Honest Money

Gold is Wealth Hiding in Oil

  • Subscribe

  • Alert

    Civil China-hosted Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) Summit contrasts with G7 turmoil

    Posted by Ivo Cerckel on June 10th, 2018

    Civil China-hosted [Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO)] summit contrasts with G7 turmoil
    Xi courts Putin and Iran while warning against unilateralism and protectionism
    Charles Clover in Qingdao, China
    3 hours ago


    The attempt by the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) a decade ago to build an alternative to the dollar seems to have been superseded by the use of the petro-renminbi.

    Trump is panicking because his dollar is only worth the paper it is printed on.

    Meanwhile, the SCO was trying a decade ago to build an alternative to that green piece of paper.

    SCO summit agrees to adopt common currency
    By IBT Staff Reporter
    06/17/09 AT 6:05 PM

    One common currency for SCO
    Discussion in ‘World Affairs’ started by rickshaw driver, May 22, 2011.

    the world will be allowed to know that
    the past [four] decades of cheap Arabian oil
    have been made possible by the flow of cheap gold
    to the Saudi Arabia oil-central bank
    most will start to understand what the gold-euro [gold-rupee and gold-renminbi] really mean.

    Since the end of last year, the Petro-Renminbi is in place. More than a petro-currency, it is a petro-gas-gold-currency. http://geab.anticipolis.eu/

    It has come into being via the creation of the Shanghai Energy Stock Exchange and the oil futures contracts denominated in renminbi and exchangeable to gold,

    In June 2017 New Development Bank (NDB, BRICS bank based in Shanghai) announced that it was going to issue bonds in 5 member countries denominated in their own currencies.

    The attempt by the SCO a decade ago to build an alternative to the dollar seems to have been superseded by the use of the petro-renminbi.

    Do your own homework.

    As Another said in the “gold for oil story” at usagold.com
    “We watch this new gold market together yes?”


    Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

    Some notes in a hurry on King Felipe VI of Spain at Davos WEF on Catalonia

    Posted by Ivo Cerckel on January 26th, 2018

    In Her Majesty’s 2017 Christmas message Elizabeth II, Queen of England, has legitimised oath-taking by Skype for the Catalan president.

    King Felipe defends intervention in Catalonia to Davos World Economic Forum
    El Nacional
    Photo: EFE
    Barcelona. Wednesday, 24 January 2018

    Felipe’s clear message in H.M.’s 2017 Christmas speech was
    As we know, confrontation and exclusion only generate discord, uncertainty, discouragement and moral, civic and economic impoverishment of the whole society ”
    Como sabemos, el enfrentamiento y la exclusión sólo generan discordia, incertidumbre, desánimo y empobrecimiento moral, cívico y económico de toda la sociedad”

    For Philippe, the King of the Belgians, in H.M. ‘s 2017 Christmas speech
    wonder, taking one’s destiny into one’s hands, is an antidote to discouragement.

    Philippe did not use the word discouragement, the editorialist of the royalist La Libre Belgique newspaper did,.

    Philippe started from the fact noted by Aristotle 25 centuries ago at the very outset of his Metaphysics that all men by nature want to know.

    His Majesty concluded the first paragraph of the speech by saying that when we look at things, we should look with a sense of wonder of bewilderment beyond what is missing in them, look at their internal beauty

    Philippe then went on to state that the way in which we look at things determines our behaviour vis-à-vis things, immediately adding that, and I paraphrase wildly, we should adapt the way we look at human beings around us so as to discover and wonder at the rich internal beauty which everyone harbours in herself and which should be developed. This “creative wonderment” makes us and human beings around us more creative

    His Majesty was here again referring to Aristotle who continued his quoted Chapter 1of Book I of the Metaphysics by saying metaphysics is not a practical science is evident from those who first philosophised. For it is because of wonder that men both now and formerly began to philosophise, about less important matters, and then progressing little by little, they raised questions about more important ones, such as the phases of the moon and the courses of the sun and the stars and the generation of the universe. But one who raises questions and wonders seems to be ignorant. Hence the philosopher is also to some extent a lover of myth, for myths are composed of wonders. If they philosophised, then, in order to escape from ignorance, they evidently pursued their studies for the sake of knowledge and not for any utility.

    King Willem-Alexander of the Netherlands called for curiosity for the world behind the curtains. (Nieuwsgierigheid naar de wereld achter de gordijnen.)

    Elizabeth II, Queen of England , for her part, legitimised oath-taking by Skype.

    Describing the extraordinary changes her record-breaking reign has seen, the Queen referenced her first Christmas broadcast, 60 years ago, in which “a young woman spoke about the speed of technological change as she presented the first television broadcast of its kind”.
    “Six decades on, the presenter has ‘evolved’ somewhat, as has the technology she described,” she added.
    “Back then, who could have imagined that people would one day be watching this on laptops and mobile phones – as some of you are today.
    “But I’m also struck by something that hasn’t changed. That, whatever the technology, many of you will be watching this at home.”

    For Her Majesty, new technologies justify new ways of conducting politics, statesmanship if you want.

    Ivo Cerckel

    Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

    Henri Cerckel, Alzheimer en Demente Leysen uit Wuustwezel

    Posted by Ivo Cerckel on December 4th, 2017

    “nen demente Leysen, diejen is koppig!”

    Mijn zo geliefde papa Henri Cerckel, kwakzallever op rust, overleed op 20 november 2017.

    Henri Cerckel was zijn gans leven depressief. Hij liet zich daarvoor niet verzorgen of behandelen. Daardoor werd hij dement, dementie zijnde de naam voor een combinatie van symptomen (een syndroom), waarbij de hersenen informatie niet meer goed kunnen verwerken. Dementie is een verzamelnaam voor ruim vijftig ziektes. De meest voorkomende vorm van dementie is de ziekte van Alzheimer, stelt Wikipedia.

    Tengevolge van deze dementie werd Henri Cerckel twee jaar geleden opgesloten in een zothuis te Kalmthout waar hij dus eindelijk geliquideerd werd.

    Alzheimer heeft dus een oorzaak.

    Ik heb in mijn “Témoignage thalidomide – Les Monstres de Heidelberg” van 2009 beschreven hoe zijn dementie Henri Cerckel ertoe leidde om niet voor de studies noch de vrouw van zijn leven te kiezen, om van mij opzettelijk een softenonmonster te maken en om zijn volledig gezin te kloten.

    Témoignage thalidomide – Les Monstres de Heidelberg
    Originally posted by Ivo Cerckel on September 2nd, 2009

    In 2004 mocht ik klacht neerleggen bij de stafhouder van de balie te Antwerpen tegen advocaat Demente Louis Leysen Sr, broer van de echtgenote van mijn vader, uit Wuustwezel die zonder mijn medeweten rechtsvorderingen in mijn naam voor de rechtbank instelt.

    Op het overlijdensbericht van mijn broer Jean-Louis Cerckel in 2007 werden mijn echtgenote en kinderen niet vermeld.

    Ik vermoed dat deze niet-vermelding de oorzaak is van het feit dat de moeder van Demente Leysen, Fernande Schots, weduwe Louis Leysen, in 2008 wel de laatste sacramenten doch geen begrafenis in de kerk kreeg.

