Theories on the Ron Paul Campaign

Miscellaneous General
1

split from [Ron Paul ends campaigning, but stays in the race for GOP nomination]

Some of this I have already stated (sorry for repetition), but here is my basic outline of this:

Cynical thought about the Ron Paul campaign

Every campaign says, “we are still moving ahead…blah blah blah, what best for America.” Gingrich, Cain, Perry, and Santorum all said that they were still going to push their agendas…it is basic PR; 101 type stuff.

Every campaign still tries to influence the people who are loyal to it. Paul isn’t doing anything special. This nonsense going around that “Ron Paul didn’t end his campaign” is starting to freak me out. Are the Paul supporters as delusional as others have said and I not noticed it?

I held no bones about this being a revolution. I took the word coup seriously when used to describe Paul’s State GOP and delegate election success. That is what it was; a big middle finger to the mainstream process. They took over the party apparatus outside of the wishes of the majority of the party’s constituency. It is an unavoidable fact. Whether they played by the rules in doing so is irrelevant.

The Paul campaign has copped out after they realized that the RNC will get violent (in the wake of AZ and OK being comparatively worse than the other states). ‘If the Paul delegates really think they are going to get away with voting to suspend the rules on live TV, they’ve got another thing coming.’ The GOP will have them arrested on live TV and, I think, Paul is trying to prevent that at the very least. (I realize it might not quite be live tv.)

I mean, seriously, Benton is encouraging me to vote? That kind of thing offends me. I mean, vote? A lot of good that did in the primary, eh, Benton? You go vote for something. Pfft.

Not to mention I’m starting to think Webster Tarpley may have been right about Paul all along. Whether known or not, Paul has been used by Romney. Tarpley held the whole campaign that Huntsman and Paul were strategically chosen by Romney, because they were the most moderate and leftist, to be ‘wingmen’ allies to derail the possible success of any truly competitive clique (which turned out to be the Santorum evangelicals). It wouldn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out Romney knew all along that the religious right would be his worst enemy during the primary, either.

Possibly circumstantial evidence follows.

Think of this, the PAC “Endorse Liberty” is a front for Romney. A Bilderberg steering member, Peter Thiel, almost singlehandedly bankrolled its “pro-Paul” operations, until it decided to support Romney so they can beat Obama, and, oh yeah, it is run by Mormons from Salt Lake City, Utah…

Now I’m not saying every person must have the same thoughts based on a group they belong to, but…well…what do they say about birds of a feather?

Now, before I get to Romney’s strategy with Paul I’ll point out the obvious. Ron Paul’s economic policy would have involved businesses like Bain Capital. Liquidating good assets from bad compaines? Who does that sound like? Romney in his private life? I submit that this is a strong factor in Paul’s lack of criticism of Romney during the primary. Sure, Paul can bag on him for flip flopping and health care, their wives get along, but not over “I like firing people” comments as the liberals, and Gingrich and Santorum even, seized upon.

Romney “liked Pauls supporters enthusiasm” because we are motivated and active, and we worked for him, for free. The fact that we have the potential to take over and run things was used to scare enough mainstream people out into voting for Santorum and Romney. “Anarchists that want to legalize drugs and prostitution?!?!?” That is what Romney wanted people to think. The disillusioned mainstream voter becomes active when they see “radical” things being promoted. Any clever GOP operative could have creeped on the Mises forum and understood the political fields that are meshed together here. For some reason I don’t think the GOP (ROVE, KARL ROVE; shit flower or whatever Bush called him) or the likes of the those who attend Bilderberg are new at this; cointel.

Paul served that purpose. They used us like we use protesters in other countries. How could we not see it? And Romney now has a base that is aware of the arcane nature of electoral rules and how to fight against a group that is attempting to exploit them. They may be able to use this strategy and the data against Obama (who will assuredly win the popular vote) as well.

That is Romney and TPTBs grand strategy. And if you think this is absurd, look at Romney’s advisers. It is Bush’s team, from foreign policy to security and PR reps (Rubio will be the VP; best guess or Petraeus). How did they win in 2000? Did it have anything to do with arcane rules usurping the perceived democratic process? … That pesky popular vote is problem for everyone…except the liberals and the progressive/socialist propaganda angle (the most effective one by far; religion ain’t got sh**).

