Ever wonder what goes on inside the head of a Ron Paul supporter who isn't a giant racist and actually has to rationalize supporting a blatantly lying candidate? Here you can have a look at how a Ron Paul supporters off the Ron Paul forums reacts to the revelations about the newsletters, tries to cope with it and adopts a "party line" which he doesn't really believe himself.
It's an instructive look not only inside the Ron Paul campaign but inside a mind warped by propaganda and finding no choice but to "learn to love big brother" in the form of Ron Paul.
It's a story told in screenshots of how the human mind adapts to believing in lies. Since it's graphic intensive, it's rendered in a separate screen.
It's an instructive look not only inside the Ron Paul campaign but inside a mind warped by propaganda and finding no choice but to "learn to love big brother" in the form of Ron Paul.
It's a story told in screenshots of how the human mind adapts to believing in lies. Since it's graphic intensive, it's rendered in a separate screen.
Comments
Great work O My Sultan!
ReplyDeleteWhoa! That Daron has all the behavior and rationalizations of someone caught up in a religious cult. He's brainwashed to the point that his own identity has merged with Ron Paul's.
ReplyDeleteProtect the leader at all costs. Scary stuff.
I'm pretty sure there's a psychological term for when one person's ego becomes so totally dependent upon a cult figure that a failure of one is the failure of the other. Daron isn't only defending Ron Paul--he's also defending himself.
Dr. Paul never struck me as all that charismatic. I think it's what he represents--the possibility of a fellow neo Nazi, white supremicist achieving the highest political position in the western world.
That could be why the emotional stakes are so high for people like Daron.
I repeat--scary stuff.
Just my opinions on his psychological state. Could be wrong, I didn't do well on the psych portion of my RN exam.
no you're exactly right
ReplyDeleteron paul supporters have been brought to associate and become mentally dependent on the image of ron paul
it's very much a cult mentality and it explains their hysteria at what happened
they have to protect ron paul because they're protecting their own self-image
thank you vanfield
ReplyDeleteWhy don't the post numbers advance with additional posts in the above blog?
ReplyDeletebecause they were all taken at one time, not right after each one was posted
ReplyDeleteI agree with keli ata except for the white supremacist neo-Nazi stuff. Certainly, many Ron Paul supporters are indeed that sort (*cough*Stormwatch*cough*). But as a recovering Paulistinian myself, I know that many of us honestly believed that he was a true libertarian (as in championing the Inherent and Unalienable Rights of Personhood above all else), and was the last hope of our nation to save it from the fascism that now seems to be our destiny, which will be followed by collapse and the end of the USA first as the mightiest world power, then as a world power at all, then as a nation, followed by the collapse of Western Civilization, followed by the collapse of human civilization as we’ve known it. We honestly believed that he was our best chance of preventing this disaster, so letting go of our faith in him was tantamount to letting go of all faith in the future of humanity itself.
ReplyDeleteBut, he has revealed that he cannot be trusted. For me, it happened even before the proof of the newsletters. It was when it became apparent that he was less of a true libertarian and more of a neo-confederate (not to be confused with neo-conservative). His racism that now seems to be proven at least in the past would go hand-in-hand with this, but it is quite possible to be a neo-confederate and also be non-racist. Neo-confederates, unlike the older confederates, do not necessarily champion slavery, nor even Jim Crow. They stand for what they believe were the “good” points of the Confederacy: States’ Rights, mainly.
Well, first off, there is not now, nor was there ever, nor was there ever intended to be, any such thing as “States’ Rights.” In the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights, or any other writing of the Founding Fathers, the word “Rights” (in any form) is never once applied to any other entity than to Persons (either individually, or collectively as “the People”). Neo-confederates love to bring up the Tenth Amendment, but to paraphrase Inigo Montoya, it does not say what they think it says. It says that all Powers not granted to the Federal Government by the Constitution, nor forbidden by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the People, respectively. Powers and Rights are not synonyms. The Ninth Amendment used the word “Rights” on the same piece of parchment a mere inch above the Tenth — if Madison had intended to use the word “Rights” in the Tenth, he would’ve done so.
