Ron Paul's scary vision for America: He'd be tyrants' best friend ...The problem is that Ron Paul's America would be a scary place to live in. So would the rest of the world. That's not because he would, as he has so often promised, end the Federal Reserve or the Department of Education, but because he would end our history of fighting brutal regimes and human rights abuses around the world. Paul insists he is not an "isolationist" because he favors free trade. But that nuance aside, he believes we should mind our own business when it comes to the world's many evil regimes. ~ NY Daily News
http://lewrockwell.com/rep2/rp-suppo...ychopaths.htmlDominant Social Theme: The problem with Ron Paul is that he's a pacifist in a mean world. If the US didn't have 1,000 military bases around the world, there would be chaos and war everywhere. The Middle East, Africa and South America would be subject to constant violent breakouts and Europe itself would teeter on the edge. Hey! Wait a minute ....
Free-Market Analysis: This is one of the most astonishing and blatant hit pieces we've ever read in a major US publication. Written apparently by a columnist for the Daily News, it informs us quite bluntly that if the US abandons roughly 1,000 military and CIA/FBI spying bases around the world, the American way of life will be threatened and Western civilization will be at risk.
This is a hoary dominant social theme, but to see it presented in all its wretched nakedness is still, well ... startling. We've noticed this time round that the elite's US enablers are even more morbidly concerned about libertarian Congressman Ron Paul's quixotic run for president than four years ago. Maybe that's because he has a chance. Or maybe they're just worried that his message is gaining traction.
What is Paul's message? That endless central banking money inflation, taxes of 50 percent or more and an endless deluge of insane regulations do not provide societies with the path to prosperity – and that they have in fact ruined America's economy.
This is a hard message to counterattack at a time when the world continues to sink into a quagmire of recession and depression based on the very policies that Ron Paul is criticizing. In fact, the Anglosphere elite's options are limited when it comes to public debate these days. People agree with Paul, not the powers-that-be.
It's hard to argue that the world's central banking economy is operating efficiently these days or that the system of corporatism and controlled enterprise manifested most obviously in the US is capable of providing employment and prosperity.
Perhaps the decision has been made to attack Ron Paul on his signature issue, which is that the US should not be the world's "policeman." He's surely made progress in this regard as more and more voters in the US recognize that part of the reason for depression at home is imperial over-reach abroad. Here's some more:
It goes beyond getting out of Iraq and Afghanistan. On 9/11, his position is that we started it. "Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda have been explicit," he said in Monday's debate in Tampa, "and they wrote and said that we attacked America because you had bases on our holy land in Saudi Arabia, you do not give Palestinians fair treatment, and you have been bombing ..."
His argument was cut off by a chorus of boos. He concluded that "we had been bombing and killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis for 10 years," which is untrue, then asked, "Would you be annoyed? If you're not annoyed, then there's some problem." The idea that bin Laden was justified in his violence is dangerous and patently anti-American.
Paul also says we should lighten up on Iran. He insists there is "no evidence that they are working on a weapon." But they should have nuclear weapons if they want them. Israel, needless to say, should be worried. So, too, should Egypt and Jordan, thanks to an amendment he was pushing to end all foreign aid to them and other countries. This would mean that the famine currently ravaging Somalia would be left unattended, as would countless other global disasters that the United States is relied upon to help address.
We can see in the second paragraph of this excerpt an increasingly evident subdominant social theme, that certain sociopolitical, economic and military conversations are "dangerous and patently anti-American."
We have noticed recently that such statements are becoming more widespread. The problem with this approach is that the US Constitution explicitly forbids attacks on free speech. This has made the US media conversation a good deal more tumultuous, historically speaking, than Europe's.
But we have noticed more and more of these statements in prominent publications. During the Clinton and Bush years, such sentiments were voiced in whispers to America's media bosses – who then implemented certain policies. But now these same warnings are beginning to appear in the mainstream media.
The last time this sort of self-censorship was suggested was during the years of the Red Scare in the 1950s. Then there were obvious areas that could not be addressed. But now there is the Internet. In the 1950s, when the Anglosphere power elite controlled Western media almost entirely, it was possible to create a system of government and self-censorship but in the 21st Century we would argue it is not.
Read about the recent complaints in China – the most censorious large state in the world – to see how even Draconian government attacks against the Internet are not working. Really significant media events (like the Gutenberg Press) are very difficult to control in the short term. Technology tends to outpace termination of critics and inconvenient speech.
Of course, the article doesn't deal with larger issues. The point is to discredit Paul. "This is what the founders advised," Paul says. "We were not meant to be the policemen of the world." Sounds like a reasonable statement, but not to the Daily News. The column inquires what "President Paul would have done about Hitler or Pol Pot."
We can answer that. Hitler's rise was funded by WESTERN banks and the psychopathology of Pol Pot was in part created by the illegal war in Viet Nam, which destabilized the entire region and made regimes like the Khmer Rouge feasible.
The column informs that "good conservatives recognize a need for limited government, but they also know that America has an obligation to spread democracy and promote international security." The US Constitution says nothing of the sort, but the author apparently isn't interested in the finer points of constitutional law. "The fact that our troops are stationed all over the world acts as a deterrent to the likes of Kim Jong-il; the mere proximity of American military force is enough."
As Jeffrey Lord points out in the American Spectator, Paul's memory of what the Founding Fathers wanted is selective. James Monroe was an interventionist; George Washington invaded Canada; Alexander Hamilton birthed Paul's biggest foe, the Federal Reserve. Ignoring America's moral obligations in favor of isolationism is a departure from the very reason for our humble beginnings. Had the colonists been do-nothing Paulites, America's Founding Fathers wouldn't have founded much of anything.
That's the article's conclusion. In the finest tradition of government propaganda, the editorial is nothing more than a series of assertions. In such cases, it is sometimes useful to turn to the reader queue to see how people are reacting. Here are two responses that sum up most of the rest:
When one does more research than reacting, it's clear to see that it'd be difficult to find a "regime" more "brutal" than that of the USA in the last century and for certain in the last two decades.
If you actually believe that the US has a – "...history of fighting brutal regimes and human rights abuses around the world." – that says it all. This is establishment propaganda and you have nothing intelligent or informed to say. Leave the political rhetoric to the political parties and invest a little time learning truthful history.
Often, Mort Zuckerman's Daily News' truculent and ill-conceived militant populism receives little pushback on its news queues. But this time, the queue was filled with these sorts of comments. It illustrates the difficulty of implementing this meme at this particular time and also the problem that Ron Paul – who seems to mean what he says – is causing the establishment.
In large part, the problems the elites are having these days stem not only from the inevitable collapse of the faux-free market system they have put in place but also from the strength of a silent Internet Reformation that is shaking the very foundation of phony wealth-generation and war-mongering. The elites seem to have concluded they cannot win using their tried and true fear-based propagandistic strategies and are increasingly turning to repression, violence and censorship.
Conclusion: But world government over billions of people simply cannot be built via fear and repression. It is impossible! The more we note articles such as this, the more convinced we are that the power elite – so successful in the 20th Century – is facing increasing difficulties in the 21st.