Immitators of our pages are advocating how to fight foreclosure. I’ve been telling people what they need to do at this time since before I published a formal proof of inherent failure under interest and proof of mathematically perfected economy™ in 1979.

What Americans have to do is contest the constitutionality of the currency. You need to assert that the imposed circulation can only impose the present conditions of failure upon us, and, that if a given private entity has such a right as to issue infinite irredeemable promises to pay, that as no private citizen/entity can have rights deprived to others, your creditors must therefore be bound at least to accept *your* irredeemable promise to pay infinity in solution of the monetary obligation which you have been coerced to accept.

Why?

Because the illegal and adverse form of the currency imposes multiplication of debt upon you; because multiplication of debt makes it ever more impossible, and eventually impossible, to service the debt; and because not even the federal government abides by its obligations to service the multiplying sum of debt.

According to a Telegraph.co.uk article by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, Germany and India have engaged in a vital, world leading position against commodities trading.

Why is this development vital and ground-breaking?

The article has diverse political entities responding to a doubling of oil prices over the past year:

The regrettable thing is that a principle is not recognized until “trading” results in millions starving until the food they produce fetches the required unearned profit from them, or artificial escalation of fuel prices drive us to the brink of bankruptcy.

The facts however are simple:

1. On the one hand, the world is subject to imposed monetary systems which multiply debt in proportion to possible means to service debt, so much as we are forced to maintain vital circulations by re-borrowing principal and interest obligations as an ever escalating sum of debt.
2. On the other hand, we have “commodities traders” finding the most extreme excesses of unearned profit imaginable, which from the finite profit reaped from anything, leaves all the less to be realized by those who deserve just profit from their work.

Rather than solve the problem by eradicating unearned profit, the cited Democrats are asking only to place hurdles in front of most extreme and broadly damaging cases. But if those are unjust, why not eliminate all the injustices by outlawing the crime afflicting us everywhere? Is the crime only a crime in the most extreme cases?

No. It is the same crime in every case. Is stealing not a crime if we do it once, but only if we do it 50 times over, or against everyone so much that we engender “economic” failure, or the starvation of millions?

It is important for us to understand in the present times that Franklin Roosevelt did not solve the causes of the First Great Depression.

The First Great Depression was precipitated on the heels of the 1929 stock market crash, which itself was brought about by loaning vast, ever greater sums into circulation for market speculation, and then, under the multiplication of debt in proportion to real value which this inflation engendered, one day determining that the speculators had exceeded the bounds of credit-worthiness.

The whole of the problems to which Roosevelt never even replied therefore (because he had no solution), are soluble: ostensible market values were artificially bloated by inflation, which itself was sustained only by multiplying artificial debt. Because the continual escalation of purported value was only sustained by continuous availability of short term credit, *the market could only fail when the Federal Reserve withdrew the availability of further credit*.

The facts of the matter then are that the private banks which comprise the so called Federal Reserve caused the First Great Depression; and that because the privatized currency can only multiply debt in proportion to a circulation, termination is inevitable under an eventual terminal sum of debt, whether the private banks prematurely determine they have destroyed credit-worthiness or not.

Roosevelt did not solve the underlying problems. He simply resurrected the failed system by restoring credit (overriding inherent destruction of credit-worthiness by the system) and by initiating programs which were sustained by introduction of circulation. He left the form of the privatized circulation intact; and therefore, he so much as initiated the second lifespan of the same system, to be concluded yet again when, to maintain a circulation, we have re-borrowed so much interest that the sum of debt once again exceeds us.

The American People may not really have a candidate unless the present campaign turns seriously toward representation.

Except for the questions of monetary irregularity raised by fringe campaigns which were granted little exposure by the media which owns America to preserve usury, the prevailing par of the Punch and Judy Show has heralded “winning,” “change,” or tacit further privatization, without even daring to venture such comprehensive substance as would prove a fundamental solution to monetary failure.

