Angry White Man
| AR Articles on Elections |
|---|
| Nationalist Politics in America (Part I) (Sep. 2002) |
| Nationalist Politics in America (Part II) (Oct. 2002) |
| It’s Race, Stupid (Jan. 2001) |
| Republican or Third Party? (Dec. 1999) |
| We Should Not Support Patrick Buchanan (Feb 2000) |
| Search AmRen.com for Elections |
| More news stories on Elections |
If you are a critic of the Bush administration, chances are that, at some point over the past six months, Ron Paul has said something that appealed to you. Paul describes himself as a libertarian, but, since his presidential campaign took off earlier this year, the Republican congressman has attracted donations and plaudits from across the ideological spectrum. {snip}
Paul’s newsletters have carried different titles over the years—Ron Paul’s Freedom Report, Ron Paul Political Report, The Ron Paul Survival Report—but they generally seem to have been published on a monthly basis since at least 1978. (Paul, an OB-GYN and former U.S. Air Force surgeon, was first elected to Congress in 1976.) During some periods, the newsletters were published by the Foundation for Rational Economics and Education, a nonprofit Paul founded in 1976; at other times, they were published by Ron Paul & Associates, a now-defunct entity in which Paul owned a minority stake, according to his campaign spokesman. The Freedom Report claimed to have over 100,000 readers in 1984. At one point, Ron Paul & Associates also put out a monthly publication called The Ron Paul Investment Letter.
The Freedom Report’s online archives only go back to 1999, but I was curious to see older editions of Paul’s newsletters, in part because of a controversy dating to 1996, when Charles “Lefty” Morris, a Democrat running against Paul for a House seat, released excerpts stating that “opinion polls consistently show only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions,” that “if you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be,” and that black representative Barbara Jordan is “the archetypical half-educated victimologist” whose “race and sex protect her from criticism.” At the time, Paul’s campaign said that Morris had quoted the newsletter out of context. Later, in 2001, Paul would claim that someone else had written the controversial passages. (Few of the newsletters contain actual bylines.) Caldwell, writing in the Times Magazine last year, said he found Paul’s explanation believable, “since the style diverges widely from his own.”
Finding the pre-1999 newsletters was no easy task, but I was able to track many of them down at the libraries of the University of Kansas and the Wisconsin Historical Society. Of course, with few bylines, it is difficult to know whether any particular article was written by Paul himself. Some of the earlier newsletters are signed by him, though the vast majority of the editions I saw contain no bylines at all. Complicating matters, many of the unbylined newsletters were written in the first person, implying that Paul was the author.
But, whoever actually wrote them, the newsletters I saw all had one thing in common: They were published under a banner containing Paul’s name, and the articles (except for one special edition of a newsletter that contained the byline of another writer) seem designed to create the impression that they were written by him—and reflected his views. What they reveal are decades worth of obsession with conspiracies, sympathy for the right-wing militia movement, and deeply held bigotry against blacks, Jews, and gays. In short, they suggest that Ron Paul is not the plain-speaking antiwar activist his supporters believe they are backing—but rather a member in good standing of some of the oldest and ugliest traditions in American politics.
To understand Paul’s philosophy, the best place to start is probably the Ludwig von Mises Institute, a libertarian think tank based in Auburn, Alabama. The institute is named for a libertarian Austrian economist, but it was founded by a man named Lew Rockwell, who also served as Paul’s congressional chief of staff from 1978 to 1982. Paul has had a long and prominent association with the institute, teaching at its seminars and serving as a “distinguished counselor.” The institute has also published his books.
The politics of the organization are complicated—its philosophy derives largely from the work of the late Murray Rothbard, a Bronx-born son of Jewish immigrants from Poland and a self-described “anarcho-capitalist” who viewed the state as nothing more than “a criminal gang”—but one aspect of the institute’s worldview stands out as particularly disturbing: its attachment to the Confederacy. Thomas E. Woods Jr., a member of the institute’s senior faculty, is a founder of the League of the South, a secessionist group, and the author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History, a pro-Confederate, revisionist tract published in 2004. Paul enthusiastically blurbed Woods’s book, saying that it “heroically rescues real history from the politically correct memory hole.” Thomas DiLorenzo, another senior faculty member and author of The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War, refers to the Civil War as the “War for Southern Independence” and attacks “Lincoln cultists”; Paul endorsed the book on MSNBC last month in a debate over whether the Civil War was necessary (Paul thinks it was not). In April 1995, the institute hosted a conference on secession at which Paul spoke; previewing the event, Rockwell wrote to supporters, “We’ll explore what causes [secession] and how to promote it.” Paul’s newsletters have themselves repeatedly expressed sympathy for the general concept of secession. In 1992, for instance, the Survival Report argued that “the right of secession should be ingrained in a free society” and that “there is nothing wrong with loosely banding together small units of government. With the disintegration of the Soviet Union, we too should consider it.”
The people surrounding the von Mises Institute—including Paul—may describe themselves as libertarians, but they are nothing like the urbane libertarians who staff the Cato Institute or the libertines at Reason magazine. Instead, they represent a strain of right-wing libertarianism that views the Civil War as a catastrophic turning point in American history—the moment when a tyrannical federal government established its supremacy over the states. As one prominent Washington libertarian told me, “There are too many libertarians in this country . . . who, because they are attracted to the great books of Mises, . . . find their way to the Mises Institute and then are told that a defense of the Confederacy is part of libertarian thought.”
Paul’s alliance with neo-Confederates helps explain the views his newsletters have long espoused on race. Take, for instance, a special issue of the Ron Paul Political Report, published in June 1992, dedicated to explaining the Los Angeles riots of that year. “Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began,” read one typical passage. According to the newsletter, the looting was a natural byproduct of government indulging the black community with “‘civil rights,’ quotas, mandated hiring preferences, set-asides for government contracts, gerrymandered voting districts, black bureaucracies, black mayors, black curricula in schools, black tv shows, black tv anchors, hate crime laws, and public humiliation for anyone who dares question the black agenda.” It also denounced “the media” for believing that “America’s number one need is an unlimited white checking account for underclass blacks.” To be fair, the newsletter did praise Asian merchants in Los Angeles, but only because they had the gumption to resist political correctness and fight back. Koreans were “the only people to act like real Americans,” it explained, “mainly because they have not yet been assimilated into our rotten liberal culture, which admonishes whites faced by raging blacks to lie back and think of England.”
This “Special Issue on Racial Terrorism” was hardly the first time one of Paul’s publications had raised these topics. As early as December 1989, a section of his Investment Letter, titled “What To Expect for the 1990s,” predicted that “Racial Violence Will Fill Our Cities” because “mostly black welfare recipients will feel justified in stealing from mostly white ‘haves.’” Two months later, a newsletter warned of “The Coming Race War,” and, in November 1990, an item advised readers, “If you live in a major city, and can leave, do so. If not, but you can have a rural retreat, for investment and refuge, buy it.” In June 1991, an entry on racial disturbances in Washington, DC’s Adams Morgan neighborhood was titled, “Animals Take Over the D.C. Zoo.” “This is only the first skirmish in the race war of the 1990s,” the newsletter predicted. In an October 1992 item about urban crime, the newsletter’s author—presumably Paul—wrote, “I’ve urged everyone in my family to know how to use a gun in self defense. For the animals are coming.” That same year, a newsletter described the aftermath of a basketball game in which “blacks poured into the streets of Chicago in celebration. How to celebrate? How else? They broke the windows of stores to loot.” The newsletter inveighed against liberals who “want to keep white America from taking action against black crime and welfare,” adding, “Jury verdicts, basketball games, and even music are enough to set off black rage, it seems.”
