Ron Paul (2010-2011)

[Dennis Leahy]

Posted by risveglio (here)
...To me, your belief in socialism is a pipe dream that can never happen the way you see it. But, you probably beleive the same about my belief in limited government. I see Marx as a man with bad ideas and would rather we take our advice from Von Mises.

And yes, I see socialism as force. I see a lot of the programs we provide to our citizens as force. I believe in a free market, based on true capitalism, these wonderful ideas you see as socialism provided would be provided better by the market. Those that are more in need of things because of hard times, would be taken care of by more charity.

I do believe in limited government - as small and as efficient as possible - and see the current government as terribly bloated with infrastructure and bureaucracy.

Socialism and capitalism are already coexisting in the US and have for quite a long time - through economic boom and bust. The social aspect does not create the bust. Bankers do, and they do it purposely. It is historical fact. Von Mises knew that as well.

Do you believe in ZERO taxes? Aren't taxes a way of being forced to share? And isn't tax money used for programs that (supposedly) benefit everyone? (like street lights, sewer systems, soldiers and firefighters and police salaries...)

If you believe in zero taxes, then you would have to assume that people would voluntarily give money to keep the streets plowed from snow in the winter, and potholes filled, and new pavement when necessary, and signage and striping on road surfaces, and street lights erected and bulbs and electricity paid, and traffic signals...

Or, you do think taxes are necessary, because hell no people would never willingly donate enough for even the road system, much less all of the many many things that taxes (ostensibly) pay for. And, if you think taxes are necessary - that is, we must be forced to pay taxes - then do you think the care of the pavement is a social responsibility but care of our impoverished brothers and sisters is not? How far do we go down that road before it raises a flag? What percentage of wealth accumulation is OK, and where does it hit obscene and amoral? You do realize how many US citizens are living in poverty right now, right? (Many are "working poor" who work full-time and still make such crap wages they are still impoverished.) And you do realize that number is going up, not down.

God help the vast majority of us if we have to endure a century of Von Mises "free market" capitalism in exchange for Friedman "free market" capitalism. If that's where our great spiritual enlightenment has brought us, we need a new guru.

Dennis

[Ilie Pandia]

I just want to clarify that I am not against heath care, child care, elders care or any kind of social support program. That is not what I am saying.

What I was trying to convey is that the current "care programs" do not work in the current paradigm, where profit (and not "care") is the driving force! I am not an American and I do not believe in the voting system any longer. I've been fooled too many times. But about Ron Paul, I see the same thing as Dennis: he is trying to make the USA profitable and his strategies may actually work! But you will have to ask yourself... in the current paradigm and state of awareness... who will benefit from that profit?

[risveglio]

Posted by Dennis Leahy (here)

Posted by risveglio (here)
...To me, your belief in socialism is a pipe dream that can never happen the way you see it. But, you probably beleive the same about my belief in limited government. I see Marx as a man with bad ideas and would rather we take our advice from Von Mises.

And yes, I see socialism as force. I see a lot of the programs we provide to our citizens as force. I believe in a free market, based on true capitalism, these wonderful ideas you see as socialism provided would be provided better by the market. Those that are more in need of things because of hard times, would be taken care of by more charity.

I do believe in limited government - as small and as efficient as possible - and see the current government as terribly bloated with infrastructure and bureaucracy.

Socialism and capitalism are already coexisting in the US and have for quite a long time - through economic boom and bust. The social aspect does not create the bust. Bankers do, and they do it purposely. It is historical fact. Von Mises knew that as well.

Do you believe in ZERO taxes? Aren't taxes a way of being forced to share? And isn't tax money used for programs that (supposedly) benefit everyone? (like street lights, sewer systems, soldiers and firefighters and police salaries...)

If you believe in zero taxes, then you would have to assume that people would voluntarily give money to keep the streets plowed from snow in the winter, and potholes filled, and new pavement when necessary, and signage and striping on road surfaces, and street lights erected and bulbs and electricity paid, and traffic signals...

Or, you do think taxes are necessary, because hell no people would never willingly donate enough for even the road system, much less all of the many many things that taxes (ostensibly) pay for. And, if you think taxes are necessary - that is, we must be forced to pay taxes - then do you think the care of the pavement is a social responsibility but care of our impoverished brothers and sisters is not? How far do we go down that road before it raises a flag? What percentage of wealth accumulation is OK, and where does it hit obscene and amoral? You do realize how many US citizens are living in poverty right now, right? (Many are "working poor" who work full-time and still make such crap wages they are still impoverished.) And you do realize that number is going up, not down.

