Ron Paul's Goodbye: A response

The following article, frankly, upsets me:

http://www.rense.com/...

I take most issue with the argument about Paul's disavowal of the 9/11 Truth Movement. To suppose that Ron Paul lost support from those in 9/11 Truth Movement makes me doubt the vision of the author of the article. I hope his views don't speak for the entire movement. Paul may not openly endorse the views of our movements, but his platform attacks the root causes that allowed 9/11 to take place. In fact, Ron Paul's platform and the views of the 9/11 Truth Movement align very well.

Obviously, each of us in this group has our own theories about what happened on 9/11, and we all have variations of the "inside-job/govt. complicity/rogue elements" theories. However, each one of us realizes that stating these views to a wide, public audience will instantly subject us to severe scrutiny and possible retribution.

For a politician such as Ron Paul to openly acknowledge beliefs similar to ours, he would effectively end his campaign. Remember that not every supporter of Ron Paul is a 9/11 Truther or other "conspiracy theorist." Paul's appeal reaches plain-old conservatives, libertarians, those against the war, fiscal conservatives, military personnel, and those who are fed up with the status-quo. The views of the 9/11 Truth movement are often-times quite offensive to those outside the circle. And in fact, those ideas can be quite divisive. For Ron Paul to garner the kind of support he needs to win, he must focus on issues that unite us, not divide us.

I've witnessed the "conversion" of a number of people to the Ron Paul Revolution. Those people were generally just tired of how our country spends money or the endless war, and are looking for someone who can lead us out of the mess. People see Ron Paul as the only politician speaking to the real issues - monetary policy, balanced budgets, and end to unnecessary war, etc. Let me tell you that if one of Paul's planks was that 9/11 was an inside job, the Ron Paul Revolution would be a heckuva lot smaller. The people that have become Ron Paul supporters most likely would not have done so if it meant aligning with the view that elements of our government kills its own citizens.

Let's quickly examine what allowed 9/11 to take place and the reasons it happened. Despite your beliefs about 9/11, it can be assumed that the perpetrators executed/allowed it for the purposes of power and money. The purpose, more succinctly, was to create an environment of fear where citizens would be frightened into supporting an endless, multi-trillion dollar war on "terror." But why would we want that? Because people make gobs of money during wars. And who makes money during our wars? The military-industrial complex, the oil companies, anyone with government contracts, media companies, and most of all, the banks. And for every dollar that goes to these entities, they send it back to Washington in the form of lobbying for policies of "more-of-the-same." Of course, we have no visibility into governement contracts, Federal Reserve, or the activities of lobbyists, and we have no power to investigate them. The system is currently built up to protect itself from prying eyes and "snooping" citizens.

So, if you believe the above paragraph is even close to the reasons that 9/11 came about, how can you turn your support away from Ron Paul? His policies of monetary reform would attack the Federal Reserve system and make it impossible for private banks to make money off the taxpayers' dollar. Ron Paul's policy of government contract reform would prevent those with government contracts from lobbying our government to serve their own interests. He would remove the conflict of interest so easily found in Washington. Ron Paul has signed a pledge to make government more open and visible in terms of its expenditures and documents. His policies would prevent people from waging war for money and power, because they would no longer have the ability! Ron Paul's platform attacks the very foundations and institutions that allowed 9/11 to happen. Why wouldn't we support him?

Who knows what Ron really believes. Who knows what any politician really believes. But it is a mistake to withdraw your support from Ron Paul because he does openly support the specific theories of the 9/11 Truth movement. His policies strike at the root issues of our cause. Ron Paul is a doctor, and it is appropriate that his platform treats the causes, not the symptoms, of what is wrong in our nation. 9/11 was a symptom of something far greater than the events of the day. Ron Paul and his policies will prevent the next 9/11, without having to openly support the theories behind the first one.

Thanks for the response.

I think it is important to understand that Ron Paul went over and above in his alienation of 9/11 Truth. We all know that Ron Paul is very good with his words. He's not necessarily graceful, but he definitely knows how to pick what he says. There are many ways he could have been an advocate for openness and truth, instead of blatantly alienating the truth and those who are open to it.

Practically everyone who looks at 9/11 with an open mind can see the clear demolition work used at the WTC. This leads to only one conclusion for those that see this: an inside job.

Regardless of whether he is "on the other team" or whether he's trying to cover his ass, he did the job of alienating the obvious truth very well and alienating those who are open to it. To portray obvious truth as if it were lies creates more of the cognitive dissonance and Orwellian disconnect that creates more sleepiness.

I comprehend that a lot of what he has said he wants to do probably could slow the NWO a little bit. This is, of course, if they let him do it. After all, the US is their fiction. Concordantly, there are many people that think that the only way to stop the control of the NWO is to stay open to truth.

Many people have said that they support him but do not think he is going to win. When asked why they support him anyway, many respond that it is because he is out there telling the truth. The truth is not subjective. Those that remain open to it typically do not promote others who do not and/or promote others who alienate those that do.

I will digress from Ron Paul topic.

