A Primer on Ron Paul for Gary Johnson Supporters

Gary Johnson has inspired his supporters to do nothing at all. The recent faux “town hall” CNN broadcasts only confirmed this, as Johnson and his no-name running mate emphasized that they are the reasonable moderates who blend the best of the two hegemonic political parties. Although a minority of voters support Johnson, the itching question is, is he worth a damn at all?


“South Park Ron Paul” version 2 by AnonPaul


Ron Paul was a congressman over the course of thirty years, and had campaigned for the United States presidency three times; the first of which in 1988 under a Libertarian Party ticket, the second time in 2008 as a Republican Party candidate, and then again in 2012, in no small part due to the Draft Ron Paul movement. He has written at least three political books, the most significant of which I think are The Revolution: A Manifesto, End the Fed, and Liberty Defined. Paul is the founder and chairman of the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity and remains a Distinguished Counselor to the Ludwig von Mises Institute. Continue reading

A Primer on Ron Paul for Bernie Sanders Supporters – #NeverHillary

Bernie Sanders has inspired his supporters to value populism. They used Twitter for hashtags ranging from #FeeltheBern to #NeverHillary. Although Bernie Sanders expressed controversial statements, the itching question remains as to whether he was genuine to begin with, especially given his concession speech alongside Hillary Clinton?



Ron Paul was a congressman over the course of thirty years, and had campaigned for the United States presidency three times; the first of which in 1988 under a Libertarian Party ticket, the second time in 2008 as a Republican Party candidate, and then again in 2012, in no small part due to the Draft Ron Paul movement. He has written at least three political books, the most significant of which I think are The Revolution: A Manifesto, End the Fed, and Liberty Defined. Paul is the founder and chairman of the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity and remains a Distinguished Counselor to the Ludwig von Mises Institute. Continue reading

A Primer on Ron Paul for Donald Trump Supporters

Donald Trump has inspired his supporters to value Americana. They wear red trucker caps emblazoned with the slogan, “Make America Great Again.” Although Donald Trump expresses controversial statements, the itching question remains as to what exactly does he stand for?



Ron Paul was a congressman over the course of thirty years, and had campaigned for the United States presidency three times; the first of which in 1988 under a Libertarian Party ticket, the second time in 2008 as a Republican Party candidate, and then again in 2012, in no small part due to the Draft Ron Paul movement. He has written at least three political books, the most significant of which I think are The Revolution: A Manifesto, End the Fed, and Liberty Defined. Paul is the founder and chairman of the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity and remains a Distinguished Counselor to the Ludwig von Mises Institute. Continue reading

Does Ron Paul Deserve to be Forgotten?

“I have personally noticed a great deal of pro-Putin propaganda being spread by libertarians as of late. Some of it is quite comical, and though I’ve laughed out loud at much of it, I have not shared it. This is because I don’t want to start supporting one oppressive government, just because I despise the one that claims ownership over me…[u]ltimately, the lesson to be learned is, this is what happens when you negotiate with the State. The lines get blurry, unholy alliances are made, and everybody comes out looking like shit. Had we all stuck to the non-aggression principle instead of trying to figure out which government’s propaganda to repeat, we could have avoided this whole mess.”

Christopher Cantwell


false dichotomy


It’s been about 2 ½ years since I’ve blogged about the Ron Paul Lovefest, mainly because I became so disgusted with Dr. Paul’s shenanigans, as well as the fact that once he gave his farewell address to Congress where he called them a bunch of psychopathic authoritarians, virtually no one in any libertarian circles truly gave a damn about him anymore. Whether it was the Corporal Jesse Thorsen incident, the 12” action figures, Operation Paulcock, or (my personal favorite) the RonPaul.com copyright scandal, the not-so-good doctor has a lot to answer for, to put it mildly. In light of the recent convictions of Dr. Paul’s former campaign staffers Jesse Benton, John Tate, and Dimitrios Kesari, I figured now was as good a time as any to examine the 2014 Ukrainian Revolution, especially considering the fact that hindsight is always 20/20. Continue reading

The Shameless Consumerism of Ron Paul, Inc.