On a playing field where the winner will preside over the probability of further catastrophe, Obama supporters ask how their candidate can shed the inexperience label and whimsically liken his movement of undefined solution to a sailing vessel:

Americans are right — not to ask for experience, but to hold their representatives and candidates accountable for solution.

It can be observed truly that none but an incumbent can claim experience. But obviously, even so, experience is not even a merit, if it is not a record of producing the highest forms of solution; neither is one area of experience necessarily any basis whatever for success in any further area of service.

For experience to be a merit, still therefore requires that we link experience to the proposition of solution — which we can only know by the facts which make it so. As in any industry or discipline then, the only veritable demonstration of competence is to produce and demonstrate solution forthright.

Being that our people are as much as abandoned by both parties, and being an old sailor and student of campaigns in which candidates (Ronald Reagan for instance) advocated “change,” I would like for the potential benefit of the campaign and the people, to point out the underlying abstractions of vital goals which the campaign falls short of.

First however, let’s assess where we are: Obama is in a position of potential landslide strength, because of the lies, universal failures, very looting of our country into the ground, and prospective severe near term monetary failure at hand — with all of this to be perpetuated by the candidate of the other major party. Much as there is certain betrayal within the Republican party, there is a revolution there best represented by Ron Paul’s appeal to return to our country’s roots. What does the revolution want? It wants sane taxation, minimal government, justice, reasonable, reciprocal foreign policy, real solution.

Note please that these were principles which this form of government was devised both to embody and to preserve.

Although Democrats are labeled maliciously as “tax and spend,” “big government” advocates, *on the contrary, I myself for instance am for the contrary*; and yet appeal to this candidate because *I know* the other major candidate will not give us the things this country needs. But still, I believe that no citizen can really be for inefficient government, unjust taxation, an unjust monetary system which in fact inherently imposes collapse upon us, or any other matter/principle of cost to us — because anyone who understands these things realizes they are all against all of us.

Yet I’m seeing people in both Democrat and Republican forums advocate abandoning principles and precedents which we must preserve.

What is the danger of that? Is there no standard which we, the very public must adhere to? A public can never but by mere luck secure representation by abandoning its vital principles. We have paved the way for many problems to fester and multiply, because we have forgotten even that the seats of government, whoever reaches them, still represent responsibilities to represent all. We diverge as a people, because we are not even looking for solutions which represent all.

Intuitively, there are many of us who do attempt to maintain the standards of the vital original principles by correcting those of us who carelessly cast them away. But if not for that, we epitomize the detrimental labels which infer inefficient government, unjust/redundant taxation, and so forth, which play right into the hands of the negative politics of the other side even while that side condemns itself to the politics of fear and denigration, because it doesn’t have a program or principle, either.

So the little real distance between the opposing poles to now is reflected by practically twin sides, fallen into different cracks between self destructive standards.

Yet if there is a definable substance of change in the Obama movement, the corresponding movement on the other side was the Ron Paul movement, which despite its naivete in regard to monetary solution, was at least looking beyond the obviously flawed monetary policy which is failing us, and will fail us further. Where are Ron Paul’s abandoned numbers to go, but to the side which ultimately advocates solution?

To the preclusion of all good reason therefore, some Democrats advocate first getting their candidate elected, then counting on blind hope that he’ll implement real solution. What’s an example of that? How would we ever achieve representation by denying its substance to the election process? Don’t we only deny the *many* disenfranchised from supporting solution by doing so? Why should any of us have blind faith in “change,” when all campaigns should be about solution?

According to reports I’m receiving, there are a million homes in foreclosure and 12,000 homes going into foreclosure daily. Only a few months ago, it was 8,000 a day. Major banks across the world are now predicting catastrophic ramifications, not just for the U.S., and far beyond the scope of the so called sub-prime mortgage crisis. Vast other fragile areas of concern can hardly be unaffected. Shopping malls are empty. Infrastructures are wearing out. People are buying camping trailers to live in.

