Ron Paul needs to talk about REAL ISSUES NOW!!!

[Rabelais]

Yes, it is emotional self-calming, because 'the people' are powerless.

That is a very absolutist "belief" that seems to allow no room for a fluid future or balancing energies. I think Ark has made some tangentially relevant observations about this sort of blanket statement, with regard to Swerdlow's use of the word "all".

I respectfully disagree. I spent ten years involved in a very heated battle with the same 3D/4D STS energies that Dr Paul is up against, maybe not on the scale of what is coming down now, but a microcosm of it. A small group of about 50 concerned citizens, via networking over a ten year period, grew to 500,000+ who overturned a very "done deal" that the fascists had concocted to transform our county into something extremely undesirable, by the inclusion of a Denver International-type Airport. This even involved the tunnel systems from Orange County Federal buildings to the Marine Corp Air Station at El Toro, to the Rockefeller/MIC/4D STS base inside Palomar Mountain (see Cassiopaean sessions 1-2-99 and 3-2-02), to the south, to the mountain military bases in the Tehachapi Mountains to the north. My colleagues in this adventure were not aware of the hyperdimensional interface in the project which they opposed. They were simply serving self by defending their property rights. Nonetheless, using the societal infrastructure at hand, we "the people" did eventually prevail, by simply overwhelming the forces arrayed against us, with the truth - to counter their lies. In the grand scheme of things, it may have been a small and temporary victory, that in no way deterred the long range of the plans for us, but it certainly provided me with the insight that people who network and act in concert are not powerless. Isn't that the purpose of this website and forum?

While I consciously try to harbor no illusions about the outcome of the Paul campaign, and moved out of the US four years ago as a result of seeing the objective realities unfolding all around me, I think that there is a difference between wishful thinking and hoping and working for a better outcome for the future.

Never forget that STS are both adaptable and unseen (for the most part).

Is not STO adaptable and able to manifest results through acts that are "for the most part" unobserved, e.g., Sufic impulse?

How many stolen elections and how much destruction of humanity does it take to wake people up to the fact that there are NO free elections in America and that there will be no changes? Apologies for sounding harsh - but, really - wishful thinking will getcha every time.

Is it beyond the realm of the possible to root out and expose the corruption and to restore legitimacy to government? Is it futile to try? What would you suggest that those in the US do?

 

[henry]

The way I see it is like this. As someone who has spent most of his life living outside of the US of A, the most attractive aspect of Paul's platform is that he says he would stop the intervention of the US around the world. That might mean he would stop funding Israel. No US intervention elsewhere and no funding of Israel can only be a good thing for the rest of the world.

However, some of his programmes at home, other than his support of the constitution, are worrisome, to say the least. He has a lot of friends in very ugly places, such as the white supremacist movement. Paul himself has said some nasty things about blacks and a newsletter he was associated with in the 90s said a lot of ugly things. Paul supporters say that he didn't write them. There is some wiggle room here that could be interpreted as plausible deniability.

So I suspect that were Paul to win (if the US were really democratic, which it isn't), his policies would be better for the rest of the world than for the US itself -- unless he were to respect the constitution and constitutional guarantees to individual freedom regardless of race, creed, colour, etc.

So I could see voting for Paul as a way to stand up for what he says that is correct. If there would be an effect, it would be on a more subtle level than actually changing anything in the US. It would be more of a symbolic gesture saying: "This must stop".

That said, it is obvious, at least to me, that the pathocrats in power are not going to let there be any real change. Do you think that people who are able to conceive of and carry off 9/11 are going to let something as slight as elections stop them? Are people who have already rigged a number of elections, who are rigging the primaries, who lied to justify the invasion of Iraq, who stand by while Israel slowly strangles the Palestinians, do you think these people are going to give up without a brutally nasty fight? I don't.

There is no democracy in the US. There are no free elections. If you don't understand that, then you are food, you are open to manipulation.

