None of the accusations leveled against Ron Paul are new...we've all hashed them out here on the DP. It is little more than a compilation of assumptions and conclusions, very short on facts, woven together to 'prove' Ron Paul is duplicitous.
For example, Ron Paul rolled over and let Romney steal his Louisianna delegates because he was in cahoots with Romney. It is a fact that is delegates were stolen, but it is not clear what, exactly, Ron Paul could have done about it. Appeal to the RNC? They helped in the theft! Go to court? With what money and with what prospect that it would work before the election? Maybe Ron Paul's response was the same as a person who, playing chess, knows he's been checkmated. Tantrums don't change that.
Is it possible Ron Paul had ulterior motives? Possibly. Do we know what they were (if they existed)? No.
I think Ron Paul was bested by a machine that was better financed, with better press connections, and a built-in voter base. Ron's actions are perfectly understandable when put in that perspective. He was repeatedly asked if he was going to win and he repeatedly said he was going to do the best he could and bring the maximum number of delegates to the convention. That does not mean he did not WANT to win, but it certainly means that he knew he couldn't win, given the way his opponent was playing the game. Supporters who deluded themselves after the first few primaries (when the press skipped even mentioning his results) it became clear he was not going to win. The fact that he stayed in the race as long as he did, despite the writing on the wall, was probably more out of loyalty to his supporters than to some nefarious nepotistic motives on his part.