The audacity of intellectualism

I just finished reading Ron Paul’s new book, “The Revolution: A Manifesto” (hardcover, Grand Central Publishing, 192 pp) and I have to say that it far exceeded my expectations.

This brilliantly written indictment of the political establishment not only points out the folly of our system as it is today, but clearly defines how returning to the roots of our republican (that’s republican form of government, not the party, just to clear up any misconceptions) ideals would not only solve the majority of our problems, but would lead America back to being the kind of nation we would all be proud once again to call home.

These days, where “hope” is the best we can expect, and “change” represents a shiny new package on the same faulty product; where political debates are carefully crafted sound-byte factories for the drive-thru voter; where the candidate that can lie the most convincingly or looks the best while doing it has the advantage, it’s truly a breath of fresh air when someone comes along and simply tells the truth.

As with his Presidential campaign, this latest work defies partisan politics and shows the reader what it means to live in a free and prosperous society, and what it would take to attain that goal.

Here are a few tidbits…

p.74, referring to regulation and subsidies.

“Once government does become involved in something, intellectual and instutional inertia tends to keep it there for good. People lose their political imagination. It becomes impossible to conceive of dealing with the matter in any other way. Repealing the new bureaucracy becomes unthinkable. Mythology about how terrible things were in the old days becomes the conventional wisdom. Meanwhile, the bureaucracy itself, with a vested interest in maintaining itself and increasing funding, employs all the resources it can to ensuring that it gets a bigger budget next year, regardless of its performance. In fact, the worse it does, the more funding it is likely to get – exactly the opposite of what happens in the private sector, in which those who sucessfully meet the needs of their fellow men are rewarded with profits, and those who poorly anticipate consumer demand are punished with losses”.

p. 64, referring to racism.

“Racism is a particularly odious form of collectivism whereby individuals are treated not on their merits but on the basis of group identity. Nothing in my political philosophy, which is the exact opposite of the racial totalitarianism of the twentieth century, gives aid or comfort to such thinking.”

“Government exacerbates racial thinking and undermines individualism because its very existence encourages people to organize along racial lines in order to lobby for benefits for their group. That lobbying, in turn, creates animosity and suspicion among all groups, each of which believes that it is getting less of its fair share than the others.”

Since Paul is also an established doctor, his insights in to our health care problems is nothing short of enlightening. I would literally have to post the entire chapter, it’s that good.

In his own words…”We don’t need to start a brand new revolution…All we have to do is restore the original Constitution”. This book not only explains why this isn’t such a radical idea, but it also illustrates why it is necessary for the continued survival of this nation.

I hope all who read this post, Democrat and Republican alike, will consider the modest investment ($22.00 retail) in a great piece of writing from possibly one of the last great intellectual statesman this country will ever see.

Thanks.

15 Responses to "The audacity of intellectualism"

  1. pollchecker  April 24, 2008 at 3:11 pm

    Grif — it really is a shame that Dr. Paul won’t consider an independent run. At his age, it may be his last serious opportunity.

    And whether he won or not would be irrellevant because his candidacy would serve the purpose of keeping the focus of the coming elections where they should be and not on a bunch of artificial and insignificant propaganda.

    And even if he didn’t win, the publicity generated from his candidacy would make him a leading candidate for another office in Texas whether is would be Gubernatorial or Senatorial.

    Yes, a Ron Paul Independent Candidacy would give a lot of people someone to vote for. Perhaps his significant voter support in Pennsylvania will be enough to at least get him thinking.

  2. griff  April 24, 2008 at 8:41 pm

    This blog isn’t intended as a stump for an Independent run, if that’s what you thought it to be. I don’t think he should and I would be disappointed if he did. He would have to abandon his seat in the House if he ran on another ticket.

    This is about introducing – or more precisely – reintroducing people to a political philosophy that has long since been put asunder by the Ruling Class and its minions. That’s why it’s called a manifesto and not “Ron Paul’s Government for Dummies”. Although that would be a fitting title for any of the other three’s platforms.

    So let me see if I get this right. You favor the artificial and insignificant propaganda over intellectual and substantive debate? Gee, we can’t have someone in a high government position running around telling the truth all the time, or actually thinking in moral or responsible ways. That’s too radical, and bad for business.

    “If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.” – Samuel Adams

  3. johneboy  April 24, 2008 at 3:14 pm

    Thanks for the heads up Paul’s book. It sounds like a worthy way to while away more than a few hours.