God help the vast majority of us if we have to endure a century of Von Mises "free market" capitalism in exchange for Friedman "free market" capitalism. If that's where our great spiritual enlightenment has brought us, we need a new guru.

Dennis

I guess where we have the biggest disagreement Dennis is that I see you as blaming capitalism for the failures of socialism. I see one of the big problems, as you stated above, is that we already have socialism and capitalism co-existing. I do see the problem with the bankers and big corporations today as being more of a result of unsound money (THE FED) and crony capitalism which closer represents fascism. This co-existence of big government and big business which destroys the foundation of true capitalism.

I do believe in the idea of zero taxes and that roads, security and city maintenance could be done in the private sector but I don't agree on imposing that idea to an entire nation that is accustomed to a state baby sitter in one generation. I also believe that when the state is not manipulating the money and choosing winners and losers, the market could provide a larger portion of the population with the resources, through there own labor to provide there basic needs much better than any central form of government ever could. Now in a society where there is no taxes, i bet more people would do more things for free. Now this is not a rule of the theory but I think a result that probably would happen. I can see your attempt to vilify free market capitalism but it has hardly been tried where as every attempt of socialism that has been attempted, has failed.

[Fred Steeves]

Posted by Ilie Pandia (here)
I just want to clarify that I am not against heath care, child care, elders care or any kind of social support program. That is not what I am saying.

What I was trying to convey is that the current "care programs" do not work in the current paradigm, where profit (and not "care") is the driving force! I am not an American and I do not believe in the voting system any longer. I've been fooled too many times. But about Ron Paul, I see the same thing as Dennis: he is trying to make the USA profitable and his strategies may actually work! But you will have to ask yourself... in the current paradigm and state of awareness... who will benefit from that profit?

Now we're getting somewhere, IMHO. Also, please allow me to add that yet once again, I stand in awe of the intellectual capacity of my fellow members of Avalon. I feel extremely honored, as always, to be amongst you all! I've been thanking both opinions that I tend to agree with, and those not so much, simply because they are ALL so well thought out and articulated! Having said that, I'd like to plunge briefly into this conversation the way I used to like to do when entering a pool with my friends as a kid, with a running cannonball.

The way I see it, changing the rules to the inherent corrupt and various political ideologies crammed down our throats by TPTW as the only possible ways of doing things, is no different than re-shuffling the deck chairs on the Titanic. It's still their game in the end after all, and the results, no matter how cleverly we feel we are re-arranging the game pieces, will always be the same as they always have been for us. A lose-lose proposition.

We need to in effect take our ball and go home, and start our own damn game. No, I can't even begin as of now to be able to envision for myself or anyone else how this new game would look or work, but if we truly believe that it is our birth right to be co-creators in our own right in a universe of infinite possibility, then I am 100% convinced we can come up with one hell of a doozy!

These are momentous times we are fortunate enough to be a part of, and we need to start thinking big. REALLY BIG. Dare I even say "impossibly" big...

Cheers,
Fred

[Dennis Leahy]

Posted by risveglio (here)
... every attempt of socialism that has been attempted, has failed.

Deeply ironic to see those words, written from one US citizen to another US citizen, on "Columbus Day" (yes, I realize Columbus was not "the one" in what is now the US, but he and his horde were certainly the first wave of ruthless oppressors in The Americas.) Ask a few of our fellow Avalon members that are Native American how many thousands of years their people lived, quite successfully, in what would be considered "socialism." Three hundred years after Columbus, the dominant elite capitalists (the US 'founding fathers', who were capitalists and slave owners) were still engaged in genocide against the indigenous populations living in a relatively socialist tribal lifestyle.

So, I have to disagree with your assertion quite strongly.

Dennis

[risveglio]

Posted by Dennis Leahy (here)

Posted by risveglio (here)
... every attempt of socialism that has been attempted, has failed.

Deeply ironic to see those words, written from one US citizen to another US citizen, on "Columbus Day" (yes, I realize Columbus was not "the one" in what is now the US, but he and his horde were certainly the first wave of ruthless oppressors in The Americas.) Ask a few of our fellow Avalon members that are Native American how many thousands of years their people lived, quite successfully, in what would be considered "socialism." Three hundred years after Columbus, the dominant elite capitalists (the US 'founding fathers', who were capitalists and slave owners) were still engaged in genocide against the indigenous populations living in a relatively socialist tribal lifestyle.

So, I have to disagree with your assertion quite strongly.

