Mike links to a fascinating set of postings on a pro-Ron-Paul discussion forum; to make a long story short, a fervent Ron Paul supporter at first is shocked by the revelations, and then decides, based on no evidence whatsoever, to assert that The New Republic simply fabricated Ron Paul's newsletters.

That one is just now downloading, I think I am going to be sick. That one is signed, and makes mention of the other ones that the campaign denounced today. I AM GOING TO BE SICK!!!!! What do we do? ....

Why do we have to keep changing our explanation. [?] .... What if we are the ones who are being played? ....

OK, OK, I think I am seeing clearly now, If these people can manufacture a war, how easy is it to take these newsletters? They control the media, so how easy is it to float these stories and fake documents... This is just another myth. No oneder [sic] the campaign didn't respond about these scanned copies, because they didn't exist, they were just created. ....

Let's just stick with the line that the signatures are fake. Anything else just confuses the situatin[sic].... Our point now is to show the scanned copies are fake...

All we got now is the signatures, but the point is to repeat that thought over and over. we can make that thought reality.

This is, firsthand, someone deciding to go with the "big lie" strategy, whereby you fabricate a story and repeat it -- to yourself and others -- until it is accepted as fact. Ron Paul supporters are fond of saying this is how the world works, so it's rather sad and telling to see their reliance on the same strategy. But they do; that has been my direct and repeated experience.

The problem with his plan is that there are several old newspaper articles in which Ron Paul admitted to having written the letters and, contrary to his contemporary denials, very much defends everything he says there. So his plan to claim "they" made up the newsletters will inevitably have to include the idea that "they" planted these stories in various Texas newspapers, years ago, in order to discredit him today. And when that fails, I'm sure he'll come up with something else. [The Democrats who insisted the CBS / Dan Rather documents were genuine then rather easily switched to claiming that Karl Rove had fabricated them.]

Unfortunately, this approach eventually leaves you with one litmus test: if a "fact" agrees with your preconceptions, it must be true; if it undermines them, it must be false. You think you're helping yourself, but in reality you've brainwashed yourself so that you need to, as "DaronWestbooke" does above, constantly consult with "headquarters" in order be told what to believe and how to think today. Your ego converts you into the ultimate authoritarian tool.

And that is the reason, my friends (in my opinion, of course), that the country has about a 50/50 conservative liberal split, but liberal blogs are HUGE, will millions of readers and conservative blogs, well, not such much. You always have to work more to coordinate an ever-shifting story than to tell the honest truth as best you can apprehend it.

If you decide to read the entire thread, carefully note the guy's signature:

"The revolution is not an apple that falls when it is ripe. You have to make it fall. [....] Let me say, at the risk of seeming ridiculous, that the true revolutionary is guided by feelings of great love."

Does something sound odd about that last quote? It should: that's Che Guevera, the mass-murdering thug beloved of the left. Funny set of quotes for a guy who supposed believes in a democratic republic, the US Constitution, and the will of the people. But, then again, my own little opponent, "Doc W" about blew a gasket when I pointed out a quote he (and RP) favored actually came from an early 20th-century atheist "progressive" who openly mocked the idea of having a democratic republic, and scorned the idea there was anything laudable about the US Constitution.

Whatever he may be inside (and I don't think it matters much, since he's willing to ride the popularity wave wherever it carries him), externally Ron Paul is not a conservative: he is a revolutionary. He promotes an America that never was, and a believes in a worldview that, frankly, isn't -- where all problems can be attributed to a secret group of baddies and the people would just be free and wonderful if we just got rid of these few nasty conspirators.

We are in times where people are ripe for a totalitarian leader. But they'll have to wait for the next one, perhaps.