mike montagne's mathematically perfected economy™ BLOG | » Blog Archive » My response to the Ron Paul 2008 Meetups Thread, Obama Pastor’s Theology: Destroy ‘The White Enemy’

YOU ARE VIEWING ARTICLES IN THE FOLLOWING CATEGORY (SELECT CATEGORIES FROM THE DIRECTORY, RIGHT):

mike montagne’s mathematically perfected economy blog » Blog Archive » My response to the Ron Paul 2008 Meetups Thread, Obama Pastor’s Theology: Destroy ‘The White Enemy’

My response to the Ron Paul 2008 Meetups Thread, Obama Pastor’s Theology: Destroy ‘The White Enemy’

The following is my response to an unfortunate thread in the Worldwide Ron Paul 2008 Meetup Message Board, “Obama Pastor’s Theology: Destroy ‘The White Enemy.’“

Obviously, the material to which it replies is exceedingly uncharacteristic of my experience with Ron Paul supporters; and certainly it would be equally amiss to presume the independent posts should reflect upon Dr. Paul himself. Nonetheless, the few impertinent posts deserve response, because they include such undeserved assertions as, “Obama hates whitey!” A whole Patrick J. Buchanan article is posted, “Pastor to the President?” which concludes, “Though Barack seems likely to win more pledged delegates than Hillary, the super-delegates will have to decide whether they want to offer America a nominee whose pastor and mentor embodies the anti-white racism and anti-Americanism that has ever brought the patriotic blood of Middle America to a boil. Wright is not the sort of fellow you want to bring with you into ‘Deer Hunter’ Country.”

In the words of a good friend of mine who is no longer with us, “We have to draw the line somewhere.” My post follows a string of insinuations which are neither promising, nor the substance of progress.

My response to the Ron Paul 2008 Meetups Thread, Obama Pastor’s Theology: Destroy ‘The White Enemy’

The idea of a republic — that is, the republican form of government which is our grateful endowment (far too often so carelessly called a “democracy”) — is an interesting concept, because it attempts to elevate itself above mob rule by yet allowing the mob to elect representatives ostensibly above the standards of the mob.

The paradox of the republican form of government then is that if it is to succeed in all cases, it requires the mob itself to recognize who and what principles will serve them — while its downstream structure attempts to succeed despite some improbability this standard can be expected of the mob.

In practice nonetheless, we can succeed no better than we can elect well; and we can elect no better than we ourselves settle for nothing less than the highest standard of representation.

I wouldn’t be any prouder of some of the things which are being said here, as they’re certainly as unfair as some of the criticisms we’ve recently witnessed against Dr. Paul.

I for one disavow racism; but I certainly understand and even honor to a degree African American bitterness, or Native American bitterness, and other such bitternesses — and I certainly feel it’s callous to simply expect a whole lack of bitterness, even looking backward into history, for the wounds which certainly were inflicted and even persist today deserve time to heal.

In the small town I live in for instance, there’s a tale which I heard even just a few years ago told with sparkling eyes and even seeming pride (yes, a hundred years later), how a lunch shack of Chinese slave miners was locked, set on fire, and let burn to the ground with the miners in it after they were delivered their last checks, that those checks of the failing mine could not be cashed.

This anti-democratic party sentiment troubles me as well, for inherently it stoops below principle. We are a country; and we are only a *stupid* country if we might tear off opposite, equally futile and however corrupt or immoral directions every four or eight or twelve years.

Thomas Jefferson explained the absolute scope of duty of elected representatives is to represent the *entire* public, not just those who elected them. He said, “Bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and [so] to violate [any of their equal rights] would be oppression.“

I have an observation I’d like to share, because this is a movement which I’ve hoped was headed for higher things — higher things our country direly needs — higher things which, if we are to achieve them, we *absolutely must* conceive and adhere to a unifying commonality.

My observation is that people know when they are wrong (particularly when they have not done their due diligence).

