Last night, I did a brief analysis of some of the things Ron Paul says on his website. Let's say I wasn't terribly impressed. The response since then has been surprisingly strong (stronger, even, than on Quixtar), and equally troubling.

Truth and Honesty: A Primer

Before we get into specifics, I want to step back and write from the heart as a flawed Christian, and as someone who tries, most the time, to love God and truth.

The first is that we who love truth have no business using the devil's tools or language -- that is, actively or carelessly promoting lies, dishonesty, hysteria, and deception (John 8:44) -- to advance any cause. This doesn't just apply to liberal causes like global warming or international government, it also applies to things like small government, sound foreign policy, or the gospel.

For example, the New Testament tells us to place a very high burden of proof on serious accusations, saying that everything [particularly negative accusations] must be established with ample evidence. (Matthew 18:16) We are warned against worrying about and following the same kind of conspiracy theories that used to manipulate people of this world. (See Isaiah 8, and particularly, I beg you, read this excellent essay.) The bible commends Christians who do basic research to make sure what they're being told is true, before they accept it. (Acts 17:11)

Next, we need to understand the basic nature of deception. The most effective forms of deception are not the promulgation of lies, but rather a failure of perspective: many utterly true details are conscripted (sometimes with a lie or two) to create a largely-unevaluated overall impression which, if stated clearly (which it frequently isn't), would be revealed to be utterly false. Ambiguity + truth often equals deception. The worst and most damaging lies are frequently those with the highest content of truth.

I could raise the example of Nazi Germany (this is, after all, the Internet), but I'd rather go back to the start, and remind my readers that the biblical account of the first human deception exactly followed this pattern: The fruit the sepent offered was good for eating. And God did say that if we ate it that we would know good and evil. And yes, we would be like God in that regard. But the impression these true statements gave Eve was utterly false. She saw the true details, but she wasn't able to sense or discern that the larger construct came from the pit of hell itself.

After all, who could be opposed to being wiser? Or more like God?

Ron Paul's Company

Ignoring the the man himself for the moment: Looking around the internet, I've become deeply disturbed by many of the kind of people who find Ron Paul attractive.

Let me cite a few examples:

Who is Ron Paul, and why is he being heavily censored by the mainstream media? By now, all neocon/zionist Republicans wish they didn't know... [1, "Pissed off Cabbie"]

[My note: He's on TV a lot for a guy who's been "censored".]

Holy crap! There's hope for the Republicans! .... Now, by no means does this mean I support Paul. If I had to pick a Republican for the White House, it would be him. But, I still support some sort of Obama/Clinton ticket. There needs to be a (D) next to the president's name again... Really, sure there's no terrorist attacking your home, just your wallet, your gas tank, your insurance rates, your paycheck, and their name is the George W. Bush administration. [2]

When in the f*** are we as a people going to put a stop to this b***sh*t? Inoccent people are dead daily. Gas prices are out of control. When are the M**** F***** PEOPLE who live here and have children that are going to grow up here, STAND THE F*** UP, for our rights? [....] If you don't like what I am saying, F*** YOU. Mr. Ron Paul for President. [3]

... he is just the kind of leader that can put America back on track.... When still a Republican, I naively hoped that Bush would clean up the mess created by Clinton.... I am convinced that the same bankers were behind 9/11, and engineered that act to permit the complete execution of the unjust and unnecessary invasion and destruction of Iraq. And undoubtedly, Bush received his "marching orders" through Dick Cheney. Their plan is to use nuclear weapons against Iran to promote the international terror that the rogue terrorist government of Israel is so dependent upon to further its imperial incursions in the Middle East to control all its oil. [4]

Wolf Blitzer is Jewish and he is actually a Zionist agent for the Jewish people in Israel. That is why he is so upset with Ron Paul questioning of America foriegn policy because American foriegn policy is architected by Jews like Paul Wolfowitz and Pearle for the benefit of Jewish Israel. [5]

I assure you, this kind of stuff isn't the exception: it seemed to be about half or more the pro-Paul blog entries I encountered. And my last post on Ron Paul seemed to disproportionately attract commenters who appeared to have very weak reasoning skills and/or a marked disinterest in truth.

