News & Analysis
Post Slams Ron Paul With Fading Elite Promotions
Ron Paul's quest to undo the party of Lincoln ... Let us count the ways in which the nomination of Ron Paul would be groundbreaking for the GOP. No other recent candidate hailing from the party of Lincoln has accused Abraham Lincoln of causing a "senseless" war and ruling with an "iron fist." Or regarded Ronald Reagan's presidency a "dramatic failure." Or proposed the legalization of prostitution and heroin use. Or called America the most "aggressive, extended and expansionist" empire in world history. Or promised to abolish the CIA, depart NATO and withdraw military protection from South Korea. Or blamed terrorism on American militarism, since "they're terrorists because we're occupiers." Or accused the American government of a Sept. 11 "coverup" and called for an investigation headed by Dennis Kucinich. Or described the killing of Osama bin Laden as "absolutely not necessary." – Washington Post /Michael Gerson
Dominant Social Theme: Ron Paul is a horrible US candidate for president and an even more horrible man.
Free-Market Analysis: This article presents reasons for opposing libertarian candidate for US president Dr. Ron Paul that tick many of the dominant social themes of the elite that have been used to frighten middle classes into giving up wealth and power to globalist institutions like the UN, IMF, World Bank, etc.
These fear-based promotions are seemingly the product of an Anglosphere power elite that seeks to run the world – formally as opposed to informally. The power of this intergenerational familial elite comes from the central banks they apparently control and the ability to print trillions of dollars of money-from-nothing.
Ron Paul's libertarian conservative message, grounded in hundreds of years of economic history, culminates in the resonant insight that it is individual people taking Misesian "human action" that forms a successful society.
People taking "human action" (as people will do) do not need formal leaders or standing armies to protect them. They are likely capable of their own defense (singly or in aggregate) and simply need to be left alone in freedom to make their own ways. This, of course, is a direct threat to the larger establishment that has been created and supported by the power elite.
Without government, there can be no authority organizing people and ultimately creating world government. Without government, the elites would not be able to control people from behind the scenes using mercantilist methodologies – taxes, war, environmental legislation, etc.
The power elite has apparently created a full matrix of media apologists to promote their government-over-all message. The matrix includes the British-based Tavistock think-tank that apparently creates many of these promotions and disseminates them via an "open conspiracy."
Once they are disseminated they are reported on by a controlled media, elaborated on by controlled think-tanks and eventually put into law by various legislatures. Every part of the process is apparently bought and paid for.
If direct action is needed to reinforce an elite meme, the power elite will make sure that world events conform to the promotion they are trying to create. For instance, as we have pointed out in the past, the Anglosphere has used NATO to destabilize many secular regimes in the Middle East.
These regimes are now likely being replaced by the CIA-penetrated Muslim Brotherhood, thus allowing the formation of an expanded war on terror. But it is seemingly a phony one. It is actually being designed in the West, one could hypothesize, for purposes of imposing more domestic control.
Western elites always seek more domestic control, especially in America where libertarian exceptionalism is still a culturally dominant trend for tens of millions in "Red" America. The goal apparently is world government, and American exceptionalism must be eradicated in order to realize it.
But this is not easy to do. And Ron Paul is immeasurably complicating the issue with a campaign that is as educational when it comes to freedom as it is political. He has been very effective at helping to tear down many elite memes that have been promoted for a century or more to confuse Americans (and the West generally) about the Way the World Works.
And so, as Ron Paul proves hard to stop, the powers-that-be begin to train their bigger guns on Dr. Paul and his freedom message. He is not good for business and must be taken down. This article by Michael John Gerson in the Washington Post, for instance, is a good example.
According to Wikipedia, Michael John Gerson is a famous speechwriter for George W. Bush who (arguably) coined the phrase "Axis of Evil." More: "He is former senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. He served as President George W. Bush's chief speechwriter from 2001 until June 2006, as a senior policy advisor from 2000 through June 2006, and was a member of the White House Iraq Group."
Gerson's article – as we can see in the article excerpt above – touches on many major themes of the power elite. They are phony memes that have been put in place to confuse people about the power and beneficence of government.
The elites are desperate to salvage them – and thus Gerson treats them as true and self-evident. Maybe a decade or two ago they were. But no more. Let's examine them one by one.
No other recent candidate hailing from the party of Lincoln has accused Abraham Lincoln of causing a "senseless" war and ruling with an "iron fist."
There is plenty of written evidence that the Civil War was indeed "senseless." Much recent history has shown us that the War Between the States was started by Lincoln at the behest of the Northern banking establishment, which wanted to consolidate its power over Southern agrarianism.
The Civil War essentially marked the end of a quasi-free society in the US and ushered in a much more problematical system – one whereby no single state could secede. This has led to the creeping totalitarianism and outright militarism of America today.
