30 votes

The Daily Paul Is NOT What It Used To Be; There Is NO Interest In Activism Or Reclaiming Our Republic.

1. Little to no Activism. When I and/or others ask for help [and take the time to create/publish material], it is more than typically ignored. There is much banter, but little Activism and/or Bumps to spread the messages and keep the momentum moving forward.

2. DailyPaul will typically front page articles (news, gossip, fun, etc.) but not material related to Activism and/or Public Events.

3. You scream that Ron Paul was ignored, but when the opportunity arises for you to be heard and make a difference, little/no participation is acted upon.

I am disappointed with many of you who talk a good game, but do little to make a difference :-(

You can disagree or vote me down, but it means nothing, I am stating it as I witness it.

Edit: Here is a perfect start http://www.dailypaul.com/277071/un-small-arms-treaty-peititi...

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

We're not "drafting" for no reason.

In the current environment, drafting is the only way to incite any discussion. Making a post with any action behind it is futile because it's virtually impossible and mentally draining to get a fair review.

It's said that many people have their own paths. That many others are at different points. Fine.

There are those that are just learning to wake up. In this stage, they ask numerous questions and get quite the response.

There are those that are fed up and ready to do something drastic. This stage too gets tons of support in an attempt to 'talk them down' as the case may be.

You include RP in a plural group of people that will take action but you don't acknowledge any other path than being an anointed namesake of the site.

Well, there are those of us who have learned all we care to learn. We're done learning and we want to act. We spend a great deal of effort piecing together what they feel is a possibly effective action. When they post that, they only get critical flames instead of suggestion of how a small task force could happen. (Unless they call you out by name") If, heaven forbid, they defend their idea (because they have thought out more than they originally posted), they are labeled defensive and whiney.

What is their choice now? Continue there or try another popular thread to get people's interest? Either one has its downsides.

In one case for me, I even gained your interest in an economic related post. Your comment was to take the off-topic content and create a post of its own and you would put it on the front page. So I spent 4 hours doing so. Crossed every T, filled in the holes, covered the bases and polished it up nice, IMO. I posted it and nothing. After a day or so, I replied to your comment about it and still no response. That's frustrating after half a dozen other recent failures.

Is this how those in the action stage should be handled? Where would the RP R3VOLution be if those asking for help on a RP action in '08 had received this reception?

Don't get me wrong. I'm not whining for personal treatment or some kind of oversight mandate. I'm just looking for a more receptive environment to those proposals for action. A few words directly from you like, "Hey guys, can we actually put some of our solutions into action?" could go a very long way. Every other group I've been in has had the same problem but this one at least has a history of coordinating action in the past. That's why I've left everywhere else and came back here.

This is the general response for 'most' action posts I see so I thought I would enlighten you. I'm totally convinced this group by itself could succeed in some actions that made a difference. Why not try?

Hi Mike. One of the reason I love(d?) the DP was....

...it was a bastion of sanity and reason and productive discussion vs., for example, ronpaulforums.

There seems to have been a policy change within the past week or so (past month?) that seems to constitute a qualitative change in the discussion here.

It hasn't sunk quite down to the level of RPF, but it's close and it's on the trajectory of ending up there.

I don't know what's going on, but I miss what it used to be. BTW I did donate. I forgot if it was $20 0r $25, but I did donate and I got a nice personally signed minute man post card from you. Thank you.

Michael Nystrom's picture

Thank you. Can you be a little more specific?

This is a pretty general statement, so I'm interested in hearing more about it:

There seems to have been a policy change within the past week or so (past month?) that seems to constitute a qualitative change in the discussion here.

Thank you. I remember sending you that card. I think it was $25. I know what your name is.

He's the man.

"I know what your name is."


First just a quick question.

Has there been a recent policy change?

