The Ron Paul Dilemma

It is stuff like this that gives Ron Paul so many young supporters.

It is convenient to believe that marijuana draws the young to Ron Paul. However, the unjust wars of the United States has much more resonance.

The strange thing is that Ron Paul can say something as sensible as this while still attracting a large following from the internet tin foil hat crowd who believe George Bush orchestrated 9/11. I suppose that is because of his anti-government paranoia.

The fact that so many 9/11 conspiracy hacks were old right-wingers has always given credence to the idea that the entire “9/11 Truth” movement is an arm of the Republican Party. With their complete misapplication and ignorance of American history, not to mention their completely wack-a-doodle view of the world, they discredit any meaningful criticism of the imperial wars of the United States.

And that is the Ron Paul dilemma. He will say something as safe and sensible as this for a national audience, then later he will give a nod to the internet conspiracy community with his attacks on the Fed and international banking. Do not be surprised if that is why the Republican Party keeps him around. Because him and his followers are considered clinically insane by thinking Americans, his criticism of the wars are easily disregarded by the public at large.

I believe the final word has yet to be written as to the real role of the 9/11 Truth movement in killing the nascent anti-war protests that developed at the start of our invasion of Iraq. Ron Paul might be the Rosetta stone for this final word.


12 responses to “The Ron Paul Dilemma

  1. sir,one day you will waqkew up and say “holy shit!!! why was i such an asshole all my life?”

  2. No, seriously sir, do you truly feel that ANY of the other candidates will make ANY difference at all? They don’t even have a real concrete plan to do ANYTHING specific at all!! Even if they did could you actually believe them given their track record? So say what you will about Dr. Paul but at least he is true to his convictions because his voting record proves that and he actually has a plan to bring this country to what it once used to be!

    • I do not disagree that his convictions are real. As far as having a plan to turn this country back what it used to be, does that mean a country where states are allowed to segregate and/or enslave people at will? Or does it mean a country without electricity, water or infrastructure?

      No, all the candidates stink, including Ron Paul. Hopefully that makes you feel a little better.

      • No, it means a country where the federal government stays the hell out of our personal lives and stops raping us of all our hard earned dollars! I guess you think the constitution should be burned? For your information we are being enslaved by the federal government sir. I cannot spend my hard earned money the way I want to! I have to give 35% if it or more to the federal government so they can give it to some dictator 3 thousand miles away! Or give it to some corporation so that corporation can turn around and rape me some more! A foolish man is a man who never learns from his mistakes. We have been doing the same things for decades now and it isn’t working! Ron Paul is the only candidate that is for real change, good or bad its something different and it deserves to be given a chance! If we had listened to him years ago when he predicted this maybe we wouldn’t be in the mess we are in now! I for one along with many others won’t be fooled again!!

  3. Steve,

    I don’t disagree with everything you say. The fact that our taxes are going to prop up dictators abroad and failed corporations at home is sickening. On that much, we can agree.

    On the other hand, I don’t see that the answer is to get rid of taxes altogether. If the people can stick together through grassroots organizing that begins OUTSIDE of the political system, then the people can take the government back. That’s not likely to happen, just as unlikely as a Ron Paul election.

    It is a matter of making government responsive to the will of the people, not in making government irrelevant.

    As far as the federal government staying out of the lives of people, that has never happened. When you have the time, check out my sarcastic post entitled American History According to Ron Paul, Sort Of:

    It is a fiction to believe that the federal government was irrelevant or that the Constitution was designed to be irrelevant. Two Founding Father presidents created two separate central banks that paid down debts from imperialist wars and the building of infrastructure.

    The federal government is certainly larger now than ever, but so are state governments. At no point were either of them irrelevant and they were never designed to be so.

  4. I take my hat off (if I were wearing one) to any person who can watch WTC7 fall and NOT have questions about 9-11. Seriously, I’m jealous. But that just goes along with the rest of your position. Maybe you’re the best economist in the world, have studied both Austrian and Keynesian economics as well Chicago school and decided that Keynesian was the bomb and the FED is run by a group of well-meaning and civic-minded bankers. It’s more likely that you’ve put your faith in someone you see as trustworthy – your “high priest” so to speak. And the kicker, the funniest damn thing about your whole post here, is I’ll bet you think you’re open minded.

    See, I’m open minded about some things and not others. But I can generally detect which camp I’m in on a given subject. I watch Bldg 7 fall, and I say – huh, well isn’t that odd? But not you. And when there’s something that doesn’t fit into your world view, like foreign policy, well then you’ll entertain doubt about the leaders of your government.