Or regarded Ronald Reagan's presidency a "dramatic failure."
Ronald Reagan's heart may have been in the right place when it came to shrinking government (we tend to think it was) and his rhetoric could be frankly libertarian. But when one looks at what actually occurred under Reagan, a melancholy litany of big-government results reveals itself.
Under Reagan, many tax loopholes were closed (making a horrible system more rigid and oppressive) while Fedgov itself expanded dramatically – especially its military components. The USSR itself gradually disintegrated under his watch, but an argument can be made that there were reasons for its disintegration that had nothing to do with Reagan.
Certainly, given the level of his rhetoric, the Reagan regime could indeed be considered a "dramatic failure" by anyone inspired by his rhetoric, as Ron Paul no doubt was. We agree with Ron Paul's characterization, if indeed Gerson's report is correct.
Or proposed the legalization of prostitution and heroin use.
What's the problem with this? The failed "war on drugs" has jailed tens of thousands illegally, has turned police forces in the US into paramilitary organizations and regularly ruins families and cripples lives.
There is also good evidence that organizations like the CIA fund themselves by drug-dealing "off the books" and that much of what passes for the "war on drugs" is actually a legislative device to keep prices high in order to ensure that America's "secret government" continues to receive top dollar for the drugs it runs.
Or called America the most "aggressive, extended and expansionist" empire in world history.
Anyone who travels around the world cannot help but be struck by the pervasiveness of the American Empire. And anyone who studies history in this Internet era can see that this empire has been a-building for about 300 years, with most of its growth coming in the past 50-75 years.
From the expansion of the FBI to some 90-plus offices around the world, to the far-flung wars that America produces, to the web of contracts and mutually beneficial deals that the US has pursued with dictators, to CIA meddling, the US – at the behest of the Anglosphere power elite – does indeed bestride the world like a merciless colossus.
Or promised to abolish the CIA, depart NATO and withdraw military protection from South Korea.
The US – and the West generally – are broke from the use of their resources to secretly foment world governance. NATO, the CIA, the FBI, MI6, etc. do not seem to work for their respective nations but instead for a shadowy power elite that foments a nationalist rhetoric to disguise its true intentions and power.
Or blamed terrorism on American militarism, since "they're terrorists because we're occupiers."
There evidently and obviously IS no "war on terror" – or not as it is portrayed. Millions are well aware that the CIA helped build up and support the initial "al Qaeda" and that even Osama bin Laden himself may have been an American operative, to begin with anyway. Ron Paul in this context is only stating the obvious.
Or accused the American government of a Sept. 11 "coverup" and called for an investigation headed by Dennis Kucinich.
As at least half of the 9/11 Commission itself has disavowed the report that the Commission published, this statement by Ron Paul seems most reasonable. The lead litigator of the Commission has written a book accusing the Bush administration and its myriad appendages of a kind of serial lying to the Commission.
Or described the killing of Osama bin Laden as "absolutely not necessary."
Here we differ with the good doctor. There is plenty of evidence that Osama bin Laden died years ago and that the raid was some sort of propaganda hoax. Suppressed eyewitness accounts of the raid differ considerably from what the controlled US mainstream media purveyed.
Michael Gerson is indignant about Ron Paul's various statements, but he needn't be. The charade seems to us to be rapidly drawing to a close. What we call the Internet Reformation may be seen as sweeping the day. The current era of elite promotion likely died at the end of the 20th century when the Internet was birthed.
Gerson's article, in fact, is important only because it seems to show us once again how little firepower the elites actually have left when it comes to their failing promotional themes. The reason Ron Paul is doing so well is because more and more people know the truth – or at least some of it – about what's going on in the world.
The old playbook is failing. Soon "they" will be accusing Ron Paul of being a full-out conspiracy theorist. But he has been careful to avoid falling into that trap. Meanwhile, every day it is more and more evident that there is a conspiracy, but it is not a theoretical one.
No, it seems that a mafia-like group of central banking families have conspired actively to rule the world for a century or more and have propagated a mythical matrix to do so. As that matrix breaks down, articles like Gerson's will prove less and less persuasive.
This is the reason we have predicted the power elite may eventually be forced to take a step back as they apparently did after the Gutenberg Press arrived on the scene. Currently, the elites seem to be turning to legal authoritarianism and war to pursue their goals. But force will not suffice in a world where there are a few thousands involved in a power-conspiracy to rule the world and billions who are not.
Every day their apparent use of dominant social themes seems to be less effective, as the Internet exposes them. This is the problem that Gerson and others will have to grapple with in the future. As the matrix degrades, the old methodologies of control degrade.
Conclusion: Is this the best they've got?