Such views on race also inflected the newsletters’ commentary on foreign affairs. South Africa’s transition to multiracial democracy was portrayed as a “destruction of civilization” that was “the most tragic [to] ever occur on that continent, at least below the Sahara”; and, in March 1994, a month before Nelson Mandela was elected president, one item warned of an impending “South African Holocaust.”
Martin Luther King Jr. earned special ire from Paul’s newsletters, which attacked the civil rights leader frequently, often to justify opposition to the federal holiday named after him. (“What an infamy Ronald Reagan approved it!” one newsletter complained in 1990. “We can thank him for our annual Hate Whitey Day.”) In the early 1990s, a newsletter attacked the “X-Rated Martin Luther King” as a “world-class philanderer who beat up his paramours,” “seduced underage girls and boys,” and “made a pass at” fellow civil rights leader Ralph Abernathy. One newsletter ridiculed black activists who wanted to rename New York City after King, suggesting that “Welfaria,” “Zooville,” “Rapetown,” “Dirtburg,” and “Lazyopolis” were better alternatives. The same year, King was described as “a comsymp, if not an actual party member, and the man who replaced the evil of forced segregation with the evil of forced integration.”
While bashing King, the newsletters had kind words for the former Imperial Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, David Duke. In a passage titled “The Duke’s Victory,” a newsletter celebrated Duke’s 44 percent showing in the 1990 Louisiana Senate primary. “Duke lost the election,” it said, “but he scared the blazes out of the Establishment.” In 1991, a newsletter asked, “Is David Duke’s new prominence, despite his losing the gubernatorial election, good for anti-big government forces?” The conclusion was that “our priority should be to take the anti-government, anti-tax, anti-crime, anti-welfare loafers, anti-race privilege, anti-foreign meddling message of Duke, and enclose it in a more consistent package of freedom.” Duke is now returning the favor, telling me that, while he will not formally endorse any candidate, he has made information about Ron Paul available on his website.
{snip}
When I asked Jesse Benton, Paul’s campaign spokesman, about the newsletters, he said that, over the years, Paul had granted “various levels of approval” to what appeared in his publications—ranging from “no approval” to instances where he “actually wrote it himself.” After I read Benton some of the more offensive passages, he said, “A lot of [the newsletters] he did not see. Most of the incendiary stuff, no.” He added that he was surprised to hear about the insults hurled at Martin Luther King, because “Ron thinks Martin Luther King is a hero.”
In other words, Paul’s campaign wants to depict its candidate as a naïve, absentee overseer, with minimal knowledge of what his underlings were doing on his behalf. This portrayal might be more believable if extremist views had cropped up in the newsletters only sporadically—or if the newsletters had just been published for a short time. But it is difficult to imagine how Paul could allow material consistently saturated in racism, homophobia, anti-Semitism, and conspiracy-mongering to be printed under his name for so long if he did not share these views. In that respect, whether or not Paul personally wrote the most offensive passages is almost beside the point. If he disagreed with what was being written under his name, you would think that at some point—over the course of decades—he would have done something about it.
{snip}
From his newsletters, however, a different picture of Paul emerges—that of someone who is either himself deeply embittered or, for a long time, allowed others to write bitterly on his behalf. His adversaries are often described in harsh terms: Barbara Jordan is called “Barbara Morondon,” Eleanor Holmes Norton is a “black pinko,” Donna Shalala is a “short lesbian,” Ron Brown is a “racial victimologist,” and Roberta Achtenberg, the first openly gay public official confirmed by the United States Senate, is a “far-left, normal-hating lesbian activist.” Maybe such outbursts mean Ron Paul really is a straight-talker. Or maybe they just mean he is a man filled with hate.
(Posted on January 10, 2008)
Comments
Well, I say we invite Ron Paul to the American Renaissance conference so he can speak. I DO like alot of what he has said and if he is the only candidate saying such things, then he needs to be elected. I shudder when I think of either Hillary or Obama getting elected. Scary!!!!
Posted by jenbelievesinwhites at 5:25 PM on January 10
And who’s James Kirchick??
“James Kirchick is an assistant editor of The New Republic, a columnist for the Washington Examiner, and a frequent contributor to the Los Angeles Times. He has worked as a reporter for the New York Daily News, the New York Sun and The Hill and has written for magazines including The Advocate, The Weekly Standard, The Boston Globe Magazine and Doublethink. His writing has appeared in The Wall Street Journal Europe, the International Herald Tribune, The Jerusalem Post, USA Today, The Boston Herald, The National Post of Canada and other publications.
“He is the recipient of the 2006 National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association Excellence in Student Journalism award and was the organization’s 2007 Journalist of the Year.”
http://advocate.com/exclusive_detail_ektid50709.asp
Posted by Alan Andrews at 5:49 PM on January 10
It seems to me (if most of what Kirchick is laying out before us in his article has a factual basis) that Dr. Paul has all of his credentials in order to be the next President of what is left of this country.
Posted by Flaxen-headed Strumpet at 5:55 PM on January 10
wow, if mr paul DID write those things, i now support him. sounds like everything ‘they’ are complaining about is absolutely true. I agree with it all and it is supported by facts, contrary to the current ‘political correctness’. i am VERY concerned though if mr paul does indeed think highly of that plagiarizing, abusive philanderer mlk.
Posted by john at 6:09 PM on January 10
Well of course, as the writer of this political hit piece admits, although he implies as much, Ron Paul cannot really be linked to “racism” as we understand that political term to mean, but even were he, so what?
There is simply noting wrong with being a White person, and the sooner writers for Leftist rags such as The New Republic realize that, the better off everyone will be.
Ronald
Posted by Ronald at 6:12 PM on January 10
Well that does it….Ron Paul was just elevated to my “preferred ” candidate.
Posted by Celtic Spirit at 6:16 PM on January 10
James Kirchick you have a problem with this? It’s the most sensible thing I’ve ever hear a presidential candidate say.
Posted by at 6:37 PM on January 10
“Or maybe they just mean he is a man filled with hate.”
>> ANYBODY who doesn’t ‘tolerate’ the far-left’s perversion of culture is ALWAYS labeled a “hater.”
Well, you know the old expression (coined by J.T.):
Calling people a ‘racist’ [or any other of the left’s favorite ‘-ist’ ‘-ism’ and ‘-ic’ words], is a leftist’s most graceless way of admitting they’ve lost the argument.
Posted by Mike B. at 6:41 PM on January 10
Ron Paul. If only this guy would admit he was a white separatist, he might actually have a shot at winning the election.
Posted by at 6:43 PM on January 10
Liberals hate Ron Paul; that’s more than enough reason to vote for him. If he’s not nominated, I plan to write in his name. I’m looking forward to it — to feeling clean for the first time in years — no more voting for the lesser of evils.
Posted by tabbycat at 7:03 PM on January 10
This aricle appeared the day of the NH primary. It is an obvious smear and it has been debunked. He rebutted much of this article on his website. Some of what is attributed to Ron Paul was written by others, and some of what Ron Paul said is taken out of context.
What Ron Paul does stand for is individual liberty.
He would abolish the IRS.
He would abolish the Department of Education and other dead weight departments.
