Ron Paul does indeed preach the basic thrust of Jeffersonian and Washington foreign policy; and for that he deserves considerable credit.
I am not sure the idea is as unpopular as you suggest, so much as it is adverse to the largely undeclarable goals of candidates who represent selfish and destructive U.S. hegemony, international usury, and *their* corporate interests above the people’s. To say it is unpopular is as much then as to say the people don’t understand how all these things represent interests which are against them. The sheeple of the corporate media of course *can* know no better, because the same people, who own that media, purge the tales of today’s events of all the things which would tell sheeple their masters are wolves.
But whether Americans overall have so lost touch with their original principles is at least debatable. I hear some Americans declare outright that they support killing for oil. Yet if many others weren’t astonished by that proposition, neither would the neo-cons have had to invent the WMD lies, or allege that Iraq was a base of terrorism. These lies themselves attest to the unpopularity and distastefulness instead of this naked form of imperialism and military coercion.
Nonetheless, the traditional foreign policy Mr. Paul would like to return to is not merely attributable to Jefferson and Washington. As John Adams recorded by declaring our roots, its basis is an adherence to the Christian doctrine of do unto others as you would have them do unto you. The principle of that doctrine of course is justice; and that justice, to which no exception can exist, is the core of the further idea that universal justice is the only foundation for real peace. Our original foreign policy was no less a noble concept than that.
Understanding these simple things, furthermore, essentially means advocating the teaching of justice, for without its understanding, we can never have or maintain it. To maintain justice also means the thorough reporting of injustice. It means sustaining dialog capable of establishing universal justice. These in fact were the very things the colonists sought; and against which, being denied them, we revolted.
Rather than imposing the injustice of taking a country’s resources, or denying its means of production, the colonists rose against these very things inflicted against themselves. It is a matter of either great hypocrisy or whole loss of the original principle (or both) then, that a nation which rose up to establish an eternal fortress against imperialism, refused representation, and any denial of property or right, should today find itself resorting to lies and plunder, largely because of a purported economic system which so deprives us of our own production and opportunity to produce, that we leave ourselves little answer but such wickedness.
One reason Mr. Paul is so popular among our military then, is that it is they who are forced to implement this wickedness, who not only have to see it for what it is, but whom are forced to pay all its dearest prices. Because we are human — at least so long as we remain humane — the price of military iniquity is most cruel to the soul of the hand made to exercise it. Truly supporting they who are asked these things then, involves an equally dear obligation to ensure the price to be paid is right.
No less is the obligation of our nation to get its political facade in order.
You rightly complain of the faults of interventionism; the costs of foreign aid, while we endure perpetually escalating indebtedness; the banishing of our industry to foreign countries; the futility of attempting only to sustain that industry at huge, unsustainable deficits; and the incredible irresponsibility of leaving our children this mess if we should even be so fortunate not to suffer its full consequences far sooner than that. You muse, “It is seemingly more and more likely that the only way this behavior will end is by an economic collapse.”
But there is one common cause yet of all these things. That cause is usury, which multiplies debt upon us as we are obligated by it to maintain a vital circulation; and as maintenance of that vital circulation inherently entails perpetually re-borrowing principal and interest as ever greater sums of debt, increased at escalating rates of ever greater periodic interest on an ever greater sum of debt.
It is this process which Christ too complained of which is responsible for our industrial deterioration, for it is the costs of servicing the debt which have long ago now driven our real industry elsewhere. It is the usurers who came to own our industry by “markets” which are arenas of predation; and it is these usurers who have taken technologies we developed elsewhere, to our complete disadvantage. It is usury which owns the monopolies which extend their might by foreign “interventions” which thinly disguise the imperialism of the undeclared plutocracy. It is that plutocracy which raises candidate after candidate who will never raise the nature of usury as the most destructive process against the people. It is that plutocracy which owns the media.
Ron Paul however does not preach Jeffersonian and Washingtonian monetary policy, not only because there is no such thing, but because if anything, Austrian dogma preserves the destructive usurpation which was urged on by Hamilton, unopposed by Washington’s monetary naivete.
