The Ron & Rand Paul Betrayal

June 10, 2012

ron-and-rand.jpg
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
(henrymakow.com)


Rand Paul endorses Mitt Romney last Friday, just days after Romney was anointed at the Bilderberg Conference, elitists who started  financing Ron Paul with millions a few months ago

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.

Consider this.

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?

And of course this is just days after Romney was at Bilderberg, upping his credentials as a real threat to Obama big time.

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.

CONCLUSION

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. At least we can see that evil is not a pleasant place.   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGfcS6NkiAY&

Anthony Migchels is a Dutch monetary reformer . Please visit his blog and support his courageous and selfless work.

Related:

(left, Bernard Baruch, 1870-1965)Ninety per cent of the funding for "American Jewish League Against Communism" came from Rothschild front-man Bernard Baruch. The Rothschilds, who controlled the "socialist" Roosevelt administration and backed the Bolshevik Revolution, were also, via Baruch and Kohlberg, behind the "right-wing" John Birch Society and the Libertarian movement...It
"It was not just the money, but also their strategy: the spawning of myriad 'independent' Libertarian organizations. This is exactly the same strategy employed by their dialectical evil twin, Communism." left. William S. Volker (1859-1947) was a wealthy Cabalist (illuminati) Jewish businessman. "They are buying Libertarian adherents just like
(Gary North, left) Libertarianism and related movements are trying to make Christians compromise their principlesA Response To Gary North North's Christian Dominionism idea is eerily similar to the Novus Ordo Seclorum movement, except of course it puts an overtly theocratic spin on it. It is no surprise then that Mr.


The Satanic Core of Libertarianism

(left, Bernard de Mandeville, the Satanist who inspired Libertarianism and Austrian economics)Satanism defines man by carnal rather than spiritual desires, "liberating" the former and crushing the latter. De Mandeville's Fable of the Bees demonstrates that Libertarianism is rooted in Satanist dogma. Libertarianism is part of the Illuminati Dialectic with Communism:


The "Catholic" Wing of Libertarianism

(left, Ignatius Loyala, the Marrano Jew who founded the Jesuit Order.) The Jesuits were never true Catholics. Jesuits are part of a long-term Illuminati Jewish plot to infiltrate and subvert Catholicism from within, even though most Jesuits are probably not aware of it. Indeed, Lew Rockwell is right: the Salamancan



Also Related:













Comments for "The Ron & Rand Paul Betrayal "

Paul Sheldon said (June 11, 2012):

All criticisms of Rand Paul are well-deserved. However, it is unfair to suggest that Rand Paul deceived all people who claim to be libertarians. On May 24, 2010, Justin Raimondo, director of Antiwar.com, warned readers that:

“He's not half the man his father is”

“Since he’s spent so much time apologizing for, and running away from, his own comments – now claiming that he would have voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act – why doesn’t he spend a few moments backtracking from his morally reprehensible refusal to take nuking Iran ‘out of the equation’? Now that‘s something he really ought to get down on his hands and knees and beg forgiveness for – and maybe (just maybe!) libertarians will think about supporting him. Until that apology – or ‘clarification’ – is forthcoming, I wouldn’t give Rand Paul the time of day.”

http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2010/05/23/rand-pauls-problem-and-ours/


In 1988, Ron Paul was the Libertarian Party’s candidate for President. Why are critics of Ron Paul failing to make a distinction between libertarians and the Libertarian Party (with many leaders who are Zionist warmongers)?

It is fair to claim that Lew Rockwell is obsessed about gold. You can even check the price of gold at:

http://lewrockwell.com/

However, why is there no criticism of communist China’s plan to replace the American dollar within a few years with its own gold-backed currency?

Americans who are truly anti-war supported Ron Paul. Obama and the other Republican candidates are Zionist warmongers. Some supporters of Ron Paul have questioned his position that America should sit by and let Israel and its Muslim neighbors work out their problems—after the West has provided Israel with nuclear weapons.

Opposing the endless totalitarian wars of Zionists and of Neo-conservatives (Neo-Trotskyites) is more important than opposing relatively trivial issues such as usury and monetary reform.


Dick said (June 10, 2012):

This has been an interesting turn of events for opponents of Libertarianism. I think the crucial issue will be whether hard-core ideologues like Adam Kokesh can manage to jettison Ron Paul and
capture any of his momentum for some future purpose. Kokesh's recent "debate" with Webster Tarpley on YouTube seems to be a microcosm of the struggle to-come in the truth community.

Side note – Kokesh's father Charles, a Jewish "venture capitalist" was charged in 2009 by the SEC with misappropriating $45 million of
investor funds in a racetrack scheme. Sounds a bit like Peter Schiff and his "hero" tax-evader father. You've either got to be willfully ignorant or a real sociopath to stay a libertarian.

Anthony, I agree with nearly everything you write, but your next-to-last paragraph that the next controlled opposition is "Hamiltonian
banking" is ridiculous. Are the illuminati going to give us interest-free public credit, infrastructure grants to the states,
and a debt moratorium on the Fed? This is like the "Aloisyous Fozdyke" article on this site claiming the illuminati were going to
destroy America with protective tariffs. What's next – public health insurance and a high speed rail system?


Brian said (June 10, 2012):

Anthony has hit yet another home run with this article. I guess it was Ron who held sway in naming his son after that most vociferous proponent of the Austrian School of Economics, Ayn Rand. Very telling of his obsession to have given your child that name. I guess we've all been Ludwig Mis(es)led.

The traditional Libertarian position on foreign policy is always sound, i.e; stay the hell out of these foreign conflicts which reflect how Americans and their military have been duped. But its a rotten shame that its politics became so enamored with a gold standard, or some variation thereof. And the author is probably right about the new controlled opposition having to do with some Hamiltonian model.
There's a radio commercial in my area of New England for a bank headquartered in Canada. It's in the form of a skit where you hear a knock on the door. One of the actor answers it and says, "Well, if it isn't my favorite father of modern banking, Alexander Hamilton!" Do they know something we don't know?

But could it be that the plan all along has been to eventually bring down the FED themselves, jettisoning it into the dustbin of history after having served its nefarious purpose? Next year is 2013 - exactly 100 years since its inception. And we all know the Illuminati fondness for numbers.


Henry Makow received his Ph.D. in English Literature from the University of Toronto in 1982. He welcomes your comments at