Those delegates have a hell of a bed to make. (Make no mistake, I remain somewhat optimistic for the convention possibilites.)

I’d hate to be proven right.

(A little late, but) The Fairest Political Quiz I've Ever Seen
Ron Paul campaign implosion and controversy?
Ron Paul threads
2

Here’s another view: if the movement falters because of this, then maybe it could be said that the movement failed Ron Paul, not the other way around. I thought the movement was supposed to be about the ideas, not about getting Ron Paul elected President (or Rand a VP slot now or the Presidency in 2016, etc.).

In any case, this is why I don’t like electoral politics.

3

They are symboitic.

Paul commands a kind of emotional/personal respect that dead economists and philosophers cannot.

4

True, he’s a living, breathing person.

Personally, I think the movement should start channeling some more Mohandas Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr. and decouple itself from electoral politics. But that’s just me.

5

First of all, I don’t think the Romney campaign or anybody anticipated the absolute levels of enthusiasm for Ron Paul in this campaign. So, they couldn’t plan on something that was only realized in hindsight. Do you think Romney meant to book Detroit stadium and have it turn up empty?? Get real.

Second, even if you were right - so what? Romney is not a serious opposition to Obama. All these paper-polls showing Romney being a close challenge to Obama are going to be shown to be wishful thinking come November. Obama v. Romney is a landslide Obama re-election. Which is precisely why TPTB asked him to run and lose against Obama - they will trumpet the outcome of their phony baloney election as “a renewal of the Obama mandate”. Doesn’t matter that there isn’t a dime’s difference between the two.

Third, we win no matter what. I keep repeating this. It’s important not to lose sight of this fact. Change will not come from within the political apparatus in any case. It’s hopelessly far gone, just look at the absurd $60-$100 TRILLION in unfunded Federal obligations. That’s more than the entire world GDP! Sure, that’s a political system that’s going to last. When this house of cards comes crashing down, the entire country is going to be ripe for an ideological shift and Ron Paul is leading the fastest-growing, freshest and most invigorating movement in living memory. This movement has been here all along but the Establishment has marginalized it using all kinds of boogey-men and straw-men (they want to fill our cities with drugs and prostitutes!) but what credibility will this Establishment have after they’ve bankrupted our once-great society?

Clayton -

6

Or humanity wipes itself out in the Last War. Just sayin’.

7

Perhaps I’m crazy but I’m not actually that worried about “humanity” wiping itself out. Perhaps the US may be reduced to rubble in some chest-pounding war the Pentagon picks with China and Russia through Iran. If things start going that route, I will begin to consider taking more drastic steps for self-preservation.

Clayton -

8

Now, I know you’re not gonna call me out the Romney foresight thing, then claim something like this…Obama has done some drastic things to garner support. He is desperate too.

Romney does have support of the people who are blind enough to think he is different from Obama. I’ve tried talking to some of them, but there are a lot.

You also cannot claim that the country is “ripe for ideological change” and say that Obama’s support is unwavering. TPTB are just hedging their bets.

There are factions within TPTB…and, frankly, public perception does matter in this regard. The GOP may be infiltrated by the DNC, which is what happened to McCain in 2008, and that could be why they are doing some of the strategic things that they are doing. I don’t think Tarpley is an idiot and the Bush team aren’t either.

I know. In a way I agree, Rothbard, Mises, and Hayek were all added to the political thought classes at my university in two years, and in a way I think this is part of the delusion. If you ask a girl to marry you and she says, “egghh, maybe” and you walk away thinking “Awesome. I won because she’s considering.” Nothing has changed except your perception of their perception, which may not even be true.

Where has the Establishment admitted to that?

Or at least he was, until his campaign thinks that the convention might get out of hand. The convention that could bring an infinitie amount of credibility to the cause that is. If the GOP gets its way, Paul won’t even be there.

You sound like Condie Rice and the planes on 9/11, “I don’t think we could have forseen..planes…as missles…”

What a wildly ironic allegory that was.

