I am posting this to inform the integral community of Ron Paul, a candidate for president you might not have looked at or heard of. His level of expression is high enough to have real dialog which has not been around in politics for a long time.  So it is eye opening in itself and I encourage you to watch his videos on youtube. Since there really is not much I can say, until you see what is possible from this man. This could be a good development for Integral in the collective.

 

Google Inc. interviewing Ron Paul :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCM_wQy4YVg

 

What you think?

From what I've seen so far, Ron Paul strikes me as an honest, aware and courageous man, a genuine public servant.

Obviously, if he comes anywhere near to occupying the White House, they'll have to kill him.


Sorry, but short of a massive consciousness revolution, that's how the system works, right?

M

Thanks Mascha,

Wow, I have had that response from soo many people. This came up in a interview with Ron Paul and Alex Jones. Ron Paul was very aware of the possibility and said if it got to that point he would actually be able to adress it like, tell the people that he might be killed and that his principles are what he is doing and that it does not totally depend on him. If it got to the point that he is killed it would already be a huge success becasue Ron Paul is waking people up to the rule of law and the relization of individuality.

 

Good article " Ron Paul and the Empire"

http://www.lewrockwell.com/latulippe/latulippe80.html

Support Ron Paul

Great chance to catch electonic voting machines before the big election. Check out this link;

http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=46721

Hey, I agree--I think that the integral community should be voting for Ron Paul.

I just found about him a few months ago, and I've done a bit of research on him, including reading his book Gold, Peace and Prosperity.
I was blown away by the depth of his understanding of the economic and monetary issues.

Regarding electronic voting, I found HBO's documentary Hacking Democracy to be quite informative.  Here's a link to it: http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-365586126885215066

---

Thinking has become a disease. Not to be able to stop thinking is a dreadful affliction, but we don't realize this because almost everybody is suffering from it, so it is considered normal. - Eckhart Tolle

Thanks Healey,
The lesser of two evils , is still evil. Our options (for no war and real change) are Ron Paul, Gravel, and Kucinich. Gravel and Kucinich are Democrats so they will not get ahead of Hillary and Obama. It would be amazing to see Ron Paul against Hillary for the race. And he would win if that happened. I have watched every Democrat who watched Ron Paul quickly support Ron Paul. Most of  the liberals, independents and very old Republicans see Paul as their candidate as soon as they see what he is about. Please don't choose between the lesser of two evils, because we will see evil this time, that was always there, in plain day light. And when it is in plain day light, it will not matter what you think at that point. The future of humanity will be enslaved out right. Can't see that. Do you understand  the US is bankrupt and will collapse at some point, unless a fundamental change is made. And when that collapse happens, its a mathmatical certainty, the people will ask for services from the government and this will bring the loss of our freedoms. Unless you have the courage to take up arms. I don't see that happening. Chickens in a chicken coup.

"The tyranny of a prince in an oligarchy is not so dangerous to public welfare as the apathy of a citizen in a democracy." – Charles de Secondat, baron de Montesquieu

I am just starting to check out Ron Paul. Since I have so little time, maybe someone can answer my questions here. (Or check your Inbox, Innerline, and reply to me there, if you prefer, thank you.)

There are people who believe that Ron Paul is

1. anti abortion

2. anti-globalization

3. an "amber" Republican (blue v-meme in Spiral Dynamics terms)


What say you?


M

Ron Paul stands for individual rights. He is anti-abortion based on this. And this is the big catch. He says this should not be decided at the federal level based on the constitution. That it should be up to more local government. Which makes tonnes of sense.

 He is way anti-globalization but stand for free markets, which we have never had. When economists say free market, it is just an ideal and has never happen, even though they make it sound as if there is one. Much propaganda has gone into having people think we have free markets.We don't.