    Teneinde te verhinderen dat de door Erasmus zo geloofde zotheid van Henri Cerckel te fel openbaar zou worden gemaakt had de uitvaart, blijkbaar in de kerk, een besloten karakter.

    Wat met het lijk van Henri Cerckel gebeurd is, weet ik echter niet. Ligt dat op het kerkhof in Wuustwezel? Ik zal daar eens gaan pissen.

    Ge moet weten dat mijn moeder, de eerste vrouw van Henri Cerckel, overleden in 1977, in Diest begraven ligt in het graf van de grootouders Theys-Michiels van Henri Cerckel, maar enkel onder haar meisjesnaam Geneviève Thuysbaert. Het is enkel omdat mijn broer Jacques Cerckel in 1986, drie weken na het huwelijk van mijn vader met Demente Leysen, in dat graf werd bijgelegd dat sinds 1986 op dat graf de naam “Cerckel” vermeld staat. (Enfin, dat was zo in 2000 toen ik wegvluchtte uit de welvaartsstaat van de Zuidelijke Nederlanden.)


    Ik vond enkel op internet deze in Le Soir gepubliceerde advertentie.

    Laat me dit deel van deze advertentie analyseren:
    “Les familles
    “ont la très grande tristesse de faire part du décès de
    “Henri CERCKEL
    “époux de Chantal Leysen
    “né à Diest le … ”

    In goede Romeo and Juliet traditie wordt de “Leysen-Schots” familie opgesteld tegenover de “Cerckel-Thys-Thuysbaert” familie.

    Op “Leysen-Schots” zal ik niet ingaan.

    “Theys” (niet: “Thys”) is de meisjesnaam van mijn grootmoeder Cerckel.
    “Thuysbaert” is de meisjesnaam van mijn moeder
    Ja maar, als de meisjesnaam van mijn grootmoeder Cerckel vermeld wordt, moet de meisjesnaam, Cantillion, van mijn grootmoeder Thuysbaert ook niet vermeld? Maar Demente Leysen kent die naam niet.

    Dat de advertentie de kinderen van grootkrapuul Henri Cerckel niet vermeldt stoort mij helemaal niet. Dat mijn moeder niet vermeld wordt stoort mij ook niet.

    Wat mij wel stoort is dat de naam Thuysbaert en de naam zijn tweede echtgenote Demente Leysen vermeld worden.

    Moest de advertentie niet vermelden “echtgenoot van de Demente Leysen”, “weduwnaar van Geneviève  Thuysbaert”? Waarom wordt anders de naam “Thuysbaert” vermeld? De advertentie doet uitschijnen dat hij echtgescheiden was van Thuysbaert. Indien hij echgescheiden was van Thuysbaert, dan moest Thuysbaert toch niet vermeld?

    De Romeo and Juliet stijl diende ook toegepast op families Cerckel en Thuysbaert (zie mijn hogervermelde “Témoignage thalidomide – Les Monstres de Heidelberg” van 2009).

    Maar, “nen demente Leysen, diejen is koppig!”

    Ivo Cerckel

    Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

    Catalan President Puigdemont’s error

    Posted by Ivo Cerckel on October 29th, 2017

    His error was to declare the form of the new state, i.e., republic, at the same time as he declared the new state.

    Carles Puigdemont is a Catalan politician, who became the president of the guv’mint of Catalonia, Catalonia being a semi-autonomous region of the Kingdom of Spain, on 12 January 2016.

    As president of that region, he declared on Friday 27 October 2017 the independence of Catalonia from Spain.

    His error was to declare the form of the new state, i.e., republic, at the same time as he declared the new state. If he hadn’t, Madrid could not have ousted him. If the so-called “Catalan” republic had not been just the successor to the former Spanish region, it would have more difficult for Spain to oust him.

    Look, if you are an anarchy, no foreign invader can take over your non-existent institutions. Conversely, if you secede from the state “as region” of the state and you keep the same personnel (president, vice etc.) after the secession, it’s easy for the Leviathan from which you seceded to retake control.

    Puigdemont, continuing normally as president, calls for democratic opposition to 155
    Marta Lasalas
    Saturday, 28 October 20

    He can however only “continue” as president of a region of the Kingdom of Spain. Not as leader of a new Leviathan. Why did he declare the republic at the same time as the new Leviathan? He should fire his legal advisers

    Positive is however that the law which is now applicable in Catalonia is natural law which leaves no room for social democracy.

    I would love to be an abogado and argue a civil-law case before a Catalan court on Monday.

    Ivo Cerckel


    Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

    Thalidomide – not the drug but the government is maldito

    Posted by Ivo Cerckel on September 4th, 2017

    In his Press Release dated 10 July 2017 the Registrar to the European Court for Human Rights (ECHR) in Strasbourg informed the public that on 27 June 2017 a Chamber of three judges had declared the appeal by the “Asociación de Víctimas de la Talidomida de España” (Avite) inadmissible. Avite had commenced a compensation action in the Spanish courts against the maker of thalidomide, the company called Grünenthal. After the case had been rejected by the lower courts and finally by the tribunal supremo, Avite lodged its appeal to the ECHR. Following this ECHR rejection, Avite is organising on 8 and 9 September 2017 a series of activities in support of thalidomide victims in Legorreta (Guipúzcoa).

    This is perhaps an opportunity to ask whether Avite should not have commenced its original action against another defendant. I am speaking of the government of Franco and of that of the King of Spain which assumed the former’s debts and obligations.

    It is well known that U.S.A. president John F. Kennedy gave Dr. Frances Oldham Kelsey the highest federal civilian service award in 1962. As a bureaucrat at the U.S.A. Food and Drug Administration (F.D.A.), the woman would have prevented thalidomide being marketed in the U.S.A.

    Wikipedia says however that she only joined the F.D.A. in 1960 (thalidomide had been marketed since 1957). Once there, she further delayed thalidomide’s approval. Wikipedia also says that Kelsey is credited SINCE NINETEEN THIRTY-EIGHT with her interest in teratogens – i.e. drugs that cause congenital malformations, that 1938 was the date of the creation of the F.D.A., and that Kelsey managed to be appointed there in 1960.
    Should we not conclude that Kennedy gave an award to the inventor of thalidomide?

    How this can be reconciled with what The Sunday Times of London wrote on 8 February 2009 (reprinted by The Australian under the title “Thalidomide ‘created by Nazis’”) is another question, which somebody should investigate.

    The weekly newspaper wrote that thalidomide was probably one of a number of products developed at Dyhernfurth (a chemical laboratory) or Auschwitz-Monowitz under the leadership of Otto Ambros in the course of nerve gas research, thalidomide actually having been produced as a possible antidote to nerve toxins such as sarin. Grünenthal apparently purchased the trade name of the drug – Contergan – and therefore probably the substance itself, from a French firm, Rhône-Poulenc, which was under Nazi control during the war years.

    Like East-Germany, France banned thalidomide, and in neither of those countries are there any thalidomide victims.