One of the archetypes the Carousel of Carnivores portrays itself as is that of a kindly grandfather. This marketing image could be interpreted as evocative of a trustworthy village elder, or even a Messianic figure. Needless to say, such trickery would make even Edward Bernays feel proud.


ron paul channel


As if Ron Paul, Inc. didn’t already scam the Ron Paul Refugees to the tune of millions of dollars already, the image of the real-life Emmanuel Goldstein is being used to push a whole assortment of new Internet “educational” products designed to further pilfer the wallets of true believers. Last month, the Ron Paul channel was launched, and even the controlled press ran TV news reports on it. Fortunately, the 2 minute previews of each episode are available for free viewing, such as this Julian Assange interview, but if you want to watch the whole episode, it’s gonna cost you $10 per month.

Considering the plethora of free Internet television, why in God’s name would you want to fork over even more money beyond your monthly Internet access fee? Do you really want to pay Ron Paul, Inc. $120 per year for nearly the same content you can get for free? Hell, even Netflix is noticeably cheaper (and you get a whole lot more content to boot!).

Oh, but the “fun” doesn’t stop there, for there is also the Ron Paul Curriculum to sell! Marketed towards liberty loving homeschoolers (as if there was such a thing as “statist homeschoolers,” but I digress), the Ron Paul Curriculum promises to teach your homeschooler without textbooks. The K-5 grades are offered for free, although they do leave something to be desired, especially when compared with an actual textbook-free homeschooling curriculum. Grades 6 to senior year of high school requires access to the tutorial forums, which costs $250 per family per year; each course costs $50 per student.

Now, isn’t that rather interesting? Its even admitted on one of their About pages:


“Today, the following courses will be available: English: grades 6, 7, 9, 10; history: grades 6, 7, 10; math: grades 6, 7, 8, 9, 10; science: grades 6, 7, 8, 9, 10; public speaking; government


Looking over the fact for a moment that they are huge gaps in their 6 – 12 curriculum, and assuming that my math is correct, if each course was for the academic year, then the courses they currently have for sale would amount to no more than $200 per student; this means that the cost of access to the tutorial forums plus the available courses for the year, would come down to, equal to or no more than (<) $450 for one student per year. Over the span of seven years (6 – 12), considering also that the access to the tutorial forums is a yearly cost in addition to the courses themselves, the cost would come to < $3,150 for one student; for a pair of siblings, it would cost their parents < $4,550; and for a three child family (which is pretty typical for hard-core homeschooling families), the cost would be a whopping < $5,950. Perhaps it would be best to choose your homeschooling curriculums more carefully, instead of flushing your hard earned Monopoly money down the sink for the sake of an incomplete curriculum package that happens to have some dissident figurehead’s name on it.

So, if a parent wanted to have his children be indoctrinated by the Ron Paul Channel while also consuming the Ron Paul Curriculum over the course of seven years, then those parents would be paying < $3,990 (assuming not only that they were only homeschooling one child, but that the Ron Paul Channel actually lasts that long). How can such mindless consumerism push forward the cause for Liberty? Shouldn’t freedom be, well, free?

In light of Ron Paul, Inc. attempting to sue some of his (former?) grassroots supporters over the now infamous RonPaul.com copyright scandal, I can’t help but wonder what clientele Ron Paul, Inc. is trying to attract who would be more than happy to turn a blind eye to all this rampant malfesance. Tea Party Refugees? Anarcho-capitalists? Whistleblowers turned Internet diva sell-outs (like Mark Dice)?

Sadly, there will always be suckers, not matter how many warnings are given, or how much substantive proof is offered. Unfortunately, this particular breed of suckers falsely think that they are somehow “enlightened” because they watched one of Alex Jones’ misinformation propaganda pieces (as well as the material spewed forth by whomever he’s promoting this week). The best I can hope for, at this juncture, is to serve as a pragmatic witness simply pointing out the dangers, especially for the sake of those who do stand to lose out badly. Who knows? Perhaps Ron Paul, Inc.‘s next target is The Daily Paul or the Ron Paul Forums, although I sincerely hope his sound defeat resulting from the conclusion of the RonPaul.com copyright scandal discourages him from picking on any more of the Ron Paul Refugees.