Reports I’ve received for many years tell me most people at least intuitively recognize the faults of the present, privatized monetary system, and hold it responsible for our greatest problems. During the first 7 years of the Reagan Administration, we plummeted from “the world’s greatest creditor nation” to its lowliest debtor, and have been falling ever since. Neither of course did Bill Clinton truly balance the budget, for there was no real increase in industry, tax rates or revenues, nor was there a reduction of federal expenses which substantiate such a claim.

So what’s the difference between the sides here, if neither are advocating solution?

To this very moment, both sides abandon the only principles which can sustain the country. Congress can *say* for instance that they have to pass FISA “because otherwise, we fall back to the faults of their earlier bill”; but then again, they’re at fault for that too, for compromising standards in the first place. If you want a quality country, you never, never, never debase the vital principles.

So I’m pointing to what really amounts to a vast void. There’s no substance to “a movement” *without a solution*.

What’s the solution for Obama regarding FISA?

As I wrote him yesterday, I see no reason why Congress cannot preserve the rights, privacy, and even the anonymity of a republic in its efforts to protect it. When you *engineer* something which works, you adhere at least to minimal principles; but when you engineer something that works *as well as possible* (which is the incontrovertible obligation of representation), you devise the ideal implementation of all relevant principles.

There’s a great difference between the two; and to the greatest extent of responsibility, Congress and the people of this country have settled even for *the perpetual* compromise of vital standards.

What would I have done if I were Obama? I wouldn’t care a flying leap what the people think or say; I’d *LEAD*; I’d vote no on any and every bill that compromised *any* principle, because a [truly] great country is not an infrastructure compromising itself into oblivion; a great country holds *in every case* to the most exemplary principles. Compromises make bad laws.

So I’d vote no on the first flaw I found; and a much greater country indeed we’d be if we held to that standard, because at least we would not make ourselves subjects of such a vast misbegotten conglomeration of pretended law or regulation.

What would the consequence of voting no on FISA be?

Bush has no respect for the law, and will do as he pleases. No thus means that while the same things *might* happen anyway under Bush (regardless of this purportedly necessary bill); we don’t have another bad law. We send the signal to Congress that they have to elevate their act; we send the signal to the people that *we understand that real unity and representation are ONLY based on principles which serve all of us*; and, when we become president, being the chief executive, law or no, we hold to those standards *even without* Congress meeting them with a regulation.

Then we’re a leader, aren’t we?

That’s a win on all fronts in my book. But it’s also *an example* of the only principle which can save us.

In sailing, the first boat to the weather mark takes the shortest course by tacking on headers and persisting course on lifts. There are exceptions to this as a general rule, particularly at the lay line; but still, even the exceptions are about what explicit principles get you to the weather mark first.

The campaign is said to be a campaign for unity. But it proves itself to be no such thing if it’s fledgling steps toward the starting block leave the boat in dirty air, compromise boat speed, and leave us to a worse starting position. The whole crew can see that; and they rightly wane in faith in the helmsman, seeing his errs compromise not just the position and prospects of the boat, but our real hope for representation.

Obama might claim to be a uniter; and you can trust that I would like to find that out; unity, by delivering solution, is the whole purpose for which I write. But particularly among such a fickle people, who themselves have so long lost the way, unity is not only going to be a matter of always, always, always adhering to the most supreme perception of principle; it is going to be a matter of conveying the involved principles and the engineering of solution to the people.

When your crew, the people, spy the header ahead, the helmsman must at least recognize which of his crew can read the wind if he’s going to win the race.

To jump and shout for mathematically perfected economy in the face of outlined causes of a catastrophic monetary failure ahead, and to not get a call, that to me is not a good sign. The starting watch is ticking down. This is the boat to defeat. But it isn’t even loading its gun if it isn’t absorbing the best prospects of principle and solution out there.

This isn’t just a boat race. It’s a gun fight in which only one thing should win — and that’s real solution. To just advocate change, to fail to detail solution at this point, is to call Bill Cody without a card in your hand, then face him in the street with your underwear around your ankles, no gun, and no bullet.