Herding Sheep

So I can hear some of you say: Well, he can't help the kind of people who support him. Oh, but he certainly can! When a public figure's following starts heading in a direction he disagrees with, it is not only possible, but it is incumbent upon him or her to stand up and repudiate such things.

For example, some of those who were interested in following Jesus wanted to set up God's kingdom on earth. They wanted Jesus to fix their political problems right then and there. (John 6) Jesus then made sure he preached in a way which offended this particular contingent and drove them away. And he did the same when preaching at other times by speaking in parables, to exclude those who didn't fundamentally agree with him.

Similarly, even on my own blog, when someone has posted (for example) racist nonsense, or said the Jews had it coming, I've always tried to object to what they're saying. To paraphrase CS Lewis: You can't stop the birds from flying by, but you also don't have to let them make a nest in your hair.

But rather than drive away this contingent, Ron Paul seems content to make statements that actually attract them -- and a good number of his statements seem to imply he even agrees with them.

Bilderbergers, Neocons, and 9/11 Truthers -- Oh My!

For example, this blogger turned up an interview in which Ron Paul seems to buy into the idea that a host of secret societies are effectively controlling the course of the US, and echoes leftist tripe about "military/industrial complex" and "oil" being prime mover behind things:

EF - I've read in The New America that you are aware of the Round Table Groups, Skull & Bones, and other "secret societies" that have actively participated in the dismantling. In your essay "Neoconned", you went so far as to align the Bush Administration with Trotskyites. However, it seems that the Bush/Skull & Bones guys are perpetually fighting the United Nations, the CFR, the Bildebergs. Are the Bohemian Grove Republicans on the same team as the Rockefeller Round Table members, or are they at war?

RP - You know, their rhetoric suggests they might not like the United Nations, and you hear that often.... they're not anti-U.N., they're anti-U.N. if they don't do exactly what they want. Because there is a fascist-type faction that wants to keep the military/industrial complex going, and the oil control.

Now, let me be careful, lest some misinterpret me (I'm doing precisely what I said above: heading off misinterpretations): The Bilderberger group apparently does exist. And CFR does sit around and discuss foreign relations. And Skull & Bones really is at least a frat-level semi-secret society.

But I'm not convinced (and see plenty of evidence to the contrary) that these groups compose a secret world government (or even two factions of it, as Paul says) which consciously works to control world events -- to keep wars going and to keep oil flowing. And the bit about Bush being a "Trotskyite" appears to me as utter lunacy.

Is big oil a major player in this conspiracy? Why isn't Microsoft and the software also part of it? Are "military contractors" a big corrupting influence? Then why not propose NEA members or leaders also, since we spend more on education than the military? And why not include the entertainment industry which, if you count pornography and gambling, has absolutely huge revenues? Or the insurance and health industries? (Maybe they're secretly working together!) Why are we still largely stuck on the same villians the left and John Birchers seized on in the 1950s though 70s? The world has progressed -- why haven't these secret societies? Can't the Bilderbergers control the world using chatrooms now?

But sorry: I digress. My point here is to simply highlight what Ron Paul is pushing -- or at least deliberately allowing space for -- not debate the evidence for the grander conspiracy -- or, more precisely, general lack thereof.

Also note, in the quote above, the reference to Ron's "neoconned". Whatever Paul means by it (I'm fairly new to this), the word usually connotes a Jewish Zionist who works to start wars in the world for the benefit of Israel. So I think we can see the roots of the anti-semitic affinity. And, again, if Ron Paul doesn't believe that, he would do well to come out and clarify.

But this quote would seem to imply otherwise:

Stating that lobbying groups who seek special favors and handouts are evil, Paul wrote, "By far the most powerful lobby in Washington of the bad sort is the Israeli government" and that the goal of the Zionist movement is to stifle criticism.

