Proemio
12-19-2007, 10:46 PM
It obviously can't work once published, but...
Here it is:
Any Ron Paul supporter who is not a kool-aid drinking, collectivist, statist, over-educated (brain-washed), me-too follower of the "Dear Leader" (who loathes that very concept), should take a 24 hour humor break from posting.
We can then sit back and laugh our individual asses off, as 200 or so shills, disrupters, dissemblers, and other such cuddly little critters congratulate each other for their brilliance, while being bumped furiously by the kool-aid drinking, collectivist, statist, over-educated (brain-washed), me-too followers of the "Dear Leader" (who loathes that very concept) - cigars and port are highly recommended, cigarettes and beer will do.
After 24 hours, we come back - refreshed and smiling - and finish the job despite the cuddly little critters, bumped by the kool-aid drinking, collectivist, statist, over-educated (brain-washed), me-too followers of the "Dear Leader" (who loathes that very concept).
The point:
So far, we just had small stuff do deal with, like twiddling down powerful ideas to virtual irrelevency, or pumping up fund-raising expectations to ridiculous heights, so they can be quoted to the media by the geniuses (or fellow critters) at HQ, and the general divide and rule garbage (kind'a hard to divide millions of individual campaigns, but whatever).
Yesterday - with the bestest interview, or month-long set-up, depending how you look at it - was clearly the kick-off for a big push. Today it comes thick and fast, and from all the various, previously focus-grouped angles, and not just here. I suggest we relax a bit and let them all go nuts for a day or so. It's called "withdrawal of consent" from playing their game, by their centuries old rules. Case: there is simply no Ron Paul supporter who will purposefully act against their own interest. It's preposterous to think so, yet we have thread after thread of recriminations against shadows - or plants.
Let them shadow-box , because their premise is wrong as usual. To quote the other guy on that best interview ever (Ron Paul 12/17/07 for those not paying attention): "To these top-down planners, a spontaneous order like our movement is science-fiction." Note the "our".
Traditional Campaign - them
Dark-Agers
v
Handlers
v
Manufactured Support
v
The Campaign
v
"Dear Leader" Candidate
v
Popular Support
Ron Paul Revolution
Freedom
v
"Our Movement"(1)
v
Popular Support
v
The Campaign(2)
Footnotes:
1. Ron Paul deserves and gets special mention/consideration, because he provides the focus AND puts his neck on the line - literally. Nevertheless, there are numerous quotes supporting the contention that he is and feels part of "our movement" (his and yours and mine) - the reluctant leader - the rarest, greatest and only acceptable kind, except to kool-aid drinking, collectivist, statist, over-educated (brain-washed), me-too followers.
2. A necessary construct, because of the system in place. The Campaign is in no way synonymous with Ron Paul, the man. Because of the system in place, the people qualifying for hire are by default people of the system. It's not necessary to point accusing fingers here, it's simply fact that history is full of Campaigns working to ensure the desired outcome for the creators of the system, and that's not necessarily to win. It's even rarely to win (only one out of many 'wins'. It's much more important to lose gracefully and believably, else the system is broken; useles to it's .
It's simply not possible for a candidate to micro-manage every decision from concept to execution. It's not possible for a president either. They approve a policy and it's up to responsible citizens to ensure that the stuff is implemented in the desired fashion - or raise one hell of a stink. On the other hand, since the Campaign is necessary, they need to be funded. Other than that, there is no reason to give them the "consent" to be managed out of action, as has happened and is happening all over the nation. If in doubt, read the above quote by Ron Paul again, and think about all that is going on. Every "Message from Ron" contains one or two sentences of heart-to-heart talk directed at "our" movement. The system does not allow for more, and for obvious reasons.
A word about the MeetUp controversies popping all over.
This was/is a predictable outcome for any formally organized political action, as explained in something I wrote almost 2 years ago (http://www.nolajbs.net/forum/index.php?topic=2453.0), but was reluctant to talk about earlier (it's also likely to crash that server if more than a few people check it out at the same time - oh well...). Why reluctant? Because earlier it would have been perceived as preaching, while now it might simply offer an explanation or a solution to much of the unnessessary stress. On top of that, I found that many, if not most of the doers already follow the principle through their own common sense and intuition - the best 'expert' by far.
The solution to MeetUp problems is awfully simple - no formal leadership. Someone has an idea, that person becomes the defacto leader for the implementation, if the person gets other to participate. Something like we do here: There is an idea -> it get's analyzed, criticized and cannibalized to death, while usually - if it has merit - someone or some go and gets it done. If anyone insists on controlling everything from the top, ignore them or get the hell out of there and meet somewhere else . The same applies to the 'learned' wordsmith who finds fault with everything but the most 'traditional', vanilla type, and thus predictable and easily countered actions. No need to start a war. In order to succeed, they need your "consent" to submit to dictat - simply withdraw consent and enjoy their blank faces - they are dead in the water.
Bottom Line:
Relax, don't get diverted from YOUR Campaign, and enjoy this trip of a life-time - we can do this...