    Legal tabloids tell us that thalidomide is an example of the development-risk defence which allows producers to escape liability if they prove that the state of scientific and technical knowledge at the time when they put the product into circulation was not such as to enable the existence of a defect to be discovered, as defined at present “a contrario” (“argument based on the contrary”, denoting any proposition that is argued to be correct because it is not disproved by a certain case, says Wikipedia) in article 15(1)(b) of the 1985 EEC Product Liability Directive, formally Council Directive 85/374/EEC dated 25 July 1985 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning liability for defective products.

    Dr. Herman Cousy, Emeritus Professor of Law at the Catholic University of Leuven, demonstrated in 1996 that the thalidomide scandal cannot be considered to be an example of the development-risk defence by saying, on page 163 in note 28 of his paper “The Precautionary Principle: A Status Questionis” published in the “Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance – Issues and Practice”, also available on the website of the “Geneva Association”, l’ “Association Internationale pour l’Etude de l’Economie de l’Assurance”, the leading international think tank of the insurance industry, now at link.springer.com, that:
    “One often cites the Thalidomide (Contergan) case as an example of a development risk situation, although it appears that when thalidomide was placed on the German market, the product had been banned in France. Can it be readily upheld, under such circumstances, that the conditions for a development risk situation were met?”

    This can easily be reconciled with the fact that thalidomide was developed by Rhône-Poulenc. How Dr Kelsey enters the story, or rather entered it in 1938, must still be investigated. (Thalidomide would have been known in the year 1938 as a cure for Hansen’s Disease. It would have been made by Richardson-Merrill Co. in Cincinnati, Ohio (U.S.A.). Its defects would have been noted in Phoenix, Arizona, (U.S.A.), in a medical journal that year. Kelsey would in those days have recognised these defects.)


    West Germany – and the entire European medical profession – knew what it was doing when it did not oppose thalidomide after France had banned it. (The iron curtain had its use. There are no
    thalidomide victims in East Germany.)

    This means that the primary cause of the thalidomide scandal is the fact that after the French government had banned thalidomide, other European governments did not prevent the product being placed on “their” markets, and they did not immediately order the withdrawal of thalidomide from “their” markets once the product appeared there after the French ban.

    The primary cause is opposed to the (Aristotelian) efficient cause of the thalidomide scandal, the tablet. For Aristotle, 25 centuries ago, the efficient cause was the agent who brings about the change. And Aristotle went on to give the example of the sculptor who makes the … statue. Was this example devised 25 centuries ago with thalidomide victims in mind?

    As to the comeback of thalidomide: human nature is such that some individuals who have inside knowledge about the effects of thalidomide will always deliberately and unnoticeably (i.e., without being noticed) cause the serious harm thalidomide can ‘so easily’ cause. They do that precisely because the damage to the mother and to the child is so serious and because they can do that so easily and without being noticed. It may be that ‘in clinical trials’, thalidomide is shown to be effective against many things. But ‘in real life’, it is given to unsuspecting girls – unsuspecting that they are pregnant and/or unsuspecting that thalidomide could harm their foetus.

    I posted my message to the librarian at the philosophy department of the Universidad de Navarra in Pamplona (perhaps he will grant me access to the library) at the end of my review of this book
    “The Knowledge of the First Principles in Saint Thomas Aquinas”
    Paperback – 24 February 2015
    by Mary Christine Ugobi-Onyemere (Author)
    on 9 August 2017 on Amazon UK,


    Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

    Lo que está maldito es el gobierno, no la talidomida

    Posted by Ivo Cerckel on August 23rd, 2017

    A través de su comunicado del 10 de julio de 2017, el Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos (TEDH) de Estrasburgo informó al público que el 27 de junio de 2017 un comité de tres jueces decidió no admitir a trámite el recurso de apelación de la “Asociación de Víctimas de la Talidomida de España” (Avite). Avite ha presentado en los tribunales españoles un caso de indemnización por daños y perjuicios contra el fabricante de la talidomida, la compañía llamada Grünenthal. Después de que el caso hubier has sido rechazado por los tribunales de primera instancia y finalmente por el Tribunal Supremo, Avite interpuso su recurso de apelación ante el TEDH. Tras este rechazo del TEDH, Avite organiza el 08 y 09 de septiembre de 2017 una serie de actividades de ayuda a las víctimas de la talidomida en Legorreta (Guipúzcoa).

    Quizás ahora es el momento de preguntar si Avite no debería haber presentado su caso original contra otro acusado. Estoy hablando del gobierno de Franco y del Rey de España que ha asumido las deudas y obligaciones del primero.

    Es bien sabido que el presidente EE. UU. John F. Kennedy dio a la Dra. Frances Oldham Kelsey el mayor premio del servicio civil federal en 1962. Como funcionaria de la Administración de Medicamentos y Alimentos (Food and Drug Administration, FDA) de EE. UU., esta mujer habría impedido que la talidomida se comercializara en EE. UU. Sin embargo, según la Wikipedia, nose unió a la FDA hasta 1960 (la talidomida se comercializó desde 1957). Una vez allí, retrasó aún más la aprobación de la talidomida. Además, en la Wikipedia también se afirma que Kelsey estaba interesada en los teratógenos, es decir, en los medicamentos que provocan malformaciones congénitas, ya desde 1938, fecha de creación de la FDA, y que Kelsey logró su nombramiento en la misma en 1960.¿No deberíamos concluir que Kennedy premió al inventor de la talidomida?

    Cómo compaginar esta información con lo que el Sunday Times de Londres publicó el 8 de febrero de 2009 (reimpreso por The Australian con el título “Thalidomide ‘created by Nazis’” (“La talidomida, creación de los nazis”) es otra cuestión que alguien debería investigar.

    En dicha publicación semanal se afirmaba que, probablemente, la talidomida fue uno de una serie de productos químicos desarrollados en Dyhernfurth (un laboratorio químico) o en Auschwitz-Monowitz bajo la dirección de Otto Ambros durante una investigación sobre gases neurotóxicos. La talidomida se produciría como antídoto contra toxinas nerviosas como el gas sarín. Al parecer, Grünenthal compró el nombre comercial del fármaco –Contergan– y, posiblemente, la propia sustancia a la empresa francesa Rhône-Poulenc, que estuvo bajo control nazi durante los años de la II Guerra Mundial.

    Al igual que Alemania Oriental, Francia prohibió la talidomida y no hay víctimas del fármaco en ninguno de estos países.


    Los tabloides sobre derecho afirman que la talidomida es un ejemplo de la defensa contra el riesgo de desarrollo, la cual permite que los productores puedan eludir su responsabilidad si se demuestra que, en el momento en el que pusieron el producto en circulación, los conocimientos técnicos y científicos no permitían detectar la existencia del defecto, tal y como se define en la actualidad como “a contrario” (“argumento basado en el contrario”: según la Wikipedia, cualquier proposición que se considera correcta porque no ha sido refutado por un caso concreto) en el artículo 15(1)(b) de la Directiva CEE de 1985 sobre responsabilidad de productos, formalmente Directiva 85/374/CEE del Consejo, de 25 de julio de 1985, relativa a la aproximación de las disposiciones legales, reglamentarias y administrativas de los estados miembros en materia de responsabilidad por los daños causados por productos defectuosos.

