Fuck Ron Paul

[harflimon]

.

[monster]

So Government, a historically corrupt institution, is how we should come together?

Exactly. That's why I don't understand the desire for socialized medicine. Has the government ever not fucked something up? Giving government control of health care is insane. We should change the system, but find an option other than this.

Full blown socialism sucks. Localization is the key. Decentralize and let the local levels provide social programs how the locals need it.

Yep. Well said.

[11:11]

LOL. The macro is in the micro.

Srew the control freaks. Choose freedom.

[John E. Nemo]

What a great thread.
This is truly RI at its' finest and you should all pat yourselves on the back.

Sorry I haven't been able to join in until now, but I've been on a working vacation, writing articles for a new mag that's coming out.
It's a conspiracy mag coming from a Libertarian/Anarcho-Capitalist viewpoint.
As the lone "lefty anarcho/syndicalist" writing for it, I disagree with most of the views expressed by the writers, but rather than than "curse their darkness", I prefer to "light my own candle".

Even though the other writers, myself, and the editors, all have vastly different opinions of things, but we focus on what we see as the most important events unfolding in American today.
Namely...

The Rise of the Fascist Police State
How the Federal Reserve has reduced us all to Serfdom
The Complete Uselessness of BOTH Political Parties

I equate our political system now to a wrestling match.
People cheer the "good guy" (Dems) and boo the bad guys (Reps) and get all caught up in the "struggle".
But, backstage, the whole thing is rigged and so-called "enemies" are actually very close friends and business partners who are laughing all the way to the bank.

My take on Ron Paul is simply this:
Ron Paul is useful as a protest vote, but I would NEVER want him as President.
He is waking Reps up to things they haven't been paying attention to, such as the Federal Reserve and War on Terror scams.

The problem with the right/left paradigm is that they see many of the same problems, but their solution to it is...

(Right) - Laissez-faire, i.e. Let the market, not the govt., be our "saviour".
This leads to child slavery, company stores, environmental devastation, etc.

(Left) - Intervention, i.e. Let the govt., not the market, be our "saviour".
This leads to police states, Palmer Raids, dehumanized bureaucracy, loss of individual rights, etc.

In the short term, we must ALL fight REAL ID, Rex 84, Patriot Acts, The Federal Reserve, State Sponsored Terror programs like 9/11, etc. or we're all gonna end up in FEMA camps, each of us blaming our political opposite for their plight.

In the long term the solution is.....I dunno ......radicalling altering human nature, via brainwashing, so that we're not such selfish, uncaring fuckers all the time?

[11:11]

In the short term, we must ALL fight REAL ID, Rex 84, Patriot Acts, The Federal Reserve, State Sponsored Terror programs like 9/11, etc. or we're all gonna end up in FEMA camps, each of us blaming our political opposite for their plight.

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
February 9, 2005

HR 418- A National ID Bill Masquerading as Immigration Reform

Mr. Speaker:

I rise in strong opposition to HR 418, the REAL ID Act. This bill purports to make us safer from terrorists who may sneak into the United States, and from other illegal immigrants. While I agree that these issues are of vital importance, this bill will do very little to make us more secure. It will not address our real vulnerabilities. It will, however, make us much less free. In reality, this bill is a Trojan horse. It pretends to offer desperately needed border control in order to stampede Americans into sacrificing what is uniquely American: our constitutionally protected liberty.

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congr ... 020905.htm

"In a Ron Paul administration, we would also repeal the Patriot Act and the Military Commissions Act, restore habeas corpus and stop the spying on Americans. No more eavesdropping on our emails and bank accounts, our phone calls, home and businesses. No national ID — just the bracing freedom of the Constitution.

"We must have sound money, and not a giant counterfeiting machine called the Federal Reserve that causes recessions and inflation. We must have private property rights, with no pollution or other attacks on property. We should enforce the Second Amendment, and all the Bill of Rights. We can have privacy for us, not secrecy for a corrupt bureaucracy.

"It is all within our grasp, the restoration of the republic and our sovereignty — no UN, no North American Union, no Nafta, no WTO, no World Bank, no IMF. Just federalism, free enterprise, peace, prosperity, and the kind of future we all want for our families, ourselves, and our fellow Americans."

http://ronpaul2008.typepad.com/ron_paul ... om--2.html

Brief Overview of Congressman Paul’s Record:

He has never voted to raise taxes.
He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
He has never taken a government-paid junket.
He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.

He voted against the Patriot Act.
He voted against regulating the Internet.
He voted against the Iraq war.

He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.

[John E. Nemo]

^ All of which is why he's the ONLY Republican that I wouldn't like to see shipped to Gitmo.

I'm just saying that I like him in Congress, but not so much the White House.
His Libertarian policies would be used against him and the American people, just like Carter, Reagan, Bush and Clinton used the Libertarian policies of "laissez-faire", "free trade" and deregulation against us all.