You wrote, "And who makes money during our wars?" This question does not have any relevance. If you can create "money" out of nothing, why do you care about how much "money" you have? Wars are not created by the elites* out of greed for money, but instead for power. The elites' purpose is not to "earn money," it is to get you to use it thereby allowing you to more easily subject yourself to their jurisdiction voluntarily. One way you do this is through debt. However, if one chooses to live in truth, by definition one will not subject themselves to anyone else. One will not give anyone else their own power.

Also, you may want to watch this video if you think that doctors by definition strike at the root causes of issues as opposed to the symptoms.


--
Footnotes:

* I do not consider as the elites the people like the Bushes or the CEOs of the oil companies, or any of the minions that are doing things for money. Those people are just slaves to the elites; privileged as they are.

Hey Guys-

Thanks for your words. It gives me hope to see that our society still has independent thinkers and people who want change. We can unite together to bring about a new tomorrow.

On what was said here, I have a few thoughts-


In so far as "Who makes money.." - This question DOES have relevance! Tim, I agree that money is an illusion; paper that has no value but is passed off as currency. But that does not make it's effect on the American people any less devastating. We can see this on a daily basis by the continuous slide of America's average standard of living. While I agree that we can "wake up" to the illusion of money, that is something that will not take place quickly. My concern is that we get so wrapped up in the philosophy of this thing that we get disconnected from the rest of the American people. We may not be able to get massive change by way of our involvement in government and politics, but every small thing we do to keep ourselves connected will help, I believe. At the same time, the 9/11 truth movement will continue to grow stronger and unite- and in time it cannot be ignored.

Also, an interesting side note to the money question is that it provides a very handy and telling road map for who is involved, who engineers the system, and who benefits from all that goes on. Power, in the guise of greed, has helped us to better understand exactly how deep down this dreamworld goes.

I know this reply didn't have anything to do with Ron Paul, but I do like the guy... even if he did disavow his connections to 9/11 truth. I suspect he still aligns with our cause, but he was probably massively pressured to disassociate himself with the movement or see his campaign end at the hands of the elite and the media.


Tom

One of the problems I sense with the original article and with those who have withdrawn their support from Ron Paul is too much black-or-white thinking.

Let me draw a simple analogy to the path to truth and freedom.

Say you are a traveller wanting to get from Los Angeles to New York. There are 5 trains leaving the station. You know that some of the trains head in the completely wrong direction - one to Mexico, one to Seattle, one to Florida. The remaining trains, you know, may only get you as far as Ohio or Kentucky, but they at least head in the right direction. You know that riding one of the latter trains will bring you much closer to your final destination than would one of the first few trains. You could take any of the existing trains, or you could wait for another one to come along.

As a traveller whose destination is New York, how would you choose to travel? Will you take a train that will bring you closer to your end destination and goal? If so, you'd have to find some way to make the rest of the journey, short as it may be. Or will you choose to sit in LA at the train station until that one ideal and flawless train chugs into the station?


I see Ron Paul and the Revolution as a train that may or may not get us all the way to our final destination. But it's headed in the right direction. Furthermore, if you look at all the other trains, you'll see they are either heading in the wrong direction, or their track is very short. In my opinion, we can't wait around for that perfect ride. That type of thinking is too simplistic. We have to pursue and achieve the gains that are possible with the tools at our disposal. Refusing those tools is an insult to the merit and advantage they offer us.

Don't reject Ron Paul because he is not the ideal. He may not get us all the way there, but he would get us a whole lot closer to what we seek - truth and freedom.

Guys --

Thanks for your responses.

Keep in mind that I am not part of any "we." There is no we. There is only this."We" is a fiction and will always be so. All groups are fictions of the human mind.

Personally, I do not want to be a part of any group much less a group as "mindless" and elite-driven as one called "Americans," "Europeans," etc. ad nauseam.

Sygnus --

Though I generally agree with your ideas there is one caveat:

I must be careful who I follow and what paths I choose. Truth is important and if I support the alienation of truth, I support the alienation of mySelf. Ultimately, the only human that will get me closer to truth and freedom, is this human.

This paints Ron's views of 9/11 Truth in a different light:

http://www.youtube.co...

In the video he says he would be supportive of a new investigation.

I think Ron Paul is right to keep his distance from the 9/11 truth movement. The majority of people are in strong denial about the truth of the events on September 11th 2001. There?s simply no way he could gain support from these people if he?s shouting down the streets: ?9/11 was an inside job?.

Some of you have become so mesmerized by Ron Paul's agreeing with you on some issues that you are willing to go to any lengths to excuse his repudiation of 9/11 truth.

Look at it this way. A politician is pressured to repudiate one of his or her more controversial positions in order to get elected. The politician caves in to the pressure. Where do you draw the line? If you are justified in repudiating one controversial position in order to be elected, wouldn't the same reasoning justify you in repudiating another controversial position in order to be elected? This is precisely how idealistic people launching their crusade in politics to change the system end up becoming the cheap politicians whom a future generation of idealistic crusaders have to fight.

Repudiating your knowledge of the government's complicity in making 9/11 happen deprives you of one of your best arguments for convincing people that this system must be overthrown. It is not comparable to settling on the train that will take you from Los Angeles to Chicago in the hope that you will be able to find a train taking you from Chicago to New York. It is comparable to taking passage on a ship sailing out into the Pacific towards Asia.

Robert Halfhill