9

I like your optimism, but this is just nonsense. To suggest that

-bringing hundreds of thousands of troops home,

-closing bases around the world,

-pardoning harmless drug law offendors and getting them out of their cages,

-not pursuing enforcement of unconstitional federal drug laws at all, let alone in states where their own laws contradict the federal mandate,

-vetoing any unconstitutional bill (and everyone knowing he will),

-putting at least one, perhaps two or even three justices that he approves of on the Supreme Court,

-severely rolling back federal spending (at least in the Executive areas he has direct control over),

-rolling back the TSA,

-appointing people he approves of to the thousand or so positions every president must fill throughout the Executive Branch and beyond

-making moves to roll back the CIA and other abc agencies

-spending 4 years making statements that he has made for the past 30 years, but with the Presidential Seal behind him

…“wouldn’t change anything” is pretty ridiculous. Obviously these would be “changes” in the immediate sense to begin with…but on top of that, if you honestly believe they wouldn’t also move to change the political discourse and public perception of a lot of things, I think you’re being naive.

10

The biggest roadblock to RP ever getting the nomination was ironically enough his supporters.

Look how easy they are to troll / get played

http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/tygrrrr-express/2012/may/14/ron-paul-says-stuff-supporters-cheer-world-atlas-s/#disqus_thread

11

Which is why - even if RP were to secure the Presidency - they are very unlikely to happen. Getting elected only gets you in the door. While the President has all sorts of powers on paper, that doesn’t mean he could actually exercise them. Note that the Secret Service is a bit like the border fence… it can be used to trap the President as well as it can to keep him safe.

And of course, you’re absolutely right that just him being there and fighting the fight would get massive publicity far surpassing anything we’ve gotten up to this point in time. So, I definitely want him to win. It’s just that - in reality - he will be instantly facing immense obstacles to achieving every single one of the items in his platform.

Clayton -

12

Nope, but Obama will easily be able to get the Dem base into the voting booth, guaranteeing his 45-50%. But Romney’s support is downright anemic. Republicans will be staying away in droves and Romney will not attract a single swing or independent vote except Mormons… all 100,000 of them or whatever.

So, yeah, Romney v. Obama is a landslide for Obama. My prediction: Obama 55-to-35.

Clayton -

13

Uh…yeah. Psh. You think they’d actually do something like that by accident? As if. The Bilderberg Tri Lateral CFR commission committee of axis of evil that controls every move you make wouldn’t have something like that happen by chance. I mean George Soros controls the weather. You didn’t think something like stadium attendance was out of their control, did you?

Reports on it can be found:

Here, here, here. (Of course I could post more, but this should be sufficient.)

14

Cause Clayton never talks about that angle of things. Attendance to these menail events doesn’t matter. Look at Paul’s attendance; dropped out.

You include BS like this because… why? You are afraid that Tarpley was right all along and you’ve been duped? We all know how think tanks work, but when it comes to us being fooled by them…“No, no, no. Impossible. To suggest that is to say that Soros controls the weather.” A standard response by someone in denial. A foolish red herring that doesn’t address the point made.

We all admit that the FBI entraps terrorists with cointel, but can cointel be used in other contexts? “Absolutely not. You might as well say aliens probed Paul himself they could never pull one over on us.”

Right?

EDIT: If there are other here who think Paul was somehow threatened and then we know that the Bush team is behind Romney…can we think of Hinkleys dinner date with Bush’s son the night after the assassination attempt? Reagan stood up and spoke out against the trilateral commission when Bush Sr. was running against him (accusing it of being a shadow world government). But then he picks Bush, a founding member of the TC, for his VP.

and don’t forget

ooohoooo ohoho Soros controls the weeeeaaatthheerr

15

Because it’s funny. And possibly true?

Not at all.

What think tank do you think you were fooled by?

…or funny joke? mmmm. Mysterious mysteries we’ll never know.

Wait…you’re suggesting Ron Paul is an FBI plant? Seriously?

Hehe. See? Three times in a single post. I knew you’d like it.

16

Just unwilling to address it, huh?

Clever girl, JJ. I’m thinking it is the people that still think Paul has not dropped out that are being fooled. My example, to which you witlessly replied, was simply that the GOP and/or other campaigns employ the same strategies that think tanks theorize and employ.

Do you know what “other contexts” means? All I referred to was the “tactic” of counter intelligence. It doesn’t require the FBI to be involved.

What an imaginative critically thinking reader you are.

17

Thanks. I try.

P.S.

For the record, I didn’t intend for you to get all bent out of shape about my crack to Clayton. I honestly didn’t even notice it was you he was responding to. I honestly just saw his question about the empty stadium and thought a sarcastic response to him would be funny. You’re very sensitive.