So the problem in voting for Paul comes down to expectations and the reasons for doing it. If it is a symbolic gesture, and you are conscious that it is symbolic, why not. But as soon as you get caught up in the fervour of actually believing, wishin' and a-hopin', that something will change, then you have bought into the lie. Then you are contributing to the problem.

I would say that it is in the intent and awareness of your action that is important.

As for Rabelais' question:

Is it beyond the realm of the possible to root out and expose the corruption and to restore legitimacy to government? Is it futile to try? What would you suggest that those in the US do?

Aside from the issue of whether or not the pathocrats would allow such a thing, how would one go about exposing the corruption and restoring legitimacy? There is a structure in place that has evolved over two centuries. The interlocking of corporations and the government is extreme. The military-industrial complex has far more power now than Eisenhower could have imagined. If you compare it to a victim with cancer, you would say the disease had gone into a state of generalized metastasis.

Can those organs of state and economy be saved? Or do you have to write them off and start growing a completely new and different body politic based upon radically different premises?

If the individuals who make up the body politic are still infected with the disease, will it matter? Can you hope that the new body will be be any healthier than the dying one?

So what would I suggest people in the US do?

Look reality in the face. Give up their illusions. Getting from where we are to somewhere healthy is going to hurt, if it is even possible, and there is no guarantee that it is possible given the advanced state of the patient. As long as they pin their hopes on a Ron Paul, they are clinging to an illusion. An election, even if Ron Paul won, isn't going to change a thing.

Every last illusion must be dropped.

People want a miracle. They want to believe that they aren't really going to have to pay for years of mindless behaviour. They don't want to believe that there is some sort of accounting that will take place. But can you imagine a scenario, not based upon wishful thinking, that leads the US from where it is today to someplace sane, healthy, and truly free that doesn't pass through a stage of increased chaos and suffering?

 

[kenlee]

Is it beyond the realm of the possible to root out and expose the corruption and to restore legitimacy to government? Is it futile to try? What would you suggest that those in the US do?

Well, in my view, until the people see the horror of the "ponerization of humanity" within themselves first,, and then feel the horror of it , then they will never objectively see and feel the true horror of it when they see how it has effected their family, their community, their nation, and in their world. They will just be spinning their wheels trying to "root out corruption" in an imaginary world because they live in a world where they only imagine themselves. The first person that we meet on the road to truth is the devil and that devil is ourselves.

 

[Rabelais]

So I could see voting for Paul as a way to stand up for what he says that is correct. If there would be an effect, it would be on a more subtle level than actually changing anything in the US. It would be more of a symbolic gesture saying: "This must stop".

Yes indeed.

That said, it is obvious, at least to me, that the pathocrats in power are not going to let there be any real change. Do you think that people who are able to conceive of and carry off 9/11 are going to let something as slight as elections stop them? Are people who have already rigged a number of elections, who are rigging the primaries, who lied to justify the invasion of Iraq, who stand by while Israel slowly strangles the Palestinians, do you think these people are going to give up without a brutally nasty fight? I don't.

No one said it would be easy, but someone has to start somewhere. Ron Paul looks like as good a place as any to begin it, at least he does to me - but I am always open to suggestions and change if someone has a better course of action.

There is no democracy in the US. There are no free elections. If you don't understand that, then you are food, you are open to manipulation.

We never had a democracy, but a return to a constitutional republic would be far better than what exists today. Wringing one's hands over the complete sham that the electoral process has become is not nearly as effective as organizing on a local level and demanding accountable balloting at one's city/county commission meetings and registrar of voters offices. Change can made with effectively directed efforts. Doing nothing results in no change at all.

So the problem in voting for Paul comes down to expectations and the reasons for doing it. If it is a symbolic gesture, and you are conscious that it is symbolic, why not. But as soon as you get caught up in the fervour of actually believing, wishin' and a-hopin', that something will change, then you have bought into the lie. Then you are contributing to the problem.

I would say that it is in the intent and awareness of your action that is important.

Absolutely

]Can those organs of state and economy be saved? Or do you have to write them off and start growing a completely new and different body politic based upon radically different premises?