He would end the welfare state.
He would end this war that is costing lives and hundreds of billions.
I am disappointed Amren is running this smear article instead of running articles that clarify and emphasize what Ron Paul stands for.
Posted by at 7:25 PM on January 10
he’s got my vote for what he does and is promising to do, not because of what he thinks. if he is not elected, we are screwed!!!
Posted by dmz at 7:30 PM on January 10
It is a sad commentary on American politics that this article about Ron Paul is considered a negative depiction. What privileged whining group did the author leave out?
If American Renaissance readers had any doubts about who is the best man running for president, they have none now.
Posted by P Noctura at 7:35 PM on January 10
His adversaries are often described in harsh terms: Barbara Jordan is called “Barbara Morondon,” Eleanor Holmes Norton is a “black pinko,” Donna Shalala is a “short lesbian,” Ron Brown is a “racial victimologist,” and Roberta Achtenberg, the first openly gay public official confirmed by the United States Senate, is a “far-left, normal-hating lesbian activist.” Maybe such outbursts mean Ron Paul really is a straight-talker. Or maybe they just mean he is a man filled with hate.
I would say they mean the former.
Posted by Russ at 7:35 PM on January 10
“New Republic accuses Ron Paul of racial consciousness.”
My goodness, isn’t that awful? Horrors!
(Well, he’ll get my vote, anyway.)
Posted by voter at 7:40 PM on January 10
From the time the NWO media became aware that Ron Paul had raised 20 million dollars (six million in one day), they went into high alert. There has been an implied threat to him by Tim Russert, and knowledgeable patriots actually fear Ron Paul will be targeted for assassination.
As far as I’m concerned, this entire article only endears him to my heart all that much more (if possible). Ron Paul believes in truths no matter where that search takes him.
“…conspiracy-mongering to be printed under his name for so long if he did not share these views.”
You mean conspiracy-mongering like the fraud of the Century by the likes of New York Senator Warburg and the financial pirate money barons of his day (a truth Ron Paul is well-grounded in) - the best historical account of the whole conspiracy revealed for the first time in Worldnetdaily’s Whistleblower publication: “The Federal Reserve: Fraud of the Century” (and OH SO critical to understanding our fiscal plight today)
http://shop.wnd.com/store/item.asp?ITEM_ID=1889
Yes, Mr. Kirchik, conspiracies really DO exist and they serve as the vehicle for launching all manner of sinister schemes and human enslavement (ie. Bolshevik Revolution, Fidel Castro/Che Guavara, Pol Pot/Cambodia, Rhodesia/black Marxist rule, the unelected Council on Foreign Relations plotting our North American Union, the Bilderbergers and our NWO). And just because you try to dismiss anyone who categorizes them properly and denounce them as kooks, conspiracy theorists or “conspiracy-mongers” doesn’t make it so. It is indeed YOUR failure to portray them as such (or more typically JUST censor the subjects altogether)that identifies YOU as a propagandist extraordinaire.
Two of the BEST (from the exemplary www.Rense.com website; please see David Dee’s awesome art on Ron Paul too in his archive) and most heartening articles written on the danger to Ron Paul because of the threat he poses to the Establishment, and the second link, a warning to our “elites” of what will happen (truly inspiring) should he be harmed:
ARE THE GLOBALISTS OUT TO GET RON PAUL?
http://www.newswithviews.com/Stang/alan21.htm
Stang - Ron Paul Awakens The Spirit Of America
http://www.newswithviews.com/Stang/alan23.htm
Posted by Voir Dire at 7:41 PM on January 10
I have been following the election campaign fairly closely, but I must admit that — until now — Ron Paul never made much of an impression.
After reading this, however, I feel that Ron Paul could be the saviour of American (and, perhaps, western) society). My kind of guy.
Oddly enough, when reading any kind of opinion, one quickly detects the political tone — for want of a better word — of the article. Whether that writer leans left or right in his thinking. The article above however seems to be a triumph of unbiased reporting … a rare ocurrence in the MSM.
Posted by garywilk at 8:04 PM on January 10
Although the hard-left has been spewing this nonsense about Paul for some time, curiously enough, the mainstream media haven’t really picked up on it. No doubt that has a lot to do with Dr. Paul being so far down in the polling, as I must assume even a slight surge upward and all the cries of “racist” and all that would suddenly fly fast and furiously!
Posted by HH at 8:17 PM on January 10
Mr. Kirchick’s dribble is suppose to make me feel guilty about liking Dr.Paul. Well, sir, you have done the opposite. If one-tenth of one percent of these views are held by Dr. Paul than thank god for the Dr.”enlightened one”. The truth indeed is a scary thing.
Posted by thecelt at 8:19 PM on January 10
Oh, Ron… If only you were a pretty boy; the public would vote for you. The candidates are celebrities, and nothing more!
Posted by Seamus at 8:26 PM on January 10
Whatever, I was wondering when some nut-case would start attacking Ron Paul. Me, I intend to vote for the man. At least you know where he stands. He is the only choice we have if we wish to survive. I have contributed to his campaign and will continue to spread the word.
Posted by at 8:32 PM on January 10
We ought to know that someone like Ron Paul, who is “racially conscious” will never be near the presidency as long as any remote accusation of racism can be proven. Heck, just implied. But I do not doubt that Ron Paul, like many Amren posters, has made many racist statements - and put them in writing. This is why anyone who backs Ron Paul or sends him money is throwing it away. He simply is unelectable in the country that the U.S. has become.
Quote from the movie Bladerunner; “Wake up, time to die!”
Posted by Whiteplight at 8:44 PM on January 10
I suspect that Mr Kirchick is dredging up all the things he thinks will produce nightmares among his readers, but how many of them secretly fear Blacks, rather than anti-Black opinions? In any case, I’m glad that The New Republic has seen fit to print “Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the Blacks to pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began”, and “Blacks poured into the streets of Chicago to celebrate. How to celebrate? How else? They broke the windows of stores to loot.” Many subscribers will read those words and say, How true.
Posted by Schoolteacher at 8:47 PM on January 10
I only wish RP wrote one-tenth of these things. If that were the case, and he would admit that he did, he would instantly become the front-runner among Republican voters in the deep south.
Posted by St. Louis CofCC Blogmeister at 8:48 PM on January 10
Ron Paul is a patriot and a libertarian conservative just what this country has needed for a long time.
Posted by richard at 9:15 PM on January 10
LOL! They’re getting worried so they bring out the spinners and the attack dogs.
Miainstream politicians of both parties would rather have Fidel Castro in office than an honest Politician. It scares them to death.
Posted by Robert Kelly at 9:19 PM on January 10
NEW REPUBLIC IS A RADICAL LEFT RAG.
I do not understand why Amren wastes ink (I mean, megabytes) on anything by the left-wing pro-libbarbarian rag called the “New Republic”. They are basically a mouthpiece of the libbarbarians. Anybody who has culture, morals, loves his/her own nation, or tells the truth or stands up against immorality is often targeted by libbarbarians.
Posted by Thomas at 9:20 PM on January 10
“…presumably Paul—wrote, ‘I’ve urged everyone in my family to know how to use a gun in self defense. For the animals are coming’…”
I noticed how the author, James Kirchick, did not refute even ONE of the factual statements he pointed out about Ron Paul—because he couldn’t. I have a feeling this article will have the opposite effect that the author intended; in fact Kirchick did a good job pointing out the SANITY of Ron Paul’s positions.