    El profesor Herman Cousy, profesor emérito de la facultad de derecho de la Universidad Católica de Leuven, demostró en 1996 que el escándalo de la talidomida puede considerarse un ejemplo de la defensa contra el riesgo de desarrollo. En la página 163, nota 28, de su ponencia “The Precautionary Principle: A Status Questionis” (“El principio de precaución: el estado de la cuestión”), publicado en “Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance – Issues and Practice”, también disponible en el sitio web “Geneva Association – Association Internationale pour l’Etude de l’Economie de l’Assurance”, el comité de asesoramiento internacional líder de la industria de seguros, ahora en link.springer.com, se afirma que:

    “A menudo se cita el caso Talidomida (Contergan) como ejemplo de una situación de riesgo de desarrollo, aunque parece que cuando se trajo la talidomida al mercado alemán, el producto había sido prohibido en Francia. ¿En tales circunstancias, puede confirmarse fácilmente que las condiciones para una situación de riesgo de desarrollo se cumplieron?”

    Esto puede ser fácilmente conciliado con el hecho de que la talidomida fue desarrollada por Rhône-Poulenc. Cómo la señora Kelsey entra en la historia o, más bien, como la introducen en 1938, todavía debe ser investigado. (La Taliomida habrías ido conocida en el año 1938 como la cura para la enfermedad de Hansen. Habrías ido creada por Richardson-Merrill Co. en Cincinnati, Ohio (EEUU). Sus defectos habrían sido notados en Phoenix, Arizona, (EEUU), en un diario médico de ese año. En esos días, Kelsey habría reconocido dichos efectos.)


    Los médicos de Alemania Occidental y de toda Europa sabían lo que estaba haciendo este fármaco cuando no se opusieron a la talidomida después de que Francia lo prohibió. (La cortina de hierro tuvo su uso. El telón de acero tuvo su utilidad: no hay víctimas de la talidomida en Alemania Oriental).

    Esto significa que la causa primordial del escándalo de la talidomida es el hecho de que, después de que el gobierno francés la prohibiera, otros gobiernos europeos no impidieron que el producto se posicionará apareciera en “sus” mercados ni ordenaron la retirada inmediata de la talidomida de “sus” mercados, los mismos una vez que el producto apareció allí después de la prohibición francesa.

    La causa primaria es la opuesta a la causa eficiente (aristotélica) del escándalo de la talidomida, los comprimidos (ya la causa material y final del escándalo). Para Aristóteles, hace 25 siglos, la causa eficiente es el ser en acto que trae consigo el cambio. Y Aristóteles pasó a dar el ejemplo del escultor que hace que la… estatua. ¿Este ejemplo fue ideado hace 25 siglos pensando en las víctimas de la talidomida?

    En cuanto al regreso de la talidomida: la naturaleza humana está constituida de tal forma que algunos individuos que tienen conocimiento sobre los efectos de la talidomida siempre causarán deliberada e imperceptiblemente (es decir, sin ser percibidos) el daño grave que la talidomida causa “tan fácilmente”. Lo hacen precisamente porque el daño que hace a la madre y al niño es muy grave y porque puede hacerse muy fácilmente y sin que nadie lo note. Es posible que “en los ensayos clínicos”, la talidomida haya demostrado ser efectiva contra muchas cosas. Pero, en la vida real, se receta a adolescentes que no saben que están embarazadas y/o que no saben que la talidomida puede dañar al feto.

    He enviado mi mensaje al bibliotecario del Departamento de Filosofía de la Universidad de Navarra, en Pamplona (quizás él me conceda el acceso a la biblioteca) al final de mi reseña del libro
    “The Knowledge of the First Principles in Saint Thomas Aquinas” (El conocimiento de los primeros principios en Santo Tomás de Aquino),
    Paperback – 24 February 2015
    by Mary Christine Ugobi-Onyemere (Author)
    El 09 de agosto de 2017 en Amazon UK.



    Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

    message to Sept 2017 thalidomiders conference in Legorreta – Update 1

    Posted by Ivo Cerckel on August 6th, 2017

    Actos en favor afectados de talidomida en Legorreta
    14 Julio, 2017
    Actos en favor afectados de talidomida en Legorreta (Guipúzcoa), donde el ayuntamiento se ha volcado con ellos.
    Ha organizando una serie de actividades en ayuda de los talidomídicos, después del varapalo de la inadmisión de AVITE de su demanda por el Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos de Estrasburgo (TEDH). Motivo que es de agradecer.
    Programa de actos Pro afectados Talidomida en Legorreta (Guipúzcoa) 8 y 9 septiembre 2017

    Update 1 of 05 August 2017
    I will be landing on Tuesday 05 September 2017 at Terminal 1 in Barcelona at 13h25 from Dubai on Emirates flight number EK 185.pdate 1 of 05 August 201

    My message is in a nutshell:

    That West-Germany – and the whole European medical profession – knew what it was doing when it did not oppose thalidomide after France
    (Rhone-Poulenc. How this links to Frances Oldham Kelsey is another question.)
    had banned it.
    (The iron curtain had its use. No thalidomiders in East-Germany.)

    That my grandfather found evidence that my father, a medical doctor, administered thalidomide on purpose to my mother.

    That the Liège (Southern Low-Countries) tribunal de lo criminal (cour d’assises) acquitted the murderers of a thalidomider born three months after me (I was born 02/1962),

    thereby forcing me 38 years later to flee a place where there is no “active” (???) welfare state
    (Roger Blanpain, reviens, ils sont fous!)
    and where life is cheaper.

    (Ask yourself how many of our colleagues have been killed under the Franco regime – and after that – and are still being killed in places like Brazil. Thalidomide made a come-back (from having never left), you know!)

    Don’t forget that the welfare state needed thalidomide to confirm 15 years after the war, the need for the welfare state, but then goes on to let thalidomiders die (in the sun, thank you, it’s raining season now.)

    My message to the librarian at the philosophy department of the Universidad de Navarra in Pamplona (maybe he’ll grant me access to the library) should follow later this week as a review of this book
    The Knowledge of the First Principles in Saint Thomas Aquinas Paperback – 24 Feb 2015
    by Mary Christine Ugobi-Onyemere (Author)

    on Amazon.co.uk


    Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

    Democracy and the August 31 India Summit 2017 of The Economist

    Posted by Ivo Cerckel on July 2nd, 2017

    This is a review of the May 04, 2017 hardcover edition of the book “The Retreat of Western Liberalism”, Little, Brown

    I tried to post this review as “The book debunks Western democracy once and for all” on Amazon.in. However, as I had forgotten that a review on Amazon may not include URLs, the review was rejected by Amazon.in. I am unable to post it again even without the URLs..

    I tried to copy this review on Amazon.in with the following introduction but he had included two URLs in the introduction so that the review was rejected. The reviewer is unable to post again – without the URL like he does here..

    The gods at Amazon.co.uk where I had posted this review without the introduction
    have allowed me thanks to my comment to my own review at Amazon.co.uk to post the review on Amazon.in

    Thank you Amazon.