I feel the same way about Jerry Brown and Dennis Kucinich (both of whom I campaigned for.)

I find myself becoming more and more disillusioned with everyone in politics, particularly now that Cynthia McKinney is out of the picture.

I started out as an anarchist/syndicalist and believed that politicians were all liars and crooks.
Then I decided to try and get involved and change the system.
Now I'm back to where I started and more p*ssed off than ever.

The political "gang" The Motherf*ckers had it right when they said that "if voting could really change the system, they'd make it illegal."

You wanna change the system, try "monkeywrenching" it.
Or, better yet, make some better personal choices.

For instance....I'm gonna turn 40 soon and I've NEVER owned a car and never will.
I ride bike everywhere and (gently) encourage others to do the same.
The oil companies have gotten very little money out of this guy and I sleep with a clear conscience knowing that nobody dies so that I can drive a death-mobile.

But then again, that might be inconvenient, and people might come dangerously close to breaking a sweat, so let's all "Rock The Vote" and pretend that it will change things.

[anothershamus]

John E. Nemo wrote:

For instance....I'm gonna turn 40 soon and I've NEVER owned a car and never will.
I ride bike everywhere and (gently) encourage others to do the same.
The oil companies have gotten very little money out of this guy and I sleep with a clear conscience knowing that nobody dies so that I can drive a death-mobile.

Good for fucking you Nemo! I hope you never get hit by a death mobile, those fuckers really don't know how to work the roadways!

[Spoonerian]

John E.,

I think there's a problem with buying into this right/left false construct the way you seem to here:

The problem with the right/left paradigm is that they see many of the same problems, but their solution to it is...

(Right) - Laissez-faire, i.e. Let the market, not the govt., be our "saviour".
This leads to child slavery, company stores, environmental devastation, etc.

(Left) - Intervention, i.e. Let the govt., not the market, be our "saviour".
This leads to police states, Palmer Raids, dehumanized bureaucracy, loss of individual rights, etc.

You are correct in so far as you are describing how this false right/left dichotomy is popularly understood and promoted. But we all know that the Right is actually just as interventionist as the Left and that the Left can be equally as non-interventionist as the Right. For example, the Right wants to intervene into the pockets of the taxpayers for about $1 trillion/year (about half the federal budget) to support the warfare state, while the Left wants to intervene into the pockets of the taxpayers for the same amount to support the welfare state.

But if we take this falsely constructed model seriously and try to use it to organize our understanding of problems and possible solutions we are doomed. We end up with a tyranny of language and a glossary of loaded terms that leads to perpetual confusion.

One of the things that really bugs me is to hear libertarians throw around the word "socialism" pejoratively and the word "capitalism" favorably as if the word "socialism" is equivalent to "state socialism" and the word "capitalism" does not mean "state capitalism".

Before this false right/left paradigm was constructed and these loaded terms were crystalized in the popular mind in the late 19th century, individualist anarchists such as Benjamin Tucker used the word "socialist" favorably and the word "capitalist" un-favorably--but those words hadn't yet been laid on the false spectrum. Prior to that, in the mid 19th century laissez-faire economist Frederic Bastiat and mutualist-anarchist Pierre Prudoun sat on the same (left) side of the French assembly.

The effect of more than 100 years of using this false model has been the steady solidification of the idea that we need to be moderate and take a little leftist intervention with our rightist laissez-faire. Unless we cease using this false model to think we are doomed.

One way to combat it is first, to never use the terms "left" or "right" at all and only urge people to "jump off the spectrum." Then, when using formerly meaningful terms such as "socialism" and "capitalism", always clarify by never using them alone so they can't be loaded in their meanings. For example, one should only use terms such as "state socialism", "state capitalism", and "market socialism".

Here's another thing that this false right/left mental construct does to us: It makes it seem that its sensible to avoid "saviors" of any kind and then nothing changes as we sink into a hell of moderation because proposing radical change of any kind smacks of religious belief in a savior. Unless it can somehow seem polite again to point out that the abolition of state robbery and murder will save us from a lot of injustice, we are doomed.

***

Your "lefty anarcho/syndicalist" writing for the anarcho/capitalist conspiracy magazine sounds like fascinating must reading. Please provide a link for how to get it when it comes out.I suspect that these anarcho/capitalists are laden with much residual rightism and might learn a lot from a leftist/anarchist like yourself.

Here's a link to an excellent article by Austrian economist Roderick Long on the history of the false left/right spectrum and the left-libertarian future.

