Rand Paul: An Idea Whose Time Has Come

[dannno]

This talk will explain in GRAVE DETAIL why G. Edward Griffin believes that Rand Paul's strategy is not only equitable, but inevitable.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1-0o0cSw24


This doesn't mean that EVERY fighter for liberty MUST take this route, but for people who have the personality it is vital that we have as many genuine Rand Pauls as possible. It is our job, as individuals in the liberty movement, to determine who is genuine and who isn't. But don't think that just because somebody is playing the game means they aren't genuine. If you disagree, PLEASE take the time to listen to the talk above very carefully.

[jj-]

This talk will explain in GRAVE DETAIL why G. Edward Griffin believes that Rand Paul's strategy is not only equitable, but inevitable.


What does equitable mean in this context?

[dannno]

What does equitable mean in this context?

Good for liberty.

[dannno]

bump

[Romulus]

As much as I hate it, it is Rand's path. He's a trojan horse. At least I hope he is.

He works best from the inside out.

Ron worked best from the inside out too. We forget that Ron Paul is part of the R party.

Rand is playing the game, seeking power. We just all hope it's for liberty.

[dannno]

bump

[ChristopherShelley]

As much as I hate it, it is Rand's path. He's a trojan horse. At least I hope he is.

He works best from the inside out.

Ron worked best from the inside out too. We forget that Ron Paul is part of the R party.


Rand is playing the game, seeking power. We just all hope it's for liberty.

I agree! I don't see how he could not be.

[Romulus]

The point is though, when you seek and attain power, chances are it will corrupt you.

[CaptUSA]

The point is though, when you seek and attain power, chances are it will corrupt you.Unless you believe that he is working to have the power to dismantle the monster.

[papitosabe]

As much as I hate it, it is Rand's path. He's a trojan horse. At least I hope he is.

He works best from the inside out.

Ron worked best from the inside out too. We forget that Ron Paul is part of the R party.

Rand is playing the game, seeking power. We just all hope it's for liberty.

a trojan horse that would go on hannity of all shows, and endorse Romney...meh, not buying it... he's just your typical politician...if he is a trojan horse, its us that he's trying to bamboozle...i wouldn't be surprised if he did get support in the future, get elected, and screw us all, as the other schills do

[dannno]

a trojan horse that would go on hannity of all shows, and endorse Romney...meh, not buying it... he's just your typical politician...if he is a trojan horse, its us that he's trying to bamboozle...i wouldn't be surprised if he did get support in the future, get elected, and screw us all, as the other schills do

Did you watch the video in the OP?

[NoOneButPaul]

a trojan horse that would go on hannity of all shows, and endorse Romney...meh, not buying it... he's just your typical politician...if he is a trojan horse, its us that he's trying to bamboozle...i wouldn't be surprised if he did get support in the future, get elected, and screw us all, as the other schills do

In contrast to a guy who would never go on Hannity's shows, never endorse Romney, isn't your typical politician, and hasn't even been able to achieve trojan house status because he can't win any elections...

Who am I thinking of? Oh right... :rolleyes:

This is the moment where we have to have faith... I don't like Rand, I haven't ever warmed up to him, he's not his father, and he rubs me the wrong way... BUT to suggest he's going to betray us is to suggest he'll betray his father and his 35 years of work, 35 years of him growing up watching his father's struggles has probably swayed him in ways you or I can't even imagine.

To believe he would have watched his father's struggles his entire life (as he tells it, since he was 11) and then to turn around and say FUCK LIBERTY I'LL BETRAY THEM BLAH BLAH BLAH is CRAZY!

Are you kidding me? That's an entirely different level of evil in a person that, even though I'm not a Rand fan, i'll never buy into because it's so unlikely.

[georgiaboy]

bump, repped.

[DerailingDaTrain]

Just look at out newest member since he endorsed Romney. His name is DeMintConservative

the horror...the horror

[Aratus]

but multiple~choise~mitt has never been doctrinaire or an ideologue or a propaganda minister

[WesSeid]

a trojan horse that would go on hannity of all shows, and endorse Romney...meh, not buying it... he's just your typical politician...if he is a trojan horse, its us that he's trying to bamboozle...i wouldn't be surprised if he did get support in the future, get elected, and screw us all, as the other schills do
Anyone against NDAA gets some leeway from me.

[Xhin]

In contrast to a guy who would never go on Hannity's shows, never endorse Romney, isn't your typical politician, and hasn't even been able to achieve trojan house status because he can't win any elections...