    This was thus the title of the review:
    “The book debunks Western democracy once and for all”

    This review refers to the hardcover edition of the book which this reviewer reviewed on Amazon.co.uk without the present introduction relating to the fact that the book is required reading for the delegates at the August 31, 2017 “India Summit 2017”, organised by The Economist.

    By concentrating on the morality of actions while ignoring the consequences of such actions, the book debunks Western democracy once and for all.

    This book which does not refer to Gandhi’s “satyagraha”, the idea of nonviolent resistance or search for truth through discussion, is essential reading for anyone attending the India Summit 2017 organised by the London-based weekly The Economist newspaper in New Delhi on August 31, 2017.

    This is the same newspaper which on June 24, 2017 criticised the Modi administration for not being enough of a reformer.
    The Summit should be interesting as Minister of Finance, His Excellency Arun Jaitley, is one of the speakers.
    Another subject is of course demonetisation. In his review on this site of the 2016 “The Oxford Handbook of the Indian Constitution”, edited by Sujit Choudhry, Madhav Khosla, and Pratap Bhanu Mehta, the reviewer has shown that demonetisation is null and void.
    Robert Koopman, chief economist and director of the economic research and statistics division at the World Trade Organisation (WTO) will participate in a panel: “What must happen now to sustain India’s economic growth trajectory?” The WTO is an organisation which was supposed to be formed in 1944 at the Bretton Woods conference which created the IMF and World Bank, says Professor Catherine R. Schenk from Glasgow University in her 2011 book “International Economic Relations since 1945”. In 1971, USA president Nixon repealed Bretton Woods. The WTO was only created in 1995, i.e., at a moment Nixon destroyed the Bretton Woods institutions. What’s the use then of the WTO?
    A 2015 column “A new Bretton Woods – Older multilateral institutions must adjust to new world order, or see more AIIBs, BRICS banks emerge” by Janmejaya Sinha. Chairman Asia Pacific, Boston Consulting Group , called for a new Bretton Woods. If the Modi administration wants to show it has, contrary to what The Economist said in June 2017, the competence of being a reformer, why not take the lead in developing this new Bretton Woods? The Modi project could be submitted to the India-Asean Summit in November 2017 in the Philippines. ASEAN is the Association of South East Asian Nations. The Philippine Star newspaper ran on April 20, 2017 an article under the title “Trump’s attendance in November Asean meet likely”

    But the reason why the book which is hereby being reviewed is required reading for the Summit is that an earlier version of the Programme had a session “The World If: Democracy’s demise”.
    The organisers described this session as:
    “Donald Trump’s victory in the American presidential election came just a few months after Britain’s vote to leave the European Union; these two events have left many people questioning the future of democracy. Critics of India’s economic development often cite China in comparison: Beijing’s single-party approach to running the country is credited for over 20 years of double-digit growth. India, on the other hand, has not fulfilled the great expectations many had at the start of the 1990s. Could democracy be the culprit?
    In this speculative session, we imagine an India that abandons its democratic foundations in favour of single-party rule. Would its people, business and economy be better off by 2050.”



    The question of the book which was published in May 2017 is whether the Western way of life and our liberal democratic system can survive the dramatic shift of global power (p. 28) to the East but the author, a journalist at the Financial Times, does not refer to the book “Easternisation” by his colleague Gideon Rachman at the Financial Times, book which was published eight months earlier.

    The inside flap says that the book provides a forward-thinking analysis of what those who believe in enlightenment values must do to defend them from the multiple onslaughts they face in the coming years. “Enlightenment” is written with a small e. From pp. 24 and 104, it is clear that what is meant here is the Enlightenment with a capital e. The Enlightenment is one of reasons why Modernity was born in the West, says p. 24.
    The author obtained in 1990 an undergraduate degree from New College, Oxford in Politics, Economics and … Philosophy. The main philosopher behind the Enlightenment is Immanuel Kant (1724-1804).

    The book quotes Kant once. On p. 126, the author writes that Rousseau and Kant believed in humanity’s innate moral compass – the popular common sense that was celebrated by Thomas Paine. The index says at the word “democracy” that this is the idealism of Rousseau and Kant concerning … democracy, not concerning the Enlightenment since it is at the word “democracy”. (Or what? It’s the editor/publisher not the author who composes the index?)
    Jean-Jacques was the chap who sent the children he had with his mistress to the orphanage across the street. Please allow this reviewer to pass over JJR’s general will leading to the social contract. (On top of his bphouse.com Honest Money blog, this reviewer has a paper “C’est la faute à Rawls”.)

    Unconsciously, Luce demonstrates the main problem with democracy on p. 126 where he writes that Kant believed in humanity’s innate moral compass – the popular common sense that was celebrated by Thomas Paine. Luce is here referring to Kant’s categorical imperative.
    The categorical imperative (German: “kategorischer Imperativ”) is the central philosophical concept in the deontological moral philosophy of Kant, introduced in Kant’s 1785 “Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals”, says Wikipedia.
    In the said work, Kant defined the categorical imperative as:
    “Act only according to that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law”,
    After having given this definition, Kant went on to give us a formulation of the categorical imperative that he thinks is easier to use than the one already given. (J.B. Schneewind, “Autonomy, obligation and virtue: An overview of Kant’s moral philosophy”, in: Paul Guyer, (ed.), “The Cambridge Companion to Kant”, Cambridge UP, 1992. 309 p. 320)
    “So act as if the maxim of your action were to become through your will a universal law of nature. “

    As Mary Ugobi-Onyemere, IHM, puts it:
    ” […] in Kant, metaphysical principles are like ‘regulative ideas, and moral principles are absolute. With respect to persons, in his ‘categorical imperative’, Kant posits an ‘innate moral duty’ as “species” of first ethical realistic principles. Kant asserts that the fundamental principle of our moral duties is a ‘categorical imperative’. It concentrates on the morality of actions while ignoring the consequences of such actions. This is absolutised since the morality of an action disregards the situation in hand. Kant illustrates the will as operating principle on the basis of subjective volitional principles that he calls ‘maxims’. And so, morality and other rational demands are requirements, which pertain to the maxims that motivate our actions. This proposal in Kant can be contrasted with the Thomistic ‘synderesis’, which is an innate habit.”
    (Mary Christine Ugobi-Onyemere, IHM, “The Knowledge of the First Principles in Saint Thomas Aquinas”, Bern, Peter Lang, 2015, p. 51)

    You don’t believe Mary Ugobi-Onyemere’s interpretation of Kant? Here’s Nobel laureate Friedrich A. von Hayek who copies the Kantian error:
    “It impossible to decide about the justice of any one particular rule of just conduct except within the framework of a whole system of such rules, most of which must for this purpose be regarded as unquestioned; values can always be tested only in terms of other values. The test of the justice of a rule is usually (since Kant) described as that of its ‘universalisability’, i.e., of the possibility of willing that the rules should be applied to all instances that correspond to the conditions stated in it (the ‘categorical imperative’). What this amounts to is that in applying it to any concrete circumstances it will not conflict with any other accepted rules. The test is thus in the last resort one of the compatibility or non-contradictoriness of the whole system of rules, not merely in the logical sense but in the sense that the system of actions which the rules permit will not lead to conflict. ”
    (Hayek, “The Principles of a Liberal Social Order”, paper submitted to the Tokyo meeting of the Mont Pélerin Society, September 1966 and published in: “Il Politico” 31, no. 4 (December 1966): 601–618,
    reprinted in: Chiaki Nishiyama and Kurt R. Leube, (eds.), “The Essence of Hayek”, Stanford University – Hoover Institution Press. 1984, 363-381, p. 371)

    The Kant quote from p. 126 further alleges that the categorical imperative, which Luce defines as humanity’s innate moral compass, corresponds to the popular common sense that was celebrated by Thomas Paine.

