The Mainstream Media Brings Out The Ron Paul Hate

Every Republican candidate has had a chance to be the “anointed frontrunner”, except Ron Paul. It’s self-fulfilling propaganda. The mainstream media ignores Ron Paul because he has no chance of winning. If the mainstream media ignores Ron Paul, then he has no chance of winning.

However, Ron Paul might win Iowa and/or New Hampshire. If that happens, it’ll be too obviously corrupt if Ron Paul is ignored. Does Ron Paul have so much support that it’ll be too obvious if he gets Diebolded out of a primary win?

The mainstream media says “Ron Paul has some extremely vocal supporters on the Internet. That doesn’t translate to winning an election. (especially when we control the information that is presented to the sleeping masses)”

That’s missing the point. Why does Ron Paul have such dedicated support? Why does Ron Paul inspire dedicated hardcore support, but not the other candidates? Are Ron Paul supporters the biggest fruitcakes, or the most informed? That’s one problem with democracy. Even if I’m more than 1000x better informed than most people, I still get only one vote.

There is no chance that Ron Paul can win the nomination. Even if Ron Paul gets a majority or plurality of delegates in the primaries, he won’t get the superdelegates, Republican party insiders. The superdelegates can block the nomination of any non-approved candidate. If he does get cheated by the superdelgates, Ron Paul should have the balls to walk out of the convention and say “This election isn’t legitimate!” He won’t do that, especially if he wants Rand Paul to do well.

Articles like this one are offensive. Notice the headline “What Ron Paul Thinks Of America”. The headline should have been “Ron Paul Is An Arrogant Elitist Douchebag”, but that would be too obvious. That’s a very common psychopath trick. You indirectly imply that someone is evil or incompetent, without explicitly directly saying it.  It is interesting to notice the propaganda tricks.  I’m not fooled anymore.  Most people are fooled, and that’s what counts in a democracy.

I wonder if people are “developing immunity” to propaganda?  As mind control tricks become more refined, are people reacting and becoming harder to fool?

This story is interesting. The mainstream media is making a stink out of racist comments Ron Paul made in a newsletter more than 10 years ago. Ron Paul does have a valid point. He said “You media twits promote racism by mentioning it over and over again. I admit that the newsletter was a mistake. Let’s move on and talk about important things.”

Ron Paul walked out of an interview with CNN when they kept pounding him about the newsletter. Most mainstream media interviews are not impartial, especially when lynching is the goal. The interviewer was given marching orders to keep mentioning the newsletter and to refuse to discuss anything else. The goal is to make Ron Paul flustered, and then the interview is creatively edited. In effect, the interviewer forced Ron Paul to walk out, but the spin is that Ron Paul was the rude one who walked out.

If you’re talking like a sane person, if the other person says “I don’t want to talk about this!”, you move on and talk about something else.  The interviewer was ordered to keep pressing about the racist newsletter.  That was the propaganda goal of the interview.

The “racist newsletter” angle is clever spin. If Ron Paul were attacked for his anti-Federal Reserve viewpoint or anti-big government, then that might start a discussion. “Ron Paul wrote something racist 10 years ago. Therefore, all of Ron Paul’s viewpoints are wrong.” is ironclad reasoning, according to State anti-logic.

There isn’t much Ron Paul really can do, even if elected. Ron Paul wouldn’t use the President’s power to label people as terrorists and execute them without trial. That would be a quick way to get rid of all the banksters and lobbyists.

It’s interesting to notice the mainstream media attack on Ron Paul.  It would be too obviously corrupt, to criticize his view on the Federal Reserve and big government.  Instead, he’s attacked for his old newsletter, which has already been discussed a lot.  Similarly, Herman Cain’s “sexual harassment” news was an old story.  It was dragged out and prominently displayed, to keep him from winning.  By repeatedly hyping a negative story or by censoring it and not mentioning it, the mainstream media can determine who wins.  For example, suppose that the mainstream media pounded Obama for his connections to Corzine as much as they hounded Ron Paul for his newsletter.  If they did that, he would have zero chance of getting reelected.

6 Responses to The Mainstream Media Brings Out The Ron Paul Hate

  1. I think I understand Ron Paul. He wants smaller government and he doesn’t want government to interfere in peoples’ lives if they are not harming other people.

    High taxation is taken from people by effectively the implicit threat of force. I live in the UK and we have 40% inheritance tax rates (above a threshold). Originally inheritance tax was just mean for very wealthy people. But property prices in the south-east of England and in particular London have risen to well above the inheritance tax threshold rate.

    Effectively the value of your apartment or house is just what someone else will pay for it. Lots of wealthy foreigners come to London and buy houses in the names of foreign registered corporations and as such avoid UK property taxes!

    So UK taxes are only for UK citizens and not for foreigners that come to live here!!!!

    All this pushes up the prices of London property.

    So if you live in the south-east of England and a family member dies (such as a sister, parent etc), you are effectively forced out of the place you live and into the cold streets.

