The Compassion of Dr. Ron Paul

Alright. I will be the first to admit that Ron Paul is not the perfect candidate when it comes to securing the rights of European Americans. He is far too egalitarian to uphold the interests of one group over those of another. However, this man is still the ONLY one who would deal with immigration in a reasonable manner (he would abolish the welfare state that encourages it, end birthright citizenship and deny amnesty to illegal immigrants) — almost all the others favor a path to citizenship. Therefore, he has the potential to do so much good for us.

In a world where the laws treat everyone equally, we would almost certainly be better off than one where reverse discrimination and minority favoritism is codified and expected. While it would be nice to be accorded a little favoritism in our own country, we are unlikely to find a candidate that will speak for us exclusively in the near future (that has a prayer of a chance of winning high office).

So, regardless of this video, I will continue to support Ron Paul in his bid for the White House. At the very least, he has been consistent in his pursuit of individual liberty for all, and advocates a return to Constitutional law.

Survival is the first law of the jungle. To surmise what a

candidate really believes and is prepared to assert (as soon as

it is not politically suicidal to do so)—it is basic to consider the demography and the general political-historical climate of his/her constituency. Neither Ron Paul’s congressional district nor Rick Perry’s home country in West Texas is in any basic way alien to AR orientations–whatever verbal smokesceeens may have been deemed necessary in order to

appear otherwise. Both are detested detested detested by the

MSM. My enemy’s enemy is my friend.

3 Urban Teacher:

Read these two paragraphs from Sam Francis’s offering in Chronicles Mag, August 2002:

The most obvious glimmer, of course, is in France, where Jean Marie Le Pen, after three decades of crusading against immigration, placed second in the French presidential primary in April, only to fall victim to a globally orchestrated campaign of vilification and demonization that clearly made it impossible for him to win more than 18 percent of the vote in the general election in May. Nevertheless, the major consequence of the Le Pen balloon was not what happened in France but what occurred in the Netherlands. There the result of the vilification of Le Pen was the outright murder of the man who was more or less the closest analogue to the French political leader, Pim Fortuyn, one day after the French vote.

The Fortuyn murder, by a left-wing crackpot, tends to make conspiracy theories obsolete. No one need speculate any longer that some secret cabal of the ruling classes orders assassins to eliminate troublesome political figures who just won’t shut up or go away. All the ruling classes now have to do is launch precisely the kind of vilification against such figures that the entire European and American press vomited at Le Pen (or earlier against his counterpart in Austria, Jorge Haider, or around the same time and to a somewhat lesser degree against Fortuyn himself). It is now well known to everyone that there are so many free-floating nuts allowed to roam at large through European and American society that the proper sort of vilification campaign can be relied upon sooner or later to trigger one or more of them into eliminating the designated figure. Some friends of Pat Buchanan wondered in 1999 when he was being vilified in the American press in much the same way if that was the real purpose; whether it consciously was or not, it remains a small miracle that Mr. Buchanan — or indeed, Mr. Le Pen, or Mr. Haider, or any such leaders in Europe or America — remains alive today.

The CIA doesn’t need to off Ron Paul. I suspect this wave of vitriol and hate directed at him from the MSM and moreso from neo-cons and lamestream conservatives has the sub rosa motivation on the part of its practitioners to try to get some lone nut out from the woodwork to unload a pistol in his direction, so that the lone cut can impress a girl or create eternal infamy for himself.

I’m cool with this. We’re human beings. We have compassion and we help people who are suffering. We help animals who are suffering, like taking an injured bird to a veterinary clinic for example. I’ll even water a plant if I see it needs it and I have some water handy. It’s our innate compassion, something the white race should be proud of. Dr. Paul did the right thing.

The place where it goes wrong is when we turn our compassion into grandiose plans to cure the world by redistributing trillions of taxpayer dollars, and then deluding ourselves into thinking that we can make the world equal by throwing trillions of dollars in various directions. That’s not compassion, that’s just stupid and self-destructive.

Dr. Paul has my vote. And I’m glad that he helped someone who was in need in a person way. He obviously helped someone who, while non-white, is capable of expressing gratitude. Good!

The neocons are working overtime to bring down the good Dr.

Yesterday on the radio some bozo guesthosting the Mark Levin show howled at the top of his lungs “He’s a RACIST! He printed a RACIST newsletter!”

Then Michael Savage claimed Mr. Paul was “senile” and actually said “Dr Paul is the new Dr. Mengele”.

Sadly, the Corporate Media is out to destroy this fine man. Ron Paul isn’t 100% when it comes to Immigration and I completely disagree with him about drug legalization and a National ID card. Let’s enjoy watching the Corporate Media stooges of both parties foam at the mouth over Ron Paul, especially if he wins in Iowa and New Hampshire.