If this was too long - I'll work on an even longer apology...
Here it is:
Any Ron Paul supporter who is not a kool-aid drinking, collectivist, statist, over-educated (brain-washed), me-too follower of the "Dear Leader" (who loathes that very concept), should take a 24 hour humor break from posting.
We can then sit back and laugh our individual asses off, as 200 or so shills, disrupters, dissemblers, and other such cuddly little critters congratulate each other for their brilliance, while being bumped furiously by the kool-aid drinking, collectivist, statist, over-educated (brain-washed), me-too followers of the "Dear Leader" (who loathes that very concept) - cigars and port are highly recommended, cigarettes and beer will do.
After 24 hours, we come back - refreshed and smiling - and finish the job despite the cuddly little critters, bumped by the kool-aid drinking, collectivist, statist, over-educated (brain-washed), me-too followers of the "Dear Leader" (who loathes that very concept).
The point:
So far, we just had small stuff do deal with, like twiddling down powerful ideas to virtual irrelevency, or pumping up fund-raising expectations to ridiculous heights, so they can be quoted to the media by the geniuses (or fellow critters) at HQ, and the general divide and rule garbage (kind'a hard to divide millions of individual campaigns, but whatever).
Yesterday - with the bestest interview, or month-long set-up, depending how you look at it - was clearly the kick-off for a big push. Today it comes thick and fast, and from all the various, previously focus-grouped angles, and not just here. I suggest we relax a bit and let them all go nuts for a day or so. It's called "withdrawal of consent" from playing their game, by their centuries old rules. Case: there is simply no Ron Paul supporter who will purposefully act against their own interest. It's preposterous to think so, yet we have thread after thread of recriminations against shadows - or plants.
Let them shadow-box , because their premise is wrong as usual. To quote the other guy on that best interview ever (Ron Paul 12/17/07 for those not paying attention): "To these top-down planners, a spontaneous order like our movement is science-fiction." Note the "our".
Traditional Campaign - them
Dark-Agers
v
Handlers
v
Manufactured Support
v
The Campaign
v
"Dear Leader" Candidate
v
Popular Support
Ron Paul Revolution
Freedom
v
"Our Movement"(1)
v
Popular Support
v
The Campaign(2)
Footnotes:
1. Ron Paul deserves and gets special mention/consideration, because he provides the focus AND puts his neck on the line - literally. Nevertheless, there are numerous quotes supporting the contention that he is and feels part of "our movement" (his and yours and mine) - the reluctant leader - the rarest, greatest and only acceptable kind, except to kool-aid drinking, collectivist, statist, over-educated (brain-washed), me-too followers.
2. A necessary construct, because of the system in place. The Campaign is in no way synonymous with Ron Paul, the man. Because of the system in place, the people qualifying for hire are by default people of the system. It's not necessary to point accusing fingers here, it's simply fact that history is full of Campaigns working to ensure the desired outcome for the creators of the system, and that's not necessarily to win. It's even rarely to win (only one out of many 'wins'. It's much more important to lose gracefully and believably, else the system is broken; useles to it's .
It's simply not possible for a candidate to micro-manage every decision from concept to execution. It's not possible for a president either. They approve a policy and it's up to responsible citizens to ensure that the stuff is implemented in the desired fashion - or raise one hell of a stink. On the other hand, since the Campaign is necessary, they need to be funded. Other than that, there is no reason to give them the "consent" to be managed out of action, as has happened and is happening all over the nation. If in doubt, read the above quote by Ron Paul again, and think about all that is going on. Every "Message from Ron" contains one or two sentences of heart-to-heart talk directed at "our" movement. The system does not allow for more, and for obvious reasons.
A word about the MeetUp controversies popping all over.
This was/is a predictable outcome for any formally organized political action, as explained in something I wrote almost 2 years ago (http://www.nolajbs.net/forum/index.php?topic=2453.0), but was reluctant to talk about earlier (it's also likely to crash that server if more than a few people check it out at the same time - oh well...). Why reluctant? Because earlier it would have been perceived as preaching, while now it might simply offer an explanation or a solution to much of the unnessessary stress. On top of that, I found that many, if not most of the doers already follow the principle through their own common sense and intuition - the best 'expert' by far.
The solution to MeetUp problems is awfully simple - no formal leadership. Someone has an idea, that person becomes the defacto leader for the implementation, if the person gets other to participate. Something like we do here: There is an idea -> it get's analyzed, criticized and cannibalized to death, while usually - if it has merit - someone or some go and gets it done. If anyone insists on controlling everything from the top, ignore them or get the hell out of there and meet somewhere else . The same applies to the 'learned' wordsmith who finds fault with everything but the most 'traditional', vanilla type, and thus predictable and easily countered actions. No need to start a war. In order to succeed, they need your "consent" to submit to dictat - simply withdraw consent and enjoy their blank faces - they are dead in the water.
Bottom Line:
Relax, don't get diverted from YOUR Campaign, and enjoy this trip of a life-time - we can do this...
If this was too long - I'll work on an even longer apology...