After reading this article, I am convinced more than ever that Ron Paul is the ONLY choice for President of the US.
Bon
Posted by BonBon at 10:00 PM on January 10
I understand that there is a Ron Paul site named
RonPaulWarRoom.com.
Haven’t been there but I hear about it on the radio. Reportedly, people are reporting their experiences in voting in the New Hampshire primaries. And how there was/is massive vote fraud. If interested, check it out. I have also heard that about 20% of the precincts in NH used paper ballots. Where the ballots were counted by hand and not machines, reportedly Obama beat Hillary by 19%. In line with the polls just before the election. Me Thinks I smell a rat in New Hampshire…
Posted by at 10:16 PM on January 10
Show me a Mexican who is not racially conscious.
Show me an African who is not racially conscious.
Posted by LOGIC at 10:50 PM on January 10
Ron Paul is an honest man, a man of integrity, a true American patriot. As such, Ron Paul is a threat to the status quo; so of course, we’ll be seeing all sorts of attacks from the status quo.
Ron Paul needs to beef up his security and keep on running.
Posted by Jackers at 10:53 PM on January 10
Notice that, as always, there is not a single actual word of refutation in this article. We’re just supposed to agree, somehow, for some unspoken reason, that these assertions are not merely wrong but evil. What error of fact is there in this evaluation of “Martin Luther” King or that bloviating gasbag Barbara Jordan?
Posted by Cassiodorus at 11:05 PM on January 10
The media and powers-that-be are frantically trying to freeze him out — just as they did to LePen in France.
Posted by 1492 at 11:06 PM on January 10
And how there was/is massive vote fraud.
Posted by at 10:16 PM on January 10
For the all-important news on voter fraud, view the links on one of the best websites available in the alternative media revolution available to patriots (thank you immensely, forever and ever “Fed-up” for the recommendation):
Posted by Voir Dire at 11:17 PM on January 10
Check out the reactions on the “conservative” sites like National Review and the libertarian Reason. It’ll make you give up on the mainstream right wing in American politics.
Posted by Yea at 11:28 PM on January 10
Ron Paul is not a white nationalist. Anybody here who supports him because they think he is is mistaken. His remarks below about Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks will undoubtedly annoy some people here. However, he has never claimed to be something he isn’t so people can either support him or not support him, depending on what they think about his views and beliefs.
This article was a deliberate smear tactic designed to cost him votes before the New Hampshire primary. These are Ron Paul’s comment on that article (from his official website):
“The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts.
“In fact, I have always agreed with Martin Luther King, Jr. that we should only be concerned with the content of a person’s character, not the color of their skin. As I stated on the floor of the U.S. House on April 20, 1999: ‘I rise in great respect for the courage and high ideals of Rosa Parks who stood steadfastly for the rights of individuals against unjust laws and oppressive governmental policies.’
“This story is old news and has been rehashed for over a decade. It’s once again being resurrected for obvious political reasons on the day of the New Hampshire primary.
“When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publicly taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name.”
WHY is AmRen running a damaging article that is full of lies and misinformation that has already been debunked on THE ONE presidential candidate who would actually shut down the border and opposes birthright citizenship????
Posted by Concerned American at 11:34 PM on January 10
“This is why anyone who backs Ron Paul or sends him money is throwing it away. He simply is unelectable in the country that the U.S. has become.”
whiteplight
——————————-
Well then, what would you recommend people should do? Nothing?
Just relax and die???
I find your tone sometimes to be awfully negative!
Posted by voter at 11:50 PM on January 10
“Paul told CNN’s “The Situation Room” Thursday that he didn’t write any of the offensive articles and has “no idea” who did.”
“He added, “Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks, Ghandi, they’re the heroes [of my life].”
So King and Parks are his heroes. Sounds to me more like another guild ridden White guy that will do or say anything to prove he’s not a racist. And if he did say these things, then he doesn’t have the guts to stand up, admit it and defend his position.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/10/paul.newsletters/index.html?iref=mpstoryview
“Paul then said that he is the only candidate running that would pardon all blacks and whites convicted of non violent drug crimes and that the racism is in the judicial system.”
Yep, just the type of guy we need to elect, one that will empty our jails and fill our streets with criminals.
http://www.usadaily.com/article.cfm?articleID=224327
Posted by Drifter at 11:51 PM on January 10
“What Ron Paul does stand for is individual liberty.
He would abolish the IRS.
He would abolish the Department of Education and other dead weight departments.
He would end the welfare state.
He would end this war that is costing lives and hundreds of billions.”
He could only do the fourth thing on your list. The first three would require a vote by Congress, which he would not get. Unless you would like Paul to make himself a dictator? I don’t think that Ron Paul himself would want that, nor do I think that you do.
This belief in a white-knight (like Ron Paul, Ross Perot, or Pat Buchanan) to ride in and make everything better is a form of magical thinking. The President can not act unilaterally. Our system of government is set up so that he can not, and that is still largely true.
The place to build a third party is not the White House - it’s in Congress (or even in state-houses). And it won’t happen in one campaign season - it will require years. It won’t happen with a two-party system either. We should work to turn our government into a more parliamentary, multi-party system. Adoption of Proportional Representation might be a good place to start. That might be the only way for those who believe as we do to gain representation in Congress. Who would have thought that Lani Guinier had our best interests at heart?
Posted by at 7:25 PM on January 10”
Posted by CSinAL at 12:18 AM on January 11
It would seem that Ron Paul’s racial views are stronger
than many is of thought. Thank Mr Kirchick for the research. My
view of Dr Paul has gone up considerably. Lazyopolis, Rapetopia,
this is good stuff from yesteryear. Also I had no idea that there
were Libertarians with real values besides making money. I will
also now check out the Ludwig Von Mises Institute. I love when
our Enemies do research for us. They think they can just state
the facts and let our conditioning do the rest. They are wrong
and will be even more so in the years to come.
Posted by Freyr at 12:42 AM on January 11
Die boldly or live under the Diebold Machines. Change the
settings and presto-losers turn into winners. Oh Brave New World
Order that has such Machineries of Joy.
Posted by Leif the Lucky at 12:54 AM on January 11
Politics in america is just entertainment.
Ronald Regan was an actor.
Arnold was an actor.
Dad Bush thought that his son should be president. And his other son a governor.
Oldman Clinton thought that it would be good for his wife to be president.
Might as well keep it in the family.
Just a soap opera and in the meantime the invasion goes on unabated.
Soon fools you will realize it only too late.
Posted by at 12:58 AM on January 11
“ANYBODY who doesn’t ‘tolerate’ the far-left’s perversion of culture is ALWAYS labeled a “hater.”
Like the old Communist adage:
“If you disagree with the glorious, humanity-uplifiting programs of the State, you are a Capitalistic/facist/bourgeouise pig”.
The “Left” is just Communism/Marxism hiding behind a different name.
Posted by Obscuratus at 2:08 AM on January 11
The bottom line is that Dr. Paul thinks that the death of 600 thousand white men in the Civil War was a bad thing. The establishment thinks it was a good thing.
Posted by Bob Lowery at 2:17 AM on January 11
Ron Paul has lived a very active public life for over 20 years, but only now his “racism” comes to light. Where did The New Republic find all these pamphlets, in a used bookstore next to a manuscript in Shakepeare’s own hand of a heretofore unknown play, “Queen Elizabeth, My Secret Lover”? In a cave in the Sinai Desert, along with the Last Will and Testament of Moses the Lawgiver? Nothing he reportedly wrote bothers me, but it’s pretty mysterious how our enemies are only now unearthing things that ought to have been in plain view. Unless, of course, the writings are forgeries.