Rothbard's "Left and Right": Forty Years Later

He quotes Brad Spangler:

Genuine libertarianism is very much left wing. It's revolutionary. The long and tragic alliance of libertarians with the right against the spectre of state socialism is coming to a close, as it served no purpose after the fall of the Soviet Union and so-called "conservatives" have subsequently taken to letting their true big-government-on-steroids colors fly…. [I]n the period since the demise of the Soviet Union, both the radicals and moderates among the left have been subconsciously seeking a new radical creed to orient themselves upon to replace Marxism…. I believe that radical libertarians … will be most effective when they overcome any lingering right wing cultural contamination of their libertarian views and embrace their inherent radicalism — which is most at home on the left. For as the radicals go, so do the moderates grudgingly follow in small steps…. It's time for libertarians to stop fighting the left and take up the challenge of leading the left.

[John E. Nemo]

Brother, you are soooooooooooooo right.
Plus, you mentioned 2 of my heroes, Pierre Proudhon & Benjamin Tucker, so good on ya, for that.

As soon as the mag comes out and the website is up, I'll post a link.
I must, however, clarify that I won't be "preaching" lefty anarcho-syndicalism, in the mag.
My column will focus on subliminals, hidden messages and other propaganda that I find in the mainstream media, movies and films.
I hope to make Hugh Manatee proud.

After things get going, and if I somehow manage to develop a loyal reader base, I do intend to try and correct what I consider some serious misconceptions about libertarianism.

The problem with Libertarians, or at least the American Libertarians that I know is, besides their blind condemnation of "socialism", that they seem to fall into two categories.

1. The "Civil Libertarians" crowd, who Bob Black astutely described as "just Republicans who do drugs."

2. "Objectivists" of the Ayn Rand school, who, to my ears, sound like wanna-be aristocrats who feel that wealth and "class" entitle them to be free of petty things like social responsibilty or ethical business practices.

The 2 most salient points that I have found that neither crowd can effectively argue against is....

1. Libertarians claim that they believe in freedom and capitalism, which means that they are for free trade agreements that lead to child slavery and multi-national corporations that destroy the lives and health of the people they enslave.
How, exactly, does enslavement lead to freedom?

2. Libertarians are always going on about "property rights".
They often talk of how in a Libertarian society, civil courts will replace criminal courts, i.e. if someone violates your "property rights", you sue them.
If you win in that court and there's no state, or "people with guns", to enforce that ruling, what good is that ruling? (They seem to have skipped school the day the whole "Trail of Tears" lesson about the Supreme Court and Andrew Jackson was taught).
Also, who sets up, regulates and appoints judges to this "civil court"?
Wouldn't whoever does, be the evil, evil "state" that they are always decrying?

[chlamor]

Chris Simcox, honorary chairman of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps Political Action Committee, has been busy stumping for selected candidates who he believes are trying to make a difference on the issue of illegal immigration. In that regard, Simcox shares that right now, he is comfortable with only three presidential hopefuls.

"There are three very principled, dedicated leaders, at least on the GOP side," he says in reference to the cadre of presidential candidates. "That would Duncan Hunter, Tom Tancredo, and Ron Paul." All three currently serve in the U.S. House -- two representing the border states of California (Hunter) and Texas (Paul).

"The rest of them [the candidates], I don't trust," Simcox continues. "They continue to change their message to meet the needs of the polls -- and I appreciate again the principled leadership of Hunter, Tancredo, and Paul."

<snip>

http://www.onenewsnow.com/2007/08/minut ... unter_.php

[anonymoose]

did someone already post this?

http://web.archive.org/web/200705121142 ... /paul.html

Newsletter excerpts offer ammunition to Paul's opponent
GOP hopeful quoted on race, crime

By ALAN BERNSTEIN
Copyright 1996 Houston Chronicle Political Writer

Texas congressional candidate Ron Paul's 1992 political newsletter highlighted portrayals of blacks as inclined toward crime and lacking sense about top political issues.

Under the headline of "Terrorist Update," for instance, Paul reported on gang crime in Los Angeles and commented, "If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."

Paul, a Republican obstetrician from Surfside, said Wednesday he opposes racism and that his written commentaries about blacks came in the context of "current events and statistical reports of the time."

Selected writings by Paul were distributed Wednesday by the campaign of his Democratic opponent, Austin lawyer Charles "Lefty" Morris.

Morris said many of Paul's views are "out there on the fringe" and that his commentaries will be judged by voters in the November general elections.

Paul said allegations about his writings amounted to name-calling by the Democrats and that his opponents should focus instead on how to shrink government spending and reform welfare.

Morris and Paul are seeking the 14th Congressional District seat held by Greg Laughlin of West Columbia. Laughlin lost the Republican primary to Paul, a former congressman and the Libertarian Party's 1988 presidential candidate.

Paul, writing in his independent political newsletter in 1992, reported about unspecified surveys of blacks.

"Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action,"Paul wrote.