:EDIT:

Well now that you’ve gone back and added a bunch of quotations and responses, I guess I have to edit my post too, otherwise you might accuse me of “dodging”.

I didn’t think there was anything to address. It was yawny enough to begin with, but Clayton already responded with a pretty long post of his own, so I didn’t see a real need for it.

That’s me. Like a raptor.

If you say so!

18

The Webster Tarpley audio that someone is so proud of and finds so convincing:

It actually kind of blew me away to hear this. And it’s actually kind of funny to realize someone finds this mumbler and his drivel convincing. I honestly thought there was going to be something of substance…something even warranting any amount of thought or consideration or…something. “A vote for Ron Paul is a vote for Romney”. Oh. Wow. Interesting. Tell me more. “Well you see there’s a deal in place. See you’re a Ron Paul supporter, so you don’t get this because you’re more obtuse than an Obama supporter. But watch the debates. Ron Paul never attacks Romney. They’re in cahoots. That’s how I know. I mean, I’m a genius, so you know. But you know what, dear friend, you don’t even have to be a genius like I am. Just watch the debates with your eyes open. He doesn’t attack Romney. Ergo, Ron Paul is working for Romney. Ron Paul attacks the frontrunner of the anti-Romney vote. He’s obviously not trying to get that vote for himself. He’s just running interference for Romney.”

And definitely listen after that part ,starting at 17:51…he claims that the (sham) anti-Romney/Bain film (which was proven to be full of lies and outright distortions) showed how Romney was a hyena and “guess who came out to defend him…Ron Paul!”

First of all, the film was such a sham that even individuals interviewed in the film went on national television to state that their comments were taken out of context to a point at which the subject matter their audio was used to lend support to, wasn’t even what they were talking about when they made the statements. The Washington Post pointed out plenty of fallacies and gave the film “four Pinocchios”.

Gingrich himself ended up having to make a public statement to the PAC that was airing the film, telling them to “either edit every single mistake or pull the entire film.”

But of course, Tarpley not only goes on as if the film were accurate, he goes a step farther (of course because it’s the only way he can support his narrative) saying that:

“Ron Paul came out…saying 'if you don’t like creative destruction, if you don’t agree that everybody should be fired and companies should be destroyed and shut down, and Romney should walk away with huge bonuses and golden parachute, and you know, ill-gotten gains and he shouldn’t pay any taxes on it because it’s all capital gains and carried interest…then you’re all anti-capitalist.”

Obviously Ron Paul said nothing of the kind. (Even if you concede this as hyperbole, Ron Paul still said nothing of the kind.) This is a gross distortion and mischaracterization of anything Ron Paul ever said. [1] [2] [3] (But of course, again, he has nothing else to point to to create his narrative, so, ya know.)

He claims Paul and Romney refused to attend the scheduled debate in Georgia, thus basically cancelling it, and that this is more evidence of them being on the same team. He (somehow) conveniently forgets to mention that Rick Santorum (remember him?)…the only other main contendor in the race also declined (the same day as Romney and Paul)…leaving Gingrich as the only one who wanted that debate. And Tarpley himself claims that Gingrich is basically the best debator, and of course he neglects to mention the significance of Georgia being Gingrich’s home state. Gee. I wonder why none of the other candidates cared to attend that debate. It’s because they’re all in cahoots with Romney, and Gingrich was his main threat. That’s why. I mean it’s so blatently obvious.

His next piece of “evidence” is the fact that Endorse Liberty (the SuperPAC that originally ran a bunch of pro-Ron Paul stuff) is based in (Mormon town) Salt Lake City. Because, obviously a SuperPAC endorsing Ron Paul would obviously have it’s headquarters in Galveston or some place like that. (This is what Tarpley said.) Right. An organization which by law cannot have any sort of cooperation with the campaign is going to locate its headquarters right in Ron Paul’s tiny Congressional district, on an island, on the coast of Texas. For no fucking reason. So the fact that they didn’t do that and instead headquartered it in Mormon Mecca Utah, that means Paul and Romney are in cahoots. When Paul had absolutely nothing to do with that SuperPAC and was legally prohibited from even communicating with them.

