I have been pointing out for months on this blog that Congressman and Republican presidential candidate candidate Ron Paul frequently volunteers statements that are false, or incredible, or too difficult to verify. I have stated repeatedly that I distinguish between inaccuracies politicians may make when surprised by a question for which they are not prepared and pseudo-information they volunteer freely to aggrandize their cause or themselves. My several postings on the topic have been greeted by rational discussions as well as by bouts of insanity. There has also been innocent, stubborn denial, of the kind you would expect when reasonable adults get caught in flagrante of hero worship.
I have suggested several times that Congressman Paul is himself cracked. I based my judgment not on the nature of his followers but on the sum of his own many nonsensical statements. I was also impressed by the fact that Ron Paul asserted that Ron Paul did not read the Ron Paul Newsletter that published racist statements several times in the nineties.
Today, I am going to depart from the distinction outlined above. I will refer to statements Mr Paul made off the cuff, on the spur of the moment, and videoed on the spot. He was responding to a woman who I think was a supporter not a hostile party attempting to entrap him.
As he was standing a in an identified room surrounded by people, Mr Paul was trying hard to discuss the Federal Reserve Bank and the International Monetary Fund, and the alleged sinister relationship between them. A youngish woman who seemed to me like an enthusiastic well-wisher interrupted him and asked:
“Why can’t you come out and tell the truth about 9/11/”
Ron Paul replied distinctly, “ Because I can’t handle the controversy… I have too much on my plate.”
And then he resumed talking about banks.
What can the woman have meant? Are there any other interpretation than the one that comes to your mind instinctively?
Here is what Ron Paul did not say in response, “ What truth?” “What do you mean?”
The video is embedded in an article by Bryan Preston, a conservative who is evidently hostile to the Paul candidacy. The article is on the REAL CLEAR POLITICS website and dated December 10th 2011. I viewed it on April 27th 2012. It is only one of several reports from people who are themselves of a libertarian bent about Ron Paul and 9/11. The main witness is an long-time aide who, of course, would be called a “disgruntled employee” by true believers
I emphasize the video because it allows me to say that I heard Dr Paul myself utter those words. I have no doubt that it was Ron Paul I was watching and listening to. If someone wants to argue that what my eyes saw and my ears heard was just a movie production with an actor or otherwise a montage and not what I think I saw and heard, I hope he will take the trouble to do it on this blog. But if you are one of the people who really believe that any part of the the US government took a part in setting up the 9/11 aggression against our society, please stay away. We have nothing to talk about if you think this is tenable. If wish you well though wherever you may be, in a large enclosed park with tall trees and white-smocked attendants.
In the meantime, I believe more then ever that Ron Paul is cracked. I am disappointed and very sorry that he has succeeded in representing libertarian thinking to the rest of America. Libertarian ideas are unconventional, radical enough on their own. The last thing we need is a spokesman of dubious sanity.
Indecent Stories for Decent Women: Fiction by John René Adolph, a Man (2017)
Les pumas de grande banlieue: histoires d'émigration (2014)
I Used to Be French: an Immature Autobiography (2014)
FACTS MATTER 
Paul’s response reminds me of your garden variety “If I told you I’d have to kill you” kind of phoneys. These posers always have too much on their plates. There are some die hard cool aid drinkers around here and it makes question their logic. Maybe he thinks this is somehow helping advance his son Rand. It’s time he quietly threw his support behind Romney but he would have to overcome his ego to do it. Ron Paul has done as much for libertarians as Bill Clinton did for the feminist movement.
Bruce: I keep telling you you should be a blogger. If you don’t want to be bothered maintaining a blog. this one is open to you.
Um, a link to your source would be helpful. I’m glad a couple of conservatives have so much to say about Ron Paul and the libertarian movement. War is the health of the state. If you lust for war (or just targeted bombing campaigns carried out by the government), you ain’t a libertarian sweethearts.
Brandon: I fixed the reference. Thank you.
I have told yo several times that I agree with the statement regarding the relationship between war and the growth of the state. Unpleasantness does not cause me to cover my eyes like an old nun who has caught a glimpse of a naked man.
I don’t know if I am a libertarian. The “be”questions are boring. Your determination to cast me out of a fold, of any fold, is sadly reminiscent of other groups’ historical penchant for purges. I consider myself purged.
Hank beat me to it:
Remember when you said that there were no US troops in Saudi Arabia at the time of the 9/11 attacks? You can believe anything if you really put your mind to it.
You can’t purge yourself from something Dr. J! The correct term is “playing Jesus Christ” and while you do a decent job of it, I guess it’s only fair that I tell you that I stopped listening to martyrs a long time ago. Their message always stinks of dying dogma.
By the way, the Republican nominee, Mitt Romney, will not get my vote unless he pledges to bring our troops home from Afghanistan, which would be a good signal that he plans to get serious about deep spending cuts. It would be a good start for atoning for the sins of his predecessor, George W. Bush, who charged two foreign wars to the taxpayer’s credit card and never looked back. And you say Ron Paul is an embarrassment?!
Brandon: Ranting and repeating yourself endlessly!
I think the video I mention is enough to brand Ron Paul a real crackpot. Others want more evidence. Others want even more evidence. Others want even more evidence. Others won’t believe Ron Paul thought the government organized 9/11 even if the congressman told them face to face and they had a recording of the event.
It’s all so unfair, boo, boo!
You know the old joke about unfairness: If you take out the garbage one time, no one thinks you are a garbageman. Yet, if you are a man and you spend a single night of passion with another man, a single one, that makes you gay forever. So unfair!
Hahah! I watched the video and Ron Paul is on a different page than the “truther” (she’s not even hot!). He thinks that the chick is referring to his blasphemous argument that the United States was not an innocent virgin in foreign affairs at the time of the 9/11 attacks. Indeed, that the 9/11 attacks were blowback for a foreign policy completely out of line for a law-abiding republic.
Consider this scenario: pretend you are 76 years old and in a room as noisy as the one in the video. Now pretend you are Ron Paul, and that you got you political notoriety for getting into a debate with Rudy Giuliani on national TV about blowback and 9/11. In the middle of a conversation about the Federal Reserve and the IMF, the topic of 9/11 comes up. You think he just casually answers questions about conspiracy theories?!
I still have yet to see any conclusive evidence that RP is a “truther”, or that he has even said anything patently false. So far it’s all been fair game dude.
Somewhat ingenuous.
He has had years to comment and state clearly, “By the way, when that young woman….” It’s not as if it were a small detail. It goes to his overall sanity. If he it too old to understand this you would think the legions of young smart people surrounding him would know and induce him to deliver a statement about that episode, specifically.
The difference in our interpretations is that you think it’s a misunderstood isolated emission of voice with no meaning and I think it’s the tiny tip of a big iceberg.
The presumption of innocence does not apply to politicians’ statements.
Ah, see you are trying too hard Dr J.
This is a small detail. In 2008 Ron Paul repeatedly, officially, and on national television disassociated himself from the “truthers” and denounced their views.