Posted by Bobby7 on 01/03/12 01:13 PM
If America doesn't vote Ron Paul into the White House, then it deserves everything that WILL come to them!
You get ONE chance to turn things around!
VOTE RON PAUL!
Posted by yogited on 01/03/12 12:07 PM
Click to view link
Power elite exposed here.
Posted by concernedforfreedoms on 01/03/12 10:39 AM
Another source to instill how important it is to WatchTheVote2012 in the Iowa GOP Caucus. Brad Friedman explains on RT. Will Anonymous really hack the system, or is it an excuse to hijack Ron Paul's votes?
Click to view link
Posted by 4204life on 01/03/12 04:37 AM
Click to view link
Posted by ostrading on 01/03/12 03:01 AM
(the product of an Anglosphere power elite that seeks to run the world)
Isn't it time that someone named these mythical "power elite"? Who are they? If they and their servants are truly (and continually) unmasked it will be infinitely more difficult for them to continue their closet machinations of control.
Please, post an article detailing who they are.
Posted by Nanoo Visitor on 01/03/12 01:20 AM
Are they a week behind the curve, or another batter (as it were) up after the WSJ on 22Dec: Click to view link
Posted by jlax23 on 01/02/12 10:48 PM
You've got google at your finger tips. Use it.
Posted by josejoe on 01/02/12 09:31 PM
i wish some of you more learned elves would define what the DB means by meme's?
Posted by William R. Reinhardt, Ph.D on 01/02/12 08:49 PM
One of the easiest manipulative techniques to discredit/marginalize someone who you are afraid of is to engage in selective disinformation. Conjuring-up fear by labeling is relatively easy when you control the main source (i.e. the media). When the general populace has been socialized since birth to believe what the government (or the talking heads) tells them, it just makes it all that much easier to keep the serfs under control. Especially in the current media where they are required to be "politically correct" to keep their jobs.
There are so many issues, that it is easy to find ones to attack any candidate on, if it may be in their immediate self-serving interest to do so.
Ron Paul is, in a sense, an anachronism for what is needed. He is so right, honest and truthful. That makes him so vulnerable, on the one hand,and so dangerous to the "power elite" at the same time. As H.L Menken (the sage of Baltimore) stated in too many words to quote verbatim here, "Americans do not really want to hear the truth, they prefer the largest liars/con men." Ron Paul has so many correct solutions to so many issues that this tends to confuse the average person. And the format of these 30 second "debates" do not lend themselves to intelligent discussion.
With this relatively brief, and inadequate introduction, I wish to analyze this Post article as follows:
"Ron Paul's quest to undo the party of Lincoln ... Let us count the ways in which the nomination of Ron Paul would be groundbreaking for the GOP. No other recent candidate hailing from the party of Lincoln has accused Abraham Lincoln of causing a "senseless" war and ruling with an "iron fist"."
This country was founded because of grievances against a distinct, unresponsive government. The Declaration of Independence is eloquent in its iteration of these grievances. The U.S. Constitution (One of the World's preeminent documents for liberty and equality) was not adopted by the States originally until the Anti-Federalists demanded that the "Bill of Rights" was added to the original draft. The Anti-Federalists were afraid of a large, centralized government, which is what we have now. Space does not allow me to go into (here) many of Lincoln's arrogant actions.
"Or regarded Ronald Reagan's presidency a "dramatic failure"."
The record shows that Reagan did not do what he originally said he would do.
"Or proposed the legalization of prostitution and heroin use."
Prostitution and Opium were not originally illegal in the States. Under the Constitution, the powers of the federal government were very limited. It was left to the individual States to decide what to allow or disallow, not the distant federal government.
"Or called America the most "aggressive, extended and expansionist" empire in world history."
Throughout our truthful history, it can be easily argued successfully, that we are, in fact, "the most "aggressive, extended and expansionist" empire in world history. (Or at least one of them)" Starting with the American Indians, etc., etc.
Americans do not seem to want to think and research the truth. Most Empires in the World's history lasted about 250 years, +/-.
Most Empires are not capable of recognizing that drastic steps are required to correct decades of government bureaucracy, corruption, and political socialization. No large Empire has been able to stop its eventual demise in the World's history.
"Or promised to abolish the CIA, depart NATO and withdraw military protection from South Korea. Or blamed terrorism on American militarism, since "they're terrorists because we're occupiers." Or accused the American government of a Sept. 11 "coverup" and called for an investigation headed by Dennis Kucinich. Or described the killing of Osama bin Laden as "absolutely not necessary." - Washington Post /Michael Gerson"
Until Kissinger (I read) stated that our government authorized elimination of various officials of foreign countries with whom we did not agree with and hearing Gingrich and others stand on stage in front of National TV in the 2011 Presidential candidate debates and state that if Iranian leaders did not agree to our unilateral demands, we should enter their sovereign country, eliminate their scientists, demolish their property. Are we really a "Nation of Law?""