As far as who I am... as long as you don't disclose that or IPs to the feds. ;)

Michael Nystrom's picture

"Policy Change"

WTF are you talking about? I'm a guy who runs this from my bedroom. There's no "policy board." There's just my emotions and how I feel. I'm making it up as I go.

So to the extent that things have changed within me, yes, there's been a policy change. Things are going to loosen up. People are being given more freedom here than they previously have.

Is that a bad thing?

I would never expose anyone's identity, unless I was subpoenaed. Under those circumstances, I don't think I would have any choice, or control. They would raid Marc's server farm and just take the whole box.

He's the man.


Thanks for the info.

Well Put Mr. Nystrom

And I know I've become much more effective but much less visable - my days of standing on a street corner with a Ron Paul sign are long gone (and organizing concert tours for that matter:) - replaced with promoting liberty media, such as the publishing agent I introduced to Robin Koerner to see his book finished and in print as one example and the plan I drew up for Free and Equal Election Foundation's 2016 debates as another - will have much bigger impacts than any amount of the sign waving and other activism I used to engage in.

We all have our roles. Don't hate because ours are different than yours...

Support Liberty Media! http://benswann.com/ - http://www.bluerepublican.org/ - http://krisannehall.com/ - http://lionsofliberty.com/

We won't turn things around until we 1st change the media - donate to a liberty media creator today!

This reminds me of that one line in Braveheart.

"Unite the clans!"

Ron Paul was that one who could do it. Now, we all go our separate ways and do our own thing...RP was that one fellow who united us all.

Well when people are so busy discussing Jews...

...what do you expect?

The neoNAZIs here consider that activism.

+1 for you btw.

I take it from all the downvotes i received

That one of the purposes of the DP is to discuss Jews. Is that right?

Yes. This is true.

I am abrasive to people who purposefully attempt to sabotage the liberty movement, who oppose logic, or who lie. Those people are out there. They do not deserve equal treatment - from me at least.

I am willing to take hits for that.

Michael Nystrom's picture

You're judge, jury and executioner, all rolled into one

Probably infallible as well.

That is what makes you abrasive.

He's the man.

Just exercising expression....

...like everyone else seems to be.

I find it odd that in my case it's abrasive but in others whom I reply to who down vote science, reason, and eyewitness accounts, it's not. But that's ok. It's your site. Also, I can appreciate your opinion of my online persona. But the fact is, you don't really know me.

Michael Nystrom's picture

Of course I don't know you

I never said I did.

No one knows anyone here. The mistake people make, which leads to unending confusion, is that people mistake a few lines of text for "knowing" someone.

I never claimed to know you. All I said is that your presentation here is abrasive. Which it is.

I find it odd that in my case it's abrasive but in others whom I reply to who down vote science, reason, and eyewitness accounts, it's not.

I never said that. Other people here are abrasive as well.

But herein lies an example of your abrasiveness. Your making assumptions, putting words in others' mouths, etc. Tiresome.

He's the man.


Keep people locked in an endless paradigm.

Maybe people are looking at the information for themselves and coming to their own conclusions.

Good for them!

Luke 3:38
Isaiah 43:3-5

You're right...4 years ago...oh wait, you weren't here 4 yrs...

You have been a member for a year and you think you can say, "It isn't what it used to be?"

Well, you are right in that 4 yrs ago, noone complained about that it wasn't what it used to be.

People come for different reasons. I signed up to hook up nationally with other Ron Paul supporters. THAT is what it was 5 yrs ago. By definition, then, it can't be "what is used to be."

sometimes *we* are disappointed in other human beings--

and sometimes *we* disappoint ourselves and others--

but the fact is that nobody really knows what everyone/anyone else on this site (or any others) is doing or what anyone/everyone is dealing with.

As for activism, it takes many forms. Some of *us* can't be as active in the same ways as others, but that doesn't mean we aren't 'walking the walk'--

And you have a right to express your disappointment.