The RonPaul.com Copyright Scandal

Betrayal is all too common within the Carousel of Carnivores. The gatekeepers of the formerly alternative (really, Internet) media are more than happy to throw fellow travelers or even their own adherents under the bus whenever it suits their special interests. Unlike Mark Dice who sold out to Alex Jones (by singing his praises and deleting his videos documenting Mr. Jones’ malfeasance), sometimes the good guys actually do win.



Former congresscritter Ron Paul tried to sue the pants off some of his grassroots supporters, particularly those who run an admittedly fan run website called RonPaul.com; however, you would think that Dr. Paul, as an avowed constitutionalist, would file in a state or (more likely than not) federal court. But no, he decided to lodge a complaint with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), which is considered a specialized agency of the United Nations (UN). What a minute…wasn’t Dr. Paul fundamentally opposed to the very existence of the UN itself, as embodied in the common phrase, “Get the US out of the UN, and the UN out of the US?” If so, why did he lodge a copyright suit against his own supporters with an adjudicating entity he rhetorically claims is his mortal enemy (besides the Federal Reserve)?

An “administrative panel decision” was reached by a three member board (composed of Christopher Gibson, Jeffrey Samuels, and Frederick Abbot) in the WIPO case of The Honorable Ron Paul v. Whois Privacy Services Pty Ltd / JNR Corp, case #D2013-0278. The background of this matter is that a bunch of Ron Paul supporters started a website in May of 2008 with the domain name, RonPaul.com, in order to support Dr. Paul’s 2008 and 2012 presidential campaigns (please keep in mind that as I provide direct quotes from the WIPO’s own administrative panel decision, the “Complaintant” is Ron Paul, and the “Respondent” are his grassroots, perhaps former, supporters). Some of the findings of the WIPO panel are quite enlightening, such as the fact that the:


“Respondent has put significant investments of labor, time and money into the site associated with the Domain Name. Nonetheless, Respondent offered the Domain Name to Complainant for almost USD 600,000 less than the prior owner’s offer. In a classic bait-and-switch, after Complainant’s associates asked Respondent to offer to sell the Domain Name, the Complaintant construes the offer as evidence of bad faith. Respondent has made repeated good faith efforts to facilitate or negotiate an agreement to transfer the Domain Name to Complainant. No contrary evidence suggests that Respondent has attempted to prevent Complainant from reflecting his alleged mark in a domain name.” [emphasis added]


Think about that for a moment, the WIPO panel just admitted that Dr. Paul was being disingenuous while still negotiating for some out-of-court settlement. Further details continue:


“In May 2011, Respondent exercised its option to purchase the Domain Name from WKF. Nearly two years later and five years after Respondent began operating the Domain Name, Complainant stated in a radio interview on January 9, 2013, ‘Unfortunately, I didn’t have RonPaul.com, so I’m going to have to have RonPaulsHomepage.com.’ Soon after, several supporters and agents of Complainant emailed Respondent to urge some sort of sale or transfer of the Domain Name. Between January 9 and 12, 2013, several of Complainant’s associates asked Respondent to make an offer to sell. Respondent offered to sell the Domain Name, plus a mailing list of 170,000 names, to Complainant for USD 250,000. Alternatively, Respondent offered to give Complainant another domain name, <ronpaul.org>, for free. Complainant’s only counteroffer was this proceeding, in which he depicts Respondent’s solicited, genuine offer as evidence of bad faith.”


I would love to find who interviewed Dr. Paul on Janurary 9th of 2013, so I can listen to that interview, just to see if anything else pertinent was mentioned. Regardless of whether you think the RonPaul.com folks were scummy about selling the domain to Dr. Paul, the point of contention for me here is Dr. Paul’s own behavior against his own supporters (hence the term, Ron Paul Refugees). The WIPO case continues with:


“Complainant asserts the ‘domain name is being leased to a third party who is in competition with Complainants.’ Respondent and Complainant are not competitors; Complainant supplies no evidence that he sells anything but books, while Respondent’s store offers accessories and apparel. All evidence suggests that Respondent acquired the Domain Name primarily to aid, not disrupt, Complainant’s campaign and causes. Complainant’s misperception that he is competing with Respondent is not evidence of bad faith.” [emphasis added]