Dennis

Don't try to claim that the Native Americans were living as socialists. That is just blatantly not true and is just another attempt of yours to make yourself seem like some sort of good guy. Do I need to mention the horrors of Mao, Stalin, and countless others who were socialists?

Fact is that socialism has NEVER worked.

[Dennis Leahy]

Posted by risveglio (here)

Don't try to claim that the Native Americans were living as socialists. That is just blatantly not true and is just another attempt of yours to make yourself seem like some sort of good guy. Do I need to mention the horrors of Mao, Stalin, and countless others who were socialists?

I said, "relatively socialist tribal lifestyle", not "socialist."

If I have to make myself seem like some sort of good guy, then in your eyes I am not a good guy. The rift widens.

Mao and Stalin were not socialists. They headed ruthless totalitarian regimes that purposely misused the words communism and socialism. You need to read Marx and compare and contrast his writings to Russian and Chinese history under those two totalitarian dictators. No wonder you're afraid of socialism, you think Stalinist and Maoist dictatorships were socialist! That would scare the crap out of me too.

Oh, and the closest thing I have ever heard of to real communism was a convent.

I will step aside now, because we are beginning to simply lock horns and this feels like time not well spent.

Peace.

Dennis

[risveglio]

Posted by Dennis Leahy (here)

Posted by risveglio (here)

Don't try to claim that the Native Americans were living as socialists. That is just blatantly not true and is just another attempt of yours to make yourself seem like some sort of good guy. Do I need to mention the horrors of Mao, Stalin, and countless others who were socialists?

I said, "relatively socialist tribal lifestyle", not "socialist."

If I have to make myself seem like some sort of good guy, then in your eyes I am not a good guy. The rift widens.

Mao and Stalin were not socialists. They headed ruthless totalitarian regimes that purposely misused the words communism and socialism. You need to read Marx and compare and contrast his writings to Russian and Chinese history under those two totalitarian dictators. No wonder you're afraid of socialism, you think Stalinist and Maoist dictatorships were socialist! That would scare the crap out of me too.

Oh, and the closest thing I have ever heard of to real communism was a convent.

I will step aside now, because we are beginning to simply lock horns and this feels like time not well spent.

Peace.

Dennis

I've read Marx. Marx has a flawed view of humanity which is why his theories can not work. I also have a big problem when Marx is brought up because in my opinion, Von Mises, Hayek and plenty of others have given us enough proof that Marx was wrong. Have you read Nation, State, and Economy? Have you read Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis? They do a far better job of shooting down this concept of socialism than I ever could. But, when you read these works you know well enough that Marx should be forgotten, his ideas should no longer be taught as anything other than failed economics.

[Ilie Pandia]

Hello,

"socialist" and "socialism" are labels that you Dennis, and you risveglio use to label quite different things:

- Dennis seems to talk about a society were everybody is cared for as a group decision: "we are enlightened enough to see that as long as even one of us suffers we all do!". This Dennis calls "socialism" (as I understand it).

- risveglio, you on the other hand are applying the label of "socialism" to some actions taken by dictators (that are much closer to what I would call "fascism" or a totalitarian regime). Nothing to do with care and love for each other, even if they say they do, their actions say different

So, no need to fight on that label any longer . You will both choose your timelines and, who knows, you may find that in the end, you've chosen the same one but you call it differently

[161803398]

This is what Norway does:

https://youtube.com/watch?v=

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=76VOnzXQMsU

[risveglio]

Posted by Ilie Pandia (here)
Hello,

"socialist" and "socialism" are labels that you Dennis, and you risveglio use to label quite different things:

- Dennis seems to talk about a society were everybody is cared for as a group decision: "we are enlightened enough to see that as long as even one of us suffers we all do!". This Dennis calls "socialism" (as I understand it).

- risveglio, you on the other hand are applying the label of "socialism" to some actions taken by dictators (that are much closer to what I would call "fascism" or a totalitarian regime). Nothing to do with care and love for each other, even if they say they do, their actions say different

So, no need to fight on that label any longer . You will both choose your timelines and, who knows, you may find that in the end, you've chosen the same one but you call it differently

I think by bringing in Marx, Dennis implied he is talking about Socialism, the political and economic theory. Now if we are trying to bring about a way where everyone is taken care of, that is not possible without force as long as the whatever is being provided, requires labor.

[Ilie Pandia]

Posted by risveglio (here)
Now if we are trying to bring about a way where everyone is taken care of, that is not possible without force as long as the whatever is being provided, requires labor.

