robatsu
10-16-2007, 02:53 PM
The Establishment is following the same strategy in dealing with the Ron Paul campaign that has failed against mass movements from Gandhi to the U.S. Civil Rights Movement, from the Viet Cong to Al Qaeda. That is, attempting to suppress a movement with more of the same actions that caused the insurgency in the first place, otherwise known as pouring gas on the fire.
In the U.S. Civil Rights Movement, blacks were motivated to take to protests by harsh police treatment under the color of law, among other things. Why anyone was surprised that harsher police treatment and suppression of protest increased the number of protestors is beyond me. One of Al Qaeda's major gripes was and remains the U.S. military presence in the Mideast and the periodic bombing of various Arab nations. Our response, of course, has been to increase our military presence in the Mideast and to bomb some more Arab nations with predictable results.
The Ron Paul campaign benefits from similar stupidity among its opponents. Beyond the particulars of the campaign - the War, the Fed - many, if not most, Ron Paul supporters are motivated by the injustice of a political process open only to insiders. The Establishment responds by the tactics effective against a traditional campaign by attempting to close off the political process to Paul supporters. The raw demonstration of tyranny in their own land draws ever more supporters into Paul's camp.
However, just as the Viet Cong were not a traditional standing army that could be bombed into smithereens, the Paul campaign is not a traditional one that can be defused with the usual tricks and machinations. In both of these, and many other examples, the insurgency actually derives strength from the tactics of their enemies - the harder the enemy fights, the stronger the insurgency grows. This causes the enemy to have a lot of grousing about how the insurgency isn't "playing fair", a charge levelled at the Paul movement with each online or straw poll that is won.
Most often, the only way to neutralize such a movement is annihilation or capitulation to their demands. In virtually all examples over the past 100 years, capitulation is the inevitable result after following some sort of eradication strategy. The only successful annihilation approaches were those of Nazis and Communist, whose core philosophies were based upon annihilation of opponents. Happily, we are still a long way from this within the borders of the Homeland, although if Ron Paul is unsuccessful, we'll probably continue our trajectory in that direction.
As Ron Paul supporters, we should be gleeful for every CNBC poll taken down, every debate not invited to, every MSM hit piece. It is obvious that the word is getting out otherwise, the only effect of such tactics, as we've seen to date many times, is to push more people into the Ron Paul camp. The Establishment hasn't landed a single punch yet on Ron Paul, and it doesn't appear likely that they will figure this out any time soon.
link (http://robatsu.blogspot.com/2007/10/many-headed-ron-paul-hydra.html)
In the U.S. Civil Rights Movement, blacks were motivated to take to protests by harsh police treatment under the color of law, among other things. Why anyone was surprised that harsher police treatment and suppression of protest increased the number of protestors is beyond me. One of Al Qaeda's major gripes was and remains the U.S. military presence in the Mideast and the periodic bombing of various Arab nations. Our response, of course, has been to increase our military presence in the Mideast and to bomb some more Arab nations with predictable results.
The Ron Paul campaign benefits from similar stupidity among its opponents. Beyond the particulars of the campaign - the War, the Fed - many, if not most, Ron Paul supporters are motivated by the injustice of a political process open only to insiders. The Establishment responds by the tactics effective against a traditional campaign by attempting to close off the political process to Paul supporters. The raw demonstration of tyranny in their own land draws ever more supporters into Paul's camp.
However, just as the Viet Cong were not a traditional standing army that could be bombed into smithereens, the Paul campaign is not a traditional one that can be defused with the usual tricks and machinations. In both of these, and many other examples, the insurgency actually derives strength from the tactics of their enemies - the harder the enemy fights, the stronger the insurgency grows. This causes the enemy to have a lot of grousing about how the insurgency isn't "playing fair", a charge levelled at the Paul movement with each online or straw poll that is won.
Most often, the only way to neutralize such a movement is annihilation or capitulation to their demands. In virtually all examples over the past 100 years, capitulation is the inevitable result after following some sort of eradication strategy. The only successful annihilation approaches were those of Nazis and Communist, whose core philosophies were based upon annihilation of opponents. Happily, we are still a long way from this within the borders of the Homeland, although if Ron Paul is unsuccessful, we'll probably continue our trajectory in that direction.
As Ron Paul supporters, we should be gleeful for every CNBC poll taken down, every debate not invited to, every MSM hit piece. It is obvious that the word is getting out otherwise, the only effect of such tactics, as we've seen to date many times, is to push more people into the Ron Paul camp. The Establishment hasn't landed a single punch yet on Ron Paul, and it doesn't appear likely that they will figure this out any time soon.
link (http://robatsu.blogspot.com/2007/10/many-headed-ron-paul-hydra.html)