Yeah, winning 12 elections in a row isn't winning any.

[papitosabe]

Anyone against NDAA gets some leeway from me.

looks like his plan is working

[anaconda]

As much as I hate it, it is Rand's path. He's a trojan horse. At least I hope he is.
He works best from the inside out.


Curious that more people don't understand this. Thanks for the comment.

[papitosabe]

he is a trojan horse...he's infiltrated the liberty movement

[ProIndividual]

Rand Paul: An Idea Whose Time Has Come...

...and gone.

I'm not relying on the fact he's a Trojan Horse. That seems rather conspiratorial and wishful thinking to me.

[LibertyEagle]

...and gone.

Nope. But, you were never really part of us.

[dannno]

I'm not relying on the fact he's a Trojan Horse. That seems rather conspiratorial and wishful thinking to me.

Relying on him for what?

It's not like I'm planning on voting for Romney or asking anybody to do so.. but if Rand was running for President there is no doubt who I'd vote for.

[dannno]

bump

[GeorgiaAvenger]

Bump

[KingRobbStark]

I agree with the OP. I like many others were upset, but then I realized that we (the liberty movement) base our vote and suppprt on action not rhetoric. So far Rands actions have been satisfactory, and as such he will continue to receive my support.

[GeorgiaAvenger]

I agree with the OP. I like many others were upset, but then I realized that we (the liberty movement) base our vote and suppprt on action not rhetoric. So far Rands actions have been satisfactory, and as such he will continue to receive my support.+rep

[Romulus]

I agree with the OP. I like many others were upset, but then I realized that we (the liberty movement) base our vote and suppprt on action not rhetoric. So far Rands actions have been satisfactory, and as such he will continue to receive my support.

Except when he voted for sanctions on Iran.. I realize he has done a lot to negate that though.

[AGRP]

I have a hard time understanding how people like Edward acknowledge that the state is bad on one hand, yet want to impose his own version of a state on the other. He mentioned the Federalist Papers as being the reasons for his beliefs, but why not mention the anti-Federalist papers when they turned out to be correct? Why must we look at the Federalists for all of the answers when they were the one who were wrong? Why run in circles?

[dannno]

bump

[jmdrake]

he is a trojan horse...he's infiltrated the liberty movement

If that's the case then Ron is a trojan horse infiltrator of the liberty movement as well.

[jmdrake]

Unless you believe that he is working to have the power to dismantle the monster.

Even when your intentions are good, power still has a tendency to corrupt especially if you are willing to compromise in order to attain it. Don't get me wrong. I don't think Rand is corrupt (yet). But the risk is there. With as much of a lead he had in 2010 he could have beaten Trey Grayson without "running up the score" with the teocons. He chose a different path. That path is fraught with risks. I'm hopeful for the best and wish him luck.

[TheTexan]

If Rand is truly a Ronpaulian-Leninist then more power to him. But that also means two things

a) He's relying predominantly on sheeple to support him, and not us
b) It's impossible to know whether he's pretending to compromise his principles, or simply compromising principles he doesn't have

In any case, we don't need to, nor should we, support Leninist candidates. The whole purpose of Leninist strategies is to get sheeple to vote for them. Let the sheep vote, and let us stick to principles.

[CCTelander]

Griffin is just selling the same bill of goods he, and others like him mostly associated with JBS, were selling over 50 years ago. He's just trying to paint it up all shiny like it's something new.

After more than a half-century of trying this approach the modern "liberty movement" has yet to produce any substantive progress. This fact might lead a reasonable person to consider, just consider, that maybe there's a better approach out there somewhere and start actually looking for it.

But then, if people actually learned anything from history and experience we wouldn't be in the mess we're in in the first place.

[jj-]

If Rand is truly a Ronpaulian-Leninist then more power to him. But that also means two things

a) He's relying predominantly on sheeple to support him, and not us
b) It's impossible to know whether he's pretending to compromise his principles, or simply compromising principles he doesn't have

In any case, we don't need to, nor should we, support Leninist candidates. The whole purpose of Leninist strategies is to get sheeple to vote for them. Let the sheep vote, and let us stick to principles.

One of the wisest posts ever written.

[helmuth_hubener]

One of the wisest posts ever written. Yes, a very well-thought-out position. I trust Rand, but could he be corrupted by power? Yes. Is his path perilous, as jmdrake says? Yes. Can we know whether he's duping the mainstream or is really mainstream? No. We'll just keep fighting for liberty, and hopefully Rand will win the Presidency and turn out to be genuine, because that would be unbelievably awesome.

