Author Topic: Ron Paul and the 9/11 debate  (Read 5311 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,236
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
Ron Paul and the 9/11 debate
« on: May 16, 2011, 10:16:38 am »
In a recent youtube clip, Ron Paul seemingly acquiesced to the government’s official story on Osama bin Laden’s alleged masterminding of 9/11 (even though the FBI itself refused to cite 9/11 as one of the specific crimes for which bin Laden was “most wanted”), and thereby helped lend to this story an aura of credibility that it simply did not, does not, nor ever will deserve. This then caused a heated debate to erupt within Prison Planet Forum over the question of whether or not, in doing so, Congressman Paul shirked his moral responsibility to warn the public about how this official story is a weapon of mass mind control upon which the banker-owned political establishment has desperately relied for the past decade as a means of brainwashing the masses into “loving their servitude,” and how the perpetual unwillingness of a critical mass of Americans to openly reject this disproven and discredited story has so emboldened said establishment, that it is now -- as Alex has pointed out repeatedly in recent weeks -- psychologically preparing the masses for yet another false flag terror attack (the scale of which is likely to dwarf that of 9/11), and for the consequent destruction of what little remains of our Constitutional Republic.

In the interest of reconciling this internal conflict within the anti-New World Order/pro-liberty movement (and of thereby preempting establishment operatives posing as patriots from exploiting it for divide-and-rule purposes), I’d like to offer what I consider to be a more balanced perspective of the whole matter than what I've seen thus far from either side of this debate.

The first point that I think needs to be made is this: when some of us criticize Ron Paul for openly implying that -- despite whatever calls for a new “investigation” he’s made in the past -- he nevertheless believes the official story about Osama bin Laden having masterminded 9/11, we’re not suggesting that he is thereby giving "credence" to the Nazi-style police state measures and terroristic wars of aggression for which that official story continues to be the all-justifying excuse, but that he is thereby undercutting his own argument against those police state measures and wars of aggression:

"America’s fate was sealed when the public and the anti-war movement bought the government’s 9/11 conspiracy theory. The government’s account of 9/11 is contradicted by much evidence. Nevertheless, this defining event of our time, which has launched the US on interminable wars of aggression and a domestic police state, is a taboo topic for investigation in the media. It is pointless to complain of war and a police state when one accepts the premise upon which they are based."


To point out this simple fact is not “nitpicking” as some have claimed.

Why?

For the very reason just given: because the official story about bin Laden, and hence about 9/11, continues to be the banker-owned political establishment's key public relations weapon for manufacturing the consent of the masses to the police state policies and wars of aggression that are, in turn, destroying the very "Constitution" that Paul presumes to preserve, protect and defend. Thus, not only is pointing that out not nitpicking, to refuse to point it out (since doing so would mean committing the blasphemous sin of suggesting that Ron Paul is actually wrong about something) is to allow whatever "unity" we have to degenerate into the same Orwellian groupthink and mindless hero-worship that we all used to rightly criticize Obama cultists for engaging in.

To illustrate what I mean, consider the following hypothetical online exchange between two Obama supporters in, say, August of 2008:

    Independent-minded Democrat: "I strongly oppose both Bush and McCain and everything they jointly stand for, but I also don't like the fact that, as Senator, Obama voted not only to reauthorize Bush's 'Patriot' Act, but to legalize warrantless wiretapping after saying he wouldn't."

    Obama cultist: "Oh, look, folks, we have a TROLL in our midst trying to divide our movement against itself by 'nitpicking' Obama's voting record."

And then, under the pretense of "correcting" what the alleged troll said, the Obama cultist proceeds to post quote after quote after quote of Obama blabbing about how much he supports "hope" and "change," about how much he supports our Constitutional system of checks and balances, blah blah blah, ad nauseum. Of course, none of those quotes in any way explain or justify Obama’s pro-police state voting record, but that's of no concern to the Obama cultist, because he knows that his fellow cultists will, on cue, dutifully echo his pro-Obama sentiments, and that the resultant barrage of hero-worship will effectively drown out the blasphemous dissent expressed by the person who (being the heretic that he is) has chosen merely to “support” Obama as being, on balance, a better candidate than McCain instead of sheepishly worshipping Obama as though he were God himself.

And the reason for this irrational behavior on the part of Obama cultists is obvious: because deep down most people are obsessed with treating politics as just another spectator sport. Why? Because doing so means they don't have to think as much! Their silent rationale is, "Why put any sort of pressure on the candidate seeking to ‘represent’ me to reconsider at least one of the few policy positions on which I actually disagree with him, when it's sooo much more fun and sooo much easier to simply cheerlead everything he says or does as though I were cheering my favorite sports team?"

My friends, that is the very spectator sport mentality that got us into this mess in the fist place! So for the love of liberty, please don’t delude yourselves into thinking that that same mentality will some how magically get us out of it!

So no one misunderstands me, the point of the above hypothetical exchange is not to equate Ron Paul’s voting record with Obama's. If I say one pile of gold coins plus another pile of gold coins equals two such piles for the “same reason” that one pile of feces plus another pile of feces equals two such piles, am I thereby saying that gold and shit are the same? Of course not. I’m merely saying the underlying principle is the same.

Same thing here.

The point is that many of Ron Paul’s most devoted supporters are beginning to exhibit the same cult-like behavior that many of Obama's supporters exhibited for all of 2008. That is to say, instead of being mere “supporters” of Ron Paul, many well-meaning people are becoming unquestioning worshippers of Paul in much the same way that many well-meaning people who themselves started out as mere “supporters” of Obama (in late ‘07) eventually became unquestioning worshippers of Obama.

The bottom line is: if a person is elevated to cult-like status, then regardless of how “different” he is from another person who’s been likewise elevated, the end result is still the same: scores of overzealous “believers” hurling hysterical accusations of blasphemy against anyone who in any way criticizes the object of their worship. Just as you had enraged Obama cultists exclaiming such things as, “How dare you say Obama is wrong for supporting Bush’s Patriot Act,” you may soon have similarly enraged Ron Paul cultists exclaiming such things as, “How dare you say Paul is wrong for supporting the gold standard!” or, “How dare you say Paul is wrong for acquiescing to the government’s official narrative of Osama bin Laden having masterminded 9/11!”

The obvious conclusion to be drawn from this is not that Ron Paul is “bad,” but that he -- like any other human being -- is not God, and so should never be regarded as being above and beyond scrutiny.

I’ve never supported a candidate in my life with whom I didn’t disagree on at least a few issues, nor have I ever concealed such disagreement out of fear that others would angrily accuse me of “nitpicking” or of being “divisive.” That’s not to say I spent all or even most of my time focusing on whatever points of disagreement I had with the candidate in question, for that would have been unnecessarily divisive. The point is that I didn’t err in the opposite direction by blindly cheerleading each and every thing that candidate said merely because he was the one who said it.

If we err too far in one direction, we have unnecessary tension and division within the movement. But if we err too far in the opposite direction, our “unity” (as I said earlier) degenerates into mindless groupthink, thereby turning what started out as an idea-driven political movement into just another personality cult. And I’m sure Ron Paul himself doesn’t want an army of unquestioning “followers” who virtually worship him as though he were a cult leader, but rather an army of questioning, free-thinking co-leaders who -- despite whatever disagreements they may have with him -- are discerning enough to realize that he is, if nothing else, more worthy of their votes than any of the other candidates.

To take myself as an example, I respectfully disagree with Dr. Paul on both the question of what we should replace the current debt-based money system with (see this) and the question of what we should replace the income and payroll taxes with (see this and this). And, being the equal opportunity pisser-offer that I am, I’m never one to shy away from expressing that disagreement whenever I think it’s appropriate to do so. Yet despite this, I’m still discerning enough to realize that Congressman Paul is not only “better” than any of the other GOP presidential candidates, but far better, and that he is therefore deserving of my vote both in next year’s Republican primary and, unless a “progressive libertarian” runs as a 3rd party or independent candidate (as Gerald Celente essentially predicted one would), in the general election as well.

See the central point I’m making?

Support your candidate of choice, yes, just don’t let that support become unquestioning support. For if you support a candidate unquestioningly as one would a cult leader, not only do you insult yourself by being a mindless cheerleader instead of a free-thinking co-leader who, as such, isn’t afraid to cordially offer constructive criticism whenever you hear him say something you disagree with, you insult the candidate by giving curious onlookers the unflattering first impression that he’s only capable of attracting weak-minded people to his cause.

Doesn’t Ron Paul deserve better than that? Don’t you? Don’t all of us?
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

http://schalkenbach.org
http://www.monetary.org
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=203330.0

Offline freedom_commonsense

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,034
Re: Ron Paul and the 9/11 debate
« Reply #1 on: May 16, 2011, 10:26:22 am »
I'm not sure why Paul doesn't just run as an independent, rather than trying to run damage control within the GOP.

Offline Satyagraha

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8,941
Re: Ron Paul and the 9/11 debate
« Reply #2 on: May 16, 2011, 11:51:20 am »
Well said Geolibertarian - synchophants are not good for anyone - and there's such excitement around a campaign that it's easy to dismiss any criticism as 'trolling'. In fact, it's a sign of respect when you can argue with someone who's beliefs you are challenging; because you believe they are open-minded enough to listen and consider a different opinion.
And  the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, 
Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren,  ye have done it unto me.

Matthew 25:40

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,236
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
Re: Ron Paul and the 9/11 debate
« Reply #3 on: May 16, 2011, 03:09:14 pm »
I'm not sure why Paul doesn't just run as an independent, rather than trying to run damage control within the GOP.

Having ran for President in 1988 as the Libertarian Party nominee, he knows from experience just how rigged our so-called "election" system is (particularly at the federal level) against 3rd party and independent candidates.

And the older you get, the stronger your resolve not to needlessly reexperience the heart-crushing losses and bitter disappointments of the past.

That's my guess as to why he won't go that route.
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

http://schalkenbach.org
http://www.monetary.org
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=203330.0

EvadingGrid

  • Guest
Re: Ron Paul and the 9/11 debate
« Reply #4 on: May 16, 2011, 03:15:23 pm »
Of course he is not perfect, last time I checked he was still a politician.  ;D
 

Offline freedom_commonsense

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,034
Re: Ron Paul and the 9/11 debate
« Reply #5 on: May 16, 2011, 03:36:30 pm »
Having ran for President in 1988 as the Libertarian Party nominee, he knows from experience just how rigged our so-called "election" system is (particularly at the federal level) against 3rd party and independent candidates.

And the older you get, the stronger your resolve not to needlessly reexperience the heart-crushing losses and bitter disappointments of the past.

That's my guess as to why he won't go that route.

Fair enough, that's understandable. Ballot access and the like isn't enough though, and having 7 parties is no good if they're still ultimately control freaks\fraudsters. That's just my experience of the UK system.

Offline trailhound

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,722
Re: Ron Paul and the 9/11 debate
« Reply #6 on: July 04, 2011, 07:41:18 pm »
 :D Ron Paul didnt acquiesce anything lmao... ::)

"Do not let your hatred of a people incite you to aggression." Qur'an 5:2
At the heart of that Western freedom and democracy is the belief that the individual man, the child of God, is the touchstone of value..." -RFK

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,236
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
Re: Ron Paul and the 9/11 debate
« Reply #7 on: July 05, 2011, 10:17:43 am »
:D Ron Paul didnt acquiesce anything lmao... ::)

Ah, so even though Osama bin Laden's alleged masterminding of the 9/11 terror attacks is the centerpiece of the government's official account of those attacks, if someone says that "justice was served" by the killing of bin Laden due to the central role he played in 9/11, that someone is not acquiescing to the official story, is that it?

A simple yes or no will suffice.
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

http://schalkenbach.org
http://www.monetary.org
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=203330.0

Offline trailhound

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,722
Re: Ron Paul and the 9/11 debate
« Reply #8 on: July 05, 2011, 06:55:37 pm »
Yeah be you leave out the fact that his tongue was in his political cheek and his voice laden with sarcasm saying. essentially, ok we got the supposed boogey man now whats the excuse to stay?  His intention was clear to me, flame away :D

"Do not let your hatred of a people incite you to aggression." Qur'an 5:2
At the heart of that Western freedom and democracy is the belief that the individual man, the child of God, is the touchstone of value..." -RFK

Offline Goldman

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 98
  • abyssus abyssum invocat
Re: Ron Paul and the 9/11 debate
« Reply #9 on: July 05, 2011, 10:38:57 pm »
I wish RP had tounge in cheek on 911 but that is not the impression I got from him, I will continue to promote RP but not blindly, I have given him my money, I will support him, but I will strongly disagree with him on 911
condemnant quod non intellegunt

Offline trailhound

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,722
Re: Ron Paul and the 9/11 debate
« Reply #10 on: July 10, 2011, 11:40:04 pm »
He has indicated before he thinks the investigation was bunk, but that wer'e not likely to get a real one and should try to strike at the roots of the problems.

"Do not let your hatred of a people incite you to aggression." Qur'an 5:2
At the heart of that Western freedom and democracy is the belief that the individual man, the child of God, is the touchstone of value..." -RFK