The pro-war crowd must be made to defend the position of heathens. War is inhuman and the reasoning which serves its promotion is flawed in the eyes of anyone who devotes to the subject any modicum of reasonable thought. The limited resources of our Earth are consumed by war in a proportion which clearly inhibits the progress of civilization. War takes those things which encompass our humanity; life itself is lost.
We can take back our humanity with a few hard lines and it can be done as easily as the propaganda of the violent brutes has mangled the thoughts of otherwise decent beings. This is no small matter; it is, rather, something close to everything which matters. In a world which allows us to communicate as easily as we do, the excuses which permit the implements of death should be easy to expose.
More specifically, Ron Paul must completely embrace the only position which will differentiate him in the eyes of the average voters. This is the only way by which he might have a chance. Those who argue that widespread death is a means to the end of safety in our homeland--their eyes must be looked into with great sadness. They must be asked directly why they find solution in murder. The values which place an importance upon life are near universal, but the logical connection which should show that war is a massive contradiction of these values has been lost. Or, considering the history of civilizations, perhaps the connection has never been fully realized.
Everything should be focused on this message. Among the Presidential candidates Paul’s positions on economics are the only ones which are sound, but to those who don’t devote personal research to such matters all of the candidates sound the same. The anti-war message, though, is relatable by methods which can take the form of only a few basic questions or exclamations. Ron Paul should be more adamant and concise when he addresses those who see usefulness in war, and he should do so at every turn: “Senator Santorum, why do you align yourself with unreasonable brutes? Characteristics pervade you which depict your lack of humanity; this is evidenced by your promotion of death and your reliance upon threats of violence. Not only should you and those who share your views be looked upon in the way that one might see the worst kind of criminal; additionally, you should be viewed as stupid because the good things which you claim violence serves clearly do not come about in the manner which you describe. Violence and threats do not and will not give us safety--this obvious conclusion can be drawn quickly by the use of basic logic.”
Everything in Ron Paul’s campaign should focus on such an unapologetic message. He is the ONLY anti-war candidate--this is his most important strategic advantage. Any attempt to hide his views on foreign policy in an endeavor to appeal to the Republican establishment are in jest because the truth of his stance will always, in the end, be unveiled. Any effort to skirt around this issue should be completely eliminated. If an effort is made to disguise Paul's true feelings, the implication is made that he might be wrong. He's not wrong. All ads, every interview, every debate--as he is questioned by warmongers he must throw their stupid inhumanity in their face. They must be rejected with every possible emotional and intellectual tool. He must ask them at every opportunity why they have such a strange preference for death and destruction. The certainty which is truth is more evident in this issue than any other. We are right. Ron Paul is right. We’re on the side of good and it should be known. War is not delicate and it should not be dealt with as such. Let them give their excuses for killing and starving children. Force them into a defense of their derangement.
Such a method of campaigning will give Paul the only hope of gaining the attention which is required for his election. That most human part of our organism must be appealed to.