One good thing to consider: one lesson of the last 8 years is that it turns out only Ron Paul supporters are at all interested in the voting records of candidates. The neocons/teocons don't care at all. Not at all. So Rand does not have to compromise a whole lot as far as his actual votes in the Senate go, other than a very few crucial "litmus test" votes like the Iran sanctions thing. He can continue voting against everything, and even proposing anti-drone-surveillance bills, pro-hemp-legalization bills, etc.... which is exactly what he's doing. He just has to be mealy-mouthed in his public statements (like this endorsement thing), how he talks in interviews, etc. Because that is all the senile elderly GOPers care about. They do not care about his voting record at all. So he can continue to have a genuinely libertarian voting record to reassure us, while talking exactly like a neocon, which will frustrate us but that's the game. He's talking the neocon talk, while walking the libertarian walk.

[belian78]

Yes, a very well-thought-out position. I trust Rand, but could he be corrupted by power? Yes. Is his path perilous, as jmdrake says? Yes. Can we know whether he's duping the mainstream or is really mainstream? No. We'll just keep fighting for liberty, and hopefully Rand will win the Presidency and turn out to be genuine, because that would be unbelievably awesome.

One good thing to consider: one lesson of the last 8 years is that it turns out only Ron Paul supporters are at all interested in the voting records of candidates. The neocons/teocons don't care at all. Not at all. So Rand does not have to compromise a whole lot as far as his actual votes in the Senate go, other than a very few crucial "litmus test" votes like the Iran sanctions thing. He can continue voting against everything, and even proposing anti-drone-surveillance bills, pro-hemp-legalization bills, etc.... which is exactly what he's doing. He just has to be mealy-mouthed in his public statements (like this endorsement thing), how he talks in interviews, etc. Because that is all the senile elderly GOPers care about. They do not care about his voting record at all. So he can continue to have a genuinely libertarian voting record to reassure us, while talking exactly like a neocon, which will frustrate us but that's the game. He's talking the neocon talk, while walking the libertarian walk.
Completely agree...

[libertyvidz]

If Rand is truly a Ronpaulian-Leninist then more power to him. But that also means two things

a) He's relying predominantly on sheeple to support him, and not us
b) It's impossible to know whether he's pretending to compromise his principles, or simply compromising principles he doesn't have

In any case, we don't need to, nor should we, support Leninist candidates. The whole purpose of Leninist strategies is to get sheeple to vote for them. Let the sheep vote, and let us stick to principles.

Now is the time for a movement that believes in individualism to think and act like individuals. Those who agree with the Griffin strategy can continue to support candidates like Rand. Those that don't can support candidates who are "pure". It's not like Rand is actively running for anything this year anyway. We're wasting too much energy on things we can't control.

[TheTexan]

Those who agree with the Griffin strategy can continue to support candidates like Rand.

People assume that Rand must be a true liberty believer because of who his father is, but for all we know, he might be a statist at heart, with a thick layer of liberty paint layered on from Ron Paul's influences in his life. It can go either way.

That, and according to the Griffin Leninist strategy, it doesn't even matter how much of a candidate's core ideology is shown to the public. You could campaign as a socialist warmonger, and the only thing that matters is that you get to power. In that regard, for all we know, Romney is actually on our side, and he's been on our side the entire time. We just don't know, but obviously we don't see anyone saying we should throw our support behind him.

If you really want to support the Griffin strategy, hold on very tightly to your principles, and either run as a Leninist yourself, or convince other strongly principled people to run as a Leninist. The Griffin strategy in fact can only work if we hold very strongly to our principles, so by publicly expressing your support for compromises, you dilute the core ideologies of the movement and in fact make such a strategy less likely to succeed.

[nobody's_hero]

Griffin is just selling the same bill of goods he, and others like him mostly associated with JBS, were selling over 50 years ago. He's just trying to paint it up all shiny like it's something new.

After more than a half-century of trying this approach the modern "liberty movement" has yet to produce any substantive progress. This fact might lead a reasonable person to consider, just consider, that maybe there's a better approach out there somewhere and start actually looking for it.

But then, if people actually learned anything from history and experience we wouldn't be in the mess we're in in the first place.

3 years ago you could have read my posts and thought that'd I'd never find much agreement with those who say 'you can't beat the system by joining it.' As recent as a few months ago, you could find me arguing that Rand was just trying to trick the establishment into supporting him, and I initially thought it was a good idea. But, when it actually happened, my conscience was unsettled and I'm not one to go against my conscience when it starts waving red flags.