  Remember that the green meme is trying to get beyond reason (orange), they can easy identify reason with capatalism,industrization, or science. And we still do not know what reason is. And since we do not know what reason is, orange has not been completed in anyway to really get to green as a true center of gravity. Integral maps are still attempts to know what reason is. Reason has progressed from monological logic (blue) to dialectical logic (Enlightenment, Constitution, Orange) and we can not know ourselves with dialectical logic. Cause dialectics can  understand time, work with time, but doesn't know the essence of time. And since we do not know the essence of time, we do not have meaning and purpose.We either evolve to trialectical logic or die. Trialectical awareness begins when we notice that change is not continous but discontinous. Meaning that there are limits to any process and when that apriori limit is reached, an immediate change happens(quantum machanics). These apriori set change limits are set from that which has no components or eternity. Meaning we will know our purpose for being(inside and out). Since we can see ourselfs in a pregiven apriori process that evolves to in eternity.

So What I am trying to say is:  Ron Paul is going for second tier, by debating at orange, to get orange to be our true center of gravity in the lower right,( instead of  red because of a few people who control our destiny). And if we really have orange then we can truly move into green,yellow, torquois. With many problems between green and yellow, till we collectively get trialectics (Or die) and then we quickly move into torquois. Yay

Thank you for giving us this glimpse of the underpinnings of your world view, or at least some angles on it, Innerline. It provides a bigger context for where you're coming from with, what may look on the surface, like an ad-campaign for Ron Paul to some readers, I'm sure.

Your info about Ron Paul's stance on abortion leaves me with the question of why Paul would still be described as anti-abortion. Given his position, wouldn't "pro life" and "anti-abortion' be obvious misnomers, very misleading at best?


M

Ron Paul is about as "pro life" and "anti-choice" as a politician can get. I can't imagine anyone being more so, though perhaps it's possible.

Let's start at his website: If we click on "issues" we get his platform. If we click on the "Life and Liberty" section, we get his offficial, campaign position on abortion. Here are a few highlights (the bolding is his):

"The right of an innocent, unborn child to life is at the heart of the American ideals of liberty. My professional and legislative record demonstrates my strong commitment to this pro-life principle. . . .  

In Congress, I have authored legislation that seeks to define life as beginning at conception, HR 1094. . . .

I am also the prime sponsor of HR 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to protect life. This is a practical, direct approach to ending federal court tyranny which threatens our constitutional republic and has caused the deaths of 45 million of the unborn. . . .

I have also authored HR 1095, which prevents federal funds to be used for so-called 'population control. . . .'

Many talk about being pro-life. I have taken direct action to restore protection for the unborn. . . . "

During the 2005 campaign, he also  introduced H.R. 776, entitled the “Sanctity of Life Act of 2005," which, had it passed, would have recognized the personhood of all unborn babies by declaring, “human life shall be deemed to exist from conception.”

He has also introduced H.R. 4379, which would prohibit the Supreme Court from ruling on issues relating to abortion, birth control, the definition of marriage and homosexuality, and states that the court's precedent in these areas would no longer be binding.

He also adamantly opposed the Bush adm.'s $15 billion aid package to Africa in 2002, which was designed to fight Aids by distributing condoms, providing sex education, and funding abortion providers. "Needless to say," writes Paul, "the bill gives money to some very questionable organizations and programs." He goes on: "Last week’s vote underscores the need to end the sinful and tyrannical practice of forcing Americans to pay for programs or organizations they believe to be immoral, such as those that distribute condoms and perform abortions."

He's also voted against human embryonic stem cell research at least three times, twice in 2007 and once in 2005.

So clearly there's a lot of Amber fundamentalism there, but there's also such an extreme"free right" position that it makes his fellow Republicans look like a bunch of socialists. It's so extreme, in fact, that it looks like another kind of fundamentalism, perhaps not even Orange but a different sort of Amber.