10 Madison Grant:

The sorry pathetic where-did-they-find-this-goofball fill in to whom you refer was Mark Simone. He also often fills in for Hannity (who is himself banging the anti-RP drums, more so on TV than radio). Obviously, Mark Levin himself thinks that, even though he’s out on vacation, but he’ll probably go ballistic (even more so than he has) when he gets back. Then there’s the “Maha Rushie,” who will probably sound more diplomatic, but I have come to discover that if Mark Levin says it, Rush Limbaugh is thinking it, save he has enough sense not to say it at all or if so not in such a vicious way.

Kudos to Mark Steyn (today’s Rush fill in) for at least acting like an adult and saying that he would vote Paul over Obama just on ObamaCare alone. And, for his many many many problems, among all of the candidates, Romney seems to be taking the diplomatic tack in dealing with Paul.

As far as Michael Savage, he had Ron Paul on as a guest on his show not more than a month ago. Savage’s problem is that he’s all over the map, like Forrest Gump’s box of chocolates, you never know what you’re going to get. It’s almost a new worldview by the week with that one.

But by far the two very worst offenders in the anti-RP vitriol sweepstakes? Two websites, one called “I Own The World” and the other is called “Red State,” the latter having an anti-RP vendetta going for several years. Their rhetoric and fanaticism against Ron Paul would make Morris Dees and Mark Potok blush! If, as I fear (see above in this thread), it’s all a quiet effort in hopes that some lone nut “takes care of” RP, in my never so humble opinion, it will be blood on their hands, all of the above mentioned.

I sometimes recoil at the AR regular poster named “Margaret” and her constant refrain about “unregistered lobbyists,” if you catch my drift. I’m starting to wonder if it isn’t true at least partially. If what I fear happens does happen, and if we had something like HUAC in operation, they should subpoena the financial records of the above mentioned websites and media personalities; they would answer a lot of questions. My bet is American military-industrial complex looking to make a mint off a war with Iran. Always the money, follow the money.

I say all this fully realizing Ron Paul’s flaws, including immigration, and the relative bankruptcy of pure libertarian ideology.

Most of Conservatism Inc is (properly) opposed to ObamaCare. So when President Romney won’t repeal it, I’ll be thinking to myself, “boy, I’m so glad all those neo- and lamer con talk hosts stopped Ron Paul,” sarcastically.

i have not registered to vote yet, but when I do, Dr. Ron Paul is my candidate!

mitt romney and rick perry are NWO puppets.

the useful idiots on Rush radio like to get on Dr. Paul’s case about the newsletters, but nothing his editor wrote was untrue.

i did not watch the above video because my speakers don’t work, what is it about?

Let’s come back to reality.

As perhaps one of the only true conservatives left, I’m afraid I cannot go along with the Paul baloney.

Savage is the only cultural conservative left on the air, and he “isn’t all over the map” when it comes to his basic philosophy–borders, language, culture. He regularly criticizes massive immigration and has pointed out on multiple occasions that “not all immigrant groups are equal.” This non-egalitarian statement alone makes him infinitely more sane than Paul (who recently received an “F” from Numbers USA on immigration). Savage has nuanced opinions–many of which may be surprising–but he doesn’t cave nor ignore borders, language and culture. Any AmRenner knows race is implicit in these three areas even if Savage can’t come out and admit it directly (though at times to his credit he is very close to what you read here).

But back to Paul. Yes, if he were successful eliminating welfare programs and entitlements along with birthright citizenship this would help reduce illegal immigration. Of course, we aren’t voting for a king with unlimited powers but the head of the executive who has a Congress and Supreme Court as checks. Thus, Paul still needs majorities in Congress to reduce these benefits which won’t come easy. A more sane approach would realize that any political capital he has will be used up reducing our military footprint and cutting Washington spending. Immigration policy will be tossed aside as the country slides toward the demographic abyss. Romney, while more moderate on the size of government may actually have a better chance of accomplishing immigration reform (the good kind). Ultimately demographics is destiny.

I shouldn’t need to tell anyone this, but Conservatism is superior to libertarianism. Am Ren is one of the most conservative websites there is (read: it actually wants to conserve America). The problem today isn’t a loss of liberty or freedom per se (as Paul and his rabid followers would argue) but a loss of our unique American culture due to growing secularism in academia and society, increased centralization due to an ever-expanding Federal government, and worsening demography due to birth rates and insane immigration policy.

Liberty, a noble and uniquely Western idea, is merely a derivative of a honest, hard-working, innovative, Christian society that respects tradition while being open to progress (real progress not Marxian racial or sexual policies) for improvement. So while Paul might preach liberty, in the end his message is vacuous and goal unreachable. A Paul administration may cut government only to watch it grow back even larger once out of office due to larger and larger minority voting blocs turning the nation into a California (good article by Ann Coulter: http://goo.gl/jue3u ) If you want to vote for liberty, end the invasion of statist hispanics in the SW. End immigration for Asians who are natural collectivists (and have been so for thousands of years).