The weakness in your accusation is glaringly apparent: why would you go out of your way to produce a homemade video of questionable merit when you could just watch some YouTube clips of RP on CNN, Fox News, or MSNBC denouncing the “truthers”?
This is silly.
Thanks, Brandon. One more time, you are overestimating me. I wouldn’t have relied on a silly home video if you, among others, had helped forthrightly by guiding me to all the good sources you mention now. It’s not too late. I am interested. I suspect that some of our readers are interested in viewing or hearing Ron Paul’s denunciations of the belief that the US government has a hand in 9/11. This is a good opportunity to correct a widespread misunderstanding. Show us. Please, give it you best shot. Please, don’t drown me with half-useful references. How about no more than two and you make them count?
No thanks. If there were suspicions in the mainstream press that Ron Paul was secretly (or overtly) a “truther” don’t you think that this issue would have been brought up already?
Oh wait, it was. In 2008 when the “truther” movement tried to draft him into their movement. Again, this is silly.
Instead of trying to debate the merits of non-interventionism and realism (as opposed to the liberal idealism you espouse), you are resorting to the old Marxist tactic of trying to discredit the source rather the argument.
Brandon: This makes no sense at all. If it’s easy to discredit what you treat as a rumor, do it. Do it irrespective of what you think my motivations are. If you don’t do it, we will keep wondering.
Our modest, local record will show that you declined to kill the idea that Ron Paul believed 9/11 was US government-sponsored after assuring us it was easy to do so (to kill it).
The mainstream press does not give much attention to Ron Paul because it views him as an irrelevant crank. I pay attention because he is the best spokesperson around for many of the ideas about society that I favor. His credibility matters to me and to many libertarian-inclined readers. His credibility is a matter of indifference to the mainstream, mostly liberal press.
You, having identified yourself as a follower display the characteristic ambiguity about facts of the Ron Paul cult.
Haha! Here you go (sigh): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhQ8xi312l8
I have trouble activating this link. I take advice.
Three easy steps:
1) get out of your dashboard by clicking on the “Facts Matter” icon at the top left of your screen.
2) click on the “Ron Paul’s 9/11” title.
3) scroll down until you find this conversation, and click on the blue link I posted.
If you are too lazy to do that, I’ll sum it up for you: Ron Paul denounced the attempts of the “truthers” to draft him into their movement on national television. In 2007. It’s only one clip. There are many more from other news channels…
THanks. I had done it.
Pingback: Jacques Delacroix, 9/11, and Ron Paul the Truther « Notes On Liberty
On ““Why can’t you come out and tell the truth about 9/11/”, a charitable interpretation is that this “truth” is the proposition that U.S. intervention into foreign countries resulted in the backlash of 9/11. To go beyond this is speculation. Reasoned argument should assume the best interpretations.
Jacques,
The video may be shocking (I agree, if it is the one I am thinking of, I saw it maybe six months ago), but as a true believer, I would like to give my guy the benefit of the doubt: What he said brushed the person off without ticking the person off. Was this the smart or even the most honest thing to do on camera when running for president. Perhaps not. But if it is your only basis for the accusation, besides of course, the word of a radio host that you “have never found lacking before”, and of a disgruntled employee, this piece is laughable.
Have you read the newsletters, btw?
It is one thing to say that he is failing to act responsibly about them, which is debatable given that the content itself is often misquoted or taken out of context, but it is quite another to accept, hook, line, and sinker, that what is said about them is true. I would give you a link, but I know you don’t like them. Besides, it would be to a piece by another true believer, and would therefore lack credibility.
Also, let me give you a heads up: Ron Paul said something about a “false flag attack” two days ago. Better get on it.
keimh3: You really are a ‘true believer.” Forgive me if you already know it but the expression goes back to Eric Hoffer’s book by the same title. It’s not flattering.You do give Mr Paul much benefit of the doubt.
What would it take for yu to say, “That’s it; no more.” ? Would anything?
Suppose I were very busy and some friendly stranger came to me and asked,” Why don’t you tell the folks about global warming?” And I only answered that I was too busy. Think about it.
The video is not the only thing. As I mentioned, there is also the testimony of a long term aide. And there are other testimonies but I wanted to be able to say that I had heard it myself.
None of the things I have reported about Congressman Paul would mark him as cracked. “None” means “not one,” I think. They do add up though, even deducting the one where I was misinformed and the other where I may have been wrong.
And , I also think Jesus did not cast out demons, or revive the dead. Many millions think he did. Some of those are smarter than I am. The difference between those who believe those reports and me is?
I am aware that the term “true believer” is not a compliment. My use of it was self-deprecative. I have come to accept that that is how I may be viewed. Take the words Paultard, Paulbot, Paulestinian. They were offensive at first. Now I use them myself when referring to Paul supporters.
I used the phrase because I am one of those that labels Eric Dondero a disgruntled former employee. I hate to bring his race into it, but he is part Jewish, and in my opinion, his motivation for bashing Ron Paul is that Paul wants to cut aid to Israel, and pull the troops out of countries that are Israel’s enemies.
One of his main gripes (that he has expressed, anyways) with Ron Paul is the alleged statement by Paul to the affect that 9/11 would be used to go into Iraq. He supposedly said this before we even went into Afghanistan. I am not sure why this is a big deal for him, but as far as I can tell, there are three possible reasons. One, the assumption by Paul that our leaders were that cynical. Two, the fact that Paul even mentioned Iraq, which at this time, was to secondary to Afghanistan. Three, there may have been other reasons to go into Iraq and therfore no need to tie it to terrorism and 9/11.
But there is a discrepancy. Dondero didn’t leave until Ron Paul was proven right (assuming Paul even said these things). Was not the War in Iraq instantly labeled as a front in the war on terror declared by Bush after 9/11? Why does Dondero take issue? There is no reason to.
Dondero also ran for Paul’s seat in 2007. He is sure entitled to do so, but does his credibility remain intact? I suppose you could argue he wanted to make a difference by taking out ONE congressman in 435 that he happens to disagree with on one or two issues. I suppose you could argue that he wanted to save the Lake Jackson/Texas District 14 voter from himself.
What would it take for me to throw Paul under the bus? Lets see. If he endorses Mitt Romney. That is what it would take. No joke.
But certainly not an accusation that I myself have had leveled against me, but which is false in my case. I have been called a truther. I have been called a racist. People have/can point to things I have said. But the charges are false. Why should I not be defensive when the same things are said of others, when the evidence is far from conclusive?
Do these things you mention really add up? I think Ron Paul could be said to be [in italics: sympathetic] to those in the truther movement. But the same can be said about him and potheads, racists, religious radicals, militias, protectionists (Pat Buchanan and Paul Craig Roberts both like Ron Paul), Occupiers, pacifists, conspiracy theorists, gay marriage advocates, homophobes, ex-hippies, bloggers, youth, and others considered by some to be unsavory. Does that mean he fully endorses those things in and of themselves? Or is it becoming of a liberty candidate to have a broad spectrum of supporters?
keimh: Too much, as usual.