Ah, isn’t that interesting? Now, I wonder, would the conspiracists at this point accuse the WIPO of balkanizing Ron Paul with his own electoral base? If that were true, then why did the WIPO find the RonPaul.com folks as aiding, not disrupting, Dr. Paul’s crusade? I have no doubt the Carousel would invent any phony conspiracy to prop up the aging doctor, probably insinuating that the RonPaul.com folks weren’t really Ron Paul supporters at all, despite all the evidence to the contrary. The panel found that:


“Redirecting traffic to an unendorsed site does not show bad faith. In fact, the evidence indicates that Complainant did endorse Respondent’s website. At least twice, Complanant’s confederates sent Respondent accolades for his contribution to the campaign. UDRP panels generally consider this as strong evidence against a finding of bad faith. The evidence against bad faith is especially strong when Complainant acquiesced in Respondent’s use of the Domain Name for five years.” [emphasis added]


Wow, so even Dr. Paul’s own staff people recognized the positive contributions that the RonPaul.com folks have made. Then why lodge a complaint with the WIPO in the first place? Did the not-so-good doctor experience senility and confuse the RonPaul.com folks as being subversives to his own phony libertarian constitutionalism? My favorite passage of the entire decision was when:


“Complainant concluded his argument saying, ‘[I]t would be difficult to imagine a more compelling example of cybersquatting as that represented by Respondent’s conduct here.’ However, Respondent is not a cybersquatter, but a spurned supporter. In this UDRP proceeding, Ron Paul has acted much like the people he routinely condemns in political speeches and interviews. He launched an unprovoked, unilateral action against his supporters instead of engaging in diplomacy and free-market negotiations. He availed himself of WIPO, a United Nations agency, after condemning, opposing, and working against the international body throughout his career. He misappropriated and misrepresented Respondent’s confidential letter, instead of respecting the sanctity of private communications and encouraging voluntary interaction between individuals. The Panel should reject Complainant’s misuse of the Policy.” [emphasis added]


In other words, Ron Paul is a hypocrite. Well, duh; what else do you expect from someone who confidence tricked whole batches of dissidents into donating for his presidential campaign (which might as well be his own personal kiddie fund)? Additionally, if an UN organization cares more about personal privacy than you do, you are probably no advocate of Liberty:


“As Respondent puts it, expressing support and devotion to Ron Paul’s political ideals is a legitimate interest that does not require Complainant’s authorization or approval. Moreover, Respondent’s legitimate interest in the Domain Name is strong because the site provides a place for political speech, which is at the heart of what the United States Constitution’s First Amendment is designed to protect. In this way, the Panel is persuaded by Respondent’s arguments and evidence that Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish any trademark at issue.” [emphasis added]


A UN organization actually respecting the US Constitution, much more so than an alleged “constitutionalist” with a sensationalized fan base who still believe in voting? Banish the thought!

The case concludes that:


“On the whole, the Panel views Respondent’s website as a legitimate fan site that does not seek to take unfair advantage of Complainant. The Panel thus determines that Respondent has, in the present circumstances, established that it is engaged in legitimate noncommercial or fair use of Complainant’s personal name in the Domain Name. While there is evidence that Respondent may have earned income on sale of apparel and accessories promoting Ron Paul, the Panel does not believe this is sufficient commercial activity to change the balance of interests already addressed. For all the foregoing reasons, the Complaint is denied.”


Oorah! That means that the RonPaul.com people won, but the fun doesn’t end there. Another complaint was filed by Ron Paul with the WIPO at about the same time, entitled The Honorable Ron Paul v. DN Capital, Inc., Martha Roberts, case #D2013-0371. Much of it seems to me to be nearly exact to the earlier one, alother there is one unique time that bears examination:

“Respondent requests, based on the evidence presented, that the Panel make a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking. Complainant was offered the Domain Name for no charge, with no strings attached, as shown in a letter annexed to its Complaint. Instead of accepting graciously, Complainant brought this proceeding in bad faith. A finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking is appropriate to redress this abuse of the administrative proceeding.”