And if you're going to single out only the most influential lobby, that would be AARP. The most detrimental to US interests? In my opinion, trial lawyers. So Dr. Paul's choice of targets here is a bit unusual, but not at all surprising, giving his other foreign policy statements.

Ron Paul has since disclaimed these statements, claiming they were made by someone else (whom he cannot, of course, name) under his name, and that he didn't protest at the time because he ... well, that I don't completely understand. It gave him some publicity or something. But the timing, character, and content of his tortured explanation didn't extract vibrate "truth and integrity" to me -- rather, it set off yet more warning bells.

Finally, to add to all this, it seems that Ron Paul has also been content to stoke the belief that the Bush administration caused or at least covered up what "really happened" at 9/11. I've had run ins with these people as well, tried to take them seriously, and found their arguments to be utterly incredible.

Thus the 9/11 truthers who have visited Random Observations generally hate me: not because I have a closed mind on the matter (I don't) but because I pointed out the evidence they produced so far has been utterly false. If people are believing lies, I become part of it if I don't confront them. And I refuse, due to the bible's teachings (and simple common sense), to buy into arguments for which the main evidence is the lack of evidence. So 9/11 truthers, unless they get something more substantial, won't find a comfortable home here.

Sadly, Ron Paul apparently either agrees (at least somewhat) with them, or is more than happy to let them persist in their delusions if it helps him. I don't know which it is, and I don't know which is worse. As with the former disclaimer, both are indications of a problem.

Rhetoric

I want to pause here, and state again that I broadly agree with most of the beliefs that Ron Paul is offering, at least domestically: small government, fiscal responsibility, etc. But my point here isn't about his views, but the way he handles words, ideas, and arguments.

For example, here's another quote from Paul, from the first source, above:

Richard Perle, not too long ago, made a statement that he thought we should get out of the United Nations. Well, I think that's, sort of, to pacify some of our supporters... in his mind, they may well be believing they are saving the United Nations or transforming the United Nations, rather than being opposed to world government.

Not to put too fine a point on it, Ron Paul is accusing Richard Perle of lying when he says he thinks we should be out of the UN -- and claimed to know his real thoughts (he actually wants so save the UN, says Paul). Because, you know, Perle is allegedly a "neocon".

Yet Perle has clearly written that voluntary "coalitions of the willing" are the way we should deal with international threats, rather than a single controlling global entity, and called the UN an "abject failure."

Again, my complaint here isn't that I disagree about the UN, but rather the low standard required for Dr. Paul to publicly claim to know someone harbors bad inner motives. (Which is a tactic I typically see from the left, not the right.)

And here's yet another deceptive statement:

And, the worst giving up is this notion of going to war under U.N. resolutions, which we did very quickly after we got in the United Nations. There was a U.N. resolution and we sent off all those men to get killed in Korea.

Well, yes there was a UN resolution before we went into Korea. But there was also a rapid Communist takeover of that nation [omitted from Paul's logic]. Further, to imply, as Paul is doing here, that we bent to the UN's will -- rather than the truth, which was that the UN resolution itself reflected and prompted by US concerns -- is depective indeed.

I'm absolutely willing to argue that the UN has been a net negative in the world -- I'm a huge critic of the UN. But it also absolutely disgusts me to see someone using such dishonest rhetoric, nearly in every single breath, to promote that argument. Or any other I find dear to my heart.

I'm mostly citing one document here as an example, but I see this problem over and over in his published material. It's rather troubling.

There's much more, but this is all I have time for at the moment.

Conclusion

I don't really know who Ron Paul is. From what I can see, he is easily sucked into conspiracy theories and has little regard for sound reason and evidence. He hurls accusations quite easily, and seems to value vague, open-ended statements, without having the courage to make specific accustions, or present specific evidence.

I don't care how much he agrees with my worldview. While he acts this way, such a man is not, and cannot be, a close ally of mine -- since in doing so, he violates that which I hold dearest: honesty, truth, and sound judgement.