    The “Dictionary of American History”, Encyclopedia.com, says that “Common Sense” was a 1776 influential revolutionary pamphlet by Thomas Paine stressing the logic of America’s independence, while avoiding abstract philosophy, favouring instead the ordinary language of artisans and biblical examples to support Paine’s argument. Sideways, the Dictionary adds that Paine’s original title for the tract was “plain truth”.
    The only reference this reviewer found to common sense in the pamphlet is that the pamphlet’s purpose was to examine that connection to and dependence on Great Britain, on the principles of nature and common sense, to see what we have to trust to, if separated, and what we are to expect, if dependent.
    So far, for Paine’s definition of common sense.

    Why not invoke the “common sense” of another USA revolutionary pamphlet, one of a century later, i.e., 1870? The pamphlet is “No Treason – The Constitution of No Authority” where Lysander Spooner writes that if the people of the USA wish to maintain such a government as the Constitution describes, there is no reason in the world why they should not sign the instrument itself, and thus make known their wishes in an open, authentic manner; in such manner as the “common sense” and experience of mankind have shown to be reasonable and necessary in such cases; and in such manner as to make themselves (as they ought to do) individually responsible for the acts of the government. But the people have never been asked to sign it. And the only reason why they have never been asked to sign it, has been that it has been known that they never would sign it; that they were neither such fools nor knaves as they must needs have been to be willing to sign it; that (at least as it has been practically interpreted) it is not what any sensible and honest man wants for himself; nor such as he has any right to impose upon others. It is, to all moral intents and purposes, as destitute of obligations as the compacts which robbers and thieves and pirates enter into with each other, but never sign, end of quote.

    Common sense does not have a value of representation, but it has a value of meaning insofar as it notifies the existence of a reality that it determines by the attitude and conduct that we must take and follow in order to orient and lead us towards the object in question.
    (Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P., “Le sens commun : la philosophie de l’être et les formules dogmatiques”(Common sense : the philosophy of being and the dogmatic formulae), Paris, Nouvelle Librairie Nationale, 1922, 3rd rev. ed., pp. 38-39,
    reprinted in 2016 by Editions Nuntiavit in Lourdes, p. 22)

    This means that, contrary to what Kant and Hayek argue, common sense can never give us the rules to be applied without knowing the situation to which the rules have to be applied.

    “Synderesis”, like the correct Greek word, “synesis” (insight) of of which “synderesis” is a bastardisation, which Aquinas did not know, is indeed about naturally grasping the general principles to be applied to any intelligible reality after having in the same natural way grasped the truth in that reality, says Mary Christine Ugobi-Onyemere.

    The Top Customer Review of March 11, 2016 on Amazon.com of the quoted Spooner pamphlet says that if you love Rousseau’s “Social Contract” you will hate this book; for they are emphatically opposed. There’s Jean-Jacques through the backdoor of the orphanage.
    The book which is hereby being reviewed opts p. 104 for Locke’s definition of social contract instead of that of Rousseau (no, instead of that Hobbes, the author says) although on p. 126 the author seems to agree with Rousseau’s “believe in humanity’s innate moral compass” which gives rise to Rousseau’s general will of the people.

    Ivo Cerckel

    Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

    The Impossibility of the Gold-Standard – A Thomist Perspective

    Posted by Ivo Cerckel on June 8th, 2017

    A government’s will is not autonomous and must take reality in account.

    The Kantian categorical imperative upon which the gold standard is based does not take reality into account.

    Kant denies that we can acquire knowledge of “objects in general” through the formal concepts and principles of the understanding.


    Currency is a value standard. One of the three functions of currency is indeed to be a value standard (measuring tool). Currency allows one to compare the values of the different goods and services through a common measuring unit. (1)

    That’s why the idea arises of linking currency to something of objective value, say silver or gold. Under the gold standard the currency is linked to gold, the currency is linked to money. Gold becomes the standard by which value can be determined.

    As Ludwig von Mises wrote in 1912 concerning the virtues and alleged shortcomings of the gold standard in the German edition of his “The Theory of Money and Credit”:

    “The excellence of the gold standard is to be seen in the fact that it renders the determination of the monetary unit’s purchasing power independent of the policies of governments and political parties. Furthermore, it prevents rulers from eluding the financial and budgetary prerogatives of the representative assemblies. Parliamentary control of finances works only if the government is not in a position to provide for unauthorized expenditures by increasing the circulating amount of fiat money. Viewed in this light, the gold standard appears as an indispensable implement of the body of constitutional guarantees that make the system of representative government function.” (2)

    The period 1870-1914 is considered the heyday of the international gold standard, a monetary system where a country’s currency or paper money has a value directly linked to gold. With the gold standard, countries agreed to convert paper money into a fixed amount of gold. A country that uses the gold standard sets a fixed price for gold and buys and sells gold at that price, says Investopedia.com.

    “The gold standard was based on a legal rule, which was the compulsory formal convertibility, which States recognised with respect to currency. This commitment constituted a “categorical imperative” with constitutional value. The value of the commitment was higher than the value of the current objectives of economic policy”,
    said Professor Michel Aglietta at a 7 November 1996 seminar organised for the centennial of the birthday of Jacques Rueff.  (3)

    This year, 2017, marks the bicentennial of the (the first edition of) David Ricardo’s 1817 book, “On the Principles of Political Economy” in which he wrote that:
    “Experience shows that neither a state nor a bank ever has had the unrestricted power of issuing money without abusing that power; in all states, therefore, the issue of paper money ought to be under some check and control; and none seems so proper for that purpose as that of subjecting the issuers of paper money to the obligation of paying their notes either in gold coin or bullion.” (4)

    As Roland Leuschel and Claus Vogt would write in 2006:
    “The old gold-standard could not change human nature which dictates that no ruler can withstand the pressure to print more receipts than he has gold in reserve. The old gold-standard did moreover not provide for the possibility that an increase of the ounces, kilograms, or tonnes of gold held in reserve would lead to an increase in the currency’s value. Its chief weakness was however that it could be repealed by the politicians.” (5)


    I now come to Immanuel Kant (1724- 1804, 1804 is the year Napoleon enacted his Civil Code), the philosopher of the Enlightenment.

    I quoted Professor Aglietta as saying that the commitment of the gold standard by governments constituted a “categorical imperative” with constitutional value.

    The categorical imperative (German: “kategorischer Imperativ”) is the central philosophical concept in the deontological moral philosophy of Kant, introduced in Kant’s 1785 “Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals”, says Wikipedia..

