Fuck Ron Paul

[slomo]

A good Greenwald article on the subject:

http://www.salon.com/2011/12/31/progres ... fallacies/

As Matt Stoller argued in a genuinely brilliant essay on the history of progressivism and the Democratic Party which I cannot recommend highly enough: “the anger [Paul] inspires comes not from his positions, but from the tensions that modern American liberals bear within their own worldview.” Ron Paul’s candidacy is a mirror held up in front of the face of America’s Democratic Party and its progressive wing, and the image that is reflected is an ugly one; more to the point, it’s one they do not want to see because it so violently conflicts with their desired self-perception.

(Boldface in original article.)

[Searcher08]

.

Watch out if enough Republicans in the South realize that Paul's philosophy is amenable to the establishment of a modern Confederacy.

I'm used to the system being what it is, but I've been having a really visceral disgust today at a political environment so utterly degenerate, so comically fixed, that the only "candidate" who ostensibly opposes imperialism and the drug war (as if he'd really manage to end either) happens also to be the one who would restore legal child labor, return to 19th century economics, rob people of their hard-earned Social Security and Medicare, and bring us back to the happy day when the stifling tyranny against minorities, gays and atheists was local and constitutional -- not federal, goddamn it! How are things so wrong and fucked, that this is supposed to be a choice?

.

I understand your sentiments and I agree. Choosing one imperfection, or lesser evil, is settling for imperfection or lesser evil.

But there is no perfection and there will always be evil so in my opinion choices have to be made for the greater good.

Abolishing money lending for interest (usury) would solve the greatest woes humanity endures. Conservatively speaking 75% of human suffering could vanish were it not for lending money at interest. If this practice could be abolished it would leave humanity free to earnestly work on the other 25% of the woes of humanity. Considering the technology that can be brought to bare on the remaining 25% humanity could live a very decent life.

Ending the war on drugs.

Ending the wars of usury.

Paul could never accomplish these feats because lenders would simply blow his head off with a bullet, exactly as Lincoln, Kennedy, etc...

Paul has his drawbacks but the anti-Pauls are more dangerous to humanity than Paul will ever be.

Usury needs racism, and racism needs usury. They live together in the same house like cockroaches. It is entirely possible that if usury were to disappear that racism would diminish to a degree that it would become miniscule, because due to the technology humanity has created every person on this earth could live well regardless of their race. Without usury different races and tribes would not be provoked into hating each other to the degree that they are now.

Its a thought...

How else would things get financed, if not for the borrowing of money? Seriously. If you needed money to start a business, what are you supposed to do, save up your entire life, until you're 80 years old, to maybe get the money to start it?

Ridiculous. Lending money at interest isn't the root of all evil, the act of it in itself is utterly without goodness or evil, it's just a transaction. Like having electricity supplied to your house.

The trouble is, the complete non-regulation and the corruption of this business. Lending money needs to be EXACTLY like having electricity supplied to your house, in other words a public utility, regulated thusly.

If you go down the route of money as debt, you are fvcked from the onset. This is from a systemic point of view, not a psychological one. The system that will grow from it will match one of accumulation and centralisation of resources. This is what is currently happening. It is a financial structure like a venus fly-trap - one direction only.

[slomo]

If you go down the route of money as debt, you are fvcked from the onset. This is from a systemic point of view, not a psychological one. The system that will grow from it will match one of accumulation and centralisation of resources. This is what is currently happening. It is a financial structure like a venus fly-trap - one direction only.

That is demonstrably true mathematically, as the positive feedback loops in any sufficiently complex mathematical representation of such a system lead to attractor nodes to which all resources flow. The only way to achieve the opposite result - uniform distribution of resources across all nodes - is to induce negative feedback loops, which would look something like anti-debt.

[Searcher08]

A good Greenwald article on the subject:

http://www.salon.com/2011/12/31/progres ... fallacies/

As Matt Stoller argued in a genuinely brilliant essay on the history of progressivism and the Democratic Party which I cannot recommend highly enough: “the anger [Paul] inspires comes not from his positions, but from the tensions that modern American liberals bear within their own worldview.” Ron Paul’s candidacy is a mirror held up in front of the face of America’s Democratic Party and its progressive wing, and the image that is reflected is an ugly one; more to the point, it’s one they do not want to see because it so violently conflicts with their desired self-perception.

(Boldface in original article.)

Thank you for that, Slomo



There is an excellent Young Turks video with similar themes
WARNING THIS VIDEO HAS NEWT GINGRICH ON A PORTION OF IT
(Jesus, Newt gives me the CREEPS)

[ninakat]

.

Watch out if enough Republicans in the South realize that Paul's philosophy is amenable to the establishment of a modern Confederacy.

I'm used to the system being what it is, but I've been having a really visceral disgust today at a political environment so utterly degenerate, so comically fixed, that the only "candidate" who ostensibly opposes imperialism and the drug war (as if he'd really manage to end either) happens also to be the one who would restore legal child labor, return to 19th century economics, rob people of their hard-earned Social Security and Medicare, and bring us back to the happy day when the stifling tyranny against minorities, gays and atheists was local and constitutional -- not federal, goddamn it! How are things so wrong and fucked, that this is supposed to be a choice?

.

Exactly. Well put. Thanks Jack.

[Nordic]

Usury is a problem but the bigger problem is the creation of money by private parties. When a society does not have control over the creation of its money most of society suffers and that is actually a bigger problem than usury.

For once we're in agreement on something.

