In his June 18, PressMediaWire.com article, “Ron Paul Questions: Iraq or the Economy,” Ron Paul asserts enormous concurrent monetary costs of the present aggression against Iraq.

He tells,

Having demolished far more than bridges to restore unjustifiable profits to international oil companies understandably banished by Saddam Hussein, the reasons and costs of this destruction and re-construction are now facts of history.

So, another generation of citizen and soldier are given their day’s destructive rationale: “If we don’t fight them over there, we’ll be fighting them over here.” Meanwhile, the few succeeding administrative efforts paved the way for uncompeted contracts, further privatization of profits from conflict, and, from this time onward, for artificial multiplication of the costs of the spoils. Record profits were sealed by these nefarious efforts, while the whole of purported objectives either did not exist (WMD), were impractical or doomed to failure (immediate revision of long traditions of public disposition), or were meant to accomplish undeclared purposes (purported “democratization” perpetuates all the real objects of “privatization”).

Obviously then, war does not just translate into “less economically viable activities.” When it serves oppressors, it perpetuates oppression and all its costs. So always, to serve oppressors abroad is to advance the means and stature of those oppressors at home.

The thinking we are always compelled to give these issues, raises again and again the observation that, except in the case where both are dedicated solely to defeating it, power and government are the principal tools to promote oppression. The deduction a succeeding humanity needs consistently to make therefore, is that even the least potential for usurpation or abuse of power are to be eradicated for every conceivable reason.

War and privatization are mere cases of abuse of power which transfer spoils and artificially imposed profits and costs. Inherently, the governmental struggles for each are always between oppressors, because the only cause of the subject peoples is protection from oppression. And so for the most obvious reasons, strife of any such nature is always cloaked in seeming goals of the people, while the inherent goal of the people ? from which they should never take their eye ? is instead to develop governments and infrastructures which can neither foster or host oppression of even the seeming least kind.

Rather than war or privatization of ostensible government duties then, the inherent goal of all people is eradication of every least possibility of oppression from every government and infrastructure; and the very thing which marks the one government which truly serves its people, is its unswerving and unexcepted dedication to that same eradication.

Real economy therefore is imperative. In the balance nonetheless, the facts of how much we are served by either oppression or its eradication are equally simple.

Given so much real production, then if its wealth is shared as its efforts are born, this justice both eliminates strife and maximizes the generation of wealth, because all of our efforts are necessary and dedicated to the production of real wealth.

On the other hand, war or any other effort which is intended not to share wealth in balance with the efforts which produce it, not only perpetuates strife and injustice by imposing or preserving that disparity; it diminishes the realized volume of wealth from that which would have been produced otherwise. Even for the potential disruptions of the intended sins of a few, the sum of productive effort is diminished so much as we are forced instead to defend our wealth, to prepare to defend our wealth, and to attempt, and to prepare to attempt, to take wealth from others. Obviously, in the case of war, the efforts of producing wealth are further doubled by every necessitated reconstruction of wealth which is destroyed. Not just war then; but all this competes for a pool of wealth diminished to the extents these efforts do not produce wealth.

Yet there are far greater potential costs of failing to understand these things, because each generation which fails to understand them is a highway not just to perpetual oppression or its escalation, but to its further entrenchment.

Because purported monetary systems are the principal tools both for dispossessing wealth and accumulating unassented power, the possibility of failing to understand monetary improprieties is most apt to prove itself the people’s most self destructive capacity. Thus it is as important as Mr. Paul ultimately tells us too, to arrive upon the one unerring monetary analysis from which we can understand solution.

Interspersed among further references to war nonetheless, he says,

To our considerable possible endangerment then, few of us wonder how any possible misunderstanding of these assertions might lead us awry. After refining the mis-statements, let us consider just one probable scenario:

1. To support his unqualified thesis that circulatory inflation engenders price inflation, Mr. Paul attempts to stress that “most particularly a war funded by monetary inflation, bleeds a country in multiple ways.”

   The intended gist of this statement is that we are paying for this particular war in multiple ways, because it is funded by what he calls monetary inflation.

   1. But by definition there is no monetary inflation (traditional “inflation”) unless there is an increase of circulation per goods and services.

      There is an aspect of perpetual deflation in any monetary system subject to interest, comprised of payments against principal and interest obligations. Because the deflationary aspect is inherently greater than a non-inflationary introductory aspect in which only principal is borrowed into circulation, for Mr. Paul’s assertion of monetary inflation to hold, it must be demonstrated that federal over-spending introduces so much currency that the circulation exceeds the remaining value of all represented assets.

      On the contrary, federal over-spending is not sufficient to do so, or make this a cause then of whatever damages we suffer.

   To evaluate its further ramifications, let us take this statement in conjunction with the next.

2. He says then that, “Meanwhile, those who do not fight the war, but fund it, are forced to pay both the immediate costs, as well as seeing their long term purchasing power erode, as the twin pillars of debt and inflation are foisted upon the backs of current taxpayers and future generations.”

