreuergasse 24, D-70372 Stuttgart
Tel.: +49 (0)711 / 55 93 87
Fax: +49 (0)89/2443 54701
Rolf Keppler <keppler@n.zgs.de>; <keppler.rolf@web.de>
http://www.s-line.de/homepages/keppler
http://home.arcor.de/rundbriefe
http://www.rolf-keppler.de]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Christian Butterbach~~~cb@butterbach.net
P.O. Box 11 21 21~~~~~~www.butterbach.net
D-20421 Hamburg~~~~~~~~Fax +49-40-37501769
(Germany)~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Phone +49-40-37501760
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Visit http://www.butterb= ach.net/ (latest update: 30-MARCH-2003)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ --=====================_8863399==_.ALT--