This idiot doesn’t even seem to understand what a SuperPAC is or how it works. He keeps calling it “Ron Paul’s superpac” and claims Peter Thiel donated millions of dollars to the Ron Paul campaign.

This guy is like the left-wing version of Dick “the dick” Morris. Direct quote:

“Suppose you’re for peace. […] Are there good reasons to vote against Ron Paul? Yes there are! Suppose I don’t want to die when Ron Paul cuts two-thirds out of my food stamps. Suppose I don’t want to die when Ron Paul destroys Social Security. […] and similarly for unemployment benefits, for Head Start, for all the other things that he either wants to destroy or cut or thinks is unconstitutional…this barbaric program of genocide against the American people! How many hundreds of thousands, millions of dead Americans do we have to have so that Ron Paul can act out his fidelities for this faulty[?] Austrian School? Isn’t that a good reason to vote against him? I think it is. You don’t want to die. There’s a good reason.”

He goes on to describe how Ron Paul has his “own version of the New World Order”. He quotes/paraphrases from a speech Ron Paul made on the Congressional floor in which he said “we have nothing to fear from globalism, a single world currency, and from free trade.” Now, Tarpley himself admits Paul was talking about and probably meant to say “globalization”, and he also states that by “single world currency” Paul was talking about gold. But Tarpley says these things and the host of the broadcast says “oh my. There it is, folks. Goodbye.”

Tarpley says what Ron Paul is saying is that he has an alternative cheaper path to a universal empire and the New World Order. He says Ron Paul is saying “I don’t need war”, because

“once you have a single gold currency that no government can control, (except it would be controlled by, you know the City of London Bank, who traditionally have control of it), uh…if if you have free trade, that that means no government can influence any commodity flows or have any, you know, dirigistic mercantilist or protectionist policies—and then of course globalism, what he means by that I think he means more like globalization but he says globalism…globalization or globalism meaning what…uh deregulation, privatization, union busting, no estate tax, a race to the bottom, no social welfare, no safety net, and so forth…that of course is the recipe for…that is the end point of the enemy’s New World Order. […] Ron Paul’s disagreement is basically over means, not ends.”

So of course, deregulation, privatization…these are bad things, and dirigistic mercantilist policies are good things. Got it. Thanks Webster Tarpley.

And here’s a few more gems:

“[Ron Paul] says if you have private property, private property trumps anybody’s right to be served…private property rights trump human rights. No. I’m sorry. And we do…Ron Paul says ‘you have no right to medical care’. Yes we do! We’re Americans and we have economic rights. And I don’t care what the Austrian School says.” […]

“A vehicle for peace, keep it clean, keep it single issue if you must, but don’t add in the destruction of the social safety net, the hatred of the New Deal, that you’re going to strip everybody of their economic rights, that’ you’re going to take down two-thirds of food stamp budget, that you’re going to rape Mediaid and SCHIP and Head Start, and all this…you know but this entire, you know, Austrian School ideological baggage, that’s a loser!”

“[Ron Paul] is a doctrinaire follower of this alien, poisonous, foreign ideology, the Austrian School, which has no roots in American history whatsoever. It’s as far as communism or anything else you want to name. It’s utterly alien. It’s not in the Constitution, it’s not in the Declaration of Independence, George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, Abraham Lincoln, were not followers of the Austrian School, uh, and so forth.”

“Ron Paul, Rand Paul support the National Right to Work law, which would destroy all unions in the United States. There is no greater step toward totalitarian dictatorship than the destruction of all unions.”

“This is the irony, is that Ron Paul says he doesn’t want totalitarianism, but ironically everything he does brings it closer.”

This is the guy Aristophanes is getting his stuff from. This is the guy that he “trust[s] on almost everything he says”. Which actually explains a lot. Thanks for sharing that, Phany.

As for Tarpley, I’m actually dumbfounded. I’d actually never heard anything from this guy before, but I was interested because I had heard a few good things here and there about how he had some good insight on the war or on this or that. But jeezus. This is the guy? Is there some other “Webster Tarpley” people could have been talking about? This is the caliber of intellectual thought that passes for praise these days?

Good god.

P.S.

If anyone disagrees with anything Ron Paul said “in defense” of Romney, and/or agrees with Tarpley’s assessment of that situation (or his apparent feelings on the dealings of Bain and the content of that King of Bain film), I’d love to hear about it.