The winds are constantly changing. You tack or you stay with the lift. You look every moment for boat speed. You hear the guy on your boat who can read the wind. Your crew is made to hold the same standards you must, because first, only when the whole crew is on the same page, *should* you win; and because secondly, to *choose* to do anything less therefore is to choose to risk losing.

For a campaign which can serve our country at this dire time particularly, the issue is to be the best; and the one thing which decides the best is solution.

When you’re in a position of potential landslide strength, and if even as you fall to a poor position at the start you continue to advocate only just doing something different than what was done before… you fail to convince us you have the first principle of success. The captain of the winning boat *is the captain* because his skill is not only recognizing the principles which will prevail, but directly weaving them into *certain* solution.

In a political contest ostensibly for representation, the candidate we need is the candidate who can prove solution. It’s far too deep into the race to be advocating merely that we’ll need to change course. What course? Why? How? Those are the things we have to know.

Stand up, Obama. And give us real solutions. They’re right under your nose. We’re trying to give them to you; and you’ll lead us only if you can recognize who can read the wind.

All three major religions drawing from the Old Testament, renounce unearned gain. Yet at the hand of a monetary system which itself purposely devalues the currency for unearned gain, many of us are at least defensively driven to a perpetual battle competing for unearned profit at cost to all the rest, even as in the end, only the monetary system can profit when the music ultimately stops.

All the while, perpetual devaluation of the currency through perpetual multiplication of debt will not only ultimately stop the music, but, for the subjects of the system, will reduce the prospects, both of earned and unearned profit, eventually to nil. Thus in the monetary obligations which are left, the usurpers of the authority to publish a virtually costless “money” subject to “interest,” make themselves the collectors of all the chips which must be forfeited to them when we cave in under the perpetual escalation of their unearned takings.

So, we are driven to this battle for unearned gain, even by the fatality of it.

This morning, Mario Sikorski sent a post which well projects from current trends what many correspondents have been telling us for decades. We should know these things of course, because inherent multiplication of debt by interest can only engender the wild vacillation we are about to see described as if it is a mundane and even advantageous process. But why should we know the adverse consequences of all these forms of unearned taking? Because interest-bearing monetary systems inherently and irreversibly multiply debt in proportion to a circulation. Their maximum practical lifespans therefore are readily projected by accumulating the interest we must re-borrow into circulation to maintain a circulation, until we find the day when the sum of debt they inevitably multiply exceeds the very possibility of sustaining the commerce which is obligated to further service it. So, the death throes actually and accurately described by the following post are foreseeable.

In the end, the whole point of drawing a perception of these simple process together however, is to understand that any practical/intrinsic rate of interest multiplies debt into a terminal sum of insoluble debt. From this, we understand that no practical rate of interest is exempt from producing termination, because in the least, the very intention of imposing such systems is to impose such rates of interest as inherently multiply debt in proportion to the circulation. This is the intended vehicle of unearned profit, and whole raison de etre of every such system. And so we understand ultimately that for all the subjects of the system, unearned taking is ultimately self defeating, because to engage in it versus eradicate it is to perpetually fail to address a problem which will defeat all the combatants but the usurer of the circulation. The only way to solve the problem which will defeat all of us therefore, is to eradicate not only interest, but any other manifestation of unearned gain — any and all forms of which defeat the very idea of just reward for actual production of wealth.

While the following post of course is exemplary regarding the potential determinability of this kind of projection, it even matters not whether its figures are accurate. What matters is the cycle of strife and cost it well and succinctly depicts, because every ostensible gain is in fact balanced by the very loss the information only hopes to avoid. Yes, it can succeed in a relative sense to what losses are imposed upon the whole subject system. But it can succeed only to a relative, diminishing degree of suffering less of the overall loss; and only so long as the outer system has not finally destroyed the *practical* value of the intended vehicle. Some day soon enough for instance, leaving the outer process to prevail over all such unproductive, eventually futile defensive efforts, an ounce of gold may not be “worth” a tomato, or half-ounce of lead. So, it is the very inconsistencies and instability of the underlying usury system which engender all the resultant and otherwise redundant study, activity, competition, and perpetual unaccounted re-evaluation of all things… all to the ultimately self destructive process of never ending all this waste and self destruction, by instead asserting solution:

How self destructive is it for us to focus on out-competing a system which itself can only extinguish all competitors?

