Healer of Nations – extracts

From the book with that title by Gary North (published 1987). Free download (PDF) here.

[Editor’s introduction, by Gary North:]

Page ix:

There is virtually nobody of material on Christian international relations and foreign policy, and what little that does parade as Christian is simply warmed-over humanism, and intellectually lightweight humanism at that.

Page xi:

Foreign policy in the United States is controlled by a tightly knit “old boy” network of dedicated humanists, who quite properly regard their control over foreign policy as the linchpin in their overall control of the United States government. They do not want outsiders criticizing their little monopoly. They have devoted millions of dollars since World War II to finance books, journals, and studies on American foreign policy, all of which conclude that we must be firm with the Communists until we join with them in a one-world humanistic order. We must be visibly tough negotiators while we are capitulating to the vast bulk of their demands. Most important, the West must not try to roll back Communism.

Page xii:

Christians today are blissfully unaware of the need for an explicitly Biblical view of international relations, just as they are unaware of the need for an explicitly Biblical view of every other real-world problem. Sleepwalking Christians are the heart of the crisis of Western civilization in our day. They are unwilling or unable to offer explicitly Biblical alternatives to the collapsing humanist order. Until about 1980, they fervently believed that the humanists possessed some legitimate title to the seats of power in
this world, and they still believe that common natural law moral and legal principles are sufficient to hold the world system together until Jesus comes back in glory. So they sit on the side lines of life, waiting for Jesus to bail them out, or up, literally. Just as He bailed out Israel when the Assyrians arrived? Just as He
bailed out Judah when the Babylonians arrived? Just as He bailed out Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania when the Soviet troops arrived?

But we’re different, of course. We’re Americans. No need to worry. And if1.5 million babies are aborted here each year, it isn’t the Christians’ fault. Jesus is coming soon. Sit tight. Pray. And don’t miss the Superbowl next Sunday.
The Communists, who are our mortal enemies, are self-conscious in their hatred of Christianity and Western society that was built originally by Christian principles. They wish to destroy all traces of Christianity. So do the weak-willed humanists of the West. These humanists are also in agreement with the world retreating Christians of the West in their unified hostility to any suggestion that Christians should provide the world’s intellectual and cultural leadership because Christians alone have access to the Bible through the Holy Spirit. Thus, the Communists do not face any concerted opposition. World satanic empire is expanding without any significant organized opposition from the West. This has been Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s complaint long before the day that the Soviets expelled him in 1974.

[Introduction by R. J. Rushdoony:]

The purpose of Biblical history is to trace the victory of Jesus Christ. That victory is not merely spiritual; it is also historical.

Had Christ merely arisen as a spirit from the grave, it would have signified His lordship over the world of spirit but His surrender of matter and history. But by His physical resurrection, by His rising again in the same body with which He was crucified, He set forth His lordship over creation and over history. The world of history will see Christ’s triumph and the triumph of His saints, His church, and His kingdom. History will not end in tribulation and disaster: it will see the triumph of the people of God and the manifestation of Christian order from pole to pole before Christ comes again. The doctrine of resurrection is thus a cornerstone of the Biblical dimension of victory. . . .
There is thus a dimension of victory in history, Jesus Christ. The alternative plan of victory is social science, and history as a social science. This means the totalitarian socialist state, the world of 1984. For the Christian this is rather the dimension of hell, not of victory; for the believer, “this is the victory that over
cometh the world, even our faith” (I John 5:4).

(Introduction by Gary North) Page 3:

Christians do not know what the Bible says about social, economic, and political issues. They are going to have to learn very rapidly if the West is to be salvaged.

Page 4:

One of modem humanism’s most dangerous presuppositions: that the State *1 is the central institution in every area of life. It was also a major presupposition of ancient humanism. *2 It is a demonic belief.

*1 I capitalize the word “State” when I am referring to the covenantal institution of civil government; I do not capitalize it when I am referring to a regional political unit called a state.

*2 R. J. Rushdoony, The One and the Many: Studies in the Philosophy of Order and Ultimacy (Fairfax, Virginia: Thoburn Press, [1971] 1978), chaps. 3-5.

How Green Billionaires Convinced the World to Build Thousands of Useless Windmills: Final Extract From Chris Morrison’s New Book on the Invented ‘Climate Crisis’

Article by Chris Morrison.

Excerpt:

In a recent paper co-authored with Dr Lee Moroney, Associate Director of the Renewable Energy Foundation, it is noted that the British consumer has been forced over the last two decades to pay a staggering £274 billion (at 2025 prices) to support electricity generated from renewable sources. The numerous direct and indirect annual subsidies for the unreliable breezes and beams have risen from £0.2 billion in 2005 to £22.6 billion last year. That sum, suggest the authors, is expected to grow rapidly under current Government plans and could exceed UK defence spending by 2030.

