newbitech
Member
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2007
- Messages
- 8,847
I copied this out of a private discussion I am having with someone in the forum right now (and added a bit more to it) because I want to share my thoughts.
He is not just defending his son. He is defending his legacy and everyone else that is working to push the movement towards liberty in the right direction.
Of course every person sinks or swims on their own merit. That is why Ron said 99% and not 100%. The point he was making is not about what percent obviously. He was basically saying that Rand has the exact same positions as he does.
I believe that to be true. He is Ron Paul's son after all. There are times when fathers do no support their sons and when sons stray far off the path their fathers have paved for them. This is not one of those times.
This is also a forum of grounded and honest people who agree on principle. It is natural to make comparisons, but like you said, folks should stand on their own merit. Rand does that.
I have no reason to believe that Rand is not on board with Ron's ideals. Perhaps they both have different ways of expressing or achieving the same goal?
Yes, many people are behind Ron Paul because he sticks it to the man and does so very openly and at times even recklessly. There was even some criticism, and I believe justifiably so, that Ron's education campaigns weren't going to win any primary elections.
On the other side, there is criticism that Rand is sacrificing principles to win at politics.
There is good and bad on both sides of that argument, but unfortunately, folks are under the impression that the difference between the two approaches to the same goal is a clear sign that Rand has strayed and that Ron is acting and speaking out of nepotism when he endorses his son, rather than principle.
I don't think anyone can honestly condemn Rand without condemning the entire family. Perhaps that is not the intent, but the real frustration and fight comes in when people recognize that spitting on Rand is spitting on the family.
And by spitting, I mean baseless name calling and character attacks that only seem to instigate and egg on.
Yes, Rand is doing politics different then his dad. I am sure he really believed that his dad had a chance to win, even tho Ron didn't really do what he needed to do to win at politics.
We basically redefined winning at politics to the point where folks were happy with something like 10-15 % popular support.
That is great if your objective is to actually start a resistance movement that features civil disobedience and the potential for defensive violence against the state. That is the 1776 model approach.
We are there. I believe the movement would have little difficulty in handling a 1776 style guerrilla warfare against the state should the state decide to push it to that point.
The Paul's have never engaged in civil disobedience(that I am aware of) and don't particularly endorse that method, although they do consider it a useful and viable tactic for those folks at their wits end. Clearly, the Paul's are not at their wits end.
Their vision of the movement towards liberty has always been about a populist movement. The education campaign that Ron has been on since the decision to "run" for president in 2007 has spoken directly towards a populist movement agenda. The idea seems to have been get the word out loudly and clearly and get folks attention.
Ron Paul certainly got the attention of the world, but he is not the man or the character to usher in those masses under the banner of liberty. He succeeded in getting the necessary 10-15% required to put the status quo on notice. That is phase 1.
Phase 2 seems to be grabbing power from the status quo using their own tactics against them. This was evidence in the late coming rhetoric from the Paul campaign about the so called "delegate strategy". This is reprehensible to some, and I myself think it is dirty and shameful to have to stoop to that point. I wish people who have heard the truth over and over and over again from Ron Paul would do something about it, and that pretty much includes 100% of the conscious US population (all ages).
The truth is though, the 10-15% that have converted are not having success in convincing their family, friends, co-workers, neighbors, of following along.
Enter Rand Paul. He is setting himself up as a populist champion. This is what those other 85% people absolutely CRAVE. Regardless of the truth, those folks NEED to have a figure head that will lead them on to the promised land so to speak.
I absolutely hate that, but you know its true! We can sit here and ignore that desire from those people and bask in our principled movement secure in the knowledge that if the shit does hit the fan, we'll be fine. In the mean time, liberty is stuck in 1st gear, bogged down, and not "moving" anywhere. We'll end up with diminishing returns and 50 years from now, we'll wonder gee, what could have we done different? Did we try EVERYTHING? And of course the answer will be no, freedom and liberty were apparently not popular enough.
And should that collapse occur, lots of people will die and we will be starting from ground 0 and some other liberty loving person not named "Paul" will hopefully step up and play the roll of populist leader to bring those survivors who will STILL reject the message because no one they can relate to is preaching it.
Rand's number 1 job right now as leader of the the liberty movement in the political realm is to gather populist support and gain allies in order to dislodge people like McCain, Grahamm, Clinton, Obama, Reid, Pelosi, Bhoner, etc etc.
He does that by aligning himself and his message directly in the middle of populist sentiment, and then very carefully guiding and diverting that sentiment to principles and views that you and I both share and that most of us including Rand learned from Ron Paul.
Rand isn't there for you and I. He's there for the people you and I had no power to or could not reach. You and I are fine without Rand. you and I are fine without the retarded discussions that pass as political debate on the net and on the street and around the dinner table.
In my view, going off on Rand and nitpicking him to death is something that I expect out of the hard headed people that I could not reach. I don't expect that out of the 10-15% who are leading this movement on the local level.
But perhaps I have mis-judged this movement. Perhaps that is my grievous mistake. But, I don't think that is the case. What I think is that folks within the 10-15% are frustrated because things aren't materializing for the better quickly enough. And the focus of that ire is falling on Rand's shoulders (he's setting himself up as the go to guy remember?).