Posted by Schoolteacher at 2:34 AM on January 11
Robert Kelley and Voir doir
Camparing the Democrats and Republicns to Fidel Castro and Pol Pot is just plain idiotic. And this really goes to the heart of why Ron Paul or any other Libertarian candidate will not be elected president, and for that matter, why there will never be all that many Libertarian candidates at lower levels of political office.
A majority of White Americans do beleive that the goverment should play a role in protecting ordinary White Americans from the brutality of the more brutal aspects of the feee market and corporate power. This is a serious and intelligent critique the can be made against the abusive power of Big Goverment. However, the Libertarians, more often than not, do make a serious and intelligent arguments against big goverment.
Libertarian based White Nationalism will never have widespread appeal among a majority of White Americans. A majority of Native Born White Americans want social security, student loans for their kids and single payer/goverment paid…that is to say socialized medicine. That’s a fact. Deal with it.
In fact both Republican and Democratic presidents would be more than happy to have Castro murdered if they cold get away with it.
Don’t forget, Ron Paul said in a vdare.com interview with Peter Brimelow that he is in favor of increasing Asian LEGAL immigration(H-1B and L-1 B visa programs) This makes him the enemy of Native Born White America.
Posted by Jupiter at 7:47 AM on January 11
IF Ron Paul wrote these things and IF he gains momentum, the MSM will certainly call his hand on his comments. Then, the moment of truth will come. Will he admit to them or join the ranks of the grovelers? Right then I will decide whom I will support.
John from Arkansas
Posted by at 9:41 AM on January 11
I have only this response to the above article. So, it’s allright for the left wing press to vilify those of us who are of European anhcestry, but heaven forbid anyone should stand up for the rights of European Americans or tell the truth about whats going on in this country.
Posted by Tacitus at 10:01 AM on January 11
“Ron Paul. If only this guy would admit he was a white separatist, he might actually have a shot at winning the election.”
I wish that were true, my friend.
Alas, we live in a leftist world. All of his support would dry up save for white nationalists.
Posted by John R. Kennedy at 10:13 AM on January 11
Although I’m dedicated to voting for Paul I was extremely disappointed in his groveling to MLK and Rosa Parks. He made much of his “admiration” for these two Marxists and, in my opinion, underminded his insistence that he values the ideals of true liberty. As we all know MLK, Rosa Parks, and much of the so called “Civil Rights” icons were unabashed Marxists with bona fide Communist handlers steering their lives. MLK was for bigger government, a monstrous welfare state, and enemy of just about every “RIGHT” Ron Paul would espouse to defend. I somewhat understand Paul’s groveling attempt so close to election day but I would have rathered he remain truthful in regards to the standard orthodoxy of the Faux Civil Rights Movement.
Posted by P Norman at 10:48 AM on January 11
I don’t support all of Ron Paul positions, but of all the presidential candidates he is the only one who is totally honest, straightforward, and rational. He recognizes the major problems of the country (reckless government spending, out-of-control immigration, foreign interventionism, and erosion of constitutional liberties) and is committed to solving them. He is head and shoulders above the other candidates who will not even discuss substantive issues. Unfortunately, there is no way he will be our next president.
Posted by Sardonicus at 11:48 AM on January 11
“black representative Barbara Jordan is “the archetypical half-educated victimologist” whose “race and sex protect her from criticism.” ”
That’s not PC by any stretch of the imagination, but it’s true. If Dr. Paul did indeed say that (as another poster pointed out, it’s curious that it has not surfaced until the day of the New Hampshire primaries)then it means that he’s honest. *gasp*! PC is the greatest barrier to objective communication that exists in the western world and Ron Paul is one of the few who seems willing to stand up to it. The new church of PC is shaking at the sound of Paul’s voice. That’s why this article was publised at the time it was. Even if Dr. Paul isn’t elected president, his candidacy might be a step, albiet a small step twards more sensable communication and leadership. I applaud Dr. Paul for showing true honesty, courage and leadership. Hopefully others will follow his example.
Posted by Karl Alfred at 12:01 PM on January 11
“He could only do the fourth thing on your list. The first three would require a vote by Congress,”
Well according to the constitution, we cannot go to war without a declaration of war either.
Posted by at 12:26 PM on January 11
“A majority of Native Born White Americans want social security, student loans for their kids and single payer/goverment paid…that is to say socialized medicine. That’s a fact. Deal with it.
Posted by Jupiter at 7:47 AM on January 11
Sorry Jupiter, you are dead flat wrong!
If social security were totally voluntary, it would cease to exist by morning….about that I am pretty certain.
The majority is not worried about student loans since the majority do not even have kids attending college! Get REAL. The majority call it good if their kids actually graduate from high school. Those who actually have any business in college, often have scholarships and grants. The ones that work hard have jobs when they are in college. The well-off depend on Mom and Dad. The long-shots try to borrow student loans.
We already have socialized medicine for the poor….it is called Medicaid. We have socialized medicine for the elderly….. Medicare. The military have their own doctors. Unionized employees have contracted benefits. Railroad workers have the Brotherhood. Letter Carriers have their own insurance. Blue Chip corporations have their own benefits. NOBODY WHO THINKS WELL OF THEIR HEALTH PROGRAM IS GOING TO GIVE IT UP FOR A UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE PLAN…..ESPECIALLY AS ENVISIONED BY HILLARY CLINTON….ESPECIALLY AS PROPOSED BY THE OTHER DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES.
Universal health care is a nutty idea and always has been in this country. Lemmie see, you think health care is a “right”? Baloney.
Posted by Memphomaniac at 12:33 PM on January 11
correction:My post should read “Most of time, Libertarians DO NOT make serious and intelligent arguments against big goverment”
One additional point: If Anne Ryand’s model society is the standard model for a Libertrian type society, Most Euro-Americans would prefer to be dead. I don’t write this jokingly.
Posted by Jupiter at 12:47 PM on January 11
>“This is why anyone who backs Ron Paul or sends him money is throwing it away. >He simply is unelectable in the country that the U.S. has become.”
>whiteplight
>Well then, what would you recommend people should do? Nothing?
>Just relax and die???
>I find your tone sometimes to be awfully negative!
Posted by voter at 11:50 PM on January 10
I want to compliment all the Whites who worked on the Ron Paul Campaign (no one besides Whites worked on this campaign). There is no reason to feel down and depressed, you and your candidate achieved many positive results, - the record 20 million fund raising in the last quarter was outstanding. All the people who gained campaign experience, who organized and attending large Ron Paul events should feel good about what they did.
But, just don’t fall into traps that have failed us over and over again.
Congressman Ron Paul never had any chance of winning the GOP nomination or becoming the President of the United States.
He’s a 70-year-old Libertarian.
The Presidential election system is a corrupt fixed system, coupled with the cursed MSM there never was any chance of winning everything at the top - those Whites who put all their hopes in Ron Paul getting elected President- their just not living in reality. Ron Paul has about as much chance of getting elected President in this corrupt system pushing libertarian policies- (let’s cut all the government that 80% of voters want) as 70 year old Ron Paul would have of winning the UFC heavyweight championship fight against the Black Rampage Jackson. If 70 year old Ron Paul stepped into the ring with Rampage Jackson thinking he would win the fight by talking honestly about cutting government spending and bringing back gold back currency, the UFC fight audience would think he and his supporters were crazy.