About your self-labeling as a “true believer,”I wish you would not use irony. I think it seldom gets through on-line except when people know you very well. Few of my readers do. I don’t. Yesterday, the record say, I had a reader from Latvia and others from far-flung countries. I don’t expect foreign readers to catch what I don’t catch after using English for fifty years.
I am glad we had a chance to discuss the term true believers anyhow. The book by the same title, by Eric Hoffer, was the single most important influence on my intellectual life. I hope some readers will read it.
The reports about what Ron Paul said in connection with the 9/11 massacre and the invasion of Iraq sound just like what I would expect from cult followers: “And he predicted WWII right after he met personally with Jesus Christ in 1903.” I could be persuaded otherwise but someone or other who is obviously a follower asserting it won’t do it for me.
You went pretty much into what I did not want to go into on the Paul disgruntled employee. I did not want to bother. That’s why I did not rely on that and instead, gave you a video about an encounter between Mr Paul and a person well-disposed toward him, I think.
In general, many things are not worth writing about because they are in the manner of one Trotskyst group purging a Trotskyst subgroup from its own ranks in 1950. They don’t matter much except within the context of an exhaustive endeavor. Blogs don’t lend themselves to exhaustive endeavors.
Ron Paul is cracked because he believes things that rational people firmly disbelieve. That’s in addition to making up things that are very unlikely to be believed by anyone but true believers, people who will believe almost anything from a certain source. (Here we go again!) There is no way I can forget that millions of Soviet citizens sobbed for real at Stalin’s death. Liars who make up things few will believe are not immoral, they are insane. And, I don’t care to discuss the term “rational.” It’s obvious enough for my purpose.
If I understand well that last part of your comment, you don’t deny that Mr Paul is a truther; you just argue that it’s OK.
Hold on. You may have missed this bit: Eric Dondero is the one saying this, not me. Did Ron Paul say or does he claim to say that he did say the following?:
The Bush administration will use the 9/11 attacks to go to war with Iraq?
I doubt it. He may have said it, but in the context of sending troops into Afghanistan to go after the perpetrators? I don’t think so.
I will not pester you about what you mean by “rational”, but I maintain that your statement about what Paul “believes” is far from demonstrated. For example, you are insistent that he is a truther. I have raised some objections to this. And maybe it is just because my responses are a mess, but you have hardly addressed my objections. Apart from misreading them as you do when you say,
“If I understand well that last part of your comment, you don’t deny that Mr Paul is a truther; you just argue that it’s OK.”
Well, guess what? I DO deny that Paul is a truther! And if I had any reason to think he was at the time this charge was first bandied about, I never would have been drawn to the message he was giving. My ideological background would not have permitted me to take him seriously.
And I never said that if he was a truther, I would be okay with it.
All I said was that I have no problem hanging out with weirdos (a good description of many, but certainly not the majority of Paul’s supporters so long as their main objective is not to shove that weirdness down my throat, nor anyone else’s).
What I said was “OK” was the fact that many of his supporters are outlandish. I also said it was “OK” if Ron Paul was not antagonistic, and even if he was friendly, towards them if they happened to get in his face about their pet issue. You may think that unwise for someone seeking a high office, but lets face it, the vast majority of Americans believe some strange crap. If enough of them were to realize that that was just dandy so long as they didn’t seek to impose their will on others, couldn’t any candidate, rational or otherwise, who hung out with the wrong crowd, get elected? And if hanging out with the wrong crowd could get you elected, why would it still be unwise? Because those who proclaim themselves to be rational, but who are also intolerant, would still oppose him? Well. Let them get bent.
kheim3: I don’t care much what Eric Dondero said or did not say. I took the trouble to find what Ron had to say with his own mouth. I concluded, based on that sound, that he did believe at one point that the US government had a hand in the 9/11 massacre. I don’t know if he still believes it. I could be turned around on this given even a little bit of evidence. It would help for example if Mr Paul said loudly, with his own mouth: “I didn’t, I don’t, I never said I did….”
I know without help from Dondero that Ron Paul has many strange beliefs besides those concerning 9/11. I have written on some. I don’t want to repeat myself. Being boring is a worse sin than being wrong.
As for the rest of your message, I don’t follow most of it. You seem to be correcting something I said you said. I don’t know what I said you said. Feel free to correct to your heart’s content. I hope there will be others who are interested.
I am done correcting you for now. At least on petty stuff like what you said I said.
I still don’t see where you are getting the “he did believe at one point that the US government had a hand in the 9/11 massacre,” though. Oh well.
keimh3: Reply number two:
You refer to Congressman’s Paul long term associate, or disgruntled former employee, as being Jewish. Then, you call this feature “race.” This is unusual. I wonder why you think Jewishness is a race. (Of course, I am terrified at the thought that some one might know something I don’t know))
OOOOOOH! Good catch! Only Hitler thought Jewishness was a race I suppose? Bad Keimh3! Bad Keimh3!
Okay. Enough irony. You hate that. And you are right, online, as in emails, it can be hard to detect, even when looking for it.
FYI, “Jewishness” was a race before it was a religion. Jews are the descendants of Judah. The religion, Judaism, is named after the people, not the other way around. I suppose we could debate about whether an actual person named Judah ever existed or if in fact he is the ancestor of all members of the Jewish religion or not.
I am surprised you have never heard the term “Jew” as a race. I am aware that there is some controversy surrounding who is a Jew and who isn’t, but to make an issue out of it? Maybe the way I used it was technically incorrect in todays usage, but it is certainly not uncommon. Perhaps I should tread lightly when referring to some groups and not others.
So, say there is a Semite of Hebrew origin who renounces the religion (Judaism as some call it) he was raised with. Assuming I wanted to describe his ethnicity (I guess that is somewhat subjective), what word should I use, if not “Jew” or “Jewish”?
And one more thing: I know that most people considered to be Jews today, and Israeli’s are a prime example, are in fact of multiple national origins. Hebrew. Khazar. Syrian. I got it. Peoples mix. But the same is true of any group. Will I no longer be able to say “Hispanic” or “Anglo” because of this?
Or perhaps by sin was to use the word “race”, a broad term, when “ethnicity”, a more refined term, was called for.
Or maybe the French (sorry to play that card on you) have a whole separate understanding of Jews and race that I haven’t the faintest clue about. Fill me in if that is the case.
Forgive me if I missed the target on this one. I was not sure exactly what your issue was, so I covered as many possibilities as I could think of.
keimh: I merely said that treating Jewishness of a race was “unusual” (today, I implied). I thought that mentioning this fact to you was like throwing a line with a bare hook in a pond: It would probably do nothing but then again, it might catch a fish. Wow, caught a hundred pound carp I did not not even know was there!
I hope I am not confused; Following your reasoning, “Hispanic” is a race?
What’s a “Semite”?
Please, don’t put words in my mouth: I don’t “hate” irony. I just think it does not get through well on-line.