Are these the only two options? According to the Paul hypothesis, some, those which were never allowed for under the Constitution, will have to go. Others would be reduced down to the minimum size needed to accomplish their original legal function and no more. The returning to the states of their functions, which have been usurped by the Federal behemoth, would certainly reduce the size and scope of the federal government and place responsibility for one's governance back in the hands of the communities governed. If they chose pathocracy, so be it. It remains contained within their own community.

If the individuals who make up the body politic are still infected with the disease, will it matter? Can you hope that the new body will be be any healthier than the dying one?

Obviously there will always be the psychopath's desire to wield the power of government. This is that "eternal vigilance" thing that seems, to our peril, to have been forgotten.

So what would I suggest people in the US do?

Look reality in the face. Give up their illusions. Getting from where we are to somewhere healthy is going to hurt, if it is even possible, and there is no guarantee that it is possible given the advanced state of the patient. As long as they pin their hopes on a Ron Paul, they are clinging to an illusion.

This is true and there is no way in hell that whatever change is taking place is going to be painless. I don't think that anyone who has been paying attention would entertain the thought that it would.

An election, even if Ron Paul won, isn't going to change a thing.

Here we have a point of conjecture. Lets hypothesize, for the moment, that Paul gets the nomination and is not assassinated before the November election. Poll watchers and concerned citizens mobilize and take notarized exit polls, at every precinct, to ensure an honest count, and Paul wins a unanimous victory. Given the momentum of the movement, how could there not be change, given the breadth of the reforms upon which he is running, and the sycophantic nature of beltway insiders to cozy up to power? It might not be with the immediacy with which the wishful thinkers would like, but a transformation of attitudes and allegiances would most certainly begin to transpire. Congress, seeing the will of their constituents manifesting as something completely other than what they stand for, would seemingly be falling all over themselves having makeovers into staunch Constitutionalists... or seeking other employment. End hypothesis.

People want a miracle. They want to believe that they aren't really going to have to pay for years of mindless behaviour. They don't want to believe that there is some sort of accounting that will take place.

Those people will probably suffer the worst. All is lessons.

But can you imagine a scenario, not based upon wishful thinking, that leads the US from where it is today to someplace sane, healthy, and truly free that doesn't pass through a stage of increased chaos and suffering?

I don't think anyone with the awareness of a grapefruit sees that type of transition coming about without a calamitous period of transition... given the current state of affairs (insert Hunt's Zippy quote here). But since we are already have a rendezvous with chaos and suffering, it seems folly to me to not make some effort to wind up with a more benevolently workable system when the comet dust clears, eh?... At least for those who don't make it to 4D... and I may be among that lot, so perhaps you graduates can empathize with my concern

 

[anart]

That is a very absolutist "belief" that seems to allow no room for a fluid future or balancing energies.

No, it is not. It is not a belief - it is a conclusion based on observing 'objective reality right and left' - it is not allowing my own wishes to get in the way of my understanding of our current situation.

Rabelais you seem to be still wholly missing the point - that nothing in this system will change no matter who is elected. You really don't want to let go of the idea that Ron Paul (or anybody) can be elected and start changing the way things are run - the system is not run by the president, the Congress or the people - at all - on any level.

An election, even if Ron Paul won, isn't going to change a thing.

You state that this statement by Henry is conjecture - it is not conjecture - it is fact - it is observable fact by extrapolating forward current and past conditions and by observing the facts on the ground - not daydreaming about how you wish it were or want it to be.

Here we have a point of conjecture. Lets hypothesize, for the moment, that Paul gets the nomination and is not assassinated before the November election. Poll watchers and concerned citizens mobilize and take notarized exit polls, at every precinct, to ensure an honest count, and Paul wins a unanimous victory. Given the momentum of the movement, how could there not be change, given the breadth of the reforms upon which he is running, and the sycophantic nature of beltway insiders to cozy up to power? It might not be with the immediacy with which the wishful thinkers would like, but a transformation of attitudes and allegiances would most certainly begin to transpire. Congress, seeing the will of their constituents manifesting as something completely other than what they stand for, would seemingly be falling all over themselves having makeovers into staunch Constitutionalists... or seeking other employment. End hypothesis.