Paul continued that politically sensible blacks are outnumbered "as decent people." Citing reports that 85 percent of all black men in the District of Columbia are arrested, Paul wrote:

"Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice system,' I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal," Paul said.

Paul also wrote that although "we are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers."

A campaign spokesman for Paul said statements about the fear of black males mirror pronouncements by black leaders such as the Rev. Jesse Jackson, who has decried the spread of urban crime.

Paul continues to write the newsletter for an undisclosed number of subscribers, the spokesman said.

Writing in the same 1992 edition, Paul expressed the popular idea that government should lower the age at which accused juvenile criminals can be prosecuted as adults.

He added, "We don't think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That's true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such."

Paul also asserted that "complex embezzling" is conducted exclusively by non-blacks.

"What else do we need to know about the political establishment than that it refuses to discuss the crimes that terrify Americans on grounds that doing so is racist? Why isn't that true of complex embezzling, which is 100 percent white and Asian?" he wrote.

...

[anonymoose]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul68.html

Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans only as members of groups and never as individuals. Racists believe that all individual who share superficial physical characteristics are alike; as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called "diversity" actually perpetuate racism. Their intense focus on race is inherently racist, because it views individuals only as members of racial groups.

This is some jibber jabber. I've noticed that many white people prefer to view racism in this way; they conceptualize it as a pure abstraction, devoid of any of the history of centuries of white supremacy permeating the state and legal system. That way, black people can be just as racist as white people, and that makes it all OK. White privilege? Never heard of it.

[Joe Hillshoist]

We're in one of the richest countries in the world,
but the minimum wage is lower than it was thirty five years ago.
There are homeless people everywhere.
This homeless guy asked me for money the other day.
I was about to give it to him and then I thought he was going to use it on drugs or alcohol.
And then I thought, that's what I'm going to use it on.
Why am I judging this poor bastard.
People love to judge homeless guys. Like if you give them money they're just going to waste it.
Well, he lives in a box, what do you want him to do? Save it up and buy a wall unit?
Take a little run to the store for a throw rug and a CD rack? He's homeless.
I walked behind this guy the other day.
A homeless guy asked him for money.
He looks right at the homeless guy and says why don't you go get a job you bum.
People always say that to homeless guys like it is so easy.
This homeless guy was wearing his underwear outside his pants.
Outside his pants. I'm guessing his resume isn't all up to date.

Not being american I don't really care about all this (Ron paul is gonna stop the war in Iraq? good on him, what's his stand on greenhouse emissions?), but in response to jeffs comments on another thread:

God I hope not.

What does "less" or "more" mean here? How about less bad government and more good government? What is government anyway, and what should it be doing for its people?

The power elite beholden to big capital always campaign against government, promising to "get it off your back" and to "free" enterprise. What happens? Industries are deregulated to the endangerment of public health, and public institutions are privatized. (Libraries now?) Where is the government in public life, and what should it be doing? Because "Big Government" is a contentless punching bag that keeps attention off America's hidden and unaccountable private power, and makes okay the dissolution of public trusts.

There are massive differences between "good" and ":bad" government.

Good government in a functioning democracy would probably look alot more socialist than many people (at least in the US) would consider "good".

Socialised medecine (whats left of it) in Australia works alot better than whatever happens in the US, industrial relations regulated by government protect workers from employers. Government involvement in maintaining culture (by funding alone, not by any actual opinion on what culture is), government regulation for public health and public safety are all important. Public transport, which to be an effective useful and fair means of transport can't run at a profit, couldn't really serve the public if it was a primarilly profit driven enterprise. I could go on.

I guess my anarchist side is slowly mellowing.

Consider agreements like NAFTA tho, they effectively remove government regulation, and the effect on they have on societies in north America doesn't seem all that positive.

Being anti "big government" could be good tho depending on what "big government" is defined as. If its along the lines of the "big" in society, ie the powerful then being anti big government means using government to limit the power of capital/corporate interests. But if it just means being anti regulation then whatever potential government has to improve the lives of its citizens is under threat.

[Doodad]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul68.html

Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans only as members of groups and never as individuals. Racists believe that all individual who share superficial physical characteristics are alike; as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called "diversity" actually perpetuate racism. Their intense focus on race is inherently racist, because it views individuals only as members of racial groups.

This is some jibber jabber. I've noticed that many white people prefer to view racism in this way; they conceptualize it as a pure abstraction, devoid of any of the history of centuries of white supremacy permeating the state and legal system. That way, black people can be just as racist as white people, and that makes it all OK. White privilege? Never heard of it.

Agreed except I think it is far more sinister than simple jibber jabber.

[rothbardian]

Racists view individuals as members of a "group". That's how they rationalize their racist viewpoint. How is it "sinister" to simply point that out? Paul explains racism perfectly.