Sure, Hispanic is a race. You can quote me on that. If I am wrong because of some technicality, I won’t lose a wink over it. A Semite, to my mind, is a Jew, an Arab, and other groups that I am not up on at the moment. Maybe I am being to archaic. Maybe I am just lumping everyone together like a 19th century orientalist.
Jacques, don’t be surprised when you catch a big fish! Don’t I always inundate you like that? But since the subject has turned to race, I should be more more subtle?
keimh3: I am exploiting you shamelessly. I just want to figure out how your kind of people think. I am not concerned about technicalities but about basic conceptual categories and how they fit readily observable reality.
A Bolivian immigrant and a Cuban immigrant are both officially “Hispanics” (I mean according to the Federal Government.) According to you, they also belong to the same “race.” Right?
How to you know an Arab; how do you know a Jew?
How? Really? I don’t know. Whatever is convenient, I suppose. I just lump people together. Things I might take into consideration, though they are correlations more than causes, are religious, cultural, and linguistic heritage, genetics (yes, I know a few things about that), and even, gasp!, skin tone. But perhaps the best thing to go by is what the person themselves says. For example, my source for Eric Dondero being Jewish is…Eric Dondero. However, I realize that this (racial categories) is all very subjective (and touchy), and there is probably no established, across-the-board convention on how to do it (nor should there be). For example, Hispanic, as you imply, is a broad, imperfect, inconsistent category (aren’t all racial designations?). It includes Vincente Fox (ancestors mostly from Europe) and Alex Rodriguez (ancestors from Africa and Pre-Columbian America). And maybe it is an official government designation. So what?
keimh3 Thanks for the response but please, please, don’t flatter yourself: Nothing you say makes me gasp.
I am just endlessly interested in the spot confusion observable in many otherwise intelligent people. You are one of those.
I know less about what you mean by race than I did two exchanges ago. The more you explain, the more confused I become. Must be me!
See also Davids’ comment on Jewishness.
I am so sorry Jacques. I will look at his comments.
All kinds of fun happens while one’s computer is being fixed for a month. (Curse the manufacturer for not realizing that people actually USE their computers and don’t like having them away for a month…but I digress…) I’ll put a couple short bits of my own two cents that I hope to expand upon when it’s not the middle of the night (in my timezone). First, Ron Paul does seem to have a tendency to say odd-ball stuff on a regular basis; that might be the effects of aging/poor memory or him just saying whatever comes to mind without forethought, but in either case it is indicative of a failing mind at his age, and the last thing I would want is a person with a compromised cerebral cortex with his fingers near the Presidential Football.
The idea of someone being genetically Jewish is practically impossible. Especially since the requirement for being considered Jewish (back in biblical times) was that one’s mother was Jewish. That would’ve diluted the gene pool awfully quick, long before modern times. So to say that there are genetically linked Jewish “traits” (i.e. how they look, skin tone, etc) is difficult to associate in a rational fashion.
“the requirement for being considered Jewish…was that one’s mother was Jewish.”
Agreed. As I understand it, however, the reason for this was the impossibility of proving paternity. Given that this is no longer the case, this tradition (established for convenience more than anything else) is outdated.
It just so happens that Eric Dondero is Jewish through his mother. Case closed.
“The idea of someone being genetically Jewish is practically impossible.”
But the same could be said of any group. In my opinion, the reasons there is so much hype and stigma involved when the specific subject is Jewish identity are one) because Judaism is a religion first, a historical national identity second, and a race (or not so much) third; and two) Jews (regardless of genetics) have been among the most oppressed peoples historically.
An aside: I am a fifth cousin to Israeli general David Shaltiel. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Shaltiel
Thanks but I was only interested in your use of the term “race.”
Like I said, I lump people together with no regrets.
Thanks for the refresher, Brandon. I activated both links. They take us to one of the early Republican presidential debates, I think.
In response to a direct question about Ron Paul “truther” followers, the Congressman says distinctly that he has “abandoned” this view (or these views). You cannot abandon a view you never held. As I said all along, Ron Paul believed that the US government took part, or favored, or promoted the massacre of 9/11. Whether he still believes it at any time or not is irrelevant to my point that the man is cracked. If he believed it for more than one hour, he is cracked.
In the same video, Congressman Paul dithers in doing what any presidential candidate is able to to: Tell his followers forthrightly that a certain view of the world is absurd. The most charitable interpretation of this behavior is that Congressman Paul knows that a significant portion of his following is made up of insane, paranoiac people who believe the US government wants to kill them.
And that has nothing to do with your “blowback,” the idea that the 9/11 jihadist massacre was somehow retribution for cetain US policies. That’s not what truthers believe. Please, don’t pretend to be confused on this issue and risk your credibility.
Ron Paul’s elevator does not go to the top floor. Many, not all, of his followers are insane. The balance, otherwise normal individuals, refuse to see the mad people with the upside-down funnels on their heads at their elbows because they are members of a cult.
Libertarian ideas deserve a better champion, one with irreprochable clarity of mind.
Ron Paul has been talking about blowback since before 9/11. He predicted (I won’t call him a prophet as others should have or did see it coming) terrorist attacks on the US. This was before 9/11. Why would he, after 9/11, change his views, even if for an hour, on blowback and implicating the government indirectly just to attempt implicate the government directly by buying into the 9/11 Truth theories, when blowback was so integral to his position on foreign policy?
Since 9/11 he has quoted and referred to the 9/11 Commission Report on numerous occasions. I can find no video evidence doing a google search or a youtube search where Paul has stated he held any views other than the blowback one, which, frankly, is the centerpiece for his argument against foreign interventionism.
I can find a fewl videos in which he is addressed by truthers, and in which he is tolerant of their questions (political expedience?), but none in which he endorses their views. The closest he has ever come is to say, “I don’t necessarily trust a government investigation into things like this”, but he is not alone. Last I checked most mainstream non-truther lefties and righties also mistrusted the 9/11 Commission Report to some degree or another. This is hardly a sign of one being cracked.
And it is true that one can not abandon views without having entertained or held them first. But the word “abandon” was the one chosen by the moderator. Watch 0:13 to 0:23 of Brandon’s video again, and tell me it is so off base to use the same word as the moderator.
I have to agree with JD regarding blowback. These fanatical Muslims loathe and hate the very existence of the USA. In their viewpoint, the USA stands for all that is evil about the world, ergo, they hate it and want to destroy it. There need be no blowback for them to hate us and try to kill us. The hate already pre-existed; in my opinion, blowback was a convenient way that they rationalize their hatred of the West (and particularly the USA) to people of the West, in an effort to gain sympathy and legitimacy from within those populations. After all, it’s Western thinking that gave the world Hitler; therefore, it wouldn’t be a long stretch for Westerners to attribute evil/nefarious motives to some of their leaders, particularly leaders who don’t adhere to the same political viewpoint as the Westerner in question.