John James' "greatest hits"
What's your beef with Roderick Long and "left-libertarianism"?
19

If anybody is cointel, it’s Tarpley. He spouts economic nonsense left and right. He drones on interminably to make only the most shallow and obvious points, for example, that 9/11 was an inside job. His speeches and interviews leave more questions than answers.

If Ron Paul has secret connections, they cannot be to the Establishment - for the Establishment to use Ron Paul would be like the KKK using MLK Jr. That is, they would be cutting off their nose to spite their face. The CFR elites are very clever - too clever to use someone who will actually undermine their agenda.

A Ron Paul Presidency has always been a long shot. So what? We already know we’re not going to change the system from the inside. A Ron Paul Presidency is just a means to a much larger end. Whatever agenda items he could actually achieve while in office pale by comparison to the political avalanche that he would trigger, potentially leading to a revival of classical liberal philosophy, Constitutionalism, nullification, secession, and a “death-through-neglect” of the Federal squid. Why settle for a $1T in Federal spending? Let’s go all the way and start breaking up the Union and giving local people a say in how things are run in their part of the world again.

Clayton -

20

I say I believe almost all of what he says, and if you’ve read my mentions of him in other posts, his assessment of economics is as bad as Chomsky and where I disagree with almost all of what he says. I listen to him for geopolitics (same for Chomsky) and also listen enough to distinguish what is good information from his own demagoguery. The same as if you go to Alex Jones, the NYTs, or CNN. All perspective has bias.

You found all of the things I have disagreed with him on. He is a hardcore fan of FDR and th new deal. So, focusing on his rheotirc about Austrian theory in general is moot, in my opinion. It is predictable and we all know the standard responses.

I’m glad you felt compelled to transrcibe all of the strawmen and present them as if you know know all of Tarpley’s worth. You were saying something like …

Catching the obvious bias is easy, pat yourself on the back. Tarpley actually has an academic theory of the false flag procedure that is fairly compelling. That link is for a debate that was aired on CSPANs BookTV. You’ll see his bias stackjed against the Establishment bias. (JJ, transcribe some of this.)

The host is a douche. You could have refuted Tarpley’s point about it. Tarpley says that gold has traditionally been controlled by London finance, which is not untrue. Him being an ardent FDR supporter, he also comes from the LaRouche camp (I can already hear you say, “There ya go folks, goodbye.”) which means that he pins a lot of US malfeasance on London and redirects FDR bad things onto others.

I actually think the Bilderberg connection through a Mormon run PAC that has since endorsed Romney is telling. Of course, if you write it off without consideration that is telling on your part. Don’t call the fallacy fallacy or the libertairan sensitivity card and say, “Oh, it’s so usual for Mormons to support other Mormons based on their common Mormoism, I’m libertarian and don’t think people do that kind of thing.”

My opinion does differ from his. For example, I don’t think Paul has a “deal” with Romney. I merely think that Paul knows what Bain does as a company and that it is a crucial part of the restructuring and liquidation process (Paul knows better) and I think Romney’s staff has methods of manipulating their adversaries. After all, it is Bush’s staff. A staff weathered in military grade political propaganda.

Clayton,

You may think this, but it is just his FDRish LaRoucheism that permeates through. It is obvious to us, I know. But, his deep politics analysis is pretty good (he does use circumstantial stuff though). I’ll point you to his CSPAN presentation as well. - His points are anything but shallow in regards to this (the good stuff starts at about 39, but his whole presentation may be worth inquiry).

Didn’t the FBI infiltrate and extremify both the KKK and the Black Panthers? Your example is an exact example of the methodology of the Establishment. They do not need to “make a deal” with Paul, they merely need to manipulate him by working his goals and procedures into theirs.

So, to you using Ron Paul is … a little “on the nose.” Right. That’s a good reason to dismiss something. After all, his presence on the MIAC documents in 2009 don’t show that the DoHS knows that the movement is growing and is an existential threat to their power structure.

This was my point.

Romney is more than happy to encourage your rhetorical extremism in the face of the mainstream voter. Your activism and extremism encourages the mainstream voter to come out and make sure Paul has a difficult time anyway.

This, to me, is a far more believable conspiracy theory than Ron Paul’s, so secret no one can make heads or tails of it, strategy to … oh wait, nothing.