The answer to that question is not so difficult as you might imagine, because, as its destruction is self escalating, *how long we allow it to afflict us* determines the degree to which we shall suffer further.

In the tunnel vision which is dedicated only to cannibalism, for the ever more temporary sake of ever fewer, we only escalate the end. Before you know it, gold bugs are insisting we return to the gold standard, hoping to “make” a fortune; or “investors” in nuclear technology are arguing against clean solar or wind implementations, not on the real overall merits of either, but on costs established by temporary and artificial conditions which make the right choices impossible only because the undesirable choices serve the few who will so ambitiously undermine representation to preserve their unearned taking.

If we mature beyond this such self destructive short-sightedness, it will only be because we finally realize that all unearned taking is destructive to earnings. All unearned taking disposes us not to solution, but to self destruction.

If we ever allow ourselves to deliver monetary justice, then alone will truly free markets determine a fitting value of gold. Then alone too would we have long ago embarked on the course of energy independence which yes, would have avoided wars fought on the unnecessary behalf of big oil. Only under monetary independence, free of unearned taking, do we restore to ourselves even the option of making the right decisions, because then alone are those decisions determined by natural, relevant factors, versus who particularly is satisfied with their conduit of unearned take.

So a caveat should be reserved against the last assertion. What if “recovery” involves processes which are sufficiently deterred or delayed, that the survival of the vehicle is impossible?

That question however is far too narrow, because it is necessary for us to preserve so many further things to even sustain ourselves; and because even all the vehicles at our disposal have no power to sustain even minimal industry against a monetary system which inherently culminates in systemic bankruptcy.

The oddest thing about this question however is that the respondent will usually say, “But gold cannot be destroyed.”

Ay, it can’t. But so many other things can; and still, only a just monetary system can preserve a reasonable value of gold, by preserving a reasonable value of all other things, so that value of gold can itself be preserved.

In his FortBendNow article, “Paul Calls For Hearings On Falling Dollar’s Impact On Oil,” John Pape sustains our cause by reporting that “In the face of $4 per gallon gasoline and predictions the price will rise to $7 by the end of summer, Congressman Ron Paul (R-Lake Jackson) is calling on Congress to explore how the weakened value of the dollar may be contributing to the rise in oil prices.”

To his credit of course, Mr. Paul is nearly a lone congressional voice against the escalating foul play of our day. I agree with Congressman Paul, who according to Pape says that, “Congress should be examining *all* factors contributing to the high cost of oil, and monetary policy is one of the key factors in the run-up in price.” I would hope even to testify at such a hearing, not just regarding monetary policy, but to provide the theoretical background by which we can understand further vital factors, such as so called commodities trading, explicitly because, given that we can perfect monetary policy so that the monetary system itself will not drive up prices or devalue the currency, the vast potential unearned profits of trading for instance have the potential as well to inflict artificial damages even exceeding a captive market’s resilience.

If we’re to have such hearings then, are they merely to inadvertently pick the alternate poison, merely for not even considering it?

What we really need to do today is decide the principles on which we can sustain all the prosperity we are capable of; and the people should be fully educated and involved in that process. A public mandate exists already, not to be cast to a different wolf by default; but to eradicate unearned profit so that decent, respectable work can be rewarded to the extent it deserves.

In the interests of that need, although we do need both to hold these hearings and host the full breadth of relevant issues, we need too to recognize that if we project from the last 100 years the rate at which Congress has progressed toward mastering the breadth of related issues… it may be that the principal reason to hold those hearings is to prove the incompetence and disservice of Congress to follow the original course prescribed by the Declaration of Independence.

But so indeed, let’s get that done as well.