@keimh, You put yourself in a tricky position by saying that he was just repeating the words of the moderator. First, there is the question of WHY the moderator used the word “abandon.” There must have been a sense that Ron Paul had adhered to those beliefs at one point, thus, necessitating the question. Secondly, every astute politician knows damn well how to “answer” a question without saying anything specific and without even addressing the question as asked; additionally, they all have the ability to turn a “yes or no” question into a minute monologue on the subject of their choosing. This is an even more puzzling response in light of a successful politician, because he’s been in politics long enough to have developed that kind of skill. So, he’s either lacking in political competency such that he actually parrots a moderator’s verbage during his answer (which is bad for an analysis of his mental capacities) or he knew precisely what he was saying and agreeing with the premise of the question by using the same words as the moderator. The third option is that he’s “not all there,” which doesn’t help his case at all either. A possible fourth option is that he spoke out of turn; which is unlikely given the frequency of his odd statements.
Of course. Fanatics hate just to hate. No disagreement there. But what legitimizes that hatred among Muslims not previously disposed towards fanaticism? Blowback. Don’t ask Ron Paul. Ask the CIA.
Did you watch the clip? The moderator was never referring to Paul as you allude when you say “…there is the question of WHY the moderator used the word “abandon.” There must have been a sense that Ron Paul had adhered to those beliefs at one point…” It was always about those supporters of his that were also truthers. I think what Ron Paul did was more brilliant than you give him credit for. Rather than doing what the typical politician (the type you describe and appear to admire in your comment) does and throwing people under the bus, he said that their views were irrelevant. It was his views that counted. And while he did use the word abandon (which according to my dictionary can mean, “condemn someone or something by ceasing to take an interest in,” making no mention of whether that interest was in fact “adherence to” or mere “curiosity about”.), his next statement was, almost as to correct affirm his denial and correct his alleged gaffe, “I don’t believe that”.
I like your first option the best. He is “politically incompetent”. In todays world that means he is honest and consistent. I can point you to 534 other politicians, most of whom ARE “politically competent”. Their approval rating is at an all-time low of 9%. Few if any of them are doing much to fix our mess(es) besides kicking the can down the road.
keimh3: I the YOuTube video of reference provided by sincere disciple Brandon, Ron Paul was not talking about blowback. That’s unless you really ,really, really want to believe it.
I agree. You brought up blowback I think.
Dr. J, as usual you are trying too hard. Hank already took care of your impotent thrust.
David (speaking of paranoiacs) writes,
Do you have any evidence to support this statement? Let me save us both a bit of time: anybody who uses the words “fanatical Muslims” to lump together the likes of Hamas and al-Qaeda is cracked. Batshit insane, if you will.
Now, al-Qaeda was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. The position of al-Qaeda in regards to the 9/11 attacks was (and is) that the US government is propping up and legitimizing murderous regimes in the Middle East. It doesn’t get any simpler than that.
That’s al-Qaeda’s official line. Now, if you are cracked (and I suspect that you are, David; I really do), you will respond by saying that al-Qaeda is just tricking the West, and using the overbearing presence of Washington in the Middle East as an excuse to murder people, thus gaining legitimacy in the eyes of the vast majority of the Muslim world. Am I correct, David?
Here is where your crackpottery really comes in, though: why would murdering thousands of innocent people earn respect for al-Qaeda in the Muslim world if blowback is just an excuse al-Qaeda used to murder masses of innocent people? Think long and hard about this question, David.
Brandon: I don’t know what you are replying to.
The violent jihadists our security services keep catching tell you clearly: We want to kill you because of what you, Americans do in the Middle East? Right? Or is that an explanation some sometimes use and that people like you pull out to explain and justify insane crimes committed by people with a pathological hatred of our society?
Around 1,000, Christians from the West launched a violent attack on the Middle East because, they said, Muslims prevented pilgrims access to the Tomb of Christ. The Muslims did no such thing and there couldn’t be a Tomb of Christ anyway because He had left early in the morning. That was the single most important Christian belief.
The official explanation the aggressors mouth once in a while is not necessarily the correct explanation for their behavior. Often, it’s transparently not so.
According to you, Brandon, in Egypt and in Libya, we helped fundamentalist Muslims. Did this make them our friends then, by your logic?
I am so confused!
Again: They hate us because we have topless bars. Even Muslims who wouldn’t become violent in a thousand years hate us for this and everything else connected to personal freedom. They hate us much the way our medieval ancestors would hate us for the same reasons if they were around.
What about the 9/11 hijackers that frequented nude bars, drank booze, and slept with prostitutes? Either the presumption that they (terrorists and their sympathizers) were devout Muslims and hated us because we are a scantily clad, nominally Christian society is false and they must hate us for a different reason (blowback) OR they were devout Muslims and Islam really doesn’t have clear, universal prohibitions against these vices, in which case, once again, they (terrorists and their sympathizers) must hate us for a differnet reason (blowback).
keimh3
Without denying categorically that some of the homicidal highjackers did what you describe, I would like to have stronger confirmation before undertaking the superficially arduous task of reconciling that behavior with my statement that the violent jihadists hate us because we have topless bars.
I remember there were reports of the said behavior in the press right after 9/11. Then, they seemed to disappear. I am not sure (NOT SURE) that the reports were not merely a clumsy attempt to discredit the highjackers before the Muslim world.
I must tell you that you are already off on a tangent, even before I can seriously discuss what you, yourself propose: Whether Islam has or not clear, universal prohibitions against the vices in question is not relevant. It’s a theological question neither of us is equipped to handle. “Universality” had nothing to do with anything in all likelihood.
http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a091101beforepinkpony&scale=2#a091101beforepinkpony
Good place to start on my assertion. I did look into before making my previous comment.
keimh3: I am sorry but you usually try to take me too far afield, into areas where I have no interest, such as your blood-relationship to an Israeli general. I understand that you think this relationship is logically related to your right to designate Jews as a race. It’s not. I don’t feel obligated to explain why just because I invited you to explicate your use of the word race. If I ask you if you think it’s going to rain, I don’t thereby obligate myself to discuss the art and science of meteorology with you for the whole next month.
I do hope someone else will take up the task of answering you. I suspect someone will. I will read the exchange with interest.
I am not sure if that is relevant but here is, just in case: I don’t disbelieve your assertion that Ron Paul said that 9/11 was “blowback” for some sin or other of US policy. If indeed Ron Paul said this I think he is wrong. It’s an important, widespread fallacy. I hope I will have time to deal with it at some point. I don’t know if I will have the time or the energy. Trust me, it’s not easy to be in charge of the world as I am!
Jacques,
I know being distantly related to someone does not make me an expert on every issue remotely connected to them. I threw it out there mainly as an explanation as to why I was interested in the subject of Jewish heritage at all. Genealogy is a hobby of mine.
I understand not wanting to discuss everything. Sometimes you just have to cut things short. Sounds fair to me.
I figured you would reject the concept of blowback, at least in this case. Your mere mention of it, even as not part of the broader discussion was what triggered my comment about it in the first place. I agree that it is a whole other subject that should be postponed until you write an article singling in out for criticism.
Hopefully, until next time!