I knew at the beginning of the election season, pretty much after Iowa and the talk of skipping particular states that Ron Paul was again running the education campaign and was not seriously trying to win in traditional terms. Having been a veteran of the heartbreak of 2008, I understand most of the signs of "education" campaign rhetoric. Tho in 2012 it was slightly changed to keep the funds flowing (which I vehemently criticized Ron Paul over. )
I have maintained since late 2008 after the failure of the political campaign ( the education campaign was and still is a wild success), that the inner circle around the Paul's have some, lets just say, integrity issues.
This is really the only major beef I can find at this time with the so called leaders of the liberty movement. They have some people there in the inner circle operating out of the shadows and have at times pushed actions that are extremely hurtful and deliberately ostracizing to the grassroots, for what I imagine is no other reason than to protect their own status and standing within the movement.
Those are the folks I believe that grassroots activist need to be turning the light on to if the idea is to hold folks at leadership levels within the movement accountable.
Rand is not untouchable(like his dad *appeared* to be), but if he is going to be touched by folks in the 10-15% perimeter of the political liberty movement, it ought to be substantive and rise way way way above the types of threads that RPF and dailypaul are becoming notorious for among and throughout the liberty movement periphery.
I think the Paul's are absolutely on the same page and the fact that they are completely ignoring the internal dissidence of the movement. Even more so the fact that they are promptly squashing any futile attempt by the real enemies of the movement to drive that wedge is evidence enough for me that people within the movement should not distinguish themselves to each other as being either pro-Rand or pro-Ron.
In this I believe that whatever "counter-culture" movement that is trying to bubble up from within the broader movement towards liberty in the form of Rand vs Ron in any form is misguided at best, clearly a total distraction from the important emphasis this movement ought to have, and at worse is self-destructive and perhaps even permanently damaging. At the very least, it creates a drag at a time when the movement itself is just beginning to make progress.
I know my words here won't persuade anyone from their beliefs, but I needed to share this for folks who are thinking like I am so that they know they aren't alone in those thoughts.
Some people have abandoned communications over this issue, probably on both sides. My hope is that eventually, we can all learn something different from Rand that we probably didn't learn from Ron. Rand is being a diplomat for liberty and he's doing a damn fine job at it. He really is bringing in people who were just one silly misunderstanding away from supporting Ron.
Now that those folks are here, lets not keep the spot light on Rand, lets turn those folks attention to resolving our differences and build up that base of liberty lovers that will replace people like McCain, Clinton, Reid, Pelosi, and all the others who take their positions for granted.
Thank you for reading.
He is not just defending his son. He is defending his legacy and everyone else that is working to push the movement towards liberty in the right direction.
Of course every person sinks or swims on their own merit. That is why Ron said 99% and not 100%. The point he was making is not about what percent obviously. He was basically saying that Rand has the exact same positions as he does.
I believe that to be true. He is Ron Paul's son after all. There are times when fathers do no support their sons and when sons stray far off the path their fathers have paved for them. This is not one of those times.
This is also a forum of grounded and honest people who agree on principle. It is natural to make comparisons, but like you said, folks should stand on their own merit. Rand does that.
I have no reason to believe that Rand is not on board with Ron's ideals. Perhaps they both have different ways of expressing or achieving the same goal?
Yes, many people are behind Ron Paul because he sticks it to the man and does so very openly and at times even recklessly. There was even some criticism, and I believe justifiably so, that Ron's education campaigns weren't going to win any primary elections.
On the other side, there is criticism that Rand is sacrificing principles to win at politics.
There is good and bad on both sides of that argument, but unfortunately, folks are under the impression that the difference between the two approaches to the same goal is a clear sign that Rand has strayed and that Ron is acting and speaking out of nepotism when he endorses his son, rather than principle.
I don't think anyone can honestly condemn Rand without condemning the entire family. Perhaps that is not the intent, but the real frustration and fight comes in when people recognize that spitting on Rand is spitting on the family.
And by spitting, I mean baseless name calling and character attacks that only seem to instigate and egg on.
Yes, Rand is doing politics different then his dad. I am sure he really believed that his dad had a chance to win, even tho Ron didn't really do what he needed to do to win at politics.
We basically redefined winning at politics to the point where folks were happy with something like 10-15 % popular support.
That is great if your objective is to actually start a resistance movement that features civil disobedience and the potential for defensive violence against the state. That is the 1776 model approach.
We are there. I believe the movement would have little difficulty in handling a 1776 style guerrilla warfare against the state should the state decide to push it to that point.
The Paul's have never engaged in civil disobedience(that I am aware of) and don't particularly endorse that method, although they do consider it a useful and viable tactic for those folks at their wits end. Clearly, the Paul's are not at their wits end.
Their vision of the movement towards liberty has always been about a populist movement. The education campaign that Ron has been on since the decision to "run" for president in 2007 has spoken directly towards a populist movement agenda. The idea seems to have been get the word out loudly and clearly and get folks attention.