I cannot speak for everyone nor can I know what I would do until actually faced with the decision, but I believe I would willingly donate part of my income to support people, processes and research that I think are important to support. And the very presence of this community and others like it, is evidence that I am not alone in this thinking. And this really gives me hope

[risveglio]

Posted by Ilie Pandia (here)

Posted by risveglio (here)
Now if we are trying to bring about a way where everyone is taken care of, that is not possible without force as long as the whatever is being provided, requires labor.

I cannot speak for everyone nor can I know what I would do until actually faced with the decision, but I believe I would willingly donate part of my income to support people, processes and research that I think are important to support. And the very presence of this community and others like it, is evidence that I am not alone in this thinking. And this really gives me hope

And that is a great thing. I would hope that all that are able to donate their time, energy, or money to the greater good would, but that is not what we are discussing when we start to talk about Marxism.

[RMorgan]

Posted by risveglio (here)
I've read Marx. Marx has a flawed view of humanity which is why his theories can not work. I also have a big problem when Marx is brought up because in my opinion, Von Mises, Hayek and plenty of others have given us enough proof that Marx was wrong. Have you read Nation, State, and Economy? Have you read Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis? They do a far better job of shooting down this concept of socialism than I ever could. But, when you read these works you know well enough that Marx should be forgotten, his ideas should no longer be taught as anything other than failed economics.

Well, I´m not sure. Currently, the biggest USA creditor is China, which is the biggest socialist country in the world.

It´s proven that Capitalism doesn´t work, at least for 99% of the world´s population.

Anyway, both Capitalism and Socialism have huge flaws. We´re still to find out an economic system that actually works.

Anyway, about the presidential stuff, we all know that a president is just a puppet, in the USA, Brazil, or anywhere else. If any president steps out of the line, he´s out.

This is just an endless game to give us the illusion of political choice. There´s no left, no right. It´s just like a coin; It has two different sides, but it still a coin.

[risveglio]

Posted by RMorgan (here)

Posted by risveglio (here)
I've read Marx. Marx has a flawed view of humanity which is why his theories can not work. I also have a big problem when Marx is brought up because in my opinion, Von Mises, Hayek and plenty of others have given us enough proof that Marx was wrong. Have you read Nation, State, and Economy? Have you read Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis? They do a far better job of shooting down this concept of socialism than I ever could. But, when you read these works you know well enough that Marx should be forgotten, his ideas should no longer be taught as anything other than failed economics.

Well, I´m not sure. Currently, the biggest USA creditor is China, which is the biggest socialist country in the world.

It´s proven that Capitalism doesn´t work, at least for 99% of the world´s population.

Anyway, both Capitalism and Socialism have huge flaws. We´re still to find out an economic system that actually works.

And the Chinese follow capitalism far closer than we do when it comes to business. Capitalism has not been tried, lets try it before we say it doesn't work.

[RMorgan]

Posted by risveglio (here)

Posted by RMorgan (here)

Posted by risveglio (here)
I've read Marx. Marx has a flawed view of humanity which is why his theories can not work. I also have a big problem when Marx is brought up because in my opinion, Von Mises, Hayek and plenty of others have given us enough proof that Marx was wrong. Have you read Nation, State, and Economy? Have you read Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis? They do a far better job of shooting down this concept of socialism than I ever could. But, when you read these works you know well enough that Marx should be forgotten, his ideas should no longer be taught as anything other than failed economics.

Well, I´m not sure. Currently, the biggest USA creditor is China, which is the biggest socialist country in the world.

It´s proven that Capitalism doesn´t work, at least for 99% of the world´s population.

Anyway, both Capitalism and Socialism have huge flaws. We´re still to find out an economic system that actually works.

And the Chinese follow capitalism far closer than we do when it comes to business. Capitalism has not been tried, lets try it before we say it doesn't work.

Yes, China is a master of doing business. But I get your point. You´re talking about pure, idealistic Capitalism, right?

I´m not sure if we will be able to try it. After all those years, we´ve only experienced a tyrannical version of this system; the ugly side of capitalism ( Here in Brazil we call it Imperialism, for obvious reasons).

[T Smith]

Posted by Dennis Leahy (here)

Posted by risveglio (here)
There really is no comparing Ron Paul to Obama. ...

Now I am not one to believe that all the congressmen are under some elite control ...
... all politicians are evil, ...wouldn't you rather have a guy ...

The Ron Paul's America, if successful is a drastic change. It promotes people taking care of themselves ... force against one group of people to help another.