@keimh, I don’t actually admire people who can do that. If I did…I’d have a lot more awe and respect for the President. I stopped watching him speak a couple of months into his term because I started passing out during his responses to questions in interviews. I was merely stating that any successful politician has that kind of skill in abundance.
In regards to why ordinary Muslims would get radicalized, I suspect that the primary reason is similar to why ordinary Christians ventured on the Crusades in the middle ages: for God and Country. Their desire to do good for their God and their country can easily be manipulated by influential people. Having a “mission from God” makes people capable of much more if they believe that what they are doing is in fact God’s work, because they believe it to be moral, even if it includes killing innocents.
@Brandon, I don’t recall specifically linking together ANY group of Muslims. I believe I referenced “fanatical Muslims,” not any specific groups. Additionally, if I am cracked as you assert, then I would counter that you’re open minded to the point of having had your brain leaked out.
Brandon, if the regimes in the Middle East are murderous, as you assert, would it not be permissible, if not morally necessitated, to lock away and or execute said murderers, using any force necessary? If the USA did in fact help place them into power, would it not be morally responsible to remove them from power after the fact? Also, if these same regimes were put into power by the USA, wouldn’t the USA have a greater amount of influence into these countries, therefore, making them more amenable to American desires? If the USA were the puppeteer behind the scenes, then would it not make sense that there would be less resistance to US demands/requests among the leaders of said murderous regimes? Seeing how many of the regimes are resistant to US interests, it seems to me to be unlikely that the US is “propping up” these regimes. Might you offer a separate explanation that fits the facts?
As an answer to you last question Brandon: it is very simple. They’re doing the work of God. Ergo, it was the will of God that all those die, otherwise God would’ve made sure they wouldn’t have been present. Al-qaeda isn’t doing random killing for the sake of random killing, they’re invoking the name of Allah and using religion as an excuse for violence, which goes into a whole different realm of morality. Much more is permissible for people doing “God’s work” because God is often times viewed as omnipotent, omnipresent, and all-powerful: meaning that anyone who dies or is hurt was pre-ordained by God, therefore, the perpetrators are absolved of guilt/wrong-doing because it was “God’s will.” Similar in effect in how the Knights Templar functioned during the Crusades, they were doing “God’s work” and they just happened to get rich and powerful doing it.
David,
First of all, my apologies for that bit about you admiring slick politicians. It was a cheap and easy shot. Glad you didn’t take too much offense on that.
In regards to your comments to me, about Muslims, Christians, Missions from God, Radicalism, and all that, I don’t ENTIRELY disagree with any of it. I just think it is an oversimplification. For example, during the Crusades, the vast majority of knights were landless (because most inheritance went to first born sons), impoverished, and/or in debt. Why did they go to the Holy Land? Religious motivations and imperialism (in the sense of the Holy Roman Empire, a Latin Kingdom, or the Papacy), cynical or otherwise, were secondary concerns to them, if concerns at all. I think it had more to do with were evading creditors and lawmen, as well as seeking fortune and elbow room. While this scenario probably does not neccessarily apply to al-qaeda and other radicals today, I still suspect that religious motivations and imperialism (in the sense of a Caliphate) are secondary. This is where blowback fits in rather nicely. They want to throw occupiers out, pure and simple. Whether that occupation takes the form of a US/NATO military force, a Russian military force, a British military force, an oppressive US-installed and/or backed government, or even a brutal but locally-grown government espousing foreign ideals or the ‘wrong’ variant of Islam, is immaterial. However, this does not mean that the kneejerk xenophobia (anti-Israel sentiment for example) espoused in certain quarters (e.g.,Sunni Hamas, Shiite Hizbollah), and its violent manifestations are entirely justifiable.
I wasn’t going for oversimplification; I was just going for an analogy, in an attempt to make my point more easily understood. Though I suspect there is a crucial difference between the Crusaders and radical Islamists….Crusaders were willing to die, but expected to live; the Islamists PLAN to die, mostly for the blessing of becoming a Martyr. Strapping a bomb to oneself (or flying a plane into a building) doesn’t usually show an expectation of survival. Which leads me to believe that the worker bees of these various extremist groups actually believe they’ll be in paradise by killing “infidels.” They sting once, then they’re dead. (Oddly like honeybees.) The masterminds on the other hand, may have other motives, but their power comes from making religious zealots willing to die for a ticket to paradise.
There is no question in my mind that anyone willing to blow themselves (and innocent others) up for any cause is severely messed up, and that the guys in charge encouraging this but not doing it themselves are either cowards or cynics.
But my point is about where their sway over these young would-be martyrs even comes from. I hate to say it again, but I will. Blowback. It is not the only reason for this behavior, but it seems to be what is fueling it. All other things being equal, people want to live. It is the human condition. It takes a lot more than a fifteen hundred year old book to surmount this. Throw in a touch of religious fanaticism, a dash of little-to-live-for, AND an occupying force (doing you know favors, by the way, often enough making things worse) representing an ancient foe, and there is your terrorism. It is not justified, but if there are things we can do to stunt its growth and lessen its potency, we should do them.
Throwing rocks at every bee’s nest does neither of these things. It does the opposite. Wiping out all of the bees is impractical (cost-prohibitive, time consuming, unnecessary) and may have other unintended consequences. Leaving the bees to their own devices, only shooing when they get close, and swatting when they sting is not the same as putting your head in the sand. Noninterventionism is not isolationism.
keimh: You are always all over the place. Be my guest; go to town. (For my foreign friends: It means; “Enjoy yourself.” It comes from the imagery of farm-boys going to the nearest town on Saturday night to get drunk and possibly enjoy a prostitute. English is a wonderful language. Keep reading.)
Back to you keimh3: I am not going to join you in a savant disquisition about causation. I just want to ask you a single, simple question. I hope you answer it simply:
If there were not American presence in any land that is or was once predominantly Muslim (including Spain, of course); if there were no American military action whatsoever that hurt any Muslim anywhere, would all the attacks on America and Americans conducted in the name of Islam cease?
Would all such attacks cease?
It’s a simple enough question. Let’s see if you can answer it without confusing my poor gray head!
No.
Corrections:
Koran is more like 14 hundred years old.
Used the word “know” instead of “no”.
Sorry I am so self-conscious.
David,
I am still awaiting your responses to my devastating rebuttals. You can find them here. Don’t chicken out now…
My two cents: “Devastation?”
@Brandon, I haven’t “chickened out” of anything. I just happen to have enough going on in Real Life, that I am not always able to spend many hours each day on political dialogue. Please don’t take my silence for that of fear, but for that of an active life that isn’t obscenely attached to a computer/smartphone. (It’s a rare thing in my experience.) Some responses just take too long for me to take the time to respond to. In any case, your “devastating rebuttals” are anything but devastating. You’re responses (oversimplified, grouped together, and taken out of context, of course) run the course of “Hey stupid! You’re stupid! And wrong! It’s the USA’s fault for involving itself in other people’s business! See! It’s on the internet…it must be true! Now go read this so that you’ll agree with me too, you stupid moron!” Writing in a condescending manner is a sure fire way to either be ignored or marginalize oneself. I’ts how politicians have lost lots of votes and both Obama and Romney have issues not sounding condescending. To sum up, responding to every single of your rebuttals isn’t worth my valuable time.
