Ron Paul: CIA runs the U.S. government

[elfismiles]

Once again, I was unclear. Ron Paul's base is not entirely composed of "rabid" individuals, but the share which is constituted by patriot secessionists, yes, I would characterise as "rabid", and I'd say the overlap between them and supporters of Cynthia McKinney would be small.

Full disclosure: McKinney voter here.

And I align with Cynthia McKinney's and Ralph Nader's consensus judgment that... if they couldn't be President, the country would be best served with Dr. Paul as President.

Wise folks, those two.

[elfismiles]

Doesn't it seem more likely that they'll just figure out someway to ruin him politically?.

I don't see him as a serious threat to the PTB. He's a safe way of bleeding off pressure--let anyone who wants to go down that rabbit hole with him do so--he's pretty firmly branded/defined as a nut case (not saying I think so, but that's the general public's view, right?) so riase your hand if you're for Ron Paul and instantly loose credibility. By having him say this, it's now an idea that no 'serious person' will take seriously.

If he wasn't around, the CIA would have to invent him.

(not saying they did--but I don't expect him to be much bothered by them)

(on edit: I hadn't read the whole thread--now I see others already said roughly--or even pretty much word for word?--what I said. Great minds, eh?)

I think the mainstream perception of him has vastly improved. Once he was successfully shunned by the MSM before the election he became far less dangerous. But now he's a regular on lefty and righty msm outlets because his once insane sounding economic ideas have proven out and now are more timely than ever.

I've seen lots of lefties mellow to Paul since this change.

[elfismiles]

McGovern, Carter, Perot, Nader, Kucinich, Paul have all been people I voted for, some more than once, and I think I did Mondale too and Maybe Joe Walsh. I've donated to many more, this last election to Gravel, Kucinch, and McKinney, pretty much anyone third party anything.

I don't think it's "rabid" to want to secede, it makes a lot of sense to walk away from a dysfunctional government run by a coup doesn't it, one which can't even follow it's own laws. Which is not to say that there isn't a "rabid element" out there or that I'm necessarily for secession, or that I think it's a wise tactic. I'm still thinking about it.

"Hear hear!"

[elfismiles]

Indeed, any kind of demographic balkanization is a potential problem with secession or nationalist ideas of sovereignty. Unless of course they are grounded in liberty and freedom for all. Oh, yeah, as Sweejak says, it didn't work out quite so well. But we can try again can't we?

BTW - Scott Horton had Dr. Paul on his show today - about this quote and other stuff I believe. The podcast of the interview isn't up yet but the entire show archive is up ... think Ron Paul starts an hour into the 2 hour show:

EDIT: Paul is on at 30 minutes in...

http://kaosradioaustin.org/audio/downlo ... 010%29.mp3

The problem with seccession under the general terms it is usually considered today is that it seems to seek division on neat racial boundaries.

Really, you mean like the US Civil War? I see what you mean, but Cascadia, would that be racist, Hawaii?
Ethnicity/Religion/ and similar are, I think, inevitable glues used to make nations.

I don't think the PTB care about secession, would it make their control easier is all I think they care about and right now I think their big fad is One World Whatever, I don't know, probably for reasons of efficiency. Maybe, maybe it would fall right into their plans, like Balkanization. That's the worry for me more than religion/racism/ethnics.

Taken without the secret agendas what is wrong with breaking up Iraq? It, like most of Africa, was a cleverly assembled conglomeration designed for control. I suppose it's up to the people to decide if they want to be a nation.

Wouldn't it be great to have a multi-cultural nation made up of many races and religions with the national idea being liberty... all connected in a confederation? LOL, Oh never mind, that didn't work out so well.

Ron Paul on America Gone Insane

http://thestressblog.com/2010/01/19/ron ... ne-insane/

[23]

I've seen lots of lefties mellow to Paul since this change.

Nader, Kucinich, and McKinney have all expressed their trust in Dr. Paul. Some followers of theirs, no doubt, will need more time to see what they see in him. Every wise person has their doubting Thomas or Thomasina.

