10 votes

Ron Paul supporters "cult like dedication"

I understand Breitbart has a 'tube on this but I won't bother watching it. Breitbart hasn't exactly impressed me in the past. But yeah there's a cult-like aspect in a lot of our devotion. Everybody sees it. Some of us are borderline fanatics, admit it. Especially you young people. I love it, I think it's great.

It's like watching someone fall in love for the first time. You really never do fall in love the same way twice. That head over heels infatuation never fails to bring a faded smile to my lips. Like they have a hazy memory of having been that happy or excruciatingly sad once, long ago.

I think it happens with all such highly focused ideological groups like ours. Ideas start out word of mouth and get codified and refined into hypothesis then theory then ideology and ultimately dogma. Or at least they can ultimately slide into dogma which I view to be a negative. However the points up to that are very helpful for accomplishing our objectives, in our case to spread a consistent message about liberty. A bit of cult-like adoration really gets us dedication and energy from impassioned young people.

Bring it into dogma and suddenly people aren't thinking anymore, they are just repeating. I think we're insulated from that phase by our diversity. The Constitutionalists will never stop trying to re-implement it and the Voluntarists will always be there telling us we're morons for trying. We morphed into the GOP and we can morph right back out of it in the future. We haven't come close to expending all options at our disposal.

But I know our tight ideology and our idolization of Ron Paul will continue to serve us well into the future. Ron is gonna be our standard for all future leaders to measure up to. They are gonna have to be good, they will have to practically be saints. And that's my answer to the periodic question "what are we gonna do without Ron Paul?" At this rate we'll never have to. He'll exist forever in our hearts and materially in the freedom movement. It's like he's gonna be standing right over our shoulders. "WWRD?" What would Ron do?

When your standards are set high and become enshrined it allows us a very crucial power to survival: discrimination. Which is simply the ability to tell one thing from another. We're not going to accept pretenders and we're not going to be content with substitutes. We're not going to accept failure or compromise. At least I hope not. We set the bar higher than it's ever been and that's a good thing in this day and age.

So cult away! Worship the ground he walks on! Continue to put Ron Paul stickers on your ever possession and consider having kids just to name them all Ron or Ronette. Put stickers on the neighbors dogs and insist that you haven't effected the underlying value of the dog itself. Frankly, being in a cult is fun because we always have somebody to talk to. Freedom makes a fine religion.

Heck, we might just have the universe's first opt-in, opt-out Borg collective. I'd give it a try just for sake of variation. A non-authoritarian cult seems like a good starting point.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

We follow a politcal philosophy, not a religious belief

This is not about Ron Paul, the flawed human. He is not some sort of Messiah. It's always been more about the message than the man. Dr. Paul just happens to be the best voice for freedom we have at this time.

If Ron would suddenly start supporting wars and bailouts we'd drop him in a New York Second.

TMOT of GA on the Ron Paul Cult


When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign: that the dunces are all in confederacy against him. ~J. Swift


I really don't accept some of your premisses.
I really appreciate some of your critisism.
I really love your way to communicate in a positive way. (like saying revolution, but with love in it)

When I see us - the anti-mob - sometimes acting as a mob, I am getting sort of upset.
Sure, we have to get the sheeple too - winning there hearts and minds,
but we always have to be on guard, that we are not becoming the sheeple ourselves, whichever path we are going to run in the future.

my Ron Paul video collection:

(4 years RP, over 2300 videos)

They use this as an attack,

but really they're just jealous.

I admit there was a need to 'check myself '

the moment it was registering in my brain that RON PAUL was actually signing MY copy of the CONSTITUTION, but all things considered I think it's a healthy love : )

In agreement with Prospector Sam below

Let's take a look at the definitions of a "Cult":

Main Entry:cult
Usage:often attributive
Etymology:French & Latin; French culte, from Latin cultus care, adoration, from colere to cultivate — more at WHEEL

1 : formal religious veneration : WORSHIP
2 : a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also : its body of adherents
3 : a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious; also : its body of adherents
4 : a system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator *health cults*
5 a : great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book); especially : such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad b : the object of such devotion c : a usually small group of people characterized by such devotion
–cul£tic \*k*l-tik\ adjective
–cult£ish \-tish\ adjective
–cult£ish£ly \-l*\ adverb
–cult£ish£ness \-n*s\ noun
–cult£ism \*k*l-*ti-z*m\ noun
–cult£ist \*k*l-tist\ noun
–cult£like \-*l*k\ adjective

So the first and second definitions apply to EVERY Religion including Christianity.Fact

The question posed by the third definition is who has the right to judge what is "unorthodox or spurious"? In a Nation with a constitution stating Freedom of Religion and Creed, which one religion or idea can deem another Religion or idea as "unorthodox or spurious"? None.