Now, keep in mind that this case has to deal with RonPaul.org (even though it simply reroutes you to RonPaul.com), but I found this “administrative panel decision” (headed by the exact same three individuals adjudicating the earlier case) regarding the issue of reverse domain name hijacking too good to pass up, for the simple reason of what they found:


“Respondent has requested, based on the evidence presented, that the Panel make a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking. In view of the unique facts of this case, in which the evidence demonstrates that Respondent offered to give the Domain Name <ronpaul.org> to Complainant for no charge, with no strings attached, the Panel is inclined to agree. Instead of accepting the Domain Name, Complainant brought this proceeding. A finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking seems to this Panel to be appropriate in the circumstances.”


Oh, snap! That means the Almighty Ron Paul was found guilty by an UN organization he voluntarily lodged a complaint with as being malicious against the contending party. In other words, not only did the WIPO reject his complaint (considering it as frivolous, or at least, without basis), but they found him committing malfeasance against his own supporters! I betcha that damn congresscritter didn’t expect that one, did he?

So, what does this all mean? I think it is indicative of the Carousel itself; that given just such an self-serving opportunity, they will attempt to eat their own and not think twice about it. That is the legacy of the “Ron Paul Revolution” – backstab your own followers using whatever means possible, no matter how hypocritical or cruel (and this was the guy who was touted as being full of integrity and consistency, if you remember the campaign rhetoric). Ron Paul caused the internal balkanization here, not his supporters, and even a goddamn UN meat-puppet found that to be the case. Next thing you know, Rand Paul will be asking the Chairman of the Federal Reserve to (pretty please) rule on the viability of the gold standard (the so-called “freedom [or liberty] movement,” what a crock of shit it is; if things like this are the best that they can do, I am not impressed).

It is exactly because of unexpected fall-out like this that I earnestly urge everyone, especially dissidents, to completely avoid voting, because if you continue to do so, you will (more likely than not) experience that “Linda Smith moment” where you suddenly and horridly realize that all that time and effort you poured into an electoral campaign expecting the possibility of a win to eventually “set you free” will do anything but that; if anything, it will only feed the beast you intend to destroy. My goal here is to lower your opportunity costs by documenting the malfeasance of these carnivores that now inhabit the alternative media, so you can explore your real options for securing your Liberty elsewhere.

Is Ron Paul Emmanuel Goldstein?

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?

Ron Paul, Inc. is Scamming Libertarians…Again

Apparently, it would seem to be the case that Ron Paul, Inc. is still trying to jip the Ron Paul Refugees out of what relatively few Federal Reserve Notes they were lucky enough to acquire (as if completely scamming over $40,000,000 from them this past electoral cycle wasn’t enough). Due to Dr. Paul’s last upsurge of popularity amongst political dissidents by calling the US Congress a bunch of “psychopathic authoritarians” in his farewell speech on the House floor, the Ludwig von Mises Institute is now selling the transcript of that speech for $2.95. What the hell gives!?



Look, the Mises Institute has done some terrific work teaching anyone who is willing to learn about the Austrian school of economics, but the sycophantic “bromance” ramblings of Lew Rockwell and Walter Block has got to stop! The utter lies about the “success” of their Messiah is getting rather old, and is tarnishing the otherwise noteworthy reputation of the Mises Institute. I am so sick and tired of those do-nothing, gutless ivory-tower “free-market” academics who endlessly proselytize about freedom, and think that by itself is going to eventually solve the incessant problem of tyranny.

Railing against the Federal Reserve for years on end isn’t going to bring about its abolishment, and will certainly not help you when one of those damn flatfoots coercively pulls you over for a “traffic stop.” Seriously, isn’t it about time that libertarians had some good role models who weren’t either Messiahs or Patriot Rockstars? How about what Samuel Konkin, Larken Rose, or even Gary Hunt have been advocating? Why can’t the Rothbardians who claim to hate the State seriously contemplate for more than two minutes about successfully working outside the mainline political process? For goodness sakes, Murray Rothbard the “anarchist” was one of the biggest proponents of the Libertarian Party! Is it me, or I am expecting too much when it comes to consistency on a fairly basic level, especially by insisting that there cannot be a divorce between ends and means?