... instead of camping on the streets of Wall Street for a movement that will probably lead us towards socialism.

risveglio, I fear there is a pretty wide divide between us ideologically, but please allow me to try to bridge the gap a bit.

"There really is no comparing Ron Paul to Obama"
I did not say Obama is better than Ron Paul. Nor do I believe it. That's not the point I was making.

"under elite control" is not a scenario out of a Hollywood sci-fi movie. Congressmen are not brainwashed or connected to some brain altering remote control device. It is much simpler that that: they were financially sponsored into their position of power. They "dance with who brung them." They ARE controlled: they are controlled by their greed and most significantly they are controlled by their desire for power - and the desire to continue on in their position of power. Many Congresspersons probably believe in the system as it exists and do not even see their sponsors as evil. They support them, and they are in turn supported. That is "control." That means they do not listen to citizens, they listen to their sponsors (via the sponsors' lobbyists.)

I believe you do not understand the workings of the three branches of government when you say "Ron Paul's America, if successful is a drastic change." The power of the presidency is an illusion. Legislative power is in Congress, not the White House.

" It promotes people taking care of themselves ... force against one group of people to help another."

I have to say, this mindset is deeply disturbing to me. There is the implied assumption that people are not taking care of themselves, i.e., not working hard enough, and that only the upper middle class and up (socioeconomically) have worked hard. The pyramidal structure of capitalism guarantees with 100% certainty that the majority of citizens will fall to a lower socioeconomic status regardless of how hard every single person works. If you do not understand this, you do not understand capitalism. If you do understand this, and are OK with it, I'll remind you that even if you are "hardworking middle class", you are exactly one major financial tragedy away from poverty yourself. If it happens to you, will you feel you deserved it?

And, I'd ask you to meditate a bit on the second part of that sentence ("force against one group of people to help another.") and see if that is what you really meant to say. Only a sociopath would need to be forced to help others who are sick, homeless, cold, hungry, afraid, lost. Unfortunately, we have not only found that about 1% of the population are sociopaths, but we find that the further up the socioeconomic scale you go, the more likely someone will be a sociopath. So yes, sadly, the richer someone is, the more likely they will need to be forced to help others (and the more likely they became rich by exploiting others.)


"lead us towards socialism"
Socialism:
Your signature line is "free energy now." That's socialism. Socialism is good. Jesus handing out lox and bagels instead of selling them - that's socialism. Socialism is cooperation instead of competition. Socialism is sharing resources, rather than allowing someone to own and horde resources and to eek them out - which is the "scarcity" paradigm, the opposite of the "abundance" paradigm (that "free energy" exemplifies.)

What is the basis of your fear of socialism? I know we could debate this for weeks, but the totalitarian state of USSR, for example, was not socialism and was not Marxism. Marxism never actually happened. It's like that goofy old line, "A funny thing happened on the way to the forum..." The concept of Marxism was instrumental in the Bolshevik revolution, but before anyone could actually establish Marxist socialism, the "Russian Statists" co-opted that movement, created a totalitarian State, and just for a twist of irony (and control of the masses), called it "Socialism." Real socialism is the pooling of resources, and the fair allocation of those resources. Like the fact that you do not have to personally pay for a fire department for your own house. Public schools, libraries, roads, bridges, sewers, water treatment plants, the weather service... those are all socialist. You and I have been lied to for so long that we have a nearly involuntary negative reaction to the word "socialism", kind of a Clockwork Orange aversion conditioning.

The opposite of socialism is pure capitalism: everything is owned by someone; nothing is shared. Pure capitalism in the hands of sociopaths is a pyramid scheme based on greed where very few at the top of the pyramid do extremely well, and by the pyramidal structure, a thousand or maybe ten thousand people at the bottom of the pyramid do very poorly. This is not due to their laziness; it is the design of a pyramid. In a capitalist system, if everyone worked equally hard, some would do very well (the clever and the well-connected) and most would do very poorly. There is nothing spiritual about capitalism. It is carnal, possessive, lustful, and greed-driven.You and I know in our hearts that sharing is more spiritual than owning, regardless how cleverly the capitalists phrase the defense of capitalism.

Capitalism is competition, the opposite of cooperation. There is nothing spiritually evolved or compassionate about capitalism. Hunger and poverty and illness among those impoverished will never be dealt with by capitalism.

Could socialism and capitalism exist simultaneously? Yes, that is how the US is set up right now. Only, the capitalists are getting greedier, and trying to shove out all socialism.