Definition four is irrelevant to this discussion.

Now, Ron Paul falls into definition five. Is there really anything in this definition that can be used in an argument against Cultism? It appears to be a neutral definition with nothing that points to wrong thought in anyway at all.

We are ALL cultists in one way or another and the word does not imply anything misguided. I find no shame in admitting I have a devotion in an idea,person or movement towards constitutional freedom and liberty. "My name is ATruepatriot and I am a cultist!"lol.

If I disappear from a discussion please forgive me. My 24-7 business requires me to split mid-sentence to serve them. I am not ducking out, I will be back later to catch up.

The lack of decent leaders makes us seem cultish

There should be several politicians that have similar character and real conservatism to choose from. How hard is it to be a decent, consistent conservative?

But since we only have one, we are clamoring around him like he is a rock star...so yeah, we sometimes seem like a cult. That only speaks to the suspicious rarity of decent adults in politics.

"cult like dedication"?No

"cult like dedication"?

No Breitbart, its called principles, and the integrity of conviction to actually stick to them rather than proffer mere rhetoric in support of such concepts as small government, Constitutional adherence, liberty, free markets, sound economics, fiscal responsibility, all the while while your actions do the opposite like so many fraudsters like the Newt, Sick Rantorum, and Mitt.

It means actually standing up for such principles rather than obedient allegiance to a party label, slogan or what color Jersey is slapped on.

Give it a try sometime Andrew.

Let it not be said that we did nothing.-Ron Paul
Stand up for what you believe in, even if you stand alone.-Sophia Magdalena Scholl

Im glad they like it.

Im glad they like it.

The founding fathers were cultists

because they believed in God, loved liberty, and proposed sound economic fundamentals.

And they were willing to declare independence from the then most powerful Army; could have been a death sentance if England wasn't already burdened with war.

Hmmm... predictable slander.

Hmmm... predictable slander. These people think they are for freedom, but they are just like the loyalists who would hunt down and jail revolutionaries in 1776.

Show your support for Ron Paul and inspire others at new grassroots site:
( Consider uploading a picture or video of your sign or event, etc .)

When I hear the media frequently make a big deal over the

"Fanaticism" of Ron Paul supporters, I believe the inverse must true; That the supporters of "Get-rich", Romney, Santorum, and Obama must be the most easy-going, blase, and indifferent bunch of citizens without a clue on the planet!

Heaven forbid that the sheeple should really understand and deeply care about the issues their candidates stand for! If they did, why, they might be troubled by the contradicting statements and stands held by their favorite candidate!

Funny no one in the media made any comment about the near-idolatry that followed in Obama's wake during his presidential run and subsequent election into office. Why was that ok, but not similar enthusiasm for Ron Paul?

Conscience does not exist if not exercised

"No matter how cynical you get, it's impossible to keep up!
---Lily Tomlin

This will be their stick to

This will be their stick to beat you guys with for the next couple of months.

cult away.. but watch out for that.

I agree Dutchman

This "cult" aspect will be used again Ron Paul's supporters and our growth in the coming months. As much as we appreciate his devotion to his principles and his stamina to deliver the message, we must focus on the R3volution. After thinking about it, "R3volution" itself might be a misunderstood word, expecially to the older folk, who tend to associate the word with violence. Perhaps Renaissance would be more easily understood. "They" play label games with us all the time, from the very beginning by quickly labeling Ron "kook," to now calling his supporters "cult." Think about it...many of their current attempts to minimalize Dr. Paul and us, are signs of desperation.

If the connotation

"Cult" is taken in the context of a single minded devotion towards a cause then count me in. Until someone else comes along with the sole purpose of restoring our country as well as the Constitution and exhibits the conviction of Dr. Paul you could call me anything you wish and I'll agree. Hopefully we won't need a replacement to achieve that goal.

If not us than who?

They've never seen

They've never seen a true grassroots movement before so of course they will find it threatening and attempt to belittle and marginalize it.

"The public must be put in its place, so that each of us may live free of the trampling and
roar of a bewildered herd."
- Walter Lippmann, Public Opinion, 1922

Wait until they see the "Cult" around Andrew Napolitona in 2016

The Judge will ROCK the R3VOLution with a witty tongue and very moving speeches a thousand times better than our dear doctor Paul's.

The Judge has Charisma!


Yes, please BUY this wonderful libertarian BOOK! We all must know the History of Freedom! Buy it today!

"The System of Liberty: Themes in the History of Classical Liberalism" ...by author George Smith --
Buy it Here: http://www.amazon.com/dp/05211820

bear in mind that "cult" has multiple definitions

There's nothing wrong with being in a "cult" in the sense of a common interest shared among enthusiasts, like the "cult" of Star Wars fans for example. A "cult" is only a bad thing when we're talking about a destructive cult or a mind-control cult.