    In the said work, Kant defined the categorical imperative as:
    “Act only according to that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law”
    “Handle nur nach derjenigen Maxime, durch die du zugleich wollen kannst, dass sie ein allgemeines Gesetz werde.” (Akad.-Textausgabe 4; 421 / 88)

    After having given this definition, Kant went on to give us a formulation of the categorical imperative that he thinks is easier to use than the one already given. (6)

    “So act as if the maxim of your action were to become through your will a universal law of nature.”
    “Handle so, als ob die Maxime deiner Handlung durch deinen Willen zum allgemeinen Naturgesetze werden sollte. ‘ (Akad.-Textausgabe 4;421 / 89)

    French Thomist (7) philosopher Jacques Maritain (1882 – 1973) writes that in the 18th Century conception of rights of man, Natural Law was to be deduced from the so-called autonomy of the Will (there is a genuine notion of autonomy, that of St Paul- unfortunately the 18th Century had forgotten it). The rights of the human person were to be based on the claim that man is subject to no law other than that of his own will and freedom.

    And Maritain draws attention to the fact that Kant said in his 1797 book “Metaphysics of Morals” that:
    “Man is subject to no law other than that of his own will.  A person, Kant wrote, is subject to no other laws than those which he (either alone or jointly with others) gives to himself.” VI 223

    “dass eine Person keinen anderen Gesetzen als denen die sie (entweder allein, oder wenigstens zugleich mit anderen) sich selbst giebt, unterworfen ist.”

    And Maritain continues :
    “In other words, man must obey only himself, as Jean Jacques Rousseau put it, because every measure or regulation springing from the world of nature (and finally from creative wisdom) would destroy at one and the same time his autonomy and his supreme dignity
    “This philosophy built no solid foundations for the rights of the human person, because nothing can be founded on illusion: it compromised and squandered these rights, because it led men to conceive them as rights in themselves divine, hence infinite, escaping every objective measure, denying every limitation imposed upon the claims of ego and ultimately expressing the absolute independence of the of the human subject.” (8)

    As Father Copleston, S.J., points out:
    “Kant does not intend to imply that concrete rules of conduct can be deduced from the categorical imperative in the sense that concrete rules of conduct can be deduced from the categorical imperative in the sense in which the conclusion of a syllogism can be deduced from the premises. The imperative serves not as a premise for deduction by mere analysis, but as a criterion for judging the morality of concrete principles of conduct.” (9)

    Kant and Rousseau reject any measure or regulation derived from the world of nature because regulations originating from the natural order of things destroy the autonomy and supreme dignity of the human person.

    French Thomist philosopher Etienne Gilson (1884 – 1978) would however write: “Perhaps Kant’s ethics are but a Christian ethic cut loose from the Christian metaphysic that justifies it, the still imposing ruins of a temple with undermined foundations.” (10)

    Metaphysics or ontology is the science of being as being, said Aristotle.

    Karl P. Ameriks is an professor of philosophy at the University of Notre Dame. He starts his “The critique of metaphysics – Kant and traditional ontology” Chapter in the “Cambridge Companion to Kant” (Cambridge UP, 1992) by saying that Kant’s attitude towards metaphysics and ontology is ambiguous in his Critical work. And he concludes that for Kant to accept a wholly non-rationalist metaphysics would  have involved giving up on the ontological implications of transcendental idealism, something he was not ready to do.

    Kant does not accept any metaphysics. He does not accept that reality imposes limits on our thought. He does not accept that truth is conformity of the intellect to the thing, but he decrees that the thing is whatever the intellect decrees so.

    For Kant, the truth is not out there, but in here.

    For Kant, thinking does not have to take reality in account. And all those who think otherwise are anus-philosophers. (11)

    You see, as Father Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P., explains, in general metaphysics, there are only two positions

    • those who affirm the objectivity of being and of the principle of identity
      (philosophy of being of Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas) and its negative formulation, the Principle of Non-Contradiction (PNC). the principle of universal intelligibility (12)
    • those who deny it (philosophy of becoming (Heraclitus and Hegel) and philosophy of the phenomenon (Kant and also the nominalists).

    If being is not the first principle of our intellect, we will never reach being.

    Our intellect starts from being which it knows by its direct act before knowing itself by reflection, as intelligence is only intelligible in relation to being.

    Kant starts by depriving intelligence of its essential relationship to being. He did not understand that all knowledge is verbalised with the verb “o be””é This verb denotes a real, not logical, identity between subject and predicate. (13)

    And Kant went on to set the PNC aside

    In his preface to Kant’s  “Jaesche Logic”, (in: Immanuel Kant, “Lectures on Logic”, Cambridge University Press, 1992, (2004 paperback ed.), 521, pp. 523- 524) J. Michael Young explains how Kant made this setting aside of the PNC possible:

    “[Kant] restricted the use, the validity, of [the PNC] by banishing it from the sphere of metaphysics where dogmatism (sic) sought to make it valid, and restricting it to the merely logical use of reason, as valid only for this use alone.”

    Of course, if the PNC is no longer a metaphysical principle, then it is no longer the first principle of being.

    No longer one of the primary or fundamental elements in human knowledge which serve as the bases for all other truths.

    No longer the judgement which is naturally first (just as BEING is the first notion of our intelligence, implied in any consequent notion), and which is presupposed by all other judgements.

    Thinking can then also be in contradiction to/with reality.

    And one can even advocate the concept of the gold standard, which as David Ricardo pointed out in 1817 does not take reality into account.

    Two hundred years after 1817, it’s about time Ricardo’s wisdom sinks in.

    Ivo Cerckel


    Alain de Crombrugghe, “Introduction aux principes de l’ économie  – Choix et decisions économiques”, Brussels, De Boeck, 2016, 2nd ed., p. 84

    [Une des trois fonctions de la monnaie est d’être] un “étalon” de valeur (moyen de mesure)
    La monnaie permet de comparer les valeurs des différents biens et services entre eux grâce à une unité de mesure commune.
    [Gold standard in French is “étalon”-or]

    Ludwig von Mises, “Theory of Money and Credit”
    Part Four: “Monetary Reconstruction” Chapter 21. “The Principle of Sound Money” 2. “The Virtues and Alleged Shortcomings of the Gold Standard”


    Commissariat Général du plan, Editeur scientifique, “Jacques Rueff, Leçons pour notre temps : actes du colloque pour la commémoration du centenaire de sa naissance”, Paris, Economica, 1997, p. 48

    Dr Michel Aglietta is Professor of Economics at the University of Paris X: Nanterre, a scientific counsellor at Centre d’Etudes Prospectives et d’Informations Internationales (CEPII), the main French institute for research into international economics, a member of the University Institute of France.

    The first part of the seminar was devoted to “Money and international monetary system – The relevance (“la pertinence”) of the analysis of Jacques Rueff”. In that part, Aglietta was one of the three members of a round-table under the title “The international monetary system and the gold-standard – Confrontation with the monetary facts”. The report of the round-table starts on p 43. On p. 47 starts the report of the intervention of Dr Aglietta.

