The Ron & Rand Paul Betrayal
June 10, 2012
Libertarianism is controlled opposition, part of the phony Illuminati dialectic.
Readers of this website are not surprised by the news the Pauls are endorsing Mitt Romney.
Not since Stalin made a pact with Hitler have idealists felt so betrayed.
by Anthony Migchels
The backlash among the libertarian community is intense.
Libertarian leaders all over the place are denouncing him. Adam Kokesh is clearly hurting badly here. On Prison Planet, arguably the most influential pro Paul outlet, the headlines are all about Rand Paul’s betrayal. Mike Adams still cannot believe it and wonders if Paul Jr. is getting in to demolish the system from the inside. This YouTube video asks its viewers to vote to show how they feel and 90% dislike the news. Rand Paul’s Facebook page is being inundated with messages of thousands of disgruntled supporters.
It’s so bad one wonders whether the Pauls have miscalculated. And let there be no doubt, they have been calculating. Even to an outsider like myself, who never cared for either one, it looks like the most cynical, blatant and utterly ruthless sell out ever.
In March Time Magazine quoted a Ron Paul adviser as saying, ‘If you’re talking about putting Rand on the ticket, of course that would be worth delivering our people to Romney’. (go to 3:40 for the quote).
Lew Rockwell has declared that the whole Paul campaign was never about winning. I wonder what millions of his followers (and donors) think about that?
According to Rockwell, it was all about educating people on the wonders of Austrian Economics, not about winning elections. This probably explains why Paul Sr. never ran as an independent, but preferred losing primaries.
After working for years on Paul’s campaign, Rockwell is now saying one shouldn’t vote and shouldn’t be involved in partisan politics. Now, how disingenuous is that?
DID BILBERBERG ANOINT MITT?
So what does it all mean?
Well it’s obvious. Ron Paul exists to lead the opposition into a blind alley. He doesn’t run as an independent, which he would, were he for real. To him it’s more important that a GOP candidate wins and he’s undoubtedly worried he would split the vote of the right.
According to his buddy Rockwell, Paul’s role is to educate the masses, not to change politics. He ‘touched the hearts of billions of people’ with his love of gold and Austrian Economics.
In the typical Hegelian way, his ‘antithesis’ of a ‘free currency market’ dominated by gold vs the ‘thesis’ of government/central bank controlled currency will lead to the classic gold standard the Money Power wanted always.
The Daily Bell’s Anthony Wile seems to think so, anyway. Romney is not on board yet, but on the right the momentum for a gold standard is clearly gaining traction and the next crisis, expected anytime, will not be let go to waste.
The GOP will be happy. Ron Paul will probably retire now and is out of the way. Like the Tea Party, Rand Paul has been completely incorporated in the GOP establishment. He’s got the charisma of a dead fish and the war mongering program of the traitorous sell-out that he is. Cut loose from his father’s support he will quickly disappear as a real force.
I think it’s fair to say everything has gone more or less as expected. The Money Power has co-opted the opposition in classical fashion. The millions gasping for genuine change are left holding the bag.
After this election a new change agent will be quickly conjured up out of nowhere, perhaps to establish a Hamiltonian banking system, which, to me, seems to be the next frontier for controlled opposition.
What I find interesting is that both Rand Paul and Lew Rockwell look rather depressed in the linked videos.
Anthony Migchels is a Dutch monetary reformer . Please visit his blog and support his courageous and selfless work.
So, what does this mean?
Remember Ross Perot…the independent candidate who made the 1992 Presidential Elections a (3) candidate race?
1992 presidential candidacy
On February 20, 1992, he appeared on CNN‘s Larry King Live and announced his intention to run as an independent if his supporters could get his name on the ballot in all fifty states. With such declared policies as balancing the federal budget, a firm pro-choice stance on abortion, expansion of the war on drugs, ending outsourcing of jobs, support for gun control, belief in protectionism on trade, advocating the Environmental Protection Agency and enacting electronic direct democracy via “electronic town halls,” he became a potential candidate and soon polled roughly even with the two major party candidates.
In the 1992 election, he received 18.9% of the popular vote, approximately 19,741,065 votes (but no electoral college votes), making him the most successful third-party presidential candidate in terms of the popular vote since Theodore Roosevelt in the 1912 election. Unlike Perot, however, some other third party candidates since Roosevelt have won electoral college votes. (Strom Thurmond had 39 in 1948, George Wallace had 46 in 1968 and John Hospers won one in 1972). Compared with Thurmond and Wallace, who polled very strongly in a small number of states, Perot’s vote was more evenly spread across the country. Perot managed to finish second in two states: In Maine, Perot received 30.44% of the vote to Bush’s 30.39% (Clinton won Maine with 38.77%); in Utah, Perot received 27.34% of the vote to Clinton’s 24.65% (Bush won Utah with 43.36%). Although Perot won no state, he received the most votes in some counties, including Trinity County, California.
Duly note the reference to Teddy Roosevelt
Roosevelt entered the race as 3rd candidate, quite rare at the time.
Presidential candidate Party Home state Popular vote Electoral
Woodrow Wilson DemocraticNew Jersey 6,296,284 41.8% 435
Theodore RooseveltProgressiveNew York 4,122,721 27.4% 88
William Howard TaftRepublicanOhio 3,486,242 23.2% 8
As one can see, Roosevelt siphoned a large % of the votes, and Woodrow Wilson won. Recall Wilson was co-opted (aka blackmailed by the Banksters to enact the Federal Reserve the very next year (1913).
Re: Ross Perot in 1992?
Many parties believe that Perot was injected as a candidate so as to siphon off votes so that BILL CLINTON would be assured the Presidency…… much like Teddy Roosevelt did in 1912.
Ron Paul in 2012 ???
Ron Paul has been out there ” dangling bait” ..like he is some sort of hope. No one single person can create change, so he always appeared to be a “False Hope’ magnet…a faux option.
Same betrayal, different puppett ? The US elections are in 6 months. Has Ron Paul filled that “false hope” void so that chronologically no one else can ?
Mitt Romney in 2012? Well…. the scoop is he is very close friends with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu..they have a loong history together. While Obama has been very good at being a (2) faced backstabbing liar and an Israeli ass-kisser, the Israelis don’t feel he is Pro Israel enough.
Mitt Romney would be an even better Israeli ass -kisser, implying he would likely attack the Middle East countries resisting the Zionist Grip and thus set off WW 3.
Romney was seen at the recent Bilderberg meeting, which implies the World’s Elite have annointed him(as the article above implies). Elections are a sham, democracy is dead, so unless a major miracle happens , expect Mitt (Israel can do NO wrong)Romney as the next U.S. President and the start of Armageddon.