Brandon: This is JD. My two cents again. Brandon, I keep telling you that politeness is not only good for its own sake, it’s a tool for discussion. Some of your comments and some of your replies to comments don’t need to be answered because their tone cancels any meaning they may have and others can see it. David put his finger right on it. He is a gentleman; he did not use his middle-finger as others might have.
David,
With all due respect, you still haven’t answered any of my responses. I think they are important rebuttals regardless of the tone that I use, and I haven’t actually told you to go read something on the internet. This is a simple Socratic dialogue. You are making stuff up in your head. An ignorant vote cast from the Right is still an ignorant vote cast.
Time is precious. Studying international relations/development at a somewhat prestigious school has reinforced this notion in my brain, but a simple response to my rebuttals should take no longer than five minutes. Bawkbawkbegawk!
Brandon: My four cents this time. Have you noticed that I frequently do not respond to your comments? Do you know that the non-response is sometimes a response directed at others, at readers? It consist in letting your words stand in the splendor of their inanity.
Sometimes also, I don’t answer because other tasks in my life take precedence. That’s pretty well what David told you earlier.
Dr. J tries to weasel his way out of yet another corner:
You have confused yourself (again). In the YouTube video YOU referenced, Ron Paul was assuming that the “truther” bimbo was talking about blowback.
Sheesh. It’s hard to play ball when you keep moving the goalposts Dr J…
David asks:
No. Questions like this continue to illustrate why I suspect you are a crackpot. This is al-Qaeda’s logic.
In order for a state to enforce something, there has to be a contract between at least two parties first. Many people say that al-Qaeda is actually winning the war against the US, and when I see people (even crackpots) use the logic of al-Qaeda in their arguments, I am forced more and more to agree with this assessment. You are advocating barbarism.
Oh my god, no. Where do you come with these crackpot ideas? Think about your logic here, David.
Ah. Here you just have your facts wrong. The last regime put into power by the US in the region was the murderous Shah of Iran. Most regimes in the region are either outright hostile to the US (because of previous meddling) or simply use Washington to further their own ends. The US has astonishingly little control of the region, which is why Washington is so prone to errors and bad policy. Stationing troops to protect a little-liked monarchy in the Arabian peninsula is a good example of this.
Your last response to my question is confused, I think. I actually feel a little bit sorry for you, so I’m just going to ask another simple question instead: what exactly is God’s work, according to al-Qaeda? I want you to use the international state system as a framework while you ponder my simple question.
Don’t despair, David. Dr J is making you look like a community college professor at Cabrillo in this thread. Look at this whopper:
Brilliant analysis! Topless bars and pornography are the real reasons for the anti-American sentiments of Islamist groups around the world. This simple analysis does two things at once: 1) it simplifies the bad guy (remember Iraq) and 2) it makes them sound stupid and irrational.
Nothing about politics in the region. Nothing about the economy in the region. Nothing about social or civil changes in the region. Just good old fashioned crap (that’s the technical term for this type of argument, by the way).
Brandon: I am confused yet another time.
In the YouTube video to which you, Brandon, sent me a link, Ron Paul says to the journalist who posed the question that he did not believe “this anymore.”
Is this correct?
The “this” in which he did not believe any more was some sort of general allegation to the effect that the US government , or some branch of it, had somehow caused the 9/11 massacre, or collaborated to its organization, or had advanced knowledge of it and did nothing to prevent it.
Is this also correct?
If the answer to both questions is “Yes.” then, you have helped me establish that Ron Paul once believed that the US government … (see above). If both answers are “Yes,” Ron Paul was a truther for a while (and I don’t know if he is now).
If the answer to either question is other than “Yes,” I don’t know what to do because we must live on some different planets.
I have no opinion about whether Ron Paul once said 9/11 was blowback for anything or whether he changed his mind on whether 9/11 was blowback for anything. If I gave the impression that I cared about what Ron Paul believes or believed with respect to blowback, I apologize although I don’t know how I gave that impression.
I, personally, am not Ron Paul and I don’t believe 9/11 was blowback but that’s a completely different assertion.
Brandon: I really, really wish you would abstain from insults. They don’t help our discussions and they don’t help our readers. One thing I don’t do is “weasel out” of anything. If distinguishing between: ” Ron Paul believes” and “I believe” is weaseling then, we really shouldn’t argue about anything.
Dr J responds:
Uh, no, it’s not correct. I just watched it three times and didn’t hear “this anymore” uttered at all.
I once read an article by you entitled Sasquatch and Liberal Academe, and it had a profound effect on my way of thinking about things. It was very good, and I hope you keep going. This exchange has reminded me of the following passage in that article:
Anyway, since you can’t seem to hear anything but nonsense from Ron Paul (at least you took the time to dig up an obscure video for mischievous purposes) perhaps it’s time for you to pick up one of his books.
Most are ghostwritten by conservative libertarian intellectuals with Ivy League credentials. The most profound book, however, has been a compilation of his own speeches on the House floor concerning foreign policy over the years.
I tried to steer this conversation away from the loony bin and towards something bordering sanity when I brought up blowback. You have declined the invitation again and have preferred instead to stir up false rumors. I await the day that I can actually get you to argue about foreign policy out in the open, with no distractions for you to hide behind. The day you decide to fight me – out in the open – on foreign policy will be the day that I burn your most precious idols (I’ll leave the ashes to the wind, of course).
By the way, Ron Paul’s “dubious sanity” led me directly to your writings.
Brandon: This is silly. You are wasting my time and yours. I stand corrected: Ron Paul in the YouTube video of reference did not say,”anymore.” He said he had “abandoned” those beliefs. The beliefs in question were presented by the interviewer as concerning the federal government’s complicity in and/or the federal government cover-up of the 9/11 massacre.
You cannot abandon a belief what you never held. If someone asked me when I abandoned my belief in witches, I am completely sure that I would immediately retort that I never believed in witches. That’s because I never did believe in witches. If I had believed in witches at some point but did not any more, I would say, “I have abandoned belief in witches.”
As I stated -irrespective of my wording- Ron Paul believed at some point that the federal government had something to do with the 9/11 massacre. Hence, my belief that Ron Paul does not play with a full deck (of cards, for our readers abroad. It means about the same as: “His elevator does not go to the top-floor.”)).
The fact that you don’t see what is blindingly clear, after watching the video you, yourself provided three times, recently alone, is a commentary on my belief the Ron Paul’s following is largely a cult.
In the same video, you Brandon provided, Mr Paul is heard distinctly refusing to tell his followers that the federal government had nothing to do with 9/11. This is as I asserted before.
Your proposal that I should read the sacred writings of Ron Paul makes little sense. It’s unlikely to change my mind about your leader’s sanity since I have said repeatedly that I agree with most of what he asserts, in economics, in particular. Your revelation that some of Ron Paul’s writings are ghost-written also makes them irrelevant to the issue of his sanity. I can be crazy as a mad-hatter and pass for sane if someone else who is sane passes for me.