A business where five plumbers get together, pool their resources with equal input, and use that to buy a few trucks, some expensive pipe bending and threading equipment, advertising, receptionist, etc. - and who all own an equal share of the business - would be an example of a cooperative, which is socialist. They would be a socialist enterprise operating within the capitalist system (but hopefully, they would not be a part of the evil side of capitalism.)

Capitalism is not a monetary system. A monetary system of some sort is necessary, well, it is convenient so that you do not have to pay for your car repair in 31 jars of organic jam and 9 dozen organic eggs. The particular monetary system used by the current ruling bankers (the tip top of the power pyramid) - money created by debt using fractional reserve - is a scam benefiting only the bankers, so regardless what else we do with capitalism and socialism, we need to replace our "debt money" monetary system with a non-debt monetary system.

Ron Paul is anti-socialism and pro-capitalism. That's the final and unassailable truth. He is not spiritually evolved (or shows no outward sign of it.) He wants wars to stop because wars are expensive, fiscally irresponsible. He wants to end the Fed because he knows the bankers get the interest money, and that costs the US government money - again, not fiscally wise. So, Ron Paul is for some of the same things that a spiritually evolving person stands for, but it is not for enlightened reasons. With not just a Ron Paul president (the significance of a president is WAY overrated in terms of change in governance) but add several hundred individuals to Congress that think just like Ron Paul. What would the result be? The United States government, as a business venture, would be financially stronger. There would be less war. So yes, some good would come of it (but it would require hundreds of Congresspersons that think like Ron Paul. Don't lose sight of that fact.) What would NOT happen? Universal health care is one huge thing that would not happen - it is too expensive, and it is socialist. Poverty would not end, because ending poverty is a socialist concept, and it costs money. Major agricultural reform would not happen (Monsanto and the GMO plague would continue its march towards total dominance of food) - because they provide jobs and contribute the GNP, which a country run as a business would support. Big Pharma, Big Energy, Big Insurance would all survive pretty much intact, because they are the current employers and contributors to GNP. A drastic switch to green energy (not even including free energy) would not happen, because the infrastructure would cost a lot of money up front, would not be able to be borne by energy business, and would need to be subsidized by government. Education would be crippled by lack of funding or privatized, and public services like libraries would disappear.

One of the worst things about supporting Ron Paul for president has nothing to do with Ron Paul as an individual. Supporting ANY candidate within the election system they built for themselves is a vote supporting that system. It is that system that critically needs to change, not one or more of the personnel within that system.

We can do a lot, lot better than this. We have worked hard on our spiritual growth to get to a point where we blossom as individuals, communities, regions, countries, and as humanity. What a sad thing it would be to settle for "better than Obama" when we should be emerging into an immensely better paradigm of cooperation and sharing and wise stewardship. I can see a future, a not too distant future, where capitalism is allowed to remain a part of society, but only for those parts of society that have nothing to do with our needs. Basically, luxury items and luxury services being handled by capitalists - but even then I would demand restrictions on their capitalistic enterprises so that they were not free to exploit workers and rape the environment.

This is TOO LONG! I apologize. I could probably write a short story about the word "succinct"; I'm hopelessly verbose.

Dennis

Hi Dennis,

You have exceptional clarity and understanding of the way our political system functions. There is no question you are spot-on in your overall assessment. It would seem to me, however, based on your discussion with risveglio and others, your clarity of mind may have forced you into a box of sorts, and it may be clouding your judgment of what's going on in this particular case. I've had this discussion with others here at Avalon, and for the most part, I feel our discussions have expanded all our differing viewpoints.

To be succinct, while I have no doubt you grasp the abstract mathematics, so to speak, I also believe you have not accurately assessed Ron Paul's presence in the equation. It would seem your overall view is that it is pointless to buy into a political theater fully bought, run, controlled, and sold to the public by the power structure, and that any participation in the political process is simply an endorsement of the power structure itself. I think you quite correctly point out that we need to tear down the theater entirely and erect an equitable and just social system based on our own control.

All said, I still support what Ron Paul is doing and will actively participate in the game. "Why embrace the controller's theater and buy into it?" you might ask. Because I want to see what happens when a non-actor, one who is not invited up on the stage, endeavors to assume a leading role via the will of the people. This is a direct confrontation to power structure. And this is the prospect we are looking at. It's as simple as that. It doesn't mean I subscribe to the system or even believe it can work or the confrontation will succeed. But it does mean we are all witnessing a bonafide David-and-Goliath-type scene playing itself out before our very eyes.