It has never occurred to me to 'rate' my fellow DPers as to what they do or do not accomplish in their personal lives or in the 'battle' for liberty--

it just wouldn't occur to me. I see this as a place to share ideas, inspire others, and get sources of information for those who want to know what is going on in the world--

I appreciate those who do what I cannot do, but I am quite sure there are things I am doing that others wouldn't be able to do, whether they appreciate what I am doing or not.

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

WTF are you talking about.

The DP has never been more effective or relevant. SMH

Senator Peter Schiff 2016

You're right. The Anarchists need to be dealt with.

"There Is NO Interest In Activism Or Reclaiming Our Republic."

The Daily Paul now caters to Anarchists, and Anarchists aren't interested in "reclaiming our Republic". What they're interested in is destroying it. The only "activism" they're interested in is that which leads to destruction. They don't support what you want to reclaim.

Lew Rockwell, founder and chairman of the Mises Institute, executor of Murray Rothbards estate, and 40 year friend of Ron Paul: "I think it would be a great thing to break up the US just like it would be a great thing to break up the European Union."

They've been a cancer in the liberty movement from the beginning, and it's now metastasized here at the DP. Nobody wants anything to do with these people, and there will be no activism while they participate. (and they know it)

and Ron Paul is an Anarchist.

and Ron Paul is an Anarchist. I helped him in 2012... Ill be helping Rand in 2016. I am also an anarchist. So, how about that freedom of speech and the freedom of ideas?

You're right Anarchist. Ron Paul isn't what he pretends to be.

"and Ron Paul is an Anarchist. I helped him in 2012... Ill be helping Rand in 2016."

You were NO help, and you're right, Ron Paul isn't what he pretends to be. He's a fraud, and there's a very good reason the DP caters to Anarchist cancers. So let it be known why Ron Paul had no chance, and why Rand Paul will have no chance with Anarchists like you around.

Let people see and understand why there's "NO Interest In Activism Or Reclaiming Our Republic here at the DP".

"So, how about that freedom of speech and the freedom of ideas?"

It's going great. I love watching Anarchists get what's coming to them.


I'm not looking forward to destruction. I just know that I am tired of fighting, and my 'friends' and 'family' are not waking up.

I am hopeful that there will be some waking up, but even those of our friends who are beginning to question keep seeing things within the 'box' of left and right--

it's quite discouraging--

As for wanting the U.S. to 'break up', well, that's his opinion; it doesn't mean that everyone shares it. As for anarchy--

whether it happens or not, I probably won't have much to say about it--

I feel that the machine of intrigue and oligarchy has been rolling over me for all of my life--

I'd like to stop it, and I try to live independently (as much as possible in the 21st century)--

but I honestly don't know what is going to happen. I think there is going to be an economic collapse, and I've tried to prepare for it.

But the idea of excluding people based upon their philosophies, if *you* don't agree with them, doesn't seem very liberty-minded to me.

Cancer? So eradicate the cancer? I hope you realize what you are really saying.

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

and not with kid gloves

"But the idea of excluding people based upon their philosophies, if *you* don't agree with them, doesn't seem very liberty-minded to me."

They need to be dealt with, and not with kid gloves. They need to be called out for what they are, and what they are is something that has NO INTEREST IN FIXING OR RECLAIMING OUR REPUBLIC.

"Cancer? So eradicate the cancer? I hope you realize what you are really saying."

I know what I said, and I know what you want to hear, but Cancers CAN be cured, but most Anarchists enjoy being a cancer in the liberty movement.

Cutting out a cancer doesn't mean you kill it, but the cancer does die alone in the light of day. A cancer is something that survives by feeding on you.

A cancer eradicates itself. I cancer wants to use you, it needs you, but you don't need it.

I'm waiting--


Your response reminds me of McCarthy, who was a complicated individual. I don't like the way he was treated; he may have been railroaded, but I also believe he went too far. I would like to believe in him; he didn't get along with Truman.

McCarthy accomplished getting ridicule for anyone who questioned communism; are *you* certain you're not doing the same thing for anarchy?