This is pure fantasy and wishful thinking and nothing more.

As kenlee wrote:

Well, in my view, until the people see the horror of the "ponerization of humanity" within themselves first,, and then feel the horror of it , then they will never objectively see and feel the true horror of it when they see how it has effected their family, their community, their nation, and in their world. They will just be spinning their wheels trying to "root out corruption" in an imaginary world because they live in a world where they only imagine themselves. The first person that we meet on the road to truth is the devil and that devil is ourselves.

This is the only way there will ever be any change at all in life on this planet - to fantasize that any politician anywhere, in any electoral process anywhere, can change anything at all is dreaming.

 

[ScioAgapeOmnis]

That is a very absolutist "belief" that seems to allow no room for a fluid future or balancing energies.

No it is not a belief at all. If you build a car without an engine I will say that it will not run. Is this also an absolutist belief that leaves no room for a fluid future? No, I leave open the possibility that you will put an engine into it later, and then it will run. But as most people know, cars need engines to run.

Similarly, Anart did not say that change cannot occur, she simply said that it cannot occur by electing Ron Paul or any other candidate. Just like an engineless car never worked, no leader in all of history of humanity has ever changed anything about how the pathocratic system works, regardless of what the leader promised the people. And if you see this, then hoping that the next one can make a difference is equivalent to hopin that the next car that is created without an engine somehow runs anyway.

I think Ark has made some tangentially relevant observations about this sort of blanket statement, with regard to Swerdlow's use of the word "all".

This analogy does not work. Swerdlow said that all channeling is 100% bunk, and did not allow for the possibility that it COULD work if done the right way. Anart did not say that all governments and leaders are never going to work. She is referring to specifically the current global system and its method of electing governments and leaders. The system is pathocratic and is designed from the ground up by psychopaths and FOR psychopaths. As long as the system is rotten, it WILL produce rotten fruit. The only way to change it is knowledge on behalf of all people about the nature of this system and why and how it works. Then the system would have to be changed fundamentally from the ground up. And only THEN can a "government" or a "leader" finally be able to exist that truly serves the people.

I think that there is a difference between wishful thinking and hoping and working for a better outcome for the future.

Hoping is wishful thinking. Working is not. Playing along with the current system does not constitute working though. It's like taking an engineless car and painting it a different color in hopes that will make it run.

Is it beyond the realm of the possible to root out and expose the corruption and to restore legitimacy to government?

Of course not - but you must do it the right way, which requires understanding the nature and extent of this corruption. If the tree is rotten, you cannot cut off a branch and expect a healthy branch to grow in its place. You must rip the tree out with the root and plant a new one. Otherwise all your branch-cutting efforts are completely useless. Every year trees defoliate and get new leaves next year, just like we elect a new president. If the tree is rotten, those leaves WILL be rotten every year.

What is Ron Paul going to do in the face of all this? What is he going to do when he's told that he either does what he's told, or he (or his loved ones) will suffer tremendously - if not die and no one will ever be able to prove any foul play was involved (Kennedy is an example, or just the technological ability to trigger heart attacks, strokes, and many other things). What will he do if he's told that if he cares about the people - he WILL do exactly as he's told, or else there will be an engineered nuclear terrorist attack the moment he even thinks about opening his mouth to do anything else. The government is very compartmentalized - from the elitist financial controllers, to spy agencies to black budget organizations to all kinds of nasty groups that have almost unlimited power and resources, including engineering an economic collapse, terrorist attacks, and all kinds of other havoc almost at the push of a button.

