Congressman Ron Paul of Texas still remains a shining example of men with integrity snubbed, shunned and shunted by traditional media. Had Paul ever really had a chance at the Presidency of the United States? Even a micro-chance? I seriously doubt it.
As with most humans he started out so well, picket up momentum, but in the end proved to be his own worst enemy.
His closing remark on continuing the struggle, as Congressman was disturbing. Really dahling, what compelled you to quote that brilliant intellectual but bloodthirsty psycho Leon Trotsky?
“The revolution must be a continuous one.”
Otherwise they become respectable, stable and slide into their bourgeois ways of living comfortably, being educated properly and looked after decently by the state.
Trotsky lived and breathed blood. Stalin was a truly Class A mass murderer, only because he was even more ruthless than Trotsky and totally paranoid. The intellectual in Trotsky would not allow him to consider the possibility that a Georgian petit bourgeois could ever outsmart him.
One has to wonder at the spinners and weavers of the presidential candidates. They are expensive and useless twits. Where are all the individuals?
Let’s see, Ron Paul could have quoted Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Virgil, Horace, Baltazar Gracian, Voltaire and Benjamin Disraeli, just to cite a few illustrious names, which come to me at random.
But no, he quoted Trotsky. He displayed a singular lack of perception, politesse , taste and lack of timing.
Which is why I am posting a letter written by John Cleese, of Monty Python fame and other unforgettable shows on television such as “Breakfast is served”.
Laughter is the best medicine. Cleese may be right in claiming the repossession of the United States. The treaty which was signed with England after the Revolutionary War gave so many privileges and payoffs to the English crown that we can only speculate -- of course, don't expect to learn about this treaty in school -- that is unless you like to do your research using the internet. Check out the details of this treaty -- it's very interesting reading.
The "revolutionary" rhetoric of Ron Paul - and even more so, that of too many of his supporters - is what alarmed me about him from the start.
ReplyDeleteThis is not to mention his inexcusable recalcitrance to dissociate himself unreservedly from the considerable numbers of White Nationalists who have been backing him. His own love of "liberty" might be authentic, but the rhetoric of liberty, when blended with populist-nationalism, is invariably a barbarous one.
Think about it: Wasn't the tree in Eden the very first SATANIC "Liberty Tree?" God's answer to that was the "Liberty Tree" of Christ's cross. Libertarianism without acknowledgement of original sin is an invitation to spiritual slavery.
And neither private property nor "free markets" are paths to any Utopian Eden, precisely because all property is derived ultimately from some kind of violence, some kind of original sin. The Marxists tried and failed to disentangle the seamless web of economic relations which go all the way back to Adam, Cain, the conquest of Canaan, and Jacob's guile, and the Norman Conquest (William the Conqueror would closely resemble a body-pierced illiterate English skinhead thug today.) Similarly, the Libertarian desideratum of a return to an Edenic condition of "private property" untainted by any legacy of "aggression", is just as much of a fantasy as the Marxist dream of a world with no private property. The only "revolution" which will endure is the one which began on Good Friday in 33 AD, and Judas' "revolutionary" attempt to purchase social change with silver remains an eternal mockery of every kind of temporal substitution for the liberty of the cross.