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

at least you're being honest--


I have to hand you that.

Don't think we're going to find much to agree about--

But I'm going to give you an opportunity to explain your position.

I want to know.

What, to you, is the definition of anarchist? How did you arrive at that definition? What is typical behavior for anarchists? (Be reasonable, please; I'm not asking for slurs)

Give me examples of what anarchists are doing to destroy human beings: genocide, wars, social experimentation, medical experimentation, etc. I realize that there have been some anarcho/terrorists (hate using that word) in the past; some are quite famous, presumeably. What about now?

(I know there is more, but I can't think of it right now)

How involved are anarchists (and can they be grouped together; "nobody" wants *us* to use the word 'collective' anymore) in weapons manufacturing? (I'm not talking about historically; the small amount of research I have done shows that some anarchists traditionally have been violent; some have been peaceful)

How involved are they in corporate welfare or corporate abuse? What are their lobbys, or do they have lobbys? (sp?; it could be 'lobbies'; not sure)--

Do anarchists poison water supplies? Give me some examples, if you know of any. Do anarchists kidnap children? Do they run drug and other 'rings'?

I am honestly curious. No sarcasm intended. I know very little about anarchy. If it is behind the mess this world is in, and I don't know about it, then I ought to.

I will not say beforehand that I will accept everything you say as truth, even if you believe it is true, but I will weigh it fairly before making a decision--

How is Ron Paul an anarchist? I'm sure he's quite disgruntled with government after 30 years in congress, but how is he an anarchist?

With the small amount of reading I have done, I can see that anarchists are all over the chart--

some sound reasonable; some sound like madmen/women . . .

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

You're an Anarchist playing dumb.

"What, to you, is the definition of anarchist?"

Do you understand that it's not me who creates or defines words, and in the end it doesn't even matter what you try and call yourself; you're still just an Anarchist? Here, let me tell you about Anarchy, Anarchism, and Anarchists, and then you'll understand why they have no interest in fixing or reclaiming our Republic.

- Merriam -Websters
a : absence of government
b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority
c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government
a : absence or denial of any authority or established order
b : absence of order : disorder
3: anarchism


1.a state of society without government or law.
2.political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control: The death of the king was followed by a year of anarchy. Synonyms: lawlessness, disruption, turmoil.
3.anarchism ( def 1 ) .
4.lack of obedience to an authority; insubordination: the anarchy of his rebellious teenage years.
5.confusion and disorder:


1: a political theory holding all forms of governmental authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups
2: the advocacy or practice of anarchistic principles

1.a doctrine urging the abolition of government or governmental restraint as the indispensable condition for full social and political liberty.
2.the methods or practices of anarchists, as the use of violence to undermine government.


1: a person who rebels against any authority, established order, or ruling power
2: a person who believes in, advocates, or promotes anarchism or anarchy; especially : one who uses violent means to overthrow the established order


1.a person who advocates or believes in anarchy or anarchism.
2.a person who seeks to overturn by violence all constituted forms and institutions of society and government, with no purpose of establishing any other system of order in the place of that destroyed.
3.a person who promotes disorder or excites revolt against any established rule, law, or custom.

"How did you arrive at that definition?"

Opened my eyes to reality and objective truth.

"What is typical behavior for anarchists?"

To destroy.

"Give me examples of what anarchists are doing to destroy human beings: genocide, wars, social experimentation, medical experimentation, etc."

Anarchists want to destroy government and let chaos reign, and being victims of causality they blame injustice, whether you're talking genocide or war on government. This is an oversimplification. Injustice comes from mankind's covetous nature, not government. We serve that nature just fine without governments. Getting rid of government doesn't get rid of anything you're going to try and blame government for.

The only legitimate purpose of government, is to defend liberty, to serve justice, and what an Anarchist REALLY wants is to unleash what causes injustice, mans covetous nature, in a free market of collective violence.