The main issue here is the vast majority of people have no understanding whatsoever of the game we are all playing. The people are fully unconscious and asleep and do not have the clarity of mind you describe so eloquently in this thread, and in others. That's the crux of our problem. Put aside the capitalism vs. socialism argument for just a moment (we can return to that conversation later); the crux is, the people are asleep... if and when they awaken to the world as it truly exists I believe the capitalism vs. socialism problem will work itself out. Even most who understand the game, as an intellectual exercise, still are not fully aware of the reality. They may receive the worldview you describe as a sort of "cynical" take on things, but not necessarily a "literal" take on things. But the truth is, the power structure is a literal construct, and the system (and the very reality) people buy into is all an illusion. It is all staged, and it is all controlled. In short, we as a species have little or no collective free will.

But back to my question: what will happen when an uninvited actor tries to wrestle his way unto this controlled stage? This is not something that happens (as you point out). But for sake of illustration, let’s say some rogue politician not a part of the act attempts to co-opt the system. Let's go through the probable stages of how such a scenario would play out. First off, the only way it could ever happen is if there were spontaneous awakenings. People who are not awake will not give Ron Paul any consideration because the controlling force that largely governs the consciousness has instructed them not to endorse an uninvited candidate. This is where we are now, and to some degree, Ron Paul (or the collective consciousness behind him) is somehow breaking through this barrier. I find that very intriguing, as I see a direct correlation between Ron Paul's political stock rising with people awakening to the very system you describe. How can you not support that? But let's say the awakening pushes the envelope and takes fire even more... then what would happen? Election Fraud? Which will lead to further awakenings and a milieu in which perhaps election fraud may not even work… What next then? An assassination? Same result. This whole scenario is a slippery slope as far as the power structure is concerned. At some point, if they continue to push back at what Ron Paul is doing, we get closer to some form of revolution...

But let's throw in your scenario: TPTB allow a Ron Paul presidency to transpire as a sort of release valve for the people. I'll start to worry about that scenario if and when I see them maneuvering toward that end. As of now, this is not what is happening. Frankly, I can't see them able to control Ron Paul (remember, if he's even able to reach the office it's ONLY because people in large part have awaken). The power of control, in large part, comes from manipulation of public opinion and using the unaware masses themselves as leverage against their own interests. In short, I see election fraud and/or assassination as a much more plausible card to play.

I will also disagree with you about Ron Paul’s motivations. I have read his books and I think he is possibly more enlightened and spiritually aware than you given him credit for. His belief in free humanity runs deep and is founded not on greed or in a two-dimensional belief in capitalism, but on a deeper spiritual understanding of reality. You may disagree with his findings and approach, but I don’t think it’s a fair assessment to say he not spiritually enlightened.

The bottom line here is, I think this is a real live David-and-Goliath scene playing itself out. I’m not at all saying it will achieve anything, but we would still be well served to support it. It is an act that could take down the system itself if enough people awaken to it and get behind it. Whatever you think of Ron Paul’s political views (which really don’t stray too far from a deep-seeded belief in free humanity) directly challenging TPTB, by taking aim at the infiltrated system, is the necessary prerequisite at achieving any new social order, like say, The Reset Button. Let’s strive to throw off our chains first, however we can. That starts first with awakening people. Once we're all active and aware we can re-group and come up with more plausible solutions to problems.

[AlternativeInfoJunkie]

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=tSLhlyUlQAA

[stomy]

Ron Paul Proposes Elimination Of Education, Energy Departments, Lowering Presidential Salary To $39,336

Today at 3pm on Las Vegas, perpetually ignored by the media on both the left and right presidential candidate Ron Paul will announce details of his $1 trillion proposal in government spending cuts, which will be the start of a process to balance the Federal budget in three . As Politico reports, "the Texas congressman will lay out a budget blueprint for deep and far-reaching cuts to federal spending, including the elimination of five cabinet-level departments and the drawdown of American troops fighting overseas." Amusingly, and if there is anything that will Paul brownie points with an electorate disgusted by those spreading hypocritical class warfare, "there will even be a symbolic readjustment of the president’s own salary to put it in line with the average American salary." Which will simply make it a given that every president going forward will have at least three laid off Hollywood scriptwriters preoccupied as ghost writers and writing presidential "autobiographies." For the royalties. But we digress. "The federal workforce would be reduced by 10 percent, and the president’s pay would be cut to $39,336 — a level that the Paul document notes is “approximately equal to the median personal income of the American worker.” We somehow doubt that even Paul will go as far as proposing a much needed overhaul of campaign finance, which basically forces every politician to wear sponsorship tags of all the Wall Street banks that have "gifted" a given politician and/or president in the past 5 years, but we can surely hope.