The difference is that Rights are inherent in the very condition of being a Person (which is why only Persons have, or can have, any Rights). Not having been granted by any human agency, they cannot be revoked by same. Powers, on the other hand, are granted, and can be revoked by the granting agency. In the case of Governments at any level (Federal, State, local, etc.), Governments exist to secure (not “grant” nor “bestow”) our Rights, and derive their just Powers to govern from the consent of the governed! And yes, those Powers can be revoked by the granting agency, namely, us: if any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it becomes the Right of the People to alter or abolish it.
I thought that Ron Paul understood this. He does not. Or, if he does, he rejects it in favor of the non-existent States’ Rights concept, even over the Rights of Personhood.
His well-known statement that the Constitution is “replete with” references to God is telling. At first, one might merely chalk this up to amazing ignorance on the part of the self-proclaimed “Champion of the Constitution.” But is it really? After all, has he ever come out and specifically said that it was the Constitution of the United States of America that he meant in that statement, or that he’s the Champion of? Because the Constitution of the Confederate States of America does directly invoke Almighty God (albeit only once, but still, that’s a lot closer to being “replete with” such references than the Constitution of the USA is! At least Huckabee is honest about his Dominionist goals, and honest that the Constitution does not support them, and has come out and said that we need to change the Constitution to be in line with the unchanging and unchangeable Laws of God, as he put it.
I tried to rationalize that, and other such signs. And then I saw the video wherein he disclaims any belief in evolution. That really disturbed me, not only because as an M.D. and Ob/Gyn, he of all of the candidates should know better, but also because he had previously indicated in the first GOP debate that he does believe in evolution! All of the candidates on the stand in that debate were asked to raise their hand if they did not believe in evolution. Ron Paul did not. Huckabee and two others did.
Thus, he either lied in that first debate, lied in that subsequent video, or flip-flopped on such an important issue in the space of a ½ dozen weeks or so. There are no other possibilities.
His statement that in his career as an Ob/Gyn he has never seen a case where the life of a mother was endangered by a pregnancy and could be saved by an abortion is either a baldfaced lie or a willful distortion, since he would have to know about ectopic pregancies to get that M.D. (in Ob/Gyn specialty, no less!) sheepskin in the first place. Heck, even a general practitioner M.D. would have to know about that! Maybe he never saw one personally, which was indeed the literal meaning of what he said, but the clear implication that was intended to be conveyed to a lay audience was that such things never happen to anyone.
It became clear that his opposition to abortion was not from libertarian principles as he claimed (while the Libertarian Party platform is pro-Choice, many libertarians are pro-Life — I myself am of a third position that I call “Pro-Rights” which is neither of the other two, and stands alone on its own merits as a third position with its own logical justifications and ramifications, and which does not require Roe vs. Wade). I won’t go into detail here unless someone asks, as it would be a threadjack.
No, it seems that he is at least partly in bed with the Dominionists (pretty much the 180° diametric opposite of libertarians). At least Huckabee is honest about this, as I stated before (and no, I’m most definitely not supporting him!).
Many of Ron Paul’s claimed principles and goals are ones that might well have saved this nation, if they had been implemented decades ago when he ran the first time. Now, they would actually make things worse and shorten what little time remains to us. He himself does realize that the Gold Standard is no longer an option, and has backed away from that. Dumbya and the PNAC Iraq War has simply raised our national debt to the point that there just plain isn’t enough gold on nor in the planet to cover it all, and still leave enough left over for a working global economy. Even if we scraped off all the gold leaf on every family Bible, melted down every Olympic gold medal or Top 40s gold record, every gold wedding ring, every bit of gold plating from A/V jacks and plugs and even the extremely thin reflective yet transparent gold coating of skyscraper windows, etc., it wouldn’t be enough.
He now only says that money should be backed by “something of value.” It may be too late for even that, though, thanks to Hubbert’s Peak.
Also, thanks to Hubbert’s Peak, we cannot leave the Middle East, militarily. We have no moral justification for being in Iraq, but we have to be anyway, because if we weren’t then the general population could no longer be sheltered from the fact that the Peak is upon us.
No, I am withdrawing my support for Ron Paul. The racist newsletters with his signature on them are just icing on the cake as to why.
Post a Comment