    Dr. Paul was one of the only two (the other being Dennis Kucinich) of the candidates from either big party that I felt would have led this country in the right direction. Perhaps he was a little too intelligent (and, in turn, less ‘sexy’) for the public to catch on to (and the incredible media bias didn’t help his run either). No matter the fate of his run, at least he opened more than a few eyes, and kudos to him and his staff for that.

    I only ever had three disagreements with Paul: 1st was over health care (I really think that we need some form of ‘universal health care’ – or even an expansion of Medicare to cover everyone – not the mandatory, paycheck garnishing monster that Clinton is preaching about) , 2nd was letting the free market do it’s thing with little regulation (in a more ideal society this might be feasible, but the extremes of greed and depravity run too deep in corporate America), and on abortion (he would like to see Rowe v Wade overturned).

    Other than that, he (besides Kucinich) was the only one that seemed to have a firm grasp on where we are and where we need to be in this country (as opposed to John “I don’t know the difference between Sunni and Shia” McCain, Hillary “I wouldn’t know the truth if it bit me on the ass” Clinton, or Barack “Let’s change the change that we changed to change it” Obama).

    Here’s to hoping for 2012…

    ………………………………………………..
    When you find yourself among the majority, it is time for pause and reflection – Mark Twain

    D’yer Hear – News Aggregator : http://dyerhear.weebly.com/
    My Music and the home of Johneboy radio-http://johncrumley.weebly.com/

  4. griff  April 24, 2008 at 8:55 pm

    Maybe when you read his work you’ll have a better understanding of his philosophy on those three issues. For instance, his stance on abortion is one of states rights versus federal intervention, not one of moral values. Personally, he is opposed to abortion, but realizes that it is an issue for the states to decide, not the federal government.

    You can also read all of his writings and Congressional speeches at http://www.ronpaullibrary.com.

  5. xdream  April 24, 2008 at 4:01 pm

    Thank you for that very positive blog on Congressman Ron Paul’s new book. I’ve read it, and it’s impeccable. Nothing like the truth to blast through the lies.

    I’m glad he’s not running as an Independent. His 16% in Pennsylvania is a dent in McCain’s invisible armor that will take Dr. Paul right to the convention in September. The message of liberty will continue regardless of the old media’s blackout of anything but their fascist propaganda.

    It’s obvious that the corporate owned media slaves were just doing what their masters told them to do by marginalizing him. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pinochet, and Lenin are all having a happy circle jerk.

    Trust me, they pushed the lie that Giuliani was the national front runner, and Dr. Paul soundly slapped the lisp out of him in all the debates, and in the voting booths. There are no Giuliani supporters running for office. No, there isn’t. And THAT’S the point!

    Ron Paul not only birthed 4000 babies, he’s birthed 1 MILLION voters of whom 10’s of thousands are now running on the Ron Paul Republican ticket. And the GOP is SWEATIN’ it! haha…

    REPAULICANS FORTH! (yeah, I said it… and you can use it!)

    “When Fascism goes to sleep at night, it checks under the bed for Congressman, and presidential candidate, Dr. Ron Paul.” –Anonymous Repaulican

    *******************

    For the love of Liberty is never as ferocious as when it is leaving. –Patrick Francis Holman

  6. griff  April 24, 2008 at 9:03 pm

    I still love watching his debate footage, especially his tussles with Giuliani. As the Democrats continue to push for an amicable divorce from their primary, I find myself wishing the Republican race was still being contested. Thanks Mitt, for quitting for “the good of the party”.

  7. pollchecker  April 24, 2008 at 9:04 pm

    ” You favor the artificial and insignificant propaganda over intellectual and substantive debate? ”

    Don’t know where you came up with that conclusion? In fact that entire paragraph makes no sense to me at all.

    I know Dr Paul and voted for his as a Libertarian candidate. I was just remarking that his presence in the election would keep the focus on what is important instead of the propaganda.

  8. griff  April 25, 2008 at 11:00 am

    Well, it’s from your post…

    “And whether he won or not would be irrellevant because his candidacy would serve the purpose of keeping the focus of the coming elections where they should be and not on a bunch of artificial and insignificant propaganda.”

    You imply that focusing on important issues is irrevelant, and we shouldn’t rock the propaganda boat. You imply that it’s merely a waste of time to focus on real issues and real and fundamental change when there’s so much divisive and superficial non-issues to get all riled up over.