We need to start considering this r3volution just as the Revolution of 1775. Now, some people will say, "stop being silly, this is politics." But the very fact that Ron Paul didn't make it about politics is what inspired me to get involved to start with.

I say, no, it is NOT 'playing the political game'; it is a r3volution. The only difference I see between what is going on today and what happened 200+ years ago is that no one has started shooting. The government is just as uncaring of our petitions, just as corrupt, just as thieving as the King's tax collectors, and just as opposed to our rights; but it is all cleverly concealed as a gentleman's sport of debate, compromise, and voting—you know, just so no one wises up about what's really going on.

Imagine that you are a patriot on Bunker Hill and the redcoats are coming. Now, imagine that one of the officers in your ranks says "we're not going to get anywhere by making our stand on this hill, so my plan is to infiltrate the ranks of the redcoats and try to work my way up into their chain of command so that I can not-only call off the attack, but I'll convince the British army to join the colonists."

Sounds rediculous, doesn't it? It is, and I'm pretty sure the U.S. flag would have a Union Jack where the stars are, right now, if that had been the plan of the patriots on Bunker Hill.

Am I being melodramatic? Well, CCTelander has a point. This has been the strategy for decades of people trying to accomplish a restoration of liberty, and at every corner, we've lost the fight. In fact, the more we attempt this strategy, the more we are forced to fall back and regroup, giving the establishment the opportunity to snatch up more ground.

You'd better stand up on Bunker Hill and fight until you run out of ammo, metaphorically speaking, and when you run out of ammo (and you will, the redcoats are better-supplied and better-trained), fix bayonets again, metaphorically speaking , in case anyone is dumb enough to think I'm calling for violence. But I will say that the founders knew exactly what they were up against, and it is something that people tend to have forgotten when they think we're just going to be able to negotiate and compromise our way back to freedom.

"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force." - George Washington

[Aratus]

duckies, high irony is that gen'l washington saw the birth of our two great political parties
right inside his cabinet on day one when both mr. hamilton and mr. jefferson had bright ideas.
we are almost 225 years later, and we as a nation are after the Federalist and the Anti-Federalist
papers. the tight trim sleek stream~lined ship of state most magnifficent that the General was
the C-I-C to experianced transformative change all thru the 20th century. keep this in mind.

[nobody's_hero]

But not so ironic, is, as I recall, that Hamilton got shot in some duel (although admittedly I was not a fan of his central bank).

It is force.

[nutroll]

the LaRouche circles of Tarpley and now JBS Griffin are ENDORSING this? After they "predicted" the liberty movement would sell out to Romney ? Obviously you must think about this. Their version of economics is the same version of economics supported by Romney, Obama, FDR etc... What would the point have been but to simultaneously stop the outflux of membership from the republican party and get the liberty movement back on course? How else did u think they would deal with Ron Pauls movement but try to redirect the "sheep" back into the fold. Rand is not your trojan, he is their's.

[jmdrake]

the LaRouche circles of Tarpley and Griffin are ENDORSING this? After they "predicted" the liberty movement would sell out to Romney ? Obviously you must think about this. Their version of economics is the same version of economics supported by Romney, Obama, FDR etc... What would the point have been but to simultaneously stop the outflux of membership from the republican party and get the liberty movement back on course? How else did u think they would deal with Ron Pauls movement but try to redirect teh "sheep" back into the fold. Rand is not your trojan, he is their's.

I'm not sure why you're putting LaRouche, Tarpley and Griffin in the same circle. LaRouche and Tarpley are socialists. Griffin believes in free market capitalism. And the video by Griffin came out in 2008, long before the current turn of events.

[helmuth_hubener]

But not so ironic, is, as I recall, that Hamilton got shot in some duel Totally deserved it.

[LibertyEagle]

Yes, a very well-thought-out position. I trust Rand, but could he be corrupted by power? Yes. Is his path perilous, as jmdrake says? Yes. Can we know whether he's duping the mainstream or is really mainstream? No. We'll just keep fighting for liberty, and hopefully Rand will win the Presidency and turn out to be genuine, because that would be unbelievably awesome.