The Ron Paul campaign is winding down and no one should feel down that the campaign didn’t win it all and save our people. The campaign is not a failure, it was a learning experience. Let’s learn.
And also, let’s try to go for some wins, some victories and these victories must be at the local level. We can win victories at the local level, it doesn’t take $100 million campaign war chest and local victories do not mean we have to waste time responding to New Republic, CNN smears that our candidate said something bad 20 years ago about MLK or the LA rioters/looters.
Posted by JR at 1:19 PM on January 11
“Check out the reactions on the “conservative” sites like National Review and the libertarian Reason. It’ll make you give up on the mainstream right wing in American politics.”
Posted by Yea
I don’t know if I could stand to go there. I can only take so much! Generally speaking, the mainstream right, with their ignorant yammering, makes me pretty sick. The only thing worse is the mainstream left, with worse yammering. Each one is just a distorted version of the other, with little difference on most really fundamental issues. And these people vote! I can only say: Heaven help us.
Posted by at 3:36 PM on January 11
This belief in a white-knight to ride in and make everything better is a form of magical thinking. The President can not act unilaterally. The place to build a third party is not the White House - it’s in Congress (or even in state-houses). And it won’t happen in one campaign season - it will require years. It won’t happen with a two-party system either.
It won’t happen with our present dumbed-down electorate either; and the populace is getting dumber all the time.
Posted by ghw at 3:49 PM on January 11
Mephomanic posts makes it very clear why the Libertarian party will be forever on the fringe of politics in America.
Libertarians make greed into the only virtue. Health care is a right. Right on!!!! The alternative is a slaves choice:work at the terms agreeable to an abusive boss man or starve to death,freeze to death or die from lack of medical care. This is the Libertarian social contract.It is actually worse than the labor contract that a slave has with his master. At least the master will look after the health of his property.
Ron Paul deserves to loose.Like all libertarians, he worships the corporation.
Hilary Clinton is in fact thouroughly hostile to the to the idea of socialized medicine. She has and will continue to push a push a privatized insurance based health care program. At least try and get your facts straight.
Posted by Jupiter at 4:40 PM on January 11
I wonder how racially conscious Ron Paul really is.He is good on illegal immigration but bad on legal immigration.He says racism is bad and a form of collectivism.On the other hand we see quotes from this newsletter which are great.What are we to believe about Paul.He is better than the great majority of libertarians on race. Most libertarians believe in open borders but is he really a man of principle.How could he admire MLK and consider him a hero and allow this very racially aware newsletter to go out under his name.It is all very puzzling.
Posted by Charles at 5:06 PM on January 11
Ron Paul is a free thinker. No room is made for free thinkers in our establishment-rigged political system - especially not for those who would reduce the size and power of government.
Posted by Gary at 5:19 PM on January 11
Regarding Ron Paul’s stance on MLK & Rosa Parks:
Yes, like most of you I am not thrilled with his comments on these two. But I think his take on them, libertarian that he is, is that they stood up against government laws and policies restricting the right to free association.
By the same token, he’s also opposed to the plethora of Civil Rights Acts that require us to let people we don’t care for come into our businesses, borrow our money and do any number of other things. Under a Ron Paul administration, we’d stand the best chance we’ve had in years of actually stopping some of this, and maybe even reversing it.
One last point. Even though Dr. Paul doesn’t agree with state-mandated segregation, as a strong believer in federalism he probably would not interfere with the right of individual States to pass such laws, either. (The only possible scenario might be if he considered the 14th Amendment to override that ability.)
At any rate, even if we don’t agree with him on 100% of the issues, he still represents by far the best chance of recovering what can be recovered at this late date. Those of you who won’t vote for him because he’s not perfect, or because you think he’s not electable, are consigning yourselves and this whole country to oblivion. At least with Ron Paul we have some kind of chance.
Posted by Rational Thinker at 5:37 PM on January 11
> The Ron Paul campaign is winding down and no one should feel down that the campaign didn’t win it all and save our people. The campaign is not a failure, it was a learning experience. Let’s learn.
Winding down? He spent only 1.5 Million in NH and still has millions in the bank, TV ads rolling out in 8 states and plenty of support. If the NH results showed the 14-15% he ACTUALLY got, he’d have been third highest GOP finished and carried momentum. Instead they fixed the vote - there is a move to recount now, but alas the paper ballots have probably already been “corrected”.
I’m certainly not giving up or going anywhere, when there is literally NO ONE else worth voting for.
Posted by Steve W at 6:48 PM on January 11
Camparing the Democrats and Republicns to Fidel Castro and Pol Pot is just plain idiotic.
Posted by Jupiter at 7:47 AM on January 11
I never compared Democrats or Republicans to Castro or Pol Pot. I was discussing the writer’s use of the term “conspiracies” in a derogatory manner as a weapon to quash honest inquiries into evil people with sinister intentions.
As to Robert Kelly’s comments regarding our collectivists politicians’ desiring a tyrant like Castro for a President over a true, principled stateman like Ron Paul, what in the world is your argument there?
Did you miss this one, Jupiter, that by a hair’s width and a prayer failed to become the law of our land?
“Senate Bill 1959 to Criminalize Thoughts, Blogs, Books and Free Speech Across America”
http://www.newstarget.com/022308.html
Every four years we’re given (handpicked by our New World Order media) a choice between Marxist #1 and Marxist #2, and our steamrolling enslavement becomes closer to absolute. What I find so demoralizing and alarming is how few Americans (yes, including some who post here) grasp this reality. I’ve got news for you, Jupiter, we already have our “Castro’s” infesting our Congress as a majority, and have been for decades.
Posted by Voir Dire at 7:29 PM on January 11
Jr, nice try, but I’m not ready to give up. I want real change in this country, not a cosmetic one. If we vote for any one of those sorry candidates the media keeps pushing on us, it will just be a continuation of the status quo. It doesn’t matter if it’s a Republican or a Democrat, with the exception of Ron Paul and a few others, they’re working for the same master. If he’s such a long shot then why is the media in a frenzy over him lately, when before there was nothing but silence? I’ve never cared for politics before but this man speaks to me. I’ve made 4 donations a month for the past three months and I plan on voting for him in the primaries. If he doesn’t get the nomination, I will personally call his TX office and ask his aids to urge him to run as an Independent. If the race comes down to Hillary/Obama and Huckabee/Romney, neither one will get my vote and I will write Paul’s name on the ballot.
Posted by at 8:55 PM on January 11
“It won’t happen with our present dumbed-down electorate either; and the populace is getting dumber all the time.”
Isn’t that the truth? I was listening to the radio the other day and this 18 year old was saying he would vote for Huckabee (I think it was Huckabee) because he heard him play the guitar???????!!!!!!! Our nation is on it’s last legs and this kid is basing his vote on this?
Posted by at 10:32 PM on January 11
The media will scrutinize something associated with a minor Republican white candidate, digging back nearly 20 years to find something “racist”, but they don’t dare look at a front runner Democrate black candidate who belongs to a brazenly black racist church TODAY!
