Activist Post
The recent article that has been published here about how Ron and Rand Paul aren't our saviors has drawn a lot of criticism. Some of the comments are fair and some of them are just plain angry attacks.
But this article and its response is indicative of the challenges we face as a people, but ultimately I think it misses the point of Paul's campaign which was to save the country by educating it, not by winning the presidency.
As full disclosure, I'm a Ron Paul supporter who thinks he is the only honest and and principled politician in the U.S. government. Does that mean I agree with all of his stances? No. Does that mean I don't have doubts that he may be a Trojan Horse for the banksters due to his stance that the national debt is legitimate? No. Do I think he goes far enough in explaining the "war on terror" hoax? No.
Yet in terms of the most vital issues like peace, liberty, and truth, he is simply the best the matrix has to offer.
I have a healthy cynicism that I think is imperative given the oppressive global agenda facing America and humanity as a whole, which is also evident in Adams' article. But I think the overall defeatist tone of the article deserves to be challenged even though Mr. Adams seems more disappointed than vengeful.
Still, in more ways than one, Ron Paul has already won. Which means free humanity has already won. I'll return to this point in a moment, but first let's analyze some of Adams' article.
The well-sourced facts about Paul's campaign financing can hardly be disputed. The high figure paid to his campaign manager/grandson-in-law, Jesse Benton, is outrageous, but par for the course. And his Campaign For Liberty has grown from a grassroots fundraiser to a big league player in political financing where corruption is the norm. I chalk this up to the price of admission to play with the big boys in this corrupt political environment.
It doesn't make it right, it is just the current reality if a politician hopes to get a platform big enough to affect any substantial change. Adams also points out that Paul's average contributor is less than $62 showing that most of his support is from loyal citizens and not corporate coffers. This is a good thing despite Adam's attempt to spin it as a betrayal of those supporters.
Next, Adams tries to make it appear as though the Pauls, particularly Rand, are cozy with the establishment criminals like Romney. As a good statesman, Ron Paul has worked closely with many in the establishment on both sides of the political isle. This is not an indictment. Again, this should be commended given the immense task of trying to inject real issues into a bought-and-paid-for debate.
His take on Rand, on the other hand, is well founded. Indeed, Rand appears to be nothing more than a power-hungry politician deserving of the label "Neocon in Libertarian clothing", as Adams says. Yet, Rand continues to introduce legislation like ending the TSA and warrantless domestic drone spying, so he still deserves more respect than the typical warmongering neocon.
I discount the theories concerning Ron Paul's and Freemasons or Rand Paul's collegiate ties to the NoZe Brotherhood, because by "their deeds you shall know them." Ron Paul has been consistently opposed to anything that manifests as "the agenda" during his entire career. He opposes the Federal Reserve, government power, the military-industrial complex, the CIA, foreign aid (including to Israel), bank bailouts and corporate welfare, the war on drugs, and every infringement on personal liberty. Rand, not so much.
Ultimately, the overall theme of the article is that "Congress and the President don’t work for you, don’t represent you, and they never did." Of course Adams is 100% correct in this statement. Even if the Pauls are genuinely principled actors, the legislation they introduce is mostly ceremonial. It has no chance of passing or being signed given the layers corruption -- even if Ron Paul was president. Therefore, it was never legitimate to consider him or any other single political actor a 'savior' in the first place.
However, I contend that Ron Paul has already won and the ruling elite will be defeated largely as a result of his influence. This won't happen this election cycle or perhaps even in our lifetimes, but Paul has accomplished exactly what he set out to do -- to educate and empower others to carry the torch of peace, liberty, and truth to power.
Hardly anyone even mentioned or knew what the Federal Reserve was in 2008 before Paul introduced them to it. Now, a majority of the population recognizes it to be the crux of economic problems and the ones truly in the know are immovably passionate about overthrowing the private fractional reserve fiat system which forces the world into debt slavery. The genie is out of the bottle and it's only a matter of time before the weight of this truth collapses this criminal monetary system.
The overwhelming public support for his Auditing the Fed is a major signpost in where this is heading for the controllers. Although it accomplishes very little in terms of logistical change, the wick has been lit and the elite won't be able to snuff it out in time. Unstoppable forces have been set in motion. The clock is ticking but the events have already played out, we just don't know it yet.
Another important signpost is the move toward marijuana legalization. It seems rather inconsequential in the grand scheme of things, but it proves that nothing can stop an idea whose time has come. It proves that reason is beginning to defeat deceit. It proves that no amount of force can stop liberty and truth from being realized. Again, it's happening in slow motion to the observer, but it has already played out on the timeline and there's nothing the elite can do to control it. Here again, Paul's platform and influence was crucially instrumental.
Ron Paul has always said that nothing will change until the public sentiment changes. Clearly, the majority of the public isn't ready for most of Paul's ideas, perhaps largely because they are censored or misconstrued by the establishment presstitutes. But the two examples above prove that he is correct. Public sentiment will overwhelm any level of the corrupt agenda.
Another aspect of this understanding of the need for large public sentiment to defeat special interests is the idea that no one person can change the system, therefore the idea of a 'savior' is ridiculous. At the same time, the personification of liberty is that we are our own saviors. We have the power and responsibility to be the change.
Here's a recent video by a Ron Paul supporter that helps illustrate this point quite forcefully:
Although we may appear to be small in number compared to flock flowing with the mainstream, we have a weapon far more powerful and eternal than they -- truth. The principles of peace and liberty will always defeat the excuses for war and oppression over time. The current powers that be must apply massive force through legislation, the police state, propaganda, and fear to keep their rapidly failing status quo intact. As strong as it appears, it's hanging on by a thread and they know it.
When it falls and peace and freedom is restored, Ron Paul will deserve much of the credit as an educator of the revolutionaries. But the revolutionaries will be their own saviors.
I, for one, will be voting for Gary Johnson this year. Not because I think he's a savior or has a shot in hell of winning, or even that voting matters, but to send a message to the establishment that liberty and peace is on the march even without Ron Paul on the ballot.
See more by Eric Blair here