    I have a big blind-spot when it comes to freedom. I believe that freedom is better than slavery. I have a pretty closed mind on that subject, too.

    Your question regarding the 9-11 movement and the “nascent” Anti-war sentiment is beyond ridiculous.( Btw, the war’s been going on for 10 years now, what is the freaking gestation period on that anti-war thing, anyway?) The question is ridiculous because neither are dependent on a man. Ron Paul is the loudest, most credible ant-war voice in the Presidential race. But it is the message that attracts people to the man, not the man to the message. Wake up, my friend.

    I’d like you to stop and define open-minded and close-minded. Then try those shoes on, and see which fits.

    • Right.

      Let’s put it this way: I’ve been on the internet having the 9/11 discussion for years with literally hundreds of people from hundreds of perspectives. Loose Change, Zeitgeist, Freedom to Fascism, Alex Jones, you name it. I’ve seen it all, heard it all and spilled literally thousands of words on the issue. I know you guys like to think you’re “open-minded” and accuse those that disagree with you of being “sheep”. I finally realized it is a garbage discussion. Go and chase chem trails and melted steel all you want. I prefer not be led into blind alleys to some fantasy world from people who haven’t bothered to read a single page of American history and who lack the perspective to see that they’re being duped by the same media machine that you claim duped the rest of the country.

      I don’t know where you get that I said the anti-war movement was dependent on a “man”. I said the 9/11 Truth movement, which is a bunch of men and women, was there to siphon off people from the anti-war movement that developed circa 2003-2004, when the war began. While over 300,000 pacifists marched on Washington, you lot were on the internet watching Alex Jones clips and trolling the internet looking for people to call “sheep”.

      Ron Paul is a symbol of this, not its cause. The anti-war movement is greater than Ron Paul and always has been.

      • I probably read too much into your last paragraph, the Rosetta stone being requisite to the translation process, and Ron Paul being the Rosetta stone… ergo bad logical leap on my part.

        And are you accusing me of not reading a single page of American History, or am I being overly sensitive? My question to you regarding American history would be: Have you read any “revisionist history” or is that too “conspiracy theory” for you. I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but it sure seems like orthodoxy is your guiding light. With the lone exception of the Anti-War movement. There you seem to entertain doubt.

        And how are the 9-11 “truther” movement and the Anti-war movement mutually exclusive? Am I again reading too much into “…siphon off people from the anti-war movement…”? Whereas it would seem to me that everyone who is a 9-11 “truther” is, by the very nature of doubting the stated necessity for the wars, anti-war.

        Is “truther” any more or less derogatory than “sheep”? Just asking.

        And, not that it will matter to you, as you’ve already pigeon-holed me, but I don’t know what happened on 9-11. What I do believe is that government “officials” lie. And if there were ever an incident that occasioned a resulting lie by a government official, it would be the tragedy of 9/11.

        And you didn’t answer my implied question -so I’ll ask it straight out – Do you think you are “open minded”?

        BTW We agree that the anti-war movement is greater than 1 person, and that is important.

      • a) Yes, I’m glad we understand each other now on the Rosetta stone thing.

        b) No, I am not accusing you of not reading a single page of American history. The people I have had experience with on the whole libertarian thing by and large seem to not know history, however. I do not know what “orthodoxy” is. Peer reviewed. heavily sourced, properly cited and scholarly history is preferable to some guy spouting half-digested historcal interpretation. History is an art and historians each interpret things in their own way. Yes, included in that is a healthy bit of revisionist history. It is a necessary and vital field of the discipline.

        c) Well, the 9/11 Truth and the anti-war movement are certainly not mutually exclusive. However, the anti-war movement was much more mainstream and centered on ideas of pacifism, social justice and civil rights that truthers plain ignored. While the anti-war movement concentrated on how 9/11 was used as an excuse to flatten Iraq, truthers took the further leap of saying that 9/11 was a conspiracy from the start and orchestrated by a dark cabal of elitists. The hundreds of thousands that marched on Washington at the start of the Iraq War were not accusing Bush of being part of the Illuminati and kept their criticisms centered around liberal ideas. The Truthers really were obsessed with uncovering the “truth” behind 9/11, not with influencing the government to pull out of Iraq. That is what I mean by Truthers siphoning off anti-war protestors. Instead of petitioning the government to pull out of the Middle East, the Truthers were chasing melted steel. One is a worthy exercise in citizenship. The other is a blind alley.