   Rather than pretending to understand this and the previous false assertions on purportedly superficial appeal, we should all recognize their obvious faults:

   1. First of all, the federal deficits of the purportedly inflationary method of financing the war (which we have already disproven as such) only accumulate debt *because no direct, concurrent cost of the war is imposed.* In other words, there is no one who does not fight the war, but funds it ? and this in fact comprises one of the greatest dangers of funding wars, because beyond insulating a country from moral considerations by disinformation, a renegade government may invoke as an unwarranted further temporary incentive, a lack of any reasonable monetary cost whatever, as would otherwise rightly deter the less principled from war.
      1. The only possible direct cost of the war therefore is potentially to be imposed upon a future generation, which, even if that time is not far away, will potentially be disadvantaged by further multiplication both federal and private debt, far moreso than we are today.

      So while this distribution of costs is incredibly unjustified, and while this is as much as to grant a power to wage extensive wars which a populace bearing reasonable assumptions of monetary cost would never tolerate, there is no direct concurrent cost whatever.

   2. The only way we can be directly paying for the accumulated debts then, is interest.

      But long ago, we began to accumulate all this such federal debt because we could neither afford any longer to service further private or federal accumulation of debt, while private debt continued to multiply in proportion to our means as in the obligation merely to maintain a circulation, we necessarily re-borrowed principal and interest as subsequent sums of debt, perpetually increased so much as periodic interest. We can’t even afford to be servicing interest on the debts of this war. So neither is this a factor.

   3. The only further way we may be indirectly paying for the war then, is via price inflation and/or some other process of devaluation.
      1. But as we have sufficiently shown, we are paying neither alleged costs in servicing federal debt, or circulatory inflation.

         Mr. Paul’s twin pillars do not exist.

      2. On the other hand, he presumes his monetary inflation engenders price inflation, and that this is a cost of the war engendered by the non-existent monetary inflation.

         As these pages have shown however, the only systemic cause of price inflation is the obligation to maintain a circulation by re-borrowing principal and interest as subsequent sums of debt, perpetually increased so much as periodic interest. Price inflation and devaluation of the currency therefore are consequences of interest, as the costs of servicing debt perpetually drive prices upward to maintain margins of solubility, and as ever more of the circulation is dedicated to servicing the perpetual escalation of debt, leaving ever less of the circulation to sustain the commerce which is obliged to service the debt.

3. “Neither conspiracy nor coincidence explains steep increases in the price of gas as the war drags on.”

   Mr. Paul must not be following the news, some of which claims that commodities trading has artificially driven up the cost of fuel, food, and other production.

   But conspiracy is a fact of all government activity. The issue is whether the conspiracy if for or against us; and here, there is little if any question the conspiracy is against. Most notably, such rapid, dramatic increases in the cost of fuel *at the juncture of an election* may indeed be designed to sway support.

4. “No, this is simply a reality of the inflationary policies that, among other things, make this war possible.”

   Mr. Paul may be on the trail of finding these things. But no, even the temporarily averted costs may never be imposed ? at least because the future accumulated debt, and even the present accumulated debt, can never be collected. Certainly neither can the averted costs be attributed to an assumed inflation which itself cannot exists. In fact, recent figures show great danger of such rapid deflation as would make it impossible even in the near term to continue servicing the little debt we have.

To his credit, Mr. Paul left most political blood hounds behind, smelling something quite wrong. Perhaps he almost has his finger on it. But if he will follow his nose to the end of the trail, he will find his efforts relate to artificial sustention, and that indeed, a principal danger this surreal means of funding war comprises, is that it makes this war and any other like it ? as well as anything else a renegade government may choose ? artificially possible, for the sake of the one thing which “funds” and is bound to survive all this ? further oppression.

So what are the overall dangers of these misunderstandings?

First of all, these very mis-statements divide us even so as it is impossible to agree on the one possible monetary solution. Lacking a cohesive understanding of the forces at work, and even so, turning our backs on solution, we can hardly even identify our real enemies.

We are in the midst of a turning point toward precipitous failure. Without understanding, we are the hapless victims of a near term all-out “economic” war which itself exists because its proponents intend, clear from moments already passed, that there will never be a true, free economy.

Because failure is inevitable if we so much as maintain a vital circulation, there will be a failure, even as the end can be forestalled by artificial sustention.

But because all this will fail, one day your usurers will come to convince even the young who are planned to lose most, that they will benefit from dissolving the debt they never incurred and can never pay. in a process which will move them to a new currency. The new currency of course will in fact be the same old, usual instrument of usury, given a new lifespan in which its changers will hope to make it the perfect chameleon in which unearned taking is perpetuated. They who do not understand can never know the difference.

As surely as 8,000 homes a day are presently foreclosed upon for wholly artificial and adverse escalations of purposed indebtedness which can only be avoided by perfecting economy, oppression is their plan.

If further monopolization and oppression were not the long term plan of world “globalization,” oppression would end in each and every one of the present nations; and “globalization” itself would develop in a mandate of the people, instead of a vacuum from which they are purged.

The dangers of the present misunderstandings therefore, are that you can’t possibly understand the objects and power of whoever directs the present global departure from representation, much less can you stand in its way, unless you understand usury.

This entry was posted on Monday, June 23rd, 2008 at 5:26 pm and is filed under CENTRAL BANKS, WORLD BANKS, Mathematically Perfected Economy, RELIGION AND USURY, RON PAUL, UNASSENTED GLOBALISM, WAR, PEACE and USURY, events and politics, theory and implementation, usury. 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.