They're wanna be Warlords and Barbarians, users and destroyers.

They're WORTHLESS to liberty in every way imaginable, and right on cue, here they are attempting to destroy rather than fix or reclaim our Republic.

"How involved are anarchists (and can they be grouped together; "nobody" wants *us* to use the word 'collective' anymore) in weapons manufacturing?"

Do you think you can get rid of weapons in Anarchy? ROFL!!!

Just as involved as anybody else. They're users and phonies who want to use free market solutions to provide justice and security rather than government, so I imagine they're heavily involved in weapons manufacturing.

"How involved are they in corporate welfare or corporate abuse? What are their lobbys, or do they have lobbys? (sp?; it could be 'lobbies'; not sure)--"

An Anarchist doesn't want any Corporate Lobbyists. They want an incorporation to be able to buy and use violence to stifle their competition within a free market of collective violence.

Government is collective force, and corporations lobby to use regulations (collective force) to stifle their competition. In Anarchy, there will be NO LOBBYISTS REQUIRED. He who can buy the most violence will write the regulations, and those regulations will have NOTHING to do with a free market or your liberty.

Anarchists are currently HEAVILY involved in lobbying. They're called Fascists, and it's all becoming a big pain in the ass to explain to people how it is our government is using collective force to serve justice, rather than simply serving their Fascist cronies.

Crony Capitalists (Fascists) will LOVE ANARCHY. Can you compete with them. How big is your wallet? How are you with logistics? Are you familiar with privately contracted military assets, and what the free market has to offer the modern day Anarcho-Fascist?

"How is Ron Paul an anarchist? I'm sure he's quite disgruntled with government after 30 years in congress, but how is he an anarchist?"

Ron Paul is a voluntarist who endorses the idea that you can "opt out" of the society you live in, but he also says that the only legitimate purpose of government is to defend liberty. He's saying that you should live in a just society, but you shouldn't have to pay anything in blood or treasure to serve justice defending liberty.

What he's proposing is called being "a freeloader"; somebody who wants others to pay their way, to live within a society enjoying the umbrella of security it provides without paying anything. People are free to leave the US, and I truly wish every Anarchist at the DP who hates the Constitution, the US and its people would pack their bags, and leave.

"some (Anarchists) sound reasonable; some sound like madmen/women"

Some are better fakers than others. They're what's called nihilists. A nihilist is somebody that rejects morality and truth believing that there is no objective basis for either. They're the very opposite of reasonable, and they get off destroying other people's principles, or at least trying, because succeeding reinforces their own.

That's all they're really interested in, destroying. If there's any principle they serve, it is the principle that order comes from chaos.

PS ME: "I don't create or define words"

I take that back, words can be newly created and defined. Here's one I heard the other day for the first time; "Anarcho-Barbarian", "AnBarb" for short, and since you NOW what what an Anarchist is, you can figure out how Barbarian is an appropriate way to describe this political subgroup, and it's funny because Anarchists know they need to try and call themselves something OTHER than what they are.

It was kind of you to copy out the definitions for me--

I haven't paid much attention to the discussions about anarchy on DP before--

Your writing implies that you are a suspicious person. In your subject line you say that I am an anarchist who is playing dumb.

No, I'm not. I really haven't studied anarchism. I have 'followed' Ron Paul (not as a disciple; by following I mean I have watched and listened to him), because he has promoted the constitution. I guess I just don't understand how you think that his focus on personal liberty is anarchist or how you think that he doesn't believe that he shouldn't support anything, that he is a freeloader. He served in the military, didn't he? And it seems to me that he has put a lot 'on the line' to teach people about the constitution.

I may be naive, and I may be old(er), but I'm not an anarchist. I'm a Christian, and I believe in free will.