Whether some of us want to hear this or not, I assert that it is because we know we are wrong in every such case of argument that the rest of this statement will describe, that our arguments take the tack then which for the past few decades we have so often seen — that is, they start using broad labels which with the stroke of a brush paint irrelevance or impropriety upon the subject, or they attempt to dissolve the bounds of one case into another, that their testimony seems to substantiate the position they want to take… they do everything but address the particular set of issues which pertain to the matter at hand, and take us a positive direction.

What happens then, if these kinds of things prevail?

Well, the years pass, and pass, and pass… and we may take a small, exceedingly resisted step ahead. But then for the sake of a few, or for the lack of resolution our lack of appreciation for deserving argument engenders, we take two steps back, or three or four steps back. Steps ahead are resisted because ulterior motives — like the present, which we ourselves are resisting — are served instead in terms palatable to sheeple; usually of course these are false terms such as purported patriotism, or fear, or even just hatred.

It is because then, that as precious time passes without due progress, we all suffer, that when I see a step backward, I take a step back from the proverbial forest myself, to hear all sides, noting most what arguments seek to move the positive direction by qualifying substance.

That’s my personal yardstick. One which always takes us ahead; one which always solves for all concerned; one which always hopes for unity; one which never attempts to exercise control or denial of others; and one I think even that our founders exercised, not just “liberally,” but practically and possibly without exception. That’s what I think made our country; and that’s the only thing I think will make our falling country great again.

As Mr. Obama said himself, we can do that.

This one small movement has yet to certify its way. But it is a step in that direction; and if it can succeed, and most of all if it should succeed, it will be willing to forgive and meet at the center, and solve for all.

I’m not saying Malcom X was right to say the things it is alleged he said. I’m saying I understand his bitterness. Who here can’t do that? And why not do that? And why not just move on from there?

I saw Mr. Obama’s speech. I watched it carefully; and it was a good speech. It was a fine piece of work; and it certainly did not pretend even to the most minute degree to agree with what we are objecting to here. On the contrary, it disavowed those things, and quite righteously, in my own opinion, sought the one right direction to step from there, and that is to unity, purpose, and higher things than this, which is played like a broken record in a *negative* interest instead.

Mr. Obama carefully and courteously disavowed these things which we can readily understand nonetheless, because they express a bitterness we can all readily understand. Who are we then to attack the speech, or the man who made it?

It was just a few weeks ago that we were defending our own candidate’s “own” words. Yes, I know those words were “ghost written”; but as our own candidate himself asserted, he should have known about them.

True too those words were. They were an honest and forthcoming confession of culpability. In fact, it was the very genuine quality of all this for which we celebrated that response. We all know Dr. Paul is probably not in the greatest stretch of the imagination, a racist, as was alleged against him.

So I say that the negative attacks against Mr. Obama too are petty. He’s half white, and *we* yet call him “black.” Isn’t that improper enough for us?

Moreover, he is seeking unity; and I dare point out, that’s a common virtue of the candidate of this effort. To his great credit, one of his most genuine and worthy traits, is that Dr. Paul’s manner is never to be divisive.

So let us not be divisive either.

There was a time when the politicians most of us here resent so much were noted for certain prominent traits, and recognized in certain terms as unfit for public service. A leader who can and will serve us will first of all be genuine in every respect.

We also know that they will have to stand above the fray, gleaning the truth from perhaps many prejudices of the people.

But why?

In practice nonetheless, we can succeed no better than we can elect well; and we can elect no better than we ourselves settle for nothing less than the highest standard of representation.

So, while we tend to appreciate that this concept is above mob rule, nonetheless effectively, it can only rise above mob rule if the mob itself overcomes the very weakness the republican form of government itself seeks to overcome.

Success still hinges on the standards of the people meeting the requisites of the problems.

So, effectively, the republican form of government *can* only prevail if it recognizes and accounts to the bottom of its very depth in the people, all the principles which are *vital* to success.

There is another thing we need to consider; and that is the dignity of our argument.

Most of us profess to be Christians for instance, but how many of us, before we assert ourselves, first refine our propositions to the golden principles which would serve all?

I mention this not because I want quarrel, but because it is so important for us at this time to unite on principle; and because if we are willing to do that, we will distinguish ourselves by the most dignified arguments, which will then prevail.