  9. pollchecker  April 25, 2008 at 11:09 am

    I have reread what I wrote and I can not for the life of me figure out how you got the exact opposite out of what I wrote. So let’s review…

    whether he won or not would be irrellevant….

    because….

    his candidacy would serve the purpose of keeping the focus of the coming elections where they should be…..

    and NOT on a bunch of artificial and insignificant propaganda.

    Those are my exact words. How you twist that, Grif, just totally blows my mind! Perhaps you should slow down and just breathe (grin).

  10. griff  April 25, 2008 at 1:15 pm

    Well, either your wording doesn’t represent your thinking, or you don’t understand your own writing, but I twisted nothing.

    You clearly state that not having Ron Paul in the running allows us to continue to focus on artificial and insignificant propaganda. On the flip side, should he have won, we would be forced to focus on important matters. And the difference between these two actions is irrelevant.

    If you care to clarify or expand on that, then please do so. But don’t accuse me of twisting your words when they are presented in plain and easily understood English. Perhaps that isn’t what you meant, but that’s the way it reads. Since I’m not privy to your actual thoughts, I have to go by what you write.

  11. pollchecker  April 25, 2008 at 1:39 pm

    Again that is not what the sentence said. That is not what the paragraph implied. I have reread it and am not going to continue a disagreement on semantics with you when we are on the same side of the issue.

    But at least we can agree that they are presented in plain and easily understood English. Anyone else care to comment?

    Thank you for the lesson though. It gives me an entirely new understanding of certain language issues that are sure to pop up in the coming months.

  12. griff  April 25, 2008 at 2:08 pm

    Hey, no problem. It is sometimes difficult to translate thoughts into words and have those words accurately represent those thoughts. Happens to me all the time.

  13. johneboy  April 25, 2008 at 12:00 am

    Griff: I do have a pretty good working knowledge of Dr. Paul’s work and viewpoints…and I still disagree with him (in a gentlemanly sort of way, of course) on some issues.

    But as far as the rest of what he thought we should be doing as a country (like drawing back this apparent need for the global expansion of manifest destiny and making the US come first in any decisions on foreign or domestic policy), his integrity and honesty, and his ability to simply know what he was talking about (even when I disagree with him, I always understand how he made his decisions – not on faith, like many have to do with the ‘front-runners’, but via his explanation of what he gleaned from what he studied), always seemed like something to perk up ones ears to – but, unfortunately, the talking heads marginalized his message .

    And, not to be insulting or elitist, most people simply didn’t ‘get it’ (or never got to hear it, for that matter).

    Again, thanks for posting about the good Doctor’s book…it’s already found a top spot on my ‘to buy’ list.

    ………………………………………………..
    When you find yourself among the majority, it is time for pause and reflection – Mark Twain

    D’yer Hear – News Aggregator : http://dyerhear.weebly.com/
    My Music and the home of Johneboy radio-http://johncrumley.weebly.com/

  14. griff  April 25, 2008 at 1:44 pm

    I can respect that. Honest disagreement and rational debate are sorely lacking these days. I didn’t mean to imply that you were unfamiliar with his policies, but most people simply follow the mainstream’s lead and never investigate for themselves.

    Today we are so fixated on single “wedge” issues that we tend to overlook the broader picture. Most issues are interrelated and require more than the simplified “solutions” that are offered to foster the illusion that something is being done.

    I think you should be pleasantly surprised when you do read the book.

  15. frank from carmel  April 25, 2008 at 8:04 pm

    frank from carmel

    An essential read is the just released book “The Revolution, A Manifesto” by Ron Paul.I also enjoyed the book.

    The congressman and doctor is still a presidential candidate although you would never know it from the media who rarely, if ever, dare mention his name. The entrenched system is really afraid of this guy. If they could have a fair, four-person debate, right now on TV (a near impossibility with our bridled media), including Ron Paul and the other presumptive candidates for president, Ron Paul would, no doubt, blow them all out of the water by confronting truth to the powers controlling the other three.

    “The empire game our government has been playing is coming to an end.” Paul says. He suggests realistic options for the successor to George W. Bush otherwise, “the alternative consists of ever-growing financial burden, more police state measures, and an endless string of wars pitched to Americans on the basis of now-familiar propaganda and financed by more borrowing, higher taxes and more money printed out of thin air. The collapse of the dollar will not be far behind.”

    Paul declares,” If freedom is what we want, it is ours for the taking.”

Comments are closed.