Ron Paul cannot go to anyone for help, he cannot do ANYTHING against this except obey and do as he's told - otherwise he is dead meat, his family is dead meat, and god knows what else. Fake evidence of "crimes" can be presented against him, he can be involved in a Monica-type scandal, and so so many other possibilities that can involve the suffering of millions if that is what it takes. I think you really just have to look at the pervasiveness and power of this system to see how utterly pointless it is to even entertain the idea that some person can make a difference. The only possible way out is through the people themselves - for them to obtain the necessary knowledge and rebuild the system from the root (which will not go down without a fight, so massive casualties are very probable before any change does happen).

 

[Annette1]

Many excellent points have been made in this thread on all sides. The discussion has exposed some of the pitfalls and some of the positive building possibilities . IMHO, Dr. Paul seems like an honest person and well-intentioned. I don’t agree with all he says and can see that some things would be problematic. That said, those who have educated themselves here realize what Dr. Paul is up against, and have considered the possibilities of the game plans of the present PTB. Possibly, Dr. Paul realizes this as well.

Yes, we know the gist of the plans of the PTB. We see the futility in much of what is going on and we watch and attempt to gain clues. It appears to me that the main task at hand is to educate ourselves (why we are here - this site) and to assist in raising the consciousness of others. From my very simple perspective, Dr. Paul is helping do just that, to a degree. In a sense, he’s priming the pump for us. Just as George Carlin does when he says, “That’s why they call it the American dream, because you have to be asleep to believe it.” Or, using “V” as a tool. It causes those who are willing to think to reflect. Those of us who live here (in the US) are well aware of just how severely brainwashed many Americans are. (btw -my family thinks I’m a nut case.) And yes, the whole election/democracy deal is a farce; a real-lee bigg shew. Another item that is getting exposure that may be a nudge for the sleepwalking.

Many of us are aware we are up against unseen and powerful energies. Many of us are learning and working on ourselves; we’re gaining knowledge as we have been admonished to do. Efforts to raise consciousness will be varied, but the object is to get as many there as possible. But Dr. Paul may be providing those little nudges we need in order to get more people awake.

 

[Renaissance]

It appears to me that the main task at hand is to educate ourselves (why we are here - this site) and to assist in raising the consciousness of others. From my very simple perspective, Dr. Paul is helping do just that, to a degree. In a sense, he’s priming the pump for us. Just as George Carlin does when he says, “That’s why they call it the American dream, because you have to be asleep to believe it.” Or, using “V” as a tool. It causes those who are willing to think to reflect.

I think this brings up the question as to what holds the keys for development. Does it come from our environment or from something more internal? It seems to depend on the individual; those who are are more strongly rooted in their biological machine seem to need a healthy environment to grow while others can grow from the struggle of an unhealthy situation.

The PTB seem keenly aware of both types and have set up our society to maintain an unhealthy environment for the first type and have also provided subversive systems to grab hold of those who experience some degree of disillusionment. The Ron Paul Revolution looks like just another subversive system set up to self calm those of the second type. We can see the self calming in this thread alone. The basis of this 'movement' did not come from 'the people' - it's rooted in beliefs of the electoral system and that people can be saved through it. It's a lie. People are beginning to suffer and so are beginning to question things. However, the questioning is not yet going deep enough because the beliefs that have been ingrained in us for millennia are still being used to manipulate people into accepting fruitless endeavors. When and if people get to the point of burning up all beliefs, then there may arise a system that's truly human. But until then, we have the RP Revolution, the 9/11 'Truth Movement', the New Age, and so on.

 

[sHiZo963]

I find myself agreeing with both 'sides' here. It's no secret that, yes, I am a Ron Paul supporter. I explained the reasoning for my support in the following thread (scroll down to post #6):
http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=7087

I don't hold any illusions of 'world change' or even any 'change' in America as a direct result of the Ron Paul movement. I see the movement as a vehicle, a nudge as Annette pointed out, to possibly helping people see reality in a more objective way. I've said this before: people who have opened up to Dr. Paul are, as a result, MUCH more interested in the material presented at SOTT because they want to know more - they become starved for knowledge. I see this as a huge positive.