One good thing to consider: one lesson of the last 8 years is that it turns out only Ron Paul supporters are at all interested in the voting records of candidates. The neocons/teocons don't care at all. Not at all. So Rand does not have to compromise a whole lot as far as his actual votes in the Senate go, other than a very few crucial "litmus test" votes like the Iran sanctions thing. He can continue voting against everything, and even proposing anti-drone-surveillance bills, pro-hemp-legalization bills, etc.... which is exactly what he's doing. He just has to be mealy-mouthed in his public statements (like this endorsement thing), how he talks in interviews, etc. Because that is all the senile elderly GOPers care about. They do not care about his voting record at all. So he can continue to have a genuinely libertarian voting record to reassure us, while talking exactly like a neocon, which will frustrate us but that's the game. He's talking the neocon talk, while walking the libertarian walk.

As I recall, the RP supporters in Louisiana who got their fingers broken, their ribs and hib bruised, were not exactly young.

So, cut it out with your ageism.

[jmdrake]

As I recall, the RP supporters in Louisiana who got their fingers broken, their ribs and hib bruised, were not exactly young.

So, cut it out with your ageism.

Yeah. That and Ron is a senior citizen himself. The sad fact is that Ron's primary medium (the internet) isn't the main media most seniors read/watch.

[helmuth_hubener]

As I recall, the RP supporters in Louisiana who got their fingers broken, their ribs and hib bruised, were not exactly young. That is because, of course, the grassroots in Louisiana is smart and cunning and so they voted two of their oldest and most venerable cohorts to be the leadership. Look around the room. Are the other RP supporters old? No, they are obviously young. As is always the case.


So, cut it out with your ageism. Nah, I don't think I will. Demographics don't lie. The old people stink. Young people mostly stink too, but in this particular instance of: the only young people who participate in GOP primaries and caucuses, they most assuredly do not stink. They are Ron Paul supporters. And thus, they totally rule.

Stay strong, young people! Keep ruling! The old will keel over, and then we will win!!!

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/UyEf5pz_WCV8fHh1XrXql8dYz-bu2va6eup83TYQ5WSb_TnWjx80WGj6qV3W40PANQMuAhBMe9Y (https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B53TNvGgitKyOU5ZWFdWUGpaVms)

http://media.ronpaul.se/2012/05/ron-paul-revolution.jpeg

http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_606w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2012/02/29/National-Politics/Images/p%209_1330478641wlg.jpg

P.S.: And even in the case of the generally stinking and Obama-supporting general population of young people, at least they are against the wars! At least they are not manic, war-mongering, torture-loving, evil freaks like virtually every person in the Republican Party you will ever meet who is over the age of 60. And for that, I thank them.

[Aratus]

folks, we 'to be' senior citizens are seeing the GOP polarized between henry cabot lodge junior and senator barry goldwater like as if this is 1964!!!
this divide in the GOP began more properly with teddy roosevelt and his bullmoose party back in 1912 & we do know where dr. ron stands on this!

[libertyvidz]

People assume that Rand must be a true liberty believer because of who his father is, but for all we know, he might be a statist at heart, with a thick layer of liberty paint layered on from Ron Paul's influences in his life. It can go either way.

For the record, we can't be 100% certain that Ron is a true liberty believer. All we have is his voting record. Rand Paul has a stellar voting record as well. Some people criticize Ron for pushing for pork then voting against it. People criticize Rand for supporting Iran sanctions in theory even though he almost killed them in practice, because he ultimately voted for a bill that was going to pass anyway. In principle Rand's endorsement of Romney is similar to Ron's endorsement of Ken Buck. Sure Romney is much worse than Buck, but neither were going on foreign policy. (And I know technically Ron didn't endorse Buck, but the C4L sure did and it was done with Ron's knowledge and acquiescence).



That, and according to the Griffin Leninist strategy, it doesn't even matter how much of a candidate's core ideology is shown to the public. You could campaign as a socialist warmonger, and the only thing that matters is that you get to power. In that regard, for all we know, Romney is actually on our side, and he's been on our side the entire time. We just don't know, but obviously we don't see anyone saying we should throw our support behind him.


Has Romney racked up any kind of governing record anywhere close to Rand's? It's great to have politicians who speak and act as liberty candidates. Rand speaks like a neocon but votes and acts like a liberty candidate. Romney votes, speaks and acts like a liberal neocon.



If you really want to support the Griffin strategy, hold on very tightly to your principles, and either run as a Leninist yourself, or convince other strongly principled people to run as a Leninist. The Griffin strategy in fact can only work if we hold very strongly to our principles, so by publicly expressing your support for compromises, you dilute the core ideologies of the movement and in fact make such a strategy less likely to succeed.

Nothing is without risk. That said you simply have to ask yourself what's most important, symbolic gestures or actual governance?