    On p. 48, Dr Aglietta is quoted as saying:
    “Létalon-or était un ordre fondé sur une règle de droit, qui était la convertibilité formelle, obligatoire, que les Etats reconnaissaient en ce qui concerne la monnaie. Cette obligation constituait un impératif catégorique à  valeur constitutionnelle. Elle était d’une valeur supérieure aux objectifs courants de la politique économique.”

    “The gold standard was based on a legal rule, which was the compulsory formal convertibility, which States recognised with respect to money. This commitment constituted a categorical imperative with constitutional value. The value of the commitment was higher than the current objectives of economic policy.”

    Quoted by
    Henry Hazlitt, “From Bretton Woods to world inflation – A Study of Causes and Consequences”
    Chicago, Regnery Gateway, 1984
    Auburn, Alabama, Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2012
    pp 170 and 177

    See also
    The Works of David Ricardo
    p. 215

    Roland Leuschel and Claus Vogt, “Das Greenspan Dossier, Wie die US-Notenbank das Weltwährungssystem gefährdet. Oder: Inflation um jeden Preis”, http://www.finanzbuchverlag.de, 2006, 3rd ed., pp. 300 and 304

    J.B. Schneewind, “Autonomy, obligation and virtue: An overview of Kant’s moral philosophy”, in: Paul Guyer, (ed.), “The Cambridge Companion to Kant”, Cambridge UP, 1992. 309 p. 320

    Thomism refers to the philosophy of Thomas Aquinas.

    Jacques Maritain, “Man and the State”, University of Chicago Press, 1951, re-edited Washington, D.C., The Catholic University of America Press, 1998 , pp. 83-84

    Jacques Maritain, “Natural Law – Reflections on Theory and Practice”, edited and introduced by William Sweet, South Bend, Indiana, St. Augustine’s Press, 2001, pp 57-58

    Frederick Copleston, S.J., “A History of Philosophy”, Volume VI  “Modern Philosophy -From the French Enlightenment to Kant”, 1960, Section 5 of Chapter XVI “Kant (5)- Morality and religion”

    p. 324 of the Image Books edition.

    Etienne Gilson, “The Spirit of Medieval Philosophy”, trans. by A. H. C. Downes, New York, Scribners, 1940, (London, Sheed and Ward, 1936), University of Notre Dame Press, 1991, still p. 342.

    In his Introduction to his “Jaesche Logic”, Kant writes: “Im 11ten und 12ten Jahrhundert traten die Scholastiker auf; sie erläuterten den Aristoteles und trieben seine Subtilitäten ins Unendliche. Man beschāftigte sich mit nichts als lauter Abstraktionen. Diese scholastische Methode des AFTER=PHILOSOPHIRENS wurde zur Zeit der Reformation verdrängt, und nun gab es Selbstdenker, die sich zu keiner Schule bekannten, sondern die Wahrheit suchten und annahmen, wo sie sie fanden.” (Akad.-Textausgabe, Vol. IX, p. 31
    (Albert Zimmermann, “Thomas Lesen” (legenda 2) Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: Frommann-Holzboog, 2000, p. 276)

    “In the 11th and 12th centuries the “scholastics” appeared; they elucidated ARISTOTLE and pursued his subtleties to infinity. They occupied themselves with nothing but abstractions. This scholastic method of ANUS -PHILOSOPHISING was pushed aside at the time of the Reformation, and now there were thinkers who thought for themselves, who acknowledged no school, but who instead sought the truth and accepted it where they found it. “

    As Garrigou-Lagrange explains in the book quoted in note 13:

    The Principle of Identity (PI) says that being is being, every being is itself, every being is something determined. The principle denotes the ultimate truth of the philosophy of being.

    Everybody uses the Principle of Non-Contradiction (PNC) but its abstract formulation needed Aristotle.

    The principle says:

    • from the LOGICAL point of view: it is impossible that the same attribute ASTSR belongs and does not belong to a thing
    • from the METAPHYSICAL point of view: the same being cannot ASTSR be and not be.

    (ASTSR = at the same time and in the same respect)

    The PI and PNC are not pure logical principles, but they govern reality also.

    Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P., “Le sens commun : la philosophie de l’être et les formules dogmatiques” (“Common sense : the philosophy of being and the dogmatic formulae”) 1922, 3rd. rev. ed.

    Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

    Modi Merkel Putin and Li to end the dollar regime this week

    Posted by Ivo Cerckel on May 31st, 2017

    Let’s trade internationally in rupee, ruble, renminbi and euro.

    India fought. 70 years ago against British imperialism. Now India must fight against dollar imperialism of which Arvind Subramanian complained before becoming India’s government chief economic adviser. Britain never caused the harm which the dollar regime is causing.

    The idea behind the fight against British imperialism was that the people could, in exercise of ultimate authority vested in them, create an alternative political structure as an expression of that unfettered play and continual liveliness of free will as a community, which is at the root of all progress. (Sarbani Sen, “The Constitution of India – Popular Sovereignty and Democratic Transformations “, 2015 Fifth impression of the 2010 Oxford India paperback edition, of this book whose hardcover was published in 2010, p. 62)

    Germany’s chancellor Merkel said last week-end that we can no longer rely on the USA.

    Russia’s prime minister Putin went therefore on Monday to France’s president Macron at … Versailles, no less.

    On Tuesday India’s prime minister Narendra Modi went to Germany.

    Today, Wednesday, Modi is in Spain.

    After his Spain visit, India’s Modi will travel tomorrow Thursday June 1 to St Petersburg in Russia.

    In St Petersburg, Modi and Putin will have to stamp the rejection of America – and its dollar, of course. Let’s trade internationally in rupee, ruble, renminbi and euro.

    Arvind Subramanian is the current chief economic adviser to the government of India, having taken charge of the position on October 16, 2014 succeeding Raghuram Rajan, says Wikipedia.

    The London-based The Economist newspaper quoted Subramanian on Jun 9, 2016 as complaining in 2014 of “dollar imperialism”.

    The International Monetary Fund (IMF) and its dollar regime have been described by some as a tool of neo-colonialism. That is too mild, as 19th-century British or European colonialism, however harsh, never managed to accomplish the extent of devastation and destruction of health and living standards the IMF has done since the 1970s.

    Chinese Premier Li Keqiang for his part is starting today Wednesday May 31 a three-day visit to Belgium and … Germany.

    Modi said in Germany that India and Germany are ‘made for each other’,

    Germany’s Merkel who said that we can no longer rely on the USA, will thus have met this week both the Indian and Chinese prime minister while Modi and France’s Macron will have met the Russian prime minister.

    Everything is set up from stamping the end of dollar imperialism.

    Let’s trade internationally in rupee, ruble, renminbi and euro.

    Ivo Cerckel

    Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

    Disclaimer The content of this website is presented for educational and/or entertainment purposes only. Under no circumstances should it be mistaken for professional investment advice, nor is it at all intended to be taken as such. The commentary and other contents simply reflect the opinion of the author alone on the current and future status of the markets and various economies. It is subject to error and change without notice. The presence of a link to a website does not indicate approval or endorsement of that web site or any services, products, or opinions that may be offered by them.

    Copyright © 2006-2012 BPHouse.com
    Use of this website is subject to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy