The Abject Lunacy of the Ron Paul “Loverution”

Due to the massive amount of emotional propaganda fed to them by the media for their entire lives,many people are still actively deluding themselves with regards to the Ron Paul “Loverution”. I wanted to lay out a few points with regards to why this is absolute nonsense, and if anyone actually cares about doing something to change the current state of affairs on this planet, they will cease and desist rambling on about this nonsense immediately.

Briefly,

-Politics are not real, they never have been, they are simply a way of pacifying the public. There is no evidence that anything else has ever been true.
-The system benefits by deferring all discontent among the public back into approved nonsense, such as politics, where people will waste time in a fantasy world created by the television rather than engage reality. A complex delusion is manufactured, in which media spectacle is designed to project a desired illusion, in this case that being that Ron Paul is a real hero who can save America if the media itself stops ignoring him. When all input is regulated, all output fits the desired format, and people are left actually believing that the media is involved in a conspiracy to “hide Ron Paul”, when in fact they are engaged in a conspiracy to make it look like they are doing that, as a way to trick people incapable of thinking two step ahead into thinking that the whole spectacle represents some form of reality. They are always a step ahead of you. That is what propaganda is.
-Even in an alternate reality where politics were real, the sophistication of propaganda (not to mention vote rigging) makes free choice impossible.
-None of Ron Paul’s “solutions” actually make any logical sense when looked at for more than seven or eight seconds. For example, replacing the Federal Reserve note with Rothschild controlled gold is a complete joke on every conceivable level. The rest of his core policies are equally and obviously stupid, much of it surrounding the employment of an ancient political and economic model designed for localized agrarian economies to the post-industrial globalized world. If we examine where his policies would actually lead, the best we could hope for is to be invaded and conquered by China, or for society to collapse completely and everyone die.

Source: realitysituation.com...

I am sick of hearing about this nonsense. If someone can defend why they support Ron Paul, and believe it is a cause worth devoting endless hours of time and such a mass of human energy to, when there is so much else that people could be doing to change the situation, please go ahead and explain your position. Because I continue to be baffled beyond words by this madness.

Mod Edit: External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.

reply to post by andreoutlaw


I hear you, and i know what you are saying.

Just a question, which candidate would you support if not Ron Paul?

To me, Jacque fresco would be the optimal president, if we really wanted a MAJOR change for the better, but since he is not running, Ron Paul is the second best thing. Compared to the other candidates, Ron Paul has way more sensible and non-violent solutions to many of todays problems. Also he is the only honest man in the field.

No takers?

I guess that figures.

Originally posted by NeoVain
reply to post by andreoutlaw

 

I hear you, and i know what you are saying.

Just a question, which candidate would you support if not Ron Paul?

To me, Jacque fresco would be the optimal president, if we really wanted a MAJOR change for the better, but since he is not running, Ron Paul is the second best thing. Compared to the other candidates, Ron Paul has way more sensible and non-violent solutions to many of todays problems. Also he is the only honest man in the field.

Oh good a reply.

I wouldn't support anyone. I have never voted and never will. The whole concept is a ridiculous fallacy. The very concept of government is unworkable, especially in a technological age when the system has the capacity to literally manufacture reality.

A true move toward liberation would have to start with the principle that government itself shouldn't exist. Anything else is just running around in circles.

As far as the Venus Project stuff, I am not particularly fond of the concept of a society run by artificial intelligence, and the whole thing just seems like a bizarre fantasy anyway. I have no doubt that at some point something of that sort could be plausible, but I have no idea what that would look like from our present position, and I don't think anyone does. Setting something like that up would involve such a massive amount of risk, and I have no idea what it is people are even hoping to achieve by doing it, outside of the childlike seduction of science fiction movies.

reply to post by andreoutlaw


You seem to pretty much agree with Jacque Fresco, have you looked him up?

Yeah, I've read it all man. Spent my whole life working through material like that, only to come to the ultimate conclusion that the only things that really matter in life are family and the natural world. The rest of it is all just a delusion, and whenever there is someone deluding you, they are getting something from you.

It's all a hoax.

reply to post by andreoutlaw


Oh i see, so you don´t want society to be run by government, and not an "AI" like the one Fresco advocate..(which is not really an AI, rather a resource allocation program, with no ability to make "decisions" except through the scientific method)

So what do you want to run society? Nothing? You are an Anarchist, then?

See, complaining about stuff that does not work very well is no good unless you have a better solution in mind.

Well the old "if you can't come up with a way to deal with reality, it is better to believe in a fantasy" line of reasoning has always struck me as a fallacy, but yeah, I have a method to deal with it. The entire system economics, government, technology and consumerism needs to be abandoned completely. Just totally rejected, in its entirety. This can be done rather easily, if one is willing to give up the artificial comforts of the modern system.

I am an "anarchist" in the strict sense that I am a supporter of a stateless society, but I have no associations with any existing group using that name.

reply to post by andreoutlaw


You're such a b.a.

Hey so do you pay taxes?

reply to post by ping9


Bachelor of Arts?

Why should we pay taxes? Is that important to you?

reply to post by andreoutlaw


I'm anything but a statist. But you either pay taxes or recieved systematic benefits of living in the U.S. while not paying taxes so which is it?

reply to post by ping9


No I don't pay taxes, other than local sales tax on the very few things I actually still buy. I don't live in the US anymore, and won't. It is a horrible place. I don't work anymore because my cost of living is so low, but when I was working on the internet I wasn't paying taxes at all.

The whole thing that all this is somehow "necessary evil" is a complete illusion, man. It is just simply not true.

reply to post by jtma508


If there's a logical retort to what I have presented, then go ahead and give it. Otherwise you are the one trolling.

This "reality is too big and scary, I want to live in a Disneyland created by the television where everything is happy like in a movie" line of thinking simply is not working.

Anyway, it is time that courageous people began to engage in real discussion about real issues, and one of the biggest obstacles to that is this catch-all propaganda campaign of this so-called "patriot movement", which sets the agenda for the entire resistance movement as a whole.

I would like to see such a discussion begin to emerge on sites like this, where the scope is broad enough to allow that type of discussion. This site is obviously filled with insane disinformation, but that is at least partially due to the fact that allowing a wide spectrum of topics to be discussed openly will draw in a whole lot of crazies.

reply to post by andreoutlaw


That's just a crazy opinion. There's NO way a planet with billions of people can exist peacefully without some sort of top-down organization. That's a bigger delusion than American Democracy. A much bigger delusion.

reply to post by andreoutlaw


Are you asking people on the internet to defend their candidate of choice, Ron Paul?

OP, you say, "...None of Ron Paul’s “solutions” actually make any logical sense when looked at for more than seven or eight seconds. For example, replacing the Federal Reserve note with Rothschild controlled gold is a complete joke on every conceivable level. The rest of his core policies are equally and obviously stupid, much of it surrounding the employment of an ancient political and economic model designed for localized agrarian economies to the post-industrial globalized world. If we examine where his policies would actually lead, the best we could hope for is to be invaded and conquered by China, or for society to collapse completely and everyone die..."

Paul calls for a basket of competing currencies...let the "Free Market" decide--the REAL free market. I cannot respond to anything else in this smear piece because you cite no specific policies of Paul, only saying his policies are stupid, illogical, etc. The Constitution, which Paul wants to follow, would work in any society. We need to get rid of the corrupt...we need to bring back honesty, integrity...only elect those who would obey the Constitution--the Law of the Land!

reply to post by andreoutlaw

I wouldn't support anyone. I have never voted and never will.

Then, as a non-participant in the process, you have no right to complain, and your opinion on the matter is a moot point.

Not that it really matters, as Romney will get the nomination, lose against Obama, and we'll have four more years of a do-nothing Presidency, while big business continues to take advantage of the high unemployment rate to demand more and more from their workers for less compensation, reaping higher profits along the way.

Not that any of this would change if Romney actually won (but he won't).

Of course, even if by some miracle, Paul got the nomination, he too would lose against Obama.

Either way we're screwed for the next four years....so stick it out until 2016, is all you can really do.

However, if Romney did the unthinkable and got Paul as a VP candidate...then something may happen, but I just can't see that as a possibility. Romney is just too smarmy to be elected, simple as that really. And, Paul is too old to be elected in modern times. It is just the way it is.

The good news, is that the economy will start to get a little better and better. It has to, as without it, businesses don't have customers, so they will eventually do what is needed to drive commerce and make sure people will have resources to spend. This has NOTHING to do with who is in the White House, other than 4 more years of irresponsible spending and stifling growth affecting the economy.