Likewise however, those deserving arguments will only prevail when and if we, the mob, excel to a recognition of vital principle.

So the present material here is a tack far away from that, and it is important then to raise the principles we need to follow most of all, here, where we should realize we ourselves cannot deviate from the vital principles at all, if we are to deserve to succeed, and if we are to succeed.

Why not?

Because, as history has now demonstrated, it takes a higher people to assert their selves against a wayward, reckless government. As Mr. Obama said, “We are the ones we have been waiting for.”

I would like to see us make ourselves aloof — above the present topic of focus. Perhaps the reasons I’ve given so far should suffice. But I’d like to tell you why in even more concrete and personal terms, because they are critical to what we, ostensibly, are trying to accomplish here.

We have adopted Mr. Paul as our candidate; but only because he has stood against things we know are wrong. In one particularly vital case however — purported economy — no one here, and certainly not even Dr. Paul, has actually *established* how his purported steps in a purportedly right direction are to prevail; and it happens to be my life’s work to solve the issues he hasn’t.

We say then that our revolution will not wane; but neither can it possibly succeed on the vital front of economy unless we can determine and unite upon vital solution.

So I ask you each to determine to resolve all issues carefully, because similarly, we may never prevail in any of our efforts otherwise.

Let me give you an example which should suffice in demonstrating our inevitable failure, if to the person, we settle for any less of a standard:

If, merely to maintain a circulation subject to interest, it is perpetually necessary to replenish the circulation by re-borrowing whatever we pay against principal and interest, is there anyone here who can prove then that debt will not perpetually multiply in proportion to the original circulation by so much as periodic interest?

Well… if we are to solve the issues Mr. Paul purports to solve by advocating a return to the gold standard, a limited money supply (without a prescription for just *what* limits at all times *will* serve us)… and so forth, then what does it say about this movement then that we — each and every one of us — do not understand that it is the ramifications of interest which artificially multiply debt into insoluble debt, which is even the very cause of so many other problems Mr. Paul purports to solve, such as federal overspending?

Imagine this for instance:

So much has this process presently multiplied debt beyond our means, that it is even at this very moment theoretically impossible *for us* to re-borrow at the sustained rates which would replenish the circulation so that we can continue only to service the *portions* of debt we have been reduced to servicing.

Well then, if we simply stopped the “federal” printing presses as Dr. Paul so regularly advocates (which itself is incorrect — they are *private* printing presses), what would happen?

It is quite possible there is no longer *any possible way* to replenish a circulation subject to so much interest-bearing debt, other than printing the money *somewhere* and simply shoving it into circulation to sustain an unsustainable system.

But then, is the problem to quit shoving *that* necessary replenishing into circulation first, or is it to rectify the purported economy (way of stealing from us) first, by eradicating interest and refinancing all debt without interest, so that the further disservice of federal overspending *can* be discontinued without imposing an immediate collapse ensuing in the form of wholesale deflation of the circulation?

I’ve worked on the solution to this problem my whole life; and there was a time when no one ever argued mathematics with me.

But if we can’t elevate ourselves — each of us — to understanding the nature of our problem, we will never solve it; neither will Mr. Paul, or Mr. Obama for that matter.

So who then is the real candidate of this movement?

If we are to succeed, we have no candidate until one advocates mathematically perfected economy as their platform.

So our scorn for Mr. Obama is not only unjust; it distinguishes all the wrong things which should condemn us; and it is a waste of so much energy, on a path leading nowhere but backward, backward, backward.

RELATED MATERIAL

REFUTATION OF CONTROVERSIAL MONETARY PROPOSITIONS

This entry was posted on Wednesday, March 19th, 2008 at 3:28 pm and is filed under Barack Obama, Mathematically Perfected Economy, events and politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response or trackback from your own site.

COMMENT

You must be logged in to post a comment.

"To find the players in all the corruption of the world, 'Follow the money.' To find the captains of world corruption, follow the money all the way."

mike montagne — PEOPLE For Mathematically Perfected Economy™