Ron Paul certainly got the attention of the world, but he is not the man or the character to usher in those masses under the banner of liberty. He succeeded in getting the necessary 10-15% required to put the status quo on notice. That is phase 1.
Phase 2 seems to be grabbing power from the status quo using their own tactics against them. This was evidence in the late coming rhetoric from the Paul campaign about the so called "delegate strategy". This is reprehensible to some, and I myself think it is dirty and shameful to have to stoop to that point. I wish people who have heard the truth over and over and over again from Ron Paul would do something about it, and that pretty much includes 100% of the conscious US population (all ages).
The truth is though, the 10-15% that have converted are not having success in convincing their family, friends, co-workers, neighbors, of following along.
Enter Rand Paul. He is setting himself up as a populist champion. This is what those other 85% people absolutely CRAVE. Regardless of the truth, those folks NEED to have a figure head that will lead them on to the promised land so to speak.
I absolutely hate that, but you know its true! We can sit here and ignore that desire from those people and bask in our principled movement secure in the knowledge that if the shit does hit the fan, we'll be fine. In the mean time, liberty is stuck in 1st gear, bogged down, and not "moving" anywhere. We'll end up with diminishing returns and 50 years from now, we'll wonder gee, what could have we done different? Did we try EVERYTHING? And of course the answer will be no, freedom and liberty were apparently not popular enough.
And should that collapse occur, lots of people will die and we will be starting from ground 0 and some other liberty loving person not named "Paul" will hopefully step up and play the roll of populist leader to bring those survivors who will STILL reject the message because no one they can relate to is preaching it.
Rand's number 1 job right now as leader of the the liberty movement in the political realm is to gather populist support and gain allies in order to dislodge people like McCain, Grahamm, Clinton, Obama, Reid, Pelosi, Bhoner, etc etc.
He does that by aligning himself and his message directly in the middle of populist sentiment, and then very carefully guiding and diverting that sentiment to principles and views that you and I both share and that most of us including Rand learned from Ron Paul.
Rand isn't there for you and I. He's there for the people you and I had no power to or could not reach. You and I are fine without Rand. you and I are fine without the retarded discussions that pass as political debate on the net and on the street and around the dinner table.
In my view, going off on Rand and nitpicking him to death is something that I expect out of the hard headed people that I could not reach. I don't expect that out of the 10-15% who are leading this movement on the local level.
But perhaps I have mis-judged this movement. Perhaps that is my grievous mistake. But, I don't think that is the case. What I think is that folks within the 10-15% are frustrated because things aren't materializing for the better quickly enough. And the focus of that ire is falling on Rand's shoulders (he's setting himself up as the go to guy remember?).
I knew at the beginning of the election season, pretty much after Iowa and the talk of skipping particular states that Ron Paul was again running the education campaign and was not seriously trying to win in traditional terms. Having been a veteran of the heartbreak of 2008, I understand most of the signs of "education" campaign rhetoric. Tho in 2012 it was slightly changed to keep the funds flowing (which I vehemently criticized Ron Paul over. )
I have maintained since late 2008 after the failure of the political campaign ( the education campaign was and still is a wild success), that the inner circle around the Paul's have some, lets just say, integrity issues.
This is really the only major beef I can find at this time with the so called leaders of the liberty movement. They have some people there in the inner circle operating out of the shadows and have at times pushed actions that are extremely hurtful and deliberately ostracizing to the grassroots, for what I imagine is no other reason than to protect their own status and standing within the movement.
Those are the folks I believe that grassroots activist need to be turning the light on to if the idea is to hold folks at leadership levels within the movement accountable.
Rand is not untouchable(like his dad *appeared* to be), but if he is going to be touched by folks in the 10-15% perimeter of the political liberty movement, it ought to be substantive and rise way way way above the types of threads that RPF and dailypaul are becoming notorious for among and throughout the liberty movement periphery.
I think the Paul's are absolutely on the same page and the fact that they are completely ignoring the internal dissidence of the movement. Even more so the fact that they are promptly squashing any futile attempt by the real enemies of the movement to drive that wedge is evidence enough for me that people within the movement should not distinguish themselves to each other as being either pro-Rand or pro-Ron.
In this I believe that whatever "counter-culture" movement that is trying to bubble up from within the broader movement towards liberty in the form of Rand vs Ron in any form is misguided at best, clearly a total distraction from the important emphasis this movement ought to have, and at worse is self-destructive and perhaps even permanently damaging. At the very least, it creates a drag at a time when the movement itself is just beginning to make progress.
I know my words here won't persuade anyone from their beliefs, but I needed to share this for folks who are thinking like I am so that they know they aren't alone in those thoughts.
Some people have abandoned communications over this issue, probably on both sides. My hope is that eventually, we can all learn something different from Rand that we probably didn't learn from Ron. Rand is being a diplomat for liberty and he's doing a damn fine job at it. He really is bringing in people who were just one silly misunderstanding away from supporting Ron.
Now that those folks are here, lets not keep the spot light on Rand, lets turn those folks attention to resolving our differences and build up that base of liberty lovers that will replace people like McCain, Clinton, Reid, Pelosi, and all the others who take their positions for granted.
Thank you for reading.