    But if you are a wealthy foreigner you don’t pay taxes and can continue to live in your house!

    People have been paying off inheritance tax for years on property already purchased with taxed money. It is absurd.

    The government only applies taxes only a subset of UK residents. This is immoral.

    Poor people pay taxes. Rich people do not pay taxes.

    George Osborne’s family (UK Chancellor) uses trusts to avoid tax.

    So government ministers do not have to pay the taxes they are in charge of enforcing!

  2. David Cameron (UK Prime Minister) wants the government to back bank loans to people in order to buy houses.

    But this is only “cures” a symptom. The problem is ridulously high property prices that nobody can afford.

    The real solution is to do nothing and let property prices naturally fall.

    All these clowns want to do is prop up the status quo which is good for their buddies in property development companies.

    I forgot to summarize the point I wanted to make in my last comment.

    It is all very nice to give government money to allow a mother or father to buy each of their children a laptop computer or give council money to a man to buy a car in order to help him find work. But where does this money come from? It comes from HIGH TAXATION. The money comes from inheritance tax, which is pushing people out of their homes into cold streets.

    It is just robbing Peter to pay Paul. Peter suffers more than Paul is helped.

  3. Gordon Clown (unelected British Prime Minister) was hounded by the media over his calling a life-long Labour supporter something not very nice after she questioned him over immigration, not getting enough government benefits etc. This, no doubt, cost him votes in the election.

    However David Cameron (current British Prime Minister) was given a free pass by the media over him promising to get back to a war veteran over a lack of housing and not getting back to him at all, until confronted sometime later. By then his offer of help was too late. The war veteran left messages for David Cameron (who was the man’s Member of Parliament) but David never got back to him.

  4. Ron Paul is a joke. The guy is so hard right it makes it hard to take him seriously. The most obnoxious thing about him is his supporters feeling as if you do not support him than it is simply impossible for you to be anything but a “closed minded sheep who hates freedom”. The man is a disgusting homophobic racist bible thumper. If you do even a bit of surface research this is plain to see. His newsletters are not new. His Sanctity of Life bill which would have federal definition of “life” starting at conception thus making abortion = murder makes his claim that he feels abortion is a “States Right Issue” into question. Furthermore, it would be a massive health risk to force women to seek out illegal abortion providers in conservative states. Teen Pregnancy and Unplanned Pregnancies are highest in very conservative southern states. Alabama being the highest.

    Yes, he wants us out of Iraq (which we are now) but non-intervention means no assistance for any needy countries. Foreign Aide to nations such as Sudan are such a small pittance of our budget, stopping them would have no real effect. Yes, he wants to legalize drugs, but what does he feel about state funded addiction treatment. The only reason to legalize drugs is to make it is as safe as possible for he user to use until he/she is ready to quit. As someone who has suffered from chemical dependency in the past, I can tell you that you will not stop until you are ready to do so. To look at drug use as some social darwinist issue is cruel and would probably hurt more families than the war on drugs itself.

    Economically, well we have example after example of how Free Market economics fails. It simply doesn’t work. Our recession is proof of that. Ron Paul also is opposed to raising taxes on the ultra wealthy, he is against regulation.

    I think your goals are admirable, but Ron Paul simply is not a good leader. He is way to conservative for the majority of Americans. He is not “the answer” nor is he some type of savior. He would be a massive step back.

    Time and time again Ron Paul supporters tell me that I “really don’t know about Ron Paul” (whatever the hell that meas) and point me to his website. I have done plenty of research into Ron Paul. I am also familiar with Strom Thurmond and Barry Goldwater. Ron Paul is nothing new.

    If we really want to move forward we need to address income disparity, we need to fix our education system and provide an equal chance for everyone. Once that truly occurs, than I will listen to peoples claim that the poor are poor because they are lazy. I was a Social Worker for several years and have grown up in one of the most economically depressed cities in the United States. Libertarianism would be a complete disaster for us.

    • If you are a State Social Worker, you probably know nothing about really helping poor people. All you’re doing is dispensing State handouts and making sure that bureaucratic rules are enforced. Have you ever had a real job? (Real job = not working for the government, and not working indirectly for the government)

      Obviously, a State employee is going to be hostile to anyone who wants to reduce the size of the State. If government shrinks or is eliminated, you’ll have to go get a real job!

      The current recession is *NOT* the result of a free market. It’s the result of wasteful bailouts, high taxes, and laws restricting competition. The housing bubble was not caused by the “free market”. It was caused by the Federal Reserve and negative interest rates.

      The best way to help poor people actually is a really free market. Most “abuses of the free market” are caused by government, but the free market is blamed, and that’s an excuse for making the State bigger.

      For example, “minimum wage laws” superficially help poor people. Minimum wage laws make it illegal for someone to get a job, if their labor is worth less than the minimum wage. They can’t get skills and bootstrap to higher-paying jobs. The “minimum wage laws” indirectly subsidize unions, making it illegal for nonunionized workers to compete and undercut them on price.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>