Sure Ron Paul is not a racist, he is a libertarian. Does anyone think that someone who is pro-White could become a major party candidate as things currently stand? That would be impossible.

At least Ron Paul supports freedom of association and is against affirmative action. He is also an honest man. Therefore he is the best candidate, despite his racial views.

Well, he just lost my vote.

Ron Paul wants to stop foreign aid, even to Israel, and audit the Federal Reserve and stop the wars in the Middle East and the MSM is promoting all kinds of bad things against Ron Paul. All you need is a little background information and this all makes perfect sense.

17: The suitcase scenario is what bothers me the most. If Iran is enriching uranium to build a conventional nuke, well, it’s the devil you know, and the risk can be mitigated with MAD, and a nuclear defense shield (with the help and participation of the Russians). Besides, Iranian leadership getting the big red button on their desk might serve to calm them down and give them an incentive not to run their mouths and preach religious apocalyptic-millenarian mania. (It’s the same story with me getting my CCW permit; I’m not as snarky in real life as I am online because I’m carrying a gun around.)

But if they’re looking to deploy suitcases all over the world, if/when one goes off, then Tehran has plausible deniability. The suitcases are the “devil you don’t know.” And of course the suitcases will get in country because we have no real southern border, and the terrorist goober groups are operating in Mexico and points southward.

18 Greg:

http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2008/09/michael_savage.php

Read carefully.

Otherwise, you’re preaching to the choir about the vacuous nature of pure libertarian ideology. Most of us here at AR have had a problem with his immigration record; we are well aware of that. I have ridiculed his opposition to real border security right here in recent weeks – He has this silly notion that the border security would be used to “fence us in” Berlin Wall style, (“as if there are throngs of libertarian Patriots that actually want to flee to Mexico.” — Me) I would imagine most AR readers are voting Paul only because the disparate impact of what elements of the paleo-libertarian ideology that a President Paul could get enacted by means of his being the head of the executive branch (Congress would never consider about half of it) would accrue to our accidental benefit.

And yes, Savage is all over the place on a lot of issues, because he is mentally unstable to some degree, or he’s deliberately provocative. For you to say otherwise must mean you’re not really paying attention to what he has to say for any extended periods of time. Small example — When PR was on his show a month ago, Savage endorsed his call to replace the Federal Reserve (which Savage has advocated for a long time). But now that Ron Paul has the “wrong” opinion about that particular piece of real estate, according to Savage, the Federal Reserve needs to stay and that calls to repeal it are “anti-Semitic.”

Savage is also anti-racist. Not only does he mouth off about his “black friends,” (the ones between his ears), he has this fantastic notion about how we need “non-racial nationalism.” That’s a contradiction in terms, because “nationalism” comes from “nation” which in turn comes from the Latin “nascere,” to be born. “Nationalism” implies by definition a particular group of people.

Face it, sometimes, Savage flip flips more than Mitt Romney and John Kerry.

21 Madison Grant: “Whining yuppie with a $3 toup.” Good one. Does this mean we can put Simone on the $3 bill?

24 George00: One of the anti-Paul eliminationist websites I mentioned above “found” some “smoking gun” about how Ron Paul really doesn’t want to end foreign aid to all countries, “only to Israel,” because several years ago, he was only one of five House members to vote against a bill that would have ended foreign aid to the Palestinians. The article then goes on to blame Ron Paul for everything from 9/11 to OKC to the Holocaust to Armenian Genocide to slavery itself. Oh, and he was also against honoring Rosa Parks.

Well, I bet the reality of that bill is that it had a lot more in it than just ending aid to the Pallies. If it were a standalone bill to do that and just that, he probably would have voted for it, and if he wouldn’t, it would because it only ended aid to the Pallies and not all foreign aid.

If Ron Paul is as hostile toward the I-country as his disgruntled ex-aide claims he is, it should be noted that American Anti-Zionist Jews have pretty much the same position.

I am astonished that so many White racialists are so enamored of RP. If we cannot expect someone in whom we invest our resources (whatever they may be, contributions, vote, etc.) than we are too damn weak in our determination to save ourselves. He clearly is as unprincipled as are the other statists. He has pc’d his positions over recent years dramatically. What is this nonsense about his honesty and decency. An honest and principled man would hold to TRUTH regardless of its horror to all the squeamish and hostile out there. As to his decency, among all people those who post here ought to count concern with one’s own people, nation, religion, culture and history as preeminent as to what constitutes a definitively “decent” mentality. Of course, he HAPPENS to be right about a number of obvious issues. That makes him a George Washington? Cut it out! He is an odd-ball par-excellence – an idealogue who is far from what we should be expecting in a national leader. If we cannot wait and EXPECT someone who CONSISTENTLY works for our interests without craven retreat or apology then we as a people have truly been complicit tragically in our own demise.