Hamilton of course worked hard to gain the undeserved trust of Washington, who, because he had no substantive understanding of monetary theory, largely left the development of a monetary system to a representative of “banking interests.” In the resultant controversies against Jefferson, the inability of the founders to determine a sustainable and just monetary system, together with our own failure to do so, paved the way for the issues of our own day.
As opposed to the idea of money representing the wealth we produce, Hamilton advocated both a central bank and the purported free markets which offer up ownership of our productive capacities to the highest bidder, which of course will be the central bank.
Austrian dogma supports these pretentious notions, against which of course, Jefferson warned that the currency of such a system would deprive the people of all property until their children woke homeless on the continent their fathers had conquered.
That day of course has come. But it is impossible that a given proposition represent Jefferson, and/or Washington or Hamilton, because their positions are opposed. Jefferson understood that a privatized currency subject to interest involved a process which could only engender dispossession of our industrial capacity, and, thereby, eventual usurpation of the very seat of representation. Washington, largely failing to perceive the dangers Jefferson and many others raised, defaulted to Hamilton. In the vacuum of the lack of a perfected monetary prescription, Hamilton represented the usurers against the interests of the people.
This controversy and lack of solution played out in over 200 years of strife. Central banks were created and rescinded. Andrew Jackson told the bankers, “You are a den of vipers and thieves. I intend to rout you out, and by eternal God, I will rout you out.” So he did.
Lincoln was probably assassinated because he came so close to understanding how to perfect economy. In the wake of his killing, manipulation of credit resulted in artificial events which formed the purposed backdrop against which the private so called Federal Reserve System — an all powerful conglomerate of 12 private corporations which are neither federal nor reserves of anything — was foisted upon the American People in violation even of campaign promises that no central bank would be created. As is the case for any currency subject to interest, this system could only multiply debt in proportion to the capacity to service debt, until the system reaches a maximum practical lifespan, after which it fails because it cannot service its artificially multiplied debt.
After being promised to prevent what it can only engender, the so called Federal Reserve System imposed its first such failure a mere 15 years into its existence. Its second lifespan begins at the closure of World War Two, and arguably is in the present death throes of inevitable failure, because in fact we are not credit-worthy even to maintain a circulation without the artificial sustention of federal over-spending.
So indeed, if the American People will not meet the need to understand that there is one and one only solution to irreversible multiplication of debt by interest, they will never choose singularly to eradicate interest, that their money can serve them as real tokens of wealth only can.
Neither of course will they demand a candidate who advocates the one and one only solution to our issues.
But Jefferson did not tell us that the American People should wait for a candidate to represent them. On the contrary, he said explicitly that if the American People ever allow the banks to issue their currency, that all these acts against us would fall upon us.
The Austrians Mr. Paul doggedly represents in fact not only advocate the interest of private bankers; private currencies; and even “competing” private currencies, as if inconsistency could possibly serve us. The Austrians also advocate what they call “free markets.” But these markets are hardly free: they are subject to the inherent, irreversible, inherently escalating multiplication of debt by interest — all of which serve unearned gain to the ever greater destruction of free enterprise.
The essential propositions are mutually exclusive.
The American People have been betrayed by usurers from our beginnings; and yet all this while there is one and one only solution to inflation and deflation, systemic manipulation of the cost or value of money or property, and inherent multiplication of debt by interest. That is therefore that the people issue their own promises to pay without the artificial cost of interest, and that they pay their debts at the rate of depreciation or consumption of the related asset.
Thus a $100,000 home with a 100-year lifespan costs us $1,000 per year or $83.33 per month; and so, unless Ron Paul will adopt mathematically perfected economy as his platform, he too cannot represent the American People. But if he *or any of the other candidates* *would* do that, they *would* be the only candidate who could serve not only the American People, but perhaps the very most critical principle upon which world justice, sustainability and prosperity depend.
Of course, we do not have to endure monetary failure to see, or to do all that; and so it is hardly to our credit that we are not acting now to establish the one prescription comprising monetary justice for the sake of the world.