Many times we are presented with Messianic figures who promise us salvation from the hands of the Establishment. Their job is to sucker political dissidents into believing that reformism still holds the answer to their several multifaceted grievances. Only the Carnival is bold (or reckless) enough to portray their own wolves in sheep’s clothing.
In the aftermath of the devastation that was the scandalous Ron Paul 2012 presidential electoral campaign, I’m left to wonder just how much of it was due to the “guess what I know types” and assorted scam artists, and what elements of it were actually controlled opposition, if at all. Was the Patriot Community subjected to a massive psy op, or did they just simply shoot themselves in the foot because of their own incompetence? It is questions like these that keep me up at night, despite the fact that I have unregistered from the voter rolls.
One of the recurring thoughts I have concerns the relevance of the fictional character Emmanuel Goldstein to this problem. Cast as the proverbial enemy of the state in George Orwell’s 1984, Goldstein is simultaneously perceived as both hero and villain, depending on one’s attitudes towards the Party. He is the penultimate rebel, a creature of the very system that he now ostensible opposes. He is vilified by members of the Outer Party during their Two Minutes Hate, and is used by the Inner Party as the justification for the rampant police state measures imposed upon the populace, but it goes much deeper than that.
Goldstein wrote The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism, a manifesto of sorts that details not only the tyrannical philosophy that permeates the government of Oceania, but that of the world. He explains the reasoning behind the Party’s use of doublethink, historical revisionism, and police state terrorism. His knowledge of the Party is so unbelievably intimate that it is only possible that a one-time member of it could explain its interior workings as well as he does.
This now brings me to the most disheartening thing of all. O’Brien claims that a committee, of which he was a member, crafted not only the manifesto but also the persona of Goldstein himself as a type of honeypot trap for those Party members who might be inclined to stray from the true faith, as it were. While O’Brien denies the undescribed plan for overthrowing the Party could ever work, he does confirm that its description of the Party’s inner ideology is absolutely correct.
What does this have anything to do with Ron Paul? If you remember, The Revolution: A Manifesto (and his subsequent books) reveal such an inner knowledge of the Establishment itself that it couldn’t have been written by someone on the outside looking in. At the time I wrote my review of the book, I didn’t truly understand its deeper significance; I think it was entirely designed to hook those of my generation into supporting his presidential candidacy (Lew Rockwell has since referred to them as “the Ron Paul kids”), as can be evidenced by the many private conversations I’ve had with those entering the Patriot Community on the far left side of the other (not so) line. This “r-love-ution” as it soon became known, highlighted three areas of policy reform: civil liberties, foreign policy, and central banking; in other words, revoking the USA PATRIOT Act, bringing the troops home, and abolishing the Federal Reserve. Such a program of reformism was designed to fail before anybody even tried to work on implementing it, and as such it worked perfectly.
If I am correct in my analogy, then whom was Ron Paul intended to attract? That’s easy; those political dissidents who knew about the misdeeds of government. Once identified as “those crazy Paulbots,” they could be targeted for subsequent ridicule and thus disregarded into the ash heap of history by their contemporaries, all the while statism continues to reign supreme. I also think it was a way of wasting time and effort by people who otherwise would have been valuable assets, and as such, the Establishment’s way of discouraging any form of resistance, even those faintly symbolic. Full spectrum dominance is never satisfied by compromise, and like Rod Taylor said back in 1996:
“We have hundreds of politicians and thousands of lobbyist groups crawling all over Washington thinking of ways to control you, to extend their will over you, to subvert your freedom, and to replace it with their will; to capture, that is, to steal your life force, and so we should be very angry, because anger is the engine that drives our will to resist, and without resistance, without awareness, they will take it all. It’s not just politically perverse, it’s a sin against mankind, because freedom is actually sacred.”
Why should one congresscritter who pretends to be a friend of Liberty be any different from the rest of the Congress who are hell-bent at lining us up at the edge of the proverbial ditch and lodging a bullet in the backs of our heads?