There are two or three reasons why I don’ identify myself as a “libertarian.” All are common reasons among thousands of Americans, I suspect. Two reasons are of intellectual import. I don’t have the time or energy to deal with them right now. The other reason is easy to understand: I don’t care for the current “libertarian” leadership. I am repeating myself: Libertarian ideas are unusual enough, counter-intuitive enough on their own that we don’t need to suffer the political disadvantages of being represented by kooks. Possibly, even Ron Paul sees this. That may be why he is running as a Republican.
Thank you for your kind words about my little play-piece on Sasquatch but please, please, take care not to become a disciple of mine; I would hate that. I will do my best to prevent this from happening by making you cry even more often.
Dude, I agree that this whole thread is silly, but it’s largely your fault! As Kiemh3 (aka Hank) has already pointed out:
You are moving the goalposts again.
Where, pray tell, does Ron Paul “refuse” to tell people that the federal government had nothing to do with 9/11? From what I saw he denounced it plainly and simply.
Also, don’t worry and fear not. I’m not your disciple. Don’t hesitate to summon me once you muster up enough courage to actually get into a debate about foreign policy rather than conspiracy theories about conspiracy theories. I await the opportunity to burn your idols with much anticipation.
I too don’t like some of the “libertarian” party and organizational leadership’s ideas and statements, but that is not a good reason to reject libertarianism as a philosophy. Any ideological movement will have personae who mix in nonsense elements.
Fred: I don’t reject. I like it. That’s why I spend so much energy trying to discredit the leadership. It’s so obviously bad its very presence stops many reasonable people from even looking at the same libertarian philosophy. It would be sweet too if my small efforts did stop some of Brandon’s buddies from voting for the impostor Obama in the next election (as Brandon has said he will do).
I too don’t care for the “libertarian” leadership’s mistaken ideas, but the errors of leading personae does not imply that the pure libertarian philosophy is invalid. Any ideology will have its share of people with cognitive bugs.
Fred: I don’t see any major difference between us except of temperament. There is a story about Bakunin (who was a prince): As he was riding in his coach in St Petersburg, he saw some men burning a house. He ordered his coachman to stop, got out and helped them without a word. Although not a prince myself, I am in the Bakunin mold: First, burn down; then, the builders will come.
This corresponds also to what I learned in thirty years of teaching: It would be easy to get most people to examine ideas that are unfamiliar to them if their minds where not occupied by fallacies and by the words of bad leaders (that would be just about any lasting leader). The first job for intellectual advancement is radical house cleaning. It, in turn often begins with the eradication of bad leaders (see above about leaders).
I too think that “libertarian” leaders are contaminating the movement with nonsense ideas, but that is not a sound reason to reject pure libertarianism as an ethical and political philosophy. My response is to point out errors, point out that their errors are not being corrected, and provide a “free earth” alternative.
Just to clear things up:
1) are we now clear that Ron Paul is not a “truther”? If we are not, then there is a disconnect that needs to be addressed.
2) I still think that criticisms of Ron Paul are more about foreign policy than Ron Paul himself, but that it is easier to criticize a politician than an idea.
3) Ron Paul has many flaws. He babbles off course too much. He is not polished as most politicians are. He panders to some unruly elements of society. Some of his followers are crackpots, but his impact goes far beyond that. Just think of all the people who quickly got tired of his political pandering but who took an interest in the ideas he espoused. This dialogue (and the many that have come previously) is a product of Ron Paul’s “leadership”. For that he gets my vote.
Brandon: I don’t know why it’s so hard to communicate simple ideas to you. Maybe, they are too simple.
I established with your help that Ron Paul said recently that he was not a truther. I have no evidence that he is a truther as I write. I have all the evidence I need (most provided by you) that he was once a truther, someone who believed that the Bush administration had helped organize the 9/11 massacre and/or covered it up. Rational people never believed that even for a second. Less rational people shed this belief quite fast, in days at the most. I believe Ron Paul did not.
Ron Paul also has a lot of explaining to do about his refusal to ask his followers to straightened out on the topic.
I have little tolerance for “babbling off” that spreads false statements. If a politician does this, for reasons I don’t understand, he can always correct himself later: “I stated on-/-/- that there was a US blockade around Iran. I misspoke; I should have said that there was a partial embargo administered by the US and X many other countries.” The fact that he never corrects himself tells me that he does not know he made a mistake of fact and his encourage does not know enough or does not believe in correcting the leader. Your own tolerance in that area makes you a suspect, as far as I am concerned. Others can judge. You would not be the first intelligent man who did not go past his own quasi-religious beliefs. One of the greatest German philosophers of his time ended up following Hitler. (I am no [NOT] suggesting that Ron Paul is like Hitler or that you are a great American philosopher.)
It would not be difficult to convince me that opposition to Ron Paul centers on his foreign policy doctrine. It’s silly concealed pacifism.
Did Ron Paul do some good carrying libertarian ideas to the American public and, in particular to conservatives? My answer is yes. What matters howver is net effect. I think he did more harm than good. Because of Ron Paul, many Americans now identify libertarianism with a quaint little old man who often says absurd things, some of which are invented.
After months of debate, we have come full circle:
I believe as you do that every war is an opportunity for the scope of the state to increase to the detriment of individual liberty. This means that a serious libertarian foreign policy would have to deal with a big paradox. To my knowledge, libertarians and Libertarians have barely engaged this discussion.
You want to continue doing some good? Get it started.
Now that things have cooled off and crackpots like David have dissipated, I think we can return to this discussion (quick aside: I remember David now from another discussion thread; if he were part of my high school graduating class I would have voted him “most likely to kill for Christ”).
Anyway, you (Dr. J) state:
Where is this evidence you have? You can’t pull stuff out of thin air and pretend it’s evidence (in case you needed a reminder).
His “babbling off” doesn’t pertain to false statements. To date, he has made none. As we have already established, Ron Paul does get more money from members of the military than other candidates (pop quiz: is 100 greater than 10? It’s a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ question), the Pentagon spent at least 20 billion dollars a year on air conditioning in 2010, and the terrorists attacks of 9/11 were a predictable (if not lamentable) consequence of the US government’s decision to occupy Saudi Arabia after the first Gulf War. You have yet to prove him wrong, Dr. J, but you continue to hum the same (off-key) tune inside of your head.
His babbling off can get embarrassing when he veers off topic and begins to pander to the more gullible among us.
Nevertheless, you’re writings on Ron Paul are for nothing. Spreading lies and rumors about somebody – even a politician – is not a good way to get your point across to others. It only invites ridicule (at best).
Brandon: It’s a dead horse. For some reason I don’t quite understand, you are trying to make me repeat myself for the nth time. It’s just not useful.
And, incidentally, insulting any of our (OUR) readers who comments is counterproductive and unfair.
More and different info on the Ron Paul derangement soon on this blog.