I believe in accountability; I believe in personal responsibility; that doesn't mean that I don't think that, in the world's present state, no government is needed at all. (There will come a time when, I believe, Jesus Christ will reign) I believe our present government is highly corrupt, and I don't have a solid answer for what to do about that, especially after the hijacking of the recent election by so many forces.

I believe in the authority of Jesus Christ, but I also respect the beliefs of those who are not Christians; I don't see any anarchy in that.

I pay my own way; I pay as I go. If you could see "me" (spouse and me) right now, you would laugh to think we are anarchists or that we want to destroy anyone--

We live very modestly; we are as independent as people our age can be; we cut the wood we use to heat our home; we grow our own food; we take nothing from anyone.

We just want the violence to stop. You say that the government is not behind wars and oppression, that only man's greed is behind it, then you say, later, that the government is a corporation, and, like any corporation, can buy its own military force.

So, which is it? Who, if not a corrupt government, influenced by corrupt people, is behind the violence around the world that is being perpetuated by the present American military?

So, the globalist bankers who run the Federal Reserve are anarchists. If anarchists are everything you say they are, then I will agree with that. Much of the rest of what you said does seem a bit confusing and confused.

I suspect that you are frustrated and angry. I understand that. Honestly, at my age, there are times when I think death will be sweet, but I'm not going to give up. I believe there is a better place, but I believe that even in heaven there are laws--

I don't believe laws are bad, if they are the laws of God. Is that anarchy speaking? Well, if so, then I must be one of those--

I'm anti-war, so how does that make me an anarchist?

Oh well. I tried. I am going to sound really like a hippy right now, and I'm not one; I never was, even though I was around during that time--

but I feel the 'pain' of many on here (DP)--

I understand what it is like to be hungry, to feel oppressed and . . . to wonder what kind of a future my children will have. I have grandchildren, and I worry about their future, and spouse and I taught our children at home, and we read the constitution with them--

I suppose that is because we are anarchists, that we read the constitution to/with our children. We taught them to work hard, and they do--

We taught them to live by the golden rule, and they do, we hope; we think they do; they aren't all living at home anymore.

Sometimes it is easy to feel hopeless, but I have faith in God and hope in the future, because of Jesus Christ.

I don't think that means I'm an anarchist. But if you want to continue to believe that I am an anarchist, or that I support those who want to destroy other human beings, there isn't much I can do about it.

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

"We just want the violence to stop."

"We just want the violence to stop."

Then stop trying to blame government. The solution starts from the bottom and goes all the way to the top.

You just said that you believe in free will and as you may know, people CHOOSE to use violence to take what they covet. They CHOOSE to be destroyers. You can either use violence to take what you covet (serve injustice) or stop them with (serve justice). Nobody ever WANTS to face justice. It's imposed on them.

Being an Anarchist won't get rid of violence or get people to stop using it to take what they covet, it will encourage them to do exactly that in a free market of violence.

If you just want the violence to stop, than you wouldn't think for a second that Anarchy serves that agenda, because nobody knows better than an Anarchist that they're worthless to liberty because they reject justice.

It's not government an Anarchist fears. It's justice, and when a people decide liberty is their enemy and beg for injustice, they get the leaders they deserve.

Getting rid of government won't stop injustice, it won't stop people from begging for injustice from corrupt leaders, it won't get rid of collective violence or mans covetous nature. Anarchists know this VERY well.

Anarchists aren't as dumb as they pretend to be, but they DO think they're surrounded by dumb people. They aren't surrounded by dumb people. They're surrounded by liars and covetous people who want what injustice offers.

What an Anarchist wants is to get rid of anybody who's tasked with serving justice, and they'll get the leaders they deserve.

Romans 13

"1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:

4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.

6 For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.

7 Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.

8 Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.

9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.

11 And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep: for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed.

12 The night is far spent, the day is at hand: let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armour of light.

13 Let us walk honestly, as in the day; not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and wantonness, not in strife and envying.

14 But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof."

Don't try and blame government. God loves justice and people always get what's justly coming to them.