Thanks monkmonk for your response. You are looking at the record of a congressman who is working at the federal level the way it is. And being a doctor that help deliver 4,000 babies I think he knows the miracle of life. Personally he is pro-life totally from conception. He has stated over and over again that his position on this as a STATESMAN is that this should not be decided at the federal level. You missed the catch in my post. He will not become president and try to make law on abortion. THIS IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, and he adhears to this way more than his personal view. Wow

 

http://www.total411.info/2007/08/romney-leader-to-fix-ames-diebold-poll.html

Right, innerline. Nice spin there. Paul wants Roe vs. Wade overturned so that states can decide on their own, which would in effect make abortion illegal in many states, among other things.

If Ron Paul is against any legislation at the federal level, why would he introduce bills like HR 776, the "Sancitity of Life Act of 2005: To provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception"? It sounds like he wants to legislate an Amber worldview at the federal level here.

The Ron Paul campaign is something of a phenomenon, but not a very good one. In addition to Amber and Republican ("free right") Orange, he attracts a Red, anti-establishment, anarchist crowd whose position is, "Nobody tells me what to do!" They love his paleolibertarian message, which would destroy nearly the entire government. That's not say that Paul's position is without any truth; there is some truth in there, about this much:

 

while the integral view looks more like this:

It's a grass-roots campaign that is making big use of the internet. Wired.com ran a story called "Ron Paul: HowaFringePolitician Took Over theWeb." A few excerpts:

"To many immersed in the political blogosphere, Paul's passionate supporters seem to be everywhere at once. Editors of political websites are inundated with angry e-mails demanding they devote more coverage to Paul. Blog posts that criticize Paul are often followed by hundreds of livid comments from his fans. . . . When the editors at National Journal's The Hotline compiled their well-respected White House 2008 Rankings in May, they put Paul in last place among the 12 Republicans running, tacking on a fed-up message to his fans: 'Just please stop e-mailing us.'

They aren't the only ones who see Paul supporters as a nuisance. . . . Critics say Paul supporters disregard the spirit of these social content sites. . . .

Many prominent bloggers complain Paul's supporters have tainted informal, unscientific polls by organizing large-scale get-out-the-vote campaigns through blogs and social networking sites. . . . .

 While most readers will vote once or twice and then move on, Margolis says Paul fans are visiting numerous blogs hosting the polls and voting repeatedly, while encouraging others to do the same."

Paul's for closing the departments of Energy, Education, and Homeland Security, for starters. He is absolutely against any kind of a universal health-care system like the one Michael Moore proposes in Sicko. He opposes any kind of gun control. He voted against campaign finance reform that would curtail corruption of congressmen and senators. He's against every international organization out there. He doesn't believe that the government should get involved in environmental issues or consumer issues (it would be up to individuals and consumer groups to go up against corporations in a Paul presidency). The free market is is like God for these people. It can do no wrong. The market forces will cure every problem there is if you just let them be--right, like the nineteenth century when children worked in coal mines and people were shot if they went on strike. It's an extreme no government, every-person-for-hirself, or, as Al Gore put it in the 2000 campaign, dog-eat-dog worldview. The Washington Post  ran an article about him last year. An excerpt:

"Paul, 70, has earned the nickname Dr. No for his habit of voting against just about anything that he sees as government overreach or that interferes with the free market. . . .

Last year, Congress decided to send billions of dollars to victims of Hurricane Katrina. Guess how Ron Paul voted.

 'Is bailing out people that chose to live on the coastline a proper function of the federal government?" he asks. "Why do people in Arizona have to be robbed in order to support the people on the coast?'"

Why? Because it works better when everyone looks after one another.

With love,

mm

 

 

Hi mm,

thanks for assembling all this info, including those massive pie charts - visual aids for dummies, no doubt :-)

Okay, I get the picture, or at least enough of it to stop digging.

Btw. some of the links above don't work, so here's one clearly stating Ron Paul's position on abortion from his own campaign website:   Life and Liberty Issues

For more information on Paul's stance on other issues, click *here*


All the best,

M