        d) I do not think “Truther” is derogatory at all, since I have seen Truthers refer to themselves as such. Would a sheep do the same? Seems like sheep do not know they are sheep.

        e) Well, have you read “The Looming Tower”? It is a great account on 9/11 and Al Qaeda. If not, I would strongly encourage you to check it out and see what you think.

        f) I do not know if I consider myself open-minded. We all have our biases and many of them we are not aware of. I do know that I have a strong background in history and have read literally thousands of history books and designed history curricula from scatch. When I see a new piece of evidence or interpretation that challenges my previous views, I give it weight. I actually go out of my way to expose myself to things that challenge my assumptions. Sometimes I am swayed, sometimes I am not.

        g) Good. We agree on something. Something tells me we agree on much more than this discussion leads on.

  5. B) Well, I’m glad, because I’ve read a couple of pages of history. And when I say “orthodoxy” I mean the generally accepted teachings on a subject. Many people cling to orthodoxy and discard anything else as heresy. Your example of the Federal Reserve smacked (to me, at least) of one such example.

    I’m sure that’s one of my (many) problems, that I entertain doubts on what most would consider to be settled subjects. The earth probably does revolve around the sun, but for all I know, it really could be that “it’s turtles all the way down!” [1]

    I’m cursed by Frank Herbert’s observation that “Ultimately everything is known because we want to believe we know it.”

    C) It’s my opinion that 9/11 ‘Trutherism’ is a ‘gateway drug’ of political activism. Until the events and cover-up (we can agree on that, yes?) of 9/11 I didn’t realize that I had a dog in this fight. I thought, to mangle Miss Noami Wolf’s words “that this democracy was limping along, but still ‘the best in the world'” 9/11 trutherism woke me to the fact that there are powerful forces in this world. But if the ranks of the Anti-war left have diminished, it seems very unlikely that they fled for the warm embrace of 9/11 trutherism.

    D) Fair enough, but again I quote the accursed Mr. Herbert; “Think you of the fact that a deaf person cannot hear. Then, what deafness may we not all possess? What senses do we lack that we cannot see and cannot hear another world all around us?” If I am a sheep, would I know it? [2]

    E) I’ve not read “The Looming Tower”, but will keep alert for it.

    F) Having studied history, you must surely have an opinion on the truism attributed to Churchill that “history is written by the victors”?

    G) Indeed. I say this now, and IMHO it doesn’t matter much if it’s true or not. What matters is that I believe it to be true: If the general election rolls around and RP is not a possible choice and (probably better than RP) Gary Johnson is not available – I would, without hesitation, vote for Ralph Nader for President as the Lesser of the Goods available. (I’d truthfully have an easier time voting for Russ Feingold, but he won’t be an option) Let’s end the current wars and stop the impending one (Iran) and we can argue later about the best way to pave a road or educate a child.

    I have to introduce a new point so I can sum this thing up. Of course Ron Paul attracts truthers. Of course he attracts Storm-front. Of course he attracts every “fringe” and detestable element out there. Hell, he preaches individuality and the validity of an individuals opinion. Where else are they going to go?

    If that is unacceptable, if conformity is your goal, yeah Ron Paul is not now nor will ever be your guy. But right now, he’s the loudest and best-known credible anti-war voice for President

    And if the only goal you have that is shared with RP is that of ending the wars, we’ll have to figure something else out because people like me – who believe that “crap” that RP spews about individual liberty AND personal responsibility – are attached to the guy delivering the loudest ANTI-WAR message out there.

    And I just thought that maybe your point is that doubt of government is a bad thing, and while you can protest the war you can still love and believe in the government. (ew… I feel dirty for just having typed that. I’m going to wash my hands)

    Sorry about the footnote, but I felt this reply had a sort-of ‘flow’ to it and didn’t want to interrupt it.
    [1] While this is not exactly the point Hawking was trying to make, it still works for me in its comical and ‘folksy’ logic.
    [2] I don’t really curse Frank Herbert. I think he was a genius, and many aspects of his books are beyond my poor abilities at comprehension. There are, however, some things that he wrote that I did understand and that have stuck – and stuck well.

    And also sorry about the book. It started where it started and ended here. It’s just the way it sometimes goes, I guess.

    Peace PD

  6. Pingback: Racism, Racism Everywhere | Assailed Teacher

Assail me some more by leaving a comment:

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s