Yes, the creation of money by private parties is just insane. Nobody should be given that power. It WILL be abused. Hell, I wish I had a way to make money out of thin air right now, I'd sure as hell take advantage of it. I'd throw a pretty damn good party.

How else would things get financed, if not for the borrowing of money? Seriously. If you needed money to start a business, what are you supposed to do, save up your entire life, until you're 80 years old, to maybe get the money to start it?

Well, that is sort of the point isn't it? If it were not for usury people could save the fruits of their labor and retire long before they were 80 and have all they needed to live comfortably. We don't live in the stone age. We have machines that can do the work of hundreds of thousands of humans. Hundreds of millions of people could sit on their ass, never contribute to society, and society as a whole would still have all it needed to live very comfortably. We don't have a scarcity problem, we have a greed problem, and that is the crux of my point.

But .... we HAVE those machines because somebody borrowed a LOT of money to develop them, produce them, build the factories to make them, etc. etc.. etc.

I have friends who started successful businesses and never would have been able to do so unless they could take out loans to finance them. It really is what fuels the system. And there's nothing wrong with that in and of itself.

But when debt is used to create money then things start getting just plain weird and upside down and ass-backwards.

[Searcher08]

.

Watch out if enough Republicans in the South realize that Paul's philosophy is amenable to the establishment of a modern Confederacy.

I'm used to the system being what it is, but I've been having a really visceral disgust today at a political environment so utterly degenerate, so comically fixed, that the only "candidate" who ostensibly opposes imperialism and the drug war (as if he'd really manage to end either) happens also to be the one who would restore legal child labor, return to 19th century economics, rob people of their hard-earned Social Security and Medicare, and bring us back to the happy day when the stifling tyranny against minorities, gays and atheists was local and constitutional -- not federal, goddamn it! How are things so wrong and fucked, that this is supposed to be a choice?

.

Exactly. Well put. Thanks Jack.

I think Greenwald nails it -

Yes, I’m willing to continue to have Muslim children slaughtered by covert drones and cluster bombs, and America’s minorities imprisoned by the hundreds of thousands for no good reason, and the CIA able to run rampant with no checks or transparency, and privacy eroded further by the unchecked Surveillance State, and American citizens targeted by the President for assassination with no due process, and whistleblowers threatened with life imprisonment for “espionage,” and the Fed able to dole out trillions to bankers in secret, and a substantially higher risk of war with Iran (fought by the U.S. or by Israel with U.S. support) in exchange for less severe cuts to Social Security, Medicare and other entitlement programs, the preservation of the Education and Energy Departments, more stringent environmental regulations, broader health care coverage, defense of reproductive rights for women, stronger enforcement of civil rights for America’s minorities, a President with no associations with racist views in a newsletter, and a more progressive Supreme Court.

Without my adopting it, that is at least an honest, candid, and rational way to defend one’s choice. It is the classic lesser-of-two-evils rationale, the key being that it explicitly recognizes that both sides are “evil”: meaning it is not a Good v. Evil contest but a More Evil v. Less Evil contest. But that is not the discussion that takes place because few progressives want to acknowledge that the candidate they are supporting — again — is someone who will continue to do these evil things with their blessing. Instead, we hear only a dishonest one-sided argument that emphasizes Paul’s evils while ignoring Obama’s (progressives frequently ask: how can any progressive consider an anti-choice candidate but don’t ask themselves: how can any progressive support a child-killing, secrecy-obsessed, whistleblower-persecuting Drug Warrior?).

[Sounder]

Thanks to Glenn Greenwald for his rational stance amid this sea of ideology generated diversionary blather.

And who knows perhaps recognition of a mutual need to avoid total breakdown might even expose the (dimwit) distributers of deep well social fracking chemicals as being the no morals, corrupting and divisive folk that they truly are

(progressives frequently ask: how can any progressive consider an anti-choice candidate but don’t ask themselves: how can any progressive support a child-killing, secrecy-obsessed, whistleblower-persecuting Drug Warrior?).

[wordspeak2]

Greenwald is a diamond in the rough.

[slomo]

This "serious" thread may not be the place for it, but I found this ... illuminating:

http://secretsun.blogspot.com/2012/01/r ... -rite.html

[Bruce Dazzling]

So not only do we have acknowledged secret society initiate Ron Paul announcing on what is essentially a Masonic holy day, it's during an ultra-rare planetary alignment and takes place literally across the street from a Masonic Lodge. If that isn't meaningful to you, you're reading the wrong blog.

I do love Christopher Knowles.

[wordspeak2]

Does anyone know what secret society he acknowledged having belonged to?

[ninakat]

That was fascinating and revealing. Thanks slomo.

But this is not about "race hate" for Paul. That's for the help. This is about dismantling the Federal system-- finishing the work begun in the Civil War-- and returning to the Feudal system that ruled the South since colonial times. The way things should be.

[slomo]

Does anyone know what secret society he acknowledged having belonged to?

No. According to Christopher Knowles, he denies being a Freemason, but not necessarily any other kind of Mason.

[eyeno]

Does anyone know what secret society he acknowledged having belonged to?

No. According to Christopher Knowles, he denies being a Freemason, but not necessarily any other kind of Mason.

I took Christopher Knowles to plainly state that Paul was a member of Lambda Chi, a Masonic Fraternity. While not being technically a FreeMason I took Christopher to be saying that denying being a "Freemason" was Paul's way of cheating and denying all Masonic affiliation. And he also spoke of the difference between "Mason" and "Freemason" and he stated that "Freemason" was the lesser brother of "Mason".

I have no idea if Christopher is accurate but the above is what I took from what he wrote.