Abolish the FED. Get the Gold.

Article by Gary North.

Excerpts:

Politicians want to spend lots of money, but they do not want to get blamed for collecting taxes necessary to fund all of the projects that they plan to fund. So, they can go to the central bank, and if the central bank wants to, it buys the debt of the government. The government can increase the amount of its debt, because it has the cooperation of the central bank.

When the central bank increases its holdings of government debt, this increases the nation’s monetary base. When the monetary base increases, commercial banks make more loans. But when they increase loans, they increase the money supply. They expand those loans with fiat money. When fiat money gets into the economy, this tends to raise prices.

As prices rise, individuals decide that the price of gold will also rise. If the price of gold rises, it pays someone to own gold. So, people begin to buy gold. Gold-using producers start buying. The banks find that digital money is flowing in from the buyers of gold, and the gold is flowing out. This creates a crisis, because they have expanded the money supply based on the expansion of Federal Reserve credit, not based on the expansion of deposits by owners of gold coins.

So, when the common man goes down to his bank and turns in an IOU for gold, and he takes his gold coins home, this is a bank run. It is the same when the common man turns over his IOUs to gold to someone who sells gold to the general public. The IOUs’ buyer also presents the IOU to gold to the commercial banks. This is a run on the banks.

This means that the holders of gold coins can exercise a veto over the central bank’s decision to expand its ownership of government debt. This indirectly transfers a veto to the common man over the size of the government’s deficit. If the government cannot sell its debt to the central bank, it has to sell its debt to private investors. This tends to raise the interest rate, because the government has to offer a higher interest rate in order to persuade investors to buy its debt.

The essence of a gold coin standard is the veto. Where should the veto be lodged? Defenders of the gold coin standard say that it should be lodged with those people who use gold coins, or who use IOUs to gold coins in their economic decisions. The defender of the gold coin standard says that the individuals who use gold coins or own IOUs to gold coins are the most reliable people to exercise a veto over the commercial banks, and therefore over the central bank, and therefore over the national government.

[. . .]

I believe in decentralized political authority. I believe that governments are more responsive to voters at the local level than they are at the state or national level. But I also believe that the transfer of economic authority in the form of private property, especially the ownership of gold or silver coins, is more important for the preservation of liberty than the transfer of political sovereignty back to local units of civil government.

People are more careful about spending their money than they are about voting. They spend their money constantly. They vote only occasionally. They spend their money on aspects of their lives that they are closely familiar with. They are barely familiar with local politicians.

So, with respect to that crucial resource, knowledge, it is more important to decentralize ownership than it is to decentralize political power. They both should be decentralized, but if local voters do not have authority over the monetary system, by means of a gold coin standard, their right to vote locally will be compromised politically. The major decisions will still be made by the central government.

[. . .]

If we were to abolish the Federal Reserve System, and if the government would then transfer to American voters of all of the gold presently said to be in the vaults of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and Fort Knox, we would see the restoration of liberty. I can think of no other pair of laws that would transfer more authority to the voters and the abolition of the Federal Reserve system than the transfer of the gold in the form of tenth-ounce coins back to the voters. This is why this essay is hypothetical.

Who are the opponents of such a procedure? First, the Congress of the United States. Second, all the bureaucrats who work for the Federal government. Third, all of the decision-makers of the Federal Reserve System. Fourth, the vast majority of all commercial bankers. Fifth, the entire academic economics profession. This is why we are unlikely to see this pair of laws passed in our generation.

The Powers That Be fear the transfer of authority over money to the general population, because that would transfer enormous power politically into the hands of the people. It would let them veto the spending policies of the Federal government. The fear of that veto is great inside the Washington Beltway.

Every Great Civilization Collapsed the Same Way

Due to diminishing returns on complexity

Video by ‘The Archivist’s Journal’ (7 minutes)

From the transcript:

Joseph Tanter is a historian who’s pretty much spent his whole career trying to identify how all this went down. And he landed on what he calls diminishing returns on complexity.

Every problem Rome faced, they solved by adding something. More soldiers, more administrators, more subsidies, more regulations. Each solution worked, but each one also added a permanent cost. And once you build those systems, you can’t really walk them back. You can’t cancel grain subsidies without riots. You can’t cut the army without losing territory. So, the machine just keeps getting bigger and more expensive every year. And eventually, the cost of maintaining it outpaces what it can produce. 

Gary North disagrees.