Why won’t the Patriot Rockstars within the Carnival of Distractions allow serious (and very badly needed) discussions about the necessity of working completely outside of the Establishment‘s authoritarian system of oppression and control? Why has SEK3 been ignored for over 20 years? Why has Mr. Rose been treated horrendously when he tried to broach the issue of under what conditions should any of us shoot a cop? Why does everyone else except Gary Hunt absolutely refuse to even propose a sound business plan (of sorts) to restore constitutional government?

I think the real entrepreneurs and non-corporate businessmen of the actual free-market need to teach a lesson to whichever joker at the Mises Institute thought it was a sound decision to exploitatively sell this frankly worthless speech (by none other than an agent of the State, I may add). Let’s show these otherwise well-meaning closeted economists just how commercial dynamics truly work in the marketplace of values, and we can start by showing consumers of alternative media that the an exact transcript of that speech is available for free (alternatively, for the non-literary inclined, you watch the entire speech instead).

Psychopathic Authoritarians

Fame, even of the Internet kind, can be hard to die out, especially when you were portrayed as a Messiah. This can be witnessed by the adulation of those who worship your every utterance. It gets cemented even further when your sycophants attack others within the ranks without regard for rationality in order to keep the believers in line.



On the floor of the House of (non-representating) “Representatives,” Dr. Paul basically name-called the statists of all stripes and flavors as “psychopathic authortarians.” Apparently, some of the alternative media thought this parting speech of his was newsworthy, or something to that effect. Is it? Anybody can ridicule agents of the Establishment, but that isn’t newsworthy. There’s not even anything even remotely helpful, or even insightful (anything original, that is). I don’t see what the big deal is here.

What is rich here is that treacherous Senator Rand Paul posting on his Twitter feed, “My dad’s in the speaker’s chair. I’m on the House floor. We’re about to hijack the house!” I bet he wants to, since he already sabotaged his own father’s campaign with that little stunt of his on Hannity. Sen. Paul betrayed his Tea Partier supports by throwing his support by Republican Party loser Willard “Mittens” Romney; he literally destroyed what integrity he had for absolutely nothing. And good riddance to that spoiled brat… I sincerely hope he gets wrapped up in some Watergate-esque scandal or some equivalent, because poetic justice is overdue.

If some of you are perplexed why I am a partial Ron Paul Refugee (“partial” because I never voted for him, just Debra Medina, who also happened to be the very last politician I voted for), then be sure to check out the Ron Paul Lovefest. I have documented why exactly the 2012 Ron Paul presidential campaign was due to failure, as particularly evidenced by its aftermath since it echoed his equally failed attempt back in 2008. Also, be sure to read No More Messiahs, which describes why relying on any one man (or his unique “vision”) is ultimately detrimental in the effort to secure our Liberties.

Liberty Defined

All of us suffer from statism. It is a malaise that seeks to deprive us of our property, liberty, and ultimately our lives. Therefore, it would behoove us to refocus public discourse on those subjects that affect us the most.



Liberty, as defined by Dr. Ron Paul, is the exercise of one’s own inalienable rights so long as such exercise does not initiate coercive aggressive upon others doing the same. It is trusting in the spontaneous order of the free market that naturally functions whenever there is no forcible intervention by the State. The good doctor even admits in the introduction that he does not intend to present a plan of any kind for achieving the ends he claims to want to manifest, but instead he purports to write a more philosophical treatise of sorts on a variety of what seem to be randomly selected topics (didn’t he already do that with The Revolution: A Manifesto?).

Here is a snapshot of the 50 issues from Dr. Paul’s book (of what are essentially 50 essays) where he argues that:


Abortion is not to be provided by doctors who sincerely think they would violate their Hippocratic Oath if they did so.

Regime change via assassination by government spooks is bad.

Austrian economics are totally awesome.

Bipartisanship is inimical to our liberties.

The business cycle is caused by central banking.

Regulating elections infringes on the liberty of free speech.

Julian Assange should not be executed by the State.

The CIA should be abolished.

Forcibly drafting youngsters into the military is bad.

Creationists & evolutionists want to use governmental force upon each other in the public schools.

Climate change is a scam, and so is cap & trade.