Posted by at 10:38 PM on January 11
Too bad Ron Paul isn’t what this article claimed he is….I also read where Ron Paul signed unto the H.Res 58 bill to “honor” the birthday of Ali Mohammed, along with the likes of Maxine Waters and Sheila Lee Jackson! I was really dissappointed when I read his praise of MLK and Rosa Parks(another stoolie for the Communist Party). I will still vote for him, but when someone seems too good to be true, they usually are.
Posted by at 10:59 PM on January 11
In all honesty, RP, like most libertarians, isn’t racially conscious. But he’s the best candidate. Federal government policies (integration, affirmative action) have done much to harm the white race. If you scale back the federal government, you will give whites some breathing room.
Posted by Thomas at 11:07 PM on January 11
Posted by at 8:55 PM on January 11
I agree with you. The Ron Paul supporters are very different from the supporters of the other candidates. To those that say Ron Paul can’t win, well then the Replublicans can’t win because Ron Paul supporters are not by and large interchangeable with the other candidates. I, and many other Ron Paul supporters will vote for Ron Paul only. You guys that are voting for any leading Republican in hopes that a Republican can win didn’t learn anything from the 2000 or the 2004 election. Voting Republican at all costs is a sure way for the Republicans to take you vote for granted as they reach out to liberals and moderates.
Posted by at 12:46 AM on January 12
JR your analysis is way off. First off you keep mentioning RP is 70 old. So what. McCain is 71, and Hillary is no spring chicken—and they won the primaries. You keep telling us RP can’t win. Well with defeatists like you, of course not. But many of RP supporters are fighters and they are not about to quit. So go whine somewhere else.
Posted by at 2:02 AM on January 12
Every four years we’re given (handpicked by our New World Order media) a choice between Marxist #1 and Marxist #2, and our steamrolling enslavement becomes closer to absolute. What I find so demoralizing and alarming is how few Americans (yes, including some who post here) grasp this reality.
That needs repeating. So true.
Posted by at 3:43 AM on January 12
Slander and liable are always the last refuge of those who cannot defend their position with either facts or historical precedent, therefore the threadbare claims of “racism” are crushingly predictable. And for those who haven’t yet been enlightened, the words “racist” or “racism” no longer have the same effect as thrusting a Christian cross in a vampire’s face…
Posted by at 8:24 AM on January 12
So King and Parks are his heroes. Sounds to me more like another guild ridden White guy that will do or say anything to prove he’s not a racist. And if he did say these things, then he doesn’t have the guts to stand up, admit it and defend his position.
That may be. but at least Paul is a Constitutionalist. The Voice of the People is as the Voice of God to him. And the voice of God (as it were) is contained in that second Stang article that Voir Dire posted.
The Whites of this country are awakening, and the Kipling poem about the “Hate of the Saxon” that will not abate would cause President Paul to sit up and learn, rather quickly, that a plaigarist like King, and a Communist like Parks are NOT role models for anyone, White OR Black.
Posted by Fr. John at 8:39 AM on January 12
Voir Dire
Their are different totalitarian goverments that have different institutional structures behind them. If and when the US becomes a totalatarian goverment the instituional structure behind it will be the corporation. In Cuba it is a different situation.
By the way, coporations by their very nature are totalatarian and facistic in organization and structure.
In a Libertarian organized society, corporations would be able to run wild.
In a society like the US where there will alwayds be a social welfare state, Americans are going to have to be very vigilent..or there will emerge a totalatarian police state. It is theire\ choice to be highly viglient or not.
My own view:bottom up democracy
Posted by Jupiter at 8:44 AM on January 12
“WHY is AmRen running a damaging article that is full of lies and misinformation that has already been debunked on THE ONE presidential candidate who would actually shut down the border and opposes birthright citizenship????”
Perhaps to demonstrate how much race plays in politics, even when they are (suprise!) out right lies.
Posted by Steve Snyder at 10:58 AM on January 12
If Ron Paul’s campaign is winding down, why is his site claiming to have received approximately $744,000 in donations in 12 days? That’s including the $10 I just sent him.
In the immortal words of John Belushi in Animal House, “Nothing is over until WE say it is!”
Posted by Wild Eyed Charlie at 11:31 AM on January 12
“He could only do the fourth thing on your list. The first three would require a vote by Congress,”
Well according to the constitution, we cannot go to war without a declaration of war either.
Posted by at 12:26 PM on January 11 “
Yes, you are right, of course. And that declaration has to come from Congress. However, as we all know, Congress has (illegally, I think) ceded that authority to the executive. However, as there is no binding legal requirement to be in Iraq (Congress only gave Bush a resolution, not an actual declaration of War), I would think that a President could unilaterally pull our soldiers out, if he wanted to.
“In a Libertarian organized society, corporations would be able to run wild.
In a society like the US where there will alwayds be a social welfare state, Americans are going to have to be very vigilent..or there will emerge a totalatarian police state. It is theire\ choice to be highly viglient or not.
My own view:bottom up democracy
Posted by Jupiter at 8:44 AM on January 12”
I agree with you. A libertarian society is not any kind of society I would want to live in. And what most libertarians don’t understand is that very few prople would want it. Even the most rugged individualist alive, a characature right out of an Ayn Rand novel, will eventually become old and feeble. Would even such a one as that want to be an old codger in a world like that, where the only kind of retirement community is, in effect, an ice floe?
Posted by CSinAL at 3:54 PM on January 12
Ron Paul and his supporters have won many important victories, they have held positive rallies, raised great amounts of donations, learned to use the internet in a very strong way. They are part of a talented, highly motivated group of people who can do things. Minorities of talented, highly motivate people can do things. Just because Ron Paul doesn’t win the GOP nomination and by some miracle get elected President of the United States, it’s not over. If you have met new, good activists on this campaign and you can work with them in the future and win battles than the Ron Paul campaign was a success. Just be careful not to stay around too long and start getting addicted to this cursed process and get addicted to seeing your guy or yourself on the cursed MSM. Also, please understand that Libertarian policies may work in many areas but they do not sell well to the general public, including our White public. People want social security, they want government money for the Air Force in Colorado Springs Co, for the Navy in San Diego, CA for roads in West Virginia - that’s why White voters like people like Sen. Robert Byrd.
Posted by JR at 4:45 PM on January 12
It’s nice to know that Jimmy Kirchick lacks a total inability to refute anything Ron Paul has ever said. But you got to admit that Jimmy is good at gutter slander even though it sounds like hate speech against Paul
Posted by factualist at 7:22 PM on January 12
Is it just possible that Ron Paul is that rarest of breeds:
the genuinely good man who understands the necessity of decep-
tion? Maybe he knows what MLK was but knows what it takes to get
elected. In other words, maybe he knows the score. Putin would
never have come to power without tricking the Oligarchs into sup-
porting him.
Posted by Freyr at 11:58 PM on January 12
It’s easy to refute what Dr. Paul said about mlk. Just unseal mlk’s file and let everyone see what’s been written about the saint, mlk. Something tells me that won’t happen.