[elfismiles]

Balance in all things. I'd like to see real balance between Liberalism and Libertarianism.

"Free market" economics= increased corporate dominance.

This is not rocket science.

Actually when you say "free market" economics ......

The only way such a thing can exist is in a situation where there is tight regulation to ENSURE the "free" part.

Otherwise, yes, it turns into a corrupt situation where the big boys gobble up the little boys and take over, like what we have now.

A basketball game without referees in other words. Or as Howard Dean always put it, a hockey game without referees (probably more violent).

So it's possible to have "free market" forces work in a society, but only with strict and consistent and enforced government regulation to ensure that the game is played the way the game is meant to be played.

Haven't had that in a long long time in this country.

The problem I have with most libertarians is that they have this "magical thinking" whereby they believe that you don't need referees, that "the game" itself is SO perfect that if you touch it in any way you mess it up. In other words, NO referees, NO rules, no nothing.

Which is just absolutely stupid.

[§ê¢rꆧ]

I've seen lots of lefties mellow to Paul since this change.

Actually that was elfisimiles who said that, 23, not me. Not that I totally disagree with what elfi is saying, really, but I thought it best that we keep the record straight. That multiquote function is a powerful tool but it is really easy to cut up with it.

If you would have told me that I would 'mellow' to a texas republican... well, I would have thought you were crazy ten years ago. But here, I am, mellowed to a texas republican. I can stand with the judgement of who I voted for Presdident - Mckinney - and if she endores him, I'm down too.

[lupercal]

There's been a coup, have you heard? It's the CIA coup.

Bold words for a sitting politician, so hats off to Ron Paul for spelling it out. But I wonder if he has a particular event in mind? Nov. 22 63? Nov. 3 2000? 911? 2004? I think I'd pick April 12, 1945, the day FDR died of cerebral hemorrhage in Warm Springs, Georgia.

[barracuda]

If you would have told me that I would 'mellow' to a texas republican... well, I would have thought you were crazy ten years ago. But here, I am, mellowed to a texas republican. I can stand with the judgement of who I voted for Presdident - Mckinney - and if she endores him, I'm down too.

Bah. I don't follow the recommendations of those I vote for, I just sit around wishing they'd follow mine.

[§ê¢rꆧ]

it has to be military intelligence (DIA, ONI, etc) intersecting with CIA who's really running the show. The wars go on no matter what or who is in office...

"The CIA" is a shorthand.

The actual CIA turned into a shell long ago. As I like to say, the CIA is its own biggest front group.

A more accurate rendering would be something like, the deep state policy-making community in intersection with parapolitics. Imagine multiple networks of mutual favoritism (and mutual blackmail) cutting across agencies, institutions and corporations. The obvious example is the Bush mob, who have directly held or had a hegemony over the executive for decades. One strand of development might roughly go like this:

1934 "Plot Against America" --->
1940s & 1950s CIA Founders/Ratlines/Postwar Covert Ops/Mockingbirds --->
1960s "Bay of Pigs" Crew --->
1970s crisis crew (unleashing of "Rogue CIA") --->
1980s-1990s Team B/"October Surprise"/Iran-Contra/1980s Banking Plunder --->
1990s High Bush Mob + Mena Connection --->
2000s 2nd Gen Bush Regime/"neocons"

OK, that's a great little mini-timeline. What are we going to see in the 2010s? How is the Bush cartel linked to Obama? I mean, I think many of us suspect there is a link, but where to find it (I don't think it has already been found)? I mean, where to look for such a thing...?