Learning words is good. Knowledge is power. :-)

What is begun in anger, ends in shame.

We support Ron Paul

because of the substance of what he says...not even how he says it. He speaks facts, he has predicted events that have come true, his convictions can be solidly supported with historically documented data.

RP supporters are thinkers - there is nothing about him that the poltically correct, brainwashed world would embrace.

We do not support him because of his race, or that he is good looking and wears his suit well, or that his charasmatic voice just makes us swoon, or his false bravado is so compelling...these are the attributes of cult-figures whose followers are brainwashed.

Not so for we defenders of truth.

The law cannot make a wicked person virtuous…God’s grace alone can accomplish such a thing.
Ron Paul - The Revolution

Setting a good example is a far better way to spread ideals than through force of arms. Ron Paul

I understand

it's an innocent enough sentiment to call it cult-like, it's just somebody's way of saying it runs deep and it's enthusiastic, but cults are what they are and that's not what this movement is.

Cults have a lot of distinctives that are considered creepy for good reason. They isolate your loved ones from you to brainwash them, for one.

Defend Liberty!

And of course the media uses

And of course the media uses terms like that for their negative connotation.

Americans are so used to

Americans are so used to having political leaders that are supported by big corporations and only voted for by people who think they're picking the lesser of two evils that they don't know what to make of a candidate who inspires the kind of enthusiasm that Ron Paul does. The establishment really thought they had gotten rid of the influence of common everyday people and are alarmed at the prospect of mere people actually having influence over the government!

How is it cult like

to love your Country? Everything that Ron Paul says is an American tradition for over 2 centuries... Constitution, free trade, no nation building We used to pride ourselves on feeling this way and now we are called cult like?

Ron Paul makes every day seem like the 4th of July...

And we don't even have

a secret handshake. Sup w/ dat?

There is nothing strange about having a bar of soap in your right pocket, it's just what's happening.

Did the founders really

Did the founders really support free trade?

I mean, they protested the lack of a tariff on imported tea.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

No, they protested the lack

No, they protested the lack of any say so in such matters and all matters. They protested not having any input, and having to be insignificant pawns perpetually subject to the whimsical dictates of foreign overlord.

Let it not be said that we did nothing.-Ron Paul
Stand up for what you believe in, even if you stand alone.-Sophia Magdalena Scholl

The founders had a government

The founders had a government completely funded by tarriffs.

The Boston Tea Party was a protest against the lack of a tax IIRC...

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

The founders’ government came

The founders’ government came well after the Boston Tea Party. At the time of the Boston Tea Party, England still governed the colonies. Governors were appointed by the English monarch. The governor’s councils were selected by the governors and also served at appointment by the English crown. Elected legislatures did exist but all their acts were subject to absolute veto by the appointed governor. The legislatures were constantly at odds with the governors and governor’s councils. Acts of Parliament and decrees by the English Crown also superseded over everything passed by a colony.

The Boston Tea Party was the end result of frustration that developed from a culmination of Acts imposed on the colonists by the English Parliament and Crown. Most notably were the Coercive Acts, but also included the Townshend duty, the 1772 Act reinstating the Indemnity Act. The Tea Act was simply the final straw, the precipitating event that finally triggered the colonists to take action. They colonists were tired of being treated as indiscriminate pawns, having laws, acts and taxes imposed upon them at the whim of a foreign government and without regard to any input by the colonists.

Yes that final act, the Tea Act of 1773, actually did repeal a tea tax on Tea imported from England in order to try to save the financially failing East India Tea Company. Rivals smuggling tea into the colonies in violation of the English Navigation Acts (which were an attempt to enforce an English monopoly over trade with the colonies) were seriously gouging into the East India Tea Company’s monopoly. The company was in seriously poor financial condition.

The objective of the Tea Act of 1773 was to try to make the East India Tea Company more competitive against its rivals, restore its legally imposed monopoly under the Navigation Acts by undercutting the price of tea smuggled to the colonies from rivals, and to legitimize the Townshend duties. The Boston Tea Party and supporting colonists were not necessarily against the repealing of the tax on English Tea to favor the East India Tea Company, but rather against the constant imposition of acts upon the colonists without their input treating the colonists and their thoughts as irrelevant and insignificant. Acquiescing to the English imposition of the Tea Act was viewed as legitimizing the Townshend duties and agreeing that England had plenary power over taxation in the colonies without regard to input from the colonists. After all, “we want higher taxes” was not one of the rallying slogans, but rather “no taxation without representation.”

Let it not be said that we did nothing.-Ron Paul
Stand up for what you believe in, even if you stand alone.-Sophia Magdalena Scholl