More from Politico:

Many of the ideas are familiar from Paul’s staunch libertarianism, as well as tea party favorites like eliminating the departments of education and energy. But Paul goes further: he’ll propose immediately freezing spending by numerous government agencies at 2006 levels, the last time Republicans had complete control of the federal budget, and drastically reducing spending elsewhere. The EPA would see a 30 percent cut, the Food and Drug Administration would see one of 40 percent and foreign aid would be zeroed out immediately. He’d also take an ax to Pentagon funding for wars.



Medicaid, the children’s health insurance program, food stamps, family support programs and the children’s nutrition program would all be block-granted to the states and removed from the mandatory spending column of the federal budget. Some functions of eliminated departments, such as Pell Grants, would be continued elsewhere in the federal bureaucracy.



And in a noticeable nod to seniors during an election year when Social Security’s become an issue within the Republican primary, the campaign says that plan “honors our promise to our seniors and veterans, while allowing young workers to opt out.”

Also, say goodbye to progressive tax:

Paul would also make far-reaching changes to federal tax policy, reducing the top corporate income tax rate to 15 percent, eliminating capital gains and dividends taxes, and allowing for repatriation of overseas capital without tax penalties. All Bush-era tax cuts would be extended.

Lastly, Obama's "revolutionary" healthcare overhaul, will be hauled over.

And like the rest of his GOP rivals, Paul would repeal President Barack Obama’s health care reform law, along with the Dodd-Frank financial regulatory reform law enacted last year. Paul, a longtime Federal Reserve critic, would also push a full audit of the central bank, as well as legislation to “strengthen the dollar and stabilize inflation.”

We look forward to the actual speech and hope to present it live to our readers.



Source: zerohedge.com

Source: http://revivall.over-blog.com/articl...-86721541.html

[jackovesk]

Study Confirms Establishment is Terrified of Ron Paul

Figures prove Texan Congressman given least news coverage out of all Republican candidates

Monday, October 17, 2011

A new study by Pew Research Center confirms that the establishment is terrified of Ron Paul’s presidential campaign gaining momentum – figures show that despite his top tier showing in national polls, the Texan Congressman has received the least media coverage out of all the Republican candidates.



“Ron Paul loyalists have been vindicated. After months of observations that the mainstream media was ignoring the libertarian standard-bearer, a new study by the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism shows just that: the Texas Congressman, who has consistently polled in the high single digits — Real Clear Politics’s aggregate poll currently has him at 8 percent — has received the least overall coverage of any candidate. From May 2 to October 9, Paul appeared as the “primary newsmaker in only 2% of all election stories,” reports the Atlantic Wire’s John Hudson.

The figures, compiled from a list of 52 of the top mainstream news sources encompassing newspapers, cable news, and broadcast television, show that even the likes of Tom Pawlenty, who quit his candidacy last month due to lack of support, and John Huntsman, have received significantly more mainstream press coverage than Paul.

It’s not just news coverage where Paul has been deliberately sidelined. A scientific study undertaken by the University of Minnesota also shows that Paul has been given the least speaking time out of all the candidates during the Republican debates so far.

Indeed, Mitt Romney has enjoyed more than double the amount of time afforded to Ron Paul over the course of the last three debates.

Of course, this only confirms what we already knew after CNN talking heads admitted there was a media policy to deliberately ignore Ron Paul, even after he placed second in the influential Ames straw poll back in August.

These figures really bring to the fore how the establishment is terrified of Ron Paul’s campaign gaining traction. Paul routinely wins straw polls and habitually places second, third or fourth in national polls. He is a top tier candidate despite being almost completely ignored by the mainstream media. Imagine what his numbers would be if he was given merely double the amount of attention he currently receives, which still would barely touch that afforded to the likes of Romney or Perry.

If Ron Paul was allowed to compete on a level playing field, he would trounce all the other candidates and go on to defeat Obama by a landslide. Polls show that Paul would already narrowly defeat Obama in a hypothetical run-off despite the media campaign to blacklist him.

These statistics once again highlight how grass roots alternative media organizations need to pick up the baton and preach Ron Paul’s message of liberty to the general public, because they’re not even going to be informed of Ron Paul’s existence by the corporate media, never mind what his campaign stands for.



http://www.prisonplanet.com/study-co...-ron-paul.html