I do not recall Ron Paul saying that "he is for weakening our military or its capability." I have heard him emphasize two things. One, we cannot continue to be the "policemen of the world" and give many other countries a "free ride."We are virtually bankrupt. He also said that we should not have our troops in over 190 countries (I think 300 military bases) where our taxpayer dollars are spent to support the other countries economy to the detriment of ours.
Lastly, the times, conditions, and state of the world's capabilities is much different than what existed in 1776 which allowed us to acquire the power to be the dominant nation on the world stage. We had major items in our favor - new country, no long-existing rules or culture, virtual unlimited expansion, tremendous natural resources, and little central government. We were originally formed as a Republic.
Today the world is not the same. Other countries have improved their situation to be able to react differently than in 1776. We no longer have a virtual "free reign" to do whatever we feel like. We have to recognize this, while at the same time, reinvigorate and reclaim the tenets of our unique U.S. Constitution that made us the "envy of the world's people."
I am a proud American veteran. Because of our unique, unfettered beginning, our people still have this unquenchable "CAN DO" spirit. We have not yet been totally beaten-down by multiple hundreds of years of government bureaucracy and corruption. I think that America has been the most wonderful bastion for freedom and liberty any large country in the world has ever seen. But as Lord Acton exclaimed in 1887, "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." That is why we currently have the corrupt and bureaucratic political system that we have.
Change has to come. It is time for Americans to take back our country from our corrupt politicians. Ron Paul may be the only chance we have left to "right the ship" before it is too late.
Posted by cosmos on 01/02/12 08:29 PM
Let's hope it is the best they got !
Posted by RonPaulRepub on 01/02/12 07:51 PM
What policy did the U.S. Govt. pursue against Native Tribes in America, pursue and kill? What is our Nat'll leadership doing against Indigenous Tribes in the Middle East, P & K.
When does it stop?
Posted by RonPaulRepub on 01/02/12 07:44 PM
Re: the war between the States
Don't forget the constant tug of war over Free VS Slave states and new territories. Any free territory was a threat to slave holders in that slaves would quite naturally flee to these areas to live. By that standard pre Napoleonic Mexico was also a favored choice as were the Native American Tribes outside slave areas. (even the War of 1812 served this purpose by denying Natives British alliances in the end)
Any Free zone was attacked for that major reason.
Thank you for your consideration.
Posted by Chasvoice on 01/02/12 07:37 PM
Is COINTELPRO Effort Underway to Sabotage Ron Paul in Iowa?
Click to view link
Posted by travis690 on 01/02/12 07:05 PM
I am amazed, but not surprised, that in the uprisings occurring in the Middle East, that the United States is supporting the idea of allowing the oppressed people to have continuous access to the internet, yet in the United States these same scalawags are attempting to shut down free communication over the internet.
I am hopeful that in my lifetime that national borders will cease to exist, and governments the world over will lose their reason for being. There is no need--anywhere--to have an elite group of fools to institute rules upon the residents of any certain piece of dirt in the world.
Amerika, you've changed.
Posted by kenn on 01/02/12 06:19 PM
Note to Mr. Gerson and the Washington Post.
Thank you for the list. It at least shows presstitutes do in fact know the truth. Heck, and I thought you were just lazy and paid off... Oh, golly gee, I was right!
Posted by taxesbyanyothername on 01/02/12 06:03 PM
That looks more like Johnny Carson. LOL
Posted by krmaya on 01/02/12 05:57 PM
"what kind of policy is based on the premise that the rest of the world needs to be ignored?"
Obviously you have not listened to Dr Paul speak much have you? Dr Paul has spoken often of not "entangling alliances" with other countries but would trade and seek friendships (diplomacy) with other countries. I hardly call that ignoring. If you support the U.S. military bases and intrusions around the world then you hardly can agree with Ron's monetary policies because they are tied together closely. The U.S. cannot follow Ron Paul's monetary policies and still police the world.
Posted by HugoHolland on 01/02/12 05:35 PM
MSNBC also threw in their weight against Mr. Paul and gold. A 7.10 min clip of pure, no other word available, propaganda Click to view link .
Posted by Jackson on 01/02/12 05:07 PM
The problem presented by Paul's libertarian policies is that in the final analysis, apart from his monetary policy, they are non-policies. In foreign affairs, what kind of policy is based on the premise that the rest of the world needs to be ignored?
Paul would make a great Secretary of the Treasury but his judgment shouldn't be trusted anywhere outside his area of expertise.
Posted by Paul P. Wiggins II on 01/02/12 04:47 PM