Posted by Tom Iron... at 9:49 AM on January 13
“…Just unseal mlk’s file and let everyone see what’s been written about the saint, mlk. Something tells me that won’t happen…”
Tom:
The late Sam Francis wrote:
”..Sen. Helms, with legal assistance from the Conservative Caucus, filed suit in federal court to obtain the release of FBI surveillance tapes on King that had been sealed by court order until the year 2027… The Reagan Justice Department opposed this action, and on October 18, U.S. District Judge John Lewis Smith, Jr. refused to release the King files…”
“…’In that forty-eight hours the Bureau acquired what in retrospect would be its most prized recordings of Dr. King. The treasured highlight was a long and extremely funny storytelling session during which King (a) bestowed supposedly honorific titles or appointments of an explicitly sexual nature on some of his friends, (b) engaged in an extended dialogue of double-entendre phrases that had sexual as well as religious connotations, and (c) told an explicit joke about the rumored sexual practices of recently assassinated President John F. Kennedy, with reference to both Mrs. Kennedy, and the President’s funeral’…”
And This:
”..’It was muck the FBI collected. It was not the FBI’s most shining hour… It is there in the form of transcripts, recordings, photos and logs. It is there in great quantity. There are volumes of material labeled ‘obscene.’ Future historians just will not be able to avoid it.’..”
I cannot recommend Sam Francis’s article(s) enough:
http://www.vdare.com/francis/050226_king_holiday.htm
I wonder if any of those files will be released, ever (probably not in my lifetime or that of my grandchildren). Maybe when the Hispanics eventually overtake the USG completely will these tapes see the light of day—after all, they bear no specious White guilt and hate blacks more than any hooded knight of the KKK.
Bon
Posted by BonBon at 11:56 AM on January 13
I’ve never seen an article titled “Angry Black (or any minority group for that matter) Man. When blacks speak for their race, they are never slandered by the media as somehow being “angry”.
Being an Angry White Man, thus, is a great good—a positive good.
Posted by Third World Wasteland at 12:29 PM on January 13
I wouldn’t make too much of RP’s “statements” on MLK et al. Even though RP is a political “outsider”, he’s not a political idiot. And in early 21st C. America, only a political idiot would dare utter ANYTHING other than unadulterated praise about Saint Martin while the media might be listening. We all know that to do otherwise is career suicide. Someday I hope that will change (it will have to) but for now we have to accept there’s a worldwide gag order on criticizing MLK — and on this subject Dr. Paul is, publicly, as gagged as everybody else.
RP’s real feelings about race probably lie somewhere between the fluffy “official pronouncement” on MLK, and the edgier stuff (“Lazyopolis”!) found in his newsletters.
Posted by Right-Wing Rocker at 10:06 PM on January 13
First off…..This article is really about how James Kirchick, and those like him, as well as the people he works for and answers to, can not tolerate opposition, at all.
You know the expression “follow the money”?
Well, this is about “follow the logic”.
And if you do you will find that it takes you as far away from the one place people like this guy hate the most, ie; Reality.
They are all about Abstraction and the Political manifestation of Abstraction, Tribalism.
It doesn’t matter how corrupt, they could care less. They are well-adept at distortion, they lie with no conscience, and they can not, above all, tolerate opposition.
They have all the symptoms of a Personality Disorder.
And that is where we should put all of the focus. All of it.
I encourage all AR readers to research, widely, in the field of Family Systems Pscyhology, and in specific definitions of the various Disorders one can find in the fields of Mental and Emotional Health, as they relate to both individual and group.
It’s all there.
But for such study to really have it’s effect one must conduct their research in good faith, with a spirit of intellectual honesty. In other words, just because they are bad, it doesn’t make us good. That’s the way THEY think, lets not make the same mistake. Perhaps we find during our research that we possess some of these traits. In that case, admit it asap. It clears the air right away and completely steals their thunder. Plus, such a moral and intellectual inventory is what we’re supposed to do. The fact that they don’t doesn’t necessarily mean that we’re angels. If we believe that we’re only going to enable the very Polarization that has so many of us spinning in circles.
Still, in the meantime, they couldn’t make their intentions plainer. If we stand up for ourselves we are supporting the “Oldest and ugliest tradition….” Blah, blah, blah.
They used to get away with this sort of brown-shirt demonization. But now such people look like senial organ-grinders with a monkey on their back, winding up the same old tune, while Time itself, not to mention Events, have made short work of their mindless feel good Utopianism, and exposed them for what they really are, Fanatics.
Fact is, today just about all of their articles on the issues of Race, and not just Race, read less like arguments for a noble, worthy cause, and more like actual symptoms of the Psychological and Behavioral Disorders mentioned at the beginning of this post.
Let’s arm ourselves to the teeth with a knowledge of the concepts explaining these Disorders. That way we will know, without a doubt, who we are dealing with.
Why do you think they want to eliminate free speech?
Because they don’t know how to practice it themselves. Of course.
Let’s put them on the defensive and turn our part of this “discourse” into an Intervention where we demand that they seek professional counciling for their obvious mental infimities.
Posted by Dedalus at 12:00 PM on January 14
“only a political idiot would dare utter ANYTHING other than unadulterated praise about Saint Martin while the media might be listening. We all know that to do otherwise is career suicide.”
Judging by the political comments I hear on entertainment TV, and on the radio, lol - and in college textbooks, it’s not only career suicide to utter anything other than unadultered praise for MLK, it’s also career suicide to utter anything other than out and out scorn for personalities on the right.
There must be a secret law. Some kind of loyalty oath you have to make before receiving your college degree. The consequences of breaking the oath must be quite frightening.
Posted by Mr Pibb at 2:35 PM on January 14
To BonBon at 11:56 AM on January 13: Thanks so much for the link to Sam Francis’ wonderful article on MLK—I hadn’t realized Francis had been a staffer for Sen East and had been so importantly involved in the Congressional fight over the creation of the holiday (I’m trying to inspire other readers to read the article!)
To me, one very telling extract is the following:
“…(King) made obscene and insulting remarks intended to be funny about the late President Kennedy and his sex life with Mrs. Kennedy. It should be recalled that these jokes were made by King about a man who had supported his controversial cause, had lost political support because of his support for King and the civil rights movement, and had been dead for less than three months at the time King engaged in obscene humor about him and his wife. In February, 1964, the nation was still in a state of shock over Kennedy’s death, but King apparently found his death a suitable occasion for dirty jokes.”
This joking about this subject with other black leaders and ministers that were present points out a very important feature of blacks: they do not really feel themselves to be a part of our society, and so do not share our feelings and concerns. We are simply here to be made use of, preyed upon, and the institutionalization of King as moral icon has simply facilitated the predations of this group that feels themselves to be apart from, and therefore without any reciprocal obligations to, the society in which they live.
Reasonable and honest blacks might respond to my assertion: well of course we feel that way, how could you expect us to feel otherwise—those attitudes were a reflection of our actual circumstances until about 60 years ago, and you can’t expect such attitudes to change in just 60 years.
Okay; maybe. But I see no indications, no reasons for hope, that such black attitudes will EVER change.
Posted by H. Dumpty at 6:31 PM on January 14
“I wonder if any of those [MLK] files ever will be released, (probably not in my lifetime or that of my grandchildren). Maybe when the Hispanics eventually overtake the USG completely will these tapes see the light of day.”
posted by Bon
More likely, something will have “happened” to them by that time. Or perhaps they will be found to have “decomposed” beyond any possible use.
Posted by browser at 2:51 PM on January 16
It turns out that Ron Paul’s newsletters were almost certainly written by Lew Rockwell … but he’s being oddly silent on the subject. Of course, the question remains of why Dr. Paul let that sort of trash go out in his name. Yes, Donna Shalala is indeed a puny lesbian, but it’s pretty bad form to holler about it in a newsletter, especially if you hope to be taken seriously.
Posted by Flossie at 4:38 PM on January 17