Hate crimes statutes are reverse discrimination.

Keynesianism originated from the pit of hell.

Marriage should not be licensed by the government.

Prohibition of anything not only does not work, it’s also immoral.

Atheists, for all of their militancy, can be quite evangelical in promoting atheism.

State nullification should be used more often.

Big Brother is bad.

A civilization that condones torture is no civilization at all.


Zionism is stupid.


I found the good doctor’s statements regarding the State’s primary role in monopolizing the providing of security services as quite intriguing when he said:


“If we reflect on how security works in the real world, we discover a huge and important role for private enterprise, and we find that the vast government apparatus of ‘national security’ does not keep us safe so much as threaten our liberties by regarding the entire citizenry as a threat. Private security does not threaten our civil liberties, but government-provided security does.”


While his analysis of government police and the like is fundamentally correct, where does he get the notion that “private security does not threaten our civil liberties?” How is he defining “private security?” Is he referring to DynCorp, Raytheon, or Academi? Aren’t they “private?” Or is he referring to the mom-and-pop-type operation that provides security guards for the local mall? I couldn’t find any clarification on that from his essay, so I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt and presume the latter, since it would be unkind of me to presume some sort of nefariously devious intention on his part by being so vague. Isn’t Ron Paul against the military-industrial complex anyway?

I do take issue with Dr. Paul regarding civil disobedience. Where the hell does he get off asserting that as long as it’s “non-violent” then that magically makes it somehow morally acceptable? Apparently, the good doctor has forgotten that Thoreau based the philosophy of civil disobedience upon the right of revolution, which by definition is inherently violent, given that it is a form of collective self-defense (much like how the Law is). Typical of Patriot Rockstars and Messiahs alike, Ron Paul asserts that:


“Violence is a terrible agent of social change… the vast majority of Americans detest the mere thought of violence as a legitimate tool for bringing about political changes… [some] endorse the principle of peaceful civil disobedience as a means for bringing about political changes… civil disobedience is a form of personal nullification of unfair and unconstitutional laws… [it] is a process whereby the weak and defenseless can resist the violence perpetuated by the state [emphasis added].”


According to that line of reasoning, then the guerrilla partisans of World War II should have just done sit-ins, street protests, and “speaking out” instead of shooting the armed government agents from the hostile foreign military that occupied their respective countries. For some strange reason, self-defense is suddenly off the table; look who changed their tune from End the Fed. Of course, Dr. Paul hides behind the fact that the secret police like to bust political dissident groups, ergo he wholeheartedly subscribes to the line that only agent provocateurs “advocate for violence;” such pacifism is detrimental to securing our Liberties. This is completely neglecting the normal human response to deter and forcibly repel coercive aggression by criminals, both public and private.

Weirdly contrasting this is Dr. Paul’s opposition to gun control when he states:


“Your safety has always, ultimately, been your own responsibility, but never more so than now. People have a natural right to defend themselves.”


So, is self-defensive violence morally acceptable or not? Is he making a finer distinction of some kind? Is killing a violent mugger perfectly fine, but not the right of revolution? What’s going on here? As one fictional character infamously stated:


“Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong.”


I think such is likely to be the case here, and not just with the right of revolution or individual self-defense.

Ron Paul’s Liberty Defined: 50 Essential Issues That Affect Our Freedom seems little more than an attempt to bolster support for his 2012 presidential campaign. It more or less regurgitates the content of The Revolution: A Manifesto; if anything, it seems to be an initial draft version of that earlier book, albeit in an essay format. The one good thing I’ll say about it is that is does provide you with everything else you ever wanted to know about Dr. Paul’s opinions regarding such football issues like abortion, creationism, and marriage. Other than that, there is literally no plan of action (as the good doctor himself admitted) or anything else pragmatically useful, but that kinda makes sense since this was an alphabetically disorganized philosophical treatise that attempts to persuade the reader of the horrendous nature of government. Seeing as that was the real goal, I would rather have the greenhorn Ricky recruits read The Revolution: A Manifesto if for no other reason that for brevity; for the rest of us, Liberty Defined is little more than a masturbatory session of head nodding in agreement with the awfulness of tyrannical government.