Sunday, October 30, 2011

Gary North's pitchman

I see that Gary North has joined the 9/11 Truthers.



North is a very bright guy, but I think that’s his snare. He’s too enamored with his own intelligence. He feels the need to constantly prove that he’s the smartest guy in the room, and the way he does that is to challenge the conventional wisdom.

Now there’s nothing inherently wrong with challenging the conventional wisdom. Conventional wisdom is often circular, self-reinforcing groupthink. Like an urban legend. No one remembers who started the rumor, but once it goes viral, sheer repetition lends it unquestioned credibility.

The problem, though, is that to maintain his reputation as the smartest man in the room, North has to constantly cook up alternative explanations for the real reason things are the way they are. Simple, obvious explanations are disdained because anyone can think of the obvious. What’s obvious doesn’t give you an opening to flaunt your superior intelligence. No, you must uncover something ingenious and nefarious to brandish your brilliance.

While we’re on the subject of Gary North, I often wonder to what extent Ron Paul is the front man or pitchman for Gary North. They have a longstanding association, and many of Paul’s outlier views parallel North’s positions.

I don’t know if anyone has studied the extent to which Paul is channeling North. You have organizations like TheocracyWatch and the Southern Poverty Law Center that take an interest in this sort of thing, but that’s a case of one fringe group monitoring the activities of another fringe group. One tinfoil hatter denouncing another tinfoil hatter.

It’s not something I’ve bothered to investigate myself. I’m just struck by the suggestive circumstantial evidence. 

14 comments:

  1. While we’re on the subject of Gary North, I often wonder to what extent Ron Paul is the front man or pitchman for Gary North. They have a longstanding association, and many of Paul’s outlier views parallel North’s positions.

    Interesting. Isn't North still a Reconstructionist? If so, that would seem to be an antithesis to Paul's libertarianism.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Actually, theonomists favor limited gov't and local gov't.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Yes, but the dominionism aspect of Reconstructionism seems at odd with Paul's views, or so it seems when considering Paul's foreign policy views.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Not sure about that either. To my knowledge, theonomists oppose standing armies.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Nor does Paul seem to advocate OT sanctions against homosexuality and abortions. I believe you pointed out Paul's somewhat confused stance on abortion. Add to that, I believe Reason magazine is a big Paul supporter.

    Nevertheless, an interesting connection to be sure.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "I believe you pointed out Paul's somewhat confused stance on abortion."

    I'm thinking Ron Paul is staunchly pro-life. He speaks of the time he saw a baby delivered, and down the hall he saw a baby thrown in a bucket. He surely is quite strongly apposed to abortion.

    ReplyDelete
  7. gsnieder said...

    "Yes, but the dominionism aspect of Reconstructionism seems at odd with Paul's views, or so it seems when considering Paul's foreign policy views."

    Yet it's striking that the Chalcedon Foundation has been publicly supportive of Ron Paul:

    Chalcedon Blog Archive
    http://chalcedon.edu/blog/2007/05/god-bless-rep-ron-paul.php

    Chalcedon Blog Archive
    http://chalcedon.edu/blog/2007/06/why-does-ron-paul-want-to-shut...

    Chalcedon Blog Archive
    http://chalcedon.edu/blog/2008/01/ron-paul-beating-fred-and-rudy...

    ReplyDelete
  8. Gary North sells snake oil. Remember Y2k? Disaster was going to cause society to break down but he was selling TWO YEARS subcriptions to his literature until right before the "crash". LOL!

    Before that it was imminent Nuclear War, and before that AIDS was going to go airborne.

    I mean, this guy changes disasters as fast as Franky Schaeffer changes religions!

    Whatever he is pushing, it isn't the Gospel.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Steve said...

    "Yet it's striking that the Chalcedon Foundation has been publicly supportive of Ron Paul:"

    Yes, and as I noted earlier, it is equally striking that the Objectivist (Atheist?) Reason magazine is also publicly supportive of Ron Paul. He seems to have some odd bedfellows. They have taken notice of Reconstructionists...

    reason.com/archives/1998/11/01/invitation-to-a-stoning

    ReplyDelete
  10. donsands said...

    "I'm thinking Ron Paul is staunchly pro-life... He surely is quite strongly apposed to abortion."

    What Paul gives on the one hand for the pro-life position he takes away with the other hand for the State rights position.

    Don't get me wrong, I'm a Ron Paul supporter. At this point in time there is no other sensible alternative.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I appreciate that g.

    I would hope Ron stands first and foremost on the truth of God gives life at conception. And second on the US Constitution, which is a mighty fine document for us people here in the earth, and in such a dark age. I'll have to check into his views a bit more I suppose.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I agree donsands.

    But I also believe that an argument could be made based purely on Constitutional values, that the declaration of independence call for the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are the core values of our Republic, and that abortion thus violates one of the core values of our Republic.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Gsnieder,

    As an unapologetic Reconstructionist myself, my two cents worth is this: Your first comment suggested that Reconstructionism is antithetical to political libertarianism.

    I don't believe it is. Not at all, really. In fact, if I got all my political wishes, libertarians would think all their dreams had come true.

    A theonomist vision (this theonomist at least) for America would have government shrinking away to near invisibility.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Gordon said...

    "In fact, if I got all my political wishes, libertarians would think all their dreams had come true."

    Does that include, since the fact is that what happens between consenting homosexuals involves neither force nor fraud, you'd agree that government has no authority to regulate or prosecute that behavior?

    ReplyDelete