[Sweejak]

Smiles said: BTW - Scott Horton had Dr. Paul on his show today - about this quote and other stuff I believe. The podcast of the interview isn't up yet but the entire show archive is up ... think Ron Paul starts an hour into the 2 hour show:

EDIT: Paul is on at 30 minutes in...

http://kaosradioaustin.org/audio/downlo ... 010%29.mp3

I thought Manion, whom I've never heard of before, had a pretty interesting segment starting at around 1:07:00

"... If you're fighting for an abstraction anybody can grab that abstraction or that symbol and pour whatever content they want into it and that is the recipe for tyranny."
-- Christopher Manion

Tarpley has an article up on his re-formatted site, maybe I'm drifting off topic, talking about "cultural populism".
http://tarpley.net/2010/01/20/the-massa ... #more-1103

And since I'm at it, a bit of balance on the New Deal from Rothbard.
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/rothbard_on_war.html

All FYI's

[stefano]

while evidencing absolutely no ability to create change or momentum by his pronouncements with regard to the Fed, or the CIA. He is a useful tool.

I disagree with that, although I reckon he made a big mistake running for the GOP nomination. I tend to think that was a tactical mistake rather than a deliberate neutering of his influence, though - he's had experience running as Libertarian candidate and knew that that wouldn't get him very far, and knew how Nader had gotten ignored. As for 'momentum', I think that thanks to him a lot more people are informing themselves about these things. Which is good.

Ron P said some things there that were both brave and true

Yes yes.

"Free market" economics= increased corporate dominance. This is not rocket science.

I absolutely disagree. It's not rocket science, you're right, it's economic science, and a bit of background in the subject is useful. The 'free market' model requires a certain number of conditions to work in theory, and it is the role of government to try to move real-world conditions in the direction of these theoretical ones. The most important conditions are unrestricted flows of information and skills, and no barriers to competition. In the current system of corporate-government collusion, most conspiracies try work against these goals. That's the problem at the moment, that government does the opposite of what it's supposed to under a free-market system because it is corrupt. These bail-outs, for instance, would never have happened in a true free-market economy. Nor would the subversion of the EPA and FDA in the US. And the big free-market thinkers have all said that a prosperous society has a duty to look after its less fortunate citizens, not that you'd know that by listening to the right-wing whores who quote them selectively and have never read their books.

I'm a socialist in my voting, but a sort of mutualist in my philosophy, and the Paul-style libertarians are closer to mutualism than any other political movement in the West today.

[American Dream]

Stefano, are you saying that implementation of "Free Trade", as commonly understood, would tend to reduce corporate dominance?

The neo-Liberal models promoted by the Chicago School and others of that ilk have done exactly the opposite, no?

[23]

Actually that was elfisimiles who said that, 23, not me. Not that I totally disagree with what elfi is saying, really, but I thought it best that we keep the record straight. That multiquote function is a powerful tool but it is really easy to cut up with it.

Thanks for the clarification. I'll be more attentive to that from here on.

[23]

I absolutely disagree. It's not rocket science, you're right, it's economic science, and a bit of background in the subject is useful. The 'free market' model requires a certain number of conditions to work in theory, and it is the role of government to try to move real-world conditions in the direction of these theoretical ones. The most important conditions are unrestricted flows of information and skills, and no barriers to competition. In the current system of corporate-government collusion, most conspiracies try work against these goals. That's the problem at the moment, that government does the opposite of what it's supposed to under a free-market system because it is corrupt. These bail-outs, for instance, would never have happened in a true free-market economy. Nor would the subversion of the EPA and FDA in the US. And the big free-market thinkers have all said that a prosperous society has a duty to look after its less fortunate citizens, not that you'd know that by listening to the right-wing whores who quote them selectively and have never read their books.

Very well stated, stefano. Contrary to the popular perception that free markets are unregulated, they are regulated by the customers who participate in them. Only we have had very little experience in doing just that (thanks to the other regulator, the government), so it's not surprising that many folks can't fathom themselves as the regulators of free markets. As Dr. Paul has said, we haven't had a free market system in quite some time.

I'm a socialist in my voting, but a sort of mutualist in my philosophy, and the Paul-style libertarians are closer to mutualism than any other political movement in the West today.

I've always been appreciative of the mutualist mindset. Glad to see a Wobbly here.